Sectloxi 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lecturesonhistor02nean 
 
BOHN’S STANDARD LIBRARY. 
 
 NEANDER’S HISTORY OE DOGMAS 
 
 IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 SECOND PRINCIPAL PERIOD. 
 
 FROM GREGORY THE FIRST TO THE REFORMATION. 
 

 
 
 
 i 
 
 , V,' 
 
 
 
 
 •• ' 
 
 
 % 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
LECTURES 
 
 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS; 
 
 1)R. AUGUSTUS NEANDER. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 UR. J. L. JACOBI. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 
 
 ET 
 
 J, E. RYLAND, M.A., 
 
 EDITOR OF rOSTER’S LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE, AND OF DR. KITTO’S MEMOIR*; 
 TRANSLATOR OF NEANDER’S PLANTING AND TRAINING of 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ETC., ETC 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 YOL. II. 
 
 LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, 
 
 COVENT GARDEN. 
 
 1878. 
 
LONDON: 
 
 . PRINTED DY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, 
 STAMFORD STIiBBT AND CHARING CROSS. 
 

 A v 
 
 1 f 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGR 
 
 The internal Relation of Pelagian Contro¬ 
 versies . 357—375 
 
 General grounds of the controversy, 357 ; fundamental difference in 
 the view of the relation of the created spirit to God, 359. On the 
 first sin and its consequences, 362—364 ; the origin of souls, 365 ; the 
 extent of human depravity, 366; the relation of Christian and heathen 
 virtue, 367 ; effects of Christianity on mankind, 368. Pelagius on the 
 different stages in the education of mankind, and the office of the 
 Redeemer, 369. Idea of Redemption, 370. Augustin’s views of 
 divine Grace, 372. Absolute Predestination, 373. 
 
 4. The Semi-Pelagian Controversy . . . 375—394 
 
 Prosper Aquitanus and Hilary, 375. Augustin’s treatises De prce- 
 destinatione and De d^no perseverantice . 376. Cassian, 377. The con¬ 
 troversy continued after Augustin’s death by Prosper and Hilary. 378. 
 Three parties in this controversy, 379. The work De vocations 
 Gentium , 379, 380. The work Prcedestinatus and its authorship, 381. 
 Faustus and Lucidus, 382. Gennadius, a presbyter of Marseilles— 
 Avitus, bishop of Vienne—Csesarius, bishop of Arles, 383. The Scy¬ 
 thian monks—Fulgentius of Ruspe—Council of Oranges, 384. Council 
 of Valence—Gregory the Great, 385. The Eastern Church—Julian of 
 Eclanum — Theodore of Mopsuestia, 386 — 389. Chrysostom and 
 Augustin compared, 389—393. Nestorius, 393. 
 
 d. The Doctrine of the Church .... 394—398 
 
 Unspiritualizing of the Church—Donatism, 394. The Eastern 
 Church — Cyrill, Chrysostom, Isidore, Jovinian, 396. Rome the 
 Cathedra Petri , 397. 
 
 e. The Doctrine of the Sacraments . . . 398—413 
 
 1, Of the Sacraments in general . . . 398—402 
 
 Idea of a Sacrament—Augustin’s views, 399 ; the Donatists— 
 Petilian, 400 ; number of the Sacraments—Augustin, 401. Dionysius 
 the Areopagite, 402. 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAG* 
 
 2. Baptism ....... 402—405 
 
 Infant Baptism—the belief, but not the practice, prevalent in the 
 East—recommended by the Gregories, Basil, and Chrysostom, 402. 
 Julian of Eclanum, 403. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Caelestius, Pela- 
 gius, 404. The notion of an intermediate state for unbaptized chil¬ 
 dren opposed by the North African Church, 405. 
 
 3. The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper . . 406—413 
 
 The sensuous realistic view adopted by Cyrill of Jerusalem, 406. 
 Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, 407. Theodoret, Gelasius, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, 408. A more spiritual view held by Athanasius, 409. Augustin, 
 410. The purely symbolic view held by the school of Origen, 411. 
 Infant Communion—the view of the Supper as a Sacrifice, 412. 
 
 f. Eschatology ...... 413 — 417 
 
 The doctrine of an airoKaracfTaoiQ as held by Gregoiy of Nyssa, 413. 
 The Antiochian School—Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus, 414; opposed 
 by Augustin and Gregory the Great, 415. The doctrine of an ignis 
 purgatorius —Cyrill of Jerusalem, Augustin, Gregory the Great, 416; 
 opposed by Pelagius and Fulgentius of Ruspe, 417. 
 
 SECOND PRINCIPAL PERIOD. 
 
 The History of Dogmas in the Middle Ages, 
 
 from Gregory I. to the Reformation . 418 — 618 
 
 First Period, from the death of Gregory I. to 
 Gregor} 7- VTII., and the beginning of the 
 Scholastic Theology (that is, from the be¬ 
 ginning of the seventh to the end of the 
 eleventh Century) . . . . . 418 — 463 
 
 General History of Dogmas . . % 418 — 433 
 
 Character of the Period - disruption of the Eastern and Western 
 Churches — Islamism, 418. The Western Church —the Sententice 
 Patrum, 419. Influence of Rome—reaction in Britain and Ireland— 
 Protestant element in Germany, 420. Charlemagne—the Libri 
 Carolini —Alcuin—Agobard—Claudius, 421. The Pseudo-Dionysian 
 
 writings, 422. The Irish Monasteries—John Scotus Erigeua, 423_ 
 
 427. Ratherius of Verona, Gerbert, Ftilbert, Lanfranc, 427. Be- 
 rengarius, 428. Eusebius Bruno—The Greek Church—Maximus, 429. 
 John of Damascus—the Paulicians, 430. The Iconoclasts, 431. Dog¬ 
 matic contrarieties of this Period, 432. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Vll 
 
 PAGB 
 
 The History of Special Dogmas . . . 433—463 
 
 A. The History of Introductory Dogmas . . 433—434 
 
 The doctrine of Inspiration—Fredegis, Agobard, 433. Maximus 
 434. 
 
 B. The Dogmas of Special Dogmatic . . . 435—463 
 
 a. Theology ....... 435—437 
 
 The Controversy respecting the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Difference between the Eastern and Western Churches—John of 
 Damascus—Scotus Erigena, 435 ; the Synods of Gentilly and Friuli— 
 the Council of Aachen, 436 ; Alcuin, Theodulf, Photius, Nicholas I., 
 iEneas of Paris, 437. 
 
 b. The Doctrine of the Person of Christ . . 437—447 
 
 1. The Monotlieletic Controversy . . . 437—442 
 
 Renewal of the controversy between the Antiochian and Alexandrian 
 Schools—the Emperor Heraclius — Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, 438. 
 Imperial edict—edict of the Emperor Constans—Martinus, bishop of 
 Rome, Theodorus, bishop of Pharan, Maximus, 439. Dyothelitism 
 in the Western Church—Conciliatory but unsuccessful effort of the 
 Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, 441. 
 
 2. The Adoptianist Controversy . . . 442—447 
 
 Originated in Spain by Elipandus and Felix, 442. Influence of 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 443—445. Opposed by Alciun, 446. 
 
 c. The Controversy respecting Predestination . 433—454 
 
 Reaction against the milder Augustinian doctrine by Gottschalk, 
 448. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, 449. Gottschalk con¬ 
 demned at Mentz and Chiersy—vindicated by Prudentius, Ratramnus, 
 and Lupus, 450. Work, de tribus quaestiouibu v, 451. John Scotus 
 Erigena, de Prcedestinatione, 452. Second synod at Chiersy, 453. 
 Council of Valence, 454. 
 
 d. The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and the 
 
 Controversies respecting it 455—463 
 
 The Oriental Church, 455. The Western Church—Paschasius Rad- 
 but, 456. Ratramnus, De corpora et sanguine Domini , 457. John 
 Scotus, De Divisione Natures— Amalrich, Odo, 459. Berengarius the 
 representative of a spiritual tendency in the eleventh Century— 
 opposed by Lanfranc, 460, 461. Eusebius Bruno, 462. 
 
 The Second Period 
 
 463—619 
 
vill 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PA OB 
 
 The Scholastic Age,— from Gregory the Great 
 to the Reformation. 
 
 Characteristics of the Period .... 463—465 
 
 The First Section of the Scholastic Age,— 
 from the eleventh to the end of the 
 twelfth Century ..... 465—537 
 
 General History of Dogmas .... 465—491 
 
 Commencement of the Scholastic Age at the end of the eleventh 
 Century, 465. The religious movements of the Age, 466. Com¬ 
 mentary of Boethius on the Isagoge of Porphyry, 467. Augustin, the 
 founder of Realism, 467. Roscellin, the founder of Nominalism, 468. 
 Raimbert of Lisle, Odo, John of Salisbury, 469. Anselm of Canter¬ 
 bury, the father of Scholastic Theology, 472—474. Bernard of 
 Clairvaux, 475—477. Peter Abelard, 48U—486. Robert Pulleyn, 
 Hugo St. Victor, 486—488. Peter Lombard of Novara, 489. Walter 
 of St. Victor, Geroch, Provost of Reichenberg, the Abbot Joachim of 
 Floris, 490. Peter Cantor of St. Victor, Peter of Blois, 491. 
 
 History of Special Dogmas .... 492—494 
 
 A. Introductory Dogma—The Doctrine of Inspi¬ 
 ration. 
 
 Abelard’s treatise Sic et Non, 492. Anselm of Canterbury—Diver¬ 
 sity of opinions respecting the identity of religious Truth in the Old 
 and New Testament, 493. 
 
 The Dogmas of Special Dogmatics . . 495 — 573 
 
 a. Theology ....... 495—508 
 
 1. The Idea of God in general .... 495—496 
 
 Anselm’s Ontological proof of the divine existence, 495. Gaunilo, 496. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity .... 497—500 
 
 The Nominalist doctrine as maintained by Roscellin; the Realist 
 by Porietanus—Johannes Philoponus—Dialectic theories opposed by 
 Abelard and Lombard, 497. Anselm, 498. Peter Lombard, Hugo of 
 St. Victor, Abelard, 499. Alanus ab Insulis, 500. 
 
 3. Of the Divine Attributes .... 500-—508 
 
 Omnipresence, 500. Omnipotence, 501—503. Miracles, 504. Pre¬ 
 science and Predestination—Peter Lombard, Anselm, Hugo of St, 
 Victor, 506. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 b. Anthropology ...... 
 
 1. Of Man’s Original State, the Fall, and its Con- 
 
 508—512 
 
 sequences 
 
 508—512 
 
 Augustin’s views generally held by the Schoolmen, 508. Peter 
 Lombard’s distinction of dona natures and dona gratice, 509. Anselm 
 and Odo on hereditary depravity Abelard—510. Opinions respecting 
 the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, 512. 
 
 c. The Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ 512—514 
 
 1. The Person of Christ. 
 
 The sinlessness of Jesus, 512. Abelard on the indwelling of God 
 in Christ, 513. Hugo of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, 514. 
 
 2. Of Redemption . . . . . 514—521 
 
 Augustin on the method of Redemption, 514. Anselm’s doctrine of 
 satisfaction, 516, 517. Abelard, 518, 519. Bernard, Peter Lombard, 
 520. Robert Pulleyn, two opposing views of Redemption since 
 Anselm’s time, 521. 
 
 3. The application of Redemption, Justification, 
 
 and Sanctification ..... 521—524 
 
 The Schoolmen opposed to mere outward sanctity, 521. Anselm, 
 Hugo of St. Victor, Bernard, 522. Abelard, 523. Bernard, Alanus, 
 Pulleyn, Lombard, 524. Distinction of fides informis and fides for - 
 mata, 525. 
 
 4. Relation of Grace and Freedom . . . 525, 526 
 
 .Anselm, Robert Pulleyn, 525. Bernard, Richard of St. Victor, 
 Peter Lombard, 526. 
 
 d. The Doctrine of the Sacraments . . . 527—537 
 
 Definition of a Sacrament by Hugo of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, 
 527. Pulleyn, Hugo of St. Victor, 528. The Number of the Sacra¬ 
 ments, 529. 
 
 1. Of Baptism 
 
 530 
 
 Relation of the res sacramenti to the sacramentum —Infant Baptism 
 rejected by the Catharists, 530 
 
 2. Of the Lord’s Supper ..... 530—536 
 
 Transubstantiation defended by Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Hugo, 
 530. Peter of Bruis, Abelard, Zacharias of Chrysopolis, Rupert of 
 Deutz, 531. Anselm, 532. Hildebart, Hugo, Peter Lombard, 533. 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Transubstantiation declared an article of Faith by Innocent III., 533. 
 Infant Communion continued to the twelfth century, 533. Withhold' 
 ing of the Cup, 534. The doctrine of the concomitantia, 534, 535. 
 The Sacrifice of the Mass—Peter Lombard, 536. 
 
 3. Penance ....... 536 
 
 Threefold division by Peter Lombard, 536. Abelard’s word Scito 
 teipsum , 537. 
 
 The Scholastic Age. 
 
 Section Second (Century xiii.) . . . 538—595 
 
 The General History of Dogmas . . . 538-—552 
 
 Ascendancy of the Aristotelian Philosophy, 538—540. The Arabian 
 Philosophy, 540. The Mendicant Friars, 541. The Franciscans, 541. 
 The Dominicans, 542. Thomas Aquinas, 542. William of Auvergne, 
 543. Roger Bacon, John Duns Scotus, 544. The method of Scholastic 
 Dialectics, 545. Rationalist reaction—Amalrich dfe Bena, David de 
 Dinanto, 546. Doctrine of Joachim of Floris, Francis of Assissi, 
 the Aristotelian Averrhoes, 547. Raymund Lulli, 548. 
 
 Special H [story of Dogmas .... 549—595 
 
 A. The Dogmas which belong to the Introduction 
 
 in Dogmatics ... ... 549—559 
 
 Treatment of Dogmatics by the Schoolmen, 549. Alexander of 
 Hales, 550. Bonaventura, 551. Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, 
 552. Duns Scotus, 554. William of Paris, 556. Roger Bacon, 
 Raymund Lulli, 557. 
 
 B. The Dogmas of Special Dogmatics . . . 559—595 
 
 a. The Doctrine of God. 
 
 1. Proof of the Divine Existence. The idea of God in general. 
 
 Alexander of Hales, 559. Thomas Aquinas, Amalrich and David of 
 Dinanto, 560. Joachim of Floris, 561. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity .... 562—564 
 
 Analogy to the Trinity in the human spirit—Albert the Great, 562. 
 Aquinas, Raymund Lulli. 563. 
 
 3. The Doctrine of the Creation . . . 564, 565 
 
 Bonaventura on the End of Creation, 564. Thomas Aquinas, 565. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xi 
 
 PAGB 
 
 4. Tlie Doctrines of Providence, the Government 
 
 of tlie Universe, and Miracles . . . 565—568 
 
 Albertus Magnus, Alexander of Hales, 566. Thomas Aquinas, 568. 
 
 5. Predestination and Prescience . . . 568 — 573 
 
 Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, 568. The Monism of 
 Aquinas, 570; his views of Free Will, 571. Raymund Lulli, 572. 
 
 6. Anthropology ...... 573—579 
 
 Of Man’s original State, the Fall and its consequences, 573—579. 
 Two-fold idea of Grace held by the Schoolmen, 574. Alexander of 
 Hales, Bonaventura, 574, Aquinas, 575. Relation of the pura 
 naturalia to gratia, 576. Difference between and Grace as stated 
 by Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, 577. The Catharists on original sin— 
 Aquinas, Duns Scotus, 587. On the immaculate conception of the 
 Virgin Mary, 579. 
 
 C. The Doctrine of the Redeemer and his Work . 580—588 
 
 1. The Objective side ..... 580—584 
 
 Duns Scotus on the sinlessness of Christ, 580. Bonaventura on 
 Redemption, 580. Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Raymund Lulli, 581. 
 Aquinas on the necessity of Redemption, 582. Innocent III., William 
 of Paris, 583. Duns Scotus, 584. 
 
 2. The Subjective side—appropriation of the Work 
 
 of Redemption ..... 584—588 
 
 Aquinas on Sanctification, 5H5. On assurance of the forgiveness of 
 sins—Alexander of Hales, Aquinas, 586. On the idea of merit, 587. 
 
 d. The Doctrine of the Sacraments . . . 588—595 
 
 Aquinas on the necessity of seven sacraments, 588. The Divine 
 co-operation in the Sacraments—Alexander of Hales, Aquinas, 589. 
 Duns Scotus, 590. Twofold effect of the Sacraments—Alexander of 
 Hales, Aquinas, 590. 
 
 1. The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper . . 591—593 
 
 Necessity of Transubstantiation maintained by Aquinas—not so 
 absolutely by Duns Scotus, 591. The doctrine opposed by John of 
 Paris, 591. Withholding of the cup established, 592. 
 
 2. Penance ....... 593 — 595 
 
 Sanction of auricular confession by Innocent III.—distinction of 
 attritio and contritio, 593. The doctrine of Indulgences — Thesaurus 
 meritorum, 594. Six conditions of Indulgences laid down by William 
 of Auxerre, 595. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 • • 
 
 Xll 
 
 PA/JR 
 
 Third Period of the Schoolmen, from the four¬ 
 teenth Century to the Reformation . . 595—619 
 
 General History of Dogmas .... 595—605 
 
 Characteristics of this Period, 595. Opposition of the Thomist and 
 Scotist Schools—William of Occam, the new founder of Nominalism, 
 596. Wycliffe, the advocate of Realism, John Wessel, a Nominalist. 
 Gabriel Biel the last of the Schoolmen, Nicholas of Cura, De Docta 
 Ignorantia, 597. Raymonde de Sebonde, 598. The Parisian Theolo¬ 
 gians—the treatise, Defensor Pads, by Marsilius of Padua and John 
 of Sanduno — the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, 599. 
 Wycliffe compared with Huss, 600 ; John Wessell, 601 ; Peter Pom- 
 ponazio, 602. Revival of Platonism and the study of the Classics— 
 Erasmus, 603. Mysticism—Master Eckard and the Beghards, 604. 
 Ruysbrock, 605. 
 
 The Special History of Dogmas . . . 605—619 
 
 A. The History of Introductory Dogmas . . 605—608 
 
 1. The Statements respecting the Essence of Theo¬ 
 
 logy—Views of Durand . . . . 605 
 
 2. On Tradition and the Holy Scriptures as 
 
 Sources of Knowledge .... 606—608 
 
 The formal principle of the Reformation more distinctly announced 
 by Wycliffe, Wessel, and others, 606. Gerson’s treatise on the literal 
 sense of Scripture, 606. Nicholas of Cusa a defender of Tradition, 
 607. 
 
 B. The Dogmas of Special Dogmatics . . 608—619 
 
 a. The Doctrine of God . . . . . 608 
 
 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Wycliffe maintained that the Trinity was a necessary truth of Rea¬ 
 son, and found traces of it in Plato, 608. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of Predestination, Grace, and Free- 
 
 Will . 608—610 
 
 Bradwardine’s treatise, De Causa Dei adversus Pelagium et de Yirtute 
 Causarum, 609. Wycliffe’s views connected with his Philosophical 
 system, 610. 
 
 b. Anthropology. 
 
 The Doctrine of Original Sir 
 
 6 L 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xi 11 
 
 PACfB 
 
 c. The Doctrine of the Church . . . . 611 
 
 Reaction in the University of Paris respecting the relation of the 
 Papacy to the Church—the Chancellor Gerson—the treatise Defensor 
 Pads, 612. Wycliffe’s views—Treatise of Huss Be Ecclesia —Wessel’s 
 treatise De Communione Sanctorum , 
 
 d. The Doctrine of the Sacraments. 
 
 1. Of the Sacraments in general . . . 613 
 
 Increased reaction against the Catholic idea of the Sacraments— 
 Views of Durand, 613. Peter D’Ailly—Wycliffe, 614. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper . . 614 
 
 Doubts respecting Transubstantiation—William of Ockham, 614. 
 Durand, Peter D’Ailly, Wycliffe, 615. Withholding of the Cup 
 opposed by Jacobellus of Misa, 616. Resolutions of the Council of 
 Constance against the Hussites—Council of Basle allowed communion 
 in both kinds, 617. 
 
 3. The Doctrine of Penance and the Thesaurus 
 
 Supererogationis . . . . . 617 
 
 The constitutio unigenitus issued by Clement VI., 617. Gerson on 
 Indulgences—Wycliffe—HusS—Wessell, 618, 
 
 4. The Doctrine of Purgatory . . . . 618 
 
 The Dogma of ignis purgatorius established at the Councils of 
 Florence and Ferrara, 618. 
 
 THIRD PRINCIPAL PERIOD 
 
 The Development of Doctrines since the 
 
 Reformation. ..... 619—702 
 
 A. The History of Introductory Dogmas. 
 
 The Doctrine of the Sources of Knowledge . . 620—637 
 
 Connexion of the acknowledgment of the paramount authority of 
 Scripture with the religious consciousness in every renovation of a 
 Church, 620. Illustrated by the examples of Wycliffe and Luther, 
 
 621. Difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches, 
 
 622. Acts of the Council of Trent on the relation between Tradition 
 and Scripture, 623. The Carmelite Monk Antonio Marinari, 624. 
 The relation of the Scriptures to Tradition and to the Confessions in 
 the Evangelical Church, 624; the Formula Concordiee, 625. CaJixtus 
 on the Gommonitorium of Vincentius Lerinensis, 626. Reaction in 
 
 A A * 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 siv 
 
 PASS 
 
 the Reformed Church proceeding from Arminius, and supported by 
 Grotius, 620. Socinianism, its points of agreement and disagreement 
 with the principles of the Reformation, 627. Its founder Loelius 
 Socinus—character of his nephew Faustus Socinus, 628. Treatise of 
 Faustus Socinus De Avctnritate S ’npturce Sacra —Crell—Controversy 
 between Recarus and Calovius, 629. Wissowatius, 630. Mysticism 
 —the Zwickau Prophets—Munzer, 631—Theobald Tharner, 632. The 
 Quakers —George Fox, 633. Barclay—Elias Hicks—Mystic rationalism 
 in Germany—Daniel Muller, 634. Rationalism in the Reformed 
 Church of Holland, 635. Peter Poiret—Lewis Meier, 636. Ration¬ 
 alism ending in Pantheism, 637. 
 
 The Special History of Dogmas. 
 
 A. The Introductory Dogmas. 
 
 The Doctrine of Inspiration .... 637—642 
 
 Controversy between Erasmus and Eck, 637. Luther’s views of 
 Inspiration, 638, 639. Mechanical idea of Inspiration—Socinus De 
 Auctoritate Scriptures Sacra, 640. Grotius and Episcopius on the 
 Historical books of Scripture, 641. Reaction in Pietism and the 
 Unitas Fratrum, 642. 
 
 B. The Dogmas of Dogmatics strictly so called . 642—702 
 
 a. Theology ....... 642—651 
 
 1. The Doctrine of God in general. 
 
 Theological Dogmas omitted in the first edition of Melancthon’s 
 Loci, 642. Inadequate conception of the divine attributes in Soci¬ 
 nianism—the Institutiones religionis Christiance of Faustus Socinus, 
 643. Anxiety of Socinus to maintain man’s free agency, and to 
 impugn the doctrine of absolute Predestination, 644 ; denied the un¬ 
 conditional divine Prescience, 644. Views of the Remonstrants— 
 Vorstius and Episcopius, 645. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Antitrinitarian reaction, especially in Italy, 645. Campanus the 
 Arian, Wicel, 646. Leader of the Arian party—Gentilis, Gribaldus, 
 and Farnovius, 647. Sabellian Antitrinitarians—Hetzer, Claudius of 
 Savoy, and Ochino, 647. Michael Servedo (Servetus), 648. Faustus 
 Socinus, differed in some points from Servetus, agreed for the most 
 part with Paul of Samosata, 650. The Augsburg Confession on the 
 Trinity, and its opponents, 650. 
 
 b. The Doctrine of the Person of Christ . 651 
 
 Views of Socinus, 651. Francis Davidis, 652. Controversy between 
 the Lutherans and Calvinists on the ubiquity of Christ’s Body, 653. 
 Controversy between the Giessen theologians, Menzer and Feuerborn, 
 and those of Tubingen, Osiander and Thummius, 653. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 c. Anthropology ...... 653 
 
 Views of humati nature in the Evangelical Church connected with 
 the doctrine of Justification by Faith, 654. Doctrine of the Reformers 
 on original Sin, 655. The Council of Trent on Man’s original state, 
 
 656. Cardinal Bellarmine, 656. The Council of Trent on the sinless¬ 
 ness of the Virgin Mary, 657. Views of human nature held by Socinus, 
 
 657. Zwingli, 658. Placseus, Whitby, Episcopus, Limborch, 659. 
 
 d. The Doctrine of Redemption . . . . 660 
 
 Socinus denied the doctrine of a Scitisfacth activa and passiva, 660. 
 Views of the Remonstrants, Grotius, Episcopius, 661. 
 
 e. The Doctrine of Justification . . . . 661 
 
 Subjective idea of Justification, 661. The objective idea maintained 
 by the Reformers, especially by Luther and Melancthon, 662. Opposite 
 views of the Council of Trent, 663. Protestant opponents of the Evan¬ 
 gelical doctrine of Justification—Wicel. Osiander, 664. Schwenkfeld, 
 Socinus, 665. Views of the Remonstrants—Limborch, 666. 
 
 f. Grace, Free-Will, and Predestination . . 666 
 
 The Augustinian scheme held by the Reformers, 666. Luther’s 
 Controversy with Erasmus, 667. Melancthon, Zwingli, 667. Zwingli’s 
 views on the condemnation of the Heathen, and the extent of Re¬ 
 demption, 668. Coelius Secundus Curio, and the Polish reformer, 
 John Lasko, 669. Melancthon, on Predestination, in the Augsburg 
 Confession and Apology, 670. The Synergistic Controversy, 672. 
 Calvin maintained the earlier doctrine of absolute Predestination, 673. 
 Opposed by Sebastian Castellio and Melancthon, 674. Disputation 
 at Strassburg, between Zanchius and Marbach, 675. The Formula 
 Ooncordice, 676. Samuel Huber’s controversy with AEgidius Hunnius, 
 677. Reactions in the Reformed Church, Arminius, Koornhert, 677. 
 The Delft Pi*eachers and Arminius, 678. Gomarus, Uytenbogaert, 
 Episcopius, the remonstrance to the States of Holland, in five articles, 
 the Synod of Dort, 679. Theory of Universalismus hypotheticus, pro¬ 
 posed by Amyraut and Testart, 680. The Synods of Alengon and 
 Charenton, 681. The Council of Trent on Predestination, 681. The 
 Dominican, Dominico Soto, and the Francescan, Andrea Vega, 682. 
 Reformatory movement in the Catholic Church, Michael Bains, his 
 seventy-nine propositions condemned by Pius V., 682. The contio- 
 versy renewed by the Jesuit Molina, 682. The Jansenist Controversy, 
 Jansen’s Augustinus , 683. Views of Socinus, 684. 
 
 g. The Doctrine of the Church . . . 684 
 
 The Catholic doctrine, 684. Views of the Reformers as expressed 
 in the Augsburg Confession and Apology, 685. Zwingli’s development 
 of the doctrine in his Antibolum, 686. Calvin’s idea of the Church, 
 6->7. Luther and Melancthon, 687. 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PA OB 
 
 h. Tlie Doctrine of the Sacraments 
 
 638 
 
 The decision of the Council of Trent, 688. Luther and Melancthom 
 888. Views of Zwingli, 689. Conference between Schwenkfeld and 
 Bugenhajen, 690. Calvin’s position, 690. Luther on the numbex’ of 
 the Sacraments, 691. Melancthon’s statement in his Apology, 691. 
 
 1. The Doctrine of Baptism 
 
 692 
 
 A re-examination of the grounds of Infant Baptism called for, owing 
 to the Zwickau enthusiasts, who zealously opposed it, 692. Melanc¬ 
 thon’s perplexity, 692. Luther’s determination of the question, 692. 
 Zwingli and Calvin, 692. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of the Supper , 
 
 694 
 
 Luther at first gave prominence to the subjective element; after¬ 
 wards to the objective, 694. Zwingli’s preference of the subjective. 
 695. Carlstadt and Honius, 697. Calvin’s views, 697. Melancthon’s 
 position, 698. Views of the Socinians, 699. Doctrine of the Quakers, 
 as stated by Barclay in his Apology, 701. 
 
THE 
 
 HISTORY OE CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 THE INTERNAL RELATION OF PELAGIAN 
 CONTROVERSIES. 
 
 When Cselestius began with representing the importance of 
 the controversy as trifling, this caution was extreme, and at 
 least not the opinion of the Pelagians generally, who rather 
 held the opposite opinion. This is evident from the assertion 
 of Julian—that the God of the Traducians was not the God 
 of the Gospels; they made either Satan to be the Author of 
 human nature, or God to be the Author of evil. For the 
 doctrine of hereditary depravity appeared to them contra¬ 
 dictory to the perfection of the Creator, to his holiness and 
 justice, and the doctrine of grace also to his love and justice; 
 thus both seemed to be practically injurious, since moral 
 efforts were unnecessary and impossible, and a sanction was 
 given to immorality. Augustin on his part regarded the 
 questions in dispute as objects of the highest importance. 
 “The Christian faith,” he says, “ properly consists in what 
 relates to two men, one by whom we are sold under sin, the 
 other by whom we are redeemed from our sins,” i. e. Pela- 
 gianism is at variance with the first principles of Christianity, 
 since whoever denies Original sin, sets aside the need of 
 redemption. 
 
 In our investigation of the internal connexion and exact 
 principle of the particular points of controversy, we must 
 distinguish between what the parties themselves consciously 
 regarded as the main point, and the deeper difference to 
 which everything was really to be traced. The subjects of 
 controversy were, the original state of Man, the character 
 of the first transgression and its consequences to the human 
 race, the present moral condition of mankind, the nature of 
 Free Will, its relation to Grace, the method of the Redeemer’s 
 work, the relation of the Christian and pre-Christian stand¬ 
 points ; and in addition there was the controversy respecting 
 the efficacy of Baptism in freeing human nature from sin¬ 
 fulness, and making those who receive it members of the 
 kingdom of God. Now the different views entertained of 
 the present constitution of human nature might seem to 
 involve the highest principle, and certainly it was a noin* of 
 
358 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 prime importance, since according to the representations of 
 the moral power which is still left to men, the doctrines of 
 grace and redemption, and the influence of Christianity on 
 human nature will be determined. But this question leads 
 back to that respecting Original Sin and its effects, and the 
 various opinions regarding this point are again dependent 
 on the view taken of Man’s primeval state. If we accepted 
 the immediate assertion of both parties we might stop here ; 
 but does not the difference lead us to a more general ground 
 of contrariety ? The contending parties differed also on 
 another point which is independent of that we have just 
 mentioned—namely, in their notions of Free Will. Pelagius 
 understood by it the power of choosing which can at any 
 moment decide between good and evil, whence it follows that 
 every moment of life is like another, the operation of the 
 earlier having no effect on the later, and consequently the 
 differences between the primeval and the present state of 
 Man is inconsiderable; and by this the whole point of view of 
 the development of human nature is determined. Augustin 
 on the contrary held that in the Free Will, the element of a 
 self determining choice between good and evil was not at all 
 necessary. Here then is a difference on which various views 
 of the original and later state of mankind are founded. But 
 we may trace the condition of human nature still further back 
 to the relation of rational creatures generally to God. Here 
 also the difference is founded on Free Will. Pelagius 
 assumed that man was furnished once for all with the powers 
 which are necessary for his development; the logical carrying 
 out of this datum excludes the Supernatural. Augustin 
 regarded such an Autonomy of the creature as contradicting 
 its relation to God; it stands in continual dependence on him, 
 and its highest destiny is to be his organ. But whatever is 
 true of the relation of the rational Creature to the Creator, 
 rests again on the view of the world generally whether as 
 prepared at Creation and developing itself independently or 
 as upheld by a continued Creation, and therefore must be 
 considered either as only a mediate interference of God, or as 
 an immediate operation of his power and absolute dependence 
 upon him. And here lies the deepest ground of the whole 
 difference. And we find some indications that this principle 
 was not wholly concealed from the contending parties. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 359 
 
 Innocent says; * “ Wilt thou be superior in providing for 
 thyself, to Him who has given thee thy being ? and how is it 
 that to whom thou thinkest thyself indebted for thy life, thou 
 dost not think that thou art indebted for grace to enable thee 
 to live as thou dost?” And Jerome says, These men by 
 [their doctrine of] freedom make men not such as are depen¬ 
 dent on their own will, but place human power on a level with 
 the divine as being self-sufficient; yet we ought to know that 
 we are nothing if God does not preserve what he has granted 
 to us. He charges them with the sentiment, “If I will to 
 bend my finger, is God’s help necessary for me ? ” In the 
 same way Orosius remarks that God has not merely in virtue 
 of natural Creation granted all men grace, but daily to all and 
 each one at every moment he specially imparts his gifts. He 
 appeals to the passages in Holy Writ which speak of the 
 divine concursus; but perhaps thou answerest me, Nature 
 preserves its unvariable order, and after God has once arranged 
 it he effects through it whatever happens (therefore mediately), 
 but certainly he who gives, gives when and where he will, 
 either by guiding the arrangements he has made in its 
 development, or by pouring forth his bounty in new Gifts. 
 
 As to the fundamental difference in the consideration of the 
 general relation between the created spirit and God, Augustin 
 lays down as a principle that the Divine Spirit is alone 
 autonomic, and the self-subsistent origin of the True and the 
 Good; the created spirit, on the contrary, cannot possess 
 the Good and the True, as its absolute possession, but attains 
 to them only through communion with God ; it has only the 
 susceptibility of appropriating that higher life, and of reveal¬ 
 ing* it in action. Hence arises the contrariety between a life 
 in communion with God, in which all true goodness is placed, 
 and in Grace, and the life of human nature estranged from 
 God.f As the eye is circumstanced to the light of the sun, 
 so is the created Spirit to the Grace of God. He does not 
 deduce primarily from sin the need of human nature £ for 
 
 * Ep. ad Cone. Carth. § 3. 
 
 + De Peccat. Mentis et Remissione, ii. § 5. 
 
 X De Corrept. et Grat. § 32.—Si hoc adjutorium vel angelo vel 
 homini, cum primum facti sunt, defuisset, quoniam non talis natura 
 facta erat, ut sine divino adjutorio posset rnanere, si vellet, non utique 
 sua culpa cecidissent, adjutorium quippe defuisset, sine quo rnanere 
 non possent. 
 
360 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 grace, in order to realize its destiny, but thinks it is princi¬ 
 pally founded on the relation of the creature to God, though 4 
 lie thus affixes to the term gratia a different idea from that 
 contained in Scripture. Even in the highest state of the spirits 
 in heaven, and in the original state of man, the gratia justi- 
 ficans was the source of all good, only the Spirit freely con¬ 
 tinued in divine communion, without having to overcome an 
 opposition. As soon as it forsakes this communion, there 
 can be nought but evil in itself. Love to God is the source 
 of all Good ; and, inversely, Selfishness is the principle of 
 Evil. 
 
 Pelagius, on the other hand, regarded the creature as 
 endowed with the powers of its existence and left to itself; 
 hence the moral nature has likewise its powers, in order to 
 fulfil its destiny; these faculties belong to it as an inalienable 
 possession, and can suffer no essential alteration. It depends 
 on man himself to make use of these powers. In reference 
 to Goodness, Pelagius distinguished a posse , a velle, and an 
 esse * The posse comes from God ; the velle and the esse are 
 man’s affair. That the eye can see, is a gift of God; to see 
 ill or well depends on ourselves. Thus, God has imparted to 
 us the ability for goodness—whether we perform it depends 
 upon ourselves. Accordingly, the essence of virtue consists 
 in the free application of our moral powers—in this lies the 
 meritum of man, without which there is no virtue. With this 
 
 * De Gratia Christi, iv. § 5.—Primo loco posse statuimus, secundo 
 velle, tertio esse. Posse in natura, velle in arbitrio, eese in effectu 
 locamus. Primum illud, id est posse; ad Deum proprie pertinet quod 
 illud creatursc suse contulit; duo vero reliqua, hoc est velle et esse, ad 
 hominem referenda sunt, quia de arbitrii fonte descendunt. Ergo in 
 voluntate et opere bono laus hominis est, immo et hominis et Dei, qui 
 ipsius voluntatis et operis possibilitatem dedit quique ipsa possibilitatem 
 gratise suae adjuvat semper auxilio. Quad vero potest homo velle 
 bonum atque perficere, saiuis Dei est; potest itaque illud unum esse, 
 etiam si duo ista non fuerint; ista vero sine illo esse non possimt. 
 Itaque liberum mihi est nec voluntatem bonam habere nec actionem ; 
 nullo autem modo possum non habere possibilitatem boni; inest mihi 
 etiam si voluere, nec otium sui aliquando in hoc natura recipit. Quem 
 nobis sensum exempla facient clariorem. Quod possumus videre oculis, 
 nostrum non est; quod vero bene aut male videmus, hoc nostrum est. 
 Et ut generaliter universa complectar, quod possumus omne bonum 
 facere, dicere, cogitare, illius est, qui hoc posse donavit, qui hoc posse 
 adjuvat: quod vero bene vel agimus vel loquimur vel eogitamus, 
 nostrum est, quia luce omnia vertere in malum etiam possumus. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 361 
 
 also is connected the definition of Free Will*—the ability, 
 at every moment, of doing good or evil. Augustin rejoinedf 
 that such a state of self-determining moral indifference is 
 inconceivable. Good and Evil cannot come from the same 
 source.J Man lives either in communion with God, and in 
 that state professes moral freedom, that is, the ability to 
 determine himself according to the internal law of his moral 
 nature, or he is estranged from God. The definition of 
 Pelagius supposes something which does not belong to the 
 essence of a moral nature—the temptation to Evil. Such a 
 self-determining choice proceeds from a tendency, already 
 existing, to Evil; in this consists the moral misery of man, 
 that he who ought to live only in goodness is attracted by that 
 Evil which is opposed to his nature. 
 
 According to the Pelagian definition of Freedom, there was 
 no special necessity to discuss man’s original state, since his 
 moral nature was asserted to have been always in the same 
 equilibrium of the will as at first. Pelagius was prompted to 
 explanations upon it only by the Bible and the doctrine of the 
 Church. It was otherwise with Augustin, in whose system 
 this doctrine necessarily had a place, in order to explain the 
 phenomena of the present, which point back to a preceding 
 derangement, since man could not have been so created 
 originally. “ How comes it to pass,” he asks, “ that man, 
 who subdues lions, knows not how he ought to live?” Hence, 
 from the first, he occupied himself with this inquiry. Both 
 these theologians connected their views with the Bible and 
 the Church, and understood the narrative in Genesis, for 
 the most part, in a literal sense. But so much the greater 
 was the internal difference. According to Pelagius, every 
 child is in the same state as the first man before the Fall, 
 
 * De Gratia Christi, § 19.—Habemus possibilitatem utriusque partis 
 a Deo insitam, velut quandam, ut ita dicam, radicem fructiferam, quae 
 ex voluntate hominis diversa gignat et quse possit ad proprii cultoris 
 arbitrium, vel intere flore virtutum vel sentibus horrere vitiorum. 
 
 I Opus Imperf. contr. Julianum. iii. 117.—Libra tua quam eovaris 
 ex utraque parte per sequalia momenta suspendere, ut voluntas 
 quantum est ad malum, tantum etiam sit ad bonum libera, &c. See 
 Muller’s Christian Doctrine of Sin (transl. by Pulsford : Edinb. 1853), 
 vol. ii. 37, &c. 
 
 7 De Gratia Christi, 21.—Aliud est caritas radix bonorum, alind 
 cupiditas radix malorum, tantumque inter se differunt quantum virtus 
 et vitium. 
 
362 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 only that the powers of the latter were mature. Then, as 
 now, man must have been compounded of Reason and 
 Sensuousness, the latter ruled by the former; but he was 
 different from what he was at a later period, because he had 
 no experience, no practice in goodness, and no example 
 before him. Instead of this, Augustin asserts a great 
 difference ; that in man’s original state, there reigned uninter¬ 
 rupted communion with God ; that Goodness was his proper 
 element, and temptation to sin could never approach him ; he 
 lived .in the gratia justificans, the source of all goodness, 
 and in consequence of communion with God, all the parts of 
 his nature were linked in harmony with one another. The 
 Body was a willing organ of the Soul. Man was not yet an 
 immortal nature, but he was not subject to Death, and 
 would have been translated, without suffering it, to a higher 
 state of existence. 
 
 Augustin* ascribed great importance to the first sin, as an 
 act by which man’s pure moral nature was separated from 
 communion with God. Pelagius, on the contrary, lowered 
 the moral importance of the first sin ; he could not imagine 
 that this single act could exert so great an influence on the 
 development of the human race. God required from the first 
 man a proof of his obedience, since he was bound to over¬ 
 come sensual desire. That he was allured by it, was purely 
 natural, for God had implanted the desire in his nature, but 
 the Evil consisted in allowing himself to be led astray, and 
 permitting it to transgress the Divine Law.f But the 
 transgression took place with more facility, because man 
 was unpractised and inexperienced in virtue, and was not 
 strengthened by any example. Augustin, on the other hand, 
 denied that the desire for the forbidden fruit wa3 innocent. 
 Thus the conflict was supposed to take place in the state of 
 innocence. In the untroubled harmony of the Divine and 
 the Human, Adam was not exposed to such a temptation, 
 which was only possible through his own blameworthiness. 
 The internal disobedience and opposition of the human will 
 to the divine, must have preceded, ere Sensuousness and 
 Reason could have been brought into collision. J 
 
 * J. Muller, D. Lehre v. d. Siinde, i. 395. 
 
 + Cf. Op. Imperf. contr. Julian. 4, 38. 
 
 t Ibid. 5, 17. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 363 
 
 According to the Pelagian representation, the consequences 
 of the first sin were rendered less important for Adam 
 himself, because he was awakened to repentance by the 
 punishment. The Free Will remained in him as in his 
 posterity, equipoised between Good and Evil; death was 
 regarded by Pelagius as founded in human nature as such. 
 He was willing, indeed, to grant, that the first man, if he had 
 not sinned, might have been spared from suffering it, by 
 a special privilege, but in itself it was the law of his nature. 
 And not the less were the maladies of human nature founded 
 on it, and could not be attributed to Adam’s transgression. 
 On the other hand, Augustin taught that death had its origin 
 in the discord which arose through sin between man and 
 God, and in its consequences in human nature. Guilt and 
 the punishment of sin, with all other evils, has passed over 
 to the w 7 hole development of humanity. In Adam the w 7 hole 
 human race sinned and became estranged from God, a massa 
 perditionis. For the Scriptural confirmation of this view, 
 which rested in the depths of the consciousness of sin, he 
 attached great weight to the translation of Romans v. 12, 
 in quo ( Adamo ) omnes peccciverunt. He supported it also by 
 his philosophic Theory of general ideas, a Platonic-Aristo- 
 telian Realism, according to which the Universal must be 
 expressed and contained in single individuals (universcilia 
 in re). As the human race were first of all contained and 
 expressed in a single example, the whole race must be laden 
 with the first sin and guilt, as common to all. The ascen¬ 
 dancy of the selfish tendency in the conflict between Sen¬ 
 suousness and Reason has extended itself over the whole 
 development of humanity. He considered it important to 
 notice in the law 7 of development, that sin punishes itself by 
 sin. Julian explained that passage in the Epistle to the 
 Romans correctly,* and believed that he had thus quashed 
 the whole theory of Augustin. The assertion that sin 
 
 * Contr. Julian, 6,75.—Frustra sensum alium novum atque distortum 
 et a vero abhorrentem molius exsculpere affirmans, ea locutione dictum 
 esse ; in quo omnes peccaverunt, ac si diceretur; propter quod omnes 
 peccaverunt sicut dictum est : in quo covirgit junior viarn suam ut 
 scilicet non in uno homine omnes homines peccasse intelligantur origina- 
 liter et tanquam in massce unione communiter, sed propterea quia 
 primus hominum ille peccavit; id est, cum imitantur ilium, non cum 
 generantur ex illo. Ron ergo huic sensui convenit ilia locutio, ita 
 dictum esse : in quo, velut dictum esset: propter quod. 
 
364 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 punishes itself by sin was to him inconceivable *—that would 
 lie a punishment by which God would multiply sin itself and 
 drive men into the necessary commission of sin. Yet, in 
 another passage,t he does not altogether conceal from himself 
 the truth of the case, for he says, “ Goodness enjoys itself, 
 Evil inflicts suffering on itself.” Augustin makes original 
 sin to consist in that selfish tendency of desire which 
 manifests itself in the concupiscentia. He who had so long 
 succumbed to the power of sensuality, felt its yoke peculiarly 
 hard, and hence was disposed to give prominence to the 
 sensuous element in sin. His elevated soul longed after 
 a perfect command over it, and hence cherished a partiality 
 for asceticism; but the charge brought against him by the 
 Pelagians was false,—that he adopted Manichean principles, 
 and placed the ground of sin in Sensuousness itself in the 
 Body, and thus made God the Author of Evil. The contro¬ 
 versy ought to have led to the more exact determination of 
 the boundary between the natural and the moral; but as each 
 party took for granted the correctness of his own standpoint, 
 the one did not appreciate the other; the Pelagians, es¬ 
 pecially, could not do justice to the' profound ethical con¬ 
 ceptions of Augustin. Julian appealed to the fact, that the 
 sensuous tendency existed also in the brute creation, and, 
 therefore, was founded in nature, and could not be ascribed 
 to Sin. To this Augustin rejoined that the misery which was 
 here in question, could not affect the brutes, but the concu- 
 piscentia carnis was only a punishment for men; that in the 
 inferior animals the flesh could not lust against the spirit. 
 The example of Christ proved that this discord did not neces¬ 
 sarily belong to human nature. For this assertion, his 
 opponents accused him of Apollinarism and Docetism. If 
 
 * Opus Imperf. 4, 35.—Quo genere ultionis multiplicaret Deus 
 flagitia non puniret, et qui iratus erat rnalae voluntati, qua fuerat 
 erratum, reliquam facerat peccandi necessitatem. 
 
 f Contr. Julian. 5, 36.—Augustin says, iVJ eminestine, quamdiu 
 disputio eris contra lucidissimam, quae per Apostolum deprompta est, 
 veritatem, affirmans nullo modo esse posse aliquid, quod et peccatum 
 sit et poena peccati ? Quid est ergo nunc quod oblitus tantae loquacitatis 
 tuae ideo laudas altitudinem divitiarum sapientiao et scientiae Dei quia 
 extra futuram operum retributionem ex multa pacte liberum arbitrium 
 fermam voluit implere judicii? Justissime enim sibi, sicut definis, 
 bonus homo malusque committitur, ut et bonus se finatur, utique in 
 opere bono. et malus se ipse patiatur, utique in opere malo. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 365 
 
 there had been no internal conflict in Christ, there would have 
 been no virtue in him. Augustin defended himself by saying 
 that he did not deny the reality of the sensuous nature in 
 Christ, but only the contrariety arising from sin. 
 
 The question respecting the Origin of Souls had already 
 been brought into connexion with the doctrine of the propaga¬ 
 tion of sin, by (Xelestius. But Augustin endeavoured to 
 prove that the controversy respecting the latter could be carried 
 independently of the former. A man like Jerome* settled 
 the question more easily, for he inferred Creationism from the 
 words of Christ in John v., “ My Father worketh hitherto.” 
 Augustin did not consider this a valid proof, for even on the 
 theory of Traducianism, the continuous agency of God must 
 still be admitted. Godf gives the souls, even if he gives 
 them through the medium of natural descent. But though 
 Traducianism was favourable to his doctrine of Original Sin, 
 he hesitated to express his approval of it, because the view 
 taken by Jerome seems to lead to sensuous representations. 
 It redounds to his honour, that on this point he maintained 
 the mastery over his dialectic turn of mind, and would not 
 decide without a warrant from Scripture. “ Where Holy 
 Scripture,”£ he says, “does not express itself clearly on an 
 obscure subject, human presumption must be checked. 
 Though I do not know how all things are to be explained on 
 this point, yet I believe that the Scripture would have been 
 explicit if we could not have been left in ignorance without 
 injury.” A conceited young theologian in North Africa, 
 Vincentius Victor, treated this commendable modesty in 
 Augustin as narrow-mindedness, and wrote a book against 
 him in which he compared him to the “ pecoribus insensatis ,” 
 and would have decided the question on very insufficient 
 grounds. Augustin answered him with moderation in his 
 work De Anima et ejus Origine. 
 
 A progressive deterioration of the human race was allowed 
 even by the Pelagians ; but they accounted for it from the 
 power of evil habits, and held that the influence of Adam 
 
 * Hieron. contr. Error. Joann. Hierosol. § 22, vol. ii. 1, 427, ed. 
 Vallarsi. 
 
 f De Anima et ejus Origine, lib. i. § 26.—Ipse quippe Deus dat, 
 otiamsi de propagine dat. 
 
 X De Peccatorum Mentis et Remissione, ii. § 59. 
 
366 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 consisted in his bad example.* Many die by imitating Adam. 
 Augustin, on the contrary, remarked that it was impossible 
 for bad example to exert such an influence on a pure nature. 
 The assertion that there had been men altogether sinless 
 corresponded to the Pelagian standpoint, according to which 
 the passages in the Epistle to the Romans, in which all are 
 described as having sinned, must be limited and understood 
 only of the majority. Although Pelagius avoided expressing 
 his meaning distinctly, yet it may be certainly found in 
 some passages of his work on Free Will,f in which he gives 
 a list of sinless persons in the Old Testament, and closes 
 with John the Baptist and the Virgin Mary. In later times, he 
 says, when a greater number of men were living, the sins of 
 individuals could not be reckoned ; but when Adam, Eve, 
 Cain, and Abel lived, the Scripture has not mentioned one 
 sin of Abel, if he ever sinned ; hence, we may infer that he 
 was without sin, and there we must rest satisfied, and not 
 assert what is not said in Holy Writ. In the application of 
 his views to the Virgin Mary, he was aided by the general 
 tendency of the Church. Even Augustin shows in his reply 
 that he also was affected by it. “ The holy Virgin Mary 
 excepted,”]; he says, “ of whom, out of reverence for the Lord, 
 I do not wish to take account, when speaking of sins ; for 
 greater grace was granted to her to overcome sin entirely; 
 but excepting her, if we could assemble all the holy men 
 and women, and ask them whether they were without sin, 
 what would they answer? -Would they say what Pelagius 
 says or what St. John says? ‘ If we say we have no sin, we 
 deceive ourselves.’ There is still another question, Whether 
 a regenerate person could be sinless through divine grace. 
 
 * Ep. ad Demeti, c. 8.—Longa consuetudo vitiorum, quee nos infecit 
 a parvo, paulatumque per multos corrupit annos it ita postea obligatos 
 sibi et addictos tenet, ut vim quadammodo videatur habere natures. 
 
 + De Natur. et Grab § 42, 44. 
 
 J L. 1. § 42.—Excepta itaqua sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter 
 honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo 
 quscstionem : unde enim scimus quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuit ad 
 vincendum ornni ex parte peccatum, buse concipere ac parere meruit, 
 quern constat nullum habuisse peccatum ; hac ergo virgine excepta, si 
 omnes illos sanctos et sanctas cum hie viverent„congregare possemus 
 ct iuterrogare, utium es3ent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros 
 putamus ? utium hoc, quod iste dicit, an quod Johannes apostolus ? 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 367 
 
 To maintain this would be a great error. To be sinless is 
 the aim and effort of our wishes ; for us it is enough that no 
 believer, whatever progress he has made, will venture to say, 
 that it is no longer necessary for him to pray, ‘ Forgive us 
 our sins/” 
 
 With this controversy was connected a question of import¬ 
 ance in the History of Christian morals, — the relation of 
 Christian and heathen virtue. The Pelagians often appealed 
 to the virtues of the heathen as evidences of the moral powers 
 of human nature. Julian, for instance, showe-d from the 
 bravery, chastity, and self-control of the heathen, how much 
 could be effected by the honum naturce sine dono gratice. He 
 confined himself to the contemplation of isolated virtues, but 
 he was not logical, for he sometimes lost sight of the internal 
 difference between heathen and Christian virtue, and on the 
 other hand ascribed a meritum to Christian virtues because they 
 were fructuose bona, and heathen virtues were steriliter bona , 
 because they had no faith, while the others would be rewarded 
 on account of their faith. As to what Augustin said on the 
 difference of the two standpoints, Julian so little understood 
 his views as to put forward the objection, “ If the chastity of 
 the heathen were no chastity, it might as well be said their 
 bodies were no bodies, their corn was no corn.”* In these 
 ethical discussions, Augustin’s merits were very great, for he 
 drew attention to the nature of the disposition and the moral 
 unity of life, on which everything depended; the eye of the 
 soul is the whole tendency of the inner man, from which all 
 “goodness must proceed. The right disposition consists in 
 love to God, by which all the cardinal virtues are determined. 
 Whatever does not proceed from this principle is not truly 
 good, though it may appear so to the eyes of men. He defined 
 Sin to be an act which either does not proceed from love, or 
 where love is not so great as it ought to be. But that ten¬ 
 dency of the disposition which is pleasing to God can only 
 spring out of Christianity. 
 
 From the radically different views respecting the relation of 
 the Creator to the Creature, and the present condition of 
 Man, great contrariety would result in contemplating the 
 effects of Christianity on mankind. The Pelagian principles 
 would have led consequentially to a rationalist view, to the 
 * Con. Julian. 4, 27. Neander’s Ch. Hist. iv. 366. 
 
368 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 entire rejection of the supernatural element, and to the 
 opinion that Mankind might be self-developed, without revela¬ 
 tion or communication from God, in order to attain its destiny. 
 But the Pelagians did not carry out these principles so con¬ 
 sequentially, and what they took from the Biblical element, 
 rested certainly not on mere accommodation, hut on the con¬ 
 viction that a supernatural Revelation was necessary in order 
 to realize the destiny of Humanity. Julian repudiated as a 
 calumny the assertion that the Free Will could attain to the 
 right worship of God without divine aid. Reason could not 
 of itself discover the truths imparted by Divine Revelation. 
 No rational man could maintain this.* 
 
 Julian’s party did not deny the idea of grace absolutely, 
 they felt themselves bound to it by the Scriptures, and 
 thought they accepted it in a Christian sense, if they at the 
 same time retained the equally necessary idea of Free Will. 
 But under the influence of their principles, Grace became 
 something very indefinite and superficial. Sometimes it was 
 reckoned among the powers of human nature imparted to 
 it by divine love, sometimes as belonging to the Revelation 
 that was auxiliary to those powers, that is, to the Supernatural. 
 But even in this case, Grace always remained an external 
 communication, something foreign, and not what Augustin 
 esteemed of the highest importance, an impartation of divine 
 life through Christ. How they confounded things that differ 
 appears from Julian’s statements ;f Man created by God with 
 Free Will was aided by innumerable kinds of Grace,—by 
 commands, blessings, sanctification, punishment, chastenings, 
 invitations, illumination. GodJ disposes the will to believe by 
 admonitions, miracles, examples, promises, rewards, and punish¬ 
 ments. He thus explains the words in the Epistle to the Phillip- 
 pians, “God worketh in us to will and to do ; ” he works because 
 he pleases carnal men by the rewards held out to them, and by 
 
 * Opus Imp. 3, 106. 
 
 f Ibid.—Affirmamus a Deo fieri hominem liberi arbitrii eumque 
 innumeris divinse gratise speciebus juvari cui possibile sit vel servare 
 Dei mandata vel transgredi. Et hoc est, ubi liberum arbitrium esse 
 defendemus, ut cum Deus tarn multis modis benignitatem suam asserat, 
 i.e., prsecipiendo benedicendo, sanctificando, coercendo, provocando, 
 illuminando unusquisque eorum, qui jam ratione utilitur liberum 
 habeat voluntatem Dei, vel servare vel spernere. 
 
 X L. c. 238. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 369 
 
 his revelations excites their longing after God. In this sense, 
 Pelagius also asserts that God worked by his Grace,—that he 
 enabled men to accomplish more easily what they ought to 
 accomplish by their free will. We place this grace* (he goes 
 on to say) not merely in the communication of the Law, but 
 in God’s aid by teaching and revelation—since he reveals to 
 us the Future—makes us acquainted with the wiles of Satan, 
 and enlightens us by the manifold gifts of his heavenly grace. 
 
 Pelagius admitted various stages in the divine education of 
 Humanity which corresponded to its progressive deterioration. 
 As long as Nature continued better, it was left to itself, jus 
 titia per naturam; when evil habit had increased God gave 
 the Law ( justitia sub lege ); when Sin had mounted still higher 
 Christ appeared ( justitia gratia). The office of the Redeemer 
 consisted principally in the promulgation of a new and higher 
 Moral Law, in presenting new motives to virtue, and in giving 
 an example of perfect morality. But as there had been other 
 sinless men, the question arose, what was his pre-eminent 
 distinction ? Julian answered : Christ was not the first pat¬ 
 tern of righteousness, but the greatest; as in Adam there was 
 the forma peccati maxima in relation to Eve, non prima, 
 inasmuch as Satan had sinned before him. He distinguished 
 between sinlessness and moral perfection ; the latter, forma 
 exacta, was in Christ. This gradation stood in connexion with 
 the distinction of the standpoint of the fulfilling of the Law 
 and of the consilia evangelica. Among the new motives to 
 virtue Julian reckoned the Incarnation and Sacrifice of Christ, 
 in which he showed such great love to mankind, in order that 
 they might at last love God again ; and thus become fellow- 
 heirs of the Only-begotten. 
 
 The Pelagians not only did not deny the idea of objective 
 Justification, but gave it special prominence, for Julian 
 explains it as being the forgiveness of sins. It may indeed 
 surprise us, that notwithstanding their notion of sinless men, 
 they still spoke of the forgiveness of sins without limitation; 
 but the controversy with Augustin, referred not to whether 
 the justificatio was to be regarded as objective, but turned 
 on their not admitting it in that subjective and transitive 
 sense, which Augustin claimed for it. Yet its objective 
 
 * De Gratia Christi, 8. 
 
 B B 
 
570 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 importance must have been, at all events, lessened by their 
 pre-suppositions respecting human nature. 
 
 In the consideration of redemption, it was of importance 
 whether it was viewed in a negative sense, that is, in opposi¬ 
 tion to the corruption of human nature, or positively as a glori¬ 
 fication of Humanity, by which it was raised to a higher stand¬ 
 point not attainable by its original powers. The former was 
 prevalent in the West, the latter in the East, to which the 
 Pelagian view which attributed the greatest effects to Redemp¬ 
 tion without the pre-supposition of human corruption, w^as 
 necessarily very much allied. It maintained that the work of 
 Christ was far greater, than repairing the effects of human 
 corruption. Adam stood as the representative of human 
 nature in a development left to itself; Christ showed a more 
 advanced development through divine aid. Thus Julian says, 
 Under Adam’s name the nature of humanity is represented ; 
 what was true of him, was true of all; but under the name of 
 Christ, the power of Him who was the Creator, and w r ho fos¬ 
 tered his own workmanship, that is, whatever can be deve¬ 
 loped out of human nature by the omnipotence of the Creator.* 
 “ Christ, who is the Redeemer of the beings whom he created, 
 increases his benefits upon that which bears his image by his 
 continual bounty, and those whom he formed good, he. makes 
 still better by renovation and adoption.” Since in this man¬ 
 ner the kingdom of Heaven was a standpoint attainable by 
 men only through God’s grace, it serves to explain the recog¬ 
 nition of the necessity of Infant baptism by the Pelagians, 
 without their admitting the doctrine of original Sin. But 
 although Grace here seems a necessary requirement, the im¬ 
 portant difference between them and Augustin remains, that 
 he regarded it as inwardly operative as a communication of 
 divine life, and accordingly, understood the idea of Justifica¬ 
 tion, not like the Pelagians, merely in an objective sense, but 
 modified it in the manner in which it has been preserved by 
 the Catholic Church. In common with the evangelical, he 
 held indeed the idea of a living faith; but by justificatio he 
 understood the making personally righteous, the internal 
 sanctification by the communion of the divine life which is 
 effected through Christ. Hence he says against Pelagius, 
 after acknowledging that he taught the forgiveness of sin 
 * Contr. Julian, iii. 8. Neander’s Ch. Hist. iv. 360. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY, 
 
 371 
 
 through Christ,—The Grace of God through Christ is that in 
 which he justifies us, not by our righteousness, but by the 
 communication of his own. What Pelagius regarded as most 
 important, the Revelation of doctrine, he held to be subordi¬ 
 nate, since by that alone man does not attain salvation, but all 
 depends on the inward enlightening and sanctifying of the 
 Soul. Although, he says, the communication of doctrine may 
 be called Grace, this is only allowable in the sense that no 
 outward miracle is intended, but God, by a higher and internal 
 manner, infuses his doctrine into the consciousness with inex¬ 
 pressible joy. At the same time the threefold distinction of 
 Justitia is set aside : there is only one which proceeds from com¬ 
 munion with God through Christ. Even for the standpoint of 
 the Old Testament there can be no other; the Revelation of 
 the Law could not bring man to justitia, but only awaken the 
 consciousness of sin. The letter could only kill; nothing but 
 the Spirit of the Law which passes through Grace into the 
 inner life can make alive. The pious men of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment have become partakers of the promises of Grace through 
 faith; they were not under the terrors of the Law, but on the 
 standpoint of Grace, which communicates to man joy in good¬ 
 ness, heals and sets at liberty the depraved Will. In his 
 treatise de Spiritu et litera, he shows that what the Law of 
 works enjoins with threatenings, the Law of Faith attains 
 through faith. Under the divine guidance, through Grace 
 man is led by degrees from Sin to Redemption. These first 
 movements of the divine life do not proceed from human 
 nature, but purely from grace, which operates as gratia pra- 
 veniens seu prceparans. Then Grace leads man to Faith. 
 Faith frees him from moral evil: the power of grace sets the 
 will at liberty. Man now freely and joyfully performs what is 
 good. The gratia operans is active within him. But he will 
 always require the co-operation of Grace in order that the free 
 Will may persist in goodness. While he thus becomes pro¬ 
 gressively strengthened he finds himself on the stage of gratia 
 co-operans. Augustin thus expresses it,—Grace anticipates 
 us that we may be healed; it follows after us in order that 
 after healing we may be full of life and vigour • it prepares 
 the Will beforehand, and co-operates with it when prepared, 
 effecting the work it has begun. Thus Man always requires 
 in this life the support of divine Grace against Sin, and the 
 
 B B 2 
 
872 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 distinguishing mark of those who attain salvation is per 
 severance unto the end through the power of Grace (donum 
 perseverantice). If, therefore, the Pelagians attributed so 
 much to the Free Will as to deny every idea of Grace, which 
 in the connexion of their ideas might seem to encroach upon 
 it, Augustin thought it most important to maintain that 
 Grace works unconditionally, and that the Free Will can do 
 nothing till it has been healed bv Grace. Grace, which 
 should be conditioned by human worthiness, would he no 
 Grace. As it precedes all movement towards Goodness, so 
 it works irresistibly ( ; gratia irresistibilis ), not outwardly com¬ 
 pelling, but by an internal necessity attracting the corrupted 
 human will. The Pelagians saw in this the destruction of 
 the Free Will, but Augustin only intended thus to maintain 
 its freedom ; for the will is first set at liberty by Grace. In 
 this difference concerning Grace we may perceive the influence 
 of the difference already noticed in the idea formed of Freedom 
 by the two parties. In accordance with their ideas of moral 
 Atomism the Pelagians maintained only the formal idea of 
 Freedom. This was denied by Augustin, since he regarded 
 as the essence of freedom, the free development of the higher 
 nature of man under the influence of Grace. In support of 
 this view he always asserted that man felt no compulsion, that 
 Grace operated in the form of the Free Will. God does not 
 impart his Grace to stones, nor does he operate on rational 
 beings as he might on wood, but as on beings endowed with 
 reason and will, that is, in the form of rational conviction. 
 But since, according to Augustin, Man, although he believes 
 himself free to act, acts so only in the form which is given 
 him by Grace, this freedom regarded as power is only a 
 seeming freedom. Julian, on the contrary, maintained that 
 God himself would not compel the Free Will; he appealed 
 to the examples of undaunted constancy among the Heathen, 
 which certainly vras nothing to the purpose. Augustin rea¬ 
 soned inconsequentially, since in Adam he made everything 
 depend on free self-determination, but denied this in the case 
 of other men ; and thus made God unjust. This is certainly 
 an inconsequence in Augustin, but one which is connected 
 with the power of moral feeling. He was afraid of tracing 
 back the causality of sin to God, and therefore placed the 
 ground of it in the self-determination of Alan. 
 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 373 
 
 If it depends entirely on the gratia irresistibilis whether 
 any man attains to Salvation, then the cause of the salvation 
 of one portion of mankind, and the perdition of another, could 
 be found only in God, in his absolute Predestination ; for 
 nothing is left but the assumption of a hidden decree of God, 
 according to which he leaves the majority to perdition which 
 they have merited, bestows grace on the rest and leads them 
 to salvation. Augustin thus laid himself open to the charge of 
 attributing injustice to God, and the Pelagians knew how to 
 avail themselves of it. Augustin appealed to various passages 
 in Holy Writ, especially Rom. ix., on the mysterious expe¬ 
 riences of human life ; the Gospel was made known to certain 
 nations, and not to others ; one child w 7 as baptized, another 
 not. He would more readily infer a secret decree of God, 
 since he pre-supposed that whoever did not become acquainted 
 with the Gospel in this life would remain under eternal con¬ 
 demnation. To explain this, the Pelagian would find no 
 ground in their Philosophy. I am disturbed, thou sayest, 
 because one is lost and another is baptized; and I also am 
 disturbed, for I am a Man. But wouldst thou not be justly 
 angry if a beast were to reproach God and say, Why hast thou 
 made me a beast ? Yet he felt that by such arguments alone 
 he could not pacify the moral feelings, and added ;—We can¬ 
 not explain the divine proceedings; we shall not understand 
 them till we reach a higher state of existence ; let us only 
 believe that there can be no unrighteousness with God; there 
 we shall obtain perfect knowledge ; if thou wouldst here con¬ 
 ceive the inconceivable, thou art already lost. Julian rejoined, 
 that in God’s revelations there can be no contradiction; and 
 hence the Holy Scripture cannot contradict what he has 
 inscribed on the moral nature of man. We call the Scrip¬ 
 tures holy, because they agree with Reason and Faith. The 
 difficult passages to which Augustin appealed, he wished to 
 explain by those that were clear, and by which it was necessary 
 to abide. Paul also says, that a man makes himself a vessel 
 of honour or of dishonour. 
 
 Augustin thought, indeed, that by gaining the victory over 
 Pelagius, his own system of absolute Predestination must be 
 acknowledged, for on his standpoint there was no medium ; but 
 he was mistaken. Many joined with him in rejecting the 
 Pelagian doctrine without acknowledging his doctrine of Pre- 
 
374 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 destination; this may be observed in Innocent of Rome, and 
 likewise in Jerome. The latter says, indeed, “ The pride of 
 Free Will is broken, because man is drawn, and that too, 
 against his Will,” but this may be probably taken as one of 
 those extravagant expressions which frequently occur in his 
 writings, since in other passages he pre-supposes free suscepti¬ 
 bility on the part of Man : to will and to run is mine, but 
 this mine will not be mine without the divine aid. More 
 plainly still in the following expressions. Where the grace 
 and mercy of God are, there the Free Will lies in part fallow, 
 which only consists in this, that we will and desire. Now, it 
 is in God’s power that by his aid we are able to fulfil what we 
 desire and strive after; it is ours to pray—God’s to give; 
 ours to begin—God’s to complete ; ours to offer what we can 
 —God’s to supply what we cannot. 
 
 The doctrine of Absolute Predestination could not have been 
 propounded without practically injurious consequences if it 
 had not been handled with Augustin’s prudence and ability. 
 Those men especially who had been brought to this doctrine 
 through the whole development of their religious practice and 
 thinking, obtained through their well-grounded faith inward 
 p>eace and the assurance of their own predestination. Rut it 
 was otherwise with those to whom this System had been 
 brought from without, and who found themselves engaged in 
 an internal conflict, among the monks of the cloister at 
 Adrumetum, in the province of Byzacene, who by studying 
 the doctrine of Predestination in Augustin’s writings, had 
 arrived at the conclusion that the efforts of men were entirely 
 useless since God did everything ; and that it was unjust to 
 punish Sinners. Augustin being called upon to counteract 
 them, composed (a.d. 427) his treatises de gratia et libero 
 arbitrio, and de correptione et gratia. It was not in general 
 his manner to shrink from the consequences of his System; 
 he endeavoured to repel doubts by developing it dialectically. 
 The doctrine of Grace did not deny Free Will, but pre-supposed 
 it, since Grace ignored not, but took account of the human 
 will. Here again he involved himself in the ambiguity 
 remarked above of the idea of Free Will. In the second work 
 he wished to explain how blame and punishment could be 
 awarded to men on his system. In the first place, all man¬ 
 kind sinned in Adam ; hence individuals could not excuse 
 
THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 375 
 
 themselves on account of the general sinfulness, and must 
 bear their sins as their own criminality; but then God had 
 so arranged, that human means must be applied, though they 
 are fruitless without grace. He wished to leave it undeter¬ 
 mined, what persons belonged to the predestinated, in order 
 to preserve men from pride. Hence there is no more 
 certain mark of predestination to salvation, than the donum 
 perseverantics. Since, therefore, it is uncertain, we must at 
 all events do our part. On the presumption that sinners who 
 are now in error, belong to the predestinated, we must yet 
 seek to operate upon them in Christian love. But this 
 method of removing the difficulty was not suited to satisfy all 
 minds, as Augustin himself experienced. As far as other 
 dogmas were treated by him in the controversy between him¬ 
 self and Pelagius, he had on his side the general Christian 
 consciousness, the prevailing spirit of the Church; but it was 
 otherwise with the doctrines of unconditional Predestination 
 and irresistible Grace. These, equally with the Pelagian doc¬ 
 trine, were opposed to the hitherto developed consciousness of 
 the Church teachers; and the consequence was, that a middle 
 party was formed, which, in the vindication of the doctrines of 
 an original moral state—of the consequences of the first trans¬ 
 gression ; of the sinfulness of human nature, and its need of 
 redemption ; and of Grace, as the communication of an in¬ 
 ternal divine life, agreed with Augustin ; but could not recon¬ 
 cile itself to his two other Dogmas. 
 
 4. THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Watch, V. J. Geffken, Historia Semipelagianjsmi Antiquissimi. Gottg. 1826. 
 4 , Wiggers, Augustinismus u. Pelagianismus. Th. 2. - i;. . 
 
 Two pupils of Augustin in Gaul, Prosper Aquitanus, and 
 Hilary, gave him information by letter of the opposition to his 
 views that had appeared in the way we have mentioned in the 
 South of Gaul. They apprised him, that their opponents cer¬ 
 tainly combated the Pelagians, but maintained that they 
 could do this without admitting the doctrine of absolute Pre¬ 
 destination ; that Augustin explained the biblical passages 
 quoted in favour of it in a manner foreign to the doctrine of 
 the Church ; even if the doctrine of Predestination were true, 
 it ought not to be made public, since it could only injure; 
 for these things could be comprehended by no man. They 
 
876 
 
 THE HISTORY OP CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 supposed that Grace was conditioned by Free Will, though 
 they also spoke of a gratia prceveniens. Augustin composed 
 his treatises de prcedestinatione sanctorum, and de dono per - 
 severantice , in which he acknowledged (which from his stand¬ 
 point was saying a great deal) that his present opponents 
 were different from the Pelagians, since they admitted the 
 doctrine of original sin, gratia prceveniens , and justification 
 and granted that no one was sufficient of himself to begin and 
 to complete the good work. If they acted according to this 
 truth and prayed to God, they would, after all, attain to a 
 right knowledge of predestination. It is deserving of notice that 
 he adduces Christ in proof of the doctrine, and designates him 
 the prceclarissimum lumen prcedestinationis et gratice, because 
 on the side of his humanity no such merit could be attributed 
 to him by which he could attain to this dignity. He had 
 previously said in his treatise de correptione et gratia, that 
 there was no one so blind in the faith as to maintain that 
 Christ had merited by his free will to be the Son of God. 
 We recognise here the connexion of different views in Chris- 
 tology and Anthropology. This is shown in Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, for according to his doctrine of Free Will in 
 human nature, he represented the sinlessness of Christ as a 
 posse non peccare, while Augustin, from his anthropological 
 standpoint, supposed in Christ a non posse peccare. The 
 Pelagians did not allow their anthropological ideas to influence 
 their Christology consequentially. Yet it is worthy of notice, 
 that Julian charged Augustin, when he denied concupiscentia 
 m Christ, with not holding him to be a true man. More¬ 
 over, it is remarkable that Cassian and Gennadius assert of 
 Leporius, that he was a Pelagian. Augustin, in behalf of his 
 assertion that according to the judgment of the Church every¬ 
 thing depended on grace alone, appealed to the Church prayers 
 for the conversion of Unbelievers and the strengthening of 
 Believers. He was not of opinion that the doctrine of abso¬ 
 lute Predestination ought not to be publicly announced ; this 
 might be right respecting truths which only made a person 
 more knowing, but not better; but this doctrine was very 
 important for the Christian edification of those who rightly 
 understood it. They would be induced by it to humble them 
 selves, and to put their trust in God alone. If misunderstood 
 it might indeed be attended with practical ill effects, but this 
 
THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 377 
 
 might be said of all truths, as, for example, of the divine fore 
 knowledge, in propounding this doctrine a person should 
 always speak with the consciousness that he had believers, 
 therefore predestinated persons, before him, and should speak 
 of the reprobate only in the third person ; then this doctrine 
 would infuse into a man so much greater confidence in his 
 sanctification. These rejoinders were so far from satisfac¬ 
 tory that the Semi-Pelagians came forward with greater bold 
 ness. The re-action proceeded from some of the monks in 
 Southern Gaul, rather owing to a practical than a speculative 
 interest. At the head of the party stood John Cassian, an 
 Abbot of Marseilles, and a pupil of Chrysostom, and hence 
 biassed on this question by an Oriental influence. The prac¬ 
 tically Christian guided him in treating the doctrines of the 
 Faith ; he admitted nothing which was not suited to satisfy 
 thoroughly the religious wants of men. His attention was 
 turned to experience; he observed religious natures ; a system 
 of mere logical speculation had no charms for him. His doc¬ 
 trines, which are scattered through his writings, were designed to 
 represent in its simplicity the faith of the Galilean fishermen, 
 which had been garbled by Ciceronian eloquence. Free Will 
 and Grace agreed, and hence there was an opposing onesided¬ 
 ness which maintained either Grace alone, or Free Will alone. 
 Augustin and Pelagius were each wrong in their own way. 
 The idea of the divine justice in the determination of man’s 
 lot after the first transgression did not preponderate in 
 Cassian‘s writings as in Augustin’s, but the idea of a dis¬ 
 ciplinary divine love, by the leadings of which men are to be 
 led to repentance. He appeals also to the mysteriousness of 
 God’s ways, but not as concerns predestination, but the 
 variety of the leadings by which God leads different indi¬ 
 viduals to salvation. Nor is one law applicable to all; in 
 some cases Grace anticipates {gratia prceveniens), in others, a 
 conflict precedes, and then divine help comes to them as 
 Grace. In no instance can divine Grace operate independently 
 of the free Self-determination of Man. As the husbandman 
 must do his part, but all this avails nothing without the 
 divine blessing, so man must do his part, yet this profits 
 nothing without divine Grace. 
 
 Augustin died about a d. 430, but even after his death the 
 controversy was warmly carried on, for the Semi-Pelagian 
 
378 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 party had great influence; yet it was opposed by men of emi¬ 
 nence,— Prosper, for instance, the leader of the Augustinians, 
 a man whose deep piety bore the impress of that system with 
 which his whole life and thinking were closely connected. He 
 developed the Augustinian ideas in his writings with deep 
 feeling, acuteness, and cautious dialectic; in his poem cle 
 ingrcttis, he vindicated unconditional Predestination and Grace 
 against the other party, whom he termed Ungrateful. Eulo¬ 
 gizing Augustin, he says, “ All his pleasure was the one love 
 of Christ; as he ascribed nothing good to himself, God was 
 all to him.” Relying on the reputation which Augustin pos¬ 
 sessed in the Roman Church, Prosper and Hilary attempted 
 to draw from bishop Ccelestin a declaration against the Semi- 
 Pelagians ; they complained of the monks, who had ventured 
 to revile the memory of Augustin, and hoped to obtain a 
 verdict in favour of the Augustinian doctrine. But they were 
 disappointed. Ccelestin, about a.d. 431, addressed a letter to 
 the Gallic Bishops, and censured those who had not held 
 Augustin’s memory in honour, and stated that his Anti- 
 Pelagian writings were always acknowledged as correct in the 
 Roman Church. He intimated that even bishops agreed 
 with the opponents of Augustin ; but gave no dogmatic deci¬ 
 sion, and left it even doubtful whether the complaints made to 
 him were well founded. In some ancient manuscripts of eccle¬ 
 siastical laws certain decisions of the Roman bishops and of 
 the North African Councils, approved by them, and which 
 were held during the Pelagian controversy, are joined with 
 this letter of Ccelestin ; but it cannot be doubted, that these 
 capitula do not belong to Coelestin, but were added at a later 
 period. It is remarkable that the compiler of this collection 
 did not venture, in precise terms, to maintain the doctrine of 
 Predestination. For it is said, “ As to those difficult ques¬ 
 tions with which they are occupied who oppose the Heretics— 
 as we do not venture to despise them, so neither do we con¬ 
 sider it necessary to meddle with them.” It is easy to per¬ 
 ceive that Coelestin’s decision, which every one could interpret 
 as he pleased, brought no advantage to Augustin’s party. 
 When Prosper wrote against certain assertions of a Yincentius, 
 it is supposed he could be no other than Vincentius Lerinenses, 
 the author of the famous commonitorium , for he, too, was a 
 Semi-Pelagian, since lie names Pelagius and Cselestius, but 
 
THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 379 
 
 not the Semi-Pelagians, among the false teachers; and when 
 he recounts the most eminent Church teachers, he never men¬ 
 tions Augustin. He designed to show that no utterance of 
 opinion by a Church teacher could determine any point against 
 the unanimous doctrine of the Church. We have grounds for 
 presuming that he had Augustin in his eye, on which account 
 it is not improbable that this controversy induced him to com¬ 
 pose this work. He appealed to the words of Ccelestin in his 
 letter,— desinat, si ita res sunt, incessere novitas vetustatem, 
 and according to his own views takes novitas to be the 
 Augustinian, and vetustas the Church doctrine. He adds 
 the striking remark, that certain Towns and Provinces were 
 complained of, because they were disposed to ignore these 
 novelties. 
 
 During the conflict which was carried on in Southern Gaul, 
 three parties might be distinguished. (1.) The adherents of 
 absolute Predestination, in the extreme form of the doctrine. 
 (2.) Those who, by the opposition of the Semi-Pelagians, had 
 been induced to seek a more acceptable representation of this 
 doctrine, and (3.) The Semi-Pelagians of various grades. The 
 latter were gratified when Predestinarianism was presented in 
 its harshest form, since they could then find a more ready 
 admission for their own theory. Among those works which, 
 by a temperate and mild representation, aimed at gaining 
 friends to the Augustinian system, was an anonymous and 
 very remarkable book that has come down to us, de vocatione 
 gentium* an able attempt to place the repulsive points of the 
 Augustinian system in the background without surrendering 
 its main principles. The difference between mere apparent 
 Virtue, Legality, and true Virtue, which is animated by love 
 to God, is contrasted. In proportion to the energy of Man’s 
 will is its liability to fall into sin, until it has submitted itself 
 to the divine guidance. Animated by the divine will it is 
 spiritual ( voluntas spiritalis), it contains the germ of all true 
 virtue, but such it becomes only by divine grace. But this 
 acts not compulsorily, but with the constant co-operation of the 
 understanding and the heart; the operation of divine grace 
 takes place only in the form of the natural determination of 
 the human will. God has destined no one to perdition; he 
 wills that all men should be saved ; Christ died for all. The 
 
 * Neander’s Ch. Hist. iv. 391. 
 
380 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 universal revelations of God serve for a proof ( dona generalia 
 gratia), in which the means are given to all to attain to the 
 knowledge of God. According to this, the Author appears to 
 keep aloof from the Augustinian Particularism ; and yet again 
 he seems to retract his opinion, and asserts that no man can 
 attain to salvation by that general Grace, but only by that 
 special Grace {gratia specialis), which begets the spiritual Will. 
 Can Man do anything in order to gain this? The author 
 denies it. He distinguishes from the general divine will 
 which makes itself known in Creation, a special Universality 
 (.specialis universitas) of the divine Will, according to which 
 God predestines to salvation, all to whom he imparts his 
 gratia specialis. The ground of the Election is hidden from 
 us. Three principles must be maintained : God wills that all 
 men should be saved; no one can be saved by his own merits ; 
 every one only by God’s Grace; the human Understanding 
 cannot penetrate into the depths of the divine councils. If 
 the last truth be only rightly considered, and no search be 
 made after the incomprehensible, there will be no variance 
 between the first and the second. Here then, a gratia irre- 
 sistibilis is admitted, but its compulsory character is concealed 
 as far as it is represented, as operating under the form of free 
 self-determination. Predestination is not clearly expressed, 
 but only represented on its negative side. But there are 
 several contradictory positions connected with it, such as, God 
 wills that all men should be saved, and others which cannot 
 have been seriously maintained. Since men are disposed to 
 deceive themselves by formulas, so the able dialectic form of 
 the book led to a wider spread of the Augustinian doctrines. 
 The question respecting the authorship of this book is diffi¬ 
 cult to answer. It has been ascribed to Ambrose, to Prosper, 
 and to Leo the Great. It certainly does not belong to 
 Ambrose, for it suits neither his times, nor his doctrine; with 
 the doctrine of the two others, it agrees on the whole. 
 Paschasius, Quesnel, and Griesbach, # have attempted to 
 adduce proof of Leo’s authorship, but they have not fully 
 established it. 
 
 About this time it was asserted, that there was a sect of 
 Predestinatians, who entirely, and even in form, denied Free 
 Will, and made everything in man depend on divine predesti- 
 * Abhandlungen Herausggb. Von Gabler. i. 
 
THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 381 
 
 nation. It has been asked whether there really was any such 
 a sect diverging in this manner from the Augustinian doctrine. 
 'The existence of an absolutely distinct sect we must deny. 
 The report of it proceeds only from a Semi-Pelagian quarter. 
 Advantage was taken of the harsher representations of the 
 Augustinian system, in order to brand the author with heresy. 
 In a chronicle of the fifth century, ascribed to Prosper, the 
 heresy of the Predestinatians is dated from the year 418, and 
 it is added,— quce ab Augustino dicitur coepisse initium. As 
 this seemed offensive, a correction is found in another reading,— 
 ab Augustini libris male intellectis . The most remarkable 
 
 document belonging to this period, is a book which Sirmond 
 the Jesuit published in 1643, under the title of Prcedestinatus, 
 at the time of the controversy between the Jesuits and 
 Jansenists. The Jesuits were readily charged with having 
 forged it; but it bears indubitable marks of its origin in the 
 Semi-Pelagian period. The work consists of three parts; the 
 first gives an account of all the heresies to the times of the 
 writer.* The second book describes the ninetieth heresy, that 
 of the Predestinatians, in a document ascribed to them, and 
 asserts that the author had imputed it to Augustin. The 
 third book contains a refutation of this heresy. The author of 
 the first and third books must have been a Semi-Pelagian, for 
 he counts the Pelagians among the heretics, but not the Semi- 
 Pelagians. He states his own doctrine in the third book. He 
 admits a gratia prceveniens, but understands by it the Redemp¬ 
 tion of men through Christ, which is presupposed objectively, 
 as granted to all, and without w’hich the efforts to obtain 
 eternal life would be useless. In many particular instances, 
 God also has aroused men to believe by extraordinary leadings, 
 but never without their free self-determination; Grace every 
 day awakens the slumbering will. All this accords with 
 Semi-Pelagianism. In the second book, the doctrine of 
 absolute Predestination is represented with designed harsh¬ 
 ness. God has predestined Man either to righteousness or to 
 sin. The predestined may sin ever so much and resist; with¬ 
 out his own will he will attain salvation; and inversely he 
 who is destined to death, strives in vain. This is proved by 
 the example of Judas. Dost thou think with thy praying and 
 fasting to be more holy than Judas, who was a disciple of 
 * The first book is in Corp. Hoeresiologie, ed. F. Oehler: Ber. 1856. 
 
382 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Christ, and yet, because he was predestined to it, sinned to 
 eternal death? On the other hand, the Apostle Paul had 
 committed greater sins than any man, and yet, because he 
 was predestined to be an Apostle, he at once was set free from 
 all his sins. Such designed harshness may fairly raise the 
 suspicion, whether any one wrote this book from an honourable 
 standpoint, or whether it was not forged by that Semi-Pelagian. 
 But since he says that it was attributed to Augustin, and yet 
 the document contains no trace of the author’s wishing to pass 
 for Augustin, it seems to follow that the Semi-Pelagian did 
 not write it, but met with it and held it to be really the work 
 of a Predestinarian. This is rendered more probable by the 
 fact that many assertions in it could not proceed from a Semi- 
 Pelagian. And why should it be thought incredible that some 
 one might have gone such lengths in a blind zeal for the 
 doctrine of Predestination ? The question arises whether 
 the author only gives a harsh representation of Augustinian 
 doctrine, or really deviates from it. The latter may be inferred 
 from Free Will not being acknowledged in the first man, and 
 hence he was thought to be destined to the Fall by God’s 
 will, which was the later Supralapsarian doctrine. This is 
 certainly, not directly expressed in the book, but many other 
 things show that the Author went as far. And if Augustin had 
 sufficient tenderness of feeling to except the first Man, at least, 
 from absolute Predestination, yet this ground would be wanting 
 to an author who often enough set the moral feelings at defiance. 
 Among the Semi-Pelagians who carried on the controversy 
 against the doctrine of Predestination, Faustus of Rhegium 
 (Rhji) is particularly distinguished. He disputed against the 
 Presbyter Lucidus, an adherent not of the doctrine of the Prce- 
 destinatus, but only of Augustin. First of all, he tried in a 
 letter* to prevail upon him to recant the following positions,— 
 that a man is destined by a decree of God to perdition ; that 
 a baptised person or a heathen will be condemned not because 
 he has not received grace through his own fault, but because suf¬ 
 ficient grace has not been given him ; Christ did not die for all 
 men. He who is a vessel of dishonour cannot make himself a 
 vessel of honour. The true doctrine. Faustus said, is, that it 
 depends on Man, whether he receives grace or not. Lucidus 
 at first opposed, but was prevailed upon to recant by the 
 
 * Mansi vii. p. 1008. 
 
THE SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 383 
 
 Council, at Arles, about a.d. 472, and Lyons, a.d. 475 The 
 first Council commissioned Faustus to draw up a representa¬ 
 tion of the pure doctrine, which occasioned his work De Gratia 
 Dei et Humana Mentis Libero Arbitrio.* He compares the 
 contrast of Freedom and Grace with that of the divine and 
 human in the person of Christ; as in that its peculiar 
 qualities are to be attributed to each nature, so in man we 
 must distinguish what proceeds from the grace of God and 
 what is of Man. The Free Will must not be regarded 
 as annihilated, but it belongs to Man to regain the divine 
 favour by his own exertions and God’s help. A spark is 
 placed within him which it behoves him to cherish by the help 
 of grace. A more moderate defender of the same doctrines 
 was Gennadi us, a Presbyter of Marseilles. In his treatise, 
 De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis , he says,f God first of all warns 
 Man and invites him to salvation ; it is in the power of Man 
 to follow him. In his work De Viris Illustribus, cap. 38, he 
 speaks of Augustin with commendation, yet does not hesitate 
 to add, that by writing so much he fell into the error of which 
 Solomon says in the 10th chapter of Proverbs, “In the 
 multitude of words there wanteth not sin.” He makes 
 mention of an error which had arisen from much speaking, 
 and evidently refers to the doctrine of Absolute Predestination. 
 This arose from carrying things to an extreme, but for all this 
 Augustin had not fallen into heresy. 
 
 Along with the Semi-Pelagians, Augustin had a considerable 
 party who favoured his views in Southern Gaul. Among them 
 were two men of distinguished discretion, intelligence, and 
 personal authority, Avitus, bishop of Vienne, and Cassarius, 
 bishop of Arles, the latter especially a man of genuine piety, 
 eminent for practical energy, zeal, and ability in pastoral 
 duties. Augustin’s doctrine was blended with his entire con¬ 
 ception of Christianity, he kept close to the practical side, 
 and avoided all extravagance and enthusiasm in his views. 
 His development of the doctrine of Predestination is analogous 
 to that of the treatise De Vocatione Gentium. Man can do 
 nothing ; everything proceeds from grace, and hence the need 
 of humility. The moderate representations made by so 
 influential a person must have contributed greatly to the 
 
 * Bibl. Patr. Lugdun. tom. viii. 
 
 ■f Ed. Elmenhorst, 1614, Oehler Corp. Hseresiol. t. i. 
 
384 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 victory of the Augustinian doctrine. Moreover, in North 
 Africa important effects resulted from the Augustinian School. 
 Many excellent men, who ranked among its adherents, were 
 driven by the ravages of the Vandals to take refuge in Sardinia, 
 Corsica, and Constantinople. By them, and, in another 
 quarter, by a number of monks on the borders of the Black 
 Sea; the so-called Scythian monks, who belonged to the 
 Greek and Latin Churches, and were zealous abettors of 
 Augustinian Orthodoxy, a new impulse was given to the con¬ 
 troversy. The monks in Constantinople, under the reign of 
 Justin, began the agitation, and directed their efforts especially 
 against the works of Faustus. Through a North African bishop 
 Possessor, who had fled to Constantinople, they applied to 
 Hormisdas, the bishop of Rome, and requested his judgment 
 upon it. He expressed himself with moderation. He pro¬ 
 nounced the writings of Augustin, especially those addressed to 
 Hilary and Prosper, to be standards of Orthodoxy, yet he 
 would not condemn Faustus. It seems that he wished to 
 repudiate neither party entirely. His reserve displeased the 
 monks; either he must condemn the work of Faustus, or pro¬ 
 nounce the Augustinian doctrine to be false. They tried to 
 find out a contradiction in the language of Hormisdas. They 
 next sent the works of Faustus to Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, 
 in Numidia, the most distinguished of the African exiles. He 
 wrote a work against Faustus in vindication of the Augustinian 
 System.* Logically, indeed, but without the extravagancies 
 of the Breed estinatus, he maintained a prcedestinatio duplex , a 
 phrase which acquired importance in later controversies, but 
 by which he only meant the predestination of the elect to 
 salvation, and of the condemned to everlasting punishment. 
 As the controversy was now renewed in Southern Gaul, a 
 scheme of doctrine, drawn up by Caisarius, was adopted by a 
 Council held at Oranges, a.d. 529, which maintained the 
 Augustinian doctrines of Grace against the Semi-Pelagians. 
 Anathemas were pronounced on all who represented the divine 
 mercy to be conditioned in its operation by human efforts. 
 Repentance and Faith were brought about by divine Grace, 
 for Paul says, “ What hast thou, that thou hast not received V* 
 and ik By the grace of God I am what I am” When we do 
 
 * De Veritate Prsedestinationis et Gratise Dei, 3 libb. Bibl. Patr. 
 Lugdun. 
 
GREGORY THE GREAT. 
 
 S85 
 
 gooi, God works in us; whatever goodness Man has, proceeds 
 from that source. But at the same time the bold assertions of 
 the Predestinatians were contradicted. That any one is pre¬ 
 destined to evil, that, they said, we do not believe, but con¬ 
 demn such a doctrine with perfect abhorrence. These resolu¬ 
 tions w r ere confirmed by the following Council of Valence, and 
 by Boniface II. of Borne. He condemned those who main¬ 
 tained that faith in Christ proceeded from the freedom of 
 Nature, and that native goodness availed more than Christ. 
 Thus the Augustinian doctrine of grace was victorious in the 
 Western Church; but the mild manner is noticeable in which 
 the doctrine of a gratia prceveniens, as the source of all instiga¬ 
 tion to goodness, was expressed, instead of a gratia irresistibilis 
 and absolute Predestination. 
 
 A similar phase of the Augustinian doctrine appeared in the 
 writings of Gregory the Great, and through him was com¬ 
 municated to the following age. The good which we do, he 
 says, is as much God’s as ours; it comes * from God through 
 the gratia prceveniens, it is ours by the obedience of the Free 
 Will. When the gratia prceveniens f operates, and the human 
 Will follows it, we may venture to say, that we free ourselves, 
 since through our freedom we coincide with divine Grace. 
 In such passages the Free Will conditioning Grace is not 
 in any instance clearly excluded. He thus describes the 
 transforming power of Grace, |—“ Oh, how great is this Artist, 
 the Holy Spirit, who, without any delay in learning, instructs 
 the soul in everything he wills, as soon as he touches it; for 
 in an instant he changes it; in an instant it renounces what 
 it was, and becomes what it w ? as not.” But still more plainly 
 than in this passage we find the Augustinian doctrine of Pre¬ 
 destination in his expressions on the creative knowledge of 
 God.§ “In God’s sight everything is present; everything 
 w'hich God knows he knows, not because it is, but it is as it 
 
 is, because he so knows it.” But liow anxious he w 7 as to 
 
 separate the causality of Evil from God, is evident from his 
 explanation of Isaiah xlv. 7, “I make peace and create evil” 
 —which he understands of the evil which is ordained by God 
 for good. The hardening of hearts by God, he explains in 
 this way, that God does not vouchsafe them that Grace by 
 
 * Job i. 33, § 40. f Job i. 24, § 74. 
 
 7 Horn, in Evangel, i. 2, 30, § 8. § Job i. 20, § 63. 
 
 C C 
 
366 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 which they might become softened ; but this is owing to their 
 own fault.* The doctrine of the perdition of unbaptized 
 children also led him to the belief of absolute Predestination. 
 “ If we ask why some are baptized and others not, the answer 
 is, the greater the mystery the more humbly we ought to 
 reverence the divine councils.” t He taught with Augustin, 
 that no one can tell before death, whether he belongs to the 
 predestined. Hence he exhorts to work out salvation with 
 fear and trembling.£ 
 
 Where this moderate mode of expressing the Augustinian 
 doctrine was maintained, the doctrine of absolute Predestina¬ 
 tion was kept in the background by many as compared with the 
 doctrine of Redemption ; but still the adherents of the harsher 
 mode of expression kept their ground, and new conflicts were 
 prepared between these opposite parties. 
 
 THE EASTERN CHURCH. 
 
 These controversies were not carried on in the Eastern 
 Church according to their intrinsic importance; it was only 
 agitated by them, when introduced from the West; more 
 particularly when brought into connexion with the Nestorian 
 disputes. 
 
 Julian of Eclanum appealed to his agreement with Theo¬ 
 dore of Mopsuestia, and paid him a visit. But according to 
 an account given by Marius Mercator, Theodore attended 
 and agreed with a Synod in Cilicia which condemned Julian. 
 But this account comes from too prejudiced an opponent to be 
 trustworthy, and even in this case it would not prove that he 
 denied his conviction, and had rejected Pelagianism uncon¬ 
 ditionally ; for generally in the East an unconditional con¬ 
 demnation of this doctrine could not be effected; and it may 
 be asked in what respect it was condemned by the Synod. It 
 is easily understood that Theodore in many points had rejected 
 Pelagianism. Yet he is said, according to Marius Mercator, § 
 to have also written a work against Augustin, fragments of 
 which have been preserved by Photius.|| Even the title— 
 Against those who sa.y that Man sins according to a natural 
 
 * Job i. 3, § 15. + Job i. 27, § 7. 
 
 $ Epp. 1. viii. Ep. 25. § Ed. Garn. p. 97. 
 
 || Cod. 177.—7 rpdg rovg Xeyovrag Qvcrti Kai ov yviojuij nTaiuv rove 
 arOpioTrovg. 
 
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. 
 
 387 
 
 necessity, and not according to free determination—shows a 
 tendency against Augustin’s doctrines of original sin and Pre¬ 
 destination. But according to Photius the book was not 
 directed against Augustin himself, but against Jerome, whom 
 he calls Aram, and this is in itself more probable, since 
 Theodore could know little of Augustin. 
 
 The System of Theodore is far more consequential, and 
 far more self-consistent than the Pelagian. With him it was 
 a fixed principle that the whole divine administration was so 
 arranged according to an unchangeable and wise decree that 
 its realization could be disturbed by no accidental event. 
 This was true of the sin of the first man. God might have 
 prevented altogether the entrance of Sin, if he had deemed 
 it desirable, but he willed that man by his own experience 
 should gain the consciousness of his weakness and know the 
 difference between Good and Evil. The History of the Creation 
 is divided into two great sections ; # the first, which reaches to 
 the general Resurrection, is the period in which the rational 
 Creature is left to itself, and therefore necessarily subject to 
 change and temptation; in the second period a revelation of 
 the divine unchangeable life will be supreme, a kingdom of 
 unchangeable holiness in the human nature glorified and 
 exalted above itself through communion with God. Redemp¬ 
 tion effects the transition between the two sections under 
 the conditions of freedom. Man by conflict raises himself 
 from a lower to a higher state ; he assumes the most important 
 place in the Creation because he is God’s representative in it, 
 and even the Angels must acknowledge him as such.f Hence 
 
 * Marius Mercator, p. 100, ed. Garn.—Quod placuit Deo, hoc erat in 
 duos status dividere creaturam, unum quidem, qui prsesens est, in quo 
 mutabilis omnia fecit, alterum autem, qui futurus est cum renovans 
 omnia ad immutabilitatem transferet. 
 
 f Philoxenus de Creatione, vi. cap. 10, 17; cf. Comment, in Epist. 
 ad Rom. Spicilegium Romanum, iv. p. 527 ; cf. also Coloss. 1, 16, sqq. 
 •—Propter hominum enim malitiam omnis ut ita dixerim creatura 
 disrumpi videbatur propter propinquitatem earn, quam ad kominem 
 cuncta habere videbantur. Avertebant enim se nobis angeli et omnes 
 invisibiles virtutes propter indevotionem nostram, quam erga Deum 
 exercebamus. Insuper etiam nos ipsi morte solvimur, ex qua 
 accidebat, animam separare a corpore. Etenim et omnis connexio 
 creaturse hinc solvebatur. Fictus enim est homo a principio quasi 
 aliquod animal cognatioue omnibus junctum, eo quod corpus quidem 
 generaliter ex omnibus consistebat, i e., ex quattuor elementis, aniroa 
 
 C C £ 
 
388 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the development of the World must proceed from human 
 nature, in which Redemption is accomplished. Everything 
 appears to be effected through Freedom ; by it temptation to 
 Evil entered, and by it must man return to Goodness. God 
 gave him a command to test his obedience; he foresaw his 
 disobedience and included it in the scheme of the World ; 
 when it took place God pronounced the sentence of death 
 upon man. Death was from the beginning implanted in 
 human nature ; * but the divine tutelage presented it as the 
 punishment of transgression, in order that the primitive 
 deserts of Sin might be known. 
 
 Although Theodore, in his doctrine of the original trans¬ 
 gression and its consequences, might agree with Pelagius, 
 this dogma occupied a different place in its connexion with 
 the two standpoints of the development of the world. If, on 
 the one hand, he derived sin from human Freedom, on the 
 other hand, it was grounded as something necessary in the 
 changeableness of a rational nature. But equally had Redemp¬ 
 tion and Grace (not as with Pelagius a merely accidental, but) 
 a necessary place in the System. Only in this point he agreed 
 with him, that he placed Redemption, not in opposition to the 
 ruin that proceeded from the first transgression, but rather to 
 Nature left to itself. He contemplated it in a preponderating 
 degree on the positive side as the glorification of human 
 nature and the advancement of the natural powers of Adam. 
 From this conception of human nature and its importance in 
 the universe, it was evident how it was necessary for the 
 
 vero ad invisibiles virtutes propinquitatem habere videbatur. Una 
 vero quaedam universorum copulatio ex bine fieri videbatur, omnibus 
 id ipsum concurrentibus, ita ut et uno consensu Deo redderent debitam 
 culturam cum cauta solicitudine, omnis etiam illis, quse illius legibus 
 eonsentanea erant, obtemperare prosperabant. Quia propter peccatum 
 facti sumus mortales, anima etiam a corpore separabatur; solvebatur 
 hinc propinquitatis copulatio ita ut nec ultra existimarent invisibiles 
 virtutes aliquam sibi nobiscum esse communionem secundum corporis 
 nostri diligentiam.—Unde et hi, qui insistebant visibilibus naturis et 
 commovebant eas pro nostra utilitate secundum positum sibi terminum, 
 nolebant ea ultra implere, si non promissione percepissent, quod omnia 
 aspera solverentur. 
 
 * Catena Nicephori, i. p. 98.— r) [itv tcX acng riroifiaaOr] r<£ Svyrqj 
 r/ Se rrjg evroXrjg boaig icai to avTt'iovuiov 7rpotyi'|Uva<7£ icci! tCujKe 
 ry yvwfxy rum avOaiperuiv aytovujv rqv Trpbcpaoiv icai ro ryg SvyroTyrog 
 oufupepov v. 
 
CHRYSOSTOM AND AUGUSTIN. 
 
 389 
 
 realization of Redemption, and the second period in the his¬ 
 tory of Creation, that the divine Logos in Christ should 
 assume human nature, and that this should advance by 
 degrees in free development to be the Organ of the Logos 
 until that development was completed at the Resurrection. 
 Redemption stands in close connexion with the Creation ; it is 
 its consummation, the realization of its final aim, and Sin is a 
 means to it. Accordingly he understands the forgiveness of 
 Sins through Christ in the positive sense ; it is the imparta- 
 tion of the avct/jjaeryiGi'a, of the divine life in communion with 
 him, exalted above sin. Under this point of view Theodore 
 could not contemplate the death of Christ as if he had under¬ 
 gone it in a strict sense as a punishment for the sins of 
 mankind; but it behoved Christ to pass through all the 
 developments of human organism, and hence through Death, 
 which at the same time was requisite in order to lead him on 
 to the higher standpoint of the divine life. 
 
 Chrysostom and Augustin, the most influential men in the 
 two churches, are particularly suited to make us acquainted 
 with the one Christian spirit that subsists under important 
 dogmatical differences,—the same Christian sincerity which 
 manifests itself in the greatest diversity of forms conditioned 
 by individual character and the course of culture. Had they 
 come in contact, a conflict might easily have arisen between 
 them. Chrysostom was of a thoroughly practical nature. In 
 Augustin the practical element w’as connected with a pre¬ 
 dominance of the speculative, dialectic turn of mind; his 
 talent was systematic; he delighted in following out logical 
 consequences. In the former feeling and practical experience 
 preponderated ; the interest in systematizing was less power¬ 
 ful, and he had a natural aversion to extremes ; his spirit was 
 more like John’s, that of Augustin like Paul’s. In both, an 
 education by a pious mother laid the foundation of the Chris¬ 
 tian life, but their further development was widely different. 
 Augustin was converted to the Gospel after violent conflicts of 
 his inner and outer life Chrysostom, on the contrary, pur¬ 
 sued his way more quietly in his outer life; he was not at first 
 agitated so violently, and his milder nature attained peace more 
 easily. Like Pelagius, he had been educated in monastic 
 life, but he far surpassed him in depth of feeling and intellect. 
 To him who strove so longingly after true holiness, the monastic 
 
390 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 life was a source of rich inward experience. His practical 
 tendency did not, like that of Pelagius, accompany his reli¬ 
 gious life, but sprang out of it. As he felt assured, that the 
 whole life of the believer was rooted only in communion with 
 Christ, he never acquiesced in the external moral doctrine of 
 Pelagius. Christ was the centre of his life ; his highest 
 aspiration was, to live entirely in him. On the other hand, 
 an ascetic tendency was developed in him, just as he had 
 freely developed himself from within, so he also deemed it of 
 importance to make sanctification dependent on the free deter¬ 
 mination of man’s will. 
 
 Augustin had wandered through Manicheism, Scepticism, 
 and Platonism, before he retraced his steps to the Hoi;? 
 Scriptures; in Chrysostom an equable religious progress 
 was connected with the persevering study of the Bible. 
 Moreover, he did not read it, like Augustin, with an individual 
 religious tendency already formed, but studied it profoundly 
 in order to form his doctrinal belief from it; the sober prin¬ 
 ciples of the Antiochian school guided his interpretation, and 
 his inward Christian life furnished him with a commentary 
 upon it. While in Augustin everything revolved round certain 
 leading points of Christian doctrine, both his life and his 
 thinking were formed harmoniously from Scripture; and while 
 Augustin, in his study of the Bible, dwelt chiefly on particular 
 portions, especially Paul’s Epistles, Chrysostom applied him¬ 
 self to all parts equally. The great metropolis which was the 
 scene of his labours, had a considerable influence on his views. 
 The experience of Pelagius was confirmed by his own; 
 the great world which wore the garb of a superficial Chris¬ 
 tianity, exercised its vices by appealing to the power of 
 sensuousness, to the temptations of Satan, and to a fate which 
 determined men by necessity to good or evil. The conflict 
 against such pretences, against the perversions of the Christian 
 faith, confirmed him in regarding and designating Free Will 
 as the lever of all the moral and religious development of 
 Man. This moral interest led him to a Christian Stoicism 
 which expressed itself in the maxims—that morally Man 
 makes himself—that he can be forced to nothing—that 
 nothing can injure him if he does not injure himself—that 
 everything depends on a right use of the means of grace. 
 Under the varied circumstances and fortunes of life which he 
 
CHRYSOSTOM AND AUGUSTIN. 
 
 391 
 
 passed through, he became more confirmed in these principles, 
 and, supported by them, he testified in his exile of Christ, and 
 adhered to them even to his glorious death. 
 
 In Augustin’s fundamental principles, along with divine love 
 still greater importance is given to the divine punitive justice ; 
 from Chrysostom’s point of view, on the contrary, divine love 
 is the most prominent; he strives on every occasion to magnify 
 it, and to make it visible in the training of the human race. 
 According to his doctrine the original state of Man was one of 
 unclouded purity and happiness. Exempted in his dirdhia 
 from all temptations to sin, he led a painless life, a type of 
 the Immortality to which, if he lived without sin, he would be 
 translated without a struggle.* Yet in this state he might 
 more easily forget his dependence on God. In order that ho 
 might retain the consciousness of it, and practise obedience, 
 God gave him a command. Man transgressed it from moral 
 negligence, since he did not sufficiently exert his power of 
 will. He now became subject to punishment, but which wan 
 intended principally to subserve his education; he was driven 
 from Paradise, and into a world of conflict, in order to form 
 his character. Death was necessarily connected with this 
 state; he had a (rcofia ‘raQrirov ,t and was now exposed to 
 sensual temptations. Chrysostom did not ignore the universal 
 sinfulness of human nature. £ “Who can boast,” he said, 
 “of having a holy heart?” Yet we find no very decided 
 expression of the doctrine of Original Sin. The words in 
 Bom. v. 19, “ By one man’s disobedience many were made 
 sinners,” he explains metonynimially of the punishment of 
 sin,§ and denies that anything damnable existed in children. 
 He is still farther from believing in the transference of Adam’s 
 guilt to his descendants; he proposes the question, how then 
 could Death pass on all the rest? and replies—that no man is 
 without sin, although he has not committed the same sin as 
 Adam. Yet all these evils might serve for the advantage of 
 man, if he makes use of his Free Will; they would then be 
 
 * Horn. 17, in Genes, cap. 3, tom. iv. p. 133.—7 ravra yap iTrolym — 
 wore to Zujov tovto to Xoyucov to i'i7r’ civtov drj/xiovpyr)6ev sv Ttaaij Tifxy 
 rvyxaveiv icat Kara p-yS'tv tXarrovaOcu ti)q tu>v ayysXwv hayojyi]^, 
 aXXu icai sv odofiaTi Tr)v sksivojv arraOtLav KtKTijaOai. 
 
 f For the whole train of ideas, compare Horn, in Gen. 16, 17, 18. 
 
 X Horn. 8, in 1 Corinth, § 2, tom. x. p. 67. 
 
 § Ibid. 10, in Rom. § 2, 3, tom. ix. p. 523. 
 
392 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 incentives to the moral conflict. Not the mortal body, but 
 the depraved Will is the root of Evil.* From the importance 
 which he ascribes to sin, follows an acknowledgment of the 
 necessity of grace and redemption; hence he asserts that we 
 obtain Justification, not by our own merits, but owe salvation 
 to the Will of God.f It is equally clear that he considers all 
 the divine dealings with man to be jointly determined by his 
 free will, and that he could not approve of absolute Predesti¬ 
 nation and Grace, acting unconditionally. “ The All-sufficient 
 One,” he says, “ does not need us, but since he does every¬ 
 thing on account of our salvation, he lets it depend on our 
 will. Wherefore he employs no compulsion, for to be drawn 
 against our will to worship him, is the same as not serving 
 him at all. { God does not anticipate our wills with his gifts, 
 but if we only begin, then he gives us many an opportunity for 
 salvation. § Faith is no little thing, but requires divine 
 Grace; yet it needs also our own wills that man may allow 
 himself to be taught of God. || Men are not inferior to Angels 
 because of their sensuousness, but everything depends on 
 Free Will. Even among spiritual beings there are those who 
 are worse than Men. Do not complain of the Creator, and 
 say not as a sensuous Man I cannot be good.”^T He under¬ 
 stands by Predestination the general preceding design which 
 God formed before the Creation of the World, to redeem the 
 world through Christ. God’s choice does not compel those 
 who are called, but only arouses them. The manner in which 
 he treats the history of Paul’s conversion illustrates his views 
 on this subject.** Augustin makes the unconditionality of 
 the divine grace and predestination conspicuous in this event; 
 Chrysostom, on the contrary, says, “ Grace effected it through 
 him, but yet it was his own affair, since he had made himself 
 worthy of such extraordinary grace. Without his will grace 
 could have effected nothing in him. Seek not after Paul’s 
 miracles but after his love. Many who saw the greatest 
 miracles, apostatized. Paul speaks of grace that it may not 
 
 * Horn. 17, in 1 Corinth, § 4, p. 150. 
 
 f Horn. 1, in 1 Corinth, § 1, pag. 3; Horn, in Rom. 7, § 1, 8. 
 
 I Horn, in Joh. 10, § 1, tom viii. p. 57. 
 
 • § In Joh. Horn. 18, § 3, p. 107. 
 
 || Horn. 45, § 3, p. 265. 
 
 H Horn. 75, § 5, p. 445. 
 
 ** Horn. tom. iii. p. 98, sqq 
 
NESTORIUS. 
 
 393 
 
 seem as if he had all of himself, hut he also speahs of his 
 own striving.”* From these premises we may infer that 
 Chrysostom, like the other Orientals, gave a special pro¬ 
 minence to the positive side of Redemption without altogether 
 excluding the negative side. Annianus, a deacon of Celeda, 
 a Pelagian, who belonged to the more resolute of the party 
 who had resigned their offices, translated these homilies on 
 the conversion of Paul and on Matthew into Latin, with a 
 preface, in which he endeavoured to explain the system of 
 Chrysostom as favourable to Pelagianism. 
 
 In PHOTiusf there is a notice of a remarkable writing, in 
 which it is said that the heresies of the Pelagians and of Nes- 
 torius were the same ; the assertion is quoted from a letter of 
 Cyrill to Theodosius': what the Pelagians said of the members 
 of Christ, that Nestorius said of Christ himself. In principle 
 this is correct; yet the connexion of the two parties in the 
 Nestorian controversy rests not so much on this subjective 
 ground, since the reunion of tl;e Christology and the Anthro¬ 
 pology was not consciously carried out,—but rather on acci¬ 
 dental causes. Nestorius was, from motives of kindness, not 
 willing to sacrifice Julian and other bishops who had taken 
 refuge in Constantinople, and thereby prejudiced the bishop 
 of Rome against himself. At that time he delivered four 
 discourses containing a representation of his Anthropology, of 
 which we have three translated into Latin by Marius Merca¬ 
 tor, and the fourth in Greek in Chrysostom’s works. J They 
 show’ that he was far from agreeing with Augustin, yet by no 
 means an adherent of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Alex¬ 
 andrian party at the Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagius 
 and CiELESTius with Nestorius ; but this was hardly owing to 
 an exact knowledge of the internal connexion of the points in 
 dispute; it proceeded rather from deference to the Roman 
 Church, which had declared itself against Nestorius. The 
 Eastern Church continued to maintain the more ancient doc¬ 
 trine of the co-operation of Grace and Freedom, without 
 entering into a closer examination of their mutual relation. 
 For the most part it had a leaning to Semi-Pelagianism. This 
 also appears from the letters of Isidore, the abbot of Pelusium, 
 who derives the corruption of human nature from Adam’s sin: 
 
 * Cf. Horn. 2, in Rom. § 3, tom. x. pag. 440. + Codex 54. 
 
 t Tom. x. p. 733. 
 
394 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 it is sunk from anadacc into e/xwddstu, into passions and 
 temptations. Evil is increased by the negligence of men; 
 yet there is a seed of goodness left; whoever cherishes it, 
 makes progress in goodness, but not others. Free will requires 
 the aid of Divine grace, but the latter is never wanting if man 
 only does his part. He denies an irresistible grace, but admits 
 in certain cases a prevenient grace. Absolute Predestination 
 he zealously rejects ; all communications of Grace are con¬ 
 ditioned by Man’s Free Will. No arbitrary election exists, 
 for otherwise the kingdom of Heaven would be no reward of 
 conflict.* 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The unspiritualizing of the Church was already become 
 general in the West; it was regarded as an outward organism, 
 continued by the succession of Bishops, who formed the neces¬ 
 sary medium of communication with Christ, and for partaking 
 in the Holy Spirit and Salvation. Augustin adopted this view, 
 (which before his time had been principally developed in 
 North Africa), because it corresponded to his own religious 
 life, and carried it out more systematically. In the change of his 
 standpoints, tossed also hither and thither by Scepticism, he 
 was led, at last, to resign himself to an outward Authority as 
 founded by God; it is implied in his maxim jides prcecedit 
 intellectwm. The operations of Christianity were to him one 
 and the same with those of the Church. Thus on one side he 
 became a pillar of the Catholic principle and standpoint, as 
 on another side by his doctrine of a living faith and the 
 internal divine life of Grace he presented a point of attach¬ 
 ment for the Protestant element, and laid the foundation of a 
 reaction against Catholicism. 
 
 It was Donatism, a form of separatism resembling Nova- 
 tianism, which developed the doctrine of the Church in 
 opposition to Augustin. On both standpoints the visible and 
 invisible Church were confounded, and the predicates of purity 
 and holiness were sought in the former. Separatism is pre¬ 
 eminently subjective ; the Catholic standpoint objective ; 
 on the latter, the idea of the Catholic Church, and there¬ 
 fore holiness and purity are made dependent on the objec¬ 
 tive, on the continuation of the Church by the succession 
 of Bishops. Therefore this controversy was deemed so 
 * See his Epistles, lib. iii. 204, 171 ; 13, 165; ii. ep. 2. 
 
DONATISM. 
 
 395 
 
 important by Augustin, since be saw many led away by 
 Separatism from the communion of the Church, which seemed 
 to be the only connecting medium with Christ and Salvation. 
 In reference to this view he says,* “ No one can attain to Sal¬ 
 vation who has not Christ for his head ; but no one can have 
 Christ for his head who is not a member of his Body the 
 Church.” On the Donatist standpoint the predicate of Catho¬ 
 licity was made to depend on the subjective of purity and 
 holiness. A Church which allowed unworthy members to 
 remain in it, becomes defiled and ceases to be Catholic. 
 The Donatists said, “ Whoever is shown to be a Christian in a 
 right and lawful manner, is to me a Catholic.f The Catholics 
 wished to let the worthy and unworthy remain mixed together, 
 and to defer the separation to the final Judgment. They 
 appealed to the Parable of the wheat and the tares ; they main¬ 
 tained that the Field mentioned in it was the visible appear¬ 
 ance of the Church; the Donatists, on the other hand, 
 understood by it the World in which good and evil are mixed, 
 and therefore the tares and the wheat must remain mixed, not 
 in the Church but in the World. The distinction in the idea 
 of the Church as visible and invisible , might have led to an 
 agreement. The Catholics sometimes alluded to it in their 
 discussions, and the Donatists charged them on that account 
 with making two Churches. The other party vindicated 
 themselves, since they referred the distinction to the various 
 states of the one Church in its temporal and eternal life, as 
 Christ’s state was distinguished before and after the Kesurrec- 
 tion. Augustin endeavoured to establish a proper distinction, 
 but as he was afraid to follow out the idea to its full extent, 
 his notions became obscure. He spoke of those J who are in the 
 house of God per communionem sacramentorum, and those who 
 are outside of the house per perversitatem morum. “ Many§ 
 by partaking of the sacraments are vjith the Church and yet 
 are not in the Church.” Further, “those who appear to be 
 in the Church, and to contradict Christ, and therefore do not 
 belong to that Church which is called the body of Christ.” 
 
 * De Unitate Eccl. c. 49. 
 
 fi Optatus of Mileve, De Schism. Donat, ed. Du Pin, 1700. Gesta 
 collat. Carthag. iii. c. 99. p. 467. 
 
 X De Baptismo, iv. 1—4. 
 
 § De Unitate Eccl. 74.—Multi sunt in sacramentorum communione 
 cum ecclesia et tamen jam non sunt in ecclesia. 
 
396 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 In these expressions lies the distinction of a true Church, 
 which is the proper body of Christ, and one which only appears 
 to be; the former would be the invisible Church. The same 
 assumption lies in the words—“ The unworthy are not in that 
 communion of the Church which grows together in the members 
 of Christ and increasetli with the increase of God ; that Church 
 rests upon the Rock.”* He distinguishes the corpus CJiristi 
 verum etpermixtum, and says—“That does not truly belong 
 to the body of Christ which is not always with him. Hypocrites , 
 are not with him, though they are in his Church.” 
 
 In the Eastern Church the externalized idea of the Church 
 certainly prevailed, but it was not moulded so systematically, 
 and allowed many faint glimpses of a more spiritual conception. 
 Cyrill of Jerusalem'! defined the Catholic Church as that 
 which was scattered over the whole world, which handed down 
 the entire circle of Christian truth, and led men without dis¬ 
 tinction of culture to piety. Here also no reference was made 
 to the necessity of a mediation by a succession of bishops, but 
 the distinguishing character of Catholicism attaches to doc¬ 
 trine and spiritual unity. Chrysostom in explaining the words, 
 
 “ His praise is in the congregation of the Saints,” says,| 
 
 “ Church is a name of association, and of meeting together.” 
 
 “ The Church consists not in a roof and walls, but in faith and 
 life.Ӥ Isidore of Pelusium|| places the Church in the com 
 munion of Saints, which consists in the right faith and the 
 right course of conduct. 
 
 The externalism of the Catholic idea of the Church called 
 forth a reaction by a man in whom the movements of a Pro¬ 
 testant element are discernible, Jovinian.^" In this spirit he 
 
 * Contra Literas Petiliani, ii. § 247.—Nee ideo putandi sunt esse in 
 Ckristi corpore, quod est ecclesia, quia sacramentorum ejus corporaliter 
 participes fuint. Ilia enim et in talibus sancta sunt, et eis indigne 
 tractantibus et sementibus ad majus judicium valebunt. Ipsi autem 
 non sunt in ilia ecclesise compage, quae in membris Christi per con- 
 nexum et contactum crescit in incrementum Dei. Ilia quippe ecclesia 
 in petra est. 
 
 f Catech. 18, § 23. 
 
 + In Psalm 149, tom. v. p. 498.— r) aivsaiQ avrov iv tKKXrjcriq, oaiiov 
 —kiacXrjcria -yap (rvaTUfMarog Kal ervvocov icrriv ijvopa. 
 
 § Tom. iii. p. 386, Horn. De Eutropio. 
 
 || Epist. lib. ii. 246. 
 
 II Cf. Hieronym. coutr. Jovinian. lib. ii. Augustin, de Haeresib. 82. 
 
 B. Lindner, De Joviano et Vigilantes Purioris Doctrine Antesignanis. 
 
J0VIN1AN. 
 
 397 
 
 carried on a -warfare against hypocrisy, the quantitative scale 
 of morals, the consilia evangelica; he laid the utmost stress on 
 the principle of a living faith and the unity of the principle of 
 the Christian life. Not only in this respect bat in the doctrine 
 of Grace, he agreed fundamentally with Augustin. The 
 affinity of the two is as remarkable as their difference, 
 Jovinian attained consequentially to a recognition of the 
 immediate relation of the Christian consciousness to Christ, 
 and to an idea of the Church derived from it and hence 
 subordinated to it. He expressed this in the words, “ The 
 Church is founded on Faith, Hope and Love.’’* Accordingly he 
 looked upon it as a community developing itself from within. 
 “ In this Church there is nothing impure ; every one is taught 
 of God; no one can break into it by violence, or steal into it 
 by artifice.” As Jovintan taught the Pauline doctrine of 
 faith, so he did the Pauline idea of the invisible Church, 
 while Augustin obstructed the development of his similar 
 fundamental idea by a mixture of the Catholic idea of the 
 Church. 
 
 From the necessity of an external Church-Unity, the 
 farther consequence was already drawn, that it must have an 
 external representative, and it began to be sought in Rome as 
 the Cathedra Petri. The North African Church (though it 
 showed its independence in particular cases) and Augustin 
 especially entertained this view. It had obtained the 
 summit of authority because it had propagated itself from the 
 apostolica sedes (of Peter) f through all ages by the succes¬ 
 sion of bishops. Accordingly he founds the succession of 
 bishops principally on their succession in the Roman Church. 
 “ Who does not know,” he says, “ the supremacy of that 
 Apostle which is to precede every other episcopal dignity ?’’£ 
 
 * I. 2.—Seimus ecclesiam spe, fide, caritate inaccessibilem, inex- 
 pugnabilem; non est in ea immaturus, omnes docibilis; impetu 
 irrumpere vel arte eludere (Neander, illudere) potest nullus. II. 19.— 
 Sponsa, soror, mater et quEecunque alia putaveris vocabula unius 
 ecclesiae congregatio est, quse nunquam est sine sponso, fratre, filio. 
 Unam habetfidem, nec constupratur dogmatum varietate nec heeresibus 
 scinditur Virgo permanet. Quocunque vadit agnus sequitur ilium ; 
 sola novit canticum Christi. 
 
 f De Utilitate Credendi, 35.—Dubitavimus nos ejus ecclesise condere 
 gremium, quse usque ad confectionem generis humani ab apostolica 
 sede per successiones episcoporum culmen auctoritatis obtinuit ? 
 
 J De Baptismo contra Donatistas ii. 2. 
 
398 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 But in the explanation and application of those words of 
 Christ, on which the primacy of Peter is especially grounded, 
 Augustin is not consistent with himself. In his Retracta¬ 
 tions * he gives close together two different explanations of 
 the words, “ Thou art Peter,” &c., first, Peter is the rock 
 on which the Church is founded; but he often adopted the 
 meaning that Christ is the rock, and that Peter is so called 
 on account of his confession, and that he in this confession 
 represents the Church.f To the same effect he says, “ The 
 rock is not called after Peter, but Peter is called after 
 the rock, as Christ is not called after Christians, but Chris¬ 
 tians after Christ.” Here again we have a mark of the 
 Protestant element in Augusttn, for the development of this 
 interpretation leads to the result, that all religious conscious¬ 
 ness is immediately to be traced up to Christ and that with 
 him the community originates which is called the Church. 
 On the other hand in the Roman bishops, especially in Leo 
 the Great, consequences were developed from the first inter¬ 
 pretation of Christ’s words and from the idea of a necessary 
 outward representation of the Church, in which the mediaeval 
 Papacy was foreshadowed.| 
 
 e. the doctrine of the sacraments. 
 
 1. OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 The idea of a Sacrament, and the extent of its application, 
 was as yet undefined, and was formed into distinctness by 
 practice. The rhetorical extravagance with which the Greek 
 Homilists described the efficacy of the Sacraments, cherished 
 the faith in their magical virtue. Augustin first of all applied 
 
 * I. 21. 
 
 f Tract, in Joan. 124, § 5.— Ecclesia non cadit, quoniam fundata est 
 super petram, unde Petrus nomen accepit. Non enim a Petro petra, 
 sed Petrus a petra, sicut non Christus a Christiano, sed Christianus 
 a Christo vocatur. Ideo quippe ait Dominus : super hanc peti’am 
 sedificabo ecclesiam meam quia dixerat Petrus, tu es Christus filius 
 Dei vivi. Super hanc ergo petram quam confessus es sedificabo eccle¬ 
 siam meam. Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum 
 etiam ipse sedificabus est Petrus. 1 Cor. iii. 11. 
 
 X Leo, Sermo 80.—Civitas sacerdotalis et regia per sacram b. Petri 
 sedem caput orbis effecta, latius prsesidens religione divina, quam 
 dominatione terrena. See Perthel, Leo d. Gr. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 399 
 
 himself to a thorough investigation respecting the ide a of a 
 Sacrament and its relation to Christianity, and was thus led to 
 many things which did not agree with the prevalent Church 
 belief. He opposed to the magical notion one that was more 
 spiritual, although he also presented elements of the Catholic 
 mode of contemplation which were eagerly made use of by its 
 abettors. A Sacrament, according to his definition, was 
 nothing else than a visible sign which represented a divine 
 fact, sacramentum or signum sacrce rei denoting the res sacra - 
 menti;* * * § what the audible word otherwise represents is here 
 represented by the visible word ( verba quoedam visibilia ).+ 
 The sign is temporal and changeable ; the divine fact is 
 unchangeable.J He developes this subject in opposition to 
 the Manicheans, who objected against the derivation of Chris¬ 
 tianity and Judaism from the same God. How could God, 
 they asked, contradict himself and disannul an arrangement 
 established by himself ? To this he replied that the Divine 
 continues the same, only the signs for its representation must 
 be changed. According to him, there was only one Justijicatio 
 which was foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Sensible signs 
 are necessary in a religious community ; but again, these can 
 have no effect on the Spirit, they cannot impart Holiness and 
 Justification but merely serve as the signs and vehicles of the 
 divine grace, which is the only source of Justijicatio. Moses 
 could not impart sanctification, for he was only an organ of the 
 Most High ;§ it is God whose invisible grace imparts sanc¬ 
 tification by his Spirit. This invisible grace operates through 
 the Sacraments, but it can also operate without them. It is 
 absurd to say that that invisible sanctification cannot profit 
 without the visibilia sacramenta; it is only the usual arrange¬ 
 ment appointed by God that grace should make such sacra¬ 
 ments its organs, and if any one despises this divine arrange¬ 
 ment, he pronounces himself thereby to be destitute of grace. 
 
 * De Catechiz. Rudibus, 50.—Sacramenta signacula quidem rerum 
 divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisibiles in eis honorari. 
 
 f Contra Faustum, 19, 16. 
 
 i Ep. 138, 8. 
 
 § Qusest. in Levit. lib. iii. questio 84.—Quomodo et Moses sanctificat 
 et Dominus? Non enim Moses pro Domino, sed Moses visibilibua 
 eacramentis per ministerium suum ; Dominus autem invisibili gratia 
 per spiritum sanctum, ubi est totus fructus etiam visibilium sacramen- 
 torum. 
 
400 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 The question respecting the objectivity of the Sacraments 
 was brought to a decision at this period on the occasion of the 
 controversy with the Donatists. > They made an earnest effort 
 to fix an earlier standpoint in the development of the Church. 
 We may observe the same peculiarity in their conclusions 
 respecting the Sacrament, as respecting the Church and State ; 
 they were inclined to subordinate the objective to the subjec¬ 
 tive, and accordingly kept to the older subjective standpoint 
 in asserting that the Sacraments were only valid when they 
 were administered by worthy members of the Catholic Church. 
 Hence Petilian maintained* that those who received baptism 
 from an unbeliever received not the faith (baptism) but only 
 guilt: for in everything the root is of the chief importance, and 
 if any one has not the right head, the act is nugatory ; he must 
 belong to the true holy Church. In opposition to this ten¬ 
 dency, Aug'ustin says—“ Christ alone is the true Origin, 
 Root, and Head ; he alone can justify men. Hence the 
 Sacraments are everywhere valid wherever his Institutions are 
 administered. It does not signify what Man is, but what 
 Christ is; everything proceeds from him. Anciently the 
 Christian calling was compared to military service and bap¬ 
 tism to entering into the service. The stigma militare was 
 impressed on those who enlisted. Augustin wishing to give 
 effect to the objective in baptism, says, in allusion to this 
 custom,* “ As when any one deserts, still he always has this 
 stigma, so also there is something indelible in the mark 
 impressed by Baptism; though it testifies only against him 
 who does not remain faithful to the Christian calling.” With 
 this view the Catholic doctrine coalesced, of the character 
 indelehilis which certain sacraments must impart. Augustin 
 contrasts the standpoint of slavery and of freedom, that of 
 Judaism and that of Christianity. On the latter there are 
 only a few symbols, but there is also different relation of these 
 to the religious consciousness; on the legal standpoint there 
 is the dependence of the consciousness on the religious signs, 
 and on the Christian a distinction between the sign and the 
 divine reality, with a clear consciousness and a correct under¬ 
 standing of the relation of the one to the other. Every Sacra- 
 
 * Contra Literas Petil. i 6, 7. 
 
 f Contr. Epistolam Parmeniani, ii. 29. 
 
THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTb. 
 
 401 
 
 ment, he says,* leads to the contemplation of the thing signi¬ 
 fied, and its application to the life ; the contemplation of 
 Truth raises the soul to the love of God ; the application to 
 the life consists in love to Man. The signs are taken from 
 common life ; hence they cannot make the same impression as 
 something miraculous. Only if the Sacrament is not under¬ 
 stood it produces a certain unconscious awe, and on the other 
 hand, if understood, it gives birth to a devout joy.f 
 
 THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 Augustin, according to his free and spiritual views of wor¬ 
 ship, names expressly Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the 
 Sacraments of Christianity, though certainly adding, “ if any¬ 
 thing else is enjoined in the New Testament.” J In other pas¬ 
 sages, he is disposed to admit four sacraments. In the pre¬ 
 ceding age, the beginning of a sacramental mode of viewing 
 them had been made in reference to Confirmation, Penance, 
 and priestly Ordination. Still more was this the case in this 
 age ; the language used respecting Ordination implied that it 
 made the priest into another man ; and since a sudden magical 
 communication of the Spirit was ascribed to it which then 
 effected everything that was necessary, many persons held a 
 special training for the clerical office to be unnecessary. Yet 
 this error met with a refutation both from Augustin and 
 Gregory of Nyssa. Confirmation (confirmation (xpgaylg) was 
 among the Greeks completed by anointing, and served as a 
 ratification of Baptism. We may gather from the spurious 
 
 * Posteaquam resurrectione Domini nostri manifestissimum indicium 
 nostrse libertatis illuxit, nec eomm quidem signorum operatione gravi 
 onerati sumus, sed qusedam pauca pro multis eademque factu facillima 
 et intellectu augustissima et observatione castissima ipse Dominus et 
 apostolica, tradidit disciplina. Quee unusquisque cum percepit, quo 
 referantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spiritali 
 potius libertate veneretur.—De Doctrina Christiana, iii. 13. 
 
 f Nihil tarn pie terret animum, quam sacramentum non intellectum, 
 autem gaudium pium pacit et c-elebratur libere, si opus est tempori. 
 —Expositio Epistola? ad Galat. iii. 19 ; cf. Ep. 54 et 55, ad Januarium. 
 
 £ Ep. 54, ad Januarium.—Primo tenere te volo—Dominum nostrum 
 -—leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sarcinse levi; unde sacramentis 
 numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione prcestan- 
 tissimis societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est baptismus trinitatis 
 nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si 
 quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur, exceptis iis, qua? 
 servitutem populi veteris—onerabant. 
 
 D B 
 
402 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, how strongly the 
 mystic liturgic element of the Greek Church tended to the 
 multiplication of the Sacraments. The liturgic elements of 
 worship and those of the hierarchy receive in them a mystic, 
 symbolic meaning. These writings, although not of great 
 intrinsic value, exerted no inconsiderable influence, since they 
 conveyed the existing spiritual tendencies to the following 
 Period. The Sacraments which they enumerate, are the fol¬ 
 lowing : Baptism (pwr/c^a), the Lord’s Supper (xo/vayfa 
 avwt'ewg), Priestly Ordination (rsXsiugig hgciTixy]), Monastic 
 Ordination (rsAs/W/s the rites used at the burial 
 
 of believers (ya ini ruv /sgojv xs%o//j,7]/jt,ev6jv) . Augustin laid 
 the foundation in the West, of a new Sacrament. Partly the 
 term fjsjgryigtov, which is applied to Marriage in Eph. v., and 
 partly his controversy with the Pelagians, who accused him of 
 regarding the procreation of children as something Satanic, and 
 against whom he urged so much the more the sanctity of 
 Christian wedlock, determined him to call Marriage a Sacra- 
 mentum, and to infer its indissolubility. 
 
 2. BAPTISM. 
 
 In the East as well as in the West it was now the preva¬ 
 lent belief that Infant Baptism was of apostolic Institution, 
 but in the East especially, the Practice was not in accordance 
 with it; on the whole, Infant Baptism was not very frequently 
 observed, and many remained Catechumens to a late age. 
 For the indifference towards Christianity, which again had 
 been increased by the neglect of Infant Baptism, and the 
 false views of the magical efficacy of Baptism, and in many 
 a superstitious reverence for the ceremony which would not 
 venture to apply its benefits to children, caused its postpone¬ 
 ment. Often when any general calamities occurred, great 
 multitudes flocked to baptism. The Church teachers Gre¬ 
 gory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Chrysostom, 
 pronounced Infant baptism of apostolic origin, recommended 
 its use, and at the same time protested against faith in its 
 effecting a magical forgiveness of sins. 
 
 But in establishing its necessity and in explaining the for¬ 
 mula—“ for the forgiveness of sins,” which was also used at 
 the baptism of Infants, a difference arose between the East 
 and the West, corresponding to the difference, generally, in 
 
BAPTISM. 
 
 403 
 
 the view of the work of Redemption, just as the Positive 
 aspect of it in the ennobling of human nature, or the Negative, 
 the opposition against sin, was rendered most prominent. 
 Accordingly, in the East, Baptism was regarded chiefly as 
 indicating exaltation to a higher stage, for which the original 
 powers of man were not sufficient. Gregory Nazianzen 
 says,—“ It is a more divine Creation, and something higher 
 than the original formation of Nature ; participation in the 
 kingdom of God is communicated, which human nature of 
 itself could not attain.* * * § This may be applied equally to 
 children as to adults.” Hence in determining the object of 
 baptism, Gregory goes on to say, it is a seal for infancy, the 
 forgiveness of sins for adults, a restoration of the defaced 
 image of God. He justifies Infant Baptism by asserting that 
 from the first a higher element must be communicated to 
 human nature, and the child become dedicated to the Holv 
 Spirit.f That positive view of the Eastern Christians found 
 a point of union with those of the West in their admission 
 that the first Man, if he had not sinned, would have imme¬ 
 diately attained to higher communion with God. Through 
 Sin his body became a c^aa cra^row. Thus the Eastern 
 Church found in this new creation also, a reference to the con¬ 
 sequences of the first sin. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa says, “The child is by Baptism placed 
 in the Paradise from which Adam was expelled; “ the marks 
 of evil which were brought upon human nature, are taken 
 away by baptism.Ӥ Only the Eastern Churches were opposed 
 to giving prominence only to the negative effect of Redemption. || 
 Julian of Eclanum appealed to a Homily of Chrysostom, 
 addressed to the newly baptized,in which he speaks of the 
 operations of the divine grace in baptism, and asserts against 
 those who make the baptismal grace to consist only , in the 
 forgiveness of sins, “ that we baptize children although they 
 are not defiled by sin, in order that they may partake of 
 
 * Orat. 40, tig to tiyiov ficnTTiGna, fol. 640, D. 
 
 f vrjTriov ton aoi; fxrj \a€troj Kaipov rj KaKicC he fiptyovg ayiafjOrjro), 
 6vv\o)V KaOispoiQrjTU) Tip irvtvfAaTi. 
 
 J \6yog 7r pog Tovg fipadvvovTctg tig to (3a7TTi<j[j,a, ii. p. 216. 
 
 § Orat. Catech. c. 40. 
 
 || Cyrill. Hierosolym. Catech. 17, c. 18. 
 ii Augustin, contra Julianum, i. § 21. 
 
 D P 
 
404 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 holiness, righteousness, sonship, adoption, and brothersliip 
 through Christ.” These words may be made to harmonize 
 well with Chrysostom’s doctrine, for they do not imply that 
 human nature is born altogether in the same state in which it 
 originally was. Hence, we are not justified in attributing to 
 Julian a designed forgery of these words, as even Augustin 
 does not deny their genuineness Isidore of Pelusium says* 
 that those persons have a mean idea of baptism who refer it 
 only to the remission of sins ; this alone would not be so great a 
 thing ; but there are many other gifts of grace communicated to 
 human nature which far transcend its original state, a divine 
 regeneration, adoption, justification, communion with Christ; 
 the remedy goes much further than the healing of the 
 wounds. Theodore of MopsuestiaI” gives a peculiar phase of 
 the Eastern representation; the most important operation of 
 grace, he regards as the participation in the ava/AagrYjG/ct of 
 Christ, the induction into the communion of his divine life 
 which rises above temptation. The formula of the forgive¬ 
 ness of sins in the Baptism of infants he explained as relating 
 to the avafjjOL^TYic'icc. 
 
 Hence, it is evident how the Pelagians could enforce the 
 necessity of Infant Baptism without admitting the doctrine of 
 Original Sin. Caelestius maintained that children by baptism 
 acquired a share in a higher stage of blessedness in the 
 kingdom of God, than they could attain by their natural powers. 
 From this arose the idea of a middle state for unbaptized 
 children; while the highest stage, the kingdom of God, 
 depends on baptism. Thus we must understand what 
 Pelagius says: “ Whither unbaptized children go, I know 
 not; but whither they do not go, I know.” And what he 
 wrote to Innocent, bishop of Borne : “ Why should they who 
 
 * Epp. v. 195. 
 
 + In Ephes. 5, 22—24. Spicileg. Solesm. i. 118.—Et quod mortales 
 sequitur ut peccent, immortales vero effecti in futuro seculo peccare 
 ultro non poterimus. Forma autem illius est spiritalis regeneratio, 
 quam in baptismate implere videmur, quasi hinc jam recreati, et 
 secundum formam regenerati spei illorum quae et fieri exspectamus. 
 Hoc dicit, quoniam non ignorat dissolutum quidem esse veterem ilium 
 hominem mortalem. ISTovus vero ille quidem pro illo indutus est 
 incorruptus, in cujus formam ilia quae in baptismate est praecepistis, 
 siinul et primitias spiritus accipientes. Itaque justum est, vos con- 
 sentanec illis et sapere et conversari, qui maxime cum spiritus regene- 
 ratione etiam sensus renovationem estis assequuti.— [Jacobi.] 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 405 
 
 are born to an uncertain life, not be born again to an eternal 
 and certain life ? ” Augustin represents to the Pelagians the 
 inconsequence of excluding from the kingdom of God those 
 who are the image of God. He proceeds on the principle 
 that there can be no middle state between the happiness or 
 salvation that consists in communion with God, and unhappi¬ 
 ness or damnation. But at an earlier period he had been 
 himself an advocate of this doctrine.* * * § Ambrose inferred, 
 from misunderstanding Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus, 
 that no one could enter the kingdom of heaven without 
 baptism; but what would become of unbaptized children, he 
 did not venture to decide.-f- In the East also we find the repre¬ 
 sentation of a middle state for unbaptized children in the 
 writings of Gregory Nazianzen.J 
 
 In the North African church this doctrine met with opposi¬ 
 tion, and since, according to Augustin, the only alternative 
 was the kingdom of God or perdition, and Baptism was neces¬ 
 sary for the kingdom of God, all unbaptized children must be 
 doomed to damnation. In the second Canon of the Council 
 of Carthage, in the year 418, the doctrine of an intermediate 
 state for unbaptized children was rejected, and the conclusion 
 above mentioned was of course approved. But this Canon is 
 not found in ail the copies of the proceedings of the Council; 
 probably there was a reluctance directly to affirm it. For 
 those who in this connexion maintained the necessity of Infant 
 Baptism, it was a question, in what way its efficacy might be 
 supposed to operate. Augustin in this instance did not follow 
 out the inferences which were deducible from his idea of the 
 Sacraments in general, but was fettered by the church doctrine. 
 He says, the Sacramentum fidei in children is called faith, 
 and if the child comes to mature age, the sacrament is not 
 repeated, but he only learns to understand it, and enters into 
 the truth with the determination of his Will; till this can 
 take place the Sacrament acts as a protection against the 
 influence of the powers of evil. As yet there is at least no 
 tendency of the consciousness directly opposed to faith, and 
 hence the child is freed by Baptism from perdition.§ 
 
 * De Libero Arbitrio, iii. 23. 
 
 + De Abrahamo, ii. 84. 
 
 £ Orat. 40. 
 
 § Ep. 98, ad Bonifacium, c. 10.—Itaque parvulum, etsi nondum fide* 
 
406 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 The three-fold gradation which we noticed in the former 
 period, is also now visible in the representations of the Lord’s 
 Supper. 
 
 1. The sensuous realistic view of Justin and Irenleus, 
 which taught an actual interpenetration of the bread and wine 
 with the body and blood of Christ was adopted by Cyrill of 
 Jerusalem, who infers from the words of the Institution, that 
 undoubtedly the body and blood of Christ were present, and 
 introduces as a parallel the change of water into wine at 
 Cana. The body and blood of Christ are presented under 
 the image of bread and wine, in order that whoever has 
 partaken of his body and blood may become one body and 
 one blood with him. Thus we enter into the most intimate 
 communion with Christ, since we carry himself within us, 
 and thus acquire a divine nature.* Be assured, that the 
 wine is not wine, but the blood of Christ.f It is evident 
 that Cyrill meant to say, that by a miracle the body and blood 
 of Christ are present and are transferred to the communicant, 
 so that in spirit and body he is pervaded by a principle of 
 divine life. But how does he conceive this union ? The 
 comparison with the miracle at Cana, the assertion that the 
 bread and wine are only an image, have been referred by 
 Catholic Expositors to a peculiar change by which nothing but 
 the outward species is left. But the term /xsra-ro/s/v in this 
 writer, is certainlv not to be taken strictlv, and is used to 
 
 ilia, quae in credentium voluntate consistit, jam tamen ipsius fidei 
 sacramentum fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam 
 fidelis vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacra¬ 
 mentum percipiendo. Quum autem homo sapere coeperit, non illud 
 sacramentum repetet, sed intelliget ejusque veritati consona etiam 
 voluntate cooptabitur. Hoc quamdiu non potest, valebit sacramentum 
 ad ejus tutelam adversus contrarias potestates ; et tantum valebit, ut 
 si ante a rationis usu ex hac vita emigraverit, per ipsum sacramentum 
 commendante ecclesiae caritate, ab ilia coudemnatione, quae per unum 
 hominem intravit in mundum Christiano adjutorio liberetur. Hoc qui 
 non credit et fieri non posse arbitratur, profecto infidelis est, etsi 
 liabeat fidei sacramentum ; longeque melior est illo parvulus, qui 
 etiamsi fidem nondum liabeat in cogitatione non ei tamen obicem 
 contrariae cogitationis opponit, unde sacramentum ejus salubriter 
 percipit. 
 
 * Orat. Mystagogica, iv. c. 1—3. 
 
 t C. 5. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD S SUPPER. 
 
 4 07 
 
 express the potentiating a natural power into something 
 higher, which previously did not lie within it. As far as 
 something higher, the blood of Christ, is connected with the 
 wine, Cyrill says, that the wine is no longer wine. That the 
 comparison with the miracle at Cana does not imply an 
 absolute transmutation appears from this, that in another 
 passage he compares the higher potency which the bread and 
 wine receive, with that communicated to the consecrated oil,* * * § 
 in which he certainly did not imagine any transmutation. 
 Cyrill’s opinion therefore is, that the body and blood of 
 Christ are supernaturally combined with the bread and wine, 
 and partaken therewith. 
 
 With this view Chrysostom in general agrees. The supper 
 was instituted by Christ, in order that we might unite ourselves 
 not merely by love, but in fact with the body of Christ. This 
 is the proof of his exceeding love; he wishes not merely to 
 be seen by believers, but to be touched and eaten by them.f 
 He says further: “ Why does Paul make use of the term 
 xoivcovla and not ? for this reason, because he intends 
 
 not merely a participation, but a full communion, into which 
 we enter by union. For, as that body was connected with 
 Christ, so we are united by it to Christ.” J 
 
 Among the Western writers who held these views, was 
 Hilary of Poictiers. If Christ, he says, truly became flesh, 
 and we truly feast upon the Word that became flesh, why 
 should he not abide with us in a natural way ? since he 
 assumed our bodv, and has connected the nature of his own 
 body, under the Sacrament, with our body, in order to com¬ 
 municate to us eternal life.§ Ambrose also speaks of the 
 8acramentum which by prayer is changed into the flesh and 
 blood of Christ; by the word of Christ, the species elementorum 
 
 * Orat. Mystagogica, iii. 3 .—tbcnrep yap o dprog rrjg ivxopiaTiag 
 fxerd Tpv tiriic\7](nv tov ciyiov nvtvpiarog ovic tn dprog Xi toq, aXXd 
 c Tu>pa Xpicrrov, ovtu) Kai to dyiov tovto p,vpov ovk iti xpiXbv ovS ’ wg dv 
 ti7TOL rig koivov per’ iviicXiimv, aXXa Xpicrrov xanicrpa Kai -jrvevpiaTog 
 dyiov Trapovaiq, re avroi) SriorrjTog ivipypriKov yivoixivov. 
 
 f In Joannem, Horn. 46, 3. 
 
 X In 1 Cor. Horn. 24, 2. 
 
 § De Trinitate, viii. 13.—Quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis 
 existimandus est qui et naturam carnis nostrse jam inseparabilem sibi 
 homo natus assumsit, et naturam carnis suse ad naturam cetera i tat is 
 sub sacramento nobis communicandce carnis admiscuit. 
 
408 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 is changed.* * * § Yet he expresses himself not more plainly 
 respecting the kind of change. 
 
 In the controversy about the two natures of Christ, a com¬ 
 parison was drawn between the relation of the divine 
 nature to the human, and that of Christ’s body and blood to 
 the bread and wine. A fragment, erroneously ascribed to 
 Chrysostom, f yet certainly an ancient and important testi¬ 
 mony, illustrates the doctrine of the Son of God in his two 
 natures, which remain peculiar and distinct, by a comparison 
 with the Lord’s Supper; the bread after the consecration 
 loses the name of bread; as the divine and human natures 
 remain unchangeable in their attributes, and yet we speak 
 only of one Christ, so we speak only of one body of Christ, 
 although the bread and wine are united with Christ’s body 
 and blood. TheodoretJ gives an equally plain testimony 
 against the transmutation of the bread; the bread and wine 
 remain in their former ovalcc, and yet to the soul they seem as 
 that which they have become, and as such are believed and 
 reverenced. He distinguishes the /AsrafioXyi rfj yupin from 
 the (jjzrccfiokri r$jg pvazwg, which here does not take place. 
 Also the Roman Bishop Gelasius, at the end of the fifth 
 century, thus expresses himself: the two natures of Christ 
 must be thought of like his image in the Supper; just as this 
 by the operation of the Holy Spirit passes into the divine 
 substance, although its nature retains its peculiar attributes, 
 &c.§ Gregory of Nyssa|| comes nearest to the doctrine of a 
 transmutation of the bread and wine. He proposes the 
 question, how T the one body of Christ can be divided into 
 so many thousand, and answers : as through the divine Logos 
 bread is changed into the nature of the body, united with the 
 
 * De Mysteriis. 9. 
 
 + Epistola ad C 0 esariu.n 1 , Opp. ed. Bened. t. iii. fol. 742.—Sicut enim 
 antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus; divina autem ilium 
 sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appel- 
 latione panis, dignus autem habitus dominici corporis appellatione, 
 etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora sed unum 
 corpus Filii pnedicamus. 
 
 X tpavi<TTr]g. Dialogus 2, Opp. ed. Hal. t. iv. p. 126. 
 
 § De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, in 
 the Bibl. Patr. Lugd. t. viii.—In divinam transeant Spiritu sancto 
 perficieute substantiam, permanente tamen in sua proprietate natura. 
 
 II Orat. Ca'tech. Magn. c. 37. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 409 
 
 divinity, so here also in the Supper, the bread and wine are 
 changed into the body that is united with the Logos. There¬ 
 fore, a miracle is here effected immediately, which there was 
 effected by eating. Hence we have an assertion, not of the 
 presence of the glorified body of Christ, but of a repetition of 
 the Incarnation. But he was far from maintaining, with 
 a clear consciousness, the idea of a proper transubstantiation ; 
 thus, he says: As* the bread is common until it has become 
 and is called the body of Christ, by the offering of the 
 Sacrament, so the mvstic oil becomes efficacious after conse- 
 cration, just as the priest, by his newly received consecration, 
 is separated from the common multitude. Here the sub¬ 
 stance is regarded as the same, and only a higher element is 
 transferred to it. 
 
 The second stage of a more spiritual view, but which has a 
 realistic element at its basis, is to be found in Athanasius, - ! 
 who refers to John vi., and tries to show that the eating and 
 drinking of the body and blood of Christ is not to be under¬ 
 stood literally; Christ wished to lead his disciples to repre¬ 
 sentations of a spiritual nourishment. Still more distinctly 
 this view is taken by Augustin, who had adopted the doctrine 
 of the African Church on this subject. He applies his 
 general ideas of a Sacrament to the Lord’s Supper, and 
 speaks of signs, through which God reveals and shadows forth 
 certain truths ; for this purpose, the external part of the 
 Lord’s Supper is also intended. Since these signs are taken 
 from common life, they may, indeed, inspire reverence on 
 account of their association with religion, but not excite 
 astonishment, as if they were something miraculous.J The 
 Sacraments have a resemblance to that of which they are the 
 sacred signs ; from this resemblance they receive the names 
 of the things they represent: thus as the Sacrament of the 
 
 * De baptismo Christi, t. iii., p. 370. 
 
 + Ep. iv. ad Serapionem.—See especially the Festal Letters of St. 
 Athanasius, translated by Larsow. Letter 7 : “ Bread and wine, aa 
 symbols of the nourishing divine power of the Logos. Not only here 
 is this bread food for the righteous, not only do the saints who walk 
 on earth, nourish themselves with such bread and blood, but also in 
 Heaven we eat such food, for the Lord is also the nourishment of the 
 higher spirits, and of angels, and is the delight of the collective 
 heavenly host.”—[J acobi.] 
 
 + De Trinitate, iii. 10, 19. 
 
410 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 body of Christ is, in a certain sense, the body of Christ, anc 
 the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, 
 so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith.* If Augustin had 
 believed in an interpenetration of the Natural and the Divine, 
 he would not have so expressed himself. This is shown when 
 he remarks,t that in the Old Testament the name of the 
 thing is transferred to the sign, and that Christ, at the 
 Supper, said this is my body, when he had merely given a 
 sign of his body. When he further vindicates the typical 
 interpretation of the Old Testament, he urges that even hete¬ 
 rogeneous things may be used as symbols, and adduces, as an 
 instance, the language used at the Supper, which seems harsh, 
 that Christ gives us his blood to drink.J But although he 
 regarded the bread and wine, in and for themselves, as sym¬ 
 bolical signs, he certainly did not deny a supernatural power 
 connected with them. Without doubt he believed that a 
 higher communion with Christ was obtained by their means, 
 only not bodily and confined to the outward signs. The res 
 sacramenti in the Supper was, in his opinion, the connexion of 
 the faithful as members of one bodv with their head, and 
 with one another, therefore, the union in one Church. Christ 
 gave a sign of his presence for men who could not see him. 
 “ Only have faith, and He is with thee whom thou seest not. 
 The eye sees only Bread and Wine ; faith must see the Body 
 and Blood.” He asks how Christ can impart his body. Here 
 he had an opportunity of developing an idea, such as Gregory 
 of Nyssa entertained, if he had been favourable to it; but he 
 pursued another method: he sought not to show how Christ 
 could miraculously present his body, but referred to the dif¬ 
 ference between the sensuous and the spiritual. What the 
 senses perceived was one thing ; what was to be understood by 
 it was another. Christ told the Jews that he should be taken 
 up to heaven altogether; they would then see that his body 
 could not be as they imagined, portioned out in any way : he 
 spoke not to them of a bodily enjoyment, but of a spiritual 
 appropriation. The external fruition, the flesh, would profit 
 nothing without the spirit. Hence we receive eternal life in 
 
 * Ep. 98, ad Bonifacium, c. 10. 
 
 f Contra Adimantuin, c. 12, § 3.—Non enim Dominus dubitavit 
 dicere, “ hoc est corpus meum ” quum signum daret corporis sui. 
 
 J Contra Adversarium Legis et Propketarum, ii. c. 33 (10). 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 411 
 
 the participation of his body, because Christ himself is eternal 
 life.* Believers receive the internal enjoyment of the Supper, 
 Unbelievers only the sign. Yet Augustin thought it im¬ 
 portant to maintain against the Donatists the objective signi¬ 
 ficance of the Sacrament and hence he says, that even the 
 unworthy receive sacramentally the body of Christ at the 
 Supper. 
 
 The third stage, which kept apart more distinctly the 
 symbol and the divine reality, continued in the school of 
 Obigen, with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa. Eusebius 
 of Q/EsArea was very partial to such expressions as the fol¬ 
 lowing : Christians are admonished to celebrate the remem¬ 
 brance of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood.f In 
 the interpretation of the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, he 
 developes Christ’s design; J w 7 e must not believe that 
 Christ spoke of the body which he bore in his own person, or 
 enjoined the drinking of his sensuous and corporeal blood ; 
 but the words that he spake were spirit and life, so that his 
 words themselves are his flesh and blood. Accordingly, it is 
 the highest object of the Supper to represent how Christ 
 imparts himself to believers by the word that proceeds from 
 him; this, however, did not prevent Eusebius from connect¬ 
 ing a supernatural sanctifying power with the outw'ard Supper. 
 Gregory Nazianzen calls the Supper an image of the great 
 mystery of the Incarnation§ and a type of salvation ; || it is 
 that by which we come into communion with Christ, partake 
 in his sufferings and divine nature.Hence he calls it the 
 sacred initiation that leads us upwards.** He explains him¬ 
 self more fully in his letter ad Amphilockium. ft He enjoins 
 on him to pray when he partakes of the Supper: “When 
 through the words of Consecration, thou bringest down the 
 Logos, and in an unbloody manner carvest the body of the 
 Lord, so that the words serve thee for a knife.” It would be 
 possible so to understand these words, as if the Logos, by a 
 
 * Sermo, 235, 272; Tract. 26, in Evang. Joannis. 
 
 + Demonstrate Evang. i. c. 40. 
 
 X Theolog. Eccl. iii. c. 12. 
 
 § Orat. i. p. 38. 
 i| Orat. xvii. p. 272. 
 
 •if Orat. iii. p. 70. 
 
 ** ti)v itprtv Kai avio <ps-povcrav t]^c(Q pvoraywytav. 
 ft Ep. 240. 
 
412 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 miracle, presented the body of Christ; but it better suits 
 Gregory’s style of thinking, that the bread and wine were 
 called the body and blood of Christ after the consecration, 
 inasmuch as a certain operation of the divine Logos, an 
 immediate sanctifying power was connected therewith. 
 
 How very much the realistic element predominated in the 
 doctrine of the Supper was proved by the practice that came 
 into vogue in the fourth Century, of preserving the conse¬ 
 crated bread and carrying it about, since a sanctifying power 
 was believed to be connected with it. 
 
 This supposition of a supernatural sanctifying influence was 
 implied in the practice still continued of Infant Communion. 
 Gelasius of Lome writes thus about a.d. 495. No one 
 should venture to exclude any child from this sacrament, 
 without which no one can attain to eternal life. Also in 
 another direction, the notions entertained of the virtues of 
 the Supper were constantly becoming more superstitious. 
 The intercessions which were offered at its celebration not 
 only for the living but the dead, now T referred to the Purgatory 
 to which it was supposed some persons were consigned, and 
 were made use of to obtain release from it. The view of the 
 Supper as a Sacrifice was promoted by the use of such prayers ; 
 it was depicted in a highly rhetorical manner by the Greek 
 Homilists, and acquired more of an Old Testament character, 
 in connexion with the formation of a peculiar priestly order. 
 Cyrtll of Jerusalem* expatiates on the advantages of inter¬ 
 cessory prayers at the Supper. “ Many say, what advantage 
 is it to the Soul which leaves this world with or without sins, 
 if mention be made of it in the prayer ? But as some per¬ 
 sons present a golden crown for those who have fallen under 
 the displeasure of the Emperor, in order to propitiate him, so 
 we offer intercessions for the dead although they are sinners, 
 and present not indeed a crown, but Christ offered for our 
 sins, in order to reconcile them and ourselves to a gracious 
 God.” Here the Supper is evidently regarded not only as a 
 sacrifice, but also as an appropriation of the Sacrifice of Christ 
 for others. Augustin makes a moral and religious appli¬ 
 cation to the congregation of the idea of a Sacrifice; while 
 celebrating the remembrance of Christ we sacrifice our¬ 
 selves in self-renunciation, which is well pleasing to God. 
 
 * Orat. Mystag. v. 10. 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 413 
 
 The whole redeemed community is the universal offering 
 which Christ presents to God, who has offered himself by his 
 sufferings for us, in order that we may be the body of so great 
 a head. We ourselves are the sacrifice,* and this is repre¬ 
 sented in the Sacrament of the Supper. He distinguishes the 
 sacrifices of the Jews as typical—the sufferings of Christ as 
 the true sacrifice, and this after his ascension to Heaven is 
 celebrated by the sacramentum memorial Yet the Sacrifice 
 for the dead is not in his view something merely symbolical, 
 but has a peculiar and great advantage for the deceased. 
 Gregory the Great, according to his warm but sensuous 
 devotion, developed the idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and 
 its magical effect on Purgatory, in an exceedingly impressive 
 manner; the holy Sacrifice at the Supper repeated the death 
 of Christ in a mysterious way. Although Christ lives now 
 unchangeably, yet he is still sacrificed for us. Hence we may 
 imagine how much this sacrifice may effect which constantly 
 imitates for us the Sacrifice of the Only Begotten.J Here 
 the representation of the Supper is altogether changed into 
 an objective copy of the Sacrifice of Christ. Gregory’s 
 legends of its efficacy promoted the errors in this mode of con¬ 
 sidering the Supper. He did not, indeed, altogether over¬ 
 look the moral and religious reference, he declares it neces¬ 
 sary that we should sacrifice ourselves to God in the contrition 
 of our hearts; for it will be in truth a sacrifice presented to 
 God for us, when we present ourselves as a Sacrifice^ 
 
 f. ESCHATOLOGY. 
 
 The general spirit of the Church certainly declared itself 
 against the uKoxciraffraeig which was taught by Origen ; yet 
 traces of it are found in later times, particularly in the 
 Church teachers of the fourth Century, who approached more 
 closely to him, the two Gregories and Didymus. Gregory 
 of Nyssa elaborated it in an original manner, and expounded 
 it most freely. He would not allow reward and punishment 
 to be regarded as something extraneous to man, but as both 
 proceeding from the relation of rational creatures to God. 
 Hence everything depends on the degree in which they are 
 susceptible, in order to enter into communion with this source 
 
 * De Civit. Dei, x. 5, 6. t Contra Faustum, xxi. 22. 
 
 X Dial. iv. c. 58. § Neander’s Cli. H. v. 186. 
 
414 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of blessedness. The final end is that nothing more should 
 oppose the divine, but that all rational beings purified from all 
 foreign elements should serve for a revelation of God. He infers 
 this from Redemption, since Christ must operate through all 
 rational existence and receive the whole creation to himself. 
 When all rational existences have attained tp his likeness, it 
 will come to pass, that God shall be all in all (1 Cor. xv.). 
 Evil has its limit over which it cannot pass ; and which arises 
 from the nature of the moral order of the Universe.* In a 
 tract on the early death of children he propounds these ideas, 
 and attempts to connect them with a Theodicy; the develop¬ 
 ment is not finished with the present life, it must therefore 
 be also applied to children. The Patriarch Germanus of 
 Constantinople, in the eighth century, endeavoured in his 
 avranodorixos f (so called because that book was intended to 
 restore to Gregory what belonged to him), that all the pas¬ 
 sages which treat of the atfoxardtrraGig were interpolated by 
 heretics. But this is a forced conclusion ; the idea entirely 
 suits Gregory’s system. Gregory Nazianzen did not ven¬ 
 ture to express his own doctrine so openly, but allows it some¬ 
 times to escape when he is speaking of eternal punishments. 
 The Antiochian school were led to this doctrine, not by Origen, 
 but by their own thinking and examination of the Scriptures. 
 They regarded the two-fold division in the development of the 
 Creature as a general law of the Universe. This led to the 
 final result of universal participation in the unchangeable 
 divine life. Hence the anomruffraffig was taught by Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, in his treatise on the Incarnation of God (vs ft 
 o/Kovo/A/ag), and also by Theodorus.J He appealed to Matt. 
 
 * Orat. Catech. Magna. 8, 35; in 1 Cor. xv. 28, tom. ii. pag. 6 ; De 
 Anima, pag. 90. 
 
 f Photius Cod. 238. 
 
 J Fragments communicated by the Nestorian Bishop Solomon of 
 Bassara, in the 13th century, in Assemani Bibl. Orient, tom. iii. P. i. 
 pag. 323, sqq. See especially in Ephes. i. 10. Spicileg. Solesm. i. 103. 
 The Apocatastasis is placed in connexion with the person of the 
 Redeemer. In Him the Divine and Human, the Heavenly and the 
 Earthly, are combined, and thereby the Reconciliation of the World 
 divided by sin is rendered possible. Recapitulavit (i. e. avacepaXaiwoev) 
 in Christo omnia quasi quandam compendiosam renovationem et 
 redintegrationem totius faciens creaturse per eum.—Hanc ergo capitu- 
 lationem omnium vocavit (sc. Apostolus), eo quod omnia collecta sunt 
 in unum, et ad unum quoddam inspiciunt concordantes sibi; eo quod 
 
ESCHATOLOGY. 
 
 415 
 
 v. 26, to prove a rule of proportion, and an end of punish¬ 
 ment. God would not call the wicked to rise again if they 
 must endure punishment without amendment.* If Chry¬ 
 sostom in his homilies, often developes the doctrine of the 
 eternity of punishment, it is to be observed, that those to 
 whom he preached had not been brought to have doubts 
 upon it by an impartial examination of the Scriptures, but 
 only through their frivolity. They comforted themselves with 
 thinking that God, like a tender father, would not take so 
 strict an account of the sins and frailties of men : those pas¬ 
 sages of the Bible contained threatening only in order to 
 alarm, and were not meant in real earnestness; f it is 
 remarkable that he mentions in his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. 28, 
 that the dvoxarda-Ta^ig has been inferred J from that passage 
 without contradicting the opinion as he otherwise would do, if 
 he held it to be erroneous. Probably he had in his thoughts 
 his teacher Diodorus. In the controversies during the time 
 of Justinian, this doctrine, with others that w 7 ere held by 
 Origen, was denounced as heretical. 
 
 Augustin, by the whole spirit of his system, and by the 
 important place which the idea of the primitive justice of God 
 occupied in it, w r as made an opponent of this doctrine. But 
 from his own vindication of eternal punishment we learn that 
 even in the West, an opposition was maintained against it.§ 
 In like manner Gregory the Great appears as an opponent 
 of the aftOKOLrdarcung.W But though the doctrine of such a 
 development after death by which all evil would finally vanish, 
 remained only the opinion of a few, the same cannot be said 
 of the doctrine of a progressive development after death 
 generally. 
 
 With this is connected the doctrine of ignis purgatorius , or 
 
 hanc intentionem olim opifex habuit, et ad boc omnia a principio 
 construxit, quod nunc implevit cum multa facilitate in illis, qute erga 
 Christum exstitisse videntur. Hoc autem in futuro sseculo erit, quando 
 homines cuneti, nec non rationabiles virtutes ad ilium inspiciant, ut fas 
 exigit, et concordiam inter se pacemque firmam obtineant.— [Jacobi.] 
 
 * See the fourth fragment in Marius Mercator. 
 
 t Horn. viii. in I Ep. ad Thess tom. xi. pag. 477 ; in II. Ep. ad 
 Thess. Horn. iii. ibid. p. 522. 
 
 £ Horn. 39, in 1 Ep. ad Cor. tom. x. pag. 372. 
 
 § De Civit. Dei, xxi. 11, 12. 
 
 || Dial. iv. 43. 
 
416 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 purifying fire. We find a representation of this as preceding 
 the last judgment, spread widely in the East. Cyrill of 
 Jerusalem* speaks of a fiery flood in which men would be 
 purified. In the West, this doctrine spread more in the form 
 that this state of purification would be entered upon imme¬ 
 diately after death. Augustin f finds this doctrine in Malachi 
 iii., also Matt, xii., especially verse 32 ; and 1 Cor. iii. 13, 
 confirmed him in admitting a state of purification for certain 
 sins. It is not incredible, he says, that as God purifies us in 
 this life by a variety of discipline, a similar course may follow 
 after death, and it is to be inquired whether it may be of such 
 a kind that many Christians, according as they loved earthly 
 goods more or less, may be saved after passing through a puri¬ 
 fying fire for a longer or shorter time. He therefore pre¬ 
 supposes that in such persons, love to God as the Supreme 
 Good has been predominant, but that the love of the World 
 has not been entirely suppressed ; but he puts forward the 
 opinion only as problematical, though inclined to it himself. 
 
 With this notion of a purifying process was connected the 
 representation that a satisfaction was to be rendered after 
 death for sins committed after baptism, and not yet atoned 
 for on earth,—and likewise the efficacy of good works, and of 
 prayers for the dead at the Lord’s Supper. The main out¬ 
 lines of this doctrine of the Catholic Church are plainly visible. 
 Gregory the Great also confirmed the doctrine of a purify¬ 
 ing fire by his investigations and his legends.{ He compared 
 the passages of the Bible which declare that men’s conduct in 
 this life is decisive for their salvation or perdition, with those 
 above mentioned, and used by Augustin as indicating a state 
 of purification after death, and reconciles them thus,—that 
 the conduct of men on earth is indeed decisive of their eternal 
 state, yet a purification may be necessary for those who, though 
 fitted by their lives, on the whole, for salvation, have yet left 
 the world clogged with many imperfections. Therefore it is 
 
 * Catech. xv. c. 21.— epxsrai ttq og tov Trartpa 6 viog tov avQpuvnov 
 € 7 Tt tuiv vt(ps\u>v tov ovpavov noTapov 7 rvpog tXicovrog do^ipauriKov 
 TU 1 V av0pU)7TUJV. El TIQ xpvcnot/ £%£l TO. fpyct, Xap7rpOT£pog KlVtTaC ll 
 rig KctXapiodr) £%£i ti)v irpa^iv icai awnooTaTov, icaraicaurai in to tov 
 7rvpog. 
 
 f De Civit. Dei, xx. 25. Compare xxi. 13, 26. Enchirid. ad Laurent, 
 c. 68. 
 
 J Dial. iv. 
 
ESCHATOLOGY. 
 
 417 
 
 believed, that some to whom the Christian disposition has 
 been wholly wanting, will find at death everlasting punish¬ 
 ment to be their portion; others will attain salvation without 
 undergoing purification, because the degree of their Christian 
 perfection did not require it; and between these two classes, 
 those stand who have a Christian disposition, but yet mixed 
 with foreign elements, and requiring purification. In this 
 manner an attempt was made to obviate practically injurious 
 consequences ; for many would make use of the doctrine as 
 an expedient for a light-minded acquiescence in their sins ; 
 they indulged in a Jewish notion of faith ; everything was 
 made to depend on Orthodoxy ; by means of it even the pro¬ 
 fligate would attain to salvation, although they must previously 
 pass through the fires of Purgatory. For this reason Pelagius 
 declared himself opposed to the doctrine of Purgatory, and 
 Augustin, in his treatise de fide et operibus, combated that 
 abuse. In his school this opposition continued on account of 
 its deeper views of Morality, and Fulgejstius of Ruspe, 
 expressed himself in a similar manner.* 
 
 * De Remissione Peccatorum, 1. ii. 
 
 E F 
 
418 
 
 SECOND PRINCIPAL PERIOD. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF DOGMAS IN THE MIDDLE 
 
 AGES, 
 
 FROM GREGORY THE FIRST TO THE REFORMATION. 
 
 FIRST PERIOD, 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF GREGORY I. TO GREGORY VIII., AND THE 
 BEGINNING OF THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 (^TBAT IS, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH TO THE END OF THE 
 
 ELEVENTH CENTURY.) 
 
 GENERAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS 
 
 In the preceding period, the truths of Christianity had been 
 moulded into a compact system, a form in which they could 
 be more easily presented to the acceptance of uncivilized 
 nations. The period which we have now to contemplate was 
 a period of transition from an ancient form of culture to one 
 that was radically new. It accomplished much for the 
 extension of the Church among the Germanic tribes, for 
 the rudiments of their civilization, and the preparatory steps 
 for the transformation of their entire life; but in the same 
 proportion was it less powerful for the development of 
 doctrine. The opposition between the Eastern and Roman 
 Churches was in this period carried to the length of an 
 outward disruption. A new opponent to Christianity alto¬ 
 gether, came forward in Islamism, # which was capable of 
 
 * The Koran, ed. Maracci, Patav. 1698. Translations : Sale, Lend. 
 1734, 1836; Wahl, 1828; Ullmann, 1840. On the Dogmatics of 
 Islamism; Dettinger, Zur Theologie des Koran. Tiibinger Zutsche. 
 fur Theol. 1801 ; Umbreit. Stud. u. Krit. 1841 ; G. Weil, Mohammed 
 der Prophet, Stuttg. 1843; Maier, Christ. Bestandtheile des Kor. 
 Freiburg Zeitschr. f. Theol. ii.; Dollinger, Muham. Religion nach Ent- 
 wickl. und Einfluss Regenb. 1838 ; Geiger, War hat Moh. aue den 
 
ISLAMISM. 
 
 41b 
 
 extension, because Christian doctrine had lost its power by an 
 excessive intellectualism, and no living youthful enthusiasm 
 for Christianity was left to make head against it. In Islamism 
 we see a revived Jewish standpoint, but a carnal Judaism 
 severed from organic connexion with the development of God’s 
 kingdom, and sunk to the level of Natural Religion. Even in 
 the Church, the objective Catholic element had been the 
 means of forming a mixture of Christianity with Judaism 
 which during this period especially, developed its results ; but 
 yet there was a Christian spirit under a Jewish covering. 
 Islamism was enthusiastic for one God, whom it regarded 
 chiefly on the side of his omnipotence. It was pre-eminently 
 deistical, and hence its opposition to the doctrines of the 
 Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and Redemption. The Divine 
 was set in opposition to the Human ; moral liberty was given 
 up, and Fatalism introduced. The early conflicts of Chris¬ 
 tianity with Judaism and Heathenism were important for the 
 development of doctrines ; in the conflict with Islamism this 
 was not the case, partly because the antagonism was too 
 absolute, and partly because the Greek Church wanted the 
 element of vitality requisite for. a wider development. The 
 only traces of such an influence on doctrines is perhaps to be 
 found in the Church of Spain.* 
 
 As henceforward the Western Church comes far more into 
 notice for the development of Christianity, than the Greek 
 Church, which was rapidly sinking into formalism, we shall 
 begin with a description of the first. At two points in its 
 history the beginning of a new spiritual Creation are visible, 
 in the Carolingian age, and at the end of the Period ; here 
 therefore we shall have to seek for the developments that were 
 fruitful in reference to doctrines. 
 
 After the succession of the classical teachers of the Western 
 Church had been closed in the person of Gregory the Great, 
 a time followed, in which the department of Exegesis and 
 Dogmatic was cultivated by means of Collections. Compen- 
 diums were formed in which the dogmatic statements of the 
 Fathers, especially Augustin and Gregory, were collected,— 
 the Sentential JPatrum. Among these the most noted are the 
 
 Judenthum aufgenommen ? Bonn, 1833. Gerock, Versuch einer Dar- 
 stellung d. Christologie des Kor. Hamb. 1839 
 * N-eander’s Ch. Hist. v. '216. 
 
 EE 2 
 
420 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 SententicB of Isidore of Seville (Hispalis*) a man whose 
 studies comprehended all the knowledge of his age. Rome 
 was the Mother of Christian culture for most of the Western 
 churches, and hence the influence of the Roman dogmas was 
 everywhere predominant. All the elements of the Catholic 
 Dogmatic were communicated to the newly converted nations. 
 Yet it must be admitted that we find traces of a reaction 
 which in its further progress might have had a most impor¬ 
 tant influence on doctrines ; a Protestant tendency might 
 have developed itself in opposition to the Catholic element. 
 Its starting point was from Britain and Ireland. For although 
 the Anglo-Saxon Church was founded by Rome, yet among 
 the ancient Britons who probably received Christianity 
 originally from Lesser Asia and remained in connexion with 
 the Greek Church, a freer spirit in Church matters was 
 preserved which was confirmed in its peculiar character by its 
 opposition to the Anglo-Saxon Church. The Church of 
 Ireland was not even founded by Rome, but formed indepen¬ 
 dently by Patrick. It was more allied to the Britons, and 
 the Greek Fathers were studied ; the authority of Roman 
 Tradition was impugned, and the Holy Scriptures were made 
 the sole standard. It is remarkable that even at that time 
 this germ of a Protestant Element was found in the Germany 
 church ; for Boniface had to dispute with Irish missionaries of 
 this tendency, and it now became the question whether the 
 Roman dogma which he wished to introduce, was to prevail, or 
 the freer tendency. Yet the latter was not sufficiently power¬ 
 ful, nor suited to these rude tribes. Boniface, on the other 
 hand, coalesced with the general development of the Western 
 Church. God had so ordained its course that first of all, the 
 Catholic Element was matured to its full extent, in order that 
 afterwards the reaction of the Christian consciousness, when 
 the nations were prepared for it, might be so much the more 
 powerful and efficient. The Irish spirit could not render this 
 important reaction victorious, but receded more and more; 
 yet the peculiar culture which emanated from the Irish 
 monasteries always exerted an influence in the development of 
 dogmas. 
 
 After the Church among the Germans had obtained at last 
 
 * Opp. ed. Faustus Arevalo. Rom. 1797; 7 vols. 4. Bahr Christ- 
 lich-Romische Theologie, p. 455. 
 
CHARLEMAGNE. 
 
 421 
 
 a firm settlement in the seventh and eighth centuries, and sc 
 much had been effected that what remained of a former stage 
 of culture was surrendered in Italy, Spain, England, and 
 Ireland, a new Epoch began under Charlemagne, in which 
 the various elements of earlier theological production were 
 concentrated.* * * § The peculiar constitution of the German 
 mind was apparent in its mode of receiving Christianity ; there 
 was a greater freedom of development,—an endeavour to go 
 back to the original foundations of Christianity, in opposition 
 to Roman Traditionalism; there were already prognostics of 
 the Reformation. Although Charlemagne reverenced the 
 Roman Church, yet the dogmatic theological culture which pro¬ 
 ceeded from him and his theologians was more spiritual than the 
 superstitious sensuous character of the Roman theology. A work 
 which appeared under his name, and in which he took part, 
 the libri Carolini, t is remarkable in this respect; it advocated 
 the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and protested 
 earnestly against Superstition and those apocryphal writings 
 which promoted it. This work breathes a peculiar and pure 
 spirit, the expression of personal inquiry; what a contrast, if 
 we compare with it the letters of the Popes in those times! 
 We perceive the reaction of this mental tendency in the 
 distinguished Theologians,— Alcuin,^ who was the principal 
 author of the above-mentioned work; Agobard of Lyons, § and 
 Claudius of Turin, || in whom the counteraction of the Pro- 
 
 * Joannes Launojus de Scholis Celebrioribus sive a Carolo Magno 
 sive post eundem per occidentem instauratis, Par. 1672 ; re-edited by 
 J. A. Fabricius, Harab. 1717. Bahr, Geschichte der Rom. Literatim 
 irn Karolingischen Zeitalter, 1840. 
 
 t Ed. Heumann, Hannov. 1731. Neander’s C. H. v 324—335. 
 
 X Died 804; De Fide Sanctae Trinitatis, libb. 3. Controversial writings 
 against the Adoptianists ; 232 letters. Opp. ed. Frobenius, Ratisb. 
 1777, 2 t. fob Alkuins Leben von F. Lorenz, Halle, 1829. 
 
 § Died 840. Liber contra Judicium Dei; Epistola ad Barthol. 
 episcopum de quorundam Illusione Signorum; De Picturis et Imagi- 
 nibum, Opp. ed. Steph. Baluzius, Par. 1666, 2 voll. 8. Gallandi, Bibl. 
 t. xiii. p. 404. C. B. Hundeshagen, De Agobardi vita, Gissae, 1831, 8. 
 Bakr, p. 383. 
 
 || Prefatio in Libros Informationum Literae etSpiritus super Leviticum 
 ad Theodemirum Abbatem; Commentarii in Libros Regum ad Theode- 
 mirum; in Bedae et Claudii Taurenensis aliorumque Opuscula a 
 Canonicis Regularibus Sancti Salvatoris edita: Bonon 1757. Fragments 
 in F. A. Zachariae, Bibliotheca Pistoriensis, Augusta? Taurin, 1752. 
 Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. Biblioth. Pair. Lugd. t. xiv. 
 
THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 100 
 
 testant spirit is still more strongly exhibited. In him and 
 Agobard these movements may be traced back to Augustin, 
 who, in this age, on the one hand, certainly contributed 
 much to propagate the Catholic element, and, on the other 
 hand, counterworked superstition by the principles of a purer 
 and more vital Christianity in his views of divine Grace. 
 Hence, when in the doctrine respecting the Lord’s Supper the 
 Catholic element had reached its culminating point, the 
 opposite and more spiritual view of it found its strongest sup¬ 
 porter in Augustin. He was also not uninfluential in stimu¬ 
 lating the speculative and dialectic spirit, although in the 
 theology of the Carolingian era this gave way to the historical 
 and practical tendency which occupied itself with the Bible, 
 Tradition and the Lathers. 
 
 In the ninth century the Pseudo-Dionysian writings 
 
 excited great influence. They w ? ere brought to France as a 
 
 present from the Emperor Michael to Louis the Pious, who 
 
 caused them to be translated into Latin bv the Abbot 
 
 «/ 
 
 Hilduin * of St. Denis. The authority of the book was 
 enhanced by the Apocryphal collection of accounts respecting 
 the .History of Dionysius, which were compiled by Hilduin. 
 They effected the connexion between the results of New 
 Platonism, and the mystic Theology of the East; they intro¬ 
 duced a new element into the Western Theology, which was 
 capable of being developed by the living spirit of the modem 
 nations into something greater than was contained in the dead 
 outward works of Mysticism. The most important effect of 
 these writings on Theology consisted in their gaining an 
 entrance for the contemplative tendency of Neo-Platonism, at 
 a later period when the Aristotelian Philosophy was in the 
 ascendant. 
 
 p. 134. Prgefatio Expositions in Epistolam ad Ephesios, in Mabillon, 
 Vetera Analecta, ed. ii. p. 91. Other Fragments, Spicilegium Romanum, 
 t. iv. p. 301, t. ix. p. i. pag. 109. Scriptorum vett. nov. Coll. t. vii. p. 
 i. 274. His Apologeticus ad Theodemirum, in Jonas of Orleans, 
 De Cultu Imagin. libb. 3. Bibl. Patr. Ludg. t. xiv. p. 190. Fragments 
 from the Commentary on Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, in 
 Claudii Taur. Episc. inedit. Opp. Specimina Prsemissa de eju3 Doctrina 
 Scriptisque Dissertatione exh. A. Rudelbach, Haviniae, 1824, 8. 
 Claudius of Turin, by C. Schmidt, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 
 1S43. 
 
 * Areopagitica, ed. Matth. Galenus : Colon. 1563, 8. 
 
THE IRISH MONASTERIES. 
 
 4*23 
 
 The Irish Monasteries were the spots where, first of all, a 
 more dialectic Theology was cultivated, which spread still 
 wider at the end of the eleventh century. Here not only 
 Augustin but the Teachers of the Eastern Church were 
 studied, and served to introduce Platonism. It was not 
 impossible that the Pseudo-Dionysian writings were known at 
 an earlier period in the Irish monasteries. The complaint of 
 the Abbot Benedict of Aniane (in Languedoc), in the time 
 of Louis the Pious, alludes to a peculiar theological tendency, 
 when he speaks of the moderni scholastici apud Scotos, 
 and charges them wdtli falsifying the simplicity of the Gospel 
 by their syllogisticas illusiones. More accurate knowledge of 
 this phase in the Irish Church is wanting to us, but one man 
 may serve instead of all the rest as a representative of this 
 Theology, J-ohn Scotus Erigena.* In order to understand 
 the mental training of this very remarkable man, we must 
 take into account his education, in an age, and surrounded by 
 connexions of deep Christian piety. If he admitted principles 
 which were contrary to Christianity, the influence of the 
 Christian piety, which he had imbibed in the Irish monasteries, 
 prevented their development into full consciousness; yet they 
 remained concealed under Christian ideas, and opposite 
 elements were blended in his mind; a Christian feeling, and 
 a mode of thinking which, intellectually considered, was not 
 reconcilable with the Christian Faith. Add to this the influ¬ 
 ence of the Greek Fathers, especially Origen, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, and Maximus, perhaps also still earlier the Pseudo- 
 Dionysius whom he afterwards translated into Latin, whereby 
 his mind was impregnated with a mystical and dialectic 
 element. From those teachers he received a free speculative 
 
 * De Divisione Naturae, libb. 5, ed. Thomas Gale, Ox. 1681, fol.; 
 De Prsedestinatione Dei, Opp. ed. H. J. Floss, in the Patrologia of 
 Migne, 1853. See the Prolegomena on the Life and Writings of 
 Scotus. F. A. Staudenmeier, Johannes Scotus Erigena und die Wissen- 
 schaft seiner Zeit. Thl. 1. Frankf. a. M. 1814. Nikolaus Moller, Joh. 
 Scotus Erigena, Mainz. 1844. Fronmiiller die Lehre der Joh. Scotus 
 Erigena vom Wesen des Bosen in the Tub. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1830. 
 Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, ii. 274. Ritter, Gesch. der Christ. 
 Philosophic, iii. 206. That he was called only Johannes Scotus by his 
 contemporaries, and that Erigena is identical with the latter name, see 
 ed. Floss Prooem. xix. According to Floss’s not even probable opinion, 
 Erigena is to be derived from Jerugena, i. e., ex insulae sanctorum 
 natus; rather from Erin, Ireland.— [Jacobi.] 
 
424 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 tendency, though developed in a peculiar manner. He wa3 
 not so much the recipient of the opinions of others, but rather 
 was indebted to them for an impulse towards the construction 
 of a system of his own. For its leading principles we must 
 consult his chief work de divisione natures. He distinguishes 
 the two standpoints of fides and ratio. Fides in the order of 
 Time is first; the religious development of Man proceeds from 
 Authority; but in the order of ideas ratio is first, for from it 
 everything is known as necessary. Scotus might, therefore, 
 with Augustin, regard the standpoint of Fides as a necessary 
 preparation for knowledge; the difference is that he allowed 
 Ratio to exalt itself above Fides , and maintained, not merely 
 a formal but a material destinction between them. In this 
 respect he very much resembled the Alexandrian school, but 
 placed yvbung still higher than they did, above nnsrig. Philo¬ 
 sophy and Religion were one throughout; the one was the 
 Theory, the other the Practice.* Religion supported itself on 
 a symbolic revelation of God; Philosophy rose by itself to a 
 knowledge of Truth; the former remained fettered by human 
 authropopathic representations; the latter set the Truth from 
 them. On the standpoint of Religion the human Subjective 
 was supreme—on that of Philosophy, objective Truth. At the 
 head of all existence he placed the Absolute, the on, and like 
 Philo, distinguished between the Being of God in itself, and 
 his Revelation in all existence. The Absolute v 7 as, according 
 to him, not the idea of the living God, but a mere logical 
 Abstraction, the idea of the highest simplicity, to which all 
 definite attributes are to be denied. With this idea of mere 
 absolute Being, he mingled mystical representations which 
 proceeded from an exuberance of feeling; God revealed him¬ 
 self to the feelings and to the intellect as this ineffable some¬ 
 thing. Although the idea of an unpersonal Absolute, would 
 strictly not admit of Prayer, yet in the works of Scotus we 
 find prayers, which give evidence of Devotion. In accordance 
 with abstract speculation, he professed to deny to the Absolute 
 Being, everything which is attributed to Him, on the stand- 
 
 * Quid est aliud, de philosophia tractare, nisi verce religionis, qua 
 summa et principalis omnium rerum causa Deus et humiliter colitur 
 et rationabiliter investigatur, regulas exponere ? Conficitur inde, 
 veram esse pbilosophiam veram religionem, conversimque veram 
 religionem esse veram philosophiam.—De Praedestinat. i. 
 
JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA. 
 
 425 
 
 point of the religious consciousness, of scriptural Revelation, 
 and of the Church doctrine. All the attributes ascribed to 
 Him are only various phases under which the simple Absolute 
 presents himself in condescension to the human consciousness, 
 it is a subjective Phenomenology without reality, an optical 
 refraction of the Absolute. There is therefore a twofold 
 Theology, the ^soXoy/a xara0ar/x^ and dbropar/zCTj, the positive 
 and the negative, that which invests the Divine Being with 
 human (or analogous to human) attributes, and that which 
 divests Him of all such attributes (die vermenschlichende und 
 die entmenschlichende). Since we cannot remain fixed to the 
 highest negative standpoint, but must have something on 
 which our conceptions may rest, it is not an arbitrary but a 
 necessary Symbolic by which Holy Writ represents the 
 Absolute according to human conceptions. Not merely the 
 simple believer, but we ourselves must be shocked, if we say, 
 that Love on the highest standpoint cannot be affirmed of 
 God. He deduces all existence from the Absolute, every 
 phenomenon of the former is a necessary development of the 
 latter; hence all existence is only a Theophany, a necessary 
 phenomenal form of the Absolute Being. He speaks of a 
 Creation, but only from a Cataphatic standpoint. Instead of 
 saying, God created all things, we should say more truly, God 
 is in all A His Pantheism is also shown by the manner in 
 which he classifies Existence. (1.) That stage of Existence 
 which creates and is not created, the Absolute. (2.) The 
 Existence which is created and creates, i.e. the divine Ideas, 
 the first and original causes of all Being. (3.) The Existence 
 which is created but does not create, that is, the operations 
 which take place in Creatures. (4.) The Existence which 
 neither creates, nor is created, this stgge coincides with the 
 hrst,t and means, God is all in all; the only true Existence in 
 
 * Quum audimus, Deum omnia facere, nibil aliud debemus intelli- 
 gere, quam Deum in omnibus esse, hoc est, essentiam subsistere. Ipse 
 enim solus per se vere est, et omne quod vere in his, quae sunt, dicitur 
 esse, ipse solus est.—De Divis. Nat. i. § 72, ed. Floss. 
 
 + Prima et quarta forma unum sunt, quoniam de Deo solummodo 
 intelliguntur; est enim principium omnium, quse a se condita sunt, et 
 finis omnium quae eum appetunt, ut in eo aeternaliter immutabiliterque 
 quiescent. Quoniam ad eandem causam omnia, quse ab ea procedunt, 
 dum ad finem pervenient reversura sunt, propterea finis omnium dicitur 
 et neque creare neque creari perhibetur, nam postquam in earn reversa 
 
49,6 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 all. According to these representations of God, he says, God 
 does not know, see, or love; but he performs all this in men ; 
 in them he knows and loves himself,* The consciousness Oi 
 the created spirit is therefore nothing else than a form of the 
 consciousness of the Absolute, who, by himself, has no con 
 sciousness. All Existence is a necessary development of the 
 Absolute; so that we cannot speak of Evil. There can be no 
 Evil for God, for then Evil would be something necessary ; 
 it vanishes in the harmony of the Universe, and only when 
 the individual is considered apart from the whole, the idea of 
 Evil arises as the firi ov. Dr. Baur in his History of the 
 doctrine of the Atonement, justly combats the assertion that 
 the development of Scholasticism is to be traced to Scotus. 
 For in this system, Knowledge stands related to Faith, and 
 Philosophy to Christianity ancl Theology, very differently from 
 what they do in Scotus ; it shows far more of the influence of 
 Augustin. But Dr. Baur is w’rong in regarding Scotus as 
 the closing point of the older development; rather, it is 
 evident that he distinguishes himself from all former develop¬ 
 ments of Theology; and only in regard to single elements of 
 the Neo-Platonic kind can he be compared with the ancient 
 ones. He presents quite a peculiar stage in Theology and 
 Philosophy, the prognostic of a future development. Two 
 methods of representing the relation of God to the Universe, 
 diverging from Theism, the Dualistic and the Pantheistic, 
 might be mingled in Christianity, and it was reserved for it, 
 to develope Theism victoriously in opposition to them. In the 
 first Period it had to combat Dualism, which not merely pre¬ 
 sented itself in open antagonism, but mixed in the development 
 of Dogmas, and found a point of connexion in the powerful 
 contradistinction which Christianity made between Good and 
 
 sunt omnia, nil ulterius ab ea per generationem loco et tempore 
 generibus et formis procedet, quoniam in ea omnia quieta erunt et 
 unum individuum atque immutabile manebunt.—De Div. Nat. ii. § 2, 
 ed. Floss. 
 
 * Non vos estis, qui amatis, qui videtis, qui movetis, sed spiritus 
 patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis veritatem de me et patre meo et 
 seipso, ipse amat et videt me et patrem meum et seipsum in vobis, et 
 mo vet in nobis seipsum, ut diligatis me et patrem meum. Si ergo 
 seipsam sancta Trinitas in nobis et in seipsa amat et videt et movet, et 
 a seipsa in seipsa et in creaturis suis amatur, videtur, movetur.—S. 1.1. 
 i. § 76. 
 
JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA. 
 
 427 
 
 Evil. But it was overcome, by the contradiction in which it 
 stood to the Unity of the Christian consciousness of God. 
 Pantheism could connect itself with Christianity exactly in the 
 point where it was opposed to Dualism, by a one-sided Monism, 
 which w 7 ants what there is of Truth in Dualism. It accepted 
 the Christian doctrine of communion with God, but took away 
 the consciousness of dependence on God, and of the contrariety 
 between Good and Evil. In the attempt of Scotus the Period 
 is foreshadowed, which would aim at blending Pantheism and 
 Christianity, from which a new form of Dogmas might proceed. 
 But this was too foreign to that Age ; it neither received this, 
 nor was it capable of rightly understanding what was true and 
 profound in Scotus. The part he took in some controversies 
 exposed him to the charge of heresy; but he w r as misunder¬ 
 stood. We perceive the influence of his system in the specu¬ 
 lations of the thirteenth centurv. 
 
 The developments of the Carolingian age were succeeded by 
 times of devastation and barbarism which checked the unfold¬ 
 ing of this germ of a new culture; so that it only existed in 
 an occult state. The tenth century produced only a few men 
 of scientific genius; among these was Batherius of Verona or 
 Liittich,* a man who, with Augustinian views, denounced 
 Anthropomorphism, Superstition, and Ceremonies. But about 
 the end of the tenth, and in the eleventh century, and when 
 the end of the world was expected, a new order of things was 
 preparing. In France a more scientific spirit, and the re¬ 
 action of a freer standpoint proceeded from Gerbert f against 
 papal Absolutism. Fulbert, J the superintendent of a 
 flourishing school at Chartres, contributed also to the establish¬ 
 ment of anew theological development. Lanfranc,§ Abbot 
 
 * Died, 974. De Contemtu Canonum ; Apologia sui ipsius; Liber 
 Apologeticus, &c., in d’Achery, Spicelegium, i. 345. Praeloniorum, libb. 
 vi. in Martene et Durand Ampl. coll. ix. p. 785. Opp. ed. Ballerenii 
 fratres, Yer. 1765. Ilistoire Litteraire de la France, t. vi. Engelhardt, 
 Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen, 1832. Neander, Deutsche Zeitschr. 
 1851, Nr. 36. Ratherius von Verona vom Lie. Yogel. 1854. 
 
 + De Corpore et Sanguine Christi; De Rationali et Ratione uti in 
 Pezii Thesaurus. Vol. i. p. 133. C. F. Hock, Gerbert oder Papst 
 Silvester II. und sein Jahrhundert. Wien. 1837. 
 
 £ Died, 1028. Epistoke et Sermones, ed. Villiers : Par. 1608, and 
 Bibl. Patr. Lugd. t. xviii. 
 
 § De Corpore et Sanguine Domini; Epistolse; Commentarii. Opp. 
 ed. d’Acherv : Par. 1648. Histoire Litt. de la France, viii. 260. 
 
4*28 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of Bee in Normandy (a.d. 1070, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 died a.d. 1089), brought with him from Italy the seeds of a 
 scientific spirit. But the traces of the new scientific life 
 which are visible at various points, are marked by another 
 spirit than that of the Carolingian age; it is no longer a 
 historical and practical, but a speculative and dialectic spirit. 
 The newly awakened understanding felt its powers, was fond 
 of exercising itself in Dialectics, and applied itself with greater 
 ardour in that direction, since it had been separated from the 
 connexion with the earlier historical development. But in 
 the eleventh Century it was still doubtful, whither this new 
 path would lead. Augustin powerfully influenced Speculation, 
 and the question now was, whether his maxim fides jorcecedit 
 ■intellectum , would be strictly followed, and the Tradition of 
 the Church be regarded as an object of faith, or whether a 
 freer spirit of investigation would be developed. Lanfranc 
 was the representative of dialectic Speculation which allied 
 itself altogether to the Church. But he was met by an 
 opponent of superior powers,— Berengarius,* trained in the 
 school of Fulbert, superintendent of the school at Tours, and 
 afterwards deacon at Angers. His ideas became chiefly known 
 by the part he took in various controversies, but a more 
 general, original, mental tendency forms the basis of his 
 doctrines, as in that of the Lord’s Supper. He had formed 
 his views according to Augustin, and had been stimulated by 
 his writings to an earnest religious life, and to advocate his 
 doctrine of grace, and of the Sacraments. He vindicated 
 against Lanfranc, the right of free rational inquiry, and 
 spoke against the dependence of Reason on the faith of 
 authority. When Lanfranc charged him with not holding 
 the doctrine of the Church, he replied, that Christ made use 
 of logical deductions; that it belonged to a noble-minded 
 disposition to have recourse to Dialectic, in other words, to 
 appeal to Reason; and whoever did not adopt this method, 
 denied his own dignity (since Man by Reason was created in 
 the image of God), and could not be renewed day by day in the 
 
 * C. F. Staudlin Berengarius von Tours, in Staudlins und Tzschirners 
 Archiv fiir Kirchengesch. Bd. 2, H. 1. Sudendorf, Berengarius oder 
 eine Samnilung ihn betreffender Briefe, 1850. See J. L. Jacobi in 
 Herzogs Encyklopadie. Art. Berengarius. 
 
THE GREEK CHURCH. 
 
 429 
 
 image of God. # We see in this controversy the,germ of a more 
 Catholic and of a more Protestant tendency. Berengarius 
 was indeed put down by the other party, but the conflict was 
 not decided, and the points in dispute re-appeared in the 
 twelfth century. Among the controversies in which he was 
 involved, a peculiar tendency was exhibited by Eusebius 
 Bruno, Bishop of Angers, which aimed at maintaining the 
 simple biblical character of the doctrine of faith, and was 
 satisfied with bringing to light the simple truths of the Holy 
 Scriptures in opposition to those who only followed the 
 authority of the Church doctrine, and likewise to the prevalent 
 spirit of Speculation. 
 
 THE GREEK CHURCH. 
 
 In the Greek Church there was more of scientific precision 
 than in the newly-formed Latin Church, but it wanted the 
 spiritual motive power; it had forgotten the substance of 
 vital Christianity in one-sided dogmatizing, and in altercations 
 about intellectual formulas. There was, in addition, the des¬ 
 potism of the State, which checked the free development of 
 the religious spirit in the Church. It had sunk into a state 
 of stagnation, and while its living spirit retired into the West, 
 it first beheld in the Future the growth of a new principle of 
 life. The dialectic tendency was greatly fostered by the Mono- 
 physite controversies. It sought support from Aristotle. 
 The Pseudo-Dionysian writings operated in favour of the mys¬ 
 tical element. They not only established the Hierarchy more 
 firmly, by investing it with a sort of spirituality, but super¬ 
 stition of other kinds was spiritualized to a certain degree 
 from this standpoint, and was received into the Church 
 System. We find a remarkable blending of these two mental 
 elements in Maximus. t The mystic element in him attem¬ 
 pered the dogmatic ; hence there was a less abrupt mode of 
 conceiving the Supernatural, and an attempt to reconcile it 
 with the Rational. He expressed ideas respecting both sides 
 which might have been very productive in an age and com¬ 
 munity of greater mental activity. The controversies that had 
 been carried on, occasioned the production of one important 
 
 * Ep. ad Ricardum in d’Achery Spicilegium. 
 
 + Disputatio cum Pyrrho. Opp. ed. Franciscus Combesisius : Par. 
 1675, 2 vols. Baur, Lehre der Dreieinigk. ii. 263. 
 
430 
 
 THF HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 work for the Greek Church, the doctrinal manual of John of 
 Damascus, * the last original dogmatic production of the Greek 
 Church. The various opinions of the Fathers are placed 
 together, and an attempt is ably made to reconcile them 
 But this work could not create a new scientific tendency, as 
 similar dialectic works written in the Church spirit gave birth 
 in the West to the Scholastic Theology. The combined action 
 of the Dialectic, the Mystic, and the Ecclesiastic, only served 
 to establish what was ancient. All the popular superstitions 
 were only strengthened by these means, the various branches 
 were not purified by the Dogmatic, and hence it was so much 
 more difficult to separate the foreign elements from the 
 Church, and to overcome them. The reactions which occurred, 
 did not proceed from the Church Dogmatic. Some arose 
 from the after-effect of the Gnostic sects. The original move¬ 
 ment of these sects was a reaction of Jewish and heathen 
 elements against the fundamental truths of Christianity; but 
 since in the Church the Christian element had connected 
 itself with the Jewish, the opposition took a more advan¬ 
 tageous direction, for it combated this mixture. As Marcion 
 had formerly taken such a position, so in the seventh Century 
 the Paulicians appeared in the Greek Church, f offsets indeed 
 of Marcionitism (they called themselves Xg/cYwroX/ra/), who 
 attempted to carry out the Pauline element in a one-sided 
 manner, and confounded it with dualistic views. They com¬ 
 bated the mixture of Light and Darkness which they found in 
 the Church, and wished to restore the Apostolic Christianity 
 freed from all impurities. Yet even this sect did not make 
 any deep impression on the Church. Another reaction which 
 proceeded from the Church itself, combated the sensuous ten¬ 
 dency of the religious spirit, though it was directed more 
 against a particular branch of it, than against it as a whole. 
 
 * Died, 760. Principal work, Trrjyf) yvuxrsojg : (1) ra <pi\o<ro(pLica ; 
 (2) 7T£pt aipiaeojv ; (3) the most important part in reference to Dogmas, 
 ticdocng (ficQtffig) aicpi€r}g rfjg uoOocoZov Tricrrewg. Opp. ed. Michael le 
 Quien : Par. 1712, 2 vols. f. Ritter Gesch. cler Christl. Philosophic, ii. 
 553. 
 
 t Petri Siculi (870) Historia Manichseorum, ed. M. Raderus, Ingolst 
 1604. J. C. L. Gieseler : Gotting 1846. Photins adv. Recentiores 
 Manichgeos, libb. 4, in J. Chr. Wolfii Anecdotis Grsecis : Hamb. 1722, 
 23. Gallandii Bibl. Patr. xiii. 603. Gieseler, Abhandlung iiber die 
 Paulicianer, Theol. Stud, uud Krit. 1829. 
 
4 31 
 
 THE ICONOCLASTS, 
 
 This was the war against Image-worship.* It is remarkable 
 that this opposition proceeded from the laity. This might 
 have been a symptom of the power of the Christian con¬ 
 sciousness, and important in reference to the renovation of 
 the Church. But owing to the peculiar standpoint of the 
 Greek Church, things took a different turn ; for this reaction 
 did not proceed from the main body of Christian people, but 
 from persons holding civil offices, and was connected with 
 faulty elements, the dogmatizing temper of the Emperors, 
 and the dependence of the Church on the State, hence the 
 Emperors used their political power to prescribe to the Church 
 what they deemed to be the truth. In a contest which was 
 not founded on conviction, the Truth itself would be changed 
 into falsehood. This reaction applied itself, first of all, to 
 questions of no immediate dogmatic importance ; it was occu¬ 
 pied about the mode of worship, or the use of works of Art in 
 Churches; but the dogmatic element was soon blended with 
 it, for the relation of the image to the object it represented 
 necessarily demanded inquiry. But generally, a deeper and 
 more widely extended opposition of the religious spirit was at 
 the basis of this reaction. The entire sensuous and objective 
 tendency of the religious sentiment was connected with the 
 worship of Images, hence that particular outgrowth of it could 
 not be permanently checked without a revolution in the entire 
 spiritual tendency of the Church. On the other hand, in the 
 efforts of the Iconoclasts certain general principles were at 
 work, which would certainly have been carried further, if they 
 could have expressed them. There was not only a reformatory 
 principle which might have removed other foreign elements in 
 the Church, but a more definite Protestant principle which 
 concerned the sources of Christian knowledge. The advo¬ 
 cates of Images took their arguments from Tradition, and 
 their opponents from the Bible ; hence the Holy Scriptures, 
 as the highest source of Christian knowledge, were set in 
 opposition to Tradition. Traces of such a view are to be 
 found, though there was a reluctance to express them 
 openly. Yet it cannot be affirmed, that the opposition against 
 Image-worship, in every instance, proceeded from a pure 
 Christian interest, and was a conflict undertaken on behalf of 
 
 * "Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, Th. 10, u. 11. F. Ch. Schlosser Gesck. der 
 Bildersturmenden Kaiser des Ostrom. Reiches. 
 
432 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Christian truth. We find in the Iconoclasts a fanaticism of a 
 negative kind, which betrayed itself in a special hatred against 
 Art. They would have revived that earlier antagonism of 
 Christianity against the World, which had also directed itself 
 against the aesthetic character of the Pagan worship, as in all 
 cases right and absolute, though Christianity was not intended 
 to disown anything purely human, but rather to appropriate 
 and elevate it. This Truth presented itself to the worship¬ 
 pers of Images, though misunderstood; they recognised the 
 principle of the humanizing of the Divine in Christianity. 
 After God had become Man, they said, and the divine essence 
 had been humanly presented in Christ, God must be reve¬ 
 renced in Humanity. Their opponents, by ignoring this truth, 
 were liable to fall into a tendency that divested God of human 
 attributes, and by giving prominence to the distance between 
 God and Man, to place themselves on a Jewish or Deistical 
 standpoint. It was, therefore, still disputable, whether the 
 pure Christian principle of faith would be developed by them, 
 in opposition to Superstition, or Negation and Deism, and 
 whether with the want of a living Christianity at that time in 
 the Greek Church, the victory of this tendency would lead to 
 the development of a truly Protestant principle. In spite of 
 external force the Iconoclasts could not succeed against the 
 conviction, which had its support in the whole structure of 
 ecclesiastical Superstition, and after the conflict of a century 
 no trace of this great commotion was left. 
 
 If we look at the dogmatic contrarieties, it follows from 
 the character of this Period that they could only come forward 
 in an isolated form. The ground of the controversies rested 
 in part on the earlier contrarieties. Respecting the doctrine 
 of the Holy Spirit, a foundation was laid for a difference 
 between the Eastern and Western Churches; it was traceable 
 to more important differences between the two Churches, and 
 owing to accidental external influences, a dispute arose in the 
 ninth century which led to their complete disruption. More¬ 
 over, in the Monophysite controversies there was a new deve¬ 
 lopment of the dispute occasioned by the question respecting 
 the one or two Wills of Christ. The Adoptian controversy 
 in the eighth and ninth centuries appears as a repetition in 
 the West, of the difference between the Antiochian and 
 Alexandrian Schools respecting the Person of Christ. The 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 433 
 
 result of the Semi-Pelagian controversy was the victory of 
 the Augustinian system ; the more offensive side of the 
 Augustinian doctrine was thereby concealed ; but the con¬ 
 sequence was, that it was again brought out in Gottsohalk’s 
 controversy. In the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper different 
 views had hitherto co-existed with a substantial agreement. 
 But the prevailing sensuous mental tendency gained a general 
 and increasing acceptance for that view of the Supper which 
 was congenial to it, and as this was expressed in the ninth 
 century in the most unqualified manner, the reaction of a 
 spiritual tendency rose up against it. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF SPECIAL DOGMAS. 
 
 A. THE HISTORY OF INTRODUCTORY DOGMAS. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 This is the only doctrine of those that belong to the Introduc¬ 
 tion in Dogmatic that we have still to touch upon. Since the 
 idea of it had been subjected to examination so little in the 
 preceding period, it could scarcely be expected, that it would 
 be canvassed in the ninth century. The exaggeration of the 
 prevailing view was the occasion of calling forth a reaction. 
 The Abbot Fredegis, who was educated in Alcuin’s school 
 at l r ork, did not belong to the opponents of free inquiry, but 
 rather showed the germ of the dialectic tendency, which was 
 developed in Scholasticism. We find him maintaining,* that 
 Reason is first of all to be used, and then recourse must be 
 had to authority, but an authority which would be consonant 
 to Reason. But the same Fredegis took offence at an 
 expression of Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, that there 
 was a want of grammatical accuracy in the Apostolic writings. 
 He maintained, on the contrary, that in the Holy Scriptures 
 there was nothing contrary to the rules of grammar, unless 
 there was a special reason for it. It could not be credited that 
 the Holy Spirit, who had endowed the Apostles with the lan¬ 
 guages of all nations, would have taught them a rude and not a 
 polished language. Agobard replied, that the absurd position 
 
 * Primum ratione utendum, in quantum hominis ratio patitur; 
 deinde auctoritate, non qualibet, sed ratione dumtaxat, quse sola 
 auctoritas est solaque immobilem obtinet firmitatem. See Baluz. 
 Miscell. i. 404. 
 
 F F 
 
434 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 would follow, that the Holy Spirit not only inspired the 
 meaning of the Scriptures, the contents, and the general 
 mode of development, but the identical words (ipsa corporalia 
 verba ) themselves of the writers. The dignity of the divine 
 word consisted not in the pomp of words, but in the power of 
 the thoughts.* This implies the denial of Verbal Inspira¬ 
 tion, and the admission that in the Holy Scriptures everything 
 is not equally the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but that 
 something is to be ascribed to Man in the form of the 
 language. He therefore held that the individuality of the 
 Apostles was animated by the Holy Spirit, though even this 
 he has not clearly deyeloped. 
 
 Maximus gives no express statement of his idea of Inspira¬ 
 tion, but it may be gathered from what he says generally of 
 the relation of the Divine and the Human. There are powers 
 implanted in human nature by which it inquires after divine 
 things. Divine Revelation presupposes this constitution as 
 an organ, but in consequence of sin it is weighed down by the 
 predominance of sensuousness. By the operation of divine 
 grace it is restored to a free development in the case of those 
 who present a susceptible tendency of the Will, freed from 
 the deceptive influence of sensuousness, and becomes animated 
 by divine grace, under the guidance of which Man inquires 
 after divine things.t The Holy Spirit does not operate apart 
 from those natural powers ; otherwise, the prophets would not 
 have understood what was communicated to them by inspira¬ 
 tion. The Holy Spirit does not annihilate the powers of 
 Nature, but restores their efficiency to the powers which have 
 been perverted from their natural use, by employing them for a 
 purpose that is agreeable to their nature.£ Therefore, there 
 is not a mere passive condition of the human mind to the 
 divine agency, but a co-operation of the human individuality. 
 He considered that every was conditioned by the 
 
 peculiar constitution and capability of the individual. 
 
 » 
 
 * Neander’s Ch. History, vi. 161. Adv. Fredeg. Opp. ed. Baluz, i p. 
 177. 
 
 f Qufestiones in Scripturam, Opp, t. i. p. 199. 
 
 + P. 201 .— rj xdpie ovdafiu ic; tt)q pvatiog tcarapyti tt)v Svvapiv, d\\d 
 ficiWov KciTapypOtlcrav tcciKiv ry xprjcrei tujv irapa (pvcnv rpo 7 rwv 
 evfpybv ttouI iraXiv ry xpycru tu>v Kara (pvcnv 7Tpog t>)v twv Stnuv 
 Karavopaiv tiociyovca. 
 
THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 435 
 
 B. THE DOGMAS OF SPECIAL DOGMATIC, 
 a. THEOLOGY. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE PROCESSION OF THE 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 While the Theology of Scotus Erigena passed away without 
 leaving any impression, Theologians were much occupied with 
 the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches,— 
 whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, or 
 from the Father and the Son. 
 
 John of Damascus firmly held the fundamental proposition 
 of the Greek Church, that the Father is the efficient cause of 
 everything in the Trinity, and consequently that the Holy 
 Spirit proceeds from the Father. Hence, he remarked that 
 the Father communicates everything to the Son, and performs 
 all things through the Son. And thus he was in favour of the 
 harmonizing representation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from 
 the Father through the Son. He makes use of an illustra 
 tration taken from the sun, the ray of light and the illumina¬ 
 tion it gives.* This conciliatory representation in this form is 
 found only in a section (cap. 12) which is wanting in the 
 most ancient manuscripts ; but elsewhere he thus expresses 
 himself,—the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, and from 
 the Father; the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, but is the 
 Spirit of the Son. 
 
 Scotus Erigena, who had been trained under the influence 
 of both churches, expressed himself in a conciliatory manner ; f 
 though the light from a fire is through the medium of the 
 ray, yet there are not two causes of the light, but only one,— 
 the present power of the fire which operates in both. He 
 also makes use of Augustin’s illustration taken from the 
 human mind, thus : J the human spirit produces its own self- 
 
 * Lib. i. cap. 7—12. 
 
 f De Divis. Nat. ii. 32.—Taken strictly, he inclined more to the 
 Greek church; cap. 31. Ex duabos namque causis unam can gam 
 confluere, rationi non facile occurrit, prsesertim in simplici natura et 
 plus quam simplici et, ut verius dicatur in ipsa simplicitate ornni 
 divisione et numerositate carente.—[J acobi.] 
 
 + Mens et notitiam sui gignit et a se ipsa amor sui et notitia sui 
 procedit, quo et ipsa et notitia sui conjunguntur, et quamvis ipse amor 
 gx mente per notitiam sui procedat, non tamen ipsa notitia causa 
 amoris est, sed ipsa mens, ex qua amor inchoat esse, et antequam ad 
 perfectam notitiam sui mens ipsa perveniat.—C. 32, p. 610, ed. Floss. 
 
 F F 2 
 
436 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 consciousness, and from this proceeds the knowledge of itself, 
 and the love which connects the spirit and its self-conscious¬ 
 ness with one another ; yet the self-consciousness is not the 
 cause of the love, but the Spirit itself from which the love is 
 first of all derived, before the Spirit attains its perfect self- 
 knowledge. 
 
 External influencesmhecked the operation of the conciliatory 
 representation on the controversy between the Western and 
 Eastern Churches. It may appear strange that exactly such a 
 difference should be so prominent in the controversy, and that 
 far more important points in Anthropology and Soteriology 
 w r ere passed over. Yet these were more concealed, they were 
 not brought forward in any Creed, and it needed a deeper 
 examination of the two churches than the slightly cultivated 
 dogmatic criticism of the age could effect, to discover them. 
 The attention was first of all turned to that which lay on the 
 surface, and an age little versed in theology attached great 
 importance to words and phrases. The diversified recension 
 of the Creed of Nice and Constantinople in the Greek and 
 Latin form, excited the attention of the Synod of Gentiliaeum 
 (Gentilly) in a.d. 767, which anathematized the Greek 
 doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In the Council held at Forum 
 Julium (Friuli) (a.d. 791 or 796) the Patriarch Paultnus of 
 Aquileia defended the Western Church against the charge of 
 falsifying that Creed ; if the creed was explained according 
 to the meaning of its author, it could not be said that it w 7 as 
 altered. As the Fathers of the Council at Constantinople had 
 enlarged the Nicene Creed according to the mind of the 
 original framer of it by the statements respecting the Holy 
 Spirit, in the same maimer it was added by the Church that 
 the Spirit proceeded from the Son. If, as Christ himself said, 
 the Father is inseparably in the Son and the Son in the 
 Father, but the Holy Spirit is of the same nature with the 
 Father and the Son, must we not say that he proceeds from 
 both essentially and inseparably ? The Council of Aachen 
 (Aix-la-Chapelle) asserted this doctrine afresh against the 
 Greek Church. Charlemagne sent its decision to Pope 
 LeoIII. whoseadhesion he desired. The Pope had a remark¬ 
 able conference with the deputation. He gave his assent to 
 the dogmatic propositions, but declared that the Council of 
 Constantinople which had followed the guidance of the Holy 
 
THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 48 7 
 
 Spirit, had left out this position not without reason; that, 
 therefore, it ought to be received expressly into the Creed, for 
 all persons were not possessed of the dogmatic culture that 
 would qualify them to understand it. Many things which 
 belonged to dogmatic truth, were yet not necessary to Salvation ; 
 and we ought to distinguish between what is necessary to attain 
 it, and what is not absolutely needful to be known. Thus 
 moderately the Pope at that time expressed himself respecting 
 the gist of the controversy. In consequence of these transac¬ 
 tions several Frankish theologians occupied themselves with 
 the subjects, made compilations, and wrote treatises. Among 
 them, Alcuin and Theodulf of Orleans are particularly to 
 be noticed. The difference first acquired more importance, 
 when the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, who, from 
 other external causes, had fallen out with Pope Nicholas 1., 
 and had been excommunicated by him, issued in a.d. 867, a 
 Circular, calling a Synod, in which he made use of this 
 doctrine of the Latin Church as a handle for attacking the 
 whole Church, and charged it with heresies, and with falsifying 
 the ancient Creeds, After that, this Point was regarded as 
 a more important question of Polemic. AEneas of Parts* 
 defended the Western doctrine in the controversy of that age, 
 a.d. 868. On the side of the Greek Church, it was main¬ 
 tained that the Western doctrine overthrew the monarchy in 
 the Trinity, and introduced a Dyarchy. The Western Clergy 
 asserted, on the contrary, that the o^oolxuov between the Father 
 and the Son could not be maintained, unless the Procession 
 of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught. 
 
 b. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. THE MONOTHELETIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Mansi x. xi. Anastasii Bibliothecarii (870) Collectanea de iis, quse spectant ad 
 historiam Monothelitarum; ed. J. Sirmond: Par. 1620, 8vo.; also Bibl. Patr. 
 Lugd. xii. Gallandi, xiii. Theophanis (ob. 817) Chronographia, vol. 2: Bonon. 
 1839, 41. F. Combesisii Historia Hseresis Monothelitarum ac Vindicise Actorum 
 Sextae Synodi, in Novum Auctuarium Patrum Graeco-Latin.: Par. 1648, fol. t. ii. 
 Walch, ix. Dorner, ii. 203. Neander’s Church History, v. 242. 
 
 The doctrine of two natures in Christ, as it was more exactly 
 determined in the former period, seemed legitimately to lead 
 to the conclusion of two modes of operation, corresponding to 
 tire tw r o natures. In the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 
 * Adv. Objectiones Grsecorum, in d’Ackery Spicil. t. 1. 
 
438 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the phrase svspysia ^sccvdoixri was employed, and the question 
 was suggested whether from the standpoint of the one person of 
 Christ, in virtue of the avridotrig tujv ovofjLurwv, such language 
 could be used, and yet the special operation of each nature be 
 distinguished. That ancient disagreement of the Antiochian and 
 the Alexandrian Schools, the tendency which gave prominence 
 to the unity in the divine and human natures, and the other 
 which strove to maintain the divine and the human in their 
 distinct peculiarity, once more made itself felt. The Antiochian 
 view had been set aside by the attempt at a compromise, and 
 its main point had not met with the attention it deserved, 
 owing to the preponderance of the Alexandrian scheme. The 
 disagreement which had never been fully settled, came afresh 
 into view on the point which had been left undetermined. 
 That party who had logically adhered to the Alexandrian 
 standpoint, took offence, whenever the purely Human in Christ 
 was rendered at all prominent, and if everything in him was 
 not in all cases referred to the divine Logos. To this internal 
 ground of disagreement tffe external was also added, that the 
 Greek Emperors had not only a religious but also a political 
 interest for bringing the controversy between the Monophysites 
 and the Catholics to a settlement. Often as it had been 
 found in the Greek Church, that an outward (Henotikon) 
 pacification called forth a counteraction, still the wish for 
 union always made the experience of the past to be forgotten. 
 Some theologians led Heraclius to think of a union by repre¬ 
 senting to him that the formula of a divine-human agency of 
 Christ might be accepted by both parties, and serve as a point 
 of union. Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, in Lozica, allowed the 
 Emperor to make use of him as an instrument for effecting 
 his plans, and in a.d. 630, was made Patriarch of Alexandria, in 
 order to gain over the Egyptian Monophysites. He put forth 
 articles of agreement, in which it was said that the one Christ 
 and Son of God effectuates that which is human and that 
 which is divine, by one divine-numan agency. With many 
 this was successful ; but there was at Alexandria, a certain 
 monk, Sophronius, a man of logical training, who endeavoured 
 to show that, reasoning consequentially, two natures implied 
 two corresponding wills and modes of operation. Sergius, the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, exerted himself to suppress the 
 controversy and recommended moderation For a while, 
 
THE MONOTHEISTIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 439 
 
 Sophronius was silent, but when, in ad. 634, he was elevated 
 to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, he again brought forward, 
 in his inaugural epistle,* the sentiments he had formerly 
 advocated. At the beginning of the controversy, Sergius had 
 sought to obtain the opinion of Honorius, bishop of Kome,+ 
 who appears to have possessed no superior theological attain¬ 
 ments, and treated the controversy as one of the idle questions 
 of the schools. He wished, like Sergius, that it might be 
 allowed to drop, but was himself inclined to the doctrine of 
 one will, because the notion of two wills seem to put in 
 opposition the Divinity and Humanity of Christ.^ In 
 a d. 638, the Emperor issued a religious edict, hfctrig rfj{ 
 ‘jrfffrsco$,§ in which, while he discountenanced controversy on 
 the subject, he yet advocated the doctrine of one will and one 
 mode of operation. The edict only exasperated the controversy, 
 as the Emperor Constans found when in a.d. 646, he made 
 a fresh attempt, by issuing a new edict, not very dogmatic, 
 called the ruvog. He allowed each of the two opinions, but 
 enjoined silence. But it was too late. The Homan bishop 
 Martinus, at the first Lateran Council, pronounced Dyothe- 
 letism to be orthodox ; but in the East this doctrine was 
 suppressed by the iron hand of despotism. In that quarter 
 the chief representative of Monotheletism was Theodorus, 
 bishop of Pharan in Arabia, || and of Dyothetism the acute 
 Maximus. In them was represented the dogmatic interest of 
 both sides, and the deeper contrariety it involved. Theodorus 
 acknowledged two natures in Christ, and the individuality of the 
 human body and the human soul; he maintained that everything 
 which the Lord said or did, took place through the instrument¬ 
 ality of the reason and the senses ; but it was important to 
 refer everything to the operation of the Logos, to regard Him 
 alone as willing and acting, since He operated through the 
 reason and body. Christ was subject to no affection of 
 the senses by a necessity of nature, but all this was the free 
 act of the Logos. The acting and resting, the doing and 
 suffering of Christ were to be traced without separation to 
 the wisdom, goodness, and power of the Logos, but were carried 
 out through the medium of the soul and the body. The 
 
 * Mansi, xi. p. 461. + lb. xi. p. 529. 
 
 X Ep. ad Sergium. Mansi, xi. p. 537. § Mansi, x. 991, sqq. 
 
 11 Fragments in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Actio xiii. 
 
440 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 whole and each part of the Incarnation resulted from the 
 highest divine operation of the Logos- This view had 
 important practical consequences, inasmuch as in the acting 
 and suffering of Christ the conception of the purely human 
 was confused ; for Theodorus of Pharan inferred that the 
 human body of Christ was elevated above its natural properties, 
 and thus approached to Docetism. But this operation could 
 not take place upon the body through the human soul, 
 therefore it must be traced back to the Logos, who effected 
 everything. He appealed to the facts recorded respecting the 
 body of Christ, his resurrection, his walking on the sea, and 
 his entering the room through closed doors.* Maximus, on 
 the contrary, placed Christology and Anthropology in systematic 
 connexion. To both he applied his axiom of the universally 
 harmonic relation between the Divine and the Human ; every¬ 
 where the Divine operated according to the peculiar constitu¬ 
 tion of the Human. In this manner the Holy Spirit operated 
 on believers, and thus the Divine stood in relation to the 
 Human in Christ. If the Monothelites maintained that 
 two wills and two modes of operation implied a contrariety 
 between the Divine and the Human, he rejoined that everything 
 depended on whether this contrariety was founded in nature 
 or was the consequence of sin. To assert the first would make 
 Gfod the Author of Sin. This contrariety, therefore, originated 
 in the disunion of the human and divine will which proceeded 
 from sin. But Christ has redeemed human nature and 
 restored it to its original condition ; and hence it follows that 
 the Human and Divine, each in its own peculiar way, could 
 and must be in him wdthout such contrariety. According to the 
 view of Maximus the Logos formed Christ’s personality ; he 
 operated through everything, but so as to allow each nature to 
 work in its own peculiar way, in harmonious conjunction with 
 his. Without admitting this, we could not explain certain 
 affections in Christ’s human life. In this connexion he gave 
 remarkable prominence to the purely Human in Christ, his 
 feelings at the approach of death which Maximus distinguished 
 from the feelings disturbed by sin. He finds in them the 
 natural impulse of self-preservation (apog/xri crgoc E,ooyjv) which 
 
 * ’Aoyiciog Kai olov tbrtiv acrupaTug avev SuurToXrjg irpapXQtiJ be 
 prjTpag Kai pvr]paTog Kai Bvpbv Kai u> g £7r’ bHacpovg rrjg SraXacrarjg 
 
 iTTtZ,£VGtV. 
 
THE MONOTHELETIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 441 
 
 does not disturb tlie harmony with the Divine Will.* But 
 certainly Maximus in holding so firmly the peculiarly human 
 in Christ was not perfectly consequential and approximated to 
 Theodorus, in deriving the sensuous affections and sufferings 
 not from the necessary connexion of nature, but from 
 voluntary accommodation. 
 
 This controversy led to another remarkable disagreement. 
 Monothelitism was the occasion of making the standpoint of 
 perfection in the development of human nature generally to 
 consist in this—that the human will becomes absorbed in the 
 divine, as this was the case in Christ (<ru/£/3acr/£ xara SeX?j<r/v). 
 If this Unity were asserted to be not merely objective 
 but subjective, it would lead logically, to a pantheistic deifica¬ 
 tion of man. On the contrary Maximus maintained that the 
 difference of the divine and of the subjective human will 
 would endure in everlasting life, only both would be one as to 
 their objects. The Monothelites, he said, confounded StXTj/Aa 
 and §s\7)rov. 
 
 In the West, to which the power of the Emperor did not reach 
 Dyotheletism gained ground. The schism increased continually, 
 and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus longed to put an end 
 to it; with the consent of the Roman bishop he called the sixth 
 ecumenical (first Trullanian) Synod at Constantinople, a.d. 
 680, in which it was determined that in Christ two wills and 
 two modes of operation were to be admitted, connected with one 
 another without division, mixture, or transmutation, so that 
 no contradiction can exist between them, but the human will is 
 always subordinated to the divine.t By this result which was 
 
 * "Eart yap Kai Kara (pvaiv Kai 7 rapci (pvaiv plv duXia lari dvvapig 
 Kara avaroXrjv rov ovtoq avOttcriicrj, rrapd (pvaiv de tt apaXoyog avaroXi). 
 Diaput. c. Pyrrho, ed. Combef. p. ii. f. 165. 
 
 + Mansi, xi. pag. 637. —'dva Kai rov avrov Xpiarov, viov Kvpiov 
 povoyivp, iv dvo (pvaeaiv davyxvrivg, arpiTmog, axiopiarug, adiaipiriog 
 yviopiZopsi'ov, ovdapov ri)g tojv (bvaeiov dia<popag avrjprjpivijg dia rpv 
 tvaiaiv, aiv^opivrjg dl paXXov rrjg idiorrjrrjg EKaripag (pvatwg, Kai tig 'iv 
 7r poaivirov Kai piav VTToaraaiv avvrpex°d<yrig. —Kai dvo <pvaacag SreXip 
 asig ijroi StXppara iv avrtp, Kai dvo (pvaacag ivspyttag adiapirojg, 
 arpi-Krug, dptpiarivg, aavyxvriog Kara rrjv ru>v ayiiov 7 raripojv didaa- 
 KaXiav ioaavrwg Krjpvrropev’ Kai dvo piv (pvaiKa $eXr)pa~a ovx vtts- 
 vavria, pp yivoiro, KaOuig oi aat€eig tdpijoav aiperiKoi , aXX ’ i-rcbptvov 
 to dvOpwmvov avrov Sr'tXiipa, Kai pi/ dvrnr~nrrov r} dvrinaXaiov 
 [aj'7-f7ra\oj/], pdXXov piv ovv Kai viroraavopEVOv rip §tiip avrov Kai 
 irai’oQtvti StXppan. 
 
442 TELE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 further developed by John of Damascus, the victory of 
 Dyotheletism was established also in the East. 
 
 2. THE ADOPTIANIST CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Chr. G. F. Walchj'Historia Adoptianorum : Gotting. 1755, 8. His Ketzerhis- 
 torie, ix. Frobenii Dissertatio Historica de Hseresi Elipandi et Felicis, in Opp. 
 Alcuini, ed. Frobenii, i. p. ii. 925. Neander’s Church History, v. 22fi. Dorner, 
 Lehre v. d. Person Christ. 
 
 The Adoptianist controversy arose in Spain, in a district 
 which was dissevered from a connexion with earlier develop¬ 
 ments, and without any immediate communication with those 
 Oriental disputes. Two persons appeared as the chief repre¬ 
 sentatives of a peculiar Christology, the aged Elipandus, 
 Archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgellis, the 
 former in Saracenic, the latter in Frankish Spain. Elipan¬ 
 dus perhaps gave the first impulse to it, but Felix, who was 
 his superior in theological training, was properly its dialectic 
 founder, and developed it with the greatest skill. Their 
 standpoint brings us back to a view which apparently had been 
 relinquished ; it is strikingly similar to that of the Antiochian 
 School, a reaction of it against the predominant view resem¬ 
 bling the Alexandrian. It is surprising that a tendency which 
 had commenced in a flourishing period of theological Science, 
 should have re-appeared in an age and country which offered 
 so many obstacles to its reception. Even the scientific 
 culture of the Carolingian age scarcely accounts for the 
 appearance of a view so free and original, since during that 
 period there was in the main an adherence to the traditional 
 element. This induces us to look more closely into the 
 proximate causes. At one time these were traced to a peculiar 
 phrase in the Spanish Liturgy then in use, the so-called 
 ojficium Mozarabicum, in which the assumption of human 
 nature by the Logos is designated adoptio. As this word was 
 employed by Felix and Elipandus, it served also to mark 
 their peculiar views. But such an isolated expression would 
 not have given the impulse to the formation of a peculiar 
 dogmatic theory, if the germ of it had not been given from 
 another quarter. The term adoptio , and the connexion in 
 which it is used, is only one mark of a general dogmatic 
 tendency to which other peculiar ideas of the system are to be 
 added. The agreement of this system in the ideas and 
 development, in the arguments and proofs, with the doctrine 
 
THE ADOPTIANIST CONTROVERSY. 
 
 443 
 
 and method of Theodore of Mopsuestia is so striking, that 
 we naturally arrive at the conclusion that Felix was led to his 
 views and his opposition to the Church Doctrine by the study 
 of Theodore’s writings. Certainly it is not improbable that 
 Spanish theologians at that time were acquainted with the works 
 of Theodore, since they were translated into Latin during 
 the controversy on the Three Chapters in North Africa, and 
 might easily have been brought over from that country. 
 Meanwhile we do not possess enough of the writings of Theo¬ 
 dore or of Felix,* to enable us to prove such an external 
 connexion. However striking the agreement may be, yet it 
 does not exclude the opinion that Felix had been led simply 
 by a congenial tendency of the dogmatic spirit to a similar 
 development. We may believe that the views generally 
 received by the Church did not satisfy him, that he endea¬ 
 voured to represent the relation of the Logos to the Humanity 
 of Christ in a more rational manner, that he thus adhered 
 more closely to the New r Testament, and in this way arrived 
 at results similar to those of Theodore. We should then 
 only infer from this fact, as from later occurrences of the 
 same kind, that the Church doctrine had not yet satisfied 
 
 * The immediate influence of the writings of Theodore on Felix is 
 now rendered somewhat more probable. It is ascertained that the 
 Commentaries (edited by Pitra in the Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 170) 
 on the lesser Pauline Epistles, which he ascribes to Hilary, are no 
 other than a translation of Theodore’s. Pitra found them in a manu¬ 
 script which originally belonged to the monastery of Corbie, and which 
 he dates about the ninth century. In this century also Rabanus 
 Maurus made use of the Commentaries, and introduced the greater 
 part of them into his own. But his Codex was not the same as that 
 printed by Pitra, for Rabanus has many important deviations from 
 that text; the Commentary also does not notice several Epistles, and 
 therefore appears not to have had these in his copy. The variations of 
 the two texts are so great, that one can scarcely be regarded as a 
 copy of the other. There were also in the ninth century two copies at 
 least of this Commentary in France. Now, since the writings of Theo¬ 
 dore were known in the sixth century in North Africa, we may 
 conclude at once that they reached France through the medium of 
 Spain. Nor is it altogether surprising that they should be found there 
 immediately after the Adoptianist controversy. They might spread 
 with greater ease if Theodore’s name was not attached to them, as 
 then Rabanus might without suspicion copy the Commentaries, and 
 not reject the thoughts which active minds might misplace in a 
 dogmatic agitation, and which he would have probably condemned had 
 he found them in Felix.— [Jacobi.] 
 
444 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 minds that were disposed to follow the teachings of Holy 
 Writ. From a letter of Alcuin’s it appears that Felix had 
 written a Dialogue against the Saracens. Now Islamism 
 acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, hence Felix had no occa¬ 
 sion to prove the divine mission of Christ; but the original doc¬ 
 trine of Christ was regarded by Mohammedans as corrupted by 
 the Church, especially in the dogmas of the Trinity and the 
 Divinity of Christ. Hence the vindication of Christianity 
 rendered it necessary to demonstrate the union of the divine 
 Essence with the human nature in Christ. Felix therefore 
 might easily have attempted to present this doctrine in a 
 manner which would recommend it to rational thinkers, and 
 obviate the objections of Mohammedans. This however is 
 only a supposition. 
 
 By the use of the term Adopt,io this School wished to mark 
 the distinction of proper and improper in reference to the 
 Son. They made use of the illustration that as a son cannot 
 have two fathers, but may have one by birth and the other by 
 adoption, so in Christ a distinction must be made between his 
 proper sonship, and his sonship by adoption. Still they 
 regarded as the important point the different relation in which 
 Christ is called the Son of God according to his divine or his 
 human nature. The former relation marked something 
 founded in the nature of God, the second something that was 
 founded not in his nature but in a free act of the divine will, 
 by which God assumed human nature into connexion with 
 himself. Accordingly Felix distinguished between how far 
 Christ was the Son of God and God according to nature 
 ( natura , genere), and how far he was so by virtue of grace, by 
 an act of the divine Will {gratia, voluntate), by the divine 
 choice and good pleasure ( electione , placito ); and the name 
 Son of God was given to him only in consequence of his con¬ 
 nexion with God ( nuncupative ) ; and hence the expressions for 
 this distinction, secundum naturam and secundum adoptionem. 
 Felix appealed to the fact that though the name of Son by 
 adoption (e)/’ viokciag) is not applied in the Bible to Christ, 
 yet there are other designations which express the same idea. 
 He adduces John x. 34, when Jesus disputed with the Jew r s 
 (xar du/QwKoi) and referred to the passage in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, in which men are called Elohirn, where Christ placed 
 himself as a man in the category of those who were called 
 
THE ADOPTIANIST CONTROVERSY. 
 
 445 
 
 “ God’s” nuncupative, and not in a strict sense. Then as to the 
 passage, “None is good save one, that is God,” from this it 
 appears that as Man he was not to be called good in the same 
 sense as God, and that only the divine nature in him was the 
 source of goodness. He would allow an interchange of the 
 divine and human predicates, only in the same manner as 
 Theodore ; it could not be made without limitation, but the 
 different sense must be observed, according as they were attri¬ 
 buted to the divine or human natures. He charged his 
 opponents with so confounding the two natures by their doc¬ 
 trine of the singularitas persona , that they left no distinction 
 between the suscipiens and the susceptum. Expressions that 
 were then in common use, such as God teas born, and died, 
 never occur in Scripture, which also never says that the Son 
 of God, but that the Son of Man was given for us. On 
 the latter point Alcuin could easily have confuted Felix by 
 other passages, but both were wrong in not distinguishing the 
 various biblical applications of the term Son of God from the 
 Church use of it, and in taking the idea everywhere in a 
 Church sense. Like Theodore, Felix asserted Agnoetism of 
 Christ. It is also a point of resemblance between them, that 
 both sought for an Analogy between the union of the Man 
 Christ with the divine Being, and the relation of believers to 
 God. Felix says that Christ in an improper sense (nuncu¬ 
 pative) was called the Son of God conjointly with all who are 
 not God according to their nature, but by the grace of God 
 in Christ have been taken into communion with God (deificati). 
 In this order also the Son of God is, in respect of his 
 humanity, both according to Nature and Grace. He main¬ 
 tained that, as far as Christ as Man is reckoned among the 
 sons of God, all believers are his members ; considered accord¬ 
 ing to his divine nature, believers are the Temple in which he 
 dwells. He did not wish by that to deny the specific differ¬ 
 ence between Christ and believers ; whatever resemblance 
 existed between them belonged to him in a far higher sense ; 
 he was united to God by generation, and was the medium of 
 the communion of the rest with God. Felix also perfectly 
 agreed with Theodore in the thought, that the communion 
 with God into which Christ was received as a man might be 
 represented as a revelation of the divine being according to the 
 measure of the various stages of the development of his human 
 
446 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 nature, and thus supposed various degrees of it up to the 
 highest revelation after the glorification *of Christ, It might 
 be peculiarly offensive that he should compare the baptism of 
 Christ with the regeneration of believers ; but he certainly did 
 not mean to say that Christ thus became partaker of com¬ 
 munion with the divine nature, but only to point out an 
 analogy so far, as baptism marked a distinct stage in Christ’s 
 life, after which the operation of the divine life in Him was 
 peculiarly conspicuous. 
 
 It is therefore evident that the doctrine of Felix was alto¬ 
 gether that of Theodore, excepting that the latter could 
 express himself more freely in an age when the doctrines of 
 the Church were less rigorously defined, while Felix was 
 obliged to use a terminology which was opposed to his own 
 system. The great importance of the antagonism in which he 
 stood to the Church doctrine is likewise manifest; it included 
 not merely Christology but also Anthropology ; for the doctrine 
 of the revelation of the Divine Being in Christ, conditioned 
 by various stages of development, was connected with one of 
 special importance, the principle of free self-determination. 
 It is uncertain how far Felix consciously developed his prin¬ 
 ciples ; but there is no question that these were throughout 
 contradictory to the prevalent Augustinian doctrine. As Felix 
 lived in the Frankish territory, the Frankish Church was 
 drawn into the controversy. In a.d. 792, Charlemagne con¬ 
 voked an assembly at Begensburg, at which Felix appeared, 
 and was induced to recant. He was then sent to Rome, 
 where he made similar explanations.* But on being per¬ 
 mitted to return home, he repented of the steps he had taken, 
 took refuge in Saracenic Spain, and again promulgated his 
 doctrine. Alcuin, who had been summoned to take a part in 
 the controversy, endeavoured to win him over by a friendly 
 epistle ; but Felix regarded the subject of the controversy as 
 too important, and thus it was carried on in r his writings, f 
 The Spanish bishops interceded for Felix with' the Emperor, 
 and applied for a new investigation. J In consequence Charles 
 
 * Alcuinus adv. Elipandum, i. c. 16. Acta Concilii Romani 799, 
 Mansi, xiii. 1031. 
 
 f Alcuini Libellus adv. Hseresin Felicis ad Abbates et Monachos 
 Gothise Missus. Opp. Ale. i. pars. ii. 759. Ep. ad Feiicem, p. 783. 
 
 + The letter is in Alcuin’s Works, ii. v. 567. 
 
THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING PREDESTINATION. 447 
 
 called a second Synod at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, in a.d. 794, 
 which again decided against Felix,* and since the Adop- 
 tionists had spread themselves even as far as France, the 
 Emperor sent a commission of three persons into those parts 
 in order to oppose them. Felix came with them and was 
 prevailed upon to appear before the Synod at Aachen (Aix), 
 a.d. 799. After Alcuin had disputed with him for a long 
 time, Felix declared himself to lie convinced. He made a 
 recantation in Spain ;f yet he was not altogether trusted, and 
 was placed under the oversight of Leidead, bishop of Lyons. 
 He could not at once give up a dogmatic tendency, which was 
 so deeply rooted ; he still was always inclined to Agnoetism, 
 and after his death a series of questions was found which 
 showed that he firmly adhered to his fundamental views. 
 Agobard, Leidrad’s successor, was induced on this account to 
 write a treatise against Adoptionism. 
 
 This important controversy passed away without leaving a 
 trace of its existence, §ince the theological life of the age was 
 not suited for a new investigation of questions which were 
 believed to have been decided long before. Since the reaction 
 of so important a theological tendency could not again assert 
 its claims, this was an omen of new reactions following. 
 
 C. THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING PREDESTINATION. 
 
 Jacob. Usserii, Gottescalci et Pr®destinatian® Controversi® ab eo Mot® 
 Histori® : Dubl. 1631, 4to. Gilberti Mauguini, Vett. Autorum, qui Seculo Nono 
 de Praedestinatione et Gratia Scripterunt, Opp. et Fragmenta : Par. 1650, t. 2, 
 4to.; t. ii. Dissert. Historica et Chronica Gotteschalcan® Controversi®. 
 Ludov. Cellotii Historia Gotteschalci Pr®destinatiani: Par. 1655. Jo. J. Hotteu- 
 geri Diatribe Histor. Theol. qua Predestinatianam et Gotteschalci Pseudo- 
 H®reses Commenta esse Demonstratur: Tig. 1710, 4to. 
 
 The Augustinian system had so far triumphed over Pela- 
 gianism and Seini-Pelagianism, that the doptrine of Gratia 
 praveniens , and its anthropological presuppositions were 
 received; but not that of Gratia irresistibilis and absolute 
 Predestination. The consequence of this was, that in later 
 times, and even in the ninth century, admission was found 
 among theologians, not, indeed, for the Semi-Pelagian ten¬ 
 dency, but for the milder construction of the Augustinian 
 doctrine, corresponding to its development in the book de 
 vocatione gentium. Hence we may see how it was possible 
 
 * Mansi, xiii. 863. 
 
 4 Confessio Fidei Felicis, Mansi, xiii. 1035. 
 
US 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 for the more rigorous form to excite a reaction, and to descry 
 in the milder, Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. 
 
 This reaction proceeded from Gottschalk, a monk, of 
 Saxon origin, in the monastery of Orbais, in the diocese of 
 Soissons. From his youth he had occupied himself with 
 dogmatic speculations, especially with the Augustinian ; and 
 had adopted this system, with all its consequences. His 
 ideas coincided with his interest for religious truth. He 
 could imagine no true conception of the divine will, of 
 humility and resignation, except in the system of Augustin. 
 He expressed himself more strongly in opposition to the 
 milder view than even Augustin. While Augustin generally 
 applied the term Predestination to those who were appointed 
 to salvation ; but distinguished the rest of mankind as the 
 prmsciti and reprobati, Gottschalk taught a prcedestinatio 
 duplex of the good to salvation, and of the ungodly to damnation; 
 in this phraseology he copied Fulgentius of Ruspe. He 
 applied the idea of Predestination, both to the benejicia 
 gratia and the judicia justifies. It was an object of prime 
 importance with him, to maintain that the divine decrees are 
 unchangeable, and that nothing'in them can be altered by 
 human caprice; for in God Foreknowledge and Willing are 
 the same. Least of all could he allow that the reprobate 
 could alter anything in the divine decrees. Unless this were 
 admitted, it would be unreasonable and idle to say that God 
 had destined the reprobate to the punishment of eternal 
 death. His language appears to lead to Supralapsarianism, 
 and, in this case, he would have diverged from Augustin ; 
 but his representations do not necessarily involve so much ; 
 for when he speaks of God’s knowledge and Predestination, 
 he refers only to what is positive : evil he regards as negative, 
 as properly nothing. Nothing, indeed, is really altered by 
 the view he takes ; but it is doubtful how far he clearly 
 saw the consequences of these speculations. In fact, he 
 always set out from the premises of Augustin, that through 
 the first man’s trangression, all mankind fell into condemna¬ 
 tion, and that God, in accordance with his justice, left one 
 part of mankind to this condemnation, and predestinated 
 them to it, and, in accordance with his mercy, predestinated 
 the other part to eternal life. He was earnestly desirous to 
 announce his doctrine publicly, and to procure the general 
 
GOTTSCHALK AND RABANUS. 
 
 449 
 
 acceptance of the Augustinian system, in opposition to the 
 prevailing views of his age, which he regarded as Pelagian. 
 On his return from a pilgrimage to Rome, a.d. 847, he met, 
 at Count Eberhard’s of Friuli, with the newly-elected 
 bishop Notting of Verona, and there laid before him his 
 doctrine of the prcddestincitio duplex. This excited attention, 
 and a person of note, Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of 
 Mentz,* wrote letters against it. He examined it, not with¬ 
 out prejudice and a certain asperity, in which, perhaps, he 
 indulged a personal feeling against Gottschalk. The 
 latter, when a child, had been placed in the monastery of 
 Fulda, as an oblatus, of which Rabanus was at that time 
 Abbot. Monastic life was not agreeable to his free spirit; 
 he wished to leave it, and obtained a favourable decision from 
 a synod, which had been reversed, through the influence of 
 Rabanus with the Emperor Lewis. Upon this, Gottschalk 
 left Fulda, and betook himself to Orbais; a step which, 
 perhaps, offended Rabanus. Yet we are not warranted to 
 admit this statement as certainly true ; and whatever per¬ 
 sonal feeling might exist, a Christian interest was mingled 
 with it. He accused Gottschalk + of holding the doctrine 
 that the divine predetermination acted compulsorily upon 
 men, so that if any one wished to be saved, he would 
 labour in vain, unless he were predestinated. This doctrine 
 w'ould drive some to presumption and others to despair. 
 But in reference to the first point, Rabanus imputed con¬ 
 sequences to Gottschalk which he had never granted ; 
 for, like Augustin, he had supposed the sanctifying operations 
 of grace as a necessary intermediate link for fulfilling the 
 decree of Predestination, and could therefore say, that wher¬ 
 ever there was true faith and piety, it was the effect of 
 grace. Rabanus, in reference to the wicked, distinguished 
 between prescience and predestination ; he made assertions 
 which were at variance with absolute predestination, that 
 God wished the salvation of all men, and that Christ died 
 for all. But it is not clear, that he expressed and granted 
 the consequences, which were founded on these expressions ; 
 for he never ventured to regard the impartation of grace and 
 appointment to salvation as conditioned by man, but traced 
 
 * Mauguin. i. 1, 3. 
 
 4 Rabani Epistola Synodalis ad Hincinarum, Mansi xiv 914. 
 
450 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 everything to the divine causality. He inquires how it 
 happens that some children are baptized, and others are not, 
 and answers : Argue like Paul, or set him right when he 
 says that God does all things in mercy and justice. He 
 makes use of the secret decrees of God. His standpoint, 
 therefore, is not irreconcilably opposed to that of Gotts- 
 chalk. Gottschalk, conscious of maintaining the original 
 and pure doctrine, appeared a.d. 848 at Mentz, before a 
 council, over which Rabanus presided. His doctrine was 
 condemned, and he was sent to Hinkmar, Archbishop of 
 Rheims. This prelate allowed him to defend himself before 
 a council at Chiersy* * * § a.d. 848. As he refused to recant, 
 he was scourged, and condemned to imprisonment for life. 
 In his confinement, he composed two confessions of faith,t 
 and remained so firmly convinced of the truth of his doctrine, 
 that he offered to submit to an ordeal, not as if he believed 
 that he could work a miracle, but in the assurance, that if it 
 were necessary, God would work one for his cause. On his 
 death-bed, he desired to partake of the Lord’s Supper. 
 Hinkmar refused his request, except on the condition of his 
 recanting; and he died without it peacefully, after twenty 
 years’ imprisonment. 
 
 Not only sympathy at his fate, but also interest in the 
 Augustinian doctrine, called forth vindicators of Gottschalk ; 
 of these the most noted were Prcjdentius, Bishop of Troyes, J 
 Ratramnus, a monk of Corby,§ and Servatus Lupus, Abbot 
 of Ferrieres; the last was the most distinguished, clear, 
 logical, and temperate. He had been connected at an earlier 
 period with Gottschalk, and had endeavoured to moderate 
 his speculations; he wrote to him not to trouble himself 
 any further with such unprofitable questions, but to examine 
 the Holy Scriptures with humility. He now composed his 
 work, de tribus qu(Rstionibus ,\| namely (i.), concerning Free 
 Will. (ii.) The twofold Predestination. (iii.) Whether 
 Christ died for all, or onlv for the elect. He was an enthu- 
 siastic adherent to the Augustinian doctrine, knew its im- 
 
 * Mansi, xiv. 919. + Mauguin, i. 1, 7. 
 
 X Prudentii Trecassini Epistola ad Hincmarum Rhemensera et 
 
 Pardulum Laudunensem, in Cellot. p. 425. 
 
 § De Prcedestinatione, libb. 2. Mauguin, i. 1 , 27. 
 
 1! Mauguin, i. 2. 9. 
 
SERVATUS LUPUS. 
 
 451 
 
 portance for the Christian consciousness, and pointed out the 
 striking contrast between the peculiar Christian standpoint of 
 humility and the ancient standpoint of self-sufficiency: the 
 motto of the latter was sibi quisque spes; of the former, 
 cuique Deus vera spes. He also derives the need of grace 
 not from the Fall, but from the general relation of the 
 creature to God. “ Must not the first man,” he asks, “ have 
 needed the help of Him who is the life of the soul?” As he 
 maintained, with Gottschalk, that Christ died only for the 
 elect, he was much perplexed to explain Paul’s language: 
 “ God willeth all men to be saved.” This could only be 
 understood in a limited sense; it could refer only to real 
 believers, or to all kinds of men, Jews and Heathens. In a 
 certain sense, it might be said that Christ died for all who 
 received the same sacraments. Since to many it seemed to 
 detract from the dignity of the Redeemer, not to maintain 
 the universality of Redemption, he declared that he was 
 ready to waive the question, and would be satisfied, if it were 
 said, that all will be redeemed whom God wills to be redeemed. 
 Every one must adhere to the Scriptures, and to that which 
 the Spirit reveals to him; for since we all have only one 
 heavenly doctrine, why should we wish to find anything that 
 is peculiar? He combats the notion of conditioning Predes¬ 
 tination by Prescience, which was received by some who gave 
 the dogma in this form—God predestinated those whom he 
 foreknew would be pious. He also took notice of the practical 
 objections against absolute Predestination. Some one might 
 say, Why should I not give myself up to my lusts, if I am 
 destined to perdition ? But, he rejoined, no Christian will 
 reckon himself among the lost; far be it from him that he 
 should doubt his own conversion, and the inexpressible grace 
 of God. He refers to the connexion of Predestination and 
 Sanctification, and to the Objective in the grace of Redemp¬ 
 tion, and in baptism, which all have received. Who has ever 
 placed all his hope in God, and not obtained the forgiveness 
 of his sins ? If every one must condemn himself, let him 
 take his refuge from an offended God in a reconciled God. 
 The above objection proceeds from a love of sin, and those 
 who are animated by it plunge into despair. Attacked by 
 opponents of such eminence, Hinkmar sought to gain advo¬ 
 cates, and found one in John Scotus, who was little fitted to be 
 
 G G 2 
 
452 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 a defender of orthodoxy in that age. # He wrote a treatise, de 
 Prcedestinatione.^ The solution of the question is derived 
 from the principles of his philosophical and theological 
 system; but as this treatise is, in many points, not fully 
 developed, it must be taken in connexion with his principal 
 work. His opinion is—we can only speak in an improper or 
 figurative sense of a divine foreknowledge and predestination; 
 since for God there is no time; consciousness and knowledge, 
 in a proper sense, can never be ascribed to him. All this 
 belongs to the ^soXoyta xar^anx?]. For God there is no 
 Evil; he is only the cause of Good.J When all things are 
 viewed in connexion, everything is necessary for the harmony 
 of the whole. Evil only arises through detached contempla¬ 
 tion. It carries its own punishment along with it; hence it 
 lies in every sin, in this life it is still hidden, but manifest in 
 the life to come. Proper punishment consists in estrange¬ 
 ment from God—all punishment is grounded in this. Ac¬ 
 cordingly, in his treatise, de divisione naturae, he maintains 
 that everything which the Bible says of Hell, is only a 
 figurative description of spiritual suffering. In the other 
 
 * Mauguin, i. 1, 103. Opp. ed. Floss, p. 347. 
 
 t De Praedestin. ix. 5.—Eodem modo Deus vidit, prasvidit, scivit, 
 praescivit omnia facienda, priusquam fierent, quo videt et scit eadem, 
 postquam facta sunt, quoniam sicut ipse semper eeternus est, ita 
 universitas quam fecit, semper in ipso aeterna est. 6. Quo jure potest 
 dici praedestinatio, i. e. praeparatio in eo, qui nullo temporis intervallo 
 praecessit, quo disponeret ea, quae facturus esset, cujus operationem 
 non praecedit praeparatio. Non enim aliud ei est praeparare et operari. 
 Quo modo autem facturus esset aliquid, qui omnia semel et simul 
 fecit ?—Nec tamen in illo fuerunt, nec futura sunt, sed tantummodo 
 sunt et omnia unum sunt. Proinde, quoniam aliter sub illo sunt ea, 
 quae per ilium facta sunt, aliter in eo sunt ea, quae ipse est in eis quae 
 sub illo sunt, quia locis temporibusque suis et creata et ordinata sunt, 
 proprie hunt. verba locorum temporumque significativa, in eis vero, 
 quae eterna liber in illo sunt, translative proferri possuDt.— [Jacobi ] 
 
 J C. x. 4.—Quis non videat, nisi qui sensu caret, totum, quod dicitur 
 peccatum, ejusque consequentias in morte atque miseria constitutas, 
 nihil aliud esse, quam integrae vitae beataeque corruptiones ? ita ut 
 singula singulis opponantur, integritati quidem peccatum, vitae mors, 
 beatitudini miseria. Ilia sunt, ista penitus non sunt; ilia sursum 
 versus appetunt unum omnium prineipium, ista deserunt, deorsumque 
 in nihilum bona, quae corrumpunt, redere contendunt; illorum causa 
 Deus est, utorum nulla; ilia intra terminos naturalium formarum 
 intelliguutur, ista in eorum defectu atque privatione nesciendo utuntur. 
 — [Jacobi.] 
 
JOHN SCOTUS. 
 
 453 
 
 work he adheres more closely to the Church doctrine ; he is 
 willing to allow that a sensible fire is meant, but this, in 
 itself, is not the cause of suffering ; only in virtue of the 
 subjective character of the ungodly is it the ground of their 
 sufferings. All Evil is a stage in the development of good, 
 and hence the last end of the development is the return of 
 all to God. “ If the visible fire,” he says, “ wherever it is 
 kindled, always tends upwards, and can be kept down by 
 nothing, how can the spiritual flame of the rational nature 
 in man be kept down for ever?” His doctrine, therefore, 
 leads to an universal predestination. In his doctrine of 
 Grace, he does not deviate from the Augustinian system, to 
 which the connexion of his own doctrine is related by a neces 
 sary process of development. Verbally, he aims at main 
 taining Free Will; he distinguishes for this purpose the idea 
 of power and of freedom. As a man in the thickest darkness 
 still retains the power of seeing, but does not really see till 
 the light comes from without, so the Will of Man always has 
 the power of being good, though corrupted by original sin and 
 his own sin, and surrounded by darkness ; but he cannot 
 attain to the exercise of this power till the light of grace cures 
 the infirm will. He calls natural freedom the desire for hap¬ 
 piness implanted in the rational nature ( appetitus beatitu - 
 dinis naturaliter insitus), which can find its satisfaction in 
 God alone. 
 
 By such a development little assistance was rendered to 
 Hinkmar. New opponents came forward and took advantage 
 of these weak points. In order to call in the aid of ecclesias¬ 
 tical authority he held, a.d. 853, a second synod at Chiersy, 
 at which four propositions were drawn up against the doctrine 
 of Gottschalk.^ Hinkmar set out from the Augustinian 
 doctrine, that by Adam’s sin men were become a massa per - 
 ditionis, that the ground on which some attained salvation, 
 and others not, was simply to be sought for in the divine 
 predestination. He maintained that God in consequence of 
 his justice had predestined punishment to sinners, but he 
 would not say with Gottschark that God has predestined 
 them to punishment. So far he controverts the doctrine of 
 the pr&destinatio duplex. The principal difference lay in his 
 asserting that God wills that all men should be saved ;—that 
 * Hincmar. De Prsedestinatione, c. 2. 
 
454 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 some will be saved, is the gift of divine grace—that others 
 are lost is owing to their demerit; Christ suffered for all; 
 whoever does not appropriate these sufferings has himself to 
 blame. To this milder representation the stricter Party pre¬ 
 sented in opposition six doctrinal articles at the Council *of 
 Yalence.* They maintained the twofold Predestination, but 
 guarded against God’s being the author of Sin or predestinating 
 any one to Evil The doctrine of general Redemption was 
 rejected ; redemption, indeed, applied to all the baptized, yet 
 only some of these attained to salvation, because through the 
 grace of God they remained faithful in their redemption. Yet 
 this party endeavoured to avoid what would violate the moral 
 feelings. They might indeed have been well agreed had they 
 not been so ready to lose sight of thoughts, while occupied 
 about formulas, and if they had ^ot over the want of clearness, 
 caused by defect of dialectic skill. The difference was not 
 settled, and so both phases of doctrine passed over into the 
 following Age. 
 
 As John Scotus enlarged the extent of Redemption to the 
 length of universal Restoration, some other isolated traces 
 were to be found of this opinion. It was reached from two 
 points. The thought suggested itself to Missionaries of 
 Christianity among the Heathen, How could it consist with 
 the love of God and Redemption that all these heathen 
 should be lost ? That Clement, who came into Germany from 
 an Irish monastery and was opposed bv Boniface, must have 
 maintained, as he was charged by him, that Christ in the 
 descensus ad inferos had redeemed not merely the Old Testament 
 Saints, but also others.f Or the revived study of the classical 
 authors might have led them to reflect on this question. 
 Servatus Lupus speaks of one Probus who taught Grammar 
 in the monastery at Fulda, and broached the opinion that 
 Cicero, Yirgil, and all the better heathens were taken into 
 the fellowship of the elect, since Christ had not shed his blood 
 in vain.j; 
 
 * Mansi, xv. 1. 
 
 t Bonifacii, Epp. 135; Serrar. 39, Wurdtw.—Qui contra fidem 
 sanctorum contendit dicens : quod Christus filius Dei descendens ad 
 inferos, omnes qiios inferni career detinuit, inde liberasset, credulos et 
 incredulos, laudatores Dei simul et cultores idolorum; et raulta alia 
 horribilia de prsedestinatione Dei contraria fidei catholicse affirmat 
 
 f Neander’s Ck. Hist. vi. 3S' 
 
THE ORIENTAL CHURCH. 
 
 455 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER AND THE 
 CONTROVERSIES RESPECTING IT. 
 
 We have already remarked, that, up to this period, various 
 shades of sentiment on the relation of the Body and Blood of 
 Christ to the outward signs might co-exist, but that by this 
 time the predominant sensuous realistic element operated 
 with increasing force on the development of this doctrine. 
 Under this influence, and because the religious consciousness 
 directed itself only to the supernatural presence of Christ, 
 the representation of the miracle of Transubstantiation was 
 formed. 
 
 THE ORIENTAL CHURCH. 
 
 The antagonism of spiritual tendencies, which traversed one 
 another in the controversy on Images, could also exert its in¬ 
 fluence on the doctrine of the Supper. Had the opponents of 
 Images proceeded to greater lengths they would have come into 
 open collision with the doctrine of the Church. At a council 
 held by this class of persons under Constantine Copronymus, 
 a statement was also made regarding the Supper ; for the Image 
 which Christ made of himself in the Supper and had instituted 
 as a means of keeping him in remembrance, was set in oppo¬ 
 sition to all other images. A distinction was made between 
 the Image and the proper Body of Christ. The Image insti¬ 
 tuted by Christ himself corresponded to the natural Body of 
 Christ, since in virtue of its consecration it became like that, a 
 Bearer of Divine Life. It is difficult to obtain distinct ideas 
 from such tumid phraseology ; yet this thought appears to be 
 at the basis of it, that as the Body of Christ had life through 
 the indwelling fulness of the divine Logos, so a divine power 
 is imparted to the bread by the immediate operation of the 
 Logos. The party of the Image-worshippers opposed this 
 representation. At the second Nicene Council,* a.d. 787, 
 it was expressly denied that the Bread could be called an 
 Image of the Body, for after consecration it was no mere 
 Image, but rather in a proper sense the Body of Christ.f 
 John of Damascus expresses himself, in agreement with them, 
 having been guided in his views by a passage already quoted 
 from Gregory of Nyssa. The Bread and Wine are noi 
 * Mansi, xii., xiii. t Actio 6. 
 
456 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 merely an Image of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ 
 is that which was born of the Virgin Mary ; not that it 
 descended from Heaven, but the bread and wine were changed 
 into the Body and Blood of Christ. The immediate miraculous 
 operation of the Logos here produces the body of Christ in a 
 new mode. As Christ partook of food while on earth, and 
 nourishment by such means became changed into his body, so 
 this now takes place in believers by an immediate miracle. 
 He thus expresses himself—One nature is not here, but two, 
 which may mean that there are two substances, the Bread and 
 Wine, and the Body and Blood of Christ. But he really meant 
 to say, that the divine Logos is connected not immediately 
 with the Bread and Wine, but mediately through the Body of 
 Christ.* 
 
 THE WESTERN CHURCH. 
 
 Here the different views held on this subject appear wit! 
 greater decision. Paschasius Radbert, abbot of the monas¬ 
 tery of Corbie, was an adherent of the strictest Supranaturalistn. 
 He had already proved himself to be such in a dispute with 
 RATRAMNUsf on the birth of Christ. His fundamental prin¬ 
 ciple is,—that as the Will of God is the cause of the whole 
 Creation, so also it continues to be the only cause of all the 
 changes in it. In this light he presents the doctrine of the 
 Supper.| He sees in it the culmination of miracles. He 
 impugns those who say that by this Sacrament only the soul 
 is nourished, that there is only a spiritual communion with 
 Christ, and maintains on the contrary, that Christ comes into 
 corporeal connexion with our Body which he has also redeemed. 
 By means of the consecration of the Priest, God, through his 
 all-powerful Word, creates the true body and blood of Christ 
 out of the substance of the bread and wine. The change goes 
 on in secret, in order not to alarm our senses, and the colour 
 and taste of bread and wine remain, although the substance is 
 changed. This was connected with Radbert’s scheme that 
 he regarded the religious point of view r in the Lord’s Supper 
 not only subjectively but also objectively as alone valid. The 
 Natural was supposed to vanish entirely, since it was of no 
 value for the religious feeling. Not merely internally was the 
 
 * ticBtmQ, 4, 13. + D’Achery, Spicilegium, part 1. 
 
 t De Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis Christi. 
 
RADRERT AND RATRAMNUS. 
 
 457 
 
 body of Christ enjoyed, but the spiritualized senses received 
 truly the very body of Christ. We recognise here the charac¬ 
 ter of this view, that the outward world was altogether spirit¬ 
 ualized by the inner world, and from this arose the idea of 
 Transubstantiation. 
 
 But the harsh representation of Paschasius did not remain 
 without contradiction from various quarters. A monk, Frude- 
 gard, opposed him by citing various passages from Augustin. 
 Paschasius was obliged to allow that many persons had doubt 
 on this subject, though he could appeal in favour of the anti¬ 
 quity of his doctrine to legends which certainly required some 
 'time for their formation. Many indeed had not the spiritual 
 views of Augustin who yet did not like the coarse expressions 
 of Paschasius ; even Rabanus Maurus found them offensive.* 
 As Paschasius, about a.d. 844, prepared a second edition of 
 his book, and dedicated it to Charlemagne, this monarch was 
 induced to ask the opinion of several eminent theologians upon 
 it, among others, Ratramnus, who took this occasion to write 
 his treatise de corpore et sanguine Domini .f There were tw T o 
 ^questions which he set himself to investigate : 1st. Whether 
 the participation of the body and blood of Christ was some¬ 
 thing spiritual, which could only be perceived by the eye of 
 faith, or whether the bodily senses perceived without a veil 
 what the spiritual eye inwardly beheld. Paschasius had 
 indeed not asserted such a visible sensuous presence, but 
 Ratramnus w r as of opinion, that this was necessarily involved 
 in his doctrine ; he offered him this dilemma, either the out¬ 
 ward signs are merely for faith, are an image of Christ’s body, 
 or if an outward change takes place this must be perceptible 
 to the senses. Hence, if the body of Christ be really in the 
 Supper, it must be also visible; if it be not visible, then there 
 is not a sensible body of Christ, but only the spiritual; conse¬ 
 quently only a spiritual participation. 2nd. Whether it is the 
 same body of Christ in which, as Paschasius maintains, he 
 was born, and suffered, and ascended to Heaven. The doc¬ 
 trine of Ratramnus was as follows ; the body of Christ is not 
 present as an object of sense, but only for faith ; it is not 
 there in relation to the outward appearance, but only in rela¬ 
 tion to its spiritual power. He appeals to the ancient custom 
 
 * Rabani Mauri Ep. ad. Heribaldum Episo. Antissidor. c. 33. 
 
 t Ed. Jac. Boileau, Par. 1712. 
 
458 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of mingling water and wine at the Supper. As the water was 
 regarded as an emblem of the Church, and the wine as an 
 emblem of Christ, he infers that if the Water is an emblem 
 of the Church then is the Wine only an emblem of the body 
 of Christ. Besides, he supports his view by John vi., which 
 he explains spiritually. He thinks that only a spiritual com¬ 
 munion with Christ can be effected by the Supper. The Word 
 of God, which is the invisible bread, is ours in that Sacrament; 
 he imparts himself invisibly to believers and animates their 
 souls. Faith is the only organ by which the Spiritual and the 
 Divine can be received. The Bread and Wine represent to 
 faith Christ with his body and blood. A sanctifying influence 
 proceeds from the outward signs,—for as far as the body and 
 blood of Christ are represented to Faith will the Man be 
 placed in communion with him by the bread and wine. 
 Hence, Ratramnus wished properly to say : The bread and 
 wine are the vehicle through which by means of the excite¬ 
 ment of the religious consciousness the supernatural com¬ 
 munion of Christ for the sanctification of men is imparted. 
 But yet in the expression, conversio panis et vini in carnem et 
 sanguinem Christi, he allies himself to the other party, which 
 may be explained from his inability to separate the objective 
 from the subjective. Since the bread and wine after consecra¬ 
 tion produce an effect upon the soul which they could not of 
 themselves, he transfers this to the bread and wine ; thev 
 become something higher, he thinks, because they produce a 
 higher effect. 
 
 We have yet to notice the difference between these two 
 writers, in the representation of the Supper as a Sacrifice. 
 Paschasius firmly held the opinion, that though Christ had 
 redeemed the world once by his sufferings, yet he is daily 
 offered for us in a mystical manner, since human infirmity 
 still continues after baptism. On the contrary, Ratramnus 
 maintained that the bread and wine are to bring Christ to our 
 remembrance : but when we have attained to beholding Christ 
 himself we shall no more need such a memento of his infinite 
 love. Paschasius defended his view in his commentary on 
 Matt. xii. 14 : “ What would be the difference between the 
 Jewish and Christian standpoints,” he asks, “if in the Supper 
 all was typical and not real ?” 
 
 John Scotus is also said to have written a book on this con 
 
JOHN SCOTUS ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 459 
 
 troversy at the desire of Charles the Bald. Only these 
 words from it are known to us by quotations in other 
 writers : the Sacrament of the Altar is a similitude), jigura, 
 pignus of the body and blood of the Lord. In modern times 
 it has been questioned, particularly by Lauf, whether Scotus 
 ever wrote such a book, and this supposition has been explained 
 on the ground that the work of Ratramnus has been ascribed 
 to Scotus. Lauf* has shown that this was a fact, yet it is 
 not clear that the whole account of a treatise by Scotus on 
 this subject, is unfounded. It is not improbable that the 
 opinion of Scotus on this important question would be sought 
 for, on account of his great reputation. Hinkmar of Rheims, 
 a contemporary, who was well acquainted with the position of 
 the different parties, ascribes to Scotus as an error respecting 
 the doctrine of the Supper,f that it was memoria veri corporis 
 et sanguinis Christi. What the view of Scotus really was, is 
 after all evident from his work De divisione natures. He 
 taught, like some of the Greek Fathers, that the glorified body 
 of Christ by its union with the divinity was freed from the 
 defects of a sensuous nature. He impugned those who said 
 that the body of Christ after the Resurrection occupied a 
 limited space somewhere, and maintained a ubiquity of the 
 glorified body. In accordance with this opinion he denied 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and admitted a spiritual 
 participation at the Supper. He made the presence of Christ 
 at the Supper not a presence of a peculiar kind, but a symbol 
 of Christ everywhere present to believers. As in the thirteenth 
 century we can recognise the general influence of the system 
 of Scotus in that of Amalrich, so perhaps a trace of his view 
 of this doctrine may be found in it. In the age immediately 
 succeeding, the spiritual view continually gave way to the 
 power of the predominant sensuous tendency. A trace of the 
 former is found about a.d. 950, among a number of the 
 clergy, with whom Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, disputed, 
 and who maintained that the Bread and Wine remained after 
 Consecration the same substance as before, and were only an 
 image of the body and blood of Christ, not the real body.J 
 Gerbert on the other hand, defended the doctrine of Pascha- 
 
 * Theol Stud u. Krit. 1828. 
 
 + Hincmar. De Prsedestinatione, c. 31. 
 
 f Mabillon Analecta Yett. t. i. p. 207. 
 
460 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 sius, in his treatise De corpore et sanguine Domini. Between 
 the two views was a third, which was intended to maintain the 
 doctrine of the true body and blood of Christ without approving 
 the harsh expressions of Paschasius. 
 
 With the revival of a more spiritual tendency in the 
 eleventh century these conflicting views were promulgated 
 still more strongly. Berengarius is the representative of the 
 more spiritual mode of thought. Probably the more indefinite 
 language of his teacher Fulbert led him to further reflection. 
 Arguments both from Scripture and. Reason appeared to him 
 to speak against Transubstantiation. He studied Augustin 
 and other Fathers, and found in them much that was opposed 
 to it. Being thus confirmed in his views, he hoped to obtain 
 a hearing from his friend Lanfranc, prior in the monastery 
 of Bee. He expressed his surprise* that he should approve 
 the doctrine of Paschasius, and urged him to a joint investi¬ 
 gation of the subject. But this letter arrived when Lanfranc 
 was absent at Rome; it was sent after him, but was opened 
 before it reached him, and brought under the notice of 
 Leo IX. The doctrine was discussed in a Synod at Rome, 
 a.d. 1050; Lanfranc came forward as an opponent of Beren¬ 
 garius, whose doctrine was condemned as heretical, and he 
 was excommunicated. Yet Leo consented to renew the dis¬ 
 cussion and cited him before a Synod at Vercelli, a.d. 1050. 
 Meanwhile he had been put in prison by his enemies in 
 France, and was thus unable to comply with. the citation. 
 At this Synod no one dared to utter a word on his behalf, and his 
 book was committed to the flames. Yet Berengarius obtained 
 protection from some patrons of eminence, among whom was 
 Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers. While the clamour 
 against him was still violent, Cardinal Hildebrand came to 
 France, conversed with Berengarius himself, and was con¬ 
 vinced that he did not deny in every sense, that the bread and 
 wine after consecration were the body and blood of Christ. At 
 the Council of Tours, a.d. 1054, he succeeded in satisfying the 
 assembly with a general confession on the subject which 
 Berengarius made. He designed to have taken him to 
 Rome, but was prevented at that time. Berengarius had 
 the courage to go there of his own accord, a.d. 1059, in order 
 to silence his opponents by the authority of Pope Nicholas II. 
 
 * Letter to Lanfranc, in Mansi, xix. 768. 
 
BERENGARIUS. 
 
 461 
 
 But he found himself deceived; the party of blind zealots 
 were too powerful there, and he did not possess the boldness 
 to avow his convictions in the prospect of death. In a Synod 
 held at Rome, a confession drawn up by Cardinal Gumbert 
 was proposed to him, from which the spiritual view of the 
 Supper was designedly expunged ; the body of Christ (it said) 
 was touched by the hands of the Priest, and masticated by the 
 teeth of believers. He subscribed it: but on his return to 
 France, retracted his assent, and ventured to call the doctrine 
 of Paschasius a vecordia vulgi. When Gregory VII. had 
 ascended the Papal throne, and the affair was every day 
 assuming a more important aspect, he summoned Beren¬ 
 garius to Rome, certainly with the design to procure repose 
 for him. First of all,* he induced him to make a confession 
 similar to that at Tours, and used every means in his power 
 to make persons satisfied with it. He was obliged to remain 
 a long time at Rome, but the party opposed to him were more 
 active than ever; they even began to cast suspicions on Gre¬ 
 gory himself, and hence he resolved to sacrifice the cause of 
 truth to political considerations. Berengarius, who had been 
 previously alarmed by reports of a threatened imprisonment 
 for life, was obliged to appear before a new Synod, and confess 
 that he had been in error. His opponents were satisfied, and 
 he was dismissed on friendly terms by the Pope. But he was 
 convinced that nothing could any longer be effected by his 
 contradiction of that doctrine. He withdrew into solitude 
 filled with sorrow for his recantation. As to the doctrine of 
 Berengarius, he opposed Transubstantiation on the grounds 
 of Reason and Holy Scripture. The words of consecration 
 showed plainly that the bread and wine were still present. If 
 a transmutation were admitted, then he who is emphatically 
 the Truth, must be chargeable with deception and falsehood. 
 A transmutation, in which the outward signs of bread and 
 wine must be left behind without the substance would be 
 absurd and contrary to the divine laws of Nature. The words 
 
 * Acta Concilii Romani ab ipso Berengario Conscripta, Mansi, xix. 
 761. 
 
 + Lanfranci de Eucharistise Sacramento contra Berengarium Liber. 
 Bibl. Patr. Lugd. t. xviii. 763. Berengarii De Sacra Ccena adv. Lan- 
 francum Liber, discovered in the Wolfenbuttle Library by Lessing. 
 Werke, xii. p. 143, ed. 1825; first published by A. F. and F. Th. 
 Vischer, Berlin, 1834. 
 
462 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of consecration are to be understood figuratively ; the Bread 
 and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Christ, as in other 
 passages Christ is called a Rock, a Corner-stone, a Lamb. 
 He denied the proper, bodily presence of Christ in every sense ; 
 Christ descends not from Heaven, but believers are raised by 
 him to Heaven. Yet he maintained that the true body of 
 Christ is present, but in a spiritual manner, and partaken of by 
 the inner man in a spiritual manner. His view very much 
 resembles that of Ratramnus ; he regards the Bread and Wine 
 as the vehicle by which the body and blood of Christ is pre¬ 
 sented to believers, and they are placed in communion with 
 Christ. This he transferred objectively to the Bread and 
 Wine itself. They exert an influence which according to 
 their natural qualities they could not effect. Their value and 
 efficiency are augmented by the power of God, as far as 
 virtue is imparted to them for such an operation. The expres¬ 
 sions sacramentum, consecrare , denote a consecration which 
 elevates what is common to something higher, but does not 
 annihilate. He says the Bread and Wine are the true Body 
 and Blood of Christ, for there is no other Body ; but he 
 understood this metonymically, inasmuch as for believers the 
 Bread and Wine is the same as the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 He appeals to the fact that the glorified body of Christ will 
 not be seen again on earth till his second Advent, and is now 
 only present to faith. It would be blasphemous to assert that 
 this body had come down to Earth. He rejected the legends 
 of Pasohasius as derogatory from Christ’s dignity. He also 
 did not sanction the representation of a repeated sacrifice ; he 
 says we only commemorate the one sacrifice of Christ. The 
 view of Berengarius is diametrically opposite to that of 
 Lanfranc and others, who advocated Transubstantiation. In 
 the meantime between the two there w r as another representa¬ 
 tion which was held by Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers. 
 He had seen with pleasure that Berengarius had been 
 allowed to retire in peace, but he did not entirely agree with 
 him. He had been appointed an arbitrator in a dispute of 
 Beeengarius with several of the clergy, and declared him¬ 
 self, in a remarkable letter,* against both sides. In these 
 inquiries, he said, we ought not to appeal to the Fathers but 
 
 * Compare with this letter, that of Berengarius to Eusebius Bruno. 
 Sudendorf. Ep. 12. 
 
THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 
 
 463 
 
 adhere to the Holy Scriptures, and abide most of all by the 
 simple words that the Bread and Wine are the true Body and 
 Blood of Christ. He remarks that in this respect he agreed 
 with Hildebrand. In fact, the conduct of the latter indicated 
 as much. Yet this view would appear more clearly if a frag¬ 
 ment of a comment on Matthew,* which was ascribed to a 
 Master Hildebrand, proceeded from him; but this is not 
 quite certain. 
 
 The doctrine of Transubstantiation came forth victorious 
 from this controversy, and met with still more general acknow¬ 
 ledgment in the following Period. 
 
 THE SECOND PERIOD. 
 
 THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 
 
 FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE REFORMATION. 
 
 Bossuet, continued by Cramer, v. 2; vi., vii. Tiedemann, Geist der Specula- 
 tuien Philosophic, iv. v. Geschichte der Philosoph. v. Tennemann, viii. v. Ritter, 
 vii. viii. Christliche Philos, iii. iv. v. Cousin, Ouvrages Inedits d’Abelard, 
 Introduction, Par. 1836. 
 
 The great importance which attaches to this Period in the 
 History of Dogmas, consists in the fact, that Catholicism 
 was the animating principle in its great developments. It 
 was indebted chiefly to Scholasticism for the maturing of its 
 System. The transmutation of the kingdom of God into an 
 ecclesiastical Theocracy, after the germ had been once im¬ 
 planted, was continually developed till it experienced its 
 logical completion in the entire structure of the Papacy. As 
 such a theocracy, the Church claimed the right of deter¬ 
 mining and controlling all other culture, every department of 
 moral and religious development. Since the Church aimed at 
 exalting itself above the State, it required all secular culture, 
 particularly the newly awakened philosophic mode of thought, 
 to be subordinated to it. One of the characteristics of the 
 
 * Published by Allix in the Preface to Johannis Parisiensis, Deter- 
 minatio de Modo Existendi Corp. Christi in Sacramento Altar., London, 
 1686. 
 
464 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Age was the mixture of the theological and the philosophical 
 interests under the predominance of the former, and as in the 
 Middle Ages we remark many reactions of political power 
 against the Church, so we also find philosophical reactions 
 against Theology, till the latter gained the Victory. Exactly 
 in this lies the peculiar nature of mediaeval culture. It is 
 evident, of what importance was this great phase of the deve¬ 
 lopment of Christianity, as the form in which its blessings 
 were to be conveyed to the human race in order to train it to 
 maturity, and in which apart of Christendom is still involved. 
 Hence the knowledge of this period is very important for Pro¬ 
 testant Theology. What has been expressed at a later period 
 as the antagonism of Catholicism against Protestantism, is 
 nothing else than what already existed in the Scholasticism of 
 this age. The modern Catholic standpoint is easily idealized 
 in a false manner if its formation during this period is not 
 understood. Hence in order to discern and to combat the 
 corruptions of pure Christianity which it contains, it is neces¬ 
 sary to understand the utmost extent of the mediEeval develop¬ 
 ment. Even the Reformation cannot be understood without this 
 knowledge ; for it was the reaction of the Christian conscious¬ 
 ness striving after freedom as opposed to the concealment of 
 the Gospel, which was consequentially effected. The collective 
 Polemic in the first Confessional writings of the Reformation 
 has reference to Scholastic Dogmas, and is only to be under¬ 
 stood along with the doctrines it impugns. Yet, in another 
 respect, this History of the form of Christian doctrine is im¬ 
 portant. If in the earlier ages we have seen the process of 
 development in the form of classical Antiquity, so here we 
 behold it in the form more akin to our own, that of German 
 culture, the ground-work of all that has existed since. Many 
 tendencies and contrarieties of modern times meet us in 
 Scholasticism; many controversies which are still developing 
 must be traced to this period for their seminal principle. In 
 the scholastic dogmas there was not only the systematizing 
 of the Catholic dogmas, but the Christian truth, both in 
 dogmatics and morals, was in many points more deeply 
 grounded and systematically built up by the great minds of 
 this age, so that in these two departments of knowledge we 
 may still learn much from those distinguished thinkers. 
 Leibnitz formed a more correct estimate of them, and in 
 
THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 
 
 465 
 
 modern times we have begun to contemplate this great intel¬ 
 lectual Creation with greater impartiality. 
 
 The Scholastic development of Dogmas forms one great 
 whole, which is marked by the various stages of a beginning, 
 middle, and end; the first section reaches from the end of 
 the eleventh to the end of the twelfth Century, the time of its 
 rise; the thirteenth, and a part of the fourteenth century, 
 forms the time of its prime; and then it suffered a gradual 
 decline down to the Reformation. 
 
 THE FIRST SECTION OF THE SCHOLASTIC 
 
 AGE. 
 
 FROM THE ELEVENTH TO THE END OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY. 
 
 GENERAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 In modern times it has been debated from what point we 
 should date the beginning of the Scholastic Age. Ritter, who 
 deserves credit for the attention he has paid to it, sets the 
 beginning farther back. We may easily come to an under¬ 
 standing on this point. It is certainly true that even in the 
 ninth century there were movements in Dialectics, which were 
 only checked by the rudeness of the following age, and they 
 are to be placed in connexion with the scholastic development 
 of dogmas. But this later scholastic period differs essentially 
 from all that preceded it. * In the Carolingian age the ten¬ 
 dency of the dialectic spirit was far behind that of the prac¬ 
 tical and the historical. We have already remarked that 
 John Scotus is not to be regarded as the commencement of 
 Scholasticism. Philosophy had not in Scholasticism the lead¬ 
 ing position which he assigned to it, but was the cmcilla of 
 Theology. Hence we place the commencement of Scholasti¬ 
 cism at the end of the eleventh century. In reference to the 
 name, Ritter decides that it is too indefinite, and that in 
 reference to Philosophy, it should have the designation of 
 Mediaeval. The name is not of great importance; it is cer- 
 
 H H 
 
466 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 tainly indefinite, but yet it has acquired a definiteness by his 
 torical use. Scholasticus was in this age the designation of 
 the learned man , the Scholar , so we find it used in a letter of 
 Benedict of Aniane.* As the name denotes the peculiar 
 scientific tendency of the Middle Ages, it may also serve to 
 distinguish the corresponding form of Dogmatics. 
 
 It was significant, that in the consciousness of the general 
 want of culture, there was during the eleventh Century a 
 wide-spread apprehension of the impending end of the world; 
 it contained a foreboding that a new life would break forth. 
 Manifold beginnings, and symptoms of a religious revival 
 might be perceived, and still it was doubtful what direction 
 they would take. The enthusiasm with which the call to the 
 Crusades was received, the wide-spread feeling of Penitence 
 which proceeded from the consciousness of decadence, were 
 signs of this renovation. This state of mind prepared for the 
 Crusades, and they reacted upon it by imparting to men’s 
 minds a religious elevation. Contemporaneously, from the 
 twelfth Century, the monastic orders extended themselves 
 with fresh pow'er. The monks went about as preachers of 
 repentance, and deeply agitated their hearers ; multitudes 
 were seized with contrition. Under such an excitement many 
 became inclined to a monastic life, and embraced its solitude, 
 while others took up arms for Christianity. Every great 
 undertaking at that time easily found persons ready to com¬ 
 bine in its behalf; hence associations for the erection of im¬ 
 mense Churches, and societies among the laity for the support 
 of the Poor, and the like. To this we may add, the spread of 
 sects who bore witness to the religious agitation of the times. 
 Though the age was marked by no small degree of coarse sen¬ 
 suality, yet the religious interest predominated, and the sen¬ 
 suality received a counterpoise in one of the most important 
 appearances of this new spiritual life, the scientific tendency. 
 It did not take, as in the Carolingian age, the direction to the 
 Empirical, but the Spirit which began to feel its own power, 
 gave itself to the study of Dialectics and Speculation. This 
 tendency did not proceed immediately from a religious source, 
 and was not connected originally with the religious excite¬ 
 ment, but existed independently of the Church. Indeed it is 
 
 * Apud modernos Scholasticos, maxime apud Scotos iste Syllogis* 
 mus Dclusionis. Baluz. Miscell. v. 54. 
 
THE RISE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 
 
 467 
 
 quite true that the first objects of Dialectics to which it 
 applied itself were given from without, by the commentary of 
 Boethius on the Isagoge of Porphyry,* through which it 
 formed its first connexion with the Platonic and Aristotelian 
 Philosophy, and began to treat of questions respecting the 
 reality of universal' ideas. That such questions should occupy 
 men's minds rested on a deep internal ground in the general 
 tendency of thought. When dialectic schools raised discus¬ 
 sions on whether the general ideas of the human mind had an 
 objective reality, whether anything corresponded to them in 
 actual Existence, whether an objective connexion was to be 
 admitted between Thinking and Being, or whether general 
 ideas were nothing but a subjective product of human 
 thought, a necessary help in order to comprehend the multi¬ 
 plicity of things, and to which there was no corresponding 
 reality ; — when the Schools started these questions, the 
 deepest principles of human knowledge lay at the basis— 
 questions on the objective reality cf human Thought and 
 Knowledge generally — on the opposition of Empiricism 
 and Rationalism, or whether Knowledge proceeded from 
 Experience or from human thought. With this again was 
 connected the decision of the question, whether we must con¬ 
 fine ourselves to the knowledge of individual things, nor ven¬ 
 ture beyond the outward perception, or whether our mind in 
 thinking upon the outward world follows an indwelling Law, 
 therefore respecting Realism and Idealism. On the other 
 side, with this inquiry was connected the discussion respecting 
 the reality or non-reality of human knowdedge, the contrast of 
 Dogmatism and Scepticism, of an organic systematic mode of 
 conception or an atomistic. Hence it is evident how influen¬ 
 tial must have been the difference of the mental tendencies 
 which lay at their basis, though these antagonisms often lost 
 themselves in barren subtleties. 
 
 Augustin had the greatest influence in reference both to 
 speculation and practice ; from him proceeded first of all the 
 deeper theological investigation ; through his authority, and 
 
 i 
 
 * A vtikcl 7 repi ytvu>v rt iccti fioiov, to fjLtvt’ire vcpiorriicev bltb icai Iv 
 uovaig \pi\aig imvoiaig Ktlrcu, bits icai ixpBCTTrjKOTa oiv/nara botiv rj 
 acnofiara icai Tcortpov %wpicrrd ?) bp rolg aixrOrjTolg icai 7repi ravra 
 icpBorutra Trapairrioopai, Xtytiv fiaOvrarrjg ovorjg rf/g TOiavnig Trpay- 
 p.xTBias, Kai dkXrjg pti^opog hopkvrig iZeruoetoe. 
 
 H H 2 
 
468 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 owing to its connexion with religious interests, Realism, that 
 is, the doctrine of the reality of universal ideas (universalia 
 esse realia ) became predominant. This relation could be con¬ 
 ceived of in a twofold manner, either the divine ideas were 
 regarded as the original patterns of all existence, or the Uni¬ 
 versal was regarded as expressed in the multiplicity of indi¬ 
 vidual being, the one more Platonic, the other more Aris¬ 
 totelian (universalia ante rem, or in re). The two were 
 originally less clearly distinguished, the general ideas in the 
 Universe were regarded as a representation of the divine 
 archetypes. 
 
 But at the end of the eleventh Century an opponent of 
 Realism appeared,— Roscellin, # a Canon of Compeigne, a 
 man of great intellectual boldness, who established a peculiar 
 school of Dialectics, in short, the Founder of Nominalism. It 
 is to be regretted that we have no writings of his own, but we 
 recognise in his whole tendency the germ of a sceptical and 
 atomistic element which might have given another tendency 
 to the spirit of the Middle Ages could it have gained the 
 ascendancy. He maintained that in knowing we are only 
 made acquainted with individual objects; that general ideas 
 are only nomina, not res. A fragment that has been pre¬ 
 served in Abelard’s Dialectics, is peculiarly characteristic.t 
 He oarries his opposition against the reality of Ideas so far as 
 to maintain, that even the ideas of a whole and a part have no 
 objective reality, for in order to think of a part as a part, we 
 must have the idea of the whole, and the whole again presupposes 
 the idea of the part. A fondness for logical sequences led to 
 the use of such language, as we find in a letter among the 
 
 * Victor Cousin, Introduction aux Ouvrages Inedits d’Abelard, pag. 
 86. Roscellin’s Letter to Abelard was published by Schmeller in the 
 Miinchener G-elehrte Anzeigen, Dec. 1847. 
 
 + Ouvrages Inedits d’Abelard, p. 471.—Fuit autem, memini, magistri 
 nostri Roscellini tarn insana sententia ut nullam rem partibus constare 
 vellet, sed sicut solis vocibus species, ita et partes adscribebat. Si quis 
 autem rem illam quae domus est, rebus aliis, pariete scilicet et funda- 
 mento constare diceret, tali ipsum argumentatione impugnabat; si res 
 ilia, quae est paries, rei illius quae domu3 est, pars sit, eum ipsa domus 
 nihil aliud sit, quam ipsa paries et tectum et fundamentum, profecto 
 paries sui ipsius et caeterorum pars erit. At vero quomodo sui ipsius 
 pars fuerit ? Amplius omnis pars naturaliter prior est suo toto. Quo¬ 
 modo autem paries prior se et aliis dicetur, cum se nullo modo prior 
 sit ? 
 
RAIMBERT AND ODO. 
 
 469 
 
 works of Abelard, in which it is inferred from Rqscellin's 
 principles, that when in the Gospels it is said that Christ, 
 after his Resurrection, eat part of a fish, as the part is only a 
 nomen, so Christ must have eaten only a nomen . Raimbert 
 at Lisle stood at the head of the Nominalist School. Before 
 the Universities were established there were certain indi¬ 
 viduals from whom the various schools proceeded. In the 
 Cathedral and monastic schools, men distinguished for their 
 dialectic and scientific abilities appeared, and the tenets they 
 had sown, were propagated by their pupils. These investiga¬ 
 tions were carried on with incredible zeal. In opposition to 
 Raimbert, Odo, a secular clergyman of the Cathedral at 
 Tournay, founded a Realist school among the canons. A con¬ 
 temporary relates that the young priests flocked to him from 
 France and Great Britain, and even from Germany and Italy. 
 These studies spread beyond the school among the citizens. 
 If a person walked through the streets he would see multi¬ 
 tudes of disputants—or if he visited the school he would see 
 Odo sometimes walking about like a Peripatetic philosopher, 
 at other times sitting surrounded by his pupils ; ofttimes he 
 did not leave off even at night, but disputed with them before 
 his door.* But this enthusiasm for Dialectics not only in 
 many instances swallowed up all other scientific interest, but 
 even higher interests were neglected for it. Every one wanted 
 to shine with a new 7 theory in dialectic inquiries John of 
 Salisbury (a.d. 1150), the advocate of empirical science, 
 describes this mania, t Poets and Historians were held in 
 light esteem, and if any one occupied himself with the ancients, 
 he was ridiculed; for everybody attended only to his own 
 inventions and those of his teacher. Everything was described 
 in scholastic language ; to call an ass an ass, or a man a man, 
 was considered a grave offence. Even the enthusiasm for 
 classical Antiquity took a false direction ; the more scanty 
 the knowledge of it, so much the more was everything 
 idealized, and Christian truth was found in single expressions 
 of the Philosophers. The life and virtues of the Ancients 
 were viewed unhistorically, and contrasted with the immorality 
 of the Clergy. This tendency might even form an antagonism 
 
 * Hermann He Tournay, in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, ii. 889. 
 
 f Metalogicus, i. c. 3. 
 
470 
 
 TIIE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 to Christianity, since it knew not how to distinguish its pecu¬ 
 liarities, and weakened the distinction between Reason and 
 Revelation. But the religious revival was too powerful, espe¬ 
 cially in the twelfth century, not at last to lay hold of the 
 above direction also. As it often happened that those who 
 had hitherto led worldly lives, were brought by sudden im¬ 
 pressions to thoughtfulness, and withdrew into the monas¬ 
 teries, so many persons often sought satisfaction there who 
 had busied themselves for a long time with dialectic inquiries, 
 and in this external employment had arrived at a feeling of 
 emptiness. In the midst of their dialectic investigations they 
 were sometimes reminded of a higher interest, and awakened 
 to a new and more serious life. It happened here, as is said 
 in an old verse in the History of Bruno, the founder of the 
 order of the Carthusians : —Ad logicam pergo quce mortis non 
 timet ergo, that is, “ Logic which fears not the syllogistics of 
 death.” Many, indeed, only made this change in their course 
 of life, because it happened to be the fashion. It also was 
 found that the old spirit revived again in the cloisters. But 
 those who were more open to deeper considerations sought for 
 a connecting link between their earlier and later standpoint, 
 and resumed their former method, but in a much higher 
 manner; and since they applied it to the examination of 
 Christian subjects, the result was an amalgamation of Philo¬ 
 sophy and Dogmatics. A remarkable example of this is the 
 above-mentioned Odo of Tournay. He had already led a 
 strict life, but it was generally said, that he lived more after 
 one of the old Philosophers than after the Church. He once 
 bought Augustin’s work, De libero arbitrio, but took no fur¬ 
 ther notice of it, and laid it in a corner of his library. But it 
 happened that as he was explaining to his pupils the treatise 
 of Boethius, De consolatione Philosophies, and came to a pas¬ 
 sage which treated of free Will, he recollected this work of 
 Augustin’s ; he brought it out, and was so pleased with it, 
 that he continued to expound it to his hearers. At last he 
 found the passage in which Augustin contrasts a divine life 
 with a worldly one, and speaks of the nothingness of the lat¬ 
 ter. Odo was so affected by it, the emptiness of his inner 
 life was so laid open, that he burst into tears, hastened to the 
 Church, and was followed by his pupils. From that time his 
 mind took quite another direction, he became a monk, then an 
 
ROSCELLIN. 
 
 471 
 
 abbot, and lastly Archbishop of Cambray. He now trans¬ 
 ferred his scientific method to Dogmatics. 
 
 Since philosophical and theological inquiries became thus 
 blended, it followed that philosophical controversies were 
 changed into theological ones. Already Roscellin had become 
 the object of a fierce attack, from a standpoint in which the 
 two interests were mingled. This related, first of all, to his 
 doctrine of the Trinity. We cannot say, that he followed a 
 different method from others in his theological inquiries ; his 
 views of the relation of knowledge to faith, and of philosophy 
 to Dogmatics, appeared to be those current in his time, resting 
 on the maxim, Jides prcecedit intellectum , and a freer tendency 
 w 7 hich came into collision with Church interests, does not 
 appear to have been indulged by him. His design was not 
 to subject the Church doctrine to a new examination, but he 
 laid down as his leading maxim, that his inquiries must serve 
 for the vindication of Christian doctrines. If Jews and 
 Mohammedans give an account of their faith, ought not 
 Christians to do the same ? His doctrine of universal ideas 
 would fulfill this object chiefly, in reference to the dogma of 
 the Trinity. But certainly, the subjective, sceptical, and 
 atomistic, which lay at the basis of his Nominalism, were in 
 internal opposition to the objective interests of religious per¬ 
 sons, and hence it is not surprising that Roscellin in this age 
 was obliged to succumb. And since both he, and his realistic 
 opponents, applied their categories erroneously to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, they came to an open conflict. At the Council 
 of Soissons (a.d. 1093) he was obliged to recant; he then 
 went to England, and there engaged in fresh controversies as 
 a champion of the hierarchical interest and the celibacy of 
 the clergy, in the cause of Hildebrand’s reform movement. 
 The persons in England who were not disposed to conform to 
 it, induced him to return to France, where he lived in solitude 
 and quiet. 
 
 The principal opponent of Roscellin, and the first represen¬ 
 tative of Realism, was Anselm of Canterbury.* If we look 
 
 * Opp. ed. Gabriel Gerberon, Par. 1675, 1721, 2 vols. fol. Vita 
 Anselmi, lib 2, by his pupil Eadmer. Acta SS. Aprilis, ii. 866. 
 Mohler, Anselm von Canterbury in Dessen Schriften and Aufsatzen, 
 b. i. G. F. Franck, Anselm v. Canterbury, Tiibg. 1842. F. R. Hasae, 
 Anselm v. Canterbury, 1841, 1852. 
 
472 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 at the principle of the scholastic tendency, at the subordination 
 of the philosophical interest to the religious, and at the first 
 germ of a widely applied Dialectic, Augustin may be called 
 the Father of the Scholastic Theology. As far as Lanfranc 
 was the first to elaborate the dialectic form, he might not 
 improperly be so designated; but if we look at the whole 
 character of the scholasticism of the twelfth century, Anselm 
 deserves this name ; in him we find the interpenetration of 
 the two leading tendencies of the age, the religious and the 
 ecclesiastical on the one hand, and on the other, the dialectic 
 and scientific, that of the feelings and that of the intellect, 
 the mystical and the speculative. Thus he established this 
 Theology both materially and formally. Anselm was born about 
 a.d. 1033, at Aosta, in Piedmont. He was educated under 
 the influence of a pious mother, and the deeply religious spirit 
 which he received, determined the whole tone of his thinking. 
 Owing to the unkind treatment of his father, he was forced to 
 leave the parental roof, and spent three years wandering 
 through Italy and France till the fame of Lanfranc attracted 
 him to the monastery of Bee in Normandy. He became his most 
 devoted pupil ; henceforward the Dialectic Art was combined 
 with his religious zeal. After he had risen to be the Prior of 
 the monastery, he occupied himself chiefly with the education 
 of his monks. He was distinguished by the spirit of love with 
 which he guided them. He came forward as an opponent of 
 the gloomy method of training which was practised in the 
 strict monastic discipline.* An abbot once complained to 
 him of his ill success in the education of boys, notwithstanding 
 all his severity; Anselm replied, “ It is a poor compliment to 
 your method that it turns human beings into brutes.” In 
 a.d. 1093, he succeeded Lanfranc in the Archbishopric ol 
 Canterbury. As the vindication of the rights of the Church 
 was with him a matter of conscience, he w r as involved in 
 contests with William II. and Henry I. He appealed to 
 Rome, and spent several years there, highly esteemed by 
 Urban II. At last, he returned to England, and died soon 
 after in a.d. 1109. In this agitated life, occupied with the 
 business of education, or of conducting the affairs of the 
 Church, and involved in controversies, he maintained sufficient 
 mental composure to devote himself to speculative inquiries, 
 
 * Neander’s Ch. Hist. viii. 11. 
 
ANSELM. 
 
 473 
 
 in which he obtained great eminence. He is entirely to be 
 distinguished from those men who, from a worldly tendency 
 by a revolution of their inner life, turned their attention to 
 Theology, and from those who agitated by doubts, have been 
 led to investigate the grounds of the Christian Faith. In 
 Anselm, the warmth and confidence of the faith of his 
 childhood appears never to have subsided. Independent of 
 all speculation, his faith was rendered sure by inward experi¬ 
 ence, and his heart needed no other grounds for it. But 
 since with the fervent religious element, he combined great 
 speculative and dialectic power, he could not suppress the 
 latter, and was from the first convinced, that no schism could 
 exist between the truth of the heart and the convictions of the 
 Reason. He was satisfied that the subject matter of Faith 
 must verify itself to the Intellect as Truth; the dignity of 
 the Image of God in the Reason required this. Confidence 
 in divine truth gave him the impulse for speculation. He 
 felt impelled to examine with his reason what was certain to 
 his Faith. But he was very far from expecting to attain 
 absolute knowledge, or from indulging the proud dogmatism 
 that might be connected with it : he remained conscious of 
 the limits of Reason, and was convinced that full satisfaction 
 could only be attained in eternal life. He only wished to 
 penetrate as far in the present life as was possible with the 
 powers of Reason enlightened by God. 
 
 The relation in which he places knowledge to Faith* 
 corresponds to his setting out in his inquiries from internal 
 religious experience. Against Roscellin, he says: The 
 Christian may hold fast his faith, love, and live according to 
 it, and humbly strive as far as his abilities allow, after a 
 a rational knowledge of it; if he can attain it let him thank 
 God, if not, let him practise reverential submission.f First 
 of all, Faith must purify the heart; we must humble ourselves, 
 and become as little children. He who believes not cannot 
 experience; he who has not experienced, cannot understand. 
 
 * See Hasse, Anselm v. Canterbury, ii. 34. 
 
 I Nullus quippe Ckristianus debet disputare, quod catholica ecelesia 
 corde credit et ore confitetur, quod non sit, sed semper eandem fidem 
 indubitantur tenendo, amando et secundam illam vivendo humiliter, 
 quantum potest, quaerere rationem, quomodo sit.—De Fide Trinitat. et 
 Incarnatione Verbi, c. 2. 
 
474 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Nothing can be effected till the wings of the soul rise bj faith 
 to God, The theoretical in its principles proceeds from the 
 practical ; we must first renounce the flesh and live in the 
 Spirit, for the natural man understands nothing of the Spirit 
 of God. Two leading tendencies are observable in Anselm ; 
 one, to maintain the operations of .Faith against a one-sided 
 Dialectic; and the other, to exhibit the harmony of Ratio and 
 Fides, in contradistinction to a blind faith of authority. 
 Anselm attempted this in reference to several doctrines. 
 Certainly, there is to be found in his writings an obscure 
 mixture of the Philosophical and the Religious : hence he 
 often believes that he has demonstrated something of which 
 the certainty rests on other grounds. It is necessary to dis¬ 
 tinguish between the idea lying at the basis as that which 
 immediately proceeded from the depths of his contemplation, 
 and the false dialectic medium of proof. Nominalism appeared 
 to him a mode of thinking which never rises above the 
 sensuous and empirical, and denies the reality of the Idea; 
 but that which does not know the reality of the idea, can 
 know nothing whatever. The Reason, he says, is so beclouded 
 among the Nominalists by sensuous images, that it can never 
 free itself from them.* He was convinced of the objectivity 
 of Truth which lies at the basis of ideas, because thinking 
 and being proceed from God. He derives an argument against 
 Nominalism from the original connexion of the human Spirit 
 with the divine. Since the Truth on which the being of 
 things rests, is the effect of the highest Truth, so likewise it is 
 the cause of the Truth which is in thinking. Everything 
 comes from that light from which all truth radiates, and which 
 also enlightens the rational Spirit. 
 
 If the two leading tendencies of life, the religious and 
 emotional on the one hand, and on the other, the scientific and 
 dialectic, had remained harmoniously connected, the develop¬ 
 ment would have been quiet and regular ; but fresh contra¬ 
 rieties made their appearance. The mystic religious, and the 
 
 * De Fide Trinitatis, c. 2 —Prorsus a spiritualium qusestionum 
 disputatione sunt exsufflandi. In eorum quippe animabus ratio, quae 
 et princeps et judex omnino omnium debet esse, quae sunt in homine, 
 sic est imaginibus corporalibus obvoluta, ut ex eis se non possit 
 evolvere nec ab ipsis ea quae ipsa sola et pura contemplari debet, valeat 
 discernere. 
 
BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX. 
 
 475 
 
 dialectic speculative tendency were represented in two great 
 men of the twelfth century— Bernard of Clairvaux, and 
 Abelard. The conflict in which they encountered one 
 another, so far resembled that between Lanfranc and Beren- 
 garius, that here also there was an antagonism between the 
 doctrine of the Church and free inquiry. But there was still 
 the difference, that, in reference to the depth of religious 
 feeling, Lanfranc had no pre-eminence before Berengarius, 
 whereas here, on the one side, there was the predominant 
 interest of devout feeling, on the other, that of dialectic art; 
 on the one side there was the Mystical theology, on the other, 
 the Scholastic. The contest of these parties involves the 
 same general antagonisms which repeat themselves in all ages* 
 not excepting our own. 
 
 Bernard* was bom (a.d. 1091) at Fontaines in Burgundy. 
 The new excitement of the religious spirit which took place in 
 his youth, affected his development, but especially the influence 
 of a very pious mother. Thus he early acquired the love of 
 monasticism and a contemplative life. But after his mother’s 
 death his friends tried to give him a taste for a more secular 
 life. By his enthusiasm for science, they almost succeeded in 
 inducing him to forget Monasticism ; but this did not last 
 long. His mother’s image was perpetually before his eyes, 
 and the recollection that she had dedicated him to God. 
 
 After some struggles, the original inclination prevailed, and 
 once, while travelling, it so overpowered him, that he vowed 
 to enter a monastery. In his three-and-twentieth year he 
 entered the strictest order—that of the Cistercians, and soon 
 was made abbot of Clairvaux. He was a monk with his 
 whole soul; his religious life was supported by silent medi¬ 
 tation and prayerin the hours of solitude he enjoyed the 
 liveliest feelings and the clearest contemplations. He en¬ 
 deavoured also to direct others to prayer and the contempla¬ 
 tion of Christ, in order to lead them to that repose and light 
 which he had gained. “ Thou,” he writes,t “ who occupiest 
 
 * Opp. ed. Mabillon, Par. 1690, 6 t. f ; 1719, 2 t., Par. 1839, 2 t. 
 Biographies of William de Thierry, Gaufried, and Alanus de Insulis, in 
 Mabillon, t. i. t. vi. Neander, Der Heilig Bernhard u. sein Zeitalter, 
 Berlin, 1813, 1848. J. Ellendorf, Bernhard und die Hierarchie, 1838, 
 
 2 bde., Ratisbonne. Histoire de St. Bernard, Paris, 1843, 2 t. 
 
 + Ep. 106. 
 
476 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 thyself with the study of the Prophets—uuderstandest thou 
 what thou readest ? If thou understandest it, thou knowest 
 that Christ is the sense of the Prophets, and if thou wouldst 
 lay hold of him, thou canst do this more easily when thou 
 followest him than when thou readest. He who hath ears to 
 hear, let him hear him cry, ‘ Whosoever thirsteth, let him 
 come to me and drink.’ Trust my experience ; thou wilt find 
 more in the forests than in hooks. True science proceeds 
 from the soul. The disposition makes men wise ; knowledge 
 makes them learned.* The sun does not warm all on whom 
 it shines; it is not the knowledge of divine things, but the 
 fear of God which moves the soul, and makes it wise ; mere 
 knowledge easily leads to pride.” He has developed in the 
 fifth book of his treatise, De consideratione ,f his doctrine 
 respecting the relation of faith, rational knowledge, and intui¬ 
 tion. He distinguishes between the standpoint of rational 
 knowledge (- intellectus ), that of faith ( fides ), and that of mere 
 opinion {opinio). The intellectus is based on the ratio , Faith 
 on Authority, and Opinion only on Probability. Intellectus 
 and fides both have a certainty of Truth ; but the latter has a 
 closed, veiled Truth, the former an unveiled conscious Truth. 
 Faith is an anticipation of Truth not yet unveiled by the 
 direction of the Will; the intellectus is the certain and clear 
 knowledge of an invisible object. Opinion wants the certainty 
 which belongs to the two others. There is nothing we 
 would rather know than what we already know by faith. 
 It is, therefore, peculiarly important—rightly to separate 
 these three divisions, that the uncertainty of Opinion may 
 not be made an object of Faith, and that the certainty 
 of Faith may not be exchanged for doubt. It is 
 outrageous, when the intellectus would force the sealed Sanc¬ 
 tuary of Faith.j; He supposes an elevation of Intuition in 
 
 * Sermo on the Song of Solomon. 23, § 14. 
 
 f De Consideratione, lib. v. curante. C. F. Th. Schneider. Breol. 
 1850. 
 
 X De Considerat. v. c. 3, § 5. —Intellectus rationi innititur, fides 
 auctoritati, opinio sola verisimilitudine se tueter. Habent ilia duo 
 certam veritatem, sed fides clausam et involutam, intelligentia nudam 
 et manifestam; ceterum opinio certi nihil habens, verum per verisi- 
 milia quserit potuis quam apprehendit.—6. Omnino in his cavenda 
 confusio, ne aut incertum opinionis fides figat, aut quod firmum fixum 
 que est fidei, opinio revocet in qusestionem. Et hoc sciendum, quia 
 opinio si habet assertionem temeraria est, fides, si habet haesitationem, 
 
BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX. 
 
 477 
 
 certain moments of Inspiration, which anticipates what the 
 Intellect has not yet discovered. What is elevated above us is 
 not taught by words, but by the Spirit; but what no discourse 
 can reach, is sought for by prayer, and obtained by purity of 
 of heart. Disputation does not apprehend divine things, but 
 holiness of life and prayer. But Bernard was by no means 
 a despiser of Science. “ I acknowledge,” he says, “ how 
 much the Church owes to science ; but the great point is to 
 hold fast the right measure and object. This consists not in 
 the desire of glory or over-curiousness, but in edification 
 Self-knowledge is the first thing, since it does not puff up. 
 but produces Humility; the structure of the spiritual life 
 cannot stand firmly without it.” But the highest standpoint 
 on which man can be raised, even above the form of Faith, is, 
 according to Bernard, religious Intuition, which is gained in 
 these highest moments of Inspiration. Ecstatic contempla¬ 
 tion leads man to the anticipation of that which he will see 
 perfectly in eternal life ; it is a sudden rapture ( raptus ), by 
 which the spirit for a time is borne to the greatest heights.* 
 We recognise here the tendency to a renunciation of the 
 world, which was closely connected with his monasticism. 
 He made no effort, like Anselm, to harmonize Faith and 
 
 infirma est; item intellectus, si signata ficLei tentet irrumpere, reputatur 
 effractor, scrutata majestatis. Fides est voluntaria quaedam et certa 
 praelibatio necdum propalatae veritatis; intellectus est rei cujuscunque 
 invisibilis certa et manifesta notitia. Opinio est quasi pro vero 
 habere, aliquid quod falsum esse nescias. Ergo fides ambiguum non 
 habet, aut si habet, fides non est, sed opinio. Quid igitur distat ab 
 intellectu ? Nempe quod etsi non habet incertum non magis quam 
 intellectus habet tamen involucrum, quod non intellectus. Denique 
 quod intellexisti, non est de eo, quod ultra quaeras, aut si est, non 
 intellexisti. Nil autem malumus scire, quam quae fide jam scimus. 
 Nil supererit ad beatitudinem, cum quae jam certa sunt nobis fide, 
 erunt aeque et nuda. 
 
 * V. § 3.—Magnus ille, qui usum sensuum, quasdam veluti civium 
 opes expendere satugit, dispensando in suam et multorum salutem. 
 Nec ille minor, qui hunc sibi gradum ad ilia invisibilia philosophando 
 constituit; nisi quod hoc dulcius, illud utilius, hoc felicius, illud fortius 
 esse constat. At omnium maximus, qui spreto ipso usu rerum et 
 sensuum, quantum quidem humanae fragilitati fas est, non ascensoriis 
 gradibus sed inopinater excessibus, avolare interdum contemplando ad 
 ilia sublimia consuevit. Ad hoc ultimum genus illos pertinere reor 
 excessus Pauli. Excessus, non ascensus, nam raptum potuis fuisse, 
 quam ascend iter ipse se perhibet. 
 
478 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Knowledge; but where so much intensity of feeling waa 
 combined with seeking after rational knowledge, he might 
 easily have come to an understanding on the subject. But it 
 was otherwise in the case of one of his contemporaries, who 
 seemed to assign a much larger domain to Dialectic and 
 Rational Knowledge than his predecessors. 
 
 This man was Peter Abelard.* He was born a.d. 1079, 
 at Palais, not far from Nantes in Brittany, and on that 
 account frequently called P eripateticus Palatinus. His de¬ 
 velopment was very different from that of Bernard. He 
 prosecuted his strides at Paris and Melun, and acquired an 
 early reputation by his talents which were combined with 
 great self-esteem, a fault which his splendid success tended 
 to cherish. At first he occupied himself only with philosophy : 
 the ardour of inquiry and vanity soon brought him into col¬ 
 lision with his teachers. By degrees, he applied himself to 
 Theology. The fame of Anselm attracted him to Laon ; 
 but in a short time he came forward as his rival. He 
 declared himself desirous of showing, that without much 
 study, a person could do more in the interpretation of Holy 
 Writ, than an educated pedant. When he appeared in Paris, 
 as a philosophical and theological lecturer, crowds flocked to 
 hear him. Here he became a sacrifice to his great talents 
 and faults, among which he afterwards acknowledged as most 
 conspicuous in his Historia calamitatum ,,f his luxury and 
 pride. They involved him in those heavy misfortunes which 
 led him to alter his course of life. Through violent mental 
 agitation and heavy trials, he was brought at last to a deeper 
 religious interest. He rose from a state of doubt to Faith ; 
 but the conflict in his mind never w T holly ceased between the 
 religious element and the tendency to speculations and dia¬ 
 lectic inquiry. His system, not completed into a harmonious 
 development, is an image of the discordancy of his inner and 
 outer life. Greatly depressed, he retired (a.d. 1169) to the 
 Abbey of St. Denis, near Paris. But his wide-spread repu- 
 
 * Ouvrages Inddits d’Abelard, publies par Victor Cousin, Par. 1838. 
 Scblosser, Abiilard und Dulcin, Leben eines Schwarmers und eines 
 Philosophen, Gotha, 1807. Goldhorn de Theologia Abselard., Lips. 1836. 
 Franck, Beitrafzur Wurdigung Abalards, Tiibg. Zeitschrift, 1840. 
 Ritter, der Philosophie, Thl. 7. 
 
 t Abselardi et Heloisae, Opp. ed. Amboise, Par. 1616. 
 
ABELARD. 
 
 479 
 
 tation, and the multitude of young men who flocked to him, 
 induced him to recommence his lectures. The monks were 
 glad to be relieved from the inspection of so severe a censor, 
 and gave him a neighbouring priory for the delivery of his 
 lectures. Being now principally occupied with religious 
 subjects, he applied his dialectic method to Dogmatics. But 
 as his views became more widely known through the enthu¬ 
 siasm of his scholars, a party in the Church was soon formed 
 against him. At the request of his hearers, he published his 
 Introductio ad Theologiam. But in accordance with the 
 standpoint of theological science in that age, the idea of 
 Theologia was confined, and embraced only Dogmatics. The 
 w r ork was originally, and remained a mere fragment of the 
 doctrines of religion. He agreed so far with Anselm’s prin¬ 
 ciples, as to assert that the Intellectus can only develope what 
 is given in the Fides; but he differs in determining the 
 manner in which Faith is brought into existence ; nor does he 
 recognise so readily the limits of speculation, and, in some 
 points, he goes beyond the doctrinal belief of the Church; 
 yet the tendency of the rational element lying at the basis, 
 and his method of applying it, are different. The former 
 was checked in its logical development by the limits set to 
 it in the Creed of the Church; many things also are only 
 put down on the spur of the moment. The work not only 
 created a prodigious sensation, but also showed traces of a 
 preceding hostility. We may detect this, when he charges 
 some of his opponents with seeking consolation for their 
 ignorance, by extolling a faith which believes before it knows. 
 He maintained, on the contrary, that a Faith which does not 
 rest on evidence, is so much more easily shaken, and ap¬ 
 pealed to Sirach xix. 4 : “He who quickly believeth, is fickle- 
 minded, and his faith stands not firm.” On the principles of 
 his opponents, no one could gainsay idolaters, for every one 
 might appeal to their notion, that it was only necessary to 
 believe. It would lead to Montanism and every sort of 
 fanaticism, for we must admit that the Apostles were only 
 blind instruments of the Holy Spirit. There are different 
 ways to Faith. Some are led to it by speculation ; others 
 by miracles. Christ confuted the Jews not only by miracles, 
 but by arguments. We are, therefore, guided by him, as 
 those who seek after wisdom, and must be led to the Faith by 
 
480 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 arguments ; and since miracles no longer take place, only this 
 way is left for us, the arguments of Reason. There were at 
 that time many, who were asserted to have worked miracles; 
 and it is characteristic of his critical method of examination, 
 that he called in question the narratives of these occurrences ; 
 but it does not follow that he admitted no miracles whatever. 
 He argued that Paul placed a higher value on Prophecy than 
 on the gift of tongues ; for in the former was the ability to 
 develope religious truth for the benefit of others. He, there¬ 
 fore, considered rational inquiry as the way to Faith; he 
 would not say that vital Faith might originate in this, but it 
 was a preparation for it, to which Grace might afterwards be 
 added, and Faith would arise, when inward Experience was 
 thus added to investigation. He also ascribes to Reason the 
 function of developing and bringing into consciousness the 
 contents of the appropriated Faith. Two men might agree 
 in the matter of their faith and experience, and yet one might 
 excel the other in the gift of knowledge, because he possessed 
 the corresponding mental constitution. A Paul was not 
 superior to a Peter, nor an Augustin to a Martin in piety, 
 but yet Paul and Augustin excelled in a knowledge of the 
 Faith, because their minds were specially adapted to it. # It 
 is evident that this view rests on a distinction between the 
 essence and form in the representation of divine truth, and 
 on a peculiar apprehension of the operation of the Divine 
 Spirit; for it implies, that we must not only regard w T hat is 
 identical in the work of the Holy Spirit, but also what is 
 conditional in human nature, in which individual peculiarities 
 originate. He endeavoured to show how progressive know¬ 
 ledge reacts on the life—the more we know God, so much 
 the more we shall also love him. Abelard, f so far, was not 
 quite just towards his opponents, as they were not all pre¬ 
 judiced against inquiry altogether; but many only main¬ 
 tained, that divine things, in order to be understood, must 
 first be matters of experience; but this again he did not 
 
 * Introduct. ii. p. 1053. 
 
 -f Nunc plurimi solatium suge imperitise quserunt, et quuin ea de fide 
 docere nituntur, qua; ut etiam intelligi possint, desserere nou sufficiunt, 
 ilium maxime fidei fervorem commendant, qui ea quge dicuntur, ante- 
 quam intelligat, credit, et prius bis assentit ac recipit, quam quee ipsa 
 sint videat, et an recipienda sint agnoscat, sive oro captu suo discutiat. 
 —Introd. ii. p. 1061. 
 
ABELARD. 
 
 481 
 
 deny; and as little was he an opponent of the Supernatural, 
 but rather stood at a distance from Rationalism. He only 
 impugned the unqualified antagonism of Reason and Faith— 
 of the Natural and the Supernatural. “ The Nature of 
 things,” he said, “ which is constituted by God, cannot 
 stand in contradiction to Faith. God himself makes use of 
 Nature in his works of grace, since he would rather develope 
 the Truth by images from Nature, than by language itself. 
 Revelation and Nature depend on the same God.” He 
 endeavoured to find a mediating tendency, the presentation 
 of a harmonious connexion between the natural and the 
 supernatural, History and Revelation. Thus he reached, 
 though obstructed in the consequential development by the 
 Church doctrine, some points of a tendency which had not 
 appeared since the times of the Alexandrian Theologians. 
 
 Abelard’s scholars, who propagated his opinions and 
 expressed themselves with less reserve in some respects than 
 he did; for many of them asserted that there was no mystery 
 in the Faith, and that Abelard had taught them to know 
 everything clearly, increased the excitement against him. He 
 himself, indeed, said that the first attacks against him pro¬ 
 ceeded purely from personal jealousy ; but if this had its 
 share in the matter, it certainly was not the principal thing. 
 The first person who appeared against him, Walter of 
 Mortagne, in Flanders, a distinguished theologian in Paris, 
 had sometime before been led to notice Abelard’s doctrinal 
 deviations by the assertions of his presumptuous pupils. He 
 was the adherent of a practical Church tendency, which aimed 
 at combining with itself the dialectic Dogmatics, and was one 
 of his more moderate opponents. As soon as he had obtained 
 a copy of Abelard’s Introductio, he applied to him for an 
 explanation. We now see how this theologian, in combating 
 one error, fell into another. When Abelard’s scholars had 
 adduced such a passage as that in John xvii. 3, to prove that 
 even in this life perfect knowledge is possible, Walter com¬ 
 mitted the mistake of referring all these expressions to the 
 future life, and indulged in supposed emendations of biblical 
 passages. Thus Abelard could not satisfy him on any point. 
 On one occasion he accused him of ascribing too much to 
 human reason ; but Abelard said that he made no absolute 
 assertions, but only wished to give his opinion ; Walter replied 
 
 i i 
 
482 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 that he made everything uncertain, that Faith according to 
 him was a mere opinion. Other opponents, more violent, 
 appeared against him. It so happened that at the Council of 
 Soissons (a.d. 1121) Abelard and his doctrines were brought 
 under review. He was overcome far more by outward force 
 than by the arguments of his adversaries. As the voice of 
 the multitude was against him, he gave way, and was prevailed 
 , upon to commit his work to the flames. He was condemned 
 to confinement in a monastery. But the Papal legate, who 
 was present at the Synod, is reported to have said that this 
 attempt to crush him would turn out for his advantage, and 
 that soon he would be triumphant. In a short time, through 
 the intervention of some of his principal adherents, he obtained 
 his liberty, and returned again to St. Denis. But as he here 
 asserted that the patron saint of this abbey was not Dionysius 
 the Areopagite, he roused a violent storm on the part of the 
 monks against him. He left the monastery and found a refuge 
 in the territories of the Count Theobald of Champagne. In 
 the district of Troyes he built a small chapel of reeds and 
 dedicated it to the Paraclete. But, in a short time, he was 
 again surrounded by a crowd of pupils. He was obliged to 
 begin his lectures again, his pupils shared all privations with 
 him and built for him a handsome stone chapel. Among 
 those who joined him, from an enthusiastic ottachment 
 to his doctrines and led a life of privations, was probably 
 Arnold of Brescia ; he was indeed of a more practical, 
 ardent nature ; but, in Abelard, there was more than mere 
 speculation, for he presented in his lectures the ideal of a 
 truly spiritual life; and when, on such occasions, he inveighed 
 against the secularity of the Church, and contrasted with its 
 corruption the examples of ancient virtue,* this so inflamed 
 Arnold that, at a later period, he came forward as a reformer, 
 and strove to check the downward tendency of the Church to 
 worldliness. But the attention of Abelard’s adversaries was 
 again roused. In order to be beforehand with their persecu¬ 
 tions, he accepted the office of Abbot at Ruits, in Brittany, 
 a.d. 1128. Yet he could not endure this retirement longer 
 
 * Constat quippe philosophos maxime, continenter vixisse, atque ad 
 continentiam tam scriptis quam exemplis multas nobis exhortationes 
 reliquisse. Introd. ii. 1007. Theol. Christiana in Martene et Durand 
 Thesaur. Anecdot. v. 1210, seq. 
 
ABELARD. 
 
 483 
 
 than eight years, and began about a.d. 1136 to deliver lectures 
 again in Paris. His school so widely spread, and his writings 
 occasioned a fresh attack. Instead of his “ Introduction 
 he put forth the substance of it recast, under the title of * 
 Theologia Christiana . Even in this w T ork, he did not present 
 a complete exposition of Christian doctrine, but proceeded no 
 further than the doctrine of the Trinity. The book gave 
 offence, among other things by the judgment which he expressed 
 on the ancient philosophers. As he sought out the traces of 
 truth in History, he believed that he could prove the agree¬ 
 ment in morals of the Grecian Philosophy and Christianity. 
 If in the former the love of goodness was spoken of, it referred 
 ultimately to God, who is the original source of all good. The 
 morality of the ancient Philosophers was more allied to 
 Christianity than that of Judaism, since the Ethical was not 
 mixed as in the latter, with the Ritual. The Gospel was 
 strictly only a reformatio legis naturalis . He thus manifestly 
 mistook the peculiarity of the Christian Life, and the essence 
 of Christian Morals. He was misled, in part, by the stand 
 point of the times, the ascetic tendency of the moral teaching, 
 which aimed rather at divesting men of what belonged to 
 humanity than at rendering the human divine. He founded 
 the relationship of Christianity and Philosophy on the fact 
 that Christ was the Wisdom of God. He might have arrived 
 at a Pelagian view if his thinking on the subject had not been 
 so isolated and without sequence. It deserves notice that he 
 maintained the strict connexion of feeling and knowledge ; 
 they were reciprocally conditioned by each other, and the 
 Religious principle developes itself with advancing knowledge. 
 His Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is remarkable 
 for original thoughts ; his treatise on Ethics, though only 
 a fragment, is important on account of its plan; it bears the 
 title Scito te ip s um f His opponents frequently mention a 
 w r ork under the name of Sentential ; the quotations from it 
 do not always appear in the same form. Abelard himself 
 complained that it was flagrantly unjust, to bring forward 
 anything against him from such a work, since he had not 
 written it. Walter of St. Victor says it was either written 
 
 * Theologise Christianse, lib. v. Martene et Durand Thesaurus 
 Anecdotorum, t. v. 1139. 
 
 f Pezii Thesaurus Anecdotorum, t. iii. P. ii. p. 627. 
 
 I I 2 
 
484 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 by him or taken from his writings, and in his other works 
 expressions are actually found, similar to those quoted from 
 the Sententice. Yet it is only of late that a more certain 
 judgment has been formed in relation between them. Rhein- 
 wald, in 1835, published a manuscript in the library of 
 Munich, which bore the title of Epitome Theologies Abcelardi , 
 but this does not correctly describe it; it is rather identical 
 with those Sententiee, one of those common collections from 
 the Fathers, which were made the basis of farther dogmatical 
 development. Abelard could truly say that he had written 
 no such book ; they were passages which had been taken down 
 during the delivery of his lectures on Dogmatics. In one 
 transcript the words are preserved with which he began a 
 lecture: “All who thirst, come to the waters and drink, O 
 my friends 1 drink to the full, 0 my beloved ! ” This work 
 contains a compendium of his Dogmatics, and forms the 
 desired completion of his Tlieologia Christiana. One other 
 work published by Rheinwald from a manuscript in the 
 Vienna Library, a dialogue between a Jew and a Philosopher 
 on the highest good, manifestly contains Abelard’s Ideas. In 
 the works of an enthusiastic pupil of Abelard, Berengarius, 
 a fragment is found of this dialogue. His work Sic et Non , 
 is more important and more noted, in which he has collected 
 the expressions of the ancient Church Teachers on a variety 
 of subjects in 157 Rubricks. He allows these contradictory 
 opinions to stand -without attempting to reconcile them, 
 evidently that they may be distinctly seen. He himself says, 
 that he had collected them in order that the readers might bo 
 stimulated to inquiry, and thus undergo a mental training: 
 inquirendo veritatem percipimus , Christ says, “ Seek and ye 
 shall findby questions, therefore, we ought to learn. Ho 
 wished thus to vindicate his own standpoint; he seems also 
 to have had in view to establish a freer tendency in opposition 
 to that which would have impressed a complete uniformity on 
 Dogmatics. He was not afraid to assert that the Church 
 Teachers had erred in many things, and hence drew the 
 conclusion: Who does not see how presumptuous it is for one 
 man to judge respecting the intention of another, since God 
 alone knows the heart and the thoughts, and He says, “ Judoe 
 not, and ye shall not be judged?” The Church Teachers mav 
 have expressed different opinions, but in doing so, they were 
 
ABELARD. 
 
 485 
 
 acting under the impulse of Love; the intentio is the oculus 
 animi. We recognise here the germ of a new mental tendency. 
 He wished to separate more sharply from each other the 
 Interest of Faith and that of Dogmatics, and to point out 
 the difficulties of finding the right expression for religious 
 truths. He ventured also to apply a similar test to the sacred 
 Writers. The Abbot William of St. Thierry appeared 
 against him in a document which he addressed to Bernard 
 of Clairvaux. This monk was easily aroused by such an 
 appeal to take a part in the dispute, and in a Tractatus de 
 erroribus Abcelardi pointed out the dangerous tendency of a 
 number of Abelard’s opinions. When Abelard appealed 
 to the passage in the Book of Sirach against Credulity, 
 Bernard replied, that it referred not to faith in God, but to 
 that between man and man. It was otherwise as to faith in 
 God. Abraham’s faith was approved, because he had believed 
 contrary to human appearances. Abelard confounded faith 
 and opinion. In Heb. xi. it is said, “Faith is the substance 
 of things hoped for; ” this could not be understood of an 
 arbitrary opinion. The clamour against him on the ground 
 of heresy had now become so violent that Abelard himself 
 requested an investigation from the Council of Sens, a.d. 1140. 
 He and Bernard both appeared there. The general feeling 
 was in favour of the latter ; instead of a calm examination, 
 all that Abelard could obtain was a disputation with his 
 opponent, who easily obtained a condemnation of Abelard’s 
 opinions as heretical. Abelard was firmly convinced that 
 injustice had been done him; during these disputes he wrote 
 to the Abbess Heloise that he was unshaken in his faith; 
 that he despised the reputation of a philosopher, if he were 
 denied to be a believer. “ I will be no philosopher, if I must 
 separate myself from Paul, for there is no name under 
 Heaven but Christ’s, whereby we can be saved. I embrace 
 him in the arms of faith.” He appealed to the Pope, 
 depending on the influence of his pupils at the Court of 
 Rome; but Bernard was more powerful. As Abelard was 
 on his way to Rome, he received the Papal decision which 
 condemned him to confinement in a monastery. In his mis¬ 
 fortunes he met with kindness and sympathy from a man who 
 was distinguished by his ready acknowledgment of every good 
 quality in others, and the firmness of his faith, the mild and 
 
486 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 venerable Peter, Abbot of Cluny, who succeeded in recon¬ 
 ciling him with Bernard and the Pope, and gave him a 
 place of refuge in his monastery. Here Abelard wrote an 
 apology in which he said, that everything, however well 
 intended, might be misconstrued. Many things which had 
 been attacked, he justified, and others he modified. He is 
 said also to have composed a fuller vindication, in which he 
 expressed himself more strongly, He lived for some years at 
 Cluny; he there was seized with a fatal illness, during 
 which he received the utmost attention from Peter. In 
 a.d. 1142, he died, and Peter bore testimony to his true 
 piety at the close of life. In the inscription on his tomb he 
 calls him the Christian Plato, who gained the greatest 
 victory over himself when he embraced the Christian 
 Philosophy. 
 
 Although the free dialectic tendency received a check in 
 Abelard, yet speculation generally was too deeply rooted 
 in the spirit of the Age, to be kept down ; it only became 
 more sober and cautious, and more allied to the Church 
 tendency. Hence, many distinguished men were able to 
 treat Theology in this manner unmolested. Of this class was 
 Robert Pulleyn,* Archdeacon of Rochester, at that time a 
 teacher of Dogmatics at Paris, afterwards Professor at Oxford, 
 and last of all, Cardinal and Chancellor of the Roman 
 Church, and a friend of Bernard. He was also connected 
 with the great Hugo of St. Victor. f Hugo was a native of 
 Ypern, but brought up under the care of his uncle, a Canon 
 of Hamasloben, afterwards he became Canon of the Church 
 of St. Victor in Paris, and was one of the most powerful 
 advocates of the Theology developed in this school. In him 
 were blended the chief tendencies of the Church, the mystical 
 and speculative, the ecclesiastical and the dialectic; he was 
 distinguished by acuteness, depth, and intensity of Christian 
 feeling; but he was more mystical than Anselm, and with a 
 smaller proportion of dialectic subtlety. He combated in his 
 
 * Died about a.d. 1150. Sententiarum, libri 8, ed. Mathoud, Par. 
 1655. Cramer, vi. p. 442. 
 
 f Opp. ed. Rotomagi, 1648, 3 t. f. Liebner Hugo v. St. Victor u. 
 Die Theolog. Richtungen Seiner Zeit, Leipzig, 1832. Schlosser, Vin- 
 eentius von Beauvais, Th. 2, iiber den Gang der Studien in Frankreich 
 und die Schule von St. Victor. Cramer vi. Ritter, vii. p. 597. 
 
ROBERT PfTLLEYN. 
 
 487 
 
 writings the one-sided speculation which neglected experimental 
 knowledge. Whoever should attempt to make a leap, would 
 fall into the iVbyss.* He wrote two scientific works, De 
 Sacrctmentis Christiana fidei , libb. II., and the Summa Senten- 
 tiarum. One part of the latter has been ascribed to Hildebept 
 of Tours, or Mans, a pupil of Berengarius, wdio for this 
 reason has been reckoned among the Schoolmen, But 
 Liebner has proved that the work belongs to HuGO.f Hugo 
 entered deeply into the question respecting the relation of 
 knowledge to Faith, and aimed at doing justice to both. He 
 endeavoured to connect free inquiry with the maintenance 
 of the dignity and independence of faith. He recognised in 
 the Creation a God both revealing and hiding himself. God 
 designed neither to remain altogether hidden from the 
 human spirit, nor altogether to reveal himself, in order that 
 the value of Faith might not be lost, and yet that Faith 
 might be developed into knowledge. He regarded the dis¬ 
 position as that which determined Faith.J Three eyes have 
 been given to man,—one for the world of the senses, one for 
 the knowledge of the spirit, by which it knows itself and 
 what is homogeneous to it, the department of the Keason, 
 and one for what is elevated above the world—the Divine. 
 Since, by sin, the eye of the Reason has been darkened. 
 Faith comes in its stead, and is the organ of the knowledge 
 of the super-terrestrial. § It is a profound thought, that 
 divine things cannot be known by the senses, by the power of 
 
 * Eruditio Didascalia, vi. c. 3. + Stud. u. Krit. 1831. 
 
 4 Tides in affectu habet substantiam, quia affectus ipse tides est, in 
 cognitione habet materiam. quia de illo et ad illud quod, in cognitione 
 est, tides est; credere igitur in affectu est, quod vere creditur in 
 cognitione est. 
 
 § De Sacram. i. x. c. 2.—Hos igitur oculos quamdiu anima apertos 
 et revolutos habebat, clare videbat et recte discemebat. Postquam 
 autem tenebrae peccati in iliam intraverunt, oculus quidem contempla- 
 tionis extinctus est, ub nihil videret; oculus autem rationis lippus 
 effectus, ut dubie videret; solus ille oculus carnis in sua claritate 
 permansit. Hinc est, quod corda hominum facilius sibi consentiunt in 
 his quae oculo carnis percipiunt, quam in his, quia acie mentis et sensu 
 rationis attingunt; quia, ubi in videndo lion caligaut, in judicando non 
 discrepant. Homo ergo, quia oculum carnis habet, mundum videre 
 potest et ea quae in mundo sunt. Item quia oculum rationis ex parte 
 habet, animum similiter ex parte videt, et ea quae in animo sunt. 
 Quia vero oculum contemplationis non habet, Deum et quae in Deo 
 uunt videre non valet. See Liebner’s Hugo v. Set. Viet. p. 177. 
 
488 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOOMAS. 
 
 the Imagination and the Intellect, but they have an organ 
 for themselves, for the exercise of which the surrender of 
 the Spirit to God, the tendency to a vital communion 
 with Him is required. He makes Heb. xi. the basis* of his 
 definition of faith, the divine and invisible are received into 
 the Spirit, and become a thing of life and experience, not of 
 mere imagination. He distinguished various stages of Faith ; 
 when the living faith is in existence, the heart is purified by 
 the devotion which springs from it, so that the believer antici¬ 
 pates what he does not yet know. By experience and daily 
 intercourse -with God the heart is so far advanced, that in 
 meditation Gfod is realized as present.! There is a stage of 
 Faith which no longer requires miracles, but is strong in itself. 
 On the other hand there is a mere outward Faith, when faith 
 does not correspond to its objects, and the name of believer is 
 merely conventional. Its absence of doubt is owing merely to 
 a defect of interest, and the form of faith is associated with a 
 disposition altogether worldly. In such cases, he considered 
 the springing up of doubt as real progress, as a transition 
 from a dead to a living faith. He has the following striking 
 remark: We see that doubt, although it does not show itself 
 under the predominance of a dead faith, lies nevertheless con¬ 
 cealed in it. Hence, we cannot wonder, if in this age there 
 appears a reaction of unbelief; for such doubt lies not merely 
 in any given period, but at all times in the nature of Man. 
 But where the freer tendency of Dialectics react against a 
 dead Faith, it may easily lead to Unbelief. Montz, Archbishop 
 of Paris, wished, since so many educated persons had no faith 
 in the Resurrection, to give a testimony to it at his own death, 
 and left directions that a card should be placed on his coffin 
 with these words, “ He died with a firm faith in the doctrine 
 of the Resurrection.” 
 
 About the middle of the twelfth century, the conflict 
 between the two tendencies of the Age again made its appear 
 ance; for the apprehensions of the Church party were easily 
 roused by any new manifestation, and hence it did not require 
 a man of Abelard’s originality, in order to give an impulse 
 
 * Yoluntaria quoedam certitudo absentium supra opinionem et infra 
 scientiam constituta. 
 
 f Munda conscientia invisibilibus documentis et secreta et familiari 
 visitatione de Deo suo quotidie eruditus. 
 
PETER LOMBARD. 
 
 489 
 
 to the controversy. Gilbert de la Porree * Archbishop of 
 Poictiers, was a man of fine dialectic acuteness, but one in 
 whom we do not find deep religious thought. As far as we 
 can learn the character of his theology from his commentary 
 on Boethius, he was inclined to dry subtleties. Abelard 
 had forewarned him at Sens, that he was exposed to a fate 
 similar to his own, by quoting the line, “ tua res agitur, paries 
 quwn proximus ardet He was a Realist, and the application 
 of his formula to the Trinity appeared dangerous to Bernard, 
 who was easily prejudiced against Dialectics. At the Council 
 of Rheims (a.d. 1148) he was accused by him before 
 Eugenius III., and engaged in a disputation with him. 
 Gilbert, certainly, could not justify his doctrinal views; but 
 he had many friends, and Bernard was not successful in 
 attempting to introduce a Confession in opposition to him. 
 Gilbert was permitted to return with honour to his bishopric, 
 so great was the power of the dialectic tendency. 
 
 About this time, Peter Lombard,"}" of Novara, Teacher of 
 Theology, and finally Bishop of Paris, made a memorable 
 attempt to reconcile the ecclesiastical and dialectic tendency 
 which impressed a character on the dominant theology of the 
 following centuries. This was effected by his Quatuor libri 
 sententiorum; or, Four Books oj Sentences .j; By making the 
 testimonies of the Fathers the basis of his work, he gratified 
 the ecclesiastical party ; he satisfied the requirements of the 
 Dialecticians by the arrangement of the subjects in four sec¬ 
 tions : God and Spirits, the Nature of Man, the Incarnation 
 of God, and the Sacraments ; he also cited opposing senti¬ 
 ments, and endeavoured to reconcile them by dialectic dis¬ 
 cussion. Four Books of Sentences were published by his 
 contemporary Bandinus, which strictly agree with those above 
 mentioned, only in a more compendious form. Many have 
 taken this to be the older work ; but from a comparison of 
 the two, it is evident that a mind of Peter’s skill and origi¬ 
 nality would have had no need of such a groundwork. Hence 
 
 * Gaufredi Epistolge de Rebus Gestis iu Causa Gilberti Porretani. 
 Mansi, xxi. 728. Otto Fusigenses, De Gestis Friderici, i. 46, 50, sqq. 
 Cramer, vi. 530 ; Ritter, vii. 437 ; Baur, ii. 509. According to Nied- 
 ner’s Krchgesch. p. 472, he was a Nominalist. 
 
 t Died 1164, bishop of Paris. 
 
 J Ed. Basil, 1507; ed. John Aleaume, 1546 ; Cramer, vi. 586; Ritter, 
 vii. 477. 
 
490 
 
 THE HLSTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 we have no reason for deriving his work from the shorter 
 one. # His own became the text-hook, on which the most 
 noted schoolmen delivered commentaries. He derived from it 
 the name, by which he was usually known, of Magister Sen 
 tentiarum. His school was continued by Peter of PoicTiERS,f 
 Chancellor of the University of Paris, who signalized himself 
 by giving a finish to the Dialectic Forms. Alan us ab Insulis 
 (Piyssell) called the Great, wrote a dogmatic work, J after a 
 freer method than Lombard, since he endeavoured to prove 
 Christian doctrines without a groundwork of Sentences, and 
 independently of all authorities. Yet he says, although 
 these arguments lead men to the Faith, they will not be suffi¬ 
 cient to beget true Faith; perfect knowledge will be attained 
 first in the heavenly land. 
 
 But even the moderate Dialectics of Lombard did not attain a 
 predominant influence without a conflict. Walter of St.Victor 
 attacked Dialectics in his work, Contra quatuor Gallice laby- 
 rintlios, by which title he meant to designate Abelard, Peter 
 Lombard, Peter of Poictiers, and Gilbert de la Porree.§ 
 The Provost Geroch, of Reichenberg. in Bavaria, a zealous 
 advocate of ecclesiastical discipline and the Hierarchy, feared 
 that injury would arise to the Faith from Speculation. The 
 Abbot Joachim of Floris in Calabria opposed this Theology, 
 more from a mystical standpoint.|| As in another direction 
 the secularization of the Church by the State, so he here 
 combated the secularization of the Faith by Science. He 
 longed for the independence of the Church and of Faith; in 
 
 * See Retberg, Comparatio inter Magistri Baudini Libellum et Petri 
 Lombardi Sententias, Gottg. 1834. 
 
 t Sententiarum, 1. 5 , ed. Mathoud, Par. 1655 (together with Pulleyn’s 
 works). Cramer, vi. 754. 
 
 £ Died a.d. 1203.—De Arte Sive Articulis Catholicse Fidei in Pez. 
 Thesaurus Anecdotorum, t. i. p. ii. pag. 475. Cramer, v. ii. 445. 
 
 § An abstract of it is to be found in Bulaei Historia Universitatis 
 Parisiensis, t. ii. A. Planck on the Writings of St. Victor, Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1844. Neander identifies Walter of Mauritania and this Walter 
 of St. Victor, but on chronological grounds they are doubtless different 
 persons. See Planck, p. 861.— [Jacobi ] 
 
 || De Concordia Utriusque Testamenti, 1. 5; Expositio Apocalypsis, 
 ed Venet. 1519; Psalterium Decern Cordarum, Venet. 1527; Com¬ 
 mentaries on Jeremiah, Isaiah, &c.; an Epitome in Walfii Lectiones 
 Memorabiles t. i. 443, sqq.; Acta Sanctorum Maji, t. vii. p. 89, sqq. 
 Engelhardt, Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen Erlg. 1832, fiber das ewigti 
 Evangelium der Joachim v. Floris. 
 
THE ABBOT JOACHIM. 
 
 491 
 
 short, for the independence of the spiritual life in every 
 respect. He distinguished three Periods in the History of the 
 Kingdom of God : 1st. The Kingdom of the Father in the 
 Old Testament, when God was acknowledged in the works of 
 His almighty power. 2ndly. The Kingdom of the Word, the 
 Revelation of the Son when the divine wisdom was studied 
 in the Mysteries. But he foretold a regeneration of the 
 Church, which would be, 3rdly, the age of the Holy Spirit 
 or of St. John, when the Intellectual would give way to 
 the Contemplative, and the subtle distinctions of ideas to 
 Love. But Mysticism was not a match for the acute¬ 
 ness of Dialectics; it gave way to Lombard, for Innocent 
 III. decided at the Council of Lateran against Joachim. 
 A pious man, Peter Cantor, of St. YTctor,* strove from 
 a scriptural, practical standpoint against this scholastic 
 Theology which aimed at the ascendancy by means of its 
 glosses on the Scriptures. Peter of Blois complains of 
 those who mooted questions respecting Time and Space, and 
 the nature of Universals ( universalia) before they had learned 
 the Elements of Science. They strove after high things, and 
 neglected the doctrine of salvation. 
 
 However much the connexion of Acuteness and Depth, the 
 intensity of religious feeling and zeal for the Christian Faith, 
 must be acknowledged in Scholasticism, yet by following the 
 principle of Augustin and Anselm, that the intellectus has 
 only to develope what is given by the jides, it was led to an 
 erroneous endeavour, to receive everything, even the errors of 
 Church doctrine, into the system, and to confirm them. The 
 scholastic method certainly promoted Acuteness, but it also 
 tended to Formalism ; wdien most profound, it spent itself in 
 barren subtleties. It is often necessary to distinguish what 
 belonged to the dialectic form, and what to the underlying 
 Christian consciousness. The mystical Theology formed a 
 wholesome counterpoise against the one-sided, hair-splitting 
 intellectual tendency, partly where it proceeded separately 
 from Dialectics, but chiefly in cases where they w r ere in 
 unison. 
 
 * In his Yerbum Abbreviatum, Moutib. 1634. 
 
492 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 HISTORY OF SPECIAL DOGMAS. 
 
 A. Among the introductory Dogmas we class, 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 The doctrine of Inspiration was as yet only occasionally 
 touched upon, and nothing more than unconnected statements 
 were made respecting it. Abelard expressed his pecu 
 liar views (which might have been very important had 
 they been followed out more consecutively), with great 
 freedom in the introduction to his treatise, Sic et Non; 
 he there asserts that everything in the Scripture did not 
 proceed in an equal degree from Inspiration. The Pro¬ 
 phets sometimes had not the gift of prophecy, and from 
 the custom of prophesying, and from supposing that they had 
 the spirit of prophecy, they uttered many things that were 
 false, and mixed with their own conceptions. God permitted 
 this, in order to humble them, and to make them see more 
 distinctly what proceeded from the Divine Spirit, and what from 
 their own. And when the holy writers of Scripture possessed 
 this Spirit He did not grant all His gifts to every one, nor 
 enlighten the soul respecting everything, but revealed or 
 concealed sometimes one thing, sometimes another.* In this 
 language was implied the idea of a successive development 
 of divine Revelation, and of a necessary reciprocal supple¬ 
 menting of its organs. Hence, he says, Peter might be 
 mistaken in his opinion respecting the observance of the Law, 
 and Paul might rightfully reprove him. But if Prophets 
 and Apostles were not free from error, how much less would 
 the Church’s teachers be so.f 
 
 * Ed. Henke, p. 10.—Constat vero et Proplietas ipsos quandoque 
 prophetiye gratia camisse, et nonnulla ex usu prophetandi, cum se 
 spiritum prophetise habere crederent, per spiritum suum falsa protu- 
 lisse ; et hoc eis ad humilitatis custodiam permissum esse, ut sic 
 videlicet verius cognoscerent, quales per spiritum Dei et quales per 
 suum existerent, et se eum qui mentivi veil falli nescit ex dono habere, 
 cum haberent. Qui etiam cum habetur, sicut non omnia uni confert 
 dona, ita nec de omnibus mentem ejus, quern replet, illuminat sed hoc, 
 modo illud revelat, et cum unum aperit, alterum occultat. 
 
 t Ibid.—Ipsum etiam apostolorum principem—post illam quoque 
 specialem a Domino promissam sancti spiritus effusionum—lapsum in 
 ex*rorem de cii'cumcisionis adhuc et quorundam antiquorum vitium 
 observantia, cum a coapostolo suo Paulo graviter atque salubriter 
 publice correctus esset, a perniciosa simulatione desistei’e non puduit 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 493 
 
 In Anselm of Canterbury no doubts could arise about the 
 prevalent theory of Inspiration, but he endeavoured to make 
 this object of Faith clear to the Reason and was led to reflect 
 on the nature of Prophecy. Eadmer relates, that once on 
 waking, he occupied himself with meditating how to conceive 
 of the intention of future things by the Prophets, and while 
 he was musing with his eyes fixed on the ground, he saw 
 through the wall, the monks rise up and set everything in 
 readiness for the Mass. Applying this, he inferred—as here 
 Space is annihilated for human intuition, so also the Prophets 
 in their moments of Inspiration beheld the Divine indepen¬ 
 dently of the separation occasioned by Time. Whether this 
 was imagination, or a somnambulist vision which thus affected 
 Anselm, certain it is that it was the immediate occasion of his 
 entering on an examination of Prophecy. 
 
 With the question of Inspiration was connected a diversity 
 of views respecting the identity of religious Truth in the Old 
 and New Testament. The point in debate was, whether 
 all the Christian articles of Faith were already contained in 
 the Old Testament. Those who had adopted a stricter view 
 of the influence of the divine Spirit on the Sacred Writers 
 maintained that all the New Testament articles of Faith must 
 be found already developed in the Old Testament. A 
 difference of opinion therefore arose at the same time on the 
 question, what articles of Faith, generally, were necessary to 
 Salvation. Some made the circle smaller, others larger; the 
 former had a freer, the latter a more restricted, dogmatic 
 tendency. The difference led at last to a fundamental distinc¬ 
 tion in the relation of Dogma and Faith, according as Religion 
 was placed more in the Intellect or the Feelings. The one¬ 
 sided ecclesiastical dogmatism embraced a view which did not 
 distinguish between the dogmatic idea and the element of 
 faith, and therefore placed the essence of Religion in the 
 former. Its advocates required in the Old Testament the 
 same extent of developed articles of Faith, necessary for 
 Salvation. Others like Hugo of St. Victor transferred the 
 essence of Religion to the disposition and regarded knowledge 
 
 Quid itaque mirum, cum ipsos etiam prophetas et apostolos ab errore 
 non penitus fuisse constet alienos, si in tam multiplici sanctorum 
 patrum scriptura nonnulla propter suprapositam causam erronee 
 prolata atque scripta videantur ? 
 
494 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 as secondary. He assumes that in believing, affectus and 
 cognitio meet together; its objective is knowledge, but its 
 subjective importance consists in affectus, and on that depends 
 the real importance of the internal religious life. There may 
 be agreement in the affectus, when there is a difference in the 
 cognitio. Accordingly he impugns those who regard the 
 articles of faith as equally necessary in order to salvation for 
 all.* On the contrary he urges that we see how the Apostles 
 themselves not till a late period and with difficulty recognised 
 the necessity of the redemptive sufferings of Christ, and that 
 this doctrine was to them for a long time a stone of stumbling; 
 and yet this article of faith was clearly developed in the Old 
 Testament! Christ said of John the Baptist, that he was 
 greater than all the Prophets, and yet he was in doubt, 
 because Christ erected no outward Messianic kingdom; how 
 then could all the Prophets of the Old Testament have as 
 much knowledge on this subject as believers in the New Testa¬ 
 ment ? According to this view the Old Testament standpoint 
 would be higher than the Christian, for there would be 
 nothing wanting to it which Christianity has revealed ; without 
 the outward manifestations there would have been the same 
 certainty of Faith. By means of a pure spiritual intuition 
 they would have attained to the same certainty, which is now 
 reached by faith in the Gospel. According to this view God 
 would either have been too severe on the Old Testament 
 Standpoint, since he only vouchsafed to a few that grace which 
 revealed to them the higher truths that were necessary to 
 Salvation, or the Revelation must have been far more general 
 than under the New Testament. Hence this opinion is 
 erroneous, and we must distinguish the fundamental article of 
 Faith. Faith in God as Creator and Redeemer which is com¬ 
 mon to the Old and New Testament, is requisite for ail stand¬ 
 points of piety and necessary for Salvation. But whatever 
 besides is contained in this Faith, must be gradually developed 
 by divine Revelation ; and to this belongs the manner in which 
 Redemption is accomplished by God. Hence we recognise an 
 identity in the doctrine of Salvation and yet a continued 
 development in the knowdedge of it, which is not the same in 
 all persons at different periods, or even at the same period. 
 
 * Qui quasi quadam pietate impii in Deum efficiuntur, et dum ultra 
 id, quod in veritate est, sentiunt, in ipsam veritatem offendunt. 
 
THE IDEA OE GOD. 
 
 495 
 
 B. THE DOGMAS OF SPECIAL DOGMATICS. 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 1. THE IDEA OF GOD IN GENERAL. 
 
 Anselm is signalized by bis construction of the ontological 
 proof of the Divine Existence, the foundation of which was 
 already to he found in Augustin, but the completion of it is 
 due to Anselm.* He laboured for a long time to find a 
 simple argument to prove the existence of God. Though as 
 an article of faith this stood immoveably firm, yet a proof w 7 as 
 required for the Reason. What was matter of feeling, intui¬ 
 tion, and religious certainty, required to be briefly put into a 
 syllogistic form. But here was his mistake. Everything was 
 to be demonstrated. But here the inadequate syllogistic form 
 is to be distinguished from the fundamental law's of thought 
 and of the religious consciousness. As in Anselm’s mmd 
 Speculation and Religion were continually mingled, he did not 
 keep apart the idea of the Absolute and the idea of the living 
 God. He confounded the necessity of the thinking faculty, 
 which cannot exist without an Absolute, and the inward 
 necessity of the religious nature, which cannot exist without 
 faith in a living God. As the necessary recognition of an 
 Absolute for the thinking Reason w T as obvious to him, so he 
 transferred it without any intermediate process to the Idea of 
 the living God. His argument is connected with the essence 
 of Realism ; accordingly, all thinking appeared to him as 
 ultimately traceable to God, as the source of Truth, and as 
 affording evidence of an immediate connexion with God. The 
 basis of his argument was formed from these Ideas : the idea 
 of God carries the evidence of its reality in itself; it is imme¬ 
 diate ; deducible from nothing else, and to be assumed in all 
 thinking. Without this assumption there could be no think¬ 
 ing. The human mind can invent nothing and create nothing 
 of itself : all thinking is only a taking up of what is given— 
 a perceiving. If, generally, there is no absolute error but 
 everywhere there is a foundation of Truth, so much the less 
 could the human Mind invent the Idea of the Perfect. This 
 idea is rather a Revelation of the most perfect Being himself, 
 an evidence of the connexion of the created Reason with the 
 
 * Sec bis Monologium and Proslogium. Beur, Lehre von der 
 Dreieinigkeit, ii 372. Hasse, Anselm, ii. 233. 
 
496 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Eternal Atheism is therefore something which cannot be 
 matter of thinking. Anselm # distinguishes between a think¬ 
 ing of ideas, the thinking of that which is connected with 
 things material and the merely formal, which consists in 
 expressions which are uttered without real thinking. Hence, we 
 find in the 53rd Psalm, “ The fool saith there is no God,” but 
 this is only an utterance; he cannot really think that there is 
 no God. He thus describes in his JProslogiumf the connexion 
 of the Religious and the Speculative ;—“ Thou art so truth¬ 
 ful, 0 Lord, my God, that thou canst not be conceived as non¬ 
 existent ; for if any spirit could conceive something better 
 than thyself, this Creature would rise above the Creator.” 
 This thought he wished to present in a syllogism the Idea of 
 God is the idea of the Being, quo nihil magus cogitari 'potest. 
 But an existence is more than a thought; consequently, in 
 the idea of the most perfect Being his existence is founded to 
 whom this idea refers ; otherwise there would be something 
 greater by the supposition. In this conclusion is the error of 
 a petitio principii. Anselm concludes that if something be 
 granted as merely thought of, it must also be granted really to 
 exist; but existence does not belong to the completeness of 
 the thought. The Monk Gaunilo correctly exposed this 
 error ; he objected § that if a person gave a description of the 
 lost Island of Atlantis it might as well be inferred that the 
 Island was in existence. In logical acuteness he was superior 
 to Anselm, but inferior in profundity and hence he was not 
 able to extricate the Idea itself from the defective form. 
 Anselm might have rejoined that there was a difference 
 between the idea of an accidental existence, and that of God 
 the necessary Being.|j 
 
 * Proslogium, c. 2, 4. t C. 3. 
 
 £ Ibid. c. 2.—Et certe id quo majus cogitari nequit, non potest esse 
 in intellectu solo. Si enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse 
 et in re, quod majus est. Si ergo id, quo majus cogitari non potest, 
 est in solo intellectu id ipsum, quo majus cogitari non potest, est quo 
 majus cogitari potest; sed certe hoc esse non potest. Existit ergo 
 procul dubio aliquid, quo majus cogitari non valet, et in intellectu et 
 in re. 
 
 § Liber pro Insipiente adv. Anselmi in Proslogio Ratiocinationem in 
 Anselm’s Works, ed. Gerberon. Hasse, ii. 241. 
 
 || See Anselmi Liber Apologeticus contra Gaunilonem. 
 
THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 
 
 497 
 
 2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 The dialectic differences of the Schools in reference to general 
 Ideas, when applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, occasioned 
 a controversy respecting it. On both sides it was mis¬ 
 stated according to their respective assumptions ; categories 
 were applied to the nature of God, which only suited created 
 beings Roscellin. in accordance with his Nominalism main¬ 
 tained that only the individual was the real thing (res). If 
 his opponents said—That inasmuch as the three persons are 
 only one divine Being, they might be called una res —he dis¬ 
 puted it, because it appeared to him to follow that in God 
 there is one real Being which has three nomina; he on the 
 contrary regarded the Trinity as tres res ,* and thus gave a 
 handle to the charge of Tritheism. Gilbert Porretanus laid 
 himself open to the same imputation by the application he 
 made of Realism.t His method somewhat resembles that of 
 Johannes Philoponus. He wished to distinguish with pre¬ 
 cision the various meanings of the word Deus; either it was 
 equivalent to divinitas —that is, substantia qua est Deus , as 
 far as there is one essence of the Divinity in three persons, or 
 substantia quce est Deus , as far as the individual persons are 
 considered, distinguished by their personal attributes. He 
 held these distinctions to be necessary in order to guard 
 against Sabellianism. Certainly it was beneficial to set aside 
 the application of dialectic theories to this doctrine. Abelard 
 also opposed it.J Dialectic divisions, he says, are suited only 
 to compound beings. It was an important remark of Peter 
 Lombard that the determinations of the Church were rather 
 designed to exclude from the simplicity of the Divine Essence 
 what is not in it, than to place anything in it.§ 
 
 In their attempts to construct a rational view of the doc¬ 
 trine of the Trinity, the scholastic Theologians in general fol¬ 
 lowed the analogy with the created spirit which had been 
 suggested by Augusttn. Anselm takes the lead in this : 
 
 * Baluz Miscell. iv. 478.—Si tres personae sunt una tantum res, et 
 non sunt tres res per se sicut tres angeli aut tres animse ita tamen. ut 
 voluntate et potentia sint idem; ergo Pater et Spiritus Sanctus cum 
 Filio incarnatus est. 
 
 p Baur, Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit. ii. 508. 
 
 t Introductio in Theologiarn, ii. 1073. 
 
 § Sententiae, lib. i.; Distinctio 4. 
 
 E E 
 
498 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 “ We cannot know,” he says, “ the Supreme Being in himself, 
 but only after a certain analogy with created beings, therefore 
 most of all with the rational spirit. The more this spirit 
 enters into itself and observes itself, the more will it succeed 
 in raising itself to the knowledge of the Absolute Spirit.* 
 The human spirit is a mirror in which we may see the Image 
 of that which we do not directly behold. The Supreme Spirit 
 presupposes his own existence, knows himself ; the Word 
 begotten from himself, is one with his own essence. Thus the 
 Supreme Being expressed himself. As everything which is 
 produced by human art, was before in the idea of the formative 
 spirit, and as this idea remains even when the work perishes, 
 and is, in this respect, one with the art of the formative spirit 
 itself so it is not another, but the same word by which God 
 knows himself and all creatures. In the divine Word Crea¬ 
 tures have a higher being than in themselves ; the ideal 
 Being rests in the divine thoughts. The relation of the Son 
 to the Father is something elevated above all language. The 
 expression generation is best suited to represent the relation, 
 but yet it is symbolical. Further, as God knows himself, he 
 loves himself; his love to himself presupposes his being and 
 knowing. This is also denoted by the procession of the 
 Holy Spirit from both ; all three pass completely into one 
 another, and thus constitute the unity of the Supreme Being.” 
 In this manner Anselm vindicated the Western doctrines 
 of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. 
 During the time of his banishment, he defended this doctrine 
 at the Council of Bari in Apulia, against the Greek Church, 
 
 * Monologium, c. 64, sqq.—Patet, quia sicut sola est mens rationalis 
 inter omnes ci’eaturas, quoe ad ejus investigationem assurgere valeat, 
 ita nihilominus eadem sola est, per quam maxime ipsam et ad ejusdem 
 inventionem proficere queat. Nam jam cognitum est, quia hac illi 
 maxime per naturalis essentia) propinquat similitudinem. Quid igitur 
 assertius, quam quia mens rationalis quanto studiosius ad sediscendum 
 descendit, tanto efficacius ad illius cognitionem ascendit, et quanto se 
 ipsam intueri negligit, tanto ab ejus speculatione descendit, c. 65. 
 Aptissime logitur ipsa sibimet esse velut speculum dici potest, quo 
 speculetur, ut ita dicam imaginem ejus, quern faciem a facie vedere 
 nequit. Nam si mens ipsa sola ex omnibus, qua) facta sunt sui memor 
 et intelligens et amans esse potest, non video cur negetur esse in ilia 
 vera imago illius essentia qua) per sui memoriam et intelligentiam et 
 femorem in Trinitate ineffabile consi&tit. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 499 
 
 with such general approbation, that he was commissioned by 
 the Pope to reduce it writing. 
 
 Anselm was followed by Peter Lombard and the other 
 theologians of this period. Hugo of St. Victor carries out 
 the analogy in the following manner ;* * * § the Spirit,—the know¬ 
 ledge of itself begotten from it, or Wisdom, and the Love 
 proceeding from both, with which it embraces its wisdom. In 
 God there are not changeable affections as in Man, but each is 
 one with his own essence, and this higher relation is designated 
 by the term Trinity. 
 
 Abelard agreed in principle with this view, but went still 
 further. While the above-mentioned theologians acknowledged 
 that the doctrine of the Trinity was a mystery, and only 
 sought an analogon to it in the human spirit, he wished to 
 prove necessarily and a priori , that this doctrine was an ade¬ 
 quate expression for the doctrine of God as the Supreme 
 Being. In order to think of God as the most perfect, we 
 must attribute to him omnipotence by which he creates what 
 he wishes,—and the highest wisdom by virtue of which nothing 
 is hidden from him, and according to which he arranges all 
 things,—and the highest love and grace by which he governs 
 and guides whatever he has created by his omnipotence and 
 wisdom. This corresponds to the relation of the Father as 
 begetting, of the Son as the begotten, and of the Holy Spirit 
 as proceeding from both.f Procession ( procedere ) is a natural 
 designation of Love, for it denotes expansion towards other 
 beings, in order to connect them with One’s self by Love.J; In 
 like manner he says—“ Man as the image of God represents 
 the Father by his power over other creatures, the Son by his 
 Pteason and the Holy Spirit by his original innocence.Ӥ He 
 seeks to point out an analogy to the Trinity in the whole Crea¬ 
 tion ; hence his comparision of the Seal; the brass, the form, 
 and the seal, which through both is effected ; or of the Sun, 
 light, and heat, the heat is an image of the Holy Spirit, as 
 the love of God ; even as Christ said that he came to kindle a 
 fire on earth, namely, a fire of love. This comparison of the 
 Sun gave a pretext for accusing him of Sabellianism. Since 
 
 * De Sacramentis, i. p. iii. c. 23. De Tribus Diebus, Opp. i. f. 21, 
 
 aqq. Liebner, p. 374. 
 
 + Introductio, i. pag. 985. + Ibid. ii. pag. 1085; 
 
 § Ibid, i. 979. 
 
 K K 2i 
 
500 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Abelard held the doctrine of the Trinity to be a necessary 
 idea of Reason, he endeavoured to show traces of it in Anti¬ 
 quity. 
 
 Alanus ab Insulis says, according to the words of Hermes 
 Trismegistus, Unity begets Unity, and reflects its glow back 
 upon itself.* 
 
 3. OF THE DIVIDE ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 Omnipresence. Abelard was charged with not acknowledging 
 God’s essential Omnipresence. Walter understood him, as 
 if he resolved the Omnipresence into an universal agency, 
 like the Socinians. But we can hardly admit such a tendency 
 in Abelard, at least from the beginning. Since he was 
 obliged to vindicate himself from the charge of transferring 
 ideas of Time and Space to God, how could he have thought 
 of the relation of God to the World in so abstract a manner ? 
 That charge rests on a misunderstanding. The essential 
 point of his view consists in this, that he regarded the Omni¬ 
 presence of God as efficient without separating the essence and 
 the agency of God ; his omnipotence was to be thought of only 
 as omnipresent, his Presence only as an efficient presence. 
 When it is said in Holy Scripture that God came down, this 
 cannot be understood of a movement in space, but it only 
 denotes the visible beginning of a fresh agency of God.f God 
 comes or goes in reference to the impartation or withdrawal of 
 his gifts.J He, who is everywhere by his essential Presence, 
 cannot move anywhere in relation to Space ; but that he is 
 everywhere by virtue of his Essence, is to be thought of as his 
 being everywhere according to his omnipotence and efficiency. 
 All Space is present to Him ; he never ceases to operate; for 
 all Space can only be maintained in existence by God’s omni- 
 
 * Regula Theolog. ed. Mingarelli, p. ISO. 
 
 f Introductio in Theol. iii. 1126. 
 
 X Quum in quos dam venire vel a quibusdam recedere dicitur, juxta 
 donorum suorum collationem vel subtractionem intelligftur, non 
 secundum localem ejus adventum vel recessum qui ubique per pnesen- 
 tram suae substantiae semper existens, non habet, quo moveri localiter 
 possit. Quum itaque Deus in virginem venire dicitur secundum 
 aliquam efficaceam, non secundum localem accessionem intelligi debet. 
 Quid est euim aliud eum in virgenem descendisse ut incarnaretur, nisi 
 ut nostram assumeret infirmitatem, se humillasse, ut hoec quidem 
 humiliatio ejus videlicet intelligatur descensus ? 
 
THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 501 
 
 potence, and in this respect he is present therein by his sub¬ 
 stance.* Thus in Abelard’s mind the idea of an Omnipre¬ 
 sence not resting but active was connected with that of the 
 divine upholding. God upholds all things in existence, or he 
 imparts to them fresh powers. We may, indeed, in the same 
 way, say of a King that his power extends everywhere, and 
 speak of his long arm, but it is not true of him that by his 
 natural and essential presence he acts everywhere in his king¬ 
 dom, but mediately and by his representatives. Thus also in 
 Abelard’s Sentences God is everywhere by his Essence, since 
 he acts everywhere by himself without mediation. It is 
 observable that he attributes to omnipresence a relation to 
 Time as well as to Space. Some of the profoundest thinkers 
 among his contemporaries misunderstood this doctrine of 
 Abelard’s. Hugo of St. Victor impugns the calumniatores 
 veritatis, who maintained that God was everywhere only by his 
 power and not according to his essence. Certainly he quotes 
 arguments which are not to be found in Abelard, yet some 
 things favour the supposition that he had Abelard in his eye. 
 He pronounces the arguments of his opponents to be partly 
 absurd, as for example, that God may not be defiled by his 
 essential omnipresence. The only question is, whether God 
 according to his essence is nowhere, or everywhere, or only in 
 some places. If we accepted the last supposition, God would 
 be confined by the limits of Space; therefore w T e must admit 
 that he is everywhere, and yet not enclosed in any space. 
 Although we cannot perfectly comprehend this, yet we must 
 necessarily believe it, since no created being can exist without 
 Him even for an instant. Hugo, therefore, did not essentially 
 differ from Abelard’s view ; when we separate all relation to 
 space from God’s upholding activity, we arrive at the idea of 
 Omnipresence. 
 
 Omnipotence. The Schoolmen of the twelfth Century 
 aimed in their discussions to guard against two rocks; on the 
 
 * Quod tamen unique esse per substantiam dicitur, juxta ejus poten- 
 tiam vel operationem dici arbitror, ac si videlicet diceretur, ita ei 
 cuncta loca esse praesentia, ut in eis aliquid operari nunquam cesset, 
 nec ejus potentia sit alicubi otiosa. Nam et ipsa loca et quidquid est 
 in eis nisi per ipsum conserventur, manere non possunt et per substan¬ 
 tiam in eis esse dicitur, ubi per propriee virtutem substantiae aliquid 
 nunquam operari cesset, vel ea ipsa servando, vel aliquid in eis per se 
 ipsum ministrando. 
 
502 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 one hand, against the admission of an infinite caprice with 
 which Omnipotence would be confounded; and on the other, 
 of the representation of a natural necessity in God. Ansf.lm 
 says,*—We must necessarily so understand Freedom and the 
 Will of God that we attribute nothing to him inconsistent 
 with his dignity. The true idea of Freedom regards only 
 wiiat is worthy of God. Goodness is not to be considered as 
 if it were something settled by God’s pleasure, which might 
 have been otherwise, but it agrees with his essence. Hence 
 if any one should say—What God wills is good, and what he 
 does not will is not good, this is not so to be understood that 
 if God willed something bad this would be good because he 
 willed it; for it does not follow, that if God willed to lie, it 
 would be right to lie, but rather that a Being who willed to lie 
 would not be God. As truly as God is God, we cannot con¬ 
 ceive that he would will what is bad. If we speak of necessity 
 in God, it is only an improper expression for the unchange¬ 
 ableness of his goodness, which he has from himself, and is 
 not derived from some other quarter. 
 
 Abelard did not always remain satisfied with these mode¬ 
 rate views ; he lost himself in inquiries respecting the relation 
 of God to the possible and the real, and w r as met by the diffi- * 
 cultyf that we must allow many things to be possible to Man 
 which we cannot attribute to God. He answers,—We cannot 
 ascribe to God what is connected with human defect and limi¬ 
 tation ; yet, in a certain sense, we may reasonably refer to 
 God’s omnipotence what is done by his creatures ; for God 
 makes use of created beings in order to accomplish what he 
 wills; so far, therefore, we may find his agency in what they 
 do, and say that God effects all things. But proceeding fur¬ 
 ther, he starts the question whether God could do anything 
 more or better than he actually does, or could leave undone 
 what he does. The affirmative of this question, he says, has 
 difficulties, for since God in all that he does or leaves alone 
 has a rational cause, and the Supreme Reason cannot act 
 against Reason, we cannot perceive how God could have acted 
 otherwise. Upon this he brings forward the absurd sen 
 timent, that we should owe God no thanks for his good 
 ness, which contradicts the language of Holy Writ and of the 
 Church-teachers; we ourselves could do many things dif- 
 * Cui Deus Homo, i. 12. + Introductio, iii p. 1109. 
 
ABELARD AND HUGO OF ST. VICTOR. 503 
 
 ferently from the way in which we actually do; and according 
 to this notion, God’s Omnipotence would be more limited than 
 the ability of Man. Against this last position he says, that 
 this belongs to our weakness; we should be better, if we could 
 not do what is evil. He sets aside all objections by the dis¬ 
 tinction between an absolute and a hypothetical possibility and 
 necessity. We must not allow ourselves to think of God’s 
 will separate from his nature, and we cannot call this com¬ 
 pulsion. Since his goodness is so great, that he wills exactly 
 what is good, he is so much the more to be loved. Should we 
 love a person the less who in consequence of his great love 
 cannot do otherwise than help us ? God, who is good in the 
 highest sense, is so inflamed by his inexpressible goodness,* 
 that what he wills he necessarily wills. He then again repre¬ 
 sents the difficulties on both sides ; which shows how very 
 much he was perplexed by this problem—“ Since I wish in 
 all things to preserve the honour of God, X hope that he who 
 has freed us from the snares of sin, will also free us from those 
 of words, and guide us so that no one may be able to charge 
 us with falsehood or arrogance m what we say of Him. He 
 who looks more at the disposition than at the act will gra¬ 
 ciously acknowledge our endeavour.” As he was attacked on 
 account of these sentiments, he justified himself in his Apolo- 
 geticus. “ I believe,” he said, “ that God can only do that 
 which it becomes him to do, and that he can do much, which 
 he never will do.” 
 
 Hugo of St. Victor attacked Abelard’s doctrine of omni¬ 
 potence without naming him, and without differing essentially 
 from him. Wfi may remark the difficulties which he also found 
 in this investigation. He argued against thosef who wished 
 to prescribe a limit to infinite might. God could certainly 
 make that better which he has created, not as if he could do 
 anything bad, but he can make the good still better ; not that 
 he does not always do what is best in and for itself, but he 
 can cause that which has been effected by Him, to advance to a 
 higher stage of excellence. Hugo avails himself of a dis¬ 
 tinction which has since been frequently applied by the school¬ 
 men ; he attributes a twofold will to God—the voluntas 
 beneplaciti and the voluntas signi; the will of God in itself or 
 
 * Theologia Christiana, Martene et Durand, v. 1337. 
 
 f De Sacramentis, i. 22. 
 
504 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 immanent, and as it appears in commands and prohibitions, in 
 events and in the works of God. If we understand the will of 
 God in the first sense, he can do nothing otherwise than he 
 wills to do ; if we understand it in the second sense, everything 
 which God has created, may be better than it is; he can 
 make the good more perfect.* God’s omnipotence must apply 
 to everything to effect which requires a real Power, For the 
 theistic standpoint, his remark is important, that as Time is 
 not commensurate with the eternity of God, so neither are 
 the works of God commensurate with the extent of his Power.t 
 Abelard 5 ideas of God’s omnipotence and omnipresence 
 led him to some peculiar views of the relation of the natural 
 and the supernatural, and consequently of the idea of miracle. 
 On this standpoint he did not separate outwardly the imme¬ 
 diate and mediate agency of God, but ascribed everything 
 to his immediate operation, and hence conceived of the 
 upholding agency of God as a continued Creation. He 
 impugned tire miraculous narratives of his own times, not 
 as an opponent of supernatural events generally, but only 
 of an unmodified antagonism against the Natural; both, in 
 his opinion, ought to be in unison, and a miracle should be 
 regarded as a higher law of Nature, a view in which he had 
 been anticipated by Augustin. Everything must be referred 
 back to a divine arrangement of the universe which embraced 
 all things. He distinguished the connexion of the order of 
 the Universe as it was founded in the divine Reason, and 
 its representation in actual appearance. In reference to the 
 first, nothing can be conceived which goes beyond it; every¬ 
 thing is settled in it without exception; the whole agency 
 of God which was called forth in the phenomena and which was 
 from Eternity in the divine Reason is comprised in it. In 
 reference to the history of the Creation he calls it one con- 
 nected Day.J The Word of the Father is the Wisdom by 
 which God from the beginning arranges all things which 
 become visible in his works. Here is nothing contradictory, 
 
 * Summa, i. e. 13. 
 
 + Sicut peternitatem non sequat tempus nec immensitatem loeus, sic 
 nec potentiam opus. 
 
 X Expositio in Hexsemeron, Martene et Durand Thesaurus, v. pag. 
 1372. -Diem unum vocat totam illorum operum Dei consummationem 
 prius in i/.ente kabitam et in opere postmodum sexta die completam 
 
ABELARD ON MIRACLES. 
 
 505 
 
 nothing abrupt, nothing isolated, but everything is connected 
 agreeably to Reason, m the divine Wisdom. It is the 
 Platonic idea of the mundus intelligibilis. Over against this 
 ideal order of the Universe he placed what proceeds from 
 the powers and capabilities of the phenomenal world, in 
 which only a part of the divine plan of the world is made 
 known. When we would examine* the powers of Nature in 
 anything whatever we do not look upon the original creative 
 act of God, but upon powers and arrangements which he has 
 founded in Nature, and which bring forth all things without 
 miracle. Only the question arises whether the powers of 
 Nature that have been already given are sufficient to account for 
 certain phenomena. He does not regard a Miracle as a 
 phenomenon which was not included in that ideal constitution 
 of Nature, but as one which cannot be accounted for, from the 
 powers of phenomenal Nature. We say of Miracles,f that 
 they take place contra vel supra naturam , inasmuch as the 
 original constitution of Nature was not sufficient for them, but 
 new powers implanted by God were requisite. Miracles are 
 marks of a new creature power introduced by God, which pre¬ 
 sents itself to us as new in relation to the natural constitution 
 of the phenomenal World. When Philosophers pronounce a 
 miracle to be impossible, they look, no doubt, at the common 
 course of Nature, but not at the superabundance of the divine 
 Omnipotence, on which it depends to create a new thing 
 beyond and above the common course of Nature. The same 
 thing takes place as when he, first of all, created the world 
 out of nothing. Abelard did not maintain that henceforth 
 no more miracles can happen ; nor does he allow that miracles 
 were merely necessary for the founding of the Church; 
 miracles might also serve to kindle a true living Faith and to 
 confute Heretics, Pagans, and Jews. The reason why they do 
 not now take place is because we are not worthy of them, we 
 
 * Expositio in Hexaemeron, Martene et Durand Thesaur. v. 1378. 
 
 f Ibid. i. 1.—Unde ilia, quae per miracrila fiunt, magis contra vel 
 supra naturam, quam secundum naturam fieri fatemur, cum ad illud 
 scilicet faciendum nequaquam ilia rerum praeparatio prior sufficere 
 possit, nisi quandam vim novam rebus ipsis Deus conferret, sicut et in 
 illis sex diebus faciebat, ubi sola ejus voluntas vim naturae obtinebat 
 in singulis efficiendis.—Theologia Chi’istiana,iii. 1133. Contra naturam 
 vel praeter naturam fieri, eo quod primordialium causarum institutio 
 ad hoc minime sufficere possit, nisi Deus praeter solitum propria volun- 
 tate vim quandam rebus impertiret, ut hoc inde fieri posset. 
 
506 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 desire them not for the salvation of souls, but from motives of 
 vanity. Hence that Faith has vanished of which Christ 
 declared that it could move mountains. Yet he did not over¬ 
 look the subordinate position of miracles in relation to the 
 whole religious life. He regarded spiritual miracles as of the 
 highest order ; and this was not merely his own peculiar view; 
 in writers who differ widely on other points we find the senti¬ 
 ment that the true miracle and the end of all miracles is the 
 impartation of divine life. 
 
 The doctrines of Providence and the Government of the 
 World had no special place in the dogmatic Manuals of this 
 period, but were discussed under the chapters relating to the 
 divine Will, Prescience and Predestination. The views of 
 Theologians were for the most part strictly Augustinian; yet 
 far from the extravagance of the earlier Predestinarians, they 
 sought, at least in their language, to save human Freedom, 
 and w r ere unwilling in any respect to refer the causality of 
 Evil to God. Hence they made distinctions, which, indeed, 
 testify their zeal for maintaining the purity of religion and 
 morals, but are of little service in reference to the subject 
 under consideration. Peter Lombard endeavoured to explain 
 the relation of the divine Will to Evil, without touching on 
 either the Omnipotence or the Holiness of God, and arrived 
 at the conclusion that we cannot say, God wills that Evil 
 should happen ; nor that he wills it should not happen, for 
 nothing can happen against his will ; we can only say, He 
 does not will that evil should happen.* 
 
 Anselm and Hugo occupied themselves especially with 
 these discussions. Anselm composed a treatise on the har¬ 
 mony of prescience, Predestination and Free Will.f He 
 endeavoured to prove that the free self-determination of Man 
 was not at all affected by God’s infallible Prescience. God 
 foresees the Necessary and the Free, each in its kind ; every¬ 
 thing depends on keeping apart the two standpoints of eternal 
 and temporal development. As there is no contradiction in 
 this, that from the standpoint of Eternity all is one immediate 
 Present, and yet in the development of Time there is a Past 
 
 * Sententiarum i. Deit. 46, f.—Non enira Deo volente vel nolente, 
 sed non volente fiunt mala. 
 
 f De concordiae praescientiae et praedestinationes nec non gratise Dei 
 cum libero arbitrio. See also his treatises De Libero Arbitrio and Da 
 Casu Diaboli. 
 
ANSELM ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE-WILL. 507 
 
 and a Future, there is no difficulty in admitting that what 
 presents itself from Eternity as unchangeable and necessary, 
 appears in reference to its temporal development as change 
 able and dependent on the free self-determination of the 
 creature. The freedom of contingency appears as a necessary 
 transition point # for the development. This distinction, by 
 which nothing is really gained for the maintenance of free¬ 
 dom, makes contingency a necessary appearance for the 
 temporal development; that which in the divine plan of the 
 world is fixed as something necessary realizes itself in the 
 form of an apparent contingency. Anselm felt it necessary to 
 obviate the consequences that might be drawn from this view. 
 To the question “ if God acknowledges nothing, not even evil, 
 as something existent, but his prescience precedes everything, 
 must not the causality of Evil be traced back to God ?” he 
 replies, Everything positive is to be deduced from the divine 
 prescience, but Evil is something merely negative. On 
 examining more closely how Evil is tc be defined, he would 
 not regard it as a mere negative of good, but as a privation ; 
 it is, where good ought to be and to manifest its influence, but 
 is absent. The Evil Will cannot otherwise be explained and 
 derived. It presupposes no cause, but is itself cause and 
 effect, because Evil is not strictly an effect, but a defectus, a 
 falling off from God. Anselm has merit in his statements on 
 the justice of God ; he establishes more firmly the connexion 
 between Sin and Punishment; he views as correlate, and con¬ 
 siders the divine punitive justice as revealing itself in relation 
 to them. If Sin remained unpunished there would be no 
 difference between sinning and not sinning. Hugo of St. 
 Victor distinguishes in Evil the subjective of the tendency of 
 the Will, and the objective of the act coming into manifesta¬ 
 tion. Evil consists essentially in the subjective tendency of 
 the will opposing itself to God. Sin as subjective cannot be 
 otherwise explained, and is an act of Freedom, but that it 
 takes this or the other direction, does not depend merely on 
 its subjective character, but on certain limits set by the divine 
 arrangement of the World. Therefore, as soon as the sub¬ 
 jective tendency of Evil would become objective, it is no 
 
 * Hoc propositum secundum quod vocati sunt sancti, in seteraitate 
 in qua non est prseteritum vel futurum, sed tantum prsesens, immuta- 
 bile est, sed in ipsis kominibus ex libertate arbitrii aliquando est 
 mutabile. 
 
508 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 longer free, but bound by the divine arrangement and must 
 be subservient to it. This determined evil Will is in itself 
 something evil, but it must ultimately be broken up by 
 its own vileness, yet it cannot arbitrarily rush forth in any 
 direction, but only where the divine Will gives it room. 
 Thus subjective Freedom and the higher causality may be 
 harmonized in the objective manifestation.* 
 
 b. ANTHROPOLOGY. 
 
 1. OF man’s original state, the fall and its 
 
 CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 As in the preceding period the difference between Augustin 
 and Pelagius was rendered most apparent in their sentiments 
 respecting human Freedom, so the standpoint of the School¬ 
 men is marked by the way in which they express themselves 
 on the same subject. In this period they were the opponents 
 of the Pelagian definition of Freedom, and take as their basis 
 Augustin’s view. Anselm examined this doctrine in his 
 treatise de libero arbitrio. A definition, he says, must suit 
 everything to which the idea is applied. The definition of 
 free Will as freedom of choice does not apply to God and the 
 blessed Spirits; indeed, the more freely we advance in good¬ 
 ness by moral development, so much the farther are we 
 removed from the possibility of sinning, and so much less do 
 we decide according to a choice between good and evil ; 
 Goodness then becomes Nature. Hence the possibility of 
 sinning and the choice belong not to the essence of Freedom. 
 He definesf Freedom as the ability to preserve the received 
 purity of the Will for its oven sake. In the first place, he 
 presupposes the reception, since Autonomy can be ascribed 
 only to God, but not to created Reason. God is the original 
 source of all good: but the creature originally had the capa¬ 
 bility of persisting in this tendency. The qualifying clause 
 “ for its own sake ” is also important; according to Anselm 
 the essence of the ethical consists in the disposition, and there¬ 
 fore in love to God and Goodness for their own sake. Abe¬ 
 lard on similar grounds agreed in rejecting the Pelagian 
 
 * De Sacramentis Fidei, i. p. v. c 15, 23, 29. See Liebner, p. 391. 
 
 t C. 3.—Arbitrium potens servare rectitudinem voluntatis proptex 
 ipsam rectitudinem. 
 
man’s original state. 
 
 £09 
 
 definition. He defines Freedom as the ability to do that 
 which we have decided to be agreeable to Reason. Also Peter 
 Lombard says, Free will in the original state of man was the 
 ability to strive after and to perform what any one has resolved 
 to do without any constraint, on rational grounds. 
 
 Like Augustin, the Schoolmen of this period regarded the 
 original relation of rational creatures to God as conditioned by 
 Grace; therefore there was a dependence of Man on grace 
 before the Fall, distinct from his dependence on grace after 
 it; but on both Standpoints Grace was necessary for the per¬ 
 formance of goodness. In this respect the views of Peter 
 Lombard are very important; he divides the endowments of 
 the first man into dona naturalia, what he had in virtue of his 
 original natural constitution ; and the dona gratia , which were 
 founded in communion with God and added to his original 
 constitution. The dona natures he makes to consist in purity 
 and vigour of all the powers of the soul. # The Free Will of 
 Man was inclined to good, and was opposed by no inclination 
 to Evil; but this Nature was not sufficient of itself to realize 
 the destiny of Man. Left to himself Man could only work 
 evil ; hence he needed grace in order to will what was good in 
 an effective manner, and not merely as co-operans but as 
 operans. The distinction of these classes of gifts did not in 
 itself lead to Pelagianism, to which it was set in direct oppo¬ 
 sition by Augustin ; but it certainly might be so applied, that 
 the original righteousness of Man might be explained as 
 something accidental and only given from without. Now if 
 man lost this righteousness by Sin, no important alteration 
 would take place in his nature, and it would follow next, that 
 his Redemption was only something accidental. Neither could 
 it b.e rightly viewed as a restoration of human nature, nor 
 could moral doctrine according to these presuppositions be 
 properly apprehended. Scholasticism did not exhibit this 
 erroneous view in the course of this Period, yet towards the 
 close of it some trace was noticeable, since Peter de la Celle, 
 afterwards bishop of Chartres, protested against it.f He 
 
 * Lib. ii. Dist. 24, D.—Considerandum est, quod fuerit illud adju- 
 torium homini datum in creatione, quo poterat manere, si vellet. Illud 
 utique fuit libertas arbitrii ab omni labe et corruptela immunis atque 
 voluntatis rectitudo et omnium naturalium potentiarum animae sinceri- 
 tas atque vivacitas. 
 
 f Epist. 1. iii. Ep. 4. 
 
510 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 treated respecting the difference of the ideas of tne Image and 
 Likeness of God, the natural powers of the Soul, and what it 
 was capable of according to its original constitution. He dis¬ 
 puted against those who regarded the likeness of God only as 
 an accidental gift, so that even salvation and glorification 
 would be something contingent. It might also be inferred 
 that even Life is only contingent for Man. As the Soul is the 
 Life of the body, so is God the Life of the Soul, and com¬ 
 munion with him is what belongs to the true essence of the 
 Soul. 
 
 Peter Lombard makes the consequences of the first 
 sin to consist in the withdrawal of the dona gratuita from 
 Man, and not the entire loss, but the corruption of the dona 
 naturalia. If the latter had been altogether lost, there would 
 have been no point of connexion for his amendment and for 
 Redemption. 
 
 Most of the Schoolmen explained the first sin and the pro¬ 
 pagation of hereditary depravity according to Augustin. The 
 whole of Humanity was contained in the first man, and hence 
 is like him, polluted. The realist Standpoint which was sup¬ 
 ported by the translation— in quo omnes peccaverunt— favoured 
 this view. Anselm, in his treatise on original sin, distin¬ 
 guishes the natura qua est homo , quomodo omnes alii, and the 
 personality by which an individual differs from the rest. Thus 
 the peccatum ccnnatum or natuuB is to be distinguished from 
 the peccatum personce. Odo, who for a long time contested 
 with Nominalism, developed this view still further from the 
 realist standpoint in his book De peccato originali. 
 
 On this point Abelard showed the contrariety between the 
 influence of the Church doctrine and the peculiar principles of 
 his own speculations. The latter would have led him conse¬ 
 quentially to Pelagianism. Between him and Augustin a 
 remarkable psychological relation existed; both had to contend 
 with a powerful sensuousness, but Augustin was so much the 
 more disposed to throw off the slavery of the spirit by sensual 
 allurement; Abelard on the contrary passed a milder judg¬ 
 ment on sensual allurement, and excused it as given by Nature. 
 In his treatise, Scito teipsum , he says, One man has a greater 
 
 * Yera quoque virtus, vera bonitas, vera justitia, immo ipsa veritas 
 est Deus; sine his igitur, si fuerit amnia, moritur; et dicis esse acci- 
 dentalia bona ? 
 
ABELARD ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 511 
 
 proneness to this sin, and another to that. This allurement is 
 not in itself sinful, but rather serves for the exercise of Virtue ; 
 only the conscious contempt of God is sin ; for it is sin not to 
 do or to leave alone for God’s sake what we ought to do or to 
 leave alone for his sake; it is precisely in conflict that Virtue* 
 must verify its power, and Sin only is committed, when w r e sur¬ 
 render ourselves to allurement by a sinful Will. This view 
 consequently would lead to the conclusion that there can be 
 virtue without conflict, that the antagonism between sensuous¬ 
 ness and Reason was originally implanted in human nature. 
 According to these premises, the doctrine of Redemption 
 would assume a different shape. He denied that sins of igno¬ 
 rance were really sins, and merely allowed wilful sins to be 
 such; though there is a passage in his works in which he dis 
 tinguishes between an innocent and a culpable ignorance.t It 
 is important to observe also that in connexion with this view 
 he maintained that everything depended on the disposition, 
 not on the outward act, while he did not take into consideration 
 that the strength or weakness of the intentio has a share in the 
 realisation of the Act. In his commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Romans he finds difficulties in the common view of the 
 imputation of the first Sin. and the propagation of depravity, 
 the development of virtue in relation to it, the condemnation 
 of unbaptized children and of the Heathens, of whose virtues 
 he was a warm admirer. The passage—“ In Adam all have 
 sinned ”—he explains as meaning His sin has become the 
 cause of our eternal condemnation; we mav in this sense 
 say that in Adam his posterity has sinned, as we might say, 
 “ A Tyrant lives in his children.” He made an approach to 
 the doctrine which was afterwards propounded, that the effects 
 of Redemption are retrospective on the better class among the 
 Heathen ; but he did not give his assent to this position and 
 even adduced it as an error of a contemporary. On the other 
 hand, he was so far influenced by the received doctrines of the 
 
 * Quid enim magnum pro Deo facimus, si nihil nostrae voluntati 
 adversum toleramus, sed magis, quod volumus, implemus. 
 
 f In Romanos, 1. i. pag. 522.—Quia opera indifferentia sunt in se, 
 nee bona nec mala, sive remuneratione digna videntur, nesi secundum 
 ladicem intentionis, quae est arbor oonum vel malum protereus fructum. 
 Non quae fiant, sed quo animo fiant, pensat Deus, nec in opere, sed in 
 intentione meritum operantis vel laus consistit. Omnia in se indif¬ 
 ferentia nec nisi pro intentione agentis bona vel mala dicenda sunt. 
 
512 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Church that he asserted the perdition of unbaptized Infants. 
 He says—Those children die unbaptized, of whom God fore¬ 
 saw, that if they had lived longer they would have been guilty 
 of the worst sins and deserved the heaviest punishments; he 
 also appeals to the divine will, which he exhibited as arbitrary, 
 in contradiction to his other views. When he was attacked on 
 account of his doctrine of original sin, he apologized, but never 
 expressed himself with perfect distinctness. Mankind has 
 received guilt and the punishment of sin from Adam, in whom 
 we al 1 have sinned, since his sin has been the origin and cause 
 of all our sins. 
 
 Although the universality of sin was admitted, yet the 
 excessive veneration for the Virgin Mary made an exception 
 in her case. At first there was a reference only to the com¬ 
 mittal of actual sins, not to original sin. Pascal Radbert * 
 maintained that Mary before the conception of Christ was 
 freed by special grace from all sins, in order to be a worthy 
 organ for the birth of Christ. But in the twelfth century the 
 doctrine was broached that she was free from original sin, and 
 the Canonicals at Lyons instituted a festum immaculatce con- 
 ceptionis. But Bernard of Clairvaux declared himself 
 decidedly against it—“ We ought not,” he said,+ “ to attribute 
 to Mary what belongs only to one Being, by whom all must 
 be purified. He alone excepted, all must say, 1 am born in 
 sin.” Peter le le Calle also combated this new view, 
 which had been advocated by Nicholas, an English monk. 
 When the latter appealed to dreams and visions, Peter re¬ 
 joined— Evangelio, non somniis credo. 
 
 C. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST 
 
 % 
 
 1. OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 The difference between the older Augustinian and the Antio¬ 
 chian views whether the sinlessness of Christ was to be repre¬ 
 sented as a non posse peccare , or a jjosse non peccare, is to be 
 found also among the Schoolmen. Anselm touches upon it 
 incidentally, and decides in favour of the former. “ Christ,” 
 he says.J “could have sinned if he had so willed; but this 
 possibility is only hypothetical ; he did not, and could not, so 
 
 * De Partu Virginia, D’Achery Spicilegium, t. i. + Ep. 173. 
 
 X Cen Deus Homo, ii. 10. 
 
THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 5^5 
 
 will.” But admitting this, how can we conceive of‘ moral free¬ 
 dom and virtue in Christ ? We can conceive of no sinful 
 willing in God ; whence we infer no necessity of nature, but 
 it is founded in his unchangeable essence, with which Freedom 
 coincides. We say of the Angels who persevere in goodness, 
 that they have thereby attained to unchangeableness in good¬ 
 ness, and are no more able or willing to sin : they have won 
 this for themselves, and there is this analogy between them 
 and God, that they have attained this unchangeableness from 
 themselves. In Christ this proceeds from the connexion of 
 the divine and human natures. 
 
 Abelard instituted more general inquiries respecting the 
 relation of the indwelling of God in Christ to the divine ope¬ 
 ration on other holy men. In the latter, he says, # there was 
 only a partial indwelling, in Christ a personal union. As the 
 Body is subject to the Soul, so that no action takes place in it 
 which does not proceed from the Soul, so the Soul of Christ 
 was related to the divine Logos, so that no motion was im¬ 
 parted even to the Body, which did not owe its origin to the 
 divine Logos. He attributes to Christ a divine and a human 
 Will. In proof of the purely human will, he adduces the 
 prayer of Christ that the cup might pass from him. He 
 explains this in a forced manner, that Christ said it only as 
 the representative of believers, but adds, as Christ assumed a 
 real Humanity, so also he was truly human in reference to 
 weakness. Against everything bordering on Docetism, as in 
 Augustin, f he expresses himself strongly, and maintains that 
 sorrow and suffering imply something opposed to the inclina¬ 
 tion and the Will; therefore Christ suffered what he did not 
 wish : yet, since he loved the Father, and wished that 
 through his death the salvation of mankind might be effected, 
 on that account he was willing to suffer; just as it might be 
 said of a sick man, who was aware that he could not save his 
 life without undergoing a surgical operation, that speaking 
 generally he willed it not, but yet willed it under the circum¬ 
 stances. In reference to the possibility of sinning he remarks,]; 
 
 * Sententiarum, c. 24. 
 
 t C. 25.—Dicat Augustinus voluntatem suam, nos vero dieimus, 
 quia, sicut veram humanitatem assumsit, ita liumanse infirmitatis veroa 
 defectus habuerit 
 
 X Ad Roman, i. pag. 538. 
 
 L L 
 
514 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 If Christ be regarded as a man, simple and by himself, it may 
 be doubted whether we could say of him, nullo modo pec- 
 care posse; for if he could not sin what meritum could he have ? 
 He would thus appear deprived of Free Will, and a natural 
 necessity would be ascribed to him ; nor could he be admitted 
 to possess a real Humanity. Thus considered, therefore, we 
 may speak of his having a posse non peccare, which was first 
 determined by the direction of the Will. But it is different 
 when we speak of Christ in concreto as of him who is at the 
 same time God and Man. In this respect a non posse peccare 
 alone is to be admitted. 
 
 Hugo of St. Victor quotes the opposing expressions of the 
 Church Teachers on the question whether Christ was afraid of 
 death. He says, there is a fear of death which so overpowers 
 the Soul, that Man is thereby led into sin ; but there is also a 
 moderate fear which is innate to human nature and without 
 sin, like hunger and thirst, and this Christ had. In the same 
 way Peter Lombard * says, Christ had real sorrow in his 
 human nature, but not like believers. We must distinguish 
 passio and propassio; the latter consists of those feelings which 
 arise from corporeal infirmity, and belong to the essence of 
 human nature, and by which the spirit is not drawn down from 
 the Most High and weakened ; and only this is attributable to 
 Christ. 
 
 2. Of Redemption. 
 
 Everything which in this period was developed from the 
 Christian consciousness might be found in the former, but yet 
 in the language of feeling ; the ideas were blended with one 
 another without an intellectual separation. Augustin, whose 
 views are here to be considered, first of all occupied himself 
 with the question, whether it was possible for God to redeem 
 men in any other way, a problem which passed over from him 
 to the Schoolmen. His reply is,f Another way might in itself 
 be possible, since God is Almighty, but this is the only kind of 
 Redemption suited for healing human misery, for nothing 
 could more revive the hopes of men, than for God to show how 
 very much he loves us, and he could not do this more effectually 
 than by his entering into union with Humanity. He guards 
 nimself X against the authropopathical mistake, as if God were 
 * Sent. iii. Dist. v, + De Trinitate, xiii. 10,13. J C. 11, 15. 
 
anselm’s views of redemption. 
 
 515 
 
 reconciled to man, in time, through the blood of Christ. We 
 are not so to think of the Atonement as if God desired blood ; 
 for he loved Man before the Creation of the World, and his 
 love moved him to send his Son. By the death of Christ* we 
 are reconciled to God, not as if God then tirst began to love 
 us, but ice are reconciled to God, with whom we were in a 
 state of enmity through Sin. 
 
 At the beginning of this Period, the mythical view which 
 had spread widely in the former period, was in the ascendant, 
 that God must satisfy Satan’s claims, who had attained by sin 
 the right of possession over mankind. But Anselm, partly in 
 opposition to this view, first systematically presented and 
 elaborated the doctrine of the Atonement, so that his teaching 
 forms a period in its history. In his treatise Cur Deus Homo , 
 which treats on the subject, he gives evidence how much it 
 then occupied men’s minds, and how generally the spirit of 
 religious inquiry was spread abroad. Not merely educated 
 persons, but even the uneducated inquired respecting it, and 
 sought for a rational confirmation of it, He strove to prove 
 the contents of his own Christian consciousness in the objective 
 necessity for them felt by Reason. He proposes the question. 
 Could not God, by a mere act of his will, remit the sins of u. 
 Men? and replies,—We must not think of the Will of God as 
 arbitrary, but in unison with his wisdom and holiness. So 
 if a man says, God could lie if he would, we observe in 
 such language a contradictio in adjecto. Hence God cannot 
 allow sin to go unpunished ; for this would be, as if he made 
 no difference between the sinful and the righteous. Punish¬ 
 ment belongs to the objectivity of the idea of Sin.t Anselm 
 had a profound apprehension of sin, in opposition to the one¬ 
 sided mode, in a former age, of contemplating the relation of 
 the divine love to sin. Either man freely renders to God the 
 due obedience, or God subjects him against his will, when he 
 punishes him, and shows himself as the Lord of the Creature, 
 so that Man against his will must acknowledge this lordship. 
 
 * Tract, in Joann. 110, § 6. 
 
 f Si Deo nihil majus, aut melius est, nihil justius, quam quae 
 honorem illius servat in rerum dispositione summa justitia, quae non 
 est aliud quam ipse Deus. Nihil ergo servat Deus justius quam suae 
 dignitatis honorem.—Necesse est ergo, ut aut ablatus honor salvator, 
 et poena sequator: alioquin aut sibi ipsi Deus justus non erit, aut ad 
 utrumque impotens erit, quod nefas est vel cogitare. 
 
 L L 2 
 
516 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Anselm recognizes, therefore, in punishment the power of the 
 divine Law, which, when voluntary submission is not given, pro¬ 
 duces a forced one.* He considers all punishment as ulti¬ 
 mately ordained by God; even that which depends on human 
 government, has only so far its real significance: for govern¬ 
 ment is ordained by God to administer justice. Sin is nothing 
 else, but not rendering to God what a rational creature ought 
 to render him. Every created will ought to be subject to the 
 divine will; only such performs works acceptable to God. 
 Since the essence of Sin lies in the opposition of the creature’s 
 will against God, the mere outward act in it makes no differ¬ 
 ence. Sooner must the world sink in ruins than that the least 
 thing should take place against God’s will. Now Man, who 
 does not render to God what is his due, and withholds it 
 through sin, is in debt; and not only what he has withheld, but 
 also a satisfaction, is required from him. The law cf the 
 divine government demands either a satisfaction for sin, or 
 punishment. If this were not effected, confusion would be 
 permanent in the kingdom of God. Besides, man in his 
 impurity could not enter into the communion of the holy, 
 whose blessedness consists in this, that all their wants have- 
 been satisfied, and hence only the pure can hope for it. 
 A nselm supposes some one to say from the ascetic standpoint, 
 Do I not honour God in abstinence, labour, self-denial, and 
 obedience ? He replies ;—Supposing Man has never committed 
 sin, yet he owes all this ; but he cannot render it, on account of 
 his criminal inability. But one man must render an equiva¬ 
 lent, since sin proceeded, in the first instance, from one; and 
 what he renders must be something exalted above the Creation : 
 therefore no other than God himself can render it.f But 
 
 * Sicut homo peccando rapit, quod Dei est, ita Deus puniendo 
 aufert, quod hominis est. Quoniam ergo homo ita factus est, ut beati- 
 tudinem habere posset, si non peccaret, quum propter peccatum beati- 
 ludine et omni bono privatur, de suo, quamvis invitus solvit quod 
 rapuit; quia licet Deus hoc ad usum sui commodi non transferat, quod 
 *ufert, sicut homo pecuniam, quam alii aufert, in suam convertit 
 utilitatem; hoc tamen, quod aufert, utitur in suum honorem per hoc 
 ^uia aufert. Auferendo enim peccatorem et quee illius sunt, subjectu 
 *ibi esse probat. 
 
 *t Hoc fieri nequit, nisi sit, qui solvat Deo pro peccato hominis 
 aliquid majus, quam omne quod prseter Deum est. Ilium quaque, qui 
 de suo poterit Deo dare aliquid quod superet omne quod sub Deo est, 
 majorem esse necesse est, quam omne quod non est Deus. Niliil 
 
ANSELM’S VIEWS OF REDEMPTION. 
 
 517 
 
 satisfaction must also be rendered by one who was Man, silica 
 otherwise it could be of no service to man; accordingly it 
 must be accomplished by a God-man. Christ was not subject 
 to death on account of Sin, but voluntarily submitted to it. 
 The notion is to be rejected that he arbitrarily sought to die, 
 or that God arbitrarily doomed him ~to die; we must dis¬ 
 tinguish what Christ did in virtue of his obedience in the 
 discharge of his duty, and what he suffered when it came upon 
 him in consequence of this obedience.* Death came upon 
 him as a divine ordinance to which he surrendered himself, 
 since he completed his obedience by suffering. Therefore the 
 ethical and historical point of view precedes the higher dog¬ 
 matic. Christ suffered death voluntarily, not that he was 
 obedient in that he died, but in meeting death in the steadfast 
 observance of obedience to God. Anselm contrasts Christ’s 
 conflicts with the sin of the first man; the latter yielded to 
 the enticements of pleasure, Christ conquered Evil under the 
 severest sufferings. God owed him a recompence for this ; he 
 could not give it to Christ himself, because he was all-suffi¬ 
 cient ; but Christ could transfer it to others, to all who are in 
 communion with him. The life of Christ, says Anselm, was a 
 life of infinite loveliness, and his death contained more than 
 was necessary for all the sins of the world. Again, although 
 Christ endured all kind of suffering, yet he was not to be 
 called miserable, for as mere profit ( commodum ) is not essential 
 to happiness, so it is not to be called Misery when any one 
 endures outward suffering, according to his own wisdom, volun¬ 
 tarily. From the whole, it appears that Anselm affirms the 
 necessity of a satis/actio vicaria activa. The realization of 
 the moral Law, which was necessary for filling up the chasm 
 between God and Man, and the satisfaction, consists in active 
 obedience, and by it punishment is at the same time rendered 
 superfluous. We do not find in his writings the doctrine of a 
 satisf actio passiva; he nowhere says that Christ had endured 
 the punishment of men. He further proposes the question, 
 
 autem est supra omne quod Deus non est, nisi Deus. Non ergo potest 
 hanc satisfactionem facere nisi Deus. Sed nec facere illam debet nisi 
 homo alioquin non satisfacit homo. Ergo necesse est, ut eum faciat 
 Deus homo. 
 
 * Ipse sponte sustinuit mortem, non per obedientiam deserendi 
 viam, sed propter obedientiam servandi justitiam, in qua tarn fortiter 
 perseverant, ut inde mortem incurreret. 
 
518 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 whether any other being than God, for example, an Angel, 
 could have accomplished Redemption in union with human 
 nature, and answers it in the negative, since, for the restora¬ 
 tion of Man’s dignity it is proper that he should depend on 
 God alone, and have to thank him alone for everything. If a 
 creature had redeemed him, he would have been dependent on 
 him. It also deserves notice, how he expresses the conscious¬ 
 ness, that no intellectual development wholly corresponds to 
 the nature of the Fact, and that the Life of Christ itself con¬ 
 tains more. There are many other reasons, he says, wliy this 
 method of Redemption was the most suitable, but which are 
 more easily known by the contemplation of the Life of Christ.* 
 For who can explain, how necessary and congruous it was to 
 the divine Wisdom, that the Redeemer not only presented his 
 doctrines to mankind, but also by his life showed what they 
 ought to do ?f 
 
 On comparing Abelard with Anselm, we find in the former 
 more acuteness and clearness, rather than a development pro¬ 
 ceeding from the depths of Christian consciousness. Many 
 things said by the latter he did not understand, because he 
 adhered to the outward form. On the other hand, injustice 
 has frequently been done to him. In a remarkable manner^ 
 he ignores Anselm’s Theory altogether; we cannot even assert, 
 that indirectly he opposes it with conscious design, although 
 he differs from him very much, and advocates the subjective 
 view of tho doctrine of Satisfaction. On the other hand, he 
 agrees with Anselm in rejecting the older mythic representa¬ 
 tion. In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he 
 propounds many questions and difficulties, but without giving 
 any connected development whatever. He asks, why God did 
 not redeem men by his mere will ? why the death of Christ 
 was necessary ? how could it be sufficient for such forgiveness ? 
 The anger of God must be excited so much the more for the 
 crucifixion of his Son, which was a greater sin than that of 
 Adam. How awful it is, that God should require the death of 
 an innocent person for his being reconciled to Man. He 
 expresses himself in the following manner: It appears to me 
 
 * Sunt et alia multa, cur valde convenit, quse facilius et clarius in 
 ejus vita et operibus quam sola ratione monstrari possunt, ii. c. 11. 
 
 t See on the whole of Anselm’s doctrine of Satisfaction, Hasse, ii. 
 485, and Baur’s Lehre v. d. Versohnuns., p. 155. 
 
ABELARD’S VIEWS OF REDEMPTION. 5] 9 
 
 that by the blood of Christ we are so far made righteous, and 
 reconciled to God, as through this special grace of God’s allow¬ 
 ing his Son to assume our nature, he has bound so much the 
 closer in love to himself, so that we, inflamed by such divine 
 beneficence, are no longer afraid in pure love. By the suffer¬ 
 ings of Christ all are justified, inasmuch as they are thereby 
 kindled to greater love. The benefit enjoyed must inflame 
 them more than what is merely hoped for; therefore our 
 redemption rests upon the great love of God revealed to us 
 through the sufferings of Christ, whereby we are brought to 
 the true freedom of the children of God ; but this is equivalent 
 to saying that all proceeds from love, nothing from fear. 
 Redemption, therefore, according to Abelard, consists in this, 
 that God has in this manner assured men of his love, and then 
 by their love in return an impulse is given to all goodness. 
 Accordingly he explains dixcaoavvri in Rom. iii. 25, of the Love 
 of God, and cr ugeo-ig of the forgiveness of sins; through this 
 righteousness, i. e. the love of God, we obtain the forgiveness 
 of sins; justificatio is therefore the consequence of the sub¬ 
 jective appropriation of Redemption. In his Theologia Chris¬ 
 tiana* he gives the following explanation of the design of 
 Christ’s Advent: On this account the divine Wisdom became 
 Man, in order that we might be enlightened by his doctrine 
 and his life, by his sufferings and his death, and by his glori¬ 
 fication ; since he taught us by his sufferings how very much 
 God loves us; by his Resurrection he gives us the pledge of 
 eternal life, and by his Ascension to Heaven he receives our 
 souls to Heaven. Also in his Lectures, t he combated the 
 representation of redemption from Satan’s proprietary right, and 
 said—Christ gave himself for us as a ransom, and pure 
 sacrifice to God, in order to deliver us from the bondage of 
 Sin, and to prove his love unto us. In no other way could 
 this have been adequately done, for since we were to be 
 freed from sin, the example of true virtue must be represented 
 in word and life. Christ died for us, in order to show how 
 great his love was to mankind, and that Love is the essence 
 of Christianity. In his Apology he expresses himself more 
 indefinitely; the Son of God became Man, in order to free us 
 from Sin, and through his death to open for us the entrance 
 to eternal life. 
 
 * Lib. ir. 1308. 
 
 ■f* Sentent. c. 23. 
 
520 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Bernard entered the lists against Abelard,* but without 
 advocating Anselm’s doctrine, and without examining, like 
 these two, the subject in a dialectic manner. To Abelard’s 
 question, Why God has redeemed us through the sufferings of 
 Christ, since it might have been effected by his mere will ?— 
 he replied, Ask himself; for me it is enough that so it was. 
 In reference to the difficulty that God required the blood of 
 an innocent person, he rejoined,—Not Death in itself, but the 
 will of Christ in dying voluntarily, was well pleasing to God, 
 and as this voluntary offering, his Death had its significance 
 in God’s sight, not that he took pleasure in the death of an 
 innocent person. The sin of man gave the occasion, and he 
 accepted the blood, but what he longed for was the salvation 
 of men. He does not represent Abelard’s doctrine suffi 
 ciently in its connexion, and treats it as if he wished to limit 
 Redemption only to Christ’s example and doctrine. What 
 avails the instructions of Christ, he says, without our restora¬ 
 tion ? The example of Christ’s humility and love is a great 
 thing ; but all this we cannot firmly hold if we do not obtain 
 objective Redemption through him. It is in vain, unless the 
 power of sin within us is broken ; and how could Christ benefit 
 infants by his example ? The inscrutable council of God is 
 the precise reason why this Redemption took place. But who 
 can say, that the Almighty could not have chosen another 
 method ? But supposing that possible, the efficiency of this 
 method would lose nothing of its importance; and perhaps it 
 is the most suitable, since by the great sufferings of Christ we 
 are reminded of the depth of our Fall. In his sermons on 
 Solomon’s Song, he gives special prominence to the reason 
 why this form of Redemption was the most suitable. The 
 principal reason why God appeared in human flesh, was, that 
 sensuous man who could not so love him, if he did not present 
 himself to the senses, might be gradually trained through his 
 sensible appearance to the love of his invisible Essence.f 
 In Peter Lombard;}; we find various elements not well 
 digested. He takes no notice of Anselm. Like Augustin, he 
 guards the idea of Atonement against anthropopathic miscon¬ 
 struction, as if God had hated man, and was induced by the 
 Atonement to love him. He adopts the old mythical repre- 
 
 * De Erroribus Abselardi. + Cantica Canticorum Sefmo, 20, § 6. 
 
 f Lib. iii. Distinct. 20. 
 
THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION, ETC. 
 
 521 
 
 sentation; moreover, he terms Christ the only perfect and 
 sufficient sacrifice: by this one sacrifice he has blotted out all 
 the guilt of man. He bore the punishment of our sins, freed 
 us from spiritual, eternal, and temporal punishments, and per¬ 
 fectly fulfilled the law. But Abelard’s view is found close 
 by the side of this, that by so great a pledge of divine love we 
 are impelled to confidence and love towards God, and thereby 
 to holiness. This method of relieving human misery was 
 peculiarly fitted for the purpose; nothing could more move 
 and revive the human heart than the thought that God allowed 
 his Son to share our sufferings. 
 
 Robert Pulleyn says,—It pleased God to connect the 
 redemption of men from Sin with the cost of Christ. He 
 might have redeemed us in a different way, but he chose this 
 method in order to make us sensible of the greatness of his 
 love, and of our sins.* 
 
 Since Anselm’s time, therefore, two opposing views of 
 Redemption were developed; the one party considered the 
 peculiar manner in which it was accomplished as something 
 objectively necessary, and denied its efficiency from this 
 objective nature ; the other supposed a subjective connexion 
 between the two, as if it had pleased God to connect the price 
 of Redemption with the sufferings of Christ, because this was 
 best fitted to effect the moral transformation of men. 
 
 3. THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION, JUSTIFICATION, AND 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 Although the prevailing tendency in the Church life was to 
 externalize, and much that favoured it was imbibed from 
 Scholasticism, yet the leading teachers of Scholasticism are 
 not chargeable with the reproach of setting up a mere out¬ 
 ward sanctity. They sought to impart vitality to the outward; 
 they wished to exhibit the inner process of the development of 
 the Christian life, to prove how it is rooted in the disposition 
 and is connected with Redemption and sanctification, and 
 were very far from being satisfied with a mere faith of autho¬ 
 rity. This is clear from what has already been said in the 
 Introduction, and appears also in their more precise state- 
 
 * Ut quantitate pretii quantitatem nobia sui innotesceret amoris et 
 nostri peccati. 
 
522 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 ments on the various relations of this idea. Anselm com¬ 
 prises the whole doctrine of Faith and Morals, in the question, 
 how Man appropriates Redemption to himself. The doctrine 
 of the Bible throughout consists in showing how we can become 
 partakers of divine Grace, and live under its influence. He 
 says,—■“ The mere idea does not make Faith, although this 
 cannot exist without an object; in order to true faith the 
 right tendency of the will must be added, which grace im¬ 
 parts.”* He distinguishesf between credere Deum, Christum , 
 and credere in Deum, in Christum; the former denotes a mere 
 outward faith which only retains the form ; the latter denotes 
 the true, living faith, which lays hold of communion with 
 God ( credendo tendere in divinam essentiani) : the former is 
 valueless and dead, the latter contains the power of love, and 
 testifies its power and its life by love. The Faith which is 
 connected with Love, cannot be inoperative ; it proves its 
 vitality by so operating. Hugo of St. Victor J develops the 
 general idea of faith in connexion with the religious nature of 
 Man. Faith marks the manner in which invisible blessings 
 dwell within our souls ( quodam modo in nobis subsistunt ), the 
 real vital communion with God, his true existence in the 
 human soul. For divine things cannot be apprehended by 
 us, through the senses, the understanding, or the imagina¬ 
 tion, since they have nothing analogous to all these, but are 
 exalted above all images. The only vehicle of their appro¬ 
 priation is faith. We can have no higher argument for the 
 reality of divine things than Faith, since all that can contri¬ 
 bute to the consciousness of anything, must have a certain 
 analogy to it. Now, like divine things, Faith is exalted 
 above all. Two elements meet in it—the tendency of the 
 disposition, and the matter of cognition. This latter is the 
 objective of Faith, but its essence consists in the tendency of 
 the disposition, and although this is never altogether without 
 the former, yet it constitutes the value of faith. Bernard 
 agrees with Hugo in his view of the nature of Faith, and as 
 
 * De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, c. 6. 
 
 f Monologium, 72, cf. 75.—Ergo quoniam quod aliquid operatur, 
 in esse sibi vitam, sine qua operari non valeret, ostendit, non absurde 
 dicitur operosa tides vivere, quia kabet rectam dilectionis sine qua non 
 operaretur; otiosa tides non vivere quia caret vita dilectionis. 
 
 £ Liebner, p. 435. 
 
ABELARD ON FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 523 
 
 the latter declared himself opposed to the prevalent intel¬ 
 lectual tendency, so also did he. Even now, he says, we 
 often find a great difference of knowledge with equal Faith; 
 many who believe with confidence, have only scanty ideas ; 
 thus many in the Old Testament retained a firm faith in 
 God, expected certain redemption from him, and received 
 salvation by this faith, although they knew not when and how 
 Salvation would come to them. 
 
 Abelard’s expressions are also important.* Faith, he 
 says, always refers to the Invisible, never to the Visible. 
 But how is this ? when Christ said to Thomas, “ Because 
 thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” What Thomas saw 
 before him was one thing ; what he believed was another. 
 He confessed the man whom he saw to be the Lord, in whom 
 he believed. He saw the flesh, but he believed in the God 
 veiled in the flesh. We have noticed, that in opposition to 
 the quantitative valuation of good works, he strongly urged 
 that everything depended on the disposition. Only to it he 
 ascribed a merit before God, since the rest depended on cir¬ 
 cumstances. When attacked on this subject, he explained 
 himself in his apology : I confess, he said, that all who are 
 equal in love to God and their neighbour, are equally good, 
 and equally meritorious, and that the same merit remains 
 although the intention of the good will is hindered in the 
 execution. 
 
 Not merely Abelard, but also most of the other Schoolmen 
 understood by Justijicatio per jidem not objective Justification, 
 but a subjective character of the disposition, which proceeds 
 from Faith, the true inward sanctification in Love which 
 arises out of Faith. But this subjective view did not satisfy 
 many ; it gave no certainty ; it tended in part to an ascetic 
 life, or to a one-sided state of feeling; in part it prompted to 
 a firm attachment to the priesthood as the source of grace. 
 Bernard, on the other hand, was led by the experiences of 
 bis life to a more objective view,—“ No one is without Sin ;f 
 for all righteousness it is enough for me that He is gracious 
 to me who has redeemed me. Christ is not merely righteous,^ 
 
 * Sentent. c. 4. + Sermo on Solomon’s Song, 23, § 15. 
 
 f Ibid. 22, § 8.—Qufftn ob rem quisquis pro peccatis compunctua 
 C 3 urit et sitit justitiam credat in te, qui justificas iinpium et solum 
 
524 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 but righteousness itself. He who is justified from his sins 
 and strives after the holiness without which no man can see th6 
 Lord, listens to the call, ‘ Be ye holy, for I am holy.’ The 
 heavenly birth is the eternal Predestination by which God has 
 loved Man.” He urges that the divine Intuition is not 
 bounded by Time, and takes no notice of it; in it those are 
 exhibited as sinle’ss who pass through life in a progressive 
 purification. In other passages he mingles the Subjective 
 and the Objective ;* Fear precedes in order that Justification 
 may follow. Lastly, the righteous live by faith, but doubtless 
 it is the faith that works by love. Alanus also approximates 
 to the objective view when he raises the question,f—Why do 
 we speak of Justification by faith, and not by love ? He an¬ 
 swers,—because Justification proceeds from the grace to which 
 Faith directs us. Robert Pulleyn thus develops the doc¬ 
 trine. The righteous man living in the Lord, already sancti¬ 
 fied by faith, receives good works as marks of his faith and 
 righteousness, and of growth in them ; not as if his righteous¬ 
 ness was increased by his works, but Faith begets the internal 
 righteousness, and from this the good works proceed. But 
 faith must always increase, so that a Christian becomes clearer 
 in knowledge as he becomes warmer in love. A dead Faith 
 is idle; even the wicked possess it; true Faith is always 
 active. 
 
 The Scholastic doctrine on this point received a fixed form 
 through Peter Lombard. I He makes a threefold distinction 
 in Faith ; Deum credere , Deo credere , and in Deum or Christum 
 credere. The two first amount merely to holding a thing to 
 be true ; but the last is the Faith by which we enter into 
 communion with God. With such a faith Love is necessarily 
 connected, and this faith alone is justifying. Love is the 
 effect of this faith, and the ground of the whole Christian life. 
 Applying to Faith the Aristotelian distinction between the 
 Form as the formative principle (flhog, forma), and the inor¬ 
 ganic material determined by it materies), Peter dis¬ 
 
 tinguishes faith as the qualitas mentis inf or mis, the mere 
 material of Faith, and the fides formata, when the vivifying 
 power of Love is added to it, which forms and determines it. 
 
 justificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum. Qui ergo justificati a 
 peccatis sectari desiderant sanctimoniam, &c. 
 
 * Ep. 107, § 4. 4 Regula, 93. + Sentent. iii. Dist. 28. 
 
 r 
 
THE RELATION OF GRACE AND FREEDOM. 
 
 525 
 
 The Fides formata is true Virtue, and this Faith, active 
 through Love, alone justifies.* 
 
 4. THE RELATION OF GRACE AND FREEDOM. 
 
 The Dialectics employed by the Schoolmen were capable of 
 maintaining in form the co-operation of Grace and of Free 
 Will, but they were too much prejudiced in favour of the 
 Augustinian doctrine, to recognize a real importance in free 
 Self-determination, and hence their language was not free 
 from ambiguities. Anselm, following Aristotle f distin¬ 
 guishes between <3uva/x/£ and svigysia, that is, potentia and 
 actus. No capability of a created being can by itself be 
 rendered efficient without outward influences, which allow the 
 potentia to become actus ; but still the capability exists. The 
 Eye sees only by virtue of the Sunlight; yet even in the dark 
 the eye has the capability of seeing. Thus the corrupt Will 
 always retains the capability for goodness, although they can 
 be rendered efficient by the entrance of the gratia ejjicax. 
 
 Robert Pulleyn says, As often as Grace offers itself to any 
 one, he either acts so as to co-operate with grace, or rejecting 
 it, he persists in doing evil. Grace is the first cause of all 
 good ; a share also belongs to Free Will, but it is subordinate. 
 The meritum of it is, when it ceases to withstand the divine 
 Will. According to this we might suppose that this School¬ 
 man ascribed some power to Free Will, and did not admit 
 gratia irresistibilis. But everything turns on his idea of 
 Freedom; he might conceive of it in opposition to mere 
 outward compulsion, and make it consist in this, that a 
 development takes place only from the internal nature of Man, 
 so he believes himself free to act because he is wholly deter¬ 
 mined from himself; yet this would allow of his being- 
 determined by a higher necessity. In fact it was Pulleyn s 
 opinion that when efficacious grace is communicated by God to 
 Man, it so attracts his Free Will, that he follows it without 
 opposition. Although Grace recovers him who errs, it does 
 not force him against his will, but is so powerful, that it can 
 convert the most perverse. Accordingly Free Will is still only 
 
 * Fides quam ipsi dsemones et falsi Christiani kabent, qualitas mentis 
 est, sed informis quia sine caritate est.—Ibid. 
 
 f De Libero Arbitrio, and De Concordia Preescientiae et Praedestina- 
 tionis, Gratiae et Liberi Arbitrii. 
 
526 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the form of grace operating irresistibly as stated in Augustin, 
 and in the book, De vocatione gentium. 
 
 Among the Mystics, who attach greater importance to the 
 practical, we might expect that Free Will would be more 
 strongly asserted ; but in Bernard of Clairvaux,* it is only 
 the appearance of a Freedom conditioning Grace. We become 
 attached to goodness and advanced in it by Grace. Take 
 away Free Will, and there is nothing which can be led to 
 salvation; take away Grace, and the cause of salvation is 
 wanting. Deliverance cannot be effected, unless both are 
 there. God is the Author of Salvation, Free Will is only 
 susceptible of it; it co-operates with Grace, since it suffers 
 itself to be saved. Hence God can only so operate on Men, 
 because they are endowed with Free Will. Bernard contrasts 
 freedom with the compulsion of sin and of misery ; the first 
 kind is the freedom of Nature ; the second the freedom of 
 Grace ; and the third the freedom of Glory. Grace aims at 
 arousing the free will. Man is not saved against his Will; 
 for if the Will is changed from evil to good, Freedom is not 
 taken away ; it is only transformed. He presupposes in this, 
 that the nature of the Will was originally a free criminality 
 and a consequence of original Sin. Yet his representation, 
 taken altogether, leads to the Augustinian view. Btchard of 
 St. Victor, in his work, On the state of the inner man , says ;t 
 How can the Will of Man be other than truly free ? and will 
 not allow it to be called enslaved. Grace is often offered 
 freely to the careless ; often it is suddenly withdrawn from our 
 efforts. Free Will can win grace, and grace win it; grace may 
 be withdrawn from it, because it is never found without fault. 
 Notwithstanding these strong expressions, Btchard also 
 occupies the Augustinian standpoint. 
 
 Just so Peter Bombard, in whose writings besides, we first 
 find the distinction between gratia gratis dans and gratia 
 gratis data, which was afterwards applied in various ways by 
 the Schoolmen. The first is the efficient principle of grace, 
 grace as imparting, or God himself; the second is grace 
 imparted, the divine as the animating principle of life ( qualitas 
 informans), the disposition brought into existence by God : 
 true internal Virtue.J 
 
 * De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio. 
 
 f De Statu Interioria Homiuis, P. i. Tract, i. c. 23, 
 
 t Lib. ii. Dist 27. 
 
HUGO OF ST. VICTOR AND PETER LOMBARD. 
 
 527 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The peculiar catholic element of the Middle Ages is very 
 prominent in the statements which expressed the development 
 this doctrine had attained. The Schoolmen could not but 
 place what they found in the Church doctrine, in connexion 
 with their fundamental principles : this was not done pur¬ 
 posely by them, but their own religious life was determined by 
 the spirit of the Church. But under the influence of their 
 principles, differences were now formed among them, and 
 especially in this earlier period of Scholasticism: hence also 
 many traces of Christian truth may be noticed, which were at 
 variance with the prevalent doctrine. The Schoolmen accept¬ 
 ed the Augustinian definition of the Sacraments, but it did not 
 fully satisfy them. The definition which they desired, needed 
 to contain everything~which at that time was supposed to 
 belong to the idea and to the efficiency of the Sacraments. 
 Ift'GO of St. Victor** defines a Sacrament as materiale 
 elementum ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione signi - 
 fie am , ex sanctijwatione continents aliquam invisibilem et 
 spiritalem gratiam. A Sacrament, therefore, is distinguished 
 fTom all other Holy symbols by the following particulars: in 
 file first place, it must have a close analogy with the thing 
 represented; secondly, it must have been selected by Christ 
 for that purpose, in order to represent this definite object, 
 thirdly, this invisible divine operation, its magical operation, 
 is really transferred to the outward sign, inasmuch as the 
 outward sign acts by itself, for which purpose it was insti¬ 
 tuted. Here we have the foundation of the whole Catholic 
 idea of 'the-“Sacraments. In the Summci sententiorum , he 
 says,t The Sacrament is visibHis forma, invisibilis gratice , in eo 
 collates. Here we see the same characteristic, that the 
 invisibilis gratia is really communicated to the outward sign. 
 Peter Lombard expresses himself to the same effect; “ the 
 Sacrament presents an image of Grace and the cause of it.” 
 Hugo, in his treatise, De Sacramentis fdei, distinguishes three 
 
 * De Sacram. lib. i. p. ix. 2. Compare Summa Tract, ii. 1 ; Liebner, 
 p. 423. 
 
 f Sent. iv. 1. — Sacramentum proprie dicitur, quod ita signum est 
 gratia? Dei et invisibilis gratke forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa 
 existat. 
 
528 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 classes of Sacraments: the first, those on which salvation 
 especially depends (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) ; tire 
 second, those which are not necessary to salvation, but yet 
 useful for sanctification ; the number of these is indefinite; 
 and thirdly, that which serves to qualify for the administra¬ 
 tion of the other Sacraments,—priestly Ordination. 
 
 The Schoolmen inquired on what account such signs were 
 necessary for Christianity, and endeavoured to explain why so 
 much efficacy was attributed to the Sacraments. Hugo alleges 
 the following reasons—since Man had estranged himself from 
 internal communion with God, and dissipated himself in the 
 outward world, he must be led back through the outward to 
 the inward. Moreover, since Man fell by Pride, he must be 
 led back to God by self-humiliation, which consisted in his 
 receiving from these outward things what was necessary for his 
 inward life. Robert Pulleyn also adduced the last reason; 
 through Pride man fell, his salvation must proceed from the 
 opposite quarter. The rational Man who was destined to rule 
 over Nature, must humble himself before the sensible ele¬ 
 ments, to receive grace through them. We here recognize the 
 lowering of the idea of Humility to an outward act. 
 
 If, on the one hand, Schoolmen were led to attach too much 
 importance to outward things, on the other hand, they were 
 led to a reaction against this externalisation, and guarded 
 themselves against further excesses in this respect. Hugo of 
 St. Victor says, Man must seek his salvation in these things,** 
 but not from them ; he derives the saving efficacy, not frojp 
 the element as such, for the cause of it is only God, and he 
 seeks for salvation, not from the sacraments, but from him, 
 though he receives it in them. The external part of the 
 Sacraments is therefore only the medium of salvation. 
 
 The question was raised, what relation the operation of the 
 Sacraments had to Faith? and on this point the principles of 
 the Schoolmen led them to make many remarks which were at 
 variance with the Church views. Robert Pulleyn says,— 
 outward baptism only represents that which Faith effects at 
 baptism ; faith blots out sins ; baptism indicates this. Hugo 
 disputes the unconditional necessity of outward Sacraments ; 
 as, where there is Love, the meritum of man is not lost, 
 although the good work cannot be performed, so the operation 
 of Salvation is not obstructed if the longing after the Sacra- 
 
THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 529 
 
 ment is present in the heart. Here, therefore, is the doctrine 
 that' in such cases the votum occupies the place of the Sacra¬ 
 ment. Unly since it is the divine appointment that this 
 saving operation is to be received through the medium of the 
 Sacraments, a contempt of the divine appointment tends to 
 perdition, if it be neglected when there is a possibility of 
 attending to it. 
 
 The Number of the Sacraments. Although the applica¬ 
 tion of the idea of a Sacrament was still undetermined, yet we 
 fincf'"that Baptism and the Supper, Confirmation, Penance , 
 Ordination , and also Marriage, were already universally acknow¬ 
 ledged as Sacraments. One more was still wanting in the early 
 ages, the unctio extrema. Yet traces are found that in anti¬ 
 quity sick persons, while prayer was offered for them, were 
 anointed with oil, a usage which received support from the 
 Epistle of James v., and the Gospel of Mark xvi. . When 
 after the irruption of the barbarous tribes, the Church was 
 established among them, it w T as needful to counteract the 
 heathen usages of amulets and charms, and anointing was 
 chosen in order to substitute a Christian usage. The newly 
 converted nations were required to adopt the Christian rite. 
 At first the Laity were allowed to give Extreme Unction, but 
 afterwards it was confined to the Priests. The Council of 
 Pavia (a.d. 850), says in its eighth Canon, that holy Sacra¬ 
 ment, enjoined by James, is to be more distinctly acknow¬ 
 ledged by Christian communities; when desired with Faith, 
 it effects the forgiveness of sins, and the bodily health can be 
 restored. Thus this ceremony was added as a seventh Sacra¬ 
 ment. Damiani, who enumerates twelve Sacraments, men¬ 
 tions among them the Extreme Unction.* PIugo expresses 
 himself indeterminately ; but the first who publicly taught in 
 the Church the doctrine of Seven Sacraments, is Otto of 
 Bamberg, the Apostle of the Pommeranians ; he mentions 
 this number in a catechetical discourse which he delivered in 
 Pommerania,f a.d. 1124. Peter Lombard adheres to the 
 number of seven— baptismus, confirmatio, eucharistice, pceni- 
 tentia, unctio extrema , ordo, conjugium.% Of the unctio extrema 
 
 * Sermo, 69. 
 
 t Gieseler, in kis Church History (II. ii. 453), doubts the credibility 
 of the account, since the Discourse which the biographer communicates 
 is scarcely genuine.— [Jacobi.] 4 lib iv. Dist. 2. 
 
 M M 
 
530 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 he says, that if the Sacrament be administered with devotion 
 and Faith, the Man will thereby be relieved both in Body 
 and Soul: if it do not contribute to the health of the Body, it 
 will to that of the Soul. 
 
 1. OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In defining the terms used respecting this Sacrament, much 
 difficulty was found in settling the relation of the res sacra- 
 menti to the sacramentum. The question was proposed, how 
 this effect could take place in unconscious infants, in order to 
 explain the fate of unbaptised children who were believed to 
 be lost. The Catharist sects in their polemics,* aimed to set 
 aside the proofs adduced from passages of Scripture ; they 
 either impugned the Sacrament of Baptism altogether, and 
 regarded John’s as the only Water-baptism, while they asserted 
 that Christ’s baptism was the baptism of the Spirit, and that 
 it consisted according to the consolamentum, + in the imparta- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands; or they 
 rejected Infant Baptism, and retained only the Baptism of 
 adults. 
 
 2. OF THE lord’s SUPPER. 
 
 In the Berengarian controversy the doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation was victorious, yet there were not a few symptoms of a 
 continued reaction. Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Hugo, 
 occupied themselves with refuting the opinion that the Body 
 was present, non re neqae vera citer, sed significatione. The 
 Bread in the Supper was only called the body of Christ in 
 the same manner as Christ is also called a Bock. Peter 
 Lombard says, that the advocates of the merely spiritual Pre¬ 
 sence appeal to the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel. The 
 Catharists of the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries also attacked 
 the Church doctrine; they either explained everything in the 
 Lord’s Supper as only symbolical; that Christ by his body 
 and blood only intended his doctrine and his words, which 
 would be Bread and Wine for the soul; or they admitted 
 merely a spiritual presence of Christ, and in interpreting the 
 
 * Chr. U. Hahn Geschichte der Ketzer in Mittelalter beg. im. 11,12, 
 ] 3 Jabrh. (History of the Heresies in the Middle Ages, particularly in 
 the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries), 2 vols. 1845, 1847. 
 
 t A Catharist, Ritual, edited by E. Kunitz, 1852, p. 23, 59. 
 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 531 
 
 Words of the Institution gave similar explanations to those 
 which were afterwards brought forward at the Reformation. 
 They appealed to John vi., “ the flesh profiteth nothing,” or 
 understood the words fouro sen as used dsrx.rix.ug, so that 
 Christ indicated by them his own proper body. Many under¬ 
 stood the doctrine thus, that the mode is marked out by which 
 the Natural is sanctified through Christianity, the sanctification 
 of our daily food by Faith and Prayer. Peter of Bruis * even 
 maintained, that the Supper was not instituted by Christ as a 
 rite of perpetual observation ; that he only once distributed his 
 body and blood among his disciples. This expression is 
 obscure; perhaps he meant to say that Christ had observed 
 this rite once for all. The Polemics of those schoolmen were 
 directed, perhaps, not merely against these sects, but against 
 persons within the pale of the Church who adhered to similar 
 opinions. Abelard says, that the important controversy 
 whether the Bread was merely a symbol or the substance of 
 the Body, had not yet terminated. Zacharias of Chryso- 
 poxis remarks: there were some who can scarcely be found 
 out who agreed with the condemned Berengarius, and yet 
 joined the Church in censuring him, but only because he had 
 rejected the form of the Church Terminology, and expressed 
 himself so barely. He did not follow the usage of Holy 
 Writ, which often puts the symbol of a thing for the thing 
 itself. He should not have raised a discussion on this subject. 
 Among the mystical Theologians, such as Rupert of Deutz, 
 who otherwise were faithful to the Church doctrine, we find 
 here a near approach to a spiritual view. He impugns those 
 who maintained that the unworthy receive at the Lord’s Sup¬ 
 per only the Jigura or signum corporis Christi. He speaks of a 
 translatio and conversio —that the Bread is not merely in name 
 the Body of Christ, but in effect. Yet he says,—It is not the 
 method of the Holy Spirit to annihilate the substance which 
 he appropriates for his own gifts; the substance in an invisi¬ 
 ble manner is potentiated, so as to be what it was not before. 
 He compares the union of the bread and wine with the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, to the union of the divine and human 
 natures in Christ. His remarks favour the notion that the 
 
 * Petri Venerab. Abl. Cluniac. ep. ad Arelatensem, &c. Epiecop. adv, 
 Petrobrusianos Bibl. Patr. Lugduu. xxii. 1033. Hahn, i. 408, Gieseler, 
 Kirchenges. II. ii. 536. 
 
 M M 2 
 
532 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 substance of the bread and wine was penetrated by the body 
 and blood of Christ connecting themselves with it. Bernard 
 of Clairvaux, in his life of Malachias, Archbishop of 
 Armagh, makes mention of an Irish clergyman, who would 
 not recognise the true body of Christ in the Supper, but only 
 a sanctifying power. It is remarkable that in many pious 
 men of this age doubts were raised respecting Transubstan- 
 tiation, and this was the central point of the temptations with 
 which they had to combat. But this doctrine was connected 
 with the whole standpoint of the age, with the one-sided pre¬ 
 dominant supernatural element, the tendency to the Magical. 
 The perpetual self-humiliation of Christ was contemplated as 
 in the culminating point of grace and of miracle ; the Priest¬ 
 hood was placed here as the organ of mediating between hea¬ 
 ven and earth, and thus we may say, that the peculiar spirit 
 of the Middle Ages gave objectivity to its essential charac¬ 
 teristic in this doctrine. Hence, if a doubt arose respecting 
 it, it proceeded in many instances, not from a reaction of a 
 pure and Christian consciousness, but from a one-sided direc¬ 
 tion of the Understanding, which would have extended itself 
 by logical development to other objects of Faith. When in 
 such conflicts, the doctrine of Transubstantiation maintained 
 its ground, it was regarded as a victory of the Christian stand¬ 
 point over that of the world. For one who lived in the pecu¬ 
 liar spiritual atmosphere of the Middle Ages, as in his native 
 element, it was necessary to conceive of the Presence of Christ 
 in the Supper after such a mode, and the Schoolmen were 
 completely imbued with this form of feeling and thinking. 
 The dialectic development which they gave it, had only the 
 merit of greater spirituality, and of purifying the representation 
 from many monstrosities. Anselm* writes to an Abbot,—The 
 design of the Supper is to connect the believer in body and 
 soul with Christ. Does any one ask, how the unchangeable 
 body of Christ can be masticated by the teeth ? I answer, that 
 must be left to God. The Substance of the bread and wine 
 is not left behind, but the marks of their outward appearance, 
 and thus something might be done which did not affect that 
 which was their substratum. In saying this, he allows the 
 distinction of the res sacrcvmenti and jigura. After the con¬ 
 secration the Bread and Wine might be still called figura , 
 
 * Epp. lib. iv, 106, 107. 
 
INFANT COMMUNION. 
 
 533 
 
 since the eye of Faith saw one thing, and Unbelief an¬ 
 other. Hildebart of Mans was the first who used the 
 term Transubstantiatio; he strove to soften the coarseness of 
 the representation. Although Christ according to his human 
 nature is in Heaven, yet he imparts himself to us daily ; his 
 Body is spiritual food, and operates spiritually in us. The 
 Nature of Body itself forbids Ubiquity; but Christ’s Body is 
 present on every Altar by a supernatural agency. Hugo 
 says : only the sensuous man will ask, what becomes of the 
 Body of Christ at the Supper; his bodily presence serves only 
 for the advantage of men, and that so long as the sensible dis¬ 
 tribution lasts, after that the spiritual Presence is experienced. # 
 Peter Lombard brings forward various opinions without a 
 definite decision of his own ; he rather inclines to the view 
 that the accidentia are sine subjecto, and to this decision the 
 Schoolmen were driven, when they maintained Transubstan- 
 tiation and yet shunned the transference of sensuous changes 
 and coarse expressions to the Body of Christ, or when they 
 were not willing to admit that what was an object of the senses 
 in the Supper was merely apparent and docetic. At the 
 Lateran Council, a.d. 1215, Transubstantiation was declared 
 to be an article of faith by Innocent I1I.+ 
 
 The practice of Infant Communion continued in the West¬ 
 ern Church to the twelfth century. The more palpable dis¬ 
 tinction between the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s 
 Supper necessarily effected an alteration, and the Scholastic 
 Age was suited to make the distinction a matter of conscious¬ 
 ness. Yet the discontinuance of the practice was owing first 
 of - all, not from a purely dogmatic interest, but from a super¬ 
 stitious motive, from a fear of spilling the wine in administer¬ 
 ing it to children. Among those who endeavoured to settle 
 the question was Hugo of St. Victor :J he says, this Sacra¬ 
 ment must be given to new-born children in the form of blood 
 (in specie sanguinis) by the finger of the Priest, since they 
 naturally suck. He quotes a passage from Augustin, in 
 which Infant Communion is prescribed. If, he says, in pre¬ 
 senting it to children any danger should arise, it should 
 
 * De Sacram. ii. p. viii. c. 6. 
 
 *t Transubstantiatur Panis in Corpus Christi, &c. potestate divina. 
 
 t De Sacramentis Cseremoniis, &c. i. c, 20. Neander’s Ch. H. vii. 
 
 475. 
 
534 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 rather be omitted; nor let us be alarmed by Augustin, for 
 Augustin himself says that it cannot be doubted that every 
 one who has been made a member of the Body of Christ by 
 Baptism also has a share in his Body and Blood. Thus the 
 practice fell into desuetude. 
 
 Withholding of the Cup. —In the earlier Church no 
 trace is found of any other than the full participation of the 
 Lord’s Supper according to the words of the Institution. It 
 was a mark of Manicheism if any one at the public celebra¬ 
 tion of it refused the wine; and Leo the Great threatened 
 such persons with Excommunication.* * * § Gelasius expressed 
 himself likewise against it. In a passage which Gratian has 
 preservedf he says—We have been informed that some persons 
 wish to partake of the Body of Christ without the Cup; they 
 ought rather to keep back from the Sacrament, since they can¬ 
 not partake of it without committing a great Sacrilege. Only 
 one exception appears in ancient times, when the consecrated 
 bread was taken home for daily use, or when the wine alone 
 was given to very young children. The superstitious anxiety 
 not to spill any of the Wine, which was increased by the doc¬ 
 trine of Transubstantiation, first of all led to giving the sick 
 only bread dipped in Wine. And thus at the beginning of 
 the twelfth century in England, it was here and there the 
 custom to give dipped bread to the laity at the usual commu¬ 
 nion : one Lambert opposed this practice, but Arnold, bishop 
 of Rochester, J and Rudolph, Abbot of Cologne,§ defended it. 
 Yet Paschal II. declared || that no human innovation should 
 be introduced; Bread and Wine were each communicated by 
 the Lord, and hence the custom must be retained in the 
 Church. But now the idea of the Priesthood and of a Sacri¬ 
 fice exerted a greater influence, and it appeared enough if 
 only the Priests partook of it. The change, too, was pro¬ 
 moted by the doctrine which ascribed power to the Church 
 to make changes in the administration of the Sacraments. 
 The Schoolmen contributed their share also to make the with¬ 
 holding of the cup more general, since they developed the 
 doctrine of the concomitantia corporis et sanguinis Ghristi; 
 
 * Sermo. 41. 
 
 t Decretum Gratiania, p. iii. De Consecratione Distinct, ii. c. 12. 
 
 $ D’Achery Spicilegium. ii. p. 470. 
 
 § Bona de Rebus Liturgicis. 
 
 II Ep. 32. 
 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 535 
 
 that is, the position, that in either of the two forms the other 
 was contained. Although the Body and Blood, says Anselm,* 
 are taken separately, yet the whole Christ is received only 
 once, and not twice. The divided participation is not accord- 
 ing-to-'the example of Christ, who intended to show that 
 believers must be joined to Christ both in soul and body. 
 Anselm, therefore, does not say that one form is not suffi¬ 
 cient; but he would have both forms administered, because 
 Christ so instituted it. Also Peter Lombard says—Christ 
 is to be taken in a double form, in order to show that Re¬ 
 demption relates to the whole Man, to the Body and to the 
 Soul; only we are not to imagine that in the bread merely 
 the Body is taken. The first advocate of withholding the 
 cup is Robert Pulleyn ;f in order that Christ’s appoint¬ 
 ment in reference to the Sacrament should not be altered, it 
 is only necessary for the Priest to take the Body and Blood 
 separately. According to the appointment of the Church, 
 which might be altered at its pleasure, the Body only is 
 given to the Laity, in order that the Blood may not be spilt. 
 Nor do they lose anything thereby, since the Blood is given 
 with the Body. To persons dangerously ill the Blood only 
 might perhaps be given; they would still receive enough. 
 
 Folmar, head of the monastery of Traufenstein, in Fran¬ 
 conia, in the twelfth century, declared himself against the 
 doctrine of the Concomitantia; he appears to have been a 
 man disposed to free inquiry, who was disgusted with the 
 superstitious legends, and attempted to form a different con¬ 
 ception of the presence of Christ in the Supper; but he was 
 hampered by reference to the Church, and never attained to 
 clear views. After the ascension Christ appeared no longer 
 corporeally on earth; a ubiquity of his Body is inadmissible. 
 After its connexion with the divine nature the human still 
 retained its natural qualities, and a human Body could not be 
 in two places at once. This might have led him further, but 
 he did not draw the consequences ; he only maintained that 
 in the Bread was contained the true Body of Christ, but with¬ 
 out the bodily members, and the Blood of Christ in the Wine, 
 but without the Flesh. The whole Christ was indeed present 
 in both forms, but not in all his parts (totus sed non totwn).% 
 
 * Ep. 107. t Sentent. p. viii. c. 3. 
 
 X Pezii Thesaurus Anecd. I. p. ii. 221. Biblioth. Patr. Lugd. t. xxv. 
 
536 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 His distinction of the natura verbi et corporis led also to this 
 point, and brought upon him the charge of Nestorianisn. 
 As his opponent, Gerhoit of Reichersberg, maintained the 
 ubiquity of the Body, he, on the other hand, was charged 
 with Eutychianism. 
 
 The Sacrifice of the Mass.—Peter Lombard calls the 
 Sacrifice of the Mass the memoria and representatio of the 
 Sacrifice of Christ. Christ was daily sacrificed in a Sacra- 
 ihental manner. The Sacrifice of Christ himself was not 
 repeated, for as there was only one Body of Christ, so there 
 was only one Sacrifice ; but on account of the weakness of 
 men this Sacramental offering was made.*' The doctrine of the 
 Sacrifice of the Mass acquired a special importance from its 
 connexion with Penance and the forgiveness of Sins commit¬ 
 ted after Baptism. But the doctrine of Penance stands again 
 in close connexion with that of Purgatory, f 
 
 3. PENANCE. 
 
 Peter Lombard divides this Sacrament into three parts. 
 I. The Compunctio cordis; II. The Confessio oris; III, 
 The Satisfactio operis. The theory was founded on the prin¬ 
 ciple that without Church penance the forgiveness of sins 
 could be obtained only by internal contrition and the con¬ 
 fession of Sins. The power conferred on the Priests to bind 
 and to loose consisted only in pronouncing sentence, and this 
 was only valid as far as it agreed with the divii t judgment. 
 Hence Peter distinguished between forgiveness of sins by 
 God, and Absolution in facie ecclesice. Punishment is only 
 due, supposing a person neglects from contempt the Sacra¬ 
 ment of Penance and Absolution when the observance is pos¬ 
 sible. Notwithstanding the whole doctrine of a necessary 
 confession, Church penance and absolution might be formed 
 by certain links—so far it was firmly held that Remission of 
 guilt was effected completely and only once by Baptism, but 
 yet special satisfaction was required by God for sins which 
 violated the baptismal vow. Prayers and Alms were regarded 
 as such voluntary Church punishments and satisfaction made 
 to the Priest. Whoever neglected to render these, would 
 have to render, it was believed, so much additional satis¬ 
 faction to the divine justice in the punishments of the ignis 
 * Sent. iv. Dist. xii. q. 7. f Ibid. iv. Dist. xvi. 
 
PENANCE AND PURGATORY. 
 
 537 
 
 purgatorius. Thus the juridical view prevailed continually to 
 a wider extent, and the Priests had the power to change the 
 heavier punishments to lighter ones in virtue of the merits of 
 Christ. Xet Peter added, that without any Church penance 
 a person might be freed from purgatorial fire, if the contri¬ 
 tion was great enough to be substituted for such punish¬ 
 ment. The Sacrifice of the Mass and Intercession of the 
 Church for the dead would suffice to free suffering souls from 
 the purifying fire. But we may see into what straits these men 
 were brought when they wanted to bring everything in actual 
 practice into agreement with their system. Peter Lombard 
 supposes the case, that a rich man and a poor man die ; for 
 the latter there are only the ordinary masses and good works, 
 hut the rich man can have more masses read for him; will 
 the rich man have any advantage ? He answers at once, the 
 rich has no advantage before the poor, both attain the like 
 result; the same effect follows from different causes. But 
 with this answer he did not satisfy the Church, for according 
 to it, it was not necessarv to call in the Church’s aid. He 
 therefore said in addition that the rich would obtain not a 
 more complete, but a speedier release from Purgatory. 
 
 The externalizing of Repentance called forth opposite state¬ 
 ments. Abelard, in his work, Scito te ipsum, reproaches the 
 Bishops, and asks, If they could impart absolution so easily, 
 why did they not do it out of pure love, instead of taking 
 money for it ? He disputes the application of the passage 
 respecting the power conferred on Peter of binding and 
 loosening; this was not said in reference to certain offices, 
 but related to the Apostles and those who were like-minded 
 with them. 
 
538 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 (century XIII.) 
 
 THE GENERAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 The result of the conflict between the dialectic and Church 
 tendency was, that although the former did not gain the vic¬ 
 tory, it was more moderately applied. In the thirteenth 
 century the dialectic spirit obtained a fresh impulse through 
 the influence of the Aristotelian Philosophy, which till the 
 twelfth century had been known only from some separate 
 works of Aristotle, and through the medium of a Latin 
 translation. At this period the acquaintance with Aristotle 
 became much more complete ; bis writings of every class were 
 known, partly from the older Latin versions, partly from Arabic 
 versions brought from Spain, and partly from recent transla¬ 
 tions.* The obscurity of the translations exercised the acute¬ 
 ness of the readers. The application of this Philosophy to 
 Dogmatics met at first with so much more violent opposition, 
 because certain conclusions were unfairly deduced from it 
 which seemed dangerous to Christianity. Gregory IX. in 
 a.d. 1228 addressed an admonitory letter to the University of 
 Paris against the extravagant use of Philosophy. A cele¬ 
 brated professor, Simon of TouRNAY,f who made very fre¬ 
 quent use of Aristotle, was thereby brought into disrepute, 
 and the story connected with this fact is characteristic of the 
 spirit of the times. He had made a transition from Phi¬ 
 losophy to Theology and met with such success, that no hall 
 could contain his hearers. On one occasion he brought for¬ 
 ward all the arguments against the Trinity, and announced 
 that on the next occasion he would refute them and prove the 
 truth of the dogma. This excited still more attention, and 
 
 * Jourdain, Recherches Critiques sur l’Age et l’Origine des Traduo 
 tions Latines d’Aristote et sur des Commentaires Grecs ou Arabes 
 employes par des Docteurs Scholastiques. Par. 1819, 1843. 
 
 t Jo. Launoji I)e Yaria Aristotelis in Academia Parisiens. Fortuna 
 Par. 1662; Yitemb. 1720. 
 
THE ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 539 
 
 crowds flocked to hear him; enraptured with his demonstra¬ 
 tion, his hearers entreated him to commit his lecture to 
 writing. He then arrogantly exclaimed:* “0 my dear 
 Jesus, how many thanks are due to me for employing my 
 acuteness in thy favour! ” Suddenly he lost his speech, 
 remained dumb for two years, forgot all he had learned, and 
 was obliged to begin again with the elements. This account 
 is certainly not true to the letter. Even among his contem¬ 
 poraries there were very different versions of it. According 
 to one of these, he blasphemously asserted that the world had 
 been led astray by three deceivers, Moses, Christ, and Mo¬ 
 hammed ;t but they all agree as to the latter part of it. But 
 according to other accounts Simon does not appear to have 
 been a man who would make assertions of this kind. The 
 Benedictines, who composed the Literary History of France, 
 mention the Lecture, J and state that they had read it. Per¬ 
 haps some matter of fact gave occasion to the formation of this 
 legend. ^ But the Aristotelian Philosophy suited too well the 
 spirit of the Age to render its suppression practicable, and it 
 even obtained the protection of the Popes. Its formulas, in 
 which might be comprised every possible subject, were suited 
 to the most extensive application. The Platonic philosophy 
 in the preceding age had introduced an intuitive mystical ele¬ 
 ment into Dogmatics, and thus had served as a means of 
 defending the doctrine of the Trinity. The Aristotelian» 
 philosophy, on the contrary, called forth a dialectic negative 
 tendency ; although not during this period, in which the con¬ 
 sciousness of the Church was too strongly developed, and a 
 too powerful religious spirit reigned, to allow the negative 
 influence of Aristotle to become effective. No longer were 
 such large concessions made to the philosophical standpoint 
 generally, and to the ancient Philosophy, as had been made 
 by Abelard, although these were better understood, and per¬ 
 haps for that very reason, Antiquity was no longer idealised, 
 and the ancient and Christian standpoints were more dis- 
 
 * Matthfeus Paris, a. 1201. On the other side Henric. Gandavensia 
 (1280) De Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. Fabricii, Bibl. Eccles. ii. 121, Dura 
 vimis Aristotelem sequitur, a nonnullis modernis haereseos arguitur. 
 
 t Thomas Cantipratens, Bonum Universale de Assib. ii. c. 48, 5. 
 Gieseler, II. ii. 143. 
 
 $ T. xvi. 388. 
 
540 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 tinctly kept apart. Equally powerful as Aristotle, at this 
 period, was Neo-Platonism, which operated directly through 
 translations from the Neo-Platonist.s, and indirectly through 
 the writings of Augustin and the Pseudo-Dionysius. Thus, 
 consciously or unconsciously, two authorities exerted great 
 influence over the age, the Church and the Aristotelian-Neo 
 Platonic Philosophy. But now both mixed, and that not 
 unconsciously, so that these men may be charged with trans¬ 
 porting the Aristotelian element to that of the Church, or 
 that of the Church to the Aristotelian ; yet men were con¬ 
 scious of the general Antagonism existing between these views, 
 but it was conceived of, not as an antagonism between 
 Antiquity and Christianity, but between Reason and Revela¬ 
 tion. Hence men could discern in Aristotle what was 
 irreconcilable with Church doctrines, and what was insufficient, 
 to which Revelation must add something new and higher; 
 only there was the error of regarding Aristotle as the absolute 
 limit of Reason, where it formed a junction with Revelation. 
 It must certainly be granted that in particular instances 
 the Aristotelian-Platonic element mingled itself involuntarily 
 in the conceptions formed of Christianity, and the Antagonism 
 to Christianity by the introduction of the ideas of Antiquity 
 was obliterated. But this happened only in those cases in 
 which an unconscious reaction of the ancient standpoint had 
 taken place in the Church spirit itself, which then sought and 
 found a support in Aristotle. In general, the influence of 
 this Philosophy was a formal one; the material influence was 
 that of the Church and of the strictly Catholic spirit, 
 s x^The influence of the Arabian Philosophy* was of less 
 importance for the development of Christian doctrines. 
 Among the Arabians there were various shades of Philo¬ 
 sophy ; one which held fast to the letter of religious Tra¬ 
 dition ; another which wished to unite Aristotle with Islam ; 
 a third, negative, which stood in direct opposition to religious 
 belief. The latter was that which penetrated into the West, 
 and appeared in the Church in the form of a negative reaction, 
 and would have been more powerful had the great men of the 
 thirteenth century acted as a counterpoise to it. 
 
 * A. Schmoelders, Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophes chez les Arabes 
 et notamment sur la Doctrine D’Algazzali. Par. 1842. Ritter, Gesch. 
 d. Christ. Philos, iii. 
 
THE CHURCH THEOCRACY. 
 
 541 
 
 The Church Theocracy, the peculiar element of the Middle 
 Ages, was carried to its height since the time of Innocent 
 III., and Scholasticism governed the System. In the Church 
 we see, on the one hand, extreme secularity; on the other 
 hand, an entire renunciation of worldly things, which 
 found its representation in various communities, and prin¬ 
 cipally in the order of Mendicant Friars. They were 
 from the first filled especially with the Church spirit of 
 the Middle Ages, and were the support of the Papacy. 
 But in their quiet manners and their sphere of life their 
 thoughts became concentrated; the tendency inward to con¬ 
 templation, speculation, and mysticism found here its nourish¬ 
 ment. Along with the restless doings of many of the secular 
 Clergy and bishops, the bloom of the scholastic knowledge 
 of this age sprung from these monasteries, for the most 
 distinguished champions of it proceeded from them, and par¬ 
 took of this Church-theocratic spirit. But now against this 
 tendency that of Church Freedom was aroused, which dreaded 
 the great dependence of the Church and Science on Monkery. 
 On the part of the Secular Clergy, and especially of the Uni¬ 
 versity of Paris, a zealous opposition was raised against the 
 mendicant friars; at the head of the opposite party stood the 
 free-thinking William of St. Amour, at Paris. If w r e may 
 judge from the few productions of his we possess, he was in his 
 mental constitution altogether different from the great scho¬ 
 lastic Theologians ; he had a more moderate, clear, and sober 
 understanding. But that Spirit of Speculation in the Church 
 was favoured by the atmosphere of the Age ; yet a far more 
 preponderating Interest attached to the internal and super¬ 
 natural element. 
 
 Among the Franciscans the following are the most distin¬ 
 guished : —Alexander of Hales (Doctor irrefragabilis), edu¬ 
 cated in the monastery of Hales, in the county of Gloucester, 
 studied at Paris, became a Professor of Theology there, and 
 died a.d. 1245. His Summa Universae Theologice* compre¬ 
 hends Dogmatics and Morals. Bonaventura (John of Fi- 
 danza, Doctor seraphicus), born a.d. 1221, of a Florentine 
 family, one of the first who embraced with enthusiasm the 
 idea of Franziskus of Assissi ; he entered this order, became 
 teacher of Theology at Paris, afterwards Cardinal and General 
 of the Franciscans; he died a.d. 1274, at the Council of 
 * Editions : Yenet. 1576; Colon. 1622 ; 4 voll. f. Cramer, vii. 161. 
 
542 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Lyons. In his writings* the mystical and dialectic Theo¬ 
 logy are blended ; the leading idea of his Order, the Imitation 
 of Christ in entire self-denial, had the greatest influence over 
 him. 
 
 Among the Dominicans, Albert Magnus was conspicuous, 
 born at Laningen, not far from Dillingen, a.d. 1193, of an 
 ancient noble familv. He became a Dominican in a.d. 1223, 
 and taught at Paris and Cologne. About a.d. 1260 Alex 
 ander IV. made him Bishop of Regensberg; but he relin¬ 
 quished this office about a.d. 1262, and returned to the Univer¬ 
 sity of Cologne, where he died a.d. 1280. Albert was an univer¬ 
 sal genius, who struck out new paths in every direction, and made 
 scientific discoveries.f One of the most influential School¬ 
 men, a Teacher of Centuries, was Albert’s great Scholar, 
 Thomas Aquinas (Doctor angelicus). He was born about 
 a.d. 1225 or 1227, at Rocca Secca, near Aquino, in the 
 Neapolitan territory. Irresistibly attracted by the life of the 
 Order of the Dominicans, he entered as a youth about a.d. 
 1243. His Mother was at first not averse, but when she 
 wished to visit him, and the Dominicans, who sacrificed all 
 domestic feelings to their Order, refused her admission, she 
 withheld her consent, and endeavoured, through her other 
 Son, who was in the service of the Emperor Frederic II., to 
 take him away from the Order. But here the originality and 
 firmness of his great soul were made apparent. Though 
 they tried to compel him by imprisonment, he would not 
 swerve from his determination. In the solitude of his dun¬ 
 geon he occupied himself with reading the Scriptures and 
 Peter Lombard. His mother herself at last assisted him 
 to make his escape; he let himself down by a rope from the 
 window, and was joyfully received by the Dominicans. They 
 sent him to Cologne, in order to study under Albert. No 
 one suspected what there was in the silent, meditative youth, 
 and he was called bos mutus. But when, on one occasion, he 
 
 * Commentarius in 4 libros, Sententiarum, Breviloquirim (ed. C. J. 
 Hefele, Tubg. 1845). His mystical writings : Itinerarium Mentes in 
 Deum ; De Septem Gradibus Contemplationis, &c. Opp. ed. Romre, 
 1588, 8 t f. Yenet. 1751, 13 t. f. Histoire Literaire de la France, xix. 
 266, ff. 
 
 f Commentarius in 4 libros, Sententiarum; Summa Theologiae. 
 Commentaries on Aristotle Other philosophical or physical works: Opp. 
 ed. Petrus Jammy Lugd. 1651, 21 t. f. Quetif et Echard Scriptoroa 
 Ordinis Pnedicatorum, i 162. Ritter, Christl. Philosophic, Bd. -t. 
 
THOMAS AQUINAS. 
 
 543 
 
 greatly distinguished himself in a disputation, Albert said, 
 “ This dumb ox will fill the whole w 7 orld with the sound of 
 his voice.” About a.d. 1255 he became Professor of Theology 
 at Paris. As Rector of the University, during a very active 
 life, and often travelling, he wrote in twenty years the greater 
 part of his works, which treat of a vast variety of subjects. 
 It is said of him that he could dictate compositions on dif¬ 
 ferent subjects at the same time. It characterises his theo¬ 
 logical speculations that he read daily some edifying books, 
 for, as he expressed it, we should take care that nothing one¬ 
 sided arise in our speculations. He used to begin his lec¬ 
 tures and writings with prayer; and when in any inquiry he 
 could find no solution, he would fall on his knees and pray for 
 illumination. While the originality and deep philosophy of 
 his lectures brought a great multitude of hearers to him at 
 Paris and Naples, his sermons were so simple, that the most 
 uneducated could understand them. King Louis IX. of 
 France used to ask his advice in affairs of State. On one 
 occasion he invited him against his will to dinner, when he 
 was occupied with a very difficult inquiry. During the meal 
 he became quite abstracted, and all at once cried out, “ Now 
 at last I have found it!” His Prior reminded him that he 
 was seated at the king's table; but the king immediately 
 allowed a secretary to come and write down his thoughts. 
 Aquinas was distinguished among the Schoolmen for clear¬ 
 ness of development, and the harmony between his thoughts 
 and their expression.* 
 
 William of Auvergne, born at Aurillae, and at last bishop 
 of Paris,f was a theologian distinguished for depth and clear¬ 
 ness, and for maintaining the balance between speculation and 
 the fervour of the Christian life. 
 
 * Commentarii in 4 libros Sententiarum; Summa Theologiae (P. i. 
 primia secundse, secunda secundse, P. iii. unfinished). Summa Cat.ho- 
 licse Fidei contra Gentiles, 41. Opp. ed. Antwerp, 1617,18 t.; Paris,1660, 
 23 t.; Venet. 1745—60, 28 t. 4 ; Vita, Acta Sanctorum Mart. i. p. 655. 
 A. Tauron, Vie de St. Thomas D’Aquin avec un Expose de sa Doctrine 
 et des ses Ouvrages, Par. 1737, 4. Bernardi de Rubeis Dissertatio 
 Critica et Apologetica De Gestis et Scriptis ac Doctrina St. Thomoo 
 Aquinatis, Venet. 1750. Quetif et Echard Scriptores Ordinis Prasdica- 
 torum, i. p. 271. Histoire Literaire de la France, xix. 288. Jourdain, 
 pag. 434. Ritter, Chr. Philosophic, iv. 257- 
 
 t De Fide et Legibus; De Universo. Opp. ed. Paris, 1674, 2 t. f. 
 
544 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Roger Bacon {doctor mirabilis ) possessed higher originality; 
 he was an English Franciscan, who pursued his studies at 
 Paris, became a teacher at Oxford, and died there a.d. 1294. 
 He was powerfully influenced by a man celebrated for his 
 liberal views, Robert Grosstete, or Capito, Bishop of Lin¬ 
 coln, to whom also many later reformers of the fourteenth 
 century, such as Wycliffe, were warmly attached. Roger 
 Bacon developed peculiar ideas and tendencies in every 
 department of knowledge, which exposed him to much per¬ 
 secution and repeated imprisonment, from which he was res¬ 
 cued only by the intervention of powerful friends. His 
 principal treatise is the Opus majus ,* which is occupied with 
 the Sciences generally ; he combated the one-sided supremacy 
 of Aristotle, and even the authority of the Fathers ; he 
 pointed out errors in their writings, and appealed to the 
 original sources of theological knowledge. He was distin¬ 
 guished for his knowledge of languages, and made himself 
 familiar with the original Scriptures. In a treatise on the 
 advantages of Grammar, he endeavoured to prove the neces¬ 
 sity of linguistic studies, in order better to understand the 
 Bible, which he asserted every layman ought to study in the 
 Original. He disputed the authority of the Vulgate, in 
 which he detected mistakes. The Bible, according to his 
 view, ought to be the Supreme Law, to which every depart¬ 
 ment of Life and Knowledge must be subjected. A reforma¬ 
 tory germ lay in this exaltation of the Bible above the 
 authority of the Church and Tradition. Theology he placed 
 at the head of all the Sciences ; Revelation is the completion 
 and perfecting of human reason ; in all Knowledge, including 
 philosophical and theological, harmony necessarily reigns.f 
 John Duns Scotus (Doctor subtilis) forms the close of this 
 Period ; a Franciscan, from Dunstan, in Northumberland; he 
 became a Professor of Theology at Oxford, Paris, and Co¬ 
 logne, and died a.d. 1308. Henry of Ghent ( Gandavensis) 
 had already excited an opposition against Thomas Aquinas, 
 which Duns Scotus carried still further, and thus founded the 
 School of the Scotists, in opposition to that of the Thomists. 
 He was not destitute of depth of thought, and his acuteness 
 
 * Ed. Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, fol. 
 
 f Biograpkia Brittanica, iv. 616. Histoire Litteraire de la France, xx. 
 227. Jourdain, p. 413. Ritter. Chr. Philosopkie, iv. 473. 
 
DUNS SCOTUS. 
 
 545 
 
 was extraordinary, but he was inferior to Aquinas in clearness 
 and dexterity, and indicates a separation of the harmonious 
 relation of the religious Life and Thought; hence we fmd 
 a predominance of the Understanding and a fondness for 
 frivolous distinctions ; his thinking is wanting in simplicity, 
 and his language abstruse; his investigations lose themselves 
 in minutiae. 
 
 Hitherto Scholastic speculation had been controlled by 
 Christian experience ; its great masters had combined warmth 
 of feeling with depth and acuteness of Intellect; but with 
 Duns Scotus began the intellectual formal tendency which 
 led continually to greater barrenness and inanity ; he marks 
 the period when Scholasticism began to decline. 
 
 The peculiar method of this Dialectic consists in starting 
 questions on all sides respecting an object, arranging the argu¬ 
 ments pro and contra , and lastly giving a decision, the so- 
 called conclusio or resolutio. This method was far more 
 developed than in the former period ; it exercised acuteness 
 in a high degree, but also promoted Sophistry. It was fos¬ 
 tered by the desire to maintain harmony with the traditions of 
 the Church. Instead of clearing away Errors by the free 
 spirit of Science, and by the help of their own often purer 
 principles, the Schoolmen only confirmed them more in the 
 Church. In what was set up as antithetical, as contra, there 
 was much which was again brought forward by the later oppo¬ 
 nents of Revelation. The Schoolmen, therefore, by their own 
 inquiries were led into doubts; but since these were combined 
 with a cordial pious faith, these Thinkers knew also how to 
 find the means for allaying them. It was important for the 
 development of the Church that through it there should be 
 effected a union of the religious and Scientific Interests, a f 
 union arising from the free development of Reason in con¬ 
 nexion with Faith. It had this important consequence, that 
 a reaction of the Natural Reason against Christianity, which 
 we have seen already germinating, was overcome at this time 
 by the power of the religious Scientific Spirit. Many times 
 
 * Quasstiones in libros 4 Sententiarum; (Opus Anglicanum sive 
 Oxoniense) ed. Hugo Cavellus, Antwp. 1620, 2 veil. f. Quastiones 
 Quodlibetales, xxi. Philosophical writings : Commentaries on Aristotle. 
 Opp. ed. Lucas Wadding, Lugd. 1639, 12 t. f. Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 DeTheologia Scoti (Progr.), 1326. Ritter, iv. 354. 
 
 N N 
 
04b THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 repulsed, the opposing tendencies of Secular Culture at last 
 broke forth irresistibly, and led the way to a new process of 
 development. Then the reaction followed, for the greater part 
 in a conscious Rationalism, but partly in a Mysticism, which 
 unconsciously contained a rationalistic Element. 
 
 The former (the reaction of rationalism) was realized in the 
 appearance of those remarkable men, Amalrich de Bena,* * * § in 
 the district of Chartres, at the beginning of the thirteenth 
 Century, and Davjd de Dinanto. The doctrine they taught 
 was derived from Aristotle, but their contemporaries pointed 
 to quite a different source. Albertus Magnus, for example, 
 in his Summa,i names the work of David de Dinanto, De 
 tomis , which may remind us of the treatise of John Erigena, 
 De divisione natures. And so we find that Martinus Polo- 
 nus (a.d. 1271), in his supplement to Marianus Scotus, 
 quotes passages which were ascribed to Amalrich, and are 
 found word for word in Scotus. J Another important work 
 besides exerted an influence which was erroneously ascribed 
 to Aristotle, the treatise De causis, which rather contains 
 Plotinus’s System of an immanent necessity of Reason, and 
 of the necessary development of the Universe from the Abso¬ 
 lute down to the farthest limit, the Hyle. Although its 
 contents contradicted the Christian views of Teleology, Free¬ 
 dom and Evil, yet Thomas Aquinas and others strove to 
 Christianize the ideas.§ Amalric, in the University of Paris, 
 had proceeded from dialectic inquiries to Dogmatics ; at first 
 nothing contrary to the Church or to Christianity in its full 
 extent was observable ; only surprise was excited by his 
 asserting, that as no one can be saved without believing in 
 the sufferings and resurrection of Christ, so neither can he, 
 without having the conviction that he himself is a member of 
 Christ. In this sentiment we may perceive an anticipation of 
 Protestant Ideas, and some have really thought that Amal¬ 
 rich was a Witness of the Truth, who had expressed, only in 
 the form of Mysticism, the immediate relation to Christ. But 
 
 * Engelliardt, Kirckengesck. Abkandlungen, p. 251. C. U. Hakn, 
 Tkebl. Stud. u. Krit. 1846. Amalrick v. Bena u. David v. Dinanto v. 
 J. H. Kronlein, ebendas. 1847. Ritter, Gesck. d ckr. Pkilos. iii. 625. 
 
 + Tractatus iv. Qusestio xx. 2 ; De Tomis, koc est, De Divisionibus. 
 
 X Martini, Pol. Chronic, ed. Antvp 1574. 
 
 § Tkomas Aquin. Opp. ed. Paris, 1660, t. iv. Jourdain, p. 212. 
 
PANTHEISM OF AVERRHOES. 
 
 547 
 
 he shows himself to he very different in his cast of thought. 
 He stands on the mystic-pantheistic point of John Scotus. He 
 regards the whole Universe as a manifestation of the divine 
 Being, a development of God in all existence, the ov in his 
 Theophanies. We may see in him how easily a one-sided 
 Speculation terminates in Pantheism,—Reason will acknow¬ 
 ledge no bounds, and derive everything from one causality, 
 and hence will not acknowledge the relative Independence 
 which is involved in the Freedom of the creature. 
 
 The Abbot Joachim of Floria, in Calabria, had prophesied 
 an Age of the Holy Spirit which would be distinguished by a 
 purer development of Christianity and a more spiritual Reli¬ 
 gious instead of Ceremonial Service; when the Religion of 
 Intuition would be supreme, instead of an intellectual scho¬ 
 lastic Christianity. This idea was cherished by the adherents 
 of the Pantheistic Party. In the Old Testament God re¬ 
 vealed himself as the Almighty, in the New Testament as 
 the Logos. Now, instead of the Incarnation of the Logos in 
 one subject, there is that of the Holy Spirit in all who know 
 the Truth. Practical errors are said to have been founded on 
 the maxim, that if men only live in the intuition of God all 
 other things are indifferent. A strict party of the Franciscan 
 Order likewise misinterpreted that doctrine of Joachim’s. In 
 the writings of Francis of Assissi representations are to be 
 met with of the relationship of Man to Nature, of a brother¬ 
 hood of all created Beings. Among the spiritual men of his 
 Order, one Party explained this pantheistically, and spoke of 
 an age of the Father and the Son, and after that had passed 
 away the Age of the everlasting Gospel w ? ould begin, in 
 which the Spirit would abolish all Forms. 
 
 A still more conscious Pantheism proceeded from the Philo¬ 
 sophy of the Spanish Arabians, especially the Aristotelian 
 Averrhoes, who taught that there was one spirit in all men, 
 ignoring individuality, and denying personal Immortality. 
 This doctrine met with no little acceptance, so that traces of 
 it are to be found out of the circle of professed scholars. In 
 the biography of Thomas Aquinas a licentious knight is men¬ 
 tioned, who, on being exhorted to repentance, answered, that 
 he was as sure of being saved as Peter, for the same Spirit 
 was in him. Frequently the doctrines of Averrhoes were not 
 openly expressed, but their abettors concealed their unbelief 
 
 N N 2 
 
548 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 under the garb of Orthodoxy. From this resulted the pre¬ 
 tended contrariety between theological and philosophical 
 Truth, which might have been made the vehicle for spread¬ 
 ing every kind of Unbelief without correction. It was part of 
 the merit of the Schoolmen to combat this distinction, and to 
 point out that there can be no absolute contradiction in 
 human nature. 
 
 In these conflicts an extraordinary man held a conspicuous 
 place, Raymund Lulli, # born at Majorca, a.d. 1226. Till 
 his thirtieth year he had been quite a man of the world, and 
 was known only as an author by his songs ; yet the hidden 
 seed of Christian education was not lost, and a conflict was 
 developed in his soul between his worldly tendencies and his 
 new religious aspirations. One night, while composing a love- 
 song, the image of the crucified Saviour was presented vividly 
 to him; he sought to lose the impression, but in vain. By 
 degrees his mental activity took quite a different direction; 
 along with the power of Imagination, which had early shown 
 itself, other extraordinary powers were brought into exercise ; 
 intensity of feeling, joined with uncommon profundity and 
 acuteness of thought. His multifarious scientific and philo¬ 
 sophic interests still remained in close connexion with the 
 practical religious; he was inflamed with a desire to spread 
 the Gospel among all unbelievers, for the purpose of making 
 Christianity the ruling religion of the World. As the Cru¬ 
 sades had terminated so unfortunately, he thought of a differ¬ 
 ent method than force of subjecting all heathen nations to 
 Christianity, by the power of conviction, and hence strove to 
 find the means of representing to all men the truth of Chris¬ 
 tianity. This took in his mind the form of an opposition to 
 the Arabian Philosophy. He conceived the plan of a general 
 scientific doctrine, which would demonstrate the principles of 
 all truth in all the Sciences, especially the Christian dogmas, 
 and endeavoured to carry it out in his famed Ars generalis , an 
 absolute Formula for the treatment of all the Sciences. 
 However much he prided himself on this supposed discovery, 
 it seems to have been one of the unfortunate attempts of a 
 
 * Opp. ed. Mogunt. 1722, in ten vols., but of which the seventh and 
 eighth seem to have been lost. His writings have not been sufficiently 
 used, for the least important, the Ars Generalis, has been chiefly 
 noticed. Hence his importance has not been adequately estimated 
 even by Ritter. 
 
SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 549 
 
 self-confident formalistic intellectual tendency, and remarkable 
 only for the mixture of imagination and intellect. But far 
 more important are his other dogmatic and ethical writings, 
 which award him a place among the profoundest and most 
 acute of the Schoolmen. In a life full of ardent activity he 
 was able to pursue his mystical and speculative studies, and to 
 compose a multitude of philosophical and theological treatises. 
 Several times he attempted to make known Christianity in 
 North Africa, and disputed with the Arabian Philosophers; 
 but he was cruelly persecuted, and suffered martyrdom at 
 Bugia, a.d. 1315. It was a leading object with him to 
 prevent the spread of the principles of Averroes in Theology, 
 He combated, on the one hand, this contradiction between theo¬ 
 logical and philosophical Truth, while, on the other hand, he 
 advocated Free Inquiry in opposition to those who w T ould only 
 admit the Faith of Authority. 
 
 As Pantheistic views were so widely spread at this period, 
 the opposition made to them will in part account for the 
 influence gained by the Dualist views of the Catharists. 
 
 SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 A. THE DOGMAS WHICH BELONG TO THE INTRODUCTION IN 
 
 DOGMATICS. 
 
 The treatment of Dogmatics was cultivated by the Schoolmen 
 of this period for the purpose of adding a section to the Pro¬ 
 legomena of Theology, in which they occupied themselves 
 with questions which hitherto had been so accurately investi¬ 
 gated ; on the Sources of theological knowledge—the relation 
 of Revelation to Reason—the necessity of Revelation—the 
 relation of faith to knowledge,—whether Theology is a Science, 
 and what authority it has for being one; whether it is a theo¬ 
 retic or practical Science ; what is its chief object, and wherein 
 its Unity consists; what relation it has to other Sciences, 
 especially to the different parts of Philosophy. The decisions 
 on these points were connected with the question—what is the 
 peculiar nature and seat of Religion, whether knowledge or 
 feeling ; what is the central point of Christianity in compa¬ 
 rison with other Religions ? On these questions the differ¬ 
 ences were founded which separated the Schoolmen in various 
 
550 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 directions. But what distinguished the deepest thinkers 
 among them was, that they agreed in sharply defining the 
 peculiar province of theological knowledge in connexion with 
 Religion, and did not as yet mingle Dialectics with Religion, 
 however much it finally prevailed; they also placed the 
 essence of Religion in the disposition, and hence in all know¬ 
 ledge presupposed the substance of what was to be known in 
 the religious experience of the disposition. Hence they kept 
 in the same direction as Anselm, and adhered to the principle 
 expressed by Augustin, Fides prcecedit Intellectum. 
 
 Alexander of Hales answered the question whether Theo¬ 
 logy is a Science, in the following manner:—He made a dis¬ 
 tinction in the application of the idea of Science ; Science 
 relates either to the completion of the knowledge of Truth— 
 in which case it has to do with Knowledge as such, that is, 
 theoretical; or the Knowledge relates to religious Experience, 
 and of the latter kind is theological knowledge.* This Know¬ 
 ledge can only proceed from the disposition. Theology 
 demands the human Soul, since it rouses the affections, the 
 tendencies of the disposition, by the principles of goodness, 
 the fear of God, and love. The relation of Knowledge to 
 Faith is therefore the reverse of what it is in the other 
 Sciences, since Theology first of all produces Faith, and 
 after the Soul has been purified through Faith working by 
 Love, the result is the Understanding of Theology. In 
 logical Science, on the contrary, rational Knowledgef pro¬ 
 duces Faith. If the former have produced faith, then the 
 internal grounds for such conviction will appear. Faith is 
 then the light of the Soul; and the more any one is enlight¬ 
 ened by this light, so much more will he apprehend the 
 reasons by which his Faith is proved. There is indeed a 
 Faith which does not rise so high as Knowledge, which satis¬ 
 fies itself with probabilities ; but Christian Faith is different. 
 
 * Certitudo speculativa and certitudo experientise; or certitudo 
 secundum intellectum and secundum affectum, quod est per modum 
 gustus. 
 
 + In logicis ratio creat (idem, unde argumentum est ratio rei dubise 
 faciens fidem; in theologicis vero est e converso, quia fides creat 
 rationem, unde fides est argumentum faciens rationem. Fides, enim, 
 qua creditur, est lumen animarum, quo, quanto quis magis illustratur, 
 tanto magis est perspicax ad inveniendas rationes, quibus probantur 
 credenda. 
 
ALEXANDER OF HALES AND BONAVENTURA. 
 
 551 
 
 This proceeds from Experience—appeals to the Revelation of 
 the highest Truths, and hence stands above all Knowledge. 
 Accordingly he distinguishes even between a speculative cer¬ 
 tainty of an intellectual kind and that of inward Experience, 
 of Feeling which is founded in the surrender of the Soul to 
 Truth, or in Love. He meets the objection that if we seek 
 proof for the objects of Faith, its value will be taken away. 
 Nothing can be more certain to Man than his faith. In refu¬ 
 tation of the objection he gives a threefold purpose, for which 
 ratio is to be made use of, for the development of Faith, 
 (i.) For the advantage of the Believer himself, in order that 
 he may come to an understanding of the Truth believed : the 
 grace of Faith itself enlightens our reason for that purpose, 
 (ii.) In order to lead the simple to more perfect faith, as the less 
 advanced are led to the love of God by temporal blessings, so 
 they are led by rational arguments to a higher stage of faith, 
 (iii.) In order to bring back Unbelievers to the Faith, he who 
 would support his cause only by Reason would draw his proofs 
 from Reason, and then certainly Faith would lose its value ; 
 but as for him who does not support himself on Reason, but 
 trusts to the witness of the highest Truth by itself, to him 
 Reason serves not for proof, but he supports himself on the 
 internal experience of divine things; here the word of the 
 Samaritans is applicable : “ We believe now not on thy testi¬ 
 mony, but because-we have experienced it ourselves.” Theo¬ 
 logy was in his esteem a practical Science, for it has to do 
 with the divine life and assimilation to the Holy Spirit. Its 
 object is the Divine Being as made known through Christ in 
 the work of Redemption.* He states the objection, that even 
 in Theology mention is made of the Works of Creation, but 
 rejoins that everything else was made in reference to that first 
 event; the Restoration of Man cannot be treated of without 
 discussing the Fall, which again leads to the doctrine of 
 Creation. Secular Science has to do with the works of 
 Creation, but Theology considers everything in connexion 
 with the New Creation, the Restoration of Man. 
 
 Bonaventura distinguished, in reference to the objects of 
 Faith, between their relation to Reason left to itself, which 
 acquires knowledge by its own efforts—and to Reason which 
 by the gift of Faith is potentiated to something higher, and is 
 
 * Scientia de substantia divina cognoscenda per Christum, in opers 
 reparationis. 
 
552 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS 
 
 transformed by the influence of the new divine life. Faith 
 raises the spirit to give assent to divine Truths; Science 
 leads to the understanding of what is received by Faith. The 
 Conviction attained by Faith does not proceed from rational 
 demonstration, but from love to Him who makes the Reve¬ 
 lation. Although the truths of faith may be compared with 
 other objects of knowledge, yet they are distinguished by this, 
 that they operate on the disposition and the feelings. The 
 doctrine that Christ died for us, for example, excites the soul 
 to love and devotion. 
 
 Albert the Great defines Christianity as practical Science, 
 for although it is occupied with the investigation of Truth, yet 
 it refers everything to the life of the Soul, and shows how Man 
 by the truths it reveals must be formed to a divine Life. It 
 treats of God and his works, not in reference to abstract 
 Truth, but to God as the supreme good, to the salvation of 
 Men, to the production of piety in the inner and outer Man. 
 He also distinguishes various kinds of certainty: the theo¬ 
 retical, which merely relates to knowledge (informatio mentis ), 
 and the certainty of immediate consciousness (informatio con- 
 scientice). The knowledge obtained by Faith is more certain 
 than that derived from other sources ; but we must distinguish 
 between the fides informis and the Jides formata; the first is 
 only a means to knowledge, but the second is an immediate 
 consciousness. Man is attracted by the object of faith just as 
 moral truth leads him to Morality. All Knowledge and Truth 
 come from God, but they are imparted in different ways ; our 
 Reason has the capacity to perceive Truth, as the Eye pos¬ 
 sesses the faculty of sight. Natural light is one thing, and 
 the light of grace is another. The latter is a higher stage, an 
 assimilation between him who knows and the thing known, a 
 participation of the divine Life. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas endeavours to prove the necessity of Reve¬ 
 lation, and to refute the objection of Rationalism, that Man, 
 who stands at the head of the Creation, would be placed 
 below all the rest, if he were not furnished with all the 
 powers which are necessary for his destiny, he replies: On 
 this very account a Revelation is necessary, because Man is 
 exalted above all other creatures, and because he is destined 
 for a super-terrestrial end, an end which transcends the limits 
 of Natural Reason.* Revelation also serves to render man 
 * Illud, quod acquirit bonitatem perfectam pluribus auxiliia et 
 
THOMAS AQUINAS. 
 
 553 
 
 humble, in opposition to that Pride to which natural Reason 
 is prone. Kven in the knowledge of truths to which Reason 
 can attain by its own power, Revelation has the advantage of 
 making them generally known, for few can attain to them in 
 the way of rational inquiry, and their knowledge would not be 
 free from error. He denied the contradiction between philo¬ 
 sophical and theological truth ; the truths of natural Reason 
 cannot be at variance with those given by Revelation, since 
 God is also the Author of Reason. What opposes Reason 
 cannot proceed from God. # If we admit such a contradiction, 
 it would follow that something false might be the object of 
 faith, which would be an absurdity. In his inquiries re» 
 specting the relation of faith to knowledge he says:—A faith 
 of authority resting on human opinion is the weakest of all 
 things; but it is otherwise with divine Revelation. Yet 
 Theology makes use of human Reason, not, indeed, to prove 
 the truths of Revelation, but to deduce other truths from it. 
 As other Sciences obtain their principles from other sources, 
 and then draw inferences from them, so Theology proceeds 
 from those which are made known by a higher light. But 
 since Grace does not nullify Nature, but perfects it, and as 
 the natural inclinations of the Will serve the divine principle 
 of the Christian life, so also will Reason serve the Truths of 
 Faith.t We may dispute with opponents if they admit some 
 of our Principles, for then they may be shown to be illogical. 
 But when our opponents deny altogether the Authority of 
 Revelation, the truths founded upon it cannot be proved to 
 them. Yet there are in all Creation certain Analogies to 
 Divine Truth which may be employed to illustrate revealed 
 Truths, though not sufficient to understand and prove them ; 
 hut whatever is set in opposition to those truths may be con- 
 
 motibus est nobilius eo quod imperfectam bonitatem acquiret pauciori- 
 bus vel per seipsum, et hoc modo se kabet homo respectu aliarum 
 creaturarum, qui factus est ad ipsius divinse gloriae participationem. 
 
 * Principiorum autem naturaliter notorum cognitio nobis divinitus 
 est insita, cum ipse Deus sit auctor nostras naturae. Haec ergo principia 
 etiam divina sapientia continet. Quicquid igitur principiis hujusmodi 
 contrarium est, est divinae sapientiae contrarium, non igitur a JL)eo esse 
 potest. 
 
 f Cum gratia non tollat naturem, sed perficiat oportet, quod naturalia 
 ratio subserviat fidei, sicut et natural!s inclinatio voluntatis obsequitul 
 caritati. 
 
651 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 tradicted as only seeming reasons, since there can be no self¬ 
 contradictory proofs. Therefore this method must rather he 
 applied to the instruction and comfort of believers. If through 
 Reason we can attain only a slight knowledge of the highest 
 things, yet it is always most delightful. He raises a doubt 
 whether Theology is a science, since it treats of such a variety 
 of objects, and he endeavours to determine the Unity which 
 connects them. He makes the Unity to consist in their 
 treating everything in relation to God and Divine Reve¬ 
 lation. Then he asks whether it is a theoretical or practical 
 Science, and replies that both qualities are to be found in it, 
 but it is more speculative than practical. This assertion 
 may seem to be inconsistent with the fact, that Aquinas held 
 the same views on the relation of Faith to Knowledge as the 
 Schoolmen already named. But the discrepancy vanishes if 
 we understand the assertion in his peculiar sense. He goes 
 upon the Aristotelian principle that the Intuition of God is 
 the highest destiny of the Spirit, which will be first attained 
 in everlasting life. Now, since Theology is occupied rather 
 with divine things than with human actions, and its highest 
 end is the contemplation of God,* on this account he calls it 
 a speculative Science. 
 
 Duns Scotus met the assertion of the necessity of Revela¬ 
 tion, from the standpoint of Philosophy, by the principle that 
 Man requires no supernatural knowledge, but can obtain 
 everything necessary for fulfilling his destiny by his natural 
 Reason. Were it not so, the work of God in his Creation 
 would be incomplete. He refutes this objection by an acute 
 distinction. The idea of the Supernatural may be formed in 
 a twofold manner; supernatural either in relation to the 
 receptive power of Reason, or to the operating cause by which 
 certain knowledge is imparted to human Reason. In reference 
 to the capability of knowledge implanted in Reason we can 
 say, that no knowledge is supernatural, for Reason is so con¬ 
 stituted as to take in all knowledge ; it has a natural inclination 
 for imparted knowledge, and all such knowledge contributes 
 to its perfection, it is intellectus possibilis. But it is different as 
 to the second point, which refers to the efficient cause, and the 
 
 * Quia principalius agit de rebus divinis, quam de actibus humanis, 
 de quibus agit, secundum quod per eos ordinatur homo ad perfectam 
 Dei cognitionem, in qua seterna beatitudo consistit. 
 
DUNS SCOTUS. 
 
 555 
 
 mode of imparting knowledge. In this respect we may say, that 
 some knowledge may be supernatural to Reason, although Rea¬ 
 son is naturally constituted so as to receive it, and finding satis¬ 
 faction in it; lastly, it is supernatural so far as it must be com¬ 
 municated by a supernatural efficient principle, and equally, 
 whether this Revelation be internal or external. We do not, 
 therefore, deny, that there is a certain province which Reason 
 might be able to cultivate by its own powers, a Highest from 
 the standpoint of human Reason, only that this would not be 
 sufficient to attain salvation and the destiny of human nature. 
 If it be objected that Man would then sink below the level of 
 other creatures, since he would not have everything in himself, 
 which belongs to his destiny,—he replies, if our happiness 
 consisted in the possession of the highest knowledge to which 
 we can attain by reason, we should not say that Nature was 
 defective in the highest creature. Now, let us grant that Rea¬ 
 son could attain so far; but beyond this there is still a higher 
 end to which Reason cannot attain by its own natural powers. 
 Precisely in this is shown the dignity of human Nature, that 
 in virtue of its receptivity it is adapted to receive something 
 more into itself than what it can reach by its own power. Its 
 endless receptivity raises it above the whole Creation. Scotus 
 therefore maintains something supernatural in the divine com¬ 
 munications. The necessity of the communication is, accord¬ 
 ing to him, grounded in this, that the blessedness to which 
 man is destined proceeds, not from natural necessity, but from 
 Free Will and the grace of God, and is attained by the method 
 which the divine wisdom has appointed. Here he brings this 
 doctrine into connexion with the divine Will. Scotus there¬ 
 fore also belongs to those who did not regard the antagonism 
 between the Supernatural and the Natural as absolute and 
 irreconcilable ; but, while admitting the necessity of the for¬ 
 mer, at the same time they tried to show the Harmony 
 between both. 
 
 Scotus also was the individual who first of all entered 
 into a fuller inquiry respecting the Origin and Contents 
 of the Bible. # He exhibited the evidence for its Divinity, 
 and its sufficiency for the religious necessities of Man. As 
 proofs of its divine origin he adduced the Prophecies, the 
 agreement of the Bible with itself, the Authority of the 
 
 * Sentent. Prolog. Qu. 2. 
 
550 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Writers, the conscientiousness of those who transmitted it, 
 and the agreement of its contents with Reason. What is 
 more reasonable than that Man should love God above all, 
 and his Neighbour as himself? These are the fundamental 
 Principles from which everything else is to be deduced. Also 
 the absurdity of the errors opposed to it, speak in its favour, 
 as well as miracles and the unchangeableness of the Church. 
 The Articles of Faith contain nothing by which the Perfection 
 of God is not set in a still clearer light, and what contradicts 
 them, encroaches on its perfection. As to the other point, 
 the Sufficiency of Scripture, he says, if everything necessary 
 is not verbally stated in the Bible, yet everything may be 
 deduced from its principles. He meets the objection that 
 the Bible contains much that is superfluous, and not necessary 
 for Salvation, and rejoins—that what appears to us superfluous, 
 is yet important for the development of Truth. In this respect, 
 lor example, the Historical is very important. 
 
 Duns Scotus inquires what forms the essential contents of 
 Theology. He is not disposed, like Alexander of Hales, 
 to accept Christ as such, for not all the essential truths of the 
 Bible are referable to him; the doctrine that the Father 
 begat the Son, and the truths which relate to the divine Will, 
 cannot virtualiter be contained in the doctrine of Christ, for 
 these truths would not be the less necessary even if the Logos 
 had not become Flesh. In his opinion, the primuvn subjection 
 of Theology, is the doctrine of the Divine Being. At the 
 same time he agrees with those who regard Theology as a 
 practical Science, and shows that all the Truths which relate to 
 the Divine Being, also tend to produce a peculiar determination 
 of the life in reference to God. 
 
 William of Paris developes in a peculiar manner the fun¬ 
 damental ideas respecting the nature of Faith. He distin¬ 
 guishes between the standpoint wdiere conviction proceeds 
 from the Objective, the rational knowledge of the Objective, 
 and where it depends on the Subjective element, the believing 
 disposition.* The latter method is that of religious con¬ 
 viction. Man rises by virtue of his disposition above the 
 reaction of the Understanding. This theologian considers 
 as belonging to the essence of Faith, boldness and power of 
 
 * De Fide, c. 1; aliud est credere ex probabilitate sive ex evidentia 
 ipsius crediti, aliud ex virtute credentis. 
 
ROGER BACON AND RAIMUND LULLI. 
 
 557 
 
 spirit, firmness of character in conflict with the reactions that 
 tend to Unbelief. Boldness overcomes the darkness of in¬ 
 truding doubt, and by its own inward light suppresses that 
 which brings darkness. It is somewhat original, that in 
 Faith he gives prominence to the practical element of a con¬ 
 flict against the reactions of natural Reason, and discerns in it 
 an act of spiritual bravery.* * * § Above all other operations 
 of the mind is that of Faith, which accomplishes its object by a 
 combative power f—a profound psychological mode of con¬ 
 templation. 
 
 Roger Bacon did not enter deeply into these inquiries, yet 
 his discussions on the relation of Philosophy to Theology 
 deserve consideration. Theology developes immediately the 
 contents of Scripture; Speculation is the link between Scrip¬ 
 ture and natural Reason. It receives what is true in earlier 
 speculation, and connects with it those truths which Reason 
 might indeed know of itself, but which it would never have 
 found without the impulse which Revelation gives it. Chris¬ 
 tian philosophy can therefore be reconciled with Faith, since 
 it asserts rational truths which every wise man admits, 
 although if left to himself he would not have known them.J 
 This corresponds not only to Christian Philosophy, but also to 
 the Christian consciousness, which must bring all truth to 
 divine Truth, to be subordinate to it and serve it.§ 
 
 Raymund Lullt maintained the agreement of Knowledge 
 and Faith, partly from apologetic motives, and partly in oppo¬ 
 sition to the Theory of Averrhoes. “ Elevate thy know¬ 
 ledge,” he said, “ and thy love will be elevated. Heaven is 
 
 * Manifestum, quod credere improbabilia fortitudinis est atque 
 vigoris nostri intellectus, sicut amare molesta et ignominiosa fortitudinis 
 est et vigoris nostri affectus. Fortitudo intellectus, qua) tenebras 
 improbabilitatis irrumpat et vincat et luminositate propria ea, quae ilia 
 abscondere contendit, lucida et aperta, hoc est credita faciat. 
 
 + De operationibus intellectus solum credere bellum habet, omne 
 bellum bellica virtute seu fortitudine agendum est. 
 
 7 Philosophi infideles multa ignorant in particulari de divinis, quae 
 si proponerentur iis, ut probarentur per principia philosophise com¬ 
 plete), hoc est per vivacitates rationes, qua) sumunt originem a philoso- 
 phia infidelium, licet complementum a fide Christi, reciperent sine 
 contradictione, et gaudent de proposita sibi veritate, quia avidi sunt et 
 magis studiosa quam Christiani. 
 
 § Propter conscientiam Christianam, qua) valet omnem veritatem 
 ducere ad divinam, ut ei subjiciatur et famuletur.—Opus Majus, p. 4L, 
 
558 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 not so high as the love of a holy man.”* * * § This language 
 shows how intimately connected he regarded knowledge to be 
 with the religious life of the Soul. On the question whether, 
 Theology is a Science, he distinguishes between what lies in 
 its nature and essence, and what it is under certain circum¬ 
 stances. The essence of the Spirit in the strict sense is the 
 intelligere. Only when the Spirit cannot rise to knowledge, 
 mere Faith takes its place ; as the image of an object occupies 
 the Fancy when the thing itself is not present. But in a 
 strict sense Theology is Science, since the intelligere belong to 
 the essence of the Intellectus in a strict sense. Since God is 
 in the highest sense good and great, he imparts himself to the 
 created Intellectus as far as it is capable of receiving his per¬ 
 fection. The Spirit is made in order to refer itself with all its 
 powers to God; hence it must be able to appropriate Him 
 above all other objects.t He states the objection, How can a 
 finite Spirit comprehend the Infinite? and answers, As he 
 who tastes only a drop of the Ocean perceives its saltness, so 
 the human spirit attains a sufficient knowledge of the Trinity ; 
 but more than this it cannot attain. In a disputation between 
 Fcdes and Intellectus , the latter says to Faith, Thou art the 
 preparatory step by which I attain to a right state of the Soul 
 in order that I may soar to higher things. J When the Intel¬ 
 lect rises through Knowledge to the stage on which Faith 
 already stands, Faith rises from this point still higher § In 
 his treatise on the Contemplation of God,|| he carries on an 
 
 * De Centum Nominibus Dei, Opp. t. vi.—Eleva tuum intelligere 
 et elevabis tuum amare. Coelum non est tarn altum, sicut amore 
 sancti hominis. Quo magis laborabia ad ascendendum eo magis 
 ascendes. 
 
 t Diaputatio cremitse et Raimundi super aliquibus dubiis qusestioni- 
 bus sententiarum Petri Lombardi. Aliud objectum illi minus princi- 
 pale esset illi magis appetibile, quam suum objectum magis principale 
 quod esset impossibile, et idem esset suo modo de voluntate, cui 
 theologia non esset proprium objectum ad amandum ; et sic de memoria 
 ad recolendum quod est valde inconveniens. 
 
 X Quod tu, fides, sis dispositio et praeparatio, per quam ego de Deo 
 sum dispositus ad altas res ; nam in hoc, quod ego per te suppono 
 credendo, per quod possum ascendere, habituo me de te et sic tu es in 
 me et ego in te. 
 
 § Quando ascendo in gradum, in que tu es intelligendo, tu ascendk 
 credendo in altiorum gradum supra me. 
 
 || Concordantiae et Contrarietates inter Fidem et Rationem. 
 
THE DOGMAS OF SPECIAL DOGMATICS. 
 
 559 
 
 inquiry on the agreement and disagreement of Faith and 
 'Reason. As Faith stands on a height and does not descend 
 to rational grounds, so Reason rises to those lofty subjects 
 which it brings down to Knowledge. If Faith stands aloft 
 and Reason ascends to it, then they are both in harmony, 
 because Faith elevates Reason, and by its lofty soaring, 
 strengthens and ennobles it, so that it attempts to attain by 
 Knowledge to that which Faith has already reached. If 
 Reason cannot attain those heights of Faith, yet at least the 
 more it strives, the higher will Faith rise. They reciprocally 
 elevate each other ; hence there is harmony and good-will 
 between them. It is the nature of Faith to ascend higher 
 than Reason, because the activity of the latter is compounded 
 of the Sensuous and the Intellectual; Faith, on the contrary, 
 is simple, and stands above the loftiest height of what is 
 known by the Intellect. No contradiction can exist between 
 them. Faith calls Reason from mere capability into real 
 activity,* when it embraces the law of Religion with Love. 
 Reason confines the hitellectus within its limits, since it can¬ 
 not pass beyond them ; but true Faith frees and enlarges the 
 Intellectus .f 
 
 B. THE DOGMAS OP SPECIAL DOGMATICS, 
 a. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 
 
 1. PROOF OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.—THE IDEA OF GOD IN 
 
 GENERAL. 
 
 x 
 
 Arguments for the Being of God. The Schoolmen of this 
 Period perceived the error in Anselm’s form of the Onto¬ 
 logical argument, but they also recognised what was true in it, 
 namely, that the idea of God is something fundamental to the 
 Spirit of Man and undeniable, and this proof they sought to 
 employ. In this sense Alexander of Hales says,— the 
 idea of God is a habitus naturaliter impressus primes veritatis , 
 and is founded on the connexion subsisting between eternal 
 
 * Facit venire rationem de potentia in actum. 
 
 + Sicut ratio captivat et incarcerat intellectum kominis intra terminos, 
 intra quos est terminatus, quia non kabet, cum quo eos possit ampliare 
 ?t extendere, ita vera tides liberat et magnificat ipsum intellectum, 
 quia non constringit eum intra terminos, intra quos ratio habet eum 
 terminatum. 
 
580 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Truth and the moral nature of Man. But we must dis¬ 
 tinguish between a cognitio in habitu and in actu. The 
 habitual lies at the basis of human consciousness ; the actual 
 is the developed idea. In reference to the former, the idea of 
 God is undeniable ; in reference to the second, a twofold ten¬ 
 dency of the soul is possible—in proportion as it either turns to 
 the Revelation of the highest Truth, or allows Worldliness 
 and the lower powers of the soul to govern it. In the latter 
 case, the consciousness of God may be wanting, and the fool will 
 say, There is no God. This writer distinguishes also between 
 the idea of God in general ( ratio communis) and the particular 
 application of it ( ratio 'propria ). The former is true even in 
 Idolatry, for that testifies of an idea of God as its foundation, 
 though the application of it is erroneous. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas says, # —The knowledge of God in a certain 
 confused manner is implanted in all men. Since Man is so 
 created that he finds in God his highest good, so in striving 
 after Happiness, striving after God is at the foundation; but 
 all men do not attain to this consciousness. As to the evi¬ 
 dence for the being of God, he distinguishes between what is 
 so in itself, and what is subjectively evident. In itself the 
 idea of God is evident, for every one wdio admits it into his 
 consciousness; but this is not the case with all men ; where¬ 
 fore the Fool can say in his heart, There is no God. But, on 
 the other hand, no one special proof can be given for the 
 being of God. The design of this proof consists in bringing 
 the undeveloped consciousness to him from the works of God 
 in Creation ; but the effects are not adequate to their cause ; 
 thev do not allow us to infer the Infinite. 
 
 In reference to the contrarieties in the mode of apprehend¬ 
 ing the idea of God, the peculiar standpoint of Amalrich, 
 and I)av[d of DinantoGs to be noticed. The latter described 
 God as the principinm materials omnium rerum , and in 
 reference to the three departments of Existence distinguished 
 three principlest—matter the first indivisible principle of the 
 
 * Cognoscere Deum esse in aliquo communi sub quadam confusione 
 est nobis naturaliter insertum. 
 
 p Concil. Paris, a. 1209, in Martene Tkesaur. Anecdot. iv. 163. 
 Albertus Magnus, Summa P. I. Tract, iv. Qusestio 20, Membrum ii. ed. 
 Lugd. t. xvii. f. 76. Thomas Aquinas, in Sententias, 1. ii. Dist. xvii. qu. 
 i. art. i. ed.Venet. t. x. p. 235. On Amalrich, see Gulielmus Armoricus 
 
AMALRIC AN1) JOACHIM OF FLORIS. 
 
 561 
 
 corporeal world ; in reference to the spiritual world—spirit 
 the first indivisible vovg from which proceeds the Soul ; and in 
 reference to the ideas of God—the first Indivisible in the eter¬ 
 nal Substances. Between these three principles no distinction 
 could exist, for otherwise they must be referred back to a higher 
 principle of Unity. There are therefore three relations of the 
 one divine Being to the corporeal, the spiritual, and the ideal 
 worlds. As Thomas Aquinas states,* the school of Amalric 
 described God as the principium formale of all things, which 
 would indicate a more idealistic mode of conception. Accord¬ 
 ing to their hypothesis, Grod is the one subject in all,—Nature 
 is his body,—he alone is the true Being—all objects of the 
 senses are only accidentia sine subjecto. Thus they explained 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation as a symbolical representa¬ 
 tion of this Pantheism. The consecration of the Priest repre¬ 
 sented symbolically what existed independently of it. In 
 every Christian God became man ; in the whole of Humanity 
 there was an Incarnation of God, for the consciousness of 
 Man was a form of appearance for the Absolute ; God was 
 conscious of himself in human consciousness. In this sense 
 we are to understand the expression that every Christian must 
 have the conviction that he is a member of Christ; God is in 
 him as in Christ. 
 
 From this standpoint this party adopted the division of 
 History which had been proposed by Joachim of Floris —into 
 the ages of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; the Age of 
 the Father in the Old Testament; the Age of the Son in the 
 Christian era, which is the era of the Incarnate Logos, of 
 positive Religion, and of a visible Cultus ; and the Age of the 
 Spirit, when God is worshipped only in the form of the Spirit, 
 when the consciousness is shared by all that God has become 
 Man, and there is no more need of a positive Revelation, since 
 the one self-sufficient reason has become self-conscious. A 
 priest belonging to this sect, as he was led to the stake, 
 declared, that so far as he existed, they could not burn him, 
 because he was God himself. 
 
 The Schoolmen, on the contrary, advocated the Personality 
 
 De Gestis Philippi Augusti in Bouquet rer Gallic. Scriptt, continued 
 by Brial. xvii. 83. Martinus Polonus (1271) Chronicon, ed. Antvp. 1574. 
 * Summa, P. 1. qu. iii. art 8. 
 
 O O 
 
563 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of God. Albertus Magnus says,* God is the causal Being, 
 as the efficient, formal cause, and as the final cause, but not 
 the material and essential being of things. He is the arche¬ 
 type of all existence, which all are designed to represent; but 
 as the Archetype he maintains his separate existence, and 
 exists apart from created things. To the same effect, Aquinas 
 says, God is the esse omnium effective et exemplariter, but not 
 per essentiam. 
 
 ‘2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 The example of Augustin was followed in tracing an analogy 
 to the Trinity in the human spirit, but yet it was carried out 
 in a peculiar manner. Albert Magnus says,—there is no 
 excellence among the Creatures which is not to be found in a 
 much higher style, and as an archetype, in the Creator ; among 
 created beings it exists only in foot-marks and images. This 
 is true also of the Trinity. No artistic Spirit can accomplish 
 his w r ork without first forming to himself an outline of it. In 
 the Spirit, therefore, first of all, the Idea of its work is con¬ 
 ceived which is as it were the offspring of the Spirit, in every 
 feature resembling the Spirit, representing it in its acting.f 
 Thus, therefore, the Spirit reveals himself in the Idea of 
 the Spirit. Now, from the acting Spirit this idea passes into 
 reality, and for this purpose the Spirit must find a medium in 
 outward action. This medium must be simple, and of the 
 same substance with him who first acted, if indeed the latter 
 is so simple that being, nature, and activity, are one in him. 
 From this results the idea in reference to God, of the formative 
 Spirit, of the planned Image, and of the Spirit by which the 
 Image is realized.J The Creation in time is a Revelation of 
 the eternal acting of God, the eternal generation of his Son. 
 The Revelation of God in Time • for the sanctification of 
 Nature, is an Image of the eternal procession of the Spirit 
 from the Father and the Son. Our love is only a reflection of 
 the divine love ; the Archetype of all love is the Holy Spirit, 
 
 * Sicut paradigma, a quo fiunt et ad quod formantur et ad quod 
 finiuntur, cum tamen intrinsecum sit, extra facta formata et finita 
 existens, et nihil sit de esse eorum. 
 
 •f Format ex se rationem operis et speciem, quse est sicut proles 
 ipsius intellectus, intellectui agenti similis in quantum agens est. 
 
 + Spiritus rector formse. 
 
AQUINAS AND RAYMUND LULLI. 563 
 
 who, like all love, proceeds from God. The one Love spread 
 abroad through all holy souls proceeds from the Holy Spirit/* 
 Love in God neither diminishes nor increases, but we diminish 
 or increase it in ourselves according as we receive this love into 
 our souls, or withdraw from it. 
 
 Aquinas distinguishes the esse intelligere, and velle or amare , 
 in God. We cannot, he says, sufficiently prove by Reason 
 the relation of the Persons to the Unity of the Essence in 
 God, but if once admitted, it may be shown, that the divine 
 Persons are derived from God as the perfect ground and cause 
 of all things. The derivation of the creatures from God, 
 represents but imperfectly the perfection of the Divine Essence. 
 Hence the Revelation of God leads us back to the perfect 
 image which the divine perfection includes in itself,—the 
 Son, the principle and archetype of the manner in which the 
 creatures are derived from God, and as the origin of creatures 
 from God’s free love leads back to a principle which is the 
 ground of all God’s free communications, so it is this principle 
 of love under which form everything proceeds from God. 
 But the procedere in the form of Love, is the Holy Spirit. 
 As far as the Father and the Son are personally distinguished, 
 they become united by love, which is the Holy Spirit. Since 
 God knows himself, he knows all things. This, his Self- 
 knowledge, a procedere secundum intellecturn, is the divine 
 Word. As God the Father knows himself and all creatures, 
 and expresses himself in the Word whom he has begotten, so 
 far this Word represents him and all creatures in a perfect 
 manner, and so he loves himself, and all creatures in the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 Raymund Lulli says: the goodness of God cannot be 
 thought of as inoperative; God must always be represented 
 as active in it, and communicating himself. But we must 
 also think of Him as the All-sufficient. Without the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, the Creation must be regarded as necessary, in 
 order that he might communicate himself to it, and then his 
 Perfection would be dependent on the Creation. This can 
 only be avoided by the doctrine of the Trinity, which repre¬ 
 sents God in his eternal self-revelation and communicative- 
 
 * Una caritas diffusa per omnes animas sanctas per spiritum sanctum, 
 ad quam sicut exempla omnis dilectio refertur et comparatione illius eto 
 assimilatione caritas dici meretur. 
 
 0 0 2 
 
564 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 ness. For self-communication belongs to the nature of the 
 Supreme Good, and this, in its highest perfection, is exhibited 
 in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Principle of all Existence 
 is the Father, the mediating Instrument is the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit is the end and rest of all. # Therefore the Holy 
 Spirit cannot again generate another Person; all that can be 
 desired finds its accomplishment in Him. The Father and 
 the Son refer themselves through love to the Holy Spirit, as 
 the final aim. Inasmuch as Love in God is not a thing pro¬ 
 duced, it is his Nature. As far as the Father knows himself 
 as a Father he begets the Son. Since the Father and Son 
 contemplate themselves through love they beget the Holy 
 Spirit. The distinction of the divine Persons shows us that 
 the divine perfections are not inactive on account of their 
 inactivity.f Since God is equally God in acting as in being, 
 he must have different persons in his essence. No substance 
 can be without distinction; without distinction it would be 
 nothing. J 
 
 3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION. 
 
 The Schoolmen agitated the question whether the End of the 
 Creation is the glory of God or the happiness of the creatures. 
 Bonaventura gives the following opinion :—God’s highest 
 aim must be his own glory, for it is said, God created all 
 things for himself; not as if it was necessary for him, or in 
 order to increase his glory, but in order to reveal and commu¬ 
 nicate it, in which the highest well-being of his creatures 
 consists. Thus there is no contradiction between the two 
 Ends, but one is subordinate to the other. Should any one 
 say that such a highest End is egoistic, the answer is, that it 
 is one thing with God and another with the Creature ; for in 
 
 * See the Liber Proverbiorum, the section on the Son of God : Quaelibet 
 divinarum rationum est principium per patrem in filio et per filium est 
 medium et per spiritum sanctum est quies et finis. Id, propter quod 
 spiritus sanctus non producit personam, est, ut appetitus cujuslibet 
 rationis in illo habeat finem et quietem. Quia pater et filius per 
 amorem se habent ad unum finem, ille finis est Spiritus Sanctus. 
 
 t Distinctio divinarum personarum est ut divinse rationes non sint 
 otiosae de infinitate. 
 
 X Quia Deus est tantum Deus per agere, quam per existere, habet 
 in sua essentia distinctas personas. Nulla substantia potest esse sine 
 distinctione; sine distinctione non esset quidquam. 
 
BONAVENTURA AND AQUINAS. 
 
 565 
 
 God there is no distinction between the general and the par¬ 
 ticular good; he is the original basis of all Good and of the 
 highest Good. If He, from whom all other goodness is 
 derived, were not to perform all his acts on account of him¬ 
 self, the effect that proceeded from him would not be truly 
 good. Since the use of the creatures depends altogether on 
 their relation to the Supreme Good, everything proceeds from 
 the love of God, since he makes all things tend towards him¬ 
 self. Should any one say that it belongs to all creatures to 
 seek their own well-being, we answer, that a twofold tendency 
 in creatures must be noted; first, there is Nature in its per¬ 
 verted state, according to which it makes itself the centre ; 
 secondly, there is the perfect nature of created Nature in its 
 original State, which rises above itself to God, and seeks the 
 honour of God more than its own private advantage. What 
 is the highest end of Creation must also be the same for 
 human actions. Bonaventura endeavoured to prove how this 
 end could only be realized by rational creatures. It is true 
 that in all creatures there is an unconscious Revelation of 
 God, but the Image of God is only in the rational. Since 
 God is the highest Light and the Supreme Goodness, he has 
 created all things for the communication of Himself. A 
 perfect Revelation would be impossible, if there were not 
 beings who understood it. Rational creatures are requisite 
 for all; hence all other creatures are related not immediately 
 to God, but only through the medium of rational Beings. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas regards the beginning of Creation as an 
 object of Faith ; we cannot prove it by argument nor refute 
 the Eternity of Creation, for even by this the divine Causality 
 is not denied, since we might regard God’s act of Creation as 
 not a successive act performed in time ; and the Universe, 
 although it had always been, is not to be considered eternal 
 like God, but as in the succession of an infinite series of 
 moments of Time.* 
 
 4. THE DOCTRINES OF PROVIDENCE, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSE, AND MIRACLES. 
 
 It was x^belard’s endeavour, which was carried on to a greater 
 length by the Schoolmen of this age, to connect the idea of 
 
 * Summa, P 1, qu. 46, art. 2.—Esse divinum est esse totum simul 
 absque successione ; non autem sic est de rnundo. 
 
566 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Miracle with an all-comprehensive divine plan of the Universe, 
 and to point out the Harmony between the Natural and the 
 Supernatural. They noticed and refuted many things which 
 have been brought forward in later times on the side of the 
 Rationalists against the admission of Miracles. Albeetus 
 Magnus says:—As in Nature it is the same power which 
 produces the creatures and guides the development of each 
 individual, and the influence of which extends over their 
 whole Organism and their individual members, the Power 
 which binds the whole and the parts together, so there is in 
 the Creator the same power by which he created the World, 
 which appoints each individual his place, and guides all things 
 in due connexion, so that each corresponds to its own Stand¬ 
 point. If we consider it as it is in God, we describe it as 
 Providence, that is, the original forma and ratio in the divine 
 Reason, by which all things are conducted to their proper End. 
 But if we consider it as active in the Creation, in its pre¬ 
 sentation in the development of the Universe, as the order of 
 the Universe which proceeds from that Archetype, as though 
 it were embodied in the Creation, and as active in the con¬ 
 nexion of the development of natural objects and free agents, 
 we call it fatum. Providence, the or do rerum in mente , is the 
 exemplar; fatum is the exemplatum. This idea does not 
 necessarily include that of unconditional necessity, but only 
 states the divine order of the Universe as phenomenal. 
 
 Alexander of Hales attributed to fatum the effects pro¬ 
 ceeding from Free Will. Fate (according to him) is a higher 
 law which guides the working together of all causes in the 
 phenomenal world, and to it belong also the free causes, the 
 effects of which harmonize with those of natural causes in a 
 manner corresponding to their peculiar character. The effects 
 of Free Will are only prevented from transgressing the bounds 
 of Providence. On the relation of God to Evil he says, God 
 knows the Good as well as the Evil, as if the Light which could 
 see itself and its effects, would know that one thing is recep¬ 
 tive of light, and another not so. God has permitted Evil in 
 order that the beauty of Goodness might shine forth more 
 clearly, and be so much more illustrious. This agreed with 
 the older theory of Evil as a foil of Good. But Albert 
 Magnus took a different view. The Will of God, he says, is 
 in the whole arrangement of efficient causes that which leads 
 
ALBERT MAGNUS. 
 
 587 
 
 and impels all the others to effect that which he wills. With¬ 
 out this God would not be present in all efficient causes and 
 in all events ; but he is, potentially, present in them, and 
 communicates to them power and form. In this connexion 
 the doctrine of Miracles is peculiarly modified ; the question 
 is, how anything could happen supra and contra naturam. 
 He distinguishes the different meanings of the term Nature , 
 which sometimes signifies the unchangeable law of Provi¬ 
 dence, whereby everything is led to its destined end ; against 
 Nature in this sense God can do nothing, else he would con¬ 
 tradict himself.* But Nature also signifies the Law, by which 
 the whole Creation is guided, in order to fulfil God’s Council, 
 the dispositio obedientalis. Nature in this sense is related to 
 the former, as fatum is to JProvidentia , as the copy in the 
 phenomenal world is to the connexion of the Archetypal 
 Order of the Universe in the Divine Mind. Nature also in 
 this sense represents a Divine Law, against which God can 
 do nothing without contradicting himself. But the term is 
 also used in a third sense of the common course of Nature, 
 which is only a part of Nature in the second sense, and in 
 relation to this something may be admitted which is contra na¬ 
 turam and a miracle. Further, he lays down principles which 
 are founded in the divine Word, and are patterns for all that 
 exists, according to which everything is framed, and which 
 determine when and how all things must be brought into 
 existence, the causa primordiales. Upon them rests every¬ 
 thing which comes to pass in the works of Nature and of 
 Grace, or in the kingdom of Glory, or according to the com¬ 
 mon course of Nature. If we look at these original causes of 
 the first Creation, God also in this respect has done nothing 
 against the original course of Nature, for he has placed in 
 them the causes of the Miracles which are to take place in the 
 course of development.f What we call Miracle, and what 
 Nature effects, all serve equally for the realization of the 
 
 * Potentiae sive rationes give virtutes ad miracula non sunt inditae 
 materiae mundi, nisi per potentiam obedientiae, per rationes autein 
 causales in Deo sunt. Sicut non potest facere contra seipsum ita non 
 potest facere contra rationes illas et contra opus suum sapienter 
 dispositum. 
 
 f Quod Deus non faciat contra legem naturae sequissimam fit 
 naturalissimam, quam ipse naturae indidit, sed contra consuetum et 
 nobis notum cursum naturae. 
 
568 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 eternal divine Idea. But in the connexion in which we 
 speak of a Miracle we must distinguish between the contra 
 naturam , which, as to its seed and germ, is not contained in 
 Nature ;* and the prater Naturam , which indeed does not 
 contradict, but which, according to the course of Nature, 
 would only follow in gradual development, and now arises 
 suddenly through a higher operation, an accelerated process of 
 Nature;+ and lastly, supra Naturam , the summit of the 
 Wonderful, whereby Nature is brought to a higher stage and 
 perfected, as. for example, in the Incarnation and Re¬ 
 demption. J 
 
 Thomas Aquinas distinguishes the ordo rerum , as far as it 
 depends on the lirst cause, and is in the divine Reason. In 
 relation to this God can do nothing contrary to the Order of 
 Things, else he would contradict his own Will. But if we 
 regard the ordo rerum as far as it depends on the qualities of 
 subordinate causes, God can do something prater ordinem , 
 since He is not subject to the cosmical connexion of causes, 
 but rather the order of the Universe which depends upon it, 
 has been appointed by his free Will, and proceeds from Him. 
 In relation to the divine Omnipotence nothing can be called a 
 miracle, only in relation to the powers of Nature.§ A miracle 
 in an absolute sense is what happens prater ordinem of all 
 created Nature. || But since we do not know all its powers 
 we call that a miracle which happens contrary to the Order 
 known to us, and this is a Miracle in a relative sense. 
 
 5. PREDESTINATION AND PRESCIENCE 
 
 The Augustinian doctrine of Predestination had the ascend¬ 
 ancy in this age of Scholasticism, yet a departure from it was 
 gradually prepared by Alexander of Hales, and more was 
 ascribed to Free Will. Yet Albertus Magnus and Thomas 
 Aquinas maintained more logically than Augustin an uncon¬ 
 ditional necessity, without running into the extravagancies of 
 
 * Quod seminaliter non inest in ipso. 
 
 f Hoc quod secundum ordinem naturae paullatim operantis pro- 
 dineretur, velocius et repente producitur. 
 
 X Quod in potestate naturae nullo modo potest esse et tamen ad 
 naturam se habet ut perfectio naturae. 
 
 § Dicitur aliquid miraculum per comparationem ad facultatem 
 naturae, quam excedit.—Summa, i. qu. 105, art. 8. 
 
 11 Haec proprie miracula, quasi in se ipsis et simpliciter naira. 
 
PREDESTINATION AND PRESCIENCE. 
 
 589 
 
 the Predestinations which were so injurious to the religious 
 feelings. Their skill in Dialectics rendered it possible for 
 them to escape the dangerous consequences. For that pur¬ 
 pose they invented a number of distinctions which have since 
 been generally received. They distinguished between a neces- 
 sitas consequential and a necessitas consequents, a necessitas 
 ordinis, and a necessitas red, that which existed on the suppo¬ 
 sition of a certain connexion, and that which was necessary in 
 itself, or a hypothetical and an absolute necessity. Albert 
 says :—Whatever God knows beforehand in an immutable 
 manner may still be mutable in its actual appearance ; at 
 once necessary and free. We must only distinguish the 
 necessity as far as anything is known beforehand by God, in 
 a certain connexion, and the absolute necessity as far as w 7 e 
 contemplate the phenomenon in itself. Nothing evil can come 
 from God ; he, as the Supreme Good, can only be a Source of 
 good. Everything created by God is good, and so far tends 
 to good. The capability of turning aside and the actual 
 aversion comes not from God, but from the Creature, and so 
 far is created from nothing. When the Supreme Cause com¬ 
 municates existence and the power of acting, and the Second 
 cause by virtue of its mutability turns away from the influence 
 of the Supreme Cause, a disturbance ensues of what was 
 originally good, which is evil. Thus the architectonical art 
 imparts to the hand of the workman the tendency to make a 
 straight line ; but if his hand trembles the straight line is not 
 drawn, although the tendency proceeded from the Art. By 
 this definition the free Will may be considered as a certain 
 form in which the divine Will is accomplished. But more of 
 of Necessity is implied when he says :—The divine Will is 
 the first in the whole succession of efficient causes, by which 
 it moves and guides to effect w T hat, God wills and as lie wills 
 it. Since Albert proceeds on the assumption that God’s 
 eternal acting is not conditioned by temporal causes, he 
 regards it as of the essence of the Catholic Faith that Pre¬ 
 destination is founded only in the acting of the predestinating 
 God, and not from without. The ground of it is the Divine 
 Love, in virtue of which he chose before the Creation certain 
 persons to Salvation ; although they were not yet brought into 
 existence they were always present as predestinated. To the 
 
570 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 divine act equally belongs the rejection from God’s presence 
 (abjectio), and the drawing of divine Grace in Time. 
 
 TEoJMonism of Thomas Aquinas is expressed in the most 
 unqualified^ terms. He asks, whether God knows Evil, and 
 affirms it. He knows Evil as he knows the Good and wills 
 the Good ; not as if God’s knowing were the cause of Evil,* 
 although it is the cause of the Good by which Evil is known. 
 He has produced all things in order to communicate his Good¬ 
 ness to created Beings, and to represent himself to them by 
 means of it. Because he could not be represented by any 
 one creature he has brought them forth numerous and diver¬ 
 sified.*!" Hence the Universe has a greater share in the divine 
 goodness than individuals. But it belongs to the complete¬ 
 ness of divine Revelation that it must include all the stages of 
 perfection, and hence also creatures which are good in such a 
 way that it is possible for them to fall away from Goodness. 
 But it is founded on the nature of things that what may possibly 
 fall away from God, at some time actually falls away. The 
 whole series of created Beings is better and more complete, if 
 there are some creatures in it who really fall away from Good¬ 
 ness.J Without this Evil, much that is good would not be 
 realized, and therefore God did not prevent the Fall. Conse¬ 
 quently Evil appears necessary for the exhibition of the divine 
 harmony of the Universe. But in order not to ascribe the 
 causality of Evil to God, Aquinas distinguishes Evil into posi¬ 
 tive and negative. All in the evil act that belongs to existence 
 
 * Unde patet, quod malum, quod est deviatur a forma et a fine, non 
 causatur a scientia Dei.—Sentent. i. dist. 38, qu. 1, art. i. 
 
 t Produxit res inesse, propter suam bonitatem commumcandam 
 creaturis et per eas representandum, et quia per unam creaturam 
 sufficientur preesentari non potest, produxit multas creaturas et diversas, 
 ut quod deest uni ad representandam divinam bonitatem. suppleatur ex 
 alia, nara bonitas quae in Deo est simpliciter et uniformiter, in creaturis 
 est multipliciter et divisim, unde perfectuis participal divinam bonitatem 
 et reprsesentat earn totum universum quam alia qusecunque creatura.— 
 P. i. qu. 47, art. i. 
 
 7 Et inde est, quod ad completionem universi requiruntur diversi 
 gradus rerum, quarum qusedam altum et qusedam infirmum locum 
 teneant in universo. Et ut uniformitas graduum conservetur in rebus, 
 Deus pennittit aliqua mala fieri ne multa bona impediantur.—I. 23, 5. 
 Ipsa autem natura rerum hoc habet, ut quse deficere possunt, quando- 
 que deficiant.—48, 2. 
 
THOMAS AQUINAS ON EVIL. 
 
 571 
 
 and acting in the proper sense of the term is to be v eferred to 
 God as the original cause ; but the negative , the defectus, is not 
 produced by God, but proceeds from the defect in the Second 
 Cause,* for where many causes are arranged together the last 
 Effect does not necessarily proceed immediately from the first, 
 but from the nearest cause, since, according to its nature, the 
 power of the first is received into the second. Everything is 
 subject to Divine Providence, but not all in the same way. 
 One part of his creatures God has so constituted, that they 
 attain their end by a natural necessity, but to others he has 
 added besides this principle, that of the Will. Thus the 
 divine Providence operates through both, but in each accord¬ 
 ing to its kind. God’s knowledge of the salvation of Men 
 Aquinas supposes not to be conditioned by the knowledge of 
 the quality of their works, since he does not arrive at the 
 knowledge of effects through subordinate causes, but through 
 himself. It corresponds with this unconditionality of the 
 divine knowledge, not to distinguish in God between what 
 proceeds from Free Will and what proceeds from Predesti¬ 
 nation. Divine Providence produces its effects through the 
 effects of subordinate causes, so that the same thing may be 
 accomplished equally by Predestination and by Free Will. 
 Whatever happens is not necessary in order that Predesti¬ 
 nation may be accomplished, but because the Order which the 
 divine Wisdom has appointed is maintained. Free Will, 
 therefore, according to Aquinas, is not a power of self-deter¬ 
 mination which must be traced back to the will itself, but is 
 one of the forms in which the Divine decrees are realized. 
 God operates in all beings, he says, hut so that every being 
 is active according to the peculiar constitution given it at its 
 Creation. In natural things he operates so as to give them 
 power for action ; in Beings possessed of Free Will, so that he 
 communicates the power for action, and at the same time where 
 he operates the Free Will is active. + But the destiny and 
 aim of the act remain in the divine Will. Thus God ope¬ 
 rates in the Free Will according to its need and peculiar con- 
 
 * Et similiter quidquid est entitatis et actionis in actione mala 
 redicitur in Deum sicut in causam; sed quod est ibi defectus, non 
 causatur a Deo, sed ex causa secunda deficiente. 
 
 f Ut virtutem agendi sibi ministret et ipso operante liberum 
 arbitrium agat. 
 
572 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 stitution ; and even when he transforms it, it is in such a way 
 that Man freely does that for which the tendency is given him, 
 and suffers no compulsion.* * * § Man, therefore, believes that he 
 is free. It would involve a contradiction to say that a man 
 does not will that for which a direction is given to his Will. 
 He sets aside the difficulties of Predestination by a comparison ; 
 we can as little ask why this or that person is predestinated as 
 in natural things any reason can be given why, since one sub¬ 
 stance lies at the basis of everything, one portion of it exhibits 
 itself as Fire, another as Water, since God from the beginning 
 has ordained these things ; it depends on the divine Will, as 
 it depends on the Will of the builder that this stone should 
 occupy a certain place, this or that in the Wall.f He distin¬ 
 guished a twofold mode of viewing things in reference to 
 Necessity and Contingency. J God knows all things as pre¬ 
 sent^ and by virtue of this presence everything is necessary 
 in his sight. But Succession and Contingency belong to 
 Time, and as far as we contemplate things in relation to Time 
 they appear subject to Accident and Contingency. 
 
 Raymund Lulli shows great profundity and acuteness in 
 his treatment of this doctrine, but he also failed in tin 
 attempt to maintain freedom in the face of his speculations 
 He says :—The World and all its parts are from Eternitj 
 through the ideas in the Divine Reason, and in this respect 
 the Universe was One. Nevertheless when God created tht 
 World, he did not place any part of the ideal Existence out 
 of himself, else the idea would have undergone a change, 
 which was impossible, because God himself is the Idea.|| 
 But he willed to create out of nothing what he had with him¬ 
 self from Eternity through the idea, God’s creating and 
 upholding agency are only to be distinguished as immediate 
 
 * Etiamsi voluntatem hominis in aliud mutet, niliilo minus tamen 
 hoc sua omnipotentia facit, ut illud, in quod mutatur, voluntarie velit. 
 —Sentt. i. 25, 1, 3 
 
 f Summa, i. 23, 5. 
 
 X Sunt futura contingentia, suis causis proximis comparata. 
 
 § Ejus intuitus fertur ab eeterni supra omnia prorit sunt in sua 
 prsesentialitate. 
 
 || Idea esset alterata et non seterna, quod est impossibile quum idea 
 sit Deus. 
 
 *f[ Sed divina voluntas voluit quod de nihilo esset creatum hoc, quod 
 ab seterno habuit per ideam. 
 
RAYMUND LULLI. 
 
 573 
 
 and mediate agencies ; but everything is to be referred back 
 to his creative Act, whether he operates immediately, or 
 mediately through the Creatures.* The mediating instru¬ 
 ment is here the vis conservativa in things themselves, which 
 everything coming from without serves to aid and excite. He 
 applies the distinction of immediate and mediate agency to 
 the doctrine of Predestination. The Predestinated, he says, 
 is God himself according to the Idea, for the Idea and God 
 are the same.f This Predestination is, therefore, infallible 
 and unchangeable. But as far as Predestination relates to 
 Man created in Time, it is something new, something which 
 has a beginning ; and although the newly-created Man is not 
 in his essence different from the Ideal Man, yet he is different 
 as phenomenal, as far as he stands in the Form of quantity, 
 space, and time. Here God does not operate immediately 
 and necessarily, but mediately through the agency of Man. 
 He predestinated Peter by virtue of the merits of his good 
 works, as he gives warmth by means of the Sun and fire. 
 Raymund denies that Predestination is a compulsory thing; 
 this would be at variance with the divine Wisdom and recti¬ 
 tude. But yet for God everything is necessary which is 
 developed in Time, and the possibility that it should happen 
 otherwise is only an assumption arising from the weakness of 
 abstract thought; thus at the basis of his System there is the 
 same necessity as in that of Thomas Aquinas. 
 
 b. ANTHROPOLOGY. 
 
 OF man’s original state, the fall and its consequences. 
 
 The distinction made by the earlier Schoolmen between what 
 was founded in the original constitution of Man and what was 
 added by Grace, so that in a certain sense grace was necessary 
 even in the primeval state,—-was held by the Theologians of 
 this Period. They also deduced the necessity of Grace from 
 
 * Et quia creatio ita est per creare creaturam, quae conservat aliam 
 creaturam, sicut est per creare illam creaturam conservatam, ergo 
 sequitur, quod creatio et conservatio sint idem. 
 
 Una prsedestinatio, quae est Deus, et alia prsedestinatio, quse est 
 effectus et in novo subjecto sustentata et creata, et hoc sine mutatione 
 divini intellectus, qui non mutatur per suum effectum, quum suus 
 effectus non sit novus in quantum in ea, sed est novus quoad se ipsum, 
 quum ex nihil de novo sit productus. 
 
574 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the general relation of Man to God. They attached a two¬ 
 fold meaning to the idea of Grace in this relation ; they so 
 termed the divine concursus, which relates to all creatures, 
 generally ; from this is to be distinguished the special concur - 
 sus, which fits Man to accomplish what he is not competent 
 for, with only the assistance of the general concursus. When 
 the relation of Nature to Grace is treated of, the concursus in 
 the higher sense is intended. These theologians understood 
 by Grace a quality imparted to the Soul, a donum infusum y 
 and distinguished in its operations a certain communication 
 which the grace coming from without brings, but which is 
 limited to separate endowments, such as working miracles and 
 Prophesying, but which does not presuppose the existence of 
 the divine life as an animating principle—the dispositio ad 
 saluUm is still wanting. This is the gratia gratis data. On 
 the other hand, the communication by which a peculiar divine 
 impress, a permanent divine life, gratia as a habitus is 
 bestowed on Man, whereby he becomes acceptable to God, is 
 the gratia gratum faciens, and identical with Salvation, the 
 solus ipsa. Alexander of Hales defines the gratia gratis 
 data as the gift which is communicated to rational Creatures, 
 in order to make them capable, as far as depends on this gift, 
 to labour for the eternal salvation and improvement of others. 
 It is the more remote preparation for salvation, mere dead 
 faith, knowledge without life. Through the gratia gratum 
 faciens salvation itself is added. 
 
 An objection was made to the views of the Schoolmen, 
 which they did not leave unnoticed. Why, it was asked, if 
 every other being is furnished with everything requisite for 
 fulfilling its destiny—why must a higher grace be added to 
 human nature ? Alexander of Hales replied,—This is 
 owing to the higher nature and destiny of Man, which trans¬ 
 cend the limits of Earth. He is created for assimilation to 
 God, for an end which lies above the powers of all created 
 beings. On this account a higher Element must be added, 
 the divine life, which restores this assimilation. Only by the 
 congenial the congenial can be produced. 
 
 Bonaventura says :—As light is an influence which makes 
 the bodies that assimilate themselves to it resemble the source 
 of light, so is Grace an influence of the divine Spirit, by which 
 Man is assimilated to this its source. He connects with this 
 
BONAVENTURA AND AQUINAS. 
 
 575 
 
 what he had assumed to be the highest end of Creation,* * * § that 
 God had created all things for his own glorification in his self¬ 
 revelation, which presupposes the existence of rational crea¬ 
 tures, who would be capable of appreciating the Supreme 
 Good, and employing all other good things for that end. The 
 Vestigia Dei are in all Nature, but the Imago Dei only in 
 Man. The position of Man in the Universe not only shows 
 that he is capable of communion with God, but also that God 
 can reveal and communicate himself to him in this manner. 
 From his origin he carries with him the light of the divine 
 countenance. - ! On the other hand, his Reason is in harmony 
 with Nature; in it the whole Universe is, as it were, con¬ 
 tained, is inscribed upon it, and so planned as to be repre¬ 
 sented in it. As the whole Universe represents God in a 
 sensuous totality, so rational creatures represent Him in a 
 spiritual totality in the Form of Spirit. J Bonaventura dis¬ 
 tinguishes between the imago and similitudo of God in Man, 
 and makes the former consist in the intellectual qualities, § 
 the latter in those of the disposition or the heart,|| by virtue of 
 which only communion with God can be realized. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas represents God as the primus motor , a3 
 the Cause from which all effects are to be derived. In one 
 respect everything True and Good is to be derived from God, 
 but we must distinguish what rests upon the powers im¬ 
 parted at Creation, and what is derivable from the Grace after¬ 
 wards added. Of this the whole World presents analogies ; 
 everywhere we have to distinguish what lies in the structure 
 of a Being according to its original Creation, and the ope¬ 
 rations for which a Being is capacitated by the addition of a 
 new Principle. There are certain actions of Water which 
 take place according to the qualities of its nature as created; 
 there are others which are not produced till the new power of 
 fire is added. 
 
 * Summa, ii. 16, 1. 
 
 t Propter hoc fert in se a sua origine lumen vultus divina. 
 
 + Quia rationalis creatura et intellectus quiddammodo est omnia, et 
 omnia nata sunt ibi scribi et imprimi omniumque similitudines depingi, 
 ideo, sicut totum universum reprsesentat Deum in quadarn totalitate 
 gpirituali, nata alia in se spiritualiter continere. 
 
 § Virtus cognitiva, potentia cognoscendi. 
 
 || Virtus affectiva, potentia diligendi, qualitas in qua principaliter 
 assimilatur anima Deo, est in voluntate sive affectione. 
 
576 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 What relation do the p ur a naturalia bear to gratia? The 
 answer to this question is important as it regards the doctrine 
 of Man’s Original State and his Freedom. With it is con¬ 
 nected the determination of the question whether the justitia 
 originates is necessary for realizing the destiny of Man, or 
 whether it is only added accidentally, for on this depend dif¬ 
 ferent conclusions respecting Original Sin. The distinction is 
 particularly important, whether the dona naturalia and the 
 dona gratia are to be distinguished only in thought, so that 
 both existed equally from the beginning in the justitia 
 originalis, or whether Man was created at first, and first 
 received the dona gratuita in consequence of the dona natu 
 ralia having been employed according to his Free Will, so 
 that the attainment of them was preceded by a meritum on 
 Man’s part. According to such a view Alexander of Hales 
 supposed Man to be created first in his puris naturalibus, 
 and then the higher development of Nature follows by the 
 informatio per gratiam. According to this view Man needed 
 grace from the beginning, but it was to be attained by the 
 determination of his Will The original relation of the latter 
 to Nature is distinguished from the present in this respect, 
 that it required Grace only for its higher culture, not for its 
 transformation. Man in relation to Grace was informis nega¬ 
 tive, without the higher form of life, but not informis privative, 
 as he was after the Fall. Hence gratia is informans, not 
 reformans. Thomas Aquinas proceeds on the general as¬ 
 sumption that matter and the Form of things were created 
 together, but were brought to perfection gradually in Time. 
 Man indeed was created first of all in puris naturalibus ; but 
 these pure natural powers could not be inoperative, but from 
 the beginning must turn to God according to their destiny,* 
 and thus Man acquired Grace, which was indispensably requi¬ 
 site for the originalis justitia. Man possessed the rectitudo 
 primistatus ; he was in every respect such as his destiny 
 required, f Reason acted in subordination to God. But the 
 harmonious relation to him was not founded merely in Nature, 
 but Grace is requisite for it. Man needed from the beginning 
 
 * In Sentt. ii. 29, 1, 2.—Quum homo creatus fuerit in naturalibus 
 integris, quae otiosa esse non poterant, in primo instanti creationis ad 
 Deum conversus, gratiam consecutus est. 
 
 f Summa, i. 95, 1. 
 
BONAVENTURA AND DUNS SCOTUS. 
 
 577 
 
 Gratia as forma superaddita, in order to complete those opera¬ 
 tions for which his own nature was not sufficient. Aquinas 
 therefore adopted the first view, which only admitted an intel¬ 
 lectual distinction. 
 
 The difference between Nature and Grace was also ex¬ 
 pressed by a double Standpoint of love to God. Bona- 
 ventura thus expressed the distinction :—There is a stand¬ 
 point of Love to God which is grounded in the original 
 Constitution of a rational nature as far as it belongs to the 
 Essence of all created Beings to subordinate themselves to 
 the whole, and God is the Being to whom the whole of 
 Creation refers itself. Hence, even on the Standpoint of 
 pure Nature, Self-love must be subordinate to the love of 
 God. In a fallen State the Will of the Creature has taken a 
 direction by which Man withdraws himself from God, and 
 substitutes himself for the Supreme Good. On the Stand¬ 
 point of mere Nature, among the Heathen, there was a Love 
 which tended to subordinate the interest of the individual to 
 the general weal; but the Standpoint of Christian caritas goes 
 still farther ; it is a Love which regards the supernatural des¬ 
 tiny of Man. This communion with God as the Supreme 
 Good is something supernatural; it is not founded in the 
 powers of Nature. 
 
 Huns Scotus proceeds in the track of Alexander of Hales. 
 In order to withdraw the will of a rational creature from all sub¬ 
 ordinate pleasure, something must be given to it which attracts 
 it with greater power than all the pleasures of his lower Nature; 
 and as such an object is not given in the natural Will, some¬ 
 thing supernatural is required for the Will by which the end 
 of its destiny is rendered more attractive for it than created 
 things can be. This is, therefore, a donum supernaturale, 
 and is required for justitia originalis. This view led to the 
 statement, that lust or desire was implanted in the pur a natu- 
 ralia , and was only checked by a power from without. Ac¬ 
 cording to the pure Christian view, human Nature can only 
 reach its destiny through the divine life by which it is filled; 
 hut here the case is represented as if human Nature must be 
 potentiated through the Divine coming to it from without, 
 which we must regard as something supernatural and super¬ 
 human ; the germ, therefore, of the tendency which has such 
 important consequences in Catholicism. If the antagonism 
 
 P P 
 
578 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 cf Sensuousness against Reason were only held back by an 
 outward restraint, jastitia originalis would also be something 
 given from without, and the immediate consequence would be 
 that the disposition towards Sin existed already in the pura 
 naturalia. Hence Duns Scotus says there is no distinction 
 between the Standpoint of the pura naturalia and the justitia 
 originalis ; it commences with the transgression of Duty. 
 This mode of thought is allied to the ancient distinction 
 between human Virtue and the divine Life which exerted its 
 influence on Dogmatics and Morals. Hence arose the ascetic 
 tendency in the morals of the Schoolmen, the doctrine of the 
 consilia evangelica as superhuman perfection, the contrast of 
 the Cardinal and the Theological Virtues, while the Christian 
 principle is nothing else than the restoration and perfection of 
 human nature. If, as according to the view taken by Aquinas, 
 Nature and Grace w r ere united from the beginning, and are 
 only intellectually separated, certainly the conclusion that in 
 consequence of the Hall pure Nature only is left, is in a great 
 measure checked, for Aquinas also admits a deterioration of 
 Nature by the forfeitur 6 01 Grace. 
 
 The doctrine of Original Sin is conditioned by the doctrine 
 of the Original State of Man. 
 
 The Catharists maintained that a Soul of divine descent, 
 a higher Spirit, banished by Satanael to a body, was in the 
 first man. From this one all human souls descended, and 
 hence came Sin. Thus the propagation of Original Sin, the 
 Unity of Mankind, and the relation of Redemption to all may 
 be explained. 
 
 Aquinas combated the view of the Traducians, according to 
 which Sin was transferred by propagation, for this would not 
 explain the participation in guilt. Mankind must be regarded 
 as an ethical person, and so far Adam’s Sin was the sin of all 
 men. In original Sin Aquinas recognised tw T o elements, one 
 privative, the other positive. The first was the loss of the 
 Harmony of original righteousness ; the second consisted in 
 an inordinata dispositio, a discordance which took place 
 between Reason and Sensuousness, and in a languor natures. 
 Duns Scotus, on the contrary, regarded it only as privatio ; 
 it was the loss of that Grace which repressed the strife that is 
 funded in man’s sensuous nature, and preserved harmony. 
 
 [n connexion with the doctrine of Original Sin must be 
 
ORIGINAL SIN AND THE VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 579 
 
 noticed the relation of the Virgin Mary to the universal sin¬ 
 fulness. Thomas Aquinas did not hold with the doctrine of 
 her Immaculate Conception.* He says :—In the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures we find nothing more than that the Mother of Christ was 
 honoured by Grace before all others. On some individuals, as 
 Elijah and Jeremiah, the distinction was bestowed of being 
 sanctified from their birth ; and this was true also of Mary, 
 who was purified from her personal sin, but not from the guilt 
 that is attached to human nature universally, for this would 
 have encroached on the prerogative of Christ as the common 
 Redeemer. Nor is the Feast of the immaculata conceptio a 
 proof to the contrary, for this was only introduced because it 
 cannot be determined at what time her Purification took place. 
 The predisposition to sin (fomes peccati ) was indeed not extir¬ 
 pated, but was restrained by the superabundant grace which 
 she received in her sanctification. The habitual Original Sin 
 did not become actual Sin, since the operations of grace 
 repressed the evil inclinations which existed in the consti¬ 
 tution of the Soul, and preserved her sensuousness from 
 every irregular movement; but after the birth of Christ she 
 became altogether freed from the fumes peccati .t Duns 
 Scotus, on the contrary, maintained the conceptio immaculata. 
 and established it in the following manner. J As Christ is the 
 universal Redeemer and most perfect mediator, it follows that 
 in reference to one person he exercises this Mediatorship in 
 the most perfect manner; accordingly, she was not only freed 
 from Sin, but preserved from all Sin, actual as well as original. 
 Mary is not thereby placed on a level with Christ, but God 
 anticipated the effect of original Sin in her, as when fire is 
 brought near inflammable matter, and yet this is not burnt. 
 Yet in pronouncing his judgment he expresses himself pro¬ 
 blematically and temperately ; God could effect either that 
 she should never, or only for an instant, or for a long time be 
 encumbered with original Sin, and at last be freed from it. 
 Which of these three actually came to pass only God knows. 
 Yet his arguments paved the way for the doctrine which was 
 afterwards expressed more strongly by Raymund Ltjllt. When 
 
 * Summa, p iii. q. 27, art. 1. 
 
 + Credendum tst, quod ex prole redundaverit in mat-rein totaliter 
 fomite subtracto. 
 
 I Ic Sentent. iii. dist. 3, qusest. i. § 9. 
 
 P P 2 
 
580 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the birth of Christ took place, and it was requisite that Mary 
 should be a worthy organ of it, she must have been born free 
 from original Sin. # 
 
 C. THE DOCTRINE OF THE REDEEMER AND HIS WORK. 
 
 1. THE OBJECTIVE SIDE. 
 
 The question whether the Sinlessness of Christ consisted in -a 
 non posse peccare or in a posse non peccare was decided by 
 Duns Scotus in favour of the latter; but yet it was only 
 in a certain connexion that he placed the possibility, and 
 without mingling the actual 'weakness of Christ’s human 
 nature, like Theodore of Mopsuestia. The human Nature 
 of Christ, he says, could in and by itself sin (de se erat 
 jiossibilis peccare ), since it was endowed with Free Will, aud 
 this can incline itself to Evil or to Good; but in union with 
 the divine nature it was at the same time so confirmed in 
 goodness, that it became sinless. He also believed that the 
 sensuous impulses of human nature must be admitted to exist 
 in Christ as far as concupiscentia necessarily forms part of 
 a sensuous nature. But it belongs to the essence of a rational 
 nature that the concupiscentia is adjusted according to the 
 measure and order of reason, and this we assume to be the 
 case in Christ. 
 
 Many discussions arose out of the question whether Re¬ 
 demption was to be considered as taking place only on account 
 of Sin, and therefore as the Restoration of the fallen human 
 race, or whether it would have taken place had there been no 
 sin, and hence whether this union of God with human nature 
 was necessary for the harmony of the Universe. These ques¬ 
 tions were variously answered according as the Work of 
 Redemption was contemplated on the negative or the positive 
 side, as simply a realization of the destiny of Man, or as a 
 restoration from the Fall. Bonaventura regards the positive 
 view as more in accordance with the judgment of Reason, 
 the negative more in agreement with Scripture, since it 
 regards the restoration of the human race as the cause and 
 
 * Nisi beata virgo fuisset disposita, quod filius Dei de ipsa assumeret 
 carneru, scilicet quod non est corrupta nec in aliquo peccato sive 
 actual! sive originali, filius Dei non potuisset ab ipsa assumere camera, 
 cum Deus et peccatum non possunt concordari in aliquo subjecto. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 
 
 581 
 
 end of the Incarnation of God. Also in this way the interests 
 of piety are more firmly supported, for otherwise God appears 
 dependent on the perfection of the Universe, since the neces¬ 
 sity is assumed that without this union of God with Man 
 God’s works cannot attain to their perfection ; but God is 
 exalted above the Universe. An incitement to devout feeling 
 is contained also in our knowing that God became Man, in 
 order to free Men from Sin. Lastly, as the Incarnation of 
 God is a transcendent fact, it presupposes a want on the other 
 side which it has to make good. Aquinas on this question 
 points out* that what is founded only on the will of God, inde¬ 
 pendently of all merit on the part of the creature, is made 
 known to us only by the Scriptures as the revelation of the 
 divine Will. From that source alone we learn that the Incar¬ 
 nation was designed to be a remedy for sin. Had Man not 
 sinned he would only have needed inward illumination; but 
 since through Sin he has sunk down into sensuousness, God 
 must present salvation to him through a sensuous medium. 
 For the perfection of the Universe, the natural relation of the 
 Creation to God would be sufficient as the end of all. But 
 the personal union of the Creature with the Creator passes 
 beyond the limits of Nature, and transcends the perfection 
 which belongs to its original Constitution, so that human 
 Nature, since God makes Evil subservient to Good, is raised 
 after Sin to a higher stage.t Duns Scotus, on the contrary, 
 says:—The glorification of the human Nature of Christ in 
 union with the divine Essence is supreme, and it is not pro¬ 
 bable that this could be made to depend on anything subordi¬ 
 nate, such as the Sin of Mankind. Therefore, apart from 
 this, and for his own sake, was his Incarnation made a part of 
 the scheme of Creation. 
 
 Raymund Lulli likewise pointed out that from the beginning 
 it had been the end of Creation ; the Incarnation of God can 
 certainly be traced to no other cause than the divine Will, but 
 it is required by the Creation. This is a work of free Love ; 
 yet that being once granted, we recognise its highest per¬ 
 fection to consist in God’s entering into this union with the 
 
 * Summa, iii. I, 3. 
 
 + Ad. perfectionein universi sufficit, quod naturali modo creatura 
 ordineretur in Deum, sicut in finena. Hoc autem excedit limites 
 perfectionis naturae, ut creatura uniatur Deo in persona. 
 
582 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Creature. On this rests at the same time his highest glorifi¬ 
 cation, and we cannot say that it was only brought about by 
 Sin, but rather that God owed it to himself.* After Sin the 
 Incarnation was necessary, in order that the end for which the 
 World was created might not be nullified, but be accomplished, 
 in spite of the derangement, t 
 
 Further, the Schoolmen discussed whether the necessity of 
 the method in which Redemption was effected by Christ could 
 be proved. Aquinas maintained that there was no absolute 
 proof for it. Since Redemption proceeded from the free Will 
 of God, it sufficed to prove that this method was not impos¬ 
 sible, and that it was suitable. Supposing that Man had been 
 redeemed by an Angel, his perfect restoration could not have 
 been effected, for Man would have remained dependent on a 
 creature. The visible appearance of God was necessary, in 
 order that Man might be led from the visible to the knowledge 
 and love of the invisible. Setting out from the contemplation 
 of the divine Omnipotence, other possible modes of Redemption 
 might be imagined, but this method must have ever been the 
 most suitable. On the other hand, if regard be had to Man’s 
 standpoint, no other method was possible than that which was 
 chosen by God, since Alan by himself alone could render no 
 satisfaction. If the relations to God and Man are combined, 
 it must be allowed that another method of Redemption was 
 possible, but none so suitable as this. The union of God with 
 Man must give Alan the strongest assurance of attaining the 
 highest happiness, which consists in immediate union with 
 God. Aden might have easily been led to despair by the con¬ 
 sciousness of the breach between themselves and God. But 
 since Redemption has been effected, the longing after Salva¬ 
 tion is far stronger, and Men have acquired a new conscious¬ 
 ness of the dignity of their nature. Hence from this time 
 they have desisted from the worship of all created beings. In 
 these ends Aquinas found the importance of the work of 
 Redemption. As he here joins his own ideas with those of 
 Anselm, he agrees also with him in the opinion that the 
 satisfaction rendered by Christ furnished what was requisite 
 from its intrinsic worth. Like Anselm, he proceeds on the 
 principle that for an injury something must be given which 
 
 * Alias Deus non solveret debitum sibi ipsi et suis dignitatibus. 
 
 t Ut satisfaceret illi fini, ad quem rnundus fuit creatus. 
 
INNOCENT III. AND WILLIAM OF PARIS. 
 
 583 
 
 the injured party would value as high as, or higher than, what 
 had been lost by the injury. Christ’s Satisfaction is not only 
 sufficiens , but superabundans. If we find elsewhere the various 
 instrumentalities of grace scattered, such as the offices of Law¬ 
 giver, Priest, and King, all these are united in Christ, the 
 fountain of all Grace. He is the Mediator between God and 
 Men, as far as he communicates what is divine to them, inter¬ 
 cedes for them, and makes satisfaction for their sins. Christ 
 is not like one single person, but the mystical head of the 
 members which belong to him, inasmuch as what he has done 
 is for their benefit. 
 
 On the other hand, in Innocent III. w r e find no trace of 
 Anselm’s views. Expressing himself popularly, he revived 
 the ancient notion of satisfaction given to Satan. The end of 
 Redemption he. places on the one hand in the Subjective, inas¬ 
 much as God by the Revelation of his love moved his enemies 
 to love, and reduced pride to humility. But he also connected 
 with it an objective importance, and was the first who repre¬ 
 sented the Satisfaction of Christ as a reconciliation between 
 the divine attributes of mercy and justice. The justice of 
 God required the adequate punishment of all, but his mercy 
 would not permit this; hence God took upon himself the 
 punishment which w T as due to his justice. This was the first 
 assertion of the scitisfactio vicaria passiva among the School¬ 
 men.* 
 
 A modification of Anselm’s theory is given by William of 
 Paris.! ^ holds good of spiritual as well as of bodily ills, 
 that they are cured by their opposites. J In the first sin and 
 all following sins, pride, disobedienc-e, and cupidity were con¬ 
 tained. Pride w r as in that the most conspicuous; hence 
 Redemption must commence with its opposite ; God the all- 
 sufficient appeared in Christ, under the form of a servant. 
 He submitted to the obedience which man ought to have ren¬ 
 dered, and assumed his poverty. This alone could be an 
 adequate remedy, and an adequate satisfaction, and could only 
 
 * Modum invenit, per quern utrique satisfaceret tam misericordi?o 
 quarn justitise; judicavit igitur, ut assumeret in se poenam pro omnibus 
 et donaret per se gloriam universis.—Sermo, i. fol. vi. ed. Colon. 1575. 
 
 f De Causis cur Deus Homo. 
 
 £ Cap. 5.—Quod contraria contrariis curantur tam in spiritualibus 
 quam in corporalibus. 
 
564 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 be rendered by God as Man. The antagonism lias been 
 reconciled ; through Love Man must be led to communion 
 with God;* hence God revealed his love by partaking of Man’s 
 nature, and of his sufferings. God must become Man, that 
 Man may become God.f 
 
 Duns Scotus differs from the above as the Representative 
 of the more subjective view of the work of Redemption. 
 According to this, the effects of Redemption do not stand in a 
 necessary and adequate relation to it, so that according to its 
 character and nature it must have this importance and pro¬ 
 duce these effects, but they follow because it pleased God, to 
 annex Redemption to this price. Everything which is good, 
 is good because God has willed it. Hence that merit has so 
 much merit as God was pleased to attribute to it. When God 
 had accepted it, it was so far necessary. He examines, 
 what the sufferings of Christ could effect in themselves, and 
 what according to the divine decree. It might be said ;— 
 Christ suffered for righteousness, for he had seen the sins of 
 the Jews, and since he wished to convert them, and held it to 
 be his duty, not to be silent upon it, the consequence of this 
 was his death; he died for truth and righteousness. But in 
 fact he really presented his sufferings to the Father for us; 
 for if Man could have been redeemed in any other way, he 
 was under so much greater obligations to God, since forgive¬ 
 ness was not necessary, and for this reason God had so 
 redeemed Men in order thereby to excite them to love Him. 
 
 V 
 
 According to his view, therefore, Redemption was not con¬ 
 nected with the sufferings of Christ, ex insito valore, but 
 because it so pleased God, ex divina acceptilatione. Possibly 
 a good Angel or a Man begotten without sin might have 
 served for the Redemption of Humanity, if God had been 
 willing to adopt such a method. This difference in the doc¬ 
 trine of Satisfaction was kept up in the succeeding age. 
 
 2 . THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE. APPROPRIATION OF THE WORK OF 
 
 REDEMPTION. 
 
 The essence of sanctification was everywhere regarded as 
 
 * Quia amor amore convenientius accenditur, sicut ignis igne, decuit 
 Deum amorem nostrum amore suo accendere. 
 
 t Quid mirum est, Deum esse factum hominem, participatione 
 humame natunc, ut homo etiam fieret Deus, congruenti sibi partieipa- 
 tione deitatis. 
 
SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 585 
 
 founded in the disposition, in the inner Christian life. 
 Aquinas gives the following summary—Christ is our Head, 
 inasmuch as He operates upon us by his merits ; but the 
 Head can only extend its influence to the members that are 
 connected with it. Although Christ’s merits are sufficient to 
 cancel Sin, yet for that purpose, connexion with the Head is 
 presupposed. The means of this are Faith and Love. Hence, 
 he says, the merits of Christ have a being in the Soul accord¬ 
 ing to its different powers; in reference to the intellectns by 
 faith ; to the affectus, the disposition, by Love ; and to the 
 conduct by the imitation of Christ. But these are only three 
 different relations in which Man appropriates the merits of 
 Christ. He defines Faith to be an act of the Spirit which 
 assents to divine truth in virtue of the tendency imparted to 
 the Spirit through the Will influenced by Divine Grace. 1 * 
 He distinguishes between the theological and the ethical vir¬ 
 tues, and reckons Faith among the former, as representing the 
 peculiar Christian principle. Man required this new principle in 
 order to become fit for the supernatural in his destiny. The 
 theological Virtues have their first relation to the Intellect, 
 which receives the principles imparted by Revelation, for they 
 can be known only in the divine light; and this is effected 
 through Faith. If the Will directs itself to the end presented 
 by faith as attainable, the idea of Hope arises, and as far 
 as a spiritual communion with that which constitutes the end 
 of Humanity is required, the idea of Love is produced.f 
 
 We have remarked how the Schoolmen, after Augustin, 
 conceived of justificatio not as objective justification, but a 
 subjective sanctification of which faith is the instrument and 
 which is realized in Love. Aquinas thought the infusio 
 gratia justificantis necessary for the forgiveness of sins on 
 the part of God, and allowed successive steps in justificatio ; 
 first of all the communication of grace—then the tendency of 
 the Free Will to God—then that by which it departs from Sin ; 
 and upon this, the forgiveness of sins. In the act of faith is 
 contained the admission that Man is made righteous by the 
 Redemption of Christ. 
 
 * Actus intellectus assentientis veritati divinte ex imperio voluntatis 
 a Deo motce per gratiam.—Summa, ii. 2, 1, 4. 
 
 t Neander, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Herausg. v. J. L. Jacobi, 
 1851, p. 42. 
 
586 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 This subjective view of Justificatio had important conse¬ 
 quences. The question arose, how could a Man have confi¬ 
 dence that he had received the forgiveness of sins ? Alexan¬ 
 der of Hales contended, that on this point there was a 
 peculiar knowledge—since neither the cause nor the effect 
 fell within the province of human knowledge ; yet a certain 
 feeling of knowledge might be possessed upon it; * only it is 
 not infallible, but verifies itself by experience in the feelings 
 when these three signs concur, light, peace, and joy. God 
 does not will either to give us complete certainty, or to leave 
 us wholly in uncertainty. If Man experienced nothing of the 
 sweetness of the divine life, he would not be attracted to the 
 love of God ; if he had perfect assurance it would easily 
 seduce him into pride. 
 
 Aquinas also is of opinionf that no one can have perfect 
 certainty on the subject; only there are signs, if proper at¬ 
 tention be paid, such as, that a man has his joy in God, 
 that he despises the World, and is conscious of no gross sins. 
 A presage may thus be formed of his forgiveness. 
 
 The consequence for the practical Christian life was that 
 men were led to dwell too much on their subjective feelings ; 
 and hence the tendency to enthusiastic feelings and visions by 
 which assurance was sought for. On the other hand this 
 assurance was sought for in painful ascetic efforts, and there 
 was danger of a onesided tendency to rely on external 
 works. Hence it is evident, how important it was for 
 practical Christianity that the Reformation appeared as a 
 counteractive. 
 
 When the question was canvassed, what Man could do in 
 order to be a partaker of grace, the idea of meritum was 
 introduced. In this expression we must take account of the 
 Latin usus loquencli which lies at its basis, and which does not 
 always include the idea of merit. The Schoolmen distin¬ 
 guished between a meritum de condigno and a meritum de 
 congruo. The former affirmed merit in the strict sense ; and 
 this cannct possibly exist in the relation of the creature to 
 God, and for that reason the Schoolmen denied that Man 
 
 * Scientia affectus per experientiam rei in affectu. 
 
 f Nullus certitudinaliter potest scire se habere caritatem, sed potest 
 e aliquibus signis probabilibus conjicere.—In libr. i. Sentt. dist. 17, 
 qu. 1, art. 4. 
 
GRACE AND HUMAN MERIT. 
 
 587 
 
 could make himself worthy of divine Grace. But the 
 meritum de congruo or imputativum is something different; 
 this presupposes that God has connected the impartation of 
 Grace with certain conditions. Here therefore is a relation of 
 the impartation of grace which rests on the moral order of the 
 World. When Man performs his part, on which according to 
 this arrangement, grace depends, he earns this meritum as it 
 may be called, though not in the proper sense of that term. 
 Grace appears conditioned by the free susceptibility of Man. 
 All the Schoolmen are agreed in presupposing a certain 
 preparation, a preparatory form for the operation of grace. 
 But the fundamental principle was carried out in various ways, 
 and this difference forms one of the points of variance be¬ 
 tween the Franciscan and the Dominican Theologians. 
 
 Alexander of Hales introduced a real deviation from the 
 Augustinian type of doctrine. He always presupposes that 
 Grace cannot be merited as a debt. All men are in the same 
 lost state, but God in his love is willing to bless them by the 
 communication of his grace. He has only affixed the condi¬ 
 tion that Man does what he is able to do according to the 
 pow'er of his free Will which still remains to him. God alone 
 can make Man capable by his Grace, but if Man does his 
 part, the divine preparative grace will be imparted to him. 
 This communication of God’s love surrounds him like a light, 
 which shines everywhere, but there must be a susceptibility to 
 receive it, and according to this its operation is determined. 
 A rich man distributes alms,—one stretches out his hand, 
 another does not; hence the preparatory grace is imparted to 
 the one and not to the other. 
 
 On the other hand Thomas Aquinas, supposes no such 
 condition depending on free self-determination, as appears from 
 his work on Providence. He has certainly an assumption, 
 formed according to the Aristotelian categories which affirms 
 that no effect can ensue but on susceptible materials. Thus 
 also the effect of Grace is realized only in a definite suscep¬ 
 tibility, but this is referred exclusively to God’s act from 
 whom every impulse comes. Everything which is requisite to 
 make men susceptible of Salvation, belongs also to the effects 
 of Predestination. The consequences of his presuppositions 
 lead further than Augustin, since according to them it neces- 
 
688 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 sarily follows that even the Freedom of the first man before 
 the Fall is not to be viewed in a manner different from 
 this. 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The Schoolmen were not satisfied with accepting the 
 doctrine of the Sacraments as simply ordained, bat wished to 
 prove their necessity in the scheme of Christianity. Th ey 
 were especially led to these discussions by their conflict with 
 those who attributed only a symbolical meaning to the 
 Scripture Sacraments. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas regards the sufferings of Christ as the 
 general cause of Salvation for men, but it needed special 
 means in order to apply this universal cause to all single 
 instances. The Sacraments are the means by which men are 
 enabled to appropriate the blessed consequences of Christ’s 
 sufferings. They must be connected with visible signs, since 
 it is consonant to human nature to ascend to the Spiritual 
 through the Sensuous. And Providence takes care of all 
 creatures in a manner suited to their nature. Moreover, 
 Salvation must proceed from that part which is the seat of the 
 disease. Man through sin has turned to the things of sense; 
 Ithe reaction must also proceed from the same quarter. Lastly, 
 ’human activity relates peculiarly to sensuousness which easily 
 leads to superstition ; through the Sacraments a higher 
 employment is given to sensuousness, and thereby that seduc¬ 
 tion is avoided. As the incarnation and sufferings of Christ 
 took place in the sensible World, so also sensible means serve 
 for their appropriation. Aquinas endeavours to prove the 
 necessity of the Seven Sacraments on the principle that the 
 whole life should be consecrated to God’s grace; its gradual 
 development from birth to death was surrounded by the 
 Sacraments, (i.) The birth of the spiritual life takes place in 
 Baptism (ii.) The growth to maturity is through Confirma¬ 
 tion (iii.) the nourishment of the spiritual life is through the 
 Lord’s Supper. If Man were bodily and spiritually sound 
 throughout, he needs nothing more ; but for the healing of his 
 sickly state he requires (iv.) Penance; (v.) the promotion of 
 his recovery by certain means is signified by Extreme 
 Unction. Moreover it is of importance that Man should 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 589 
 
 receive religious consecration for the business of life; this for 
 the spiritual life takes place in (vi.) Ordination, and for 
 natural propagation (vii.) by Marriage. 
 
 The question was variously handled, how the divine co¬ 
 operation in the Sacraments is to be conceived. According 
 to one view, a divine agency and effect inheres to the 
 Sacraments objectively, and the New Testament Sacraments 
 are distinguished from those of the Old by communicating the 
 Divine while the latter only indicated it. But the difficulty 
 must occur, how this should be communicated to the 
 sensible element, since there was a wish to guard against the 
 deification of the objects of sense. It rendered the decision 
 more difficult, that the Church doctrine had connected the 
 efficacy of the Sacrament, the objective justification, with the 
 outward operation, ex opere operato, and that the Schoolmen 
 were obliged to admit this prevalent notion into their system. 
 
 Alexander of Hales ascribed to the outward signs, a 
 supernatural power communicated to them, a power which was 
 wonderfully communicated to the corporeal agens. So far 
 they are causes of Grace through the objective working, 
 ratione operis operati, in contradistinction to that which pro¬ 
 ceeds from the subjective tendency of the disposition. Yet he 
 adds the sentiment, that this effect is not to be ascribed to the 
 outward element in itself, but to it as combined with the whole 
 rite. A justifying power is indeed ascribed to the Sacraments 
 in and for themselves, but yet God is the efficient cause from 
 whom alone everything proceeds; the Priest is only the 
 ministering Organ, and the Sacraments place Man in a condi¬ 
 tion to receive the divine communication. 
 
 Aquinas combats a remarkable representation in which we 
 recognise the reaction of a more liberal spirit against the 
 Church views. To many it was a stumbling-block that the 
 Sacraments should be regarded as caused gratia; they wished 
 only to affirm that God had connected the operation of his grace 
 upon the soul with the condition of the rite, and that Grace 
 accompanied the use of the Sacraments. As when a king 
 wishes to distribute a treasure, and connects with the reception 
 of it by each person the condition, that he should show a 
 leaden penny, so the Sacraments stand in relation to grace. 
 Aquinas on the contrary vindicates the view held by the 
 Church; that in the Old Testament the Sacraments are 
 
690 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 only symbols of gratia justificctns ; and that in the New, Goa 
 indeed is the 'principalis causa gratia , but the Sacraments ar 
 causa instrumental^. 
 
 Duns Scotus combats the view that the Sacraments are the 
 signs of divine Grace, of Faith, of righteousness received, 
 and designed as marks to excite the remembrance of that 
 Grace; yet he does not altogether agree with Aquinas. He 
 maintains that the reception of the Sacraments cannot be 
 called such an arrangement, to which by virtue of an inward 
 necessity ( per formam intrinsecam ) the effect described is 
 joined, but this effect is connected with the Sacraments by 
 virtue of the agency of God which does not produce these 
 effects according to an absolute but a hypothetical necessity, a 
 relative necessity, grounded in the appointed divine power, 
 inasmuch as God has resolved to connect his grace with this 
 condition, and the Church is assured, that he is willing to com¬ 
 municate it to him who receives the Sacrament. 
 
 The Schoolmen ascribe a different effect to the different 
 kinds of Sacrament. According to Alexander of Hales it is 
 twofold; 1. Certain Sacraments distinguish the receivers from 
 all other persons by a distinct spiritual power ; 2. Others 
 operate by a reaction and free from indwelling sin. In 
 reference to the first, the impressio character is proceeds from 
 the Sacrament, a phrase attributable to Augustin who 
 thought that the mark of the militia Christi was impressed on 
 a Christian at Baptism. Alexander ascribes the effect of 
 such a character to Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination. 
 He regarded it as an inherent power ( impressio perpetual), 
 which he inferred from the circumstance, that these Sacra¬ 
 ments are not to be repeated. 
 
 Aquinas assigns a twofold efficiency to them, considered 
 as being an antidote to sin, and as imparting a capability 
 for the worship of God. With the former no com¬ 
 munication of character is connected, but there is with 
 the second. Character is derived from a certain assimi¬ 
 lation to the priesthood of Christ, and on that account 
 is indelible. But still there is a threefold relation of 
 the Sacrament to the character spiritalis , as far as this 
 indicates a certain spiritual power which is adapted for 
 what belongs to the worship of God. Here we have to 
 notice the rite itself and the ability it confers whether as an 
 
riliiSAiNUJBi. 
 
 
 that certainly in virtue of the concomitance the Supper can be 
 taken under one form. The Church had introduced the 
 custom in order to guard against spilling the blood. He 
 quotes legends to prove that in the breaking of the Bread the 
 dish had been filled with blood. The distribution of Christ 
 relates only to the manner in which the Supper was taken 
 from the person who consecrated it. The reception of the 
 Supper under the two forms was indeed more efficacious, but 
 the usage of the Church must be followed. 
 
 Albert the Great was in favour of the complete distribu¬ 
 tion of the elements, because the Institution of Christ ought 
 to be followed ; but Aquinas vindicated the administration in 
 one kind. For the right administration of the Sacrament 
 completeness was required as to the Sacrament itself, and on 
 the part of the communicants, reverence. The former was 
 the concern of the Priest; as to the latter, the withholding of 
 the cup was introduced and retained by the Church, as a sea¬ 
 sonable custom, on account of the diversity of the communi¬ 
 cants. Bonaventura declared himself in favour of withhold¬ 
 ing the Cup, which was constantly becoming more general. 
 
 2, Penance. 
 
 The decisions given by Peter Lombard respecting the three 
 parts of penance, were retained and confirmed by the legal 
 sanction conferred by Innocent III. on Auricular Confession 
 (confessio auricularis). Alexander of Hales distinguishes 
 between Attritio and Contritio. The former is the penance 
 which does not proceed from true love to God, but from fear, 
 and hence can present no disposition of the soul that is accept¬ 
 able to God, but only serves as a preparative ; contritio, on 
 the contrary, is that true anguish for sin which proceeds from 
 Love ; attritio is the terminus a quo, contritio is the ter¬ 
 minus ad quem. All agree in this, to regard contritio as a 
 necessary condition of the forgiveness of Sins and salvation; 
 but a special satisfaction to the divine Justice is required for 
 past sins, Penance as opera pcenalia. In substitution for the 
 punishments inflicted by God, those voluntarily submitted to, 
 which the Church prescribes, might serve. They can procure 
 exemption from the severer punishments of the ignis pur- 
 gatorius. This doctrine gave great importance to ecclesiastical 
 punishments, and to the Priest who was authorized to prescribe 
 
 Q Q 
 
594 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 to each individual the proper acts of Penance, and to select 
 such as were most salutary for him, as being especially opposed 
 to his own sins. Under these views, the juridical inspection 
 and treatment of ecclesiastical penance became more fully 
 developed, and with it was connected,— 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 
 
 Originally an Indulgence was only a remission of certain 
 
 kinds of Penance which were exchanged for a fine. In the 
 
 Crusades the custom arose of a general or plenary Indulgence 
 
 (indulgentia plenaria ), with which was connected the remission 
 
 of all Penance, provided the Crusade was undertaken in their 
 
 stead. Yet the Church did not always mean by an Indulgence, 
 
 the remission of sins in the strict sense. The Schoolmen 
 
 tried to prove that the Church was authorized to give such 
 
 indulgences on certain grounds. At the same time they' 
 
 developed the doctrine of the Treasury of merits which the 
 
 Church had to dispense, and employed it for establishing 
 
 the theory of Indulgences. At the foundation of this dogma 
 
 was the Christian idea of fellowship in all goodness, which was 
 
 brought about by the Spirit of Christ. But this idea was 
 
 applied sensuously, and there was connected with it the 
 
 erroneous distinction between the Standpoint of perfection, 
 
 and that of fulfilling the Law. It was supposed that the 
 
 saints had suffered more than was necessary for the satisfac- 
 
 */ 
 
 tion which they had to render to the divine justice for their 
 own sins. Thus the representation was formed of the Thesau¬ 
 rus meritorum or supererogationis. Robert Pulleyn, who 
 first of all propounded it, only mentions the treasury of Christ’s 
 merits, and adds, that the merits of the Fathers were made 
 acceptable to God through Christ. It was further concluded 
 that the Church as the Steward of this treasure of the merits 
 of Christ, and of the Saints, could appropriate a portion to 
 any one on good grounds, in substitution of the punishments of 
 the Church which he would otherwise have to suffer. There¬ 
 fore by virtue of the possession of this treasure, indulgence 
 from the punishments of the Church was granted under the 
 notion that the receiver had spiritual fellowship with the trea¬ 
 sure. Hence true contritio was required as the condition, 
 and regard was had at first to the help which was thereby 
 obtained for accomplishing some pious work. But the doc- 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 
 
 595 
 
 trine of Indulgences was not always propounded in this con¬ 
 nexion. Many declared that the Indulgence could only for 
 any one as much as his faith and devotion demanded, and 
 thus the doctrine of Indulgences became very subjective and 
 vague. William of Auxeree set forth six conditions of Indul¬ 
 gences, but added, that if these terms were always expressed, 
 the laity would not be so ready to purchase indulgences. 
 The Church, indeed, sometimes conceals the six conditions; 
 but if she deceives the faithful, she does not utter falsehoods. 
 Thomas Aquinas vindicates the doctrine of a treasure of 
 merits, and quotes for it Col. i. 24. He also bears testimony 
 to the grievous unspirituality of the system of Indulgences, 
 and quotes the opinion of some respecting the silence of the 
 Church, that, like a mother who stimulates her children to 
 good behaviour by showing them an apple, she makes use of a 
 pia fraus; but he rejected this notion as palliating falsehood. 
 We see that, however what was erroneous in connexion with 
 the Church doctrine, might be spiritualized by the Schoolmen, 
 yet in practice the disgraceful consequences would still mani¬ 
 fest themselves 
 
 THIRD PERIOD OF THE SCHOOLMEN, 
 
 FROM THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION. 
 
 Bossuet, Geseliichte, fortgesetzt von Cramer, vii. V91. Patter Gesch. der Christl. 
 
 Philosopbie, iv. 517. 
 
 GENERAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 Scholasticism in the thirteenth century had reached its 
 highest point, and was followed by a period of Transition. Of 
 such periods, it is true that they are important for development 
 on the whole, for the general tendencies which intersect one 
 another, but not in an equal degree for the development of 
 particular doctrines. The characteristic of this Period was on 
 the one hand that the old Church theocratic standpoint had 
 reached its climax, and that now corruption spread by a 
 more rapid growth. In vain attempts were made to check it, 
 and reactions gave rise to new tendencies called forth by 
 antagonism. We here see in part the dawn of a new Chris- 
 
 Q Q 2 
 
596 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 tian era, witnesses of revived truth, and forerunners of the 
 Reformation, and although they partially succumbed to the 
 supremacy of what was old, yet they prepared the way for 
 victory. On the other hand, middle schemes were formed 
 which attempted to improve the old system without adopting 
 the new. These also prepared the way for the New Creation, 
 although by their inconsequence they were not in a condition 
 to make head against the ruling tendency. Along with the 
 omens of the Reformation, others also appeared of a destruc¬ 
 tive tendency, which might have overturned the Positive in 
 Christianity; but it was repressed by the power of the Refor¬ 
 mation, though it again made its influence felt at a later 
 Period. 
 
 The greatest minds of the Scholastic Theology had exerted 
 themselves in the former period. Others now followed, who 
 repeated what the originals had said. The opposition of the 
 schools of the Thomists and Scotists was still further deve¬ 
 loped. But a few distinguished men still appeared among 
 them. In the fourteenth century, Durando of St. Porciano, 
 a Dominican, was a man of note among the Thomists. From 
 a.d. 1313 he was Teacher of Theology at Paris, died Bishop 
 of Meaux a.d. 1333, and had the title of Doctor resolu- 
 tissimus.* Among the Scotists was Franciscus Matron. t 
 But- more eminent still was the Franciscan, William of 
 Occam, Teacher of Theology in Paris, then Provincial of his 
 Order in England; from a.d. 1328, protected by Lewis of 
 Bavaria, for whom he combated; and died a.d. 1347 ; he was 
 styled doctor siugularis, invincibilis, verier abilis inceptor.% In 
 the preceding period Realism had gained the victory, since 
 its dogmatic positive tendency suited the confidence of con¬ 
 viction which the age cherished. But now, when the 
 Mediaeval Theology neared its destruction, and Scepticism 
 gained ground, Nominalism found an entrance, which favoured 
 it by its subjective mode of view, and of which William of 
 Occam was the new founder. Thus, to the conflict of the 
 Thomist and Scotist schools, that of the Nominalist and 
 
 * Opus super Sententiae Lombardi, ed. Paris, 1508; Venet, 1571. 
 
 t Franciscus Mayron de Digna (Digne in Provence), died a.d. 1325. 
 In Sentent. de Univocatione entis. de Primo Principio. Venet. 1520. 
 
 X Quaestiones super Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, Lugd. 1495. 
 Centi logicum theologicum quodlibeta, traetatus de Sacramento altaris. 
 
NOMINALISTS AND REALISTS. 
 
 697 
 
 Realist was added,—an antagonism which would be very 
 important 'in dogmatic controversies. In Wycliffe, a chief 
 representative of the Reformatory tendency, we recognise also 
 one of the ablest advocates of Realism. He showed himself 
 as such, in his treatise, De imiversalibus realibus, which still 
 remains unpublished. In the Hussite controversy, at the 
 University of Prague, the opposition of the Realist and Nomi¬ 
 nalist tendencies coincided with that of the reformatory and 
 anti-reformatory. We might from thence infer that Nomi¬ 
 nalism had connected itself with the interests of the existing 
 Church standpoint, and Realism with that of the Refor¬ 
 mation ; but this cannot be substantiated, as is evident from 
 the connexion of Realism with the Church tendency in the 
 former period. On the other hand, John Wessell, one of 
 those who laboured most powerfully for the Reformation, was a 
 Nominalist. It often depended on the peculiar subjective 
 views of the Theologians, whether they were inclined to 
 Nominalism or Realism, and introduced philosophical contro¬ 
 versies into those of theology. Gabriel Biel of Spier 
 (died a.d. 1495)* closes the succession of schoolmen, in 
 whom we find many elements of an independent thinker. 
 In proportion as Scholasticism sank, and lost itself in barren 
 subtleties, it gave less satisfaction to the awakened, living, 
 religious craving, and the reaction of other tendencies became 
 stronger. 
 
 Nicholas of CusAf had acquired notoriety by the part he 
 took in the conflict of the Council of Basle against Euge- 
 nius IV.; but, at a later period, became unfaithful to the 
 more liberal Church standpoint. His treatise, De clocta igno- 
 rantia, is directed against scholastic dogmatism, and shows the 
 insufficiency of human knowledge. A peculiar reaction 
 appeared at Toulouse, in Raymond de Sebonde. J Since 
 
 * Collectorium ex Occammo ; or, Commentarii in libb. quatuor Sen- 
 tentiarum, Tubg. 1502, 2 voll. Expositio Canonis Missae, Tubg. 1499. 
 
 f Nicolaus Chryfftz (Krebs of Cues, on the Moselle, born a.d. 1401, 
 died 1464, as Cardinal.) De Catholica Concordantia, libri 3; De Docta 
 Ignorantia, Opp. Paris, 1414. 
 
 $ Teacher of Natural Philosophy, Medicine, Philosophy, and Theo¬ 
 logy, in Toulouse. Theologia Naturalis, ed. Francf. 1635, 61. See 
 Niedner, Kirchengesch. p. 555. On the literary history, see Dr. C. L. 
 Kleiber, De Raimundi quem vocant de Sabunde vita et Scriptis, Berol. 
 1856. Dr. Kleiber has compared the Parisian manuscripts of the 
 
598 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Scholasticism multiplied dogmatic questions, discussed the 
 articles of faith in huge volumes, and the Bible was closed to 
 the laity, he wished to present a religious system for every one. 
 He attempted this in his Liber Creaturarum , or Theologia 
 Naturalis, a name which he first of all used; but he under¬ 
 stood by it, not like later writers, a certain general religious 
 doctrine of reason, but the doctrines of the Christian religion. 
 He spoke of human nature as-restored by Christianity, and 
 reckoned as the religio naturalis , all the principal Christian 
 truths, as those to which all nature points. Nature and Holy 
 Writ are the two books of Divine Revelation, which are given 
 to Man, and supplement each other. By sin man lost the 
 key for understanding the Revelation in Nature; by the 
 Revelation of Grace it is restored to him. Man is the first 
 letter in the Alphabet of Creation, the Microcosmos, and the 
 key for understanding the universe. But he has lost himself 
 in outward objects, and must first be brought back to himself, 
 in order to understand both himself and Nature. 
 
 When the corruption of the Church was examined, some of 
 its causes could not but be traced to the decay of Theological 
 study. Scholasticism served to support the ancient canon-law; 
 hence, men of a practical reformatory tendency, aimed at an 
 improvement of Theology, and returned to the study of the 
 Bible and the older Church doctrine. Among these are to be 
 classed the celebrated Parisian Theologians of the fifteenth 
 century: Nicholas of Clemange,* a.d. 1393, Rector of the 
 
 Tkeologia Naturalis, the oldest of which gives the most exact informa¬ 
 tion respecting the circumstances of Raymond; it calls him Raimundus 
 Sabiende, for which another manuscript has Sebeide. Dr. Kleiber’s 
 supposition, that by this Sabaedo in Spain is meant, and that Sabunde, 
 or Sebonde, is a corruption, has so much more probability, as no town 
 is known which bears the latter names. That oldest manuscript says, 
 that the work was begun in Toulouse about 1404, and finished about 
 1436. Dr. Kleiber, besides, makes it probable that another work, 
 related throughout in its contents to the Theologia Naturalis, but 
 written in the form of a dialogue, which appeared under various names, 
 Quaestiones Disputatae, Quodlibeta, Viola Animse, did not proceed from 
 him, but was a popular summary of his Theologia Naturalis by another 
 hand. Dr. Kleiber also rightly maintains that from the Apology of 
 Montaigne for Raymond, it does not follow that the Theologia Naturalis 
 was written in Spanish, but rather the contrary. —[Jacobi.] 
 
 * Opp. ed. J. M. Lydius, Lugd. Batav. 1613. Also Hermann von der 
 Hardt in der Gesch. desConcils von Constanz. Nicolas de Clemangis, 
 aa Vie et ses Ecrits, par Ad. Muntz. Strasb. 1846. 
 
THE PARISIAN THEOLOGIANS. 
 
 599 
 
 University, then private secretary to Benedict XIII., died 
 about a.d. 1440. Pierre d’Ailly,* a.d. 1575, a teacher ; 
 a.d. 1389, Chancellor of the University; a.d. 1396, Bishop 
 of Cambray; a.d. 1411, Cardinal; died 1425. John Charlier 
 de GERSON,f a.d. 1381, teacher; a.d. 1395, Chancellor of the 
 University; died a.d. 1429. These men wished, at the same 
 time, a freer church development in the practical department, 
 and sympathized with the kindred reactions, which had, at an 
 earlier period, striven for emancipation from the absolutism of 
 the Papacy, and for an independent relation of the State to 
 the Church;—reactions which already had been active in the 
 conflict of Lewis of Bavaria with John XXII. and his succes¬ 
 sors. To this movement belongs the protest of the strict Fran- 
 ciscans against the secularization of the Church, which in 
 William of Occam especially, was connected with freer efforts, 
 and led to new inquiries respecting the limits of ecclesiastical 
 power, and its relation to the secular. The treatise, Defensor 
 pacis,% by Marsilius of Padua and John of Janduno, was of 
 service, for the development of more liberal views of this 
 relation. Many things may be found in it which border on 
 Protestantism. The tendency was strengthened by the 
 reaction against the corruption of the Papal government at 
 Avignon, and the schism which was principally active in the 
 Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle. At these Councils, 
 the principles of the above-named Parisian theologians 
 operated against the absolutism of the Papacy, and in favour 
 of a more moderate form; but since these men, both theo¬ 
 retically and practically advanced only half-way, and would 
 not attack the ancient edifice of doctrine and government, they 
 became, at the same time, the opponents of those who attacked 
 the evil at the root, and strove for a thorough purification of 
 doctrine and the Church, in conformity to Holy Writ. Still 
 the influence which they had in the spread of purer know¬ 
 ledge, is not to be lightly estimated. 
 
 * Comment, in libb. quatuor Sententiarum, ed. 1550, 4to. 
 
 4 Opp. ed. Ludov. Ellies du Pin, Antv. 1706, 5 voll. Vita in Herm. 
 v. d. Hardt. Concil. Constantiens. i. 4, 26. Essai sur Jean Gerson par 
 Ch. Schmidt, Strasb. 1839. 
 
 4 Defensor Pacis, sive Adversus Usurpatam Romani Pontificis Juris- 
 dictionem Marsilii Patavini pro Invictissimo et Constantiss. Imperatore 
 Ludivico IV. Bavarico a Tribus Rom. Pontiff. Indigna Perpesso Apo¬ 
 logia Recens. Franc. Gomarus, Francof. 1612. 
 
600 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 The energetic reformatory tendency was, in part, led by 
 those who, under peculiar circumstances, continued to work 
 unmolested in their age ; partly by those who succumbed in 
 conflict with the reigning elements of the age, but by their 
 very defeat prepared the way for a new development.* * * § Among 
 the men of this pure evangelical spirit, John Wycliffe T is 
 conspicuous, a teacher of Theology at Oxford. He made the 
 most vigorous attacks on the prevailing Church doctrine; and 
 his reformatory tendency was connected with his views of 
 Christian faith, and these again with his realistic philosophy. 
 Among his writings, which have been made known through 
 the press, the most noted is his Trialogus, a Dialogue between 
 the true and the false theology. J Very different from him was 
 the Bohemian martyr, John Huss.§ Wycliffe’s peculiar 
 excellence consisted in his speculative theological system, in 
 the thorough systematic consequence in the theoretical, as 
 well as practical department, which allowed this unbending 
 man to shrink from no consequences. On the other hand, 
 Huss’s originality lay in the Practical, which predominated 
 far above the Speculative. He was stirred up by Wycliffe, 
 but also may have formed himself, independently of him, by 
 his own deep Christian feelings, and under the excitement 
 
 * Ullmann, Die Reformatoren v. d. Reformation, Hamb. 1841, 2 
 vols. 
 
 + The History of the Life and Sufferings of John Wycliffe, by John 
 Lewis, London, 1729. The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe, by 
 Rob. Yaughan, London, 1829, ed. 2, 1831, 2 vols. [This work was re¬ 
 written and published in 1853, under the title of John de Wycliffe, 
 D.D., a Monograph, with some account of the Wycliffe MSS. in Oxford, 
 Cambridge, the British Museum, Lambeth Palace, and Trinity College, 
 Dublin. By Robert Vaughan, D.D.] C. F. Jager, Joh. Wycliffe, 1854. 
 F. Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen, Zurich, 1856. 
 Heander, Kirchengesch. herausgeg. von K. F. Th. Schneider, p. 252. 
 L. Flathe, Gesch. d. Vorlaufer der Reformation, Lpzg. 1835, 36. G. 
 Weber, Gesch. der akatholischen Kirche u. Secten von Grossbrittamen, 
 Lpzg. 1845. Lewald Ztschr. f. Histor. Theol. 1846, 1847. Lechler, 
 ebendas. 1853, 54, iib. Wycl u. b. Lollharden. 
 
 X Ed. L. L. Ph. Wirth, Lips. 1753. 
 
 § Historia et Monumenta, Jo. Hus atque Hieronymi Pragensis, 2. t. 
 Noremb. 1715. Hermann v. d. Hardt Concilium Constansiense Hulsit- 
 enkrieg. darinnen Begriffen das Leben, die Lehre, der Tod Mag. Jo. 
 Hussi, durch Zachunam Theobaldum, Nurnb. 1621, 4to. Palacky, 
 Gesch. von Bohmen, 1845, Bd. 3. Abth. 1. Neander, Kirchengesch. vi. 
 p. 449. 
 
WYCLIFFE AND WESSELL. 
 
 COl 
 
 which his official activity as a preacher gave him, in his 
 reformatory striving against the surrounding corruption. But 
 as he did not proceed to carry out his principles, his reforma¬ 
 tion was less thorough than Wycliffe’s. That, moreover, 
 Wycliffe was aware how effective practical Christianity, 
 within the pale of the religious orders might become, for the 
 purification of the Church, is shown by a remarkable predic¬ 
 tion of his, which was fulfilled by the Reformation. He says : 
 “ Let us suppose the case, that some Brother whom God con¬ 
 descends to teach, should be converted to true Christianity, 
 forsake false doctrine, and obtain or conquer for himself 
 freedom from Antichrist, in order to return to the original 
 doctrine of Christianity, then would such a man build up the 
 Church like Paul.” 
 
 In Germany and the Netherlands, many witnesses of evan¬ 
 gelical truth laboured in a quiet manner to prepare the way 
 for the Reformation. Among these, John Wessel of Gro¬ 
 ningen * is distinguished, whose dogmatic tendency, like 
 Luther’s, originated chiefly in practical grounds. 
 
 The same Dialectic Art, by which the schoolmen had for¬ 
 tified the ancient Church doctrine, was capable of taking an 
 opposite direction, when the ecclesiastical and Christian spirit 
 had evaporated, as we frequently find, that weapons which 
 have served for the ingenious defence of a cause, have after¬ 
 wards been turned against it. The distinction between a 
 philosophical and a theological truth, had already served, in 
 the thirteenth century, to propagate an unbelief that opposed 
 the Church, under the guise of external authority. Scepticism 
 and Negation now exerted themselves with increasing force; 
 the Aristotelian Philosophy began to assume a hostile position 
 towards Theology, and many varieties of conscious or un¬ 
 conscious hypocrisy were practised ; arguments of Reason 
 were put forward, which contradicted the Church doctrine, but 
 then the insufficiency of Reason was acknowledged, and sub¬ 
 mission was professed to the authority of the Church. There 
 was now a want of men, who, like the profound, acute, and 
 humble schoolmen of an earlier period, would have been able 
 to repel the opposition. Wycliffe, on his part, zealously 
 
 * Mag. Wesseli Gansfortii Opera quse inveniri potueruDt omnia, 
 Groningpe, 1614, 4to. Joh. Wessel ein Vorganger Luthers, von Dr. C. 
 Ullmann, Hambg. 1834. Diss. Reformatoren von der Reformation, i. 
 
602 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 combated the distinctions of theological and philosophical 
 truth : there were those who thought that the light of Faith 
 was contradictory to natural light; but there could not be two 
 lights conflicting with one another. A natural light of this 
 sort would be darkness, and we could only speak of the oppo¬ 
 sition of a false light of diseased reason to the light of Faith. 
 In consequence of sin, Natural Light was subject to a defect, 
 which God remedied by imparting his Revelation. Peter 
 Pomponazio of Padua and Bologna, an acute Aristotelian, 
 was a renowned representative of this tendency, died a.d. 
 1526. In his treatises on Immortality, Fate, Free Will, 
 Predestination and Providence, he first of all represented as 
 philosophical truth the doctrine of the Aristotelian Philosophy. 
 He wished to show that no supernatural Revelation, no inter¬ 
 ference of God could take place in the universe, but only a 
 development according to established laws. He was not 
 disposed, indeed, to regard all positive Religion as delusion 
 and fancy ; but, like the modern Pantheism, to explain its 
 appearance, as necessary from its standpoint. It was a phase 
 in the development of the spiritual world, which preceded the 
 scientific development. The change of Religions was an 
 historical necessity; if a new Religion appeared, it was 
 specially inspired by Nature, and had higher powers in itself, 
 which were requisite to overcome the force of custom. In the 
 Founders of the new Religions, the powers of Nature were 
 concentrated and potentiated, and qualified to do great things 
 which were not miracles, but operations of Nature, from 
 which everything proceeded, therefore, they were called Sons 
 of God. As such a Religion had peculiarly intensive and 
 extensive power, so must the Founder be able to impart it 
 to others, to attract them—as the loadstone attracts iron. 
 But in all these religions, the higher powers gradually vanish, 
 and they come to an end. Christianity is no exception ; all 
 things belonging to it become antiquated; miracles cease ; its 
 end seems to be impending. These things, indeed, are not to 
 be promulgated openly, because the people are not prepared 
 for them ; nam homines isti non philosophi sunt sicut bestice. 
 Yet he seems afterwards to have retracted this view of 
 Religion. If some wonders appear, which can only be ex¬ 
 plained on supernatural grounds, then the whole system falls, 
 since in that case, a Revelation must be acknowledged. He 
 
THE REVIVAL OF PLATONISM 
 
 003 
 
 adduces as miracles : the standing-still of the sun ; the feed¬ 
 ing of the five thousand; the darkness at the crucifixion ;— 
 these, and such like, cannot be explained as mere effects of the 
 potentiated powers of Nature. Can we venture to believe 
 that he found there a limit to explanation, and was forced to 
 acknowledge a different system? Certainly, no one under 
 other circumstances, could, with uprightness, maintain such a 
 distinction of philosophical and theological truth. Such 
 phenomena may occur in times of internal discord, and if 
 we could find in Pomponazio only an internal necessity for 
 his system, we might believe that he honestly represented this 
 discord. But it is evident, that from his standpoint, he could 
 easily have disposed of those facts; and it is not credible that 
 any one who otherwise seems to have lacked inward necessity 
 for the reception of Christianity, would have admitted it on 
 these considerations. Pomponazio was a hypocrite, and philo¬ 
 sophical truth was to him the only object of conviction. 
 
 As in the first ages, so now, revived Platonism—that which 
 found a place in the Academy at Florence, exerted an invigo¬ 
 rating impulse on the religious sentiment. At the same time 
 the study of the classics revived and came into collision with 
 the Scholastic Theology. It wars adapted to exert an influence 
 on the restoration of a purer evangelical Theology, when it 
 supported the reaction of a biblical tendency against the 
 ancient standpoint; but in Southern countries the interests 
 of ^Esthetics and of the Intellect, not that of the Heart, were 
 pursued after a one-sided manner. Thus a pagan mode 
 of thinking spread itself with the love of Antiquity, and 
 Christianity was regarded only as an instrument of popular 
 restraint. It was different when classical studies began 
 to be cultivated in Germany. The deep feeling peculiar 
 to the Germans connected the religious Interest with the 
 scientific; the new studies equally occupied the whole Man. 
 From this standpoint a renovation of Theology was prepared ; 
 it only wanted the new material principle in order to revive. 
 Among the men who here prepared the way for the Reforma¬ 
 tion Erasmus of Rotterdam is to be mentioned. His peculiar 
 talent lay in the department of criticism and classical Studies ;* 
 
 * See especially Enchiridion Militis Christiani, 1503 ; Morke En- 
 corimum, 1508; Ratio Verse Theologise ; Ecclesiastes, sive de Ratione 
 Concionandi. Opp. ed. Jo. Clericus, Lugd. Bat. 1703, sqq. 11 vols. fol 
 
604 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the positive dogmatic tendency was not congenial to him. The 
 great freedom with which he passes judgment on the ancient 
 dogmatic distinctions in the preface to his edition of Hilary 
 of P oictiers is characteristic. His works contain the germ of 
 many new investigations, which, even had the Reformation 
 not come to pass, would have called forth a more critical de¬ 
 velopment of Theology. Melancthon discerned this with 
 great historical sagacity. 
 
 Mysticism,* which at an earlier period had reconciled itself 
 to Scholasticism, now appeared sometimes in opposition. But 
 in the mystic Theology we must distinguish between a more 
 speculative and a more practical tendency, one more con¬ 
 templative, and the other more allied to historical Christianity. 
 Throughout we find in the former the greater danger of trans¬ 
 gressing the proper limits of the human mind ; by striving 
 after absorption in God men easily fell into a pantheistic 
 self-idolatry. The standpoints that had been formerly over¬ 
 come entered afresh into Christianity; ancient ascetic Mys¬ 
 ticism, its dreamy absorption in God, and the disposition to 
 strip the divine Being of all personal characteristics and 
 essential attributes. As this existed in the ancient Religion 
 of India, in Buddhism especially, so it was revived in 
 Master EcKARDf and the Begliards.J We recognise the 
 marks of such aberrations in the heretical propositions of the 
 Beghards, which were condemned about a.d. 1330 by John 
 
 Compendium Vitae Erasmi, by himself; and Erasmi Vitae, by Beatus 
 Rhenanus, in Opp. t. i. Burigny, Vie d’Erasme, 2 vols. Par. 1757. 
 Germ. Transl. by Henke, Halle, 1782. S. Hess, Erasmus von Rotter¬ 
 dam, Zurich, 1790. A. Muller, Leben des Erasmus von Rotterdam, 
 1828, 
 
 * H. Schmid, Der Mysticismus des Mittelalten in seiner Enstehung 
 Periode, Jena, 1824. Ch. Schmidt, Essai sur les Mystiques du 14me 
 Siecle. By the same, Etudes sur la Mysticisme Allemand au I4me 
 Siecle, Par. 1847. And his Joh. Tauler von Strassburg, 1841. Rohrich, 
 die Gottesfreunde und Winkeler am Oberrhein Zeitschr. f. Histor. 
 Theol. 1840. Helfferich, die Christl. Mystic. Ullmann Reformatoren 
 vor d. Reformation, ii. F. Pfeiffer, deutsche Mystiker des 14 Jahrh. 
 Lpz. 1845, vol. i. 
 
 4 Predigten unter Denen v. Tauler in d. Ausg. 1521, 1522. Quetif 
 et Echard Scriptores Ord. Praedicator. i. 507. Docen, Miscellanien z. 
 Gesch. d. deutsch Litterat. i. 138. Ch. Schmidt, Meister Eckart 
 Theol. Stud. u. Kritik. 1839. Martenseu, Meister Eckart, e. Theol. 
 Studie. Hamb. 1842. Ritter Gesch. d. Chr. Philosoph. iv. 498. 
 
 ^ Mosheim, de Beghardis et Beguinabus, ed. Martin, Lips. 1790. 
 
THE BEGHARDS. 
 
 605 
 
 XXII. They were the adherents of the Sect of the free Spirit 
 and of free knowledge ( libera intelligentice) ; they taught,— 
 God is neither good nor evil, as He is neither black nor 
 white ; God is glorified equally in Evil as in Good ; even 
 the wicked praise God; whoever prays for anything positive 
 commits injustice, for he prays for the negation of Goodness 
 and of God. The predictions of the Abbot Joachim respect¬ 
 ing the age of the Holy Spirit were received ; namely, that a 
 pure internal Religion was to follow the age of the Revelation 
 of the Son, in the Sacrament of the Church, during which 
 the Holy Spirit indwells and reigns, everything proceeds from 
 the intuition of the Divine Being, and men depend on no 
 outward Authority. To one part of this Sect assertions of the 
 following kind were attributed :—Every believer is Christ him¬ 
 self ; an Incarnation of God takes place in all of them ; and 
 the name of Christ is only the symbol of this universal fact. 
 Each one of them created the World. Hell and Heaven are 
 only poetical fictions ; there is no other eternal life, excepting 
 the abdication of personality, the re-absorption into God. 
 There were signs of phenomena, which were kept back by 
 the intervention of the Reformation, but came forward firtt 
 in a more distant age. On the other hand, the mild prac¬ 
 tical mysticism combated this negative, mystic, pantheistic 
 Rationalism, as was the case with Ruysbrock. This tendency, 
 where the Religion of the Heart was cherished in opposition to 
 that of the Understanding, and was impelled to a living sur¬ 
 render to Christ, formed a laboratory in which the materials 
 were prepared for the Reformation. 
 
 THE SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 A. THE HISTORY OF INTRODUCTORY DOGMAS. 
 
 I. THE STATEMENTS RESPECTING THE ESSENCE OF THEOLOGY. 
 
 Durand was distinguished by his investigations respecting 
 the essence of Theology. The question whether Theology is 
 a Science he answered by the distinction of a twofold view of t 
 Theology: Theology is either a habitus , in the popular sense, 
 when the assent is given to what the Holy Scriptures affirm, 
 or a habitus in the sense of a Science, inasmuch as it explains 
 and vindicates the contents of Holy Writ on rational prin¬ 
 ciples. As the central point of Christian doctrine, lie did not 
 
606 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 ' place God as God, but God as Redeemer. The doctrine of 
 Redemption is, therefore, the prime article, and contains 
 implicite all the other fundamental doctrines, such as the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, a remark which is of importance for 
 right views of the Trinity. It is remarkable how he expresses 
 himself opposed to all human Authority in Religion :—“ In 
 the things which belong to Faith we must trust the Scriptures 
 more than Reason ; but whoever would renounce his Reason 
 on account of a human authority would place himself on a 
 level with the beasts ; this would be forcibly to suppress the 
 light of Reason (incidere in insipientiam). Truth is most 
 holy, and even Reason teaches how God the Father is to be 
 praised. 
 
 k 2. ON TRADITION AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS SOURCES OF 
 
 KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 Thus far in the course of Mediaeval development there were 
 heard only occasional utterances, particularly of sects, against 
 the pre-eminence which the Traditions of the Church held 
 among the sources of the knowledge of the Christian faith, 
 and against the dependence of the exposition of Scripture 
 upon it. It was different in the Period before us. The 
 formal principle of the Reformation was asserted more fre¬ 
 quently and plainly, and the reactions of the Christian con¬ 
 sciousness followed, which endeavoured to make the interpre¬ 
 tation of the Bible independent of the authority of the Church. 
 The most distinguished Reformers, Wycliffe and Wessell, 
 emphatically announced this principle, and it was at the basis 
 of the ideas of Huss. The great movement which originated 
 with the latter caused also the Theologians of the opposite 
 party in the Church to enter on the investigation of this 
 principle, and to impugn it. A more decided impulse was 
 given to it by the vindication of the administration of the 
 Sacrament in both kinds to the Laitv. On this account 
 Gerson wrote against the Hussites a treatise on the literal 
 sense of Holy Writ. He and the other reformatory Theo¬ 
 logians of Paris wished, on the one hand, to exalt the 
 authority of the Bible in opposition to the Mediaeval ten¬ 
 dency ; but, on the other hand, as they were not willing to 
 let the principles of the old system sink into abeyance, they 
 were necessitated to call to their aid other sources of know- 
 
GERSON AND NICOLAUS. 
 
 607 
 
 ledge besides the Scriptures. Gerson first of all asserted as 
 a fundamental maxim that the literal sense of the Bible was 
 the only true one—that all things necessary to salvation were 
 plainly contained in the Bible, and that no true doctrine could 
 be at variance with the Bible. From this we might have 
 expected a different result from that at which he arrived ; the 
 literal sense must be explained according to the sense of the 
 Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not 
 according to the arbitrary opinion of every individual. The 
 interpretation of the Church is made known through its repre¬ 
 sentative, a General Council. In holding this or that Gospel 
 to be genuine, we believe the Church. Christ and the Apostles 
 revealed the literal sense, the Martyrs confirmed it, and the 
 Church by its decrees, through its Councils, has collected 
 together what has resulted from the development of doctrine. 
 This is, therefore, a decisive rule of Interpretation. Every 
 one must subject himself to the decision of the bishop in his 
 own diocese, but he may appeal from this to the Pope, and 
 farther, as the last resort, to the decision of the General 
 Council, in which the highest authority is vested. With still 
 greater decision, and with a sophistry remarkable for its 
 effrontery, Nicolaus of Cusa defended the higher authority 
 of Tradition, advancing many things which have since been 
 expressed from a quite different standpoint. In his letter to 
 the Bohemians he says :—The Church existed before the Holy 
 Scriptures. Christ founded the Church without letters, and 
 the Apostles published the Gospel before they wrote anything. 
 The Church does not exist for the sake of the Scriptures, but 
 the Scriptures for the sake of the Church. We might conceive 
 of the possibility of a Tyrant’s destroying every copy of the 
 Scriptures. But it cannot be, he concludes, that the existence 
 of the Church and its doctrines should depend on anything 
 so accidental as the destruction of written documents. Tho 
 Holy Scriptures may be expounded differently by every one ; 
 how, then, can we discover the true doctrine, if we have no 
 rule ? But divine Truth has always been in the Church, and 
 the agency of the Holy Spirit by whom this truth is always 
 maintained; the Spirit giveth life, the Letter killeth. He 
 places the two in opposition, without considering that they go 
 together; only we must abide by the Spirit; the Church is 
 not bound to the letter of Scripture. When the Letter, in 
 
 / 
 
608 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 consequence of the altered wants of the Age, is no longer 
 fitted for edification, the Church takes what is most suitable; 
 hence it explains the same passages differently at different 
 times. How great the latitude which is thus given to the 
 Spirit appears even more distinctly from what follows ; the r 
 intelligence of the Church is developed with its practice ; this 
 xS the living Spirit. When the Church apparently inter- 
 prets differently from the literal signification, this is not an l' 
 alteration of Christ’s commands, for the Church is Christ’s m 
 body, and does nothing but what Christ wills; He reveals his w 
 mysteries according to the changes of Time, as is most suit¬ 
 able, partly by silent Tradition, partly by common examina¬ 
 tion, or by the verbal Decrees of Councils. When the Church 
 settles anything by them it proceeds from the same Spirit by 
 which the Scriptures were inspired. As in the New Testa¬ 
 ment we find Baptism only in the name of Christ, but after¬ 
 wards we find it performed in the Church in the name of the 
 Trinity ; and in the first age a community of goods, and thus 
 a renunciation of worldly possessions, which at a later period 
 was confined to the Monks; so other decisions of the Church 
 bear a similar relation to the words of Holy Writ. 
 
 B. THE DOGMAS OF SPECIAL DOGMATICS. 
 
 a. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 
 
 1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Wycliffe^ attempts to show that the Trinity is a necessary 
 truth of Reason, and that there are traces of it in Plato. God 
 has the ability to know Himself and all other existences ; this 
 potentia is the Father. As far as he can do this he knows 
 himself in a necessary manner. This realized Self-knowledge 
 is the Son. God cannot know himself without reposing in 
 himself, and this inward satisfaction is the Holy Spirit, by 
 virtue of whom he loves himself. 
 
 * 
 
 2. THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION, GRACE, AND FREE-WILL. * 
 
 The Controversy that from the time of Alexander of Hales 
 had sprung up between the Franciscans and Dominicans, 
 the Scotists and Thomists, advanced still further. The 
 externalism in the practice of the Church was also connected 
 
 * Jager, p 23. Bohringer, p. 153. 
 
PREDESTINATION, GRACE AND FREEDOM. 
 
 609 
 
 with Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and the notion of a 
 meritum in Man was joined to this in various ways. In oppo¬ 
 sition to it the Augustinian and Thomistic element, which 
 traced everything to the divine Grace, reappeared, and was 
 carried to the greatest lengths ; under its influence Pela¬ 
 gianism was seen in every assertion which in any way affixed 
 conditions to the operations of grace. On this standpoint the 
 Englishman Thomas Bradwardine ( doctor 'profundus) is 
 worthy of notice ; he was teacher of Theology at Oxford, 
 a.d. 1325, Archbishop of Canterbury a.d. 1348, and died 
 a.d. 1349. To combat the Pelagianism of his age he pub¬ 
 lished his treatise De causa Dei adversus Pelagium et de 
 virtute cans arum, in three books A' He places the whole and 
 each part of the Universe under an unconditional Necessity. 
 Everything which happens is a necessary fulfilment of the 
 divine plan of the Universe. The divine will is the efficient 
 cause, to which everything else is alike subservient; even the 
 actions of rational beings are not exempt from this universal 
 law. Hence he impugns the distinction of a divine will and 
 a divine permission in reference to Evil, and endeavours to 
 show that even this forms a necessary part of the divine Plan, 
 but that moral Imputation is not thereby nullified, since Evil 
 subjectively contradicts the Will of God. He strives to set 
 aside all the subterfuges of his opponents for vindicating any 
 meritum whatever, even a meritum de congruo; he even 
 opposes those who admitted a gratia prceveniens, and only 
 maintained that it depended on the receptivity of Man to 
 accept it o.r not. From this System it strictly followed that 
 the independence and contingency of the Free Will are only 
 a semblance; and since this applies to the Fall, Supralapsa- 
 rianism would be involved in it. 
 
 It is remarkable that all the reactions of the Christian con¬ 
 sciousness for the recovery of evangelical Truth from the mix¬ 
 ture of Christian and Jewish element^ proceeded from the 
 Augustinian standpoint. They were excited partly by the 
 influence of Augustin, and partly determined by that oppo¬ 
 sition which it involved against mere external good works 
 and Pelagian principles. Thus we see here preparatory 
 measures for that which became still more conspicuous at the 
 
 * Ed. H. Savilius, Lond. 1618. 
 
 R R 
 
010 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Reformation. If in some the Augustinian view stands in 
 immediate connexion with its practical Christian tendency, in 
 Wycliffe it is chiefly conditioned by his philosophical sys¬ 
 tem.^ His doctrine of ideas is developed in opposition to 
 the Nominalist view of the relation of Thought and Being, 
 and of an infinite series of possibilities, and leads him accord¬ 
 ing to his own strict logic to the admission of an unconditional 
 Predestination. Pie maintains that God’s omnipotence con¬ 
 sists in realizing whatever is possible ; thus God’s omnipotence 
 and the actual Creation are counterparts of one another.! Sin 
 cannot be included in this ; it does not follow that it was 
 only an accident, but it is a defectus, something Negative, of 
 which it cannot be affirmed that it was created ; God is the 
 cause of the sinner’s punishment, but not the cause of Sin , 
 it is a deordinatio, and hence cannot be traced back to the 
 divine plan of the Universe. God himself is the cause of 
 Predestination and Prescience, for all knowledge is in him not 
 acquired or given, but internal and necessary, and therefore 
 determined by nothing appertaining to the Creature. Every 
 thing is founded in the divine Ideas; these are essentially the 
 divine Essence itself. In a formal respect it is thus shown 
 in what manner God knows all things. J God knows nothing 
 except what really exists, and everything possible is actual, 
 since God knows it as if it existed.§ Evil is contradictory to 
 the divine Ideas; God therefore knows it by means of Good, 
 that is, on account of its deviation from his ideas, as we know 
 Darkness by means of Light. Here was an approximation to 
 the Pantheistic scheme of a necessary development of God in 
 the Universe. Wycliffe in vain sought to escape the ethical 
 consequences of his speculative Ideas, which he did not con¬ 
 ceal from himself. He even says,—“ Can, then, the wicked 
 excuse themselves on account of their sins ?” He answers,— 
 “ If they could, they would do it; but I know not who can— 
 
 * Neander vi. herausg. v. K. F. Schneider, p. 316. Bohringer, p. 
 139. 
 
 f SicutDeus ad intra nihil potest producere, nisi absolute necessario 
 illud producat, sic nihil ad extra potest producere, nisi pro suo tempore 
 illud producat. 
 
 + Idea est essentialiter natura divina et formaliter ratio, secundum 
 quam Deus intelligit creaturas. 
 
 § Deus nihil intelligit nisi quod existit, dum potest existere, et sic 
 omne quod existere potest existit. 
 
ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 611 
 
 as I know not what man would break my head and say it is 
 necessary. I should say to him also that he is blameable.” 
 
 b. ANTHROPOLOGY. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 Disputes arose between the Scotists and Thomists on the 
 question of the freedom of the Virgin Mary from Original 
 Sin. In the year 1387 the Dominican, John of Montosono, 
 put forward the assertion that it was expressly against the 
 faith to teach that not all, Christ excepted, had been defiled 
 with original Sin, and that it was so to teach this of the Virgin 
 Mary. That it was equally against Holy Writ to except one 
 human being besides Christ as to except ten. # As the dis¬ 
 pute was prolonged, the Council of Basle, about a.d. 1439, t 
 announced the decision that Mary, by special, prevenient, and 
 efficient Grace, had never been subject to the actuality of 
 original Sin ; so that she was always free from original Sin 
 and actual Sin. This opinion was to be regarded as pious, 
 and agreeing with the Catholic faith, Reason, and the Holy 
 Scriptures. But the recognition of the Basle Council was a 
 matter of dispute between the papistical and the more liberal 
 party. In a.d. 1483 Sixtus IV. issued a command to let the 
 controversy cease, and ordained that those who maintained 
 that the doctrine that Mary at her conception was freed from 
 all original Sin, was a heresy, were to be condemned, and 
 whoever uttered it in preaching was to be excommunicated. 
 He imposed equal silence on the other side, since nothing had 
 been yet decided. 
 
 C. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The idea of the Church had hitherto been undisturbed in 
 the Western Church, for the opposition of particular sects 
 could effect nothing against it. But now the reaction of the 
 freer Christian spirit appeared. Even on the Catholic Standpoint 
 a difference was stirred respecting the relation of the change¬ 
 able and unchangeable in the development of the Church; on 
 
 * Chronique du Religieux de St. Denys, publiee par L. Bellaguet, 
 Par. 1839, 4to. D’Argentr6, Collectio Judiciorum de No vis Erroribue 
 ab Initio, xii. sec. usque ad annum 1632. Par. 1728, iii. t. f. i. ii. 61. 
 
 f Sessio 36; Mansi xxix. 183. 
 
 R R 2 
 
612 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the position of the Papacy in respect of the Church ; whether 
 the Pope was to be regarded as its representative or Sovereign 
 Head ; whether the general Councils or the Pope stood highest 
 The University of Paris especially was the seat of reaction 
 against the tendency which had prevailed since the Pseudo- 
 Isidorian Decretals, and the Chancellor Gerson was foremost 
 in the controversy.* He regarded the whole Hierarchical 
 Order in general as necessary for the Organism of the 
 Church. Agreement in this was necessary for the Unity of 
 the Church, and this Unity he viewed simply as outward. 
 Hence, from his point of view, the idea of the Church as a 
 visible Institution continued by the succession of the Bishops 
 under the primacy of the Pope is placed foremost. This out¬ 
 wardly defined Organism effectuates communion with Christ; 
 and out of its pale there is no communion with Christ and 
 with the Holy Spirit, therefore no salvation. So £ar he held 
 firmly the ancient foundation of Catholicism, but he disse¬ 
 vered himself from the opposite party by distinguishing the 
 essential and unessential, the unchangeable and the change¬ 
 able in the Organism. He regarded as essential and neces¬ 
 sary the existence of a visible Supreme Head and the Epis¬ 
 copal system, and he pronounced the assertion that an invisible 
 Supreme Head sufficed, to be Heresy ; but on the relation of 
 the Roman Church to ecclesiastical government he laid down 
 no unchangeable Law; the Papacy ought to serve for the 
 benefit of the Church, and meet its various necessities. 
 Gerson, indeed, acknowledged that the Church, as it had 
 given birth to the Primate, so it must always the power tp 
 reinstate him ; it might even exist provisionally without him, 
 its invisible Head. The Universal Church then took its 
 power into its own hands. But the highest representation of 
 the Universal Church is given in a General Council, and 
 every individual must submit his own subjective judgment to 
 this. In Gerson’s tendency, therefore, we recognise the 
 return to the more ancient form of Catholicism. 
 
 The more spiritual view of the Church was carried out far 
 more logically in the Defensor Pacis , which denied that an 
 external Primacy, like that of the Pope, was necessary for it. 
 
 Protestant principles were displayed most plainly in the 
 
 * De Modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam in Concilio Universali, 
 1410, in Herm. v. d. Hardt. Concil. Constantiens, t. i. P. v. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 GIB 
 
 men who were in the strict sense Reformers. Wycliffe 
 regards communion with Christ as primary, including the 
 communion with believers, and from that the idea of a Church 
 is first derived, as of a Body forming itself from within, from 
 the common relation of the consciousness to Christ. He 
 defines the true Church as the community of the redeemed or 
 of the predestined ; only these are members of the holy 
 Church; but many who are so called are enemies of the 
 Church, and belong to the Synagogue of Satan. Hence a 
 visible Head of the Church is not necessary; as long as Christ 
 is in Heaven the Church has in Him the best Pope, and dis¬ 
 tance cannot hinder Him from being with his Church even to 
 the end. Huss took the same direction, but expressed him¬ 
 self later respecting this doctrine, when he already anticipated 
 the decision of his fate. In his treatise De Ecclesia, a.d. 
 1413, he declares that the Catholic Church is the Community 
 of Saints; where two or three are united in Christ, they form 
 with Christ the Church. He combats the idea of a necessary 
 outward unitv of the Church. To the same effect, Wessel, 
 in his treatise De Communione Sanctorum , says : By the true 
 Unity of the Church all are connected who have in common 
 one Faith, one Hope, and one Love, and are thereby connected 
 with Christ, under whatever ecclesiastical superiors they may 
 find themselves. The Unity of the Church under a Pope is 
 only an accidental thing. 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 1. OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 The reactions against the Catholic idea of the Sacraments 
 increased. That the Sacraments really and literally are the 
 cause of grace had already in the former period given offence. 
 Durand also now declared that the Sacraments are not neces¬ 
 sary nor sufficient in themselves for the salvation of Men, 
 since God has not so necessarily connected with these Ele¬ 
 ments the Power by which he upholds and redeems men in 
 Nature and in Grace that he cannot work without them. 
 They are the causa sine qua non Grace can be communi¬ 
 cated, since, according to an appointment of God, every one 
 who receives the Sacrament receives also Grace (provided he 
 offers no impediment), but not through the Sacrament, but 
 
614 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 from God. He makes use of the illustration that occurs else¬ 
 where, of a King who promises to bestow an alms on condition 
 of the receiver bringing a leaden penny. The Sacrament can 
 impart no character spiritalis, for it is absurd to suppose that 
 material things can effect such a communication to the spirit. 
 Peter D’Ailly also holds the opinion that the Sacraments 
 are not causce effectives gralive, but causes gratia sine quibus ; 
 therefore they are only causes in a figurative sense, since this 
 impartation of Grace in the participation of the Sacrament 
 takes place, not by virtue of their own power, but of God’s 
 free Will. Wycliffe departs most widely from the received 
 doctrine. He sets out from the usual definition, and then 
 says: According to this every visible Creature is also a Sacra¬ 
 ment, since it is a visible form of the invisible Grace of the 
 Creator, represents the image of his Ideas, and becomes for 
 created Beings a cause of imitation and of knowledge. Thus, 
 also, the publication of the divine word may be called a Sacra¬ 
 ment as a sign of divine Grace. Hence he considers the seven¬ 
 fold number of the Sacraments as unfounded. \ All of them 
 cannot be proved from Scripture—for instance, Confirmation; 
 it is an assumption on the part of the Bishop, since the Holy 
 Spirit is previously given at Baptism. As little can be said on 
 behalf of' Extreme Unction, since here the higher efficacy is 
 ascribed to prayer. 
 
 2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 Doubts respecting the doctrine of Tran substantiation were 
 raised more frequently, and were only repressed because Theo¬ 
 logians could not withdraw themselves from subjection to the 
 doctrine of the Church. Several of the Schoolmen agreed 
 that they could adduce for this doctrine no other reason than 
 the authority of the Church, and that the Bible and Reason 
 led to a different conclusion. William of Ockham endea¬ 
 voured to show that the arguments of Thomas Aquinas for the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation were not sufficient. In the 
 New Testament it was, indeed, expressly said that the body of 
 Jesus was taken ; but the doctrine of Transubstantiation could 
 not be inferred from that, for there were other ways of 
 explaining the presence of Christ in the Supper. That view, 
 for instance, was more agreeable to reason and Scripture, 
 which supposed that one substance served as the basis of the 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 
 
 615 
 
 other. But since the Church, through Innocent III., decided 
 the contrary, its sentence must proceed from a revelation. 
 Durand remarks: It appears to be a reflection on the divine 
 power to maintain that the Body of Christ cannot be present 
 at the Supper otherwise than by Transubstantiation. The 
 words of the Institution also admit the view that the Body of 
 Chr ist was really contained in the Sacrament ( corpus Christi 
 realiter contention esse in elemento). Yet the decision of the 
 Church is contrary, in which we are not allowSchto suppose an 
 errcrrr"TEus, also, Peter d’Ailly : If it is possible that one 
 created thing, is upheld by another, it is possible that the 
 Body of Christ is connected in this manner with the Bread. 
 This mode of viewing the subject is permissible in itself, and 
 more easy to apprehend ; and we should accept it, if it only 
 agreed with the authority of the Church. This statement is 
 memorable, since it gave rise to the first doubt in Luther’s 
 mind respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as appears 
 from his treatise on the Babylonian Captivity. Wycl i ffe 
 impugns the doctrine of Transubstantiation most decidedly, as 
 contradicting “BotH Reason and Holy Writ. By the absurd 
 doctrine of accidentia sine subjecto an altogether new order of 
 the Universe would be introduced ; the event is not to be 
 thought of as a Miracle, for it is an absurdity ; we cannot 
 understand how any one can really say that the Bread is the 
 Body of Christ, if the Bread is no longer there. He says : 
 Satan’s cunning strove, long after the delusion, to mislead the 
 Church into this heresy. When, through his Anti-Christ, he 
 first brought it so far that it no longer held the Sacrament to 
 be Bread, but a detestable accident, he could bring it to 
 believe everything he wished ; for example, that in whatever 
 vices a prelate may indulge, yet it can never be credited by 
 the people, on account of the dignity of the Clergy. He 
 declares himself against a connexion of such a kind as many 
 of the older theologians admitted : that the two substances 
 were connected, like the divine and human natures in Christ, 
 since otherwise all the predicates of the Bread might be 
 applied to the Body of Christ, and inversely, which yet is not 
 admissible. Notwithstanding this, he would not maintain a 
 merely symbolical importance, but admitted a signum efficax 
 as involved in the general idea of the Sacrament as well as in 
 this special case of the Supper. The consecration did not 
 
616 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 mark an alteration of the nature of the bread, but a poten¬ 
 tiating of it. Christ is everywhere present in a spiritual man¬ 
 ner, but he is present quite in a different manner, namely, 
 kabitudinaliter , in the Supper, When Christ called John the 
 Baptist Elias, and yet John said that he was not Elias, both 
 are consistent with one another, for Christ calls him so in a 
 figurative sense, and he denies it in a literal one ; but he was 
 Elias not in a merely symbolical sense, but in a certain real 
 sense, as far as he represented the power of Elias. So it is 
 also with the relation of the Bread and Wine to the Body of 
 Christ. As Man in an Image does not think of the matter of 
 it, but directs his thoughts to that of which it is the Image, 
 so must believers direct their devotion, not to the material 
 substance, but to Christ Wycliffe’s opposition to Tran- 
 substantiation was connected with his realistic view of the 
 objectivity of general Ideas. In this philosophic theory Huss 
 also agreed, and Peter d’Ailly, who, at the Council of Con¬ 
 stance, argued in favour of Transubstantiation, hence objected 
 to him that he denied it as a Realist. But Huss would not 
 allow it; and since he was not so deeply imbued as Wyc- 
 liffe with the theological and the philosophical, the conse¬ 
 quences could not be ascribed to him to which the latter was 
 open. Huss was not the man to keep back his convictions. 
 In his writings he contented himself with combating the 
 ancient legends of the appearances of Christ at the Supper, 
 and bringing forward the spiritual view; he confined himself 
 to the practical, and did not enter on dogmatical investi¬ 
 gations. 
 
 The Withholding of the Cup. — While Huss was at 
 Constance his friend, Jacobellus of Misa, appeared at 
 Prague and maintained the necessity of restoring the com¬ 
 munion in both kinds. Huss, when asked in prison re¬ 
 specting it, frankly expressed his opinion:—Certainly, accord¬ 
 ing to the Institution of Christ, as the Evangelists and Paul 
 testify, and according to the usage of the most ancient 
 Church, the participation is to be retained. Yet he laid no 
 peculiar stress upon it, and advised the laity to ask per¬ 
 mission of the Pope. A written controversy arose upon it 
 between the Hussites and the Catholics. The former ap¬ 
 pealed to John ch. vi. which they referred to the Suppei. 
 Jacobus was not willing to admit the conclusion from the 
 
THE WITHHOLDING OF THE CUP. 
 
 617 
 
 ( 
 
 concomitant!a. If it was said that the full participation was 
 only for the Priests, he rejoined that if this assertion were 
 correct, the same might be affirmed of the entire Supper. 
 The desecration of the Supper was urged in case the cup 
 was offered to unworthy laymen. He replied that there were 
 many priests who were much more unworthy than pious lay¬ 
 men.—-The Council of Constance passed six resolutions 
 against the Hussites, in which it is said that Christ insti¬ 
 tuted the Supper under two kinds; but by the custom of the 
 Church it was established that it should be distributed, not 
 after a meal, as at its Institution ; and just so the Church has 
 ordained on rational grounds the communion in one kind. 
 Let no individual oppose this ; and whoever stubbornly resists 
 let him be punished as a heretic. Gerson, about a.d. 1417, 
 wrote a tract to vindicate this decree, in which he supports a 
 bad cause with ridiculous arguments: the wine may be turned 
 to vinegar; it would foster the notion that the laity are equal 
 to the Priests in dignity, &c. The Council of Basle came to 
 an agreement with the Bohemians by which liberty was 
 granted for the laity to receive the Supper in both kinds. 
 But in order not to damage the decrees of Constance it was 
 stated, that believing laymen were not bound by the command 
 of the Lord to receive the Supper in both kinds; it was the 
 Church’s business to decree how it was to be taken by the 
 non-clerical; under each form there was the whole Christ. 
 The commendable custom of the Church, to administer it 
 under one form, was to be regarded as a Law 
 
 3. THE DOCTRINE OF PENANCE AND THE THESAURUS SUPERE¬ 
 ROGATIONS. 
 
 Clement VI., in a.d. 1343, issued the constitutio unigenitus, 
 in which for the Jubilee Year 1350 he granted a large indul¬ 
 gence, and founded it on the treasure of merits. Christ, it 
 declared, had gained a treasure for his Church, the manage¬ 
 ment of which he had committed to Peter and his Suc¬ 
 cessors, in order that, for pious and rational causes, they 
 might offer indulgence to the truly penitent, either for the 
 total or the partial remission of temporal punishments; and 
 this treasure could never be exhausted, on account of Christ’s 
 infinite merits, and the constantly increasing, superabundant 
 virtues of the righteous. The crying abuse of indulgences 
 
618 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 called forth fresh and more numerous adversaries. Many 
 would allow of no other treasure than the merits of Christ. 
 Gerson, indeed, did not venture to invalidate the grant 
 of indulgences in itself, but he wished to trace it back to 
 its original intent, as a release from certain punishments 
 for sins. The Church could only free from punishments 
 which were in its power, and which it could inflict; only 
 Christ and God could acquit from punishment and guilt. 
 Wycliffe, on the other hand, impugned with this doctrine 
 that of Penance in general. Every believer, on account of 
 his communion with Christ and His spiritual Body, had a 
 share in all good works according to the measure of bis worth¬ 
 iness. He spoke emphatically against the traffic which 
 worldly-minded Antichrists carried on with the forgiveness of 
 sins, and declared that only confession of sin before God was 
 necessary to obtain forgiveness. The Church Confession was 
 indeed salutary, but not necessar}u Huss also controverted 
 these points. But Wessel in this respect approaches very 
 near Luther’s principles ; true repentance, he says, proceeds 
 from the Love of God, not from fear. The sentence of the 
 Priest is no judgment on Sin; God forgives it to every one 
 who feels true penitence and sorrow. The imposition of any 
 other penance and punishment is at variance with the merit 3 
 of Christ. The doctrine of making satisfaction to God by 
 works is blasphemous, for thereby the doctrine of the High 
 priesthood and perfect sacrifice of Christ is touched upon. 
 Hence he particularly attacks Indulgences; everything de¬ 
 pends on the susceptibility of Man for Grace; what man is 
 not able of himself to appropriate can be appropriated to him 
 by no one else ; there is, indeed, a treasure of the Church, 
 but only for him who knows it; God and Christ are the true 
 treasure of the Church. 
 
 4. THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 
 
 The Dogma of the ignis purgatorius had not hitherto been 
 openly established ; this took place in the conferences with 
 the Greeks, at the Councils of Florence and Ferrara, a.d. 
 1438 and a.d. 1439. Only those who had practised true 
 penitence, and had died in love to God and Christ before 
 they had accomplished the fruits of Penitence, were, after 
 death, cleansed by the purifying fire; and for lessening the 
 
THIRD PRINCIPAL PERIOD. 
 
 619 
 
 severity of this purification the prayers of believers, masses, 
 sacrifices, &c., avail. To support these views appeal was made 
 to 1 Corinth, iii. 12, 13, and 2 Maccab. xii. 45. The 
 Greeks so expressed the doctrine, that souls would be 
 punished, because they were destitute of divine light; but 
 they would be set at liberty by Prayers, Sacrifices, and 
 Classes. Wessel* took a more spiritual view of this doc¬ 
 trine ; the purifying Fire is for those who have not yet been 
 altogether penetrated by Love, a spiritual Fire of Love, puri¬ 
 fying the Soul from the remaining dross, and consisting in a 
 longing after union with God; so that it is not so much a 
 punishment as a preparatory step to Blessedness. 
 
 THIRD PRINCIPAL PERIOD. 
 
 « 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE SINCE THE 
 
 REFORMATION. 
 
 Herm. v. d. Hardt, Historia Litteraria Reformat. Fcf. Lpz. 1717. D. Gerdesius 
 Introductio in Historiam Evangelii, sec. xvi. passim, per Europam Renovati 
 Gron. 1744-52, 4 t. Serinium Antiquarium siv. Miscellanea Groningana, 1748-63. 
 8 t- 4. (Especially for the Reformation out of Germany.) 
 
 For the German Reformation.—Luther’s Werke, Wittenberg, 1539-59 ; 12 vols 
 German, 1545-58 ; 7 vols. Latin, Jena, 1555-58 : 8 German, 1556-58 ; 4 Latin. Two 
 supplementary volumes by Aurifaber, Eisleb. 1564-65. The German writings in 
 the Altenberg edition, by J. Ch. Sagittarius, 1661-64, 10 vols.; Leipzig edition. 
 1729-40, 22 vols. fol. J. G. Walch, Halle, 1740-50, 24 vols. 4to. Dr. M. Luther’s 
 Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken. Herausg. v. Dr. W. M. L. de Wette, Berl. 
 1825, 6 vols. Melanchthons Werke in Corp. Reformatorum, ed. C. G. Bretschnei- 
 der, continued by Bindseil, 1834, especially the Loci Communes Theologici, 1521, 
 1535, 1543, 1559. Die Symbolischen Bucher der Lutherischen Kirche, Herausg. 
 1580, Dresd. A. Rechenberg, Lpz. 1677. C. M. Pfaff. Tiib. 1730, J. H. Tittman, 
 Meiss. 1817, Hare, 1837. B. C. Loscher, Vollstandige, Reformations Acta u. 
 Documenta (1517-19) 3 t. 4, Lpz. 1726-29. D. E. Kapp. kl. Nachlese einiger zur 
 Erlanter, d. Refrmtgesch. wichtiger Urkunden, Lpz. 1727, 4 t. 8. Strobel, Miscel¬ 
 lanea, Niirnberg, 1778. By the same, Beitrage zur Litterat. 1784. C. G. 
 Neudecker, Urkunden aus d. Reformatszeit, Cass. 1836 Altenstiicke aus d. 
 Ztalt. d. Reformat- 1838, 2 vols. L. C Forstemann, Neues Urkunderb. zur 
 Gesch. der Kirchenreformat. Harnb. 1842, 4. V. L. a Seckendorf, Commentarius 
 ITistoricus et Apologeticus de Lutlieranismo, libb. iii. Lpz. 1688-1694, against 
 Maimbourg’s (the Jesuit) Histoire du Lutheranisme, Par. 1680, 4. W. C. Tentzel, 
 Histor. Bericht. vom Aufg. u. erst Fortgang der Reformat. Lpz. 1718, 2 vols. 
 J. G. Walch, Streitigkeiten innerh d. Luth. Kirch. 5 vols. 1730 By the same* 
 Streitigkten Ausserh. d. Luth. Kirche, 5 vols. 1733. C. A. Salig. Gesch. der 
 Angsb. Confess. (1517-62) Haile, 1730, 8 vols. 4. G. J. Planck, Gesch. d. Ensteh. 
 Veranderung u. Bildung nnsres protest. Lehrbegriffs bis zur Concordfrml. 
 1781-1800, 6 vols. 2nd ed. Vols. 1-3, 1791-98. 
 
 * De Purgatorio, quis et qualis sit ignis Purgatorius, ed. Groning. p 
 
 826 . 
 
620 
 
 THE HISTORT OP CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 For the Swiss Reformation. —Huldreich Zwingli’s Werke, v. M. Schuler u. J. 
 Schulthess. Ziir. 1828, 8 vols. Especially his Commeutar. de Vera et Falsa. 
 Religione, iii. 1645. J. Calvini Opp. Amst. 1667, 9 vols. Especially his Institutio 
 Religionis Christ, ed. Tholuek, 1884,1846, 2 t. Lettres de Jean Calvin, recueilWes 
 pour la premiere fois, p. Jules Bonnet. Lettres Francises, t. i. Par. 1854. Die 
 Belcenntnisschriften d. Reform. Kirche Zusammengest. v. Augusti, 1830. 
 Niemerger, 1840. Miscellanea Tigurina, 3 vols. 1722-24. J. C. Fussli, Beitriige 
 zur Reformatsgesch. der Schw. 1741-58, 5 parts. J. J. Simler, Sammlung alter u. 
 neues Urkunden zur Beleuchtuug der Kircliengesch. besonders der Schweiz. 
 1767, 2 vols. 
 
 The contemporary historians, Yal. Anshelm (1526), Bern. 1825-33, 6 vols.; 
 H. Bullinger (1532), 1838-40, 3 vols. 
 
 Biographies —Luthers Leben, v. M. Meurer, Dresd. 1843-52, 3 vols.; by R. 
 Jiigeus Lpz. 1846, 3 vols. incomplete. Leben Melanchthon, v. Camerarius. 1566 ; 
 ed. Strobel, 1777 F. Galle, Charakteristik Melanchthons, Halle, 1840. Zwingli’s 
 v. Robermund, Bremen, 1828. Von Schuler, Zur. 1819. Yon Sal. Hess, Ziir. 1820. 
 Von Hottinger, 1843. Especially for Zwingli’s Doctrine, see Zeller’s Tlieol. Zahrb. 
 1853, and Chr. Siegwart. Ulr. Zwingli, 1854. J. Oekolampadius v. Herzag. Bart. 
 Haller v. Kirchofer, 1828. W. Farel, v. Kirchhofer, Leben Calvins v. Bega. 
 P. Henry, Leben Calvins des Grossen Reformators, 1835, 3 vols. T'n. Beza, v. 
 J. W. Baum, 1843-51, 2 vols. 
 
 See Schenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus, 3 vols. 1846-51. Schnecken- 
 burger, Vergleichende Darstell, d. Luth. u. Ref. Systems, Herausg. von Gilder, 
 2 parts. 
 
 A. THE HISTORY OF INTRODUCTORY DOGMAS. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE 
 
 The question respecting the highest sources of the know¬ 
 ledge of Christian faith and practice necessarily was first 
 brought under fuller discussion at the Reformation. It could 
 not maintain itself against the Catholic Church without 
 making an attack on Tradition, and holding fast the principle 
 that the Christian truth is to be derived from the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures alone. But if it is further asked whether this was the 
 Principle which w r as first of all conceived and developed with 
 clear consciousness, it will readily be perceived that this alone 
 did not constitute the peculiar principle of the Reformation, 
 since at a later period some appeared who in this respect 
 agreed with the Protestants, and yet, like the Socinians, 
 departed widely from the Doctrine of the Reformers, and 
 made quite a different application of that principle. Accord¬ 
 ingly, an originally different relation of the religious con¬ 
 sciousness to Holy Writ is hereby pre-supposed. Generally 
 the founding of a Church is not commenced by consciously 
 undertaking the task of forming a new doctrine from Holy 
 Writ; a new T Life and a new religious community do not 
 originate from such reflections. Socinianism did proceed in this 
 way, but it gave birth to nothing that had vitality. Where a 
 new living Church is formed, the truth of Holy Writ operates 
 in a peculiar manner on the religious life of the Founder; a 
 
THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 m 
 
 peculiar tendency is elaborated, according to which the Holy 
 Scriptures are studied and viewed. One truth of it is not 
 accidentally set up as a central point, but it depends on the 
 religious consciousness how it is affected by the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures ; and although there are various types of doctrine in the 
 New Testament, yet it is not accidental, whether a person 
 feels attracted by this or that. Lastly, the acknowledgment 
 of Tradition as a fountain of knowledge and a rule for the 
 Christian faith, and the limitation of the authority and the 
 peculiar Exposition of Holy Writ, first proceeded from a totally 
 different doctrinal principle. Hence, also, the opposition 
 against this principle led men to place Holy Writ in the 
 right relation to the religious consciousness. That revolution 
 of the religious consciousness to Catholicism consisted in 
 withdrawing that consciousness from its immediate relation to 
 Christ, and . placing the Church between. Thus the reaction 
 of the Christian consciousness was realized at this point, for 
 it returned from its mediated position to the immediate relation 
 to Christ, where it enjoyed independence of the authority of 
 the Church. We find this connexion indicated in the man¬ 
 ner in which Wycliffe brings forward the principle of the 
 normative dignity of Scripture. “ When we truly believe in 
 Christ,” he says, “ the authority of Holy Writ will be greater 
 than that of any other writing.” He makes various applica¬ 
 tions of the idea of Scripture which were connected with the 
 Scholastic .Theology and mode of development, but yet led to 
 that presupposition. Holy Writ is equivalent to Jesus Christ, 
 the Book of Life, or the truths contained in this book. Fur¬ 
 ther, the collection of the particular writings which we call the 
 Scriptures are signified by it. But this is not to be under¬ 
 stood literally of this collection of writings on parchment, 
 but of their contents, the sententia sacrce. From the view of 
 the divine Word in Christ we first arrive at the treasures of 
 Holy Writ. In Wycliffe, therefore, we see the acknowledg¬ 
 ment of the divine Word derived from the immediate relation 
 of the religious consciousness to Christ. The same was the 
 case with Luther. His Reformation set out from the recog¬ 
 nition of Christ as the only source of Salvation, with a 
 rejection of all other mediation. Preparation for this deve¬ 
 lopment was made during his residence in the monastery. 
 His peculiar religious convictions remained at first in the 
 
622 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 forms of the existing doctrinal type, and with a recognition of 
 the authority of the external Church. But from this internal 
 principle he was gradually led to adhere no longer to the 
 decrees of the Church, hut to examine the Scriptures for 
 himself. Yet before he had consciously developed the prin¬ 
 ciple that the Holy Scriptures must be the highest source of 
 knowledge his doctrine had already been formed upon it, and 
 unconsciously he was guided by the principle to admit nothing 
 which was at variance with the Scriptures. Controversy first 
 brought him to carry out this principle with scientific con¬ 
 sciousness. If we wish, therefore, to make use of these later 
 designations, we must say that the formal principle had been 
 formed in his mind out of the material; both are combined in 
 the one principle, that the historical Christ is the only source 
 of salvation and of knowledge, in opposition to the mediation 
 of an outward Church for salvation and the knowledge of sal¬ 
 vation. 
 
 In modern times it has often been urged as a distinction 
 between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, that although 
 both agree in this twofold principle, yet that one or the other 
 has preponderated. Some truth lies at the basis of this state¬ 
 ment, but we cannot acknowledge it as true in this form. As 
 to the charge of a one-sided over-valuation of Holy Writ, by 
 viewing it out of its connexion with History and the material 
 principle, and falling into a slavish adherence to the letter, 
 when the externalizing of the formal principle was further 
 developed, we do not find these faults generally in the distin¬ 
 guished men of the Reformation. But when, at a later period, 
 the movement was checked, and the Bible was, in a one-sided 
 manner, in opposition to Catholic principles, asserted as the 
 source of Christian knowledge, the same defect was found 
 equally in both Churches; neither in the one nor the other 
 did the formal principle stand in living connexion with the 
 material, and in both the idea of Inspiration was evidently 
 carried to too great a length. In Luther’s Reformation it 
 was a striking characteristic, that everything proceeded from 
 Christ as the central point, and the reformatory development 
 extended only so far as the connexion with the material prin¬ 
 ciple could be shown, so that much of the ancient was left, 
 and the dogmatic tendency remained predominant, while the 
 application to ecclesiastical life continued proportionately sub- 
 
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 
 
 023 
 
 ordinate. On the other hand, under Zwingli and Calvin 
 the Reformatory tendency did not proceed with the same 
 moderation from this central point, but from the beginning 
 there was a marked effort to reform everything by means of 
 it, and to realize the idea of the kingdom of God—to restore 
 its original forms, and to remove everything which was at 
 variance with it. Hence the attempt to frame the Church on 
 the Apostolic model. As far as the idea of the kingdom of 
 God predominated, the stronger influence of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment found also a point of connexion. A variety of outward 
 conditions, especially the political relations under which the 
 Reformation was developed, thus came into consideration. 
 
 While the principle of acknowledging the supreme 
 authority of Holy Writ was in this way developed in Luther’s 
 Reformation, it was first of all scientifically stated by 
 Melancthon on the occasion of the Leipsig Disputation, 
 in which Eck attacked a statement made by that reformer 
 in one of his letters which thus acquired notoriety. He 
 says* that it is a duty to abide by the pure and simple mean¬ 
 ing of Holy Writ, as, indeed, heavenly truths are always the 
 simplest; this meaning is to be found by comparing Holy 
 Writ with itself. On this account we study Holy Writ, in 
 order to pass judgment on all human opinions by it as an 
 universal touchstone. As the Catholic Church made the 
 Interpretation of Holy Writ dependent on Tradition, and 
 could prove many doctrines only by the latter, the controversy 
 principally turned on the doctrine of the supreme source of 
 knowledge, and the contrary tenet especially was brought under 
 discussion at the Council of Trent. As it was there treated, 
 in a.d. 1546, no little perplexity arose how the relation between 
 Tradition and Holy Writ was to be determined. A Carmelite 
 monk, Antonio Marinari, delivered a remarkable address.f 
 
 * Contra Eckium Defensio, Corpus Reformatorum, ed Brotschneider, 
 t. i. p. 113.—Puto non temere fieri, sicuti sententiis Sancti Patres 
 variant, quemadmodum solet (solent?) ut judice scriptura recipiantur; 
 non (ne?) ipsorum nempe variantibus judiciis, scriptura vim patiatur. 
 Quandoquidem unus aliquis et simplex scripturse sensus est, ut et 
 coelestis veritas simplicissima est, quern collatis scripturis e filo 
 ductuque orationis licet assequi. In hoc enim jubemur philosophari in 
 scripturis divinis, ut kominum sententias decretaque ad ipsas ceu ad 
 Lydiam lapidem exigamus. 
 
 f Paul Sarpi Geschichte des Trident. Concils, Uebersetzung von 
 Rambach, Till. i. p. 172. 
 
624 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 There was certainly this difference, he remarked, between the 
 Old and New Testament, that in the latter the doctrine was no 
 longer confined to the letter, but propagated itself as a living 
 spirit. The Church existed before the Scriptures, but yet 
 Christ did not forbid his Apostles to commit his doctrine to 
 writing ; and as soon as a written exposition of it existed 
 along with the verbal annunciation, both sources of knowledge 
 must possess equal authority. But if two sets of Articles of 
 Faith were proposed, the greatest perplexity would arise, for 
 then a criterion must be sought to distinguish the two ; and 
 how could it be explained why the Apostles had written down 
 one thing, and not another ? How could it be supposed that 
 the Apostles were prevented from writing down anything 
 which was truth? Hence, like the Fathers, we could hold 
 nothing firmly respecting the relation of Scripture and Tra¬ 
 dition, and only make use of Tradition when it was needful. 
 This gave great offence. In the fourth Session of the Council* 
 it was decreed that the source of knowledge for Truth relating 
 to Faith and Discipline was contained in the Bible and the 
 oral Tradition which was handed down from Christ’s mouth 
 by the Apostles ; or, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
 it is come down from them to us, from hand to hand; that all 
 things relating to Dogma and Morals are to be drawn from 
 the Holy Scriptures and Tradition, which is evermore pre¬ 
 served in its integrity by constant Succession. Both are to 
 be received with equal piety. 
 
 In the Evangelical Church, on the contrary. Tradition 
 could only avail as a historical witness of the Truth, but 
 required another criterion, the divine Word in Holy Writ, to 
 distinguish between the True and the False. Luther 
 expressly guarded himself against being misunderstood, as 
 if he wished to introduce a new legislation for the Church, 
 
 * Sessio iv. Decretum de Canonicis Scriptioris: hanc veritatem et 
 disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, qu® 
 ad ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptte aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu 
 Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditoe, ad nos usque pervenerunt ; 
 orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secreta, omnes libros tam veteris quam 
 novi testamenti, cum utruisque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non tradi- 
 tiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel 
 oretenus a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua successione 
 in Ecclesia Catholica conservata, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia 
 guscipit et veneratur. 
 
SCRIPTURE AND CREEDS. 
 
 625 
 
 independent of Holy Writ, with the Confessions, which 
 always pre-supposed the importance of Holy Writ as the 
 only normative source. Also, in the Formula Concordia , when 
 there had been already a departure in practice from free prin¬ 
 ciples, and too much had been ceded to Church Authority (a 
 limitation which the Formula itself promoted), the same 
 principle was thus expressed :* Holy Scripture is the only 
 Rule by which all teachers and doctrines are to be tried ; all 
 Church Symbols are only witnesses for the Faith. This 
 principle was firmly retained in theory, though in practice 
 it was not adhered to; but unconsciously a Catholic element 
 again mingled with it. Only the extreme defenders of the 
 symbolical Books went so far against the freer tendency of 
 Pietism in the seventeenth Century, that they ascribed even 
 to the symbolical Books a certain Inspiration, in order to 
 deduce from it their infallibility. 
 
 But yet the Catholic doctrine of Tradition contained a 
 truth which even the Evangelical Church could admit, the 
 acknowledgment of a continued development of the Christian 
 consciousness, the importance of an historical witness for the 
 development of the Truth, only that in it Christian and un- 
 Christian Tradition went side by side. The Evangelical 
 Church had paid too little attention to the historical con¬ 
 nection with Antiquity. On the other hand; reactions arose, 
 especially that of George Calixtus, - ! who wished to lead 
 
 * Form. Concordiae Epitome i. 1.—Credimus, confitemur et docemus 
 unieam regulam et normam, secundum quam omnia dogmata, omnisque 
 Doctores aestimari et judicari aporteat, nullam omnino aiiam esse quam 
 prophetica et apostolica scripta cum veteris turn novi Testamenti, sicut 
 scriptum est Ps. cxix. 105; Gal. i. 8 —2. Reliqua vero sive patrum 
 sive neotericorum scripta, quocunque veniant nomine, sacris literis 
 nequaquam sunt aequiparanda, sed universa illis ita subjicienda sunt, 
 ut alia ratione non recipiantur, nisi testium loco, qui doceant, quad 
 etiam post apostolorum tempora et in quibus partibus orbis cloctrina 
 ilia prophetarum et apostolorum sincerior conservata sit.—8. Caetera 
 autem symbola et alia scripta, quorum paullo ante mentionem fecimus, 
 non obtinent auctoritatem judicis ; haec etiam dignitas solis sacris literis 
 debetur, sed dumtaxat pro religione nostra testimonium dicunt eamque 
 explicant, &c. 
 
 t De Prrecepuis Christianse Religionis Capitibus, 1613; De Causa 
 hodierni Odii hhilosophise et Solidae Eruditionis, 1619; Epitome Theo¬ 
 logize Positivae, 1619 ; Epitome Theologiae Moralis, 1634 ; De Auctoritate 
 Antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae, 1639; De Universalis Primaevae Ecclesiae 
 Auctoritate, 1640; Scripta Facientia ad Colloquium Thoruni. 1645; 
 
 s s 
 
626 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 back in the historical direction, prompted by the desire to 
 promote pacific measures as far as the controversial spirit 
 that had hitherto prevailed would allow. Calixtus believed 
 that the common foundation of the Christian Truth was to be 
 found in the Tradition of the first five Centuries, to which 
 existing controversies might be referred. He developed his 
 opinion in his remarks on the Commonitorium of Yincentitjs 
 Lerinensis, edited by him in 1629, whose principles he 
 wished to revive. These statements formed the subject of 
 the Syncretic Controversy. Amidst the attacks made upon him, 
 Calixtus confined himself to asserting that the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures alone must be regarded as the prime authority, trust¬ 
 worthy in itself, and Tradition as subordinate. But his theory 
 of Tradition then was something wavering and yet arbitrary, 
 since it was illogical to limit himself to the recognition of 
 the first five centuries. But his Statements might have led 
 to an examination of the Idea of Tradition. 
 
 In the Reformed Church a similar reaction led back to 
 the more historical view. It proceeded from James Armi- 
 nius,* and found its chief supporter in Hugo GROTius.f 
 On account of his Irenical tendencies, the latter took the 
 same path in his remarks on the Irenical opinion of the 
 Dutch theologian, George Cassander, { and in his Via ad 
 
 Habitum, 1645; De Tolerantia Reformatoram circa Qusestiones inter 
 ipsos et Augustanam Confessionem Professos Controversas Consultatio: 
 Desiderium et Studium Concordiee Eeclesiasticse, 1650; Henke, Georg 
 Calixtus u. seine Zeit, 1853. Ueber die Synkretiscben Streitigkeiten 
 Abr. Calov. Historia Syncretistica. d. i. Christ Wohlbegriindetes 
 Bedenken lib. d. Kirchenfrieden u. Christ. Einigkeit. Gress. 1682, 85, 
 4to. J. G. Walch, Religionstreitigkeiten der Luther. Kirche i. p. 216. 
 Planck, Geschichte des Protestantischen Theologie von der Concordien- 
 formel u. s. w. p. 90. H. Schmid, Gesch. der Synkretist. Streitigkeiten, 
 1846. W. Gass, Calixtus u. der Synkretismus, Berlin, 1846. 
 
 * Arminii Opp. Theologica, Lugd. Bat. 1629. 4to. G. Brandt. Vita 
 Arminii, ed. Moshemius, Bonon. 1726. The Life and Death of James 
 Arminius and Episcopius. London, 1772. Brandt, Historie der Refor- 
 matie en Ontrendt de Nederlanden, Amsterd. 1671—1704, 4 voll. 
 Jacob Regenborg, Historie der Remonstrantur, Amsterd. 1774, 3 Thle. 
 Deutsch, Lemgo, 1781. 
 
 f Heinr. Luden, Hugo Grotius nach semen Schicksalen und Schriften, 
 Berlin, 1806. Opp. Theol. Amsterd. 1679. 
 
 t De Articulis Religionis inter Catholicos et Protestantes Controverts 
 ad Ferdinandum I. et Maximilianum II Consultatio, Colon. 1566, ed. 
 H. Grotius, Lugd. Batav. 1642. 
 
SOCfNIANISM. 
 
 027 
 
 pacem ecclesiastic am. He himself declared that Tradition 
 was a source of knowledge, but that it was more difficult and 
 toilsome to elicit the truth from it. The essential doctrines 
 of Salvation are no doubt contained fully in the New Testa¬ 
 ment. Since all truth rests on the evidence of two witnesses, 
 both are to be made use of. But all these Statements were 
 not sufficiently certain, and did not lead to a more exact 
 investigation. In modern times a more historical tendency 
 has called forth doubt respecting the genuineness of certain 
 writings of the Canon, which have had the effect, on the 
 other side, of enhancing the authority of Tradition. But 
 still only thus much has been the result, that though Tra¬ 
 dition has weight as a witness, yet a higher source of know¬ 
 ledge is required, in order to distinguish between Christian 
 Truth and what is foreign to it. 
 
 In reference to Socinianism,* the question may be pro¬ 
 posed, whether it agrees with this formal principle of the 
 Reformation, or whether Season does not occupy in it the 
 place of the supreme source of Knowledge. Indeed, if we 
 judge of this System by particular doctrines, it may seem that 
 it rests on rationalistic principles. Yet it will appear that it 
 does not proceed alone from such a tendency, but can be 
 developed only on the supposition of a source given by 
 Revelation. It is here of great importance to distinguish 
 the principles and their application, what is consciously 
 expressed, and what unconsciously lies at the foundation. 
 The best explanation of this tendency will be obtained from 
 the genetic development of the doctrine. Socinianism agreed 
 with the Reformation in its negations, in waging war against t 
 Church authority and Scholasticism, and likewise in its prac¬ 
 tical interests. But in the Practical it set out from quite a 
 different point; it sprung, not from a distinct Christian prin¬ 
 ciple, but only from a general religious interest, and hence 
 
 * Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, Irenopoli (Amsterdam), 1656, 
 
 8 t. f. Catechesmus Racoviensis, ed. Oeder, Francf. 1739. J. G. Watch, 
 der Streitigkeiten Augserhalb der Lutherischen Kirche, Th. i. 562. 
 Rambach, Einleitung in der Religionsstreitigkeiten der Evangelischen 
 Kirche mit den Socinianem, Koburg. 1753. Ziegler, Lehr. Begriff der 
 Socinianer in Henkes neuem Magazin, Bd. 4, p. 201. 0. Fock der 
 
 Socinianismus in der Gesammtentwicklung des Christ.. Geistes nach 
 seinem Histor. Verlauf u. Lehrbegriff, Kiel, 1845. Baur, Lehre von 
 der Dreieinigkeit, iii 164. Dorner, Lehre v. der Person Christi, ii. 751, 
 
 s s 2 
 
628 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 was not intimately connected with Christian doctrine; the 
 formal principle was, therefore, not grounded in the material. 
 All that appeared of practical importance was connected with 
 the juridical point of view. Its founder was LjElitjs Soci- 
 nus '* (died a.d. 1562), a priest of Sienna, from whom his 
 nephew, Faustus SociNust (died a.d. 1604), received its 
 fundamental doctrines. He studied the Scriptures from a 
 juridical interest ; he wished to establish his jurisprudence 
 firmly on the principles of divine right, as the source of all 
 human equity. This fact is instructive in forming a judg¬ 
 ment of his tendency, for it is evident that such an inte¬ 
 rest was not suited to enable him to arrive at a deeper view of 
 Christianity, When he examined the Scriptures he disco¬ 
 vered the contradictions between the Bible and the existing 
 Church. The prevalent Scepticism in Italy, the Deism and 
 Atheism, had not left him untouched in personal intercourse 
 with men who were infected with these errors ; yet the reli¬ 
 gious faith was sufficiently powerful in him to form a counter¬ 
 poise to the consequences of doubt. He, therefore, never 
 fell into total Unbelief, but he became perplexed about 
 the Faith he had hitherto held. The Church doctrine could 
 not help him, and he endeavoured now to form a doctrinal 
 scheme of his own. There was no distinct central point of 
 his own religious life from which he started; he examined 
 the Scriptures on a regular plan for the original doctrine, took 
 journeys, and formed acquaintance with foreign Theologians. 
 His juridical point of view and his cold intellectualism 
 placed him in opposition to deeper speculation and the mys¬ 
 tical Element ; what was more intensely Christian was 
 excluded. He had no internally grounded supernatural 
 Standpoint, but a one-sided Understanding, which outwardly 
 submitted to Supernaturalism, and a one-sided intellectual 
 Supernaturalism, which contained the germ of Rationalism. 
 Hence the supernatural Element, wdiich w ? as added only from 
 without, needed only to be set aside, and Rationalism took its 
 
 * Orelli Liilius Socinus Baseler wissensch. Zeitschr. Bb. 3, Heft. 3. 
 Trechsel Lalio Sozeni und die Antitrinitaner seiner Zeit, Heidelb. 
 1844. 
 
 + Opp. Irenopoli, 1656, 2 t. Vita Faust Socini (by Samuel Orcipco- 
 vius), 1636, 4to., and Opp. F. Socinii, t. i. Joshua Toulmin, Memoirs 
 of the Life, Character, and Writings of F. Socinus, London, 1'777, 8vo. 
 
SOCINIANISM. 
 
 629 
 
 place. It was altogether an empirical standpoint, so far 
 lrom Idealism, that it formed its exact opposite, arid the 
 relationship to Ebionitism was much greater than to Gnos¬ 
 ticism. In the work of Faustus Socinus, De auctoritate 
 Scriptures, Sacra, which he w T rote in behalf of Supernatu¬ 
 ralism, we may recognise an extravagant view of it. He 
 here asserts with earnestness that the doctrines of Chris¬ 
 tianity can only be derived from the Holy Scriptures ; as to 
 what concerns human Reason, it is, in his esteem, very sub- 
 ordinate in reference to matters which proceed from Reve¬ 
 lation. In the second chapter he shows that Religion is in 
 nowise a matter of Nature and Reason; that if there is a 
 true Religion, it could only be a revealed one. Socinus did 
 not merely distinguish between the doctrines of Religion 
 derived from Reason, and those from Revelation, or natural 
 and positive, but he went farther; he maintained that there 
 was no Natural Religion whatever, and that all religious Tra¬ 
 dition was to be traced to a divine Revelation as its basis. 
 He appealed to the account of Missionaries in the Brazils, 
 that tribes were found without any Religion. The denial of 
 all Natural Religion led him to the forced interpretation of 
 those passages in the Epistle to the Romans in which the 
 opposite is affirmed. That nevertheless he recognised a 
 moral Law independent of Revelation, a power of Conscience, 
 which could even exist where men knew nothing of God, has 
 an important bearing on the whole dogmatic standpoint of 
 Socinianism. On this scheme the Ethical and the Religious 
 are without any internal connexion; and as Religion comes 
 only from without, and is met by no religious nature in Man, 
 to which it can attach itself, that place is not to be found in 
 the Spirit, in which all Religion must develope itself. Henc-e 
 it is self-evident that Dogmatics are quite extraneous to 
 human nature. The relation in which this Supernaturalism 
 stood to Reason will be shown by the following statements. 
 The Socinian John Creel, Preacher and Professor in Cracow 
 (died a.d. 1633), says:* “Mysteries are indeed exalted., above 
 Reason, but they do not overturn ( evertunt ) it; they by no 
 means extinguish its light, but only perfect it.” Another, 
 Martin Ruartjs, had a memorable controversy on this sub¬ 
 ject with the Lutheran Theologian, Abraham Calovius. The 
 
 * De Deo et ejus Attributis. 
 
630 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 former combated the assertion of Reason being made cap 
 tive to the obedience of Faith, and regarded it as founded on 
 a false interpretation of Scripture. What must become of 
 us, he said, if Reason were fettered ? There is no other 
 organ but this given by God, in order to find out the meaning 
 of Holy Writ when it has been disturbed by false exposition. 
 Here Reason appears only as the organ of Man for Scripture 
 Inquiry and exposition.* But if from the Socinian stand¬ 
 point it was maintained, along with the Evangelical Church, 
 that the Bible contained nothing contradictory to reason, its 
 advocates went very arbitrarily to work in the application of 
 this canon. Many axioms of a contracted Understanding 
 were laid down by the Socinians as undeniable laws of 
 Reason ; and since they had determined that nothing in 
 Revelation was at variance with these axioms, they inter¬ 
 preted the Bible in a forced manner. Among the axioms 
 which Andrew WissowATiusf laid down in his dogmatical 
 work, and which, as he said, nothing in Scripture could con¬ 
 tradict, are some which would only be received as axioms 
 from the standpoint of Socinianism. The transition to Ra¬ 
 tionalism was already visible. Everywhere the consequences 
 made themselves felt, that the formal principle was laid down, 
 not under the suppositions of the corruption of human nature, 
 of the disturbance of the Reason by Sin, the need of Re¬ 
 demption, the consciousness that the reason is first made 
 free by Regeneration—suppositions which are made by the 
 Evangelical Church ; and according to the Socinian view, it 
 required only the Understanding, not an immediate religious 
 consciousness, in order to understand the Holy Scriptures, 
 and to deduce from them the doctrines of the Christian Faith. 
 Faith must here proceed only from a logical conviction, with¬ 
 out a union of the Intellectual and the Practical., 
 
 It was a one-sided subjective tendency which made its appear¬ 
 ance in Socinianism. Here it took the path of the Under¬ 
 standing, and led to Rationalism ; but it could also take that 
 of the Feelings, and then assumed the form of Mysticism. 
 
 In the Mysticism of the Middle Ages we already distinguish 
 
 * Zeltner, Historia Crypto-Socinismi Altorphinse Academise Infesti, 
 Lips. 1729. 
 
 f (Arsenius Sophianus) Religio Rationalis sive de Rationis Judicio 
 in Controversiis etiam Theologicis Adhibendo, 1685. 
 
MEDIA! VAL MYSTICISM. 
 
 631 
 
 between a reaction of the Christian consciousness and a certain 
 Rationalism in the form of a pantheistic and idealistic Mys¬ 
 ticism, the injurious effects of which were only turned aside 
 and checked by the Reformation. It now first came forward 
 as a power of positive religious enthusiasm. In the Reforma¬ 
 tion we recognise, indeed, two tendencies operating in harmo¬ 
 nious connexion, the reaction of a subjective living Chris¬ 
 tianity, in opposition to Scholasticism, and the outward 
 mechanism of the opus operatum , which shows itself in the 
 doctrine of Faith; and, on the other hand, the reference to 
 the objective of the Divine Word, which was necessarily con¬ 
 nected with the idea of Faith ; but in the religious ferment 
 which was excited at the Reformation, and in the strong 
 opposition of the subjective religious consciousness against 
 the lifeless objectivity, it happened that the subjective ten¬ 
 dency separated itself from the objective and became one¬ 
 sided. We find the first symptoms of it during the residence 
 of Luther at the Wartburg, a.d. 1520, among the Zwickau 
 Prophets, # and since that time this subjective one-sidedness 
 has frequently made itself felt in the form of Mysticism, f 
 Men came forward who charged the Reformers with intro¬ 
 ducing a new Bibliolatry, who lightly esteemed the Bible, and 
 exalted the inward Light above it. Thomas MunzerJ de- 
 cla. M that if God had wished to convert Man by a book, he 
 could have caused a Bible to fall from Heaven. We may 
 even at this time see a rationalistic germ springing out of this 
 Mysticism. Luther mentions § that about a.d. 1525, at Wit¬ 
 tenberg, people were to be met with who maintained that the 
 Holy Spirit was nothing but the natural Reason. This ten¬ 
 dency is more clearly represented in Theobald Thamer,|| 
 
 * Schneider, Bibliothek der Kirchengeschichte, ii., iii. Corpus 
 Reform, i. 533. 
 
 + Erbkam, Gesehichte der Protest. Sekten. im Zeitalter der Re¬ 
 formation, 1848. 
 
 + Hiatorie Thoma Munzers von Ph. Melanchthon. Luther’s Werke 
 von Walch. xvi. 199. Leben, Schriften, und Lehren Thoma Munzers 
 von G. Th. Strobel, 1795. L. v. Baczko in Woltwann’s Zeitschr. fur 
 Gesehichte und Politik, 1840. 
 
 § Luther’s Briefe von de Wette, ii. 641.—Novum genus prophetarum 
 ex Antwerp!s hie habeo asserentium, Spiritum Sanctum nihil aliud esse 
 quam ingenium et rationem naturalem. 
 
 || C. A. Salig, Gesehichte der Ausburger Confession, Bd. 3. Neander 
 
G32 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 who was a native of Alsatia, ancl for a long time Professor at 
 Marburg, where he made himself noted for his extreme 
 Supranaturalism and polemic zeal; in the Smalcald War he 
 accompanied the Hessian army as military chaplain. By the 
 immorality which he discovered in his intercourse with the 
 rude soldiery he saw that he was deceived in his ideal expecta¬ 
 tions of the Reformation, became dissatisfied with it, and laid 
 the blame especially on the Lutheran doctrine of Justification. 
 Engaged in controverting this, he turned more and more 
 against the formal principle. He now advanced in a mystical, 
 rationalistic direction, various elements of which existed in 
 his mind. Instead of the authority of the divine Word as the 
 supreme source of religious Belief, he laid down three 
 sources: the Creature, the Spiritual Conscience, and the true 
 Holy Writ. The defect of the Lutherans was, that they had 
 only one source; the Conscience is the Deus Revelatus , it is 
 Christ in our hearts ; the letter without us cannot testify of 
 the Truth within us apart from the Conscience; in the Con¬ 
 science is the living Word, and the Divinity of Christ; all 
 the truth of the Gospel is already founded in it. He appealed 
 to this fact, that Christian precept: Do not to another what thou 
 wouldst not have done to thyself, which is the chief maxim of 
 Christian morals, is also to be derived from the Conscience. 
 The question arises, what need is there of Revelation, if 
 everything already exists in the Conscience ? He says : The 
 heart of Man is like a flint, from which the hidden fire must 
 be struck out. Nothing new is brought to it, but what is 
 already in it is aroused. Accordingly, Historical Christianity 
 is not to be absolutely rejected, but its special value consists 
 in bringing to open view what exists in the human soul. 
 Christ is only the example of the highest virtue. The inward 
 , Word of Conscience lies already in the heart; the oral Word 
 and the Letter only confirm it, in order that, we may be 
 without excuse at the Last Day. To Phtlip, Landgrave of 
 Hesse, he wrote:* “Although animals cannot speak as w T e 
 do, yet I am sure that your Grace better understands the 
 cry of the hounds than if some pne read Hebrew.” His oppo¬ 
 sition against the Reformation and the rough treatment he 
 
 Theob. Thamer, der Repriisentant und Vorganger Moderner Geistes* 
 richtimg, 1842. 
 
 * Th. Rommel, Philipp der Grossmuthige, 1830, Bd. 3. 
 
GEORGE FOX. 
 
 633 
 
 experienced at last led him back to Catholicism. He could 
 easily attach himself to the Catholic Anthropology, and his 
 hatred of the Reformation made him welcome to the Catholic 
 party. He now represented the Tradition of the Catholic 
 Church be to a progressive development of Christianity, which, 
 according to his notions, was like a progressive revelation of 
 Reason, and accused the Reformation of setting itself in oppo¬ 
 sition to this progress. 
 
 Mysticism was afterwards called forth repeatedly by the 
 onesidedness of literal orthodoxy. It assumed in England 
 the most systematic shape, and was embodied in a remarkable 
 phenomenon—the sect of the Quakers.* England, during 
 and after the Revolution in the reign of Charles I., was in the 
 greatest religious ferment, in which the most opposite ten¬ 
 dencies germinated, from a stiff adherence to formalism, to a 
 completely spiritual internal tendency ; rationalistic, deistic, 
 pantheistic, and mystic elements, were found co-existing with 
 High Churchism. During this period lived George Fox,t a 
 shepherd, who, while engaged in this occupation, gave himself 
 up to religious meditation. He adopted the notion, that all 
 controversies are only owing to men’s withdrawing from the 
 Inward, and attending to the Outw 7 ard. The sect, of which 
 he was the founder, developed this sentiment, and carried out, 
 consequentially, the doctrine of the Inward Light. All other 
 sources of knowledge were subordinate to this. All external 
 order w 7 as excluded in the constitution of the Church. 
 
 * Catechesis et Confessio, quse Continet Narrationem Dogmatum, 
 quse Creduntur ab Ecclesiis Quacerorum, Rotterd. 1676. German, 
 Leipzig, 1752. W. Penn, A Summary of the History, Doctrine, and 
 Discipline of Friends, Lond. 1692. Evans, An Exposition of the Faith 
 of the Religious Society of Friends in the Fundamental Doctrines of 
 the Christian Religion, selected from their early Writings, Philadelphia 
 and York, 1829. Rules of Discipline of the Religious Society of 
 Friends, with Advices, being Extracts from the Minutes and Epistles 
 of the early Meetings held in Loudon from its first Institution, London, 
 1783, 3 ed. 1834. Gurney, Observations on the Religious Peculiarities 
 of the Society of Friends, London, 1824. Observations on the Dis¬ 
 tinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of Friends, 7 ed. Lond. 
 1834. Croesii Hist. Quakeriana, Amst. 2 ed. 1696. Sewel, Gesch. 
 vom Ursprung, Zunehmen und Fortgang der Christen so Quaker 
 genanut werden, Holland, Amst, 1717. 
 
 t Collection of Christian Epistles written by G. Fox, London, 1698, 
 2 vols. fol. Journal of the Life, Travels, and bufferings of G. Fox, 
 London, 1691. 
 
634 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Robert Barclay* gave development to these principles. 
 He says that highest source of knowledge—Divine Revela¬ 
 tion and Illumination—is something internal, trustworthy, 
 and self-evident, which necessitates well-ordered, susceptible 
 Reason to accept it by the indwelling evidence, not less than 
 the principles of the universal truths of Reason in earthly 
 things.f Holy Writ is a declaratio fontis , not the original 
 source of knowing the Truth; it is no adequate rule for 
 doctrine and morals, though it gives a true and credible testi¬ 
 mony to the original source of knowledge. It is subordinate 
 to the Holy Spirit, from whom it derives its excellence.]; It 
 is worthy of notice, that he argues for the subordination of 
 Scripture to the Inward Light, on the same grounds as 
 Catholicism pleads for the necessity of Tradition. He points 
 to the many contradictory interpretations of the Bible, which 
 require a higher criterion, and this can only be found in the 
 inward Divine Word. The subjective tendency, if carried 
 out to its consequences, might lead to entirely giving up the 
 Objectivity of Divine Revelation. There are two parties 
 among the Quakers, one of which, forming the majority, 
 firmly holds the peculiar Christian doctrines given in Reve¬ 
 lation ; the other, represented particularly by the American, 
 Elias Hicks, opposes this acknowledgment as a restraint in 
 matters of Religion, and inclines to the Deistical tendency.§ 
 A phenomenon, which appeared in Germany, on the border 
 of the ancient, and of a new section of the development of 
 Theology, is deserving of notice ; it was a subjective Ra¬ 
 tionalism, veiled in onesided Mysticism, the omen of a future 
 Idealism, which denies the reality of History. This we find 
 in an enthusiast, with whose character we have first become 
 acquainted in modern times, Daniel Muller. || He was a 
 
 * Theologia vere Christian;® Apologia, 1676; Latin and English. 
 
 f Thesis 2.—For this Divine Revelation and Inward Illumination is 
 that which is evident and clear of itself, forcing by its own evidence 
 and clearness the well-disposed understanding to assent, irresistibly 
 moving the same thereunto, even as the common principles of natural 
 truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent. 
 
 X Thesis 2. 
 
 § Bennet, The History of Dissenters during the last Thirty Years, 
 1808—38, London, 1839. Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1838, p. 806; 
 1839, p. 782; 1840, p. 141. 
 
 || Keller, Daniel Muller, Religioser Schwarmer des Achtzehut* 
 Jahrh, Leipzig, 1834. Ilgen. Ztschr. fur Histor. Theologie, 1834. 
 
DANIEL MULLER 
 
 635 
 
 man of a low condition in life, and born a.d. 1716, in Nassau, 
 at the time of the Pietist movements, when various indications 
 of an inward religious life made their appearance in Germany, 
 and many opposing circumstances excited a longing for a new 
 development of the Church. At first he attached himself to 
 the secondary effects of Pietism, and busied himself with 
 Jacob Boehme, and other Mystics. For a long time also he 
 was engaged in historical studies, and his Mysticism became 
 connected with an historical Scepticism. At this juncture 
 also, there was the commencement of a rationalistic reaction, 
 especially by the appearance of the Wolfenbuttle Fragments. 
 But neither of the two parties—neither the Church nor the 
 Rationalistic—suited him. He wished to maintain the autho¬ 
 rity of the Bible against the new Scepticism, and to insist on 
 its Inspiration in the most unqualified sense. But, on the 
 other hand, he was not satisfied with Orthodoxy; he was led 
 to a peculiar religious Idealism, by which he wished to esta¬ 
 blish a harmony of all religions. An original Revelation was 
 at the basis of all of them, the symbols of which had been 
 misunderstood. Everything in the Old Testament and the 
 New was to be understood symbolically ; it was the garb of 
 God’s inner Revelation, and of the eternal revelation of the 
 divine Logos. Everything historical, as such, is untrue; it 
 is only the clothing of ideal truth. In this view of the Life 
 of Christ, although proceeding on quite different principles, he 
 was the forerunner of the modern mythic school, and combated 
 the belief in the historical miracles of Christ, on grounds very 
 similar to those brought forward by Strauss. If such 
 miracles, he says, as feeding the five thousand, had actually 
 happened, all the Jews would have received Christ, and would 
 not have crucified him. To those who wished for such 
 miracles, Jesus said : “ This adulterous generation seek after 
 signs and wonders, but none shall be given them, save the 
 sign of the Prophet Jonah,” wdiich meant the three days of 
 Christ in the literal grave. 
 
 Gradually, as reason became more autonomic, it threw off 
 the mystic and supernaturalist garb, and claimed to be the 
 only source of the knovdedge of the Faith Thus Rationalism 
 openly appeared. This tendency first attached itself to 
 Theology, in the Reformed Church of Holland. It was in 
 the seventeenth century, when the Arminian Controversy had 
 
C3(3 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 given birth to a spirit of free inquiry, in opposition to Ortho¬ 
 doxy. To this was added the influence of Des Cartes and 
 Spinoza, and the criticism of Bayle. But the name of 
 Rationalism, which was employed about this time, had a dif¬ 
 ferent sense. From the standpoint of the old dogmatic 
 Scholasticism, everything appeared as Theologia Rationalis, 
 which deviated from this slavish adherence to the letter. 
 This term, moreover, was used to designate the tendency of 
 diose who, in fact, adopted the principle, that everything must 
 be derived from reason. Thus that profound mystic, Peter 
 Poiret,* designates the standpoint of an Idolatry of Reason, 
 which opposed all Revelation, and denied all inward and 
 outward experience of it,—which made Religion to consist in 
 knowledge, under the names of icleistce et rationalistce. A 
 very influential work in this development was published by a 
 physician, Lewis Meier, a scholar of Spinoza, entitled Philo- 
 sophia script nr (B sacrce inter pres The arguments which 
 
 Catholics and Quakers had employed against the supreme 
 authority of Scripture, were here applied in favour of Reason, 
 which was held up as the only sure criterion in Religious 
 Controversies. Thence the tendency spread to Germany, at 
 first, gradually; afterwards, owing to the freer religious ten¬ 
 dency which was occasioned by the Pietist movements, and 
 through the influence of the Wolfian philosophy, the soil 
 was prepared, and it reached here to a more logical complete¬ 
 ness, and now turned itself against both Orthodoxy and 
 Pietism. In the development of Rationalism, two modifi¬ 
 cations chiefly are to be distinguished : in the first place, 
 empirical Rationalism, which saw in Christianity a certain 
 temporary clothing of universal religious truths, and to which 
 Revelation was only a training-school for the truth, an ar¬ 
 rangement of Providence, in order to lead Reason to a know¬ 
 ledge of it. It valued Christianity, therefore, as the most 
 complete clothing of Natural Religion, but ignored its his¬ 
 torical character. Only the acknowledgment of such religious 
 truths remained, which, in this form, had become matters of 
 
 * Cogitationes Rationales de Deo, Anima et Malo, 1677, 1685, 1715 ; 
 directed againt Spinozism. On bis writings, see J. G. Walch, Einlei- 
 tung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten Ausserkalb der Lutkeriscken Kirche, 
 Thl. iv. p. 911. 
 
 t Amst. 1666. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 637 
 
 consciousness only through the influence of Revelation, such 
 as faith in a personal God, in moral freedom, and in personal 
 Immortality. Against this standpoint, a fundamental study 
 of History, which taught a more correct knowledge of Christi¬ 
 anity, a deeper view of the religious nature of Man, and a 
 deeper speculation, must equally be opposed. On the other 
 hand, Rationalism could not fail to attain to greater consis¬ 
 tency ; for in it there was the struggle of Reason to bring its 
 subjectivity to its highest pitch, and everything which claimed 
 to be acknowledged as an external authority, was a stone of 
 stumbling to it. Hence Rationalism must reach a point where 
 Reason would recognise only itself in all things. In its 
 consequential development, not merely in Theology, but also 
 in Philosophy, it overstepped the deistical form, in which the 
 older Rationalism was confined, and became Pantheism, Thus 
 it was the result of this process, that all existence was melted 
 down in the crucible of a self-idolizing Reason. 
 
 THE SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. 
 
 A. THE INTRODUCTORY DOGMAS. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 As the Scholastic Theology was occupied so little with the 
 Interpretation of the Bible, it was not led to the more exact 
 discussion of this Dogma, which was still so undefined. But 
 freer exegetical inquiry about the time of the Reformation led 
 to it, in a similar manner to what had already taken place in 
 the Antiochian School. To the germs of a new development 
 which are to be found in Erasmus of Rotterdam, belong also 
 his sentiments relating to Inspiration. He had been attacked 
 by Eck, on account of certain expressions in his commentary 
 on Matthew, respecting the defects in the language of the 
 Apostles. Eck proceeded on the assumption of a verbal 
 Inspiration, and charged Erasmus with heresy, when he pro 
 fessed love and esteem for him. Erasmus justified himself 
 in a letter, written a.d. 1528.* He did not deny the mira¬ 
 culous gift of tongues, yet he did not admit that all their 
 knowledge of languages proceeded from that. Why should a 
 knowledge be granted to them in a supernatural manner, 
 
 * Epp. ii. 26. * 
 
638 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 which they could attain in a natural way ? He found marks 
 of the latter, in their mode of speaking Greek ; we ought not 
 to require that the Holy Ghost should teach them the purest 
 Greek. It was not our business to prescribe in what manner 
 the Spirit should operate on their minds. He so guided the 
 sacred writers, that they still remained men; and we do not 
 ascribe all things in the Apostles equally to miracle. Erasmus, 
 therefore, would distinguish between the divine agency and 
 human conditionality. Christ, he says, allowed his disciples 
 to err, even after they had received the illumination of the 
 Holy Spirit; only not to the injury of the doctrines of Faith. 
 How do you know whether Christ did not wish to reserve for 
 himself alone the honour of entire freedom from error ? 
 
 The discussions excited at first no wider influence, for the 
 great movement of the Reformation was too much controlled 
 by dogmatic interests, to allow of progress in the way just 
 indicated. But Luther, on the other hand, arrived at a freer 
 view of the idea of Inspiration.* The positive religious 
 interest gave him this freedom; he set out from the doctrine 
 of Justification by Faith, and since he firmly grasped this 
 vital principle, he formed a judgment on other points with so 
 much greater freedom, which corresponded to his unprejudiced 
 truthfulness. From that central point was developed not a 
 mere intellectual, but a dogmatic tendency, of deeper vitality. 
 He had not, indeed, leisure and time, fully to develope his 
 idea of Inspiration, but he makes it sufficiently intelligible in 
 many scattered expressions. In his preface to the Epistle of 
 James, he saysif What Christ does not teach, that is not 
 apostolic, even though Peter or Paul preach it ; and again, 
 what Christ preaches, that is apostolic, even if Judas and 
 Herod preached it. Therefore, the more or less anything 
 treats of Christ himself, his doctrine or his work, so much 
 greater or less importance has it for Christianity as doctrine, 
 for Christ himself is the central point of doctrine, since He is 
 the ground of salvation. The more anything refers itself to 
 Him so much the more is the communication of the divine spirit * 
 to be acknowledged therein.J On the same epistle, he says : 
 Wherefore the Epistle of James is a downright strawy Epistle 
 
 * Bretschneider, Luther an unsere Zeit, p. 190. 
 
 + Opp. Walcli, t. xiv. p. 149. Erlanger Ausg lxiii. p. 115 and 157. 
 
 X See Yorrede auf das Neue Testament, p. 105. 
 
LUTHER ON INSPIRATION. 
 
 089 
 
 (compared with John’s Gospel and the Epistles of Paul and 
 Peter), for it has nothing evangelical in it. The Gospel of 
 John, the Epistles of Paul, especially the Epistle to the 
 Romans, and the first Epistle of Peter, he pronounces to be 
 the very kernel and marrow of all the books of Holy Scrip¬ 
 ture ; for in these there is not much of mighty deeds and 
 miracles, but it is shown admirably how Faith in Christ over¬ 
 comes Sin, Death, and Hell. We would not deny that from 
 this point of view he allows himself to err in several onesided 
 judgments on the Books of the Canon, but the significance is 
 always important which the material principle of the Reform¬ 
 ation had in them for the apprehension of Holy Writ. Hs 
 also lays a stress on the Human in the Apostles, when he says 
 of the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, that the Holy 
 Spirit allowed James to make a false step in some things.* 
 The Prophets, he says, had, without doubt, studied Moses, 
 and the latter Prophets the earlier, and their good thoughts 
 inspired by the Holy Spirit, were written in a book; but if 
 hay, straw, and wood, were sometimes used by these faithful 
 teachers and inquirers, and they did not build with pure silver, 
 gold, and precious stones, still the Foundation remained; the 
 fire of that day would destroy the rest, as Paul says (1 Cor. 
 iii. 12, 13).t On the quotations from the Old Testament, in 
 the address of Stephen, he gives his opinion that it is un¬ 
 necessary to take so much trouble to bring the dates of 
 Stephen into agreement with Moses. Stephen. was no 
 historian, but rested satisfied with the fact, that this 
 history had been given by Moses, and did not trouble 
 himself about particular circumstances.J Also, he did not 
 entirely overlook the irregularities of languages arising from 
 human influences. He finds them in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, and says : But it pleased the Holy Spirit to retain 
 such ; for Paul speaks with great earnestness, and a person in 
 that state cannot pay attention to arrange all his words by the 
 rules of art.§ 
 
 If this track had been followed, a sounder idea of Inspi- 
 
 * Walch, viii. p. 1042. 
 
 + Vorrede zu Wenzeslaus Lenk’s Annotationes zu den fiinf Buchern 
 Mosis. Walch. xiv. 170. Erlang, lxiii. 379. 
 t Zu Apostelgesch. vii. Band i. 1160. 
 
 £ Oommentar zum Galaterbrief, Walch, viii. 1737 
 
040 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 ration and a corresponding system of Interpretation might 
 have been formed. But the dogmatic development of the 
 Protestant Church did not follow this impulse; since, in 
 opposition to the Roman Church, they firmly held the Holy 
 Scriptures to be the only source of the knowledge of the faith, 
 they were wont to regard it as a rigid Code, and took no account 
 of its mode of origination, and the peculiarities belonging to 
 it. A onesided supranaturalism was added, and led to the 
 mechanical idea of Inspiration, which regarded the writers as 
 blind organs of the Holy Spirit. Grammatolatry and a more 
 unbending Dogmatism prevailed; the Bible was treated as a 
 dogmatical book—the Human, the Manifold, and the His¬ 
 torical, were left misunderstood. This, again, produced a re¬ 
 action, which proceeded to a denial of Inspiration altogether. 
 This reaction, which occasioned fresh investigations of the idea 
 of Inspiration, proceeded from two quarters: first, from the 
 formal principle, since unprejudiced study and examination of 
 Scripture effected a modification, and then from the material 
 principle, when, from the inmost centre of religious conscious¬ 
 ness, Holy Writ and its origination were viewed. In the one 
 case, there was a onesided intellectual tendency; in the other, 
 a vital religious feeling. The first was true of the Socinians. 
 Faustus Socinus was far from lowering the authority of the 
 Bible: he even composed, in vindication of the Scriptures, 
 his treatise, JDe auctoritate scriptures sacrce * Only by an 
 immediate divine Revelation could the truth, as he thought, be 
 communicated to the Sacred Writers. He appeals to 1 Cor. vii., 
 where Paul distinguishes what he said from what Christ said. 
 But he believed that the operation of the Divine Spirit might 
 not equally refer to everything. In reference to the His¬ 
 torical, the love of Truth and the Memory of the Apostles 
 were sufficient for faithful tradition.t He found nothing to 
 
 * Opp. t. i. 
 
 + Repugnantiae porro aut diversitates, seu verse, seu quae videri 
 tantum possint, quae in rebus sunt parvi momenti, eae sunt quae perti¬ 
 nent ad historiam. Qua in re aliud nihil est opus, nisi ea videre, quae 
 scripsit Joannes, qui Chrysostomus est dictus, in Prooemio commenta- 
 riorum suorum in Evang. Matthaei. Ubi —plene huic quorundam 
 objectioni respondet, contra auctoritatem nominatiin quatuor Evange* 
 listarum et fidera eorum narrationibus adjungendam summa est. eos 
 nihil prorsus inter se dissentire in iis historise partibus, quae alien jus 
 sint momenti. Et quod in quibusdam rebus minimis inter se differant 
 
HUGO GROTIUS. 
 
 641 
 
 perplex him, when the Apostles differed from one another in 
 their account of unimportant facts. It served rather to esta¬ 
 blish their credibility, since we may see from it, that they did 
 not write in concert. 
 
 To this side, moreover, belonged the Remonstrants, who 
 also modified the idea of Inspiration by their distinction of 
 essential and unessential. Hugo Grotius says that'we can* 
 not, in a strict sense, speak of the Inspiration of the His¬ 
 torical portions of Scripture. For the Historical there was no 
 such need of Inspiration; it was sufficient that the memory 
 and carefulness of the writers were vigorous. He supports 
 his opinion by the fact that Luke, in the Introduction to his 
 Gospel, appeals, not to Inspiration, but to the original records 
 made use of by him, in order to establish the credibility of his 
 narrative. The books of Luke are canonical, not as inspired, 
 but because pious and trustworthy. He distinguishes between 
 Inspiration, in the strict sense, and a certain pious move¬ 
 ment of the soul, a kind of aptitude, which impelled to deliver 
 doctrines that were salutary for the life.* Certainly, in 
 Grotius, there is a lack of a lively intuition of the connexion 
 between the Dogmatic and the Ethical, when he attempts to 
 carry out these distinctions. To the same effect, Simon Epis 
 copius says : The Spirit left the sacred writers to their liability 
 to err, in the narrative of circumstances and facts, for which 
 natural knowledge and memory were sufficient. He notices 
 the objection, that if they erred in such things, they might 
 also, in essential cases, and replies that God did not commit 
 what was important to their weakness, but to His own constant 
 guidance.! - 
 
 On the other side there was the same reaction of a freer 
 spirit and of the immediate religious Life against the yoke of 
 a onesided Dogmatic which controlled the Interpretation of 
 
 hoc non salum illis non minuere, seel augere etiam debere anctoritatem 
 et fidem. Hinc enim apparere eos non scripsisse qnidpiam ad ipsis 
 communi consensu confictum, reque vera diversos Scriptores fuisse, qni 
 rei gestae veritate impulsi, idem re ipsa, aperte scripserunt. 
 
 * Votum pro "Pace Ecclesiastica, Opp. Theol., Amsterd. 1679, t. iii. 
 p. 672.—Vox Spiritus Sancti ambigua est, nam ant significat afilatum 
 divinum, qualem habuere turn prophetoe ordinarii, turn interdum David 
 et Daniel aut significat pium motum sive facultatem impellentem ad 
 loquendum salutai'ia vivendi praecepta. 
 
 d* Institutiones, :v. 4. 
 
 T T 
 
642 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the Scriptures ; this appeared in Pietism and the Unitas 
 Fratrum, and effected a freer movement and greater inde¬ 
 pendence in the department of Scriptural investigation : and 
 for the reason that Zinzendorf referred everything to the 
 centra] point he became freer in other points., and sometimes 
 expressed himself about them in a remarkable manner ; for 
 instance, respecting the apparent discrepancies, and the forced 
 Harmonies, the defects of which did not escape his notice.* 
 The reaction against the despotism of Dogmatics led to 
 another extreme. As before, only the Divine was sought to 
 be known, so now, only the Human; and as before, men wished 
 to find undeviating unity, so now they only looked for contra¬ 
 dictions. Hence it was the function of the new development 
 of Theology which proceeded from the reawakened Christian 
 consciousness, to gain, if possible, a new view of the idea of 
 Inspiration, which might equally satisfy the claims of Faith 
 and of Science. In the departments of Apologetics, Dogmatics, 
 and Exegesis, the object to be attained was a new creative 
 development of theological Science. 
 
 B. THE DOGMAS OF DOGMATICS STRICTLY 
 
 SO CALLED. 
 
 a. THEOLOGY. 
 
 1. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD IN GENERAL. 
 
 That which constituted the central point of the Reformation 
 did not lead at first to a more exact discussion of Theology in 
 the strict sense. It is characteristic of the exhibition of the 
 special principle of the Reformation, that Melancthon in 
 the first edition of his Loci , gave himself full scope in Anthro¬ 
 pology and Soteriology, but left out theological Dogmas along 
 with many other subjects.f Melancthon gives an account of 
 it in remarkable words which prove his sound practical interest, 
 but at the same time show how by giving that interest a one¬ 
 sided prominence, injustice might be done to the Scholasticism 
 
 * Planck, Gesck. der Protest. Theologie von der Concordienformel An, 
 
 p. 278. 
 
 t Herman von der Hardt, Historia Litteraria Reformationis, P. iv. 
 p. 30. 
 
THE LOCI OF MELANCTHON. 
 
 643 
 
 of the Middle Ages. We would rather, he says, adore these 
 Mysteries than examine them. Men ought not to bestow too 
 much pains on the Loci , concerning God, the Trinity, and 
 Creation. Not without nice discrimination he marks all these 
 as Mysteries. What have the Schoolmen, he goes on to say. 
 gained by busying themselves with these things alone ? I could 
 more easily overturn what they have said, than use their 
 proofs, by which it were possible even to prove erroneous doc¬ 
 trine. Whoever does not know the doctrines of Sin, the Law, 
 and Grace, I cannot call him a Christian. To know Christ is 
 to know his benefits, which is what these Schoolmen do not 
 teach. 
 
 On the other side, the reaction came against the older 
 Standpoint, and made itself felt especially in reference to the 
 divine attributes in Socinianism. Its juridical point of view, 
 which rejected the depths of Christian Dogmatics as mystical, 
 renders its conception of the doctrine of the divine Attributes 
 very inadequate. It is not an unprejudiced examination of 
 the doctrines of the Bible, but in an abstract manner, God is 
 recognised as a Lawgiver, as far as it is necessary for a motive 
 to moral life. In the Institutiones religionis Christiana of 
 Faustus Socinus, and in the Bacovian Catechism, everything 
 that is to be taught respecting God is comprised in the 
 
 * Introduction, p. 31.—Mysteria divinitates rectuis adoraverimus, 
 quam vestigaverimus. Imo, sine magno periculo teutari non possunt; 
 id quod non raro sancto viri etiam sunt experti. Et carne filium Deus, 
 Opt. M. induit, ut nos a contemplatione majestatis sute ad carnis 
 adeoque fragilitatis nostrse contemplationem invitaret.—Proinde non 
 est, cur multum operte ponamus in locis illis supremis, de Deo, de 
 unitate, de trinitate Dei, de mysterio creationis, de modo incarnationis. 
 Quseso te, quid ad secuti sunt jam tot seculis seholastici Theologista?, 
 cum in bis locis solis versarentur ? Nonne in disceptationibus suis, ut 
 Paulus ait (ad Rom i. 21) vani facti sunt dum tota vita nugantur de 
 universalibus, formalitatibus, connotatis, et nescio quibus alius manibus 
 vocabulis ! Et dissimulari eorum stultitia posset, nisi evangel ium 
 interius et beneficia Christi obscurassent nobis illae stultse disputationes. 
 Jam si libeat ingenioso mihi esse in re non necessaria, facile queam 
 evertere, qusecunque pro fidei dogmatis argumenta produxerunt, et in 
 bis quam multa rectius pro bseresibus quibusdam facere videntur, quam 
 pro catholicis dogmatis? Reliquos vero locos, peccati vim, legem, 
 gratiam qui ignorant; non video quomodo Christianum vocem. Nam 
 ex his propric Christus cognoscitur. Siquidem hoc est Christum 
 cognoscere, beneficia ejus cognoscere; non quod isti docent, ejus 
 naturas, modos incarnationis contueri. 
 
 T T 2 
 
044 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Dogmas of the Unity, Eternity, Omnipotence, Justice, and 
 Wisdom, since the conviction of these divine attributes suffices, 
 to impel to the observance of the commands of God revealed 
 by Christ. For this object it is not necessary to know any¬ 
 thing of the essential goodness of God, as far as by that is 
 meant something different from the rectum and cequum of the 
 divine government. The Catechism does not treat the doc¬ 
 trines of God’s Infinity and Omnipresence as necessary : it is 
 enough for the doctrines of Religion to know that God by his 
 knowledge and agency extends Himself everywhere ; but this 
 is already contained in his Power and Wisdom. Socinus 
 regarded the idea of the divine Omnipresence as too mystical 
 and questionable as far as it led to a sensuous and pantheistic 
 filling of all things by God. Hence in an erroneous manner 
 he kept God and the World apart, and while he endeavoured 
 to assign ideas of Space to God, he attributed to him a limita¬ 
 tion in reference to Space by excluding Him from the World. 
 Hence he believed that the Scriptural expressions—“ God 
 filletli Heaven and Earth’'—“ God is not far from any of us” 
 —ought to be corrected. In such passages he finds only a 
 reference to the universal agency of God. Like him, John 
 Crell impugns the doctrine of the divine Omnipotence in his 
 treatise De Deo et ej-us attributis. 
 
 Faustus Socinus had a real practical interest in view, 
 namely, to maintain Man’s free agency and to impugn the doc¬ 
 trine of absolute Predestination. Rut from a horror of the 
 latter doctrine he also denied the unconditional divine Pre¬ 
 science ; for he could not harmonize the free agency of a 
 created being with an unconditional foreknowledge; and since 
 he firmly maintained the Freedom of Man, absolute Prescience 
 must be denied. It belonged to the axioms of Reason, with 
 which no doctrine of Revelation could be at variance. It was suf¬ 
 ficient that God was present by His Power and his Knowledge ; 
 that thus he knew all human operations alike at their origina¬ 
 tion, and hence would prevent everything which was contrary 
 to his designs. Consequently God becomes acquainted with 
 History as events arise, and according to them forms his plan 
 of the Universe. The doctrine of the divine Providence and 
 Government is not thereby damaged, but rather set in a right 
 light; for to what purpose would be the constant guidance of 
 God, which is identical with Providence, if God had once for 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 045 
 
 Ail foreknown and determined everything? If it were objected 
 that thus a certain relation to Time is attributed to God, ho 
 admitted this ; without Succession there can be no infinite 
 Duration ; and in reference to God there is Past, Present, and 
 Future. The later Dogmatics of the Socinians retained this 
 principle. They asserted that God cannot foreknow a truth 
 that is not determined, a contingency. 
 
 The Remonstrants from their practical point of view made 
 a near approach to the Socinians on this question. Conrad 
 Vorstius, in his treatise on the divine Attributes,* expressed 
 himself in a similar w r ay; so did Episcopius, only with far 
 greater modesty than Socinus. He found it difficult to admit 
 the divine Omnipresence, because conceptions of space are not 
 easily avoided in connexion with it. Yet he was not unaware 
 of the difficulties on the other side. Pie preferred to determine 
 nothing respecting it with absolute certainty. I would rather, 
 he said, with Holy Writ observe the sks^siv, and leave the 
 decision respecting the modus of the divine Presence to God 
 and the future Life. 
 
 2. the doctrine of the trtnity. 
 
 The spirit of inquiry once aroused by the Reformation, gra¬ 
 dually turned to the doctrine of the Trinity, and there were 
 indeed at first tendencies which proceeded not from Luther’s 
 material principle, but from a speculative or onesided prac¬ 
 tical tendency, like that of the Socinians, or which by an 
 investigation of the ancient Church doctrine and Holy Writ, 
 led to a reaction against the current doctrine of the Trinity. 
 It was in part an unbridled fondness for novelty, an unsteady 
 movement, which after the old restraints had been broken 
 through, and the spirit of inquiry was awakened, gained 
 the ascendancy in those who commenced their inquiries not 
 from an immediate religious interest, and whose interest in 
 religion was far more theoretical and intellectual, and in whom 
 there was not the befitting moral depth and purity. This 
 fondness for novelty was the strongest, where attempts had 
 been made to suppress all free movements—in Italy. But the 
 reaction was not confined to this spot. Even earnest and 
 
 * Tractatus Theologicus de Deo sive de Natura et Attributis Dei, 
 Steinfurt, 1610. A. Schweizer, C. Vorstius Theol. Jakrb. v. Baur il 
 Z eller, 1857. 
 
646 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 religious men indulged doubts, which the form of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity as laid down in the Creeds might excite ; espe¬ 
 cially would the formal principle of the Reformation require 
 them to compare the Dogma with the Bible. At the begin¬ 
 ning of the Reformation it had been assumed that the Symbolic 
 doctrine of the Trinity was that of the early Church, and there 
 was a desire to restore these dogmas again. But a more 
 accurate study of the oldest doctrine made it evident, that 
 that form of doctrine was not the original one, and so much 
 the more were the ancient forms put forward in preference to 
 those in current use. Hence also among the opponents of the 
 Church doctrine of the Trinity appeared shades of the 
 Semi-Arian and Arian kind: and others which revived the 
 Samosatensian or Sabellian view, since they denied the pre¬ 
 existence of Christ’s divine nature.* 
 
 John Camp anus belonged to the Arian school:+ He was a 
 native of Cleves ; for a long time he resided in Wittenberg as 
 a teacher with his pupils ; he took a share in the religious 
 movement, but endeavoured to form a system of his own. 
 With that aim he busied himself with examining the Fathers, 
 principally on account of the doctrine of the Trinity. This 
 formed a special point of contact between him and Wicel,^; 
 who also was anxious to restore the ancient doctrine of the 
 Church. Yet in Campanus the speculative interest was far 
 more predominant, and in Wicel the practical; and it would 
 be unfair to class them together. The less at that time the 
 laws of historical development were understood, the easier was 
 it for Campanus to come forward on the ground of the ancient 
 forms, as an opponent of the Catholic and Protestant Church 
 
 * Christopheri Sandri, Bibliothecse Antitrinitariorum, Freist (Am- 
 sterd.), 1634. F. S. Brock, Historia Antitrinitariorum maxime Socini- 
 anismi et Socinianorum, 2 t. Regioni, Lips. 1774—84. F. Trechsel, 
 Die Protestant. Antitrinitarier, Heidelb. 1844. 
 
 + J. G. Schelhorn, Amcenitates Litterarise, Bd. xi. Book ii. p. 244. 
 Trechsel, i-. 26. 
 
 + His principal work, which aimed at uniting the Catholic and Pro¬ 
 testant communions according to the form of the ancient apostolic 
 church, is entitled, Via Regia sive de Controversis Religionis Capitibus 
 Conciliandis Sententia, 1564. Strobel’s Beitrage, Bd. 2. Struck 1 
 und 2. Rienacker, in Vaters Kirchen Histor. Archiv. 1825 u. 26. 
 Neander, Commentatio de G. Wicello, Berol. 1839, 4to. Neander, Das 
 Fine u. Mannichfaltige des Christ. Lebens, Berlin, 1840. Holzhausen 
 in Niedner’s Zeituhr, 1849, p. 382. 
 
ANTITRINITARIANS. 
 
 647 
 
 in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, According to his 
 view the Son of God was begotten before the Creation and 
 Time of the essence of the Father as a subordinate Hypostasis. 
 He denied the personality of the Holy Spirit, and regarded 
 him as the divine Essence in general, or as the common 
 energy of the Father and the Son. The leaders of the Arian 
 party were* Valentine Gentilis, of Cosenza, who after 
 moving in Switzerland, Savoy, France, and Poland, returned 
 to Bern, were he was beheaded in 1566 ;f Matthew Gri- 
 baldus, J Peter Gonesius, who attempted to spread Anti- 
 trinitarianism in Poland,§ and with whom was associated 
 Stanislaus Farnovius.|| They were warmly opposed by the 
 strict Unitarians. 
 
 Lewis Hetzer belonged to the second school (beheaded at 
 Constance, a.d. 1529),^[ v 7 ho denied every distinction in the 
 Trinity. Also Claudius of Savoy, ## who taught respecting 
 Christ that he was called God, inasmuch as he had received 
 the fulness of the divine Spirit beyond all other beings. The 
 Father dw r elt in him through the divine Spirit, and all through 
 him might be animated by the Father. Many persons class 
 with him Ochino, who was first a general of the Capuchins, 
 then an active propagator of the Reformation in Italy, and in 
 the course of his unsettled life adopted a great variety of 
 opinions. His Unitarian views are inferred from the nine¬ 
 teenth and twentieth of his Dialogues,ft in which he so 
 
 * Heberle, Tiibinger Zeitschr. fur Theologie, 1840. 
 
 *t Walch, Streitigkeiten ausser der Luther. Kirche,'iv. 121. Valen- 
 tini Gentilis Justo Capitis Supplicio Bernae aifec.it; Brevis Historia 
 Auctore Benedicto Aretio Bernensis Ecclesise Dootore Theologo, Genev. 
 1567, 4to. Valentini Gentilis impietatum Explicatio ex Actis Publicis 
 Senatus Genevensis Optima Fide Descripta cum Praefatione Theodori 
 Begae in Calvini Tractatus Theologici, Amsterd. 1667, p. 568. Bock, i. 
 1, 369, ii. 427. Trechsel, ii. 316. 
 
 X Bock, ii. 456. Walch, 124. 
 
 § Lubienic, Historia Reformationis Polonicae, Freist (Amsterd.), 
 1685, p. 101. Walch, 139. Sandii Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum, p. 40. 
 
 il Sanclius, p. 52. 
 
 Breitinger, Anecdot de Ludov. Hetzero in the Museum Helveti- 
 c«m, 1751, t. vi. Bietrich Tiibiuger Zeitschr. 1834, 4to. Bock, ii. 231 
 Trechsel, i. 13. 
 
 ** Trechsel, i. 55. 
 
 ft XXX. Dialog!, Bant. 1563. Struve de Vita, Religione et Fatis 
 Bernhardt Occhini Sevensis. Schilhorn. iii. M’Crie’s History ©f ths 
 Reformation in Italy. Trechsel, ii. p. 221. 
 
648 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 treats of the Trinity as to present the arguments against it 
 with greater point and urgency, than those in its favour, which 
 he is suspected to have done designedly. But we cannot from 
 this determine with certainty his private opinion. 
 
 But the most remarkable person of this class was Michael 
 Servedo, # a Spaniard, a man of great acuteness and power of 
 imagination, in whom were to be found many indications of a 
 future theological development. We cannot make his doc¬ 
 trine harmonize entirely with any of the more ancient schemes ; 
 it was peculiar and bore the greatest analogy to the early 
 Gnostic view. It is an important fundamental principle, that 
 not the doctrine of the Trinity hut that of the historical Christ 
 is the centre of the Gospel, and that Salvation depends not on 
 a certain speculative view of the Trinity but on the acknow¬ 
 ledgment of Christ, in whom alone God reveals himself, and by 
 whom alone we attain to the divine life. The article respect¬ 
 ing Christ was the original article of faith of the Apostolic 
 Church. The deeper knowledge of the mode in which God 
 was in Christ was not so general a thing at that time. H'e 
 spoke against the doctrines of a mathematical invisible Son of 
 God and the abstract knowledge of God. God in his essence 
 is unimaginable, inconceivable. We should know nothing of 
 him, had he not brought himself near to us, and accommodated 
 himself to the nature of the Creature. No one knows God 
 who does not know the w r ay in which God willed to reveal 
 Himself to us. As a knowledge of G-od cannot be brought to 
 us without that form, so neither can there be communion with 
 Hod if He does not bring Himself near to us through such a 
 form. The form for the Revelation of G-od in the World is 
 the Logos, the form for the communication of His essence to 
 human Spirits is the Holy Spirit.f The Holy Spirit is a 
 
 * De Trinitatis Erroribus, 1532. Christianismi Restitutio, Vienna?, 
 1553. Rilliet, Relation clu Proces Criminel Intente a Geneve en 155? 
 coatre M. Servet, redigee d’apres les Documens Originaux, Geneve 
 1844. Calvini Fidelis Expositio Errorum Serveti, 1554, in his Tractat. 
 Tlieol. Mosheim, Gesch. des M. Servet, Helmst. 178, and Neue ISTach- 
 l’ichten von Servet, 1750. Heberle, Servets Trinitatslehre und Ckristo- 
 logie in der Tiibinger Zeitschr. fur Theologie, 1840, 2. Trechsel, i. 
 Baur, iii. p. 46. Dorner, ii. 649. 
 
 + Restitutio Christianismi, lib. v.—Quemadmodum Dei essentia 
 quatenus mundo manifestatur, est verbum, ita quatenus mundo corn- 
 municatur, est spiritus estque manifestationi annexa commuuicatio. 
 Quemadmodum in verbo erat idea princeps creati hominis, ita in spiritu 
 
MICHAEL SERVEDO. 
 
 649 
 
 modus deitatis, as far as God communicates himself in Christ 
 and through Christ (modus dispensationis per Christum ); he is 
 the substantialis modus of the divine Essence as it accommo¬ 
 dates itself to Angels and Men. tie (Servedo) speaks of 
 God’s being in all things, without however being a Pantheist, 
 which many were disposed to make him. Here is rather to be 
 observed an affinity, on the one hand, to the Gnostic doctrine 
 of Emanation, and on the other, to Sabellianism. Like 
 Sabellius he distinguishes between the Logos in himself as a 
 form of the Revelation of God, and the hypostatical Logos in 
 Christ, the former the ideal, the latter the real Being. In 
 this sense he also speaks of persons as equivalent to characters, 
 phases, under which the divine Essence presents itself. As 
 out of Christ God cannot be known, so can He not be wor¬ 
 shipped except through Him. In the adoration of God in 
 Christ consists the worship of God in spirit and in truth. In 
 Judaism, on the other hand, God was known only through 
 Angels, who were a type of Christ. On this point he some¬ 
 times approaches to Gnostic Elements. In the Temple God 
 was worshipped only in Shadows and Types ; Christ appeared 
 as the true Temple of God; hence the worship of God in 
 Spirit as he dwells in us through Christ, is possible. Whoever 
 worships out of Christ, prays to him after the manner of Jews, 
 Mohammedans, and Pagans, and Christ becomes a mere 
 nullity. In his interpretation of the Old Testament there are 
 many things worthy of notice, which support the historical 
 sense, and in which he revives the standpoint of the Antio¬ 
 chian School. 
 
 Eaustus Socinus, in his opposition against all speculation 
 and mysticism, and in his onesided Intellectualism, is the 
 exact opposite of Seryetus. His doctrine of the Trinity, 
 also, is not in all points like the earlier. He impugns the 
 Arian and Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, as well as every 
 
 erat ideacreati spiritus. Prodebat cum sermone spiritus; Deus loquendo 
 epirabat. Sermonis et spiritus erat eadem substantia sed modus 
 diversus, p. 197. Substantialis in mundo fuit Dei manifestatio, sicut 
 substantialis communicatio; sicut Deus Logos, ita Deus Spiritus. 
 Verbum mandat, ut res fiat, spiritu vivificat. Sicut substantia verbi 
 manifestata et vera est in Christi corporalibus elementis. Christus est 
 Deus, a Deo profectus et nattis; ipse primario, nos secundario per 
 ipsum ; ab ipso ore Christi proficiscitur in nos spiritus regenerationis. 
 See Niedner, p. 682. 
 
650 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 notion of a pre-existent divine nature of Christ. Respecting 
 the Holy Spirit he teaches, like Paul of Samosata and Sabel- 
 lius, that it was not a person distinct from God, but a certain 
 operation of God, a power from on high for sanctification. When 
 passages of the New Testament, in which personality is 
 signified, were objected to him, he rejoined that they referred 
 to God the Father, who manifested his agency through this 
 power among men. His view of Christ agrees for the most 
 part with that of Paul of Samosata, and differs only in his 
 explanation of the term Logos; he understood by it not, like 
 Paul, the Logos as a divine power, but Christ, the Logos 
 become Man, who is called the Word of God, because God 
 through him reveals his Will and Decree (Interpres divined 
 voluntatis). The passages in the New Testament which speak 
 of the Creation by the Logos, he referred to the moral Crea¬ 
 tion effected by Christ. He allowed that Christ in many 
 passages was called God, but asserted that this title denoted 
 not nature, but pow r er and authority, which were committed 
 to him in God’s name. He did not propound his antitrini- 
 tarian doctrine as essential to salvation; a person might be 
 saved though in error, as to the Church doctrine of three 
 divine persons, provided he connected with it the doctrine of 
 the Unity of God, and acknowledged the will of God revealed 
 through Christ, and practised and evinced love towards those 
 who thought differently. 
 
 In consequence of these controversies, express declarations 
 respecting the doctrine of the Trinity were made in the Evan¬ 
 gelical Churches, for in the first article of the Augsburg Con¬ 
 fession the older articles were confirmed, and the Samosateni 
 neoterici were condemned. It has been questioned to whom 
 this phrase referred. In point of time it would suit Servetus, 
 but not as to doctrine; and so with Campanus ; we might 
 rather refer it to Hetzer. Rut we cannot tell absolutely what 
 persons Melancthon had in his eye; for among the various 
 enthusiastic sects of that age, many similar doctrines were set 
 forth. Induced by these controversies Melancthon admitted 
 the doctrine of the Trinity into the edition of his Loci , a.d. 1535. 
 It is worthy of notice that from his confidential language we 
 learn that he was not altogether satisfied with the Church 
 representation of this Dogma. When Servetus made his 
 appearance he wrote about a.d. 1533 to Camerarius. “You 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 651 
 
 know that in reference to the Trinity I have always feared that 
 these things would again break out. Good God ! what disturb 
 ances will be raised in the next age, whether the Logos and the 
 Holy Spirit are Hypostases. I abide by those words of Holy 
 Writ, which direct to pray to Christ, and attribute to him 
 divine honours; but I do not feel compelled to examine more 
 accurately the assertions respecting Hypostases.” 
 
 At the end of the seventeenth Century the opposition to 
 the Church doctrine of the Trinity reappeared from the Arian 
 and Semi-Arian standpoint, and the great revolution in the Pro¬ 
 testant Theology which has since taken place, brought these 
 controversies again under discussion. 
 
 b. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 Although Socinus attributed to Christ no pre-existent divine 
 Nature, yet he recognised in him a man begotten in a super¬ 
 natural manner, animated, enlightened, and endowed with 
 peculiar powers by God, in order to make known the divine 
 will to men. He regarded him as the onlv Mediator between 
 God and Man, by whom alone men can be made partakers of 
 salvation. The passages of Scripture in which it is said that 
 the Logos was with God before his Incarnation, and mention 
 is made of his coming down from Heaven, and of his going 
 where he was before, Socinus might have understood as refer¬ 
 ring to Predestination, and to instruction imparted by God ; 
 but he took another view. Disposed to an external suprana- 
 turalism, he did not acknowledge the immanent indwelling of 
 God in Christ, a connexion with the Divine Being which 
 implied a specific relation different from that of all other men ; 
 but he favoured the representation of an external fact, an ele¬ 
 vation of Christ to God, in order to be instructed by Him. 
 Moses was to him the type of Christ; as he had communion 
 with God on Sinai, so Christ, the potentiated Moses, was 
 honoured with higher intercourse with God; he did not ascend 
 Sinai, but was taken up to God in Heaven. This took place 
 several times before he made his public appearance. Thus he 
 explained John vi. 38. When it was objected that no account 
 is given of such events in the Gospels, he replied that this was 
 because they were not observed by any human being. After 
 the Piesurrection Christ was exalted to the right hand of the 
 Father to the highest dignity next to Him; he received from 
 him the guidance of the kingdom of God—the highest 
 
652 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LOOM AS. 
 
 dominion over all next to God, so that he can help his people 
 in all things. Christ, therefore, was to Socinus not God, but 
 a deified man. He regarded the doctrine of the perfect 
 Humanity of Christ as important in order to show what 
 human nature had attained in him by his exaltation. He 
 referred the name Christ principally to this highest kingly 
 dignity to which he was raised. He must have received the 
 ability to know the secret thoughts of believers, otherwise he 
 could not rule over them. According to God’s command wor¬ 
 ship was due to him. The reign of Christ will last till 
 believers have attained eternal Salvation ; then he will give 
 it up to the Father. 
 
 The importance Socinus attached to his own doctrine is 
 shown by his controversy with Francis Davidis, Superin¬ 
 tendent at Clausenberg, an Unitarian : He found the doc¬ 
 trine of Socinus to be illogical, and denied the divine worship 
 which he ascribed to Christ. His doctrine was the strict 
 Ebionitish. What is said in Scripture of Christ’s supremacy 
 he referred in part to the supremacy of Christianity, and in 
 part to the millennial reign of Christ; God alone ought to be 
 worshipped ; on Him alone Man may venture to place con¬ 
 fidence. Faustus Socinus was called to Siebenburg, in order 
 to dispute with him, since it was important for the Unitarian 
 Church not to damage their cause still farther by such start¬ 
 ling assertions. We learn from the Disputation that Socinus 
 decidedly repudiated the doctrine of Francis Davidis ; he calls 
 it a Jewish and impious view of Christ, and that God would 
 not be dishonoured but glorified most of all by the true doc¬ 
 trine. Men who are led through Christ to God, can now 
 apply to God with full confidence in all things which relate to 
 Salvation. The doctrine of Christ’s delegated Power is a 
 necessary article of Faith, from which it follows that prayer 
 can be rightly addressed to him ; but otherwise that would not 
 be a duty. Whoever is so strong in faith that he needs not 
 this consolation, and can turn directly to God, has made 
 great progress. 
 
 A new reaction of the old antagonism between the Alexan¬ 
 drian and the Antiochian Schools, in the doctrine of the person 
 of Christ, reappeared in the controversy between the Lutheran 
 and Reformed Churches on the Dogma of the Lord’s Supper. 
 Luther, in disputing with Zwingli, in order to establish the 
 presence of the Body of Christ in the Supper, had asserted the 
 
LUTHER AND ZWINGLI ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 053 
 
 omnipresence of his human nature, but afterwards had not 
 attached so much importance to this point. When, after the 
 middle of the sixteenth Century, the dispute was revived, 
 Brenz again brought forward this proposition, and the zealous 
 Lutherans have since advocated the doctrine of the ubiquity 
 of Christ’s body. Zwingli and Calvin asserted, on the con¬ 
 trary, that although Christ, as to his Person, is present every¬ 
 where, yet in his human nature he cannot be omnipresent. 
 Melancthon and his school also declared themselves against 
 this doctrine. In the Formula Concordice the Dogma of the 
 Supper was determined against both parties, in the statement, to 
 w T it, that the human nature of Christ possessed this prerogative 
 from his generation, but that in his state of humiliation it was 
 held in abe} T ance. It was attempted to express this doctrine as 
 spiritually as possible, and the introduction of the idea of Space 
 wus condemned. Meanwhile, a difference arose between its 
 advocates. The Wiirtemberg Theologians, especially James 
 Andrea and Brenz, inferred from the communicatio idio- 
 matum that the ubiquity was unconditionally and necessarily 
 perpetual ( ubiquitas perpetual). The Formula only said: 
 Christ by his divine omnipotence can be present with his 
 body wherever he will, and especially where he has promised 
 to be, that is, at the Supper. This was specially confirmed in 
 the corpus doctrines Julium (which w’as designed for Bruns¬ 
 wick) at Helmstedt. Calixtus, in a dissertation upon it, says : 
 We must rather be silent than assert anything certain without 
 the warrant of Holy Writ. 
 
 Analogous to this was the controversy which broke out a.d. 
 1019 between the Giessen Theologians, Menzer and Feuer- 
 born,* and those of Tubingen, Luke Osiander and Thum- 
 Mius.f Both sides agreed in acknowledging the communicatio 
 idiomatum, but the Giessen theologians maintained that Christ 
 exercised the divine attributes only in certain cases; those of 
 Tiibingen, on the contrary, that he alw T ays used them, only in 
 a hidden manner. 
 
 c. ANTHROPOLOGY. 
 
 The peculiarity of the doctrine of the Evangelical Church on 
 
 * J. Feuerborn, icev(ocn-ypa<pui %picrro\oyt(c?7, Marb. 1627, 4to. 
 
 f TaxeLvioot()a(pia Sacra, Tubg. 1623, 4to.—See Schneckenburger, 
 Vergleicheude Darstellung des Luth. u. Reform. Lehrbegritfs, Herausggb. 
 you E. Guder, Tli. 2, p. 210. 
 
654 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 this point is closely connected with its material principle, 
 namely, the doctrine of Justification by Faith. This is condi¬ 
 tioned by the view it took of human nature and its need of 
 Redemption. Hence the opposition against the Catholic 
 Church was manifested in two directions. Here the authority 
 of Augustin was felt, and a strictly Pelagian principle was 
 not distinctly expressed; but the doctrine of the relation of 
 the pura naturalia and dona gratuita in man’s original state 
 was so applied by many of the Schoolmen, that it gave a point 
 of connexion for Pelagianism, and the view of Redemption 
 and its operation on human nature was conditioned by it. It 
 was the theory that proceeded from the Scotist School, that 
 human nature was first of all created in pura naturalia , 
 which through their merits obtained the addition of the dona 
 gratuita, on which the justitia originalis is founded. Accord¬ 
 ing to this view, the disunion between sensuousness and reason, 
 from which Sin proceeds, was already laid in the original con¬ 
 stitution of human nature ; its outbreak was only restrained 
 by the operation of divine Grace. Accordingly, the justitia 
 originalis appears not only as communicated from without, 
 but Man experiences, in consequence of the Fall, no further 
 alteration of his condition than that what was given him from 
 without is withdrawn. Human Nature is only left to itself; 
 in its peculiar constitution nothing is altered, only that sinful¬ 
 ness which already existed in it now breaks forth. Thus ori¬ 
 ginal sin is viewed merely on the negative side, with which is 
 connected the notion of Evil that it has its seat in Sensuous¬ 
 ness, and therefore is included in the natural Organism. Thus 
 more importance is ascribed to the powers of Man on the 
 natural Standpoint, in order to be able to merit divine Grace; 
 and Redemption does not appear so absolutely necessary, 
 in order to bring back human nature to its original stand¬ 
 point. 
 
 Hence it is evident how the reformatory opposition must be 
 directed to the doctrines of the Original State and of Original 
 Sin. The justitia originalis must be represented as some 
 thing belonging to the essence of human nature, without 
 which Man could not be truly man, nor the Image of God 
 exist in him. Thus in the Apology of the Augsburg Con¬ 
 fession* it is inferred that because Man was createcj, in the 
 * Apol. 1 . —Iclquo testatur Scriptura, cum inquit liominem ad 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
 
 655 
 
 imago et similitudo Dei that the wisdom and righteousness 
 were implanted in Man which could apprehend God, and in 
 which God could shine forth. Therefore the Religious and 
 the Moral are here comprehended in one Idea. Luther has 
 pointed this out.* He regarded it as most important that 
 justitia originalis must he not a mere accidental mark of 
 human nature, but was necessarily required through its des-X 
 tiny for realizing its idea. Man cannot be truly man without 
 the consciousness of God. 
 
 In reference to Original Sin, it was the great merit of the 
 Reformers that they taught the recognition of Evil in its real 
 depth, and, in opposition to the representation which placed 
 Evil in sensuousness, drew attention to its proper root in the 
 apostacy of the heart from God. This was important in refe¬ 
 rence to the doctrine of the conversion and transformation of 
 men, and hence an important consideration in Morals.t As 
 
 imaginem et similitudinem Dei conditum esse. Quod quid est aliud, 
 nisi in homini hunc sapientiam et justitiam effigiatam esse, quae Deum 
 apprehenderet, et in qua reluceret Deus, hoc est homini dona esse data, 
 notitiam Dei, timorem Dei, fiduciam erga Deum et similia. 
 
 * Commentary on Genesis, ch. 3.—Scliolastici disputant, quod 
 justitia originalis non fuerit connaturalis, sed ceu ornatus quidam 
 additus homini.—Qua re disputant de homine et dcemonibus, quod etsi 
 originalem justitiam amiserint, tamen naturalia pura manserint, sicut 
 initio condita sunt. Sed hsec sententia, quia peccatum originis extenuat, 
 eeu venenum fugienda est. Quin hoc statuamus justitiam non fuisse 
 quoddam donum, quod ab extra accederet, separatum a natura hominis; 
 sed fuisse vere naturalem, ita ut natura Adse esset diligere Deum, credere 
 Deo, agnoscere Deum, &c. Hme tamen naturalia fuere in Adamo, quam 
 naturale est, quod oculi lumen recipiunt. Quia autem, si oculum 
 vitiosum reddas inflicto vulnere, recte dicas naturam violatam esse, 
 ita postquam homo ex justitia in peccatum lapsus est, recte et vere 
 dicitur naturalia non integra sed corrupta esse per peccatum. 
 
 f Conf. August. Artie, ii.—Item docent, quod post lapsum Ada; 
 omnes homines, secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato 
 hoc est, sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum et cum concupiscentia, 
 quodque hie morbus, seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnam 
 et afferens nunc quaque seternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per 
 Baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum. Damnant Pelagianos et alios qui 
 vitium originis negant esse peccatum, et ut extenuent gloriam mereti 
 et beneficiorum Christi, disputant hominem propriis viribus rationis 
 coram Dei justificari posse.— Melancthon, Loci v. Peccatum originis 
 est carentis justitise originalis, id est, est in natis ex virili semine 
 amissio lucis in mente et aversio voluntatis a Deo et contumacia cordis, 
 nc possuit vere obedire legi Dei secreta lapsum Adte, propter quam 
 corruptionem nati sunt rei et filii irse, id est damnati a Deo, nisi fuerit 
 
656 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Melancthon defined Man’s original righteousness to be the 
 Light of the soul, by virtue of which it assents to the Law of 
 God, the obedience of the heart to the sentence of the Law, 
 so he says, on the other hand, of the state of depravity, that 
 the Church not only punishes outward sinful acts, but the roots 
 and fruits equally, doubts respecting the Will of God, the 
 aversion of the human will from God, and the rebellion of 
 the heart against the divine Law. The Reformers laid great 
 stress on teaching men to recognise the essential principle of 
 Sin as consisting in the want of a vital consciousness of God, 
 in the aversion of the internal tendency of the Spirit from 
 God. 
 
 This difference of the Protestant doctrine necessarily came 
 under discussion at the Council of Trent. But the Council 
 found itself in greater difficulty, because the opposition of the 
 Thomist and Scotist theories existed also among its own mem¬ 
 bers. It was the policy of the Council to condemn the evan¬ 
 gelical doctrine without offending the leading parties of the 
 Catholic Church, and hence it was needful to conceal their 
 opposition. Palavicini says* that the Article on Man’s 
 original State was originally thus worded in the fifth Session, 
 ad. 1546: — “ Sanctitas et justitia in qua homo creatus fue- 
 rat .” By this the Thomist party was favoured. But in order 
 not to offend the other party, at the proposal of Cardinal 
 Pacheco, the ambiguous word constitutus was substituted fcr 
 creatus.^ This difference has been perpetuated in the Ca¬ 
 tholic Church. But the renowned Catholic controversialist, 
 Cardinal Bellarmin, so represented the matter, that Man 
 was created in puris naturalibus; and only through divine 
 Grace justitia originalis was added as a golden bridle. This 
 implies the assumption that, according to the constitution of 
 the human organism, sensuousness strove against Reason, and 
 that it is only curbed by the frenum aureum; but as soon as 
 the curb was taken away by the first sin this opposition of the 
 concwpiscentia must break forth. He distinctly states that the 
 condition of Man in puris naturalibus differed from that after 
 
 facta remissio. Si quis vult addere natos etiam propter lapsmn Adas 
 reos esse, non impedio. 
 
 * VII. 9. 
 
 4 Sessio v. cap. i.—Primum hominem statim sanctitatem et justitiaro, 
 in qua constitutus fuerat, amisisse. 
 
SOCINUS ON MAN’S ORIGINAL NATURE. 657 
 
 the Fall only as that of a naked person from one who has been 
 stripped of his clothes. * Human nature is, therefore, not worse, 
 and suffers not more from ignorance and weakness than on the 
 standpoint of the pur a naturalia. The corruption of human 
 nature consists, not in a defect belonging to itself, but in the 
 loss of supernatural gifts. 
 
 With this was connected the controversy between the Evan¬ 
 gelical and Catholic Churches, whether Concupiscence has 
 anything sinful in it or not. According to the Catholic 
 Church it must be based in man’s original constitution, and 
 hence was defined as the fomes peccati, but not as in itself 
 peccat-um. The Council of Trent decreed + that Concupis¬ 
 cence proceeds from Sin, and inclines to Sin, but in the Bege- 
 nerate is not truly and properly Sin. 
 
 In this connexion is to be considered the exception from 
 the universal sinfulness which was accorded to the Virgin 
 Mary. The Council of Trent declared that by virtue of a 
 special privilege she had escaped all peccata venalia; it was 
 not its intention to comprehend the Virgin under original sin. 
 Yet it did not decide on these tw 7 o disputed questions between 
 the ScotistsandThomists, but renewed the decree of Sixtus IV. 
 
 Faustus Socinus, in his doctrine of Man’s original nature 
 and the consequences of the Fall, had much in common with 
 Pelagius. He placed the Image of God, not in righteous¬ 
 ness, but in dominion over Nature. Man was not yet defiled 
 with any sin, but still he w 7 as not morally pure; the occasion 
 of sinning was wanting to him, since God had as yet given 
 him no command. According to his nature he was created 
 mortal, but might have attained Immortality by a special and 
 supernatural operation of Grace ; on this account God warned 
 him of death as the punishment of Sin. That all men now 
 
 * Pe Controversiis, iv. 15; vi. 10.—Quare non magis differt status 
 hominis post lapsum Adse a statu ejusdem in puris naturalibus, quam 
 differat spoliatus a nudo, neque deterior est humana natura, si culpam 
 originalem detrahas, neque magis ignorantia et infirmitate laborat, 
 quam esset et laboraret in puris naturalibus condita. Proinde cor- 
 ruptio naturae non ex alicujus doni carentia, neque ex alicujus malae 
 qualitates accessu, sed ex sola doni supernaturalis ob Adae peccatum 
 omissione profluxit. 
 
 t Sessio v. can. 5.—Concupiscentiarn, quam aliquando apostolus 
 peccatum appellat, sancta synodus declarat ecclesiam catholicam nun- 
 quam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie in venatia 
 peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat. 
 
 U U 
 
658 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 die, who, together with Adam, might have been kept free from 
 death by a peculiar operation of Grace—all this Socinus inter¬ 
 preted as a punishment for Adam. He totally denied the doc¬ 
 trine of Original Sin. Incapable of recognising the continuity 
 of the moral life, he asks, How could a single sin produce such 
 great effects ? The inclination to Evil, about which it is still 
 questionable whether it really exists in all, he deduces from the 
 power of evil custom.* 
 
 Zwi ng l p led on by his freedom of inquiry, diverged from 
 the common view respecting the imputation of the first Sin. 
 Original Sin is not, he says,t in a proper, but only in a 
 metaphorical sense a crime ; it is only a moral weakness. 
 The source of Original Sin is selfishness; Adam allowed 
 himself to be governed by it, and this Evil must now pass 
 upon all men. Selfishness is not in a strict sense a crime, 
 
 * Praelectiones.c. 4.—Ceterum cupiditas ista mala, quae cum plerisque 
 hominibus nasci dici potest, non ex peccato illo primi parentis manat, 
 sed ex eo, quod humanum genus frequentibus peccatorum actibus 
 habitum peccandi traxit et seipsum corrupit, quae corruptio par propa- 
 gationem in posteros transfunditur. Etenim unum illud peccatam per 
 se non modo non universos posteros, sed ne ipsum quidem Adamum 
 corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Dei vero consilio in peccati illius 
 poenam id factum esse nec usquam legitur et plana incredibile est, 
 immo impium, id cogitare, Deum videlicet omnis rectitudinis auctorem 
 ulla ratione pravitatis causam esse, quae tamen pravitas, quatenus, ut 
 dictum est, per propagationem in homiuem derivatur, peccatum pro- 
 prie appellari nequit.—Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam 
 loquendo, peccatum originale esse, id est, ex peccato illo primi parentis 
 uullam labem aut pravitatem universo humano generi necessario ingeni- 
 tam esse, sive inflictam quodammodo fuisse, nec aliud malum ex primo 
 illo delicto ad posteros omnes necessario manasse, quam moriendi 
 onmimodum necessitatem, non quidem ex ipsius delicti vi, sed quia, 
 quum jam homo natura mortalis esset. ob delictum illud suae naturali 
 mortalitati a Deo relictus est, quodque naturale erat id in delinquents 
 pcenam prorsus necessarium est factum. Quare qui ex ipso nascuntur, 
 eadem conditione omnes nasci oportet; nihil enim illi ademptum fuit, 
 quod naturaliter haberet vel habiturus esset. Catechismus Racoviensis, 
 Quaest. 423 ; peccatum originis nullum prorsus est; quare nec liberum 
 arbitrium vitiare potuit, neque enim e Scriptura id peccatum origines 
 doceri potest, et lapsus Adae, quum unus actus fuerit. vim earn, quae 
 depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus vero posterorum ejus 
 posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero id in poenam irrogatum fuisse nec 
 Scriptura docet; et Deum ilium, qui aequitatis fons est, incredibile 
 prorsus est id facere voluisse. 
 
 + De Peccato Originali Declaratio ad Urbanum Rhegium (1526), 
 Opp ili. p. 627. 
 
MAN’S ORIGINAL STATE AND THE FALL. 
 
 659 
 
 but it is the cause of all Evil. Since only Evil can come 
 from it, Man is condemned. On these grounds Zwingli has 
 been charged with extenuating Original Sin, and the question 
 was discussed in the Conference at Marburg.* 
 
 Joshua PLACEUsf propounded an analogous representation 
 at Saumur. He also denied the special imputation of Adam’s 
 sin, and his doctrine was condemned by the Reformed Synod 
 at Cliarenton, a.d. 1654 ; but several persons were dissatisfied 
 with the decision. He afterwards took occasion to explain his 
 meaning more distinctly—that he did not deny every kind of 
 Imputation, but only what was immediate. Whitby, the 
 English divine ,% used similar language. The Remonstrants§ 
 took an intermediate position, whose doctrinal views were gra¬ 
 dually developed. They also placed the Image of God in the 
 dominion over Nature. Episcopius ascribed to Adam a 
 natural innocence ; he did not exactly contradict the notion 
 of a moral perfection, only he believed it was not necessarily 
 implied. Philip Limborch declared that Adam’s will before 
 Sin could not be regarded as neutral ; but till the Law was 
 given him he had only a certain natural rectitudo , an instinctus 
 naturalis. The other gifts of Man may be called naturalia , 
 or superncituralia; only we must take care not to extol them too 
 much, if v T e do not admit that God withdrew those gifts at 
 the Fall. The Remonstrants acknowledged a moral corrup¬ 
 tion of human nature as a consequence of the first Sin, only 
 not to so great an extent as the Reformers. The principal 
 
 * Die 15 Marburger Artikel vom 3 October, 1529, nack clem Wie- 
 deraufgefuridenen Autographon der Reformatoren, veroffentlicht von 
 Dr. H. Heppe, 2 Aull, Cassel, 1854 ; art. iv. See ISTitzsch Urkenden- 
 buck der Evangelischen Union, 1853. 
 
 f Theses Theologicse de Statu Hominis lapsi ante Gratiam, Walch. 
 Streitigkeiten ausser der Luther. Kirche iii. 890. 
 
 J De Imputatione Divina Peccati Adami Posteris ejus Universis in 
 Reatum, Lond. 1711. Walch, iii. 994. 
 
 § Apologia Confessionis : Peccatum originate nec habent pro peccato 
 proprie dicto, quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat, nec pro 
 malo quod per modum proprie dictae pcnnse ab Adamo in posteros 
 demanet, sed pro malo iufirmitatis vitio aut quocunque tandem alio 
 nomine vocetur, quod ab Adamo justitia originali privato in posteros 
 ejus propagatur, unde fit, ut posteri omnes Adami eadem justitia 
 destitute, prorsus inepti et inidonei sint ad vitam seternam consequen- 
 dam aut ut in gratiam cum Deo redeant, nisi Deus nova gratia sua eos 
 prgeveniat et vires novas iis restituat ac sufficiat, quibus ad earn possint 
 pervenirc.—See Limborch. Lheologia Christ, iii. 4, 4. 
 
 U U 2 
 
660 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 difference consisted in their opinion that the free self-determi¬ 
 nation for Good remained, and that Evil was only punishable 
 when the evil tendency led conjointly with freedom to the actual 
 perpetration of Evil. Adam, according to their system, was 
 created mortal; but that he was obliged to die was for him a 
 punishment of Sin ; for other men, on the contrary, Death is 
 a mere natural necessity. 
 
 d. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION.* 
 
 Eaustus SociNUst impugned the doctrine of a Satisfact'o 
 activa and passiva. The Doctrine of the essential righteous¬ 
 ness of God, which necessarily required the punishment of 
 Evil, and the doctrine of the essential Mercy of God, had no 
 place in his scheme, since God must either punish or forgive ; 
 and with the denial of those essential attributes the foundation 
 of the whole Church was likewise taken away; but the suffer¬ 
 ings of Christ, as a perfect fulfilling,of the Law, still retained 
 a place in his system. I The sufferings of Christ were neces¬ 
 sary; in the first place, as an example for Christians ; secondly 
 that he might be so much better fitted to help them in their 
 sufferings ; thirdly, as a pledge of the divine forgiveness of 
 Sins announced through him, and as a seal of the covenant 
 concluded with God ; fourthly, his Death was necessary as 
 the intermediate step for the Resurrection, through which he 
 assured Men of their eternal Salvation, and by his Glorifi¬ 
 cation attained the power of bestowing it. Hence the Resur¬ 
 rection of Christ is still more important than his death ; the 
 Scriptures lay a stress on his death, because Christ by his 
 sufferings gave up everything; but by his Resurrection he 
 even gained something. The division of Christ’s works 
 according to his priestly, kingly, and prophetic office he 
 admitted, but in his own sense. He placed the Prophetic 
 Office in the revelation of divine Truth, in the establishment 
 of a Moral Law more perfect than the Mosaic, and in the 
 promises of a future life. The priestly office he defined as 
 the perpetual office of Christ for the expiatio peccatorum, that 
 is, the freeing of believers from the punishment of Sin. The 
 
 * Baur, Gesckichte der Lehre von der Versohnung. For the 
 Lutheran doctrine, see Weisse, Martinus Lutherus quid de Consilio 
 Mortis et Besurrectionis Christi senserit, Lips. 1845. 
 
 + Prselectiones Theol. 
 
THE REMONSTRANTS ON REDEMPTION. 
 
 661 
 
 priesthood was first completed by his ascension to Heaven, for 
 then Christ had the power to bring believers to eternal hap¬ 
 piness. The name of the kingly office might indicate that in 
 the exercise of his power he was not independent of God, but 
 had received it from him ; it is, therefore, to be regarded as 
 the minus regium in a definite sense. 
 
 In this point the Remonstrants did not agree with the 
 Socinians. To them it was^of importance that Christ by his 
 work of Redemption had accomplished something in reference 
 to the relation of Man to God, which only in this form could 
 be effected according to the will of God. They kept at a dis¬ 
 tance from the view of the Thomists, and approximated to 
 that of the Scotists. Hugo Grotius # sets out from the 
 juridical standpoint, according to which' punishment must 
 serve to maintain the majesty of the Law, and might be 
 undergone by one for others. God, by the punishment of 
 Christ, wished to testify his hatred against Sin. to deter us 
 from sin, and to manifest his love to us. Episcopius only 
 differs from this view, that instead of the idea of punishment 
 he wishes to retain that of Sacrifice. In the Apology for the 
 Remonstrants composed by him it is said: Christ, since he 
 was Lord, according to the commission of his Father, endured 
 death for us, and effected by it, that the Father who received 
 this sacrifice as a sin-offering from Christ, on account of it has 
 shown mercy to Mankind, since thereby Satisfaction has been 
 made to the Justice of God.f 
 
 e. THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 Under the idea of Justijicatio has been understood, since 
 Augustin’s time, as we have shown above, not an objective 
 act, but something subjective, transitive, making man inter¬ 
 nally righteous, by the communication of the divine life in 
 fellowship with Christ. For the attainment of justijicatio , 
 moreover, Faith can be only the first step ; it was not suffi¬ 
 cient for justification, but Love must be added ; the gratia 
 justijicans was first given in the Jules format a, making mac, 
 internally righteous. Since this external idea of Faith re¬ 
 quired that for effecting justification something must be 
 added from without, the additional aid of the Church here 
 
 * Defensio Fidei Catholic® de Satisfactione Christi, 1617. 
 
 f Limborch, Theol. Christ, iii. 22. 
 
662 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 finds its plea; and since Justification is subjective, no one can 
 be absolutely certain that he possesses it. 
 
 This is the doctrine against which the Reformers brought 
 forward the objective idea of Justification; and, on the other 
 hand, corresponding to it, they regarded Faith as subjective, 
 as the principle of the transformation of the whole inner 
 life. This view was connected with Luther’s peculiar reli¬ 
 gious development; in his mental conflicts his soul first found 
 rest when he had learnt to look off from his subjective con¬ 
 dition, and to fix himself alone on the objective of redeeming 
 Grace. The Augsburg Confession* * * § and the Apologyt pre¬ 
 sent and discuss Justification under this aspect. Of Faith it 
 is expressly remarked : it is not mere historical faith, but a 
 faith by which a man assents to the divine promises ; j: it is, 
 therefore, the surrender of the Will by which man actually 
 appropriates the objective that is presented to him. This 
 Faith cannot be without filial thankfulness and love to God, 
 which impel Man to all goodness ; but still it always remains 
 defective, and hence can be no foundation of confidence. § In 
 this sense Melancthon wrote to Brenz, a.d. 1531 :|| by Faith 
 
 * Art. iv.—Item docent, quod homines non possunt justificari coram 
 Deo propriis viribus, mentis aut operibus, sed gratis j ustificentur 
 propter Christum per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi et 
 peccata remitti propter Christum qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis 
 satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro justitia coram ipso. Rom. 
 iii. et iv. 
 
 Ai’t. ii., iii. 
 
 % Apologia, art. ii.—Sed ilia fid^s, qua) justificat, non est tantum 
 notitia historise, sed est assentiri promissioni Dei, in qua gratis propter 
 Christum offertur remissio peccatorum et justificatio. Et ne quis 
 suspicetur, tantum notitiam esse, addimus amplius, est velle et 
 accipere oblatam pi-omissionem remissionis peccatorum et justificationis. 
 
 § Ibid.—Hsec fides in illis pavoribus erigens et consolans accipit 
 remissionem peccatorum, j ustificat, et vivificat; nam ilia consolatio est 
 nova et spiritualis vita.—Dilectio etiam et opera sequi fidem debent; 
 quare non sic excluduntur, ne sequantur, sed fiducia meriti dilectionis 
 aut operum in j ustificatione excluditur. Cf. art. iii. De Dilectione et 
 Impletione Legis. 
 
 || Opp. vol. ii. p. 501.—Bretschueider. Tu adhuc haeres in Augustini 
 imaginatione, qui eo pervenit, ut neget rationis justitiam coram Deo 
 refutari pro justitia. et recte sentit. Deinde imaginatur, nos justos 
 reputari propter hanc impletionem legis, quam efficit in nobis Spiritus 
 sanctus. Haec imaginatio collocat justitiam in nostra impletione, in 
 nostra munditie seu perfectione et si fidem sequi debet, haec renovatio. 
 Sed tu rejice oculos ab ista renovatione et a lege in tot-urn ad promis- 
 
JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 663 
 
 alone we are justified, not because this is the root, and on 
 account of its merit, but because it lays hold of Christ; on 
 his account we are acceptable to God. Though there may be 
 a new direction of the life, yet this cannot give peace to Man, 
 wherefore not Love makes man righteous, but Faith alone. 
 However much Melancthon laboured to secure the con¬ 
 nexion between Justification and Sanctification from misap¬ 
 prehension, yet he felt it equally important to maintain 
 firmly the Objective character of Justification. This interest 
 proceeded from his own religious experience. In the same 
 letter he says :—This representation is the Truth ; it makes 
 the glory of Christ visible, and is admirably fitted to cheer the 
 conscience. 
 
 The Council of Trent firmly adhered to the opposite Catho¬ 
 lic standpoint, pronounced an Anathema on the assertion that 
 the fides justificans was nothing else than trust in the divine 
 Mercy, or that this trust alone is that whereby we are justi¬ 
 fied. On the certainty of the consciousness of Justification 
 it says:—As no pious person must doubt of the mercy of 
 God, the merits of Christ, and the efficacy of the Sacraments, 
 
 sionem et Christum et sentias, quod propter Christum justi, hoc est 
 accepti coram Deo simus et pacem conscientise inveniamus, et non 
 propter illam renovationem. Nam hsec ipsa novitas non sitfficit. Ideo 
 sola fide sumus justi, non quia sit radex, ut tu scribis, sed quia appre- 
 hendit Christum, propter quern sumus accepti; qualis sit ilia novitas, 
 etsi neeessario sequi debet, sed non pacificat conscientiam. Ideo non 
 dilectio, quse est impfitio legis, justificat, sed sola fides, non quia est 
 perfectio qmedam in nbbis, sed tantum, quia apprehendit Christum.— 
 Ego conatus sum earp (senfcentiam) in Apologia explicare, sed ibi 
 propter adversariorum caiumnias non sic loqui licet, ut nunc tecum 
 loquor, etsi re ipsa idem dico. Quando haberet conscientia pacem et 
 certam spem si deberet sentire, quod tunc demum justi reputemur, 
 quum ilia novitas in nobis perfecta esset ? Quid hoc est aliud, quarn 
 ex lege, non ex promissione gratuita justificari ? 
 
 Luther adds : Et ego soleo, mi Brenti, ut hanc rem melius capiam, 
 sic imaginari, quasi nulla sit in corde meo qualitas, quae fides vel 
 caritas vocetur, sed in loco ipsorum pono ipsum Christum et dico : ha)c 
 est justitia mea ; ipse est qualitas et formalis, ut vocant, justitia mea; 
 ut sic me liberem ab intuitu legis et operum ; immo et ab intuitu 
 objecti istius Christi, qui vel doctor vel donatur intelligitur; sed volo 
 ipsum mihi esse donum et doctrinam per se, ut omnia in ipso habeam. 
 Sic dicit : ego sum via, veritas et vita. Non dicit: ego de tibi viam 
 veritatem et vitam, quasi extra me positas operetur in me. Talia in 
 me debent esse, manere et vivere, loqui, non per me an at; tj ue (2 Cor. 
 5) ut essemus justitia in illo, non in dilectionem aut donis sequentibus. 
 
664 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 yet every one must fear in reference to liis own weakness for 
 his state of Grace, since no one can he convinced with the 
 certainty of faith that he has obtained the divine favour.* 
 
 The Evangelical doctrine of Justification met also with 
 much opposition among those who did not agree with the 
 Catholics, The onesided representation of the Lutheran 
 zealots, who did not sufficiently point out the connexion of 
 the Objective and the Subjective, contributed to this. Hence 
 attempts were made to modify sometimes the idea of Justifi¬ 
 cation, sometimes that of Faith. Wicel wished steadily to 
 maintain the Protestant idea of Justification ; but in the idea 
 of Faith he followed the Catholic view. More frequent were 
 the attempts to admit Faith in the sense of the Evangelical 
 Church, but to join with the Catholics in the idea of Justifi¬ 
 cation. Thus Andrew OsrANDER,t Professor at Konigsberg, 
 who in the latter respect attached himself to the earlier School¬ 
 men. Pie accurately distinguished Justification from the satis¬ 
 faction and Redemption through Christ. By these Christ 
 had once for all gained for men the forgiveness of sins. But 
 by justiftcatio he understood the impartation of an internal 
 righteousness. He declared, that for the attainment of that 
 Justiftcatio , men could in nowise do anything by the exertion 
 of their own powers, but that it proceeded from the true, 
 internal, fellowship with Christ, given by him. By Faith 
 man becomes justified and sanctified, as far as he thereby 
 
 * Sessio vi can. xii.—Si qtiis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud 
 esse, quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae peccata remittentis propter 
 Christum vel earn fiduciam solam esse qua justificamus, anathema sit.— 
 Cap. vii. Justificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctifi- 
 catio et renovatio interioris hominis, per voluntariam susceptionem 
 gratise et donorum unde homo ex injusto fit justus et ex inimico 
 amicus, ut sit Lucres secundum spem vitae aeternae. 
 
 f Disputatio de Lege et Evangelio, 49 theses, 1549. An Filius Dei 
 fuerit Incarnandus si peccatum non introivisset in Mundum; item de 
 Imagine Dei, 1550. Disputatio de Justificatione, 81 theses, 1550. Von 
 dem einigen Mittler Jesu Christo und Rechtfertigung, 1551. Lehnerdt, 
 Commentationes Quattuor de Osiandro, Regiom. 1835, 37, 41, 42. 
 Auctuarium ad Commentationem de A. Osiandro. Christian Salig. 
 Vollstandige Historie des Augsb. Confession, Buch vii. cap. 1, 2. J. G. 
 Walch, Eintertung in die Religioustreitigkeiten der Luther. Kirche, iv. 
 p. 137. Baur, Brevis Disquisitio in A. Osiandri de Justificatione Doc- 
 trina, Tubg. 1831, 4to. Heberle, Osianders Lehre in ihrer friihsten 
 Gestalt. Stud. u. Krit. 1844, p. 398. 
 
JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 665 
 
 receives Christ into himself, and the righteousness of Christ 
 really passes into the inner life. He spoke against those who 
 talked of an imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and 
 not of a real communication of it. This harmonizes with his 
 idea of an archetype of Humanity in God, according to which 
 God created Man so that such a connexion of the divine 
 essence with human nature as took place in Christ, was 
 always necessary in order to attain its destined glorification. 
 By virtue of their fellowship with Christ, it is realized for 
 believers. The other theologians of the Evangelical Church 
 agreed with him in this, in affirming such an inner life of 
 fellowship with Christ in Man, only that Man must not place 
 his trust in it. 
 
 Schwenkfeld laid peculiar stress on the subjective refer¬ 
 ence. It is to be remarked, he says, that the righteousness of 
 Faith is not to be thought of as something existing without us 
 in Christ, as if it were only given from without, but righteous- 
 ness must really be implanted with Christ in our hearts and 
 souls through faith, so that it dwells in us, and we are thereby 
 inwardly renewed. We must not only preach Redemption 
 by Christ, but also Regeneration, Justification, and Sanctifi¬ 
 cation. 
 
 Socinus agreed with the evangelical doctrine in the ob 
 jective view of Justificatio; he also explains it to be a judicial 
 act of God (remissio peccatorum). But as to the ground of 
 Justification, he necessarily judges differently, according to his 
 different view of the doctrine of Satisfaction. He rejected the 
 Pelagian notion of the means of attaining Justification. 
 Human virtue ever remains defective, and Justification cannot 
 depend on that, but is founded only in the divine grace. The 
 only condition of it is Faith in Christ, but this necessarily 
 involves practical obedience. He would not admit that Sanc¬ 
 tification is an effect of Faith; but maintained that the reno¬ 
 vation of man already lies in the idea of Faith, which he 
 defines as Trust in Christ, that is, not only to hold as true 
 whatever he has taught, but also to esteem all this so highly 
 as to do what he has commanded, and to hope for what he has 
 promised. Hence, Faith in Christ involves that we do all 
 which he has appointed as the conditions for the attainment of 
 salvation. But that man is justified is not in virtue of the 
 merit of Faith, but because God has connected it with this 
 
666 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 condition.* If we compare the Socinian and Lutheran doc* 
 trines, the latter supposes an internal necessary connexion 
 between Faith and the renewal of the life : according to the 
 former, the connexion is external, for the motives must pro¬ 
 ceed from Faith, which impel man to new moral strivings. 
 According to the Lutheran doctrine, man is certain of his 
 salvation through Faith, and needs to do nothing first towards 
 it; yet in Faith there is founded an inward tendency of the 
 divine life to good works. According to Socinus, Faith neces¬ 
 sarily impels to the fulfilment of the conditions, on which 
 Christ has promised heavenly blessings. 
 
 The view of the Remonstrants so far approximates that of 
 the Socinians, that it includes in the idea of Faith that of 
 practical obedience. Faith is the determination of the soul 
 according to the Word of God, connected with faith in 
 Christ, in virtue of which we embrace the doctrine of Christ, 
 and trust in Christ, as Prophet, High Priest, and King, by 
 whose grace alone we can attain salvation. Hence, Faith of 
 itself begets true and active obedience. Limborch defines 
 justifying Faith, as the Faith that Christ is our Saviour, from 
 whom we expect Salvation, under the conditions prescribed by 
 
 him.f 
 
 f. GRACE, FREE WILL, AND PREDESTINATION. 
 
 Setting out from the Augustinian scheme of doctrine, and 
 combating the Pelagian tendency of the dominant Church, the 
 Reformers gave prominence to the Augustinian views of 
 Grace and Predestination. Luther, even before he became 
 a monk, had been harassed by doubts respecting this doctrine; 
 he needed entire resignation, unwavering confidence in the 
 objectivity of divine Grace, in order to find rest, and, hence, 
 was attracted by the rigid Augustinian tendency. But 
 Staupitz counselled him, that in reference to the doctrine 
 of Predestination, he should not seek after the hidden God, 
 but keep to the God revealed in Christ, The practical 
 retained the ascendancy, he gave less prominence to the 
 harshness of the Augustinian system, excepting when con¬ 
 troversy summoned him to it, especially in the controversy 
 with Erasmus, who, a.d. 1524,J attacked Luthers doctrine 
 
 * De Justificatione, Opp. t. ii. Bibliotheca Patrum Polon. ii. p. 602. 
 
 f Theologia Christ, vi. 4, 22. + De Libero Arbitria, 
 
GRACE, FREE WILL, AND PREDESTINATION. 667 
 
 of Grace, Free Will, and Predestination. In him likewise the 
 practical interest predominated; he was less dogmatical, and 
 dreaded nothing so much as extravagance. The exact determi¬ 
 nation of the relation of Grace to the Free Will, of the divine 
 prescience and unchangeable decrees to the contingency of 
 human actions surpasses the knowledge of man, and it is best to 
 adhere to what is practically important, that man in all that is 
 evil must blame himself alone, and trace all that is good to 
 God. Erasmus was not thoroughly Pelagian in his views, 
 and only contended that it depended on the Free Will of Man 
 to follow or not the Grace of God. He endeavoured to refute 
 the arguments which were brought from the Bible for the 
 Augustinian views. Luther, in his reply,* developed the 
 doctrine of absolute Predestination in the most pointed 
 manner. He made Prescience and Predestination perfectly 
 identical,—-denied contingency, and inferred from the immu¬ 
 tability of the divine will, that all events took place according 
 to an unconditional necessity. We recognise here the funda¬ 
 mental principle of unreserved resignation to the divine will. 
 He says, as long as man holds the belief that he can do 
 something for his own salvation, he continues self-confident, 
 and does not humble himself; but whoever despairs altogether 
 of himself, is most near to that grace which leads to sal¬ 
 vation. 
 
 Melancthon, at first quite dependent on Luther, agreed 
 with him on these points ; in the first edition of his Loci , he 
 maintained the nullity of Free Will in all matters relating to 
 salvation, and attributed everything to Grace. The very 
 term Free Will proceeded from profane Philosophy, not from 
 the Bible ; there could be no Free Will. Providence ex¬ 
 tending itself from one to all, seemed to him to be con¬ 
 nected with the doctrine of absolute Predestination; an 
 association of ideas which was common to the first Reformers. 
 
 We have remarked the same in Zwtngli, who occupied 
 himself still more fully with the exposition of the doctrine. 
 There is an approach in it to Pantheism; only the element is 
 not consciously conceived, In a letter to a friend, who had 
 urged objections, taken from the Bible, he says: This is 
 certain, that all things are governed by the divine wisdom, 
 consequently, everything must take place according to an 
 
 * De Servo Arbitrio, 1525. 
 
668 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 immutable necessity ; but still the ungodly cannot find an 
 excuse in that. He was sensible what disastrous consequences 
 followed from such a doctrine, and, therefore, adds: But let 
 these things be stated with moderation, and only seldom ; for 
 only a few can attain such heights of spiritual insight. He 
 expresses himself most harshly, De providential God is the 
 Author of Evil as well as of Good. But if any man should 
 say that the divine Providence has occasioned this or that 
 crime, he does not express himself aright, for only the human 
 act, not the event brought to pass by God is sin. Therefore, 
 the guilty will justly be punished in this world and the next. 
 If a distinction be made between God’s Prescience and his 
 Predestination, we shall wrong either God’s omnipotence or 
 his goodness ; for either God foresees the wickedness, and 
 cannot hinder it, or he foresees it, and will not hinder it. If 
 the relation of God and Man were such as it was represented 
 I by Luther, and the other Reformers, we must unavoidably 
 ' go beyond Augustin, and advance to Supralapsarianism. 
 Zwingli expressly declared that Predestination extended even 
 to Adam’s sin. It is, therefore, erroneous, that the harshest 
 and most logical form of this doctrine wa3 derived from 
 Calvin. We are led to this conclusion because another doc¬ 
 trine was held by Zwingli, with which Calvin did not agree, 
 the doctrine, namely, that the Heathen are not unconditionally 
 condemned, in which Zwingli differs from Augustin, but 
 without contradicting himself. The prevalent opinion of the 
 condemnation of all unbelievers appeared to him repulsive, and 
 to arise from misunderstanding the Bible. He wished the 
 passages of Scripture that related to the subject to be taken 
 synecdochally, namely, only of all who had the opportunity of 
 becoming acquainted with the Gospel, and who would crimi¬ 
 nally remain in unbelief, because their unbelief was founded 
 in obstinate resistance. From this nothing could be concluded 
 as to the fate of the rest. He assumed as the immediate con¬ 
 sequence flowing from Predestination, not the salvation of the 
 predestinated, but the invisible operations of Divine Grace on 
 the hearts of men, which make their existence known by the 
 virtues they produce. With this was connected his doctrine 
 of an invisible Church, which depended on the divine election, 
 and was not connected with certain outward signs ( Sacramenta ). 
 
 * Cap. vi. 
 
ZWINGLI'S VIEWS. 
 
 669 
 
 Wherever he thought traces could be discerned of the opera¬ 
 tions of the Holy Spirit, he believed that this Revelation was 
 also to be found. He had occupied himself with the study of 
 antiquity, and had a partiality for it ; but he did not possess 
 the right standard, by which to distinguish the ethical stand¬ 
 point of Christianity from that of Antiquity. On this account 
 he did not do justice to many manifestations of Christian 
 piety, which he could not correctly estimate from his onesided 
 Protestant standpoint. Even among the Heathen,* he as¬ 
 serted, God had chosen those who worshipped him, and after 
 death were admitted to his communion, for the divine choice 
 is free. A Socrates was more pious and holy than all the 
 Dominicans and Franciscans. To Urban Regius he writes : 
 How do we know what faith is written on the heart of any one 
 by God ? and when we see that the uncircumcision keeps the 
 law, why should we not know the tree by its fruits? Zwingli 
 inclined to the opinion, that the effect of Redemption extended 
 from the sin of Adam to the whole human race. This suppo¬ 
 sition did not detract from the effect of Christ’s merits, but 
 rather glorified them, if only it was firmly held that Redemp¬ 
 tion through him was the necessary and only means of sal¬ 
 vation for all. From the first trangression, condemnation, 
 indeed, passed on all, but this was counteracted by the present 
 means of divine grace. The Holy Spirit can everywhere raise 
 Man to God. 
 
 We find a similar view held by Ccelius Secundus Curio, t 
 who, about a.d. 1554, published a Dialogue, in which he aimed 
 to prove that the kingdom of God is greater than the kingdom 
 of Satan. He appealed to the instance of Cornelius, in the 
 Acts of the Apostles. God is at all times near to all who do 
 good according to their ability. He would not say that men 
 could attain to this by the power of their corrupt nature, 
 but that it is the Grace of God which grants it to them. 
 
 The Polish reformer, John Lasko, appealed to his agree¬ 
 ment with Zwingli on this point. He says: J This view 
 is, indeed, very far from the common doctrine, but it leads to 
 a deeper view of ourselves and of Divine Grace. 
 
 In the Lutheran Church, tbe departure from the doctrine 
 
 * De Providentia. 
 
 + Professor at Basle : died 1569. De Amplitudine Beati Regni Dei, 
 
 £ Gerdesius, Servinium Antiquarium, t. iii p. 449, Ep. ad Bullinam, 
 
670 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 of absolute Predestination proceeded first from Melancthon. 
 With liis mild disposition, and his dread of carrying principles 
 to an extreme, he could not always maintain an agreement 
 with Luther in this harsh dogma. Investigating freely on 
 all sides, he arrived, in his study of man’s religious nature, 
 and of the connexion of scriptural doctrines, at a view differ¬ 
 ing from Luther’s. This was one of the points in which he 
 endeavoured to soften the original harshness of the doctrines 
 presented, in a controversial form, at the Reformation. In 
 the Augsburgh Confession and Apology, he kept himself 
 merely to what was of prime importance. In that document, 
 it is said “ The Human Will has a certain freedom for the 
 administration of justitia civilis; but without the Holy Spirit 
 it has not the power to bring forth spiritual righteousness.” 
 After one quotation, when he adds: Man cannot begin, or at 
 least not perfect this, without God, he introduces a different 
 doctrine from the strict Augustinian. This is still more visible 
 in the new edition of his Loci, a.d. 1535. He here expresses 
 himself plainly against absolute Predestination, and against 
 the opinion that the Free Will is excluded from all share in 
 conversion. He states his sentiments most fully in the edition 
 of a.d. 1543, and speaks against all who, with Laurentius 
 Valla, would introduce a Stoical Fate. “ These are difficult 
 inquiries,” he adds; “on this account, we must apply our 
 minds to God’s Revelation, who has promised to help those 
 who call upon him. Above all, we must maintain, that God 
 is present with his creatures, not as a Stoical God.”f In the 
 section on Free Will, he says, that the human will, even 
 before Regeneration, could, in a certain manner, perform the 
 outward works of the Law; but that even this is often hin¬ 
 dered by natural weakness. Men must be fully aware of this 
 
 * Art. 18.—De libero arbitrio docent quod humana voluntas habeat 
 aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et deligendas res 
 rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Saucto efficiendse 
 justitise Dei seu justitise spirituals, quia animalis homo non percipit 
 ea, quse sunt spiritus Dei, sed hsec fit in cordibus, cum per verb urn 
 Spiritus Sanctus concipitur. Hsec totidem verbis dicit Augustinus, lib. 
 iii. Hypognosticon : esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus homi- 
 nibus, liabens quidem judicium rationis, non per quod sit idoneum in 
 eis, quse ad Deum pertinent, sine Deo aut inchoare aut certe peragerc; 
 sed tautum in operibus vitse praesentis tarn bonis, quam etiam malis. 
 
 t Locus iii. De Causa Peccati et De Contingentia, fin. 
 
MELANCTHON. 
 
 671 
 
 evil, in order to estimate, in all their importance, the blessings 
 of Christ.* Free Will, also, cannot bring forth the true fear 
 of God, true confidence and love towards God, nor the stead¬ 
 fastness in suffering which conquers Death. The Holy Spirit 
 alone can effect this ; and we obtain the spirit through the 
 Word of God imparted to us. For the performance of what is 
 good there must be the conjunction of the Word of God, the 
 Holy Spirit, and the human will, which agrees with the Word 
 of God, and does not oppose it.t This share, taken by the 
 Free Will, he proves, from the internal conflict of all pious 
 persons; otherwise, no such conflict could take place .X In 
 the additions to the Loci, in the edition of a.d. 1548, he in¬ 
 troduces the excuse of those who held the Epicurean notion, 
 that Grace would be infused without any human co-operation. 
 He says in reply: Men must be taught that Free Will does 
 something, that it is the facultas se applicandi gratia. From 
 many passages in his Letters, it is evident how much impor¬ 
 tance he attached to this doctrine. He frequently repeats the 
 thought, when comforting others under the loss of their 
 children : “ God himself has implanted this love (Grogy/i) in 
 our hearts, as a witness that we are not to think of Him as a 
 Stoical God, but as a God of conscious paternal Love. 
 
 Luther also viewed the doctrine of Predestination, princi¬ 
 pally in its practical aspect. On the other hand, Melanc- 
 
 * Locus iv.—Primum igitur respondeo : cum in natura hominis reli- 
 quurn sit judicium et delectus quidam rerum, quae sunt subjectse rationi 
 aut sensui, reliquus est etiam delectus externorum operum civilium ; 
 quare voluntas humana potest suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo 
 externa legis- opera facere. Haec est libertas voluntatis, quam philo- 
 sophi recte tribuunt liomini. Nam et Paulus discernens justitiam 
 carnis a spirituali, fatetur non renatos habere delectum aliquem et 
 facere aliqua externa legis opera, manus a coede, a fuito, a raptu conti- 
 nere, et hanc vocat justitiam carnis. 
 
 4 Cumque ordimur a verbo. concurrunt tres causee bonre actionis 
 verbum Dei, Spiritus Sanctus, et humana voluntas asseutiens nee 
 repugnans verbo Dei. Posset enim excutere ut excutit Saul sua 
 sponte; sed cum mens audiens ac se sustentans non repugnat, non 
 indulget diffidentige, sed adjuvante etiam Spiritu Sancto conatur 
 assentiri, in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa. 
 
 X Hsec sunt perspicua, si in veris doloribus in vera invocatione 
 experiamur, qualis sit lucta voluntatis, quae si se haberet ut statua, 
 nullum prorsus certamen, nulla lucta nulli angoi’es essent in sanctis. 
 Cum autem sit certamen ingens et difficile, voluntas non est otiosa, 
 sed languido assentitur, &c. 
 
672 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 thon kept aloof from Semi-Pelagianism, since he admitted no 
 merit on the part of Man. Luther must have observed a 
 difference in Melancthon, jet he appears not to have felt any 
 serious umbrage on account of it, though he did not alter his 
 own teaching. Melancthon, about a.d. 1544, declared that 
 Luther, in this point, agreed with him, but possibly he ex¬ 
 plained Luther’s language too much according to his own 
 view. Yet the parties of these two Reformers did not continue 
 in the same friendly relation. Melancthon left behind him 
 a school which propagated this doctrine, and opposed to it was 
 a party of more narrow-minded zealots for the letter of the 
 Lutheran doctrine, of which the principal advocates were 
 Matthias Flacius,* Nicolas Amsdorf, Wigand, and Hess- 
 husius. The division led to the Synergistic Controversy ,f 
 which came to a violent outbreak on the occasion of the 
 Weimar Confutation, in a.d. 1558. The Representative of 
 the Synergistic party was John Pfeffinger,| Superintendent 
 in Leipsic, who taught to the following effect: That though 
 the Will of Man cannot arouse itself to any spiritual work, 
 and can only be aroused by the Spirit, yet the Will is not ex¬ 
 cluded from these works in such a manner as not to be also 
 present. The Holy Spirit does not act with Man as a 
 stone-cutter with a stone. Since with God there is no 
 respect of persons, so there must be in Man the reason that 
 some obey, and others resist the Holy Spirit. In accordance 
 with these sentiments, Victorinus Strigel,§ Professor at 
 Jena, maintained that to the Will of Man, corrupted through 
 the Fall, nothing remained but the modus agendi for Good (that 
 is, what belongs to the essence of a rational nature, in contradis¬ 
 tinction from the acts of merely irrational beings, the actiones 
 
 * ,T. B. Ritter, Flacius Leben u. Tod. 1723. Twesten, M. Flacius 
 Illyricus mit Berlagen yon H. Rossel, Berlin, 1844. 
 
 4 Planck, Gescli. des Protest. Lehrbegriffs, v. 1, p. 685. Scbenkel, 
 Wesen des Protest, ii p. 44. Salig, Gesch. der Augsb. Confession, iii. 
 p. 216. See also Heppe. Gesch. der Deutsck Protest, i. p. 116. E. 
 Schmid, Flacius Streit uber die Erbsunde. Zeitschr. fur Histor. Theol. 
 1849. 
 
 4 De Libero Arbitrio, 1555. On the other side, Nicolaus Amsdorf 
 Offentlicb Bekenntniss der reinen Lehre des Evangeliums, and Con- 
 futatio der jetzigen Schwarmer, Jena, 1558. 
 
 § Otto de Yictorino Strigelio Liberioris Mentis in Ecclesia Lutherana 
 Vindice, Jena, 1S48. Simon Musaeus, Disputatio inter Flacium, Viet. 
 Strigelium Vimarise Habita, Bremoe, 1568, 4to. 
 
GRACE, FREE WILL, AND PREDESTINATION. 
 
 673 
 
 natarales). Man has not, indeed, the capability of accom¬ 
 plishing good, but he has the susceptibility for the influence 
 of Grace. If the Will had not the capability of determining 
 in any way whatever, Man would not be blameable for re¬ 
 jecting the salvation offered by Divine Grace. 
 
 Meanwhile, Calvin* appeared at the head of the Reformed 
 Church. In reference to this controversy, nothing new pro¬ 
 ceeded from him ; he only maintained against the reactions, the 
 earlier doctrine of absolute Predestination, which, in him, was 
 connected with a onesided tendency of Christian feeling, and a 
 rigid logical consequence. f Like Zwingli, he regarded Presci¬ 
 ence and Predestination as of equal extent, and even established 
 the former by the latter ; God in no other way foresees the 
 Future, but as he has decreed. Hence, Calvin allowed no 
 contingency, even in the Fall ; he says, How could God, who 
 effects all things, have formed the noblest of his creatures for 
 an uncertain end ? What then would become of his omnipo¬ 
 tence ? The Infralapsarians must still allow such a Predesti¬ 
 nation, in the case of Adam’s descendants. It cannot have 
 been in a natural way, that all lost salvation through the guilt 
 of one. Yet he himself fetls shocked at the thought; decre- 
 tum quidem horribile fateor.% he says: Consequently, Gcd 
 created the greatest part of Mankind, in order to glorify him- 
 
 * Institutio Christiana Religionis, i. c. 16, iii. c. 21—24, ed. Tholuck, 
 1846. 
 
 f III. 21, 1.—Numquam liquido ut decet persuasi erimus salutem 
 nostram ex fonte gratuitse misericordise Dei fluere, donee innotuerit 
 nobis seterna ejus electio, quae hac comparatione gratiam Dei illustrat 
 quod non omnes promiscere adoptat in spem salutis, sed dat aliis, quod 
 aliis negat. Hujus principii ignorantia quantum ex gloria Dei 
 imminuat, quantum verse humilitati detrakat, palam est. 
 
 X III. 23, 7.—Iterum qusero, unde factum est, ut tot gentes, uua 
 cum liberis eorum infantibus seternge morti involveret lapsus Adse 
 absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita verum est ? Hie obmutescere 
 oportet tarn decuces alloqui linguas. Decretum quidem horribile, 
 fateor; inficiari tamen nemo poterit, quin prgesciverit Deus, quern 
 exitum es3et habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo 
 prgesciverit, quia decreto suo ita ordinarat. In prsescientiam Dei si 
 quis hie invehatur, temere et inconsulte impingit. Quid enim, quseso, 
 est cur reus agatur cselestis judex, quia non ignoraverit quod futurum 
 erat? In prsedestinationem competit in quid est vel justge vel speciosge 
 querimonise. ISTec absurdum videri debet quod dico, JJeum non modo 
 primi kominis casum et in eo posterorum ruinam prsevidisse; sed 
 arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse. Ut enim ad ejus sapientiam pertinet 
 
 X X 
 
674 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 self in them by his Primitive Justice, and the smaller by the 
 revelation of His love.* His opponents might give a reason, 
 why God, who could have made them dogs, created them in 
 His own image- Ought irrational brutes also to argue with 
 God ? All doubts may be silenced by the thought, that God’s 
 Will is the highest law and cause. Yet he did not rest 
 here. The idea of an absolute omnipotence of God, not 
 conditioned by Holiness, he looked upon as profane and 
 appealed to the incomprehensibility of th s Mystery. It is to 
 be acknowledged, that by his dialectic development, he sought 
 to evade the practically injurious consequences, and especially 
 exalted the revealed grace of God, in the work of Redemp¬ 
 tion. Men ought to keep to the Word of God alone : and 
 instead of inquiring respecting their own election, look to 
 Christ, and seek in him God’s fatherly grace. Calvin 
 laboured very much t to procure the universal acknowledg 
 ment of this doctrine in Switzerland, but met with serious 
 opposition, among others, from the learned Sebastian Cas- 
 tellio.J In Geneva, Calvin at last obtained the victory,§ 
 and could then come to an understanding respecting it, with 
 other Swiss Theologians. He attempted, but in vain, to get 
 Melancthon on his side. Melancthon called him the 
 modern Zeno, who wanted to introduce a stoical necessitv into 
 the Church, and expressed himself very warmly against him. || 
 Calvin dedicated to him, a.d. 1543, his treatise on human 
 
 omnium quse futura sunt esse prasscium sic ad potentiam, omnia manu 
 sua regere ac moderari. 
 
 * III. 23, 1.—Contenta sit fidei sobrietas hac Pauli admonitione 
 (Pom. ix. 22) non esse causam litigandi cum Deo, si ab una parte 
 volens ostendere eram et nolam facere potentiam suam ferat in multa 
 tolerantia et lenitate vasa iree apparata in interitum ; ab altera autem 
 notas faciat divitias gloriee suse erga vasa misericordise, quse prseparavit 
 in gloriam.—Minime tamen consentaneum est preeparationem ad inter¬ 
 itum a'Uo transferre, quam ad arcanum consilium Dei; quod etiam 
 paulio ante in contextu aperitur, quod Deus exeitaverit Pharaonem, 
 deinde quos vult induret. Unde sequitur absconditum Dei consilium 
 abdurationis esse causam. 
 
 4 Hundeshagen die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus Luthertbums u. 
 Calvinismus in der Berniscken Landeskirche von 15-.2—58. Bern, 1S42. 
 
 4 Fuesslin, Seb. Castellio, Frankf. 1755. 
 
 § Consensus Genevensis 1 January, 1552. in Niemeger’s Liber Sym- 
 bolici Ecclesise Reform, p. 218. Henry, Leben Calvins, iii. 1. p. 82. 
 
 H Ep. ad Peucerum, 1 Feb. 1552. Corp Reform vii p 932. 
 
ZANCHIUS AND MARBACH. 
 
 675 
 
 freedom,* to which he replied :f Since I hold firmly the prin¬ 
 ciple that God is not the Author of Sm, I admit upon that a 
 contingency in the weakness of our judgment. When Calvin 
 sent Melancthon his Confession of Faith, the latter was so 
 excited, that he struck his pen through the whole passage on 
 Predestination. Calvin remarked that this was very unlike 
 his ingenita mansuetudo , that he could not imagine how a man 
 of Melancthon’s acuteness could reject this doctrine, and 
 said reproachfully, that he could not believe that he held the 
 doctrines he professed with a sincere heart. On account of a 
 doctrine, to which Speculation had by no means led him, he 
 reproached him with judging nimis philosophice concerning 
 Free Will. 
 
 The majority in the Lutheran Church had, indeed, declared 
 themselves against Melancthon and his Synergism, but his 
 influence extended, in manifold gradations, beyond his school; 
 and it is to be ascribed to that circumstance, that even the 
 majority of the zealots felt themselves compelled to depart 
 inconsequentially from their original rigour. While the 
 strictest form of the original doctrine of absolute Predesti¬ 
 nation triumphed in the Reformed Church, an opposition 
 on this point also arose to the milder view of the Lutheran 
 Church. A dispute at Strasburg was the special occasion of 
 bringing the subject openly under discussion between the two 
 Churches. On the Calvinistic side was Jerome Zanchius ; £ 
 on the Lutheran, John Marbach. The dispute was settled 
 through an accommodation proposed by Brenz. It was the 
 occasion of notice being taken of this difference in the Formula 
 Concordice. There was a wish to avoid everything which 
 would lead to Synergism; but, at the same time, to shun the 
 
 * Defensio Sanse et Orthodoxy Doctrinse de Servitute et Liberatione 
 Humani Arbitrii adversus Albertum Pighium. Opp. vii. 134. 
 
 + Corpus Reformat, v. p. 109.—Ego cum hypothesin hanc teneam 
 Deum non esse causam peccati nec velle peccatum, postea contingen- 
 tiam in bac nostra infirmitate judicii admitto, ut sciant rudes Davidem 
 sua voluntate ultio mere, et eundem sentio, cum baberet spiritum 
 sanctum, potuisse eum retinere, et in ea lucta esse aliquam voluntatis 
 actionem—Nam a verbo Dei ordiendum est nec repugnandum pro- 
 missioni sed ei assentiamur, nec disputemus antea, tunc nos assensuros 
 esse, cum arcanum Deo decretum nobis monstratum fuerit. Assentien- 
 tem autem Deus adjuvat, qui per verbum est efficax. 
 
 X An Italian; professor at Strasburg, and afterwards at Heidelberg. 
 
 X X 4 
 
676 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 doctrine of unconditional Predestination. The Formula Con- 
 cor dice asserted, that after the Fall, not a spark of spiritual 
 power was left, by which Man could, of himself, turn to Grace. 
 With this assertion, the doctrine of a gratia irresistibilis might 
 have been fairly connected ; but such a consequence was ex¬ 
 pressly denied, and it was affirmed that God did, indeed, draw 
 predestinated persons to himself, but not to conversion. This 
 was such a change, through the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, that Man was able to accept the offered Grace of God. 
 All who resist the influence of the Holy Spirit do not receive 
 it. Thus it appears to be admitted, that Man possesses the 
 power of resisting the influences of Grace; but, on the other 
 hand, we have the contradictory assertion, that nothing de¬ 
 pended on the susceptibility of Man. Verbally, this state¬ 
 ment might harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine, ac¬ 
 cording to which, Grace operated under the form of free 
 Self-determination. But in the other articles, the Augustinian 
 Particularism is plainly opposed, and the promise of the 
 Gospel: “ God willeth all men to be saved,” is declared to 
 relate to all men. At the same time, the subterfuge is cut 
 off, which lies in the distinction of voluntas signi and voluntas 
 placiti, which would be imputing to God two opposing wills. 
 Predestination was referred only to believers, and represented 
 as the eternal decree of God, to make all who receive the 
 Gospel the heirs of eternal life ; it is always to be viewed only 
 in connexion with the whole work of Redemption, and the 
 whole scheme of Salvation. In reference to the ungodly, the 
 Prescience of God was accurately distinguished from Predesti¬ 
 nation. There was, therefore, a contradiction left unsolved 
 in the Formula Concordice; it was stated that here were diffi¬ 
 culties which no human understanding could overcome. In 
 the statements directed against Augustin’s mode of specula¬ 
 tion, a point of connexion was given for further opposition 
 against the rigid Augustinian system. 
 
 At the close of the sixteenth Century, Samuel Huber* 
 engaged in a controversy both with the Calvinistic and the 
 Lutheran party. First of all, as a preacher in Bern, he main- 
 
 * A. Schmid, Dissertatio de S. Huberi Vita, Fatis etDoctrina, Helmst. 
 1708, 4to. Walch, Religion,streitigkeiten der Lutherischen Kirche, i. 
 176. Walchii Bibliotheca Theol. p 645. J. Wiggers Beitr. z. Lebens- 
 gesch. S. Hubers, Zeitschr. f. Histor. Theol. 1844, 1. 
 
HUBER AND ARMINIUS. 
 
 67 ? 
 
 tained against Beza, that Christ died for all, and that God 
 willed the salvation of all men. In consequence of this, he 
 was deposed in a.d. 1588, and received into the Lutheran 
 Church, first at Wiirtemberg, then at Wittenberg, and in that 
 place entered into controversy with tLgidius Hunnius,* who 
 more fully developed the doctrine of the Formula. Huber 
 found fault with the Formula of Calvinism because it asserted 
 no general, but only a particular, election of Grace. In con¬ 
 troverting the Calvinistic doctrine he had said that God had 
 chosen not only Believers, but all Men, to eternal life, it 
 would have been a more important point of dispute, if Huber 
 had held that the effects of Redemption were also extended to 
 those who had not attained to Faith in this Life. But this 
 he did not assert, and seemed at last to fall in with the 
 Lutheran doctrine. He was of opinion that if Gods gene¬ 
 ral offer be made known, Men will divide themselves into 
 two classes—some following the call, and others of their own 
 fault, not attaining that Salvation, to which they w T ere chosen 
 by God through his Son. Manifestly he was influenced by 
 the motive of representing the divine love in its Universality, 
 but as he expressed himself, it appeared to be rather a con¬ 
 flict of Formulas. He may indeed have remarked the incon¬ 
 sistency of the Formula Concordice , as he appealed to the 
 fact, that it nowhere appeared in Scripture that Predestination 
 depended on Prescience of Faith ; but he did not succeed in 
 clearly developing his meaning. 
 
 In the Reformed Church we remark that Reactions again 
 showed themselves, as before in the controversy respecting the 
 Augustinian doctrine, against absolute Predestination, though 
 it had been firmly settled by the Church. The greatest shock 
 proceeded from James Armieius.I" He was the pattern of a 
 conscientious and zealously investigating theologian, who 
 endeavoured to guard himself against all partiality. After 
 studying at Geneva, where he was a hearer of Beza., he 
 returned as a zealous Calvinist to his native land. At that 
 time an intelligent layman, Koornhert,J a man who was 
 
 * De Providentia Dei et iEterna Praedestinatione, Francof. 1597. 
 Opp. i. 653. 
 
 t Caspar. Brandii Historia Vitae J. Arminii, Ainsterd. 1724, ed. J. L, 
 Moshemius, Bruns. 1725. 
 
 J Werke, Amsterd. 1630, 3 vols, fol. 
 
678 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 satisfied with none of the Confessions, attacked the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of Predestination, and thus occasioned much contro¬ 
 versy. There was a wish to refute him, and to vindicate 
 Calvinism, but among the Calvinists themselves a difference 
 arose. Some preachers in Delft believed that Calvinism 
 could be easily defended if they substituted Infralapsarianism 
 in the place of Calvinistic Supralapsarianism.* Others were 
 not satisfied with it. Martin Lydius, Professor at Franecker, 
 called upon Arminius to refute the preachers of Delft. 
 Arminius examined the arguments which had been brought 
 forward ; he was sufficiently a lover of Truth to admit their 
 cogency, but at the same time perceived that they might be 
 employed not merely against Supralapsarianism, but against 
 absolute Predestination altogether. From that time he began 
 to have doubts upon it. In a letter written a.d. 1597, he 
 says,—“ All the treasures of the World would not be valued 
 by me so much as true knowledge respecting the doctrines of 
 Providence and Predestination.” In another letter he says— 
 “Not a day passes in which I do not reflect on these subjects.” 
 He even reproached himself for being too much occupied with 
 these speculative topics ; I would gladly hold the right 
 medium and not be kept back from other important duties of 
 Piety. To this was added that in his pastoral visitations, 
 especially during the spread of a contagious disease, he expe¬ 
 rienced that the doctrine of absolute Predestination was 
 capable of occasioning great mental distress. He found that 
 there was no other means of imparting tranquillity than point¬ 
 ing to the Objective, and showing that Justification might be 
 obtained by faith in the forgiveness of sins through Christ. 
 Hence he believed that it was most conducive to the rest of 
 the Soul if the two divine decrees in Predestination were dis¬ 
 tinguished ; first, God has decreed to bring only those to 
 Salvation who believe in Christ on account of this Faith ; 
 secondly, the decree which relates to the impartation of this 
 faith. The first he made especially prominent; the second 
 was the more difficult point, which could not be so certainly 
 decided. His doctrine was founded on this distinction, but 
 was at first developed gradually with a particular design. He 
 was engaged in controversy at Amsterdam, but still more 
 
 * Reaponsio ad Argumenta qusedam Bez« et Calvini ex Tractatis de 
 Prsedestinatione in cap. ix. ad Rom. 1589. 
 
UYTENBOGAERT AND EPISCOPIUS. 
 
 679 
 
 when he became Professor at Leyden (a.d. 1603), and a col¬ 
 league of Francis Gomarus. In the midst of these disputes 
 he died, a.d. 1609. At the head of his party two distinguished 
 men made their appearance, Uytenbogaert^ and Simon 
 Episcopius.f In a.d. 1610, they presented a remonstrance to 
 the States of Holland, in five Articles.}; On election, it is 
 said, God by an unchangeable decree in Christ before the 
 World began, resolved to bring some persons to salvation 
 through Christ out of fallen Humanity, who by the grace of 
 the Holy Spirit would believe in him, and persist in so doing; 
 but to leave those to deserved punishment who do not convert 
 themselves. Christ, therefore, by his death, has obtained 
 forgiveness of sin for all men, but only believers receive it. 
 Man cannot attain this faith by his owm will, but must first be 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit in all his powers. On the co¬ 
 operation of the Free-Will nothing further "was determined, 
 but on the mode of the operation of Grace, it was maintained 
 that it was not irresistible. On the point whether those who 
 were renewed in consequence of believing through Grace 
 could lose this Grace again by their own neglect or not, a 
 decisive opinion w r as deferred till it could be more closely 
 examined according to the Holy Scriptures. But however 
 temperately the five propositions were expressed, the adherents 
 of strict Calvinism were dissatisfied with them; they gained 
 the victory at the Synod of Dort§ (a.d. 1618 to 1619), which 
 condemned the five Propositions, and asserted in opposition 
 to them the unconditional election of grace, yet it was said, 
 that according to God’s eternal decree the Non-elect were left 
 to their just doom. The Synod, therefore, kept within the 
 limits of Infralapsarianism. Many of the moderately dis¬ 
 posed, had wished for an express condemnation of the harsh 
 propositions laid down by the Supralapsarians, but even in 
 that they could not succeed with the extreme Party. Gradually 
 
 * J. Uytenbogaert leven, Kerchelijke Bedienige ende zedige verand. 
 Woording, 1(346, 4to. 
 
 t Philipp, a Limborch, Historia Yitse S. Episcopii, Amsterd. 1701. 
 
 $ Walch, Religionsstreitigkeiten Ausser d. Luth. Kirche, iii. 540. 
 
 § Acti Synodi Nationalis Dordreckti Habitse, Dortr. 1620, 4to. 
 Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium, 
 1 620, 4to. Joh. Halesii Historia Concilii Dordraceni; J. L. Moshemius, 
 Latine vertit. Hamb 1724. PrEestantium ac Eruditorum Vivorum 
 Epistolpe Ecclesiastics. 
 
680 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the Remonstrants developed their doctrine still farther in 
 their Confession* and Apology.f They understood by Pre¬ 
 destination only the general divine decree by which all who 
 believe are chosen to eternal life, and did not apply the expres¬ 
 sion to the method by which men are brought to believe. J In 
 order to produce faith, it was said, arguments are required on 
 the part of God for the Truth, to which the pious docility of 
 disposition on the part of man offers no opposition. Hence 
 Belief and Unbelief are decided by the different aspect of the 
 human disposition to the offered Truth. The beginning, pro¬ 
 gress, and completion of all goodness is to be derived from 
 Grace. 
 
 A fresh attempt to give a milder garb to the doctrine of 
 absolute predestination again aroused a controversy within 
 the Reformed Church. Amyraut (Amyraldus)§ Professor 
 at Saumur, and Paul Testart,|| a Preacher in Blois, endea¬ 
 voured to remove what was offensive in it by the distinction 
 of a general and a conditional divine decree, from which their 
 Theory derived the name of Universaiismus hypothetic as. The 
 general Decree was to bestow Salvation on all if they would 
 believe. But this was nullified by the limitation that accord¬ 
 ing to a peculiar and unconditional divine decree, only a 
 definite number of elect persons would be brought to believe 
 by God’s irresistible Grace. They called the general will of 
 God merely an abstract decree, but his special will dccretum 
 efficax. In virtue of that general Revelation of God all might 
 attain to salvation, but the general call gives only a physical 
 ability to believe, to which the inability caused by original sin 
 stands opposed. This can only be removed by Gratia efficax, 
 which God bestows only on the Elect. Amyraut agreed with 
 
 * Confessio sive Declaratio Sententiae Pastorium qui in Fcederato 
 Belgio Remonstrates vocantur Super Pnecipuis Articulis Religionis 
 Cliristiange, 1622. Drawn up by Episcopius ; see his works, ii. p 69. 
 
 + Apologia pro Confessione sive Declaratione Sententia, &c. 1628, 
 also by Episcopius. 
 
 X G-. Zeltneri Breviarum Controversiarum cum Remonstrantibus 
 Agitatarum, Noremb. 1719. 
 
 § Traits de la Predestination et de ses Principes Differents, Saumur, 
 1634. Moyse Amyraut, sa Vie et ses Ecrits, par Charles E. Saigey, 
 Strassb. 1849. Moses Amyraldus von A. Schweizer in Baurs u. Zellers 
 Theologesche. Jahrbb. 1852. 
 
 || Tous les Synodes Nationaux des Eglises Reformees de France, 
 par Aymon, t. ii. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 
 
 681 
 
 Zwinglt, in his views respecting the relation of the Heathen 
 to Salvation. If ever any man turns to God and seeks to 
 obtain salvation through divine grace, he will succeed, even 
 though the definite historical knowledge of Christ is wanting 
 to him. The National Synod of Alengon, a.jd. 1637, declared 
 against this doctrine but spared its advocates The doctrine 
 was treated more mildly by the Synod of Charenton, a.d. 
 1644. Frederick Spanheim was one of the warmest oppo¬ 
 nents of this theory ; on the other hand, Amyraut was 
 defended by David Blondel* and DAiLLE.t 
 
 Also in reference to the doctrine of Predestination, the Catho¬ 
 lic Church, against whose Dogma it was directed, found it need¬ 
 ful to explain itself against the statements of the Reformers. But 
 it was in a difficult position owing to its own divisions. The 
 strict Augustinian party could never gain the ascendancy here; 
 there was a dread of deciding for or against either of the two 
 powerful parties, and hence the embarrassment felt at the 
 Council of Trent. They wished to condemn the Protestant 
 and yet to spare the Augustinian School; there remained 
 therefore no other resource but ambiguity ; according to the 
 letter the Protestant doctrine was condemned, while the lan 
 guage was so ambiguous that both the Catholic parties could 
 be satisfied. The apt dialectic formulas, the ambiguity in the 
 use of the terms liberum arbitrium posse, and the like, suffi¬ 
 ciently opened the way for that purpose. Among other things, 
 the Council of Trent declared,£ that those who were 
 estranged through Sin from God were made capable of 
 conversion by his quickening and assisting Grace, since they 
 
 * D. Blondel, Actes Authentiques des Eglises Peformdes, touchant 
 la Paix et Charite Fraternelle, 1 (>'55. 
 
 f J. Dallasi, Apologia pro Duabus Ecclesiarum iu Gallia Protestan- 
 tium Synodis Nationalibus adversus F. Spanhemis Exercitationes de 
 Gratia Universali, 1655. 
 
 X Sessio vi. c. 5.—Declarat (synodus) ipsius justification^ exordium 
 in adultis a Deo per Christum Jesum prseveniente gratia sumendum 
 esse, hoc est, ab ejus vocatione, qua nullis eorum existentibus meritis 
 vocantur, ut qui per peccata a Deo aversi erant, per ejus excitantem 
 atque adjuvantem gratiam ad convertendum se ad suam ipsorum justi- 
 ficationem, eidem gratiae libere assentiendo et co-operando disponantur; 
 ita ut tangente Deo cor hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, 
 neque homo ipse nihil omnio agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe 
 qui illam et abjicere potest; neqiie tamen sive gratia Dei movere se ad 
 justitiam coram illo libera sua voluntate possit. 
 
682 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 freely yielded to this Grace and co-operated with it. Man also 
 does something, since he accepts that divine influence. It is 
 easy to perceive how indefinitely all this is expressed. They 
 also could admit this Canon who thought that Grace operated 
 not quite independently of free Self-determination ; for among 
 other things it was said—if any one maintains that after the 
 Fall Free-Will was altogether extinguished, this was to be 
 held as a fiction introduced by Satan himself. Then, again, 
 in this connexion, much depended on defining what was to be 
 understood by freedom of the Will. Shortly after these State¬ 
 ments had been drawn up the Dominican, Dominico Soto, 
 and the Franciscan, Andrea Vega, though they set out from 
 opposite standpoints, and on all points contradicted one 
 another, both appealed to these decrees of the Council of 
 Trent.* For this contradiction, on the part of the Catholics, 
 the wisdom of the Council has been extolled ; but under the 
 circumstances, the Council should have declared what was 
 essential. It rather practised a diplomatic art, which was 
 unworthy of an assembly of the teachers of the Church. The 
 injurious consequences were apparent in the fresh Controver¬ 
 sies which were always breaking out. By the influence of the 
 Reformation, a reformatory tendency was also called forth 
 within the pale of the Catholic Church, which attached itself 
 to Augustin. f Michael Baius (De Bay) of the University 
 of Louvaine, belonged to it. Pius V., a.d. 1567, condemned 
 seventy-nine propositions by him, but without explaining in 
 what sense he condemned them. The Controversy was again 
 agitated when the Jesuit, Molina, t about a.d. 1588, pub¬ 
 lished a work on the agreement between Free-will, Grace, 
 divine Prescience, and Predestination. He maintained that 
 no man could be saved without divine grace ; but that this 
 
 * Sarpi,Geschichte des Tridentischen Concils, libersetzt von Rambach, 
 ii. 443. 
 
 + Melchior, Leydeckeri Historia Jansenismi. Traj. ad Rhenum, 
 1695. Du Chesne, Histoire du Bajanisme, Douay, 1731. 
 
 7 Gieseler iii. 2, p. 614.—Potest homo per vires naturae cum solo 
 concursu generali Dei assentiri mysteriis supernaturalibus, sibi propo- 
 sitis et explicatis (qualia sunt, Deum esse triunum in personis, Christum 
 esse Deum et similia) tanquam a Deo revelatis actri mere naturali. 
 Homini tamen sic assentienti supernaturalibus mysteriis Deus ex certa 
 lege a so cum filio sua statuta gratiam confert auxiliare, quibus ille 
 credat ut oportet ad salutem 
 
ST. CYRAN AND JANSEN. 
 
 688 
 
 would be imparted to any one who only used the powers left 
 to him of his Free-Will; Grace would be granted to him in 
 virtue of the effects of Christ’s merits. He further distin¬ 
 guished between a necessary knowledge of God and a free and 
 a mediate one,* * * § in order by means of the latter to hold fast 
 the conditional Predestination of God. His System, there¬ 
 fore, is plainly remote from the Augustinian ; it gave the 
 impulse to a violent controversy between the Jesuits and the 
 Dominicans. Pope Clement VIII. allowed the matter to be 
 examined in the Congregationes de auxilus gratia ; but 
 Paul V. dissolved their sittings without coming to a decision. f 
 
 A new reformatory tendency, proceeding on Augustinian 
 principles and combating Jesuitism, was commenced in the 
 seventeenth Century, by the Abbot of St. Cyran J and Cor¬ 
 nelius Jansen, Bishop of Ypern. When after the death of 
 the latter, about a.d. 1640, his work entitled Augustinus 
 appeared,§ the Popes again knew not how to help themselves, 
 but by condemning certain propositions extracted from it, 
 without explaining the meaning. By this means the Jan- 
 senist Controversy only became the more violent. |j 
 
 Though Socinus agreed very much with the Pelagians, yet 
 not in this doctrine. He expresses himself more definitely 
 than Pelagius, respecting the idea of Grace.Owing to the 
 force of habit, human Nature has acquired a great inclination 
 
 * Id est, scientia futurorum contingentium dependentium a causa 
 libera, ante actuate decretum divinae voluntatis, volentis vel sa.tem 
 permittentis ilia futura esse vel futura absolute, vel futura sub con- 
 ditione. 
 
 t J. H. Serry, Historic Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratia 
 sub summis Pontificibus Clemente VIII. et Paulo V., libi’i iv. 1700. 
 Appendix, 1701, ed. 2, 1709. 
 
 f GEuvres Chretiennes et Spirituelles Lyon, 1679, 4 voll. 
 
 § Augustinus, sive Doctrina Aug. de Humanae Naturae Sanitate 
 JEgritudine, Medecina, adversus Pelagianos et Massilienses, Lov. 1640, 
 Paris, 1641, 3 tom. fol. 
 
 || Leydecken, Historia Jansenismi, 1695. Gerberon, Histoire Gene¬ 
 rate du Jansenisme, Amsterd. 1700, 3 voll. Fontaine, Memoires 
 pour servir k, l’Histoire de Port-Royal, Col. 1738, 2 voll. Reuchlin, 
 Gesch. von Port-Royal, Der Kampf des Reformatorisclien und Jesuit- 
 iscken Katholicismus unter Louis XIII. u. XIV., Hamburg, 1839, 44, 
 2 Bde. Sainte-Beuve, Histoire de Port-Royal, Paris, 1840. Ranke, 
 Die Rom. Pabste, iii. p. 136. 
 
 Prelectiones Theologise De Libero Hominis Arbitrio deque 
 ASterna Preedestinatione. 
 
684 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 to Sin, on account of which Man needs an outward and an 
 inward help of God. The former by threatenings deters from 
 Evil, and impels to Good by the promise of future blessings. 
 The inward help of God consists partly in God’s giving to 
 believers a certain foretaste of the blessings promised to them, 
 and partly by enabling them through his illumination plainly 
 to understand his Will as contained in his revealed Word. 
 So far the Holy Spirit is a pledge in the hearts of Believers. 
 But he always speaks of the outward help of God, the outward 
 Revelation in his Word as the principal thing, and the inward 
 as only a support of the outward. It is therefore assumed 
 that Faith itself is realized independently of all the influences 
 of Grace, as this also is closely connected with his doctrine of 
 the value of Faith. Throughout there is the same mistake 
 respecting the nature of religious conviction; it is supposed 
 to originate by a logical process. He supposes that the facts 
 by which this doctrine is accredited, are of a kind, that the 
 presentation of them is sufficient to bring every man who is 
 not altogether depraved to belief and obedience. Nothing 
 more is presupposed than a love of Truth, which allows itself 
 to be instructed. On this account Faith is of such value in 
 God’s esteem, and is the ground of Justification. It is his 
 aim to reject every operation of divine Grace which cannot 
 consist with Free-Will, yet he would not thereby reject all 
 divine operations. “ We speak here,” he says, “ only of the 
 common agency of God, and do not exclude such cases, in 
 which God sometimes comes to Man’s aid in a different way, 
 for who can fully know God’s proceedings ?” In the Racovian 
 Catechism the Holy Spirit is described as the power which 
 God imparts to certain men, in order to distinguish them 
 from others, and to consecrate them to his service. 
 
 g. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The whole Catholic Standpoint rests on this, that the relation 
 of the religious consciousness to Christ is made to depend or. 
 the mediation effected by the Authority of the Church, and 
 hence the latter was made the grand and fundamental point. 
 On the contrary, the Reformation necessarily effected a revo¬ 
 lution in the relation to the Church, from its material prin¬ 
 ciple, from the immediate relation of the religious consciousness 
 to Christ. The Reformers attained to their idea of the 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 685 
 
 Church, by setting out from the common fact of Faith in the 
 Redeemer, and hence conceived it in an internal manner; so 
 that in the Augsburg Confession,* the Church is defined as 
 the congregation of Saints, in which the Gospel is rightly 
 taught, and the Sacraments rightly administered. The Catho¬ 
 lic doctrine of a necessary Unity of constitution is combated, 
 and it is asserted that for true Unity, agreement in the doc¬ 
 trine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments 
 is sufficient. The distinction between the invisible and 
 visible Church is not, indeed, here applied, but this distinc¬ 
 tion naturally follows from the genetic development of this 
 idea. But the concealment of this distinction occasioned a 
 misunderstanding of the Donatist kind, as if every community 
 in which there were unworthy members thereby ceased to be a 
 true Church. In order to guard against this objection the 
 Augsburg Confessionf declared that although the Church in a 
 strict sense was a community of Saints, yet in the present life 
 many hypocrites and wicked persons are mixed with it. The 
 distinction was therefore made between the proper and im¬ 
 proper Church. But since the Catholic Theologians availed 
 themselves of the indistinctness in the statements of the Con¬ 
 fession, in order to charge the Protestants in their Confuta¬ 
 tion, J with Donatist errors, this Article was more fully developed 
 in the Apology.§ The Church, as far as it was understood to 
 be an outward community of Good and Bad, was distinguished 
 from the Church in a strict sense, which was no other than 
 the Kingdom of Christ. The Church in the highest sense is 
 the community of Faith- and of the Spirit in the souls of 
 men ; it consists chiefly in the inward joint participation of 
 eternal blessings, but there are outward signs by which it may 
 
 * Art. vii. —Item docent, quod una Sancta Ecclesia perpetuo mansura 
 sit. Est autem Ecclesia congregatio Sanctorum in qua Evangelium 
 recte docetur et recte administrantur sacramenta. Et ad veram unitatem 
 Ecclesise satis est consentire de doctrina Evangelii et administratione 
 sacramentorum. Nee necesse est ubique esse similes traditiones 
 human as, seu ritus aut ceremonias ab hominibus institut.us. Sicut 
 inquit Paulus (Eph. iv. 5, 6): Una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus 
 et Pater omnium. 
 
 f Art. viii.—Quamquam Ecclesia proprie sit congregatio Sanctorum 
 et vere credentium; tamen, cum in hac vita multi hypocritse et mali 
 admixti sint, licet uti Sacramentis, quae per malos administrantur. 
 
686 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 bo known. The kingdom of God is to be distinguished in the 
 Old Testament and the New Testament sense ; on the Old 
 Testament Standpoint the Wicked might be reckoned as 
 belonging in a certain sense to the kingdom of God, since all 
 wdio were Jews by birth were separated from the Heathen by 
 special Temporal promises; but the Church on the New Tes¬ 
 tament standpoint is a spiritual kingdom, that is, one which 
 is not separated by civil usages from other nations, but its 
 members are the true people of God, regenerated by the 
 Holy Spirit. Here also the distinction comes in of the proper 
 and improper Church. The arrogance is contradicted, with 
 which the Romish Church calls itself alone Catholic, and it is 
 maintained that the Article in the Apostles’ Creed of the 
 Ecclesia Catholica had for its object that the Church should 
 be deemed to be not an outward community of certain Nations, 
 but rather a community of men who are scattered throughout 
 the World but who agree with one another in the Gospel, 
 who have in common the same Christ, and Holy Spirit, and 
 Sacraments, whether they adopt the same or different usages. 
 The idea of the communion of Saints was guarded against 
 misconstruction, as if it referred to subjective Holiness ; the 
 members of the Church are not holy in themselves, but 
 because they are sanctified by faith in Christ. “ The whole 
 Christian Church,” Luther says, “is holy, not in itself, but in 
 Christ, and through the holiness of Christ.* 
 
 A stage is marked in the History of this doctrine by the 
 development which Zwingli gave of it, in which for the first 
 first time the two relations of the Idea are clearly distinguished 
 and expressed. He also sets outf from the material principle 
 of the Reformation ; Christ is the Rock, on which the Church, 
 that is, the community of believers, is built. From this he 
 obtained the idea of a community of men all bound together 
 by one faith and one spirit; let any one place all his trust in 
 God through Christ, then he is in the Church, that is, in the 
 community of all pious Christians. In his Antiholum (A-d. 
 1524) he distinguishes first of all the Church in the sense 
 which includes all who have professed Christ, and are found in 
 
 * See J. Kostlin. Luther’s Lehre von der Kirche, Stuttg. 1853 
 4 Uslegen und Grund der Schlussreden oder Artikel, 1523. Werke 
 i, p. 169, Art. viii. p. 201. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 687 
 
 the outward community of Christians although they do not 
 belong to true believers; and secondly, the Church as it is 
 described in Ephesians v., which is without spot, inasmuch as 
 only those are understood to compose it who believe in Re¬ 
 demption through Christ ; they alone are the Church of 
 Christ in the true sense. The community of the sanctified 
 through Christ is the Church which cannot err, for it is 
 founded on the Word of God. In his Confession to Charles V. 
 he applies to the visible Church the phrase ecclesia sensibilis 
 
 Calvin presents very forcibly the idea of the Church as a 
 community. He says, “ By the Church we understand not 
 merely the ecclesia visibilis, but the Elect of God, to whom 
 even the dead belong.” Hence he distinguishes the idea of 
 the outward Church as of the peculiar Christian community, 
 only through this can we obtain entrance to eternal life ; out 
 of its pale, there is no forgiveness of sins, no salvation. The 
 marks of this Church are, that it publishes the Word of God 
 in its purity, and administers the Sacraments, purely according 
 to their institution. The Universal Church is so called inas¬ 
 much as it includes believers of all nations. Here the impor¬ 
 tant point is not agreement in all things, but only in essential 
 doctrines ( Instit . lib. iv.). 
 
 fn the form they gave to the idea of the Church, both 
 Luther and Melancthon were especially influenced by the 
 new tendency which proceeded from the opposition to the one¬ 
 sided subjective tendency, which referred everything to what 
 was internal, depreciated the Objective and Positive, and 
 because no Church came near enough to its Idealism, tended 
 to Separatism. At an earlier period the opposition against 
 the externalism of the idea in the Catholic Church was the 
 principal point kept in view ; now the importance of the 
 visible Church against the onesided maintenance of the idea 
 of the invisible Church claimed to be acknowledged. While 
 the Reformers were combating against this, the idea of the- 
 invisible Church was for a time held to be doubtful. 
 Melancthon himself says, “These passages treat not of a 
 Platonic Idea, but of a visible Church and Luther says, 
 l * They say the Spirit must do it. The merciful God preserve 
 us from that Christian Church in which there are only saints.” 
 Hence the distinction of the visible and invisible Church was 
 nut taken from the Reformed Church by the Lutheran Church. 
 
688 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 which occasioned great difficulties when they wished to guard 
 themselves against misconstruction in controversy. 
 
 h. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The Council of Trent* confirmed the positions developed by 
 the Schoolmen; the Sacraments of the New Covenant pre ven t 
 the Grace of which they are the signs, and impart it really to 
 to those who do not offer any hindrance to it. 
 
 Luther, owing to his deeper conceptions of sin, rejected 
 the justifying power of the External in the Sacraments, and 
 referred everything to Faith. “ Faith,” he says, “ must appro¬ 
 priate the Divine, all other things can he only signs for the 
 operation and formation of Faith.f God has connected his 
 promise with a sign, for the greater assurance and strengthen¬ 
 ing of our Faith. In every sacrament we must distinguish 
 between the Word of divine promise and the outward sign, 
 which has been ordained by God, to represent the word and 
 the promise to sensuous men. The principal thing is the 
 Word; man can be saved without the Sacrament, but not 
 without the Word; I can partake of the Sacrament daily in 
 the Mass, if I only keep before me the Word of Christ.” 
 
 With this Melancthon agrees. “ The sign was added to 
 the promise as a certain testimony of the divine good pleasure 
 towards us. Man ought to be as firmly convinced of the 
 divine Grace in the Sacrament as if God wrought a miracle 
 for him.” He wished to have another name for the Sacra¬ 
 ment,— signum, symbolum, tessera, <r(ppaylg. “ Without the 
 sign thou canst be justified, therefore it is not the sign which 
 justifies ; Baptism and the Supper are nothing, but are only 
 attestations of the divine Will.” 
 
 Thus we see that the Subjective in the doctrine of the 
 Sacrament had a preponderating importance attached to it by 
 Luther and Melancthon ; still we may perceive a chamcj 
 
 * Concil. Trid. Sess. viii. canon 6.—Si quis dixerit sacramenta 
 novoe legis non continere gratiam, quam significat, ant gratiam ipsam, 
 non ponentibus obicem, non conferre, quasi signa tantum externa sint 
 accepta per fidem gratise, vel justitige, et notoe quoedam Christianoe pro¬ 
 fession^, quibus apud homines discernuntur fidelis ab infidelibus, 
 anathema sit. Canon 8.—Si quis dixerit, per ipsa novoe legis sacra¬ 
 menta ex opere operato nonconferri gratiam, sed solam fidem divinoe 
 promissionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere, anathema sit. 
 
 f Non sacvamentum, sed tides in Sacramento justificat. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 689 
 
 teristic of the Lutheran doctrine, that at the same time the 
 Objective was enforced; for the outward sign had a meaning ; 
 it was instituted by God in order to seal the promise. 
 
 In the hrst respect Zwingli agreed with Luther, but dif¬ 
 fered from him by a onesided exaltation of the Subjective. 
 Like Luther, he set out with putting Faith in opposition to 
 the opus operatum. But he went further than that, reformer ; 
 he wished to trace everything back to the spiritual, to make 
 Religion free from all necessary references to the Visible. 
 “ God alone can operate,” he said, “ on the inner Man, and 
 God’s operation is bound to nothing. It is a self-deception, 
 when Man believes that anything outward can operate on his 
 inner life. Faith needs no outward sign for its excitement, 
 for true Faith is not a mere opinion, but an immediate cer¬ 
 tainty, an inward Experience. He who once has this imme¬ 
 diate experience, from him it cannot be hidden, and he needs 
 no outward sign in order to be led to it.” In his Confession 
 he says,* “ The Grace effected by the Holy Spirit needs no 
 guide; we never read in the Holy Scriptures that outward 
 signs without fail bring the Spirit with them.” It was, there¬ 
 fore, Zwingli’s chief aim to bring back the subjective Chris¬ 
 tian consciousness to the immediate fact of Faith, of inward 
 experience, and not to connect this with an outward sign. 
 Hence the Sacraments had for him a different meaning ; they 
 only lead us visibly to the Church to which we already belong 
 essentially and invisibly; therefore they are nothing but cer¬ 
 tain signs, through which a man is either admitted into the 
 Church, or verifies himself as a member, as a candidatus, or 
 as miles ecclesice. The Church, much more than himself, is 
 assured of his faith. The sign is not for his own spiritual in- 
 vigoration, but for a testimony to others. Zwingli also wished 
 the term Sacrament to be discarded.f 
 
 * Credo, imoscio, omnia sacramenta tam abesse ut gratiam con- 
 ferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dispensent. Nam gratia ut a spiritu 
 divino fit aut datur; ita donum istud ad solum spiritum pervenit. 
 Dux autem vel vehiculum spiritui non est necessarium; ipse enim est 
 virtus et latio qua cuncta feruntur non qui ferri debeat; neque id 
 unquam legimus in scripturis sacris, quod sensibilia, qualia sacramenta 
 sunt certo secum ferrent spiritum, sed si sensibilia unquam lata sunt 
 cum spiritu; jam spiritus fuit qui tulit, non sensibilia. 
 
 + Commentarius de Vera et Falsa Religione, De fc'ncramentis. Opp. 
 iii. pag. 228. 
 
 Y Y 
 
690 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 A wide difference of the religious tendencies is here mani¬ 
 fested ; the Lutheran is more realistic, the Swiss more ideal¬ 
 istic ; they would have been developed differently even had no 
 controversy broken out. But owing to special causes, the 
 difference issued in an open rupture. The doctrine of the 
 Supper had the greatest share in this event. The same oppo¬ 
 sition against enthusiastic tendencies during which Luther 
 and Melancthon had altered their doctrine of the Church, 
 had an influence on the formation of their doctrine of the Sacra¬ 
 ments. In order to encounter the onesided subjective ten¬ 
 dency, more weight was laid upon the Objective. Of this the 
 Augsburg Confession* testifies—since it teaches that the 
 Sacraments are not merely appointed in order to be notce pro- 
 fessionis , but as witnesses and attestations of the divine Grace 
 towards us, and given us to arouse and strengthen our Faith. 
 The promises are offered and exhibited by the Sacraments. 
 In the later editions of the Loci, Melancthon endeavoured 
 to point out the higher aim of the Sacrament, and he repre¬ 
 sents that alleged by Zwingli as only subordinate. 
 
 This idea of the Sacraments was in a remarkable manner 
 introduced into a conference which was held at Wittenberg, 
 a.d. 1520, with Schwenkfeld, who belonged to the inward 
 and subjective tendency. He maintained that Christ only 
 used the Sacraments as temporary symbols of a divine reality, 
 the communion with Christ and his Spirit. He blamed the 
 Lutherans for attributing too much to the Sacraments, since 
 they called it a seal of Faith. Bugenhagen rejoined, Why 
 not ? men are weak in faith ; they need the assurance of their 
 Justification, which is granted to them by Christ’s ordinance. 
 On the other hand, Schwenkfeld said,—If I have Faith 
 then I have the Spirit of God ; but if I have not Faith, then 
 the Sacrament cannnot give me the Spirit.” 
 
 Calvin occupied a middle position. On the one hand, he 
 protested against the notion of a magical influence ; and on 
 the other, he held firmly to the Objective. The Sacraments 
 
 * Art. xiii.— Pe usu sacramentorum docent, quod sacramenta 
 instituta sint non modo ut sint notae professionis inter homines, sed 
 magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitan- 
 dam et confirmandam fidem in his, qui utuntur, proposita. Itaque 
 utendum est saoramentis ita, ut fides accedat, quae credat promissioni- 
 bus, quae per sacramenta exhibentur et ostendantur. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF SACRAMENTS. 
 
 691 
 
 are not mere signs, but signs instituted by God which notify 
 to 'men the divine promise ; they are the outward symbols by 
 which God seals the promises of his grace to our Conscience ; 
 they attest the weakness of our Faith, and at the same time 
 our love to Him. The Sacraments effect this, not by any 
 secret magical power, but because they are instituted for this 
 end by the Lord, and they can only attain it, when the inward 
 agency of the Holy Spirit is added, whereby alone the Sacra¬ 
 ments find their way to the heart; they are therefore effi¬ 
 cacious only for the predestinated. 
 
 Luther discussed the number of the Sacraments in his 
 treatise on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church. “ We 
 can call everything a Sacrament,” he says, “ to which a pro¬ 
 mise of God is annexed.” According to this definition more 
 Sacraments can be reckoned than even according to the 
 Catholic doctrine. He afterwards added the idea of a sign 
 connected with a promise, and instituted for that purpose by 
 God. According to this limitation he excluded the other 
 (Catholic) sacraments, and retained only two, Baptism and 
 the Supper. 
 
 Thus the Sacramental meaning of Penance , which at first 
 he allowed, must needs be dropped ; for it wanted the mark 
 of a visible sign. He attained in this way to the idea of 
 Penance to which his doctrine of Faith corresponds; Penance 
 is nothing else than the way and return to Baptism, a repeti¬ 
 tion of it. Melancthgn, in his Apology, states,—“ It is of 
 importance that we do not neglect the usages ordained in the 
 Holy Scriptures ; in other respects it matters not, if we num¬ 
 ber among the Sacraments some things, which serve for the 
 instruction of Men; but if we define the Sacraments as 
 usages which rest on divine institution, and with which a pro¬ 
 mise of Grace is connected, it is easy to judge what acts 
 peculiarly belong to them ; signs which are instituted without 
 the divine sanction, are no sure signs of Grace. At that time 
 Absolution , which Luther had rejected, was still reckoned as 
 the sacramentum poenitentia. Further, after Melancthon had 
 protested against the Old Testament and Catholic idea of the 
 Priesthood, he did not deny that in reference to the ministry 
 of the Word it was allowable to speak of a Sacrament of Ordi¬ 
 nation, which had its appropriate sign in the laving on of 
 hands Melancthon also in other passages was inclined to 
 
 Y Y 2 
 
692 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 adopt it with a view to present the office of the Ministry in its 
 high importance; but the power of the Protestant principle 
 prevailed, and the number of the Sacraments was limited to 
 two. 
 
 1. THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The principle of the Reformation according to its material as 
 well as well as formal relation, might easily lead to a fresh 
 examination of Infant Baptism , which, since the third Cen¬ 
 tury, had been held in general repute. For Infant Baptism 
 had received its Authority through Tradition, which, according 
 to the Protestant principle, possessed no decisive weight. 
 The question therefore was, in this respect, how the apo-stolic 
 origin of Infant Baptism could be proved, and in reference to 
 another point, how could Faith, from which everything in the 
 Christian life must proceed, be shown in children. The 
 Reformers had conformed to the prevalent usage, and were 
 first called from without to the examination of it. The 
 Zwickau enthusiasts who came to Wittenberg a.d. 1522, 
 were zealous opponents of Infant Baptism ; they raised a con¬ 
 troversy upon it, and placed the Wittenbergers in a state of 
 embarrassment. Melancthon,* in writing to the Elector, 
 declared that Satan had attacked them in a weak place, for 
 he knew not how he should refute those enthusiasts: he 
 thought it best not to dispute on this subject, since this 
 article w r as not of vital portance. On Luther the doubts of 
 the enthusiasts could not make such a great impression ; he 
 knew how to relieve himself, though he put down objections 
 more by bold assertions than by arguments. He granted that 
 the Church had power not to baptize children, but his oppo¬ 
 nents could not prove that Infant Baptism was against Scrip¬ 
 ture; who could tell whether God did not implant Faith in 
 early childhood as in sleep ; moreover, at Baptism nothing 
 else is done but to bring them to the present Christ, who 
 always receives what is brought to him. These arguments 
 prevailed, and thus the necessity of Infant-Baptism was esta¬ 
 blished. The Augsburg Confession f maintained against the 
 
 * Schneider, Bibliothek der Kirchengesch. ii. 320. 
 
 + Art. ix.—De Baptismo docent, quod sit necessarius ad salttfcem, 
 quodque per Baptismum offeratur gratia Dei, et quod pueri sint bapti- 
 aanai qui per baptismum oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam Dei. Dam- 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 693 
 
 Anabaptists that Baptism was necessary to Salvation, that 
 children ought to be baptized who are presented to God by 
 baptism. The Anabaptists were also on this account con¬ 
 demned, because they taught that unbaptized Infants might 
 be saved. By the form of this Article, countenance might be 
 given to Error, as if it taught the damnation of unbaptized 
 children. In the new edition of his Loci Melancthon vindi¬ 
 cated Infant-Baptism by the testimony of Tradition since the 
 time of Origen, and by the fact that the kingdom of God 
 relates also to children. Moreover, forgiveness of sins could 
 not be granted to those who are without the Gospel; conse¬ 
 quently the Baptism of children is necessary; the command 
 of Christ to baptize relates to all, therefore to children; 
 lastly, Baptism came in the room of Circumcision. As to the 
 effects of Baptism, he asserted that the Holy Spirit was im¬ 
 parted to children by baptism, and produced, according to 
 their capacity, a new tendency towards God. # 
 
 In Zwingli’s doctrine of the Sacraments, Infant Baptism 
 had a good position. He regarded it as a symbolical sign 
 with which no higher influences were connected, by which the 
 children of Christians were marked as Christians, and were 
 bound to regulate their lives accordingly; and their Parents 
 were pledged to train them up in a corresponding manner. 
 In proof of Infant Baptism he also appealed to Circumcision, 
 to the narrative in the Gospels that Christ invited children 
 to come to him, and to the baptism of John ; for as the latter 
 had baptized in the name of Christ, who at the time was 
 yet to be manifested, we might do the same in the case of 
 children.j* 
 
 Calvin likewise compares Baptism with Circumcision ; 
 God signified, thereby, that he would be not only with the 
 Parents, but also with their posterity. Baptism is a seal of a 
 Covenant; Christ blessed children, commended them to their 
 heavenly Father, and said that of such were the kingdom of 
 Heaven; if children ought to be brought to Christ, why 
 
 nant Anabaptistas, qui improbant Baptismum puerorum et affirmant 
 pueros sine Baptismo salvos fieri. 
 
 * Verissimum est in omnibus adultis requiri poenitentiam et fidem ; 
 sed de infantibus hoc satis est tenere : Spiritus Sanctus per baptismum 
 eis datur, qui efficit in eis novos motus novas inclinationes ad Deum pro 
 ipsorum modo. 
 
 t De Sacramento Baptismi, Opp. iii p. 571. 
 
694 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 should they not receive the symbol of communion with 
 Christ? Also in the New Testament mention is made of 
 the Baptism of whole families, and the early use of Infant- 
 Baptism allows the conclusion that it had come down from 
 the time of the Apostles. Infant Baptism is also important 
 for the Parents as a seal of the divine promise which is con¬ 
 tinued from them to their children ; another reason is, that 
 by baptism children are incorporated in the Church, and are 
 so much the more commended to the other members. He 
 believed in a certain influence in Infant Baptism, and answers 
 the objection to it by saying, that although we cannot under¬ 
 stand this effect, it does not follow that it does not take place. 
 He appealed to the fact that John was filled with the Holy 
 Spirit from his birth, and Christ from the beginning with the 
 divine Nature; from his Humanity the principle of sanctifica¬ 
 tion must overflow to men; and this would hold good of 
 children.* 
 
 2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 A. W. Dieckhoff, d. evang. Abcndmahlslelire In Refermatzeitalt. I. B. 1854. 
 
 The diversity of doctrine respecting the Supper is founded in 
 the difference respecting the doctrine of the Sacraments in 
 general. It was precisely the idea which lies at the founda¬ 
 tion in reference to the Supper, which gave occasion to the 
 open expression of this contrariety. 
 
 Luther, at first in opposition to the Catholic Church, had 
 here given prominence to the subjective element. Combating 
 the efficacy of the opus operation, he made everything de¬ 
 pendent on Faith. From this point he could attain to a 
 mere symbolical conception by which the Dogma of the Mass 
 would have been at once annihilated. When he first occupied 
 himself with these inquiries, the thought actually occurred to 
 him whether the Bread and Wine at the Supper had not a 
 mere symbolical meaning. “ If any one,” he writes, “ five 
 years before could have informed me, that in the Sacrament 
 there is nothing but bread and wine, he would have rendered 
 me a great service. I have suffered sore temptations respect¬ 
 ing it.”f But as it was now important for him to maintain 
 the objective in the doctrine of the Sacraments, and more- 
 
 * Institute. Rclig. Christ, lib. iv. cap. 16. 
 
 + To the Christians in Strasburg, 15 December, 1529. De Wette ii, 
 p. 1574. 
 
695 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 over, as the enemy of allegorical interpretation, he wished to 
 understand the words of the institution literally, he came to 
 the conclusion to reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 but to hold firmly that the Body and Blood of Christ were 
 truly present in the Bread and Wine. In his treatise on the 
 Babylonish Captivity of the Church, where he first occupies 
 himself with this subject, he calls Transubstantiation a scho¬ 
 lastic subtle fiction. An expression of Pierre d’Ailly had 
 led him to perceive that the Schoolmen had already remarked 
 the contradiction of this doctrine to Holy Writ ; he acknow¬ 
 ledges that it drove them to a forced interpretation of the 
 words of the institution, and then says,— “ Truly, if I cannot 
 succeed in knowing how the Bread can be the Body of Christ, 
 yet I will bring my understanding captive under the obedience 
 of Christ. As iron and fire are two substances, and yet when 
 mixed are one glowing substance, so it is with the connexion 
 of the Body and Blood with the Bread and Wine.” Luther 
 ■persisted in this tendency. His doctrine continued to be, 
 that the Body and Blood were with, in, and under the Bread 
 and Wine, and that both believers and unbelievers received 
 them. This was essential; questions about the manner in 
 which it took place, he discarded. This is important as an 
 evidence of the peculiar Christian tendency of his Spirit. To 
 Paul Speratus, he wrote :—“ Faith requires no more than 
 to know that the Body of the living Christ is under the Bread 
 and Wine. In this simplicity it perseveres, and despises 
 curious* questions.” 
 
 The other tendency is shown in Zwinglt. He placed the 
 mere subjective moment of Faith in much sharper opposition 
 to the Catholic doctrine. All that is external can accomplish 
 nothing, can be of no advantage to man for his salvation, can 
 
 * De Wette, ii. p. 208, 13 June, 1522.—Sic ita contents ab soluenda 
 est, an sub pane, solum corpus virtute verborum sit, &c. Quid enirn 
 ut tu ipse judicas opus est rude vulgus bis argutiis implicare, quod 
 interim potest hac sana et tuta fide dirigi, scilicet quod credet sub pane 
 esse corpus illius, qui est verus Deus et verus homo. Quomodo autem 
 concomitantur ibi sanguis, humanitas, deitas, pili, ossa, cutis sint eum 
 non sint necessaria sciri, quid opus est fatigari ? Fides ex his rebus et 
 verbis neque docetur neque augetur, sed scrupuli seruntur, et dissen- 
 siones; fides non vult plus nosse, quam sub pane esse corpus Christ!, 
 sub vino sanguinem Christi viventis et regnantis ; eu hac simplicitate 
 perseverat, contemtu quajstionibus curiosis. 
 
096 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 only be a sign for Faith. The eating of the Body of Christ 
 is to be understood in a spiritual sense; Christ has given his 
 Body for the forgiveness of our sins. The eating of his Body 
 consists in a personal appropriation of this privilege and 
 blessing. He was fond of appealing to John vi. 63. His 
 constant motto was, “ The Flesh profiteth nothing; it is the 
 Spirit that quickeneth.” His doctrine on this subject was 
 distinctly expressed even before the outbreak of the contro¬ 
 versy. In his commentary on the sixty-seven Articles, which 
 were framed by him at the recognition of the Reformation 
 at Zurich, he says that several years before he had called 
 the Supper a commemoratio mortis et passionis Christi. * 
 Luther called it a Testament; they agreed in the thing 
 itself; to eat the Body and Blood of Christ is nothing else 
 than the work of Faith which appropriates what Christ has 
 gained by giving up his Body for us; if we firmly believe 
 this, our souls will be nourished with the Body and Blood of 
 Christ; Christ instituted the Supper in order to assure our 
 Faith by a visible object; he well knew that in many other 
 things Luther indulged the weak. In his book De verct et 
 falsa religione , he says, t—-The Supper is nothing but a com¬ 
 memorative feast by which those who firmly believe that they 
 are redeemed by the death of Christ, bear witness of the death 
 to which they owe their life, thank him and praise him. At 
 the same time they testify that they are members of one body, 
 and pledge themselves to live according to the doctrine and 
 example of Christ. Zwingli was not led to these views at 
 first by the exposition of single passages of Scripture, but 
 rather by the development of his doctrine of faith. Yet cer¬ 
 tainly he was not conscious of doing violence to the biblical 
 phraseology, but thought that his views were most favoured by 
 it. The words of the Institution were on his side. He 
 explained the ilvai in a figurative sense, and compared with it 
 similar passages of the Old and New Testament where slmi 
 is used in a figurative sense, and it is said that one thing is 
 another; as when Christ is called a rock, and the Word of 
 God is called seed. 
 
 That this contrariety was not only brought into conscious¬ 
 ness, but also obtained everywhere a great importance, resulted 
 from the manner in which it was at first openly expressed. It 
 * Werke i. p. 232. + Opp. iii. p. 239. De Eucharistia. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 C97 
 
 was the time when the Reformation experienced its first 
 troubles through the Zwickau enthusiasts, the Iconoclasts in 
 Wittenberg, and the Peasants’ War. As Luther, in his 
 polemics, took a new direction in order to-oppose the onesided 
 subjective element, Carlstadt* * * § came forward with a doctrine 
 which he had hitherto developed in secret and which perfectly 
 agreed with Zwingli’s doctrine of the Supper. Like Zwin- 
 g li, he also wished to discard the term Sacramentum. One 
 difference existed between them in explaining the words of the 
 Institution. Carlstadt maintained that Christ spoke deixnxSjg, 
 that is, that he pointed to his Body when he said, “ Take eat, 
 this is my Body.” The first person who after the commence¬ 
 ment of the Reformation had propounded this doctrine, was 
 the Netherland jurist, Cornelius HoNius,t in a treatise pub¬ 
 lished a.d. 1521. 
 
 Calvin } did not agree with this view; he opposed those 
 who explained the words “ eating the flesh of Christ and 
 drinking his blood,” only of faith in Christ and the right 
 knowledge of him. Whoever received the Supper in faith 
 was truly and perfectly a partaker of Christ. This communion 
 was not merely a communion of Spirit; the Body of Christ 
 by its connexion with the divine Nature received a fulness of 
 life which flowed over to believers. Calvin, therefore, admitted 
 something supernatural, but thought that the event took place 
 not by virtue of the Body of Christ, which as such could not 
 be in several places, but by virtue of the power of the Holy 
 Spirit; a supernatural communication which no human Un¬ 
 derstanding could explain. This communion with Christ by 
 which he communicates himself and all his blessings, the 
 Supper symbolically represents ;§ the Outward is indeed 
 merely a sign, but not an empty sign, it really presents that 
 which is signified by it, namely, the actual participation of the 
 body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. He explains 
 
 * See Jager, Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt. Ein Betrag zur 
 Geschichte de Reformationszeit, Stuttgart, 1856, p. 428. 
 
 t Gerdesius, Historise Evangelii Renovati Monumenta, i. p. 228. 
 
 X Institutt. iv. cap. 17. 
 
 § Dico, in coenge mysterio per symbola panis et vini Christum vere 
 nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem in quibus omnem obedien- 
 tiam pro comparanda nobis justitia adimplevit; quo scilicet primum in 
 unum corpus cum ipso coalescamus, deiude participes substantige ejus 
 facti in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentiamus. 
 
698 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 the words of the Institution metonvmically, in the sense, that 
 the sign is used for the thing signified ; he denied any bodily 
 presence of Christ; • Christ does not descend to earth, but 
 believers by the power of the Holy Spirit are raised to com¬ 
 munion with him in Heaven.* * * § Christ also descends to them 
 but by virtue of his Spirit and the Outward symbols ;f the 
 Organ by which communion is attained, is Faith he is pre¬ 
 sented to all, but received only by believers. § The mere 
 symbolical view depreciates the sign too much, and separates 
 it from the Sacrament; but the other view the sign is exalted 
 too much, and thereby the nature of the Mystery itself is 
 obscured. 
 
 Melanchthon in this controversy took a peculiar position 
 and was grieved at its outbreak. In a.d. 1525, he said—In 
 reference to the subject of the Supper I see nothing but that 
 men will be involved in dark and profane disputes by which 
 Souls will be drawn away from attending to what is essential 
 in the doctrine. Yet at first he agreed with Luther’s oppo¬ 
 sition against Zwingli, who also appeared to him to encroach 
 upon the Objective in the Sacrament. He uttered some 
 memorable words to (Ecolampadius respecting it, “ You pre¬ 
 sent the body of the absent Christ as in a Tragedy; but I see 
 that the promise of Christ stands—‘ I will be with you to the 
 end of the World.’ There is therefore in the Supper a c-om- 
 
 * Christus ad dextram Patris sedet; h. e. in potentia et majestate 
 et gloria Patris regnat. Hoc reguum nee ullis locorum spatiis limitatum, 
 nec ullis dimensionibus circumscriptum, quin Christus virtutem suam, 
 ubicunque placuerit, in ccelo et in terra exserat; quin se praesentem 
 potentia et virtute exhibeat; quin suis semper ad sit, vitam ipsis suam 
 inspirans, in iis vivat, eos sustineat, confirmet, vegetet, conservet 
 incolumes, non secus, ac si corpore adesset. Si oculis animisque in 
 coelum evehimur, ut Christum illic in regni sui gloria quaeramus ; 
 quemadmodum symbola no3 ad eum integrum invitant ; ita sub panis 
 symbolo pascemur ejus corpore, sub vini symbolo distincte ejus 
 sanguine potabimur, ut demum toto ipso perficiamur. 
 
 f Dicimus Christum tarn externo symbolo quam spiritu suo ad nos 
 descendere, ut vere substantia carnis suae et sanguinis sui animas 
 nostras vivificet. 
 
 X Ego credendo manducari Christi carnem, quia fide noster efficitur, 
 eamque manducationem fructum effectumque esse fidei dico. 
 
 § Et sane rem illic signatum effert et exhibet omnibus, qui ad 
 spirituale illud epulum accumbunt; quamquam a fidelibus solis cum 
 fructu percipitur, qui tantum benignitatem vere fide animi }ue gratitu- 
 dine suscipiunt. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 699 
 
 munion of the present Body. That Christ can be enclosed in 
 a certain place in Heaven is an unworthy notion.” About 
 a.d. 1533, he wrote to the same, “ For a long time the ques¬ 
 tion respecting the Supper has occupied me, and it still 
 appears to me safest, to abide by Paul’s account of the Insti¬ 
 tution, for the tragical meaning moves me not. I do not 
 doubt, that the disciples at the Supper partook of the Lord’s 
 Body, —Paul in one place calls it the body and blood of 
 Christ, and if we depart from the divine Word there is no 
 longer anything certain. If we look to the judgment of 
 natural reason, there are also other doctrines which do not 
 more agree with it than this article. But by a collection of 
 testimonies of the Fathers which (Ecolampadius* 4 published, 
 Mklancthon convinced himself that he had taken many 
 spurious passages as genuine, and that only depended on 
 firmly maintaining the real Presence in the Supper without 
 determining more exactly respecting it. When Calvin’s 
 middle scheme followed it was easy for Melancthon to come 
 to an understanding with him. From this standpoint he 
 made the alteration in the edition of the Augsburg Confession, 
 r.d. 1540+ (Confessio variata), since in the tenth article he 
 not only left out the condemnatory clause against those who 
 thought differently, but also instead of the words, ‘ that the 
 Body and Blood of Christ are truly there and administered,* 
 he substituted ‘ that with the Bread and Wine, the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, vere exhibentur; an expression by which also 
 the Calvinistic doctrine might be easily conveyed. According 
 to this he expresses himself differently in the edition of the 
 Loci , a.d. 1543, and in the memorable opinion which he 
 drew up for the Elector Frederick, on the occasion of the 
 dispute respecting the Supper which broke out in the Pala¬ 
 tinate—“ It is best to keep to the words of Paul, ‘ the bread 
 which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? 
 and to discourse largely of the advantages of the Supper, in 
 
 * Joannis (Ecolampadii, De Genuina Verborum Domini, Hoc est 
 Corpus Meum, juxta Vetustissimos Auctores Expositione Liber, Basil. 
 1529. 
 
 4 Conf. Aug. 1530.—De coena Domini docent, quod corpus et 
 sanguis Christi vere ad sint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena 
 Domini et improbant secus docentes. Conf. var.—De coena Domini 
 docent; quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguia 
 Christi vescentibus in coena Domini. 
 
700 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 order that men may be invited to the love of this pledge, and 
 to the frequent use of it. K oivuv/a only designates the medium 
 whereby we obtain communion with the Body of Christ; the 
 Son of God is present among believers not on account of the 
 Bread but of the Men.” 
 
 In the doctrine of the Sacraments we find in one respect 
 the agreement of two tendencies, which otherwise are totally 
 different, that of the Socinians, and of the Quakers. In the 
 latter the mystic-idealistic Element prevails, and the idea of 
 the Christian consciousness is rendered prominent in a one¬ 
 sided manner; in the former we see a onesided empirical 
 Supranaturalism determined merely by the Intellect. But 
 the agreement in the doctrine of the Sacraments relates only 
 to single points. 
 
 The Socinians maintained that Baptism was not instituted 
 by Christ as a religious rite available for all times ; they 
 explained the passages of Scripture referring to it symbolically, 
 and particularly of spiritual purification by doctrine. Faustus 
 Socinus refers to Paul’s language that Christ sent him not to 
 baptize but to preach the Gospel; therefore the commission 
 given by Christ related not to baptism but to teaching; he 
 maintained that the outward use of Water-baptism only 
 applied to the reception of Jews and Heathens into the Chris¬ 
 tian Church ; this symbolical rite had in itself no importance, 
 and properly it ought only to be administered to those who 
 passed over to the Church from another religious community ; 
 but since it was so ancient a custom, it might be retained ; 
 according to the nature of the case it should only be adminis¬ 
 tered to adults ; yet where Infant-baptism had been usual 
 it might be observed, since after all nothing depended on a 
 mere outward act. 
 
 In reference to the Slipper Socinus certainly acknowledged 
 that Christ intended a perpetual observance of the rite, but 
 this rite could not be a seal and strengthener of Faith. How 
 could anything which was taken from every day life, and in 
 which there was nothing marvellous, serve to strengthen 
 Faith? He would not even allow that the Supper ought to 
 serve as a memorial of the Sufferings of Christ; it rather pre¬ 
 supposed faith and the consciousness of what Christ had 
 effected for us bv his sufferings ; he distinguished between a 
 feast of remembrance, and one of grateful mention; only the 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 701 
 
 Intter takes place at the Supper; it was instituted because 
 Christ had done and given up so much for us. 
 
 The doctrine of the Quakers, as it is developed in Bar¬ 
 clay’s Apology, stands in diametric opposition to that of the 
 Catholics, which confounds the idea of the invisible and 
 visible Church, and attributes great importance to the latter; 
 while the Quakers give prominence to the idea of the invisible 
 Church and ignore that which relates to the essence of the 
 visible. With this is connected their opposite views respect¬ 
 ing the doctrine of the Sacraments. The Catholic Church 
 attributes too much to the outward and firmly holds the opus 
 operatum. The Quakers merely look at the ideal element; 
 they urge that the term Sacrament does not occur in the 
 Bible ; that the whole subject generally is unscriptural, on 
 which account Protestants ought so much the more to keep 
 aloof from it; it belongs to the peculiarities of the Christian 
 standpoint, that the religious life is bound to no kind of out¬ 
 ward signs and symbols ; that exactly in this point it is dis¬ 
 tinguished from the religion of the Old Testament, and is 
 the pure Religion of the Spirit. The adulteration of it has 
 proceeded from this, that in proportion as value has been 
 attributed to shadows and images, the Essence, the Idea, 
 has been neglected. Hence have arisen the many contro¬ 
 versies respecting these external things, which have always 
 diverted the attention from the essence of purely spiritual 
 objects. Baptism, they maintained, was not instituted by 
 Christ himself, and they explain the passages relating to it 
 symbolically; Christian Baptism and John’s Baptism are to 
 be distinguished ; the latter was symbolical, a Water-baptism, 
 but Christ’s baptism is that of the Holy Spirit, it is the inter¬ 
 nal Regeneration, and Water-baptism would be altogether 
 foreign to it. Although such a rite might have been adminis¬ 
 tered here and there in the primitive Church, it does not 
 follow that it was prescribed to be perpetual, it was rather 
 a condescension to the sensuous weakness of Men, who could 
 not be raised all at once to the highest standpoint of the 
 Gospel; w T hen Peter baptized the family of Cornelius, this 
 might be compared to his conduct in relation to the Jewish 
 ceremonies which he still observed, the one was as little designed 
 to be perpetual as the other; all such instances must be attri¬ 
 buted to the influence of the earlier sensuous standpoint; 
 
702 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS. 
 
 Paul on the contrary said, that Christ had sent him not to 
 baptize but to preach the Gospel. 
 
 The Quakers equally denied the perpetual observance of the 
 Supper as an outward Rite. What is eternally binding is 
 something internal and spiritual, and is symbolically repre¬ 
 sented in the Supper. When mention is made of partaking 
 of the Body of Christ, it relates not to his material Body, but 
 to his spiritual, the divine seed by which he imparts his 
 divine life the communion of the higher life with him is 
 intended. Barclay appeals particularly to John vi. here, to eat 
 the Flesh of Christ and to drink his blood is a spiritual act 
 which must be continued through the whole life in Christ. 
 John, wdio most of all gives prominence to the spiritual 
 nature of Christianity, never mentions the transaction from 
 which the Institution of the Supper is derived : but only the 
 idea on which it is founded ; Christ administered the Supper 
 only as a farewell meal', and on that occasion he also inti¬ 
 mated that his disciples in future at such meals should 
 remember him; when he calls the Bread and Wine his Body 
 and Blood, he directs their attention from the material to the 
 Spiritual for the same reason that the Supper is perpetually 
 observed, the symbolical act of feet-washing ought to be 
 observed which John records ; it is therefore that Christ only 
 intended to refer to the idea. When it w T as urged that Paul 
 celebrated the Supper in the Corinthian Church, Barclay 
 replied that Paul condescended to the sensuous weakness of 
 his contemporaries. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Aachan (Aix-la-Chapelle), Council 
 of, its decision on the Procession 
 of the Holy Spirit, 436; appear¬ 
 ance of Felix, bishop of Urgellis, 
 before it, 447. 
 
 Abelard, 27 ; Roscellin’s letter to 
 him, 468 ; his writings— Apolo- 
 geticus, 503; Scito te ip sum, 483, 
 510 ; Historia Calamilatum, 478; 
 Epitome Tlieologice A belardi, 484; 
 lntrocluctio ad Tkeologiam , 479, 
 481 ; Theologia Christiana, 483 ; 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Romans, 483, 511 ; Sic et Non, 
 484; on the Lord’s Supper, 531; 
 on Absolution, 537 ; on Inspira¬ 
 tion, 492 ; on the Trinity, 499 ; 
 on the Divine Omnipresence, 
 500; on the Omnipotence of God, 
 502 ; on Miracles, 504, 505, 565; 
 on Human Depravity, 511 ; on 
 the Person of Christ, 513; on 
 Redemption, 518, 519 ; on Faith 
 and Justification, 479, 523. 
 
 Birth, 478; retirement to the 
 Abbey of St. Denis, 478 ; appears 
 before the Council of Soissons, 
 482; takes refuge at Troyes, 482; 
 
 reputation as a lecturer, 479, 
 482; becomes abbot of Ruits, 
 482 ; appears before the Council 
 of Sens, 485 ; dies at Cluny, 486. 
 
 Absolution, 246, 536. 
 
 Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, 293. 
 
 Ackermann, his Das Christliche in 
 Plato und der Platonischen Phi¬ 
 losophic, 58. 
 
 Adam, his original state, 184; 
 views of Augustin, 362 ; of the 
 Clementine Homilies, 89, 92, 
 178 ; of Julian of Eclanum, 370; 
 of Pelagius, 360. 
 
 Adoptianist Controversy, 337, 432; 
 its rise in Spain, 442; use of the 
 term Adoptio , 444. 
 
 Adrumetum, monks of the cloister 
 at, 374. 
 
 AEneas of Paris, 437. 
 
 AEons, the products of Emanation, 
 
 114. 
 
 Agnoetism, 337 ; pronounced he¬ 
 retical by Gregory the Great, 
 338; maintained by Felix, bishop 
 of Urgellis, 445. 
 
 Agobard of Lyons, 421, 433; author 
 
704 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of a tx-eatise against Adopt ianism, 
 447. 
 
 Alanus ab Insulis, 490; on the 
 Trinity, 500 ; on Justification, 
 524. 
 
 Albertus Magnus (Albert the 
 Great), 542 ; view of Christianity 
 as practical science, 552 ; on the 
 Trinity, 562; on Providence, the 
 Divine government and miracles, 
 567; on Predestination, 569 ; on 
 the Lord’s Supper, 593; his 
 Summa, 546. 
 
 Alen^on, Synod of, 681. 
 
 Alcuin, principal author of the 
 Libri Carolini, 421, 437 ; dispute 
 with Felix, 446, 447. 
 
 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, 
 288. 
 
 Alexander, a Yalentinian Gnostic, 
 208. 
 
 Alexander of Hales ( Doctor irre- 
 fragabilis), 541; his Summa Uni¬ 
 verses Theologies, 541; on Theo¬ 
 logy as a Science, 550, 556 ; on 
 the idea of God, 559 ; on Fate, 
 566; on Predestination and Free 
 Will, 568 ; on Man’s original 
 state and the Fall, 574, 576 ; on 
 Grace and human merit, 587 ; on 
 the Sacraments, 589 ; on with¬ 
 holding the cup, 592; distin¬ 
 guishes between attritio and con- 
 tritio, 593. 
 
 Alexander IV., 542. 
 
 Alexandria, 36; synod at (a.d. 362), 
 306, 318. 
 
 Alexandria, School and Theology 
 of, 25 ; Jewish-Platonic Philoso¬ 
 phy, 38—40; Alexandrian Fa¬ 
 
 thers, 63—72, 82, 89, 99, 105; 
 opposed to Anthropopathism, 
 108; views of the Logos, 144; 
 on the Holy Spirit, 174 ; on Free 
 Will, 188; on the Person of 
 Christ, 200; on Eedemption, 
 214; on Baptism, 233 ; on future 
 punishment, 254; difference of 
 the Eastern and Western 
 Churches, 261—266, 306; on 
 Tradition, 279; on Inspiration, 
 280 ; on the Person of Christ, 
 324. 
 
 Alogi, 161. 
 
 Amalrich de Bena, 546, 546 ; on 
 the idea of God, 560. 
 
 Ambrose, a friend of Origen, foP 
 merly a Gnostic, 71. 
 
 Ambrose of Milan, 267 ; on the 
 Homousion, 305; on Grace and 
 Free Will, 341; on human de¬ 
 pravity, 343; on Predestination, 
 344; not the author of the 
 treatise De Vocatione Gentium, 
 380 ; on Baptism, 405; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 407. 
 
 Ammonius Saccas, the Neo-Pla- 
 tonist, 58; teacher of Origen, 
 70; on the connexion of the soul 
 and body, 203. 
 
 Amsdorf, Nicholas, 672. 
 
 Amyraut (Amyraldus), Professor 
 at Saumur, 680. 
 
 Anastasius, the Presbyter, 329. 
 
 Ancyra, Synod of (a.d. 358), 297- 
 
 Andrea, James, of Wurtemberg- 
 
 653. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon Church, 420. 
 
 Annianus, deacon of Celeda, 393. 
 
 Anselm of Canterbury, 471; the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 705 
 
 opponent of Roscellin, and the 
 first representative of realism, 
 473; on Inspiration, 493; his 
 ontological proof of the Divine 
 existence, 495 ; on the Trinity, 
 498; his treatises De Libero 
 Arbitrio and De Cam Diaboli, 
 506 ; on Man’s original state, 
 508 ; on original sin, 510; on the 
 sinlessness of Christ, 512 ; his 
 treatise Cur Deus Homo , 515 ; 
 on Redemption, 517; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 530 ; on with¬ 
 holding the cup, 535 ; on the 
 satisfaction of Christ, 582, 583. 
 Anselm of Laon, 478. 
 
 Anshelm Valentine, the historian 
 620. 
 
 Antiochian School, 265, 283, 325— 
 328, 337, 414. 
 
 Apelles the Gnostic, 115. 
 Aphthartodocetism, 338. 
 Apollinaris of Laodicea, 320; his 
 views of the person of Christ, 
 201, 320—323, 327. 
 
 Apollonius of Tyana, 192. 
 
 Aquinas, Thomas (Thomas of 
 Aquino), 542 ; on the necessity 
 i of Revelation, 552; on Reason 
 and Faith, 553 ; on the Know¬ 
 ledge of the Divine Existence, 
 560; on the Trinity, 563; on the 
 Creation, 565; on the order of 
 Nature and Miracles, 568; on 
 Evil, 570; on Providence, 571 : 
 on Man’s original state, 575; on 
 Origin al S in, 578; on the Im- 
 y maculate Conception, 579 ; on 
 Redemption, 582; on Sanctifica¬ 
 tion, 585 ; on Justification, 586; 
 
 on the Sacraments, 588, 589 ; on 
 the Lord’s Supper, 593; on In¬ 
 dulgences, 595; on Transubstan- 
 tiation, 614. 
 
 Arabian Philosophy, 540. 
 
 Aristotelian Philosophy, 61, 264, 
 422, 538. 
 
 Aristotle, 12, 86, 99, 160, 268, 310, 
 429, 525, 538. 
 
 Arians, 293—295, 299—303, 646. 
 
 Arius', 262, 264; his mental and 
 religious characteristics, 286; 
 deposed and excommunicated by 
 Bishop Alexander, 288, 290 ; per¬ 
 mitted to return from exile, 291, 
 299 ; on the doctrine of the Holy 
 Spirit, 303; on the incompre¬ 
 hensibility of God, 310; on the 
 Creation, 312 ; his work entitled 
 Thalia , 288. 
 
 Arminianism, 29. 
 
 Arminius, 626 ; studied at Geneva, 
 677; change in his theological 
 views, 678. 
 
 Arnold of Brescia, 482. 
 
 Arnold, Gottfried, of Giessen, the 
 Church Historian, 29. 
 
 Arnold, bishop of Rochester, 534. 
 
 Artemon, 157, 159. 
 
 Artemonites, 161, 206. 
 
 Asterius, an Arian, 301. 
 
 Athanasian Creed, 309. 
 
 Athanasius, 166, 168, 255; his cha¬ 
 racter, 261 ; his epistle Ad Epic- 
 tetum, 322; controversy with 
 Apollinaris, 323; on the Lord’s 
 Supper, 409. 
 
 Athenagoras, 143; on the Holy 
 Spirit, 173. 
 
 Augustin, 30 ; mental and theolo- 
 
 Z Z 
 
706 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 gical characteristics, 267—272; 
 on Reason and Revelation, in his 
 Epistle to Consentius „ 273; on 
 Scripture and Tradition, 274 ; 
 on the authority of the Church, 
 275; on the Trinity and its 
 analogy in the human spirit, 307; 
 on the idea of Creation, 312 ; on 
 the course of Nature and Miracle, 
 314, 315; his controversy with 
 Leporius, 339; his work De Dono 
 Perseverantice, 345; contrasted 
 with Pelagius, 346; his Anthro¬ 
 pology, 347; his treatise De 83 
 Diversis Qucestionibus, 348 ; his 
 Diversce Questiones ad Simplicia- 
 num, 349; his treatise De Fide 
 et Operibus , 349, 417; on the re¬ 
 lation between the created spirit 
 and God, 350; on Man’s original 
 state, 361; on the first sin, 362; 
 on the origin of Death, 363 ; on 
 original sin and concupiscentia, 
 364; his treatise De Anima et 
 ejus Origine, 365 ; on the Virgin 
 Mary, 366 ; the relation of Chris¬ 
 tian and heathen virtue, 367; 
 on Redemption and Grace, 370 
 —373 ; his treatises De Gratia et 
 Libero Arbitrio and De Corrup 
 tione et Gratia , 374 ; on absolute 
 Predestination, 374, 375; his 
 death, 377; prevalence of his 
 views in the Western Church,385; 
 contrast between Augustin and 
 Chrysostom, 389—392; his oppo¬ 
 sition to Donatism, 395 ; on ex¬ 
 ternal church unity, 397 ; on the 
 Sacraments, 399, 400; on the 
 number of the Sacraments, 401; 
 
 on Infant Baptism, 405 ; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 412, 422; on 
 Eternal Punishment, 415; on 
 Purgatory, 416; his influence 
 in favour of Realism, 468; 
 agreement of the Schoolmen with 
 Augustin, 509; on Infant Com¬ 
 munion, 533 ; on Justification, 
 585, 661. 
 
 Aurelius, bishop of Rome, 355. 
 
 Averrhoes, 547, 549. 
 
 Avitus, bishop of Vienne, 383. 
 
 Bacon, Roger, 544, 557. 
 
 Baius, Michael (De Bay), 682. 
 
 Bandinus, 489. 
 
 Baptism, 76, 82, 228; originally 
 administered only to adults, 229; 
 the first trace of Infant Baptism 
 in Irenseus, 230 ; Tertullian’s 
 views of Baptism, 231; Cyprian 
 on the necessity of Infant Bap¬ 
 tism, 232 ; the views of the 
 Oriental Church teachers, 233; 
 Infant Baptism a common prac¬ 
 tice among the Persians, 234; 
 not the established practice 
 before the fifth century, 234; 
 the formula of Baptism in the 
 Shepherd of Hermas, 235 ; sins 
 after Baptism, 246 ; Pelagius on 
 the necessity of Infant Baptism, 
 355,370 ; Gregory Nazianzen on 
 Baptism, 403 ; Gregory of Nyssa 
 on Baptism, 403; Julian of 
 Eclanum on Baptism, 403; Cte- 
 lestius and Pelagius on Baptism, 
 404 ; opinions of Augustin, Am¬ 
 brose, and Gregory Nazianzen on 
 the future state of unbaptized 
 
INDEX 
 
 707 
 
 children, 405; Robert Pulleyn 
 on Baptism, 528; the relation of 
 res sacramenti to the sacramen- 
 tum, 530; Melancthon and Lu¬ 
 ther on Infant Baptism, 692; 
 Zwingli and Calvin on Infant 
 Baptism, 693; views of the So- 
 cinians and Quakers, 700—702. 
 
 Barclay, Robert, 634, 702. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle ascribed to, 248. 
 
 Basil of Caesarea, 170, 262, 305, 
 402. 
 
 Basilides, on Providence, 125; his 
 Christology, 194 {note) ; on Re¬ 
 demption and Justification, 207. 
 
 Baumgarten, 30. 
 
 Baur, Dr., on the analogy of the 
 Hindoo Triad to the Christian 
 Trinity, 134; on the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, 148; on the Logos 
 doctrine, 151; on the Epistle to 
 the Colossians, 41; on the Chris¬ 
 tian Gnosis, 43 ; on Hippolytus, 
 52; on John Scotus, 426. 
 
 Bayle, his article on Manicheism, 
 269 ; his critical influence, 636. 
 
 Beghards, The, 604. 
 
 Bellarmin, Cardinal, 656. 
 
 Benedict of Ariane, 423, 466. 
 
 Benedict XIII., 599. 
 
 Berengarius, 429, 460; summoned 
 to Rome by Gregory VII., 461; 
 controversy with Lanfranc, 475; 
 on the Lord’s Supper, 531. 
 
 Bernard of Clairvaux, maternal 
 influence and early life, 475; on 
 religious intuition, 477; anecdote 
 of an Irish clergyman, 532; his 
 treatise De Considerations, 476 ; 
 his Tractatus de Erroribus Abe- 
 
 lardi, 485; on Redemption, 520 ; 
 on Faith, 523; on Grace and 
 Freedom, 526; on Justification 
 and Sanctification, 523; against 
 the sinlessness of the Virgin 
 Mary, 512. 
 
 Beryllus of Bostra, 151—153, 165, 
 205. 
 
 Biel, Gabriel, 597. 
 
 Blondel, David, 681. 
 
 Boehme, Jacob, 635. 
 
 Boethius, his Commentary on the 
 Isagoge of Porphyry, 467 ; his 
 treatise De Consolatione Philoso¬ 
 phies, 
 
 Bonaventura {Doctor Seraphicus), 
 541; on love to God, 577; on 
 Transubstantiation, 592 ; on the 
 objects of Faith, 551; in favour 
 of withholding the cup, 593 ; 
 the end of Creation, 565. 
 
 Boniface, 428. 
 
 Boniface II., 385. ■ 
 
 Boniface VIII., 591. 
 
 Brad war dine {Doctor Profundus ), 
 his treatise De Causa Dei adver- 
 sus Pelagium et de Virtute Can- 
 sarum, 609. 
 
 Brenz, 675. 
 
 Bruno, founder of the order of the 
 Carthusians, 470. 
 
 Cselestius, 351, 354, 355; on the 
 origin of souls, 365, 393 ; on In¬ 
 fant Baptism, 404. 
 
 Csesarius, bishop of Arles, 383; his 
 scheme of doctrine adopted by 
 the Council of Orange, 3'84. 
 
 Cainites Gnostic, 229. 
 
 Cajanrtes, a party who rejected 
 
 z z 2 
 
708 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 outward baptism, 229; attacked 
 by Tertullian in bis work l)e 
 Baptismo, 231. 
 
 Calixtus, George, 29 ; his view T s of 
 Tradition, 626 ; on the ubiquity 
 of Christ’s body, 653. 
 
 Calovius, 629. 
 
 Calvin, 623; on the ubiquity of 
 Christ’s body, 653 ; on Grace, 
 Free Will, and Predestination, 
 673; his treatise on Human 
 Freedom, dedicated to Melanc- 
 thon, 674, 675; his idea of the 
 Church, 687; on the Sacraments, 
 691; compares Baptism with 
 Circumcision, 693; views of the 
 Lord’s Supper, 697. 
 
 Camerarius, 650. 
 
 Campanus, John, an Arian, 646, 
 650. 
 
 Carlstadt, 697. 
 
 Carpocrates, 85. 
 
 Cartes, Des, 636. 
 
 Carthage, Council at, 355. 
 
 Cassander, George, 626. 
 
 Castalio, Sebastian, 674. 
 
 Catholicism, 17, 28; Thiersch’s 
 Lectures on, 50; 87, 394, 686. 
 
 Callistus, bishop of Rome, 157 
 (note). 
 
 Cekus, 111. 
 
 Cerinthus, 52, 193, 207. 
 
 Chalcedon, Fourth Ecumenical 
 Council at, 336. 
 
 Charenton, Synod at, 681. 
 
 Charlemagne, 421, 436, 446, 457. 
 
 Christianity, 69, 87, 95,104 ; a self- 
 subsistent power, 5, 45; relation 
 to Grecian Philosophy and Ju¬ 
 daism, 35; relation to the ori¬ 
 
 ental religions, 36 ; preparation 
 made for it, 64; its conflict with 
 Islamism, 419. 
 
 Christology, 267, 316, 437; the 
 Monotheletic controversy, 438 . 
 the Adoptianist controversy, 442, 
 512; the Socinian controversy, 
 651. 
 
 Chrysostom, 264 ; on the authority 
 of Scripture, 274 ; on the discre¬ 
 pancies in the Gospels, 280 ; his 
 character contrasted with that 
 of Augustin, 389 ; his study of 
 the Scriptures, 390; on the sin¬ 
 fulness of human nature, 391; 
 on Infant Baptism, 402; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 407, 408; on the 
 eternity of punishment, 415. 
 
 Claudianus Mamertus, 340. 
 
 Claudius of Savoy, 647. 
 
 Claudius of Turin, 421. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, 63; on 
 philosophy in relation to Chris¬ 
 tianity, 64; on Faith and Gnosis, 
 65; on Tradition and the Scrip¬ 
 tures, 82 ; his Stromata, 68; on 
 the Logos, 144; on the Holy 
 Spirit, 174 ; on the original state 
 of Man, 188, 189 ; on the Incar¬ 
 nation and Docetism, 201, 202; 
 on Redemption, 214; on the 
 Church, 219, 224 ; on Baptism, 
 233 ; on the Lord’s Supper, 243; 
 on the state after death, 254. 
 
 Clement of Rome, 216. 
 
 Clementine Homilies, 53; a mix¬ 
 ture of supernatural and ra¬ 
 tionalistic elements, 88; notions 
 of inspiration, 92; on the spi¬ 
 rituality of God, 104; modifica- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 709 
 
 tion of the Logos doctrine, 136 ; 
 views of the Fall, 178 ; on the 
 annihilation of the wicked, 181; 
 their Christology, 194; Purga¬ 
 tory, 252. 
 
 Clement IV., 591. 
 
 Clement VI., 617. 
 
 Clement VIII., 683. 
 
 Coelestin of Rome, the Nestorian 
 controversy, 330 ; his letter to 
 the Gallic bishops, 378. 
 
 Commodianus, the North African 
 poet, 171. 
 
 Confirmation, 235, 245 ; completed 
 by anointing in the Greek 
 Church, 401. 
 
 Constance, Council of, 617. 
 
 Constantine, the Emperor, 291. 
 
 Constans, the Emperor, 439. 
 
 Constantine Pogonatus, 441. 
 
 Constantine Copronymus, 455. 
 
 Constantinople, Second Ecumeni¬ 
 cal Council, 295 ; sixth Ecume¬ 
 nical Council (first Tertullianl, 
 441. 
 
 Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 235. 
 
 Credner, 75. 
 
 Crell, John, 629. 
 
 Curio, Coelus Secundus, 669. 
 
 Cyprian, 56; opposed to ISTova- 
 tianism, 227; on Original Sin, 
 186; on the Church, 220; his 
 treatise De ZJnitate Ecclesice, 222; 
 reaction against his idea of the 
 Church, 224 ; on the baptism of 
 heretics, 82; on Infant Baptism, 
 232 ; on the Lord’s Supper, 241; 
 on Infant Communion, 242; on 
 Purgatory, 252, 253. 
 
 Cyran, St., Abbot, 683. 
 
 Cyrill of Alexandria, 308 ; on the 
 Logos, 327 ; controversy with 
 ISTestorius, 330, 332, 333 ; on the ' 
 Lord’s Supper, 407. 
 
 Cyrill of Jerusalem, 274; his oppo¬ 
 sition to Arianism, 299; on the 
 Church, 396; on intercessory 
 
 prayers at the Lord’s Supper, 
 412; on Purgatory, 416, 
 
 Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, 438. 
 
 Daille, 681. 
 
 Daniel, A., 73. 
 
 Damiani, 520. 
 
 David de Dinanto, his work D e 
 Tomis , 546; on the idea of God, 
 560. 
 
 Davidis, Francis, 652. 
 
 Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, 
 
 i 68. 
 
 Demiurgos, 87, 124,127,178,210. 
 
 Didymus, 265; on the Homousion? 
 305 ; on Angels, 340; on Final 
 Restitution, 413. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, 3. 
 
 Diodorus of Tarsus, 265; a repre¬ 
 sentative of the Antiochian 
 School, 325 ; an advocate of 
 Final Restitution, 414. 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, on the Re¬ 
 demption of Christ, 213. 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, 263, 
 402, 437. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 52; his 
 apolegetical epistle to Dionysius 
 of Rome, 169; his letter to 
 Ammoniusand Euphranor, 168; 
 his work irtpi tTrayyeXiuiv, 251 ; 
 on the doctrine of the Son of 
 God, 285, 286. 
 
710 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Dionysius of Rome, 169 ; opposed 
 to the Alexandrian Subordina- 
 tionism, 176. 
 
 Dioscuros, 333, 334. 
 
 Diospolis, Synod at, 352. 
 
 Docetism, 87, 194, 195, 201, 208? 
 236, 364. 
 
 Donatism, 394. 
 
 Dorotheus, 265. 
 
 Dort, Synod of, 679. 
 
 Duns Scotus, 544 ; on Reason and 
 Revelation, 554; on the Divine 
 origin of the Scriptures, 555 ; 
 on the essential truths of Theo¬ 
 logy , 556 : on man’s original 
 state, 577; on the Incarnation, 
 581; on Redemption, 584 : on 
 the Sacraments, 590. 
 
 Durando (Durand) of St. Poreiano? 
 596; on the Sacraments, 613 ; 
 on the Lord’s Supper, 615. 
 
 Eadmer, 493. 
 
 Ebionitism, 41, 48, 193, 207. 
 
 Eck, 637. 
 
 Eckard, 604. 
 
 Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, 
 442. 
 
 Emanation, 114, 115, 142, 146, 
 153, 173. 
 
 Enoch, book of, 56. 
 
 Ephesus, Third Ecumenical Coun¬ 
 cil at, 332. 
 
 Epiphanes, 86. 
 
 Epiphanius, 165, 167, 263. 
 
 Episcopius, 641 ; on the Divine 
 attributes, 645; on man’s origi¬ 
 nal state, 659; on Redemption, 
 661 ; at the head of the Remon¬ 
 strants, 679. 
 
 Erasmus, 27, 603 ; on Inspiration, 
 637 ; attacks Luther’s doctrine 
 of Grace, Free-will, and Predes¬ 
 tination, 666, 667. 
 
 Eugenius III., 489. 
 
 Eugenius IV., 597. 
 
 Eulogius, bishop of Caesarea, 352* 
 
 Eunomius, an Arian, 264; on the 
 Logos, 300, 316; on the Holy 
 Spirit, 304 ; on the incompre¬ 
 hensibility of God, 311. 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, 72, 262, 288? 
 289, 290 ; his Demonstratio Evan- 
 gelica, 279, 297; his Ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal History quoted, 94,116, 137, 
 151, 156, 157 ( note ), 169, 182, 
 249, 251, 265; his treatise, 
 Contra Marcellum , 301, 302, 
 317; his Life of Constantine, 
 289; on the Lord’s Supper, 411. 
 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, 288. 
 
 Eusebius of Emesa, 265. 
 
 Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers? 
 429, 462. 
 
 Eutyches, 334, 336. 
 
 Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, 26, 
 272, 278. 
 
 Farnovius, 240. 
 
 Faustus, the Manichean, 89. 
 
 Faustus of Rhegium, his work D e 
 Creaturis, 340; his treatise De 
 Gratia Dei et Humance Mentis 
 Libero Arbitrio, 383. 
 
 Felicissimus, 222. 
 
 Felix, bishop of Urgellis,442—447 
 
 Ferrara, Council of, 618. 
 
 Feuerborn, a theologian of Giessen? 
 653. 
 
 Flacius Matthias 672. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 711 
 
 Flavian, Patriarch of Constanti¬ 
 nople, 334. 
 
 Florence, Council of, 618. 
 
 Folmar, 535. 
 
 Formula Concordise, 625, 676. 
 
 Fox, George, 633. 
 
 Franciscus of Assess!, 541. 
 
 Frankfort-on-the-Maine, Synod at’ 
 447. 
 
 Fredegis, the Abbot, 433. 
 
 Frederic II., the Emperor, 542. 
 Frederic, the Palatine Elector, 699. 
 Friars, Mendicant, 541. 
 
 Friars, Franciscan, 541. 
 
 Friuli, Council at, 436. 
 
 Frudegard, the Monk, 457. 
 
 Fulbert, 427, 460. 
 
 Gaunilo, the Monk, 496. 
 
 Gelasius, 408, 412, 534. 
 
 Gennadius, 376; his treatises Be 
 Bogmatibus Ecclesiasticis , and 
 De Viris Illustribus, 183. 
 
 Gentil is, Valentine, 647. 
 
 Ge ltdly, Synod of, 436. 
 
 Gerbert, 427 ; his treatise, Be 
 Corpnre et Sanguine Domini , 460- 
 
 Germanus, 414. 
 
 Geroch, 490, 536. 
 
 Gerson, 599 ; on withholding the 
 Cup, 617 ; on Indulgences, 618 ’ 
 on the Church, 612; on the 
 Scriptures, 607. 
 
 Gilbert de la Porree (Porretanus), 
 489, 490 ; on the Trinity, 497. 
 
 Gnosis, 40, 42, 64, 82, 90, 183, 223. 
 
 Gnostics and Gnosticism, 31, 44— 
 47, 88, 91, 101, 104, 113 ; view 
 of Providence, 124; principle 
 of Accommodation in the inter¬ 
 
 pretation of Scripture, 77 ; eso¬ 
 teric and exoteric doctrine, 83; 
 anthropology, 179 ; on Redemp¬ 
 tion, 208; on baptism, 229 ; 
 origin of the Universe, 121. 
 
 Gomarus, 679. 
 
 Gonesius, Peter, 647. 
 
 Gottschalk, 448, 450, 453. 
 
 Gratian, 534. 
 
 Gregory the Great, 338 ; on Grace 
 and Predestination, 385; de¬ 
 veloped the idea of the Sacrifice 
 of the Mass, 413; opposed the 
 doctrine of Final Restitution, 
 415 ; favoured the doctrine of 
 Purgatory, 418. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzus, 262; on the 
 Holy Spirit, 304, 305 ; on Bap¬ 
 tism, 403 ; an intermediate state 
 for unbaptized children, 405; on 
 Final Restitution, 414. 
 
 Gregory of Uyssa, 262 ; on the 
 Holy Spirit, 305; on Faith and 
 Knowledge, 311; on the Logos, 
 319; on Man’s original state 
 and Free-will, 341; on the 
 Sacraments, 401 ; on Infant 
 Baptism, 402, 403 ; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 408; on Final 
 Restitution, 413. 
 
 Gribaldus, Matthew, 647. 
 
 Griesbach, 380. 
 
 Grosstete, Robert, 544. 
 
 Grotius, Hugo, 626 ; on the In* 
 spiration of Scripture, 641 ; on 
 Redemption, 661. 
 
 Hades, 251, 252; legend of th? 
 descent of the Apostles, 233 
 254. 
 
71*2 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Heresy, 15, 16 ; Tertullian’s trea¬ 
 tise De Prcescriplione adversus 
 llcereticos, 79. 
 
 Henry of Ghent, 544. 
 
 Hegesippus, 41. 
 
 Heracleon, 182. 
 
 Heraclius, 438. 
 
 Hernias, the Shepherd of, 53; on 
 Creation, 113; the formula of 
 baptism, 235. 
 
 Hermes of Boun, 28. 
 
 Hermias, 57. 
 
 Hermes Tresmegistus, 500. 
 
 Hermogenes, 118; on Good and 
 Evil, 118 ; his doctrine of Crea¬ 
 tion, 119; on the Soul, 181. 
 
 Heros, a Gallic bishop, 352. 
 
 Hesshusius, 672. 
 
 Hetzer, Lewis, 647, 650. 
 
 Hilary of Poictiers, his works 
 edited by Erasmus, 27, 604, 
 170; on Dogmatic Theology# 
 267; on the Holy Spirit, 304 ; 
 on the Body of Christ, 338 ; on 
 the Human Soul, 340; on here¬ 
 ditary sin, 341; on Grace and 
 Free-will, 343 ; on the Semi- 
 Pelagian controversy, 375 ; on 
 the Lord’s Supper, 407. 
 
 Hildebert of Tours or Mans, 487, 
 533. 
 
 Hilderin, Abbot of St. Denis, 422. 
 
 Hinkmar, Archbishop of Rheims, 
 450, 453. 
 
 Hippolytus, remarks on his Life 
 and Writings, by Dr. Jacobi, 51, 
 52; on the system of Basilides, 
 125; the doctrine of Noetus 
 and Callistus, 162; on the 
 Trinity, 163 ; on the Christ- 
 
 ology of Basilides, 194; on the 
 Freedom of the Will, 183; on 
 the Soul, 182. 
 
 Honius, 697. 
 
 Honorius, the Emperor, his ordi¬ 
 nance against the Pelagians, 356. 
 
 Honorius, bishop of Rome, 439. 
 
 Hormisdas, bishop of Rome, 384. 
 
 Huber, Samuel, 676. 
 
 Hugo of St. Victor, his character, 
 486 ; on the Divine Attributes, 
 501; on the Will of God, 503 ; 
 on Evil, 507 ; on the Person of 
 Christ, 514; his treatise, De 
 Sacramentis Fidei, 527; on the 
 number of the Sacraments, 529 ; 
 on the Lord’s Supper, 530 ; on 
 Infant Communion, 533. 
 
 Hunnius ^Egidius, 677. 
 
 Huss, John, contrasted with Wy- 
 cliffe, 600; on the Scriptures 
 and Tradition, 606 ; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 616 ; on Penance 
 and Good Works, 618; his 
 treatise De Ecclesia, 613. 
 
 Hyle, 60, 86; views of Hermo¬ 
 genes, 118, 127, 177. 
 
 Hylici, 179, 181. 
 
 Iconoclasts, 431. 
 
 Ignatius, 74, 211. 
 
 Innocent I., Bishop of Rome, 404. 
 
 Innocent III, decision against the 
 Abbot Joachim, 491; declares 
 Transubstantiation to be an 
 article of Faith, 533 ; on Re¬ 
 demption, 583 ; his treatise De 
 Mysteriis Missce, 592; on Au¬ 
 ricular Confession, 593. 
 
 Irenaeus, his treatise “ The Refu- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 713 
 
 tation of the False Gnosis,” 50 ; 
 on the Scriptures, and the rule 
 of Faith, 77 ; on the Prophets 
 of the Old Testament, 92; on 
 Paul’s writings, 97 ; on Divine 
 Punishments, 109 ; Opposition 
 to the Gnostics, 117; on the 
 Divine Government, 127; on 
 the Logos, 154, 156; on the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit, 175; 
 on the Fall and its consequences, 
 183; on the Person of Christ, 
 197, 198 ; on’Redemption and 
 the Logos, 211, 212 ; on the 
 connexion of Redemption and 
 Sanctification, 216 ; on the 
 Church, 220 ; the first trace of 
 Infant Baptism, 230 ; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 238 ; on the 
 Millenium, 249; on the Inter¬ 
 mediate State, 251. 
 
 Irish Monasteries, 423. 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium, on the Cor¬ 
 ruption of Human Nature, 393 ; 
 idea of the Church, 396; on 
 Baptism, 404. 
 
 Isidore of Seville, his Sent entice, 420. 
 
 Islamism, 418, 444. 
 
 Jacobellus, 616. 
 
 Jacobi, Dr., 73, 114, 125,157, 159, 
 162, 171, 265, 283, 293, 443. 
 
 Jansen, Cornelius, 683. 
 
 Jerome, 281, 352. 
 
 Joachim of Floris, 490, 547, 561. 
 
 Johannes Philoponus, 309, 497. 
 
 Johannes Arcusnages, 310. 
 
 John of Antioch, 331. 
 
 John of Janduno, 599. 
 
 John of Montosovo, 611. 
 
 John of Paris, 591. 
 
 John of Salisbury, 469. 
 
 John of Damascus, 430, 435, 455. 
 
 John XXII., 599. 
 
 Jovinian, 396, 397. 
 
 Julian of Eclanum, on the Pela¬ 
 gian controversy, 363, 364, 368 
 —372, 386 ; on Baptism, 403. 
 
 Julius of Halicarnassus, 338. 
 
 Justinian the Emperor, 338, 415. 
 
 Justin Martyr, his acquaintance 
 with Grecian Philosophy, 62; on 
 Inspiration, 95; on the Logos, 
 141, 142 ; on the Holy Spirit, 
 172; on the consequences of 
 the First Sin, 186; on the 
 Person of Christ, 200 ; on 
 Christ’s descent into Hades, 
 209; on Redemption, 213 ; on 
 Baptism, 233 ; on the Lord’s 
 Supper, 239 ; Miilenarianism, 
 249. 
 
 Koornhert, 677. 
 
 Lactantius, his Anthropomor¬ 
 phism, 109; on the Father and 
 the Son, 164 ; denial of the 
 Personality of the Holy Spirit, 
 176; on Man’s Original State, 
 186. 
 
 Lambert, 534. 
 
 Lanfranc, 427 ; an opponent of 
 Berengarius, 460; teacher of 
 Anselm in the monastery of 
 Bee, 472. 
 
 Lasko, 669. 
 
 Lazarus, a Gallic bishop, 352. 
 
 Leo the Great, 272 ; letter to 
 Flavian, 335 ; on withholding 
 the Cup, 534. 
 
714 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Leo in., 436. 
 
 Leo IX., 460. 
 
 Leporius, 339. 
 
 Lewis of Bavaria, 596, 599. 
 
 Lewis the Emperor, 449. 
 
 Limborch, Philip, 659. 
 
 Logos, the, 2, 26 ; Philo’s doc¬ 
 trine, 134 ; Jewish modifications 
 of the doctrine, 136; the Chnrch 
 Fathers, 140; Justin Martyr, 
 141, 200 ; Theophilus and Athe- 
 nagoras, 143 ; Clement of Alex¬ 
 andria, 144, 145; Origen, 146— 
 148, 203, 214 ; Beryllus of 
 "Rostra, 153 ; Irenseus, 154 ; 
 Tertullian, 155 ; the Alogi, 161; 
 Praxeas and Noetus, 162; Sa- 
 bellius, 166 ; Dionysius of 
 Alexandria, 168; Paul of Sa- 
 mosata, 169 ; Irenseus, 197, 211 
 Arius, 287 ; Eusebius of Coesa- 
 rea, 298 ; Marcellus of Ancyra 
 301, 317; Photinus, 317, 318; 
 Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory 
 Xazianzus, 319; Apollinaris, 
 320—324 ; Diodorus of Tarsus, 
 and Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
 325—328 ; Eutyches, 334 ; Le¬ 
 porius, 339. 
 
 Lombard, Peter, his Quatuor Libri 
 Sent enticcr urn, 489 ; on the Tri¬ 
 nity, 497; on Man’s original 
 state, 509 ; the consequences of 
 the first sin, 510; on the Person 
 of Christ, 514 ; on the Atone¬ 
 ment, 520 ; on Faith and Justi¬ 
 fication, 524; on Grace and 
 Freedom, 526; on the Sacra¬ 
 ments, 527 ; on the number of 
 the Sacraments, 529; on the 
 
 Lord’s Supper, 530, 535; on 
 Penance, 536; on Prayers for 
 the dead, 537. 
 
 Lucidus, 382. 
 
 Luther, 618; editions of his works, 
 619 ; the recognition of Christ 
 the basis of his Reformation, 
 621, 622; his views of Inspira¬ 
 tion, 638, 639 ; his material 
 principle, 645; on the ubiquity 
 cf Christ’s body, 652 ; on Man’s 
 original nature, 655 ; his objec¬ 
 tive idea of Justification, 662 ; 
 on Grace, Free Will, and Pre¬ 
 destination, 666; his treatise 
 De Servo Arhitrio, 667 ; on Pre¬ 
 destination, 071; idea of the 
 Church, 686, 687 ; on the Sacra¬ 
 ments, 688; on the number of 
 the Sacraments, 691; on Infant 
 Baptism, 692; on the Lord’s 
 Supper, 694. 
 
 Lydius, Martin, 670; Professor at 
 Franecker, 678. 
 
 Macedonius, a Semi-Arian bishop 
 of Constantinople, 305. 
 
 Malachias, archbishop of Armagh, 
 532. 
 
 Mani, 89; reference to Infant Bap¬ 
 tism, 234. 
 
 Marbach. 675. 
 
 Marcellus of Ancyra, on Dogma, 2, 
 279; opponent of Platonism, 57; 
 maintained the authority of 
 Scripture as opposed to Tradi¬ 
 tion, 279; an opponent of Origen, 
 301 ; on Creation and the Logos, 
 302; on the Person of Christ, 317. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 715 
 
 Mareian, the Emperor, husband of 
 Pulcheria, 335. 
 
 Marcion, 45 ; contrasted with Ter- 
 tullian, 55; denial of Natural 
 Religion, 87, 101; denies Divine 
 justice, but maintains the fact 
 of Redemption, 109; his scholar, 
 Apelles, 115; professed Roce- 
 tism, 208 ; on the Demiurgos, 
 210; on Faith, 217; Christ’s 
 descent into Hades, 251. 
 
 Marianus Scotus, 546. 
 
 Marinari, Antonio, 623. 
 
 Marius Mercator, 386, 393. 
 
 Marsilius of Padua, 599. 
 
 Martinus Polonus, 546. 
 
 Martinus, bishop of Rome, 439. 
 
 Mary, the Virgin, her sinlessness, 
 366, 512 ; the feast of the imma- 
 culata conceptio, 579; disputes 
 between the Scotists and Tho- 
 mists, 611; declaration of the 
 Council of Trent, 657. 
 
 Maximus, 423; united the mystic 
 and dogmatic element, 429; on 
 Inspiration, 434; his Dyothe- 
 tism, 439; on the Logos and the 
 purely human in Christ, 440. 
 
 Mayron, Franciscus, 596. 
 
 Meier, Lewis, 636. 
 
 Melancthon, 623 ; on the doctrine 
 of God in general, 642; on the 
 Trinity, 650 ; on Justification by 
 Faith, 662 ; on Free Will, 667 ; 
 opposed to absolute Predestina¬ 
 tion, 670 ; influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, 671; opposed to human 
 merit, 672 ; differed from Calvin, 
 
 • 674 ; on the idea of the Church, 
 687; on the Sacraments, 688, 
 
 690, 691 ; on Infant Baptism, 
 692 ; on the Lord’s Supper, 698 ; 
 alteration in the Augsburg Con¬ 
 fession, 699. 
 
 Melito, 103. 
 
 Menzer, 653. 
 
 Methodius, 121; on the resurrec¬ 
 tion of the body, 256. 
 
 Molina, 682. 
 
 Monarcliians, 151—159, 163—165; 
 Paul of Samosata, 169; on the 
 doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 176. 
 Monophysites, 337. 
 
 Monotheism, 35, 36, 149, 156; de- 
 istical monotheism, 137, 252; 
 Jewish monotheism, 142. 
 Montanism, 48, 49; ecstatic in¬ 
 spiration, 93; on the Holy Spirit, 
 
 225 ; the new order of Prophets, 
 
 226 ; Millenarianism, 249, 250. 
 Mosheim, 29, 57. 
 
 Muller, Daniel, 634. 
 
 Mysticism, 604, 630. 
 
 Nemesius, 203. 
 
 Neo-Platonism, 60, 113, 132, 144, 
 177, 189, 203. 
 
 Nestorius, 329, 331—333, 336, 393. 
 Nice, Council of, 289 ; second, 455. 
 Nicholas I., Pope, 437. 
 
 Nicholas II., Pope, 460. 
 
 Nicholas, an English Monk, 512. 
 Nicholas of Cusa, 597, 607. 
 Nicholas of Clemange, 599. 
 
 Noetus, 164. 
 
 Novatian, 163, 222, 226, 235. 
 Ochino, 647. 
 
 Odo, archbishop of Canterbury 
 
11 G 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 459; his treatise De Peccato 
 Originali, 510. 
 
 Odo of Tournay, 469. 
 
 Ophites, 178, 208. 
 
 Origen, 21, 26; his method of 
 interpreting Scripture, 67, 69; 
 his mental characteristics, 70; 
 his works De Principiis, Contra 
 Celsum , and Commentaries, 71; 
 his Commentary on John quoted, 
 90, 146, 147, 149 ; on Inspira¬ 
 tion, 97 ; on the spirituality of 
 God, 105; on the Divine omni¬ 
 potence, 112 ; on the Creation, 
 120; his Theodicy, 128, 129; 
 on the Logos, 146—148 ; on the 
 Holy Spirit, 174; on the natural 
 immortality of the soul, 181; his 
 theory of the pre-existence of 
 souls, 190; on human corruption, 
 191; on the Person of Christ, 
 203, 316; on Christ’s earthly 
 appearance, 214 ; on a general 
 restoration, 215, 413 ; on Bap¬ 
 tism, 233 ; on the Lord’s Supper, 
 244; on future punishment, 253; 
 his influence in the Alexandrian 
 Church, 262. 
 
 Orosius, a zealous adherent of 
 Augustin, 352 ; on the depend¬ 
 ence of the creature on God, 359. 
 
 Osiander, Luke, of Tubingen, 653. 
 
 Osiander, Andrew, professor at 
 Konigsberg, 664. 
 
 Otto of Bamberg, 529. 
 
 i 
 
 Palavicini, 656. 
 
 Pamphilus, a Presbyter and Mar¬ 
 tyr, 72 ; defended Origen, 206, 
 288. 
 
 Papias, 42, 48; his collection of 
 traditions relating to Christ, 249. 
 
 Paschal II., 534. 
 
 Paschasius Radbert, 456; his work 
 De Sacramento Corporis et San¬ 
 guinis Christi, 456—458 ; on the 
 sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, 
 512. 
 
 Paschasius Quesnel, 380. 
 
 'Parsism, 131. 
 
 Patripassians, 150, 161, 196. 
 
 Paul of Samosata, 169, 206. 
 
 Paulicians, 430. 
 
 Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, 352. 
 
 Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, 
 436. 
 
 Pavia, Council at, 529. 
 
 Pelagius, 345; his character, 350; 
 outward history of the Pelagian 
 controversy, 351—374; the Semi- 
 Pelagian controversy, 375; his 
 views of human nature, 360; on 
 human freedom, 361 ; the con¬ 
 sequences of the first sin, 363; 
 various stages in the education 
 of humanity, 369; on Redemp¬ 
 tion and Grace, 370—373. 
 
 Peter of Poictier3, 490. 
 
 Peter of Blois, 491. 
 
 Peter Cantor of St. Victor, 491. 
 
 Peter de la Celle, 509, 512. 
 
 Peter of Bruis, 531. 
 
 Petilian, 400. 
 
 Pfeffinger, 672. 
 
 Philostratus, 192. 
 
 Philippolis, 293. 
 
 Philo, the chief representative of 
 the Alexandrian Jews, 38 ; admits 
 three stages of inspiration, 96 ; 
 combated Anthropopathism, 106; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 717 
 
 on tho Hyle, 117; on the Logos, 
 134, 135. 
 
 Philoxenus, 338. 
 
 Photius, 27, 51, 52, 145, 387, 393. 
 
 Pierre D’Ailly, 599, 614. 
 
 Placseus, 659. 
 
 Plato and Platonism, Meaning of 
 Dogma, 1 ; Platonic Philosophy, 
 57; placed Man in relation to 
 God and a higher spiritual world, 
 59 ; contained an element anta¬ 
 gonistic to Christianity, 60 ; in¬ 
 fluence of Platonism on Justin 
 Martyr, 62 ; its view of Inspira¬ 
 tion's; the Platonizing Fathers, 
 117, 160; the recognition of a 
 personal God in Plato’s Philebus, 
 132 ; influence of Origen, 263. 
 
 Plotinus, his Enneads, 58; opposed 
 to faith in an historic revelation, 
 85; his view of Providence 
 opposed both to Gnosticism and 
 Christianity, 124; on super- 
 rational intuition, 145. 
 
 Plutarch, 58; uses the term ravn- 
 vov in a good sense, 59; his woi’k 
 Be PythicB Oraculis , 95. 
 
 Pneumatici, their relation to the 
 Psychici, 86, 88, 127 ; effects of 
 Baptism, 229. 
 
 Pneutomachi, 305, 308. 
 
 Polybius on the Pragmatic Method 
 in History, 13. 
 
 Poly carp, his sayings reported by 
 Irenseus, 74. 
 
 Pontianus, 51. 
 
 Pomponazio, Peter, 602. 
 
 Porphyry, 84, 203, 467. 
 
 Possessor, Bishop, 384. 
 
 Praxeas, 161 ; a Patripassian, 161. 
 
 Predestinatians, 380. 
 
 Probus, 454. 
 
 Prosper Aquitanus, a pupil of 
 Augustin in Gaul, 375 ; engaged 
 in the Semi-Pelagian contro¬ 
 versy, 378 ; the work Be Voca- 
 tione Gentium ascribed to him, 
 380; quotation from his Car¬ 
 men de Ingratis ,* in praise of 
 Augustin, 378. 
 
 Prudentius, 51. 
 
 Pseudo-Dionysius, 422, 423 ; the 
 Pseudo-Dionysian writings in 
 favour of the mystical element, 
 429. 
 
 Pseudo-Basilidians, 208. 
 
 Psychici, 86, 179, 181. 
 
 Pthartolatrai, 338. 
 
 Pulleyn, Robert, Archdeacon of 
 Rochester, 486 ; Redemption, 
 521; Faith and good Works, 
 524; relation of Grace and 
 Freedom, 525; on the Sacra¬ 
 ments, 528 ; in favour of with¬ 
 holding the Cup, 535 ; on Works 
 of Supererogation, 594. 
 
 * Carmen de ingratis, v. 92, sqq.:— 
 
 Quem Christi gratia cornu 
 Uberiore regons, nostro lumen dedit sevo, 
 Accensum vero de lumine : nam cibus illi 
 Et vita et requies Deus, est omnisque voluptas 
 ITnus amor Christi est, unus Christi est honor illi. 
 Et dum nulla sibi tribuit bona, fit Deus illi 
 Omnia, et in sancto regnat sapientia templo. 
 
718 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Quakers, 633, 700, 701, 702. 
 
 Quesnel, 380. 
 
 Rabanus Maurus, 449. 
 
 Ratherius of Verona, 427. 
 
 Ratranmus, a monk of Corby, 450 ; 
 dispute with Paschasius Rad- 
 bert on the Birth of Christ, 
 456; his treatise De Corpore et 
 Sanguine Domini, 457, 458, 459. 
 
 Raymond de Sebonde, 597 ; his 
 Liber Creaturum, or Theologia 
 Naturalis , 598. 
 
 Raymund Lulli, a native of Ma¬ 
 jorca, 548; suffered martyrdom 
 at Bergia, 549; on the agree¬ 
 ment of knowledge and faith, 
 557 ; on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, 563 ; on Creation and 
 Predestination, 572, 573 ; on the 
 Incarnation and Redemption, 
 581. 
 
 Remonstrants, 645, 659, 661, 666, 
 679, 680. 
 
 Resurrection of Christ, 168, 205, 
 213, 326, 339; of the wicked, 
 181 ; Tertullian’s treatise De 
 Resurrectione Carnis, 255. 
 
 Rheims, Council at, 489. 
 
 Rheinwald, 484. 
 
 Richard of St. Victor, 526. 
 
 Ritter, 465. 
 
 Roscellin, a Canon of Compeigne, 
 468; his doctrine of the Trinity, 
 471, 497; opposed by Anselm, 
 473. 
 
 Rudolph, Abbot of Cologne, 534. 
 
 Rupert of Deutz, 531. 
 
 Ruysbrock, 605. 
 
 Sabellius, 164—168 ; on the Holy 
 
 Spirit, 176; on the person of 
 Christ, 317, 497, 649, 650. 
 Sardica, Council at, 293. 
 Schleiermacher, 143 ; remarks on 
 Sabellius, 165. 
 
 Schwenkfeld, 665, 690. 
 
 Scotus, John Erigena, 423; his 
 chief work De Divisione Naturce, 
 424; his Pantheism, 425; on 
 the procession of the Holy 
 Spirit, 435 ; his treatise De 
 Prcedestinatione, 452 ; Universal 
 Restoration, 454 ; on the Lord’s 
 Supper, 459. 
 
 Semi-Arians, 295. 
 
 Sender, 30. 
 
 Serapion, 305. 
 
 Sergius, Patriach of Constantinople, 
 438. 
 
 Servatus, Lupus, 450. 
 
 Servedo (Servetus), Michael, 648— 
 650. 
 
 Socinus, Faustus, 628 ; his work 
 De Auctoritate Scriptures Sacrce, 
 629 ; his Institutiones Religionis 
 t Christiance, 643 ; on Free-will 
 and Predestination, 644; con¬ 
 trasted with Servetus, 649 ; on 
 the Person of Christ, 651 ; his 
 controversy with Francis Da- 
 vidis, 652 ; on Man’s Original 
 State and the Fall, 657; im¬ 
 pugned the doctrine of a Satis- 
 factio activa and passiva , 660 ; 
 on Justification, 665; on Grace, 
 683 ; on Baptism and the Lord’s 
 Supper, 700. 
 
 Socinus Lselius, 628. 
 
 Sophronius, 438. 
 
 Soto, Dominico, 682. 
 
INDEX 
 
 719 
 
 Souverain, 57. 
 
 Speratus, Paul, 695. 
 
 Spinoza, 636. 
 
 Synesius, 236. 
 
 Synods, at Aachen, 436, 447 ; 
 Alanfon, 681 ; Alexandria, 28 8 > 
 306, 318, 322; Ancyra, 297; 
 Antioch, 292 ; Ariminum, 294; 
 Arles, 383; Bari, 498; Basle ? 
 597, 611 ; Carthage, 352, 354, 
 356, 405 ; Chalcedon, 336 ; Cha- 
 renton, 681 ; Chiersy, 450, 453 \ 
 Constantinople, 295, 308, 441 ; 
 Diospolis, 352 ; Dort, 679 ■ 
 Ephesus, 332, 334, 393 ; Flo¬ 
 rence and Ferrara, 618; Frank¬ 
 fort-on the-Maine, 447 ; Friuli, 
 436 ; Gentilly, 436; Jerusalem 
 352; Lyons, 383 ; Mentz, 450 '> 
 Milan, 354; Nice, 289, 455 ; 
 Orauges, 384; Pavia, 529 ; Phi- 
 lippopolis, 293 ; Pisa, Constance, 
 and Basle, 599; Kheiins, 489 > 
 Rome, 460, 461 ; Sardica, 293 ’» 
 Seleucia, 294 ; Sirmium, 303; 
 Soissons, 483; Sens, 485; To¬ 
 ledo, 308 ; Tours, 460 ; Trent, ■ 
 663; Valence, 385, 454 : Ver-! 
 celli, 460. 
 
 Tatian, on the Creation, 118 ; on 
 the Logos, 143; on the Soul, 
 187; on Celibacy, 202. 
 
 Tertullian, 48 ; his character, 54— 
 56; his treatise Be Prcescrip- 
 tione, adversus Hcereticos, 79 ; as 
 a Montanist, 81 ; on Inspiration, 
 98; his treatise Be Testimonio 
 Animce Naturauter Ohristiance ) 
 100 ; on the Logos; 155 ; on the 
 
 Holy Spirit, 175; his treatise 
 Be Animce, 182; on the Fall 
 184 ; on Christ’s humanity, 199 ; 
 first uses the term satisfactio, 
 212; on Union with Christ, 
 216 ; on the Church, 221, 225 ; 
 on Baptism, 231; opposed to 
 Infant Baptism, 232 ; on the 
 Lord’s Supper, 240 ; on the 
 Intermediate State, 252 ; on the 
 Millenium, 250. 
 
 Testart, Paul, 680. 
 
 Thamer, Theobald, 631. 
 
 Theobald, Count of Champagne, 
 482. 
 
 Theodulf, 437. 
 
 Theodoret, 331, 332, 334. 
 
 Theodorus, Bishop of Pharan, 439, 
 440. 
 
 Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 265, 
 on the Inspiration of the Scrip¬ 
 tures, 284; a representative of 
 the Antiochian School, 325 ; in 
 relation to the Semi-Pelagian 
 controversy, 387 ; in favour of 
 Final Restitution, 414. 
 
 Theodosius I., 294. 
 
 | Theodosius II., 335. 
 
 Theodotus, 156. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 143, 173, 
 
 | 188. 
 
 Thummius, 653. 
 
 Toledo, Synod of, 308. 
 
 Tradition, 72, 74. 76. 
 
 Traducianism, 365. 
 
 Trent, Council of, 656, 657, 663, 
 681. 
 
 Unitas Fratrum, 642. 
 
 Urban Regius, 669. 
 
720 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Usher, Archbishop, 73. 
 Uytenbogaert, 679. 
 
 Valence, 385, 454. 
 
 Valens, the Emperor, 294. 
 Valentine, 101, 114, 201. 
 Valentinians, 178. 
 
 Valla, Laurentius, 670. 
 
 Vega, Andrea, 682. 
 
 Vercelli, Synod at, 460. 
 
 Victor, 158, 160. 
 
 Vigilius of Tapsus, 309. 
 Vincentius Lerinensis, 277. 
 Vorstius, Conrad, 645. 
 
 Walch, 30. 
 
 Walter of St. Victor, 483. 
 
 Wessell, John, 601, 606, 619. 
 Whitby, 659. 
 
 Wicel, 664. 
 
 Wigard, 672. 
 
 William, Abbot of St. Thierry, 
 485. 
 
 William of St. Amour, 541. 
 William of Auvergne, 543. 
 William of Occam, 596, 614. 
 William of Paris, 556, 583. 
 William of Auxerre, 595. 
 Wissowatius, Andrew, 630. 
 Wyclilfe, 544 ; an advocate of 
 
 Realism, 597 ; his Trialogus, 
 600 ; remarkable expression ful¬ 
 filled at the Reformation, 601 ; 
 on the Trinity, 608 ; on Predes¬ 
 tination, 610; the idea of the 
 Church, 613 ; on the Sacra¬ 
 ments, 614; impugned the doc¬ 
 trine of Transubstantiation, 
 615 ; and of Penance and Works 
 of Supererogation, 618 ; the 
 supreme authority of the Scrip¬ 
 tures, 621. 
 
 Xenayas, 338. 
 
 Zacharias of Chrysopolis, 531. 
 
 Zanchius, 675. 
 
 Zephyrinus, 158, 160. 
 
 Zinzendorf, 642. 
 
 Zwickau Prophets, 631. 
 
 Zwingli, on the ubiquity of Christ’s 
 body, 653; on Original Sin, 
 658 ; on Grace, Providence, 
 and Predestination, 667, 668; 
 effects of Redemption, 669 ; 
 idea of the Church, 686 ; on the 
 Sacraments, 689; Infant Bap¬ 
 tism, 693 ; on the Lord’s Sup- 
 per, 695 ; his commentary on 
 the Sixty-seven Articles, 696. 
 
 LONPOK : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET 
 
 AND CHARING CROSS, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V, 2 
 
 N e n dl <2 r* 
 
 Hi's 4-. o'r- 
 
 (2. h vis-ham dooma. 
 
 )M. & 
 
 V- - A^v r>e ry^en ‘