Skip to main content

Full text of "History of Christian doctrine"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 


Mlgrltffe 


TORONTO 


Shelf  No. 

Cisi  * 

Register  No. 


HISTORY 


OF 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINE 


BY 

HENRY   C.   SHELDON 

PROFESSOR    OF    HISTORICAL    THEOLOGY    IN    BOSTON    UNIVERSITY 


IN   TWO  VOLUMES 

VOL.  II. 
FROM    A.D.    1517    TO    1885 


NEW    YORK 
HARPER   &  BROTHERS,   FRANKLIN  SQUARE 

1886 


Copyright,  1885,  by  HENRY  C.  SHELDON. 


All  rights  reserved. 


^5177550 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 


periotf  (A.D.  1517-1720). 

PAGE 


INTRODUCTION 


CHAPTER  I. 

FACTORS    IN    THE    DOCTRINAL    DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    PERIOD. 

Section  1.     Philosophy 13 

"       2.     Communions,  Creeds,  and  Authors     .......     29 

"       3.     Scripture  and  Tradition ...     61 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE    GODHEAD. 

Section  1.    Existence,  Essence,  and  Attributes  of  God 84 

«      2.     The  Trinity 96 

CHAPTER  III. 

CREATION    AND    CREATURES. 

Section  1.     Creation 104 

"       2.     Angels 105 

"       3.     Man 106 

CHAPTER  IV. 

REDEEMER    AND    REDEMPTION. 

Section  1.     The  Person  of  Christ 134 

"       2.     The  Redemptive  Work  of  Christ 138 

"       3.     Appropriation  of  the  Benefits  of  Christ's  Work     .     .     .153 


IV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   V. 

THE    CHURCH    AND    THE    SACRAMENTS. 

PAGE 

Section  1.     The  Church 182 

"       2.     The  Sacraments 191 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

1.  Chiliasm,  or  Millenarianism 213 

2.  Condition  between  Death  and  the  Resurrection 213 

3.  The  Resurrection  and  Final  Awards          ....         .  215 


(A.D.  mo-i8S5). 

INTRODUCTION 221 

CHAPTER   I. 

FACTORS   IN  THE   DOCTRINAL   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   PERIOD. 

Section  1.     Philosophy 223 

"       2.     Communions,  Creeds,  and  Authors 261 

"       3.     Scripture  and  Tradition 281 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE  GODHEAD. 

Section  1.     Existence,  Essence,  and  Attributes  of  God      ....     300 
"       2.     The  Trinity 311 

CHAPTER   III. 

CREATION   AND   CREATURES. 

Section  1.     Creation  of  the  World 319 

"       2.     Angels 323 

"       3.     Man  324 


CONTENTS.  V 

CHAPTER  IV. 

REDEEMER    AND    REDEMPTION. 

PACK 

Section  1.     The  Person  of  Christ 348 

2.     The  Kedemptive  Work  of  Christ 353 

"       3.     Appropriation  of  the  Benefits  of  Christ's  Work  .     .     .     362 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   SACRAMENTS. 

Section  1.     The  Church 378 

"       2.     The  Sacraments 382 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

1.  Millenarianism 389 

2.  Condition  between  Death  and  the  Resurrection 391 

3.  The  Resurrection 392 

4.  Final  Awards   .  395 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER 401 

INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  .  ...    435 


ffinitfty  $etfod. 

1517-1720. 


INTEODUCTION. 


WE  enter  now  upon  an  era  in  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine  inferior  in  importance  to  none  since  the  age  of  the 
apostles,  —  an  era  from  which  one  might  date,  without  pre 
sumption,  the  second  birth  of  Christianity. 

Remarkably  fruitful  in  immediate  results,  the  Reforma 
tion  was  still  more  fruitful  in  preparing  for  remote  and 
permanent  acquisitions.  It  bears  comparison  with  the  first 
century  in  the  work  of  breaking  down  barriers.  Primitive 
Christianity,  by  opening  a  way  through  the  complex  legal- 
ism  and  proud  assumptions  of  Pharisaic  Judaism,  gained 
room  for  a  glorious  advance  in  religious  thought  and  life. 
So  the  Reformation,  in  cleaving  the  fortifications  of  legality 
and  pretentious  infallibility  by  which  the  Romish  hierarchy 
sought  to  perpetuate  its  spiritual  despotism,  provided  ines 
timable  opportunities  of  progress.  Its  work  was  absolutely 
indispensable.  It  bears  unmistakably  the  marks  of  divine 
providence.  Let  hostile  criticism  say  what  it  may ;  let  it 
point  to  foibles  in  the  conduct  or  to  crudities  in  the  dogmas 
of  the  Reformers  ;  the  fact  still  remains,  that  the  Reforma 
tion  purchased  for  Christianity  the  noblest  opportunities  and 
prospects  which  it  has  in  the  world  to-day.  If  it  gave  scope 
for  some  temporary  errors,  it  secured  a  chance  for  vigorous, 
healthy,  and  permanent  growth.  Designedly  or  undcsign- 
edly  it  placed  men  in  the  way  of  fulfilling  their  divine  call 
ing  to  freedom  and  intelligence. 


4  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

The  starting-point  of  the  Reformation  can  be  understood 
only  by  recalling  the  bent  of  the  scholastic  system.  The 
more  characteristic  features  of  that  system,  as  we  have  seen, 
tended  to  the  common  result  of  shadowing  the  direct  rela 
tion  of  the  individual  to  Christ.  The  views  that  were  enter 
tained  of  the  person  of  Christ,  of  the  Church,  of  the  sacra 
ments,  of  the  merit  of  works,  and  of  the  saints,  all  combined 
to  place  the  individual  at  a  distance  from  his  Redeemer. 
It  mattered  little  that  He  was  allowed  to  be  the  primary 
fountain  of  grace.  The  fountain  was  made  so  remote,  and 
so  many  objects  were  interposed,  that  naturally,  before  the 
attention  could  pass  beyond  the  motley  throng,  it  was  dissi 
pated  and  lost.  A  crowd  of  rival  agencies  invaded  the  soli 
tary  eminence  which  is  accorded  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testa 
ment.  In  place  of  dependence  upon  the  personal  Redeemer 
was  put  dependence  upon  the  hierarchy  and  the  means  which 
it  saw  fit  to  prescribe.  In  fact,  the  standard  teaching  in  the 
centuries  preceding  the  Reformation  robbed  the  individual 
of  his  rights  as  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
degraded  him  to  the  condition  of  a  mere  subject,  —  a  sub 
ject  slavishly  dependent  upon  the  priestly  hierarchy.  That 
hierarchy  stood  over  him  as  his  judge,  and  the  sole  dispenser 
to  him  of  the  grace  of  salvation.  It  pronounced  opposition 
to  its  decrees  among  the  most  damnable  of  all  offences,  and 
magnified  the  virtue  of  blind  submission.  It  reckoned  all 
outside  of  its  own  circle  in  a  state  of  religious  childhood, 
incapable  of  ever  reaching  their  majority  in  this  world, .and 
hindered  their  approach  to  the  springs  of  knowledge  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  denied  that  approach  altogether.  It  put 
reconciliation  with  itself  in  place  of  reconciliation  with 
God.  It  appointed  to  the  individual  the  conditions  of  par 
don,  and  proclaimed  his  sins  remitted  or  retained.  It 
emphasized  the  sacraments  as  indispensable  means  of  salva 
tion,  and  yet  gave  the  priest  the  power,  by  a  perverse  exer 
cise  of  his  will,  to  nullify  the  sacrament  which  he  assumed 
to  administer.  It  left  the  penitent  without  assurance  of 


1517-1720.]  INTRODUCTION.  5 

having  received  the  sacramental  grace,  as  he  could  be  cer 
tain  neither  of  the  valid  ordination  nor  of  the  honest  inten 
tion  of  the  priest.  In  a  word,  the  hierarchy,  as  judge  over 
the  individual,  made  him  come  to  its  tribunal  for  every 
grace,  and  sent  him  away  without  proper  guaranty  of  any. 
This  prerogative  it  could  and  did  exercise  quite  differently 
under  different  circumstances.  It  could  be  very  stringent 
or  very  lax.  Just  before  the  Reformation  it  assumed,  to  a 
conspicuous  degree,  the  role  of  laxity,  —  acted  the  part  of 
a  frivolous,  unscrupulous  judge.  Indulgence  peddlers,  like 
Tetzel  and  Samson,  represented  that  the  Church  is  no  hard 
and  grudging  mistress,  but  ready  to  deal  out  pardon  with  a 
lavish  hand.  An  artificial  legalism  was  joined  with  a  shal 
low  estimate  of  the  demerit  of  sin.  But  through  all  this 
laxity  the  principle  of  absolute  dependence  upon  the  hie 
rarchy  remained  the  same,  and  the  anathema  was  ready  for 
any  one  who  should  dare  to  impeach  its  prerogatives. 

As  the  essence  of  the  Romish  perversion  consisted  in  de 
pressing  the  individual  and  obscuring  his  direct  relation  to 
Christ,  the  starting-point  of  a  true  counteracting  movement 
must  needs  be  the  exaltation  of  the  individual  to  his  proper 
independence  and  rights,  and  the  emphasizing  of  his  direct 
relation  to  Christ.  Such  was  the  starting-point  of  the  Refor 
mation.  It  began  with  an  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  indi 
vidual,  his  release  from  arbitrary  and  unscriptural  authority, 
his  relative  independence  of  ecclesiastical  machinery,  his 
privilege  to  come  into  direct  relation  to  Christ,  and  to  find 
therein  assurance  of  salvation.  Whether  Luther  fully  ap 
prehended  it  at  first  or  not,  his  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  was  a  decided  step  toward  the  emancipation  of  the 
individual  from  the  absolute  authority  of  the  hierarchy. 

The  proper  ground  for  receiving  a  principle  like  this  had 
been  prepared  in  numerous  minds  and  hearts  by  the  opening 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  Ever  since  the  closing  era  of  the 
Crusades  there  had  been  a  growing  pressure  against  eccle 
siastical  restraints.  The  national  spirit  gathered  strength, 


6  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

and  became  more  and  more  impatient  and  bold  against 
the  claims  of  the  papacy.  The  new  impulse  given  to  com 
mercial  enterprise,  the  more  energetic  tone  of  secular  in 
dustries,  left  a  narrower  sphere  to  that  romantic  zeal 
which  responded  readily  to  the  calls  of  the  Church.  The 
efforts  of  the  more  earnest  minds  to  reform  the  Church 
through  such  attempts  as  culminated  in  the  councils  of 
Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basle,  though  abortive  in  their  imme 
diate  aim,  left  still  their  impress.  The  voices  of  such  her 
alds  of  evangelical  truth  as  Wycliffe,  Huss,  and  Savonarola 
ceased  not  to  reverberate  in  many  hearts.  The  revival  of 
classic  studies  and  the  many  discoveries  of  the  age  gave  a 
new  impulse  to  freedom  of  thought,  while  the  spread  of 
mysticism  enlarged  the  number  of  those  who  sought  satis 
faction  to  their  souls  rather  in  personal  communion  with 
God  by  prayer  and  meditation,  than  in  the  round  of  cere 
monial  observances. 

All  these  developments  served  naturally  as  forerunners 
of  religious  freedom.  There  were  many  minds  who  only 
needed  to  hear  a  voice  speaking  with  prophetical  energy 
and  confidence  the  word  of  religious  emancipation,  in  order 
to  their  receiving  it  with  deep  conviction  and  joy.  In  the 
profound  experiences  of  the  monk  of  Erfurt,  Providence 
prepared  the  prophet's  voice  that  was  required.  The  pre 
eminently  Pauline  experience  of  Luther  brought  into  his 
soul  with  midday  clearness  the  idea  of  justification  by  faith. 
As  he  had  proved  to  the  full  the  death-working  power  of 
all  attempts  to  justify  one's  self  by  means  of  works,  the 
thought  of  justification  by  simple  faith  upon  Christ  came  to 
him  like  a  new  gospel,  like  a  message  of  glad  tidings  from 
heaven.  The  truth  thus  grasped  penetrated  to  the  utmost 
his  deep  and  enthusiastic  nature,  and  kindled  a  fire  that 
must  needs  communicate  itself  to  other  hearts. 

The  Reformation  as  embodied  in  Luther  began,  not  with 
a  negative,  but  with  a  positive  principle,  and  a  positive 
principle  concerning  the  acts  and  experiences  of  the  in- 


1517-1720.]  INTRODUCTION.  7 

dividual  soul.  The  primary  question  with  Luther  was 
not,  How  may  I  reform  the  Church  ?  but,  How  may  I  be 
saved,  and  have  assurance  of  my  salvation  ?  The  work  of 
tearing  down  was  not  at  all  in  his  thought  at  first.  His 
starting-point  was  simply  the  principle  of  faith,  ascending 
directly  to  Christ  and  grasping  His  word  of  promise,  as  the 
only  and  the  sufficient  way  to  assurance  of  salvation.  But 
as  this  principle  was  contradicted  by  the  Romish  tenets, 
and  still  more  by  the  Romish  spirit  and  practice,  its  vigor 
ous  maintenance  could  not  fail  to  bring  about  a  collision. 

Let  us  observe  now  the  developments  which  followed. 
Among  the  results  most  immediately  flowing  from  Luther's 
standpoint  was  an  emphatic  qualifying  of  the  mediatorial 
power  of  the  hierarchy.  If  the  individual  can  come  di 
rectly  to  Christ,  and  in  the  exercise  of  living  faith  in  Him 
can  find  assurance  of  salvation,  then  he  is  evidently  re 
leased  from  any  absolute  dependence  upon  the  priest.  The 
priest  may  or  may  not  intend  the  sacrament ;  if  only  the 
believer  apprehends  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  he  cannot  fail 
of  the  proper  grace.  Not  so  much  the  act  of  the  priest  as 
his  own  faith  is  the  vehicle  of  divine  gifts.  Romish  author 
ity  was  not  slow  to  perceive  this  bearing  of  the  Lutheran 
principle,  and  so  was  stirred  up  to  hostile  measures. 

By  the  opposition  which  assailed  him,  Luther  was  driven 
to  the  still  further  result  of  asserting  the  sole  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  in  matters  of  faith.  This  was  not  in  his 
mind  at  the  outset.  At  the  time  that  he  posted  his  theses 
(1517),  he  declared  expressly  that  he  was  conscious  of 
holding  nothing  which  might  not  be  proved  by  the  Scrip 
tures,  the  Fathers,  and  the  papal  decrees.  He  gave  a 
deciding  voice  to  the  last,  as  well  as  to  the  first.  He  spoke 
of  the  Pope  only  in  terms  of  respect,  and  of  the  abuse  of 
indulgences  as  something  unauthorized  by  him.  But  he 
soon  found  that  papal  patronage  was  by  no  means  clear 
of  the  abuse,  —  that  the  Pope  was  jealous  of  any  attempt 
to  mend  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  was  determined 


8  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

to  proscribe  the  principle  which  his  experience  had  taught 
him  was  the  truth  of  God.  Unable  to  surrender  that 
principle,  it  only  remained  for  him  to  deny  the  infallibility 
of  the  Pope.  From  questioning  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
it  was  an  easy  step  to  questioning  the  authority  of  the 
hierarchy  which  culminates  in  the  Pope.  So  Luther  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  neither  pope  nor  council  can  lay 
claim  to  infallibility.  Submission  to  them  is  not,  therefore, 
an  essential  of  membership  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
only  adequate  authority  of  the  Church  is  the  Word  of  God. 
The  Scriptures  having  been  made  the  final  authority  in 
matters  of  faith,  the  next  question  concerned  the  proper 
contents  of  the  Scriptures  and  their  interpretation.  In  the 
absence  of  an  infallible  pope  or  conclave,  what  shall  deter 
mine  the  canonical  character  of  doubtful  books  ?  What 
shall  give  assurance  that  the  right  interpretation  is  made  ? 
Here  it  only  remained  to  make  the  Bible  its  own  witness. 
Its  testimony,  it  was  said,  comes  with  convincing  power  to 
the  sincere  heart.  The  Spirit  of  Christ  within  responds  to 
His  Spirit  in  the  Scriptures.  Better  than  anything  else  a 
Christ-consciousness  is  qualified  to  discern  the  divine  im 
press  upon  a  canonical  book.  The  Scripture  is  also  its  own 
best  interpreter.  If  one  passage  is  obscure,  another  upon 
the  same  subject  will  be  found  to  be  clear.  Every  Chris 
tian  must  look  into  this  treasury  for  himself,  and  judge 
for  himself  concerning  its  teaching,  not  indeed  according 
to  unregulated  and  capricious  impulses,  but  with  that  chas 
tened  and  spiritual  temper  which  responds  with  ready 
appreciation  to  the  evidences  of  divine  truth.  "To  know 
and  to  judge  of  doctrine,"  says  Luther,  "  so  pertains  to 
each  and  every  Christian,  that  he  is  worthy  of  anathema 
who  would  detract  a  hair's  breadth  from  this  right." 
(Quoted  by  Kostlin.)  So,  in  place  of  the  fiat  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power,  was  asserted  the  authority  of  Scrip 
ture  as  addressed  to  the  individual  and  interpreted  by 
him.  The  Reformation  as  a  whole,  to  be  sure,  may  not 


1517-1720.]  INTRODUCTION.  9 

have  been  consistent  upon  this  point,  —  may  have  had  its 
reaction  against  the  full  right  of  private  interpretation ; 
but  the  right  was  logically  involved  in  the  principles  of 
the  Reformation,  and  was  more  or  less  distinctly  recog 
nized  by  Luther  and  others. 

The  course  of  the  Reformation  as  it  appears  in  Luther's 
personal  development  may  be  regarded  as  largely  repre 
sentative  of  the  Reformation  in  general.  Advancement 
from  one  step  to  another  may  not  have  been  made  in  pre 
cisely  the  same  order  in  all  instances.  With  Zwingli,  for 
example,  the  emphatic  starting-point  was  not  so  much  a 
single  doctrine  enforced  by  an  intense  personal  experience 
as  the  general  principle  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  But  whatever  the  order  followed,  the  Ref 
ormation  everywhere  advanced  toward  the  same  list  of 
principles  as  we  have  noticed  in  connection  with  Luther. 
Everywhere  it  assailed  the  main  pillar  of  spiritual  despotism 
by  denying  the  infallibility  of  the  hierarchy ;  everywhere 
it  pointed  the  individual  to  the  Scriptures  for  instruction, 
and  to  direct  dependence  upon  Christ  for  the  reality  and 
the  assurance  of  salvation. 

In  advancing  on  to  Biblical  ground,  the  Reformation,  no 
doubt,  approximated  to  the  standpoint  of  the  early  Church. 
Yet  it  would  not  be  giving  an  accurate  definition  of  it  to 
call  it  simply  a  restoration  of  primitive  Christianity  ;  at 
least,  if  under  the  name  of  primitive  Christianity  we  in 
clude  any  considerable  interval  after  the  apostolic  age. 
For  the  theology  of  the  Reformation  grasped  the  idea  of 
justification  by  faith,  distinguished  between  the  visible  and 
the  invisible  Church,  and  in  general  affirmed  the  purely 
subjective  conditions  of  salvation  with  a  clearness  and 
emphasis  which  we  seek  in  vain  in  much  of  the  Christian 
literature  of  the  first  centuries.  This  was  but  a  natural 
result  of  the  different  conditions  of  the  two  eras.  A  sys 
tem  wrought  out  in  conscious  antagonism  to  a  contrasted 
system  naturally  has  sharper  outlines  than  one  developed 


10  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

apart  from  such  antagonism.  No  wonder,  then,  that  the 
Reformers,  confronted  as  they  were  by  the  most  elaborate 
structure  of  legalism  and  hierarchical  pretension  known 
to  history,  were  enabled  to  lay  hold  with  clear  apprehen 
sion  upon  truths  which  the  early  fathers  left  ill-defined  or 
in  part  compromised. 

What  is  the  natural  goal  of  the  Reformation  principles  ? 
From  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  plain  that  one  answer 
must  be,  Universal  religious  liberty.  Logically  carried  out, 
they  prohibit  all  coercion  in  matters  of  simple  faith.  If 
there  is  no  infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture  upon  earth, 
then  no  one  is  authorized  to  set  up  his  interpretation  as  a 
standard  and  to  punish  dissent  therefrom.  Each  has  the 
right  to  be  his  own  interpreter,  only  subject  to  the  limita 
tion  that,  in  publishing  or  acting  upon  his  interpretations, 
he  is  not  to  violate  the  common  decencies  of  civilized  soci 
ety.  The  Reformers,  it  is  true,  were  not  all  faithful  to  this 
principle.  To  a  lamentable  degree  they  violated  religious 
tolerance  both  in  theory  and  in  practice.  The  stern  de 
mands  of  self-preservation,  fears  of  religious  anarchy, 
and  an  intemperate  ambition  for  the  victory  of  their  own 
scheme,  obscured  to  many  minds  the  proper  inferences 
from  their  own  general  standpoint.  But  this  is  simply 
saying  that  individual  narrowness,  combined  with  adverse 
circumstances  and  influences,  prevented  the  Reformation 
from  speedily  realizing  its  essential  ideal.  As  the  centu 
ries  have  proved,  and  as  the  reason  of  the  case  dictates,  its 
principles  are  the  natural  basis  of  religious  liberty. 

As  all  liberty  has  its  liabilities  to  abuse,  we  could  not  ex 
pect  an  unmixed  good  from  the  religious  liberty  born  with 
the  Reformation.  And  in  fact  evils  have  appeared.  Prot 
estantism  lias,  without  doubt,  run  into  a  certain  excess  of 
individualism.  It  has  not  in  general  been  possessed  with 
an  adequate  sense  of  the  guilt  of  a  needless  schism.  Very 
slight  grounds  have  given  rise  to  new  subdivisions,  and  to 
day  Protestantism  numbers  vastly  more  communions  than 


1517-1720.]  INTRODUCTION.  11 

there  is  any  rational  occasion  for.  It  must  be  allowed  also 
that  the  intellectual  freedom  of  Protestantism  has  often  de 
generated  into  license  and  issued  in  infidelity.  Such  facts 
are  naturally  so  much  capital  in  the  hands  of  opponents. 
From  the  days  of  Bossuet  down  to  the  present,  they  have 
been  industriously  paraded.  "  We  have  seen,"  says  a  recent 
Ritualistic  essay,  "  and  do  see,  what  the  so-called  emancipa 
tion  of  the  intellect  has  done  for  Protestants.  It  has  pro 
duced  all  the  heresy,  and  schism,  and  infidelity  of  the  last 
three  hundred  years,  from  Martin  Luther  to  Joe  Smith." 
But  such  critics  are  too  headlong  in  their  polemics,  —  are 
blind  to  a  whole  catalogue  of  truths.  They  forget  that  a 
valid  and  worthy  faith  grows  only  in  connection  with  the 
privilege  of  free  investigation  ;  that,  to  whatever  aberra 
tions  Protestantism  may  have  given  scope,  it  has  vastly  in 
creased  the  aggregate  of  positive  and  intelligent  faith  in 
Christendom.  They  forget  that  a  constrained  belief  is  very 
apt  to  become  a  covert  unbelief,  a  temptation  to  hypoc 
risy,  and  so  far  more  disastrous  in  effect  than  an  open  ex 
pression  of  unbelief;  that  the  more  cultured  portion  of 
the  Romish  Church  was  honeycombed  with  scepticism  just 
before  the  Reformation,  and  that  the  same  fact  is  in  no 
small  degree  repeated  to-day.  They  forget  that  a  discred 
ited  claim  to  infallible  authority  is  among  the  most  potent 
instruments  to  infect  with  infidelity  and  to  drive  into  dis 
gust  with  religion,  and  in  the  age  of  mental  alertness  upon 
which  we  are  entering  is  likely  to  convert  men  into  sceptics 
by  the  thousand  and  the  ten  thousand.  They  forget  that  a 
unity  which  is  purchased  at  the  expense  of  mental  enslave 
ment  is  a  calamity,  and  that  no  more  unity  is  desirable 
than  can  be  realized  on  the  basis  of  freedom  and  intelli 
gence.  The  fault  of  Protestantism  is  not  in  its  principles. 
It  cannot  detract  aught  from  these  without  trespassing 
upon  the  birthright,  yea,  upon  the  divine  vocation  of  the 
individual.  The  fault  is  in  the  imperfect  application  of  its 
principles. 


12  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

To  expect  this  fault  to  bo  entirely  corrected  would,  no 
doubt,  be  Utopian ;  yet  it  is  reasonable  to  hope  for  a  great 
amendment.  It  is  possible  that  the  centrifugal  forces  of 
Protestantism  may  in  due  time  be  held  in  check  by  factors 
that  make  for  unity.  It  is  possible  that  from  free  discus 
sion,  from  the  interaction  of  different  systems,  and  from  a 
practical  testing  of  different  views  by  their  fruits,  there 
may  result  a  growing  clearness  and  unanimity  as  to  what 
are  the  essential  elements  of  an  evangelical  faith,  and  what 
are  only  subordinate  and  non-essential  elements.  Thus  an 
ever-strengthening  bond  of  moral  unity  may  be  established, 
which  may  prepare  for  an  organic  unity  of  denominations 
so  nearly  kindred  as  to  have  no  real  cause  of  separation. 
In  fact,  there  are  positive  and  increasing  tokens  that  such 
a  movement  is  already  in  progress.  Without  presumption, 
we  may  predict,  as  the  ultimate  goal  of  Protestantism,  a 
far  deeper  and  truer  unity  than  any  which  the  artificial 
constraints  of  hierarchical  sovereignty  can  preserve  to 
Romanism. 


1517-1720. 


CHAPTEE    I. 

FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 

PERIOD. 

SECTION  I.  —  PHILOSOPHY. 

THE  same  movement  which  emancipated  theology  from 
the  bonds  of  scholasticism  prepared  also  for  the  emancipa 
tion  of  philosophy.  Modern  philosophy  proper,  however, 
was  not  born  till  about  a  century  after  the  dawn  of  the 
Reformation.  The  transition  era,  which  began  in  the  fif 
teenth  century,  extended  to  the  early  part  of  the  seven 
teenth.  This  was  a  time  of  ferment  and  endeavor,  but  not 
of  any  thorough  reconstruction  of  philosophy.  The  old 
scholastic  Aristotelianism  was  not  dethroned  altogether, 
at  least  in  the  Romish  Church ;  but  rivals  made  their 
appearance  here  and  there.  There  were  champions  of 
Platonism  or  Nco-Platonism,  like  Reuchlin,  Agrippa  of 
Nettesheim,  and  others  who  were  influenced  by  the  teach 
ings  of  Ficinus  and  Pico.  There  were  advocates  of  a  puri 
fied  Aristotelianism,  or  of  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle  freed 
from  its  scholastic  coloring.  Some  of  the  Reformers  might 
be  placed  in  this  category.  There  were  Anti-Aristotelians, 
like  Peter  Ramus  and  Nicolaus  Taurellus.  There  were 
some  who  philosophized  in  a  sceptical  tone,  like  Montaigne, 
Charron,  and  Sanchez ;  others,  like  Paracelsus,  Cardanus, 


14  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

Telesius,  Patritius,  Bruno,  and  Campanella,  who  followed 
more  or  less  in  the  wake  of  Nicolas  of  Cusa,  and  whose 
philosophy  was  pre-eminently  a  philosophy  of  nature.  In 
some  instances  this  natural  philosophy  was  marked  by  a 
theosophic  vein. 

As  the  main  currents  of  philosophy  in  the  preceding  ages 
might  be  traced  back  to  Plato  and  Aristotle,  so  a  review 
of  modern  philosophy  carries  us  back  to  two  eminent  rep 
resentatives,  Francis  Bacon  and  Rene*  Descartes.    The  same 
relative  rank,  to  be  sure,  cannot  be  assigned  to  the  later  as 
to  the  earlier  philosophers.     Bacon  and  Descartes  appear 
as  less  towering  figures  in  the  modern  group,  than  do  Plato 
and  Aristotle  in  the  ancient.    Still  they  are  to  be  accredited 
with  an  analogous  position,  and  are  of  prime  importance 
as  representing  diverse  philosophical  tendencies  destined 
to  long-continued  and  powerful  influence  in  the  realm  of 
thought.     Bacon  and  Descartes  were  alike  opposed  to  the 
over-valuation  of  the  syllogism  characteristic  of  scholas 
ticism.     Both  saw  that  it  was  rather  a  means  of  arranging 
the  known,  than  of  discovering  the  unknown.     Both  in 
sisted  upon  analysis,  or  a  sifting  process,  as  the  necessary 
antecedent  of  trustworthy  conclusions.     Both  made  greater 
thoroughness  of  method  a  prime  demand.     But  from  this 
point  they  diverged.      Bacon  directed   the  attention  out 
ward.      His   maxim  was :    Observe,  experiment,  carefully 
examine  and  arrange  the  results,  and  turn  them  to  practi 
cal  account  in  life.     Observation  and  induction,  according 
to  him,  arc  the  pathway  to  certain  knowledge,  and  knowl 
edge  is  to  be  made  subservient  chiefly  to  utilitarian  ends. 
Descartes,  on  the  other  hand,  directed  the  attention  within. 
His  maxim  was :  Retire  into  the  depths  of  your  own  con 
sciousness,  examine  the  contents  of  your  own  mind,  find 
out  its  fundamental  intuitions,  the  ideas  which  it  cherishes 
with  invincible  clearness  and  force,  and  use  them  as  the 
basis  of  all  certain  knowledge.     Intuition  and  deduction, 
according  to  him,  are  the  principal  instruments  in  the  dis- 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       15 

covery  of  truth.  Bacon's  philosophy  was  in  the  line  of 
empiricism  and  sensationalism;  Descartes's  had  affinity 
with  idealism. 

Bacon  (1560-1626)  gave  a  limited  range  to  philosophy ; 
in   fact,   substantially  identified   it  with   natural   science. 
Even  such  a  question  as  the  nature  of  the  soul  he  regarded 
as  largely  beyond  its  sphere.     "  Although,"  he  says,  "  I  am 
of  opinion  that  this  knowledge  may  be  more  really  and 
soundly  enquired,  even  in  nature,  than  it  hath  been ;  yet 
I  hold  that  in  the  end  it  must  be  bounded  by  religion,  or 
else  it  will  be  subject  to  deceit  and  delusion ;  for  as  the 
substance  of  the  soul  in  the  creation  was  not  extracted  out 
of  the  mass  of  heaven  and  earth,  but  was  immediately  in 
spired  ;  so  it  is  not  possible  that  it  should  be  (otherwise 
than  by  accident)  subject  to  the  laws  of  heaven  and  earth, 
which  are  the  proper  subject  of  philosophy  ;  and  therefore 
the  true  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  state  of  the  soul  must 
come  by  the  same  inspiration  that  gave  the  substance." 
(Advancement  of  Learning.)      As  respects  the  truths  of 
revealed  religion,  he  declares  emphatically  and  repeatedly, 
that  philosophy  is  not  to  meddle  with  them.     The  follow 
ing  statements  from  the  treatise  just  quoted  will  serve  to 
illustrate  his  position.     "  By  the  contemplation  of  nature 
to  induce  and  to  enforce  the  acknowledgment  of  God,  and 
to  demonstrate  His  power,  providence,  and  goodness,  is  an 
excellent  argument,  and  has  been  excellently  handled  by 
divers.     But  on  the  other  side,  out  of  the  contemplation  of 
nature,  or  ground  of  human  knowledges,  to   induce  any 
verity  or  persuasion  concerning  the  points  of  faith,  is  in 
my  judgment  not  safe.     Da  fidei  quce  fidei  sunt.     For  the 
heathen  themselves  conclude  as  much  in  that  excellent  and 
divine  fable  of  the  golden  chain :  that  men  and  gods  were 
not  able  to  draw  Jupiter  down  to  earth ;  but  contrariwise, 
Jupiter  was  able  to  draw  them  up  to  heaven.  ...  To  seek 
heaven  and  earth  in  the  word  of  God,  whereof  it  is  said, 
Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass,  but  my  word  shall  not  pass,  is 


16  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

to  seek  temporary  things  amongst  eternal ;  and  as  to  seek 
divinity  in  philosophy  is  to  seek  the  living  amongst  the 
dead,  so  to  seek  philosophy  in  divinity  is  to  seek  the  dead 
amongst  the  living.  .  .  .  Sacred  theology  is  grounded  only 
upon  the  word  and  oracle  of  God,  and  not  upon  the  light 
of  nature.  .  .  .  The  prerogative  of  God  extendeth  as  well 
to  the  reason  as  to  the  will  of  man ;  so  that  as  we  are  to 
obey  His  law,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in  our  will,  so 
we  are  to  believe  His  word,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in 
our  reason.  For  if  we  believe  only  that  which  is  agreeable 
to  our  sense,  we  give  consent  to  the  matter  and  not  to  the 
author.  .  .  .  The  use  of  human  reason  in  religion  is  of  two 
sorts ;  the  former,  in  the  conception  and  apprehension  of 
the  mysteries  of  God  to  us  revealed ;  the  other,  in  the  in 
ferring  and  deriving  of  doctrine  and  direction  therefrom. 
The  former  extendeth  to  the  mysteries  themselves ;  but 
how  ?  by  way  of  illustration,  and  not  by  way  of  argument. 
The  latter  consisteth  indeed  of  probation  and  argument. 
For  after  the  articles  of  religion  are  placed  and  exempted 
from  examination  of  reason,  it  is  then  permitted  unto  us 
to  make  derivations  and  inferences  from  and  according  to 
the  analogy  of  them  for  our  better  direction."  Thus  Bacon 
made  as  wide  a  chasm  between  theology  and  philosophy 
as  the  most  extreme  of  the  nominalist  school  had  done. 
An  obvious  motive  for  his  procedure  was  a  desire  to  secure 
for  philosophy  an  unrestricted  freedom  in  the  realm  of 
nature.  In  all  probability  Bacon  entertained  a  genuine 
respect  for  the  Christian  faith.  Nevertheless,  the  limited 
scope  which  he  allowed  to  reason  in  matters  of  religious 
belief  will  appear  to  many  the  reverse  of  a  compliment  to 
revealed  religion. 

No  doubt  it  would  be  wrong  to  hold  Bacon  responsible 
for  Hobbes  (1588-1679).  The  former  would  have  repudi 
ated  most  emphatically  many  of  the  cardinal  conclusions 
of  the  latter.  Still,  the  system  of  Bacon  was  not  without 
a  degree  of  affinity  with  that  of  his  friend  Hobbes.  The 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTKINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       17 

two  appear  related  as  initial  tendency  and  extreme  devel 
opment.  Hobbes  pushed  on  at  once  to  a  radical  type  of 
sensationalism.  His  psychology  is  purely  materialistic, 
affirming  that  sensation  is  the  basis  of  all  mental  activities, 
and  that  sensation  is  nothing  but  motion  in  the  internal 
parts  of  a  sentient  being  caused  by  the  physical  impact  of 
external  objects.  Different  psychological  terms,  such  as 
sensation,  memory,  imagination,  volition,  etc.,  stand  simply 
for  these  internal  motions  or  vibrations,  viewed  at  different 
stages  or  in  different  relations.  Spirit,  save  as  an  accident 
of  body,  or  as  a  peculiar  kind  of  body,  has  no  existence. 
To  speak  of  incorporeal  substance  is  to  indulge  a  radical 
contradiction  of  terms.  Naturally,  on  this  physical  theory 
there  is  no  room  for  freedom  in  the  sense  of  self-determi 
nation.  Every  volition  is  as  strictly  necessitated  as  is  any 
event  in  nature.  Man's  liberty  is  as  the  liberty  of  water 
to  flow  in  the  channel  by  which  it  is  confined.  (Leviathan, 
and  Philosophical  Rudiments.) 

Hobbes  did  not  challenge  the  truth  of  revealed  religion. 
On  the  contrary,  he  quoted  the  Bible  as  authority,  and  to 
a  degree  that  is  perhaps  not  paralleled  by  any  other  philo 
sophical  writer.  He  refers  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as 
"  the  speech  of  God."  He  commends  an  unquestioning 
acceptance  of  the  mysteries  of  religion,  and  says  that  they 
have  the  best  effect,  when,  like  pills  for  the  sick,  they  are 
swallowed  whole.  But  despite  this  exterior  coloring,  his 
system  in  its  natural  tendencies  is  radically  antagonistic 
to  religion.  To  say  nothing  of  other  features,  the  almost 
unlimited  authority  over  the  opinions  and  practices  of  men 
which  he  assigns  to  the  earthly  sovereign,  tends  to  rob 
religion  of  all  its  nobler  sanctions  and  to  relegate  it  to  the 
miserable  rank  of  a  piece  of  statecraft.  It  is  scarcely  an 
exaggeration  to  say  that  Hobbes  puts  the  sovereign  in  the 
place  of  God.  Whatever  limitations  some  of  his  statements 
may  seem  to  impose  upon  the  authority  of  the  ruler,  they 
are  mostly  nullified  when  compared  with  other  statements. 
VOL.  n.  —  2. 


18  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

It  matters  little  that  he  says  that  the  laws  of  God  must 
take  precedence  of  those  of  the  sovereign.  For  the  sov 
ereign  is  made  by  him  the  sole  interpreter  of  all  laws, 
sacred  as  well  as  secular,  and  "  the  word  of  an  interpreter 
of  the  Scriptures  is  the  word  of  God."  (Phil.  Rud.)  It 
belongs  to  the  magistrate  to  determine  the  Scriptural  canon, 
to  decide  what  doctrines  are  to  be  acknowledged,  what 
forms  of  worship  are  to  be  tolerated,  what  external  actions 
are  to  be  reckoned  virtuous  or  vicious.  Whatever  be  his 
commands,  they  must  be  obeyed,  unless  they  involve  an 
affront  to  God,  and  the  private  reason  must  hesitate  to  call 
that  an  affront  which  the  public  reason  declares  is  not. 
If  the  sovereign  commands  the  worship  of  idols,  though 
perhaps  a  subject  of  special  eminence  and  influence  had 
better  submit  to  martyrdom  than  obey,  an  ordinary  subject 
does  well  to  obey.  Commerce  with  another  man's  wife,  if 
authorized  by  the  sovereign,  is  no  longer  adultery.  "  By 
those  laws,  '  Thou  shalt  not  kill,'  '  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,'  '  Thou  shalt  not  steal,'  '  Honor  thy  father  and 
mother,'  nothing  else  was  commanded  but  that  subjects 
should  absolutely  obey  their  princes  in  all  questions  con 
cerning  meum  and  tuum,  their  own  and  others'  right." 
In  line,  there  is  very  little  in  the  system  of  Hobbes  to 
qualify  the  force  of  the  following  sweeping  statement  of 
his:  "The  civil  laws  are  to  all  subjects  the  measures  of 
their  actions,  whereby  to  determine  whether  they  be  right 
or  wrong,  profitable  or  unprofitable,  virtuous  or  vicious." 
(De  Corpore  Politico.) 

Hobbcs's  theories  were  too  extreme  to  command  much 
acceptance.  They  were  set  forth  also  in  a  dogmatic  way, 
and  exhibit  far  more  skill  of  assertion  than  fulness  and 
cogency  of  argument.  A  successor  of  Bacon  more  genuine 
and  influential  by  far  was  John  Locke  (1632-1704.)  But 
before  reaching  Locke  it  is  appropriate  to  notice  a  phase 
of  philosophy  outside  of  the  main  current  in  England.  In 
opposition  to  the  materialism  of  Hobbes  and  his  conven- 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       19 

tional  morality,  the  Cambridge  school  (in  the  middle  and 
latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century)  cultivated  an  ideal 
istic  and  spiritual  philosophy,  and  were  zealous  advocates 
of  immutable  morality,  of  moral  distinctions  that  are  sub 
ject  to  no  authority,  not  even  to  the  will  of  God  Himself. 
They  were  also  profoundly  convinced  of  the  rational  char 
acter  of  religious  truth.  Somewhat  to  the  detriment  of  its 
own  originality,  this  school  quoted  largely  from  Plato- 
nism,  or  Neo-Platonism,  —  from  the  latter  perhaps  more 
than  from  the  former.  Coleridge  says  they  might  be  called 
Plotinists  rather  than  Platonists.  The  more  distinguished 
representatives  of  the  Cambridge  Platonists  were  Benjamin 
Whichcote,  John  Smith,  Henry  More,  and  Ralph  Cudworth. 
The  names  of  Culverwell,  Worthington,  Rust,  Patrick, 
Fowler,  and  Glanvill  might  also  be  added.  Of  the  writings 
from  this  group,  "  The  True  Intellectual  System  of  the  Uni 
verse,"  by  Cudworth,  is  the  most  significant.  More  wrote 
copiously,  but  marred  his  reputation  by  many  extravagant 
and  fanciful  notions.  John  Norris,  author  of  an  interesting 
treatise  on  the  "  Theory  of  the  Ideal  World,"  was  at  once  a 
disciple  of  the  Cambridge  theologians  and  of  Malebranche. 
Locke  was  true  to  the  Baconian  emphasis  upon  experience 
as  the  proper  source  of  knowledge.  In  his  noted  "  Essay 
on  the  Human  Understanding,"  he  contends  against  the 
doctrine  of  innate  ideas.  He  compares  the  mind  in  its 
original  estate  to  an  empty  cabinet  and  to  a  sheet  of  blank 
paper.  In  reply  to  the  question  how  the  mind  obtains  its 
materials,  he  says :  "  To  this  I  answer  in  one  word,  from 
experience.  In  that  all  our  knowledge  is  founded,  and  from 
that  it  ultimately  derives  itself.  Our  observation  either 
about  external  sensible  objects,  or  about  the  internal  opera 
tions  of  our  minds,  perceived  and  reflected  on  by  ourselves, 
is  that  which  supplies  our  understandings  with  all  the  ma 
terials  of  thinking.  These  two  are  fountains  of  knowledge, 
from  whence  all  the  ideas  we  have,  or  can  naturally  have, 
do  spring."  Locke  here  joins  reflection  with  sensation  as 


20  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

a  source  of  ideas,  but  his  general  teaching  implies  that  the 
former  must  be  supplied  with  certain  materials  from  the 
latter  before  it  can  act.  Indeed,  he  says,  "  I  see  no  reason 
to  believe  that  the  soul  thinks  before  the  senses  have  fur 
nished  it  with  ideas  to  think  on."  The  primary  materials 
of  thought,  then,  according  to  Locke,  all  come  from  with 
out,  and  in  this  sense  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  mind  which  was  not  previously  in  the  senses. 

Locke  himself  was  no  advocate  of  that  extreme  sensation 
alism  which  verges  upon  or  runs  into  positive  materialism. 
But  still  there  were  features  in  his  system  in  affinity  with 
this  type  of  thought.  His  general  illustrations  lie  on  the 
side  of  the  supposition  of  the  mind's  passivity,  and,  though 
he  must  have  regarded  the  power  of  reflection  as  an  active 
power,  he  did  not  take  great  pains  to  emphasize  this  view. 
He  showed  also  little  enthusiasm  for  the  doctrine  that  the 
soul  is  immaterial,  and  declared  it  conceivable  that  God 
could  endow  a  parcel  of  matter  with  the  power  of  thought. 
(Essay,  and  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Worcester.)  More 
over,  the  definition  of  liberty,  which  he  gives  in  his  Essay, 
as  simply  a  power  to  do  what  one  wills,  if  it  were  to  be  re 
garded  as  representing  the  whole  mind  of  Locke  upon  the 
subject,  would  place  him,  at  this  point,  in  harmony  with  the 
demands  of  materialism.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
that  various  students  of  his  philosophy,  both  in  England 
and  France,  went  forward  to  build  upon  his  foundations  a 
materialistic  structure.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  no 
ticed  that  one  phase  of  his  teaching,  namely,  that  the  im 
mediate  objects  of  the  mind  are  not  things,  but  rather  ideas 
of  things,  served  as  a  basis  for  idealism.  These  develop 
ments,  however,  are  not  to  be  dwelt  upon  here,  as  they  be 
long  to  the  next  period. 

In  the  bearing  of  his  philosophy  upon  questions  of  re 
ligion,  Locke  appears  somewhat  in  contrast  with  Bacon. 
Unlike  the  latter,  he  was  not  willing  to  allow  that  faith 
may  be  in  contradiction  to  reason.  "  Faith  is  nothing,"  he 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       21 

remarks,  "  but  a  firm  assent  of  the  mind ;  which  if  it  be 
regulated,  as  is  our  duty,  cannot  be  afforded  to  anything 
but  upon  good  reason,  and  so  cannot  be  opposite  to  it." 
While  he  allows  that  what  is  improbable  on  grounds  of 
reason  may  be  made  certain  by  revelation,  he  will  not  grant 
that  anything  contradictory  to  reason  can  be  established  in 
this  way.  "  No  proposition,"  he  says,  "  can  be  received  for 
divine  revelation,  or  obtain  the  assent  due  to  all  such,  if  it 
be  contradictory  to  our  clear  intuitive  knowledge.  Because 
this  would  be  to  subvert  the  principles  and  foundations  of 
all  knowledge,  evidence,  and  assent  whatsoever."  This 
emphasis  upon  the  harmony  of  faith  and  reason  was  coupled 
in  Locke  with  the  reverse  of  a  mystical  bent.  He  had  little 
sympathy  with  the  transcendental  side  of  religion.  The 
ethical  system  of  Christianity  held  the  place  of  chief  im 
portance  in  his  estimate.  In  these  features  there  was  a 
certain  affinity  between  Locke  and  the  deistical  school  which 
flourished  so  extensively  in  England  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Locke's  sympathies,  however,  were 
with  revealed  religion,  and  he  was  utterly  averse  to  being 
associated  with  the  deists. 

The  system  of  Descartes  (1596-1650),  as  well  as  that  of 
Bacon,  has  propagated  its  influence  through  a  long  list 
of  successors.  Unlike  the  English  philosopher,  Descartes 
brought  philosophy  into  close  relation  with  theology ;  in 
deed,  he  regarded  certain  data  pertaining  to  the  latter  as 
indispensable  to  any  progress  in  the  former.  According  to 
him,  the  idea  of  God  belongs  not  at  the  end  of  the  system, 
but  at  the  very  beginning,  or  at  least  within  a  step  or  two 
of  the  beginning.  He  says :  "  I  very  clearly  see  that  the 
certitude  and  truth  of  all  science  depends  on  the  knowledge 
alone  of  the  true  God."  (Meditation  V.)  The  first  step 
lies  in  an  appeal  to  self-consciousness,  as  expressed  in  the 
famous  maxim,  Cogito,  ergo  sum,  —  "I  think,  therefore  I 
am."  Though  I  assume  to  doubt  everything,  says  Des 
cartes,  I  must  allow  that  there  is  something  that  doubts. 


22  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  IV. 

Doubting  is  thinking.  Whether  I  am  deceived  in  the  idea 
that  I  have  a  body  or  not,  I  am  sure  that  I  exist  as  a  think 
ing  being.  From  this  point  I  can  advance  securely  only  by 
an  appeal  to  the  existence  of  God.  A  perfect  Creator  and 
Ruler  is  the  only  adequate  guaranty  against  the  supposition 
that  I  am  the  victim  of  deception  in  my  thoughts  and  ex 
periences.  Now  I  am  certified  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
Being  upon  grounds  (given  in  Chap.  II.  sect.  1)  that  arc 
entirely  conclusive.  I  have  therefore  the  required  basis  of 
scientific  certainty.  I  can  trust  my  faculties,  as  respects 
all  that  they  clearly  and  distinctly  apprehend.  (See  Dis 
course  of  Method ;  Meditations ;  Principles  of  Philosophy.) 

The  overshadowing  importance  which  Descartes  assigned 
to  the  idea  of  God  in  the  foundations  of  philosophy,  was  not 
unnaturally  supplemented  by  an  emphatic  conception  of  the 
agency  of  God,  or  of  His  causal  efficiency  in  the  world. 
We  find  him,  accordingly,  predicating  in  strong  terms  the 
dependence  of  the  creature.  Conservation,  he  says,  is  dis 
tinguished  from  creation  merely  in  respect  of  our  mode  of 
thinking.  A  kindred  view  appears  in  his  definition  of  sub 
stance.  "  By  substance  we  can  conceive  nothing  else  than 
a  thing  which  exists  in  such  a  way  as  to  stand  in  need  of 
nothing  beyond  itself  in  order  to  its  existence.  And,  in 
truth,  there  can  be  conceived  but  one  substance  that  is 
absolutely  independent,  and  that  is  God.  We  perceive  that 
all  other  things  can  exist  only  by  the  help  of  the  concourse 
of  God.  And  accordingly,  the  term  substance  does  not 
apply  to  God  and  the  creature  univocally." 

Descartes  was  careful  to  avoid  collision  with  the  doctrinal 
standards  of  his  Church  (Roman  Catholic),  and  assumed  a 
reverent  attitude  toward  the  mysteries  of  the  faith.  He 
says :  "  If  perhaps  God  reveal  to  us  or  to  others  matters 
concerning  Himself  which  surpass  the  natural  powers  of 
our  mind,  such  as  the  mysteries  of  the  incarnation  and  of 
the  trinity,  we  will  not  refuse  to  believe  them,  although  we 
may  not  clearly  understand  them ;  nor  will  we  be  in  any 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       23 

way  surprised  to  find  in  the  immensity  of  His  nature,  or 
even  in  what  He  has  created,  many  things  that  exceed  our 
comprehension."  (Principles  of  Philosophy,  Pt.  I.)  Nev 
ertheless,  his  writings  did  not  escape  censure.  His  Medi 
tations,  and  some  other  of  his  productions,  were  placed  in 
1663  on  the  prohibited  list  at  Rome,  with  the  words  at 
tached,  Donee  corrigantur. 

The  stress  which  he  placed  upon  the  divine  causality 
was  joined  by  Descartes  with  a  very  emphatic  view  of  the 
contrast  between  mind  and  matter.  Herein  was  supplied  a 
foundation  for  the  doctrine  of  occasionalism.  This  was 
distinctly  advocated  by  Geulincx  (1625-1669).  Body  and 
soul,  as  he  taught,  in  their  radical  unlikeliness,  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  any  inherent  bond  of  union,  any  power  to 
operate  upon  each  other.  In  God  alone  must  be  sought 
the  connecting  link  between  them.  Malebranche  (1638- 
1715)  was  very  positively  committed  to  the  same  theory. 
There  is  no  causal  connection,  he  says,  between  soul  and 
body.  What  transpires  in  the  one  can  be  only  an  occasion, 
not  a  cause,  of  any  experience  in  the  other.  Going  still 
further,  Malebranche  declares  that  there  is  no  relation  of 
causality  between  one  body  and  another,  or  between  one 
spirit  and  another.  "  No  creature  is  able  to  act  upon 
another  by  any  efficacy  properly  its  own,"  —  Nulle  crea 
ture  ne  peut  agir  sur  aucune  autre  par  une  efficace  qui  lui 
soit  propre.  (Entretien  sur  la  Metaphysiquc.)  The  mind 
does  not  stand  in  causal  relation  even  to  its  own  ideas. 
It  may  be  able  to  render  attention ;  but  attention  is  only 
the  occasion  of  the  presence  of  ideas,  not  the  cause.  The 
cause  is  the  Divine  Word,  the  Universal  Reason.  In  other 
words,  the  mind  sees  all  things  in  God,  who  is  the  place  of 
ideas,  as  space  is  the  place  of  bodies.  From  this  it  would 
seem  to  follow  that  revelation  is  the  only  proper  warrant 
for  assuming  the  existence  of  an  external  sensible  world. 

In  the  limited  sphere  which  he  assigns  to  second  causes, 
Malebranche  appears  upon  the  verge  of  pantheism,  —  a  goal 


24  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

that  was  actually  reached  by  his  contemporary,  Spinoza 
(1632-1677).  Taking  up  the  definition  of  substance  thrown 
out  by  Descartes,  Spinoza  gave  it  a  rigorous  application, 
and  drew  the  conclusion  that  there  is  only  one  substance. 
"  Besides  God,"  he  says,  "  there  can  be  no  substance,  nor 
can  any  be  conceived."  (Ethica,  Pars  I.  Prop.  14.)  He 
affirms  that  there  is  in  God  an  infinite  fulness  of  attri 
butes,  but  he  dwells  only  upon  two,  —  thought  and  exten 
sion.  While  these  express  the  same  substance,  they  are 
radically  contrasted,  and  void  of  all  causal  relation  to  each 
other.  Finite  things  are  simply  these  attributes  viewed  as 
differentiated.  "  Particular  things,"  says  Spinoza,  "  are 
nothing  but  affections  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  modes 
by  which  the  attributes  of  God  are  expressed  in  a  certain 
and  determinate  manner,"  —  Res  particulares  nihil  sunt, 
nisi  Dei  attributorum  affectiones,  sive  modi  quibus  Dei 
attributa  certo  et  determinate  modo  exprimuntur.  (Ethica, 
I.  25,  cor.)  The  modes  of  thought  are  ideas  or  minds ; 
the  modes  of  extension,  bodies.  These  always  correspond 
to  eacli  other.  u  The  order  and  connection  of  ideas  are  the 
same  as  the  order  and  connection  of  things."  (Ethica,  II. 
7.)  Both  are  absolutely  determined  by  the  divine  nature. 
God  works  everything  from  an  inner  necessity,  without  free 
volition,  without  design.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  final 
cause,  save  in  human  imagination.  Man  is  a  link  in  the 
chain  of  necessity,  and  imagines  himself  to  be  free  only  be 
cause  lie  is  ignorant  of  the  causes  of  his  determinations. 

Spinoza,  who  was  excommunicated  by  his  Jewish  breth 
ren,  did  not  unqualifiedly  commit  himself  in  favor  of  any 
particular  religion.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  enter 
tained  a  certain  preference  for  Christianity.  His  system 
indeed  allowed  no  place  for  a  divine  incarnation  in  the 
Christian  sense,  but  he  evidently  reckoned  Christ  far  above 
all  other  teachers  as  respects  His  knowledge  of  the  mind 
of  God,  and  declared  that  we  might  call  His  voice  the  voice 
of  God,  and  say  "that  the  wisdom  of  God,  that  is,  the 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       25 

wisdom  which  is  more  than  human,  put  on  humanity  in 
Christ,  and  that  Christ  consequently  is  the  way  of  salva 
tion."  (Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus.)  To  the  Bible 
Spinoza  rendered  a  qualified  assent,  regarding  it  as  pre 
eminently  pedagogical,  or  accommodated  to  the  needs  of 
practical  piety  rather  than  to  those  of  theoretical  knowl 
edge.  Miracles  he  utterly  disallowed,  holding  that  what  is 
repugnant  to  the  order  of  nature  must  of  necessity  be  re 
pugnant  to  the  mind  of  God.  The  list  of  essential  religious 
truths  which  he  laid  clown  is  quite  similar  to  that  given  by 
Lord  Herbert,  the  patriarch  of  English  deism.  As  respects 
the  province  of  government  in  determining  the  standard  of 
conduct  and  religious  observance,  he  approximated  to  the 
radical  position  of  Hobbes. 

Extreme  tendencies  were  thus  manifested  in  the  line 
both  of  the  Baconian  and  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy. 
An  attempt  at  mediation  naturally  resulted.  Leibnitz  ap 
pears  as  the  first  great  exponent  of  such  an  attempt ;  but 
his  system  may  most  advantageously  be  considered  in  con 
nection  with  the  philosophy  of  the  next  period. 

These  modern  philosophies  evidently  could  have  exer 
cised  but  a  limited  influence  upon  theology  within  the  pe 
riod  before  us.  The  main  types  of  Protestant  theology  had 
already  been  developed  before  they  made  their  appearance. 
Lutheranism  throughout  the  period  was  hardly  touched 
by  them.  The  philosophy  of  Leibnitz,  as  systematized  by 
Wolff,  was  the  first  of  modern  philosophies  to  displace 
the  modified  Aristotelianism  which  had  been  embraced 
in  the  Reformation  era,  and  to  exercise  a  potent  influ 
ence  within  the  Lutheran  Church.  Some  of  the  Reformed 
theologians,  as  also  some  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  were 
influenced  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  philosophy  of 
Descartes.  The  same  philosophy  was  early  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  Cambridge  Platonists,  and  traces  of 
its  influence  may  be  seen  in  their  writings,  though  it  was 
in  part  opposed  by  them.  Some  of  the  English  theolo- 


26  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

gians,  at  the  end  of  the  period,  show  not  a  little  affinity 
with  the  spirit  of  Locke's  philosophy. 

As  respects  the  worth  of  philosophy,  a  rather  moderate 
estimate  may  be  said  to  have  been  generally  prevalent 
among  Protestant  theologians.  Luther  in  the  heat  of  his 
reforming  zeal  spoke  very  disparagingly  of  philosophy,  reck 
oned  Aristotle  as  a  near  neighbor  of  the  devil,  and  called 
him  the  spoiler  of  pious  doctrine.  Luther  indeed  came  to 
the  conclusion  to  tolerate  Aristotle,  and  credited  philosophy 
with  an  important  place  in  things  natural ;  but  he  seems 
never  to  have  regarded  it  as  of  much  worth  in  things  spir 
itual.  He  denounced  the  natural  reason  as  the  primary 
fountain  of  evils,  and  asserted  that  faith  must  rise  superior 
to  its  dictates.  Among  those  who  followed,  Daniel  Hoff 
mann  of  Helmstedt  rivalled  the  extremest  utterances  of 
Luther,  and  is  said  to  have  adopted  the  principle  that  what 
is  against  reason  is  for  God.  (Dorner,  History  of  Protes 
tant  Theology.)  But  his  position  was  exceptional.  The 
great  body  of  Lutheran  theologians,  like  Melanchthon,  were 
ready  to  bring  philosophy  into  relation  with  theology,  only 
holding  that  its  place  is  entirely  subordinate.  John  Ger 
hard  approved  the  position  of  Aquinas,  that,  while  philoso 
phy  may  offer  probable  arguments,  it  is  never  to  be  ranked 
as  a  full  and  independent  authority  in  matters  of  theology, 
but  always  held  in  subordination  to  the  Scriptures.  (Loci 
Theologici,  Prooem.)  Quenstedt  manifested  an  extra  de 
gree  of  anxiety  lest  too  large  a  space  should  be  conceded  to 
philosophy,  but  logically  his  statements  assign  to  it  about 
the  same  sphere  as  that  defined  by  Gerhard.  Hollaz  drew 
a  distinction  between  pure  and  mixed  articles,  regarding  the 
latter  as  falling  within  the  province  of  philosophy,  or  the 
natural  reason,  but  the  former  as  capable  of  being  made 
known  by  supernatural  revelation  alone.  We  find  Quen 
stedt  complaining  of  the  Calvinists  as  preposterously  sub 
jecting  the  mysteries  of  the  faith  to  the  authority  of  reason. 
(Systema  Theologicum,  De  Theol.  Prin.)  This  is  by  far 


1517-1720.]    FACTOES  IN  THE  DOCTEINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       27 

too  sweeping.  Very  likely,  in  the  present  period,  within 
the  Calvinistic  or  Reformed  Church,  as  a  whole,  there  was 
more  appreciation  of  philosophy  than  in  the  Lutheran.  But 
in  the  former,  as  well  as  in  the  latter,  it  was  commonly 
assigned  a  subordinate  place,  and  there  were,  moreover, 
Reformed  writers  who  were  not  a  whit  more  disposed  to 
laud  its  utility  than  was  the  average  Lutheran  theologian. 
Voetius,  for  example,  declares  that  human  reason  is  neither 
the  principle  by  which  or  through  which,  nor  from  which 
or  why,  we  believe,  and  that  it  is  not  the  foundation  or  law 
or  norm  of  faith,  in  accordance  with  whose  prescription  we 
judge.  (Select.  Disput.  Theol.,  De  Rat.  Horn,  in  Rebus 
Fidei.)  Zwingli,  while  he  made  the  Scriptures  the  one 
supreme  authority,  had  quite  a  high  opinion  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  ancient  philosophers.  Bullinger  seems  to  have  re 
garded  philosophy  as  of  little  service  in  religion.  "  Many 
men,"  he  says,  "  hope  that  they  can  attain  to  true  wisdom 
by  the  study  of  philosophy  ;  but  they  are  deceived  as  far  as 
heaven  is  broad.  For  philosophy  dotli  falsely  judge  and 
faultily  teach  many  things  touching  God,  the  works  of  God, 
the  chief  goodness,  the  end  of  good  and  evil,  and  touching 
things  to  be  desired  or  eschewed."  (Sermons,  Decade  I.  5.) 
Calvin  taught  that  we  are  not  to  despise  the  wisdom  of  the 
heathen  sages,  the  admirable  displays  of  sagacity  in  their 
works,  lest  perchance  we  do  despite  to  God,  who  is  the  only 
fountain  of  truth.  But,  at  the  same  time,  he  held  that  the 
natural  reason  of  man  is  almost  blind  as  respects  the  na 
ture  of  God  in  general,  and  wholly  so  as  respects  His  pater 
nal  benevolence.  "  I  do  not  deny,"  he  says,  "  that  some 
judicious  and  apposite  observations  concerning  God  may 
be  found  scattered  in  the  writings  of  the  philosophers  ;  but 
they  always  betray  a  confused  imagination.  They  never  had 
the  smallest  idea  of  the  certainty  of  the  divine  benevolence 
toward  us."  (Institutes,  II.  2.)  Turretin,  while  he  de 
clares  that  the  Word  of  God,  and  not  our  sense  of  the  pos 
sibility  or  impossibility  of  a  thing,  is  the  norm  of  faith, 


28  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

seems  to  have  been  unwilling  to  admit  that  there  is  any  ac 
tual  contradiction  between  reason  proper  and  faith.  "  The 
mysteries  of  faith,"  he  says,  "  are  contrary  to  corrupt  rea 
son  and  arc  combated  by  it ;  but  they  are  merely  above  and 
beyond  right  reason,  and  are  not  taught  by  it."  In  agree 
ment  with  Gerhard,  he  teaches  that  theology  and  philosophy 
are  related  as  mistress  and  servant.  (Institutio  Theolo- 
giae  Elencticae,  Locus  I.  qu.  8-13.)  One  of  the  theories  of 
Socinus  implies  a  narrow  capacity  in  merely  human  philoso 
phy  to  acquaint  men  with  divine  truth,  for  he  argues  that 
specific  revelations  were  the  primary  and  indispensable  ba 
sis  of  whatever  knowledge  of  God  has  come  into  the  world. 
(Praslect.  Theol.,  II.)  The  Arminian  movement  in  its 
spirit  and  tendency  favored,  on  the  wrhole,  an  enlarged  scope 
for  reason  in  the  field  of  theology ;  but  the  Arminians  seem 
not  to  have  set  out  with  any  special  theory  upon  the  sub 
ject.  They  were  averse  to  ambitious  speculation,  and  em 
phasized  the  dictates  of  the  practical  reason.  Among  Eng 
lish  theologians,  the  Cambridge  school,  as  already  noted, 
assigned  an  important  place  to  philosophy.  They  empha 
sized,  indeed,  the  truth  that  spiritual  enlightenment  is  radi 
cally  conditioned  upon  the  right  spiritual  disposition ;  but 
at  the  same  time  they  regarded  the  reason  as  a  link  between 
man  and  God  and  a  medium  of  divine  illumination.  "  The 
spirit  in  man,"  says  Whichcote,  "is  the  candle  of  the  Lord, 
lighted  by  God,  and  lighting  man  to  God.  .  .  .  Therefore 
to  speak  of  natural  light,  of  the  use  of  reason  in  religion, 
is  to  do  no  disservice  at  all  to  grace  ;  for  God  is  acknowl 
edged  in  both,  —  in  the  former  as  being  the  groundwork  of 
His  creation,  in  the  latter  as  reviving  and  restoring  it.  ... 
To  go  against  reason  is  to  go  against  God."  (Quoted  by 
John  Tulloch  in  Rational  Theol.  and  Christ.  Philos.  in  Eng 
land  in  the  17th  Century.)  John  Goodwin  took  about  the 
same  ground,  maintaining  that  a  good  use  of  reason  is  es 
sential  to  the  best  use  of  faith,  and  declaring  that  incon 
ceivable  mischief  had  been  wrought  by  the  doctrine  that 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       29 

men  must  lay  aside  their  reason  in  matters  of  religion. 
(Redemption  Redeemed,  Preface.)  Those  who  received 
Locke  as  a  philosophical  master  must  of  course  have  recog 
nized  a  certain  value  in  philosophy,  as  serving  to  illustrate 
the  rational  character  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Petavius,  as  a  representative  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
standpoint  of  the  era,  defends  the  utility  of  philosophy  in 
the  domain  of  theology.  He  assigns  it,  however,  to  the 
same  subordinate  rank  to  which  it  was  relegated  by  many 
Protestant  theologians.  He  says,  "  Faith  ought  by  all 
means  to  take  the  lead,  then  reason  and  disputation  to 
follow."  (Theol.  Dogmat.,  Prolegom.  cap.  4.)  "  Nothing," 
says  Pascal,  "  is  so  agreeable  to  reason,  as  the  disclaiming 
of  reason  in  matters  of  pure  faith  ;  and  nothing  is  so  re 
pugnant  to  reason  as  the  disuse  of  reason  in  things  that  do 
not  concern  faith."  (Thoughts  on  Religion,  Chap.  V.) 


SECTION  II.  —  COMMUNIONS,  CREEDS,  AND  AUTHORS. 

1.  RISE  AND  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  PROT 
ESTANT  COMMUNIONS.  —  Though  the  Reformation  received 
upon  every  hand  a  forward  impulse  from  the  powerful 
advocacy  of  Luther,  its  origin  outside  of  Germany  was  in 
a  measure  independent  of  his  agency.  Simultaneously  in 
different  lands  there  was  a  quickened  perception  of  Gospel 
truths.  In  Switzerland,  France,  and  England,  men  were 
already  turned  toward  the  path  of  evangelical  reform, 
when  the  fearless  utterances  of  the  German  leader  came 
to  their  encouragement. 

As  respects  Protestant  unity,  therefore,  the  primary  de 
mand  was  not  continued  fidelity  to  a  common  leadership, 
but  rather  agreement  and  friendly  alliance  between  differ 
ent  movements.  Unhappily,  the  attempt  to  consummate 
this  alliance  proved  abortive.  A  dispute  broke  out  between 
the  Germans  and  the  Swiss  upon  the  subject  of  the  eucha- 


30  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

rist.  Attempts  at  a  settlement,  like  the  conference  at 
Marburg  in  1529,  were  unavailing.  Luther  could  not 
agree  with  Zwingli,  and,  in  the  conviction  that  the  Swiss 
were  of  a  different  spirit  from  his  own,  refused  their  offer 
of  fellowship.  So  Protestantism  appears  as  a  divided 
stream  almost  at  its  fountain-head. 

The  two  great  branches  into  which  the  Reformation 
movement  developed  came  to  be  designated  respectively  as 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Church.  Whatever  points 
of  kinship  these  may  have  had,  they  early  exhibited  con 
trasted  features.  The  Lutheran  Church  was  animated 
more  directly  by  antagonism  to  the  Jewish  element  in 
Romanism,  its  burdensome  and  unspiritual  legalism  ;  the 
Reformed  was  conspicuous  for  opposition  to  the  pagan  ele 
ment  in  Romanism.  The  former  was  mainly  intent  upon 
reforming  the  inner  spirit,  and  was  not  in  haste  to  change 
externals  any  farther  than  the  new  spirit  imperatively  re 
quired  ;  the  latter  aimed  to  change  externals,  as  well  as  the 
inner  spirit,  dealt  with  images  in  the  temper  of  iconoclasm, 
abridged  the  ceremonial,  and  endeavored  in  general  to  get 
back  to  apostolic  simplicity.  In  the  Lutheran  Church  there 
was  a  leaning  to  idealism  and  mysticism  ;  the  Reformed, 
while  not  without  a  highly  speculative  bent,  was  rela 
tively  distinguished  by  a  practical  energy,  a  ready  dispo 
sition  to  actualize  ideas  of  Church  and  society.  The 
Lutheran  type  dwelt  largely  upon  the  subjective  condition 
of  salvation,  the  faith  of  the  individual  ;  the  Reformed 
emphasized  the  objective  condition,  the  will  and  power  of 
God.  Evangelical  freedom  was  the  watchword  of  Luther- 
anism,  and  the  New  Testament  its  preferred  ground  in 
Holy  Writ ;  the  Reformed  theologians  magnified  the  con 
ception  of  divine  law,  and  had  much  recourse  to  the  Old 
Testament  for  principles  and  illustrations. 

The  Lutheran  Church  had  its  headquarters  in  Central 
Germany,  and  spread  to  the  North  through  the  Scandi- 
Thc  Reformed  Church  had  its  head- 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IX  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       31 

quarters  first  at  Zurich  under  Zwingli,  then  at  Geneva 
under  Calvin,  and  became  established,  outside  of  its  Swiss 
home,  in  various  parts  of  Germany,  in  France,  in  Holland, 
in  Scotland,  and  in  America.  The  Church  of  England 
has  often  been  regarded  as  a  branch  of  the  Reformed 
Church  ;  and  very  prominent  facts  may  be  quoted  in  be 
half  of  this  classification.  At  the  time  that  it  received 
its  distinctly  Protestant  character,  it  was  on  terms  of  inti 
mate  fellowship  with  the  Reformed  churches  on  the  Conti 
nent.  Such  exponents  of  the  Reformed  system  of  doctrine 
as  Peter  Martyr  and  Martin  Bucer  were  then  teaching  in 
its  universities.  Moreover,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  its  au 
thoritative  articles  of  religion  show  a  distinct  kinship  with 
the  Reformed  type  of  theology.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Church  of  England  had  its  distinct  character  from  the 
outset.  This  may  be  described,  in  a  single  sentence,  as  a 
conservative  bent,  —  a  bias  toward  patristic  authority.  In 
pursuance  of  this,  it  retained  much  of  the  old  liturgy  and 
much  of  the  old  form  of  church  government  with  its  epis 
copal  hierarchy,  and  its  representative  theologians  were 
distinguished  among  Protestant  writers  by  their  frequent 
and  reverent  appeal  to  the  early  fathers.  It  is  to  be  no 
ticed,  however,  that  almost  from  the  outset  there  was  a 
party  in  England  (the  so-called  Puritans)  to  whom  these 
characteristics  of  the  national  Church  were  the  reverse  of 
pleasing.  The  episcopal  hierarchy,  the  ceremonies,  and 
the  vestments,  were  in  the  highest  degree  distasteful  to 
them.  Believing  that  the  existing  order  was  a  compromise 
with  Rome,  and  regarding  the  Genevan  as  the  Scriptural 
model,  they  wished  for  a  more  democratic  constitution  of 
the  Church,  and  for  apostolic  simplicity  in  worship.  In  a 
word,  they  were  Presbyterians.  Though  persecuted  by  the 
government,  they  claimed  the  sympathy  of  no  inconsider 
able  portion  of  the  nation,  and  finally,  through  their  inti 
mate  relation  Avith  the  cause  of  civil  liberty,  came  to  a 
decided  ascendency  during  the  rule  of  the  Long  Parlia- 


32  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

ment.  Among  the  opponents  of  the  hierarchical  consti 
tution  of  the  Church  was  also  a  party  which  went  still 
farther  than  the  Presbyterians.  These  were  the  Indepen 
dents,  who  declared  for  the  autonomy  of  each  individual 
church  or  congregation.  Their  origin  has  sometimes  been 
traced  to  Robert  Brown.  A  work  published  by  him  in 
1582  embodied  some  of  their  views  on  church  polity ;  but 
there  were  other  and  more  worthy  pioneers,  such  as  Bar- 
rowe,  Greenwood,  and  John  Robinson,  the  last  a  pastor  of 
a  church  in  England,  and  then  of  the  society  in  Leyden 
which  sent  the  Plymouth  settlers  to  New  England.  The 
Independents  in  England  were  much  inferior  in  numbers 
to  the  Presbyterians  ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  great  leaders, 
the  military  chiefs  who  finally  grasped  the  reins  of  govern 
ment,  were  from  their  ranks,  they  came  for  a  time  into  a 
certain  ascendency.  After  the  Restoration,  both  Presbyte 
rians  and  Independents  passed  into  the  rank  of  proscribed 
sects.  The  Toleration  Act  of  1689  guaranteed  to  them 
freedom  of  worship,  but  left  them  under  disabilities  as 
respects  the  holding  of  civil  offices. 

Outside  of  the  main  current  of  Protestantism  there  was 
a  movement,  almost  from  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  in 
the  direction  of  Unitarianism.  Among  the  earlier  repre 
sentatives  of  this  movement  were  the  Anabaptists  John 
Denck,  Lewis  Iletzer,  David  Joris,  John  Campanus,  and 
Melchior  Hofmann  ;  Adam  Pistorius,  from  Westphalia  ;  the 
Spaniard,  Michael  Servetus ;  the  Italians,  Claudius  of  Sa 
voy,  J.  Valentine  Gcntilis,  and  Gribaldi.  Between  these 
there  was  little  or  no  strict  unity  of  belief  or  action,  and 
none  of  them  can  be  regarded  as  founders  of  a  sect.  Uni 
tarianism  first  acquired  the  consistency  of  an  organized 
communion  in  the  last  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It 
may  be  regarded  as  having  substantially  readied  this  status 
in  Poland  between  1563  and  1565,  though  destined  here  to 
receive  shape  and  name  some  years  later  from  its  most 
powerful  leader.  Poland  and  Transylvania  in  particular 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       33 

offered  a  refuge  to  the  Unitarians,  whom  the  great  body 
of  Romanists  and  Protestants  alike  were  unwilling  to  tol 
erate.  In  the  latter  country  two  of  the  prominent  leaders 
were  George  Blandrata  and  Francis  David.  In  conse 
quence  of  a  dispute  between  these  men  on  the  propriety 
of  worshipping  Christ,  Faustus  Socinus  was  called  into 
Transylvania  (1578).  This  learned  Italian  had  received 
his  views  in  part  as  a  matter  of  inheritance  from  his  uncle, 
Laelius  Socinus.  The  latter  belonged  to  a  society  of  lib 
eral  thinkers  at  Vicenza,  in  the  territory  of  Venice,  which 
had  been  broken  up  by  the  Inquisition.  Forced  to  flee,  he 
took  refuge  in  Protestant  countries,  residing  mainly  in 
Switzerland.  Though  his  views  were  sufficiently  radical, 
his  somewhat  modest  and  negative  way  of  putting  them 
saved  him  from  proscription.  Faustus  inherited  the  manu 
scripts  of  Lgelius,  and  carried  out  his  theories  into  bold  and 
dogmatic  statement.  From  Transylvania,  Faustus  Socinus 
passed  into  Poland,  in  1579.  He  was  not  received  with  a 
very  cordial  welcome.  While  some  of  the  Unitarians  there 
believed  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  others  were 
Arians  or  Semi-Arians.  By  many  of  them  Socinus  was 
regarded  as  extra  radical  in  some  of  his  views.  But,  fa 
vored  by  the  patronage  of  persons  of  distinction  and  by  his 
superior  talents,  he  overcame  all  opposition,  and  in  testi 
mony  to  his  ascendency  the  Unitarians  of  Poland  and 
Transylvania  came  to  be  known  as  Sodnians.  For  about 
half  a  century  the  sect  enjoyed  a  good  degree  of  prosper 
ity,  and  their  headquarters  at  Racow  became  quite  a  cele 
brated  seat  of  Socinian  learning.  But  in  1638  persecution 
broke  out,  and  twenty  years  later  was  issued  the  edict 
of  their  banishment  from  Poland.  Some  took  refuge  in 
Transylvania,  where  their  descendants  have  maintained 
themselves  down  to  the  present  time.  Some,  finding  their 
way  to  Holland,  became  amalgamated  with  the  Remon 
strants  and  the  Mennonites.  In  England  Unitarianism 
had  representatives  during  the  major  part  of  the  period. 

VOL.    II.  —  3. 


34  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  of  these  was  John  Biddle, 
who  wrote  several  works  near  the  middle  of  the  seven 
teenth  century.  His  opinions  were  much  after  the  Socinian 
order,  but  different  in  some  respects.  English  Unittrian- 
ism,  however,  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  crystallized  into 
a  sect  till  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  origin  of  the  Remonstrants,  or  Arminians,  in  Holland, 
was  due  to  a  reaction  against  strict  Calvinism.  Their 
founder  was  James  Arminius.  He  was  not,  however,  the 
first  representative  of  the  reaction  in  question.  Koornheert 
and  others  had  preceded  him  in  quite  a  radical  attack  upon 
the  Genevan  doctrine.  To  obviate  Koornheert's  objections, 
some  ministers  of  Delft  issued  a  book  in  which  they  advo 
cated  an  infra-lapsarian  scheme  in  place  of  the  supra- 
lapsarianism  of  Calvin  and  Beza.  Arminius  was  called 
upon  to  answer  their  production.  In  the  course  of  his  in 
vestigation  he  came  to  entertain  serious  doubts  about  the 
validity  of  any  and  every  form  of  the  doctrine  of  uncon 
ditional  election.  He  was  also  led  to  take  liberal  ground 
as  respects  subscription  to  creeds,  and  advocated  the  pro 
priety  of  making  but  few  articles  obligatory,  and  these 
expressed  as  nearly  as  possible  in  Scriptural  language.  As 
Professor  at  Leyden,  Arminius  came  into  conflict  with  his 
colleague,  Gomar,  who  was  an  upholder  of  the  most  strin 
gent  type  of  predestinarianism.  The  controversy,  once 
started,  continued  to  rage,  and  was  in  no  wise  slackened  by 
the  death  of  Arminius,  in  1609.  In  consequence  of  a  dec 
laration  (containing  five  articles  of  faith)  issued  in  1610, 
under  the  title  of  a  Remonstrance,  the  followers  of  Armin 
ius  acquired  the  name  of  Remonstrants.  Being  condemned 
by  the  synod  of  Dort,  in  1619,  they  were  proscribed  by 
the  government,  to  which  they  were  obnoxious  on  politi 
cal  grounds.  After  a  few  years,  however,  they  began  to 
enjoy  a  measure  of  toleration.  The  doctrinal  system  of 
Arminius,  who  is  confessed  on  all  hands  to  have  been  a 
man  of  most  exemplary  spirit  and  life,  was  the  Calvinistic 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       35 

system  with  no  farther  modification  than  necessarily  re 
sulted  from  rejecting  the  tenet  of  absolute  predestination. 
A  charge  of  Pelagian  affinities  can  be  made  against  him 
only  on  the  basis  of  the  most  ultra  Calvinism,  or  of  an 
utterly  inadequate  acquaintance  with  his  writings.  His 
followers,  no  doubt,  made  a  wider  departure  from  the  Cal- 
vinistic  teaching.  Even  between  Arminius  and  his  imme 
diate  successor,  Episcopius,  quite  an  interval  is  noticeable 
as  respects  doctrinal  bias.  Some  of  the  later  generations 
of  Arminians  showed  a  certain  affiliation  with  Socinianism. 
But  this  fact  is  not  to  be  taken  as  indicative  of  the  original 
essence  of  Arminianism.  That  it  was  no  necessary  out 
come  from  the  teachings  of  the  founder  is  well  evinced  by 
the  history  of  the  Wesleyan  theology. 

The  more  sober  and  evangelical  elements  among  the 
Anabaptists  of  tho  Reformation  era  came  to  be  represented 
in  the  Mennonites  and  the  Baptists.  The  former  derived 
their  name  from  Menno  Simons,  and  originated  in  Holland 
in  the  second  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century.  In  some 
points  they  seem  to  have  anticipated  the  Quakers.  They 
rejected  oaths,  and  reprobated  wars  and  all  kinds  of  violence. 
They  regarded  the  Church  as  the  company  of  the  regener 
ate,  and  insisted  upon  strict  discipline,  —  a  schism  hav 
ing  early  occurred  in  their  ranks  on  this  subject.  They 
excluded  infants  from  baptism,  and  accepted  Zwingli's 
exposition  of  the  eucharist.  They  held  peculiar  views 
respecting  Christ's  person.  On  the  doctrines  of  grace,  the 
majority  were  inclined  to  the  Arminian,  as  opposed  to  the 
Calvinistic  type. 

In  England  the  Baptists  showed  a  considerable  energy 
in  organizing  societies  in  the  time  of  Charles  I.  Their 
prior  history  is  not  very  distinctly  outlined.  Hunt  says : 
"  The  English  Baptists  originated  among  the  Brownists  of 
Amsterdam.  The  first  was  John  Smyth,  who,  being  con 
vinced  of  the  necessity  of  adult  baptism,  and  having  no 
one  to  baptize  him,  baptized  himself."  (Religious  Thought 


36  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

in  England.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  Baptist  historian, 
Cramp,  speaks  in  general  of  those  who  had  previously 
suffered  under  the  name  of  Anabaptists  as  being  in  the 
proper  list  of  Baptist  martyrs.  Whether  reckoned  from 
the  earlier  or  the  later  date,  the  Baptists  must  be  allowed 
to  have  had  their  full  share  of  persecution.  Cromwell, 
however,  treated  them  with  consideration,  and  they  were 
recognized  under  the  Act  of  Toleration  in  1689.  The 
founder  of  the  American  Baptists  was  Roger  Williams, 
who  also,  in  accordance  with  a  charter  applied  for  in  1643, 
became  the  founder  of  a  colony  in  Rhode  Island.  Though 
not  the  first  to  take  advanced  ground  upon  the  subject, 
Williams  may  still  bo  reckoned  among  the  pioneers  of  the 
cause  of  religious  liberty,  and  in  his  colony  the  claims  of 
that  liberty  were  distinctly  recognized.  In  England  the 
early  Baptists  were  Arminians.  The  rise  of  the  first  dis 
tinctly  Calvinistic  society  was  in  1633.  (Cramp.)  Those 
adhering  to  the  original  type  were  called  General  Baptists, 
while  the  Calvinists  were  styled  Particular  Baptists.  In 
the  American  branch  the  Calvinistic  teaching  was  predom 
inant  from  the  first.  The  Arminian  communion,  known  as 
Free-will  Baptists,  was  not  organized  till  near  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

At  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  era  of  the 
Civil  War  and  the  Commonwealth,  a  great  variety  of  reli 
gious  parties  made  their  appearance  in  England,  such  as 
Ranters,  Seekers,  Familists,  Behmenists,  Muggletonians, 
Fifth  Monarchy  Men,  or  Millenarians,  etc.  Some  of  these 
were  scarcely  so  much  sects  as  schools  of  thought,  and  all 
of  them  were  destined  to  appear  rather  as  significant  of 
the  enthusiasms  of  the  times  than  as  sources  of  permanent 
influence.  With  another  party  the  case  was  different. 
Though  as  eccentric  in  its  guise  as  any  of  those  mentioned, 
the  society  of  Quakers  or  Friends  proved  its  right  to  con 
tinued  existence  by  a  strength  of  conviction  and  tenacity 
of  purpose  which  scorn  and  the  fiercest  persecution  were 


1517-1720.]    FACTOKS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       37 

alike  powerless  to  destroy.  Yery  likely  it  acted  as  an 
absorbent  upon  various  parties  who  had  broken  away  from 
their  old  moorings.  Speaking  of  an  early  period  in  its 
history,  Cunningham  says :  "  Quakerism  was  rapidly  ab 
sorbing  many  of  the  smaller  fanatical  sects  which  had  been 
generated  in  the  high  temperature  of  the  times.  Fox's 
divining-rod  swallowed  up  the  rods  of  the  less  mighty 
magicians."  (International  History  of  the  Quakers.)  Qua 
kerism  was  an  extreme  reaction  against  formalism,  —  a  re 
action  carried  to  the  point  of  exalting  the  inner  light  above 
the  text  of  the  Bible  itself.  It  belongs  among  the  mani 
festations  of  the  spirit  of  mysticism.  After  its  founder, 
George  Fox,  its  most  noted  contributors  were  Robert  Bar 
clay  and  William  Penn,  the  former  its  ablest  apologist 
and  theologian,  the  latter  its  most  efficient  patron.  As 
the  colonizer  of  Pennsylvania,  Penn  prepared  a  favorable 
theatre  for  Quakerism  in  America,  where  its  numbers  soon 
surpassed  those  of  the  society  in  the  mother  country. 

2.   CREEDS,  AXD  OTHER  KEPRESEXTATIVE  STATEMENTS  OF 
DOCTRINE. 


LUTHERAN. 


REFORMED. 


Writings. 


Luther's  two  Catechisms 

The  Augsburg  Confession 

The  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 

The  Articles  of  Smalcald 

The  Formula  of  Concord 

The  Saxon  Visitation  Articles 

Zwingli's  Sixty-seven  Articles,  Account  of 
the  Faith,  and  Exposition  of  the  Christian 
Faith 

The  Tetrapolitan  Confession 

The  First  Confession  of  Basle 

The  First  Helvetic  Confession,  or  Second 
Confession  of  Basle 

The  Consensus  of  Zurich 

The  Consensus  of  Geneva 

The  Hungarian  Confession 

The  Galilean  Confession 

The  Scotch  Confession 


A.D.  1529 
1530 

1530-1531 

Signed  in  1537. 

1537 

1577 

1592 


1523-1531 
1530 
1534 

1536 
1549 
1552 

1557-1558 
1559 
1560 


38 


HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 


Writings. 


Date. 


REFORMED.      The  Belgic  Confession A.D.  1561 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism 1563 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of 

England 1563 

The  Second  Helvetic  Confession     ....  1566 

The  Consensus  of  Sendomir  (Polish)       .     .  1570 

Bohemian  Confessions 1535, 1575 

The  Irish  Articles 1615 

The  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  ....  1619 

The  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms  1647 

The  Cambridge  Platform  (American)      .    .  1648 

The  Confession  of  the  Waldenses  ....  1655 

The  Savoy  Declaration 1658 

The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula  ....  1675 

The  Boston  Confession 1680 

The  Say  brook  Platform 1708 

SOCINIAN.        The  Cracovian  Catechism 1574 

The  Racovian  Catechism 1605 

ARMINIAN.       The  [Five]  Arminian  Articles 1610 

Confession  of  the  Pastors  who  are  called  Re 
monstrants  (by  Episcopius) 1621 

GENERAL         Declaration  of  Faith  of  the  English  People 

BAPTIST.            remaining  at  Amsterdam 1611 

The  London  Confession 1660 

The  Orthodox  Creed  (from  Baptists  of  Ox 
fordshire  and  vicinity) 1678 

PARTICULAR    The  Confession  of  the  Seven  Churches  of 

BAPTIST.  London 1644-1646 

The  Confession  of  Somerset 1656 

A  Confession   of  Faith  put  forth  by  the 

Elders  and  Brethren,  etc.    ......  1688 

QUAKER.          Barclay's  Fifteen  Propositions 1675 

ROMAN             Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  1563 

CATHOLIC.      The  Profession  of  the  Tridentine  Faith  .     .  1564 

The  Roman  Catechism 1566 

The  Bull  Cum  Occasion?,  of  Innocent  X.  .     .  1653 

The  Bull  Unigenitus  of  Clement  XL   ...  1713 


GREEK. 


The  Orthodox  Confession  of  Mogilas  .     .     . 
The  Confession  of  Dositheus,  or  the  Eigh 
teen  Decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  . 


1643 
1672 


Among  Lutheran  Confessions,  that  submitted  at  Augs 
burg  to  Charles  V.  and  the  dignitaries  of  the  Empire,  as  the 
first  grand  declaration  of  Protestant  principles,  occupies  the 


1517-1720.]   FACTOKS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.      39 

first  rank.  It  has  claimed  the  widest  assent,  and  intrin 
sically  is  best  fitted  to  serve  as  an  ecumenical  creed.  In 
its  moderate  tone  we  may  discern  the  spirit  of  its  author, 
Melanchthon,  who  also  wrote  the  Apology. 

The  Smalcald  Articles  were  composed  by  Luther,  as 
might  be  judged  from  their  polemical  vigor.  They  were 
designed  to  indicate  the  basis  upon  which  the  Protestants 
would  stand  if  they  were  to  have  any  part  in  the  general 
council  which  was  then  under  consideration. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  is  the  most  elaborate  in  its 
doctrinal  statements  among  the  Lutheran  creeds.  It  is 
also  highly  significant  as  reflecting  the  earnest  theological 
thinking  and  the  heated  controversies  within  the  Lutheran 
Church  during  the  preceding  thirty  or  forty  years.  But 
there  were  many  to  whom  it  was  not  acceptable,  and  it 
failed  of  adoption  in  Denmark,  Holstein,  and  some  other 
districts.  Moreover,  though  admired  by  the  majority  in  an 
age  of  intense  dogmatism,  it  lacked  the  simplicity  and 
breadth  requisite  in  a  symbol  that  is  to  command  a  perma 
nent  suffrage.  The  composition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
was  the  work  of  six  theologians,  prominent  among  whom 
were  Jacob  Andrea  arid  Martin  Chemnitz. 

The  Saxon  Visitation  Articles,  designed  as  a  safeguard 
to  strict  Lutheranism  against  the  invasion  of  Calvinistic 
teachings  on  the  sacraments  and  on  predestination,  had 
only  a  local  acceptance,  and  are  no  longer  in  force  even 
in  Saxony. 

Among  the  Reformed  Confessions  there  are  five  which 
may  be  singled  out  as  being  of  special  importance :  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession, 
the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  the  Thirty-nine  Arti 
cles  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Westminster  Con 
fession. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  originally  issued  as  a 
doctrinal  compendium  for  the  Palatinate,  one  of  the  seven 
electoral  districts  of  the  German  Empire.  Its  authors  were 


40  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

Zacharias  Ursinus  and  Caspar  Olevianus.  While  it  em 
braces  the  common  tenets  of  the  Reformed  faith,  it  is 
unique  in  the  standpoint  from  which  it  proceeds,  its  very 
first  questions  being  concerning  the  needs  and  the  only 
comfort  of  the  soul  under  the  burden  of  its  sin  and  misery. 
Commended  by  its  warm  evangelical  spirit,  it  soon  found 
its  way  into  all  the  Reformed  churches  on  the  Continent, 
and  obtained  recognition  in  Scotland  and  among  the  Amer 
ican  colonists.  Even  down  to  the  present  day  it  has  en 
joyed  a  large  degree  of  approbation. 

The  Second  Helvetic  Confession  was  composed  by  Bui- 
linger,  the  successor  of  Zwingli  at  Zurich.  Frederic  III. 
of  the  Palatinate,  under  whose  auspices  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  was  prepared,  was  much  interested  to  have  it 
published,  and  in  response  to  his  desire,  as  well  as  to  the 
call  of  the  Swiss  churches,  it  was  given  forth.  It  was  re 
ceived  with  much  favor,  being  sanctioned  not  only  by  the 
Protestantism  of  Switzerland  and  the  Palatinate,  but  by 
the  Reformed  Church  in  Poland,  Hungary,  France,  and 
Scotland.  Its  statement  of  doctrine  is  full,  and  the  Scrip 
tures  are  abundantly  quoted  in  corroboration. 

The  synod  of  Dort  was  convened  in  opposition  to  the 
Arminian  movement,  and  published  elaborate  decisions 
on  the  subject  of  predestination  and  the  related  doctrines. 
Besides  the  theologians  of  Holland,  representatives  of  vari 
ous  countries,  such  as  England,  Scotland,  the  Palatinate, 
Hesse,  and  Switzerland,  had  a  place  in  the  synod.  In 
securing  its  immediate  object  it  was  quite  successful,  but 
it  is  generally  understood  that  its  ultimate  result,  espe 
cially  in  the  English  Church,  was  to  help  on  the  reaction 
in  favor  of  Arminianism. 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
formed  by  a  revision  of  forty-two  articles  which  had  been 
prepared  under  the  supervision  of  Cranmer,  and  published 
in  1553.  They  were  adopted  by  the  two  Houses  of  Convoca 
tion  in  1563,  and  subscription  to  them  was  made  obligatory 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       41 

upon  religious  teachers  by  act  of  Parliament  in  1571.  The 
Thirty-nine  Articles  represent  the  English  Church  on  the 
side  of  its  connection  with  the  general  Protestant  move 
ment,  whereas  the  Liturgy  reveals  more  largely  its  connec 
tion  with  the  Ante-Reformation  Church.  The  statement 
on  the  subject  of  predestination  is  moderate,  and  admits 
of  some  latitude  of  interpretation.  Probably  those  who 
framed  the  statement  accepted  in  general  the  Reformed 
doctrine  on  the  subject,  but  at  the  same  time  were  not 
possessed  by  any  such  zeal  for  it  as  was  felt  in  some 
other  quarters.  It  was  in  harmony,  therefore,  with  the 
original  standpoint  of  the  Protestant  theology  of  England, 
when  the  ultra  Calvinistic  articles  (the  so-called  Lambeth 
Articles  of  1595),  championed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  and 
others,  were  rejected. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  was  convened  by  order  of 
Parliament  in  1643.  It  met  in  the  midst  of  the  conflict 
between  the  Puritans  and  the  throne,  and  was  designed 
to  prepare  an  ecclesiastical  scheme  in  harmony  with  the 
principles  of  the  former.  The  Assembly  held  1,163  regu 
lar  sessions  between  July  1, 1643,  and  February  22, 1649. 
On  questions  of  doctrine  its  members  were  substantially 
agreed.  On  the  subject  of  polity  there  was  a  diversity 
of  view,  the  Episcopalians,  the  Independents,  and  the 
Erastians  being  in  a  measure  represented.  The  Presby 
terians,  however,  were  in  the  majority,  and  finally  claimed 
a  complete  ascendency.  The  Confession  was  ready  for 
publication  in  1547,  and  was  approved  by  the  Parliament 
the  next  year,  with  the  exception  of  some  paragraphs  relat 
ing  to  church  polity.  In  Scotland  it  was  adopted  without 
modification.  In  New  England,  the  Cambridge,  Boston, 
and  Saybrook  synods  expressed  their  general  approval  of 
the  doctrinal  portion.  As  was  naturally  dictated  by  the 
antecedents  and  the  circumstances  of  its  preparation,  the 
Westminster  Confession  is  a  stalwart  embodiment  of 
the  Calvinistic  faith.  No  other  great  confession  is  equally 


42  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

strong  and  explicit  on  the  subject  of  predestination,  unless 
it  be  the  Canons  of  Dort.  To  be  sure,  it  does  not  go  at  all 
beyond  the  Lambeth  or  the  Irish  Articles,  and  indeed  must 
be  allowed  to  have  been  formed  more  or  less  on  the  model 
of  the  latter.  But  the  Lambeth  Articles  were  never  au 
thoritatively  promulgated,  and  the  Irish  Articles  (com 
posed  probably  by  Archbishop  Usher),  though  adopted  by 
the  convocation  of  the  episcopal  clergy  of  Ireland,  were 
very  soon  superseded  by  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
English  Church. 

The  Socinians  and  Arminians  did  not  share  largely  in 
the  creed-making  propensity  of  the  age.  The  Racovian 
Catechism  claimed  the  highest  authority  as  an  exposition 
of  Socinian  beliefs.  For  an  adequate  understanding  of 
Arminianism  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  writings  of  its 
most  noted  representatives. 

The  council  of  Trent  (1545-1563)  prepared  the  dogmatic 
code  of  modern  Romanism.  It  closed  the  door  against  evan 
gelical  reform,  set  up  impassable  barriers  against  catho 
licity,  and  decided  that  the  mediaeval  Church  should  be 
merged  into  a  specifically  Romish  Church.  The  decrees  of 
the  council  were  designed  to  be  an  effectual  offset  to  all  the 
characteristic  teachings  of  the  Reformation.  The  attend 
ance  was  small  in  the  earlier  sessions,  but  at  the  end  two 
hundred  and  fifty-five  members  were  present  to  give  their 
signatures,  two  thirds  of  whom,  however,  were  Italians. 

The  Roman  Catechism  was  prepared  in  accordance  with 
the  directions  of  the  council  of  Trent,  but  not  till  after  the 
adjournment.  Owing  to  this  fact,  it  seems  necessary  to 
place  it  in  the  second  rank  of  authorities,  unless  the  Pope's 
approval  of  its  publication  be  regarded  as  his  positive  sanc 
tion  of  its  contents.  It  has  occupied,  on  the  whole,  quite 
an  important  place  among  Romish  standards,  though  the 
Jesuits  in  their  controversy  with  the  Dominicans  on  the 
subject  of  freedom  and  grace  were  disposed  to  challenge  its 
authority. 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       43 


Mohler  places  also  the  Profession  of  the  Tridentine  Faith, 
issued  by  Pius  IV.,  among  authorities  of  the  second  rank, 
but  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Vatican  Council  (1869- 
1870),  it  seems  necessary  to  assign  to  it,  as  well  as  to 
the  bulls  of  Innocent  and  Clement,  unqualified  authority. 
The  first  of  these  documents  presents  a  form  of  assent 
to  the  Nicene  creed  and  to  the  substance  of  the  Trent 
creed,  to  be  signed  by  all  priests  and  teachers  in  Roman 
Catholic  seminaries,  colleges,  and  universities.  The  bull  of 
Innocent  condemns  five  propositions  ascribed  to  the  Jan- 
senists  ;  that  of  Clement,  one  hundred  and  one  sentences 
in  the  Moral  Reflections  of  Quesnel. 

The  most  noteworthy  confessions  of  the  Greek  Church  in 
this  period  were  issued  in  opposition  to  an  abortive  attempt 
to  introduce  Protestant  teachings.  The  agent  of  that  at 
tempt  was  no  less  a  man  than  Cyril  Lucar,  who  became 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  1621.  During  a  residence 
in  Switzerland,  he  had  imbibed  the  Reformed  faith,  and 
the  confession  which  he  prepared  (1629-1683)  distinctly 
asserts  the  main  points  of  the  Calvinistic  system  of  doc 
trine.  Cyril  Lucar  atoned  for  his  innovating  spirit  with 
his  life  in  1638.  Of  the  opposing  confessions,  that  of  Mo- 
gilas  was  the  most  elaborate.  It  was  adopted  in  1643  by  a 
synod  of  Russian  and  Greek  clergy,  and  in  1672  by  the 
synod  of  Jerusalem,  which  at  the  same  time  adopted  the 
Confession  of  Dositheus,  or  the  Eighteen  Decrees. 

3.   AUTHORS  AND  WORKS  OF  SPECIAL  SIGNIFICANCE. 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

I.  LUTHERAN  WRITERS. 

f 
I 

Christian  Liberty  ;    Babylonish  1 
Captivity    of    the     Christian 

Martin  Luther      ....-{ 

Church;  The  Enslaved  Will;  }• 

A.  D.  1546 

1 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 

I 

the  Galatians,  etc  J 

Philip  Melanclithou      .     .  < 

Loci  Theologici   (Fundamentals  I 
ofTheoloerv)                            .( 

1568 

44 


HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

Andreas  Osiander 

A.  D.  1552 

Justus  Jonas    

1555 

Nicolas  Armsdorf     . 

1565 

Victorin  Strigel    .... 

1569 

On  the   Personal   Union  of  the  1 

1570 

Joachim  "Westpnjil        .     . 

Two  Natures  in  Christ    .     .      J 

1574 

Matthias  Flacius  .... 

1575 

Martin  Chemnitz  .     .     .     .  -| 

Examination  of  the  Council  of] 
Trent  ;  On  the  Two  Natures  in  [• 
Christ                                           J 

1580 

Tilemann  Heshusius 

1588 

Jacob  Andreil 

1590 

1592 

Jacob  Heerbrand 

1000 

^Egidius  Hurmius      .     .     . 
Eeonhard  Hutter 

Saxon  Visitation  Articles  .     .     . 

1003 
1610 

Matthias  Haffenreffer 

1619 

Joh  Arndt                      . 

True  Christianity  

1021 

Joh.  Gerhard   <j 

Loci  Theologici  ;   Catholic  Con-  ) 

1037 

Melchior  Nicolai 

1650 

1054 

George  Calixtus  ....-{ 
Joh   Hul^emann 

Disputations    on    the    Principal  ] 
Subjects  of  the  Christian  Reli 
gion  ;    Epitome  of  Theology;  [ 
Desire   and  Effort  for  Eccle- 
siasticai  Concord    J 

1650 
1001 

1064 

Joli   C  Dannliauer 

1006 

f 

Treatises  in  Refutation  of  Her-] 
bertof  Cherbury  and  of  Spino-  | 
za  ;  On  the  Use  of  the  Princi-  }• 

1081 

Abraham  Calov  ....-{ 
j^ 

pies  of  Reason  and  Philosophy  | 
in  Theological  Controversies  .  J 
System  of  the  Fundamentals  of] 
Theology  (Sy  sterna  Locorum  J- 
Theol  )                                          J 

1G80 

Joh.  A.  Quenstedt    .     .     . 
J.  W.  Baier      

Didactico-Polemic  Theology  .     . 
Compendium  of  Positive  Theology 

1088 
1095 

Phil.  J.  Spener     .     . 

1705 

David  Hollaz 

Examcn  Theolo^icum   .... 

1713 

J.  G.  Arnold     

1714 

Andreas  Hoohstetter 

1718 

A  H.  Francke 

1727 

Christian  Thomasius 

1728 

II.   REFORMED  WRITERS 
ON  THE  CONTINENT. 
f 
Ulrich  Zwingli      ....-{ 

i 

Commentary  on   the  True   and  ] 
the  False  Religion  ;  Sermon  on  ! 
Providence.    (  See  also  the  Ta-  j 
ble  of  Confessions.)     .     .    .     .J 

1531 

1517-1720.]   FACTOES  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.      45 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

f 

John  Calvin     •{ 
[ 

Institutes  of  the  Christian  Reli-") 
gion  ;    Commentaries    on   the  }• 
Scriptures      ....                 J 

A.  D.  1564 

1541 

Martin  Bucer 

1551 

Peter  Martyr 

1562 

1563 

1564 

Benj   Avetius 

1574 

Henry  Bullinger  .     .     .     .  < 
Zacliarias  Ursinus     .     .     .  < 

Sermons  (and   Second  Helvetic 
Confession)    
Heidelberg   Catechism  (assisted 
by  Olevianus)                               f 

1575 

1583 

Girolamo  Zanchi  .     .     .     .-{ 
Antoine  tie  Chandieu 

The  Nature  of  God  ;  The  Works  ] 
of  God    created    in    the    Six  )• 
Days  ;  Predestination     .     .     .  J 

1590 
1591 

1002 

f 
Theodore  Beza     ....-{ 

Joh  Drusius 

Confession  ;  Summary  of  Entire  1 
Christianity,  or  Description  and 
Distribution  of  the  Causes  of  | 
the  Salvation  of  the  Elect  and  }• 
the  Destruction  of  the  Repro 
bate  ;  Summary  of  Doctrine  ou 
the  Subject  of  the  Sacraments  J 

1605 
1616 

Joh.  Piscator    

1625 

John  Cameron 

1625 

Joh   Wolleb 

1626 

J.  A.  Alsted     

1638 

Francis  Gomar     .... 
Joh.  H.  Altinf      .... 

Commentaries  ;  Theological  Dis-  I 
putations  and  Tracts  .     .     .     .  ) 

1641 
1644 

Joh.  jVlaccovius 

1644 

Friedrich  Spanheim 

1649 

Gerard  J.  Vossius     .     .     . 
Andre  Rivet     .... 

Tractatus  Theologici     .... 

1649 
1651 

David  Blondel 

1655 

Pierre  du  Moulin 

1658 

Louis  Cappel 

1658 

Mo'ise  Amyraut    .... 
Josue  La  Place  (Placaeus)  .  \ 

Treatise  on  Predestination     .     . 
On  the  Imputation  of  the  First  ) 
Sin  of  Adam      J 

1664 
1605 

Joli  Iloornbeclc        . 

1606 

Joh   Cocceius                       •{ 

Summary  of  Doctrine  concerning  ] 

1669 

Jean  Daille            .... 

of  God;  Summary  of  Theology  J 

1670 

Samuel  Maresius 

1673 

Lucas  Gernler 

1675 

Gisbertus  Voetius     .     .     . 
Abraham  Heidanus  . 

Select  Theological  Disputations 

1676 
1678 

James  Altin|T 

1679 

Francis  Burrmann 

1679 

Francis  Turretin  .... 

Institute  of  Elenchical  Theology 

1687 

46 


HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

f 

Job.  H.  Heidegger    .     .     .  -j 
Balthasar  Becker      .     .     . 

Helvetic    Consensus    Formula  ;  ] 
Body  of  Christian  Theology  ;  >• 
Marrow  of  Christian  Theology  J 

A.  D.  1698 
1698 

1708 

Melchior  Leydecker 

1721 

Gampe°'ius  Vitrino-a( 

1722 

III.    SOCINIAN  WRITERS. 
Laslius  Socinus 

1562 

Geo.  Schumann    .... 
Faustus  Socinus  .     .     .     .  -I 

Cracovian  Catechism     .... 
Theological  Lectures  ;  Concern-  1 
ing  Christ  as  Saviour;  Dispu-  [ 
tation   on   the    Invocation    of  j 
Jesus  Christ                                 j 

1591 
1604 

Valentine  Schmalz  ... 
Johannes  Crell     .... 

I 

J.  L.  Wolzogen    .    .     .     .  \ 

Racovian  Catechism  (assisted  by  ) 
Joh.  Volkel  and  others)  .     .     .  J 
Commentaries  ;  God  and  his  At-  1 
tributes  ;   Tract  on  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  Reply  to  the  Book  of  i 
Hugo  Grotius  on  the  Satisfac-  | 
tiori  of  Christ  ;  Two  Books  on 
the  One  God  the  Father     .     .  j 
Compendium   of    the   Christian  1 
Religion              \ 

1633 
1658 

Jonas  Schlichtingius 

1664 

Andrew  "Wi*sowatius 

1678 

IV.  ARMINIAN  WRITERS. 

f 
James  Arminius  ...     .1 

Declaration  of  Opinions  on  Pre-  1 
destination,    etc.,   before    the  1 
States  of  Holland  ;  Theologi-  | 
cai  Orations  and  Disputations  J 

1609 

1622 

Simon  Episcopius      .     .     . 

Theological  Institutes    .... 

1643 
1544 

Hugo  Grotius  -| 

On  the  Truth  of  the  Christian] 
Religion;  Defence  of  the  Cath-  ! 
olic  Faith  respecting  the  Satis-  | 

1645 

Stephanus  Curcellasus  .     . 
Philip  van  Limborch 

Institute  of  the  Christian  Religion 

1659 
1712 

Jean  Le  Clerc  (Clcricus)  .  j 

V.   WRITERS   or   GREAT 
BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND. 

1.    Episcopalians, 
Hugh  La  timer 

Disquisitions  concerning  the  In-  ) 
spirationof  the  Holy  Scriptures  ) 

1736 
1555 

Nicholas  Ridley    .    .    .    .  J 

Treatise   against    the    Error   of") 
Transubstantiation  ;    Disputa-  J- 

1555 

John  Hooper   . 

1555 

1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       47 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

Thomas  Cranraer     .     .     .  j 

Answer  to  Gardiner  (on  the  Eu-  ) 
charist)                    .                     C 

A.  D.  1550 

15G3 

John  Jewell     -1 

Apology  of  the  Church  of  Eng-  } 
land  ;   Treatise  on  the  Sacra-  |- 
ments                                            j 

1571 

1575 

William  Whitaker    .     .     . 

1595 

Richard  Hooker   .... 

William  Perkins  .    .    .    .  J 
[ 

The  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity 
The  Order  of  Predestination  in  ] 
the  Mind  of  God  ;  Treatise  on  ! 
God's  Free  Grace  and  Man's  [ 
Free  Will  J 

1600 
1602 

John  Whit'nft 

1604 

1626 

Thomas  Jackson  . 

1640 

John  Davenant                   . 

1641 

William  Chillingworth  .     .  < 
^Villiam  Laud 

The   Religion   of  Protestants  a  \ 
Safe  Way  to  Salvation  .     .     .  j 

1644 
1645 

John  Forbes     
John  Prideaux      .... 

Historico-Theologieal  Instructions 

1648 
1650 

John  Smith           .          .     . 

Select  Sermons 

1652 

James  Usher    -4 

Body  of  Divinity  (by   question  } 
and  answer)  ;  Intent  and  Ex-  ! 

1656 

tent  of  Christ's  Death  and  Sat-  | 
isfaction                                        j 

Joseph  Hall     j 

The  Old   Religion  ;    Episcopacy  / 

1656 

John  Hales  ....           < 

by  Divine  Right  ;  Via  Media  .  ) 
Treatise  on  Schism,  and  on  the  \ 

1656 

Lord's  Supper    ...              .  \ 

Henry  Hammond 

1660 

13  r  van  Walton 

1661 

John  Bramhall     .... 

1663 

Jeremy  Taylor     .     .     .     .  j 
John  Lightfoot 

Treatises   on   Baptism,  Original  ) 
Sin,  Episcopacy,  etc  ) 

1667 
1675 

Isaac  Barrow  

Sermons  

1677 

William  Outram  .... 

1679 

Benj.  Whichcote  .... 

Robert  Leigliton  .... 

Sermons  and  Aphorisms     .     .     . 
Sermons  and  Theological  Lectures 
Exposition  of  the  Creed 

1683 
1684 
1686 

Henry  More     < 

Antidote  to  Atheism;  Immortal-  I 

1687 

Ralph  Cudwortli  .     .     .     .  j 

ity  of  the  Soul     j 
The  True  Intellectual  System  of) 
the  Universe  ;  Immutable  Mo-  ! 
rality  ;  The  True  Notion  of  the  j 
Lord's  Supper                               j 

1688 

Edward  Pocock    .... 

1691 

John  Tillotson      .... 

Sermons  

1694 

Edward  Stillingfleet      .     .  j 

Irenicum  ;   Rational  Account  of] 
the  Grounds  of  the  Protestant  >• 
Religion    j 

1690 

Simon  Patrick  . 

1707 

48 


HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 


Most  Important  Works. 

William  Sherlock     .     .     .  J 

Discourse  of  Divine  Providence  ;  } 
Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  }• 
the  Trinity                                   J 

John  Mill     .         .     . 

George  Bull     ...           •{ 

Sermons;    Apostolic   Harmony:"] 
Apology  for  the  "  Harmony  "  •  i- 

John  Norris      

Defence  of  the  Nicene  Faith    .'  j 

Edward  Fowler    .... 

Gilbert  Burnet      .     .     .     .  j 

Exposition    of    the   Thirty-nine  ( 
Articles     .     .  J 

Robert  South  .... 

Sermons        .     .              .          . 

Joseph  Bingham  .... 
Daniel  Whitby     .     .     .     .  j 

Samuel  Clarke     .    .    .    .  J 

Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church 
Discourses   on   Election,  Repro-  ( 
bation,  etc  $ 
Being  and    Attributes   of  God  ;  ] 
Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trin-  j- 
ity    . 

Daniel  Waterland    .     .     . 

2.    Scotch  Presbyterians. 
John  Ivnox 

Vindication  of  Christ's  Divinity 

Andrew  Melville 

Alex.  Henderson  .... 
Samuel  Rutherford  .     .     . 

Solemn  League  and  Covenant    . 
The  Covenant  of  Life  opened,  etc. 

Thomas  Halyburton      .     .  -| 
I 
o.   English    Presbyterians 

and  Various  Classes 
of  Nonconformists. 

Thomas  Cartwright  . 

Inquiry   into   the    Principles   of) 
Modern  Deists;  Natural  Reli-  j- 
gion  Insufficient     j 

William  Twisse    .     .     .     .  < 
John  Arrowsmith     .     .     .  < 

Richard  Baxter     .     .     .     -| 
Edmund  Calamy  .... 

Claims  of  the  Grace,  Power,  and  \ 
Providence  of  God     .     .     .     .  j 
Westminster  Catechisms  (assist-  1 
eel  by  Dr.  Tuckney  and  others)  ( 
Saints'  Everlasting  Rest  ;  Unrea-  1 
sonableness  of  Infidelity  ;  The 
Reasons  of  the  Christian  Reli 
gion  ;  Universal  Redemption  .  j 

John  Robinson     .... 

John  Goodwin      .... 
Philip  Nye  .     , 

Redemption  Redeemed  .... 

f 

John  Milton     \ 
Thomas  Goodwin 

Paradise    Lost  ;      Paradise    Re-  ] 
gained  ;    Of  Reformation  ;    Of  ! 
Prelatical  Episcopacy  ;    Trea-  f 
tise  on  Christian  Doctrine  .     .  J 

Date  of 
Death. 


A.  D. 1707 

1708 
1708 

1710 

1711 
1713 
1714 

1715 

1716 
1723 

1726 


1729 
1740 


1572 
1622 
1046 
1661 
1662 

1712 


1603 
1646 

1659 

1691 

1732 

1625 
1665 
1672 

1675 
1679 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       49 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

f 

John  0  wen  .    .     •    •     .     .  •{ 

Doctrineof  Justification  by  Faith;  1 
A   Display   of    Arminianism  ;  1 

A.D.  1683 

The   Doctrine   of   the  Saints'  | 
Perseverance     J 

John  Howe      < 

The    Living  Temple  ;    Inquiry  J 
concerning  the  Trinity   .     .     .  J 

1705 
1714 

John  Bunyan  < 
Robert  Barclay     .     .    .     .  j 

Confession;  Doctrine  of  Law  and  ) 
Grace  Unfolded      f 
An  Apology  for  the  True  Chris-  / 
tian  Divinity      ( 

1688 
1690 

George  Fox                   . 

1691 

William  Penn  -1 

The  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken  ;  1 
The  Great  Case  of  Liberty  of  i- 

1718 

Conscience    .     .                  .1 

VI.  WRITERS  CONNECTED 
WITH  NEW  ENGLAND. 

1641 

Thomas  Hooker  . 

1647 

John  Cotton 

The  Covenant  of  Grace 

1652 

1669 

Cotton  "Mather      .... 

1728 

Roger  Williams   .     .    .     .  < 

VII.  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
WRITERS. 

Thomas  Cajetan  .... 

The  Bloody  Tenet  of  Persecu-  ) 
tion  for  Cause  of  Conscience  .  J 

1683 
1534 

Desiderius  Erasmus 

The  Free  Will  

1536 

Albert  Pighius     .    .    .    .  J 

On  Man's  Free  Will  and  Divine  ] 
Grace,  against  Luther,  Calvin,  [• 
and  others     J 

1542 

Job.  Eck      

1543 

Joh   Cochlaeus 

1552 

1560 

1583 

Carlo  Borromeo    .... 

1584 

Alphonso  Salmeron  . 

1585 

Petrus  Canisius    .... 
Louis  Molina   ....       \ 

Summary  of  Christian  Doctrine 
On  the  Concord  of  the  Free  Will  / 

1597 
1601 

Gregory  of  Valencia     .     .' 

with  the  Gifts  of  Grace  .     .     .  } 
Analysis  of  the  Catholic  Faith   . 

1603 
1604 

Francisco  Suarez      .     .     .-1 

Metaphysical  Disputations;    Onl 
the   Concursus   of    God  ;     On  [ 
God's   Knowledge   of   Future  f 
Contingencies,  etc  J 

1617 
1619 

f 
Robert  Bellarmin     .     .     .  -j 

Disputations  on  the  Controversies  "1 
of  the  Christian  Faith  against  > 
the  Heretics  of  this  Age      .    .  J 

1621 
1622 

VOL.    II.  —  4. 

50 


HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 


Most  Important  Works. 

Date  of 
Death. 

Martin  Becanus   .     . 

A  D  1624 

Adam  Tanner  

1632 

Dionysius  Petavius  .     .    . 
Laurent  Forer      . 

Theological  Dogmas      .... 

1652 
1659 

Blaise  Pascal                        \ 

Provincial  Letters  ;  Thoughts  on  ) 

1662 

Relicrion                   .              •       \ 

John  Bona        

1674 

Pierre  Nicole        .... 

Theological  and  Moral  Instructions 

1685 

f 
Antoine  Arnauld  ....-{ 

Louis  de  Thomassin      .     . 
Jacques  B.  Bossuet  •     •     •  j 
J.  B.  du  Hamel    .... 

The  Ne\v  Heresy  (against  Jesu-  ") 
its);     The  Perpetuity  of  the  1 
Faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  j 
respecting  the  Eucharist     .     .  J 
Theological  Dogmas      .... 
Exposition  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  ] 
Catholic   Church  ;    History  of  | 
the  Variations  of  Protestant-  ! 
isrn  ;  Defence  of  the  Declara-  j 
tion  of  the  French  Clergy  on 
Ecclesiastical  Power  .    .    .    .  j 

1694 
1695 

1704 
1706 

Richard  Simon     .     .     .     .  ] 

Critical  History  of  the  Old  Tes-  ) 
tament       ...          .                 ( 

1712 

Francis  S.  de  la  M.  Fenelon  j 

Pasquier  Quesnel  .... 
Natalis  Alexander 

Explanation  of  the  Maxims  of  the  1 
Saints  on  the  Inner  Life     .     .  J 
Moral  Reflections  

1715 

1719 
1724 

In  Luther  and  Melanchthon  the  Lutheran  Church  had  a 
double  source  of  theology.  While  these  two  master  teach 
ers  agreed  at  the  initial  stage  of  the  Reformation,  they  came 
ultimately  to  represent  quite  different  dogmatic  tenden 
cies.  Melanchthon  in  course  of  time  modified  his  position 
on  the  absolute  working  of  divine  grace,  and  showed  an  in 
clination  toward  Calvinistic  views  of  the  Eucharist  and  of 
Christology,  as  opposed  to  Luthcrs  tenets  on  these  subjects. 
That  this  drift  of  the  younger  theologian  was  not  allowed 
to  rupture  the  friendship  between  him  and  his  powerful 
associate  is  probably  to  be  taken  rather  as  an  evidence  of 
the  strength  of  that  friendship,  than  of  any  essential  change 
of  view  in  Luther's  mind.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  in 
his  later  years  he  may  have  been  less  vehemently  attached 
to  some  of  his  most  radical  theories  than  at  an  earlier  stage. 
In  the  Confessions,  greater  tribute,  on  the  whole,  was  paid  to 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       51 

Luther's  views  than  to  those  of  Melanchthon ;  but  the  lat 
ter  left  their  impress,  and  remained  as  a  permanent  factor  in 
the  theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Indeed,  as  respects 
the  subject  of  predestination,  the  teaching  of  Melanchthon 
was  destined  to  receive  by  far  the  wider  patronage. 

Among  remaining  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  none  can  claim  a  higher  rank  than  Martin  Chem 
nitz,  a  broad-minded  theologian,  and  a  disciple  in  some  re 
spects  of  Melanchthon.  An  influential  position  was  also 
held  by  John  Brenz,  Jacob  Andrea,  and  JEgidius  Hunnius. 

The  seventeenth  century  was  the  great  era  of  Lutheran 
dogmatism.  Many  ponderous  works,  rivalling  in  the  mul 
titude  of  their  distinctions  the  elaborate  productions  of 
the  mediaeval  scholastics,  were  sent  forth.  The  first  place 
among  the  Lutheran  scholastics  of  this  century  is  to  be 
given  to  John  Gerhard.  While  disposed  to  follow  the  lines 
of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  he  followed  them  as  a  man  of  great 
learning  and  mental  grasp.  The  most  distinguished  repre 
sentative  of  the  more  liberal  spirit  in  theology  in  the  same 
era  was  George  Calixtus.  The  second  place  in  the  same 
general  class  is  to  be  assigned  to  John  Musseus.  Dorner 
speaks  of  him  as,  next  to  Calixtus  and  Gerhard,  the  greatest 
theologian  of  the  century.  As  exponents  of  the  dogmatism 
and  controversial  zeal  of  the  times  a  prominent  place  be 
longs  to  John  Quenstcdt  and  Abraham  Calov. 

The  Reformed  theology  likewise  had  a  double  source. 
Zvvingli  and  Calvin,  with  all  their  points  of  doctrinal  affin 
ity,  differed  to  a  noticeable  degree.  Zwingli,  a  man  of  keen 
judgment,  with  little  appreciation  of  the  mystical,  was  dis 
posed  to  answer  the  problems  of  theology  in  accordance 
with  the  dictates  of  the  practical  reason.  Calvin,  a  man  of 
logical  temper  and  speculative  faculty,  and  less  remote  than 
Zwingli  from  mysticism,  was  inclined  to  solve  theological 
problems  according  to  the  demands  of  certain  fundamen 
tal  conceptions  of  God's  nature  and  of  the  unquestionable 
authority  of  His  Word.  Zwingli's  system  appears,  on  the 


52  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

whole,  the  more  moderate.  His  theory  of  original  sin  was 
milder  than  that  of  Calvin,  his  doctrine  of  the  sacraments 
less  mystical,  his  teaching  on  predestination  more  liberal  as 
respects  the  scope  of  the  divine  choice  unto  eternal  life, 
though  quite  as  radical  as  respects  the  unconditional  char 
acter  of  that  choice.  The  great  Confessions  of  the  Re 
formed  Church  reflect  the  Calvinian  rather  than  the  Zwin- 
glian  type  of  doctrine.  But  the  latter  was  destined  to  a 
wide  patronage.  Affinity  with  several  of  its  distinct  features 
may  be  seen,  not  only  in  Arminianism,  but  in  some  of  the 
later  developments  of  communions  that  primarily  adhered 
quite  strictly  to  the  Calvinistic  type.  An  effectual  means 
of  perpetuating  Calvin's  influence  was  embodied  in  his 
famous  Institutes.  This  is  no  doubt  a  great  work,  and, 
despite  some  extreme  phases,  may  justly  entitle  Calvin  to 
be  called  the  ablest  apologist  of  the  Reformation  which  the 
sixteenth  century  produced. 

Among  the  theologians  who  followed  Zwingli  and  Calvin 
as  teachers  of  the  Swiss  churches,  a  foremost  place  belongs 
to  Henry  Bullinger,  Theodore  Beza,  Francis  Turretin,  and 
John  H.  Heidegger. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  Holland 
appears  as  the  most  distinguished  seat  of  theological  litera 
ture  in  the  Reformed  Church.  The  records  of  her  univer 
sities  present,  for  this  era,  a  long  list  of  theologians,  from 
which,  however,  it  is  difficult  to  specify  names,  since  many 
appear  as  of  about  equal  reputation.  Gomar  and  Voetius  are 
noted  as  representatives  of  a  stringent  dogmatism,  the  one 
against  Arminianism,  and  the  other  against  Cartesianism. 
Vossius  and  Yitringa  are  in  high  repute  as  accomplished 
scholars.  Coccejus  is  remembered  as  a  distinguished 
founder  of  the  "federal  theology."  He  marked  also  an 
era  by  fostering  the  Biblical  method  of  theology,  as  op 
posed  to  the  scholastic. 

After  the  founder,  the  most  important  exponents  of 
Arminianism  as  a  whole  were  Episcopius,  Curcella3us, 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       53 

and  Limborch.  These  three  represent  substantially  the 
same  system  of  thought.  Grotius,  commonly  reputed  to 
have  been  the  broadest  scholar  of  the  age,  made  important 
contributions  to  Christian  apology  and  soteriology. 

A  particular  controversy,  rather  than  their  general  im 
portance  in  theology,  gave  prominence  to  such  French 
Protestants  as  Du  Moulin,  Amyraut,  and  Placa^us.  John 
Cameron,  a  forerunner  of  Amyraut,  is  given  in  the  table 
among  Continental  theologians ;  for,  though  a  Scotchman 
by  birth,  he  appears  in  history  as  a  teacher  in  France. 

After  Cranmer,  Bishop  Jewell  and  Richard  Hooker 
deserve  special  mention  among  the  writers  of  the  English 
Church  in  the  sixteenth  century.  In  the  next  century  an 
important  place  was  held  in  the  English  (or  the  Irish) 
Establishment  by  Archbishop  Usher,  Bishop  Joseph  Hall, 
Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  Bishop  George  Bull.  The 
talent  of  Hall  and  Taylor  was  indeed  more  literary  than 
dogmatic,  but  a  measure  of  doctrinal  import  pertains  to 
their  works.  In  the  same  century  we  have,  as  distin 
guished  representatives  of  the  broader  and  more  rational 
spirit  in  the  Church,  besides  some  of  the  Cambridge  Plato- 
nists,  Chillingworth,  John  Hales  of  Eton,  Stillingfleet,  and 
Tillotson.  Among  those  who  figured  in  the  closing  years 
of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  first  part  of  the  eigh 
teenth,  special  mention  may  be  made  of  Sherlock,  Burnet, 
South,  and  Clarke.  Waterland  as  a  writer  falls  mainly 
within  the  bounds  of  the  next  period. 

A  glance  at  the  table  will  supply  the  list  of  the  more 
distinguished  representatives  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism. 
In  England  the  essentials  of  Presbyterianism  were  stoutly 
championed  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  by  Thomas 
Cartwright.  The  Westminster  divines,  with  \Yilliam  Twisse 
at  their  head,  were  its  stanch  representatives  at  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  Richard  Baxter,  a  voluminous 
writer  of  controversial  theology,  as  well  as  a  distinguished 
author  of  practical  treatises,  can  hardly  be  identified  with 


54  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

any  one  party.  He  held  a  position  analogous  in  some  re 
spects  to  that  of  Amyraut  in  France,  seeking,  without 
definitely  breaking  with  Calvinism,  to  soften  as  much  as 
possible  its  theoretical  asperities.  The  Independents  sup 
plied  such  able  writers  as  John  Owen  and  John  Howe ; 
and  we  might  also  add  the  no  less  able  John  Goodwin,  if 
it  were  proper  to  regard  a  man  of  such  independent  mind 
as  representing  anybody  but  himself.  He  occupied  a  sin 
gular  position  among  the  sectaries  of  his  age,  in  resolutely 
and  elaborately  assailing  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  un 
conditional  predestination  and  a  limited  atonement. 

Among  Roman  Catholic  dogmatists  of  the  period,  Bel- 
larmin  claims  the  first  place.  A  high  reputation  was 
also  won  by  Petavius  through  his  elaborate  work,  com 
bining  history  and  dogma.  Suarez  acquired  considerable 
fame  as  a  metaphysician.  Bossuet  was  a  powerful  writer 
and  an  effective  apologist,  but  not  in  the  fullest  sense  a 
representative  dogmatist  of  his  Church. 

4.  PARTIES  AND  CONTROVERSIES  WITHIN  THE  LARGER  COM 
MUNIONS.  —  Lutheranism  very  soon  became  a  battle-field  of 
contending  factions.  Some  of  the  strifes  that  arose  origi 
nated  in  the  partisan  zeal  and  mutual  jealousies  of  the 
disciples  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  respectively.  As  in 
the  apostolic  era,  the  friendship  and  general  harmony  be 
tween  Peter  and  Paul  could  not  prevent  their  disciples 
from  engaging  in  disputes  and  contentions,  so  the  close 
bond  between  the  two  Reformers  failed  to  bind  their  fol 
lowers  into  unity  of  spirit.  Admiration  for  Luther,  di 
vorced  from  his  largeness  of  heart,  led  not  a  few  to  accept 
him  as  an  oracle,  and  to  denounce  at  once  anything  which 
appeared  to  disagree  with  his  teaching.  Naturally  such 
zealots  were  poor  interpreters  even  of  the^r  own  oracle, 
and  sometimes  ran  into  extravagance  by  not  properly 
qualifying  one  phase  of  his  teaching  by  reference  to  an 
other.  Thus  abundant  material  for  strife  was  prepared. 
Further  on,  after  the  Church  had  settled  down  upon  its 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       55 

formulas  and  was  bound  with  the  chains  of  a  lifeless  ortho 
doxy,  a  new  source  of  strife  arose  from  the  efforts  of  more 
generous  spirits  to  break  these  chains,  and  to  gain  an  ade 
quate  attention  to  the  demands  of  practical  piety. 

The  first  controversy  which  falls  under  our  notice  is 
that  which  sprang  from  the  Antinomian  doctrine  of  John 
Agricola.  Neglecting  one  part  of  Luther's  teaching,  Agri- 
cola  pushed  the  contrast  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel 
to  an  extreme,  and  declared  that  the  former  belongs  to  the 
external  order  and  is  in  the  province  of  the  magistrate,  — 
that  the  preacher  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  should  not 
attempt  to  make  it  a  means  of  spiritual  nurture.  Luther 
himself  took  part  in  refuting  Agricola. 

Agricola  was  incited  to  a  declaration  of  his  views  by  some 
statements  of  Melanchthon  which  seemed  to  concede  too 
much  to  good  works.  A  kindred  cause  gave  rise  at  a  later 
date  to  a  kindred  declaration.  Melanchthon  had  spoken  of 
works  as  necessary,  not  meaning  thereby  to  inculcate  any 
trust  in  the  merit  of  works,  but  to  emphasize  the  idea  that 
justifying  faith  must  be  an  active  faith.  One  of  his  disci 
ples,  George  Major,  going  a  little  further  in  the  same  direc 
tion,  declared  (1552)  that  works  are  necessary  to  salvation, 
or,  in  other  words,  to  the  continuance  of  the  justification 
which  is  indeed  in  the  first  place  received  by  simple  faith. 
To  the  zealous  Lutherans  this  seemed  a  radical  denial  of 
the  Gospel,  and  one  of  them,  Nicolas  Armsdorf,  even  went 
so  far  in  his  opposition  as  to  indulge  the  expression  that 
good  works  are  dangerous  to  salvation.  The  controversy 
upon  this  point  raged  for  a  score  of  years  or  more. 

The  "  synergcstic"  and  the  "  crypto-Calvinistic  "  contro 
versies  (in  the  third  quarter  of  the  century)  sprang  directly 
from  antagonism  to  Melanchthon's  type  of  doctrine.  The 
former  term  is  indicative  of  the  view,  advocated  by  Major, 
Crell,  Strigel,  and  other  disciples  of  Melanchthon,  that 
there  resides  in  man  a  certain  power  of  co-operating  with 
or  resisting  the  offered  grace  of  God.  Of  course,  all  zeal- 


56  HISTORY  OF   CPIRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

ous  champions  of  Luther's  teaching  challenged  this  theory. 
The  term  crypto-Calvinists  was  reproachfully  applied  to 
the  party  of  Melanchthon  on  account  of  their  leaning  to  the 
Calvinistic  theory  of  the  eucharist.  In  the  Reformation  era 
generally  difference  of  view  on  the  eucharist  was  ready 
fuel  for  strife,  and  the  present  instance  was  no  exception. 
Polemic  zeal  was  kindled  to  a  flame.  Such  weapons  of  or 
thodoxy  as  the  prison  arid  exile  were  freely  used.  One  dis 
tinguished  crypto-Calvinist,  Chancellor  Crell,  was  brought 
to  the  executioner's  block,  ostensibly,  indeed,  for  political 
offences,  but  really  in  satisfaction  of  controversial  rancor. 

The  discussion  of  the  eucharist  naturally  led  into  the 
field  of  Christology,  inasmuch  as  Luther  had  supported  his 
doctrine  of  the  eucharist  by  predicating  the  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body.  From  the  consideration  of  the  single  property 
of  ubiquity,  an  advance  was  naturally  made  to  the  question 
of  the  communication  of  divine  properties  generally  to  the 
human  nature.  It  then  remained  to  reconcile  the  supposi 
tion  of  such  communication  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  humil 
iation,  earthly  life,  and  subsequent  glorification.  Various 
conclusions  were  reached  by  different  parties.  Some,  fol 
lowing  Melanchthon,  denied  the  theory  of  communication  ; 
others  asserted  it  in  the  most  radical  terms  ;  others  still  la 
bored  to  construct  an  intermediate  theory.  The  Formula  of 
Concord  which  attempted  to  settle  this,  as  well  as  the  other 
matters  which  had  been  in  dispute,  failed  of  its  purpose. 
The  controversy  continued  into  the  next  century,  and  in 
deed  did  not  fully  lose  its  momentum  until  it  had  impinged 
against  the  horrors  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 

Other  Lutheran  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  century 
need  here  but  a  bare  mention.  Some  agitation  was  caused 
by  the  theory  of  Andrew  Osiander,  that  justification  is  not 
simply  a  forensic  act,  but  an  actual  impartation  of  right 
eousness  by  an  infusion  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  On 
this  subject  there  was  little  division  into  parties,  Osiander's 
view  being  assailed  by  theologians  generally.  Scarcely 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       57 

more  assent  was  commanded  by  the  theory  which  Matthias 
Flacius  Illyricus  embodied  in  the  strange  assertion  that  ori 
ginal  sin  is  the  very  substance  of  the  fallen  man. 

The  two  great  controversies  inaugurated  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  seventeenth  century  were  in  consequence  of 
reactions  against  the  rigid  and  unspiritual  temper  of  the 
age.  The  first  arose  in  connection  with  the  attempt  of 
George  Calixtus  looking  toward  a  union  of  the  different 
Christian  communions  on  the  basis  of  a  common  alle 
giance  to  the  great  leading  truths  of  Christianity.  Natu 
rally  his  well-meaning  liberality  only  stirred  to  a  fiercer  zeal 
the  self-confident  and  uncompromising  spirit  of  dogmatism 
which  it  opposed.  The  second  controversy  sprang  from 
the  reformatory  movement  inaugurated  by  Spencr  in  the 
last  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  known  as  Pietism. 
This  movement  was  of  a  practical  rather  than  of  a  theologi 
cal  cast.  It  made  a  vigorous  protest  against  resting  in  mere 
dogmatical  distinctions.  Its  aim  was  not  so  much  to  change 
the  dogmas,  as  to  transform  the  lives  of  the  people.  It 
wished  to  add  practice  and  experience  to  theory,  and  to  lead 
men  to  realize  the  gracious  power  of  God  in  their  hearts. 
At  first  it  was  very  generally  reprobated,  and  not  a  few 
theologians  regarded  its  theory  of  the  immediate  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  savoring  of  wild-fire  and  excess  of  en 
thusiasm.  But  Pietism  was  effectively  championed  and 
commanded  quite  a  wide  influence,  especially  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

Reference  should  be  made  to  another  party  in  the  Lu 
theran  Church,  if  party  it  can  be  called,  namely,  the  mys 
tics.  Here  belong  Caspar  Schwenkfeld,  Sebastian  Frank, 
Valentine  Weigel,  and  Jacob  Boehmc,  the  first  two  being 
contemporaries  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  the  third  dy 
ing  in  1588,  and  the  last  in  1624.  They  were  character 
ized  in  common  by  the  disposition  to  rank  the  inner  spirit 
above  the  letter  of  revelation.  Schwenkfeld  was  perhaps 
the  least  given  to  speculative  extravagance.  His  followers 


58  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

assumed  the  status  of  a  distinct  sect.  Frank  and  Weigel 
did  not  stop  much  short  of  pantheism.  Boehme  revelled 
in  visions  of  divine  mysteries,  but  was  far  from  fulfilling 
the  office  of  a  rcvelator  to  the  uninitiated.  While  his 
numerous  writings  contain  not  a  few  gems  of  philosophic 
thought,  they  contain  much  that  is  unintelligible,  if  not 
absurd. 

In  the  Reformed  Church  the  more  important  contro 
versies,  like  the  Arminian  in  Holland,  and  the  Puritan  in 
England,  gave  rise  to  separate  communions,  and  so  have 
already  been  sufficiently  treated  for  our  purpose,  under  the 
first  topic  of  the  present  section.  We  notice  here,  there 
fore,  simply  the  fact  that  the  attempt  of  the  French  school 
of  theologians,  represented  by  Amyraut  and  Placaeus,  to 
modify  some  points  of  Calvinism,  gave  rise  to  quite  an  agi 
tation,  and  that  one  of  the  main  products  of  the  opposition 
which  it  called  forth  was  the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula. 
This  confession  was  designed  to  uphold  the  strict  Calvin- 
istic  faith,  but  was  not  long  in  force. 

Mysticism  did  not  find  a  very  congenial  soil  in  the  Re 
formed  Church,  and  appears  there  largely  as  an  exotic. 
The  English  mystics  of  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  John  Pordage  and  his  associates,  Thomas  Brom 
ley  and  Jane  Leade,  drew  much  of  their  inspiration  from 
Jacob  Boehme,  and  like  him  claimed  to  receive  light  upon 
divine  mysteries  by  means  of  visions.  Jane  Leade  formed 
the  idea  of  gathering  the  illuminated  and  regenerate  in  the 
different  churches  into  societies.  Some  such  societies, 
under  the  name  of  Philadelphians,  were  instituted,  but  did 
not  flourish  to  any  great  extent.  On  the  Continent,  the 
French  enthusiast,  Jean  de  Labadie,  and  Pierre  Poiret,  were 
the  most  noteworthy  Reformed  mystics.  The  disciples  of 
Labadie  formed  a  small  sect  at  Amsterdam.  Poiret,  the 
friend  of  Madame  Bourignon,  and  the  systematizer  of  her 
views,  showed  considerable  genius  for  speculation,  and 
wrote  extensively.  Among  other  novelties,  he  gave  ex- 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.      59 

pression  to  some  very  peculiar  notions  on  the  subject  of 
Christology.     Labadie  died  in  1674,  Poiret  in  1719. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  the  most  noteworthy  par 
ties  which  had  their  origin  in  this  period  were  the  Jesuits 
and  the  Jansenists.  Both  won  great  distinction  in  the  field 
of  theological  literature,  the  Jesuits  supplying  the  great 
est  dogmatic  writers  of  the  Romish  Church,  such  as  Bel- 
larmin  and  Petavius,  and  the  Jansenists  boasting  authors 
of  such  genius  and  ability  as  Pascal  and  Arnauld,  Nicole 
and  Quesncl.  The  great  controversy  of  the  era  was  the 
one  waged  between  these  two  parties,  and  this  was  but  the 
culmination  (with  some  additional  points)  of  a  strife  reach 
ing  back  to  the  time  of  the  Trent  council.  Notwithstand 
ing  the  decisions  of  that  council,  there  was  a  party  in  the 
Church  that  continued  to  cherish  the  Augustinian  doctrines 
on  the  subject  of  grace.  Michael  Baius,  a  teacher  in  the 
university  of  Louvain,  gave  forth  such  an  undiluted  Augus- 
tinianism  that  the  Pope  was  incited,  in  1567,  to  condemn 
seventy-six  of  his  propositions.  He  seems,  however,  to  have 
found  sympathizers  at  his  own  university,  as  well  as  in 
other  quarters  of  the  Netherlands ;  for  we  find  the  theolo 
gians  of  Louvain  and  Douay,  as  also  the  Bclgic  bishops 
exhibiting  a  readiness  to  censure  the  Jesuits  Less  and 
Hamcl,  who  were  charged  with  having  gone  counter  to 
Augustine.  At  this  juncture  fuel  was  added  to  the  fire  by 
the  book  of  the  Spanish  Jesuit  Molina,  published  in  1588, 
under  the  title,  u  Liberi  Arbitrii  Concordia  cum  Gratis 
donis,  Divina  Praescientia,  Providentia,  Prasdestinatione, 
et  Reprobatione."  This  work  took  strong  ground  in  behalf 
of  human  freedom  and  ability.  The  Dominicans,  as  being 
largely  inclined  to  the  Thomist  or  Augustinian  theology, 
at  once  attacked  the  book  of  Molina.  The  Jesuits,  on  the 
other  hand,  though  many  of  them  were  not  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  views  of  Molina,  felt  constrained  as  a  body,  by 
the  pride  of  their  order,  to  defend  him.  A  heated  strife 
ensued.  The  Pope  was  appealed  to,  and  took  the  case 


60  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

under  his  consideration,  but  forbore  to  render  a  positive 
decision.  In  1640,  a  new  turn  was  given  to  the  controversy, 
and  the  defence  of  Augustinianism  passed  into  the  hands 
of  a  new  set  of  champions.  The  occasion  was  the  publi 
cation  of  the  "  Augustinus  "  of  Cornelius  Jansenius,  Bishop 
of  Ypres  in  the  Netherlands.  The  Jesuits  at  once  assailed 
this  work,  and  were  successful  in  eliciting  a  papal  con 
demnation  of  five  of  its  propositions.  On  the  other  hand, 
zealous  friends  of  Augustinianism  undertook  its  defence. 
At  the  same  time,  resorting  to  offensive  measures,  they 
vigorously  attacked  the  Jesuitical  casuistry.  As  respects 
outward  fortunes,  the  Jesuits  were  finally  the  victorious 
party,  and  they  were  able  also  to  point  to  the  bull  Unigeni- 
tus  as  an  authoritative  verdict  of  the  head  of  the  Church 
decidedly  in  their  favor.  The  champions  of  Augustinian 
doctrines  in  this  struggle,  as  defenders  of  the  work  of 
Jansenius,  were  called  Jansenists.  Their  characteristic 
teachings  exhibit,  no  doubt,  a  measure  of  affinity  with 
Protestant  standards.  In  their  doctrines  of  human  in 
ability  and  divine  sovereignty,  they  approached  Protestant 
ism  of  the  Calvinistic  type.  In  their  opposition  to  a  formal 
righteousness,  in  their  emphasis  upon  a  proper  inner  state 
as  a  condition  of  sacramental  benefits,  and  in  their  stress 
upon  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  they  approached  Prot 
estantism  in  general.  But  they  were  themselves  utterly 
unwilling  to  own  any  affiliation  with  the  Church  of  the 
Reformation.  They  wearied  themselves  to  make  out  dis 
tinctions  between  their  doctrines  of  grace  and  those  of 
Calvinism.  They  hated  Protestantism  just  about  as  in 
tensely  as  they  did  Jesuitism.  And  in  this  they  were  not 
altogether  inconsistent;  for  while  in  some  respects  they 
approximated  to  the  teachings  of  the  Reformation,  they 
still  held  views  about  the  outward  unity  of  the  Church, 
and  many  points  in  the  list  of  Romish  dogmas,  utterly 
alien  to  the  spirit  of  Protestantism. 

A  glance  at  the  different  phases  of  this  protracted  con- 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       61 

troversy,  to  say  nothing  about  minor  contentions,  such  as 
that  between  the  Dominicans  and  the  Franciscans  over  the 
immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin,  between  Gallicans 
and  Ultramontanes  respecting  papal  prerogatives,  and  be 
tween  mystics  and  anti-mystics,  cannot  fail  to  convey  the 
impression  that  Roman  Catholicism  in  this  period,  with  its 
one  Church,  was  after  all  not  much  more  homogeneous 
than  Protestantism  with  its  numerous  communions. 

Mysticism,  of  which  there  was  a  plentiful  outcropping 
in  this  period,  was  in  part  persecuted  and  in  part  extolled 
and  canonized  by  the  Romish  Church,  —  persecuted  in  Mo- 
linos,  Madame  Guion,  and  Fenelon,  extolled  in  John  Bona, 
and  canonized  in  Carlo  Borromeo,  Theresa,  and  Francis  de 
Sales.  The  distinction  may  not  have  been  wholly  arbitrary. 
But  certainly,  apart  from  adventitious  circumstances  that 
worked  to  his  prejudice,  there  is  little  reason  why  Fenelon 
should  not  have  been  approved  by  the  Church  that  raised 
Theresa  or  Francis  de  Sales  to  saintship.  The  recent  con 
demnation  of  Molinos,  on  the  score  of  his  pronounced  qui 
etism,  had  caused  a  suspicious  attitude  toward  mysticism. 
Madame  Guion,  as  holding  views  kindred  with  those  of 
Molinos,  had  been  challenged.  Fenelon  thought  her  mis 
understood  and  wronged,  and  undertook  her  defence.  This 
brought  against  himself  a  combination  headed  by  Bossuet. 
Fenelon  was  obliged  to  succumb,  and  to  recant  his  book  on 
the  Maxims  of  the  Saints.  But  though  he  lost  his  cause 
in  this  respect,  he  won  it  in  a  more  extended  sense.  As 
Herder  has  remarked,  "  His  Church  indeed  canonized  him 
not,  but  humanity  has." 


SECTION  III.  —  SCRIPTURE  AND  TRADITION. 

1 .  POINTS  IN  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  ROMANISTS  AND  PROT 
ESTANTS.  -  -  The  main  points  on  which  Romanism  and 
Protestantism  stood  in  definite  contrast  with  each  other 


62  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

concerned  the  canon,  the  standard  Biblical  text,  the  place 
of  tradition,  the  interpretation  and  use  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  grounds  on  which  their  authority  is  acknowledged. 
With  respect  to  the  subject  of  inspiration  they  were  not 
strictly  opposed,  and  some  diversity  of  view  appeared  within 
the  bounds  of  each. 

Although  quite  a  number  of  the  medieval  writers  had 
discriminated  against  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament,  and  a  writer  as  recent  and  prominent  as  Cajetan 
had  expressly  decided  against  admitting  them  to  the  canon, 
the  council  of  Trent  found  little  difficulty  in  uniting  upon 
the  decree  to  place  them  without  distinction  in  the  list  of 
canonical  books.  The  suggestion  of  a  double  list,  in  which 
the  books  that  had  never  been  challenged  should  be  ranked 
first,  though  favored  by  some,  was  unpalatable  to  the  ma 
jority.  (See  Gerhard's  quotations  from  Cajetan  and  others, 
Locus  I.  §§  89-95;  Sarpi,  History  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
Book  II.,  translated  by  Nathanael  Brent.)  The  result  was 
that  the  standard  Old  Testament  of  the  Romish  Church 
contains,  besides  the  Hebrew  canon  proper,  Tobit,  Judith, 
Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch  (including  the  Epistle  of 
Jeremiah),  the  two  Books  of  Maccabees,  and  additions  to 
Esther  and  Daniel. 

The  anathema  was  declared  against  any  who  should  not 
receive  the  full  list  of  books  (the  apocryphal  included),  as 
contained  in  "  the  old  Latin  vulgate  edition,"  and  this  edi 
tion  was  decreed  to  be  authentic  in  the  following  terms  : 
"  The  sacred  and  holy  synod  ordains  and  declares,  that  the 
said  old  and  vulgate  edition,  which,  by  the  lengthened  usage 
of  so  many  ages,  has  been  approved  of  in  the  Church,  be, 
in  public  lectures,  disputations,  sermons,  and  expositions, 
held  as  authentic  ;  and  that  no  one  is  to  dare  or  presume  to 
reject  it  under  any  pretext  whatever."  (Session  IV.)  This 
decree,  according  to  Sarpi,  commanded  a  very  general  as 
sent,  though  a  few  voices  were  raised  in  favor  of  the  idea 
that  no  translation  ought  to  be  regarded  as  by  any  means 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       63 

on  an  equality  with  the  original.  The  authentic  character 
assigned  to  the  Vulgate  is  not  understood,  says  Bellarmin, 
to  mean  that  it  is  free  from  all  mistakes,  but  only  from 
serious  errors,  or  such  as  affect  faith  and  morals.  Among 
excuses  for  preferring  it  to  the  original,  he  alleges  that 
the  extant  manuscripts  of  the  original  are  not  altogether 
trustworthy,  and  that  the  Latin  Church,  as  it  was  more 
orthodox  than  the  Greek,  may  be  presumed  to  have  been 
more  careful  than  the  latter  to  guard  its  copies  of  the  Scrip 
tures  from  corruption.  (De  Verbo  Dei,  Lib.  II.  cap.  11.) 

The  language  of  the  council  of  Trent  implies  that  the 
Church  is  in  possession  of  traditions  which  are  of  equal  au 
thority  with  the  Scriptures,  and  that  these  traditions  had 
their  primary  source  in  oral  teachings  of  the  apostles,  which 
they  received  from  Christ  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  After  a  ref 
erence  to  such  traditions,  the  decree  reads  as  follows  :  "  The 
synod  receives,  and  venerates  with  an  equal  affection  of  piety 
and  reverence,  all  the  books  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  also  the  said  traditions,  as  well  those  apper 
taining  to  faith  as  to  morals,  as  having  been  dictated,  either 
by  Christ's  own  word  of  mouth,  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
preserved  in  the  Catholic  Church  by  a  continuous  succes 
sion."  Bellarmin  distinguishes  three  classes  of  traditions, 
the  divine,  the  apostolic,  and  the  ecclesiastical.  The  first 
and  second  of  these,  the  one  resting  on  the  sayings  of 
Christ,  and  the  other  on  those  of  the  apostles,  are  declared 
by  him  to  have  the  same  force  as  the  Gospels  and  Epistles. 
(De  Verbo  Dei,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  2.)  In  harmony  with  the 
council  of  Trent,  Bellarmin  teaches  that  in  matters  of  faith 
an  authoritative  tradition  cannot  have  its  primary  source 
short  of  the  apostles.  From  this  it  would  seem  to  follow 
that  the  historical  must  be  the  one  valid  test  of  tradition. 
But  that  is  by  no  means  the  position  taken  by  Bellarmin. 
He  gives  indeed  a  place  to  historical  investigation  in  his 
total  list  of  tests  ;  but  he  allows  other  grounds  of  conclu 
sion  to  be  decisive  apart  from  this.  "  When  the  Universal 


64  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

Church,"  he  says,  "  embraces  anything  as  a  dogma  of  the 
faith,  which  is  not  found  in  the  Divine  Word,  it  is  neces 
sary  to  say  that  it  is  derived  from  apostolic  tradition.  The 
reason  of  this  is  the  following.  Inasmuch  as  the  Universal 
Church  cannot  err,  since  it  is  the  pillar  and  foundation  of 
the  truth,  certainly  what  the  Church  believes  to  be  of  the 
faith  is  without  doubt  of  the  faith ;  but  nothing  is  of  the 
faith  except  that  which  God  has  revealed  through  apos- 
tle-s  or  prophets,  or  which  is  evidently  deduced  from  those 
sources."  (Ibid.,  cap.  9.)  Again  he  remarks  :  "  When  the 
Universal  Church  holds  to  anything  which  no  one  but  God 
was  able  to  ordain,  which,  nevertheless,  is  nowhere  found 
in  written  form,  it  is  necessary  to  say  that  it  was  handed 
down  from  Christ  and  his  apostles."  (Ibid.)  Now  Bel- 
larmin  elsewhere  defines  the  Church  in  terms  which  make 
it  identical  with  the  papal  communion.  Practically,  there 
fore,  on  his  principles,  the  authority  of  tradition  is  the  au 
thority  of  the  papal  communion  of  the  present ;  in  other 
words,  the  authority  of  the  pope,  or  at  most  of  the  pope 
and  the  council.  In  thus  throwing  the  main  stress  upon 
the  infallibility  and  present  authority  of  the  Church,  Bel- 
larmin  was  true  to  the  shrewdest  instincts  of  Romanism, 
and  chose  the  securest  pathway  for  escaping  the  inconveni 
ences  of  history.  Bossuet,  with  less  arbitrariness,  but  also 
with  less  caution,  staked  the  cause  of  his  Church  to  a  lar 
ger  degree  upon  historical  proofs.  "  The  Catholic  Church," 
he  says,  "  so  far  from  endeavoring  to  tyrannize  over  the 
belief  of  her  members,  on  the  contrary  has  employed  every 
possible  expedient  to  bind  herself,  and  to  deprive  herself  of 
the  means  of  introducing  innovations.  For  these  ends,  not 
only  does  she  submit  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures ;  but  in  order 
to  stay  or  forever  banish  any  arbitrary  interpretations,  — 
which  cause  sometimes  the  thoughts  of  men  to  pass  for 
Scripture,  —  she  ties  herself,  moreover,  to  interpret,  and 
understand,  whatsoever  belongs  to  faith  and  morals,  ac 
cording  to  the  interpretation  and  sense  of  the  holy  fathers. 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       65 

She  solemnly  professes,  that,  from  the  interpretations  of 
these  enlightened  personages  she  will  on  no  occasion  de 
viate.  She  declares  in  all  her  councils,  as  well  as  in  all 
her  professions  and  instruments  of  faith,  that  she  does  not 
receive  any  article  of  belief  which  is  not  exactly  conforma 
ble  to  the  tradition  of  each  and  every  preceding  century." 
(Exposition  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church.) 

In  conformity  with  these  sentiments,  Bossuet  was  much 
exercised  over  the  statements  of  Simon,  that  Augustine 
in  his  doctrines  of  grace  was  an  innovator,  and  drew  the 
Church  of  the  Occident  away  from  its  primitive  standpoint 
upon  this  subject.  Such  teaching,  he  declared  (in  his  De 
fense  de  la  Tradition),  was  in  no  way  to  be  reconciled  with 
the  integrity  of  tradition  and  the  doctrinal  authority  of  the 
Church,  —  a  hazardous  ground  for  an  apologist  of  Roman 
ism  to  stand  upon,  for  the  history  of  doctrine  makes  noth 
ing  clearer  than  that  Augustine  in  some  of  the  distinctive 
points  of  his  teaching  went  counter,  not  merely  to  the  great 
body  of  preceding  Catholic  writers,  but  to  every  one  of  them 
who  passed  any  definite  verdict  on  the  same  points,  and, 
moreover,  that  in  his  new  departure  he  was  followed  to  a 
very  considerable  extent  by  the  Latin  Church.  A  safer 
course  would  have  been  to  put  dogmatic  authority  in  the 
foreground,  and  leave  history,  as  best  it  might,  to  adjust  it 
self  thereto,  after  the  prescription,  for  example,  of  Pedro 
de  Soto.  u  It  is  an  infallible  and  catholic  rule,"  says  this 
writer,  "  that  whatever  things  the  Roman  Church  believes, 
holds,  and  maintains,  that  arc  not  contained  in  the  Scrip 
tures,  were  handed  down  from  the  apostles  ;  likewise,  that  all 
those  observances  whose  beginning  or  origin  is  unknown  or 
cannot  be  discovered,  were  beyond  all  doubt  handed  down 
from  the  apostles."  (Quoted  by  Chemnitz,  Examen  Decre- 
torum  Concilii  Tridcntini.) 

The  decrees  of  Trent  declare  that  it  belongs  to  the  Church 
"  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,"  and  forbid  any  one  to  make  interpretations 

VOL.   II.  —  5. 


66  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

not  agreeable  to  her  mind,  even  though  there  should  be  no 
design  of  publishing  such  interpretations.  The  organ  of 
the  Church,  as  an  infallible  interpreter,  was  understood 
to  be  either  the  council  or  the  pope,  or  both  together. 
In  proving  that  there  is  such  an  infallible  organ  in  the 
Church,  Romanist  theologians  were  wont  to  emphasize  the 
practical  need  of  such,  which  arises  from  the  obscurity  of 
the  Scriptures. 

The  unrestricted  reading  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  laity 
was  regarded  by  Romish  authorities  as  utterly  inexpedient 
and  dangerous.  Translations  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  vul 
gar  tongue  were  placed  by  Pius  IV.  in  the  prohibited  list, 
and  were  allowed  to  be  read  only  under  certain  limitations ; 
only  by  those,  as  Bellarmin  explains,  who  might  obtain  a 
permit  from  the  ordinary,  —  "  qui  facultatem  ab  ordinario 
obtinuerint."  Some  Romish  writers  even  went  so  far  as 
to  liken  the  placing  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  hands  of  the 
laity  to  giving  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs  and  casting 
pearls  before  swine.  (Gerhard,  Locus  I.  §492.) 

Manifestly  the  whole  tendency  of  Roman  Catholic  teach 
ing  on  this  subject  was  to  overshadow  the  authority  of 
Scripture  by  the  authority  of  the  Church ;  and  to  a  very 
conspicuous  extent  its  tendency  was  to  make  tradition  itself 
to  retreat  into  the  background  before  church  authority,  or 
the  fiat  of  the  existing  ecclesiastical  officiary.  Indeed, 
in  more  than  one  instance  it  was  explicitly  declared  that 
the  authority  of  Scripture  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Church.  The  Church,  it  was  taught,  sits  in  judgment 
upon  books  claiming  to  be  Holy  Scripture,  and  renders  a 
final  decision  upon  their  claims.  In  the  approbation  of  the 
Church  the  Scripture  has  its  credentials.  "All  the  au 
thority,"  wrote  Pighius,  "  which  the  Scriptures  now  have 
with  us  depends  necessarily  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Church."  (Gerhard,  Locus  I.  §  37.)  And,  according  to 
Cornelius  Mussus,  Bishop  of  Bitonto,  who  acted  a  conspic 
uous  part  at  the  council  of  Trent,  to  get  at  the  authorita- 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       67 

live  verdict  of  the  Church,  it  is  not  necessary  to  consult 
the  whole  list  of  Catholic  fathers,  for  one  pope  is  to  be 
preferred  to  a  thousand  Augustines,  Jeromes,  and  Grego- 
ries.  (Quoted  by  Newman  in  his  Yia  Media.)  This,  to  be 
sure,  was  an  extravagant  saying,  and  not  fully  warranted 
by  the  standpoint  of  the  Romish  Church  at  that  time ;  but 
it  was  not  without  its  significance. 

On  some  of  the  topics  enumerated  the  standards  of  the 
Greek  Church  in  this  period  approached  the  Romish  stand 
point.  The  Orthodox  Confession  maintains  that  the  articles 
of  faith  owe  their  authority  in  part  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
in  part  to  ecclesiastical  tradition  and  the  teachings  of  the 
councils  and  the  fathers.  The  Confession  of  Dositheus  de 
clares  :  "  We  believe  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church 
to  be  no  less  than  that  of  Holy  Scripture."  The  same  con 
fession  also  pronounces  in  favor  of  the  canonical  character 
of  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha.  But  the  Greek  Church 
seems  not  to  have  regarded  itself  as  fully  committed  to  this 
position.  Certainly  the  implication  of  the  Russian  Cate 
chism  is,  that  the  apocryphal  do  not  stand  on  a  full  equality 
with  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Protestants  were  united  in  rejecting  the  apocryphal 
books  from  the  Old  Testament.  Among  the  considerations 
justifying  their  exclusion,  they  urged  that  they  were  written 
after  the  close  of  the  prophetical  era  in  Jewish  history,  and 
so  presumably  without  prophetical  inspiration;  that  they 
were  not  written  in  the  proper  language  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  the  Hebrew  tongue ;  that  their  subject  matter  is 
without  reference  to  Christ;  that  they  are  not  quoted  as 
dogmatic  authority  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  they  were 
not  received  as  canonical  by  the  Jewish  Church  to  which 
the  custody  of  the  Old  Testament  oracles  was  committed ; 
that  they  were  rejected  in  large  part  by  the  primitive 
Christian  Church  and  by  many  later  writers.  (Gerhard.) 
As  for  the  rest,  Protestants  acknowledged  the  same  list  of 
Scriptural  books  as  Romanists.  Luther,  to  be  sure,  was 


68  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

disposed  to  deny  that  the  Book  of  Esther  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  and  the  Epistle  of  James  in  the  New,  are  worthy  of 
a  place  in  the  canon,  and  for  a  time  at  least  doubted  the 
authority  of  the  Apocalypse.  But  Luther's  position  herein 
was  exceptional.  Protestants  generally  received  without 
hesitation  the  full  Hebrew  canon,  and  while  they  did  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  a  few  of  the  less  important  books 
of  the  New  Testament  could  claim  but  little  on  the  score 
of  external  evidences,  were  not  disposed  to  challenge  the 
canonical  character  even  of  these. 

It  was  the  common  maxim  of  Protestantism,  that,  in 
respect  of  doctrinal  authority,  the  preference  must  be  given 
to  the  Scriptures  in  the  original  languages  over  any  trans 
lation. 

The  Romish  theory  of  tradition  was  denounced  as  involv 
ing  the  same  trespass  against  the  divine  oracles  as  that 
which  the  Pharisees  had  committed  against  the  law  of 
Moses  by  their  unwarranted  and  perverse  traditions.  An 
office  indeed  was  accredited  to  tradition.  The  testimony 
of  the  early  Church  was  allowed  to  have  a  certain  weight 
on  account  of  her  proximity  to  the  inspired  teachers  of  the 
doctrines  and  institutions  of  Christianity.  As  already  ob 
served,  many  of  the  Anglican  divines  laid  considerable  stress 
upon  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  centuries.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  Calixtus,  who  thought  that  a  basis 
of  Christian  union  might  be  found  in  the  consensus  of  the 
Church  in  its  more  incorrupt  age.  The  majority,  however, 
had  but  a  moderate  regard  for  patristic  authority.  Mean 
while,  it  was  the  common  verdict  of  Protestant  theolo 
gians  that  nothing  which  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture 
is  strictly  binding,  and  nothing  which  is  in  any  wise  in 
congruous  with  Scripture  is  to  receive  any  hearing  at  all. 
Without  much  qualification,  therefore,  we  may  take  as 
representative  of  Protestantism  on  this  subject  the  follow 
ing  statement  from  the  Formula  of  Concord :  "  We  believe, 
confess,  and  teach  that  the  only  rule  and  norm,  according 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       69 

to  which  all  dogmas  and  all  doctors  ought  to  be  esteemed 
and  judged,  is  no  other  than  the  prophetic  and  apostolic 
writings  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament.  But 
other  writings,  whether  of  the  fathers  or  of  the  mod 
erns,  with  whatever  name  they  come,  are  in  no  wise  to  be 
equalled  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  are  all  to  be  esteemed 
inferior  to  them,  so  that  they  be  not  otherwise  received  than 
in  the  rank  of  witnesses,  to  show  what  doctrine  was  taught 
after  the  apostles'  times  also,  and  in  what  parts  of  the  world 
that  more  sound  doctrine  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  has 
been  preserved." 

Protestant  writers  were  quite  unanimous  in  denying 
that  there  is  any  infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture  upon 
earth.  To  make  the  Pope  the  authoritative  interpreter, 
they  claimed,  was  equivalent  to  putting  him  in  place  of 
the  Bible.  "  If  I  should  pretend,"  argues  Chillingworth, 
"that  I  should  submit  to  the  laws  of  the  king  of  Eng 
land,  but  should  indeed  resolve  to  obey  them  in  that  sense 
which  the  king  of  France  should  put  upon  them,  whatso 
ever  it  were,  I  presume  every  understanding  man  would 
say,  that  I  did  indeed  obey  the  king  of  France,  and  not  the 
king  of  England."  So  obedience  goes  to  the  Pope  instead 
of  the  Scripture,  when  the  Pope  is  allowed  an  absolute  right 
of  interpretation.  The  plea  that  the  common  man,  says 
the  same  writer,  cannot  understand  the  Scriptures,  and  so 
needs  to  be  directed  to  an  infallible  guide,  points  to  no  ef 
fectual  escape  from  difficulties ;  for  the  common  man  can 
quite  as  easily  gain  a  rational  conviction  of  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  as  assure  himself  that  this  or  that  claimant  of 
infallibility  is  really  in  possession  of  what  he  claims.  (The 
Religion  of  Protestants  a  Safe  Way  to  Salvation.)  The 
Scriptures,  it  was  maintained  by  Protestant  theologians 
generally,  arc  not  obscure  on  the  great  essentials.  In  re 
spect  of  things  necessary  to  salvation  they  adequately  in 
terpret  themselves.  Not  every  one,  indeed,  may  be  capable 
of  properly  understanding  them.  The  gift  of  interpreta- 


70  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

tion  is  not  with  the  unregenerate ;  but  equally  it  is  not 
bound  to  power,  or  position,  or  numerical  majority ;  it  be 
longs  to  the  truly  pious  everywhere.  (Melanchthon,  Loci.) 
The  common  man  ought  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  he  can 
sufficiently  understand  them  for  his  practical  guidance,  if 
he  comes  to  them  with  a  diligent  and  spiritual  frame  of 
mind.  Upon  this  point  the  statement  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  was  fully  representative.  "  All  things  in  Scrip 
ture,"  says  the  Confession,  ci  are  not  alike  plain  in  them 
selves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all ;  yet  those  things  which  are 
necessary  to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed,  for  salva 
tion,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some  place 
of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned,  but  the 
unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means,  may  attain 
unto  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them."  All  this  evidently 
amounts  to  a  claim  for  the  right  of  private  interpretation ; 
not  that  a  man  is  not  morally  bound  to  take  counsel  of  the 
best  expositors  accessible  to  him,  but  that  he  is  not  strictly 
amenable  to  any  human  interpreter,  not  judicially  consigned 
to  the  direction  of  any  church  official  or  officials.  To  be 
sure,  it  was  sometimes  asserted,  as,  for  example,  in  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  that  the  Church  has  authority  in  con 
troversies  of  faith.  (Art.  XX.)  But  this  authority  was  un 
derstood  to  be  fallible,  and  indeed  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
say  as  much  when  they  declare  that  general  councils  may 
err,  and  sometimes  have  erred.  Now,  evidently  a  fallible 
authority  is  not  qualified  to  dictate  to  the  individual,  in  ab 
solute  terms,  his  profession  of  faith.  But  practically  there 
was  a  wide-spread  disposition  in  this  period  to  limit  the 
right  of  private  interpretation,  as  is  plain  from  the  history 
of  religious  persecutions.  A  zeal  more  ardent  than  con 
siderate  did  not  know  how  to  reconcile  one  interest  with 
another,  and  so  ran  into  inconsistencies.  The  thinking  of 
many,  especially  in  the  Calvinistic  communions,  was  tinged 
by  theocratic  notions.  They  conceived  that  the  Bible  was 
meant  to  give  the  law  to  Church  and  to  society,  and  that  it 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       71 

was  dishonoring  to  God  not  to  put  that  law  in  force.  In 
their  zeal  and  haste  to  bring  it  into  force,  they  were  not 
over  careful  to  inquire  how  far  they  might  proceed  without 
trespassing  upon  the  consciences  of  their  neighbors.  So 
they  practically  assumed  the  infallibility  which  they  decried 
in  Romanism,  in  some  instances  helping  themselves  with 
the  lame  distinction,  that  the  Church,  though  not  infallible 
itself,  may  determine  infallible  points,  as  an  earthen  pitcher 
may  contain  gold,  and  precious  rubies,  and  sapphires,  al 
though  there  is  no  gold  in  the  matter  of  the  pitcher  itself, 
but  only  clay.  (Tulloch,  Rational  Theology  in  England.) 
But,  as  previously  intimated,  this  development  is  to  be  re 
garded  as  only  a  passing  episode  of  Protestantism,  belong 
ing  to  its  formative  stage.  And  even  in  this  period  there 
were  influential  parties  within  the  bounds  of  Protestantism 
who  were  consistent  advocates  of  the  rights  of  private  in 
terpretation  ;  such  as  Calixtus  and  his  school  in  Germany, 
the  Arminians  in  Holland,  and  the  liberal  school  in  the 
English  Church  represented  by  Chillingworth,  Tillotson, 
Locke,  and  others. 

The  Church  was  allowed  by  Protestant  writers  to  be  a 
witness,  custodian,  and  herald  of  the  Scriptures,  but  they  de 
nied  that  Scripture  authority  depends  upon  the  Church.  The 
Scriptures,  as  they  taught,  depend  not  upon  the  Church, 
but  on  the  contrary  the  Church  depends  upon  the  Scrip 
tures.  Their  authority  is  intrinsic,  and  it  is  above  the  pre 
rogative  of  any  earthly  power  to  take  from  it  or  to  add 
to  it  in  any  degree.  "The  Word  of  God,"  said  Luther, 
"  is  incomparably  above  the  Church."  (De  Captiv.  Bab. 
Eccl.)  It  was  admitted,  indeed,  that  the  testimony  of  the 
early  Church  is  a  factor  in  the  evidence  for  the  canonical 
character  of  the  received  books  of  the  Bible ;  but  this  ad 
mission  was  not  designed  to  imply  any  authority  in  the 
early  Church  over  Scripture,  but  simply  to  recognize  that 
it  had  superior  facilities  for  knowing  what  books  were 
of  apostolic  origin.  In  general,  much  stress  was  laid 


72  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

upon  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  and  truth  of  the  Scriptural  books.  Other  evidences 
were  indeed  given  a  place.  Luther  was  disposed  to  judge 
of  books  claiming  a  place  in  the  canon  by  their  possession 
or  lack  of  Gospel  substance,  their  relation  to  the  central 
truths  of  redemption.  Many  emphasized  the  majesty  of 
thought  and  style  which  the  Scriptures  exhibit,  and  the 
cogency  with  which  they  address  the  conscience.  Calvin, 
for  example,  says :  "  The  Scripture  exhibits  as  clear  evi 
dence  of  its  truth,  as  white  and  black  things  do  of  their 
color,  or  sweet  and  bitter  things  do  of  their  taste.  .  .  . 
If  we  read  it  with  pure  eyes  and  sound  minds,  we  shall 
immediately  perceive  the  majesty  of  God,  which  will  sub 
due  our  audacious  contradictions,  and  compel  us  to  obey 
Him.  .  .  .  Read  Demosthenes  or  Cicero ;  read  Plato,  Aris 
totle,  or  any  others  of  that  class ;  I  grant  that  you  will  be 
attracted,  delighted,  and  enraptured  by  them  in  a  surpris 
ing  manner;  but  if,  after  reading  them,  you  turn  to  the 
perusal  of  the  sacred  volume,  whether  you  are  willing  or 
unwilling,  it  will  affect  you  so  powerfully,  it  will  so  pene 
trate  your  heart,  and  impress  itself  so  strongly  on  your 
mind,  that,  compared  with  its  energetic  influence,  the 
beauties  of  rhetoricians  and  philosophers  will  almost  en 
tirely  disappear."  (List.,  I.  7,  8.)  Still,  no  other  evidence 
for  the  divinity  and  truth  of  the  Biblical  books  was  so 
much  emphasized,  for  the  major  part  of  the  period,  as  the 
testimonium  jSpiritus.  This,  it  was  held,  is  the  source,  not 
merely  of  a  human  persuasion,  but  of  an  infallible  faith. 
Several  of  the  confessions  distinctly  adduce  the  same  as 
the  decisive  ground  of  assurance  respecting  the  sacred 
canon.  "  We  know  these  books,"  says  the  French  Con 
fession,  "  to  be  canonical,  and  the  sure  rule  of  our  faith, 
not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the 
Church,  as  by  the  testimony  and  inward  illumination  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from 
other  ecclesiastical  books  upon  which,  however  useful,  we 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       73 

cannot  found  any  articles  of  faith."  (Art.  IV.)  The  Belgic 
Confession  contains  essentially  the  same  declaration,  (Art. 
Y.)  The  Confession  of  the  Waldenses  emphasizes  the 
testimonium  Spiritus,  together  with  the  internal  marks  of 
Scripture,  or  the  excellence  and  sublimity  of  its  style  and 
contents.  The  Westminster  Confession,  after  stating  that 
the  testimony  of  the  Church  may  properly  move  us  to 
reverence  the  Scriptures,  and  that  the  heavenlincss  of 
their  matter,  the  sublimity  of  their  style,  and  the  harmony 
of  part  with  part,  clearly  evince  that  they  are  the  Word  of 
God,  adds  this  strong  declaration :  "  Yet  notwithstanding, 
our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth 
and  divine  authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our 
hearts."  (Chap.  I.)  Gerhard,  and  other  representative 
Lutherans,  such  as  Hiilsemann,  Dannhauer,  Konig,  Calov, 
Quenstedt,  and  Hollaz,  gave  a  prominent  place  to  the  tes 
timony  of  the  Spirit  among  the  attestations  of  the  truth  of 
Scripture.  Quenstedt  says :  "  The  ultimate  reason  under 
which  and  on  account  of  which  with  a  divine  and  infallible 
faith  we  believe  the  Word  of  God  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
is  the  intrinsic  power  and  efficacy  itself  of  the  Divine  Word 
and  the  testimony  and  sealing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
in  and  through  the  Scripture."  Other  proofs,  he  says,  of 
whatever  kind,  will  effect  only  a  human  faith  and  persua 
sion, — "fidem  tantum  humanam  et  persuasionem  efficient." 
(Systcma,  De  Script.  Quasst.  9.)  Calvin  gave  the  first 
place  to  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  and  assigned  to  ra 
tional  considerations  the  office  of  confirming  the  persua 
sion  wrought  by  the  former. 

A  current  of  dissent  from  this  view  appeared  among  the 
Arminians.  Episcopius  suggested  that  one  could  not  be 
well  assured  that  he  had  the  Holy  Spirit,  except  by  his 
conformity  to  Scripture  already  regarded  as  a  divine  stan 
dard  ;  in  other  words,  that  consent  to  the  divinity  of  the 
Scriptures,  being  prior  to  the  guaranty  that  one  has  the 


74  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

witness  of  the  Spirit,  cannot  be  primarily  dependent  upon 
that  witness.  (Inst.  Theol.,  IV.  Sect.  1.  5.)  Curcellseus 
likewise  regarded  the  argument  from  the  testimony  of  the 
Spirit  as  decidedly  vulnerable ;  not  that  he  would  deny 
that  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  an  important  factor  in  pro 
ducing  faith  in  revelation.  We  may  assume,  he  says,  that 
the  Spirit  constrains  to  belief  by  certain  secret  suggestions, 
only  we  arc  not  to  set  forth  as  the  ground  of  belief  that 
definite  and  indubitable  witness  which  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  pertains  only  to  those  who  already  believe.  (Relig. 
Christ.  Inst.,  I.  5.)  According  to  Curcellaeus,  the  principal 
guaranties  of  the  truth  of  any  writing  are  two:  (1.)  con 
vincing  evidence  that  the  author  was  so  well  informed  as 
to  have  no  need  to  err  on  account  of  ignorance ;  (2.)  con 
vincing  evidence  that  he  desired  to  write  the  truth.  (I.  3. 
Compare  Episcopius,  IV.  Sect.  1.  2 ;  Limborch,  I.  4.)  In 
applying  these  tests  to  the  Scriptures,  naturally  much  stress 
was  laid  upon  the  evidences  of  a  divine  vocation  in  the 
writers,  such  as  miracles,  prophecy,  superhuman  excellence 
of  teaching,  evident  desire  to  honor  God,  readiness  to  re 
cord  their  own  or  their  heroes'  faults,  willingness  to  en 
counter  suffering  and  death  for  the  sake  of  the  truth. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  period,  there  was  a  manifest  ten 
dency  in  favor  of  this  line  of  apology,  as  opposed  to  laying 
the  principal  emphasis  upon  the  testimonium  Spiritus. 

Before  leaving  this  topic,  we  should  notice  that  there 
were  those  among  the  Protestants  who  were  inclined  to 
assign  a  subordinate  rank  to  the  Scriptures,  not  indeed 
in  favor  of  church  authority,  after  the  example  of  the 
Romanists,  but  in  favor  of  the  revelations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  individual.  This  was  the  case 
with  some  of  the  Anabaptists,  as  also  with  the  more  radi 
cal  mystics.  Here  belong  also  the  Quakers.  They  re 
garded  the  Scriptures  as  the  product  of  inspiration,  and 
so  necessarily  true ;  but  at  the  same  time  they  assigned 
to  them  a  secondary  rank.  The  Spirit,  said  they,  which 


1517-1720.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       75 

gave  the  Scriptures,  is  the  primary  rule ;  and  the  revela 
tions  of  this  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  believer,  though 
never  contradictory  to  Scriptural  teachings,  are  of  imme 
diate  authority,  and  so  not  subject  to  the  written  Word 
as  a  standard.  This  is  stated  as  follows  in  Barclay's 
Propositions:  "These  divine  inward  revelations,  which 
we  make  absolutely  necessary  for  the  building  up  of  true 
faith,  neither  do  nor  can  ever  contradict  the  outward  tes 
timony  of  the  Scriptures,  or  right  and  sound  reason.  Yet 
from  hence  it  will  not  follow  that  these  divine  revela 
tions  are  to  be  subjected  to  the  examination,  either  of 
the  outward  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  or  of  the  natural 
reason  of  man,  as  to  a  more  noble  and  certain  rule  and 
touchstone ;  for  this  divine  revelation  and  inward  illumi 
nation  is  that  which  is  evident  and  clear  of  itself,  forcing, 
by  its  own  evidence  and  clearness,  the  well-disposed  un 
derstanding  to  assent,  irresistibly  moving  the  same  there 
unto."  (Prop.  II.) 

2.  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION.  —  The  strict  theory  of 
Scriptural  inspiration  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
had  inherited  was  met  with  a  measure  of  dissent  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Jesuits.  Two  members  of  their  society,  Hamel 
and  Less,  taught  that,  for  a  book  to  be  divine  and  canoni 
cal,  it  is  not  necessary  that  all  the  words,  or  even  all  the 
thoughts,  should  be  inspired ;  that  indeed  a  canonical  book 
might  be  purely  human  as  to  its  authorship,  like  the  Sec 
ond  Book  of  Maccabees,  provided  that  afterwards  it  received 
the  divine  attestation  that  it  contained  nothing  untrue. 
This  doctrine  was  condemned  by  the  theological  faculties 
of  Louvain  and  Douay  (in  1588),  and  also  by  the  Belgic 
bishops ;  and  some  years  later  the  utterances  of  the  Jesuit 
Jean  Adam,  implying  that  the  sacred  writers  had  some 
times  indulged  inexactness  of  expression,  were  challenged 
by  the  Jansenists.  The  result  of  the  controversy,  accord 
ing  to  Alzog,  was  the  gradual  adoption  of  the  theory  of 
inspiration  which  was  held  by  the  better  ancient  exposi- 


76  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

tors  of  the  Antiochian  school,  such  as  Chrysostom.  (Kir- 
chengeschichte,  II.  §  350.)  Bcllarmin's  references  to  the 
subject  imply  that,  while  God  specifically  dictated  to  the 
prophets  their  message,  he  gave  to  the  historical  writers 
only  an  incentive  to  their  task,  and  such  a  measure  of  as 
sistance  in  its  prosecution  as  was  necessary  to  secure 
them  from  error.  (De  Verbo  Dei,  I.  15.) 

As  represented  in  Luther,  Protestantism  started  out 
with  the  profoundest  reverence  for  Scripture  in  general, 
but  at  the  same  time  without  any  very  precise  and  tech 
nical  theory  of  inspiration.  Luther  was  quite  free,  not 
only  in  passing  judgment  respecting  the  canonical  charac 
ter  of  Scriptural  books,  but  also  in  allowing  room  for  a 
human  element  in  those  which  he  regarded  as  undoubtedly 
canonical.  He  noticed  a  lack  of  proper  arrangement  of  the 
passages  in  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Hosea.  He  suggested 
that  the  prophets  may  have  mingled  some  wood,  hay,  and 
stubble  with  the  more  solid  and  precious  materials  of  their 
writings.  He  granted  that  some  parts  of  Scripture  evince 
a  fuller  inspiration  than  others,  and  thought  it  no  serious 
thing  to  allow  that  there  might  be  a  few  mistakes  in  inci 
dental  and  unimportant  items.  (Kostlin,  Luthers  Lehre.) 

Luther  was  not  followed  by  the  Lutherans  in  this  free 
dom  of  criticism.  The  tendency  among  them  was  toward 
the  theory  of  the  strict  verbal  inspiration  of  every  part  of 
Scripture.  Such  was  the  dominant  theory  in  the  seven 
teenth  century.  Musa3us,  to  be  sure,  in  one  place  seemed 
disposed  to  question  whether  inspiration  gave  the  very 
words  of  Scripture  as  well  as  the  subject  matter,  and  Ca- 
lixtus  taught,  that,  while  the  leading  doctrines  were  matter 
of  direct  revelation,  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  for  the 
remaining  parts  anything  more  than  a  divine  assistance. 
But  Calixtus,  says  Baur,  was  charged  with  heresy  on  this 
score,  and  Musseus  was  constrained  to  recant  his  doubts. 
(Dogmengeschichte.)  The  language  of  Gerhard  is,  to  say 
the  least,  not  far  from  implying  verbal  inspiration.  Of 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       77 

the  Scripture  writers  he  says :  "  Deservedly  we  call  them 
amanuenses  of  God,  hands  of  Christ,  and  secretaries  and 
notaries  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  they  neither  spoke  nor 
wrote  by  their  will,  but  actuated,  led,  impelled,  inspired, 
and  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  wrote  not  as  men, 
but  as  men  of  God,  that  is,  as  servants  of  God  and  peculiar 
organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  (Locus  I.  §  18.)  Gerhard 
also  expressed  himself  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  the 
vowel-points  were  as  ancient  as  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
and,  while  they  may  often  have  been  omitted  in  private 
copies,  were  assuredly  inserted  in  the  public  and  authentic 
copies.  (Ibid.,  §§  334-342.)  Quenstedt  advocated  verbal 
inspiration  in  such  sweeping  terms  as  these :  "  The  Holy 
Spirit  did  not  merely  inspire  the  prophets  and  apostles  with 
respect  to  the  matters  and  opinions  contained  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  the  sense  of  the  words,  which  they  might  ex 
press  or  embellish  in  their  own  phraseology  and  their  own 
words,  but  also  the  very  words  and  each  and  every  expres 
sion  used  by  the  sacred  writers  the  Holy  Spirit  individually 
supplied,  inspired,  and  dictated."  Again,  he  remarks : 
"  Prophets  and  apostles  contributed  nothing  of  their  own 
except  tongue  and  pen."  Diversity  of  style  he  attributes 
not  to  the  diverse  characteristics  of  the  writers  as  the  imme 
diate  cause,  but  to  the  accommodation  of  the  Spirit,  who 
was  pleased  to  choose  a  style  akin  to  that  of  His  organ  for 
the  time  being.  Of  course,  from  this  standpoint,  he  allows 
no  errors  in  Scripture,  geographical,  chronological,  numeri 
cal,  historical,  or  of  any  sort,  at  least  none  which  are  not  to 
be  charged  to  the  mistakes  of  copyists.  He  scouts  also  the 
notion,  that  in  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  there  are 
any  barbarisms  or  solecisms.  Finally,  he  declares  that 
the  Divine  Word,  even  before  and  apart  from  legitimate 
use,  has  an  intrinsic  power  and  efficacy  for  producing 
spiritual  effects,  as  though  there  were  a  standing  nexus 
between  it  and  the  power  of  God.  (Systema,  De  Scrip. 
Qusest.  8-G,  16.)  This  last  point  was  controverted  by 


78  HISTORY^  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

Rathmann  of  Danzig ;  but  on  this,  as  well  as  on  the  other 
points  mentioned,  Quenstedt  appears  to  have  been  largely 
representative  of  the  Lutheranism  of  his  day.  Calov's 
theories  were  in  every  way  as  emphatic,  both  as  respects 
the  inspiration  and  the  efficacy  of  Scripture.  (Systema 
Locorum  Theol.,  Tom.  I.  cap.  4.)  He  maintained  also 
that  the  Scripture,  in  respect  of  the  divine  power  dwell 
ing  in  it,  is  not  a  creature.  (Dorner,  History  of  Protes 
tant  Theology.)  Hollaz  likewise  accepted  the  dictation 
theory  in  all  its  length  and  breadth.  (Examen  Theol. 
Proleg.)  In  fine,  a  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,  and 
a  disposition  to  predicate  a  kind  of  magical  virtue  in  the 
Scriptures,  were  rife.  By  a  remarkable  judgment  upon 
extravagance,  an  extreme  opposition  to  one  phase  of  deism 
was  avenged  by  approximation  to  another,  and  the  effort 
to  exalt  written  revelation  beyond  measure  ended  in  put 
ting  the  second  cause  in  place  of  the  primary,  —  in  banish 
ing  the  immediate  agency  of  God  in  favor  of  the  efficiency 
of  a  book. 

A  similar  development  occurred  in  the  Reformed  Church. 
Zwingli,  on  the  whole,  was  less  bold  in  dealing  with  the 
Scriptures  than  Luther ;  his  view  of  inspiration,  however, 
was  not  so  strict  but  that  he  was  free  to  allow  some  inac 
curacies  in  historical  matters.  Calvin  was  less  free  than 
Luther  to  criticise  the  Biblical  writers,  and  probably  also 
less  free  than  Zwingli.  He  seems  to  have  been  inclined  to 
the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration.  At  any  rate,  he  calls  the 
apostles  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Inst.,  IY.  8),  and 
imputes  diversities  of  style  to  the  choice  of  the  Spirit.  "  I 
grant,"  he  says,  "  that  the  diction  of  some  of  the  prophets 
is  neat  and  elegant,  and  even  splendid ;  so  that  they  are 
not  inferior  in  eloquence  to  the  heathen  writers,  And  by 
such  examples  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been  pleased  to  show 
that  He  was  not  deficient  in  eloquence,  though  elsewhere  He 
has  used  a  rude  and  homely  style."  (Inst.  I.  8.)  Turretin 
affirms  that  the  sacred  writers  were  so  inspired  both  as 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       79 

respects  the  subject  matter  and  the  words  as  to  be  preserved 
from  all  error.  (Inst.,  Locus  II.  qusest.  4.)  Yoetius  sets 
forth  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  in  these  unequivocal 
terms :  "  It  is  to  be  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  in  an  imme 
diate  and  extraordinary  mode  dictated  all  things  which  were 
to  be  written  and  were  written,  both  the  matters  and  the 
words,  as  well  those  which  the  writers  were  before  igno 
rant  of  or  not  able  to  recall,  as  those  which  they  knew  very 
well,  both  the  historical  or  particular,  and  the  dogmatic, 
universal,  theoretical,  and  practical."  (Select.  Disput.,  p. 
32.)  Besides  such  statements  as  the  above,  we  have  a 
significant  index  of  the  drift  in  the  Reformed  Church,  in 
that  there  was  a  marked  disposition  to  assert  that  the  vowel- 
points  belonged  to  the  original  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Such 
was  the  position  taken  by  the  Buxtorfs,  at  Basle.  It  was 
opposed  by  Louis  Cappel,  but  was  given  a  confessional  rank 
in  the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula.  The  language  of  the 
Formula  is  as  follows :  "  The  Hebrew  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  we  have  received  and  hold  to-day,  as 
handed  down  by  the  Jewish  Church  to  whom  the  oracles  of 
God  were  formerly  committed,  is  inspired  (fleoTn/eucrro?) 
both  as  respects  consonants  and  as  respects  vowels  (either 
the  points  themselves,  or  at  least  the  force  of  the  points) , 
and  both  as  respects  matters  and  as  respects  words." 
(Can.  II.) 

Some  of  the  Arminians  taught  a  less  stringent  theory. 
Limborch,  indeed,  excuses  the  sacred  writers  from  all 
errors.  They  may  not,  he  says,  have  given  an  exact  and 
precise  narrative  of  some  things  that  were  of  little  impor 
tance,  but  even  in  such  cases  they  have  not  made  any  un 
true  statements.  (Theol.  Christ.,  I.  4.)  Episcopius,  on  the 
other  hand,  argues  that  it  is  not  incredible  that  in  some 
insignificant  circumstances  the  Biblical  writers  may  have 
expressed  themselves  inaccurately,  and  maintains  that  far 
less  harm  can  come  from  openly  acknowledging  an  evident 
inaccuracy,  than  from  an  attempt  to  cover  it  up  by  forced 


80  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

and  artificial  explanations.  (Inst.,  IV.  Sect.  1.  4.)  Grotius 
taught  that  small  discrepancies,  so  far  from  weakening  the 
general  authority  of  Scripture,  help  rather  to  confirm  it, 
since  they  forbid  the  supposition  of  artifice.  (De  Yer.  Re- 
lig.  Christ.,  Lib.  III.  §  13.)  He  indicated  also  his  belief 
that  much  of  the  matter  of  the  Bible,  at  least  in  the  histor 
ical  books,  being  sufficiently  known  by  other  means,  was 
not  delivered  by  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Le  Clerc 
likewise  was  quite  free  in  his  comments,  especially  on  the 
Old  Testament  history.  The  Socinians,  on  the  whole,  held 
quite  a  strong  theory  of  inspiration,  but  allowed  the  possi 
bility  of  error  in  unessential  points.  Speaking  of  the  New 
Testament,  Socinus  says,  that  either  it  contains  no  dis 
crepancies,  or  none  which  are  of  any  moment.  (De  Sacrse 
Scrip.  Auctor.,  Cap.  I.) 

Among  English  writers,  Baxter  is  noteworthy  for  his 
position  on  this  subject.  He  did  not  allow  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  are  any  errors  in  the  Bible,  but  he  maintained 
that  there  might  be,  without  any  essential  compromise  of 
Biblical  authority.  "  If  we  could  not,"  he  says,  "  free  the 
text  from  every  charge  that  in  smaller  things  is  laid  upon 
it,  and  if  we  could  not  prove  the  writers  infallible,  and  free 
from  all  mistakes  in  their  writings,  yet  might  we  be  sure 
that  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  in  the  main  is  God's  Word, 
and  that  the  Christian  religion  is  of  God."  Again,  he  re 
marks  :  "  If  we  could  only  prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given  to  the  penmen  of  Holy  Scripture  as  an  infallible 
guide  to  them  in  the  matter,  and  not  to  enable  them  to 
any  excellency  above  others  in  the  method  and  words,  but 
therein  to  leave  them  to  their  natural  and  acquired  abilities, 
this  would  be  no  diminution  of  the  credit  of  their  tes 
timony,  or  of  the  Christian  faith."  (Unreasonableness  of 
Infidelity.  Compare  Gilbert  Burnet,  Exposition  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles.) 

It  is  evident  from  this  review  that  the  claims  of  criticism 
were,  for  the  most  part,  ignored  in  this  period,  and  that 


1517-1720.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       81 

Scripture  was  treated  almost  wholly  in  the  spirit  of  an 
unqualified  dogmatism.  No  doubt  this  method  had  its 
advantages  for  the  time  being,  as  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
infallibility  has  its  advantages.  But  arbitrary  assump 
tion  always  comes  at  last  to  a  day  of  reckoning.  Extreme 
dogmatism  is  the  natural  forerunner  of  extreme  license. 

O 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  mechanical  and  untena 
ble  theory  of  Scriptural  inspiration,  which  prevailed  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  helped  in  the  ensuing  era  of  reaction 
to  impel  rationalistic  criticism  toward  the  extreme  of  its 
destructive  bias. 

3.  THE  BEGINNINGS  OP  RADICAL  CRITICISM.  —  English 
deism  in  this  period  rather  laid  a  foundation  for  radical 
criticism  than  engaged  in  a  specific  prosecution  of  the  same. 
The  writings  of  Lord  Herbert  in  the  first  half  of  the  seven 
teenth  century,  of  Blount  in  the  latter  half  of  that  century, 
of  Toland  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  of  Shaftesbury  in  the  early  part  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  first  work  of  Collins  at  the 
same  time,  were  not  so  much  occupied  with  a  searching  crit 
icism  of  the  Bible,  as  with  commendations  of  the  natural 
reason,  and  with  insinuations  against  the  truth  and  utility 
of  anything  in  the  Bible  which  might  not  square  with  the 
dictates  of  the  natural  reason. 

The  general  theory  of  Hobbes  respecting  the  prerogatives 
of  the  sovereign  in  matters  of  religion  was  degrading  to  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures ;  he  indulged,  however,  in  but 
little  criticism,  and  in  none  which  formally  challenged  Bib 
lical  infallibility.  Moses,  he  says,  did  not  write  the  Pen 
tateuch  ;  he  wrote,  nevertheless,  all  of  it  which  the  Penta 
teuch  itself  claims  was  written  by  him.  (Leviathan.) 

In  Spinoza  we  have  undoubtedly  an  example  of  the  radi 
cal  critic.  His  philosophical  naturalism  left,  of  course,  no 
place  for  assuming  a  supernatural  communication  to  the 
sacred  writers.  He  allows  in  the  prophets,  indeed,  an  ex 
traordinary  faculty ;  but  he  makes  it  something  entirely 

VOL.    II.  —  6. 


82  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

within  the  plane  of  nature,  and  seems  to  view  it  merely  as 
a  peculiar  subjective  capability  of  a  lively  grasp,  and  an 
animated  representation  of  religious  truth.  He  remarks 
that  statements  like  this,  "  '  To  the  prophets  was  given  the 
Spirit  of  God,'  have  no  other  meaning  than  that  the  proph 
ets  possessed  certain  special  and  extraordinary  powers,  that 
they  were  men  more  than  commonly  devout,  and  that  they 
apprehended  and  knew  the  mind  and  purposes  of  God." 
Again,  he  says  :  "  The  prophets  were  not  gifted  with  any 
peculiar  superiority  and  understanding,  but  only  with  a  cer 
tain  more  lively  faculty  of  imagination  than  the  rest  of 
mankind.  .  .  .  The  gift  of  prophecy  never  made  a  prophet 
wiser  or  more  learned  than  it  found  him."  (Tractatus  The- 
ologico-Politicus.)  Spinoza  credits  Moses  with  the  author 
ship  of  a  Book  of  the  Law,  the  substance  of  which,  with 
some  explanatory  additions  by  Ezra,  is  contained  in  Deuter 
onomy.  Speaking  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  Books  of 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  he  says :  "  When  we 
regard  the  argument  and  connection  of  these  books  sever 
ally,  we  readily  gather  that  they  were  all  written  by  one 
and  the  same  person,  who  had  the  purpose  of  compiling  a 
system  of  Jewish  antiquities,  from  the  origin  of  the  nation 
to  the  first  destruction  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  The  sev 
eral  books  are  so  connected  with  one  another,  that  from  this 
alone  we  discover  that  they  comprise  the  continuous  narra 
tive  of  a  single  historian.  ...  I  am  led  to  suspect  that 
Ezra  was  the  man."  As  for  the  Chronicles,  they  were  per 
haps  not  written  before  the  era  of  the  Maccabees.  Daniel 
wrote  the  latter  part  of  the  book  bearing  his  name,  but  the 
final  composer  or  compiler  of  Daniel,  as  well  as  of  Ezra, 
Esther,  and  Nehemiah  (all  these  being  from  a  single  hand), 
was  later  than  the  age  of  Judas  Maccabseus. 

A  less  radical  critic  than  Spinoza,  but  from  his  very 
different  relations  probably  of  greater  significance  in  this 
era  was  the  French  Romanist,  Richard  Simon.  Besides 
laying  considerable  stress  upon  the  uncertainties  of  the 


1517-1720.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.       83 

existing  text  of  the  Bible,  Simon  held  that  the  original  Old 
Testament  documents,  at  least  the  Pentateuch  and  some 
others,  were  modified  mo^e  or  less  by  later  editors.  At  the 
same  time,  he  maintained  that  the  editors  were  no  less  in 
spired  for  their  work  than  the  original  authors,  so  that  the 
authority  of  a  sacred  book  in  no  wise  suffers  from  the  plu 
rality  of  authorship.  One  ought  not,  he  said,  to  admit 
more  additions  or  modifications  than  there  is  clear  evidence 
for,  and  he  accused  Spinoza  of  going  to  excess.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  argued  that  to  admit  such  as  cannot  easily 
be  explained  away,  and  to  claim  for  them  no  less  than  for 
the  original  portions  the  sanction  of  the  Divine  Author  of 
Scripture,  is  the  most  effectual  way  to  offset  the  destructive 
criticism  of  Spinoza.  "  On  this  principle,"  he  says,  "  an 
easy  response  will  be  made  to  all  the  false  and  pernicious 
consequences  which  Spinoza  has  pretended  to  draw  from 
these  changes  and  additions,  to  decry  the  authority  of  the 
divine  books,  as  if  these  amendments  were  purely  human  ; 
whereas,  he  should  have  considered  that  the  authors  of 
these  changes,  having  the  power  to  write  sacred  books,  had 
also  the  power  to  amend  them.  This  is  why  I  have  made 
no  scruple  to  bring  forward  some  examples  of  these  changes, 
and  to  conclude  from  them  that  all  the  contents  of  the  sa 
cred  books  were  not  written  by  contemporary  authors." 
(Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  Pref.).  Various 
replies  were  made  to  Simon,  one  being  by  Spanheim ;  and 
his  theory  was  regarded  both  by  Roman  Catholics  and  Prot 
estants  as  of  dangerous  tendency.  His  principal  work  was 
condemned  and  narrowly  escaped  destruction  even  to  its 
last  copy. 


84  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


CHAPTEK  II. 

THE  GODHEAD. 

SECTION  I.  —  EXISTENCE,  ESSENCE,  AND  ATTRIBUTES 
OF  GOD. 

1.  PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  EXISTENCE.  —  Before  the  time 
of  Descartes,  the  theologians  of  the  period  followed  rather 
in  the  wake  of  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the  great  body  of  the 
scholastics,  than  in  that  of  Anselm,  in  their  attempts  to 
establish  the  existence  of  God.  The  main  dependence  was 
placed  upon  the  various  a  posteriori  arguments. 

Arguments  were  drawn  both  from  external  nature  and 
from  the  instinctive  beliefs  of  the  human  soul.  Calvin, 
among  others,  placed  a  strong  emphasis  upon  the  latter. 
"  We  lay  it  down,"  he  says,  "  as  a  position  not  to  be  con 
troverted,  that  the  human  mind,  even  by  natural  instinct, 
possesses  some  sense  of  a  Deity.  For  that  no  one  might 
shelter  himself  under  the  pretext  of  ignorance,  God  hath 
given  to  all  some  apprehension  of  his  existence,  the  mem 
ory  of  which  He  frequently  and  insensibly  renews.  .  .  . 
All  have  by  nature  an  innate  persuasion  of  the  divine  ex 
istence,  a  persuasion  inseparable  from  their  very  consti 
tution."  (Inst.,  I.  3.)  What  Calvin  meant  by  this  innate 
persuasion,  is  not  altogether  apparent.  It  is  most  probable, 
however,  that  he  wished  to  teach  simply  that  in  the  reason 
and  conscience  of  man  there  are  certain  data  which  serve 
as  a  fixed  ground  of  belief  in  the  divine  existence,  and 
which  are  particularly  effective  to  induce  that  belief  when 
the  quickening  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  superinduced. 


1517-1720.]  THE   GODHEAD.  85 

Upon  this  view  of  the  case,  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  antici 
pated  the  argument  which  Descartes  based  upon  the  innate 
idea  of  God.  The  statement  of  Calvin  is  rather  akin  to 
the  early  patristic  idea,  that  man  from  his  very  constitution 
has  an  impulse  toward  the  recognition  of  God;  whereas, 
the  force  of  Descartes's  argument  depends  upon  the  sup 
position  that  the  idea  of  God  is  such  as  the  natural  faculties 
could  not  have  constructed. 

In  harmony  with  the  position  of  Calvin,  it  was  the  com 
mon  view  that  the  light  of  nature  is  sufficient  of  itself  to 
assure  men  of  the  divine  existence.  This  view  was  chal 
lenged  by  Faustus  Socinus  (Prelect.  Theol.,  Cap.  II.),  and 
by  others  of  the  Socinians,  although  not  by  all,  as  may  be 
judged  from  the  position  taken  by  Wolzogen.  (Compend. 
Eelig.  Christ.)  It  was  opposed  also  by  Matthias  Flacius, 
among  the  Lutherans. 

Descartes's  argument  embodies  two  principal  considera 
tions  :  1.  The  idea  of  God  which  is  in  the  mind  is  such  as 
the  natural  faculties  could  not  construct ;  God  alone  ade 
quately  explains  the  presence  of  the  idea  of  God.  2.  The 
idea  of  God  is  such  as  of  necessity  to  involve  His  real  ex 
istence,  just  as  the  idea  of  a  triangle  involves  three  angles 
which  together  equal  two  right  angles, —  essentially  the 
same  argument  as  Anselm's.  Descartes  also  argued  that 
our  want  of  consciousness  of  any  power  to  conserve  our  own 
existence  is  indicative  of  a  power  upon  which  we  are  de 
pendent.  The  first  two  considerations,  however,  are  those 
which  he  most  frequently  emphasizes.  Both,  in  our  view, 
rest  upon  untenable  assumptions ;  but  as  they  have  held 
quite  an  important  place  in  doctrinal  history,  it  is  proper 
to  quote  from  Descartes  one  or  two  of  the  passages  in  which 
they  are  most  definitely  set  forth.  "  By  the  nature  of  God," 
he  says,  "I  understand  a  substance  infinite,  independent, 
all-knowing,  all-powerful,  and  by  which  I  myself,  and  every 
other  thing  that  exists,  if  any  such  there  be,  were  created. 
But  these  properties  are  so  great  and  excellent,  that,  the 


86  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

more  attentively  I  consider  them,  the  less  I  feel  persuaded 
that  the  idea  I  have  of  them  owes  its  origin  to  myself  alone. 
And  thus  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  conclude,  from  all 
that  I  have  before  said,  that  God  exists :  for  though  the 
idea  of  substance  be  in  my  mind  owing  to  this,  that  I  my 
self  am  a  substance,  I  should  not,  however,  have  the  idea 
of  an  infinite  substance,  seeing  I  am  a  finite  being,  unless 
it  were  given  me  by  some  substance  in  reality  infinite. 
And  I  must  not  imagine  that  I  do  not  apprehend  the  in 
finite  by  a  true  idea,  but  only  by  the  negation  of  the  finite, 
in  the  same  way  that  I  comprehend  repose  and  darkness 
by  the  negation  of  motion  and  light:  since,  on  the  contrary, 
I  clearly  perceive  that  there  is  more  reality  in  the  infinite 
substance  than  in  the  finite,  and  therefore  that  in  some 
way  I  possess  the  perception  (notion)  of  the  infinite  before 
that  of  the  finite,  that  is,  the  perception  of  God  before  that 
of  myself,  for  how  could  I  know  that  I  doubt,  desire,  or 
that  something  is  wanting  to  me,  and  that  I  am  not  wholly 
perfect,  if  I  possessed  no  idea  of  a  being  more  perfect  than 
myself,  by  comparison  of  which  I  knew  the  dcficicnces  of 
my  nature.  .  .  .  God  at  my  creation  implanted  this  idea 
in  me,  that  it  might  serve,  as  it  were,  for  the  mark  of  the 
workman  impressed  upon  His  work."  (Meditation  III.) 
The  following  passage  may  serve  as  an  example  of  Des- 
cartes's  way  of  putting  the  second  consideration :  "  When 
the  mind  reviews  the  different  ideas  that  are  in  it,  it  dis 
covers  what  is  by  far  the  chief  among  them,  that  of  a 
Being  omniscient,  all-powerful,  and  absolutely  perfect,  and 
it  observes  that  in  this  idea  there  is  contained,  not  only 
possible  and  contingent  existence,  as  in  the  ideas  of  other 
things  which  it  clearly  perceives,  but  existence  absolutely 
necessary  and  eternal.  And  just  as  because,  for  example, 
the  equality  of  its  three  angles  to  two  right  angles  is  ne 
cessarily  comprised  in  the  idea  of  a  triangle,  the  mind  is 
firmly  persuaded  that  the  three  angles  of  a  triangle  are 
equal  to  two  right  angles ;  so,  from  its  perceiving  necessary 


1517-1720.]  THE   GODHEAD.  8T 

and  eternal  existence  to  be  comprised  in  the  idea  which  it 
has  of  an  all-perfect  Being,  it  ought  to  conclude  that  this 
all-perfect  Being  exists."  (The  Principles  of  Philosophy, 
Part  I.) 

A  measure  of  assent  to  Descartes's  reasoning  appears 
among  contemporary  and  succeeding  writers.  Coccejus 
seems  to  have  agreed  with  the  French  philosopher  in  the 
conclusion,  that  the  simple  idea  of  God  involves  His  real 
existence ;  at  least,  it  is  difficult  to  put  any  other  construc 
tion  upon  the  following  statement  of  his  :  "  He  who  denies 
that  God  is,  says  that  the  best,  the  most  perfect,  the  neces 
sary  substance  which  effects  all  things  and  is  in  want  of 
nothing,  cannot  be,  and  therefore  that  the  necessary  is  not 
necessary,  the  eternal  is  not  eternal."  (Sum.  Theol.,  Cap. 
VIII.)  Cudworth  thought  that  this  phase  of  Descartes's 
argument  was  not  adapted  to  convince  an  opponent,  but 
appears  for  himself  to  have  credited  it  with  a  certain  force. 
To  the  other  phase  of  the  Cartesian  argument  he  subscribed 
in  these  definite  terms :  "  We  affirm  that,  if  there  were  no 
God,  the  idea  of  an  absolutely  or  infinitely  perfect  Being 
could  never  have  been  made  or  feigned,  neither  by  politi 
cians,  nor  by  poets,  nor  philosophers,  nor  any  other." 
(Intellect.  System,  Chap.  V.)  John  Norris  likewise  taught 
that,  if  there  were  no  God,  we  could  not  have  the  idea  of 
Him,  only  objecting  to  making  this  idea  the  medium  of 
revealing  God  to  us.  "  Whereas,"  he  says,  "  we  see  all 
things  in  God,  so  we  see  God  in  Himself,  and  not  by  any 
idea  distinct  from  Him,  or  that  is  the  effect  of  Him,  it  being 
impossible  that  God  should  be  represented  by  anything  less 
than  Himself."  (Theory  of  the  Ideal  World.)  Stillingfleet 
also  took  considerable  account  of  the  Cartesian  arguments. 
(Rational  Account  of  the  Grounds  of  Natural  and  Revealed 
Religion,  Bk.  III.) 

But  quite  a  proportion  of  writers  ignored  the  reasoning 
of  Descartes,  and  some  assumed  toward  it  a  diaparaging 
tone.  Locke,  of  course,  on  his  philosophical  principles, 


88  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

could  not  attach  much  value  to  such  a  line  of  reasoning. 
He  allowed  that  the  idea  of  a  perfect  Being  might  have 
weight  with  some,  but  thought  it  poor  policy  to  leave  more 
conclusive  arguments  in  the  background  in  favor  of  this. 
The  list  of  proofs  which  he  himself  submitted  is  the  follow 
ing  :  (1.)  Man  is  sure  of  his  own  existence.  (2.)  From 
nothing,  nothing  can  come.  (3.)  Something  must  have 
existed  from  all  eternity,  the  source  of  all  power,  and  hence 
most  powerful.  (4.)  Man  knows  that  he  has  knowledge 
and  perception.  (5.)  The  knowing  cannot  come  from  the 
unknowing ;  hence  an  eternal  intelligent  power,  or  God. 
Upon  the  last  of  these  points  he  remarks :  "  If  it  be  said 
there  was  a  time  when  no  being  had  any  knowledge,  when 
that  eternal  being  was  void  of  all  understanding,  I  reply, 
that  then  it  was  impossible  that  there  should  ever  have 
been  any  knowledge ;  it  being  as  impossible  that  things 
wholly  void  of  knowledge  and  operating  blindly,  should  pro 
duce  a  knowing  being,  as  it  is  impossible  that  a  triangle 
should  make  itself  three  angles  bigger  than  two  right  ones." 
(Essay,  Bk.  IV.  chap.  10.)  Samuel  Clarke  was  as  little 
disposed  as  Locke  to  be  satisfied  with  the  Cartesian  argu 
ments  ;  but  he  adduced  one  destined  to  be  criticised  quite  as 
severely.  Having  laid  down  the  position,  that  an  attribute 
must  have  a  substance  in  which  to  inhere,  he  said  that  we 
are  compelled  to  think  of  space  as  infinite  and  always. 
We  have  then  the  attributes  of  a  boundless  immensity  and 
duration,  and  must  affirm  consequently  an  infinite  and 
eternal  substance.  (Discourse  on  the  Being  and  Attributes 
of  God.)  Evidently  such  an  argument  is  of  little  signifi 
cance,  for,  even  if  its  validity  were  granted,  it  would  only 
prove  what  the  blankest  infidelity  has  commonly  admitted, 
namely,  that  something  has  existed  from  eternity. 

2.  ESSENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  —  Probably  in  this 
period  there  was  less  of  disposition,  on  the  average,  to  in 
dulge  extreme  statements  on  the  impossibility  of  knowing 
God,  as  to  His  essence,  than  was  manifested  in  the  patris- 


1517-1720.]  THE  GODHEAD.  89 

tic  and  the  scholastic  era.  While  some  strong  expressions, 
like  the  declaration  of  Luther,  that  the  essence  of  God  is 
plane  incognoscibilis,  were  indulged,  the  majority  of  Protes 
tant  theologians  were  content  to  emphasize  simply  the  im 
perfection  of  our  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature.  Thus 
Gerhard  says :  "  We  indeed  know  God,  but  do  not  compre 
hend  Him,  that  is,  do  not  know  Him  perfectly,  because  He 
is  infinite."  (Locus  II.  §  90.  Compare  Calov,  Tom.  II. 
cap.  3,4  ;  Hollaz,  Pt.  I.  cap.  1.)  In  like  manner  Limborch 
remarks  :  "  The  nature  of  God,  on  account  of  His  infinite 
majesty,  cannot  be  known  perfectly  by  us  in  this  world,  in 
which  we  see  only  through  a  glass  darkly."  (Theol.  Christ., 
II.  1.)  But  in  general  the  great  body  of  theologians  in 
this  era  differed  little  from  Augustine  and  the  scholastics 
in  their  conclusions  upon  the  essence  and  attributes  of  God. 
They  asserted  the  simplicity  of  the  divine  nature  in  the 
same  unqualified  terms.  John  Howe,  indeed,  seems  to  have 
been  opposed  to  the  scholastic  extreme  upon  this  subject, 
and  it  was  decidedly  criticised  by  Vorstius  ;  but  the  scho 
lastic  view  was  thoroughly  dominant.  The  larger  com 
munions  also  conformed  closely  to  the  standard  which  had 
long  been  acknowledged  respecting  the  eternity  and  the 
omnipresence  of  God,  regarding  the  former  as  excluding 
succession,  and  understanding  by  the  latter  superiority  to 
space  relations,  or  the  fact  of  complete  presence  in  every 
place  without  limitation  to  any. 

In  some  of  the  smaller  communions  there  was  a  disposi 
tion  to  criticise  the  current  view  of  God's  eternity.  Lead 
ing  Socinian  writers,  such  as  Faustus  Socinus  and  Crell, 
taught  that  eternity  is  only  endless  time,  and  that  with  God 
as  well  as  with  man  there  is  a  past,  a  present,  and  a  future. 
(Socinus,  Prelect.  Theol.,  Cap.  VIII. ;  Crell,  Lib.  de  Deo, 
Cap.  XVIII.)  Some  of  the  Arminian  theologians  were  in 
clined  to  the  same  position.  Arminius,  indeed,  was  true  to 
the  traditional  theory  in  ruling  out  succession  (Disput.  IV.), 
and  Limborch  declared  that  he  was  unable  to  decide  posi- 


90  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

tively  either  for  or  against  it  (Theol.  Christ.,  II.  5)  ;  but 
Episcopius  and  Curcellasus  criticised  it  in  very  positive 
terms  (Lib.  IV.  Sect.  II.  cap.  9;  Lib.  II.  cap.  3).  To  ex 
clude  time  distinctions,  said  Curcellaeus,  is  to  leave  one 
equally  free  to  affirm,  that,  in  respect  of  God,  the  world  is 
yet  to  be  created,  and  has  already  been  destroyed,  and  the 
contrary.  No  doubt  there  was  some  occasion  for  such 
strictures  in  the  neglect  of  the  advocates  of  the  old  theory 
to  harmonize  satisfactorily  the  idea  of  God's  timelessness 
with  His  recognition  of  the  temporal  order  under  which 
finite  things  subsist.  Curcellaeus  was  disposed  to  question 
also  the  current  theory  of  omnipresence,  and  suggested  that 
God,  instead  of  being  wholly  in  every  place,  may  be  in 
heaven  as  to  His  essence,  and  everywhere  only  in  respect 
of  power  or  influence.  (Inst.,  II.  4.  Compare  Vorstius,  Lib. 
de  Deo  et  Attribut.) 

The  Socinians  were  distinguished  by  their  denial  of  the 
divine  foreknowledge  of  contingent  events.  The  contin 
gent,  said  Faustus  Socinus,  is  in  its  nature  unknowable, 
and  consequently  to  exclude  it  from  the  divine  foreknowl 
edge  is  no  more  derogatory  to  the  knowledge  of  God, 
than  to  exclude  from  His  power  that  which  in  the  nature 
of  things  is  impossible  is  derogatory  to  His  omnipotence. 
(Prelect.  Theol.,  Cap.  VIII.  Compare  Crell,  Lib.  de  Deo, 
Cap.  XXIV.)  This  theory  was  thought  to  be  of  special 
value  in  reconciling  foreknowledge  with  human  freedom. 
It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  its  defence  involved  some 
what  of  a  tendency  to  abridge  man's  freedom,  since  it  was 
found  difficult  to  explain  the  facts  of  prophecy  on  this  ba 
sis,  unless  it  was  conceded  that  God  has  the  prerogative 
and  power  to  make  men  act  in  a  specific  way.  So  we  find 
Crcll  indulging  this  statement:  "Nothing  forbids  that 
God  in  this  or  that  matter  should  impose  upon  a  man  a 
necessity  of  willing  that  which  is  not  base,  liberty  being  left 
to  him  in  other  and  the  greater  number  of  things." 

Among  Calvinistic  writers,  foreknowledge  was  closely  as- 


1517-1720.]  THE  GODHEAD.  91 

sociated  with  predestination,  or  even  declared  to  be  founded 
upon  the  same.  Calvin  says  that  it  is  not  at  all  necessary 
to  discuss  the  question  whether  the  mere  foreknowledge  of 
God  lays  necessity  upon  future  events,  "  since  He  foresees 
future  events  only  in  consequence  of  His  decree  that  they 
should  happen. "  (Inst.,  Bk.  III.  chap.  23.)  Equivalent 
language  is  used  hy  Beza.  (Colloq.  Mompelg.)  Turretin, 
in  explaining  how  God's  foreknowledge  is  infallible,  says, 
"  The  reason  is,  that  the  foreknowledge  of  God  follows  His 
decree,  and  as  the  decree  cannot  be  changed,  so  neither  can 
His  knowledge  be  subject  to  mistake."  (Inst.,  Locus  III. 
qusest.  12.)  "  God  foresees  from  eternity,"  says  Coccejus, 
"  what  is  to  take  place,  because  nothing  is  to  take  place 
without  the  agency  of  God.  .  .  .  What  He  sees  as  hereafter 
to  come  to  pass,  He  sees  in  the  decree,  by  which  either  He 
summons  events  to  take  place,  or  by  which  He  has  decided 
to  supply  to  the  sinning  creature  the  concursus  of  the 
first  cause,  without  which  the  second  is  not  able  to  act." 
(Sum.  Theol.,  Cap.  X.)  The  Arminians,  on  the  other  hand, 
maintained  that  God  does  not  need  to  exclude  contingency 
proper,  or  to  rule  out  alternatives  by  a  positive  decree,  in 
order  to  foreknow  an  event.  The  proper  opposite  of  cer 
tainty,  they  said,  is"  uncertainty,  and  the  proper  opposite  of 
contingency  is  necessity.  The  first  two  pertain  only  to  the 
knowing  subject,  while  the  last  two  pertain  to  the  events 
known.  As  that  which  is  purely  subjective  imposes  no 
constraint  upon  an  object,  so  the  certainty  of  the  divine 
mind  in  no  way  interferes  with  the  contingency  of  an  event. 
Men,  indeed,  in  the  use  of  their  own  powers,  can  be  entirely 
certain  of  a  future  event  only  on  the  ground  of  necessity, 
but  God's  ability  to  foreknow  is  not  to  be  judged  according 
to  a  human  standard.  He  foresees  the  necessary  as  coming 
to  pass  in  a  necessary  way,  and  the  contingent  as  occurring 
contingently.  (Curcellaeus,  II.  6  ;  Limborch,  II.  8.)  The 
language  of  Gerhard  implies  the  same  position :  "  To  say 
that  a  thing  will  take  place  contingently,  is  to  say  simply 


92  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

two  things,  namely,  that  it  will  take  place  and  that  it  is 
able  not  to  take  place.  But  these  two  things  are  not  an 
tagonistic  to  each  other,  because,  as  many  things  are  able 
to  occur  which  do  not  occur,  so  many  things  occur  which 
are  able  not  to  occur ;  therefore,  many  things  occur  contin 
gently.  But  that  which  is  to  occur  contingently  is  truly  to 
occur,  and  therefore  can  be  foreknown.  For  everything 
which  is  true  is  capable  of  being  known.  Therefore  knowl 
edge  does  not  exclude  contingency."  (Locus  II.  §  255.) 
By  the  contingency  of  an  event  Gerhard  evidently  meant 
its  real  contingency,  or  complete  freedom  from  the  category 
of  necessity,  and  not  that  species  of  contingency  which 
some  Calvinistic  writers  affirmed  when  they  described  an 
event  as  contingent  in  relation  to  man,  but  necessary  in  re 
lation  to  God.  Cudworth,  Clarke,  and  other  eminent  An 
glican  writers,  were  equally  pronounced  for  the  verdict 
that  the  divine  prescience  grasps  the  contingent  in  a  way 
which  in  no  wise  interferes  with  its  proper  contingency. 
(Intellect.  System,  Chap.  V. ;  Discourse  on  the  Being  and 
Attributes  of  God.) 

In  connection  with  the  topic  of  foreknowledge,  consider 
able  discussion  was  expended  upon  the  question  whether  a 
scientia  media  is  to  be  predicated  of  God.  As  the  phrase 
suggests,  the  question  was  whether  a  mean  is  to  be  affirmed 
between  the  two  forms  of  divine  knowledge  which  the 
scholastics  had  specified,  namely,  the  scientia  simplicis  in- 
telligentice,  or  God's  knowledge  of  Himself  and  of  what  is 
possible  to  His  omnipotence,  and  the  scientia  visionis,  or 
the  knowledge  of  that  which  is  actually  to  occur  by  His 
efficiency  or  permission.  The  advocates  of  the  scientia 
media  maintained  that,  besides  these  two  kinds  of  knowl 
edge,  there  is  in  God  a  knowledge  of  what  free  agents 
would  do  under  certain  supposable  conditions  ;  that  is,  a 
knowledge  neither  of  the  simply  possible,  nor  of  that  which 
is  actually  to  be,  but  of  that  which  would  be  under  such 
and  such  circumstances.  This  theory  was  favored  by  Mo- 


1517-1720.]  THE  GODHEAD.  93 

lina,  Suarez,  and  other  distinguished  Jesuits,  as  helping  to 
reconcile  the  divine  election  with  human  freedom.  The 
Arminian  theologians,  Curcellaaus  and  Limborch,  also  ac 
cepted  it ;  at  least,  they  imputed  such  a  knowledge  to  God 
as  the  theory  affirmed,  though  not  disposed  to  quarrel  with 
those  who  thought  that  this  knowledge  might  properly  be 
included  under  the  old  classification.  A  number  of  Lu 
theran  theologians  favored  the  theory.  Calvinistic  writers 
were  commonly  opposed  to  it,  though  as  sturdy  an  advocate 
of  predestination  as  Gomar  gave  it  his  sanction.  (See  list 
of  advocates  and  opponents  as  given  by  Quenstedt,  Systema, 
De  Attributis  Divinis,  qua3st.  7.) 

It  was  commonly  maintained  that  God  wills  necessarily 
whatever  pertains  properly  to  Himself,  while  He  wills  freely 
that  which  relates  to  creatures.  Some  who  were  inclined 
to  extreme  views  of  divine  sovereignty  asserted  the  Scotist 
maxim  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  absolute  rule  of  right. 
Luther's  words  are  quite  as  explicit  as  those  of  Scotus. 
He  says :  "  There  is  no  cause  or  reason  which  can  be  pre 
scribed  to  the  will  of  God  as  its  rule  or  measure,  since 
nothing  is  equal  or  superior  to  it,  but  it  itself  is  the  rule 
of  all  things.  .  .  .  Not  indeed  because  He  ought  to  will  or 
to  have  willed  so,  is  that  which  He  wills  right ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  because  He  so  wills,  it  is  bound  to  be  right." 
(De  Servo  Arbitrio.)  "  The  will  of  God,"  says  Calvin,  "  is 
the  highest  rule  of  justice  ;  so  that  what  He  wills  must  be 
just,  for  this  very  reason,  because  He  wills  it.  When 
it  is  inquired,  therefore,  why  the  Lord  did  so,  the  answer 
must  be,  Because  He  would.  But  if  you  go  further,  and 
ask  why  He  so  determined,  you  are  in  search  of  some 
thing  greater  and  higher  than  the  will  of  God,  which 
can  never  be  found."  (List.,  III.  23.)  Calvin,  however, 
notwithstanding  this  strong  statement,  suggests  after  all 
that  he  meant  not  so  much  that  God's  will  is  absolutely 
the  highest  rule  of  right,  as  that  it  is  one  which  we  cannot 
transcend,  and  must  regard  as  binding  our  own  judgment ; 


94  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

for  he  adds,  "We  represent  not  God  as  lawless,  who  is 
a  law  to  Himself."  Beza  says,  "  The  will  of  God  is  the 
highest  rule  of  justice."  (Ad  Castel.  Calum.  Responsio.) 
Equivalent  language  is  used  by  Zanchi.  (De  Natura  Dei, 
III.  4.)  But  not  all  of  the  Calvinistic  writers  were  satis 
fied  with  this  representation.  Turretin,  after  propounding 
the  question  whether  the  will  of  God  is  the  rule  of  right, 
says :  "  Some  stand  for  the  affirmative,  maintaining  that 
all  moral  good  and  evil  depend  upon  the  free  will  of  God, 
and  that  nothing  is  good  or  just  except  as  God  wills. 
Others,  on  the  contrary,  stand  for  the  negative,  and  ac 
knowledge  a  certain  essential  goodness  and  justice  in  moral 
actions  antecedent  to  the  will  of  God,  so  that  those  things 
are  not  good  and  just  because  God  wills,  but  God  wills 
them  because  they  are  good  and  just."  Turretin  declares 
for  the  latter  opinion,  certain  explanations  being  under 
stood.  His  view  is  summed  up  in  this  sentence:  "The 
will  of  God  can  be  called  and  truly  is  the  rule  of  righteous 
ness  extrinsically  and  in  respect  to  us,  but  not  indeed  in 
trinsically  and  in  respect  of  God."  (Inst.,  Locus  III.  qua?st. 
18.)  This  naturally  was  the  position  taken  by  the  Armin- 
ians.  "  God  can  do,"  says  Arminius,  "  whatever  He  wills 
with  His  own,  but  He  cannot  will  to  do  with  His  own  that 
which  He  cannot  do  of  right.  For  His  will  is  restricted 
by  the  limits  of  justice."  (Discussion  with  Francis  Junius.) 
The  same  view  was  emphatically  asserted  by  the  Cambridge 
Platonists.  Moral  distinctions,  according  to  Cudworth, 
cannot  depend  upon  mere  will,  any  more  than  mathemat 
ical.  "  Truth  is  not  factitious ;  it  is  a  thing  which  cannot 
be  arbitrarily  made,  but  is.  The  divine  will  and  omnipo 
tence  itself  hath  no  imperium  upon  the  divine  understand 
ing;  for  if  God  understood  only  by  will,  He  would  not 
understand  at  all."  (Immutable  Morality;  Intellectual 
System.)  "The  reasons  of  things,"  said  Whichcote,  "are 
eternal ;  they  are  not  subject  to  any  power."  (Sermons.) 
The  same  position  is  implied  by  the  statement  of  Baxter, 


1517-1720.]  THE   GODHEAD.  95 

that  there  are  certain  duties  which  are  founded  in  the 
relation  of  our  rational  nature  to  the  nature  of  God,  and 
of  which  we  must  say  that  God  wills  them  because  they 
are  good,  and  not  that  they  are  good  because  He  wills  them. 
(Unreasonableness  of  Infidelity,  Pref.)  Samuel  Clarke 
defines  the  basis  of  moral  obligation  as  follows :  "  The  true 
ground  and  foundation  of  all  eternal  moral  obligation  is 
this,  that  the  same  reasons  which  always  and  necessarily 
do  determine  the  will  of  God,  ought  also  constantly  to  de 
termine  the  will  of  all  subordinate  intelligent  beings." 
(Discourse  on  the  Being  and  Attributes  of  God.)  Clarke 
and  some  others  of  the  English  theologians  just  quoted 
had  the  theories  of  Hobbes  in  mind  as  they  wrote.  In  har 
mony  with  his  political  maxims,  Hobbes  enthroned  arbi 
trary  power  at  the  centre  of  the  universe.  "  God  in  His 
natural  kingdom,"  he  says,  "hath  a  right  to  rule,  and  to 
punish  those  who  break  His  laws,  from  His  sole  irresistible 
power.  .  .  .  Now  if  God  have  the  right  of  sovereignty  from 
His  power,  it  is  manifest  that  the  obligation  of  yielding 
Him  obedience  lies  on  men  by  reason  of  their  weakness." 
(Philosophical  Rudiments.) 

The  period,  on  the  whole,  was  distinguished  by  a  strong 
emphasis  upon  the  justice  of  God,  and  to  none  of  the 
divine  attributes  was  a  more  prominent  place  assigned  than 
to  this.  A  large  proportion  of  Protestant  theologians,  as 
they  held  respecting  the  atonement  the  strict  satisfaction 
theory,  held  also  that  a  justitia  vindicatrix  must  be  predi 
cated  of  God,  or  a  justice  requiring  satisfaction  as  a  con 
dition  of  remission.  Such  a  view  was  vehemently  opposed 
by  the  Socinians.  It  was  also  rejected  by  the  Arminians. 
Among  Calvinistic  divines  it  was  challenged  by  Twisse  and 
Rutherford,  but  Turretin,  who  approved  it,  speaks  of  it  as 
a  wellnigh  universal  opinion  in  his  day.  (Inst.,  Locus  III. 
queest.  19.) 


HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


SECTION  II.  —  THE  TRINITY. 

IN  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Church  generally,  as 
well  as  in  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Augustinian  theory  of 
the  Trinity,  or  that  expressed  in  the  so-called  Athanasian 
creed,  was  emphatically  asserted.  Augustine's  leading 
illustration,  however,  was  not  acceptable  to  all.  "That 
speculation  of  Augustine,"  says  Calvin,  "  is  far  from  being 
solid,  that  the  soul  is  a  mirror  of  the  Trinity,  because  it 
contains  understanding,  will,  and  memory."  (Inst.,  I.  15.) 
Bossuet,  on  the  other  hand,  reproduced  essentially  the 
Augustinian  illustration.  (Sermon  sur  le  Mystere  do  la 
Trinite.)  The  principal  creeds,  as  well  as  the  writings 
of  prominent  theologians  among  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Reformed,  disallowed  any  inequality  between  the  Divine 
Persons,  and  declared  them  to  be,  in  the  full  sense,  of  one 
substance,  power,  and  eternity.  Calvin  maintained  even 
that  the  Son  is  to  be  called  self-existent,  implying  thereby 
that  generation  applies  to  the  Second  Person  as  Son,  but 
not  as  God,  or  that  the  personal  relation,  not  the  essence, 
is  to  be  viewed  as  derived.  He  says :  "  Whoever  asserts 
that  the  Son  owes  His  essence  to  the  Father,  denies  Him 
to  be  self-existent.  But  this  is  contradicted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  gives  Him  the  name  of  Jehovah."  (Inst.,  I. 
13.)  Zanchi,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  hesitate  to  speak 
of  the  Father  as  the  fountain  of  the  entire  deity  in  the 
Son  (De  Uno  Vero  Deo,  Lib.  VIII.  cap.  1),  and  the  Irish 
Articles  state  that  the  Father  begets  the  person  of  the 
Son  by  the  communication  of  His  whole  essence.  Petavius 
strongly  reprobated  Calvin's  position  on  this  point.  (Theol. 
Dogmat.,  Lib.  II.  cap.  3.)  Evidently,  however,  the  subject, 
as  considered  by  these  writers,  involved  little  else  than  a 
question  of  words.  So  long  as  it  is  allowed  that  the  es 
sence  in  the  Son  is  eternal,  unoriginated,  and  the  same  as 
in  the  Father,  the  meaning  of  the  Son's  generation  must 


1517-1720.]  THE   GODHEAD.  97 

be  essentially  the  same,  whether  the  term  self-existent  be 
asserted  or  disallowed. 

Among  statements  designed  to  reconcile  unity  of  essence 
with  triple  personality,  we  notice  that  of  Gerhard,  which 
indeed  only  repeats  an  idea  of  Augustine.  "In  created 
things,"  he  says,  "  persons  and  individuals  being  multi 
plied,  the  essences  are  multiplied  in  number,  because  no 
created  essence  is  self-existent  and  infinite ;  but  the  divine 
essence  is  self-existent  and  infinite,  and  therefore,  on  ac 
count  of  its  supreme  simplicity,  perfection,  and  infinity,  is 
able  to  be  in  several  persons."  (Locus  II.  §  98.  Compare 
Turretin,  Locus  III.  qusest.  25.) 

As  an  index  of  the  extent  to  which  dogmatism  was  car 
ried  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  seventeenth  century,  we 
notice  the  fact,  that  eminent  theologians  declared  that  sal 
vation  is  imperilled  not  merely  by  denial,  but  by  ignorance 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  "  The  necessity  of  believing 
this  dogma,"  said  Quenstedt,  "  is  so  great  that  not  only  it 
cannot  be  denied,  but  even  unknown  by  any  one,  except  at 
cost  of  salvation."  (Systema,  De  Trin.,  Sect.  I.  Thesis  4.) 
Gerhard  used  equivalent  terms :  "  Trinitatis  non  solum 
negatio,  verum  etiam  ignoratio  est  damnabilis."  (Locus 
III.  §  2.) 

The  Arminians,  while  they  held  to  the  doctrine  of  three 
Divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  diverged  from  the  cur 
rent  teaching  upon  the  subject  by  an  express  emphasis 
upon  the  subordination  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit.  Ar- 
miriius  was  not  specially  related  to  this  development,  and 
contented  himself  with  denying,  in  opposition  to  Calvin's 
phraseology,  the  propriety  of  attributing  self-existence  to 
the  Son.  But  Episcopius,  Curcella3us,  and  Limborch  were 
very  pronounced  in  the  opinion  that  a  certain  pre-eminence 
must  be  assigned  to  the  Father  over  the  Son  and  the  Spirit. 
Episcopius  says  :  "  It  ought  not  to  seem  strange,  if  to  these 
three  Persons  one  and  the  same  divine  nature  is  attributed, 
since  the  Scriptures  so  evidently  attribute  to  them  those 

VOL.    II.  —  7. 


98  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

divine  perfections  which  are  proper  to  the  divine  nature. 
But  I  add,  it  is  certain,  from  these  same  Scriptures,  that  to 
these  three  Persons  divinity  and  divine  perfections  are  at 
tributed,  not  collaterally  or  co-ordinately,  but  subordinately : 
so  that  the  Father  alone  has  that  divine  nature  and  those 
divine  perfections  from  Himself,  or  from  no  other,  but  the 
Son  and  Spirit  from  the  Father ;  and  hence  the  Father  is 
the  fountain  and  source  of  all  the  divinity  which  is  in  the 
Son  and  Spirit.  This  subordination  is  to  be  diligently  re 
garded,  for  it  is  of  great  utility,  because  by  it  not  only  is  the 
foundation  of  tritheism  removed,  which  equality  of  rank  al 
most  necessarily  draws  with  it ;  but  also  His  own  glory  is 
preserved  in  its  integrity  to  the  Father."  In  three  respects, 
as  he  teaches,  a  pre-eminence  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Father, 
namely,  in  order,  dignity,  and  power,  or  right  of  dominion. 
He  is  first  in  order,  as  the  other  Persons  are  from  Him ; 
first  in  dignity,  as  it  is  more  honorable  to  generate  than 
to  be  generated,  to  cause  to  proceed,  than  to  be  caused ; 
first  in  power  or  prerogative,  for  He  has  the  right  to  give 
the  Son  and  to  pour  out  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  they  have  no 
such  right  over  Him.  (Lib.  IY.  Sect.  II.  cap.  32.) 

Several  of  the  Anglican  theologians  allowed  that  a  cer- 
tian  subordination  is  to  be  predicated  of  the  second  and 
third  Persons.  This  was  the  case  with  Cudworth,  if  it  be 
concluded  that  he  leaned  to  the  theory  which  he  ascribed 
to  the  early  fathers;  for  he  declared  that  their  doctrine 
plainly  involved  a  subordination.  Moreover,  like  Curcel- 
lams  and  Lc  Clerc,  he  maintained  that  the  fathers  taught, 
not  a  numerical  unity  of  essence,  but  only  a  unity  of  spe 
cies,  not  identity,  but  sameness  in  kind.  (Intellect.  System, 
Chap.  IV.)  Cudworth  did  not  explicitly  pronounce  for  this 
theory,  but  from  the  general  tenor  of  his  remarks  one  can 
hardly  escape  the  impression  that  he  sympathized  with  it  in 
a  measure.  Bishop  Bull  undertook  to  prove  that  the  early 
fathers  generally  conformed  to  the  orthodox  standard  on 
the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  but  that  standard,  in  his  view, 


1517-1720.1  THE  GODHEAD.  99 

must  allow  that  the  Son,  even  in  respect  of  His  divinity,  is 
in  a  degree  subordinate  to  the  Father,  inasmuch  as  He  is 
from  Him.  (Defensio  Fidei  Nica3nae.)  Pearson  took  the 
same  ground,  teaching  that  the  Son  is  equal  to  the  Father 
in  respect  of  essence,  but  not  in  respect  of  the  mode  of  His 
subsistence.  "  The  Son  is  equal,"  he  says,  "  in  respect  of 
His  nature,  the  Father  greater  in  reference  to  the  commu 
nication  of  the  Godhead.  .  .  .  There  is  no  difference  or 
inequality  in  the  nature  or  essence,  because  the  same  is  in 
both ;  but  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  that 
essence  of  Himself,  from  none ;  Christ  hath  the  same  not 
of  Himself,  but  from  Him."  (Exposition  of  the  Creed, 
Art.  II.) 

Samuel  Clarke,  in  his  "  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity," 
(1712,)  pushed  the  aspect  of  subordination  far  toward  the 
borders  of  Arianism.  His  position,  as  gathered  from  this 
work,  might  be  described  as  a  position  of  indecision  between 
Origen  and  Arius.  According  to  Clarke,  the  Scriptures  do 
not  definitely  determine  whether  the  Son  was  made  from 
nothing  or  is  of  self-existent  substance.  On  Scriptural 
ground  we  are  not  authorized  to  say  that  there  was  a  time 
when  He  was  not,  but  also  we  cannot  predicate  absolute 
eternity,  and  can  only  say  that  He  was  before  the  world  was 
made,  and  from  the  beginning.  The  Scriptures,  moreover, 
have  not  revealed  to  us  whether  the  Son  derives  His  being 
by  a  natural  necessity,  or  only  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the 
Father.  They  ascribe  to  Him,  however,  all  divine  powers 
and  perfections,  except  self-existence  and  independence.  Of 
the  Holy  Spirit  the  Scriptures  speak  in  higher  terms  than 
of  any  angel  or  other  creature  whatever;  yet  they  make  the 
Spirit  subordinate  to  the  Son,  and  nowhere  apply  to  Him  the 
divine  name.  (Abstract  by  Le  Clerc.)  No  little  agitation 
was  caused  by  Clarke's  treatise.  It  was  commonly  re 
garded  as  decidedly  heterodox,  though  the  author  by  the  aid 
of  explanations  managed  to  satisfy  the  bishops.  Among 
the  replies  called  forth,  that  of  Daniel  Waterland  is  of  the 


100  HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

greatest  note.  Waterland  took  the  ground  that  the  only 
subordination  of  the  Son  pertains  not  to  nature,  but  only 
to  order  and  office.  He  has  all  the  divine  perfections. 
While  He  is  from  the  Father,  and  in  that  sense  is  not 
self-existent,  He  does  possess  necessary  existence,  "and 
self-existence  as  distinguished  from  necessary  existence  is 
expressive  only  of  the  order  and  manner  in  which  the 
perfections  are  in  the  Father,  not  of  any  distinct  perfec 
tion."  (Second  Vindication.)  , 

The  Quakers  were  opposed  to  the  terms  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  commonly  set  forth,  and  pre 
ferred  to  abide  by  Scriptural  phraseology.  They  seem  not, 
however,  to  have  disowned  the  doctrine  itself.  Penn,  after 
giving  a  list  of  rational  arguments  against  the  traditional 
theory,  adds :  "  Mistake  me  not ;  we  never  have  disowned 
a  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  which  are  One,  but  men's  in 
ventions."  (The  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken.) 

Among  pronounced  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  on  the  Continent,  Servetus  obtained  a  special  prom 
inence  by  reason  of  his  tragic  fate.  He  was  burned  at  the 
stake  in  Geneva,  in  1558.  His  theory  of  the  Son,  as  finally 
matured,  reflected  his  pantheistic  belief.  In  Christ,  as  he 
taught,  the  eternal  Word,  which  pre-existed  in  God  as  an 
idea  or  potence,  attained  a  personal  existence.  The  Son 
has,  therefore,  a  species  of  divinity  in  Him,  but  as  person 
He  dates  only  from  the  era  of  the  incarnation.  (Dorner.) 

As  previously  indicated,  the  Socinians  w^ere  the  princi 
pal  exponents  in  this  period  of  an  organized  opposition 
to  Trinitarianism.  They  maintained  that  the  doctrine  of 
three  persons  possessing  a  common  essence  is  contradictory 
to  reason,  and  attempted  also  to  refute  it  on  the  basis  of 
Scripture.  In  this  endeavor  they  were  able  to  employ  the 
same  proof-texts  as  the  Arians  had  used,  but  on  the  whole 
were  under  greater  pressure  in  their  exegesis,  inasmuch  as 
they  denied  the  pre-existence  of  the  Son,  which  the  Arians 
had  allowed.  They  were  able,  however,  to  make  a  show  of 


1517-1720.1  THE   GODHEAD.  101 

meeting  the  texts  which  imply  pre-existence.  Their  deal 
ing  with  the  opening  of  John's  Gospel  may  serve  as  an  ex 
ample.  The  beginning  which  is  here  mentioned,  according 
to  their  exposition,  dates  back  only  a  few  years  before  the 
time  of  writing,  and  denotes  the  commencement  of  the  Gos 
pel  dispensation,  while  the  creation  of  all  things  by  the 
Word  denotes  the  initiation  of  the  new  spiritual  order. 

According  to  the  Socinian  theory,  Christ  as  to  His  real 
nature  is  simply  man.  They  affirmed,  however,  that  He 
must  be  regarded  as  distinguished  in  various  ways  from 
all  others  of  the  race.  1.  He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  2.  The  Holy  Spirit  dwelt  in  Him  in  peculiar  ful 
ness,  and  indeed  may  be  said  to  have  been  joined  "  by  an 
indissoluble  bond  to  His  human  nature."  (Racovian  Cate 
chism.)  3.  He  was  perfectly  holy.  4.  He  acquired  special 
knowledge,  before  entering  on  His  public  ministry,  "  by  as 
cending  into  heaven,  where  He  beheld  His  Father,  and  that 
life  of  happiness  which  He  was  to  announce  to  us ;  where 
also  He  heard  from  the  Father  all  those  things  which  it 
would  behoove  Him  to  teach."  (Ibid.)  5.  Since  His  ascen 
sion,  all  power  has  been  given  unto  Him,  as  respects  the 
work  of  salvation,  and  the  government  of  the  intelligent  uni 
verse.  "  By  His  dominion  and  supreme  authority  over  all 
things,  He  is  made  to  resemble,  or,  indeed,  to  equal  God. 
.  .  .  Christ  has  absolute  authority  over  our  bodies  and  our 
souls,  and  rules  not  only  over  men,  but  also  over  angels, 
good  and  bad,  and  over  death  and  hell."  (Ibid.)  He  is 
possessed  of  all  the  knowledge  requisite  for  such  a  dominion, 
being  acquainted  with  the  thoughts  of  all  men,  as  well  as 
their  deeds.  (Socinus,  Christ.  Relig.  Brevis.  Inst.  ;  Wol- 
zogen,  Compend.  Relig.  Christ.)  Indeed,  Socinianism  re 
versed  the  Catholic  doctrine  that  a  Divine  Person  descended 
to  the  plane  of  humanity,  and  taught  that  a  man  ascended 
to  the  plane  of  divinity.  In  consequence  of  this  exalted 
position,  Christ,  as  the  Socinians  were  very  zealous  in  af 
firming,  is  to  be  addressed  in  prayer.  We  are  to  bring  all 


102  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

our  needs,  temporal  and  spiritual,  to  Him,  and  are  to 
worship  and  adore  Him.  "  We  are  required,"  says  the  Cat 
echism,  "  to  acknowledge  the  Lord  Jesus  as  one  who  has 
divine  authority  over  us,  and  in  that  sense  as  God  ;  we  are 
bound,  moreover,  to  put  our  trust  in  Him,  and  pay  Him 
divine  honor."  Between  His  worship,  however,  and  that 
due  to  God,  there  is  this  difference,  that  we  adore  and  wor 
ship  God  as  the  first  cause  of  our  salvation,  but  Christ  as 
the  second.  We  direct  this  honor  to  God,  moreover,  as  the 
ultimate  object ;  but  to  Christ  as  the  intermediate  object. 
To  worship  Christ,  to  this  extent,  is  clearly  required  by  the 
Scriptures.  Hence,  "  it  is  easily  perceived  that  they  who 
are  disinclined  to  do  this  are  so  far  not  Christians ;  al 
though  in  other  respects  they  confess  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  declare  that  they  adhere  to  His  doctrine."  In  the  first 
edition  of  the  Racovian  Catechism  a  still  stronger  state 
ment  was  made.  Of  those  who  refuse  to  invocate  and  adore 
Christ,  it  was  declared  :  "  They  are  no  Christians,  since  in 
deed  they  have  not  Christ ;  for  though  in  words  they  dare 
not  deny  Him,  yet  in  reality  they  do."  Socinus  stigmatized 
the  view  of  such  as  "  that  most  infamous  and  detestable 
opinion."  (Lindsey,  Historical  View.)  This  feature  of  the 
Socinian  system  was  opposed  by  Francis  David  in  Transyl 
vania.  His  protests,  however,  were  ineffectual,  and  only 
served  to  bring  against  himself  the  rod  of  persecution. 

The  Holy  Spirit  was  defined  as  "  a  virtue  or  energy  flow 
ing  from  God  to  men  and  communicated  to  them."  (Cate 
chism.)  Socinus  speaks  of  the  Spirit  as  virtus  atque  efficacia 
Dei,  and  says  that  a  personal  character  ought  no  more  to  be 
attributed  to  it  than  to  other  properties  or  effects  of  God. 

John  Biddle,  the  most  noteworthy  of  the  pronounced  op 
ponents  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  England 
in  this  period,  espoused  the  Socinian  view  of  the  Son. 
While  he  affirmed  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  he  still 
was  able  to  say  :  "  I  believe  that  there  is  one  chief  Son  of 
the  most  high  God,  or  spiritual,  heavenly,  and  perpetual 


1517-1720.]  THE   GODHEAD.  103 

Lord  and  King,  set  over  the  Church  by  God,  and  second 
cause  of  all  things  pertaining  to  our  salvation,  and  conse 
quently  the  intermediate  object  of  our  faith  and  worship ; 
and  this  Son  of  the  most  high  God  is  none  but  Jesus  Christ, 
the  second  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity."  (Confession  of 
Faith.)  On  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Biddle  di 
verged  from  the  Socinian  theory,  declaring  definitely  for  the 
proper  personality  of  the  Spirit,  and  regarding  Him  as  the 
prince  of  good  angels,  much  as  Satan  is  the  prince  of  the 
evil.  "  I  believe,"  he  says,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  chief 
of  all  ministering  spirits,  peculiarly  sent  out  from  Heaven 
to  minister  on  their  behalf  that  shall  inherit  salvation." 
(Letter  to  Sir  Henry  Vane.  Compare  his  Twelve  Argu 
ments.) 

John  Milton,  who  was  contemporary  with  Biddle,  held  a 
similar  view  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  says  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  produced  by  an  act  of  free  will,  probably  before 
the  foundations  of  the  world  were  laid,  but  later  than  the 
Son,  to  whom  He  is  far  inferior.  (Treatise  on  Christian 
Doctrine.)  Milton's  view  of  the  Son  may  be  characterized 
as  Arian  or  Semi-Arian.  It  has  been  supposed  by  many 
that  John  Locke  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton  were  also  ill-affected 
toward  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Their  writ 
ings  contain  no  positive  disavowal  of  this  doctrine,  but  quite 
plausible  evidence  may  be  quoted  on  the  side  of  the  suspi 
cion  that  it  was  not  favored  by  them. 


104  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


CHAPTER    III. 

CREATION  AND  CREATURES. 

SECTION  I.  —  CREATION. 

As  in  all  of  the  preceding  centuries  of  Christian  history, 
it  was  the  common  doctrine  that  the  world  was  created  from 
nothing.  John  Milton  stood  wholly  apart  from  the  general 
current  in  regarding  the  world  as  an  efflux  from  God. 

Some  of  the  writers  who  touched  upon  the  relation  of 
creation  to  conservation  fell  little  short  of  the  Augustinian 
idea  that  the  latter  is  nothing  less  than  the  former  con 
tinued.  Maresius  is  quoted  as  making  the  very  explicit 
declaration,  u  Conservatio  est  continuata  creatio."  (A. 
Schweizer,  Die  Glaubenslehre  der  Evangelisch-Reformirten 
Kirche,  §  44.) 

The  theory  that  the  work  of  creation  was  consummated 
in  six  literal  days  was  thoroughly  dominant.  (Calvin,  Inst., 
I.  14  ;  Turretin,  Locus  V.  quacst.  5  ;  Coccejus,  Sum.  Theol., 
cap.  15  ;  Gerhard,  Locus  V.  §  21 ;  Quenstedt,  De  Creatione, 
quasst.  6  ;  Calov,  Tom.  III.  cap.  2,  art.  5,  qu.  4 ;  Episcopius, 
Lib.  IV.  sect.  3,  cap.  3 ;  Curccllaeus,  Lib.  III.  cap.  6 ;  Lim- 
borch,  Lib.  II.  cap.  21.)  A  few  Roman  Catholic  writers, 
as  Cajetan  and  Serry,  followed  the  view  advocated  by  the 
Alexandrians,  and  favored  by  Augustine  in  some  of  his 
references  to  the  subject,  namely,  that  the  creation  of  all 
things  was  effected  in  a  single  moment ;  but  Petavius  writes 
that  in  his  day  this  view  was  almost  universally  repudiated. 
(Theol.  Dogmat.,  De  Sex  Dierum  Opif.,  Lib.  I.  cap.  5.) 
Those  who  favored  the  hypothesis  of  six  literal  days  did 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  105 

not  imagine  that  God  needed  this  amount  of  time.  He 
wrought,  as  they  conceived,  not  as  was  possible  to  His 
omnipotence,  but  as  His  condescension  to  man's  feeble 
power  to  contemplate  His  work  dictated.  Some,  moreover, 
suggested  that  only  a  single  moment  of  each  of  the  succes 
sive  days  was  occupied  in  creating.  Thus  Limborch  says : 
"  We  do  not  believe  that  God  bestowed  six  whole  days 
upon  creation,  but  that  He  created  in  a  moment  the  work 
of  each  day ;  for  God  needs  no  time  for  accomplishing  His 
works."  (Lib.  II.  cap.  21.) 

It  is  noteworthy  that  even  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven 
teenth  centuries  the  pre-Adamite  theory  found  a  place.  It 
was  advocated  by  Giordano  Bruno  and  by  the  Frenchman, 
Isaac  Peyrere.  According  to  the  latter,  who  wrote  about 
1655,  Adam  was  the  head,  indeed,  of  the  Jewish  race,  but 
prior  to  his  creation  the  father  of  the  Gentiles  had  already 
begun  to  people  the  earth  with  his  descendants. 


SECTION  II.  —  ANGELS. 

The  majority  of  theologians  agreed  with  the  scholastic 
theory  that  angels  are  purely  spiritual,  wholly  destitute  of 
bodies  save  as  they  may  be  assumed  temporarily  for  pur 
poses  of  manifestation.  So  decided,  among  others,  Tur- 
retin,  Gomar,  Coccejus,  Gerhard,  Quenstedt,  Calov,  Hollaz, 
Perkins,  and  Usher.  On  the  other  hand,  Zanchi  and  Gro- 
tius  favored  the  supposition  that  angels  have  a  corporeal  as 
well  as  a  spiritual  nature.  (Quoted  by  Quenstedt.)  Bishop 
Bull  said,  "  We  cannot  so  certainly  and  positively  tell  what 
kind  of  spirituality  that  of  angels  is,  whether  it  be  void  of 
all  manner  of  corporeity,  as  modern  divines  generally  hold, 
or  joined  with  some  certain  corporeity,  not  of  the  grosser 
sort,  either  fleshly,  or  airy,  or  fiery,  but  most  subtle  and 
pure."  (Sermon  XL,  Yol.  I.)  Roman  Catholic  theologians, 
such  as  Petavius,  Bossuet,  and  Nicole,  assumed  it  to  be 


106  HISTORY  OE   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

an  indubitable  truth  that  angels  have  naturally  no  bodies. 
The  last  declared  that  this  was  the  common  teaching  of  the 
ologians  as  being  required  by  the  language  of  the  Lateran 
council,  which  calls  angels  spiritual  creatures  and  places 
them  in  contrast  with  the  corporeal.  (Instructions  Theol. 
et  Moral.)  That  angels  are  ministers  to  the  heirs  of  sal 
vation  was  universally  taught,  but  not  all  theologians  were 
willing  to  commit  themselves  to  a  positive  verdict  that  a 
special  guardian  angel  is  appointed  to  each  believer. 

Some  of  the  early  Reformers  had  a  vivid  conception  of 
the  presence  and  power  of  Satanic  agency  in  the  world. 
This  was  especially  true  of  Luther.  The  world  appeared 
to  him  like  a  battle-field,  upon  which  Satan  and  his  hosts 
were  engaged  in  eager,  yet  ineffectual,  conflict  against  the 
rule  of  God.  Calvin,  also  assigned  a  wide  place  to  Satanic 
agency.  At  the  same  time,  he  strongly  emphasized  the 
idea  that  Satan  is  really,  though  unwillingly,  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  God.  "  It  arises,"  he  says,  "  from  himself 
and  his  wickedness,  that  he  opposes  God  with  all  his  desires 
and  purposes.  This  depravity  stimulates  him  to  attempt 
those  things  which  he  thinks  the  most  opposed  to  God. 
But  since  God  holds  him  tied  and  bound  with  the  bridle  of 
His  power,  he  executes  only  those  things  which  are  divinely 
permitted ;  and  thus,  whether  he  will  or  not,  he  obeys  his 
Creator,  being  constrained  to  fulfil  any  service  to  which 
He  impels  him."  (Inst.,  I.  14.) 


SECTION  III.  —  MAN. 

1.  MAN'S  ORIGINAL  NATURE  AND  CONDITION.  —  The  Ro 
man  Catholic,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed  communions 
were  alike  inclined  to  follow  substantially  the  Augustinian 
view  of  the  exalted  estate  and  endowments  of  Adam  in 
Paradise.  The  Socinians,  on  the  other  hand,  affirmed  but 
a  moderate  superiority  in  the  first  man  above  the  average 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  107 

of  the  race ;  and  some  of  the  Arminians  discredited  the 
idea,  that,  apart  from  perfect  innocence  and  integrity  of 
nature,  he  was  distinguished  by  a  high  degree  of  perfection. 
Thus,  Limborch  affirms  that  Adam  was  evidently  possessed 
of  limited  knowledge,  and,  while  he  does  not  say,  with  So- 
cinus,  that  Adam  at  the  start  had  no  positive  righteous 
ness,  and  was  just  as  free  to  the  evil  as  to  the  good,  he  does 
maintain  that  he  was  not  eminently  strong  in  righteous 
ness.  We  must  not,  he  says,  extol  overmuch  the  gifts  of 
Adam,  —  the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  the  righteousness  of 
his  will,  the  prompt  inclination  of  his  affections  toward  the 
good,  —  else  we  shall  make  it  inconceivable  how  he  could 
have  fallen  into  sin.  (Lib.  II.  cap.  24.  Compare  Curcel- 
laeus,  Lib.  III.  cap.  14 ;  Jeremy  Taylor,  Of  Original  Sin.) 

While  Romanists  and  the  main  body  of  Protestants 
agreed  in  ascribing  exalted  endowments  to  the  unf alien 
Adam,  they  differed  on  the  question  whether  his  moral 
excellence  is  to  be  regarded  as  concreated  and  natural,  or 
as  supernatural,  and  added  in  the  way  of  a  special  gift. 
Romish  theologians,  with  few  exceptions,  took  the  latter  po 
sition,  and  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  donum  superadditum. 
This  doctrine  is  implied  by  the  Trent  Catechism,  which, 
after  speaking  of  the  creation,  by  God,  of  the  soul  and  its 
powers  of  free  will  and  reason,  says,  "  Then  He  added 
the  admirable  gift  of  original  righteousness."  (Pars  I. 
cap.  2,  §  19.)  Sentences  condemning  the  opposite  view 
were  issued  by  Pius  V.  and  Gregory  XIII.  (Mb'hler,  Symbo- 
lik.)  This  donum  superadditum^  while  capable  in  theory  of 
being  viewed  apart  from  the  unf  all  en  man,  was  regarded  by 
many  Romanists  as  bestowed  at  the  first  moment  of  man's 
existence.  Such  was  the  view  preferred  by  Bellarmin,  and 
(according  to  Guericke)  the  majority  of  modern  theolo 
gians  of  his  Church  have  followed  him  upon  this  point. 
In  harmony  with  this  distinction,  Romanists  were  disposed 
to  regard  the  two  words  image  and  likeness  as  having  a 
different  sense,  the  first  denoting  the  faculties  which  per- 


108  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

tain  to  man  as  man,  the  latter  the  virtues  depending  upon 
the  donum  mperadditum.  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theolo 
gians,  on  the  other  hand,  regarded  the  two  words  as  essen 
tially  synonymous,  and  indicative  in  particular  of  original 
righteousness,  which  they  declared  was  the  principal  part 
of  the  divine  image  in  man.  Original  righteousness,  as 
they  taught,  must  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  divine 
idea  of  man,  and  as  characterizing  him  from  the  very  first. 
"  We  affirm,"  said  Luther,  "  that  it  was  truly  natural,  and 
pertained  to  the  nature  of  Adam,  to  love  God,  to  believe 
God,  to  know  God."  (In  Genes.,  Cap.  III.)  "Original 
righteousness  in  the  first  man,"  writes  Gerhard,  "  was  not 
some  supernatural  gift,  but  an  internal  and  concreatcd  per 
fection  of  the  whole  man."  (Confess.  Cath.  Compare  Tur- 
rctin,  Locus  Y.  qurcst.  11.)  The  Socinians  taught  that  the 
divine  image  in  man  consisted  especially  in  his  dominion 
over  the  world,  or  in  the  powers  of  his  nature  upon  which 
that  dominion  depends.  "  It  is  most  evident,"  says  Wol- 
zogen,  referring  to  Gen.  i.  26,  "that  the  image  of  God, 
which  is  in  man,  is  placed  in  the  reason,  so  far  as  through 
it  he  is  fitted  to  rule  over  the  whole  earth."  (Compend. 
Rclig.  Chr.)  The  same  view  is  found  with  Curcellaeus  and 
Limborch.  (Lib.  III.  cap.  8  ;  Lib.  II.  cap.  24.) 

The  question  whether  man  is  twofold  or  threefold  in 
nature  seems  not  to  have  been  discussed  to  any  great 
extent.  It  may  bo  gathered,  however,  that  the  dichoto- 
mist  theory  was  predominant.  This  theory  appears  to  be 
assumed  in  the  following  language  of  the  Second  Helvetic 
Confession :  "  We  say  that  man  consists  of  two  diverse 
substances,  in  one  person,  the  immortal  soul,  and  the  mortal 
body."  (Cap.  VII.)  Quenstedt  declares  very  emphatically 
for  the  view  that  the  essential  constituents  of  man  are  sim 
ply  the  rational  soul  and  the  body,  and  adduces  as  advocates 
of  the  trichotomist  theory  no  writers  of  greater  weight  in 
the  period  than  Paracelsus,  Schwenkfeld,  Weigel,  and  the 
Calvinist  J.  A.  Comenius.  (Syst,,  De  Horn.,  quaest.  2.) 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  109 

It  was  the  common  belief  that  the  soul  is  incorporeal. 
Some  exception,  however,  was  taken  to  this  view.  "  The 
soul  of  man,"  says  Curcellaeus,  "is  spirit,  as  are  the  angels, 
but  not  pure  spirit,  or  thoroughly  incorporeal,  for  no  cre 
ated  thing  can  be  strictly  incorporeal."  (Inst.,  III.  7.) 
Henry  More  also  asserted  that  certain  corporeal  character 
istics  pertain  to  the  soul,  that  it  has  dimensions  and  a 
centre  of  its  perceptive  faculty,  which  is,  so  to  speak,  its 
eye.  (Immortal.  Animas,  Lib.  III.  cap.  2.) 

The  Socinians  denied  the  natural  immortality  of  man. 
By  this  denial,  however,  they  only  meant  that  the  body  of 
the  first  man  was  of  such  a  constitution  that,  apart  from 
special  provision  graciously  made  by  God,  it  would  have 
been  subject  to  dissolution.  That  provision  Adam,  as  they 
allowed,  would  have  enjoyed,  if  he  had  not  sinned.  Those, 
therefore,  who  took  issue  with  them  on  this  point,  differed 
from  them  in  little  else  than  phraseology.  The  only  ques 
tion  was  whether  the  term  natural  should  be  applied  to  an 
exemption  from  death  that  was  dependent  upon  conditions 
which  might  or  might  not  be  continued.  The  natural  im 
mortality  of  the  soul  was  frequently  asserted ;  but  evidently, 
upon  the  theory  of  the  divine  conservation  which  was  largely 
current,  this  doctrine  could  signify  only  the  unconditional 
purpose  of  God  endlessly  to  preserve  being  to  every  soul 
that  is  once  created. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  creationism,  as  opposed  to 
traducianism,  was  the  prevalent  doctrine  among  Protes 
tants  and  Romanists  alike.  The  same  doctrine  is  also  con 
tained  in  the  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
(Quaest.  XXVIII.)  In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Lu 
therans  generally  had  come  to  adopt  the  traducian  theory. 
Turrctin  says  that  in  his  time  the  Lutherans  held  the  ex 
traduce  theory,  while  nearly  all  of  the  orthodox,  that  is, 
the  Calvinists,  believed  in  creationism.  (Locus  V.  quaast. 
13.)  The  statement  of  Gerhard  may  be  taken  as  repre 
sentative  of  the  former  party.  "  We  leave,"  he  says,  "  to 


110  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

the  philosophers  the  inquiry  after  the  mode  of  propagation, 
since  we  have  not  yet  seen  it  explained  in  the  Scriptures ; 
meanwhile  we  hold  tenaciously  the  theory  of  the  propaga 
tion  of  souls,  nor  indeed  is  this  theory  to  be  denied  because 
the  mode  of  the  propagation  is  not  clearly  revealed."  (Locus 
VIII.  §  117.  Compare  Qucnstedt,  Syst.,  De  Horn.,  quaest. 
3 ;  Calov,  Tom.  III.  Art.  V.  cap.  2,  qu.  10 ;  Hollaz,  Pt.  I. 
cap.  5,  qu.  9.)  In  opposition  both  to  creationism  and  tra- 
ducianism,  Henry  More  advocated  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's 
pre-existcnce.  (Immortal.  Anirnae,  II.  12.) 

2.  THE  FALL  AND  ITS  RESULTS.  —  We  notice  here  the 
position  taken  by  the  different  communions  on  the  follow 
ing  topics :  (a.)  The  relation  of  the  divine  decrees  to  the 
fall.  (5.)  The  relation  of  human  freedom  to  the  fall, 
(c.)  The  nature  of  original  sin  in  the  posterity  of  Adam, 
(df.)  The  degree  of  moral  ability  in  the  fallen  man. 

(1.)  Roman  Catholic  Theories.  —  Roman  Catholic  theolo 
gians  generally  denied  that  the  fall  of  Adam  took  place  in 
accordance  with  any  positive  decree  of  God.  They  main 
tained  that  the  divine  attitude  toward  the  event  was  that 
of  bare  permission,  and  threw  the  responsibility  wholly 
upon  the  human  agent,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  in  every 
sense  free  from  necessity  in  his  transgression.  To  be 
sure,  there  was  a  party  in  the  Romish  Church  which  held 
views  respecting  the  dependence  of  the  unfallen  man  that 
might  be  regarded  as  throwing  the  responsibility  for  the 
fall  upon  God.  Thomassin,  writing  in  the  third  quarter  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  says  that  the  Jacobin  fathers  (Do 
minicans)  for  a  hundred  years  had  believed  that  the  grace 
predeterminant,  which  infallibly  applies  the  will  to  the 
good,  is  necessary  even  to  angels  and  to  men  in  a  state  of 
innocence  in  order  to  the  doing  of  good  acts  and  persever 
ing  therein ;  and  he  adds,  that  on  this  view  it  seems  ne 
cessary  to  assume  that  Adam  fell  because  a  grace  was 
withheld  which  was  indispensable  to  his  perseverance. 
(Memoires  sur  la  Grace,  I.  1.)  But  this  is  rather  a  logical 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  Ill 

inference  from  the  position  of  the  Jacobins,  than  their  own 
conclusion  ;  and,  moreover,  this  party  did  not  represent  the 
general  sentiment  of  their  Church  upon  this  point. 

The  freedom  which  Roman  Catholic  writers  attributed 
to  man  in  his  primal  disobedience  they  regarded  as  includ 
ing  the  power  of  alternative  choice,  or  a  power  to  refuse 
what  is  actually  chosen,  and  vice  versa.  Indeed,  they 
embraced  this  in  their  general  definition  of  freedom,  and 
taught  that  it  is  opposed,  not  only  to  compulsion,  but  also 
to  necessity.  There  was  not,  to  be  sure,  strict  unanimity 
upon  this  point.  Petavius  says,  that  in  his  day  a  few  who 
professed  to  be  Catholics  (pauci  quidem,  qui  se  Catliolicos 
profitentur)  taught  that  free  will  does  not  imply  the  power 
of  alternative  choice,  or  exemption  from  necessity,  but  only 
exemption  from  compulsion;  that  consequently  a  volition 
is  free,  though  determined ;  and,  in  fine,  that  to  will  and 
to  will  freely  are  synonymous  terms.  (De  Sex  Dierum 
Opif.,  Lib.  III.  cap.  1.)  This  view  he  denounces  as  repug 
nant  to  piety,  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  church  authority, 
all  of  which  require  a  power  of  alternative  choice.  In 
like  manner  Bellarmin  says :  "  That  freedom  from  neces 
sity  is  altogether  requisite  to  free  will,  nor  is  it  sufficient 
that  there  be  freedom  from  coaction,  can  be  demonstrated 
from  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  from  the  definition  of  the 
Church,  from  the  tradition  of  the  fathers,  from  the  light 
of  reason."  (De  Reparat.  Grat.,  Lib.  III.  cap.  5.)  "  It  is  a 
certain  dogma  of  the  faith,"  says  Suarcz,  "  as  we  judge, 
that  this  freedom  consists  not  merely  in  the  faculty  of 
acting  voluntarily,  or  spontaneously,  or  with  inclination, 
even  if  it  takes  place  with  the  perfect  knowledge  and 
observation  of  reason,  but  that  there  is  given  besides  in 
us  and  in  our  human  acts  that  condition  of  freedom  which 
includes  the  power  of  acting  and  not  acting,  which  by 
theologians  is  commonly  called  dominion  over  one's  own 
action,  or  indifference  in  acting."  (Opuscula  Theol.,  p.  2.) 
Petavius  and  Bellarmin  maintain  that  their  position  is 


112  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

involved  in  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent.  (Session 
VI.  chap.  5.)  They  claim  also  that  the  opposite  view  was 
clearly  condemned  by  Pius  V.  and  Gregory  XIII.,  when 
they  passed  censure  upon  such  propositions  as  these: 
"  What  comes  to  pass  voluntarily,  even  if  it  takes  place 
necessarily,  comes  to  pass  freely "  (taken  from  Baius)  ; 
"  Violence  alone  is  antagonistic  to  the  natural  freedom  of 
man."  The  three  writers  quoted  above  all  belonged,  it 
is  true,  to  the  order  of  the  Jesuits,  but  there  is  no  rea 
son  to  doubt  that  on  this  point  they  represented  by  far 
the  broader  current  of  thought  in  the  Romish  Church  in 
their  age. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theology  of  the  period  acknowl 
edged  two  elements  in  original  sin  as  it  pertains  to  the 
posterity  of  Adam.  Pighius  and  Catharinus  occupied  an 
exceptional  position  in  allowing  but  a  single  element, 
namely,  the  imputation  of  guilt.  The  language  of  the 
council  of  Trent,  while  not  very  explicit  upon  this  subject, 
implies  without  doubt  that  there  are  two  elements  in  origi 
nal  sin,  on  the  one  hand  a  corruption  or  destitution  of 
nature,  and  on  the  other,  guilt.  "If  any  one,"  says  the 
decree,  "  asserts  that  the  prevarication  of  Adam  injured 
himself  alone,  and  not  his  posterity  ;  and  that  the  holiness 
and  justice  received  of  God,  which  he  lost,  he  lost  for 
himself  alone,  and  not  for  us  also ;  or  that  he,  being  de 
filed  by  the  sin  of  disobedience,  has  only  transfused  death 
and  pains  of  the  body  into  the  whole  human  race,  but  not 
sin  also,  which  is  the  death  of  the  soul,  —  let  him  be  anath 
ema  ;  —  whereas  he  contradicts  the  apostle  who  says,  '  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  by  sin  death,  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  whom  all  have  sinned.' " 
(Session  V.)  There  is  not  here,  it  is  true,  a  specific  men 
tion  of  guilt,  but  in  a  subsequent  paragraph  it  is  mentioned, 
the  anathema  being  pronounced  against  those  who  deny 
that  "  by  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  con 
ferred  in  baptism,  the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  remitted." 


1517-1720.]  -CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  113 

The  subject  being  thus  left  in  outline  by  the  council,  theo 
logians  were  not  debarred  from  choosing,  as  respects 
details,  from  the  various  opinions  of  the  scholastics.  Bel- 
larmin  was  inclined  to  follow  the  view  advocated  by  Duns 
Scotus  and  some  others,  that  original  sin,  so  far  as  it  per 
tains  to  the  moral  nature  of  the  fallen  man,  consists 
simply  in  the  lack  of  original  righteousness,  or  of  the  super 
natural  gift  that  was  bestowed  upon  Adam.  "  The  state 
of  man,"  he  says,  "  after  the  fall  of  Adam,  differs  from 
the  state  of  the  same  in  puris  naturalibus,  no  more  than 
the  despoiled  differs  from  the  naked ;  nor  is  human  nature 
worse,  if  you  except  original  guilt,  nor  does  it  labor  under 
greater  ignorance  and  infirmity,  than  it  would  labor  under 
being  created  in  puris  naturalibus.  Accordingly,  corrup 
tion  of  nature  has  flowed,  not  from  the  lack  of  any  natural 
gift,  nor  from  the  accession  of  any  evil  quality,  but  solely 
from  the  loss  through  the  sin  of  Adam  of  the  supernatural 
gift."  (De  Grat.  Prim.  Horn.,  Cap.  V.)  As  respects  the 
guilt  of  original  sin,  Bcllarmin  thought  it  serious  enough 
to  debar  every  infant  dying  without  baptism  from  all 
chance  of  salvation.  On  the  mode  in  which  original  sin 
is  propagated,  he  preferred  to  follow  Thomas  Aquinas, 
who  emphasized  the  idea  that  the  sin  of  Adam  as  being 
the  head  of  the  race  was  the  sin  of  the  race.  (De  Amiss. 
Grat.,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  12.)  Nicole  suggested  that  the  ex 
planation  of  the  transmission  of  original  sin  may  be  found 
in  a  divine  regulation  that  the  soul  should  have  certain 
inclinations  answering  to  the  abnormal  impressions  of  the 
body  deranged  by  the  fall.  (Instruct.  Theol.  et  Moral.) 

It  was  the  dominant  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  that,  while  the  fall  left  man  with  certain  remains 
of  moral  ability,  it  nevertheless  so  crippled  him  as  to 
render  him  incapable,  apart  from  grace,  to  make  any  real 
advance  toward  his  own  recovery.  According  to  the  coun 
cil  of  Trent,  the  free  will  was  not  extinguished,  but  it  was 
so  weakened  and  perverted  as  by  itself  to  be  unable  to 

VOL.   II.  —  8. 


114  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

work  effectually  in  the  direction  of  salvation.  In  con 
formity  with  this  position,  the  third  canon  on  justification 
declares  :  "  If  any  one  saith,  that  without  the  prevenient 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  without  His  help,  man 
can  believe,  hope,  live,  or  be  penitent  as  he  ought,  so  that 
the  grace  of  justification  may  be  bestowed  upon  him,  let 
him  be  anathema."  Bellarmin,  while  teaching  that  a  man 
without  grace  may,  under  favorable  circumstances,  do  a 
work  morally  good,  a  work  not  to  be  called  sinful,  main 
tains  at  the  same  time  that  he  cannot  do  a  meritorious 
work,  or  a  work  coming  properly  under  the  category  of 
piety.  He  lays  down  these  three  propositions :  "  First,  a 
man  without  the  special  grace  of  God  cannot  will  or  do 
aught  in  those  things  which  pertain  to  piety  and  salvation. 
Second,  a  man  by  his  own  powers  is  not  able  to  dispose 
himself  to  grace,  or  to  do  anything  on  account  of  which 
divine  grace  may  be  conferred  upon  him.  Third,  God 
cannot  be  loved  by  a  man,  even  as  the  Author  of  nature 
and  imperfectly,  without  the  aid  of  grace."  (De  Grat.  et 
Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  VI.  cap.  4.)  Bellarmin,  it  is  true,  says, 
"  A  man,  anterior  to  all  grace,  has  free  will,  not  only  to 
natural  and  moral  works,  but  also  to  works  of  piety  and 
the  supernatural "  (Ibid.,  cap.  15) ;  but  evidently  he  means 
here,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  propriety  of  his 
language,  the  free  will  as  a  faculty,  and  does  not  design 
to  deny  that  there  are  in  fact  such  hindrances  to  the  action 
of  the  faculty,  in  relation  to  things  spiritual,  as  grace  alone 
can  overcome.  "  It  is  a  leading  maxim  of  our  religion," 
says  Bossuet,  "that  free  will  of  itself,  unaided  by  grace, 
and  uninfluenced  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  can  do  nothing  that 
conducts  to  the  purchase  of  eternal  happiness."  (Exposi 
tion.)  "When  the  Semi-Pelagians,"  writes  Thomassin, 
"  say  that  man  in  his  own  strength  can  will  and  accom 
plish  any  beginning  of  good,  and  on  the  score  of  this  at 
tract  the  grace  of  God,  they  deceive  themselves  in  many 
ways."  (Mdmoires,  I.  5.)  The  above  quotations  may  be 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  115 

regarded  as  indicating  the  more  general  standpoint  of 
the  Eomish  Church.  As  original  righteousness  was  re 
garded  as  a  supernatural  gift  in  Adarn,  so  in  the  fallen 
man  piety  proper,  or  that  which  commends  one  to  God 
as  deserving  of  eternal  life,  was  regarded  as  primarily 
dependent  upon  a  supernatural  bestowment.  Prevenient 
grace  was  allowed  to  be  its  necessary  and  invariable  con 
dition.  At  the  same  time  it  was  claimed  that  natural 
ability  is  adequate  for  the  avoidance  of  particular  sins,  and 
for  rendering  an  obedience  to  the  commandments,  which, 
though  not  positively  meritorious,  may  be  classed  among 
works  morally  good. 

But,  as  previously  indicated,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
was  not  a  unit  upon  this  subject.  There  were  those  who 
diverged  from  the  more  common  standpoint  by  disparaging 
in  strong  terms  the  natural  ability  of  man.  Michael  Baius, 
for  example,  rivalled  the  most  emphatic  utterances  of  Au 
gustine  respecting  human  inability  and  corruption.  "All 
the  works  of  unbelievers,"  he  said,  "  are  sins,  and  the  vir 
tues  of  philosophers  are  vices.  The  free  will  without  the 
assistance  of  divine  grace,  avails  only  for  sinning."  (Quoted 
by  Giescler,  Kirchengeschichte.)  The  Jansenists  were  in 
clined  to  similar  declarations.  According  to  Jansenius, 
the  natural  man,  even  when  resisting  sin,  acts  under  a 
wrong  motive,  and  so  opposes  sin  to  sin.  "  Not  only,"  he 
says,  "  has  freedom  for  doing  good  perished,  but  even  of 
abstaining  from  sin."  (Augustinus.)  "  The  will,"  writes 
Quesnel,  "  which  is  not  aided  by  prevenient  grace,  has  no 
light  except  for  going  astray,  no  ardor  except  for  casting 
itself  headlong,  no  strength  except  for  wounding  itself ;  it 
is  capable  of  every  evil,  and  powerless  for  every  good." 
(Reflexions  Morales.)  On  the  other  hand,  there  were 
those,  especially  among  the  Jesuits,  who  adopted  substan 
tially  the  Semi-Pelagian  view  of  man's  moral  ability.  This 
was  the  case  with  Molina,  whatever  pains  he  may  have 
taken  to  disguise  the  fact.  He  says :  "  God  and  the  free 


116  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

will  are  related  as  two  partial  causes  (duce  causce  partia- 
les).  .  .  .  Man  is  able  by  the  powers  of  nature  with  only 
the  general  co-operation  of  God  (concur  m  generali),  to 
assent  to  supernatural  mysteries  proposed  and  explained 
to  him,  as  revealed  from  God,  by  an  act  merely  natural. 
.  .  .  Man  is  able  by  the  sole  natural  powers  of  free  will 
and  the  general  co-operation  of  God  to  call  forth  an  abso 
lute  act  purely  natural  of  supreme  love  to  God,  which  may 
in  no  wise  suffice  for  justification,  and  in  like  manner  an 
absolute  purpose  of  pleasing  God  in  all  things."  (Quoted 
by  Gieseler.)  The  Molinist  theories  were  largely  contro 
verted  for  the  time  being ;  but  they  were  not  officially  con 
demned,  and  finally,  in  the  Bull  Unigenitus,  obtained  the 
next  thing  to  an  official  approbation.  The  animus  of  that 
bull  was  decidedly  anti-Augustinian.  It  condemned  such 
propositions  as  these :  "  The  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
efficacious  principle  of  every  kind  of  good,  is  necessary  to 
every  good  work,  and  apart  from  it,  not  only  does  no  good 
work  take  place,  but  none  can."  "  In  vain,  0  Lord,  thou 
commandest,  if  thou  dost  not  give  that  which  thou  com- 
mandest."  "  Faith  is  the  primary  grace,  and  the  fountain 
of  all  others."  "  Without  grace  we  can  love  nothing, 
except  to  our  condemnation."  These  propositions  were 
condemned  as  being,  if  not  positively  heretical  in  every 
instance,  at  least  ill-sounding,  scandalous,  and  akin  to 
heresy.  Evidently  the  moral  effect  of  the  Bull  Unigenitus 
was  in  the  direction  of  committing  the  Romish  Church  to 
a  denial  of  the  cardinal  points  of  Augustinianism. 

We  may  sum  up  on  this  subject,  then,  as  follows.  In  the 
central  current  of  Roman  Catholic  teaching,  the  need  of 
prevenient  grace  was  emphasized,  but  at  the  same  time  a 
wider  scope  was  given  to  natural  ability  than  was  charac 
teristic  of  the  Augustinian  theology.  In  one  of  the  side 
currents  there  was  a  close  approximation  to  Augustinian 
ism  ;  in  another,  there  was  an  approximation  to  Semi-Pela- 
gianism,  and  to  the  latter  a  virtual  commendation  was 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  117 

given  in  the  last  part  of  the  period  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Roman  pontiff. 

(2.)  Lutheran  Theories.  —  Luther  and  Melanchthon  both 
in  the  earlier  part  of  their  theological  career  gave  expres 
sion  to  some  opinions  which  formed  no  permanent  part 
of  Lutheranism.  Quite  naturally,  in  the  fervency  of  their 
protest  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of  merit,  they  were  in 
clined  to  an  exaggerated  stress  upon  divine  sovereignty,  and 
indulged  some  statements  which  a  maturer  consideration 
might  dispose  them  to  modify.  Melanchthon  openly  added 
the  modification,  and  Luther,  if  he  did  not  in  express  terms 
take  away  anything  from  his  stronger  utterances,  did  not 
add  anything  which  forbids  the  conclusion  that  they  re 
flect  in  a  measure  his  native  vehemence  and  love  of  para 
dox,  as  well  as  his  sober  convictions. 

Neither  Luther  nor  Melanchthon,  so  far  as  we  are  aware, 
said  in  so  many  words  that  the  fall  of  Adam  was  positively 
decreed  by  God.  But  both  used  statements  which  seem 
necessarily  to  involve  this  conclusion.  Luther,  in  his  De 
Servo  Arbitrio,  affirms  a  relation  between  the  creature  and 
the  Creator  which  leaves  nothing  whatever  contingent  up 
on  human  determination.  "  It  is  especially  necessary  and 
healthful,"  he  says,  "  for  the  Christian  to  be  aware  that 
God  foreknows  nothing  contingently,  but  that,  with  im 
mutable  and  eternal  and  infallible  will,  He  foresees,  and 
proposes,  and  does  all  things.  By  this  thunderbolt  the 
free  will  is  thrown  down  and  ground  to  powder.  .  .  .  Im 
mutable  and  infallible  is  the  will  of  God  which  governs  our 
mutable  will.  .  .  .  Free  will  is  plainly  a  divine  name,  nor 
does  it  befit  anything  except  the  Divine  Majesty  alone, 
which  is  able  to  do  and  does  all  things  which  it  pleases, 
in  heaven  and  in  earth."  In  short,  as  a  modern  Lutheran 
remarks,  "  Luther  undoubtedly,  in  this  writing,  teaches 
predestination  under  the  veil  of  a  conception  of  the  world 
which  brings  down  creatures  to  the  rank  of  selfless  objects 
of  the  unlimited  and  absolute  power  of  God."  (Kahnis, 


118  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

Dogmatik.)  A  statement  of  Melanchthon,  made  in  1522,  in 
his  comments  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  is  scarcely  less 
radical  in  its  implications.  "  It  is  certain,"  he  says,  "  that 
God  does  all  things  not  permissively,  but  effectually  (po- 
tenter),  to  use  Augustine's  term,  so  that  the  betrayal  by 
Judas  and  the  calling  of  Paul  are  equally  His  own  work." 
But  it  was  not  long  before  Melanchthon  retreated  from  this 
position.  In  his  Loci  he  teaches  that  sin  is  contingent, 
does  not  occur  necessarily,  is  abhorrent  to  the  will  of  God, 
and  flows  from  the  wills  of  the  devil  and  of  men,  which 
were  so  created  as  to  be  able  not  to  sin.  (De  Causa  Peccat. 
et  de  Conting.)  The  same  view  was  expressed  by  Chem 
nitz,  and  it  may  be  stated  as  the  proper  Lutheran  theory, 
that  the  attitude  of  God  toward  the  fall  was  that  of  simple 
permission.  "  God  did  not,"  says  Gerhard,  "effect  the  fall 
of  man  in  time,  nor  did  He  impel  man  to  fall.  Neither, 
therefore,  did  God  from  eternity  decree  the  fall  of  man. 
God  in  time  permitted  man  to  fall.  Therefore  God  decreed 
from  eternity  to  permit  or  not  to  prevent  the  fall  of  man." 
(Locus  VI.  §  51.)  "  Let  it  therefore  remain  firmly  estab 
lished  that  God  neither  decreed  nor  willed  the  fall  of  the 
first  parents,  nor  impelled  them  to  sin,  nor  took  pleasure  in 
it."  (Locus  IX.  §  25.  Compare  Hollaz,  Pars  II.  cap.  3,) 

Luther  evidently  from  the  standpoint  described  above  logi 
cally  could  not  assign  to  Adam  or  to  any  other  creature 
freedom  in  any  other  sense  than  the  possession  of  the  simple 
power  of  volition.  A  freedom  from  positive  determination, 
a  power  of  alternative  choice,  appears  on  his  premises  to  be 
out  of  the  question.  But  Lutheran  theologians  in  general 
asserted  that  freedom  in  this  latter  sense  pertained  to  Adam 
before  his  transgression.  They  gave  a  place  to  formal  free 
dom.  At  the  same  time,  however,  they  were  disposed,  in 
their  definition  of  the  essence  of  freedom,  or  freedom  in  its 
ideal  stage,  to  return  to  the  Augustinian  notion  of  real  free 
dom,  in  which  the  liability  to  sin  is  excluded,  not  indeed  by 
coaction,  but  by  the  strength  of  inward  holiness.  Thus 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  119 

Gerhard  says  :  "  There  is  the  greatest  freedom  in  God,  who 
nevertheless  is  not  able  to  will  evil.  There  is  greater  free 
dom  in  good  angels  than  there  was  in  man  before  the  fall, 
while  yet  they  have  been  confirmed  in  the  good  and  are  un 
able  not  to  choose  the  good.  The  highest  freedom  consists 
in  not  being  able  to  be  miserable."  (Locus  XI.  §  28.) 

Lutheran  theologians  recognized  two  elements  in  origi 
nal  sin,  namely,  corruption  of  nature,  and  guilt.  Calixtus 
deviated  from  the  standard  teaching  in  denying  the  latter. 
Both  elements  are  implied  in  the  statement  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession :  "  All  men  begotten  after  the  common  course 
of  nature  are  born  in  sin  ;  that  is,  without  the  fear  of  God, 
without  trust  in  Him,  and  with  fleshly  appetite  ;  and  this 
disease  or  original  fault  is  truly  sin,  condemning  and 
bringing  eternal  death  now  also  upon  all  that  are  not  born 
again  by  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  (Art.  II.)  This 
statement  does  not  make  it  clear  whether  the  guilt  is  to  be 
regarded  as  coming  from  the  direct  imputation  of  the  act 
of  Adam,  or  from  the  fact  of  being  born  with  a  corrupted 
nature  ;  in  other  words,  it  does  not  decide  between  imme 
diate  and  mediate  imputation.  Melanchthon  indicated  a 
preference  for  mediate  imputation,  but  at  the  same  time 
was  not  strongly  opposed  to  including  also  the  immediate. 
Having  defined  original  sin  as  a  corruption  of  nature  flow 
ing  from  the  transgression  of  Adam,  he  says  :  "  On  ac 
count  of  which  corruption  men  are  born  guilty  and  children 
of  wrath,  that  is,  condemned  by  God,  unless  remission  is 
obtained.  If  any  one  wishes  to  add,  that  men  are  born 
guilty  by  reason  of  Adam's  fall,  I  do  not  object."  (Loci, 
De  Pcccat.  Orig.)  Gerhard's  statement  favors  mediate 
imputation;  Quenstedt  includes  also  the  immediate,  and, 
according  to  Baur,  it  was  characteristic  of  the  Lutheran 
theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century  to  teach  the  twofold 
imputation.  (Dogmengeschichte.)  As  previously  stated, 
Lutheran  writers  in  this  century  held  the  traducian  theory. 
In  their  view,  one  of  the  prime  recommendations  of  that 


120  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

theory  is  the  explanation  which  it  affords  of  the  transmis 
sion  of  original  sin.  (Gerhard,  Locus  VIII.  §§  116, 128.) 

Matthias  Flacius  has  been  referred  to  as  teaching  the 
theory  that  original  sin  is  the  very  substance  of  the  fallen 
man.  But  it  is  possible  that  he  did  not  design  just  the 
sense  which  these  words  naturally  convey  to  us.  "  His 
meaning,"  says  Dorner,  "  is  properly  only  the  twofold  idea, 
that  holiness  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  man,  that  is,  to 
his  idea  essentially  and  not  merely  accidentally,  and  there 
fore  that  sin  is  to  be  looked  upon,  not  simply  as  a  superficial 
power,  but  as  one  destructive  of  that  ethical  nature."  (His 
tory  of  Protestant  Theology.)  The  Formula  of  Concord 
condemned  the  phraseology  of  Flacius,  and  taught  that, 
while  original  sin  is  infixed  in  the  nature,  it  is  to  be  called 
in  the  language  of  the  schools  accidens  rather  than  sub- 
stantia. 

The  Lutheran  theology  strongly  emphasized  the  moral 
inability  of  the  fallen  man.  Even  Melanchthon,  while  he 
taught  that  a  man  in  connection  with  the  action  of  divine 
grace  may  condition  his  salvation,  was  very  emphatic  in  de 
nying  that  apart  from  grace  he  can  make  the  least  advance 
toward  his  own  recovery.  He  held  indeed,  as  is  stated  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  that  the  natural  man  can  work 
out  a  sort  of  civil  righteousness.  But  it  was  understood 
that  this  was  not  a  real  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and,  in  opposition  to  Roman  Catholic  writers,  lie  taught 
that  all  works  done  without  grace  arc  sins ;  that  is,  as  pro 
ceeding  from  wrong  or  defective  motives,  they  cannot  be 
approved  by  the  divine  judgment.  "  This  is  a  false  saying," 
he  writes,  "  and  derogatory  to  Christ,  that  men  do  not  sin 
in  doing  the  precepts  of  God  without  grace."  (Apologia 
Confessionis.)  Luther,  it  is  needless  to  say,  delighted  in 
the  use  of  the  strongest  terms  in  describing  man's  native 
corruption  and  helplessness  in  things  spiritual.  His  essen 
tial  teaching,  however,  judging  it  by  its  drift  rather  than  by 
some  extravagant  sentences,  was  none  other  than  that  con- 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  121 

tained  in  the  following  decisions  of  the  Formula  of  Con 
cord  :  "  It  is  our  faith,  doctrine,  and  confession,  that  the 
understanding  and  reason  of  man  in  spiritual  things  are 
wholly  blind,  and  can  understand  nothing  by  their  proper 
powers.  .  .  .  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess,  moreover,  that 
the  yet  unregenerate  will  of  man  is  not  only  averse  from 
God,  but  has  become  even  hostile  to  God,  so  that  it  only 
wishes  and  desires  those  things,  and  is  delighted  with  them, 
which  are  evil  and  opposite  to  the  divine  will.  .  .  .  We  be 
lieve  that  by  how  much  it  is  impossible  that  a  dead  body 
should  vivify  itself  and  restore  corporal  life  to  itself,  even 
so  impossible  is  it  that  man,  who  by  reason  of  sin  is  spiritu 
ally  dead,  should  have  any  faculty  of  recalling  himself  into 
spiritual  life."  Strong  as  are  these  statements,  they  rep 
resented  the  central  current  of  Lutheranism  in  that  and  in 
the  succeeding  era.  The  writings  of  Gerhard  and  Quen- 
stedt  contain  equally  emphatic  declarations.  The  former 
says :  "  When  the  image  of  God  was  lost  through  sin,  at 
the  same  time  moreover  that  power  of  choosing  the  good 
[which  was  in  the  unfallen  Adam]  was  lost,  and  because 
man  was  not  only  despoiled  by  sin,  but  also  miserably  cor 
rupted,  therefore  in  place  of  such  a  liberty  there  succeeded 
that  unbridled  impulse  to  evil,  so  that  after  the  fall  the  will 
in  corrupted  and  unrenewed  men  is  free  only  to  evil  things, 
because  such  men,  while  still  corrupted  and  unrenewed,  can 
do  nothing  except  sin."  (Locus  XI.  §  23.) 

(3.)  Reformed  Theories.  —  Among  prominent  Reformed 
theologians  Zwingli  went  the  farthest  in  emphasizing  the 
agency  of  God  in  connection  with  the  fall.  In  his  treatise 
on  divine  providence  he  seems  to  assume  that  it  took  place 
in  consequence  of  coaction,  as  well  as  of  a  positive  decree. 
His  teaching  here,  to  use  the  summary  given  by  Dr.  Kahnis, 
is  as  follows  :  "  God  not  only  foresaw  the  first  sin,  but  fore 
ordained  it,  and  not  only  this,  but  actually  brought  it  to 
pass  though  man.  God  incited  the  first  man  to  transgress 
the  law.  It  is  for  God,  who  stands  above  man,  no  sin  when 


122  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

He  makes  the  angel  (Satan),  as  well  as  man,  a  transgres 
sor.    4  No  law  is  imposed  upon  God ;  therefore  He  does  not 
sin,  while  He  works  that  very  thing  in  man  which  to  man 
is  sin,  to  Himself  indeed  is  not,'     God  made  the  first  man 
a  transgressor,  in  order  to  bring  him  through  unrighteous 
ness  to  a  knowledge  of  righteousness."    (Dogmatik,  II.  6.) 
In  thus  assuming  a  causal  efficiency  in  God  over  the  fall, 
Zwingii  occupied  an  exceptional  position ;  but  in  assuming 
a  positive  decree  he  was  not  alone  among  Reformed  theolo 
gians.    Calvin  did  the  same.    Replying  to  those  who  taught 
that  God  left  Adam  to  a  free  choice,  and  simply  decreed 
to  treat  him  according  to  his  deserts,  he  asks :    "  If  so 
weak  a  scheme  as  this  be  received,  what  will  become  of 
God's  omnipotence,  by  which  He  governs  all  things  ac 
cording  to  His  secret  counsel,  independent  of  every  person 
or  thing  besides  ? "    (Inst.,  III.  23.)     Again  he  remarks : 
"  It  should  not  be  thought  absurd  to  affirm,  that  God  not 
only  foresaw  the  fall  of  the  first  man,  and  the  ruin  of  his 
posterity  in  him,  but  also  arranged  all  by  the  determination 
of  His  will.  ...  It  is  not  probable  that  man  procured  his 
destruction  by  the  mere  permission,  and  without  any  ap 
pointment  of  God ;  as  though  God  had  not  determined  what 
He  would  choose  to  be  the  condition  of  the  principal  of  His 
creatures."    (Ibid.)     Beza  took  the  same  position,  teaching 
that  the  fall  did  not  take  place  by  the  bare  and  inactive  per 
mission  of  God  (nuda  et  otiosa  permissione) ,  "for  since  He 
ordained  the  end,  it  is  also  necessary  that  He  should  estab 
lish  the  causes  leading  to  that  end."    (Sum.  Tot.  Christ., 
Cap.  III.)     "  They  go  utterly  wide  of  the  truth,"  says  Go- 
mar,  "  who  affirm  simply  an  inactive  permission ;  or,  the 
governing  of  the  result  being  conceded,  exempt  the  begin 
ning  of  sin  from  ordination."    (Prov.  Dei.)     This  state 
ment,  if  not  directly  applied  to  the  fall  in  the  connection 
where  it  occurs,  was  evidently  designed  by  Gomar  to  in 
clude  that  event,  which  indeed  in  his  scheme  of  doctrine 
occupies  a  purely  instrumental  place  in  fulfilling  an  abso- 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  123 

lute  decree.  The  views  of  TVisse  were  identical  with  those 
of  Gomar  on  this  point.  (Vindicias  Gratias.)  Piscator  in 
much  the  same  terms  as  Calvin  scouts  the  idea  that  the  fall 
was  exempted  from  the  positive  decree  and  dispensation  of 
God.  (Tract,  de  Grat.  Dei.)  There  were  others,  however, 
among  the  Reformed  theologians  who  preferred  to  speak 
simply  of  a  permissive  decree,  or  a  decree  to  permit  the 
fall.  Bullinger  appears  to  have  been  averse  to  going  be 
yond  this  phraseology,  and  even  used  language  which  sug 
gests  that  the  fall  in  his  view  was  utterly  alien  to  the  divine 
will  and  purpose.  "  What  dullard,"  he  says,  "  is  so  foolish 
as  to  think  that  that  eternal  light  of  God  doth  draw  any 
brightness  of  glory  at  our  darkness,  or  out  of  the  stinking 
dungeon  of  our  sin  and  wickedness  ?  "  (Serm.  X.,  Decade 
III.)  In  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  he  expresses  him 
self  with  more  reserve,  as  the  requirements  of  a  public 
confession  of  faith  naturally  dictated.  (Cap.  VIII.)  The 
Westminster  Confession  in  the  chapter  on  decrees  says : 
"  God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  His  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
chapter  on  the  fall  it  says  of  the  disobedience  of  our  first 
parents :  "  This  their  sin  God  was  pleased,  according  to 
His  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed  to 
order  it  to  His  own  glory."  The  meaning  evidently  is,  that 
God  positively  decreed  that  the  fall  should  take  place,  but 
not  that  it  should  take  place  by  any  compulsive  agency  on 
His  part.  Such  is  the  interpretation  of  a  recent  theologian, 
who  wrote  as  a  stanch  apologist  of  the  Calvinistic  faith. 
"  The  compilers  of  our  standards,"  says  William  Cunning 
ham,  "  believed  as  the  Reformers  did,  that  God  has  foreor 
dained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  that  of  course  He 
had  foreordained  the  fall  of  Adam,  which  thus  consequently 
became  in  a  certain  sense  necessary,  —  necessary  by  what 
is  called  the  necessity  of  events,  or  the  necessity  of  immu 
tability.  Still,  they  also  believed  that  man  fell  because  he 


124  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEEIOD  IV. 

was  left  to  the  freedom  of  his  own  will,  and  because,  hav 
ing  freedom,  he  freely  willed  to  choose  sin."  (Historical 
Theology.) 

The  theory  of  Zwingli  evidently  left  to  Adam  in  his  trans 
gression  freedom  only  in  the  sense  of  a  faculty  of  willing, 
and  did  not  so  much  as  exempt  the  exercise  of  this  faculty 
from  a  positive  pressure  at  the  hands  of  God.  Reformed 
theologians  generally,  however,  affirmed  that  Adam  sinned 
freely.  But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  at  least  a  large  pro 
portion  of  them  did  not  include  in  their  notion  of  freedom 
the  power  of  alternative  choice.  Manifestly,  this  must  have 
been  the  case  with  Calvin,  Beza,  and  others,  who  said  that, 
while  Adam  was  free  in  his  transgression,  he  fell  in  accord 
ance  with  the  positive  and  infallible  decree  of  God.  Grant 
that  the  decree  brought  no  compulsion  to  bear,  and  was 
followed  by  no  compulsion,  it  excluded,  none  the  less,  the 
alternative  of  not  falling  into  sin.  Adam  in  transgressing 
did  the  one  thing  that  was  possible  to  him,  not  indeed  the 
one  thing  that  was  possible  to  his  faculty  of  willing  viewed 
by  itself,  but  the  one  thing  that  was  possible  to  it  viewed  as 
conditioned  by  the  infallible  decree  of  God.  If,  then,  he  was 
under  no  constraint,  it  was  because  he  freely  did  that  which 
alone  was  possible  for  him  to  do.  This  may  be  theoreti 
cally  conceivable.  A  man  may  move  freely  between  barriers 
which  unknown  to  him  shut  him  up  to  a  particular  course. 
He  may  of  his  own  accord  take  precisely  the  track  that  is 
open  to  him.  But  even  then  the  serious  question  remains 
as  to  how  the  honor  and  consistency  of  God  can  be  main 
tained  in  so  laying  His  decrees  about  a  man  as  to  exclude 
the  alternative  of  perseverance  in  righteousness.  And  this 
is  a  question,  too,  which  is  pertinent  to  others  than  thoso 
who  spoke  in  definite  terms  of  a  positive  decree  for  the  fall. 
It  is  pertinent  to  the  Westminster  divines.  They  say,  in 
deed,  that  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  is 
not  taken  away  by  the  divine  decrees.  But  what  is  their 
definition  of  liberty  or  contingency  ?  The  power  of  willing, 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  125 

exemption  from  compulsion,  but  not  exemption  from  ne 
cessity,  not  the  power  equally  to  choose  or  to  refuse  in 
a  given  case.  So  Cunningham  interprets,  and  so  their 
statements  when  put  together  seem  imperatively  to  re 
quire.  Even  when  speaking  of  a  permissive  decree,  writ 
ers  of  the  Calvinistic  school  were  inclined  to  mean  a 
decree  which  fixes  the  event  permitted,  or  is  a  ground 
of  its  certain  occurrence.  This  is  definitely  stated  by  the 
Cambridge  theologian,  William  Perkins,  as  follows  :  "  Evil 
permitted  must  come  to  pass.  For  to  permit  evil  is  not 
to  stir  up  the  will,  and  not  to  bestow  on  him  that  is 
tempted  the  act  of  resisting,  but  to  leave  him  as  it  were  to 
himself ;  and  he  whose  will  is  not  stirred  up  by  God,  and  to 
whom  the  act  of  resisting  is  not  conferred,  however  he  may 
have  power  to  withstand,  yet  can  he  not  actually  will  to 
withstand,  nor  persist  forever  in  that  uprightness  in  which 
he  was  created,  God  denying  him  strength."  (Order  of 
Predestination  in  the  Mind  of  God.  Compare  Rivet,  Cen- 
sura  in  Confess.)  We  may  add,  that  Perkins  and  many 
others  in  their  formal  definition  of  freedom  opposed  it  not 
to  necessity  but  to  compulsion.  The  statement  of  Perkins 
is  as  follows :  "  Liberty  and  necessity  do  not  mutually  over 
come  each  other,  but  liberty  and  compulsion.  It  is  mani 
fest,  therefore,  that  God's  decree  causeth  an  immutability 
to  all  things,  of  which,  notwithstanding,  some  in  respect 
of  the  next  causes  are  necessary,  and  others  contingent." 
(Ibid.  Compare  Robert  Barnes,  Treatise  on  Free-Will ; 
Twissc,  Yindicia?  Grat. ;  John  Owen,  Display  of  Arminian- 
ism ;  Turretin,  Loci  VI.,  X. ;  Zanchi,  De  Nat.  Dei,  Lib.  III. 
cap.  2;  Coccejus,  Sum.  Theol.,  Cap.  XXVIII. ;  Maccovius, 
Loci,  Cap.  XL VI. ;  Bucan,  Locus  XIY.) 

On  the  subject  of  original  sin  Zwingli  occupied  wellnigh 
a  solitary  position  in  the  Reformed  Church,  in  excluding 
from  it  the  element  of  guilt.  Having  defined  sin  proper 
as  a  transgression  of  the  law,  he  says  :  "  Whether  we  wish 
it  or  not,  we  are  compelled  to  admit  that  original  sin,  as  it 


126  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

is  ill  the  descendants  of  Adam,  is  not  properly  sin,  as  has 
already  been  explained,  for  it  is  not  a  transgression  of  the 
law.  It  is  therefore  properly  a  disease  and  a  condition," 
—  morbus  igitur  est  proprie  et  conditio.  (Fidei  Ratio.) 
Zwingli  indeed  does  not  shun  to  say  that  we  are  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,  but  he  means  by  this,  not  that  we  are 
actually  adjudged  guilty,  but,  as  children  of  a  man  sentenced 
to  death,  we  are  naturally  without  the  birthright  to  im 
mortal  life,  just  as  the  children  of  one  who  is  made  a  slave 
inherit  a  condition  of  slavery.  And  even  this  state  of  de 
privation  he  was  disposed  to  regard  as  universally  cancelled 
by  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death.  "  It  is  certain,"  he  says, 
"  if  in  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  we  are  restored  to  life,  as 
in  the  first  Adam  we  were  delivered  to  death,  that  rashly 
we  condemn  children  born  of  Christian  parents,  yea  also 
the  children  of  the  heathen."  (Ibid.)  Among  English 
theologians  a  very  similar  view  was  held  by  Jeremy  Taylor, 
except  that  he  seems  to  have  taken  less  account  of  inherited 
corruption.  In  his  view,  the  chief  result  of  Adam's  tres 
pass  was  to  deprive  the  race  of  heirship  to  a  supernatural 
destiny.  "  The  sin  of  Adam,"  he  says,  "  neither  made  us 
heirs  of  damnation,  nor  naturally  and  necessarily  vicious. 
.  .  .  All  the  economy  of  the  divine  goodness,  and  justice, 
and  truth,  is  against  the  idea  that  infants  dying  in  original 
sin  are  sent  to  hell.  Is  hell  so  easy  a  pain,  or  are  the  souls 
of  children  of  so  cheap,  so  contemptible  a  price,  that  God 
should  so  easily  throw  them  into  hell?"  (Works,  Yol.  II. 
pp.  535,  536.) 

Calvin  and  the  great  body  of  Reformed  theologians  dis 
tinctly  included  the  element  of  guilt  as  well  as  of  corruption 
in  original  sin.  As  to  whether  the  guilt  is  by  mediate 
or  immediate  imputation,  little  care  was  taken  to  discrimi 
nate  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  period.  Most  of  the  confes 
sions  of  the  sixteenth  century  are  not  necessarily  interpreted 
as  teaching  anything  more  than  mediate  imputation.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  great  majority  of  Calvin's  refer- 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  127 

ences  to  the  subject,  though  it  is  not  improbable,  as  Tur- 
retin  argues,  that  he  held  also  to  immediate  imputation. 
The  following  statement  seems  to  imply  the  latter  opinion : 
"If  all  men  are  justly  accounted  guilty  of  this  rebellion 
[of  Adam],  let  them  not  suppose  themselves  excused  by 
necessity,  in  which  very  thing  they  have  a  most  evident 
cause  of  their  condemnation."  (Inst.,  II.  5.)  Among 
the  creeds  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Canons  of  Dort, 
the  Westminster  Confession,  and  that  of  the  Waldenses, 
imply  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation.  Special  at 
tention  was  called  to  the  subject  in  the  same  century  by 
the  definite  attack  of  Placa3us  upon  this  doctrine,  and 
his  decided  advocacy  of  mediate  imputation  alone.  One 
of  the  motives  for  publishing  the  Helvetic  Consensus 
Formula  was  to  enter  a  protest  against  the  teaching  of 
Placaeus.  The  Formula  inculcates  both  immediate  and 
mediate  imputation,  teaching  that,  prior  to  any  actual 
transgression,  each  descendant  of  Adam  is  guilty  both  as 
having  sinned  in  the  loins  of  Adam  and  as  possessing 
innate  corruption. 

The  virtual  existence  of  the  race  in  Adam,  the  legal 
headship  of  Adam,  the  possession  of  the  result  of  his  tres 
pass  in  a  corrupted  nature,  —  these  were  the  grounds  which 
in  one  quarter  or  another  were  urged  in  explanation  of  the 
guilt  in  original  sin.  A  very  large  proportion  of  theo 
logians  included  the  first  two  of  these  grounds  in  their 
theory.  After  the  rise  of  the  school  of  Coccejus,  the  fed 
eral  notion  became  more  prominent,  but  nevertheless  did 
not  supplant  the  other.  As  to  the  precise  mode  in  which 
the  corruption  of  nature  is  transmitted,  Reformed  theo 
logians  in  general  were  not  forward  to  speculate ;  but  some 
specifications  were  made.  "  The  cause  of  the  contagion," 
says  Calvin,  "  is  not  in  the  substance  of  the  body  or  of  the 
soul ;  but  because  it  was  ordained  by  God  that  the  gifts 
which  He  conferred  on  the  first  man  should  by  him  be 
preserved  or  lost  both  for  himself  and  for  all  his  poster- 


128  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

ity."  (Inst.  II.  1.)  Voetius  argues  that  the  corruption  or 
defect  of  nature  results  because  God,  as  agent  or  coagent, 
withholds  at  the  time  the  soul  is  produced  the  gifts  ne 
cessary  to  constitute  man  in  his  image.  (Select.  Disput., 
De  Propagat.  Peccat.  Orig.)  "The  propagation  of  sin," 
says  Perkins,  "  from  the  parents  to  the  children,  is  either 
because  the  soul  is  infected  by  the  contagion  of  the  body, 
as  a  good  ointment  by  a  fustic  vessel,  or  because  God  in 
the  very  moment  of  creation  and  infusion  of  souls  into 
infants  doth  utterly  forsake  them."  (The  Order  of  the 
Causes  of  Salvation  and  Damnation,  chap.  12.) 

The  standard  teachings  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the 
subject  of  man's  spiritual  inability  were  so  nearly  identical 
with  those  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  that  there  is  very 
little  need  of  adding  anything  here  to  a  simple  reference 
to  that  creed.  "  Our  nature,"  says  Calvin,  u  is  not  only 
destitute  of  all  good,  but  is  so  fertile  in  all  evils  that  it 
cannot  remain  inactive.  ...  If  we  allow  that  men  desti 
tute  of  grace  have  some  motions  toward  true  goodness, 
though  ever  so  feeble,  what  answer  shall  we  give  to  the 
apostle,  who  denies  that  we  are  sufficient  of  ourselves  to 
entertain  even  a  good  thought?"  (Inst.,  II.  1,  2.)  Arch 
bishop  Usher  likens  the  natural  man  to  a  corpse  fes 
tering  in  its  corruption  (Body  of  Divinity),  and  Bishop 
Beveridge  says  that  it  is  a  thousand  times  easier  for  a 
worm  to  understand  the  affairs  of  men  than  for  the  best 
of  men  in  a  natural  state  to  apprehend  the  things  of  God. 
(Private  Thoughts.)  But  no  great  account  is  to  be  taken 
of  instances  of  rhetorical  effervescence  like  these  last.  The 
essence  of  the  Reformed  teaching  is  contained  in  the  state 
ment,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  man  is  destitute  of 
the  supernatural  gifts  of  God,  and  so  wounded  in  all  his 
natural  powers  as  to  be  incapable  of  any  good  in  thought, 
word,  or  deed,  without  the  assistance  of  divine  grace. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  in  the  English  Church  from 
the  time  of  James  I.  a  very  decided  tendency  was  manifest 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  129 

toward  the  Arminian  standpoint,  as  respects  the  nature 
and  operation  of  free  will.  At  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century  this  tendency  had  become  largely  dominant. 

(4.)  Arminian  Theories.  —  The  Arminians  taught  that 
the  fall  was  not  necessitated  or  made  certainly  to  occur  by 
any  divine  decree,  either  positive  or  permissive.  It  was 
certain  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  but  only  because  the 
divine  foreknowledge  is  able  to  grasp  the  purely  contin 
gent.  "  Because  God,"  says  Arminius,  "  in  His  infinite 
wisdom,  saw  from  eternity  that  man  would  fall  at  a  cer 
tain  time,  that  fall  occurred  infallibly  only  in  respect  to 
His  prescience,  not  in  respect  to  any  act  of  the  divine  will, 
either  affirmative  or  negative."  (Discussion  with  Junius.) 
The  idea  that  the  fall  might  properly  be  termed  necessary 
with  regard  to  God,  but  contingent  with  respect  to  man, 
was  emphatically  repudiated.  "  The  necessity  or  contin 
gency  of  an  event,"  says  Arminius,  "  is  to  be  estimated, 
not  from  one  cause,  but  from  all  the  causes  united  to 
gether."  (Apology.)  "  They  are  deceived,"  writes  Curcel- 
Iseus,  "  who  say  that  man  in  respect  to  himself  fell  freely 
and  contingently,  but  necessarily  and  inevitably  in  respect 
to  the  foreknowledge  and  decree  and  co-working  of  God. 
For  these  are  contradictories,  such  as  cannot  be  reconciled 
by  reference  to  diverse  aspects."  (Lib.  III.  cap.  14.) 

In  the  Arminian  definition  of  freedom  it  is  opposed,  not 
merely  to  compulsion,  but  also  to  necessity.  It  is  distin 
guished  furthermore  from  spontaneity.  The  desire  of 
happiness,  for  example,  is  spontaneous,  but  it  is  not  free. 
(Arminius,  Examination  of  the  Treatise  of  William  Per 
kins;  Curcellaeus,  Lib.  IY.  cap.  3.)  The  power  of  alter 
native  choice  is  the  grand  essential  of  freedom.  "  If  you 
affirm,"  says  Arminius  in  reply  to  Perkins,  "that  the 
angels  obey  God  freely,  I  shall  say,  with  confidence,  that 
it  is  possible  that  the  angels  should  not  obey  God.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  you  affirm  that  they  cannot  but  obey 
God,  I  shall  thence  boldly  infer  that  they  do  not  obey  God 

VOL.  II.  —  9. 


130  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

freely.  For  necessity  and  freedom  differ  from  each  other 
in  their  entire  essence,  and  in  genus."  Episcopius  says : 
"It  belongs  to  the  perfect  definition  of  freedom,  that  it 
be  described  as  an  active  power,  from  its  intrinsic  force 
and  nature  so  undetermined  (indifferens) ,  that,  all  things 
requisite  for  acting  being  at  hand,  it  is  able  none  the  less 
to  act  or  not  to  act,  or  to  do  this  or  that."  (Lib.  IY.  Sect. 
III.  cap.  6.)  "Freedom,"  says  Limborch,  "  denotes  that  a 
thing  is  able  not  to  be ;  necessity,  that  a  thing  is  not  able 
not  to  be :  but  to  be  able  not  to  be,  and  not  to  be  able  not 
to  be,  can  in  no  respect  be  reconciled  with  each  other, 
but  the  one  being  affirmed,  the  other  is  denied."  (Lib.  II. 
cap.  23.)  Thus  the  Arminians  seem  to  have  regarded  the 
power  of  alternative  choice  as  essential  to  freedom,  even 
when  it  is  viewed  without  reference  to  the  adjuncts  pro 
bation  and  responsibility,  and  to  have  left  real  freedom  in 
the  Augustinian  sense  to  be  classed  under  the  necessary  or 
the  spontaneous. 

The  Arminian  conception  of  original  sin  was  essentially 
the  same  as  that  of  Zwingli.  Arminius  himself,  so  far  as 
we  are  aware,  never  explicitly  denied  the  element  of  guilt, 
and  said  at  most  that  it  is  not  easy  to  confute  the  argu 
ments  which  oppose  the  conclusion  that  infants  are  under 
condemnation  before  committing  actual  sins.  (Apology.) 
But  his  immediate  followers  denounced  in  strong  terms 
the  idea  that  any  guilt  pertains  to  the  new-born  child, 
regarding  any  theory  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  trespass 
as  unreasonable,  incompatible  with  the  moral  character 
of  God,  more  worthy  of  the  caprice  of  a  tyrant  than  of 
divine  justice  and  benevolence.  They  allowed  that  the 
fall  left  man  naturally  destitute  of  the  birthright  to  eternal 
life,  and  caused  a  transmission  of  corruption.  But  both 
of  these  they  regarded  as  rather  in  the  line  of  natural 
consequences  than  of  penal  inflictions,  and  as  such  hav 
ing  a  universal  remedy  in  the  grace  of  God  vouchsafed 
through  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly  they  taught  that  no 


1517-1720.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES..  131 

soul  will  ever  be  condemned  by  God  on  the  simple  ground 
of  original  sin.  "  The  Kemonstrants,"  writes  Episcopius, 
"  decide  with  confidence,  that  God  neither  will,  nor  justly 
can,  destine  to  eternal  torments  any  infants  who  die  with 
out  actual  and  individual  sins,  upon  the  ground  of  a  sin 
which  is  called  original,  which  is  said  to  be  contracted  by 
infants  by  no  individual  fault  of  theirs,  but  by  the  fault 
of  another  person,  and  which  is  believed  to  be  theirs  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  God  wills  arbitrarily  to  impute 
it  to  them.  This  opinion  is  contrary  to  the  divine  benevo 
lence,  and  to  right  reason ;  nay,  it  is  uncertain  which  is 
greater,  its  absurdity  or  its  cruelty."  (Apology  as  quoted 
by  Shedd.  Compare  Inst.  Theol.,  Lib.  IV.  Sect.  II.  cap. 
28,  30;  Sect.  Y.  cap.  1,  2;  Curcellseus,  Lib.  III.  cap. 
15-17 ;  Limborch,  Lib.  III.  cap.  2,  3.) 

Arminius  held  substantially  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the 
inability  of  the  fallen  man  in  things  spiritual,  though  dif 
fering  widely  on  the  universality  of  the  divine  purpose  in 
providing  a  remedy  for  that  inability.  Speaking  of  man 
after  the  fall,  he  says :  "  In  this  state,  the  free  will  of 
man  towards  the  true  good  is  not  only  wounded,  maimed, 
infirm,  bent,  and  weakened,  but  it  is  also  captive,  de 
stroyed,  and  lost.  And  its  powers  are  not  only  debilitated 
and  useless,  unless  they  be  assisted  by  grace,  but  it  has 
no  powers  whatever  except  such  as  are  excited  by  divine 
grace."  (Disputation  XI.)  uln  his  lapsed  and  sinful 
state,  man  is  not  capable,  of  and  by  himself,  either  to 
think,  to  will,  or  to  do  that  which  is  really  good."  (Decla 
ration  of  Sentiments.)  Leading  Arminians  who  followed 
were  disinclined  to  use  such  strong  expressions,  but  al 
lowed  that  man's  natural  abilities  can  effect  no  positive 
result  toward  his  moral  recovery  apart  from  prevenient 
and  co-operating  grace.  (Episcopius,  Apology  ;  Curcella3us, 
Lib.  VI.  cap.  12  ;  Limborch,  Lib.  III.  cap.  2.)  It  may  be 
observed  in  this  connection,  that  the  Quakers  also,  while 
recognizing  transmitted  corruption,  denied  that  any  guilt 


132  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

attaches  to  a  descendant  of  Adam  prior  to  actual  trans 
gression.  (Barclay's  Propositions.) 

(5.)  Socinian  Theories.  —  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Socin- 
ians,  that  God  does  not  foreknow  a  contingent  event  or  de 
cree  a  sinful  act,  the  fall  before  its  occurrence  could  have 
been  in  the  divine  mind  only  a  matter  of  conjecture  or  prob 
ability.  The  freedom  of  Adam,  in  their  view,  involved  the 
power  of  alternative  choice,  this  being  the  proper  character 
istic  of  a  free  and  responsible  being. 

The  fall  of  Adam,  according  to  the  Socinians,  brought 
guilt  upon  no  one  but  himself.  As  respects  corruption,  it 
was  only  the  first  step  toward  the  formation  of  an  evil  habit. 
It  was  far  from  radically  depraving  his  own  nature ;  and 
still  farther  from  radically  depraving  the  nature  of  his  pos 
terity.  The  principle  of  heredity  is  not  indeed  to  be  en 
tirely  discarded.  We  may  grant  that  the  majority  of  men 
are  born  with  a  proneness  to  evil,  but  we  go  beyond  war 
rant  when  we  say  that  this  is  the  case  with  all.  This 
proneness,  too,  is  not  to  be  specially  connected  with  the  fall 
of  Adam,  but  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  continued  transgres 
sions  of  men,  by  which  a  habit  of  sinning  has  been  formed 
and  the  nature  impregnated  with  evil  tendencies.  The  only 
evil  necessarily  flowing  from  the  first  transgression  to  all 
the  race  is  the  necessity  of  dying,  which  comes  as  a  natural 
consequence  from  the  condition  of  mortality  in  which  Adam 
was  left  by  his  trespass.  (Racovian  Catechism,  Y.  10 ; 
Socinus,  Proelcct.  Theol.,  Cap.  IV.)  The  similarity  of  the 
Socinian  teaching  to  the  Pelagian  is  too  apparent  to  need 
comment. 

The  scholastic  definition  of  sin  as  privation  or  defect,  is 
found  with  Roman  Catholic  writers  in  this  period.  (Bcllar- 
min,  De  Amiss.  Grat.,  Y.  2;  Petavius,  De  Deo,  IV.  4;  VI. 
4.)  The  same  definition  appears  also  with  some  Protestant 
writers.  (Zanchi,  De  Operibus  Dei,  Vol.  II.  Lib.  I.  cap.  2  ; 
Gerhard,  Locus  X.  §  4 ;  Norris,  Miscellanies.)  Turretin 


1517-1720.]  CEEATION  AND  CREATURES.  133 

says :  "  Sin,  which  has  the  character  of  a  moral  disease  of 
the  mind,  is  not  only  the  negation  of  the  good,  but  the 
presence  of  an  evil  disposition.  As  therefore,  in  so  far  as 
it  is  a  lack  of  righteousness  which  ought  to  be  within,  it 
is  properly  called  privation,  so  in  so  far  as  it  infects  and 
corrupts  the  soul,  it  is  called  an  evil  quality."  (Locus 
IX.  qua3st.  1.)  Limborch  scouts  the  idea  that  sin  is  to 
be  called  a  mere  nothing,  or  a  simple  privation.  "  Not  in 
deed  a  defect,  but  something  positive,  is  the  cause  of  sin." 
(Lib.  II.  cap.  29 ;  Lib.  Y.  cap.  4.) 


134  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION. 

SECTION  I.  —  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

THE  principal  developments  in  Christology  in  this  period 
were  within  the  bounds  of  Luthcranism,  and  concerned  the 
doctrine  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  This  doctrine 
had  its  general  starting-point  in  Luther's  mystical  bent, 
in  accordance  with  which  he  held  very  positive  views  of 
the  receptivity  of  the  human  for  the  divine.  Its  specific 
occasion,  however,  lay  in  his  theory  of  the  real  bodily  pres 
ence  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist.  Being  under  pressure 
to  explain  how  the  body  of  Christ  could  be  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  and  at  the  same  time  in  many  places  upon 
earth,  he  taught  that  the  right  hand  of  God  implies,  not 
definite  locality,  but  a  state  of  supreme  majesty  and  power, 
and  went  on  to  assert  the  theory,  that  in  virtue  of  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  ubiquity  is  imparted  to  the  body 
of  Christ.  This  was  comparatively  a  new  theory.  To  be 
sure,  a  similar  conception  had  been  entertained  by  a  few 
speculative  writers,  such  as  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Erigena, 
but  in  general  the  theory  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body 
had  been  foreign  to  Christian  theology.  Luther,  as  indi 
cated,  was  in  the  first  instance  mainly  interested  in  the 
bearing  of  his  novel  teaching  upon  the  Lord's  Supper.  But 
naturally  the  subject  was  not  allowed  to  rest  there.  Other 
properties  besides  that  of  ubiquity  must  needs  come  into 
the  account,  The  extent  and  the  manner  of  the  inter 
change  of  the  human  and  the  divine  characteristics  must 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  135 

needs  be  discussed.     In  short,  a  re-statenaent  of  the  whole 
subject  of  Christology  was  involved. 

Melanchthon  rejected  the  communicatio  idiomatum  in  the 
sense  of  Luther,  that  is,  as  an  actual  transference  of  prop 
erties  from  one  nature  to  the  other.  But  Luther's  theory 
found  zealous  advocates.  Brenz  and  the  Swabian  theolo 
gians  carried  it  out  in  the  most  unqualified  terms,  that 
is,  as  respects  the  communication  of  divine  properties ;  the 
communication  of  human  properties  to  the  divine  was  but 
little  considered.  According  to  Brenz,  the  incarnation  of 
itself  involved  a  full  communication  of  the  divine  predi 
cates,  so  that  Christ  as  man  was  omnipresent,  omnipotent, 
and  omniscient  from  the  first  moment  of  His  conception. 
Chemnitz,  on  the  other  hand,  and  the  Saxon  divines  wished 
to  modify  the  communicatio  as  far  as  this  could  be  done  in 
harmony  with  the  demands  of  the  bodily  presence  in  the 
eucharist.  They  taught,  accordingly,  that  no  absolute  pos 
session  of  the  divine  properties  pertains  to  the  human 
nature,  and  that  such  properties  are  only  temporarily  su 
perinduced  by  an  act  of  the  divine  will.  The  Formula  of 
Concord  was  designed  to  satisfy  both  of  these  parties,  and 
so  naturally  did  not  fully  satisfy  either,  and  the  controversy 
was  continued.  In  the  later  stage  of  the  discussion,  the 
division  was  between  the  Tubingen  and  the  Giessen  theo 
logians.  Both  of  these  schools  followed  Luther  in  assum 
ing  that  the  Jcenoms,  or  emptying  of  Himself,  which  is 
affirmed  of  Christ  in  the  Scriptures,  did  not  pertain  to 
Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  consisted  rather  in  the  renun 
ciation  of  prerogatives  which  from  the  fact  of  the  incarna 
tion  pertained  to  His  human  nature.  Both  said  that  to 
Christ  as  man  belonged  from  the  very  first  omnipotence, 
omniscience,  omnipresence,  and  the  government  of  the 
universe.  According  to  the  Tubingen  theologians,  Christ 
made  constantly  a  secret  employment  of  these  divine  prop 
erties  and  powers,  renouncing  not  the  use,  but  only  ihe 
manifest  use  of  them.  The  Giessen  theologians,  on  the 


136  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEEIOD  IV. 

other  hand,  taught  that  Christ  renounced  the  use  of  them, 
at  least  in  large  part,  during  the  time  of  His  earthly  so 
journ.  The  latter  view,  which  seems  to  have  commanded 
ultimately  the  larger  patronage,  was  accepted  by  Gerhard. 
"  The  communication  of  divine  properties,"  he  says,  "  was 
made  in  the  first  moment  of  the  incarnation,  but  Christ 
deferred  the  full  use  of  them  till  He  ascended  into  heaven 
and  took  His  place  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  thence  pro 
ceeds  the  distinction  between  the  state  of  inanition  and 
exaltation."  (Locus  IV.  §  293.  Compare  Quenstedt,  De 
Statibus  Christi,  Qusest.  I. ;  Hollaz,  Pars  III.  sect.  1,  cap.  3, 
qu.  54.) 

Reformed  theologians  were  content  to  remain  on  the 
basis  of  the  Chalcedonian  creed,  only  exhibiting  a  larger 
interest  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ  than  had  been 
shown  in  general  by  the  preceding  expounders  of  that 
creed.  Approving  the  maxim,  Finitum,  non  est  capax  in- 
faiiti,  they  emphatically  repudiated  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  They  decided  also  against 
the  Lutheran  view  of  the  kenosis.  "  Unlike  the  Lutherans," 
says  A.  B.  Bruce,  "  the  Reformed  theologians  applied  the 
category  of  exinanition  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  It 
was  the  Son  of  God  who  emptied  Himself,  and  He  did  this 
in  becoming  man.  The  incarnation  itself,  in  the  actual 
form  in  which  it  took  place,  was  a  kenosis  for  Him  who 
was  in  the  form  of  God  before  He  took  the  form  of  a  ser 
vant.  But  the  kenosis  or  exinanition  was  only  quasi,  an 
emptying  as  to  use  and  manifestation,  not  as  to  possession, 
—  a  hiding  of  divine  glory  and  of  divine  attributes,  not  a 
self-denudation  with  respect  to  these.  The  standing  phrase 
for  the  kenosis  was  occultatio,  and  the  favorite  illustration 
the  obscuration  of  the  sun  by  a  dense  cloud."  (The  Hu 
miliation  of  Christ.) 

Roman  Catholic  theologians  were  likewise  hostile  to  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  communication.  At  the  same  time, 
leading  representatives  took  the  position  that  to  the  human 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  137 

soul  of  Christ  there  was  imparted  the  knowledge  of  all 
things  past  or  to  come,  that  is,  of  all  in  the  range  of  the 
actual,  the  full  knowledge  of  the  possible  being  regarded 
as  pertaining  to  the  infinite  mind  alone.  (Bellarmin,  De 
Christo,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  1 ;  Petavius,  De  Incar.  Verbi,  Lib. 
XL  cap.  3.) 

Among  peculiar  views  we  note  the  following: — 1.  Osi- 
ander's,  that  the  Son  was  ideally  man  from  eternity. 
2.  Schwenkfeld's,  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  transformed 
into  the  divine  substance.  3.  Menno's,  that  the  Son  of  God 
becoming  man  took  no  substance  from  the  Virgin,  Christ 
as  Son  of  Man  being  simply  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God 
made  little  and  abased  to  a  low  estate.  4.  Weigel's,  that 
Christ  besides  the  body  from  the  Virgin  Mary  had  an  in 
visible  and  immortal  body,  derived  from  the  Eternal  Virgin, 
or  the  Divine  Wisdom,  through  the  Holy  Spirit.  5.  Bar 
clay's,  similar  to  Weigel's  view,  but  set  forth  under  a  less 
mystical  and  fantastic  guise,  his  idea  being  that  the  Son, 
prior  to  taking  a  body  from  the  Virgin,  had  a  spiritual 
body,  which  in  all  the  ages  of  human  history  was  a  medium 
of  divine  revelation  and  fellowship.  6.  Poiret's,  that  Christ 
drew  a  human  nature  from  the  primitive  unfallcn  Adam, 
and  that  this  human  nature  took  on  mortal  flesh  in  Mary, 
as  a  white  and  shining  garment  takes  the  tincture  of  a  dark 
liquid  into  which  it  is  plunged.  The  addition  of  the  mortal 
flesh  did  not  involve  an  additional  body.  7.  The  theory  of 
Henry  More  and  a  number  of  English  writers,  such  as 
Edward  Fowler,  Robert  Fleming,  J.  Hussey,  Francis  Gas- 
trell,  Thomas  Bennet,  and  Thomas  Burnet,  affirming  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ's  human  soul.  (Dorner,  Hist,  of 
Doct.  of  Person  of  Christ.) 


138  HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IY. 


SECTION  II.— THE  REDEMPTIVE  WORK  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  THEORIES.  —  In  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  the  subject  of  the  atonement  was  left  in  the  same 
indeterminate  state  in  which  it  had  been  inherited  from 
the  scholastic  era.     No  new  and  precise  definitions  were 
included  in  the  standards.     Theologians  were  free  to  select 
their  opinions  from  any  of  the  great  doctors  in  orthodox 
repute.      It  is  probable,  however,  that  there  was  a  more 
general  agreement  with  Thomas  Aquinas  than  with  any 
other  single  authority.      Bellarmin   taught  in  agreement 
with  Aquinas,  and  in  disagreement  with  the  Scotist  doc 
trine  of  acceptation,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  in 
itself  of  infinite  value.     (De  Christo,  Lib.  V.  cap.  5.) 

2.  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  THEORIES.  —  The  Lutherans 
generally  approached  the  subject  in  the  spirit  of  Anselm, 
and  accepted  his  view  of  the  serious  demands  of  divine 
justice,  the  need  and  the  fact  of  an  infinite  satisfaction. 
At  the  same  time  they  differed  from  Anselm  in  at  least 
two  prominent  respects :    1.  They  included  Christ's  obedi 
ence  in  life,  as  well  as  His  voluntary  death,  in  the  redemp 
tive  price.    2.  They  gave  Christ  more  distinctly  and  directly 
the  character  of  a  substitute  for  the  sinner,  representing 
Him  as   offsetting  sin  not   merely  by  acquiring  a  merit 
capable  of  being  imputed   to  the  guilty,  but  by  bearing 
penalty.      Luther  transcended  all   bounds  of   moderation 
in  setting  forth  this  latter  phase,  declaring  that  Christ 
came  so  fully  into  the  sinner's  place  that,  in  the  light  of 
the  sin  imputed  to  Him,  He  might  be  regarded  as  the  great 
est  of  all  criminals.     "  All  the  prophets,"  he  says,  "  saw 
this  in  spirit,  that  Christ  would  be  of  all  men  the  greatest 
robber,  homicide,  adulterer,  thief,  doer  of  sacrilege,  blas 
phemer,  etc.,  that  ever  was  in  the  world,  because,  as  a  vic 
tim  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  He  is  not  now  an 
innocent  person  and  without  sins."     (Comm.  in  Epist.  ad 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  139 

Galat.,  Cap.  III.)  This  was  exceptional  extravagance  in 
terms,  but  the  idea  which  Luther  meant  to  inculcate, 
namely,  that  Christ  stood  in  a  most  real  sense  in  the  sin 
ner's  place,  was  urged  by  others  among  the  Lutherans. 
Gerhard  says :  "  As  sins  were  typically  imputed  to  the 
victim  which  [in  Old  Testament  times]  was  offered  for 
sins,  so  our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ,  and  for  them  He 
offered  Himself  upon  the  altar  of  the  cross.  .  .  .  Although 
He  did  not  undergo  eternal  death,  nevertheless  He  truly 
felt  the  pains  of  hell  and  the  judgment  of  God  angry  with 
our  sins,  which  were  cast  upon  Him."  (Locus  XVI.  §§  43, 
44.  Compare  Quenstedt,  De  Statibus  Christi,  qucest.  6 ; 
De  Redemptione,  passim;  Hollaz,  Pars  III.  sect.  1,  cap.  3, 
qu.  125.) 

Gerhard  charges  against  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  ab 
solute  decrees,  that  it  implies  that  God  can  remit  sins  by 
His  simple  will,  and  that  consequently  there  is  no  strict 
need  of  satisfaction.  (Locus  XVI.  §  36.)  But  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  was  generally  main 
tained  by  Reformed  theologians.  Only  a  few  writers,  such 
as  Twisse  and  Rutherford,  were  disposed,  from  the  stand 
point  of  God's  absolute  decrees,  to  question  the  necessity 
of  satisfaction.  Zwingli  has  sometimes  been  reckoned  in 
this  category,  but  some  of  his  statements  bear  in  a  different 
direction.  (Compare  Zeller,  Das.  Theol.  System  Zwingli's, 
and  Ritschl,  Hist,  of  Doct.  of  Justif.  and  Reconcil.)  Mus- 
culus  is  quoted  by  Socinus  on  the  side  of  the  same  opinion. 
(De.  Chr.  Serv.,  Pars  III.  cap.  1.)  Vossius,  Whichcote, 
Tillotson,  and  William  Sherlock  were  also  opposed  to  the 
theory  of  strict  necessity,  but  from  a  very  different  stand 
point,  since  they  were  averse  to  the  dogma  of  absolute 
predestination.  Other  exceptions  might  perhaps  be  dis 
covered,  but  the  general  drift  of  teaching  in  the  Reformed 
Church  was  in  harmony  with  these  statements  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism :  "  God  is  indeed  merciful,  but  He 
is  likewise  just;  wherefore  His  justice  requires  that  sin, 


140  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

which  is  committed  against  the  most  high  majesty  of  God, 
be  also  punished  with  extreme,  that  is,  everlasting  punish 
ment,  both  of  body  and  soul.  .  .  .  God  wills  that  His  justice 
be  satisfied;  therefore  must  we  make  full  satisfaction  to 
the  same,  either  by  ourselves  or  by  another.  ...  By  reason 
of  the  justice  and  truth  of  God,  satisfaction  for  our  sins 
could  be  made  no  otherwise  than  by  the  death  of  the  Son 
of  God."  Equivalent  statements  are  contained  in  the 
Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Turretin  says,  that,  while 
some  Reformed  theologians,  especially  before  the  Socinians 
promulgated  their  views,  followed  Augustine  in  the  opinion 
that  satisfaction  by  the  death  of  Christ  was  not  strictly 
necessary,  it  is  safer  to  affirm  that  God  cannot,  in  harmony 
with  His  justice,  forgive  sins  without  satisfaction  ;  and  he 
adds,  that  this  is  the  common  view  of  the  orthodox.  (Locus 
XIV.  qutest.  10.) 

The  same  modifications  of  Anselm's  theory  were  made 
by  the  Reformed  as  by  the  Lutherans.  Piscator,  indeed, 
denied  that  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  well  as  His 
sufferings  and  death,  had  a  redemptive  or  atoning  value  ; 
but  in  this  he  was  outside  of  the  general  current.  Calvin 
was  very  pronounced  for  the  theory  in  question,  maintain 
ing  that  the  whole  obedience  of  Christ  entered  into  the 
redemptive  price,  and  that  even  in  respect  to  His  death 
the  most  essential  feature  was  the  voluntary  obedience  by 
which  it  was  consummated.  "  From  the  time,"  he  says, 
"  of  His  assuming  the  character  of  a  servant,  He  began  to 
pay  the  price  of  our  deliverance  in  order  to  redeem  us.  ... 
Indeed,  His  voluntary  submission  is  the  principal  circum 
stance  even  in  His  death;  because  the  sacrifice,  unless 
freely  offered,  would  have  been  unavailable  to  the  acqui 
sition  of  righteousness."  (Inst.  II.  16.  Compare  Zanchi, 
De  Relig.  Christ.  Fid. ;  Gomar,  Disput.  XIX. ;  Coccejus, 
De  Feed,  et  Test.  Dei,  Cap.  Y. ;  Witsius,  De  (Econom.  Feed. 
Dei  cum  Horn.,  Lib.  II.  cap.  5 ;  Turretin,  Locus  XIY. 
qua3st.  13 ;  Perkins,  Comm.  on  the  Epist.  to  the  Galatians, 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  141 

Chap.  II. ;  John  Owen,  Doct.  of  Justif .  by  Faith.)  «  The 
Spirit  of  God,"  says  the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula, 
"  distinctly  asserts  that  Christ  by  His  most  holy  life  satis 
fied  the  law  and  divine  justice  for  us,  and  locates  that  price 
by  which  we  are  purchased  unto  God,  not  merely  in  His 
sufferings,  but  in  His  whole  life  conformed  to  the  law." 

As  respects  Christ's  standing  in  the  place  of  sinners,  Dr. 
Crisp  rivalled  the  extravagant  language  of  Luther ;  but  in 
this  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  representing  nobody  except 
himself.  Calvinistic  writers,  however,  were  generally  in 
clined  to  a  very  positive  doctrine  of  substitution,  and  did  not 
shun  to  speak  of  sins  being  imputed  to  Christ,  and  of  His 
enduring  the  wrath  of  God.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism 
says  of  the  Redeemer,  "All  the  time  He  lived  on  earth,  but 
especially  at  the  end  of  His  life,  He  bore  in  body  and  soul 
the  wrath  of  God  against  the  sin  of  the  whole  human  race." 
(Qua3st.  37.)  "  He  suffered,"  says  the  Scotch  Confession, 
"  not  only  the  cruel  death  of  the  cross,  which  was  accursed 
by  the  sentence  of  God  ;  but  also  He  suffered  for  a  season 
the  wrath  of  His  Father,  which  sinners  had  deserved." 
(Art.  IX.)  "His  death,"  say  the  Canons  of  Dort,  "was 
conjoined  with  a  sense  of  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God, 
which  we  had  deserved  by  our  sins."  Calvin  writes  :  "  That 
Christ  might  restore  us  again  into  the  favor  of  the  Father, 
it  was  meet  our  guiltiness  were  abolished  by  Him ;  which 
could  not  be  unless  He  would  suffer  that  punishment  which 
we  were  not  able  to  abide."  (Comm.  on  Epist.  to  Romans, 
Chap.  IV.)  "  The  punishment  He  suffered,"  says  Perkins, 
"was  in  value  and  measure  answerable  to  all  the  sins  of 
all  the  elect,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  the  Godhead  sup 
porting  the  manhood,  that  it  might  be  able  to  bear  and 
overcome  the  whole  burden  of  the  wrath  of  God."  (Comm. 
on  Epist.  to  Galatians,  Chap.  III.)  "  His  death,"  says  John 
Bunyan,  "  was  not  a  mere  natural  death,  but  a  cursed  death ; 
even  such  a  one  as  men  do  undergo  from  God  for  their  sins, 
even  such  a  death  as  to  endure  the  very  pains  and  torments 


142  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

of  hell."  (The  Doctrine  of  the  Law  and  Grace  Unfolded.) 
Archhishop  Usher  affirms  that  Christ  suffered  in  His  soul 
the  "  whole  wrath  of  God  due  to  the  sin  of  man."  (Body  of 
Divinity.)  "Those  who  believe,"  says  John  Owen,  "the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  unto  believers, 
do  also  unanimously  profess  that  the  sins  of  all  believers 
were  imputed  unto  Christ."  (Doctrine  of  Justification.)  It 
should  be  observed  that  the  more  discriminating  writers, 
who  spoke  of  God's  wrath  being  visited  upon  Christ,  used 
this  language  with  a  qualification,  not  meaning  to  denote 
thereby  the  real  attitude  of  God  toward  His  well-beloved 
Son,  but  to  denote  rather  that  the  Son  endured  such  suffer 
ings  as  are  properly  among  the  effects  of  the  divine  wrath 
against  sin. 

Among  English  writers  Tillotson  expressed  himself  very 
much  after  the  style  of  Grotius.  (Serin.  XL VII.)  There 
are  also  passages  in  the  writings  of  Baxter  that  lean  very 
distinctly  toward  the  doctrine  of  Grotius. 

3.  THEORIES  OF  HUGO  GROTIUS  AND  THE  ARMINIANS. — 
Hugo  Grotius,  in  his  work  entitled  "  Defence  of  the  Catho 
lic  Faith  concerning  the  Satisfaction  of  Christ,"  made  a  sig 
nificant  departure  from  the  standpoint  of  Anselm,  as  also 
from  a  leading  principle  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed 
soteriology.  His  doctrine,  known  as  the  governmental 
theory,  starts  from  the  conception  that  the  laws  of  God,  at 
least  many  of  them,  are  not  an  outcome  of  the  divine  na 
ture,  but  rather  effects  of  the  divine  will.  From  this  it  fol 
lows  that  they  may  be  relaxed  without  contradiction  to  the 
divine  nature.  "  Law  is  not,"  he  says,  "  an  internal  some 
thing  in  God,  or  the  very  will  of  God,  but  a  certain  effect 
of  His  will.  But  it  is  most  certain  that  effects  of  the  divine 
will  are  mutable."  Applying  this  idea  to  the  punishment 
of  sin,  he  maintains  that,  though  it  may  be  just  to  punish 
the  guilty  in  proportion  to  their  ill-desert,  we  are  not  to 
conclude  that  it  is  always  unjust  to  remit  punishment,  any 
more  than  we  would  conclude  that  a  man  is  illiberal  be- 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  143 

cause  he  does  not  give  a  thousand  talents,  though  we  should 
call  him  liberal  if  he  did  freely  bestow  this  sum.  The  law 
that  penalty  be  visited  upon  transgression  is  not  strictly 
natural,  but  only  agreeable  to  nature.  "  That  every  sin 
ner,"  he  says,  "  should  be  punished  in  proportion  to  his 
fault,  is  not  strictly  and  universally  necessary,  nor  properly 
natural,  but  quite  agreeable  to  nature.  Thence  it  follows 
that  nothing  prevents  the  law  commanding  this  from  being 
relaxable."  God  is  not  in  the  position  of  a  judge,  who  is 
simply  a  minister  of  the  law  and  is  bound  by  its  provisions. 
His  position  is  rather  that  of  a  ruler  of  the  moral  universe, 
upon  whom  rests  the  office  of  conserving  and  promoting  its 
best  interests. 

But  while  God  as  ruler  may  relax  the  law  which  affixes 
penalty  to  sin,  His  very  position  as  a  wise  and  perfect  ruler 
is  a  bar  against  any  relaxation  which  might  imply  a  light 
estimate  of  the  claims  to  obedience.  It  tends  to  break 
down  the  authority  of  law  when  its  demands  are  not  strictly 
asserted.  Were  God  to  proclaim  a  universal  amnesty, 
and  at  the  same  time  take  no  pains  to  declare  His  abhor 
rence  of  sin  or  His  regard  for  righteousness,  He  would  open 
the  road  to  license,  and  endanger  the  security  of  moral  gov 
ernment.  A  penal  example  must  go  along  with  the  proc 
lamation  of  amnesty.  In  the  suffering  Son  of  God  the 
most  effective  example  is  provided.  The  sight  of  a  Being 
of  such  incomparable  dignity  paying  tribute  to  a  broken  law 
by  His  passion  and  death,  warns  men  that  the  love  which 
offers  pardon  for  past  sins  in  no  wise  excuses  from  obliga 
tion  to  future  obedience.  Thus,  while  the  law  is  in  a  sense 
relaxed,  a  suitable  compensation  is  secured. 

The  outcome  of  Grotius's  teaching  is  evidently  remote 
from  the  Anselmic  doctrine.  That  emphasized  the  indis 
pensable  need  of  an  atonement  to  cover  past  sins  and  to  open 
up  the  possibility  of  any  forgiveness,  whereas  the  theory  of 
Grotius  made  the  design  of  Christ's  work  not  so  much  the 
covering  of  past  sins  as  the  preventing  of  future  license, 


144  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

and  contemplated  it  rather  as  a  requirement  of  govern 
mental  prudence  than  as  a  demand  of  inflexible  justice. 

Other  leading  Arminians  agreed  essentially  with  Grotius 
in  their  conception  of  penal  law  as  related  to  the  divine 
nature.  "  The  justice  of  God,"  says  Episcopius,  "  does  not 
require  that  God  should  wish  to  punish  each  and  every 
sinner.  But  when  He  wishes  to  punish,  the  justice  of  God 
requires  that  He  punish  none  hut  the  deserving,  and  not 
beyond  desert."  (Lib.  IV.  Sect.  II.  cap.  29.)  "  Whatever," 
says  Curcellaeus,  "  God  works  exterior  to  Himself,  He  ef 
fects  most  freely  in  accordance  with  the  good  pleasure  of 
His  will,  whether  He  bestows  reward  upon  those  who  obey 
His  laws,  or  decrees  punishments  against  rebels.  ...  It  is 
to  be  concluded  that  neither  the  compassion  by  which  God 
remits  sins,  nor  the  justice  by  which  He  punishes  them,  are 
essential  properties  of  His,  but  only  free  effects  which  pro 
ceed  from  His  natural  goodness  and  holiness."  (Lib.  II. 
cap.  16  ;  Lib.  V.  cap.  18.)  "  We  confess,"  says  Limborch, 
"  that  justice  and  compassion  are  essential  to  God,  but  con 
tend  that  the  acts  and  manifestations  both  of  justice  and 
compassion,  such  as  are  punishment  and  remission  of 
sins,  are  free  and  subject  to  the  divine  choice."  (Lib.  II. 
cap.  12.) 

At  the  same  time,  these  writers  gave  a  different  turn  to 
their  exposition  of  Christ's  redemptive  work  from  that  of 
Grotius,  by  representing  Christ  not  so  much  as  affording  a 
penal  example  as  making  a  sacrifice  to  God.  In  some  of 
their  statements,  too,  this  sacrifice  seems  to  be  conceived 
as  paying  a  tribute  not  merely  to  God's  governmental  pru 
dence,  but  to  His  interior  regard  for  justice.  Thus  Cur- 
cellaeus  writes:  "It  was  not  needful  for  our  redemption 
that  Christ  should  bear  the  same  punishments  which  we 
had  merited;  but  there  was  need  only  of  a  sacrifice  by 
which  He  might  render  God  placated  toward  us.  There 
fore  He  gave  Himself  to  death  for  us,  and  this  oblation 
was  accepted  by  the  Father,  so  that  because  of  it  He  willed 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  145 

to  remit  to  us  all  our  sins  freely  and  without  any  payment, 
provided  only  we  should  renounce  them  for  the  future,  and 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  (Lib.  V.  cap.  9.)  "  The  temper 
ing  of  justice  with  compassion,"  Limborch  teaches,  "  con 
sisted  in  this,  that  God,  seeing  the  human  race  fallen  into 
sin  and  eternal  death,  willed  to  be  placated  with  a  pro 
pitiatory  sacrifice,  and  apart  from  that  not  to  receive 
sinners  into  favor."  (Lib.  III.  cap.  10.)  But  the  same 
theologians  were  careful  to  state  that  this  sacrifice  was  not 
a  complete  satisfaction  for  sin,  and  that  the  acceptance  of 
it  involved  a  departure  from  the  rigor  of  justice.  God 
accepted  the  sacrifice,  says  Limborch,  not  because  Christ 
rendered  a  full  equivalent  for  the  punishment  due  to  sin 
ners,  but  because  "  He  satisfied  the  divine  will,  at  once 
compassionate  and  just,  paying  all  and  bearing  all  which 
God  required  for  the  full  expiation  of  sins."  (Ibid.)  In 
deed  the  Arminian  writers  regarded  the  theory  of  a  strict, 
plenary  satisfaction  as  open  to  grave  objections.  Among 
other  considerations  Curccllaeus  urged  against  such  a 
theory,  that  it  is  contradictory  to  fact,  since  Christ  did 
not  endure  eternal  death,  which  was  the  penalty  due  to  sin, 
and  that  it  is  also  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  repre 
sentation  of  gratuitous  remission,  and  the  Scriptural  re 
quirement  of  faith  and  repentance  as  conditions  of  enjoying 
the  purchased  benefits.  (Lib.  V.  cap.  19.) 

4.  SOCINIAN  THEORIES. — The  view  of  divine  justice  ad 
vocated  by  the  Arminian  writers  who  have  been  quoted 
above  was  anticipated  by  the  Socinians.  With  great  em 
phasis  and  in  oft-repeated  statements  Socinus  taught  that 
God  is  equally  free  to  forgive  or  to  punish  sins,  and  that 
no  satisfaction  is  needed  to  facilitate  the  exercise  of  His 
pardoning  power.  Justice,  he  says,  so  far  as  related  to  the 
infliction  of  punishment  upon  transgressors,  is  no  interior 
characteristic  of  God,  and  least  of  all  such  a  characteristic 
as  necessitates  universally  that  penalty  be  exacted  for  sin. 
One  might  better  argue  that  compassion  is  an  interior  char- 

VOL.  II.  —  10. 


146  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

acteristic  of  God,  and  universally  impels  to  the  free  remis 
sion  of  all  sins.  The  truth  is,  that  justice  in  the  sense  in 
question,  as  well  as  compassion,  is  no  essential  property  of 
God,  but  only  an  effect  of  His  will.  "  There  is  indeed  in 
God  a  perpetual  justice ;  but  this  is  nothing  else  than  equity 
and  rectitude."  God's  justice  is  a  bar  to  His  doing  any 
wrong,  to  His  punishing  the  guiltless,  or  to  His  punishing 
beyond  desert,  but  is  no  bar  at  all  to  His  forgiving  wherever 
men  are  in  an  attitude  to  appreciate  forgiveness.  (Prelect. 
Theol.,  Cap.  XVI.,  XVII. ;  DC  Christo  Servatore,  Pars  I. 
cap.  1.)  The  similarity  of  this  exposition  to  that  of  some  of 
the  Arminians  is  quite  apparent.  But  it  should  be  noticed, 
that,  while  giving  essentially  the  same  definition  of  divine 
justice,  the  Arminians  were  not  a  little  distinguished  from 
the  Socinians  in  the  stress  which  they  placed  upon  the  ob 
jective  worth  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  death,  or  the  actual 
display  through  them  of  the  claims  of  God's  holy  laws. 

In  the  Socinian  scheme  the  principal  part  of  Christ's  work 
as  a  Saviour  is  located  in  two  things  :  (1.)  In  His  fulfilment 
on  earth  of  the  office  of  an  inspired  teacher;  (2.)  In  His  ful 
filment  in  heaven  of  the  office  of  the  exalted  King  of  men  and 
the  dispenser  of  all  spiritual  benefits.  The  death  of  Christ 
lying  between  these  two  has  a  significance  mainly  subordi 
nate  to  them.  (1.)  It  was  a  marked  testimony  to  the  trutli 
of  His  teaching.  (2.)  It  was  an  eminent  and  inspiring 
example  of  patience  and  fidelity.  (3.)  It  serves  by  divine 
appointment  as  a  kind  of  seal  of  the  new  covenant,  an  open 
pledge  of  God's  willingness  to  forgive,  and  hence  is  a  token 
of  His  benevolence,  and  a  means  of  calling  forth  the  con 
fidence  and  the  love  of  men.  (4.)  It  was  the  necessary 
antecedent  of  Christ's  resurrection  and  glorification,  and 
so  bridged  the  way  to  the  crowning  facts  in  the  redemptive 
work.  The  contrast  between  Christ  humiliated  and  dying, 
and  Christ  risen  and  triumphant,  is  the  best  possible  means 
of  inspiring  salutary  courage  and  hope  in  men  struggling 
amid  the  miseries  of  this  life.  (Racov.  Cat.,  V.  7,  8  ;  Soci- 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  147 

mis,  Praelect.  Theol.,  Cap.  XIX.-XXIY. ;  De  Chr.  Serv., 
Pars  I.  cap.  2-5 ;  Crell,  De  Causis  Mortis  Christ! ;  Ad  Lib. 
Grotii  Respons. ;  Wolzogen,  Compend.  Relig.  Christ.) 

The  Socinians,  it  is  true,  did  not  shun  to  speak  of  the 
death  of  Christ  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  as  appears  from 
the  Racovian  Catechism  and  other  writings.  But  evidently 
they  used  the  term  expiation  in  a  different  sense  from  that 
in  which  it  was  employed  by  the  advocates  of  strict  satis 
faction,  and  attached  an  expiatory  office  to  Christ's  death 
only  so  far  as  it  may  be  regarded  as  supplicating  the  divine 
clemency  or  acting  as  a  positive  antidote  to  sinfulness. 
Moreover,  they  taught  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  but  the 
commencement  of  the  expiation  which  He  continues  to 
make  in  heaven  as  the  High  Priest  of  humanity.  "  The 
death  of  Christ,"  says  the  Catechism,  "  was  not  the  whole  of 
His  expiatory  sacrifice,  but  a  certain  commencement  of  it ; 
for  the  sacrifice  was  then  offered  when  Christ  entered  into 
heaven."  (V.  8.)  Socinus  says  :  "  The  sacrifice  and  expi 
atory  oblation  of  Christ  for  our  sins,  although  it  did  not 
take  place  without  the  cross  and  the  shedding  of  blood, 
was  not  nevertheless  truly  consummated  in  the  cross  or  in 
shedding  of  blood,  but  afterwards  in  heaven,  Christ  having 
entered  there."  (Epist.)  "  Christ  was  not  truly  a  priest, 
nor  perfectly  consecrated  before  He  entered  into  heaven, 
not  to  say  before  He  delivered  Himself  to  death."  (De  Chr. 
Serv.,  Pars  II.  cap.  23.)  Thus,  according  to  the  Socinian 
theory,  Christ  first  after  His  ascension  entered  in  the  more 
emphatic  sense  upon  His  office  as  Saviour. 

The  objections  of  Socinus  to  the  doctrine  of  vicarious 
satisfaction  are  noteworthy,  as  being  the  most  cogent  con 
siderations  which  hostile  criticism  has  been  able  to  urge. 
The  more  important  of  them  are  the  following :  (1.)  The 
supposition  of  satisfaction  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptural  ac 
count  of  gratuitous  remission,  and  trenches  upon  the  liber 
ality  and  compassion  of  God.  (2.)  Vicarious  satisfaction 
is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  impossible.  One  may  indeed 


148  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

pay  a  sum  of  money  for  another,  for  the  ownership  of 
money  is  transferable.  But  the  punishment  which  God 
has  connected  with  sin  is  not  a  pecuniary  fine.  It  is  rather 
a  punishment  which  takes  hold  of  the  person,  and  is  as 
little  capable  of  being  transferred,  as  personality  itself  is  of 
being  alienated.  The  law,  too,  is  not  that  somebody  must 
suffer  in  case  of  transgression,  but  that  the  identical  per 
son  who  sins  must  suffer.  Moreover,  God's  Word  expressly 
puts  a  veto  upon  transferring  punishment  of  this  kind,  de 
claring  that  the  child  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the 
offence  of  the  father,  or  the  father  for  the  offence  of  the 
child.  (3.)  Christ  as  a  matter  of  fact  did  not  make  a 
plenary  satisfaction  by  His  sufferings.  There  was  no  pro 
portion  between  His  pains  and  those  denounced  against 
sinners.  He  did  not  endure  eternal  death ;  and  even  if  He 
had,  and  had  been  accepted  as  a  substitute,  He  could  have 
taken  the  place  of  only  one  sinner.  This  holds  true  even 
upon  the  supposition  of  His  divinity,  for  only  as  man  could 
He  suffer  and  pay  to  God  a  debt  of  suffering.  (4.)  Vica 
rious  obedience  is  quite  as  much  out  of  question  as  vicari 
ous  suffering.  Christ  as  man  was  subject  to  law  and  under 
obligation  to  obey  for  Himself,  so  that  it  was  impossible 
for  Him  to  acquire  merit  in  behalf  of  others.  As  respects 
His  divine  nature,  if  such  be  imputed  to  Him,  it  is  as  im 
proper  to  speak  of  that  as  obeying  and  acquiring  merit,  as 
it  is  to  represent  it  as  enduring  sufferings.  And  there  is 
besides  this  consideration,  that  satisfaction  by  suffering 
and  imputation  of  obedience  agree  ill  together,  since  the 
one  makes  the  other  superfluous.  (5.)  If  satisfaction  has 
been  made,  men  are  bound  by  no  further  claims.  Their 
acquittal  follows  without  conditions.  Obligations  to  faith 
and  obedience  are  relaxed.  (See  in  particular  Praelect. 
Theol.,  Cap.  XVII.,  XVIII. ;  DC  Chr.  Serv.,  Pars  III.  cap. 
1-5,  Pars  IV.  cap.  3,  4.) 

Socinus  evidently,  in  attacking  the  doctrine  of  vicarious 
satisfaction,  took  the  terms  in  the  most  literal  and  exact 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  149 

sense.  This  fact  must  of  course  be  brought  into  the  ac 
count  in  the  consideration  of  his  objections.  One  may  hold 
that  the  work  of  Christ  had  the  value  of  a  vicarious  satis 
faction,  and  was  in  effect  such,  without  at  the  same  time 
maintaining  that  it  was  such  in  all  the  particulars  of  a  rigid 
and  literal  application  of  the  terms.  One  may  hold  that  He 
paid  a  real  tribute  to  divine  law,  to  the  honor  and  security 
of  divine  government,  to  God's  interior  regard  for  right 
eousness,  and  that  in  a  real  sense  He  stood  in  the  sinner's 
place,  without  tl linking  that  guilt  was  in  any  wise  trans 
ferred  to  Him,  or  that  He  was  in  strictness  visited  with 
any  punishment.  So  far  as  the  statements  of  Socinus  bear 
against  a  vicarious  satisfaction  in  this  sense,  the  following 
considerations  are  pertinent,  and  have  been  urged  by  one 
writer  or  another.  (1.)  The  satisfaction  made  by  Christ 
holds  an  instrumental  place.  It  was  designed  to  prepare 
the  way  for  the  salvation  of  men.  God  was  its  primary 
originator.  He  originated  it  as  the  most  fitting  way  of 
reaching  an  end  dictated  by  pure  benevolence  and  love. 
So  far,  therefore,  from  excluding  grace  and  compassion,  it 
testifies  to  them.  Moreover,  not  only  in  the  primary  pro 
vision  of  the  satisfaction,  but  in  the  application  of  its 
benefits  to  the  individual,  there  is  an  exhibition  of  grace. 
The  work  of  satisfaction  was  a  condition  of  proclaiming 
a  general  amnesty,  to  be  enjoyed  upon  the  most  indulgent 
terms  that  wisdom  and  righteousness  could  allow.  Now 
while  self -consistency  in  the  Divine  Ruler  might  require 
that  every  one  meeting  the  conditions  should  have  the  ben 
efits  of  the  amnesty,  no  one  can  claim  them  as  a  matter 
of  desert  or  as  a  right.  In  every  case  of  their  bestowment 
there  is  an  exhibition  of  grace.  (2.)  Sin  is  indeed  a  per 
sonal  matter,  and  no  one  but  the  doer  of  it  can  take  its  ill- 
desert,  and  the  sufferings  of  no  innocent  person  can  be 
regarded  as  strictly  cancelling  that  ill-desert.  But  this 
does  not  prove  that  one  person  may  not  suffer  voluntarily 
for  another,  and  suffer  in  such  a  way  as  to  promote  right- 


150  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

eousness  and  render  tribute  to  justice.  The  Scriptures  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  Christ  bore  our  sins  in  His  own 
body  on  the  tree.  Human  experience  is  full  of  illustrations 
of  a  vicarious  principle.  Universal  history  teaches  that  the 
pains  and  struggles  of  holy,  self-sacrificing  souls  arc  ever 
being  employed  to  lift  the  wicked  to  undeserved  emanci 
pation.  No  one  can  deny  these  facts.  Everybody  must 
allow  that  one  person  can  suffer  efficaciously  for  another. 
Every  one  also,  who  has  a  just  view  of  the  historical  posi 
tion  of  Christ,  must  allow  that,  above  all  beings  that  have 
appeared  in  this  world,  He  was  qualified  to  hold  a  vicari 
ous  or  representative  position  in  suffering.  For  He  was 
not  merely  an  individual  among  individuals ;  He  was  not 
merely  a  son  of  man,  but  the  Son  of  Man,  the  head  and 
centre  of  humanity.  The  only  question  then  is,  whether 
the  suffering  may  be  at  the  same  time  a  tribute  to  justice, 
a  homage  to  holy  law,  and  so  of  the  nature  of  a  satisfac 
tion.  And  who  can  refuse  to  answer  this  in  the  affirma 
tive  ?  Who  can  deny  that  he  who  obeys  the  law  as  the 
embodied  will  of  the  lawgiver,  obeys  it  with  a  profound 
regard  for  the  end  contemplated  by  the  lawgiver,  and  at 
the  expense  of  extreme  personal  suffering,  renders  a  great 
tribute  to  the  law  and  to  him  whose  mind  it  expresses  ? 
Who  can  deny,  furthermore,  that  the  grandest  tribute  of 
this  kind  which  is  conceivable  is  the  fitting  antecedent  and 
condition  of  a  proclamation  of  universal  amnesty  to  a  race 
of  sinners  ?  Now,  just  such  a  tribute  was  rendered  by  the 
obedient  and  suffering  Christ,  the  divine-human  Son  of 
God.  In  one  undivided  view  we  have  the  spectacle  of  the 
sublimest  homage  to  divine  rule,  the  attestation  of  the  in 
effable  sanctity  of  the  holy  laws  of  God,  and  the  spectacle 
of  the  utmost  grace  to  those  who  have  transgressed  those 
laws.  The  former  was  needed  to  go  with  the  latter.  In 
virtue  of  the  work  of  Christ,  God,  in  harmony  with  His 
position  as  fountain  and  guardian  of  the  law,  can  consist 
ently  and  safely  remit  sins.  He  is  not  left  in  the  position 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  151 

of  an  earthly  magistrate,  who  must  either  execute  the  law 
with  unsparing  rigor,  or  use  his  prerogative  to  pardon  in 
a  partial  way  by  showing  clemency  to  only  a  few,  or  break 
down  the  law  by  too  wide  a  show  of  indulgence.  Bringing 
all  alike  into  the  presence  of  that  incomparable  tribute  to 
righteousness  and  protest  against  sin  which  are  seen  in 
Jesus  Christ,  God  is  able  to  offer  pardon  to  all  upon  equal 
terms,  and  to  emphasize  the  claims  of  righteousness  even  in 
the  act  of  indulgence.  (3,  4.)  In  answer  to  the  third  and 
fourth  objections  of  Socinus,  we  have  the  consideration  that 
Christ  in  His  life  of  suffering  and  obedience  is  to  be  viewed 
in  the  unity  of  His  person.  We  are  not  to  make  a  Nesto- 
rian  division  between  the  divine  and  the  human.  We  are 
to  view  Him  as  the  God-man.  Regarding  Him  in  this  light, 
we  cannot  properly  fail  to  be  filled  with  a  sense  of  the 
altogether  exceptional  worth  of  His  work.  The  spectacle 
of  a  God-man  treading  the  path  of  obedience  and  suffering 
in  deference  to  holy  law,  and  with  the  design  of  healing  and 
conserving  God's  moral  order,  is  more  fitted  to  impress  the 
minds  of  men  and  angels  with  the  majestic  claims  of  that 
law  and  that  order,  than  the  spectacle  of  a  race  suffering 
hopelessly  the  pains  of  damnation.  The  value  of  such  a 
tribute  is  essentially  independent  of  the  question  whether 
the  rendering  of  it  fell  within  the  sphere  of  duty  or  not. 
It  was  valuable  in  itself.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  lay  be 
yond  the  sphere  of  personal  obligation,  in  the  sense  that  the 
incarnation  by  which  it  was  initiated  lay  beyond  that  sphere. 
Work  done  in  a  sphere  which  is  beyond  one's  obligations  to 
enter  may  be  called  a  work  of  extra  merit.  (5.)  The  last 
objection  of  Socinus  has  force  only  against  the  most  crude 
and  commercial  theory  of  satisfaction.  From  the  fact  that 
Christ  paid  such  a  tribute  as  makes  it  allowable  in  the 
sight  of  wisdom  and  holiness  to  depart  from  the  rigor  of 
justice  in  dealing  with  past  sins,  it  of  course  in  no  wise 
follows  that  conditions  of  faith  and  future  obedience  should 
not  be  imposed. 


152  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

Among  writers  of  the  Calvinistic  school  of  the  period 
who  attempted  to  answer  the  objections  of  Socinus,  a  fore 
most  place  is  occupied  by  Turretin. 

Roman  Catholic  theologians  held  the  patristic  and  scho 
lastic  theory  of  a  real  descent  of  Christ  into  Hades.  As 
to  the  effect  of  His  mission  there,  Petavius  says  :  "  I  assent 
to  the  opinion  commonly  received  and  confirmed  by  the 
testimony  of  a  number ;  namely,  that  Christ  in  His  descent 
to  hell  conferred  salvation  upon  those  alone  who,  by  the 
merit  of  faith  and  righteousness  while  they  were  alive, 
showed  themselves  worthy  of  so  great  a  benefit."  (De 
Incar.  Verb.,  Lib.  XIII.  cap.  18.)  The  Lutherans  were 
inclined  to  follow  Luther  in  the  doctrine  of  a  real  descent. 
The  Formula  of  Concord,  referring  to  a  dispute  which  had 
arisen  respecting  the  mode  of  the  descent,  teaches  that 
the  fact  should  be  received  without  curious  inquiries  as  to 
the  mode.  (Art.  IX.)  According  to  Gerhard,  there  was 
both  a  metaphorical  and  a  real  descent  of  Christ  into  hell, 
the  one  consisting  in  the  pains  of  His  passion  and  the 
other  in  a  local  appearing  in  the  region  of  the  dead.  (Con 
fess.  Oath.)  As  respects  the  object  of  the  descent,  the 
Lutherans  emphasized  chiefly  the  general  idea  of  a  tri 
umph  over  Satan  and  the  power  of  death.  Among  Re 
formed  theologians  there  was  a  tendency  to  affirm  only 
the  metaphorical  descent,  the  language  of  the  apostolic 
symbol  being  either  understood,  as  by  Zwingli,  to  be  an 
emphatic  assertion  of  the  reality  of  Christ's  death  and 
burial ;  or,  as  by  Calvin,  to  be  descriptive  of  the  agonies 
of  the  passion.  (Calvin,  Inst.,  II.  16 ;  Turretin,  Locus 
XIII.  quaest.  16 ;  Maccovius,  Locus  XXV. ;  Wolleb,  Com- 
pend.  TheoL,  Lib.  I.  cap.  18;  Usher,  Body  of  Divinity; 
Barrow,  Sermons  on  Creed,  XXVIII.)  The  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  though  not  very  explicit,  favors  the  Calvinian. 
interpretation.  (Question  44.)  The  Thirty-nine  Articles, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  evidently  designed  to  teach  a 
real  descent.  (Art.  III.) 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  153 


SECTION  III.  —  APPROPRIATION  OF  THE  BENEFITS  OF 
CHRIST'S  WORK. 

IN  the  early  stages  of  the  Reformation,  there  was  natu 
rally  a  tendency  to  revert  to  the  Augustinian  stand-point, 
and  to  reduce  man's  part  in  the  appropriation  of  salvation 
to  the  vanishing  point.  In  no  way,  as  the  Reformers 
conceived,  could  the  foundation  of  the  Romish  system 
of  legality,  ceremonialism,  and  dependence  upon  the  merit 
of  works  be  so  effectually  swept  away  as  by  asserting 
man's  natural  helplessness  and  the  omnipotence  of  grace 
in  his  moral  recovery.  In  a  part  of  the  domain  of  Prot 
estantism  this  primitive  position  was  steadily  maintained ; 
but  there  were  wide  reactions  from  it  in  various  quarters. 

Among  the  topics  falling  under  the  section,  the  two 
principal  arc  the  divine  predestination,  as  conditioning 
the  appropriation  of  salvation,  and  the  doctrine  of  justifi 
cation.  The  question  of  the  factors  entering  into  conver 
sion,  or  regeneration,  may  fitly  be  considered  in  connection 
with  the  former  topic.  In  addition  to  these  subjects,  we 
have  to  consider  that  of  assurance  and  of  Christian  per 
fection. 

I.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  far  from  being  a 
unit  upon  the  subject  of  predestination.  According  to 
Sarpi,  very  diverse  opinions  were  expressed  at  the  council 
of  Trent,  and,  taking  the  period  through,  some  three  or 
four  different  types  of  opinion  must  be  distinguished. 

By  the  Jansenist  school,  or,  at  least,  by  some  of  its 
representatives,  statements  were  indulged  involving  the 
full  Augustinian  doctrine,  that  predestination  to  life  is 
unconditional,  that  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  was  not 
designed  for  all,  and  that  there  is  in  strictness  no  possi 
bility  of  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect.  These  points  are 
involved  with  sufficient  clearness  in  such  sentences  from 
Quesnel  as  the  following :  "  All  whom  God  wills  to  save 


154  HISTOKY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

through  Jesus  Christ  are  infallibly  saved."  "  Grace  is 
the  operation  of  the  hand  of  the  omnipotent  God,  which 
nothing  is  able  to  impede  or  retard."  "  Grace  is  nothing 
else  than  the  will  of  the  omnipotent  God  commanding 
and  doing  what  He  commands."  There  were  also  outside 
of  the  Jansenist  school  some  who  made  no  material  modi 
fication  of  the  Augustinian  teaching. 

A  second  party  taught,  indeed,  an  unconditional  predes 
tination  of  some  men  to  eternal  life,  but  differed  from  the 
preceding  in  maintaining  that  a  sufficient  grace  to  secure 
salvation  is  given  unto  those  not  thus  absolutely  chosen. 
At  the  same  time,  however,  they  made  the  possibility 
of  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect  a  purely  theoretical  one, 
since  they  taught  that  this  sufficient  grace  never  becomes 
actually  efficacious  grace,  never  brings  into  the  possession 
of  eternal  life.  Here  belongs  Pope  Adrian  VI.  Thomas- 
sin  describes  his  position  as  follows :  "  God  does  not 
now  give  to  all  the  grace  which  will  convert  them,  but  that 
which  is  sufficient  to  convert  them  if  they  make  their  best 
efforts.  He  adds,  that  there  is  no  one  who  makes  always 
his  best  efforts,  and  consequently  the  grace  simply  suffi 
cient  is  in  the  end  always  ineffectual,  and  the  efficacious 
grace  is  that  which  is  always  superabundant."  (Memoire 
II.)  Bcllarmin's  teaching  harmonizes  with  Adrian's,  and 
embraces  the  following  points:  (1.)  There  is  an  uncon 
ditional  election  of  some  to  eternal  life.  "  The  Scripture 
teaches  that  some  of  the  human  race  have  been  elected, 
and  that  they  have  been  elected  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  elected  efficaciously,  that  they  may  infallibly  attain 
to  the  kingdom ;  and,  finally,  that  they  have  been  elected 
gratuitously  and  before  all  foresight  of  their  works." 
(2.)  "  Sufficient  aid  for  salvation,  respect  being  had  to  time 
and  place,  is  given  mediately  or  immediately  to  all."  The 
clause  respecting  time  and  place  is  inserted  to  denote  that 
there  is  at  least  some  occasion  where  this  aid  is  proffered, 
though  it  may  not  be  always  present.  The  proposition 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  155 

thus  understood,  says  Bellarmin,  is  advocated  by  nearly 
all  Roman  Catholic  theologians.  (3.)  The  sufficient  grace 
fails  in  fact  of  the  end  for  whose  attainment  it  is  sufficient. 
"  All  have,  in  consideration  of  place  and  time,  aid  suffi 
cient  to  enable  them  to  be  converted  and  then  to  persevere 
if  they  will ;  but  in  reality  no  one  is  converted  and  no  one 
perseveres  except  he  who  has  the  special  gift  of  repent 
ance  and  perseverance,  which  is  not  given  to  all,  but  to 
those  only  to  whom  God  has  decided  that  it  should  be 
given."  Here  reference  is  made  to  a  distinction  previ 
ously  laid  down  between  gratia  sufficiens  and  gratia  efficax. 
(4.)  "  Reprobation  comprises  two  acts,  the  one  negative 
and  the  other  positive,  inasmuch  as  the  reprobate  are 
opposed  to  the  elect  both  in  the  way  of  contradiction  and 
of  contrariety  (contradictor ie  et  contrarie).  For  in  the 
first  place  God  has  not  the  will  to  save  them ;  and  then 
He  has  the  will  to  condemn  them  ;  and,  indeed,  as  respects 
the  former  act,  there  is  no  cause  on  the  part  of  man,  as 
there  is  none  of  predestination.  But  of  the  latter  there  is 
a  cause,  namely,  the  foresight  of  sin."  (De  Grat.  et  Lib. 
Arbit.,  Lib.  I.  cap.  11-13 ;  Lib.  II.  cap.  1-16.)  Nicole  and 
Thomassin  occupied  essentially  the  same  ground. 

According  to  a  third  view,  while  some  are  unconditionally 
elected  to  eternal  life,  there  is  not  merely  a  theoretical  pos 
sibility  that  some  not  thus  elected  may  be  saved,  but  a 
genuine  probability  that  some  of  them  will  be  saved.  Such 
was  the  theory  advocated  by  Catharinus  at  the  council  of 
Trent.  As  Sarpi  represents,  he  taught  that  "  God,  of  His 
goodness,  hath  elected  some  few,  whom  He  will  save  abso 
lutely,  for  whom  He  hath  prepared  most  potent,  effectual, 
and  infallible  means.  The  rest  He  desireth  for  His  part 
to  be  saved,  and,  to  that  end,  hath  prepared  sufficient 
means  for  all,  leaving  it  to  their  choice  to  accept  them  and 
be  saved,  or  to  refuse  them  and  be  damned.  Amongst  these 
are  some  who  receive  them  and  are  saved,  though  they  be 
not  of  the  number  of  the  elect;  of  which  kind  there  are 


156  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

very  many.     Others  refusing  to  co-operate  with  God,  who 
wisheth  their  salvation,  are  damned." 

A  fourth  view  opposed  unconditional  election,  and  made 
foreordination  to  eternal  life  dependent  upon  foresight  of 
grace  accepted  and  improved.  Among  the  Jesuits,  Less, 
Hamel,  and  the  school  of  Molina,  represented  this  view. 
As  previously  noted,  a  number  of  sentences  from  the  writ 
ings  of  the  first  two  were  censured  by  the  theological  fac 
ulty  of  Louvain.  The  following  were  among  them  :  "  The 
opinion  which  says,  that  those  who  are  saved  are  not  effi 
caciously  elected  to  glory  before  the  foresight  of  good 
works  or  the  application  of  merit  against  sin,  seems  in  the 
highest  degree  probable.  .  .  .  The  number  of  the  pre 
destinated  is  not  certain  from  a  foreordination  which  goes 
before  all  foreknowledge  of  works."  (Gieseler,  Kirchen- 
geschichte.)  Less  is  also  quoted  by  Thomassin  as  main 
taining,  "Rightly  does  Molina  say  that  it  depends  upon 
the  free  will  whether  grace  is  efficacious  or  inefficacious." 
(Memoire  IY.  chap.  86.)  Another  statement  of  Molina, 
carrying  the  same  implication,  is  as  follows :  "  For  men 
who  have  not  yet  reached  the  dignity  of  the  sons  of  God, 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God  is  provided,  to  this  ex 
tent,  that  if  they  strive  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  God  will  be 
present  to  them,  that  they  may  obtain  faith  and  grace." 
(Gieseler.)  In  the  principal  work  of  Petavius  there  are 
likewise  passages  which  speak  with  sufficient  distinctness 
for  a  conditional  election.  "There  is  no  place  at  all  in 
Scripture,"  he  says,  "  by  which  Augustine  or  the  disciples 
of  Augustine,  prove  that  men  are  elected  and  predestinated 
to  salvation  and  glory,  absolutely  and  without  any  condi 
tion  of  merits,  as  a  cause,  which  has  not  been  explained 
in  another  sense  by  the  more  ancient  fathers,  or  also  by  a 
majority  of  the  later  Greek  and  Latin  fathers.  So  no  di 
vine  authority  compels  us  to  accept  that  opinion;  yea, 
rather  it  seems  to  warn  away  from  it,  as  will  be  declared 
in  the  following  chapter."  (De  Deo,  Lib.  X.  cap.  1.)  In 


1517-1720.]  KEDEEMEK  AND  KEDEMPTION.  157 

the  chapter  referred  to,  after  citing  the  rule  of  Vincen- 
tius,  that,  in  things  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures, 
the  general  consensus  of  the  fathers  should  be  followed, 
he  says:  "If  we  wish  to  observe  this  rule  in  the  matter 
under  consideration,  we  doubt  not  but  that  is  the  truer 
opinion,  which  assigns  to  each  one  his  eternal  lot  in  ac 
cordance  with  foresight  of  merits,  so  that  God  elects  those 
to  salvation  whom  He  sees  will  persevere  in  grace  and 
righteousness  received." 

As  respects  official  statements,  none  were  made  which 
distinctly  and  directly  renounced  unconditional  election, 
but  the  moral  effect  of  the  papal  condemnations  of  propo 
sitions  from  Baius,  Jansenius,  and  Quesnel  was  evidently 
adverse  to  that  doctrine.  Some  of  the  condemned  propo 
sitions  were  genuinely  Augustinian.  The  council  of  Trent 
rendered  no  definite  decision.  It  says,  indeed,  that  Christ 
died  for  all,  but  advocates  of  absolute  predestination, 
whether  consistently  or  not,  have  said  as  much.  How 
ever,  its  doctrine  of  the  will  in  relation  to  man's  moral 
recovery,  as  being  opposed  to  the  monergistic  operation 
of  grace,  had  more  or  less  of  an  adverse  bearing  toward 
the  doctrine  of  unconditional  predestination.  In  the  fifth 
chapter  of  the  decree  on  justification  it  is  said :  "  They  who 
by  sins  were  alienated  from  God  may  be  disposed,  through 
His  quickening  and  assisting  grace,  to  convert  themselves 
to  their  own  justification,  by  freely  assenting  to  and  co 
operating  with  that  said  grace :  in  such  sort  that,  while 
God  touches  the  heart  of  man  by  the  illumination  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  neither  is  man  himself  utterly  inactive  while 
he  receives  that  inspiration,  forasmuch,  as  he  is  also  able 
to  reject  it ;  yet  he  is  not  able  by  his  own  free  will,  without 
the  grace  of  God,  to  move  himself  unto  justice  in  His  sight." 

Among  Roman  Catholic  theologians,  who  taught  an  un 
conditional  predestination,  various  theories  were  enter 
tained  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  predestinating  decree 
is  accomplished,  or  divine  grace  is  made  infallibly  eftica- 


158  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

cious  to  secure  its  end.  These  are  enumerated  by  Thomas- 
sin  as  follows  :  (1.)  The  theory  based  on  the  scientia  media. 
God,  inasmuch  as  He  knows  what  would  take  place  under 
all  supposable  conditions,  knows  to  what  means  the  human 
agent  will  give  consent.  He  knows  this,  not  because  the 
means  is  in  itself  invincible,  but  because  His  prescience  is 
infallible.  Thus  He  is  able  without  any  violence  to  the 
human  will  to  secure  its  consent  to  grace.  (2.)  The  theory 
of  physical  predetermination,  according  to  which  God  acts 
directly  upon  the  will  itself  and  determines  it  in  a  partic 
ular  direction.  The  advocates  of  this  view  maintain  that 
the  will  remains  nevertheless  free,  for,  while  the  divine 
action  excludes  a  contrary  choice,  it  does  not  exclude  the 
power  of  a  contrary  choice.  (3.)  The  theory  that  divine 
grace  has  at  command  an  innumerable  multitude  and 
variety  of  expedients,  and  that,  while  the  human  will  may 
reject  the  one  or  the  other,  it  will  be  sure  finally  to  yield 
freely  to  the  continued  pressure  of  such  as  are  left  in  the 
inexhaustible  list.  (4.)  The  theory  which  affirms,  in  place 
of  the  multitude  of  means,  predicated  by  the  preceding 
statement,  one  single  means,  so  absolutely  suited  to  the 
case  to  which  it  is  applied  that  it  is  certain  to  prevail  over 
all  opposing  inclinations  and  to  secure  the  free  assent  of 
the  will.  (Memoire  I.  chap.  18.)  Thomassin  gives  his 
preference  to  the  third  and  fourth  theories,  and  finds  most 
fault  with  the  second,  which  he  says  began  to  be  prevalent 
among  the  Thomists  after  the  council  of  Trent.  Bellarmin 
condemns  the  same  in  strong  terms,  declaring  that  it  seems 
to  him  identical  with  the  error  of  Calvin,  or  differing  little 
therefrom.  (De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arbit.,  Lib.  I.  cap.  12.)  Suarez 
also  was  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  physical  determination. 
(Opuscula.)  Bossuet,  on  the  other  hand,  commented  on 
it  very  favorably,  and  maintained  that  it  was  in  harmony 
with  the  demands  of  free  will.  (Traite  du  Libre  Arbitre.) 
Evidently  on  this  whole  subject  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
was  much  afloat. 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  159 

Luther,  as  previously  stated,  started  out  with  a  radical 
theory  of  predestination.  This  too  he  never  modified,  save 
as  he  gave  more  room  to  what  might  be  regarded  as  op 
posing  considerations,  such  as  the  universality  of  God's 
design  in  the  atonement,  and  the  possibility  of  apostasy. 
One  of  his  statements  on  the  former  point  is  as  follows : 
"  That  all  do  not  receive  Christ  is  their  own  fault,  because 
they  believe  not  and  indulge  their  unbelief ;  meanwhile  the 
sentence  of  God  remains,  and  the  universal  promise  that 
God  wills  all  men  to  be  saved."  (Quoted  by  Kostlin.) 
Luther  here  speaks  from  the  standpoint  of  the  revealed 
will  of  God.  Besides  this,  he  acknowledged  the  existence 
of  a  secret  will,  infallibly  securing  the  salvation  of  those 
selected  from  the  general  mass.  These  diverse  wills  he 
confessed  himself  unable  to  reconcile.  But  he  was  increas 
ingly  disposed  to  emphasize  the  revealed  as  compared  with 
the  secret  will.  The  modifying  aspects  in  connection  with 
Luther's  doctrine  are  thus  stated  by  Dorner :  "  There  may 
be  noticed  as  characteristic  features  in  Luther's  doctrine 
of  predestination,  that  it  will  not  renounce  the  universality 
of  the  purpose  of  divine  love,  little  as  he  is  able  to  vindi 
cate  it,  and  that  he  also  admits  the  possibility  of  apostasy 
on  the  part  of  those  who  have  obtained  grace.  ...  It  is 
not  clear  how  complete  apostasy  is  possible  in  case  of  one 
chosen  to  salvation,  without  the  breaking  up  of  Luther's 
conception  of  election,  and  the  more  logical  development 
of  this  point  is  to  be  found  in  Calvin,  who  attributes  to  all 
the  elect  also  the  gift  of  perseverance."  (Hist,  of  Prot. 
Theol.) 

The  Lutheran  Church  soon  showed  a  marked  tendency 
to  depart  from  Luther's  affirmation  of  unconditional  pre 
destination,  and  to  adopt  the  position  which  was  ultimately 
taken  by  Melanchthon  upon  this  subject.  This  is  clearly 
apparent  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  In  the  absence  of 
any  counter  statements,  such  language  as  the  following 
can  only  be  understood  as  repudiating  unconditional  pre- 


160  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

destination :  "  Christ  calls  all  sinners  to  Him,  and  prom 
ises  to  give  them  rest.  And  He  earnestly  wishes  that  all 
men  may  come  to  Him,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  cared 
for  and  succored.  To  these  He  offers  Himself  in  the 
Word  as  a  Redeemer,  and  wishes  that  the  Word  may  be 
heard,  and  that  their  ears  may  not  be  hardened,  nor  the 
Word  be  neglected  and  contemned.  And  He  promises 
that  He  will  bestow  the  virtue  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  divine  aid,  to  the  end  that  we  may  abide  stead 
fast  in  the  faith  and  attain  eternal  life.  ...  As  to  the 
declaration,  'Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen,'  it  is 
not  to  be  so  understood  as  if  God  were  unwilling  that  all 
should  be  saved,  but  the  cause  of  the  damnation  of  the  un 
godly  is  that  they  either  do  not  hear  the  Word  of  God  at 
all,  but  contumaciously  contemn  it,  stop  their  ears,  and 
harden  their  hearts,  and  in  this  way  foreclose  to  the  Spirit 
of  God  His  ordinary  way,  so  that  He  cannot  accomplish 
His  work  in  them ;  or  at  least,  when  they  have  heard  the 
Word,  make  it  of  no  account,  and  cast  it  away."  (Art. 
XI.)  In  the  Saxon  Visitation  Articles  it  is  declared,  that 
Christ  died  for  all  men;  that  God  wills  all  men  to  be 
saved ;  that  some  perish  by  refusing  to  hear  the  Gospel, 
and  some  by  falling  from  grace ;  "  that  all  sinners  who 
repent  will  be  received  into  favor,  and  none  will  be  ex 
cluded,  though  his  sins  be  red  as  blood,  since  the  mercy  of 
God  is  greater  than  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  God 
hath  mercy  on  all  His  works." 

In  the  seventeenth  century  leading  Lutheran  theologians 
declared  very  expressly  for  the  universality  of  the  offers 
of  grace  and  the  conditional  character  of  predestination. 
"  God  wills,"  says  Gerhard,  "  and  seriously  wills  the  life  of 
the  sinner ;  yet  He  wills  also  the  conversion  of  the  sinner 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Word ;  but  if  the  sinner 
repels  that  Word  and  resists  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  so  is  not 
converted,  He  wills  the  just  damnation  of  the  sinner.  .  .  . 
For  whom  Christ  shed  His  precious  blood  upon  the  altar  of 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  161 

the  cross,  they  have  not  been  rejected  of  God  by  any  abso 
lute  decree ;  for  these  things  directly  contradict  each  other, 
as  is  apparent.  Now  in  truth  Christ  upon  the  altar  of  the 
cross  shed  His  precious  blood  for  all  men  without  excep 
tion.  Therefore  no  one  of  them  has  been  rejected  of  God 
by  any  absolute  decree.  .  .  .  We  say  that  God  in  view  of 
the  satisfaction  offered  by  Christ  and  received  through 
faith  has  made  the  decree  of  election.  .  .  .  We  say  that 
many  have  been  reprobated  from  eternity,  not  however 
from  any  absolute  hatred  or  decree  of  God,  but  because 
God  foresaw  that  they  would  abide  in  their  unbelief  and 
impenitence."  (Locus  VII.  §§  95, 106,  148,  17T.)  As  is 
indicated  by  the  language  of  Gerhard,  the  Lutherans  were 
careful  to  make  the  condition  of  the  election  to  eternal  life 
not  the  foresight  of  merit,  but  rather  of  faith  as  the  instru 
ment  for  appropriating  unmerited  grace.  In  conformity 
with  this  standpoint,  Quenstedt  lays  down  these  proposi 
tions  :  (1.)  "  Our  election  was  not  made  on  account  of  the 
foreseen  merits  of  men,  or  in  view  of  our  works  and  obedi 
ence,  but  from  the  mere  grace  of  God."  (2.)  "  We  have 
been  elected  to  eternal  life  in  consideration  of  faith  fore 
seen  as  finally  apprehending  the  merit  of  Christ."  (De 
Pra3dcstinatione,  qusest.  2,  4.)  At  this  point  the  Lutheran 
phraseology  stands  in  noticeable  contrast  with  that  of  the 
Romanists  who  also  advocated  a  conditional  election. 

Where  unconditional  election  is  renounced,  a  moncrgistic 
theory  of  conversion  is  naturally  renounced  also.  But  the 
Lutherans,  while  rejecting  the  former,  retained,  at  least 
quite  generally,  the  latter.  •  The  second  article  of  the  For 
mula  of  Concord  distinctly  teaches  that  man  co-operates 
with  God  only  after  his  conversion  or  regeneration  has 
been  effected,  so  that  there  are  but  two  efficient  causes  of 
conversion,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God,  —  the 
human  will,  which  Melanchthon  had  included  as  a  third 
cause,  being  ruled  out.  The  responsibility  for  conversion, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  thrown  wholly  upon  God.  But  this 

VOL.   II.  —  11. 


162  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

is  out  of  harmony  with  the  statements  of  the  eleventh  arti 
cle,  which  attributes  the  entire  failure  to  receive  saving 
benefits  to  the  perversity  of  the  individual.  A  modern 
Lutheran  comments  on  this  incongruity  as  follows :  "  The 
proposition  that  the  rejection  of  salvation  has  its  ground  in 
man,  neutralizes  not  only  the  conception  of  predestination, 
but  also  the  conception  of  grace  contained  in  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  This  proposition  demands,  according  to  invin 
cible  logic,  that  the  man  who  can  refuse  salvation,  be  not 
passive  (willenlos)  in  laying  hold  of  the  same.  For  he 
who  can  oppose  and  does  not  oppose,  wills  not  to  oppose. 
And  he  who  wills  not  to  oppose,  just  wills  to  receive." 
(Kahnis,  Dogmatik,  II.  7.) 

As  significant  definitions  of  the  terms  which  enter  into 
an  account  of  man's  spiritual  recovery,  we  subjoin  the  fol 
lowing  from  Hollaz :  "  Conversion,  as  transitive,  in  which 
the  sinner  is  converted  by  God,  taken  in  a  general  sense, 
includes  in  its  scope  illumination,  aversion  from  sin,  regen 
eration,  justification,  and  renovation."  Here  we  have  a 
suggestion  of  an  ordo  salutis  as  it  was  apprehended  by  this 
writer.  "  Regeneration  is  the  act  of  grace  by  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  endows  a  sinful  man  with  saving  faith,  in  order 
that,  his  sins  being  remitted,  he  may  be  made  a  son  of  God 
and  an  heir  of  eternal  life."  (Pars  III.  sect.  1,  cap.  6,  7.) 

In  the  Reformed  Church  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
predestination  was  championed  with  an  altogether  excep 
tional  vigor  and  interest.  Theologians  who  followed  in 
the  trail  of  Calvin  were  disposed  to  make  God's  predesti 
nating  decrees  the  central  sun  in  the  system  of  Christian 
doctrine.  No  entire  school  besides  has  shown  such  an  in 
terest  in  this  order  of  teaching  as  the  school  of  Calvin. 

While  Zwingli  taught  a  very  radical  theory  of  predesti 
nation,  the  standard  was  taken  from  Calvin  rather  than 
from  him.  The  main  differences  were  that  Zwingli  was 
less  cautious  in  describing  the  relation  of  divine  agency 
to  sin,  and  gave  a  more  liberal  breadth  to  the  electing 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  163 

decree,  not  shunning  to  include  the  more  virtuous  heathen 
who  had  never  heard  the  Gospel  in  this  life. 

Calvin  went  beyond  Augustine  in  that  he  placed  a  posi 
tive  decree  of  God  back  of  the  fall.  He  also  gave  a  more 
positive  cast  to  the  reprobation  of  the  wicked.  But  save 
as  this  latter  phase  is  an  outcome  of  the  former,  the  dif 
ference  on  this  point  between  Augustine  and  Calvin  was 
not  at  all  material.  On  the  theory  of  the  one  as  well  as  of 
the  other,  the  non-elect  are  absolutely  excluded  from  any 
possibility  of  salvation.  The  Augustinian  scheme  is  only 
one  degree  less  arbitrary  than  that  of  Calvin.  If  it  does 
not  represent  God  as  foreordaining  the  fall,  it  does  repre 
sent  Him  as  foreordaining  that  the  fall  should  involve, 
beyond  every  chance  of  rescue,  the  eternal  ruin  and  dam 
nation  of  the  greater  part  of  the  race,  who  had  no  respon 
sible  part  in  the  fall,  except  on  a  notion  of  responsibility 
infinitely  far-fetched. 

According  to  the  teaching  of  Calvin,  the  inscrutable 
decree  of  God  has  fixed  beyond  all  contingency  the  eter 
nal  fortune  of  every  human  being.  Election  to  eternal 
life  is  wholly  independent  of  foreseen  merit,  faith,  or  good 
works.  In  like  manner  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  wholly 
independent  of  foreseen  demerit,  unbelief,  or  evil  works. 
Everything  good  in  the  elect  is  to  be  reckoned  in  the  ef 
fects,  not  in  the  causes  of  election.  The  evil  in  the  rep 
robate,  while  a  matter  of  guilt  to  them  and  a  necessary 
antecedent  to  their  punishment,  is  not  the  cause  of  their 
final  condemnation,  for  God's  irresistible  grace,  had  He 
been  so  pleased,  could  have  healed  them  as  well  as  the 
elect.  These  points  will  be  found  for  the  most  part  in 
the  following  quotations  from  Calvin's  Institutes :  "  Pre 
destination  we  call  the  eternal  decree  of  God,  by  which 
He  has  determined  in  Himself  what  He  would  have  to 
become  of  every  individual  of  mankind.  For  they  are 
not  all  created  with  a  similar  destiny ;  but  eternal  life  is 
foreordained  for  some  and  eternal  damnation  for  others. 


164  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

Every  man,  therefore,  being  created  for  one  or  the  other 
of  these  ends,  we  say  he  is  predestinated  either  to  life  or 
to  death."  (III.  21.)  "  In  conformity  to  the  clear  doc 
trine  of  the  Scripture,  we  assert  that,  by  an  eternal  and 
immutable  counsel,  God  has  once  for  all  determined  both 
whom  He  would  admit  to  salvation  and  whom  He  would 
condemn  to  destruction.  We  affirm  that  this  counsel,  as 
far  as  concerns  the  elect,  is  founded  on  His  gratuitous 
mercy,  totally  irrespective  of  human  merit;  but  that  to 
those  whom  He  devotes  to  condemnation,  the  gate  of  life 
is  closed  by  a  just  and  irreprehensible,  but  incomprehen 
sible  judgment."  (Ibid.)  "  When  God  is  said  to  harden 
or  show  mercy  to  whom  He  pleases,  men  are  taught  by 
this  declaration  to  seek  no  cause  beside  His  will."  (111. 
22.)  "  Whom  God  passes  by  He  reprobates,  and  from  no 
other  cause  than  His  determination  to  exclude  from  the 
inheritance  which  He  predestines  for  His  children."  (III. 
23).  "That  the  reprobate  obey  not  the  word  of  God, 
when  made  known  to  them,  is  justly  imputed  to  the 
wickedness  and  depravity  of  their  hearts,  provided  it  be 
at  the  same  time  stated  that  they  are  abandoned  to  this 
depravity  because  they  have  been  raised  up,  by  a  just  and 
inscrutable  judgment  of  God,  to  display  His  glory  in  their 
condemnation."  (HI.  24.) 

Equivalent  statements  might  be  quoted  from  Beza.  On 
the  subject  of  reprobation  he  says :  "  We  ought  to  dis 
tinguish  between  the  purpose  of  reprobating  and  the  rep 
robation  itself.  For  God  willed  that  the  mystery  of  the 
former  should  be  hidden  from  us,  but  of  the  latter  and 
the  destruction  which  depends  upon  it  we  have  the  causes 
expressed  in  the  Word  of  God,  namely,  the  corruption, 
infidelity,  and  iniquity  of  the  vessels  made  unto  dishonor." 
(Sum.  Tot.  Christ.)  In  other  words,  while  the  primary 
cause  of  reprobation  is  God's  inscrutable  decree,  the  proxi 
mate  causes,  or  the  conditions  of  the  execution  of  the 
reprobating  decree,  are  the  unbelief  and  wickedness  of 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  165 

the  vessels  of  wrath.  As  Turretin  represents,  sin  appears 
rather  as  the  sine  qua  non  than  as  the  cause  of  reprobation. 
(Locus  IV.  quasst.  14.)  "  If  sins  were  the  cause  of  rep 
robation,"  says  Bucan,  "  no  one  would  have  been  elected, 
since  God  foresaw  that  all  men  are  sinners."  (Locus 
XXXVI.  Compare  Gomar,  Disput.  de  Div.  Horn.  Prasdest. ; 
Zanchi,  De  Nat.  Dei,  Lib.  V.  cap.  2;  Piscator,  Tract,  de 
Grat.  Dei.) 

Among  Calvinistic  creeds  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort  and  the  Westminster  Confession  are  specially  ex 
plicit  upon  the  subject  of  predestination.  Both  declare 
that  election  to  life  is  in  no  wise  based  upon  foreseen 
faith,  or  works,  or  any  good  in  the  creature,  and  is  to  be 
referred  solely  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  The  general 
statement  of  the  subject  by  the  Westminster  Confession 
is  as  follows :  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifesta 
tion  of  His  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated 
unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlast 
ing  death.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and 
foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed ; 
and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot 
be  either  increased  or  diminished."  Statements  quite  as 
strong  are  contained  in  the  Lambeth  and  the  Irish  Arti 
cles  ;  but  neither  of  these  creeds  had  anything  like  the 
same  historical  importance  as  the  foregoing. 

On  the  Calvinistic  theory  it  follows  inevitably  that  Christ 
died  only  for  the  elect,  so  far  as  regards  an  actual  purchase 
of  eternal  life  or  of  an  opportunity  to  gain  the  same.  This 
conclusion  was  commonly  acknowledged.  It  is  clearly  im 
plied  in  this  statement  of  the  Westminster  Confession :  "  To 
all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption  He 
doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the 
same."  (Chap.  VIII.)  The  Canons  of  Dort  say  :  "  God 
willed  that  Christ  through  the  blood  of  the  cross  should  effi 
caciously  redeem  all  those,  and  those  alone,  who  were  elected 
from  eternity  to  salvation."  Gomar  writes  :  "  Those  for 


166  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

whom  Christ  died  obtain  eternal  life.  But  the  elect  alone, 
not  the  reprobate,  obtain  eternal  life.  Therefore  Christ 
died  for  the  elect  alone,  but  not  for  the  reprobate."  (Expli- 
cat.  Epist.  ad  Galat.  Compare  Turretin,  Locus  XIV.  qua?st. 
14 ;  Perkins,  Order  of  Predest.  in  Mind  of  God ;  Witsius, 
DC  (Econom.  Feed.,  Lib.  II.  cap.  9.)  There  were,  however, 
a  few  Calvinistic  writers  who  endeavored  to  unite  a  theory 
of  universal  atonement  with  their  doctrine  of  specific  elec 
tion.  Conspicuous  among  these  was  the  French  theologian 
Amyraut.  He  taught  that  in  virtue  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
salvation  is  offered  to  all ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  held 
that  it  is  efficaciously  applied  only  to  the  elect,  and  is  not 
appropriated  by  any  save  the  elect.  So  his  distinctions 
turn  out  to  be  of  no  special  worth,  except  as  they  indicate 
an  inner  ferment  and  revolt  against  the  rigors  of  Calvinism. 
The  universal  offer  of  salvation  of  which  he  speaks  is  as 
remote  from  accomplishing  anything  as  the  gratia  sufficiens 
of  Adrian  VI.  and  Bellarmin.  Richard  Baxter  held  essen 
tially  the  same  theory  as  Amyraut.  Even  so  strong  a  Cal- 
vinist  as  Archbishop  Usher  contended  that  Christ  died  for 
all,  His  death  being  of  the  nature  of  a  general  satisfaction  by 
which  men  are  put  into  a  possibility  of  salvation.  But  he 
robs  his  statement  of  all  practical  bearing  by  teaching  that, 
while  Christ  died  for  all,  He  does  not  intercede  for  all,  nor 
intend  to  apply  the  benefits  of  His  death  effectually  to  any 
but  the  elect.  (Judgment  of  the  true  Intent  and  Extent  of 
Christ's  Death  and  Satisfaction  upon  the  Cross.  Compare 
Davenant,  Dissertat.  de  Morte  Christi.) 

In  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  a  measure 
of  prominence  was  given  to  the  question  of  the  proper  or 
der  of  the  predestinating  decrees.  One  party,  the  supra- 
lapsarian,  made  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  by 
the  exercise  of  compassion  and  justice  (that  is,  severity) 
the  primal  decree,  and  assigned  the  connected  decrees  re 
specting  creation,  the  fall,  the  redemption  of  the  vessels  of 
mercy,  and  the  reprobation  of  the  vessels  of  wrath,  to  the 


1517-1720.1  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  167 

rank  of  means  for  executing  the  first  decree.  The  general 
tenor  of  Calvin's  teaching  favored  this  theory.  Beza  is 
reckoned  as  an  undoubted  advocate  of  the  same,  as  also 
Gomar  and  Twisse.  But  the  opposing  or  infra-lapsarian 
theory  claimed  the  larger  patronage  in  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury.  This,  as  represented  by  Turretin,  gives  the  decrees 
in  the  following  order:  (1.)  The  decree  to  create  man. 
(2.)  The  decree  to  permit  his  fall  and  the  ruin  thereby  of 
his  posterity.  (3.)  The  decree  to  elect  some  of  the  fallen 
race  to  salvation,  and  to  leave  others  in  their  native  cor 
ruption  and  misery.  (4.)  The  decree  to  send  Christ  to  be 
the  mediator  and  surety  of  the  elect,  and  to  obtain  for  them 
full  salvation.  (5.)  The  decree  respecting  the  efficacious 
calling,  endowing  with  faith,  justification,  sanctification, 
and  glorification  of  the  elect.  (Locus  IV.  qu&st.  18.) 

In  harmony  with  their  theory  of  predestination,  Calvin- 
ists  taught  a  monergistic  theory  of  conversion.  Calvin 
was  very  emphatic  in  declaring  that  what  the  human  will 
needs  is  not  assistance,  but  complete  transformation.  "  The 
will,"  he  says,  "  is  so  bound  by  the  slavery  of  sin,  that  it 
cannot  excite  itself,  much  less  devote  itself  to  anything 
good ;  for  such  a  disposition  is  the  beginning  of  a  conver 
sion  to  God,  which  in  the  Scriptures  is  attributed  solely  to 
divine  grace.  .  .  .  We  rob  the  Lord,  if  we  arrogate  any 
thing  to  ourselves  either  in  volition  or  in  execution.  If 
God  were  said  to  assist  the  infirmity  of  our  will,  then  there 
would  be  something  left  to  us ;  but  since  He  is  said  to  pro 
duce  the  will,  all  the  good  that  is  in  it  is  placed  without  us." 
(List.,  II.  3.)  The  Canons  of  Dort  describe  regeneration 
as  a  radical  change  which  God  works  in  us  without  any 
contribution  on  our  part.  According  to  the  Westminster 
Confession,  the  will  in  those  who  receive  the  effectual  call 
ing  is  determined  to  the  good  by  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
and  they  are  entirely  passive  in  relation  to  the  work  of 
grace  until  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Witsius  remarks  that  some  among  the  Reformed  theolo- 


168  HISTORY  OE   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

gians  of  his  time  spoke  of  preparations  for  regeneration, 
such  as  the  breaking  up  of  man's  natural  contumacy,  seri 
ous  consideration  of  the  law,  reflection  on  one's  own  sins, 
and  a  legal  fear  of  punishments.  For  his  own  part,  how 
ever,  he  says  that  he  considers  that  those  better  meet 
the  demands  of  accurate  thinking  who  include  all  such  ex 
ercises  among  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  rather  than  among 
preparations  for  the  same.  (De  CEconom.  Feed.,  Lib.  III. 
cap.  6.) 

The  most  fruitful  reaction  against  Calvinistic  predesti- 
narianism  was  that  initiated  by  Arminianism  in  Holland. 
"Whatever  other  departures  from  the  current  theology  of 
the  Reformed  Church  the  Arminians  may  have  made,  the 
starting-point  of  their  divergence  was  a  denial  of  the  doc 
trine  of  unconditional  predestination.  They  emphasized  in 
common  the  following  points  :  (1.)  Christ  died  for  all,  in 
the  sense  that  by  His  death  all  are  placed  in  a  possibility 
of  salvation.  (2.)  The  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation 
are  conditioned  upon  God's  foreknowledge  of  the  use  which 
men  make  of  the  opportunities  of  salvation.  (3.)  Grace, 
while  indispensable  to  man's  moral  recovery,  is  not  irre 
sistible  in  its  mode.  (4.)  Saving  grace  after  once  being  re 
ceived  may  be  lost.  Upon  the  last  point  the  Arminians  for 
an  interval  were  undecided,  but  it  became  soon  a  recognized 
part  of  their  theological  system. 

An  absolute  decree  of  reprobation  was  regarded  by  the 
Arminians  as  at  war  with  every  perfection  of  God,  with 
His  holiness,  His  justice,  His  sincerity,  His  wisdom,  and 
His  love.  They  allowed,  indeed,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact 
there  are  very  great  diversities  in  the  moral  opportunities 
of  men,  but  denied  that  this  is  indicative  of  an  uncondi 
tional  predestination,  or  that  any  are  purposely  left  without 
sufficient  means  to  secure  their  salvation.  "  Upon  none," 
says  Curcellaeus,  "  does  God  bestow  these  means  with  so 
sparing  a  hand,  but  that  they  can  if  they  use  them  well 
attain  to  salvation."  (Lib.  VI.  cap.  1.) 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  169 

Arminianism  exercised  an  important  modifying  influence 
upon  the  theology  of  the  English  Church.  Primarily  that 
was,  no  doubt,  of  the  Calvinistic  type.  Cranmer  and  Rid 
ley  may  have  been  somewhat  reserved  upon  the  subject,  but 
they  probably  took  no  exception  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  predestination.  Latimer  in  his  sermons,  it  must  be 
allowed,  seems  to  speak  from  the  platform  of  universal 
redemption.  But  down  to  the  time  of  James  II.  the  great 
body  of  English  theologians  were  committed  to  the  Calvin 
istic  system.  During  his  reign  the  tide  began  to  turn  in 
favor  of  the  Arminian  type.  Distinguished  representatives 
of  the  Calvinistic  bias  still  appeared,  but  the  preponderance 
was  speedily  on  the  other  side,  as  may  be  judged  from  such 
names  as  Chillingworth.  Jeremy  Taylor,  William  Sherlock, 
Bull,  Tillotson,  Barrow,  Cudworth,  etc.  How  little  rever 
ence  Cudworth  entertained  for  the  imposing  doctrine  of 
predestination  is  apparent  from  the  following :  "  As  for 
those  among  Christians,  who  make  such  a  horrid  represen 
tation  of  God  Almighty,  as  one  who  created  far  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind  for  no  other  end  or  design  but  only  this, 
that  He  might  recreate  and  delight  Himself  in  their  eternal 
torments,  these  do  but  transcribe  a  copy  of  their  own  ill- 
nature,  and  then  read  it  in  the  Deity  ;  the  Scripture  declar 
ing,  on  the  contrary,  that  God  is  love.  Nevertheless,  these 
very  persons  in  the  mean  time  dearly  hug  and  embrace 
God  Almighty  in  their  own  conceit,  as  one  that  is  fondly 
good,  kind,  and  gracious  to  themselves."  (Intellect.  Syst., 
Chap.  Y.)  An  advocate  of  universal  redemption  will  not 
deny  that  Cudworth  had  some  ground  for  the  indignation 
which  is  here  expressed,  but  at  the  same  time  he  must 
allow  in  candor  that  he  was  far  from  justice  and  truth  in 
respect  to  the  motive  which  he  specified  as  lying  back  of 
the  predcstinarian  scheme  in  the  minds  of  its  upholders. 

Among  English  sects,  the  Quakers  were  very  pronounced 
in  advocating  the  universality  of  God's  love  and  gracious 
provision.  They  excelled  the  general  body  of  the  Armin- 


170  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

ians  in  the  distinctness  with  which  they  asserted  the  pos 
sible  salvation  of  those  to  whom  the  outward  call  of  the 
Gospel  does  not  come.  In  Barclay's  sixth  proposition 
we  have  the  statement :  u  i  Christ  has  tasted  death  for 
every  man ' :  not  only  for  all  kinds  of  men,  as  some  vainly 
talk,  but  for  every  one,  of  all  kinds ;  the  benefit  of  whose 
offering  is  not  only  extended  to  such  who  have  the  dis 
tinct  outward  knowledge  of  His  death  and  sufferings,  as 
the  same  is  declared  in  the  Scriptures,  but  even  unto  those 
who  are  necessarily  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  this  knowl 
edge  by  some  inevitable  accident." 

II.  Quite  an  adequate  view  of  the  standard  Roman  Cath 
olic  doctrine  of  justification  may  be  obtained  by  consult 
ing  simply  the  council  of  Trent  and  Bellarmin ;  only  it 
must  be  held  in  mind  that  the  traditional  spirit  is  a  pow 
erful  factor  in  determining  whether  a  better  or  worse  con 
struction  is  put  on  ingenious  statements  of  theory,  and 
that  formal  declarations  of  doctrine  are  not  the  whole  of 
Romanism. 

The  decisions  of  the  council  of  Trent  upon  this  subject 
reveal  a  polemic  intent  at  every  turn.  They  are  exceed 
ingly  tortuous.  Even  were  one  confident  of  understanding 
them  in  all  their  bearings,  many  specifications  must  be 
omitted  in  a  brief  statement.  The  following,  as  we  think, 
are  the  more  essential  points  :  (1.)  Justification  is  not 
simply  absolution,  not  simply  God's  act  of  pardoning  or 
declaring  just.  It  is  also  the  making  just  by  the  inner 
work  of  grace.  It  includes  both  pardon  and  sanctification. 
In  the  language  of  the  council,  it  "  is  not  remission  of  sins 
merely,  but  also  the  sanctification  and  renewal  of  the  in 
ward  man,  through  the  voluntary  reception  of  the  grace 
and  the  gifts,  whereby  man  of  unjust  becomes  just,  and  of 
an  enemy  a  friend."  (2.)  Justification  is  accomplished  on 
the  part  of  God  by  justice  or  charity  infused  and  made 
inherent.  This  is  the  formal  cause  of  justification,  the 
meritorious  cause  bein£  Jesus  Christ  in  His  work  of  atone- 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  171 

ment,  and  the  instrumental  cause  being  the  sacrament  of 
baptism.  (3.)  Among  the  virtues  connected  with  justifi 
cation,  an  eminent  place  belongs  to  faith.  But  it  is  not 
to  be  assigned  an  exclusive  place.  The  statement  that  we 
are  justified  by  faith  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  "  to  wit,  that  we  are  therefore  said  to 
be  justified  by  faith  because  faith  is  the  beginning  of  hu 
man  salvation,  the  foundation  and  root  of  all  justification." 
And  even  upon  this  language  a  qualification  must  be  put, 
for  faith  is  not  an  independent  foundation  or  root  of  justi 
fication.  Apart  from  hope  and  charity  it  has  no  justifying 
efficacy.  It  always  requires  something  that  may  co-operate 
with  itself.  "  If  any  one  saith,  that  by  faith  alone  the  im 
pious  is  justified,  in  such  wise  as  to  mean  that  nothing  else 
is  required  to  co-operate  in  order  to  the  obtaining  the  grace 
of  justification,  and  that  it  is  not  in  any  way  necessary 
that  he  be  prepared  and  disposed  by  the  movement  of  his 
own  will,  let  him  be  anathema."  (4.)  Justification  is  a 
process.  It  receives,  indeed,  a  very  definite  initiation  when 
the  sinner  is  pardoned  and  ingrafted  into  Christ,  but  it  is 
capable  from  that  point  of  being  progressively  increased. 
(5.)  Good  works  are  means  of  increasing  justification,  and 
are  not  merely  fruits  and  signs  of  justification  already  ob 
tained.  "  If  any  saith  that  the  justice  received  is  not  pre 
served  and  also  increased  before  God  through  good  works  ; 
but  that  the  said  works  are  merely  the  fruits  and  signs 
of  justification  obtained,  but  not  a  cause  of  the  increase 
thereof ;  let  him  be  anathema."  (6.)  The  good  works  of 
one  who  is  a  member  of  Jesus  Christ  are  not  only  instru 
mental  in  obtaining  an  increase  of  justification,  but  they 
merit  the  highest  benefits,  and  even  eternal  life. 

Thus  in  the  total  representation  of  the  council  of  Trent 
a  conspicuous  place  is  given  to  man's  part,  and  much  is 
said  that  leans  to  the  notion  that  justification  is  rather 
something  to  be  earned  than  a  gratuitous  gift.  To  be  sure, 
its  beginning  is  imputed  to  the  prevenient  grace  of  God, 


172  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

and  it  is  taught  that  one  must  be  already  a  member  of 
Christ  before  his  works  are  properly  meritorious.  But 
even  the  beginning  is  described  as  mainly  dependent  upon 
a  ceremonial  act,  namely,  baptism,  and  for  the  increase  one 
is  directed  in  emphatic  terms  to  his  own  works.  Doubt 
less,  one  is  at  liberty  to  add  that  every  good  work  must  be 
wrought  in  a  spirit  of  utter  dependence  upon  divine  grace, 
and  with  a  sense  of  its  worthlessness  save  as  it  is  accepted 
through  the  divine  condescension.  But  this  is  an  addition 
which  is  not  naturally  dictated  by  the  language  of  the 
Trent  decrees  and  canons.  No  more  is  it  dictated  by  the 
traditional  spirit  of  Romanism,  which  directs  rather  to 
man's  works  of  ceremonial  observance  and  ecclesiastical 
obedience,  to  an  unquestioning  fulfilment  of  the  Church 
regime,  than  to  any  profound  reliance  in  heart  upon  divine 
grace.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  council  of 
Trent  cumbered  the  subject  with  the  same  adjuncts  which 
were  patronized  by  the  medieval  Church.  Instead  of 
directing  the  attention  solely  to  God  as  revealed  in  Jesus 
Christ,  it  pointed  to  the  veneration  of  saints,  relics,  and 
images,  and  to  the  use  of  indulgences,  as  channels  through 
which  great  benefits  might  appropriately  be  expected.  At 
the  same  time  it  was  compelled,  in  the  face  of  the  enor 
mous  scandals  which  had  arisen,  to  utter  some  warnings 
against  abuse  in  these  things. 

Bellarmin's  exposition  of  the  subject  of  justification  is 
essentially  an  expansion  of  that  given  by  the  council  of 
Trent.  Among  noteworthy  points  is  the  way  in  which  he 
subordinates  faith  to  the  sacraments.  "  The  Catholic  faith," 
he  says,  "  does  not  allow  the  grace  of  justification  to  be  im 
mediately  apprehended  by  faith  alone  and  applied  to  men, 
but  wills  that  the  sacraments  also  be  necessarily  required 
to  this  end,  so  that  if  faith  exists  in  any  one,  though  it  be 
of  the  highest  degree,  it  will  not  nevertheless  justify,  un 
less  the  sacrament  is  received  in  fact  or  in  desire ;  yea,  the 
sacrament  is  more  requisite  than  faith.  For  without  the 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  173 

sacrament  in  fact  or  in  desire,  no  one  is  justified,  neither 
child  nor  adult ;  but  without  faith  some  are  justified,  as 
children,  who  have  no  faith  of  their  own  by  which  they 
may  receive  justification,  and  yet  they  are  justified  through 
the  sacrament  of  faith."  (De  Sacramentis,  Lib.  I.  cap.  22.) 

As  respects  the  nature  of  faith,  Bellarmin  contends  that 
it  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  confidence  or  trust ;  that  it 
does  not  necessarily  involve  love  and  other  virtues,  though 
it  cannot  justify  apart  from  them;  that  it  is  not  conditioned 
upon  knowledge ;  that  it  is  simply  assent  of  mind  to  what 
ever  God  proposes  to  us  as  an  object  of  belief,  whether  it 
is  understood  by  us  or  not.  Upon  this  last  phase  he  re 
marks  :  "  We  assent  to  God,  although  He  proposes  things 
to  our  faith  which  we  do  not  understand.  .  .  .  We  believe 
the  mysteries  of  faith  which  surpass  reason :  we  believe,  not 
understand,  and  through  this  faith  is  contradistinguished 
from  definite  knowledge,  and  is  better  defined  by  ignorance 
than  by  knowledge."  (De  Justificatione,  Lib.  I.  cap.  5,  7.) 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  faith,  as  defined  by  Bel 
larmin,  falls  far  short  of  that  fruitful  principle  which  the 
Reformers  had  in  mind. 

Bellarmin  maintains  that  good  works  are  necessary  to 
salvation,  not  merely  as  a  natural  and  inevitable  concomi 
tant  of  saving  grace,  but  as  a  cause  of  salvation,  —  "  ncces- 
saria  non  solum  ratione  prsesentiaB,  sed  etiam  ratione  effici- 
entia3,  quoniam  efficiunt  salutem,  et  sine  ipsis  sola  fides  non 
efficit  salutem."  (De  Justif.,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  7.)  Good  works, 
as  he  represents,  accomplish  the  second  justification,  that 
is,  what  the  council  of  Trent  calls  an  increase  of  justifica 
tion.  By  the  first  justification  a  man  is  made  just  from 
unjust ;  by  the  second,  he  is  made  more  just. 

Good  works,  Bellarmin  says,  merit  eternal  life,  though  it 
is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  back  of  the  human  merit,  as 
the  ground  of  its  possibility,  lies  the  merit  of  Christ.  As 
respects  trusting  in  one's  merits,  he  remarks:  "The  Cath 
olic  Church  pursues  the  middle  way,  which  teaches  indeed 


174  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  IV. 

that  the  principal  hope  and  faith  ought  to  be  placed  in 
God;  nevertheless,  that  some  can  be  placed  in  merits." 
(De  Justif.,  Lib.  Y.  cap.  7.)  A  little  farther  on,  however, 
he  says,  in  striking  contrast  with  this:  "On  account  of  the 
uncertainty  of  one's  own  righteousness  and  the  hazard  of 
vainglory,  it  is  most  safe  to  repose  the  entire  confidence  in 
the  sole  compassion  and  kindness  of  God."  (Ibid.)  A 
most  just  sentiment !  But  why  struggle  so  laboriously  to 
find  a  place  for  merits  in  which,  after  all,  one  had  better 
decline  to  take  any  stock  whatever  ? 

In  the  introduction  to  the  period  it  was  shown  how  com 
manding  a  position  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
occupied  in  the  religious  and  theological  development  of 
Luther.  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  here  what  was  then 
said,  but  only  to  look  more  narrowly  into  his  conception  of 
that  doctrine. 

With  Luther  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  was 
the  watchword  of  a  revolt  against  the  monastic  element  in 
Romanism,  against  its  legality,  against  the  painful  but  su 
perficial  method  of  seeking  salvation  by  bearing  the  yoke 
of  heapcd-up  human  prescriptions.  It  was  an  appeal  to  the 
generosity  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  emphasized  God's 
readiness  for  fellowship,  and  taught  that  the  soul  is  to  gain 
its  Redeemer  by  a  personal  affiance  with  Him  in  an  act  of 
supreme  trust,  and  not  by  courtly  attitudes  and  addresses 
or  by  the  servile  performances  of  one  laboring  for  hire. 
Luther  accordingly  was  naturally  more  concerned  to  attack 
the  Romish  theory  of  the  method  of  justification,  than  the 
Romish  conception  of  justification  itself.  The  thesis  which 
he  was  continually  advocating  was,  not  that  justification 
consists  merely  in  gratuitous  pardon,  but  that  justification 
is  by  faith  alone.  In  fact,  Luther  was  apparently  disposed 
to  include  more  than  pardon  or  judicial  absolution  in  his 
definition  of  justification.  In  the  Smalcald  Articles,  for 
example,  he  makes  it  embrace  regeneration  as  well  as  re 
mission  of  sins. 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  175 

The  faith  which  justifies  was  in  the  view  of  Luther  vastly 
more  than  giving  credence  to  facts  of  history.  He  re 
garded  it  as  emanating  from  the  inmost  spring  of  man's 
spiritual  being,  a  matter  of  the  heart  as  well  as  of  the  in 
tellect.  He  emphasized  also  its  personal  bearing.  It  is 
faith  in  a  living  Redeemer,  "a  certain  confidence  which 
apprehends  Christ,"  —  certa  fiducia  qua3  apprehendit  Chris 
tum.  (Comm.  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  Cap.  III.)  It  unites  the 
soul  with  Christ  as  the  bride  with  the  bridegroom,  and 
transfers  to  the  one  the  riches  of  the  other.  "Christ  is 
full  of  grace,  life,  and  salvation  ;  the  soul  is  full  of  sin, 
death,  and  damnation.  Now  let  faith  intervene,  and  it 
will  come  to  pass  that  sins,  death,  and  hell  are  Christ's,  but 
grace,  life,  and  salvation  belong  to  the  soul."  (De  Libertate 
Christ.)  Faith  moreover  is  such  an  active  principle  that  it 
cannot  remain  idle.  It  is  not  itself  properly  included  in 
the  category  of  works,  but  it  is  the  vital  principle  of  works, 
—  "  fides  non  est  opus,  sed  magistra  et  vita  operum."  (De 
Captiv.  Bab.)  Love  is  sure  to  follow  where  faith  is  found, 
and  love  does  every  kind  of  good  work.  (Ibid.) 

Some  of  Luther's  strong  expressions  read  almost  like 
wholesale  disparagements  of  good  works.  However,  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  what  he  wished  to  oppose  was,  not  a 
high  estimate  of  good  works,  but  trust  in  them  as  a  ground 
of  justification.  The  idea  he  wished  to  inculcate  was,  that 
in  the  act  of  seeking  grace  from  God  we  are  not  to  carry 
our  works  into  His  presence  or  take  any  thought  about 
them.  Works  are  not  for  grace  but  from  grace.  They  are 
not  a  price  paid  to  God,  but  a  free-will  offering,  given  as 
a  spontaneous  testimonial  of  our  love  to  God  and  our 
neighbor.  When  thus  relegated  to  their  proper  sphere 
and  office,  they  are  valuable  beyond  estimate.  "Apart 
from  the  cause  of  justification,  no  one  can  commend  good 
works  prescribed  by  God  in  a  sufficiently  lofty  strain. 
Who  indeed  can  proclaim  sufficiently  the  utility  and  fruit 
of  one  work  which  a  Christian  does  from  faith  and  in 


176  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

faith  ?     It   is    more    precious    than   heaven   and    earth." 
(Comm.  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  Cap.  III.) 

Protestantism  accepted  the  general  theory  of  justification 
as  outlined  by  Luther.  At  the  same  time,  it  gave  more 
precise  limits  to  the  significance  of  the  term.  The  more 
current  theory  embraced  the  following  points:  (1.)  Justifi 
cation  is  the  act  of  God  in  pardoning  a  sinner  and  receiv 
ing  him  into  favor.  It  is  what  God  does  for  a  man,  not 
what  He  works  in  him.  It  may  indeed  be  regarded  as  in 
cluding  several  aspects,  such  as  the  non-imputation  of  sin, 
the  imputation  of  righteousness,  and  adoption.  So  some 
writers  specified.  But  in  all  of  its  aspects  it  is  a  judicial 
act  of  God,  and  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  work  of 
renovation  or  sanctification  which  is  wrought  in  the  indi 
vidual.  Sanctification,  at  least  in  its  initial  stage,  always 
goes  with  justification,  but  in  nature  it  is  a  distinct  thing. 
Among  Lutheran  confessions  the  Formula  of  Concord  de 
clares  that  the  term  justification  should  be  used  in  this 
forensic  sense.  It  is  used  in  the  same  sense  by  various 
Reformed  confessions,  such  as  the  Second  Helvetic  and  the 
Westminster.  Calvin  says  of  justification,  "  It  consists  in 
the  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  the  righteous 
ness  of  Christ."  (lust.,  III.  11.)  Turretin  remarks,  that 
imputation  of  righteousness  is  the  foundation  and  merito 
rious  cause  of  justification,  while  absolution  and  adoption, 
derived  from  this  imputation,  are  the  two  inseparable  parts 
of  justification.  (Locus  XVI.  qua3st.  4.)  John  Owen  in  his 
treatise  on  justification  says,  "  It  comprises  both  the  non- 
imputation  of  sin  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  with 
the  privilege  of  adoption  and  right  unto  the  heavenly  in 
heritance  which  are  inseparable  from  it."  (2.)  Justification 
is  by  faith  alone.  Works  are  entirely  excluded  from  the 
ground  of  justification,  and  are  included  only  among  its  fruits 
and  evidences.  But  while  faith  alone  justifies,  the  faith 
which  justifies  is  not  alone.  It  is  not  a  principle  which 
admits  of  being  isolated.  The  various  Christian  graces 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  177 

must  coexist  with  it,  and  it  must  serve  as  a  fountain  of 
good  works.  "  After  that  man  is  justified  by  faith,"  says 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  "  then  that  true  and  living  faith 
works  by  love,  and  good  works  always  follow  justifying 
faith,  and  are  most  certainly  found  together  with  it,  pro 
vided  only  it  be  a  true  and  living  faith.  For  true  faith  is 
never  alone,  but  has  always  charity  and  hope  in  its  train." 
Equivalent  statements  appear  in  the  Westminster  and  other 
confessions.  (3.)  The  office  of  faith  in  justification  is  pure 
ly  instrumental.  It  is  the  instrument  by  which,  according 
to  divine  appointment,  Christ  is  apprehended  as  the  soul's 
righteousness.  "We  do  not  mean,"  says  the  Belgic  Con 
fession,  "  that  faith  itself  justifies  us,  for  it  is  only  an 
instrument  with  which  we  embrace  Christ,  our  Righteous 
ness."  (4.)  While  the  general  object  of  faith  is  all  that  is 
contained  in  the  Word  of  God,  the  specific  object  is  the 
promise  of  grace  through  Jesus  Christ.  Trust  in  that  prom 
ise  is  indeed  the  characteristic  feature  of  justifying  faith. 
(5.)  Blind  assent  is  no  part  of  justifying  faith.  It  is  akin 
to  knowledge  rather  than  to  ignorance.  Where  God  works 
faith,  He  also  works  enlightenment.  Luther  may  have  said 
some  things  counter  to  this  specification,  but  it  was  dis 
tinctly  affirmed  by  Calvin,  Turretin,  Gerhard,  and  others. 

Outside  of  this  main  current  of  Protestantism  there  were 
some  deviating  opinions  which  may  receive  a  brief  attention. 
Osiander  taught  that  in  justification  the  sinner  is  made 
just  by  an  infusion  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  this  in 
fusion  taking  place  in  a  single  act,  without  merit  on  the 
part  of  the  recipient,  and  on  the  simple  ground  of  his  faith. 
(Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  Vol.  I.) 

Some  of  the  Arminians,  instead  of  making  faith  the 
instrument  for  grasping  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  said 
that  our  faith  is  graciously  and  for  Christ's  sake  imputed 
to  us  for  righteousness.  (Limborch,  Lib.  VI.  cap.  4.) 
This,  however,  was  not  altogether  an  innovation.  Not 
withstanding  the  trend  of  teaching  among  the  Lutherans 

VOL.    II.  —  12. 


178  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

and  the  Reformed,  some  of  their  early  writers  had  used 
language  affiliating  with  the  same  conception.  (See  Rich 
ard  Watson,  Institutes,  Pt.  II.  chap.  23.)  Richard  Baxter 
seems  to  have  held  the  same  view.  It  also  appears  in  the 
Scripture  Catechism  of  John  Biddle. 

A  number  of  Anglican  theologians  near  the  close  of  the 
period  showed  a  disinclination  to  allow  that  works  are 
nothing  more  than  fruits  and  evidences  of  justifying  faith. 
Prominent  among  these  was  Bishop  Bull.  While  he  dis 
countenanced  trust  in  the  merit  of  works,  he  held  that 
good  works  proceeding  from  faith  enter  into  the  conditions 
of  the  new  covenant.  They  are  a  part  of  the  Gospel  re 
quirement,  and  contribute  to  the  justification  of  him  who 
performs  them.  As  naturally  follows  from  these  premises, 
Bishop  Bull  maintained  that  justification  is  continuous,  and 
not  fully  consummated  till  the  end  of  life.  (Harmonia 
Apostolica,  etc.)  Jeremy  Taylor  departed  no  less  from 
the  common  representation,  maintaining  that  charity  and 
obedience  are  as  truly  as  faith  among  the  conditions  of 
justification. 

In  the  theory  of  the  Quakers,  justification  was  identified 
with  sanctification,  or  the  inward  birth  in  the  heart.  "  It 
is  this  inward  birth,"  says  Barclay,  "  bringing  forth  right 
eousness  and  holiness  in  us,  that  doth  justify  us.  ...  Jus 
tification  is  both  more  properly  and  frequently  in  Scripture 
taken  in  its  proper  signification,  for  making  one  just,  and 
not  merely  reputing  one  such,  and  is  all  one  with  sanctifi 
cation."  (Apology.)  Good  works  as  necessarily  flowing 
from  the  new  birth  may  be  styled  the  sine  qua  non  of  justi 
fication,  though  they  are  not  the  cause  of  its  bestowment. 
The  Mennonites  also  included  sanctification  in  their  defi 
nition  of  justification. 

III.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  remained  by  the  posi 
tion  that  assurance  of  being  in  a  state  of  grace  is  an  excep 
tional  gift,  the  great  majority  of  believers  being  obliged  to  be 
satisfied  with  a  simple  probability  on  this  subject.  (Council 


1517-1720.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  179 

of  Trent,  Decree  on  Justification,  Chap.  IX. ;  Bellarmin,  De 
Justif.,  Lib.  III.  cap.  3.)  The  Reformers,  on  the  other 
hand,  took  strong  ground  as  respects  the  common  priv 
ilege  of  believers  to  be  certified  of  their  salvation.  Lu 
ther  denounced  the  theory  of  the  Romish  Church  as  one  of 
the  principal  robberies  which  had  been  committed  against 
Christians.  "  The  Pope,"  he  says,  "  by  this  infamous  dog 
ma,  by  which  he  has  commanded  men  to  doubt  respecting 
the  favor  of  God  toward  themselves,  has  banished  God  and 
all  the  promises  from  the  Church,  overthrown  the  bene 
fits  of  Christ,  and  abolished  the  entire  Gospel.  Such  un 
wholesome  results  necessarily  follow,  because  men  depend 
not  upon  the  promising  God,  but  upon  their  own  works  and 
merits."  (Comm.  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  Cap.  IV.)  According 
to  Luther,  the  evidence  of  our  sonship  is  given  in  such  a 
way  as  to  effect  in  us  "  the  consciousness  that  what  our 
heart  testifies  is  the  result  of  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit, 
and  not  the  imagination  of  the  flesh."  (Dorner,  Hist,  of 
Prot.  Theol.)  Calvin  also  taught  that  the  believer  has  a 
veritable  assurance,  and  is  not  left  simply  to  a  moral  con 
jecture  respecting  his  salvation.  Commenting  on  Romans 
viii.  16,  he  says,  "  This  certainty  proceedeth  not  from 
man's  brain,  but  is  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  God." 
(Compare  Turretin,  Locus  IY.  quaest.  14.) 

It  would  appear  that  in  the  earlier  stages  of  Protestant 
ism  theologians  were  inclined  to  regard  assurance  as  neces 
sarily  implied  in  justifying  faith.  "  The  Reformers,"  says 
Cunningham,  speaking  of  assurance,  "  in  general  main 
tained  its  necessity,  and  in  order,  as  it  were,  to  secure  it  in 
the  speediest  and  most  effectual  way,  usually  represented  it 
as  necessarily  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  first  com 
pleted  act  of  saving  faith."  (Historical  Theology,  Vol.  II.) 
Many  of  the  later  writers  renounced  this  position.  Such 
was  the  case  with  the  Westminster  divines.  They  con 
tended,  indeed,  that  believers  may  attain  unto  "  an  infallible 
assurance  of  faith,  founded  upon  the  divine  truth  of  the 


180  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

promises  of  salvation,  the  inward  evidences  of  those  graces 
unto  which  these  promises  are  made,  the  testimony  of  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  witnessing  with  our  spirits  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God."  But  they  added:  "This  infallible 
assurance  doth  not  so  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith  but 
that  a  true  believer  may  wait  long,  and  conflict  with  many 
difficulties  before  he  be  a  partaker  of  it."  (Chap.  XVIII.) 
Other  instances  of  a  relaxation  of  the  primitive  Protestant 
doctrine  might  be  cited.  Bishop  Joseph  Hall,  for  example, 
writes  :  "  It  is  not  for  every  man  to  mount  up  this  steep 
hill  of  assurance ;  every  soul  must  breathe  and  pant  to 
wards  it  as  he  may,  even  as  we  would  and  must  to  per 
fection  :  he  is  as  rare  as  happy  that  attains  it."  (Works, 
Vol.  VI.  p.  356.)  The  Bishop  here  speaks  indeed  of  the 
assurance  of  eternal  salvation  ;  but  it  was  the  common  ver 
dict  of  Protestants  holding,  as  he  did,  to  an  absolute  elec 
tion,  that  assurance  of  present  involves  assurance  of  eternal 
salvation.  Bishop  Bull,  while  not  in  favor  of  an  absolute 
predestination,  agreed  with  Bishop  Hall  in  making  assur 
ance  an  exceptional  experience.  "A  full  assurance  of  salva 
tion,"  he  says,  "  is  that  which  few  of  the  best  of  Christians 
can  boast  of."  (Discourse  III.,  Vol.  II.) 

IV.  It  was  the  common  and  oft-repeated  assertion  of 
Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  theologians,  that  no  one  can  ex 
pect  to  keep  perfectly  the  law  of  God  in  this  life,  or  to  be 
entirely  free  from  inbred  sin.  This  was  the  dominant 
theory  of  Protestantism  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries.  There  was,  however,  a  measure  of  exception. 
Arminius  regarded  the  common  theory  as  at  least  open  to 
question.  In  his  Declaration  before  the  States  of  Holland 
he  says :  "  While  I  never  asserted  that  a  believer  could 
perfectly  keep  the  precepts  of  Christ  in  this  life,  I  never 
denied  it,  but  always  left  it  as  a  matter  which  has  still  to 
be  decided."  His  followers  were  more  decided,  and  advo 
cated  the  positive  position  that  it  is  possible  for  the  Chris 
tian  in  this  life  to  advance  to  such  spiritual  maturity  as  to 


1517-1720.]  EEDEEMER  AND   KEDEMPTION.  181 

be  able  perfectly  to  keep  the  law  of  God.  At  the  same  time 
they  were  not  concerned  to  maintain  that  this  standard 
has  often  been  realized.  They  held  it  up  as  an  attainable, 
though  very  difficult  ideal.  (Episcopius,  Responsio  ad 
QiuBstiones,  XIX. ;  Curcella3us,  Lib.  VII.  cap.  1,  2  ;  Lim- 
borch,  Lib.  V.  cap.  15.)  The  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand, 
not  only  affirmed  the  possibility  of  this  perfection,  but  com 
mended  it  as  an  object  of  practical  interest  by  representing 
that  it  often  has  been  attained.  "  This  perfection  or  free 
dom  from  sin,"  says  Barclay,  "  is  possible,  because  many 
have  attained  it,  according  to  the  express  testimony  of 
Scripture."  (Apology.)  The  same  writer  affirms  that  it 
is  probable  that  one  in  this  life  may  reach  a  state  where  he 
is  free,  not  only  from  the  act  of  sinning,  but  also  from  the 
liability.  He  says,  u  I  will  not  deny  but  there  may  be  a 
state  attainable  in  this  life,  in  which  to  do  righteousness 
may  become  so  natural  to  the  regenerate  soul  that  in  the 
stability  of  this  condition  they  cannot  sin."  (Ibid.) 

The  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  saintship  and  of  super 
abundant  merit  implies  of  course  the  possibility  of  an  entire 
freedom  from  sin.  It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  definition  of  sin  was  not  equally  compre 
hensive  with  that  of  Lutherans  and  Calviiiists.  The  latter 
maintained  that  concupiscence  in  the  regenerate,  even  when 
not  actually  yielded  to,  is  of  the  nature  of  sin.  The  former 
denied  this  conclusion. 


182  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  CHURCH   AND  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

SECTION  I.  —  THE  CHURCH. 

IN  the  Roman  Catholic  communion,  the  mediaeval  view 
of  the  Church  as  a  definite  organism,  bound  together  by 
a  connected  hierarchy  culminating  in  the  Pope,  was  every 
where  maintained.  Membership  in  the  Church  thus  de 
nned  was  regarded,  to  the  same  extent  as  in  the  mediaeval 
theory,  necessary  to  salvation.  The  Church,  or  the  ec 
clesiastical  state,  was  looked  upon  as  precisely  analogous 
to  the  civil  state.  This  appears  clearly  in  the  very  exact 
description  of  Bellarmin.  "  Our  opinion  is,"  he  says, "  that 
there  is  only  one  Church,  not  two,  and  that  that  one  and 
true  Church  is  a  company  of  men  bound  together  by  the 
profession  of  the  same  Christian  faith  and  by  communion 
of  the  same  sacraments,  under  the  government  of  legiti 
mate  pastors,  and  especially  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  Christ's 
only  vicar  upon  earth.  From  which  definition  it  can  easily 
be  inferred  what  men  belong  to  the  Church,  and  who  indeed 
do  not  belong  to  it ;  for  there  are  three  parts  of  this  defi 
nition,  profession  of  the  true  faith,  communion  of  sacra 
ments,  and  subjection  to  the  legitimate  pastor,  the  Roman 
pontiff.  By  reason  of  the  first  part,  all  unbelievers  are 
excluded,  both  those  who  never  were  in  the  Church,  as 
Jews,  Turks,  Pagans,  and  those  who  have  been,  but  have 
departed,  as  heretics  and  apostates ;  by  reason  of  the  sec 
ond  part,  catechumens  and  the  excommunicated  are  ex 
cluded,  since  the  former  have  not  been  admitted  to  the 


1517-1720.]      THE   CHURCH  AKD  THE   SACRAMENTS.  183 

communion  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  latter  have  been  dis 
missed  therefrom ;  by  reason  of  the  third  part,  schismatics 
are  excluded,  who  have  faith  and  sacraments,  but  are  not 
in  subjection  to  the  legitimate  pastor,  and  therefore  profess 
faith  and  receive  sacraments  without.  But  included  are 
all  others,  though  they  are  reprobate,  criminal,  and  impious. 
And  there  is  this  difference  between  our  opinion  and  all 
others,  that  all  others  require  interior  virtues  for  consti 
tuting  any  one  within  the  Church,  and  moreover  make  the 
true  Church  invisible :  but  even  if  we  believe  that  all  virtues 
are  found  in  the  Church,  faith,  hope,  charity,  and  the  rest, 
nevertheless  we  do  not  think  that,  in  order  that  any  one 
may  be  called  absolutely  a  part  of  the  true  Church  con 
cerning  which  the  Scriptures  speak,  any  interior  virtue  is 
required,  but  only  an  external  profession  of  faith,  and  a 
communion  of  the  sacraments,  which  is  perceived  by  the 
sense  itself.  For  the  Church  is  a  company  of  men,  just  as 
visible  and  palpable  as  is  the  company  of  the  Roman  people, 
or  the  kingdom  of  France,  or  the  republic  of  the  Venetians." 
(De  Concil.  et  Eccl.  Militante,  Lib.  III.  cap.  3.) 

Along  with  this  resemblance  to  the  civil  state,  the 
Church  has,  according  to  Bellarmin,  full  prerogatives  over 
the  bodies  of  men.  To  be  sure,  it  may  not  act  as  the 
immediate  instrument  in  the  infliction  of  corporal  punish 
ments  ;  but  it  has  authority  to  deliver  men  over  to  the 
civil  arm  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  corporally  pun 
ished,  and  has  authority  over  princes  to  compel  them, 
under  penalty  of  dethronement,  to  do  what  the  interests 
of  the  Church  demand.  (De  Sum.  Pontif.,  Lib.  Y.  cap.  6.) 
These  two  things  put  together  evidently  amount  to  an 
authority  theoretically  unrestricted  in  the  visitation  of  cor 
poral  punishments  for  offences  against  the  Church.  As 
respects  the  penalties  suitable  for  the  incorrigible  heretic, 
Bellarmin  contends  that  it  is  the  common  opinion  of 
Catholics  that  death  by  burning  is  entirely  legitimate, 
and  that  the  Church  as  a  matter  of  fact  has  burned  her- 


184  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

etics  in  innumerable  instances.  (De  Membris  Eccl.  Mil., 
Lib.  III.  cap.  21,  22.)  Among  the  prime  duties  of  the 
State  in  its  relation  to  the  Church,  he  specifies  the  obliga 
tion  to  curb  liberty  of  belief.  "  This  liberty,"  he  says,  "  is 
ruinous  to  the  Church,  for  the  bond  of  the  Church  is  the 
confession  of  one  faith,  and  therefore  dissension  in  faith 
is  the  dissolution  of  the  Church."  He  adds :  "  Liberty  of 
belief  is  most  pernicious  to  those  very  persons  to  whom  it 
is  granted ;  for  liberty  of  belief  is  nothing  else  than  liberty 
to  err,  and  to  err  in  a  matter  the  most  perilous  of  all." 
(Ibid.,  III.  18.) 

After  the  council  of  Trent  there  was  an  increasing  ten 
dency  to  the  Ultramontane  theory,  as  opposed  to  the  Galli- 
can  which  won  the  ascendency  at  the  council  of  Constance. 
Bellarmin  may  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  this  ten 
dency,  to  which  indeed  his  order  as  a  whole  made  impor 
tant  contributions.  The  only  right  which  he  really  leaves 
to  the  Church  over  against  the  Pope  is  a  kind  of  revolu 
tionary  right,  to  which  resort  may  be  made  in  case  of  an 
extreme  exigency.  He  says,  that  if  the  Roman  pontiff 
should  be  suspected  of  heresy,  or  should  appear  to  be  an 
incorrigible  tyrant,  a  general  council  should  be  assembled, 
for  deposing  him  if  he  is  found  to  be  an  heretic,  or  for 
admonishing  him  if  he  seems  to  be  incorrigible  in  his 
behavior.  (De  Concil.  et  Eccl.  Mil.,  Lib.  I.  cap.  9.)  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  says:  "The  supreme  pontiff  is  simply 
and  absolutely  above  the  Universal  Church,  and  above  the 
general  council,  so  that  he  recognizes  no  judgment  in  the 
earth  above  himself.  This  is  almost  a  matter  of  faith.  .  .  . 
It  is  certain  that  the  shepherd  is  so  placed  over  the  sheep 
that  in  no  way  can  he  be  judged  by  them.  .  .  .  The  supreme 
pontiff  cannot  commit  either  to  a  council  or  to  any  man  a 
coactive  judgment  over  himself,  but  only  an  advisory  one," 
—  sed  tantum  discretivum.  (Ibid.,  II.  17, 18.)  If  these  state 
ments  are  to  stand,  it  clearly  follows,  as  was  stated  above, 
that  only  by  a  kind  of  violence  to  the  constitution  of  the 


1517-1720.]     THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  185 

Church,  or  a  revolutionary  proceeding,  can  a  pope  be  judged 
and  deposed  from  office. 

On  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  Bellarmin  makes  the  fol 
lowing  statements,  in  which,  it  will  be  seen,  he  anticipated 
the  decisions  of  the  last  Vatican  council :  "  The  supreme 
pontiff,  when  he  teaches  the  whole  Church  in  these  mat 
ters  which  pertain  to  faith,  can  in  no  case  err.  .  .  .  Not 
only  in  decrees  of  faith  is  the  supreme  pontiff  incapable  of 
erring,  but  also  in  precepts  of  morals  which  he  prescribes 
to  the  whole  Church,  and  which  are  concerned  with  things 
necessary  to  salvation,  or  with  those  which  are  good  per  se 
or  evil  per  se.  .  .  .  The  Catholic  faith  teaches,  that  every 
virtue  is  good  and  every  vice  is  evil ;  but  if  the  Pope  might 
err  in  prescribing  vices,  or  in  prohibiting  virtues,  the  Church 
would  be  bound  to  believe  that  vices  are  good  and  virtues 
evil,  unless  it  should  be  willing  to  sin  against  conscience ; 
for  in  doubtful  matters  the  Church  is  bound  to  acquiesce  in 
the  judgment  of  the  supreme  pontiff,  and  to  do  what  he 
prescribes,  and  to  forbear  to  do  what  he  prohibits.  And 
that  it  may  not  perchance  sin  against  conscience,  it  is 
bound  to  believe  that  to  be  good  which  he  prescribes,  that 
to  be  evil  which  he  prohibits.  ...  It  is  probable,  and  can 
be  piously  believed,  that  the  supreme  pontiff,  not  only  as 
pontiff  cannot  err,  but  also  as  a  particular  person  cannot 
be  a  heretic  by  pertinaciously  believing  contrary  to  the  faith 
any  false  thing."  (De  Summo  Pontif.,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  3-6.) 
Among  expressions  of  the  opposing  or  Gallican  theory  of 
the  papacy,  perhaps  the  most  important  in  this  period  was 
that  put  forth  by  an  assembly  of  French  clergy  in  1682,  to 
the  effect  that  the  Pope's  authority  lies  under  restrictions, 
and  is  subordinate  to  that  of  a  general  council.  Bossuet 
was  conspicuous  in  defending  this  view,  and  devoted  an 
elaborate  work  to  the  purpose.  (Defensio  Dcclarationis 
Cleri  Gallicani  do  Ecclesiastica  Potestate.) 

The  Augsburg  Confession  gave  the  essentials  of  the  stand 
ard  Protestant  definition  of  the  Church.  "  The  Church,"  it 


186  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV, 

says,  "  is  the  congregation  of  saints,  in  which  the  Gospel  is 
rightly  taught  and  the  sacraments  rightly  administered." 
The  same  definition,  with  some  limiting  clauses,  appears  in 
the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  Article 
XIX.  says :  "  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congrega 
tion  of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure  Word  of  God  is 
preached,  and  the  sacraments  be  duly  ministered  accord 
ing  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  neces 
sity  are  requisite  to  the  same."  Luther  seems  to  have  been 
well  satisfied  with  this  order  of  definition.  He  remarks : 
"  Where  the  Word  and  the  sacraments  remain  as  to  sub 
stance,  there  is  the  holy  Church,  notwithstanding  Anti 
christ  may  reign  there."  (Comm.  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.  Cap.  I.) 
"  Wherever,"  says  Calvin,  "  we  find  the  Word  of  God  purely 
preached  and  heard,  and  the  sacraments  administered  ac 
cording  to  the  institution  of  Christ,  there,  it  is  not  to  be 
doubted,  is  a  church  of  God."  (Inst.,  IY.  1.)  In  some  in 
stances,  besides  the  two  marks  of  the  Church  specified  in 
the  preceding  statements,  a  third  was  included,  namely,  a 
proper  maintenance  of  discipline.  Thus  the  Belgic  Confes 
sion  says  :  "  The  marks  by  which  the  true  Church  is  known 
are  these :  if  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  preached 
therein ;  if  she  maintains  the  pure  administration  of  the 
sacraments  as  instituted  by  Christ ;  if  church  discipline  is 
exercised  in  punishing  sin." 

The  above  are  definitions  of  the  visible  Church.  But 
Protestants  were  by  no  means  disposed  strictly  to  identify 
the  Church,  even  upon  earth,  with  any  definite  visible  or 
ganism,  and  so  laid  much  stress  upon  the  invisible  Church. 
This  they  regarded  as  being  in  the  truest  sense  the  Catho 
lic  Church,  and  included  in  it  all  true  believers,  the  whole 
body  of  the  elect  of  God.  "The  Catholic  or  Universal 
Church,"  says  the  Westminster  Confession,  "  which  is  in 
visible,  consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect,  that 
have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  into  one,  under  Christ 
the  head  thereof ;  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fulness, 


1517-1720.]    THE  CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  187 

of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all."  (Compare  Irish  Articles ; 
Scotch  Confession ;  Baptist  Confession  of  1688 ;  Confession 
of  the  Waldenses.)  According  to  the  prevailing  Protestant 
conception,  large  portions  of  the  visible  Church  might  he 
outside  of  the  invisible,  but  few  indeed  were  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  invisible  Church  that  could  be  found  out 
side  of  the  visible,  or  at  least  among  those  who  had  not 
been  specifically  instructed  in  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion.  The  Quakers,  it  is  true,  maintained  that,  in  vir 
tue  of  the  inner  light  some  growing  up  in  heathenism 
might  be  within  the  pale  of  the  true  Church.  But  proba 
bly  Melanchthon  did  not  give  much  narrower  bounds  to  the 
invisible  Church  than  were  assigned  to  it  by  the  main  cur 
rent  of  Protestant  sentiment  in  his  own  and  the  following 
age,  when  he  wrote :  "  As  often  as  we  think  of  the  Church, 
let  us  direct  our  attention  to  the  company  of  the  called 
which  is  the  visible  Church,  nor  let  us  dream  that  there 
are  any  elect  elsewhere  than  in  this  visible  company. 
For  God  neither  wishes  to  be  invoked  nor  to  be  acknowl 
edged  otherwise  than  He  has  revealed  Himself.  Nor  has 
He  revealed  Himself  elsewhere  than  in  the  visible  Church, 
in  which  alone  sounds  the  voice  of  the  Gospel."  (Loci,  De 
Ecclesia.  Compare  Quenstedt,  De  Eccl.,  quaest.  2.) 

Possibly  a  somewhat  more  liberal  position  might  have 
been  taken,  had  it  not  been  forestalled  almost  at  the  begin 
ning  of  the  Reformation  by  the  enthusiasts  and  agitators 
who  appealed  to  the  direct  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Such  manifestations  naturally  led  to  increased  stress  upon 
regularly  constituted  ecclesiastical  authorities  as  channels 
of  instruction  and  guidance.  The  same  cause  served  also 
as  an  incentive  to  a  rigorous  theory  and  practice  in  dealing 
with  heresy,  though  the  principal  cause  here  may  well  be 
sought  in  the  natural  impulse  of  men,  who  have  once  em 
braced  and  established  a  scheme,  to  look  upon  everything 
opposed  thereto  as  savoring  of  sacrilegious  license.  Re 
ligious  liberty,  save  as  it  may  receive  unusual  support  from 


188  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

generous  and  gifted  natures  or  from  favoring  circumstan 
ces,  is  not  likely  to  be  securely  established  in  a  commu 
nity  apart  from  a  long  and  painful  tuition.  As  previously 
stated,  the  logical  outcome  of  the  principles  of  the  Refor 
mation  was  religious  tolerance.  Some  of  the  early  Re 
formers,  too,  were  at  least  opposed  to  punishing  heresy  with 
the  extreme  penalty.  "  Luther  again  and  again  expressed 
himself  very  emphatically  against  visiting  the  death  penalty 
upon  teachers  of  false  doctrine."  (Kostlin.)  Bellarmin 
grants  that  this  was  his  position ;  at  least  he  blames  him 
for  agreeing  with  the  assertion  of  Huss,  that  it  is  not  lawful 
to  deliver  the  incorrigible  heretic  over  to  the  secular  arm, 
and  to  allow  him  to  be  burned.  (De  Memb.  Eccl.  Mil.,  Lib. 
III.  cap.  21.)  In  the  view  of  Zwingli,  "  the  magistrate 
ought  only  then  to  use  force,  when  heresy  overcome  by  the 
Word  contends  against  the  truth  in  a  tumultuous  way." 
(Zeller.)  But  some  took  more  radical  ground.  The  deal 
ing  of  Calvin  with  Servetus,  and  his  advice  to  the  Earl  of 
Somerset  to  repress  the  Papists  and  the  fanatical  sect  of 
Gospellers,  indicate  at  least  that  he  was  disposed  to  place 
some  classes  of  religionists  beyond  the  pale  of  tolerance. 
Beza  argued,  in  the  most  express  terms,  that  no  class  of 
men  ought  to  be  visited  with  heavier  punishments  than 
heretics,  false  prophets,  and  blasphemers.  (Confessio,  cap. 
5  ;  DC  Hsereticis  a  Civili  Magistratu  Puniendis.)  Accord 
ing  to  Turretin,  the  most  pestilent  heretics,  such  as  resist 
all  means  of  amendment  and  disturb  both  Church  and 
State,  may  be  capitally  punished.  His  words  are :  "  Fac 
tious  hercsiarchs  and  incorrigible  blasphemers,  ceasing  not 
to  scatter  their  poison,  against  prohibitions  frequently  re 
peated,  and  faith  given,  and  disturbing  the  republic  and  the 
Church,  we  judge  can  be  punished  with  death."  (Locus 
XVIII.  qusest.  34.)  Perkins  taught  that  atheists  ought 
to  be  punished  with  death,  and  declared  that  the  greatest 
tortures  which  the  wit  of  man  can  devise  are  too  good  for 
them.  (Cases  of  Conscience,  Bk.  II.  chap.  2.)  He  says 


1517-1720.]    THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  189 

also,  that  recusants  may  properly  be  compelled  to  the  ex 
ercises  of  religion,  and  a  certain  Mr.  Cudworth,  who  com 
pleted  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  makes 
the  kindred  statement :  "  The  magistrate  may  and  ought  to 
compel  obstinate  recusants  to  profess  the  true  religion." 
The  Westminster  divines  declared,  indeed,  that  God  alone 
is  Lord  of  the  conscience  ;  but  they  understood  at  the  same 
time  that  God's  Word  binds  the  conscience,  and  that  this 
Word  makes  many  things  concerning  faith  and  worship,  as 
well  as  general  conduct,  so  clearly  known,  that  he  who 
contradicts  them  is  justly  subject  to  correction  by  the  civil 
magistrate.  (Chap.  XX.,  XXIII.)  However,  there  was  an 
other  current  within  the  bounds  of  Protestantism.  The 
number  of  those  who  inclined  to  the  liberal  maxims  which 
the  Prince  of  Orange  advocated  and  exemplified  in  the  six 
teenth  century,  greatly  increased  during  the  seventeenth 
century.  Among  the  various  parties  who  were  friendly  to 
tolerance,  whether  Arminians,  Independents,  or  the  more 
liberal  wing  of  the  Established  Church  of  England,  none 
excelled  the  Quakers  in  the  definiteness  and  emphasis  with 
which  they  advocated  religious  freedom.  In  their  Confes 
sion  it  is  said  that  "  all  killing,  banishing,  fining,  imprison 
ing,  and  other  such  things,  which  men  are  afflicted  with  for 
the  alone  exercise  of  their  conscience,  or  difference  in  wor 
ship  or  opinion,  proceedeth  from  the  spirit  of  Cain,  the 
murderer,  and  is  contrary  to  the  truth."  Roger  Williams 
and  his  Baptist  followers  were  also  very  pronounced  advo 
cates  of  tolerance. 

In  its  view  of  the  Christian  priesthood,  Protestantism 
departed  widely  from  Romanism.  Instead  of  making  the 
congregation  an  attachment  to  the  hierarchy,  a  company 
absolutely  reduced  to  the  position  of  subjects,  it  declared 
that  all  are  by  right  priests,  and  that  he  who  for  the  sake 
of  necessary  order  and  convenience  is  specially  commis 
sioned  to  conduct  worship  and  exercise  pastoral  care  is  the 
servant  and  representative  of  the  congregation.  Luther 


190  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

early  declared  very  emphatically  for  this  universal  priest 
hood.  At  the  same  time  he  said :  "  Even  if  it  is  true  that 
we  are  all  equally  priests,  we  are  not  all  able,  neither  ought 
if  we  were  able,  publicly  to  serve  and  to  teach.  .  .  .  What 
belongs^in  common  to  all,  no  one  is  able  to  arrogate  par 
ticularly  to  himself,  until  he  is  called."  (De  Lib.  Christ. ; 
De  Captiv.  Bab.)  The  same  idea  was  brought  out  by  the 
Second  Helvetic  Confession  in  the  distinction  made  be 
tween  sacerdotium  and  ministerium,  of  which  the  former 
alone  pertains  to  all  believers. 

As  respects  Church  government  Protestants  generally  re 
garded  its  form  as  largely  optional.  Even  in  the  Church  of 
England,  where  the  hierarchical  constitution  was  retained, 
such  constitution  was  not  regarded  as  of  the  essence  of  the 
Church.  Men  like  Cranmer,  Hooker,  and  even  "Whitgift, 
did  not  consider  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right.  The  first 
of  the  English  prelates  to  advocate  such  right  is  said  to 
have  been  Bancroft.  In  1588,  as  an  offset  to  the  Puritan 
doctrine  maintained  by  Thomas  Cartwright  and  others,  that 
the  presbyterian  form  is  prescribed  in  the  New  Testament, 
he  set  up  the  claim  that  episcopacy  is  the  form  divinely 
sanctioned  and  prescribed.  This  theory,  once  started,  rap 
idly  won  ground,  though  there  were  eminent  Episcopalians 
in  the  next  century,  such  as  Usher  and  Stillingflect,  who 
adhered  to  the  primitive  and  more  liberal  standpoint. 

In  their  sharp  antagonism  to  Romanism,  Protestants  for 
the  most  part  denied  to  the  Roman  Catholic  communion 
the  character  of  a  true  Church.  They  regarded  Romanism 
as  the  great  apostasy,  and  freely  styled  the  Pope  Antichrist. 
So  he  is  called  even  in  some  of  the  confessions.  The  weak 
points  in  the  theory  of  the  primacy  were  ably  exposed  by 
various  writers.  Some  cogent  strictures  were  made  by 
Calvin.  He  says,  for  example,  supposing  a  primacy  was 
given  to  Peter,  "  how  will  they  prove  that  its  seat  was  fixed 
at  Rome,  so  that  whoever  is  bishop  of  that  city  must  preside 
over  the  whole  world  ?  By  what  right  do  they  restrict  to 


1517-1720.]      THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  191 

one  place  this  dignity,  which  was  conferred  without  the 
mention  of  any  place  ?  Peter,  they  say,  lived  and  died  at 
Rome.  What  shall  we  say  of  Christ  Himself  ?  Was  it  not 
at  Jerusalem  that  He  exercised  the  office  of  a  bishop  while 
he  lived,  and  fulfilled  the  priestly  office  by  His  death? 
The  Prince  of  pastors,  the  supreme  Bishop,  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  could  not  obtain  this  honor  for  the  place  where  He 
lived  and  died ;  could  then  Peter,  who  was  far  inferior  to 
Him?"  (Inst,  IV.  6.) 


SECTION  II.  —  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

1.  GENERAL  THEORY  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS.  —  The  more 
important  specifications  of  the  council  of  Trent  upon  the 
sacraments  in  general  were  the  following :  (1.)  They  are 
seven  in  number.  (2.)  They  are  necessary  to  justification, 
so  that  they  must  be  received,  or  at  least  desired.  (3.)  They 
contain  the  grace  which  they  signify,  and  confer  this  ex 
opere  operate,  or  through  the  act  performed,  upon  one  not 
presenting  an  obstacle.  (4.)  The  intention  on  the  part  of 
the  priest  of  really  executing  the  sacrament  is  essential  to 
its  validity.  (5.)  The  three  sacraments,  baptism,  confirma 
tion,  and  order,  impress  an  indelible  character  or  sign  upon 
the  soul  of  the  recipient.  The  fourth  specification  is  in 
these  words  :  "  If  any  one  saith,  that,  in  ministers,  when 
they  effect  and  confer  the  sacraments,  there  is  not  required 
the  intention  at  least  of  doing  what  the  Church  does,  let 
him  be  anathema."  An  additional  statement  bearing  on 
the  same  point  is  given  by  the  council  in  connection  with 
the  sacrament  of  penance,  where  it  is  said  :  "  The  penitent 
ought  not  so  to  confide  in  his  own  personal  faith  as  to  think 
that  —  even  though  there  be  no  contrition  on  his  part,  or 
no  intention  on  the  part  of  the  priest  of  acting  seriously 
and  absolving  truly  —  he  is  nevertheless  truly  and  in  God's 
sight  absolved,  on  account  of  his  faith  alone.  For  neither 


192  HISTORY  OF,  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

would  faith  without  penance  bestow  any  remission  of  sins, 
nor  would  he  be  otherwise  than  most  careless  of  his  own 
salvation,  who,  knowing  that  a  priest  absolved  him  but  in 
jest,  should  not  carefully  seek  for  another  who  would  act 
in  earnest."  It  is  to  be  noticed  here,  that  "  acting  seri 
ously  "  and  "  acting  in  earnest "  are  used  in  describing  the 
proper  intention  on  the  part  of  the  priest. 

Bellarmin  expands  on  the  statement  that  sacraments  are 
effective  ex  opere  operato.  This  phrase,  he  says,  does  not 
denote  that  certain  subjective  states  are  not  essential  in 
adults,  but  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  not  due  to 
these  states,  and  that  they  are  involved  in  the  fact  that  the 
individual  does  not  interpose  obstacles.  He  states  the  mat 
ter  in  this  wise :  "  Will,  faith,  and  penitence  are  necessarily 
required  in  the  adult  candidate,  as  dispositions  on  the  part 
of  the  subject,  not  as  active  causes  :  for  faith  and  penitence 
do  not  effect  the  sacramental  grace,  nor  do  they  give  the 
efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  but  they  merely  remove  obstacles, 
which  hinder  the  sacraments  from  being  able  to  exercise 
their  own  efficacy."  (De  Sacramentis,  Lib.  II.  cap.  1.)  "  He 
cannot  properly  be  said  not  to  present  an  obstacle  who 
comes  to  the  sacrament  without  the  necessary  disposition  ; 
otherwise,  not  only  without  detestation  of  sin,  but  also  with 
out  faith  one  could  be  justified  through  baptism."  (De  Poeni- 
tentia,  Lib.  II.  cap.  9.)  This  must  be  classed  among  the 
more  moderate  of  Roman  Catholic  views  of  the  subject. 
In  practical  as  well  as  theoretical  stress  upon  the  right  sub 
jective  conditions,  as  affecting  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra 
ments,  the  Jansenists  were  distinguished  above  all  other 
Romanists. 

As  respects  the  intention  of  the  ministering  priest,  Bel 
larmin  teaches  in  the  most  unmistakable  terms  that  it  is 
necessary.  The  kind  of  intention  that  is  requisite  he  de 
scribes  as  the  intentio  virtualis.  The  intentio  actualis  is 
not  strictly  necessary,  the  intentio  habitualis  does  not  suf 
fice.  The  intentio  virtualis  has  place  where  an  operation 


1517-1720.]      THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  193 

is  continued  in  virtue  of  an  actual  intention  which  was  at 
one  time  present  but  is  so  no  longer.  In  answer  to  the 
objection  of  Calvin,  that  dependence  upon  the  intention  of 
the  minister  destroys  certitude,  Bellarmin  says :  "  I  reply, 
a  man  ought  not  in  this  world  to  seek  an  infallible  certi 
tude  concerning  his  own  salvation  or  justification.  .  .  .  But 
a  human  and  moral  certitude,  in  which  a  man  may  properly 
rest,  we  have  from  the  sacraments,  even  if  they  depend 
upon  the  intention  of  another.  For  since  it  is  most  easy 
to  have  the  intention,  there  is  no  cause  to  doubt  that  the 
minister  has  the  intention,  unless  he  reveals  its  absence  by 
some  exterior  sign."  (Do  Sacramentis,  Lib.  I.  cap.  27,  28.) 
It  is  to  be  noticed,  that  Bellarmin  does  not  say  that  the  de 
sign  to  go  through  the  bare  externals  of  the  sacramental 
rite  is  essential,  or  all  that  is  essential,  to  a  proper  inten 
tion.  That  he  included  more  than  this  in  such  an  inten 
tion  is  evident  from  the  way  in  which  he  replies  to  Calvin. 
Nicole,  who  puts  the  construction  in  question  upon  the 
Trent  canon,  (Instructions  sur  les  Sacraments,)  contra 
dicts  the  history  of  the  tenet,  as  well  as  the  rational  de 
mands  of  the  case.  A  priest  can  intend  to  go  through  the 
exact  formula  of  a  sacrament  as  a  jest  or  pantomime, 
whereas  to  intend  to  do  what  the  Church  does  he  must 
seriously  design  that  the  sacrament  should  be  a  means  of 
grace.  The  language  of  the  council  of  Trent  about  acting 
seriously  and  in  earnest  cannot  properly  be  regarded  as 
meaning  less  than  this.  But  while  one  cannot  agree  with 
Nicole's  construction  of  the  dogma,  he  can  understand  his 
uneasiness  over  the  same.  It  is  a  dogma  at  once  abhorrent 
in  the  dependence  in  which  it  places  souls  upon  human 
caprice,  and  perilous  to  the  Romish  fabric,  inasmuch  as  it 
puts  in  question  the  validity  of  holy  orders.  Some  of  the 
fathers  at  Trent  were  not  wholly  blind  to  the  former 
phase.  One  of  the  bishops  argued  against  the  necessity 
of  the  inward  intention,  and  pointed  his  argument  by  sup 
posing  a  case  where  a  priest,  who,  being  an  infidel  and  a 

VOL.    II.  —  13. 


194  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    [PERIOD  IV. 

formal  hypocrite,  might  despoil  a  whole  congregation  of 
the  sacraments,  and  cause  the  perdition  of  children  from 
lack  of  valid  baptism.  "The  divines,"  says  Sarpi,  "did 
not  approve  this  doctrine,  yet  were  troubled,  and  knew  not 
how  to  resolve  the  reason.  But  they  still  maintained  that 
the  true  intention  of  the  minister  was  necessary,  either 
actual  or  virtual,  and  that  without  it  the  sacrament  was 
not  of  force,  notwithstanding  any  external  demonstration." 
These  words  show  how  far  was  Sarpi's  understanding  of 
the  dogma,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Trent  fathers,  from  Ni 
cole's  interpretation. 

In  place  of  the  seven  sacraments  of  Romanism,  Protes 
tantism  affirmed  but  two,  though  not  universally  in  the 
first  stage  of  its  history.  Luther  sometimes  spoke  of  three 
sacraments,  baptism,  eucharist,  and  absolution.  Melanch- 
thon  gave  the  same  list,  and  said  that,  for  his  part,  he 
should  be  pleased  to  include  ministerial  ordination.  (Loci, 
Do  Sacramentis.)  The  Lutherans,  however,  though  con 
tinuing  to  lay  considerable  stress  upon  the  rite  of  confes 
sion  and  absolution,  did  not  make  it  properly  a  sacrament. 
"  Absolution,"  says  Chemnitz,  "  is  not  truly  and  properly  a 
sacrament  in  the  same  way  as  are  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper."  (Examen  Decret.  Concil.  Tridentini,  Pars  II.) 
Gerhard  and  other  distinguished  Lutheran  writers  took  the 
same  ground. 

Different  degrees  of  stress  were  laid  by  different  parties 
upon  the  necessity  of  the  sacraments ;  but  no  Protestant 
communion  went  quite  as  far  as  the  Roman  Catholic  upon 
this  point,  as  none  expressly  excluded  all  infants  dying 
without  baptism  from  salvation. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Lutherans,  Protestants  com 
monly  defined  sacraments  as  signs  and  seals  of  divine 
grace.  The  following  statement  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate 
chism  is  representative :  "  The  sacraments  are  visible  holy 
signs  and  seals,  appointed  of  God  to  this  end,  that  by  the 
use  thereof  He  may  the  more  fully  declare  and  seal  to  us 


1517-1720.]    THE   CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  195 

the  promise  of  the  Gospel."  By  Zwingli  the  symbolical 
import  of  the  sacraments,  and  their  use  as  a  common 
means  of  confessing  discipleship,  were  emphasized.  The 
Arminians  also  laid  the  chief  stress  upon  this  order  of 
considerations.  Calvin  made  prominent,  in  addition,  the 
idea  that  the  sacraments  are  means  of  presenting  or  exhib 
iting  divine  benefits  and  occasions  of  the  invisible  opera 
tion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  believers.  At  the 
same  time,  he  denied  that  they  confer  grace  in  their  own 
virtue.  We  are  not,  he  says,  to  be  led  by  the  extravagant 
language  of  the  fathers  to  suppose  "  there  is  some  secret 
power  annexed  and  attached  to  the  sacraments,  so  that 
they  communicate  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  just  as 
wine  is  given  in  the  cup ;  whereas  the  only  office  assigned 
to  them  by  God  is  to  testify  and  confirm  His  benevolence 
toward  us ;  nor  do  they  impart  any  benefit,  unless  they  are 
accompanied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  open  our  minds  and 
hearts  and  render  us  capable  of  receiving  this  testimony." 
(Inst.,  IV.  14.)  The  Westminster  Confession  asserts  the 
same  view  in  these  words  :  "  The  grace  which  is  exhibited 
in  or  by  the  sacraments,  rightly  used,  is  not  conferred  by 
any  power  in  them."  (Chap.  XXVII.)  In  the  Lutheran 
theory,  on  the  other  hand,  a  sacrament  was  regarded  as 
something  more  than  a  sign,  a  seal,  or  an  occasion  of 
grace,  and  was  termed  an  instrumental  cause  or  efficacious 
medium  of  grace.  This  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
Lutheran  ideas  that  the  Word  has  intrinsic  power,  and 
that  the  Word  is  the  principal  factor  in  a  sacrament.  Ger 
hard  accordingly  expressly  condemns  the  Calvinian  theory 
as  assigning  too  little  efficacy  to  the  sacraments  them 
selves.  (Locus  XVIII.  §  56.)  As  thus  defined,  the  Lu 
theran  view  appears  to  be  not  a  little  in  affinity  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  that  the  sacrament  works  ex  opere 
operate.  But  this  doctrine  was  repudiated  by  Lutherans, 
as  well  as  by  other  Protestants.  However,  the  main  dif 
ference  between  the  Roman  Catholic  theory,  as  expounded 


196  HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

by  Bellarmin,  and  the  Lutheran,  is  that  the  one  requires 
faith,  because  the  lack  of  it  would  be  an  obstacle  to  the 
grace  of  the  sacrament,  and  the  other  requires  faith  as  the 
necessary  organ  or  instrument  for  grasping  the  offered 
grace.  In  addition  to  this,  account  must  of  course  be 
taken  of  the  fact  that  Bellarmin  gives  the  least  ultra  of 
Roman  Catholic  theories  on  the  subject,  and  still  more  of 
the  fact  that  faith,  in  the  Lutheran  sense,  is  a  much  pro- 
founder  principle  than  it  is  in  the  definition  of  Bellarmin 
and  other  Romanists.  As  respects  the  requirement  of 
intention  in  the  administrator,  the  Romish  theory  was 
universally  repudiated  by  Protestants. 

2.  BAPTISM.  —  The  mediaeval  view  of  the  effect  and  the 
necessity  of  baptism,  as  denned  by  leading  scholastics, 
remained  in  the  Romish  Church  unchanged.  It  was  re 
garded  as  cancelling  guilt,  ameliorating  corruption,  and, 
according  to  the  specification  of  Bellarmin,  it  supplies  the 
perfect  faith  in  place  of  the  imperfect  which  may  exist  prior 
to  its  administration.  Bellarmin  decides  that  an  unbap- 
tized  catechumen  can  be  saved  in  virtue  of  his  purpose  to 
be  baptized  when  the  opportunity  is  offered.  But  he  makes 
such  purpose  indispensable.  "  Whoever  is  not  baptized," 
he  says,  "  or  at  least  does  not  desire  baptism,  is  not  saved, 
although  it  happens  from  ignorance  or  impotence."  (De 
Sacramentis,  Lib.  I.  cap.  22.)  This  of  course  leaves  to  the 
unbaptized  dying  in  infancy  no  opportunity  whatever  to  be 
saved.  This  conclusion  Bellarmin  draws  in  all  its  rigor. 
"  The  Church,"  he  says,  "  has  always  believed  that  infants 
perish  if  they  depart  from  this  life  without  baptism."  The 
ground  of  their  condemnation  he  states  thus :  "  Although 
it  is  no  fault  of  children  that  they  are  not  baptized,  they 
do  not  perish  nevertheless  without  fault  of  their  own,  for 
they  have  original  sin."  (De  Baptismo,  cap.  4.)  Nicole 
and  Bossuet  declare,  in  equally  unequivocal  terms,  that 
unbaptized  infants  cannot  be  saved.  The  Trent  Catechism 
plainly  implies  the  same  conclusion.  Thus,  according  to 


1517-1720.]     THE  CHUKCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  197 

the  standard  Roman  Catholic  teaching,  a  large  portion  of 
the  race  are  shut  out  from  all  possibility  of  salvation  by  a 
decree  as  arbitrary  as  the  decree  of  reprobation  advocated 
by  ultra  predestinarians. 

The  Lutherans  approximated  to  the  Roman  Catholics  in 
their  stress  upon  the  necessity  and  the  efficacy  of  baptism. 
They  differed,  however,  in  a  measure,  upon  the  former  point, 
since  they  allowed  that  unbaptized  children  of  Christian 
parents  might,  by  the  extraordinary  grace  of  God,  be  saved. 
To  be  sure,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Formula  of 
Concord  condemn  the  Anabaptist  theory,  that  infants  should 
not  receive  baptism,  and  are  saved  without  it.  But  so  far 
as  these  condemnatory  sentences  bore  upon  the  latter  item, 
they  were  taken  with  a  qualification.  Representative  Lu 
theran  theologians,  however  reserved  they  may  have  been 
on  the  fate  of  heathen  children,  taught  distinctly  enough, 
that  children  of  Christian  parents  departing  without  bap 
tism  are  not  necessarily  deprived  of  salvation.  (Gerhard, 
Confess.  Oath. ;  Locus  XX.  §§  237-242 ;  Quenstedt,  De 
Baptismo,  qua^st.  10.)  At  the  same  time,  they  strongly 
emphasized  the  duty  of  parents  to  make  sure  of  the  bap 
tism  of  their  children,  and,  like  the  Roman  Catholics,  au 
thorized  its  performance  by  the  hands  of  a  layman  in  case 
of  necessity. 

In  accordance  with  their  general  theory  of  the  efficacy  of 
the  sacraments,  the  Lutherans  taught  that  baptism  is  an 
efficacious  medium  of  spiritual  benefits.  To  be  sure,  in 
some  instances,  the  gifts  of  which  it  is  the  channel  may 
have  been  in  large  part  already  grasped  by  the  faith  of  the 
candidate ;  but  in  any  case  in  which  it  is  properly  received 
it  is  a  medium  of  grace,  and  seals  and  confirms  whatever 
may  have  been  conferred  previously.  To  the  believing  can 
didate  it  secures  remission  of  all  sins,  adoption,  and  inward 
renovation.  This  last,  however,  is  not  complete,  and  is  to 
be  carried  forward  from  day  to  day  toward  perfection. 

Infant  children,  as  well  as  adults,  according  to  the  Lu- 


198  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

theraii  theory,  receive  the  spiritual  benefits  of  baptism. 
This  conclusion  involved  a  measure  of  difficulty  for  its  ad 
vocates.  The  general  Lutheran  theory  strongly  emphasized 
the  need  of  faith  as  the  instrument  by  which  spiritual  bene 
fits  are  received.  But  can  infants  exercise  faith  ?  Luther 
showed  a  certain  disposition  to  answer  this  question  in  the 
affirmative,  and  sometimes  spoke  of  faith  as  an  actual  en 
dowment  of  the  infant.  However,  in  his  final  view  he  was 
inclined  to  leave  this  point  to  the  doctors,  and  to  affirm 
that  baptism  is  efficacious  in  the  case  of  infants,  on  the 
simple  ground  that  God  has  ordained  it  for  them.  (Dor- 
ner.)  The  Lutheran  doctors,  as  it  seems,  came  to  the  con 
clusion  that  there  is  a  real  faith  in  infants  in  connection 
with  the  act  of  baptism.  Quenstedt,  for  example,  says : 
"  Through  baptism  and  in  baptism  the  Holy  Spirit  awakens 
in  infants  a  true,  saving,  living,  and  actual  faith."  (De 
Baptismo,  Sect.  II.  quasst.  8.)  "  We  affirm,"  says  Gerhard, 
"  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  performance  of  baptism,  by 
His  grace  and  efficacy  works  faith,  which  is  not  inactive  or 
a  naked  habit,  but  by  some  act,  whose  mode  is  inexplicable 
to  us,  it  puts  on  Christ,  and  is  made  participant  of  regen 
eration  and  salvation."  (Confess.  Cath.,  p.  1116.  Compare 
Locus  XX.  §§  218-232;  Hollaz,  Pars  III.  sect.  2,  cap.  3, 
qu.  17.)  It  will  be  observed  that  the  passages  quoted  speak 
of  faith  as  wrought  in  and  by  baptism,  rather  than  as  ante 
cedent  to  the  same.  This  was  characteristic  of  the  thought 
of  the  time.  Speaking  of  infant  subjects,  Dorner  says : 
"  The  Lutheran  theology  of  the  seventeenth  century  aban 
doned  the  standpoint,  that  faith  must  be  required  before 
baptism,  considering  it  rather,  in  opposition  to  Baptist 
teaching,  as  the  effect  of  baptism,  like  regeneration." 
(System  of  Christ.  Dock,  §  139.) 

In  the  Reformed  Church  less  stress  was  in  general  laid 
upon  the  necessity  of  baptism  than  in  the  Lutheran.  A 
token  of  this  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  former  discour 
aged  the  practice  of  resorting  to  lay  baptism  in  case  of 


1517-1720.]      THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  199 

emergency,  maintaining  that  the  omission  of  the  sacrament 
in  such  a  case  cannot  be  a  source  of  injury.  "  If  the  omis 
sion  of  the  sign,"  says  Calvin,  "  be  not  occasioned  by  in 
dolence,  or  contempt,  or  negligence,  we  are  safe  from  all 
danger.  It  is  far  more  consistent  with  piety  to  show  this 
reverence  to  the  institution  of  God,  not  to  receive  the  sacra 
ments  from  any  other  hands  than  those  to  which  the  Lord 
has  committed  them.  When  it  is  impossible  to  receive 
them  from  the  Church,  the  grace  of  God  is  not  so  attached 
to  them  but  that  we  may  obtain  it  by  faith  from  the  Word 
of  the  Lord."  (Inst.,  IV.  15.)  "  That  the  contempt  of  bap 
tism  damneth,"  says  Bishop  Hall,  "  is  past  all  doubt ;  but 
that  the  constrained  absence  thereof  should  send  infants  to 
hell,  is  a  cruel  rashness."  (Works,  Yol.  VI.  p.  248.) 

Those  inclined  to  the  Zwinglian  conception  of  the  sacra 
ments  laid  but  moderate  stress  upon  the  efficacy  of  baptism, 
as  respects  any  direct  communication  of  grace,  and  regarded 
it  as  designed  rather  to  testify  to  existing  faith,  than  to 
effect  an  increase.  But  a  more  emphatic  view  prevailed 
quite  generally  in  the  Reformed  Church.  This  appears  in 
some  of  the  creeds.  In  the  Scotch  Confession  it  is  said : 
"  We  assuredly  believe  that  by  baptism  we  are  engrafted 
into  Christ  Jesus,  to  be  made  partakers  of  His  justice,  by 
which  our  sins  are  covered  and  remitted."  In  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  baptism  is  styled  a  sign  of  regeneration, 
an  instrument  for  grafting  into  the  Church,  a  means  of 
sealing  the  promises  of  forgiveness  and  adoption,  of  con 
firming  faith  and  increasing  grace  by  the  virtue  of  prayer 
unto  God.  The  French  Confession  says :  "  Baptism  is 
given  as  a  pledge  of  our  adoption ;  for  by  it  we  are  grafted 
into  the  body  of  Christ,  so  as  to  be  washed  and  cleansed  by 
His  blood,  and  then  renewed  in  purity  of  life  by  His  Holy 
Spirit."  In  the  Confession  of  the  Waldcnses  an  equally 
strong  statement  is  used  :  "  We  believe  that  Christ  has  in 
stituted  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  be  a  testimony  of  our 
adoption,  and  that  therein  we  arc  cleansed  from  our  sins 


200  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  renewed  in  holiness  of 
life."  Such  statements  are  to  be  understood  in  accordance 
with  the  general  theory  of  the  Reformed  Church,  that  no 
sacrament  confers  grace  in  its  own  virtue.  It  should  be 
noticed,  also,  that  important  confessions,  like  the  Zurich 
Consensus  and  the  Westminster  Confession,  state  that  the 
grace  which  is  properly  connected  with  baptism  is  not 
necessarily  bestowed  at  the  time  of  its  administration,  but 
may  be  deferred  to  a  subsequent  period  (or  be  withheld 
altogether,  in  case  the  candidate  is  not  among  the  elect,  as 
is  taught  by  the  Zurich  Consensus).  It  was  also  a  part  of 
the  Reformed  doctrine,  that  the  spiritual  benefits  which  the 
proper  candidate  may  receive  in  baptism  are  not  so  tied  to 
the  sacrament  but  that  they  may  be  obtained  prior  to  its 
administration. 

As  respects  the  baptism  of  infants,  the  Reformed  theory 
differed  from  the  Lutheran  in  two  respects:  (1.)  By  the 
former  it  was  regarded  as  a  right  and  a  privilege  ;  by  the 
latter,  as  rather  a  necessity.  The  Lutherans  taught  that 
children  of  believers  should  be  baptized  in  order  to  bring 
them  into  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  Reformed  said  that 
children  of  believers  are  entitled  to  baptism  as  a  sign  of 
the  covenant,  because  they  arc  already  included  in  the 
covenant  and  are  members  of  Christ's  body.  "The  chil 
dren  of  believers,"  Calvin  remarks,  "are  not  baptized,  that 
they  may  thereby  be  made  the  children  of  God,  as  if  they 
had  before  been  strangers  to  the  Church ;  but  on  the  con 
trary  they  are  received  into  the  Church  by  a  solemn  sign, 
because  they  already  belonged  to  the  body  of  Christ  by 
virtue  of  the  promise."  (Inst.,  IV.  15.)  The  Heidelberg 
Catechism  contains  an  equivalent  statement.  (2.)  The  Re 
formed  denied  that  infants  exercise  in  baptism  an  actual 
faith.  They  allowed  however,  at  least  in  many  cases,  an 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul  of  the  infant,  and 
as  a  fruit  of  this  a  seminal  faith,  or  ground  of  future  actual 
faith.  (Beza,  Confessio,  Cap.  IV. ;  Vossius,  Disput.  de  Sac- 


1517-1720.]      THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  201 

rament.  Natura;  Turretin,  Locus  XV.  qugest.  14.)  The 
principle  referred  to  above,  that  the  proper  grace  of  bap 
tism  may  be  given  at  a  date  subsequent  to  the  administra 
tion  of  the  rite,  was  naturally  applied  quite  largely  to  the 
case  of  infants.  There  was  not,  however,  a  strict  una 
nimity  on  this  point.  Archbishop  Usher  was  of  the  opin 
ion  that  elect  infants  who  are  appointed  soon  to  die  are 
regenerated  in  baptism,  whereas  for  the  rest  we  cannot  be 
sure  of  their  actual  regeneration  till  they  actually  believe. 
Hammond,  Tillotson,  and  some  others,  took  a  view  of 
baptismal  regeneration  which  had  little  to  do  with  inward 
transformation.  (Hunt.)  But  there  were  those  who  used 
language  implying  that  infants  in  general  are  truly  regen 
erated  in  baptism.  Witsius  considered  it  probable  that 
elect  infants  are  ordinarily  regenerated  before  baptism. 
(Series  Exercitationum,  XIX.)  Henry  Dodwell  held  the 
eccentric  notion  that,  inasmuch  as  the  soul  is  naturally 
mortal,  all  unchristened  infants  cease  at  death  to  exist, 
and  all  adults  not  baptized  by  one  who  has  been  ordained 
by  a  bishop  share  the  same  fate ;  unless  perchance  they 
are  preserved  for  the  sake  of  being  punished. 

The  Lutherans  and  Reformed  were  agreed  in  teaching 
that  the  efficacy  of  baptism  lasts  through  life,  or  is  intrin 
sically  suited  to  this  permanence.  Instead  of  affirming, 
like  the  Romanists,  that,  in  consequence  of  its  benefits 
being  impaired  or  lost  by  sins,  resort  must  be  had  to  other 
sacraments,  especially  that  of  penance,  they  maintained 
that  by  inward  repentance  one  steps  back  upon  the  plat 
form  of  the  baptismal  grace,  so  that  the  efficacy  of  baptism 
is  made  continuously  to  avail.  "Penitence,"  says  Chem 
nitz,  "  is  nothing  else  than  a  return  to  the  promise  of  grace 
belonging  to  baptism."  (Examen,  Pars  II.)  "  Whenever 
we  have  fallen,"  says  Calvin,  "we  must  recur  to  the  re 
membrance  of  baptism,  and  arm  our  minds  with  the  con 
sideration  of  it,  that  we  may  be  always  certified  and  assured 
of  the  remission  of  sins."  (Inst.,  IV.  15.)  In  the  French 


202  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

Confession  it  is  said :  "  We  hold  that,  although  we  are 
baptized  only  once,  yet  the  gain  that  it  symbolizes  to  us 
reaches  over  our  whole  lives  and  to  our  death,  so  that  we 
have  a  lasting  witness  that  Jesus  Christ  will  always  be  our 
justification  and  sanctification."  (Art.  XXXV.) 

The  Socinians  made  little  account  of  baptism.  Socinus 
denied  that  it  was  designed  to  be  of  perpetual  obligation, 
and  that  it  is  appropriate  to  one  brought  up  in  the  Chris 
tian  faith,  though  it  might  be  used  not  inaptly  to  initiate 
into  Christianity  converts  from  other  religions.  The  So- 
ciiiians,  however,  were  not  inclined  to  follow  him  to  this 
extreme  of  radicalism.  In  the  revised  edition  of  the  Raco- 
vian  Catechism  it  is  said :  "  The  external  religious  acts,  or 
sacred  rites  always  observed  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  are 
baptism  and  the  breaking  of  the  sacred  bread."  (Y.  3.)  Of 
the  current  custom  of  infant  baptism  the  Catechism  speaks 
in  very  disparaging  terms,  but  at  the  same  time  allows  that 
it  is  something  which  charity  may  tolerate.  In  the  same 
connection,  it  is  said  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism. 
The  common  view  of  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  that  immersion  is  not  of  the  essence  of 
baptism.  (Gerhard,  Locus  XX.  §§  94-96  ;  Turretin,  Locus 
XIX.  quoest.  11 ;  Westminster  Confession,  Chap.  XXVIII.) 

The  Quakers  took  the  ground  that  the  "  one  baptism " 
of  the  Christian  dispensation  is  purely  spiritual,  and  that 
water  baptism  has  properly  no  longer  any  place  in  the 
Church.  (Proposition  XII.) 

In  the  Baptist  Confession  of  1688  the  following  maxims, 
among  others,  are  laid  down :  "  Those  who  do  actually  pro 
fess  repentance  towards  God,  faith  in  and  obedience  to  our 
Lord  Jesus,  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance." 
"  Immersion,  or  dipping  of  the  person  in  water,  is  neces 
sary  to  the  due  administration  of  this  ordinance."  It  is  to 
be  noticed,  however,  that  in  the  Mennonitcs  we  have  an 
example  of  Baptists,  the  main  body  of  whom  did  not  insist 
upon  or  even  practise  immersion. 


1517-1720.]    THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  203 

3.  THE  EUCHARIST.  —  In  the  Reformation  era  scarcely 
another  topic  caused  so  much  controversy.  To  multitudes 
the  denial  of  transubstantiation  was  an  occasion  of  impris 
onment,  tortures,  and  death.  Even  under  the  anti-papal 
rule  of  Henry  VIII.  in  England,  to  deny  this  doctrine  was 
made  the  greatest  in  the  catalogue  of  crimes,  and  was 
punishable  with  death  by  burning.  Protestants  began 
early  a  series  of  bitter  controversies  among  themselves  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  Eucharist,  and  as  wearisome  a 
theological  literature  as  the  earth  ever  groaned  under  was 
called  forth. 

The  council  of  Trent  gave  an  authoritative  sanction  to 
the  scholastic  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  not  only  as  respects 
its  general  outline,  but  also  as  respects  many  of  its  details. 
It  declared  that  immediately  after  the  consecration  the 
veritable  body  of  our  Lord  and  His  veritable  blood,  together 
with  His  soul  and  divinity,  are  under  the  species  of  bread 
and  wine ;  that  by  force  of  the  words  of  consecration,  the 
body  is  under  the  species  of  bread,  and  the  blood  under  the 
species  of  wine,  but  by  reason  of  concomitance  each  is  under 
both  species ;  that  Christ  whole  and  entire  is  under  any 
part  of  either  species ;  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  and 
wine  is  changed  into  the  substance  of  body  and  blood ;  that 
the  worship  of  latria  which  is  due  to  the  true  God  is  prop 
erly  rendered  to  the  holy  sacrament,  and  the  same  is  fitly 
honored  by  being  borne  in  public  processions ;  that  although 
the  use  of  both  species  has  not  been  unfrequent  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  Church  has  suit 
able  reasons  for  approving  the  custom  of  communicating 
under  one  species ;  that  in  the  mass,  which  is  a  truly  pro 
pitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  the  same 
victim  is  offered  which  was  offered  on  the  cross,  only  in  a 
different  manner;  that  masses  in  which  the  priest  alone 
communicates  are  legitimate. 

The  best  discretion  would  teach  the  Romanist  to  rest  the 
dogma  of  transubstantiation  simply  upon  the  fiat  of  church 


204  HISTORY,  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

authority.  Reasons  and  explanations  never  appear  here  to 
good  advantage.  The  elaborate  exposition  and  defence, 
therefore,  of  Bellarmin,  are  very  little  to  his  credit.  The 
following  are  some  of  his  statements  :  "  We  say  most  truly 
that  in  the  sacrament  is  body,  flesh,  and  blood,  and  that 
that  flesh  is  body,  not  spirit."  (De  Sac.  Eucharist.,  Lib.  I. 
cap.  2.)  "  Christ  does  not  have  in  the  eucharist  the  mode 
of  existence  of  bodies,  but  rather  of  spirits,  since  He  is 
entire  in  any  part."  (Ibid.)  "  Rightly  we  shall  say,  The 
body  of  Christ  is,  is  contained,  remains,  is  found,  is  taken, 
is  received  in  the  eucharist ;  but  not  rightly  should  we  say, 
The  body  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist  is  extended,  occupies 
place,  etc."  (Ibid.)  "  Imagination  is  not  able  to  conceive 
of  one  body  in  different  places,  but  reason  is  able  to  judge, 
nevertheless,  if  it  is  sound,  that  the  imagination  is  de 
ceived."  (Lib.  III.  cap.  4.)  "  It  is  the  common  opinion 
of  the  scholastics  and  the  Church,  that  the  entire  Christ 
exists  in  the  eucharist,  with  magnitude,  and  all  the  acci 
dents,  relation  to  the  celestial  place  excepted,  which  it  has 
in  heaven ;  .  .  .  and  moreover,  that  the  parts  and  mem 
bers  of  the  body  of  Christ  do  not  penetrate  each  other,  but 
are  so  distinguished  and  disposed  among  themselves  that 
they  have  both  the  figure  and  order  suitable  to  the  human 
body."  (III.  5.)  "  It  is  not  the  essence  of  magnitude  to 
occupy  place."  (III.  6.)  "  We  do  not  say  that  the  body 
of  Christ  in  the  eucharist  lacks  dimensions  or  form,"  — 
dimensionibus  aut  facie.  (III.  7.)  "  Truly  if  God  should 
remove  all  the  air  from  this  entire  hall  in  which  we  now 
are,  and  should  allow  no  more  to  enter,  we  should  all  re 
tain  our  dimensions  and  forms,  and  nevertheless  we  should 
neither  continue  in  space,  nor  would  any  one  see  the  form 
of  another."  (III.  7.)  "  It  is  false  that  it  pertains  to  the 
essence  of  an  accident  to  inhere  in  a  subject."  (III.  24.) 
Thus,  according  to  Bellarmin,  that  which  has  magnitude, 
arrangement  of  parts,  dimensions,  and  form  may,  despite 
the  imagination,  be  thought  of  as  being  at  the  same  time 


1517-1720.]     THE   CHURCH  AND   THE   SACRAMENTS.  205 

in  many  different  places,  though  it  is  not  to  be  said  to  oc 
cupy  place. 

The  standards  of  the  Greek  Church  in  this  period  affirmed 
in  relation  to  the  eucharist  the  doctrines  of  transubstan- 
tiation  and  propitiatory  sacrifice.  (Orthodox  Confession, 
Quaest.  LVL,  CVII. ;  Confession  of  Dositheus,  Decretum 
XVII.) 

Luther,  though  not  without  some  inclination  previously 
to  a  different  theory,  early  came  to  the  fixed  conclusion 
that  the  words  of  institution  must  be  taken  literally,  and 
that  accordingly  a  real  bodily  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
eucharist  must  be  affirmed.  At  the  same  time  he  repudi 
ated  the  doctrine  of  t  ran  substantiation.  From  these  prem 
ises  was  derived  the  Lutheran  tenet  which  has  sometimes 
been  described  by  the  term  consubstantiation.  This  tenet, 
while  agreeing  with  the  Roman  Catholic  teaching  respect 
ing  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood,  and  the  actual 
receiving  of  them  by  all  communicants,  worthy  or  un 
worthy,  denied  that  the  essence  of  the  bread  and  wine  is 
changed.  The  body  and  blood,  it  was  taught,  are  in,  with, 
and  under  the  elements,  not  substituted  for  their  substance. 
The  Lutheran  theory  was  also  distinguished  from  the  Ro 
man  Catholic  by  associating  the  bodily  presence  with  the 
actual  administration  of  the  rite,  as  opposed  to  the  idea 
that  it  may  properly  be  regarded  as  continuing  as  long  as 
one  is  pleased  to  preserve  the  consecrated  elements  or  their 
species.  The  Lutherans,  moreover,  in  common  with  all 
Protestants,  rejected  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  mass,  or 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  condemned  as  sacrilege  the  with 
holding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity. 

Luther  associated  the  theory  of  the  Lord's  supper  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  The  right 
hand  of  God,  it  was  maintained,  is  everywhere.  The  as 
cension  of  Christ,  therefore,  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  in  no 
wise  prevents  His  presence  in  this  world.  Even  in  respect 
of  His  humanity  he  is  universally  present,  and  so  of  course 


206  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

can  be  present  in  the  eucharist.  His  being  everywhere, 
however,  does  not  interfere  with  the  divine  appointment 
that  His  presence  should  be  specially  apprehended  in  the 
eucharist.  Moreover,  Christ's  body  is  present  in  the  eu 
charist  in  a  special  manner.  We  have  here  to  do  neither 
with  a  local  presence  (circumscriptive),  as  of  a  body  whose 
place  is  defined  by  its  relation  to  other  bodies,  nor  with  a 
presence  of  that  highest  order  by  virtue  of  which  God  is  in 
all  places  without  limitation  to  any  (repletive),  but  rather 
with  a  presence  like  that  of  a  spirit  in  a  place  (definitive). 
The  body  of  Christ  is  indeed  present  everywhere  in  the 
second  sense,  but  it  is  besides  in  the  eucharist  in  the  third 
sense.  (Kostlin.) 

The  Lutheran  Confessions  in  general  do  not  refine  upon 
distinctions  like  the  above.  In  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
however,  the  statement  is  made  that  it  is  not  after  the 
ordinary  mode  of  a  physical  presence  that  the  body  of 
Christ  is  in  the  eucharist.  Uniting  this  idea  with  the 
doctrine  of  a  real  partaking  of  the  body,  the  Formula  uses 
the  rather  contradictory  representation,  that  the  body  is 
truly  received  by  the  mouth,  but  in  a  spiritual  and  heav 
enly  manner.  It  says  :  "  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  taken  with  the  bread 
and  wine,  not  only  spiritually  through  faith,  but  also  by 
the  mouth,  nevertheless  not  Capernaitically,  but  after  a 
spiritual  and  heavenly  manner,  by  reason  of  the  sacramen 
tal  union." 

In  the  Reformed  Church  three  different  types  of  teaching 
had  a  place,  (1.)  the  Zwinglian,  (2.)  the  Calvinian,  (3.) 
the  intermediate,  or  the  modified  Calvinian. 

Zwingli  maintained,  in  opposition  to  Luther,  that  the 
words  of  institution  are  to  be  taken  figuratively.  Placing 
the  trope  in  the  copula,  he  said  that  Christ's  declaration, 
"  This  is  my  body,"  means  simply,  This  signifies  or  repre 
sents  my  body.  (Ecolampadius,  who  otherwise  agreed  es 
sentially  with  Zwingli,  placed  the  trope  in  the  word  body. 


1517-1720.]     THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  207 

The  elements,  according  to  Zwingli,  are  related  to  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  only  as  symbols.  In  the  eucharistic 
rite  the  believer  presents  a  confession  of  discipleship  and 
loyalty,  and  receives  a  token  of  love  and  fellowship.  He 
may  be  said  indeed  spiritually  to  eat  Christ's  body,  but 
"  spiritually  to  eat  Christ's  body  is  nothing  else  than  with 
the  spirit  and  mind  to  rely  upon  the  compassion  and  good 
ness  of  God  through  Christ."  (Expositio  Chr.  Fidei.)  This 
view  was  approved  by  the  Arminians  and  the  Socinians. 
Limborch  is  very  emphatic  in  asserting  the  superiority  of 
the  Zwinglian  to  the  Calvinian  theory.  (Lib.  V.  cap.  71.) 

Calvin,  coming  upon  the  stage  after  the  controversy  be 
tween  the  Lutherans  and  the  Swiss  had  been  started,  devised 
a  theory  in  a  measure  suited  to  mediate  between  the  two 
parties.  It  enabled  him  to  use  language  nearly  as  strong 
as  the  Lutheran  respecting  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  eucharist,  and  at  the  same  time  agreed  with  the  Swiss 
tenets  that  the  body  of  Christ  remains  in  heaven  and  is  not 
actually  in  this  world  at  all.  His  theory  in  brief  was,  that 
the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ  is  a  fountain  of  spiritual 
virtue  or  efficacy  ;  that  this  efficacy  is  mediated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  believing  recipient  of  the  eucharistic  elements  ; 
that  accordingly  the  body  of  Christ  is  present  in  the  eu 
charist  in  respect  of  virtue  or  efficacy ;  that  the  eating  of 
Christ's  body  is  entirely  spiritual,  by  means  of  faith,  the 
unbelieving  having  no  part  in  it,  and  an  oral  manducation 
being  out  of  question.  The  following  quotations  will  serve 
to  illustrate  Calvin's  position :  "  The  flesh  of  Christ  is  like 
a  rich,  an  inexhaustible  fountain,  which  receives  the  life 
flowing  from  the  divinity  and  conveys  it  to  us.  ...  Though 
it  appears  incredible  for  the  flesh  of  Christ,  from  such  an 
immense  local  distance,  to  reach  us,  so  as  to  become  our 
food,  we  should  remember  how  much  the  secret  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  transcends  all  our  senses,  and  what  folly  it 
is  to  apply  any  measure  of  ours  to  His  immensity.  Let 
our  faith  receive,  therefore,  what  our  understanding  is  not 


208  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

able  to  comprehend,  that  the  Spirit  really  unites  things 
which  are  separated  by  local  distance.  ...  In  the  mystery 
of  the  supper,  under  the  symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  Christ 
is  truly  exhibited  to  us,  even  His  body  and  blood.  And  the 
design  of  this  exhibition  is,  first,  that  we  may  be  united 
into  one  body  with  Him,  and,  secondly,  that  being  made 
partakers  of  His  substance,  we  may  experience  His  power 
in  the  communication  of  all  blessings.  .  .  .  Body  must  be 
body,  spirit  must  be  spirit.  .  .  .  They  are  exceedingly  de 
ceived  who  cannot  conceive  of  any  presence  of  the  flesh  of 
Christ  in  the  supper,  except  it  be  attached  to  the  bread. 
For  on  this  principle  they  leave  nothing  to  the  secret  opera 
tion  of  the  Spirit,  which  unites  us  to  Christ.  They  sup 
pose  Christ  not  to  be  present  unless  He  descends  to  us ;  as 
though  we  cannot  equally  enjoy  His  presence,  if  He  elevates 
us  to  Himself."  (Inst.,  IV.  17.) 

The  view  which  we  have  characterized  as  intermediate 
between  the  Zwinglian  and  the  Calvinian  differs  from  the 
latter  by  a  more  moderate  or  less  mystical  phraseology,  and 
by  less  positively  associating  the  spiritual  grace  which  is 
received  in  the  use  of  the  sacrament  with  the  glorified  body 
of  Christ.  Among  Reformed  Confessions,  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  and  the  French,  the  Belgic,  and  the  Scotch  Con 
fessions,  scarcely  fall  short  of  the  full  Calvinian  view.  The 
Thirty-nine  Articles  do  not,  in  explicit  terms,  come  up  to 
the  Calvinian  theory ;  they  admit  of  being  interpreted  in  a 
sense  less  remote  from  the  Zwinglian  doctrine.  However, 
it  may  be  judged  from  the  language  of  representative  the 
ologians,  like  Hooker,  that  the  Calvinian  theory  was  largely 
received  in  the  early  English  Church.  Hooker's  statements 
correspond  very  exactly  to  those  of  Calvin.  (Eccl.  Polity, 
Bk.  V.  sect.  67.)  There  are  expressions  also  in  the  writ 
ings  of  Cranmcr  and  Jewell  which  affiliate  with  the  Calvin 
ian  phraseology.  The  Second  Helvetic  and  the  Westminster 
Confessions  are  rather  favorable  than  otherwise  to  the  in 
termediate  theory  or  the  modified  Calvinian.  The  drift  in 


1517-1720.]     THE   CHURCH  AND   THE   SACRAMENTS.  209 

the  Reformed  Church  was  probably  toward  the  standpoint 
represented  by  these  Confessions. 

4.  PENANCE.  —  The  sacrament  of  penance  was  also  one 
of  the  subjects  which  the  council  of  Trent  treated  at 
length,  and  with  minute  conformity  to  the  scholastic  doc 
trine.  It  decreed  that  this  sacrament  is,  for  those  who 
have  fallen  after  baptism,  necessary  to  salvation,  and  serves 
them  as  a  second  plank  after  shipwreck ;  that  contrition, 
confession,  and  satisfaction  are  required  of  the  penitent, 
the  last  for  the  purpose  of  cancelling  the  temporal  penalty 
which  is  left  after  the  eternal  has  been  remitted ;  that 
venial  sins,  while  they  may  profitably  be  confessed,  may  be 
omitted  without  guilt,  but  each  and  every  mortal  sin,  to 
gether  with  any  circumstances  which  affect  its  nature,  must 
be  confessed ;  that  bishops  and  priests  alone  can  absolve ; 
that  the  sacramental  absolution  of  the  priest,  given  in  the 
terms,  I  absolve  thee,  is  a  judicial  act,  and  not  a  bare  min 
istry  of  declaring  sins  to  be  forgiven  to  him  who  confesses ; 
that  we  can  make  satisfaction  to  God  by  punishments  vol 
untarily  undertaken,  or  by  those  imposed  at  the  discretion 
of  the  priest,  or  by  patient  endurance  of  providential  scour- 
gings ;  that  he  deserves  the  anathema  who  says  that  the 
best  penance  is  merely  a  new  life.  This  last  specification  is 
explained  by  the  inveterate  bent  of  the  council  to  condemn 
as  nearly  as  possible  the  exact  language  of  the  Reformers, 
and  especially  of  Luther.  In  many  cases  some  extravagant 
rhetorical  statement,  which  the  great  body  of  Protestants 
never  received  without  qualification,  was  seized  upon  for 
censure.  But  occasionally,  as  in  this  instance,  a  poor  use 
was  made  of  the  genius  for  anathematizing. 

The  complete  sacrament  of  penance,  as  interpreted  by 
Romanists,  was  far  from  being  accepted  by  any  party  of 
Protestants.  Whatever  place  Luther  gave  to  confession 
and  absolution,  he  was  remote  from  the  Romish  stand 
point  ;  for  he  regarded  confession  to  an  ordained  minister 
as  rather  a  matter  of  propriety  than  of  necessity,  and  main- 

VOL.    II.  —  14. 


210  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

tained  that  it  is  by  no  means  required  to  give  a  full  cata 
logue  of  sins,  it  being  sufficient  to  mention  those  which 
specially  burden  the  conscience  and  respecting  which  ad 
vice  is  desired.  The  absolving  sentence,  spoken  in  private, 
he  looked  upon  as  essentially  the  same  as  that  given  in  the 
public  proclamation  of  the  Gospel,  but  he  considered  it  of 
great  advantage  that  an  individual  application  should  be 
given  to  the  promise  of  remission.  The  final  verdict  of 
the  Lutherans,  as  previously  stated,  was  against  styling 
absolution  a  sacrament,  but  it  gave  nevertheless  to  the 
rite  essentially  the  same  place  as  that  claimed  for  it  by 
Luther. 

The  Reformed  Church  in  general  was  much  less  favora 
ble  than  the  Lutheran  to  private  or  auricular  confession, 
and  was  disposed  to  substitute  for  it,  except  in  a  case  call 
ing  for  a  special  act  of  discipline,  simply  the  confession  of 
sins  to  God  in  private  or  in  the  congregation.  "  We  be 
lieve,"  says  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  "  this  ingenu 
ous  confession,  which  is  made  to  God  alone,  either  privately 
between  God  and  the  sinner,  or  openly  in  the  sanctuary, 
where  that  general  confession  of  sins  is  recited,  suffices, 
nor  is  it  necessary  to  obtaining  remission  of  sins  that 
any  one  should  confess  his  sins  to  a  priest,  by  whispering 
in  his  ears,  that  in  turn  with  the  imposition  of  his  hands 
he  may  hear  from  him  the  absolution ;  for  of  this  thing 
neither  any  precept  nor  example  is  found  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures."  (Cap.  XIV.)  The  French  Confession  num 
bers  auricular  confession  among  the  devices  of  Satan. 
Calvin  declares  it  a  pestilent  thing.  (Inst.,  III.  4.)  Bui- 
linger  in  his  sermons  says :  "  It  is  enough  for  us  to  con 
fess  our  sins  to  God,  who,  because  He  seeth  our  hearts, 
ought  therefore  most  rightly  to  hear  our  confessions." 
Some  of  the  Anglican  divines  gave  a  certain  place  to  pri 
vate  confession  and  absolution,  making  it,  however,  a  mat 
ter  of  choice.  Latimer  says,  if  one  cannot  be  satisfied 
with  the  general  absolution  given  in  the  place  of  worship, 


1517-1720.]     THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  211 

he  is  privileged  to  go  to  the  minister  in  private.  (Serm. 
XXII.)  Hooker  remarks  of  private  absolution,  that  it  is 
no  more  than  a  declaration  of  what  God  hath  done.  As 
respects  the  practice  of  private  confession,  he  says  that  it 
is  neither  enforced  nor  forbidden  by  the  Church  of  Eng 
land.  (Eccl.  Polity,  Bk.  VI.  sect.  4.)  Bishop  Joseph  Hall 
says  :  "  That  there  is  a  lawful,  commendable,  beneficial  use 
of  confession  was  never  denied  by  us,  but  to  set  men  upon 
the  rack,  and  to  strain  their  souls  up  to  a  double  pin  of 
absolute  necessity  —  both  prcecepti  et  medii  —  and  of  strict 
particularity,  and  that  by  a  screw  of  Jus  Divinum,  is  so 
mere  a  Roman  novelty,  that  many  ingenuous  authors  of 
their  own  have  willingly  confessed  it."  (Works,  Yol.  IX. 
p.  3GO.)  From  the  general  standpoint  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  the  power  of  the  keys  was  naturally  regarded  as 
denoting  either  the  efficacy  of  the  Gospel  message  in  bind 
ing  and  loosing,  or  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  in  the 
administration  of  discipline. 

5.  MARRIAGE.  —  Among  the  decisions  of  the  council  of 
Trent  upon  this  subject,  the  more  noteworthy  were,  that, 
while  separation  as  respects  cohabitation  may  take  place 
for  various  causes,  for  no  cause,  not  even  that  of  adultery, 
can  the  marriage  bond  be  dissolved  ;  that  clerics  in  sacred 
orders  and  regulars,  who  have  solemnly  professed  chastity, 
cannot  contract  a  valid  marriage ;  that  it  is  better  and 
more  blessed  to  remain  in  virginity  than  to  enter  into  mat 
rimony.  These  points,  if  not  positively  asserted,  were 
sanctioned  by  pronouncing  the  anathema  against  those 
denying  them. 

Protestants  were  content  to  receive  the  Romish  anath 
ema  upon  each  of  these  specifications.  The  equal  honor  of 
the  married  with  the  celibate  state,  and  the  privilege  of 
ministers  to  live  in  wedlock,  were  common  maxims  among 
them,  and  were  asserted  in  some  of  the  Confessions.  It 
was  also  commonly  taught  by  Protestant  writers,  that,  for 
the  cause  of  adultery,  a  divorce  as  to  bond,  as  well  as 


212  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

to  bed,  quoad  vinculum  as  well  as  quoad  thorum,  may  be 
granted,  so  that  no  impediment  shall  stand  in  the  way  of 
the  innocent  party  remarrying.  (Luther,  DC  Captiv.  Bab. ; 
Chemnitz,  Examen,  Pars  II. ;  Gerhard,  Confess.  Cath. ; 
Beza,  Confessio,  Cap.  Y. ;  Limborch,  Lib.  Y.  cap.  60  ;  West 
minster  Confession,  Chap.  XXIY.) 


1517-1720.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  213 


CHAPTER    VI. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

1.  CHILI  ASM.  —  By  all  the  larger  communions  chiliasm 
or  millenarianism  was  decidedly  repudiated.     It  had,  how 
ever,  considerable  currency  among  the  Anabaptists.     Some 
of  the  mystical  writers  taught  kindred  views.     The  Eng 
lish  Mede  and  the  French  Calvinist,  Jurieu,  held  the  early 
patristic  theory.      In  the  days  of  the  Rebellion  and  the 
Commonwealth,  quite  a  number  of  the  sectaries  were  mil- 
lenarians.     Such  was  the  party  designated  as  Fifth  Mon 
archy    Men.      John    Milton   believed   in   a   future   visible 
appearing  and  reign  of  Christ  upon  earth,  —  a  reign  of  a 
thousand  years.      Near  the  close  of  the  period,  William 
Petersen  attracted  attention  as  an  enthusiastic  advocate  of 
the  same  doctrine.     At  the  same  time,  a  departure  from 
the  interpretation  of  Augustine  began  to  be  made  by  some 
who,  like  him,  did  not  believe  in  the  visible  reign  of  Christ 
on  earth.     Instead  of  placing  the  beginning  of  the  millen 
nium  in  the  past,  they  located  it  in  the  future.     Whitby 
and  Vitringa  were  prominent  representatives  of  this  view. 
(Compare  the  opinion  of  the  German  minister,  Schindler, 
as  quoted  by  Calov,  Tom.  XII.  art.  4,  cap.  3,  qu.  3.) 

2.  CONDITION  BETWEEN  DEATH  AND  THE  RESURRECTION. 
-The  Protestants  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory, 

though  it  was  more  than  a  decade  after  his  appearance  as 
a  reformer  before  Luther  renounced  it  altogether.  For  the 
most  part,  also,  they  made  no  further  account  of  an  inter 
mediate  state  than  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  idea  of  a 
general  resurrection,  or  investing  of  souls  with  bodies  at 


214  HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  IV. 

the  end  of  the  world.  Those  dying  in  the  Lord  were  com 
monly  described  as  passing  at  once  to  God,  to  Christ,  to 
the  bliss  of  heaven,  and  the  wicked  were  described  as  de 
scending  into  hell.  Speaking  of  the  change  which  takes 
place  at  death,  the  Westminster  Confession  says :  "  The 
souls  of  the  righteous  being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold 
the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full 
redemption  of  their  bodies ;  and  the  souls  of  the  wicked 
are  cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter 
darkness,  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day." 
(Chap.  XXXII.)  There  were  some,  however,  who  ac 
knowledged  a  state  in  a  fuller  sense  intermediate.  Lim- 
borch,  for  example,  says  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous, 
although  in  a  state  of  bliss,  do  not  fully  triumph  in  heaven, 
or  enjoy  the  vision  of  God,  nor  do  the  wicked  undergo  the 
proper  pains  of  hell-fire,  before  the  final  judgment.  (Lib. 
VI.  cap.  10.) 

Some  of  the  Anabaptists  held  the  doctrine  of  the  sleep  of 
the  soul  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  The  same 
view  had  considerable  currency  among  the  Socinians.  The 
remarks  of  Crell  on  the  opening  of  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Second  Corinthians  imply  an  unconscious  state  of  the  de 
parted  till  the  day  of  the  resurrection;  for  he  says  they 
have  no  sense  of  the  lapse  of  time,  and  when  resurrected  it 
seems  to  them  as  if  they  had  but  just  fallen  asleep.  The 
same  theory  is  attributed  by  Coccejus  to  Schlichtingius.  (Do 
Feed,  ct  Test.  Dei,  Cap.  XYI.)  The  Racovian  Catechism, 
in  opposing  the  invocation  of  saints,  says  :  "It  is  sufficiently 
evident,  both  from  reason  and  the  sacred  Scriptures,  that 
the  dead,  while  they  remain  dead,  cannot  actually  live  ;  and 
therefore  can  neither  know  anything,  nor  hold  any  charge, 
nor  supplicate  anything  of  God."  (Y.  1.)  Hobbcs  was  also 
an  advocate  of  the  theory  of  unconsciousness. 

As  respects  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  the  Greek  Church 
differed  from  the  Romish  in  beino;  less  definite.  It  was 


1517-1720.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  215 

not  so  positive  respecting  the  geography  of  Purgatory,  and 
was  also  unwilling  to  assert  that  material  fire  is  used 
there  as  an  agent  of  purification.  As  to  the  fact,  however, 
that  there  is  a  purgatorial  period  for  those  who  die  in  sin  but 
not  without  hope,  and  that  this  period  may  be  shortened 
by  the  prayers  and  sacrifices  of  the  Church,  the  Greek 
Church,  at  least  as  represented  by  the  creeds  of  the  period, 
was  no  less  positive  than  the  Latin.  (Orthodox  Confession, 
Qua3st.  LXIV.-LXVL  ;  Confession  of  Dositheus,  Decretum 
XVIII.)  Bellarmin  gives  quite  an  elaborate  exposition  of 
the  Romish  theory  of  Purgatory.  As  the  Scriptural  war 
rant  for  the  doctrine,  he  quotes  2  Maccabees,  xii. ;  Matt.  v. 
22,  25,  26 ;  Luke  xii.  58,  59,  xvi.  9,  xxiii.  42 ;  Acts  ii.  24 
(Vulgate)  :  1  Cor.  iii.  15,  xv.  29 ;  Phil.  ii.  10.  He  teaches 
that  Purgatory  is  in  all  probability  a  subterranean  region, 
and  says  that,  although  the  nature  of  its  fire  has  not  been 
authoritatively  defined  by  the  Church,  it  is  the  common 
opinion  that  it  is  material  fire. 

3.  THE  RESURRECTION  AND  FINAL  AWARDS.  —  Nothing 
worthy  of  note  was  brought  forward  on  the  subject  of  the 
resurrection.  A  very  literal  view  was  commonly  enter 
tained.  Cudworth  was  of  the  opinion  that  souls  have  some 
kind  of  a  body  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  (Intel 
lect.  System,  Chap.  V.,)  and  Henry  More  decided  that  this 
body  is  commonly  an  aerial  one,  only  the  most  worthy 
souls  being  allowed  to  pass  at  once  into  a  celestial  body. 
(Immortal.  Animsc,  Lib.  II.  cap.  14 ;  Lib.  III.  cap.  1.) 

Exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  the  endless  punishment  of 
the  wicked  were  very  rare.  Some  of  the  Anabaptists,  as 
may  be  judged  from  the  condemnatory  sentence  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  taught  restorationism,  and  William 
Petcrscn  joined  it  with  his  millcnarianism.  The  doctrine 
of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked  is  said  to  have  had  some 
place  among  the  Socinians.  None  of  their  writers  appear  to 
have  been  advocates  of  restorationism.  Wissowatius  says  : 
"  That  those  who  disobey  the  commands  of  God  and  Christ, 


216  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  IV. 

after  being  raised  at  the  last  judgment,  will  be  doomed  to 
punishment,  and  cast  into  the  fire  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels,  has  always  been  the  opinion  of  this  Church." 
(Note  in  Racovian  Catechism.)  Hobbes  held  the  theory 
of  temporary  tortures  by  fire,  and  final  annihilation.  At 
the  same  time  he  gave  vent  to  the  altogether  peculiar  con 
ceit,  that  it  is  not  unlikely  that  victims  for  the  flames  will 
forever  be  at  hand,  since  nothing  forbids  the  supposition 
that  the  wicked  will  continue  to  propagate  after  the  res 
urrection.  (Leviathan.) 

As  appears  from  the  statements  of  Bellarmin  and  Peta- 
vius,  Roman  Catholic  theologians  held  that  material  fire 
will  be  one  factor  in  the  endless  punishments  of  hell.  (De 
Sac.  Eucharist.,  Lib.  III.  cap.  6 ;  De  Angelis,  Lib.  III. 
cap.  5.)  According  to  Bellarmin,  the  punishment  of  un- 
baptized  infants  is  not  simply  a  painless  deprivation,  since 
they  have  a  consciousness  of  their  lack,  and  suffer  some 
what  from  regrets.  (De  Amiss.  Grat.,  Lib.  VI.  cap.  6.) 
The  view  of  Petavius  seems,  to  say  the  least,  to  have  been 
no  more  lenient  to  the  hapless  innocents.  (De  Deo,  Lib. 
IX.  cap.  10.) 

Some  of  the  Protestant  theologians  were  of  opinion  that 
material  fire  has  a  place  in  the  endless  punishments  of  hell. 
This  evidently  was  the  case  with  John  Bunyan;  and  Tur- 
retin  and  Limborch  declare  that  they  find  no  adequate  rea 
son  for  ruling  out  the  notion  of  material  fire.  (Locus  XX. 
qurcst.  7 ;  Lib.  VI.  cap.  13.)  Hollaz  makes  this  state 
ment  :  "  Corpora  cruciabuntur  igni  material!  quidem,  sed 
singular!."  (Pars  III.  sect.  1,  cap.  12,  qu.  27.)  Macco- 
vius  decided  against  the  theory  of  literal  fire.  (Loci,  Cap. 
LXXXIX.)  Calvin  says :  "  As  no  description  can  equal 
the  severity  of  the  divine  vengeance  on  the  reprobate,  their 
anguish  and  torment  are  figuratively  represented  to  us  un 
der  corporeal  images  ;  as  darkness,  weeping,  and  gnashing 
of  teeth,  unextinguishable  fire,  a  worm  incessantly  gnawing 
at  the  heart,"  (Inst.,  III.  25.)  With  equal  or  still  greater 


1517-1720.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  217 

clearness  lie  indicates  in  his  exposition  of  Matt.  xxv.  41, 
that  the  fire  of  future  punishment  is  to  be  taken  in  a  meta 
phorical  sense.  (Coinm.  in  Harmon.  Evang.)  A  large 
proportion  of  Protestant  writers  were  non-committal  on 
the  subject.  We  may  presume,  however,  that  there  were 
a  number  who  leaned  to  the  view  expressed  by  these  words 
of  Whichcote :  "  Hell's  fuel  is  the  guilt  of  a  man's  con 
science."  (Serm.  III.)  In  justification  of  eternal  punish 
ment,  we  have  this  from  William  Sherlock :  "  We  must 
not  ask  how  long  punishment  a  short  sin  deserves,  but 
how  long  the  sinner  deserves  to  be  punished.  And  the 
answer  to  this  is  easy,  As  long  as  lie  is  a  sinner;  and 
therefore  an  immortal  sinner,  who  can  never  die  and  will 
never  cease  to  be  wicked,  must  always  be  miserable."  (Di 
vine  Providence.)  As  respects  the  reward  of  the  blessed, 
much  account  was  still  made  of  the  Augustinian  con 
ception. 


fifty 


1720-1885. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THIS  period  has  been  characterized  as  the  period  of  strife 
and  attempted  reconciliation.  That  it  should  possess  these 
characteristics  cannot  be  regarded  as  accidental.  The 
modern  era  dawned  with  an  unaccomplished  task  upon  its 
hands,  the  task  of  fundamental  criticism.  The  early  Chris 
tians  were  indeed  ready  to  give  a  reason  for  their  faith, 
but  they  were  not  in  the  best  condition  for  comprehensive 
and  searching  criticism,  and  erelong  the  practice  of  decid 
ing  doctrinal  matters  by  authority  came  in  to  obstruct  free 
investigation.  In  the  mediasval  period,  while  there  was 
much  acute  reasoning,  it  was  mainly  within  the  bounds 
of  the  traditional  theology.  Scarce  a  thought  was  enter 
tained  of  fundamental  Biblical  or  historical  criticism. 
In  the  Reformation  era  the  task  of  criticism  was  but  par 
tially  accomplished ;  dogmatic  fixity  came  too  soon  for  its 
satisfactory  fulfilment.  At  the  same  time,  the  principles 
of  the  Reformation  were  intrinsically  too  favorable  to  pri 
vate  judgment  and  free  thought  to  allow  of  their  being  long 
restrained  within  narrow  bounds.  The  unfulfilled  task  of 
thorough-going  criticism  must  needs  be  taken  up,  and  the 
structure  of  Christian  doctrine  be  tested  at  every  point. 
Conspiring  with  this  demand  for  a  fuller  realization  of 
what  was  implicitly  contained  in  the  Reformation  basis, 
philosophy  and  science  have  exercised  a  quickening  and 
wide-spread  influence  upon  theological  thinking  by  their 


222  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.        [PERIOD  V. 

extraordinary  achievements.  In  part  hostile  and  in  part 
friendly  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  standard  creeds,  they  have 
ministered  at  once  to  activity  in  attack  and  to  activity  in 
defence.  So  has  resulted  the  age  of  criticism  and  apology, 
of  attack  and  defence,  of  strife  and  attempted  reconcili 
ation. 

As  to  the  result,  we  apprehend  that  it  will  be  agreeable 
to  all  fervent  and  intelligent  friendship  for  Christianity. 
Those  whose  faith  rests  in  technicalities  may  suffer  loss ; 
but  those  who  take  the  larger  view,  who  do  not  cling  so 
closely  to  the  mole-hill  as  to  lose  sight  of  the  mountain, 
will  be  likely  to  be  strengthened  in  the  conviction  that  the 
grand  trend  of  Biblical  truth  can  never  be  successfully 
assailed. 


1720-1885. 


CHAPTEE    I. 

FACTOKS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 

PERIOD. 

SECTION  I.  —  PHILOSOPHY. 

No  era  in  the  whole  extent  of  history  has  been  more 
fruitful  in  philosophical  thinking  than  that  which  is  in 
cluded  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries.  Both 
as  respects  depth  and  variety,  the  speculations  of  this  era 
will  easily  stand  comparison  with  those  of  any  preceding 
age.  The  result  to  theology  must  evidently  be  important. 
Such  an  energetic  canvassing  of  the  profoundest  problems 
of  the  universe  must  bring  new  elements  into  the  sphere 
of  doctrinal  thought,  in  the  way  either  of  modification  or 
confirmation,  or  both.  As  to  the  fact  of  influence,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  However,  owing  to  the  great  complexity 
of  the  philosophical  movement,  it  is  no  easy  task  to  specify 
with  exactness  the  results  of  the  influence.  An  attempt 
at  such  specification  may  properly  be  deferred  till  after  a 
glance  at  the  different  philosophies.  In  accordance  with 
our  plan,  we  pass  in  review  only  the  more  significant  sys 
tems,  and  notice  these  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  gain  a 
fair  understanding  of  their  spirit  and  their  theological  bear 
ings.  We  begin  with  the  Leibnitz-Wolffian  philosophy. 

GOTTFRIED  WILHELM  LEIBNITZ  (1646-1716),  the  founder 
of  modern  German  philosophy,  reveals  the  bent  to  ideal- 


224  HISTOKY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

ism  so  largely  characteristic  of  German  speculation.  His 
thinking  is  everywhere  grounded  upon  the  conviction  that 
niind  must  be  regarded  as  the  fundamental  verity.  In  vir 
tue  of  this  general  standpoint  he  was  of  course  opposed  to 
such  declarations  of  Locke  as  appeared  to  affiliate  with 
a  materialistic  sensationalism.  He  discountenanced  the 
maxim,  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  mind  which  was  not 
previously  in  the  senses"  ;  at  least,  he  essentially  modified 
it  by  the  addition,  "  except  the  mind  itself."  The  mind, 
as  he  maintained,  is  not  to  be  likened  to  a  sheet  of  blank 
paper.  It  has  a  positive  constitution,  fixed  laws  of  thought. 
On  these  laws  rests  the  element  of  certainty  and  necessity 
in  our  convictions  and  conclusions.  This  cannot  come 
from  the  senses,  for  they  inform  only  of  what  is  in  par 
ticular  cases,  not  of  what  is  universally  or  necessarily. 
The  native  constitution  of  mind,  while  it  does  not  evolve 
necessary  truths  prior  to  experience  of  sensations,  is  yet 
the  real  fountain-head  of  such  truths.  Among  fundamental 
truths  or  axioms,  that  of  the  "  sufficient  reason "  was  es 
pecially  emphasized  by  Leibnitz.  This  implies  that  back 
of  the  existence  of  any  phenomenon,  or  the  validity  of  any 
judgment,  there  must  be  a  sufficient  reason  why  it  is  so 
rather  than  otherwise. 

Leibnitz  was  also  dissatisfied  with  the  Cartesian  philos 
ophy,  and  especially  with  the  results  to  which  it  had  been 
carried  forward  by  Spinoza.  The  all-embracing  substance 
and  mechanical  necessity  predicated  by  the  Jewish  specu 
lator,  left  little  place  for  individuality,  and  no  place  at  all 
for  design.  Leibnitz  was  concerned  to  give  due  recogni 
tion  to  both  of  these  principles.  In  pursuance  of  this  end, 
he  brought  out  the  most  distinctive  feature  of  his  philoso 
phy,  the  doctrine  of  monads.  A  monad,  as  he  teaches,  is 
a  simple  substance,  without  parts,  without  figure,  extension, 
or  divisibility.  (La  Monadologie.)  It  is  the  true  atom  of 
nature,  not  an  inert  or  senseless  point  of  matter,  but  a 
metaphysical  point,  a  force,  a  life,  a  perceptive  power. 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    225 

As  monads  make  up  the  sum  of  being,  it  follows  of  course 
that  there  is  nothing  lifeless  in  nature,  nothing  character 
ized  by  that  total  passivity  which  Descartes  ascribed  to 
matter.  The  differences  found  in  the  different  ranks  of 
being  are  due,  not  to  different  kinds  of  elements,  but  to 
different  stages  of  development  in  the  same  kind  of  ele 
ments.  The  monads  are  the  same  in  essence,  but  some 
are  much  more  developed  than  others.  Those  which  may 
properly  be  called  souls,  have  clear  perceptions,  accompa 
nied  with  memory.  Below  these,  ranging  down  through 
animal  life  to  inorganic  nature,  are  monads  whose  condi 
tion  ma}^  be  likened  to  one  in  a  state  of  confusion,  —  to  one 
in  dreamless  sleep,  or  lost  to  consciousness  in  a  swoon. 
In  the  hierarchy  of  created  monads,  there  is  no  wide  chasm. 
The  ascent  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  is  through  im 
perceptible  gradations,  —  an  anticipation  of  the  principle 
of  continuity  which  holds  so  prominent  a  place  in  modern 
evolutionism.  The  relation  of  this  system  of  monads  to 
space  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  space  is  purely  rela 
tive  ;  it  denotes  an  order  of  coexistence,  as  time  denotes  an 
order  of  succession.  Apart  from  creatures,  space  and  time 
would  exist  only  in  the  ideas  of  God.  (Lettres  entre  Leib 
niz  et  Clarke.) 

As  respects  each  other,  monads  are  independent,  or  only 
ideally  related  in  God.  There  is  no  interaction.  Each 
develops  from  within.  What  then  explains  their  adjust 
ment  ?  How  does  it  come  about  that  perception  and  motion 
correspond  ?  The  explanation  is  not  a  continuous  miracle, 
such  as  is  affirmed  by  the  doctrine  of  occasionalism,  but  a 
primitive  miracle,  the  pre-established  harmony  by  which 
God,  the  supreme  Monad,  has  provided  for  an  orderly  uni 
verse.  In  virtue  of  this  pre-established  harmony,  the  body, 
which  indeed  is  but  an  aggregate  of  monads,  is  kept  in 
correspondence  with  a  central  monad  which  may  be  termed 
the  soul,  and  all  monads  are  made  to  work  together  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  designs  of  infinite  wisdom.  From 

VOL.   II.  —  15. 


226  HISTORY  or  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    [PERIOD  v. 

these  premises  there  follows  evidently  the  doctrine  of  philo 
sophical  necessity.  All  events,  the  volitions  of  men  in 
cluded,  are  provided  for  in  the  pre-established  harmony. 
Human  choices  indeed  are  not  mechanically  determined; 
but  at  the  same  time  they  are  not  left  properly  contingent ; 
they  are  always  so  conditioned  by  their  antecedents  as  to 
secure  their  direction  to  a  given  result.  As  all  things  are 
thus  constrained  to  fulfil  the  divine  plan,  and  as  the  per 
fect  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  are  not  to  be  called  into 
question,  it  is  clear  that  optimism  is  in  the  right.  Reason 
must  put  a  veto  upon  the  impressions  naturally  arising  from 
our  view  of  apparent  evils  and  imperfections,  and  pronounce 
the  actual  world  the  best  possible. 

The  attitude  of  Leibnitz  toward  Christian  theology  was 
on  the  whole  decidedly  friendly.  He  accepted  the  facts  and 
the  truths  of  revelation.  In  opposition  to  Bayle  he  main 
tained  the  harmony  between  reason  and  faith,  and  left  open 
a  place  for  mysteries  by  holding  to  the  validity  of  the  dis 
tinction  between  things  above  reason  and  things  contrary 
to  reason.  (Essais  de  Theodice'e.) 

CHRISTIAN  WOLFF  (1679-1754)  performed  the  task  of 
methodizing  the  philosophical  ideas  of  Leibnitz,  which  had 
been  given  forth,  for  the  most  part,  in  detached  treatises. 
He  had  a  genius  for  form,  as  Leibnitz,  had  a  genius  for  ideas. 
The  opinions  of  his  predecessors  were  in  large  part  retained, 
but  some  modifications  were  made.  For  example,  Wolff 
declined  to  speak  of  all  monads  as  having  a  perceptive 
power  (Vorstdlungskraft),  considering  such  a  power  as 
pertaining  only  to  souls  proper.  Body  and  soul  he  regarded 
as  different  substances,  and  so  infringed  upon  Leibnitz's  view 
of  a  graduated  development  through  all  nature.  But  this 
modification  of  particular  items  involved  less  of  a  transfor 
mation,  than  the  change  which  was  made  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Leibnitzian  philosophy  by  putting  it  under  the  bonds  of 
an  elaborate  formalism.  Wolff  had  an  ambition  to  reduce 
everything  to  geometrical  precision.  Under  his  lead  a  taste 


1720-1885.1    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    227 

was  begotten  for  formal  demonstrations,  a  taste  which  evi 
dently  might  easily  serve  as  a  patron  of  rationalism. 

Germany  produced  no  rival  of  the  Leibnitz-Wolffian  phi 
losophy  till  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
grand  development  which  then  was  commenced  received  an 
initial  incentive  from  certain  phases  of  philosophical  think 
ing  which  had  appeared  in  Great  Britain.  Our  attention 
must  therefore  be  turned  in  that  direction  before  we  con 
tinue  our  account  of  the  German  systems. 

BISHOP  GEORGE  BERKELEY  (1684-1753)  brought  a  new 
factor  into  English  philosophy  by  his  idealistic  theories; 
but  at  the  same  time  he  was  not  untrue  to  the  empirical 
bent  of  that  philosophy,  inasmuch  as  he  maintained  that 
we  must  look  to  experience  and  not  depend  upon  a  priori 
reasoning.  Adopting  the  view  of  Locke,  that  the  imme 
diate  and  proper  objects  of  mind  are  ideas,  he  declared  it  a 
useless  and  unwarranted  supposition  that  there  are  any  ex 
tended  material  things  corresponding  to  the  ideas.  It  is 
useless,  because  it  explains  nothing;  for  no  one  can  tell 
how  matter  acts  on  mind.  And  it  is  unwarranted,  because 
it  is  unintelligible.  Everything  ascribed  to  bodies  —  light, 
color,  heat,  cold,  extension,  figure  —  cannot  even  in  thought 
be  separated  from  the  perceiving  mind.  It  is  an  obvious 
truth,  says  Berkeley,  "that  all  the  choir  of  heaven  and 
furniture  of  the  earth  —  in  a  word,  all  those  bodies  which 
compose  the  mighty  frame  of  the  world  —  have  not  any  sub 
sistence  without  a  mind ;  that  their  being  is  to  be  perceived 
or  known ;  that  consequently  so  long  as  they  are  not  actually 
perceived  by  me,  or  do  not  exist  in  my  mind  or  that  of 
other  created  spirit,  they  must  either  have  no  existence  at 
all,  or  else  subsist  in  the  mind  of  some  eternal  spirit ;  it 
being  perfectly  unintelligible,  and  involving  all  the  absurd 
ity  of  abstraction,  to  attribute  to  any  single  part  of  them 
an  existence  independent  of  a  spirit."  (Principles  of  Human 
Knowledge,  §  6.)  This  theory,  according  to  Berkeley,  does 
not  imply  that  we  are  the  victims  of  delusion.  We  have  to 


228  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEEIOD  V. 

deal  with  realities  on  the  idealistic  theory,  with  nature  and 
laws  of  nature ;  only,  the  realities  are  spiritual,  not  mate 
rial  or  corporeal  substances  ;  nature  is  the  complex  of  ideas 
or  impressions  produced  by  God  upon  created  minds,  and 
the  laws  of  nature  are  the  maxims  by  which  He  is  guided 
in  producing  those  impressions.  "  There  is  a  Mind,"  he 
writes,  "  which  affects  me  every  moment  with  all  the  sensi 
ble  impressions  I  perceive.  And  from  the  variety,  order 
and  manner  of  these,  I  conclude  the  Author  of  them  to  be 
wise,  powerful,  and  good,  beyond  comprehension."  (Dia 
logues  between  Hylas  and  Philonus,  II.)  Berkeley  re 
garded  his  peculiar  teaching  as  in  no  wise  ministering  to 
scepticism.  On  the  contrary,  he  maintained  that  scepticism 
finds  one  of  its  main  pillars  in  the  doctrine  of  matter. 

In  DAVID  HUME  (1711-1776)  a  radical  empiricism  was 
joined  with  an  extreme  scepticism.  He  describes  ideas  as 
the  fainter  copies  of  impressions,  under  which  he  includes 
sensations,  passions,  and  emotions  as  they  originally  ap 
pear  in  the  mind.  Any  philosophical  term,  he  teaches, 
which  cannot  be  referred  to  a  distinct  impression,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  without  foundation. 

The  scepticism  of  Hume  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 
(1.)  He  cast  doubt  upon  the  existence  of  an  external  world. 
Only  perceptions,  he  said,  are  present  to  the  mind.  We 
may  observe  relations  among  perceptions,  but  never  be 
tween  perceptions  and  objects.  "  It  is  impossible,  there 
fore,  that  from  the  existence  of  any  of  the  qualities  of  the 
former  we  can  ever  form  any  conclusion  concerning  the 
existence  of  the  latter,  or  ever  satisfy  our  reason  in  this 
particular."  (Treatise  of  Human  Nature.)  As  respects 
the  idea  of  material  substance,  what  ought  to  be  said  is, 
that  there  is  no  such  idea ;  the  expression  is  meaningless. 
(2.)  He  questioned  the  substantial  existence  of  mind. 
"What  we  call  mind,"  he  says,  "  is  nothing  but  a  heap  or 
collection  of  different  perceptions,  united  together  by  cer 
tain  relations,  and  supposed,  though  falsely,  to  be  endued 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    229 

with  a  perfect  simplicity  and  identity ."  The  category  of 
substance  is  no  less  out  of  place  in  connection  with  mind 
than  in  connection  with  matter.  "  The  question  concern 
ing  the  substance  of  the  soul  is  absolutely  unintelligible." 
(3.)  He  attacked  the  validity  of  the  category  of  causation. 
Efficiency,  he  maintained,  is  something  entirely  beyond  our 
knowledge  ;  we  know  nothing  about  efficiency  in  connection 
with  the  rise  of  any  given  event.  All  we  know  is,  that  one 
thing  is  after  another,  or  contiguous  to  another.  (Trea 
tise  of  Human  Nature,  and  also  Philosophical  Essays.) 
Our  disposition  to  predicate  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect 
is  an  uncritical  bent,  due  to  continued  associations.  Hav 
ing  many  times  seen  one  object  connected  with  another,  we 
find  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  think  of  it  out  of  relation 
to  that  object.  (4.)  He  denied  the  adequacy  of  testimony 
to  establish  the  fact  of  miracles,  mainly  on  the  ground,  that, 
the  improbability  of  a  departure  from  the  laws  of  nature 
being  greater  than  the  improbability  of  human  testimony 
being  false,  the  latter  improbability  cannot  cancel  the 
former. 

From  the  above  it  would  seem  that  the  attitude  of  Hume 
toward  religion  must  have  been  purely  destructive.  Yet  it 
was  not  formally  such.  Even  in  his  attack  on  miracles,  he 
assumes  to  reserve  a  place  for  Christian  miracles.  "  The 
Christian  religion,"  he  says,  "  not  only  was  at  first  attended 
with  miracles,  but  even  at  this  day  cannot  be  believed  by 
any  reasonable  person  without  one.  Mere  reason  is  insuf 
ficient  to  convince  us  of  its  veracity.  And  whoever  is 
moved  by  faith  to  assent  to  it  is  conscious  of  a  continued 
miracle  in  his  own  person,  which  subverts  all  the  princi 
ples  of  his  understanding,  and  gives  him  a  determination 
to  believe  what  is  most  contrary  to  custom  and  experience." 
Here,  to  be  sure,  though  his  language  does  not  differ  very 
widely  from  that  of  some  of  the  extravagant  champions  of 
orthodoxy,  the  concession  does  not  wear  the  appearance 
of  honest  intent.  The  apology  is  as  bad  as  the  attack,  — 


230  HISTOEY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

appears  indeed  to  have  been  designed  to  be  a  covert  attack. 
But  we  find  other  concessions  to  religious  ideas  which  have 
more  of  the  appearance  of  candor.  Such  are  the  following 
respecting  an  intelligent  Author  of  the  world :  "  The  whole 
frame  of  nature  bespeaks  an  intelligent  Author;  and  no 
rational  inquirer  can,  after  serious  reflection,  suspend  his 
belief  a  moment  with  regard  to  the  primary  principles  of 
genuine  theism  and  religion.  ...  A  purpose,  an  intention, 
a  design,  is  evident  in  everything ;  and  when  our  compre 
hension  is  so  far  enlarged  as  to  contemplate  the  first  rise 
of  this  visible  system,  we  must  adopt,  with  the  strongest 
conviction,  the  idea  of  some  intelligent  Cause  or  Author." 
(The  Natural  History  of  Religion.) 

The  scepticism  of  Hume  served  as  a  stimulus  to  the 
rise  of  the  opposing  Scottish  school,  whose  teaching  was 
at  first  denominated  the  Philosophy  of  Common  Sense. 
THOMAS  REID  (1710-1796),  the  founder  of  this  school,  laid 
much  stress  upon  intuitive  or  necessary  beliefs,  including 
here  such  truths  as  causation,  personal  identity,  existence 
of  an  external  world,  etc.  Such  truths,  he  maintained, 
while  they  may  not  be  capable  of  demonstration,  do  not 
need  it.  They  are  self-evident,  and  command  the  assent 
of  every  man  of  sound  understanding  who  attends  to  them 
without  prejudice.  DUGALD  STEWART  (1753-1828)  accepted 
in  the  main  the  principles  of  Reid.  SIR  WILLIAM  HAMILTON 
(1788-1856)  may  be  reckoned  in  the  same  school,  though 
making  some  rather  important  modifications  or  additions. 
Of  the  characteristics  of  this  school  Hamilton  says  :  "  The 
Scottish  school  of  philosophy  is  distinctively  characterized 
by  its  opposition  to  all  the  destructive  schemes  of  specula 
tion  ;  —  in  particular,  to  scepticism,  or  the  uncertainty  of 
knowledge ;  to  idealism,  or  the  non-existence  of  the  mate 
rial  world ;  to  fatalism,  or  the  denial  of  the  moral  uni 
verse."  As  the  last  specification  of  Hamilton  indicates, 
this  school  has  been  distinguished  by  its  emphatic  advo 
cacy  of  human  freedom.  Reid,  Stewart,  and  Hamilton  all 


1720-1885.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    231 

contended  for  freedom  in  the  sense  of  real  self-determina 
tion,  or  a  power  of  alternative  choice.  Hamilton,  it  is 
true,  regarded  such  a  power  as  inexplicable  ;  but  none  the 
less  he  asserted  its  reality.  The  friendly  alliance  of  Scotch 
philosophy  with  theistic  and  Christian  belief  in  general,  is 
too  well  known  to  require  illustration. 

Alongside  these  developments  in  the  philosophy  of  Great 
Britain,  there  was  a  very  pronounced  tendency  on  the  part 
of  a  few  thinkers  toward  materialism.  Hartley,  in  explain 
ing  psychological  facts,  made  much  account  of  nerve  vibra 
tions  and  the  laws  of  association,  but  seems  not  definitely 
to  have  asserted  man's  complete  materiality.  This,  however, 
was  done  by  his  admirer,  Joseph  Priestley,  in  unmistaka 
ble  terms.  Priestley  questioned  only  man's  spirituality, 
not  that  of  God.  Dr.  Darwin  is  credited  with  denying 
both.  Condillac  in  France,  and  the  Genevan  Bonnet,  oc 
cupied  about  the  same  position  as  Hartley,  while  the  more 
extreme  phases  of  materialism  were  represented  by  Diderot, 
La  Mettric,  Baron  d'Holbach,  and  Cabanis.  In  opposition 
to  this  development,  considerable  currency  was  given  in 
France  to  the  views  of  the  Scotch  school,  the  teachings  of 
Reid  and  Stewart  being  disseminated  by  Royer-Collard  and 
Jouffroy.  Cousin  also,  in  his  eclectic  system,  took  account 
of  the  Scotch  philosophy,  and  sought  to  unite  it  with  factors 
drawn  from  the  speculations  of  Germany. 

IMMANUEL  KANT  (1724-1804),  incited  in  particular  by 
Hume's  denial  of  causation,  undertook  a  thorough  investi 
gation  of  the  human  mind.  He  wished  to  determine  what 
conditions  and  factors  enter  into  knowledge,  and  how  far 
knowledge  in  our  present  estate  may  extend.  The  result 
of  his  examination  appeared  in  the  "  Critique  of  Pure  Rea 
son."  This  was  his  main  work,  though  other  treatises,  such 
as  the  "  Critique  of  Practical  Reason,"  and  the  "  Critique 
of  the  Judgment,"  enter  essentially  into  a  complete  view 
of  his  system.  These  works  have  been  fruitful  to  an  ex 
traordinary  degree ;  in  fact,  a  large  proportion  of  all  subse- 


232  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

quent  philosophical  thinking  is  a  comment  on  the  powerful 
influence  of  Kant  in  the  modern  intellectual  world. 

Kant's  scrutiny  of  the  instrument  of  knowledge  led  him 
to  place  very  decided  limitations  both  upon  empiricism 
and  dogmatism,  —  both  upon  the  scheme  which  would  de 
rive  all  the  elements  of  knowledge  from  experience,  and 
that  which  would  draw  out  a  system  of  truth  from  the 
innate  resources  of  the  mind.  He  emphasized  the  fact 
that  knowledge  is  not  to  be  explained  by  reference  merely 
to  sensations,  or  what  is  given  to  our  sensibility.  Sensa 
tions  without  arrangement  are  only  a  confused  manifold. 
Now  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  sensation  is  that  by  which 
sensations  are  arranged.  There  must  be,  therefore,  already 
in  the  mind  means  of  arrangement,  or  a  priori  forms. 
Space  is  such  a  mental  form.  "  Space  is  not  an  empirical 
concept  which  has  been  derived  from  external  experience. 
.  .  .  External  phenomena  become  possible  only  by  means 
of  the  representation  of  space."  The  same  is  true  of  time. 
"  Time  is  not  an  empirical  concept  deduced  from  any  ex 
perience,  for  neither  coexistence  nor  succession  would  enter 
into  our  perception,  if  the  representation  of  time  were  not 
given  a  priori"  (Transcendental  Aesthetic.)  Space  and 
time,  then,  are  the  two  a  priori  forms  of  intuition.  They 
condition  all  experience  of  phenomena.  They  are  sub 
jective,  ideal.  To  say  that  they  are  conditions  of  the  ex 
istence  of  things  in  themselves,  is  to  go  entirely  beyond 
warrant.  Besides  these  forms  of  intuition,  there  are  cer 
tain  a  priori  concepts  or  forms  of  thought,  termed  catego 
ries.  Kant  enumerates  twelve  of  these,  such  as  unity, 
plurality,  causality,  etc.  In  order  that  the  elements  or  ma 
terials  presented  to  the  mind  should  be  truly  connected, 
or  become  objects  of  experience,  they  must  come  under 
these  forms  of  thought.  So  Kant  made  room  for  a  priori 
factors,  as  opposed  to  a  wholesale  empiricism. 

But  he  was  quite  as  averse  to  a  wholesale  dogmatism 
which  cuts  loose  from  experience.  While  he  maintained 


1720-1885.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    233 

that  the  mind  has  shaping  faculties,  he  equally  maintained 
that  it  must  have  something  to  shape  in.  order  to  reach 
any  positive  results.  The  mind  must  meet  objects  sup 
plied  from  without,  in  order  to  progress  in  knowledge  of 
the  real,  just  as  the  wings  of  the  bird  must  meet  the  re 
sistance  of  the  air  in  order  to  progress  in  flight.  Reason 
apart  from  objects  thus  supplied  may  indeed  weave  'to 
gether  its  concepts,  but  the  fabric  which  is  woven  can  have 
no  claim  to  the  stamp  of  actuality. 

Now  there  is  just  one  class  of  objects  that  are  presented 
to  the  human  mind,  namely,  phenomena.  Of  noumena, 
or  things  in  themselves,  of  the  background  behind  appear 
ances,  if  there  be  any  such  background,  it  has  no  immediate 
knowledge.  And  not  only  has  it  no  immediate  knowledge ; 
it  finds  also  no  certain  ground  of  inference,  at  least  in  the 
domain  of  pure  reason,  the  domain  of  thought  and  its 
forms,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  conduct  and  its  laws. 
The  mind  here  cannot  get  beyond  the  ideal  or  hypotheti 
cal.  It  cannot  establish,  for  example,  the  substantial  and 
permanent  subsistence  of  the  soul,  or  the  existence  of  God 
as  a  necessary  and  perfect  being.  This  speculative  use  of 
reason,  however,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  fruitless,  even 
in  connection  with  such  truths  as  those  just  named.  If  it 
cannot  prove  the  objective  validity  of  the  notions  which  it 
sets  forth,  it  can  make  them  consistent  with  themselves ; 
it  can  bring  out  an  ideal  that  is  without  a  flaw,  and  which 
will  teach  us  how  to  think  of  the  corresponding  object, 
if  it  should  be  concluded  from  other  sources  that  such 
object  exists.  Moreover,  this  speculative  use  of  reason  is 
of  utility  in  assuring  us  that,  if  such  momentous  truths  as 
those  referred  to  cannot  be  proved  in  this  way,  no  more  can 
they  be  disproved.  Expressing  this  conclusion  under  the 
guise  of  his  own  personal  conviction,  Kant  says  :  "  When 
ever  I  hear  that  some  uncommon  genius  has  demonstrated 
away  the  freedom  of  the  human  will,  the  hope  of  a  future 
life,  or  the  existence  of  God,  I  am  always  desirous  to  read 


234  HISTOEY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

his  book,  for  I  expect  that  his  talent  will  help  me  to  im 
prove  my  own  insight  into  these  problems.  Of  one  thing  I 
feel  quite  certain,  even  without  having  seen  his  book,  that 
he  has  not  disproved  any  single  one  of  those  doctrines ; 
not  because  I  imagine  that  I  am  myself  in  possession  of 
irrefragable  proofs  of  them,  but  because  the  transcendental 
critique,  by  revealing  to  me  the  whole  apparatus  of  our 
pure  reason,  has  completely  convinced  me  that,  as  reason 
is  insufficient  to  establish  affirmative  propositions  in  this 
sphere  of  thought,  it  is  equally,  nay,  even  more  powerless 
to  establish  the  negative  on  any  of  these  points."  (Method 
of  Transcendentalism,  Miiller's  translation.) 

To  find  a  true  offset  to  these  agnostic  conclusions,  we 
must  proceed,  according  to  Kant,  into  the  ethical  domain, 
the  domain  of  practical  reason,  the  sphere  of  conduct  and 
its  laws.  As  we  look  into  our  moral  nature,  we  find  that 
it  asserts  one  great  all-comprehending  law  of  duty,  the 
formula  of  •which  is  as  follows :  "  Act  so  that  the  maxim 
of  thy  will  can  always  at  the  same  time  hold  good  as  a 
principle  of  universal  legislation."  This  law  is  no  mere 
inference  from  experience.  It  is  given  a  priori.  It  has 
its  seat  in  the  commonest  reason,  as  well  as  in  the  most 
speculative.  It  may  not,  indeed,  be  always  formulated  in 
the  terms  given,  but  it  is  none  the  less  acknowledged. 
Through  the  moral  law  we  are  certified  of  the  most  im 
portant  truths.  (1.)  We  are  certified  of  our  freedom. 
"  The  moral  law,  which  itself  does  not  require  justification, 
proves  not  merely  the  possibility  of  freedom,  but  that  it 
really  belongs  to  beings  who  recognize  this  law  as  bind 
ing  on  themselves."  (2.)  We  are  certified  of  our  immor 
tality.  The  moral  law  sets  before  us  a  perfect  standard, 
the  attainment  of  which  is  a  condition  of  the  realization 
of  the  highest  good.  This  standard  we  never  reach  in 
this  life,  and  can  only  meet  the  obligation  which  it  indi 
cates  in  an  endless  progress.  As  conscious,  therefore,  of 
that  obligation,  we  must  infer  an  endless  life.  (3.)  We 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    235 

are  certified  of  the  existence  of  God.  Desert  is  measured 
by  approximation  to  the  standard  of  the  moral  law,  and 
impartial  reason  requires  that  happiness  should  be  in  pro 
portion  to  desert.  Only  a  Supreme  Being  who  governs  by 
intelligence  and  will  can  meet  this  requirement. 

These  three  postulates  of  the  practical  reason  are  objects 
of  knowledge  only  in  the  sense  of  being  practically  neces 
sary.  They  are  of  the  nature  of  faith,  but  a  faith  that  is  at 
the  same  time  reason,  a  thoroughly  rational  and  warranted 
faith.  (Fundamental  Principles  of  the  Metaphysic  of  Mor 
als,  and  Critique  of  Practical  Reason,  translated  by  T.  K. 
Abbot.) 

As  respects  the  religious  bearings  of  Kant's  philosophy, 
it  is  evident,  that,  taken  in  its  entirety,  it  is  favorable  to 
theism.  It  goes  to  show  that  speculative  reason  can  in  no 
wise  disprove  the  main  truths  of  theism,  while  the  practi 
cal  reason  demands  them.  To  Christianity  as  a  system  of 
revealed  truth,  its  relation  was  not  so  positively  friendly. 
Kant  admitted  the  possibility  of  revelation,  and  was  pro 
foundly  convinced  of  the  need  of  regeneration.  But  his 
appreciation  of  the  Bible  was  largely  confined  to  its  moral 
code.  He  commented  adversely  upon  miracles,  disparaged 
the  importance  of  the  historical  element,  and  maintained 
that  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture  must  use  it  as  a 
means  of  edification,  and  draw  out,  not  the  sense  which  is 
most  agreeable  to  the  text,  but  which  is  most  agreeable  to 
the  practical  reason.  Christ,  as  he  considered,  is  the  moral 
ideal,  and  believing  on  Christ  denotes  the  inner  appreciation 
and  choice  of  this  ideal.  As  respects  the  work  of  regenera 
tion,  and  the  formation  of  a  holy  character,  Kant  did  not 
exclude  divine  assistance  therefrom,  but  his  representations 
direct  rather  to  personal  endeavor  than  to  conscious  de 
pendence  upon  divine  grace.  God  is  not  brought  near  in 
his  system  of  thought.  He  appears  mainly  as  a  means  of 
future  rewards.  Scarce  a  ray  of  that  ineffable  sunlight  of 
divine  sympathy  and  fellowship  which  shines  forth  from 


236  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

the  Gospel  is  reflected  from  the  philosophy  of  Kant.  The 
principal  merit  of  the  great  metaphysician  in  the  religious 
field  is  the  grandeur  with  which  he  invests  the  conception 
of  the  moral  law. 

JOHANN  GOTTLIEB  FICHTE  (1762-1814),  starting  from 
Kant's  philosophy,  endeavored  to  make  improvements  in  the 
interests  of  unity.  He  wished  to  show  how  the  categories 
might  be  derived  from  a  single  starting-point,  and  also  to 
overcome  the  dualism  between  subject  and  object  which  was 
contained,  or  supposed  to  be  contained,  in  Kant's  myste 
rious  things  in  themselves  (Dinge  an  sich),  which  were 
spoken  of  as  a  kind  of  background  of  phenomena.  Fichte 
assumed  as  a  starting-point  an  act,  action  in  his  view  serv 
ing  as  the  ground  of  being.  The  primitive  act  from  which 
all  development  proceeds  is  that  by  which  the  ego  posits 
itself.  Next  the  ego  posits  a  non-ego.  This  second  act  ex 
plains  the  impression  of  an  external  world.  Not  an  impact 
from  without,  not  bounds  imposed  ab  extra,  but  bounds  im 
posed  by  the  ego  upon  itself,  give  rise  to  the  impression. 
This  act  of  the  ego  takes  place  through  the  medium  of  the 
productive  imagination.  The  unavoidable  appearance  of 
externality  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  act  of  self- 
limitation  is  one  which  does  not  come  into  consciousness. 
Thus,  while  the  non-ego  is  really  due  to  the  ego,  in  con 
sciousness  they  arc  related  as  mutually  limiting  factors. 
The  positing  of  bounds  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  means  to  an 
end;  it  serves  the  purpose  of  development.  The  proper 
or  ultimate  end  of  the  ego  is  independence  of  all  bounds, 
an  end,  however,  which  it  can  never  fully  reach,  though 
it  may  continually  approach  thereto. 

To  understand  the  full  import  of  this  line  of  thought, 
it  is  necessary  to  determine  what  Fichte  meant  by  the  ego. 
By  the  ego  whose  vocation  is  to  become  absolute,  but  which 
never  completely  fulfils  this  vocation,  which  is  developed 
through  limitation  by  a  non-ego,  he  evidently  meant  the 
empirical  ego,  or  what  we  understand  by  our  finite  person- 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    237 

ality.  But  what  did  he  mean  by  the  ego  which  serves  as 
the  starting-point  ?  Did  he  mean  an  absolute  ego,  and  re 
gard  the  empirical  ego  as  the  same,  only  under  the  form 
of  self-limitation?  Did  he  hold  in  consequence  the  pan 
theistic  view  that  all  finite  personalities  are  simply  de 
velopment-forms  of  the  Absolute?  According  to  his  own 
declarations,  this  would  seem  to  have  been  his  idea  from 
the  outset.  In  his  earlier  philosophy,  however,  this  point 
was  not  particularly  dwelt  upon.  His  later  philosophy,  if 
not  changed  as  to  theoretical  basis,  did  wear  a  changed 
aspect,  because  of  the  shifting  of  emphasis  from  one  quarter 
to  another.  While  in  the  earlier  stage  the  subordination 
of  the  world  to  the  (empirical)  ego  was  the  point  of  prin 
cipal  emphasis,  in  the  later  stage  there  was  an  increasing 
emphasis  upon  the  subordination  of  the  individual  ego  to 
the  Absolute,  which  now  was  regarded  as  the  substantial 
unit  of  which  all  individuals  are  but  special  manifesta 
tions. 

It  must  be  allowed  that  Fichte,  especially  in  his  later 
writings,  showed  a  decided  appreciation  of  the  religious 
element.  He  rebuked  religious  indifference  in  the  most 
emphatic  terms.  "  All  irreligion,"  he  says,  "  remains  upon 
the  surface  of  things  and  imprisoned  in  the  empty  appear 
ance,  and  just  on  this  account  presupposes  a  lack  of  power 
and  energy  of  spirit,  and  so  necessarily  betrays  a  weakness 
of  the  head  as  well  as  of  character ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
religion,  as  rising  above  the  appearance  and  pressing  into 
the  essence  of  things,  necessarily  discloses  the  happiest 
use  of  the  powers  of  the  spirit,  the  greatest  profundity  and 
discernment,  and,  as  inseparable  therefrom,  the  greatest 
strength  of  character."  (Die  Anweisung  zum  seligen  Le- 
ben.)  Fichte  also  decidedly  opposed  the  rationalism  which 
had  been  the  fashion  in  Germany  for  a  considerable  time. 
In  his  opinion,  by  trying  to  bring  everything  down  to  the 
plane  of  common  sense,  by  forcing  everything  into  the 
moulds  of  a  narrow  understanding,  it  had  disfigured  and 


238  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

dwarfed  the  truth.  In  contrast  with  the  bare  morality  of 
Kant,  he  gave  a  place  to  mystical  devotion.  He  appro 
priated  in  particular  the  Johannine  standpoint,  speaking 
of  John's  Gospel  as  the  purest  and  most  genuine  record  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  denning  religion  as  love,  —  a  love 
of  the  divine  and  eternal  which  induces  a  radical  renuncia 
tion  of  the  selfish,  the  individual,  the  earthly.  Kespecting 
Christ,  he  maintained  that  He  occupied  an  entirely  excep 
tional  position  as  a  revealer  of  truth,  and  that  in  con 
sequence  all  ages  that  are  able  to  understand  Him  will 
confess  that  He  is  the  only-begotten  and  first-born  Son  of 
God,  and  all  men  of  understanding  will  continue  to  bow 
low  before  His  peculiar  glory.  (Anweisung.)  As  in  the 
teaching  of  Kant,  so  in  that  of  Fichte,  the  doctrine  of  im 
mortality  received  emphatic  recognition. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  points  in  the  philoso 
phy  of  Fichte  which  were  remote  from  Christian  theology, 
at  least  in  its  more  catholic  phases,  — that  is,  those  approved 
by  the  great  body  of  Christians,  whether  Greek,  Roman,  or 
Protestant.  His  teaching  was  not  theistic  in  the  Chris 
tian  sense ;  for,  while  he  strongly  asserted  the  necessity  of 
believing  in  the  existence  of  God,  he  defined  God  as  simply 
the  moral  order  of  the  universe.  (Ueber  den  Grund  unse- 
res  Glaubens ;  Appellation  an  das  Publicum  gegen  die  An- 
klage  des  Atheismus.)  It  is  true  that  his  later  works  may 
have  involved  somewhat  of  a  modification  of  this  definition, 
but  he  seems  never  to  have  changed  it  to  the  extent  of 
ascribing  personality  to  God.  In  his  "  Bestimmung  des 
Mcnschen,"  he  says:  "In  the  idea  of  personality  is  in 
cluded  limitation,  and  I  cannot  ascribe  to  Thee  one  with 
out  the  other.  I  will  not  attempt  what  is  impossible  to 
my  finite  nature  ;  I  will  not  seek  to  understand  Thy  nature 
in  itself."  As  the  whole  trend  of  his  philosophy  pre 
scribed,  Fichte  was  vigorously  opposed  to  the  common 
doctrine  of  creation.  (Anweisung.)  His  view  of  Christ 
was  scarcely  less  remote  from  the  Catholic  teaching ;  for 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    239 

the  exceptional  eminence  which  he  ascribed  to  Christ  is 
found  to  be  only  an  eminence  in  historical  position,  due  to 
the  fact  that  He  was  fully  cognizant  of  a  truth  which  no 
mortal  had  understood  before  Him,  and  which  all  who 
come  after  Him  receive,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  from  Him, 
whether  it  be  supposed  that  any  of  them  might  be  compe 
tent  to  discover  it  for  themselves  or  not;  this  was  the 
truth  of  man's  essential  unity  with  God.  Christ  had  a 
peculiarly  clear  consciousness  of  this  unity ;  however,  He 
was  not  otherwise  one  with  God  than  it  is  possible  for  any 
pious  man  to  become.  (Anweisung.)  An  atonement  in 
the  sense  of  a  satisfaction  for  sin  and  a  clearing  of  the 
way  for  man's  union  with  God,  Fichte  regarded  as  alto 
gether  out  of  the  question.  As  he  expresses  himself  in 
one  place,  there  is  no  need  of  an  atonement,  since  diremp- 
tion  from  God  is  a  mere  illusion.  "  Man  can  never  dis 
unite  himself  from  the  Godhead ;  and,  in  so  far  as  he 
imagines  himself  disunited,  he  is  nothing,  which  therefore 
cannot  sin,  but  around  whose  brow  there  lies  merely  the 
oppressive  illusion  of  sin  in  order  to  lead  him  to  the  true 
God."  (Die  Grundziige  des  gegenwartigen  Zeitalters.) 

Fichte  was  a  man  of  intense  personality.  A  reflex  of 
his  spirit,  and  in  some  measure  of  his  ideas,  may  be  seen 
in  Thomas  Carlyle. 

FRIEDRICH  WILHELM  JOSEPH  SCHELLING  (1775-1854)  va 
ried  so  largely  from  himself  in  the  course  of  his  philosophi 
cal  development,  that  a  correct  exposition  of  his  teaching 
must  take  account  of  different  eras  in  his  life.  At  least 
three  different  stages  in  his  speculations  must  be  distin 
guished,  two  of  which  fell  within  his  early  manhood.  In 
the  first,  while  showing  some  tendencies  toward  his  later 
standpoint,  he  agreed  in  the  main  with  Fichte.  In  the 
second,  he  produced  what  may  be  regarded  as  distinctively 
his  own  system  of  philosophy.  Opposing  here  the  subject 
ive  idealism  of  Fichte  which  made  self  the  only  reality,  he 
declared  for  the  equal  reality  of  the  not-self,  or,  in  other 


240  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

words,  for  making  nature  co-ordinate  with  mind.  The  dis 
tinction,  as  he  taught,  is  in  grade  rather  than  in  essence. 
Mind  is  the  same  thing  as  nature,  only  raised  to  a  higher 
power.  Nature  might  be  called  visible  spirit,  and  spirit 
invisible  nature.  Monism  is  the  true  theory.  All  things 
are  but  manifestations  of  one  essence  or  reason,  forms  of 
the  self-revelation  of  the  Absolute.  Traced  to  their  ground 
they  are  brought  to  unity.  In  -the  Absolute  all  distinctions 
are  resolved ;  mind  and  nature,  ideal  and  real,  subject  and 
object,  are  identical.  The  task  of  philosophy  is  to  rise  to 
this  undistinguished  identity,  and  to  trace  the  process  by 
which  it  is  differentiated  into  the  actual  universe.  To  ac 
complish  this  task  one  must  be  in  possession  of  a  peculiar 
gift.  As  only  the  man  who  has  a  genius  for  art  can  be  a 
true  artist,  so  only  the  man  who  has  a  genius  for  philoso 
phy,  who  possesses  the  faculty  of  "  intellectual  intuition," 
can  rise  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Absolute.  In  his  final 
stage,  Schelling  felt  it  necessary  to  substitute  the  idea  of  a 
personal  God  for  the  pantheistic  conception  of  an  inde 
terminate  Absolute,  and  also  to  lift  man  above  the  plane 
of  co-ordination  with  nature.  (Watson,  Schelling's  Tran 
scendental  Idealism.)  At  the  same  time,  however,  he  gave 
increasing  scope  to  his  bent  to  mysticism.  His  thinking 
at  this  era  was  so  mixed  with  theosophic  dreams,  after  the 
example  of  such  mystics  as  Jacob  BochmCj  as  seriously  to 
impair  its  claim  to  the  character  of  philosophy.  The  sys 
tem  representing  the  intermediate  stage  of  his  develop 
ment,  his  objective  pantheism,  Philosophy  of  Identity,  or 
by  whatever  name  it  be  called,  was  by  far  the  more  signifi 
cant  in  point  of  influence. 

Schelling  commended  his  philosophy  by  a  certain  wealth 
of  imagination  and  enthusiasm  of  feeling.  His  system  had 
strong  poetic  affinities.  It  easily  made  alliance  with  the 
Romantic  School  in  poetry,  and  was  not  a  little  fruitful  for 
such  a  high  priest  of  nature  as  Goethe.  By  this  feature  it 
was  fitted  to  render  a  service  to  religion.  It  inculcated 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    241 

that  truth  which  belongs  to  all  poetic  contemplation  of  the 
world,  —  the  truth  that  nature  must  be  viewed  as  closely 
linked  with  spirit.  It  called  attention  to  the  divine  imma 
nence,  and  presented  an  offset  to  those  ways  of  thinking 
which  separate  too  widely  between  God  and  His  workman 
ship.  Nevertheless,  the  Philosophy  of  Identity,  as  worked 
out  by  Schelling,  must  be  regarded  as  largely  alien  from 
Christian  thought.  It  went  far  astray  from  the  Christian 
standard  in  its  fundamental  tenet.  Its  doctrine  of  God 
runs  into  the  unhealthy  maze  characteristic  of  all  panthe 
istic  speculation.  "  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  All-One,  which 
is  now  conceived  as  God  and  now  as  the  world,  and  there 
fore  does  not  lead  to  any  true  worship  of  God,  but  passes 
off  into  that  poetical  enthusiasm  for  nature  which  consti 
tutes  the  foundation  of  heathen  worship."  (Hagenbach.) 
In  its  interpretation  of  the  incarnation  it  deviates  equally 
with  Fichte  from  the  Catholic  theory.  While  allowing  to 
Christ  a  unique  historical  position  in  the  illustration  of 
man's  unity  with  God,  it  denies  to  Him  any  transcendent 
eminence  as  respects  the  fact  of  such  unity.  "  The  incar 
nation  of  God,"  says  Schelling,  "  is  an  incarnation  from 
eternity.  The  man  Christ  is  in  manifestation  only  the 
culmination,  and  in  so  far  also  again  the  beginning  of  the 
same,  for  from  Him  it  is  to  progress  in  virtue  of  the  fact 
that  all  of  His  disciples  shall  be  members  of  one  and  the 
same  body  of  which  He  is  the  head."  (Vorlesungen  liber 
die  Methode  des  akademischen  Studiums,  IX.)  In  his 
later  teaching  Schelling  gives  a  different  exposition  of  the 
subject.  He  there  asserts  that  Christ  must  be  regarded, 
not  merely  as  the  teacher  or  founder  of  Christianity,  but 
as  the  content  of  Christianity,  and  that  any  one  having  the 
least  acquaintance  with  the  New  Testament  declarations 
must  assign  to  Him  an  importance  far  transcending  any 
thing  human  or  earthly.  In  His  pre-incarnate  history  He 
was  primarily  a  divine  potence  in  the  Father,  which  first 
at  the  end  of  creation  appeared  as  a  Divine  Person.  (Philo- 

VOL.    II.  —  16. 


242  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

sophie  der  Offenbarung.)  In.  his  dislike  of  the  rationalism 
of  the  times,  the  so-called  Illumimsm,  Schelling  was  from 
the  first  at  one  with  Fichte. 

GEORG  WILHELM  FRIEDRICH  HEGEL  (1770-1831),  after 
working  for  an  interval  in  harmony  with  Schelling,  pro 
ceeded  to  develop  an  independent  system  of  philosophy. 
The  ground  of  his  exception  to  Schelling  was  not  at  all  in 
his  general  conception  of  the  problem  to  be  solved.  No  less 
than  his  ambitious  contemporary,  Hegel  made  philosophy 
to  deal  with  the  Absolute,  with  God.  Its  task  is  nothing 
less  than  to  rise  to  a  knowledge  of  being  at  its  source,  and 
to  trace  it  in  its  outgoings,  its  development  into  the  organ 
ism  which  makes  the  universe.  Thus,  in  striking  contrast 
with  Kant's  denial  of  a  metaphysic  of  the  Absolute,  he  held 
that  it  may  be  thoroughly  known.  "  Philosophy,"  he  says, 
"has  the  purpose  to  know  the  truth,  to  know  God,  for  He 
is  the  absolute  truth,  in  so  far  that  nothing  else,  in  com 
parison  with  God  and  His  explication,  is  worth  one's 
pains."  (Philosophic  der  Religion,  Theil  III.)  So  far  from 
withdrawing  from  knowledge,  it  is  the  very  nature  of  God 
to  reveal  Himself.  "  All  that  God  is,  He  imparts  and  re 
veals."  (Logik,  Cap.  VIII.,  translation  by  Wallace.)  He 
does  this  of  necessity  as  spirit.  "  A  spirit  that  is  not  re 
vealed  is  not  spirit,"  —  ein  Geist  der  nicht  offenbar  1st,  ist 
nicht  Geist.  (Phil,  der  Relig.)  Spirit  is  not  a  blank  un 
distinguished  unity ;  it  is  a  unity  of  opposed  elements ;  it 
involves  necessarily  a  process,  an  unfoldment,  a  self-revela 
tion,  so  that  the  act  of  self-revelation  enters  into  the  very 
definition  of  God  as  spirit.  Nor  is  this  self-revelation  to 
be  regarded  as  outside  the  circle  in  which  human  faculties 
move.  It  is  a  revelation  to  man.  To  plead  man's  fmitude 
is  illegitimate,  for  it  is  not  the  so-called  reason  of  man  in 
its  limitations  that  knows  God,  "  but  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
man ;  it  is,  to  use  the  speculative  expression  which  has 
been  employed,  the  self-consciousness  of  God  which  knows 
itself  in  man's  knowing."  (Vorlesungen  uber  die  Beweise 
vom  Daseyn  Gottes.) 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    243 

What  Hegel  did  object  to  in  Schelling  was  (1.)  his  too 
easy  assumption  of  his  starting-point,  and  (2)  his  failure 
to  explain  all  the  steps  in  the  unfoldment  from  that  start 
ing-point.  The  starting-point  is  indeed  pure  and  absolute 
being,  but  this  needs  to  be  justified  by  showing  that  the 
mind  in  its  regress  from  the  particular  and  the  phenom 
enal  cannot  stop  short  of  that  ultimate  goal  which  is 
found  in  the  most  indeterminate  and  universal  idea.  This 
preliminary  investigation  being  completed,  philosophy  is 
prepared  to  construct  its  system,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
show  how  the  whole  system  of  things,  whether  in  the 
realm  of  mind  or  of  nature,  is  evolved  from  the  Abso 
lute,  which  is  viewed  in  the  first  instance  as  subsisting  in 
utter  indeterminateness.  In  accomplishing  this  task,  the 
philosopher  is  not  to  resort  to  any  mystical  principle  of 
intuition.  He  must  depend  rather  upon  patient,  consistent 
reasoning.  Thought,  when  it  runs  a  complete  and  normal 
course,  is  a  reflex  of  the  process  by  which  the  universe  was 
constituted.  Indeed,  the  universe  is  but  evolved  thought. 
Being  and  thought  are  identical.  "  Everything  is  in  its 
own  self  the  same  as  it  is  in  thought."  (Logik.)  A  thinker 
is  only  a  thought  conceived  as  a  subject.  The  great  requi 
site,  therefore,  for  progress  to  a  complete  grasp  of  the 
truth,  is  to  keep  thought  pure,  unmixed  with  ingredients  of 
appetite,  will,  or  egoistic  opinions.  "  When  we  think,  we 
renounce  our  selfish  and  particular  being,  sink  ourselves  in 
the  thing,  allow  thought  to  follow  its  course,  and  if  we  add 
anything  of  our  own  we  think  ill."  (Logik.) 

According  to  Hegel,  if  we  are  to  think  things  as  they 
are,  we  must  comprehend  in  our  thoughts  a  plurality  of  ele 
ments.  To  isolate  an  element  is  to  make  it  abstract  or  un 
real.  The  concrete  alone  is  real,  and  the  concrete  is  a  unity 
of  contraries.  So  thought  which  reflects  the  nature  and 
order  of  being  must  move  through  a  succession  of  triads, 
a  process  of  conjoining  two  opposite  notions  and  uniting 
them  in  a  third  or  larger  notion,  of  which  they  constitute 
the  moments. 


244  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

As  in  the  Absolute  thought  and  actuality,  the  ideal  and 
the  real,  are  identical,  we  have  only  to  follow  out  the  natu 
ral  order  of  the  evolution  of  thought  to  get  the  whole  system 
of  truth  or  reality.  Styling  the  Absolute,  thus  conceived, 
the  Idea,  Hegel  assigns  its  exposition  to  three  different 
branches,  which  together  make  up  philosophy.  The  three 
branches,  corresponding  to  the  three  grand  stages  in  the 
movement  of  thought,  are  (1.)  Logic,  the  science  of  the 
Idea  in  itself;  (2.)  Philosophy  of  Nature,  the  science  of 
the  Idea  in  the  reflection  of  itself;  (3.)  Philosophy  of 
Mind,  the  science  of  the  Idea  in  its  return  to  itself  from 
its  self-estrangement  in  nature. 

In  the  Logic  Hegel  lays  down  the  starting-point.  "  Mere 
being,"  he  says,  "makes  the  beginning,"  —  that  is,  being 
which  is  not  specialized  by  any  characteristics,  not  medi 
ated  by  any  other  notion;  for,  if  that  were  the  case,  it 
would  not  be  the  beginning.  Mere  being,  having  no  attri 
bute  by  which  it  is  set  off,  is  undistinguished  from  not- 
being.  One  may  say,  that,  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  definite 
or  specified  difference  between  them,  they  are  identical. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  equally  justified  in  saying  that 
they  are  different.  The  proper  conclusion  is,  that  they  are 
but  moments  in  a  third  notion,  becoming,  which  is  the  first 
concrete  thought.  In  like  manner,  by  the  successive  pre 
sentation  of  contraries  and  their  reconciliation,  the  evolution 
of  thought  is  carried  forward.  More  and  more  definite  re 
sults  are  reached.  The  hierarchy,  or  ideal  world,  of  thought 
is  completed,  and  the  second  grand  stage,  in  which  thought 
is  externalized  in  nature,  is  entered  upon.  Nature,  passing 
through  its  triads  of  properties,  forms,  and  structures, 
reaches  its  culmination  in  the  physical  organization  of  man. 
From  this  point  begins  the  return  movement,  which  com 
pletes  the  circle,  in  that  thought  comes  back  to  a  recogni 
tion  of  its  source  in  the  Absolute. 

The  real  bearing  of  Hegel's  philosophy  upon  Christian 
theology  is  not  easily  defined.  Its  formal  attitude  was  no 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    245 

doubt  friendly.  It  assumed,  indeed,  to  give  a  philosophical 
statement  of  the  leading  truths  of  the  Christian  system,  to 
substitute  exact  terms  for  the  popular  and  more  or  less 
symbolical  phraseology  in  use  in  the  Church.  Some  of  the 
very  dogmas  most  offensive  to  rationalism  were  taken  un 
der  its  special  patronage.  In  his  general  doctrine  of  God, 
Hegel  uses  some  expressions  which  savor  of  the  ordinary 
theistic  conception,  and  some  which  appear  decidedly  ad 
verse  to  that  conception.  He  has  no  objection  to  speaking 
of  the  personality  of  God.  "  The  Christian  God,"  he  says, 
"  is  God  not  known  merely,  but  also  self-knowing ;  He  is  a 
personality  not  merely  figured  in  our  minds,  but  rather 
absolutely  actual."  Referring  to  Spinoza's  doctrine,  he 
says :  "  Though  an  essential  stage  in  the  evolution  of  the 
idea,  substance  is  not  the  same  with  absolute  idea,  but  the 
idea  under  the  still  limited  form  of  necessity.  It  is  true 
that  God  is  necessity,  or  as  we  may  put  it,  that  He  is  the 
absolute  thing  or  fact :  He  is,  however,  no  less  the  absolute 
Person.  That  He  is  the  absolute  Person,  however,  is  a 
point  which  the  philosophy  of  Spinoza  never  perceived ; 
and  on  that  side,  it  falls  short  of  the  true  notion  of  God, 
which  forms  the  content  of  the  religious  consciousness  in 
Christianity."  (Logik,  Cap.  VIII.)  To  have  completed  his 
view,  Spinoza  should  have  added  to  the  Oriental  view  of  the 
unity  of  substance  the  Occidental  principle  of  mdiviclualit}'. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  Hegel  indulges  representations  that 
accord  rather  with  a  pantheistic  than  with  a  theistic  theory, 
representations  which  seem  to  extinguish  all  definite  bounds 
between  God  and  the  creature.  He  says,  "  Every  individ 
ual  being  is  some  one  aspect  of  the  Idea,"  that  is,  of  uni 
versal  Reason  or  God.  (Logik,  Cap.  IX.)  He  also  remarks, 
"  The  truth  [made  manifest  in  the  incarnation]  is,  that 
there  is  only  one  Reason,  one  Spirit,  that  the  spirit  as 
finite  has  not  true  existence."  (Phil,  der  Relig.)  Such 
expressions  as  these,  as  well  as  his  general  theory  of  evo 
lution,  seem  to  reduce  all  finite  things  to  moments  in  the 


246  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  Y. 

process  of  the  Absolute  by  which  it  comes  to  a  full  self- 
realization. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Hegel  maintains,  is  funda 
mental  to  a  true  theology  or  philosophy,  and  he  stigmatizes 
its  opponents  as  being  only  die  sinnlicken  und  die  Ver- 
standes-Menschen.  In  his  view,  the  very  conception  of  God 
as  Spirit  involves  a  trinitarian  distinction.  For,  God  is 
spirit  only  as  He  is  the  totality  of  a  process,  and  three 
stages  enter  essentially  into  the  completion  of  the  process. 
"  Spirit,"  he  says,  "  is  the  divine  history,  the  process  of 
distinguishing  and  separating  self  and  receiving  this  back 
again  into  self.  ...  As  totality  is  God  the  Spirit,  God  as 
merely  the  Father  is  not  yet  the  true.  He  is  rather  begin 
ning  and  end.  .  .  .  He  is  the  eternal  process.  .  .  .  He  is 
this  life-process  (^Lebensverlauf),  the  Trinity,  wherein  the 
Universal  places  itself  over  against  itself,  and  therein  re 
mains  identical  with  itself."  (Phil,  der  Relig.)  In  other 
words,  thought  objectifies  itself,  the  Father  becomes  object 
to  Himself  in  the  Son.  In  the  Spirit,  which  is  love,  or 
consciousness  of  self  in  another,  the  divine  subject  and 
object  find  their  unity. 

As  respects  the  person  of  Christ,  it  of  course  occasioned 
no  difficulty  to  Hegel  to  conceive  of  a  union  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  in  Him.  It  was  a  favorite  tenet  of  his,  that 
finite  and  infinite  are  not  to  be  set  over  against  each  other 
as  mutually  exclusive.  The  infinite  includes  the  finite. 
To  exclude  the  latter  from  the  former  is  to  limit  the  for 
mer  and  reduce  it  to  a  finite.  "  The  real  infinite,  far  from 
being  a  mere  transcendence  of  the  finite,  always  involves 
the  absorption  of  the  finite  into  itself."  As  this  view  ap 
plies  to  the  finite  in  general,  it  does  not  necessarily  imply 
any  special  pre-eminence  of  the  historical  Christ.  But 
Hegel,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  declares  for  such  a  pre-eminence. 
In  Christ,  he  says,  is  brought  to  view  the  absolute  trans 
figuration  of  the  finite.  No  man  standing  on  the  ground 
of  the  true  religion  can  call  Him  simply  a  teacher  of  man- 


1720-1885.]    FACTOKS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     247 

kind  and  a  martyr  of  the  truth.  He  was  conscious  of  His 
identity  with  God,  and  spoke  with  the  inimitable  majesty 
belonging  to  such  a  consciousness.  Herein  he  fully  real 
ized  what  other  men  have  only  striven  after.  This  is  the 
supreme  evidence  in  his  behalf.  The  spiritual  man  needs 
nothing  more.  He  does  not  require  miracles,  though  it  is 
nothing  incredible  that  spirit,  which  is  itself  the  great 
miracle,  should  be  able  to  reveal  a  mastery  over  the  forces 
of  nature,  and  the  modern  unbelief  in  miracles  rests  on  a 
superstitious  estimate  of  the  might  of  nature  as  opposed 
to  the  independence  of  the  spirit.  In  the  death  of  Christ, 
God  is  seen  to  share  the  extreme  lot  of  man's  finitude. 
His  death  is  therefore  a  manifestation  of  infinite  love, 
an  image  of  the  eternal  process  in  which  God  imparts 
Himself,  as  the  resurrection  is  an  image  of  the  return  to 
Himself. 

Hegel  speaks  in  terms  of  profound  admiration  of  the 
Bible,  and  declares  that  the  familiarity  with  it  characteristic 
of  Protestant  lands  gives  them  an  unmeasured  advantage 
over  Roman  Catholic  countries.  "  In  the  former,"  he  says, 
"  the  Bible  is  the  safeguard  against  all  slavery  of  the 
spirit,"  —  das  Rettungsmittel  gegen  alle  Knechtschaft  des 
Geistes.  (Phil,  der  Relig.)  But  on  the  other  hand,  like 
Kant,  he  lays  little  stress  upon  the  historical  clement  in 
the  Bible,  and  maintains  that  it  should  be  interpreted  in 
the  interests  of  edification, — in  other  words,  as  suggestive 
or  symbolical  of  philosophical  truths.  "  The  true  Christian 
content  of  faith,"  he  says,  "  is  to  be  justified  through  phi 
losophy,  not  through  history." 

On  the  whole,  the  bearing  of  Hegel's  philosophy  upon 
Christian  theology,  notwithstanding  its  general  tone  of 
appreciation  and  its  points  of  affinity,  is  rather  ambiguous. 
It  appears  as  a  doubtful  ally,  whether  judged  by  its  princi 
ples  or  by  its  results.  It  may  be,  as  some  have  supposed, 
that  if  a  longer  period  had  been  granted  to  Hegel  to  perfect 
his  views,  he  would  have  brought  his  philosophy  at  various 


248  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

points  more  definitely  into  line  with  Christian  truth.  As 
it  was,  it  served  naturally  as  the  basis  of  a  mixed  develop 
ment.  While  some  sought  to  interpret  it  in  harmony  with 
the  leading  truths  of  Christian  theology,  others,  the  so- 
called  left  wing  of  the  Hegelians,  regarded  it  as  a  chosen 
instrument  for  vaporizing  that  theology  out  of  existence. 
The  names  of  Strauss,  Bruno  Bauer,  and  Feuerbach,  indi 
cate  to  what  extremes  results  were  carried  on  this  side. 

Alongside  the  idealistic  systems  which  began  with  Kant, 
and  culminated  in  Hegel,  a  different  philosophical  develop 
ment  had  place,  one  in  which  the  intellectual  element  was 
less  dominant.  Here  belongs  the  teaching  of  FRIEDRICH 
HEINRICH  JACOBI  (1743-1819),  and  also  that  of  Schleier- 
macher.  Jacobi's  system  has  sometimes  been  called  the 
faith  philosophy.  An  enemy  to  all  dogmatic  systems,  like 
that  of  Spinoza,  having  no  confidence  in  formal  demon 
strations  to  get  at  the  truth,  he  maintained  that  faith,  or 
intuitive  belief,  is  the  ground  of  certitude.  The  spontaneous 
conviction  of  the  reality  of  an  external  world,  which  is  in 
separable  from  our  sense-perceptions,  approves  the  existence 
of  that  world  to  us  in  the  most  satisfactory  way  possible. 
In  like  manner  we  are  assured  of  supersensible  realities,  of 
the  existence  of  God.  As  nature  testifies  to  itself  by  press 
ing  into  our  experience,  so  does  God  testify  to  Himself. 
We  have,  so  to  speak,  an  experience  of  God,  that  is,  expe 
riences  from  which  rises  immediately  the  conviction  of 
God's  being  and  perfection.  To  Jacobi  the  pantheistic 
conception  was  exceedingly  distasteful.  He  believed  in  a 
God  who  has  intelligence  and  will,  a  personal  God,  who  is 
above  men  as  well  as  in  men.  In  these  points  consisted 
the  affinity  of  his  teaching  for  Christian  theology.  Toward 
Christianity  as  an  historical  and  revealed  system  he  occu 
pied  a  rather  negative  position. 

FRIEDRICH  ERNST  DANIEL  SCHLEIERMACHER  (1768-1834) 
in  his  general  philosophy  modified  the  teachings  of  Kant 
with  the  intent  to  do  full  justice  to  the  realistic  as  well  as 


1720-1885.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     249 

to  the  idealistic  elements  in  the  same.  "  With  him  space, 
time,  and  causality  are  not  merely  forms  of  a  phenomenal 
world,  existing  solely  in  the  consciousness  of  the  percipient 
subject,  but  are  also  forms  of  the  objective  real  world  which 
confronts  him  and  conditions  his  knowledge."  (Ueberweg.) 
His  conception  of  the  nature  of  God  and  of  his  relation 
to  the  world  leaned  toward  a  pantheistic  theory.  In  his 
ethics  he  sought  to  give  proper  scope  to  the  element  of 
individuality,  and  thus  to  modify  or  supplement  the  uniform 
code  which  Kant  prescribes  for  all  moral  agents.  In  his 
religious  philosophy  he  appears  in  part  akin  and  in  part 
supplementary  to  Jacobi.  Like  the  latter,  he  placed  much 
stress  upon  the  religious  consciousness,  upon  the  profounder 
feelings  in  the  soul.  The  feeling  of  dependence  upon  God 
he  regarded  in  particular  as  the  foundation  of  all  religion. 
At  the  same  time,  he  included  important  factors  which 
Jacobi  failed  to  appropriate,  inasmuch  as  he  had  a  much 
larger  appreciation  of  the  historical  element  in  Christianity, 
believed  that  religious  life  can  be  properly  realized  only 
in  fellowship,  or  through  the  offices  of  the  Church,  and 
attached  immense  importance  to  the  person  of  Christ  as 
the  one  centre  and  the  perfect  bond  of  that  fellowship. 
As  Schleiermacher  was  still  more  eminent  as  a  theologian 
than  as  a  philosopher,  we  may  fittingly  reserve  his  specific 
views  for  a  mention  under  the  various  topics  of  theology. 

A  passing  reference  may  be  made  to  the  systems  of  AR 
THUR  SCHOPENHAUER  (1788-1860)  and  EDUARD  VON  HART- 
MANN  (1842-),  though  not  because  of  any  affinity  between 
their  spirit  and  leading  tenets  with  Christian  thought.  Both 
are  systems  of  atheistic  monism  and  pessimism.  Accord 
ing  to  Schopenhauer,  the  one  substantial  and  fundamental 
reality  is  will.  Intellect  is  only  an  adjunct  which  will  cre 
ates  for  its  own  purpose.  In  general,  will  is  unconscious 
force,  but  in  man  it  rises  to  consciousness.  The  essence 
of  conscious  will  is  unsatisfied  striving  or  misery.  The 
actual  world  is  the  worst  possible.  Lapse  into  nothing- 


250  HISTOKY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  Y. 

ness  is  the  proper  goal  of  human  desire,  for  it  is  the  only 
cure  for  unceasing  pain.  Hartmann  in  his  "  Philosophy  of 
the  Unconscious  "  departs  from  Schopenhauer,  by  making 
intellect  co-ordinate  with  will.  In  the  Unconscious,  which 
is  the  ground  of  all  existence,  the  two  are  inseparably  con 
joined.  In  man,  however,  a  severance  has  taken  place ; 
opposition  to  the  will  is  realized,  and  so  consciousness  is 
produced.  The  struggle  between  consciousness  and  will  is 
a  source  of  continual  misery.  Relief  will  come  only  when 
the  race  of  conscious  beings  has  been  so  far  educated,  that 
by  common  consent  it  will  elect  extinction.  (See  Francis 
Bowen,  Modern  Philosophy.) 

Among  the  more  recent  German  philosophies,  those  of 
JOHANN  FRIEDRICH  HERBART  (1776-18-41)  and  RUDOLPH 
HERMANN  LOTZE  (1817-1882)  claim  a  prominent  place. 
Herbart  regarded  Kant  as  more  than  any  other  his  philo 
sophical  master.  He  shows  also  considerable  affinity  with 
Leibnitz.  As  opposed  to  Fichte  and  Schelling,  he  sought  to 
sustain  the  claims  of  realism,  — this  term  being  used  here, 
of  course,  not  in  the  scholastic,  but  the  current  modern 
sense.  The  proper  materials  of  philosophy,  as  he  main 
tained,  are  given  in  experience.  As  thus  given,  however, 
they  are  not  satisfactory  to  reason,  inasmuch  as  they  in 
volve  contradictory  conceptions.  The  proper  task  of  philo 
sophical  thinking  is  to  resolve  these  contradictions,  and  in 
this  way  to  bring  settled  conviction  into  the  place  of  scepti 
cism.  As  respects  religion,  Herbart  regarded  it  as  based 
mainly  upon  faith,  or  the  practical  reason.  While  he 
averred  that  the  design  exhibited  in  nature  implies  a  divine 
intelligence,  he  held  with  Kant  that  a  proper  metaphysic 
of  Deity  is  beyond  man's  capabilities. 

Lotze  shows  a  measure  of  affinity  with  Herbart,  and  a 
still  greater  with  Leibnitz.  Appearing  at  an  era*  when  the 
idealistic  and  dogmatic  philosophy  represented  by  Fichte, 
Schelling,  and  Hegel  had  reached  its  culmination,  and  at 
the  same  time  prominent  tendencies  to  materialism  had 


1720-1885.]  T ACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     251 

appeared  in  scientific  circles,  his  system  presents  an  offset 
to  both  phases.  As  opposed  to  dogmatic  idealism,  Lotze, 
asserts  a  wide  place  for  the  empirical  method,  the  process 
of  patient  and  searching  examination  into  the  facts  of 
experience.  He  maintains  that  the  dictum  set  forth  by 
Fichte,  and  followed  by  others,  —  namely,  that  philosophy 
must  first  lay  hold  upon  some  single  principle,  and  then 
draw  out  everything  from  that,  —  has  been  productive  of 
great  mischief.  Such  a  dictum  would  indeed  be  in  place 
if  a  man  could  transfer  himself  to  the  centre  of  the  uni 
verse,  and  view  everything  as  it  appears  to  perfect  insight 
from  that  standpoint.  But  no  man  can  do  this.  The  fea 
sibility  of  the  attempt  is  refuted  by  its  representatives. 
Hegelians  disprove  the  Hegelian  method  by  their  radical 
differences  among  themselves.  The  sweeping  assumption 
at  the  basis  of  Hegelianism,  respecting  the  identity  of  be 
ing  and  thought,  is  untenable.  Philosophy,  by  proceeding 
with  less  assumption  and  more  modesty,  will  reach  more 
trustworthy  results. 

At  the  same  time  Lotze  was  strongly  opposed  to  materi 
alism,  and  worked  zealously  and  ably  in  refutation  of  the 
theories  of  Biichner,  Moleschott,  and  others.  Indeed,  his 
opposition  to  the  preceding  idealistic  philosophies  was 
not  so  much  an  opposition  to  their  idealism,  as  to  their 
dogmatism  and  one-sidedness.  Materialism,  he  claims, 
is  incompatible  with  facts.  It  cannot  be  harmonized  with 
our  unity  of  consciousness,  without  which  the  totality  of 
our  inner  states  would  never  become  an  object  of  our  ob 
servation.  Unity  of  consciousness  requires  the  affirmation 
of  an  immaterial  supersensible  essence,  or  soul.  (Mikro- 
kosmus,  Buch  II.)  In  truth  souls,  or  spirits,  make  up  the 
sum  of  substantial  beings.  All  the  attributes  ascribed  to 
matter  may  be  explained  by  the  relations  of  simple  unex- 
tcndcd  beings. 

According  to  Lotze,  all  things  find  their  bond  of  union 
in  God,  who  is  the  necessary  pre-supposition  of  a  cosmos. 


252  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

The  nature  of  God,  as  he  asserts  very  emphatically,  in 
cludes  the  feature  of  personality.  God's  infinitude,  so  far 
from  excluding  personality,  is  just  the  reason  why  he  has 
personality  in  the  utmost  perfection.  Self-consciousness  is 
perfect  in  Him,  as  He  is  fully  revealed  to  Himself,  whereas 
in  a  man  there  is  much  that  is  not  revealed  to  himself. 
God  needs  no  non-ego  to  be  set  over  against  Him  in  order 
to  arrive  at  self-consciousness.  In  His  perfection  He  has 
an  immediate  grasp  of  Himself.  To  begin  thus  with  a  per 
sonal  or  self-conscious  God  involves  no  peculiar  difficulties. 
"  When  we  characterize,"  says  Lotze,  "  the  inner  life  of  the 
personal  God,  the  stream  of  His  thoughts,  His  feelings, 
His  will,  as  eternal  and  beginninglcss,  as  never  having 
been  in  rest  and  impelled  out  of  no  still-stand  into  motion, 
we  exact  of  the  imagination  no  greater  task  than  is  re 
quired  of  it  by  every  materialistic  or  pantheistic  view." 
For  every  such  view  must  assume  an  uncaused  motion  of 
the  substance  of  the  world,  or  an  absolute  beginning  of 
motion  which  seizes  hold  of  a  previously  existing  and  inert 
substance,  and  the  latter  view  cannot  stand  any  close  in 
spection.  (Mikrokosmus,  Buch  IX.  cap.  4.) 

A  philosophy  kindred  with  that  of  Lotze  in  its  antago 
nism  to  materialism  and  its  emphasis  upon  the  idea  of  a 
personal  God,  and  set  forth  in  language  of  marked  clear 
ness  and  terseness,  has  recently  been  presented  to  the  pub 
lic  in  the  works  of  Professor  BORDEN  P.  BOWNE. 

In  both  France  and  England  the  succession  in  the  line 
of  the  sensational  philosophy  has  been  pretty  well  kept  up 
down  to  the  present.  In  France  AUGUSTE  COMTE  has  ap 
peared  as  a  zealous  advocate.  His  fundamental  thesis  is, 
that  human  thinking  in  all  the  varied  branches  of  inquiry 
runs  through  three  stages  :  the  theological,  which  explains 
the  world  and  the  events  in  the  world  by  reference  to 
supernatural  beings  ;  the  metaphysical,  which  resorts  to 
metaphysical  entities  or  abstractions ;  the  positive,  which, 
recognizing  the  vanity  of  seeking  any  ultimate  ground  of 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    253 

things,  attempts  only  to  discover  their  relations  of  succes 
sion  and  similitude,  and  in  this  way  to  grasp  particulars 
under  more  general  points  of  view.  Positivism,  which 
thus  rejects  all  a  priori  elements,  is  the  perfection  of  phi 
losophy.  It  includes  six  different  branches,  —  mathemat 
ics,  astronomy,  physics,  chemistry,  biology,  and  sociology. 
The  last,  which  treats  of  man  and  society,  is  not  to  be 
understood  to  include  psychology,  for  this  as  ordinarily 
understood  is  a  bogus  science,  resting  on  the  fiction  that 
the  mind  has  power  to  observe  its  own  operations. 

Comte's  scheme  of  religion  is  something  extraordinary. 
In  the  place  of  God  he  puts,  as  the  supreme  object  of  pub 
lic  worship,  collective  humanity,  the  race  of  the  past,  the 
present,  and  the  future.  Even  animals,  like  the  faithful 
dog,  to  which  duties  are  owed,  are  included  in  the  aggre 
gate  object  of  devotion.  In  painting  and  sculpture  the 
symbol  of  this  supreme  being  is  always  to  be  a  woman  of 
the  age  of  thirty  with  a  child  in  her  arms.  Private  devo 
tion  is  properly  addressed  simply  to  the  idea  of  some 
woman  living  or  dead.  Among  historical  religions,  feti- 
chism  claims  a  large  place  in  Comte's  appreciation ;  he 
even  speaks  of  the  earth  as  le  Grand  FAiche.  In  his 
scheme,  supervision  of  morals  and  religion,  and  education 
in  general,  are  assigned  to  the  Positivist  clergy,  over  whom 
presides  with  unlimited  authority  the  supreme  pontiff,  who 
has  his  residence  at  Paris.  Commenting  on  this  part  of 
the  scheme  of  Comtc,  J.  S.  Mill  has  characterized  it  as 
"  the  completest  system  of  spiritual  and  temporal  despotism 
which  ever  yet  emanated  from  a  human  brain,  unless  pos 
sibly  that  of  Ignatius  Loyola."  (Autobiography.)  Profes 
sor  Huxley  has  not  inaptly  described  Comte's  religion  as 
"  Romanism  wfth  Christianity  left  out."  (See  Catechism 
of  Positive  Religion  ;  also  J.  S.  Mill,  The  Positive  Philos 
ophy  of  Au gusto  Comte.) 

Among  English  representatives  of  sensationalism  in  the 
present  century  a  prominent  place  is  occupied  by  JAMES 


254  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

MILL,  JOHN  STUART  MILL,  ALEXANDER  BAIN,  and  HERBERT 
SPENCER.  While  differing  on  various  points,  these  writers 
have  shown  a  decided  bias  toward  such  characteristic  tenets 
of  sensationalism  as  the  following:  (1.)  Sensation  supplies 
the  entire  material  of  knowledge.  (2.)  Our  necessary  or 
intuitive  beliefs  are  explained  by  the  principle  of  the  asso 
ciation  of  ideas.  Much  stress  is  laid  upon  this  point. 
Hence  the  name  Associational  School,  which  has  been 
applied  to  this  class  of  writers.  (3.)  There  is  no  imme 
diate  consciousness  of  self,  but  only  of  particular  feelings 
or  exercises.  We  have  no  authority  to  affirm  that  the  mind 
is  anything  more  than  a  succession  of  psychical  states. 
(4.)  Acts  of  the  will,  no  less  than  other  events,  come  un 
der  the  category  of  cause  and  effect :  necessitarianism  is 
the  true  theory.  As  respects  the  third  of  these  points,  it 
should  be  noticed  that  John  Stuart  Mill  allows  that  it  in 
volves  a  very  considerable  paradox.  "  If  we  speak  of  the 
mind,"  he  says,  "  as  a  series  of  feelings,  we  are  obliged  to 
complete  the  statement  by  calling  it  a  series  of  feelings 
which  is  aware  of  itself  as  past  and  future ;  and  we  are 
reduced  to  the  alternative  of  believing  that  the  mind,  or 
ego,  is  something  different  from  any  series  of  feelings,  or 
possibilities  of  them,  or  of  accepting  the  paradox,  that 
something  which  ex  hypothesi  is  but  a  series  of  feelings 
can  be  aware  of  itself  as  a  series."  (Examination  of  Sir 
William  Hamilton's  Philosophy.) 

Herbert  Spencer  is  distinguished  in  particular  by  his 
combination  of  the  sensational  philosophy  with  a  thorough 
going  theory  of  evolution.  He  accepts  as  a  necessary  pos 
tulate  the  existence  of  a  certain  primordial  being  or  force 
lying  back  of  all  phenomena.  From  the  evolution  of  this, 
or  its  progress  from  homogeneity  to  heterogeneity,  result 
all  varieties  physical  and  mental,  all  specific  forms  of  ex 
istence  in  the  universe.  Our  necessary  beliefs  are  products 
of  evolution.  They  have  arisen,  not  merely  through  such 
associations  of  ideas  as  we  personally  have  formed,  but  also 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     255 

through  such  as  our  ancestors  have  made,  and  the  effect  of 
which  the}7  have  transmitted  with  cumulative  force.  Slowly 
formed  and  continuously  transmitted  nervous  modifications 
arc  the  explanation  of  our  moral,  as  of  our  other  necessary 
beliefs.  Mr.  Spencer  writes :  "  Just  in  the  same  way  that 
I  believe  the  intuition  of  space,  possessed  by  any  living 
individual,  to  have  arisen  from  organized  and  consolidated 
experiences  of  all  antecedent  individuals,  who  bequeathed 
to  him  their  slowly  developed  nervous  organizations,  so  do 
I  believe  that  the  experiences  of  utility,  organized  and  con 
solidated  through  all  past  generations  of  the  human  race, 
have  been  producing  corresponding  nervous  modifications, 
which,  by  continued  transmission  and  accumulation,  have 
become  to  us  certain  faculties  of  moral  intuition."  (Letter 
to  Mill,  quoted  in  the  Data  of  Ethics.)  As  in  this  passage 
the  nerves  are  made  the  efficient  antecedents  of  beliefs,  so 
generally,  in  Mr.  Spencer's  philosophy,  matter  is  made  the 
antecedent  of  mind.  This  gives  his  system  a  decided  cast 
of  materialism.  He  says,  to  be  sure,  that  the  controversy 
between  materialism  and  spiritualism  is  only  a  war  of 
words,  since  we  know  nothing  about  the  nature  of  the 
essence  lying  back  of  phenomena.  But  which,  it  is  to  be 
asked,  is  first,  —  which  has  the  primacy,  the  physical  or 
the  mental  ?  According  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Mr.  Spen 
cer  s  teaching,  mind  stands  second,  and  in  a  relation  of 
dependence.  It  is  the  physical  force  existing  as  motion, 
heat,  or  light,  that  gives  rise  to  a  feeling,  or  becomes 
changed  in  some  inexplicable  way  into  a  fact  of  conscious 
ness.  Now,  as  we  are  not  allowed  to  postulate  a  divine 
intelligence  as  the  antecedent  and  designing  cause  of  physi 
cal  properties  and  laws,  physical  force  is  put  decidedly  into 
the  foreground  ;  mind  appears,  not  co-ordinate,  but  second 
ary  and  resultant ;  and  what  is  this  but  the  most  positive 
materialism  that  can  well  be  conceived  ? 

In  these  later  phases  of  sensational  philosophy  religion 
holds  a  place  by  sufferance.     It  has  no  rights  based  upon 


256  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  Y. 

positive  and  known  truths.  Its  right  is  scarcely  more  than 
that  of  conjecture  and  hope  with  respect  to  the  unknown. 
The  attitude  of  John  Stuart  Mill  toward  religion  was  mostly 
negative.  But  in  some  of  his  later  writings  he  gave  atten 
tion  to  the  subject,  and  made  some  approaches  to  positive 
opinions.  In  his  essay  on  Theism  he  says :  "  I  think  it 
must  be  allowed  that,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowl 
edge,  the  adaptations  in  nature  afford  a  large  balance  of 
probability  in  favor  of  creation  by  intelligence."  He  allows 
the  reality  of  the  historical  Christ,  on  the  ground  that, 
without  the  pattern  before  them,  the  disciples  could  never 
have  drawn  the  picture  contained  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  says  that  religion  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  made 
a  bad  choice  in  fixing  upon  Christ  "  as  the  ideal  represent 
ative  and  guide  of  humanity."  As  respects  immortality, 
he  claims  that  science  has  no  proof  against  it,  and  that  as 
a  matter  of  hope  it  is  legitimate  and  philosophically  de 
fensible.  "  The  beneficial  effect  of  such  a  hope,"  he  says, 
"  is  far  from  trifling.  It  makes  life  and  human  nature  a 
far  greater  thing  to  the  feelings,  and  gives  greater  strength, 
as  well  as  greater  solemnity,  to  all  the  sentiments  which 
are  awakened  in  us  by  our  fellow-creatures  and  by  man 
kind  at  large."  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  maintains  that 
intelligent  thought  cannot  accept  an  Author  of  nature  who 
is  at  once  omnipotent  and  good,  and  that  accordingly  some 
form  of  the  dualistic  theory  is  best  suited  to  the  religious 
understanding.  The  supernatural  in  general  he  relegates 
to  the  region  of  hypothesis  or  hope,  such  hope  at  most 
being  admitted  as  a  supplement  to  the  religion  of  human 
ity, —  by  which  he  means,  not  the  worship  of  humanity,  but 
the  sympathetic  dedication  of  one's  self  to  its  welfare. 

According  to  Herbert  Spencer,  the  object  of  religion  is 
the  unknown  God,  that  perfectly  inscrutable  power  which 
lies  back  of  the  phenomenal  world.  Its  field  is  that  vast 
region  of  nescience  which  borders  the  known.  In  the 
recognition  of  this  its  proper  province  lies  its  reconcilia- 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    257 

tion  with  science.  "  If  religion  and  science,"  he  says,  "  are 
to  be  reconciled,  the  basis  of  reconciliation  must  be  this 
deepest,  widest,  and  most  certain  of  all  facts,  —  that  the 
power  which  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly  in 
scrutable."  In  past  history  the  religious  mind  has  not 
been  content  to  leave  this  region  of  nescience  a  blank,  but 
has  peopled  it  with  various  creations  of  its  own.  How 
ever,  it  is  not  to  be  blamed  on  this  account.  Being  unable 
to  rise  to  the  true  conception,  it  pursued  the  course  best 
adapted  to  progress  in  satisfying  the  imagination  with 
various  orders  of  concrete  forms.  Thus  the  historical 
religions  have  served  a  useful  purpose.  Indeed,  it  is  not 
certain  that  the  impulse  to  give  definiteness  of  character  to 
the  unknown  will  ever  be  outgrown.  "  Very  likely  there 
will  ever  remain  a  need  to  give  shape  to  that  indefinite 
sense  of  an  ultimate  existence,  which  forms  the  basis  of 
our  intelligence.  We  shall  always  be  under  the  necessity 
of  contemplating  it  as  some  mode  of  being;  that  is,  of 
representing  it  to  ourselves  in  some  form  of  thought,  how 
ever  vague.  And  we  shall  not  err  in  doing  this  so  long  as 
we  treat  every  notion  we  thus  frame  as  merely  a  symbol, 
utterly  without  resemblance  to  that  for  which  it  stands." 
(First  Principles  of  a  New  System  of  Philosophy.) 

This  certainly  is  imposing  no  small  trial  upon  the  reli 
gious  sentiment.  Tantalus  was  not  more  unfortunate. 
The  mind  must  needs  draw  its  outline  or  diagram  of  the 
unknown,  but  it  is  in  duty  bound  to  erase  it  at  once,  or  at 
least  to  write  across  it  the  declaration  that  it  represents 
nothing.  How  long  the  religious  sentiment  could  stand 
this  process  rigorously  carried  out,  is  a  question  which 
may  well  be  submitted  to  serious  consideration. 

Having  now  gone  over  the  philosophical  development  in 
its  main  phases,  we  are  prepared  to  ask  about  its  general 
result  upon  theology.  This  much  at  least  is  clear,  that  it 
leaves  an  open  field  to  Christian  theism.  Only  those  who 
confine  their  view  to  a  fraction  of  the  development,  and 

VOL.  II.  —  17. 


258  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

imagine  that  the  whole  stream  of  modern  thought  has 
gone,  or  is  destined  to  go,  into  the  channel  of  their  particu 
lar  anti-theistic  philosophy,  can  adopt  a  different  verdict. 
The  whole  stream  of  modern  thought  has  not  gone  into 
any  such  channel,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  prospect  that 
it  will.  To  say  nothing  about  the  impulses  and  demands 
of  practical  religious  life,  the  opposing  factors  from  the 
domain  of  philosophy  are  altogether  too  strong  to  be  borne 
in  that  direction.  If  some  philosophies  have  been  opposed 
to  the  theory  of  a  personal  God,  others  (which  in  rigor 
and  majesty  of  thought  approach  nearest  to  the  great 
theistic  systems  of  the  ancient  world  represented  by  Plato 
and  Aristotle)  insist  upon  a  personal  God  as  the  only  ade 
quate  explanation  of  known  facts.  If  some  of  the  modern 
systems  have  assumed  a  radically  agnostic  position,  others 
have  assumed  the  opposite  position,  that  philosophy  is  a 
genuine  explication  of  the  Absolute,  while  others  still  have 
taken  the  intermediate  ground,  that  our  conceptions  of 
God  are  of  the  nature  of  a  rational  and  warranted  faith. 
The  resultant  upon  this  point  would  seem  to  be  the  conclu 
sion,  that  we  are  authorized  to  assume  the  existence  of 
a  personal  God,  and  have  the  means  of  a  trustworthy, 
though  by  no  means  exhaustive,  knowledge  of  Him.  Here 
the  outcome  is  thoroughly  agreeable  to  Catholic  theology. 
As  respects  Catholic  trinitarianism  and  Christology,  mod 
ern  philosophy  has  exhibited  a  less  definite,  and  perhaps 
on  the  whole  less  friendly  attitude.  Still  some  of  the 
most  noteworthy  philosophies  have  regarded  these  orders 
of  doctrines  as  at  least  symbolical,  if  not  accurately  expres 
sive,  of  the  most  important  truths,  while  others  have  left  an 
open  place  for  them  by  distinguishing  between  things  above 
reason  and  things  contrary  to  reason,  of  which  the  former 
are  capable  of  being  approved  by  revelation.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice,  too,  how  nearly  unanimous  are  the  philosophies 
which  have  any  depth  of  moral  tone  in  allowing  that  Christ 
may  properly  be  taken  as  the  moral  ideal. 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     259 

A  specific  affiliation  between  each  of  the  more  noted 
philosophies  and  contemporary  theology  is  clearly  mani 
fest.  The  system  of  Wolff  exercised  a  dominant  influence 
upon  the  dogmatics  of  Germany  in  the  second  and  third 
quarters  of  the  eighteenth  century.  S.  J.  Baumgarten 
appears  as  a  distinguished  representative  of  theological 
Wolffianism.  With  him  may  be  associated  Carpov,  Rein- 
beck,  Reusch,  Schubert,  and  others.  The  philosophy  of 
Kant,  being  speedily  followed  by  powerful  rivals,  did  not 
have  an  opportunity  to  maintain  an  exclusive  dominion  ; 
but  it  was  influential  from  the  first  both  with  rationalists 
and  moderate  supernaturalists,  and  has  not  ceased  to  be 
a  noteworthy  factor  in  theological  thinking.  Among  the 
earlier  representatives  of  Kant's  influence  we  may  men 
tion  Tieftrunk,  Ammon,  J.  W.  Schmid,  Staudlin,  and  Bret- 
schneider.  Conspicuous  among  the  more  recent  represent 
atives  is  Albrecht  Ritschl.  The  philosophies  of  Fichte, 
Schclling,  and  Hegel,  especially  the  last  two,  claimed  disci 
ples  who  believed  that  they  had  found  in  them  means  of  a 
more  adequate  interpretation  of  religious  truth  than  the 
world  had  seen  before.  For  a  time  Hegelianism  threat 
ened  to  sweep  the  whole  field ;  but  it  divided  into  different 
schools,  and  by  the  middle  of  the  century  was  numbered 
with  the  waning  philosophies.  Some  of  the  representa 
tives  of  the  more  sceptical  school  have  already  been  men 
tioned.  Among  the  more  orthodox,  a  leading  place  is 
properly  assigned  to  Marheinecke.  Jacobi  found  appre 
ciation  with  a  considerable  class  of  theologians,  and  was 
especially  valued  by  the  esthetic  school.  The  wide  in 
fluence  of  Schleiermacher  is  matter  of  common  consent, 
though,  as  already  stated,  much  more  is  to  be  credited  to 
his  theology  than  to  his  philosophy  proper.  In  England 
the  system  of  Locke  was  the  leading  philosophical  ally 
of  theology  throughout  the  eighteenth  century.  In  the 
present  century  Coleridge  led  the  way  to  a  more  appre 
ciative  consideration  of  the  German  systems.  A  number 


260  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

of  recent  writers  in  England,  Scotland,  and  America  have 
attached  quite  a  high  theological  value  to  the  philosophy 
of  Hegel.  New  England  transcendentalism  was  influenced 
by  Kant,  Jacobi,  Fichte,  Schleiermacher,  and  Schelling. 
Much  of  the  incentive,  however,  came  indirectly.  "  It  was 
through  the  literature  of  Germany,"  says  0.  B.  Frothing- 
ham,  "that  the  transcendental  philosophy  chiefly  commu 
nicated  itself.  Goethe,  Richter,  and  Novalis  were  more 
persuasive  teachers  than  Kant,  Jacobi,  or  Fichte.  To 
those  who  could  not  read  German  these  authors  were  in 
terpreted  by  Thomas  Carlyle,  who  took  up  the  cause  of 
German  philosophy  and  literature,  and  wrote  about  them 
with  passionate  power  in  the  English  reviews."  (Tran 
scendentalism  in  New  England.) 

Though  long  retaining  its  preference  for  medievalism, 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  not  escaped  the  influence 
of  the  modern  philosophies.  Since  the  time  of  Kant,  the 
writings  of  some  of  her  most  distinguished  authors  in  Ger 
many,  such  as  Hermes,  Giinther,  Klee,  Staudenmaier,  and 
Drey,  though  asserting  more  or  less  of  opposition  to  the 
philosophical  current,  have  been  not  a  little  affected  by  it. 
The  opinions  of  the  first  two  in  this  list  fell  under  ecclesi 
astical  censure. 

As  in  all  previous  periods,  so  in  this,  a  uniform  estimate 
of  the  worth  of  philosophy  in  the  religious  sphere  cannot  be 
affirmed.  The  tendency  on  the  whole  has  been  toward  the 
middle  course  between  extreme  valuation  and  extreme  de 
preciation.  Probably  the  theological  world  of  the  present 
subscribes  more  generally  and  intelligently  than  ever  before 
to  the  verdict  that  philosophy  and  revelation,  reason  and 
faith,  have  harmonious,  though  different,  offices  to  perform. 
The  following  sentences  of  F.  H.  Hedge  are  largely  repre 
sentative  :  "  The  cause  of  reason  is  the  cause  of  faith.  Each 
is  the  other's  complement.  Reason  requires  the  nutriment 
and  impulse  furnished  by  faith.  Faith  requires  the  discreet 
elaboration  of  reason."  (Reason  in  Religion.) 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     261 


SECTION  II.  —  COMMUNIONS,  CKEEDS,  AND  AUTHORS. 

1.  NEW  COMMUNIONS.  —  A  proper  regard  for  brevity  will 
preclude  the  mention  of  all,  or  even  of  a  majority,  of  the 
new  communions  which  have  been  organized  since  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Only  those  made 
noteworthy  by  peculiarities  or  extent  of  influence  com 
mand  our  notice. 

Moravians.  —  While  the  Moravians  who  settled  on  the 
estates  of  Count  Zinzendorf  in  Lusatia  formed  the  nucleus 
of  the  society  which  bears  their  name,  it  was  soon  recruited 
from  a  great  variety  of  sources.  In  harmony  with  this 
heterogeneous  composition  little  stress  was  laid  upon  doc 
trinal  unity.  Religious  life  was  exalted  above  dogma,  and 
the  prevailing  conception  of  religious  life  included  a  positive 
and  conscious  experience  of  the  redeeming  power  of  Christ. 

The  acceptance  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  1749  was 
not  followed  by  any  close  adhesion  to  the  traditional  sense 
of  that  standard.  From  the  first,  Christ  crucified  was 
made  the  centre  of  Moravian  theology.  Indeed,  the  criti 
cism  most  frequently  urged  is,  that  the  person  of  Christ 
and  the  office  which  He  fulfilled  upon  the  cross  were  too 
exclusively  emphasized. 

After  Zinzendorf,  Spangenberg  was  the  most  distin 
guished  leader  and  theologian  of  the  Moravians.  His 
culture  and  wisdom  were  employed  to  good  effect  in  modi 
fying  some  of  the  more  questionable  features  which  had 
place  under  his  predecessor. 

Moravianism  was  officially  recognized  by  the  government 
of  Saxony  in  1749,  and  in  the  same  year  the  societies  which 
had  been  formed  in  England  received  the  recognition  of 
the  English  Parliament.  It  won  early  an  exceptional  dis 
tinction  by  zeal  and  self-sacrifice  in  mission  work. 

Methodists.  —  In  its  primary  Oxford  stage  Methodism  was 
a  form  of  earnest,  ascetic,  ritualistic  piety.  In  the  period  of 


262  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

transition  from  this  stage,  it  appeared  almost  as  an  offshoot 
of  Moravianism.  It  was  under  Moravian  tuition  that  its 
most  distinguished  founder,  John  Wesley,  reached  a  satis 
factory  religious  experience  (in  1738)  ;  and  from  the  same 
source  he  derived  some  of  the  outlines  of  the  great  work  of 
evangelization  which  he  afterwards  undertook.  But  the 
period  of  direct  and  intimate  connection  with  Moravianism 
did  not  much  exceed  two  years.  By  1740  Methodism  had 
started  upon  its  course  as  an  independent  movement,  though 
not  yet  as  a  separate  communion,  and  had  given  exhibition 
of  most  of  its  characteristic  features,  doctrinal  and  practi 
cal.  Though  their  work  was  generally  frowned  upon  by 
the  Established  Church,  the  leaders  regarded  themselves 
as  loyal  servants  of  that  Church,  and  their  efforts  at  reli 
gious  reform  as  within  its  bounds  and  for  its  benefit.  But 
the  hindrances  that  were  thrown  in  their  way,  and  their 
unwillingness  to  be  impeded  in  what  they  considered  their 
providential  vocation,  naturally  worked  toward  a  separa 
tion.  This  first  occurred  in  1779,  in  the  Calvinistic  branch, 
which  was  associated  with  Whitcfield,  and  was  under  the 
special  patronage  of  Lady  Huntingdon.  Of  the  societies 
under  Wesley,  those  in  the  United  States  of  America  ac 
quired  the  status  and  organization  of  an  independent  com 
munion  in  1784;  those  in  England,  in  the  course  of  the 
twenty  years  or  thereabouts  which  followed  the  conference 
of  1795,  at  which  authority  was  given  the  societies,  under 
certain  conditions,  to  administer  their  own  sacraments. 

On  its  theological  side,  Methodism  appears,  on  the  whole, 
as  the  advocate  and  propagandist  of  Arminianism.  To  be 
sure,  it  had,  almost  from  the  very  start,  its  exponents  of 
Calvinistic  doctrine ;  it  contributed  permanent  benefits  in 
the  way  of  religious  impulse  to  various  Calvinistic  bodies ; 
and  it  is  still  represented  (most  largely  in  Wales)  by  dis 
tinct  communions  of  the  Calvinistic  type.  But  still  the 
Arminian  stream,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  present,  is 
to  all  appearance  so  much  broader,  that  Methodism  wears 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    263 

mainly  the  cast  of  an  Arminian  movement.  It  should  be 
noticed,  however,  that  the  term  Arminian  needs  to  be  quali 
fied  if  it  is  to  stand  for  Methodist  theology.  Its  sense  must 
not  be  taken  from  the  latitudinarian  Arminians  of  the 
English  Church  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  or  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  or  from  the  later  Arminians 
of  Holland,  or  even  from  the  second  generation  of  that 
school ;  it  must  be  taken  rather  from  the  founder,  James 
Arminius.  The  spirit  and  intent  of  Methodist  theology, 
if  not  all  of  its  details,  find  in  him  a  pretty  fair  expo 
nent.  Its  aim  was  to  escape  the  harsher  peculiarities  of 
Calvinism,  while  yet  a  strong  doctrine  of  grace  was  main 
tained.  It  was  shaped  by  a  warm,  evangelical  piety,  and 
bears  the  impress  at  once  of  a  deep  sense  of  dependence 
upon  God,  and  of  an  earnest,  practical  regard  for  human 
freedom  and  responsibility.  It  embraced  very  little  that 
was  strictly  of  the  nature  of  a  novelty.  The  fervor  of  its 
advocacy  gave  indeed  a  new  prominence  to  such  doctrines 
as  those  of  assurance  and  Christian  perfection ;  but  essen 
tially  the  same  doctrines  had  been  taught  before,  and  have 
found  place  in  other  communions  since.  The  doctrinal  sig 
nificance  of  Methodism  lies  principally  in  the  fact,  that, 
avoiding  both  the  Pelagian  and  the  Calvinistic  extreme,  it 
has  fixed  upon  a  practical  working  theology,  exemplified 
the  same  on  a  broad  scale,  and  spread  the  leaven  of  its 
influence  through  a  large  part  of  the  theological  world. 

While  Methodism  had  its  early  formative  stage,  in  its 
after  history  it  has  been  free  from  what  may  be  called  a 
doctrinal  crisis.  It  has  had  its  stirring  episodes,  its  sea 
sons  of  spirited  polemics,  but  no  era  of  marked  theological 
transitions.  Among  the  more  memorable  of  its  polemical 
seasons  was  that  inaugurated  by  the  anti-Calvinistic  min 
utes  of  the  conference  of  1770.  In  the  ensuing  contro 
versy  the  principal  disputants  on  the  Calvinistic  side  were 
Richard  Hill,  Rowland  Hill,  and  Augustus  Toplady;  on 
the  Arminian  side,  Walter  Sellon,  Thomas  Olivers,  and 


264  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

John  Fletcher.  Most  of  the  products  of  this  theological 
war  proved  to  be  of  transient  import.  The  writings  of 
Fletcher  alone  have  claimed  anything  like  a  classic  rank. 
In  his  "  Checks  to  Antinomianism  "  the  Biblical  and  prac 
tical  supports  of  the  Arminian  doctrines  of  grace  are  pre 
sented  with  a  good  degree  of  skill  and  cogency. 

The  "Book  of  Discipline,"  embodying  the  twenty-five  arti 
cles  abridged  from  the  thirty-nine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  in  addition  some  incidental  statements  of  doctrine,  is 
the  only  doctrinal  standard  claiming  formal  authority  in 
the  main  body  of  American  Methodists.  There  are  cate 
chisms  which  are  recommended  for  the  instruction  of  the 
young,  but  they  are  not  made  binding  on  the  individual 
conscience.  In  the  English  or  Wesleyan  communion,  the 
Sermons  of  Wesley  and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament 
have  legally  the  force  of  a  standard  ;  but  with  American 
Methodists,  though  much  deferred  to,  they  are  not  an 
authorized  standard.  Among  formal  systems  of  theology, 
Watson's  Institutes  have  long  been  regarded  as  a  compen 
dium  of  Methodist  teaching.  Recently  a  new  era  of  pro 
ductiveness  in  Methodist  theological  literature  has  been 
inaugurated.  The  works  of  W.  B.  Pope  and  M.  Raymond 
have  been  introduced  to  the  public,  and  other  restatements 
of  Methodist  doctrine  may  be  expected  soon  to  appear. 
Among  monographs,  D.  D.  Whedon's  treatise  on  "The 
Freedom  of  the  Will "  has  enjoyed  wide  celebrity. 

The  Freewill  Baptists,  organized  under  the  leadership 
of  Benjamin  Randall  about  1780,  have  entertained  theo 
logical  beliefs  quite  similar  to  those  of  the  Methodists. 
(See  Statement  of  1834,  prepared  under  the  direction  of 
the  General  Conference.) 

Swedenb or gians.  —  Emanucl  Swedenborg  was  born  at 
Stockholm  in  1688.  After  a  life  of  nearly  sixty  years 
devoted  to  the  natural  sciences,  he  believed  himself  called 
to  the  office  of  giving,  if  not  a  new  revelation,  at  least  a 
new  exposition  of  revelation,  by  which  its  hidden  signifi- 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    265 

cance  should  be  brought  to  light,  and  a  new  dispensation 
of  Christianity  inaugurated.  He  also  believed  that  he  was 
prepared  for  this  task  by  disclosures  of  the  other  world, 
and  by  conversations  with  angels,  or  translated  saints. 
By  such  means  the  inner  sense  of  Scripture  was  unveiled 
to  him,  and  he  was  led  to  a  knowledge  of  those  spiritual 
verities  of  which  all  things  outward  and  sensible  are  but 
copies  or  images. 

The  blended  science  and  mysticism  of  Swedenborg's 
system  have  naturally  commended  it  to  only  a  limited 
class  of  minds.  The  New  Church  has  not  gathered  nu 
merous  societies.  It  is  probably  true,  however,  as  has 
been  claimed,  that  the  influence  of  its  teachings  is  much 
wider  than  the  bounds  of  its  communion.  The  relation 
of  this  Church  to  Swedenborg  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  statement  of  the  Rev.  James  Reed :  "  The  New 
Church  as  an  outward  organization  may  be  defined  as  a 
body  which  believes  in  a  definite  spiritual  sense  within 
the  letter  of  the  Bible,  and  in  a  system  of  doctrine  which 
that  higher  sense  discloses,  —  Emanuel  Swedenborg  being 
its  exponent  and  interpreter."  (Swedenborg  and  the  New 
Church.) 

Unitarians.  —  In  England  Unitarianism  first  acquired  in 
the*  eighteenth  century  the  dimensions  and  consistency  of 
a  religious  communion.  Anti-trinitarianism,  which  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  century  took  the  form  of  Arianism,  ad 
vanced  at  the  close  of  the  century  to  the  theory  of  the  sim 
ple  humanity  of  Christ,  and  furthermore  took  issue  with 
the  old  Socinian  theory  of  the  propriety  of  worshipping 
Christ  under  divine  titles.  At  this  stage,  Unitarianism 
was  prosaic  in  spirit,  with  a  leaning  to  materialism  and  ne 
cessitarianism.  Its  leading  exponents  were  Joseph  Priest 
ley,  Thcophilus  Lindscy,  and  Thomas  Bclsham.  Among 
the  later  representatives  of  English  Unitarianism  an  emi 
nent  place  is  occupied  by  James  Martineau.  In  him,  as  in 
the  majority  of  recent  adherents,  a  more  spiritual  and  ideal 


266  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEEIOD  V. 

philosophy  is  apparent  than  that  which  was  prevalent  in 
Unitarian  circles  in  the  age  of  Priestley. 

By  far  the  most  conspicuous  and  noteworthy  growth  of 
Unitarianism  in  this  period  is  that  which  has  taken  place 
in  New  England.  Though  the  distinct  outcropping  of  this 
growth  did  not  occur  till  the  present  century,  its  antece 
dents  may  be  traced  hack  into  the  two  preceding  centuries. 
First  came,  in  the  Congregational  societies  of  New  England, 
a  relaxation  in  the  terms  of  church  communion.  By  the 
action  of  the  Synod  of  1662,  baptized  persons  of  respectable 
life  and  orthodox  belief,  though  not  offering  special  evi 
dence  of  regeneration,  were  allowed  to  have  their  children 
baptized,  and  to  enjoy  all  church  privileges  except  partici 
pation  in  the  Lord's  supper,  —  the  so-called  Half-way  Cov 
enant.  Later,  quite  a  proportion  of  the  churches  removed 
this  exception,  and  so  opened  wide  the  doors  to  all  persons 
of  moral  habits.  A  corrective  for  these  lax  principles  of 
administration  came  with  the  Great  Awakening  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  At  the  same  time  there  was  a  revival 
of  dogmatic  fervor,  and  the  great  themes  of  grace  and 
retribution  claimed  a  prominent  place  in  pulpit  discourses. 
Naturally  those  who  did  not  catch  the  enthusiasms  of  the 
awakening  were  thrown  more  than  ever  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  type  of  religion  and  theology  which  it  repre 
sented.  Foreign  literature  affiliating  with  their  bias  was 
imported. 

So  a  divergence,  prophetic  of  schism,  began.  "  The  first 
stage  of  the  Liberal  movement  showed  Calvinism  giving 
way  to  Arminianism.  In  the  second,  the  Calvinism  van 
ished,  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  vicarious  atonement 
slowly  followed,  reason  grew  bolder  and  bolder,  and  at 
last  the  Liberals  became  Unitarians,  and  organized  them 
selves  as  a  new  sect.  They  were  still  sincere  Bible  men. 
Reason  and  Revelation  were  their  equal  watchwords.  The 
worth  of  the  Bible  to  them,  it  is  true,  lay  largely  in  its 
vagueness,  its  multiplicity  of  meaning,  the  room  they 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    267 

thereby  got  for  thinking  far  and  freely  without  fear.  It 
lay  much  more  largely  in  this  vagueness  than  they  knew." 
(Win.  C.  Gannett,  Life  of  Ezra  S.  Gannett.)  As  in  Eng 
land,  defection  from  Trinitarianism  ran  first  into  Arianism. 
But  the  Arian  stage  was  soon  outgrown  by  the  great  ma 
jority.  "  Probably  few  who  were  forty  years  old  at  the 
time  of  the  disclosure  in  1815  died  other  than  Arians. 
Probably  there  were  few  under  forty  then,  who  did  not  at 
least  grow  doubtful,  if  not  certain,  the  other  way."  (Wm. 
C.  Gannett.) 

The  first  church  in  New  England  to  make  an  open  decla 
ration  of  Unitarianism  was  King's  Chapel  in  Boston.  This 
was  founded  as  an  Episcopalian  church.  Previous  to  the 
ordination  of  Mr.  Freeman,  in  1787,  it  had  so  revised  the 
Prayer-Book  as  to  eliminate  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
At  the  same  time  Unitarianism,  in  a  more  disguised  form, 
was  gaining  a  majority  in  most  of  the  Congregational 
churches  of  Boston,  and  in  other  places,  particularly  of 
Eastern  Massachusetts,  was  making  a  rapid  advance.  In 
consequence  of  the  statements  of  Belsham,  attention  was 
called  to  the  strength  of  Unitarianism,  and  in  1815  the 
controversy  between  Channing  and  Samuel  Worcester  ini 
tiated  the  movement  to  a  separation  from  the  Congrega 
tional  body. 

In  the  first  stage  of  American  Unitarianism,  William 
Ellery  Channing  was  the  most  representative  leader,  and 
the  movement  reflected  largely  his  appreciation  of  the  New 
Testament  as  the  oracles  of  a  supernatural  religion,  and 
his  generous  faith  in  the  nobility  and  perfectibility  of  hu 
man  nature.  Among  others  of  this  era  who  held  similar 
views,  we  may  mention  E.  S.  Gannett,  the  two  Henry  Wares 
(father  and  son),  and  Andrews  Norton. 

A  second  stage  in  American  Unitarianism  was  intro 
duced  by  the  rise  of  Transcendentalism.  As  to  the  nature 
of  this  ism,  "  the  easiest  way  of  describing  it  is  as  the 
sentimental,  mystical,  and  poetic  side  of  the  liberal  move- 


268  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

ment."  (J.  H.  Allen,  "  Our  Liberal  Movement  in  Theol 
ogy.")  It  gave  a  wide  province  to  intuition,  and  made  the 
inner  spiritual  sense  the  chief  oracle  of  religious  truth. 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  A.  B.  Alcott,  and  George  Ripley 
were  of  the  Transcendentalist  school.  In  Theodore  Parker 
the  principles  of  the  same  school  were  combined  with  the 
temper  of  an  iconoclast.  "  At  bottom  his  system  was  dog 
matism,  resting  on  sentiment."  (Allen.)  He  was  a  radical 
in  thought,  and  an  extremist  in  language,  and  so  provoked 
the  criticism,  not  merely  of  outsiders,  but  also  of  the  great 
majority  of  contemporary  Unitarian  theologians.  In  his 
representations  Christianity  appears,  not  as  the  perfect 
or  absolute  religion,  but  simply  as  the  best  phase  which 
the  race  has  evolved  in  its  progress  toward  the  absolute 
religion. 

Since  the  rise  of  Parkerism,  Unitarianism  on  one  side 
has  exhibited  a  growing  approximation  to  extreme  ration 
alism.  On  another  side,  if  it  has  lost  some  of  the  old 
points  of  affinity  with  evangelical  theology,  it  has  gained 
in  respect  of  others.  Among  writers  most  evangelical  in 
tone,  we  may  mention  H.  W.  Bellows  and  F.  H.  Hedge. 
The  latter  in  particular  is  a  thoughtful  and  quickening 
writer.  A  prominent  place  is  also  accorded  to  James  Free 
man  Clarke  among  the  more  recent  Unitarian  authors. 

Some  others  of  the  recently  organized  denominations 
might  be  ranked  as  Unitarian  in  respect  to  their  attitude 
toward  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  they  differ  suffi 
ciently  to  warrant  their  distinct  name  and  standing.  Here 
belong  the  Universalists.  E.  H.  Capen,  it  is  true,  repre 
sents  the  Universalists  as  believing  that  Christ  has  the 
same  nature  with  God,  and  that  He  was  literally  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  (Article  on  Universalism  in  Schaff- 
Herzog.)  But  it  is  understood  that  Hosca  Ballou  came 
ultimately  to  entertain  the  simple  humanitarian  conception 
of  Christ,  and  that  many  of  his  contemporaries  and  suc 
cessors  embraced  the  same.  Of  those  who  represented  the 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    269 

rise  of  the  denomination  (in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eigh 
teenth  century),  John  Murray  was  a  Sabellian,  and  Elhanan 
Winchester  a  Trinitarian.  The  earlier  Universalists  were 
quite  distinguished  from  the  Unitarians,  too,  in  their  affili 
ation  with  Calvinistic  ideas  of  original  sin  and  the  atone 
ment.  The  "  Christians,"  combined  near  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century  from  0' Kelly  Methodists,  Presbyteri 
ans,  and  Baptists,  and  starting  out  with  the  design  of 
making  the  Bible  the  sole  standard,  as  opposed  to  man- 
made  creeds,  have  been,  at  least  in  part,  averse  to  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Trinity.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  not  been 
Socinians  or  humanitarians.  "  Their  prevailing  belief  is 
that  Jesus  Christ  existed  with  the  Father  before  all  worlds." 
(David  Millard,  in  Rupp's  Hist,  of  Relig.  Denominations.) 
The  Campbellites,  or  Disciples,  discard  rather  the  name  of 
the  Trinity  than  the  doctrine. 

We  omit  under  the  present  topic  such  important  denomi 
nations  in  this  country  as  the  Presbyterians,  the  Protestant 
Episcopalians,  the  Dutch  Reformed,  the  German  Reformed, 
and  the  Lutherans,  inasmuch  as  they  appear  less  as  new 
communions  than  as  branches  of  old  communions  trans 
planted  to  a  new  soil.  As  for  the  Mormons,  they  hardly 
come  within  the  scope  of  these  volumes  at  all.  Their  crude 
materialism,  their  polytheism,  and  their  polygamy,  with  its 
attendant  theories  about  woman's  place,  would  seem  to 
relegate  their  system  to  the  history  of  heathen  rather  than 
of  Christian  doctrine. 

2.  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  THE  OLDER  COMMUNIONS.  —  The 
general  cast  of  these  developments  has  already  been  indi 
cated  by  the  Introduction.  They  are  well  described  in  the 
characterization  of  the  period  as  the  age  of  criticism  and 
apology,  of  attack  and  defence,  of  strife  and  attempted 
reconciliation. 

Lutherans.  —  The  genuine  religious  inspiration  which  lay 
at  the  basis  of  Pietism,  and  whicli  wrought  with  good  effect 
at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  did  not  ade- 


270  HISTORY  OE   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

quatciy  pervade  the  life,  or  blend  with  the  dogmatic  think 
ing,  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  On  the  contrary,  Pietism 
itself  suffered  a  loss  of  vitality  and  breadth.  So  no  ade 
quate  barriers  were  offered  to  formalism  and  indifference, 
and  the  usual  resultant  of  these,  unbelief.  The  products 
of  English  deism  were  imported ;  French  infidelity,  under 
the  patrjnagc  of  Frederick  the  Great,  made  its  inroads ; 
the  rage  for  exact  demonstration,  fostered  by  the  Wolffian 
philosophy,  threw  probable  evidences  unduly  into  the  shade ; 
the  rising  zest  for  criticism,  in  its  reaction  from  the  whole 
sale  assumption  and  dogmatism  of  the  preceding  age,  tended 
to  excess.  Such  factors  co-working  upon  the  prepared  soil 
originated  German  rationalism. 

Only  in  cases  exceptionally  extreme,  such  as  those  of 
Bahrdt  and  Edelmann,  did  German  rationalism  run  into 
irreligion,  or  a  tone  of  scornful  opposition  to  the  Bible. 
Its  object  was  not  to  overthrow  Christianity,  but  to  inter 
pret  it  in  harmony  with  a  more  or  less  radical  bias  against 
the  supernatural.  The  more  moderate  rationalists  were 
content  with  abridging  the  supernatural  elements  in  the 
Christian  oracles  and  religion  ;  the  more  radical  sought  to 
bring  everything  down  to  the  plane  of  naturalism. 

J.  D.  Michaelis  and  J.  A.  Ernest!  are  associated  with  the 
transition  to  rationalism,  not  because,  in  their  own  beliefs, 
they  deviated  to  any  considerable  extent  from  orthodoxy, 
but  because  their  new  departure  in  the  use  of  critical 
methods  was  utilized  by  disciples  who  were  largely  given 
to  free-thinking.  The  man  who  more  than  any  other  may 
be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  German  rationalism  was 
J.  S.  Semler,  Professor  in  Halle  from  1752  to  1791.  Before 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  large  proportion  of 
Lutheran  theologians  had  reached  or  passed  beyond  his 
standpoint,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century 
the  rationalistic  school  was  still  dominant.  Among  repre 
sentatives  of  the  more  radical  type  are  numbered  H.  E.  G. 
Paulus,  H.  P.  C.  Henke,  J.  F.  Rohr,  J.  C.  R.  Eckermann, 


1720-1885.]  FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     271 

J.  Sclmlthess,  and  J.  A.  L.  Wegscheider.  Examples  of  the 
more  moderate  class  are  A.  H.  Niemeyer  and  C.  G.  Bret- 
schneider.  C.  F.  von  Ammon  may  be  placed  with  either 
class,  according  to  the  period  of  his  life  which  is  under 
consideration.  The  aversion  of  J.  G.  Eichhorn  to  the  su 
pernatural  elements  in  the  Biblical  narratives  would  seem 
to  assign  him  to  the  more  radical  class,  though  in  important 
respects  his  views  of  the  Bible  were  quite  conservative. 

Before  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  present  cen 
tury,  a  movement  counteractive  of  the  current  rationalism 
had  been  set  on  foot.     Various  factors  were  united  in  this. 
The  idealistic  philosophies,  however  questionable  their  atti 
tude  toward  orthodox  Lutheranism  may  have  been,  were 
certainly  on  the  whole  no  friends  of  the  common  rational 
ism.     The  philosophy  of  Kant,  to  be  sure,  was  in  some 
respects  an  ally,  but  it  had  also  its  opposing  phases,  while 
in  the  writings  of  Fichte,  Schelling,  and  Hegel  there  was 
open  and  repeated  denunciation  of  rationalistic  barrenness 
and  superficiality.     The  profound  impulse  which  the  Ger 
man  mind  and  heart  received  in  connection  with  the  wars 
of  independence  served  as  a  practical  basis  for  more  thor 
ough  and  evangelical  ways  of  thinking.      Finally,  a  new 
leaven  was  brought  into  the  sphere  of  theology  by  the 
labors  of  Schleiermacher.     In  opposition  to  the  rationalis 
tic  endeavor  to  satisfy  merely  the  understanding,  he  called 
attention  to  the  basis  which  religion  has  in  the  feelings, 
and  to  the  paramount  importance  which  must  be  attached 
to  the  person  of  the  Redeemer  in  satisfying  this  side  of 
man's  nature.     His  system  of  doctrine   (Dcr  Christliche 
Glaube),  published  in  1821,  marks  a  new  era  in  modern 
theology.     Rationalism,  it  is  true,  was  not  driven  from  the 
field  ;  but  thenceforth  it  held  but  a  portion  of  the  land  ;  it 
was  compelled  to  face  a  strong  and  confident  rival,  and 
found  occasion  to  manifest  itself  under  new  forms.     So,  in 
place  of  the  old  type,  we  have  such  theories  as  those  of 
David  Strauss  and  F.  C.  Baur. 


272  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

In  the  list  of  Lutheran  theologians  reputed  orthodox, 
or  relatively  so,  we  have,  for  the  early  part  of  the  period, 
Francis  Buddeus,  Lorenz  von  Mosheim,  J.  A.  Bengel,  S.  J. 
Baumgarten,  J.  G.  Carpzov,  J.  G.  Walch,  J.  G.  Keinbeck, 
J.  Carpov,  and  C.  M.  Pfaff ;  for  the  middle  part  of  the 
period,  S.  F.  N.  Morns,  J.  C.  Doederlein,  G.  F.  Seiler, 
G.  C.  Storr,  G.  C.  Knapp,  F.  Y.  Reinhard,  G.  J.  Planck, 
and  F.  C.  Oetinger  (who,  however,  mixed  some  theosophic 
peculiarities  with  the  orthodox  ingredients  of  his  faith)  ; 
for  the  closing  part  of  the  period,  A.  Hahn,  H.  Olshausen, 
J.  A.  C.  Hiivcrnick,  F.  Liicke,  August  Neander,  C.  J. 
Nitzsch,  J.  Miiller,  A.  Tholuck,  C.  Ullmann,  A.  D.  C.  Twes- 
ten,  J.  A.  Dorner,  T.  A.  Liebner,  H.  Martensen,  R.  Rothe, 
J.  T.  Beck,  K.  A.  Auberlen,  H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  C.  F.  Schmid, 

E.  W.  C.  Sartorius,  E.   W.  Hengstenberg,  H.  E.  F.  Gue- 
ricke,  G.  Thomasius,  J.  C.  K.  von  Hofmann,  F.  Pelitzsch, 
C.  E.  Luthardt,  K.  F.  A.  Kahnis,  K.  F.  Keil,  G.  F.  Oehler, 

F.  A.  Philippi,  and  Bernhard  Weiss.     The  fact  that  these 
writers  are  enumerated   in  a  common   class  will  not  of 
course  preclude  the  judgment  that  they  differed  to  a  very 
noticeable  degree  from  each  other.     It  is  no  small  interval, 
for   example,  which  lies   between   the   systems  of   Rothe 
and  Weiss,  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  of  Guericke  and 
Philippi,  on  the  other.     Still,  the  former  have  some  claim 
to  be  included  in  the  same  field  of  vision  with  the  latter. 
If  not  of  the  strict  sect  of  orthodoxy,  they  nevertheless 
exhibit  in  their  spirit  and  belief  an  element  which  associates 
them  with  evangelical  thought,  as  opposed  to  the  common 
rationalism. 

Among  the  outward  events  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the 
union  effort  claims  a  foremost  place  in  importance.  "  In 
1817,  at  the  third  centenary  celebration  of  the  Reforma 
tion,  the  king  of  Prussia,  Frederick  William  III.,  united  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches  in  his  kingdom  un 
der  one  government  and  worship,  and  gave  them  the  name 
of  the  Evangelical  Church.  This  example  was  followed  by 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.   273 

most  of  the  countries  where  the  two  denominations  were 
represented  ;  viz.  Nassau,  Bavaria  on  the  Rhine,  Baden, 
Hesse-Cassel  and  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Saxe-Weimar  and  Hild- 
burgshausen,  and  Wurtemberg.  But  Bavaria  proper,  Aus 
tria,  and  the  kingdoms  of  Saxony  and  Hanover,  never 
introduced  the  union."  (Schaff,  "  Germany,  its  Universi 
ties,  Theology,  and  Religion.")  Moreover,  in  some  of  the 
countries  where  the  union  was  introduced  there  has  been 
a  reaction  in  favor  of  strict  denominational  lines. 

In  the  United  States  the  Lutheran  Church  has  been  less 
subject  to  theological  transitions  than  in  the  mother  coun 
try.  It  has  not  been,  however,  entirely  free  from  them. 
In  the  first  half  of  the  century  a  rather  loose  adhesion 
was  given  in  general  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
dissent  from  some  of  the  characteristic  tenets  of  Luther- 
anism  was  freely  expressed.  Recently  there  has  been  an 
extensive  movement  in  favor  of  a  strict  adherence  to  the 
old  Lutheran  standards.  A  prominent  representative  of 
the  former  phase  was  S.  S.  Schmucker ;  of  the  latter,  a 
leading  champion  is  Chas.  P.  Krauth. 

Reformed  Church  on  the  Continent.  —  The  present  period 
has  been  relatively  an  era  of  less  productiveness  in  the 
Reformed  than  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  In  the  different 
countries  of  the  Continent  it  has  experienced  similar  vicis 
situdes.  Generally  there  has  been  a  departure  from  the 
rigor  of  earlier  standards,  and  in  many  instances  rational 
ism  has  disputed  or  commanded  the  field.  Among  the 
more  extreme  developments  in  this  direction  is  the  move 
ment  in  Holland  represented  by  Kuenen  and  others.  At 
the  same  time,  there  has  been  an  able  representation  of 
evangelical  tendencies.  In  Switzerland  and  Germany  we 
have  such  names  as  J.  H.  A.  Ebrard,  A.  Schweizer,  M. 
Schneckenburger,  K.  B.  Hundeshagcn,  K.  H.  Sack,  J.  P. 
Lange,  and  K.  R.  Hagcnbach.  In  France  evangelical 
Protestantism  has  found  efficient  servants  in  Edmond  de 
Pressens6,  and  the  distinguished  layman  Guizot.  In  Hol- 

VOL.  II.  —  18. 


274  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

land,  La  Saussaye  and  Van  Oosterzee  hold  eminent  rank 
among  writers  of  orthodox  tendencies. 

In  the  United  States  the  affiliated  branches,  the  Dutch 
Reformed  and  the  German  Reformed,  have  been  much  less 
invaded  by  radical  notions  in  theology  than  the  corre 
sponding  communions  in  the  mother  country.  They  have 
adhered  quite  generally  to  the  early  standards,  though  not 
without  manifestations  of  a  disposition  to  abate  their  rigor 
in  some  points.  The  former  numbers  among  its  writers 
Gco.  W.  Bethune  and  Tayler  Lewis ;  the  latter,  John  W. 
Nevin  and  Philip  Schaff. 

The  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  —  In  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
most  noteworthy  event  in  English  ecclesiastical  history, 
apart  from  the  initiation  of  the  Methodist  revival,  was  the 
deistic  controversy.  The  writings  of  such  deists  as  Collins, 
Woolston,  Chubb,  Tindal,  Morgan,  and  Bolingbroke  called 
forth  a  host  of  replies.  Apologetic  treatises  became  the  or 
der  of  the  day,  and  apparently  they  accomplished  their  pur 
pose.  Either  in  virtue  of  the  offset  which  they  presented, 
or  by  reason  of  other  forces,  such  as  the  religious  awaken 
ing,  deism  declined  on  English  soil,  so  that  soon  after  the 
middle  of  the  century  its  writings  were  generally  neglected. 
It  has  recently  become  the  fashion  to  disparage  these  anti- 
deistical  apologies  of  the  eighteenth  century.  No  doubt, 
they  are  defective  from  the  standpoint  of  the  highest  theo 
logical  culture  of  the  present.  But  this  does  not  prove 
that  they  were  not  able  attempts  to  meet  the  then  existing 
crisis,  or  that  they  are  destitute  of  valid  and  useful  sup 
ports  of  Christian  faith.  Among  the  more  eminent  authors 
(including  some  from  the  Dissenters)  who  conducted  the 
war  against  deism  were  Nathaniel  Lardner,  Richard  Bent- 
ley,  Edward  Chandler,  Samuel  Chandler,  Thomas  Sherlock, 
Zachary  Pearce,  Richard  Smalbrooke,  William  Law,  James 
Foster,  John  Conybeare,  Bishop  Butler,  John  Chapman, 
William  Warburton,  and  John  Leland. 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     275 

In  the  present  century,  the  two  opposing  movements, 
the  Tractarian  or  Ritualistic,  and  the  Broad  Church,  are 
the  most  significant  events.  The  former  began  at  Oxford 
in  1833,  under  the  lead  of  E.  B.  Pusey,  J.  H.  Newman,  H. 
Froude,  and  others.  It  was  of  the  nature  of  a  reaction, 
provoked,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  action  of  the  government 
in  throwing  open  the  doors  of  Parliament  to  Dissenters  and 
Romanists,  and  on  the  other,  by  the  rationalizing  or  liberal 
tendencies  manifested  within  the  Church.  Starting  with 
a  special  emphasis  upon  patristic  authority,  apostolical  suc 
cession,  and  the  virtue  of  the  sacraments,  the  Ritualistic 
movement  advanced  from  one  stage  to  another,  until  at 
length  many  of  its  adherents  declared  openly  their  hatred 
of  Protestantism,  their  preference  for  Romish  ritual,  and 
for  a  number  of  Romish  dogmas.  As  a  natural  accompa 
niment  of  this  inner  approximation  to  Rome,  a  consider 
able  number  passed  into  the  Romish  communion,  including 
such  leading  spirits  as  Newman,  Simeon,  Wilbcrforce, 
Manning,  and  Faber. 

The  Broad  Church  is  the  extreme  opposite  of  the  Ritual 
ists.  It  repudiates  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  High 
Church  theory,  denies  the  necessity  of  apostolical  succes 
sion,  narrows  the  distinction  between  the  ecclesiastical  and 
the  secular,  exalts  the  authority  of  reason  at  the  expense 
of  traditionary  standards,  and  is  more  or  less  inclined  to 
abridge  the  significance  of  the  external  evidences  of  re 
vealed  religion.  It  numbers  such  adherents  as  Coleridge, 
Thomas  Arnold,  F.  D.  Maurice,  Charles  Kingslcy,  Benjamin 
Jowett,  A.  P.  Stanley,  and  Matthew  Arnold. 

The  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  settled  its 
constitution  in  1789.  In  1801,  it  adopted  with  few  changes 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  At  the 
outset  Low  Church  tendencies  were  apparently  in  the  as 
cendant.  Bishop  White,  a  leader  in  the  era  of  organiza 
tion,  was  decidedly  remote  from  the  High  Church  temper 
and  standpoint.  In  its  later  history  the  Episcopal  Church 


276  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

in  this  country  has  reflected  more  or  less  the  movements 
in  the  Church  of  England.  The  Tractarian  wave  reached 
her  borders,  as  has  also  the  Broad  Church  movement. 
Recently  the  High  Church  party  has  shown  aggressive 
energy  and  has  scored  some  victories,  —  a  fact  which  ex 
plains  the  appearance  of  a  Reformed  Episcopal  Church 
among  the  heirs  of  apostolic  prerogatives. 

Presbyterians.  —  A  conservative  spirit  has  in  general  dis 
tinguished  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Scotland.  In  the 
eighteenth  century  there  was  a  slight  outcropping  of  free- 
thinking,  in  which  Professor  Simson  of  Glasgow  bore  a 
conspicuous  part.  Also  among  the  so-called  Moderates, 
under  the  lead  of  William  Robertson,  there  was  a  relaxa 
tion  of  dogmatic  zeal.  The  sermons  of  this  party  revealed 
more  interest  in  ethics  than  in  theological  beliefs.  How 
ever,  they  took  no  open  exception  to  the  Church  standard, 
the  Westminster  Confession.  The  schisms  which  occurred 
in  this  century  had  their  origin  principally  in  different 
views  of  polity,  and  flowed  from  that  bitter  fountain  in  the 
Scottish  Church,  the  vexing  question  of  patronage.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  disruption  which,  in  1843,  gave  origin 
to  the  Free  Church.  The  most  influential  leader  in  the 
disruption,  and  the  most  efficient  organizer  of  the  Free 
Church,  bore  the  celebrated  name  of  Thomas  Chalmers. 
Recently  in  both  the  Established  Church  and  the  Free 
Church  of  Scotland,  considerable  theological  activity  has 
been  manifested,  and  works  deserving  of  attention  have 
been  given  to  the  public.  We  may  instance,  among  others, 
such  writers  as  William  Cunningham,  Alexander  B.  Bruce, 
John  Tulloch,  and  Henry  Calderwood. 

In  the  United  States,  also,  the  main  body  of  the  Presby 
terians  has  exhibited  a  good  degree  of  dogmatic  steadiness. 
However,  there  has  been  sufficient  divergence  in  belief  to 
occasion  a  notable  disruption.  One  party,  known  as  the 
Old  School,  being  devoted  to  the  Calvinism  of  the  West 
minster  divines,  and  another  party,  called  the  New  School, 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     277 

being  inclined  to  the  modified  Calvinism  of  the  New  Eng 
land  theology,  a  division  took  place  between  them  in  1837. 
The  two  types  of  theological  thought  still  exist,  though  a 
reunion  of  the  two  branches  was  consummated  in  1871. 
A  very  full  and  able  exhibit  of  the  tenets  of  the  Old  School 
is  given  in  the  "  Systematic  Theology  "  of  Charles  Hodge, 
while  the  recently  published  "  System  of  Christian  The 
ology,"  by  Henry  B.  Smith,  is  representative,  at  least  to  a 
considerable  extent,  of  the  New  School. 

Congregationalists.  —  New  England  has  been  the  prin 
cipal  arena  of  theological  activity  in  the  Congregational 
body  of  the  present  period.  In  England  there  has  been 
little  of  the  nature  of  a  doctrinal  crisis.  Though  not  bound 
by  any  definite  standard,  the  English  Congregationalists  of 
the  eighteenth  century  adhered  very  generally  to  the  prin 
ciples  of  their  earlier  history.  Their  most  noted  represent 
atives  at  that  time  were  Bradbury,  Watts,  and  Doddridge. 
The  latest  general  declaration  of  their  faith  is  that  of  1833, 
which,  however,  was  understood  not  to  be  authoritative,  but 
simply  a  resume  of  beliefs  commonly  held  among  them. 
Recently  there  has  been  something  of  a  drift  from  the  old 
moorings,  especially  on  the  subject  of  eschatology. 

With  Jonathan  Edwards  began  one  of  the  most  note 
worthy  developments  which  has  taken  place  in  recent  times 
within  Calvinistic  communions.  Whatever  may  be  thought 
of  the  soundness  of  his  views,  the  greatness  of  his  perso 
nality  is  evinced  by  the  energy  and  persistence  with  which 
his  mental  impress  has  transmitted  itself.  Some  of  the 
points  in  which  Edwards  or  his  immediate  successors  are 
claimed  to  have  made  improvements  on  the  older  theology 
are  the  following :  defining  of  virtue  as  benevolence,  dis 
tinguishing  between  natural  and  moral  necessity,  identify 
ing  the  terms  free  and  voluntary,  asserting  that  the  essence 
of  virtue  and  vice  is  independent  of  their  cause,  and  that 
freedom  is  not  interfered  with  by  determination  db  extra, 
discarding  of  the  debt  theory  of  the  atonement  in  favor 


278  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

of  the  governmental  view,  modification  or  rejection  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  purifying  of  the  conception 
of  regeneration.  (See  Jonathan  Edwards,  Jr.,  Remarks 
on  the  Improvements  of  Theology  by  his  Father.)  This 
system  of  modified  Calvinism  lias  received  the  designation 
of  the  New  England  Theology,  —  a  term  of  rather  indefi 
nite  breadth,  covering  different  schools  and  parties.  Some 
of  the  representatives  of  the  New  England  theology  have 
rivalled  the  extremest  of  the  old  Calvinistic  dogmatists  in 
certain  of  their  views,  while  others  have  approached  pretty 
near  the  borders  of  Arminianism.  These  diversities,  how 
ever,  may  be  considered  more  appropriately  under  the  topics 
to  which  they  relate.  Among  the  distinguished  names  on 
the  roll  of  the  New  England  theology  are  Joseph  Bellamy, 
Samuel  Hopkins,  Jonathan  Edwards,  Jr.,  West  of  Stock- 
bridge,  John  Smalley,  Samuel  Spring,  Nathanael  Emrnons, 
E.  D.  Griffin,  Timothy  Dwight,  Leonard  Woods,  N.  W. 
Taylor,  Enoch  Pond,  and  E.  A.  Park. 

One  of  the  great  events  in  the  history  of  New  England 
Congregationalism  in  the  present  century  has  already  been 
sketched  in  the  account  given  of  the  rise  of  Unitarianism. 
A  second  is  embodied  in  what  is  currently  termed  the  New 
Departure.  This  movement,  which  has  come  to  the  surface 
within  the  last  few  years,  represents  the  conviction  that  the 
old  speculative  theology  has  made  its  outlines  too  rigid  and 
definite  on  various  points,  that  a  larger  margin  must  be 
assigned  to  the  merely  probable,  that  theology  should  be 
more  Christo-centric,  and  that  some  concessions  must  be 
made  to  recent  Biblical  criticism,  and  some  weight  attached 
to  the  advancing  Christian  consciousness,  as  opposed  to  an 
exclusive  appeal  to  the  letter  of  revelation.  The  point  in 
the  departure  which  perhaps  has  attracted  most  attention 
lies  in  the  field  of  eschatology.  While  the  adherents  of 
the  movement  are  not  restorationists,  they  are  disposed  to 
predicate  for  certain  classes  opportunities  of  probation  be 
tween  death  and  the  final  judgment.  A  creed  quite  accept- 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     279 

able  in  its  spirit  to  the  New  Departure,  if  not  specifically 
corroborative  of  the  same,  has  been  issued  (1884)  by  the 
commission  appointed  under  the  direction  of  the  National 
Council  of  Congregational  Churches.  It  embodies  the  main 
points  of  catholic  evangelical  belief,  is  wholly  free  from 
the  special  tenets  of  Calvinism,  at  least  from  any  positive 
and  explicit  statement  of  them,  and  could  be  subscribed  by 
an  Arminian  with  entire  good  faith.  The  peculiarities  of 
Calvinism  have  indeed  still  a  place  among  Congregational- 
ists,  but,  in  harmony  with  the  contents  of  the  creed,  they 
are  not  reckoned  among  the  essentials. 

Baptists.  —  In  consequence  of  the  inroads  of  Arianism, 
a  division  occurred  among  the  General  or  Arminian  Baptists 
of  England  in  the  eighteenth  century.  The  orthodox  party 
withdrew  in  1770,  and  formed  the  New  Connection  of  Gen 
eral  Baptists.  The  Particular  or  Calvinistic  Baptists  of  the 
same  date  were  characterized  in  general  by  extra  rigidity 
of  belief  instead  of  laxity,  being  under  such  leaders  as  John 
Gill  and  John  Brine,  who  held  to  Calvinism  in  its  supra- 
lapsarian  phase.  At  the  close  of  the  century  (the  era  of 
William  Carey  and  Robert  Hall)  the  denomination  took  a 
new  start  in  religious  activity,  and  in  the  present  century, 
both  in  England  and  in  this  country,  it  has  advanced  rapidly 
in  numbers,  influence,  and  extent  of  wholesome  Christian 
work.  Though  not  bound  by  authoritative  standards,  the 
Baptists  of  this  order  have  been  quite  homogeneous  in  faith. 
Taking  the  period  through,  they  have  held  in  general  quite 
strictly  to  the  Calvinistic  system ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it 
can  hardly  be  denied  that  in  the  last  few  years  they  have 
shared  more  or  less  in  that  practical  revolt  against  the 
sterner  features  of  Calvinism  which  has  spread  over  so  large 
a  portion  of  the  theological  world.  Among  statements  of 
doctrine,  the  Philadelphia  Confession  (same  as  the  English 
Confession  of  1688),  adopted  in  1742,  and  the  New  Hamp 
shire  Confession,  prepared  about  1833,  have  been  widely 
regarded  as  representative  of  Baptist  beliefs.  In  the  list  of 


280  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

Baptist  writers  of  the  period  we  have,  besides  those  men 
tioned  above,  Andrew  Fuller,  T.  J.  Conant,  H.  B.  Hackett, 
A.  C.  Kendrick,  J.  A.  Broadus,  Alvah  Hovey,  J.  L.  Dagg, 
and  J.  M.  Pendleton. 

Roman  Catholics.  —  While  different  schools  of  theologi 
cal  thought  have  continued  to  exist  in  the  Romish  Church, 
on  the  whole  they  have  been  less  distinctly  and  sharply 
arrayed  against  each  other  in  the  present  than  in  the  pre 
ceding  period.  The  general  tendency  has  been  to  unite  in 
emphasizing  points  decided  by  councils  and  popes,  and  on 
points  not  definitely  decided  to  allow  that  different  views 
may  be  held  without  prejudice  to  the  faith.  Some  outcrop- 
pings  of  liberalism  have  appeared,  as,  for  example,  in  the 
so-called  Austrian  Aufklarung  under  Joseph  II. ;  but  every 
such  manifestation  has  been  offset  by  a  reactionary  move 
ment,  and  the  outcome,  as  it  appears  in  the  Vatican  Coun 
cil  of  1869-70,  is  the  triumph  of  the  Romish  over  the 
Catholic  element,  the  enthronement  of  Ultramontanism. 
To  be  sure,  the  Vatican  decrees  represented  a  partisan 
victory,  and  their  enactment  was  secured  at  the  expense 
of  an  extra  amount  of  management.  But  once  enacted 
they  have  commanded  the  acquiescence,  however  reluc 
tant,  of  the  great  majority  of  those  who  were  opposed  to 
their  adoption.  The  Old  Catholic  movement,  in  which  the 
opposition  culminated,  and  which  acquired  in  1873  a  regu 
lar  organization,  though  commanding  the  adhesion  of  such 
eminent  men  as  Dbllinger  and  Reinkcns,  has  not  yet  se 
cured  very  extensive  suffrage.  As  their  name  indicates, 
the  Old  Catholics  endeavor  to  go  back  to  the  more  primitive 
standpoint  of  the  Church.  In  the  decisions  and  practice  of 
the  Church  of  the  first  six  centuries  they  find  the  norm  of 
doctrine  and  discipline.  Their  theology,  apart  from  their 
attitude  toward  papal  claims,  is  essentially  Roman  Catholic, 
but  it  is  hardly  presumption  to  prophesy  that  their  release 
from  pontifical  sovereignty  will  eventuate  in  some  further 
modifications  of  the  Romish  features  of  their  faith. 


1720-1885.]   FACTOKS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     281 

Besides  the  Decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council,  the  present 
period  has  added  to  the  confessional  documents  of  the 
Romish  Church  the  Bull  Ineffabilis  Deus,  by  Pius  IX., 
issued  in  1854  as  an  authoritative  promulgation  of  the 
dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin,  and 
the  Syllabus  of  1864,  from  the  same  pontiff.  The  latter 
is  a  specification  of  eighty  errors  of  the  present  age. 

Among  eminent  Roman  Catholic  authors  we  have  the 
names  of  Eusebius  Amort,  Michael  Sailer,  and  Martin  Ger- 
bert  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  J.  Perrone,  J.  A.  Moh- 
ler,  F.  A.  Staudenmaier,  H.  Klee,  Seb.  von  Drey,  J.  X.  Die- 
ringer,  and  J.  N.  Oischinger  in  the  present  century.  Prior 
to  the  Vatican  Council,  Dollinger  was  reckoned  as  one  of 
the  great  lights  of  Roman  Catholic  literature.  His  labors, 
however,  were  more  in  the  historical  than  in  the  dogmatic 
field.  In  the  same  field  a  high  distinction  has  been  won 
by  K.  J.  Hefele. 

Greek  Church.  —  Few  noteworthy  points  in  the  dogmatic 
history  of  the  Greek  Church  are  on  record  for  the  last  two 
centuries.  The  conservative  temper  so  long  characteristic 
of  this  communion  has  continued  to  dominate  her  faith 
and  practice.  The  most  important  confessional  documents 
which  have  been  added  to  her  list  in  this  era  are  the 
Russian  Catechisms  of  Platon  and  Philaret.  That  of  the 
latter  is  described  by  Schaff  as  "  the  most  authoritative  doc 
trinal  standard  of  the  orthodox  Graeco-Russian  Church." 
(Creeds  of  Christendom.) 


SECTION  III.  —  SCRIPTURE  AND  TRADITION. 

1.  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  SCRIPTURE  AND  TRADITION.  — 
The  same  general  contrast  between  Romanism  and  Prot 
estantism  which  subsisted  in  the  Reformation  era  upon 
this  theme  has  continued  down  to  the  present.  Only  to  a 
moderate  extent  and  within  a  limited  circle  has  the  con- 


282  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

trast  been  modified.  This  limited  approximation  of  views 
is  discernible  in  the  fact,  that,  on  the  one  hand,  some  Ro 
man  Catholic  theologians  have  identified  tradition  on  its 
subjective  side  with  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  some  Protestant  theologians  have  made 
the  growing  Christian  consciousness  in  a  measure  supple 
mentary  to  Scripture.  Setting  forth  this  subjective  side  of 
tradition  Moliler  defines  it  as  the  collective  understanding 
or  consciousness  of  the  Church.  (Symbolik,  §  38.)  Stau- 
denrnaier  speaks  of  it  as  the  divinely  wrought  consciousness 
of  the  Church.  (Dogmatik,  Introd.)  Newman's  theory  of 
development  proceeds  largely  from  the  same  conception, 
assuming  that  all  conclusions  which  are  reached  by  the 
unfolding  mind  or  consciousness  of  the  Church  come  with 
authoritative  sanctions,  however  indistinct  the  datum  may 
have  been  from  which  the  unfoldment  started.  Evidently 
there  is  somewhat  in  such  a  notion  of  tradition  that  is  akin 
to  the  view  of  those  Protestant  theologians  who  go  farthest 
in  their  stress  upon  the  Christian  consciousness  as  pro 
gressively  developed  in  the  course  of  history.  Care,  nev 
ertheless,  should  be  taken  not  to  predicate  too  much  of 
a  kinship.  The  Protestant  who  makes  the  most  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  docs  not  allow  that  any  one  has 
the  office  infallibly  to  interpret  and  formulate  the  same. 
He  is  also  free  to  affirm  that  the  written  Word  is  the  in 
comparable  factor  in  developing  a  normal  Christian  con 
sciousness  ;  whereas,  the  Romanist  holds  that  formal 
statements  of  the  Church  consciousness  are  binding  upon 
the  individual  conscience,  and.  moreover,  is  free  to  make 
the  unwritten  word  the  rival  of  Scripture,  tradition  in  the 
objective  sense  the  main  ground  of  tradition  in  the  subject 
ive  sense.  Indeed,  the  writers  Mohler  and  Staudenmaicr, 
whom  we  have  quoted  as  defining  tradition  on  its  subject 
ive  side,  lay  no  small  stress  upon  the  objective  tradition, 
or  oral  teaching,  as  supplying  the  content  of  the  former. 
They  could  not  fail  to  do  this  and  yet  remain  in  harmony 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     283 

with  the  standards  of  their  Church.  The  decisions  of  the 
Vatican  Council  (1869-70),  no  less  than  those  of  Trent, 
assume  that  valid  traditions  must  have  their  ultimate  basis 
in  utterances  which  have  come  from  the  mouth  of  Christ, 
or  from  the  apostles  by  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  "have  been  transmitted,  as  it  were,  from  hand  to 
hand."  (Chap.  II.) 

It  should  be  stated  that  Newman  in  his  doctrine  of  de 
velopment  has  gone  farther  than  is  agreeable  to  many  ex 
positors  of  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  In  opposition  to  his 
picture  of  change  and  growth,  there  are  those  who  prefer, 
in  the  spirit  of  Bossuet,  to  represent  the  Church  as  always 
teaching  the  same  things,  and  not  merely  as  containing 
some  obscure  substratum  of  their  future  production.  Such, 
for  example,  is  the  import  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  statement: 
"  We  believe  that  no  new  doctrine  can  be  introduced  into 
the  Church,  but  that  every  doctrine  which  we  hold  has 
existed  and  been  taught  in  it,  ever  since  the  time  of  the 
apostles."  (See  other  quotations  in  J.  B.  Mozley's  criti 
cism  of  Newman's  Essay  on  Development.)  Newman's 
theory,  however,  is  suited  to  render  good  service  to  Rom 
ish  apologetics.  It  meets  the  case  of  those  who  have  not 
the  hardihood  to  overlook  or  to  deny  the  appearance  of  a 
vast  change  in  the  teachings  of  the  Church  since  the  first 
centuries.  It  ought  to  appear  especially  useful  to  Roman 
ists  since  the  promulgation  of  the  dogma  of  the  immacu 
late  conception  of  the  Virgin  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope. 

A  movement  on  Protestant  soil,  which,  however,  cannot 
be  characterized  as  a  Protestant  movement,  has  made  a 
close  approach  to  the  Romish  doctrine  of  tradition.  In 
the  scheme  of  the  English  Ritualists,  tradition  is  assigned 
the  rank  of  an  authoritative  interpreter  of  Scripture.  In 
one  of  his  earlier  works  Puscy  remarks :  "  We  would  take 
not  our  own  private  and  individual  judgments,  but  that  of 
the  Universal  Church,  as  attested  by  the  Catholic  fathers 


284  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

and  ancient  bishops."  (Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford.)  In 
a  later  work  he  writes  to  Newman  :  "  I  meant  to  maintain 
that  the  Church  of  England  does  hold  a  divine  authority 
in  the  Church,  to  be  exercised  a  certain  way,  deriving  the 
truth  from  Holy  Scripture,  following  apostolical  tradition, 
under  the  guidance  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  fully  believe 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  us  in  this.  The  quod 
ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus,  which  our  own  di 
vines  have  so  often  inculcated,  contains,  I  believe,  the  self 
same  doctrine  as  laid  down  in  the  council  of  Trent  upon 
tradition."  (Eirenicon.) 

2.  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION.  —  We  consider  under  this 
topic  only  the  views  of  those  who  acknowledge  in  general 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  leaving  the  more  negative  theo 
ries  for  a  subsequent  discussion. 

The  theory  of  strict  verbal  inspiration  which  was  domi 
nant  in  the  seventeenth  century  has  had  its  advocates 
throughout  the  present  period.  This  theory  implies  that 
the  Bible  is  inspired  in  its  every  word  and  infallible  in  its 
every  statement,  except  possibly  in  some  instances  in  which 
the  text  has  been  corrupted  by  copyists.  Substantially 
this  view  still  appears  in  the  Lutheran  dogmatics  of  S.  J. 
Baumgartcn,  with  a  token,  however,  of  departure  from  the 
same,  since  he  maintained  that,  while  it  is  not  necessary 
to  concede  that  there  are  in  fact  any  mistakes,  it  would 
not  materially  affect  the  authority  of  the  Bible  if  it  were 
found  to  contain  some  errors  in  chronological,  geographi 
cal,  or  historical  minutias.  (Glaubenslehrc,  1764,  Vol.  III. 
pp.  82-38.)  Strict  verbal  inspiration  was  asserted  by  the 
learned  Baptist  theologian  of  the  eighteenth  century,  John 
Gill.  The  New  England  divine,  Nathanael  Emmons,  taught 
it  in  these  unmistakable  terms  :  "Every  sentence  and  every 
word  in  such  a  book  as  this  was  of  too  much  importance 
to  be  written  by  an  unassisted  pen.  Hence  it  is  natural 
to  conclude  the  Holy  Ghost  suggested  every  thought  and 
word  to  the  sacred  penmen,  all  the  while  they  were  writ- 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     285 

ing  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Difference  of  style  he  explains 
as  resulting  from  a  divine  accommodation  to  the  peculiar 
genius  and  education  of  the  sacred  penmen,  such  as  a 
parent  might  employ  in  dictating  a  letter  for  a  child. 
(Systematic  Theology,  Serm.  VII.)  The  teaching  of  Leon 
ard  Woods,  if  not  so  distinctly  committed  to  the  same  the 
ory,  bears  in  its  direction.  (Theological  Lectures,  XIII.) 
Among  recent  advocates  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  the 
Genevan  divine,  L.  Gaussen,  has  written  with  most  force 
and  vivacity.  He  says  of  the  Bible,  that  it  contains  no 
error,  that  all  its  parts  are  equally  inspired,  that  its  words 
are  in  every  case  what  they  ought  to  be.  "  It  is  not,  as 
some  will  have  it,  a  book  which  God  employed  men,  whom 
He  had  previously  enlightened,  to  write  under  His  auspices. 
No,  it  is  a  book  which  He  dictated  to  them ;  it  is  the  Word 
of  God  ;  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  its  authors,  and 
his  words  were  upon  their  tongues."  (Theopncustia,  trans 
lation  by  D.  D.  Scott.)  Statements  nearly  as  sweeping  are 
employed  by  Charles  Hodge,  who  likewise  maintains  that 
all  the  books  of  Scripture  are  equally  inspired,  that  inspi 
ration  extends  to  all  the  contents  of  these  books,  and  to 
the  words  as  well  as  to  the  general  subject  matter.  (Syste 
matic  Theology,  Introd.,  Chap.  VI.  Compare  Prof.  Atwater 
in  Bib.  Sac.,  Jan.,  1864 ;  Enoch  Pond,  Lectures  on  Christian 
Theology,  X.) 

The  Swedenborgian  view  also  comes  under  the  category 
of  strict  verbal  inspiration,  at  least  so  far  as  those  books 
are  concerned  which  are  properly  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  or 
contain  the  spiritual  sense.  "  These,"  says  Edwin  Gould, 
"  we  believe  to  be  plenarily  inspired,  every  word  and  sylla 
ble  contained  in  them,  in  the  original  tongues,  having  been 
dictated  viva  voce  to  the  different  penmen  by  whom  they 
were  committed  to  writing,  from  the  mouth  of  God  Him 
self."  (Swedenborg  and  Modern  Biblical  Criticism.)  The 
other  books  (including  in  the  Old  Testament  Ruth,  1  and 
2  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehcmiali,  Esther,  Proverbs,  Ecclcsi- 


286  HISTORY  or  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    [PERIOD  v. 

astes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  Job,  and  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles)  were  written 
"  by  a  lower  and  mediate  inspiration,  or  a  divine  direction 
and  superintendence."  (Ibid.) 

A  second  theory,  which  has  had  much  currency  through 
the  period,  while  claiming  that  the  Bible  as  originally  given 
was  free  from  error,  affirms  that  inspiration  was  not  equal 
in  all  parts,  —  that  at  least  in  case  of  the  historical  books 
it  did  not  determine  the  exact  language.  This  may  be 
regarded  as  the  standard  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  more 
recent  times.  It  is  advocated  by  Perrone  among  others. 
"While  rejecting  the  theory  of  Hamel  and  Less,  he  is  also 
averse  to  the  view  that  all  of  the  Scriptures  were  dictated 
to  the  sacred  penmen.  Biblical  inspiration,  as  he  teaches, 
included  the  following  elements :  "  (1.)  Incitement  or  im 
pulse  to  writing  ;  (2.)  illumination  of  the  mind  and  move 
ment  of  the  will,  so  that  not  only  does  no  error  proceed 
from  the  sacred  writer;  but  (3.)  moreover,  there  is  found 
in  him  such  a  choice  of  the  things  to  be  written  that  he 
omits  nothing,  adds  nothing  to  that  which  God  wished  to 
be  written  by  him  ;  (4.)  constant  and  singular  assistance 
in  accomplishing  the  work."  (Prelect.  Theol.,  De  Sacra 
Script.,  Cap.  II.  Compare  Klee,  Dogmatik,  1844,  Vol.  I. 
pp.  261,  262.)  The  same  theory  has  been  held  by  various 
Protestant  writers,  such  as  Philip  Doddridge,  Daniel  Wil 
son,  and  E.  Henderson. 

A  third  theory  differs  from  the  foregoing  in  allowing  a 
somewhat  wider  scope  to  human  agency.  While  maintain 
ing  that  the  Bible,  taken  in  its  entirety,  is  a  complete 
ethical  and  religious  standard,  it  admits  that  it  may  con 
tain  errors  in  subsidiary  and  unimportant  matters.  This 
theory  has  commanded  a  growing  patronage  since  the  mid 
dle  of  the  last  century,  and  is  now  largely  prevalent  among 
Protestant  theologians.  It  has  been  very  commonly  held 
by  the  supernaturalist  school  of  Germany,  since  the  lat 
ter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  being  more  than  once 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    287 

implied,  where  not  definitely  advocated,  by  the  addition 
to  the  assertion  of  Biblical  infallibility  of  the  qualifying 
clause,  in  matters  of  doctrine,  or  in  what  concerns  religious 
faith.  It  has  been  favored  by  Tholuck,  Lange,  Martenscn, 
Hofmann,  and  Van  Oosterzee ;  by  Warburton  and  Lowth ; 
by  Coleridge,  Thomas  Arnold,  and  Alford.  It  is  not  to  be 
understood  that  all  included  under  this  specification  have 
held  the  same  total  view  of  the  Scriptures.  In  fact,  the 
elements  of  this  theory  have  been  associated  with  somewhat 
diverse  conceptions  of  the  co-working  of  divine  and  human 
agency  in  preparing  the  sacred  oracles.  A  relatively  larger 
place  has  been  assigned  to  human  agency  by  some  of  these 
writers  than  by  others.  Some,  as  Van  Oosterzee,  have 
taught  that  inspiration  extends  to  the  language  of  Scrip 
ture.  This,  however,  by  no  means  identifies  their  theory 
with  the  first  in  our  list.  Their  idea  was,  that  whatever 
affects  thought  must  affect  more  or  less  the  language  in 
which  it  is  clothed.  At  the  same  time,  they  made  the 
person  of  the  writer  a  co-agent  both  in  the  thought  and 
the  language,  and  to  such  an  extent  as  to  condition  the 
result,  and  blend  with  it  some  traces  of  human  fallibil 
ity.  "  Errors  and  inaccuracies,"  says  Yan  Oosterzee,  "  in 
matters  of  subordinate  importance,  are  undoubtedly  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible."  (Christian  Dogmatics,  Vol.1,  sect.  39.) 
Naturally,  a  large  proportion  of  those  holding  the  general 
theory  described  in  this  paragraph  lay  much  stress  upon 
the  idea  that  inspiration  is  dynamical  as  opposed  to  me 
chanical,  —  that,  instead  of  taking  the  place  of  the  human 
faculties,  it  imparts  an  extraordinary  activity  to  both  mind 
and  heart. 

The  attitude  of  the  earlier  Unitarians  of  New  England 
toward  the  Bible,  as  also  of  the  more  conservative  of  their 
successors,  may  be  included  within  the  limits  of  the  theory 
under  consideration.  They  conceded  to  the  Biblical  writers, 
at  least  those  of  the  New  Testament,  quite  a  positive  in 
spiration,  and  a  full  doctrinal  authority.  "  We  regard  the 


288  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

Scriptures,"  says  Charming,  "  as  the  records  of  God's  suc 
cessive  revelations  to  mankind,  and  particularly  of  the 
last  and  most  perfect  revelation  of  his  will  by  Jesus  Christ. 
Whatever  doctrines  seem  to  us  to  be  clearly  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  we  receive  without  reserve  or  exception.  "We 
do  not,  however,  attach  equal  importance  to  all  the  books 
in  this  collection.  Our  religion,  we  believe,  lies  chiefly 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  dispensation  of  Moses,  com 
pared  with  that  of  Jesus,  we  consider  as  adapted  to  the 
childhood  of  the  human  race,  a  preparation  for  a  nobler 
system,  and  chiefly  useful  now  as  serving  to  confirm  and 
illustrate  the  Christian  Scriptures.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
only  master  of  Christians,  and  whatever  he  taught,  either 
during  his  personal  ministry  or  by  his  inspired  apostles,  we 
regard  as  of  divine  authority,  and  profess  to  make  the  rule 
of  our  lives."  (Works,  Vol.  III.  pp.  60,  61.)  E.  S.  Gannett 
writes  :  "  We  believe  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  as  containing  the  authentic  records  of  God's 
wonderful  and  gracious  ways ;  and  to  these  Scriptures  we 
appeal  as  the  decisive  authority  upon  questions  of  faith 
and  duty.  .  .  .  We  take  our  faith  from  the  Bible.  Unita 
rian  Christianity  is  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testa 
ment."  (Discourse  at  Montreal.)  Says  Orville  Dewcy  : 
"  The  matter  is  divine,  the  doctrines  true,  the  history 
authentic,  the  miracles  real.  .  .  .  The  seal  of  a  divine  and 
miraculous  communication  is  set  upon  that  Holy  Book." 
This  miraculous  communication,  however,  as  he  elsewhere 
specifies,  applies  to  the  substance  rather  than  to  the  form 
of  the  Scriptures.  A  distinction  is  to  be  made  between 
revelation  and  the  record  of  revelation.  "  The  thought 
came  pure  from  the  all-revealing  Mind ;  but  when  it  en 
tered  the  mind  of  a  prophet  or  apostle,  it  became  a  human 
conception.  It  could  be  nothing  else,  unless  the  mind,  by 
being  inspired,  became  superhuman.  The  inspired  truth 
became  the  subject  of  human  perception,  feeling,  and  im 
agination;  and  when  it  was  communicated  to  the  world, 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    289 

it  was  clothed  with  human  language  ;  and  that  perception, 
feeling,  imagination,  lent  its  aid  to  this  communication,  as 
truly  as  to  any  writings  that  were  ever  penned."  (Works, 
Vol.  III.)  As  regards  the  Unitarianism  generally  of  the 
present,  or  of  the  immediate  past,  its  views  range  from  a 
close  approximation  to  the  above  down  to  those  character 
istic  of  extreme  rationalism.  Bellows,  were  it  not  that 
his  general  representation  is  modified  by  an  occasional 
dash  of  bolder  criticism,  might  be  placed  alongside  of 
those  whom  we  have  quoted.  "  The  Bible,"  he  says,  "  is 
the  Word  of  God,  as  the  conscience  is  the  voice  of  God ; 
but  the  words  of  the  Bible  are  not  the  words  of  God,  any 
more  than  the  decisions  of  the  conscience  are  the  decisions 
of  God.  The  mind,  the  will,  the  spirit  of  God,  whose  in 
spiration  informed  our  consciences  without  making  them 
infallible,  has  produced  the  Bible  without  making  it  per 
fect.  He  who  studies  the  Holy  Book  in  all  its  parts  will 
discern  a  divine  communication,  a  sacred  teaching,  an  un 
mistakable  guidance,  running  through  and  shining  out  of 
its  complete  tenor,  as  a  river  runs  through  a  broken  coun 
try,  or  as  an  expression  of  benignity,  of  law  and  order,  of 
justice  and  mercy,  runs  through  the  diverse  and  often 
contrasted  and  puzzling  effects  of  external  nature."  (Re 
statements  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Serm.  VI.)  He  claims 
for  inspiration  a  supernatural  cast.  Combating  the  idea 
that  it  is  to  be  identified  with  genius,  he  says  :  u  The  ordi 
nary  popular  view  of  religious  inspiration,  which  makes 
man  the  mere  tool  or  pipe  of  the  Almighty,  with  all  its 
mechanical  defects,  is  truer  to  the  reality  of  the  case  than 
the  so-called  advanced  view,  which  confounds  inspiration 
with  the  possession  of  superior  natural  insight  and  purer 
gifts  of  mind  and  heart."  (Ibid.,  Serm.  VII.) 

A  fourth  theory  may  be  characterized  as  the  intuitional. 
This  had  its  principal  starting-point  in  the  theology  of 
Schleiermachcr.  Its  distinguishing  feature  is,  that  it  em 
phasizes,  not  the  communication  of  a  message  to  the  sacred 

VOL.   II.  —  19. 


290  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

writer,  but  such  an  education  and  development  of  his  re 
ligious  consciousness  as  prepares  him  to  apprehend  and 
to  teach  divine  truth.  Inspiration  is  thus  not  so  much 
an  extraordinary  afflatus  as  a  moulding  process,  by  which 
its  subject  is  prepared  for  insight  into  spiritual  verities. 
Prophets  and  apostles  were  men  who  were  qualified  by  spe 
cial  depth  and  fulness  of  religious  life  for  special  insight 
into  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  Their  inspiration  differed 
in  degree  rather  than  in  quality  from  that  of  all  true 
believers.  Among  those  affiliating  more  or  less  distinctly 
with  this  view  we  may  mention  Nitzsch,  Twesten,  Elwert, 
Marheinecke,  Rothe,  and  Morell.  Inspiration,  according 
to  Twesten,  differs  in  grade  rather  than  in  species  from 
that  spiritual  enlightening  which  is  bestowed  upon  Chris 
tians  generally.  It  might  be  defined  as  a  higher  grade  of 
enlightening,  —  ho  her  Crrad  der  ErleucJitung.  ( Yoiiesungen 
liber  Dogmatik.)  Marheinecke  says :  "  Inspiration  is  and 
can  be  nothing  else  than  the  elevation  of  the  self-conscious 
ness  to  the  purest  and  clearest  God-consciousness."  (Sys 
tem  der  Christlichen  Dogmatik,  Theil  III.)  This  has  an 
Hegelian  sound,  but  it  might  have  come  also  from  a  disci 
ple  of  Schleiermacher.  Rothe  manifests  special  anxiety 
to  exclude  everything  bearing  the  semblance  of  magic 
from  the  divine  working,  and  insists  that  revelation  must 
be  regarded  as  mediated  by  moral  instrumentality,  —  mo- 
ralisclie  vermittelte.  "  The  essence,"  he  says,  "  of  divine 
revelation  consists  in  a  purifying,  supernaturally  wrought 
by  God,  as  well  as  an  energizing  of  the  God-consciousness 
in  man."  (Zur  Dogmatik,  1863,  pp.  60-64.)  While  in 
terms  a  definition  of  revelation,  this  may  serve  also  to  indi 
cate  Rothe' s  idea  of  inspiration ;  for  he  makes  inspiration 
the  subjective  side  of  revelation.  Manifestation  and  in 
spiration  inseparably  united  and  mediated  by  an  historical 
process  constitute  revelation.  "  Inspiration,"  says  Morell, 
"does  not  imply  anything  generically  new  in  the  actual 
processes  of  the  human  mind ;  it  does  not  involve  anv  form 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    291 

of  intelligence  essentially  different  from  what  we  already 
possess;  it  indicates  rather  the  elevation  of  the  religious 
consciousness,  and  with  it,  of  course,  the  power  of  spiritual 
vision,  to  a  degree  of  intensity  peculiar  to  the  individuals 
thus  highly  favored  of  God.  .  .  .  Inspiration  as  an  internal 
phenomenon  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  natural  laws 
of  the  human  mind,  —  it  is  a  higher  potency  of  a  certain 
form  of  consciousness,  which  every  man  to  some  degree 
possesses."  (Philosophy  of  Religion.)  Many  writers,  who 
do  not  adopt  the  intuitional  theory  as  an  adequate  account 
of  the  subject,  still  regard  it  as  an  important  factor  in  the 
proper  total  view. 

Morell  makes  a  distinction  between  revelation  and  in 
spiration  that  is  quite  in  line  with  the  intuitional  theory. 
Revelation,  in  the  narrower  sense,  denotes  the  presentation 
of  an  intelligible  object,  and  inspiration  refers  to  the  re 
cipiency  of  the  subject,  the  higher  potency  of  the  religious 
consciousness.  W.  E.  Atwell,  while  laying  more  stress 
than  Morell  upon  the  objective  element,  adopts  a  similar 
view  of  the  relation  of  revelation  and  inspiration.  The 
latter  he  confines  to  the  subjective  effects  of  the  Spirit's 
influence,  and  regards  it  as  a  preparation  for  the  former. 
(The  Pauline  Theory  of  the  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture.) 
Ladd  introduces  the  same  idea,  but  is  careful  to  note,  that, 
while  logically  distinguished,  inspiration  and  revelation 
must  be  viewed  as  in  fact  coexistent  and  most  intimately 
connected.  As  respects  revelation,  he  emphasizes  strongly 
the  idea  that  it  is  mediated  through  an  historical  process 
centring  in  the  manifested  Son  of  God.  (The  Doctrine  of 
Sacred  Scripture.)  Hodge,  on  the  other  hand,  recurs  to  the 
old  distinction,  set  forth  by  Quenstedt  among  others,  and 
makes  revelation  to  denote  the  supernatural  communication 
of  truth  to  the  mind,  and  inspiration  the  supernatural  con 
trol  of  the  mind  in  the  act  of  writing,  by  means  of  which 
the  truth  is  imparted  unmixed  with  error  to  others.  Sup 
posing  the  materials  already  at  hand,  as  was  largely  the 


292  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

case  with  the  writers  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  only  the  gift  of  inspiration  was  necessary. 
(Introduction,  Chap.  VI.) 

On  the  whole,  there  has  been  a  decided  movement  in  the 
scholarly  world  toward  a  modified  view  of  the  Bible.  The 
most  prominent  changes  may  be  summarized  as  follows  : 
(1.)  The  theory  of  strict  verbal  inspiration  has  held  a 
waning  place.  More  and  more  the  conviction  has  entered 
into  Christian  scholarship  that  it  is  untenable.  In  exten 
sive  fields  it  is  substantially  obsolete.  Kahnis  stands  as  an 
exponent,  not  of  the  scepticism,  but  of  the  evangelical  sen 
timent  of  Germany,  when  he  says  :  "  The  old  theory  of  in 
spiration  has  now  scarcely  a  representative  left.  It  has 
fallen,  and  with  right."  (Dogmatik,  Vol.  III.  §  6.)  But, 
as  he  adds,  this  in  no  wise  indicates  that  the  inspiration 
itself  of  the  Scriptures  can  or  ought  to  be  surrendered. 
(2.)  In  harmony  with  the  above  development,  the  present 
tendency  is  to  take  more  account  of  the  personality  of  the 
writer  than  was  allowed  by  the  older  and  stricter  theory, 
more  account  of  his  historical  environment,  more  account 
of  his  relative  place  in  the  organism  of  revelation.  In  other 
words,  the  present  tendency  is  to  take  more  account  of 
those  natural  factors  by  which  the  supernatural  elements 
in  revelation  have  been  conditioned.  (3.)  The  present 
tendency  is  to  rely  less  upon  detached  portions  of  the  Bible, 
to  view  it  less  as  a  collection  of  oracles,  to  look  more  to 
the  general  scope  of  its  teaching,  to  give  a  larger  recogni 
tion  to  its  historical  cast,  to  acknowledge  more  fully  that 
revelation  has  been  progressive  and  educative,  and  conse 
quently  is  not  in  all  respects  an  absolute  standard  save 
as  it  comes  to  its  goal  and  completion  in  Jesus  Christ. 
(4.)  As  respects  the  grounds  by  which  the  divine  author 
ity  of  the  Bible  is  approved,  the  present  tendency  is  to  lay 
great  stress  upon  the  cogency  with  which  its  ethical  stan 
dard,  taken  as  a  whole,  commends  itself  to  the  moral  con 
sciousness,  and  upon  the  firm  conviction  which  springs  up 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     293 

in  the  hearts  of  the  regenerate,  that  the  way  of  salvation 
through  Jesus  Christ,  revealed  in  its  pages,  is  from  God. 
The  evidence  of  miracle  and  prophecy,  though  much  as 
sailed  in  certain  quarters,  is  by  no  means  discarded ;  but 
it  occupies  relatively  less  place  than  was  accorded  to  it  in 
the  eighteenth  century.  The  broadest  theologians  of  the 
age  still  indeed  attach  a  very  high  importance  to  miracles. 
But  instead  of  treating  them  as  mere  credentials  of  a  book, 
they  emphasize  the  fact  that  they  are  an  integral  part  of 
revelation  itself,  great  ethical  deeds  of  God,  illustrating 
His  supremacy  over  nature  and  especially  His  bearing  to 
wards  men.  We  may  say,  in  general,  respecting  the  tests 
of  the  divinity  of  Scripture,  that  the  subject  is  referred 
more  largely  than  in  the  last  century  to  the  inner  tribunal. 
Amid  endless  details  of  criticism,  the  devout  disciple  of 
Christ  finds  in  the  effectual  manner  in  which  the  Scriptures 
address  his  moral  and  spiritual  consciousness,  and  satisfy 
his  religious  needs,  an  invincible  pledge  of  their  divinity. 
This  is  the  new  and  better  version  of  the  testimonium 
Spiritus  tSancti  so  commonly  advocated  in  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.  The  fault  of  the  older  dog 
matics  was,  that  it  attached  to  this  testimonium  a  too  tech 
nical  sense,  made  it  too  largely  an  address  to  man  from 
without.  It  is  indeed  the  testimony  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
which  gives  the  pledge ;  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  the 
testimony  of  the  human  spirit.  It  is  the  voice  of  man's 
clarified  reason,  conscience,  and  affection.  The  Divine 
Spirit  speaks  in  and  through  these.  Their  existence  de 
notes  His  presence ;  the  pious  mind  cannot  forbear  to 
acknowledge  in  them  tokens  of  His  gracious  working. 

3.  RADICAL  CRITICISM.  —  A  statement  of  all  the  shades 
and  varieties  of  this  criticism  would  be  a  wearisome  and 
unprofitable  task.  Only  a  brief  notice  of  the  leading  types 
will  engage  our  attention. 

English  Deism  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  —  Natural  re 
ligion  was  the  shibboleth  of  this  form  of  scepticism.  The 


294  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

Bible,  as  the  Deists  considered,  is  comparatively  useless  so 
far  as  it  agrees  with  natural  religion,  and  so  far  as  it  dis 
agrees  it  is  false  and  injurious.  Different  writers  of  the 
school  went  to  very  different  lengths  in  manifesting  their 
hostility,  but  in  their  animus  generally  there  was  an  unmis 
takable  vein  of  depreciation  and  dislike  of  the  Scriptures. 

In  critical  importance  the  attack  of  Collins  upon  proph 
ecy  was  among  the  most  significant  of  the  deistical  works. 
Woolston's  attack  upon  the  New  Testament  miracles  was 
too  manifestly  extravagant  and  fanatical  to  be  of  any  per 
manent  account.  Morgan  dealt  with  the  Old  Testament  in  a 
spirit  of  great  bitterness,  as  did  also  Bolingbroke.  Chubb 
and  Bolingbroke,  who  agreed  in  denying  special  providence, 
agreed  likewise  in  regarding  much  of  the  New  Testament 
as  of  the  nature  of  corrupting  additions  to  the  simple  ethi 
cal  teaching  of  Christ.  Tindal,  in  his  work,  "  Christianity 
as  Old  as  the  Creation,"  labored  to  show  that  the  common 
theory  of  a  special  positive  revelation,  contained  in  the 
Bible,  is  contradictory  to  the  divine  perfections. 

French  infidelity  in  the  eighteenth  century,  as  repre 
sented  by  Voltaire,  borrowed  its  premises  from  English 
deism.  What  it  added  was  an  excess  of  wit  and  irrever 
ence.  Voltaire  was  in  no  wise  distinguished  by  thorough 
ness  of  criticism,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  other 
French  sceptics  of  the  era. 

The  Beginnings  of  German  Rationalism.  —  Whether  Toll- 
ner  himself  is  to  be  classified  as  a  rationalist  or  not, 
the  work  on  inspiration  which  he  published  in  1772  no 
doubt  helped  on  the  tendency  to  break  away  from  old 
views.  He  asserted  different  degrees  of  inspiration,  and 
gave  prominence  to  the  idea  that  the  Bible  contains  rather 
than  is  the  Word  of  God.  His  contemporary,  Semler,  went 
much  farther  in  the  direction  of  innovation,  and  fairly  in 
augurated  the  rationalistic  dealing  with  the  Bible.  He 
excluded  from  the  class  of  inspired  writings  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Ruth,  Canticles,  and  various  por- 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPNENT.     295 

tions  of  other  Old  Testament  books ;  also  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse.  More 
over,  by  the  scope  which  he  gave  to  the  theory  of  accom 
modation, —  the  theory  that  Christ  and  the  apostles,  using 
the  expedients  of  popular  address,  spoke  often  from  the 
standpoint  of  current  conceptions,  —  he  abridged  materi 
ally  the  dogmatic  authority  of  those  portions  of  the  Bible 
to  which  he  attached  most  weight.  Chronologically,  Les- 
sing  belongs,  with  Semler,  to  the  beginnings  of  German 
rationalism.  Whether  he  belongs  there  also  in  respect  of 
belief,  is  a  question  not  altogether  easy  to  decide.  As 
Dorner  remarks,  opinion  is  still  divided  as  to  the  degree 
of  his  alienation  from  positive  Christianity.  He  was  evi 
dently  remote  from  the  old  Lutheran  theory  of  the  Bible. 
He  was  interested  in  the  sacred  volume  chiefly  as  a  com 
pendium  of  ethics  and  literature ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
he  cannot  be  said  to  have  committed  himself  definitely  to 
the  scheme  of  simple  naturalism.  It  must  also  be  allowed 
that  he  rendered  a  real  service  to  Biblical  science  by  call 
ing  attention  to  the  conception  of  revelation  as  a  pro 
gressive  education  of  the  race,  though  he  may  be  thought 
to  have  carried  this  beyond  just  bounds. 

G-erman  Rationalism  developed  into  Naturalism.  —  Here 
belong  such  writers  as  Paulus,  Rohr,  and  Wegscheider. 
They  start  with  the  presupposition  that  everything  must 
be  explained  on  the  basis  of  natural  law.  Paulus  goes 
over  the  list  of  the  New  Testament  miracles,  and  endeavors 
to  show  how  they  may  be  accounted  for  without  any  appeal 
to  the  supernatural,  and  also  without  any  impeachment  of 
the  honesty  of  the  writers.  The  angelic  appearances  to 
the  shepherds  he  explains  as  meteoric  phenomena.  The 
healing  of  the  possessed  was  the  natural  effect  of  such  an 
eminent  person  as  Christ  engaging  the  hearty  confidence 
of  such  patients  as  the  demoniacs.  The  five  thousand 
were  fed,  because  those  who  were  provided  with  food  were 
constrained  by  the  example  of  Christ  and  His  disciples  to 


296  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

share  their  store  with  the  destitute.  Lazarus  came  forth 
from  the  tomb  because  the  loud  voice  of  Jesus  roused  him 
from  his  stupor.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  also  was  not 
a  resurrection  of  the  really  dead.  We  cannot  tell  how 
much  was  done  toward  reviving  him  by  the  cool  air  of  the 
grotto,  and  by  the  spices,  and  how  much  by  the  electric 
currents  that  accompanied  the  storm  or  earthquake.  (Das 
Leben  Jesu.)  But  after  all  Paulus  is  not  far  from  recog 
nizing  in  the  New  Testament  the  account  of  a  genuine 
miracle.  The  personality  of  Christ,  he  allows,  appears  as 
something  quite  unique  and  unparalleled  in  history.  Weg- 
scheider  makes  a  sweeping  denial  of  miracles,  declares  the 
doctrine  of  immediate  supernatural  revelation  unworthy 
of  God,  and  reduces  the  divine  agency  in  man's  religious 
history  to  the  category  of  providence.  (Inst.  Theol.,  §§12, 
42,  44,  49.) 

The  School  of  JEsthetic  Rationalism.  —  The  naturalism, 
or  u  vulgar  rationalism,"  just  described,  diluted  the  reli 
gion  of  the  Bible  almost  into  complete  insipidity.  In  the 
school  led  by  Pe  Wette,  the  sentimental  had  a  much  larger 
place.  These  writers  addressed  themselves  to  the  Scrip 
tures  mainly  in  the  character  of  literary  critics ;  they  were 
interested  in  them  as  the  classics  of  religious  literature. 
They  were  not  much  more  tolerant  of  the  supernatural 
than  the  vulgar  rationalists,  but,  in  place  of  detailed  and 
labored  attempts  to  explain  everything  by  natural  causes, 
they  made  a  liberal  use  of  the  supposition  of  legends  and 
myths.  In  a  primitive  people,  as  they  held,  the  poetizing 
faculty  freely  and  spontaneously  exercises  itself.  There  is 
an  irrepressible  tendency  to  clothe  doctrines  with  a  sym 
bolical  form.  The  fantasy  has  full  play.  Hence,  much 
finds  place  in  the  oracles  of  religion  that  cannot  be  taken 
literally.  At  the  same  time,  this  element  is  not  without  a 
rich  significance  ;  it  is  a  manifestation  of  the  feeling  (tm- 
formulated  and  incapable  of  complete  formulation)  in  which 
lies  the  essence  of  religion,  and  it  ministers  to  the  spiritual 


1720-1885.]    FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.    297 

edification  of  those  who  receive  it  in  the  right  spirit.  In 
the  writings  of  Matthew  Arnold  there  are  prominent  points 
of  affinity  with  this  school. 

The  Mythical  Hypothesis  of  Strauss.  —  De  Wette  started 
from  the  philosophy  of  Fries,  —  a  peculiar  elaboration  from 
the  systems  of  Kant  and  Jacobi.  Strauss,  proceeding  from 
an  Hegelian  basis,  modified  and  extended,  in  accordance 
with  its  bias,  the  results  of  De  Wette's  criticism.  The 
myth,  to  which  De  Wettc  had  allowed  a  considerable  place, 
he  makes  the  determining  factor  of  the  Gospel  history  in 
the  form  in  which  it  has  come  to  us.  All  accounts  of 
miracles  he  assigns  to  the  category  of  pure  myths ;  also 
in  many  other  narratives  the  mythic  element  is,  as  he  con 
cludes,  predominant.  By  a  myth  is  to  be  understood  not 
so  much  the  intentional  fabrication  of  an  individual  as  the 
spontaneous  expression  of  what  is  matter  of  common  con 
sciousness.  The  individual  who  first  propounds  the  myth 
but  voices  a  conviction  that  has  been  stirring  in  the  breasts 
of  a  people  or  a  society  of  kindred  spirits.  The  grand  oc 
casion  of  the  New  Testament  myths  was  the  Messianic 
expectations  which  had  grown  from  the  soil  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation.  The  ideal  was  in  the  minds  of 
the  early  disciples,  and  the  creative  working  of  their 
thoughts  erelong  made  out  a  history  conformed  to  the 
ideal.  In  the  earlier  Leben  Jesu  (1835),  Strauss  made 
little  account  of  the  element  of  intentional  fabrication ;  in 
his  later  work,  addressed  to  the  German  people  (1864), 
while  holding  essentially  his  former  position,  he  felt  con 
strained  to  give  more  scope  to  the  idea  of  an  intentional 
coloring  of  the  facts  by  some  of  the  authors  of  the  Gospel 
narratives.  In  his  latest  work,  "  The  Old  Faith  in  a  New 
Light,"  Strauss  figures  as  the  exponent  of  an  unbelief 
which  surrenders  the  name  of  Christian,  and  invites  mor 
tals  hopeless  of  immortality  to  worship,  as  the  only  object 
of  worship,  an  impersonal  cosmos,  that  has  no  hearing  for 
prayer  or  sympathy  for  suffering. 


298  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

The  Development  Theory  of  Baur.  —  In  place  of  a  founder 
of  Christianity  Baur  postulates  a  struggle  of  different  ten 
dencies.  At  least,  he  allows  the  person  of  Christ  to 
retreat  into  the  background,  and  brings  into  the  fore 
ground,  as  the  agencies  by  which  Christianity  was  devel 
oped  into  its  New  Testament  phase,  the  opposing  schools 
of  Peter  and  Paul.  The  legalism  of  Peter  would  make  of 
Christiana^  only  a  purer  Judaism.  The  broader  and  more 
speculative  temper  of  Paul  would  make  of  it  a  new  religious 
philosophy  transcending  national  bounds.  Here  were  an 
tagonisms  that  needed  to  be  reconciled.  The  agents  of 
this  reconciling  work  were  not  wanting.  Some  of  the 
principal  books  of  the  New  Testament,  such  as  the  Book 
of  Acts,  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  Peter,  and  the  later  of  the 
Epistles  bearing  the  name  of  Paul,  were  the  products  of 
their  efforts.  Most  of  the  New  Testament  writings  are  to 
be  characterized  as  Tendenz-Schriften  ;  they  give  a  colored 
representation  in  the  interest  either  of  the  Petrine  or  of 
the  Pauline  party,  or  with  the  design  of  covering  up  their 
differences.  They  belong  not  to  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
but  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  second  century. 

Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Kuenen  and  Wellhau- 
sen.  —  Their  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  ad 
mits  as  little  of  the  supernatural  as  did  the  rationalism  of 
Paulus  and  Wegscheider.  The  earlier  history  of  Israel  is 
regarded  by  them  as  legendary  and  unreliable.  First  with 
the  literary  prophets  is  any  secure  historical  basis  discov 
ered.  Only  a  few  shreds  of  the  so-called  Mosaic  legisla 
tion  date  back  to  the  age  of  Moses.  The  first  edition  of 
the  Pentateuch  (so  says  Kuenen)  was  about  750  B.  c.,  the 
second  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  while  the  third,  adding  largely 
to  the  preceding,  was  from  the  hand  of  Ezra.  The  element 
of  prediction  in  prophecy  was  simply  of  the  nature  of  pious 
anticipation,  and  in  the  larger  proportion  of  instances 
failed  of  definite  fulfilment. 

As  respects  this  radical  criticism,  we  consider  it  entirely 


1720-1885.]   FACTORS  IN  THE  DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT.     299 

certain  that  it  does  not  represent  the  main  drift  of  modern 
Biblical  scholarship.  No  doubt  it  has  served  as  a  modify 
ing  factor.  With  some  it  may  have  increased  the  disin 
clination  to  admit  any  relaxation  of  the  older  and  stricter 
theory,  but  probably  with  a  larger  number  it  has  added 
somewhat  to  the  demand  for  a  less  technical  and  exact 
theory  of  Biblical  inspiration  and  authority.  As  an  ex 
treme,  it  must  submit  to  a  waning  suffrage.  Superior 
forces  are  arrayed  against  it ;  for  it  contradicts  both  a 
sober  historical  sense  and  the  ever-recurring  verdict  of  the 
spiritual  consciousness  which  is  nurtured  by  the  truth  of 
the  Scriptural  revelation. 


300  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  GODHEAD. 

SECTION  I.  —  EXISTENCE,  ESSENCE,  AND  ATTRIBUTES 
OF  GOD. 

1.  PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  EXISTENCE.  —  The  ontological 
argument  as  put  cither  by  Anselm  or  Descartes  has  claimed 
but  little  following  in  the  present  period.  Those  who  have 
given  it  a  place  have  generally  modified  or  supported  it  by 
added  considerations.  Such  was  the  case  with  Leibnitz. 
Anselm' s  argument,  says  Leibnitz,  omitted  an  important 
point,  the  proof  of  the  possibility  of  the  perfect  Being. 
This  being  once  established,  as  it  may  be,  the  demonstra 
tion  is  complete.  Among  celebrated  thinkers  Hegel  per 
haps  found  as  little  fault  with  Anselm  as  any.  He  declares 
the  ontological  the  one  conclusive  proof,  and  objects  to  An 
selm's  way  of  presenting  this,  rather  than  to  the  essential 
content  of  his  argument. 

On  the  other  hand,  Kant  repudiated  the  ontological  ar 
gument  as  entirely  inconclusive.  The  idea  of  a  perfect 
Being,  he  maintained,  in  no  wise  carries  with  it  a  positive 
guaranty  of  His  real  existence.  The  idea  is  equally  com 
plete  whether  real  existence  be  affirmed  or  denied,  for  exist 
ence  is  not  an  attribute,  —  does  not  increase  the  intention 
of  the  term  to  which  it  is  applied.  The  concept  of  a  tri 
angle  is  not  changed  or  improved  by  saying  the  triangle  is 
or  exists.  The  ontological  argument  makes  an  unwar 
ranted  spring  from  the  subjective  to  the  objective,  from 
the  ideal  to  the  real.  Lotze,  equally  with  Kant,  was  of  the 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  301 

opinion  that  this  argument  in  its  scholastic  form  is  invalid. 
"  That  the  idea,"  he  says,  "  of  the  most  perfect  Being 
includes  also  real  existence  as  one  of  His  attributes,  that 
consequently  the  most  perfect  Being  is  necessary,  is  so 
evidently  bad  logic,  that,  after  Kant's  incisive  refutation, 
any  attempt  at  defence  would  be  useless."  (Mikrokosmus, 
IX.  4.)  At  the  same  time,  Lotze  contends  that  the  idea 
of  a  perfect  Being  involves  evidence  of  His  existence.  The 
evidence,  however,  lies  not  in  a  logical  deduction,  but  in 
the  immediate  feeling,  accompanying  the  idea,  that  such 
an  ideal  must  have  reality.  "  Not  out  of  the  perfection  of 
the  Perfect  as  a  logical  consequence  is  His  real  existence 
inferred,  but  without  the  circumlocution  of  a  deduction 
the  impossibility  of  His  non-existence  is  immediately  felt." 
(Ibid.) 

In  theological  circles  in  recent  times  but  little  favor  has 
been  accorded  to  the  ontological  argument,  at  least  in  its 
historic  sense.  Dr.  Shedd's  comments  on  Anselm's  reason 
ing  are  quite  outside  the  main  current.  (Hist,  of  Doct., 
Bk.  III.  chap.  1.)  The  tendency  among  theologians  is  to 
pass  much  the  same  verdict  as  that  of  Lotze  ;  namely,  that, 
while  invalid  in  form,  it  points  to  a  truth  of  much  force,  — 
the  truth  that  the  idea  of  God  in  man's  religious  conscious 
ness  is  accompanied  with  a  spontaneous  and  immediate  con 
viction  of  His  reality.  The  comments  of  Staudenmaier,  for 
example,  reach  substantially  this  result.  (Dogmatik,  Vol. 
II.)  Evidently  also  we  may  properly  include  here  all  those 
writers  who  lay  the  principal  stress  upon  the  idea  of  God 
as  native  to  the  mind,  or  manifestly  provided  for  in  its 
essential  constitution,  but  at  the  same  time  enter  into  no 
such  attempts  at  formal  demonstration  as  did  Anselm  and 
Descartes.  For  all  such,  without  doubt,  give  a  place  to  the 
immediate  impression  of  an  objective  reality  which  goes 
with  the  idea  of  God.  (See  F.  H.  Hedge,  Ways  of  the 
Spirit,  Essay  VI. ;  Rothe,  Dogmatik,  I.  §  4 ;  Twesten,  Vor- 
lesungen,  Vol.  II.  pp.  19-21 ;  Klce,  Dogmatik,  Vol.  II.  p.  7 ; 


302  HISTOEY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  Vol.  I.  sect.  44 ;  H.  Calderwood, 
Philosophy  of  the  Infinite,  1872,  pp.  51-54.) 

Kant  criticised  the  cosmological  and  teleological  argu 
ments,  as  well  as  the  ontological.  The  cosmological,  or 
that  which  from  limited  and  contingent  existence  infers 
the  unconditioned,  the  necessary  first  cause,  he  regarded  as 
cumbered  with  unproved  assumptions  ;  such  as  the  impossi 
bility  of  an  infinite  series  of  contingent  causes,  the  impera 
tive  requirement  to  assume  such  a  scries  if  a  necessary  first 
cause  is  denied,  and  the  perfection  of  the  first  cause,  sup 
posing  the  existence  of  such  to  be  granted.  The  teleologi 
cal  or  design  argument  he  criticised  as  proving  at  most 
a  world-fashioner  of  indefinite  greatness,  not  a  creator  of 
the  material  of  the  world,  not  an  infinite  being,  since  the 
world  as  known  to  us  is  finite,  and  we  are  only  authorized 
to  assume  a  proportionate  cause. 

That  these  criticisms  of  Kant  have  had  an  influence  in 
the  theological  world  cannot  be  denied.  One  token  of  this 
influence  is  seen  in  that  class  of  theologians  who  have  made 
little  account  of  proofs  from  external  nature,  and  have  ap 
pealed  to  man's  consciousness  as  a  moral  and  religious 
being.  Still,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  lines  of  proof  criti 
cised  have  been  surrendered.  The  great  mass  of  theologians 
have  continued  to  attach  a  high  value  to  them.  Nor  is  this 
wholly  counter  to  the  authority  of  Kant  himself.  What 
ever  speculative  defects  he  apprehended  in  them,  he  at 
tached  to  them,  at  least  to  one  of  them,  the  teleological,  a 
high  practical  value.  "  This  proof,"  he  says,  "  will  always 
deserve  to  be  treated  with  respect.  It  is  the  oldest,  clearest, 
and  most  in  conformity  with  human  reason.  ...  It  reveals 
aims  and  intention,  where  our  own  observation  would  not 
by  itself  have  discovered  them,  ami  enlarges  our  knowledge 
of  nature  by  leading  us  toward  that  peculiar  unity  the  prin 
ciple  of  which  exists  outside  of  nature.  This  knowledge 
reacts  again  upon  its  cause,  namely,  the  transcendental  idea, 
and  thus  increases  the  belief  in  a  Supreme  Author  to  an 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  303 

irresistible  conviction."  (Transcendental  Dialectic.)  What 
the  argument  fails  of,  according  to  Kant,  is  apodictic  cer 
tainty.  In  fact,  little  more  could  be  asked  of  the  argu 
ment  than  Kant  concedes.  Suppose  it  only  legitimates 
the  assumption  of  a  personal  Author  of  cosmic  arrange 
ments,  and  does  not  in  strictness  prove  His  infinity.  In 
connection  with  the  modern  idea  of  the  vastness  of  the 
universe,  its  practical  result  must  be  to  substantiate  the 
conception  of  an  all-sufficient  and  infinite  Being.  He  who 
believes  in  a  personal  Author  and  Ruler  of  nature  will  not 
be  likely  to  be  troubled  with  questionings  about  His  proper 
infinity. 

The  moral  argument,  as  presented  by  Kant,  and  upon 
which  he  placed  the  chief  stress,  has  already  been  suffi 
ciently  characterized  in  the  section  on  philosophy.  The 
substance  of  this  argument,  it  is  needless  to  say,  is  univer 
sally  recognized  in  theological  thought. 

A  review  of  the  topic  can  hardly  fail  to  leave  one  with 
the  impression  that  the  proofs  lying  nearest  to  hand,  and 
most  commonly  recognized  in  Christian  thought  from  the 
first,  are  still  most  efficient  to  work  conviction,  and  are  most 
likely  to  hold  their  ground  in  the  future.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  more  subtile  arguments,  in  whose  discovery  some 
adventurous  pioneer  of  speculative  thought  has  taken  spe 
cial  delight,  are  found  to  accomplish  much  less  than  they 
promise,  and,  whatever  element  of  truth  they  may  contain, 
to  need  extensive  modification  in  order  to  escape  the  charge 
of  bad  logic.  It  is  an  item,  too,  in  favor  of  the  common 
proofs,  such  as  the  teleological,  the  moral,  and  the  testimony 
of  consciousness,  that  they  look  toward  the  living  God,  a 
free,  self-conscious,  divine  Person,  and  not  merely  toward 
some  undefined  substratum  or  background  of  contingent 
existence.  (An  appreciative  discussion  of  the  evidences 
from  external  nature,  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  supplied 
by  human  consciousness,  may  be  found  in  Ulrici's  work 
entitled  "  Gott  und  die  Natur.") 


304  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

2.  ESSENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  —  On  the  question  whether 
a  proper  knowledge  of  God  as  to  His  essential  nature  is 
attainable,  the  period  has  witnessed  the  advocacy  of  two 
opposite  extremes  on  the  part  of  individuals,  and  a  general 
union  upon  a  medium  view  on  the  part  of  the  great  body 
of  theistic  writers.  The  agnostic  extreme  had  a  starting- 
point  in  Kant's  philosophy.  The  justice  of  styling  Kant  a 
radical  agnostic  may  be  called  in  question.  While  one 
side  of  his  philosophy  bears  in  that  direction,  another  side 
leads  up  to  the  conclusion,  that  our  knowledge  of  God  as 
personal  and  moral,  if  not  knowledge  in  the  strictest  sense, 
is  at  least  a  rational  and  warranted  faith.  Now  assuredly 
a  rational  faith  is  a  long  distance  from  mere  imagination,  as 
well  as  from  downright  nescience.  Kant  stood  upon  a  dif 
ferent  plane  from  that  of  Herbert  Spencer,  with  his  picture 
ot  the  religious  man  chalking  out  an  outline  of  Deity,  and 
then  immediately  erasing  it  as  the  phantom  of  his  vain 
imagination.  (See  the  section  on  Philosophy.)  Still,  the 
Kantian  criticism  naturally  was  utilized  in  favor  of  agnos 
tic  views.  The  other  extreme  found,  not  a  starting-point 
only,  but  its  culmination,  in  the  philosophies  of  Schelling 
and  Hegel,  with  whom  it  was  a  fundamental  thesis  that 
man  is  capable  of  comprehending  the  Absolute,  and  that 
this  order  of  knowledge  is  the  indispensable  condition  of 
philosophy.  Cousin  was  drawing  from  this  source  when 
he  taught  that  the  human  mind,  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
reason  in  it  is  the  divine  reason,  has  an  immediate  cogni 
tion  of  the  Infinite. 

Partly  through  the  influence  of  Kant,  but  more  largely 
by  way  of  reaction  from  the  philosophies  of  the  Absolute, 
with  their  daring  assumptions  to  have  found  out  God  to 
perfection,  Sir  William  Hamilton  and  II.  L.  Mansel  were 
led  to  advocate  theories  savoring  of  radical  agnosticism. 
With  some  difference  in  the  choice  of  terms,  the  two  pre 
sented  essentially  the  same  views.  Both  start  from  a  spe 
cial  definition  of  God.  "  To  conceive  the  Deity  as  He  is," 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  305 

says  Mansel,  "  we  must  conceive  Him  as  First  Cause,  as 
Absolute,  and  as  Infinite.  By  the  First  Cause  is  meant 
that  which  produces  all  things,  and  is  itself  produced  of 
none.  By  the  Absolute  is  meant  that  which  exists  in  and 
by  itself,  having  no  necessary  relation  to  any  other  being. 
By  the  Infinite  is  meant  that  which  is  free  from  all  possible 
limitation,  —  that  than  which  a  greater  is  inconceivable,  and 
which,  consequently,  can  receive  no  additional  attribute  or 
mode  of  existence,  which  it  had  not  from  all  eternity."  (The 
Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  Lecture  II.)  Having  thus 
set  forth  the  philosophical  conception  of  God,  Mansel  pro 
ceeds  to  enumerate  the  difficulties  which  it  involves.  The 
Absolute  and  the  Infinite,  he  says,  cannot  as  such  be  a 
cause.  For  the  cause  exists  only  in  relation  to  the  effect. 
But  the  conception  of  the  Absolute  implies  a  possible  ex 
istence  out  of  all  relation.  If  it  be  said  that  the  Absolute 
was  first  alone  and  afterwards  became  a  cause,  this  contra 
dicts  the  idea  of  the  Infinite,  as  implying  that  God  was  not 
from  the  first  all  that  it  was  possible  for  Him  to  be.  Again, 
the  Absolute  as  cause  cannot  be  necessitated,  for  this  im 
plies  relation ;  neither  can  it  be  voluntary,  for  this  implies 
consciousness,  which  iz  only  conceivable  as  a  relation. 
From  these  considerations  it  follows  necessarily  that  the 
ideas  of  creation  and  personality  are  inconsistent  with  that 
of  the  Absolute  and  Infinite. 

This  secrns  to  leave  the  field  to  scepticism.  But  no, 
says  Mansel ;  the  lesson  is  not  scepticism,  but  humility 
and  faith.  We  are  taught  not  to  attempt  a  speculative 
knowledge  of  God  as  He  is  in  Himself,  and  to  be  "  content 
with  those  regulative  ideas  of  the  Deity  which  are  sufficient 
to  guide  our  practice ;  which  tell  us  not  what  God  is  in 
Himself,  but  how  He  wills  that  we  should  think  of  Him." 
We  must  locate  the  difficulty,  not  in  the  divine  object  of 
our  thought,  but  in  the  imperfection  of  our  faculties.  "  It 
is  our  duty  to  think  of  God  as  personal ;  and  it  is  our  duty 
to  believe  that  He  is  infinite.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot 

VOL.   II.  —  20. 


306  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

reconcile  these  two  representations  with  each  other;  as 
our  conception  of  personality  involves  attributes  apparently 
contradictory  to  the  notion  of  infinity.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  this  contradiction  exists  anywhere  but  in  our 
own  minds."  Mansel  concedes  a  bare  possibility  that  there 
may  be  some  correspondence  between  our  thought  of  God 
and  His  actual  nature.  "  We  cannot  say  that  our  concep 
tion  of  the  divine  nature  exactly  resembles  that  nature  in 
its  absolute  existence ;  for  we  know  not  what  that  absolute 
existence  is.  But,  for  the  same  reason,  we  are  equally  un 
able  to  say  that  it  does  not  resemble  it ;  for  if  we  know 
not  the  Absolute  and  Infinite  at  all,  we  cannot  say  how  far 
it  is  or  is  not  capable  of  likeness  or  unlikeness  to  the  rela 
tive  and  finite  [a  point  that  Herbert  Spencer  should  have 
recognized].  We  must  remain  content  with  the  belief  that 
we  have  that  knowledge  of  God  which  is  best  adapted  to 
our  wants  and  training.  How  far  that  knowledge  repre 
sents  God  as  He  is,  we  know  not,  and  we  have  no  need 
to  know." 

Hamilton  also  draws  from  his  criticism  a  lesson  re 
specting  the  weakness  (not  the  deceitfulness)  of  human 
reason  and  the  necessity  of  supplementing  its  office  by 
another  principle.  "  We  are  thus  taught,"  he  says,  "  the 
salutary  lesson,  that  the  capacity  of  thought  is  not  to  be 
constituted  into  the  measure  of  existence  ;  and  are  warned 
from  recognizing  the  domain  of  our  knowledge  as  necessa 
rily  coextensive  with  the  horizon  of  our  faith.  And  by  a 
wonderful  revelation  we  are  thus,  in  the  very  conscious 
ness  of  our  inability  to  think  aught  above  the  relative  and 
finite,  inspired  with  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  something 
unconditioned,  beyond  the  sphere  of  all  comprehensible 
reality."  (Philosophy  of  the  Conditioned.) 

Though  offered  in  the  interest  of  Christian  apology,  the 
reasoning  of  Mansel  and  Hamilton  has  generally  been  re 
garded  as  more  like  a  foe  than  a  friend  in  the  camp.  The 
criticism  most  commonly  and  justly  passed  upon  it  is,  that 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  307 

it  sets  up  a  gratuitous  and  mistaken  definition  of  God. 
The  proper  definition  of  God  as  the  Absolute  and  Infinite 
does  not  make  Him  a  Being  who  is  apart  from  all  relations 
and  limitations,  but  one  who  is  subject  only  to  such  as 
are  imposed  by  His  will  or  by  His  essential  perfection. 
(See  Calderwood,  Philosophy  of  the  Infinite,  passim ; 
Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  Pt.  I.  chap.  4,  §  3.  Com 
pare  J.  S.  Mill,  Examination  of  Sir  William  Hamilton's 
Philosophy.) 

In  opposition  to  agnosticism  in  its  various  phases  there 
has  been  a  very  general  agreement  among  theologians  in 
more  recent  times  in  asserting  a  real,  though  limited, 
knowledge  of  God.  (Staudenmaier,  II.  150, 174 ;  Klce,  I. 
23,  II.  30-35  ;  Dieringer,  §  14  ;  Twesten,  II.  4 ;  Corner, 
§  16 ;  Martensen,  §  45 ;  Rothe,  I.  §  7  ;  Hodge,  Pt.  I.  chap. 
4,  §  1 ;  Hedge,  Reason  in  Religion.)  Expressing  this  con 
clusion  under  a  figure,  Klee  pithily  remarks,  "As  infinite, 
God  is  seen  and  not  seen  by  us,  as  we  see  and  do  not  see 
the  ocean  and  the  heavens." 

In  harmony  with  this  position,  there  has  been  a  ten 
dency  to  modify  the  extreme  doctrine  so  largely  current 
in  the  preceding  periods  respecting  the  simplicity  of  the 
divine  essence.  It  has  been  recognized  that  to  make  the 
divine  attributes,  as  did  Schleiermacher,  simply  designa 
tions  of  our  subjective  modifications,  to  deny  that  they  have 
any  foundation  in  interior  distinctions  of  the  Godhead, 
is  equivalent  to  denying  a  proper  knowledge  of  God.  Ac 
cordingly,  we  find  such  writers  as  Dorner,  Rothc,  Kahnis, 
and  Hodge  expressly  charging  the  older  dogmatics  with 
having  pressed  the  notion  of  the  divine  simplicity  too  far, 
and  many  others  in  their  discussion  of  the  attributes  im 
plying  the  same  standpoint.  While  it  is  taught  that  the 
material  notion  of  composition  must  be  kept  far  from  our 
thought  of  God,  it  is  equally  taught  that  God  is  no  blank 
identity,  and  that  such  a  conception  is  remote  from  the 
true  idea  of  spirit.  "  The  attributes,"  says  H.  B.  Smith, 


308  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

"  express  real  distinctions  in  God  so  far  as  this :  that  no 
one  of  them  can  be  resolved  into  any  other,  and  also  so 
far  as  this,  that  all  of  them  cannot  be  resolved  into  one 
idea  or  one  fact  about  God,  except  the  fact  or  idea  that 
God  is  the  most  perfect  Being."  (System  of  Theol.,  Divis.  I. 
chap.  2.)  "  We  teach,"  says  Martensen,  "  that  the  attri 
butes  are  objective  determinations  in  the  revelation  of  God, 
and  also  have  their  root  in  the  interior  of  His  essence." 
(Dogmatik,  §  46.  Compare  Van  Oosterzec,  Vol.  I.  sect.  47.) 
Respecting  individual  attributes,  there  are  not  many 
changes  of  view  that  need  to  be  noted.  The  theory  that 
God  in  His  own  proper  mode  of  subsistence  is  above  the 
category  of  time,  has  generally  maintained  its  place.  Rich 
ard  Watson,  indeed,  was  inclined  to  make  the  divine  eternity 
equivalent  to  time  without  beginning  or  end.  But  Metho 
dist  theologians  have  not  generally  followed  him  in  this, 
preferring  the  theory  of  John  Wesley  respecting  the  time- 
lessness  of  God.  The  period,  however,  has  brought  its 
modification,  even  if  the  old  view  has  not  been  dislodged. 
Various  theologians  have  apprehended  the  necessity  of 
bringing  temporal  events  under  a  truer  recognition  of  God 
than  seems  to  have  been  secured  by  the  earlier  dogmatics. 
They  have  argued  that  events  gain  actuality  in  succession, 
and  accordingly,  if  God  knows  them  as  they  are,  He  must 
recognize  the  fact  of  succession,  the  fact  that  one  is  before 
another  in  temporal  order,  that  one  has  already  transpired 
and  another  has  not.  This  is  not  contrary  to  the  proper 
notion  of  His  absoluteness ;  it  is  no  limitation  pertaining 
to  the  essential  mode  of  His  subsistence.  He  was  free  to 
create  or  not  to  create  a  temporal  order,  but  having  cre 
ated  it,  He  must  recognize  His  own  work.  "  If  a  world 
exists,"  says  Dorner,  "  a  positive  relation  of  God  to  space 
and  time  is  given  with  logical  necessity.  If  time  and 
growth  are  not  to  be  semblance,  there  must  be  a  difference 
really,  and  therefore  also  as  regards  God,  between  what 
is  now  past  and  what  is  present,  between  the  present  and 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  309 

the  future.  God  can,  for  example,  no  more  regard  the 
past  of  the  converted  sinner  as  present,  than  He  can  look 
upon  the  future  of  the  unconverted  man  who  is  about  to 
return  to  Him  as  present.  If  God  merely  saw  the  past 
and  the  future  altogether  as  present,  the  immediate  con 
sequence  would  be  that  God  would  not  see  everything  as 
it  is  ;  and  therefore  not  truly,  for  neither  the  past  nor  the 
future  is  present.  .  .  .  There  must  belong  to  that  divine 
knowledge  which  alike  eternally  comprises  everything  ne 
cessary  and  possible,  and  which  will  be  at  any  time  existent, 
a  knowledge  also  relative  to  time  and  the  present  constitu 
tion  of  the  world  individually  and  collectively."  (System 
of  Christian  Doctrine,  §§  19,  27.  Compare  Kahnis,  Dog- 
matik,  III.  §  7 ;  Hodge,  Pt>  I.  chap.  5,  §  6  ;  Pond,  Lecture 
III. ;  M.  Raymond,  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  I.  pp.  316, 
317.) 

Instances  of  a  denial  that  God's  foreknowledge  includes 
the  free  acts  of  men  have  been  exceptional.  The  peculiar 
view  of  Adam  Clarke,  that  God  can  know  all  future  events, 
but  does  not  choose  to,  has  been  almost  universally  repu 
diated  in  his  own  communion,  as  well  as  in  others.  Rothe 
and  F.  D.  McCabe  have  reasserted  the  Socinian  theory, 
that  the  contingent  is  in  the  nature  of  things  unknowable, 
and  consequently  that  it  is  no  disparagement  to  the  divine 
omniscience  to  exclude  the  same  from  its  compass.  Mar- 
tensen  also  rules  out  proper  foreknowledge  of  the  contin 
gent.  (Dogmatik,  §  11G.)  Of  Calvinistic  theologians,  it 
is  in  general  characteristic  to  exclude  contingency  in  the 
sense  of  strict  alternativity,  and  to  make  God's  foreknowl 
edge  of  the  acts  of  free  agents  dependent  upon  His  decrees, 
which  are  the  ground  of  their  certain  futurition.  (Edwards, 
Freedom  of  Will,  Ft.  II.  sect.  11,  12,  Pt.  IV.  sect.  14  ; 
Hopkins,  System  of  Doctrines,  Pt.  I.  chap.  4  ;  L.  Woods, 
Lecture  XXXVIII. ;  Emmons,  Systematic  Theol.,  Serm. 
XXII. ;  Hodge,  Pt.  I.  chap.  5,  §  8 ;  Cunningham,  Hist. 
Theol.,  1870,  Vol.  II.  p.  443 ;  H.  B.  Smith,  System  of 


310  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

Christ.  Theol.,  Pt.  II.  chap.  6.)  Schleiermacher,  with  his 
determinism,  is  naturally  found  agreeing  here  with  the 
Calvinistic  school.  On  the  other  hand,  non-Calvinists  deny 
that  foreknowledge  of  the  acts  of  free  agents  is  based  upon 
foreordination.  As  to  the  mode  of  this  foreknowledge, 
they  allow  that  the  subject  involves  profound  mystery. 
The  fact  is  to  be  accepted  as  resting  on  Scriptural  data, 
and  clear,  practical  demands.  These  require  both  fore 
knowledge  and  proper  contingency.  Accordingly,  what 
ever  difficulty  it  may  involve,  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
must  be  regarded  as  intuitive,  as  independent  of  a  chain 
of  foregoing  causes  or  necessary  antecedents,  as  grasping 
the  remotest  event  as  immediately  as  the  nearest.  In  this 
way  alone  is  an  open  field  left  to  responsible  agency.  (See 
Julius  Mailer's  discussion,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  Bk. 
III.  Pt.  II.  chap.  2  ;  Whedon,  The  Freedom  of  the  Will, 
Pt.  II.  sect.  3.) 

The  doctrine  of  the  scientia  media  has  been  a  less  promi 
nent  subject  of  debate  in  the  present  than  in  the  preceding 
period.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Perrone,  it  is  com 
monly  accepted  among  recent  Roman  Catholic  theologians. 
(Prelect.  Theol.,  De  Deo.)  It  accords  with  the  traditions 
of  Calvinists  to  reject  it,  and  it  is  repudiated  by  Dr.  Hodge. 
Yan  Oostcrzec  takes  exception  not  so  much  to  the  theory 
as  to  the  place  assigned  it  in  Jesuitical  theology.  It  is 
approved  by  Dorner,  and  reckoned  by  Pope  as  a  part  of 
the  creed  of  anti-predestinarians  in  general. 

The  relation  of  the  will  of  God  to  the  moral  standard  is 
a  question  affording  little  ground  of  dispute  in  more  recent 
times.  Those  who  make  that  will  the  highest  norm  under 
stand  at  the  same  time  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  ex 
pressing  the  nature  of  God.  Thus  Hodge  states,  "  The 
common  doctrine  of  Christians  is,  that  the  will  of  God  is 
the  ultimate  ground  of  moral  obligation  to  all  rational 
creatures";  but  he  adds,  that  this  will  of  God  is  the  ex 
pression  of  His  infinite  perfection,  "so  that  the  ultimate 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  311 

foundation  of  moral  obligation  is  the  nature  of  God." 
(Pt.  I.  chap.  5,  §  9.)  This  form  of  statement  evidently 
concedes  the  idea  of  those  who  have  been  averse  to  making 
the  mere  will  of  God  the  foundation  of  right  and  wrong. 


SECTION  II.  —  THE  TRINITY. 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  by  no  means  been  dis 
lodged  from  the  faith  and  appreciation  of  the  Church  by 
the  movement  of  free  thought  in  the  last  two  centuries. 
Confidence  may  have  been  weakened  on  the  part  of  not  a 
few  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  some  long-standing  speculations 
or  definitions ;  but  as  to  the  great  fact  of  a  threefold  dis 
tinction  in  the  Godhead,  the  original  and  abiding  ground 
of  the  threefold  revelation  in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit, 
the  mind  of  the  Church  is  as  tenacious  as  it  ever  has  been. 
The  statement  also  is  warranted,  that  there  is  a  very  ex 
tensive  concurrence  in  the  Catholic  doctrine  as  outlined  in 
the  Niccne  creed. 

As  to  the  proper  grounds  of  trinitarian  belief,  some 
writers  emphasize  mainly  the  Scriptural  data;  others,  in 
addition  to  the  facts  of  revelation,  give  a  prominent  place 
to  the  demands  of  philosophic  thought.  The  latter  pro 
cedure  has  been  characteristic  of  the  more  orthodox  Hege 
lians.  "  Another  God  than  the  triune,"  says  Marhcinecke, 
"  neither  the  Christian  nor  the  theologian  can  have.  .  .  . 
The  Church  doctrine  is  that  of  reason  and  truth  itself,  and 
justifies  itself  as  such  in  every  truly  scientific  understand 
ing  of  this  dogma."  (Dogmatik,  1847,  pp.  26, 128.)  "  The 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  says  John  Caird,  "  is  no  unintelli 
gible  combination  of  symbols,  but  a  doctrine  which  may  be 
shown  to  be  the  central  truth,  not  only  of  Christian  faith, 
but  of  Christian  philosophy."  (Introduction  to  the  Phi 
losophy  of  Religion,  1880,  p.  75.)  Many  not  of  the  He 
gelian  school  also  regard  the  trinitarian  doctrine  as  entering 


312  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

essentially  into  the  philosophical  idea  of  God,  an  indispen 
sable  factor  in  a  well-rounded,  stable  theistic  conception,  — 
the  conception  of  God  as  personal  and  creative  intelligence 
and  will.  "  The  idea  of  the  essential  Trinity,"  says  Mar- 
tensen,  "  is  one  with  the  idea  of  the  divine  personality,  and 
to  think  the  essential  Trinity  ontologically  means  accord 
ingly  to  think  the  fundamental  form  necessary  to  the  per 
sonal  life  of  God,  means  to  think  those  moments  in  the 
essence  of  God  without  which  personality  and  self-con 
sciousness  are  unthinkable."  That  is  to  say,  personality 
and  self-consciousness  require  the  obj  edification  of  self, 
and  again  the  uniting  of  self  as  object  with  self  as  subject, 
and  this  is  nothing  less  than  the  trinitarian  process.  (Dog- 
matik,  §  55.)  On  like  grounds  Dorner  says :  "  The  abso 
lute  divine  self-consciousness  can  only  be  thought  in  a 
trinitarian  manner.  .  .  .  God  is  to  be  thought  conscious 
and  personal  in  the  eternal  activity  of  the  reproduction  of 
His  personality.  He  is  personal  in  the  three  Hypostases, 
as  He  is  personal  by  their  means."  (System  of  Christian 
Doctrine,  §§  31  b,  32.)  The  trinitarian  view,  he  further 
remarks,  supplies  the  proper  safeguard  against  both  the 
deistic  and  the  pantheistic  conception  of  God's  relation  to 
the  world.  Equivalent  statements  are  found  with  Stauden- 
maier.  The  advantage  derived  from  the  trinitarian  stand 
point  in  conceiving  God's  relation  to  the  world  this  author 
expresses  as  follows :  "  The  possibility  that  there  should 
be  a  world  outside  of  God  lies  in  the  trinitarian  life  of  the 
Godhead,  and  in  truth  is  grounded  in  it  alone.  For  only 
through  this,  that  God  as  the  triune  forms  for  Himself  a 
perfect  world  (/eooyi-o?  reXeto?),  can  He,  without  Himself 
becoming  world,  posit  a  creation  outside  of  Himself,  and 
stand  over  this  creation,  high  and  exalted,  as  its  Lord, 
Leader,  Conductor,  and  source  of  blessing.  The  divine 
love,  already  satisfied  in  the  interior  of  the  Godhead 
through  the  trinitarian  life,  proceeds  outward  [in  crea 
tion],  not  of  necessity,  but  with  absolute  freedom."  (Dog- 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  313 

matik,  1844,  Vol.  III.  p.  8.)  The  relation  of  the  divine 
love  to  the  demand  for  a  trinitarian  life,  as  suggested  in 
the  above,  has  received  emphatic  notice  from  other  emi 
nent  dogmatists,  such  as  Sartorius,  Liebner,  and  Julius 
Mtiller. 

The  preceding  paragraph  has  already  indicated  the  most 
current  of  the  philosophical  expositions  of  the  trinitarian 
idea,  namely,  that  which  conceives  of  the  trinitarian  process 
as  a  process  of  self-objectification  and  of  reunion  with  self, 
the  first  stage  expressing  the  begetting  of  the  Son,  the 
second  the  procession  of  the  Spirit.  (Compare  with  those 
cited  Twesten,  Vorlesungen,  Vol.  II.  p.  205 ;  Klee,  Dogmatik, 
Vol.  II.  pp.  102-115.) 

A  measure  of  dissent  from  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son  has  appeared  among  those 
holding  firmly  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  expressive 
of  an  essential  mode  of  the  divine  existence.  Adam 
Clarke  was  a  representative  of  this  dissent.  Some  of  the 
New  England  divines  have  also  criticised  the  theory  of 
eternal  generation.  Samuel  Hopkins,  while  favoring  the 
theory  himself,  indicates  that  there  were  those  in  his  day 
who  opposed  it,  and  who  regarded  the  term  Son  as  being 
applied  to  the  Saviour  with  reference  to  His  incarnate 
state.  "  This  opinion,"  he  says,  "  seems  to  be  rather  gain 
ing  ground  and  spreading  of  late."  (System  of  Doctrines, 
Pt.  II.  chap.  2.)  Emmons,  in  opposition  to  Hopkins,  stig 
matized  eternal  generation  as  eternal  nonsense.  Moses 
Stuart  declared  the  expression  a  palpable  contradiction  of 
language,  and  said  of  the  doctrine  that  it  was  widely  dis 
owned  in  New  England.  "  Nearly  all  the  ministers,"  he 
writes,  "in  New  England,  since  I  have  been  upon  the 
stage,  have,  so  far  as  I  know  their  sentiments,  united  in 
rejecting  it,  or  at  least  in  regarding  it  as  unimportant. 
Our  most  distinguished  theologians,  for  forty  years  past, 
have  openly  declared  against  it."  Stuart  disliked  the  doc 
trine  as  being  contrary,  in  his  estimate,  to  the  proper 


314  HISTORY  OF -CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

equality  of  the  Second  with  the  First  Person.  The  ap 
parent  support  of  the  doctrine  in  Scripture,  he  said,  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  Scriptural  language  proceeds  from  the 
standpoint  of  divine  manifestation.  The  following  sen 
tence,  though  introduced  in  the  connection  hypothetically, 
doubtless  expressed  his  view.  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  are  words  which  designate  the  distinctions  of  the 
Godhead  as  manifested  to  us  in  the  economy  of  redemp 
tion,  and  are  not  intended  to  mark  the  eternal  relations 
of  the  Godhead,  as  they  are  in  themselves"  (Letters  to 
Samuel  Miller.) 

A  few  theologians  of  recent  times  have  laid  much  stress 
upon  the  subordination  of  the  Second  and  Third  Persons. 
Kahnis  has  equalled  in  this  respect  the  Arminians  Epis- 
copius,  Curcellseus,  and  Limborch.  While  he  holds  that 
the  Son  and  Spirit  are  Divine  Persons,  he  maintains  that 
their  dependence  upon  the  Father  necessarily  implies  a 
lower  rank.  In  opposition  to  the  Augustinian  view,  he 
reckons  among  false  theories,  besides  Unitarianism,  Ari- 
anism,  modalism,  etc.,  also  co-ordinationism.  (Dogmatik, 
III.  §  8.) 

The  theory  of  Schleiermacher  was  a  species  of  modal- 
ism.  Naturally,  from  his  agnostic  position  with  respect  to 
the  nature  of  God,  he  could  recognize  no  other  than  an 
economic  Trinity.  As  he  taught,  God  in  Himself  is  the 
Father,  God  in  the  Redeemer  the  Son,  God  in  the  Church 
the  Holy  Spirit.  In  his  scheme  the  fact  of  absorbing 
interest  in  Christ,  the  fact  especially  declarative  of  His 
pre-eminence,  was  His  God-consciousness.  While  our  God- 
consciousness  is  unclear  and  feeble,  Christ's  was  absolutely 
clear,  constant,  and  strong.  This  involved  the  true  be 
ing  of  God  in  Him,  —  ein  eiyentliches  Sein  Grottes  in  ihm. 
"  To  attribute  an  absolutely  strong  God-consciousness  to 
Christ,  and  to  affirm  a  being  of  God  in  Him,  are  one  and 
the  same  thing."  In  the  sinless  humanity  of  Christ  the 
divine  life  found  a  suitable  organism  by  which  it  might 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  315 

be  received  and  manifested  in  personal  form.  (Der  Christ- 
liche  Glaube,  §§  93-96.) 

Swedenborgianism  also  assumes  diversities  of  manifesta 
tion  or  operation,  rather  than  distinctions  pertaining  to  the 
Godhead  as  such.  There  was  no  Trinity,  it  teaches,  be 
fore  God  appeared  in  the  flesh.  The  divine  by  itself,  the 
divine  in  union  with  the  flesh,  and  the  divine  regarded  as 
operative,  —  these  are  the  three  aspects  which  make  up  the 
proper  trinitariaii  view.  Commenting  on  the  Athanasian 
creed,  Swedenborg  points  out  how  its  upholders  might  have 
escaped  contradiction.  "  If  they  had  said,  that  the  Father 
hath  the  divine  essence,  the  Son  the  divine  essence,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  divine  essence,  but  that  there  are  not  three 
divine  essences,  but  that  the  divine  essence  is  one  and  indi 
visible,  then  that  mystery  would  be  explicable ;  as  when 
by  the  Father  is  understood  the  Divine  from  which  [are  all 
things],  by  the  Son  the  Divine  Human  thence,  and  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  proceeding  Divine,  which  three  are  of  one 
God ;  or  if  by  the  Father  the  like  is  understood  as  by  the 
soul  with  man,  by  the  Divine  Human  the  like  as  by  the 
body  of  that  soul,  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit  the  like  as  by 
the  operation  which  proceeds  from  botl^,  then  are  under 
stood  three  essences,  which  are  of  one  and  the  same  per 
son,  and  thus  they  together  make  one  and  an  indivisible 
essence."  (True  Christian  Religion,  §  172.) 

German  rationalism  in  its  earlier  stages  favored  the 
Sabellian  or  the  Arian  hypothesis  as  a  substitute  for  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Later  it  gravitated  to 
ward  the  theory  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ.  (See 
Wegschcidcr,  Inst.  Thcol,  §§  92,  93.) 

As  already  indicated,  English  and  American  Unitarian- 
ism  started  out  on  the  Arian  basis,  but  erelong  tended  to 
ward  the  humanitarian  platform.  Many  of  the  American 
Unitarians  had  come  to  this  point  before  the  death  of 
Channing.  Whether  the  views  of  Channing  finally  took 
the  same  direction,  is  a  question  which  has  not  been  very 


316  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

decisively  answered.  His  published  writings  indicate  a 
singular  reserve  upon  the  subject.  He  says,  indeed,  of 
Christ  in  one  place,  "  I  believe  him  to  be  a  more  than 
human  being"  (Works,  Vol.  IV.  p.  140) ;  but  the  context 
is  such  as  to  leave  it  undecided  whether  the  superhuman 
element  was  located  in  an  original  superiority  of  nature, 
or  was  regarded  as  only  the  result  of  extraordinary  cha- 
risms  or  gifts ;  in  other  words,  whether  we  have  in  Christ 
a  properly  superhuman  being,  or  simply  a  man  enriched 
far  beyond  the  ordinary  human  measure  with  the  treasures 
of  God's  Spirit.  The  verdict  of  his  colleague,  E.  S.  Gan 
nett,  wras  that  he  always  believed  in  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ.  Some,  however,  of  his  later  friends  suspected  the 
contrary.  (Wm.  Gannett's  Life  of  E.  S.  Gannett.)  The 
Arian  view  has  claimed  adherents  even  to  the  present, 
but  they  constitute  a  very  small  minority. 

While  the  more  radical  wing  of  recent  Unitarianism 
hardly  concedes  to  Christ  the  character  even  of  the  typical 
man  and  teacher,  there  are  those  who  not  only  concede  to 
Him  this  character,  but  bring  His  manhood  into  as  near  a 
union  with  proper  divinity  as  can  be  done  without  accepting 
the  trinitarian  standpoint.  This  class  starts  from  a  point 
of  view  quite  remote  from  the  dcistic,  and  affiliating  to  a 
noticeable  degree  with  that  conception  of  the  relation  be 
tween  the  divine  and  the  human  which  has  been  set  forth 
in  the  philosophies  of  Fichte,  Schelling,  and  Hegel.  Here 
belongs  F.  H.  Hedge.  He  declares  the  doctrine  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit  to  be  the  distinguishing  feature  of  Chris 
tianity,  "  indispensable  to  any  right  and  worthy  conception 
of  Deity."  (Unitarian  Affirmations.)  Commending  the 
work  of  the  council  of  Niccea,  he  says:  "We  cannot  be 
too  thankful  that  the  Athanasian  view  in  this  council  pre 
vailed  against  the  Arian,  which  recognizes  no  divinity  in 
man."  (Reason  in  Religion.)  Again  he  remarks,  relative 
to  the  same  subject:  "  The  superficial  mind  is  apt  to  regard 
these  questions,  which  then  agitated  the  Church  and  the 


1720-1885.]  THE   GODHEAD.  317 

world,  as  simply  abstractions,  senseless  quibbles.  But  the 
union  of  God  with  man  is  no  quibble ;  it  is  a  truth  of  pro 
found  significance;  and  the  council  of  NicaBa,  which  de 
clared  it,  is  one  of  the  most  important  assemblies  that  was 
ever  convened  on  this  earth  ;  it  dates  a  new  era  in  the 
history  of  human  thought."  (Ways  of  the  Spirit,  and  other 
Essays.)  All  this  implies  evidently  that  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  the  human  in  Christ  is  a  truth  of  momentous 
importance,  fundamental  to  a  proper  conception  of  Chris 
tianity.  Still  it  is  not  the  Catholic  doctrine  that  we  have 
here,  but  rather  such  an  idea  of  Christ's  person  as  was 
advocated  by  Fichte  and  by  Schelling  in  his  earlier  phi 
losophy.  The  incarnation  of  God  is  conceived  as  a  process 
running  through  the  course  of  man's  religious  history. 
Christ  is  but  the  higher  instance  of  that  union  with  God 
which  enters  into  the  proper  destiny  of  man  as  man.  Not 
as  different  from  man,  not  as  more  than  man,  but  as  the 
typical  man,  with  the  full-rounded  capacity  for  the  divine 
which  belongs  to  such  a  man,  is  He  peculiarly  the  Son  of 
God.  His  eminence  is  a  relative  one.  He  stands  among 
brethren.  "  Humanity  is  the  son  of  God,  humanity  in  esse 
or  in  posse.  This  is  the  truth  which  Jesus  represents, 
which  he  illustrates  by  a  supreme  instance."  (Unitarian 
Affirmations.)  James  Freeman  Clarke  likewise  commends 
the  early  Church  for  rejecting  the  Arian  doctrine.  He  also 
uses  strong  terms  respecting  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
the  human  in  Christ.  Indeed,  one  of  his  charges  against 
the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  that  it  fails  to  as 
sign  enough  of  divinity  to  Christ,  since,  in  virtue  of  its 
doctrine  of  eternal  generation,  it  predicates  of  Him  only  a 
communicated  or  subordinate  divinity,  instead  of  the  unde- 
rived  divinity  of  the  Father.  (Orthodoxy,  its  Truths  and 
Errors,  Appendix.)  He  also  docs  not  hesitate  to  speak  of 
Christ  as  "  the  God-man,  in  whom  the  Divine  Spirit  and 
human  soul  became  one  in  a  perfect  union."  (Ibid.,  Chap. 
VIII.)  But,  notwithstanding  such  terms,  the  humanita- 


318  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

rian  standpoint  is  not  essentially  transcended.  We  have 
here  only  the  most  appreciative  estimate  of  Christ  of  which 
it  is  capable.  His  exaltation  above  men  is  due  rather  to 
His  position  and  the  unique  perfection  of  His  human  na 
ture  than  to  any  transcendence  in  essence.  "  The  person 
of  Christ  is  human,  but  is  intimately  united  and  in  perfect 
union  with  the  indwelling  God."  (Ibid.)  It  is  in  virtue  of 
this  vital  connection  with  God  that  Jesus  truly  manifests 
Him,  so  that  in  His  words  and  acts  we  contemplate,  as  it 
were,  God  speaking  and  acting.  Substantially  the  same 
view  is  represented  by  James  Martineau.  He  says  :  "  Christ 
standing  in  solitary  greatness,  and  invested  with  unap 
proachable  sanctity,  opens  at  once  the  eye  of  conscience 
to  perceive  and  know  the  pure  and  holy  God,  the  Father 
that  dwelt  in  Him  and  made  Him  so  full  of  truth  and 
grace.  Him  that  rules  in  heaven  we  can  in  no  wise  believe 
to  be  less  perfect  than  that  which  is  most  divine  on  earth ; 
of  anything  more  perfect  than  the  meek  yet  majestic  Jesus, 
no  heart  can  ever  dream.  And,  accordingly,  ever  since  He 
visited  our  earth  with  blessing,  the  soul  of  Christendom  has 
worshipped  a  God  resembling  Him."  (Studies  of  Christian 
ity.  See  also  tributes  to  Christ  by  other  Unitarian  -writers, 
in  Daniel  Dorchester's  "  Concessions  of  Liberalism  to  Or 
thodoxy/') 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  defined  by  Channing  as  a  "  moral, 
illuminating,  and  persuasive  influence."  (Works,  Vol.  III. 
p.  94.)  Hedge  says :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  is  that  particular 
agency  of  God,  direct  or  indirect,  which  concerns  itself  with 
the  moral  and  religious  education  of  mankind.  It  is  God 
acting  in  this  particular  way,  as  distinguished  from  God  in 
nature."  (Ways  of  the  Spirit.)  Again,  in  language  savor 
ing  of  Hegelian  terminology,  he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  the  ever-proceeding,  self-imparting,  flowing  personality, 
Godhead  in  flux.  (Unitarian  Affirmations.) 


1720-1885.1  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  319 


CHAPTER    III. 

CREATION  AND   CREATURES. 

SECTION  I.- — CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

PHILOSOPHIES  which  have  lost  the  theistic  conception 
have  of  course  failed  to  find  a  place  for  the  idea  of  crea 
tion.  Materialism,  hylozoism,  and  pantheism  must  predi 
cate  development  rather  than  absolute  origination. 

In  some  instances  writers  understood  to  represent  theism 
have  been  disposed  to  modify  the  Catholic  declaration  that 
the  creation  of  the  world  was  ex  nihilo.  In  this  category 
belongs  Sir  William  Hamilton.  He  contends  that  we  are 
unable  to  conceive  of  the  sum  total  of  existence  being  either 
increased  or  diminished ;  that  accordingly  creation  must  be 
thought  as  the  evolution  of  divine  power,  while  its  opposite, 
annihilation,  would  be  the  return  of  this  power  to  its  origi 
nal  unevolved  state.  "  Creation,"  he  says,  "  is  the  existing 
subsequently  in  act  of  what  previously  existed  in  power ; 
annihilation,  on  the  contrary,  is  the  subsequent  existence 
in  power  of  what  previously  existed  in  act."  (Lectures  on 
Metaphysics.)  F.  H.  Hedge  indulges  a  bolder  departure 
from  the  current  representation.  "  Shall  we  say,"  he  asks, 
"  that  God  Himself  is  the  substance  of  which  the  worlds 
are  formed  ?  This  in  some  sense  I  am  driven  to  admit." 
Instead  of  representing  creation  as  out  of  nothing,  he  would 
prefer  to  represent  it  as  out  of  spirit,  the  product  of  God's 
going  forth  of  Himself.  (Ways  of  the  Spirit,  Essay  VII.) 
At  the  same  time  he  repudiates  Spinozism,  and  pantheism 
generally  so  far  as  it  obscures  the  personality  and  moral 


320  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

rule  of  God,  and  admits  it  only  as  affirming  a  divine  life 
throughout  nature.  In  this  sense  he  indulges  the  remark, 
"  To  pantheism  belongs  the  world  of  nature ;  to  theism  the 
world  of  spirits."  (Ibid.,  Essay  X.)  Martensen,  rather  ex 
plaining  than  denying  the  Catholic  doctrine,  says :  "  The 
nothing  out  of  which  God  creates  the  world  are  the  eternal 
possibilities  of  His  will,  these  sources  of  all  the  realities  of 
the  world."  (Dogmatik,  §  61.)  The  exposition  of  Samuel 
Harris  amounts  to  the  same  thing;  but  in  place  of  an 
eternal  possibility  of  will,  he  speaks  of  a  power  eternally 
potential  in  the  divine  plenitude.  He  says :  "  Creation  is 
not  originating  something  out  of  nothing.  On  the  contrary, 
in  creating,  the  Absolute  Being  calls  into  action  power 
eternally  potential  in  His  infinite  plenitude :  and  this  power, 
energizing  under  the  limits  of  space  and  time,  and  thus 
individuating  and  revealing  itself,  becomes  cognizable  as 
a  finite  reality  or  being."  (The  Philosophical  Basis  of 
Theism,  1883,  p.  515.)  The  step  from  mere  potentiality 
to  individuated  power  surely  implies  all  that  was  ever 
meant  in  any  intelligent  use  of  the  formula  of  creation  ex 
niJiilo. 

There  have  also  been  some  who  have  been  disposed  to 
modify  the  Catholic  theory  that  creation  was  the  free  act  of 
God,  an  exercise  of  His  absolute  sovereignty.  Thus  Leib 
nitz  in  his  Theodicy  took  the  ground  that  God  was  under 
necessity  to  create,  —  not  indeed  a  metaphysical  neces 
sity,  but  a  moral  necessity,  obliging  Him  to  choose  the  best 
among  conceivable  ends.  Rothe  maintained  that  the  very 
conception  of  God  involves  that  of  creation.  "  God  must 
necessarily  create  the  world  because  He  is  essentially  love." 
He  taught  also  that  creation  must  be  viewed  as  a  process 
without  beginning  or  end,  notwithstanding  the  world  and 
everything  in  it  had  a  beginning.  (Dogmatik,  I.  §§  37-39.) 
Hedge  says :  "  Creation  must  be  regarded  as  a  necessary 
manifestation  of  the  divine  nature."  The  ground  of  this 
necessity  he  finds  in  the  Hegelian  conception  that  the  crea- 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  321 

tive  process  enters  essentially  into  the  self-realization  of 
God  as  spirit.  (Ways  of  the  Spirit,  Essay  VII.) 

The  breadth  of  the  distinction  allowed  between  creation 
and  preservation  depends  largely  upon  the  scope  assigned 
to  second  causes  in  nature.  While  a  large  proportion  of 
theologians  maintain  that  creation  gave  a  kind  of  substan 
tial  existence  to  nature,  there  seems  to  be  an  increasing 
number  who  favor  the  theory,  that  nature  but  expresses 
the  immediate  agency  of  God,  —  that  it  has  no  sort  of  inde 
pendence,  and  is  only  the  power  of  God  directed  according 
to  established  rules,  according  to  the  comprehensive  plan 
of  the  cosmos.  This  view  is  put  by  Professor  Bowne  as 
follows  :  "  Matter  and  material  things  have  no  ontological, 
but  only  a  phenomenal  existence.  Their  necessary  de 
pendence  and  lack  of  all  subjectivity  make  it  impossible  to 
view  them  as  capable  of  other  than  phenomenal  existence. 
The  world  view,  then,  contains  the  following  factors : 
(1.)  The  Infinite  energizes  under  the  forms  of  space  and 
time ;  (2.)  the  system  of  energizing  according  to  certain 
laws  and  principles,  which  system  appears  in  thought  as 
the  external  universe;  and  (3.)  finite  spirits,  who  are  in 
relation  to  this  system,  and  in  whose  intuition  the  system 
takes  on  the  forms  of  perception."  (Metaphysics,  1882, 
p.  466.) 

The  advance  of  scientific  research  has  involved  of  neces 
sity  a  changed  conception  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation. 
The  literal  view  began  to  meet  with  opposition  before  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Among  the  theories  which 
have  been  broached  are  the  following :  (1.)  The  Mosaic 
account  is  a  philosophical  myth.  Here  belong  such  ration 
alists  as  Eichhorn,  Henke,  Gabler,  and  Paulus.  (2.)  The 
Mosaic  account  is  an  allegory,  a  view  advanced  by  Herder. 
As  quoted  by  Van  Oosterzee,  he  calls  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  a  hieroglyph  of  creation,  an  optical  representation 
of  the  beginning  of  all  things,  derived  from  that  which  is 
still  seen  to  take  place  every  morning  at  sunrise.  (3.)  The 

VOL.   II.  —  21. 


322  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

Mosaic  account  is  in  essence  a  history.  This  is  a  specifi 
cation  of  wide  extent,  including  many  varieties  of  opinion. 
Some  make  more  account  of  the  rhetorical  cast  of  the 
mosaic  narrative  than  others.  Knapp  speaks  of  it  as  a 
series  of  six  pictures,  which,  like  the  performance  of  the 
painter,  have  truth  for  their  foundation,  but  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  exact  in  all  particulars.  (Lectures  on  Christian 
Theology.)  Alexander  Winchell  says,  that,  while  it  is  no 
aimless  reverie  and  conforms  admirably  to  the  indications 
of  science,  the  interpreter  must  recognize  the  fact  that  it 
comes  to  us  in  the  style  and  structure  of  Oriental  poetry. 
(Reconciliation  of  Science  and  Religion.)  Newman  Smythe 
discerns  in  it  a  mnemonic  purpose,  indications  that  "  it  was 
arranged  on  purpose  to  be  remembered."  (Old  Faiths  in 
New  Light.)  Tayler  Lewis  favors  the  theory  that  it  is  the 
record  of  a  vision,  and  calls  it  "  an  apocalypse  of  the  great 
past,  even  as  the  revelation  to  John  in  Patmos  is  an  apoca 
lypse  of  the  great  future."  (Introduction  to  Gen.  i.  in 
Langc's  Comm.  Compare  Kurtz,  Gcschichte  des  alten 
Bundcs  ;  also  Bibel  und  Astronomic ;  Dawson,  Archaica.) 
In  the  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  description,  some  of  the 
writers  who  belong  here  resort  to  the  so-called  restitution 
hypothesis.  As  they  teach,  only  the  first  verse  of  Genesis 
refers  to  the  original  creation ;  the  following  description 
applies  to  the  work  of  restoration,  accomplished  in  six 
literal  days,  after  an  era  of  disruption ;  the  great  geologi 
cal  ages  intervening  between  the  original  creation  and  the 
disruption  are  passed  by  as  not  being  relevant  to  the 
purpose  of  the  author.  This  was  the  theory  of  Thomas 
Chalmers.  (Nat.  Theol.,  Vol.  I.  Bk.  II.  chap.  2.  Compare 
William  Buckland,  Geology  and  Mineralogy ;  L.  T.  Town- 
send,  Credo ;  Enoch  Pond,  Lectures  on  Theol.)  It  should 
be  noticed,  that  some  expositors  who  suppose  a  chasm  be 
tween  the  first  and  second  verses  do  not  decide  that  the 
days  of  the  creative  week  were  literal  days.  Some  also 
connect  the  primitive  disruption  with  the  fall  of  angels. 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  323 

Delitzsch  entertains  this  supposition,  and  sets  it  forth  with 
theosophic  adjuncts.  (Bib.  Psychol.,  II.  1.)  In  an}r  form, 
the  restitution  hypothesis  is  the  hypothesis  of  a  minority. 
A  much  larger  class,  if  we  mistake  not,  regard  the  first 
verse  as  a  general  preamble  to  the  following  account,  and 
the  Mosaic  days  as  indicative  of  periods  of  indefinite 
length. 

Respecting  the  length  of  time  which  has  elapsed  since 
man's  appearance  upon  the  earth,  there  is  a  very  general 
feeling  among  theologians  that  much  of  the  evidence  ad 
duced  to  prove  his  extreme  antiquity  has  been  discredited, 
and  that  results  are  yet  too  immature  to  demand  or  to 
justify  any  very  extensive  modifications  of  the  received 
chronology  of  the  race. 


SECTION  II.  —  ANGELS. 

ROMAN  Catholic  writers,  following  the  conclusion  implied 
in  the  decisions  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  agree  in 
maintaining  that  angels  are  pure  spirits  omnis  corporis 
expertes.  So  Perrone,  Staudcnmaier,  Klee,  and  Dieringer. 
Protestant  writers  render  a  divided  verdict.  Some  re 
mark,  like  Kahnis,  Van  Oosterzee,  and  Pond,  that  there 
is  no  adequate  ground  for  decision.  Others  coincide  with 
Martenscn,  Hofmann,  and  Hodge  in  the  theory  that  angels 
have  no  bodies.  Others,  as  Ebrard,  Kurtz,  Delitzsch,  Hahn, 
Emmons,  and  R.  S.  Foster,  think  it  probable  that  they  pos 
sess  ethereal  bodies. 

According  to  the  Swcdcnborgian  system,  angels,  whether 
good  or  evil,  were  previously  men.  "  There  is  not  an 
angel,"  says  Swedenborg,  "  who  had  not  previously  been  a 
man."  (True  Christian  Religion,  §  121.) 

At  the  height  of  German  rationalism  a  very  negative 
position  was  taken  toward  the  doctrine  of  angels,  especially 
that  of  evil  angels.  The  apparent  support  given  by  the 


324  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

New  Testament  to  the  notion  of  demoniacal  possession 
was  explained  by  the  theory  of  accommodation.  Some 
still  are  inclined  to  treat  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  devil 
as  a  matter  for  ridicule.  But  there  is  a  strong  counter 
current  in  the  theological  thinking  of  Germany,  as  is  indi 
cated  by  the  following  from  Dorner :  "  Nitzsch,  Twesten, 
Rothe,  Julius  Miiller,  Tholuck,  Lange,  Martensen,  as  well 
as  Thomasius,  Hofmann,  Kahnis,  Philippi,  and  Luthardt, 
avow,  not  merely  that  sin  is  found  in  humanity,  but  that  a 
kingdom  of  evil  spirits  with  a  head  over  them  is  also  to  be 
inculcated.  Romang  rightly  satirizes  the  fond  enlighten 
ment  which  takes  credit  to  itself  for  being  above  this  rep 
resentation."  (System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  §  85.) 


SECTION  III.  —  MAN. 

1.  MAN'S  ORIGINAL  NATURE  AND  CONDITION.  —  While  re 
cent  theology  has  by  no  means  accepted  the  theory  of  sci 
entific  dogmatism,  that  the  primitive  man  was  a  savage  of 
low  order  and  the  kin  of  the  brute,  it  has  retrenched  some 
what  the  older  theory  of  Adamic  perfection.  A  tone  of 
greater  reserve  and  moderation  in  the  treatment  of  this 
subject  is  unmistakably  apparent  on  the  part  of  those  who 
have  written  in  the  last  few  decades. 

The  contrast  between  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Prot 
estant  theory  of  original  righteousness,  so  sharply  drawn 
in  the  preceding  period,  has  been  in  large  part  retained. 
Some  Protestant  writers,  however,  even  among  those  not 
inclined  to  Pelagianism,  have  manifested  the  conviction 
that  the  Reformation  theory  of  a  concreated  righteousness 
or  holiness  took  too  little  account  of  the  demand  for  per 
sonal  agency  in  the  realization  of  holy  character.  Such  a 
criticism  is  involved  in  the  following  statement  of  Marten- 
sen  :  "  The  true  relation  to  God  on  the  part  of  the  first 
man  could  not  have  been  a  state  of  perfection,  or,  on  the 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  325 

other  hand,  a  mere  aptitude ;  it  was  rather  a  living  com 
mencement,  which  included  in  itself  the  possibility  of  an 
advancing  development,  and  the  attainment  of  man's  proper 
distinction.  It  is  the  one-sidedness  of  the  Augustinian 
dogmatics,  that  it  confounds  the  ideas  of  innocence  and 
holiness,  attributes  to  the  first  man  a  purity  of  will  and  a 
clearness  of  knowledge  which  can  be  thought  only  as  the 
goal  of  a  free  development."  (Dogmatik,  §  78.  Compare 
Dorner,  System  of  Christ.  Doct.,  §  41.) 

The  writers  mentioned  under  a  preceding  section,  as  ad 
mitting  the  element  of  legend  or  myth  into  the  Bible,  find 
of  course  that  element  in  the  description  of  Paradise  and 
the  life  therein.  But  some  who  would  rule  out  such  an 
ingredient  are  also  averse  to  regarding  the  description  as 
an  exact  record  of  veritable  history,  and  consider  it  rather 
an  allegorical  expression  of  the  essential  content  of  the 
first  stage  of  man's  religious  history.  The  large  class  of 
writers  who  hold  that  the  account  is  literal,  allow  quite 
generally  that  it  is  adapted  to  figure  more  than  it  states ; 
in  other  words,  that  it  is  history  with  a  symbolical  import. 
Swedenborg  regarded  it  as  pure  symbolism.  In  the  first 
ten  and  a  half  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  he  taught,  the  spir 
itual  sense  alone  is  to  be  sought,  the  historical  being 
wanting. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  abiding  by  the  verdict  of 
scholasticism,  holds  to  the  twofold  division  of  human  nature. 
A  large  proportion  of  Protestant  writers  adopt  the  same 
view.  (See  Hodge,  Pt.  II.  chap.  2,  §  2  ;  H.  B.  Smith,  Div.  I. 
Pt.  III.  chap.  1 ;  Pope,  Yol.  I.  p.  423  ;  C.  M.  Mead,  The  Soul 
Here  and  Hereafter.)  Soul  and  spirit,  they  maintain,  are 
not  substantially  distinct.  "  They  are  one  and  the  same 
substance  under  different  aspects  or  relations."  But  tri 
chotomy  also  has  its  advocates,  such  as  Delitzsch,  Van 
Oosterzee,  and  H.  M.  Goodwin.  The  last  two  of  these  hold 
substantially  the  same  theory,  the  more  common  form  of 
trichotomy,  according  to  which  the  soul  is  the  principle  of 


326  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

animal  life,  the  spirit  the  higher  rational  and  moral  prin 
ciple.     Goodwin,  however,  has  this  item  of  advantage,  that 
he  brings  to  notice  the  fact  that  the  connection  of  the  soul 
with  the  spirit  gives  to  the  former  in  man  a  character  dis 
tinguishing  it  from  the  life-principle  in  the  brute.     He  de 
fines  as  follows :  "  The  spirit  in  man  is  that  part  of  our 
nature  which  corresponds  to  the  Infinite  Father  of  spirits. 
It  is  the  ego,  the  personality,  the  man  within  the  man, 
from  which,  as  the  inmost  fountain  or  heart  of  our  being, 
thought,  affection,  volition,  and  character  proceed.     It  is 
the  seat  of  moral  responsibility,  the   organ  of  faith  and 
love,  and  so  of  religion  or  communion  with  God.     It  is  the 
highest  and  divincst  part  of  our  nature,  the  very  image  of 
God  in  which  we  are  created.     The  soul,  or  psyche,  is  that 
which  gives  life  to  the  body,  as  its  indwelling  or  animating 
principle.     It  is  not  a  free  and  self-acting  power,  like  the 
pneuma,  not  visible  and  material,  like  the  body,  not  a  self- 
conscious  intelligence  enlightened  from  within  or  above, 
but  derives  all  its  knowledge  from  the  senses,  and  its  hu 
manity,  by  whicli  it  is  differenced  from  other  animal  souls, 
from  the  spirit.    It  is  thus  a  connecting  and  mediating  link 
between  body  and  spirit,  bringing  down  the  spiritual  into 
the  sphere  and  life  of  the  body,  and  elevating  the  phys 
ical  to  be  the  instrument  and  organ  of  the  spirit."     (Christ 
and  Humanity,  1875.)     According  to  Delitzsch,  "the  soul 
stands  to  the  spirit  in  the  relation  of  emanation."     It  is 
of  the  same  nature  with  it,  but  not  of  identical  substance. 
The  spirit  being  described  as  the  candle  of  the  Lord,  the 
divine  light  in  man,  the  soul  is  denoted  by  the  radiance  of 
that  light.    (Biblical  Psychology,  II.  sect.  4.)     From  his 
standpoint  Delitzsch  criticises  the  theory  of  Goschel,  that 
the  soul  proceeds  from  both  body  and  spirit,  as  assigning 
a  false  independence  to  the  body  over  against  the  spirit, 
and  as  implying  such  a  mixed  nature  as  is  quite  inconceiv 
able.     That  modified  species  of  trichotomy,  found  in  the 
early  Church  with  Tatian  and  Irena3us,  which  makes  the 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  327 

Divine  Spirit  the  third  element,  has  also  its  modern  repre 
sentatives.  Tims  Schoberlein  is  quoted  by  Delitzseh  as 
saying :  "  The  Spirit  may  be  reckoned  in  man  among  the 
actual  elements  of  his  being;  whereas  of  natural  beings, 
because  the  Spirit  forms  a  power  which  only  rules  in  them, 
but  is  incomprehensible  to  them  themselves,  it  would  be 
said  that  they  only  consist  of  body  and  soul."  (Ibid.) 

Exceptions  to  belief  in  the  soul's  incorporeal  nature  and 
natural  immortality  (that  is,  unconditional  destination  to 
endless  existence)  have  still  continued  to  be  sporadic.  One 
of  the  earlier  examples  of  the  former  among  modern  the 
ologians  was  Joseph  Priestley.  In  outspoken  terms  he  ad 
vocated  the  theory  that  man  is  purely  a  material  being. 
More  recently,  somewhat  of  the  materialistic  leaven  of  the 
sensational  school  of  scientists  has  crossed  the  theological 
border.  But  naturally  a  factor  so  alien  to  the  drift  of  Cath 
olic  thought  has  rarely  touched  any  except  those  already 
estranged  from  the  heart  of  Christianity.  Advocates  of 
materialism,  who  are  disposed  at  the  same  time  to  retain 
the  doctrine  of  immortality,  find  a  refuge  for  the  latter, 
either  in  the  Swedenborgian  notion  of  an  ethereal  body 
already  existing  within  our  gross  and  visible  organism,  or 
in  the  less  consistent  notion  of  a  restoration  of  personality 
and  identity  through  a  resurrection  of  the  dissolved  body. 
As  respects  the  evidences  of  immortality,  while  the  various 
arguments  of  former  times  are  still  employed,  there  has 
been  a  tendency  to  lay  the  principal  stress  upon  the  attesta 
tion  of  the  Christian  consciousness.  The  beginning  of  a 
life  that  is  worth  being  continued,  it  is  contended,  carries 
with  itself  the  most  convincing  tokens  that  it  will  be  con 
tinued.  The  true  believer,  coming  in  some  measure  to 
realize  for  himself  the  great  fact  presented  objectively  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  namely,  the  union  of  man  and  God, 
can  but  feel  that  his  life,  like  its  source,  must  be  eternal. 
Evidently  this  is  a  better  argument  for  the  immortality  of 
those  who  rise  into  spiritual  affinity  with  God,  whose  lives 


328  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

are  hid  with  Christ  in  God,  than  it  is  for  that  of  men  uni 
versally.  So  it  is  not  out  of  accord  with  this  develop 
ment,  if  not  in  consequence  of  it,  that  a  number  make 
immortality  conditioned  upon  the  reception  and  cultiva 
tion  of  the  principle  of  religious  life.  Conspicuous  exam 
ples  are  Kothe,  Weisse,  and  Edward  White.  (See  Corner, 
System  of  Christ.  Doct.,  §§  42,  151.)  A  place  is  also 
given,  among  proofs  of  immortality,  to  the  Kantian  argu 
ment,  to  the  consideration  of  man's  perfectibility,  and  to 
his  instinctive  longings.  The  simplicity  of  the  soul,  upon 
which  the  adherents  of  the  Wolffian  philosophy  in  the  eigh 
teenth  century  laid  much  stress,  is  less  valued  of  late,  it 
being  recognized  that  what  has  beginning  may  have  an  end, 
and  accordingly  that  simplicity  is  only  so  far  a  proof  as  it 
is  an  indication  of  the  Creator's  purpose. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  creationism  holds  a 
well-established  place.  Dieringer  speaks  of  it  as  wellnigh 
a  dogma,  — "  ein  dem  Dogma  nahe  stehender  Lehrsatz." 
(Dogmatik,  §  40.)  It  is  a  token,  therefore,  of  considerable 
courage  of  opinion,  that  Klee  argued  in  favor  of  traducian- 
ism,  or  generationism  as  he  preferred  to  call  it.  Among 
Protestants  both  creationism  and  traducianism  have  con 
tinued  to  hold  a  place.  Emmons  was  a  zealous  creationist, 
and  declared  the  opposing  theory  "  as  contrary  to  philoso 
phy  as  to  Scripture."  (Systematic  Theol.,  Serm.  XXXIX.) 
Hodge  says  that  creationism  has  ever  been  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reformed  theologians,  and  in  his  discussion  of  the 
subject  on  the  whole  approves  their  verdict.  (Pt.  II.  chap. 
33  §  3.)  On  the  other  hand,  traducianism  has  continued 
to  claim  the  support  of  the  larger  proportion  of  Lutheran 
writers,  and  has  found  many  advocates  in  other  commun 
ions.  It  was  favored  by  Edwards,  and  apparently  also  by 
Hopkins.  It  was  advocated  by  Wesley  and  Watson,  and 
more  recently  has  been  commended  by  Raymond  and  Pope. 
The  last  writer,  however,  gives  a  place  also  to  creationism. 
In  this  he  is  in  accord  with  a  manifest  bent  of  the  more  re- 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  329 

cent  theology.  Such  advocates  of  traducianism  as  Kahnis, 
Thomasius,  and  H.  B.  Smith  admit  that  creationism  points 
to  a  truth  that  must  be  recognized,  —  that  divine  agency, 
if  not  of  the  strictly  creative  order,  must  be  regarded  as 
a  coefficient  in  the  origin  of  the  individual  soul.  In  the 
representations  of  Martensen,  Dorner,  and  Rothe,  creation- 
ism  and  traducianism  appear  as  mutually  complementary 
theories. 

The  theory  of  pre-existence  has  been  advocated  by  Julius 
Miiller.  He  utilizes  it  in  the  solution  of  the  problem  of 
original  sin,  arguing  that  an  inborn  sinfulness  which  makes 
every  one  guilty  can  be  rationally  accounted  for  only  by 
tracing  it  back  to  an  actual  sin,  and  hence  to  a  wrong  per 
sonal  self-decision  lying  beyond  our  individual  existence 
in  time.  (Christ.  Doct.  of  Sin,  Bk.  IV.  chap.  4.)  Edward 
Beecher  has  made  a  like  use  of  the  theory.  (Conflict  of 
Ages.)  A  preference  for  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  has 
also  been  expressed  by  F.  H.  Hedge,  though  under  the  im 
pulse  of  no  such  practical  interest  as  actuated  Miiller  and 
Beecher.  (Ways  of  the  Spirit,  Essay  XIV.) 

2.  THE  FALL  AND  ITS  RESULTS. — According  to  the  gen 
eral  verdict  of  non-Calvinists,  God's  will  and  agency  had  no 
further  connection  with  the  fall  than  is  manifest  in  provid 
ing  its  possibility  by  creating  free  moral  agents.  The  pos 
sibility  of  sin,  as  they  maintain,  as  well  as  the  possibility  of 
developing  a  holy  character,  necessarily  goes  with  finite  free 
agency,  at  least  in  its  initial  stages.  What  God  willed  was, 
not  the  actualizing  of  the  possibility  of  sin,  but  that  of  the 
counter  possibility,  the  development  of  holy  character.  Ex 
ceptions  to  this  general  position  of  non-Calvinists  are  found 
chiefly  among  those  who  maintain,  for  the  most  part  in  con 
nection  with  a  scheme  of  restorationism,  that  a  temporary 
experience  of  sin  is  an  essential  part  of  the  discipline  which 
leads  to  permanent  holiness. 

Among  Calvinists  the  attitude  of  God  toward  the  fall  is 
somewhat  diversely  represented  in  the  different  schools. 


330  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.        [PERIOD  V. 

The  supra-lapsarian  school,  which  makes  the  fall  a  means 
of  fulfilling  a  prior  decree,  has  had  but  few  adherents  in 
the  present  period.  The  great  body  of  recent  Calvinists 
have  been  infra-lapsarians.  But,  as  was  seen  in  the  previ 
ous  period,  infra-lapsarianism  does  not  exclude  a  very  pos 
itive  relation  of  the  divine  will  to  the  fall.  The  members 
of  this  school  generally  subscribe  to  the  formula  that  God 
decrees  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  teach  that  His  de 
crees  are  the  ground  of  the  certain  futurition  of  all  events. 
Accordingly,  when  they  speak  of  a  permissive  decree  as 
governing  the  fall,  they  do  not  mean  a  decree  which  left 
the  event  properly  contingent,  or  liable  not  to  occur  under 
the  given  circumstances,  as  well  as  to  occur ;  on  the  con 
trary,  they  mean  a  decree  securing  the  certainty  of  the  fall 
as  it  actually  occurred.  The  qualifying  term,  "  permis 
sive,"  points  therefore  simply  to  the  fact  that  the  decree  is 
supposed  to  have  been  fulfilled  without  the  positive  exer 
cise  of  divine  efficiency.  It  in  no  wise  limits  the  bearing 
of  the  decree  on  the  certain  futurition  of  the  act  of  apos 
tasy.  That  the  term  "  permissive  "  includes  at  least  no 
larger  meaning  than  this,  a  number  of  writers  make  plain 
by  the  declaration,  that  it  lies  in  the  power  of  God  to  pre 
vent  all  sin,  without  at  the  same  time  doing  any  violence 
to  free  moral  agency.  (Woods,  Letters  to  Dr.  Taylor  ; 
Hodge,  Pt.  I.  chap.  5,  §  13 ;  Pond,  Lect.  on  Theol.) 

Edwards  himself  ruled  out  the  category  of  efficiency  from 
God's  connection  with  the  fall.  But  one  class  of  his  suc 
cessors,  transcending  the  ordinary  Calvinistic  phraseology, 
has  taught  or  implied  that  God  was  the  efficient  cause  of 
Adam's  sin.  Hopkins  was  not  far  from  asserting  this  con 
clusion.  Referring  to  certain  texts,  he  says :  "  It  appears 
from  these  passages  of  Scripture,  that  God  has  foreordained 
all  the  moral  evil  which  docs  take  place ;  and  is  in  such  a 
sense,  and  so  far,  the  origin  and  cause  of  it,  that  He  is 
said  to  bring  it  to  pass,  by  His  own  agency."  Again  he 
makes  the  significant  remark:  "The  attempt  to  distinguish 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  331 

between  the  sinful  volitions  or  actions  of  men,  as  natural 
and  moral  actions,  and  making*  God  the  author  and  cause 
of  them,  considered  as  natural  actions,  and  men  the  cause 
and  authors  of  the  depravity  and  sin  which  is  in  them,  is, 
it  is  believed,  unintelligible,  and  has  no  consistent  or  real 
meaning,  and  gives  no  satisfaction  to  the  inquiring  mind ; 
unless  by  making  this  distinction  it  be  meant,  that  in  every 
sinful  action  God  is  not  the  sinful  cause  of  it,  but  all  Pie  de 
termines  and  does  respecting  these  is  the  exercise  of  holi 
ness."  (System  of  Doctrines,  Pt.  I.  chap.  4.)  Emmons,  who 
represents  the  extreme  of  Hopkinsianism,  used  still  more 
explicit  language.  Discarding  various  methods  of  explain 
ing  Adam's  fall,  he  says :  "  As  these  and  all  other  methods 
to  account  for  the  fall  of  Adam  by  the  instrumentality  of 
second  causes  are  insufficient  to  remove  the  difficulty,  it 
seems  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  divine  agency,  and 
to  suppose  that  God  wrought  in  Adam  both  to  will  and  to 
do  in  his  first  transgression."  (Systematic  Theol.,  Serm. 
XXIX.)  An  equal  place  for  divine  efficiency  in  the  first 
transgression  is  implied  in  the  following  sweeping  state 
ment  as  to  the  origin  of  evil :  "  There  is  but  one  true  and 
satisfactory  answer  to  be  given  to  the  question  which  has 
been  agitated  for  ages,  Whence  came  evil  ?  —  and  that  is, 
it  came  from  the  great  First  Cause  of  all  things"  (Serm. 
XLY.)  Emmons  indeed  speaks  of  the  fall  as  the  free  act 
of  Adam,  but  in  his  terminology  "  free  "  means  only  volun 
tary,  and  the  human  will  stands  to  the  divine  agency  or 
efficiency  in  a  purely  instrumental  relation. 

Among  the  critics  of  the  efficiency  scheme  was  the  New 
Haven  divine,  Timothy  Dwight.  His  view  of  its  tenden 
cies  is  thus  expressed :  "  The  theology  of  a  part  of  this 
country  appears  to  me  to  be  verging,  insensibly  perhaps,  to 
those  who  are  chiefly  concerned,  but  with  no  very  gradual 
step,  towards  a  pantheism,  differing  materially  in  one  par 
ticular  only  from  that  of  Spinoza";  that  is,  it  leaves  an 
infinite  agent  while  denying  finite  agents.  (Serm.  XY.) 


332  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

The  opposition  of  D wight  foreshadowed  in  a  measure  the 
standpoint  which  has  been  characteristic  of  the  New  Haven 
school.  With  this  school  it  became  a  leading  interest  to 
reduce  the  divine  connection  with  sin  to  the  lowest  point 
consistent  with  any  hold  upon  the  general  Calvinistic  the 
ory  of  an  all-inclusive  providence.  Its  drift  relative  to  the 
subject  in  hand  is  indicated  by  such  sentences  as  the  fol 
lowing  from  N.  W.  Taylor :  "  It  may  be  true,  that  it  is 
impossible  that  God  should  adopt  the  best  moral  system 
and  prevent  the  perversion  of  moral  agency  in  any  greater 
degree  than  He  does  prevent  it;  it  may  be  better,  that 
moral  agency  should  in  every  instance  be  rightly  used, 
rather  than  perverted,  under  the  present  system ;  and  of 
course  it  may  be  true  that  the  Creator,  notwithstanding 
the  actual  perversion  of  moral  agency,  prefers  that  every 
human  being  should  act  morally  right  rather  than  morally 
wrong.  .  .  .  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  language  which 
expresses  or  implies,  or  in  the  remotest  manner  intimates, 
that  God  prefers  disobedience  to  His  law  to  obedience,  or 
sin  to  holiness,  all  things  considered.  ...  It  cannot  be 
proved  that  God  could  give  existence  to  free  moral  agents 
and  prevent  all  sin."  (Lectures  on  the  Moral  Government 
of  God.)  Van  Oosterzee  seems  to  have  written  from  the 
same  standpoint.  He  says :  "  Sin  is  as  little  called  into 
being  by  a  divine  causality,  as  it  is  originally  teleologically 
willed  and  ordained  by  God.  ...  It  is  only  the  possibility 
of  sin,  and  not  its  reality,  which  must  be  regarded  as  the 
fruit  of  God's  ordinance.  .  .  .  What  He  has  originally 
willed,  and  aimed  at,  was  a  world  not  with,  but  without, 
sin.  Sin  is  not  an  inevitable  element  of  the  perfected 
world,  but  is  for  that  very  reason  opposed  by  God,  in  order 
that  the  world  should  become  perfect."  (Dogmatics,  Sect. 
LXXL) 

From  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  evident  that  the 
common  declaration  of  all  theological  parties,  that  Adam  in 
his  transgression  was  free  and  responsible,  does  not  imply 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  333 

a  uniform  doctrine.  The  essentials  to  freedom  and  respon 
sibility  are  differently  understood.  Non-Calvinists  (and 
opponents  of  philosophical  necessitarianism)  agree  that  free 
dom,  or  at  least  that  freedom  conjoined  ivith  responsibility, 
implies  a  power  under  given  conditions  to  vary  the  result, 
—  the  capacity  of  alternativity,  or  the  power  of  contrary 
choice,  as  it  is  frequently  called.  A  being  who  is  free  and 
responsible  cannot,  as  they  teach,  be  determined  from  the 
start,  beyond  all  proper  contingency,  to  one  definite  course. 
It  matters  not  whether  the  determination  is  inward  or  out 
ward  ;  if  it  excludes  alternatives,  it  excludes  the  notion  of  a 
free  and  responsible  being.  Supposing  inward  determina 
tion  brought  about  by  the  prevailing  force  of  a  specific 
character  to  be  in  itself  consistent  with  freedom,  it  still 
denies  the  proper  notion  of  a  free  being,  and  especially  of 
a  responsible  being,  unless  the  character  having  this  deter 
mining  force  is  formed  by  the  person  himself  in  the  use  of 
a  power  of  electing  between  alternatives.  While  some  non- 
Calvinists  admit  the  supposition  in  question,  others  dis 
allow  it,  and  hold  that  freedom  and  the  power  of  contrary 
choice  are  inseparable  ideas.  To  the  former  class  we  may 
reckon  Julius  M  tiller.  He  distinguishes  between  formal 
and  real  freedom.  "  What  properly  constitutes  formal 
freedom,"  he  says,  "  is  the  power  of  resolving  and  acting 
otherwise.  If  the  will  ultimately  possesses  the  power  or 
ability  of  determining  in  a  way  different  from  that  in  which 
it  does  determine,  the  person  who  thus  wills  is  free."  On 
the  other  hand,  real  freedom  is  identical  with  a  holy  ne 
cessity.  "  Man  is  not  really  free  if  his  will  be  turned 
away  from  God,  and  if  he  be  attracted  and  influenced  by 
evil  —  which  is  alien  to  his  nature  —  as  well  as  by  good. 
He  is  not  really  free,  indeed,  if  his  will  be  still  undecided, 
morally  indifferent,  and  unbiased  either  way.  Then  only 
is  he  in  the  highest  sense  free  when  without  hesitation 
Tie  wills  only  what  is  good,  and  carries  out  in  action  that 
inner  necessity  of  his  nature  which  excludes  even  the 


334  HISTORY  OE   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

thought  of  the  possibility  of  evil."  As  to  the  relation 
between  formal  and  real  freedom,  the  one  is  to  be  viewed 
as  the  necessary  antecedent  of  the  other.  "  Real  freedom 
—  the  clear  decision  of  man  for  good,  which  excludes  the 
possibility  of  evil  —  could  not  be  conceived  of,  at  least  not 
as  freedom,  not  as  the  completest  self-assertion  and  self- 
realization  of  man,  if  it  did  not  spring  from  formal  free 
dom  ;  this  is  its  essential  presupposition  and  condition. 
But  formal  freedom  has,  in  the  sphere  of  morals,  no  other 
destination  save  to  pass  over  into  real  freedom ;  the  former 
is  the  means  to  the  realization  of  the  latter  as  the  end.  .  .  . 
When  the  will  has  fully  and  truly  chosen,  the  power  of 
acting  otherwise  may  still  be  said  to  exist  in  a  metaphysical 
sense  ;  but  morally,  i.  e.  with  reference  to  the  contrast 
of  good  and  evil,  it  is  entirely  done  away."  (Christian 
Doctrine  of  Sin,  Bk.  III.  Pt.  I.  chap.  1.)  On  the  other 
hand,  Whedon  teaches  that  what  Miiller  terms  formal  free 
dom  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  vanishing  factor  in 
freedom,  but  an  essential  characteristic  always  and  every 
where.  Accordingly,  apart  from  omniscience  or  revela 
tions  thereby,  persistence  in  holy  choices  on  the  part  of 
any  moral  agents  is  simply  a  matter  of  probability,  though 
the  probability  may  be  such  that  faith  can  rest  in  it  without 
any  real  disturbance  from  doubt. 

Among  philosophical  writers  Reid  is  very  pronounced  in 
his  emphasis  upon  the  power  of  contrary  choice  as  entering 
into  freedom.  He  says  :  "  By  the  liberty  of  a  moral  agent 
I  understand  a  power  over  the  determinations  of  his  own 
will."  Liberty,  as  he  maintains,  is  cancelled  in  any  act 
which  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  something  involun 
tary,  whether  that  something  be  a  state  of  mind  or  external 
circumstances.  Respecting  the  force  of  motives  he  says : 
"  I  grant  that  all  rational  beings  are  influenced,  and  ought 
to  be  influenced,  by  motives.  But  the  influence  of  motives 
is  of  a  very  different  nature  from  that  of  efficient  causes. 
They  are  neither  causes  nor  agents.  They  suppose  an  effi- 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  335 

cient  cause,  and  can  do  nothing  without  it."  (On  the  Active 
Powers.)  Dugald  Stewart  contends  for  self-determination 
in  like  manner  with  Reid.  He  styles  motives  the  occasions 
or  reasons  for  acting,  as  distinguished  from  the  efficient 
causes  of  action,  and  implies  that  the  mind  in  volition  acts 
creatively.  "  The  argument  for  necessity,"  he  says,  "  de 
rives  all  its  force  from  the  maxim,  that  every  change  requires 
a  cause.  But  this  maxim,  although  true  with  respect  to 
inanimate  matter,  does  not  apply  to  intelligent  agents, 
which  cannot  be  conceived  without  the  power  of  self- 
determination."  (Works,  Vol.  VI.,  Appendix.)  Sir  Wil 
liam  Hamilton,  in  accordance  with  his  agnostic  proclivities, 
declares  both  freedom  and  necessity  inconceivable.  But 
while  the  speculative  difficulties  are  in  his  view  about  equal 
on  either  side,  he  accepts  freedom  on  the  testimony  of  the 
moral  consciousness,  and  seems  to  approve  the  definition 
of  it  given  by  Reid  and  Stewart.  (Lectures  on  Metaphys 
ics,  Appendix ;  Philosophy  of  the  Conditioned.)  Kant's 
treatment  of  the  subject  is  peculiar,  but  unmistakably 
evinces  that  he  conceived  of  freedom  as  the  most  positive 
self-determination.  He  says,  that  if  our  freedom  were  no 
other  than  that  of  Leibnitz's  automaton  spirituale,  —  that  is, 
psychological  and  comparative,  not  also  transcendental  and 
absolute,  —  "then  it  would  at  bottom  be  nothing  better 
than  the  freedom  of  a  turnspit,  which,  when  once  it  is 
wound  up,  accomplishes  its  motions  of  itself."  But  while 
Kant  took  high  ground  on  the  nature  of  freedom,  he  felt 
obliged  also  to  ascend  to  high  ground,  even  to  a  point  out 
side  the  phenomenal  or  empirical,  in  order  to  find  a  theatre 
for  its  exercise.  Everything  phenomenal  or  empirical, 
coming  under  the  category  of  time,  of  before  and  after, 
and  holding  a  place  in  a  connected  chain,  is  subject  to  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect.  Only  in  the  sphere  of  the  nou- 
menal  or  intelligible,  where  the  category  of  time  no  longer 
applies,  is  that  law  transcended.  Hence,  to  secure  freedom 
to  man,  we  must  predicate  this  double  character  of  him, 


336  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

and  regard  his  empirical  self  and  its  manifestations  as 
the  product  of  the  free  determination  of  the  intelligible 
self.  (See  both  Critique  of  Pure  Reason  and  Critique  of 
Practical  Reason.) 

According  to  a  large  proportion  of  modern  Calvinists, 
the  free  is  simply  the  voluntary,  and  the  power  of  contrary 
choice  is  a  figment  of  the  imagination.  This  was  plainly 
the  position  of  Edwards.  In  his  definition  freedom  is  noth 
ing  more  than  immunity  from  mechanical  constraint.  It 
leaves  a  man,  amid  a  complex  of  motives  and  forces  which 
are  independent  of  any  conscious  agency  or  instrumentality 
of  his,  to  one  sole  course,  without  the  prerogative  to  turn 
aside  a  hair's  breadth.  Any  specific  volition  is  a  link  in  a 
chain,  and  is  as  absolutely  determined  by  its  antecedents, 
if  not  in  the  same  way,  as  is  any  event  in  nature.  Calling 
the  antecedents  motives,  this  reduces  to  the  statement  that 
the  will  is  and  must  be  always  as  the  strongest  motive. 
That  such  is  the  teaching  of  Edwards  will  be  made  obvious 
by  the  following  extracts  from  his  work  on  the  Freedom  of 
the  Will :  "  Things  that  are  perfectly  connected  with  other 
things  that  are  necessary,  are  necessary  themselves  by  a 
necessity  of  consequence.  .  .  .  That  every  act  of  the  will 
has  some  cause,  and  consequently  has  a  necessary  connec 
tion  with  its  cause,  and  so  is  necessary  by  a  necessity  of 
connection  and  consequence,  is  evident  by  this,  that  every 
act  of  the  will  whatsoever  is  excited  by  some  motive.  .  .  . 
That  the  soul,  though  an  active  substance,  cannot  diversify 
its  own  acts  but  by  first  acting,  or  be  a  determining  cause  of 
different  acts,  or  any  different  effects,  sometimes  of  one  and 
sometimes  of  another,  any  other  way  than  in  consequence  of 
its  own  diverse  acts,  is  manifest  by  this :  that  if  so,  then  the 
same  cause,  the  same  causal  influence,  ivithout  variation  in  any 
respect,  would  produce  different  effects  at  different  times. 
...  It  is  perfectly  demonstrable,  that,  if  there  be  any  infal 
lible  knowledge  of  future  volitions,  the  event  is  necessary  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  impossible  but  the  event  should 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  337 

come  to  pass.  That  no  future  event  can  be  certainly  fore 
known,  whose  existence  is  contingent  and  without  all  ne 
cessity,  may  be  proved  thus  :  It  is  impossible  for  a  thing  to 
be  certainly  known  to  any  intellect  without  evidence.  To 
suppose  otherwise  implies  a  contradiction;  because  for  a 
thing  to  be  certainly  known  to  any  understanding,  is  for  it 
to  be  evident  to  that  understanding :  and  for  a  thing  to  be 
evident  to  any  understanding  is  the  same  thing  as  for  that 
understanding  to  see  evidence  of  it ;  but  no  understanding, 
created  or  uncreated,  can  see  evidence  where  there  is  none." 
The  causal  nexus,  as  Edwards  implies,  must  be  present  to 
the  divine  mind.  The  fact  of  the  foreknowledge  of  any 
particular  act  proves  a  chain  of  causes  necessitating  the 
occurrence  of  that  act. 

In  arguing  against  the  self-determination  of  the  will,  Ed 
wards  makes  much  account  of  a  supposed  reductio  ad  db- 
surdum.  If,  says  he,  the  will  freely  determines  itself  to  a 
particular  act,  it  must  be  by  a  choice.  But  this  choice  is  an 
act,  and  the  self-determination  of  the  will  to  this  act  must 
also  be  by  a  choice,  and  so  on  to  infinity.  This  reasoning 
evidently  discards  the  idea  that  the  creature,  not  to  say  God 
Himself,  can  act  creatively.  A  volition,  it  is  assumed,  must 
have  a  determining  antecedent  which  is  either  voluntary  or 
involuntary.  But  given  such  a  function  as  volition,  and 
such  an  activity  as  creation,  the  union  of  the  two  gives  the 
creative  will  or  the  full  power  of  self-determination.  Ac 
cordingly,  anti-necessitarians  present,  as  the  short  answer 
to  the  difficulty  interposed  by  Edwards,  the  declaration 
that  a  free  agent,  in  willing,  acts  creatively.  The  will, 
as  Whcdon  expresses  it,  is  a  complete  cause,  a  pluripoten- 
tial  cause,  able  under  proper  conditions  to  initiate  either  of 
several  volitions.  To  ask  after  something  else  which  may 
absolutely  explain  why  the  will  elects  in  every  case  as  it 
does,  is  to  deny  that  it  is  or  can  be  a  complete  cause. 

The  younger  Edwards  went  at  least  as  far  as  his  father 
in  the  direction  of  necessitarianism.  He  excluded  the 

VOL.    II.  —  22. 


338  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

power  of  contrary  choice,  and  asserted  a  causal  relation 
between  motives  and  volitions.  Interpreting  his  father's 
position,  he  says :  "  President  Edwards  does  not  hold  that 
we  are  mere  passive  beings,  unless  this  expression  mean, 
that  our  volitions  are  the  effects  of  some  cause  extrinsic 
to  our  wills.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  it,  he  does  hold 
it."  To  the  same  effect  he  remarks :  "  To  say,  that  we 
are  self-determined  or  self -moved,  because  we  ourselves 
determine  and  move,  is  as  improper  and  groundless,  as  to 
say,  that  a  body  is  self-moved  and  self-determined  in  its 
motion,  because  the  body  itself  moves.  Extrinsic  causality 
is  no  more  excluded  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other." 
(Dissertation  concerning  Liberty  and  Necessity,  Chap.  II.) 
To  be  sure  Edwards  junior  says  :  "  Antecedent  certainty 
of  moral  actions  is  all  that  we  mean  by  moral  necessity." 
(Ibid.,  Chap.  VI.)  But  by  certainty  so  used  he  meant  some 
thing  more  than  the  same  term  denotes  with  anti-necessi 
tarians.  President  Day  was  aware  of  this.  "  The  younger 
Edwards,"  he  says,  "  though  he  frequently  asserts  that  by 
moral  necessity  he  means  nothing  different  from  the  cer 
tainty  of  moral  actions,  yet  shows  abundantly  that  by  cer 
tainty,  as  used  in  this  explanation,  he  intends  not  merely 
certainty  of  knowledge,  but  a  certainty  in  things  them 
selves,  and  in  their  relations.  .  .  .  The  certainty  which  he 
calls  moral  certainty  is,  according  to  him, '  the  real  and  cer 
tain  connection  between  some  moral  action  and  its  cause ' ; 
not  the  certain  foreknowledge  of  an  action  which  is,  in 
the  absolute  sense,  contingent.  It  is  objective,  and  not 
merely  subjective  certainty."  (Examination  of  Pres.  Ed- 
wards's  Inquiry  on  the  Freedom  of  the  Will,  Sect.  VIII.) 
Hopkins  says,  "  What  is  voluntary  is  free."  The  power 
of  contrary  choice  he  repudiated  as  absurd.  Emmons,  in 
maintaining  the  same  position,  ruled  out  the  category  of 
permission  from  God's  relation  to  the  creature.  "God 
cannot,"  he  says,  "  exercise  permission  towards  his  ra 
tional  creatures,  because  they  cannot  act  without  his  work- 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  339 

ing  in  them  both  to  will  and  to  do.  The  Deity,  therefore, 
is  so  far  from  permitting  moral  agents  to  act  independently 
of  Himself,  that,  on  the  other  hand,  He  puts  forth  a  posi 
tive  influence  to  make  them  act,  in  every  instance  of  their 
conduct,  just  as  He  pleases.  He  bends  all  the  moral,  as 
well  as  all  the  natural  world,  to  His  own  views  ;  and  makes 
all  His  creatures,  as  well  as  all  His  works,  answer  the  ends 
for  which  they  were  created/'  (Systematic  Theol.,  Serm. 
XXIX.)  E.  D.  Griffin,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of 
self-determining  power,  says :  "  We  must  believe  the  will 
is  absolutely  determined  by  motives."  (Lectures,  VIII.) 
Woods  gives  full  scope  to  the  same  conclusion.  (Lect. 
LIL,  LIV.)  E.  A.  Lawrence  of  East  Windsor  and  L.  H. 
Atwater  of  Princeton  represent  their  respective  schools 
as  denying  the  power  of  contrary  choice.  (Bib.  Sac.,  Apr., 
1863,  Jan.,  1864.  Compare  Hodge,  Pt.  II.  chap.  9,  §  3.) 

On  the  subject  of  responsibility  these  writers  generally 
apply  the  Edwardean  maxim  that  the  states  and  exercises 
of  the  moral  agent  are  good  or  bad,  praiseworthy  or  blame 
worthy,  in  their  nature,  and  irrespective  of  their  cause. 
Hodge  defends  this  maxim^  The  opinion  of  Miiller,  that 
a  man  is  only  responsible  for  his  acts  and  their  subjective 
effects  in  the  formation  of  character,  so  that  acts  deter 
mined  by  a  character  that  is  not  self-formed  are  out  of 
the  range  of  responsibility,  he  expressly  controverts.  In 
deed,  the  discussion  of  Hodge  implies  that  a  rational  be 
ing  absolutely  determined  to  evil  by  his  nature  would  be 
fully  responsible  for  his  acts,  though  that  evil  nature  were 
concreated,  innate,  acquired,  or  infused.  (Pt.  II.  chap.  9, 
§3.) 

Among  the  later  New  England  theologians  there  has 
been  a  tendency,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  modify  the 
Edwardean  system  on  the  subject  of  freedom  and  re 
sponsibility.  A  revised  phraseology  has  been  brought  in, 
and  much  account  made  of  the  distinction  between  cer 
tainty  and  necessity.  Dr.  Taylor  of  New  Haven  taught 


340  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEKIOD  V. 

that  the  power  of  contrary  choice  must  be  predicated  of 
a  free  and  responsible  being.  (See  articles  by  Geo.  P. 
Fisher,  New-Englander,  April  and  Oct.,  1868.)  Lyman 
Beecher  advocated  the  same  view.  He  says :  "  Choice, 
without  the  possibility  of  other  or  contrary  choice,  is  the 
immemorial  doctrine  of  fatalism."  (Views  in  Theology.) 
C.  G.  Finney  of  Oberlin  criticised  the  Edwardean  theory 
as  denying  proper  free  agency  to  man  and  asserted  the 
power  of  contrary  choice  in  these  terms  :  "  I  am  as  con 
scious  of  the  affirmation  that  I  could  will  differently  from 
what  I  do  in  every  instance  of  moral  obligation,  as  I  am 
of  the  affirmation  that  I  cannot  affirm,  in  regard  to  truths 
of  intuition,  otherwise  than  I  do."  (Lectures  on  Syste 
matic  Theology.)  Such  statements  seem  to  concede  all 
that  the  zealous  Arminian  could  ask  for.  But  when  he 
is  told  by  the  same  class  of  writers,  (as  he  assuredly  is 
by  some  of  its  leading  representatives,)  that  it  is  certain 
that  given  antecedents  will  be  followed  by  given  actions 
as  their  consequents,  that  the  power  to  vary  the  result  is 
a  power  that  is  never  used,  and  that  divine  foreknowledge 
is  dependent  upon  this  invariable  but  non-necessitated  suc 
cession  of  consequents  from  antecedents,  he  sees  that  there 
is  work  still  to  be  done  to  bring  them  over  to  his  stand 
point. 

The  result  of  Adam's  misuse  of  freedom,  or  original  sin, 
follows  next  in  the  order  of  consideration.  Roman  Catholic 
theology  holds,  of  course,  in  accordance  with  the  implica 
tion  of  the  Trent  decisions,  that  original  sin  includes  guilt, 
as  well  as  corruption  or  lack  in  the  moral  nature  of  Adam's 
descendants.  Accordingly,  it  was  one  of  the  grounds  of 
censure  in  the  theological  system  of  Hermes,  that  he  ex 
cluded  the  element  of  guilt,  and  made  original  sin  to  con 
sist  solely  in  inborn  depravity  or  concupiscence.  (Werner, 
Geschichte  der  katholischen  Theologie.)  The  stricter 
Lutherans  have  also  continued  to  include  the  element  of 
guilt  as  well  as  of  depravity.  Thomasius,  for  example, 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND  CREATURES.  341 

teaches  that,  as  the  guilt  of  Adam  was  the  guilt  of  the  race, 
so  to  be  a  member  of  the  race  is  to  be  a  participant  of  the 
guilt.  (Dogmatik,  §  28.)  But  there  have  been  many  ex 
ceptions  to  this  theory,  in  favor  of  the  view  that  guilt  first 
arises  when  the  individual  by  a  free  and  conscious  act  of 
will  adopts  the  inherited  evil  bent.  Thomasius  speaks  of 
this  as  a  very  common  view  since  the  time  of  Doderlein. 
One  wing  of  Calvinism  is  very  tenacious  of  the  doctrine 
that  original  sin  includes  guilt  as  well  as  corruption. 
Another  wing  holds  that  the  corruption  alone  is  matter  of 
inheritance,  or  the  immediate  consequence  of  Adamic  con 
nections,  guilt  first  arising  with  the  sinful  choice  which 
that  corruption  insures,  but  does  not  necessitate.  "The 
universality  of  sin,  not  necessitated,  but  made  certain,  not 
withstanding  a  power  to  the  contrary,  is  the  formula  of 
the  creed."  (Fisher,  New-Englander,  Aug.,  1860.)  This 
is  the  theory  of  E.  A.  Park  and  many  other  New  England 
theologians  of  the  present  century,  and  has  also  found 
favor  with  the  New  School  among  Presbyterians.  Van 
Oosterzee  is  very  definitely  committed  to  this  theory,  at 
least  so  far  as  excluding  guilt  is  concerned.  Hereditary 
taint,  he  says,  is  something  quite  distinct  from  hereditary 
guilt.  The  former  is  to  be  admitted,  the  latter  denied. 
(Dogmatics,  Sect.  LXXY.)  Among  English  Methodists 
the  theory  of  hereditary  guilt  has  commonly  been  recog 
nized,  as  may  be  judged  from  the  writings  of  Wesley, 
Watson,  Pope,  and  Rigg.  They  give  it,  however,  only  a 
theoretical  place,  since  they  regard  it  as  cancelled  by  the 
unconditional  benefits  of  the  atonement.  American  Meth 
odists,  on  the  other  hand,  very  generally  regard  the  theory 
of  hereditary  guilt  in  any  shape  as  a  factor  essentially  alien 
to  their  system  of  theology,  and  lay  the  whole  stress  upon 
the  single  element  of  hereditary  corruption.  Unitarians, 
and  rationalists  in  other  communions,  have  no  interest  in 
the  specific  questions  relating  to  original  sin,  since  they 
reduce  it  to  the  common  notion  of  heredity,  the  doctrine 


342  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

that  ancestry  is  a  factor  in  determining  the  bent  of  the 
individual. 

Those  who  include  the  element  of  guilt  are  not  agreed 
as  to  the  ground  on  which  it  is  attributable  to  Adam's 
posterity.  The  principal  theories  are  the  realistic  theory, 
the  theory  of  federal  headship  and  immediate  imputation, 
the  theory  of  natural  headship  and  mediate  imputation,  the 
theory  of  federal  and  natural  headship  and  both  immediate 
and  mediate  imputation.  It  is  not  to  be  understood,  of 
course,  that  those  who  hold  the  second  theory  deny  the 
natural  headship,  but  only  that  on  this  topic  the  prominent 
point  with  them  is  the  federal  headship.  The  first  theory 
has  found  a  stanch  advocate  in  William  G.  T.  Shedd.  He 
argues  that  it  is  a  well-approved  fact  that  the  deepest  action 
of  the  will  lies  below  consciousness.  Having  thus  got 
beneath  consciousness,  and  clear  of  any  opposition  which 
it  may  have  to  offer,  he  runs  the  line  back  to  the  primal 
apostasy  as  something  in  which  the  will  of  every  individual 
may  be  supposed  to  have  been  deeply  implicated.  What 
lie  considers  the  true  doctrine  he  thus  outlines :  "  Every 
child  of  Adam  fell  from  God  in  Adam,  and  together  with 
Adam,  and  therefore  is  justly  chargeable  with  all  that  Ad 
am  is  chargeable  with,  and  precisely  on  the  same  ground, 
viz.  on  the  ground  that  his  fall  was  not  necessitated,  but 
self-determined.  For  the  will  of  Adam  was  not  the  will 
of  a  single  isolated  individual  merely :  it  was  also,  and 
besides  this,  the  will  of  the  human  species,  —  the  human 
will  generically."  (Theological  Essays.)  Edwards  also 
advocated  a  realistic  theory,  founding  it  upon  the  meta 
physical  notion  that  in  the  range  of  created  things  identity 
or  oneness  depends  entirely  upon  God's  sovereign  consti 
tution.  As  He  was  pleased  to  constitute  Adam  and  his 
posterity  one,  they  are  in  truth  one.  In  the  view  of 
Edwards,  transgression  and  depravity  precede  the  impu 
tation  of  guilt,  and  are  its  ground.  The  theory  of  imme 
diate  imputation,  on  the  ground  of  the  federal  headship  of 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  343 

Adam,  has  been  advocated  by  recent  Scotch  theologians,  and 
by  the  Princeton  school  in  this  country.  (See  Chalmers, 
Institutes  of  Theology ;  Hodge,  Pt.  II.  chap.  8,  §§  9-13 ; 
At  water,  Bib.  Sac.,  Jan.,  1864.)  Mediate  imputation,  on 
the  ground  of  depravity  coming  through  natural  connec 
tion  with  Adam,  has  been  favored  by  individuals  in  various 
communions,  —  by  Woods  and  Tyler  among  New  England 
theologians,  by  Hovey  among  Baptists,  by  H.  B.  Smith 
among  Presbyterians,  by  Yanema  and  Stapfcr  among  the 
Reformed  on  the  Continent.  According  to  Thorn asius, 
mediate  and  immediate  imputation  mutually  conditioning 
each  other  supply  the  best  theory.  (Dogmatik,  §  28.) 

As  respects  the  mode  in  which  the  corruption  of  nature 
is  transmitted,  no  essential  advance  has  been  made  on  the 
theories  of  the  preceding  period.  Traducianists  affirm  the 
law  of  descent.  Creationists  leave  the  subject  a  mystery, 
or  affirm  a  divine  constitution  that  like  shall  be  born  of 
like,  —  that  the  primary  state  of  the  soul  shall  be  as  if  it 
came  into  being  by  descent.  Emmons,  conjoining  this  no 
tion  with  his  exercise  scheme  and  his  doctrine  of  divine 
efficiency,  brings  forward  the  novel  theory  that  the  trans 
mission  of  moral  depravity  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
God  takes  pains  to  create  sinful  exercises  in  the  newly 
born.  He  says :  "  In  consequence  of  Adam's  first  trans 
gression,  God  now  brings  his  posterity  into  the  world  in  a 
state  of  moral  depravity.  But  how  ?  The  answer  is  easy. 
When  God  forms  the  souls  of  infants,  He  forms  them  with 
moral  powers  and  makes  them  men  in  miniature;  He 
works  in  them  as  He  does  in  other  men,  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  His  good  pleasure ;  or  produces  those  moral  exer 
cises  in  their  hearts  in  which  moral  depravity  properly 
and  essentially  consists.  Moral  depravity  can  take  place 
nowhere  but  in  moral  agents ;  and  moral  agents  can  never 
act  but  only  as  they  are  acted  upon  by  a  divine  operation. 
It  is  just  as  easy,  therefore,  to  account  for  moral  depravity 
in  infancy,  as  in  any  other  period  of  life."  (Systematic 
Theol.,  Serm.  XXIX.) 


344  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

As  to  the  degree  of  moral  ability  which  pertains  to  man 
in  the  estate  of  original  sin,  the  answer  rendered  by  differ 
ent  schools  has  already  been  suggested  by  the  preceding 
paragraphs.  Only  the  strictest  of  the  Lutherans  hold  on 
this  subject  the  Augustlnian  extreme  characteristic  of 
the  Lutheran  theology  in  the  preceding  period.  Kahnis 
declares  that  extreme  untenable.  (Dogmatik,  III.  §  10.) 
The  position  of  Old  School  Calvinism  is  in  general  the 
position  asserted  by  the  Reformed  Confessions  of  the  pre 
ceding  period.  Among  the  representatives  of  the  New 
England  Theology  there  has  been  a  very  general  departure 
from  the  older  phraseology.  An  ability  to  keep  the  law 
of  God  is  freely  asserted  even  of  the  fallen  man.  This, 
however,  is  but  one  side  of  the  case.  The  ability  which  is 
affirmed  is  described  as  a  natural  ability,  over  against 
which  stands  a  moral  inability.  The  natural  ability  is  the 
possession  of  the  powers  of  reason,  will,  etc.,  which  enter 
into  obedience  to  divine  commands ;  the  moral  inability  is 
the  disinclination  of  the  natural  man  to  render  such  obedi 
ence.  The  one  makes  it  proper  to  say  of  a  man  that  he 
can;  the  other  makes  it  certain  that  left  to  himself  he  will 
not.  The  one  is  the  measure  of  obligation ;  the  other  de 
clares  the  imperative  need  of  grace.  Methodist  theolo 
gians  prefer  to  speak  simply  of  an  inability  of  men  in  their 
natural  state  to  keep  the  law  of  God.  In  their  system, 
however,  a  natural  state  is  only  a  theoretical  fiction,  since 
they  teach  that  the  Divine  Spirit  meets  every  man  on  the 
threshold  of  moral  agency  with  a  measure  of  assistance. 

The  principal  theories  respecting  the  nature  and  origin 
of  sin  which  have  recently  been  advocated  are  the  follow 
ing: —  (1.)  Sin  has  a  positive  as  well  as  a  negative  side,  is 
predicable  not  merely  of  acts,  but  of  the  nature  lying  back  of 
the  acts,  —  at  least  when  the  corruption  of  that  nature  has 
been  induced  in  the  use  of  personal  autonomy,  —  and  it  had 
its  origin  in  the  free  choice  of  the  creature.  This  free 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  345 

choice,  according  to  the  non-Calvinist,  was  properly  contin 
gent  ;  according  to  the  Calvinist,  its  certain  futurition  was 
secured  by  a  divine  decree.  Among  those  holding  this 
general  definition,  there  is  a  difference  on  the  question, 
whether  all  varieties  of  sin  can  be  reduced  to  the  single 
principle  of  selfishness.  Julius  Mliller  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  Many  New  England  theologians,  starting  from 
the  Edwardean  definition  of  virtue  as  benevolence,  or  love 
to  being  in  general,  have  also  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
Hodge,  on  the  other  hand,  has  answered  in  the  negative. 
So  also  has  Dorner.  Pope  says  that  selfishness  is  rather 
the  first  manifestation  than  the  essence  of  sin.  (2.)  A 
theory  claiming  somewhat  of  a  following  in  New  England 
differs  from  the  above  in  confining  sin  altogether  to  volun 
tary  exercises.  Emmons  was  a  zealous  champion  of  this 
theory.  It  was  given  a  place  also  in  the  Oberlin  theology 
as  represented  by  Dr.  Finney.  With  Emmons,  as  has  been 
observed,  the  conception  of  sin  was  further  modified  by  his 
peculiar  theory  of  divine  efficiency.  (3.)  Sin,  according 
to  another  theory,  is  simply  negation  or  privation,  and  has 
the  ground  of  its  occurrence  in  the  original  limitations  or 
imperfection  of  the  creature.  Leibnitz  held  this  theory. 
Moral  evil,  as  he  taught,  is  privation,  like  darkness  or  cold. 
It  needs  no  causa  efficiens,  but  only  a  causa  deficiens.  The 
free  will  may  indeed  be  termed  the  proximate  cause  of  sin, 
but  the  primary  cause  was  the  imperfection  of  the  creature. 
God  could  not  bestow  all  perfections  upon  the  creature 
without  making  him  God.  The  creature  is  necessarily 
limited,  imperfect  in  knowledge  and  moral  energy,  so  that 
sin  is  made  inevitable,  if  not  necessary.  (The*odicee.) 
Hedge  agrees  with  Leibnitz  in  the  negative  definition  of 
sin,  as  well  as  in  the  optimism  which  affirms,  not  that  the 
world  is  the  best  conceivable,  but  the  best  possible.  The 
effects  of  sin,  he  allows,  are  positive  enough,  but  claims 
that  this  does  not  disprove  the  negative  character  of  their 
source.  (Reason  in  Religion,  Bk.  I.  Essay  VII.)  "  What 


346  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

causes  transgression,"  he  says,  "  is  not  a  positive,  but  a 
negative  condition ;  it  is  not  any  one  affection  of  the  soul, 
in  itself  considered,  but  the  absence  of  that  restraining 
principle  and  power  without  which  any  affection  of  the 
soul  may  lead  to  sin.  .  .  .  Let  the  soul  receive  freely  into 
her  dark  mansion  the  sunshine  of  the  Spirit,  and  sin,  which 
is  nothingness  and  shadow,  will  flee  away."  (4.)  The 
teaching  of  Rothe  and  some  others  locates  the  nature  and 
origin  of  sin  in  sensuousness.  Man  starts  with  a  sensuous 
nature,  which  it  is  his  proper  vocation  to  spiritualize.  The 
tendency  of  the  sensuous  nature  being  contrary  to  this 
goal,  sin  becomes  an  inevitable  incident  in  the  process. 
Schleiermacher's  teaching  affiliates  with  this  view.  He 
locates  sin  in  the  opposition  of  the  lower  powers  to  the 
God-consciousness.  (5.)  In  the  representations  of  some 
recent  writers,  much  account  is  made  of  the  idea  that  an 
tagonisms  and  contrasts  are  essential  to  development,  and 
that  sin  therefore  is  a  necessary  factor  in  a  progressive 
moral  world.  According  to  this  theory,  there  is  no  excel 
lence  without  manifoldness.  As  in  art  there  must  be  both 
light  and  shade,  as  in  nature  both  attracting  and  repelling 
forces,  so  in  the  moral  sphere  there  must  be  the  contrast 
of  good  and  evil.  Human  life  without  such  contrasts 
would  be  like  a  Chinese  picture  or  a  stagnant  pool.  He 
gel's  doctrine  of  sin  may  be  regarded  as  a  form  of  this 
theory.  According  to  Hegel,  moral  evil  is  not  so  much 
what  ought  not  to  be,  as  what  ought  not  to  remain.  The 
human  spirit  should  overcome  evil,  but  it  needs  for  its 
proper  development  the  trial  which  evil  imposes.  (See 
Julius  Miiller's  criticism  of  this  and  other  theories,  in  his 
Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin.) 

The  relation  of  sin  to  the  possible  aggregate  of  good  is, 
of  course,  estimated  by  theistic  writers  very  much  in  ac 
cordance  with  their  view  of  the  relation  of  the  divine  will  to 
the  occurrence  of  sin.  Those  holding  the  radical  theories 
of  Hopkinsianism  will  not  hesitate  to  say  that  whatever 


1720-1885.]  CREATION  AND   CREATURES.  347 

sin  exists  is  a  means  of  the  greatest  good.  Others,  occu 
pying  a  position  somewhat  less  radical  respecting  the  rela 
tion  of  God  to  the  occurrence  of  sin,  will  say  that  it  is  a 
sine  qua  non  of  the  greatest  good.  Others  will  not  say 
either  that  sin  is  a  means  or  a  sine  qua  non  of  the  greatest 
good,  but  simply  that  its  possibility  is  unavoidable  in  the 
system  which  aims  at  the  greatest  good.  Each  of  these 
theories  has  been  advocated.  The  second  is  still  exten 
sively  advocated ;  but,  as  a  relative  decline  of  Calvinism 
implies,  a  relative  advance  of  the  third  may  be  regarded  as 
characteristic  of  the  age. 


348  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION. 

SECTION  I.  —  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

THE  views  entertained  of  Christ  outside  the  current  of 
Catholic  Christianity  have  been  intimated  in  large  part  in 
the  preceding  sections.  In  the  section  on  Philosophy  it  was 
remarked  that  to  Kant  Christ  was  pre-eminently  the  moral 
ideal,  while  in  the  systems  of  Fichtc,  Schelling,  and  Hegel 
He  is  portrayed  as  the  highest  historical  realization  of  the 
essential  union  of  God  and  man.  To  Schleicrmacher  He 
was  the  transcendent  example  of  a  perfect  God-conscious 
ness,  the  impersonated  divine  life,  the  bond  and  centre  of 
spiritual  fellowship.  The  older  rationalism  judged  of  His 
human  perfection  in  the  spirit  of  a  cold  aversion  to  every 
thing  mystical,  and  of  deistic  severance  between  the  divine 
and  the  human.  Recent  Unitarianism  in  one  of  its  mani 
fold  phases,  affiliating  more  or  less  with  transcendentalism 
in  its  general  standpoint,  has  represented  the  manhood  of 
Christ  so  intimately  linked  with  divinity  that  their  union 
only  fails  of  being  a  personal  one.  Among  the  noted  biog 
raphers  of  Christ,  Strauss  spent  most  of  his  effort  in  prov 
ing  that  we  have  no  real  history  of  Him,  and  drew  the 
conclusion  that  we  should  be  less  interested  in  His  person 
than  in  the  ideal  of  humanity,  which  he  more  indeed  than 
any  other  single  individual,  but  yet  only  partially,  exem 
plified.  Renan,  in  the  least  creditable  work  upon  the  sub 
ject,  whether  it  be  considered  critically  or  morally,  that 
ever  was  issued  by  a  man  of  learning  and  reputation,  min- 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  349 

gled  unstinted  praises  of  Christ  with  statements  grossly 
disparaging  both  to  His  intellectual  and  ethical  superiority. 
Schenkel  touched  the  subject  with  a  more  reverent  hand 
than  either  Strauss  or  Renan.  He  saw  in  Christ  a  pattern 
of  sinless  humanity,  a  pure  mirror  in  which  divine  verities 
found  a  true  reflection.  But  he  brought  to  his  considera 
tion  of  the  Gospel  narrative  the  old  rationalistic  dread  of 
miracles,  and  ended  much  like  the  old  rationalism  in  pre 
senting  to  us  God's  legate,  instead  of  the  Word  made  flesh, 
the  perfect  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human. 

In  the  Church  at  large,  the  present  period  has  witnessed 
an  intensified  interest  in  the  subject  of  Christ's  person. 
One  manifestation  of  this  drift  is  seen  in  the  demand,  by  a 
considerable  class  of  theologians,  that  the  subject  matter  of 
theology  should  be  treated  after  the  Christo-centric  plan. 
Whatever  the  result  of  christological  investigation  in  other 
respects  may  have  been,  a  real  advance  has  no  doubt  been 
made  in  the  treatment  of  Christ's  human  nature.  No  pre 
vious  age  has  equalled  the  present  in  an  appreciative  con 
sideration  of  Christ's  human  perfection,  or  wrought  out  so 
rich  a  literature  in  behalf  of  its  illustration. 

In  the  endeavor  to  secure  a  more  satisfactory  view  of  the 
union  of  the  human  and  the  divine  in  Christ  than  was  at 
tained  by  the  older  dogmatics,  much  attention  has  been 
bestowed  of  late  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  kenosis.  Among 
those  who  have  used  the  doctrine,  in  its  most  radical  form, 
to  solve  the  problem  of  Christ's  person,  are  Thomas; us, 
Gess,  and  Ebrard. 

Thomasius  teaches  that  without  a  self-limitation  of  the 
divine  no  true  union  with  the  human  is  possible.  The 
divine  self-consciousness  is  an  infinitely  larger  circle  than 
the  human,  and  their  co-existence  implies  a  dualism  de 
structive  to  personal  unity.  To  gain  a  basis  for  unity, 
there  must  be  a  depotentiation  of  the  divine.  Such  in  fact 
occurred  when  the  Word  became  flesh.  The  eternal  Logos 
emptied  Himself,  not  indeed  of  what  is  strictly  essential  to 


350  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

God,  but  of  the  divine  mode  of  being.  He  put  aside  the 
divine  glory,  the  divine  self-consciousness,  the  divine  at 
tributes  connected  with  the  dominion  of  the  world,  such 
as  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  renoun 
cing  not  merely  their  use,  but  their  possession  as  well.  He 
came  entirely  within  the  limits  of  a  human  earthly  life. 
"  In  the  totality  of  His  being  He  became  a  man."  The 
essential  holiness  and  truth  of  the  divine  nature  assumed 
in  Him  the  form  of  human  volition  and  thought,  the  abso 
lute  love  and  freedom,  the  form  of  human  feeling  and  self- 
determination.  There  was  no  distinction  between  a  divine 
and  a  human  consciousness  in  Him,  but  only  a  distinction 
of  moments  in  a  single  self-consciousness,  somewhat  as  in 
the  regenerate  the  undivided  self-consciousness  includes 
the  two  moments  of  the  divine  and  the  natural  life.  Hav 
ing  descended  from  the  divine  to  the  human  rank,  he  re 
turns  after  the  analogy  of  a  human  development  toward 
the  divine,  and  in  the  glorification  rises  completely  to  its 
plane,  appearing  thenceforth  as  the  omnipotent,  omniscient 
God-man.  (Dogmatik,  §§  38-45.) 

In  the  scheme  of  Thomasius,  with  its  humanized  Logos, 
there  seems  to  be  little  need  of  an  extra  human  soul.  So 
Gess  inferred.  As  he  represents  (in  his  Lehre  von  der 
Person  Christ!) ,  the  Logos  became  the  human  soul  that 
dwelt  in  the  body  derived  from  the  Virgin.  Apollinaris 
was  right  in  refusing  to  conjoin  the  Logos  with  a  human 
soul ;  but  he  was  radically  in  error  in  making  the  incar 
nated  Logos  immutable.  He  was  every  way  man,  with  the 
characteristic  mutability  of  man,  able  to  sin,  though  in  fact 
sinless.  Such  a  theory  seems  to  involve  the  conclusion  that 
one  of  the  Divine  Persons  disappeared  for  a  time  from  the 
Trinity.  Gess  admits  this  in  the  fullest  terms.  The  depo- 
tentiation  of  the  Logos,  as  he  teaches,  affected  the  life  of  the 
Godhead  in  a  fourfold  manner:  (1.)  The  Father  suspended 
the  communication  of  divine  life  to  the  Son.  (2.)  The 
Son  ceased  to  be  a  joint  source  for  the  procession  of  the 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  351 

Spirit.  (3.)  The  Son  ceased  to  be  the  upholding  and  con 
serving  principle  of  the  world.  (4.)  In  reassuming  His 
glory,  the  Son  entered  as  man  into  the  Trinity. 

This  evidently  involved  nothing  less  than  the  overthrow 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  To  avert  such  a 
result,  Ebrard,  Schoberlein,  and  some  other  advocates  of 
the  kenosis,  have  brought  forward  the  theory  of  a  double 
life  of  the  Logos.  On  the  one  hand,  as  they  teach,  the 
Logos  becomes  the  man  Jesus,  emptied  of  His  divine  glory, 
and  possessed  of  a  purely  human  consciousness  and  will ; 
on  the  other  hand,  He  retains  without  interruption  His  ex 
istence  and  activity  in  the  Trinity.  The  same  ego  subsists 
at  once  in  the  eternal  and  the  temporal  mode,  as  infinite 
and  as  confined  by  the  narrow  bounds  of  man's  estate. 

Delitzsch  carries  the  depotcntiation  of  the  Logos  as  far  as 
Thomasius.  (Bib.  Psych.,  V.  sect.  1.)  A  quite  emphatic  view 
of  the  kenosis  appears  also  with  Martensen.  He  teaches 
that  the  Logos  in  Christ  must  be  viewed  as  limited,  as  sub 
ject  to  the  law  of  development,  so  that "  as  the  human  nature 
grows  and  develops,  in  the  same  measure  the  divine  in  Him 
grows,  and  in  the  same  measure  as  He  becomes  aware  with 
His  advancing  development  of  His  historical  significance, 
He  is  reminded  of  His  eternal  pre-existence  and  of  His 
going-forth  from  the  Father."  (Dogmatik,  §  136.) 

Dorner  criticises  the  kenotic  theories,  and  in  their  place 
advances  the  idea  of  a  progressive  union  consummated  by 
an  enlarging  impartation  from  the  Logos  to  a  growing  re 
ceptivity  in  the  human  nature.  (System  of  Christ.  Doct., 
§  104.)  He  considers  it  of  importance  to  regard  the  union 
as  ethically  mediated,  the  divine  indeed  taking  the  initia 
tive,  but  the  human  not  occupying  an  attitude  of  simple 
passivity.  (Compare  Rothe,  Dogmatik,»II.  1,  §§  22,  23.)  A 
theory  of  Christ's  person  essentially  identical  with  that  of 
Gess  has  been  advocated  in  this  country.  A  very  clear  and 
pronounced  expression  of  this  is  found  in  the  treatise  of 
Henry  M.  Goodwin,  entitled  "  Christ  and  Humanity."  He 


352  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

affirms  that  the  true  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  rests  upon 
three  postulates  :  (1.)  the  essential  unity  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  ;  (2.)  the  divine  and  heavenly  humanity  of 
Christ,  the  truth  that  the  Logos  is  essentially  the  archetype 
of  man ;  (3.)  the  kenosis,  or  the  self-limitation  of  the  Logos. 
His  view  of  the  kenosis  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  this  com 
ment  on  the  theory  of  Apollinaris :  "  The  real  defect  was 
not  in  denying  a  human  soul,  —  which  was  not  needed  if 
it  did  not  act,  and,  if  it  did,  would  destroy  or  impair  the 
unity  of  His  person ;  but  the  radical  defect  of  his  system 
was  in  allowing  the  Logos  only  a  partial,  and  not  a  perfect 
humanification,  i.  e.  a  real  subjection  to  all  the  conditions 
and  limitations  of  our  finite  humanity."  Horace  Bushnell 
contended  for  substantially  the  same  result,  namely,  a  di 
vine-human  Christ  endowed  with  a  single  rational  principle, 
but  expressed  himself  as  comparatively  indifferent  about 
the  theoretical  path  to  this  result. 

The  doctrine  of  the  kenosis  in  its  radical  form  evidently 
implies  an  extensive  modification  of  the  old  Lutheran  Chris- 
tology.  It  is  directly  counter  to  the  earlier  theory,  which 
meant  by  the  kenosis,  not  a  depotentiation  of  the  Logos,  but 
the  renunciation  by  the  human  nature  of  the  use,  or  the 
manifest  use,  of  the  divine  predicates.  It  is  also  at  vari 
ance,  at  least  as  urged  by  Gess,  with  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  There  being  no  soul  in 
Christ  aside  from  the  Logos,  there  is  no  need  of  a  commu 
nication,  except  to  the  body,  that  is,  of  a  power  to  transcend 
the  limitations  of  space.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Martensen 
takes  exception  to  a  communication  of  just  this  sort,  as 
endangering  the  individuality  of  the  glorified  Christ,  and 
leaning  to  the  theory  of  an  indefinite  pantheistic  Christ  dif 
fused  through  nature.  There  are  others,  however,  among 
recent  writers,  who  are  in  no  wise  inclined  to  renounce  this 
item,  which  figured  so  prominently  in  the  older  dogmatics. 

It  is  quite  manifest  that  what  may  be  styled  a  radical 
doctrine  of  the  kenosis  has  made  progress  in  different 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  353 

quarters  within  the  last  few  decades.  But,  taking  the  the 
ological  world  at  large,  it  is  still,  if  we  mistake  not,  the 
doctrine  of  a  decided  minority. 

The  doctrine  of  a  pre-existent  humanity  of  Christ,  in  one 
or  more  of  its  factors,  favored  by  some  in  the  preceding 
period,  has  found  here  and  there  an  advocate  in  the  present. 
Swedenborg's  conception  of  God  as  the  Infinite  Man  in 
volved  in  itself  the  notion  of  a  kind  of  pre-existent  human 
ity.  Isaac  Watts  argued  for  a  pre-existent  soul  of  Christ, 
which  was  the  first-born  of  all  creatures,  subsisting  in  per 
sonal  union  with  the  Logos.  In  the  incarnation,  this  soul, 
bereft  of  its  exalted  knowledge,  power,  and  glory,  was  united 
with  a  material  body,  and  made  subject  to  the  law  of  grad 
ual  development.  (Works,  Vol.  VI.) 


SECTION  II.  —  THE  REDEMPTIVE  WORK  OP  CHRIST. 

IN  the  treatment  of  this  subject  we  deal,  for  the  most 
part,  not  with  new  elements,  but  only  with  new  combina 
tions.  All  the  leading  aspects  of  Christ's  redemptive  work 
were  brought  out  in  the  preceding  periods. 

Leaving  a  margin  for  miscellaneous  views,  we  may  include 
the  principal  types  of  teaching  in  the  following  classifica 
tion  :  (1.)  the  judicial  theory  ;  (2.)  the  pure  governmental ; 
(3.)  the  modified  governmental ;  (4.)  the  moral ;  (5.)  the 
mystical. 

The  idea  of  the  judicial  theory  is  not  simply  satisfaction, 
but  rather  specific  satisfaction.  It  teaches  that  Christ's 
obedience  and  sufferings  were  not  merely  a  general  condi 
tion  of  the  exhibition  of  forgiving  mercy,  but  a  specific  sat 
isfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  elect.  Christ  fulfilled  the 
claims  of  the  law  in  their  behalf  in  such  a  sense  that  it  is 
no  longer  an  act  of  grace,  but  of  justice,  that  they  should  be 
released  from  its  penalties.  Grace  concerns  the  primary 
provision  of  the  satisfaction,  not  its  individual  application. 

VOL.   II.  —  23. 


354  HISTORY   OF   CPIRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

Says  one  of  the  most  eminent  representatives  of  this  the 
ory  :  "  It  is  a  matter  of  justice  that  the  blessings  which 
Christ  intended  to  secure  for  His  people  should  be  actually 
bestowed  upon  them.  This  follows  for  two  reasons  :  first, 
they  were  promised  to  Him  as  the  reward  of  His  obedience 
and  sufferings.  God  covenanted  with  Christ,  that,  if  He 
fulfilled  the  conditions  imposed,  if  He  made  satisfaction  for 
the  sins  of  His  people,  they  should  be  saved.  It  follows, 
secondly,  from  the  nature  of  the  satisfaction.  If  the  claims 
of  justice  are  satisfied,  they  cannot  be  again  enforced. 
This  is  the  analogy  between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the 
payment  of  a  debt.  The  point  of  agreement  between  the 
two  cases  is  not  the  nature  of  the  satisfaction  rendered, 
but  one  aspect  of  the  effect  produced.  In  both  cases  the 
persons  for  whom  the  satisfaction  is  made  are  certainly 
freed.  Their  exemption  or  deliverance  is  in  both  cases, 
and  equally  in  both,  a  matter  of  justice."  (Hodge,  Pt.  III. 
chap.  6,  §  3.)  From  the  above  statement,  that  those  are 
certainly  freed  for  whom  the  satisfaction  was  made,  it  is 
an  obvious  inference  that  the  satisfaction  was  made  only 
for  the  elect,  unless  perchance  some  are  saved  who  are 
not  of  the  elect,  a  conclusion  which  the  advocates  of  this 
theory  in  no  wise  tolerate.  The  virtue  of  Christ's  death, 
it  is  conceded,  is  entirely  adequate  to  cover  the  sins  of  the 
non-elect.  And  on  this  ground,  as  Hodge  contends,  the 
offer  of  salvation  to  all  is  justified  and  made  consistent. 
(Pt.  III.  chap.  8,  §  2.)  Non-Calvinists,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  never  been  able  to  see  the  consistency  of  urging  sal 
vation  upon  those  for  whom  it  was  never  designed.  In 
their  view  the  divine  design  and  the  Gospel  offer  should 
have  equal  breadth,  if  God  is  to  be  presented  to  the  contem 
plation  of  men  in  any  worthy  light.  The  judicial  theory, 
with  its  legal  analogies,  is  naturally  coextensive  only  with 
the  stricter  type  of  Calvinism,  which  carries  out  the  con 
ception  of  imputation  in  all  its  length  and  breadth.  Pro 
fessor  Atwater  has  declared  it  representative  of  Old  School 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  355 

Presbyterianism.  (Bib.  Sac.,  January,  1864.  Compare 
Wm.  Cunningham,  Hist.  TheoL,  Vol.  II.) 

The  governmental  theory  takes  the  subject  of  atonement 
from  the  court,  or  the  sphere  of  judicial  procedure,  and 
transfers  it  to  the  sphere  of  sovereignty,  of  righteous  ad 
ministration.  It  views  God  pre-eminently  in  His  character 
of  moral  ruler.  In  all  its  forms  it  denies  the  assumption  of 
the  judicial  theory  that  Christ  so  fulfilled  the  obligations 
of  a  special  class  of  persons  as  to  render  their  acquittal, 
in  view  of  His  work,  a  matter  of  justice.  It  teaches,  rather, 
that  the  work  of  Christ  provided  simply  the  possibility  of 
pardon  for  any  and  every  man,  laid  the  suitable  foundation 
for  a  general  scheme  of  amnesty ;  that,  while  it  is  fitting 
that  the  benefits  of  the  amnesty  should  be  offered  to  all, 
the  work  of  Christ  gives  no  one  a  title  to  them  in  justice. 

In  its  pure  form  the  governmental  theory  makes  the  de 
mand  for  an  atonement  to  lie,  not  in  the  essential  nature 
of  God,  but  in  the  exigencies  of  moral  government.  It  is 
a  token  rather  of  what  good  administration  requires,  than 
of  what  essential  holiness  in  itself  requires.  It  may  be 
defined  as  an  expedient  whereby  the  honor  and  majesty  of 
moral  government  are  sustained  in  connection  with  the 
offer  of  pardon  to  the  sinner.  Such,  on  the  whole,  is  the 
theory  advocated  by  Dr.  Miley  in  his  work  on  "  The  Atone 
ment  in  Christ."  To  be  sure,  he  is  careful  to  state  that 
there  is  a  punitive  justice  in  God ;  but  he  states  also  that 
this  is  a  feeling  or  impulse  the  satisfaction  of  which  the 
divine  nature  does  not  necessarily  demand.  His  point  of 
view  is  well  indicated  by  the  following :  "  God,  as  a  right 
eous  Ruler,  must  inflict  merited  penalty  upon  sin,  not, 
indeed,  in  the  gratification  of  any  mere  personal  resent 
ment,  nor  in  the  satisfaction  of  any  absolute  retributive 
justice,  but  in  the  interest  of  moral  government,  or  find 
some  rcctorally  compensatory  measure  for  the  remission  of 
the  penalty.  Such  a  measure  there  is  in  the  redemptive 
mediation  of  Christ."  Storr  and  some  others  of  the  Ger- 


356  HISTOEY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

man  supernaturalists  of  his  era  held  about  the  same  view. 
The  governmental  theory  has  also  been  advocated  by  the 
great  body  of  those  representing  the  New  England  Theology 
since  the  days  of  Edwards.  But  how  far  they  have  been 
committed  to  the  theory  in  the  form  characterized  in  the 
present  paragraph,  it  is  not  easy  to  decide.  What  many 
of  them  emphasize  is  the  purely  governmental  demand  for 
the  atonement.  This  might  be  natural,  even  if  they  ad 
mitted  a  farther  demand,  since  they  wished  to  make  promi 
nent  the  point  of  departure  from  the  old  theory. 

The  modified  governmental  theory,  as  we  term  it,  claims 
that  the  atonement  is  a  satisfaction  to  the  ethical  nature 
of  God,  as  well  as  an  expedient  for  sustaining  the  honor 
and  majesty  of  His  government.  It  emphasizes  the  idea 
that  no  chasm  should  be  interposed  between  the  moral 
laws  and  the  moral  nature  of  God ;  that  what  one  demands 
the  other  demands,  and  what  is  agreeable  to  the  one  sat 
isfies  the  other.  Watson,  on  the  whole,  seems  to  have 
stood  upon  the  ground  of  this  theory,  and  it  may  be  re 
garded  as  largely  current  among  Methodist  theologians  of 
the  present,  as  also  in  other  quarters,  though  perhaps  under 
a  different  terminology  from  that  by  which  it  is  here  des 
ignated.  If  we  mistake  not,  the  teaching  of  H.  B.  Smith 
on  the  atonement  admits  of  being  classified  here.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  many  of  the  more  orthodox  Lutherans 
of  recent  times;  for,  in  opposition  to  the  judicial  theory, 
they  make  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  to  be  a  satisfaction  of 
general,  and  not  of  distributive  justice,  and,  in  opposition 
to  the  Grotian  or  purely  governmental  theory,  they  find  a 
ground  for  it  in  the  ethical  nature  of  God,  and  not  merely 
in  the  demands  of  administration.  (See  the  views  of  Dor- 
ner,  Thomasius,  Kahnis,  and  Schmucker.) 

The  moral  (or  moral  influence)  theory  regards  the  work 
of  Christ  not  at  all  as  a  condition,  on  the  divine  side,  of 
man's  restoration,  whether  the  condition  be  located  in  the 
nature  or  the  government  of  God,  but  simply  as  the  chosen 


1720-1885.]  KEDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  357 

means  of  restoration.  God  in  Himself  being  already  rec 
onciled,  and  being  moreover  perfectly  secure  of  His  moral 
sovereignty,  had  no  need  of  a  tribute  either  to  His  nature 
or  to  His  law.  All  that  was  needed  was  a  restoring  agency, 
such  a  manifestation  of  God's  desire  to  bring  the  alienated 
race  into  fellowship  with  Himself  as  should  influence  them 
most  powerfully  and  wholesomely.  Sanctification  of  man, 
not  satisfaction  of  God,  was  the  thing  demanded.  In  the 
humbled,  obedient,  and  suffering  Son  of  God,  the  restoring 
agency,  the  sanctifying  influence,  was  provided.  As  en 
listing  the  faith  and  drawing  forth  the  affection  of  men, 
Christ  becomes  directly  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation. 
Some  of  the  recent  German  theologians  have  espoused 
this  theory.  It  underlies  the  representations  of  Tollner, 
Rothe,  and  Nitzsch,  among  others.  In  this  country  Horace 
Bushnell  has  been  its  most  conspicuous  advocate.  Our 
description  of  the  theory  has  already  presented  an  outline 
of  his  view,  as  contained  in  his  work  on  "  The  Vicarious 
Sacrifice."  Love,  as  he  teaches,  is  the  very  principle  of 
vicarious  sacrifice  in  God,  as  well  as  in  man.  The  cross 
was  in  God's  heart  from  eternity.  The  need  of  reconcili 
ation  pertained  wholly  to  man,  and  not  at  all  to  God.  The 
atoning  power  of  Christ's  sacrifice  is  its  power  to  overcome 
man's  alienation  from  God,  its  moral  influence.  The 
fulness  of  its  moral  influence  is  due  to  its  wonderful  man 
ifestation,  not  only  of  God's  love,  but  of  all  His  moral  per 
fections.  "While  Bushnell  teaches  that  there  was  no  need 
on  God's  part  that  the  law  should  be  honored,  he  maintains 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  conferred 
unmeasured  honor  upon  the  law.  "  Everything  that  we 
sec,"  he  says, "  in  the  incarnate  life  and  the  suffering  death, 
is  God  magnifying  the  honors  of  His  law  by  the  stress  of 
His  own  stupendous  sacrifice."  Again  he  remarks,  "  It  is 
obvious  enough  that,  in  such  a  way  of  obedience,  Christ 
makes  a  contribution  of  honor  to  the  law  He  obeys  that 
will  do  more  to  enthrone  it  in  our  reverence  than  all  the 


358  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD    V. 

desecrations  of  sin  have  done  to  pluck  it  down,  —  more 
than  all  conceivable  punishments,  to  make  it  felt,  and  keep 
it  in  respect."  In  his  estimate,  therefore,  of  the  essential 
worth  of  Christ's  work,  he  does  not  differ  from  the  advo 
cates  of  the  preceding  theories.  The  prominent  point  of 
difference  is,  that  he  makes  that  work  simply  a  means  of 
man's  moral  recovery,  and  not  also  a  condition  on  God's 
part  of  that  recovery.  In  a  later  work  Bushnell  modified 
his  former  exposition,  to  the  extent  of  admitting  a  real 
propitiation  of  God.  This,  however,  he  describes  as  a  self- 
propitiation  effectuated  by  making  sacrifice  for  the  offender. 
As  we  by  making  cost  to  ourselves  for  an  enemy  overcome 
our  inward  reluctance  to  forgive,  so  God  by  entering  into 
sacrifice  for  sinners  becomes  in  his  own  feeling  fully  at 
peace  with  Himself  in  extending  grace  to  them.  (For 
giveness  and  Law.)  The  moral  theory  was  favored  by 
Coleridge,  and  has  also  claimed  the  recognition  of  other 
representatives  of  the  Broad  Church  in  the  English  Estab 
lishment.  The  teaching  of  F.  D.  Maurice  is  perhaps  best 
defined  as  a  union  of  the  moral  and  the  mystical  theories. 

According  to  the  mystical  theory,  the  great  aim  and 
achievement  of  the  redemptive  work  was  to  bring  man  into 
vital  connection  with  God.  The  incarnate  Logos  acts  as 
the  bond  of  this  connection.  He  becomes  in  the  organism 
of  humanity  the  new  life-centre,  whence  a  divine-human 
virtue  is  mediated  to  all  the  branches.  As  has  been  indi 
cated,  this  view  had  a  place  in  patristic  thought.  Among 
its  modern  exponents,  Oetinger  is  mentioned  as  a  promi 
nent  example.  It  enters  as  a  factor  into  the  theory  of  a 
number  of  theologians  who  do  not  lay  upon  it  an  exclusive 
stress.  In  the  following  words  from  Delitzsch,  for  example, 
it  is  clearly  enough  implied  :  "  This  appropriation  of  human 
nature,  through  the  Logos,  and  this  impropriation  of  the 
Logos  into  the  human  nature,  became  the  inviolable  ground 
of  a  new  humanity,  which  has  in  the  God-man  the  creative 
principle  and  the  superabundant  archetype  of  its  growth. 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  359 

...  In  Christ  a  new  beginning  is  established,  which  bears 
in  itself  the  most  infallible  guaranty  of  completion,  and, 
on  account  of  the  superabundant  intensity  of  its  power  of 
propagation,  suggests  the  hope  of  a  renewal  of  the  whole 
of  humanity."  (Bib.  Psych.,  V.  sect.  1,  2.) 

The  moral  theory  has  been  characteristic  of  recent  Uni 
tarian  theology.  Ellis  states  as  the  Unitarian  conclusion 
on  the  subject  of  the  atonement :  "  The  Scriptures  do  not 
lay  the  emphatic  stress  of  Christ's  redeeming  work  upon 
his  death,  alone  or  apart  from  His  life,  character,  and  doc 
trine  ;  and  His  death,  as  an  element  of  His  redeeming 
work,  is  made  effective  for  human  salvation  through  its 
influence  on  the  heart  and  life  of  man,  not  through  its  vi 
carious  or  substituted  value  with  God,  nor  through  its  re 
moval  of  an  abstract  difficulty  in  the  divine  government, 
which  hinders  the  forgiveness  of  the  penitent  without  fur 
ther  satisfaction."  (A  Half-Century  of  the  Unitarian  Con 
troversy.)  It  may  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  testimony 
of  Channing  indicates  that  some  of  the  earlier  Unitarians 
were  not  quite  satisfied  to  assign  to  Christ's  death  simply 
the  place  which  is  indicated  in  the  above, — were  inclined  to 
regard  it  as  securing  forgiveness  otherwise  than  by  moving 
to  repentance  and  reformation  of  life.  He  says,  "  Many  of 
us  arc  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  pun 
ishment,  though  the  Scriptures  may  not  reveal  the  way 
in  which  it  contributes  to  this  end."  (Works,  Vol.  III. 
p.  89.) 

The  symbolical  view  was  not  included  in  our  list  of 
theories,  as  being  of  very  indefinite  range  and  meaning. 
It  held,  however,  quite  a  prominent  place  in  Germany  dur 
ing  the  transition  era  in  the  first  part  of  the  century.  We 
quote  upon  this  subject  from  Hahn  :  "  Kant,  Hegel,  Schlei- 
ermacher,  and  the  theologians  and  philosophers  who  affili- 


360  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

ated  with  them  and  were  opposed  to  the  vulgar  rationalism, 
regarded  from  their  different  standpoints  the  reconciling 
death  of  Christ  as  a  symbol  of  the  spiritual  and  moral 
change  whereby  the  sinner  reunites  himself  with  God.  So 
Kant  saw  therein  the  symbolical  representation  of  the  truth 
that  the  new  or  reformed  man  must  pay  the  penalty  for  the 
old.  Similarly  Tieftrunk  in  Halle,  and  Kroll  in  Helmstedt. 
Krug  found  therein  a  symbol  of  the  truth  that  God  does 
not  take  pleasure  in  man  as  he  is,  (the  natural  man,)  but 
in  him  as  he  should  be,  (the  Christ,)  which  idea  the  natural 
man  must  believingly  follow,  if  God  is  to  receive  him  into 
favor.  According  to  Schleiermacher's  related  view,  re 
demption  and  reconciliation,  absolutely  accomplished  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  are  accomplished  in  us  only  as  fellow 
ship  and  union  with  Him,  so  far  as  God  sees  us,  not  each 
by  himself,  but  only  in  Him.  However,  we  do  not  come 
immediately  into  this  fellowship  and  union,  but  only  through 
the  medium  of  the  community  of  which  Christ  the  Saviour 
is  the  founder.  De  Wette  considered  the  death  of  Jesus  an 
aesthetico-religious  symbol  of  the  feeling  of  submission  in 
which  we  bow  before  God.  Marheinecke  saw  therein  a 
symbol  of  the  return  of  the  world  to  God,  in  that  it  dies  to 
itself  in  order  to  attain  a  new  and  true  life."  (Lehrbuch 
der  Christ,  Glaubens,  §  103.)  For  a  more  specific  refer 
ence  to  Hegel's  view,  see  the  section  on  Philosophy. 

Among  the  features  of  Christ's  redeeming  work  recog 
nized  by  Swedenborgianism,  a  prominent  place  is  given  to 
His  agency  in  limiting  the  power  of  evil  spirits.  Speaking 
of  Christ's  rebuttal  of  infernal  spirits  and  their  tempta 
tions,  a  Swedenborgian  writer  says :  "  Thus  He  set  Him 
self  face  to  face  in  battle  with  our  spiritual  enemies.  And 
He  overthrew  them  utterly.  He  drove  them  back  to  their 
own  dark  realm.  He  destroyed  their  predominant  influ 
ence  over  human  beings,  and  restored  the  freedom  which 
they  had  so  nearly  subverted."  (James  Reed.)  "  That 
the  Lord,"  says  Swedenborg,  "while  He  was  in  the  world, 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER   AND   REDEMPTION.  361 

fought  against  the  hells,  and  conquered  and  subjugated 
them,  and  thus  reduced  them  under  obedience  to  Him,  is 
evident  from  many  passages  in  the  Word."  (True  Chris 
tian  Religion,  §  116.) 

Nearly  all  theological  parties  agree  in  the  verdict,  that  in 
the  atonement,  as  accomplished  by  Christ,  are  to  be  in 
cluded  not  merely  His  sufferings  and  death,  but  His  entire 
life  of  holy  obedience.  But  many  representatives  of  the' 
New  England  Theology  have  taught  that  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  while  indispensable  to  His  vocation,  was  no  part 
of  the  atonement.  Here  belong  Edwards  junior,  Hopkins, 
Ernmons,  Pond,  Fiske,  etc.  The  last,  writing  as  a  repre 
sentative  of  his  school,  says:  "The  old  doctrine  is,  that 
the  atonement  consists  both  in  the  active  and  passive  obe 
dience.  The  new  doctrine  confines  the  atonement  to  the 
latter,  and  makes  it  consist  wholly  in  Christ's  sufferings." 
(Bib.  Sac.,  July,  1865.)  On  the  other  hand,  Dwight  and 
Woods  were  opposed  to  attempts  to  separate  between  the 
active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ. 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  descent  into  Hades  ceased  before 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  be  a  topic  of  much 
interest  among  Protestant  theologians.  Recently  the  con 
nection  of  the  subject  with  eschatology  has  brought  it  to 
renewed  attention.  Much  division  of  opinion  exists  on  the 
question  whether  the  Scriptures  teach  a  real  descent  or 
not.  Dorner  implies  that  German  exegesis  answers  the 
question  in  the  affirmative.  "  It  may  be  accepted,"  he  says, 
"  as  a  result  of  modern  cxegetical  research,  that,  in  har 
mony  with  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Church,  Peter  really 
contemplates  Christ  after  His  death,  probably  before  His 
resurrection,  as  active  in  the  region  of  the  dead,  and  there-i 
fore  not  in  the  place  of  torment,  but  in  the  intermediate 
region."  (System  of  Christ.  Doct.,  §  124.)  Van  Oosterzee 
argues  for  a  real  descent.  (Sect.  CIV.)  Hodge,  in  agree 
ment  with  a  large  proportion  of  Reformed  theologians  of 
former  times,  sees  in  the  true  doctrine  of  the  descent  sim- 


862  HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.       [PERIOD  V. 

ply  the  fact  that  Christ  continued  for  a  time  under  the 
power  of  death.  (Ft.  III.  chap.  12,  §  5.)  Altogether  wide 
of  the  modern  drift  is  the  view  of  Dr.  Bartle,  that  Christ's 
principal  sufferings  by  which  He  atoned  for  sin  were  in 
Hades.  (The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Hades.) 

Not  a  few  among  recent  theologians  have  favored  the 
conclusion  that  the  incarnation  was  not  dependent  upon 
the  fact  of  sin,  or  the  need  of  redemption.  Dorner  con 
tends  for  this  conclusion,  and  supports  it  with  such  consid 
erations  as  the  following.  If  Christianity  is  the  absolute 
religion,  its  central  feature,  the  God-man,  ought  not  to  be 
conditioned  upon  the  contingent  fact  of  sin.  It  is  contrary 
to  the  pre-eminent  glory  and  importance  of  Christ's  person 
to  make  the  incarnation  merely  a  means  of  redemption, 
and  dependent  upon  the  redemptive  purpose.  Humanity 
as  an  organism,  and  apart  from  the  demand  of  moral  re 
covery,  can  find  only  in  the  God-man  an  adequate  centre 
and  head.  Dorner  mentions,  among  others  who  have 
adopted  this  view,  Nitzsch,  Martensen,  Liebiier,  Lange, 
Rothe,  Schb'berlein,  Schmid,  and  Ebrard.  (Hist,  of  Doct. 
of  the  Person  of  Christ,  Div.  II.,  Vol.  III.)  Among  those 
who  have  advocated  the  reverse  view  are  Julius  Mliller 
and  Thomasius.  The  Roman  Catholic  theologian  Amort, 
taking  a  medium  position  between  the  Scotist  and  the 
Thomist  opinion  on  the  subject,  drew  the  conclusion  that 
Christ  would  have  adopted  a  form  of  manifestation,  even  if 
man  had  not  sinned,  but  one  of  a  more  glorious  order  than 
the  common  human  one  in  which  he  did  appear.  (Werner, 
Geschichte  der  katholischen  Theologie.) 

SECTION  III.  —  APPROPRIATION  OF  THE  BENEFITS  OF 
CHRIST'S  WORK. 

As  was  indicated  in  the  corresponding  section  of  the 
previous  period,  while  there  was  a  current  of  Augustini- 
anism  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  opposing  cur- 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  368 

rent,  which  had  long  been  in  existence,  gained  an  added 
impulse  through  the  action  of  the  Popes  in  condemning 
propositions  of  Baius  and  Quesnel,  and  of  the  council  of 
Trent  in  teaching  a  synergistic  mode  of  appropriating 
grace.  However,  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  predestina 
tion  was  not  formally  repudiated,  nor  has  it  been  to  this 
day.  Accordingly,  we  find  such  representative  writers  as 
Perrone  teaching  that  a  Roman  Catholic  is  free  to  exercise 
his  option  between  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  predestina 
tion,  in  the  sense  of  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  and 
the  doctrine  that  predestination  is  conditioned  upon  fore 
sight  of  merit.  (Praelect.,  De  Prov.  ac  de  Prasdest.)  It 
is  difficult  to  determine  what  amount  of  suffrage  is  still 
rendered  to  the  former  view ;  but  it  may  safely  be  inferred 
that  it  holds  a  very  subordinate  place  as  compared  with 
the  counter  view,  which,  indeed,  is  the  only  one  really  in 
harmony  with  the  Trent  synergism.  The  following  from 
Mohler  may  be  regarded  as  representative  of  the  general 
standpoint  of  modern  Romanism  on  the  mode  of  divine 
grace  and  the  related  doctrine  of  predestination.  "  Accord 
ing  to  Catholic  principles,  in  the  holy  work  of  regeneration, 
when  the  same  is  really  accomplished,  two  activities,  the 
human  and  the  divine,  meet  and  intermingle  ;  so  that  it 
is  a  divine-human  work.  God's  holy  power  precedes  arous 
ing,  awakening,  and  quickening,  without  man's  being  able 
to  deserve  the  same,  or  bring  it  near,  or  long  for  it :  but 
man  must  allow  himself  to  be  aroused,  and  must  freely  fol 
low.  God  offers  His  help  to  raise  from  the  fall,  but  the 
sinner  must  agree,  and  appropriate  the  same ;  appropri 
ating  it,  he  is  received  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  gradually, 
although  it  may  never  be  perfectly  in  this  life,  through 
faithful  co-operation  is  raised  again  to  that  height  from 
which  he  fell.  God's  spirit  uses  no  absolute  compulsion, 
though  He  be  exceedingly  urgent  in  His  addresses  ;  His 
omnipotence  sets  bounds  to  itself  in  human  freedom,  which 
it  will  not  break  through,  because  an  unrestricted  invasion 


364  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

of  the  same  would  involve  the  destruction  of  the  moral 
order  of  the  world,  which  the  eternal  wisdom  has  founded 
upon  freedom.  With  right,  therefore,  and  entirely  in  har 
mony  with  her  inmost  essence,  has  the  Catholic  Church 
repudiated  the  Jansenist  sentence  of  Quesnel,  that  human 
freedom  must  yield  to  the  omnipotence  of  God,  —  a  sen 
tence  which  has  for  its  immediate  consequence  the  doctrine 
of  an  entirely  unconditioned  predestination  of  God,  and 
declares  concerning  those  who  do  not  attain  to  regenera 
tion  that  they  have  not  cast  themselves  off,  but  have  been 
simply  cast  off  by  God,  since  the  touching  of  them  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  would  also  have  determined  their  freedom 
to  faith  and  holy  obedience."  (Symbolik,  §  11.  Compare 
Klee,  Vol.  III.  p.  105.) 

In  the  Lutheran  Church  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of 
predestination  has  been  generally  repudiated.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  since  the 
early  part  of  the  present  century.  As  Kahnis  remarks,  at 
the  time  the  Union  was  agitated,  it  was  justly  urged  by 
those  favoring  that  project,  that,  with  only  vanishing  ex 
ceptions,  Reformed  theologians  had  given  up  the  doctrine 
of  predestination.  (Dogmatik,  III.  §  13.)  "  The  Reformed 
divines  in  Germany,"  says  Schaff,  "  are  not  strict  Calvin- 
ists,  especially  as  regards  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
but  stand  in  close  affinity  with  the  moderate  or  Melanch- 
thonian  school  of  the  Lutheran  Church."  (Germany,  its 
Universities,  Theology,  and  Religion.)  Schleiermachcr,  it 
is  true,  as  a  representative  of  the  Union  Church,  taught  an 
absolute  predestination.  But  it  was  not  the  old  Reformed 
doctrine  on  that  subject  which  he  advocated.  Predestina 
tion  with  him  was  not  the  choice  of  certain  men  to  eternal 
life,  as  opposed  to  others,  but  the  choice  of  each  and  ev 
ery  man  to  an  earlier  or  later  entrance  into  the  life  of  the 
redeemed.  It  fixes  the  progressive  development  of  the  di 
vine  kingdom,  the  order  of  entrance  into  the  same,  until 
the  final  consummation  is  reached,  when  all  shall  have 


1720-1885.]  EEDEEMER  AND   KEDEMPTION.  365 

entered.  (Die  Christ.  Glaubc,  §§  119, 120.)  Still  less  was 
Rothe's  the  old  Reformed  doctrine  of  predestination.  He 
held,  indeed,  that  the  fact  that  a  man  becomes  here  and  now 
a  partaker  of  grace  must  be  referred  rather  to  the  divine 
choice  than  to  human  agency.  However,  he  maintained 
that  this,  in  the  divine  administration,  is  made  subservient 
to  the  widest  possible  participation  in  grace.  Individuals 
are  introduced  in  that  order  most  conducive  to  the  final 
universality  of  the  kingdom  of  redemption.  He  taught, 
moreover,  that  it  is  the  unfeigned  desire  of  God  to  save  all 
men,  though  it  is  possible  that  human  arbitrariness  and 
obduracy  may  thwart  this  desire.  So  Rothe  presents  the 
prcdestinarian  scheme  of  Schleiermacher  without  its  strict 
determinism.  (Dogmatik,  II.  1,  §§  7,  8.)  Contrary  to  the 
general  teaching  of  Lutheranism,  Rothe,  Nitzsch,  and  Mar- 
tensen  give  in  their  adherence  to  one  of  the  concomitants 
of  the  Calvinian  doctrine,  holding  that  for  the  truly  con 
verted  man  there  is  no  absolute  falling  from  grace. 

As  respects  the  mode  of  divine  grace,  the  nionergistic 
theory  asserted  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  championed 
through  the  scholastic  era  may  be  said  to  be  but  a  waning 
factor  in  the  Lutheranism  of  the  present.  The  Melanch- 
thonian  type  of  doctrine  comes  to  the  front.  "  The  spirit 
of  Melanchthon,"  says  Kahnis,  "  which  the  Lutheran  or 
thodoxy  had  put  into  bonds,  but  had  not  conquered, 
claimed  its  rights  after  the  extinction  of  the  Lutheran 
scholasticism.  One  may  say  that  the  Melancthonian  stand 
point  is  the  ensign  of  the  truth  leading  on  the  doctrinal 
development  which  has  since  found  place  in  this  dogma." 
(Dogmatik,  II.  §  7.)  The  position  taken  by  Thomasius 
sides  also  with  the  synergism  of  Melanchthon.  As  he 
teaches,  only  the  first  impact  of  grace  lies  beyond  the 
power  of  man  to  avoid.  This  creates  the  possibility  of 
repugnance  to  the  old  man,  and  strife  against  its  impulses. 
On  the  basis  of  this  possibility  a  man  can  ally  himself 
with  grace,  and  advance  to  repentance  and  faith ;  or,  refus- 


366  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

ing  to  make  the  alliance,  he  can  extinguish  the  primary 
impress  of  grace.    (Dogmatik,  §  67b.) 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  Calvinistic  lean 
ings  of  the  Evangelical  School  in  the  Established  Church 
of  England.  This  bent  was  quite  conspicuous  in  Berridge 
and  Romaine.  But  it  is  among  the  Presbyterians  of  Scot 
land  and  the  United  States  that  the  peculiarities  of  Calvin 
ism  have  been  most  elaborately  defended  and  advocated 
in  recent  times.  In  saying  this,  the  fact  is  not  ignored 
that  in  both  of  these  quarters  there  has  been  more  or  less 
of  a  recoil  from  these  peculiarities.  Still,  representative 
men,  like  Cunningham  and  Hodge,  champion  them  with  a 
courage  worthy  of  the  heroic  days  of  Calvinian  dogmatism. 
Both  teach,  by  clear  implication,  if  not  in  words,  that  a 
part,  at  least,  of  the  race  never  had  any  probation  except 
in  Adam,  if  indeed  it  had  a  real  probation  there.  This 
follows,  for  example,  as  a  necessary  conclusion  from  the 
doctrine  of  reprobation  which  Cunningham  ascribes  to  Cal- 
vinists,  and  which  goes  of  course  with  his  indorsement. 
He  says:  "What  they  hold  upon  this  subject  is  this,— 
that  God  decreed,  or  purposed,  to  do  from  eternity  what 
He  actually  does  in  time,  in  regard  to  those  who  perish  as 
well  as  in  regard  to  those  who  are  saved,  and  this  is,  in 
substance,  to  withhold  from  them,  or  to  abstain  from  com 
municating  to  them,  those  gracious  and  insuperable  influ 
ences  of  His  Spirit  by  which  alone  faith  and  regeneration 
can  be  produced,  —  to  leave  them  in  their  natural  state  of 
sin,  and  then  to  inflict  upon  them  the  punishment  which 
by  their  sin  they  have  deserved."  (Historical  Theology, 
1870,  Vol.  II.  p.  428.)  Evidently  the  withholding  of  that  ly 
which  alone  faith  and  regeneration  can  be  produced  throws 
them  entirely  out  of  the  category  of  the  possible.  And 
what  is  a  probation  that  is  consummated  without  the  pos 
sibility  of  avoiding  one  fixed  result?  Even  to  stocks  and 
stones  this  much  is  accorded.  The  distinction  which 
Hodge  makes  between  common  and  efficacious  grace  im- 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  367 

plies  for  the  non-elect  as  little  possibility  of  escaping  dam 
nation  as  does  Cunningham's  definition  of  reprobation. 
He  says,  that,  while  common  grace  is  sufficient  for  some 
things,  "it  is  not  sufficient  to  raise  the  spiritually  dead; 
to  change  the  heart,  and  to  produce  regeneration ;  and  it  is 
not  made  to  produce  these  effects  by  the  co-operation  of 
the  human  will."  (Pt.  III.  chap.  14,  §  4.)  To  be  sure,  the 
statement  here  is  that  common  grace  is  not  made  to  pro 
duce  these  effects  by  the  co-operation  of  the  human  will, — 
in  itself  a  less  decisive  statement  than  if  it  were  said  that- 
common  grace  cannot.  But  the  context  shows  that  this  is 
not  is  meant  to  be  at  the  same  time  a  cannot.  For  Hodge 
argues  at  length  that  the  efficiency  which  accomplishes 
regeneration  must  be  ascribed  to  nothing  less  than  the 
almighty  power  of  God  working  irresistibly.  He  defines 
efficacious  grace  as  "  the  almighty  power  of  God."  He 
says,  "  Regeneration  is  not  merely  an  act  of  God,  but  also 
an  act  of  His  almighty  power."  Now  it  is  plain  that  what 
Hodge  ascribes  to  almighty  irresistible  power  he  means  to 
exclude  from  all  possibility  of  being  accomplished  by  the 
co-operation  of  the  human  will  with  something  less.  So 
we  are  left  to  the  conclusion  that  the  partakers  in  merely 
common  grace,  the  non-elect,  are  debarred  absolutely  from 
the  possibility  of  that  regenerate  nature  the  attainment  of 
which  is  indispensable  to  eternal  life.  During  their  con 
scious  existence  they  have  never  come  within  the  bounds 
of  such  possibility. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  Hodge  uses  the  term  "  regenera 
tion  "  in  its  narrower  sense,  expressly  distinguishing  it  from 
conversion.  The  former  is  a  resurrection  to  spiritual  life, 
in  which  God  is  sole  agent,  preparatory  to  the  latter,  in 
which  man  acts.  As  before  indicated,  Old  School  Pres- 
byterianism  combines  with  its  predestinarianism  and  mon- 
ergism  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement.  The  New 
England  Theology  taught  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
predestination  no  less  distinctly  than  the  older  type  of 


368  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

Calvinism.  But  at  the  same  time  it  relaxed  its  hold  upon 
some  of  the  customary  adjuncts.  In  place  of  a  limited 
atonement,  it  taught  that  Christ  died  for  all  men,  interpret 
ing  the  subject  much  as  it  had  been  by  Amyraut  and  Rich 
ard  Baxter.  On  the  topic  of  regeneration  it  did  not  render 
a  very  uniform  verdict,  but  manifested  a  tendency  to  define 
it  in  such  a  way  as  to  find  a  place  in  it  for  the  activity  of 
the  subject.  This  was  accomplished  by  taking  the  term  in 
its  broader  sense,  in  which  it  is  equivalent  to  conversion. 
Extreme  advocates  of  the  exercise  scheme,  like  Emmons, 
could  understand  by  regeneration  only  the  initiation  of  a 
new  exercise,  the  beginning  of  a  new  scries.  Others,  like 
Taylor,  who  laid  some  stress  upon  tendencies  and  disposi 
tions  behind  the  exercises,  but  still  taught  that  exercises 
alone  have  a  moral  cast,  made  regeneration,  so  far  as  it  is 
a  moral  change,  a  work  in  which  the  subject  participates 
by  a  new  choice,  the  change  in  the  background  of  tenden 
cies  and  dispositions  not  being  regarded  as  coming  under 
that  category.  Others  still,  like  Woods,  who  recognized  a 
moral  character  in  the  dispositions  lying  back  of  exercises, 
located  the  entire  essence  of  regeneration  in  the  transfor 
mation  of  those  dispositions,  which  then  become  the  source 
of  holy  exercises.  It  is,  as  they  said,  a  change  in  the  gov 
erning  inclination,  or  propensity,  or  moral  taste,  or  relish, 
or  principle  of  action.  Those  who  located  the  essence  of 
regeneration  in  a  new  choice,  and  made  man  the  author  of 
his  choices,  could  evidently  speak  without  inconsistency 
of  a  man's  regenerating  himself.  And  this  was  done  in 
very  open  terms  by  Professor  Finney.  "  Regeneration,"  he 
says,  "  is  synonymous,  in  the  Bible,  with  a  new  heart.  But 
sinners  are  required  to  make  to  themselves  a  new  heart." 
(Lectures  on  Systematic  ThcoL,  1878,  p.  284.)  At  the 
same  time,  he  found  a  place  for  divine  agency,  namely,  in 
presenting  motives  to  the  will.  "  The  Spirit  takes  of  the 
things  of  Christ  and  shows  them  to  the  soul.  .  .  .  Regen 
eration  is  nothing  else  than  the  will  being  duly  influenced 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  369 

by  the  truth."  As  to  the  position  of  the  New  England 
school  at  large  upon  the  agency  of  truth  in  this  work, 
Daniel  Fiske  says  that  most  would  probably  assent  to  the 
following  statement :  "  In  regenerating  men,  God  in  some 
respects  acts  directly  and  immediately  on  the  soul,  and  in 
some  respects  He  acts  in  connection  with  and  by  means 
of  the  truth.  He  does  not  regenerate  them  by  the  truth 
alone,  and  He  does  not  regenerate  them  without  the  truth. 
His  mediate  and  His  immediate  influences  cannot  be  distin 
guished  by  consciousness,  nor  can  their  respective  spheres 
be  accurately  determined  by  reason."  (Bib.  Sac.,  July, 
1865.) 

Methodism,  true  to  the  example  of  its  founder,  has  always 
been  a  zealous  herald  of  free  grace  and  a  general  atone 
ment.  It  teaches  that  the  Gospel  call,  which  is  sent  out  to 
all  men,  reveals  the  inmost  heart  of  God ;  that  He  sincerely 
desires  the  salvation  of  each  and  every  man ;  that  none  are 
placed  by  Him  under  a  decree  either  of  unconditional  pre- 
terition  or  of  positive  reprobation ;  that  sufficient  grace  is 
given  to  every  man  to  counteract  the  binding  power  of  in 
herited  depravity  and  to  establish  the  possibility  of  salva 
tion.  It  teaches,  as  respects  the  mode  of  grace,  a  species  of 
synergism,  —  a  synergism,  however,  in  which  the  initiative 
is  always  assigned  to  God,  and  man's  part  is  reduced  to  the 
rank  of  a  subordinate  though  necessary  factor.  It  main 
tains,  that,  where  the  result  depends  on  copartnership,  the 
least  conceivable  factor  may  condition  the  result ;  that,  ac 
cordingly,  to  allow  a  man  to  condition  his  own  salvation  is 
equivalent  neither  to  making  him  to  achieve  or  to  merit  his 
own  salvation.  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  the  beggar 
merits  the  portion  given  to  him,  and  it  is  no  longer  a  free 
gift,  because  he  is  required  to  stretch  out  his  hand  as  a  con 
dition  of  receiving.  Regeneration  it  commonly  understands 
in  its  broader  meaning,  distinguishing  it  from  a  preliminary 
awakening  to  spiritual  concern,  and  regarding  it  as  con 
summated  only  with  the  decisive  turning  of  the  heart  to 

VOL.    II.  —  24.      * 


370  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

God.  It  has  little  sympathy  with  the  postulates  of  the  ex 
ercise  scheme.  While  it  holds  that  God  regenerates  only 
the  willing  subject,  only  the  soul  that  looks  to  Him  with  a 
measure  of  desire,  it  teaches  that  His  agency  reaches  back 
of  specific  acts  of  will,  and  touches  inner  tendencies  and 
dispositions.  Pope  says,  "  The  Word  of  God  is  the  instru 
ment  and  power  of  regeneration."  But  this  cannot  be  re 
garded  as  a  representative  declaration.  Methodism  at  large, 
if  we  mistake  not,  would  sooner  subscribe  to  the  guarded 
statement  quoted  above  from  Fiske. 

In  Methodist  theology  justification  is  regarded  as,  in  the 
order  of  thought,  antecedent  to  regeneration.  In  Calvin- 
istic  theology  the  reverse  order  is  commonly  adopted.  Lu- 
theranism  also,  at  least  in  large  part,  has  made  regenera 
tion  antecedent  to  justification.  After  Gerhard,  Lutheran 
theologians  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
commonly  adopted  the  following  ordo  salutis:  "  Illuminatio, 
Regeneratio^  Conversio,  Justificatio"  etc.  (Dorner,  System 
of  Christ.  Dock,  §  132  a.) 

On  the  subject  of  justification  in  this  period  there  is  little 
need  of  any  reference  to  Roman  Catholic  writers.  The 
elaborate  decisions  and  commentaries  of  the  preceding  pe 
riod  have  left  no  room  for  further  development.  Authors 
like  Mohler  and  Perrone  afford  no  new  material. 

Among  Protestants  there  is  a  very  general  agreement 
with  the  Reformation  doctrine  respecting  the  nature  of 
justification.  Whether  it  includes  one  or  more  elements, 
it  is  understood  to  be  objective  rather  than  subjective, 
something  done  for,  rather  than  in,  the  individual.  Cal- 
vinistic  writers,  for  the  most  part,  distinguish  a  plurality 
of  elements.  Justification,  they  say,  is  not  simply  pardon. 
Beyond  this,  as  implying  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right 
eousness,  it  gives  a  title  to  eternal  life,  to  all  the  blessings 
which  the  divine  administration  connects  with  perfect  right 
eousness.  So,  for  example,  Hodge,  Edwards,  D wight,  Helf- 
fenstein,  and  H.  B.  Smith.  The  same  representation  is 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  371 

found  also  with  Lutheran  writers.  (Hahn,  Lehrbuch  des 
Christ.  Glaubens,  §  111 ;  Schmucker,  Elements  of  Popular 
Theology,  Chap.  XI.)  Emmons,  however,  refused  to  sub 
scribe  to  this  view.  He  criticised  the  practice,  current,  as 
he  states,  among  Calvinistic  divines,  of  dividing  justifica 
tion  into  two  parts,  namely,  pardon  and  a  title  to  eternal 
life,  of  which  the  former  is  based  upon  Christ's  passive  obe 
dience,  and  the  latter  upon  His  active  obedience.  "  Justi 
fication,"  he  says, "  in  a  gospel  sense,  signifies  no  more  nor 
less  than  pardon  or  remission  of  sin."  (System.  Theol., 
Serm.  LVL,  LVIL)  Very  similar  are  the  words  of  Wesley : 
"  The  plain  Scriptural  notion  of  justification  is  pardon,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins."  (Serm.  V.)  The  same  definition  is 
contained  in  the  declaration  of  Watson,  that  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament  indicates  "that  justification,  the 
pardon  and  remission  of  sins,  the  non-imputation  of  sin, 
and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  are  terms  and  phrases 
of  the  same  import."  (Theol.  Inst.,  Pt.  II.  chap.  23.) 

Of  Methodist  theology  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  it 
identifies  justification  with  pardon  and  prefers  to  reckon 
adoption,  with  consequent  heirship,  among  concomitants 
rather  than  among  the  elements  of  justification.  The  sense 
which  it  attaches  to  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
is  thus  stated  by  Wesley  :  "  The  meaning  is,  God  justifies  the 
believer  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  for 
any  righteousness  of  his  own."  (Serm.  XX.)  In  the  same 
connection  he  explains  in  what  sense  he  accepts  the  maxim 
that  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness.  "  Faith  is  imputed 
for  righteousness  to  every  believer;  namely,  faith  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ ;  but  this  is  exactly  the  same  thing 
which  has  been  said  before  ;  for  by  that  expression  I  mean 
neither  more  nor  less  than  tha^t  we  arc  justified  by  faith, 
not  by  works ;  or  that  every  believer  is  forgiven  and  ac 
cepted  merely  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  done  and 
suffered."  In  other  words,  the  imputation  of  faith  for  right 
eousness  denotes,  not  that  God  accepts  faith  as  the  mer- 


372  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

itorious  ground  of  justification,  but  only  as  the  condition 
which  He  has  fittingly  and  graciously  established.  (Com 
pare  Watson,  Pt.  II.  chap.  23.)  All  the  parties  referred  to 
in  this  paragraph  cordially  agree  in  the  maxim,  Justifica 
tion  is  by  faith  alone,  but  the  faith  which  justifies  is  not 
alone.  It  cannot  remain  isolated,  being  in  its  very  nature 
fruitful  of  holy  emotions  and  good  works.  Among  zealous 
advocates  of  imputation  none  in  recent  times  have  gone  far 
ther  than  the  so-called  Plymouth  Brethren.  Some  of  their 
representative  statements  push  the  idea  of  a  borrowed  right 
eousness  to  the  very  borders  of  a  theoretical  antinomianism. 

The  period  has  witnessed  a  number  of  exceptions  to  the 
common  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification.  Among  those 
who  have  departed  farthest  both  from  its  spirit  and  its 
letter  are  the  English  Ritualists.  These  find  their  oracle 
on  this  subject  at  Rome  rather  than  at  Wittenberg,  in  the 
doctors  of  Trent  rather  than  in  Paul.  Pusey,  speaking  for 
the  party,  says  :  "  There  is  not  one  statement  in  the  elabo 
rate  chapter  on  justification  in  the  council  of  Trent  which 
any  of  us  could  fail  of  receiving."  (Eirenicon.) 

A  number  of  German  writers  have  been  disposed  to  give 
to  justification  a  subjective  aspect.  Here  belongs  Schleier- 
macher.  He  understood  by  justification,  says  Baur,  not 
merely  the  divine  activity  as  expressed  in  an  absolving 
declaration,  but  the  entire  divine  activity  which  establishes 
the  new  life  in  man.  (Dogmengeschichte.)  Marheinecke 
taught  that  pardon  presupposes  incorporation  into  Christ, 
and  approved  the  theory  of  Osiander  that  justificatian  is 
through  the  inhabitation  of  Christ.  (Dogmatik,  pp.  475- 
486.)  Ebrard  predicated  a  subjective  side  of  justification 
which  he  likewise  connected  with  the  indwelling  of  Christ. 
"  Justification,"  he  says,  "  as  the  act  of  the  Father,  is  a 
forensic  judicial  act;  as  the  act  of  Christ,  it  is  identical 
with  regeneration,  i.  e.  with  the  real  implantation  of  Christ 
in  us  and  of  us  in  Christ."  (Quoted  by  Hodge,  Pt.  III. 
chap.  17,  §  11.) 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND   REDEMPTION.  373 

F.  D.  Maurice  makes  Christ  in  such  a  sense  the  head  of 
all  men  that  His  justification  was  at  the  same  time  theirs. 
Now  Christ  was  justified,  declared  to  be  the  righteous  and 
well-beloved  Son,  when  God  raised  Him  from  the  dead. 
It  follows,  then,  that  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  all  men 
have  their  justification,  and  it  is  only  needed  that  they 
should  become  conscious  thereof.  "  St.  Paul,"  says  Mau 
rice,  "  takes  it  for  granted,  that  this  justification  of  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man  was  his  own  justification, 
—  his  own,  not  because  he  was  Saul  of  Tarsus,  not  because 
he  was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  but  because  he  was  a 
man.  ...  If  He  had  justified  His  Son  by  raising  Him  from 
the  dead,  —  if,  in  that  act,  He  had  justified  the  race  for 
which  Christ  had  died, — then  it  was  lawful  to  tell  men 
that  they  were  justified  before  God,  that  they  were  sons  of 
God  in  the  only-begotten  Son."  (Theological  Essays,  IX.) 

According  to  Horace  Bushnell,  to  be  justified  is  to  be 
made  righteous  by  entering  into  effective  relations  with 
God.  Justification  expresses  the  state  of  one  who  is  in 
actual  fellowship  with  the  Father  of  spirits.  As  one  by 
a  momentary  act  may  step  into  this  transforming  com 
munion,  so  justification  may  be  consummated  at  once.  In 
this  it  is  distinguished  from  sanctification.  "  The  con 
sciousness,"  he  says,  "  of  the  subject  in  justification  is 
raised  in  its  order,  filled  with  the  confidence  of  right,  set 
free  from  the  bondage  of  all  fears  and  scruples  of  legality ; 
but  there  is  a  vast  realm  back  of  the  consciousness,  or 
below  it,  which  remains  to  be  changed  or  sanctified,  and 
never  will  be  except  as  a  new  habit  is  generated  by  time, 
and  the  better  consciousness,  descending  into  the  secret 
roots  below,  gets  a  healing  into  them  more  and  more  per 
fect.  In  this  manner  one  who  is  justified  at  once  can  be 
sanctified  only  in  time ;  and  one  who  is  completely  justified 
is  only  incipiently  sanctified."  (Forgiveness  and  Law.) 
The  theory  of  Mulford,  no  less  than  that  of  Bushnell,  in 
cludes  the  actual  impartation  of  righteousness.  Justifica- 


374  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

tion  by  faith  means,  he  says,  righteousness  through  faith. 
"  It  is  an  actual  implanting  of  righteousness  through  re 
lation  with  Him  who  has  taken  our  nature,  and  in  whom 
was  the  fulfilment  of  righteousness.  Faith  in  a  righteous 
person,  in  the  Christ  who  is  the  source  of  the  life  of  the 
family  and  the  nation,  leads  the  individual  away  from  him 
self,  and  in  being  for  another  he  finds  his  real  life,  and 
enters  into  and  partakes  of  a  righteousness  that  is  not  a 
mere  self-righteousness."  (The  Republic  of  God.) 

In  the  scheme  of  the  less  thoughtful  rationalism,  justifi 
cation  denotes  divine  approbation  won  by  good  deeds,  by 
works  of  righteousness,  honesty,  and  charity.  Respecting 
the  futility  of  this  method,  few  have  spoken  more  inci 
sive  words  than  the  following  from  a  Unitarian  writer : 
"  Moral  works  are  as  valueless  as  ecclesiastical,  when  un 
dertaken  upon  speculation,  as  means  and  conditions  of 
salvation.  Temperance,  chastity,  charity,  are  saving  graces 
when  they  exist  as  genuine  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  they  lose 
that  saving  quality  when  adopted  as  expedients  and  means 
to  an  end.  .  .  .  The  Mohammedans  have  a  fable,  that  the 
soul  before  it  can  enter  paradise  must  cross  a  bridge, 
narrow  as  the  edge  of  a  sword,  over  a  gulf  of  fire ;  and 
that  no  one  can  be  saved  who  does  not  endure  this  test. 
A  good  illustration  this  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
works.  To  attempt  to  win  heaven  by  this  method  is  like 
the  attempt  to  cross  a  gulf  of  fire  on  the  edge  of  a  sword." 
(F.  H.  Hedge,  Reason  in  Religion,  Bk.  II.  Essay  VI.) 

The  implication  which  seems  to  be  involved  in  some  of 
the  early  Protestant  definitions  of  justifying  faith,  that 
assurance  is  of  its  essence,  has  very  commonly  been  dis 
owned  in  the  present  period.  The  doctrine  even  of  the 
more  positive  advocates  of  assurance  is,  that  it  is  the  nor 
mal  rather  than  the  necessary  concomitant  of  genuine  piety. 
In  some  circles  it  is  presented  as  a  high  and  desirable  priv 
ilege,  to  which  Christians  should  aspire ;  in  others  it  is 
wellnigh  taken  for  granted  that  no  one  living  a  vital  Chris- 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  375 

tian  life  will  be  without  it,  unless  perchance  it  be  in  brief 
seasons  of  special  temptation.  The  latter  position  has  been 
quite  generally  characteristic  of  Methodism.  Wesley  laid 
great  stress  upon  the  doctrine  of  assurance.  As  to  its 
mode,  he  affirmed  a  double  witness,  the  direct  witness  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  witness  of  one's  own  spirit.  Of 
the  former  he  says  that  it  might  be  defined  in  these  terms : 
"  The  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  an  inward  impression  on 
the  soul,  whereby  the  Spirit  of  God  directly  witnesses  to 
my  spirit,  that  I  am  a  child  of  God ;  that  Jesus  Christ  hath 
loved  me,  and  given  Himself  for  me ;  and  that  all  my  sins 
are  blotted  out,  and  I,  even  I,  am  reconciled  to  God." 
(Serm.  X.)  He  argues  that  such  an  assurance,  direct 
from  God,  is  necessary  to  the  development  of  religious  life, 
inasmuch  as  it  alone  can  make  us  truly  conscious  of  God's 
love  to  us,  and  this  consciousness  must  be  antecedent  to 
holy  emotions.  The  witness  of  our  own  spirits  he  makes 
identical  with  a  good  conscience,  the  inward  verdict  that 
we  possess  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  This  second  witness, 
as  he  intimates,  might  also  be  regarded  as  a  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  that  is,  a  mediate  as  distinguished  from  an  imme 
diate.  Watson  occupies  ground  identical  with  that  of 
Wesley.  How  far  exception  has  been  taken  to  these  dis 
tinctions  is  not  easily  determined.  Watson  speaks  of  the 
Evangelical  School  in  the  English  Church  as  in  large  part 
committed  to  the  view  that  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is 
mediate  alone.  Thomas  Scott  is  quoted  as  saying,  "  The 
Holy  Spirit,  by  producing  in  believers  the  tempers  and 
affections  of  children,  as  described  in  the  Scriptures,  most 
manifestly  attests  their  adoption  into  God's  family."  With 
many  writers  of  Calvinistic  affinities,  this  is  made  the  em 
phatic,  if  not  the  exclusive,  point  of  view.  Bellamy  declares 
that  the  mediate  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  the  only  witness. 
He  says :  "  Since  grace  is,  in  its  own  nature,  perceptible, 
and  specifically  different  from  all  counterfeits,  there  is  no 
need  of  the  immediate  witness  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  a 


376  HISTOKY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

full  assurance.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  does  but  give  us  a 
good  degree  of  grace,  and  enlighten  our  minds  to  under 
stand  the  Scriptures,  and  so  to  know  the  nature  of  true 
grace,  we  may  then  perceive  that  we  have  grace ;  and  the 
more  grace  we  have,  the  more  perceptible  will  it  be,  and 
its  difference  from  all  counterfeits  will  be  the  more  plain. 
And  if  a  believer  may  know  and  be  certain  that  he  has 
grace  without  the  immediate  witness  of  the  Spirit,  then 
such  a  witness  is  altogether  needless,  and  would  be  of  no 
advantage  ;  and  therefore  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the 
immediate  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  this  affair."  (True 
Religion  Delineated,  Discourse  I.  sect.  5.) 

The  Roman  Catholic  position  on  the  subject  of  assurance, 
having  become  fixed  long  since,  does  not  need  to  be  defined 
in  this  connection. 

As  in  the  previous  period,  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  theo 
logians  have  been  in  general  averse  to  all  theories  of  per 
fectionism.  Among  Methodists,  Christian  perfection  has 
always  had  the  place  of  an  acknowledged  doctrine,  though 
claiming  very  different  degrees  of  practical  interest  and 
advocacy  from  different  representatives.  In  the  present, 
while  it  is  advocated  by  not  a  few  after  the  manner  of  John 
Wesley,  many  in  effect  set  it  forth  as  rather  a  possible  ideal 
to  be  progressively  approached,  than  as  the  goal  lying  im 
mediately  before  every  well-instructed  Christian,  the  prize 
of  a  present  faith  and  consecration. 

Christian  perfection  in  the  Wesleyan  sense  implies  free 
dom  from  inbred  sin,  the  complete  dominance  of  love  over 
the  voluntary  exercises,  and  such  a  service  of  God  as  is 
competent  to  powers  which  indeed  have  been  given  a  right 
direction,  but  which  fail  of  that  ideal  measure  which  they 
would  have  had  if  man  had  not  sinned.  It  is  not,  there 
fore,  Adamic  or  angelic  perfection.  It  does  not  imply  ob 
jective  faultlessness,  since  it  does  not  secure  from  mistakes 
in  judgment  and  consequent  mistakes  in  action.  It  carries 
with  itself  immunity  neither  from  temptation  nor  from 


1720-1885.]  REDEEMER  AND  REDEMPTION.  377 

apostasy.  It  is  simply  loving  God  with  all  the  heart,  free 
dom  in  underlying  appetencies  and  in  conscious  activities 
from  anything  contrary  to  love. 

The  Oberlin  theology,  quite  as  distinctly  as  the  Wesleyan, 
declares  for  the  attainability  of  Christian  perfection,  or 
entire  sanctification,  in  this  life.  But  the  difference  in  the 
general  standpoint  of  the  two  involves  quite  a  material 
difference  in  conception.  The  Oberlin  scheme  confines 
moral  character  to  choice.  It  denies  the  Wesleyan  and 
the  common  theory  of  an  inbred  sin  still  abiding  in  the 
regenerate.  The  choice  of  a  man,  as  it  represents,  is  either 
entirely  sinful  or  entirely  holy.  Regeneration,  as  being  a 
change  of  choice,  is  a  change  from  the  wholly  sinful  to  the 
entirely  holy.  "  It  implies,"  says  Dr.  Finney,  "  an  entire 
present  change  of  moral  character,  that  is,  a  change  from 
entire  sinfulness  to  entire  holiness."  All  that  can  be 
added  to  regeneration,  therefore,  is  fixity  in  the  holy  choice. 
Accordingly  Dr.  Finney  gives  this  definition :  "  Entire 
sanctification,  as  I  understand  the  term,  is  identical  with 
entire  and  continued  obedience  to  the  law  of  God."  Such 
obedience,  he  urges  very  emphatically,  is  attainable  in  this 
life.  (Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology.)  In  the  Oberlin, 
as  in  the  Wesleyan  scheme,  the  standard  is  taken  from 
the  possibilities  of  a  recovered  being,  and  not  from  those 
of  the  unfallen. 


378  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  CHURCH   AND  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

SECTION  I.  —  THE  CHURCH. 

THE  more  liberal  of  the  views  respecting  the  Church 
which  had  a  place  among  Protestants  in  the  preceding 
period  have  advanced  to  a  general  ascendency.  Religious 
tolerance  has  become  an  accepted  maxim.  The  possibility 
of  salvation  outside  of  the  visible  Church  is  in  general  un 
questioned.  The  form  of  government  is  largely  regarded 
as  a  matter  of  option,  or  at  any  rate  as  lying  outside  the 
essence  of  Christianity.  The  claim  indeed  of  special  di 
vine  right  for  certain  forms  of  church  government  cannot 
be  said  to  be  obsolete.  Even  in  recent  times  a  voice  has 
occasionally  been  raised  in  behalf  of  the  theory  that  the 
New  Testament  authoritatively  prescribes  the  Congrega 
tional  polity,  or  the  Presbyterian  polity.  However,  in  the 
main,  neither  Congregationalists  nor  Presbyterians  lay 
much  stress  upon  this  point  of  view,  and  they  are  far  from 
making  it  an  adequate  ground  for  challenging  the  proper 
Christian  character  of  communions  differently  constituted. 
This  procedure  is  left,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  High  Church 
party  among  Episcopalians.  Advanced  Ritualists  in  recent 
times  have  been  very  pronounced  in  the  view  that  those 
outside  the  lines  of  apostolic  succession,  outside  the  Ro 
man,  the  Greek,  and  the  Anglican  communions,  must  be 
consigned  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God,  as  being 
wholly  destitute  of  Church  offices.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Broad  Church,  as  represented  by  Whately,  Stanley,  and 


1720-1885.]     THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACRAMENTS.  379 

others,  repudiates  apostolical  succession  as  an  essential  of 
a  Christian  church. 

As  respects  the  relation  of  Church  and  State,  the  theory 
which  favors  their  mutual  independence  has  no  doubt  made 
somewhat  of  an  advance  in  Protestant  countries  which  still 
have  a  national  establishment.  The  American  model  may 
be  credited  with  a  measure  of  influence.  The  teaching  of 
Thomas  Arnold  and  Rothe,  that  the  best  order  of  things 
involves  the  complete  identity  of  Church  and  State,  is  quite 
outside  the  current  of  practical  concern,  it  being  recognized 
that  we  have  no  reason  to  look  for  conditions  in  which 
such  identity  would  not  be  a  calamity  to  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  interests. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  the  period  has  witnessed 
the  signal  event  of  the  final  overthrow  of  Gallicanism, 
and  the  formal  establishment  of  the  Ultramontane  theory. 
By  the  decisions  of  the  Vatican  Council  of  1869-70  the 
Pope  is  raised  to  the  character  of  an  absolute  and  infallible 
monarch,  without  peer,  rival,  or  associate  in  authority,  to 
whom  the  council  stands  only  in  an  advisory  relation,  hav 
ing  no  power  to  amend  his  decrees,  or  even  to  convene  for 
advisory  purposes  except  as  summoned  by  his  mandate. 
A  more  explicit  assertion  of  unqualified  sovereignty  than 
the  following  could  not  well  be  imagined :  "  If  any  shall 
say  that  the  Roman  pontiff  has  the  office  merely  of  inspec 
tion  or  direction,  and  not  full  and  supreme  power  of  juris 
diction  over  the  universal  Church,  not  only  in  things  which 
belong  to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  those  which  relate 
to  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church  spread 
throughout  the  world,  or  assert  that  he  possesses  merely 
the  principal  part,  and  not  all  the  fulness  of  this  supreme 
power,  ...  let  him  be  anathema." 

The  Vatican  decree  of  papal  infallibility  is  as  follows : 
"Faithfully  adhering  to  the  tradition  received  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  faith,  for  the  glory  of  God  our 
Saviour,  the  exaltation  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  the 


380  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PEEIOD  V. 

salvation  of  Christian  people,  the  sacred  council  approving, 
we  teach  and  define  that  it  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed, 
that  the  Roman  pontiff,  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  that 
is,  when  in  discharge  of  the  office  of  pastor  and  doctor  of 
all  Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  apostolic  authority, 
lie  defines  a  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals  to  be  held 
by  the  universal  Church,  by  the  divine  assistance  promised 
to  him  in  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed  of  that  infallibility 
with  which  the  Divine  Redeemer  willed  that  His  Church 
should  be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  regarding  faith  or 
morals ;  and  therefore  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  pon 
tiff  are  irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  con 
sent  of  the  Church." 

The  statement  that  infallibility  covers  matters  of  faith 
and  morals,  gives  it  a  wellnigh  universal  breadth.  If  the 
Pope  is  pleased  to  regard  any  matter  of  science  or  history 
as  vitally  related  to  faith  or  morals,  then  it  falls  at  once 
within  the  scope  of  his  infallibility.  Instead  of  resorting  to 
the  tedious  processes  of  reasoning,  examination,  and  inves 
tigation,  we  have  only  to  listen  to  the  oracular  voice  which 
comes  from  the  chair  of  Peter.  So  obvious  is  this  infer 
ence  that  it  was  openly-  proclaimed  by  a  distinguished  pre 
late  shortly  after  the  Vatican  council  had  issued  its  decrees. 
Cardinal  Manning  maintained  that  infallibility  extends  to 
all  that  is  opposed  to  revelation,  to  all  that  is  scandalous  or 
offensive  to  pious  ears,  to  all  matters  which  bear  upon  the 
proper  custody  of  Catholic  belief.  "  It  extends,"  he  said, 
"  to  certain  truths  of  natural  science,  as,  for  example,  the 
existence  of  substance  ;  and  to  truths  of  the  natural  reason, 
such  as  that  the  soul  is  immaterial ;  that  it  is  4  the  form  of 
the  body ' ;  and  the  like.  It  extends  also  to  certain  truths 
of  the  supernatural  order,  which  are  not  revealed ;  as  the 
authenticity  of  certain  texts  or  versions  of  the  Holy  Scrip 
ture.  There  are  truths  of  mere  human  history,  which 
therefore  are  not  revealed,  without  which  the  deposit  of  the 
faith  cannot  be  taught  or  guarded  in  its  integrity.  For  in- 


1720-1885.]     THE   CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  381 

stance,  that  St.  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome ;  that  the  coun 
cil  of  Trent  and  the  council  of  the  Vatican  are  ecumenical, 
that  is,  legitimately  celebrated  and  confirmed ;  that  Pius 
IX.  is  the  successor  of  Peter  by  legitimate  election.  .  .  . 
That  there  is  an  ultimate  judge  in  such  matters  of  history 
as  affect  the  truths  of  revelation  is  a  dogma  of  faith." 
Speaking  of  the  historical  objection  to  papal  infallibility, 
as  based  in  particular  upon  the  case  of  Honorius,  he  said  : 
"  The  true  and  conclusive  answer  to  this  objection  consists, 
not  in  detailed  refutation  of  alleged  difficulties,  but  in  a 
principle  of  faith ;  namely,  that  whensoever  any  doctrine  is 
contained  in  the  divine  tradition  of  the  Church,  all  diffi 
culties  from  human  history  are  excluded,  as  Tertullian 
lays  down,  by  prescription."  (The  Vatican  Council  and  its 
Definitions,  1871.)  Truly  this  rivals  the  short-cut  of  the 
sprightly  Frenchman,  who,  when  told  that  the  facts  were 
against  his  theory,  replied,  So  much  the  worse  then  for  the 
facts.  The  only  trouble  is,  that  there  are  other  sources  of 
conviction  than  the  arbitrary  declarations  of  authority. 

In  arguing  for  the  papal  autocracy  and  infallibility,  Rom 
ish  apologists  are  wont  to  proceed  as  though  convenience 
were  the  standard  of  truth.  No  argument  figures  more 
extensively  than  the  argument  from  need.  An  infallible 
tribunal  is  needed,  it  is  said,  and  therefore  there  is  an  in 
fallible  tribunal.  This  capital  principle  of  Romish  apol 
ogetics  is  thus  succinctly  formulated  by  J.  H.  Newman: 
"  The  absolute  need  of  spiritual  supremacy  is  at  present 
the  strongest  of  arguments  in  favor  of  the  fact  of  its  sup 
ply."  (Essay  on  Development.) 

It  is  noteworthy  that,  while  Perrone  calls  the  churches 
which  have  separated  from  the  Roman  communion  syna 
gogues  of  Satan,  he  still  provides  for  the  possible  salvation 
of  some  within  their  limits  by  the  statement  that  those 
bound  by  invincible  ignorance,  including  all  infants  duly 
baptized,  belong  in  soul  or  spirit  to  the  Catholic  fold. 
(Praelect.  Theol.,  Adv.  Heterodoxos.)  As  Perrone  is  in 


382  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

no  wise  disposed  to  sin  by  excess  of  liberality,  it  may  be 
concluded  that  the  concession  which  he  makes  is  very  com 
monly  admitted  by  Romanism  in  the  present. 


SECTION  II.  —  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

1.  GENERAL  THEORY  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS.  —  "While  the 
rationalistic  factor  in  the  Lutheran  Church  tended  toward 
the  Zwinglian  conception  of  the  sacraments,  conservative 
Lutheranism  has  continued  to  hold  substantially  the  theory 
indorsed  by  the  leading  theologians  of  the  preceding  period. 
Tractarianism  laid  the  Lutheran  stress  upon  the  sacra 
ments.  It  did  not,  however,  place  the  Lutheran  stress 
upon  the  preached  word.  On  the  contrary,  it  denounced, 
at  least  by  the  mouth  of  its  more  extreme  representatives, 
the  disposition  of  Protestantism  to  substitute  a  preaching 
ministry  for  a  sacrificing  priesthood.  It  represents,  there 
fore,  a  sacramentarianism  more  closely  allied  with  the 
Roman  than  with  the  Lutheran.  Some  representatives  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church,  as  Ebrard  in  Germany  and 
Nevin  in  the  United  States,  have  taught  a  very  mystical 
view  of  the  sacraments,  and  emphasized  their  importance 
as  means  of  imparting  the  theanthropic  life  of  the  Re 
deemer.  In  most  other  quarters  of  Protestantism  the 
Reformed  theory  current  in  the  latter  part  of  the  pre 
ceding  period,  which  regards  the  sacraments  as  signs  and 
seals  of  divine  grace,  and  the  occasions  of  special  blessings 
rather  than  the  instruments  of  their  positive  conveyance, 
is  the  dominant  theory. 

Romanism  is  without  new  developments  upon  the  gen 
eral  subject  of  the  sacraments.  We  notice  simply  that 
eminent  writers  confirm  the  interpretation  given  to  the 
doctrine  of  intention  in  the  preceding  period.  Thus  Klee 
says,  that  in  the  intention  to  do  what  the  Church  does 
there  is  necessarily  included,  "  not  merely  the  act  of  the 


1720-1885.]     THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS.  383 

Church  according  to  its  external  features,  but  also  the  pur 
pose  of  the  Church  in  this  act,  —  if  not  the  ultimate,  at  any 
rate  the  proximate  purpose,  —  for  example,  through  bap 
tism  to  make  one  a  member  of  the  Christian  fellowship." 
(Dogmatik,  Yol.  III.  p.  122.)  Perrone  gives  the  following 
definition  :  "  Intentionis  nomine  hie  venit  ilia  animi  delibe- 
ratio,  qua  quis  intendit  facere  rem  sacram,  quam  Christus 
instituit,  aut  quae  in  Ecclesia  fieri  consuerit."  (Prselect. 
TheoL,  Tract,  de  Sacramentis  in  Genere.) 

2.  BAPTISM.  —  While  laying  different  degrees  of  stress 
upon  baptism,  Protestants  assert  at  most  only  a  relative 
necessity  for  its  administration.  It  is  their  common  ver 
dict,  that  infant  children  are  not  lost  in  consequence  of 
being  deprived  of  the  rite.  Isaac  Watts's  suggestion,  that 
the  children  of  the  wicked  are  annihilated,  was  based  on 
other  considerations  than  the  indispensable  need  of  baptism. 
Roman  Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  deny  the  salvation  of 
unbaptized  infants.  Klee,  to  be  sure,  thinks  that  infants 
who  die  without  baptism  may  be  included  in  the  class 
who  are  saved  in  virtue  of  a  desire  for  baptism.  (Dog 
matik,  Yol.  III.  p.  150.)  But  this  is  exceptional  charity. 
Dicringcr  reckons  it  among  manifest  errors.  He  says  re 
specting  the  opinions  of  Roman  Catholic  writers :  "  Even 
the  theologians  who  advocate  the  more  rigorous  view  com 
monly  exempt  the  same  [the  unbaptized  infants]  from  pos 
itive  punishment  (poena  sensus'),  while  the  milder  gladly 
refer  to  the  hidden  ways  of  God,  and  the  many  mansions 
of  the  Father's  house,  wherein,  however,  they  manifestly 
err  when  under  the  mansion  prepared  for  them  they  un 
derstand  a  place  or  condition  of  supernatural  blessedness." 
(Dogmatik,  §  104.)  Perrone  lays  down  the  following  prop 
osition  :  "  Infants  departing  from  this  life  without  baptism 
do  not  attain  to  eternal  salvation."  This  proposition,  he 
says,  is  de  fide,  —  a  part  of  the  established  faith.  (Praelcct. 
Theol.,  De  Horn.) 

The  stress  which  Pietism  placed  upon  adult  conversion 


384  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

naturally  tended  to  disparage  the  regenerating  efficacy  of 
baptism  as  applied  to  infants.  Rationalism  acknowledged 
no  positive  transformation  through  baptism,  and  saw  in  it 
but  a  ceremony  of  initiation,  and  a  symbol  of  spiritual 
good.  Recent  Lutheran  writers  customarily  speak  of  bap 
tism  as  a  rite  of  regeneration.  While  some  attach  to  this 
term  the  full  sense  ascribed  to  it  by  the  theologians  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  others  insert  important  limitations, 
at  least  in  connection  with  infant  subjects.  Thus  Mar- 
tensen  says  that  baptism  lays  the  foundation  of  regenera 
tion,  as  Christ  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Church  ;  but  as  the 
Church,  virtually  instituted  before,  was  actually  instituted 
by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  so  regenera 
tion,  posited  in  baptism  as  a  germinant  possibility,  comes 
to  actuality  through  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit.  "  We 
can  say,  therefore,  that  the  baptized  is  not  actually  regen 
erated  before  he  attains  his  Pentecost,  —  before  the  Spirit 
establishes  the  new  consciousness  in  him,  glorifies  the  bap 
tismal  grace  in  him/'  (Dogmatik,  §  254.)  To  similar 
effect  Kahnis  says  :  "  What  baptism  imparts  is  not  regen 
eration  itself,  but  the  power  of  regeneration  (die  Kraft  der 
Wiederc/elurt).  The  working  of  this  power  is  conditioned 
by  the  soil  upon  which  baptism  falls."  (Dogmatik,  III. 
§  14.)  Marheinecke  locates  in  baptism,  as  applied  to  chil 
dren,  rather  the  pledge  of  regeneration  than  its  actual 
realization,  which  implies  self-consciousness  and  personal 
activity.  (Dogmatik,  p.  529.)  "  With  Nitzsch  baptism 
appears  in  the  sense  of  Calvin,  as  pledge  and  seal  of 
entrance  into  the  new  life  from  Christ."  (Kahnis.)  The 
review  indicates  an  unfinished  attempt  at  construction. 
Dorner  says  :  "  A  clear  and  definite  form  of  doctrine  is 
still  to  be  framed,  at  least  in  respect  to  infant  baptism." 
(System  of  Christ.  Doct.,  §  139.)  The  case  of  adults, 
whose  regeneration  is  understood  to  be  conditioned  on  a 
faith  and  repentance,  which  may  or  may  not  be  exercised, 
involves  less  difficulty  for  Lutheran  writers. 


1720-1885.]      THE   CHURCH  AND  THE   SACKAMENTS.  385 

The  position  of  Episcopalians  on  the  subject  of  baptismal 
regeneration  is  well  denned  by  Bishop  Burgess.  "The 
Episcopal  Church,"  he  says,  "  thanks  God  that '  He  has  been 
pleased  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  His  Holy  Spirit,  to 
receive  him  as  His  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incor 
porate  him  into  His  holy  Church.'  "  As  to  the  import  of 
this  language,  he  says :  "  By  one  class  it  is  interpreted  as 
the  language  of  anticipation,  of  hypothesis,  and  of  charity. 
In  anticipation  of  the  repentance  and  faith  which  in  adult 
candidates  for  baptism  are  presupposed,  and  on  the  hypoth 
esis  that  the  child  is  indeed  represented  by  the  sponsors 
according  to  his  future  character  and  purposes,  and  in  the 
charitable  trust  that  he  will  be  all  which  is  promised  in  his 
behalf,  he  is  pronounced  already  regenerate.  As  the  prom 
ises,  it  is  said,  are  necessarily  hypothetical,  so  is  the  cor 
responding  grace.  To  a  second  class  this  view  of  the 
transaction  seems  too  dramatic  and  unreal,  and  they  say, 
without  hesitation,  that  every  child  received  into  the  Church 
of  Christ  through  this  ordinance  is  made  partaker  of  some 
measure  of  divine  grace,  which  is  not  only  pledged  but 
given,  and  that  this  may  justly  and  scripturally  be  termed 
regenerating  grace,  though  not  to  the  necessary  exclusion 
of  every  other  use  of  that  term,  and  certainly  not  as  if 
spiritual  regeneration  were  a  change  not  only  begun,  but 
consummated  then  and  there.  This  is  probably,  with 
some  shades  of  variation,  the  prevailing  sentiment.  But 
a  third  class,  the  least  numerous  of  the  three,  ascribe  to 
the  sacrament,  as  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  through 
His  grace,  the  conveyance  of  regenerating  grace  in  its 
fullest  extent,  and  without  qualification ;  so  that  the  bap 
tized  child  is  indeed  a  new  creature."  (Bib.  Sacra,  Oc 
tober,  1863.  Compare  Mozlcy,  Review  of  the  Baptismal 
Controversy.) 

Wesley  admitted  in  general  terms  the  regeneration  of 
infants  in  baptism.  The  teaching  of  Watson  may  be  de 
scribed  as  allied  with  the  second  of  the  views  specified  by 

VOL.  II.  —  25. 


386  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

Bishop  Burgess.  Methodism  in  general,  however,  makes  ac 
count  of  infant  baptism  rather  as  a  means  of  future  benefits 
than  as  the  instrument  of  the  immediate  communication  of 
positive  grace.  The  same  is  true  of  a  large  proportion  of 
Protestants  not  associated  with  Luther anism  or  Anglican 
ism.  It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that  some  of  these 
are  free  to  confess  the  possibility,  or  even  the  probability, 
that  some  infants  are  regenerated  at  the  time  of  baptism. 
(Hodge,  Pt.  III.  chap.  20,  §  12.)  Among  the  same  parties 
an  adult  candidate  is  generally  supposed  to  be  already  a 
regenerate  person. 

On  the  Baptist  theory,  baptism  is  rather  the  act  in  which 
the  regenerate  disciple  confesses  Christ,  than  an  instrument 
used  of  God  for  his  regeneration. 

3.  THE  EUCHARIST.  —  The  Lutheran  view  of  the  real  bod 
ily  presence  has  held  its  place,  in  the  face,  however,  of  quite 
a  large  number  of  exceptions.  Storr,  Flatt,  Reinhard, 
Knapp,  Zacharia,  Marheinecke,  and  others,  as  Schmucker 
represents,  substituted  for  it  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  a 
virtual  presence.  Schmucker  himself  advocates  simply  a 
spiritual  presence  of  the  Redeemer  as  the  source  of  special 
blessings  to  worthy  communicants,  and  he  says  that  the 
same  view  is  largely  current  among  American  Lutherans. 
Krauth,  on  the  other  hand,  champions  the  old  Lutheran 
theory  of  the  presence  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity,  and 
the  recent  revival  of  confessional  Lutheranism  involves  of 
course  a  corresponding  reinstatement  of  the  same. 

The  English  Ritualists  are  zealous  advocates  of  a  real 
presence.  Some  have  termed  their  doctrine  that  of  the 
"  real  objective  presence,"  and  have  included  under  this 
phrase  a  view  having  affinity  on  one  side  with  the  Lutheran, 
and  on  the  other  with  the  Roman  Catholic  dogma.  Speak 
ing  of  Pusey  and  Kcble,  George  Trevor  says :  "  These  di 
vines  distinctly  advocate  the  coexistence  theory  invented 
by  Martin  Luther.  .  .  .  They  interpret  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  eucharist  of  the  glorified  humanity,  and  so  of  the 


1720-1885.]     THE   CHURCH  AND   THE   SACRAMENTS.  387 

whole  person  of  Christ.  They  call  this  the  '  inward  part,' 
and  the  bread  and  wine  the  outward  part,  of  the  sacrament, 
holding  the  two  to  be  inseparably  united  by  consecration, 
each  however  retaining  its  proper  substance  and  nature. 
This  is  pure  Lutheranism,  the  difference  being  that  Luther 
limited  the  presence  to  the  act  of  communion,  and  held 
it  to  be  absolutely  inconsistent  with  sacrifice.  The  Objec- 
tivists,  on  the  other  hand,  insisting  on  consecration  and 
oblation,  more  than  communion,  refine  away  the  material 
element  into  a  i  vessel,'  a  6  garment  or  veil,'  leaving  little 
difference  from  the  Romish  'accidents,'  and  resulting  in 
a  sacrifice  almost  exactly  the  same  as  the  mass."  (The 
Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrifice  and  Participation  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  1876,  p.  223.) 

In  the  mystical  theory  of  Ebrard  and  Nevin  the  eucharist 
is  viewed  chiefly  as  a  medium  for  the  communication  by 
Christ  of  His  divine-human  life.  E.  Y.  Gerhart  thus  dis 
tinguishes  between  the  theory  of  Nevin  and  of  Calvin: 
"  While  Calvin  emphasizes  the  absence  of  the  humanity 
of  Christ  from  the  earth,  the  elevation  of  the  soul  to  Him 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a  real  participation 
of  His  flesh,  by  which  the  believer  is  mysteriously  nour 
ished  to  eternal  life,  Dr.  Nevin  emphasizes  the  presence 
of  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  His  Church  on  earth,  — that 
is,  of  the  vivific  virtue  of  the  human,  hypostatically  one 
with  the  divine  nature, —  the  self -communication  of  His  life 
in  the  sacramental  transaction,  and  the  participation  of  the 
believer  in  the  entire  humanity  of  Christ,  the  soul  no  less 
than  the  flesh  and  the  blood."  (Bib.  Sac.,  January,  1863.) 

In  other  quarters  of  Protestantism  what  was  defined  in 
the  preceding  period  as  the  modified  Calvinian  theory  is 
largely  current,  but  yields  to  some  extent  to  the  Zwinglian 
conception. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theory  upon  this  sacrament,  having 
been  so  minutely  defined  in  the  preceding  period,  has  re 
mained  unchanged.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  remain- 


388  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

ing  sacraments  in  the  Roman  list.  We  notice  simply  in 
connection  with  penance,  that  Perrone  teaches  that  God 
has  not  obligated  Himself  to  accept  indulgences  for  the 
dead,  and  that  they  have  therefore  only  a  conditional  effi 
cacy  as  applied  to  this  class.  (Prselect.  Theol.,  Tract,  de 
Indulg.  Compare  Klee,  Dogmatik,  III.  317.) 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  389 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ESCHATOLOGY. 

1.  MILLENARIANISM.  —  The  millenarian  theory,  or,  to 
speak  more  exactly,  the  theory  of  the  pre-millennial  advent, 
has  claimed  the  assent  of  more  writers  of  learning  and  re 
pute  in  the  present  than  in  any  preceding  period  since  the 
ante-Nicene  age.  It  found  representatives  in  the  school  of 
Bengel.  More  recently,  it  has  been  favored  by  Hofmann, 
Karsten,  Delitzsch,  Auberlen,  Rothe.  and  Van  Oosterzee. 
It  was  advocated  by  John  Gill,  and  has  been  espoused  by 
such  recent  writers  of  Great  Britain  as  Bickersteth,  Bonar, 
Frere,  E.  B.  Elliott,  and  Gumming.  In  this  country  it  has 
been  taught  by  Seiss,  Duffield,  and  D.  T.  Taylor,  and  has 
also  many  other  patrons  in  various  communions,  as  may 
be  judged  from  the  record  of  the  "Prophetical  Confer 
ence"  of  1868.  Still,  the  weight  of  theological  opinion  is 
against  it. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  pre-millennial  scheme  we  quote 
the  following  list  of  specifications  from  Joseph  A.  Seiss : 
"  (1.)  That  Christ  Jesus,  our  adorable  Redeemer,  is  to 
return  to  this  world  in  great  power  and  glory,  as  really  and 
literally  as  he  ascended  up  from  it.  (2.)  That  this  advent 
of  the  Messiah  will  occur  before  the  general  conversion  of 
the  world,  while  the  man  of  sin  still  continues  his  abomina 
tions,  while  the  earth  is  yet  full  of  tyranny,  war,  infidelity, 
and  blasphemy,  and  consequently  before  what  is  called  the 
millennium.  (3.)  That  this  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  will 
not  be  to  depopulate  and  annihilate  the  earth,  but  to  judge, 
subdue,  renew,  and  bless  it.  (4.)  That  in  the  period  of 


390  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

this  coming  He  will  raise  the  holy  from  among  the  dead, 
transform  the  living  that  are  waiting  for  Him,  judge  them 
according  to  their  works,  receive  them  up  to  Himself  in  the 
clouds,  and  establish  them  in  a  glorious  heavenly  kingdom. 
(5.)  That  Christ  will  then  also  break  down  and  destroy 
all  present  systems  of  government  in  Church  and  State, 
burn  up  the  great  centres  and  powers  of  wickedness  and 
usurpation,  shake  the  whole  earth  with  terrific  visitations 
for  its  sins,  and  subdue  it  to  His  own  personal  and  eternal 
rule.  (6.)  That  during  these  great  and  destructive  com 
motions  the  Jewish  race  shall  be  marvellously  restored  to 
the  land  of  their  fathers,  brought  to  embrace  Jesus  as  their 
Messiah  and  King,  delivered  from  their  enemies,  placed  at 
the  head  of  the  nations,  and  made  the  agents  of  unspeak 
able  blessings  to  the  world.  (7.)  That  Christ  will  then 
re-establish  the  throne  of  His  father  David,  exalt  it  in 
heavenly  glory,  make  Mount  Zion  the  seat  of  His  divine  em 
pire,  and,  with  the  glorified  saints  associated  with  Him  in 
His  dominion,  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  and  over  the 
world  in  a  visible,  sublime,  and  heavenly  Christocracy  for 
the  period  of  '  the  thousand  years.'  (8.)  That  during  this 
millennial  reign,  in  which  mankind  are  brought  under  a 
new  dispensation,  Satan  is  to  be  bound  and  the  world  enjoy 
its  long-expected  sabbatic  rest.  (9.)  That  at  the  end  of 
this  millennial  sabbath  the  last  rebellion  shall  be  quashed, 
the  wicked  dead,  who  shall  all  continue  in  Hades  until  that 
time,  shall  be  raised  and  judged,  and  Satan,  Death,  Hades, 
and  all  antagonism  to  good,  delivered  over  to  eternal  de 
struction.  (10.)  That,  under  these  wonderful  administra 
tions,  the  earth  is  to  be  entirely  recovered  from  the  effects 
of  the  fall,  the  excellence  of  God's  righteous  providence 
vindicated,  the  whole  curse  repealed,  death  swallowed  up, 
and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  thenceforward  for 
ever  restored  to  more  than  the  full  happiness,  purity,  and 
glory  which  Adam  forfeited  in  Eden."  (The  Last  Times, 
7th  ed.,  1878.) 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  391 

As  to  the  details  of  the  millennial  kingdom,  much  diver 
sity  appears  among  modern  millenarians.  "  According  to 
one  view,"  says  Hodge,  "  Christ  and  his  risen  and  glori 
fied  saints  are  to  dwell  visibly  on  the  earth  and  reign  for 
a  thousand  years ;  according  to  another,  the  risen  saints 
are  to  be  in  heaven,  and  not  on  earth  any  more  than  the 
angels  now  are ;  nevertheless,  the  subjects  of  the  first  res 
urrection,  although  dwelling  in  heaven,  are  to  govern  the 
earth ;  according  to  another,  it  is  the  converted  Jewish 
nation,  restored  to  their  own  land,  who  are  to  be  the  gov 
ernors  of  the  world  ;  according  to  another,  the  Bible  divides 
men  into  three  classes :  the  Gentiles,  the  Jews,  and  the 
Church  of  God.  The  prophecies  relating  to  the  millennium 
are  understood  to  refer  to  the  relative  condition  of  the  Jews 
and  Gentiles  in  this  world,  and  not  to  the  risen  and  glori 
fied  believers.  Another  view  seems  to  be,  that  this  earth, 
changed  no  more  by  the  fires  of  the  last  day  than  it  was 
by  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  is  to  be  the  only  heaven  of  the 
redeemed.  Dr.  Gumming  and  Dr.  Seiss  say  they  wish  no 
better  heaven  than  this  earth  free  from  the  curse  and  from 
sin.  Still  another  view  is  that  there  are  two  heavens,  one 
here  and  one  above ;  two  Jerusalems,  both  to  continue  for 
ever,  the  one  on  earth  and  the  other  in  heaven ;  the  one 
made  with  hands,  the  other  without  hands ;  both  glorious 
and  blessed,  but  the  earthly  far  inferior  to  the  heavenly ; 
they  are  like  concentric  circles,  one  within  the  other ;  both 
endless.  Men  will  continue  forever,  on  earth,  living  and 
dying;  happy  but  not  perfect,  needing  regeneration  and 
sanctification ;  and,  when  they  die,  will  be  translated  to 
the  kingdom  which  is  above."  (Pt.  IV.  chap.  4,  §  5.) 
Hodge  adds  the  comment :  /'  It  seems,  therefore,  that  the 
torch  of  the  litcralist  is  an  'ignis  fatuus,'  leading  those 
who  follow  it,  they  know  not  whither." 

2.  CONDITION  BETWEEN  DEATH  AND  THE  RESURRECTION.  — 
A  tendency  has  been  manifest  in  some  quarters  to  give 
a  more  emphatic  recognition  to  an  intermediate  state  than 


392  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.      [PERIOD  V. 

was  given  by  the  Reformation  theology.  Kahnis,  Dorner, 
and  Martensen  represent  this  tendency  when  they  teach 
that  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  death  can  remove  at  a 
stroke  faults  that  are  rooted  in  the  nature,  and  that  ac 
cordingly  even  those  who  die  in  the  faith  will  be  in  need  of 
more  or  less  purification.  The  first  of  these  writers  con 
siders  that  the  Church  docs  well  not  to  prohibit  those, 
whose  hearts  are  so  prompted,  to  offer  simple  prayers 
of  good  will  for  departed  friends.  (Dogrnatik,  III.  §  16. 
Compare  Newman  Smythe,  The  Orthodoxy  of  To-Day.) 
This,  it  is  needless  to  say,  implies  no  disposition  to  ap 
prove  the  positive  teaching  of  Rome  upon  the  intermedi 
ate  state. 

The  doctrine  that  the  intermediate  state  is  a  state  of 
slumber  has  found  in  recent  times  but  scattered  adherents. 
Archbishop  Whatcly  considered  that  the  phraseology  of 
Scripture  favors  the  doctrine.  (A  View  of  the  Scripture 
Revelations  concerning  a  Future  State.)  Some  representa 
tives  of  the  sect  of  Adventists  have  advocated  the  interme 
diate  sleep  of  the  dead,  or,  in  connection  with  a  materialistic 
conception  of  human  nature,  what  might  be  called  a  tem 
porary  annihilation. 

Several  writers  who  believe  in  a  general  resurrection  at 
the  end  of  the  world  have  felt  authorized  to  assert  that  in 
the  intermediate  state  the  soul  is  not  without  a  species  of 
body.  So  Nitzsch,  Martensen,  Delitzsch,  and  Lange. 

3.  THE  RESURRECTION.  —  The  period  has  witnessed,  on 
the  whole,  a  wide  drift  from  the  more  literal  interpretation 
of  the  resurrection.  The  successive  phases  through  which 
the  teaching  on  this  subject  has  passed  in  Germany  are 
thus  outlined  by  Kahnis:  "The  transition  theologians  of 
the  eighteenth  century  united  in  the  view,  that  between 
the  resurrection  body  and  that  lying  in  the  grave  there  is 
a  greater  difference  than  the  orthodox  proposition  of  the 
identity  of  the  two  allows.  The  body  which  we  bury  is 
only  the  substratum  of  the  resurrection  body.  Rationalism 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  393 

found,  ill  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  only  a  popular 
and  figurative  expression  for  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
Meanwhile,  theologians  and  philosophers  who  occupied  the 
more  positive  attitude  toward  Christianity  attained  to  the 
conviction,  that  without  a  corporeal  ground  the  continued 
life  of  the  soul  is  unthinkable,  and  so  a  support  was  ren 
dered  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  The  believing  and 
churchly  theologians  of  the  present  teach  a  resurrection 
of  the  body,  but  in  the  freer  manner  of  the  transition 
era,  for  which  scientific  help  is  provided  through  a  deeper 
understanding  of  the  relation  between  body  and  soul." 
(Dogmatik,  III.  §  16.) 

The  rationalistic  theory,  as  characterized  in  the  preced 
ing  paragraph,  is  simply  a  denial  of  a  bodily  resurrection. 
It  has  still  an  occasional  representative.  The  strict  literal 
theory,  which  asserts  that  the  entire  substance,  or  at  any 
rate  most  of  the  substance,  of  the  body  which  goes  into  the 
grave  enters  into  the  resurrection  body,  has  also  an  occa 
sional  representative.  Aside  from  these  two  extremes 
there  are  three  or  four  views  of  the  resurrection  which  are 
especially  noteworthy. 

What  is  called  the  germ  theory  has  some  advocates. 
Van  Oosterzee  gives  it  favorable  notice  in  these  terms : 
"  We  may  perhaps  suppose  that  an  invisible  and  indestruct 
ible  germ  of  the  future  body  dwells  already  in  the  present, 
and  that  precisely  therein  is  placed  the  guaranty  of  the 
identity  of  the  two,  —  an  identity  even  amidst  the  greatest 
possible  difference."  (Dogmatics,  Sect.  CXLIII.) 

Another  theory  asserts  a  certain  material  identity  be 
tween  the  resurrection  body  and  that  of  the  present  life, 
on  the  ground  that  an  elementary  substance  from  the  lat 
ter  enters  into  the  composition  of  the  former.  Dclitzsch, 
in  his  repudiation  alike  of  a  full  material  identity  and  a 
merely  formal  one,  seems  to  espouse  this  theory.  He  says : 
"  The  true  identity  lies  in  the  mean,  between  the  former 
grossly  material,  and  the  latter  merely  formal  identity. 


394  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  V. 

Within  the  world  once  created,  no  single  atom  is  ever 
annihilated.  The  elementary  materials  whereof  the  now 
corrupted  body  was  composed  are  therefore  still  in  exist 
ence  ;  and  the  Omniscient  knows  where  they  are,  and  the 
Omnipotent  can  collect  them  together  again.  But  in  the 
meanwhile,  together  with  the  world  of  nature  in  which 
they  are  laid  up,  they  have  undergone  the  process  of  fire, 
out  of  which  heaven  and  earth  issue  in  brighter  glorifica 
tion.  From  this  glorified  world,  He  who  at  first  formed 
the  body  of  man  of  the  earth  of  Eden  brings  together  again 
the  elementary  materials  of  our  bodies."  (Bib.  Psych.,  VII. 
sect.  1.)  Essentially  the  same  theory  has  had  considera 
ble  currency  in  recent  times,  though  perhaps  without  the 
reference  to  purification  by  fire. 

A  third  theory  makes  no  account  whatever  of  material 
identity,  and  regards  the  resurrection  body  as  identical 
with  the  present  only  as  having  the  same  organizing  prin 
ciple.  This  organizing  principle  in  the  era  of  the  resur 
rection  appropriates  or  is  joined  with  material  suited  to 
the  demands  of  a  spiritual  body.  As  some  represent,  this 
material  is  taken  from  the  purified  earth.  Many  of  the 
recent  theologians  of  Germany  have  favored  this  theory. 
So  Julius  Miiller,  Lange,  Nitzsch,  Kahnis,  Martensen,  and 
Dorner.  As  early  an  American  writer  as  Dr.  Dwight  ap 
proved  of  the  same  theory  (Serm.  CLXY.),  and  in  the 
last  few  decades  it  has  rapidly  won  adherents.  Hodge, 
Pond,  and  H.  B.  Smith  have  declared  it  at  least  an  admis 
sible  theory.  J.  J.  S.  Perowne  and  Bishop  R.  S.  Foster 
have  given  it  their  support.  Among  Protestant  scholars 
at  large,  it  commands  probably  at  present  as  wide  assent 
as  any  other  theory. 

The  fourth  theory  is  the  Swedenborgian,  the  theory  that 
the  spiritual  body  is  already  in  existence.  As  the  gross 
body  is  laid  in  the  grave,  the  soul  clothed  in  its  spiritual 
body  awakes  to  life  in  another  sphere.  The  resurrection 
accordingly  of  each  individual  is  at  death,  is  consummated 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  395 

at  least  before  the  expiration  of  the  third  day.  Essentially 
the  same  view  has  found  here  and  there  an  advocate  out 
side  of  the  Swedenborgian  communion,  such  as  Joseph 
Priestley,  George  Bush,  and  several  German  writers. 

4.  FINAL  AWARDS.  —  Through  the  major  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  doctrine  that  death  closes  proba 
tion  was  thoroughly  dominant.  But  at  the  end  of  the 
century  exceptions  began  to  multiply.  In  the  present,  they 
make  probably  a  greater  relative  aggregate  than  in  any 
preceding  era  in  Christian  history.  A  considerable  num 
ber  of  writers  of  high  reputation,  who  discard  the  theory  of 
universal  restoration,  hold  that  for  certain  classes  probation 
extends  beyond  death.  As  they  maintain,  all  those  who 
have  not  had  a  fair  opportunity  to  decide  definitely  for  or 
against  accepting  salvation  through  Christ,  will  have  these 
alternatives  presented  to  them  in  the  life  to  come.  So 
Dorner,  Martensen,  and  Kahnis.  Advocacy  of  the  same 
view  is  one  of  the  distinctive  features  of  the  recent  move 
ment  among  Congregationalists. 

The  theory  of  universal  restoration,  as  opposed  to  the 
endless  punishment  of  the  wicked,  has  claimed  some  ad 
vocates  outside  of  communions  making  it  a  specialty. 
Schleiermacher  held  that  it  made  trouble  for  the  Christian 
consciousness  to  exclude  any  from  the  possibility  of  blessed 
ness,  and  quite  in  harmony  with  his  determinism  con 
sidered  it  probable  that  all  will  ultimately  be  restored. 
Schweizer  seems  to  have  been  of  the  opinion  that  Schleier 
macher,  in  his  restorationism,  took  the  proper  course  to 
escape  the  dualism  contained  in  the  Reformed  theology. 
(Die  Glaubenslehre  der  Evangelisch-Rcformirten  Kirche.) 
Olshausen  favored  restorationism.  At  the  same  time,  he 
allowed  that  it  is  not  so  explicitly  taught  in  the  Scriptures 
but  that  the  propriety  of  making  it  a  subject  of  public  in 
struction  may  seriously  be  questioned.  Somewhat  of  a  bias 
to  restorationism  has  appeared  in  the  liberal  wing  of  the 
English  Church.  F.  I).  Maurice  and  F.  W.  Farrar  have 


396  HISTORY  or  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    [PERIOD  v. 

indicated  a  belief,  that,  while  it  may  he  unwarranted  posi 
tively  to  assert  the  recovery  of  all  men,  we  are  not  for 
bidden  to  hope  for  such  a  consummation.  In  place  of 
endless  punishment,  a  considerable  number  incline  to  the 
theory  of  Rothe  and  Edward  White,  and  teach  that  the 
incorrigible  ultimately  undergo  annihilation.  Meanwhile, 
a  large  proportion  of  theologians  hold  that  there  are  souls 
fixed  in  sinfulness,  which  will  live  forever  and  be  forever 
unblessed.  Their  position  is  well  represented  by  the  fol 
lowing  sentences  from  Van  Oosterzee :  "  The  conception 
of  an  everlasting  gulf  is  difficult;  but  that  of  an  abso 
lutely  universal  salvation,  which  causes  the  history  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  to  end  in  a  sort  of  natural  process,  is  in 
itself  not  less  dangerous,  at  least  for  him  who  believes  in 
the  mystery  of  freedom  conferred  by  the  Creator  upon  the 
creature.  .  .  .  We  distrust  every  mode  of  regarding  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  which  in  its  foundation  and  tendency 
fails  to  do  justice  to  the  seriousness  of  the  conception 
of  an  everlasting  Too  Late,  and  of  the  holiness  of  grace 
which  cannot  indeed  be  exhausted,  but  can  just  as  little  be 
mocked."  (Dogmatics,  Sect.  CXLIX.) 

While  the  theory  thrown  out  by  Lessing,  and  embraced 
by  some  of  the  rationalists,  that  endless  punishment  is  only 
a  relative  lack  of  blessedness  resulting  from  an  inferior 
development,  is  generally  rejected,  not  a  few  regard  future 
retribution  as  rather  the  self-inflicted  curse  of  an  abused 
nature,  than  a  positive  infliction  from  the  hand  of  God. 
In  Protestant  circles  the  doctrine  of  punishment  by  literal 
fire  may  now  be  said  to  be  obsolete,  though  in  the  for 
mer  part  of  the  period  writers  as  eminent  as  John  Wesley 
and  Jonathan  Edwards  seem  to  have  given  it  their  ap 
proval.  Much  currency  is  also  given  to  the  idea  that  end 
less  punishment  is  not  so  much  a  visitation  for  certain 
transgressions  of  the  past,  as  the  endless  accompaniment 
of  a  sinful  soul  fixed  in  its  sinfulness  by  its  own  guilty 
determination. 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  397 

Among  the  Universalists,  or  the  professional  advocates 
of  restorationism,  the  doctrine  of  future  awards  has  passed 
through  several  phases.  John  Murray,  who  came  to  Amer 
ica  from  England  in  1770,  denied,  not  future  punishment, 
but  its  endless  duration.  Hosea  Ballou,  who  represents 
largely  the  middle  era  of  Universalism  in  this  country, 
denied-  all  future  punishment,  and  taught  that  conscious 
existence  in  the  other  world  is  from  the  first  a  blessed  ex 
istence  for  every  human  being.  Recent  Universalists  have 
generally  returned  to  the  earlier  standpoint,  and  admit 
future  punishment,  only  denying  that  it  is  endless.  A  rep 
resentative  of  considerable  eminence,  however,  has  recently 
had  the  courage  to  espouse  the  absurd  theory  of  Ballou. 

Modern  Unitarians  are  very  largely  inclined  to  restora 
tionism,  regarding  future  punishment  as  amendatory  in  its 
design,  and  future  probation,  with  its  far-reaching  opportu 
nities,  as  likely  to  ultimate,  on  the  part  of  all,  in  the  choice 
of  goodness.  Thus  James  Freeman  Clarke  defines  eternal 
punishment  as  that  which  comes  to  a  man  from  his  spirit 
ual  nature,  in  contradistinction  from  temporal  punishment, 
which  comes  from  his  temporal  nature  and  the  temporal 
world,  and  holds  that  there  is  no  need  to  regard  it  as  end 
less.  "  To  us,"  he  says,  "  it  seems  clear,  if  the  parable 
of  the  prodigal  son  is  to  be  taken  as  the  feeling  of  G-od 
towards  every  sinner,  that  every  sinner  must  at  last  be 
brought  back  by  the  mighty  power  of  this  redeeming  love. 
The  power  of  the  human  will  to  resist  God  is  indeed  in 
definite  ;  but  the  power  of  love  is  infinite.  Sooner  or  later, 
then,  in  the  economy  of  the  ages,  all  sinners  must  come 
back,  in  penitence  and  shame,  to  their  Father's  house." 
(Orthodoxy,  its  Truths  and  Errors,  Chap.  XIV.)  On  the 
other  hand,  F.  H.  Hedge  sees  insuperable  difficulties  in  the 
theory  of  universal  restoration.  "  The  question,"  he  says, 
"  is  one  of  the  antinomies  of  theology,  —  a  question  of  which 
affirmative  and  negative  are  equally  debatable  and  equally 
doubtful.  It  is  a  question  on  which  sentiment  and  reason 


398  HISTORY  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     [PERIOD  Y. 

are  divided.  Our  heart  is  with  Universalists ;  but  reason 
is  shocked  by  the  violence  of  the  hypothesis  which  Univer- 
salism  —  theological  as  well  as  philosophical — seems  to  ne 
cessitate.  Theological  Universalism  supposes  a  too  forcible 
interference  of  Almighty  Love  in  the  normal  processes  of 
the  individual  soul,  bringing  the  divine  into  self-collision. 
Philosophical  Universalism  assumes  an  inevitable  triumph 
of  self-recovery,  —  a  fatality  of  goodness  in  man  which 
seems  to  be  based  on  no  analysis  of  human  nature,  which 
certainly  is  not  warranted  by  any  mundane  experience,  and 
whose  only  voucher,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  is  a  brave  hope, 
which,  however  honorable  to  those  that  cherish  it,  is  of 
no  great  use  in  the  critical  investigation  of  this  subject." 
(Reason  in  Religion,  Bk.  II.,  Essay  X.)  But  while  he 
allows  that  some  souls  may  pass  beyond  amendment,  Pledge 
is  unwilling  to  tolerate  the  theory  of  conscious  endless 
misery.  Lost  souls,  as  he  holds,  though  not  extinguished 
as  entities,  will  be  deprived  of  moral  consciousness  or  life. 

Romanism  allows  no  probation  proper  after  death.  All 
who  die  in  mortal  sin  are  consigned  to  everlasting  punish 
ment.  Likewise  unbaptized  infants,  dying  simply  in  origi 
nal  sin,  attain  not  to  eternal  life.  As  to  the  nature  of 
their  punishment,  unanimity  is  not  yet  fully  reached.  As 
Dieringer  reports,  theologians  most  given  to  mildness  make 
their  punishment  purely  negative,  the  non-possession  of  the 
heavenly  estate.  Many  claim  for  them  a  high  grade  of  the 
natural  knowledge  of  God  and  His  works,  and  great  satis 
faction  in  this  knowledge.  (Dogmatik,  §  142.) 

Swedcnborg  painted  the  future  life  largely  in  colors 
drawn  from  the  present.  Some  not  of  the  New  Church 
have  thought  that  it  adds  interest  to  the  heavenly  life  to 
represent  its  occupations  and  enjoyments  as  allied  with 
those  of  this  world.  Meanwhile,  profound  piety,  true  to 
its  record  in  the  past,  looks  forward  to  the  enraptured  vis 
ion  of  the  divine  as  the  crowning  felicity  of  heaven,  and 
cherishes  the  presentiment  that  a  glory  and  a  blessedness, 


1720-1885.]  ESCHATOLOGY.  399 

which  this  world  has  no  adequate  means  to  prefigure,  are 
in  waiting  for  the  heirs  of  salvation.  The  best  discretion 
adopts  the  language  of  reserve  which  Martensen  quotes 
from  the  Apostle  John  as  the  conclusion  of  his  work  : 
"  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not 
yet  appear  what  we  shall  be ;  but  we  know  that,  when  He 
shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  Him ;  for  we  shall  see  Him 
as  He  is." 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECT   MATTER. 


[The  numbers  at  the  left  refer  to  the  periods;  those  at  the  right,  to  volume  and  page.] 


I. 

INTRODUCTORY   AND   MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS. 

I.  The  ground  for  an  inevitable  development  of  doctrine.  —  Benefit 
of  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  doctrine.  — Place  belonging  to  the 
branch.  —  Rules  for  the  choice  of  subject  matter.  —  Cautions  against 
misinterpretation.  —  Five  periods,  and   the   leading  characteristic  of 
each 1-8 

Incentive  to  doctrinal  development  supplied  by  heathen  criticism 
and  by  heresies.  —  Orthodox  zeal  against  heresy;  its  warrant  and  its 
danger.  —  Question  whether  Montanism  is  to  be  included  among  the 
heresies.  —  Jewish  heresy,  especially  Ebionism.  —  Evidence  that  Ebion- 
ism  did  not  command  large  suffrage  in  the  early  Church.  —  Gnosticism ; 
causes  and  date  of  its  origin ;  sources  of  its  materials ;  points  in  whicli 
most  of  its  systems  agreed;  points  of  difference. — Manichaeism. — 
Two  types  of  Monarchianism 23-31 

II.  Circumstances  naturally  fostering  polemic  zeal  in  the  second  pe 
riod. — Compensations  for  the  bigotry  and  violence  exhibited.  159-161 

Rise  and  spread  of  monasticism. — Its  influence  in  the  sphere  of 
doctrine 171-173 

Nature  of  the  relation  between  Church  and  State  which  was  con 
summated  under  the  early  Christian  Emperors.  —  Doctrinal  bearing  of 
this  relation 173,  174 

III.  The  relation   of  the  Greek  Church  to  doctrinal  development 
after  the  beginning  of  the  third  period.  —  Her  most  eminent  dogmatic 
writer.  —  Causes  and  date  of  the  separation  between  the  Greek  and 
the  Latin  Church.  —  Relative  extent  of  heresy  in  the  middle  ages.  — 
Principal  cases  of  heresy  or  dissent 293-299 

VOL.  ii.  — 26. 


402  INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER. 

IV.  Importance  of  the  Reformation  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 
—  The  starting-point  of  the  Reformation,  as  demanded  by  the  pre 
ceding  developments  and  as  evolved  from  the  personal  experience  of 
Luther.  —  Inferences  drawn  as  to  the  mediatorial  office  of  the  priest, 
the    authority    of    Scripture,    and    the    right    of    private    interpre 
tation  ii.  3-9 

Relation  of  the  Reformation  to  the  doctrinal  standpoint  of  the  early 
Church ii.  9,  10 

Logical  outcome  of  Reformation  principles.  —  Excess  of  individual 
ism  in  the  Protestantism  of  the  past  centuries,  and  the  superficial 
polemic  to  which  it  has  given  occasion.  —  Reasonable  hope  of  a  grow 
ing  unity  within  the  bounds  of  Protestantism  .  .  .  .  ii.  10-12 

V.  Task  of  fundamental  criticism  undertaken  in  the  present  era.  — 
Probable  result ii.  221,  222 


II. 

PHILOSOPHY  AS  RELATED  TO  THE  DEVELOPMENT 
OF  DOCTRINE. 

I.  Reason   why  early  Christianity  could   entertain  but  moderate 
interest  in  the  pre-Socratic  philosophies.  —  Features  in  Epicureanism 
and  Stoicism  hindering  their   appropriation  by  Christian  writers.  — 
Ground  of  preferring  Plato  to  Aristotle. — Characteristics  of  Platonism 
commending  it  to  Christian   use.  —  Testimony  of   the  early  fathers 
to  the  superiority  of  Platonism.  —  Different  opinions  as  to  the  worth  of 
heathen  philosophy  in  general.  —  Actual  contributions  of  heathen  phi 
losophy  to  early  Christian  theology 11-23 

II.  General  attitude  of  theologians  toward  heathen  philosophy  in 
the  second  period.  —  Relative  estimate  of  Plato  and  Aristotle.  —  The 
founder  and  the  chief  representatives  of  Neo-Platonism.  — Its  place  in 
the  development  of  Greek  philosophy.  —  Its  cardinal  ideas  as  set  forth 
by  Plotinus. — Its  divergence  from  the  older  Platonism.  —  Degree  of 
favor  which  it  received  from  the  earlier  and  from  the  later  writers  of 
the   period.  —  The   works   of  the  pseudo  Dionysius.  —  Date  of  their 
origin.  —  Their  reception  by  the  Church.  — Peculiarities  in  their  teach 
ing. —  Their  kinship  with  Neo-Platonism 1G3-171 

III.  Different  estimates  of  philosophy  in  the  scholastic  era.  —  Pecu 
liar  philosophical  demand  of  the  age,  and  its  relation  to  an  increased 
appreciation  for  Aristotle.  — Points  of  contrast  between  Platonism  and 
Aristotelianism.  — Relative  affinity  of  the  two  philosophies  for  mysti- 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  403 

cism.  —  Testimony  of  writers  indicating  the  place  assigned  to  Aristotle. 

—  Introduction  of   Aristotle's   writings   into  the  W.est,  and  decrees 
respecting  their  use.  —  Revived  interest  in  Platonism  near  the  close 
of  the  period.  —  Mohammedan  and  Jewish  philosophers.  —  Influence 
of  the  writings  of  the  pseudo  Dionysius.  —  The  point  at  issue  between 
the  nominalists  and  realists;   decisions  by  earlier  thinkers;   position 
taken  by  different  scholastics;   theological  import  of  the   subject. — 
Scholastic  distinction  between  matter  and  form       .     .     .     301-311 

IV.  The   transition   to  modern    philosophy.  —  Double   origin  of 
modern  philosophy  in  Bacon  and  Descartes,  and  the  divergent  ten 
dencies  resulting.  —  Range  which  Bacon  gave  to  philosophy,  and  the 
relation  which  he  predicated  between  it  and  revealed  religion.  —  Ex 
tent  to  which  Hobbes  pushed  his  sensationalism.  —  Formal  attitude 
of  Hobbes  toward  revealed  religion.  —  Real  bearing  of  his  philosophy 
upon  the  same.  —  The  Cambridge  school,  and  the  offset  which  they 
presented  to  the  theories  of  Hobbes.  —  Affinity  of  Locke's  philosophy 
with  sensationalism,  not  to  say  materialism.  —  Basis  incidentally  pro 
vided   for  idealism.  —  Contrast  between  Locke  and  Bacon  in  their 
views  of  the  relations  between  reason  and  faith  .     ii.  13-21 

Place  which  Descartes  assigned  to  theological  data  in  gaining  a 
certain  basis  of  knowledge.  —  Prominence  of  the  divine  causality  in 
Descartes's  system,  and  his  emphasis  upon  the  contrast  between  mind 
and  matter.  —  His  attitude  toward  revealed  religion.  —  Conclusion 
which  Geulincx  drew  from  Cartesian  premises.  —  Conclusions  drawn 
by  Malebranche.  —  Spinoza's  pantheism.  —  His  definition  of  substance. 

—  His  definition  of  minds  and  bodies.  —  His  comments  on  the  idea  of 
freedom  and  of  final  cause.  —  His  conception  of  Christ,  of  the  Chris 
tian  Scriptures,  and  of  miracles ii.  21-25 

Degree  of  influence  exerted  by  modern  philosophy  upon  early  Prot 
estant  theology.  —  Estimate  of  the  worth  of  philosophy  by  different 
theologians ii.  25-29 

V.  Relative  fruitfulness  of  the  last  two  centuries  in  philosophic 
thinking.  — Dissatisfaction  of  Leibnitz  with  preceding  philosophies.  — 
His  method  of  offsetting  the  sensationalism  of  Locke.  —  Antidote  to 
Spinozism  which  he  supplied  in  his  doctrine  of  monads.  — His  doctrine 
of   the  pre-established  harmony,  and  its  bearing  upon   freedom  and 
optimism.  —  His  general  attitude  toward  revealed  religion.  —  Modifi 
cation  of  the  philosophy  of  Leibnitz  by  Wolff     .     .     .     ii.  223-227 

Berkeley's  combination  of  idealism  with  empiricism.  — Manner  in 
which  he  deduced  his  idealistic  theory  and  the  conception  of  nature 
which  it  involved ii.  227,  228 

Four  points  embraced  in  the  scepticism  of  Hume.  —  Question 
whether  Hume's  attitude  toward  religion  was  purely  destructive. 

ii.  228-230 


404  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

The  Scottish  school,  and  the  offset  which  it  presented  to  the  scepti 
cism  of  Hume.  —  Its  doctrinal  affinities ii.  230,  231 

Representatives  of  extreme  sensationalism  in  England  and  France. 
—  French  opponents  of  sensationalism.  — Eclecticism  of  Cousin. 

ii.  231 

Stimulus  which  Kant  received  from  Hume's  scepticism.  —  Task 
which  Kant  proposed  to  himself  in  his  Critique  of  Pure  Reason.  — 
Limitations  which  he  placed  both  upon  empiricism  and  dogmatism.  — 
Province  which  he  assigned  to  the  speculative  and  to  the  practical 
reason  respectively. — Points  of  likeness  and  of  contrast  between  his 
views  of  religion  and  the  Scriptural  system  .  .  .  .  ii.  231-236 

Fichte's  attempt  to  amend  the  philosophy  of  Kant.  —  His  starting- 
point.  —  His  way  of  explaining  our  impression  of  an  external  world.  — 
Respect  in  which  his  later  philosophy  differs  from  his  earlier. — Dis 
tinction  between  his  philosophy  and  that  of  Kant  as  to  doctrinal 
affinities.  —  Extent  to  which  he  conserves  the  great  truths  of  Chris 
tianity  ii.  236-239 

Different  stages  in  the  philosophical  development  of  Schelling.  — 
The  point  of  his  departure  from  Fichte.  —  His  theory  of  the  Absolute, 
and  of  the  means  of  attaining  to  the  knowledge  thereof.  —  His  later 
views  as  distinguished  from  his  earlier.  —  Poetic  affinities  of  his  phi 
losophy. —  Points  in  antagonism  with  Catholic  thought.  —  His  attitude 
toward  the  vulgar  rationalism ii.  239-242 

Hegel's  conception  of  the  proper  object  of  philosophy,  and  of  the 
way  to  reach  and  to  explicate  that  object.  —  The  three  branches  into 
which  he  divides  philosophy.  —  Starting-point  and  successive  stages 
which  he  predicates  for  the  evolution  of  thought.  —  Formal  attitude  of 
his  philosophy  toward  Christian  theology.  —  Its  real  bearing  as  judged 
by  its  principles  and  its  professed  disciples  .  .  .  .  ii.  242-248 

Distinctive  features  in  the  philosophies  of  Jacobi  and  Schleier- 
macher.  —  Respects  in  which  Schleiermacher  supplemented  Jacobi. 

ii.  248,  249 

Schopenhauer  and  Hartmann  as  representatives  of  philosophical 
pessimism ii.  249,  250 

Herbart's  relation  to  preceding  philosophies.  —  His  conception  of 
the  true  method  of  philosophy.  —  Lotze's  criticism  both  of  dogmatic 
idealism  and  of  materialism.  —  Element  of  idealism  which  he  recog 
nizes.  —  Prominence  of  the  theistic  phase  in  his  philosophy. 

ii.  250-252 

The  fundamental  thesis  of  Comte's  Positivism.  —  The  six  branches 
which  in  his  view  cover  the  whole  field  of  knowledge.  —  His  scheme 
for  a  new  religion ii.  252,  253 

Recent  English  advocates  of  sensationalism.  —  Points  in  which  they 
agree.  —  Evolutionism  of  Herbert  Spencer.  —  Statements  of  Mill  and 
Spencer  bearing  upon  religious  truths ii.  253-257 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  405 

The  general  outcome  of  the  philosophy  of  the  period  in  its  relations 
to  Christian  theology.  —  Specific  affiliations  of  different  theologians 
and  theological  parties  with  the  various  philosophies.  —  More  common 
estimate  as  to  the  worth  of  philosophy ii.  257-260 


III. 


AUTHORS,   COMMUNIONS,   AND   CREEDS. 

I.  Classification  of  the  authors  of  the  first  three  centuries.  —  Ques 
tion  as  to  the  genuineness  of  writings  attributed  to  Clement  of  Rome, 
to  Ignatius,  and  to  Justin  Martyr.  —  Consideration  of  the  identity  of 
Barnabas  and  of  Hernias.  —  Propriety  of  quoting  Tertullian,  Novatian, 
and  Hippolytus  as  exponents  of  Catholic  teaching.  —  Strictures  upon 
the  dogmatic  authority  of  Arnobius  and  Lactantius.  —  Distinguishing 
characteristics  of  the  principal  groups  of  authors    ....     32-36 

II.  Greek  authors  of  the  Arian  era.  —  Greek  authors  of  the  christo- 
logical  era.  —  Latin  authors  of  the  period.  —  Theologians  whose  ortho 
doxy  was  called  in  question.  —  Most  prominent  of  those  distinctly 
ranked  as  heretics.  —  Most  representative  authors  of  the  Greek  and 
the  Latin  Church  respectively 175-178 

III.  Meaning  of  the  term  Scholasticism.  —  Four  subdivisions    of 
the  period,  with  the  characteristics  and  leading  writers  of  each.  — 
Schools  and  universities.  —  Estimate  of  scholasticism.  —  Estimate  of 
mysticism 311-323 

IV.  The  conditions  of  Protestant  unity.  —  Cause  of  the  first  divis 
ion.  —  Distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed 
Church  respectively.  —  Propriety  of  reckoning  the  Church  of  England 
as  a  branch  of  the  Reformed  Church.  —  Features  distinguishing  the 
Church  of  England  from  the  Reformed  Church  at  large,  and  giving 
occasion  to  controversy  and  dissenting  parties    .     .     .     .     ii.  29-32 

Scattered  representatives  of  Unitarianism.  —  Organized  Unitarian- 
ism  under  Faustus  Socinus.  —  Leading  representative  of  Unitarianism 
in  England  in  this  era ii.  32-34 

Occasion  of  the  rise  of  the  Arminians,  or  Remonstrants,  in  Hol 
land. —  Outward  fortunes  of  the  Arminians. — Distinction  between 
Anninius  and  those  who  succeeded  him,  as  to  doctrinal  position. 

ii.  34,  35 

Origin  of  the  Mennonites,  and  peculiarities  in  their  belief  and 
practice ii.  35 


406  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

The  founding  and  the  early  fortunes  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  Eng 
land.  —  Roger  Williams  and  the  first  Baptist  society  in  America.  — 
Theological  standpoint  of  the  first  Baptists,  and  of  the  branches  sub 
sequently  organized ii.  35,  36 

Rise  of  the  society  of  Friends,  or  Quakers,  and  their  most  noted 
representatives ii.  30,  37 

List  of  creeds  and  other  representative  statements  of  doctrine.  — 
Comments  on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Second  Helvetic 
Confession,  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles, 
the  Westminster  Confession,  the  Racovian  Catechism,  and  the  Canons 
and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  with  other  Roman  Catholic  docu 
ments  of  the  period.  —  Confessions  of  the  Greek  Church  in  the  seven 
teenth  century ii.  37-43 

Table  of  the  authors  of  the  period ii.  43-50 

Double  source  of  Lutheran  theology  in  Luther  and  Melanchthon. — 
Other  Lutheran  writers  of  the  sixteenth  century.  —  Lutheran  writers 
of  the  seventeenth  century ii.  50,  51 

Double  source  of  the  Reformed  theology  in  Zwingli  and  Calvin.  — 
Distinguished  theologians  who  followed  in  Switzerland.  —  Representa 
tive  writers  in  Holland.  —  The  principal  Arminian  writers.  —  Reformed 
theologians  in  France.  —  Leading  writers  of  different  parties  in  Great 
Britain ii.  51-54 

Most  celebrated  authors  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church    .     ii.  54 

Outline  of  controversies  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  —  Two  important  controversies  in  the  eighteenth  century.  — 
Mystics  in  the  Lutheran  Church ii.  54-58 

Agitation  caused  in  the  Reformed  Church  by  the  teachings  of  Amy- 
rant  and  Placa3us.  — Mystics  in  the  Reformed  Church  .  ii.  58,  59. 

The  origin  and  the  nature  of  the  controversy  between  the  Jesuits 
and  the  Jansenists.  —  Comments  on  the  apparent  lack  of  homogeneity 
in  the  Romish  Church.  —  Roman  Catholic  mystics  .  .  ii.  59-61 

V.    The  rise  and  the  doctrinal  peculiarities  of  the  Moravians. 

ii.  261 

Early  connection  of  Methodism  with  Moravianism.  —  Relation  of 
Methodism  to  the  Established  Church.  —  Sense  in  which  its  theology 
may  be  termed  Arminian.  —  Its  doctrinal  standards  and  representative 
writers ii.  261-264 

The  New  Jerusalem  Church.  —  Its  founder  and  the  position  accorded 
to  him ii.  261,  265 

Unitarianism  in  England  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centu 
ries. —  Genesis  of  New  England  Unitarianism.  —  Different  stages  in 
its  growth,  and  leading  writers  pertaining  to  each.  —  Sects  affiliating 
more  or  less  with  Unitarian  belief ii.  265-269 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  407 

Reason  for  excluding  a  specific  account  of  Mormonism.      ii.  269. 

Recent  developments  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  —  Rise  and  progress 
of  rationalism.  —  Counteractives  to  rationalism.  — List  of  Lutheran  the 
ologians  who  may  be  classed  as  relatively  orthodox.  —  Union  project  — 
Doctrinal  status  of  Lutherans  in  the  United  States  .  .  ii.  269-273 

Theological  vicissitudes  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  Continent. 
—  Most  distinguished  representatives  of  evangelical  tendencies.  — 
Affiliated  branches  in  the  United  States  .  .  .  .  ii.  273,  274 

The  deistic  controversy  in  England.  —  Rise  of  the  Evangelical 
school.  —  Tractarianism.  —  Broad  Church  movement  .  ii.  274,  275 

Founding  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  —  Ten 
dency  which  was  dominant  in  it  at  first.  —  Effect  upon  it  of  the  later 
movements  in  England ii.  275,  276 

Presbyterianism  in  Scotland.  —  Origin  of  the  schisms  within  its 
bounds.  —  Recent  authors.  —  Presbyterianism  in  the  United  States.  — 
Distinction  between  the  Old  and  the  New  School.  —  Writings  of 
special  significance ii.  276,  277 

English  Congregationalism.  —  Importance  of  the  movement  in  New 
England  Congregationalism  which  started  from  Jonathan  Edwards.  — 
Points  in  which  Edwards  and  his  successors  claimed  to  have  made  im 
provements  on  the  older  theology.  —  Characteristics  of  the  so-called 
New  Departure.  —  Creed  of  1884 ii.  277-279 

Developments  among  the  Baptists  in  the  eighteenth  century.— 
Relative  prosperity  in  the  present  century.  —  Representative  Confes 
sions  and  authors ii.  279,  280 

Small  scope  given  to  liberalism  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in 
the  present  period.  —  Triumph  of  Ultramontanism  in  the  Vatican 
Council.  —  The  Old  Catholic  movement.  —  Additions  to  the  list  of 
confessional  documents.  —  Eminent  writers  .  .  .  .  ii.  280,  281 

Conservative  temper  of  the  modern  Greek  Church.  —  Most  impor 
tant  of  recent  Confessions .  .  ii.  281 


IV. 

SCRIPTURE  AND   TRADITION. 

I.  Meaning  of  Scripture  as  the  term  was  used  by  those  immediately 
succeeding  the  apostles.  —  Uncertain  limits  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon  among  the  early  Christians.  —  Efforts  to  ascertain  the  true 
limits.  —  Decision  finally  rendered  upon  the  subject  by  the  Greek  and 
the  Latin  Church  respectively 37-39 


408  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

Incentives  which  urged  to  the  fixing  of  the  New  Testament  canon. 
—  Evidence  that  the  great  body  of  New  Testament  books  early  com 
manded  a  general  acceptance.  —  Books  respecting'  which  there  was  a 
measure  of  doubt.  —  Date  when  the  present  list  of  books  was  substan 
tially  unchallenged.  —  Books  not  retained  in  the  canon,  and  to  which 
a  local  and  limited  acceptance  was  accorded 39-42 

Theory  of  inspiration  bequeathed  from  Judaism.  —  Theory  which 
appears  in  the  earliest  references  of  Christian  writers.  —  The  Monta- 
nist  theory.  —  Position  taken  by  Christian  writers  after  the  rise  of 
Montanism 42-45 

Hermeneutical  maxims.  —  Prominent  fault  of  early  Christian  exe 
gesis.  —  Evidence  that  an  unrestricted  privilege  to  read  the  Scriptures 
was  accorded  to  the  laity 46,  47 

Prominence  held  by  tradition  and  its  most  important  embodiments 
before  the  collection  of  the  New  Testament  books.  —  Theory  enter 
tained  of  the  relation  of  Scripture  and  tradition  after  the  collection 
was  effected.  —  Exceptional  instance  of  a  reference  to  a  secret  tra 
dition  47-52 

II.  Evidences  of  a  very  emphatic  theory  of  inspiration.  —  Instances 
of  a  recognition  of  a  human  element.  —  Attitude  toward  the  Montanist 
theory     178-180 

Advance  in  exegetical  methods.  —  Relative  place  still  assigned  to 
allegorical  interpretation.  —  Privilege  and  practice  of  the  laity  as  re 
spects  reading  the  Bible 180-182 

More  common  theory  as  to  the  relation  of  Scripture  and  tradition. 

—  Partial  exception  on  the  part  of  Basil  arid  Gregory  .Nazianzen.  — 
Causes  favoring  recourse  to  extra-Biblical  and  traditionary  authority. 

—  References  to  a  secret  tradition 182-186 

III.  Mediaeval  theories  of  inspiration  and  interpretation  as  com 
pared  with  those  of  the  preceding  period.  —  Argument  of  Aquinas  for 
the  necessity  of  revelation 323 

Distinction  between  the  position  accorded  to  the  Scriptures  in  the 
theory  of  the  scholastics  and  that  which  was  practically  awarded  to 
them.  —  Relative  position  assigned  to  Scripture  by  Wycliffe  and  other 
Reformers.  —  Tendency  to  insinuate  the  authority  of  the  Church  in 
place  of  tradition  proper.  —  Different  views  as  to  the  location  of  the 
infallible  authority  of  the  Church 324-327 

Extent  to  which  the  Bible  was  prohibited  to  the  laity    .     .     327 

IV.  Points  of  contrast  between  Protestantism  and  Romanism  on 
the  subject  of  the  section ii.  61,  62 

Discussions  and  decisions  at  the  council  of  Trent  on  the  canon  and 
the  authoritative  edition  of  Scripture.  —  Trent  decree  on  tradition.  — 
Bellarmin's  specifications  on  tradition.  —  Test  of  tradition  as  implied 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  409 

in  the  statements  of  Bellarmin  and  Bossuet  respectively.  —  Prescrip 
tion  of  Pedro  de  Soto  on  the  same  point.  —  Trent  decree  respecting 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  —  Relative  position  assigned  by  Roman 
ism  to  Scripture  and  church  authority ii.  62-67 

Specifications  in  the  Greek  Church  respecting  the  canon  and  the 
authority  of  tradition  ...  ii.  67. 

Position  of  Protestants  on  the  canon,  the  authoritative  version,  the 
function  of  tradition,  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  the  relation 
of  church  authority  to  Scripture.  —  Test  of  the  divine  origin  of  Bibli 
cal  books  which  was  most  emphasized.  —  Other  tests  urged  by  Prot 
estants. —  Way  in  which  the  Quakers  qualified  the  supremacy  of 
Scripture ii.  67-75 

Views  of  inspiration  entertained  by  various  parties  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church ii.  75,  76 

Luther's  view  of  inspiration.  —  View  which  became  dominant 
among  the  Lutherans ii.  76-78 

Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  the  general  body  of  Reformed  theologians,  on 
the  subject  of  inspiration.  —  Position  taken  by  the  Buxtorfs  and  the 
Helvetic  Consensus  Formula  on  the  vowel-points  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip 
tures  ii.  78,  79 

Statements  on  inspiration  by  prominent  Arminian  writers,  by  the 
Socinians,  and  by  Richard  Baxter ii.  79,  80 

Comment  on  the  dogmatic  way  in  which  the  Scriptures  were  treated 
in  the  seventeenth  century ii.  80,  81 

Beginnings  of  radical  criticism  as  represented  by  English  deism, 
Spinoza,  and  Richard  Simon ii.  81-83 

V.  Way  in  which  some  Protestants  and  some  Romanists  in  recent 
times  apparently  have  approximated  in  their  views  of  the  relation  of 
Scripture  and  tradition. — Newman's  doctrine  of  dogmatic  develop 
ment.  —  Genuine  approach  to  the  Romish  theory  of  tradition  in  the 
Tractarian  or  Ritualistic  school 281-284 

Four  theories  of  Biblical  inspiration,  and  advocates  of  each.  — Dis 
tinctions  made  between  revelation  and  inspiration.  —  Summary  of 
recent  tendencies  toward  a  modified  view  of  the  Bible  among  those 
who  acknowledge  in  general  its  authority  .  .  .  .  ii.  284-293 

Radical  criticism  as  it  appears  in  English  deism  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  beginnings  of  German  rationalism,  German  rationalism  de 
veloped  into  naturalism,  school  of  aesthetic  rationalism,  mythical 
hypothesis  of  Strauss,  development  theory  of  Baur,  and  treatment  of 
the  Old  Testament  by  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  .  .  ii.  293-298 

Inference  as  to  the  final  outcome  of  the  radical  criticism. 

ii.  298,  299 


410  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

V. 

EXISTENCE   OF   GOD. 

I.  Degree  of  stress  laid  by  the  early  fathers  upon  the  self-evidencing 
power  of  truth.  —  Specific  arguments  most  relied  upon  as  proof  of  God's 
existence 53-56 

II.  New  class  of  arguments  added  to  those  of  the  foregoing  period. 
—  The  argument  of  Diodorus,  of  Augustine,  and  of  Boethius. 

187-189 

III.  The  ontological  argument  by  Anselm.  —  Criticism  of  Anselm's 
argument  by  Gaunilo.  —  Consideration  of  the  worth  of  his  argument. 
—  Attitude  of  the  majority  of  the  scholastics  toward  it.  —  Arguments 
of  Thomas  Aquinas.  — Argument  of  Raymond  of  Sabunde.  —  Point  of 
special  emphasis  with  the  mystics 328-331 

IV.  Arguments  used  in  the  fourth  period  before  the  rise  of  the 
Cartesian  philosophy.  —  Descartes's  arguments.  —  Measure  of  assent 
given  to  them.  —  Locke's    arguments.  —  Argument    which   Samuel 
Clarke  founded  on  the  consideration  of  space  ii.  81-88 

V.  Extent  to  which  the  ontological  argument  of  Anselm  and  Des 
cartes  has  been  recognized  in  more  recent  times.  —  Criticism  of  the 
same  by  Kant  and  Lotze.  —  Attitude  of  most  theologians  toward  it.  — 
Kant's  criticism  of  the  cosmological   and  teleological  arguments.  — 
Place  still  held  by  these  arguments.  —  Moral  argument  of  Kant.  — 
Impression  made  by  a  review  of  the  whole  development  on  this  topic. 

ii.  300-303 


VI. 

ESSENCE  AND   ATTRIBUTES   OF  GOD. 

I.  Opposing  interests  which  modified  the  consideration  of  the 
divine  essence.  —  Manifestations  of  a  tendency  strongly  to  emphasize 
the  transcendence  of  God.  — -  Indications  that  it  was  not  meant  to 
deny  all  proper  knowledge  of  God.  —  Representations  which  failed  to 
do  justice  to  the  spirituality  of  the  divine  nature.  —  Motive  of  Origen 
in  predicating  a  limit  to  divine  power  and  knowledge.  —  The  superi- 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER.  411 

ority  of  God  to  the  category  of  time  and  change.  —  Relation  of  God's 
omnipotence  to  the  power  to  sin 56-63 

II.  Representatives  of  anthropomorphism.  —  View  of  Eunomius  as 
to  the  possibility  of  knowing  the  essence  of  God.  —  Opposing  views  of 
Catholic  writers.  —  Lack  of  consistent  adherence  to  extreme  statements 
on  the  divine  transcendence.  —  Conception  of  the  simplicity  of  the 
divine  nature.  —  God's  relation  to  time  and  space.  —  Reason  for  deny 
ing  to  God  the  power  to  sin.  —  Relative  lack  of  attention  to  God's 
moral  attributes  in  the  Greek  Church 189-194 

III.  Specifications  of  different  writers  of  the  Middle  Ages  respect 
ing  the  possibility  of  knowing  God  as  to  His  essence.  —  Scholastic 
theory  of  the  simplicity  of  the  divine  nature.  —  Question  whether  God 
can  do  more  and  better  than  He  does.  —  Conception  of  the  divine 
omnipresence,  and  the  peculiar  symbol  by  which  it  was  represented.  — 
Mode  of  the  divine  knowledge,  and  the  different  forms  of  that  knowl 
edge.  —  Impassibility  of  God.  —  Question  whether  the  will  of  God  is 
ultimate  or  conditioned 331-336 

IV.  Relative  degree  of  affiliation  with  agnostic  representations  in 
the  Reformation  era.  —  Extent  of  agreement  with  Augustine  and  the 
scholastics  on  the  general  subject  of  God's  essence  and  attributes.  — 
Conception  of  God's  eternity  entertained  by  Socinians  and  by  some 
Arminians.  —  Socinian  theory  respecting  divine  foreknowledge  of  the 
contingent.  —  Relation  of  foreknowledge  to  predestination  as  taught 
by  Calvinistic  writers.  —  View  of  the  Arminians  and  others  on  this 
subject.  —  Question   whether   there   is   a   scientia   media.  —  Question 
whether  the  will  of  God  is  the  absolute  standard  of  right.  —  Promi 
nence  given  in  Reformation  theology  to  the  attribute  of  justice. 

ii.  88-95 

V.  Starting-point  for  agnosticism  in  Kant's  philosophy.  —  Oppo 
site  extreme  in  the  philosophies  of  Schelling  and  Hegel.  —  Agnostic 
theories  of  Hamilton  and  Mansel,  and  the  practical  conclusions  which 
they  drew  from  them.  —  Criticism  of  their  theories.  —  More  common 
position  in  the  present  on  man's  competency  to  know  God.  —  Modified 
view  of  the  simplicity  of  the  divine  nature.  —  Specifications  on  God's 
eternity.  —  Question  as  to  the  possibility  of  foreknowledge  of  the  free 
acts  of  men. — Relation  of  foreknowledge  to  foreordination. — The 
scientia  media.  —  Relation  of  the  will  of  God  to  the  moral  standard. 

ii.  304-311 


412  INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER. 

VII. 
THE   TRINITY. 

I.  Demand  in  religious  thought  for  a  theory  of  mediation  between 
God  and  the  world,  and  the  shape  which  it  would  naturally  assume 
with  speculative  minds 63,  64 

Fitness  of  the  Platonic  theory  of  Ideas  to  serve  as  an  antecedent  of 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  —  Distinct  evidence  that  some 

writers  saw  in  the  Ideas  of   Plato  an  image  of  the  Logos. Other 

suggestions  in  Plato  of  a  plurality  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead. 

64-66 

Anticipations  in  the  Old  Testament  and  other  Jewish  writings  of 
the  Logos  doctrine.  —  Sources  from  which  Philo  drew.  —  Various  as 
pects  under  which  he  portrays  the  Logos.  —  Question  whether  he  re 
garded  the  Logos  as  personal.  —  Dorner's  analysis  of  Philo's  Logos. 
—  Relation  of  Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  to  the  idea  of  incarnation, 
and  to  the  coming  of  a  Messiah 66-70 

The  most  important  antecedent  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Logos 70,71 

Proper  expectation  respecting  the  first  attempts  to  construct  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  and  the  rule  for  judging  these  attempts.  71 

Evidences  of  great  unanimity  of  belief  on  the  part  of  the  early 
Church  in  the  personal  pre-existence  of  the  Logos.  —  Special  question 
on  the  interpretation  of  Athenagoras 72-74 

Evidences  of  a  marked  tendency  in  the  early  Church  to  regard  the 
Son  as  truly  consubstantial  with  the  Father.  —  Testimony  of  heathen 
criticism,  Christian  hymns,  and  the  rule  of  faith.  —  Suggestions  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  —  Special  characteristics  of  the  rep 
resentations  of  Justin  Martyr  and  his  co-apologists.  —  Distinctive 
phase  in  the  teaching  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Irenseus.  —  Par 
ticular  interest  which  colored  the  representations  of  Tertullian  and  the 
writers  who  succeeded  him.  —  Tributes  of  Origen  to  the  proper  divin 
ity  of  the  Son. — Dorner's  comment  on  Origen's  conception  of  the 
mode  of  the  divine  existence.  —  Statements  of  Dionysius  of  Alexan 
dria,  and  of  Lactantius 74-84 

Points  in  which  some  of  the  early  fathers  admitted  a  subordination 
of  the  Son  which  was  not  allowed  by  the  Niceuo  standard.  —  Subor 
dination  in  the  system  of  Origen.  —  Question  whether  Irenseus  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria  admitted  an  undue  subordination  of  the  Son. 

84-89 

Character  of  the  earliest  references  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  —  Recogni 
tion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Christian  life  and  worship.  —  Evidences  of 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  413 

belief  in  the  personality  of  the  Spirit.  —  Rank  accorded  to  the  Spirit 
by  Origen 89-92 

II.  Antecedents  of  the  Arian  controversy.  —  Relative  strength  of 
the  parties  in  the  controversy  apart  from  the  effects  of  political  pres 
sure   194-197 

Creed  of  the  senri- Arians  and  their  relative  divergence  from  the 
other  two  parties 197 

The  Arian  conception  of  the  Son.  —  Arguments  which  the  Arians 
drew  from  reason  and  from  Scripture 198-200 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Son  as  stated  in  the  Nicene  creed.  — 
Advance  made  by  the  Nicene  fathers  on  the  teaching  of  some  of  the 
preceding  fathers.  —  Their  representations  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
Son's  generation.  — Evidence  that  they  meant  to  teach  that  the  Son  is 
fully  consubstantial  with  the  Father.  —  Only  subordination  which  they 
designed  to  allow.  —  Answers  of  Athanasius  and  others  to  the  meta 
physical  objections  of  the  Arians.  —  Answers  to  Arian  inferences  from 
Scripture 200-208 

The  Arian  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  —  Doctrine  of  the  Macedo 
nians.  —  Extent  to  which  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  was  denied. 

208,  209 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  expressed  in  the  creeds 
and  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  —  Chief  points  urged  in  behalf  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Spirit.  —  Question  respecting  the  procession  of  the 
Spirit 209-211 

Way  in  which  the  Nicene  fathers  reconciled  the  threefold  per 
sonality  with  the  unity  of  God.  —  Terminology  of  Catholic  trinitari- 
anism 211,  212 

Respects  in  which  the  Augustinian  representation  of  the  Trinity 
differed  from  the  Athanasian  or  Nicene.  —  Illustrations  most  used  by 
Augustine.  —  Idea  to  which  Augustine  appeals  in  reconciling  the  tri- 
personality  with  the  unity  of  God.  —  The  creed  representative  of  the 
Augustinian  school 212-215 

III.  Heterodox  theories  of  the  Trinity  taught  by  Roscelin  and 
Gilbert.  —  Illustrations  of  Abelard.  —  Eckhart's  view  oi'  the  Divine 
Persons 337,  338 

Illustration  most  used  by  the  scholastics.  —  Necessity  for  a  plurality 
of  Divine  Persons  as  urged  by  Richard  of  St.  Victor  .  .  338,  339 

Views  in  the  East  and  the  West  respectively  on  the  procession  of 
the  Spirit.  —  Considerations  urged  by  Anselm  and  Aquinas  respect 
ively  in  behalf  of  the  Western  theory 339 

IV.  Attitude  of  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theologians  toward  the 
Augustinian  type  of  trinitarianism.  —  Statements  of  Calvin  and  oth- 


414  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

ers  in  reference  to  the  self -existence  of  the  Son.  —  Gerhard  on  the 
reconciliation  of  the  tri-personality  and  the  unity  of  God.  —  Practical 
importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  view  of  Lutheran 
dogmatists  of  the  seventeenth  century ii.  90,  97 

Subordination  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  as  taught  by  the  Arminians 
and  by  some  Anglican  divines ii.  97-99 

Samuel  Clarke's  "  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  and  the 
strictures  passed  upon  it ii.  99,  100 

Attitude  of  the  Quakers  toward  the  Catholic  definitions  of  the 
Trinity ii.  100 

Theory  of  Servetus  respecting  the  Son ii.  100 

Opposition  of  the  Socinians  to  trinitarianism.  —  Their  conception 
of  the  nature  of  Christ,  of  the  position  occupied  by  Him  since  His 
ascension,  and  of  the  honors  due  to  Him.  —  Socinian  conception  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ii.  100-102 

John  Biddle's  view  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

ii.  102,  103 

Views  of  Milton  respecting  the  Son  and  the  Spirit.  —  Question 
whether  Locke  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton  were  ill  affected  toward  the 
trinitarian  theory ii.  103 

V.  Place  occupied  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  theological 
thinking  of  the  present.  —  Specifications  on  the  philosophical  demands 
for  the  doctrine.  —  Instances  of  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  the  eter 
nal  generation  of  the  Son ii.  311-314 

Trinitarians  representing  a  somewhat  emphatic  subordinationism. 

ii.  314 

Schleiermacher's  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  —  The 
Swedenborgian  theory ii.  314,  315 

Developments  within  the  sphere  of  German  rationalism,     ii.  315 

Different  phases  of  belief  among  English  and  American  Unitarians 
respecting  the  nature  of  Christ.  —  Unitarian  definitions  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ii.  315-318 


VIII. 

CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

I.    General  position  of  the  early  Church  as  to  creation  ex  nildlo.  — 
Tertullian's  reproach  against  Hermogenes.  —  God's  motive  in  creating. 

-  Theory  of  the  Church  generally  as  to  the  Mosaic  days  of  creation. 

-  Views  of  the  Alexandrian  fathers  on  this  point.  —  Origen's  reasons 
for  extending  God's  creative  agency  back  into  eternity  .     .     93-95 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  415 

II.  Position  as  to  creation  ex  niJdlo.  —  Augustine's  answers  to  the 
reasons  of  Origen  for  carrying  creation  back  into  eternity.  —  Distinc 
tion  made  between  creating  the  essence  of  things  and  shaping  them 
into  their  distinct  forms.  —  Association  on  the  part  of  Augustine  of 
the  ideas  of  creation  and  preservation.  —  Views  generally  held  respect 
ing  the  days  of  the  creative  \veeK  —  Explanation  of  evils  having  their 
ground  in  the  works  of  the  Creator 216-218 

III.  Common  verdict  of  the  Scholastics  as  respects  creation  ex  nihilo. 
—  Ground  of  that  verdict  according  to  Aquinas  and  Duns  Scotus. — 
Difference  of  conception  involved  by  the  different  standpoints  of  the 
realists  and  nominalists.  —  Exceptional  theories  of  Erigena  and  Eck- 
hart.  —  Time  employed  in  creation 340,  341 

IV.  Exceptional  view  of  John  Milton  respecting  creation.  —  Rela 
tion  of  creation  to  conservation.  —  Time  employed  in  creation.  —  Ap 
pearance  of  the  pre- Adamite  theory ii.  104,  105 

V.  Instances  of  a  disposition  to  modify  the  doctrine  of  creation  ex 
nihilo.  —  Question  respecting  God's  freedom  in  creation.  —  Breadth  of 
the  distinction  between  creation  and  preservation.  —  Various  concep 
tions  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation ii.  319-323 


IX. 

ANGELS   AND   DEMONS. 

I.  Views  respecting  the  nature  of  unfallen  angels.  —  Evidence  of  a 
tendency  to  ascribe  corporeity  to  angels 95,  90 

Cause  of  Satan's  fall  as  represented  by  several  fathers  on  the  one 
hand,  and  by  Lactantius  on  the  other.  —  Cause  of  the  fall  of  the  other 
evil  angels.  —  Origin  of  demons 96 

Agency  of  good  angels  in  different  spheres.  — Agency  of  evil  angels. 
—  Cyprian's  explanation  of  natural  evils.  —  Care  of  the  fathers  to 
predicate  suitable  limits  for  angelic  agency 96-98 

Question  whether  the  early  Church  conceded  aught  to  the  practice 
of  worshipping  angels 98 

II.  Statements  of  different  writers  relative  to  the  corporeity  of 
angels.  —  Classes    and    orders    of    angels    according    to    the    pseudo 
Dionysius 218-220 

Augustine's  theory  of  the  gift  of  perseverance  as  applied  to  unfallen 
angels 220 


416  INDEX   OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

New  interpretation  of  Gen.  vi.  2-4,  and  itsapplication  to  the  fall  of 

the  angels 220,  221 

Views  respecting  the  agency  of  good  and  of  evil  angels.  221,  222 
Extent  to  which  the  practice  of  angel-worship  was  countenanced. 

222 

III.  The  common  verdict  of   mediseval  writers  on   the   question 
whether   angels   have    bodies.  —  Discussion   of  curious    questions   of 
angelology.  —  The  standard  classification  of  angels  .     .     342,  343 

IV.  Decision  of  the  majority  of  early  Protestant  theologians  re 
specting  a  corporeal  factor  in  angels.  —  Common  position  of  Roman 
Catholic  theologians  on  this  point.  —  Views  of  Satanic  agency  on  the 
part  of  Luther  and  Calvin ii.  105,  106 

V.  Present  state  of  the  question  concerning  an  angelic  corporeity 
within  the  bounds  of  Romanism  and  Protestantism   respectively.  — 
Swedenborg's  conception  of  the  antecedents  of  all  angels.  —  Attitude 
of  German  rationalism,  in  its  culminating  era,  toward  the  doctrine  of 
evil  angels.  —  The  counter  current  on  this  subject  .     .     ii.  323,  324 


X. 

MAN. 

I.  Relative  eminence  ascribed  to  Adam.  —  Comments  on  the  divine 
image  and  likeness  in  man. — The  abode  of  unf alien  man.  —  Choice 
between  dichotomy  and  trichotomy.  —  Question  whether  the  soul  is 
purely  incorporeal  and  naturally  immortal.  —  Choice  between  creation- 
ism  and  traducianism.  —  Theory  of  pre-existence      .     .     .     98-104 

Interpretation  of  the  narrative  of  the  fall.  —  Negative  statements 
regarding  the  connection  of  the  race  with  Adam's  trespass  and  regard 
ing  the  inherited  effects  of  that  trespass.  —  Positive  statements  respect 
ing  the  consequences  of  the  fall.  —  General  position  of  the  early  Church 
on  this  subject  illustrated  by  comparison.  —  More  common  view  of  the 
death  penalty  denounced  against  the  first  sin  ....  101-108 

Specifications  of  different  writers  on  the  nature  of  sin  .     108-110 

II.  More  common  understanding  of  the  divine  image  and  likeness 
in  man.  —  Twofold  sense  ascribed  to  the  account  of  Paradise.  —  Ten 
dency  as  respects  choice  between  dichotomy  and  trichotomy.  —  Common 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  417 

position  relative  to  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  natural  immortality.  — 
Drift  of  opinion  on  the  question  whether  the  soul  is  purely  incorporeal. 

—  Choice  between  creationism  and  traducianism.  —  Theory  of  pre- 
existence 222-226 

Catholic  view  of  the  essence  of  the  fall.  —  Special  f ruitf ulness  of  the 
period  in  theories  respecting  the  results  of  the  fall  ....  226 

General  position  of  the  Greek  anthropology  on  the  results  of  the 
fall 226-228 

Chief  distinction  between  the  Greek  and  the  early  Latin  anthro 
pology.  —  Evidence  that  before  the  Pelagian  controversy  Latin  writers 
did  not  stand  upon  an  Augustinian  platform.  —  Position  of  Augustine 
himself  at  this  stage 228,  229 

External  history  of  the  Pelagian  controversy.  —  Religious  experience 
of  Pelagius  as  a  factor  in  shaping  his  views.  —  Theoretical  standpoint 
from  which  he  proceeded.  —  The  only  results  which  he  allowed  to  have 
descended  from  Adam's  sin.  —  The  only  way,  as  he  conceived,  in  which 
sin  can  be  transmitted.  —  His  idea  of  the  essence  of  free  will  and  of 
the  genesis  of  moral  character.  —  His  inferences  as  to  man's  natural 
ability,  and  the  scope  to  be  assigned  to  grace.  —  Considerations  which 
he  adduced  to  justify  his  view  of  man's  natural  state  .  .  229-234 

Relation  of  Augustine's  experience  to  his  distinctive  doctrines.  — 
Innovating  character  of  Augustinianism.  —  General  contrast  between 
Augustinianism  and  Pelagianism  as  to  starting-point,  spirit,  and  goal. 

—  Augustine's  conception  of  Adam's  original  estate.  —  His  view  of  the 
essence  of  freedom.  —  Interpretation  which  he  put  upon  the  power  of 
contrary  choice  in  Adam.  —  His  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  —  The 
results  of  Adam's  trespass  upon  himself  and  upon  his  posterity.  —  Ex 
planation  of  corruption  in  the  children  of  the  regenerate.  —  Scriptural 
warrant  adduced  by  Augustine  for  his  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

234-239 

Rise  and  leading  representatives  of  semi-Pelagianism.  —  Points  in 
which  it  was  distinguished  both  from  Pelagianism  and  Augustinianism. 

239,  240 
Moderate  Augustinianism  as  represented  by  the  council  of  Orange. 

—  Points  in  which  it  differed  from  semi-Pelagianism  and  strict  Augus 
tinianism.  —  Degree  to  which  it  engaged  the  sympathies  of  the  Church 
in  after  times 240,  241 

Extent  to  which  the  negative  conception  of  sin  prevailed.  —  View 
of  the  relation  of  the  body  to  evil.  —  Aspects  of  sin  specially  empha 
sized  by  Augustine 241-243 

III.    Specifications  of  the  scholastics  respecting  the  divine  image 

and  likeness  in  man.  —  Conception  of  original  righteousness  and  the 

time  of  its  bestowment.  —  Location  of  Paradise.  —  Length  of  Adam's 

sojourn   there   according  to   Abelard.  —  Common   verdict  as   to   the 

VOL.  ii.  —  27. 


418  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

divisions  of  human  nature,  the  incorporeal  essence  of  the  soul,  and 
its  natural  immortality.  —  Choice  between  creationism  and  traducian- 
ism 343-346 

Erigena's  exceptional  interpretation  of  the  story  of  the  fall.  —  Re 
sults  of  the  fall  as  taught  by  the  Greek  Church.  —  General  cast  of  the 
development  on  this  subject  in  the  Latin  Church  .  .  .  346-348 

Specifications  of  the  scholastics  on  the  nature  of  original  sin  and 
the  way  in  which  it  is  transmitted 348-352 

Degree  of  recognition  accorded  by  the  scholastics  to  formal  and  real 
freedom  respectively 352,  353 

Instances  of  a  close  approximation  to  Augustine's  view  of  the 
effects  of  the  fall  upon  the  free  will.  —  Evidence  of  a  wide-spread 
tendency  to  diverge  from  Augustine  011  this  point  .  .  353-355 

Scholastic  definitions  of  moral  evil.  —  Statements  on  the  relation  of 
evil  to  the  perfection  of  the  universe 355,  356 

IV.    Different  views  of  the  relative  eminence  of  the  unfallen  Adam. 

—  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  original  righteousness,  and  of  the  divine 
image  and  likeness  in  man.  —  Contrasted  theory  of  Lutheran  and  Re 
formed  theologians.  —  Interpretation  of  the  divine  image  by  Socinian 
and  Arminian  writers.  —  Relative  prevalence  of  dichotomy.  —  Instances 
of  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  the  purely  incorporeal  nature  of  the 
soul.  —  Force  of  the  Socinian  denial  of  man's  natural  immortality.  — 
Choice  between  creationism  and  traducianism.  —  Theory  of  pre-exist- 
ence ii.  106-110 

Roman  Catholic  view  of  the  relation  of  divine  decrees  to  the  fall.  — 
Criticism  of  the  Dominican  theory  of  grace  predeterminant.  —  More 
common  definition  of  freedom  among  Romanists,  as  appears  from  the 
statements  of  Petavius,  Bellarmin,  and  Suarez.  —  Roman  Catholic 
theory  as  respects  the  elements  entering  into  original  sin.  —  Bellar- 
min's  views  on  the  proper  definition  of  original  sin,  its  imputation, 
and  the  mode  of  its  propagation.  —  Suggestion  of  Nicole  on  the  last 
point.  —  More  prevalent  theory  in  the  Romish  Church  on  the  moral 
ability  of  the  fallen  man,  as  indicated  by  the  Trent  decrees,  and  the 
statements  of  Bellarmin,  Bossuet,  and  Thomassin.  —  Theories  of 
Baius,  the  Jansenists,  the  Jesuits  who  followed  the  lead  of  Molina, 
and  the  papacy  as  represented  by  the  Bull  Unigenitus.  —  Summary  of 
the  developments  in  the  Romish  Church  as  respects  man's  natural 
ability ii-  110-117 

Tendency  in  the  earlier  stage  of  Lutheranism  to  more  ultra  views 
than  claimed  permanent  acceptance.  —  Statements  of  Luther  and  Me- 
lanchthon  logically  involving  an  irresistible  decree  of  God  for  the  fall. 

—  Melanchthon's  later  teaching,  and  the  proper  Lutheran  theory  on 
the  subject.  —  Idea  of  freedom  entertained  by  Luther,  and  by  later 
theologians   among  the  Lutherans.  —  Elements  included  in  original 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  419 

sjn.  —  Question  whether  imputation  is  immediate  or  mediate,  or  both. 

—  Employment  of  the  traducian  theory  to  explain  the  transmission 
of  original  sin.  —  Obnoxious  theory  ascribed  to  Matthias  Flacius.  — 
Degree  of  emphasis  placed  by  the  Lutheran  theology  on  the  moral 
inability  of  the  fallen  man ii.  117-121 

Teaching  of  Zwingli  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  decrees  and 
agency  to  the  fall.  —  Teaching  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Gomar,  and  others,  on 
the  same  subject.  —  Statements  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  and 
their  interpretation  by  William  Cunningham.  —  Conception  of  human 
freedom  involved  in  representative  statements  of  the  Reformed  the 
ology,  and  question  whether  that  theology  relieves  God  from  respon 
sibility,  for  the  introduction  of  sin.  —  Exceptional  teaching  of  Zwingli 
as  respects  original  sin.  —  Similar  view  of  Jeremy  Taylor.  —  Elements 
included  in  original  sin  by  Reformed  theologians  generally.  —  Ques 
tion  whether  the  earlier  Reformed  theory  was  in  favor  of  immediate 
imputation.  —  Later  decisions  on  this  point.  —  Grounds  urged  in  ex 
planation  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin.  —  Explanation  of  the  transmis 
sion  of  corruption.  —  Standard  teaching  of  the  Reformed  Church  on 
the  moral  inability  of  the  fallen  man.  —  Tendency  in  England  to  a 
modified  type  of  Reformed  theology ii.  121-129 

Arminian  teaching  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  decrees  to  the  fall. 

—  Idea  of  contingency  insisted  upon  by  Arminius  and  others  in  their 
account  of  the  fall.  —  Arminian  definition  of  freedom.  —  Theory  of 
original  sin  held  by  the  followers  of  Arminius.  —  Distinction  between 
the  position  of  Arminius  and  that  of  his  successors  on  the  moral  in 
ability  of  the  fallen  man.  —  Quaker  theory  of  original  sin. 

ii.  129-132 

Socinian  theories  respecting  the  contingency  of  the  fall,  the  nature 
of  freedom,  and  the  results  of  the  fall  upon  Adam  and  his  posterity. 

ii.  132 

Definitions  of  sin  in  Roman  Catholic  and  in  Protestant  circles. 

ii.  132,  133 

V.  Tone  of  more  recent  representations  respecting  the  primal  es 
tate  of  Adam.  —  Attitude  toward  the  Romish  theory  of  original  right 
eousness.  —  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptural  account  of  Paradise.  — 
Proportion  of  recent  theologians  who  advocate  dichotomy.  —  Exposi 
tion  of  trichotomy.  —  Instances  of  a  denial  of  the  incorporeal  nature 
of  the  soul.  —  Arguments  for  personal  immortality.  —  Choice  between 
creationism  and  traducianism.  —  Instances  of  a  combination  of  the  two 
theories.  —  Advocates  of  the  soul's  pre-existence  .  .  ii.  324-329 

General  verdict  of  non-Calvinists  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  will 
to  the  fall ii.  329 

Extent  of  preference  among  recent  Calvinists  for  the  infra-lapsarian 
theory.  —  Import  of  a  "  permissive  decree  "  in  Calvinistic  terminology. 


420  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

—  Representations  of  the  Hopkinsian  wing  of  the  Edwardean  school 
respecting  the  divine  agency  in  the  fall.  —  Criticism  of  the  Hopkin 
sian  view  by  the  New  Haven  school,   and  the  standpoint  which  it 
adopted.  —  Van  Oosterzee  on  the  same  subject    .     .     ii.  329-332 

General  position  of  non-Calvinists  on  the  necessary  conditions  of 
freedom  and  responsibility.  —  Specifications  of  Miiller  and  Whedon. 

—  Conception  of  freedom  taught  by  Reid,  Dugald  Stewart,  Sir  William 
Hamilton,  and  Kant ii.  332-336 

Definition  of  freedom  on  the  part  of  Calvinists.  —  Edwards's  theory 
as  proved  by  his  statements.  —  His  famous  reductio  ad  absurdum,  and 
comments  on  the  same.  —  Statements  savoring  of  necessitarianism  on 
the  part  of  the  younger  Edwards,  Hopkins,  Emmons,  Griffin,  and 
Woods.  —  Verdict  of  East  Windsor  and  Princeton  as  represented  by 
Lawrence  and  Atwater.  —  Approval  of  the  Edwardean  maxim  on  re 
sponsibility  by  the  above  writers.  —  Declarations  of  Hodge  concerning 
responsibility ii.  336-339 

Modification  of  the  Edwardean  theory  of  freedom  and  responsi- 
'bility  by  more  recent  New  England  theologians.  —  Views  of  Finney  of 
Oberlin ii.  339,  340 

Instance  of  departure,  within  the  bounds  of  Romanism,  from  the 
standard  doctrine  of  original  sin ii.  340 

Question  among  Lutherans,  Reformed,  and  Methodists  as  to  whether 
original  sin  includes  the  element  of  guilt.  —  Unitarian  view  of  original 
sin ii.  340-342 

Different  theories  offered  in  explanation  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin. 

—  Different  explanations  of  the  transmission  of  corruption.  —  Novel 
theory  of  Emmons ii.  342,  343 

Modification  of  the  old  Lutheran  view  of  the  moral  inability  of  the 
natural  man.  —  Position  of  Old  School  Calvinism  on  this  subject.  —  Dis 
tinctions  emphasized  by  the  New  England  school.  —  Force  of  the  decla 
ration,  in  Methodist  theology,  of  man's  natural  inability  .  ii.  344 

Recent  theories  respecting  the  nature  and  origin  of  sin.  — Different 
views  of  the  relation  of  sin  to  the  aggregate  good  of  the  universe. 

ii.  344-347 


XL 

THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST. 

I.  Portraiture  of  Christ  which  appears  in  general  in  early  Christian 
literature.  —  Occasion  for  emphasis  upon  Christ's  possession  of  a  real 
body.  —  Peculiarities  attributed  to  Christ's  body  by  Clement  of  Alex 
andria  and  Origen.  —  Question  whether  any  of  the  early  fathers  denied 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER.  421 

the  presence  of  a  rational  human  soul  in  Christ.  —  Common  view  as  to 
the  permanence  of  the  incarnation 111-115 

H.  Theory  of  Apollinaris.  —  Its  relation  to  the  Arian  Christology. 
—  Arguments  urged  in  its  behalf.  —  Criticisms  passed  upon  it  and  the 
time  of  its  formal  condemnation 244,  245 

Degree  of  prominence  given  to  the  human  aspect  of  Christ  by 
the  orthodox  contemporaries  of  Apollinaris.  —  Noteworthy  ideas  of 
Hilary 245,  246 

The  diverse  standpoints  of  the  Alexandrian  and  the  Antiochian 
schools  viewed  as  antecedents  of  the  Nestorian  controversy.  —  Imme 
diate  occasion  of  the  attack  upon  Nestorius.  —  Proximate  result  as 
seen  in  the  council  of  Ephesus  and  in  the  creed  which  supplemented 
its  action 246-248 

The  theory  of  Eutyches,  and  the  events  to  which  it  gave  occasion. 

248 

Statement  of  Christology  by  the  council  of  Chalcedon.  —  Comments 
on  the  creed  of  Chalcedon  by  different  parties  ....  248,  249 

Closing  stages  of  the  christological  controversies.  —  Schismatic  bod 
ies  which  continued  as  memorials  of  the  strife  ....  249,  250 

Sense  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  kenosis  was  admitted    .     251 

III.  Interpretation  of  the  creed  of  Chalcedon  in  the  Greek  Church 
as  represented  by  John  of  Damascus 357,  358 

The  Western  type  of  Christology  as  preparing  the  soil  for  Adop- 
tionism.  —  Chief  exponents  of  Adoptionism,  and  the  circumstances  of 
its  overthrow.  —  Its  peculiarity.  —  Arguments  for  and  against.  —  Bias 
characteristic  of  Western  Christology  after  the  controversy  with  Adop 
tionism  358-360 

Nihilian  theory,  and  the  connection  of  Peter  Lombard  therewith. 

360 
Extent  to  which  a  communicatio  idiomatum  was  acknowledged. 

360,  361 

IV.  Primal  occasion  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  communicatio 
idiomatum.  —  Melanchthon's  attitude  toward  this  doctrine.  —  Dispute 
which  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  designed  to  settle.  —  Points  which 
the  Tubingen  and  Giessen  theologians  held  in  common,  and  points 
upon  which  they  differed ii.  134-136 

Attitude  of  the  Reformed  Church  toward  the  special  features  of  the 
Lutheran  Christology. — Views  of  Roman  Catholic  theologians.  — List 
of  peculiar  views  held  by  different  parties  .  .  .  .  ii.  136,  137 

V.  Recent  christological  ideas  outside  the  current  of  Catholic  be 
lief.  —  Relative  interest  of  the  present  age  in  the  theme  of  Christ's 
person ii.  348,  349 


422  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

The  doctrine  of  the  kenosis  as  developed  by  Thomasius,  Gess, 
Ebrard,  and  others.  —  Dorner's  substitute  for  the  kenotic  theories.  — 
Theory  of  H.  M.  Goodwin.  —  Bearing  of  the  kenotic  theory  upon  the 
old  Lutheran  Christology ii-  349-353 

Theories  of  a  pre-existent  humanity  of  Christ .     .     .     .     ii.  353 


XII. 

THE   REDEMPTIVE   WORK   OF   CHRIST. 

I.  General  character  of  the  exposition  of  Christ's  work  in  the  early 
Church.  —  Propositions  embodying  the  various  points  of  belief  com 
monly  advocated  by  the  early  fathers 115-121 

Question  whether  Irenseus  entertained  the  theory  that  the  redemp 
tive  price  was  paid  to  Satan.  — Origen's  concessions  to  this  theory.  — 
Evidence  that  Origen  gave  equal  emphasis  to  other  aspects  of  the  re 
demptive  work  121-124 

References  to  Christ's  descent  into  Hades,  and  to  the  work  which 
He  was  supposed  to  have  accomplished  there.  —  Time  when  the  doc 
trine  of  the  descent  first  obtained  a  place  in  the  symbols  of  the  Church. 

124,  125 

II.  Most  conspicuous  example  in  the  Greek  Church  of  the  acknowl 
edgment  of  Satan's  claims,  and  of  the  payment  of  the  redemptive  price 
to  him.  —  Extent  of  acceptance  gained  by  this  theory  in  the  Greek 
Church.  —  The  one  element  of  the  theory  that  claimed  recognition  in 
the  Latin  Church.  —  Statements  of   Augustine,  Leo  the  Great,  and 
Gregory  the  Great.  —  The  way  in  which,  as  they  taught,  the  claim  of 
Satan  was  cancelled 251-254 

Various  aspects  of  Christ's  redemptive  work  as  recognized  by  Greek 
and  by  Latin  writers.  —  Factors  in  the  moral  influence  of  Christ  upon 
which  Augustine  dwelt  in  particular 254-257 

Doctrine  of  Christ's  descent  into  Hades.  —  Question  whether  any 
other  way  of  saving  men  than  the  one  adopted  was  possible. 

257,  258 

III.  The  endeavor  of  Anselm  in  his  Cur  Deus  Homo.  —  His  treat 
ment  of  Satan's  right.  —  The  conception  of  obligation  to  God,  from 
\vhich  his  theory  of  the  atonement  proceeds.  —  Position  taken  as  to 
the  need  of  the  atonement,  the  ground  of  its  adequacy,  and  the  man 
ner  in  which  it  was  accomplished 361-364 

Abelard's  theory.  —  Points   emphasized  by  other  scholastics,  and 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  423 

respects  in  which  they  diverged  from  Anselm.  —  The  maximum  of 

this  divergence  as  seen  in  Duns  Scotus 364-369 

Conclusions  rendered  on  the  question  whether  Christ  would  have 
become  incarnate  if  man  had  not  sinned 369,  370 

IV.  Choice  between  different  medisBval  theories  in  the   Roman 
Catholic  Church ii.  138 

Respect  in  which  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theories  were  in  affinity 
with  that  of  Anselm.  —  Points  in  which  they  differed  from  the  An- 
selmic  theory.  —  Deviating  views  of  Piscator,  Tillotson,  and  Baxter. 

ii.  138-142 

Conception  of  law  advocated  by  Hugo  Grotius,  and  his  application 
of  it  to  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  —  Respect  in  which  leading 
Arminians  agreed  with  Grotius,  and  the  point  in  which  they  modified 
his  theory ii.  142-145 

Socinian  conception  of  divine  justice.  —  Aspects  of  Christ's  work 
recognized  by  the  Socinians.  —  Sense  in  which  they  admitted  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice.  —  Their  objections  to  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  satisfaction.  —  Comments  on  the  objections. 

ii.  145-151 

Specifications  on  Christ's  descent  into  Hades  by  Roman  Catholic, 
Lutheran,  and  Reformed  theologians ii.  152 

V.  Different  theories  of  the  atonement  in  recent  times,  and  tho 
patrons  of  each.  —  Decisions  on  the  question  whether  the  active  obe 
dience  of  Christ  was  a  factor  in  his  atoning  work    .     .     ii.  353-361 

Direction  of  attention  recently  to  Christ's  descent  into  Hades,  in 
connection  with  questions  of  eschatology.  —  Interpretation  of  Scrip 
ture  bearing  on  the  subject ii.  361,  362 

Verdict  of  different  theologians  on  the  question  whether  the  incar 
nation  was  dependent  on  the  fact  of  sin ii.  362 


XIII. 

APPROPRIATION  OF  THE  BENEFITS  OF  CHRIST'S 

WORK. 

I.    View  in  the  early  Church  respecting  the  spiritual  opportunities 
of  all  men.  —  Sense  in  which  the  divine  predestination  was  under 
stood.  —  Specifications  of  Origen  on  this  subject       .     .     125-127 
Element  of  time  in  the  work  of  moral  renovation    .     .     .     .127 
Instances  of  emphasis  upon  faith  as  the  pre-eminent  means  in  ap 
propriating  salvation.  —  Sense  in  which  the  term  "  justification  "  was 
used.  —  Views  of  the  nature  of  faith,  and  of  its  relation  to  knowledge. 


424  INDEX  OF    SUBJECT  MATTER. 

—  Some  initial  tendencies  toward  a  legal  regime  as  opposed  to  the  sole 
office  of  faith  in  the  appropriation  of  grace 127-132 

II.  Common  view  of  the  Church,  apart  from  Augustine  and  those 
influenced  by  his  teaching,  on  the  subject  of  free  agency  and  electing 
grace.  —  Augustine's  doctrine  as  respects  God's  sovereign  choice,  the 
reason  for  His  choice  of  one  and  rejection  of  another,  the  gift  which 
must  be  added  to  regeneration   to  insure  a  place  among  the  elect, 
the  relative  number  of  the  elect,  the  relation  of  the  divine  will  to  the 
non-elect,  and  the  Scriptural  proof  of  his  view  of  election.  —  Augus 
tine's  view  as  to  the  essential  relations  of  foreknowledge  and  predesti 
nation     258-262 

Meaning  attributed  to  the  terms  "regeneration"  and  "justifi 
cation  " 262,  263 

Statements  of  Augustine  on  the  nature  of  faith  and  on  its  relation 
to  knowledge 263,  264 

Tendencies  to  displace  faith  in  Christ  from  a  complete  pre-eminence 
in  the  appropriation  of  salvation 264-267 

III.  Views  of  the  Greek   Church  as  represented  by  John  of  Da 
mascus       370 

The  controversy  over  the  twofold  predestination  taught  by  Gott- 
schalk  and  the  index  which  it  supplies  of  the  feeling  of  the  Latin  Church 
toward  the  strict  Augustinian  theory  of  predestination.  —  Statements 
bearing  on  the  subject  from  theologians  between  Gottschalk  and  Alex 
ander  Hales.  —  Thomas  Aquinas  on  predestination.  —  Indications  of  a 
drift  adverse  to  strict  predestinarianism.  —  Views  of  Bradwardine  and 
Wycliffe 370-375 

Scholastic  definitions  of  regeneration  and  justification.  —  Scholastic 
doctrine  of  assurance  as  stated  by  Thomas  Aquinas.  —  Specifications 
on  the  nature  of  faith 376,  377 

Scholastic  doctrine  of  merit  and  of  the  virtue  of  indulgences. 

377-380 

Theory  of  saint-worship.  --  Dogmatic  opinions  respecting  the 
Virgin  which  were  generally  received.  —  Position  of  leading  theolo 
gians  on  the  subject  of  the  Virgin's  immaculate  conception.  —  Honors 
rendered  to  Mary.  —  Wycliffe  on  saint- worship  ....  380-383 

IV.  Interests  moving  the  early  Protestants  to  revert  to  the  Augus 
tinian  standpoint ii-  153 

Different  opinions  on  the  subject  of  predestination  which  claimed 
adherents  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  —  Bearing  of  papal  bulls 
and  the  Trent  decrees  on  the  subject.  —  Different  theories  suggested 
as  to  the  way  in  which  the  predestinating  decrees  are  fulfilled. 

ii.  153-158 


INDEX  OF    SUBJECT  MATTER.  425 

Manner  in  -which  Luther  in  his  later  years  qualified  his  predesti- 
narian  theory.  —  Position  taken  in  Lutheran  creeds  and  by  Lutheran 
writers  generally.  —  Propositions  of  Quenstedt  giving  a  summary  of 
Lutheran  teaching  on  predestination.  —  Lack  of  congruity  between  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  and  the  declarations  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  —  Definitions  of  conversion  and  regeneration  as  given  by 
Hollaz ii.  159-162. 

Relative  prominence  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  the  Re 
formed  Church.  —  Main  differences  on  this  subject  between  Zwingli 
and  Calvin.  —  Respects  in  which  Calvin's  theory  of  predestination  went 
beyond  Augustine's.  —  Propositions  advocated  by  Calvin.  —  Statements 
of  Beza  and  other  Calvinists.  —  Creeds  which  are  most  explicit  in  their 
statement  of  the  predestinarian  dogma.  —  Inference  drawn  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  atonement.  —  Theory  of  Amyraut  and  some  others  on 
the  extent  of  the  atonement,  and  estimate  of  the  practical  worth  of 
the  theory.  —  Two  different  theories  as  to  the  order  of  the  predesti 
nating  decrees.  —  Calvinistic  theory  of  conversion  .  .  ii.  102-168 

Points  emphasized  by  the  Arminians  in  opposition  to  the  dogma 
of  unconditional  predestination.  —  Strictures  which  they  passed  upon 
that  dogma.  —  Spread  of  the  Arminian  views  in  the  Church  of  Eng 
land.  —  Position  of  the  Quakers  on  the  universality  of  grace. 

ii.  168-170 

Data  which  must  be  taken  into  the  account  in  judging  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  justification.  —  Principal  points  in  the  decisions  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  upon  this  subject.  —  Comments  upon  the  decis 
ions.  —  Bellarmin's  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justification.  —  Rela 
tive  place  which  he  assigns  to  the  sacraments  in  the  justifying  process. 
—  His  teaching  as  to  the  nature  of  justifying  faith.  —  Office  which  he 
assigns  to  good  works ii.  170-174 

Significance  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone. — 
His  understanding  of  justification.  —  Meaning  which  he  attached  to 
the  faith  that  justifies.  —  Evidence  that  Luther  knew  how  to  value 
good  works  when  they  are  relegated  to  their  proper  sphere. 

ii.  174-176 

Points  embraced  in  the  theory  of  justification  that  gained  the  as 
cendency  among  the  Protestants.  —  Special  views  of  Osiander,  some  of 
the  Arminians,  Bishop  Bull,  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  the  Quakers. 

ii.  176-178 

Teaching  respecting  assurance,  on  the  part  of  Roman  Catholics, 
the  Reformers,  and  the  later  Protestant  writers  of  the  period. 

ii.  178-180 

Dominant  theory  of  Protestantism  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries  on  the  possibility  of  complete  freedom  from  sin  in  this  life.  — 
Exception  to  this  theory  as  taken  by  Arminians  and  Quakers.  —  Con 
clusion  involved  in  Roman  Catholic  tenets  .  .  .  .  ii.  180,  181 


426  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

V.  Amount  of  acceptance  commanded  in  the  Romish  Church  by 
Augustine's  doctrine  of  predestination.  —  Statements  of  Mohler  bear 
ing  on  the  subject ii.  362-364 

Attitude  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  German  Reformed  Church  in 
recent  times  toward  the  strict  doctrine  of  predestination.  —  Teaching  of 
Schleiermacher  and  of  Rothe  on  the  subject.  —  Rothe,  Nitzsch,  and 
Martensen  on  the  doctrine  of  perseverance.  —  Prominence  of  the  Me- 
lanchthonian  synergism  in  recent  Lutheran  dogmatics  ii.  361-366 

Instances  of  a  stanch  advocacy  of  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism 
among  Scotch  and  American  Presbyterians  .  .  .  .  ii.  366,  367 

The  New  England  school  upon  predestination,  extent  of  atonement, 
regeneration,  and  the  agency  of  truth  in  regeneration  .  ii.  367-369 

Methodism  on  predestination,  extent  of  the  atonement,  and  uni 
versal  grace.  —  Guarded  character  of  the  synergism  which  it  inculcates. 

—  Sense  which  it  commonly  imputes  to  regeneration.  —  Position  on 
the  agency  of  truth  in  regeneration ii.  369,  370 

The  ordo  scdutis  as  recognized  in  different  communions.      ii.  370 

More  common  verdict  of  Calvinistic  writers  on  the  question  -whether 
justification  includes  a  plurality  of  elements.  —  Position  of  Emmons 
on  this  subject. — Position  of  Wesley  and  Methodist  theologians. — 
Wesley's  interpretation  of  the  "imputation  of  righteousness  "  and  of 
the  "  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness  "  .  .  .  ii.  370-372 

Exceptions  to  the  common  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  on 
the  part  of  English  Ritualists,  Schleiermacher  and  some  other  Ger 
man  writers,  F.  D.  Maurice,  Horace  Bushnell,  and  Elisha  Mulford.  — 
Comment  of  F.  H.  Hedge  on  the  theory  of  justification  urged  by  super 
ficial  rationalism ii.  372-371 

Common  position  in  the  present  on  the  question  whether  assurance 
is  of  the  essence  of  justifying  faith.  — Wesleyan  doctrine  of  assurance. 

—  Extent  to  which  exception  has  been  taken  thereto.       ii.  371-376 
Different  ways   among  Methodists  of  presenting  the  doctrine  of 

Christian  perfection.  —  The  Wesleyan  definition  of  Christian  perfec 
tion.  —  Respect  in  which  the  Oberlin  doctrine  differs  from  the  Wes 
leyan  ii.  376,  377 


XIV. 
THE   CHURCH. 

I.  Rise  of  the  idea  and  name  of  the  "  Catholic  Church."  -  Extent 
to  which  the  early  fathers  emphasized  union  with  the  Church  as  a 
condition  of  salvation.  —  Degree  to  which  the  distinction  between  the 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  427 

visible  and  invisible  Church  was  apprehended.  —  Place  assigned  to 
the  bishops  in  general  and  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  particular. 

133-136 

II.  Tendencies  to  ecclesiasticism.  —  Definitions  of  the  Church  by 
Augustine  and  the  Donatists.  —  Augustine  and  others  on  the  question 
of  the  possibility  of  salvation  outside  the  visible  Church.  —  Rank  and 
dogmatic  authority  of  the  Roman  bishop  as  evinced  in  particular  by 
the  record  of  the  ecumenical  councils 268-270 

III.  Era  of  the  culmination  of  the  papal  theocracy.  —  Dominant 
ideas  respecting  the  Church  at  this  time  in  Latin  Christendom.  — 
Definition  by  the  Popes  of  their  prerogatives.  —  Statements  of  some 
of  the  earlier  theologians  of  the  period  bearing  on  the  papal  dignity. 

—  Statements  of  those  who  belonged  to  the  crowning  era  of  scholasti 
cism.  —  Claims  made  at  the  council  of  Constance  respecting  the  rela 
tive  authority  of  an  ecumenical  council.  —  Wycliffe  on  the  hierarchy. 

—  Relation  of  the  ecclesiastical  theory  of  the  leading  scholastics  to 
spiritual  despotism.  —  Decree  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council. 

384-388 

IV.  Bellarmin's  definition  of  the  Church.  —  His  specifications  on 
the  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  infliction  of  corporal  punishments. 

—  His  position  on  granting  liberty  of  belief.  —  Immunities  and  pre 
rogatives  which  he  assigns  to  the  Pope.  —  Most  noteworthy  instance 
of  the  assertion  of  the  Gallican  theory ii.  182-185 

Standard  definitions  of  the  Church  among  Protestants.  —  Distinc 
tion  drawn  between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  Church.  — Disparity 
between  the  logical  outcome  of  Protestant  principles  in  respect  of 
tolerance,  and  the  theory  and  practice  of  some  Protestants.  — Progress 
of  tolerance  in  the  seventeenth  century.  —  Conception  of  Christian 
priesthood  and  of  church  government  commonly  entertained  by  Prot 
estants.  —  Tone  of  the  Protestant  polemic  against  Romanism. 

ii.  185-191 

V.  General  current  of  Protestant  thought,  in  recent  times,  as  re 
spects  the  nature  of  the  Church.  —  Contrasted  theories  of  the  High 
Church  and  the  Broad  Church  party.  — Views  of  the  proper  relation 
of  Church  and  State ii.  378,  379 

Decrees  of  the  Vatican  council  of  1869  and  1870  on  the  adminis 
trative  authority  and  the  doctrinal  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  —  Scope 
of  papal  infallibility.  —  Prominent  argument  urged  in  its  defence. 

ii.  379-381 

Noteworthy  statement  of  Perrone  respecting  the  possible  salvation 
of  some  not  formally  inducted  into  the  [Roman]  Catholic  Church. 

ii.  381,  382 


428  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT   MATTER. 

XV. 
THE   SACRAMENTS. 

VARIOUS  ITEMS  RESPECTING  THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  GENERAL. 

I.  Sense  in  which  the  term  "  sacrament "  was  employed  in  the 
first  centuries 136 

II.  Augustine's  definition  of  a  sacrament.  —  Range  still  given  to 
the   term.  —  List  of  sacraments   presented  by  the  pseudo   Areopa- 
gite 270,  271 

III.  Scholastic  definitions  of  a  sacrament.  —  Different  views  as  to 
the  relation  of  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  to  the  visible  sign.  —  State 
ments  as  to  the  human  conditions  of  the  gracious  working  of  a  sacra 
ment.  —  Progress  toward  fixing  the  number  of  the  sacraments. 

388-391 

IV.  Specifications  of  the  council  of  Trent  on  the  number  of  the 
sacraments,  their  necessity,  the  mode  of  their  working,  and  the  de 
pendence  of  their  efficacy  upon  the  intention  of  the  administrator.  — 
Bellarmin's  exposition  of  the  technical  phrase  describing  the  working 
of  a  sacrament.  —  Bellarmin  and  others  respecting  the  intention  of  the 
priest ii.  191-194 

The  earlier  and  the  later  position  of  Protestantism  as  to  the  num 
ber  of  the  sacraments.  —  Different  degrees  of  stress  upon  the  necessity 
of  the  sacraments.  —  More  common  definition  of  a  sacrament.  —  Dif 
ferent  points  emphasized  by  Zwingli  and  Calvin  respectively.  —  The 
Lutheran  conception  of  the  sacraments,  and  comparison  of  the  same 
with  the  Roman  Catholic  theory.  —  Common  attitude  of  Protestants 
toward  the  doctrine  of  intention ii.  194-196 

V.  View  of  the  sacraments  favored  by  rationalists  in  the  Lutheran 
Church. — View  finding  advocates  among  English  Ritualists.  —  Mys 
tical  view  advocated  by  representatives  of  the   German  Reformed 
Church ii.  382 

Recent  interpretations  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  intention. 

ii.  382,  383 

BAPTISM. 

I.  Importance  attached  to  baptism  in  the  early  Church.  —  Sense  in 
which  it  was  made  the  rite  of  regeneration.  —  Practice  and  teaching 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  429 

respecting  infant  baptism.  —  Discussion  and  settlement  of  the  ques 
tion  of  rebaptizing.  —  Position  of  the  Church  as  to  the  mode. 

136-139 

II.  Conditions  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  as  specified  by  Augustine 
and  others.  —  Spiritual  results  associated  with  baptism.  —  Position  of 
leading  writers  on  the  question  whether  the  unbaptized  can  be  saved. 

—  Future  state  of  unbaptized  infants 271-274 

III.  Position  of  the  scholastics   on   the   conditions   of   valid   and 
efficacious   baptism.  —  References  to  the  mode.  —  Effects   commonly 
attributed  to  the  rite.  —  Exceptions  allowed  to  the  necessity  of  bap 
tism  391-393 

IV.  Specifications  of  Romish  standards  on  the  effects  of  baptism. 

—  Teaching  of  Bellarmin,  Nicole,  Bossuet,  and  the  Trent  Catechism 
respecting  the  fate  of  unbaptized  infants     .     .     .     .     ii.  196,  197 

The  Lutheran  theory  of  baptism  as  compared  with  the  Roman 
Catholic.  —  Position  on  the  baptism  of  infants  .  .  ii.  197,  198 

The  Reformed  view  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  as  compared  with 
the  Lutheran.  —  Statements  of  Reformed  standards  on  the  effects  of 
baptism.  —  Respects  in  which  the  Reformed  theory  of  infant  baptism 
differed  from  the  Lutheran.  —  Eccentric  view  of  Henry  Dodwell.  — 
Continued  force  of  baptism  as  affirmed  by  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
theologians ii.  198-202 

Socinian  view  of  baptism.  —  The  Quaker  theory.  —  Statement  of 
the  Baptist  Confession  of  1688.  —  Position  of  the  Mennonites  on  im 
mersion  ii.  202 

V.  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic  views  respecting  the  necessity 
of  baptism  and  the  fate  of  unbaptized  infants.  —  Developments  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  on  the  subject  of  baptismal  regeneration.  —  Differ 
ent  interpretations  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the  regeneration  of 
infants  in  baptism.  —  Wesley,  Watson,  later  Methodists,  and  others, 
on  the  efficacy  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  —  The  function  of  baptism 
as  commonly  explained  by  Baptists ii.  383-386 

THE  EUCHARIST. 

I.  Canon  for  interpreting  references  to  the  eucharist.  —  Evidence 
that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  had  no  advocates  in  the  early 
Church.  —  Sense  in  which  the   eucharist   was  regarded  as  a  sacri 
fice     139-144 

II.  Causes   tending  to  magnify  the  import  of  the  eucharist.  — 
Proof  that  transubstantiation  was  not  an  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the 


430  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

Church.  —  Consideration  of  the  question  whether  it  was  held  by  indi 
vidual  writers.  —  Gieseler's  statement  of  the  positive  theory  which 
was  current.  —  Emphasis  upon  the  sacrificial  aspect  .  .  274-281 

III.  John  of  Damascus  and  the  Greek  Church  on  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation.  —  First   specific   elaboration  and  defence  of   this 
doctrine  in  the  Latin  Church.  —  Way  in  which  it  was  received  at 
first.  —  Date  of  its  authoritative  sanction.  —  Subsequent  examples  of 
dissent.  —  Specifications  ill  agreeing  with  the  asserted  reality  of  the 
body  and  blood.  —  Stress  upon  the  sacrificial  aspect.  —  Practical  con 
sequences  of  the  scholastic  doctrine  of  the  real  presence.      393-399 

IV.  Prominence  of  the  eucharistic  question  in  the  Reformation 
era.  —  Points  in  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  asserted  by  the 
council   of    Trent.  —  Bellarmiri's    attempt   to   construe   the   doctrine 
speculatively ii.  203-205 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  and  the  points  in  which  it 
differed  from  the  Roman  Catholic.  —  Conception  of  the  ascension  of 
Christ  connected  with  the  Lutheran  theory.  —  Specifications  on  the 
mode  of  the  real  presence ii.  205,  206 

Zwingli's  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution  and  general 
view  of  the  sacrament.  —  Calvin's  theory,  and  the  extent  of  its  cur 
rency.  —  The  theory  intermediate  between  the  Zvvinglian  and  the 
Calvinian,  and  its  relation  to  the  drift  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

ii.  206-209 

V.  Recent  developments  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  —  Views  of  Rit 
ualists  in  the  English  Church.  —  Theory  of   Ebrard  and  Xevin. — 
Theories  most  patronized  in  other  quarters  of  Protestantism. 

ii.  386,  387 

OTHER  SACRAMENTS. 

I.-IH.  The  formula  for  the  sacrament  of  confirmation.  —  Rule 
of  the  Greek  and  the  Latin  Church  respectively  as  to  the  qualified 
agent 393 

General  position  of  the  Church  in  the  earlier  periods  as  respects 
confession  and  absolution.  —  Development  of  the  scholastic  doctrine 
of  the  sacrament  of  penance.  —  The  function  assigned  to  indul 
gences  399-402 

Scholastic  exposition  of  extreme  unction,  holy  orders,  and  mar 
riage  402-403 

Estimate  of  the  scholastic  doctrine  of  the  sacraments     .     .     404 

IV.  Decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent  respecting  the  sacrament 
of  penance.  —  Luther  and  the  Lutherans  on  confession  and  abso- 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  431 

lution.  —  Position  of    Reformed   Confessions   and  writers  on   these 

subjects ii.  209-211 

Trent  decisions  respecting  marriage,  and  the  opposing  decisions  by 
Protestants ii.  211,  212 

V.    Statement  of  Perrone  respecting  the  efficacy  of  indulgences  for 
the  dead  .  ii.  388 


XVI. 
ESCHATOLOGY. 

CHILIASM. 

I.  Indications  that  the  theory  of  a  personal  reign  of  Christ  upon 
earth,  prior  to  the  general  judgment,  was  very  prevalent  in  the  early 
Church.  —  Causes  initiating  a  decline  of  chiliasm  .     .     .     145-147 

II.  Instances  of  the  advocacy  of  chiliasm.  —  General  position  of 
the  Church.  —  Augustine's  interpretation  of  the  thousand  years  men 
tioned  in  the  Apocalypse 282 

III.  Extent  to  which   chiliasm  found   recognition   in   mediaeval 
thought 405 

IV.  Attitude   of  the   larger  Protestant   communions   toward   the 
chiliastic  or  millenarian  theory.  —  Views  of  various  persons  and  parties 
in  England  and  on  the  Continent ii.  213 

V.  Recent  advocates  of  the  millennial  or  pre-millennial  theory.  — 
Points  included  in  the  theory  as  presented  by  Seiss.  —  Lack  of  agree 
ment  among  millenarians  as  respects  details  .     .     .     .     ii.  389-391 


CONDITION  BETWEEN  DEATH  AND  THE  RESURRECTION. 

I.  Evidence   that  the   early  fathers  believed  in  an  intermediate 
state.  —  Their  conception  of  this  state.  —  Opinions  as  to  the  possi 
bility  of  escaping  from  Hades  before  the  resurrection.  —  Phrases  or 
ideas  having  affinity  with  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory     .     .     147-150 

II.  General  representation  of  the  intermediate  state  at  the  opening 
of  the  period.  —  Development  of  the  theory  of  Purgatory,  and  its  re 
action  upon  the  conception  of  the  intermediate  state    .     .     282-285 


432  INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER. 

III.  Scholastic  specifications  as  regards  the  immediate  fortunes  of 
different  classes  in  the  other  world,  the  geography  of  Purgatory,  the 
nature  of  its  fire,  the  degree  of  pain  which  it  inflicts,  and  the  length 
of  the  purgatorial  process.  —  Authoritative  promulgation  of  the  doc 
trine  of  Purgatory 405,  406 

IV.  Attitude  of  the  early  Protestants  toward  the  doctrine  of  Pur 
gatory.  —  Extent  to  which  they  recognized  an  intermediate  state.  — 
Instances  of  the  advocacy  of  the  sleep  of  the  dead  .     .     ii.  213,  214 

Difference  between  the  Greek  and  the  Latin  Church  as  respects  the 
doctrine  of  Purgatory.  —  Scriptures  which  Bellarmiu  adduces  as  a 
warrant  for  the  doctrine ii.  214,  215 

V.  Tendencies  within  Protestant  circles  to  a  more  emphatic  recog 
nition  of  an  intermediate  state.  —  Recent  advocates  of  the  sleep  of  the 
dead ii.  391,  392 

THE  RESURRECTION. 

I.  More  common  theory  of  the  Resurrection  in  the  early  Church.  — 
Views  of  Origen.  —  Arguments  used  to  establish  the  credibility  of  the 
resurrection 150-152 

II.  Indications  that  the  literal  view  was  predominant.  —  Distin 
guishing  features  of  the  glorified  body  as  enumerated  by  Augustine. 

285,  286 

III.  Common  theory  of  the  scholastics  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
future  with  the  present  body.  —  Views  of  Erigena  and  Durandus. 

—  Suggestions  of  Aquinas  as  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  resurrected 
body 407 

IV.  Absence  of  new  developments  in  the  Reformation  era.  —  Cud- 
worth  and  More  on  the  body  of  the  intermediate  state   .     .     ii.  215 

V.  Account  by  Kahnis    of    the   developments   in  the   Lutheran 
Church  in  the  last  two  centuries.  —  Different  theories  now  having 
place  in  the  theological  world ii.  392-395 

FINAL  AWARDS. 

I.    Position  of  the  early  Church  on  the  subject  of  future  probation. 

—  Evidence  of  a  common  belief  that  the  general  judgment  is  to  seal 
the  permanent  fortunes  of  souls.  —  Sense  in  which  Origen  taught  res- 
torationism,  and  the  motives  at  the  basis  of  his  teaching.  —  Repre 
sentations  on  the  nature  of  future  awards      .     .  152-155 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECT  MATTER.  433 

II.  Instances  of  the  advocacy  of  restorationism.  —  Indications  that 
the  Church  in  general  discountenanced  restorationism.  —  Nature  of 
future  punishment.  —  The  Augustinian  view  of  future  rewards. 

286-290 

III.  Sense  in  which  Erigena  taught  restorationism.  —  Specifica 
tions  of  the  scholastics  respecting  the  nature  and  the  gradations  of 
future  punishment.  —  Conception  of  future  reward  most  dwelt  upon 
by  the  mystics.  —  Question  whether  Erigena  and  Eckhart  taught  the 
doctrine  of  absorption  into  Deity 407-411 

IV.  Fewness  of  the  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish 
ment. —  Advocates  of  annihilation. — Views  of  Roman  Catholic  and 
Protestant  theologians  on  the  nature  of  future  punishment.  —  William 
Sherlock's  justification  of  endless  punishment    .     .     .     ii.  215-217 

V.  Common  attitude  in  the  eighteenth  century  toward  the  notion 
of  future  probation.  —  Writers  of  the  present  century,  belonging  to 
evangelical  communions,  who  have  shown  a  leaning  to  restorationism. 

—  Noteworthy  advocates  of   the  annihilation  of  the  incorrigible.  — 
Statements  of  Van  Oosterzee  as  representative  of  a  large  body  of  the 
ologians.  —  Views  of  the  nature  of  future  punishment,     ii.  395,  396 

Phases  of  restorationism  which  have  been  taught  among  Univer- 
salists.  —  Extent  to  which  restorationism  is  advocated  by  Unitarians. 

—  Position  of  F.  H.  Hedge ii.  397,  398 

Recent  declarations  of  Roman  Catholic  writers  on  the  condition  of 

uiibaptized  infants ii.  398 

Swedenborgian  and  other  representations  of  the  heavenly  life. 

ii.  398,  399 

VOL.  ii.  —  28. 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS. 


ABELARD,  301,  305,  309,  312,  317,  335, 

337?.,   344/.,    348,    355,    364/.,   367, 

373,  385/.,  397,  401,  403. 
Abubacer,  307. 
Ackermann,  19/.,  167,  303/. 
Adam,  Jean,  ii.  75. 
Adrian  IV.,  Pope,  ii.  154. 
Aiitius,  177,  189. 
Agricola,  ii.  55. 
Agrippa  of  Netteslicim,  ii.  13. 
Alanus,  312. 
Albertus  Magnus,  301,  313,  318,  330,  333, 

346,  351,  399. 
Alcott,  A.  B.,  ii.  268. 
Alcuin,  311,  320,  358/.,  394. 
Alexander,  Natalia,  ii.  50. 
Alfarabi,  307. 
Alford,  Dean,  ii.  287. 
Algazcl,  307. 
Al'kendi,  307. 
Allen,  J.  II.,  ii.  268. 
Alsted,  J.  A.,  ii.  45. 
Alting,  James,  ii.  45. 
Alting,  J.  H.,  ii.  45. 
Alzog,  Johannes,  ii.  75. 
Amalarius  of  Metz,  396. 
Amalrich  of  Bena,  297. 
Ambrose,    164,    171,    176,    178,    ISO/., 

202  J.,  210,  220/'.,  222,  223,  228 /.. 

255,  266,  272/.,  279,  283,  287. 
Ammon,  (J.  F.  von,  ii.  259,  271. 
Atnmonius  Saccas,  166. 
Amort,  Eusebius,  ii.  281,  362. 
Amyraut,  ii.  45,  53,  58,  166,  368. 
Anaxagoras.  12. 
Andreii,  Jacob,  ii.  44,  51. 
Andreii,  J.  V.,  ii.  44. 
Andrewcs,  ii.  47. 
Anselm,  305,  309,  312,  314,  316,  328  /'., 

333//'.,    338 /.,    341,    347 /.,    361  J., 

372/.,  ii.  84,  138. 
Apollinaris,  Claudius,  32. 
Apollinaris  of  Laodicea,  177,  224,  244 /., 

ii.  352. 
Aquinas,  297,  301,  305,  307,   313,   318, 

323 /.,    326,    329  J.,    339 /.,    347  J., 


351  if.,  360  A  365,  367  J.,  373  A 
376/.,  384,  386  //'.,  389/.,  397 /.,  405, 
407 /.,  ii.  84,  li3,  138. 

Aretius,  ii.  45. 

Aristo,  32. 

Aristotle,  11,  13,  164/.,  194,  294,  302 /., 
ii.  14. 

Arius,  177,  194J. 

Arminius,  ii.  34,  46,  89,  94,  97,  129 /., 
180,  263. 

Armsdorf,  ii.  44,  55. 

Arnauld,  ii.  50,  59. 

Arndt,  ii.  44. 

Arnobius,  18,  33,  36,  55,  57,  99, 103, 106, 
153. 

Arnold,  J.  G.,  ii.  44. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  ii.  275,  297. 

Arnold,  Thomas,  ii.  275,  287,  379. 

Arrowsmith,  ii.  48. 

Artemon,  30,  105. 

Athanasius,  41,  175,  177,  180,  183,  187, 
189,  202 /.,  209  f.,  223J.,  227,  241, 
255,  257  jr.,  274  A  288. 

Athenagoras,  19,  32,  43,  60,  73/.,  77,  86, 
93,  96/.,  100,  145,  150. 

Atwater,  L.  H.,  ii.  285,  339,  343,  354. 

Atwcll,  W.  E.,  ii.  290. 

Auberlen,  ii.  272,  389. 

Augustine,  39,  163 /.,  169,  171,  176, 
178  f.,  183,  187  A  191  f.,  210,  212 /f., 
216/.,  219/1.,  221,  223/7'.,  229,  234'^., 
242 /.,  251,  253  f.,  258  //'.,  268' /'., 
271 /.,  276,  280,  282  /f.,  295,  323,  334, 
338,  345,  347,  376,  405,  ii.  89,  96/., 
104,  156,  213. 

Avempace,  307. 

Averroes,  307. 

Avicebron,  307. 

Avicenna,  307,  310. 


BACON,  Francis,  ii.  14^". 

Bacon,  Roger,  313,  318,  324. 

Bahrdt,  ii.'"270. 

Baier,  ii.  44. 

Baillie,  Kobert,  ii.  48. 


436 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Bains,  ii.  59,  115,  157. 

Ballon,  Hosea,  ii.  268,  397. 

Bancroft,  Bishop,  ii.  190. 

Barclay,  ii.  37,  49,  75,  131,  137, 170,  178, 

181. 

Barnabas,  32,  34,  38,  42,  72,  76. 
Barnes,  Robert,  ii.  125. 
Barrow,  Isaac,  ii.  47,  152,  109. 
Bartlc,  George,  ii.  302. 
Basil,  175,  177,  180  f.,  180,  190,  202/., 

208,  210,  219,  224,  228,  241,  255,  200, 

272,  288,  294,  324. 
Basilides,  40. 
Bauer,  Bruno,  ii.  248. 
Baumgarteu.  ii.  259,  272,  284. 
Baur,  F.  G.',  79,  81,  80,  103,  141,  199, 

254,  390,  ii.  70,  119,  271,  298,  372. 
Baxter,  Richard,  ii.  48,  53,  80,  94  /'.,  142, 

100,  178,  368. 
Becanus,  ii.  50. 
Beck,  J.  T.,  ii.  272. 
Becker,  ii.  40. 
Becon,  Thomas,  ii.  47. 
Beecher,  Edward,  ii.  329. 
Beecher,  Lyman,  ii.  340. 
Beda,  311/314,  320,  386. 
Bellamy,  ii.  278,  375  f. 
Bellarmin,  277,  ii.  49,  54,  59,  G3/.,  GO, 

76,  107,  111/,  113/.,  132,  137,  138, 

154/.,  158,    172/.,   179,   182/.,  1S8, 

192 /:,  196,  204,  215 /. 
Bellows,  H.  W.,  ii.  268,  289. 
Belsham,  ii.  265. 
Benedict  of  Nnrsia,  171. 
Bengel,  ii.  272,  389. 
Bennett,  Thomas,  ii.  137. 
Bentley,  Richard,  ii.  274. 
Berengar  of  Tours,  296,  312,  31G,  396. 
Berkeley,  Bishop,  ii.  227/. 
Bernard"  of  Clairvaux,     312,  317,   323, 

342,  344,  353/.,  3G5/.,  373,  377,  381, 

392. 

Berridge,  John,  ii.  306. 
Bervllus,  30. 
Bethune,  G.  W.,  ii.  274. 
Beveridge,  William,  ii.  48,  128. 
Beza,  ii.  45,  52,  91,  94,  122,  124, 104,  107, 

200,  212. 

Bickersteth,  Edward,  ii.  389. 
Biddle,  John,  ii.  34,  102/'.,  178. 
Biel,  313,  354,  390,  393,  396. 
Bingham,  Joseph,  ii.  48. 
Blandrata,  ii.  33. 
Blondel,  David,  ii.  45. 
Blonnt,  ii.  81. 
Boehme,  ii.  57/\,  240. 
Boethius,  105/189. 
Bolingbroke,  7,  ii.  274,  294. 
Bona,  John,  ii.  50,  61. 
Bonar,  A.  A.  and  II.,  ii.  389. 
Bonaventura,   313,  318,   323,    324,    326, 

331,    333 /.,    342,    345  f.,    349,    351, 

355/.,  361,  365,  370,  374,  381/.,  387, 

388,  390/.,  402/.,  400,  408. 


Boniface  Till.,  Pope,  3S5/. 

Bonnet,  ii.  231. 

Borromeo,  ii.  49,  61. 

Bossuet,  ii.  11,  50,  54,  61,  64/.,  96,  105, 

114,  158,  185,  196,  283. 
Bourignon,  Madame,  ii.  58. 
Bowen,  Francis,  ii.  250. 
Bowne,  B.  P.,  ii.  252,  321. 
Bradbmy,  ii.  277. 
Bradwafdiiie,  313,  375. 
Bramhall,  ii.  47. 
Brenz,  ii.  44,  51,  135. 
Bretschneider,  ii.  259,  271. 
Brine,  John,  ii.  279. 
Broadus,  J.  A.,  ii.  280. 
Bromley,  Thomas,  ii.  58. 
Brown,  Robert,  ii.  32. 
Bruce,  A.  B.,  251,  ii.  136,  276. 
Bruno,  ii.  14,  105. 
Bucan,  W.,  ii.  125,  165. 
Bucer,  Martin,  ii.  31,  45. 
Buckland,  William,  ii.  322. 
Buddeus,  ii.  272. 
Bull,  Bishop.  71,  ii.  48,  53,  98/.,  105, 

169,  178,  180. 

Bullingcr,  ii.  27,  40,  45,  52,  123,  210. 
Bunyan,  ii.  49,  141,  216. 
Burgess,  Bishop,  ii.  385. 
Bin-net,  Gilbert,  ii.  48,  53,  80, 
Burnet,  Thomas,  ii.  137. 
Burrmann,  ii.  45. 
Bush,  George,  ii.  395. 
Bushnell.  Horace,  ii.  352,  357/. 
Butler,  Bishop,  ii.  274. 
Buxtorf,  ii.  79. 


CABAXIS,  ii.  231. 
Caird,  John,  ii.  311. 
Cajetan,  393,  ii.  49,  G2,  104. 
Calamy,  Edmund,  ii.  48. 
Calderwood,  Henry,  ii.  270,  302,  307. 
Calixtus,  ii.  44.  51,  57,  70.  119. 
Callistus,  Roman  Bishop,  35. 
Calov,  ii.  44,  51,  73,  78,  89,  104/.,  110, 

213. 
Calvin,  ii.  45,  51  /.,  72,  78,  84/*.,  91,  93, 

96,  104,  106,  122.  120//'.,  141,  1G3/., 

107,  176f.,  179,  186,  188,  190 /.,  195, 

199/.,  207 /.,  210,  216. 
Cameron,  John,  ii.  45,  53. 
Campanella,  ii.  14. 
Campanus,  ii.  32. 
Canisius,  ii.  49. 
Canus,  ii.  49. 
Capen,  E.  II.,  ii.  268. 
Cappel,  ii.  45,  79. 
Cardanus,  ii.  13. 
Carlyle,  Thomas,  ii.  239,  200. 
Carpov,  ii.  259,  272. 
Carpzov,  ii.  272. 

Cartwright,  Thomas,  ii.  48,  53,  190. 
Cassianus,  171,   17G/.,    219 /.,   239/1, 

205,  272. 


INDEX  OF   AUTHORS. 


437 


Catharinus,  ii.  112,  155. 

Cave,  William,  ii.  48. 

Celsus,  23,  74. 

Cerinthus,  25,  145. 

Chalmers,  ii.  27G,  322,  343. 

Chandler,  Edward,  ii.  274. 

Chandler,  Samuel,  ii.  274. 

Channing,  ii.  267,  288,  315/.,  318,  359. 

Chapman,  John,  ii.  274. 

Charron,  ii.  13. 

Chemnitz,  ii.  44,  51,  65,  118,  135,  194, 

201,  212. 

Chillingworth,  ii.  47,  53,  09,  71,  169. 
Chrysostom,  175,  179  jf.,  220,  227  f.,  243, 

266,  278,  288,  372,  ii.  76. 
Chubb,  Thomas,  7,  ii.  274,  294. 
Clarke,  Adam,  ii.  309,  313. 
Clarke,  J.  F.,  ii.  268,  317/.,  397. 
Clarke,  Samuel,  ii.  48,  53,  88,  92,  95,  99. 
Claudius  of  Savoy,  ii.  32. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  18/.,  32,  38,  42, 

44/.,  51,  53 /.,  57/.,  60,  77/.,  88/., 

90,  94,  96/.,  99/.,  104/'.,  110,  113  f., 

117,  121,   125,   127  f.,  135,   137,   141, 
144,  153/'.,  163,  246. 

Clement  of  Koine,  32/.,  42,  72,  75,  116, 

118,  127. 

Cocccjus,  ii.  45,  52,  87,  91,  104/.,  125, 

127,  140,  214. 
Cochlaeus,  ii.  49. 
Cocker,  13.  F.,  13,  303/. 
Ccelestius,  177,  229. 
Coleridge,  ii.  19,  259,  275,  287,  358. 
Collins,  J.  A.,  6,  ii.  81,  274,  294. 
Comenius,  ii.  108. 
Comte,  ii.  252/. 
Conant,  T.  J.,  ii.  280. 
Condillac,  ii.  231. 
Conybeare,  John,  ii.  274. 
Coster,  ii.  49. 
Cotton,  John,  ii.  49. 
Cousin,  ii.  231. 
Cramp,  J.  M.,  ii.  36. 
Cranmer,  ii.  47,  53,  169,  190,  208. 
Crell,  Johannes,  ii.  46,  89/.,  147,  214. 
Crell,  Nicolas,  ii.  55/. 
Crisp,  Tobias,  ii.  141. 
Cudworth,  ii.  19,  47,  87,  92,  94,  98,  169, 

215. 

Culverwell,  ii.  19. 
Cumming,  John,  ii.  389,  391. 
Cunningham,  John,  ii.  37. 
Cunningham,  William,  ii.  123,  125,  179, 

276,  309,  355,  366. 
Curcellams,  ii.  46,  52,  74,  90/*.,  93,  97 /*., 

104,  107  jf.,  129,  131,  144/'.,  168,  181. 
Cvprian,  33,  36,  45,  50,  96  /'.,  131,  133  /"., 

"136,  137 /f.,  142//:,  148. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  175,  177,  219,  228, 

247,  251,  257,  278. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  175,  179,  183,  202  /*., 
"209,  224,  227,  254/.,  271/.,  277/.,  280, 

288. 
Cyril  Lucar,  ii.  43. 


DAGG,  J.  L.,  ii.  280. 

Daille,  Jean,  ii.  45. 

D'Ailly,  Peter,  327. 

Dannhauer,  ii.  44,  73. 

Dante,  313,  319,  405/.,  408  ff, 

Darwin,  Doctor,  ii.  231. 

Davenant,  ii.  47,  166. 

Davenport,  John,  ii.  49. 

David  of  Dinanto,  297. 

David,  Francis,  ii.  33,  102. 

Dawson,  ii.  322. 

Day,  Jeremiah,  ii.  338. 

De  Chandieu,  ii.  45. 

Delitzsch,  ii.  272,  323,  325/.,  351,  358, 

389,  392J. 
Denck,  John,  ii.  32. 
Descartes,  ii.  14/.,  21  f.,  85/. 
De  Wette,  ii.  296/.,  360. 
Dewey,  Orville.  ii.  288. 
D'Holbach,  ii.  231. 
Diderot,  ii.  231. 
Didymus,  175,  210,  224,  286  f. 
Diefinger,  ii.   281,   307,   323,   328,  383, 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  175, 177,  180, 187/., 

287. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  32,  41,  56,  83, 

146. 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  169  jf.,   186, 

190,  219,  243,  271,  294,   307/.,   315, 

334,  343. 
Dioscurus,  248. 

Doddridge,  Philip,  ii.  277,  286. 
Dodwell,  Henry,  ii.  201. 
Doederlein,  ii.  272. 
Dollinger,  ii.  280/. 
Dorchester,  Daniel,  ii.  318. 
Dorner,  27,  31,  70,  73,  83,  87,  114,  122, 

199,  211,  246,  249,  251,  361,  ii.  26,  51, 

78,  100,  120,  137,   159,  179,  198,  272, 

307  J.,  312,  324,  328/.,  345,  351,  356, 

•361 /.,   370,  384,  392,  394/. 
Drey,  ii.  260,  281. 
Drusius,  ii.  45. 
Druthmar,  396. 
Duffield,  George,  ii.  389. 
Du  Moulin,  ii.  45,  53. 
Duncker,  122. 
Duns  Scotus,  302,  305,  313,  314,  318/., 

325/.,  330,  333/\,  336,  339 /'.,  345/., 

348/.,  352,  361,  365,  369/.,  375,  381/., 

387,  389/.,  393. 
Durandus,  313,  334,  345,  352,  354,  369, 

378,  388f.,  403,  407,  409. 
Dwight,  timothy,  ii.  278,  331,  361,  370, 

394. 


ERRARD,  ii.  273,  323,  349,  351,  362,  372, 

382,  387. 
Eck,  Joh.,  ii.  49. 
Eckerniann,  ii.  270. 
Eckhart,  313,  320,   323,  332,  338,  341, 

410/. 


438 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Edelmann,  ii.  270. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  ii.  277/.,  309,  328, 

330,  336  /*.,  342,  370,  39G. 
Edwards,  Jr.,  ii.  278,  338,  3G1. 
Eichhorn,  ii.  271,  321. 
Elipandus  of  Toledo,  358. 
Ellis,  George  E.,  ii.  359. 
Elliott,  E.  B.,  ii.  389. 
Elwert,  ii.  290. 

Emerson,  R.  W.,  ii.  208. 

Emmons,  ii.  278,  284,  309,  313,  323,  328, 

331,  338,  343,  345,  301,  3G8,  371. 
Ephnem,  the  Syrian,  219. 
Epiphanius,  165,  175,  180,  210,  221,  252, 

282,  288,  345. 
Episcopius,  ii.  35,   46,  52,   73y.,    79y*., 

90,  97/.,  104,  130/.,  144,  18i. 
Erasmus,  ii.  49. 
Erdmann,  109,  306,  309. 
Erigena,    301,    305,    308  f.,    312,    315  A 

324,  332,  340/.,  345 /.,  355,  371,  395, 

407 /.,  410/.,  ii.  134. 
Ernesti,  J.  A.,  ii.  270. 
Eugenius  IV.,  Pope,  391. 
Euuomius,  177,  189,  200,  208. 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  25/'.,  38,  41 A  66, 

75,  164,  175.  177/.,  206,  208,  211,  220, 

222,  255,  272,  274.' 
Eutvches,  177,  248. 
Eutychius,  285. 
Evagrius,  175. 


FARRAR,  F.  "W.,  ii.  395. 

Faustus  of  Rhegium,    176/.,   219,  225, 

239/.,  259. 

Felix  of  Urgellis,  358/. 
Fenelon,  ii.  50,  61. 
Feuerbach,  ii.  248. 

Fichte,  ii.  236  J.,  251,  259/.,  271,  348. 
Ficinus,    306,  346. 
Fisher,  George  P.,  ii.  340/. 
Fiske,  Daniel,  ii.  361,  369. 
Finney,  C.  G.,  ii.  340,  345,  368,  377. 
Flacius,  Matthias,  ii.  44,  57,  85,  120. 
Flatt,  K.  C.,  ii.  386. 
Fleming,  Robert,  ii.  137. 
Fletcher,  John,  ii.  264. 
Floras  Magister,  396. 
Forbes,  John,  ii.  47. 
Foster,  James,  ii.  274. 
Foster,  R.  S.,  ii.  323,  394. 
Fowler,  Edward,  ii.  19,  48,  137. 
Fox,  George,  ii.  37,  49. 
Francke,  ii.  44. 
Frank,  Sebastian,  ii.  57. 
Frere,  J.  H.,  ii.  389. 
Fries,  ii.  297. 

Frothingham,  0.  B.,  ii.  260. 
Froude,  II.,  ii.  275. 
Fulgentius,  170,  219,  251,  262,  272. 
Fuller,  Andrew,  ii.  280. 


GABLER,  ii.  321. 

Gannett,  E.  S.,  ii.  207,  288,  316. 

Gannett,  William  C.,  ii.  207. 

Gastrell,  Francis,  ii.  137. 

Gaunilo,  328 jT. 

Gaussen,  L.,  ii.  285. 

Gelasius,  Roman  Bishop,  270/'. 

Gennadius,  170 /.,   219,   224,  239,   272, 

288. 

Gentilis,  J.  Yal.,  ii.  32. 
Gerbert,  Martin,  ii.  281. 
Gerhard,  John,  39,  ii.  20,  44,  51,  62,  67, 

73,  76/.,  89,  91/.,  97,  104  A  108  //'., 

118  j.,    132,    136,    139,    100/.,    177, 

194/.,  197/.,  202,  212. 
Gerhart,  E.  V.,  ii.  387. 
Gernler,  Lucas,  ii.  45. 
Gerson,  313,  320,  325,  393. 
Gess,  W.  F.,  ii.  349/. 
Geulincx,  ii.  23. 
Gieseler,  5,  37,  71,  122,  124,  144,  266, 

280,  325,  386,  396,  399,  ii.  115/.,  156. 
Gilbert  Porretanus,  312,  337. 
Gill,  John,  ii.  279,  284,  389. 
Glanvill,  ii.  19. 
Gobarus,  26. 
Goethe,  ii.  240,  260. 
Gomar,  ii.  45,  52,  93,  105,  122,  140,  165, 

107. 

Goodwin,  H.  M.,  ii.  325/.,  351/. 
Goodwin,  John,  ii.  28,  48,  54. 
Goodwin,  Thomas,  ii.  48. 
Gottschalk,  290,  312,  353,  370/. 
Gould,  Edwin,  ii.  285. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,    175,   177,    182  f., 

187,  "190,  194,  203  f.,  209  f.,  219,  224, 

227/.,  252 /'.,  257,  200,  272/.,  275,  283, 

287,  294,  315. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  165,  175,  177,  204, 

210/.,  217,  225,  227  f.,  242,  246,  251  A 

256,  272 /.,  278,  283,  286,  294,  315, 

347,  407,'ii.  134. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  32,  121. 
Gregory  of  Valencia,  ii.  49. 
Gregory  I..   Pope,  39,  170,  176,  178/., 

185,  "191,"  193,  217,  219/.,  222,  224  A 

241,   253  f.,   258,    264/,   269,   271/., 

280,  284  A  288,  290. 
Gregory  VII.,  Pope,  384/. 
Gregory  XIII.,  Pope,  ii.  107. 
Gribaldi,  ii.  32. 
Griffin,  E.  D.,  ii.  278,  339. 
Grotius,  Hugo,  ii.  46,  53,  80,  I&ff. 
Grynseus,  ii.  45. 
Gunther,  ii.  260. 
Guericke,  ii.  272. 
Guibert  of  Nogent,  312,  408. 
Guion,  Madame,  ii.  61. 
Guizot,  ii.  273. 


HACKETT,  H.  B.,  ii.  280. 

Havernick,  ii.  272. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


439 


Haffenreffer,  ii.  44. 

Hagenbach,  ii.  241,  273. 

Hahn,  ii.  272,  323,  359,  371. 

Haimo  of  Halberstadt,  396. 

Hales,  Alexander,   301,    306,   313,   314, 

318,  333,  335,  345,  347,  349,  354,  365, 
369,  374,  379,  398. 

Hales,  John,  ii.  47,  53. 

Hall,  Joseph,  ii.  47,  53,  180,  199,  211. 

Hall,  Robert,  ii.  2/9. 

Halyburton,  ii.  48. 

Hamel,  J.  B.  du,  ii.  50,  59,  75,  156. 

Hamilton,  Sir  William,  ii.  230,  304,  306, 

319,  335. 

Hammond,  Henry,  ii.  47,  201. 

Harris,  Samuel,  ii.  320. 

Hartley,  ii.  231. 

Hartmann,  ii.  249 /. 

Hedge,   F.  H.,   ii.  260,   268,    301,  307, 

316 /.,  319/.,  329,  345/.,  374,  397/. 
Heerbrand,  ii.  44. 
Hefele,  33,  195,  270,  ii.  281. 
Hegel,  ii.  242 J.,  259/.,  271,  346,  348, 

360. 

Hegesippus,  25/. 
Heidanus,  ii.  45. 
Heidegger,  ii.  46,  52. 
Helffenstein,  Samuel,  ii.  370. 
Henderson,  Alexander,  ii.  48. 
Henderson,  E.,  ii.  286. 
Hengstenberg,  ii.  272. 
Henke,  ii.  270,  321. 
Henry  of  Ghent,  313. 
Henry,  Matthew,  ii.  49. 
Herbart,  ii.  250. 
Herbert,  Lord,  6,  ii.  25,  81. 
Herder,  ii.  61,  321. 
Hennas,  32,  34,  42,  72/.,  76,  97/.,  114, 

125,  130,  153. 
Hermes,  G.,  ii.  260,  340. 
Hermes  Trismegistus,  335. 
Hermogenes,  93. 
Heshusius,  ii.  44. 
Hetzer,  ii.  32. 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  38, 176,  191,  193,  202, 

207,   210,  219,   223,  225,   228/.,   246, 

251,  255,  258,  271,  278,  288. 
Hill,  Richard,  ii.  263. 
Hill,  Rowland,  ii.  263. 
Hincmar,  312,  371/'.,  395,  396. 
Hippolytus,  24,  33,  35,  39,  50,  80,  90/., 

120,  125,  147. 

Hobbes,  ii.  16  J.,  81,  214,  216. 
Hochstctter,  ii.  44. 
Hodge,   Charles,   390,   ii.  277,  285,  307, 

309 /.,  323,   325,    328,    330,  339,   343, 

345,   3543   361,   366 /.,   370,   386,   391, 

394. 

Hoffmann,  Daniel,  ii.  26. 
Hofmann,   J.    C.  K.   von,  ii.  272,  287, 

323/.,  389. 

Hofmann,  Melchior,  ii.  32. 
Hollaz,  ii.  26,   44,  73,  78,  89,  105,  110, 

118,  136,  139,  162,  198,  216. 


Honorius  I.,  Pope,  270. 

Hooker,  Richard,  ii.  47,  53,  190.  208. 
211. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  ii.  49. 

Hooper,  John,  ii.  46. 

Hoornbeck,  ii.  45. 

Hopkins,  Samuel,  ii.  278,  309,  313,  328, 
330,  338,  361. 

Howe,  John,  ii.  49,  54.  89. 

Hovey,  Alvah,  ii.  280,'  343. 

Hiilsemann,  ii.  44,  73. 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  312,  316/.,  330,  332, 
334,  337,  341/.,  345,  347,  349,  351, 
353,  355/.,  360,  365  #!,  372,  377,  380, 
386,  388,  391 /.,  398,  400,  408. 

Hume,  David,  ii.  228/. 

Hundeshagen,  ii.  273. 

Hunnius,  ii.  44,  51. 

Hunt,  John,  ii.  35,  201. 

Huss,  John,  298,  313,  324,  387,  ii.  6, 
188. 

Hussey,  J.,  ii.  137. 

Hutter,  ii.  44. 

Huxley,  ii.  253. 

Hyperms,  ii.  45. 


IBAS,  250. 

Ignatius,  32,  34,  72,  76,  116,  120,  128, 
133,  145,  153. 

Innocent  III.,  Pope,  312,  385,  396/., 
402,  408/. 

Irenes,  20,  24,  27,  33,  39/.,  44/.,  54, 
72,  75,  77 J.,  88,  90,  93/.,  96,  99, 
101/.,  108,  113,  117/.,  128,  133/., 
137,  139/1,  145/.,  147,  150,  155. 

Isidore,  the  pseudo,  34. 

Isidore  of  Seville,  176. 


JACKSON.  Thomas,  ii.  47. 

Jacob i,  ii'.  248,  259/. 

Jamblicus,  166. 

Jansenius,  ii.  60,  115,  157. 

Jerome,  39,  91, 171,  176,  178 jf.,  221,  225, 

282,  285,  288. 

Jewell,  John,  ii.  47,  53,  208. 
Joachim,  298. 
John  of  Damascus,  6,  253,  293/.,  307, 

311,  324,  332,  334,  342,343,  355,  357/., 

370,  393. 

John  of  Paris,  396. 
John  of  Salisbury,  305,  312. 
John  XXII.,  Pope,  405. 
Jonas,  Justus,  ii.  44. 
Joris,  David,  ii.  32. 
Jouffroy,  ii.  231. 
Jowett,  B.,  14,  ii.  275. 
Julian  the  Apostate,  168. 
Julian  of  Eclanum,  177,  230,  233. 
Junius,  F.,  ii.  45. 
Jurieu,  ii.  213. 
Justinian,  61,  185. 


440 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Justin  Martyr,  18/.,  24,  32,  35,  36,  40, 
43,  47,  53,  57,  73,  76/.,  85,  90,  93, 
101 /.,  109,  114,  117,  U9/..  135,  137, 
139  J.,  145,  150,  152 /.,  163. 


KAHNIS,  91, 101,  122,  125,  227,  253,  356, 
396,  ii.  117,  121/.,  162,  272,  292,  307, 
309,  314,  323/.,  329,  344,  356,  364/., 
384,  392  jf. 

Kant,  ii.  231  /f.,  238,  259/.,  271,  300  J., 
335,  348,  360. 

Karsten,  ii.  389. 

Kcble,  ii.  386. 

Keil,  ii.  272.    . 

Kempis,  Thomas  a,  313,  320. 

Kcndrick,  A.  C.,  ii.  280. 

Kingslcy,  Charles,  ii.  275. 

Klee,  393,  ii.  260,  281,  286,  301,  313,  323, 
328,  364,  382/'.,  388. 

Knapp,  G.  C.,  'ii.  272,  322,  386. 

Knox,  John,  ii.  48. 

Kunig,  ii.  44,  73. 

Kostlin,  ii.  8,  76,  159,  188. 

Koonheert,  ii.  34. 

Krauth,  C.  P.,  ii.  273,  386. 

Kroll,  ii.  360. 

Krug,  ii.  360. 

Kucnen,  ii.  273,  298. 

Kurtz,  ii.  322/. 


LABADIE,  ii.  58. 

Lactantius,  6,  18,  22,  33,  36,  56/'.,  84, 

91,  93,  96,  103/.,  109/.,  146/.,  153, 

155. 

Ladd,  G.  T.,  ii.  291. 
La  Mettrie,  ii.  231. 
Lanfranc,  312,  316. 
Lange,  J.  P.,  ii.  273,  287,  324,  362,  392, 

394. 

La  Place,  ii.  45,  53,  58,  127. 
Lardner,  ii.  274. 
La  Saussayc,  ii.  274. 
Lasson,  338. 

Latimcr,  Hugh,  ii.  46,  169,  210. 
Laud,  William,  ii.  47. 
Law,  "William,  ii.  274. 
Lawrence,  E.  A.,  ii.  339. 
Leade,  Jane,  ii.  58, 
Le  Clerc,  ii.  46,  80,  98. 
Leibnitz,  ii.  25,  223/.,  300,  320,  345. 
Leigh  ton,  Robert,  ii.  47. 
Leland,  John,  ii.  274. 
Leo  I.,   Roman   Bishop,  176,   178,   248, 

253  /•.,  257,  264  /!,  267,  269,  271/. 
Leo  IX'.,  Pope,  326. 
Leo  X.,  Pope,  346. 
Less,  ii.  59,  75,  156. 
Lessing,  ii.  295,  396. 
Lewis,  Tayler,  ii.  274,  322. 
Leydecker,  ii.  46. 
Liebner,  ii.  272,  313,  362. 
Lightfoot,  John,  ii.  47. 


Limborch,  ii.  46,  53,  74,  79,  89,  91,  93, 

97,    104/.,   107/'.,  130/.,  133,   144/., 

177,  181,  212,  214,  216. 
Lindsey,  Theophilus,  ii.  102,  265. 
Locke, "ii.  18 /f.,  71,  87/.,  103,  259. 
Lombard,  294,  312,   316/.,  3S8,  341  f., 

351,  360,  365/.,  376,  379,  388,  390/., 

397/.,  400/*.,  403,  406,  409. 
Lotze,  ii.  25()//'.,  300 /'. 
Lowth,  William,  ii.  287. 
Lucian,  23. 
Lucke,  F.,  ii.  272. 
Lullus,  307,  313,  369. 
Luthardt,  ii.  272,  324. 
Luther,  ii.  5  f.,  30,  43,  50,  54,  67  f.,  71  f., 

76,  93.  106,  108,  117  f.,  120/.,  134/.. 

138,  159,  174/.,  179,  186,  188, 190,  194, 

205/.,  209/.,  212,  213,  886. 


McCABE,  F.  D.,  ii.  309. 

Maccovius,  ii.  45,  125,  152,  216. 

Macedonius,  208/. 

Maimonides,  307. 

Major,  George,  ii.  55. 

Ma'ldonat,  ii.  49. 

Malebranche,  ii.  23. 

Mamertus  Claudianus,  176,  219,  225. 

Manning,  Cardinal,  ii.  380/'. 

Mansel,  H.  L.,  ii.  304J. 

Marcellus,  197. 

Marcion,  39,  46,  62. 

Maresius,  ii.  45,  104. 

Marheinecke,  ii.  259,  290,  311,  360,  372, 

384,  386. 
Martensen,  ii.  272,  287,  307  f.,  312,  320, 

323  f.,  329,  351 /.,  362,  365,  384,  392, 

394/.,  399. 
Martin  of  Tours,  171. 
Martineau,  James,  ii.  265,  318. 
Mather,  Cotton,  ii.  49. 
Mather,  Richard,  ii.  49. 
Maurice,  F.  D.,  ii.  275,  358,  373,  395. 
Maximus,  170,  175,  190,  315. 
Mead,  C.  M.,  ii.  325. 
Mede,  Joseph,  ii.  213. 
Melanchthon,  ii.  43,  50,  54,  56,70, 117/1, 

135,  159,  161, 187,  194,  365. 
Melito,  32,  38,  60. 
Melville,  Andrew,  ii.  48. 
Menno  Simons,  ii.  35,  137. 
Methodius,  32,  90,  96,  150. 
Meyer,  ii.  272. 
Michael  Cerularius,  295. 
Michaelis,  ii.  270. 
Miley,  John,  ii.  355. 
Mill,  James,  ii.  254. 
Mill,  John,  ii.  48. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  ii.  253/.,  256,  307. 
Millard,  David,  ii.  269. 
Milton,  John,  ii.  48,  103  /'.,  213. 
Minucius,  Felix,  18,  33,  56/.,  98. 
Mohler,  ii.  43,  107,  281  /".,  363/.,  370. 
Molina,  ii.  49,59,  93,  115,  156. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


441 


Molinos,  ii.  61. 

Montaigne,  ii.  13. 

More,  Henry,  ii.  19,  47,  109/.,  137,  215. 

Morell,  J.  1).,  ii.  290/. 

Morgan.  Thomas,  7,  ii.  274,  294. 

Morus,  ii.  272. 

Mosheim,  ii.  272. 

Mozlev.  J.  B.,  ii.  283,  385. 

Miiller,'  J.,  ii.  272,  310,   313,  324,  329, 

333/.,  345/.,  362,  394. 
Mulforcl,  E.,  ii.  373  f. 
Murray,  John,  ii.  269,  397. 
MusttHis,  ii.  44,  51,  76. 
Musculus,  ii.  45,  139. 
Mussus,  Cornelius,  ii.  66. 


NEANDEK,  26,  182,  298,  354,  ii.  272. 

Nemesius,  169,  294. 

Nestorius,  177,  247. 

Nevin,  John  W.,  ii.  274,  382,  387. 

Newman,  J.  H.,  ii.  67,  275,  282/.,  381. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  ii.  103. 

Nicetas  Choniates,  294. 

Nicolai,  M.,  ii.  44. 

Nicolas  of  Cusa,  ii.  14. 

Nicolas  de  Clemangis,  324. 

Nicolaus  of  Methone,  294,  346. 

Nicole,    ii.   50,   59,   105,   113,  155,  193, 

196. 

Niemeyer,  ii.  271. 
Nitzsch,  62,  ii.  272,  290,  324,  357,  362, 

365,  384,  392,  394. 
Noetus,  30. 

Norris,  John,  ii.  19,  48,  87,  132. 
Norton,  Andrews,  ii.  267. 
Novalis,  ii.  260. 
Novatian,  33,  35,  57,  81,  85/.,  90,  98, 

147,  150. 
Numenius,  66. 
Nye,  Philip,  ii.  48. 


OCCAM,  302,  310,  313,  319,  325,  327,  332, 
354. 

Odo  of  Cambray,  312,  346,  350,  397. 

CEcolampadius,  ii.  206. 

Oehlcr,  ii.  272. 

Oetinger,  ii.  272,  358. 

Oischinger,  ii.  281. 

Olevianus,  ii.  40. 

Olivers,  Thomas,  ii.  263. 

Olshausen,  ii.  272,  395. 

Origen,  19  /'.,  24,  32.  36,  38/.,  58  f.,  65, 
72.  75,  81/.,  86 /f.,  89/.',  94/.J  %//"., 
111//'.,  lllj/:.  120/1.,  123  f..  126 '//'., 
135J  137/.,  142  f.,  146 /.,  14<)/..  154/'., 
163,  197,  216,  234,  241,  286,  315,  345, 

Osiamler,  ii.  44,  56, 137,  177,  372. 

Outram,  William,  ii.  47. 

Owen,  John,  ii.  49,  54,  125,  141/.,  176. 


PAPIAS,  32,  145. 

Paracelsus,  ii.  13,  108. 

Park,  E.  A.,  ii.  278,  341. 

Parker,  Matthew,  ii.  47. 

Parker,  Theodore,  ii.  268. 

Pascal,  ii.  29,  50,  59. 

Patrick,  Simon,  ii.  47. 

Patritius,  ii.  14. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  30/. 

Paulas,  ii.  270,  295/.,  321. 

Pearce,  Zachary,  ii.  274. 

Pearson,  John,  ii.  47,  99. 

Pelagius,  177,  229  J. 

Pendleton,  J.  H.,  ii.  280. 

Penn,  William,  ii.  37,  49,  100. 

Perkins,  William,  ii.  47,  105,  125,  128, 

140/.,  166,  188. 
Perowne,  J.  J.  S.,  ii.  394. 
Pen-one,  ii.  281,  286,  310,  323,  363,  370, 

381,  383.  388. 
Petavius,  66,  71,  277,  393,  ii.  29,  50,  54, 

59,   96,  104/.,    111/.,   132,  137,    152, 

156,  216. 

Peter  Martyr,  ii.  31,  45. 
Peter  of  Poitiers,  312. 
Petersen,  William,  ii.  213,  215. 
Peyrere,  Isaac,  ii.  105. 
Pfaff,  C.  M.,  ii.  272. 
Philaret,  ii.  281. 
Philippi,  F.  A.,  ii.  272,  324. 
Philo,  37,  42/.,  65,  67  J.,  100,  126,  166, 

195. 

Philoponus,  285. 
Philostorgius,  195. 
Photinus,  198. 
Photius,  188,  195. 
Pighius,  ii.  49,  66,  112. 
Piscator,  ii.  45,  123,  140,  165. 
Pistorius,  Adam,  ii.  32. 
Pius  V.,  Pope,  ii.  107. 
Pius  IX.,  Pope,  ii.  281. 
Planck,  G.  J.,  ii.  272. 
Plato,  14/.,  64 J.,  164/.,  168,  302 /., 

ii.  14. 

Platon,  ii.  281. 
Pliny,  74. 
Plotmus,  66,  166  jf. 
Poiret,  Pierre,  ii.  58, 137. 
Polycarp,  32,  76,  145. 
Pond,  Enoch,  ii.  278,  285,  309,  322/.,  330, 

361,  394. 
Pope,  W.  B.,  ii.  264,  310,  325,  328,  341, 

345,  370. 

Pordage,  John,  ii.  58. 
Porphyry,  23,  166. 
Praxeas,  30,  79. 
Pressensd,  ii.  273. 
Prideaux,  John,  ii.  47. 
Priestley,  Joseph,  ii.  231,  265,  327,  395. 
ProclusJ  166,  170,  294. 
Prosper,  176,  262. 
Pullus,  312,  316,  331,  346,  355,  384,  392, 

398,  400,  408. 
Pusey,  E.  B.,  ii.  275,  283/.,  372,  386. 


442 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


QUADRATUS,  32. 

Quenstedt,  ii.  26,  44,  51,  73,  77,  93,  97, 
104/.,  108,  110,  121,  136,  139,  161, 
187,  197/. 

Quesncl,  ii.  50,  59, 115,  153/.,  157. 


RABANUS  MAURUS,  311,  320,  396. 
Radbertus,    Paschasius,    312,    381,    386, 

394/,  397. 
Ratnus.  Peter,  ii.  13. 
Randall,  Benjamin,  ii.  264. 
Rathmann,  ii.  78. 
Ratramnus,  312,  371,  395. 
Raymond,  M.,  ii.  264,  309,  328. 
Raymond  of  Sabunde,  313,  331,  346. 
Redepenning,  87,  117,  149. 
Reed,  .lames,  ii.  265,  360. 
Reid,  Thomas,  ii.  230,  334. 
Reinbeck,  ii.  272. 
Reinhard,  ii.  272,  386. 
Reinkens,  ii.  280. 
Remains,  371. 
Renan,  ii.  348. 
Reuchlin,  ii.  13. 
Reusch,  ii.  259. 
Richard  of  St.  Victor,  312,  337,  339,  353, 

367,  381,  400/. 
Richtcr,  ii.  260. 
Ridlev,  Nicholas,  ii.  46,  169. 
Rigg,*J-  IL>  ii.  341. 
Ripley,  George,  ii.  268. 
Ritschl,  364.  378,  ii.  139,  259. 
Ritter,  14,  303. 
Rivet,  ii.  45.  125. 
Robertson,  William,  ii.  276. 
Robinson,  John,  ii.  32,  48. 
Rohr,  ii.  270,  295. 
Romaine.  William,  ii.  366. 
Romany,  ii   324. 
Roscelin.  206,  309,  312,  337. 
Rothe.  ii.  272.   290,  301,  307,  320,  324, 

328  f..  346,    351,    357,  362,   365,   379, 

389',  396. 

Royer-Collard,  ii.  231. 
Rutinns,  38,  176. 
Rupert  of  Deutz,  312,  369,  396. 
Rust,  George,  ii.  19. 
Rutherford,  Samuel,  ii.  48,  95,  139. 
Ruysbroek,  313,  320. 


SABET/LIUS,  30  /".,  79. 
Sack,  K.  H.,  ii.  273. 
Sailer,  Michael,  ii.  281. 
Sales,  Francis  de,  ii.  49,  61. 
Salmeron,  ii.  49. 
Salvianus,  170. 
Sanchez,  ii.  13. 
Sarpi,  Paul,  ii.  62,  155,  194. 
Sartorius,  ii.  272,  313. 
Savonarola,  313,  ii.  6. 


Schaff,    185,    241,    ii.    177,    272,    274, 

364. 

Schelling,  ii.  239/.,  259/.,  271,  348. 
Schenkel,  ii.  349. 
Schindler,  M.  J.,  ii.  213. 
Schleiermacher,    ii.   248 /.,   259/1,   271, 

289,  307,  310,  314,  346,  360,  364,  372, 

395. 

Schlichtingius,  ii.  46,  214. 
Schmalz,  ii.  46. 
Schmid,  C.  F.,  ii.  272. 
Schmid,  J.  W.,  ii.  259. 
Schmucker,  ii.  273,  356,  371,  386. 
Schneckenburger,  ii.  273. 
Schoberlein,  ii.  ,127,  351,  362. 
Schomann,  ii.  46. 
Schopenhauer,  ii.  249. 
Schubert,  ii.  259. 
Schulthess,  ii.  271. 
Schveizer,  ii.  104,  273,  395. 
Schwenkfeld,  ii.  57,  108,  137. 
Scott,  Thomas,  ii.  375. 
Seiler,  G.  F.,  ii.  272. 
Seiss,  J.  A.,  ii.  389J. 
Sellon,  Walter,  ii.  263. 
Selnecker,  ii.  44. 
Semler,  ii.  270,  294/. 
Serry,  ii.  104. 
Servetus,  ii.  32,  100. 
Shaftesburv,  6,  ii.  81. 
Shedd,  W.'G.  T.,  ii.  131.  301,  342. 
Sherlock,  Thomas,  ii.  274. 
Sherlock,  William,  ii.  48,  53,  139,  169, 

217. 

Simon,  Richard,  ii.  50,  65,  82 f. 
Simson,  ii.  276. 
Smalbrooke.  ii.  274. 
Smaller,  ii.  278. 
Smith,  H.  B.,  ii.  277,  307,  309,  325,  329, 

343,  356,  370,  394. 
Smith,  John,  ii.  47. 
Smyth,  John,  ii.  35. 
Smythe,  Newman,  ii.  322,  392. 
Socinus,  Faustns,   ii.  28,  33,  46,  80,  85, 

89,  102,  132,  145 /.,  202. 
Socinus,  Lnelitis,  ii.  33,  46. 
Socrates,  the  historian,  175,  189. 
Soto,  Pedro  de,  ii.  65. 
South,  Robert,  ii.  48,  53. 
Sozomen,  175,  197. 
Spangenberg,  ii.  261. 
Spanheim,  F.,  ii.  45. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  ii.  254jf,,  304,  306. 
Spener,  ii.  44,  57. 
Spinoza,  ii.  24/.,  81/.,  245. 
Spring,  Samuel,  ii.  278. 
Staurtlin,  ii.  259. 
Stanley,  A.  P.,  ii.  275,  378. 
Stapfer,  ii.  343. 
Staudenmaier,  ii.  260,  281/.,  301,  307, 

312,  323. 

Stephen,  Roman  Bishop,  51,  138. 
Stewart,  Dugald,  ii   230.  335. 
Stillingfleet,  ii.  47,  53,  87,  190. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


443 


Stcckl,  341. 

Storr,  G.  C.,  ii.  272,  355,  388. 

Strabo,  Walafrid,  311,  396. 

Strauss,  David,  ii.  248,  271,  297,  348. 

Strigel,  Victoria,  ii.  44,  55. 

Stuart,  Moses,  ii.  313/. 

Suarcz,  352,  ii.  49,  54,  93,  111,  158. 

Suso,  313,  320. 

Swedenborg,   ii.   2G4,  315,   353,    360/., 

398. 
Synesius,  169. 


TANNER,  Adam,  ii.  50. 

Tatian,   21,  32,  35,  73,  77,  85,  101  /., 

145,  150. 
Tauler,  313,  320. 
Taurcllus,  ii.  13. 
Taylor,  D.  T.,  ii.  389. 
Tavlor,  Jeremy,  ii.  47,  53,  107,  126,  169, 

178. 

Tavlor,  K  W.,  ii.  278,  332,  339,  368. 
Telesius,  ii-  14. 
Tertullian,  21,  33,  35,  38,  43/.,  54,  59  f., 

62/.,   72,    75,    79/.,    85/.,    90,   93/., 

96/".,  99,    101/.,    104 /.;    112/.,    117, 

131/..    136J.,    141/.,    145 /.,    ISO/., 

153,  155,  189. 
Theodore,    Archbishop  of    Canterbury, 

320. 
Theodore    of    Mopsuestia,   175,    177/., 

228,  247,  250,  287. 
Theodoret,  66,  164/.,  175,  180,  208,  218, 

220 /.,  224/.,  227,  243,  250,  258,  265, 

272,275. 
Theodoras,  170. 
Theodotus,  30,  165. 
Theophilus,  18,  32,  55,  57,  60,  73,  77,  85, 

90,  94,  99/.,  103,  108,  145,  153. 
Theophylact,  311 . 
Tholuck,  A.,  ii.  272,  287,  324. 
Thomassin,  ii.  50,  110,  114,  154/.,  158. 
Thomasius,  Christian,  ii.  44. 
Thomasius,    G.,  251,  ii.  272,  324,   329, 

340/'.,  343,  349  /'.,  356,  362,  365. 
Tieftrunk,  ii.  259',  360. 
Tillotson,  John,  ii.  47,  71,  139,  142,  169, 

201. 

Tindal,  Matthew.  6,  ii.  274,  294. 
Tollner,  ii.  294,  357. 
Toland,  6,  ii.  81. 
Toplady,  ii.  263. 
Townsend,  L.  T.,  ii.  322. 
Trevor,  George,  ii.  386. 
Tulloch,  John,  ii.  28,  276. 
Turretin,    ii.  27,   45,  52,   78,    91,    94/., 

104/.,  109,  125,  i:J2/:,  140, 152,  165/., 

167,  176/.,  179,  188;  201/'.,  216. 
Twesten,    ii.    272,   290,   301,    307,    313, 

324. 
Twisse,  William,  ii.  48,  53,  95,  123,  125, 

139,  167. 
Tyler,  Bennet,  ii.  343, 


UEBEKWEG,  319,  ii.  249. 

Ullmann,  275,  ii.  272. 

Ulrici,  ii.  303. 

Ursinus.  ii.  40,  45. 

Usher,  James,  ii.  42.  47,  53, 105,  128,  142, 

152,  166,  190,  20l. 
Uytenbogaert,  ii.  46. 


VANEMA,  Hermann,  ii.  343. 

Van  Oosterzee,   ii.  274,  287,  302,    308, 

310,  321,  323,  325,  332,  341,  361.  389. 

393,  396. 
Vasquez,  ii.  49. 

Vincentius,  176/.,  183,  185,  239,  ii.  157. 
Vitringa,  ii.  46,  52. 
Voetius,  ii.  27,  45,  52,  79,  128, 
Voltaire,  7,  ii.  294. 
Vorstius,  ii.  46,  89/. 
Vossius,  ii.  45,  52,  139,  200. 


WALCH,  J.  G.,  ii.  272. 

AValden,  Thomas.  327. 

Waldo,  Peter,  298. 

Walter  of  St.  Victor,  312,  317. 

Walton,  Brvan,  ii.  47. 

Warburton*  ii.  '274,  287. 

Ware,  Henrv,  father  and  son,  ii.  267. 

Waterland,  ii.  48.  99/. 

Watson,  John,  ii.  240. 

Watson,  Richard,  ii.  178,  264,  308,  328, 

341,  356,  371,  375,  385. 
Watts,  Isaac,  ii.  277,  353,  383. 
Wegscheider,  ii.  271,  295/.,  315. 
Weigel,  ii.  57,  108,  137. 
Weiss,  Bernhard,  ii.  272. 
Weisse,  ii.  328. 
Wellhausen,  ii.  298. 
Werner,  342,  354,  ii.  340,  362. 
Wesley,  John,  ii.  262,  308,  328,  341,  371, 

375/.,  385,  396. 

Wessel,  John,  313,  320,  324,  369. 
West,  Stephen,  ii.  278. 
Westcott,  40. 
Westphal,  ii.  44. 
Whately,  ii.  378,  392. 
Whedon,  ii.  264,  310,  334,  337. 
Whichcote.  ii.  19,  28,  47,  94,  139,  217. 
Whitaker,  William,  ii.  47. 
Whitby,  Daniel,  ii.  48,  213. 
White,"  Edward,  ii.  328,  396. 
White,  William,  ii.  275. 
Whiteiield,  George,  ii.  262. 
Whitgift,  John,  ii.  41,  47,  190. 
William  of  Champeaux,  809,  312,  317. 
William  of  Paris,  393. 
Williams,  Roger,  ii.  36.  49,  189. 
Wilson,  D.,  ii.  286. 
Winchell,  Alexander,  ii.  322. 
Winchester,  Elhanan,  ii.  269. 
Wiseman,  ii.  283. 
WissoAvatius,  ii.  46,  215. 
Witsius.  ii.  46,  140,  166/.,  201. 


444 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Wolff,  ii.  220,  259. 

Wolleb,  ii.  45,  152. 

Wolzogen,  ii.  46,  85,  108,  147. 

Woods,  Leonard,  ii.  278,  285,  309,  330, 

339,  343,  361,  368. 
Woolston,  Thomas,  6,  ii.  274. 
Worcester,  Samuel,  ii.  267. 
Worthington,  ii.  19. 
Wycliffe,  298,  313,  324/.,  355,  375,  383, 

387,  396,  402,  406. 


ZACHARIA,  ii.  386. 

Zanchi,  ii.  45,    94,    96,  125,   132,   140, 

165. 

Zeller,  E.,  15,  166. 
Zephyrinus,  Roman  Bishop,  35, 
Zigabenus,  Euthvmius,  294. 
Zinzendorf,  6,  ii.  261. 
Zwingli,  ii.  9,  27,  30,  44,  51/1.,  78, 121/., 

124J.,  130,  139,  152,  162,  188,  195, 

206,/. 


THE  END. 


IMPORTANT   BOOKS   FOB 

CLERGYMEN 

AND 

THEOLOGICAL   STUDENTS 

PUBLISHED  BY  HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  NEW  YORK. 


C^"  HARPER  &  BROTHERS  will  send  their  ptiblications  by  mail,  postage  prepaid,  to 
any  address  in  the  United  States  or  Canada,  on  receipt  of  the  price.  HABPEK'S  CATA 
LOGUE  mailed  on  receipt  of  Ten  Cents. 


ABBOTT'S  DICTIONARY  OF  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE.  For 
Popular  and  Professional  Use  :  comprising  full  Information  on  Bibli 
cal,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Subjects.  With  nearly  1000  Maps 
and  Illustrations.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  LYMAN  ABBOTT,  Assisted  by 
the  Rev.  T.  J.  CONANT,  D.D.  Royal  8vo,  1074  pages,  Cloth,  $6  00  ; 
Sheep,  $7  00;  Half  Morocco,  $8  50. 

ALFORD'S  GREEK  TEXT  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  The  Four 
Gospels  ;  with  a  Critically  Revised  Text  ;  a  Digest  of  Various  Read 
ings  ;  Marginal  References  to  Verbal  and  Idiomatic  Usage  ;  Prole 
gomena  ;  and  a  Critical  and  Excgetical  Commentary.  By  HENRY 
ALEORD,  D.D.  944  pages,  8vo,  Cloth,  $4  20  ;  Half  Morocco,  $5  95. 

ARTHUR'S  PHYSICAL  AND  MORAL  LAW.  The  Difference  Be 
tween  Physical  and  Moral  Law.  By  the  Rev.  WM.  ARTHUR,  D.D. 

12mo,  Cloth,  $1  00. 

ARTHUR'S  TONGUE  OF  FIRE.  The  Tongue  of  Fire  ;  or,  The  True 
Power  of  Christianity.  By  the  Rev.  WM.  ARTHUR,  D.D.  Portrait. 
12mo,  Cloth,  60  cents  ;  Paper,  40  cents. 

BACON'S  GENESIS  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  CHURCHES.  By 
the  Rev.  LEONARD  BACON,  D.D.  Illustrated.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

BARNES'S  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  Lectures  on  the 
Evidences  of  Christianity  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.  By  ALBERT 
BARNES.  12mo,  Cloth,  $1  75. 

BARNES'S  NOTES.  Notes  on  the  New  Testament  and  the  Psalms. 
By  ALBERT  BARNES.  Maps  and  Illustrations.  14  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth, 
$1  50  per  volume.  The  volumes  sold  separately. 

ON  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  EPHESIANS,  THE  CO 


ON  THE  PSALMS.      3  VOlS. 

ON  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.     2  vols. 
ON  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 
ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 
ON  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 
ON  THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS, 
AND  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 


LOSSIANS,  AND  THE  PllILIPPIANS. 

ON  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS,  TIM 
OTHY,  TITUS,  AND  PHILEMON. 

ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

ON  THE  GENERAL  EPISTLES  OF  JAMES,  PETER, 
JOHN,  AND  JUDE. 


ON  THE  REVELATION. 

BARTLETT'S  FROM  EGYPT  TO  PALESTINE.  From  Egypt  to 
Palestine,  through  Sinai,  the  Wilderness,  and  the  South  Country. 
By  S.  C.  BARTLETT,D.D.,  LL.D.  Illustrated.  8vo,  Cloth,  $3  50. 

BUSHNELL'S  LIFE  AND  LETTERS.  Life  and  Letters  of  Horace 
Bushnell.  With  Two  Portraits.  8vo,  Cloth,  $3  00. 


2     Important  Books  for  Clergymen  and  Theological  Students. 

CAIRNS'S  UNBELIEF  IN  THE  18TH  CENTURY.  Unbelief  in  the 
18th  Century  as  Contrasted  with  its  Earlier  and  Later  History.  By 
JOHN  CAIRNS,  D.D.  12mo,  Cloth,  60  cents  ;  4to,  Paper,  20  cents. 

COCKER'S    THEISTIC    CONCEPTION    OF    THE    WORLD.      An 

Essay  in  Opposition  to  Certain  Tendencies  of  Modern  Thought.     By 
B.  F.  COCKER,  D.D.,  LL.D.     Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 


COCKER'S  CHRISTIANITY  AND  GREEK  PHILOSOPHY;  or,  The 

Relation  between  Spontaneous  and  Reflective  Thought  in  Greece,  and 
the  Positive  Teaching  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  By  B.  F.  COCKER, 
D.D.,  LL.D.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  75. 

DEXTER'S  CONGREGATIONALISM.  The  Congregationalism  of  the 
Last  Three  Hundred  Years,  as  seen  in  its  Literature.  With  a  Bib 
liographical  Index.  By  HENRY  MARTIN  DEXTER.  Large  8vo,  1082 
pages,  Cloth,  $6  00. 

DOUGLASS  SERIES  OF  CHRISTIAN  GREEK  AND  LATIN 
WRITERS.  12mo,  Cloth,  $1  30  per  volume. 


LATIN  HYMNS.     With  English  Notes.    By  F. 

A.  MARCH,  LL.D. 
EUSEBIUS.    The  First  Book  and  Selections.   By 

F.  A.  MARCH,  LL.D. 
ATHENAGORAS.    Edited  by  F.  A.  MARCH,  LL.D. 


TERTHLLIAN'S  SELECT  WORKS.      Edited  by  F. 

A.  MARCH,  LL.D. 
THE  APOLOGIES  OF  JUSTIN  MARTYR.    With  an 

Introduction  and  Notes.     By  B.  L.  GILDEII- 

SLEEVE,  Ph.D.  (Gott.),  LL.D. 


D  WIGHT'S  THEOLOGY.  Theology  Explained  and  Defended,  in  a 
Series  of  Sermons.  By  TIMOTHY  DWIGHT,  S.T.D.,  LL.D.  Portrait, 
4vols.,8vo,  Cloth,  $8  00. 

GIESELER'S  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY.  A  Text  -  Book  of 
Church  History.  By  Dr.  JOHN  C.  L.  GIESELER.  Translated  by  SAM 
UEL  DAVIDSON,  LL.D. ,  and  the  Rev.  JOHN  W.  HULL,  M.  A.  New  Edi 
tion.  Edited  by  the  Rov.  HENRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D.  8vo,  Cloth.  Vols. 
I.,  II.,  III.,  and  IV.,  $2  25  each.  Vol.  V.,  $3  00. 

GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT  CONCORDANCE.  The  Englishman's 
Greek  Concordance  of  the  New  Testament.  8vo,  Cloth,  $3  50;  Sheep, 
$3  87;  Half  Calf,  $5  25. 

HERVEY'S  CHRISTIAN  RHETORIC.  A  System  of  Christian  Rhet 
oric,  for  the  Use  of  Preachers  and  Other  Speakers.  By  GEORGE 
WINFRED  HERVEY.  8vo,  Cloth,  $3  50. 

HURST'S  SHORT  HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION.  A  Short 
History  of  the  Reformation.  With  Maps  and  Woodcuts.  By  JOHN 
F.  HURST,  D.D.  IGino,  Flexible  Cloth,  40  cents. 

M'CLINTOCK  &  STRONG'S  CYCLOPAEDIA.  A  Cyclopaedia  of 
Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Literature.  By  the  late  Rev. 
JOHN  M'CLINTOCK,  D.D.,  and  JAMES  STRONG,  S.T.D.  With  Maps 
and  numerous  Illustrations.  Ten  Volumes  and  one  Supplementary 
Volume.  8vo.  Price  per  Volume,  Cloth,  $5  00;  Sheep,  $6  00  ;  Half 
Morocco,  $8  00.  (Sold  by  Subscription  only.") 


Important  Books  for  Clergymen  and  Theological  Students.     3 

MILMAN'S  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  From  the  Birth  of 
Christ  to  the  Abolition  of  Paganism  in  the  Roman  Empire.  By  the 
Rev.  H.  H.  MILMAN.  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

MOSHEIM'S  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY.  Ancient  and  Modern 
Ecclesiastical  History,  in  which  the  Rise  and  Variation  of  Church 
Power  are  Considered  in  their  Connection  with  the  State  of  Learning, 
Philosophy,  and  Political  History  of  Europe.  Translated,  with  Notes, 
etc.,  by  A.  MACLAINE,  D.D.  Continued  to  1826  by  C.  COOTE,  LL.D. 
2  vols.,  8vo,  Cloth,  $4  00;  Sheep,  $5  00. 

NEAL'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  PURITANS,  or  Protestant  Npn- con 
formists  ;  from  the  Reformation  in  1518  to  the  Revolution  in  1688. 
By  DANIEL  NEAL,  M.A.  With  Notes  by  J.  O.  CHOULES,  D.D.  2 
vols.,  8vo,  Cloth,  $4  00 ;  Sheep,  $5  00. 

NORDHOFF'S  GOD  AND  THE  FUTURE  LIFE :  The  Reasonable 
ness  of  Christianity.  Natural  Theology  for  Youth.  By  CHARLES 
NORDHOFF.  16mo,  Cloth,  $1  00. 

PRIME'S  TENT-LIFE  IN  THE  HOLY  LAND.     By  WILLIAM  C. 

PRIME.     Illustrated.     12mo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

REVISION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TES 
TAMENT.  With  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev.  PHILIP  SCIIAFF,  D.D., 
LL.D.  618  pages,  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $3  00. 

WESTCOTT  &  HORT'S  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT.  The  New 
Testament  in  the  Original  Greek.  The  Text  Revised  by  BROOKE 
Foss  WESTCOTT,  D.D.,  and  F.  J.  A.  HORT,  D.D.  American  Edition. 
With  an  Introduction  by  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of 
the  American  Bible  Revision  Committee.  Vol.  I.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth, 
$2  00.  Vol.  II.  Containing  Introduction  and  Appendix  by  the  Edi 
tors.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

REVISED  GREEK  -  ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Westcott  & 
Hort's  Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  and  the 
Revised  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament  printed  on  opposite 
pages.  With  Dr.  Philip  Schaff's  Introduction  to  Westcott  &  Hort's 
Greek  New  Testament.  Crown  8vo,  Half  Leather,  $3  50. 

REVISED  VERSION  OF  THE  HOLY  BIBLE.  In  One  Volume. 
Brevier,  4to,  Cloth,  $1  50;  Sheep,  $2  00. 

REVISED  VERSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Harper's 
American  Editions :  Brevier,  16mo,  Cloth,  45  cents ;  Leather,  Gilt 
Edges,  90  cents ;  12mo,  Cloth,  60  cents.  Pica,  8vo,  Red  Edges,  $2  00 ; 
Divinity  Circuit,  Full  Morocco,  $9  00. 

REVISED  VERSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  In  Four  Vol 
umes.  Pica,  8vo,  Cloth,  Red  Edges,  $10  00.  (Uniform  in  Size  and 
Typography  with  Harper's  American  Pica  Edition  of  the  "Revised 
Version  of  the  New  Testament.")  In  Two  Volumes.  Brevier  16mo 
Cloth,  $2  50. 

ROBERTSON'S  LIFE  AND  WORKS  : 

LIFE,  LETTERS,  LECTURES   ON    CORINTHIANS.  1  SERMONS   PREACHED    AT    BRIGHTON       Large 
Larpe  12mo,  Cloth,  $2  00  ;  Half  Calf,  $3  75.    |      12mo,  Cloth,  $2  00;  Half  Calf,  $3  75. 
"  THE  HUMAN  KACE,"  and  other  Sermons.    12mo,  Cloth,  $1  50;  Half  Calf,  $3  25. 


4     Important  Books  for  Clergymen  and  Theological  Students. 

SCHAFF'S  COMPANION  TO  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT  AND 
THE  ENGLISH  VERSION.  By  PHILIP  SCIIAFF,  D.D.,  President 
of  the  American  Committee  on  Revision.  With  Fac-simile  Illustra 
tions  of  MSS.  and  Standard  Editions  of  the  New  Testament.  Post 
8vo,  Cloth,  $2  75. 

SCHAFF'S  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM.  With  a  History  and 
Critical  Notes.  By  the  Rev.  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.  Fourth 
Edition.  Three  Volumes.  Vol.  I.  The  History  of  Creeds.  Vol.  II. 
The  Greek  and  Latin  Creeds,  with  Translations.  Vol.  III.  The  Evan 
gelical  Protestant  Creeds,  with  Translations.  8vo,  Cloth,  $15  00. 

SERMON'S  BY  BISHOP  MATTHEW  SIMPSON,  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Edited,  from  Short -hand  Reports,  by  GEOHGE 
R.  CROOKS,  D.D.  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

SOUTHEY'S  LIFE  OF  JOHN  WESLEY,  and  Rise  and  Progress  of 
Methodism.  By  ROBERT  SOUTIIEY.  With  Notes  by  S.  T.  COLE 
RIDGE,  and  Remarks  by  ALEXANDER  KNOX.  Second  American  Edi 
tion.  2  vols.,  12mo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

TAYLOR'S  (W.  M.)  WORKS.  Works  by  the  Rev.  WILLIAM  M.  TAY 
LOR,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle,  New  York.  12mo, 
Cloth,  $1  50  per  volume. 


DAVID,  KING  OF  ISRAEL. 
ELIJAH  THE  PROPHET. 
PETER  THE  APOSTLE. 


DANIEL  THE  BELOVED. 

MOSES  THE  LAW-GIVER. 

PAUL  THE  MISSIONARY.    Illustrated. 


THOMSON'S  SOUTHERN  PALESTINE  AND  JERUSALEM.  (The 
Land  and  the  Book.)  By  WILLIAM  M.  THOMSON,  D.D.  140  Illustra 
tions  and  Maps.  Square  8vo,  Cloth,  $6  00;  Sheep,  $7  00;  Half  Mo 
rocco,  $8  50;  Full  Morocco,  Gilt  Edges,  $10  00. 

THOMSON'S  CENTRAL  PALESTINE  AND  PHCENICIA.  (The 
Land  and  the  Book.)  By  WILLIAM  M.  THOMSON,  D.D.  Forty-five 
Years  a  Missionary  in  Syria  and  Palestine.  130  Illustrations  and 
Maps.  Square  8vo,  Cloth,  $6  00;  Sheep,  $7  00;  Half  Morocco,  $8  50; 
Full  Morocco,  Gilt  Edges,  $10  00. 

THOMSON'S  GREAT  ARGUMENT.  The  Great  Argument;  or,  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  Old  Testament.  By  W.  H.  THOMSON,  M.A.,  M.D.,  Pro 
fessor  of  Materia  Medica  and  Therapeutics,  Medical  Department  Uni 
versity  of  New  York.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  00. 

TRISTRAM'S  LAND  OF  MOAB  :  Travels  and  Discoveries  on  the  East 
Side  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Jordan.  By  H.  B.  TRISTRAM,  M.A., 
LL.D.,  F.R.S.  Map  and  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

TYERMAN'S  OXFORD  METHODISTS.  Memoirs  of  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Clayton,  Ingham,  Gambold,  Hervey,  and  Bought  on,  with  Biographical 
Notices  of  others.  By  the  Rev.  LUKE  TYERMAN.  With  Portraits. 
Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2  50. 

TYERMAN'S  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  JOHN  WESLEY,  Founder  of 
the  Methodists.  By  the  Rev.  LUKE  TYERMAN.  Three  Steel  Portraits. 
3  vols.,  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $7  50. 

VAN-LENNEP'S  BIBLE  LANDS :  Their  Modern  Customs  and  Man 
ners  Illustrative  of  Scripture.  By  the  Rev.  HENRY  J.  VAN-LENNEP, 
D.D.  Maps  and  Illustrations.  8vo,  Cloth,  $5  00  ;  Sheep,  $6  00 ; 
Half  Calf,  $8  00.