Skip to main content

Full text of "An introduction to dogmatic theology : Based on Luthardt"

See other formats

o. x3» 

S?qu0atl|e6 by Ijtm to 

tl|0 SItbrarg of 

Prinrrtntt ollj^xilngtral g>^mtnary 


sec #10,859 

Weidner, Revere Franklin, 

An introduction to dogmatic 








Doctor of Sacred Theolog^y, and Professor of Exegesis and Dogmatics in the Theological 

Setninary of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod, at Roch 

Island, III ; Author of " Commentary on Mark" , "Theological 

Encyclopaedia" , "Biblical Theology of (Hf Qld 

Testament" , etc 













rtofessor of Theology in Augnstana Theological Seminary, Rock Island, III.; Member 0/ 

the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis; Member of the American 

Oriental Society, etc. 













Page 101 , second line iiom bottom, tor 1673 read i57.*{. 
" 184, eighth " " " , VQ-dd eclectic. 
" 137, line 6, for strict read stricter. 
" 139, " 18, for 380 read 370. 
" 163, last line, for member, read number. 
" 195 , line 10 , read Dannhauer, 
" 224, " 7, " Bollngbroke. 
The few other errors are of such a character that they can easily be corrected. 


Revealed Theology naturally divides itself into four 
main departments, exegetical, historical, systematic, 
and practical. Under Exegetical Theology we com- 
prise all the sciences that relate to the exposition and 
elucidation of the Holy Scriptures; Historical Theol- 
ogy begins with Sacred History and includes what has 
been developed in the Church in the shape of Church 
History and the History of Doctrine ; Practical Theol- 
ogy embraces the theory of the activities of the Church, 
as exercised by the pastor and teacher in particular; 
but in Systematic Theology we have the highest form 
of theological science. It is the scientific and connected 
presentation of Christian doctrine, in its relation to 
both faith and morals, and comprises the sciences of 
Apologetics, Dogmatics, and Ethics. 

Our later theologians distinguish between Biblical 
Theology and Dogmatics. Biblical Theology has for 
its aim to represent the religious ideas and doctrines 
which are contained in the Bible, and is a purely his- 
torical discipline, and as such belongs to the depart- 
ment of Historical Theology. Christian Dogmatics or 
Dogmatic Theology, on the other hand, is a historico- 
philosophical science, in which the results of historical 
exegesis are unified and systematized. It uses the re- 
sults of Biblical Theology as the material with which 


it builds. It is the sum of the truths embraced in the 
Christian faith in their organic connection with the 
facts of religious truth. It is the science of that, of 
which the Christian affections and the Christian life 
are the great art. It has no other aim than the teach- 
ing of the Christian religion, as this is established in the 
experimental consciousness of the believer, to reproduce 
it spiritually and to bring it into a scientific, system- 
atic form, for the delineation and development in every 
direction of its divinely wrought facts in Jesus Christ. 

Of late. Dogmatic Theology has been somewhat neg- 
lected in certain parts of the Protestant world, and 
indeed has fallen into disrepute, more stress being laid 
upon the results of Biblical Theology. We are told 
that in Dogmatic Theology we have the deductions 
and speculations of men while in Biblical Theology we 
have the pure teaching of the Word of God. But let us 
not forget that the man who takes up the Bible now 
without reference to what has been done toward its 
elucidation in the past, and without being guided by 
the development of doctrine is unwise and will fall into 
error, for the faith and doctrinal thinking of the present 
is conditioned by the intellectual labors and the devel- 
opment of Church doctrine in the past, and must con- 
sequently assure itself of its essential harmony with it. 

This work does not present a System of Christian 
Theology, but is simply an Introduction to such a Sys- 
tem. It is the door and the vestibule which leads to 
the sacred edifice. It only treats of the definition, con- 

tents, method, and history, of Dogmatics. The attempt 
has been made to give a concise and yet complete his- 
tory of Dogmatics, including even a brief sketch of the 
most prominent recent writers in this department. The 
book itself is the outgrowth of work in the class-room, 
and has been prepared to meet the wants of my stu- 
dents, and is published in the hope that it may be of 
some service not only to other theological students, 
and to the English-speaking ministers, of the Evangel- 
ical Lutheran Church, but may be of interest even to 
those who are not of the same Confession of Faith. 

He who watches the horizon of German Lutheran 
Theology, will always discover some new star of great 
brilliancy, just coming into range above it. One of the 
latest of distinguished living conservative theologians 
is Christoph Ernst Luthardt, since 1856 professor 
of theology at Leipsic, and renowed as a university 
lecturer and pulpit orator. His Compendium der Dog- 
matik appeared in 1865, and in 1886 had already 
reached the seventh edition. This work is not strictly 
speaking the development of a system, but rather a 
compendious presentation of carefully selected mate- 
rial. It is by far the best manual of the Dogmatics of 
the Evangelical Lutheran Church we possess. On ac- 
count of its comprehensiveness, brevity, and succint- 
ness, my own teacher, Charles Porterfield Krauth, 
late Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the Evangelical 
Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, took 
it as a general guide in a large part of his own lectures, 
and especially recommended it to his students. This 


work has been the basis of my own lectures during the 
last six years, my students using a Swedish translation 
of the fifth German edition. In this Introduction we 
closely follow the outline of Luthardt, but though we 
follow his outline and plan, it is not a translation, 
nor a condensation, nor simply an adaptation, but 
we have made an attempt to rewrite the work for the 
special wants of the Church in this country. 

The writer would also record his great indebtedness 
to the Manuscript Lectures of Dr. Krauth, which have 
been freely used, and from which he has derived con- 
stant stimulus and suggestion. He would also express 
his great obligations to his venerable colleague, Dr. 
Hasselquist, whose rich scholarship was constantly 
at his command, and, who with a kindness which the 
writer cannot adequately acknowledge, has done him 
the great favor of reading the whole book aloud in his 
presence, during its passage through the press. 

R. F, W. 


Easter Monday, April 2, 1888, 
Rock Island, III. 








The Object of the Introduction, . . . .13 

I. The Definition of Dogmatics. 
The Definition of Theology, . . . . 17 

1. Usage of the word Theology, ... 17 

2. Divisions of Theology, . . . . . . 17 

3. Definition of Revealed Theology, . . . .19 

4. Means of Theological Study, . . . . 19 

5. Aim of Theology, , . . . . . .20 

The Claims of Theology , .... 20 

1. It is a Biblical Science, ...... 21 

2. Its necessity, 21 

3. Its possibility, .... . . . .23 

4. In harmony with a genuine Philosophy, ... 25 
The Organism of Theology, 26 

1. The Departments of Theology ^ .... 27 

2. The Relation of Dogmatics and Ethics, . . .28 
The Definition of Dogmatics, . . . .29 

1. Definition of Dogma, ... . . .29 

2. The Name of this Science, .... . 30 

3. Definition of Dogmatics, ...... 30 

II. The Contents of Dogmatics. 
The Definition of Religion, . . . . 32 

1. The Word Religion, 32 

2. Definition of Religion, . 32 

The Essential Character and Truth of Religion, 34 

1. Religion in its subjective sense, .... 

2. Religion in its objective sense, .... 

3. The Origin of Religion, 

4. The Truth of Religion, 

The Divisions of Religion, .... 

1. True and False, • . 


2. Natural and Positive, 44 


Sec. I'age. 

9. The Essential Character of Cbristianity, . 46 

1. The Relation of Christianity to Heathenism and Judaism, 46 

2. The Essential Character of Christianity, ... 46 

3. The Historical Conception of Christianity, . . . 46 

4. The Truth of Christianity, 47 

10. Romanism and Protestantism contrasted, . 47 

1. False explanations of the difference, . . . . 47 

2. A general statement of the difference, ... . 48 

3. The Essential Character of Romanism, .... 48 

4. Romanism criticised, 49 

5. The Essential Character of Protestantism, ... 51 

11. Lutheran Protestantism, 58 

1 . The Difference between Lutheran and Reformed Protes- 

tantism 59 

2. The Material and Formal Principle, .... 62 

3. The Material Principle of Lutheranism, ... .62 

4. The Formal Principle of Lutheranism, ... 65 

5. The Historical Character of Lutheran Protestantism, . 67 

6. The Internal Assurance of Salvation, . . . . 70 

III. The Method of Dogmatics. 

12. The Formation of a Dogmatic System, . 72 

1. The Material Principle of Dogmatics, .... 72 

2. The Holy Scriptures as the Normative factor of Dogmatics, 73 

3. The Canon of Scripture, ' 74 

4. The Interpretation of Scripture, 82 

13. The Church Doctrine and the Subjective Con- 

sciousness of Faith, 87 

1. The Churchly Character of Dogmatics, .... 88 

2. The Confessions of the Church, 88 

3. The Church Doctrine as consisting of Articles of Faith, 109 

4. The Fundamental Principles of Faith of the General Coun- 
cil of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America, 116 

5. The Consciousness of Faith, 120 

14. The Disposition of Dogmatics, . . . .120 

IV. The History of Dogmatics. 

15. The Dogmatics of the Ancient Church, . 132 


Seo. Page. 

16. The Dogmatics of the Middle Ages, . . 154 

1. The Essential Character of Scholasticism, . . 154 

2. Tke Beginnings of Scholasticism, .... 156 

3. The Period of the highest Uoom of Seholasiieism, . . 162 

4. The Period of its Decline, 167 

5. Mysticism and Pre- Reformatory Theology, . . .169 

6. The Humanists, 173 

17. The Dogmatics of the Century of the Reforma- 

tion, 174 

1. The Dogmatics of Melanehthon, 174 

2. The Melanehthonian School of Dogmatics, . . .177 

3. The Reformed Dogmatics, 180 

18. The Orthodox Dogmatics of Seventeenth Cen- 

tury, 184 

1. Characteristic of this Dogmatics, .... 185 

2. The divers Tendencies of this Period, . . . 188 

3. The Dogmaticians of this Period, .... 189 

4. The Reformed or Calvinistic Dogmatics of this Period, . 198 

19. The Dogmatics of tlie Period of Transition, 210 

1. The Dogmatics of Pietism, 210 

2. The Biblical Tendency, . 214 

3. The Historical Tendency, 217 

4. The Philosophical Tendency, 219 

5. The History of Dogmatics outside of Germany, . . 221 

20. The Dogmatics of Rationalism and Suprana- 

turalism, 223 

1. The Period of Illumination, 223 

2. Rant, 227 

3. Vulgar Rationalism, ' 228 

4. Supranaturalism, 230 

21. The Dogmatics of the Most Recent Time, . 233 

1. The Renewal of Religious Faith, 233 

2. The Philosophy of this Period, 234 

3. The Emotional Theology of this Period, ... . .237 

4. The Dogmatics of the Mediating Theology. ... 240 

5. Confessional Dogmatics, . • . . . . 245 

Index 258 






In the Introduction or Prolegomena to a Sys- 
tem of Christian Theology we treat of the Defini- 
tion, the Contents, the Method, and the History, 
of Dogmatics. 

The more ancient dogmatic systems have no proper 
Introduction. In Melanchthon's i^ociV which is the 
first great Protestant system of Dogmatics, the locus Z)e 
Deo follows immediately after the preface. Selnecker 
(d. 1592), who wrote a commentary on the Loci of 
Melanchthon, was the first to introduce the practice of 

I. First published in 1521, enlarged and altered especially in the editions of 
1535 and 1543. Before the death of Melanchthon in 1560, this book had been re- 
printed nearly eighty times in various editions (17 editions of the text of 1521, 14 
of that of 1535, and 34 of that of 1543). For almost an entire century these Loct 
served as the basis and model of the dogmatic teaching of the Lutheran Church. 


prefacing works in Dogmatics with Prolegomena'^. 
Chemnitz {d. 1586), who also wrote a commentary on 
the Loci of Melanchthon, his teacher, prefixes to his 
system^ a brief dissertation on '* The use and utility of 
theological /oci." Gerhard* {d. 1637), after a short 
preface on "The Nature of Theology," begins with a 
locus of 230 closely-printed quarto pages on ''The 
Holy Scriptures " as the only Source of Theology. In 
QuENSTEDT^ {d. 1688) there are five introductory chap- 
ters: 1) Of Theology in general; 2) Of the general 
subject of Theology, /. e.. Religion ; 3) Of the source of 
Theology; 4) Of the Holy Scriptures ; 5) Of the Arti- 
cles of Faith. This plan is also followed by Heinrich 
ScHMiD ^ in his Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church, exhibited and verified from the orig- 
inal sources," a work which is of invaluable aid to the 
English student who wishes to become acquainted with 
the Theology of the Lutheran Church. 

The material of Introduction continued to enlarge. 
Our later Dogmaticians give special prominence to the 
apologetic questions concerning Revelation, Miracles, 
Prophecy, the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, Inspiration, 
Faith and Knowledge. Carl Hase^ in his Hutterus Re- 
divivus (a marvel of condensation) in his Prolegomena 
of 27 sections discusses 1) Religion, 2) Dogmatic The- 

2. In his Institutiones Christianae Religionis. 1,563. 

3. In his Loci Theologici, published after his death, by Polycarp Leyser, 1591. 

4. In his great work Loci Theologici, begun in 1610 and completed in 1621. 
The best edition is that of Cotta (Tuebingen, 1762 — 87, 22 vols,). For practical pur- 
poses we recommend the edition of Preuss (1863 — 1875), in 9 vols. A very full index 
lately published (1885) greatly enhances the value of this edition, which also pres- 
erves in the margin the paging of Cotta's edition. 

5. His Theologia didactico-polemica appeared in 1685. 

6. Translated from the fifth edition by Hay and Jacobs. Philadelphia, 1876. 
A new revised edition will shortly appear. 

7. Reference will always be made to the eleventh edition, I.eipsic, 1868. 


ology, and 3) History of Dogmatic Theology. Philippis 
(d. 1882) devotes his first volume of 346 pages to Pro- 
legomena. He discusses at length the topics of Religion 
and Revelation, Faith and Doctrine, Holy Scripture and 
Canon, Inspiration and Exposition. ThomasiuS'' {d. 
1875) touches only the most essential preliminary ques- 
tions, and postpones to the Dogmatic system itself, even 
the discussion of the doctrine concerning Holy Scripture. 
LuTHARDT,io whose system we closely follow devotes 
21 out of 79 sections to his Prolegomena and History 
of Dogmatics. 

BjORLiNGi 1 in his system devotes his First Part of 
597 pages to his Introduction or Prolegomena. After 
a general introduction (pp. 1—22) he discusses the top- 
ics of Religion (pp. 22—72), Faith (pp. 73—94), Rev- 
elation (pp. 94—179), The Historical Development of 
Religion and of Special Revelation (pp. 179—272), The 
Holy Scriptures (pp. 272— 334), Tradition and the Con- 
fessions of the Church (pp. 335—350), The Dogmatic 
System (pp. 350—363), and History of Dogmatics (pp. 

8. Reference will be made to the third edition of his Kirchliche Glaubens- 
lehre, as far as it has appeared. Guetersloh, 1883. 6 Parts in 9 vols. 

9. In his Christi Pe?'son und Werk. Second edition. 3 vols. Erlangen, 

10. See his Kompendhnn der Dogmatik. 7 verb, und verm. Aufl. Leipsic, 1886. 

11. In his Den Christ eliga Dogmatiken enligt Lutherska Kyrkans Bekan- 
nelseskrifter. Second revised and enlarged edition, Orebro, 1866. 

F6rra delen: Den Christeliga Dogmatikens vetenskapliga grundlaggning (Vol. 
I. pp. I — 597). Andra delen: Porsta afdeln. — Den Ursprungliga Foreningen med 
Gud (Vol. II. pp. I — 300); Andra afdeln. — Storandet af den Ursprungliga FOre- 
ningen med Gud (Vol. III. pp. i — 94); Tredje afdeln. — Cm det objektiva S.terstal- 
landet af den genom Synden sterda FOreningen med Gud (Vol, IV. pp. i — 248); 
Fjerde afdeln. — Tillampningen af den objektiva, genom Jesus Christus forv^rfvade 
Fralsningen eller Aterforeningen med Gud (Vol. V. pp. i — 371); Femte afdeln. — 
Den Christeliga Eskatologien (Vol. VI. pp. 1—77). 


S. L. Bring! - in his well-known work gives us a very 
brief introduction of 69 pages. 

Of the Reformed Systems of Theology published in 
this country, Charles Hodge ^ ^ {d. 1878) (Presbyterian) 
in his Introduction of 188 pages discusses 1) Method, 2) 
Theology, 3) Rationalism, 4) Mysticism (Quietism, Quak- 
ers), 5) Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the Rule 
of Faith (Tradition, Infallibility), 6) Protestant Rule 
of Faith, (Canon, Inspiration, Rules of Interpretation). 
VANOosTERZEEi*((i. 1882) (Dutch Reformed) prefaces his 
System with an Introduction (1. Character, 2. Sources, 
3. History, 4. Claims, of Christian Dogmatics) of 74 
pages, followed by Part I. The Apologetic Foundation 
(pp. 75 — 228), in which he discusses Religion, Revelation 
and Holy Scripture. Strong^^ (Baptist) in his Pro/e^o- 
mena treats of 1) The Idea, 2) The Material, 3) The 
Method, of Theology. Henry B. Smitri^ (^z. 1877) 
(Presbyterian) in six chapters discusses 1) The Idea of 
Christian Theology, 2) The Sources of Christian The- 
ology, 3) Natural Theology, 4) Revelation, 5) Divine Au- 
thority of Revelation (Canon, Inspiration), 6) Divisions 
of Theology. 

12. \n\As,Grunddragen af den ChristeligaTroslaran. Forsta delen: Inled- 
ning (pp. I — 69) — I. Gud s^som uppenbarelsens princlp (pp. 69 — 94); 2, Guds 
inre uppenbarelse (pp. 95—126); Guds yttre uppenbarelse (pp. 127—276). Lund, 
1869. Andra delen: Forsta haftet— Christi Person och verk (pp. i— 149). Lund, 
1876. Andra haftet — L^ran om Anden och hans verk (pp. i — 200), 4. Uppen- 
barelsens fuliandning (pp. 201 — 257). Lund, 1877. 

13. See his Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York, 1883. 

14. See his Christian Dogmatics. 2 vols. New York, 1874. 

15. Systematic Theology by Augustus Hopkins Strong. Rochester, 1886. 

16. See his Introduction to Christian Theology. New York, 1883. A work 
published separately from his System of Theology. 




Theology is the churchly science of Christian- 

1. The usage of the word. 

According to its derivation, theology is the discourse 
about God and divine things. In the usage of the Church 
theologia primarily referred to language and reasoning 
concerning divinity ^ It was more especially and by pre- 
eminence given to the doctrine concerning the Trinity, 
or concerning the Godhead of the Logos, on which ac- 
count the Apostle John was called by pre-eminence the 
Divine, the Theologian. For the same reason Gregory 
Nazianzen (d. 389), because of his defence of the deity 
of the Logos against the Arians, was called the Theolo- 
gian. Some Dogmaticians (Hase, Hodge, Vilmar, etc.) 
still use the word in this narrow sense as designating 
the Doctrine concerning God {De Deo). 

The word obtained that ^de sense in which we now 
use it, as a scientific statement of the discussion of the 
whole body of doctrine, in the twelfth century, when 
Abelard (1079—1142) named his manual of doctrine 
Theologia Christiana. 

2. Divisions of Theology. 

Theology may be considered 1) as a) general and 
b) special; 2) as a) false and b) true; 3) as a) arche- 
typal and b) ektypal. 

I. "By the Greek word theologia we understand to mean an account or ex- 
planation of the divine nature." Augustine in his " City 0/ God,'' VIII. I. Vol. 
2, p. 144 of Schaff's edition of "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers." First 
Series. Buffalo, 1887. 


1) As general theology it is the knowledge of God 
of whatever kind, even natural knowledge, provided it 
be true. As special it is that knowledge of God and the 
divine mysteries which is revealed in the Scriptures and 
through them delivered to man. 

2) Theolog3^ can only be called false by a sort of per- 
version of the word, asv^rhen v^e speak of heathen, Jew- 
ish and Pseudo-Christian theology. True theology is the 
pure emanation of God's teaching, in nature or in his 

3) Archetypal {i.e., original) theology is that infinite 
wisdom of God itself whereby God knows himself in 
himself, and knows all things external to himself through 
himself^. Matt. 11: 27; 1 Cor. 2: 10, '' for the Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. ^^ This 
archetypal theology belongs to Christ essentially, and 
by virtue of his nature, inasmuch as he is the eternal 
God ; it belongs to him personally according to his hu- 
man nature, by virtue of the communicatio idiomatuza, 
in consequence of the personal union (Hollaz,^ Quest. 
8, p. 4). Col. 2: 9, '' For in him (Christ) dwelleth all 
the fullness of the Godhead bodily.'' 

Ektypal (i. e., derived) theology is an image and 
shadow of that infinite and essential knowledge which 
God has of himself. It is communicated to intelligent 
creatures by God after the model of his own theolog3^, 
as a pattern. 1) It belongs, first of all, to Jesus as a 
man. Luke 2: 40, ^^ And the child grew, and waxed 
strong, Riled with wisdom : and the grace of God was 
upon him.'' 2) It belongs to angels. Matt. 18: 10; 
Eph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 12, " which things angels desire 

2. Ipsa infinita Dei sapientia, qua Deus se ipsum cognoscit in se ipso; et 
extra se omnia per se ipsum. 

3. See his Exame?t Theologice Acroamaticce. Edition of 1741. 


to look into.'' 3) Finally, it belongs to man, revealed 
to him through the Word and taught by the Holy 

3. Definition of Revealed Theology. 

Theology, strictly so called, is that exalted practical 
science, revealed through God's Word, which teaches all 
things which sinful man, capable of eternal salvation, 
must know and do, in order to acquire true faith in 
Christ and attain holiness of life {Hollaz, 1, p. 1.). 

The true theologian must of necessity be a regener- 
ate man, firmly believing the divine Word, adhering to 
it with unshaken confidence, apt in teaching others, and 
skilful in confuting opponents. Even to a deep theoret- 
ical comprehension of theology, over against a mere 
external (philological) knowledge, supernatural grace 
is necessary. 

Theology, viewed as a system, and in a secondary 
sense, is that doctrine or teaching drawn from the Word 
of God, by which men are instructed in the true faith 
and in a pious life unto eternal salvation. 

The subject-matter of theology consists of theological 
truth, i. e., of facts or conclusions known or deduced 
from the supernatural revelation of God. 

Since the eighteenth century the word theology has 
been objectively used as the body of the teachings of the 
Christian religion, learnedly and accurately set forth, 
and arranged in accordance with an artificial form. 
Theology, according to this view, is the science of relig- 
ion. Kahnis^ defines theology as "the scientific self- 
consciousness of the Church." 

4. The Means of Theological Study. 

There are three means : 1) Prayer, 2) meditation, and 
3) experience. ''Prayer begins the study of theology, 
meditation continues it, and experience confirms it." 

4. In his Lutherische Dogmatik, Second edition. 2 vols. 1874—75. 


As Christian theology is the science of divine things, 
it cannot be mastered without profound study. Whether 
a man has really mastered his profession or not will 
soon be found out. They who belittle theology, perhaps 
because they have never studied it and thus do not 
know its rich contents, are simply dishonoring their 

There are therefore certain requisites to the successful 
study of theology. Among others we may mention: 
1) natural endowments; 2) a disciplined mind; 3) a 
well-balanced mind ; 4) thorough preparatory training ; 

5) a knowledge of the original languages of the Bible ; 

6) an acquaintance with mental and moral science; 

7) an inward vocation ; 8) a holy affection toward God ; 
9) spiritual mindedness ; 10) professional zeal; 11) the 
enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit; 12) a diligent 
use of the means of theological study. 

5. The Aim of Theology, 

The aim of theology, as a science, is to set forth, in a 
systematic way, the truths of the Christian religion. 
" Its immediate aim is true faith in Christ, and this faith 
operates in a two-fold way: 1) internally, embracing 
Christ with his benefits, and 2) externally, producing 
good works. The ultimate aim of theology is eternal 
happiness, which consists not only in intuitive knowl- 
edge of God, but also in the enjoyment of him " (Hollaz). 



Although the Bible is not a system of theol- 
ogy, still God reveals to us in his Word the 
truths which, if properly understood and ar- 
ranged, constitute the Science of Theology. Such 


a science is necessary to satisfy the intellect, to 
direct the affections, and to develop the practical 
life of the minister and of the Church. It is possible 
because God has revealed himself to man, and 
the relation of faith to knowledge, and of Theol- 
ogy to Philosophy is such, as not to preclude the 
possibility of a theological science. 

Theology claims our regard and prayerful study : 

1. Because it is a Biblical Science. 

It has its origin in the Word of God, and is distinctly 
recognized in the artless yet specific language of Scrip- 
ture. It calls our attention to the value of skill over 
against unskilfulness, of learning over against ignor- 
ance, of system over against confusion, of the mastery 
of knowledge over against the feebleness of a novice. 
And all these are the marks of a genuine theology. 
There is a scribe thoroughly furnished for the kingdom 
(Matt. 13: 52), implying that there are scribes not 
thoroughly furnished. Paul was, relatively, what would 
now be called a great dogmatician ; Apollos would be 
styled a biblical theologian ; Luke would be considered 
a master in historical theology. 

The pastors, as shepherds, must also be teachers, 
(Eph. 4: 11) ; the bishop must be apt to teach (1 Tim. 
3 : 2 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 24) . The teacher must be '' a workman 
that needeth not to he ashamed, handUng aright the 
word of truth " (2 Tim. 2 : 15), ''holding to the faithful 
word which is according to the teaching, that he maybe 
able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict 
the gainsay ers^^ (Tit. 1:9). 

2. Because of its scientific necessity. 

The science which traces the doctrinal claims of 
Christianity, in their relation, their mutual dependenc^^, 
and their harmonious organization is necessary : 


1) To satisfy the intellect. To edify is to build ; build- 
ing requires order, harmony, and proportion. The more 
perfect a religion is the more does it tend to a scientific 
system. The science of theology meets the deepest want 
of man's rational nature. Nature rises into Science, 
Revelation into Theology. 

2 ) To give the wisest direction to the affections. Truth 
systematically presented promotes the development of 
Christian character, a) It enlightens the understanding 
with sound knowledge, so that men have clear views of 
truth ; b) it awakens emotion through that truth and 
by truth strengthens and purifies emotion ; c) it directs 
the will and conscience, b3^ the power of that emotion, 
to activity in making man holy, and in impelling him to 
do good to others. That piety that can be injured by 
the systematic presentation of the great doctrines oi 
Christianity must be weak, mystical, spurious, or mis- 

3) To develop perfectly the practical life of the min- 
ister, and his uselulness as a teacher of religion. The 
minister must have all the knowledge which adapts him 
to the wants of the Church. He must know her history 
and practical needs, the need of the altar, the need of the 
pulpit, the need of the pastor, and of the people. All 
this can only be obtained by the diligent study of the 
science of theology. Nothing more certainly destroys a 
minister's influence for good than confusion and incon- 
sistency in his doctrinal statements. To mutilate or to 
misrepresent truth is not only a sin against God, but it 
ma}^ also prove the ruin of men's souls. The function of 
the minister is to proclaim the truth of God to men, and 
his first duty is to learn it ; and he will be a traitor to 
himself and to his high calling if he does not resolve, so 
far as he has the power, above all things, to be a theo- 


logian. He may be something besides, but this he must 
be. Spurgeon truly says : ''We shall never have great 
preachers until we have great divines." 

4) To develop the practical life of the Church. There 
is a close connection between purity of doctrine and pu- 
rity of life. For a misrepresentation of the truth, or a 
defective understanding of the truth, sooner or later, re- 
sults in defects of organization, and in errors of opera- 
tion and of life. There is a foundation on which the 
Church rests, and other foundation can no man lay 
than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. The min- 
ister must know the development of the Church in faith 
and creed, he must be enriched by the lessons of the 
Church's past, for his labor in preparing the way for the 
Church of the future. The science of theology is neces- 
sary for the upbuilding of the Church. 

3. Because it is possible. 

The objection has been made that theology can not 
be regarded as a science, because the truths that are 
therein contained are not proper objects of knowledge, 
because they are to be apprehended only by faith. But 
faith and knowledge do not stand in such relation to 
each other, as to preclude the possibility of theological 
science. Faith is only a higher sort of knowledge. By 
faith we apprehend what is beyond our knowledge. The 
three elements of faith are knowledge, assent and confi- 
dence ; the first two are acts of the intellect, and the 
third an act of the will. Faith is therefore the joint act 
of the intellect and the will. So Gerhard and Philippic . 
This intimate coherence of faith and knowledge is con- 
stantly and expressly referred to in the Bible itself (1 
Cor. 13: 12; 14: 20; 1 John 2: 20). 

I. " Der Glaube is ein Act des ganzen erkennenden und wollenden Menschen- 
geistes in seiner untheilbaren Einheit." Philippics Kirch. Gl. I. 54. 


There has been, indeed, even in the Church, a disposi- 
tion to exalt one over the other. The Alexandrian tend- 
ency was to give ^'gnosis'' or knowledge a higher place 
than ^^plstis'^ or faith, while the principle of Augustine, 
adopted by the Scholastics, was: crede ut intelligas ; 
tides prsecedit intellectutn, — ''believe that thou mayest 
understand; faith precedes understanding." But the 
question is not which precedes, but what is their rela- 
tion to each other. Jacobi {d. 1819) confessed that to 
him the dualism of faith and knowledge was hopeless. 
The Hegelian philosophy resolved faith into knowledge. 
ScHLEiERMACHER (d. 1848) maintained "that under- 
standing and emotion are the two foci of our ellipse, 
and that oscillation is the universal form of all finite 

In this whole discussion we must lay stress upon the 
fact, that faith itself, as such, is already a knowledge ; 
— that it is an immediate and remains the immanent 
presupposition throughout the unfolding of this knowl- 
edge ; that the antithesis of faith is not knowledge, but 
sight and mathematical demonstration. 

Christlieb^ : "All knowledge is, in the last instance, 
conditioned by faith ; and faith is the preliminary and 
the medium of every act of intelligence. He who 
believes nothing, knows nothing. The antithesis is 
not that of faith and knowledge, but that of faith and 
unbelief. ' ' 

Strong : " The possibility of theology has a threefold 
ground : 1) In the existence of a God who has relations 
to the universe ; 2) In the capacity of the human mind 
for knowing God and certain of these relations; and 3) 
In God's revelation of himself to man." 

9. See his Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, pp. 124 — 135. 


4. Because its results are in harmony with those of a genuine 
philosophy 1. 

There are those who maintain that philosophy and 
theology are irreconcilable. Hence some repudiate phil- 
osophy, considering theology as the fixed point, — while 
very many repudiate theology, denying its claims on the 
ground that it cannot be in harmony with philosophy. 
It is very true, that within the domain of theological 
thinking, even in the Christian Church, very different 
philosophical schools have risen and flourished. The 
stiniggle between Realism and Nominalism ran through 
generations. Aristotle and Plato have alternated as 
masters of Christian philosophy. Plato represents, in 
general, the idealistic tendency, and Aristotle, the prac- 
tical and positive. Almost all philosophy is in some 
sense a development of one or the other of these tenden- 
cies, or an attempt to unite them. Luther spoke with 
special violence against the Aristotelian philosophy and 
perverted reason, and barren speculation in general. 
Melanchthon, who was more profoundly learned in 
Greek philosophy than Luther, thought better of Ari- 
stotle, and indeed advocated a sober Aristotehanism. 
The later orthodox theologians of our Church come 
more in contact with logic as one of the philosophical 
sciences, than with metaphysical speculation. Philo- 
sophical sobriety and caution are eminently character- 
istic of the Lutheran Theology, and very few of its 
arguments and none of its doctrines rest on philosoph- 
ical "data," which latter are ever likely to be subjects of 
dispute among men of solid thought. 

Hollaz truly says : '' Philosophy is not contrary or 
contradictory to revealed theology." 

The words of St. Paul (Col. 2 : 8) imply no condemn- 

I. Compare Krauth's Manuscript Lectures. 


ation of a true philosophy, but the very contrary. He 
implies that there is a true philosophy which is no 
empty deceit, is not after the tradition of men, and is 
according to Christ. But philosophy must be regarded 
only as a handmaid to theology. 

Caloyius says : " Philosophy is not opposed to The- 
ology": 1) because the true agrees with the true, and 
does not antagonize it, for what is known by the light 
of nature is no less true than that what is revealed in 
Scripture ; 2) because natural and philosophical knowl- 
edge has its origin also in God ; 3) because philosophy 
leads to a knowledge of God." But Quenstedt truly 
says : " Although Philosophy and the principles of Rea- 
son are not indeed contrary to Theology, nor the latter 
to the former, still there is a very great diiFerence be- 
tween those things that are divinely revealed in Scrip- 
ture, and those which are known by the light of 

Theology does not condemn the use of Philosophy, 
but its abuse and its affectation of directorship as norm- 
ative and decisive in divine things. 

Luthardt: " Philosophy is the science of the natural 
consciousness, Theology of the renewed Christian con- 
sciousness ; the former has to do with the world of crea- 
tion and the general principles of Being, the latter treats 
of the world of Redemption and of Salvation ; the former 
busies itself with theoretical issues, the latter with the 
practical issues of life." 



Positive Theology by its own nature divides 
itself into four main departments: 1) Biblical or 


Exegetical, 2) Historical, 3) Systematic, and 4) 
Practical. There can be no question as to the 
general correctness of this division, though there 
maybe some in regard to the order of succession. 
Every division, however, is only relative, for in 
every single department of theological study all 
the others are involved. Each takes the hand of 
the other, and affords an outlook into the other. 

I. Fuller Definition. 

1) Exegetical T/zeo/o^^ comprises all that relates to 
the exposition and elucidation of the Holy Scriptures. It 
consequently embraces Exegesis as an art, and all the 
branches of knowledge auxiliary to that art. To it 
belong the sciences of a) Sacred Philology, b) Biblical 
Archeology, c) Isagogics or Biblical Introduction and 
Canonics, d) Biblical Criticism (Textual and Higher), 
e) Hermeneutics, and / ) Exegesis, as the practical ap- 
plication of Hermeneutics. 

2) The result of the application of Exegetical Theo- 
logy to the Bible lays the foundation of Historical The- 
ology. It begins with Sacred History, and includes 
what has been developed in the Church in the shape of 
Church History and the History of Doctrine. Conse- 
quently it reaches back in its beginning into Exegesis 
and ends by throwing a bridge over into Systematic 
Theology. To Historical Theology belong the sciences 
of a) Sacred History, b) Biblical Theology (Old and 
New Testament), c) Church History, d) Ecclesiastical 
Archaeology, e) History of Doctrines, f) Patristics, 
g) Symbolics and h) Statistics. 

3) Systematic Theology is the highest form of theol- 
ogical science. It is the scientific and connected presen- 
tation of Christian doctrine in its relation to both faith 


and morals. For its successful study a previous culture 
is demanded, of an exegetical, historical and philosoph- 
ical character. It naturally comprises the sciences of 
a) Apologetics, b) Dogmatics and c) Ethics. Although 
we accept the fact of Christianity as a divine fact, this 
presupposition must be justified by science to the religi- 
ous consciousness . Hence Apologetics properly precedes 
the treatment of purely dogmatic topics. 

4) Practical Theology embraces the theory of the ac- 
tivities of the Church as these reveal themselves in the 
Church as a whole, and in the individual members and 
representatives of it, acting in the name of the Church. 
It presupposes all those branches of knowledge through 
which religion, in general, and Christianity, in partic- 
ular, attain their scientific establishment and shape. To 
Practical Theology belong the sciences of a) Catechet- 
ics, b) Liturgies, c) Homiletics, d) Pastoral Theology, 
e) Evangelistics (Foreign Missions), /") Diaconics (Home 
Missions), and ^) Gybernetics (Church Polity). 

2. Dogmatics and Ethics. 

The attempt was first made to treat these topics 
separately by the Reformed divines. Calixtus (c/. 1656) 
was the first who introduced the change into the Luth- 
eran Church, and the convenience and satisfactory char- 
acter of this change have led to its almost universal 
adoption. Dogmatics and Ethics have usually been re- 
garded as parallel sciences. The first gives an answer 
to the question, What thinkest thou of Christ ? The 
second to the question. What thinkest thou of the true 
character of a Christian upon earth ? The two sciences 
are so interlaced that Dogmatics cannot wholly leave 
Ethics untouched, and Ethics would become a small 
science indeed, if it were fully sundered from Dogmatics. 
There have not been wanting eminent theologians of 


recent date, who have been disposed to return to the 
old union in the treatment of these departments. The 
division, in fact, of Dogmatics and Ethics, is rather one 
of convenience, resulting from the vast range of their 
subjects, than one made necessary by the nature of the 
case. Such a division, however, is favorable to the full 
and clear handling of both, and it is easy for the stu- 
dent, who masters them both, in separate treatises, to 
combine both in his heart, mind, life and labor. 



Dogmatics is the science which presents in 
their connection and mutual relations, the doc- 
trines or dogmas, which it is its aim to reproduce 
from the religious faith of the Christian himself, 
in harmony with the Scriptures and the teach- 
ing of the Church. 

I. Definition of the word Dogma. 

The Greek word occurs first in the writings of Xeno- 
phon and Plato, and its primary meaning is decree, a 
conclusion of a popular assembly. In this sense of a 
decree, an ordinance, it is used in the New Testament. 
In a secondary sense in classical usage, the word dogma 
designates a philosophical proposition, and it is applied 
to the authoritative and categorical ' sentences ' of the 
philosophers. Cicero speaks of the ^'decreta'' (tenets), 
''which philosophers call dogmata.'^ The word easily 
passed over to the meaning of doctrine " or '' doctrinal 
statements." Ignatius speaks of ''the Jo^znata of the 
Lord and his Apostles." Origen styles the Apostles as 
"teachers of dogmas." Since the fourth century the 
word has come to be more and more limited to "doc- 


trine," articles of faith, in opposition to the doctrines 
of Ethics, and in distinction from preaching, as the 
popular presentation of truth. 

2. The Name of the Science. 

The name of this department of Theology has been 
various. Melanchthon calls his work ^'Loci." It has 
also been called "Corpus Doctrinae; " Calvin called his 
work ''Institutio; " Baier calls his "Positive Theol- 
ogy;" Quenstedt, "Systematic and Thetic Theology." 
In the 17th century the name Dogmatic Theology was 
introduced, and since Buddeus {d. 1729), this name has 
been the predominant one. No other name so accurately 
expresses what this branch of Theology proposes to it- 
self. In English usage we have the terms — " Systematic 
Theology," "System of Theology," "Christian Dog- 
matics, "System of Christian Doctrine," etc. 

3. The Definition of Dogmatics. 

The Scholastics and our own older Dogmaticians re- 
garded Dogmatics as a historico-apologetic science, — a 
systematically arranged delineation of the doctrine of 
the Church, with confirmation of it drawn from Holy 
Writ. According to Quenstedt {d. 1688) "it sets forth 
the theological commonplaces or topics in order, per- 
spicuously explains them, accurately defines the dogmas 
or doctrines of faith, and divides them, deducing them 
from the Holy Scriptures, which is their primary place 
and in which they are grounded, demonstrating them 
from the same." Luthardt says that in this definition 
there is wanting the systematic development from a 
material principle, inasmuch as the matter, is supposed 
by it to be already finished by the existing Church doc- 

At a later period Dogmatics came to be conceived 
of as an historical science. Schleiermacher defines Dog. 


matic Theology *'as the science of the doctrines accepted 
in a Christian Church at any particular time." 

Philippi says : '* Systematic Theology has no other 
aim than the teaching of Christian religion, as this is 
established in the experimental consciousness of the 
believer, to reproduce it spiritually and to bring it into 
a scientific, systematic form, for the delineation and 
development in every direction of its divinely wrought 
facts in Jesus Christ." 

Kahnis defines Christian Dogmatics as having for its 
aim the unfolding of the articles of faith from the mate- 
rial principle of justification by faith, and the dem- 
onstration of them from the formal principle of the 
absolute authority of Scripture. Yet more decisive in 
demanding purely reproductive treatment, Hofmann* 
designates the Christian doctrinal system as the scien- 
tific self-expression of the theologian, i. e., of his personal 
self-dependent relation to God. 

Dogmatics is not a bare philosophy of religion, nor a 
bare history of dogmas , nor is it simply biblical or merely 
symbolico- biblical, but it is a historico - philosophical 
science, in which the results of historical exegesis are 
unified and systematized. It must thus be distinguished 
from the Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, as well as from the so-called speculative theol- 
ogy. It is the sum of the truths embraced in the 
Christian faith in their organic connection with the facts 
of religious consciousness. It apprehends divine truth 
primarily on its intellectual side. It is the science of that, 
of which the Christian affections and the Christian life, 
are the great art. We can only sunder it from them the- 
oretically, practically it should never be sundered from 
them. ^__.^ 

I. In his Schriftbeweis, I. pp. 9— ii. Reference will be made to first edition 
3 vols. 1852—55. 




Eeligion is the relation of the fellowship of 
man with God, a relation grounded in the nature 
of man and actualized in Christianity. 

1. The Word Religion. 

The derivation of the word religion has been much 
discussed, a) Some would derive it from '^ relinquere,^^ 
as designating a separation from the world ; h) Lactan- 
tius derives the word from '' religare,^' to bind back, as 
indicating that bond of piety with which we are united 
to God. So Augustine and our older Dogmaticians; 
c) But the true derivation is from relegere, ^^ to ponder 
over a thing,'' thus designating a diHgent attention to 
those things which pertain to the worship of God. So 
already Cicero and the later grammarians ; also Phil- 
ippi and the later Dogmaticians. 

2, The Definition of Religion, 

In the word religion, and in the related Greek words 
used in the New Testament (threskeia, latreia, and the 
original for ''superstitious" in Acts 17: 22), is expres- 
sed a relation of man to God, the particular character 
of which cannot be known from the words themselves. 
The most wide-reaching, broad, yet definite, expression 
of the relation to God, which is involved in the true use 
of the word religion, is expressed by Augustine in the 
first passage of his '' Confessions " : " Thou, O God, hast 
made us for thyself, and our heart is at unrest, until it 
rests in thee." The universal religious tendency demands 
as a postulate, communion with God, in some shape or 


other. This feeling is common to all forms of faith, how- 
ever dim it may be, and however obscured by supersti- 
tion. It springs from the innate yearning of the creature 
for pardon, love, and fellowship with the Creator. It 
is the aspiration of the intellectual and moral being to- 
wards its source, — as St. Paul expresses it,— it is a 
feeling and seeking after God, if haply they might find 
him (Acts 17: 27). Christianity is the actuality of this 
fellowship, and at the same time is also the actualizing 
of the ideal of religion. Beck^ says : '' Christianity as 
the religion for the whole world, must of necessity em- 
brace all the genuine elements of all religion ; and just 
as necessarily must present in itself the essence of all 
religion, as it judges and rejects all that conflicts with 
the essence". Philippi remarks ^ ''that it has become 
a pretty general proposition of the New Theology, in its 
various forms and tendencies, so far as it can yet claim 
the name Christian, to define Christianity, the Chris- 
tian religion, as a fellowship of man with God, mediated 
through Christ, or to speak more accurately, restored 
through Christ. This principle, which has become a 
dogmatic presupposition, is in fact sufficiently strict in 
the distinction it draws, to exclude every unchristian 
and antichristian point of view, and yet again in its 
simplicity and comprehensiveness, broad enough, to em- 
brace every Christian point of view, properly such, how- 
ever diverse may be the forms of that view". 

1. In his Etnleitung in das System der christlichen Lehre. Stuttgart, 1838. 
Page 49. 

2. In \\\'s> Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, I. i. 




Religion is not merely a matter of a single side 
of the life of a soul, but is a fact of the entire in- 
ternal life. It is faith which shapes itself to, and 
demands external religious fellowship. Religion 
consists of 1) knowledge, but not mere knowl- 
edge; 2) of activity, but not mere activity; 3) of 
emotion, but not mere emotion. All definitions 
which present one of these three to the exclusion 
of both the others, or two of these to the exclu- 
sion of the third, are defective, if not absolutely 
false. Mere knowledge is rationalism or dead or- 
thodoxism ; mere activity is legalism or morality ; 
mere emotion is fanaticism or mysticism; but 
heavenly knowledge, applied by the Holy Ghost 
to the renewal of the affections and the produc- 
ing of an earnest spirit, whose fruits are deeds 
of love, is the basis, and in its connection, the 
completion of true religion. 

I. Religion in the subjective sense. 

Religion is a universal fact. This universality is a 
proof of its intrinsic necessity. It has its grounds, its 
cause, and its necessity in the very constitution and es- 
sence of the human spirit ^ The very existence of man 
presupposes the religious craving, the seeking after God. 
God is the deepest need of man, his highest aim, and 
that for which he is incessantly striving. All the pow- 

1. Compare Luthardfs Apologetic Lectures on the Fiindamental Truths of 
Christianity. Edinburgh, 1869. This whole paragraph has been condensed from 
Lecture 6. 


ers of our mind do not find their aim till they find God. 
Communion with God is the truth of man, religion his 
true life. Without religion he can not truly be called 
man. There is a tie between us and God — a tie of rela- 
tionship. This tie, this attraction of the soul toward 
God, this craving for love, for personal fellowship, for 
intimate familiar intercourse, is the foundation of all 
religion, all revelation. 

Such is the cause of religion in man, and its dwelling- 
place is his inmost soul. 

Religion has been variously contemplated as a mat- 
ter of knowledge, a matter of will, or a matter of emo- 
tion ; but in fact it is not a matter of isolated points in 
the spiritual life, — it is each one of these, and all of these, 
and more than all. Religion is a matter of knowledge, 
for to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is life 
eternal (John 17: 3). But religion is not a mere sub- 
ject of knowledge, for knowledge does not make a man 
pious, nor does orthodoxy constitute him a believer. It 
is a matter of the will, for it must be a moral act, and 
Jesus himself says : "If any man willeth to do his will, 
he shall know of the teaching" (John 7: 17). But re- 
ligion is not a mere willing and doing, it is also a mat- 
ter of the feelings, for it is ''peace and joy in the Holy 
Ghost" (Rom. 14: 17). But neither is it this alone; it 
is at once knowing, willing, and feeling, because it is the 
matter of the whole inner man, of the root of his per- 
sonal life, — of the heart, as Scripture designates the cen- 
tre of the personal life of the inner man. For the Bible 
transfers the abode of religion, and the transactions of 
the religious life, to the heart. The Word must pierce the 
heart (Acts 2 : 37) ; the heart must be open to the Word 
(Acts 16 : 14) ; with the heart man believeth unto right- 
eousness (Rom. 10: 10). 


Our Lutheran Dogmaticians do not discuss this point 
till after the time of Gerhard, when Quenstedt {d. 1688) 
and HoLLAZ (cf. 1713) define the Christian Religion *' as 
that mode of worshiping the true God, which is pre- 
scribed in his Word." Baier (d. 1695) defines religion 
as ''the acts of the mind and of the will, which are oc- 
cupied concerning God, in which acts God is rightly 
acknowledged and rightly worshiped." Buddeus (d. 
1729) says: "It is usual to separate religion into two 
parts, the true knowledge of God, and the worship 
which is due to him." He observes in this connection 
that in his day the greater stress was laid upon the 
knowledge of God, "for," says he, "it is most common 
to distinguish the religions into which the world is 
divided by the doctrines or opinions which men cherish 
concerning God and divine things." Since the time of 
Buddeus, the ordinary definition of religion has been "a 
mode of knowing and worshiping God." 

Rationalism and supematuralism regard religion as 
a knowledge, and regard cultus or worship as the exer- 
cise of religion. 

Schleiermacher defines religion as "as a determina- 
tion of emotion." But religion is not to be regarded as 
a mere determination, i. e., as something passive, and 
consequently is not the mere feeling of a bare condition 
in which the man himself is, as it were, put out of the 
question, but it is a personal relation. In consequence 
of this truer view and over against Schleiermacher, 
Beck says: " The psychological primal shape of relig- 
ion cannot lie in an isolated fact of the spiritual life, nor 
in one isolated activity, as, for example, emotion, for 
religion embraces in its very origin all factors and acti- 
vities of the spiritual life in their unity." He says in 
another place, " the essence of all actual religion rests 


Upon and contains, both as to its form, and objective 
and subjective reality, faith ; this is true also of its basis 
and its contents " (2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11) . Similar views 
are expressed by Philippi and Kahnis. 

The fellowship, however, of the individual with God 
involves and is followed by the common life of religion, 
or as Kahnis^ expresses it, — "is not a mere knowing, 
not a mere feeling, not a mere willing, but rather a con- 
sciousness (knowledge combined with conviction) of 
God on the ground of emotion, accompanied by moral 

2. Religion in the objective sense. 

In its objective sense religion is the common religious 
life presenting itself in doctrine, constitution and wor- 
ship, and is, consequently, in one aspect, the sequel 
as it is in another, the presupposition, of subjective 
religion. Its self - presentation is a thing of internal 
necessity. Thus the subjective religion which we call 
Lutheranism, is the result of the subjective faith of the 
great restorers of the pure faith ; but once established, 
it becomes the presupposition to the subjective faith of 
those who hold it in its pure form. The renewed Chris- 
tianity of the sixteenth century, the Reformation, was 
the result of the faith of the Reformers, and our faith is 
the result of the Reformation^. Man is not merely an 
individual, an isolated intellectual being, but a being of 
history and fellow^ship. 

3. The Origin of Religions. 

Religion is not the invention of statesmen and intri- 
guing rulers, a view advocated by some of the Deists, 

1. See his Dogm, L 142. 

2. Compare Maittiscript Lectures of Dr. Krauth. 

3. Compare Fisher's ''■Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief pp. 
i^_25 ; De Pressens&s "-Study of Origins,'' pp. 453—466 ; LuthardVs Fun- 
damental Truths, Lecture \'I. 


Atheists and Materialists of the last century ; nor is it to 
be traced to the phenomena of nature, or the perception 
of marks of design in nature ; neither are we to regard 
the intellectual tendency of the mind as the root of religi- 
ous faith and devotion, thus making religion the fruit of 
an intellectual curiosity ; neither did it take its origin in 
fetich - worship of ancestors ; neither are we to regard it 
simply as the result of divine instruction, as the older 
dogmaticians, — but religion is an inner necessity of 
man. Its origin is found in the aspirations of the hu- 
man soul. It is as essential for man to have a religion 
as it is for man to love. As man cannot live without 
his fellow-men, so can he not live without God. It can 
as little be called an invention as eating, drinking, 
sleeping, or talking. It is a thing natural, intrinsically 
necessary, rooted in man^s very being. It is the tie of 
personal relationship between us and God. It is that 
remains of the divine image through which all external 
self - attestation of God enters. Man is a religious being 
and has a capacity for this divine life. He is only actu- 
ally religious when he enters into a living relation with 

4. The Truth of Religion. 

The truth of religion reveals itself in this, that it is 
the truth of man, that truth which brings man to the 
great goal of his being, in whatever respect we consider 
it, for God is the goal of man, of man's individual life, 
and of man in society, and all man's advance is condi- 
tioned by religion. Christianity is not only a religion, 
but the religion. 




The judgment in regard to the particular 
forms of religion depends upon the truth of 
that consciousness of God which forms their 
contents and matter, and of that divine revela- 
tion, or that which claims to be such, which 
forms their basis. Religion is divided 1) into 
true and false, and 2) into ncitural and positive. 

I. True and False Religion. 

a) When we speak of false religion we use the word 
religion improperly, for that is only properly religion, 
which involves the true worship of the true God. The 
true religion is that which is conformed to the Divine 
Word. A false religion either gives worship to a false 
god or gives false worship to the true God (Hollaz). 

The marks of the true religion are thus stated by 
Hollaz 1 : 

1) It is the most ancient religion. Error may be old, 
but truth is always older, inasmuch as God is older 
than the devil. Paganism is old, but revealed religion 
is older ; Polytheism is old, but Monotheism is the old- 
est religion. The first enunciation of false religion in 
the world is recorded in the words of the serpent, '*ye 
shall not surely die" (Gen. '^: 4). The earliest record of 
the true religion is in the first two chapters of the same 
book. If Satan and his host fell early, they were holy 
still earlier. 

2) It was approved by the Fathers even of the Old 
Testament, It is a mark of the true religion, that it has 

I. And developed by Dr. Krauth in his Manuscript Lectures, from which I 
have adapted this paragraph. 


always had an unbroken life in the history of the world, 
from the earliest patriarchs to the present hour. We 
worship in this late day of our fallen world the same 
God whom Adam and Eve worshiped in their sinless 
hours of their fresh life in Paradise. All other systems 
are unhistorical ; all have begun later, and the most of 
them have vanished ; those that still exist give evidence, 
that they too must pass away. The religion of the 
Bible alone abides. 

3) It illustrates the glory of God. False religion 
obscures that glory and utterly sets it aside. " They 
change,^'' says St. Paul, '' the glory of the incorruptible 
God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man^^ 
(Rom. 1 : 23). Even Mohammedanism, which is but a 
cunning plagiarism of revelation, has but a personal 
fate enthroned as God. 

4) True religion rightly teaches faith in Jesus, the 
author of salvation. It solves the great problem of re- 
demption ; it tells us what redemption is, who our Re- 
deemer is, even Jesus Christ, shows us how we are 
united to him, and rightly teaches that faith. It alone 
meets the deepest ^^eamings of our human being ; other 
religions either obscure man's desire after redemption, 
or deepen his sense of misery, or drive him to useless and 
cruel modes, in which he attempts to propitiate God. 

5) True religion earnestly inculcates holiness of life. 
It furnishes the power by God's grace of perfecting holi- 
ness in the fear of the Lord. False religions, on the other 
hand, are immoral, either by positive teaching favorable 
to vice, or by lack of power to bring forth holy living. 

6) True religion alone gives a peaceful conscience. 
The sense of disturbed relation between God and the 
sinner, with the pang which it brings, has found relief in 
nothing but the religion of the Bible. Other religions 


leave the conscience either in perfect torment, lull it 
into false security, sear it into apathy, or abandon it 
to despair. 

7) True religion alone produces joy and peace in the 
hour of death. False religion may produce a spiritual 
torpor, or a defiant and fierce attitude of the soul in dy- 
ing, but true religion alone gives pure trust and hope, 
which knows its own reason, and a calm and some- 
times triumphant departure from this world. It alone 
robs death of its sting and the grave of its victory. 

The difiicult^^ indeed is not to find manifold marks 
to distinguish the true religion from the false, but to 
select from the vast number. The great danger of pre- 
senting the Evidences of Christianity is that of confus- 
ing the mind and weakening the impression by dwelling 
on too many. Quenstedt^ describes the characteristics 
of the true religion as follows: 1) Divine sublimity 
(divine in its origin) ; 2) Unity; 3) Truth; 4) Perfection 
(contains perfectly and sufficiently all things necessary 
to faith and Christian life) ; 5) Holiness (it teaches a 
knowledge of a holy God, the cultivation of a holy life, 
it communicates holy precepts, reveals holy mysteries) ; 
6) Necessity; 7) Utility; 8) Antiquity; 9) Invincibility; 
10) Perpetuity; 11) Spontaneity (is not compulsory, 
but seeks to be taught, and calls for unconstrained as- 
sent) ; 12) Varied treatment (exposed to various per- 
secutions, obscured but not extinguished, oppressed but 
not suppressed) ; 13) Efficacy (in illustrating the glory 
of God, in soothing the conscience, in converting men, 
in cherishing growth in piety, etc.). 

b) The Perversions of Religion. The perversions of 
religion arise out of the perversions of the relation of 
the consciousness of God and the consciousness of the 

I. Quoted by Schmid, Chap. 2, § 3. 3. 


LuTHARDT classifies this perversion in a fourfold 

1. The mingling or identification of the two, God 
and the world, leading to Pantheism when the universe 
is regarded as a whole with God, and to Polytheism 
when it is regarded in its separate constituents. Pan- 
theism does away with the idea of God, of spirit, and of 
moral freedom. It so blends God and the world, that 
God is the world and the world is God, and there is 
neither true world nor true God. The philosophic tend- 
ency of Pantheism has moved under two opposite im- 
pulses. Under the first it merges God in the world, and 
thus falls into Materialism ; in the other it merges the 
world into God, and thus becomes Absolute Idealism. 
Over against this tendency theology can only link it- 
self with the philosophy which acknowledges a living, 
personal God.i Polytheism is the theory which as- 
sumes the existence of many gods. It had its origin in 
nature worship and in the principles of pantheism. 
Whenever it appears as a philosophy it appears as the 
exoteric counterpart of pantheism. 

The superstition, which is connected with the errors 
of Pantheism and Polytheism, mistakes or ignores the 
moral nature of the relation between God and man, 

2. The second perversion results from the false sepa- 
ration of these two spheres of consciousness, leading to 
Deism and a mechanical view of the world. Deism ac- 
knowledges the personality of God, believes him to be 
Creator of all things, but separates him from the world, 
so far as all continuous and sympathetic relation is 
concerned. To Deism the world is a great clock, made, 
wound up, and set going, and then left by its Creator. 
God makes the world and then forsakes the world. He 

I. See my Theological Encyclopaedia^ Part i. Exegetical Theology^ pp. 51, 52. 


is the creator of man, but not his father, he has put 
forth his hand to make us, but he never opens his mouth 
to speak to us. Deism, therefore, denies a particular 
providence, a supernatural revelation, miracles, prophe- 
cies, redemption, and the work of the Spirit. As it is the 
vice of Pantheism that it makes God immanent in the 
world so as to be confounded with it, so it is the char- 
acteristic vice of Deism, to deny that relative imma- 
nence of God in the world, by which he conserves it, 
guides it, and controls it for the highest ends of his wis- 
dom and love^. 

3. The third perversion of religion is that, in which 
the consciousness of the world is unduly suppressed by 
the consciousness of God, as in Mysticism. The word 
comes from the Greek '' mueisthai,'' literally to close the 
eyes, then to initiate into mysteries. Mysticism sets aside 
the cosmical, because it is finite, allows it no validity 
over against the divine. It strives to rise to direct com- 
munion with God, but loses itself in the infinite fulness. 
It is antithetical to reception on authority (pistis, 
"faith"), and to the recognition of truth by the or- 
dinary use of the faculties {gnosis, "knowledge") ; but 
in its soberer forms it takes both into its service, holding 
them in a relative subservience "^ Dispensing with the 
means of grace, often beginning in a pure, deep piety, it 
has run out in dangerous extravagances. Often it has 
been a reaction against the externalism of a dead church. 
The grades of mysticism were purification, illumination, 
ecstatic union, and absorption. It was generally the- 
istic, but in no small number of cases pantheistic. Of 
Mysticism as a "perversion" we have illustrations in 
the old Anabaptists, in Paracelsus, Boehme, Sweden- 

1. Compare Manuscript Lectures of Dr. Krauth. 

2. See Article on Mysticism in Johnson's Cyclopaedia by Dr. Krauth. 


borg, and among the Quakers and Swedenborgians. 
There is a pure internalism to which the name Mysti- 
cism is sometimes given, which is not to be confounded 
with it as we here use the term. 

4. The fourth perversion of religion rises from the 
suppression of the consciousness of God by the con- 
sciousness of the world. This looks so steadily at the 
work that it forgets the w^orker, — it is so absorbed in 
the motion, that it does not think of the mover. It re- 
gards the beautiful harmony of the world as if it were 
self -caused. This perversion is Atheism, and in philos- 
ophy, Materialism. Atheism may be either speculative 
or practical ; the former consists in denying the exist- 
ence of God ; the latter in living as if there were no God. 

2. Natural and Positive Religion. 

Religion is divided into natural and positive. When 
we speak of Natural Religion, we do not mean precisely 
what is generally called ''The Religion of Nature," nor 
the philosophical abstraction of English Deism since 
the seventeenth century. We mean rather the religion 
correspondent with what we call Natural Theology. The 
Religion of Nature generally means a system developed 
in professed independence of Revelation and often in an- 
tagonism to it. It is the religion, for the most part, of 
infidels. By Natural Religion we here mean those prin- 
ciples which are involved in the very structure of human 
thinking, the psychological basis of Positive Religion. 
All positive religion assumes certain things as fixed. It 
does not prove them, but accepts them and builds on 
them, as the first verse of the Bible takes God for 
granted and begins with his work. 

Lord Herbert of Cherhury (1581—1648) in his 
work De Veritate (1624) lays down five fundamental 
principles, which he maintains have been received at all 


times and in all places, independent of revelation, and 
which are sufficient for salvation. These five proposi- 
tions are: 1. There is a God; 2. The Supreme Being 
ought to be worshiped; 3. Virtue and Piety are the 
chief parts of the worship of God ; 4. The abhorrence 
of what is criminal ought always to be in the soul; 
5. There are rewards and penalties after this life. — It 
is manifest that Lord Herbert has borrowed very 
largely from the Revelation he proposed to supersede. 
The work of Herbert was answered in 1667 by the 
great divine, John Musaus of Jena, in his Dissertation on 
" The light of nature and the Natural Theology which 
rests on it are insufficient for salvation." Baier in his 
C ompend ^ , ioWowmg Musaeus says: " Natural Theol- 
ogy can be thus defined : It is a practical science, drawn 
from the principles of nature, concerning God, prescrib- 
ing to man, who is a pilgrim, a w^orship fitting the char- 
acter of God, and explaining, confirming, and defending 
it, in order to secure that eternal blessedness, which is 
to be obtained in God and from God." Inasmuch as sin 
has obscured natural religion, it, as a consequence, is 
prevented from knowing anything of that propitiation 
which sin itself has made necessary, and hence Baier in- 
fers that natural religion is insufficient for salvation. 

Positive Religion, in accordance with the new usage 
of language subsequent to Kant and Schleiermacher, is 
a product of history, rests upon the institution of Relig- 
ion, and appeals for its doctrines and precepts to Divine 
authority, and has its truths and actuality in Chris- 

I. Edition of Preuss, 1864. P. 18. 




Christianit}^ is the personal fellowship of sal- 
vation on the part of man with God, in the Holy 
Qhost, — a fellowship mediated through Jesus 
Christ, and hence Christianity embraces whatever 
is true in all antecedent religions. 

1. The Relation of Christianity to Heathenism and Judaism. 

According to Philippi (1.4): '' Heathenism seeks but 
fails ; Talmudic Judaism and Mohammedanism seeks 
but disdains ; the Old Testament Judaism has sought 
and has not yet found, moving upon the right path, 
but not attaining to the goal ; Christianity alone has 
found, because in Christ the true and actual fellowship 
of man with God has been founded again." 

2. The Essential Character of Christianity. 

This lies in the fellowship of salvation with God 
through Jesus Christ. That which is most pecuHar in 
Christianity is the attitude taken by the Person of 
Christ, not as an idea simplj^ but a fact, — God and 
man in personal unity. Our Lord is not merely the 
founder of Religion, but is the subject and center of it. 
What Christ was is more completely essential to Chris- 
tianity than what he taught. 

3. The historical modes of apprehending the essential character 
of Christianity. 

The Greek Church regarded the manifestation of the 
Logos as the absolute divine reason, and hence it con- 
ceived of Christianity as the true Philosophy. The 
Roman Catholic Church laid stress upon the churchly 
organism, as containing the truth and the life-control- 
ling power. The Reformation proceeds from the sinner's 
need of salvation and places the essential character of 


Christianity in salvation through justification by faith 
alone : solus Christus, sola fides. 

4. Christianity is the true Religion, 

That Christianity is the true religion can be proved : 
1) by the history of the different religions, comparing it 
with the other so-called religions ; 2) psychologically, 
as it alone can satisfy the deepest want of man and 
bring peace to his soul; 3) practically, because it alone 
furnishes the power by God's grace of perfecting holi- 
ness in the Church, and in the heart of the individual. 



Romanism makes the truth dependent on the 
guarantees of the Cliurch, hierarchically consti- 
tuted, i. e,, the Roman Church, and thus exalts 
ecclesiastical legitimacy to the principle which 
alone is decisive. Protestantism contemplates 
the essence of Christianity in the truth of salva- 
tion by the grace of God in Jesus Christ alone, 
of which truth the Holy Scriptures give witness 
with a normative authority, the Church only with 
conditional authority. The Christian is to attain 
an individual assurance of this truth. 

I. False or at least inadequate explanations. 

The opposition of Protestantism and Romanism has 
often been explained in a manner either totally false or 
entirely inadequate. The opposition has been made to 
result from purely external, natural and even fortuitous 
diversities,— from the ardent imagination of the South 
and the cool reflectiveness of the North. The attempt 
has also been made to reduce it to formal categories, 
such as authority, freedom, and the like. 


2. The general statement of the Antithesis. 

ScHLEiERMACHERi says : '' Protestantism makes the 
relation of the individual to the Church dependent on 
his relation to Christ ; Catholicism makes the relation 
of the individual to Christ to depend on his relation 
to the Church." Twesten^ says: ''The Catholic doc- 
trine holds more firmly to the first, Protestantism more 
firmly to the second part of the utterance of Irenasus, 
' Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God, and 
where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all 
grace.'" Moehler"^ {d, 1838, Roman Catholic) says: 
"Catholic doctrine considers the visible Church as the 
prius, the first thing, the invisible Church as the post- 
er/ns, the second thing; the Protestant Church con- 
siders the invisible as the prius and the visible as 
the posterius.'' Martensen* says: "Catholicism has 
developed itself into a great system o^ guarantees of 
Christianity ; but Christianity, the thing itself, which 
was thus to be guaranteed, has been thrown into the 
the shade. The opposition between genuine and spuri- 
ous Christianity has been gradually reduced to the 
affirmation and the negation of the validity of these 
guarantees. To attack the infallibility of the Pope and 
of the Church is the prime heresy." 

3. The essential character of Romanism. 

The essential character of Romanism is the iden- 
tifying of Christianity with that outward hierarchical 
Church which culminates in the primacy of the Bishop 
of Rome, the Church, the organism of which claims to be 
inspired, the infallible bearer and guarantee of the truth, 

1. Glaubenslehre I, § 24. 

2. In his Dogmatics I, p. 74. 

3. See his Symbolik^ p, 425 ff. Seventh edition, 1864. The sixth German 
edition (1843) was translated into English. 2 vols. London, 1843. A work 
vi'orthy of careful examination. 

4. Compare his Christian Dogmatics^ p. 30 (English Translation). 


— to be subject to which, therefore, is the siapremest duty 
of the Christian. 

The Church is, therefore, by necessary consequence, a 
visible and palpable state, the vicar of Christ, represent- 
ing his three offices of Prophet, Priest and King, the 
continuation of his Incarnation, the mediatrix of salva- 
tion. It divides itself into the Church teaching and the 
Church hearing, the Church commanding Sind the Church 
obeying. Its essence is of a legal, not of an evangeUcal 
kind. It is to the individual the supremest judicial and 
saving authority; obedience to it is so unconditional 
that there can be no justification or an assurance of 
faith and of the Christian conscience resting in the Word 
of God, over against this Church (Luthardt) . 

So in substance also Martensen (pp. 25—30) : " The 
Catholic Church holds to a living apostolate in the 
Church, perpetuating itself through all time — an inspi- 
ration constantly kept up in the representatives of the 
Church. She claims to possess in the decisions of the 
councils and of the pope a divine utterance invested 
with apostolic authority, as infallible as the word of the 
first apostles which was spoken in the world ; and she 
claims to have in these decrees the infallible interpreta- 
tion, an infallible continuation, of that apostolic word." 
.... ''The Catholic Church for the most part regards 
faith as a new law, and Christ as a new lawgiver." 

4. Romanism criticized. 

The antithesis of Protestantism consequently con- 
sists primarily in the results which are reached by the 
overthrow of the theory just characterized. Boniface 
YIII says: "To be subject to the Pope of Rome, we 
declare, say, and define, to be altogether necessary to 
salvation, on the part of every human creature." Pek- 
RONE, the most distinguished Roman Dogmatician of 


this century {cl 1876), whose system of Dogmatics is 
now most widely used in the Roman Catholic Church, 
and which comes up most fully to its standard of or- 
thodoxy, says: ''Outside of or beyond the Catholic 
Church (i. e., the Roman Church) there is no salvation." 

1) Over against the identifying of the true Catholic 
or Universal Church with the Church of Rome, on which 
all these claims to supremacy rest, together with the 
right of putting heretics to death. Protestantism main- 
tains that the Catholic or Universal Church exists also 
outside of the Roman Church, and that the utmost she 
can claim is that within her bounds are some members 
of that one Holy Catholic or Christian Church, which is 
the Communion of Saints, and that in it alone her 
members can find salvation. 

2) The Roman Church lays claim to Inspiration and 
Infallibility. Moehler says: "The Church must be 
without error, for the believer who commits himself to 
her dare not be led astray." 

Over against this. Protestantism shows that there 
are heresies of the Bishops of Rome, which Romanists 
themselves are constrained to acknowledge. Thus, for 
example. Pope Liberius in 358 set forth an heretic creed 
and condemnation of Athanasius ; Pope Honorius I {d. 
638) maintained Monotheletism, and was condemned 
by the sixth oecumenical Council held at Constantin- 
ople (681), as one possessed by demons, who sowed the 
seed of pernicious heresies, and he was excommunicated, 
and his successor on the papal throne confirmed the 
decree of the Council. Another great historical fact, 
overthrowing such claims, is the schism of the fifteenth 
century, rival Popes, and the conflict with the general 
Councils of that century, with the Popes, and with each 
other. The history of the Council of Trent (1545— 1563), 


Theological Encyclopaedia and MetMology. 


Part I. Exegetical Theology. 

By KEVERE franklin WEIDNER, M. A., 

Professor of TheoW^--tn^teficst(rrm^^ftmtogtcbf^ Island, 111 

F. H, REVELL, 148 and 150 Madison Street, Chicagro. 

" This work bears testimony of the author's fitness for the important under- 
taking- of giving- the Eng-lish Church a safe Encyclopedia of Theolog-y."— Ou/- 
Church Paper. 

" This work will be a valuable aid to the pastor, the students in the theo- 
logical seminary, and to those who may be prosecuting the study of theology 
without the living teacher."— r/ie National Baptist, Philadelphia. 

"It is rich in its literature of the topics of which it treats, and thus will be 
of special value to theological students. On the points of recent agitation, the 

author is pronouncedly orthodox The author has mastered his subject, 

and is clear and compact in his statements."— Presbyterian Journal, Pliiladelphia. 

•' Exegetical Theology is the first volume of a series which promises to be 

of marked value to many readers The work is a marvel of suggestive- 

ness, while its complete lists of the best works on each subject mentioned are 
alone worth the price of the book. We shall look for the remaining volumes 
with interest."— T/ie Interior, of Chicago. 

" Professor Weidner's book will not only prove very serWceable to theolog- 
ical students, in giving them a summary presentation of the subjects embraced 
in it, but it will be of great value to all ministers who study, in that it gives 
under each head the most important books on this subject, and these lists are 
brought down to the most recent publications."— 27!c Lutheran, Philadelphia, 

"■ It implies on the part of the author a wide knowledge of books, and evi- 
dence of this abounds in the volume. It is, of course, not meant for continu- 
ous perusal, but for students— for those who want to scan the whole field ot 
theology and to mark the divisions thereof. For this class this book will be 
found useful, and for any one who wishes to know where a peculiar question 
is discussed, the volume will be very useful."— T/fe Presbyterian, Philadelphia. 


faith. The history of the origin of the name Protestant 
(1529 at the Diet of Spires) shows that it was more 
than this. Its essence supremely consists in the position 
on which that protest rests. It answers the question 
put to the sinner who yearns for salvation, answers 
with the truth, that salvation is in Christ alone, " solus 
Christus, sola gratia,'^ Christ the onlj^ one, grace the 
only thing. Subjectively stated, this is the doctrine of 
justification by iaith alone. This is the material prin- 
ciple of Protestantism, i. e., it forms the great central 
matter about which it gathers. 

The question now arises : By what principle of cogni- 
tion does Protestantism reach this principle in results ? 
The answer is, on the grounds that the only secure, au- 
thentic, and consequently, absolutely authoritative wit- 
ness in regard to this salvation of Christ, is given in the 
Scriptures and nowhere else. This is the formal princi- 
ple of Protestantism, i. e., that which pertains to the 
form, shape, or manner, in which the matter or material 
principle is reached. 

We ask, what comes, what is the matter that comes ? 
The answer is, Christ, faith, justification, is the matter. 
We ask, in what form and how it comes? The answer 
is, in revelation. When the formal principle of Protes- 
tantism is asserted without its material principle, it 
runs into Sectarianism, Negativism, Rationalism and 
Pseudo-pro testant heresy in general. The assertion of 
the /brma/ principle, without reaching the material -prin- 
ciple of Protestantism, may run out into abuses which 
genuine Protestantism would consider worse than Ro- 
manism itself. No men assert the formal principle of 
Protestantism more vigorously, and indeed with the 
claim that they alone assert it consistently, than the 
very men who use the /oriTia/ principle to overthrow the 


material, men who abuse the rule of faith, to undermine 
faith itself. 

The material principle is the end, the formal principle 
is the means, and it is the end alone which gives value 
to the means. The man who so uses his Bible as to fail 
to reach its material, i. e., its faith, is worse off than if 
he never had opened the Bible, and the sincere, ignorant, 
deluded Romanist will rise up in judgment against him. 

When as Lutherans we call ourselves Protest ant s,wg 
use a name which belonged exclusively to us originally, 
and it continued to be the diplomatic name of our 
Church till the peace of Westphalia, 1648, — and in fact, 
in European usage, is to a large extent, still confined to 
our Church. We are Protestants in the historical sense 
of thew^ord in which it asserts not a mere negation of a 
false rule of faith, nor the mere theoretical acceptance of 
a true rule of faith, but two conjoining things,— the 
formal rule of the faith and the material faith of the 
rule. This is the Protestantism we defend over against 
the Church of Rome. This is the only Protestantism 
that can successfully be so defended, and the argument 
of Rome over against a great deal that calls itself Pro- 
testantism is as much our argument as hers^. On the 
most vital points, the very center of the life of Chris- 
tianity, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the true 
Deity of Christ, of the Incarnation, the Atonement, the 
objective character of the two Sacraments, true Prot- 
estantism stands with Romanism, or rather, with the 
Church Universal, over against the spurious systems 
which call themselves Protestant, but which are erro- 

I. In the Canons of the Council of Trent (1545—1563), in which the so-called 
Protestant views are condemned, the Protestant doctrines are almost always pre- 
sented in an exaggerated form, and mixed up with real heresies, which true Pro- 
testantism condemns as emphatically as the Church of Rome. 


neous in various degrees, till they sink in their lowest 
grade to what is essentially Pagan. 

Martenseni says: ''Inasmuch as both confessions 
(Catholic and Protestant) profess a general belief in 
God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; inasmuch as both 
reject the ancient and modern forms of Naturalism and 
Rationalism, both recognize the truth that the Chris- 
tian Church rests upon a Divine Word, derived from the 
Founder himself, and delivered to the Church through 
the apostles. For it is only through the apostles that 
we have received Christianity, and that Christianity 
only is genuine, which can show itself to be apostolic. 
The difference between the confessions does not consist 
merely in the difference of the relation which they assign 
to the oral and written word of the apostles (tradition 
and Scripture), but in their different views respecting 
the scope of the apostolate. The Catholic Church holds 
to a living apostolate in the Church, perpetuating itself 
through all time, — an inspiration constantly kept up in 
the representatives of the Church The Evange- 
lical Lutheran Church, like the Catholic, confesses that 
the Spirit of the Lord is with the Church unto the end 
of the world, leading it into all truth ; but that perfect 
union of the Spirit of God and man, which is called In- 
spiration, and which constitutes the essence of the apos- 
tolate, it assigns exclusively to the beginning of the 
Church, to the period of its foundation ; and, although 
it admits the relative validity of tradition, it yet regards 
the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament as the only 
perfect, authentic, and absolutely canonical expression 
of the original fulness of the apostolic spirit. 

But the difference here indicated rests on another 
which lies still deeper— a difference in the conception of 

I. See his Dogmatics^ % 20, pp. 25, 26. 


the essential character of Christianity itself. The Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church views Christianity as a Gospel; 
as glad tidings of the new life and the new creation in 
Christ, offered to men as a free gift of heavenly grace ; 
whereas the Catholic Church for the most part regards 
faith as a new law, and Christ as a new lawgiver, repre- 
senting the Gospel merely as an external authority to 
which the believer must yield." 

Again 1 : '^ It has often been said that the principle of 
Protestantism is that of subjectivity — a proposition 
which, expressed in this indefinite, general form, is liable 
to misconception. The aim of the Reformation was as 
much to regain objective Christianity, to separate the 
true tradition from the false or at least human tradi- 
tions, as to revive subjective, personal Christianity. 
What the Reformation desired was neither exclusively 
the objective nor the subjective; it was the free union of 
the objective and subjective, of the thing believed, and 
the person believing, of divine revelation and the religi- 
ous self-consciousness. This free union of the objective 
and the subjective the Evangelical Church claims to 
have secured through its so-called formal and material 
principles, which express the two sides, the objective 
and the subjective side, of the same truth. By the term 
formal principle, is meant the Holy Scriptures as the 
only source of doctrine; by the term material principle, 
is meant justification by faith. On a correct apprehen- 
sion of these principles, often misunderstood and often 
feebly stated, depends a correct understanding of Prot- 

Martensen further remarks 2 : ''Where there is free- 
dom, there are also abuses of freedom. The Roman 

1. Dogmatics^ % 21, pp. 30, 31. 

2. See § 24, pp. 48, 49. 


Church seemingly knows of no such state of disintegra- 
tion and confusion as do the Protestant Churches. The 
principle of authority throws a veil over the secret ini- 
quity, the secret unbelief and doubt, that shelter them- 
selves within the Church under the forms of external 

In the Protestant Churches, on the contrary, all 
these defects are manifest. Many members of the Pro- 
testant Churches, weary of the abuses of the principles 
of freedom, are seized with a longing for a tradition 
which shall have absolute authority. This security they 
seek sometimes in the consensus of the first three cen- 
turies, sometimes of the first five or six centuries. 'A 
Catholic current' says Geiger (d. 1843), 'is passing 
through the world.' This Catholic current will become 
more and more noticeable, the nearer the time of the 
great religious movements and crises approaches. But 
to lay down a tradition which shall make superfluous 
all internal struggles for freedom is impossible. The 
various manifestations of sympathy with Romanism, 
exhibited of late, may be of use in awakening what in 
many has been slumbering, viz., an appreciation of the 
importance of the Church and what has been handed 
down in the Church, as the natural connecting link 
between faith and the Bible. But, whenever these sym- 
pathies have turned in antipathy to the principles and 
inmost essence of the Reformation, they lead, as various 
facts have within a few years shown, to Rome, and to 
a repose in the spurious guarantees there offered." 

In this connection Dr. Krauth remarks ^ : '* If it be 
true, as Geiger says, ' that a Catholic current is passing 
through the world,' it is no less true, that under this 
current, at the surface, there is a deep swell of Protes- 

l. See his Manuscript Lectures. 


tantism which is upheaving Romanism itself, and para- 
doxical as it may seem, we do not hesitate to state our 
conviction, that the current of Catholicism is set in mo- 
tion by the current of Protestantism. How else can we 
account for it, that just in the most thoroughly prot- 
estant of protestant countries, England and the United 
States, the tendency shows itself most strongly, and 
next to these countries, in the most intensely protestant 
parts of Germany. Protestantism is so essentially a 
quickener, that it whips into activity its own antagon- 
its. It is so scientific, that it teaches its enemies ; it is 
so progressive, that it sets even false conservatism *in 
motion. Hence we see the anomaly, that in Italy, the 
most Romish of countries, Romanism is torpid, ig- 
norant, and so hampered with its own traditionary 
abuses, that it is at once powerless and detested, while 
in the United States it is vigorous, decisive, aggressive 
and prosperous. The secret of it is, that Romanism is 
compelled to be protestantized, as far as its nature 
allows, and its greatest defenders in our own times, 
have defended it with the stolen weapons of Protestant 
science, and the thing they defend is Romanism purified 
of some of its worst features by the mighty work of 
Protestant ideas. The Reformation did not carry out 
of the Church of Rome the entire reformatory tendency. 
As the Reformation was the result of tendencies which 
grew within the Church of the West, side by side with 
Papacy, so did the leaven which revealed itself in it, still 
in some measure remain in the Church of Rome. Two 
tendencies have worked without interruption within the 
Romish Church ever since. We see their struggles at the 
council of Trent, we see it in the conflicts of the Jansen- 
ists and Jesuits, we see it in Ultramontanism and its an- 
tagonistic force ; we see it in noble men who in time of 


apostasy of nominal Protestants in the great rational- 
istic defection, gave illustration of the truth that even 
in Rome God preserves his witnesses. The Church of 
Rome is destined, we believe, in the flight of ages, for 
one of two consummations. She is destined either by 
the grace of God to purge off her corruption as a body, 
and thus give historic completeness to the Reformation ; 
or to see a second schism produced by her own obsti- 
nacy, which will again, as in the sixteenth century, rob 
her of her noblest children and her most glorious lands." 



The nmterial principle of Lutheran Prot- 
estantism is the saving truth of Christianity as 
it lies in the fundamental doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith alone. The formal princij)le is the 
sole authority of Holy Scripture. With these is 
connected the historic testimony of the Church 
as the living witness of the truth. This testimony 
is united with the material and formal principle, 
and the resultant of the union is the individual 
Christian assurance of faith. 

The Protestantism of the Keformed or Calvin- 
istic Churches, on the other hand, has laid as its 
fundamental doctrine, the absolute and sole pri- 
mary causality of God, and holding with the 
Lutheran Churh, that Holy Scripture alone is 
normative, has yet isolated Scripture from the 
historic development of the Church {lAithardt). 

Lutheran protestantism. 59 

r. The distinction between Lutheran and Reformed Protestant- 

This distinction has, in recent times, been stated in 
manifold ways. Goebel, Nitzsch, and Heppe stated 
it as this : In Reformed Protestantism more stress is 
laid on the intellect, in Lutheranism on the emotions ; 
in Reformed Protestantism the formal principle is pre- 
dominant, and Scripture is regarded more as the ex- 
clusive source of doctrine ; while in Lutheranism the 
material principle rules, and the formal principle is re- 
garded more as merely the norm of the doctrine which 
grows out of the analogy of faith, in consequence of 
which the pure tradition possesses in Lutheranism a 
greater validity, i. e., the tradition which involves the 
handing down of truth in the Church. 

While the Lutheran Church concedes no authority to 
opinions which have been transmitted from generation 
to generation, it values them as witnesses of the ob- 
vious and true sense of God's Word. That Word is the 
sole authority, but there is always a moral weight of 
presumption, which needs to be distinctly met and 
accounted for, if its validity be denied in the general 
understanding of that Word — the impression which it 
made at the beginning and has made through all time. 
The Romish tradition, i. e., the authority outside of the 
Word, and often really opposed to it, our Church rejects ; 
but exegetical tradition and the doctrines which rest 
upon it,if they bear the test of the just interpretation of 
God's Word, our Church greatly esteems ; she does not 
believe that God has forsaken his Church, that for ages 
together there has been no witness to the truth in her, 
— that would be to acknowledge that the gates of hell 
have prevailed against her. Whenever a new interpre- 
tation, opposed to one universally received, has been 


oifered, our Church has regarded it as necessary for the 
discoverer or inventor of the view^, not only to shov^ 
that it is as probable theoretically as the older one, but 
that it is more probable (Krauth). 

Herzog says : '' Lutheran Protestantism is the anti- 
thesis of the Judaism of the Romish Church, w^hich has 
imparted to her doctrine a gnosticizing tincture ; the Re- 
formed Protestantism -is in opposition to the Paganism 
of the Church of Rome, by which the doctrine obtained 
a Judaizing, ethical character. ' ' Schweizer says : ' ' Re- 
formed Protestantism is the protestation against all 
deification of the creature, and is, consequently, the em- 
phasizing of the absoluteness of God and of the exclu- 
siveness of his will ; this forms its material principle, 
with which is connected its positive normal principle, 
viz., the exclusive maintenance of Scripture as the Rule 
of faith." In a similar strain Dorner says : " The mate- 
rial principle of Zwingli is the glory of God ; his formal 
principle is the Scripture, but accepted in such a sense as 
to make the internal word independent of the external, 
and so as to deny all creaturely causality on the part ot 
the creature in salvation." Baur says : *' The Reformed 
system goes from above downward, the Lutheran from 
below upward, /. e., the one begins with God and reasons 
out and down to man, the other begins with man and 
reasons up to God." On the other hand Schnecken- 
BURGER says: "The distinction between the systems 
consists, not in the predominance of theology or an- 
thropology, of the absolute idea of God or of the subjec- 
tive consciousness of salvation, but in the diverse form 
of the consciousness of salvation itself, in consequence of 
which the Reformed theology went back to the eternal 
decree ; the Lutheran Church, on the other hand, being 
satisfied with justification by faith." Stahl approx- 


imating more closed with the view of Schweizer, finds in 
the "sole causality," which is the notion of the God- 
head, the controlling principle of the Reformed doctrine, 
and its character he finds in the mode of thinking, which 
is adverse to mysteries. " The whole Reformed Church 
development is, on the one side, determined by this im- 
pulse against mysteries, which impulse concedes no in- 
strumental distribution of grace, (an aspect derived from 
Zwingli) ; on the other side, it is distinguished by the evan- 
gelical theocratical tendency, the glorifying of God in 
the congregation (an aspect proceeding from Calvin) ". 
Martensen says: "The Sw^ss Reformation started 
primarily from the formal principle, that of the author- 
ity of the Scriptures ; whereas the Lutheran originated 
more especially in the material principle, in the depths 
of the Christian consciousness, in an experience of sin 

and redemption." " The Lutheran Reformation 

manifested the greatest caution in regard to tradition, 
and observed the principle of rejecting nothing that 
could be reconciled with Scripture ; w^hereas the Swiss 
Reformation introduced in many respects a direct op- 
position between the biblical and ecclesiastic, and in 
several particulars followed the principle that all eccle- 
siastical institutions should be rejected unless they 
could be deduced from the letter of the Bible." . . , . 
" The Reformed Church, although vigorously protesting 
against the legal Church of Rome, is nevertheless in- 
fected with the legal spirit, w^hereas the germ of the ful- 
ness of the Gospel is found in Lutheranism." 

LuTHARDT says: "All these diverse definitions in- 
volve the common theor^^ that the difference between 
the Churches is not merely an external one, does not 
turn merely upon different doctrines, e. g., the doctrine 
of the Lord's Supper, but is a difference running com- 


pletely through them, a difference in principle. An essen- 
tial element of the difference consists in the momenta, 
or elements, of the Reformed doctrine reciprocally con- 
ditioning each other, — on the one side, the absolute 
causality and sole primary causality of God, which ex- 
cludes the means of grace in the proper sense ; on the 
other side, the assurance of a condition of salvation, 
grounded in an inscrutable decree, an assurance reached 
by the individual's actual life as the result of the divine 

2. The material and formal principle of Lutheranism. 

This, according to Dorner, expressed in 1841 and in 
a somewhat different shape and in a more correct one 
in his ''History of Protestant Theology " in 1867, is 
another way of expressing "the distinction between 
Christian subjectivity and Christian objectivity." "The 
Scripture presents the objective original Christianity" ; 
" the material principle is that faith in which the truth, 
set forth in Scripture, obtains a free internal existence." 

"But," says Luthardt, "the material principle is 
not the subjective assurance of salvation, or the con- 
sciousness of faith, or anything of that sort, but des- 
ignates the actual substance of the salvation itself, a 
salvation testified of in Scripture, acknowledged by the 
Church, assured to believers in faith. The formal prin- 
ciple, on the other hand, designates the authentic wit- 
nessing of salvation as it has actualized itself in the 
historical revelation, and is, consequently, the norm oi 
every announcement of salvation made to the Church." 

3. The Material Principle of Lutheranism, 

The material principle of our Church is the doctrine 01 
justification by faith regarded on its two sides : 1) That 
salvation or justification is in Jesus Christ, the Media- 
tor; 2) That faith is the way of salvation. This forms 


the soul of the Lutheran Confession, and may be ex- 
pressed indirectly or directly. 

1. Indirectly. It may be expressed either in the ob- 
jective or subjective form. In the indirect objective form 
the statement of the sole mediatorship or sole glory of 
Christ is made prominent. Over against the Romish 
doctrine,which lessens the glory of Christ, the Apology 
says^ : ''We are disputing concerning a great subject, 
concerning the honor of Christ, and whence good minds 
may seek for sure and firm consolation, whether it is 
to be placed in confidence in Christ, or in our works " 
(p. 109, 35). Again : " The adversaries teach that men 
merit the remission of sins by love to God, prior to 
grace. But this also is to remove 'the foundation,' /. e., 
Christ" (p. 166, 21). 

In the indirect subjective form the statement is, that 
faith is the only possible mode of appropriating salva- 
tion. The Apology says : " The promise cannot be re- 
ceived, unless by faith" (p. 92, so); "The promise of 
Christ is necessary. But this cannot be received except 
by faith" (p. 95, to); "For the promise of God's mercy, 
reconciliation and love towards us, is not apprehended 
unless by faith" (p. 158, seo); "Christ is not appre- 
hended as a Mediator, except by faith. Therefore, by 
faith alone we obtain remission of sins, when wg comfort 
our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for 
Christ's sake " (p. 97, s o ) . This faith is defined as " the 
special faith (by which an individual believes that, for 

I. See BooJi of Concord, or the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church, with Historical Introduction, Notes, Appendices. Indices. Translated 
and edited by Henry E. Jacobs, D. D. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1882—83. We al- 
ways quote from this edition, giving paging of first volume. All quotations from 
A. C. (/'. ^., Augsburg Confession), Apol. (z". <f., Apology), Smal. Art. (t. e., Smalcald 
Articles), Smaller or Larger Catechism, and F. C {i. e., Formula of Concord), ar^ 
from this edition, 


Christ's sake, his sins are remitted him, and, that, for 
Christ's sake, God is reconciled and propitious), which 
obtains remission of sins and justifies us " (p. 91, 45 ). 

II. Directly. Directly the doctrine of justification by 
faith is regarded as the principal and fundamental arti- 
cle. "It is necessary that the chiefest point of all the 
Gospel should be holden fast, that we do freelj- obtain 
grace, by faith in Christ" (A. C.^ xxviii, p. 66,52); 
"Who does not see that this article, that by faith we 
obtain remission of sins, is most true, most certain, 
and especially necessary to all Christians?" {Apol. p. 
160, 3 T. ) . The Smalcald Articles emphatically say : 
"Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered, 
even though heaven and earth and all things should 

sink to ruin And upon this article all things 

depend, which, against the Pope, the devil and the whole 
world, we teach and practice. Therefore we must be 
sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt ; for other- 
wise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things 
against us gain the victory and suit" {Book of Concord, 
p. 312, O- 

Consequently all the particular doctrines are judged 
of from this, as the central point. We will quote a few 
passages from the Smalcald Articles: "It (the doc- 
trine of the Mass) directly and powerfully conflicts with 
this chief article" (p. 312, 313, 1); " For it (the doc- 
trine of purgatory) conflicts with the first article which 
teaches that only Christ, and not the works of men, can 
help souls " (p. 314, 315, 12); " All of which (the grant- 
ing of indulgences) is not to be borne, because it is 
without the word of God, and without necessity, and 
is not commanded, but conflicts with the chief article 
(p. 316, 24). In the Formula of Concord we find this 

?. 1 hat is A {u^^sdurg) C(pn/ession). 


statement: ''This article concerning Justification by 
Faith is the chief in the entire Christian doctrine, with- 
out which no poor conscience has any firm consolation, 
or can know aright the riches of the grace of Christ, as 
Dr. Luther also has written : ' If only this article remain 
in view pure, the Christian Church also remains pure, 
and is harmonious and without all sects ; but if it do 
not remain pure, it is not possible to resist any error or 
fanatical spirit'" (p. 571, e). 

4. The Formal Principle of Lutheranism. 

The doctrine of the exclusive normative authority of 
the Holy Scriptures is not distinctly expressed in a dis- 
tinct article, either of the Augsburg Confession or of the 
Apology, but it is presupposed throughout and is in- 
deed actually asserted incidentally in various places. In 
the Preface to the Augsburg Confession we read: *' We 
now oifer in the matter of religion this Confession .... 
the doctrine of which is derived from the Holy Script- 
ures and the pure Word of God " {Book of Concord, p. 
34, 8). In the Apology it is laid down as a thing beyond 
appeal that as the Scripture does not teach the invoca- 
tion of saints, the conscience can have nothing to assure 
of the propriety of such invocations, and the question 
is asked, "How do we know that God approves of this 
invocation ? Whence do we know without the testimony 
of Scripture, that the saints perceive the prayers of any- 
one ? " And the statement is made, "since the invoca- 
tion does not have a testimony from God's Word, it 
cannot be affirmed that the saints perceive our invoca- 
cation " ; " there ought to be a Word of God " {ApoL, p. 
236, 11, 12 ; p. 237, n). The same principle is distinctly 
asserted in the Smalcald Articles {p. 315, 15) : "It is 
of no consequence that articles of faith are framed from 
the works or words of the Holy Fathers." .... "We 


have, moreover, another rule, viz., that the Word of , 
God should frame articles of faith ; otherwise no one, \ 
not even an angel." ! 

Nowhere, however, is the formal principle more dis- ' 
tinctly and clearly asserted than in the Introduction to \ 
the Formula of Concord (p. 491, i ) : '^ We believe, teach < 
and confess that the only rule and standard according ; 
to which at once all dogmas and teachers should be . 
esteemed and judged are nothing else than the prophetic 
and apostolic Scriptures of the New Testament, as it is ; 
written (Ps. 119 : 105) : ' Thy Word is a lamp unto m^^ 
feet, and light unto my path ' ; and St. Paul (Gal. 1:8): ; 
' Though an angel from heaven should preach unto you j 
any gospel other than that w^hich w^e preached unto ; 
3^ou, let him be anathema.' " At the close of this same ■ 
Introduction (p. 492, t) it says: "The Holy Scriptures | 
alone remain the onlj^ judge, rule, and standard, accord- 
ing to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas should i 
and must be discerned and judged, as to whether the3^ ; 
be good or evil, true or false." In the Formula of Con- . 
cord {p. 535, s) the Holy Scriptures are called '*the 
pure and clear fountains, which are the only true stand- 
ard whereby to judge all teachers and doctrines." 

With reference to the relation of the "Confessions" '■ 
themselves to Scripture, this distinct statement is made i 
in the Introduction to the Formula of Concord {p. \ 
491, 2) : " Other writings, of ancient and modern teach- | 
ers, whatever reputation they may have, should not be | 
regarded as of equal authority with the Holy Script- I 
ures, but should altogether be subordinated to them, I 
and should not be received other or further than as wit- j 
nesses, in what manner and at what places, since the | 
time of the apostles, the purer doctrine of the prophets 
and apostles was preserved." | 


5. The Historical Character of Lutheran Protestantism 1 . 

Lutheran Protestantism is pre-eminently historical. 
It approves of the connection with the traditions of the 
Church, i.e., of the visible transmission of doctrines and 
usages, so far as they are not in conflict with the letter 
or spirit of God's Word. Pseudo-Protestantism starts 
practically with the assumption that everything in the 
visible Church, both of doctrine and of practice, is to be 
regarded as wrong, till it shall be proved by direct testi- 
mony of Scripture to be right. True Protestantism, /. 
e., Lutheran Protestantism, starts on the assumption, 
that everything in the visible Church, both of doctrine 
and of practice, is to be regarded as right, until it shall 
be proved by testimony of Scripture, or by sanctified 
reason, to be wrong. The Augsburg Confession and 
Apology, therefore, frequently present the testimony of 
the Church {tota ecclesia) together with the testimony 
of Scripture, and seek to establish the harmony of the 
pro test ant doctrine with the scriptural tradition, or 
transmission of the Church universal, and of the pure 
Roman Church or Western division of the Universal 
Church. Thus in the Augsburg Confession, at the close 
of the Doctrinal Articles, it is said : " This is about the 
sum of doctrine among us, in which can be seen that 
there is nothing which is discrepant with the Scriptures, 
or with the Church Catholic, or even with the Roman 
Church, so far as that Church is known from the writ- 
ings of the Fathers " {Book of Concord, p. 47, i ). At 
the close of the Articles on Abuses we also have this 
statement: '* These things have been enumerated . . . . 
that it might be understood, that in doctrine and cere- 
monials among us there is nothing received contrary to 
Scripture or to the Universal Christian Church, inas- 

I. Compare Manuscript Lecttires of Dr. Krauth. 


much as it is manifest that we have diligently taken 
heed that no new and godless doctrines should creep 
into our Churches" (p. 67, 5). 

In consonance with this it is said ''the Mass is re- 
tained still among us, and celebrated with great rev- 
erence; yea, and almost all the ceremonies are in use" 
(A. C. xxiY. p. 50. 1,2). By the " Mass " is here meant 
the administration of the Lord's Supper, or the Com- 
munion Service, and by the customary ''ceremonies in 
use ' ' are meant those ceremonies which have been used 
in the Church. Whenever, over against the corruption 
of predominant doctrinal practice, our Church receives 
the scriptural doctrine, she declares that in this she 
brings forth "nothing new." In the Apology it is said : 
"For this reason, our preachers have diligently taught 
concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing 
that is new, but have set forth Holy Scripture and the 
judgment of the Holy Fathers " (p. 83, 5 0). The Cata- 
logue of Testimonies added in the best editions of our 
Symbolical Books ^ to Article vm of the Formula 01 
Concord, shows that the Christian Church has contin- 
ually held the doctrine set forth in that article. 

The judgment of our Church in regard to pure trans- 
mission of tradition is of the highest importance. It is 
sustained by the scripture view of the Church. The 
Church is the pillar and ground of the truth ; she is as 
really God's work, as God's Word is, and as the defects 
of particular parts of the Church are no evidence against 
the infallibility of the Word of God, as a rule of faith, so 
also these defects are no evidence against the infallibil- 
ity of the Church of God. We maintain as inflexibly as 
the Church of Rome does, the infallibility of the Church 
Catholic, that is to say, we hold that there has been 

I, See Bool 0/ Concord (Jacobs). Vol. 2, //. 272— 29^. 


and always will be upon earth a commtinion of saints, 
in which the pure faith which makes the Christian 
foundation, abides. We hold, also, that there never has 
been a time, when in every part of the visible Church a 
man was bound in conscience to false doctrine, — that 
even in the Church of the West, the Romish Church in 
her darkest hour, — the official creeds of the Church to 
which her children were bound in conscience, set forth 
only pure truths. When Luther grasped the great 
truths out of which the Reformation arose, he found 
and grasped them in the creed which had been from 
time immemorial in the Church, — '*! believe in the for- 
giveness of sins." The Reformers within the Church of 
Rome set forth no doctrine which they could not con- 
scientiously, as faithful children of that Church, set 
forth. When we now take up the Confessions of the 
Church of Rome, we find, that until the Council of 
Trent (1545—63), which was not held till after the Re- 
formation was established, the only creeds of the Church 
were the Apostles\ the Nicene, and the Athanasian 
Creeds, to which our Reformers inflexibly held. Up to 
the time of the Reformation the doctrine confessed in 
the oecumenical or general creeds was the same through- 
out the Church Catholic, east and west. The Augsburg 
Confession is the oldest distinctive creed used in any 
large portion of Christendom. So far as the Roman or 
Greek Churches have creeds older than the Augsburg 
Confession, they set forth none other than the doctrines 
we hold in common with them. Luther well argues, 
then, that we are the true old Church, because we hold 
to the true old Creeds. When the Augsburg Confession 
was set forth in 1530, it was an ampler statement and 
larger development of the same old doctrine of the 
Church. We do not contend that all its specifications 


are in the older creeds any more than we pretend that 
all specifications of the Nicene Creed are in th^ Apostles' 
Creed, or that all the specifications of the Athanasian 
are in the Nicene. But the Augsburg Confession is a 
pure statement of the doctrine of the Church Catholic, 
in its legitimate development for more than fifteen hun- 
dred years, and is related logically to the purified Prot- 
estantism of the sixteenth century as the Apostles' and 
Nicene Creeds are related to the Catholic doctrine of the 
Middle Ages. 

6. The Internal Assurance of Salvation. 

The truths of salvation concerning justification by 
faith, such as the Holy Scriptures testify, and the pure 
Church of all ages has confessed, are sealed by the Holy 
Spirit internally in Christians, especially in that comfort 
of conscience which the Word of God brings with it. 

This element is made very prominent, especially in the 
^po/o^j^, where the thought is often repeated that ''Jus- 
tification by faith " brings '' a sure and firm consolation 
to pious minds." In Art. lY. {On Justification) we read 
(p. 98, 8 5): ''Wherefore let not good minds suffer them- 
selves to be forced from the opinion, that we receive re- 
mission of sins for Christ's sake only through faith. In 
this, they have sure and firm consolation against the 
terrors of sin, and against eternal death, and against all 
the gates of hell." Again (p. 103, in, 1 1 s) : '* We have 
shown with sufficient fulness, both from testimonies of 
Scripture, and arguments derived from Scripture, that 
by faith alone, we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's 

sake, and that by faith alone we are justified But 

how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, can be 
easily judged, because, in this alone, the office of Christ 
is recognized, by this alone we receive the benefits of 
Christ ; this alone brings sure and firm consolation to 


pious minds. And in the Church it is necessary that 
there should be doctrine, from which the pious may re- 
ceive the sure hope of salvation." Again in Art. vi. {On 
Love and the FuWHng of the Law) (p. 109, 35): ''We 
are disputing concerning a great subject, concerning the 
honor of Christ, and w^hence good minds may seek for 
sure and firm consolation, v^hether it is to be placed in 
confidence in Christ, or in our works." Again (p. 
120, 96): ''Conscience cannot be pacified before God, 
unless by faith alone, which is certain that God for 
Christ's sake is reconciled to us according to Rom. 5: 
1 : ' Being justified by faith, we have peace ; ' because 
justification is only a matter freely promised for Christ's 
sake, and therefore is always received before God by 
faith alone." And so in many other places in the Apo- 
logy. In the Smalcald Articles we have this clear testi- 
mony {p. 346, 44): "The doctrine of repentance has 
been utterly corrupted b^^ the Pope and his adherents. 
For they teach that sins are remitted because of the 
worth of our works. Then they bid us doubt whether 
the remission occur. They nowhere teach us that sins 
are remitted freely for Christ's sake, and that by this 
faith we obtain remission of sins. Thus they obscure 
the glory of Christ, and deprive consciences of firm con- 
solation, and abolish true divine services, viz., the exer- 
cises of faith struggling with unbelief and despair 
concerning the promise of the Gospel." 

Here belongs also the testimony of the Holy Spirit, 
which is an internal (personal) assurance of salvation, 
wrought in the believer by the Holy Ghost, through the 




The Material Principle of Protestantism in 
the unity of its objective and subjective sides, 
forms the genetic principle of the unfolding of 
the Dogmatic System, and the Holy Scriptures, 
as the original record of the revelation of sal- 
vation, forms the argumentative proof for the 
single statements of Dogmatics. 

I, The Material Principle of Dogmatics. 

As Dogmatics is designed to be a systematic state- 
ment of the Christian Faith, it must genetically unfold 
the entire Christian Doctrine, out of a fundamental 
unity. By a genetic unfolding we mean one that pre- 
sents the process of originating, the natural mode of 
development, in which, as it were, the secondary truths 
grow out of the primary. There must be someone germ, 
which grows and expands into all that follows. As such 
a genetic principle, Luther designates the article ofjus- 
tiBcation by faith : "In it we have the sum of the whole 
Christian Doctrine and the bright and lovely sun, which 
illumines the Christian communion. If this article be 
embraced and retained with a sure and firm faith, all 
the others gradually come from it and follow it, as for 
example, the doctrine of the Trinity and others." . . . . 
"While this doctrine stands, the Church stands." And 
the meaning of Luther's expression that it is "the ar- 
ticle of a standing or falling church," is, that while this 
doctrine stands, the Church stands, when it falls, the 
Church falls. 


The Dogmaticians subsequent to Luther did not al- 
ways carry out this thought completely. They designate 
the Scripture as the only principle of knowledge, and the 
later Dogmaticians, who pursued the analytic method, 
regarded the idea of salvation as a controlling point of 
view, but beyond this regarded the analogy or rule of 
faith, only as a material canon. 

The most recent Dogmaticians, for the most part, 
start with the idea of fellowship with God through 
Christ (Thomasius, Hofmann), or with the idea of 
Atonement (Philippi). 

LuTHARDT says : The material principle of Dogmat- 
ics must be the essence of Christianity itself, i. e., the 
fellowship with God through Christ,which is actualized 
in the righteousness of faith as a righteousness of life. 
This material principle is to be exhibited in accordance 
with its entire contents through the conjoined opera- 
tion of the three factors of Dogmatics : 1) The Script- 
ures; 2) The Doctrine of the Church; 3) The personal 
consciousness of faith. 

2. The Scriptures as the Normative factor of Dogmatics. 

The Holy Scriptures as the normative factor in the 
Dogmatic System imparts to it its biblical character. 
Since the time of Gerhard the Dogmaticians present in 
their Prolegomena, the complete doctrine of Scripture, 
as the only principle by which we become cognizant ot 
heavenly truth. Inspiration forms the basis for the 
authority of Holy Scripture, which witnesses of itself 
through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, i. e., the in- 
ternal actual assurance which the matter of Scripture 
itself imparts. In the later Dogmaticians we have pre- 
sented in place of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the 
credibility of the authors. In this way all attacks upon 
the Bible become in their actual working, attacks upon 
religion itself. 


Lessing appealed to the self assurance ot Christian 
experience. Schleiermacher, in his views, follows 
Lessing, inasmuch as he makes a primary point of the 
Christian's internal consciousness, and consequently 
does not treat the doctrine of Scripture in his Prolego- 
mena, but in the body of his work, in which he says 
{Glhsl § 128) : '' The authority of the Holy Scriptures 
cannot be the basis of faith in Christ ; on the contrary, 
this faith, must previously exist before we can concede 
to the Holy Scriptures a special authority." Twesten 
says (I, 283) : " It should not be maintained that in the 
Christian consciousness, faith in the Holy Scriptures is 
that foundation which is fixed in itself as the founda- 
tion of all other convictions, — since faith in the Holy 
Scriptures is rather only one constituent of the Chris- 
tian conviction, which is to be apprehended only by 
faith, and just as much requires to be stayed and sup- 
ported by the other doctrines, as they require to be 
stayed and supported by it." 

A system of Dogmatics assumes Scripture and its 
authority as matter of fact, (just as it takes the Church 
and her doctrines), to justify both within its system, as 
it does the other facts of faith. 

3. The Canon of Scripture. 

The body of the sacred writings is comprehended in 
the Canon, and hence they are called "the Canonical 
Scriptures." The word kanon in classical Greek meant 
1) properly a straight rod, or a carpenter's rule. 2) Then 
a testing rule in ethics, or in art, or language. The eccle- 
siastical usage of the word offers a complete parallel 
to the classical. In the New Testament it occurs four 
times (Gal. 6: 16. 2 Cor. 10: 13—16). In the first pas- 
sage (Gal. 6 : 16) it is used in its literal sense of rule, and 
in the second passage the change from an active to a 


passive sense is worthy of notice. In patristic writings 
the word is commonly used both as ''a rule" in the 
widest sense, and especially in the phrases "the rule of 
the Church," "the rule of faith," "the rule of truth." In 
the fourth century, when the practice of the Church 
was systematized, the decisions of synods w^ere styled 
"Canons." As applied to Scripture the derivatives of 
the word Canon are used long before the simple word. 
The first direct application of the term kanon to the 
Scriptures seems to be b3^ Amphilochius, bishop of Ico- 
nium, a contemporary of Gregory of Na^ianzus, who 
concludes his v^ell-known Catalogue of the Scriptures 
(about 380 a. d.), with the words, "this will be the 
most truthful Canon of the inspired Scriptures." Among 
Latin writers the word is commonly found from the 
time of Jerome ^ 

a) The Old Testament Canon ^. The formation of the 
Old Testament Canon was a matter of internal neces- 
sity when the Old Testament time of Revelation came 
to an end. According to the Rabbinical tradition it 
was the work of Ezra and the great Synagogue. It 
first appears as a finished whole in the prologue to the 
Greek translation of the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesias- 
ticus), the date of which is somewhat doubtful, but cer- 
tainly lies between 250—130 b. c. Not only does the 
prologue expressly refer to the Old Testament according 
to its three divisions, "the law and the prophets, and 

1. For a fuller discussion of the use of the word Canon see Westcott's Article 
on the Canon in Smith's Bible Diet. (Amer. Ed., 4 vols.). The same author in his 
work On the Canon of the New Testament (Fifth Ed„ 1881), in Appendix D {pp ^ 
556, 557) gives the original text of the Catalogue of Amphilochius. 

2. Compare Westcott's Art. on Canon in Smith's Bible Diet, already cited 
(Vol. I, pp. 357—368), a most valuable summary of the whole subject; also the 
Article in Herzog's Real-Eneykl. (Ed. I, by Oehler ; Ed. II, by Strack) ; see also 
Schaff-Herzog's Encyel.ydi. i, pp. 385—389, and the well-known works of Bleek, 
Home (Fourteenth Ed.), Keil and Reuss. 


the other books of our fathers," "the rest of the books," 
but also in the book itself it is manifestly assumed as a 
thing well known. The definite article, '' tize other books 
of the fathers," and ^^ the rest of the books,^^ presup- 
poses a definite class of writings well marked off, and 
involves the close of the Canon. 

The Canon of the Old Testament lay in its present 
compass before our Lord and his Apostles, just as we 
have the enumeration of its parts in Josephus (40 — 100 
A. D.). In his book Contra Apion, 1, 8, he enumerates 
twenty-two books "which are justly believed to be in- 
spired." And he adds: " They have suffered no addi- 
tion, diminution, or change. From our infancy we learn 
to regard them as decrees of God ; we observe them, and 
if need be, we gladly die for them." 

In the New Testament, these Old Testament writings 
are regarded as one complete whole as in John 5 : 39, 
" Search the scriptures,^' or in John 10 : 35, " The script- 
ure cannot he broken.'' Matt. 23 : 35 and Luke 11 : 51 
(''from the blood of Abel unto the blood ofZachariah,'' 
i. e., from Genesis to 2 Chronicles) are a witness to the 
arrangement and compass of our present Hebrew Bible; 
Luke 24: 44 is evidence of the division into three parts, 
** the law," "the prophets," and "the psalms;" 2 Tim. 
3 : 15, 16 looks to the fact that the scriptures were col- 
lected together. In the New Testament, with the excep- 
tion of some of the Minor Prophets, all the books of the 
"first" and "second" division are cited. From the 
third division, Psalms, Proverbs, and Daniel are cited. 
The Old Testament Apocryphal Books are never cited 
in the New Testament, and if there be allusions to them, 
as there probably are, they are of such a nature, as in 
no degree to imply a recognition of them as inspired 
books. Thus in Heb. 11 : 34, 35 it has been claimed (see 


Stier's Die Apokryphen, pp. 148, 1853, who professes 
to find 102 references in the New Testament to the 
Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament) that there is 
an allusion to the times of the Maccabees ; but, if this 
be granted, it simply, at the most, recognizes the histor- 
ical truth of a statement, and involves no more than 
St. Paul's quotations of the Greek poets. From a care- 
ful study of all the evidence there can be no reasonable 
doubt that at the beginning of the Christian era the 
Jews had a Canon of Sacred Writings distinctly defined, 
and that this Canon was recognized by the Lord and 
his Apostles, and that this Canon was the same as we 
now have in our Hebrew Bibles, and accepted by all 
Protestant Churches as the Canonical Books of the Old 

The authority of Augustine occasioned the reception 
of the Old Testament Apocrypha into the Canon, by the 
Council of Hippo, 393, and of Carthage, 397, but there 
was no churchly sanction of a general kind to this, until 
the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, gave it its 
sanction. But the establishment of the Old Testament 
Canon properly belongs to Israel, not to the Christian 
Church, which received it from Israel. We find the true 
view of the matter therefore in Jerome, who limits the 
Canon to the Hebrew writings, as these alone were ac- 
cepted and appealed to, by our Lord and his Apostles. 

The more recent critics have attempted to put the 
book of Daniel into the time of Antiochus Epiphanes 
(175—164 B. c), an era which had lost the conscious- 
ness of possessing the spirit of revelation (1 Mace. 4: 
46 ; 9 : 27 ; 14 : 41) . But that the Book of Daniel forms 
an integral part of the Canon is clear, 1) from the im- 
portance of its relation to the New Testament, in which 
it is fully accepted as canonical (Matt. 24 : 15) ; 2) from 


its wonderful internal witness, its prophecies, many of 
which were demonstrably fulfilled long after the period 
ofAntiochns Epiphanes, and many of which are now 
fulfilling; 3) from the evidences which many of the best, 
ripest recent scholars, in conjunction with the older 
ones, have brought to show that there is no reason for 
departing from the ancient and received view as to the 
time of its origin ; 4) the latest results of Assyriolog3^ 
and the evidence of the monumental remains, all con- 
firm those statements of Danid which were denied by 

b) The New Testament Canon ^. The collection of 
the New Testament Canon was relatively late in its 
origin, and slow in its progress. The history of its 
formation conveniently divides itself into three periods : 
1. The era of the separate circulation and gradual col- 
lection of the Apostolic writings, to 170 A. d. (There 
can be no doubt whatever that at the close of this period 
the four Gospels occupied the position which they have 
always retained as the fourfold Apostolic record of the 
Saviour's ministry. The testimony of Justin Martyr 
{d. 146?) and of Papias {ab. 150) is decisive. For the 
New Testament as a whole we have, in the West, the 
important testimony of the Muratorian Canon, and in 
the East, the Peshito. From a careful sifting of all the 
evidence it seems that at the close of the second century, 
2 Peter is the only book which is not recognized def- 

I. Compare Westcott's Article in Smith's Bi'b/e Diet. (Amer. Ed. 4 vols.), 
vol. I, //. 368 — 376 ; the Article in Herzog's Real-Encykl. (Ed. I, by Landerer ; 
Ed. II, by Wold. Schmidt) ; the latest introductions by Bleek, Reuss, Weiss, Holta- 
mann, etc. See also Charteris' Canonicity : a collection of early testimonies to the 
Canonical Books of the New Testament, based on Kirchhofer's Qtiellensammlung. 
Edinburgh, 1881. The standard work on this subject in English is Westcott's On 
the Canon 0/ the New Testament. Fifth Edition. Pp. LVI, 593. Cambridge and 
London, 1881. As a concise summary Mitchell's Critical Handbook (Andorer, 
1880), can be recommended. 


initely as an Apostolic and authoritative writing). 

2. The period marking the separation of the books of 
the New Testament from the remaining Ecclesiastical 
literature (170 a. d. — 303 a. d., to the persecution of 
Diocletian). During this period the books common to 
the Muratorian or Roman Canon and the Peshito or 
Syrian Canon, were regarded as a whole, authoritative 
and inspired, and were used as of equal value with the 
Old Testament. This can be proved by the testimony 
of contemporary Fathers of the Churches of Asia Minor, 
Alexandria, and North Africa. Of this testimony West- 
cott says^ : '' This comprehensive testimony extends to 
the four Gospels, the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, 13 Epistles 
of St. Paul and the Apocalypse; and with the exception 
of the Apocalypse, no one of these books was ever after- 
wards rejected or questioned till modern times." (With 
reference to the '^ antilcgomena^^ or ''disputed" books 
it may be said, that the Apocalypse was universally 
received by all the writers of the period, with the single 
exception of Dionysius of Alexandria ; that the Epistle 
to the Hebrews was accepted by the Churches of Alex- 
andria, and Syria, but not by those of Africa and Rome ; 
that the Epistles of James and Jude were little used ; 
and that 2 Peter was barely known. But our whole 
testimony is but the evidence of use and not of inquiry). 

3. The third period ends with the third council of 
Carthage (397), in which a catalogue of the books of 
Scripture was formally ratified by the action of the 
Council (303—397 a. d.). (Of great importance is the 
testimony of Eusebius {H. E. iii, 25), because he gives 
us a fair summary of the results which follow from a 
careful examination of the extant Ante-Nicene literat- 
ure. 2) 

1. Article on Canon in Smith's Bibl. Diet. Vol. i, p. 370 b. 

2. See A Comprehensive General Index to the .Anfe^'Nicene Fathers, By 
Pemhard Pick, Pqffalo, jcSSy, 


Luther at one time (previous to 1525), expressed 
doubts in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, 
and the Apocalypse. He found doctrinal difficulties in 
Heb. 6: 4—6; 12: 17; and his objection to the Epistle 
of James was based upon the seeming contradiction of 
that Epistle to Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. 
But the real harmony between Paul and James is now 
universally conceded. Both teach really that we are jus- 
tified by faith ; but St. James to meet a specific perver- 
sion which had ignorantly or wickedly been made of 
that doctrine, shows that the faith which justifies is the 
one which also works out righteousness. We are jus- 
tified by faith, and faith is demonstrated before the eyes 
of men to be a just and true faith, by works. Luther 
continued to regard the Apocalypse, because of its pro- 
phetic shape and consequently obscurity, of less value, 
than the other books of the Canon. 

Chemnitz, by his admirable historical investigation, 
established in the conviction of the Church, the thorough 
canonicity of all these books. Gerhard limits the ques- 
tion to the author of the books, and turns the dog- 
matic question into an historical one. In Quenstedt the 
whole matter is reduced to little more than an historical 
notice. Hollaz says: ''We judge of the canonical au- 
thority of Scripture with reference to its doctrines, by 
the same proofs and arguments by which we decide in 
regard to its divine origin It is proved by exter- 
nal and internal criteria, but especially by the internal 
testimony of the Holy Spirit illuminating the minds of 
men, through the Scriptures attentively read or heard 
from the mouth of a teacher. ... It is indeed distinctly 
proved by the testimony of the primitive Church, but 
not by this alone .... We add to the testimony of the 
primitive Church, Jthe testimony of Scripture, its con- 


tinned preservation for the profitable use of men, and 
the character of its style." 

Chemnitz says : The Scriptures derive canonical 
authority 1) mainly from the Holy Spirit, by whose 
impulse and inspiration they v^ere written ; 2) from the 
writers themselves, to whom God gave clear and pecu- 
liar proofs of their truth, and 3) from the primitive 
Church, as a witness, in whose day these writings were 
published and approved. 

Gerhard says: 1) There is, indeed, some difference 
to be made between the books that are contained in the 
New Testament. For it cannot be denied that some of 
them were, at times, objected to by some in the Early 
Church. 2) But these '' disputed books " are not apoc- 
ryphal : a) Because the doubts concerning them in the 
primitive Church did not so much relate to their canon- 
ical authority as to their secondary author (the Holy 
Spirit being regarded as the original Divine author); 
h) Because even this doubt was not entertained con- 
cerning them by all the churches or ministers, but onl^^ 
by some, c) The fathers who rejected the Apocrypha of 
the Old Testament did not exclude any book of the New 
Testament from the Canon. 3) For the sake of accuracy 
we may distinguish between the canonical books of the 
New Testament of the £rst and second rank. Those of 
the hrst rank are those concerning whose authors or 
authority there has never been any doubt in the Church, 
of the secoi2c/ rank those concerning whose authors there 
have sometimes been doubts. 

So likewise Quenstedt : We call those books of the 
New Testament protocanonical, or of the first rank, 
concerning whose authority and secondary authors 
there never was any doubt in the Church ; and those 
deuterocanonical, or of the second rank, concerning 


whose secondary authors (not their authority, how- 
ever) there were at times doubts entertained by some*. 

Among recent critics this distinction between proto- 
canonical and deuterocanonical books of the New Tes- 
tament has been renewed by Philippi, Kahnis, and 

The disposition of our later theologians has been to 
decide the canonicity of the books not so much from the 
transient hesitation of the Early Church, nor from the 
theory of different degrees of inspiration, as from their 
internal character and contents. 

The historical character of Scripture determines its 
application in the service of Dogmatics. The doctrinal 
contents of the particular biblical books always stands 
in connection with the historical matter which pertains 
to these books. The citation of the Old Testament by 
older dogmaticians rests upon the supposition that 
there is an essential unit3'' in the matter of Scripture. In 
modern Dogmatics the Old Testament proof passages 
are adduced with far greater caution, and their force is 
considered as modified by the point of histor^'^ at which 
they occur. It is felt that as Revelation grows in the 
intensity of its brightness, it is necessary to avoid bring- 
ing a mode of conception which belongs to the relative 
twilight, into the purer and fuller light of the New Tes- 

4. The Interpretation of Scripture. 

The biblical interpreter must not only possess certain 
intellectual and moral qualifications, but his first quali- 
fication must be a living faith, and in all his attempts 
to expound Scripture he must be guided by the central 
truth of all Revelation, salvation in Christ, which is the 

I. The quotations from Chemnitz^ Gerhard^ Quef^stedt^ and HoUaz liaye; 
been condensed from Schmid. 


very essence of Christianity and the material principle 
of Dogmatics. Moreover in the setting forth of the doc- 
trines of the Bible he must recognize the general devel- 
opment which Revelation passes through in Scripture 
itself. And though the Church doctrine may be of great 
service in the interpretation of the Scriptures, still his 
guide must be Scripture itself as his only norm. 

The doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, of Inspiration, 
and of the Attributes of the Sacred Scriptures, will be 
presented in the dogmatic system itself. But in speaking 
of the interpretation of Scripture we must also speak of 
its perspicuity. 

By the perspicuity of Scripture we mean that Script- 
ure sets forth all things necessary for faith, holiness, and 
salvation in such clear terms, that an earnest, unprej- 
udiced mind may easily understand them. Its m3^steries 
are in the nature of the things jUotm the obscurity of its 
phrases. It is its own interpreter in all things needful. 

The clearness of Scripture is two-fold : 

Luther says: "One kind of clearness is external, 
lying in the ministry of the Word, the other in the 
knowledge of the heart. If you speak of the internal 
clearness, no man understands a single iota in the 
Scriptures by the natural powers of his own mind, un- 
less he have the Spirit of God ; all have obscure hearts. 
The Holy Spirit is required for the understanding of the 
whole of Scripture and of all its parts. If you allude to 
the exteriza/ clearness, there is nothing left obscure and 
ambiguous, but all things brought to light by the Word 
are perfectly clear." Again: **The things of God are 
obscure; the things of Scripture are perspicuous. The 
doctrines in themselves are obscure ; but in so far as 
they are presented in Scripture they are manifest, if we 


are willing to be content with that knowledge which 
God communicates in the Scriptures to the Church." 

The Lutheran Church has always laid the greatest 
stress upon the Analogy of Faith as an inspired means 
of interpretation 1 . 

Quenstedt: " Obscure passages, which need explana- 
tion, can and should be explained by other passages 
that are more clear, and thus the Scripture itself fur- 
nishes an interpretation of obscure expressions 

From no other source than the Sacred Scriptures them- 
selves can a certain and infalHble interpretation of 
Scripture be drawn. For Scripture itself, or rather the 
Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture or through it, is the 
legitimate and independent interpreter of itself" 

Gerhard : "All interpretation of Scripture should be 

according to the analogy of faith This signifies 

that the interpretation of Scripture should be instituted 
and carried on in such a manner as to accord with the 
usual line of thought which is con vej^ed in Scripture con- 
cerning each leading doctrine. For, since all Scripture 
was given by the immediate suggestion of the Holy 
Spirit, and is inspired, all things in it are harmonious 
and perfectly consistent with each other, so that no dis- 
crepancy or self-contradiction occurs in it. . . . Nothing 
is ever to be broached in the interpretation of Scripture 
that conflicts with the rule of faith ; and hence, if we be 
not exactly able at all times to ascertain the exact sense 
of any passage, as designed by the Holy Spirit, we should 
nevertheless beware of proposing anj^thing that is con- 
trary to the analogy of faith." 

The Lutheran Church has also always opposed the 
theory of a multiple sense in Scripture. There is no founda- 

I. For an explanation of the principles that underlie this method of interpre- 
tation see my TAeo/. Hncy.^ Part I. Exegetical Theology, pp. 142 — 145. 


tion whatever for the position, held by some, that each 
passage, or certain passages, can be understood in dif- 
ferent ways, all equally conformed to the divine thought. 
No wonder, with such views, that the Bible becomes a 
changeable, doubtful rule of faith, flexible at the will of 
the fancies or passions of men, or fluctuating with the 
tendencies of the times. If w^e would grant such a mul- 
tiple or double sense in Scripture, then, indeed, the pro- 
blem of interpretation would become indeterminate, the 
Bible would become a field for the display of the wit and 
vanity of the theologian, instead of being the simple, 
clear, and edifying guide to salvation which it professes 
to be. 

Gerhard : *' There is but one proper and true sense 
of each passage, which the Holy Spirit thereby intends, 
and which is drawn from the proper signification of the 
words, and only from this literal sense available argu- 
ments may be derived. . . . All interpretation of Script- 
ure should be literal, and there should be no departure 
from the letter in matters of faith, unless the Scriptures 
themselves indicate the figurativeness and explain it." 
Again: "Allegories, tropes, analogies, are not difierent 
senses, but different adaptations of the same sense and 
subject designated by the letter." 

This does not prevent the application of the literal 
sense of a passage in a spiritual way. The literal sense 
of Scripture may be used as an allegory, a type, or a 

Caloyius : " It is called the allegorical sense, when a 
Scriptural historical narrative of things, that really 
occurred, is applied to a certain mystery or spiritual 
doctrine, by the intention of the Holy Spirit, in an alle- 
gorical manner ; it is called typical, when under exter- 
nal facts or prophetic visions, things hidden, either 


present or future, are prefigured, or especially matters 
relating to the New Testament are shadowed forth; 
and parabolical, when something is described as having 
really occured, and yet applied to designate something 

Gerhard^ states the principles that underlie all true 
interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures as follows : 

1) Our mind is blind without the light of the Holy 
Spirit ; 

2) In addition to this natural blindness, some are 
blinded by singular wickedness and an unyielding hard- 
ness of heart ; but neither of these kinds of blindness, 
makes or proves the Scriptures obscure ; 

3) Because our mind is blind we must pray for the 
light of the Holy Spirit; 

4) Our mind is not now immediately illuminated by 
the Holy Spirit, but by means of the Word heard and 
meditated upon ; 

5) The doctrines necessary to be known by every one 
for salvation are taught in Scripture in clear and per- 
spicuous language ; 

6) The remaining passages of Scripture receive light 
from these important doctrines ; 

7) From the clear passages of Scripture a rule of faith 
is deduced to which the exposition of the more difficult 
passages must be conformed ; 

8) If we cannot definitely and exactly ascertain the 
precise meaning of all difficult passages, it is sufficient 
that we do not propose any interpretation contrary to 
the analogy of faith ; 

9) But the more obscure passages may be rightly 
and accurately interpreted, if we apply the means cal- 
culated to remove the difficulties ; 

5. The quotations from our older Dogmaticians are condensed from Schmid's 
Doctrinal Theology. 


10) To find out these means, we must seek the causes 
of the obscurity ; 

11) Some passages are obscure in themselves, others, 
when compared with other passages ; if they merely 
seem to be in conflict with other passages, this obscur- 
ity may be removed by reconciling the passages ; 

12) Those passages that are obscure in themselves, 
are so, either as to their subject-matter or as to their 
words. The obscurity in regard to the subject-matter 
is removed by the analogy of faith, and bj^ those settled 
axioms in individual articles of belief, which are to be 
regarded as the unfailing guide ; 

13) The obscurity in regard to the words is removed 

a) by the grammatical analysis of sentences, 

b) by the rhetorical exposition of tropes and figures, 

c) by the logical consideration of the order and the 

d) by an acquaintance with physical science, 

e) but the greatest assistance is afforded by a pru- 
dent and diligent collation of Scripture passages. 



A system of Dogmatics must have a churchly 
as well as a biblical character. Its harmony 
with the doctrine of the Church should not, how- 
ever, be a mere external one, but one produced 
through the fellowship of the faith which the 
dogmatician himself has with the doctrine of the 
Church, and which he seeks to express in his dog- 
matic system. 


1. The Churchly Character of Dogmatics, 

The faith and doctrinal thinking of the present is 
conditioned by the intellectual labors and the develop- 
ment of Church doctrine -in the past, and must conse- 
quently assure itself of its essential harmony with the 
past ; for there are no absolute breaks in human knowl- 
edge. Truth may be obscured but not annihilated, and 
the sciences which seem least historical are nevertheless 

The man who takes up the Bible now without refer- 
ence to what has been done toward its elucidation in 
the past, and without being guided by the development 
of doctrine is exactly as foolish as the man who would 
undertake to take up any branch of science without re- 
gard to what has been done before. 

Great connecting links in the continuing develop- 
ment of the Church doctrine are furnished by the Con- 
fessions, ^which, as they were occasioned by the historical 
necessity of their times, and conditioned by those con- 
nections as to the mode in which they present doctrine, 
are to be interpreted and vindicated by their history, 

2. The Confessions of the Church. 

Faith makes men Christians, but Confession alone 
marks them as Christians. The Rule of Faith (the Bible) 
is God's voice to us ; faith is the hearing of that voice, 
and the Confession is our reply of assent to it. As the 
Creed is not, and cannot be the Rule of Faith, but is its 
Confession merely, so the Bible, because it is the Rule of 
Faith, is of necessitj^ not its Confession. 

Fidelity to the Rule of Faith (the Bible), fidehty to 
the faith it teaches, demands that there shall be a Con- 
fession of the faith^ . 

Confessions are necessary 1) to establish the unity of 

I. Compare Krauth's Conservative Reformation, pp. i66, 167. 


the faith, and 2) to ward off error. This necessity is 
both psychological and historical. It is not an absolute 
necessity, but what may be called one '' of expediency." 
For by her confessions a Church gives evidence of the 
faith she teaches and shows in what she differs from 
other Churches, and also bears continual testimony 
against those who would introduce error. 

On the i2ecessit7 of Confessions the Formula of Con- 
CORD^ expresses itself very clearly: ''Because directl3^ 
after the times of the Apostles, and even in their lives, 
false teachers and heretics arose, and against them, in 
the Early Church, symbols, i. e., brief, plain confessions, 
were composed, which were regarded as the unanimous, 
universal Christian faith, and confession of the ortho- 
dox and true Church, namely the Apostles^ Creed ^ , the 

2. See Book of Cottcord p. 492, 3. 

3. It is called the Apostles Creed not because it was composed by 
the Apostles, but because it is a brief summary of the doctrine taught 
by the Apostles. It gradually grew out of the confessions recorded in 
the Scriptures (Mark. 12 : 29 ; John 17 : 3, " Thee, the only true God" ; 
I Cor. 8 : 4, " There is no God but one "; Gal. 3 : 20, ''God is one "; i 
Tim. 2 : 5, ''For there is one God"; John i : 49, " Thou art the Son of 
God" (Nathanael) ; John 6 : 68, 69, " Lord, to whom shall we go ? thou 
hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that thou 
art the Holy One of God " (Peter) ; Matt. 16 : 16, " Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God" (Peter) ; John 20 : 28, " My Lord and my 
God" (Thomas). St. Paul gives us his confession in i Cor. 8:6; i 
Tim. 3: 16; Heb. 6: i, 2; 5: 12; i Cor. 15: 3, 4; 2 Tim. i: 13, 14; 
St. John in i John 4 : 2 ; 2 John 10) and out of the baptismal formula 
(Matt. 28 : 19 : 20), which last determined its Trinitarian order and ar- 
rangement. In the churches of the West a distinction soon arose be- 
tween the baptis7nal confessions and the Rules of Faith. The latter 
became more explicit and were more particularly directed against false 
doctrine. The former, the baptismal confessions, finally took the form 
of the Apostles Creed, while the latter, the Rules of Faith became sub- 
stantially the same as the Nicene Creed. The creed confessed at bap- 


Nicene Creed ^ , and the Athanasian Creed ^ ; we confess 
them as binding upon us, and hereby reject all heresies 

tism, at first, was not precisely the same. In different congregations 
different forms were used, some shorter, some longer. The most com- 
plete forms of the baptismal creed in use in the West were found in 
the Churches of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan in Southern Europe, and 
in the African Churches of Carthage and Hippo. The form used in 
the Church at Rome gradually gained acceptance in the West on ac- 
count of its intrinsic excellence and the commanding position of the 
Church. The Latin text of the Creed of the Church at Rome is first 
given by Rufinus (about 390, A. D., d. 410), and the Greek text, which 
is probably older than the Latin, we have from Marcellus of Ancyra, 
who lived about 340 A. D. The Roman Creed was gradually enlarged 
by the addition of several articles, and it was not until the close of the 
fifth century that the present text of the Apostles' Creed came into 
use, and not until the eighth that it was generally accepted in the 
Churches of the West. (For a fuller presentation see Schaff's Creeds 
of Christendo7n, vol, \,pp. 14 — 23; especially Casparz's Quellen zur 
Geschichte desTauf symbols und der Glaubensregel. 3 vols., Christiania, 
1866— 1875). 

4. As the Apostles' Creed had its origin in the baptismal confes- 
sions used in the Western Churches, so likewise the Nicene Creed had 
its origin in the baptismal formula used in the Eastern Churches. As 
the Eastern Church was continually in conflict with heresy, the bap- 
tismal confessions used in their churches, even before the Council of 
Nicaea (325 A. D.), were more metaphysical, more definite and explicit 
than the Apostles' Creed, especially in the statement of the divinity of 
Christ. This can be seen from the Creed of Eusebius, on which the 
Nicene Creed was based. The Nicene Creed can be distinguished in 
three forms : i) The original Nicene Creed was adopted at the first 
General Council, held at Nicsea in Bithynia, not far from Constantinople, 
in 325 A. D. This council was attended by 318 bishops and was called 
to settle the Arian controversy. The Creed, however, abruptly ended 
with the words " and in the Holy Ghost." 2) At the second General 
Council, held at Constantinople in 381 A. D., consisting however of only 
1 50 bishops, a few additions were made to the first two articles, but to 
the last article, treating of the Holy Ghost, important additions were 
made, especially directed against those who denied the Deity of the Holy 


and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been intro- 
duced into the Church of God," 

Ghost. This enlarged Creed is known as the Nicasno-Constantinopoli- 
tan Creed of 381, but there is no evidence that it was accepted by a 
council, before the fourth General Council, held at Chalcedon, 451 a. 
D. 3) The final change made in the Nicene Creed took place in the 
Western Church, by the addition of the little word '' filioque " {" and 
in the Son "), the occasion of the greatest schism in Christendom, for 
that one word, together with the question of the Jurisdiction of the 
Pope of Rome, divides the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches of the 
present day. This expression *'filioque " was put into the Creed by 
the Latin Church, without consulting the Church of the East. The 
first trace of this word in the Nicene Creed we find in the proceedings 
of the third Council of Toledo in Spain, 589 A. D., but by the close of 
the ninth century it was generally accepted in the West, and at the 
Reformation passed over into the Protestant Churches (See Literature 
already cited). 

5. The origin of the Aihanasian Creed like that of the Apostles 
is involved in obscurity. It is called Athanasian, not because he wrote 
it, but because it is a noble exposition and defence of the doctrine of 
the Trinity, of which Athanasius {d. 373) was the great champion. Of 
its authorship nothing is known for certain. It arose in the Latin 
churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain, drawn up originally no 
doubt, by a follower of Augustine. It borrows some passages from 
Augustine and other Latin Fathers, and first appears in its full form 
about the beginning of the ninth century. The Creed consists of two 
chief parts, preceded by a prologue of two verses, and followed by an 
epilogue of one verse. The first part, verses 3 — 26, sets forth the or- 
thodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the exclusion of every kind of 
subordination of essence. The second part, verses 27 — 39, contains a 
very clear statement of the orthodox doctrine concerning the Person of 
Christ, as settled by the Council of Chalcedon, 451 a. d., and in this 
respect it is a valuable supplement to the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. 
The Athanasian Creed acquired great authority in the Western Church, 
and during the Middle Ages it was almost daily used in the morning 
devotions. In the Greek Church, however, it never obtained formal 
ecclesiastical sanction, and is to this day only used for private devo- 
tion, — the clause of the double procession of the Spirit, however, being 


The aMti2or/t7 of the Confessions is internal and ex- 
ternal. Their internal authority consists in their con- 
formity with Scripture. Just as men are in duty bound 
to believe the Scriptures, when their divine origin is 
known, so are they bound to believe and accept the Con- 
fessions when their conformity with the Holy Scripture 
is seen. Their external authority consists in their ap- 
proval by the Churchy 

With reference to the Confessions of our own Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church th^Formulaof Concord'' says : 
" As to the schism in matters of faith which has occured 
in our time, we regard the unanimous consensus and dec- 
laration of our Christian faith and confession, especially 
against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, su- 
perstition, and against other sects, as the Symbol of our 
time, viz.. The First Unaltered Augsburg Confession^, 

omitted. The Reformers accepted the Athanasian Creed, and Luther 
says of it : " It has been so composed that I do not know whether, 
since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and glorious 
has been written." 

6. Compare Dr. Jacobs' Historical Introduction to Book of Concord, vol. 

2, p. 12. 

7. See Book of Concord^ p. 492, 4 — 8. 

8. I ) On Oct. I — 3, 1529, a Conference took place at Marburg 
between Luther and the Saxon divines upon the one side, and Zwingli 
and the Swiss divines on the other side. Luther in conjunction with 
Melanchthon, Jonas, Osiander, Brenz and Agricola, prepared the xv. 
Marburg Articles. These Articles were meant to show on what points 
the Lutherans and Zwinglians agreed and also to state the point on 
which they did not agree, — and as a fair statement of the points dis- 
puted, and undisputed, were signed by all the theologians of both par- 
ties. (A translation of these Articles is given in Jacobs edition of 
Book of Concord, vol, 2, pp. 69 — 74). 

2) On the basis of these xv. Articles of Marburg, Luther with the 
advice and assistance of the the other theologians prepared xvii Arti- 
cles, which were presented at the Conference held at Schwabach, Oct. 


delivered to the Emperor Charles v. at Augsburg in 

16, 1529, and hence known as the xvii. Articles of Schwabach. (For 
translation see Jacobs' edition of Book of Concord, vol. 2, pp. 69 — 74). 

3) These xvil. Articles of Schwabach are mainly doctrinal, and in 
a revised form are the basis of the xxi. Doctrinal Articles of the Augs- 
burg Confession. But as they had been presented at Smalcald, Nov. 
29, 1529, they have sometimes been called the Smalcald Articles, and 
were also known for a long time as the Torgau Articles, because in a 
revised form Luther had sent them to Torgau, Mar. 20 — 27, 1530. 

4) Charles V. finally summoned a Diet of the German Empire to 
convene at Augsburg, April 8, 1530; and he directed the friends of the 
Evangelical faith to prepare, for presentation to the Diet, a statement 
on the doctrinal points of division. This summons reached the Elector 
John of Saxony at Torgau on March 11, 1530. On March 14, a letter 
was sent to Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Melanchthon at Witten- 
berg, summoning them immediately to lay aside all other work and 
devote all the time that was left to the preparation of a paper covering 
all the articles, both of faith and of external usages and ceremonies, 
that were involved in the conflict. The theologians were instructed to 
deliver the result of their deliberations in person to the Elector at 
Torgau on the following Sunday, March 20. This special writing, of 
which Luther was the chief author, assisted by the other theologians 
at Wittenberg, was sent to the Elector at Torgau, March 20 — 27, 1530, 
and are the Torgau Articles proper. These Articles are on abuses, and 
form the basis of Articles xxii— xxvill. of the Augsburg Confession, 
its articles on Abuses. In addition to these articles, Luther, however, 
also sent a revised copy of the xvii. Articles of Schwabach, as stated 
above. (For translation of the Torgau Articles see Jacobs edition of 
Book of Concord, vol. 2, pp. 75—98). 

5) These two sets of Articles sent to Torgau, March 20 — 27, 1530, 
form the basis of the Augsburg Confession, and are mainly from the 
hand of Luther, — the xvii. Articles of Schwabach forming the basis 
of the XXI. Doctrinal Articles, and the Torgau Articles proper form- 
ing the VII. Articles on Abuses. But as the Diet of Augsburg was not 
opened until June 20, time was given for Melanchthon to elaborate the 
Confession and give to it its matchless form. Melanchthon himself in 
his Corpus Doctrines (German, 1559, Latin, 1560), gives a brief history 
of the composition of the Augsburg Confession, how " in the presence 
of the Elector and princes and legates who subscribed it, with the 


the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its 

counselors and preachers, all the articles were discussed and deter- 
mined upon in regular course, sentence by sentence," how " the com- 
plete form of the Confession was subsequently sent to Luther, who 
wrote to the princes that he had both read this Confession and appro- 
ved it." (See especially the historic presentation by Dr. Krauth in his 
Conservative Reformation, pp. 216 — 248). 

6) Dr. Krauth in his Conservative Reformation, pp. 219, 220: " In 
six instances, the very numbers of the Schwabach Articles correspond 
with those of the Augsburg Confession. They coincide throughout, 
not only in doctrine, but in a vast number of cases word for word, the 
Augsburg Confession being a mere transcript, in these cases, of the 
Schwabach Articles. The differences are either merely stylistic, or are 
made necessary by the larger object and compass of the Augsburg 
Confession ; but so thoroughly do the Schwabach Articles condition 
and shade every part of it, as to give it even the peculiarity of phrase- 
ology characteristic of Luther." 

" To a large extent, therefore, Melanchthon's work is but an elabo- 
ration of Luther's, and to a large extent it is not an elaboration, but a 
reproduction. To Luther belong the doctrinal power of the Confession, 
its inmost life and spirit, and to Melanchthon its matchless form. Both 
are in some sense its authors, but the most essential elements are due 
to Luther, who is by pre-eminence its author, as Melanchthon is its 

7) The Confession, in Latin and German, was presented to the Diet 
of Augsburg on Saturday, June 25, 1530. "Both texts are originals ; 
neither text is properly a translation of the other ; both present precisely 
the same doctrine, but with verbal differences, which make the one an 
indispensable guide in the understanding of the other ; both texts have, 
consequently, the same authority. The German copy was the one se- 
lected, on national grounds, to be read aloud. Both copies were taken 
by the Emperor, who handed the German to the Elector of Mentz, and 
retained the Latin. It is not now known where either of the originals 
is, nor with certainty that either is in existence. In addition to seven 
unauthorized editions in the year 1530, the Confession was printed, 
under Melanchthon's own direction, both in Latin and German while 
the Diet was still sitting." (Z>r. Krauth in Conservative Reformation, 

pp. 242, 243). 

8) Melanchthon's varied edition of the Latin Confession is of three 


Apology^ , and the Articles composed at Smalcald ^ ^ in 

kinds : i) The edition of 1531, 8vo. The variations are slight and of a 
verbal nature. It has never been pretended that they affect the mean- 
ing. This edition has often been confounded with the original quarto 
edition of 1530. 2) The quarto edition of 1540, known as the Variata, 
because in it Melanchthon has elaborated anew some of the articles, 
and has made many important changes. 3) The octavo edition of 1542, 
the Variata varied. This last has been frequently reprinted, and is 
sometimes confounded with the Variata of 1 540. 

Of the edition of 1 540, known as the Variata, Dr. Krauth in his 
Conservative Reformation says {pp. 245, 246) : " It is not to be dis- 
puted that in various respects, as a statement of doctrine, the Variata 
has great beauty and great value, and that where it indisputably is in 
perfect harmony with the Confession, it furnishes an important aid in 
its interpretation. Had Melanchthon put forth the new matter purely 
as a private writing, most of it would have received the unquestioned 
admiration to which it was well entitled. But he made the fatal mistake 
of treating a great official document as if it were his private property, 
yet preserving the old title, the old form in general, and the old signat- 
ures." (For a translation of the Variata of 1 540 see Jacobs edition 
of Book of Concord, vol. 2, pp. 103 — 147 ; for the chief divergences of 
the Variata of 1542 from that of 1540, see//. 147 — 158). 

9) Of the structure and contents of the Augsburg Confession Dr. 
Krauth says {Conservative Reformation, pp. 253 — 255) : " It contains, 
as its two fundamental parts, a positive assertion of the most neces- 
sary truths, and a negation of the most serious abuses. It comprises : 
\. The Preface ; \\. Twenty-one Principal Articles of Faith ; 111. An 
Epilogue- Prologue, which unites the first part with the second, and 
makes a graceful transition from the one to the other ; IV. The Second 
Great Division, embracing Seven Articles on Abuses ; V. The Epilo- 
gue, followed by the Subscriptions." 

"The Articles may be classified thus : i) The Confessedly Catholic, 
or Universal Christian Articles, — those which Christendom, Greek 
and Roman, have confessed, especially in the Apostles' and Nicene 

Creed 2) The Protestant Articles, — those opposed to the 

errors of doctrine, and the abuses in usage, of the Papal part of the 

Church of the West 3) The Evangelical Articles, or parts of 

Articles, — those articles which especially assert the doctrines which 
are connected most directly with the Gospel in its essential character 


the year 1537, and subscribed by the chief theologians 

as tidings of redemption to lost man, — the great doctrines of grace. 
These articles are especially those which teach the fall of man, the rad- 
ical corruption of his nature, his exposure to eternal death, and the ab- 
solute necessity of regeneration (Art. Il) ; the atonement of Christ, and 
the saving work of the Holy Spirit (in) ; justification by faith alone 
(IV), the true character of repentance, or conversion (xil) ; and the im- 
potence of man's own will to effect it (xviii). 4) The Conservative 
Articles, the Articles which set forth distinctive biblical doctrines 
which the Lutheran Church holds in peculiar purity, over against the 
corruptions of Romanism, the extravagance of Radicalism, the per- 
versions of Rationalism, or the imperfect development of theology. 
Such are the doctrines of the proper inseparability of the two natures 
of Christ, both as to time and space (Art. iii), the objective force of 
the Word and Sacraments (v), the reality of the presence of both the 
heavenly and earthly elements in the Lord's Supper (x), the true value 
of private, that is, of individual absolution (xi), the genuine character 
of sacramental grace (xill), the true medium in regard to the rites of 
the Church (xv), the freedom of the will (xvii), and the proper doc- 
trine concerning the cause of sin (xix). On all these points the Augs- 
burg Confession presents views which, either in matter or measure, are 
opposed to extremes, which claim to be Protestant and Evangelical. 
Pelagianizing, Rationalistic, Fatalistic, Fanatical, unhistorical tenden- 
cies, which, more or less unconsciously, have revealed themselves, both 
in Romanism and in various types of nominally Evangelical Protestant- 
ism, are all met and condemned by the letter, tenor, or spirit of these 

9. A few days after the presentation of the Augsburg Confession,, 
the Romish theologians were directed to prepare a paper as an answer. 
This confutation was formally presented to the Diet on August 3. It 
reviewed in regular order the Articles of the Augsburg Confession, en- 
dorsing some and condemning others. The Evangelical princes and 
theologians almost immediately resolved upon a formal reply. A con- 
ference, however, of fourteen, seven representing the Lutherans, and' 
seven representing the Romanists, was first held (August 13 — 21), in^ 
which the whole subject was discussed, but no satisfactory result was. 
reached. The preparation of the Apology was entrusted to the evan- 
gelical theologians in general, although circumstances afterward made 
it the peculiar work of Melanchthon. It was fortunate that the Em-- 


of that time. And because such matters pertain also 

peror refused to accept the first draught of the Apology offered on 
September 22, for that refusal has substituted for Melanchthon's sketch 
the Apology as we now have it. On September 23, Melanchthon left 
Augsburg with the Elector of Saxony, and at once began to elaborate 
still further the Apology upon the basis of his former draught. His 
letters from November, 1530 to April, 1531, show how deeply he was 
absorbed by it. Toward the close of April, 1 531, the first edition of 
the Apology appeared, in quarto, bound with the Augsburg Confession. 
This is the original Latin edition, the German text, translated by Justus 
Jonas, under the supervision and with the co-operation of Melanchthon, 
not appearing until in October, 1531. One year after its first publica- 
tion, in April, 1532, at the Conference held at Schweinfurth, the Apol- 
ogy was publicly approved by the Evangelical Estates as a Confession 
of Faith. In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology, at the request of the 
Princes, was thoroughly compared with the Augsburg Confession by 
the theologians, and then, as consonant with the Holy Scriptures and 
the Confession,y(?r;;m//j/ subscribed by them with the declaration that 
they " held and taught in their churches according to the articles of the 
Confession and Apology." 

And it deserves the place our Church has given to it. It is written 
with an inimitable clearness, distinctness and simplicity which must 
carry conviction alike to the learned and unlearned. It is more than a 
polemical treatise. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, with- 
out works, is established by Melanchthon in the Apology with greater 
accuracy than anywhere else. In doctrine it is as pure as the Confes 
sion to whose vindication it is consecrated. Dr. Jacobs, in his valuable 
Historical Introduction to the Book of Concord truly says (vol. 2, pp. 
41) : "To one charged with the care of souls the frequent reading of 
the Apology is invaluable, on account of the manner in which it solves 
difficulties connected with the most vital points in Christian experience ; 
while the private Christian, although perhaps compelled to pass by some 
portions occupied with learned discussions, will find in many — we may 
say, in most — parts, what is in fact a book of practical religion." 

Of the second and third chapters of the Apology (of Justification, 
and of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law) Philippi says {Kirch. Gl. 
V. I.,/, 36) : " If the Epistle to the Romans can be called the centre 
and the crown, the very kernel and star, of the entire Scriptures, so 
likewise we can affirm this of these two articles of the Apology in their 


to the laity and the salvation of their souls, we confes- 

relation to the entire contents of the confessional writings of our Church, 
— so clearly are they grounded in Scripture and experience, so triumph- 
ant, edifying, and consoling is their development." 

lo. The Smalcald Articles were prepared in the expectation that a 
free General Council would beheld in Mantua, May 23, 1537. This 
council, however, did not convene until 1545, at Trent, and then was 
an exclusive Roman Catholic Council, the famous Council of Trent 
(1545 — 1563). The Elector of Saxony wished to have a new statement 
of the great doctrinal principles of our Church, especially touching those 
questions which would arise at the Council as matters of discussion 
between Lutherans and Romanists. He, therefore, asked Luther to 
prepare such articles as a basis, and to report before January 25, 1537. 
These articles were prepared by Luther, and having been approved by 
his colleagues, were sent to the Elector, January 3, 1537. The Articles 
thus prepared were taken to the Convention of the Evangelical States, 
held at Smalcald, February, 1537. There they were thoroughly exam- 
ined by our great theologians and by them subscribed, February 15, 
and from the place where they were signed, came to be called the 
S77ialcald Articles. The reasons why this new Confession was pre- 
pared are thus stated by Dr. Krauth in his Conservative Reform- 
ation {pp. 281 — 283): \)'Y\it. Augsburg Confessio7t had too much ^ 
in some respects, for the object in view. The object in view, in 
1537, was to compare the points of controversy between the Lutherans 

and the Romanists The Augsburg Confession had done its 

great work in correcting misrepresentations of our Church and 

it was now desirable that she should the more clearly express 

herself on the points of difference. 2) The Augsburg Confession has 
too little for a perfect exhibition of the full position of our Church as to 
the errors of Rome. 3) The Augsburg Confession was not in the right 

key for the work now to be done The motion of the A. C. was 

to the flute, the S. A. moved to the peals of the clarion, and the roll of 
the kettle-drum. In the A. C. truth makes her overtures of peace, in 
the S. A. she lays down her ultimatum in a declaration of war. 4) That 
which was secondary va the A. C. \s primary in the Smalcald Articles. 

In these Articles Luther presents directly the principles of the 

Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, and of the Romish See. in their con- 

At the request of the Elector, Melanchthon while at Smalcald, pre- 


sionally acknowledge the Small and Large ^ ^ Cat- 
echisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther's 

pared an Appendix to the Smalcald Articles on " The Power and Pri- 
macy of the Pope," about which the Augsburg Confession and Apology 
are silent. Of this Appendix Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christe7ido7n 
(vol \,p. 256) says : "The Appendix of Melanchthon is a theological 
masterpiece for his age, written in a calm, moderate, and scholarly 
tone, refuting, from the Bible and from the history of the Early Church, 
these three assumptions of the Pope, as ' false, impious, tyrannical, and 
pernicious in the extreme,' viz. : i) That the Pope, as the Vicar of 
Christ, has by divine right supreme authority over the bishops and pas- 
tors of the whole Christian world ; 2) That he has by divine right both 
swords, that is, the power to enthrone and dethrone kings, and to reg- 
ulate civil affairs ; 3) That Christians are bound to believe this at the 
risk of eternal salvation. He also shows from Scripture and from Jerome 
that the power and jurisdiction of Bishops, so far as it differs from that 
of other ministers, is of human origin, and has been grossly abused in 
connection with the papal tyranny." 

Of the Smalcald Articles and Melanchthon's Appendix, Kollner in 
his Synibolik says : " For our Church these writings must ever remain 
very weighty, and the more because outside of them there is nowhere 
else in the Symbols so ample a statement about the Papacy, and what 
is to be noted well, so ample a statement against it " (Quoted by Dr. 
Krauth in Conservative Reformation, p. 283). 

I r. In chronological order, as writings, the two Catechisms, which 
appeared in 1529, would have preceded the Augsburg Confession, fol- 
lowing directly after the three General Creeds, but in the Book of Con- 
cord they follow the Smalcald Articles because of their later symbolical 
authority. During his visitation of the Churches of Saxony in 1528 and 
1529, as one of a commission appointed by the Elector, Luther found 
the religious wants of the people greatly neglected. To provide for this 
want he prepared his two Catechisms. The question which of the two 
Catechisms was published first, has been differently answered, but re- 
cent criticism has established the fact, that the Larger Catechism ap- 
peared about March or April, 1529, while the Smaller Catechisjn was 
not pubhshed until about July or August, 1529. Ahhough these two 
Catechisms are the private writings of Luther, composed by him on his 
own authority and solely for the sake of instruction, they attained syrri' 
bolical authority by their inherent worth, 


works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is 
comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy 
Scripture, and is necessary that a Christian man know 
for his salvation." 

'*In accordance with this direction, as above an- 
nounced, all doctrines should be adjusted, and that 
which is contrary thereto should be rejected and con- 
demned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of 
our faith." 

"In this way the distinction between the Holy Script- 
ures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other 
writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone re- 
main the only judge, rule, and standard, according to 
which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas should and 
must be discerned and judged, as to whether they be 
good or evil, right or wrong." 

"But the other Symbols and writings cited are not 
judges, as the Holy Scriptures, but only a witness and 
declaration of the faith, as to how at anytime the Hoh^ 
Scriptures have been understood and explained in the 
articles in controversy in the Church of God, by those 
who then lived, and by what arguments the dogmas 
conflicting with the Holy Scriptures were rejected and 

Our Confessions, however, are regarded as decisive 
statements for that which is valid in the Church. Thus 
the Solid Declnration, the second part of the Pormula 
of Concord, says {Book of Concord, vol. l,p. 537, lo) : 
"By what has thus far been said concerning the sum- 
mary of our Christian doctrine we have only meant 
that we have a unanimously received, definite, common 
form of doctrine, which our Evangelical churches to- 
gether and in common confess ; from and according to 
which, because it has beei] derived from Gpd's Word, all 


other writings should bejudged and adjusted as to how 
far they are to be approved and accepted." 

From the statement of the Formula of Concord^'- 
that creeds '' are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, 
but only a witness and declaration of the faith" (p. 
492, 8 ), the inference has been drawn that we can set 

12. The history of the preparation of the Formula of Concord may 
be divided into three parts : I. The events which rendered necessary 
the preparation of a new Confession, i. The first cause were the vacil- 
lations of Melanchthon. He thought that peace could be restored by 
ambiguous formulas, accepted indeed by both parties, but understood 
in different senses. The three works of Melanchthon in which the 
changes were most noted and most mischievous are a) the Augsburg 
Confession ; b") the Apology ; and c) his Loci Conijnunes. 2. The sec- 
ond cause was the conflict between the Philippists or adherents of ' 
Melanchthon, and the more consistent Lutherans. Unfortunately much 
that Melanchthon wrote could be taken in two senses. We have 28 
large volumes of Melanchthon's writings, and at this hour, impartial 
and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on some of 
the profoundest questions of Church doctrine, on which Melanchthon 
was writing all his life. 3. Another reason why a new Confession was 
necessary arose from the controversy furnished by the Melanchthonian 
Corpus Doctrines of 1 560, to which the adherents of Melanchthon de- 
sired to give confessional authority, an effort which was resisted by the 
consistent Lutherans on the ground a) that it was largely composed of 
private writings on which no official action of the Church had been 
taken ; b) that the texts of its most important parts were greatly 
changed and corrupted ; and c) that it was ambiguous on some vital 
points, and unsound on others. 4. Another reason lay in the fact that 
the Wittenberg theologians embodied Crypto- Calvinistic doctrines in 
their various writings. 5. This alarming state of things (1569) led to 
various consultations on the part of our theologians, who were very 
anxious to save the Church from internal discord. Chief among them 
were James Andrese {d. 1590), Martin Chemnitz {d. 1586), David 
Chytrceus {d. 1600), and Nicholas Selneccer {d. 1592), all of them great 
theologians, moderate in spirit, earnest Christians, and intensely devo- 
ted to the purity and peace of the Church. 6. In 1673 James Andrea? 
prepared an exposition of the existing controversies. Taking this " Ex- 


them aside at pleasure, and still be consistent Luther- 
position " as a basis Chemnitz and Chytrseus elaborated it, and in 1575 
it appeared as the Suabian-Saxon Formula of Concord. It was this 
formula which became a general ground-work of the Formula of Con- 

II. The second part of the history of the preparation of the Form- 
ula of Concord treats of the events terminating in the preparation of the 
Torgau Formula of 1576. i. In 1575 Elector Augustus asked for a 
clear statement of the points at issue. This was furnished him in a 
paper, which was simply an abridgment of the Suabian-Saxon Form- 
ula, with proof passages from Scripture, and citations from Luther 
added. 2. This document was submitted to a number of theologians, 
delegates of the various princes, at a convention held at the cloister of 
Maulbrunn, January 19, 1576. It was examined and approved by them 
and is known as the Maulbrunn Formula, 3. In May, 1576 there was 
a convention of 18 theologians, of different lands, at Torgau. The most 
distinguished were Andrea?, Chytraeus, Chemnitz, Selneccer, Musculus, 
and Koerner. They examined carefully the Suabian-Saxon Formula of 
1 575, and its abridgment, the Maulbrunn Formula, and resolved to form 
a new formula on the basis of the Suabain- Saxon Formula. Thus orig- 
inated the Formula of Torgau, in 1576, after the toils and anxieties of 
seven years. 

III. The third period of the history of the Formula of Concord 
opens with the sending forth of the Torgau Formula for examination 
by the Churches (1576), and ends with the publication of the Book of 
Concord, 1580. i. The Formula of Torgau was everywhere received 
with interest. In the course of three months 20 conventions of theol- 
ogians were held. The Formula was scrutinized in every part. The great 
mass of the 25 responses testified to a general approval of the Formula, 
but it was clear that the document had not yet reached the shape in 
which It could fully meet the wants of the Church. 2. As soon as these 
answers were received, the Elector Augustus called together the three 
greatest of the co-workers, Chemnitz of Brunswick, Andreae of Tue- 
bingen, and Selneccer of Leipsic, to revise the Torgau Formula in the 
light of the expressed judgments of the Churches. They met at the 
cloister of Bergen, near Magdeburg. Here the Torgau Formula was 
submitted to its frsl revision, March i — 14, 1577. 3. The second and 
yf«a/ revision took place at the same place. May 19—28, 1577. But to 
the first Trii4mvirate,Chytraius, Musculus, and Koerner, had been added, 


ans. On this point Dr. Krauth says i ^ ; " The setting 
aside of a creed either involves setting aside its doc- 
trines; or it does not. If the doctrines of a creed are ever 
true, they are always true, and hence we cannot set 
aside the doctrines of a true creed without setting aside 
the truth itself. If it be said, we are going to set aside 
the creed, while v^e retain its doctrines, w^e can only 
justify ourselves in this by showing that we can make a 
gain for the truth by a new statement of it. A new creed 
must either embrace the same as the old, or something 
conflicting with the old, or something less than the old, 
or something more than the old. A creed to embrace 
the same, is confessedly no gain as to the matter. A 
new creed can only conflict with a true old one, by con- 
flicting with the truth itself. A creed which has less than 
a true one, has less truth than the old, and if we need 
the creed to say more than the old, all experience has 
shown that it is best to let the old stand and supple- 
ment it with the new. Our Church has never prepared 
a new creed to take the place of an old one. If the defi- 
nition of our creeds, given in the Formula ot Concord, 
stands, then the creeds themselves must stand, until 
other creeds more happily stating the same doctrines, 
shall be produced. But without exception, the men who 
wish new creeds to take the place of old ones, reall3' 
wish to have new doctrines to take the place of the old." 

Though they examined the Formula with minute care, they found little 
to change. 4.We now know it as the Bergen Formula, but it was to be 
known in history as the Formula of Concord, for this it was. Between 
this time and its publication in 1580, in the Book of Concord, no change 
whatever was made in it. (On the history of the Formula of Concord, 
see especially Ay^aiz^Z/^'i- Conservatz'ae Reformation, pp. 289 — 828, from 
which this note has been condensed. Also Jacobs Book of Concord, 
vol. lypp. 51 — 61, and the literature there cited). 
13. See his Manuscript Lectures. 


Subscriptions to the Confessions are classified as quia 
and quatenus,i.e., ** because they agree with Scripture," 
and '^so far as they agree with the Scripture." The latter 
mode is an evasion, because men holding the most di- 
verse views of doctrine might then subscribe our Confes- 
sions.^* Fidelity to the Confessions is not inconsistent 
with the right of private judgment. All we ask is, that 
if a man's private judgment of the Word of God does 
not make him believe the Lutheran doctrine as witnes- 
sed by our Church in her Confessions, he should not 
pretend to be a Lutheran, he should not apply for ordi- 
nation in order to minister at her altars, and if as a 
minister of the Church he have abandoned the faith of 
the Church, he has no right to use her name as his shel- 
ter in undermining the faith of those to whom he mini- 
sters. It is not enough if such a one maintains that the 
view he holds is clear to his private judgment. He has 
no right to enter or remain in any Christian Church, ex- 
cept as its terms of membership give him that right. 

In these days of laxity of doctrine and protest 
against Confessionalism it is well to consider the pointed 
statements of Dr. Plitt^^ : ''It is as impossible for the 
Church to be without a Confession as without preach- 
ing and divine service ; and sooner or later the summons 
must come to the entire Church or an individual part of 
it to give to its Confession not only a clear, but also an 

established and definite expression It is the facts 

of her experience of salvation which the Church, so far 
as she has become acquainted with them, brings into 

expression The knowledge of these manifold facts 

is only very gradually attained The particular 

14. See Jacobs' Book 0/ Concord, vol. 2, /. 13. 

15. In his Einleitung in die Augustatia, vol. i, pp. 3 — 16. 2 vols. Erlangen, 
1867 — 68. We condense from the translation given by Dr. Jacobs in Book 0/ 
Coticordy vol. 2, pp. 313 — 321. 


agents of this work of attaining knowledge are persons 
standing in the faith of the Church and constrained by 
God's Spirit, as God generally effects all progress in 
Church history, through persons filled with the Spirit. 

Moreover, since the Church is no longer at the 

beginning of her development and of her activity in the 
framing of dogmas, these agents will enter into close 
connection with the past of the Church, and, appropri- 
ating what the Church has received from the labor of 
the fathers as a permanent possession of knowledge, 
will make still further inquiry 

All progress in knowledge, if it be healthy, connects 
itself with what has been learned before, and amplifies 

or corrects it It is clear that the times, when the 

life of the Church flows on in a calm, even current, are 
not adapted to a further definition and settlement of the 
Church's doctrine. This occurs when a fact of salvation 
is called into question by adversaries, or even by mem- 
bers of the Church, or is apprehended in such a manner 
that Christian experience of salvation thereby sufiers 
injury. Then the Church arises to defend her treasure 
and repel the error, which is not so offensive to the un- 
derstanding as it is dangerous to souls. It becomes 
then the ofl&ce of persons full of the Spirit to enter into 
the conflict, and with prayer and investigation to begin 

the work The course of the controversy which 

will claim the entire sympathy of the Church moves 
only by means of antagonisms, for almost all Christian 
facts of salvation have a double side, a divine and a 
human, which are not to be made prominent only on the 
one side, but their harmonious connection with each 
other requires to be properly adjusted also on the part 
of the understanding. Before this happens the Church 
does not really attain tranquility 


Although the Church is constantly changing in her 
members, she builds herself up by constantly sinking 
deeper into these divine truths ; by instruction she im- 
plants them into the hearts of the children growing up 
within her, and makes confession of them also before 
those who do not yet belong to her, that they may be- 
come life-truths also to them. . . . This testimony is an 
expression of the life of the Church, without which she 
could not be conceived of. Just on this account she does 
not commit to chance or to the inclination of an individ- 
ual the issuing of such a testimony, but she herself un- 
dertakes this task and fulfils it, through a permanent 
office, through officially-appointed witnesses ; whereby 
however, it is not meant that other members also of the 
Church, whom the Spirit of Christ impels, could not be 
qualified and would not be justified in acting as witnes- 
ses. It is manifest, then, that the official witnesses, who, 
in what comprises the fulfillment of the calling pertain- 
ing to the entire Church, dare not exercise a work of 
their own inclination, but they who stand there in the 
service of the Church, have to act only in the sense of 
the Church. As to what, therefore, concerns the doctrine, 
they are throughout pointed to that which is firmty 
established as the faith of the congregation and the doc- 
trine of the Church, and which is delivered to them in this 
capacity through the Confessions of the Church. The 
Confessions are to them the norm of their official activ- 
ity. . . . By this obligation required of the teachers no 
violence is done them. For the Church has not compel- 
led them to accept the doctrines, but they have offered 
themselves to her for a service which the Church will 
not prevent them from abandoning at any moment. If, 
however, she has accepted their offer, she has done so 
upon the presumption that they who desire her minister- 


ial office are also one with her in the faith. . . . He who 
in the true sense is chtirchly , and at the same time of a 
sincere heart, will not complain of the constraint of the 
symbols^ 6. But to him who in the heart does not stand 
in the centre of the faith of the Church, or who in the 
progress of knowledge has fallen into error, the symbol 
becomes of course a law ; it is to him strange and more 
or less incomprehensible. He experiences now constraint, 
as he ought. No one can expect the Church to leave it 
to the option of the individual as to how he should ex- 
ercise his office of testimony and confession. ... As she 
cannot know either whether all who apply for service 
in her ministry do this from a sincere heart, or whether 
all her teachers will in the future be preserved from er- 
ror, she must at least maintain her rights and protect 
the welfare of the whole, so far as it is possible, against 
the subjective arbitrariness of the individual. The obli- 
gation to the symbols becomes necessary, and just 
those teachers of the Church who are the loudest in 
their complaints of it as an intolerable constraint prove 

thereby how necessary it is 

The teacher who enters into the service of the Church 
is actually free with respect to the symbols when he 
truly shares the faith of the Church, and is thus in a full 
sense a living member of it. This true freedom he may, 
in case of necessity, exercise even with respect to the 

symbols The teacher who is convinced that he 

has discovered a more suitable form has not only the 
right, but it is his duty, to bring this to the knowledge 
of the Church ; and no intelligent person will see in his 
activity, directed to the improvement of the Church's 
doctrine, any opposition to the same That the 

i6. '• No one who is true to the Augsburg Confession will complain of these 
writings, but will cheerfully accept and tolerate them as witnesses of the truth" {F, 
C, p. 538, "). 


one making an innovation will act with great prudence 
and forbearance is self-evident, provided he is at heart 
in a right relation to the Church. Above all, he will re- 
gard it a matter of great moment to investigate aright 
the symbol itself before he comes forward with his op- 
position. He will not only with all conscientiousness 
read, but will also study it, in order, so far as it is pos- 
sible, to grasp its true sense ; he will examine it accord- 
ing to the not generally easily observed distinction 
between what, on the one hand, belongs to the matter 
concerned and its simple designation, and, on the other, 
what may be a purely temporal addition. Such an in- 
vestigation of the earnest labor of the fathers as would 
be not merely scientific would itself admonish still more 
humility and modesty. 

Thus it is also clear that the current talk about the 
insufficiency of the symbols cannot in the least be sup- 
ported. This, too, often proceeds from those who them- 
selves do not share in the faith of the Church, and, just 
on that account, are incapable of comprehending the 
true sense of her Confession ; and with their voice there 
accords that of a large number of such as have scarcely 
superficially read the Confessions, not to say studied 
them It is manifest, therefore, of how great im- 
portance it must be to the minister of the Church to 
obtain the best possible understanding of her Confes- 
sions. But it will certainly become clear likewise that 
this knowledge is attained not so much by the study of 
the later dogmatics, as by the investigation and study, 
on all sides, of the period in which these documents or- 
iginated. As they are the result of an historical develop- 
ment, the attempt ought to be made to comprehend this 
in all its tendencies." 

3. The Church Doctrine as consisting of Articles of Faith, 

Hollaz defines an article of faith as '*a part of the 
doctrine revealed in the written Word of God, concern- 
ing God and divine things, set forth to be believed by the 
sinner to his salvation." 

These Articles of Faith are divided, according to their 
contents into ''pure" and ''mixed" articles. 

Pure articles of faith treat of those divine mysteries 
which transcend the capacity of unaided human reason, 
which yet are divinely revealed in the Word of God and 
are simply matters of faith, as the article concerning the 
Trinity, the union of the divine and human natures in 
Christ, etc. 

Mixed articles are those parts of Christian doctrine 
which are known to some extent from the light of nat- 
ure, as the being and attributes of God, etc. Quenstedt, 
however, says of such mixed articles, that "they are not 
believed so far as they are known by the light of nature, 
but in so far as they are known by divine revelation." 
The mixed articles coalesce with the so-called religion of 
nature. " Rationalism," says Hase, " finds the source of 
Christianity in the mixed articles, in the pure, only the 

According to their importance, articles of faith are 
divided into "fundamental" and "non-fundamental" 

The "fundamental" articles are those which are in- 
timately connected with the foundation of the faith, 
which cannot be unknown, or at least not denied, con- 
sistently with faith and salvation. 

" The foundation of the faith" is either substantial 
or dogmatic. The "substantial" foundation of the faith 
and salvation is Christ, since he is the meritorious cause 
oi obtaining froni God forgiveness of sins and eternal 


life. The " dogmatic " foundation of the faith is the col- 
lection of doctrines divinely revealed, by v^hich Christ, 
the substantial foundation of the faith, and the sources 
and means of salvation necessarily connected therev^ith, 
are set forth. But the substantial and the dogmatic 
foundation of the faith are not two foundations essen- 
tially contradistinguished from each other, nor do they 
differ as to their subject-matter. For Christ is the 
foundation, as to the subject-matter ; the doctrine con- 
cerning Christ is the foundation, as to our knowledge 

The "fundamental" articles are divided into "pri- 
mary fundamental" articles, without the knowledge of 
which no one can attain unto eternal salvation, or 
which must be known in order for any one to hold the 
foundation of the faith and secure salvation, and the 
"secondary fundamental" articles, which one maybe ig- 
norant of, but dare not deny, much less oppose, without 
injury to the foundation of the faith {Quenstedt) . 

The " primary fundamental " articles are subdivided 
into 1) constituent, 2) antecedent, and 3) consequent 
articles of faith. 

The "constituent" articles of faith are those which 
immediately and most nearly relate to our salvation, 
and intrinsically constitute and cause faith, such as the 
doctrines of the Trinity, of Sin, of the Word of God, of 
Regeneration, of Conversion, of Justification, of the uni- 
versal Atonement and Merits of Christ, of Faith, etc. 

The "antecedent" articles are those which do not, 
indeed cause justifying and saving faith, nor are abso- 
lutely and immediately necessary to its existence, but 
which are, nevertheless, necessary to the complete and 
permanent establishment of those doctrines which pro- 
duce and constitute faith, as the doctrines of the exist- 


ence of God, of Divine Revelation, of the Divinity of 
Christ, of the Sinfulness of Man, of the Divine and Hu- 
man Natures of Christ, of the Resurrection of the Dead, 
of the Last Judgment, etc. 

The ** consequent" articles are those v^hich so neces- 
sarily follow established faith, that if they be not held, 
faith itself again is lost, as the doctrines of the Eternal 
Duration of God, the Executive Justice of God, the Regal 
Office of Christ, of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Mys- 
tical Union, of Sanctification, of the Church, etc. (After 

The "secondary fundamental" articles are those, a 
simple v^ant of acquaintance with which does not pre- 
vent our salvation, but the pertinacious denial of, and 
hostility to, will overturn the foundation of faith, as 
the characteristic peculiarities of the Divine Persons, of 
the Intercommunication of Attributes in Christ, of Orig- 
inal Sin, of Predestination, etc. 

The ''non-fundamental" articles of faith are parts of 
the Christian doctrine which one maybe ignorant of, or 
deny, and yet be saved, as the question of the Time of 
Creation, of the Cause of the Fall of the Angels, of the 
Character of Antichrist, of the Origin of the Soul, etc. 
But at the same time we must be careful even in the 
treatment of these articles, because under certain cir- 
cumstances these non-fundamental articles may become 
in their relation to other articles, fundamental. 

This distinction between ''fundamental" and "non- 
fundamental" articles has been drawn by our dogma- 
ticians to make clear the doctrinal differences between 
the Lutheran Church, on the one side, and the Reformed 
and Roman Catholic Churches, on the other side. 

To the true unity of the Church a hearty and honest 
consent is required in the fundamental Articles of Faith. 


But here the question arises what doctrines are funda- 
mental? Philippi says^ : '' The expiatory death of the 
God-man, through which the restoration of communion 
with God is imparted, and upon which it is founded, 
forms both the centre and the foundation of salvation. 
. . . Dogmatic theology is nothing more than the devel- 
opment, in its various directions, of this central funda- 
mental doctrine The one fundamental ' doctrine 

forming the centre sets forth in itself the various ideas 
and doctrines of salvation that it contains ; and there- 
fore everything thus developed by inner necessity from 
this centre is just as fundamental as the centre itself 
Thus, about the central fundamental doctrine (the con- 
stitutive article, specially so called) the entire collection 
of peripheral fundamental doctrines (consecutive ar- 
ticles) is formed, which again, on their part, enclose the 
centre in wider or narrower concentric circles. . . .There 
is, therefore, a continuous series of divine fundamental 
facts, and of divine fundamental testimonies correspond- 
ing to these facts, which taken together extend back to 
the centre, namely, the fact of redemption and the doc- 
trine of redemption, and proceed therefrom But 

we have to consider not only the distinction between 
the central and the concentric or peripheral, but also the 
distinction between that which is immediately Rnd that 
which is mediately fundamental. To the ' immediately 
fundamental' belong all such doctrines as relate to 
divine facts v^rhich still continue to form the ground of 
our salvation, — the facts of creation, of redemption, 
and of sanctification. Here there is indeed that which 

I. Kirchl. Glbslehre. I. (Third Edition), pp. 112 — 115. For a translation of 
this whole discussion of Philippi on "What is a fundamental Doctrine ? " {pp. 
112 — 124), see Jacobs' Book of Concord ^ vol. 2, pp. 321 — 327. On the general sub- 
ject compare Rudelbach's Reformation^ Lutherthum tind Lhiion, Chap. 12, //. 


is central and peripheral, but all is immediately funda- 

On the other hand, the * mediate fundamental ' doc- 
trines are such as either refer to divine facts, v^hich, if 
they formerly constituted the foundation of our salva- 
tion, constitute it no longer (as the original creation in 
the divine image), or as are not properly acts pertain- 
ing to salvation, but only acts preparatory to those 
of salvation, or acts of judgment following the re- 
jection of the acts of salvation ; or as refer to human 
acts (as the original and continued fall of man from 
God), to v^hich the divine facts of judgment and salva- 
tion stand in the closest relation. But even these 'me- 
diate fundamental ' doctrines still remain fundamental 
doctrines, in so far as they not only are inwardly con- 
nected with the immediate peripheral fundamental doc- 
trines, but also have been organically developed with 
them from the one central fundamental doctrine; so 
that a holding in its purity of these doctrines, or an al- 
teration of the same, must be reciprocal, as has actually 
been found to occur." 

On the other hand Frank ^ says, and in substance 
with him agrees Luthardt: '^A new elaboration of the 
doctrine of fundamental statements is certainly needed, 
since the form of the same thus far presented from 
Nicholas Hunnius to Philippi is objectionable from the 
fact that it seeks mostly to draw the distinction ac- 
cording to an entirely objective rule, according to the 

knowledge necessary for salvation In fact, the 

dogmaticians, in drawing the distinction between fun- 

2. In his Theologie der Concordienformely vol. i, //. 17 — 20. Erlangen, 
1858. This passage is also translated by Dr. Jacobs in Book of Concord, vol. 2, 
pp. 327 — 329, (Philippi, in his third edition, in a foot-note (/. 124) remarks, that 
as far as he can see, there is an essential agreement between Frank and himself, 
and that the only difference is that his own presentation is developed further). 


damentals and non-fundamentals, have not manifested 
a very clear perception — not merely that they are everj^- 
where in doubt as to whether to designate a doctrine as 
non-fundamental, and evidently do not agree with each 
other in the statement of the same, but even when they 
have taken courage to name a doctrine as non-funda- 
mental, — as, for example, that of the Immortality of 
Man before the Fall, that of the Sin and Eternal Dam- 
tion of the Wicked Angels, or of Antichrist, — they im- 
mediately add one restriction to another, whereby the 
denial of such article may be prejudicial to the condi- 
tions of salvation 

That which is absolutely fundamental is only one, 
namely, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But this occurs 
in an organic way. Jesus Christ is the living, all-pene- 
trating centre, the kernel and star of the entire Holy 
Scriptures. Every part of revelation depends organic- 
ally, and after the manner of members, upon him. Thus 
viewed, everything is fundamental, and just, as in refer- 
ence to the law of the Lord he who sins in one point is 
guilty of all, so also especially in reference to the revela- 
tion of salvation, he who attacks a single member, offers 
violence to the whole organism itself and to its Head. 
And, thus considered, there still remains only one thing 
that is fundamental ; for as love is the fulfilling of the 
law, and all else is comprehended in this one thing, so 
also he who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, has the 
entire organism of salvation, with all else comprised in 
it which is necessary for blessedness. 

The question, according to the change from that 
which is relative in the fundamental to that which is 
absolute, is, then, to be decided in accordance with the 
position, at the time, of the believing individual to the 
organism of salvation. If an individual Christian or a 


Christian congregation has at any time learned to know 
any part of the saving revelation as a member of the 
organism, this part, whether it appear in itself large or 
small, becomes to that individual or congregation for- 
ever fundamental. For with the despising or rejection of 
even the least matter there is a despising and rejection 
of the organism itself, whose life supports and passes 
through even those things which are least. The Church, 
which in its course through the world has recognized, 
and in its symbols has fixed as such, one portion of sav- 
ing truth after another, can therefore consider none of 
the same otherwise than fundamental. 

For the Church, I say, everything is fundamental 
that it has obtained, in reference to doctrine, from the 
Scriptures and has fixed in its Confessional writings ; 
and here is the point in which every union in doctrine 
between two churches must be frustrated. But in the 
Church there exists partly that which is equally, partly 
that which is less, and partly also that which is more, 
fundamental than that of the Church itself. Of the 
shepherds and teachers of the Church such a degree of 
knowledge must as a rule be required, that to them 
everything, even to the least point, is fundamental 
which is fundamental to the Church. 

But of the laity only such a degree of faith is, as a 
rule, to be demanded that, founded upon that which is 
absolutely fundamental, they may gradually grow up, 
under the training of the Church, to the heights of 
Churchly knowledge. 

Finally, in a still smaller number, whose personal 
knowledge of salvation is more comprehensive than 
that of the Church, the extent of that which is funda- 
mental is increased in proportion as they have entered, 
in a still greater degree than the Confession, into the 
depths and remote places of the organism of salvation." 


4. The Fundamental Principles of Faith of the General Council 
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America 1. 

The growth of Church consciousness has been a 
marked feature of the later Hfe of the Lutheran Church 

I. The Lutheran Church in this country (1888) consists in round 
numbers of 4,000 ministers, 7,000 congregations, and r, 000,000 of com- 
muning members. It is divided into 58 Synods, and organized under 
4 General bodies: i) General Synod, North, since 1821 ; 2) General 
Council, since 1867 ; 3) Synodical Conference, since 1872 ; 4) United 
Synod, South, since 1886. 

The first, the General Synod is largely unionistic, but with growing 
elements of a more churchly character in faith and practice. There are 
two elements in it, the one laying a greater stress on the distinctive doc- 
trines and usages of Lutheranism, and the other warmly encouraging 
all syncretistic plans of union. 

The second general body, the General Council, to which the Swedish 
Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod belongs, is strictly Lutheran 
in Confession, but in the practical application of its principles in dis- 
cipline, especially on the " four points " in controversy (" pulpit and 
altar fellowship, Chiliasm and Secret Societies "), has failed to satisfy the 
Synodical Conference, and several independent Synods, as the Iowa 
and Ohio Synods. Even among the nine Synods comprising the Gen- 
eral Council there has been some difference in the application of the 
principles involved in the " four points," some applying them more 
strictly than others, but, in general, the great work of the General 
Council has been and is, to educate the mind of the Church, and to 
protest against all unionistic tendencies, secret associations, and all er- 
rors in doctrine, endeavoring to solve the great problem of the Lutheran 
Church, of this country, how to unite the various nationalities, speaking 
different languages (English, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, 
Finnish, etc.), into one body, harmonious in faith and practice. 

The Synodical C^/?/<?r<?«^<?, the outgrowth of the Synod of Missouri, 
has been by pre-eminence the representative of Lutheran Orthodoxy, 
and has been noted for its strong testimony against all unionistic ten- 
dencies, for its unflinching stand against all errors in doctnne, and es- 
pecially for its bold denouncement of all secret organizations. 

The United Synod, South, the smallest of the four general bodies, 
is churchly and conservative, strictly Lutheran in Confession, and in 


in this country. Its outgrowth has been the organiza- 
tion of the General Council in 1867, and of the Synod i- 
cal Conference in 1872. 

The strict confessionalism of the General Council can 
be seen from its statements of the ' ' fundamental and 
unchangeable " Princ/pyes of Fait h'^, which lie as the 

practice more in harmony with the General Council than with the Gen- 
eral Synod. 

2. i) There must be and abide through all time, one holy Christian 
Church, which is the assembly of all believers, among whom the Gospel 
is purely preached, and the Holy Sacraments are administered, as the 
Gospel demands. 

To the true Unity of the Church, it is sufficient that there be agree- 
ment touching the doctrine of the Gospel, that it be preached in one 
accord, in its pure sense, and that the Sacraments be administered con- 
formably to God's Word. 

2) The true Unity of a particular Church, in virtue of which men 
are truly members of one and the same Church, and by which any 
Church abides in real identity, and is entitled to a continuation of her 
name, is unity in doctrine and faith and in the Sacraments, to-wit : 
That she continues to teach and to set forth, and that her true mem- 
bers embrace from the heart, and use, the articles of faith and the 
Sacraments as they were held and administered when the Church 
came into distinctive being and received a distinctive name. 

3) The Unity of the Church is witnessed to, and made manifest in 
the solemn, public and official Confessions which are set forth, to-wit : 
The generic Unity of the Christian Church in the general Creeds, and 
the specific Unity of pure parts of the Christian Church in their specific 
Creeds ; one chief object of both classes of which Creeds is, that Chris- 
tians who are in the Unity of faith, may know each other as such, and 
may have a visible bond of fellowship. 

4) That Confessions may be such a testimony of Unity and bond 
of Union, they must be accepted in every statement of doctrine, in 
their own true, native, original and only sense. Those who set them 
forth and subscribe them, must not only agree to use the same words, 
but must use and understand those words in one and the same sense. 

5) The Unity of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as a portion of 
the holy Christian Church, depends upon her abiding in one and the 


basis of its Constitution. Krauth^ : ''Accepting these 
principles, we stand upon the everlasting foundation 
—the Word of God: believing that the Canonical Books 
of the Old and New Testament are in their original 

same faith, in confessing which she obtained her distinctive being and 
name, her political recognition, and her history. 

6) The Unaltered Augsburg Confession is by pre-eminence the Con- 
fession of that faith. The acceptance of its doctrines and the avowal of 
them without equivocation or mental reservation, make, mark and iden- 
tify that Church, which alone in the true, original, historical and honest 
sense of the term is the Evangelical Lutheran Church. 

7) The only Churches, therefore, of any land, which are properly in 
the Unity of that Communion, and by consequence entitled to its name, 
Evangelical Lutheran, are those which sincerely hold and truthfully 
confess the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. 

8) We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the Unaltered 
Augsburg Confession in its original sense as throughout in conformity 
with the pure truth of which God's Word is the only rule. We accept 
its statements of truth as in perfect accordance with the Canonical 
Scriptures. We reject the errors it condemns, and beUeve that all 
which it commits to the liberty of the Church, of right belongs to that 

9) In thus formally accepting and acknowledging the Unaltered 
Augsburg Confession, we declare our conviction, that the other Con- 
fessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, inasmuch as they set 
forth none other than its system of doctrine, and articles of faith, are of 
necessity pure and Scriptural. Pre-emment among such accordant, 
pure and Scriptural statements of doctrine, by their intrinsic excellence, 
by the great and necessary ends for which they were prepared, by their 
historical position, and by the general judgment of the Church, are these : 
the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the 
Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula of Concord, all of which are, 
with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in the perfect harmony of 
one and the same Scriptural faith. 

3. Condensed from Dr. Krauth's Conservative Reformation, pp. 165—169. 
Dr. Krauth also was the author of "The Principles of Faith and Church Polity," 
which were adopted, as the basis of the Constitution of the General Council, at 
Reading, Pa., 1866. 


tongues, and in a pure text, the perfect and only rule of 
faith. . . . Not any word of man, no creed, commentary, 
theological system, nor decision of Fathers or of Coun- 
cils, no doctrine of Churches, or of the whole Church, no 
results or judgments of reason, however strong, mat- 
ured, and well informed, no one of these, and not all of 
these together, but God's Word alone is the rule of faith. 
No apocryphal books, but the canonical books alone, 

are the rule of faith 

As the acceptance of the Word of God as a Rule of 
Faith separates us from the Mohammedan, as the re- 
ception of the New Testament sunders us from the Jew, 
as the hearty acquiescence in the Apostles', Nicene and 
Athanasian Creeds shows us, in the face of all errorists 
of the earlier ages, to be in the faith of the Church Cath- 
olic, so does our unreserved acceptance of the Augsburg 
Confession mark us as Lutherans ; and the acceptance 
of the Apology, the Catechisms of Luther, the Smalcald 
Articles, and the Formula of Concord, continues the 
work of marking our separation from all errorists of 
every shape, whose doctrines are in conflict with the 
true sense of the Rule of Faith— that Rule whose teach- 
ings are rightly interpreted and faithfully embodied in 
the Confessions afore-mentioned. Therefore, God help- 
ing us, we will teach the whole faith of His Word, 
which faith our Church sets forth, explains, and defends 
in her Symbols. We do not interpret God's Word by 
the Creed, neither do we interpret the Creed by God's 
Word, but interpreting both independently, by the laws 
of language, and finding that they teach one and the 
same truth, we heartily acknowledge the Confession as 
a true exhibition of the faith of the Rule,— a true witness 
to the one, pure, and unchanging faith of the Christian 


5. The Consciousness of Faith. 

By the consciousness of faith we mean that internal 
assurance and inner possession which the dogmatician 
has of those saving truths of Christianity, which the 
Scriptures reveal and the Church teaches. It is this inner 
consciousness of faith which is the starting-point and 
the source of the reproduction of doctrine in a dogmatic 
system, but such a presentation of doctrine must be 
based on the Word of God as the Rule of Faith, and 
compared with the doctrine of the Church. 



The division of the material is suggested by 
the contents and the aim of Dogmatics, namely, 
the delineation of that fellowship with God on 
the part of man, which has come into historic 
being in Christ. The arrangement has been made 
sometimes synthetically, sometimes analytically, 
sometimes in accordance with the three articles 
of the Apostles' Creed, and sometimes in the 
historic order of the development of its great 
leading parts. 

LuTHARDT, after his "Prolegomena" (§ 1—14) and 
"History of Dogmatics" (§ 15—21) presents his sys- 
tem under six heads : 

1) The Establishment of the Fellowship of God in 
the Will of God's Eternal Love (§ 22—32) ; 

2) The Creation of Man and of the World which has 
been given to him, as the beginning of the historical 
Actualizing of the Divine Love and Purpose (§ 33—39) ; 


3) The Disruption of the Original Fellowship of God 
through sin, and the Preparation for its Restoration 
(§ 40—45) ; 

4) The Restoration of the Fellowship of God in 
Christ Jesus (§ 46—56) ; 

5) The Appropriation of the Fellowship of God re- 
stored in Christ Jesus (i^ 57—74) ; 

6) The Completion of the Fellowship of God or 
The Last Things (§ 75—79). 

Martensen, Marheineke and Kahnis follow the order 
of the articles of the Apostles' Creed : 

1) The Doctrine of the Father; 

2) The Doctrine of the Son ; 

3) The Doctrine of the Spirit. 

Philippi divides his system into five parts and fol- 
lows the order of the historical actualizing of the Fel- 
lowship of Man v^ith God : 

1) The Original Fellowship of God; 

2) The Disruption of the Fellowship of God; 

3) The Restoration of the Fellowship of God ; 

a) Of Election and the Person of Christ. 

b) Ofthe Work of Christ. 

4) The Appropriation ofthe Fellowship of God; 

a) The Order of Salvation. 

b) The Means of Grace. 

c) The Doctrine of the Church. 

5) The Completion ofthe Fellowship of God. 

And so in substance the systems of Thomasius and 
Frank, though otherwise formulated. 

In our own system w^e will follov^ the order of 
Luthardt's Kompendium, but instead of his main divis- 
ions as given above, we will employ the technical ex- 
pressions generally used in the synthetic method. In 
order to present the whole system of Dogmatic Theol- 


ogy before the eye of the student, we herewith give an 
diitline, according to which the subject-matter of Dog- 
matics will be treated. 


§ I. The Object of the Introduction. 

I. Definition of Dogmatics (§ 2—5). 
§ 2. Definition of Theology. 

1. Usage of the word Theology. 

2. Divisions of Theology. 

3. Definition of Revealed Theology. 

4. Means of Theological Study. 

5. Aim of Theology. 
§ 3. The Claims of Theology. 

1. Its historical existence. 

2. Its necessity. 

3. Its possibility. 

4. Relation of Theology and Philosophy. 
§ 4. The Organism of Theology. 

1. The Departments of Theology. 

2. The Relation of Dogmatics and Ethics. 
§ 5. The Definition of Dogmatics. 

1. Definition of Dogma. 

2. The Name of this Science. 

3. Definition of Dogmatics. 

II. Contents of Dogmatics (§ 6— 11). 

§ 6. Definition of Religion. 

1. The word Religion. 

2. Definition of Religion. 

§ 7. The Essential Character and Truth of Religion. 

1. Religion in its subjective sense. 

2. Religion in its objective sense. 

3. The Origin of Religion. 

4. The Truth of Religion. 

§ 8. Divisions of Religions. * 

1. True and False. 

2. Natural and Positive. 


"§ 9. The Essential Character of Christianity. 

1. The Relation of Christianity to Heathenism and Judaism. 

2. The Essential Character of Christianity. 

3. The Historical Conception of Christianity. 

4. The Truth of Christianity. 

§ 10. Romanism and Protestantism contrasted. 

1. False explanations of the difference. 

2. A general Statement of the difference. 

3. The Essential Character of Romanism. 

4. Romanism criticised. 

5. The Essential Character of Protestantism. 
^11. Lutheran Protestantism. 

1. The Difference between Lutheran and Reformed Protes- 

2. The Material and Formal Principle. 

3. The Material Principle of Lutheranism. 

4. The Formal Principle of Lutheranism. 

5. The Historical Character of Lutheran Protestantism. 

6. The Internal Assurance of Salvation. 

III. Method of Dogmatics (§ 12 — 14). 
§ 12. The Formation of a Dogmatic System. 

1. The Material Principle of Dogmatics. 

2. The Holy Scriptures as the Normative factor of Dogma- 

3. The Canon of Scripture. 

4. The Interpretation of Scripture. 

§ 1 3. The Church Doctrine and the Subjective Consciousness of Faith. 

1. The Churchly Character of Dogmatics. 

2. The Confessions of the Church. 

3. The Church Doctrine as consisting of Articles of Faith. 

4. The Fundamental Principles of Faith of the General 
Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America. 

5. The Consciousness of Faith. 
§ 14. The Disposition of Dogmatics. 

IV. The History of Dogmatics (§ 15—21). 
§ 15. The Dogmatics of the Ancient Church. 

§ 16. The Dogmatics of the Middle Ages. 

I. The Essential Character of Scholasticism. 


2. The Beginnings of Scholasticism. 

3. The Period of the highest bloom of Scholasticism. 

4. The Period of its Decline. 

5. Mysticism and Pre-Reformatory Theology. 

§ 17. The Dogmatics of the Century of the Reformation. 

1. The Dogmatics of Melanchthon. 

2. The Melanchthonian School of Dogmatics. 

3. The Reformed Dogmatics. 

§ 18. The Orthodox Dogmatics of the Seventeenth Century. 

1. Characteristic of this Dogmatics. 

2. The divers Tendencies of this Period. 

3. The Dogmaticians of this Period. 

4. The Reformed or Calvinistic Dogmatics of this Period. 
§ 19. The Dogmatics of the Period of Transition. 

1. The Dogmatics of Pietism. 

2. The Biblical Tendency. 

3. The Historical Tendency. 

4. The Philosophical Tendency. 

§ 20. The Dogmatics of Rationalism and Supranaturalism. 
• I. The Period of Illumination. 

2. Kant. 

3. Vulgar Rationalism. 

4. Supranaturalism. 

§ 21. The Dogmatics of the Most Recent Time. 

1. The Renewal of Religious Faith. 

2. The Philosophy of this Period. 

3. The Emotional Theology of this Period. 

4. The Dogmatics of the Mediating Theology. 

5. Confessional Dogmatics. 


§ 22. The Treatment of the Doctrine of God. 
§ 23. The Natural Revelation of God. 

1. The Significance of Revelation. 

2. The Definition of Revelation. 

3. General Revelation. 

§ 24. The so-called Proofs of the Existence of God. 

1. Proofs derived from Reflection on the World. 

2. Proofs derived from Reflection of man upon himself. 



§ 25. The Supernatural Revelation of God. 

1. The Fact of Revelation. 

2. The Definition of Revelation. i 

3. The Constituent parts of Revelation. ' 

4. The Contents of Revelation. ; 

5. The Nature of Revelation. 

§ 26. The Necessity, Possibility, and Actuality of Supernatural Rev- ' 

1. The Necessity of Supernatural Revelation. i 

2. Its Possibility. .', 

3. The Relation of Reason and Revelation. ' 

4. The Actuality and Truth of Revelation. . 
§ 27. God as the Absolute Personality. i 

1. The question of the Recognition of God. : 

2. The Definition of the Absolute and of Personality. | 

3. The Personality of God. -; 

4. Pantheism and Theism. I 

5. The History of the Notion of God apart from the Bib- ] 
lical one. * 

6. The Biblical Notion of God. ] 

7. The Churchly Theology. j 
§ 28. God as Holy Love. \ 

1. God as Essential Goodness. 1 

2. God as Perfect Holiness. j 

3. God as Tender Love. . 
§ 29. The Doctrine of the Divine Attributes. ; 

1. The Notion of the Divine Attributes, and of their Rela- 
tion to the Divine Essence. 

2. Manner of Determining the Attributes. 

3. Division of the Attributes. I 

4. The Particular Attributes. j 
§ 30. The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. \ 

1. The Doctrine of the Old Testament, • 

2. The Doctrine of the Nev^ Testament. j 

i) The self- witness of Jesus. 

2) The Apostolic Declarations. ! 

3) The New Testament Doctrine of the Holy Ghost. i 

4) The Co-ordination of the Three Persons. j 
§ 31. The Church Doctrine of the Trinity. ; 

I. The History of the Doctrine. I 

126 iNTRODtrcTlOK to DOGMATtC TtiEOtOGY. • 


1. The Dogmatic Formulation. j 

3. Explanatory Analogies and Scientific Deductions. i 

4. Attacks upon the Church Doctrine of the Trinity. 

§ 32. Doctrine of the Decree of God, or of Predestination. :, 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. \ 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

% 33. The Doctrine of Creation. \ 

1. Biblical Account of Creation. 

2. Definition of Creation. J 


3. The Essential Dogmatic Determinations. '-\ 
§ 34. The Doctrine of Providence. \ 

1. Transcendence and Immanence. \ 

2. The Assurance of Providence. \ 

3. The Definition of Providence. , 

4. The Object of Providence. J 

5. The Form of Providence. ■ 

6. The Aim of Providence. j 

7. Antitheses to the true Doctrine. 
§ 35. The Doctrine of Miracles. 

1. Miracles of Scripture. ! 

2. Miracles in the Church. \ 

3. Notion and Definition of Miracles. .] 

4. The Possibility of Miracles. ; 

5. The Necessity of Miracles. i 

6. The Actuality of Miracles. \ 

7. The Divisions of Miracles. ! 
§ 36. The Doctrine of Angels. I 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. ; 

2. The Church Doctrine. i 

3. Modern Criticism. » 
§ 37. The Doctrine concerning Satan. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. \ 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

3. Modern Criticism. 



§ 38. Man. I 

1. Creation of Man. • 

2. The Essential Constituents of Man. - 


3. The Unity of the Human Race. 

4. The Propagation of the Soul. 
§ 39. The Original Condition of Man. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. ; 

2. The Church Doctrine. ] 
§ 40. The Fall. '. 

1. The Biblical Account. 

2. The Historical Actuality of the Fall. ] 

3. Attempts to explain away the Historical Facts. ; 
§41. Original Sin. ! 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. I 

3. Modern Criticism. i 
§ 42. The Essential Character of Sin. : 

1. The Scripture Doctrine, 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

§ 43. Actual Sins. ij 

1. General Definition of Sins of Act. 

2. Divisions of Sins of Act. 


§ 44. Moral Bondage, or the Doctrine of Free Will. ) 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. j 

2. The Church Doctrine. 1 



OF CHRIST (§ 45—51). I 
§ 45. The Historical Preparation for Salvation. 

1. Beginning of the History of Divine Revelation. ^ 

2. The Heathen World. j 

3. Israel. 1 
§ 46. The Postulate of the divine-human Mediator. 

1. The Necessity of the Atonement. ^ 

2. The Ground of the Incarnation. | 

3. The Person of Christ. ' 
§ 47. The Reality and the Integrity of the Two Natures of Christ. '] 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. ; 

2. The Church Doctrine. \ 
§ 48. The God-Man. ^ 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. I 

2. The Historical Unfolding of the Church Doctrine. j 


§ 49, Doctrine of the Dogmaticians concerning the God-Man. :j 

1. Unitio or Incarnation. 

2. The Personal Union. 5 

3. The Communion of Natures. 

4. The Personal Propositions. 

5. The Communicatio Idiomatum. . 

i) Genus Idiomaticum. 

2) Genus Majestaticum. j 

3) Genus Apotelesmaticum. ' 
§ 50. The Humiliation of Christ. I 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. | 

2. The Church Doctrine. j 
§ 51. The Modern Development of the Christological Dogma. j 



CHRIST (§ 52—56). 

§ 52. The Mediatorial Office of Christ. ^ 

1. Jesus is the Mediator. ' 

2. The three-fold Office of Christ. ■ 
§ 53. The Prophetic Office. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. \ 

2. The Church Doctrine. > [ 
§ 54. The Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement. j 

1 . Sin brings guilt. ; 

2. The Old Testament Doctrine concerning Sacrifice. j 

3. The Utterances of the Gospel in regard to the Sufferings \ 
of Christ. 

4. The Utterances of the Apostles. j 
§ 55. The Church Doctrine of the Atonement. j 

1. The Ancient Church. j 

2. The Church of the Middle Ages. i 

3. The Reformation. ] 

4. The Dogmaticians of the Seventeenth Century. 1 

5. Further History of the Dogma. I 
§ 56. The Regal Office. i 

1. The Descent into Hell. j 

2. The Resurrection of Christ. : 

3. The Ascension to Heaven. 


4. The Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father. 

5. The Intercession. 

6. The Kingdom of Christ. 


OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (§ 57—66). 

§ 57. The Arrangement of the Material. 
§ 58. The Grace of the Holy Spirit. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 59. The Calling or Vocation. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 60. Illumination. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 61. Conversion. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. t 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 62. Repentance. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§63. Faith. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine, 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 64. Justification. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctnne. 
§ 65, Regeneration and the Mystical Union. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 66. Sanctification, Renovation, Good Works. 

1. The Church Doctrine. 

2. The Scripture Doctrine. 




CHURCH (§ 67—74). 
§ 67. The Essential Character and Attributes of the Church. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. . 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

3. The Later Development of the Doctrine of the Church. 
§ 68. The Holy Scriptures. 

1. The Testimony of Scripture to itself. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

i) The ancient Catholic Church. 

2) The Church of the Middle Ages. 

3) The Roman Catholic Church. 

4) The Protestant Church. 

5) The Doctrine of the Dogmaticians. 

6) The more recent Development of the Doctrine con- 
cerning the Holy Scriptures. 

§ 69. The Means of Grace. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 70. The Word of God. 

1 . The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 
§ 71. Baptism. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

i) The ancient Catholic Church. 

2) The Church of the Middle Ages. 

3) The Protestant Church. 
§ 72. The Lord's Supper. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

1) The Ancient Church. 

2) The Church of the Middle Ages and the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

3) The Reformation. 

4) The Dogmaticians. 

5) Modern Criticism of the Doctrine. 


§ 73. The Sacraments. 

1. The Ancient Catholic and Roman Church. 

2. Protestantism. 

3. Appendix : The Sacraments so-called of the Roman 

§ 74. The Doctrine of the Ministry. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 



THINGS (§ 75-79). 
§ 75. Life after Death. Immortality. 

1. The Testimony of the Universal Human Consciousness. 

2. The Scripture Doctrine concerning the State after Death. 

3. The Church Doctrine. 

§ 76. The Second Coming of Christ. 

1. The Conversion of the Gentiles. 

2. Antichrist. 

3. The Second Coming of Christ. 

4. The so-called Reign of a Thousand Years. Chiliasm. 
§ TJ. The General Resurrection. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

§ 78. The Final Judgment and the End of the World. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 

§ 79. Eternal Life and Eternal Death. 

1. The Scripture Doctrine. 

2. The Church Doctrine. 




The Theology of the Ancient Church was in- 
fluenced by the prevaihng* philosophy of portions 
of the Church. It is the patristic theology, and 
so far from possessing the unity which is claimed 
for it by those w^ho desire to give it an undue 
authority, it is for its range the most diversifled 
and conflicting, in manifold respects, of all the 
theologies of the various eras. 


We cannot properly speak of a theology of the Apos- 
tolical Fathers^ (Clement of Rome, Author of Epistle 
to Diognetus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias) 
for they preserve and continue the Apostolic tradition, 
making continual reference to the oral preaching of the 
Apostles. The Apologists^ of the second century (Justin 

1. Of the three well-known editions of the original i) Jacobson, 2) Hefele, 
3) Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, the last is the best and most complete. Of mono- 
graphs, Lightfoot's Clement of Rome (2 vols.) and Ignatius and Polycarp (3 vols., 
1885) are superior to anything that has ever been attempted before. They are com- 
mentaries, containing a revised Greek text, introductions, notes and dissertations. 

The best English translation and most accessible is the one found in vol. i. of 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers^ published by " The Christian Literature Publishing 
Co.," 1885. 

Compare also Church Histories of Schaff, Hase, Neander, and Kurtz, and 
Donaldson's Apostolical Fathers, London, 1874. 

2. For Bibliography of separate authors see Richardson's Bibliographical 
Synopsis to Anti-Nicene Fathers (Christian Literature Company, 1887). For 
students we would especially recommend Gildersleeve's edition of the Apologies of 
Justin Martyr, and March's edition of Athenagoras, published by Harper & Bros., 
in the Douglass series of Christian Greek and Latin writers. An English transla- 
tion is given in vol. i (//. 159—578) and vol. 2 (//>. 59—162) of the American edj. 
tion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 


Martyr, Irenasus, Tatiaii,Theophilus,andAthenagoras) 
through their \vri tings, by their refutation of the slan- 
ders of Jews and Gentiles, by their vindication of the 
truths of the Gospel and their attack of the errors and 
vices of idolatry, prepared the way for the speculations 
of the Alexandrian School, whose chief representatives 
are Clement of Alexandria and Origen. 

I. The School of Alexandria. 

1) Clement OF Alexandria^ (d. about 220) after 
Justin Martyr and Irenseus, may be regarded as the 
founder of Christian literature. He became the sucessor 
of Pantasnus in the Catechetical School of Alexandria 
(after 180 a. d.), and had Origen for his pupil, who suc- 
ceeded him in 202 A. d. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) 
calls Clement ''a man admirably learned and skilful, 
one that searched to the depths all the learning of the 
Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before," and 
Eusebius {d. 340) praises him as an "incomparable 
master of Christian philosophy." His works are full of 

3. An English translation of the extant works of Clement is given in the 
American edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 163 — 605. For a full 
Bibliography of all the Ante-Nicene Fathers see Richardson's Bibliographical 
Synopsis^ The Christian Literature Co., 1887. 

To avoid burdening our pages with so many references, we here once for all 
call attention to the Encyclopsedias and works of reference, which are of especial 
value to the student in the study of the lives, views, and writings of the different 
writers, theologians, and dogmaticians which are mentioned in this brief outline, 
and which have been moie or less used in the preparation of these notes. 

The Encyclopcedias of Plitt-Hauck-Herzog, Schaff-Herzog, Alexander-Kitto, 
Johnson, McClintock-Strong, Smith -Wace, Encyclopaedia Britannica. etc.; the 
Church Histories of Schaff, Hase, Neander, Kurtz, Robertson, Hagenbach, 
Herzog, Gieseler, Guericke, Hardwick, Milman, Mosheim, Neale, etc.; among the 
works on History of Doctrines and of Dogmatics we would mention the works of 
Kliefoth, Thomasius, Harnoch, Neander, Frank, Dorner, Hagenbach, H. Schmid, 
Shedd, Crippen, etc. 

We will refer in our foot-notes to special monographs, and to the more im- 
portant works bearing on the topic or person under consideration. 


quotations from the older Greek authors. He aims to 
harmonize Greek philosophy and Christianity, and seeks 
to guide his readers from faith (pistis) to knowledge 
(gnosis) by the aid of philosophy. 

His three great works 1) The Exhortation to the 
Greeks, 2) The Instructor, and 3) The Miscellanies or 
Stromata, are really parts of one whole system, repre- 
senting three progressive stages in a systema^tic teach- 
ing of Christianity, and are among the most valuable 
remains of Christian antiquity. 

These three works were composed by him during his 
residence as a teacher in Alexandria, and in his '' Exhor- 
tation," which is a work on Apologetics, he points out 
the unreasonableness and immorality of heathenism ; in 
his ''Instructor" or "Educator," which is a work on 
Ethics, he unfolds Christian morality, with constant 
reference to heathen practices; his "Miscellanies," a 
work of a dogmatical character, aims to furnish the 
material for the construction of a Christian philosophy 
on the basis of faith. This last work, though written 
carelessly, is a storehouse of immense learning. Though 
his writings are rich in brilliant thoughts, abounding 
in passages of power and beauty, he often repeats him- 
self and is lacking in clear, fixed method. 

ScHAFF : " His theology is not a unit, but a confused 
ecletic mixture of Christian elements with many Stoic, 

Platonic, and Philonic ingredients His ethical 

principles are those of the Hellenic philosophy, inspired 
by the genius of Christianity". 

Though Clement has never been branded with heresy 
like Origen, still "in his utterances concerning the Son, 
the Philonic wavering between the theory of subordina- 
tion and Modalism is not fully overcome " (Ueberweg) *, 

4. See his History of Philosophy^ vol. i. //. 311 — 315 for a careful estimate 
of Clement as a philosopher and a theologian. 


and his exegesis of Scripture was cast in the same fan- 
tastic allegorical mould as that of Origen, his pupil and 

2) Origen 5 (d. 254) was the greatest scholar of all 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but he was by no means or- 
thodox, either in the Roman Catholic or Protestant 
sense. It is in his early dogmatic work De Principiis, 
i. e., on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, 
that he lays himself open to charges of false doctrine. 

This A^ork of Origen is divided into four books : in 
the first, he treats of God, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, 
of angels ; in the second book, of the creation of the 
world, of the incarnation of Christ, of the soul, of the 
resurrection, of judgment, of punishment; in the third, 
of the freedom of the will, of sin, of the end of the world ; 
in the fourth, of the inspiration of the Scriptures, their 
authority and interpretation, together with a summary 
of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of various other doc- 

This was the first attempt to set forth a complete 
system of dogmatics, and is full of Platonizing and 
gnosticising errors, some of which Origen retracted in 
his later years. 

The points on which Origen departed from the or- 
thodox faith are mainly these : 

1) His doctrine that the souls of men had previously 
existed, and that their imprisonment in material bodies 
was a punishment for sins which they had then com- 
mitted ; 

5. For an English translation of his De Principiis and Cojttra Celsum see 
Coxa's edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers^ vol. 4, pp. 223 — 669. For two valuable 
monographs see Thoniasius^ Gott,, Origines, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengesch. des 
dritten Jahrhunderts. Nurnberg, 1837. Redepenning^ E. R.^ Origines, eine Dar- 
stellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre. 2 vols. (Pp. xvi, 461 ; xvi, 491), Bonn, 
1841 — 46. 


2) His doctrine that the human soul of Christ had 
also previously existed and been united to the Divine 
nature before the Incarnation ; 

3) His doctrine of an eternal creation; 

4) His denial of a material resurrection; 

5) His doctrine of an universal restoration, that the 
work of redemption extends to the inhabitants of the 
stars, and that all men, the evil angels, and Satan him- 
self, shall be finally restored ; 

6) Although he was the first to teach expressly the 
eteri2a7 generation of the Son, yet in the great Christo- 
logical controversies of the fourth century the Arians 
(heteroousios), the Semi-Arians (homoiousios) and the 
Athanasians (homoousios) , all equally regarded Origen 
as on their side. 

In this treatise De Principiis his principles of inter- 
preting Scripture are also brought out, and although 
Origen may be regarded as the father of critical investi- 
gation of Scripture, and his greatest service was in 
exegesis, nevertheless his principles of exposition, though 
put forth by him in a devout spirit and with many cau- 
tions, have a tendency to subvert belief in the historical 
truth of Scripture. 

ScHAFF : " His great defect is the neglect of the gram- 
matical and historical sense and his constant desire to 
find a hidden mystic meaning. He even goes further in 
this direction than the Gnostics, who everywhere saw 
transcendental, unfathomable mysteries. His hermen- 
eutical principle assumes a three -fold sense — literal, 
moral, and spiritual. His allegorical interpretation is 
ingenious, but often runs away from the text and de- 
generates into the merest caprice; while at times it 
gives way to the opposite extreme of a carnal literalism, 
by which he justifies his ascetic extravagance". 


The treatise of Origen Against Celsus is a defence of 
Christianity in opposition to a Greek philosopher named 
Celsus, and is one of the ripest and most valuable of his 
productions. It was written in his old age (about 248) 
and is composed with care, and shows evidence of the 
widest learning. As the work is in strict harmony with 
the orthodox teaching of the Church, it is only fair that 
we should judge Origen rather from the standpoint of 
his more mature work, than from his youthful produc- 
tion De Principiis. 

2. The New Alexandrian School. 

This School sincerely respected thememory of Origen, 
and in part followed in his footsteps in their speculative 
treatment of Christian doctrine. But they avoided his 
unbiblical errors, and simply consistently carried out 
what was sound in his teaching. Keeping clear of all 
Subordinationism the theologians of this School agreed 
more fully with the teachings of the divines of the 
Western Church. Its leading and most orthodox repre- 
sentatives were Athanasius, the three great Cappadoci- 
ans, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, and Gregory 
of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind. The leaven of error 
again appeared in Cyril of Alexandria, although he was 
still regarded as orthodox. We may also, in this connec- 
tion, refer to the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem. 

1) Athanasius ^ (c/. 373) is the theological centre of 
the Nicene age. The history of his life is the history of 
the Church during that period. The "father of or- 

I. The more important dogmatic works of Athanasius have been edited by 
J. C. Thilo in the first volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum Grcecorum Dogmatica, 
pp. 43 and 1006, Leipsic, 1853. English translation by J. H. Newman in Library 
of the Fathers^ 3 vols., Oxford, 1842 — 44. May also be reprinted in second series 
of Schaff's edition of The Nicene attd Post-Nicene Fathers. See also H. Voigt : 
Die Lehre des Athan. (xvii, 346), Bremen, 1861 ; F. Bohringer : Athanasius und 
Aritis. Stuttgart, 1874. 


thodoxy," he is, on the whole, one of the purest and 
most imposing characters in the history of the Church, 
and no one of the Eastern Church fathers enjoyed so 
high consideration in the Western Church as Athanasius. 
His name is inseparable from the conflicts and the tri- 
umph of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Dr. Schaff^ 
has well said : '' He was (and there are few such) a theo- 
logical and churchly character in magnificent, antique 
style. He was a man of one mould and one idea. . . St. 
Paul lived and labored for Christ crucified, Gregory vii. 
for the Roman hierarchy, Luther for the doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith, Calvin for the idea of the sovereign 
grace of God. It was the passion and the life-work of 
Athanasius to vindicate the deity of Christ, which he 
rightly regarded as the corner-stone of the edifice of the 
Christian faith, and without which he could conceive no 

He was present at the Council of Nicsea (325), and 
distinguished himself there by his zeal and ability in 
refuting Arianism and vindicating the eternal deity of 
Christ, — to which he devoted his whole future life. In 
328 he succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, 
which office he held for forty-five years, during which 
period he was ten times banished, and passed twenty 
years in exile, mainly in the West. 

His writings are mainly directed against Arianism, 
but his stormy life prevented him from composing a 
large systematic work. Among his dogmatic and cow- 
trovers/a/ works in defence of the Nicene faith especially 
noteworthy are the Four Orations against the Arians 
(358), the Four Epistles to Serapion on the Deity of the 
Holy Spirit (358), and two books Against ApoUinaris, 
in defence of the full humanity of Christ. 

2. In his History of the Clvistian Churchy vol. 3, p. 890, 


2) Gregory Nazianzen 3 {d. 390), the Theologian (in 
the narrow sense of the word as the defender of the 
deity of the Logos), though inferior to his bosom friend 
Basil as a church ruler, and to Gregory of Nyssa as a 
speculative thinker, was superior to both as an orator, 
and with the exception perhaps of Chrysostom,was the 
greatest orator of the Greek Church. His life, with its 
alternations of high station, monastic seclusion, love of 
severe studies, enthusiasm foT poetry, nature, and friend- 
ship is intensely interesting (Schaff). 

Gass * : In christology Gregory opposed Arianism 
and Apollinarianism ; in anthropology he teaches orig- 
inal sin, and derives the mortality of man from the fall. 
But he held to the ability of the human will to choose 
the good, and to the co-operation of man with God in 
salvation (influenced by Origen). 

3) Basil the Great ^ (Bishop of Ceesarea in Cappa- 
docia 380—379) had all the advantages of Christian 
training and classical and philosophical culture. His 
life, which is more interesting than a romance, was an 
illustration of strong faith, of self-denying love, of high 
aims, and of royal dignity. Schaff ^^ : '' Basil is disfin- 

3. See Carl Ullmann : Gregoritis von Nazianz^ der Theologe. Darmstadt, 
1825. Translated (in part) by G. F. Cox. London, 1857. His most important 
dogmatic writings are his Five Theological Orations in defence of the Nicene doc- 
trine against the Eunomians and Macedonians, delivered in Constantinople, and 
republished and edited by Goldhorn, in the second volume of Thilo's Bibliotheca 
Patruni G?-cBCorum Dogmatica. Leipsic, 1854. A translation may appear in the 
second series of Schaff' s edition of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

4. In Schaff- Her zog''s Encyclopcedia. 

5. His most important dogmatic works {Five Books against Eunomitis^ writ- 
ten in 361, in defence of the deity of Christ, and his work On the Holy Spirit ^-wr'it- 
ten in 375, to Amphilochius, at his request) were republished, edited by Goldhorn, 
in the second volume of Thilo's Bibliotheca Patrum Grcecorum Dogmatica. Leip- 
sic, 1854. A translation may appear in the second series of Schaff's edition of The 
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. See Klose: Basilius der Qros^e nach setnent 
Leben und seiner Lehre dargestellt. Stralsund, 1853, 

6. la his Church History, vol. 3, p. 903, 


guished as a pulpit orator and as a theologian, and still 
more as a shepherd of souls and a church ruler ; and in 
the history of monasticism he holds a conspicious place. 
In classical culture he yields to none of his contempora- 
ries, and is justly placed with the twoGregories among 
the very first writers among the Greek fathers." 

At first, fearing Sabellianism, he belonged to the mid- 
dle party (the Homoiousians) in the great conflict be- 
tween Arianism and Orthodoxy, but the persecutions 
of the Arians drove him to a positive confession of the 
Nicene faith, and it was by the power of his spirit and 
faith he preserved the Eastern Church during the fright- 
ful persecutions inflicted by Valens, the Arian. 

4) Gregory of Nyssa'' {d. about 395), the youngest 
of the three Cappadocians and the brother of Basil the 
Great, was the profoundest theologian of the three, and 
excelled his two friends in philosophic acumen and 
scientific attainments. Schaff^ : " Gregory did lasting 
service in the vindication of the mystery of the Trinity 
and the Incarnation, and in the accurate distinction be- 
tween essence and hypostasis. Of all the church teach- 
ers of the Nicene age he is the nearest to Origen. He not 
only follows his sometimes utterly extravagant allegor- 
ical method of interpretation, but even to a great extent 
falls in with his dogmatic views. With him, as with 

7. A selection of his most important writings, in the original Greek, together 
with a German translation, has been published by Frattz Oehler in his Bibliothek 
der klrchenvdter, vols, i — 4, Leipsic, 1858 — 59. Vol, I (xvi, 239) contains his 
beautiful dialogue with his sister Macrina " On the Soul and the Resurrection," and 
the biography of his sister addressed to the monk Olympics. Vol. II (iv, 239) con- 
tains his " Catechetical Compend of the Christian Faith," "On the Trinity," etc. 
Vol. Ill {p. 315) contains his work " On the Creation of Man," and " Five Ora- 
tions on Prayer." fW. /F (viii, 319) his "Eulogies on Eminent Saints," etc. 
Compare also Rupp : Gregors, des Bishofs von Nyssa, Leben und Meinungeti. 
Leipsic, 1834. (Schaff, however, calls this work " unsatisfactory.") 

8. Church History., vol. 3, p. 907 — 8. 


Origen, human freedom plays a great part. Both are 
ideaHstic, and sometimes, without intending it or know- 
ing it, fall into contradiction with the Church doctrine, 
especially in eschatology. Gregory adopts, for example, 
the doctrine of the final restoration of all things." 

Ueberweg '^ : " In his scientific method Gregory fol- 
lows Origen ; but he adopted the doctrine of the latter, 
only in so far as it agreed with the orthodox dogmas. 
He combats expressly such theories as the pre-existence 
of the soul before the body, and deviates from the ap- 
proved faith of the Church only in his leaning toward 
the theory of a final restoration of all things to com- 
munion with God." 

5) DiDYMUs called ''the Blind" {d. 395), though he 
lost his sight at the age of four, by his extraordinary 
industry acquired an extensive learning. He became so 
familiar with the Holy Scriptures by hearing them read, 
that he knew them almost by heart. Athanasius ap- 
pointed him as a teacher in the catechetical school of 
Alexandria where he labored successfully for more than 
fifty years. Jerome, Rufinus, Isidore, Evagrius, and 
others were among his pupils. Though he was orthodox 
in the doctrine of the Trinity, and a zealous opponent of 
Arianism, still being an enthusiastic admirer of Origen, 
he shared some of the extravagant views of that Fa- 
ther, especially concerning the pre-existence of souls and 
probably concerning final restoration. 

Of his many works only few have been preserved. Of 
his dogmatic writings, we possess, however, a Latin 
translation by Jerome of his treatise "On the Holy 
Ghost," and three books " On the Trinity," in the Greek 

9. See his Histoty of Philosophy, vol. i,p. 326. (A work which cannot be too 
highly recommended.) 


original, together with a brief treatise against the Ma- 
nichaeans, also in the original Greek. 

6) Cyril of Alexandria (c?.444) furnishes a striking 
proof that orthodoxy and piety are two quite different 
things, and that zeal for pure doctrine may co-exist 
with an unchristian spirit (Schaff). And still with all 
his personal faults, Cyril must be reckoned among the 
greatest dogmaticians of the Greek Church. His Christ- 
ological writings against Nestorius and Theodoret are 
of the greatest importance to the history of doctrine. 
Among his writings we may mention his ''Five Books 
against Nestorius," and a doctrinal work '*0n the 
Trinity and the Incarnation." 

7) Cyril of Jerusalem {d. 386) took an active part 
in the Arian controversy, and at the second oecumen- 
ical council held at Constantinople, 381, he received the 
praise of having suffered much from the Arians for the 
faith. He left us an important theological work^", the 
first example of a popular compend of religion, which is 
of great value for the study of the history of doctrine, 
and for the true understanding of the liturgy and cate- 
chetical methods of the Early Church. 

3. The last theologian of the Greek Church. 

1) John of Damascus ^^ (d. 754) is the last of the 
Greek Fathers, and the most authoritative theologian 
in the Eastern Church. In his famous v^rork '^The Fount 
of Knowledge,'^ he gives us an epitome of the theology 

10. His 23 Ca/ec/ieses, or catechetical lectures, which he delivered while still a 
presbyter, about the year 347, in preparing a class of catechumens for baptism. We 
have this work complete in the Greek original, and it has been translated into 
German and English {Vo/. 2 0/ Oxford Library of the Fathers^ 1839). May also 
appear in the second series of Schaff' s edition of The Nicene and Post-Nicene 

11. See Langen : Johannes von Damaskiis. Pp. viii, 311. Gotha, 1879; alsQ 
t,upton; St. John of Damascus, I-ondon, j883. 


of the Greek Church. This work consists of three sepa- 
rate books. In the first book, called "Heads of Philo- 
sophy," in a series of short chapters, we have an 
application of the Categories of Aristotle to theology, 
— a work which is valuable mainly on account of the 
light it throws upon the terminology of the Church of 
that period. In the second part, '*0n Heresies", we 
have a description of one hundred and three heresies, 
compiled mostly from Epiphanius. The third part is the 
most important of all — ''An accurate Exposition of the 
most Orthodox Faith." In this part he systematically 
arranges and presents the various doctrines or dogmas 
as propounded by the Councils and the Church Fathers, 
especially as presented by the three great Cappadocians. 
This last part as we now have it, is divided into four 
books: I. Theology proper. (Here John of Damascus 
maintains the Greek Church doctrine of the single pro- 
cession of the Holy Spirit). II. Creation, Anthropology, 
Providence, Predestination. III. Incarnation. IV. Per- 
son of Christ, States of Christ, Faith, Baptism, the Eu- 
charist, Images, the Scriptures, Virginity, Circumcision, 
Antichrist, Resurrection, etc. 

John of Damascus has been called the ''Father of 
Scholasticism" and "the Lombard of the Greeks," and 
in a certain sense he was the forerunner of the Scholas- 
ticism of the Middle Ages. 


The Theologians of the Western Church were dis- 
tinguished by their firm adherence to the Bible, their 
strong faith, their practical tendency in contradistic- 
tion to the speculations of the Alexandrian School, and 
for their bold stand against gnosticism and all kinds of 


I. To the death of Augustine. 

Among the most influential of the Western Church 
Fathers of this period, whose writings are mainly of a 
dogmatic character, we may mention Ireneeus, Tertul- 
lian, Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine. 

1) Iren^us 1 {d. 202) spent his youth in Asia Minor, 
was instructed by the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna, 
the pupil of St. John. After 178 he was bishop of 
Lyons in France. 

ScHAFF 2 : '' Irenaeus is the leading representative of 
Catholic Christianity in the last quarter of the second 
century, the champion of orthodoxy against gnostic 
heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and 
Western churches. He is the first of all the church 
teachers to give a careful analysis of the work of re- 
demption, and his view is by far the deepest and sound- 
est we find in the first three centuries. On the whole, 
he is the most orthodox of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. We 
must however except his Eschatology." 

It was during the early years of his episcopate at 
Lyons that Irenaeus wrote, in Greek, his important 
^^ork'' Against Heresies,'' in five books. The full title 
is "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely 
so called," and ''is at once the polemic theological mas- 
terpiece of the Ante-Nicene age, and the richest mine of 
information respecting Gnosticism and the Church doc- 
trine of that age." 

1. Best edition of his works by //arz'^y in 2 vols. Cambridge, 1857. English 
translation in Coxe's edition of Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. i, pp. 307—602 ; also 
by Keble in "Oxford Library of Fathers." Oxford, 1872. Compare also Beaven : 
Life and Writings 0/ Irencetcs. London, 1841 ; Duncker : Des heil. Irencvus 
Christologie. Goettingen, 1843. 

2. See his Church History^ vol. 2, pp. 750, 587. 


2) Tertullian^ (d. 220) is the father of the Latin 
ecclesiastical language, and one of the greatest of the 
Christian Fathers. As a heathen, he distinguished him- 
self as an advocate and rhetorician. He was converted 
when he was about forty years of age. His zeal in favor 
of strict asceticism and against every kind of worldli- 
ness, led him to become a Montanist, about 201, when 
about fifty years of age. In developing his Christian 
theology, he was influenced by the judicial habit of 
mind resulting from his previous legal studies, while, in 
defending it, he employed that peculiar eloquence which 
had characterized him as an advocate. 

Kurtz: ''Although trained in heathen lore, Tertul- 
lian was fanatically opposed to it, and equally so to 
Gnosticism. His peculiar mode of thinking and feeling, 
the energy of his will, the ardor of his affections, his 
powerful imagination, his tendency towards the strict- 
est asceticism, and his predilection for realism, found 
full scope for development in Montanism. If, withal, he 
kept free from many aberrations of Montanism, this 
must be ascribed to his clear understanding and, how- 
ever much he may have despised it, to his thorough 
scientific training." 

Schaff: ''Tertullian's theology revolves about the 
great Pauline antithesis of sin and grace, and breaks the 
road to the Latin anthropology and soteriology, after- 

3. Best edition of his works by Oehler in 3 vols. Leipsic, 1853-54. For 
students we would especially recommend March : Select Works of Tertullian. 
New York, 1876, (Contains Ad Martyres, De testimonio am'mce, Apologett'cus, 
Ad Scapulam, and De spectaculis). English Translation in Goxe's edition of 
Ante-Nicene Fathers^ vol. 3, pp. 745, and vol. 4, pp. 1-126. For Monographs see 
'^Q^xA^x'.Antignosticiis^ Geist des Tertulliantis und Einleitung itt dessen Schrif- 
ten. 2nd ed. Berlin, 1849. Translated into English by Ryland in 2 vols. London, 
1859, Kaye : Ecclesiastical History of second and third Centuries, illustrated 
from the writings of Tertullian. 3d ed. London, 1845. Hauck : Tertulliafi's 
Leben itnd Schriften. Pp. 410. E'langen, 1877. 


ward developed by his like-minded, but clearer, calmer, 
and more considerate countryman, Augustine." 

The writings of TertuUian (as classified by Neander) 
are 1) partly apologetic, addressed to the heathens, and 
relating to the conduct of the Christians under persecu- 
tion; 2) partly ethical or ascetic, and 3) partly dogma- 
tic and polemical. They can also at the same time be 
arranged chronologically, i. e., some books were written 
before he became a Montanist (before 200—201 A. d.), 
and some after this period. 

We, here, have only to do with the third class of 
writings. The principal dogmatic or polemical Ante- 
Montanistic work is the well-known treatise '' On the 
Prescription of Heretics.'' In it TertuUian lays down 
the fundamental principle of the Church in dealing with 

Of the Montanistic writings of a dogmatic character 
we may especially mention his ^^ Five Books against 
Marcion,'' in which he elaborately defends the unity of 
God, the integrity of the Scriptures, and the harmony 
of the Old and New Testaments. His tracts ''On the 
Fiesh of Christ,'' '' OntheSoul," ''On the Resurrection of 
theFlesh," " Against Hermogenes," " Against Praxeas" , 
are important to the history of Christian doctrine. 

Cardinal Newman calls TertuUian ''the most power- 
ful writer of the early centuries". 

3) Cyprian* {d. 258), at first a heathen rhetorician, 
afterwards bishop of Carthage (248— 258), was equally 

4. Best critical edition of his works by Hartel in 3 vols. Vienna, 1868-71. A 
convenient manual edition by Gold/torn is found in volumes 2 and 3 (vill, 256; 
VIII, 279) of Gersdoi-fs Bibliotheca Patrum ecclesiasticorum Latinortmi selecta. 
Leipsic, 1838-39. English Translation by Wallis^ in Coxe's edition of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers^ vol. 5, pp. 261-596. Compare also Poole : Life and Ttjnes of 
Cyprian. Pp. 419. Oxford, 1840 ; Benson : In Smith and Wace Diet. vol. i^pp. 
739-55; Rettberg : Cyprian us dargestellt nach seinem Leben und Wirken. (xil, 
399). Goitingen, 1831. 


distinguished by a firm adherence to the idea of one, 
holy, visible Church, and by zeal, faithfulness, vigor, 
and prudence in the administration of his duties. 

Schaff: '^As Origen was the ablest scholar, and 
TertuUian the strongest writer, so Cyprian was the 

greatest bishop, of the third century His peculiar 

importance falls not so much in the field of theology, 
where he lacks originality and depth, as in Church or- 
ganization and discipline He is the typical high 

churchman of the Ante-Nicene Age He knew how 

to combine strictness and moderation, dignity and gen- 
tleness, and to inspire love and confidence, as well as 
esteem and veneration". 

The most important works of Cyprian relate to 
practical questions on church goverment and discipline, 
such as '' The Unity of the Church ;' '' On the Lapsed,'' 
^'On Works and Alms,'' etc. 

4) Hilary of Poitiers ^ {d. 368), so named from his 
birth-place and subsequent bishopric in southwestern 
France, was the Athanasius of the West. 

Semisch ^5 : '* He shone like a clear star alongside of 
the great champions of the Nicene Creed, — Athanasius, 
Basil, and the two Gregories. Among the teachers of 
the West of his day he was beyond dispute the first, and 
bore a strong resemblance to TertuUian, both in dis- 
position and scientific method His distinguishing 

characteristics were fidelity to the Church creed, acute- 
ness in argument, and resolution in action. His power 
lay essentially in his thorough acquaintance with the 
Scriptures. His Christologyis full of fresh and inspiring 
thoughts, and deserves to be better known than it is". 

5. Compare Baltzer : Die Theologie des heil. Hilarius von Poitiers. Pp. 511. 
Rottweil, 1879. An English translation may appear in ■S'^(:^«(/ series of Schaff's 
edition of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

6. In Schaff-Herzog, 


His writings are distinguished for deep and earnest 
discussions of dogmatic theology, and he greatly con- 
tributed to the settlement of the orthodox doctrine of 
the Trinity and of the Person of Christ. 

The great work of his life was the writing, in exile 
(356—361), of his '^ Twelve Books on the Trinity,'' to 
which he afterwards added various tracts against 

5) Augustine'^ {d. 430), for thirty-five years bishop 
of Hippo, a town lying 200 milefe west of Carthage, 
was the intellectual head of the North African and the 
entire Western Church of his time. 

ScHAFF^: ''Augustine is a philosophical and theol- 
ogical genius of the first order, towering like a pyramid 
above his age, and looking down commandingly upon 

succeeding ages As a theologian he is facile prin- 

ceps, at least surpassed by no church father, scholastic, 

or reformer He combined the creative power of 

Tertullian with the churchly spirit of Cyprian, the spec- 
ulative intellect of the Greek Church with the practical 
tact of the Latin. He was a Christian philosopher and 
a philosophical theologian to the full With pro- 
fundity he combined an equal clearness and sharpness of 
thought. He was an extremely skilful and a successful 

7. For an English Translation of the works of Augustine see Schaff's edition 
of T/ie Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Volumes i-8. This is by 
far the most valuable edition of Augustine's works ever published, 4n account of 
its valuable Introductions and Bibliographical notes. See especially Bittdematin: 
Der heil. Aiigustimis. 3 vols. (vol. I, Berlin, 1844; ii, Leipsic, 1855; lii, Greifs- 
wald, 1869). ('The best work in German''). See also Cutts : St. Augustin. 
London, 1880 ; Schaff in his St. Augustin^ Melanchthon and Neander. New 
York, 1886. 

On the theology of Augustine see Aug. Dorner : Augustinus, sein theol. 
System, etc. Berlin, 1873 ; and the same writer's article in Plitt-Herzog (abridged 
in Schaff-Herzog). Ueberweg's criticism of the Philosophy of Augustine, in his 
fjistory of Philosophy (Vol. i. pp. 333-346) is very satisfactory, 

8, In his Church History., Vol. 3, pp. 994-99Q. 


dialectician, inexhaustible in arguments and in answers 

to the objections of his adversaries In him was 

concentrated the whole polemic power of the Catholicism 
of the time against heresy and schism, and in him it 
won the victory over them." 

BiNDEMANN •' : ''St. Augustinc is one of the greatest 
personages in the Church. He is second in importance 
to none of the teachers who have wrought most in the 
Church since the Apostolic time ; and it can well be said 
that among the Church Fathers the first place is due to 
him, and in the time of the Reformation a Luther alone, 
for fulness and depth of thought and grandeur of char- 
acter, may stand by his side. He is the summit of the 
mediaeval Western Church; from him descended the 
mysticism, no less than the scholasticism, of the middle 
ages; he was one of the strongest pillars of Roman Cath- 
olicism, and from his works, next to the Holy Script- 
ures, especially the Epistles of Paul, the leaders of the 
Reformation drew most of that conviction by which a 
new age was introduced". 

His writings bear upon almost all the departments 
of theology, and may be characterized as forming an era 
in theological literature. Of the different works of Au- 
gustine (1) Autobiographical, 2) Philosophical, 3) Apol- 
ogetic, 4) Religious-Theological, 5) Polemic-Theological, 
6) Exegetical, and 7) Ethical and Practical) we here 
have to do mainly with the fourth and fifth classes. Of 
his Religious-Theological works we would especially 
mention ^^ Four Books on Christian Doctrine'^ (the best 
patristic work on Biblical Hermeneutics), and ^' The En- 
chiridion^' ^^' or "On Faith, Hope, and Love" (a brief 

9. Ih the preface of his monograph on Augustine, already cited (quoted by 

10. Under the topic Faith he follows the order of the Apostles' Creed and 
refutes, without naming them, the Manichsean, Apollinarian, Arian, and Pelagian 
heresies. Under Hope he explains The Lorcfs Prayer. 


compend of Christian faith and morals, written at the 
request of a certain Laurentius). 

But his Polemico— Theological works are the most 
important in the history of doctrine. These again may 
be subdivided (1) Anti-Manich^an, 2) Anti-Donatistic, 
3) Anti-Arian, 4) Anti-Pelagian). In the Anti-Man- 
ichasan writings ^ ^ , Augustine treats of the origin of evil, 
of free will, of revelation and nature, of the authority of 
the Scriptures and the Church, etc. 

The Anti-Donatistic works ^ ^ contain Augustine's 
doctrine of the Church, the Sacraments, and of Church- 

Of the Anti-Arian writings, which treat of the Deity 
of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, the most important 
treatise is that on the ''Holy Trinity '\ in fifteen books. 
"It is the most elaborate, and probably also the ab- 
lest and profoundest patristic discussion of this central 
doctrine of the Christian religion, unless we except the 
''Orations against the Arians" by Athanasius, ''the 
Father of Oorthodoxy ", who devoted his life to the 
defense of the Divinity of Christ. Augustine bestowed 
more time and care upon it than on any other book, 
except ' ' the City of God " ^ ^ . But the most valuable of 
all the writings of Augustine were his Anti-Pelagian 
works 1 *. All these were written after 412, and in them 

11. A translation of the more important of these {On the Morals of the Cath- 
olic Churchy On the Morals of the Manichceans, On two Souls, Thirty- three Books 
against Faustus the Manichcsan^ On the Nature of the Good, etc.) is given in vol. 
4 {pp. 1-365) of Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (First Series), 

12. Three of the most important treatises {On Baptism, Answer to the Letters 
of Petilian, The Correction of the Dojiatists) are given in vol. 4 {pp. 367-675) of 
the work cited in last note. 

13. See Preface of Vol. 3 of Schaff's Nicene ajtd Post-Nicene Fathers (First 
Series) which among other important doctrinal treatises of Augustine, contains the 
translation of this work " On the Holy Trinity'^ {pp. 1-228). 

14. The most important of these (" On the Spirit and the Letter" (413 A. d.), 
" On Nature and Grace" (415), " On Grace and Free Will" (426), '• On Discipline 


he develops his systemof anthropology and soteriology, 
and most nearly approaches the position of Evangelical 

We cannot leave Augustine v^ithout referring to his 
great Apologetic work, " The City of God ^^ in twenty- 
two books, the only Christian philosophy of history 
known for over a thousand years. ''It is the master- 
piece of the greatest genius among the Latin Fathers, 
and the best known and most read of his works, except 
the 'Confessions'. It embodies the results of thirteen 
years of intellectual labor and study (413-426 a. d.). 
It is a vindication of Christianity against the attacks 
of the heathen in view of the sacking of the city of 
Rome by the barbarians. ... It is the first attempt of 
a philosophy of history, under the aspect of two rival 
cities or communities, the eternal city of God and the 
perishing city of the world " ^ '\ 

The formal principle of the doctrinal system of Aug- 
ustine is the Authority of the Church, the material prin- 
ciple, the free redeeming Grace of God in Christ. 

2. To the Close of the Ninth Century. 

1) Vincent of Lerins ^*^ (d. 450) a monk in the cel- 
ebrated monastery of Lerinum (a small island in the 
Mediterranean Sea, formerly belonging to Roman Gaul) , 
in his famous book Commonitoriutn gives us the most 
complete representation of the Roman Catholic doctrine 
of tradition. As a test of true doctrine he propounded 
the maxim, which has since remained the standard in 
the Roman Catholic Church: "We must hold what has 

and Grace" (427), " On the Predestination of the Saints " (428), " On the Gift of 
Perseverance" (429), etc.) are given in Vol. 5 of Schaff's "Nicene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers" (First Series). Pp. Lxxi, 567. 

15. See Preface to Vol. 2 of Series just cited. 

16. For a full analysis of his " Commonitorium " see Schmidt in first edition 
of Herzog's Real'Encykl. 


been everywhere, always, and by all believed ".^ ' This 
work also occupies a prominent place in the history of 
doctrines, for its Semipelagian character and its antag- 
onism to Augustine are clearly discernible. 

2) Gennadius of Marseilles {Bourished 500 a. d.) 
a Semi-Pelagian presbyter of South Gaul, in his *'De 
Fide mea sive dogmatibus ecclesiasticis " gives us a 
compend of Christian doctrine. 

3) Isidore {d. 636), bishop of Seville, in Spain, for 
thirty six 3^ears, was the greatest scholar of his day. 
He wrote on nearly every branch of science then know^n. 
His most important theological w^ork is a compend of 
Theolog3' compiled from Augustine and the '' Moralia^^ 
of Gregory the Great, knowm under the title of " Senten- 
tiarum sive de Summo Bono Libri III." The first book 
treats of Dogmatics and the last two of Ethics. The 
influence of this work during the Middle Ages was very 
great, and innumerable copies w^ere made of it, and it 
led to the preparation of similar works, like Peter Lom- 
bard's ^^ Sentences y 

4) John Scotus Erigena^^ {d. about 877) was of 
Scottish nationality, probably born and brought up in 
Ireland, but he spent his later life at the court of Charles 
the Bald of France. He was undoubtedly the most^ 
learned man, and the deepest, boldest, and most in- 
dependent thinker of his time. His speculations have 
not been surpassed for centuries before or after him. 
In his own time he was neither understood nor appre- 
ciated, and scarcely deemed even worthy of being 
declared a heretic {Kurtz). 

His greatest work is his treatise ^^De Divisione Nat- 

17. " Ut id teneamus quod ubigtie^ quod semper, quod ab ofnmbiis creditum 

18. Compare Th. Christlieb : Leben und Lehre des yoh. Scotus Erigena. 
Gotha, 1S60 ; Ueberweg : History of Philosophy. Vol. i. pp. 3SS-365. 


urae "^ ^ in five books, condemned to be burned by Pope 
Honorius III (1225) as *'a book teeming with the 
worms of heretical depravity", and still later put on 
the ''Index" by a bull of Gregory XIII (1685). This 
is a kind of speculative theology, which, starting from 
the supposition of the unity of philosophy and theol- 
ogy, ends as a system of idealistic pantheism, philos- 
ophy having in the course of the development entirely 
absorbed theology. 

Scotus divides nature, in which conception he in- 
cludes all that is either existent or non-existent— into 
four species: 1) that which creates and is not created 
(God), 2) that which is created and creates (Logos), 
3) that which is created and does not create (World), 
and 4) that which neither is created nor creates. By 
this last is not meant a fourth nature, distinct from 
the other three, but God, viewed as the term in which 
all things end, and to which all finally return. 

In the controversy respecting predestination, he 
taught that there was only one predestination, to eter- 
nal salvation. 

Scotus Erigena, sometimes, has been called "the 
Father of Scholasticism", but he is rather the founder 
of Speculative Philosophy in the line of Spinoza, Schell- 
ing, and especially Hegel. '' The scholastics drew from 
him, but he was not a scholastic. The mystics drew 

from him, but he was not a mystic He is one of 

the most interesting figures among the medieeval writ- 
ers. He demands study and he rewards it " ^ ^ . 

5) BoETHius^^ (beheaded at Pavia 525), one of the 

19. German Translation by L. Noack : " Erigena ueber die Eintheilung der 
Natur." 3 pts. Leipsic, 1874-7. 

20. See Schaff's " Church History", vol. 4, p. 773. 

21. See Fr. Nitzsch : "Das System des Boethius und die ihm zugeschriebenen 
theol. Schriften. Berlin, i860. 


last Neo-Platonists of antiquity, through his '^ Consola- 
tion of Philosophy ^\ as also through his translation 
and exposition of some of the logical writings of Aris- 
totle, became the most influential connecting link be- 
tween ancient and mediaeval learning. His ''Consolatio" 
was very popular during the Middle- Ages, and was 
translated into various languages (Greek, Old High Ger- 
man, Anglo-Saxon, Norman-English, French, Hebrew), 
but it is a question whether Boethius was a Christian. 
The work is but an echo of Greek philosophy, of the 
school of Plato or Seneca. 



The Dogmatics of the Middle Ages was in- 
fluenced by Scholasticism and by the antithesis 
of Kealism and Nominalism. 

I. The essential Character of Scholasticism i . 

Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philos- 
ophy under the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. In 
matters common to philosophy and theology, the lat- 
ter was received as the absolute norm and criterion of 
truth. Its tides praecedit intellectum was uttered in 
the interest of the doctrines of a Church which claimed 
to be infallible. 

The Scholastics did not add new dogmas, nor alter 
them with respect to their essential contents. Having 
the materials for the formation of a doctrinal system of 
Christianity in the dogmas as formulated and fixed by 
the oecumenical councils of the Church, it was their task 

I. Compare Thomasius : Dogmengeschichte. Vol, 2. //. 31-66 ; Ueberweg: 
History 0/ Philosophy. Vol. i. //. 355-484; Hampden: The Scholastic Philos- 
ophy considered in its relation to Christian Philosophy. 3rd Edition. London, '38 


to gather these materials, sift, arrange, preserve, and 
apply them. But it was also a treatment of these dog- 
mas. They sought to give to each doctrine a rational 
foundation, sufficient to elevate it from a mere matter 
of faith to a matter of science. They hoped to form the 
v^hole mass of dogmas into a perfect system. Some, in- 
deed, hoped to create a philosophy of Christianity, and 
to bring about a perfect unity between faith and sci- 
ence, theology and philosophy. They proceeded from 
the supposition that the whole contents of the Chris- 
tian faith, i. e., each single dogma or doctrine is ab- 
solute, divine truth, — but the warrant for this supposi- 
tion was not sought for in Scripture, nor in the essence 
of Christianity, nor in the nature of man (a favorite 
theory of so many modem philosophers), but in the 
authority of the Church and her tradition. 

With all the censure heaped in after times upon the 
barrenness of Scholastic speculation, it was wonder- 
fully acute, and it has rich results to invite the scholar 
to a thorough acquaintance with it. 

The period of its highest bloom and most complete 
development was characterized by the thorough mas- 
tery of Aristotle and the ascendency of his authority 
in matters of philosophy. Aristotle came to be called 
^^ precursor Christi in naturalibus^\ just as John the 
Baptist was called ^^ precursor Christi in gratuitis^\ 

The antithesis of Realism and Nominalism influenced 
the whole history of the theology of the Middle Ages. 

Extreme Realism, the doctrine of Plato, maintained 
that universals or general ideas have an independent 
existence apart from individual objects, and that they 
exist before the latter {universalia ante rem, in God's 
mind) ; moderate Realism, the doctrine of Aristotle, 
maintained that universals, while possessing indeed a 


real existence, exist only in individual objects (univer- 
salia in re, in things), and this view was the bond 
between theology and philosophy ; Nominalism, on the 
other hand, maintained that only individuals have real 
existence, and that universals are merely the products 
of the human reason, nothing but a concept of man's 
mind {universalia post rem, in man's thoughts), and 
this last view separated the bond between theology 
and philosophy, and led to scepticism in spiritual 

Of the earlier period, Augustine and Boethius were 
decided Realists; so also John Scotus Erigena of the 
ninth century. The great Realists of the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries were Anselm, William of Champeaux 
and Bernard of Clairvaux ; of the thirteenth, Alexander 
of Hales, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Thomas 
Aquinas and Duns Scotus. The chief Nominalists were 
Roscellinus and William of Occam. Abelard was a 
moderate Nominalist or Conceptualist. 

2. The Beginnings of Scholasticism. 

1) Anselm of Canterbury ^ (d. 1109), the father 
of orthodox scholasticism, the Augustine of the Middle 
Ages, was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to his 
death. He regarded faith as the necessary condition of 
all true knowledge, and defined the object of scholastic 
theology to be the logical development and demonstra- 
tion of the doctrines of the church such as they were 
handed down by the Fathers. By his ^^ Credo, ut in- 
telligam^\ he means that Christians should advance 
from direct faith to whatever degree of scientific insight 
may be attainable by them, but always on the condi- 

2. See Hasse : Anselm von Canterbury. 2 vols. Leipsic, 1843-52. An ab- 
ridged English translation by Turner^ London, 1850 ; see also Church : Life of 
St. Anselm. London, 1875. 


tion that the Christian Creed, alreadj^ fixed in dogmatic 
form, remain untouched and be regarded as the ab- 
solute norm for thought. Anselm requires, therefore, 
unconditional submission to the authority of the 

As a metaphysician he was a Realist, and one of his 
earliest works {De Fide Trinitatis) was written against 
the Nominalism of Roscellinus. The fame of Anselm 
chiefly rests on his two celebrated works, ^'Proslogium^^ 
and " Cur Deus homo ?'' ^ In the first he sets forth the 
ontological proof of the existence of God, as following 
from the very idea which we have of him, existence for- 
ming one of the necessary attributes of God. In the last 
Anselm treats of the doctrine of redemption and satis- 
faction, and develops the theory of vicarious atone- 
ment, which was afterwards adopted by the Church. 

It is a characteristic of Anselm that he sought to 
establish on rational grounds not only the existence of 
God, but also the doctrines of the Trinity and of In- 

3) Roscellinus has often been named as the founder 
of Nominalism. He attracted special attention to the 
dangerous tendency of Nominalism by applying his 
philosophical views to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
maintaining that our conception of the Deity was only 
an intellectual abstraction, and that the three persons 
of the Godhead could not be spoken of as One, and con- 
sequently the Trinity became to him three Gods. In the 
year 1092 the Council of Soissons compelled him to 
recant his tritheistic exposition of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and he soon disappears from history. 

4) William of Champeaux {d. 1122), an intimate 

3. In two books, and frequently published separately (Erlangen, 1834 ; Berlin, 
1857; London, 1863). E,ng\\s\i ttansXaXions oi Cur Deus hotno ? a.nd Pfoslogmm 
are found in Bibliotheca Sacra (Vol. 8, 9, 12). 


friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, was the special cham- 
pion of Realism in France, but was defeated byAbelard. 
In his ^^ De Origine Anitnee'' he pronounced himself in 
favor of Creationistn, and from his ''De Bucharistia^^ it 
is evident that in his time the Lord's Supper was still 
generally administered ''in both kinds". 

5) Abelard {d. 1142) adopted a position of his own 
between the Nominalism of Roscellinus and the Realism 
of Anselm, but his doctrine did not differ much from 
strict Nominalism. In theology as well as in philos- 
ophy, he is merely a critic. Through him was prepared 
in the Middle Ages the ascendency of the philosophical 
authority of Aristotle, which became firmly established 
within a half century of his death. In comparison with 
the rigid orthodoxy of Anselm, Abelard shows a strong 
rationalistic tendency, and his dialectics drove him on 
almost every point beyond the pale of the faith of the 
Church, yet it is to him as much as to Anselm that the 
theology of the Middle Ages owes its dialectical form. 
In his ^^ Introd actio ad theologiam^^ he lays down the 
principle (in opposition to Anselm 's Credo, ut intelli- 
gani) that rational insight must prepare the way for 
faith, since without it, faith is not sure of its truth 
(nihil credi posse, nisi prius intellectum ; intelligo ut 

Although Abelard decidedly rejected the Tritheism of 
Roscellinus, still in his doctrine of the Trinity he verges 
towards Monarchianism, (explaining the three persons 
as being God's power, wisdom, and goodness, potentia, 
sapientia et benignitas), though he did not confess this 

In his bold work ^' Sic et Non^\ — which consists of 
quotations from the fathers arranged in harmony with 
the Loci theologici, but contradicting each other at 


every point without any solution being offered — he 
seeks to maintain his independence of patristic author- 
ity. This work estabHshes the fact, that only what is 
contained in the canonical Scriptures is without ex- 
ception and unconditionally true and that no one of 
the Church Fathers may be regarded as of equal au- 
thority with the Apostles. 

The most brilliant period of Abelard's life was about 
twenty-five years before his death. His fame as a teach- 
er was then at its height, and thousands of pupils gath- 
ered around him in Paris. Nearly all the great men of 
the age, both within and without the Church, heard 
Abelard. But this brilliant career was suddenly checked 
by his relation to Heloise. 

About 1135, seven years before his death, his conflict 
with his great opponent, Bernard of Clairvaux, begins. 
Bernard complained of the rationalistic tendency of 
Abelard and affirmed that he ' * savored of Arius when 
he spoke of the Trinity ", *^ of Pelagius when he spoke 
of grace ", *' of Nestorius when he spoke of the person of 
Christ", and that ** while he labored to prove Plato a 
Christian, he showed himself a heathen". 

6) Bernard of Clairvaux* {d. 1153), the great 
opponent of Abelard, was one of the most illustrious 
Christian teachers and representatives of monasticism 
in the Middle Ages. He founded the famous monastery 
of Clairvaux, and at his death left behind him one 
hundred and sixty monasteries, which had been formed 
by monks from Clairvaux. He is the *'last of the Fa- 
thers ", representing what is called the positive, patris- 
tic school. In his writings Bernard exhibits a decided 

4. SQQ'i>iea.ndQT'. Ber ket'Hge Bernhard,etc. Third edition (viii, 392), (Vol, 
12 of collected works). Gotha, 1865. (The first edition was translated into English, 
London, 1843). Morison : Life and Times of St. Bernard. London, 1863. 


antagonism to the speculations of his day, and a deep 
love for contemplative or rather mystical, theology. ^ 

Robertson:^ ''Bernard found himself, apparently 
without design and even unconsciously, elevated to a 
position of such influence as no ecclesiastic, either before 
or since his time, has attained. Declining the ecclesias- 
tical dignities to which he saw a multitude of his fol- 
lowers promoted, the Abbot of Clairvaux v^as for a 
quarter of a century the real soul and director of the 
Papacy ; he guided the policy of Emperors and Kings, 
and swayed the deliberations of councils ; nay, however 
little his character and the training of his own mind 
might have fitted him for such a work, the authority of 
his sanctity was such as even to control the intellectual 
development of the age which owned him as its master". 

7) The YiCTORiNES— Hugo, Richard, and Walter,— 
so called from the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, adhered 
closely to the dogmas of the Church, which they endeav- 
ored to explain and support. All of them combined the 
cultivation of the dialectics of the age with a more spir- 
itual and mystical turn of mind. 

a) Hugo of St. Victor'' {d. 1141) was one of the 
profoundest thinkers of the Middle Ages, and a man of 
great learning. He is the real founder of the mediaeval 
mysticism of France. His theological views are unfolded 
in his ^'Summa Sententiarum'\ and more fully in his 
treatise '*Z)e Sacramentis Fidei Christianse^^ which was 
written against Abelard. The spirit of his teaching can 
be seen from the two main propositions on which this 
last work is based : 

5. His Sermons on Canticles have been translated into German (with a pre- 
face by Franz Delitzsch). Leipsic, 1862. 

6. In his Church History. Vol. 3. pp. 11, 12. 

7. See Liebner: Hugo von St. Victor^ etc. Leipsic, 1832. (The most com- 
prehensive monograph). 


1) tantutn deveritate quisque potest videre quantum 
ipse est— what a man is in himself is the measure of his 
insight of the truth, and 2) we can only know God by 
loving him (ubi caritas est, claritas est). He also laid 
down the principle that the ''uncorrupted truth of 
things cannot be discovered by reasoning ' ' . 

b) Richard of St. Victor « {d. 1173) is still more 
pronounced in his mystical tendency. His works are 
concerned chiefly with inward and contemplative relig- 
ion. His great motto was: " You have just as much 
power as you have grace". The most celebrated of 
his mystical works is his ^^ De gratia contemplationis^\ 
He distinguishes contemplatio from cogitatio and me- 
ditatio. Cogitatio is common thought, meditatio is a 
deep pondering on a special subject, contemplatio is an 
intuition, an immediate vision of the divine. 

c) Walter of St. Victor {d. 1180) took the bold- 
est stand against the prevailing scholasticism of his 
day, and wrote a work " Against the four labyrinths of 
France" (Abelard, Peter Lombard, Gilbertus Porreta- 
nus, and Peter of Poitiers), affirming that all of them, 
'inspired with the spirit of Aristotle, had treated with 
scholastic levity the doctrine of the ineffable Trinity 
and of the Incarnation". 

8) Peter Lombard {d. 1164), in his celebrated man- 
ual of dogmatics, "Four Books of Sentences'', •' which 
procured for him the title of ** Master of Sentences", 
sought to justify the doctrines of the Church by subtle 
processes of reasoning, and refinement of argument. 
His main authority is Augustine, and he arranged his 

8. Compare Kaulich : Die Lehre des Hugo und Richard v. St. Victor. 
Prague, 1864. 

9. In \\i^ first book he treats of God ; in the secoftd^ of created things ; in the 
third, of the incarnation, redemption, etc.; in the fourth, of eschatology and the 
(seven) sacraments. 


matter systematically. As the whole was neatly and 
methodically put together, it was welcomed as a clear 
and useful handbook, and the work became and for 
centuries continued in the schools to be the basis of 
theological instruction. It was imitated by some, and 
commented on by others. In the dialectical treatment 
of theological questions the "Sentences" were, as a rule, 
made the point of departure. 

3. The Period of the highest bloom of Scholasticism. 

1) Alexander of Hales {d. 1245), "the monarch 
of theologians", "the Irrefragable Doctor", was the 
first Scholastic who used the whole philosophy of Ari- 
stotle in the service of Christian theology, and in his 
great work ^^ Summa Universse Theologiae''^ ^^ he made 
use of philosophy for the demonstration of theological 
dogmas. He quotes a triple series of authorities, 
1) those who say yes, 2) those who say no, and 3) the 
reconciling views, — choosing the authorities not only in 
the Bible and among the Fathers, but among the later 
philosophers and theologians as well as Greek, Latin, 
and Arabian poets. 

2) Albertus Magnus 1 ^ {d. 1280), called "the Univer- 
sal Doctor" on account of his extensive learning and 
great skill in instruction, was the first Scholastic w^ho 
introduced the complete system of Aristotle to the un- 
derstanding of his age through loose reproductions from 
the Arabic, and this furnished the scholastic philosophy 
with means for its highest development. In his ^^Summa 
Theologix^\ while searching constantly for philosoph- 
ical arguments in support of the articles of faith, Al- 
bertus nevertheless excludes the specifically biblical and 

10. I. Of God and his attributes ; 2. Of creation and sin ; 3 Of redemption 
and atonement ; 4. The Sacraments. 

11. See Sighart : Albertus Magtnts, sein l.eben und seine IVissenscha/t. Re- 
gensburg, 1857. 


Christian doctrines of revelation from the sphere of 
things knowable by the light of reason. 

3) Thomas Aquinas ^^ {d. 1274), "the Angelic Doc- 
tor", was the profoundest and keenest defender of the 
doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and has a 
place with Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, among 
the four authoritative teachers of the Church. In an 
encyclical dated Aug. 4, 1879, Pope Leo XIII recom- 
mended his works to the Catholic seminaries and theol- 
ogical faculties throughout the world, as a proper 
foundation of their religious and philosophical teaching. 

Taking his stand as a Realist, he brought the Schol- 
astic philosophy to its highest stage of development, by 
effecting the most perfect accommodation that was 
possible of the Aristotelian philosophy to ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy, and was careful to distinguish between 
those truths which are only known by revelation and 
those which could be known and demonstrated by 
reason. His exegetical principles are good, and he 
refers more frequently to biblical texts than the other 
scholastics, but he could not free himself from ecclesias- 
tical authority. 

The principal works of Aquinas on theology are his 
'' Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard'', a 
work of his earlier years, in which he worked out his 
own system, and his great (unfinished) work '' Summa 
totius Theologise'\^^ the work of his later years, in 

12. See Werner: Der heil . Thomas von Aquino, 3 vols. (Vol. i, : Life and 
writing;s ; Vol. 11.: Doctrine ; Vol. in. : History of Thomism). Regensburg, 1858- 
59. Also Vaughan: R. C. Archbishop of Sydney : Life and Letters of St. Thomas 
Aquinas. 2 vols. London, 1871-72. 

13. This viTork is divided into three great parts : I. Of God and his works. 
II. Of Man, and the seven virtues, which he classifies as i) theological, — faith 
hope, and love -and 2) ethical, — the four cardinal virtues of justice, prudence 

fortitude, and temperance; III. Christ's person and work, and the Sacraments, 

their member being seven, — Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penitence) 


which all revealed doctrines were to be systematically 
presented. In this last work Aquinas maintains that 
the Church's doctrines of the creation of the world in 
timt, of original sin, of the incarnation of the Logos, of 
the sacraments, of the resurrection of the flesh, of the 
judgment, and eternal salvation and damnation, are 
not to be demonstrated by natural reason. These 
revealed doctrines are regarded by Thomas as above, 
but not contrary to, reason. 

He is not willing to accept Anselm's ontological 
argument for the existence of God, but himself gives 
several forms of the cosmological and teleological ar- 
guments,— nevertheless adds, that while reason can 
prove that God exists, it cannot discover what his nat- 
ure is. He employs all his speculative talent to explain 
the doctrine of the Trinity, yet declares that it is beyond 
the sphere of reason to discover the distinction of per- 
sons in the Godhead, and affirms that he who tries to 
prove the doctrine of the Trinity by the unaided reason 
derogates f rom faith ^ ^ . Und er providence he considers 
the titKrtTrnes oi election and i'iipPUUULlUll. Both rep- 
robation and election are matters of divine decree ; and 
the exact number of the reprobate, as well as of the 
elect, is determined in advance. His treatment of the 
seven sacraments, had a shaping influence upon the 
discussion of the subject in after-time. He also teaches 
the doctrines of purgatory and the intercession of the 

Neander^-^ "Aquinas is said to have employed 

Orders, Marriage, and Extreme Unction. (The author did not live to finish his 
great work, but died before he reached the discussion of " the sacrament of Or- 
ders ". A supplement containing his views, taken from his Commentary on Peter 
Lombard's Boo/s of Sentences has been appended to the later editions of his 

14. See Landerer in Schaff-Herzog. 

15. In his Church History. Vol. 4. //. 422, 423. (Toriey's Translation\ 


three or four amanuenses, to all of whom he dictated 
at once on diiferent subjects. His writings show that 
his thoughts on divine things flowed from a full heart ; 
he was conscious of the necessary connection subsisting 
between thought and feeling. Every day he was accus- 
tomed to have something read to him from a work of 
edification ; and when he was asked why he took this 
time from his speculative studies, he replied that he 
thought the act of devotion prepared him for soaring 
upwards to speculation. When the feelings are enkin- 
dled by devotion, the thoughts would more easily 
ascend to the highest matters. He never began to 
study, to dispute, to give lectures, to write, or to dic- 
tate, without first betaking himself to prayer for divine 
illumination. Whenever doubts confronted him in his 
investigations, he left off meditating, in order to seek 
divine guidance in prayer ". 

4) Bona VENTURA {d. 1274) ''the Seraphic Doctor", 
developed still further the mystical doctrine begun by 
Bernard of Clair vaux and continued by the Victorines, 
and gave to the teachings of Plato as transformed by 
the Church Fathers the preference over those of Ari- 
stotle, but all human wisdom, even that of Plato, 
appears to him as folly compared with mystical illum- 
ination. He distinguishes three stages of Christian 
perfection: 1) the observance of the law; 2) the fulfil- 
ment of the spiritual counsels of the Gospel; and 3) the 
enjoyment of eternal happiness in contemplation, — 
which last is reserved to ascetics. Bonaventura dis- 
tinguished himself as a writer of mystical and practical 
works on Christianity and his ^^ Breviloquium^'' is con- 
sidered one of the best expositions of Christian Dogma- 
tics which the Middle Ages produced. 

5) Duns Scotus^« {d. 1308, at the age of thirty- 

i6. See Werner: y^oMnnes Duns Scopus. Vienna, 1881. 


four), the pride of the Franciscans, called "the Subtle 
Doctor" on account of his keenness and subtlety, was 
the great opponent of Thomism, or the philosophy of 
Thomas Aquinas, and the founder of the Scotist school. 
His strength laj^ rather in acute, negative criticism of 
the teachings of others, than in any positive elaboration 
of his own. His scepticism, however, refers only to 
argumentation, and arguments he may destroy until he 
has no other basis for truth than the absolute will of 
God and the voluntary submission of man ; but this 
basis, the truth of the divine revelation, and the author- 
ity of the Church, he never touches ^^ He seeks contin- 
ually to establish a harmony between philosophy and 
the teaching of the Church. 

The difference between Duns Scotus and Thomas 
Aquinas is very striking. Thomas is speculative, Scotus, 
critical ; in their ideas of God, Thomas lays stress on 
necessity, Scotus, on freedom. Thomas teaches the de- 
termination of the will, Scotus its indetermination. 
Thomas affirms the doctrine of predestination in the 
strict, Augustinian sense of the term, while Scotus 
teaches a doctrine of Synergism near akin to Pelagian- 
ism. According to Thomas, God commands what is 
good, because it is good, while Scotus maintains, that 
the good is good, because God commands it. Creation, 
incarnation, the necessity of accepting the merit of 
Christ as atonement for our guilt, are facts depending 
solely on the free-will of God, unconditioned by any 
rational necessit3^ Thus the pre-eminence ascribed by 
Scotus to the will over the reason, in God and in man, 
resolves itself in fact into the omnipotence of the ar- 
bitrary will of the Deity ^ ^ . 

17. Ste K.DornQr: In Schaff-Herzog. 

18. See Ueberweg: History of Philosophy. Vol. i. //. 456, 457. 


6) Roger Bacon ^ ^ (c/. 1294) by his deYotion to the 
investigation of nature obtained the title ''the wonder- 
ful Doctor", and became a forerunner of Bacon of Veru- 
1am. He preferred to study nature rather than to bury 
himself in scholastic subtleties. He did not succeed, 
however, in drawing his contemporaries away from 
metaphysics. He urged a wider circulation and more 
earnest study of the Bible, tracing nearly all the evil 
of his day to want of personal acquaintance with this 
heavenly rule of life. He recommended a revision of the 
Latin Vulgate, and especially urged the importance of 
returning to the study of the Bible in the original Greek 
and Hebrew. His ''Compendium Studii Theologise^' 
was probably his latest composition. 

4. The Time of the decline of Scholasticism. 

1) DuRAND OF St. Poursain (d. 1332) was sur- 
named "the most Resolute Doctor", on account of the 
resoluteness with which he maintained that there is no 
human authority above the human reason. The con- 
sequence was an open split between faith and know- 
ledge, between theology and philosophy. He denied 
that theology was a science, and made its object or 
subject man instead of God, and declared the Scriptures 
to be a practical help in attaining heaven by good 
works. He wrote a '' Commentary ^^ on the '' Sentences 
of Lombard ", which Gerson recommended to his pupils 
as the best work on the subject. He disputed the cur- 
rent scholastic teaching respecting transubstantiation, 
which he declared to beunscriptural, and approximated 
closely to the view taught by the Reformers in the six- 
teenth century ^ " . 

19. See Schneider : Roger Bacon, Eine Monographie. Augsburg, 1873. (^ his 
writer not only protests against the extravagant judgments of late passed upon 
Bacon, but points out very clearly in what aspects Bacon appears as a mere 

20. See Wagenmann in Schaff-Herzog. 


2) William Occam {d. 1347), called by his followers 
"thelnYincible Doctor", renewed the doctrine of Nomin- 
alism, breaking completely with Realism, which had 
been the sole rnler in philosophy since the days of An- 
selm and the Yictorines. He maintained that the har- 
mony between reason and faith, between science and 
religion, always presupposed by Realism, must be an 
illusion. He denied that any theological doctrine could 
be demonstrated by pure reason. Even the existence 
and unity of God were, in his judgment, meiely articles 
of faith. All knowledge which transcends the sphere of 
experience was relegated to the sphere of faith. Through 
his writings he exercised some influence in the period of 
the Reformation, especially on Luther -i, in his earlier 
stage, because of Occam's opposition to the Pope, 
though in doctrine they were often quite antagonistic. 

Wagenmann : - ^ Occam was a critic by nature. From 
a criticism of the reigning realism in philosophy, he 
went on to a criticism of the dogmatical tradition of 
the church, and thence to the criticism of the ecclesias- 
tico — political views of his age; always free, sharp, 
consistent, and yet pious, orthodox to stiffness, ascetic 
even to fanaticism ; always clear and precise in his fun- 
damental conceptions, but lengthy and heavy in his 
dialectical exposition; sometimes flashing like light- 
ning, but often obscure on account of abstruseness 
and subtlety. 

3) Peter D'Ailly (c/. 1425), bishop of Cambray 
(1396) and from 1411 also a cardinal, known as ''the 
Hammer of Heretics," though a Nominalist, defended 
the doctrine of the Church, and sought in philosophy 
to steer between skepticism and dogmatism, making 

21. See Rettberg: Occam und Luther, In Stud, latd Kri't., 1839. 

22. In Schaff-Herzog. 


a clear distinction between theology and philosophy. 
He gave precedence to the Bible rather than to Christ- 
ian tradition, and protested against the infallibility of 
the pope, maintaining that the true representative of 
the Church was not the pope, but the oecumenical coun- 
cil. He also wrote a ^' Commentary^' on the " Senten- 
ces " of Peter Lombard. 

4) John Gerson^s (J. 1429), ^'the most Christian 
Doctor," attempted to combine Mysticism with Schol- 
asticism. An adherent of Nominalism he sought to 
reconcile theology with Scholastic philosophy, main- 
taining that truth could be learned only through 
revelation. He urged the study of the Bible and the 
Fathers. According to Gerson, neither Plato nor Ari- 
stotle is the right guide for him who is seeking his sal- 
vation. Better than all knowledge is obedience to the 
divine exhortation : Repent and believe the Gospel. He 
also protested against the infallibility of the pope, and 
held that oecumenical councils are the true representa- 
tives of the Church, and that they may accuse and 
depose popes. 

5) Gabriel Biel (d. 1495) ''the last Scholastic," 
whose chief merit lay in his clear and faithful presenta- 
tion of the nominalistic doctrine, publishing a summary 
of the doctrines of Occam, exerted considerable influ- 
ence on the beginnings of the Reformation. Semi-Pela- 
gian in his teaching, he is the last noticeable representa- 
tive of the ecclesiastical science of the Middle Ages. 

5. Mysticism and the Pre-Reformatory Theology. 2 4 

1) Meister Eckhart^s (J 1329) the author and 

23. See Schwab: John Gerson. Wuerzburg, 1859. 

24. See Ullmann : Reformers before the Reformation. Translated into En- 
glish. 2 vols. Also Vaughan : Hours with the Mystics^ 2 vols. Third ed. Lon- 
don, 1880. 

25. See Martensen: Meister Eckhart. Hamburg, 1842. Also Lasson in 
Ueberweg's History of Philosophy. Vol. i. pp. 467-84. 


perfecter of the entire development of German Mysti- 
cism, has been called "the father of modern Pantheism," 
on account of his pantheistic speculations, maintaining 
that in its true existence every creature is not only a 
revelation of God, but a part of him, and that the true 
object of life is to strip off all illusions and deceptions, 
and return into the one great being, ~God. In manj- 
points the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas approaches ex" 
ceedingly near to that taught by Eckhart. The Roman 
Thomas became the highest scientific authority of the 
Romish Church, while the doctrine of Eckhart, the 
German, prepared the v^ay through its ethics for the 
Reformation, and through its metaphysics for the later 
German speculation. 

2) Johannes Tauler^^ (J. 1361), "the Sublime and 
Illuminated Doctor," was one of the greatest preachers 
of his time. He was distinguished by deep humility, 
ardent love, and fervent piety. On the doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith he closely approximated the teaching 
of the Reformers. His style and doctrine entitle him to 
a place among the best German prose authors before 

3) HeinrichSuso {d. 1365) was the representative 
of the poetical mysticism of the Middle Ages, and he 
wrote his book " Von der ewigen Weisheif'—'' On Eter- 
nal Wisdom " in 1338. 

4) RuYSBROECK (d. 1381) "the ecstatic Doctor," so 
called because he laid so much stress on the ecstatic 
state, was the most prominent of the Dutch mystics. 
Without going very deeply into ontological specula, 
tions, he taught that the way to God was through 
contemplation, but his views are not always free from 
pantheistic tendencies. 

26. English translation of his Sermons with a short li^e by Catherine Wink- 
worth, London, 1857. Edited by Dr. Hitchcock, New York, 1858. 


5) The unknown author of Theologia Germanica/' 
''Eyn Deutsch Theologia" exerted a great influence on 
the times of the Reformation. This work was edited 
by Luther in 1518, ^'^ and in the preface he speaks of it 
*' as a noble work, which sets forth clearly what Adam 
and what Christ is, and how Adam is to die and Christ 
to rise in us." Nearly one hundred editions have been 
published, and the work has been translated into many 

Tauler and the ''German Theology'' perpetuated 
the speculations of Eckhart. The work itself treats 
principally of the incarnation of God in Christ, and 
urges the sacrifice of one's self, in order to fulfil better 
the will of God. 

6) John Wiclif^s {d. 1384), ''the Morning Star of 
the Reformation," wrote his chief work " Tnalogus^' 
in 1382, in which he fully sets forth his theological 
views. His formal principle was the absolute author- 
ity of Scripture, and his material principle the absolute 
causality of God. His great problem is to represent the 
incarnation from a moral point of view, and he loves 
to set forth Christ as the centre of humanity. His 
view of the Incarnation and Atonement led him to 
renounce all trust in human merit, and to protest 
against the worship of relics and images, and the sale 
of indulgences. He denied the real presence of the body 
and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, taught abso- 
lute predestination, believed in purgatory, and held 

27. The best edition is by Pfeiffer. Third edition. Guetersloh, 1855. The 
best English translation by Susanna Winkworth, 1874. 

28. See Vaughan : John de WycUffe, a Monograph. London, 1853. Also 
Lechler : Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation. 2 vols. 
Leipsic, 1873. Translated into English, with important additional notes by Lor- 
imer under the title. John Wiclif And his English Precursors. 2 vols. London, 
1878; in I vol. 1881. New edition by Dr. S. G. Green, i vol. 1884. (This work 
supeisedes all others). 


some peculiarly erratic views on the nature and intent 
of marriage, and many germs of error and extrava- 
gance may be detected in his speculations, much as 
these were overbalanced by the noble witness which he 
bore to long-forgotten truths, and by the virtues of his 
private life. ^ » 

7) John Huss ^^ {d. 1415), inferior to Wiclif in spec- 
ulative talent and constructive faculty, was more evan- 
gelical than the English Reformer. His principal work 
is ''De Ecclesia;' "On the Church." He regarded the 
Scriptures as an infallible authority, and defined the 
Church to be the body of the elect, basing his views 
upon the teaching of Augustine. A great student and 
admirer of Wiclif, he died a martyr because he based 
his reform of the Church upon conscience and Script- 
ure, and not upon ecclesiastical authority. 

8) JoHANN Wessel ^^ {d. 1489) "the light of the 
world," "the Master of contradictions," was the most 
prominent of the precursors of the Reformation in 
Germany. Luther, who published a collection of the 
works of Wessel, in 1522, says of him, in the preface, 
that if he had not written anything before he read 
these words, people might have thought that he had 
stolen all his ideas from him. ^ ^ On many points, on 
justification, penance, purgatory, etc., he anticipated 
the Reformation. 

His definition of the Church is of special interest. 
He says: "I believe with the Church, but I do not 

29. See Hardwick: Church History. (Middle Ages). Pp. 374-390. Third 
edition. London, 1872. 

30. See Gillett : Life and tunes 0/ yohn Huss. Third edition. Boston, 1870. 
Also Lechler m Schaff-Herzog. 

31. See especially Ullmann^ already quoted. 

32. " Wenn ich den Wessel zuvor gelessen, so liessen meine Widersacher sich 
duenken, Luther hatte AUes vom Wessel genommen, also stimmmet unser beider 
GeJ5t zusammen." 


believe in her." The Church to him is a communio 
sanctorum, the community of saints, and not a com- 
ttiunio praedestinatorum as Wiclif and Huss have it. 
Wessel v^as alike distinguished as a theologian and as 
a general scholar. 

9) JoHANN VON Wesel {d. 1481) wrote against the 
doctrine of indulgences {Adversus Indulgentias) and on 
"Ecclesiastical Pov^er." On his trial (he escaped the 
stake, but was locked up for life in an Augustinian con- 
vent at Mayence) the principal charges against him 
were, that he denied the procession of the Holy Spirit 
from the Son, rejected tradition, and disputed the ab- 
solute authority of a council legitimately called. He 
taught the formal principle of Protestantism, — the 
Scriptures the sole rule of faith,— but he did not fully 
reach the material principle, — justification by faith 

6. The Humanists. 

The Humanists, the critical spirit of the age, and 
the study of the Bible, co-operated in preparing the 
way for the Reformation. The humanists were the 
philologians and critics of their age ; they restored the 
purity of the Latin language, made the study of Greek 
an indispensable element of scholarly education, and 
introduced the study of Hebrew. In Germany these 
studies were chiefly cultivated by the "Brethren of the 
Common Life," and from this school the Reformation 
received great assistance. Though they aided in the 
work, the Humanists would never have effected the 




The sixteenth century was Ml of fresh specu- 
lation and practical life, with a harmony of the 
intellectual, experimental, and practical, almost 
without a parallelism in the history of the Church. 

The two sorts of Dogmatics, the Lutheran 
and the Keformed, may be characterized as the 
theology of Salvation, and the theology of the 
Absolute Will. 

I. The Dogmatics of Melanchthon 2. 

The impress of the character of Luther upon the 
Lutheran Church is so mighty that no one can under- 
stand the doctrines of the church without understand- 
ing him. For the whole earlj^ history of our Church is 

1. Krauth: The Conservative Reform.atio7i and its Theology. Philadelphia, 


Seiss : Ecclesia Lutherana. Fourth edition. Philadelphia, 1871. 

Thomasius: Das Bekenntniss der evang. luth. Kirche in der Konsequenz 
seines Prtncips. Nuernberg, 1848. 

Thomasius: Dogfuengeschichte. Vol. 2. Erlangen, 1876. 

Hase: Hutterus Redivivus^ order Dogmatik der evang, luth. Kirche. Elev- 
enth edition, Leipsic, 1876. 

Schmid : The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ex- 
hibited and verified from the original sources. Translated into English. Phila- 
delphia, 1876. 

2. The first complete edition of his works is given by Bretschneider and 
Bindseil in the Corpus Reformatorum. Vols. 1-28. Halle, 1834-50. Ledder- 
hose's Life of Melanchthon (Heidelberg, 1847) has been translated into English 
by Dr. Krotel, Philadelphia, 1855. 

On Melanchthon's Theology s^^ Plitt: Melanchthon' s Loci in ihrer Urgestalt. 
Erlangen, 1864; Herrlinger: Die Theologie Melanchthons^ etc. Gotha, 1879. 


interwoven with the personal and official history of 
Luther^ {d. 1546). 

But it was Melanchthon {d. 1560), who wrote 
the first Protestant work of Systematic theology, 
under the title "Loci Communes,^' * of which three 
editions appeared in 1521. In this work he sought to 
give the theological and religious results of the Refor- 
mation, and pursued the dialectic rather than the spec- 
ulative method, making accurate definitions and clear 
divisions. In this first edition he follows closely the 
Epistle to the Romans in his delineation of the funda- 
mental doctrines of sin and grace. But after 1534 he 
departed farther and farther from the views of Luther, 
and in the second great edition of his Lociy in 1535, and 
his third, 1543, he made many alterations and empha- 
sized his so-called Synergism. He mentions three causes 
as concurring in the work of conversion — ''the Word 
of God, the Spirit, and the human will assenting to, 
and not rejecting, the Word of God."^ 

He everywhere insists upon his doctrinal agreement 
with Luther, and does, in fact, agree with him in mak- 
ing all prominent the doctrine of salvation by faith in 
Christ, but the Melanchthon of the later period differed 
very considerably in doctrinal views from Luther. 

3. The best serviceable edition of Luther's works is the Eriangen edition in 
67 German and 33 Latin volumes (1826-73). The most valuable biogfraphies are 
by Koestlin : Martin Luther, sein Leben und sei'fie Schrt/ten, Third Edition, 
2 vols. Elberfeld, 1883 ; also his smaller work, Luther'' s Leben. Third edition. 
Leipsic, 1883. English translation, London, New York, and Philadelphia, 1883- 
Bayne: Life of Luther, 2 vols. 1887. 

On Luther's Theology see: Koestlin: Luther'' s Theologie, 2 vols. Stuttgart, 
1863. Harnack: Luther^ s Theologie, 2 vols. Eriangen, 1862-1886. 

4. See note on p. 13. On his relation to the Augsburg Confession and Apol- 
ogy see notes on pp. 92-99. On his vacillations in statements of doctrine see note 
on /. loi. 

5. •* Concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis, verbum Dei, Sp. S., et humana 
voluntas assentiens nee lepugnans verbo Dei." 


His vacillations, real and seeming were due to his 
timidity and gentleness of character, his aversion to 
controversy, his philosophical, humanistic, and classi- 
cal cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matter 
of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the 
Church, and her ancient writers , and his anxiety that 
peace and harmony should be restored to the Church. 
The friends of the Reformation were embarrassed and 
confounded, its enemies delighted and encouraged, by 
perceiving endless diversities of statement in the edi- 
tions of books, rapidly succeeding each other, books 
which, in their first form, Luther had endorsed as of 
Canonical purity and worthy of immortality. The 
very Confessions of the Church, determined by her 
authorities, and signed by her representatives, were 
amended, enlarged here, abridged there, changed in 
structure and in statement, as the restless spirit of re- 
fining in thought or style moved Melanchthon^ 

The three works of Melanchthon in which the 
charges were most noted and most mischievous, are: 
1) the Augsburg Confession '^ ; 2) the Apology «; and 
3) the Loci Communes ^ 

It was as the author of the Loci that his influence 
continued to be felt years after his death, because this 
work served, for almost a century, as the basis and 
model of the dogmatic teaching of the Lutheran 
Church. 1 « 

6. This paragraph is condensed from Krauth's Conservative Refortnation. 
Pp. 289-290. 

7. See note 8, on pp, 94, 95. 

8. See note 12, on p. loi. 

9. See note i, on/. 13. 

10. The three important editions of the Loci (1521, 1535, i543)» witk valua- 
ble prolegomena, are edited by Bretschneider and Bindseil in vol. 21 of Corpus 
Reformat orum. In vol. 22, they give an account of the various translations of the 
Loci (three in High German— i. by Spalatin, nine editions from 1522-1526 ; 2. by 


As an exegete, Melanchthon does not occupy the 
same prominent position as Luther. He insisted upon 
the literal sense in contrast to the four senses of the 
scholastics (literal, moral, mystical, allegorical). 

Melanchthon also exerted a wide influence in the de- 
partment of Homiletics, though he never preached from 
the pulpit, not having been ordained, and has been re- 
garded as the author, in the Protestant Church, of the 
methodical style of preaching v^hich follows the text or 
the subject. His influence in the departments of Philol- 
ogy and Pedagogy entitles him to the name of ''the 
Preceptor of Germany." He laid great stress upon 
classical studies, and advocated a close and necessary 
connection of the School and the Church, regarding the 
School as the nursery of the Church ^ ^ . 

2. The Melanchthonian School of Dogmatics. 

1) YiCTORiN Strigel (d. 1569), a pupil of Melanch- 

Justus Jonas, eight editions from 1536-1540 ; 3. by Justus Jonas, revised and im 
proved by Melanchthon, nine editions from 1542-1559 — two in Low German, and 
translations in Italian, French, Dutch, etc.), and carefully edit the translation made 
by Justus Jonas and revised by Melanchthon. 

The cheap edition of the Loa', published by Schlawitz, Berlin, 1856, is a re- 
print of the Leipsic edition of 1559, the last published during the life of Melanch- 

After a brief preface Melanchthon in 24 sections presents his whole system : 
I. De Deo; 2. De creatione; 3. De causa peccati et de contingentia; 4. De humanis 
viribus seu de libero arbitrio ; 5, De peccato ; 6. De lege divina; 7. De evangelio ; 
8. De gratia et de justificatione ; 9. De bonis operibus: 10. De discrimine veteris 
et novi Testamenti; 11, De discrimine peccati mortalis et venialis; 12. Deecclesia; 
13. De Sacramentis; 14. De praedestinatione; 15. De regno Christi; 16. De resur- 
rectione mortuorum; 17. De spiritu et litera ; 18. De calamitatibus et de cruce, et 
de veris consolationibus ; 19. De invocatione Dei seu de precatione; 20. De magis- 
tratibus civilibus et dignitate rerum politicarum; 21. De ceremoniis humanis in 
ecclesia; 22. De mortificatione carnis; 23. De scandalo; 24. De liber tate Christiana. 
Wz't/i two Appendixes: i. De conjugo; 2. Definitiones multarum appellationum, 
quarum in ecclesia usus est. 

II. Compare the excellent article of Landerer in Herzog {First edition). 
HerrHnger has rewritten this article for the second edition. 


thon, was a strong advocate of Synergism ^ . A public 
controversy lasting fifteen days was held between him 
and Flacius, in 1560, at Weimar. The only point dis- 
cussed was the relation of the human will to divine 
grace in the work of conversion. It was a conflict be- 
tween the Melanchthonian theology and strict Luther- 
anism. It was in the heat of this controversy that 
Flacius made the assertion, that original sin was the 
very substance of human nature, since the fall, and not 
something accidental, — which he would not afterwards 
retract, and thus gave occasion to the Flacian contro- 

2) Nicolas Selnecker (d. 1592) was also one of 
Melanchthon's pupils, and one of the authors of the 
Formula of Concord. In his " Institutiones Christianas 
Religionis^^ (1563), a commentary on the I/Oc/ of Mel- 
anchthon, which is the first system of dogmatic theol- 
ogy in the Lutheran Church which contains the so- 
called Prolegomena, he still represented the Melanch- 
thonian type of theology, but this was corrected in 
accordance with the teaching of the Formula of Con- 
cord in his later v^orks. 

3) Martin Chemnitz (J. 1586) was the greatest of 
Melanchthon's pupils, ''without doubt the prince of 
the theologians of the Augsburg Confession" 2, "that 
great theologian of our Church, whom no one will re- 
fuse to assign the chief place after Luther among the 
defenders of the Gospel truth," ^ and as one of the 
authors of the Formula of Concord, left the impress of 
his theological learning upon it. His ^^ Loci Theolo- 

1. Tt'es sutit causae efficieiites co7ive7-siotiis: Detis^ verbiim, et voluntas homi- 
nis. His Loci //ieo/ogzcz\ edited by Pezel (4 vols. 1582-85), is the best Dogmatics 
of the Melanchthonian type of theology. 

2. Quenstedt. 

3. Buddeus. 


gicP^ ^ is a commentary upon the Loci Communes of 
Melanchthon, which he corrects wherever Melanchthon 
departs from the doctrine of our Church. In this work 
Chemnitz displays his accuracy and clearness in the 
definition of doctrine, his prudent choice of matter and 
his knowledge of Scripture. His ^^ Bxamen Concilii Tri- 
dentini'^ ■' is the ablest defence of Protestantism ever 

Dr. Krauth: f' ''The learning of Chemnitz was 
something colossal, but it has no tinge of pedantry. 
His judgment was of the highest order. His modesty 
and simplicity, his clearness and thought, and his lumi- 
nous style, his firmness in principle, and his gentleness 
in tone, the richness of his learning and the vigor of his 
thinking, have revealed themselves in such measure in 
his "Loci," his books *'0n the Two Natures of Our 
Lord," and '' On the True Presence," in his '' Examen of 
the Council of Trent," his ''Defence of the Formula of 
Concord," and his "Harmony of the Gospels," as to 
render each a classic in its kind, and to mark their 
author as the greatest theologian of his time — one of 
the greatest theologians of all time." 

4) Jacob Heerbrand (c7. 1600), professor of theol- 
ogy at Tuebingen after 1557, through his principal work 
" Compendium Theologicum,^^ which was generally 
used as a text-book in Germany, Denmark, and Swe- 
den, and which had almost symbolical authority in 
Wuertemberg, exerted a wide influence. The book is in 

4. Published after his death by Polycarp Leyser in 1591. The edition in my 
library, to which reference will be made, is that of Wittenberg, 1610, which also 
contains his two important treatises De vera et substantiali PrcBsentia and De 
duabiis Naturts. 

5. Published in four parts, 1565-73. Reprinted by Preuss, Berlin, 1861. 
The edition used is that of Geneva, 1667. A condensed German translation was 
published in St. Louis, 1875, (also Dresden). 

6. In Cotiservative Reformation, p. 310. 


the form of questions and answers, and presents very 
clearly and simpl3^ the Lutheran doctrines in a biblical 
manner. On account of the negotiations going on, at 
the time, between the Patriarch of Constantinople and 
the University of Tuebingen, it was translated into 
Greek. This writer, and the following writers of this 
century, no longer followed Melanchthon, but adopted 
strict Lutheran views, and closely adhered to the Form- 
ula of Concord. 

5) Matthias Hafenreffer {d. 1619), professor of 
theology at Tuebingen after 1598, in his ^^ Loci Theolo- 
gici,'- follows the synthetic method, starting from the 
highest principle, God, and proceeding to Man, to 
Christ, to Redemption, until the system ends in the 
doctrine of the Last Things. This work was the text- 
book generally used at the Universities (Tuebingen, 
Upsala, etc.), during the seventeenth century. '*It ob- 
tained at once the voidest currency in upper and lower 
Germany, because it gave in the most precise and intel- 
ligible manner the doctrinal points of the Formula of 
Concord, which was what they wanted to hear exclu- 
sively in the Lutheran lecture rooms." ^ 

3, The Reformed Dogmatics. 

1) ZwiNGLi^ {d. 1531) gives us the most complete, 
though not a systematic, presentation of his views in his 
^' CommentRrius de vera et falsa religione,^^ published 
in 1525. Unlike Luther, he was not led to be a reformer 
by any inward experience, but by classical culture, and 
a scientific study of the Bible. The doctrine of justifi- 
cation by faith, therefore, was by no means so central 

7. Heppe. 

I. Zeller: Das theologische System Zwtngle's, Tuebingen, 1853. Sigwart: 
Zwingli, dei- Character semer Theologie^ etc. Stuttgart, 1855, Hottinger: Life 
0/ Zwmgtz (Tra.nsla.ted hy T. C. Porter). Harrisburg, 1857. Usteri: Zwing/t, 
7,nnQ\:\, 1883. Grob; The Li^e 0/ Zm'ngli^ New York, 1883. 


and vital with him as with Luther. He began his 
work, not so much with the purification of doctrine, 
as writh external improvements in worship, order, and 
customs. He laid stress upon the absoluteness of God 
and the exclusiveness of his will, so that the material 
principle of Zwingli is the glory of God. Acknowledg- 
ing as his formal principle the exclusive authority of 
Scripture as a Rule of Faith, he often did violence to 
the Word of God, for he approached it externally, and 
explained the scriptures according to his subjective 
judgment. He regarded the sacraments as only com- 
memorative signs, and he had such superficial views of 
original sin and guilt, that he regarded even heathen, 
like Socrates and Cato, without further qualifications, 
as members of the kingdom of God, — of which view 
Luther says : ''If this is true, then the whole Gospel is 
false." ^ His speculations led him to adopt a fatalistic 
predestination, which deprives the wll of moral free- 
dom, as over against divine providen/e. Schaflf : ^ 
''Zwingli lacked the genius and depth of Luther and 
Calvin, the learning of Melanchthon and Oecolampa- 
dius, but he was their equal in honesty of purpose, in- 
tegrity of character, heroic courage, and devotion to 
the cause of the Reformation, and surpassed them in 
liberality. His prominent intellectual trait was clear, 
strong common sense. He had no organ for the mys- 
tic element in religion In his theological views 

he v^as more radical than Luther He differed 

chiefly from his vie^w of the real presence of Christ's 
body and blood in the sacrament, and held this ordi- 
nance to be merely a commemoration of the atoning 
death of Christ In some articles he was ahead 

2. Hoc SI verum est, totum evangelium falsum e^t. 

3. In Jo/mson's Cyclopcedtq. 


of his age, and held opinions which were then deemed 
dangerous and heretical. He had a milder view of 

original sin and guilt than the other Reformers 

Zwingli represents only the first stage in the history of 
the Reformed Church. His work was completed after 
his death by his successor, BuUinger, at Zurich, and 
still more by Calvin at Geneva." 

2) John Calvin* {d. 1564), the founder of Calvin- 
ism, wrote his famous work, ^^ Institutes of the Christ- 
ian Religion,^^\n 1536, when he was twenty-seven years 
old. The final form was given to the Institutes in the 
Latin edition of Geneva, 1559, when it was made into 
a treatise of four books, divided into one hundred and 
four chapters. In the first three books he follows the 
order of the Apostles' Creed, and in the fourth book 
treats of the Church. ^ As a system, this work of Cal- 
vin is more comprehensive, and more complete in its 
formal scientific construction, than the Loci of Mel- 
anchthon. Although Calvin far surpassed Zwingli in 
religious depth and fervor, and closely approximated 
the views of Luther, still, in the fundamental principle 
of his system, he stood on the same basis with Zwingli. 
He was decidedly hostile to ecclesiastical tradition, and 
on the doctrine of the person of Christ differed greatly 
from Luther, and therefore could not apprehend the 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper in the fulness of Luther's 

4. There is an English translation of Calvin's works by the " Calvin Trans- 
lation Society." in 52 vols., Edinburgh, 1842-53. On his Li/e see Dyer: Life of 
Calvin^ London, 1849; Bungener: Calvifi, Paris, 1862 (English translation, Edin- 
burgh, 1863); but especially Stahelin: Johannes Calvift, 2 vols. Elberfeld, 1863. See 
also Schaff; Creeds 0/ Christendom. Vol. i, pp. 421-465. 

5. The first edition (Latin, Basel, 1536) contained only six chapters; i) Of 
law, with an exposition of the Ten Commandments; 2) Of faith, with an exposi- 
tion of the Apostles' Creed; 3) Of prayer, with an exposition of the Lord's Prayer; 
4) Of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; 5) Of the other so-called 
sacraments; 6) Of Christian liberty, Church government and discipline. 


faith. The inexorable consistency with which he car- 
ried out his views of predestination, made them exceed 
Augustine's doctrine in inflexible rigidity and severity. ^ 
The five points of Calvinism are: 1) unconditional 
election ; 2) limited atonement, designed for the elect 
alone; 3) the total moral inability of the will ; 4) irre- 
sistible grace; and 5) the perseverance of the saints. 

3) Peter Martyr Yermilius {d. 1562), in his ''Loci 
Communes.'^ which is one of the principal sources for 
the study of the Reformed theology of the sixteenth 
century, was Zwinglian in his doctrine. 

4) BuLLiNGER (d. 1575), the author of the ''Second 
Helvetic Confession," 1566, one of the most elaborate 
of the Reformed Creeds, and next to the Heidelberg 
Catechism, the most authoritative, contributed much 
to establish the Reformation in Switzerland. ^ His 
'' Compendium religionis christian^'' appeared in 1556, 
in which, however, he did not lay so much stress on ab- 
solute predestination. 

5) Wolfgang Musculus {d. 1563) was originally in 
favor of a union between the Lutheran and the Re- 
formed Churches, but afterwards saw fit to change his 
views, and in his ''Loci CommuneSy^^ ^ took a strong 
Calvinistic position. 

6) Aretius {d. 1574), professor of theology at Berne 
(1563-74), exercised considerable influence through his 
" Theologise Problemata,'' and his " Examen Theologi- 
cum " ran through six editions in fourteen years. 

7) Zacharias Ursinus {d. 1583), the chief author of 

6. For an excellent article on Calvmistn by Dr. A. A. Hodge see Johnson's 
Cyclopoedia, He speaks of the "Institutes," as "the first and grandest work of 
systematic divinity the world has seen," that in it Calvin "has recast Augustinian- 
ism in its final Protestant form, and handed it over to the modern world stamped 
with its great author's name." 

7. SeeSchaff: Creeds of Christejidom. Vol. i.//. 390-420. 

8. Basel, 1560, and afterwards often reprinted. 


the ''Heidelberg Catechism" (1563), was a man of 
profound classical, philosophical, and theological learn- 
ing. He was no orator, and no man of action, but a 
retired, modest, and industrious student. His principal 
works, beside the Heidelberg Catechism, are a ''Com- 
mentary" on the Catechism, and an attack on the 
Formula of Concord/-^ 

8) Olevianus {d. 1587), joint author of the "Heidel- 
berg Catechism" with Ursinus, was inferior to Ursinus 
in learning, but his superior in the pulpit and in Church 
government. In the doctrines of the Lord's Supper 
and predestination, he held the views of Calvin. He 
has been regarded as the forerunner of the "federal the- 
ology" of Cocceius {d. 1669). 

9) Hyperius {d. 1564), professor of theology at 
Marburg (1542-64), exercised a considerable influence 
on the formation of evangelical theology. His " Topi- 
ca theologica'' (1561) was extensively used, even by 
Roman Catholic preachers. 

10) Zanchi {d. 1590) acquired a great reputation 
as one of the most learned theologians of his time. He 
strongly advocated the Calvinistic doctrine of predes- 
tination, and attacked the Lutheran doctrine of the 
Person of Christ. 



The orthodox dogmatics of the seventeenth 
century had the character in some measure of a 
revived and purified scholasticism, running out 

9. St&Schdi^'. Creeds 0/ Christendom. Vol. i. //. 529-534. 


in some extreme cases into a sort of Protestant 
Mediaevalism. But it was more profound than 
the theology of the Early Fathers, more true 
and consistent than that of the Scholastics, and 
more scientifically developed and honestly out- 
spoken than the dogmatics of the Roman Catho- 
lic Church. 

I. The Characteristic of the Dogmatics of this period i. 

During the latter part of the sixteenth century the 
Lutheran Church had undergone the ordeal of a war of 

I. In order to form a clear conception of the history of the dogmatic develop- 
ment of the Lutheran Church in the 17th Century, we must take into considera- 
tion, i) The three general tendencies which were at work in Lutheran Germany, 
and 2) the internal controversies which agitated the Lutheran Church during this 

1) Of the general tendencies at work the first was a strong Roman Catholic 
reaction, supported by political power, kindled and fermented by the Jesuits, a 
reaction which culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), of which Gusta- 
vus Adolphus, of Sweden, is the hero. 

The second general tendency was a strongly-marked Calvinizing movement, 
also started and abetted by political power, by which Lutheran Germany lost sev- 
eral states. 

The third general tendency were the Unionistic efforts, which instead of re- 
storing religious unity, only made the breach wider. These Unionistic efforts were 
of a two-fold character : a) The attempt to bring about a reconciliation between 
the Roman Catholics and the Protestants (The Conference of Thorn, 1645, known 
as the Colloquium Caritativum, the Conference of Courteous Compliments, and 
the correspondence between Bossuet and Leibnitz in 1691); b) the attempt to 
bring about a reconciliation between the Lutherans and the Reformed (The Collo- 
quy of Leipsic, 1631, and of Cassel, 1661). 

2) A reaction against the so-called Scholasticism and one-sidedness of the 
Lutheran Church could not fail to take place within the Church herself. The op- 
position which sprang up was of a two-fold character : a) in the case of Calixtus 
and the Syncretistic controversies it was confined exclusively to the sphere of the- 
ology ; b) in Spener and the Pietistic controversy, it more largely concerned the 
Christian life. And though the opposition which arose was marked by a one- 
sidedness of another sort, still these controversies had a beneficial influence upon 
the spiritual life of the Lutheran Church. 

a) The Syncretistic Controversy. By Syncretism, we mean a tendency to 
form a union between two religious bodies on the basis of such doctrines 01 tenets 
as are common to both. There are two tendencies discernible throughout the 


polemics. The precision, clearness and carefulness of 
the Formula of Concord had gradually overcome all 
opposition to it, and had in fact really restored har- 
mony within the Church. 

Now came a period of comparatively internal repose, 
the mediaeval period of Lutheran Theology, when the 
theological system of our Church was fully developed, 
reared like a glorious Gothic edifice, massive in archi-^ 
tecture, rich in construction, and finished in beauty, 
even to the last of its marvelous adornings. But this 
tendency to an accurate delineation and precise defini- 
tion of doctrine became more and more one-sided. 
Like Medieval Scholasticism, in its concern for logic it 
almost lost vitality. Nevertheless, this scholastic or- 
thodoxy, with all its one-sidedness, imparted to Lu- 
theran theology a fulness and wealth, an acuteness 
and consistency of structure, the grandeur of which 
the greatest theologians of all denominations are com- 
pelled to acknowledge. We can conceive of men of in- 
tellect studying this system without receiving it in 
every part ; but we conceive it impossible for a man of 
high intellect to master the system of our Church with- 
out admiring it. 

whole Reformation period, the one condemning all toleration of different opinions 
as an unsoundness of doctrine, the other striving after reconciliation and harmony 
between the different religious bodies. In the middle of the seventeenth centuiy 
these two tendencies came into violent conflict with each other, The controversy 
originated in the views of the great Helmstadt theologian, George Calixtus. On 
his side were the theologians of Helmstadt and Konigsberg, and opposed to them 
were the more rigid Lutheran theologians of Leipsic, Dresden, and Wittenberg, 
led by John Huelsemann of Leipsic, and above all by Abraham Calovius of Wit- 
tenberg, who alone wrote 26 controversial books, many of them more than a 
thousand pages quarto. 

b) The Pietistic Controvesy. Pietism denotes a movement in the Lutheran 
Church which arose as a reaction of the living, practical faith against an ortho- 
doxy which too often contented itself with a theoretical correctness of its creed. In 
the 17th century we have only to do with Pietism in its early stage, and the whole 
movement centres around the person of Philip Jacob Spener (d. 1705). 


And though this period of our Church is often reviled 
as that of '' dead orthodoxy," it cannot be denied that 
it possessed more true piety and spiritual life than the 
eighteenth century, that period which most deridedit, 
— and that it is far superior to this present century, 
with all its boasted progress, and scientific attain- 
ments, in stedfastness of faith, in earnest devotion, in 
consecration to God, and in strict adherence to the doc- 
trines of God's Word and to the teachings of our Con- 
fessions. A century which has produced a Johann 
Arndt {d. 1621), a Valerius Herberger {d. 1627) a John 
Gerhard {d. 1637), a Johann Andreae {d. 1654), a Hein- 
rich Mueller (d. 1675), a Paul Gerhardt (d. 1676), a 
Christian Scriver {d. 1701), and a Spener {d. 1705), 
can not be altogether an age of spiritual coldness, and 
a period in the history of the Church as black as it has 
generally been painted. 

Dr. Walther: - The theological works of the seven- 
teenth century ''exhibit, not only according to the 
judgment of all Lutherans who are faithful to the Con- 
fession, the very best results that have ever been at- 
tained in the Christian Church of all ages, so far as cor- 
rect presentation, thorough development and organic 
arrangement of the doctrines of the Bible are con- 
cerned, and are therefore of imperishable value, but 
even according to the testimony of men who do not 
unreservedly subscribe to the Confessions of our Church, 
yea even of its enemies, these works belong to the most 
admirable productions of the earnest spirit of Christian 
research, which even now every one must make himself 
perfectly familiar with, if he wishes to learn the doc- 
trines of our Church in their peculiar features, their 
wealth, and their self-consistency; or even if, in gen- 

2. In a criticism of Schmid's Dogmatik der Evang. Luth. Kirche. 


eral, he wishes to be capable of forming a well-tested 
judgment in the department of Dogmatics." 

2. The divers tendencies of the Orthodox Dogmatics i . 

Laxity in Calixtus {d. 1656), rigidity in Calovius 
(d. 1686), moderation in Musseus {d. 1681), represent 
the great universities which these great men adorn, 
Helmstadt,, Wittenberg, and Jena. 

George Calixtus for forty-two years (1614-1656) 
professor of theology at Helmstadt, was, in the seven- 
teenth century, the most prominent and influential rep- 
resentative of the school of Melanchthon. A man of 
superior scientific and social accomplishments, a thor- 
ough student of Church History, rich in the culture 
which can only be obtained by extensive travels, Calix- 
tus, being of an irenical turn of mind, formed a more 
liberal judgment of other denominations than was 
commonly held. He did not, indeed, desire a formal 
union of the various Churches, but he held that they 
should recognize, tolerate, and love each other. He 
proposed a secondary principle of Christian theology 
(next to the Holy Scriptures as its primary principle) , 
the consensus of the first five centuries as a common 
basis for all Churches, and sought to show that all 
subsequent diversities were either non-essential or less 
essential." But the more rigid Lutheran theologians, 
who v^ere mistrustful of all peaceful measures, ever 
since the trouble with crypto-Calvinism at the end of 
the sixteenth century, accused Calixtus of crypto-Cal- 
vinism, of crypto-Catholicism, in fact Calixtus was at- 
tacked on all sides, and by no one more furiously than 
by that strict defender of orthodoxy, Abraham Calo- 
vius of Wittenberg. 

1. SeeH. Schmid: " Geschichte der synkret, Streitigkeiten, " etc. Erlangen, 
1846; Gass: •' Calixtus und der Synkretismus." Breslau, 1846. 

2. See Kurtz in his Church History. Vol. 2. § 38. 2. 


Calovius was the prodigy of his age, the most volu- 
minous of our theologians, writing on all departments 
of theological science, distinguished for his wonderful 
industry, unyielding firmness and severity, vast and 
varied learning, and his most remarkable zeal in con- 
troversy. Although ranking high as a dogmatician, 
still the conspicuous position which he occupied in the 
theological world of the seventeenth century is owing 
principally to his violent polemics against Calixtus, 
and against that reconciliating tendency which was 
represented by the University of Helmstadt. In 1655 
the Theological Faculties of Leipsic and Wittenberg, of 
which Calovius was the ruling spirit, prepared a state- 
ment of the divergences between the Book of Concord 
and the principles enforced by the school of Calixtus. 
They hoped to make this formal document ^ authorita- 
tive, and of a symbolical character, but it was never 
legally ratified. 

Mus.^us, of Jena, who was strongly opposed to the 
exact and fixed definitions which were then used in 
Lutheran orthodox dogmatics, in vain, sought to me- 
diate between these two parties. 

3. The Dogmaticians of this period. 

1) Aegidius Hunnius {d. 1603), professor of theol- 
ogy at Marburg 1576-92, and at Wittenburg 1591- 
1603, was one of Heerbrand's pupils, and a staunch 
champion of Lutheran orthodoxy. While at Marburg, 
he opposed the reigning Calvinistic tendency, especially 
in Christology {De persona Christi, 1585), and in Wit- 

3. The title was : Consensus Repetitus fidei vere Lutheranae, and it was 
arranged under 98 heads or articles. Each of the heads was subdivided into three 
parts. The first division declared the true Lutheran doctrine: Profit emur et 
docent. The second stated the opinion condemned: Rejicimus. The third, under 
the form of Ita docent, contained extracts from the writings of Calixtus, or, in a 
few cases, o£ his followers. 


tenberg he contributed greatly in suppressing Melanch- 
thonian views. In 1603 he wrote De procidentia Dei 
et eeterna prsedestinatio against Huberts false view, 
that election is universal and entirely unlimited. John 
Gerhard calls him "the best of the recent theologians." 
2) Leonard Hutter {d. 1616), professor of theol- 
ogy at Wittenberg from 1596 until his death, was the 
most prominent theologian of his age. His resemblance 
to Luther in vigor of mind, energy of action, unwearied 
industry, firmness in faith, and boldness in proclaiming 
truth and sharply rebuking error, gave him the title of 
^^ Redonatus Lutherus.'' He was a typical representa- 
tive of Lutheran orthodoxy in its older form, before its 
scholastic development, while it still confined itself to 
reproduction and polemics. His best known work is 
his ''Compendium Locorum Theologicorum,'' '^ pub- 
lished in 1610, which, for nearly a century, was almost 
universally used in the theological schools of Germany, 
superseding the Loci Communes of Melanchthon. It is 
brief, concise, and comprehensive, arranged in the form 
of questions and answers, and for its definitions mainly 

I, Many editions of this excellent work have been published, and it has been 
translated into German three times (in 1611, by Hutter himself in 1613, by Francke 
in 1837), into Swedish (Stockholm, 1618), and into English (by Doctors Jacobs and 
Spieker, Philadelphia, 1868). 

It presents the whole subject-matter of Dogmatics, arranged in the Synthetic 
manner, under 34 /act or articles: i) De Scriptura Sacra, 2) De Deo uno et trine, 
3)De duabus naturis in una persona Christi, 4) De creatione, 5) De angelis bonis 
et malis, 6) De imagine Dei in homine, 7) De aeterna Dei providentia, 8) De pec- 
cato in genere et in specie, g) De libero arbitrio, 10) De lege Dei, 11) De evangelio, 
12) De justificatione, 13) De aeterna praedestinatione, 14) De bonis operibus, 15) 
De poenitentia et confessione, 16) De ministerio et ordine ecclesiastico, 17) De 
ecclesia, 18) De libertate Christiana, 19) De sacramentis in genere, 20) De bap- 
tismo, 21) De coena Domini, 22) De sacrificiis et de missa pontifica, 23) De scan- 
dalo, 24) De cruce et consolationibus, 25) De invocatione, 26) De votis monasticis, 
27) De magistratu et rebus civilibus, 28) De matrimonio, 29) De morte corporis 
deque immortalitate animae. 30) De consummatione sive fine mundi, 31) De resur- 
rectione mortuorum, 32) De extremo judicio, 33) De inferno, 34) De vita aeterna. 


uses the words of the Symbolical Books, and of the 
older theologians, Chemnitz and Aegidins Hunnius. At 
least eight of our theologians have made this compend 
a basis for other works.- Huelsemann of Leipsic {d. 
1661), esteemed the study of this Compend as of no 
less importance than that of the Symbolical Books 
themselves. ^ Hutter's ^^ Loci Communes Theologici,^' 
published in 1619, three years after his death, by the 
theological faculty of Wittenberg, is simply a further 
elaboration of the Compendium. The Lutheran Church 
is also indebted to Hutter for the direction which his 
instructions gave to the mind of John Gerhard. 

3) John Gerhard {d. 1637), the greatest of all Lu- 
theran theologians, ^'combined rare learning, great 
acuteness, wonderful industry, sound judgment, and 
practical ability with ardent piety."* Bossuet is said 
to be the author of the often-quoted remark that Ger- 
hard is the third (Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard) in that 
series of Lutheran theologians in which there is no 
fourth. It is by his great work ''Loci Theologici,'' ^ 
that he gained his great fame. 

2. Cundisius (1648), Glassius (1656), Christian Chemnitz (1670), Bechmann 
1690), Schneider, Leuschner, Ebart, Deutschmann, etc, 

3. See Dr. Jacobs' Preface to English Translation of Compend. 

4. Luthardt. 

5. See note 4 on /. 14. 

So important is this work of Gerhard, that we will attempt to indicate in a 
brief analysis, the comprehensiveness with which each doctrine is discussed. A 
more detailed analysis of his mode of treating some of the more important doc- 
trines, will be given later, in the dogmatic system itself. (The paging given in 
this anal>sis refers to the laige quarto edition of Preuss, 9 vols. 1863-1885). 

Book I. Locus I. De Scriptura Sacra (Chapters 27, pp. 13-240); 2. De natura 
Deiet attributis divinis (Ch. 8. pp. 241-370); 3. De sanctissimo Trinitatis mysterio 
(Ch. 13, pp. 371-446); 4. De persona et officio Christi (Ch. 15, pp. 447-608). 

Book II. Locus 5. De creatione et angeUs (Ch. 6, pp. 1-16); 6. De providen- 
tia (Ch. 15, pp. 17-47); 7. De electione et reprobatione (Ch. 14,//. 48-106); 8. De 
imagine Dei in homine (Ch. \o,pp. 107-141); 9. De peccato originali (^Ch. 10, pp. 


Luthardt: "A more careful exegetical treatment 
than is found in his predecessors, the comprehensive 
consideration of the material afforded by the history 
of dogmas, the most thorough elaboration of every 
question, the objectiveness of its judgment, and its 
firmness in polemics, combined with the reference to 
the practical and consolatory use of the individual 
dogmas, distinguish this work, which also through 
its copious application of the scholastic theology (es- 
pecially in the doctrine of God), and its employment, 
although still in a moderate degree, of the scholastic 
form, was of the most significant influence upon works 
which followed it." 

Tholuck "The progress that Gerhard made be- 
yond Chemnitz and Hutter, consists partly in a more 
perfect systematization, partly in a deeper and more 
speculative argumentation of the dogmas, but espec- 
ially in the completeness and comprehensiveness of the 

142-182); 10. De peccatis actualibus (Ch. 26,//. 183-237); 11. De libero arbitrio 
(Ch. 12,//. 238-282). 

Book III. Locus 12. De lege Dei (Sections 208, pp. 1-108); 13. De legibus 
ceremonialibus et forensibus (Sec. 44, pp. 109-140) ; 14. De evangelio (Sec 130, pp. 
141-202); 15. De poenitentia (Sec. 145, pp. 203-299); 16. De justificatione per fidem 
(Sec. 251, pp. 300-520). 

Book IV. Locus 17. De bonis operibus (Sections 147, pp. T-136); 18. De 
sacramentis (Sec. 109, pp. 137-219); 19. De circumcisione et agno paschali (Sec. 
6.S, pp. 220-255); 20. De sacro baptismo (Sec. 271. //. 256-398). 

Book V. Locus 21. De sacra coena (Ch. 26, pp. 1-253); 22. De ecclesia (Ch. 
13, Sec. 305, pp. 254-602). 

Book VI. Locus 23. De ministerio ecclesiastico (Ch. 10, Sec. 375, pp. 1-265); 
24, De magistratu poHtico (Ch. 8, Sec. 489, //. 266-562). 

Book VII. Locus 25. De conjugio (Ch. 12, Sec. 708, pp. 1-466). 

Book VIII. Locus 26. De morte (Ch. 10, Sec. A^T^pp. 1-391); 27. De mor- 
tuorum resurrectione (Ch. 13, Sec. 124, pp. 392-504). 

Book IX. Locus 28. De extremo judicio (Ch. 11, Sec. 126, pp. 1-126); 29. De 
consummatione secuH (Ch. 11, Sec. 107, pp. 127-204); 30. De inferno seu morte 
aeterna (Ch. 13, Sec. 93, pp. 205-287); 31. De vita aeterna (Ch. 12, Sec. i77>//- 


Kahnis: *' The strength of this work does not lie in 
the systematic arrangement of the material, but in the 
thorough elaboration of the individual doctrines, ac- 
cording to the entire extent of their exegetical, dogma- 
tico — historical, symbolical, polemical, and practical 

BuDDEUS: ''Those who admire his industry, but 
overlook his sound judgment, prove thereby that they 
themselves are destitute of judgment, as I am certain 
that they cannot produce a single example of an error 
in judgment." 

Walther: ^ "In our opinion, this work is the most 
excellent and complete, both in contents and form, that 
has been produced within this department of the Christ- 
ian religion, and will remain until the last day the model 
for all who make attempts in this sphere." 

Not only was Gerhard a giant among the theolo- 
gians, but he Avas a most successful advocate of a liv- 
ing Christianity, and his ^^ Meditationes sacr^" show 
him to have been a true mystic. 

4) NicoLAUS HuNNius {d. 1643), professor of theol- 
ogy at Wittenberg (1617-22), and Superintendent at 
Luebeck after 1623, followed in the footsteps of his 
father, Aegidius Hunnius, and like him, was possessed 
of great learning. His ''Epitome Credendorum " ^ has 
often been reprinted. 

5) George Calixtus^ (d. 1656) introduced the ana- 
lytic method (which begins with the end of all theol- 
ogy, blessedness, and hence takes the opposite course 
from the synthetic) into the treatment of Dogmatics, 

6. All these eulogies are quoted from sketch of Geihard in Appendix I, to 
Schmid's Doctrinal Theology. 

7. Translated into English by Gotthetl, Nuremberg, 1847. 

8. See/. 188. Compare also H, Schmid: Gesch. des synkret. Streitigkeiten, 
Erlangen, 1846; Gass : G. Calixtus und der Synkretismus . 


and also separated Ethics Irom Dogmatics. The de- 
fender in the great Syncretistic controversy, his princi- 
pal work on Dogmatics proper is his small compend 
''Epitome theologiae,'' published in 1619. In his later 
writings he departed widely on various doctrines, from 
the teaching of the Lutheran Church ^ . 

6) JoHANN MusAEUS {d. 1681), professor of theology 
at Jena (1646-81), possessed an excellent philosophical 
training and, on the one side, vindicated the applica- 
tion of philosophy to theology against the disciples of 
the stiff Lutheran orthodoxy, ^while on the other side, 
he condemned its too universal use by the theologians 
of the Reformed Church. He regarded theology the 
object not only of the intellect, but of the affections'^^, 
and emphasized to such a degree the sanctity of the 
will, that he has been regarded as a precursor of Spener. 
He refused to sign the Consensus drawn up by Calovius 
in 1655, and was also accused of Syncretism, and com- 
pelled in a formal way to renounce all sympathy with 
the views of Calixtus ^ ^ . 

7) John William Baier (d. 1695) based his '' Com- 
pendium Theologiae Positivae " ^ ^ upon the theology of 
Musaeus, his father-in-law, and of ''many other ortho- 
dox theologians." The author adopts the analytic 
method, ^ ^ and the study of this book is an excellent 
introduction to the older Dogmaticians. 

g. See note 3 on p. 189. 

10. See his Introductio in theologiam. Jena, 1678. 

11. See note 3 on /. 189. 

12. A very cheap reprint by Preuss. Berlin, 1864; another edition, enlarged 
by Dr. Walther appeared in 1879-83, in 3 vols. St. Louis and Dresden. 

13. Prolegomena, i. De natura theologiae; 2. De scriptura sacra. 

Pars Prima, i. De Deo; 2. De creatione; 3. De angelis; 4. De imagine 
Dei; 5. De providentia Dei; 6. De beatitudine aeterna; 7. De damnatione aeter- 
na; 8. De morte temporali; 9. De resurrectione mortuorum; 10. De judicio ex- 
treme et consuramatione seculi. 


Dr. Walther ^ ^ sums up the merits of this com- 
pendium, as ''great completeness combined with com- 
pact brevity, exclusion of all extraneous material, ex- 
quisite selection, and, above all, accurate exegesis of 
scriptural proof -passages, critical comparison, and 
employment of the labors of his predecessors within 
the department of dogmatics, and, in addition to Lu- 
theran fidelity in doctrine, the expression of a living 
heart-faith, and a mild, pious sensibility." 

8) Conrad Dannhaner {d. 1666), professor of theol- 
ogy in the University of Strasburg, where Spener was 
his pupil, had considerable influence through his pro- 
found exegetical labors. In his ^^ Hodosophia Christ- 
iana,^^ he presents the dogmas, in the analytical meth- 
od, from the standpoint of a man who is a pilgrim on 
his way to heaven. He was an ardent champion of 
Lutheran orthodoxy, and his zeal for the purity of 
doctrine v^as connected with the most earnest personal 
piety. He wrote against the Romanists, against the 
Calvinists, and against Syncretism (represented by 

9) JoHANN HuELSEMANN {d. 1661), profcssor of the- 
ology at Wittenberg (1629-46), and at Leipsic after 
1646, has given us two excellent works on Dogmatics. 
His compend ^^ Breviarium Theologise^^ (1640), was 
enlarged in his ^^ Bxtensio breviarii^^ of 1648. His op- 

Fa7's Secunda. i. De peccato in genere; 2. De peccato originis; 3. De pec- 
catis actualibus. 

Pars Tertia. i. De gratia Dei; 2. De Christo: a) De persona Christi, b) De 
statibus exinanitionis et exaltationis, c) De officio Christi; 3. De fide in Christum; 
4. De regeneratione et conversione; 5. De justificatione; 6. De renovatione et 
bonis operibus: 7. De verbo legis et evangelii; 8. De sacramentis in genere: 9. 
De sacramentis veteris testamenti; 10. De baptismo; 11. I'e sacra coena; 12. De 
praedestinatione; 13. De ecclesia; 14. De ministerio ecclesiastico; 16. De magis- 
t'-atu politico; 16. De statu et societate domestica. 

14. In vol. T. of Lehre und Wehre. See Sketch of Dogmaticians in Schmid'§ 
Doctrinal Theology. 


ponents spoke of his style as ''stilum barbarum, scho- 
lasticum, holcoticum, scoticum ac tenebrosum." 

10) JoHANN Friedrich Kcenig {d. 1664), succes- 
sively Swedish court-preacher, professor of theology 
at Greifswald (1651), superintendent of Mecklenburg 
and Ratzeburg (1656), and professor of theology at 
Rostock, after 1659, was one of the *' dogmatic virtu- 
osi" of the seventeenth century. His compend '' The- 
ologia positiva acroamatica^^ was often republished, 
and widely used as a text-book, and forms the founda- 
tion of Quenstedt's famous work. It is more scientific 
than the "Compend" of Hutter. Buddeus: "The 
author comprehended much in a few words and in a 
forcible manner ; but, by an excessive desire of brevity 
and accuracy, produced a mere skeleton, destitute of 
sap and blood." 

11) JoHANN SCHERZER (d. 1683), profcssor of theol- 
ogy at Leipsic, in his '' Breviculus theologicus'' (1678) 
sought to present a system of dogmatics in a still 
shorter and more concise form than Koenig, which, 
however, he enlarged in his " Sy sterna theologise'' 
(1680), but he is not happy in his definitions. He also 
wrote the best Protestant work against the Roman 
Catholic controversialist, Bellarmine {d. 1621). 

12) Abraham Caloviusi^ {d. 1686), professor of 
theology at Wittenberg after 1650, represents the 
strictest school of orthodoxy, and wrote ably on all 
departments of theology. His '' Sy sterna Locorum 
Theologicorum'' (12 vols. 1655-77), is the most com- 
pact and comprehensive representation of Lutheran 
dogmatics, the true exemplar of what has been called 
Lutheran Scholasticism ^ ^ . His writings are more po- 

15. See/. 189, and fiote on p. i86, 

16. The first four volumes are more thorough in their treatment than the 
later volumes. 


lemical than dogmatical. His great exegetical work 
''Biblia Ulustrata'' is mainly a refutation of the Com- 
mentaries of Grotius. 

13) JOHANN QuENSTEDT {d. 1688), professor of the- 
ology at Wittenberg (1649-88), has been called ''the 
bookkeeper of the Wittenberg orthodoxy." His '' The- 
ologia didactica polemica,'^ which appeared in 1685, is 
one of the most important works of Lutheran theol- 
ogy, and is noted for its accurate classification of 
dogmatic material. On account of the objectivity of 
his treatment, and his thorough acquaintance with 
the literature of his own times, Quenstedt, next to Ger- 
hard, is the most instructive representative of the or- 
thodox dogmatics. 

''It possesses little originality, and follows closely 
the outline of Kcenig, but shows the greatest erudition 
in its citation of authorities, and skill in rendering the 
work of reference easy. The objection, however, is often 
made, that Quenstedt, by his excessive attention to the 
details of his system, has deprived dogmatic theology 
of life, by reducing its doctrines to the shape of mathe- 
matical formulas ^ ^." 

14) David Hollazi^ {d. 1713) is especially known 
by his v^ork " Examen theologicum acroamaticum " 
(1707) ^ ^ The great popularity of this work was not 
due to its originality of thought, but to the clearness 
and terseness of its definitions, and especially to the 
genial and irenic tone and the living scriptural charac- 
ter of its theology. He is the last of the strict Lutheran 
theologians, but in the period of transition between 
the seventeenth and eighteenth century, took an inter- 

17. See Sketch of Quenstedt in Appendix to Schmid's Doctrinal Theology. 

18. Or Hollazius. 

19. All quotatio s will be cited from the quarto edition of 1741. 


mediate position between Lutheran orthodoxy and pie- 
tism 20. 

In the form of questions and answers he recapitu- 
lates with great clearness and compactness the results 
attained by his predecessors ^ ^ . 

4. The Reformed or Calvinistic Dogmaticians of this period. 

The dogmatics of the Lutheran Church had its home 
in Germany and bears a character of unity and conti- 
nuity; the Reformed dogmatics, on the other hand, 
was developed in various lands and under the influence 
of different schools of thought. The dogmatic theology 
of the Reformed Church was cultivated mainly in the 
Netherlands, ^where we meet with Arminianism and 

20. See Wagenmann in Schaff-Herzog. 

21. The synopsis of the whole work is as follows : 
Propcedia Theologica. 

I. De theologiae constitutione, pp. 1-34; 2. De religione et articulis fidei,pp. 
34-64; 3. De scriptura sacra, //. 64-198. 

Poedia Theologica. 

Pars Prima, i. De Deo, pp. 198-295; 2. De mysterio Trinitatis, pp. 296-361; 
3. De creatione, pp. 361-385; 4, De angelis, pp. 385-416; 5. De homine, pp. 416- 
432; 6. De providentia divina, pp. 432-463; 7. De beatitudine aeterna, pp. 463-471, 

Pars Secunda. i. De imagine Dei, pp. 471-499 ; 2. De peccato in genere, pp. 
499-516; 3. De peccato originali, //. 516-546; 4. De peccato actuali, //. 546-576; 
5. De defectu liberi arbitrii in spiritualibus, pp. 567-592. 

Pars Tertia. A. De salutis principiis. i. De benevolentia Dei universali, 
pp. Sg2-6i'2\ 2. De praedestinatione, //. 612-659; 3* De persona Christi, />/. 660- 
787; 4. De vocatione, //. 787-812; 5. De illuminatione, //. 813-847; 6. De con- 
versione, pp. 848-870; 7. De reganeratione, pp. 871-888; 8. De justificatione, pp. 
888-927; 9. De unione mystica, //, 927-942; 10. De renovatione, //. 942-958: 11. 
De conservatione, pp. 958-966; 12. De glorificatione, pp. 966-984. 

B. De mediis salutis. i. De verbo legis,//. 985-1022; 2. De verbo evangelii, 
//. 1022-1041; 3. De Sacramentis,//. T041-1067; 4. De baptismo, //. 1067-1094; 
5. De eucharistia, //. 1095-1136; 6. De poenitentia et contritione, //. 1136-1157; 
7. De fide in Christum. jz>/. 1157-1184; 8. De bonis operibus, /^. 1184-1214; 9. De 
morte et de resurrectione mortuorum, pp. 1214-1233; 10. De extrerao judicio et de 
consummatione mundi,//. 1233-1264. 

Pars Quarta. i. De ecclesia, pp. 1265-1325: 2. De ministerio ecclesiastico, 
1326-1349; 3. De magisratu politico, //. 1350-1365; 4. De statu ceconomico, pp. 


Calvinism in conflict, with a scholasticism in compar- 
ison with which that of Quenstedt is only child's play, 
with the philosophy of Descartes, and the federal theol- 
ogy of Cocceius. In England we meet with latitudina- 
rianism and deism, and in France with the teachings of 

The centers of Reformed Theology, in Switzerland, 
were Basel, Berne, Zurich, and especially Geneva; in 
Germany, Heidelberg; in the Netherlands, Franeker, 
Utrecht, Groningen, and above all, Leyden; in France, 
Saumur, Montauban, and Sedan. 

a) Germany. 

The Reformed theology of Germany assumed a pecu- 
liar type known as the German Reformed theology. 
Although it had a Melanchthonian element, it was still 
Calvinistic in its tendency. It took its origin in the 
Palatinate, and had received its expression in the Hei- 
delberg Catechism (1562). 

1) Bartholomew Keckermann {d. 1609), at one 
time professor at Heidelberg, died when he was only 
thirty-eight years old. His '* Systema theologiae^^ was 
widely used. Heppe says of him that the height of the 
religious and philosophical speculation, and of the dia- 
letic skill, of the German Reformed dogmatics, is found 
in his system. 

2) Johann Alsted {d. 1638), who represented the 
Reformed Church of Nassau at the Synod of Dort, 
1618, was a very prolific writer, and his works give a 
striking idea of the literary and scientific attainments 
of his age. The various theological disciplines were dis- 
cussed by him in separate works. '' Theologia Scholas- 
tica didactica'' (1618), '' Theol polemica" (1620), 
* ' Tbeol. prophetica, " etc . 

3) Markus Friedrich Wendelin (c7. 1652), was 


one of the chief representatives of Reformed Scholastic- 
ism. In his ^^Christianas theologiae sy sterna majuSj^' 
published after his death, in 1656, he pays a great deal 
of attention to the '^absurdas Lutheranorum opin- 
iones," and accuses them of Pelagianism. 

b) Switzerland. 

1) Amandus Polanus {d. 1610) composed a ^'Syn- 
tagma theol. Christ ^^ (1610), which was held in high 
repute. Gass says that Polanus gave the first example 
of an elaboration of the doctrinal system, expounding 
and making distinctions in the causal method. 

2) Johannes Wolleb {d. 1629), professor of theol- 
ogy at Basel, 1618-29, published only one book, his 
''Compendium theologiae Christianae,'^ 1626, but it 
established his reputation as one of the great theolo- 
gians of the Reformed Church. The work is noted for 
its clearness and precision and the perfect order of its 

3) Benedict Pictet (d. 1724), professor of theol- 
ogy at Geneva (1702-24) was an able and voluminous 
writer. His " Theologia Christiana'' (1696 in 11 vols.) 
was much valued. 

c) The Netherlands. 

Among the Arminians we may mention the great 
divines Episcopius, Grotius, and Limborch. 

1) Simon Episcopius {d. 1643), professor of theol- 
ogy at Leyden (1611-18), at Amsterdam (1634-43), 
among other v^orks wrote " Institutiones Theologi- 
cae'' and " Responsio ad Quaestiones -Theologicas,'' 
which became the standard works of Arminian the- 

2) Hugo Grotius {d. 1645) espoused the cause of 
the Arminians. In his " Defensio £dei Catholicae de 
satisfactione Christi'' (1617), written to clear himself 


from the charge of Socinianism, he first propounded 
what is known as ''the Governmental Theory of the 
Atonement." According to this view, the right to re- 
lax the demands of the law, at will, belongs to God's 
prerogative as moral governor. Christ's death was 
not a vicarious atonement, not a real satisfaction of 
the justice of God, but the benevolence of God requires, 
that, as a precondition of the forgiveness of any sinner, 
he should furnish such an example of suffering in Christ 
as will exhibit his determination that sin shall not go 
unpunished. His apologetic work "Z>e veritate relig. 
Christ.'' (1627), designed for seamen who came in con- 
tact with Mohammedans and heathens, has been trans- 
lated into many languages. 

3) Philip van Limborch {d. 1712), professor of the- 
ology at Amsterdam (1668-1712), completed the work 
which Episcopius began and Curcelleeus {d. 1659) con- 
tinued. His '^ Institutiones Theologiae Christianae" ^ 
(1686) is the most complete exposition of the Arminian 
doctrine extant, and is noted for its perspicuity and 
judicious selection of material. 

Over against these defenders of Arminianism, in 
strict adherence to the praedestinarian views of Cal- 
vin, may be mentioned Gomarus, Maccovius, Maresius, 
and Voetius. 

4) Francis Gomarus (c/. 1641), professor of theology 
at Leyden, Saumur, and Groningen, was the leader of 
the extreme Calvinistic party, and the declared adver- 
sary of Arminianism. He and his followers (the Gom- 
arists) were Supralapsarians, L e., they held that God 
not only foresaw and permitted, but actually decreed 
the fall of man, but overruled it for his redemption. 
His ''Loci theol.'' appeared in 1644. 

I. Translated into English by William Jones, London, 1702. 


5) Joannes Maccoyius {d. 1644), professor of the- 
ology at Franeker (1615-44) was famous as a dispu- 
tant. In his ''Loci Communes'' (1626), he adopts the 
scholastic method of treatment. 

6) Samuel Maresius {d. 1673), professor of theol- 
ogy at Groningen (1643-77), wrote many polemical 
works (against the Amyraldists, the Socinians, the 
Jesuits, the Cartesians, the Federalists, etc.). 

7) Gysbertus Yoetius (J. 1676), professor of theol- 
ogy at Utrecht (1634-76), was a pupil of Gomarus, 
and a strict Calvinist both in doctrine and in policy. 
He regarded Arminianism as of the greatest danger to 
the Dutch Reformed Church, and waged war against it 
to the bitter end. He also strongly opposed the feder- 
alism of Cocceius and the philosophical views of Des- 

The philosophical system of Descartes gave rise to 
violent controversies, and left its impress upon the doc- 
trinal views of the Reformed Church, for the theolo- 
gians who belonged to this school, attempted to recon- 
cile the principles of natural and revealed theology. 

8) Rene Descartes {d. 1650, in Stockholm), was 
the great master of the system of philosophical ration- 
alism. Starting from the principle de omnibus est du- 
bitandum, Descartes arrived at his cogito, ergo sum, as 
the ultimate fact of consciousness v^hich cannot be 
doubted. A most powerful opposition arose against 
him in the Church. Yoetius, in 1639, charged him with 
Atheism, his philosophy was condemned in 1647 ^nd 
again in 1676 by the university of Leyden, as well as 
by the Synod of Delft in 1657. 

Over against its serious errors, the philosophy of 
Descartes has given to the world some fruitful truths. 
He established the authority of reason in its own 


Sphere, and on the witness of consciousness he has 
constructed a barrier sufficiently strong to resist the 
efforts of skepticism and a narrow, false theology. 
Among other things he has shed special light on the 
idea of the infinite, and Deism may be said to have 
been philosophically annihilated by him. 

The Federal Theology originated with Cocceius, and 
is represented by Burmann, Leydecker, Witsius and Van 

9) Johannes Cocceius {d. 1669), professor of the- 
ology at Bremen (1629), Franeker (1636), at Leyden 
(1650), was the founder of the Federal Theology 2. His 
principal works, in which his views are developed are 
his "Summa Doctrinae'' (1648), and '' Summa Theolo- 
giae.^^ He drew his theology directly from the Bible, 
and from it alone ; and thus he put himself in opposi. 
tion to the scholastics and the Cartesians. But as an 
interpreter Cocceius is open to the charge of fanciful- 
ness. Heppe says: *' The fruit of his influence on the 
Reformed Dogmatics was to lead theologians back to 
the Bible, delivering it from the bondage of a tradi- 
tional scholasticism . ' ' 

10) Franz Burmann {d. 1679), professor of theol- 
ogy at Utrecht {d. 1662-79), in his ''Synopsis Theolo- 
giae^^ (1671) attempts to reconcile the doctrines of 
Cocceius and those of the orthodox Reformed Church, 
and embodies the results of the Federal theology in a 
permanent form. 

11) Melchoir Leydecker {d. 1721), professor of 
theology at Utrecht (1679-1721) simplified the Federal 

2. His whole doctrinal system was founded upon the idea of a covenant be- 
tween God and man. He distinguished between i) the covenant before the fall 
(of works), and 2) the covenant after the fall (of grace). This latter he divides 
into three economies; i) the economy prior to the law. 2) under the law, and 3) 
of the Gospel. 


theology and treated the whole system of theology in 
the order of the three persons of the Trinity, approxi- 
mating very closely to the Reformed dogmatics in its 
traditional form. He presents his system most fully in 
his "De oeconomia trium personarum,^^ etc., (1682). 

12) Hermann Witsius (cf. 1708), professor of theol- 
ogy at Franeker (1675-80), Utrecht (1680-98) and 
Leyden (1698-1708), in his "De oecotnia foederutn Dei 
cam hominibus^^ ^ endeavored to mediate between the 
orthodox Reformed and the Federalists, but as usual 
pleased neither party, least of all the Federalists, to 
whom he belonged, who accused him of sinning against 
the Holy Ghost. The work itself is in no way remark- 

13) Solomon van Til {d. 1713), professor of theol- 
ogy at Dort and Ley den, was one of the ablest of the 
Reformed divines. In his " Theologiae utriusque com- 
pendium turn naturalis turn revelatae'^ (1704), he en- 
deavored to set forth a system which combined Schol- 
asticism, Cartesianism, and Federalism. 

d) England and Scotland'^. 

The Reformation in England ended by showing itself 
decidedly Calvinistic. Scotland, with the Presbyterian 
form of government, also received from John Knox the 
principles of Calvinism. The Church of England, dur- 
ing the beginning of the seventeenth century, was rep- 
resented by Richard Hooker, Field, Jackson, and 
Archbishop Laud, and during the latter half, by Bull, 
Jeremy Taylor, Stillingfleet, Waterland, Bey- 
ERiDGE, Pearson and Burnet. In the established 

3. English Translation in 3 vols., one in 1763, and another in 1771. Last 
edition in 2 vols., London, 1837. 

4. Compare Hagenbach's Histo7-y of Doctriiies^ edited by Henry B. Smith. 
Vol. 2., pp. 182-195. See also Perry's History of the Church of EnglaJid, pp. 358- 
586, New York, 1880. 


church there were still some who held to the doctrines 
of the Reformed theology, such as Leighton, and Ro- 
bert South. The more distinctive Puritan theology 
was advocated by Charnock, John Bunyan, Rich- 
ard Baxter, John Owen, and John Howe. The 
Scotch divines as a rule, of whom we may mention 
Thomas Boston, and the New England divines of this 
period, such as John Cotton, and Cotton Mather, were 
strict Calvinists. 

There were also other phases of theological opinion 
in England. A Platonizing tendency was represented 
by Ralph Cud worth, and under Latitudinarianism we 
may class such names as ChilHngworth, Tillotson, and 
Samuel Clarke. 

1) Richard Hooker {d. 1600), was one of the most 
eminent divines of the Church of England. His ^^Eccle- 
siastical Polity, ^ more than any other w^ork, has given 
shape to the theology of the English Church. 

2) Richard Field {d. 1616) was an intimate friend 
of Hooker, and in his famous work " Of the Church " ^ 
treats of the nature, members, and government of the 
true Church. He takes the moderate view of the Epis- 

3) Thomas Jackson^ {d. 1640), was originally a 
Calvinist, but became an Arminian. 

4) William Laud^ (beheaded 1644), Archbishop of 
Canterbury, was the great High-Churchman of this 
period, and has been called the ''English Cyprian." 

5) George Bull {d. 1710), Bishop of St. David's, in 
his ^' Defensio Fidei Nicense^^"^ (1685) in a most learned 

5. Best edition by Keble. 

6. Republished in 4 vols., Cambridge, 1847. 

7. His works, of which his Commentaries on the Apostles'' Creed is the best, 
have been republished in 12 vols., Qjiford, 1844. 

8. His works have been republished in 7 vols., Oxford, 1853. 

9. New translation in 2 vols., Oxford, 1851-2. Best edition of his works by 
Burton in 8 vols., Oxford, 1827, 1846. 


manner attempts to show that the orthodox doctrine 
of the Trinity existed fully developed in the Christian 
Church before the Council of Nicaea. 

6) Jeremy Taylor {d. 1667), ''the Chrysostom of 
English theology, but in brilliancy of imagination sur- 
passing his Greek antitype," ^ » was decidedly anti-Cal- 
vinistic and anti-Puritan, and not altogether free from 
Pelagianizing tendencies, but approximated very closely 
to the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments. He is best 
known, however, by his devotional works, such as 
''Holy Living'' and ''Holy Dying;' and his "Life of 

7) Edward Stillingfleet {d. 1699), Bishop of 
Worcester, an able metaphysician as well as theolo- 
gian, was an ardent opponent of Romanism, and took 
an active interest in the Trinitarian controversy of the 

8) Daniel Waterland {d. 1740) was the bold de- 
fender of the orthodox doctrine against the Arians and 
Socinians of his time. Against the views of Samuel 
Clarke he wrote his masterly works on " Christ's 
Divinity" '^K 

9) William Beveridge ^^ (j. 1708), Bishop of St. 
Asaph, has been styled "the great reviver and restorer 
of primitive piety." Among his works we may men- 
tion his "Doctrine of the Church of England" and his 
" Thesaurus Theologicus." 

10) John Pearson {d. 1686), Bishop of Chester, 
was one of the great divines of the Church of England, 
and his great work "Exposition of the Creed" ^^ is a 
standard to this day. 

10. Stoughton in Schaff-Herzog. 

11. His works appeared in a new edition, in 6 vols., 1843. 

12. His works were republished, in 12 vols., Oxford, 1844-48. 

13. Best edition that of Chevallier. 


11) Gilbert Burnet (d. 1715), Bishop of Salisbury, 
mainly known for his historical labors, wrote his ^^Ex- 
position of the Thirty-nine Artie les^^ in 1699. 

12) Robert Leighton {d. 1684), principal of the 
University of Edinburgh, Bishop of Dunblane (1661- 
72), Archbishop of Glasgow (1672-74), was one of the 
noblest characters of his day. 

13) Robert South {d. 1716) was a strong Calvin- 
ist, and though anti-Puritan in civil and ecclesiastical 
polity, was a Puritan in theology. As a preacher few 
in the English Church have ever excelled him. His 
mastery of English is almost unrivalled. 

14) Stephen Charnock (d. 1680) is best known by 
his able ''Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of 
God,^' a work which is an acknowledged masterpiece. 

15) John Bunyan (c/. 1688), a Baptist, through his 
immortal w^ork, the ''Pilgrim's Progress '^ has aided 
greatly in spreading evangelical truths among the 
lowly and ignorant. Coleridge regards this book as 
''incomparably the best Summa, Theologiae Evangelicae 
ever produced by a writer not miraculously inspired." 
Its style is invaluable as a study to every person who 
wishes to obtain a wide command of the English lan- 

16j Richard Baxter (c/. 1691) was noted as a 
preacher, a pastor, a teacher, and a theologian. In- 
clined to Calvinism, he was nevertheless independent 
in his theological views. He sought to find a common 
platform upon which all could meet — Calvinist and 
Arminian, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Protestant 
and Romanist. A most voluminous writer, Baxter is 
mainly known by his '* Saints' Everlasting Rest,'' 
which is only readable in an abridgment of an abridg- 
ment. His chief work -was his " Methodus Theologiae 


Christianas,^^ a Latin work of nine hundred folio pages, 
published in 1681. 

17) John Owen 1* {d. 1683) was the most eminent 
of the Independent divines of this period. He was a 
strong Calvinist, and has written on almost all the- 
ological topics. 

18) John Howe {d. 1705), one of Cromwell's chap- 
lains, through his various works, has left an impress 
on Puritan theology. Robert Hall : "I have learned 
more from John Howe than from any author I ever 

19) Thomas Boston ^^ {d. 1732) exercised a great 
influence over the Presbyterian churches in Scotland 
and England. He is best known by his ^^ Complete 
Body of Divinity,'' and his ''Fourfold State.'' 

20) John Cotton {d. at Boston, 1652), was a volu- 
minous v^riter ^ ^ , and one of the most noted of the Pur- 
itans in America. 

21) Cotton Mather {d. 1728) is the author of 
three hundred and eighty two separate works, of which 
several are elaborate volumes, while the great work of 
his life (in his own view), his Bihlia Americana still re- 
mains in manuscript. 

22) Ralph Cudworth {d. 1688), an English Pla- 
tonist, occupied an intermediate position between the 
Puritanic and Romanizing tendencies of his time, and 
was an able champion of revealed religion against the 
reigning Deism. His fame rests on his great work ''The 
True Intellectual System of the Universe" ^ ''. 

23) William Chillingworth (d. 1644) is best 

14. Latest edition of his works in 17 vols,, Phil'a., 1865-69. 

15. Collected edition of his works in 12 vols., London, 1852. 

16. Dexter in his Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature^ mentions 36 
of his publications. 

17. The occasion of its appearance was the philosophy of Hobbes (1588-1679). 


known by his famous work ^' The Religion of Protest- 
tants a safe way to Salvation,^' which is an able vin- 
dication of Protestantism. ''The Bible, the whole 
Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of 

24) John Tillotson {d. 1694), Archbishop of Can- 
terbury, was a Latitudinarian in his tendencies, being 
influenced partly by the writings of Chillingworth. He 
ranks among the foremost of English preachers, and 
was strongly opposed to popery. 

25) Samuel Clarke {d. 1729), was a philosopher 
as well as theologian, and defended the Newtonian 
philosophy against Leibnitz. His fame chiefly rests 
upon his ^^ Discourse upon the Being and Attributes oi 
God,^^ and his ^^ Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. ^^ 
This last work exposed him to the charge of Arianism. 

e) France. 

The French school of Amyraldists was preceded in 
certain respects by Camergn, as Amyraut was his 
pupil. Its great opponent was Heidegger. The doc- 
trine was renewed by Pajon and Papin. 

1) John Cameron (c7. 1625), professor of theology 
at Saumur (1618) and at Montauban (1624), taught 
the imputation of Christ's passive obedience alone, and 
advocated the theory of what is known as '' hypothetic 
universalism," which was more fully developed by his 
pupil Amyraut. He was not an Arminian, however, as 
is shown by his '' Defensio de gratia et libero arhitrio " 

2) Moses Amyraut (Amyraldus) {d. 1664), profes- 
sor of theology at Saumur (1633-64), in his ''Traite 
de la Predestination " expounded the doctrines of grace 
and predestination not in accordance with the formulas 
of the Synod of Dort. His views have been described 


as ''the combination of a real particularism with a 
merely ideal universalism." The Formula Consensus 
was drawn up against his views in Geneva, 1675. 

3) JoHANN Heinrich Heidegger (d. 1698), professor 
of theology at Heidelberg, Steinfurt (1659), and Zurich 
(1665), was the great opponent of Amyraldism. He 
drew up the Formula Consensus which was adopted 
by the city of Zurich in 1675. His ''Corpus Theolo- 
giae Christianae'^ was often reprinted. 

4) Claude Pajon (d. 1685), for a short time pro- 
fessor of theology at Saumur, is the father of the so- 
called Pajonism, a peculiar development of the doc- 
trinal system of the French Reformed Church. A fol- 
lower of Amyraldus, he denied the immediate concur- 
rence in providence, and the immediate influence of the 
Holy Spirit in conversion. 

5) Isaac Papin (c/. 1709), a pupil of Pajon, departed 
more and more from the Reformed doctrines, and finally 
embraced Romanism, in 1690. 



The dogmatics of this period shows partly a 
reactionary character over against the tradi- 
tionalism and formalism which, in a certain 
measure pervaded Theology, and partly a pro- 
gressive character in which were conflicting ele- 
ments,— the one of which tended to a better life, 
the other toward rationalistic apostasy. 

I . The Dogmatics of Pietism i . 

Pietism denotes a movement in the Lutheran Church 
which arose as a reaction of the living, practical faith 

I. See H. Schmid : Geschichte des Pietismus : ]^6rd.\\nz&n, li^T,. A. Ritschl: 
Geschichte des Pietismus. 2 vols., Bonn, 1880-1884. 


against a dead orthdoxy. It grew from the very prin- 
ciples of the Lutheran Reformation, and would, no 
doubt, have developed, even though there had been no 
dead orthodoxy to react upon. 

JoHANN Valentin Andrew (c/. 1654), a grandson of 
Jacob Andreas {d. 1590) had already waged a polemic 
against the scholasticism and dogmatism of the Lu- 
theran theology of his time, but in the seventeenth cen- 
tury we have only to do with Pietism in its early stage, 
and the whole movement centres around the person of 

Philip Jacob Spener id. 1705) was one of the 
purest and most spotless in character of the theolo- 
gians of the seventeenth century ". In theological culture 

2. During his university course, at Strassburg, he lived a very retired Iife» 
devoting himself entirely to his books. His theological teachers were principally 
Dannhauer, Johann and Sebastian Schmid, the last named being the most 
famous exegete of his day, According to the custom of the times he completed 
his studies by visiting the different universities. He first went to Basel to receive 
instruction of the younger Buxtorf, at that time the most celebrated teacher of 
Hebrew on the Continent. Afterwards he spent a year at Geneva, and also five 
months in Stuttgait and Tuebingen, and his qualities o^ mind and heart gained 
him many friends in Wuertemberg. In 1666, although only thirty one years of age, 
on account of his distinguished talents and rare learning, which was profound, 
thorough, and comprehensive, extending even beyond the sphere of theology and 
philosophy, he was chosen senior pastor in Frankfurt-am-Main. 

Although most heartily attached to the Lutheran Church, he believed that in 
adhering to its then prevalent orthodoxy, it had departed from the earnest, lively 
Gospel of the Reformers, and was in dangei of burying its talent in a sterile the- 
ology of words and dead orthodoxy. He aimed at a reform, and this should con- 
sist in an inner, living theology of the heart, and a demonstration thereof in true 
piety of life. He first of all attempted to revive a thorough system of catechetical 
instruction, and especially attacked the system of mechanical memorizing, which 
was then as common as now. In 1670, after he had been four years in Frankfurt, 
he invited to a kind of friendly re-union in his study, for the purpose of mutual 
edification, the most serious-minded persons in his congregation, and thus con- 
stituted the so-called collegia pietatis. In 1682, twelve years later, Spener was 
able to change his private meetings into public gatherings, and transfer them 
from the study to the church. 

In the meantime he had published (1675) his famous Pia Destderia, in which 
he laments the corruption of the Church, and he recommends six different reme- 


he was equal to any of his contemporaries. It was his 
principle to submit to the Confessions of the Church, 
and even Calovius himself, that great champion of or- 
thodoxy, acknowledged that he found nothing hetero- 
dox in Spener. And such, indeed is the case, for he is in 
perfect harmony and accord with the greatest theolo- 
gian of them all, Johann Gerhard. 

It was Spener who gave character to Pietism in its 
first stages, but he cannot be called the father of Piet- 
ism as it was developed later at Halle and elsewhere. 

In the department of Dogmatics, the Pietistic School 
originated very little. Though Spener 's list of v^orks 
embraces seven volumes folio, sixty-three in quarto, 

dies. These remedies were : i) The spreading of a more general and more inti- 
mate acquaintance with the Bible, by means of private gatherings; 2) Laying 
more stress upon the universal priesthood of believers, and using the co-operation 
of laymen in the spiritual guidance of the congregation; 3) Emphasizing the fact 
that a knowledge of Christianity must be accompanied by a corresponding Christ- 
ian practice, in order to be of any value; 4) Instead of attacking heretics and in- 
fidels with merely doctrinal and generally more or less embittered polemics, we 
should use love as cur motive power; 5) A re-organization of theological study, 
so as to make a godly life as important a part of the preparation for ministerial 
work, as study and learning; 6) A new manner of preaching, — a return to the 
earnest method of Apostolical times. 

This work of Spener found an echo in many hearts in Germany, and Spener 
ever afterwards adhered to these six propositions, and defended them against all 

The first opposition to Spener came from the University of Leipsic, under the 
leadership of Johann Benedict Carpzov and Alberti, which was aggravated by the 
founding of the new University at Halle, which immediately became the home of 
Pietism, and was thronged by crowds of students. It was at Halle that Francke, 
Breithaupt, and Anton, as members of the theological faculty, exerted such a wide 
influence as the later leaders of the pietistic movement. 

The Pietistic controversy, in contrast with the thorough theological discus- 
sions of previous decades, was entirely of a personal and bitter character, and the 
opponents of Spener do not appear to a good advantage. Deutschmann, the 
senior of the Faculty at Wittenberg, did more harm than good to his cause, when 
in his Christlutherische Vorstellung (1695) he accused Spener of two hundred 
and eighty-three heresies. All these accusations, and the various other polemical 
writings, Spener answered in a becoming spirit, and in 1705 he peacefully entered 
into his final rest. 


seven in octavo, and forty-six in duodecimo, still they 
are mainly practical. Joachim Justus Breithaupt {d. 
1732), professor of theology at Halle (1691-1704), 
where together with Francke and Anton, he gave the 
whole theological study its peculiar character and 
tendency, published ^^ Institutiones Theologicae^'' ^, and 
^^ Theses credendorum et agendorum fundatnentales^^ 
(1700). The lectures of Paul Anton (c/. 1730) ''Col- 
legium Antitheticum,'^ based on the *' Theses ^^ of Breit- 
haupt, were published after his death in 1732. 

JoHANN Anastasius Freylinghausen * (d. 1739) 
was also one of the leaders of the Pietistic movement 
in Germany, and succeeded Augustus Hermann Francke 
(c/. 1727), the founder of the Orphan House at Halle, 
in 1727. His principal theological work, " Grundlegung 
der Theologie^'' (1703) is noted for its piety and practi- 
cal tendency, in opposition to the dry and cold scholas- 
ticism which then prevailed in the German Universities. 

JoHANN Jakob Rambach {d. 1735), professor of the- 
ology at Halle and Giessen, exercised a considerable in- 
fluence as a mediator between Pietism and the Wolffian 
philosophy. His '' Schriftmassige Erklarung der Grun- 
dlegung der Theologie^' was published by Freyling- 
hausen in 1738. 

Joachim Lange {d. 1744), professor of theology at 
Halle after 1709, was the literary representative of the 
Pietists. In his controversy with the orthodox Church, 
in which Lange acted as spokesman of the Pietists, 
he was far from being a match for Valentin Ernst 
LosCHER (d. 1749,) the acknowledged leader of the 

3. 2 vols. Halle, 1694; much enlarged, 3 vols. 1732. 

4. His most valuable productions are 44 Hymns, He also published one of 
the best German Hymn Books. 2 vols. Halle, 1704 and 17 13. The historical sig- 
nificance of this collection consists in its pietistic spirit, and the introduction of the 
element of subjective devotion as a supplement to the older, more objective, and 
churchly hymns of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 


orthodox party, the author oi^^Timotheus Verinus,^' of 
which the first part appeared in 1718, and the second 
in 1722. Loscher accused the Pietists of being indiffer- 
ent to the truths of revelation systematized in the sym- 
bolical books, of depreciating the sacraments and the 
ministerial office, of obscuring the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith by asserting that good works were neces- 
sarily connected with saving faith, its evidence, indeed, 
— and he altogether rejected the chiliastic, terminis- 
tic, and perfectionistic doctrines which had developed 
among the Pietists ^ . In almost every point there was 
some reason for the opposition of Loscher. and he was 
not a mere dogmatist ; on the contrary, he advocated 
the cause of practical piety almost with as much 
warmth as the Pietists themselves. 

Nevertheless, the fundamental ideas of Spener and 
his followers were too intimately related to the very 
principles of the Reformation, not to find a wide ac- 
ceptance. In less than half a century Pietism spread 
its influence through all spheres of life, and through all 
classes of society ; and though it had to give way, in 
Northern Germany, to the rising rationalism, it found 
a new home in Southern Germany. What Spener, 
Francke, Anton, Breithaupt, Arnold, and others had 
been to Prussia and Saxony, Bengel, Weismann, Oetin- 
ger, Hahn and others were to Wuertemberg and Baden. 

To the period of the later Pietism belong three ten- 
dencies which stand in part in a reciprocal operation 
with it. These are the Biblical, the Historical, and the 
Philosophical tendencies. 

2. The Biblical Tendency. 

This tendency has its home by pre-eminence in Wuer- 
temberg. Among its most prominent representatives 

5. See Riggenbach in Schaff-Herzog under Pietism. 


we may mention Bengel, Crusius, Oetinger, Rieger and 
Rods. % 

1) JoHANN Albrecht Bengel ^ (c/.1752), by the 
publication of his '^ Greek Testament^' and an ^^Ap- 
paratus Criticus^' (1734), laid the foundation for the 
science of Textual Criticism. His famous canon was, 
''The more difficult reading is to be preferred." This 
work was followed by his ^^ Gnomon Novi Testamentr^^ 
(1742), which remains to this day ''a treasure-house 
of exposition delivered in sentences whose point, clear- 
ness, brevity, and wondrous depth of meaning, render 
them not only worthy of patient study, but a part of 
the mental stores of the attentive student." His main 
principle of interpretation was ''to put nothing into 
the Scriptures, but to draw everything from them, and 
suffer nothing to remain hidden that is really in them." 
His motto was : Te totum applica ad textum ; rem 
totam applica ad te. With a profound reverence for 
the Bible, with an acuteness which let nothing escape 
him, and in strict conformity to grammatical rules, but 
untrammeled by dogmatical or symbolical considera- 
tions, he sought to find out the exact meaning of Scrip- 
ture. His exegetical principles left their impress upon 
his dogmatic system (for in theology he was but a 
moderate Lutheran), and this displays itself most fully 
in his view« of the historical development of the king- 
dom of God, and in his realistic interpretation of the 
Book of Revelation. 

2) Christian August Crusius {d. 1775), professor 
of theology at Leipsic (1750-75), v^as the staunch ad- 
versary of the Wolffian philosophy, and in theology he 

ij Compare Burk : Memoir of Life and Writings of fohn Albert Bengel. 
From the German. London, 1837; Wachter: y. A. BettgeVs Lebensabriss. Stutt- 
gart, 1865. 

2. There are three English translations. 


defended the tradition of the Church, as an element in 
true exegesis, against Ernesti, whose exegetical princi- 
ple admitted only a purely grammatical interpretation. 
The views of Crusius are most fully presented in his 
'' Hypomnemata ad theologiam propheticam^' '\ 

3) Friedrich Christoph Oetinger* (d. 1782), the 
great Swabian theosophist of the eighteenth century, 
exercised a great influence in the pietistic circles of Wiir- 
temberg. Bengel, with whom he corresponded, became 
his ideal in theology, Boehme, in philosophy, and at a 
later time, Swedenborg, He sought to construct a 
sacred philosophy, and to find out by investigation 
the original, living essence of truth, by studying the 
two Bibles, — nature, and the Word of God. All efforts 
to separate him from the Lutheran Church proved una- 
vailing, and in his old age, he said that his entire theol- 
ogy was concentrated in Luther's Catechism. In Wlir- 
temberg he had many followers, and he exerted a great 
influence over Schelling and von Baader. The peasant 
Michael Hahn was one of his most remarkable follow- 
ers, and diffused his doctrines among the people ^. 

4) Georg Conrad Rieger {d. 1743) was one of the 
most celebrated preachers of the pietistic school, and 
his sermons are still much read in Wlirtemberg. 

5) Magnus Friedrich Rocs {d. 1803), was a pupil 
of Bengel, and exercised great influence not only by his 
writings, but also by his magnetic personality. His 
'' Christ Hche Glauhenslehre'^ is still much read in Wlir- 
temberg (last edition 1860). 

3. Part I. General Introduction, 1764; Part II. On select passages, 1771; 
Part III, On Isaiah, 1779. See also Franz Delitzsch : Die biblisch-proph. The- 
ologie^ ihre Fortbildung durch Crusius^ etc, Leipsic, 1845. 

4. Compare his Selbstbiographie, edited by Hamberger, Stuttgart, 1845; also 
Auberlen : '■'■ Oetinger'' s Theosophie nach ihren Grundsaetzen,''^ Tuebingen, 1847^ 

5. See Auberlen in Schaf-Herzog, 


3. The Historical Tendency. 

Out of the conflicts between the orthodox and piet- 
istic school, arose what may be called the historical 
school. The theologians of this school sought to unite 
Lutheran orthodoxy with free investigation, true schol- 
arship with religious fervor, strict confessionalism with 
anirenic spirit. Among the most important theologians 
of this tendency we may mention Buddeus,Pfaflf, Walch, 
and Mosheim. Three others, also belonging to this 
school, Ernesti, Michaelis, and Semler, though still be- 
lieving in a divine revelation, nevertheless by their prin- 
ciples of interpretation, prepared the way for the ad- 
mission of Rationalism into theology. 

1) JoHANN Franz Buddeus {d. 1729), professor of 
theology at Jena after 1705, was a man of genuine 
piety and immense learning. He sought to harmonize 
orthodoxy and pietism. He was distinguished for his 
fidelity to the faith of the Church, and his firmness and 
moderation towards those who dissented from it. He 
wrote more than a hundred books, some of which are 
still acknowledged authorities. Especially important 
are his '' Institutiones theol. dogm.'' (1723), '' Instit. 
theol. moralis^^ (1711), and ^^ Isagoge hist, ad theol. 
universam (1727). 

2) Christof Matthaeus Pfaff {d. 1760) professor 
of theology at Tubingen (1714-56), and at Giessen 
(1756-60), was a man of great accomplishments and 
exercised a large influence as a teacher. He was very 
active in promoting a union between the Reformed and 
Lutheran Churches, and his doctrinal standpoint was 
more liberal than the prevailing orthodoxy, as is evi- 
dent from his ^^ Institutiones theologiae^^ (1719). 

3) JoHANN Georg Walch (d. 1775), professor of 
theology at Jena after 1724, took an active part in the 


philosophical controversy between Buddeus and Wolff, 
and in his ^^ Pbilosophiscbes Lexicon ^^ departs from 
Lutheran orthodoxy, opening the way on one side for 
pietism, and on the other for rationalism ^ 

4) JoHANN LoRENZ YON MosHEiM (d. 1755), profe^- 
sor of theology at Helmstadt (1723-47), and at Got- 
tingen (1747-54) was the most learned theologian of 
the Lutheran Church of his day. As a theologian he 
was opposed to the confessional orthodoxy on the 
ground that theology would thus be excluded from 
scientific culture. Mosheim made contributions to 
nearly every branch of theological science, but is best 
known by his works in the department of Church His- 

5) JoHANN August Ernesti (d. 1781), professor of 
theology at Leipsic after 1758, enjoyed great fame as a 
classical philologist, and in his '' Institutio Interpretis 
N, T." 2 (1761), applied the same principles of interpre- 
tation to the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, thus 
founding the grammatico — historical school of inter- 
pretation. Though Ernesti held to the doctrines of the 
Church and believed in inspiration, still he has rightly 
been called the father of rationalistic exegesis, and his 
principles undermined the old dogmatical method of 

6) JoHANN David Michaelis {d. 1791), professor of 
theology at Gottingen after 1745, bore the same rela- 
tion to the Old Testament as Ernesti did to the New, 
and was by no means a pillar for the waning ortho- 

1. The principal works of Walch are i) Einleitung in die Religionsstreitig- 
keiten ausser der evang. luth. Kirche, (5 vols. 1733-36); 2) Einleitung, etc. inner- 
half a er evang. luth. Kirche, 5 vols. 1730-39; and an edition of Luther's Works 
in 24 vols. Halle, 1740-52. 

2. Translated into English and published in the Biblical Cabi?iet, Edinburgh, 


doxy of the times, for in theology he departed widely 
from the Lutheran orthodoxy, and openly acknowl- 
edged that he knew nothing of the internal testimony 
of the Holy Spirit. His ''Commentaries on the Laws 
of Moses'' (4 vols. London, 1810), and his ''Introduc- 
tion to the New Testament'' (6 vols. London, 1823), 
have been translated into English. Kurtz: **Noman 
was a ^eater master than he in the art of substituting 
his own empty, superficial, and conceited views for 
those of the sacred authors, and then to explain them 
at great length. His ' Commentaries on the Laws of 
Moses ' is a classic in this respect." 

7) JoHANN SoLOMO Semler ^ (1791), profcssor of 
theology at Halle after 1757, was a forerunner of 
Rationalism in a still greater degree than Ernesti and 
Michaelis. Endowed with great gifts, but without any 
depth of spiritual character,' he undermined the pillars 
of orthodoxy, without wishing to touch Christianity 
itself, by disputing the genuineness of certain books of 
the Bible, by laying down a peculiar theory of inspira- 
tion and accommodation to the peculiar views of the 
New Testament Times, which allowed error and delu- 
sion in Scripture, and by treating the history of dog- 
matics in such a way as if the doctrines of the Church 
were the result of misconception, and want of judg- 
ment. He wrote one hundred and seventy one separ- 
ate works, only two of which, however, reached a sec- 
ond edition. He sowed the wind and reaped a whirl- 
wind, and when the storm of rationalism began to 
rage, Semler died of a broken heart. 

4. The Philosophical Tendency. 

This tendency had its origin mainly in Wolff. The 
great stimulating minds in philosophy had been Descar- 

3. See H. Schmid; Bt'e Theologie Setnlers. Nordlingen, 1858. 


tes, Spinoza and Leibnitz. Wolff developed and meth- 
odized the system of Leibnitz. Theological representa- 
tives of the philosophical tendency are Reinbeck, S. J. 
Baumgarten and Toellner. 

The philosophy of Descartes * (1596-1650) is 
neither a Catholic nor a Protestant philosophy, and 
gave rise to tv^o tendencies, the one pantheistic, the 
other theistic. It was Spinoza (1632-77) who trans- 
formed the dualism of Descartes into a pantheism, 
whose fundamental conception was the unity of sub- 
stance. He has greatly impressed himself upon much of 
the subtlest speculation of our century. Fichte, Schell- 
ing, Schleiermacher, Hegel, and many others, ow^e very- 
much to him. In fact, Spinoza has largely contributed 
to the various phases of pantheism so current in our 
day, and his influence upon our own time is larger than 
upon his own. 

The immortal Leibnitz (1646-1716), the father of 
German philosophy, at once one of the most independ- 
ent thinkers and one of the profoundest scholars of his 
age, and of all time, exerted a great influence upon the 
theology and general culture of the eighteenth century, 
chiefly through his famous ''Theodicy (1710), in which 
he attempted to demonstrate the agreement of reason 
with faith, and to vindicate God in view of the evil in 
the world, maintaining that there is a harmony be- 
tween the kingdom of nature and grace. His philoso- 
phy was theistic and was directed pre-eminently to- 
ward the union of the theological and cosmological 
conceptions of the world. 

Christian Wolff (1679-1754), adopting the the- 
ories of Leibnitz, modifying them partly with ideas 
derived from Aristotle, so systematized them, and pro- 

4. See/. 202. 


vided them with demonstrations, that he founded a 
comprehensive system of philosophy. This was done 
with such talent and ability, that nearly all the disci- 
ples of Leibnitz in Germany were influenced by him, 
and the school was and still is designated as the Leib- 
nitz- Wolfiian. This philosophy became more and more 
prevalent and opened the way for the theological Ra- 
tionalism, which was afterwards more fully developed 
by Kant and his school. 

The earlier followers of Wolff remained faithful to 
the doctrine of the Church. Joh. Gust. Reinbeck 
(1682-1741) prefixed to his reflections on the truths 
contained in the Augsburg Confession a preface on the 
use of reason and philosophy in theology. Sigmund 
Jacob Baumgarten (1706-1757), professor of theol- 
ogy at Halle after 1730, exerted a wide influence as a 
teacher. By adopting the formal scheme of the philos- 
ophy of Wolfl", and applying it to the theological ideas 
of Pietism, he formed the transition from the pietism 
of Spener and Francke to the modern rationalism. But 
it was especially Johann Gottl. Tollner {d. 1774) 
who first opened the way for the introduction of Ra- 
tionalism into dogmatic theology. He taught ''that 
God leads man to happiness already by natural revel- 
ation," and that the revelation of Scripture is only a 
more certain and perfect means thereto. He also found 
no trace of inspiration in the Bible, since the sacred 
authors thought and wrote without any special divine 

5. The History of Dogmatics outside of Germany. 

This is the best place to present a brief outline of the 
history of theology outside of Germany, during the 
eighteenth century. On the whole, nearly all the Prot- 
estant countries took very little notice of the conflicts 


going on there. In England the principles of Arianism 
were taught by Samuel Clarke {d. 1729), and the Uni- 
tarian controversy was continued by Joseph Priest- 
ley (d. 1804, having come to the United States in 
1794), whose great opponent, Samuel Horsley {d. 
1806), was more than a match for him, ''his spear 
having pierced the Socinian's shield," as Gibbon ex- 
presses it. 

Among the more prominent dogmatic writers of the 
Church of England we may mention Daniel Water- 
land 1 (d. 1740), Thomas Stackhouse ^ (d. 1752), 
Thomas Secker (d. 1768), Augustus Montague Top- 
lady (d. 1778), William Warburton ^ (d. 1779), Jones 
ofNayland(c/. 1800), and George Tomline*(c/. 1827). 
Among the Baptists, John Gill^ {d. 1771) takes the 
highest rank. 

Of the three new sects ^ that originated in the eight- 
eenth century, by far the most powerful and influential 
took its rise in England. John Wesley {d. 1791) and 
John William Fletcher {d. 1785) laid the founda- 
tions of Wesleyan Arminianism, while George White- 
field {d. 1770) became the father of the Welsh or Cal- 
vinistic branch of Methodism. 

Of the theologians of the eighteenth century no one 
was superior to Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758), the 

1. The bold defender of the Church Doctrine against the Arians and Socin- 
iaas of his time. See/. 206. 

2. His "Complete Body of Divinity" (1729) reached a third edition in 1755. 

3. His famous work " The Divine Legation of Moses " was written agaifist 
the Deists. 

4. His '-Elements of Christian Theology" (2 vols. London, 1799; 14th ed. 
1943), is one of the standard works of theology in the Church of England. 

5. In his '• Body of Divinity" (3 vols. 1769; new ed. London, 1839), he takes 
a strong Calvinistic ground, but is violently opposed to Infant Baptism. 

6. Methodism founded by yo/m Wesley^ the Unitas Fratrum or Moravians, 
resuscitated by Count Zinzendor/ {d. at Herrnhut, 1760), and the New Jerusalem 
Church founded by Ema7iuel Swedenborg {d. 1772). 


most distinguished divine of America, who was the 
great defender of Calvinism against all the objections 
raised by Arminianism, and the founder of the so-called 
'' New England Theology." 



This was a period in which there seemed to be 
a life struggle between the revealed testimony of 
God and the self-asserting Kationalism of man. 
In it the defense of truth was impaired by the 
unconscious demoralization of the spirit of the 
times, in the very men who attempted to repre- 
sent and defend the truth. 

I. The Illumination falsely so-called, i 

1) In England. 

Deism flourished in England during the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries, and was an indirect product 
of the tendencies at work within the Church of Eng- 
land. Deism has been defined as the exaltation of Nat- 
ural Religion, so as to make it the normal rule of all 
positive religions. 

Eminent in this school v^as Lord Herbert of 
Cherbury (d. 1648), who was free from the usual lev- 
ity of the Deists and attempted with serious earnest- 
ness, and as he thought for the glory of God, in his two 
principal works, De Veritate (1624) and Be religione 
Gentilium (1645), to show that natural religion is the 
heart of all religions and sufficient for salvation with- 
out Revelation. 

I. Compare Lechler: Geschichte des engl, ZJ^/jwaj. Stuttgart, 1841; Farrar: 
A Critical History of Free Thought. New York, 1881; Hurst: History of Ra- 
tionalism. Ninth revised edition. New York. Cairns: Unbelief in the Eighteenth 
Century. Edinburgh, 1881. 


The tendency of Herbert was developed with consid- 
erable ability and with marked effect by a number of 
Deistical writers, among whom ^were Anthony Col- 
lins (1729), Matthew Tindal {d. 1733), called the 
" Great Apostle of Deism," whose chief work ^^Christ- 
ianity as Old as the Creation^' (1730), may be called 
the Deist's Primer, Lord Bolinghoke {d. 1751), Dayid 
Hume (d. 1776), and others of the same school. 

The general position of this school was that the 
Bible was full of absurdities and of statements and 
principles conflicting with morality, — that the tradi- 
tional Christianity of the Church was for the most 
part a work either of weak or hypocritical men. 

2) In France. 

In France Jean Jacques Rousseau {d. 1778) ap- 
peared, writing in a charming style, demanding a re- 
turn to nature in all the relations of life. His works 
present the dream of a poet. The Christianity he ac- 
kno^edges is mere natural religion, and this kind of 
Christianity he defends with great ardor in his ^^Pro- 
fession de Foi da Vicaire Savoyard, ^^ in '' Emile.^^ 

Voltaire {d. 1778) has not the refinement of feeling 
nor the delicacy of style which characterize Rousseau. 
He shows a personal hatred to Christ, and with his 
poisonous satire attempts to render ridiculous the Holy 
Scriptures. These two great writers and their imita- 
tors controlled educated France. What they still left 
of the general religious ideas of men, belief in God, 
recognition of a realm of truth and virtue, w^as thrown 
to the winds by the Materialism which followed them. 
These older infidels became by comparison almost rela- 
tively orthodox. The leaders of the coarser infidelity 
were Diderot (d. 1784), D'Alembert {d. 1783), Hel- 
VETius {d. 1771), and others. 


3) In Germany. 

The witty frivolity of the French found a lodgment 
in the court of Frederick II of Germany (King of Prus- 
sia from 1740-86), and through the influence of the 
court more and more exercised a baneful influence upon 
the people. The watchword of the time, in all spheres 
of thought, was the word ''Illumination," and the 
centre or focus of this light was Berlin. 

4) The development in Theology. 

While this movement was taking place in the outside 
world, a development in theology correspondent with 
it, took place. Among the perverters of truth two 
names are conspicuous, first, the frivolous Bahrdt, and 
the other, the more earnest but no less negative Reim- 

Bahrdt {d. 1792) was a man of no ordinary talent, 
and full of activity. He wrote about 126 books, but a 
mere trifler in science, a man lewd in life, passing over 
first from Crusius to Ernes ti, seeking to do away with 
the doctrines of the Church, under pretense of develop- 
ing a Biblical system {'^ Dogmatics ^^^ 1768). Subse- 
quently, advancing still further he tried to show that 
Scripture itself can be of no use in the establishment of 
right faith {''Newest Revelations,'' 1772), and finally 
went over completely on the side of those who ac- 
knowledge nothing but Natural Religion {'' Moral Re- 
ligion,'' 1787). He made morality the basis of all re- 
ligion, and offered himself, the most immoral of men, 
as teacher of Morals to mankind. 

Reimaurus {d. 1768) first appeared as a defender of 
the doctrine of the existence and attributes of God, 
from the wise constitution of nature. An assailant of 
Atheism and Spinozism, he subsequently introduced 
English Deism into Germany by means of a work pub- 


lished after his death by Lessing,— the famous " Wolien- 
biittel Fragments'' (1774-78), which claim to be an 
apology for the rationalistic worship of God. In this 
work Reimaurus attempted to show the irrationality 
and immorality of a large portion of Scripture and of 
Biblical characters, and the contradiction especially in 
the narratives of the Evangelists. 

These attacks upon revealed Religion were met in- 
deed and answered, nevertheless the thought which 
lay at the bottom of this movement, — the reduction 
of revealed religion to the standard of nature, — con- 
stantly gained ground. This was partly due to the in- 
fluence of the so-called popular philosophy, into which 
the philosophy of Wolff had run out, a philosophy in 
which the lighter tone of conversation had taken the 
place of that of the heavy mathematical demonstra- 
tion. Mendelssohn {d. 1786) and others represented 
this philosophy. 

Over against this intellectual tendency, the feeble 
supporters of the position of the older Church knew 
no better w^ay than to make concessions. These pro- 
fessed defenders of orthodoxy talked much of the bonds 
which held together reason and faith, and the result 
was that illogical mixed theology, which was neither 
rationalistic nor orthodox, — too rationalistic to be 
orthodox, too orthodox to be rationalistic, and was 
thus at once neither and both. Lessing {d. 1781) hated 
it so thoroughly that he declared that the old ortho- 
doxy would be far more acceptable than this mongrel 

Among the representatives of this enfeebling of the 
Church doctrine may be mentioned Seiler {d. 1807), 
DoDERLEiN {d, 1789), MoRus {d. 1792), Gruner {d, 
1778) and Teller {d. 1804). 


This whole efFort to render the Christian doctrine 
more rational, obtained a fixed principle through the 
labors of Kant. 

2. Kant. 

Among the greatest names in modern philosophy is 
that of Immanuel Kant {d. 1804). His influence has 
been felt in every department of thought, and for a 
time at least was a special power in the domain of the- 
ology. He reasoned out from a critique of the faculty 
of cognition, and deduced from it the conceptions of 
space and time, the categories of the understanding, 
the ideas of reason, which he maintained are purely 
subjective and afforded no objective certainty. He 
maintained that we cannot demonstrate the existence 
of God,— that the ordinary proofs of it are untenable- 
Pure reason can make no affirmation in regard to God. 
These views he maintained in his ''Critique of Pure 
Reason'' (1781). 

On the other hand, according to him, God is a pos- 
tulate of the Practical Reason. Man, as a theorizer 
can reach no conception of God, but man as a being of 
moral activity is driven to a recognition of a Supreme 
Being. Conscience demands unconditional recognition 
of the moral law of God. But with the world of virtue, 
the world of impulse, desire and passion, is in conflict, 
and yet is equally essential to it ; we cannot remove the 
dissonance of the two worlds by destroying either. This 
conflict demands a harmonizing, which will be brought 
about by God, after death. The essential substance of 
religion he upholds to be 1) God, 2) virtue, 3) immor- 
tality. These principles he develops in his work, '^ Re- 
ligion within the bounds of Mere Reason'' (1793). In 
accordance with these principles we are to form our 
judgment of every form of religion and by them are to 
vindicate the pre-eminence of Christianity. 


In these views Kant gave expression to the domi- 
nant tendency of his time, and although his views were 
of a decidedly Pelagian character, they yet gave rise to 
a relatively greater moral earnestness. 

3. Vulgar Rationalism. 

The vulgar Rationalism was the product of these 
two elements, the illumination on the side, the Kantian 
philosophy on the other, meeting and fusing in the 
sphere of theology. Its essence has been defined to be 
the union of the deistic religion of Reason, with posi- 
tive Protestanism. It proposed to reform Christianity 
in accordance with the wants of the time and the de- 
mand of what was then passing for reason. It was 
not so much a set of doctrines or even of negations, as 
a method of interpretation ; it fixed the reason of men 
as the absolute standard, adjusted revelation by it and 
forced the texts to accord with what it assumed to be 

In the Rationalism of the Eighteenth Century all the 
faith was submitted to the dominant culture of the 
times. The spurious illumination of the age deter- 
mined the position of Scripture, of the doctrine of the 
Church, and of revelation in general. On the question 
of the necessity of revelation, in the strict sense of the 
word. Rationalism really made the same decision as 
Deism, that is, it denied revelation in the strict sense, 
and the revelation it seemed to grant and to patronize 
was a figment of its own, at least the result of a mere 
ordinary providence, -svith nothing supernatural in it. 

The Dogmaticians of this tendency appeared with 
more or less closeness to Kant. Among these we may 
mention Tieftrunk (professor of philosophy at Halle, 
d. 1837), Henke (professor of theology at Helmstadt, 
1780-1809), Staudlin (professor of theology at Qot- 


tingen, 1790-1826), Rohr (court-preacher at Weimar, 
1820-1848), and Wegscheider (professor of theology 
at Halle, 1810-1849). 

Wegscheider was the chief dogmatician of Rational- 
ism 1 . His views are in brief these : Christ is a man, 
who obtained for himself the just claims to the title of 
the Son of God. His death is a symbol of the fact that 
sacrifices are abrogated, but is not to be abused as a 
plaster for the conscience of bad and morally corrupt 
men. God is no blood-thirsty Moloch, and all the sin- 
ner needs is the reformation of his life. The resurrec- 
tion of Christ is the resuscitation from seeming death, 
a distinguished proof of the existence of divine provi- 
dence. The ascension of Christ is a tradition, like that 
of Romulus and others. The righteousness before God 
is obtained not by outward works, but neither is it ob- 
tained by mere faith, but through the gracious state of 
feeling which pleases God. This is possible, for original 
sin is a gloomy figment. The operation of the Word 
is a natural one. There is no such thing as a super- 
natural operation of the Spirit in man. Reformation is 
a work of personal activity, the Sacraments are mere 
symbols. Baptism is a rite of consecration and initia- 
tion, and the Lord's Supper is a memorial meal. The 
doctrine concerning "the Last Things " reduces itself to 
faith in a future state of rewards and punishments. 

This, says Luthardt, is the Dogmatics of Rational- 
ism. Others attempted to approximate somewhat 
more closely the doctrine of the Church, without how- 
ever, abandoning the rationalistic basis. Such were 
Ammon (1766-1850), Bretschneider (1776-1848), 
and TzsCHiRNER (professor of theology at Leipsic, d. 
1828). But whatever may be the relative moderation 

I. See his Instit. theol. Christ, dog,, 1815. 8th edition, 1844. 


of this School, the point of view is substantially the 
same as the other. The distinctions are only those of 

Karl Hase, in his ^'Theologische Streitschriften " 
(1834-37), has left to the vulgar rationalism nothing 
whatever to stand on, and there is not at this hour, in 
Germany, a solitary theologian of commanding posi- 
tion who adheres to the old Vulgar Rationalism. That 
which swept over Germany like a flood has passed 
away, and left nothing but memorials of the death 
which it brought with it. 

4. Supranaturalism. 

Supranaturalism maintains the necessity and actual- 
ity of positive revelation, and acknowledges the revela- 
tion furnished in Scripture as the norm of religious 
truth. Often, however, it has been a little more than 
a certain compromise between Reason and Revelation. 
The Scripture indeed was to decide, but Reason never- 
theless determined in various ways what is essential in 
Scripture, so that the dogmatic result was not as com- 
pletely distinct from that of Rationalism, as the uncon- 
ditional recognition of the supremacy of God's Word 
would have made it. This was the middle tendency of 
the so-called Supranaturalistic Rationalism and Ra- 
tionalistic Supranaturalism, which may be likened to 
chemical compounds which have the same parts in the 
same proportion, with diversity of arrangement. 

Franz Volkmar Reinhard {d. 1812) exercised the 
greatest influence as a preacher, and in his sermons ^ he 
maintained that we must either hold entirely to Reason 
or entirely to Scripture, and that it is impossible to co- 

I. His collected sermons comprise 35 volumes. His Confessions, translated 
into English, in which he presents the history of his own development as a 
preacher, is of value. 


ordinate them, for to be logical we are compelled to 
subordinate the one to the other. Yet even in the case of 
Reinhard, the relation to revelation and to the doctrine 
of Scripture was too external, and his understanding 
of the Church Doctrine was very defective. 

George Christian Knapp {d. 1825), professor of 
theology at Halle (1777), and director of the Francke 
Institution (1785), occupies the same general position 
as Reinhard, but with a closer approximation to the 
doctrines of the Church. His chief work, ''Lectures on 
Christian Theology, ^^ was translated into English by 
Leonard Woods, ^ and has been widely used. 

August Hahn {d. 1863) was one of the last represent- 
atives of the old Supranaturalism, but in the second 
edition of his '' Lehrhuch des Christlichen Glaubens^^ 
(1857), the influence of the positive Church renewal 
of theology shows itself. 

As Reinhard represented Supranaturalism in the 
north, GoTTLOB Christian Storr {d. 1805), professor 
of theology at Tubingen after 1777, represented it in 
the south of Germany. His chief work, '' Doctrinae 
christians pars theoretical' ^ shows pre-eminently the 
biblical tendency of the Wilrtemberg or Old Tubingen 
School, and is still valuable as a book of reference. 

JoHANN Friedrich Flatt (d. 1812) and Friedrich 
Gottlieb Suskind (d. 1829), the immediate followers 
of Storr, and able representatives of the Old Tubingen 
School, sought by emphasizing the Bible as the only 
source of the knowledge of the faith, to establish and 
vindicate the doctrine of the Church, by a moderate 
biblical interpretation. 

2. 2 vols. Andover, 1831-33. 

3. Appeared in 1793, was translated into German, with extensive explana- 
tions and additions, by jF/a^i, in 1803, and this last was translated by S. S. 
Schmucker of Gettysburg, under the title, " Biblical Theology of Storr and Flati" 
(2 vols. Andover, 1826. Reprinted in England, 1845). 


This tendency ^was represented in polemic antithesis 
toward the philosophical perversion of the Christian 
faith by Steudel {d. 1837), professor of theology at 
Tubingen after 1815. In his ^^ Lehrbegriff der evang. 
protest. Kirche^' (1834), he has throughout reference 
to Schleiermacher and Hegel, against whose views he 
directs his polemic. 

JoHANN Tobias Beck {d. 1878), professor of theology 
at Tubingen after 1843, returned decisively and com- 
pletely to the standpoint of the Old Tubingen School, 
and is the ablest modern representative of the Wiirtem- 
berg or Pietistic School of Bengel, Oetinger and Roos. 
His views are presented in his two works, ^' Einleit- 
ung in das System der christ. Lehre'' (1838, 2nd ed., 
1870), ''Die christ. Lehrwissenschaft '' (1 Th. die 
Logik der christ. Lehre, 1841, 2nd ed., 1875). His 
thought and style are heavy and dull, but his matter 
is of great intrinsic value. He contends that theology 
shall be completely separated from all the philosophy 
and the culture of the time, and this he would accom- 
plish by binding and establishing it upon the Scriptures, 
but he does this in a way, which shows that he has a 
wrong conception with regard to the operation of the 
Holy Spirit in the Church, of the witnesses of the 
Church, and of the history of the Church, and he has 
so completely ignored the dogmatic labors of others as 
to have had comparatively limited influence upon the 
development of theology. 

On the whole, Supranaturalism, though opposed to 
Rationalism and contending for much peculiar to the 
old faith of the Church, shared also in the infection of 
the time and abandoned much. It did not build up so 
well as it fought. And Pietism in its noblest form is 
never well fitted to take up arms in defence of Revela- 


tion,— on the contrary, in its farther development it 
generally shows a tendency towards rationalism. It 
takes a much greater interest in life than in doctrine, 
and is indeed adverse to the scholastic form in which 
the orthodox system is presented; it is lukewarm to 
the idea of pure doctrine for purity's own sake, and on 
account of this indifferentism to the extension of truth 
for truth's own sake, pietism may come to consider 
Scripture simply a practical means to a practical end, 
and not keep the source of all truth ever flowing. It is 
unionistic in its tendency, and is so firmly determined 
to make religion, first and foremost, a practical issue, 
that it sometimes shrinks into a narrow brotherhood 
of the faithful, with no interest for the Church Univer- 
sal. In fact, even at its best estate, Pietism has always 
lacked certain elements of the highest form of Lutheran 
Christianity, and is simply a pure Christianity in a 
feeble, feverish state of health, lacking force, freshness, 
largeness, and positiveness of doctrine, and is never 
able to cope with error and rationalism, with any hope 
of success. 



The Dogmatics of the most recent times is 
marked by depth and geniality and by the 
struggle between the mediating and the strictly 
logical and churchly tendencies. 

I. The Renewal of Religious Faith. 

The renewal of the religious faith and life, as it was 
called forth by the earnestness of the time, in the first 
decennial of our century, in Germany, had at first a 
merely general Christian character. Gradually, how- 


ever, under the influence of the historic feeling which is 
strongly characteristic of our era, and which has made 
itself felt in every department of scientific life, it went 
back to the life of faith in the past, in order to con- 
nect itself in unity with it. There were two paths on 
which the return was made to positive theology and 
to the doctrine of the Church: 1) that of philosophical 
thinking, and 2) that of emotion. 

2. The Philosophy of this Period. 

Philosophy had advanced from the criticism of Kant 
{d. 1804) to the Idealism of Fichte {d. 1814). The 
unity which had been sought analytically by Kant was 
still pursued by Fichte, and was found by him in the 
Ego, over against which he placed the Cosmos or ex- 
ternal world as the Non-Ego, and which in its abso- 
luteness is connected with the moral advance of man- 
kind. This moral advance on which he dwelt in his 
system, the moral order of the Cosmos, was Fichte's 
God. On this account he was accused of Atheism, and 
deposed from his position as professor of philosophy at 
Jena (1799). In his later speculations he was inclined 
more to a mystical Pantheism. 

Another of the great names in Philosophy, of this era, 
is that of SCHELLING {d. 1854). It is usual to divide 
his intellectual life into three periods. His earlier phil- 
osophy is but a philosophic expression of that yearn- 
ing to comprehend the absolute as it appears above all 
in Goethe's Faust, and his system is the highest glorifi- 
cation of genius as celebrated by the romantic school. 
By speculative knowledge alone, Schelling expects a 
regeneration of esoteric Christianity and the procla- 
mation of the absolute Gospel. The doctrine of the 
Trinity, of the Incarnation, and similar doctrines, are 
regarded as symbolic expressions of the relation of the 


infinite and the finite. His second period is character- 
ized by his inclination to theosophic speculation and 
the influence of Christian mysticism, especially of Jacob 
Bohme. In his later period we have one of the greatest 
endeavors of modern philosophy to construct the sys- 
tem of Christian doctrine. He distinguishes three ages 
of Church History, and names them after the charac- 
ters and names of the three Apostles: 1) The Petrine 
Period y or Catholicism; 2) The Pauline Period, or Prot- 
estantism; 3) The Johannean Period , or the ''Church 
of the future" i. 

Closely allied to Schelling we have the speculations 
of Franz von Baader {d. 1841), who has been called 
"the greatest speculative theologian of modern Cath- 
olicism," and who found many followers, especially in 
South Germany. 

While Schelling was laboring in quietude, Hegel {d. 
1831) took the philosophical chair of the era and read 
to the world a ''collegium logicum"in grand style. 
His philosophy swept away all other philosophies as 
if they were mere dust, and before he died it began to 
make itself felt as an actual power both in State and 

The adherents of the School of Hegel, after their 
master's death, divided into two parts, of which one 
called the "right wing" (Erdmann, Rosenkranz), was 
on the side of Christianity, and the other, or "left 
wing" (Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer), took ground against 

The course of philosophy reflected itself in theology. 
With no theologian of this era was this more the case 
than with Karl Daub {d. 1836), who has been called 
"the founder of Protestant speculative theology." The 

I. See Heyder in Herzog. 


rapid development of the German philosophy in his age 
compelled him to change his views repeatedly. Origi- 
nally writing as a Kantist (1801), he has left for Fichte 
in 1805, and by 1806 has already reached Schelling. 
For several years he is under the influence of Schelling 
and of his mystical ideas (1810), but by 1816 it is evi- 
dent that he is steering towards Hegel, and in the Heg- 
elian philosophy he finally anchors, which he applies to 
theology (in his '' Dogmatische TheologiejetzigerZeit,^^ 

A similar experience is that of Philipp Konrad 
Marheineke {d. 1846). professor of theology at Ber- 
lin, after 1811. His " Dogmatik,'' in the edition of 
1819, took the position of Schelling, the second edi- 
tion of 1827, that of Hegel, and the same position is 
occupied by the edition published in 1847, by two of 
his pupils, Matthies and Yatke, which last is much 
clearer than his earlier work. Marheineke came to be 
recognized as the leader of the "right wing" of the 
Hegelian School, which affirmed that Hegelianism can 
be reconciled with positive Christianity. 

The Hegelian philosophy imagined that it had re- 
stored peace between the doctrine of the Church and 
Philosophy. But the deep cleft which actually sepa- 
rates them was uncovered by David F. Strauss (d. 
1874), who brought together the negative elements 
of Hegelianism, in order to show the invincible conflict 
between the modern consciousness, that view of the 
world which rested upon the theory of Immanence, on 
the one side, and the doctrine of the Church, on the 
other. The theory of a God lost in the world, which 
is that of Immanence, cannot be harmonized with the 
true view of the Church, of an extra mundane and 
personal Deity. With the materials of Hegelianism, 


Strauss endeavored to annihilate the Church doctrine, 
in what he calls his ''Christliche Glaubenslehre,'' ^ which 
has been characterized as resembling a theology in the 
same way that a cemetery resembles a city. In this 
book he tries to demonstrate that the history of Christ- 
ian doctrine is the history of its dissolution, and that 
theology can have no other future than that of transi- 
tion into philosophy. 

Deeply influenced by Strauss, and a disciple of Hegel, 
Alois Emanuel Biedermann {d. 1885), professor of 
theology at Zurich, after 1850, and a leading ration, 
alist, in his '^ Christliche Dogmatik^^ ^ denies the histor- 
ical character of the Gospels, the personality of God, a 
personal immortality to man, and yet holds that love 
to God and man constitutes the essence of religion. 

3. The Theology of Emotion. 

During these movements in the theological world, 
the emotional theology had already won for itself an 
independent sphere. This it did by recognizing religion 
as a thing not of cognition and knowledge, but of in- 
ternal life, and showed its place in the immediate con- 
sciousness, or emotion. Lessing {d. 1781) had already 
appealed to the internal assurance of the believer as 
something which could not be shaken by the assaults 
upon Scripture. 

Jacobi {d. 1819) had represented the right of imme- 
diate emotion, in the assurance of the supersensuous, 
and thus had won a foothold for a mystical Christian- 
ity. Jacobi believed, indeed, that there was an irrecon- 
cilable conflict between thinking and feeling, between 
the head and the heart, and declared that he himself 
was a Christian with his heart, a heathen with his 
head . 

2. Two volumes, Tuebingen, 1840, 41. 

3. Second edition. 2 vbls. Berlin, 1884, 85. 


Attaching himself to Jacobi, and employing at the 
same time Kant's method of analysis, Fries {d. 1843) 
pointed out in reason the immediate organ of the di- 
vine, whose internal revelation was only vivified or 
quickened by all further revelation. 

The influence of this philosophy is shown by De 
Wette {d. 1849). In his work ''Ueber Religion und 
Theologie," * he develops the fundamental aspects of 
his philosophy, to which he faithfully adhered through 
life. In his '' Bibl. Dogmatik " (1813 and 1831 ) he pre- 
sents the religious ideas of Scripture (Biblical Theolo- 
ogy), and in his ''Kirchl. Dogm." (1816 and 1840), he 
was more in affinity with the doctrine of the Lutheran 
Church, but his own system, which is more popular 
and positive, and at the same time showing more the 
influence of Schleiermacher, he presents in his ^' Wesen 
des Glaubens" (1846). 

This tendency became an epoch-making power under 
the influence of Friedrich Schleiermacher ^ (cf.l834), 
professor of theology at Berlin, after 1810. In order 
to preserve theology from all false blending with phil- 
osophy, he endeavored to discover the proper sphere of 
religion in man. This he found in immediate conscious- 
ness, or in feeUng, and the feeling in which he found it 
was that of absolute dependence. He therefore con- 
sidered that theology had nothing to do with specula- 
tion, any more than religion has to do with think- 
ing, and he maintained that philosophy and theology 
should be kept apart, although his own theology is 
penetrated to the core by his philosophy. 

4. Berlin, 1815 New edition, 1821. 

5. Compare Jonas and Dilthey: Aus Schleiermacher' s Leben, in Brie/en. 4 
vols. Berlin, 1858-61. Translated in part into English : The Life 0/ Schleier- 
macher. 2 volg. London, i860; W. Gass: in Herzog\ Ueberweg: History of Phil- 
osophy. Vol. 2, pp. 244-254. 


As a theologian he ranks among the greatest of all 
ages. The effect of his early training and the type of 
Moravian Christianity can be clearly traced in his dog- 
matic writings. Though belonging to the Reformed 
Church, he labored for its union with the Lutheran 
Church, and this Syncretism developed into rational- 
ism, while his pietism developed into supranaturalism, 
and yet he cannot be classed with the rationalists, nor 
with the supranaturalists, nor with the mystics, but 
combined in himself elements from all. 

His greatest work ^^ Der christliche Glaube^^ has been 
called *'a monument of religious enthusiasm and phil- 
osophical reasoning which has no equal in the theologi- 
cal literature after Calvin's Institutiones.'^ The touch- 
stone on which a dogma is to be tried is not the direct 
teaching of the Scriptures, nor the demonstration of 
proofs drawn from reason, but our feelings. He rejected 
the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and of the Person 
of Christ, of the Devil and the fall of the angels, of in- 
spiration and the canon, and taught an ultimate resto- 
ration, — in fact, his errors are as numerous as those of 
Origen. ''Yet he ever held fast to Christ as the greatest 
fact in history, as the one only sinless and perfect man 
in whom the Divinity dwelt in its fulness, and from 
whom saving influences emanate from generation to 
generation, and from race to race. In this central idea 
lies Schleiermacher's chief merit in theology, and his 
salutary influence. He modestly declined the honor of 
being the founder of a school ; and his best pupils, as 
Neander, Twesten, Nitzsch, Lucke, Bleek, Ullmann, Ju- 
lius Miiller, went far beyond him in the direction of a 
positive evangelical creed "^.' 

The impulse which Schleiermacher gave to the relig- 

6, See Article in Schaff-Herzog. 


ious consciousness and also to the scientific method of 
Dogmatics, will continue to operate, at least in Ger- 
many, for a long time. Two distinguished theologians 
have attached themselves most closely to Schleier- 
macher. The first of these was K. Immanuel Nitzsch 
(J. 1868), professor of theology at Bonn (1822-47), 
and at Berlin (1847-68), who was a theologian in the 
fullest sense of the word. In his ''System of Christian 
Doctrine" ^ he combines Dogmatics and Ethics? and rests 
both upon the Scripture, as the restoration of religious 
consciousness, as it reveals itself in the Apostolic an- 
nouncement in its original form for all ages. He thus 
substituted for Schleiermacher's "Christian conscious- 
ness," the Word of God itself. 

The second theologian, August Christian Twesten 
(d. 1876), professor of theology at Berlin, after 1834, 
was also a pupil of Schleiermacher. His lectures on 
Dogmatics ^ sltq very thorough but were never com- 
pleted, and he forms a transition from the emotional 
theology to a stricter Lutheran orthodoxy. He delin- 
eates dogmatics as a justification of the doctrine of the 
Church, a doctrine which the dogmatician is to repro- 
duce from his inner consciousness of faith. 

4. The Dogmatics of the Mediating Theology. 

This theology attempts to harmonize the opposition 
of the rationalistic and the positive, of the philosophi- 
cal and emotional tendency. This it does in combina- 
tions of divers kinds, and hence is represented by a 
series of theologians who approximate on the one side 
to Rationalism, an on the other to the doctrine of the 

7. Published in 1829. Sixth edition, 1853. Fifth edition translated into 
English. Edinburgh, 1849. 

8. Vorlesuhgen ueber die Dogin. der evang. luther. Kirche. 2 vols. Ham- 
burg. (Vol. I. Introd, and Critical Part. 1826. 4th edition. 1838. Vol. 2. Theol- 
ogy and Angelology. 1838). 


To the former school belongs Karl August Hase, 
since 1830 professor of theology at Jena, who indeed 
gave the death-blow to vulgar rationalism, yet is the 
dogmatic representative of the rationalistic principle. 
Hase unites the historic feeling of the recent time with 
the speculative enthusiasm of modem philosophy and a 
tendency to the ideal. His '' Evang. Dogmatic'' ^ was 
written for theologians, but his '' Gnosis'' '^^ was ad- 
dressed to the educated laity. According to him re- 
ligion is the attraction of Love to the Infinite, only 
approximately attained by other men, but reached 
and presented in the supremest degree in the man Jesus, 
thus making him the centre of a fellowship of all noble 
spirits who arc striving after unity with the Infinite, 
i. e., with God. In its results his theology differs very 
little from that of Rationalism. 

Daniel Schenkel (d. 1885), professor of theology 
at Heidelberg, after 1851, at first almost orthodox, be- 
came the leader of the Protestanverein. In his dogmat- 
ics, the peculiar character of which is expressed in its 
title, '^ Die christliche Dogmatik vom Standpunkte des 
Gewissens" (2 vols. 1858-59), he clings closely to Schlei- 

Alexander Schweizer, professor of theology at 
Zurich, since 1835, a pupil of Schleiermacher, in his 
^^ Glauhens-lehre der evangelische reformirten Kircbe" 
(2 vols, 1844-47) combines Schleiermacher's absolute 
feeling of dependence with the Reformed doctrine of pre- 
destination. In his later works he stands entirely upon 
the ground of the so-called ''modern consciousness." 

9. Leipsic, 1826. Sixtk edition, 1870, To be distinguished from his Hutterus 
Redivivus, oder Dogmatik der evang. luth. Kirche. 1829. Twelfth edition. 1883. 
In this last work he attempts to present the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as 
Hutter would have represented it, if living. 

10. Three vols. 1827-29. Second edition, 1869-70. 


Richard Rothe (d. 1867), professor of theology at 
Heidelberg after 1839, with the exception of a short 
period (1849-54), during which he lectured at Bonn, 
presents his entire speculative theological system in his 
^' Theologiscbe Bthik,'^'^^ which has been called *'the 
greatest work of German speculative theology next to 
Schleiermacher's Der Christliche Glaube.'' He is char- 
acterized by a union peculiar to himself of the religious 
consciousness of Schleiermacher, and of the speculations 
and method of Hegel. These he combines so as to pre- 
sent a complete theosophic view of the whole. Next in 
importance to his Ethik is his Zur Dogmatik, 1863, and 
his lectures on Dogmatik, imperfectly edited from his 
manuscripts by Schenkel (2 vols. Heidelberg, 1870). 

JoHANN Peter Lange (d. 1884), professor of theol- 
ogy at Bonn after 1854, one of the most original and 
fertile theological authors of the Reformed Church of 
this century, has attempted to place dogmatics in con- 
nection with the entire life of the spirit and to harmo- 
nize with each other the manifold oppositions of the 
supernatural and the natural life. This he has done in 
his brilliant work ^^Christliche Dogmatik (Heidelberg), 
which he published in three parts (1 Philosophical Dog- 
matics, 1849; 2. Positive Dogmatics, 1849; 3. Applied 
Dogmatics, 1852). His theology is biblical and evan- 
gelical, but he is best known as the editor of Lange's 
Commentary, and by his Life of Christ (6 vols). 

Karl Theodor Albert Liebner {d. 1871), succes- 
sively professor of theology at Goettingen, Kiel, and 
Leipsic, and court-preacher at Dresden (1855), attemped 
to enrich dogmatics with purely speculative elements, 
and to shape it into a Christology, in his work ^*Die 
christl. Dogmatik aus dem christologischen Prinzip dar- 

II. 3 vols. 1845-48. Second edition, thoroughly revised, in 5 vols. 1867-72. 


gestellV, (1849). He maintains that Dogmatics must go 
forth from the idea of the God-man, as the synthesis, 
by means of the analysis of the actual unity of the 
divine and human given therein, and he thus unfolds 
what he calls ''the system of all systems," ''a faithful 
scientific photograph of the full unabridged Christian- 
ity, as our fathers held it." 

The ripest fruit of this whole development, with ref- 
erence at the same time to the most recent contribu- 
tions to dogmatics, is given by Isaac August Dor- 
NER (d. 1884), professor of theology at Kiel (1839), 
Koenigsberg (1843), Bonn (1847), Goettingen (1853), 
and finally at Berlin (1862), in his ''System der Christ- 
lichen Glaubenslehre'^ ^^ . As one of the profoundest 
and most learned theologians of this century, he ranks 
with Schleiermacher, Neander, Nitzsch, Julius Mueller, 
and Richard Rothe. With a positive faith and an his- 
torical spirit he sought to unite the theology of Schlei- 
ermacher and the philosophy of Hegel. His theology is 
pre-eminently christological. 

Johannes Heinrich Ebrard (born 1818), Reformed, 
in his '' Christliche Dogmatik,^' i-^ presented without 
philosophical speculation, in essentials retaining the 
Church orthodoxy, the Reformed Dogmatics as an ex- 
pression of the Christian consciousness of salvation, 
but he excludes the doctrine of absolute Predestination. 

Robert Benjamin Kuebel, professor of theology at 
Tuebingen, since 1879, in his ** Christliche Lehrsystem " 
(1873), represents the biblical school of Wuertemberg. 

LuDWiG Friedrich Schoeberlein {d. 1881), pro- 
fessor of theology at Goettingen after 1855, in his 
^' Grundlehren des Heils^' (1848), ''Die Geheimnisse des 

12 2 vols. Berlin, 1879-80. Second edition. 18.^6. Translated inlo English 
with the title " A System of Christian Doctrine." 4 vols. Edinburgh, 1880-82. 
13. 2 vols. 1851. Second edition, 1862. 


Glaubens'' (1872), and in his last work ''Bas Prinzip 
und System der Dogmatif (1881), shows a strong 
mystical tendency. 

Heinrich Johann Matthias Voigt, since 1864, pro- 
fessor of theology at Koenigsberg, in his Fundamental 
Dogmatik (Gotha, 1874), has given us a careful and full 
discussion of the fundamental questions that arise in 

Albrecht Ritschl, since 1864, professor of theol- 
ogy at Goettingen, is a determined opponent of Protes- 
tant Scholasticism, and is the only liYing theologian 
who has founded a school of theology. His view of jus- 
tification and atonement, of reconciliation and grace, 
of sin and law, are so peculiar, that he reconstructs the 
very scheme of redemption. His views are especially 
seen in his ''Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung 
und Versoehnung,''^^ a work which is attracting much 
attention. He describes his theological standpoint as 
follows : *^ In the strictest recognition of the revelation 
of God through Christ ; most accurate use of the Holy 
Scripture as the foundation of the knowledge of the 
Christian religion ; view of Jesus Christ as the ground 
of knowledge for all parts of the theological system; 
in accord with the original documents of the Lutheran 
Reformation respecting those peculiarities which differ- 
entiate its type of doctrine from that of the Middle 

Ritschl has a large following among the younger 
professors of theology. Kaftan (born 1848), Dorner's 
successor in Berlin, is under his influence, so is Herr- 
mann (born 1846), professor of theology at Marburg, 
the theological faculty at Giessen hold to his views, and 
Hermann Schultz (born 1836) of Goett ingen and Lip- 

14. 3 vols. 1870-74. Second edition, 1882-83. The first volume has been 
translated into English. 


sius of Jena defend the essential positions of his theol- 
ogy. Against him are arrayed such men as Frank, pro- 
fessor in Erlangen, and Luthardt, Fricke and Best- 
mann, of Leipsic. 

Richard Adelbert Lipsius (born 1830), professor 
of theology at Jena, since 1870, is a follower of Kant 
in philosophy, and of Schleiermacher in theology. In 
his ^^ Lehrbuch der evang. prot. Dogmatik,^^ ^^ and in 
his '^ Dogmatische Beitraege^^ (1878), he seeks to build 
up a system of dogmatics founded upon the religious 
experience of the Christian communion and of the in- 
dividual believer. In fact, he bases the evidence of all 
Christian and religious truth on experience. 

5, Confessional Dogmatics. 

a) Lutheran. 

The confessional dogmatics shaped itself by the side 
of the theology of mediation, exhibiting more and more 
the tendency to return to that doctrine of the Church 
which is embodied in her great Confessions of the six- 
teenth century. This tendencj' shows itself in two 
classes of -works: 1) in those which outline the confes- 
sional doctrines historically, and 2) in those which are 
an independent reproduction of that doctrine. 

Some of the best books of the first class come from 
the hand of men who were too much under the influ- 
ence of the perverted thinking of the age to embrace 
the doctrine they so ably presented. 

Among the works of this class may be mentioned 
the ''Hutterus Redivivus'' of Karl Hase (12th ed. 
1883), which is a model of literary skill. By condens- 
ing the matter, and using abridgments of frequently 
recurring words, he has condensed into a narrow space 
a vast fund of information. He gave to it the name 

15. Braunschweig, 1876. Second edition, 1879. 


of the old dogmatician Hutter, whose fidelity to the 
Confessions and whose ability as a theologian has pre- 
served his memory in the Church, and his object was to 
present the System of Dogmatics, as Hutter might have 
been supposed to present it, were he actually {redivivus) 
restored to life. 

The well known work of Heinrich Schmid ^ ^ differs 
from that of Hase, in that it is confined to the older 
Dogmaticians, and from these its citations are much 

Under the second class of works on confessional dog- 
matics, in which the writers have given to us not the 
history of the dogmatic thinking of others, but their 
own independent reproduction of Christian doctrine, 
we have contributions from some of the profoundest 
and most brilliant scholars of the age. 

The ''Dogmatics'' of Hans Lassen Martensen {d. 
1884), the most eminent Danish theologian of this cen- 
tury, has been favorably received. Luthardt says of 
it ''that it exhibits spirit and versability, and is sug- 
gestive, rich in apologetic and speculative elements." 
The work is indubitably profound, clear in the main 
and concise. But while we place it among the works 
of confessional dogmatics, it is far from being a guide, 
which can be followed implicitly. He professes to hold 
to the type of doctrine as confessed by the Symbolical 
Books of the Lutheran Church, especially to the Augs- 
burg Confession, and aims at reproducing the doctrine 
ot Scripture and the Church scientifically from the 
depths of a consciousness, which is regenerated and 
filled with the idea of the Christian truth, nevertheless 
his Lutheran theology has been greatly influenced by 

i6. The fifth German edition translated into English under the title of -'The 
Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church," Philadelphia, 1876. 
The sixth German edition appeared in 1876. 


the philosophy of Hegel and the theosophic views of 
Franz Baader. 

The next great name among the Lutheran Confes- 
sional Dogmaticians is that of Ernest Sartorius (d. 
1859), who in addition to various minor publications 
on dogmatics, has presented his system most fully in 
his treatise on '' The Doctrine of Divine Love " ^ '''. 

Gottfried Thomasius (d, 1875), professor of theol- 
ogy at Erlangen, after 1842, in his ''Christi Person und 
Werk/^ 1^ has made the Person of Christ the centre of 
his system, and on every page gives evidence of his 
thorough acquaintance with the history of doctrines. 
It is in this work that he presents the modern *'Keno- 
tic" theory in its developed form, and claims that this 
view is the legitimate outcome of the fundamental prin- 
ciples on which the Lutheran doctrine of Christ's per- 
son is based. 

One of the safest and best guides among the larger 
systems of recent date is that of Friedrich Adolf 
Philippic 9 {d. 1882), professor of theology at Dorpat 
(1841), and at Rostock after 1852. He is the best 
modern representative of Lutheran orthodoxy. 

Karl Friedrich August Kahnis, professor of the- 
ology at Leipsic (1850-86), one of the ablest theolo- 
gians of this century, in his ''Luth. Dogm. bistor. genet. 
dargestellV^ ^^ abandons the doctrine of the supreme 
divinity of Christ, and gives up the true doctrine of the 
Sacramental Presence, and by his looseness in regard 
to the doctrine of Inspiration, makes his claim to a 
place among the Confessional Dogmaticians more than 

17. Translated into English, from the last German edition. Edinburgh, 1884. 

18. Second edition. 3 vols. Eriangen, 1856-63, 

19. See note 8, p. 15. For outline of his system see/. 121. 

20. Second edition. 2 vols. Lepsic. 1874-75. 


Not the least among the confessional dogmaticians 
of the Lutheran Church is Fkanz Hermann Reinhold 
Frank, professor of theology at Erlangen since 1858. 
His more important works are ''Die Theologi^ der Con- 
cordienformel " (4 vols. Erlangen, 1858-65), ''System 
der Christ. Gewissheit" (2 vols. Second edition; 1. 1884; 
2. 1881), and "System der christ. Sittlichkeit " (vol. 1. 
1884). In his later writings he is noted for his pro- 
found reasoning and for the stress he lays upon the 
subjective element in faith. 

He who watches the horizon of German Theology, 
will always discover some new star of great brilliancy, 
I'ust coming into range above it. One of the latest of 
distinguished living theologians is Christoph Ernst 
LuTHARDT, since 1856 professor of theology at Leipsic, 
and renowned as a university lecturer and pulpit ora- 
tor. His ''Compendium der Dogmatif had already 
reached the seventh edition in 1886. 

The work is not strictly speaking the development 
of a system, but rather a compendious presentation of 
carefully selected material. It is by far the best manua] 
of the Dogmatics of the Evangelical Lutheran Church 
we possess. It gives the most important recent litera- 
ture under each head, and because of its comprehensive- 
ness, brevity, and succintness, we have taken it as a 
basis of our own presentation, and would especially 
recommend it to students ^ ^ . 

Of the confessional dogmaticians of Sweden we 
would especially mention the names of Carl Olof 
BjoRLiNG (d. 1884), bishop of Westerns, after 1866. 
The second edition of his ''Den Christeliga Dogma- 
tiken^^-^ (1866), adheres more closely to the teaching 

21. The fifth German edition has been translated into Swedish, Stockholm, 
1879. For 21 complete synopsis of his system see pp. iao-131. 

22. See noie 11, /. 15, for outline of his system. 


of the Confessions of our Church than his fi rst edi- 

An important contribution to dogmatics, likewise, 
is the '' Grunddragen af den Christeliga TroslMran'' by 
SvEN Libert Bring ^s (born 1826), professor of theol- 
ogy, at Lund. 

In the Lutheran Church in the United States there 
are two theologians of the strict confessional tendency 
who have left their dogmatic impress upon the Church. 

Charles Porterfield Krauth {d. 1883), professor 
of theology in the Lutheran Seminary at Philadelphia, 
after 1864, has been the leader in the establishment of 
the General Council (1867), and has given shape to 
its strict confessional basis =^*. In his most important 
work, " The Conservative Reformation and its Theol- 
ogy'' (Philadelphia, 1871) he has given evidence of the 
strictest adherence to the doctrines of our Church as 
confessed in her Symbolical Books. 

Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther {d. 1887), 
professor of theology at St. Louis, after 1849, the 
founder and leader of the Synod of Missouri (Synodi- 
cal Conference), "■' is bj^ pre-eminence the representative 
of Lutheran Orthodoxy, a Calovius redivivus, equally 
zealous in controversy and positive in polemics. In the 
'^Predestinarian Controversy" his zeal, and that of his 
followers, went so far, as to accuse our most conserva- 
tive theologians, such as Philippi, Luthardt, Vilmar, 
and others, of Semi-pelagianism, Synergism, and Ra- 
tionalism. Although not the author of any system of 
dogmatics, he has written on almost all its topics, and 
has edited with great ability Baier's Compend, in three 
volumes, a work which seems to have been his greatest 

23. See fwte 12, p. 16, for outline of his system. 

24. See notes i, 2, 3, ox\. pp. 1 16-1 18. 

25. See note 1. p, ti6. 


favorite among the dogmaticians of the seventeenth 

b) Reformed. 

Heinrich Ludwig Julius Heppe (d. 1879), professor 
of theology at Marburg, after 1864, from the position 
of Reformed unionism, has given us several valuable 
works of a historical character. The principal are '^Die 
Dogmatik des Protestantismus im 16 Jahrhundert'^ (3 
vols. Gotha, 1857), and '^ Die Dog. der evang. reformir- 
ten Kirche'' (Elberfeld, 1860) . This last is nearly iden- 
tical in plan with the work of Heinrich Schmid, de- 
scribed above. 

Jan Jakob van Oosterzee {d. 1882), professor of 
theology at Utrecht, after 1862, ^was the recognized 
leader of the evangelical movement in Holland. His 
^^ Christian Dogmatics ^^ has been translated into En- 
glish from the Dutch (London and New York, 1874), 
and his American editors - ^ regard it, among the numer- 
ous foreign systems of Theology, *'as being upon the 
whole the work best adapted to the wants of English 
and American students, and nearer, perhaps, to the 
prevailing type of Anglo-American Theology than any 
similar work produced of late years on the continent 
of Europe." This "prevailing type of Anglo-American 
Theology " here referred to, is of course. Reformed in its 
tendency, and not Lutheran. 

c) Church of England. 

A standard work of the dogmatic theology of the 
Church of England is the well-known ^^ Exposition oi 
the X X X I X Articles'' (12th ed. 1882; Amer. ed. by 
Bishop Williams of Connecticut, 1865) by Edward 
Harold Browne, Bishop of Winchester, since 1873. 

26. Henry B. Smith and Philip Schaff, 


The English Church has produced no great systema- 
tic theologian, in the full meaning of the term. 

d) Congregational. 

Ralph Wardlaw {d. 1823), professor of theology 
at Glasgow, after 1811, was for a long time one of the 
prominent leaders of the Congregational churches in 
Scotland. His ''System of Theology'' (3 vols. 1856- 
57) was published after his death. 

In the history of Congregationalism in the United 
States, pre-eminent among the theologians of this cen- 
tury, are the names of Samuel Hopkins {d. 1803), 
whose system had its root in the writings of the elder 
Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758), and was essentially Cal- 
vinistic, but distinguished as ''Hopkinsianism," Na- 
THANAEL Emmons {d. 1840) wlio developed the system 
of Hopkins into what is characterized as "Emmonism," 
Nathaniel William Taylor {d. 1858), the founder of 
''The New-Haven Theology," the elder Leonard Woods 
{d. 1854), ''the judicious divine of the later New-En- 
gland theology," and Charles G. Finney {d. at Ober- 
lin, 1875). 

e) Presbyterian. 

Charles Hodge {d. 1878), professor of theology at 
Princeton, New Jersey, after 1822, achieved distinction 
in all departments of theology, and exerted the widest 
influence as a teacher, training more than a thousand 
ministers. His ''Systematic Theology'' (3 vols. 1871- 
73) has been called "the greatest system of dogmatics 
in the English language." 

The "Outlines of Theology" (revised edition, 1878) 
by Archibald Alexander Hodge {d. 1887), son of the 
preceding, professor of theology at Princeton, after 
1878, is an excellent compend of Reformed Theology, 
3,nd ivS widely used as a text-book. 


/) Baptist. 

Augustus Hopkins Strong, professor of theology at 
Rochester, N. Y., since 1872, in his ''Systematic Theol- 
ogy^'' (1886), has given us a compendium and common- 
place-book for theological students. The work gives 
evidence of wide reading and a full mastery of the 
science of dogmatics. 

g) Methodist. 

Richard Watson {d. 1833, in London), in his '' The- 
ological Institutes'' (2 vols. Eighth edition, 1850) sys- 
tematized and expounded the theology of John Wesley 
{d. 1791^, and adopts a modified Arminian interpreta- 
tion of the Bible. This is the text-book of Methodism. 

William Burt Pope, professor of theology at Man- 
chester, England, since 1867, in his ''Compendium of 
Christian Theology'' (3 vols. 1875-76 \ follows Wat- 
son's improved Arminianism. 

Miner Raymond, professor of theology at Evanston, 
111., since 1864, in his ''Systematic Theology" (3 vols. 
1877-79 ', holds to more radical Arminianism. 

h) Roman Catholic. 

Giovanni Perrone (d. 1876), professor of theology 
after 1816, has exerted the widest influence in the Ro- 
man Catholic Church. His " Praelectiones theologi- 
cae" appears in two forms, unabridged (in 9 vols. 31st 
ed. 1865), and abridged (2 vols. 36th ed. 1881), trans- 
lated into various languages. It is most widely used 
by the students of the Roman Catholic Church, and 
comes up most fully to the standard of orthodoxy as 
set by the Church. 

Hugo Hurter, professor of theology at Innsbruck, 
since 1858, has also written a work on dogmatics 
which has reached a wide circulation. His " Theolo- 
giae dogmaticae compendium " (3 vols. 1876), had 
already i^eached a fifth edition in 1885, 


Abelard, 17, 158, 119 
Albertus Magnus, 162 
Alexander of Hales, 162 
Alexandria, school of, 183-137 ; 

new school of, 137-141 
Allegorical sense of Scripture, 85 
Alsted, 199 
Ammon, 229 
Amyraldism, 209, 210 
Amyraut, 209 
Analogy of faith, an inspired 

means of interpretation, 84-87 
Ancient Church, dogmatics of, 

Andreae, 211 

Anselm of Canterbury. 156, 157 
Antecedent articles of faith, 110 
Anthropologia, analysis of topics 

discussed under, 126, 127 
Antilegomena, 79 
Anton, Paul, 213 
Apocryphal Books, of O. T., 76, 

77; of N. T., 81 
Apologists, theology of, 132, 133 
Apology of Augsburg Confession, 

history of origin of, 96, 97 
Apostles' Creed, history of origin 

of, 89 note 
Apostolical Fathers, theology of, 

132, 133 
Aquinas, 163-165 
Archetypal theology, 17, 18 
Aretius, 183 
Aristotle, 25, 155. 162 
Articles of faith, 109-115; pure and 

mixed, 109; fundamental and 

non-fundamental, 109-115 
Assurance of salvation, 70, 71 
Athanasian Creed, history of ori- 
gin of, 91 note 
Athanasius. theology of, 137, 138 
Atheism, 44 

Augsburg Confession, history of 
origin of, 92 noie\ composition 
of, 93, 94; contents of, 95, 96 

Augustine, 148-151 

Baader, 235 

Bacon, Roger, 167 

Bahrdt, 225 

Baier, on natural theology, 45; 
theology of, 194, 195 

Baptists, recent dogmatician of, 

Basil, the Great, 139, 140 

Baumgarten, S. J., 221 

Baur, on difference between Lu- 
theran and Reformed, 60 

Baxter, 207, 208 

Beck, on definition of religion, 33, 
36; sketch of, 232 

Bengel, 215 

Bernard of Clairvaux, 159, 160 

Beveridge, 206 

Bible, normative authority of, 52, 
59, 65, 66, 73 

Biedermann, 237 

Biel, Gabriel, 169 

Bindemann, on Augustine, 149 

Bjorling, introduction of, 15; anal- 
ysis of system of. 15 note; dog- 
matics of. 248, 249 

Boethius, 153, 154 

Bolingbroke, deism of, 224 

Bonaventura, 165 

Boston, Thomas, 208 

Breithaupt, 213 

Bretschneider, 229 

Bring, analysis of system of, 16 
note; dogmatics of, 249 

Browne, 250 

Buddeus, on John Gerhard. 193, 
sketch of, 217 

Bull, George, 205, 206 



Bullinger, 183 
Bunyan, 207 
Burmann, 203 
Burnet, Gilbert, 207 

Calixtus and his syncretism, 188, 
198, 194 

Calovius. on the use of Philoso- 
phy, 26; on interpretation of 
Scripture, 85, 86; 'theology of, 
189, 196 

Calvin, 182, 183 

Calvinism, 185, note 

Cameron. John, 209 

Canon, of the O. T., 75-78; of the 
J^. T., 78-82 

Catechisms of Luther, history of 
origin of. 99 

Charnock, 207 

Chemnitz, introduction of, 14; on 
the Canon, 81; theology of, 178, 

Chillingworth, 208, 209 

Christ, doctrine of person of, anal- 
ysis of topics discussed under, 
127, 128; work of, analysis of 
topics, 128, 129 

Christlieb, on faith, 24 

Christianity, essence of, 46, 47; re- 
lation to heathenism and Juda- 
ism, 46: historical forms of, 46; 
the true religion, 47 

Christologia, analysis of topics 
discussed under, 127. 128 

Church doctrine, 87-120; consists 
of articles of faith, 109-115; 
teacher's relation to, 106-108 

Church, doctrine of the, in Roman 
Church, 49, 50; analyzed, 180, 131 

Church of England, dogmatics of, 
205, 206, 222, 250 

Clarke, Samuel, 209, 222 

Clement of Alexandria, 138, 184 

Cocceius, 208 

Collins, deism of. 224 

Confessional dogmatics, of recent 

times, 245-249 
Confessionalism, Plitt on, 104-108 
Confessions of the Church, 88-208; 
necessity of, 88, 89; authority or, 
92-103; subscriptions to, 104- 
108; sufficiency of, 108, 108 

Congregationalism, dogmatics of 

recent, 251 
Consciousness of faith, 120 
Consequent Articles of faith, 111 
Constituent Articles of faith, 110 
Cotton, John, 208 
Council, General, of Evang. Luth. 

Church, 116-119; principles of 

faith of, 117 note 
Crusius, C. A., 215, 216 
Cudworth, Ralph, 208 
Cyprian, 146, 147 
Cyril of Alexandria, 142 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 142 

D'Alembert, 224 

Daniel, canonicity of, 77, 78 

Dannhauer, 195 

Daub, 235, 236 

Deism, 42, 43, 223, 224; in France, 

Descartes, 202, 203, 220 

Deutsch Theologia, 171 

Deutschmann, opposes Spener,212 

DeWette, 238 

Diderot, 224 

Didymus, the Blind, 141, 142 

Doederlein. 226 

Dogma, definition of, 29 

Dogmatics, relation to Ethics, 28; 
definition of, 29-31; formation 
of a system of, 72-87; material 
principle of. 72, 73; formal prin- 
ciple of, 78, 74; churchly charac- 
ter of. 88; analysis of a System 
of, 122-181; history of, 132 252 

Dorner, on Reformed Protestant- 
ism, 60; as a theologian. 243 

Duns Scotus, 165, 166 

Durand, 167 

Ebrard, 248 

Ecclesiologia, analyzed, 130, 131 
Eckhart, Meister, 169. 170 
Edwards, Jonathan. 222, 2:i3 
Ektypal theology, 17, 18 
Emmons, Nathanael, 251 
Emotion, theology of, 237-240 
Episcopius, 200 
Ernesti, 2l8 
Eschatologia, analyzed, 181 


Ethics, relation to Dogmatics, 28, 

Evidences of Christianity, 41 
Exegetical theology, analysis of, 


Faith, and knowledge, 23, 24; jus- 
tiflcatioa by, 62-65, 72, 73; con- 
sciousness of, 120; foundation 
of, 109, 110; articles of, 109-115 

Fichte. 234 

Field, Kichard, 205 

Filioque, 91 

Finney, Charles G., 251 


Fletcher, 222 

Formal Principle, of Protestant- 
ism, 52, 53; of Lutheranism, 65, 
66 ; of Reformed Protestantism, 

Formula of Concord, history of 
origin of, 101, 103 

Francke, A. H., 212 note, 213 

Frank, on fundamental doctrines, 
113-115; dogmatics of, 248 

Freylinghausen, 213 

Fries, 238 

Fundamental articles of faith, 
109-115; of General Council, 117 

Gass, on Gregory Nazianzen, 139 

General Council of Evang. Luth. 
Church, 116-118 

General Synod of Evang. Luth. 
Church, 116 note 

Getmadius of Marseilles, 152 

Gerhard, John, introduction of, 
14; on faith, 23; on the Canon 81; 
on interpretation of Scripture, 
84, 85, 86, 87; theology of, 191; 
analysis of loci of, 191 7iote 

Gerson, John, 169 

Gill, 222 

God, doctrine of, analysis of sub- 
jects, 124-126 

Goebel, on distinction between 
Lutheran and Reformed, 59 

Gomarus, 201 

Gregory Nazianzen, 139 

Gregory of Nyssa, 140, 141 

Grotius, Hugo, 200, 201 

Gruner, 226 

Hafenreffer, 180 

Hahn, 231 

Hase, Carl, introduction of, 14; 
opponent of vulgar rationalism, 
230; sketch of, 241; Hutterus 
redivivus of, 245, 246 

Heathenism and Christianity con- 
trasted, 46 

Heerbrand, 179, 180 

Hegel, 235 

Heidegger, 210 

Helvetius, 224 

Henke, 228 

Heppe, on difference between Lu- 
theran and Reformed, 59; dog- 
matics of, 250 

Herbert of Cherbury, on natural 
religion, 44, 45; philosophy of, 

Hermann, 244 

Herzog, on difference between 
Lutheran and Reformed, 60 

Hilarv of Poitiers, 147, 148 

Historical theology, analysis of, 

Hodge, A. A., 251 ^ ^ ^. „ 

Hodge, Charles, mtroduction of, 
16; Systematic theology of, 251 

Hofmaim, on definition of dog- 
matics, 31 

Holiaz, on marks of true religion, 
39-41; on the Canon, 80; theol- 
ogy of, 197, 198; analysis of dog- 
matics of, 198 7iote 

Hooker, Richard, 205 

Hopkins, Samuel, 251 

Horsley, 222 

Howe, John, 208 

Huelsemann, 195, 196 

Hugo of St. Victor, 160, 161 

Humanists, the, 173 

Hume, deism of, 224 

Hunnius, Aegidius, 189, 190 

Hunnius, Nicolaus, 193 

Hurter, 252 

Huss, John, 172 

Hutter, Leonard, 190, 191 

Hyperius, 184 

Idealism, absolute, 42 
Hlumination, period of, 223-227 



Infallibility, in Koman Church, 
50, 51, of the Word of God, 68; 
of the Church of God, 68-70 

Inspiration, in the Roman Church, 
50; doctrine of, 83 

Interpretation, of Scripture, 82- 
87; literal, 85; according to anal- 
ogy of faith, 84; not a multiple 
sense, 84, 85; principles of, 86, 87 

Introduction to Dogmatics, object 
of, 13-16; analysis of, 122-124 

Iowa Synod, 116 7iote 

Irenaeus, 144 

Isidore of Seville, 152 

Jackson, Thomas, 205 

Jacobi, on faith, 24; sketch of, 237 

Jacobs, on the Apology, 97 note 

John of Damascus, 142, 143 

Jones of Xayland, 222 

Judaism and Christianity con- 
trasted, 46 

Justification by faith, the mate- 
rial principle of Lutheranism, 
62-65; of Dogmatics, 72, 73 

Kaftan, 244 

Kahnis, on definition of dogmat- 
ics, 31; on religion, 37; order of 
system of, 121; on John Ger- 
hard, 193; dogmatics of, 247 

Kant, 227, 228, 234 

Keckermann, 199 

Knapp, 231 

Knowledge and faith, 23, 24 

Koellner, on the Smalcald Arti- 
cles, 99 note 

Koenig, 196 

Krauth, on relation of philosophy 
and theology, 25; on marks of 
true religion, 39, 40; on mystic- 
ism, 43; on Lutheran Protes- 
tantism, 51-53; on Catholicism, 
56-58; on true value of tradi- 
tion, 59, 60, 68-70; on the Augs- 
burg Confession, 94-96; on 
Smalcald Articles, 98; on Form- 
ula of Concord, 101-103; on the 
importance of Creeds, 103; on 
the principles of faith of Gen- 
eral Council, 118, 119; on Chem- 
nitz, 179; as a theologian, 249 

Kuebel, 248 

Kurtz, on Tertullian, 145 

Lange, Joachim, 213 

Lange, J. P., 242 

Last Things, doctrine of, analyzed 

Laud, William, 205 

Leibnitz, 220 

Leighton, 207 

Lessing, 226, 237 

Leydecker, 203 204 

Liebner, 242, 243 

Limborch, 201 

Lipsius, 245 

Loescher, Val. Ernst, 213, 214 

Luthardt, introduction of, 15; re- 
lation of philosophy to theol- 
ogy, 26; fourfold perversion of 
religion 42-44; on Catholicism, 
48-49; on difference between 
Eeformed and Lutheran, 61, 62; 
on material principle of Luther- 
anism, 62; of Dogmatics, 73; 
general divisions of system of 
dogmatics, 121, 122; analysis of 
system of. 122-131; on Gerhard. 
192; as a theologian, 248 

Luther, on Aristotle, 25; on per- 
spicuity of Scripture, 83, 84; 
works, life, theology, 175 note 

Lutheran Church in U. S., Statis- 
tics and tendencies, 116 note 

Lutheran Dogmaticians, recent, 

Lutheran Protestantism, differs 
from Reformed, 59-62; material 
principle of, 65, 66; historical 
character of, 67-70 

Lutheran theology, 186, 187 

Maccovius, 202 

Man, doctrine of, analysis of top- 
ics discussed under, 126, 127 

Marburg, Articles of, 92 note 

Maresius, 202 

Marheineke, order of system of, 
121; sketch of, 236 

Martensen, on Catholicism, 48.49; 
on difference between Catholic- 
ism and Lutheranism, 54-56; 
between Reformed and Luther- 



an Protestantism, 61; order of 
system of, 121 ; as a dogmatician, 

Material principle, of Protestant- 
ism, 51-56; of Lutheranism, 62- 
65; of Eeformed Protestantism, 

Materialism, 42, 44 

Mather, Cotton, 208 

Mediation, theology of, 240-245 

Meister Eckhart, 169, 170 

Melanchthon, work of, on Augs- 
burg Confession, 94 note; edi- 
tion of Variata, 94, 95; prepares 
the Apology, 96, 97 ; vacillations 
of, 101 note, 176; dogmatics of, 
174-177; loci of, 13, 175, 176 note 

Melanchthonian school of dog- 
matics, 177-180 

Mendelssohn, 226 

Methodists, recent dogmaticians 
of, 252 

Michaelis, J. D., 218, 219 

Middle Ages, dogmatics of, 154- 

Mixed articles of faith, 109 

Moehler, on Romanism and Prot- 
estantism, 48 

Montanism, 145 

Morns, 226 

Mosheim, 218 

Multiple sense, theory of, 84, 85 

Musaeus, 189. 194 

Mysticism, 43, 44, 169-173 

Natural religion, 44, 45 
Neander, on Aquinas, 164, 165 
New England Theology, 223, 251 
New Haven Theology, 251 
New Testament Canon, 78-82 
Nicene Creed, history of origin 

of, 90 note 
Nitzsch, on difference between 

Lutheran and Reformed, 59 ; as 

a theologian. 240 
Nominalism, 155, 156, 157 
Nonrfundamental articles of 

faith, 111 

Oetinger 216 

Ohio Synod, 116 note 

Old Testament Canon, 75-78 

Olevianus, 184 

Oosterzee, introduction of, 16; 

dogmatics of, 250 
Oriental Church, dogmatics of, 

Origen, theology of, 135-137 
Owen, Joon, 208 

Pajon, 210 

Pantheism, 42 

Papin, 210 

Pastors are teachers, 21 

Pearson, 206 

Perrone, 252 

Perspicuity of Scripture, 83, 86 

Peter D'Ailly, 168, 169 

Peter Lombard, 161, 162 

Peter Martyr Yermilius, 183 

Pfafe, 217 

Philippi, introduction, 15; on 
faith, 23; on definition of dog- 
matics, 31; on religion, 33; on 
Christianity, 46; on the Apol- 
ogy, 97 note\ on fundamental 
doctrines, 112, 113; division of 
system of, 121; dogmatics of, 247 

Philippists, 101 note 

Philosophy, relation to theology, 
25, 26; on the Middle Ages, 154- 
159; of Descartes, Leibnitz, 
Wolff, 220; of Deism, 223, 224; 
Kant, 228; of recent times, 234- 

Pictet, 200 

Pietism, 185 note, 186 note; dog- 
matics of, 210-216; character- 
ized, 232, 233 

Plitt, on Confessionalism, 104-108 

Pneumatologia, analyzed, 129 

Polanus, 200 

Polytheism, 42 

Pope, William B., 252 

Practical theology, analysis of, 28 

Pre-Reformatory theology, 169- 

Presbyterianism, recent dogmat- 
ics of, 251 

Priestley, 222 

Polegomena, object of, 13-16; 
analysis of, 122-124 

Protestant, origin of name, 53 

Protestantism, contrasted with 



Eomanism, 47-58 ; essential char- 
acter of. 51-58; formal principle 
of, 52, 53; material principle of 
52, 53; Lutheran, 58-71; Re- 
formed, 59-62 
Pure articles of faith, 109 

Quenstedt, introduction of. 14; 
on the use of philosophy, 26; on 
definition of dogmatics, 30; on 
marks of true religion, 41; on 
the Canon, 81, 82; on interpreta- 
tion of Scripture. 84; theology 
of, 197 

Kambach, 213 

Rationalism, dogmatics of, 223- 

Raymond, Miner, 252 

Realism, 155, 156 

Reformation, dogmatics of cen- 
tury of, 174-184 

Reformed Dogmatics, recent, 250 

Reformed Protestantism, distinct 
from the Lutheran, 59-62 

Reimaurus. 225, 226 

Reinbeck, 221 

Reinhard, 230 

Religion, definition of, 32, 33; de- 
rivation of word, 32 ; essence of, 
34-37; truth of, 38; subjective, 
33-36; objective, 37; divisions 
of, 39-45; marks of true, 39-41; 
fourfold perversion of, 42-44; 
natural, 44; revealed, 19, 45; 
Christianity is the true, 47; ori- 
gin of, 37, 38 

Richard of St. Victor, 161 

Rieger, 216 

Ritschl, 244 

Robertson, on Bernard of Clair- 
vaux, 160 

Roehr, 229 

Roger Bacon, 167 

Roman Catholic Church, recent 

dogmaticians of, 252 
Romanism, contrasted vrith Prot- 
estantism, 47-58 ; essential char- 
acter of, 48, 49; criticised, 49-51 
Roos, 216 
Roscellinus, 157 
Rothe. 242 

Rousseau, 224 
Ruysbroeck, 170 

Salvation, internal assurance of 
70, 71; doctrine of, analyzed, 
128, 129 
Schaff, on Clement of Alexandria, 
134; on Origen, 136; on Athana- 
sius, 138; on Basil the Great, 
139, 140; on Gregory of Nyssa, 
140; on Irenaeus, 144;onTertul- 
lian, 145, 146; on Cyprian, 147; 
on Augustine, 148 ; on Zwingli, 
Schelling, 234, 235 
Schenkel, 241 , 

Scherzer, 196 

Schleiermacher, on faith and emo- 
tion, 24; on Protestantism and 
Romanism, 48; as a theologian, 
Schmid, H., introduction of Dog- 
matics of, 14; work of, 246 
Schneckenburger, on difference 
between Reformed and Luther- 
an, 60 
Schoeberlein, 243, 244 
Scholasticism, character of, 154- 
156; beginnings of, 156-162; 
bloom of, 162-167; decline of 

Schwabach, Articles of, 93 note 
Schweizer, on difference between 
Lutheran and Reformed, 60; 
sketch of, 241 
Scotus Erigena, 152, 153 
Scripture, normative authority of, 
52, 59, 65, 66, 73; interpretation 
of, 82-87 
Seeker, 222 
Selnecker, introduction of, 13; 

theology of, 178 
Semisch, on Hilary, 147 
Semler, 219 

Smalcald Articles, history of ori- 
gin of, 98, 99 
Smith, H. B., introduction of, 16 
Soteriologia, analysis of topics 

discussed under, 128, 129 
South, Robert, 207 
Spener, 186 note\ sketch, 211-213 



Spinoza, 220 

Spirit, Holy, testimony of, 71, 73; 
doctrine of the work of, ana- 
lyzed, 129 

Stackhouse, 222 

Stahl, on Reformed Protestant- 
ism, 61 



Stillingfleet, 206 

Storr, 231 

Strauss, D. F, 236, 237 

Strigel, Victorin, 177, 178 

Strong, introduction of, 16; on 
theology as a science, 24; Sys- 
tematic theology of, 252 

Study, means of theological, 19, 30 

Sueskind, 231 

Supranaturalism, dogmatics of, 

Suso, 170 

Syncretism, 185 note 

Synergism, 175 

Synod, General, of Evang. Luth. 
Church, 116 note 

Synod, United, South, 116 note 

Synodical Conference, 116 note 

Systematic theology, analysis of, 

Systems of theology, Bjorling, 15; 
Bring, 16; Philippi, 121; Lu- 
thardt, 120-131; Melanchthon, 
177 note\ Hutter's Compend, 
190 note\ Gerhard, 191 note\ 
Baier, 194 note; Hollaz, 198 note 

Tauler, 170 

Taylor, Jeremy, 206 

Taylor, Nathaniel W., 251 

Teller, 226 

Tertullian, 145, 146 

Theologia blermaniea, 171 

Theologia or doctrine of God, 
analysis of, 124-126 

Theologian, a true, 19 

Theology, definition of, 17-20; di- 
visions of, 17, 18, 26-28; revealed, 
19, 45; means of study of, 19, 20; 
aim of, 20; claims of, 20-26; or- 
ganism of, 27-28; a science, 21- 
26; relation to philosophy, 25, 

26; natural, 44, 45; System of, 

Tholuck, on John Gerhard, 192 
Thomas Aqninas, 163-165 
Thomasius, introduction of, 15; 

dogmatics of, 247 
Tieftrunk, 228 
Tillotson, 209 
Tindal, deism of, 224 
Toellner, 221 
Tomline, 222 
Toplady, 222 
Torgau Articles, 93 note 
Tradition, unreliableness of, 51; 

true value of, 59, 60, 68-70 
Twesten, on Protestantism and 

Romanism, 48; as a theologian, 

Typical sense of Scripture, 85, 86 
Tzschirner, 229 

Ueberweg, on Gregory of Nyssa, 

Unionism, 185 note 
Ursinus, 183, 184 

Van Oosterzee, introduction of 
dogmatics of, 16; dogmatics of, 

Van Til, 204 

Victorines, the, 160, 161 

Vincent of Lerins, 151, 152 

Voetius, 202 

Voigt, 244 

Voltaire, 224 

Vulgar Rationalism, 228-230 

Wagenmann, on Occam, 168 

Walch, J. G., 217, 218 

Walter of St. Victor, 161 

Walther, on theology of seven- 
teenth century, 187, 188; on 
John Gerhard, 193; on Baier, 
195 ; as a theologian, 249, 250 

Warburton, 222 

Wardlaw, 251 

Waterland, 206, 222 

Watson, Richard, 252 

Wegscheider, 229 

Wendelin. 199, 200 

Wesel, 173 

Wesley, 222 


Wessel, 172 Wolfenbuettel fragments, 226 

Western Church, dogmatics of, Wolff, 220, 221 

143-154 Wolfgang Musculus, 183 

Wette, de, 238 Wolleb, 200 

Whitefield, 222 Woods, Leonard, 251 

Wiclif, 171, 172 Wuertemberg School, 215, 216, 232 
William of Champeaux, 157, 158 
William of Occam, 168 

Wltsius, 204 Zwingli, 180-182 

Date Due 




IN U. S. A.