THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION
AND
ITS THEOLOGY.








THE
CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION
AND
ITS THEOLOGY:
AS REPRESENTED IN THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, AND IN THE
HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH.
BY CHARLES P.' KRAUTH, D.D.,
NORTON PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
AND PROFESSOR OF INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
PHILADELPHIA:
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.
1871.




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
J. B. LIPPINCOTT  & CO.,
in the Office of tho Librarian of Congress at Washington.
LIPPINCOTT'S PRESS
PHILADELPHIA.




eol tih'lemorg
OF
CHARLES PHILIP KRAUTH, D.D.,
MY VEBTRATED AND SAINTED FATHER,
THIS BOOK
ofisatd








PREFACE.
pIHAT some form of Christianity is to be the religion of the world,
is not only an assured fact to the believer in Revelation, but must
be regarded as probable, even in the judgment which is formed on
purely natural evidence. Next in transcendent importance to that
fact, and beyond it in present interest, as a question relatively undecided, is the question, What form  of Christianity is to conquer
the world?'Shall it be the form in which Christianity now exists,
the form of intermingling and of division, of internal separation and
warfare?  Is the territory of Christendom forever to be divided between antagonistic communions, or occupied by them conjointly? Shall
there be to the end of time the Greek, the Roman, the Protestant
churches, the sects, and the heretical bodies? Or shall one or other of
these specific forms lift itself above the tangled mass, and impose order
on chaos? Or shall a form yet unrevealed prove the church of the future?
To this the answer seems to be, that the logic of the question, supported
by eighteen centuries of history, renders it probable that some principle, or some combination of principles now existent, will assuredly,
however slowly, determine the ultimate, world-dominating type of
Christianity. Unless there be an exact balance of force in the differ,
ent tendencies, the internally strongest of them will ultimately prevail
over the others, and, unless a new force superior to it comes in, will
be permanent.
The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history,
moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative,
which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past;
the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles. Corresponding with
Conservatism, Reformation, and Progress are three generic types of Christianity; and under these genera all the species are but shades, modifications, or combinations, as all hues arise from three primary colors.
Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type
vii




viii                      PR EFA CE.
of the Church. Progress without Conservatism runs into Revolution,
Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution
as a mode of relieving wrong. Conservatism is opposed to Radicalism
both in the estimate of wrong and the mode of getting rid of it. Radicalism errs in two respects: in its precipitance it often mistakes wheat for
tares, and its eradication is so hasty and violent that even when it plucks
up tares it brings the wheat with them. Soberjudgment and sober means
characterize Conservatism.  Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other. That which claims to be Reformatory, yet is not Conservative, is Sectarian; that which claims to be Conservative, and is not
Reformatory, is Stagnation and Corruption. True Catholicity is Conservatism, but Protestantism is Reformatory; and these two are complementary, not antagonistic. The Church problem is to attain a Protestant Catholicity or Catholic Protestantism. This is the end and
aim of Conservative Reformation.
Reformation is the means by which Conservatism of the good that
is, and progress to the good yet to be won, is secured. Over against
the stagnation of an isolated Conservatism, the Church is to hold
Reformation as the instrument of progress. Over against the abuses
of a separatistic and one-sided progressiveness, she is to see to it
that her Reformation maintains that due reverence for history, that
sobriety of tone, that patience of spirit, and that moderation of
manner, which are involved in Conservatism. The good that has been
is necessary to the safety of the good that is to be. There are to be
no absolutely fresh starts. If the foundation were removed, the true
course would not be to make a new one, but to find the old one, and
lay it again. But the foundation never was wholly lost, nor was there,
in the worst time of the accumulation of wood, hay, and stubble, an
utter ceasing of the building of gold, silver, and precious stones upon it.
The Reformation, as Christian, accepted the old foundation; as reformatory, it removed the wood, hay, and stubble; as conservative, it carefully separated, guarded, and retained the gold, silver, and precious
stones, the additions of pious human hands, befitting the foundation and
the temple which was to be reared upon it.  Rome had accumulated
greatly and given up nothing, till the foundation upheld little but perishing human traditions, and the precious things were lost in the heaps
of rubbish. The revolutionary spirit of the radical Reform proposed to
leave nothing but the foundation, to sweep from it everything which had
been built upon it. The Conservative, equally accepting the foundation
which has been laid once for all, proposed to leave on it everything pre



PREFACE.                             ix
cious, pure, and beautiful which had risen in the ages. The one proposed
to pull down the temple; the other, to purify it, and to replace its weak
and decayed portions with solid rock. The great work of the sixteenth
century, which bears the generic title of the Reformation, was divided between these tendencies; not, indeed, absolutely to the last extreme, but
yet really divided. The whole Protestant movement in the Church of the
West was reformatory as over against papal Rome, and was so far a
unit; but it was divided within itself, between the conservative and radical tendencies. The conservative tendency embodied itself in the Reformation, in which Luther was the leader; the radical, in Zwingle and
his school. Calvin came in to occupy a relatively mediating position,conservative as compared with the ultraism of Zwinglianism, and of the
heretical tendencies which Zwinglianism at once nurtured, yet, relatively to Lutheranism, largely radical.
The Church of England is that part of the Reformed Church for which
most affinity with the conservatism of Lutheranism is usually claimed.
That Church occupies a position in some respects unique. First, under
Henry VIII., ceasing to be Popish without ceasing to be Romish; then
passing under the influences of genuine reformation into the positively
Lutheran type; then influenced by the mediating position of the school
of Bucer, and of the later era of Melancthon, a school which claimed the
ability practically to co-ordinate the Lutheran and Calvinistic positions;
and finally settling into a system of compromise, in which is revealed the
influence of the Roman Catholic views of Orders in the ministry, and,
to some extent, of the Ritual; of the Lutheran tone of reformatory
conservatism, in the general structure of the Liturgy, in the larger
part of the Articles, and especially in the doctrine of Baptism; of the
mediating theology in the doctrine of predestination; and of Calvinism in particular changes in the Book of Common Prayer, and, most
of all, in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The Conservatism
of the Church of England, even in the later shape of its reform, in
many respects is indubitable, and hence it has often been called
a Lutheranizing Church. But the pressure of the radicalism  to
which it deferred, perhaps too much in the essence and too little in
the form, brought it to that eclecticism  which is its most marked
feature.  Lutheranizing, in its conservative sobriety of modes, the
Church of England is very un-Lutheran in its judgment of ends. The
conservatism of the Lutheran Reformation exalted, over all, pure doctrine as the divine presupposition of a pure life, and this led to an ample
and explicit statement of faith. While the Church of England stated
doctrines so that men understood its utterances in different ways,




X                         PREFACE.
the Lutheran Church tried so to state them that men could accept
them in but one sense. If one expression was found inadequate for
this, she gave another. The Lutheran Church has her Book of Concord, the most explicit Confession ever made in Christendom; the
Church of England has her Thirty-nine Articles, the least explicit
among the official utterances of the Churches of the Reformation.
The Eclectic Reformation is like the Eclectic Philosophy,- it accepts
the common affirmation of the different systems, and refuses their negations. Like the English language, the English Church is a miracle of
compositeness. In the wonderful tessellation of their structure is the
strength of both, and their weakness. The English language is two
languages inseparably conjoined. It has the strength and affluence of
the two, and something of the awkwardness necessitated by their
union. The Church of England has two great elements; but they are
not perfectly preserved in their distinctive character, but, to some
extent, are confounded in the union. With more uniformity than any
other great Protestant body, it has less unity than any. Partly in
virtue of its doctrinal indeterminateness, it has been the home of men of
the most opposite opinions: no Calvinism is intenser, no Arminianism
lower, than the Calvinism and Arminianism which have been found in
the Church of England. It has furnished able defenders of Augustine,
and no less able defenders of Pelagius. Its Articles, Homilies, and
Liturgy have been a great bulwark of Protestantism; and yet, seemingly, out of the very stones of that bulwark has been framed, in our
day, a bridge on which many have passed over into Rome. It has a
lon'g array of names dear to our common Christendom as the masterly
vindicators of her common faith, and yet has given high place to
men who denied the fundamental verities confessed in the general
creeds. It harbors a skepticism which takes infidelity by the hand,
and a revised mediaevalism which longs to throw itself, with tears, on
the neck of the Pope and the Patriarch, to beseech them to be gentle,
and not to make the terms of restored fellowship too difficult. The
doctrinal indeterminateness which has won has also repelled, and made
it an object of suspicion not only to great men of the most opposite
opinions, but also to great bodies of Christians. It has a doctrinal
laxity which excuses, and, indeed, invites, innovation, conjoined with
an organic fixedness which prevents the free play of the novelty.
Hence the Church of England has been more depleted than any other,
by secessions.  Either the Anglican Church must come to more fixedness in doctrine or to more pliableness in form, or it will go on,
through cycle after cycle of disintegration, toward ruin. In this land,




PR EFA CE.                           xi
which seems the natural heritage of that Church which claims the
Church of England as its mother, the Protestant Episcopal Church
is numerically smallest among the influential denominations. Its
great social strength and large influence in every direction only render more striking the fact that there is scarcely a Church, scarcely a
sect, having in common with it an English original, which is not far
in advance of it in statistical strength. Some of the largest communions have its rigidity in form, some of the largest have its looseness in
doctrine; but no other large communion attempts to combine both. The
numbers of those whom the Church of England has lost are millions. It
has lost to Independency, lost to Presbyterianism, lost to Quakerism, lost
to Methodism, lost to Romanism, and lost to the countless forms of Sectarianism of which England and America, England's daughter, have
been, beyond all nations, the nurses. The Church of England has
been so careful of the rigid old bottle of the form, yet so careless or so
helpless as to what the bottle might be made to hold, that the new
wine which went into it has been attended in every case by the same
history, —the fermenting burst the bottle, and the wine was spilled.
Every great religious movement in the Church of England has been
attended ultimately by in irreparable loss in its membership. To this
rule there has been no exception in the past. Whether the present
movement which convulses the Church of England and the Protestant
Episcopal Church in America, is to have the same issue, belongs, perhaps, rather to the prophet's eye than to the historian's pen. Yet to those
who, though they stand without, look on with profound sympathy,
the internal difficulties which now agitate those Churches seem incapable of a real, abiding harmonizing. True compromise can only
sacrifice preferences to secure-principles. The only compromise which
seems possible in the Anglican Churches would be one which would sacrifice principles to secure preferences, and nothing can be less certain
of permanence than preferences thus secured. These present difficulties in the Anglican Churches proceed not from contradiction of its principles, but from development of them. These tio classes of seeds were
sown by the husbandmen themselves,-that was the compromise. The
tares rhay grow till the harvest, side by side with the wheat, with which
they mingle, but which they do not destroy, but the thorns which choke
the seed must be plucked up, or the seed will perish. Tares are men;
thorns are moral forces of doctrine or of life. The agitation in the Anglican Churches can end only in the victory of the one tendency and the
silencing of the other, or in the sundering of the two. In Protestantism nothing is harder than to silence, nothing easier than to sunder.




xii                        PREFACE.
If the past history of the Anglican Church, hitherto unvaried in the
ultimate result, repeat itself here, the new movement will end in a
formal division, as it already has in a moral one. The trials of a
Church which has taken a part in our modern civilization and Christianity which entitles it to the veneration and gratitude of mankind, can
be regarded with indifference only by the sluggish and selfish, and with
malicious joy only by the radically bad.
The classification of Churches by tendencies is, of course, relative.
Noi great organization moves so absolutely along the line of a single
tendency as to have nothing in it beyond that tendency, or contradictory to it. The wilfulness of some, the feeble-mindedness of others,
the power of surrounding influences, modify all systems in their actual
working.  There was some conservatism in the Swiss reformation, and
there has been and is something of the reformatory tendency in the
Church of Rome. The Reformation took out a very large part of the
best material influenced by this tendency in Rome, but not all of it.
The object of this book is not to delineate the spirit and doctrines
of the Reformation as a general movement over against the doctrinal
and practical errors of the Roman Church, but to state and vindicate
the faith and spirit of that part of the movement which was conservative, as over against the part which was radical. It is the Lutheran
Reformation in those features which distinguish it from the Zwinglian
and Calvinistic Reformations, which forms the topic of this book.
Wherever Calvin abandoned Zwinglianism he approximated Lutheranism. Hence, on important points, this book, in defending Lutheranism
over against Zwinglianism, defends Calvinism over against Zwinglianism also. It even defends Zwinglianism, so far as, in contrast with Anabaptism, it was relatively conservative. The Pelagianism  of the
Zwinglian theology was corrected by Calvin, who is the true father
of the Reformed Church, as distinguished fiom  the Lutheran.  The
theoretical tendencies of Zwingle developed into Arminianism and Rationalism; his practical tendencies into the superstitious.anti-ritualism
of ultra-Puritanism: and both the theoretical and practical found their
harmony and consummation in Unitarianism.
The plan of this book is, in some respects, new. It aims at bringing
under a single point of view what is usually scattered through different
classes of books. It endeavors to present the Exegesis, the Dogmatical
and Confessional development, and the History associated with each
doctrine, with a full list of the most important writers in the literature
of each topic.  Its rule is, whether the views stated are accepted or
rejected, to give them in the words of their authors. The citations




PR EFACE.                          xii]
from other languages are always translated, but when the original
words have a disputed meaning, or a special force or importance, they
are also quoted. The author has, as nearly as he was able, given to
the book such an internal completeness as to render it unnecessary to
refer to other works while reading it. While he has aimed at something of the thoroughness which the scholar desires, he has also endeavored to meet the wants of that important and growing class of
readers who have all the intelligence needed for a full appreciation of
the matter of a book, but are repelled by the technical difficulties of
form suggested by the pedantry of authors, or permitted by their carelessness or indolence.
So far as the author's past labors were available for the purposes of
this work, he has freely used them. In no case has a line been allowed
to stand which does not express a present conviction, not simply as to
what is true, but as to the force of the grounds on which its truth is
argued. In what has been taken from his articles in Reviews, and in
other periodicals, he has changed, omitted, and added, in accordance
with a fresh study of all the topics. He has also drawn upon some of
the Lectures delivered by him to his theological classes, and thankfully
acknowledges the use, for this purpose, of the notes made by his pupils,
Rev. F. W. Weiskotten, of Elizabethtown, Pa., and Messrs. Bieber
and Foust. To Lloyd P. Smith, Esq., Librarian, and to Mr. George
M. Abbot, Assistant Librarian, of the Philadelphia and Loganian Libraries, the author is indebted for every possible facility in the use of
those valuable collections.
An Index has been prepared, in which the effort has been made to
avoid the two generic vices of a scantiness which leaves the reader in
perplexity, and a minuteness which confuses him.
The positions taken in this book are largely counter, in some respects,
to the prevailing theology of our time and our land. No man can be
more fixed in his prejudice against the views here defended than the
author himself once was; no man can be more decided in his opinion that
those views are false than the author is now decided in his faith that they
are the truth. They have been formed in the face of all the influences
of education and of bitter hatred or of contemptuous disregard on the
part of nearly all who were most intimately associated with him in the
period of struggle. Formed under such circumstances, under what he believes to have been the influence of the Divine Word, the author is persuaded that they rest upon grounds which cannot easily be moved. In its
own nature his work is, in some degree, polemical; but its conflict is
purely with opinions, never with persons. The theme itself, as it involves




xiv                        PR EFACE.
questions within our common Protestantism, renders the controversy
principally one with defects or errors in systems least remote in the main
from the faith vindicated in this volume. It is most needful that
those nearest each other should calmly argue the questions which still
divide them, as there is most hope that those already so largely in affinity may come to a yet more perfect understanding.
The best work of which isolated radicalism  is capable is that of
destroying evil. The more earnestly radicalism works, the sooner is
its mission accomplished.  Conservatism works to a normal condition,
and rests at last in habit. Radicalism  presupposes the abnormal.
Itself an antithesis, it dies with the thing it kills. The long, fixed
future must therefore be in the hands of conservatism in some shape;
either in the hands of a mechanical conservatism, as in the Church of
Rome, or of a reformatory conservatism, as represented in that historical and genuine Protestantism  which is as distinct from the current
sectarianism, in some respects, as it is from Romanism in others.  The
purest Protestantism, that which best harmonizes conservatism  and
reformation, will ultimately control the thinking of the Christian
Church.  The volume which the reader holds in his hand is meant to
set forth some of the reasons in view of which those who love the
Evangelical Protestant Church, commonly called the Lutheran Church,
hope to find pardon for their conviction that in it is found the most
perfect assimilation and co-ordination of the two forces. It has conserved as thoroughly as is consistent with real reformation; it has
reformed as unsparingly as is consistent with genuine conservatism.
The objective concreteness of the old Apostolic Catholicity, Rome has
exaggerated and materialized till the senses master the soul, they should
serve.  The subjective spirituality of New Testament Christianity is isolated by the Pseudo-Protestantism, which drags the mutilated organism
of the Church after it as a body of death from which it would fain
be delivered, and which it drops at length, altogether, to wander a melancholy ghost, or to enter on the endless metempsychosis of sectarianism.
To distinguish without separating, and to combine without confusing,
has been the problem of the Lutheran Church.  It has distinguished
between the form of Christianity and the essence, but has bound them
together inseparably: the Reformatory has made sacred the individual life and liberty, the Conservative has sanctified the concrete order.
Nor is this claim  extravagant in its own nature.  No particular
Church has, on its own showing, a right to existence, except as it
believes itself to be the most perfect form of Christianity, the form
which of right should and will be universal.  No Church has a right




PREFACE.                            XV
to a part which does not claim that to it should belong the whole.
That communion confesses itself a sect which aims at no more than
abiding as one of a number of equally legitimated bodies. That
communion which does not believe in the certainty of the ultimate
acceptance of its principles in the whole world has not the heart of a
true Church. That which claims to be Catholic de facto claims to be
Universal de jure.
A true unity in Protestantism would be the death of Popery; but
Popery will live until those who assail it are one in their answer to the
question: What shall take its place? This book is a statement and a
defence of the answer given to that question by the communion under
whose banner the battle with Rome was first fought, - under whose
leaders the greatest victories over Rome were won. If this Church has
been a failure, it can hardly be claimed that the Reformation was a success; and if Protestantism cannot come to harmony with the principles
by which it was created, as those principles were understood by the
greatest masters in the reformatory work, it must remain divided until
division reaches its natural end,- absorption and annihilation.
MARCH 17, 1871.








CONTENTS..THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION AND ITS THEOLOGY.
A. The Conservative Reformation:                                         ART. PAGE
I. Occasion and Cause........I.    1
II. Chief Organ: Luther........    II.   22
III. Chief Instrument: Luther's New Testament... III.   88
B. Church of the Conservative Reformation: Lutheran Church. IV.  112
C. Confessional Principle of the Conservative Reformation... V.  162
D. Confession of the Conservative Reformation:
I. Primary Confession: Augsburg Confession...  I.  201
II. Secondary Confessions: Book of Concord...     VII.  268
E. History and Doctrines of the Conservative Reformation; Mistakes Corrected....VIII. 329
F. Specific Theology of the Conservative Reformation:
I. Original Sin     (Augsburg Conf., Art. II.)... IX.  355
II. Person of Christ (    "        "     " III.)..            X.  456
III. Baptism          (             "      " IX.).    XI.  518
IV. Lord's Supper   (    "          "     "  X.)
1. Thetically Stated.......XII.  585
2. Antithesis Considered.....         XIII.  664
3. Objections Answered.                       XIV.  755
xvii








CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
I.
THE REFORMATION;
ITS OCCASION AND CAUSE.*
TIE immediate occasion of the Reformation seemed insignificant enough.  Three hundred and fifty-three years ago, on
the 31st of October, immense crowds were pouring  into  an
ancient city  of Germany, bearing  in  its name, Wittenberg,
the  memorial of its founder, Wittekind  the Younger.  The.
weather-beaten and dingy little edifices of Wittenberg forbade
the idea, that the beauty of the city or its commer-  The day  ei'ore   AII-Saiu its'
cial importance  drew  the masses to  it.  Within  Day.S"
that city was an old church, very miserable and battered, and
* On the history of the Reformation, the works following may be consulted:
BIrETSCHNEIDER: Die Deutsch. Reformat.  1855.
CLAUDE: Defence of the Reformation. Transl. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1815.
COCHLkAus: Commentaria de Act. et Scrip. Lutheri. 1549. Fol.
CYPRIAN: Niitzlich. Urkunden. z. Erl. der erst. Reformations-Geschichte.
Leipz.: 1718. 12mo. 2 Parts.
D'AUBIGNI: Histoire de la Reform.  Par.: 1835-1838. (Engl., Lond.: 1839.
New York: 1841.)
FORSTEMANN: Archiv. f. d. Gesch. d. K. Reformation.  Halle: 1831. 8vo.
GERDES: Introd. in historiam. Ev. Sec. XVI. renov. 4 vols. 4to. Groning.:
1744-1752.
HAGENBACH: Vorles'. ib. Wes. u. Gesch. d. Reformation. Leipz.: 1839. 8vo.
JUNIUS: Conmpend. Seckendorf. (1755)-Reform. Gesch. in Auszug. v. Roos.
Tub.: 1788. 2 vols. 8vo.
KEYSER: Reformat. Almanach. Erf. 4 vols. 12mo.  1817-1821.
MAI: Hist. Reformat.  Frankf.: 1710. 4to.
MALMBOURn: Hist. du. Lutheranism.  Par.: 1680. 4to.
1                                                            1. 




2             CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
very venerable and holy, which attracted these crowds. It was
the " Church of all Saints," in which were shown, to the inexpressible delight of the faithful, a fragment of Noah's Ark.
some soot from  the furnace into which the three young Hebrews were cast. a piece of wood from  the crib of the infant
Saviour, some of St. Christopher's beard, and  nineteen thousand other relics equally genuine and interesting. But over and
above all these allurements, so well adapted to the taste of
the time, His Holiness, the Pope, had granted indulgence to
all who  should visit the church  on  the first of November.
Against the door of that church of dubious saints, and dubious relics, and  dubious indulgences, was found fastened, on
that memorable morning, a scroll unrolled.  The writing on it
was firm; the nails which held it were well driven in; the sentiments it conveyed were moderate, yet very decided.  The
material, parchment, was the same which  long ago had  held
words of redemption  above the head of the Redeemer.  The
contents were an amplification of the old theme of glory —
Christ on the cross, the only King. The Magna Charta, which
had been buried beneath the Pope's throne, reappeared on the
church door.  The keynote of the Reformation was struck full
and clear at the beginning, Salvation through Christ alone.
It is from  the nailing up of these Theses the Reformation
takesits date. That act became, in the providence of God, the
MAIMBOURG: Hist. du. Calvinisme. Par.: 1682. 4to.
MARHEIN:EKE: Gesch. d. Teutsch. Reform. Berl.: 1831. 4 vols. 12mo.
MYCONIUS: Hist. Reformat. Cyprian. Leipz.: 1718. 12mo.
NEUDECKER: Gesch. d. Evang. Protestantism. Leipz.: 1844. 2 vols. 8vo.
RANKE: Deutsch. Gesch. im Zeitalt. d. Reformat. Berl.: 1839. 3 vols. 8vo.
(Transl. by Sarah Austin.) Philad.: 1844. 8vo.
SCULTETUS: Kirchen. Reformat. in Teutschl. d. Guolfium. Heidelb.: 1618. 4to.
SECKENDORF: Lutheranism. Leipz.: 1694. Fol. Deutsch. 1714. 4to.
SLEIDAN: de Stat. relig. et reipub. (1557. 8vo.) Boehme am Ende. Frankf.
a. M.: 1785-86. 3 vols. 8vo.
SPALATIN: Annales Reformat. (Cyprian.)  Leipz.: 1718.  12mo.
TENTZEL: Reformat. Lutheri (Cyprian.) Leipz.: 1718. 12mo.
VON SEELEN: Stromata Lutherana.  Libeck: 1740. 121o.
VILLERS: Ess. sur 1'esprit et l'influ. d. 1. Reformat. de Luth. Par.: 3d. ed.
1808. 8vo. Ubers von Cramer, mit vorred. v. Henke. 2d. ed. Hamb.: 1828.
2 Parts. 12mo.
WADDINGTON: Reformat. on the Contin. Lond.: 1841. 3 vols. 8vo.




THE DAY BEFOR-E  "ALL SAINTS' DAY."                   3
starting-point of the work which still goes on, and shall forever go on, that glorious work in which the truth was raised
to its original purity, and civil and religious liberty were restored to men.  That the Reformation is the spring of modern
freedom, is no wild assertion of its friends. One of the greatest Roman Catholic writers of recent times, Michelet, in the
Introduction to his Life of Luther, says: " It is not incorrect to say, that Luther has been the restorer of liberty in
modern times. If he did not reate, he at least courageously
affixed his signature to that great revolution which rendered
the right of examination lawful in Europe.  And, if we exercise, in all its plenitude at this day, this first and highest
privilege of human intelligence, it is to him we are most indebted for it; nor can we think, speak, or write, without being
made conscious, at every step, of the immense benefit of this
intellectual enfranchisement; " and he concludes with the remarkl: " To whom  do I owe the power of publishing iwhat I
am now inditing, except to this liberator of modern thought? "
Our Church, as clearly, in one sense, the mother of the Rieformation, as, in another, she is its offspring, the first, and for a
time, the exclusive possessor of the name Protestantism, its
source and its mightiest bulwark, our Church has wisely set
apart a day in each year to commemorate this great deliverance, and wisely has kept her great Jubilees. There are other
ways of noting time, besides by its loss. The Church Festivals note it by its gains, the Church Year marks the time which
has been redeemed for ever.  An old writer describes the
Church of All-Saints at Wittenberg, as a manger, where in his
lowly glory the Son of God was born again. Blessed forever be
the day! On it, through all time, men shall gather, bringing
their offerings of praise; remembering, treasuring, and keeping untarnished, the holy faith whose restoration was thus
begun.
It is well, then, to have added to the grand order of the
Church Year, the Festival of the Reformation, and to the
revolution of the centuries, its Jubilee.  Whether as the child
or as the parent of the Reformation, whether she would awake
her heart to gratitude as its daughter, or arouse herself to an




4          C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
earnest sense of responsibility as its mother, our Church can
claim it, as pre-eminently her privilege, and acknowledge it as
pre-eminently her duty so to do. When the Festival of the
Reformation shall come and shall wake no throb of joy in her
bosom, her life will have fled. For if the Reformation lives
through her, she also lives by it. It has to her the; mysterious
relation of Christ to David; if it is her offspring, it is also her
root. If she watched the ark of the Lord, the ark of the
Lord protected and blessed her, and when it passes from her
keeping her glory will have departed.  Let her speak to her
children then, and tell them the meaning of the day. In the
pulpit, and the school, and the circle of the home, let these
great memories of men of God, of their self-sacrifice, of their
overcoming faith, and of their glorious work, be the theme
of thought, and of word, and of thanksgiving. The Festival
of the Reformation is at once a day of Christmas and of Easter and of Pentecost, in our Church year; a day of birth, a
day of resurrection, a day of the outpouring of the Holy
Ghost. Let its return renew that life, and make our Church
press on with fresh vigor in the steps of her risen Lord, as
one begotten again, and born from the dead, by the quickening power of the Spirit of her God. Let every day be a Festival of the Reformation, and every year a Jubilee.
The occasions and cause of so wonderful and important an
Specificoccasion.ind event as the Reformation have naturally occause of the Reforilation.     cupied very largely the thoughts of both  its
friends and its foes. On the part of its enemies the solution
of its rapid rise, its gigantic growth, its overwhelming march,
has been found by some in the rancor of monkish malice - the
thing arose in a squabble between two sets of friars, about the
farming of the indulgences- a solution as sapient and as completely in harmony with the facts as would be the statement
that the American Revolution was gotten up by one George
Washington, who, angry that the British Government refused
to make him a collector of the tax on tea, stirred up a happy
people to rebellion against a mild and just rule.
The solution has been found by others in the lust of the
human heart for change -it was begotten in the mere love




SPJECIFIC OCCASION A.NTD  CAUSE.                 5
of novelty; men went into the Reformation as they go into a
menagerie, or adopt the new mode, or buy up some "novelist's last."  Another class, among whom the brilliant French
Jesuit, Audin, is conspicuous, aattribute the movement mainly
to the personal genius and fascinating audacity of the great
leader in the movement.  Luther so charmed the millions
with his marvellous speech and magic style, that they were
led at his will.  On the part of some, its nominal friends,
reasons hardly more adequate have often been assigned.  Confounding the mere aids, or at most, the mere occasions of the
Reformation with its real causes, an undue importance has
been attributed in the production of it to the progress of the
arts and sciences after the revival of letters.  Much stress has
been laid upon the invention of printing, and the discovery of
America, which tended to rouse the minds of men to a new
life. Much has been said of the fermenting political discontents of the day, the influence of the great Councils in diminishing the authority of the Pope, and much has been made, in
general, of the causes whose root is either wholly or in part
in the earth.  The Rationalist represents the Reformation as a
triumph of reason over authority.  The Infidel says, that its
power was purely negative; it was a grand subversion; it was
mightier than Rome, because it believed less than Rome; it.
prevailed, not by what it taught, but by what it denied; and
it failed of universal triumph simply because it did not deny
everything.  The insect-minded sectarian allows the Reformation very little merit except as it prepared the way for the
putting forth, in due time, of the particular twig of Protestantism on. which he crawls, and which lie imagines bears all
the fruit, and gives all the value to the tree.  As the little
green tenants of the rose-bush might be supposed to argue
that the rose was made for the purpose of furnishing them
a home and food, so these small speculators find the root of
the Reformation in the particular part of Providence which
they consent to adopt and patronize.  The Reformation, as
they take it, originated in the divine plan for furnishing a
nursery for sectarian Aphides.
But we must have causes which, however feeble, are adapted




6          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
to the effects. A little fire indeed kindleth a great matter,
but however little, it must be genuine fire., Frost will not do,
and a painting of flame will not do, though the pencil of
Raphael produced it. A little hammer may break a great
rock, but that which breaks must be harder and more tenacious than the thing broken. There must be a hand to apply
the fire, and air to fan it; it must be rightly placed within
the material to be kindled; it must be kept from being smothered. And yet all aids do but enable it to exercise its own
nature, and it alone kindles. There must be a hand to wield
the hammer, and a heart to move the hand; the rock must
be struck with vigor, but the hammer itself is indispensable.
God used instruments to apply the fire and wield the hammer;
His providence prepared the way for the burning and the
breaking. And yet there was but one agency, by which they
could be brought to pass. Do we ask what was the agency
which was needed to kindle the flame? What was it, that
was destined to give the stroke whose crash filled earth with
wonder, and hell with consternation, and heaven with joy?
God himself asks the question, so that it becomes its own
answer: " Is not MY WORD like as a fire? Is not MY WORD
like the hammer which breaks the rock in pieces? "
It is not without an aim that the Word of God is presented
in the. language we have just quoted, under two images; as
fire and as a hammer. The fire is a type of its inward efficacy; the hammer, of its outward work. The one image
shows how it acts on those who admit it, the other how it
effects those who harden themselves against it; the one symbolizes the persuasive fervor of that Word by which it makes
our hearts burn within us in love to the Son of God, the other
is an image of the energy with which, in the hands of the
King on the holy hill of Zion, it breaks the opposers as with
a rod of iron. The fire symbolizes the energy of the Word
as a Gospel, which draws the heart to God, the hammer shadows forth its energy as a law which reveals the terrors of
God's justice against transgressors.  In both these grand
aspects the Word of God was the creator of the Reformation
and its mightiest instrument. It aroused the workers, and




THE BIBLE IN  TEE MIDDLE A GES.                  7
fitted them for their work; it opened blind eyes, and subdued
stubborn hearts. The Reformation is its work and its trophy.
However manifold the occasions of the Reformation, THE
WORD, under God, was its cause.
The Word of God kindled the fire of the Reformation.
That Word lay smouldering under the ashes of  The Pible in
centuries; it broke forth into flame, in Luther the Middle Ages.
and the other Reformers; it rendered them  lights which
shone and burnt inextinguishably; through them it imparted
itself to the nations; and from the nations it purged away the
dross which had gathered for ages.  "The Word of God,"
says St. Paul, "is not bound."  Through the centuries which
followed the corruption of Christianity, the Word of God was
still in being. In lonely cloisters it was laboriously copied.
Years were sometimes spent in finishing a single copy of it,
in the elaborate but half barbaric beauty which suited the
taste of those times.  Gold and jewels, on the massive covers,
decorated the rich workmanship; costly pictures were painted
as ornaments on its margin; the choicest vellum was used for
the copies; the rarest records of heathen antiquity were sometimes erased to make way for the nobler treasures of the Oracles of the Most High.  There are single copies of the Word,
from that mid-world of history, which are a store of art, and
the possession of one of which gives a bibliographical renown
to the city in whose library it is preserved.
No interdict was yet laid upon the reading of the Word,
for none was necessary. The scarcity and costliness of books
formed in themselves a barrier more effectual than the interdict of popes and councils. Many of the great teachers
in the Church of Rome were devoted students of the Bible.
From the earliest writings of the Fathers, down to the Reformation, there is an unbroken line of witnesses for the right
of all believers freely to read the Holy Scriptures.  No man
thought of putting an artificial limitation on its perusal; on
the contrary, there are expressions of regret in the medieval
Catholic writers that, in the nature of the case, so few could
have access to these precious records.
In communities separate from  the Church of Rome, the




8           CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
truth was maintained by reading and teaching the Holy Scriptures.  The Albigensian and Waldensian martyrs, were martyrs of the Word:
"Those slaughtered saints whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even those who kept God's truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones."
The invention of printing, and hardly less, the invention of
paper made from  rags- for what would printing be worth,
if we were still confined to so costly a material for books as
parchment -- prepared the way for the diffusion of the Scriptures.
The Church of Rome did not apprehend the danger which
lay in that 13ook. Previous to the Reformation there were
not only editions of the Scripture in the originals, but the old
Church translation into Latin (the Vulgate) and versions from
it into the living languages were printed. In Spain, whose
dark opposition to the Word of God has since become her
reproach and her curse, and in which no such book as the one
of which we are about to speak has come forth for centuries,
in Spain, more than a hundred years before there was enough
Hebrew type in all England to print three consecutive lines,
the first great POLYGLOT BIBLE, in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek,
andt Latin, was issued at Complutun  under the direction of
Ximenes, her renowned cardinal and chief minister of state.
It came forth in a form which, in splendor and value, far surpassed all that the world had yet seen.  We may consider the
Complutensian Polyglot, the crown of glory to the labors of
the Middle Ages.  It links itself clearly in historical connection with the GRAND BIBLICAL ERA, the Reformation itself,
for though the printing of it was begun in 1502, and finished
in 1517, it was not published till 1522, and in 1522, the FIRST
EDITION OF THE -NEW TESTAMENT, in German, came from  the
hand of Luther, fixing the corner-stone of the grand edifice,
whose foundation had been laid in the Ninety-five Theses of
1517.
This, then, is the historical result of the facts we have pre



WHERE  THE BIBLE FELL OPEN.                    9
sented, that the Middle Ages became, in the wonderful providence of God, the conservators of the Word which they are
charged with suppressing; and were unconsciously tending
toward the sunrise of the truth, which was to melt away
their mists forever.
The earliest efforts of the press were directed to the multiplication of the copies of the Word of God. The wieroethe nBible
first book ever printed, was the Bible. Before the  fe open.
first twelve sheets of this first edition of the Scriptures were
printed, Gutenberg and Faust had incurred an expenditure
of four thousand florins.  That Bible was the edition of the
Latin Vulgate, colmmonly known by the name of the " Mazarin Bible," from  the fact that a copy of it which for some
time was the only one known, was discovered about the  liddle of the eighteenth century in the Library of the College of
the Four Nations, founded at Paris by Cardinal Mazarin.
At Mentz and Cologne, the Vulgate translation of the Holy
Scriptures was multiplied in editions of various sizes. Some
of these Latin Bibles had been purchased for the University
Library at Erfurth at a large price, and were rarely shown
even to visitors.  One of them was destined to play a memorable part in the history of mankind. While it was lying in
the still niche of the Library, there moved about the streets
of the city and through the halls of the University, a student
of some eighteen years of age, destined for the law, who
already gave evidence of a genius which might have been a
snare to indolence, but who devoted himself to study with an
unquenchable ardor.  Among the dim recesses of the Library,
he was a daily seeker for knowledge.  His was a thirst for
truth which was not satisfied with the prescribed routine.
Those books of which we now think as venerable antiques,
were then young and fresh  the glow  of novelty was on
much of which we now speak as the musty and worm-eaten
record of old-time wisdom which we have outgrown.  There
the city of Harlem, through Laurentius, and the city of Mentz,_
through Faustus, and the city of Strasburg, through Gutenberg, put in their silent claims for the glory of being the cra.
dle of the magic art of printing.  There the great masters in




10         CONSERVYATIVE REFOR iMATION.
jurisprudence and in scholastic philosophy challenged, and
not in vain, the attention of the young searcher for knowledge. Some of the most voluminous of the Jurisconsults he
could recite almost word for word. Occam and Cerson were
his favorites among the scholastics. The masters of the classic world, Cicero, Virgil and Livy, " he read," says a Jesuit
author, "not merely as a student whose aim was to understand them, but as a superior intellect, which sought to draw
from them instruction, to find in them  counsels and maxims
for his after life. They were to him the flowers whose sweet
odor might be shed upon the path he had to tread, or might
calm the future agitation of his mind and of his heart." Thus
passing from volume to volume, seeking the solution of the
dark problem of human life, which already gathered heavily
upon his deep, earnest soul, he one day took down a ponderous
volume hitherto unnoticed. Ite opens it; the title-page is
"Biblia Sacra "-the Holy Bible. He is disappointed. He
has heard all this, he thinks, in the lessons of the Missal, in
the texts of the Postils, in the selections of the Breviary. He
imagines that his mother, the Church, has incorporated the
whole Book of God in her services. Listlessly he allows the
volume to fall open at another place,-in his hand, and carelessly
looks down at the page. What is it that arouses him? His
eye kindles with amazement and intense interest. He rests
the Book on the pile of the works of Schoolmen and of Fathers
which he has been gathering. He hangs entranced over it;
his dreamy eyes are fixed on the page; hour after hour flies;
the shades of night begin to gather, and he is forced to lay
the volume aside, with the sigh, 0, that this Book of books
might one day be mine!
Was it accident, or was it of God, that this Book opened
where it did? Could we have arranged the providence, where
would we have had the Book to open? It opened at the first
chapter of First Samuel, the simple story of Hannah consecrating her boy to the Lord. There are many parts of the
Bible as precious as this; with reverence we speak it, there
are some more precious, "for one star differeth from another
star in glory," though God made them all. Why opened not




WHERE THE BIBLE FELL OPEN.                    11
that Book at some of the most glorious revelations of the New
Testament? This might have been, and who shall say what
incalculable loss it might have wrought to the world, had it
been so? For this very portion might have been one of the
Epistles, or Gospels, or Lessons of the Romish Service, and thus
might have confirmed the false impression of the young man
that he already knew all the Bible.  This was a critical period
of Luther's life. Already was his mind tending to an absorption in studies which would have given a wholly different cast
to his life. The sound of a drum  upon the street was the
turning point of the spiritual life of an English nobleman. It
lifted him from his knees, and drew him again into the full
march upon everlasting death.  On what little things may
God have been pleased to hang the great impulses of the man,
who proved himself capable of leading'the Reformation, and
who, but for these little things, might have been lost to the
world. Nothing in God's hand is trifling.  The portion on
which Luther's eye fell was not in the Church Service. It
quiclened him at once with a new sense of the fulness of God's
Word. In a double sense it stood before him, as a revelation.
His eyes were opened on the altar of that inextinguishable
fire, from  which a few  sparks had risen into the Romish
Ritual, and had drifted along on the night-breezes of the ages.
Did the angel of the Covenant with invisible hand open that
page, or was it a breath of air from some lattice near at hand?
It matters not - God opened the Book.
That Book was to Luther, henceforth, the thing of beauty
of his life, the joy of his soul forever. lie read and re-read,
and prayed over its sacred teachings, till the place of each passage, and all memorable passages in their places fixed themselves in his memory. To the study of it, all other study
seemed tame. A single passage of it would ofttimes lie in his
thoughts days and nights together.  The Bible seemed to fuse
itself into his being, to become a part of his nature.  Often in
his writings he does not so much remark upon it, as catch its
very pulse and clothe his own mind in its very garb. H-e is
lifted to the glory of the reproducer - and himself becomes a
secondary prophet and apostle. His soul ceased to be a mere




12          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
vessel to hold a little of the living water, and became a fountain through which it sprang to refresh and gladden others.
As with Luther, so was it with Melanchthon, his noble coworker, with Zwingle in Switzerland, at a later period with
Calvin in France, with Tyndale and Cranmer in England, with
Knox in Scotland.  The Word of God was the fire in their
souls which purified them into Christians - and the man who
became a Christian was already unconsciously a Reformer.
The fire which the Word of God kindled in the Reformers
Luther'sble. they could not long conceal. "They believedL~uther's Bible.  T                               b i e
therefore they spoke." One of the first, as it was
one of the greatest, revelations of the revived power of the Word
of God, was, that it sought an audience for itself before the people, in their own language. Every new Pentecost revives the
miracle and wonder of the first Pentecost: men marvelling, say
of the apostles to whom the Ioly Ghost has again given utterance: "G We do hear them  speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Foremost in this imperishable work of the
Sixteenth Century, was the man who was first and chief in
more works, and in greater ones, than ever fell to any of our
race, in the ordinary vocation of God. Great monuments has
the Sixteenth Century left us of the majesty revealed by the
human mind, when its noblest powers are disciplined by study,
and sanctified by the Spirit of God. Great are the legacies of
doctrinal, polemical, historical and confessional divinity which
that century has left us. Immortal are its confessions, its devotional, practical, hymnological and liturgical labors. It was
the century of Melanchthon's Loci and of Calvin's Institutes,
of the Examen of Chennitz, and the Catalogus Testium of
Flaccius, and of the Magdeburg Centuries. Its confessions are
still the centres of great communions, its hymns are still sung
by devout thousands, its forms still mould the spirit of worship among millions.  But its grandest achievement was the
giving of the Bible to the nations, and the centre and throne
of this achievement is LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, the
greatest single work ever accomplished by man in the department of theological literature.  The Word of God, in
whole or in part, has been translated into several hundred of




LUTHER'S BIBLE.                       13
the dialects of our race. Many of these translations, as for example the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and our own authorized
version, have great historical significance; but in its historical
connections and significance, Luther's is incomparably most
important of all. Had it been his sole labor, the race could
never forget his name.
Never were a greater need and the fittest agent to meet it,
so brought together as in the production of this translation.
One of the earliest convictions of Luther was, the people must
have the Bible, and to this end it must be translated. It is
true, that beginning with the Gothic translation of Ulphilas,
in the fourth century, there had been various translations of
the Scriptures into the Germanic tongues. About 1466, appeared the first Bible, printed in German.  It came from the
press of Eggesteyn, in Strasburg, (not as has been frequently
maintained, from  the press of Faust and Schiffer, in 1462.)
Between the appearance of this Bible and that of Luther, there
were issued in the dialect of Upper Germany some fourteen
editions of the Word of God, beside several in the dialect of
Lower Germany.  These were, without exception, translations
of a translation; they were made from the Vulgate, and, however they may have differed, they had a common character
which may be expressed in a word —they were abominable.
In a copy of one of them, in the library of the writer of this
article, there is a picture of the Deluge, in which mermaids
are floating around the ark, arranging their tresses with the
aid of small looling-glasses, with a most amphibious nonchalance. The rendering is about as true to the idea, as the
picture is to nature.  There is another of these editions, remarkable for typographical errors, which represents Eve, not
as a house-wife, but as a " kiss-wife," and its typography is
the best part of it. Iow Luther raised what seemed a barbarous jargon into a language, which, in flexible beauty,
and power of internal combination, has no parallel but in the
Greek, and in massive vigor no superior but the English,
writers of every school, Protestant and Romish alike, have
loved to tell. The language of Germany has grown since
Luther, but it has had no new creation. le who takes up Lu



14          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ther's Bible grasps a whole world in his hand —a world which
will perish only, when this green earth itself shall pass away.
In all lands in which the battle of the Reformation was
fought, the Bible furnished banner, armor, and
The Only Rule.  _
arms. It was, indeed, more than ensign, more than
shield, more than sword, for " the Word of God is quick and
powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart."  The Word of God opened the eyes of the Reformers
to the existing corruptions; it called them forth from Babylon;
it revealed to them the only source of healing for the sick and
wounded Church; it inspired them with ardor for their holy
work; it lifted them above the desire for man's favor, and the
fear of man's face. The Bible made them confessors, and prepared them to be martyrs.
The Reformers knew where their strength lay.  They felt
that what had redeemed them could alone redeem the Church.
They saw that, under God, their ability to sustain their cause
depended on His Word. The supreme and absolute authority
of God's Word in determining all questions of doctrine and of
duty, is a fundamental principle of the Reformation -a principle so fundamental, that without it, there would have been
no Reformation   and so vital, that a Reformation without it,
could such a Reformation be supposed, would have been at
best a glittering delusion and failure.
It is true, that there was testimony from human sources,
which was not without value, in its right place, in the controversy with Rome. In a certain sense, her condemnation
had already been anticipated by her own lips. In the longgone days of her purity, the Church of Rome had men of God,
who held to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. Thirty years
after our Lord's Ascension, St. Paul wrote to the Church of
Romne,' I am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are
full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish
one another. Your obedience is come abroad unto all men."
This glorious condition did not pass away speedily. There
were generations following, in which the truth was kept conl



THE  ONLY R ULE.                      15
paratively pure. Papal Rome could no more stand before the
judgment of the early writers in the Church of Rome yet undefiled than she could before the Scriptures.  Hence, the confessors declared   that, in their doctrine, there not only was
nothing in conflict with the Holy Scriptures, and with the
true Church Catholic, or Church Universal, but nothing in
conflict with the teachings of the true Church of Rome, as her
doctrines were set forth by the writers of the earlier ages.
The quotations made fiom these Fathers, in the Confession,
best illustrate the meaning of this declaration, and prove its
truth.  Thus, for example, they quote the Nicene Fathers, as
witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity; Ambrose is cited to
show, "that he that believeth in Christ, is saved, without
works, by faith alone, freely receiving remission."  In the articles on Abuses, the testimony of the purer Fathers and Councils is used with great effect.
But not because of the testimony of the Church and of its
writers did the Reformers hold the truth they confessed. They
knew that individual churches could err, and had erred grievously, that the noblest men were fallible. Nothing but the
firm word of God sufficed for them.
They thanked God, indeed, for the long line of witnesses
for the truth of His Word.  Within the Church of Rome, in
the darkest ages, there had been men faithful to the truth.
There were men, in the midst of the dominant corruption,
who spake and labored against it.  There were Protestants,
ages before our princes made their protest at Spires, and
Lutherans, before Luther was born. But not on these, though
they sealed the truth with their own blood, did the Reformers
lean.  They joyfully used them  as testimony, but not as
authority. They placed them in the box of the witness, not
on the bench of the judge.  Their utterances, writings, and
acts were not to be the rule of faith, but were themselves to
be weighed in its balance. In God was their trust, and His
Word alone was their stay.
When the great princes and free cities of our Church at
Augsburg, in 1530, laid their Confession before the Emperor
*Augs. Confess. 47: 1.




16          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and potentates, civil and ecclesiastical, of the realm, they said:
" 4We offer the Confession of the faith held by the pastors and
preachers in our several estates, and the Confession of our
own faith, as drawn fromn the Holy Scriptures, the pure Word of
God."*  That Confession repeatedly expresses, and in every
line implies that the Word of God is the sole rule of faith and
of life. The same is true of the Apology or Defence of the
Confession by Melanchthon, which appeared in the following
year, and which was adopted by the larger part of our Church
as expressing correctly her views. t  Seven years later, the
articles of Smalcald were prepared by Luther, for presentation
at a general council, as an expression of the views of our
Church. In this he says:  ":Not from the works or words
of the Fathers are articles of faith to be made.  We have
another rule, to wit: that God's Word shall determine articles of faith - and, beside it, none other - no, not an angel
even."
Half a century after the Augsburg Confession had gone
forth on its sanctifying mission, our Church in Germany, in
order that her children might not mistake her voice amid the
bewildering conflicts of theological strife, which necessarily
followed such a breaking up of the old modes of human
thought as was brought about by the Reformation, set forth
her latest and amplest Confession. This Confession, with reference to the harmony it was designed to subserve, and under
God did largely subserve, was called the Formula of Concord.
That document opens with these words: " We believe, teach,
and confess that the only rule and law, by which all teachings
and all teachers are to be estimated and judged, is none other
whatsoever than the writings of the prophets and the apostles,
alike of the Old and of the New Testament, as it is written:'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path;'
and St. Paul saith (Gal. 1: 8):' Though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.'"
" All other writings," it continues, " whether of the Fathers,
or of recent authors, be their name what they may, are by no
* A. C. Prsefat. 8.  t- Apol. Con. 284: 60.  2 303: 15.




PROVIDENCE AND  THE  WORD.                    17
means whatsoever to be likened to Holy Scripture; but are,
in such sense, to be subjected to it, as to be received in none
other way than as witnesses, which show how  and where,
after the apostles' times, the doctrines of the apostles and
prophets were preserved." "We embrace," say our confessors,
"the Augsburg Confession, not because it was written by
our theologians, but because it was taken from God's Word,
and solidly built on the foundation of Ioly Scripture."
With equal clearness do the other Churches of the Reformation express themselves on this point.
If, then, the Reformers knew the movements of their own
minds, it was God's Word, and it alone, which made them confessors of the truth.  And it is a fundamental principle of the
Reformation, that God's word is the sole and absolute authority, and rule of faith, and of life, a principle without accepting which, no man can be truly Evangelical, Protestant, or
Lutheran.
Fire not only makes bright and burning the thing it kindles, but gives to it the power of impartation; TlleProvidence
whatever is kindled, kindles again. From  the of God and His
Word, working
Reformers, the fire spread to the people; and from  together in the
cold and darkness the nations seemed to struggle Refrmtion.
upward, as by a common touch from heaven, in flames of holy
sacrifice; and here, too, THE WORD showed its divine power.
We acknowledge, indeed, with joyous hearts, that God had
prepared all things wondrously, for the spread of the flame
of the truth. In GERMANY, the fire was to burst forth, which
was to spread to the ends of the earth.  "In no event in the
history of mankind does the movement of Divine Providence
present itself more unmistakably, than in the Reformation in
Germany." *  The time, the place, the circumstances, the condition of the religious and of the political world, were in wonderful unison. They worked with each other, compensating
each other's weaknesses, and helping each other's power, so as
to give a sure foundation, a firm  hold, a healthy direction, a
high purity, a mighty protection, a wide-spread recognition, a
swift and joyous progress, an abiding issue to the glorious
*Dr. If. Kurtz, K. G.  211.




18         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
work. The soul of the best men of the time was alive to the
wretched condition into which the Church had fallen. A profound longing for the Reformation filled the hearts of nations;
science, literature, art, discovery, and invention were elevating
Europe, and preparing the way for the triumphal march of
pure religion, the queen of all knowledge. In the Papal chair
sat Leo X., a lover of art and literature, careless and indolent
in all things else.  Over the beautiful plains of Germany wandered Tetzel, senseless and impudent, even beyond the class to'
which he belonged, exciting the disgust of all thinking men,
by the profligate manner in which he sold indulgences. To
protect the trembling flame of the truth from the fierce winds,
which, at first, would have extinguished it; to protect it till
the tornado itself should only make it blaze more vehemently,
God had prepared Frederick, the Wise, a man of immense
influence, universally revered, and not more revered than his
earnest piety, his fidelity, his eminent conscientiousness deserved. The Emperor Charles V., with power enough to
quench the flame with a word, with a hatred to it which seemed
to make it certain that he would speak that word, was yet so
fettered by the plans of his ambition, that he left it unsaid, and
thus was made the involuntary protector of that which he
hated. These and a thousand other circumstances were propitions.
But in vain is the wood gathered, and in vain do the winds
breathe, unless the fire is applied. In vain would Luther,
with his incomparable gifts, have risen —in vain would that
genius, to which a Catholic writer declares Luther's own
friends have not done full justice —in vain would that high
courage, that stern resolve have presented themselves in the
matchless combination in which they existed in him, had there
not been first a power beyond that of man to purify him, and
from him to extend itself in flame around him. With all
of Luther's gifts, he might have been a monster of wickedness,
or a slave of the dominant superstition, helping to strengthen
its chains, and forge new ones, had not the truth of God made
him free, had not the Spirit of God in His Word made him an
humble and earnest believer. Luther was first a Christian,




A LESSON FOR  OUR TIMlE.                 19
and then a Reformer, and he became a Reformer because he
was a Christian. "He believed, therefore he spoke."  But
Christian as he was, he could not have been a successful Reformer, had he not possessed the power of spreading the fire of
Divine truth. The fatal defect in all the Reformatory movements in the councils and universities of Paris in the fifteenth
century, was that they were not based upon the true foundation, and did not propose to attain the great end by the right
means. The cry had been for a Reform "in the head and
members" by outward improvement, not in the Spirit and
through the Word. The Reformation was kindled by the
Word; it trusted the Word, and scattered it everywhere,
directing attention to it in every writing, and grounding every
position upon it. The Word soon made itself felt throughout
all Europe. Even in the lands most thoroughly under Papal
power, sparkles of the truth began to show themselves, as in
Austria, Spain, and Italy. But from Wittenberg through
Germany, from Zurich through Switzerland, the first flame
spread, and but a few years passed ere all Europe, which is at
this hour Protestant, had received the pure faith of the Word
of God.
The fire of the Divine Word destroyed the accumulated
rubbish of tradition, swept away the hay, wood, and stubble,
which the hand of man had gathered on the foundation and
heaped over the temple, and the gold, silver, and precious
stones of the true house of God appeared. The Bible, like
sunshine bursting through clouds, poured its light upon the
nations. The teaching of mere men ceased to be regarded as
authority, and the prophecy was again fulfilled: " They shall
all be taught OF GOD."
Three hundred and fifty-three years ago, the first thrill of
the earthquake of the Reformation was felt in  A Lesson for
Europe. Men knew so little of its nature, that they our time.
imagined it could be suppressed. They threw their weight
upon the heaving earth, and hoped to make it lie still. They
knew not that they had a power to deal with, which was
made more terrible in its outburst by the attempt to confine
it. As the result of the opposition to the Reformation,




20         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Europe was made desolate. After the final struggle of the
Thirty Years' War, Europe seemed ruined; its fields had been
drenched with blood, its cities laid in ashes, hardly a family
remained undivided, and the fiercest passions had been so
aroused, that it seemed as if they could never be allayed.
Yet the establishment of the work of the Reformation has
richly repaid Europe for all it endured.  The earthquake
has gone, the streams of desolation have been chilled, and the
nations make a jubilee over the glorious anniversary of that
grand movement which, by the depravity of men, was made
the occasion of so much disturbance and misery. The evils
of which the Reformation was the occasion, have passed
away. We must go to the page of history to know what
they were. The blessings of which the Reformation was the
cause, abide; we feel them in our homes, in the Church, in
the State; they are inwoven with the life of our life. Once
feeling them, we know that this would be no world to live in
without them.
And how instructive is this to us in the struggle of our day
for the perpetuation of the truth restored by the Reformation.
Not alone by Rome, but also by heretical or fanatical PseudoProtestants, is it still assailed —and when we see the guilty
passions, the violence and odious spirit of misrepresentation
excited, and feel them  directed upon ourselves, we may be
tempted to give up the struggle. But we are untrue to the
lessons of the Reformation, if we thus yield.
Men tremble and weep as the molten and seething elements
make the earth quake, and pour themselves out in red and
wasting streams. But their outbursting is essential to their
consolidation, and to their bearing part in the work of the
world. What was once lava, marking its track in ruin, shall
one day lie below fair fields, whose richness it has made. The
olive shall stay the vine, and the'shadows of the foliage of
vine and olive shall ripple over flowers; and women and children, lovelier than the fruits and the flowers, shall laugh and
sing amid them. The blessings from the upheaving of the
heart of the world shall gladden the children of those who
gazed on it with wo-begone eyes. Had a war of three hun



A LESSON FOR  OUR TIME.                  21
dred years been necessary to sustain the Reformation, we now
know the Reformation would ultimately have repaid all the
sacrifices it demanded.  I ad our fathers surrendered the
truth, even under that pressure to which ours is but a feather,
how we would have cursed their memory, as we contrasted
what we were with what we might have been.
And shall we despond, draw back, and give our names to
the reproach of generations to come, because the burden of
the hour seems to us heavy? God, in His mercy, forbid! If
all others are ready to yield to despondency, and abandon the
struggle, we, children of the Reformation, dare not. That
struggle has taught two lessons, which must never be forgotten. One is, that the true and the good must be secured at
any price. They are beyond all price. We dare not compute
their cost. They are the soul of our being, and the whole
world is as dust in the balance against them. No matter
what is to be paid for them, we must not hesitate to lay down
their redemption price. The other grand lesson is, that their
price is never paid in vain. What we give can never be lost,
unless we give too little. If we give all, we shall have all. All
shall come back. Our purses shall be in the mouths of our
sacks. We shall have both the corn and the money. But if
we are niggard, we lose all —lose what we meant to buy, lose
what we have given. If we maintain the pure Word inflexibly
at every cost, over against the arrogance of Rome and of the
weak pretentiousness of Rationalism, we shall conquer both
through the Word; but to compromise on a single point, is to
lose all, and to be lost.




II.
LUTHER PICTURED BY PENCIL AND PEN.*
THE  pictured  life of Luther, by   Sonig  and Gelzer, which
alone we propose to notice at any length, is a charming book
-a book with  a great subject, a happy mode of treatment,
well carried out, and combining the fascination of good pictures,
good  descriptions, and  elegant typography.  It is an offering
of flowers and fruit on the altar of the greatest memory which
the  heart of modern Christianity enshrines.  It is the whole
history  of Luther told  in pictures, and  descriptions of those
*Dr. MARTIN LUTHER der Deutsche Reformator.  In bildlichen Darstellungen
von GUSTAV KONIG. In geschichtlichen Umrissen von Heinrich Gelzer.  Hamburg: Rudolf Besser.  Gotha: Justus Perthes. 1851.  [Dr. Martin Luther the
German Reformer.  In pictorial representations, and historical sketches.] 4to.
(In English, Lond.: 1853.) (With Introduction by T. STORK, D. D. Philada.: 1854.)
AUDIN: Histoire de M. Luther. Nouv. ed. Louvain.: 1845.  2 vols. 8vo.
(Transl. into English, Phila.: 1841. 8vo. London: 1854. 2 vols. 8vo.)
BOWER: Life of Luther. (1813.)  Philada.: 1824.  8vo.
COCIHLUS: Historia M. Lutheri. (1559.)  Ingolst.: 1582. 4to.
ENGELHARD: Lucifer Wittenberg. Leb. Lauf Catherinae v. Bore.) 1747.  12mo.
FABRICIUS: Centifolium Lutheranum.  Hamb.: 1728.
HUNNIUS, N.: Off. Bew. d. D. M. L. zu Ref. beruffen. n. Apologia Olearii.
Leipz.: 1666. 12mo.
JUNCKER: Guld. u. Silb. Ehren. Ged. D. Mart. Luth. Frankf. u. Leipz.: 1706. 8vo.
JURGENS: Luther's Leben.  Leipz.: 1846. 3 vols. 8vo.
KREUSSLER: D. M. L.'s Andenk. in Miinzer. Leipz.: 1818.  8vo.
LABOUCHERE: Illustr. of the Life of Martin Luther. (D'Aubign6.)  Philada.
Luth. Board: 1869. 4to. (Photographs.-A beautiful book.)
LEDDERHOSE: M. L. n. s. aussern u. innern Leben. Speyer.: 1836. 8vo.
LUTHER: Briefe.  De Wette.  Berl.: 1826 seq.  6 vols.  8vo.
"     Concordanz d. Ansicht. etc. Darmst.: 1827-31. 4 vols. 8vo.
"     Opera. Erlangen: 1829 seq. Jena: 1556. Wittenb.: 1545-58.
22




LUTHER'S CHILDHOOD.                                 23
pictures, followed by a connected sketch of the Reformation
as it centred in him.
The work contains forty-eight engravings, divided, with reference to the leading events of his life, or the Luther's childgreat features of his character, into  seven  parts. hood.
The FIRST division embraces the years of his childhood- and, not
uncharacteristically of the  German  origin  of the book, presents us as a first picture  Martin Luther (such we must here
call him by anticipation) on the night of " his birth, 11 o'clock,
November 10th, 1483."   Speaking of Luther's birth, Carlyle
says: "In  the whole world, that day, there was not a more
entirely unimportant-looking pair of people, than  this miner
and his wife.  And yet what were all Emperors, Popes, and
Potentates, in  comparison?  There was born here, once more,
a Mighty Man; whose light was to flame as the beacon over
long centuries and epochs of the world; the whole world and
its history was waiting for this man. It is strange, it is great.
It leads us back  to  another Birth-hour, in a still meaner environment, eighteen  hundred  years ago —of which it is fit
LUTHER: Werke. Altenburg: 1661. Erlangen: 1826 seq. (2d ed. Frankf.
a. M.: 1869 seq.)  Halle (Walch.): 1740-52. Leipzig: 1729-34. Wittenberg:
1539-59.
LUTHER: Table Talk. Hazlitt. Luth. Board Public., Philada.: 1868.
MATHESIUS: Dr. M. L. Leben. In XVII. Predigt.  (1565.) Berlin: 1862.
MELANCHITHON: Vita et Act. Lutheri.  (1546.) Ed.,Forstemann.  Nordhausen: 1846. 8vo.
MELANCHTHON: Aus d. Lateinischen.  (Mayer.)  Wittenb.: 1847.
MEURER: Luthers Leben a. d. Quellen. 2d edit. Dresden: 1852. 8vo.
MORRIS, J. G.: Quaint Sayings and Doings concerning Luther. Philada.:
1859.
MULLER: Lutherus Defensus.  Hamb.: 1658. 12mio.
NIEMEYER, C. H.: M. L. n. s. Leben u. Wirken. Halle: 1817. 8vo.
SCOTT  Luther and the L. Reformation. New York: 1833. 2 vols. 12mo.
SEAiRS: Life of Luther. Am. S. S. Un.
STANG: M. L. s. Leben u. Wirken. Stuttg. 1835. 4to.
UKERT: L.'s Leben, mit d. Literat. Gotha: 1817. 8vo.
ULENBERG: Gesch. d. Lutherischer Reformatoren. Dr. M. Luther, &c. Mainz:
1836. 2 vols. 8vo.
WEISER: Life of Luther. Balto.: 1853.
WIELAND: Charakteristik. D. M. L. Chemnitz: 1801. 12mo.
ZIMMERMANN, K.: Luther's Leben. in Reformat. Schriften D. M. L. Darmstadt: 1846-1849. 4 vols. 8vo.




24          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
that we say nothing, that we think only in silence; for what
wvords are there! The Age of Miracles past?  The Age of
Miracles is forever here!"*  In the second picture, Master
Martin is brought to school, to  a terrible-looking schoolmaster, with a bundle of rods in his hand, and with a boy
whom  you can almost hear sobbing, crouching at the back
of his chair.  In the third, wandering with his little comrades, he comes, singing, to the door of Madame Cotta in
Eisenach, (1498.)  In a little niche below, his gentle protectress brings him his lute, to win him for a while from his books.
The SECOND division leads us over his youth, in seven illustrations.  In the first, Luther is seen in the. LiLuther's Youth.
bra.ry of the University of Erfurt, gazing eagerly,
for the first time, on the whole Bible-his hand unconsciously
relaxing on a folio Aristotle, as he reads, (1501.) Next, the
Providence is smiting, together with the Word.  IHis friend
Alexis, as they journey,falls dead at his side,bya thunderstroke.
Then follows the step of a fearful heart. With sad face, and
with the moon, in her first quarter, beaming on him like that
faith which was yet so far from the full; with his heathen
poets beneath his arm, he takes the hand of the monk who
welcomes him  to the cloister of the Augustinian Eremites,
(1505.) Next the monk receives the solemn consecration to
the priesthood, and now with the tonsure, the cowl and the
rosary, barefooted, with the scourge by his side, he agonizes,
with macerated body and bleeding heart, at the foot of the
crucifix.  We turn a leaf-he lies in his cell, like one deadhe has swooned over the Bible, which he now never permits
to leave his hand.  The door has been burst open, and his
friends bring lutes, that they may revive him by the influence
of the only power which yet binds him to the world of sense.
Now a ray of light shoots in: the Spirit chafing in the body
has brought him  hard by the valley of death; but an old
brother in the Cloister, by one word of faith gives him power
to rise from his bed of sickness, and clasp his comforter around
the neck. With this touching scene, ends this part.
* On Heroes and Hero-Worship -or Six Lectures by Thomas Carlyle -New
York, 1849, p. 114.




LUTHER AT THE  UNIVERSITY.                    25
In the THIRD period, we have illustrations of Luther's career
at the University of Wittenberg. As a Bachelor  Lther at the
of Arts he is holding philosophical and theo- Uiversity.
logical prelections, (1508.) Then we have him preaching in
the Cloister before Staupitz, and the other brethren of his order,
as a preliminary to appearing in the Castle and City church.
Luther's journey to Rome (1510) is shown in four pictures
grouped on one page.'In the first he is starting eagerly on his
journey to the' holy city "-in the second, at first view of that
home of martyrs hallowed by their blood, and not less by the
presence of the vicar of Christ and vicegerent of God, he falls
upon his knees, in solemn awe and exultation; in the centre, he
is gazing on the proud and godless Pope Julius, riding with pampered cardinals in his train-and in the last, he looks back, and
waves over that city the hand whose bolts in after time seemed
mighty enough to sink it to that realm-over which, its own
inhabitants told him, if there was a hell, Rome was certainly
built.*  " To conceive of Luther's emotions on entering Rome,
we must remember that he was a child of the north, who loved
privation and fasting —who was of a meditative nature, and
had vowed to the cross of Christ an austere worship. Iis
Christianity was of a severe and rigid character.  When he
prayed it was on the stone; the altar before which he knelt
was almost invariably of wood; his church was time-worn,
and the chasuble of its ministers of coarse wool. Imagine,
then, this monk —this poor Martin, who walked twelve hundred miles, with nothing to support him but coarse bread;
think of him suddenly transported to the midst of a city of
wonders, of pleasure, of music, and of pagan antiquity. What
must have been his feelings: he who had never heard any
greater sound than was made by the falling water of the convent fountain-who knew  no recreation beyond that of his
lute, when prayers were over, and who knew no ceremony
more imposing than the induction of an Augustinian monk —
how must he have been astonished, even scandalized!.He had
fancied to himself an austere religion-its brow encircled with
* "So hab ich selbs zu Rom gehort sagen: ist eine Hille, so ist Rom darauf
gebaut."




26          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
care, its ministers lying on the hard ground, sating their thirst
at heavenly founts, dressed as were the Apostles, and treading
on stony paths with the Everlasting Gospel in their hands.
In place of this he saw cardinals borne in litters, or on horseback, or in carriages, their attire blazing with jewels, their
faces shaded by canopies, or the plumes of the peacock, and
marking their route by clouds of dust so dense as completely
to veil and hide their attendants.  His dreams reverted to
those days, when the chief of the Apostles, a pilgrim like
himself, had only a staff to support his weakness. The poor
scholar, who, in his childhood, had endured so much, and who
often pillowed his head on the cold ground, now passes before
palaces of marble, alabaster columns, gigantic granite obelisks,
sparkling fountains, villas adorned with gardens, cascades and
grottos!  Does he wish to pray? I-e enters a church, which
appears to him a little world; where diamonds glitter on the
altar, gold upon the ceiling, marble in the columns, and mosaic in the chapels. In his own country, the rustic temples
are ornamented by votive flowers laid by some pious hand
upon the altar. Is he thirsty?  Instead of one of those springs
that flow through the wooden pipes of Wittenberg, he sees
fountains of white marble, as large as German houses. Is he
fatigued with walking?  He finds on his road, instead of a
modest wooden seat, some antique, just dug up, on which he
may rest. Does he look for a holy image? He sees nothing
but the fantasies of paganism, old deities —still giving employment to thousands of sculptors.  They are the gods of
Demosthenes, and of Praxiteles; the festivals and processions
of Delos; the excitement of the forum.; in a word, pagan folly:
but of the foolishness of the Cross, which St. Paul extols, he
appears nowhere to see either memorial or representation."*
These are the concessions, and this the apology of a Roman
Catholic historian, and we permit them  to pass together.
After his return we see Luther with high solemnities created
Doctor of the Holy Scriptures, Carlstadt as Dean of the Theological Faculty, officiating at his promotion, (1512.) The close
of this era leaves Luther busy in dictating letters, and per* Audin's Life of Luther.




THE REFORMATION iN I TS RISE.                  27
forming the functions of "a Vicar-General of the Augustinian
Order," with which he had been intrusted by Staupitz, (1516.)
By this office he was fitted for that part which he took in
giving form to the Church when it ere long began to renew
its youth like the eagle's.
We come now to the Reformation itself, (1517,) the warning
flash, the storm, and the purified heaven that  The Reformafollowed it. This period is embraced in sixteen tion in its rise.
principal pictures, with seven subsidiary ones on a smaller
scale.
The first of these grouped pictures presents four scenes. Below, Luther is refusing, as the Confessor of his people, to give
them absolution, while they exultingly display their indulgences; in the centre, Luther nails to the door of the churchtower the immortal theses-on the left, Tetzel sells indulgences,
and commits Luther's writing to the flames, and on the right,
the Wittenberg students are handling his own anti-theses in the
same unceremonious way. The smoke from both fires rises to
a centre above the whole, and, like the wan image in a dream,
the swan whose white wings were waving before Huss' dying
eyes, is lifting herself unscathed from the flames. NTow Luther bends before Cajetan, and then at night, "without shoe or
stocking, spur or sword," flies on horseback through a portal
of Augsburg. The picture that follows is one of great beauty,
rich in portraits. It represents the dispute at Leipsic between
Luther and Eck, (1519.) In the Hall of the Pleissenburg the
two great chieftains face each other —the one bold, cogent,
overwhelming-the other sly, full of lubricity, sophistical
and, watchful; the one Hercules, the other the Hydra. By Luther's side sits Melanchthon, with the deep lines of thought
upon his youthful face; at their feet, Carlstadt, with a book
in each hand, with knit brows searches for something which
his treacherous memory has not been able to retain.  In the
centre of the court, Duke George of Saxony listens earnestly to
the dispute, till at Luther's words, that " some Articles even
of Huss.and the Bohemians accorded with the Gospel," he involuntarily exclaimed, " The man is mad! "  At his feet sits
the court-fool, gazing with a puzzled and earnest air at Dr. Eck,




28          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
as though he dreaded remotely that he had in him a dangerous competitor for his own office. Next we have Luther burning the Papal bull, (1520,) then his reception at Worms, (1521.)
These are followed by a double picture: above, Luther is preparing by prayer to appear before the Emperor and the Diet;
his lattice opens out upon the towers of the city, and the calm
stars are shining upon him. It reminds us of the garden at
Wittenberg, where, one evening at sunset, a little bird has
perched for the night: "That little bird," says Luther"above it are the stars and deep heaven of worlds; yet it has
folded its little wings; gone trustfully to rest there as in
its home."  His lute rests by his side, his brow is turned to
heaven and his hands clasped fervently; below, he approaches
the entrance to the Diet; the knight Frundsberg lays a friendly
hand upon his shoulder, and speaks a cheering word. In the
angles of the ornamental border appear statues of those two
heroes who declared themselves ready with word and sword,
if need were, to defend at Worms their "holy friend, the unconquerable Theologian and Evangelist;" Hutten rests upon
the harp and lifts the sword in his right hand; his brow is
crowned with the poet's laurel; the brave Sickingen lifts the
shield upon his arm, and holds in his right hand the marshal's
staff. Luther has entered the hall- stands before the mighty -
and is represented at the moment when he throws his whole
soul into that " good confession," surpassed in moral grandeur
but by one, in the whole history of the race. "The Diet of
Worms, Luther's appearance there on the 17th of April, 1521,
may be considered as the greatest scene in modern European
History; the poiut, indeed, from which the whole subsequent history of civilization takes its rise. The world's pomp and power
sits there, on this hand: on that,.stands up for God's truth,
one man, the poor miner Hans Luther's son. Our petition -
the petition of the whole world to him was:' Free us; it rests
with thee; desert us not.' Luther did not desert us. It is, as
we say, the greatest moment in the Modern History of Men 
English Puritanism, England and its Parliaments, America's
vast work these two centuries; French Revolution, Europe
and its work everywhere at present: the germ of it all lay




FANATICISM.                         29
there: had Luther in that moment done other, it had all been
otherwise."'   Next follows his arrest on the way, (1521.)
Next, sitting in the dress of a knight, his cap hanging on the
head of the chair, his sword resting at its side, in a quiet
chamber of the Thuringian castle, we see him at work on his
translation of the Bible. But his active spirit prompts him to
return to his former duties at any risk; now, with his book
resting on the pommel of his saddle, he rides away from the
Wartburg; meets the Swiss students at the hostelry of the Black
Bear in Jena, who can talk about nothing but Luther, who
sits unknown, and is recognized by them with astonishment
when at Wittenberg they meet him in the circle of his friends.
A  new stadium  is now reached in this era.  The danger
greater than all outward dangers, that which arises within
great moral movements, now begins to display itself.  From
applying the internal remedies well calculated to eradicate the
cause of disease, men begin to operate upon the
(,In~  *.,~ 1~ n~.*   1 1  Fanaticism.
surface; instead of curing the leprosy, they commence scraping off its scales. The war against images in the
churches commenced;'Cut, burn, break, annihilate,' was the
cry, and the contest was rapidly changing, from a conflict with
errors in the human heart, to an easy and useless attack on paint
and stone.  A harder struggle; than any to which he had yet
been called, demands Luther's energy. He must defend the living
truth from the false issues into which its friends may carry it.
Luther arrests the storm against images. The artist places him
in the centre of a band of iconoclasts in the temple. His hand
and.voice arrest a man who is about climbing a ladder to destroy the ornaments of the church.  Near him a youth holding a chasuble is pausing to hear; on the floor, a peasant suspends the tearing of a missal in the middle of a page; an older
man, with a heap of sacred vestments beneath him  and a
Broken crosier under his foot, half relaxes his hold on the
Monstrance, and looks scowlingly around. On the extreme right
of the picture, there is a fine contrast between the fanatical
countenance of a man who has just lifted a heavy hammer
against the statue of a saint, and the placid face which he is
* Cailyle, Heroes and Hero-Worship, p. 121.




30          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
about to destroy. Carlstadt, with his foot propped upon the
shoulder of a devout old bishop in stone, looks on Luther with
an expression of impotent wrath.
The next picture leads us to a calmer scene. Luther is in his
Luther ald quiet room. His translation of the Bible is growTFlanchthon. ing beneath his hand. By his side, rendering invaluable aid, is Melanchthon: " Still," said Luther, " in age, form,
and mien, a youth: but in mind a MAN."  This was the time
of their first love, when they were perfectly of one spirit, and
full of admiration, each of the other's wondrous gifts; when
Melanchthon knew no glory on earth beyond that of looking
upon Luther as his father, and Luther's chief joy was to see
and extol Melanchthon, (1523-24.)
Next, as if the artist would lead us through alternate
Luther's mar- scenes of sunshine and tempest, we have Luther
ri"ge.     preaching in Seeburg against the peasant war,
(1525;) a noble picture crowded with varied life. Then from
revelry, arson, and rapine, we are led into a private chapel in
the house of the Registrar of Wittenberg. The jurist, Apel,
and the great painter, Cranach, stand on either side; Bugenhagen blesses the plighted troth of Luther and Catherine,
who kneel before him, she with her long hair flowing over
her shoulders, and the marriage wreath on her brow, her face
meekly and thoughtfully bent downward; he holding her
right hand in his, his left pressing on his heart, and his eyes
turned to heaven, (June 13th, 1525.)
From sunshine to storm —Luther's conference with Zwingle
on the question of the Sacrament, (October 1-4, 1529.) Luther
Luther and  had redeemed the Gospel doctrine of the Supper from
Zwingle.    the gross materialism and scholastic refinings of
Rome: it was now his work to maintain it against the error
which violent reaction had produced, a hyperspiritualizing,
which was driven to so violent a resort as confounding thb
benefits of our Redeemer's flesh with the feebleness of our own.
It was to save the living body of Christ himself from disseverance, to rescue the Reformation from a tendency toward Sect,
which an easy perversion of some of its principles might cause,
that Luther struggled. As the Protestant world has receded




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.                     31
from the great sacramental principles which Luther maintained at Marburg, just in that proportion has it been torn
with internal dissension-and just in proportion to its return
to them, has there risen a more earnest striving toward a
consummation of the Saviour's prayer: that all his people
might be one. No man in Luther's time, no man since, so
harmoniously blended, so kept in their due proportion all the
elements of a real Reformation. "Luther's character," says
Bengel, "was truly great.  All his brother Reformers together will not make a Luther. His death was an important
epocha; for nothing, since it took place, has ever been really
added to the Reformation itself."
The artist closes this period fitly, with the delivery of the
Augsburg Confession, (1530,) that great providen-  The Augsburg
tial act by which God, having brought to mature Co"fession.
consciousness the leading doctrines of the Gospel, gave them
currency in the whole.world. Thirteen years had passed since
the truth, like a whisper in a secret place, had been uttered at
Wittenberg; now it was to ring like a trumpet before the
Emperor and his whole realm. " In sighs and prayers," writes
Luther from Coburg,' I am by your side. If we fall, Christ
falls with us —if HIe fall, rather will I fall with him than
stand with the Emperor; but we need not fear, for Christ
overcometh the world." In the picture, the artist has ranged
the Evangelical party to the right, the Romish to the left of
the spectator: contrary to the historical fact, he has introduced
Melanchthon, who stands most prominently, with folded arms
and careworn face. Below him, the Elector, John the Constant, clasps his hands in silent invocation; behind whom
stands George, Margrave of Brandenburg, and by his side sits
Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, bracing himself on his sword.
In the centre sits Charles, his Spanish origin showing itself
in his features. Back of his seat is embroidered the doubleheaded crowned eagle of the Empire. A  crown with triple
divisions, the central one of which is surmounted by a
small cross, rests on his head-the sceptre is in his hand.
The ermine, crosiers, mitres' cowl, and cardinal's hat mark
the party to his right. Before him the Chancellor Baier reads




32          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATI O N.
the Confession.  Around the picture are thrown connected
Gothic ornaments; in the upper arch of which Luther is prostrate in prayer. At its base an angel holds in either hand the
coat of arms of Luther and Melanchthon, with an intertwining
band, on which are traced the words from  Luther's favorite
Psalm: " I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of
the Lord."  From the highest point, not without significance,
rises the cross, and here this part appropriately ends.
The Church thus fairly brought to a full self-consciousness,
The Reforma- the FIFTH part, presents us, in four characteristic
ininitsrlts. pictures, the results.  In the first, Luther, with
all his co-laborers, Christian and Jewish, around him, labors on
that translation of which even a Jesuit historian speaks thus:
"Luther's translation of the Bible is a noble monumenlt of literaTranslation of ture, a vast enterprise which seemed to require
the Bible.
"' e    more than the life of man; but which Luther
accomplished in a few years.  The poetic soul finds in this
translation evidences of genius, and expressions as natural,
beautiful and melodious as in the original languages. Luther's
translation sometimes renders the primitive phrase with touching simplicity, invests itself with sublimity and magnificence,
and receives all the modifications which he wishes to impart to
it. It is simple in the recital of the patriarch, glowing in the
predictions of the prophets, familiar in the Gospels, and colloquial in the Epistles. The imagery of the original is rendered
with undeviating fidelity; the translation occasionally approaches the text.  We must not then be astonished at the
enthusiasm which Saxony felt at the appearance of Luther's
version. Both Catholics and Protestants regarded it an honor
done to their ancient idiom."* In the picture, Luther stands between Bugenhagen and Melanchthon; Jonas, Forstensius, Creuziger, and the Rabbins are engaged in the effort to solve some
difficulty that has risen.
The second result is shown in a scene in a school-room,
in which the Catechismn has just been introduced.
heatchismLuther sits in the midst of the children teaching
them the first Article of the Creed. Jonas is distributing the
* Audin's Luther, chap. xxiv.




LUTHER IN PRIVATE LIFE.                      33
book among them, and in the background a number of teachers
listen that they may learn to carry out this new feature in
their calling.
The third result is shown in the pulpit.  Luther had given
the Bible for all ages, and all places; he had laid,,e P,,pit.
primal principles at the foundation of human Clurch Service.
thought, by introducing the Catechism into the schools; now
he re-creates the service of the church.  In the engraving the
artist has grouped happily, all that is associated with the
Evangelical service.  Luther, in the pulpit, is preaching to
nobles and subjects, with all the fervor of his soul. The font
and altar, illumined by a flood of sunbeams, recall the Sacraments; the organ reminds us of the place which the Reformation gave to sacred music, and the alms-box, of its appeals to
sacred pity. The fourth picture represents the administration of the Lord's Supper in both kinds; Luther extends the
cup to the Elector John Frederick, whilst Bugenhagen distributes the bread.
The SIXTH general division shows us Luther in private life.
First we have two pictures illustrating his relations
Luther in  prito his princes.  In one he is represented reading  atelife. pinces.
from  the Bible to his devoted friend, the Elector Friens. Family.
John the Constant; in the other, on his sick-beld, he is visited
and comforted by the Elector John Frederick, (1537.) Secondly,
we have him in his relations to his personal friends. In the first
picture, Luther is sitting for his likeness, to Lucas Cranach; in
the next he is rousing Melanchthon almost from the torpor of
death, by the prayer of faith; the third, illustrating the intro.
duction of the German church music, conducts us into Luther's
" hantry in the House." With his children and friends around
him, he is giving voice to the first Evangelical hymns. The
little choir is led by Walter, Master of the Electoral Chapel; on
the left stands the Chanter, on the right, Mathesius. Thirdly.
we see him in his family. The first picture shows him in the
enjoyment of all that imparts delight to summer -with his
household and his most familiar friends about him.  It is
a charming scene of innocent festivity which the artist here
brings before the eye. Under a trellis mantled with vines.
3




34          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
loaded with rich clusters of grapes, the party is assembied, at
sunset. Luther holds out his hands to his youngest child,
who, by the aid of his mother, is tottering towards his father
with a bunch of grapes weighing down his little hands. The
oldest boy, mounted on a light ladder, hands down the grapes,
which Madeleine receives in her apron. The third boy is bringing to his father a cluster remarkable for its size; the second
son is playing with the dog, perhaps that very dog which,
Luther said, had "looked at many books."  The ground is
covered with melons. One of Luther's friends plays upon the
flute, another sketches a basket of beautiful fruit; two of them
sit beneath the arbor, and two others wander in the garden in
friendly converse. Through an arch in the wall the river is
seen winding quietly along, under the last rays of the declining
sun. What a change from the time of scourging before the
crucifix!
As a counterpart to this scene, we next have Luther on
Luther at Christmas Eve in the family circle. This is a
Christnms.    picture that touches the heart.  The Christmas-tides of Luther's life might indeed be considered as its
epitome.
Fourteen times Christmas dawned on the cradle, or on the
sports of Luther as a peasant boy.  Four times Christmas
found the boy in the school at Magdeburg. Long years after,
in his old age, he gave a sketch of those Christmas days.
" At the season when the Church keeps the festival of Christ's
birth, we scholars went through the hamlets from house to
house, singing in quartette the familiar hymns about Jesus,
the little child born at Bethlehem.  As we were passing a
farm-yard at the end of a village, a farmer came out, and in
his coarse voice, offered us food. His heart was kind, but we
had become so familiar with the threats and cruelty of the
school, that we fled at the sound of harsh tones. But his repeated calls reassured us, and we returned and received his
gifts."
Four times Christmas found him  amid the toils of the
school at Erfurt. Then came a Christmas in which the angel
voice seemed no more to sing,' Peace on earth, good will




LUTHER AT CHRISTMAS.                     35
toward men;" nothing but wrath seemed above him, and the
pains of death around him. In the gray stone walls of the
cloister he shut himself up to wrestle with dark doubts and
agonizing fears.
Christmas after Christmas came. Some sunshine flickered
in successive years over the cell of the monk. The gentle
hand of him who came as the Babe of Bethlehem was touching and healing the heart corroded with care. Gleams of indwelling greatness began to break forth from the cloud in
which he had been folded.
The turn of the autumn leaves of 1517 reminded children
that Christmas was once more drawing near; but on the gales
which swept those leaves from the trees was borne, through
all Christendom, the first sounds of a mighty battle for the
right of the Babe of Bethlehem to sit upon the throne of all
hearts as the Saviour of the race. Years followed, but Christmas and all festivals, and all waking and  all dreaming
thoughts of men were directed to one great life-question, were
absorbed in one surpassing interest. In half of Christendom,
as Christmas eve came on, the soft light in children's eyes
turned to a fierce glare, as lisping amid their toys and echoing
the words of the old, they spoke of the traitor to the mother
of the blessed Babe, the heretic who would destroy their
Christmas if he could. In the other half of Christendom the
eyes of men grew bright, and those of women were suffused
with tears of gratitude, and children shouted for gladness at
the mention of the name of one who had led back the race to
the cradle, and taught them  to bow there, as did the shepherds in childlike trust - trust not in the mother, but in her
holy Child.
All days were Christmas to the great Restorer. HIe had
found the- Christ, and when he was not kneeling with the
shepherds, he was singing with the angels. One Christmas he
spent in his rocky Patmos, but a starlight, as soft as that of
Palestine on the mystic night, touched'every pinnacle of the
old towers. The next Christmas passed in that circle of near
friends which loved and was loved by one of the greatest
and warmest hearts that ever beat in human bosoms. Bat



36           CONSERVATIVE  REFORMIATION.
tie and storm, sorrow and sickness came, but Christmas came
too.
Then  came a bright year, not the most glorious, but the
most happy of his life.  That great home-nature had never
had a home.  His Christmas had been spent in the home of
others.  There came a Christmas, and by his side, as he
thanked God once more for the great gift to whose memory
it was consecrated, there knelt by him  his wife, her hand in
his, and her face turned with his towards the world, whose
light and song is the Babe of Bethlehem.  The heaven of the
presence of children was in that home in the Christmas of
after years.  Madeleine and Martin, Paul and Margaret, immortal by their birth, were the olive-plants around the Christmas tree.  In the beautiful pictures by Kinig, one of the
happiest is devoted to Luther at Christmas in the family
circle. The Christmas tree blazes in all its glory in the centre;
the tapers imparting a new ravishment to those inconceivable
fruits, trumpets, horses, cakes, and dolls, which only Christmas trees can bear. On Luther's lap kneels his youngest child,
clasping him  around the neck.  Its little night-cap and slip
and bare feet show that it has been kept from its bed to see
the wonderful sight.  On Luther's shoulder, and clasping his
hands in hers, leans Catherine, with the light of love, that
light which can beam only from the eye of a devoted wife and
mother, shining upon him.  The oldest boy, under Melanchthon's direction, is aiming with a cross-bow at an apple on the
tree, recalling to our mind that charming letter which his
father wrote from  Coburg to him, when he was only four
years old, in which are detailed the glories of that paradisiacal
garden, meant for all good boys, where, among apples and
pears, and ponies with golden bits and silver saddles, crossbows of silver were not forgotten.*
* Luther's letter to his little son is so beautiful a.nd characteristic that our
readers, though they have read it a hundred times, will not pass it by as we
give it here. It was written in 1530, from Coburg, when Luther's destiny, and
the whole future of his work, seemed trembling in the balance. It shows that
his childlike mind was at once the cause and the result of his repose of spirit in
God.
"Grace and peace in Christ, my dear little son. I am very glad to know that




LUTHER AT CHRISTMAS.                                 37
At the table, " Mubme Lehne" (cousin Helena, not a withered old woman, as she is generally  pictured, but Luther's
young niece, who  was not married  till Madeleine was nine
years old,) is showing a book of pictures to  the second boy;
the third boy clasps his father's knee with one hand, in which,
however, he manages to hold  a string  also, by which he has
been drawing along a knight in full armor on horseback, while
with the other hand he holds up a hobby-horse.  Madeleine is
clasping in her hand, in ecstasy, the little angel which always
stands apeak of all orthodox Christmas trees -  when it can be
had-and  which, when  the curtain  of the gorgeous childdrama of Christmas eve has fallen, is given to the angel of the
household -the best of the children.  Her doll by her side is
forgotten, the full light from  the tree is on her happy face, in
which, however, there is an air of thought, something more
of heavenly musing than is wont to be pictured upon the face
of a child.
you learn your lessons well, and love to say your prayers. Keep on doing so,
my little boy, and when I come home I will bring you something pretty from the
fair. I know a beautiful garden, where there are a great many children in fine
little coats, and they go under the trees and gather beautiful apples and pears,
cherries and plums: they sing, and run about, and are as happy as they can be.
Sometimes they ride about on nice little ponies, with golden bridles and silver
saddles. I asked the man whose garden it is, What little children are these?
And he told me, They are little children who love to pray and learn, and are
good. Then I said: My dear sir, I have a little boy at home; his name is little
Hans Luther; would you let him come into the garden too, to eat some of these
nice apples and pears, and ride on these fine little ponies, and play with these
children? The man said: If he loves to say his prayers, and learn his lesson,
and is a good boy, he may come. And Philip and Jocelin may come too; and
when they are all together, they can play upon the fife and drum and lute and all
kinds of instruments, and skip about and shoot with little cross-bows. He then
showed me a beautiful mossy place in the middle of the garden, for them to skip
about in, with a great many golden fifes, and drums, and silver cross-bows. The
children had not yet had their dinner, and I could not wait to see them play, but
I said to the man: My dear sir, I will go away and write all about it to my little
son, John, and tell him to be fond of saying his prayers, and learn well, and be
good, so that he may come into this garden; but he has a cousin Lehne, whom
he must bring along with him.  The man said, Very well, go write to him.
Now, my dear little son, love your lessons, ard your prayers, and tell Philip
and Jocelin to do so too, that you may all come to the garden. May God bless
you.. Give cousin Lehne my love, and kiss her for me."




38         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Oh, happy Christmas!  thou mayest be the prelude to wailing. The little coffin may follow the Christmas tree within
our door. Thy babe, O Bethlehem, turned in the sleep of that
hallowed night, his pure, pale face toward Gethsemane. The
angel of the Christmas tree could not guard the home from
life's sorrows.  Days of grief are coming thick and fast upon
that noble one, whom heaven, earth, and hell knew so well.
Carrying the weight of a wounded heart, that form  was
bowed, which neither kings, nor popes, nor devils could bend.
The candles of the Christmas tree of 1542 were not mirrored
in the eyes of his beautiful and darling Madeleine. Those
gentle eyes had been closed by her father's hand three months
before  the ruddy lips parting in joy at the Christmas festival,
one year ago, had received the last kiss —their music was
hushed in the home, and the little ones grew still in the very
flush of their joy, as they thought that their sister was lying
in the church-yard, with the chill snows drifting around her
grave.
The old man's heart was longing for Christmas in heaven,
and his sigh was heard.
Through threescore and two years he had on earth opened
his eyes upon the natal day of our Redeemer. When the next
Christmas came he stood by that Redeemer's side in glory;
and transfigured in heaven's light, and in surpassing sweetness, there stood with him that fair girl who had gazed upon
the angel of the Christmas tree with dreamy eyes, which told
that even then, in thought, she was already in heaven.
As we think upon the obvious meaning of the artist in her
attitude and occupation, the heart grows, not wholly unprepared for the next and last of these family scenes. Luther'kneels by the coffin of this same lovely daughter. The struggle
is over  a holy serenity illumines his face. He has given her
back, with no rebellious murmur, to her God. To those who
Luther andMa- have contemplated the character of Luther only
deleine.  in his public life, it might appear strange to
assert that there never was a heart more susceptible than
his to all that is tender in human emotion, or melting in human sympathies. The man who, while he was shaking to its




LUTHER AND MADELEINE.                      39
foundation the mightiest dominion the world ever saw, remained unshaken, was in his social and domestic life a perfect
example of gentleness. "Perhaps no man of so humble, peaceable disposition ever filled the world with contention.  We
cannot but see that he would have loved privacy, quiet diligence in the shade; that it was against his will he ever became
a notoriety."-" They err greatly who imagine that this man's
courage was ferocity —no accusation could be more unjust.
A most gentle heart withal, full of pity and love, as indeed the
truly valiant heart ever is. I know few things more touching
than those soft breathings of affection, soft as a child's or a
mother's, in this great wild heart of Luther.  Luther to a
slight observer might have seemed a timid, weak man; modesty, affectionate shrinking tenderness, the chief distinction of
him. It is a noble valor which is roused in a heart like this,
once stirred up into defiance; all kindled into a heavenly
blaze."* How open his heart was to those influences which
sanctify whilst they sadden, he showed on the death of Elizabeth, his second child, in infancy: " My little daughter is dead.
I am surprised how sick at heart she has left me; a woman's
heart, so shaken am  I.  I could not have believed that a
father's soul would have been so tender toward his child."
"I can teach you what it is to be a father, especially a father
of one of that sex which, far more than sons, has the power of
awakening our most tender emotions."  Yet more touching
was that event to which our artist has consecrated this picture. Madeleine, his third child, and second daughter, died in
September, 1542, in the fourteenth year of her age - four years
before her father.  "Luther bore this blow with wonderful
firmness.  As his daughter lay very ill, he exclaimed, as he
raised his eyes to heaven,'I love her much, but, O my God!
if it be thy will to take her hence, I would give her up to thee
without one selfish murmur.' One day she suffered violent
pain: he approached her bed, and taking hold of her small
thin hands, pressed them  again and again to his lips.'My
dearest child, my own sweet and good Madeleine, I know you
would gladly stay with your father here; but in heaven there
* Carlyle's Heroes and Hero-Worship, p. 125.




40          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
is a better Father waiting for you. You will be equally ready
to go to your Father in heaven, will you not?''0 yes, dear
father, answered the dying child,'let the will of God be done.''Dear little girl,' he continued,'the spirit is willing, but the
flesh is weak.' He walked to and fro in agitation, and said,' Ah, yes! I have loved this dear child too much. If the flesh
is so strong,what becomes of the spirit?' Turning to a friend
who had come to visit him:' See,' said he,' God has not given
such good gifts these thousand years to any bishop as He has
to me.  We may glorify ourselves in the gifts of God. Alas!
I feel humbled that I cannot rejoice now as I ought to do, nor
render sufficient thanks to God. I try to lift up my heart
from time to time to our Lord in some little hymn, and to
feel as I ought to do.' —'Well, whether we live or die, we
are the Lord's."'
The night before Madeleine's death, her mother had a dream,
in which she saw two fair youths beautifully attired, who
came as if they wished to take Madeleine away with them, and
conduct her to be married.  When Melanchthon came the
next morning and asked the lady how it was with her daughter,
she related her dream, at which he seemed frightened, and remarked tp others, "that the young men were two holy angels,
sent to carry the maiden to the true nuptials of a heavenly
kingdom."  She died that salme day. When the last agony
came on, and the countenance of the young girl was clouded
with the dark hues of approaching death, her father threw
himself on his knees by her bedside, and with clasped hands,
weeping bitterly, prayed to God that he would spare her.
Her consciousness ceased, and resting in her father's arms she
breathed her last.  Catherine, her mother, was in a recess of
the room, unable, from excess of grief, to look upon the deathbed of her child. Luther softly laid the head of his beloved
one upon the pillow, and repeatedly exclaimed: "Poor child,
thou hast found a Father in heaven! 0 my, God! let thy will
be done! "  Melanchthon then observed that the love of pa.rents for their.childrenis an image of the divine love impressed
on the hearts of men. God loves mankind no less than parents
do their children.




LUTHER AND MADELEINE.                     41
On the following day she was interred. When they placed
her on the bier, her father exclaimed, "My poor, dear little
Madeleine, you are at rest now!"  The workman had made
the coffin somewhat too small. "Thy couch here," said Luther, "is narrow; but oh! how beautiful is that on which thou
restest above!"  Then looking lorrg and fixedly at her, he
said, "Yes, dear child, thou shalt rise again, shalt shine as the
stars, yes, like the sun... I am joyful in spirit; but oh, how
sad in the flesh! It is a strange feeling, this, to know she is
so certainly at rest, that she is happy, and yet to be so sad."
When the body was being lowered into the grave, " Farewell!"
he exclaimed, " Farewell, thou lovely star, we shall meet
again."
The people in great crowds attended the funeral, showing
the deepest sympathy with his grief. When the bearers came
to his house and expressed their sorrow, he replied, "Ah,
grieve no more for her; I have given to heaven another angel.
Oh  that we may each experience such a death: such a death
I would gladly die this moment." " True," said a bystander; to
whom Luther replied, "Flesh is flesh, and blood is blood. But
there may be joy in the heart, whilst there is sorrow in the
countenance. It is the flesh that weeps and is afflicted." At
the grave the language of condolence was offered. " We know
how you suffer."-" Thanks for your sympathy," said he, " but
I am not sad -my dear angel is in heaven."
Whilst some laborers were singing at the grave the words
"Lord remember not our sins of old," he was heard to sigh:
"No, gracious Lord; nor our sins of to-day, nor of times tc
come."
When the grave-digger threw the earth on the coffin, " Fix
your eyes," said Luther, "on the resurrection of the flesh;
heaven is my daughter's portion - body and soul - all is the
arrangement of God in his providence. Why should we repine?  Is it not His will that is accomplished?  We are the
children of eternity. I have begotten a child for heaven."
On returning from the burial, he said, amongst other things,
"The fate of our children, and above all, of girls, is ever a
cause of uneasiness. I do not fear so much for boys; they can




42          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
find a living anywhere, provided they know how to work.
But it is different with girls; they, poor things, must search
for employment, staff in hand. A boy can enter the schools,
and attain eminence, but a girl cannot do much to advance
herself; and is easily led away by bad example, and is lost.
Therefore, without regret, I give up this dear one to our
Lord.  Children die without anguish; they know not the bitter pains of death; it is as if they fell asleep."
This affliction struck Luther to the heart. He looked upon
it as an admonition of Heaven: it was another thunderbolt.
The first had taken from him the friend of his youth, Alexis:
the second snatched from him an idolized child, the joy of his
old age. From this period, all his letters are tinged with
melancholy: the raven wing of death was ever fluttering in
his ear. On receiving a letter from the Elector, who wished
him many years of long life, he shook his head mournfully,
and in reply to his friend wrote:'The pitcher has gone too
often to the well; it will break at last.' One day, while preaching, he drew tears from his audience, by announcing to them
his approaching death. "The world is tired of me," said he,
" and I am tired of the world; soon shall we be divorced-the
traveller will soon quit his lodgirg."
Soon after her death, he wrote to a friend: "' Report has, no
doubt, informed you of the transplanting of my daughter to the
kingdom of Christ; and although my wife and I ought only
to think of offering up joyful thanks to the Almighty for her
happy end, by which she has been delivered from all the snares
of the world, nevertheless, the force of natural affection is so
great, that I cannot forbear indulging in tears, sighs, and
groans; say rather my heart dies within me. I feel, engraven
on my inmost soul, her features, words, and actions; all that.
she was to me, in life and health, and on her sick-bed   my
dear, my dutiful child. The death of Christ himself (and oh!
what are all deaths in comparison?) cannot tear her away from
my thoughts, as it should. She was, as you know, so sweet,
so amiable, so full of tenderness."
When the coffin had been covered with earth, a small tombstone was placed over it, on which was the name of the child,




LUTHER'S LAST DAYS.                          43
her age, the day of her death, and a text of Scripture.  Some
time after, when Luther could apply himself to labor, he composed a Latin inscription, which was carved upon a monumental slab: and which breathes a spirit of subdued melancholy, and resignation to God's will:
"Dormio cum Sanctis hic Magdalena, Lutheri
Filia, et hoc strato tecta quiesco meo;
Filia mortis eram, peccati semine nata,
Sanguine sed vivo Christe redempta tuo."
"I, Luther's daughter Madeleine, with the Saints here sleep,
And covered, calmly rest on this my couch of earth;
Daughter of death I was, born of the seed of sin,
But by thy precious blood redeemed, O Christ! I live."
"We looked," says Audin, the Romish historian, who, animated by a strange enthusiasm for the great opposer of the
corruptions of his Church, followed his footsteps as a pilgrim
" we looked for this tomb in the cemetery at Wittenberg,
but could not find it."  The mild, regular features, the gentle
eyes, the broad forehead, the flowing hair, and womanly repose,
which the picture * of this child presents, are all in keeping
with the image which her father's grief has impressed upon
the heart; and though the searcher looks in vain for the stone
which marks her lowly resting-place, her memory shall dwell
sweetly in the heart of the world, with that of her more than
illustrious father, to the end of time.
The next two pictures illustrate Luther's strength of character while in personal jeopardy. The first rep- Luther's last
resents Luther and Kohlhase -the second, Lu- days. Death.
ther among the dying and the dead, during the plague. The
last three pictures present the closing scenes of his life -his
journey to Mansfeld on a mission of peace and conciliation,
his death and burial.  During his last hours he repeated frequently the words: " Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, 0 God of truth." When Jonas
and Coelius asked him, " Reverend father, do you die faithful
* This portrait is given in Juncker's interesting work on the medals of the
Reformation.




44          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
to Christ, and to the doctrine you have preached? " He replied
distinctly, " I do!"  These were his last words on earth, and
in the first hour of February 18th, 1546, he fell asleep in Jesus.
"Now," said Melanchthon, as he stood by the coffin," now
he is united with the prophets of whom he loved to speak, now
they greet him  as their fellow-laborer, and with him thank
the Lord who collects and upholds his Church to the end of
time."
In addition to the descriptive matter that accompanies each
picture, we have " Historical Sketches " by Gelzer. First we
have an introduction, and then four sketches. The first sketch
presents the preparation and ground-work of the Reformation
— the Reformation before Luther, and the great work which
took place in him  before he came forth to the world.  The
second sketch embraces the contest with Rome; the third,
" Reformation and Revolution;" the last, the Reformer and
his work.
There was one picture promised us, which we would fain
Charles. at have had, but which is not given. It is one which
Luther's tomb. connects itself with the Providence of God watching over the ashes of his servant, whose body he had protected
in life. Luther had been "taken from  the evil to come."
The year after his death Wittenberg was filled with the troops
of Charles V., many of whom were full of intense hate to the
great Reformer.  One of the soldiers gave Luther's effigies in
the Castle-church two stabs with his dagger. The Spaniards
earnestly solicited their Emperor to destroy the tomb, and dig
up and burn the remains of Luther, as this second Huss could
not now be burned alive. To this diabolical proposition the
Emperor sternly replied: "My work with Luther is done; he
has now another Judge, whose sphere I may not invade. I
war with the living, not with the dead." And when he found
that the effort was not dropped, to bring about this sacrilegious deed, he gave orders that any violation of Luther's
tomb should be followed by the death of the offender.*:Charles,
it is said, died a Protestant on the great central doctrine of
* Bayle's Dictionary, (H. H.) Juncker's Guldene und Silberne Ehren-Gedachtniss Lutheri. Franckf. und Leipz. 1706, p. 281.




LESSING-HEINE.                       45
justification by faith. May we not hope that after the warfare of life, Charles, the most ambitious of the Emperors of his
age, and Luther, the greatest disturber of his plans of ambition,
have reached a common consummation.
It is a hopeful thing that the German heart, through all
religious and civil convulsions, has remained true to the memory of Luther.  Romanists have emulated Protest-  Luther characants in his praise; Rationalists have seemed to terized.
venerate him whilst they were laboring to undo his work.
After three centuries of birth-throes, Germany feels that she
has given to the world no second Luther. The womb of Time
bears such fruit but once in thousands of years. "In such
reverence do I hold Luther," says LESSING,' that I rejoice in
having been able to find some defects in him; for
I have, in fact, been in imminent danger of mak-   Lessint
ing him an object of idolatrous veneration. The proofs, that
in some things he was like other men, are to me as precious
as the most dazzling of his virtues."-" What a shame," says
Hamann, (1759,) "to our times, that the spirit of this man,
who founded our Church, so lies beneath the ashes! What a
power of eloquence, what a spirit of interpretation, what a
prophet! "-" We are not able to place ourselves even up to
the point from which he started."
"lHe created the German language," says HEINE. "He was
not only the greatest, but the most German man of our history.
In his character all the faults and all the virtues
Heine..
of the Germans are combined on thq largest scale.
Then he had qualities which are very seldom found united,
which we are accustomed to regard as irreconcilable antagonisms. IHe was, at the same time, a dreamy mystic and a
practical man of action. His thoughts had not only wings,
but hands. He spoke and he acted. He was not only the
tongue, but the sword of his time. When he had plagued
himself all day long with his doctrinal distinctions, in, the
evening he took his flute and gazed at the stars, dissolved in
melody and devotion. He could be soft as a tender maiden.
Sometirhes he was wild as the storm that uproots the oak, and
then again he was gentle as the zephyr that dallies with the




46          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
violet. He was full of the most awful reverence and of selfsacrifice in honor of the Holy Spirit. He could merge himself
entire in pure spirituality. And yet he was well acquainted
with the glories of this world, and knew how to prize them.
He was a complete man, I would say an absolute man, one in
whom matter and spirit were not divided. To call him  a
spiritualist, therefore, would be as great an error as to call
him a sensualist. How shall I express it? He had something
original, incomprehensible, miraculous, such as we find in all
providential men -something invincible, spirit-possessed."
"A fiery and daring spirit," Menzel calls him. "A  hero
in the garb of a nlonk."  But the most interesting
testimony is that borne by Frederick Schlegel; interesting not only because of the greatness of its source, but
because based on a thorough knowledge of the person of whom
he speaks, because uttered by a devoted and conscientious Romanist, and accompanied by such remarks as to
show that, deep as is his admiration of Luther,
he has in no respect been blinded by it. We will give extracts from his,three great works: on " the History of Literature:" on "Modern History:" and on the "Philosophy of
History."
" I have already explained in what way the poetry and art
of the middle age were lost, during the controversies of the
sixteenth, and how  our language itself became corrupted.
There was one instrument by which the influx of barbarism
was opposed, and one treasure which made up for what had
been lost  I mean the German translation of the Bible. It is
well known to you, that all true philologists regard this as the
standard and model of classical expression in the German language; and that not only Klopstock, but many other writers
of the first rank, have fashioned their style and selected their
phrases according to the rules of this version. It is worthy of
notice, that in no other moderh language have so many Biblical words and phrases come into the use of common life as in
ours. I perfectly agree with those writers who consider this
circumstance as a fortunate one; and I believe that from it
has been derived not a little of that power, life, and simplicity,




SCHLEGEL.                         47
by which, I think, the best German writers are distinguished
from all other moderns. The Catholic, as well as the modern
Protestant scholar, has many things to find fault with in this
translation; but these, after all, regard only individual passages. In these later times, we have witnessed an attempt to
render a new and rational translation of the Bible an instrument of propagating the doctrines of the illuminati; and we
have seen this too much even in the hands of Catholics themselves. But the instant this folly had blowj over, we returned,
with increased affection, to the excellent old version of Luther.
He, indeed, has not the whole merit of producing it. W-e owe
to him, nevertheless, the highest gratitude for placing in our
hands this most noble and manly model of German expression.
Even in his own writings he displays a most original eloquence,
surpassed by few names that occur in the whole history of literature. He had, indeed, all those qualities which fit a man
to be a revolutionary orator. This revolutionary eloquence is
manifest, not only in his half-political and business writings,
such as the Address to the Nobility of the German Nation, but
in all the works which he has left behind him. In almost the
whole of them, we perceive the marks of mighty internal conflict. Two worlds appear to be contending for the mastery
over the mighty soul of this man, so favored by God and
nature. Throughout all his writings there prevails a struggle
between light and darkness, faith and passion, God and himself. The choice which he made -the use to which he devoted his majestic genius-these are subjects upon which it is
even now quite impossible for me to speak, so as to please you
all. As to the intellectual power and greatness of Luther,
abstracted from all consideration of the uses to which he applied them, I think there are few, even of his own disciples,
who appreciate him  highly enough.  His coadjutors were
mostly mere scholars, indolent and enlightened men of the
common order. It was upon him and his soul that the fate of
Europe depended. He was the man of his age and nation." *
Let us hear another expression of the opinion of this great
man. " That the Reformation did not at its very commence* Le,ctures on the History of Literature, New York, 1841, p. 348-350.




48          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ment become a revolution of this kind, we are chiefly indebted
to Luther, (a revolution in which war and the flames of popular passion took their own destructive course.) He it was who
thus gave permanency to the Reformation. Had not Luther
opposed with all his power the dangerous errors into which
some of his adherents at the very first fell; had these fanatical
doctrines of universal equality, and of the abolition of all temporal authority as a thing superfluous in the new state of things,
obtained the upper, hand; had the so-called Reformation of
faith and of the Church become wholly and entirely a political
and national revolution; in that case, the first shock of civil
war would have been incontestably more terrific and more
universal; but it would, probably, when the storm had blown
over, have subsided of itself, and a return to the old order of
things would have ensued. The princes in particular were
indebted to Luther for having contributed so vigorously to
stifle the flames of rebellion; and he must thereby have gained
consideration even among those who disapproved of his doctrines and proceedings. His personal character in general was
excellently adapted to consolidate and perpetuate his party.
The great energy, which gave him such a decided preponderance over all who co-operated with him, preserved as much
unity as was at all possible in such a state of moral ferment.
With whatever passionate violence Luther may have expressed
himself, he nevertheless, in his principles and modes of thinking, preserved in many points the precise medium that was
necessary to keep his party together as a distinct party. Had
he at the first beginning gone farther, had he sanctioned the
fanaticism adverted to above, the whole affair would then have
fallen sooner to the ground. The very circumstance, that he
did not at first secede from the ancient faith more than he did,
procured him so many and such important adherents, and gave
such strength to his party. He was undeniably gifted with
great qualities. Luther's eloquence made him a man of the
people; his principles, however, despite his passionate expression of them, remained, nevertheless, in essentials, both with
regard to political subjects and to matters of faith, within certain limits; and joined to that circumstance, the very obstinacy




SCHLEGEL.                         49
which his friends complained of, consolidated and united the
new party and gave it a permanent strength."*
With some extracts from the " Philosophy of IHistory," by
the same distinguished author, we shall close the illustrations
from his hand.
" In the first place, as regards the Reformation, it is evident
of itself, that a man who accomplished so mighty a revolution
in the human mind, and in his age, could have been endowed
with no ordinary powers of intellect, and no common strength
of character. Even his writings display an astonishing boldness and energy of thought and language, united with a spirit
of impetuous, passionate and convulsive enthusiasm. The
opinion, as to the use which was made of these high powers
of genius, must, of course, vary with the religious principles
of each individual; but the extent of these intellectual endowments themselves, and the strength and perseverance of character with which they were united, must be universally admitted. Many who did not afterwards adhere to the new
opinions, still thought, at the commencement of the Reformation, that Luther was the real man for his age, who had
received a high vocation to accomplish the great work of regeneration, the strong necessity of which was then universally
felt. If, at this great distance of time, we pick out of the
writings of this individual many very harsh expressions, nay,
particular words which are not only coarse but absolutely
gross, nothing of any moment can be proved or determined by
such selections. Indeed, the age in general, not only in Germany, but in other very highly civilized countries, was characterized by a certain coarseness in manners and language, and
by a total absence of all excessive polish and over-refinement
of character. But this coarseness would have been productive
of no very destructive effects; for intelligent men well knew
that the wounds of old abuses lay deep, and were ulcerated in
their very roots; and no one, therefore, was shocked if the
knife destined to amputate abuses, cut somewhat deep. It
was by the conduct of Luther and the influence which he
thereby acquired, that the Reformation was promoted and
*Lectures on Modern Iistory, London, 1840, p. 169.
4




50          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION'.
consolidated.  Without this, Protestantism would have sunk
into the lawless anarchy which marked the proceedings of
the Hussites, and to which the War of the Peasants rapidly
tended; and it would inevitably have been suppressed, like all
the earlier popular commotions -for, under the latter form,
Protestantism may be said to have sprung up several centuries
before.  None of the other heads and leaders of the new religious party had the power, or were in a situation to uphold
the Protestant religion: its present existence is solely and entirely the work and the deed of one man, unique in his way,
and who holds unquestionably a conspicuous place in the history of the world.  Much was staked on the soul of that man,
and this was in every respect a mighty and critical moment in
the annals of mankind and the march of timle."
It will, perhaps, not be wholly a thankless work to add here
some of the attestations of distinguished men of every shade
of opinion, and in the most varied positions, which demonstrate how profound and many-sided was that character which
left so great an impress on them all.  " Martin Luther," says
Dr. Bancroft,  a man of the most powerful mind and intrepid
character, who persisted resolutely in his defence
Dr. B;ancroft. 
of Christian liberty and Christian truth; and by
the blessing of God he triumphed over all opposition. His
name is identified in every country with the reformed religion,
and will be venerated and esteemed in every subsequent age,
by all who prize religious freedom, and set a value on religious
privileges." *
This is the language of a Congregational Unitarian, in New
England.  Let us hear from a high-church English Bishop,
eminent for all that intellect can confer, a testimony no less
strong: " Martin Luther's life," says Bishop Atterbury, " was
a continued warfare. tie was engaged against the
Aterury.    united forces of the Papal world, and he stood the
shock of them  bravely, both with courage and success. He
was a man certainly of high endowments of mind, and great
virtues. He had.a vast understanding, which raised him to a
* Sermons on Doctrines, etc., which Christians have made the Subject of Controversy. By Aaron Bancroft, D. D. Worcester, 1822. Serm. XI.




BA YLE- TENNIS ON.                         51
pitch of learning unknown to the age in which he lived.  His
knowledge in Scripture was admirable, his elocution manly,
and his way of reasoning, with all the subtility that the plain
truths he delivered would bear.  His thoughts were bent
always on great designs, and he had a resolution to go through
with them, and the assurance of his mind was not to be shaken,
or surprised.  His life was holy, and, when he had leisure for
retirement, severe. His virtues were active chiefly, and social,
and not those lazy, sullen ones of the cloister.  He had no ambition, but in the service of God; for other things, neither his
enjoyments nor wishes ever went higher than the bare conveniences of living.  If, among this crowd of virtues, a failing
crept in, we must remember that an apostle himself had not
been irreproachable; if in the body of his doctrine, a flaw is to
be seen, yet the greatest lights of the Church, and in the purest
times of it, were, we know, not exact in all their opinions.
Upon the whole, we have certainly great reason to break out
in the language of the prophet, and say,' How beautiful on
the mountains are the feet of him who bringeth gladtidings.' "*
Bayle, prince of skeptics, has devoted an article of his great
Dictionary, to a defence of Luther's character from
the falsehoods which have been published concerning him.  His slanderers, Bayle says, have had no regard to
probability or the rules of their own art.  "His greatest
enemies cannot deny but that he had eminent qualities, and
history affords nothing more surprising than what he has
done: for a simple monk to be able to give Popery so rude a
shock, that there needed but such another entirely to overthrow  the Romish Church, is what we cannot sufficiently
admire." t
Archbishop Tennison, of the Church of England, says:
"Luther was indeed a man of warm temper, and
uncourtly language; but (besides that he had his  Teniso'.
* Atterbury's vindication of Luther, (1687.) Burnet, in his History of his Own
Times, regards this vindication as one of the most able defences of the Protestant
religion. Atterbury, on his trial, appealed to this book to exculpate himself from
the charge of a secret leaning to Popery.
t Bayle's Histor. and Critic. Dictionary, translated by Maizeaux, London,
1736, vol. iii., pp. 934-937.




52          CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
education among those who so vehemently reviled him) it
may be considered, whether in passing through so very rough
a sea, it was not next to impossible for him not to beat the
insulting waves till they foamed again. Erasmus tells us' that
he perceived, the better any man was, the more he relished
the writings of Luther;' * that his very enemies allowed
him to be a man of good life; that he seemed to hinr to have
in his breast certain eminent Evangelical sparks; that it was
plain that some condemned things in Luther's writings which
in Augustine and Bernard passed for pious and orthodox." t
Bishop Kidder, in the same interesting collection from which
we have just quoted, alludes to the " Confessions
Kidder.
of Adversaries," which Bellarmine has presented
as the thirteenth mark of the Church.  This weapon he turns
against the great Romish author: "As for Martin Luther,
whatever the Romanists say of him now, yet certain it is that
Erasmus, who I hope will pass with Cardinal Bellarmine for a
Catholic, who lived in his time, gives a better account of him.
In his letter to the Cardinal of York, speaking of Luther, he
says: j' His life is approved by all men, and this is no slight
ground of prejudice in his favor, that such was the integrity
of his morals, that his enemies could find nothing to reproach
him  with.' Again, in a letter to Melanchthon:~'All men
among us approve the life of Luther.'" 11
Even Bossuet, the eagle of Meaux, is obliged, at the beginning of his ferocious assault on Protestantism, to
concede something in regard to Luther's gifts:': In the time of Luther, the most violent rupture, and greatest
apostasy occurred, which had perhaps ever been seen in Christendom. The two parties, who have called themselves reformed,
have alike recognized him as the authdr of this new Reformation. It is not alone his followers, the Lutherans, who have
lavished upon him the highest praises.  Calvin frequently admires his virtues, his magnanimity, his constancy, the incom* Erasm. Epist. ad Albert. Episc., etc., pp. 584, 585.
t Bellarmine's Notes of the Church Examined and Refuted, London, 1840,
p. 251..
t Erasm. Ep., lib. xi., Ep. 1.
g Ep, lib. vii., Ep. 43.  [1 Bellarmine's Notes Examined, etc., p. 312.




BOWER.                          53
parable industry which he displayed against the Pope.  He is
the trumpet, or rather, he is the thunder -he is the lightning
which has roused the world from its lethargy: it was not so
much Luther that spoke as God whose lightnings burst from
his lips. And it is true he had a strength of genius, a vehemence in his discourses, a living and impetuous eloquence
which ertranced and ravished the people." *
The judgment of Bower in regard to Luther, is, on the
whole, the most discriminating which had appeared in the English language up to his time.
"In the personal character of Luther, we discern many qualities calculated to enable him to discharge with success the
important duty to which he was called.  A  constitutional
ardor for devotion, a boundless thirst of knowledge, and a
fearless zeal in communicating it, were prominent characteristics of this extraordinary man. An unwearied perseverance
in theological research, led him to detect errors, and to relinquish step by step, many of his early opinions.  In all situations Luther is the same, pursuing indefatigably the knowledge of the word of God, and never scrupling to avow his
past mistakes, whenever the confession could facilitate the
inquiries or confirm the faith of others. It was in vain that
the head of the Church, and the chief of the German Empire
combined to threaten and proscribe him   he braved with
equal courage the very lance of either power, and continued
to denounce, with an unsparing hand, the prevalence of corruption. In no single instance did he seek to turn to his
personal advantage, his distinctions and the influence attached
to them. How few individuals would have possessed Luther's
power without making it subservient to the acquisition of
rank or honors?  All these were disdained by him, and his
mind remained wholly occupied with the diffusion of religious
truth. Even literary fame had no attractions for him. The
improvement of the condition of his fellow-creatures was the
object, which with him superseded every other consideration.
No temptation of ambition could remove him, in his days of
* (Euvres de Bossuet, (Histoire des Variations,) Paris, Didot Frbres, 1847, vol.
iv., p. 9.




54          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMIiATION.
celebrity, from his favorite University of Wittenberg.  While
his doctrine spread far and wide, and wealthy cities would
have been proud to receive him, Luther clung to the spot
where he discharged the duty of a teacher, and to the associates whom  he had known in his season of humility.  The
freedom of his language in treating of the conduct of the
great, arose partly from his constitutional ardor, and partly
from  an habitual impression of the all-powerfil claims of
truth. The lofty attitude, so often assumed by him, is not
therefore to be attributed to pride or vanity.  In treating of
the Scriptures, he considered himself as acting in the presence
of God, whose majesty and glory were so infinitely exalted
above all created beings, as to reduce to one and the same
level the artificial distinctions of worldly institutions.  Under
this conviction, the prince or king, who ventured to oppose
what Luther considered the word of God, seemed to him  no
more exempted from severe epithets than the humblest of his
adversaries.  However we may censure the length to which
his freedom was carried, the boldness of his conduct was, on
the whole, productive of much good.  An independent and
manly tone in regard not only to religion, but to civil liberty, literature, the arts and sciences, was created and disseminated by
his example. Few writers discover greater knowledge of the
world, or a happier talent in analyzing and illustrating the
shades of character. It is equally remarkable that no man could
display more forcibly the tranquil consolations of religion. Few
men entered with more ardor into the innocent pleasures of
society. His frankness of disposition was apparent at the first
interview, and his communicative turn, joined to the richness
of his stores, rendered his conversation remarkably interesting.  In treating of humorous subjects, he discovered as much
vivacity and playfulness as if he had been a man unaccustomed
to serious research."  His conjugal and paternal affection, his
love of music, his power of throwing a charm  around the
topics of religion, his fearlessness in danger, and his extraordinary powers as a preacher, are dwelt upon by Bower, whose
sketch is one well worthy of being read.*
* The Life of Luther, etc., by Alexander Bower. Philadelphia. 1824




BREWST ER-BUDDE US.                       55
In a similar strain proceeds the language of the Rev. James
Brewster, who, in speaking of Luther's character as a musician
and composer, mentions that " the great Handel acknowledged
that he had derived singular advantage from  studying the
compositions of the great Saxon Reformer." *  Buddeus gives
us a particular account of the principal writings  Brewster.
of Luther, and points out his great services in all  Buddeus.
the departments of theology and practical Christianity. Among
the foremost of these, he places his revival of catechising and
his invaluable contributions to it; he points out how much he
did for moral theology, and the great obligations under which
he laid the Church, by his translation of the Bible.  We will
give his estimate of Luther in the department of Polemic Theology: "Here, beyond controversy, the highest praise is due
to our sainted Luther, who first, when all was lost, all in despair, lifted up the standard of better hopes. Nor could one
better fitted for sustaining the cause of truth have been found.
Acuteness of judgment and fertility of thought were both
his; these gave'to him  arguments of might, overwhelming
eloquence which swept everything before it like a torrent. His
was an intrepid soul, which neither power, danger nor threats
could turn from the right.  The truth indeed fought for him;
but no less did he fight for the truth, so that no mortal could
have done more to defend it, and place it beyond the reach of
its foes. You are forced everywhere to confess the accurate
disputer, the exquisite Theologian, the earnest defender of the
truth.  His own writings leave no room  for doubt that he
argued from profound conviction of the truth, and that he was
wholly free from the crime of men who employ a line of defence, not because they regard it as true, but because it suits
their purpose.  The abundance of arguments well adapted to
their purpose, the copiousness and power of his language, alike
arrest the attention. He so demonstrates the truth, as to leave
the errorist no subterfuge; such is the firmness of his grasp,
that he seizes the assent of the reader, hurries him, forces him
t.o his conclusion.  He asks no favors, makes no effort to propitiate; he compels by the weight of proof, triumphs by dem* Edinburgh Encyclopedia, vol. xii., Philadelphia, 1832, art. LUTHER.




56           CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
onstration of the truth, and forces the unwilling to do homage
to sound doctrine.  When we look at the effrontery and obstinacy of his opponents, and their cruel purposes, we feel that
in comparison with theirs, the severest language of Luther
appears mild." *
Calvin, who was far from being a hearty praiser, yet speaks
thus of him, in a letter to Bullinger: " Recall these
Clvin.   things to your mind: how great a man Luther is,
and in what great endowments he excels, with what fortitude
of mind and constancy, with what excellent address, and efficacy of doctrine he has hitherto labored and watched to overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist, and propagate the doctrine
of salvation.  I often say, if he should call me a devil, I hold
him  in such honor, that I would acknowledge him  an illustrious servant of God." t  Again, Calvin says of him: "We
sincerely testify that we regard him as a noble apostle of Christ,
by whose labor and ministry the purity of the Gospel has been
restored in our times." T  Again: "If any one will carefully
consider what was the state of things at the period when
Luther arose, he will see that he had to contend with almost
all the difficulties which were encountered by the Apostles.
In one respect, indeed, his condition was worse and harder
than theirs. There was no kingdom, no principality, against
which they had to declare war; whereas Luther could not go
forth, except by the ruin and destruction of that empire which
was not only the most powerful of all, but regarded all the rest
as obnoxious to itself." We cannot forbear quoting a few more
sentences from Carlyle.  "As a participant and dispenser of
divine influences, he shows himself among human
C.rlyle.   affairs a true connecting medium  and visible Messenger between Heaven and Earth; perhaps the most inspired
of all teachers since the first apostles of his faith; and thus
not a poet only, but a Prophet and God -ordained Priest,
*Buddei Isagoge Historico-theologica, Lipsise,1730, pp. 1031, 1040.
t J. Calvini Epistolm et Response, Genev., 1576, fol., p. 383. Life of John
Calvin, by Beza, translated by Sibson, Philada., 1836, p. 86.
j Life and Times of John Calvin, translated from the German of Paul Henry,
D. D., by H. Stebbing, D. D., New York, 1851, p. 18.




THE COLERIDGES.                          57
which is the highest form of that dignity, and of all dignity." *
"I will call this Luther a true Great Man; great in intellect,
in courage, affection, and integrity; one of our most lovable
and precious men.  Great, not as a hewn obelisk; but as an
Alpine mountain,- so simple, honest, spontaneous, not setting
up to. be great at all; there for quite another purpose than being
great! Ah, yes, unsubduable granite, piercing far and wide
into the heavens; yet in the cleft of its fountains, green beautiful valleys with flowers!  A  right Spiritual Hero and Prophet; once more, a true Son of Nature and Fact, for whom
these centuries, and many that are to come yet, will be thankful to Heaven." t  Martin Chemnitz, that most precious man
of the second generation of the great divines of our Church,
like all who spoke of Luther, immediately after his
Chemnitz.
own time, breathes the spirit of profound reverence
toward him. After the death of Melanchthon, Chemnitz was
indubitably the greatest living theologian. " What Quintilian
said of Cicero:'Ille sciat se in literis multum profecisse, cui
Cicero plurimum placebit,' I apply to Luther. A man may tell
how far he has advanced in theology, by the degree to which
he is pleased by Luther's writings.":  Claude, in his famous
"Defence of the Reformation," which is still richly
worth perusal, has vindicated the character of           lde
Luther in a very judicious manner: " We discover," he says,
"*a great many excellent things in him, an heroical courage, a
great love for the truth, an ardent zeal for the glory of God,
a great trust in His providence, extraordinary learning in a
dark age, a profound respect for the IIoly Scripture, an indefatigable spirit, and a great many other high qualities."~
All who are familiar with the writings of S. T. Coleridge,
know how deep was his reverence for Luther.  To
this his son, Henry Nelson Coleridge, makes numerous allusions in the defence of his father's religious opinions,
* Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, by Thomas Carlyle, Philadelphia, 1850,
p. 224.
t Heroes and Hero-Worship, p. 127.
t Locorum Theolog. M. Chemnitti, Pars Tertia, 1623, Witeberge, p. 41.
A Defence of the Reformation, translated from the French of Monsieur
Claude, etc., London, 1815, vol. i., p. 289.




58          CONSERVATIVE REFORLMATION.
which forms part of his Introduction to the "Biographia Literaria." —  He saw," says his son, "the very mind of St. Paul in
the teaching of Luther on the Law and Justification by Faith."
"My father's affectionate respect for Luther is enough to alienate him from the High Anglican party.""    He thought the
mind of Luther more akin to St. Paul's than that of any other
Christian teacher."-'"It is an insult," says Henry Nelson
Coleridge, speaking in his own person, " to the apostolic man's
(Luther's) memory, to defend him from the charge of Antinomianisin. He knocked down with his little finger more
Antinomianism than his accusers with both hands. If his
doctrine is the jaw-bone of an ass, he must have been a very
Samson, for he turned numbers with this instrument from
the evil of their lives; and the same instrument, in the hands
of mere pigmies in comparison with him, has wrought more
amendment of life among the poor, than the most eloquent
and erudite preachers 6f works and rites have to boast, by
their preaching."  Coleridge is here answering some of the
aspersions cast by High-Church writers on Luther. Referring
to one of them, who had called the Commentary on Galatians
" silly," he says, "Shakspeare has been called silly by Puritans, Milton worse than silly by Prelatists and Papists, Wordsworth was long called silly by B]onaparteans; what will not
the odium  theologicum or politic tm find worthless and silly?
To me, perhaps from my silliness, his Commentary appears the
very Iliad of justification by faith alone; all the fine and striking things that have been said upon the subject, are taken
from it; and if the author preached a novel doctrine, or presented a novel development of Scripture in this work, as Mr.
Newman avers, I think he deserves great credit for his originality.  The Commentary contains, or rather is, a most spirited
siege of Babylon, and the friends of Rome like it as well as the
French like Wellington and the battle of Waterloo."   " /My
father called Luther, in parts, the most evangelical writer he
knew, after the apostles and apostolic men."  This he said in
view of his " depth of insight into the heart of man and into
the ideas of the Bible, the fervor and reality of his religious
feelings, the manliness and tenderness of his spirit, the vehe



WILLIAM  COXE.                       59
ment eloquence with which he assails the Romish practical
fallacies and abuses."-" It is for these things that staunch'Catholics'hate; for these things that my father loved and
honored Luther's name."  -"How would Christendom  have
fared without a Luther?  What would Rome have done and
dared but for the Ocean of the Reformed that rounds her?
Luther lives yet -not so beneficially in the Lutheran Church
as out of it - an antagonist spirit to Rome, and a purifying
and preserving spirit in Christendom at large." *
" Luther possessed a temper and acquirements which peculiarly fitted him  for the character of a Reformer.
William Coxe.
Without the fastidious nicety of refined taste and
elegance, he was endowed with singular acuteness and logical
dexterity, possessed profound and varied erudition; and his
rude, though fervid eloquence, intermixed with the coarsest
wit and the keenest raillery; was of that species which is best
adapted to affect and influence a popular assembly. His Latin,
though it did not rise to the purity of Erasmus and his other
learned contemporaries, was yet copious, free, and forcible, and
he was perfectly master of his native tongue, and wrote it
with such purity, that his works are still esteemed as models
of style by the German critics. HIe was animated with an
undaunted spirit, which raised him above all apprehension of
danger, and possessed a perseverance which nothing could
fatigue.  He was at once haughty and condescending, jovial,
affable, and candid in public; studious, sober, and self-denying
in private; and he was endowed with that happy and intuitive
sagacity which enabled him to suit his conduct and manners to
the exigency of the moment, to lessen or avert danger by
timely flexibility, or to bear down all obstacles by firmness
and impetuosity.  IHis merciless invectives and contemptuous
irony, were proper weapons to repel the virulence and scurrility
of his adversaries, and even the fire and arrogance of his
temper, though blemishes in a refined age, were far from
being detrimental in a controversy which  roused all the
passions of the human breast, and required the strongest exer* Biographia Literaria, by S. T. Coleridge, edited by Henry Nelson Coleridge,
New York, 1848.




60           CONSERVATIVE REFORMZATION.
tions of fortitude and courage.  Such were the principles and
conduct of this extraordinary man, when the enormous abuses
arising from  the sale of indulgences attracted his notice, and
involved him in that memorable controversy with the Church
of Rome, for which he seems to have been trained and adapted
by his temper, studies, occupation, and habits of life." This is
the language of William Coxe, in his History of the House of
Austria.*
Dr. Cox, (of London,) after characterizing the Reformation,
s.ays: " Amongst the instruments of this remarkable change, the name of Martin Luther stands
pre-eminent.  He was not indeed the first or the only advocate
of this righteous cause, but he was, in many respects, the
greatest. Luther possessed a vigorous and fearless soul. He
was qualified to take the lead, and to head opposition in a
servile age.  His mind was incessantly active; his ardor in
the pursuit of knowledge and in the propagation of what he
knew, inextinguishable; and in the holy war which he undertook, having buckled on the armor, he was impatient for the
conflict and assured of the victory. Never scarcely did the
hand of God form a fitter instrument to do a greater work." t
The writings of D'Aubigne, contain some just and beautiful tributes to the character of Luther.  " Luther
D'Abig6.  proved, through divine grace, the living influence
of Christianity, as no preceding Doctor, perhaps, had ever felt
it before.  The Reformation sprang living from his own heart,
where God himself had placed it."    " Some advised the
Evangelical princes to meet Charles, sword in hand.  But this
was mere worldly counsel, and  the great Reformer Luther,
whom so many are pleased to represent as a man of violent
temper, succeeded in silencing these rash counsellors." ~  "If
* Hist. of House of Austria, from the Foundation of the Monarchy by Rudolph
of Hapsburg, to the Death of Leopold the Second, 1218 to 1792, 3d ed., in 3 vols.,
London, Bohn, 1847, vol. i., p. 383.
t The Life of Philip Melanchthon, comprising an Account of the most Important Transactions of the Reformation, by F. A. Cox, D. D., LL. D., 1st American from
2d London ed., Boston, 1835. 0 for a Life of Melanchthon worthy of its theme!
j D'Aubign6's Voice of the Church.
4 Do. Confession of the Name of Christ.




D'ISRAELL                         61
in the history of the world there be an individual we love
more.than another, it is he. Calvin we venerate more, but
Luther we love more.  Besides, Lutheranism  is of itself dear
and precious in our eyes, and with reason. In Reform there
are principles of which we should be afraid, were it not for the
counterbalance of Lutheranism.... Luther and Lutheranism do
not possess, even in Germany, even in Wittenberg, friends and
admirers more ardent than we." *
Even the Article of the " Dictionnaire I-storique," intensely
Romish as it is, confesses the libellous character of  Dictionnaire
many of the charges which were, for a long time,  "istorique.
current among Papists, in reference to Luther. Especially does it
mention that favorite one, that the Dispute about Indulgences
arose from the jealousy of the Augustinians and Dominicans,
and confesses that it is wholly without foundation. It goes
so far as to concede that the old story of Luther's being begotten of an Incubus, is not probable.  It concedes to him  "a
powerful imagination, resting on intellect and nurtured by
study, which made him  eloquent by nature, and insured him
the concurrence of all who heard the thunders of his declamation." t
D'Israeli speaks with considerable severity of Luther's violence, but he has the candor to compare with it
some products of the spirit to which he opposed    DI
himself.'" Martin Luther was not destitute of genius, of learning, or of eloquence; but his violence disfigured his works
with invectives and singularities of abuse.  It was fortunate
for the cause of the Reformation, that the violence of Luther
was softened, in a considerable degree at times, by the meek
Melanchthon: he often poured honey on the sting inflicted by
the angry bee.  Luther was no respecter of kings —he addresses Henry VIII. in the following style:' It is hard to say,
if folly can be more foolish, or stupidity more stupid, than is
the head of Henry.  He has not attacked me with the heart
D'Aubign6's Luther and Calvin; or, the True Spirit of the Reformed Church.
All three of these tracts are in "D'Aubigne and his Writings," with a Sketch, etc.,
by Dr. Baird, New York, 1846.
t Nouv. Diction. Historique, Caen, 1783, tom. v, p. 382




62          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATI ON.
of a king, but with the impudence of a knave. This rotten
worm  of the earth having blasphemed the majesty of my
king, I have a just right to bespatter his English majesty with
his own dirt..   This Henry has lied.' tIe was repaid with
capital and interest by an anonymous reply, said to have been
written by Sir Thomas More, who concludes by leaving Luther,
in language not necessary to translate,'cum  suis furiis et
furoribus, cum  suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem  cacatumque.' Such were the vigorous elegancies of a controversy on
the'Seven Sacraments.' Long after, the Court of Rome ha'd
not lost the taste of these'bitter herbs;' for in the bull of the
canonization of Ignatius Loyola, in August, 1623, Luther is
called monstrum teterrimumn, et detestabilis pestis."-" Calvin was
less tolerable, for he had no Melanchthon! His adversaries are
never others than knaves, lunatics, drunkards, and assassins!
Sometimes they are characterized by the familiar appellatives
of bulls, asses, cats, and hogs! By him Catholic and Lutheran
are alike hated.  Yet, after having given vent to this virulent
humor, he frequently boasts of his mildness. When he reads
over his writings, he tells us that he is astonished at his forbearance; but this, he adds, is the duty of every Christian!
At the same time he generally finishes a period with —'Do
you hear, you dog? Do you hear, madman?' "
"Amidst all that Luther has written," says Doederlein, "I
know nothing more precious than his sermons and
his. letters.  From  both of these we can at least
learn to know the man in his entire greatness, and in accordance with his genuine character, which superstition and malice,
and the partizan licentiousness both of friends and foes hasdisfigured; from both beams forth the most open honesty, the
firmness of a courage which never quailed, fearlessness of
judgment, and that spirit which knew so perfectly its aim,
which preserved its serenity amid all calamities, and changes
allotted by Providence, and knew how to use to good purpose,
sport and earnest.  His letters especially bear the impress of
the most artless simplicity, and of the most naive vivacity,
and apart from their contributions to history, and the attract* Curiosities of Literature, by J. D'Israeli, London, Moxon, 1841, p. 82.




CYCLOP'DIA  OF BRITISH  SOCIETY.                      63
iveness of their contents, are entertaining, rich in instruction,
and worthy of descending to posterity, were there no other
reason, to show that immortal man speaking, especially with
his friends."?*  Dupin concedes that Luther's errors, as he
styles them, obliged the Romanists to study Theology upon right principles; and confesses that his 
version of the Bible was' elegante" —even while he brings
the charge that it was "peu litterale" and "pen exacte."d
Speaking of Luther's reply to Henry VIII., the author of
the article in the " Cyclopsedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge" says: " It must be observed, however, that the coarse vituperations which shock the  CyclopJm.lia of
reader in Luther's controversial works, were not BritishSociety.
peculiar to him, being commonly used by scholars and divines
of the middle ages in their disputations.  The invectives of
Valla, Filelfo, Poggio, and other distinguished scholars, against
each other, are notorious, and this bad taste continued in practice long after Luther, down to the seventeenth century, and
traces of it are found in writers of the eighteenth, even in
some of the works of the polished and courtly Voltaire."  The
writer might have added' down to the nineteenth,' for who
cannot recall specimens'of theological warfare in our own day,
vastly more offensive to all right feeling, than anything written by Luther.  The same writer goes on to say: "Luther
ranks high among German writers for the vigor of his style,
and the development which he imparted to his vernacular
language.  Schroeck, Melanchthon, and others have written
biographies of Luther, and Michelet has extracted a kind of
autobiography from his works. From these passages the character of Luther is clearly deduced, for there was no calculation, reserve, or hypocrisy about him.  He was frank  and
vehement, and often intemperate.  But he was earnest in his
vehemence; he really felt the importance of the topics he was
discussing; and whether he was right or wrong in his peculiar
* D. Jol. Christoph Doederlein Auserlesene Theologische Bibliothek. Review
of "Schutzes Luther's Briefe," Erst. Band, Leipzig, 1780, p. 681.
It Method of Studying Divinity, -London, 1720, p. 27. Dissertation Prdliminaire, etc., Paris, 1699, vol. i., p. 726.




64         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATlON.
opinions, he was a sincere and zealous believer in the Christian
Revelation. Luther considered. religion as the most important
business of man, and because he considered it as such, he
wished to ascend to its very source, unalloyed by human
authority. He contended for the right of every man to consult
the great book of the Christian Law. The principles of free
inquiry, which he introduced, led to further results, and gradually established that liberty of conscience which now exists
in the Protestant States of Europe.  But Luther himself,
whilst he appealed to the Scriptures against human authority,
did not for a moment admit of any doubts concerning the
truth of Revelation.... Those who judge of Luther's disposition, merely from his controversial style and manner, greatly
mistake his character. He was a warm-hearted German, kind
and generous; he abused and vilified his antagonists the more
in proportion as they were powerful, but he could feel for the
unhappy, and he even tendered some consolation to his bitterest
enemy, Tetzel, when, forsaken by his employers, and upbraided
as the cause of all the mischief, he was in the agonies of death
and despair.  Luther gave that impulse towards spiritual
philosophy, that thirst for information, that logical exercise
of the mind, which have made the Germans the most generally instructed, and the most intellectual people in Europe.
Luther was convinced of the necessity of education, as auxiliary to religion and morality, and he pleaded unceasingly for
the education of the laboring classes, broadly telling princes
and rulers how dangerous, as well as unjust, it was to keep
their subjects in ignorance and degradation. He was no courtly
flatterer; he spoke in favor of the poor, the humble and the
oppressed, and against the high and mighty, even of his own
party, who were guilty of cupidity and oppression. Luther's
doctrine was altogether in favor of civil-liberty, and in Germany it tended to support constitutional rights against the
encroachments of the imperial power. Luther's moral courage, his undaunted firmness, his strong conviction, and, the
great revolution which he effected in society, place him in the
first rank of historical characters. The form of the monk of
Wittenberg, emerging from the receding gloom of the middle




B UNSEX.                             65
ages, appears towering  above the sovereigns and warriors,
statesmen and divines of the sixteenth century, who were his
contemporaries, his antagonists, or.his disciples." *
"As long as Luther lived he was for peace; and he succeeded in maintaining it; he regarded it as impious to seek to
establish the cause of God. by force; and, in fact, during thirty
years of his life, the principles of the Reformation gained a
firmer footing, and were more widely propagated, by his unshaken faith and unwearied endeavor, than by all the wars,
and treaties, and councils since."t  Luther "introduced, not
into Germany only, but into the world, a new  and most, important era, and his name can  never be forgotten, while
anything of principle remains that is deserving of remembrance." 
Bunsen  contributed the article on Luther, to the eighth
edition of the Britannica.  It opens with these
Bunsen.
words: " Luther's life is both the epos and the
tragedy of his age.  It is an epos because its first part presents a hero and a prophet, who conquers apparently insuperable difficulties, and opens a new world to the human mind,
without any power but that of divine truth, and deep conviction, or any authority but that inherent in sincerity and
undaunted, unselfish courage.  But Luther's life is also a
tragedy; it is the tragedy of Germany as well as of the hero,
her son; who in vain tried to rescue  his country from  unholy oppression, and to regenerate her from within, as a nation,
by means of the Gospel; and who died in unshaken faith in
Christ and in His kingdom; although he lived to see his beloved fatherland going to destruction, not through, but in spite
of the Reformation.
"Both parts of Luther's life are of the highest interest. In
the epic part of it we see the most arduous work of the time
(the work for two hundred years tried in vain by Councils,
* Vol. xiii., pp 206, 207, (London, 1839, fol.)
t Encycl. Americ., vol.'viii., p. 153, Philadelphia, 1848. The article "Reformation" in this work is one of the best in it. It is the article "Luther," however, from which we quote.
$ Bees' Cyclop., American edition, Philadelphia, vol. xxii., art. Luther.
6




66          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and by prophets and martyrs, with and without emperors,
kings, and princes,) undertaken by a poor monk alone, who
carried it out under the ban both of the Pope and the Empire. In the second, we see him surrounded by friends and
disciples, always the spiritual head of his nation, and the
revered adviser of princes, and preacher of the people; living
in the same poverty as before, and leaving his descendants as
unprovided for as Aristides left his daughter. So lived and
died the greatest hero of Christendom since the Apostles; the
restorer of that form  of Christianity which now sustains
Europe, and (with all its defects) regenerating and purifying
the whole human race; the founder of the modern German
language and literature; the first speaker and debater of his
country; and at the same time, the first writer in prose and
verse of his age."
The relations of Erasmus and Luther form  an interesting
chapter in the history of the Reformation.  With all the caution of Erasmus, and the difference of spirit and
Erasmus.
principle in the two men, he could not help feeling
a profound though uneasy reverence for Luther.  In writing
to Cardinal Wolsey, in 1518, when Luther's name was just
rising, he says: " As to Luther, he is altogether unknown to
me, and I have read nothing of his except two or three pages.
His life and conversation is universally commended; and it is
no small prejudice in his favor, that his morals are unblamable, and that Calumny itself can fasten no reproach on him.
If I had really been at leisure to peruse his writings, I am not
so conceited of my own abilities, as to pass a judgment upon
the performances of so considerable a divine. I was once
against Luther purely for fear lest he should bring an odium
upon literature, which is too much suspected of evil already.:Germany hath produced some promising youths, who have
eloquence anq learning, and of whom she will one day, in my
opinion, have reason to boast, no less than England can now
boast of her sons."  In a letter to Melanchthon, (1519,) he
says: " All the world is agreed amongst us in commending his
moral character. He hath given us good advice on certain
i Quoted by Jortin, "Life of Erasmus," London, 1728, 4to, p. 129.




.ERA SMUS.                         67
points; and God grant that his success may be equal to the
liberty which he hath taken."   In reply to a letter from
Luther himself, Erasmus calls him his dearest brother in
Christ, speaks of the excitement his works had produced at
Louvain, and that he had advised the Divines of that University to answer them instead of railing against them.  Though
he had told them that he had not read those works, yet he
owns that he had perused part of his Commentaries upon the
Psalms, that he liked them  much, and hoped they might be
very serviceable. " There is a Prior of a Monastery at Antwerp, a true Christian, who loves you extremely, and was, as
he relates, formerly a disciple of yours.  He is almost the only
one that preacheth Jesus Christ, whilst others preach human
fables, and seek after lucre.  The Lord Jesus grant you, from
day to day, an increase of his Spirit, for his glory and for the
public good."    In a letter to the Elector of Mentz, (1519,)
he had the courage to apologize openly enough for Luther;
declines taking sides, but lashes the monks, and plainly justifies the beginnings of the Reformation.: In the same year,
he wrdte a letter to Frederic of Saxony, highly favorable to
Luther. ~  As the storm  advanced, however, Erasmus grew
more timid and sensitive to the reproaches which the enemies
of Luther directed against all who showed any moderation or
candor in regard to him.  When the thunder of the Vatican
rolled over Luther's head, Erasmus thought all was ruined,
and, in a very oracular manner, told his friends that all the
disaster came of not following his advice, to be mnild, conciliating, and cautious, to be every thing, in short, which all
men now see would have left the Church and the world precisely where they were. Erasmus spent the rest of his life, in
the miserable condition of every man who is striving to cornpound between his convictions and his fears, too acute to miss
the truth, and too selfish to confess it.  He did not take open
grounds against the Evangelical doctrines; even the apologetic
letter he wrote the Pope, showed that he was not very cordially
* Quoted by Jortin, Life of Erasmus, London, 1728, 4to, p. 156.
t Do., p. 166.                             [ Do., p. 202.
# Seckendorf, Historia Lutheranismi, 1. i., p. 96.




68          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
on the Romish side. -He declined the task of refuting Luther,
for which his second reason was: " it is a work above my abilities," and the fourth: that he is not willing to endure the
resentment it would occasion.  "By the little of Luther's
writings which I have rather run over than examined, I
thought that I could discern in him  natural talents, and a
genius very proper to explain the holy Scriptures according to
the manner of the fathers, and to kindle those sparks of Evangelical doctrine, from which common custom, and the doctrines
of the schools upon speculations more subtile than useful, had
departed too far. I heard men of great merit, equally respectable for learning and piety, congratulate themselves for having
been acquainted with his books.  I saw that the more unblamable their behavior was, arid the more approaching to Evangelical purity, the less they were irritated against him.  His
moral character was recommended even by some who could not
endure his doctrine. As to the spirit with which he was animated, and of which God alone can judge with certainty, I
chose rather, as it became me, to think too favorably than too
hardly of it.  And, to say the plain truth, the Christian world
hath been long weary of those teachers, who insist too rigidly
upon trifling inventions and human constitutions, and begins
to thirst after the pure and living water drawn from  the
sources of the Evangelists and Apostles. For this undertaking
Luther seemed to me fitted by nature, and inflamed with an
active zeal to prosecute it. Thus it is that I have favored
Luther; I have favored the good which I saw, or imagined
that I saw in iim."    I In the same toile is his letter to the
Archbishop of Mentz, (1520.) In it, he shows his prevailing
spirit of temporizing, which reaped its fit reward in the hatred
of the Romish and the contempt of the Protestant party.
"Let others aflect martyrdom; for my part, I hold myself
unworthy of that honor."  "Luther," said Erasmus to the
Elector Frederic, (1520,) t "hath committed two unpardonable
crimes; he hath touched the Pope upon the crown, and the
*Letter to Campegius, 1520, quoted in Jortin's Life, p. 232.
t "' When Charles V. had just been made Emperor, and was at Cologne, the
Elector Frederick, -who was also there, sent to Erasmus, desiring that he would




ERA SMUS.                                69
monks upon the belly." He then added, in a serious manner,
that the doctrine of Luther was unexceptionable.  He solicited
the ministers of the Emperor to favor the cause of Luther,
and to persuade him not to begin the exercise of his imperial
dignity with an act of violence. To Frederic he presented the
following Axioms for his consideration:' That only two Universities had  pretended  to  condemn  Luther;''That Luther
made very reasonable demands, by offering to dispute publicly
once more.  That, being a man void of ambition, he was the
less to be suspected of heresy.' The Pope's agents, finding
Erasmus so obstinately bent to defend Luther, endeavored to
win'him  over by the offer of abbeys, or bishoprics: but he
answered them,"   "Luther is a man of too great abilities for
me to encounter; and I learn more from  one page of his, than
from  all the works of Thomas Aquinas."   The Lutherans
acknowledged their obligations to Erasmus for these favors, by
a picture, in which Luther and Hutten were represented carrying  the Ark  of God, and  Erasmus, like another David,
dancing before them  with all his might.t
That Erasmus went thus far, is wonderful; that he would
have gone much farther, if he had simply acted  out his convictions, is certain.  "But if Luther," he says, (1521,) "had
written everything  in  the  most unexceptionable  manner, I
had no inclination to  die for the sake of the truth.  Every
man hath not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I
am afraid, that if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St.
Peter."    "I follow the decisions of the Pope and Emperor
come to his lodgings. Erasmus accordingly waited on him. It was in December, and they conversed at the fireside. Erasmus preferred using Latin instead
of Dutch, and the Elector answered him, through Spalatine. When Erasmus was
desired freely to give his opinion concerning Luther, he stood with lips compressed, musing in silence for a long time; whilst Frederic, as was his wont in
earnest discourse, fixed his eyes upon him in an intense gaze. At last he broke
the silence with the words we have quoted. The Elector smiled when they were
uttered, and in after time, not long before his death, recalled them. Erasmus
afterwards begged Spalatine to return the manuscript of the axioms, lest it might
be used to his hurt.." -Seckendorf. Jortin.
* Melchior Adami, Vita Lutheri.
t Critique de 1'Apol. d'Erasme, quoted by Jortin, p. 242.  Seckendorf gives
the same facts in still ampler detail.
J Letter to Pace, quoted in Jortin, p. 273.




70           CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
when they are right, which is acting religiously; I submit to
them when they are wrong, which is acting prudently, and I
think that it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus,
when there is no hope of obtaining any more." *  " There is a
certain innocent time-serving and pious craft."     Lamartine
says: l No great man is cunning."  This was a truth to which
Erasmus does not seem to have attained.  On the train of circumstances which led to the controversy between Erasmus and
Luther, on free will, it is no place here to dwell.  Erasmus
wrote to prove the freedom  of the will, though his very doing
so, he confesses, was a proof that his own will was not free.
Through Luther he struck at the Reformation itself. "Luther
replied, and had unquestionably the best of the argument."
" I count this," says Vaughan, speaking of Luther's reply, " a
truly estimable, magnificent and illustrious treatise." "' Luther
did not rejoin to Erasmus' twofold reply: he well knew that
Erasmus was fighting for victory, not for truth, and he had
better things to do than to write books merely to repeat unanswered arguments." 
Gelzer, who wrote the sketches which accompany Konig's pictures, says of Luther: "' If we recall, among other great names
in German history, the Reformers Melanchthon and
G-.    Zwingle, the Saxon Electors, Frederick the Wise and
John the Constant, Gustavus Adolphus and Frederick  the
Great; or among intellectual celebrities, K[lopstock and Lessing,
Haman and Herder, G-the and Schiller; or turn to the great
religious reformers of the last centuries, Spener, Franke, Zinzendorf, Bengel, and Lavater, they all exhibit many features of relationship with Luther, and in some qualities may even surpass
him, but not one stands out A LUTHER.  One is deficient in the
poetic impulse, or the fulness and versatility of his nature;
another wants his depth of religious feeling, his firmness of
purpose and strength of character; others again, want his eloquence or influence over his contemporaries.  Luther would
Jortin, p. 274.  t Erasmus, quoted by Jortin.   $ Rees' Cycl., art. Erasmus.
Q Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will, translated by E. T. Vaughan,
London, 1823, preface, xlix. Vaughan gives a sketch of Luther's Life, and a
view of his character, a mere abridgment of Dean Milner's continuation of his
brother's Church History.




LUTHER'S TOLERATION.                           71
not have been Luther, without these three leading features:
his strong faith; his spiritual eloquence; and firmness of character and purpose.  He united —and this is the most extraordinary fact connected with him —to large endowments of
mind and heart, and the great gift of imparting these intellectual treasures, the invincible power of original and creative
thought, both in resisting and influencing the outer world."
"The history of the Reformation, which Guericke presents
in his admirable compend, is in keeping with his
Guericke.
strong, consistent Lutheran position, and though
it does not contain any distinct, elaborate analysis of Luther's
character, presents a just view of his career and his qualities.",*
The Twelfth Lecture of Guizot,  is devoted to the Reformation.  In a note at the close of the chapter, the
remark of Robertson is quoted, that "' Luther, Cal-           zot
vin, Cranmer, IKnox, the founders of the Reformed Church, in
their respective countries, inflicted, as far as they had power
and opportunity, the same punishments which were denounced
by the Church of Rome upon such as called in question any
article  of their creed."   Upon this passage of Robertson,
Smythe,: remarks, that  "Luther might have been favorably distinguished from Calvin and others.  There   Luther'sTolerare passages in his writings, with regard to the ationinterference of the magistrate in religious concerns, that do
him  honor; but he was favorably situated, and lived not to
see the temporal sword at his command. He was never tried."
The closing words of Smythe are in defiance of the facts in
the case.  More than any private man in the sixteenth century, Luther had the temporal sword at his command.  IHe
was tried.  He was a shield to his enemies, both in person and
doctrine, when the penalties of the law were hanging over
them.  Single-handed he protested against resort to violence.
He averted war when the great Protestant princes were eager
* Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte von H. E. F. Guericke, 9te Aufl., Leipzig,
1867, vol. iii., 1-778.
t General History of Civilization in Europe, from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the French Revolution, 3d American from the 2d English edition, with
occasional notes by C. S. Henry, D. D., New York, 1846, p. 248-268.
5 Lectures on Modern History, Am. ed., p. 262.




72          CONSERVATIVE REFORMA1TION.
for it. tie had a great, loving heart, as full of affection and
forbearance for man, even when straying, as it was full of
hatred to error in all its forms.  Bancroft makes a more correct
statement of Luther's true principles in regard to persecution: *
" Luther was more dogmatical than his opponents; though the
deep philosophy with which his mind was imbued, repelled the
use of violence to effect conversion in religion. lie was wont
to protest against propagating reform by persecution and massacres; and with wise moderation, an admirable
knowledge of human nature, a familiar and almost
ludicrous quaintness of expression, he would deduce from  his
great principle of justification by faith alone, the sublime doctrine of freedom  of conscience."  To this is added the note:
" Nollem vi et cade pro evangelia certari," (I could not wish
any to contend for the Gospel by violence and slaughter.)  Luther's Seven Sermons-delivered in March, 1522.  "Predigen
will ichs, sagen will ichs, schreiben will ichs, aber zwingen,
dringen mit Gewalt will ichs Niemand; denn der Glaube will
ich ungencethigt und ohne Zwang angenommen werden."  (I
will preach, I will talk in private, I will write, but I will force,
I will coerce no man: for I will have the faith accepted, without
constraint and without force.)  We have a testimony to the
same effect, in the History of Germany,t by KOHLRAUSCH:
" Shortly previous to the commencement of the sanguinary war
of religion, Luther, the author of the grand struggle, breathed
his last.  He had used all the weight of his power and influence
in order to dissuade his party from mixing external force with
that which ought only to have its seat within the
Kohlausci             ~.
calm profundity of the soul; and, indeed, as long as
he lived, this energetic Reformer was the warm advocate for the
maintenance of peace.  He repeatedly reminded the prinfces that
his doctrine was foreign to their warlike weapons, and he beheld
with pain and distress, in the latter years of his life, the growing temporal direction given to the Holy Cause, and the increasing hostility of parties, whence he augured nothing good."
In that immortal work of John Gerhard (theologorum princeps, tertius'a Luthero et Chemnitio, orbis Evangelici Atlan* Hist. United Sttt:s, i. 274.       t Lond., 18-44, p. 402.




GERHARD -HAGENBA CH.                            73
tis), the'Confessio Catholica,' in which the concessions of
Romish writers are employed  in  defence of the truth,* he
answers in full all the calumnies directed against the life, and
the attacks on the doctrines of Luther.  He shows
Gerhard.
that Luther was actuated by no blind fury against
the Church of Rome, but distinguished in it the precious from
the vile, and that he was an instrument of God endowed with
extraordinary qualities for an extraordinary work.  In showing this, he cites at large the opinions of Mellerstadt, Staupitz,
the Emperor Maximilian, Von IHutten, Erasmus, Frederick,
Elector of Saxony, Langius, Fisher t (Bishop of Rochester and
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge), who afterwards
wrote against Luther, Mosellanus, Cellarius, Ulner, Podusca,
Phaenicius, Schirner, Rosdialovinus, Margaret, Archduchess
of Austria, Emser, Kigelin, Masius, and Severus. 1  These
persons were all in the Church of Rome at the time that these
favorable testimonies were given. Portion by portion is taken
up by Gerhard, and disposed of with most eminent judgment,
sustained by incredible learning.
"It may be said," is the remark of Hagenbach, "that Martin Luther became emphatically the reformer of the
German Church, and thus the reformer of a great
part of the Universal Church, by his eminent personal character
and heroic career, by the publication of his theses, by sermons
and expositions of Scripture, by disputations and bold controversial writings, by numerous letters and circular epistles, by
advice and warning, by intercourse with persons of all classes of
society, by pointed maxims and hymns, but especially by his
translation of the Sacred Scriptures into the German language.~
*' Doctrina Catholica et Evangelica, quam Ecclesiae Augustanse Confessioni
addictse profitentur."- From the title of the "Confessio Cathol., Frankfurti et
Lipsise, 1679," folio.
f In a letter to Erasmus he commends Luther highly, and among other things
speaks of him as " Scripturarum ad miraculum usque peritum.". Preceptor of Ferdinand, author of the distich,
"Japeti de gente prior majorve Luthero
Nemofuit, nec habent secla futura parem." -Conf. Cathol., p. 58 seq.
Compendium of the History of Doctrines, by K. R. Hagenbach, Dr. and
Professor of Theology in the University of Basle, translated by Carl W. Buch,




74           CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
It is.. unjust.  to maintain that Luther's profound and
dynamic interpretation of the sacrament, which on that very
account was less perspicuous and intelligible, had its origin in
nothing but partial stupidity or stubbornness. The opinion
which each of these reformers (Zuinglius and Luther) entertained concerning the sacraments, was most intimately connected with his whole religious tendency, which, in its turn,
stood in connection with the different development of the
churches which they respectively founded."
Hallamz  has offered, in his "Introduction to the Literature
of Europe," a work acceptable in the great dearth,
in our language, of all books of the kind, but
neither worthy, in all respects, of the subject nor of the reputation of its author.  For too much of it is obviously, in the most
unfavorable sense, second-hand, and even in its dependence, it
does not rest on a thorough acquaintance with the best sources
whence opinions can be had ready-made.   Would it not be
thought preposterous for a man to write an introduction to
classic literature who knew  nothing of the Latin language,
and depended for his information on the translations existing
in his mother tongue?  Hallam  has been guilty of a greater
absurdity than this; for in total ignorance of the most important language in Europe, he has pretended to give a view of its
literature -a literature almost none of which, comparatively,
exists, even in the imperfect medium of translations into English.  He displays everywhere, too, an ignorance of theology
which makes his views on theological literature not only inadequate, but often absurd.  There is, too, an air of carelessness
in his treatment of it, which seems, at least, to involve that
he feels little interest in it, or that a man of his position in
general letters is condescending, in touching such matters at
all.  It is one of the poorest affectations of men of the world
to talk of theology, in a tone of flippancy, as if it were too
Edinburgh, Clark, 1847, vol. ii., 156, (Am. ed., edited by Dr. H. B. Smith,
1862.) Hagenbach's work has an occasional slip. An illustration lies just under
our eye: "Nor did the authors of the Symbolical Books differ from Luther, on
Transubstantiation." Very true, but half of Hagenbach's proof is a citation from
the Smalcald Articles, i. e. he proves that Luther did not differ from Luther.




HALLAM.                              75
vague for a thinker, too dull to inspire enthusiasm.  They
speak and write of it, as if they were with difficulty repressing
a yawn.  But Hallam is not guilty of mere listlessness in his
treatment of theological topics.  He is a partisan, and a very
ill-informbd one.
Especially is his account of the Reformation and of Luther
full of ignorance and full of prejudice.  He seems to have prepared his mind for a just estimate of Luther by reading, with
intense admiration, Bossuet's "Variations," though, as he tells
us, with great impartiality, " It would not be just probably to
give Bossuet credit in every part of that powerful delineation
of Luther's theological tenets."  He charges on the writings
of Luther, previous to 1520, various' Antinomian paradoxes,"
but yet he has the candor to say: "It must not be supposed
for a moment that Luther, whose soul was penetrated with a
fervent piety, and whose integrity, as well as purity of life, are
unquestioned, could mean to give any encouragement to a
licentious disregard of moral virtue, which he valued as in
itself lovely before God as well as man, though in the technical
style of his theology he might deny its proper obligation. But
his temper led him  to follow up any proposition of Scripture
to every consequence that might seem to result from  its literal
meaning."
" Every solution of the conduct of the reformers must be
nugatory except one, that they were men absorbed by the conviction that they were fighting the battle of God." - "It is
hardly correct to say of Luther, that he erected his system on
the ruins of Popery, for it was rather the growth and expansion in his mind of one positive dogma, justification by faith,
in the sense in which he took it, (which can be easily shown
to have preceded the dispute about indulgence,) that broke
down and crushed  successively the various doctrines of the
Rornish Church." 
* Literature of Europe, vol. i., p. 166. Hallam, putting a different construction from Le Clerc on some theological expressions, adds: "But of course my
practice in these nice questions is not great." Vol. ii., p. 41, n. After adjusting in the text the comparative merits of half a dozen theologians, he says he
has done it "in deference to common reputation," "for I am wholly ignorant
of the writings of all." Page 287.




76             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION'
"A better tone " (in preaching) " began with Luther. His
language was sometimes rude and low, but persuasive, artless,
powerful.  He gave many useful precepts, as well as examples,
for pulpit eloquence. — " In the history  of the Reformation,
Luther is incomparably the greatest name. We see him, in the
skilful composition of Robertson, the chief figure of a group
of gownsmen, standing in  contrast on the canvas with  the
crowned  rivals of France and  Austria, and their attendant
warriors, but blended in the unity of that historic picture. It
is admitted on all sides, that he wrote his own language with
force, and he is reckoned one (f its best models.  The hymns
in use with the Lutheran Church, many of which are his own,
possess a simple dignity and devoutness never probably excelled
in that class of poetry, and alike distinguished from  the poverty
of Sternhold or Brady, and from  the meretricious ornament of
later writers."-" It is not to be imagined that a man of his
vivid parts fails to perceive an advantage in that close grappling, sentence by sentence, with an adversary, which fills most
of his controversial writings; and in scornful irony he had no
superior." *
Literature of Europe, vol. i., p. 197. The great currency which Hallam's
name gives to any view he expresses, would make it well worth while for some
one competent to the task, to review all his charges against Luther, and positive Evangelical Protestantism, as has been done, so ably, on some points, by
Archdeacon Hare. An instance of the knowing air with which a man ignorant
of his subject may write about it, occurs in the following sentence (i. 278):
"' After the death of Melanchthon, a controversy, began by one Brentius, relating
to the ubiquity, as it was called, of Christ's body, proceeded with much heat."
" One Milton. a blind man," has grown into a classic illustration of happy appreciation of character.  "One Brentius" ought to contest a place with it.. Brentius, whose name, in the department of polemic theology, is mentioned next that
of Luther and of Melanchthon in the early history of the Reformation- Brentius, who stood so high in the judgment of Luther himself,. one of the acutest
judges of character, to whom Luther applied terms of commendation which.seemed so near an approach to flattery, that he felt it necessary to protest that
he is speaking in godly sincerity, whom he compared, in relation to himself, to the
"still small voice following the whirlwind, earthquake, and fire"- Brentius,
whose contributions to sacred interpretation not only stood in the highest repute
in his own land, but several of which had sufficient reputation to lead to their
translation in England, (as, for instance, his "Arguments and Summaries,"
translated by John Calcaskie, London, 1550; his Commentary on Esther, by John
Stockwood,London, 1554; his Homilies and Exegesis on John, by Richard Shirry,




ARCHDEACON HARE.                             77
Next to the Milners,* who were the first English writers
who gave a large and just view of Luther's character and Luther's work, is to be placed Archdeacon Hare, who in a note to
his "Mission  of the Comforter," a note which
Archdeacon Hare.
grew  into  a volume, vindicated Luther against
"his recent English assailants." t  First of these is Hallam;
then follow Newman, Ward, and Dr. Mill.  The last reply is
to Sir William  Hamilton, who has left an indelible disgrace
upon his namelby the manner and measure of his attack upon
Luther.  He has largely drawn his material from  secondary
sources, wholly unworthy of credit, and has been betrayed
into exhibitions of ignorance so astounding as to excite suspicion that Sir William was rather a large reader than a
thorough scholar. His fierceness of polemic, which his greatest
admirers lament, was never  more  manifest nor more  inexcusable than it is here.  Archdeacon Hare's vindication is
everywhere successful, and not unfrequently overwhelming.
He has won for himself the right of being listened to respectfully, even reverently, in his estimate of Luther: T "As he has
said of St. Paul's words, his own are not dead words, but living creatures, and have hands and feet. It no longer surprises
us that this man who wrote and spoke thus, although no more
than a poor monk, should have been mightier than the Pope,
and the Emperor to boot, with all their hosts, ecclesiastical and
civil —that the rivers of living water should have swept half
Germany, and in the course of time the chief part of Northern
Europe, out of the kingdom  gof darkness into the region of
Evangelical light. No day in spring, when life seems bursting
from every bud, and gushing from every pore, is fuller of life
than his pages; and if they are not without the strong breezes
London, 1550;) and whose writings are still consulted with delight by the scholar,
and republished - such a man could not have had such a seal of insignificance
attached to his name by any other than a writer ignorant at least of this part of
his theme.
* Hist. of Church of Christ, by Joseph Milner, with add. by Is. Milner, Lend.
(1819) 1847, 4 vols. 8vo.
t Vindication of Luther, 2d ed., Lond., 1855.: Mission of the Comforter, from 2d Lond. ed., Boston, 1854, pp. 281, 402,
403.




78         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of spring, these too have to bear their part in the work of
purification."-" How far superior his expositions of Scripture
are, in the deep and living apprehension of the primary truths
of the Gospel, to those of the best among the Fathers, even of
Augustin  If we would do justice to any of the master minds
in history, we must compare them  with their predecessors.
When we come upon these truths in Luther, after wandering
through the dusky twilight of the preceding centuries, it seems
almost like the sunburst of a new Revelation, or rather as if
the sun, which set when St. Paul was taken away from the
earth, had suddenly started up again. Verily, too, it does us
good, when we have been walking about among those who
have only dim guesses as to where they are, or whither they
are going, and who halt and look back, and turn aside at every
other step, to see a man taking his stand on the Eternal Rock,
and gazing steadfastly with unsealed eyes on the very Sun of
righteousness."
Hase, most, eloquent, most condensed, most happy in giving
the cream of things of all the writers of his school, shows a just
and appreciating spirit in all he has said of Luther. Not only
in his general allusions to the primal spirit of the Reformation embodied in Luther, his correct deduction of that great
movement, neither from the skeptical, nor scientific tendency,
but from faith and holy desire, but still more fully
Rlase.
in the happy outline of Luther's career in his
Church history, has lie shown that.s far as one occupying so
different a theological position from  Luther can thoroughly
understand him, he does so. I*ot only as a fine illustration of
our theme, but as a highly characteristic specimen of the work
of lIase, to which we have just alluded, we give the whole of
his chapter on "Luther's death and public character."  "In
the last year of his life, Luther, worn out by labor and sickness, took such offence at the immorality and wanton nmodes
at Wittenberg, that he left it, (1545,) and only consented to
return at the most urgent supplications of the University and
Elector.  lie saw a gloomy period impending over the land of
his fathers, and longed to depart in peace. Over his last days
still shone some of the brightness of his best years-the




HA SE.                        79
words bold, child-like, playful, amid exalted thoughts. Having been called to Eisleben to act as arbitrator in settling some
difficulty of the Counts'of Mansfeld, he there, on the night
of February 18th, 1546, rested in a last calm and holy sleep.
The mutations of'the times on whose pinnacle' he stood, imparted to his life its stronger antitheses. IIe had regarded
the Pope as the most holy, and most Satanic father. In his
roused passions emotions had stormily alternated. The freedom of the Spirit was the object of his life, and yet he had
been jealous for the letter. In trust on all the power of the
Spirit, he had seized the storm of revolution by the reins, and
yet on occasion had suggested that it would be well if the
Pope and his whole brood were drowned in the Tyrrhene Sea.
But throughout he had uttered with an unbounded ingenuousness his convictions, and was a stranger to every worldly
interest. With a powerful sensuousness, he stood fast rooted
in the earth, but his head reached into heaven. In the creative spirit, no man of his time was like him; his discourses
were often rougher than his own rough time seemed to ap
prove, but in popular eloquence his equal has never arisen in
Germany. From anguish and wrath grew his joy in the con
test. Where he once had discovered wrong, he saw nothing
but hell. But his significance rests less upon those acts by
which he searched and destroyed - others could more easily
and more readily tear themselves away from the old Churchit rests much more upon his power of building up, on his earn
est full faith and love; though in hours of gloom, through
the temptations of Satan, he imagined that he had lost God,
and Christ, and all together. Especially, in opposition to his
antagonists, did he believe, and declare without reservation,
that he was a chosen instrument of God, known in heaven, on
earth, and in hell. But with himself, personally considered,
he would have nothing to do; he would recognize no doctrine
of Luther, and his sublime trust in God pointed not to his
personal delivery from dangers, but to the faith that God could
every day create ten' Doctor Martins.' Insipid objections and
narrow vindications are forgotten; such a man belongs not to
ole party, but to the German people and to Christendom."




80          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The distinctive characteristics of Gothe and Herder displayed themselves in the difference of their feelings towards'
Luther.  "What seemed to G-othe narrow and partial, Herder called noble and philanthropic; while, on the contrary,
what Herder admired as the infinitude of a great idea, revealing itself to man in various godlike emanations -
in the valor of the hero, the wisdom of the legislator, the inspiration of the poet, or the events of a world -this
sort of elevation moved G-othe so little, that such characters
as Luther and Coriolanus excited in himn a sort of uncomfortable feeling, which could be satisfactorily explained only on the
hypothesis that their natures stood in a mysterious sort of
opposition to his.  G-othe's genius and disposition were for
the beautiful; Herder's for the sublime."
Herder has given, in his writings, the most unmistakable
evidence of his admiration of Luther.  There is no author
whom he cites so frequently, so largely, and so admiringly, as
Luther.  "Luther has long been recognized as teacher of the
German nation, nay, as co-reformer of all of Europe that is
this day enlightened. I-e was a great man and a great patriot.
Even nations that do not embrace the principles of his religion
enjoy the fruits of his Reformation.  Like a true Hercules, he
grappled with that spiritual despotism which abrogates or
buries all free, sound thought, and gave back to whole nations
the use of reason, and in that very sphere where it is hardest
to restore it —in spiritual things.  The power of his speech
and of his honest spirit united itself with sciences, which
-revived from  him  and with him; associated itself with the
yearnings of the best thinkers in all conditions, who, in some
things, had very different views from his own, and thus formed
for the first time a popular literary public in Germany and the
neighboring countries.  Now men read what never had been
read; now men learned to read who had never learned before.
Schools and academies were founded, German hymns were
sung, and preaching in the German language ceased to be rare.
The people obtained the Bible, possessed at the very least the
Catechism; numerous sects of Anabaptists and other errorists
arose, many of which, each in its own way, contributed to the




HERDER.                         81
scientific or popular elucidation of contested matters, and thus,
also, to the cultivation of the understanding, the polishing of
language and of taste. Would that his spirit had been followed, and that, in this method of free examination, other
objects had been taken up which did not lie immediately in
his monastic or church sphere; that, in a word, the principles
on which-he judged and acted had been applied to them. But
what avails it to teach or reproach times gone by? Let us rise
and apply his mode of thought, his luminous hints, and the
truths uttered for our time, with equal strength and naivete. I
have marked in his writings a number of sentences and expressions in which (as he often called himself) he is presented
as Ecclesiastes, or the preacher and teacher of the German
nation."
"Of Luther as a preacher,"'Herder says: "lie spoke the
simple, strong, unadorned language of the understanding; he
spoke from the heart, not from the head and from memory.
His sermons, therefore, have long been the models, especially
of those preachers in our church who are of stable minds."
Speaking of the contents of the Psalms, he says, in the same
beautiful letters from which we have just quoted: " I am sure
I can give you no better key to them than the exquisite preface
of Luther to this, his darling book. He will tell you what is
in them, how to apply them, and turn them to use."
Speaking of the romantic and moonshiny way of preaching
which prevailed in his time, he closes a most severe paragraph
with the exclamation: " O Luther! when we recall thee and
thy pure, solid language, comprehended by all  "
" Would you hear the nature, power, and necessity of this living principle of faith, treated in a manner living and clearly
defined, read Luther's writings. He shows a hundred times
and at large, how little is contained in that beggar's bag of a
gradual reform of our bad habits; how little of Christianity
there is in it, and of how little worth it is before God. But he
himself, even at that early day, mourned that so few formed a
right conception of that which he called true, life-restoring
faith, how few knew how to give it, in accordance with his
meaning, its practical power! "    The doctrine of justification,




82          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
is so closely associated with that of faith, that one must stand
or fall with the other. On this, also, the corner-stone of
Lutheranism, pre-eminently hold fast, I beg you, by Luther's
writings.  I think it was Spener who had felt, with reference
to this system, a doubt which, it seemed to him, nothing could
overthrow; he read Luther's writings and his doubts vanished.
But, as I have said, Luther already mourned that not all comprehended him, and whilst every one was crying out about
faith, justification, and good works, few had really grasped his
meaning and his spirit; the consequences, both immediate and
long after his death, were melancholy enough.  When in this
matter you need instruction, or long to have difficulties resolved, go to this living man of faith himself, this legitimate
son of Paul. In his writing is so much sound sense, with such
strength of spirit and fervor of an honest heart, that often,
when worn out with the frigid refinings and speculations of
a more recent date, I have found that I was revived by him
alone."  "Conjoin with his biography, his own writings, (0
that we had a complete collection of them in the languages
in which he'wrote them!) read these, and you will know him
differently, for he gives a picture of himself in every line."
"May the great Head of the Church revive in this land
(Germany) -the cradle of the Reformation - the spirit of the
reformers, so that the mantle of Luther may fall upon his professed followers and admirers, that all who pretend to teach
may be taught of God, men of faith, learning, research, and
above all, of ardent and unfeigned piety."
Kahnis:  " Nothing but the narrowness of party can deny
that there are respects in which no other reformer can bear
comparison with Luther as the person of the ReKais formation. The Romanists do but prejudice their
own cause, when they undervalue a man who, with nothing
but the weapons of the Spirit, shook to its lowest depths the
Roma Catholic entire Church of the Middle Ages. Every OathJudgment. Stol- olic who claims to be a lover of truth, should concur
berg.       in the judgment of Count Stolberg, who, though
he deserted Protestantism  for the Catholic Church, says:
* Ueb. d. Principien d. Protestantismus, Leipz., 1865.




F. V. RAUMER'S REPLY  TO  PALA VICINI.    83'Against Luther's person I would not cast a stone.  In him I
honor, not alone one of the grandest spirits that have ever lived,
but a great religiousness also, which never forsook him.'"
There have indeed been Roman Catholics, who did not breathe
toward Luther the spirit of Schlegel and Stolberg, and from
one of the greatest of these, whose sketch is peculiarly full of
genius, and has been called " an official one," by F. V. Raumer,
we quote. Palavicini, the historian of the Council
Palavicini.
of Trent, thus characterizes Luther: "A fruitful
genius, but one that produced bitter rather than ripe fruits; he
was rather the abortive birth of a giant, than a healthy child
born in due time. A mighty spirit, but better fitted for tearing down than for building up. His learning was more like a
drenching rain which beats down all before it, than like the
soft shower of summer, beneath which nature grows fruitful.
His eloquence was in its language coarse, and crude in its matter, like the storm which blinds the eyes with the dust it drives
before it. Bold in beginning strife, no man was more timorous when danger was near; his courage was, at best, that of a
beast at bay. He frequently promised to be silent, if his opponents would be silent too - a proof that he was determined by
earthly influences.  He was protected by the princes, only
because they coveted the Church's goods; he was a disturber
of the Church, to the injury of others, and without benefit to
himself. History will continue to name him, but more to his
shame than to his renown.  The Church, the vine, has been
pruned, that it may shoot forth with fresh life: the faithful
have been separated from  the seditious.  Opposed to him
stands the major part —the more noble, the more moderate,
the more holy."
To this no better answer can be furnished than that which
the great historian and statesman, F. V. Raumer, has given:
" To this judgment of Palavicini," he says, " after a conscientious
testing of all the facts, we cannot assent -but are constrained
to acknowledge the truth to be this: A fruitful  F. v. Rame
genius, whose fruits could not all come to a mellow reply to Palaviripeness, because they were prematurely shaken down 
by storms. A mighty spirit, who helped to arouse the storms;




84          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
but, had not the building been undermined by fearful abuses, a
purification might have been possible without overthrowing it.
Only because the builders who were called to the work of
reform, not only refused to perform it, but increased the evil,'did he become their master; and with success grew his boldness
or his faith in his divine vocation, and his wrath against his
opponents. In his contest with the Papacy he placed in the
van Evangelical freedom of faith, and this is the source of
Protestantism; in the establishment of his Church he often
was willing to shackle thought, lost his own clearness of perception, and became intolerant.  But his hardest and least becoming language appears mild in comparison with the blood-thirsty
intolerance of his opponents, mild in comparison with the headsman's axe and the stake. A noble eloquence supplanted the
unintelligible prattle of the schools; through him Germany
once more learned to speak, the German people once more
to hear. Ie who is displeased with his style, or with his matter, must yet confess that his. writings reveal everywhere the
inspiration of the fear of God and the power of faith. Luther
never dissimulated.  Persuasions, promises, threats had no
power to shake his rock-firm will, his indomitable purpose; and
the seeming self-will and severity connected with this arose,
at least, from  no commonplace and perverted character.  No
man ever grasps the whole truth, in perfect clearness; but few
have more earnestly striven to attain it, and with more perfect
self-renunciation confessed it, than Luther.  Among his opponents not one can be compared with him in personal qualities:
with all his faults, he remains greatest and most memorable
among men; a man in whose train follows a whole world of
aspiration, effort, and achievement."
In affinity with that of Von Raumer is the estimate of
Ranke: " Throughout we see Luther directing his weapons on
both sides-against the Papacy, which sought to
reconquer the world then struggling for its emancipation- and against the sects of many names which sprang
up beside him, assailing Church and State together.  The
great Reformer, if we may use an expression of our days, was
one of the greatest Conservatives that ever lived."




WIELAND  STANG-iE L.ANCHTHON.                   85
Ernst Karl Wieland opens the last paragraph of his Characteristics of Luther with the words: " Such was he,
I Wieland.
so great in whatever aspect we view him, so worthy
of admiration, so deserving of universal gratitude; alike great
as a man, a citizen, and a scholar."
Stang, to whom  we are indebted for one of the best lives
of Luther, thus closes his biography: " We stand before the
image of the great Reformer with the full conviction that
between the first century, when Christianity appeared in its
youth, and the sixteenth, when it obtained the    Stang.
maturity of its riper age, not one of our race has
appeared, in whom the ever-creative spirit of God, the spirit
of light and of law, has found nobler embodiment, or wrought
with richer sequence."
But among all the tributes which the centuries have laid at
the feet or on the tomb of Luther, none are more touching
than the words in which Melanchthon showed that
Melanchthon.
Luther's death had brought back, in all its tenderness, the early, pure devotion. Melanchthon, the Hamlet of
the Reformation, shrinking from action into contemplation,
with a dangerous yearning for a peace which must have been
hollow and transient, had become more and more entangled in
the complications of a specious but miserable policy which he
felt made him justly suspected by those whose confidence in
him had once been unlimited. Luther was saddened by Melanchthon's feebleness, and Melanchthon was put under restraint
by Luther's firmness.  Melanchthon was betrayed into writing
weak, fretful, unworthy words in regard to Luther, whose surpassing love to Melanchthon had been sorely tested, but had never
yielded. But death makes or restores more bonds than it breaks.
When the tidings of Luther's death reached Wittenberg, Melanchthon cried out in anguish:' 0 my father, my father,
the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof  "- tributary
words from one of the greatest, to the greatest.  He was gone
of whom Melanchthon, cautious in praise, and measured in
language, had said, from a full heart: "Luther is too great,
too wonderful for me to depict in words." -" If there be a man
on earth I love with my whole heart, that man is Luther."




.86         CONSERVATIVE REFORMlIATION.
And, again: "' One is an interpreter; one, a logician; another,
an orator, affluent and beautiful in speech; but Luther is all
in all - whatever he writes, whatever he utters, pierces to the
soul, fixes itself like arrows in the heart -he is a miracle
among men."
What need we say more, after such eulogies?
The greatness of some men only makes us feel that though
they did well, others in their place might have done just as
they did: Luther had that exceptional greatness, which convinces the world that he alone could have done the work. Ite
was not a mere mountain-top, catching a little earlier the
beams, which, by their own course, would soon have found the
valleys; but rather, by the divine ordination under which he
rose, like the sun itself, without which the light on mountain
and valley would have been but a starlight or moonlight. He
was not a secondary orb, reflecting the light of another orb,
as was Melanchthon, and even Calvin; still less the moon of
a planet, as Bucer or Brentius; but the centre of undulations
which filled a system with glory. Yet, though he rose wondrously to a divine ideal, he did not cease to be a man of men.
He won the trophies of power, and the garlands of affection. Potentates feared him, and little children played with him. He
has monuments in marble and bronze, medals in silver and gold;
but his noblest monument is the best love of the best hearts,
and the brightest, purest impression of his image has been
left in the souls of regenerated nations. He was the best
teacher of freedom and of loyalty. lie has made the righteous
throne stronger, and the innocent cottage happier. He knew
how to laugh, and how to weep; therefore, millions laughed
with him, and millions wept for him. He was tried by deep
sorrow, and brilliant fortune; he begged the poor scholar's
bread, and from Emperor and estates of the realm received an
embassy, with a prince at its head, to ask him to untie the
knot which defied the power of the soldier and the sagacity
of the statesman; it was he who added to the Litany the words:
" In all time of our tribulation, in all time of our prosperity,
help us good Lord;" but whether lured by the subtlest flattery




SUMMARY OF LUTHER'S CHARACTER.                   87
or assailed by the powers of hell, tempted with the mitre, or
threatened with the stake, he came off more than conqueror in
all. He made a world rich forevermore, and, stripping himself
in perpetual charities, died in poverty.  He knew how to command -for he had learned how to obey. Had he been less
courageous, he would have attempted nothing; had he been
less cautious, he would have ruined all: the torrent was resistless, but the banks were deep. ITe tore up the mightiest evils
by the root, but shielded with his own life the tenderest bud
of good; he combined the aggressiveness of a just radicalism
with the moral resistance - which seemed to the fanatic the passive weakness - of a true conservatism. Faith-inspired, he was
faith-inspiring. Great in act as he was great in thought, proving
himself fire with fire, " inferior eyes grew great by his example, and put on the dauntless spirit of resolution."  The world
knows his faults. He could not hide what he was. His trans-'parent candor gave his enemies the material of their misrepresentation; but they cannot blame his infirmities without bearing witness to the nobleness which made him careless of appearances in a world of defamers. For himself, he had as little of
the virtue of caution as he had, toward others, of the vice of
dissimulation.  Living under thousands of jealous and hating
eyes, in the broadest light of day, the testimony of enemies but
fixes the result: that his faults were those of a nature of the
most consummate grandeur and fulness, faults more precious
than the virtues of the common great.  Four potentates ruled
the mind of Europe in the Reformation, the Emperor, Erasmus,
the Pope, and Luther. The Pope wanes, Erasmus is little, the
Emperor is nothing, but Luther abides as a power for all time.
His image casts itself upon the current of ages, as the mountain mirrors itself in the river that winds at its foot  the
mighty fixing itself immutably upon the changing.




LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.*
THE  author's best vindication  of his vocation  to  a work
must, in  the nature  of the case, be the work itself.  The
fact of success seems to dispense with the necessity
Luther's calliug as a trans- of any argument, in  advance, as to his fitness for
latoroftheScrip- the labor on which  he entered.  We  need no  a
tures.
priori  proof  that  Milton  had  a  vocation  as  a
poet, or Bacon  as a philosopher, or Gerhard  as a theologian.
To argue it, is to  argue in the sunlight the question of the
sun's adaptation for shining. Luther's translation of the Bible
is itself the invincible proof of his vocation  to  the work  of
The most important works on Luther's Bible are the following:
I.- In defence or criticism of his translation.
ANDRE E: Erinerung v. d. Teutschen. Bibl. Dollmetsch. Tubing. 1564.
TRAUB: Avisa o. Warnungvon Luther's Teutsch. Bib. Ingolst. 1578.
WTCELII: Annotationes. Leipz. 1536.
ZANGER: Examen Versionis. Maintz. 1605.
BERINGER: Rettung. 1613.
RAITHII: Vindicise. 1676.
A. H. FRANCKE: Obs. Biblicse. 1695.
HALLBAUER: Animadversiones in Nov. Germ. Version. Jena: 1731.
ZEHNER: Probe. 1750.
MARHEINECKE: Relig. Werth. d. Bibeliibersetz. Luther. Berl. 1815.
STIER: Altes und Neues. 1828.  (In defence of Meyer's Revision.)
"    Darf Luther's Bibel, etc. 1836.
GRASHiOF: D. M. L's. Bibeliber. in ihr.Verhalten. z. d. Bedirfn. d. Zeit. 1835.
HOPF: Wiirdig. d. Luthersch. Bibel. Verdeutscht mit Riicks. d. Alt. u. Neuen
Uebersetzung. Nurnb. 1847.
ROSSLER: De Vers. Luth. caute emend. 1836.
88




LUTHER AS A TRANSLATOR.                             89
preparing it. It shines its own evidence into the eyes of every
one who opens it.
Nevertheless, it is not without historical interest, little as it
is necessary, logically, to look at the evidence of Luther's fitness
for the work. Some of the facts which naturally attract our
attention here, are the following:
I. Luther was well educated as a boy.  He went to school in
Mansfeld  until he reached  his fourteenth year; thence he
went to Magdeburg; four years he spent at Eisenach, under
the tuition of a teacher of whom  Melanchthon testifies that
in the grammatical branches, the very ones which were so
largely to become useful to Luther as a translator, lie had no
superior.  Here he finished his school-days proper-already
as a boy, by his great proficiency, giving indications of extraordinary talents and industry.  Melanchthon says of him  at
this era: "As he had great genius, and a strong predisposition to eloquence, he speedily surpassed the other youths in
the fulness and richness of his speech and of his writing, alike
in prose and verse."  Even as a boy, he was already marked
out as a translator.
II. Luther received a thorough collegiate education.  In 1501
he repaired  to the college at Erfurt, where he was matriculated during the presidency of Truttvetter, whom  he loved
and venerated as a man and a teacher, and where he faithfully
used all the advantages which surrounded him.
II.- Bibliography and History.
MAYER, J. F.: Hist. Vers. Luth. 1701.
KRAFT: (1705-1734.)
ZELTNER: Historic. 1727. Bertram: Giese: Nachricht. (1771.)
PALMi: Historie  Gotze. 1772.
"   De Codicibus. 1735.
GOZEN'S: Sammlung. 1777. Vergleichung der Uebersetz. v. Luther, von
1517-b. 1545. Erst. St. 1777; 2d, 1779. Neue Entdeckungen, 1777.
PANZER: Entwurf. 1791.
G(ETZ: Ueberblicke. 1824.
SCHOTT: Geschichte. 1835. Bindseil. (]841.)
REUSs: Gesch. d. Heil. Schriften. N. T. 1860.
FRITZSCHE: Bibelidbersetzungen Deutsch. 1855. (in Herzog's Real Enc.
iii. 337.)
Popular Histories: KUSTER (1824); WEIDEMAN (1834); K. MANN (1834);
KRAFFT, C. W. (1835.)




90          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
III. Luther was a devoted student of the Hebrew and Greek.
In 1505, after his entrance into the cloister, Luther devoted
himself, with that earnestness which marked all he did, to the
study of Hebrew and Greek.  He had skilful teachers in both
languages.  As professor and preacher in Wittenberg, he continued both studies with great ardor.  In IIebrew, Luther
regarded the illustrious Reuchlin, the Gesenius of that day, as
his teacher, compensating for the want of his oral instruction
by a thorough use of his writings.  But Luther was not of
the race of sciolists who think that, because books can do
much, they can do everything.  LIe knew  the value of the
living teacher. To obtain a more thorough mastery of Hebrew,
he availed himself of the instruction of his learned colleague,
Aurogallus, the Professor of the Oriental languages at Wittenberg. When he was at Rome, in 1510, he took lessons in Hebrew from the erudite Rabbin Elias Levita. Luther was master
of the Hebrew according to the standard of his time, as his
contemporaries, and learned men of a later date, among them
Scaliger, have acknowledged.  "If Luther," says Fritzsche,*
"was not the greatest philologist of his time, he was yet sufficiently learned to see for himself, and to be able to form  an
independent judgment.  What he lacked in philological profundity was compensated for, in part, by his eminent exegetical
feeling, and by the fact that he had lived himself completely
into the spirit of the Bible."  Luther's first master in Greek
was Erasmus, through his writings; his preceptor, both by
the book and the lip, was Melanchthon.  These were the
greatest Greek scholars of the age.  Luther happily styles
Melanchthon, "most Grecian."
IV. With genius, the internal mental requisite, and learning, the means by which that genius could alone be brought
to bear on the work of translation, Luther united piety. His
soul was in affinity with the spirit of the Bible.  I-e was a
regenerate man.  A  De Wette may produce a translation
which the man of taste admires, but he cannot translate for
the people. We would not give a poem to a mathematician
for translation, whatever might be his genius; still less would
Herzog's Real Encyc., iii. 340.




NEW TESTAMENT-PROTESTANT VERSION.   91
we give the words of the Spirit to the hand of a translator
who had not the' mind of the Spirit."  Luther, the man of
faith, of fervent prayer, the man who was as lowly toward
God as he was inflexible toward men -Luther was called to
that work of translation in which generations of the past
have found a guide to heaven, and for which millions of our
race, in generations yet to come, will rise up and pronounce
him blessed.
V. A11 these gifts and graces as a translator found their
channel in his matchless German. In this he stood supreme.
The most German of Germans, towering above the great, yet
absolutely one of the people, he possessed such a mastery of
the tongue, such a comprehension of its power, such an ability
to make it plastic for every end of language, as belonged to no
other man of his time -to no other man since.. His German
style is the model of the scholar, and the idol of the people.
The plan of a great human life is not something which the
man makes —-it is something which makes the man.  The
wide and full-formed plans which men make before  The fst Prot
they begin to act, are always failures. The achieve- estantversionof
the New Testa"
ments of the great masters in the moral revolutions mie,,t. ts early
of our race have invariably, at first, had the sem- istory.
blance of something fragmentary.  The men themselves were
not conscious of what their own work tended to.  Could they
have seen the full meaning of their own first acts, they would
have shrunk back in dismay, pronouncing impossible those
very things with the glorious consummation of which their
names are now linked forever.  So was it with Luther in the
work of the Reformation.  The plan of it was not in his mind
when he began it.  That plan in its vastness, difficulties, and
perils would have appalled him, had it been brought clearly
before him. So was it also in regard to his greatest Reformatory labor - the translation of the Bible. At a period when
he would have utterly denied his power to produce that very
translation which the genius and learning of more than three
centuries have failed to displace, he was actually unconsciously
taking the first step toward its preparation.  Like all great
fabrics, Luther's translation was a growth.




92          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The memorable year 1517, the year of the Theses, was also
the year of Luther's first translation of part of the Ioly Scrip
tures. It is earlier, however, than the Theses, or the controversy with Tetzel, and yet its very preface implies the Protestant doctrine of the right of the illumined private judgment of Christians. It embraced only the SEVEN PENITENTIAL
PSALMS, (VI., XXXII., XXXVIII., LI., CII., CXXX., CXLIII.) He used
in its preparation the Latin translation of Jerome, and another
by Reuchlin, which had appeared at Tiibingen in 1512. In
the Annotations, however, he frequently refers to the Hebrew.
Between 1518 and the appearance of his New Testament
complete, in 1522, Luther translated eleven different portions
of the Bible. In 1518 appeared two editions of a translation
and exposition of the Lord's Prayer.  The first edition was
issued without Luther's consent, by Schneider, one of his
pupils. Luther himself published the second edition, which
deviates very much from the other. It appeared with this
title: "Exposition, in German, of the Lord's Prayer, for the
simple Laity, by Dr. Martin Luther, Augustinian Monk, of
Wittenberg.  Not for the learned."  The same year he translated the CX. Psalm. In 1519 appeared the Gospel for the
Festiyal of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the Prayer of Manasseh. In 1520 he published his first Catechetical work, embracing the Ten Commandments.
In 1521, Luther was seized, on his way from  Worms to
Wittenberg, and carried to the castle of the WTartburg, where
he remained from May 4th, 1521, to March 6th of the following year. These months of calm, and of meditation, led
to the maturing of his plans for the promotion of the Reformation, and among them, of the most important of the whole,
the giving to the people the Word of God in their own tongue.
Before his final leaving the Wartburg, Luther, in disguise,
made his way to Wittenberg, and spent several days there,
known only to a very few of his most trusted friends. During
that mysterious and romantic visit, they may have urged upon
him personally this very work of translation.  lie had been
urged to this work, indeed, before. " Melanchthon," says he,
6 constrained me to translate the New Testament."  Various




FIRST DRA FT.                       93
fragments of translation were published during the earlier
p)art of Luther's sojourn in his Patmos, but not until his
return from Wittenberg did he begin the first grand portion
of his translation of the Bible as a whole.
Luther translated the New Testament in the first draft in about
three months. It sounds incredible, but the evidence places it
beyond all doubt. He was only ten months at the Wartburg;
during this period he wrote many other things; did a good deal
of work on his Postils, and lost a great deal of time, by
sickness, and in other ways, and  did not commence his
NSTew Testament until his sojourn was more than
First draft.
half over. Never did one of our race work with
the ardor with which Luther wrought when his whole soul
was engaged, and never, probably, was that great soul so
engaged, so fired, so charmed with its occupation, as in this
very work of translating the New Testament.  The absurd
idea that Luther was assisted in this first work by Melanchthon, Cruciger, Amsdorf, and others, has arisen from confounding with this a different work at a different period. In this,
he was alone, far from the aid, far from the co-operating sympathy of a single friend.
He did not translate from the Vulgate, though he used that
ancient and important translation with sound judgment. In
his earlier efforts as a translator we see -more of its influence
than at a later period.  This influence was partly, no doubt,
unconscious.  His thorough  familiarity with the Vulgate
would shape his translation to some extent, even when he was
not thinking of it. But the Vulgate was of right
the most important aid, next to the sacred text T eV lgte
itself. Consequently, though Luther grew less and less dependent upon it, and saw more and more its defects, he never ceased
to value it. He well knew, too, that many of the most serious
faults of the received form of the Vulgate were the results of
the corrupted text, the state of which before the critical labors
which ran through the sixteenth century, was almost chaotic.
We will give a few illustrations of the fact that in certain cases
Luther followed the Vulgate, in his earliest translation, without warrant from the Greek text.  We will distribute our




94          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
illustrations under these heads: I. of Additions; II. of Ornissions; III. of Renderings; IV. of- Readings, in which Luther
follows the Vulgate when the Vulgate does not represent the
Greek text - or at least that text to which alone Luther had
access.
I. — ADDITIONS of the Vulgate and of Luther to the Erasmian Text. (1516, 1519.)
Mark vi. 2. Were astonished, Luther adds: Seiner Lehre:
so Coverdale: at his learning.
"  xvi. 9. Luther adds: Jesus.
xii. 9. Luther adds: Alle: all the whole world:
Cranner.
1 John v. 12. He that hath the Son, Luther adds: Gottes
- of God.
II. - OMISSIONS of the Vulgate and Luther from the Erasmian
text.  These are few, for the sins of the Vulgate
against the pure text are most frequently those of addition.
Matt. i. 18. Omit: Jesus.
Matt. v. 22. Whosoever is angry with his brother, omit:
without a cause.
Matt. vi. 4. Omit: himself.
III. - RENDERINOS in which the Vulgate and Luther depart
from the Greek text.
Matt. x. 42. Little ones, Luther renders: one of the least.
So Coverdale.
Mark xv. 4. Behold  how  many  things they witness
against thee, Luther renders: Wie hart sie
dich verklagen.  Coverdale: How sore they
lay to thy charge.
1 Cor. xv. 44. There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body, Luther renders: Hat man ein
natiirlichen Leib, so hat man auch einen
geistlichen Leib.  Coverdale: If there be a
natural body, there is a spiritual body also.
1 Thess. i. 7. Renders: an example: Vulg.: ensample.




FIRST DRAFT.                         95
IV. - READINGS in which Luther follows the Vulgate.
Matt. iii. 8. For: fruits, Luther reads: fruit.
Matt. x. 25. For: Beelzeboul, reads: Beelzebub.
John xi. 54. For: Ephraim, reads: Ephrem.
Acts ix. 35. For: Saron, reads: Sarona.
Acts xiii. 6. For: Bar Jesus, reads: Bar Jehu.
Eph. iii. 3. For: he made known, reads: was made known.
Eph. v. 22. For: Wives submit yourselves, reads: Let the
wives be subject to.
1 Tim. iii. 16. For: God was manifest in the flesh, reads:
Which was manifest in the flesh (in all the
early editions).
Heb. iv. 1. For: any of you, reads: any of us. So Tyndale and Coverdale.
Heb. ix. 14. For: your consciences, reads: our consciences.
Rev. xiv. 13. For: I heard the voice, reads: the voice
which I heard.
A number of these adhesions to the Vulgate are to be traced
to his judgment that it here represented a purer text than
that of Erasmus.*  Luther used the Basle Edition of 1509.
To have rendered even the Vulgate into the noble German
which Luther used would have been a great task.  The very
defects of the old German versions from the Vulgate which
did not prevent their wide circulation, is a pathetic proof of
the hungering of the people for the bread of life.  But it was
characteristic of Luther's originality, vigor, and clearness of
perception, that he at once saw -what now seems so obvious,
but which had not been seen for ages - that to give the people
what they needed, required more than a translation of a translation. If we remember that in our own day the general feeling is, that the new translations to be prepared for the Bible
Society should be conformed to our English version, and not
independent versions from the original, we have before us a
fact which may help us, though very imperfectly, to realize
how daring it seemed, in Luther's time, to prepare a trans* Palm, De Codicibus: quibus Lutherus usus est. Hamburg,1735.
Palm, Historie. Halle, 1772, p. 245.




96          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
lation for the people from the original, involving, as it did, the
idea that the Vulgate, embalmed as it was in the reverence of
ages, was not in all respects a pure representation of the Word
of God. When Luther's translation appeared, there was no
point which the Romanists made with more frequency, violence, and effectiveness, than that it ignored the Vulgate;
though the reason for which the Vulgate was ignored was
that it departed from the Greek.
There is no decisive reason for thinking that Luther used
any MANUSCRIPTS of the Greek text. The Greek texts which
had been published, or at least printed, when Luther was
engaged in his translation of the New Testament, were:
1. The Complutensian, folio, printed 1514; not published
till 1523. Though doubts have been expressed as to Luther's
having used the Complutensian, to which some
Greek texts  force is given by his nowhere citing it, yet Meused by Luther. 
lanchthon, his great co-worker in the New Testament, cites it during Luther's lifetime.  The copy sent to the
Elector of Saxony (six hundred were printed in all) was placed
in the library at Wittenberg, whence it was removed, two
years after Luther's death, to Jena. His not citing it is no
evidence over against the irresistible presumption of the case;
and Krell (1664) asserts positively that Luther was familiar
with the Complutensian.*
2. The first Erasmus, 1516, folio.
3. The Aldine, 1518, folio; follows for the most part the
first Erasmus, even in its blunders, yet has some peculiarities
worthy of note, as in James iv. 6. The Septuagint, in this
edition, was used by Luther.
4. The second Erasmus, 1519, folio.
5. The Gerbelius, based on the second Erasmus and the
Aldine, 1521, 4to.
6. The third Erasmus, 1522, folio.
It is evident that Luther's choice was confined at first to
the Editions 2-5. The Complutensian and Erasmus 3 appeared
too late for his earliest New Testament translation.
We might illustrate Luther's adherence to the Erasmian
Hopf, Wurdigung. 45.




GREEK  TEXTS USED BY LUTHER.                   97
Greek text over against the Vulgate: I. In his additions from
the Greek of what the Vulgate omits. II. In his omissions,
following the Greek, of what the Vulgate adds. III. Of readings in which he does the same. IV. Of renderings in which
he forsakes the Vulgate for the Greek.  The last head we
defer for the present.
I. - Additions from the Greek where the Vulgate omits.
Matt. ii. 18. adds: lamentation.  Tyndale: mourning.
"   vi. 4, 6, 18. adds: openly.
"   vi. 13. adds: For thine is the kingdom  and the
power and the glory forever. So Coverdale.
Tyndale omits.
Matt. vi. 14. adds: their trespasses.
"   vi. 25. adds: or what ye shall drink.
"   vi. 32. adds: heavenly.
Mark vi. 11. adds: Verily I say unto you, it shall be more
tolerable..... city.
II. - Omissions, following the Greek, where the Vulgate adds.
Matt. vi. 15. omits: your trespasses.'  vi. 21. omits: he shall enter into the kingdom of the
heavens.
vii. 29. omits: their; and, Pharisees.
Mark xi. 26. omits: But if ye do not... trespasses.
Luke xvii. 36. omits: Two men shall be in the field...
and the other left.
John xix. 38. omits: He came therefore and took the body
of Jesus.
Jas. iv. 6. omits: Wherefore he saith, God resisteth....
the humble. All the editions of Erasmus
and Gerbelius omit these words, but the Asulanus (Aldine) of 1518 has them, and so the
Complutensian.  Tyndale 1. Cov. omit.
1 John v. 7. omits: There are three that bear record...
and the Holy Ghost. This text Erasmus
Ed. 1, 2, Asulanus, Gerbelius omit. Erasmus: Ed. 3-5 has it, though he did not bek.




98          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
lieve it to be genuine. The Complutensian
has it with slight variations. Luther rejected
it on critical grounds, and it did not appear
in any of his Bibles published in his lifetime.
The Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate omits
it.  Tyndale has it, either from the Vulgate
or Erasmus 3. Tynd. 2. and Cov. put it in
brackets.
Rev. xii. 10. omits: the accuser of our brethren.
xviii. 23. omits: and the light of a candle... thee.' xix. 9. omits: the marriage.
III.- Of Readings in which he follows the Greek.
Matt. v. 4, 5. reads in order of Greek. Vulgate puts 5
first.
"   v. 47. reads: publicans; Vulgate: heathen.
vi. 1. reads: alms; Vulgate: righteousness.
"   vi. 5. reads: thou prayest; Vulgate: ye pray.
Acts xiii. 33. reads: first Psalm; so Tynd., Cov.; Vulgate
reads: second Psalm.
Rom. xv. 2. reads: Every one of us; Vulgate: of you.
Rev. ii. 13. reads: in my days; Vulgate: in those days.
"  v. 12. reads: riches and wisdom; Vulgate: divinity
and wisdom.
The most important peculiarities of Luther's first version, as
we see by this minute examination, are solved at once by a
comparison of it with the text of Erasmus. The differences
in the four editions  two of them  reprints of Erasmus- are
not, for the most part, important; 2 and 3 may be considered
as in the main one text, and 3 and 4 another.  A minute,examination seems to indicate that Luther had them all, and
used them  all; but the second Erasmus seems, beyond all
doubt, to have been his chief text, though the first Erasmus,
and the Gerbelius have both been urged by scholars for the
post of honor.
Of the Aldine edition of Erasmus, 1518, there is a copy, in
fine condition, in the City Library of Philadelphia. The




ERASMUS.                                 99
author has all the later editions mentioned, except the first
Erasmus and the Complutensian,* in his own library.  The
admirable edition of the New  Testament by Van Ess t gives
all the various readings of Erasmus and the Complutensian, in
the best form  for comparison with each other and the Vulgate.
Mill, and Wetstein, and Bengel also, give these various readings, but not in so convenient a shape.  The Complutensian
readings are presented very fully also in Scrivener's Plain Introduction  to  the  Criticism   of the  New  Testament, (Cambridge, 1861,) pp. 349-358. But the most desirable modern
edition for the collation of the Complutensian  text is that of
Gratz, N. T. Textum  Grsecum  ad exemplar Complutense, ed.
Nova Mogunt., 1827, 2 vols. 8vo.
It may be interesting to present a few illustrations of the
variations between the Complutensian (1514) and the first
Erasmus (1517), comparing both with Luther and our Authorized Version.
Complutensian, First Erasmus, Luther, 1522. Auth. Engl.,
1514.          1516.                       1611.
I. Matt. i. 14    Acheim       Achen          Achin.       Achim
II. "  ii. 6      For            omits      For (Denn)        for
III. "  ii. 6   Shall come   shall come to me sol mir kom-  shall come
men
IV. "  ii. 11   they saw      they found    they found    they saw
V.      iii. 8    fruit         fruits         fruit        fruits
VI. " ii. 11 the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost m. d. h. g. u. w. t. h. G. and
and withfire   mit feur      with fire.
VII.  " iv. 15  land of N.      Nepthalim     Nepthalim   land of Nepthali
VIII.  "    17   From that   and from that  From that    From that
IX. "    18  he walking   Jesus walking Jesus walking Jesus walking
X.     v. 12  Your reward    Our reward   Your reward  your reward
XI  "    27  It was said   was said by (or said to (zu) said by (or to)
to) them of old them of old them  of old
time           time.        time
XII. "    47    friends          brethren      Briidern     brethren
In these twelve examples, Luther agrees with the Complutensian in four cases; the Authorized Version agrees in seven.
Erasmus retained in all his editions his readings Nos. 1, 3, 4,
* The writer has examined the Complutensian Polyglot in the library of the
Theological Seminary at Princeton, and the New Testament, formerly the property of Judge Jones, of Philadelphia, now in the choice collection of Professor
Charles Short, of New York.
- Taibingen, 1827.




100            CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12.  Ie coincides in editions 2, 3, 4, 5 with  the
C6mplutensian in Nos. 2, 8, 10.
We will now illustrate the different readings of the five editions of Erasmus:
Erasmus 1, Erasmius 2, ErasIus 3, Erasmus 4, Erasmus 5, Luther, 1522.
1516.     1519.     1522.    1527.    1535.
I. MIatt. vi. 14   our  our       our     your    your      Your, as 4, 5
II.   vi. 24  Mamuon    Mamon   Mammon Mammon Mammon  Mammon, as 3,
b                                                        4,5
III. " vi. 26    we       we       you      you      you    You, as 3, 4,5
IV. " viii. 25   you     you                us               us, as 2, 3, 4, 5
V.    x. 8 raise thdead,Cleanse le-  as 2           as 2    Cleanse the lecleanse lepers pers, raise                     peres, raise the
the dead                            dead, as 2, 3, 4, 5
VI.   xiii. 8 of theSabbath of the S. al    as 2  as 2  as 2  as 2, 3, 4, 5
VII. "xiii. 2   the tares    tayes   he tares  the     t tares a s 1, 3,4, 5
us       us       you       you      us'   us, as 1, 2, 5
VIII. "xiii. 56  envies    Murders,   as 2   as 2     as 2    as 2, 3,4,5
IX. " xv. 19  (phthnoi)  (phonoi)
X. " xv. 36 And having Om: and    as 2     as 2     as 2    as 2, 3, 4,5
given thanks.
Thi         i          s table illustrates the lac  of accuracy in the printing of
Erasmus-  shows that Luther was not misled by typographical
errors, and that he used the later editions in each  case.  In
none of these instances does he follow  a reading  for which
there is no authority but the first of Erasmus.
The order of the books in  Luther's New  Testament varied
somewhat from  that of the Vulgate  and  Erasmus; which  is
the one retained in our Authorized Version. Luther places Peter
and John immediately after Paul's Epistles. Then come Hebrews,
James, Jude, and Revelation.  He based his arrangement on the
relative clearness of the canonical authority of the books.  His
order is followed by Tyndale (1526), and' in all the editions
which bear the name of Tyndale, Matthews, or Rogers.  It is
also the order in Coverdale's Bible. This is one proof, among
Order of the a great number, of the large influence of Luther
Books ofthe New upon those versions.  The " Great Bible" of 1539,
estamet   the Cromwell Bible, frequently called the Cranmer,
restores the arrangement of the Vulgate -and in this is followed by the Genevan, Bishops, and the Authorized.  Luther
bestowed great care upon the division of the text into paragraphs, and as a result of this there are some changes in the
division into chapters, which had been made very imperfectly in
the Vulgate, in  the thirteenth  century.  No German  New
Testament appeared in Luther's lifetime with the division into




EVISIO N-P UBLICATION.                      101
verses.  Their place, nearly to the close of the century, was
partly supplied by capital letters, dividing the page at regular
intervals.  There were Introductions to the New Testament,
and to some of the books: marginal notes and parallel passages.
The same spirit which had impelled Luther to prepare this
translation.made him  eager to have it as speedily as possible
in the hands of the people. This desire, no less than the necessity of quelling the uproar and arresting the ruin which the
fanaticism  of Carlstadt was bringing about, led to his flight
from his prison, and his final return to Wittenberg,
IRevision.
(March 14, 1522.) Here, in the house of Amsdorff,
especially with the counsel and aid of Melanchthon, he revised
his translation with great care.*  Hle interested in the work
his friend Spalatin, the chaplain, librarian, and private secretary at the court; he solicited from him aid in suggesting apt
words, "not words of the court or camp, but simple words;
for this book wishes to be luminous in Simplicity."  Hle obtained through him the privilege of an inspection of the Electoral jewels, that he might more accurately render the names
of the gems in the twenty-first chapter of Revelation.  They
were sent to Luther, and returned by him  through Cranach,
the great painter.
After a thorough revision, Luther put his New Testament
to press, urging on the work of printing with all his energies.
Three presses were kept going, from which were thrown off
ten thousand sheets daily.  Luther complained of the slowness of the progress.  The steam-presses of our own day would
hardly have worked rapidly enough for him. The first edition
embraced probably three thousand copies, and appeared about
September 21st, 1522.  So eagerly was it received,
that in December another edition came forth.  It
was hailed with delight wherever the German tongue was
used, and within three months of its appearance an edition
was issued at Basel by Petri.  It woke' a thrill of rapture
everywhere among those who loved the Word of God.  None
received it more eagerly than the pious women of the time.
The people and the evangelical part of the pastors vied with
* March 30, 1522. Omnia nunc eliniari (to polish) c~piinus, J'bilippus et ego.




102         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
each other in the enthusiasm  with which they greeted it;
Lange, the Senior at Erfurt, had translated several of the
books of the New Testament into German: when Luther's
translation came into his hands, he at once used and cited it
in his preaching.  Lifted by his noble evangelical spirit above
the littleness of vanity, he was the first to give its true position
in the Church to the work which forever consigned his own to
oblivion.
There lie at our hand, as we write, three early impressions
of these first editions. One is a folio, dated 1523, and was
printed by Hans Sch6nsperger, in the city of Augsburg.  It
was fitting that in that imperial city should early appear a
work from which sprang the great Confession, which was destined to be set forth in its halls a few years later.  The second
is a Basel edition, in quarto, of 1523, with its pictures richly
colored.  The third was printed at Strasburg, in 1525, by John
(noblauch. All these editions have engravings. They are especially rich in pictures in the Book of Revelation; and there the
E vrly imprfs- artists have been allowed ample room for the play of
si"ns.     their imaginations.  The discolored pages, the antique type, the grotesque cuts, the strange devices of the printers, the binding of stamped hogskin, the curious clasps, the
arms of the old families in whose libraries they once stood,
gilt upon the sides or engraved on book-plates, the records in
writing on margin and fly-leaf, made by men of different generations, nay, a kind of odor of the past-all these, as we
handle these ancient books, carry the mind back to days long
gone-to sore struggles, whose blessings we enjoy; to the
seed-time of weeping, whose harvest-sheaves we bear in our
bosom.  In the heart of those times there comes before the
vision that immortal man to whom the world owes the emancipation of the Wford, and its own redemption by that Word
unbound.  WVe see him  bending over his work in the Wartburg.  There are times when the text beneath his eyes fails
to reveal to him the mind of the Spirit, and in the ardor of
prayer he raises them to the Eternal Source of all illumination,
and lifts them not in vain.
Well may we take the Bible in our hands, reverently and




LUTHER'S VERSION.                     103
prayerfully, most of all because it was God who gave it to the
Fathers.  Well may we lift it tenderly and gratefully for the
sake of martyrs and confessors, who toiled and died that it
might be transmitted to us and to all time.
Amid the enthusiasm  with which Luther's translation of
the New Testament was received, there were, of
Luther's    vercourse, not wanting voices whose tones were by sion. Early eneno means in unison with the general laudation. mie. He'nry VII.
and George.
One of these growls of disapproval came from a
very august source-from a gentleman portly in form, and
charged by some who professed to know him well, with exhibiting a self-will of the largest kind. lie is memorable in history for winning the title of "Defender of the Faith"- a
faith which he afterward had his people burned to death for
receiving in a part or so which interfered with his later discoveries.  Bitterly disappointed, as he had been, in his matrimonial anticipations, he yet exhibited evidences of what Dr.
Johnson said was illustrated in second marriages: " The triumph of hope over experience."  He had entered into controversy with Luther, and had discovered that there was one
man, at least, who was bold enough to " answer a fool according to his folly," although that fool might wear a crown. Not
having it in his power to relieve his feelings in regard to Luther, in his favorite mode, which would have been to have had
his head taken off, he relieved himself, as he best could, by
venting his wrath in savage words, and in trying to rouse the
enmity of others against the man he detested and feared.
Henry the Eighth wrote, in January, 1523, tothe Elector Frederick and to the Dukes John and George, of Saxony, as follows:
" As I was about to seal this letter, I recollected that Luther,
in the silly book which he put forth against me, excused himself from giving an answer on certain points, on the ground,
that the work of translating the Bible left him no time for it.
I thought it well, therefore, to solicit your attention to this
matter, so that he be not allowed to go on with this thing. I
do not think it right, in general, that the Holy Scriptures
should be read in the living tongues, and consider it specially
perilous to read it in a translation by Luther. Any one can




104         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
foresee how unreliable he will be; he will corrupt the blessed
Scriptures by his false interpretation, so that the common reader
will believe that he is drawing from the Holy Scriptures what
that accursed man has derived from damnable heretical books."
The German nobles, to whom this letter was addressed, received
it in very different ways. Duke George replied, that he had
bought up all the copies of Luther's translation which had
found their way into his dominion, and had interdicted the
circulation of it. The Elector Frederick and Duke John, in
their reply, passed over this point with significant silence.
The mandate of Duke George spoke with special bitterness
of the pictures in Luther's New Testament, pictures which it
characterized as " outrageous, tending to throw scorn upon the
Pope's holiness, and to confirm Luther's doctrine."  Luther's
comment, which he bestowed upon the Duke himself, was, " I
am  not to be frightened to death with a bladder:" and to
inspire some of his own courage in others, he wrote his treatise
"Of Civil Authority -how far we owe allegiance to it," in
which he declares that rulers who suppress the Holy Scriptures
are tyrants-murderers of Christ-worthy of a place with
Herod, who sought the life of the infant Saviour.
Jerome Emser managed to get himself involved in the amber
The counter- of Luther's history; and so we know of him. After
translation. Em- Duke George had entered on his crusade against
er.*    Luther's New Testament, especially against the
pictures in it, (and in this latter point, we confess, something
might be urged for the duke, in an artistic point of view,) he
found his Peter the Hermit in a Catholic theologian, a native
of Uln, who had studied at Tiibingen and Basle. lie had been
chaplain of Cardinal Raymond Gurk, and had travelled with
him through Germany and Italy.  On his return, he obtained
the chair of Belles-Lettres at Erfurt.  Subsequently, he became
secretary and orator to Duke George. He was originally a
friend' of Luther, but his friendship was not permanent. It
gave way at the Leipzig disputation, in 1519, and he transferred
his allegiance to Eck. He had the honor of being the first
literary antagonist of Luther's version.  Duke George, the
*See Goz, Ueberblicke, etc., p. 300.




THE COUNTER-TRA NSLATION- EMSER.    105
Bishop of Merseburg, Prince Adolphus of Anhalt, and the
Bishop of Meissen, not satisfied with legal measures of suppression, called in Ermser, to use the more formidable weapon,
the pen, the gigantic power of which Luther was then exhibiting. About a year after the publication of the first edition
of Luther's New Testament, Emser came forth with his confutation of it.  Its title stated its object, which was, to show
" On what ground, and for what reason, Luther's translation
should be prohibited to the common people," and he claimed
to have discovered in the unfortunate book about four errors
and a quarter, more or less, to each page, some "fourteen
hundred heresies and falsehoods," all told.  Luther did not
consider the work worthy of a reply; but Dr. Regius took up
its defence, and confuted Emrser in the robust manner which
characterized that very hearty age. It seemed, however, as if
Emser were about to illustrate his honesty in the very highest
and rarest form in which a critic can commend himself to
human confidence; it seemed as if he were about to prepare a
book of the same general kind as that which he reviewed, in
which he could be tested by his own canons, and his right to
be severe on others demonstrated by the masterly hand with
which he did the work himself. He prepared to publish a
counter-translation. He had the two qualities, in which many
translators have found the sole proofs of their vocation: he
could not write the language into which, and did not understand the language from which, he was to translate.  But his
coolness stood him in better stead than all the knowledge he
might have had of Greek and German.  With little trouble, he
produced a translation, equal, on the whole, as even Luther
himself admitted, to Luther's own, and literally free from every
objection which he had made to Luther's. We have had books
on the Reformers, before the Reformation; on Lutheranism,
before Luther, and such-like; and another might be written
on the Yankees, before the sailing of the Mayflower. Emser
was one of them.
The way he did the masterly thing we have mentioned was
this: He adopted, not stole (he was above stealing) - he adopted
Luther's translation bodily, only altering him where he had




106        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
had the audacity to desert the Vulgate for the original. These
alterations removed nearly all the fourteen hundred heresies
at a sweep. But this was not enough. As the people looked
at the " outrageous " pictures, not merely in spite of Duike
George's prohibition, but with that zest with which human
nature always invests forbidden things, it was determined not
merely to have pictures, but the happy idea, which none but men
nobly careless of their reputation for consistency would have
harlored for a moment, was fallen on -the plan of having
the very same ones. Duke George paid Cranach forty rix
thalers for copies of them, and thus secured for himself the
great satisfaction of seeing the book he had denounced going
forth in substance, and the pictures which he had specially
assaulted, scattered everywhere by his own ducal authority.
In his preface, Emser has anticipated a style of thinking which
has crept into our Protestant Churches. He says: " Let the
layman only attend to having a holy life, rather than trouble
himself about the Scriptures, which are only meant for the
learned."  We have had a good deal of nonsense ventilated in
our churches in this country very much in the same vein. It
means about this: Be pious, be in earnest; never mind having
ideas or doctrines-they only create divisions; be zealous
about something, whether it be right or wrong. You may
read your Bibles, but be careful not to form an opiL'.io  as to
their meaning, or if you do, attach no importance to it if any
one does not agree with you.  The English moralist was
thought to go very far when he said, " He can't be wrong
whose life is in the right;" but we have something beyond
him  and Emser; it is in effect: "He can't be wrong whose
sensations are of the right kind," and who gives himself up
blindly to the right guidance, and takes the right newspaper.
Luther's New  Testament, with Luther's pictures, thus
adopted, and with its margin crowded with Papistical notes,
which were meant, as far as possible, to furnish the antidote
to the text, went forth to the world. The preparation was
made for a second edition of it.. Duke George furnished for
it a preface, in which, after exposing the enormities of Martin
Luther, he characterized Emser as his dearly beloved, the




THE COUNTER-TRANSLATION- EMSER.   107
worthy and erudite, and gave him a copyright for his work,
which was to reach over the next two years. Poor Emser.
suffocated in such a profusion of praises and privileges, died
before he could enjoy any of them. His vanity was very
great. One special token of it was, that he had his coat of
arms engraved for the books he published. A copy of his
New Testament lies before us, in which there figures, as a part
of his crest, that goat's head from  which Luther  whose
sense of the ludicrous was very active -derived his ordinary
sobriquet for Ernser, " the goat."
In his Treatise on Translation, Luther thus characterizes
his opponent and his work: " We have seen this poor dealer
in second-hand clothes, who has played the critic with my
New Testament, (I shall not mention his name again -he has
gone to his Judge; and every one, in fact, knows what he
was,) who confesses that my German is pure and good, and
who knew that he could not improve it, and yet wished to
bring it to disgrace. He took my New Testament, almost
word for word, as it came from my hand, removed my preface,
notes, and name from it, added his name, his preface, and his
notes to it, and thus sold my Testament under his own name.
If any man doubts my word, he need but compare the two.
Let him lay mine and the frippery man's side by side, and he
will see who is the translator in both. If any man prefers
the puddle to the spring, he need not take my work; only, if
he insist on being ignorant himself, let him allow others to
learn. If any man can do the work better than I have done,
let him not hide his talent in a napkin; let him come forth,
and we will be the first to praise him. We claim no infallibility. We shall be thankful to those who point out our mistakes. Mistakes we have no doubt made, as Jerome often
made them before us."
The New Testament, in common with the rest of the Scriptures  yet with a pre-eminence among them- continued to
be the object of Luther's repeated study up to the time of his
death. The last revision of the translation of the whole Bible
was commenced in 1541. The last edition printed under Luther's own eyes appeared in 1545. In February, 1546, he




1 08         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
died.*  The Exegetical Library- not to speak of the Fathers,
and of other indirect sources- had grown around him  as he
advanced.  The Complutensian Polyglott, (1514-18,) and the
editions of the New Testament which followed its text, had
Growth of N.T. become accessible. Erasmus had carried his Greek
literature.    NTew Testaments, with their translation and annotations, through five editions, (1516-1535.)  The fifth remains
to this hour the general basis of the received text. The Aldine
of 1518 had been reprinted frequently.  Colinaeus had issued
his exquisitely beautiful t edition, (Paris, 1534,) which anticipated many of the readings fixed by modern criticism. Robert
Stephens, the royal and regal printer, issued the wonderfully
accurate T O mirificam edition of 1546, the text based upon the
Complutensian, but with a collation of sixteen manuscripts,
only a little too late for Luther to look upon it.  Great efforts,
and not unsuccessful, had been made, especially by Robert
Stephens, to amend the current and greatly corrupted text of
the Vulgate, (1528-1540.)  Flacius had issued his Clavis, the
immortal work in which he developed, as had never been done
before, the principles of Hermeneutics, (1537.)  Pagninus had.done the same work from  a relatively free Roman Catholic
position, in his Introduction to Sacred Letters, (1536.)  The
era of Luther was an era of translations, in whose results
there has been specific improvement in detached renderings,
but no general advance whatever.  Germany has produced no
translation of the New  Testament equal, as a whole, to Luther's.  Our authorized English Version is but a revision of
Tyndale, to whom  it owes all its generic excellencies and
beauties.  Among the Latin translators, Pagninus (1528) took
a high rank, by his minute verbal accuracy, which caused his
translation, in after times, to be used as an interlinear.  A
Latin version of the New Testament appeared in 1529, with
the imprint of Wittenberg, an imprint which is probably spurious.  It has been believed, by many scholars, to have been
the work of Luther; others attribute it to Melanchthon; but
*Ste Panzer's Entwurf, pp. 370-376.
t Perquam nitida. Le Long. (Boehmer-Masch.), i, 206.
tNitidissima-duodecini sphalmata duntaxat accurunt. Le Long., i, 208.




RIVAL TRANSLATIONS.                      109
the authorship has never been settled.  The Zurich translators, Leo Juda and his associates, had issued their Latin
version, marked by great merits, not verbal, as Pagninus', but
more in the reproductive manner of Luther, shedding light
upon the meaning of the text, (1543.)
Luther's version had been followed by a number of rival or
antagonistic translations in German, all of them freely using
him - many of them, in fact, being substantially no more than
a re-issue of Luther - with such variations as, they supposed,
justified, sometimes, by the original, but yet more frequently
by theVulgate. Zurich sent forth its version, (1527,)  Rivl translaHetzer and other fanatics sent forth theirs.  The tions.
Romish theologians did Luther good service by the rigorous
process, to which they subjected his translations in every way.
To the labors of Erser (1527) were added those of Dietenberger, whose Bible appeared in 1534, (a compound of Emser's
Recension of Luther's New Testament, of Luther's Old Testament, and of Leo Juda's Apocrypha, with corrections of the
Hebrew and Greek from the Latin, and a body of notes,) and
of Eck, 1537. The gall of their severity was certainly sweetened by the unconscious flattery of their plagiarism -and.
whatever may have been the spirit in which objections were
made to his translations, Luther weighed them  carefully, and
wherever they had force, availed himself of them.
It was the age of inspiration to the translator, and the
foundations of Biblical Versions, laid by its builders, will stand
while the world stands. Luther had many and great competitors, in this era, for the highest glory in this grand work; but
posterity accords him the rank of the greatest of Biblical translators.  "His Bible," says Reuss,* "was, for its era, a miracle
of science. Its style sounded as the prophecy of a golden age
of literature, and in masculine force, and in the unction of the
Holy Spirit, it remains a yet unapproached model."  For Luther may be claimed, that in the great edifice of the people's
knowledge of God's Word, he laid the noblest stone, the corner-stone, in his translation of the New Testament.  Future
ages may, by their attrition, wear away the rougher points of
Geschichte der IIeiligen Schrift, N. T., ~ 47.




110          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATI ON.
its surface, but the massive substance will abide, the stone
itself can never be displaced.
-Up to this hour, Luther's version of the New Testament has
been the object of minute examination by friend and foe.
Protestant scholarship has subjected it to a far severer test
Sources of de- than the enmity of Rome could bring to bear upon
fects in Luther's it.  That particular mistakes and defects exist in
version.
it, its warmest admirers will admit, but the evidence
of its substantial accuracy and of its matchless general beauty is
only strengthened by time.  The facts which bear upon its
defects may be summed * up in the statements which follow:
I. The influence of the Vulgate was necessarily very powerful on Luther.- It was felt when he thought not of it, felt
when he was consciously attempting to depart from it where it
was wrong.  Imagine an English translator preparing now a
version of the New Testament- and think how the old version
would mould it, not only unconsciously, but in the very face of
his effort to shake off its influence.
II. Luther's Greek text was in many respects different from
that now received, as the received is different from the texts
preferred by the great textual critics of our century.
III. Luther's words, as they were used and understood in his
day, were an accurate rendering of the original, at many places,
where change of usage now fixes on them  a different sense.
lie was right, but time has altered the language.  Luther, for
example, used " als," where "wie " (as) would now be employed;
"' mgen " for "verm6gen," (to be able;) " etwa" for " irgend
einmal," (sometime;) "schier" in the sense of "bald," (soon).-t
IV. Many of the points of objection turn on pure trivialities.
V. Many of the passages criticized are intrinsically difficult.
Scholars in these cases are not always agreed that Luther was
wrong, or yet more frequently when they agree so far, they are
not agreed as to what is to be substituted for his rendering.
*Hopf, Wiirdigung, p. 214.
t On the antiquated words in Luther's Bible, see Pischon, Erklarung., Berl.,
1844; and Beck, Worterbuch z. L.'s Bibelibers., Siegen. u. Wiesbaden, 1846;
Hopf, 230-241.




RE  IEW  OF LUTHER'S TRANSLATION.    111
Over against this, the felicity in his choice of words, the
exquisite naturalness and clearness in his structure of sentences,
the dignity, force, and vivacity of his expressions,  Review of Luhis affluence of phrase, his power of compression, ther'stransltion.
and the rhythmic melody of his flow of style, have excited an
admiration to which witness has been borne from the beginning
by friend and foe. When the time shall come, as come it must,
when the toils and discoveries of centuries shall be brought to
bear upon Luther's version, in changes which shall be recognized by the Church as just, Luther's grand work will not
only remain in the new as the foundation, but will abide as the
essential body of the structure itself.  The German nation will
never have a Bible for which, next to its great Source, they
can cease to bless Luther's name.




IV.
CONSERVATIVE CHURCH OF THE REFORMATIONTHE  EVANGELICAL  PROTESTANT  (LUTHERAN)
CHURCH.*
t  IRST at Wittenberg, and not long after at Zurich, when,
at the beginning of the sixteenth  century, the fulness of
God's time had  been reached, "there  blazed up  a fire which
had  long  been  hidden  beneath  the  ashes.   It burst into  a
mighty  flame.  The  farthest horizon  of NorthRestoration
of the purified   ern Europe grew  bright as with  some glorious dishurch of the   plav of the wondrous electric light, the  reflection
West.             V
of  which   touched, with  its  glory, the  remote
South -even to Italy and Spain. The truth, which had been
set free, moved with bold steps to the conquest of the hearts
*GOExBEL: D. relig. Eigenthiim. d. Luth. u. ref. Kirch. 1837.
ArGUSTI: Beitr. z. Gesch. u. Statist. der Ev. Kirch. 1838.
HERING: Gesch. d. kirch. Unionsb. 1838.
RUDELBACH: Ref. Luth. u. Union.  1839.
DORNER: D. Princip. Uns. Kirch.  1847.
WIGGER'S: Statistik. 2 vols. 1842.
ULLMANN: Z. Charakter. d. ref. Kirch. (in Stud. u. Kritik.  1843.)
HERZOG: D. Einh. u. Eigent. d. beid. Ev. Schwesterk. (Berl.l. Zeitung, 1844.)
NITZSCH: Prakt. Theol. 1847.
SCHWEIZER: Die Glaubensl. d. Ev. Ref. Kirch.  BAAR: Princ. d. Ref. Kirch.
(Both in Zeller's Jahrb. 1847.)
EBRARD: Dogmatik.  1851.  (2d ed. 1861.)
SCHENKEL: D. Princip. d. Protestantism. 1852. IIEPPE. (1850. Stud. U. Krit.)
SCHENKEL. (1852: Prinzip.  1855: Unionsberuf.  1858: Dogm.)
112




RESTORATION OF THE PURIFIED CHURCH. 113
of men.  The princes and people of the great Germanic races
were ripest for its reception, and were the first to give it their
full confidence.  Such a triumph  of the Gospel had not been
witnessed since the times of the Apostles.  The corner-stone
of the purified temple of the Holy Ghost was laid anew-nay,
it also seemed as it were the very top-stone which was laid,
while the regenerated nations shouted,' Grace, grace!' unto
it. The Gospel won its second grand triumph over the Law,
and a second time Paul withstood Peter to the face because
he was to be blamed.  In place of a bare, hard set of words,
of a lifeless and mechanical formalism, there reappeared the
idea, the spirit, and the life, in the whole boundless fulness
and divine richness in which they had appeared in the primitive Church." *  To comprehend the Reformation, it is necessary to  trace the essential idea of Christianity through  its
whole history.  " The Greek Church saw  in Christianity the
revelation  of the  Logos, as the  Supreme Divine  Reason.
Christianity was to it the true philosophy.  The Church of the
West, the Roman  Catholic Church, laid its grand stress on
the Organism  of the  Church.   There dwelt the truth, and
there the life-controlling power." t  " Catholicism had unfolded
itself into a vast system of guarantees of Christianity; but
the thing itself, the Christianity they were to guarantee, was
thrown into the shade.  The antithesis between spurious and
GASS: Ges. d. Prot. Dogmat. 1853.
ZELLER: Syst. Zwinglis: 1853.  WVETZEL: (Ztschr. Rudelb. u. Guerik. 1853.)
LiUCKE: Ueb. d Geschicht. ein. richt. Formulirung. (Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1853.)
MULLER: 1854-63: Union.
HAGENBACH: Z. Beantw. d. F. ib. d. Princ. d. Protest. (Stud. u. Krit. 1854.)
SCHNECKENBURGE R: Vergl. Darstell. d. Luth. u. Ref. Lehrbeg. 1855. 2 vols.
HARNACK: Die Luth. Kirche in Licht. d. Geschicht. 1855.
RUDELBACH: Die Zeichen d. Zeit. inn. d. Ev.-Luth. Kirche. 1857.
STAHL: Die Luth. Kirche u. d. Union. 2d ed. 1861.
THOMAS: Union Luth. Kirch. u. Stahl. 1860.
HUNDESHAGEN: Beitrag. z. Kirch. Verf. etc., d. Protest.  1864.
KAHNIS: Ueber d Princip. d. Protestantis. 1865.
LUTHARDT: Handb. d. Dogmat. 2d ed. 1866.
KAHNIS: Luth. Dogmat. iii. 1868.
SEiss: Ecclesia Lutherana: A Brief Surv. of E. L. C. 1868.
*Wigger's Statistik, i. 92.            t Luthardt, Dogm.      S I1, 3.
8




114         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
real Christianity came more and more to be narrowed to the
affirmation or denial of the validity of these guarantees —
until it became the error most fundamental of all errors, to
assail the infallibility of the Pope, and of the Church." *  In
the Roman Catholic Church a vast system of outward ordinances and institutions had grown up, a stupendous body of
ritualistic legalism -under which the old life of the Gospel
went out, or became dim, in the heart of millions.  The powers that ruled the Church were Moses, without the moral law,
and Levi, without his wife.  The grand distinctive characteristic of the Reformation over against this, the characteristic
which conditioned all the rest, was that it was evangelical, a
restoration of the glad tidings of free salvation in Jesus
Christ — and thus it gave to the regenerated Church its
exalted character as "Evangelical."  Both the tendencies in
the Reformation claimed to be evangelical. Both, as contrasted
with Rome, rested on the Gospel  Christ alone; grace alone;
justification by faith alone; the Bible the only rule; but in
what is now styled the Lutheran Church, the Evangelical principle, as opposed to legalistic, deterministic, and rationalistic
tendencies, came to a more consistent development, both in
doctrine and life.
The large body of Christians whose historical relation to the
great leader of the Reformation is most direct, forms a Church,
which, in the language of a writer of another communion,t
EvangelicalPro- "is the most important, the greatest, the most
testantChurch. weighty of the churches" which arose in that
Nme.     glorious revolution.  It has been her misfortune to be known to English readers, not through her own
matchless literature, but by the blunders of the ignorant, the
libels of the malicious, and the distorted statements of the
partisan.  Yet it would be easy to present a vast array of
evidence in her favor, which should be taken, not from the
language of her apologists, but exclusively from the writings
of large-minded and intelligent men in other churches; and
if, in this sketch of the Lutheran Church, the reader should
be struck with the fact that in sustaining our position by cita* Mlrtensen, 30.
t Goebel. Die relig. Eigenthiimlichk. d. Luther.u. reform. Kirch., 1837.




DENOMINATIONAL NAMiE.                      115
tions, our own authors seem  to be passed by in some cases
where they might appropriately be quoted, he will account f'or
it by the preference which we naturally feel for the testimony
of those who can be suspected of no partiality for the object
of their eulogy.
It is a curious fact in denominational history, that, as an
ordinary rule, the more large, catholic, and churchly the title of
a sect, the smaller, narrower, and more sectarian is  Deonminationthe body that bears it.  In a certain respect, the' Name.
Roman Catholic Church is one of the narrowest of sects, first,
because of the bigotry of its exclusiveness, not only over against
the Protestant bodies, but also toward the venerable Church
of the Orient, with which it is in such large doctrinal and ritual
affinity, and with which it was once so closely united, but in
which there has been produced by irritating and aggressive acts
a more than Protestant ardor of aversion to the Papal See; and
secondly, because of its building upon a solitary earthly see as a
foundation.  If you look round among the Protestant bodies,
you will find such glorious titles as "Disciples of Christ,"
"Church of God," "Christians," worn as the distinctive cognomen of recent, relatively small, heretical or fanatical bodies, who
have largely denounced all sectarianism, for the purpose of building up new sects of the extremest sectarianism, and who reject
the testimony of ages and the confessions of Christendom, for
the purpose of putting in their place the private opinion of some
pretentious heresiarch of the hour. The latest assaults upon the
old-fashioned denominationalism are made, every now and then,
by some new  church, the statistics and leading features of
which are somewhat as follows: ministers, one; members,
intermittent from the sexton up to a moderate crowd, according as the subject of the sermon advertised on Saturday takes
or does not take the fancy of those who spend the Lord's day
in hunting lions; churches, one (over, if not in, a beer saloon;)
creed, every man believes what he chooses; terms of membership, every one who feels like it shall belong till he chooses to
leave. This uncompromising body, which looks forward to
the speedy overthrow of all Christendom because all Christendom rests on human creeds, is styled "Church of the Ever



116         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
lasting Gospel," "Pure Bible  Christians Church," or somethinig of the kind.
Had the Lutheran Church chosen her own name, therefore,
it would have furnished no presumption against her - it would
have only shown that, as sectarianism  may take the nanmes
which point to a general catholicity, so, on the other hand,
the most truly catholic of Christian bodies might be willing
to submit to the historical necessity of assuming a name which
seemed to point to a human originator. There was a time when
the true Catholics were tauntingly called Athanasians, and
could not repudiate the name of Athanasius without faithlessness to the triune God himself.  But our Church is not
responsible for this portion of her name.  She has been known
by various titles, but her own earliest and strongest preference
was for the name EVANGELICAL, (1525,) and many
*gnc.'  of her most devoted sons have insisted on giving her this title without any addition.  No title could more
strongly express her character, for pre-eminently is her system
one which announces the glad tidings of salvation, which
excites a joyous trust in Christ as a Saviour, which makes
the word and sacraments bearers of saving grace.  In no
system  is Christ so much as in the Lutheran; none exalts so
much the glory of his person, of his office, and of his work.
The very errors with which her enemies charge the Lutheran
Church are those which would arise from, an excess in this
direction. If she believed in.a local ubiquity of Christ's whole
person, (as she does not,) this would be the excess of faith in
his presence; if she believed in consubstantiation, (as she does
not,) this would show that though her faith in Christ was
blind, yet it hesitated at nothing which seemed to rest on his
word; if she denied the obligation of the Church to keep the
Christian Sabbath, (as she does not,) it would show that she
had carried to excess her disposition to see in Christ the substance of all shadows.  Happy is the Church whose failings
bear in the direction of safety, which, if it err, errs not in a legalistic direction, but in an excess of evangelism. The heart of
unbelief works only too surely in reducing an excess; but how
shall a Church be revived, which, in its very constitution, is




CHURCH OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 117
defective in the evangelical element?  The name Evangelical
is now  given, out of the bounds of the Lutheran Church, to
the Christianity of the heart everywhere, to all that makes
much of Christ in the right way.  It is a poor trick of some
extravagant party  within  a party-some paltry  clique in
Protestantism at large, or in one of its comm  unions-to attempt
to monopolize the name Evangelical..  Where thoughtful men
accept the word in this narrowed sense, they despise it -but
it is, in its true, original compass, a noble, a glorious name, not
to be lightly abandoned to those who abuse it.  The true corrective of abuse, is to restore, or hold fast the right use.  Our
Church, to which it belongs in the great historic sense, has a
claim in her actual life, second to none, to wear it.  She is the
Evangelical Church.
At the Diet of Spire, (1529,) the Evangelical Lutheran Confessors, from their protest against the government of the Bishops
and against the enforced imposition of the Mass, received the
name of PROTESTANTS. This continued to be the diplomatic style
of the Church till the peace of Westphalia, 1648. otesant.
Protestant.
" The name Protestants," says Archbishop Bramhall, "is one to  which others have no right but by communion with the Lutherans."  This name, in European usage, is
indeed, to a large extent, still confined to them.
In Poland and HIungary, the official title of our communion
is " CHURCH OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION," and this  Crch of the
is the name which, on the title-page of the Form of Ausburg onfesConcord, and repeatedly within it, is given, to our
churches.*
The name LUTHERAN was first used by Eck, when he published
the Bull against Luther.  Pope Hadrian VI. (1522) employed
it, also, as a term of reproach.  It was applied by the Romanists to all who took part against the Pope.t  Luther strongly
disapproved of the use of his name, while he warned men at
M'Electors. Prince, and States of the Augsburg Confession," "who embrace
the Augsburg Coifession." Gerhard, in the title-page of his "Confessio Catholica ": " The Catholic and Evangelical doctrine as it is professed by the churches
devoted (addicts) to the Augsburg Confession."
t In the German of the Apology of the A. C., 213, 44, it is said: "The saving
doctrine, the precious, Holy Gospel, they call Lutheran."




118         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the same time against such a repudiation of it as might seem
to imply a rejection of the doctrine of God's word preached by
him.  "It is my doctrine, and it is not my doctrine; it is in
my hand, but God put it there. Luther will have nothing to do
with Lutheranism except as it teaches Holy Scripture
Lutherall.
purely."*  Let us not call our Church Lutheran,"
said Gustavus Erichson, King of Sweden, "let us call it Christian
and Apostolic."  The Church simply tolerates the name to
avoid the misapprehension and confusion which would arise if
it were laid aside.  " We do not call ourselves Lutherans, but
are so styled by our enemies, and we permit it as a token of our
consent with the pure teaching of the word which Luther set
forth.  We suffer ourselves to bear his name, not as of one who
has invented a new faith, but of one who has restored the old, and
purified the Church." t  " Ourfaith does not rest upon Luther's
authority.  We hearken to the voice of Christ in his word, to
which, as his faithful teacher and servant, Luther led us."
"We are called Lutherans only by Papists and other sectarians, as in the ancient Church the Arians styled those who held
the true faith Athanasians."  In the Form of Concord, indeed,
the Church has uttered a solemn protest against all human
authority, which ought forever to remove the misapprehension
that any other position is conceded to Luther than that of a
witness for the truth. T
It is not indeed difficult to see why the name of Luther
should attach itself so firmly to the part of the Church in
whose Reformation he was the noblest worker. He was the first
Reformer -the one from om    ho   the whole Reformation of
the Sixteenth Century evolved itself.  What may be the date
Reason of the of the private opinions of others has nothing to do
anae.       with this question.  A  reformer is not one who
thinks reformation, but one who brings it about.  Men had
not only had reformatory ideas before Luther was born, but
had died for them, and in some sense, though not utterly, had
died in vain. The names of Wiclif, Huss, Jerome of Prague,
* See the passages collected in Cotta's Gerhard, xi. 229.
t Gerhard: Loci, xi. 224, 228, 230.
$ Form. Concord, 518, 2, 8.




REASON  OF THE NAiME.                    119
and Savanarola, will be forever dear to mankind. Yet the Reformers before the Reformation were only such potentially.
So often did the Reformation seem to hang upon Luther's own
person, that we are justified in saying that God gave him the
place he filled, because there was no other man of his age to
fill it. With all the literary grace of Erasmus, how feeble
does he seem, "spending his life," as Luther happily said,
"trying to walk on eggs without breaking them."  Without
Luther, we see no evidence that the Reformation of the sixteenth century would have taken place, or that the names
of Zwingle, Melanchthon, or Calvin would occupy their present
place in history. No position is so commanding as that of Luther. He rises above the crowned heads, above the potentates
in Church and in State, and above all the Reformers of his era.
In this or that respect he has had equals - in a few respects he
has had superiors, but in the full circle of those glorious gifts
of nature and of grace which form  a great man, he has had
no superiors, and no equals. He sustained a responsibility such
as never rested upon any other man, and he proved himself
sufficient for it. In the Reformation, of the Germanic and
Scandinavian type, his views carried great weight with them.
His name to this hour is revered with a singleness and passionateness of affection without a parallel. No man was able to
take to the Swiss type of Reformation, the attitude Luther
took to the Germanic.  In its own nature, the Reformed division has no ideal embodied in an actual life; it cannot have a
solitary man who is its microcosm. It can have no little
Cosmos, because it has no great Cosmos; it can have no name
equally revered in all its branches. Luther is more a hero to
it than any one of its own heroes. It could have at best but
a unity like that of those great stars which have been
broken, and as asteroids are now  separate in their unity.
But, in fact, it has no unity, no tendency to draw around a
common historical centre. It binds itself closely to the particular nationalities in which it is found. It is German, Dutch,
Scotch. Out of this arises a confusion, when these churches
make a transition into other nationalities.  So little is there
of the tendency to unity, that they keep up their old divisions




120         CONSERVATI'VE REFORMATIOV.
with their old names, when they have put an ocean between
them and the land of their origin.  The name of the national
tongue cleaves to the body, until the vague yearning of unionistic feeling overcores the Calvinistic positiveness, or the
sense of the living nationality completely overcomes the traditionary feeling of the old, or a broader catholicity is substituted
for the earlier denominational feeling. Then only the name
of tongue or race drops, but with it vanishes an evidence, if
not a source of fealty to the original tendency of the ZwingloCalvinistic Reformation.
The Swiss Reformation, which had commenced with the
Pelagianizing and rationalistic tendency imparted by Zwingle,
was redeemed by Calvin, who, under influences originating in
the Lutheran Church, was brought to that profounder faith
which, in many of its aspects, is a concession to the Lutheran
system over against the Zwinglian.  Calvin was, as compared
with Zwingle, Lutheranizing in doctrine and in worship; but,
as compared with Luther, he was Zwinglianizing in both. But
the Luthleranizing element which Calvin brought, and by
which he saved the Swiss tendency from early transition to
chaos, was not sufficient to overcome all its defects. The comparative unity of Calvinism has been broken in upon by the
nationalizing tendency showing itself in the rise of a variety
of national creeds, where there was little real difference of
doctrine; by the internal sectarian tendency producing Calvinistic denominations within the national Calvinistic churches;
and by the branching off of Arminian and other sects. The
Lutheran Church, on the other hand, has had a great relative
unity.  It has not felt itself divided by the nationalities into
which it is distributed.  It has a common Confession throughout the world; and while it repudiates the idea that true unity
depends upon outward uniformity, its unity of spirit has
wrought a substantial likeness throughout the world, in life,
usage, and worship. In view of all these facts, it is not surprising that the name of Luther has adhered to the Church.
It has an historical definiteness which no other of the greatest
names associated with the Reformation would have.  The
system of Zwingle, as a whole, is not now the confessional




REASON  OF THE NAME.                      121
system of any denomination. The Arminians who would accept
his sacramental views, reject his fatalistic ideas. The Calvinists
reject his sacramental views and his Pelagianism. The name of
Calvin would not define denominational character; for within
the Calvinistic denominations there is so real a diversity that
parts of the Reformed Churches vary more froni each other than
those most in affinity with the Lutheran Church vary from it.
Of all the Church-nanmes suggested by the ingenuity of men, by
the enmity of foes, or by the partiality of friends, what name, in
the actual state of Christianity, is preferable to the name Lutheran? The name' Christian " has no divine warrant. First
used at Antioch, it may have been meant as a reproach; and St.
Peter alludes to it only as actually used, not as commanded.
We know that " Nazarenes" and "'Galileans" were the earlier
names of the disciples of Christ. To assume the name Christian,
or any other title which belongs to all believers, as the exclusive
name of any part of Christendom, is in the last degree presumptuous. The name " Catholic " is also without divine conmmand: it embraces the whole true Church invisible; and while
our Church claims that her true members are a part of this
Church Catholic, and that she confesses in all their purity its
doctrines, she would repudiate the claim  of any particular
Church to the sole possession of this great title. The " Orthodox Church " of the East is only entitled to that name if the
rest of Christendom  is heterodox.  "Roman Catholic" is a
contradiction in terms.  The Church which bears it ceases to
be Catholic just in the proportion in which it is Roman.  To
call a church'Episcopal," is to give it a title which only
marks its government, and that a government not peculiar to
it: the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Oriental
sects, are all Episcopal in government.  To limit it by'' Protestant" still leaves it vague.  The Lutheran Church in
Denmark, in Norway, and in Sweden, and the Moravian
Churches are Episcopal in government and Protestant in doctrine. The name' Presbyterian " only indicates a form of government in which great bodies of Christians concur who differ
in faith and usage.  " Methodist" simply preserves a college
nickname, and is given to a variety of bodies.  "Methodist




122         CONSERVATIVE REFOR MATIO.N.
Episcopal " unites that nickname with a form of government
older and wider than Methodism.  The name " Baptists" only
indicates the doctrine concerning the external mode and the
proper candidates for a Christian sacrament, and covers a great
number of communions which have nothing else in common.
The name "Reformed" applies to a species that belongs to
a genus. There is, indeed, in every case, a history which explains, if it does not justify, these names: nevertheless, every
one of them, as the distinctive name of a communion, is open
to the charge of claiming too much, expressing too little, or
of thrusting an accident into the place of an essential principle.
The necessity of distinctive names arises from the indisputable
divisions of Christendom, and in the posture of all the facts
the name of Luther defines the character of a particular
Church as no other could. It has been borne specifically by
but one Church; and that Church, relieved as she is of all
the responsibility of assuming it, need not be ashamed of it.
No name of a mere man is more dear to Christendom  and to
humanity.  It is a continual remembrancer of the living faith,
the untiring energy, the love of Christ and of men, on the
part of one who did such eminent service to the Church, that
men cannot think of her without thinking of him.
The name thus given her in scorn by her foes stands, for
historical reasons, in conjunction with the name she first chose
for herself. As distinct from  the Romish Church, and all
churches which obscure the grace of the Gospel, or do not
confess its doctrines in all their fulness, let her consent to be
called THE  EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, to
testify, if God so please, to the end of time, that she is neither
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, nor of Christ's servant who,
in the presence of earth and of hell, restored that Gospel,
preached it, lived it, and died in the triumphs of its faith.
Our age has been extraordinarily fertile in efforts at defining
the distinctive and antithetical characteristics of the Lutheran
and Reformed Churches. One age develops principles-another
speculates on them. The sixteenth century was creative - the
nineteenth is an age of cosmogonies: the one made worlds 
the other disputes how they were made. "The owl of Mi



DISTrNCTIVE PRINCIPLE.                     123
nerva," says Hegel, " always flaps her wings in the twilight." *
G;ibel, Nitzsch, and Ieppe affirm  that in Reformed Protestantism, the formal principle of the exclusive normal authority
of the Holy Scriptures (acknowledged by both) is the dominating principle.  In Lutheran Protestantism, the material
principle, justification by faith, (acknowledged by both,) dominates.  In the former, Scripture is regarded more exclusively
as the sole source; in the latter, more as the norm of a doctrine which is evolved from the analogy of faith, and to which,
consequently, the pure exegetical and confessional tradition of
the Church possesses more value.  Ierzog says  Distinctive
that Lutheran Protestantism is the antithesis to principle of the
Llutheratn Clmrllel,.
the Judaism of the Romish Church - an antithesis which has imparted to the Lutheran doctrines a Gnosticizing tinge: the Reformed Protestantism  was opposed to
the paganism of the Roman Church, and thus came to exhibit
in its doctrine a Judaizing ethical character. Schweizer says:
"The Reformed Protestantism is the protestation against every
deification of the creature, and, consequently, lays its emphasis on the absoluteness of God, and the sovereignty of his will.
This is its material principle, with which coheres the exclusive
emphasizing of Scripture as the normal principle."  In a similar vein of thought, Baur says: " The Reformed system
begins above, and comes down; the Lutheran begins below, and
ascends."  We might perhaps phrase it: the Reformed begins
with God, and reasons down to manward; the Lutheran begins
with man, and reasons up to Godward. In opposition to
this view, Schneckenburger says that the distinction does not
arise from the predominance of the theological in the one system, of the anthropological in the other, of the absolute idea
of God upon the one side, or of the subjective consciousness
of salvation on the other, but in the different shape taken in
the two systems by the consciousness of salvation itself; from
which it results that the one system falls back upon the eternal decree, the other is satisfied to stop at justification by faith.
Stahl, approximating more to the view of Schweizer, finds in
the "absolute causality " of God the dominating principle of
*Kahnis, Princip. d. Protestant.,4.




12-1        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the Reformed doctrine, and regards it as its characteristic
that its line of thought is adverse to the recognition of
mysteries.*  "The entire structure of the Reformed Church
is determined, on the one side, by a motive of opposition to
the mysterious, (no actual dispensation by the means of grace,)
which was imparted to it by Zwingle; and on the other side, by
the evangelical theocratic impulse, (the glorification of God in
the congregation,) which was derived from  Calvin."'     How
far these estimates may be accepted as well-grounded, our
readers can judge with the facts more fully before them.
The Lutheran Church has peculiar claims upon the interest
of the thoughtful reader of history, as she is the oldest, the
most clearly legitimate, the most extensive of Protestant
Churches, and in a certain sense the mother of them all. Embracing the North of Europe, the Scandinavian kingdoms, the
German States, with millions of her children in Russia, hungary, Poland, France, Holland, and in almost every part of
the globe where Protestantism is tolerated, she speaks in more
tongues, and ministers in more nationalities than all the others
Claims andCha- together. She is the most conservative of them
racter of the Lu- all, though she bore the first and greatest part
theran Church.
in the  most daring aggression on established
error.  No church has so vigorously protested against the
abuses of human reason, and none has done so much for
the highest culture of the human  mind —she has made
Germany the educator of the world.  No church has been
so deeply rooted in the verities of the ancient faith, and
none has been marked by so much theological progression: in
none has independent religious thought gone forth in such
matchless ornature of learning, and under such constant control of a genuine moderation.  No church has enunciated more
boldly the principles of Christian liberty, and none has been
so free from  a tendency to pervert it to licentiousness.  No
church has more reverently bowed to the authority of God's
Word, and none has been more free from  the tendency to sect
and schism.  More than forty nillions of the human race
acknowledge her as their spiritual mother; and she gives
*Lutllarcdt, Dogm., I 13, 1.       A- Stahl, Die Luth. Kirch., 65.




CLAIMS AND CHARACTER.                      125
them all, not only the one rule of faith, but she does what no
other church does: acknowledging the Bible as the only authority,
she gives to her various nationalities one confession of faith, the
Augsburg Confession, of which the most popular historian
of the Reformation, a French Calvinist, says: "It will ever
remain one of the masterpieces of the human mind enlightened by the Spirit of God," and which Bishop Bull calls "the
greatest, the most noble and ancient of all the confessions of
the Reformed Churches."  This immortal document furnishes
an integral defining term to the Lutheran Church. Through all
time and in all lands this is hers: it is her grand distinction
that she is the Church of the Augsburg Confession.
It has been said with some truth  that the Evangelical
Lutheran development of Christianity is closely allied with
that of Augustine, but it is wholly remote from his fatalistic
tendencies, and from his indeterninate and often self-contradictory attitude toward many important points of doctrine.
The Romish Church makes divine things objects of sense, the
ultra-Protestant principle would make them  objects of the
understanding, the Lutheran Church holds them as objects of
Jfaith.  The Rorish Church too much confounds the divine
and the human, as for example, in the person of  The Lutheran
Christ, in Scripture, in the Church, and in the Church. The adical  Protestant
Sacraments.  Ultra-Protestantism  separates them  Churches. The
too  much.  The Evangelical Lutheran  Church 1lomishChurch.
holds herself alike remote from  confounding and from  separating them, and maintains them  as at once distinct in their
essence, and inseparable in their union.:*  " Zwingle's labors
were from the outward to the inward, Luther's wholly from
the inward to the outward.  The Reformed Reformation, like
all the earlier efforts, would probably have failed, if the
Reformed had not received from Luther the internal element
of faith.  It cannot be denied that that Reformation which
was actually brought to pass, was begun by Luther.  With
full justice, in this respect, he is entitled to be called the first
Reformer."t  "The Lutheran Church is the most glorious
and most complete earthly image of the invisible Church.
* Iurtz, Lehrb. d. K. G., ed 6th, 1868, 1 140.  t Goebel, 52.




126         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The word in the spirit, the spirit in the word, the body in the
idea, the idea in the body, the visible in the invisible, and this
again in that, the human and natural in the divine and supernatural, and these latter elements again in the former - this
is what she aims at, and this it is she has.  As the Romish
Church represents mere rest and stability, the Reformed mere
unrest and mobility, and both are consequently defective in
development and in history in the highest sense of those
terns, the Lutheran Church, on the other hand, has in it the
true germ of historical life, which constantly expands itself
toward a higher perfection.  In the Romish Church the life
of history dries up, in the Reformed it is comminuted; in the
one it compacts itself to a mummy, in the other it dissipates
itself into atoms.  There is a Lutheran Church, but there are
only Calvinistic or Reformed Churches." 
"The Lutheran Church in its distinctive character," says a
Reformed writer,  " can tolerate no sects. The number of the
Reformed sects is prodigious, literally innumerable. In Edinburgh alone there are sixteen of them, in Glasgow twenty-six.
It seems as if the production of these sects, which shoot up as
mushrooms in the soil of the Reformed Church, were necessary to the preservation of her life and health.  They have all
proceeded from the same principle, and have only striven to
carry it out more logically, and she is therefore bound to recognize them as her genuine children. The Lutheran Church is
like the trunk of a great tree, from which the useless branches
have been cut off, and into which a noble scion (justification
by faith) has been grafted. It is one complete, well-arranged,
closely compacted church, which unsparingly removes all wild
growths'and pernicious off-shoots, (sects.)  The Reformed
Church has cut down the tree to the root, (the Holy Scriptures,) and from that healthy root springs up a wide thicket.
The dying out of one of the twigs only leaves ampler nourishment for the others." The most powerful conservative influences within the Reformed Churches have, in fact, invariably
been connected more or less immediately with the Lutheran
Church.  With her principles is bound up the only hope of
Protestant unity.
X Wiggers, i. 96.         t Goebel, 176.




ARMIINIANI SM  AND  CAL VINISM.               127
In the unaltered Augsburg Confession, (1530,) the Lutheran
Church has a bond of her distinctive life throughThe doctrines of
out the entire world. As a further development the Evangelical
of her doctrines, the larger part of the Church L:thlran Cuerch.
recognizes the confessional character of the " Apology for the
Augsburg Confession," (1530,) the Larger and Smaller Catechisms of Luther, (1529,) the Smalcald articles, (1537,) and
the Formula of Concord, (1577,) all which were issued together
in 1580, with a preface signed by fifty-one princes, and by the
official representatives of thirty-five cities. The whole collection bore the title of the "'Book of Concord."  The fundamental doctrine most largely asserted in them is, that we are
justified before God, not through any merit of our own, but
by his tender mercy, through faith in his Son. The depravity
of man is total in its extent, and his will has no positive ability
in the work of salvation, but has the negative ability (under
the ordinary means of grace) of ceasing its resistance. Jesus
Christ offered a proper, vicarious, propitiatory sacrifice. Faith
in Christ presupposes a true penitence.  The renewed man coworks with the Spirit of God. Sanctification is progressive,
and never reaches absolute perfection in this life. The Holy
Spirit works through the Word and the Sacraments, which
only, in the proper sense, are means of grace.  Both the Word
and the Sacraments bring a positive grace, which is offered to
all who receive them outwardly, and which is actually imparted
to all who have faith to embrace it.
Luther, in consequence of his rigid training in the Augustinian theology, had maintained, at an earlier period, a particularistic election, a view which he gradually aban-   Arminianism
doned. The views of Arminius himself, in regard andCalvinism.
to the five points, were formed under Lutheran influences,
and do not differ essentially from  those of the Lutheran
Church; but on many points in the developed system  now
known as Arminianism, the Lutheran Church has no affinity
whatever with it, and on these points would sympathize far
more with Calvinism, though she has never believed that in
order to escape from Pelagianism, it is necessary to run into
the doctrine of absolute predestination. The "Formula of Con



128         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
cord " touches the five points almost purely on their practical
sides, and on them arrays itself against Calvinism, rather by.the
negation of the inferences which result logically from that
system, than by express condemnation of its fundamental
theory in its abstract form.  It need hardly be added that the
Lutheran Church holds firmly all the doctrines of the pure Catholic faith, and of our general Protestant and Evangelical orthodoxy.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church regairds the Word of God,
the canonical Scriptures, as the absolute and only law of faith
and of life.  Whatever is undefined by its letter or its spirit,
is the subject of Christian liberty, and pertains not to the
sphere of conscience, but to that of order; no power may enjoin
Rule of faitl upon the Church as necessary what God has forbidand Creed.    den, or has passed by in silence, as none may forbid her to hold what God has enjoined upon her, or to practise what by His silence he has left to her freedom. Just as
firmly as she holds upon the one hand that the Bible is the
rule of faith, and not a confession of it, she holds, on the other
hand, that the creed is a confession of faith, and not the rule
of it.  The pure creeds are simply the testimony of the true
Church to the doctrines she holds; but as it is the truth they
confess, she, of necessity, regards those who reject the truth
confessed in the creed, as rejecting the truth set forth in the
Word.'While, therefore, it is as true of the Lutheran Church
as of any other, that when she lays her hand upon the Bible,
she gives the command, "Believe!" and when she lays it on
the confession, she puts the question, " Do you believe? "' it is
also true, that when a man replies " No," to the question, she
considers him as thereby giving evidence that he has not obeyed
the command.  Believing most firmly that she has the truth,
and that her testimony to this truth is set forth in her creeds,
she is distinguished among Protestant churches by her fidelity
to her Confession.  "During the time of unbelief, the State
Church of Holland, the Church of the Palatinate, and the Reformed Synod of Lower Saxony, renounced all confessions of
faith.  No Lutheran Church, however, ventured to do this." t
X See Goebel, 122, note.                t Do., 123.




BAPTISM.                        129
Very great misrepresentations have been made in regard to
certain doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which
it may be well to notice. No doctrine can be  Doctrines mischarged upon her as a whole unless it is set forth, reprsented.
or fairly implied in a Confession to which she gives a universal
recognition. The only creeds which have this attribute are
the oecumenical creeds and the Augsburg Confession.  The
large majority of the Church which explicitly receives the
other Confessions does so on the ground that one system is
embraced in the whole, that to accept one ex animo intelligently, is logically to accept all, and that it is wise for the
Church so fully to state her faith, and its grounds, that as
far as human preventives can go, the crafty shall not be able
to misrepresent, nor the simple to mistake her meaning.
As the Church did but the more surely abide by the Apostles' Creed in setting forth the Nicene, and did but furnish
fresh guarantee of her devotion to the Nicene in adopting the
Athanasian, and gave reassurance of her fidelity to the three
cecumenical creeds in accepting the Augsburg Confession —
so in the body of symbols in the Book of Concord she reset her
seal to the one old faith, amplified but not changed in the
course of time.
The doctrines in regard to which she has been misrepresented, may be classed under the following heads:
I. Baptism.  The Lutheran Church holds that it is necessary
to salvation to be born again of water (baptism) and the Spirit,
(John iii. 5, and Augsburg Confession, Art. II. and IX.;) but
she holds that this necessity, though absolute as regards the
work of the Spirit, is, as regards the outward part of baptism,
ordinary, not absolute, or without exception; that the contempt of the sacrament, not the want of it, condemns; and
that though God binds us to the means, he does
e                              7          Baptism.
not bind his own mercy by them. From the time
of Luther to the present hour, the Lutheran theologians have
maintained the salvability and actual salvation of infants dying
unbaptized. The rest of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church,
as a whole, is involved in her confessing, with the Nicene
creed, " one baptism for the remission of sins," and that through
9




130         C ONSER VATIVE  REFOR MATION.
it the grace of God is offered, that children are to be baptized,
and that being thus committed to God, they are graciously
received by him. At the same time she rejects the theory of the
Anabaptists, that infants unbaptized have salvation because of
their personal innocence, and maintains that the nature with
which we were born requires a change, which must be wrought
by the Spirit of God, before we can enter into heaven (A. C.,
Art. IX. and II.,) and that infants are saved by the application
of Christ's redemptory work, of which Baptism is the ordinary
channel.
II. Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church
holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without
number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood
consubstantia- iS still circulated. It would be easy to fill many
tion.     pages with the declarations of the Confessions of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its
parts. In the " Wittenberg Concord," (1536,) prepared and
signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it
is said:' We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we
do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally
included in the bread.""  In the "Formula of Concord,"t
our confessors say: " We utterly reject and condemn the doctrine of a Capernaitish eating of the body of Christ, which
after so many protestations on our part, is maliciously imputed
to us; the manducation is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The
presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature,
nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true." It
would not be difficult to produce ample testimony of the same
kind from intelligent men of other communions. One or two
of the highest order may suffice. Bishop Waterland, in his
great work on the Doctrine of the Eucharist, speaks thus:
" As to Lutherans and Calvinists, however widely they may
appear to differ in words and names, yet their ideas seem all
to concentre in what I have mentioned. The Lutherans deny
* In Rudelbach, 664.      f Miller's ed., 543, 547.




UBIQUITY.                        131
every article almost which they are commonly charged with
by their adversaries.  They disown assumption of the elements
into the humanity of Christ, as likewise augmentation, and
impanation, yea, and consubstantiation and concomitancy; and
if it be asked, at length, what they admit and abide by, it is a
sacramental union, not a corporal presence." *  D'Anbigne says:
" The doctrines (on the Lord's Supper) of Luther, Zwingle, and
Calvin were considered in ancient times as different views of
the same truth.  If Luther had yielded (at Marburg) it might
have been feared that the Church would fall into the extremes
of rationalism... Taking Luther in his best moments, we
behold merely an essential unity and a secondary diversity in
the two parties."
III. Ubiquity.  The Lutheran Church holds that the essential attributes of the divine and of the human natures in Christ
are inseparable from  them, and that, therefore, the attributes
of the one can never be the attributes of the other.  But a
large part of her greatest theologians hold, also, that as His
human nature is taken into personal union with the divine, it
is in consequence of that union rendered present
through the divine, wherever the divine is; that is,  U
that the human  nature of Christ, which as to its finite
presence is in heaven, is in another sense, equally real, everywhere present.  " Our Church rejects and condemns the error
that the human nature of Christ is locally expanded in all places
of heaven and earth, or has become an infinite essence." 
"If we speak of geometric locality and space, the humanity
of Christ is not everywhere."    In its proper sense it can be
said with truth, Christ is on earth or in His Supper only according to his divine nature, to wit, in the sense that the
humanity of Christ by its own nature cannot be except in one
place, but has the majesty (of co-presence) only from the divinity."  "When the word corporeal is used of the mode of
presence, and is equivalent to local, we affirm that the body of
Christ is in heaven and not on earth."'"Of a local presence of the body of Christ, in, with, or under
the bread, there never was any controversy between the Luther* Works, Oxford, 1843, iv. 642.  f Form of Concord, p. 548, 695.




132         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ans and Calvinists; that local presence we expressly reject and
condemn in all our writings. But a local absence does not
prevent a sacramental presence, which is dependent on the
communication of the divine Majesty."
IV. The Lord's Day. The Augsburg Confession touches on
this subject only incidentally in connection with the question
of Church power.  It teaches that the Jewish Sabbath is
abolished; that the necessity of observing the First day of the
week rests not upon the supposition that such observance has
in itself a justifying power, as the Romanists contended, but
on the religious wants of men. It teaches, moreover, that the
Lord's day is of apostolic institution.  The prevalent judgment
of the great theologians of our Church has been that
Lord's Day.
the Sabbath was instituted at the creation of man;
that the generic idea it involves, requires the devoting one day
of the week as the minimum, to rest from labor and to religious
duties, and so far pertains to the entire race through all time;
and that the law of the Sabbath, so far as it is not determinative and typical, but involves principles and wants of equal
force under both dispensations, is binding on Christians.
An ample discussion of all the points here summarily presented will be found in their place in this volume.
Perhaps no stronger testimony to the general purity of the
doctrines of the Lutheran Church could be given, than that
which is presented in the statements of the great divines of the
Reformed Communion. ZWINGLE * says: "Luther has brought
Reformed tes- forth nothing novel, (nihil novi;) but that which is
timonytotheLu- laid up in the unchanging and eternal Word of God,
theran   Churlch.
1. Zwingle. 2. he has bountifully drawn out; and has opened to
Calvin.    Christians who had been misled, the heavenly treasure."  CALVIN: t "Call to mind with what great efficacy of
teaching Luther hath to this time been watchful to overthrow
the kingdom of Antichrist, and speak the doctrine of salvation."
Anthony de Bourbon, King of Navarre,  (1561,) said: "Lu-. Kingof Na- ther and Calvin differed in forty points from the
varre.     Pope, and in thirty-eight of them  agreed with one
another; there were but two points on which there was con* Explan. Art. XVIII.   -tEp. ad Bullinger.    4 Thuanus, lib. xxvii.




KING OF NAVARR E-AL TING.                   133
troversy between them, but in his judgment they should unite
their strength against the common enemy, and when he was
overthrown it would be comparatively easy to harmonize
on those two points, and to restore the Church of God to its
pristine purity and splendor."  HENRY ALTING * says, that
one great object of his writing his book is to show  " to
those into whose hands it may come how truly both the
Palatinate Church (which  has always been  regarded  as
the mother of the other churches of Germany,) and the
other Reformed  Churches with  her, still adhere to  the
Augsburg Confession, and have by no means departed from
the old profession of faith." IHe then takes up article by
article, claiming that the Heidelberg Catechism  and the
Helvetic Consensus are in unity with the Augsburg Confession.  Quoting the Second Article, (of original
sin,) he says: "The Palatinate Catechism  teaches
the same thing in express words -we are all conceived and
born in sin -and unless we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit,
are so corrupt, that we are able to do no good whatever, and
are inclined to all vices. It is a calumny that the Reformed
teach that the children of believers are born holy, and without original. sin."  On the Third: "It is a calumny that the
Reformed Churches dissolve the personal union of the two
natures in Christ; and abolish a true and real cornmmunion of
natures (communicatio idiomatum)."  In the Tenth Article (of
the Lord's Supper): " This is a manifest dissent of the Confession -but not of such a character that it ought to destroy
the unity of the faith, or distract with sects the Evangelical
Christians-so that the dissent is not total in the doctrine of
the Lord's Supper, neither as regards its principal thing, nor
much less, as regards a fundamental article of faith and of the
Christian religion." Of the Eleventh Article (of private absolution): " The HIeidelberg Catechism never condemns or abrogates Confession and Private Absolution, but leaves it as a
thing indifferent and free."'And this," he says in conclusion, "is a collation of the Augsburg, Palatinate, and Helvetic Confessions, in all the articles, which most clearly exhibits
g Exegesis Log. et Theol. Augustan. Confess. Amstel., 1648, 4to.




134         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAT.ION.
and demonstrates their orthodox agreement in every article,
except the Tenth, and there the disagreement is not entire."
The illustrious Dr. Spanheim, (d. 1701,) one of the greatest
Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, in his work
on Religious Controversies, preparatory to a discussion of
the point on which Lutherans and Calvinists differ, gives
a sketch of the points on which they agree.  1. "Both
Lutherans and Calvinists have the same RULE and PRINCIPLE,
to wit: Holy Scripture; rejecting  human  and Papistical
5.Spanheim. traditions, and  the  decrees,of the Council of
e.  Trent.  2. Both have the same FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE as to the cause of our salvation, both the efficient and
the meritorious cause; as it relates to the person, verity of the
natures and their union, the office and benefits of Christ our
Lord; in fine, as to the mode of justification, without the
merits or causality of works.  3. Both have the same WORSIIP, of the one true and triune God, and of Christ our Saviour,
remote from all idolatry, superstition or adoration of the creature. 4. Both hold the same DUTIES of the Christian man, the
requisites to sanctification.  5. Both make the same PROTESTATION against papal errors, -even in the matter of the Lord's
Supper. They protest alike against all papal idolatry, foul
superstitions, Romish hierarchy, cruel tyranny, impure celibacy, and idle monkery.  6. Both are under the same OBLIGATIONS to forbear one another in love, in regard to those things
which are built upon the foundation and treated in different
ways, while the foundation itself remains unshaken.  7. Both
finally have the same INTERESTS, the same MOTIVES for establishing Evangelical peace, and for sanctioning if not a concord
in all things, yet mutual TOLERATION forever.  From  such a
toleration would flow a happier propagation of the Gospel, the
triumph of Evangelical truth, the mightier assault on AntiChrist, and his final fall; the repression' of tyranny, the arrest
of Jesuitical wiles, the assertion of Protestant liberty, the
removal of grievous scandals, the weal of the Church and of
the State, and the exultation of all good men.
". Both Lutherans and Calvinists agree in the Article of the
LORD'S SUPPER, that the spiritual eating of Christ's body is




OR E SPECIFICALLY.                       135
necessary to salvation, and to the salutary use of the Sacrament;
by which eating is understood the act of true faith, as it directs
itself to the body of Christ delivered to death for   ore specificus, and his blood shed for us, both apprehended ally.
and personally applied with all Christ's merits.
"iT. In the Articles of PREDESTINATION, GRACE, and FREE
WILL, both agree: 1. That after the fall of man, there were
no remaining plowers for spiritual good, either to begin or to
comnplete: 2. That the whole matter of the salvation of man
depends alone on the will, good pleasure, and grace of God.
3. Neither approves the Pelagian doctrine, but each condemns
it, and both reject Semi-Pelagianism.
"III. In the Article of the PERSON OF CHRIST, both agree:
1. That the divine and human natures are truly and personally
united, so that Christ is God and man in unity of person; and
that this union is formed, without confusion or change, indivisibly
and inseparably: 2. That the names of the natures are reciprocally
used; truly and in the literal sense of the words, God is man,
man is God; the properties of each of the natures are affirmed
truly and really, of the whole person in the concrete; but
according to that nature to which those properties are peculiar,
which is called by theologians, comnmunicatio idiomatcum (communion of properties.)  3. That the human nature of Christ
is not intrinsically omnipotent nor omniscient; that in the union,
the natures conjoined remain distinct, and the essential properties of each are secure.  4. That the human nature was lifted
to supreme glory, and sitteth at the right hand of God.  5.  Both
reject the heresies of Nestorius, Eutyches, Marcion, Arius,
Plotinus, Paul of Samosata, and their like.
" IV. In the Article of HOLY BAPTISM, both Lutherans and
Calvinists agree: 1. That infants are to be baptized: 2. That
the object of baptism is that they may be inserted into Christ,
and spiritually regenerated: 3. That baptism  is necessary, yet
not absolutely, but so that the despising of baptism is damning:
4. That infants have the capacity of receiving regenerating
grace, and 5. That these things pertain to the essentials of this
Sacrament.
" V. As to the CEREMONIES, especially as regards EXORCISM in




136         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the baptismal formula, both are agreed: 1. That it is not to
be imagined that an infant is corporeally possessed by Satan:
2. That the rite of exorcism may not be employed for any
other end than to signify the habitual inherence of original sin:
3. That these formulae of exorcism may be omitted, and special
prayers be substituted therefor."
It may be well to note that the practice of exorcism even
with these safeguards and limitations, never was universal in
the Lutheran Church; never was regarded as essential by those
who practised it, always had strong opposers among the soundest men in the Church, and long ago fell into general disuse.
It never could have been styled, without qualification, a Lutheran usage. All that could with truth have been said, at
any time, was that the Lutheran Church in this or that country,
retained it in the exercise of church liberty, among things
indifferent.  Lutheran unity is based upon heartfelt consent in
the doctrines of the Gospel, and in the essential parts of the
administration of the Sacraments, and consistency, as Lutherans, requires no more than that we should maintain and
defend these. So much it does demand, but it demands no
more.
CLAUDE,@ one of the greatest theologians of the French
Reformed Church, says: " Those of the Augsburg Confession
(who are called Lutherans) are in difference with us only
about the point of the real presence, and about some questions
of the schools which we cannot yet impute to their whole 
body; and as for the rest, they reject with us the invocation
of saints, religious worship of images, human satisfactions,
Claude.  indulgences, purgatory, worship of relics, the public service in an unknown tongue, the merit of
good works, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the
supremacy of the Pope, the opinion of the infallibility of the
church, and the principle of blind obedience to the decisions
of councils.  They acknowledge the Scriptures to be the only
rule of faith; they carefully practise the reading of them;
they own their sufficiency; they believe their authority, inde* Defence of the Reformation, 1673, translated by T. B., London, 1815, vol. i.,
p. 291.




THE CHURCH  OF GENEVA —PICTETUS.    137
pendent of that of the Church; they distinctly explain the
doctrine of justification, and that of the use of the Law, and
its distinction from the Gospel; they do not conceive amiss of
the nature of faith, and that of good works; and as for popular superstitions, we can scarce see any reign among them."
JOHN ALPHONSUS TURRETIN* has collected a great body of
witnesses whose testimony tends to the same gen- 7. Tarretn.
eral point: the possibility and desirableness of concord between the Lutherans and the Reformed.  lie argues
for the same position at great length, on. the same general
grounds with the divines we have quoted.
The pastors of the church at Geneva, and the Professors in
its Academy, in their letter to Wake, Archbishop
of Canterbury, (1719,) say: "As regards our Lu-  F. Churcl of
theran brethren, we doubt not that you are aware
what exhibitions of love, what ardent desire (cupidinem) of having concord with them our Church has shown at all times."
PICTETUS (d. 1724) thus addresses the theologians of the
Augsburg Confession: t "Let the names of Luthertn zn                                    9. Pictetus.
ans and Calvinists be blotted out, let altar no more
be set up against altar.  O  happy day, in which all your
churches and ours shall embrace each other, and with right
hands joined and with souls united we shall coalesce into one
body, (in unutm copus coalescimus,) with the benediction of
God, the plaudits of angels, the exultation of holy men."
The object of these citations is to show that, judged by candid
and great men who are not of her communion, the Lutheran
Church is pure in all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith, a Church to be revered and loved even by those who
cannot in all respects unite in her Confession.
According to the simple and sublime principles of the New
Testament, accepted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church, true
church unity rests upon the common acceptance of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel in the same sense, and in
agreement in the Scriptural essentials of the administration
of the Sacraments.  On the second point we are in unity with
*Nubes Testium, Genevse, 1719, 4to.
t Dissert. de Consens. ac Dissens. int. Reform. et Aug. Conf. Fratres, 1697.




138          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIONA
all Evangelical and Protestant bodies except the Baptists, and
with them we here fail of unity not because of their
Relations of tile
Lutheran Church practice of immersion, which, as a free mode, might
to other Christian be allowed simply as a matter of preference, but in
commllnions.
regard to their doctrine of its necessity, and in
that they deviate from the Scripture essential of baptism as to
its proper subjects, excluding from  it children, to whom God
has given it.  In regard to the externals of the Lord's Supper,
the Lutheran Church has nothing to prevent unity with the
rest of the Evangelical Protestant world.  To her, questions
of kneeling, sitting, standing, of leavened or unleavened
bread, or of its thickness, are questions dismissed from  the
sphere of essentials into that of the liberty of
the Church.  They have nothing to do with the
essence of unity.  The Presbyterian is none the less one with
us because he sits at the table while we kneel or stand, unless
he construes into a matter of conscience a thing in itself
indifferent, neither enjoined nor forbidden.  Luther~  says:
"Fix steadfastly on this sole question, What is that which
makes a Christian?  Permit no question to be put on a level
with this.  If any one brings up a matter, ask him  at once:
Do these things also make a man a Christian?' If he answer,
ro, let them  all go."  If Luther's life seemed largely one of
warfare, it was not that he did not love peace much, but that
he loved truth more.  Hle could not take Zwingle's hand at
Marburg, (1529,) because that would have meant that the great
point which divided them was not an article of faith, and Luther
believed in his inmost heart that it was; but he prepared and
signed his name to the Declaration then set forth, " that both
sides, to the extent to which the conscience of either could
bear it, were bound to exercise mutual charity —both were
bound earnestly and unremittingly to implore Almighty God,
that through his Spirit he would vouchsafe to confirm us in
the true doctrine."  The Wittenberg Concord, between Luther, Melanchthon, and others, upon one side, and Capito,
* Epistle to the Strasburgers, (1524,) occasioned by Carlstadt's doctrine of the
Lord's Supper, and his fanaticism. Briefe, De Wette, ii. 514, Leipz., xix. 225.
Walch., xv. 2444.




TRUE UNITY.                       139
Bucer, and their associates, (1536,) on the other, filled the heart
of Luther with pure joy. When no principle was endangered
Luther could be as gentle as Melanchthon.  When the intelligence reached Luther that the Swiss had accepted the Wittenberg Concord, he wrote to Meyer, the burgomaster of Basel
(February 17, 1537): "I have marked with the greatest joy
your earnestness in promoting the Gospel of Christ.  God
grant us increasing grace that we may harmonize more and
more in a true, pure unity, in a sure accordant doctrine and
view.. that to this end we forgive one another, and N. B.,"
(the nota bene is Luther's,) "bear with one another as God the
Father forgives us and bears with us in Christ. We must forget the strifes and smarts of the past, and strive for unity with
patience, meekness, kindly colloquies, but most of all with
heartfelt prayer to God, the Father, the Father of all concord
and love,."* On December 1, of the same year, Luther wrote an
official reply to the letter of the representatives of the Swiss
Church.  He addresses them  as "venerable, dear sirs, and
friends," and wishes them  "grace and peace in Christ our
Lord and Saviour," and goes on to say: "I rejoice that the
old bitterness and suspicion, between us, have been laid aside,
and that you propose, in great earnestness, to promote concord.
God himself will graciously consummate a work so well begun.
It cannot indeed but be that so great a schism will not heal
easily, and'leave no scar. There will be some, both with you
and with us, who will not be pleased with this Concord, but
will regard it with suspicion. But if there be earnestness and
diligent effort on both sides, by God's grace, the opposition will
die out, (zu Tod blut,) and the raging waters will be calmed.
Certainly, if strife and clamor could accomplish anything, we
have had enough of them. God is my witness that nothing
shall be wanting on my part to promote concord.  This discord has never benefited me or others, but has done great mischief. No good everwas, or ever is to be hoped from it."  On
the Lord's Supper, on which the Concord had seemed to embody
a substantial agreement, Luther, in a few words, shows how
greatly he had been misunderstood, and then adds: "Yet, as
* Luther's Briefe, De Wette, v. 54, Walch. xxi. 1282.




140         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
I said before, where we in this point (hierin) have not come
fully to an understanding, (wir nicht ganzlich verstiinden,) the
best thing for the present (itzt) is that we. be friendly to each
other, that we put the best construction on each others' acts,
(das beste zu einander versehen,) till the mire (Glum) that has
been stirred up settles.  On our side, and I speak especially for
my own person, (sonderlich mein person halben,) we will, from
the heart, dismiss all unkindness and regard you with confidence and love.  When we have done all in our power, we still
need God's great help and counsel.  We need not indulge the
disposition to suspect each other, and stir up strife, for Satan,
who hates u.s and the Concord, will find his own, to throw trees
and rocks on the way.  Let it be our part to give each other
our hearts and hands (die herzen und hand einand'er reichen)
to hold fast with equal firmness, lest the after state of things
be worse than the first.  May the Holy Ghost fuse our hearts
together in Christian love and purpose, and purge away all the
dross of suspicion, to the glory of His sacred name, and to the
salvation of many souls." *
A similar spirit is breathed in Luther's letter of reply to the
Council of the Reformed Churches of Switzerland held in Zurich,
1528: "I beseech you that you go on, as you have begun, to
aid in consummating this divine work, of the peace and unity
of the Christian Church, as I doubt not ye are ready with all
joyfulness to do."t  To the Councilat Strasburg, Luther had
written (May 29, 1536): " There shall be nothing lacking on
my part, whether of act or of suffering, which can contribute to a
genuine, thorough, steadfast unity, for what are the results of
the dissensions of the Churches, experience, alas! has taught
us." 
Luther's cdrdial spirit toward the Waldenses, his fervent
appeals to them when it was rumored that they were about making peace with Rome, his noble witness to his fellowship with
*Luther's Briefe, De Wette, v. 83: Leipz. xxi. 107. Walch. xvii. 2594. In
Latin: Hospinian. H. S. i. 275. Buddeus: 258.
t L.'s Briefe, De Wette, v. 120. Leipz. xxi. 110. Walch. xvii. 2617. Latin:
Hospin. H. S. ii. 164. Buddeus, 292.
Briefe, De Wette, iv. 692. Leipz. xxi. 106. Walch, xvii. 2566. Latin: Buddeus, 251.




LUTHERANISM  NOT HIGEH-CHURCHISM.   141
Huss and Jerome of Prague, reveal his large catholic heart.
Nor even in the ardor of his bitterest conflict with Rome did
he ignore the truly Christian elements and great blessings
which had been perpetuated in the Church of the West. He
distinguished between Popery in the Church of Rome, and
the Church of Rome. herself, and between the false living representatives of the Roman Church, and her ancient, true representatives.  From the true ancient Roman Church as known
in the writings of the earliest Fathers, neither Luther nor the
Lutheran Church ever separated. It was the true old Roman
Church which in the Reformation revived, over against the
modern corrupted Church of Rome. Not destruction, not revolution, but reformation, wast that at which Luther aimed, and reformation is not revolution, but the great preventive of it.  If
Europe passed through revolutionary convulsions in and after
the sixteenth  century, it was not because Reformation was
accepted, but because it was resisted.
Against. the High-Churchism, which makes dividing walls
of forms, ceremonies, modes of government, the Lutheran
Church enters a living protest.  " Where," says Luther, " the
Gospel is rightly and purely preached, there must be a Holy
Christian Church."   "The Ioly Church Universal is preeminently a fellowship whose internal bond is faith and the
Holy Spirit in the heart, and whose outward token is the pure
Word  and  the  incorrupt  Sacraments.  The.Lutheranisnl not
Church is a communion of saints, to wit, the assem-  ihll-Churclism.
bly of saints who are in the fellowship of the same Gospel or
doctrine, and of the same Holy Spirit, who renews, sanctifies,
and governs the heart." t   The unchanging marks of the
Church are " the pure doctrine of the Gospel and the Sacraments.  That Church which has these is alone properly the
pillar of the truth, because it retains the pure Gospel, and as
St. Paul saith, the foundation, that is the true knowledge of
Christ, and true faith in him."
With every external human thing alike there is no unity if
the parts of a communion are alien in faith. On the other
hand, with every external human thing diverse, there is unity
* Werke, Jena, vi. 109, (103.)   t Apology, (Art. IV.)




142         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
if there be harmony in faith.  Our Church desires uniformity
not as if it were itself unity, or could be made a substitute for
it, but because it illustrates unity, and is one of its natural
tendencies and its safeguard. If there be a High-Churchism
Igenuinely Lutheran, it is a very different thing from that
which bears that name in other churches.  The Lutheran
Church does claim that it is God's truth which she confesses,
and by logical necessity regards the deviations from the doctrines
of the Confession as deviations from divine truth, but she does
not claim to be the whole Church.  "The Christian Church
and Christian holiness, both name and thing, are the common
possession of all churches and Christians in the world." * It
is enough for her to know that she is a genuine part of it, and
she can rejoice, and does rejoice, that the Saviour she loves has
his own true followers in every part of Christendom.  She says:
Liberality and " The Catholic [Christian] Church consists of men
charity of the scattered throughout the whole world, from  the
Lutheran Church...
rising of the sun to the going down thereof. t  She
unchurches none of other names, even though they may be
unsound. It is not her business to do this. They have their
own Master, to whom they stand or fall. She protests against
error; she removes it by spiritual means from her own midst;
but she judges not those who are without.  God is her judge
and theirs, and to Him  she commits herself and them.  Our
Church confesses " that among those who are upon the true
foundation there are many weak ones, who build upon the
foundation perishing stubble, thatris, empty human notions and
opinions, and yet because they do not overthrow the fotindation, are still Christians, and their faults may be forgiven them,
or even be emended."'   " An error," says Luther, " however
great it may be, neither can be called heresy, nor is heresy,
unless it be heldand defended obstinately as right."  "Erring
makes no heretics; but the defending and protecting error with
stiffness of neck, does."  "There never has been a  heresy
which did not also affirm some truth.  Wherefore we must not
deny the truth (it contains) on account of the falsehood (it
mixes with it)."~  " Heretics not merely err, but refuse to be
* Luther.       t Apology, Art. IV.     I Apology, Art. IV.
Q Werke, Walch. xxi. 120; xviii. 1771; iii. 2294.




LIBERALITY AND  CHARITYL                    143
taught; they defend their error as right, and fight against
known truth, and against their own consciences -self-willed
and consciously they remain in their error."  "It is not right,
and I am truly sorry that these miserable people are murdered,
burnt, and executed. Every one should be left to believe what
he will, (man sollte ja einen jeglichen lassen glauben was er
wollte.) HIow easy is it to err! Let us ward against them
with the Scripture, not with fire." *
It is not charity to bear with others because the differences
between us are trifling; it is charity to bear with them although
the differences are great. Charity does not cover error; because
error is the daughter of sin, and charity is the daughter of
God.  Charity covers errorists so far as she may without palliating their errors, for the errorist, as a man, is God's child.
Charity is the reflex of love to God, and our Church, therefore, is loyal to his truth even when she is mosttender to those
who err from that truth.  If there have been bigoted, inquisitorial, and harsh judges of others who bear her name, it.is not
from her they derived these peculiarities, and such men know
not the spirit they are of. Never are great systems more cruelly
misrepresented than by some who claim to be their friends.
While, therefore, many of the pretended representations of Lutheran theology have been gross misrepresentations, they have
not always been the result of ignorance, or of malice, but have
proceeded from  nominal friends, sometimes from  timidity of
character, and sometimes from  a harsh, fierce spirit, which_
delights to aggravate differences, and make them hopeless. This
aggravation has been made by enemies from hatred of the system. They wished to excite disgust at it. But the same sort
of representation has also been made by a different class, who
were moved by hatred to other systems, quite as much as by
love to the system  they espoused.  They considered the Lutheran system not only as true, but as in such sense having all
the truth, that no other church has the least share of it. They
were not satisfied with showing that others are less scriptural than ourselves, or in important respects depart from the
teachings of the Word, but they were determined to show that
PWerke, Walch. xvii. 2624.




144        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
they are scriptural in nothing. Such hopeless errorists are not
sound, on the showing of these polemics, even on the general
truths of the Apostles' Creed: they are doubters of the very
elements of Christianity: they are on the way to Atheism,
only kept from running into it by their fear or by their inability to follow their premises to their fair conclusions. It is
true, the most extravagant of this school in the Lutheran
Church have been far outstripped in their exclusiveness by sectarians of different kinds: but this is no apology for them.
A Church so large-hearted, so truly catholic in her genius, and
so mild in her spirit as is the Lutheran, expects better things
of her children. As she does not rear them with a sectarian
bias, she cannot allow them to plead sectarian excesses as an
offset to their own. -In treating of the doctrines of such a
Church, men should be thoroughly acquainted with them,
deeply convinced of their truth, and transformed by their
power; and men of this stamp will develop them  not in a
little, sectarian spirit, but with a largeness and nobleness of
mind, which will attest the moral power of the truth they
hold. If our Church ever could have been moved to a different spirit, it would have been during those exasperating controversies with open enemies, and still more with false brethren, which led to the preparation of the Formula of Concord.
Yet, in the Preface to the book in which that Formula was
embodied, the Electors, Princes, and Orders of the
agfistal rotest Empire thus declare themselves: "It is by no
secution of other means our will and intent, in the condemnation of
churches.
false and impious doctrines, to condemn those who
err from simplicity, and who do not blaspheme the truth of
God's Word. Still less do we wish to condemn whole churches
either within the bounds of the German Empire or beyond it,... for we entertain no doubt whatever (ganz und gar keinen
zweifel machen) that many pious and good people are to be
found in those churches also, which to this time have not
thought in all respects with us; persons who walk in the simplicity of their hearts, not clearly understanding the points
involved,... and who, it is to be hoped, if they were rightly
instructed in the doctrine, through the guidance of the Holy




OFFICIAL PR OTEST.                   145
Spirit, into the unerring truth of God's Word, would consent
with us.... And on all the theologians and ministers of the
Church is the duty specially incumbent to admonish, and teach
out of God's Word with moderation those who err from the
truth through simplicity or ignorance, lest the blind leading
the blind, both perish. Wherefore, in this our writing, in the
presence of Almighty God and before the whole Church, we
testify that it was never our purpose, by this Christian Formula
of conciliation, to create trouble or peril for those poor oppressed Christians who are now enduring persecution.... For,
as moved by Christian love, we long ago entered into the companionship of suffering with them, so do we abhor and from
our soul detest the persecution and most grievous tyranny which
has been directed against these hapless persons. In no degree
or respect do we consent to this shedding of innocent blood,
which doubtless, in the awful judgment of God, and before the
tribunal of Christ, will be strictly demanded at the hands of
their persecutors." This plea and protest of the Lutheran
Princes and Estates was made specially in behalf of the
Huguenots, the French Calvinists, whose bitter sufferings had
culminated in the frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew,
(August 24, 1572.)
The Princes and Estates add, to show that their charity was
a heavenly love, and not the indolent passiveness of laxity in
doctrine: " Our intent has been... that no other doctrine
than that which is founded in God's Word, and is contained in
the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, accepted in their
genuine sense, should be set forth in our lands, provinces,
schools, and churches,... in order that among our posterity
also the pure doctrine and confession of the faith may be preserved and propagated, through the aid of the Holy Spirit,
until the glorious coming of our only Redeemer and Saviour
Jesus Christ." These are words to stir the inmost heart. Alike
in their revelation of faith, hope, and charity, they are words
without a parallel in the history of churches. Where, among
Confessions, but in the Confession of the Lutheran Church, is
there so tender, so apologetic, a reference to those differing in
faith? Where, but in it, is there so noble a confession of the
10




146         CONSEVRATIVE REFORMJIATION.
fellowship of saints, and so hopeful an expression of confidence
in the better mind and sincerity of those who err; where is
there so brave, earnest, and heartfelt an allusion to the trials
of those of another communion? so sublime a protest against
their persecution, and consequently against all persecution for
conscience' sake?  God grant that the spirit of these holy
men may be perpetuated in the church which they so signally
served in their generation, and that their devout aspirations
may be fulfilled, that when the Son of Man cometh, he may
find faith on the earth still shedding its holy light in the midst
of those whose fathers loved him so purely, loved his Truth so
fervently; and yet, like their Master, refused to call down fire
from heaven on those who followed not with them.
In affinity with this spirit, a great living theologian in Germany has said: "I think I may say, I am not conscious of belonging to any party, but have followed truth alone. In the pathway of my search for truth, I was led to Jesus Christ, who is
the truth, and by him was led to the Lutheran Church, which
I have held, and do now hold to be NOT THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH,
BUT THE PILLAR OF THE TRUTH IN THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL. I
know, moreover, that he only who has received the spirit of this
Church, who stands immovably on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, who lives in the fixed conviction that the
Confession of the Lutheran Church is in its very essence in consonance with the pure gospel, and who yet has felt the influence of the past three centuries, I know that he only has an
oecumenical mind and catholic heart for that which is tirue in all
churches; he only has an ear for the harmonies of truth which
still ring out from the dissonances of the countless varieties
of the notes of our times. I have never shrunk from the
reproach of orthodoxy, so far as its cause is the cause of
Christ, and yet I have constantly said that I could not be
the defender of those who seek in the faith of the Church
that only which is old, fixed, and finished.  With justice, we
withdraw our confidence from  a theological writer who violently rushes from one extreme to another. But can we, on
the other hand, trust a theologian of whom we know that,
having once taken a position, it is entirely impossible for him




CONTRR OVER SIES.                     147
forever after to doubt its correctness. Truth gives itself only
to him who seeks it, but he who seeks it will not find it, if he
can let nothing go."
The life of a Church may be largely read in its controversies.
As the glory or shame of a nation is read upon its battle-fields
which tells for what it perilled the lives of its sons, so may the
glory or shame of a Church be determined when we know
what it fought for and what it fought against;  Controveries
how much it valued what it believed to be truth; of tl e Lutheran
Church.
what was the truth it valued; how much it did,
and how much it suffered to maintain that truth, and what was
the issue of its struggles and sacrifices.  Tested in all these
ways, the record of the Lutheran Church is incomparably glorious. It has contended for great truths at great sacrifices,
and in every conflict in which it has borne a part, truth has
ultimately been victorious.  A  Church which contends for
nothing, either has lost the truth, or has ceased to love it.
Warfare is painful, but they whose errors create the necessity
for it are responsible for all its miseries. At times, especially
in the early history of the Lutheran Church, there arose controversies, the most important of which were: 1, the Philipistic, arising from the excessive desire of Maelanchthon and his
school to harmonize with the Roman Catholics and the Reformed; 2, the Antinomistic (1537-'40, 1556), caused by the
effort of Agricola to introduce what has been called a "Pelagianism of the Gospel;" 3, the Osiandrian (1550-'67), so called
from Osiander, who confounded sanctification with justification; 4, the Adiaphoristic  (1548-'55); 5, the  Majoristic
(1551-'52), on the necessity of good works; 6, the Synergistic
(1555 -'67), on the co-operation of the human will in conversion, in the course of which Flacius spoke of original sin as
substantial, not accidental; 7, the Crypto-Calvinistic (1552-'74).
The view of Calvin in regard to the Lord's supper was so much
profounder than that of Zwingli, (which Calvin strongly condemned,) and indeed in some aspects so Lutheranizing that Melanchthon, without abandoning the Lutheran view, thought
that Calvin's might be tolerated, and the points of difference
ignored in the Confessions. This position was assailed by the




148         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
stricter Lutherans.  In the course of controversy the more
general questions connected with the person of Christ were
discussed.  All these questions were settled in the " Form of
Concord," (1577.)  So deeply was the church grounded in fundamental unity of faith, that none of these controversies, violent as some of them were, were able to rend it into denominational fragments.  The subsequent controversies have been on
syncretism (1655), pietism  (1686), and rationalism  (1751), and
those connected with the Union and the revival of Lutheranism (from 1817, Harms's Theses, to the present hour).
Theological science flourished in the sixteenth century most
of all in the universities of Wittenberg, Tiibingen, Strasbourg,
Marburg, and Jena.  To this era belong Luther, Melanchthon,
Flacius, Chemnitz, Brentius, and Chytreus. In the seventeenth
century occur the names of Glassius, Pfeiffer, Erasmus Schmidt,
Hakspan, Gier, Seb. Schmidt, Calovius; in dogmatics, Hutter,
Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calixtus, Ilunnius; in church history,
Rechenberg, Ittig, Sagittarius, Seckendorf, and Arnold.  In
the eighteenth century, Loscher closes the ancient school; and
the Pietistic school, practical rather than scientific, is illustrated
by Lange.  The Conservative Pietistic, avoiding the faults of the
others and combining their virtues, embraces Ilollazius, Starck,
Buddeus, Cyprian, J. C. Wolf, Weismann, Deyling, Carpzov,
J. II. and C. B. Michaelis, J. G. Walch, Pfaff, Mosheim, Bengel, and Crusius. The school which treated theology after the
philosophical method of Wolf numbers S. J. Baumgarten, Reinbeck, and Carpzov; to the transitional school belong Ernesti,
J. D. Michaelis, Semler, who prepared the way for rationalism,
and Zbllner; the principal members of the rationalistic school
TheologicalSci- were Greisbach, Koppe, J. G. Rosenmiiller, Eichence in the Lu- horn, Gabler, Bertholdt, IHenke, Spittler, Eberhard,
theran Clurch.                         J.e.
theranurch d A. H. Niemeyer.  Of the supranaturalistic
school, abandoning the ancient orthodoxy in various degrees,
but still maintaining more or less of the fundamentals of general Christianity, are Morus, D1iderlein, Seiler, Storr, Knapp,
Reinhard, Lilienthal, and Koppen; and in church history,
Schrockh, C. W. F. Walch, Staudlin, and Planck.  The
founder of the distinctive theology of the nineteenth century was




THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.                       149
Schleiermacher (died 1834), the greatest of the defenders of
the union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of
Germany.  Influencing all schools, he can be claimed for none.
Neander may be classed as pietistic supranaturalist, De Wette
as historico-critical rationalist, Hase as philosophico-aesthetic
rationalist.   The  chief  defenders  of  the  vulgar  rationalism  are Rohr, Paulus, Wegscheider, Bretschneider, and
Ammon; of historico-critical rationalism, Winer, Fritzsche,
Credner,  Schulz, Von  Cilln,  Riickert, Gesenius,  Tuch,
Knobel,  Hupfeld, Hitzig,  Ewald,.Bertheau,  and  Lengerke.  The rational supranaturalistic school is represented by
Tzschirner, Tittmann, C. F. K. Rosenmiiller, and BaumgartenCrusius; suzprcanatutralism proper, or suprarationalism, by E. G.
Bengel, Flatt, Heubner, Augusti, -ahn, Biohmer; pietistic
supranaturalism. by Tholuck (who approached more closely in
the course of his studies to a thoroughly Lutheran position),
Hengstenberg, Olshausen, Stier, I-avernick, Steiger, and Bunsen in his early position, though in his latest years a rationalist.  The representatives of the "new" or " German" theology, of the school of Schleiermacher, of Lutheran origin, are
Liicke, Nitzsch, Julius Miuller, Ullmann, Twesten, Dorner,
Liebner, and Martensen; also Rothe, I. T. Beck, Auberlen,
Urmbreit, Bleek, H. A. W. Meyer, Huther, Wieseler, and
Tischendorf.  The writers of the nineteenth century whose
names we have given are or were within the "Union," and
defenders of it, with a few exceptions.
The representatives of the Lutheran theology, for the most
part, in its strictest sense, are Claus Harms, who struck the
first decisive blow  at rationalism (1817), Scheibel, Sartorius,
Rudelbach, of Denmark, Guericke, Harless, HIofling, Thomasius, Philippi, Harnack, Dieckhof, Lhe, Vilmar, Krabbe,Kliefoth,, Delitzsch, M. Baumgarten, Luthardt, Dreschler, Caspari,
Oehler, Keil, Zochler, and J. I. Kurtz.  Two distinguished
jurists, K. F. Goschel and F. J. Stahl, are to be included
among the defenders. of the Lutheran confession.
Among the names which once took  undisputed place in
this part of the roll of honor, are three which have dropped
from it, J. C. K. v. Hofmann, Thiersch, and Kahnis-the last




150         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
by his assent to the rationalistic Criticism of the Canon, his
rejection of the Church Doctrine of the Trinity, and his denial
of the supreme divinity of the Son and the Spirit (subordinatism), and by his rejection of the Lutheran Exegesis of the
Words of the Institution of the Supper, while he yet professes
to hold fast to the substance of the Lutheran Doctrine of the
Eucharist.
If the Nineteenth Century has not been an era of the most
safe and solid thinking, it has, beyond all dispute, been the
most brilliant era in the history of theological science; and
alike of the inventiveness that glittered, and of the sobriety
that iestrained, the theological impulse which the world owes
to the Lutheran Church, has been the spring.
In the United States the energies of the best men in the
Church have been directed mainly into the channels of practical activity; yet there has nevertheless been an honorable
exhibition of theological ability and learning.  Among the
names of those to whom  we owe books, either as writers,
translators, or editors, may be mentioned: Anspach; Bachman; S. K. Brobst; F. W. Conrad; Demme; G.Diehl; L.
Eichelberger; Endress; Goering; Greenwald; S. Wi. Iarkey;
Hazelius; Helmuth; the Henkels, Paul, D. M., Ambrose, and
Socrates; J. N. Iloffman; tutter; M. Jacobs; Henry Jacobs;
E. W. G. Keyl; C. Philip Krauth; Krotel; Kunze; B. Kurtz;
Lape; Lintner; the Lochmans, J. G. and A. II.; Loy; W.
J. Mann; P. F. Mayer; John McCron; Mealy; F. V. Melsheimer; C. B. Miller; J. G. Morris; the Muhlenbergs, IH. M.,
H. E., F. A.; Norelius; Officer; Oswald; Passavant; Peixoto;
Pohlman; Preus; Probst; Quitman; Reynolds; Salyards;
the Shaeffers, F. D., D. F., F. C., C. F., C. W.; H. I. Schmidt;
J. G. Schmauck; the Schmuckers, J. G., S. S., B. M.; Seiss;
Seyffarth; Sheeleigh; G. Shober; C. A. Smith; J. Few Smith;
M. L. Steover; F. C. Stohlman; T. Stork; P. A. Strobel;
Stuckenberg; Titus; Vanf Alstine; Vogelbach; Wackerhagen; C. F. W. Walther; Weiser; D. Worley; F. C. Wyneken. There are others worthy of a place in our list of authors,
but as they have not put their labors into the permanent shape




EDUCATION IN THE LUTHERAN  CHURCH.  151
of books, it does not fall within our plan to enumerate
them.*
The imperfect list we give of the great names in our Church,
especially in Germany, may serve to explain the strong terms
in which writers of other churches have felt themselves
constrained to speak of Lutheran theology: " The Lutheran
Church has a great pre-eminence over the Reformed in regard
to its internal theological development.  German theological
science cones forth from the Lutheran Church. The theology
of the Lutheran Church supported by German diligence, thoroughness, and profundity, stage by stage, amid manifold struggles and revolutions, arose to an amazing elevation, astounding
and incomprehensible to the Swiss, the French, and the English." t " The Lutheran Church," says Lange, " is the Church
of theologians.":
At once as a cause and a result of this greatness in the
highest form of learning, may be regarded the fact that the
Lutheran Church is an Educating Church from the humblest
sphere of the children of the poor to the highest range of the
scholar's erudition.
The early efforts of Luther in behalf of education were
continued by his successors through the means of catechetical
instruction, congregational and public schools, and universities.
There are no exclusively Reformed universities in Germany
proper.  The universities which the Lutheran Church has in
part or in whole may be classified as follows: 1, those in which
the'three confessions are represented - Tiibingen, Giessen,
Breslau, and Bonn; 2, the two confessions, Lutheran and
Reformed -i eidelberg, Greifswalde, Marburg, KIinigsberg,
Halle, Erlangen, (the professors Lutheran with one  Education in
exception,) and Berlin; 3, exclusively Lutheran — the  Lutheran
Leipsic, Rostock, (Wittenberg, transferred to I-alle Church
in 1817, now a seminary for candidates for the ministry,) Jena,
Kiel, and Gottingen; in Denmark, Copenhagen; in Norway,
Christiania; in Sweden, Lund and Upsal; in Russia, Dorpat.
* For the completest list of "' Publications by Lutherans in the United States,"
up to 1861, see Evangelical Review, April, 1861, 542.
t Goebel, 263, 277.                   $ Kurtz,   176, 6.




152         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
In the United States she has fourteen Theological Seminaries,
sixteen Universities and Colleges, nine Female Academies,
sixteen Academies, and various societies for Education and
Publication.  The Periodicals devoted to her interests are,
nine English, fifteen German, two Norwegian, two Swedish.
Nor has the Lutheran Church been satisfied with meeting
the wants of her own children. She has been, and is a Church
of Missions. In 1559, Gustavus Vasa, of Sweden, founded a
mission among the Laplanders, which was continued with
renewed earnestness by Gustavus Adolphus, Denmark also
aiding.  Thomas von Westen (died 1727) was the apostle of
this mission.  Heyling, of Liibeck, without any aid, labored
as a missionary in Abyssinia, (1635,) and others, of the circle
of his friends, engaged in the same cause in various parts of
the East.  Frederick IV., of Denmark, established the East
India mission at Tranquebar, (1706,) for which Francke furnished him two devoted laborers, Plitzschau and
Missions.
Ziegenbalg, the latter of whom translated the New
Testament into Tamil, (1715.)  The labors of this mission
were also extended to the English possessions.  From  the
orphan-house at I-alle went forth a succession of missionaries,
among whom  Schwartz (died 1798) is pre-eminent.  An institution for the conversion of the Jews was established at IIalle,
in 1728. Egede of Norway (died 1758) commenced his labors in.
Greenland, in 1721.  In 1736, he returned, and established in
Copenhagen a mission seminary. Though the larger part of the
Lutheran Church is unfavorably situated for Foreign Missions,
the work has ever been dear to her- and her missions have
been, and are now among the most successful in the world.
Many embarrassing circumstances prevented the Lutheran
Church from  developing her life as perfectly in her church
constitution  as in her doctrines and worship.  The idea
of the universal priesthood of all believers at once overChurch Consti- threw  the doctrine of a distinction of essence
lation.    between clergy and laity.  The ministry is not
an order, but it is a divinely appointed office, to which men
must be rightly called. No imparity exists by divine right;
an hierarchical organization is unchristian, but a gradation




DIVINE  VWORSHRIP.                    153
(bishops, superintendents, provosts) may be observed, as a
thing of human right only.  The government by consistories
has been very general.  In Denmark, Evangelical bishops
took the place of the Roman Catholic prelates who were
deposed. In Sweden the bishops embraced the Reformation,
and thus secured in that country an "apostolic succession"
in the high-church sense; though, on the principles of the
Lutheran Church, alike where she has as where she has not
such a succession, it is not regarded as essential even to the
order of the Church.  The ultimate source of power is in the
congregations, that is, in the pastor and other officers and the
people of the single communions.  The right to choose a pastor belongs to the people, who may exercise it by direct vote,
or delegate it to their representatives.
The Lutheran Church regards preaching as an indispensable part of a complete divine service. All worship is to
be in the vernacular; the wants of the heart-as well as of the
reason are to be met.  Whatever of the past is spiritual, beautiful, and appropriate, is to be retained. The church year,
with its great festivals, is kept.  With various national diversities there is a substantial agreement in the liturgical services
of the Lutheran Church throughout almost all the world.
The hymns are sung by all the people with the  Divine ororgan accompaniment.  The clergymen in their'hip.
official functions wear a distinctive dress, usually a black robe,
with the bands, though the surplice has also been largely
retained.  In Denmark and Sweden, the chasuble is also
worn in the altar service; and in Sweden, the mitre and
bishop's crosier are retained.  A  preparatory service precedes communion.  The doctrine and practice of auricular
confession were rejected at the beginning.  The " private
confession," which was established in some parts of the
Church, involves no enumeration or confession of particular
sins whatever, unless the communicant desires to speak of
them; and the "private absolution" is simply the annunciation of the gospel promise with the gospel conditions to
the individual penitent, a promise which in its own nature
is collative, that is, actually confers remission, when it is re



154         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION 
ceived in faith.  The " Exorcism" in the shape in which it
existed in some of the Lutheran Churches, involved little
more than "the Renunciation," and can be defended on
some of the same grounds. Simply as a rite long established, and which might be tolerated if regarded as no
more than a symbolical representation of the doctrine that
our nature is under the dominion of sin, it was practised in
parts of the Church, but has fallen everywhere into oblivion.
Persons are received to the communion of the Church by
confirmation performed by the pastor, after thorough instruction in the Catechism.  But especially in sacred song has
the Lutheran Church a grand distinctive element of her
worship.  "The Lutheran Church," says Dr. Schaff, "draws
the fine arts into the service of religion, and has produced
a body of hymns and chorals, which, in richness, power,
and unction, surpasses the hymnology of all other churches
in the world."  "In divine worship," says Goebel, "we reach
a point in which the Lutheran Church has one of its most
glorious features of pre-eminence.   The hymns of the Church
are the people's confession, and have wrought more than the
preaching. In the Lutheran Church alone, German hymnology attained a bloom  truly amazing. The words of holy
song were heard everywhere, and sometimes, as with a single
stroke, won whole cities for the Gospel."
What has been the practical working of the Lutheran system in the life of the Church? This question is an extensive
one, and we offer but a fact or two bearing on the answer to
it. In the Lutheran system  the word of God works from
within to the outward. The Romanic nations are
Practical working of Luthleran- characteristically less contemplative and more radiism in the life.
mtnfea cal and inclined to extremes than the Germanic,
and the Swiss Reformation had a large mingling of political
elements. The Lutheran type of Reformation and of religion
is consequently milder and less demonstrative, less obtrusive
and more averse to display, than the Zwinglian and Calvin/ istic; but the piety it matures is unequalled in firmness,
calmness, earnestness, joyousness, and freedom. The character
of Luther himself, is largely mirrored in the Church which




WORKING  OF LUTHERANISM IN THE LIFE.  155
cherishes his memory as one of her most precious possessions.
The Lutheran Church is very rich in devotional works for the
people. It is more in affinity with high aesthetic culture than
other Protestant Churches. It is less open than others to
excessive tendencies to voluntary (especially to secret) association not under the control of the Church. It may be claimed
for it that it is the most healthfully cautious of Churches, and,
therefore, most sure to make the most permanent, if not the
most rapid progress.  Goebel, a Reformed writer, says: " That
charming, frank good-humor, and that beneficence which rise
from the very depth of the soul, and which so advantageously
distinguish the German nation from others, are wanting among
the Reformed -even among the Germans of the Reformed
Church. The piety of the Lutherans is deep, fervent, heartfelt."  And a far greater theological scholar, (Dr. Schaff,) also
of another communion, has said: "The Lutheran piety has
also its peculiar charm -the charm of Mary, who sat at Jesus'
feet and heard his word.... It excels in honesty, kindness,
affection, cheerfulness, and that gemiithlichkeit for which
other nations have not even a name. The Lutheran Church
meditated over the deepest mysteries of divine grace, and
brought to light many treasures of knowledge from the mines
of revelation. She can point to an unbroken succession of
learned divines who devoted their whole lives to the investigation of saving truth.  She numbers her mystics who bathed
in the ocean of infinite love. She has sung the most fervent
hymns to the Saviour, and holds sweet, child-like intercourse
with the Ieavenly Father."
A fair construction of the whole history of the past will
inspire faith in the character of the people whom  God has
given to our Church to be gathered under her banners and to
fight her battles. Not all the havoc which state-meddling,
war, and infidelity have made with the true German'character
in Europe can efface the evidence of the past and the present,
that of all nations the German is the most simply and profoundly religious, that the Germans are what Dr. Arnold calls
them: " the regenerating race - the most moral race of men,"




156         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and a large part of this glory is due to that Church which so
faithfully exhibits and nurtures the genuine Germanic life.
And not unworthy of a place with this noble element is the
other great family of Lutheran nations, which next to the Germans, are adding to the greatest treasure of this New World,
thousands of Christian men. The name of Scandinavians recalls
great Lutheran nationalities which have deserved well of the
The Scandina- world. With it is connected the name of Gustavus
vian Lutherans, Vasa, King of Sweden, who pleaded for the ReSwedes, Danes.
formation with tears, who laid down his sceptre
and refused to take it again until the love of his people for
him made them  willing to receive the Reformation, and who
founded, among the poor Laplanders, one of the first Protestant Missions. It recalls the name of the martyr-hero, Gustavus Adolphus, whose name should be dearer to Protestants,
and most of all to Lutherans, who justly claim to be the most
Protestant of Protestants, dearer than the name of Washington to Americans, for a part of the price he paid for the rescue
of the religious liberty of Europe was his own blood.  But for
him, our Protestantism might have been borne down, and swept
away from the world in a torrent of blood and fire. Ile, too,
was zealous in the cause of missions. It was a Scandinavian
king, Frederick IV. of Denmark, who established at Tranquebar, the East India Mission, which was blest with the labors
of Ziegenbalg, and of the greatest of missionaries of all time,
Christian Frederic Schwartz. It was a Scandinavian Lutheran
preacher, Hans Egede, of Norway, who, amid toil, peril, and
suffering, planted a pure Christianity among the Greenlanders.
" In the eighteenth century," says Wiggers, " Denmark shone
in the eyes of Evangelical Europe as a fireside and home of
missions."'In Sweden," says the same distinguished writer,
"the Lutheran Church won a noble and pure people, full of a
vigorous and steadfast faith, a people marked by clearness and
brightness of intellect, by pure and simple morals, and the soul
of chivalry; a people always ready fearlessly to wage warfare
for the Gospel with the sword of the spirit, and if necessity
urged, with the temporal sword. United with the state by




THE SCA NDINAVIANT LUTHER ANS.               157
the most intimate ties, not of bondage, but of mutual love,
entering thoroughly into every part of the national life, exercising through its control of the schools the mightiest and
holiest influence in the training of the young, with a ministry
whose fidelity and wisdom accomplish the more, because they
are sustained by high temporal position and adequate support,
with a people who exhibit a calm and pious humility, and an
unlimited confidence in their pastors, the Church of Sweden
shines, like a star with its pure mild light, in the northern sky."
For the Anglicized and English portion of our Church,
which best represents it, we claim a character in consonance
with its great antecedents- a character of simplicity, earnestness, devoutness. In the departments of business, the calm of
home, the sacred duties of the Church, the sphere of citizens,
they show a solid worth, which testifies to the thoroughness
of the Christian nurture of the communion they love.
Of what our Church is, and of what she brings to this, her
new home, witness has been borne by more than one thoughtful man of other communions. But among them all, there is
none of more value than that given by Dr. John W. Nevin, of
the Reformed Church.  No amount of divergence from Dr.
Nevin's views, could prevent a man of candor from acknowledging in him the presence of a great intellect, of the most
unpretending  simplicity  and  modesty, and  of the most
uncompromising love of truth.  Our country has few men
who can be classified with him. In originality and general
vigor of conception and of style, Bushnell and Parks would
be thought of as most like him; but we do not think that on
any just estimate of the men, they could be claimed as his
superiors. Dr. Nevin's range of thought is at once broader
and deeper than that of most of our theological thinkers.  It
is comprehensive without becoming shallow. For the Lutheran
Church in its genuine life he expresses great affection and
reverence, and his witness is of peculiar value, for no man out
of our Church knows more fully than he what is in it. He
says, in speaking of the cultivation of an historical spirit in
his own Church: "But this cannot fail to bring with it, at
the same time, the power of understanding and appreciating




158        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
also the vast historical significance which belongs to the other
great Protestant Confession, the Lutheran Church. In rebognizing our identity with the Reformed Confession in general,
while we yet discard the peculiarity of our position in it as a
German Reformed Church, we come necessarily into the feeling of what Lutheranism is for the church at large, in a way
that is not by any means so easy for the thinking of other
branches of the Reformed Communion in this country.  In
understanding ourselves and in learning to do justice to our
own historical character, we are made conscious not simply of
our difference from the Lutheran Church, but also of our old
nearness to it, and of what we owe to it for our universal church
life. The power of estimating intelligently the merits of the
Value of thleu- Heidelberg Catechism, must prove for us the power
theran hurch to of honoring also the Augsburg Confession, as it
Christianity    at
large. Dr. J. W. was honored in the beginning by the framers of
Nevin.     the Catechism.  We can have no sympathy with
that type of Reformed thought, whether in New Engla:nd or
elsewhere, which has fallen away entirely from the original
Spannung of the two great Protestant Confessions; which has
lost all sense for the old theological issues, that threw them
asunder in the sixteenth century; and for which Lutheranism,
in the profound distinction which then belonged to it, has
become an unmeaning memory of the dead past.  We are in
the way more and more, it may be hoped, of knowing better
than this.  We can have no wish to have the Lutheran Church
overwhelmed in this country by the reigning unhistorical spirit
of our American Christianity - no wish to see it American^ized,
in the sense of anything like a general rupture with its original
theological life. The'whole Reformed Church here, whether
it be perceived or not, has a vast interest at stake on the power
of the Lutheran Church to remain true and faithful to her confessional mission. For all who are capable of appreciating at
all the central and vital character of the questions that shook
the Protestant world in the age of the Reformation, and who
are able to make proper account of the unsacramental tendencies of the present time, it must be a matter for congratulation
that German Lutheranism  has grown to be so numerically




THE LUTHERAN  CHURCH IN A MERICA.   159
powerful within our borders, and that it is coming to be in
every way so vast an ecclesiastical power in the land; while it
ought to be the prayer of all, that this power may be so exercised more and more as to be a principle of wholesome redemption and preservation for the universal Protestantism  of the
nation.s
That such a Church has a mission of extraordinary importance in this land in which exist such dangerous tendencies to
sectarianism  and radicalism, and whose greatest   ission of the
need is the cultivation of historical feeling, under Lutheran Church
the restraint of a wholesome conservatism, requires i America.
no argument.  The Lutheran Church daily becomes better
known through the translations of her literature, though
most of them are very bad ones; but her work of good cannot
be consummated till she renders'her genius and life themselves
into the idiom of the new nationality into which she is here
passing. Protestant to the very heart, yet thoroughly historical, happy in her liberty of adaptation in things indifferent,
while she is fast anchored in the great doctrine of justification
by faith and the doctrines which cluster around it, popular in
her principles of church government, which, without running
into Independency, accord such large powers to the congregation, principles free from  the harshness of some systems, the
hierarchical, aristocratic, autocratic tendencies of others, the
fanaticism  and looseness of others, possessing liturgical life
without liturgical bondage, great in a history in which all
mankind are interested, her children believe that she bears
special treasures-of good to bless the land of her adoption.
Immovable in her faith and the life it generates, our Church,
the more heartily and intelligently, on this very- account, accepts the great fact that God has established her in this western world under circumstances greatly different from those in
which her past life has been nurtured.  New forms of duty,
new types of thought, new necessities of adaptation, are here
to tax all her strength, and to test how far she is able to maintain her vital power under necessary changes of form.  The
Lutheranism of this country cannot be a mere feeble echo of
any nationalized species of Lutheranism.  It cannot, in the




160         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
national sense, be permanently German or Scandinavian, out
of Germany and Scandinavia, but in America must be American. It must be conformed in accordance with its own princi.
pies to its new home, bringing hither its priceless experiences
in the old world, to apply them to the living present in the
new. Our Church must be pervaded by sympathy for this
land; she must learn in order that she may teach. She must
not be afraid to trust herself on this wild current of the quick
life of America.  She must not cloister herself, but show in
her freedom, and in her wise use of the opportunity of the
present, that she knows how robust is her spiritual life, and
how secure are her principles however novel or trying the tests
to which they are subjected.
The catholicity of the range of our Church among nations,
in which she is entirely without parallel among Protestant
Churches, does, indeed, make the problem of the fusion of her
elements very difficult; but it is the very same problem which
our nation has had to solve. In spite of all the difficulties of
inflowing nationalities, we consider their presence in our counr
try as politically a source of strength, even though a collision
of them has sometimes brought, about riot and murder.  The
Lutheran Church, if she can solve her problem, will be repaid
by a result richly worth all her toil and endurance.
Though the descendants of Lutherans have often been lost
to the Lutheran Church, she, on the other hand, embraces
in her membership thousands not of Lutheran origin; and
though in the nature of the case these gains are far froml
counterbalanding her losses, they show that the losses have
not resulted from  want of adaptation to the genius of our
time and of-our land. The Lutheran Church, where she is
understood, has proved herself a popular Church, a true church
of the people.
She has a wonderful power of adaptation, and of persistence, and of recuperation. Her tendency to unite is so great,
that although there have been difficulties which, in churches
of a separatistic character, would have originated a dozen of
sects, the Lutheran Church in this country still retains her
denominational unity. Many of the difficulties of our Church




FUTURE OF THE L UTHERAN CHUR CH.    161
were, in their own nature, inevitable. So extraordinary have
they been, that nothing but a vitality of the most positive
kind could have saved her. A calm review of her history in
this country up to this hour, impresses us with a deeper
conviction that she is a daughter of God, and destined to do
much for his glory in this western world. Let her be faithful to her faith, in the confession of the lip, the love of the
heart, the devotion of the life; let her soul invest itself with
the body of a sound government; let her ministers and people
be knit to her, and to one another, with the love which such a
church should command from her children, and should infuse
into them, one to another, and God helping her, the glory of
her second temple shall not be unworthy of the great memories
of the first.
The signs of the times must be lost on our people if they
are not waked up to a more just appreciation of their Church.
And though not known by others as she should be, she is
better known and wins increasing respect.  The  Future of
importance of the aid she brings in evangelizing the Lutheran
Church.
this western world is more deeply felt, and before
the eyes of those even who would not see her when she sat
mourning in the dust, she rises more brightly and beautifully,
an acknowledged power in the land. Our parent tree may
shed its foliage, to renew it, or its blossoms may fall off to
give way to fruit, parasitic creepers may be torn from it,
storms may carry away a dead branch here and there —but
there is not strength enough in hell and earth combined to
break its massive trunk. Till the new earth comes, that
grand old tree, undecaying, will strike its roots deeper in the
earth that now is: till the new heavens arch themselves, it
will lift itself under these skies, and wave, in tempest and
sunshine its glorious boughs.
11




V.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.*
TN  the statement of fundamental and unchangeable principles
of Faith, which  the General Council of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America lays as the basis of its Constitution, it is declared:
I. There must be and abide through all time, one holy Christian  Church, which  is the assembly of all believers, among
whom  the Gospel is purely preached, and the Holy Sacraments
are administered, as the Gospel demands.
To the true unity of the Church, it is sufficient that there
be agreement touching the doctrine of the Gospel, that it be
preached in one accord, in its pure sense, and that the Sacraments be administered conformably to God's word.
BLACKBURNE: The Confessional: Inquiry into the right, etc., of Confessions
of Faith, etc. Lond. 1770.
BiSCHING: Ub. d. Symbol. Schriften d. Evang. Luther. Kirche.  Hamb. 1771.
"     Wenn und durch wen die Symbol. Schr. ausgel. werd. Berl. 1789.
EBERHARD: Ist die Augsb. Confess. eineGlaubensvorschr., etc.  1795-97.
HEUSINGER: Wiirdigung der S. B. n. d. jetz. Zeitbediirf. Leipz. 1799.
FRITZSCHE: IUber. d. anverand. Gelt. der Aug. Confess. Leipz. 1830.
MARTENS: Die Symb. BUch. der Ev. Luth. Kirche. Halberst. 1830.
JOHANNSEN: Untersuch.derRechtmiissigk.d.Verpfl. a. S. B. Altona. 1833.
HOFLING: De Symbolor. natur. necessit. auctor. atque usu. Erl. 1835.
BRETSCHNE1DER: Die Unzulassigk. d. Symbolzwanges. Leipz. 1841.
SARTORIUS: Nothwendigk. u. Verbindlichk. d. Kirch. Glaubensbekenntn.
Stuttgart. 1845. (See Review by Dr. J. A. SEISS: Evang. Rev. July, 1852.)
KOLLNER: Die gute Sache d. Luth. Symbole. Gottingen. 1847.
162




FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAITH.  163
II. The true unity of a particular Church, in virtue of
which men. are truly members of one and the same Church,
and by which any Church abides in real identity, Fundamnnt,
and is entitled to a continuation of her name, pinciples offaith.
is unity in doctrine and faith in the Sacraments, to wit:
That she continues to teach and to set forth, and that her true
members embrace from the heart, and use, the articles of faith
and the Sacraments as they were held and administered when
the Church came into distinctive being and received a distinctive name.
III. The Unity of the Church is witnessed to, and made
manifest in, the solemn, public, and official Confessions which
are set forth, to wit: The generic Unity of the Christian
Church in the general Creeds, and the specific Unity of pure
parts of the Christian Church in their specific Creeds; one
chief object of both classes of which Creeds is, that Christians
who are in the Unity of faith, may know each other as such,
and may have a visible bond of fellowship.
IV. That Confessions may be such a testimony of Unity
and bond of Union, they must be accepted in every statement
of doctrine, in their own true, native, original and only sense.
Those who set them forth and subscribe them, must not only
agree to use the same words, but must use and understand
those words in one and the same sense.
V. The Unity of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as a
portion of the holy Christian Church, depends upon her abiding
in one and the same faith, in confessing which she obtained
her distinctive being and name, her political recognition, and
her history.
VI. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession is by pre-eminence
the Confession of that faith. The acceptance of its doctrines
and the avowal of them without equivocation or mental reservation, make, mark, and identify that Church, which alone in
the true, original, historical, and honest sense of the term is
the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
VII. The only Churches, therefore, of any land, which are
properly in the Unity of that Communion, and by consequence
entitled to its name, Evangelical Lutheran, are those which




164         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
sincerely hold and truthfully confess the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
VIII. We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its original sense as throughout in conformity with the pure truth of which God's Word
is the only rule. We accept its statements of truth as in perfect accordance with the Canonical Scriptures: We reject the
errors it condemns, and we believe that all which it commits
to the liberty of the Church, of right belongs to that liberty.
IX. In thus formally accepting and acknowledging the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, we declare our conviction, that
the other Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church,
inasmuch as they set forth none other than its system of doctrine, and articles of faith, are of necessity pure and scriptural.
Pre-eminent among such accordant, pure, and scriptural statements of doctrine, by their intrinsic excellence, by the great
and necessary ends for which they were prepared, by their historical position, and by the general judgment of the Church,
are these: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the
Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula
of Concord, all of which are, with the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession, in the perfect harmony of one and the same scriptural faith.
In accordance with these principles every Professor elect of
the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
at Philadelphia, in the act of investiture and before entering on
the performance of the duties of his office, makes the following
affirmation:'I believe that the Canonical Books of the Old and New
Testaments are given by inspiration of God, and are the perfect and only Rule of Faith; and'I believe that the three General Creeds, the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian,
exhibit the faith of the Church universal, in accordance with
this Rule.'I believe that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is, in all
its parts, in harmony with the Rule of Faith, and is a correct
exhibition of doctrine; and I believe that the Apology, the
two Catechisms of Luther, the Smalcald Articles, and the




THE RULE OF FAITH.                     165
Formula of Concord, are a faithful development and defence
of the doctrines of the Word of God, and the Augsburg Confession.'I solemnly promise before Almighty God that all my teachings shall be in conformity with His Word, and with the aforementioned Confessions.'
The thetical statements of the Council and the declaration
which follows, exhibit, as we believe, the relation of the Rule
of Faith and the Confessions, in accordance with the principles
of the Conservative Reformation. Accepting those principles,
we stand upon the everlasting foundation - the Word of God:
believing that the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament are in their original tongues, and in a pure text, the
perfect and only rule of faith. All these books are in. harmony,
each with itself, and all with each other, and yield to the
honest searcher, under the ordinary guidance of the Holy
Spirit, a clear statement of doctrine, and produce a firm assurance of faith.  Not any word of man, no creed, commentary,
theological system, nor decision of Fathers or of councils, no
doctrine of Churches, or of the whole Church, no results or
judgments of reason, however strong, matured, and well
informed, no one of these, and not all of these  The rule of
together, but God's word alone is the rule of faith. Faith.
No apocryphal books, but the canonical books alone, are the
rule of faith.  No translations, as such, but the original
Hebrew and Chaldee of the Old Testament, and the Greek of
the New, are the letter of the rule of faith.  No vitiation of
the designing, nor error of the careless, but the incorrupt text
as it came from  the hands of the men of God, who wrote
under the motions of the HQly Spirit, is the rule of faith. To
this rule of faith we are to bring our minds; by this rule we
are humbly to try to form  our faith, and in accordance with
it, God helping us, to teach others -teaching them  the evidences of its inspiration, the true mode of its interpretation,
the ground of its authority, and the mode of settling its text.
The student of theology is to be taught the Biblical languages,
to make him an independent investigator of the word of the
Holy Spirit, as the organ through which that Spirit reveals




166         CONSERVATIVE REFOR'MATIO1.
His mind.  First of all, as the greatest of all, as the groundwork of all, as the end of all else, we are to teach God's pure
word, its faith for faith, its life for life; in its integrity, in its
marvellous adaptation, in its divine, its justifying, its sanctifying, and glorifying power.  We are to lay, as that without
which all else would be laid in vain, the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets - Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone.
Standing really upon the everlasting foundation of this Rule
of Faith, we stand of necessity on the faith, of which it is the
rule.  It is not the truth as it lies, silent and unread, in the
Word, but the truth as it enters from  that Word into the
human heart, with the applying presence of the Holy Ghost,
which makes men believers.  Faith makes men Christians;
Colfession of but Confession alone marks them  as Christians.
Faith.     The Rule of Faith is God's voice to us; faith is
the hearing of that voice, and the Confession, our reply of
assent to it. By our faith, we are known to the Lord as his;
by our Confession, we are known to each other as His children.  Confession of faith, in some form, is imperative.  To
confess Christ, is to confess what is our faith in him.  As the
Creed is not, and cannot be the Rule of Faith, but is its Confession merely, so the Bible, because it is the Rule of Faith, is
of necessity not its Confession.  The Bible can no more be any
man's Creed, than the stars can be any man's astronomy. The
stars furnish the rule of the astronomer's faith: the Principia
of Newton may be the Confession of his faith.  If a man
were examined as a candidate for the chair of astronomy in a
university, and were asked, " What is your astronomical system?" and were to answer,' I accept the teaching of the
stars," the reply would be, "You may think you do-so does
the man who is sure that the stars move round the world, and
that they are not orbs, but'gimlet-holes to let the glory
through.'  We wish to know what you hold the teachings of
the stars to be? Do you receive, as in harmony with then,
the results reached by Copernicus, by Galileo, by Kepler, by
Newton, La Place, and Herschel, or do you think the world
one great flat, and the sun and moon mere pendants to it?"




WHAT SHALL BE  OUR CONFESSION?                  167
Gentlemen," replies the independent investigator, " the
theories of those astronomers are human systems-man-made
theories. I go out every night on the hills, and look'at the
stars, as God made them, through a hole in my blanket, with
my own good eyes, not with a man-made telescope, or fettered
by a man-made theory; and I believe in the stars and in what
they teach me: but if I were to say, or write what they teach,
that would be a human creed   and I am  opposed to all
creeds."  Very well," reply the examiners, "we wish you
joy in the possession of a good pair of eyes, and feel it unnecessary to go any further.  If you are unwilling to confess
your faith, we will not tax your conscience with the inconsistency of teaching that faith, nor tax our own with the hazard
of authorizing you to set forth in the name of the stars your
own ignorant assumptions about them."
What is more clear than that, as the Rule of Faith is first,
it must, by necessity of its being, when rightly used, generate
a true faith? But the man who has true faith desires to have
it known, and is bound to confess his faith.  The Rule cannot
really generate two conflicting beliefs; yet men who alike profess to accept the Rule, do have conflicting beliefs; and when
beliefs conflict, if the one is formed by the Rule, the other
must be formed in the face of it.  Fidelity to the Rule of
Faith, therefore, fidelity to the faith it teaches, demands that
there shall be a Confession of the faith.  The firmest friend of
the Word is the firmest friend of the Creed. First, the Rule
of Faith, next the Faith of the Rule, and then the Confession
of Faith.
What shall be our Confession?  Are we originating a
Church, and must we utter our testimony to a world, in which
our faith is a novelty? The reply is easy. As we  W,,t shall be
are not the first who have used, with honest hearts our Confession?
and fervent prayers, the Rule, so are we not the first who have
been guided by the Holy Ghost in it to its faith.  As men long
ago reached its faith, so long ago they confessed it.  They confessed it from the beginning. The first adult baptism  was
based upon a " human creed," that is, upon a confession of
faith, which was the utterance of a belief which was based




168         CONSERVATIVE REFORMALTION.
upon a human interpretation of divine words. The faith has
been confessed from the beginning.  It has been embodied in. a
creed, the origin of whose present shape no man knows, which
indeed cannot be fixed; for it rose from the words of our
Saviour's Baptismal Commission, and was not manufactured,
but grew.  Of the Apostles' Creed, as of Him to whom its heart
is given, it may be affirmed that it was "begotten, not made."
The Confession has been renewed and enlarged to meet new
and widening error.  The ripest, and purest, and most widely
used of the old Confessions have been adopted by our Church
as her own, not because they are old and widely received, but
because they are true. She has added her testimony as it was
needed.  Here is the body of her Confession.  Is her Confession ours? If it be, we are of her in heart; if it bq not, we are
only of her in name. It is ours - ours in our deepest conviction, reached through conflicts outward and inward, reached upon
our knees, and traced with our tears - ours in our inmost hearts.
Therefore, we consecrate ourselves to living, teaching, and defending the faith of God's word, which is the confessed faith of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church.  Fidelity to the whole truth
of God's word requires this.  We dare not be satisfied simply
with recognition as Christians over against the Jew, because
we confess that the Rule of Faith, of which the New Testament is a part, has taught us faith in Jesus Christ: we dare
nqt be satisfied simply with recognition as holding the Catholic
Faith as embodied in the three General Creeds, over against heresies of various forms and shades.  Christian believers holding
the faith Catholic we are-but we are, besides, Protestant,
rejecting the authority of the Papacy; Evangelical, glorying
Distinctivecon- in the grace of the Gospel; and Lutheran, holding
fessionnecessary. the doctrines of that Church, of which the Reformation is the child    not only those in which all Christendom or a large part of it coincides with her, but the most distinctive of her distinctive doctrines, though in the maintenance
of them she stood alone.  As the acceptance of the Word of
God as a Rule of Faith separates us from the Mohammedan,
as the reception of the New Testament sunders us from  the
Jew, as the hearty acquiescence in the Apostles', Nicene, and




FIDELITY TO  THE  CONFESSIONS.                  169
Athanasian Creeds shows us, in the face of all errorists of the
earlier ages, to be in the faith of the Church Catholic, so does
our unreserved acceptance of the Augsburg Confession mark
us as Lutherans; and the acceptance of the Apology, the
Catechisms of Luther, the Schmalcald Articles, and the Formula
of Concord, continues the work of marking our separation
from all errorists of every shade whose doctrines are in conflict with the true sense of the Rule of Faith  that Rule
whose teachings are rightly interpreted and faithfully embodied in the Confessions afore-mentioned.  Therefore, God helping us, we will teach the whole faith of His word, which faith
our Church sets forth, explains, and defends in her Symbols.
We do not interpret God's word by the Creed, neither do we
interpret the Creed by God's word, but interpreting both independently, by the laws of language, and finding that they
teach one and the same truth, we heartily acknowledge the
Confession as a true exhibition of the faith of the Rule   a
true witness to the one, pure, and unchanging faith of the
Christian Church, and freely make it our own Confession, as
truly as if it had been now first uttered by our lips, or had
now first gone forth from our hands.
In freely and heartily accepting the faith of our Church, as
our own faith, and her Scriptural Confession of that faith, as
our own Confession, we do not surrender for our-  Fidelity to the
selves, any more than we take from  others, the Confessions not
-~ -i. -.  -~, ~5 ~. - ~...~~ ~ inconsistent with
sacred and inalienable right of private judgment. the right of priIt is not by giving up the right of private judg- vatejudgllent.
ment, but by the prayerful exercise of it, not by relinquishing
a just independence of investigation, but by thoroughly employing it, that we have reached that faith which we glory in
confessing.  Could the day ever come, in which we imagined
that the Evangelical Lutheran Church had abused her right
of private judgment, so as to reach error, and not truth by it,
we should, as honest men, cease to bear her name, or to connive at what we would, in the case supposed, believe to be
error.  On the other hand, should the Evangelical Lutheran
Church ever have evidence, that we have abused our right of
private judgment into the wrong of private misjudgment, so




170         CONSERVATIVE REI'ORMATION.
as to have reached error, and not truth by it, then, as a faithful
Church, after due admonition, and opportunity for repentance
have been given us in vain, she is bound to cast us forth, to
purify her own communion, and to make it impossible for us,
in her name, to injure others.  As the individual, in exercising
the right of private judgment, is in peril of abusing it, the
Church has the right, and is bound by the duty, of self-defence
against that abuse. The right of private judgment is not the
right of Church-membership, not the right of public teaching, not the right of putting others into an equivocal attitude
to what they regard as truth.  A free Protestant Church is a
Church, whose ministry and membership, accepting the same
rule of faith, have, in the exercise of their private judgment
upon it, reached the same results as to all truths which they
deem it needful to unite in confessing. After all the intricacies
into which the question of, What are fundamentals? has run,
there can be no practical solution better than this, that they
are such truths, as in the judgment of the Church, it is necessary clearly to confess; truths, the toleration of the errors
opposing which, she believes to be inconsistent with her fidelity
to the Gospel doctrine, to her own internal harmony and highest efficiency.  The members and ministry of such a Church
must have " one faith," as they have one Lord, one Baptism,
and one God. Apart from the " unity of the faith," and the
"unity of the knowledge of the Son of God," every striving to
reach " unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of
the fulness of Christ," will be vain; thus only can Christian
men " henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men,
and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
A great deal is claimed under the right of private judgment, which is a most impudent infringement of that right.
A man is a Socinian, a Pelagian, a Romanist. Very well. We
maintain, that no civil penalties should restrain him, and no
ecclesiastical inquisition fetter him.  Give him, in its fullest
swing, the exercise of his right of private judgment. But
your Socinian insists on such a recognition by Trinitarians
as logically implies, that they either agree with him in his




SUBSCRIPTION TO A CONPESSIONT                   171
error, or that it is of no importance.  What is this but to ask
thousands or millions to give up or imperil the results of
their well-used right of private judgment, at the call of one
man, who abuses his?  Could impudence go further?'Go,'
they may rightly say,' with your right of private
Use and abuse
judgment, go where you belong, and cease to at- of the,-igt cf
tempt the shallow  jugglery, by which one man's private  judgment.
freedom means his autocracy, and every other man's
slavery.  If your right of private judgment has made you an
Atheist, don't call yourself a Believer; if it has made you a
Jew, don't pretend to be a Christian; if it has made you a
Papist, don't pretend to be a Protestant; if it has made you a
Friend, don't call yourself a Churchman.'
When we confess, that, in the exercise of our right of private judgment, our Bible has made us Lutherans, we neither
pretend to claim.that other men shall be made Lutherans by
force, nor that their private judgment shall, or will, of necessity, reach the results of ours. We only contend, that, if their
private judgment of the Bible does not make them Lutherans,
they shall not pretend that it does. We do not say, that any
man shall believe that the Confession of our Church is Scriptural.  We only contend, that he should neither say nor seem
to say so, if he does not believe it.  The subscrip-  Meaning of
tion to a Confession is simply a just and easy mode subscription to a
Confession.
of testifying to those who have a right to ask it
of us, that we are what we claim  and profess to be. So to
sign a Confession as to imply that we are what we are not, or
to leave it an open question what we are, is not the just result
of the right of private judgment, or of any right whatever,
but is utterly wrong. For it is a first element of truth, with
which no right, private or public, can conflict, that names
shall honestly represent things. What immorality is more
patent than the pretence that the right of private judgment
is something which authorizes a man to make his whole life a
falsehood; is something which fills the world with names,
which no longer represent things, fills it with black things,
that are called white, with bitter things, that are called
sweet, and with lies, that are called truths, with monarchists,




172         C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATI0 O.
who are called republicans, with Socinians, who are called
Trinitarians, with Arminians, who are called Calvinists, with
Romanists, Rationalists, fanatics, or sectarians, who are called
Lutherans?
We concede to every man the absolute right of private
judgment as to the faith of the Lutheran Church, but if he
have abandoned the faith of that Church, he may not use her
name as his shelter in attacking the thing she cherishes, and
in maintaining which she obtained her being and her name.
It is not enough that you say to me, that such a thing is
clear to your private judgment. You must show to my private judgment, that God's word teaches it, before I dare recognize you as in the unity of the faith.  If you cannot, we
have not the same faith, and ought not to be of the same
communion; for the communion is properly one of persons of
the same faith.  In other words, your private judgment is not
to be my interpreter, nor is mine to be yours. If you think
me in error, I have no right to force myself on your fellowship. If I think you in error, you have no right to force
yourself on mine. You have the civil right and the moral
right to form your impressions in regard to truth, but there
the right stops. You have not the right to enter or remain
in any Christian communion, except as its terms of membership give you that right. So easy is this distinction, and so
clearly a part, not of speculation, but of practical morals, that
the law of the land recognizes it. If certain men, under the
style and title of a Church, which imply that it is Calvinistic,
call an Arminian preacher, the law takes that Church from
an Arminian majority which calls itself Calvinistic, and gives
it to a Calvinistic minority which is what it calls itself. Does
this mean that the majority must sacrifice their right of private judgment, that the law wishes to force them to be Calvinists?  Not at all. It simply means, that the right of private judgment is not the right to call yourself what you are
not, and to keep what does not belong to you. Put, your
Arminians under their true colors, though in minority, and
your Calvinists under false colors, though in majority, and you




THE ABUSE OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.    173
will soon see how easily the principle of this law of morals
and of this law of the land adjusts itself.
Before the plain distinctions we have urged, in regard to
private judgment, go down all the evasions by,,T buse of
which Rationalism has sought to defend itself from  piivatejudgllent
not to be rethe imputation of dishonor, when it pretended to straine iby perbear the Lutheran name, as if Lutheranism were secution
not a positive and well-defined system  of truth, but a mere
assertion of the right of private judgment. It is the doctrine
of the Reformation, not that there should be no checks upon
the abuse of private judgment, but that those checks should
be moral alone.  The Romanists and un-Lutheran elements in
the Reformation were agreed, that the truth must be maintained and heresy extirpated by the sword of government.
Error is in affinity with the spirit of persecution. The first
blood shed within the Christian Church, for opinion's sake,
was shed by the deniers of the divinity of'Jesus Christ, the
Arians.  So strong was the feeling in the primitive Church
against violence toward errorists, that not a solitary instance
occurs of capital punishment for heresy in its earlier era. The
Bishops of Gaul, who ordered the execution of the Priscillianists, though the lives of these errorists were as immoral as
their teachings were abominable, were excluded from the communion of the Church.  As the Western Church grew corrupt, it grew  more and more a persecuting Church, till it
became drunken with the blood of the saints.  The maxims
and spirit of persecution went over to every part of the
Churches of the Reformation, except the Lutheran Church.
Zwingle countenanced the penalty of death for Ieresy. What
was the precise share of Calvin in the burning of Servetus is
greatly mooted; but two facts are indisputable.  One is, that,
before the unhappy errorist took his fatal journey, Calvin wrote,
that, if Servetus came to Geneva, he should not leave it alive,
if his authority availed anything; the other is, that, after the
burning of Servetus, Calvin wrote his dissertation defending
the right of the magistrate to put heretics to death (1554.)
The Romish and Calvinistic writers stand as one man for the
right and duty of magistrates to punish heresy with death,




174         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
over, against Luther and the entire body of our theologians,
who maintain, without an exception, that heresy is never to
be punished with death.  The Reformed portion of Protestantism has put to death, at different times and in different
ways, not only Romanists and Anabaptists, but its terrible
energies have been turned into civil strife, and Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, and Independents put each other to death, especially in the great civil wars of England, whose origin was
largely religious.  Strange as it may sound, Socinians themselves have been persecutors, and yet more strange is the ground
on which they persecuted. The original Socinians not only acknowledged that Jesus Christ was to be worslipped, and characterized those who denied it as half Jews, but, when Francis
David, one of the greatest of their original co-workers, denied it,
the old man was cast into prison, and kept there till he died. The
/Lutheran Church alone, of all the great Churches that have
had the power to persecute, has not upon her skirts one drop
of blood shed for opinion's sake.  The glorious words of Luther were: " The pen, not the fire, is to put down heretics.
/The hangmen are not doctors of theology. This is not the
But by denial place for force. Not the sword, but the word, fits
of Church recog- for this battle.  If the word does not put down
nition.
error, error would stand, though the world were
drenched with blood."  By these just views, centuries in advance of the prevalent views, the Lutheran Church has stood,
and will stand forever.  But she is none the less earnest in
just modes of shielding herself and her children from  the
teachings of error, which takes cover under the pretence of private judgment. She would not burn Servetus, nor, for opinion's
sake, touch a hair of his head; neither, however, would she
permit him to bear her name, to C preach another Jesus " in
her pulpits, to teach error in her Universities, or to approach
with her children the table of their Lord, whom he denied.
Her name, her confessions, her history, her very being protest
against the supposition of such "fellowship with the works of
darkness," such sympathy with heresy, such levity in regard
to the faith. She never practised thus. She never can do it.
Those who imagine that the right of private judgment is the




DENIAL OF CHRISTIAN RECOGANITION.   175
right of men, within the Lutheran Church, and bearing her
hallowed name, to teach what they please in the face of her
testimony, know not the nature of the right they claim, nor of
the Church, whose very life involves her refusal to have fellowship with them in their error. It is not the right of private
judgment which makes or marks a man Lutheran. A man
may have the right to judge, and be a simpleton, as he may
have the right to get rich, yet may remain a beggar. It is
the judgment he reaches in exercising that right which determines what he is. By his abuse of the "' inalienable rights of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," a man may make
himself a miserable slave. The right of property belongs as
much to the man who makes himself a beggar as to the man
who has become a millionaire. Rights, in themselves, give
nothing, and cannot change the nature of things. The right
to gather, gathers nothing; and if, under this right, the man
gathers wood, hay, stubble, neither the right nor its exercise
makes them into gold, silver, and precious stones. The Church
will not put any violence upon him who chooses to gather what
will not endure the fire; but she will not accept them as jewels,
nor permit her children to be cheated with them. The right
of private judgment and the right of Church discipline are
co-ordinate and harmonious rights, essential to the prevention,
each of the abuse of the other. To uphold either intelligently,
is to uphold both. In maintaining, therefore, as Protestants,
the right and duty of men, in the exercise of private judgment,
to form their own convictions, unfettered by civil penalties in
the State, or by inquisitorial powers in the Church, we maintain, also, the right and duty of the Church to shield herself
from corruption in doctrine by setting forth the truth in her
Confession, by faithfully controverting heresy, by personal
warning to those that err, and, finally, with the conttumacious,
by rejecting them from her communion, till, through grace,
they are led to see and renounce the falsehood, for which they
claimed the name of truth.
The faith of the Church, drawn from  the rule by the just
exercise of private judgment, illumined by the Holy Ghost,
has been tested and developed in three ways: First, by science;




176         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
next, by history; and thirdly, in the practical life of the
Church.  Science has shown, in the glorious edifice of our
doctrinal theology, that our faith has the grand
eInteient fl-c criterion of truth, the capacity of arrangement in
delityto  the Coil-    t                  o
fessions an essen- a self-harmonizing system.  Order is Heaven's first
tial object of the-.  
ological training. law. A  te law of the physical universe is mathematical, the law of the spiritual universe is logical.
That which has no place in system, is not of God, is not truth.
All his works reflect his unity and self-consistency.
To fit for their whole work, men, whom  God shall call,
through his Church, to teach the Gospel and administer the
Sacraments, involves, in its most perfect form, that they shall
understand, in its own tongues, the Holy Book, to the teachings
of whose truths they are to devote themselves, that they
should see those truths in their relations, as well as in their
isolation, should thoroughly  comprehend the faith of the
Church, which is built upon them, and should be able to
defend the truth, and the faith, which is its inspiration. The
student of theology must be taught the history of the Church,
in order to comprehend prophecy, in order to test all things,
and hold fast td the good, and in order to comprehend the
force and value of the dec sions, on disputed points, which the
Church maintains over against all errorists.  He must know
the history of the past in order to live in the life of to-day,
which is the outflowing of the life of yesterday, and in order
to reach beyond the hour into that solemn to-morrow of the
future, which is to be the outflowing of the life of to-day.  For
all these and for many other reasons, the student of theology
must master the great facts in the history of the Church of all
time; but most of all, the history of our own Church, the
richest, the most suggestive, the most heart-inspiring of the
whole.
Looking forward to the position of a Bishop in the Church,
and of a Counsellor in the Synod, the student of theology
needs to be master of the great principles of Church government, a sphere specially important to our Church amid the
radicalism and anarchical tendencies of the hour. The Christial Pastor of the future should be master of the principles




MINISTERIAL EFFICIENCY.                  177
which are to guide him in his vocation as guardian of the
flock; the Preacher of the future should understand the theory,
and be practically trained in the power of that simple but
mighty eloquence, which becomes the preaching of the cross;
the Catechist of the future should be trained for the great work
of feeding the lambs; the future Ministrants at the altars of the
Most High should be shaped in the tender, trusting, and allprevailing spirit of worship, which God, the Holy Ghost,
kindles in his saints, the devotion, whose flame trembles
upward to its source, in the humble confessions, in the holy
songs, and in the fervent prayers of the Church, all hallowed
by the memories of ages of yearning and aspiration.. If we
are to have men " mighty in the Scriptures," " able and faithful ministers of the New Testament," they must be, " not
novices," but men who'"know  how  they ought to behave
themselves in the house of God," "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," " holding fast the faithful word
as they have been taught, that they may be able, by sound
doctrine, both to exhort and to convince gainsayers," "' in doctrine showing incorruptness."
In the true Christian minister, the priesthood, which he
holds in common with all believers, intensifies  Ministerial ef
itself. by his representative character.  Ile is a ficiency dependpriest, whose lips keep knowledge, at whose mouth    o 
they should seek the law, for he is the "messenger of the
Lord of hosts."  We want men apt to teach, in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves.  We want men
of decision, ready to confront those " whose mouths must be
stopped; who subvert whole houses, teaching things which
they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."  We want men, who
will " hold fast the form of sound words; who will take heed
unto themselves and the doctrine, and continue in them, knowing, that, in doing this," and alone in doing this, " they shall
both save themselves and them  that hear them;" men, who
shall' stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together
for the faith of the gospel," " earnestly contending for the
faith once delivered to the saints;" men, "like-minded one
toward another, speaking the same thing, with no divisions
12




178         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
among them, but perfectly joined together in the same mind
and in the same judgment."
But, with all, and in all, and above all, we wish to send
forth men, who shall be living illustrations of the power of
the gospel they preach; men, who shall show the oneness and
stability of a true faith, ready to yield preferences to secure
principles, to make the sacrifices of love to the consciences of
the weak in things indifferent, and to stand as the anvil to
the beater under the strokes of obloquy and misrepresentation.
We wish men, who will have the mind of Jesus Christ, thrilling in every pulse with love to souls; men that will seek the
lowliest of the lowly, men filled with the spirit of missions,
men of self-renunciation; men open as the day, men that
abhor deceit, who use great plainness of speech, who speak the
truth in love; men who are first pure, then peaceable, " gentle
to all men," not self-willed,'not soon angry, yet in conflict
with the " many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, rebuking them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;" men
so glowing with love of the gospel, so clear in their judgment as
to its doctrines, so persuaded that life and death, heaven and
hell, hang upon its pure proclamation, that they shall be ready
to say: "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any
other gospel unto you, let him be accursed," and again, in the
very power of the apostle's iteration: "As I said before, so
say I now  again, If any man preach any other gospel unto
you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." It is in
the simple Biblical faith, in the incorrupt, profound, and selfharmonizing system of doctrine, in the historical caution and
thoroughness, in the heart-felt piety, in the reverential spirit
of worship, in the holy activity which reaches every want of
the souls and bodies of men, in fidelity in the pulpit and pastoral
life, in uncompromising maintenance of sound government, in
all these, which belong to our Church, it is in these the men of
the future should be shaped. We would have them grounded
in a thorough knowledge, an ardent love, a practical exhibition
of all that belongs to the true idea of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, of the Evangelical Lutheran Christian, and of the
Evangelical Lutheran pastor. But to be worthy of the Church




REASONS FOR  CONFESSIONAL BASIS.   179
of Christian purity and of Christian freedom to which they
belong, the Church of Luther and Melanchthon, of Arndt and
Gerhard, of, Spener and Francke, of Schwartz and Oberlin, of
Muhlenberg and Harms, and of departed worthies, whose
voices yet linger in our ears, they need a faith whose Confession shall be as articulate, as its convictions are deep.
This, then, is a summary of the result we reach: The basis
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the Word of God, as
the perfect and absolute Rule of Faith, and because this is her
basis, she rests of necessity on the faith of which that Word is
the Rule, and therefore on the Confessions which purely set
forth that faith.  She has the right rule, she reaches the right
results by the rule, and rightly confesses them.  This Confession then is her immediate basis, her essential char-,.,,,aiy of
acteristic, with which she stands or falls.  The result.
Unaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Catechisms and Schmalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord,
have been formally declared by an immense majority of the
Lutheran Church as their Confession of Faith. The portion
of the Church, with few and inconsiderable exceptions, which
has not received them  formally, has received them virtually.
They are closely cohering and internally consistent statements
and developments of one and the same system, so that a man
who heartily and intelligently receives any one of the distinctively Lutheran Symbols, has no difficulty in accepting the
doctrine of the whole. They fairly represent the Reasons for the
faith of the Church, and simply and solely as so Confessional Barepresenting it are they named in the statement of Sis
the basis of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.  The real
question, then, is this: Ought the Church to rest unreservedly
and unchangeably on this faith as her doctrinal basis?  To
this question, which is but the first repeated in a new shape,
we reply, as we replied to the first, She ought.
I. She ought to rest on that basis, because that Faith of our
Church, in all and each of its parts, is founded on  1. Itisfoundted
the Word of God, which she will not permit to be on God's Word.
overruled, either by the speculations of corrupt reason, or by
the tradition of a corrupted Church, but which Word she




180         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
interprets under the ordinary, promised guidance of the hIoly
Spirit, as a Word in itself absolutely perfect for its ends, giving
law to reason, and excluding tradition as any part, direct or
indirect, of the Rule of Faith.
II. The proposition we have just advanced, no Lutheran, in
the historical sense of the word, can deny; for the man who
2. It belongs would deny it, would, in virtue of that denial,
to historical Lu- prove that he is not in the historical sense Luthertheranism.
an; for he, and he only, is such who believes that
the doctrine of the gospel is rightly taught in the Augsburg
Confession.  We do not enter into the question, whether, in
some sense, or in what sense, a man who denies this may be
some kind of a Lutheran.  We only affirm that he is not such
in the historical sense of the word; that he is not what was
meant by the name when it was first distinctively used-that
is, not a Lutheran whom Luther, or the Lutheran Church for
three centuries, would have recognized as such, nor such as
the vast majority of the uncorrupted portions of our Church
would now recognize.
III. That many of the Articles of Faith set forth by our
Church are pure and Scriptural, is acknowledged by all nominal
Christendom; that an immense proportion of them is such, is
confessed by all nominal Protestants.  Zwingle declared that
3. Commended there were no men on earth whose fellowship he so
by other Corn- desired as that of the Wittenbergoers.  Calvin submunions.
scribed the unaltered A ugsburg Confession, and acted
as a Lutheran minister under it. " Nor do I repudiate the Augsburg Confession (which I long ago willingly and gladly subscribed) as its author has interpreted it."  So wrote Calvin, in
1557, to Schalling. Two mistakes are often made as to his
neaning, in these much-quoted words.  First: The Confession
he subscribed was not the Variata. Calvin subscribed at Strasburg, in 1539. The Variata did not appear till 1540. Second:
He does not mean nor say that he then subscribed it as its
author had explained it.  There was no word of its author then,
which even seemed in conflict with its original sense.  Calvin
means: Nor do I now repudiate it, as its author has interpreted
it. The great Reformed divines have acklnowledged that it has




ESSENTIAL  UNION IN FUNDAMENTALS.   181
not a fundamental error in it.  The only error they charge on
it, they repeatedly declare to be non-fundamental.  Testing all
Churches by the concessions of their adversaries, there is not so
safe andcpure a Church in existence as our own.  But not only
in the Articles conceded by adversaries, but in those which are
most strictly distinctive of our Church, and which have been
the object of fiercest assault, is she pure and Scriptural, as, for
example, in regard to the Person of Christ and the Sacraments.
IV. To true unity of the Church, is required hearty and
honest consent in the fundamental doctrine of the gospel, or, in
other words, in the Articles of Faith.  It may surprise some,
that we qualify the word doctrine by the word "fan-  4.,sseial to
damental;" for that word, in the history of the  nion il fundamentals.
Church, has been so bandied about, so -miserably
perverted, so monopolized for certain ends, so twisted by artifices of interpretation, as if a man could use it to mean anything he pleased, and might fairly insist that its meaning could
only be settled by reference to his own mental reservation at
the time he used it, that at length men have grown afraid of
it, have looked upon its use as a mark of lubricity, and have
almost imagined that it conveyed an idea unknown to our
Church in her purer days.  Nevertheless, it conveys a good oldfashioned Biblical and Lutheran idea  an idea set forth in the
Confession of the Church, constantly presented by our old Theologians, and by no means dangerous when honestly anclintelligently used.  Thus the Apology says: " The Church retains
the pure gospel, and, as' Paul says, (1 Cor. iii. 12,) the foundation, (fundamentum,) that is, the true knowledge of Christ
and faith.  Although in this Church there are many who are
weak, who'build upon this foundation, wood, hay, stubble,'
who, nevertheless, do not overthrow  the foundation, they are
still Christians." 
It is utterly false that Evangelical Lutherans are sticklers
for non-fundamentals, that they are intolerant toward those
who err in regard to non-fundamentals; on the contrary, no
Church, apart from  the fundamentals of the gospel in which
her unity and very life are involved, is so mild, so mediating,
* Apology, (Miuller,) p. 156.




182         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.
so thoroughly tolerant as our own. Over against the unity of
Rome under a universal Head, the unity of High-Churchism
under the rule of Bishops, the unities which turn upon like
rites or usages as in themselves necessary, or which build up
the mere subtleties of human speculation into articles of faith,
over against these the Lutheran Church was the first to stand
forth, declaring that the unity of the Church turns upon
nothing that is of man. Where the one pure gospel of Christ
is preached, where the one foundation of doctrine is laid
where the " one faith " is confessed, and the alone divine Sacraments administered aright, there is the one Church; this is
her unity.  As the Augsburg Confession * declares  "The
Church, properly so called, hath her notes and marks, to wit:
the pure and sound doctrine of the gospel, and the right use of
the Sacraments.  And, for the true unity of the Church, it is
sufficient to agree upon the doctrine of the gospel, and the
administration of the Sacraments."
Our fathers clearly saw and sharply drew the distinction
between God's foundation and man's superstructure, between
the essential and the accidental, between faith and opinion,
between religion and speculative theology, and, with all these
distinctions before them, declared, that consent in the doctrine
of the gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments
is the only basis of the unity of the Church. This basis, the
Lutheran Church has defined and rests on it, to abide there,
we trust, by God's grace, to the end of time.
In this basis of unity is implied, first of all, that, in a really
united Church, there shall be agreement as to what subjects
of the gospel teaching are to be considered its doctrine, or
articles of faith, or fundamentals, (for all these terms are here
practically synonymous,) and not either mere matters of opinion, or of secondary importance.
It is no evidence that two men or two parts of a Church are
really in unity because they say a certain creed is right on fundamentals, if it be not certain that they agree as to what subjects of the gospel teaching are fundamental.  The Socinian and
Trinitarian are in unity of faith, and could alike accept the
* Art. VII.




ESSENTIAL UNION IN  FUNDAMENTALS.   183
Augsburg Confession as their creed, if it be granted that the
Trinity is no doctrine of the gospel, no article of faith, no fundamental, but a mere nicety of theological speculation, or some
thing, which the Scripture, if it sets it forth at all, sets forth
in no vital relation to its essential truths. Before a Socinian
and Trinitarian, therefore, can honestly test their unity by a
formula, which declares that they agree in fundamentals, they
must settle what are fundamentals.  Otherwise the whole
thing is a farce.  Any formula of agreement on " fundaientals," which leaves it an open question what are fundamentals, is delusive and dishonest, and will ultimately breed
dissension and tend to the destruction of the Church.  We
protest, therefore, alike against the basis which does not propose the fundamental doctrine of the gospel as essential to
unity, and the basis, which, professing to accept the gospel
fundamentals as its constituent element, is, in any degree
whatever, dubious, or evasive, as to what subjects of gospelteaching are fundamental, or which, pretending to define them,
throws among non-fundamentals what the Word of God and
the judgment of His Church have fixed as Articles of Faith.
On such a point there should be no evasion.  Divine Truth is
the end of the Church; it is also her means.  She lives for it,
and she lives by it.  What the Evangelical Lutheran Church
regards as fundamental to gospel, doctrine, that is, what her
existence, her history, her Confessions declare or justly imply
to be her articles of faith, these ought to be accepted as such
by all honorable men, who bear her name.
But it is sometimes said, by very good men, as a summary
answer to the whole argument for Confessions of Faith, that
the very words of Scripture are a better Creed, than any we
can substitute for them; better, not only, as of course they are,
on the supposition that our words are incorrect, but better even
if our words are correct; for our best words are man's words,
but its words are the words of the Holy Ghost.  But this argument, although it looks specious, is sophistical to the core.
The very words of Scripture are not simply a better Rule of
Faith than any that can be substituted for them, but they are
the absolute and only Rule of Faith, for which nothing can




184         CONSERVATIVE R EFORMATION.
be substituted.  But the object of a Creed is not to find out
what God teaches, (we go to the Bible for that,) but to show
what we believe. Hence the moment I set forth even the very
Fidelity to the words of the Bible as my Creed, the question is, no
Confession,iot longer what does the HEoly Ghost mean by those
inconsistent
with thle Sn- words, but what do I mean by them.  You ask
preme Authority
of t.ine tlle of a Unitarian, WVhat do you believe about Christ.
Faith.-    I-e replies:  I believe that he is the Son of God."
These  are the very  words of the Bible; but the point
is not at all now, what do they mean in the Bible? but what
do they mean as a Unitarian creed?  In the Rule of Faith,
they mean that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate; in the Unitarian Creed, they mean that there is
no Trinity, and that our Lord is a mere man.,All heretics, if
you probe them with the very words of the Bible, admit that
these words are the truth.  The Universalists for example,
concede, that the "wicked go away into everlasting punishment."  Now I know that in the Bible, the JRule of Faith, these
words mean, a punishment without end; and I know just as
well, that these identical words as a UTniversalist creed, mean,
no future punishment at all, or one that does end.  Yet with
the fallacy of which we speak; do men evade the argument,
for a clear, well-defined, and unmistakable creed.
The truth is that correct humian explanations of Scripture doctrine are Scripture doctrine, for they are simply the statement
of the same truth in different words.  These words are not in
themselves as clear and as good as the Scripture terms, but as
those who use them can absolutely fix the sense of their own
phraseology by a direct and infallible testimony, the' human
words may more perfectly exclude heresy than the divine
words do.  The term " Trinity," for example, does not, in itself,
as clearly and as well express the doctrine of Scripture as the
terms of the Word of God do; but it correctly and compendiously states that doctrine, and the trifler who pretends to receive the Bible, and yet rejects its doctrine of the Trinity, can-not pretend that he receives what the Church means by the
word Trinity.  While the Apostles lived the Word was both
a rule of faith, and in a certain sense, a confession of it; when




FIDELITY TO THE CONFESSIONS..                 185
by direct inspiration a holy man utters certain words, they are
to him both a rule of faith, and a confession of faith -they at
once express both what he is to believe and what he does
believe; but when the Canon was complete, when its authors
were gone, when the living teacher was no longer at hand to
correct the errorist who distorted his word, the Church entered
on her normal and abiding relation to the Word and the Creed
which is involved in these words: the Bible is the rule of faith,
but not the confession of it; the Creed is not the rule of faith,
but is the confession of it.  A Lutheran is a Christian whose
rule of faith is the Bible, and whose creed is the Augsburg
Confession.
To what end then is the poor sophism  constantly iterated,
that the Confession is a "human explanation of divine doctrine"?  So is the faith of every man -all that he deduces
from the Bible. There is no personal Christianity in the world
which is not the result of a human explanation of the Bible
as really as the Confession of our Church is. It is human because it is in human minds, and human hearts, —it is not a
source to which we can finally and absolutely appeal as we can
to God's word. But in exact proportion as the word of God
opened to the soul by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is
truly and correctly apprehended, just in that proportion is the
" human explanation " coincident with the divine truth.  I explain God's truth, and if I explain it correctly, my explanation
is God's truth, and to reject the one in unbelief, is to reject
the other.  " Our Father who art in heaven," is a human explanation by certain English scholars of certain words used
by our Lord; but they are correct explanations, and as such
are as really divine as those sounds in Aramaic or Greek which
fell from the lips of our Lord.  The difference is this: His
words are absolutely final; they are themselves the source of
truth, beyond which we cannot rise.  Our English words are
to be tested by his - and when we believe they truly represent
his, we receive them as his. For the essence of the word is not
its sound, but its sense.
Our English translation of the Bible is a human explanation
of a certain humanly transcribed, humanly printed text, the




186         CONSERVATI E REFORMATI ONA
orig/inal; which original alone, just as the sacred penman left it,
is absolutely in every jot and tittle God's Word; but just in
proportion as our translation is based upon a pure text of the
Hebrew and Greek, and correctly explains the meaning of such
an original, it too, is God's Word.  Our sermons are human
explanations of God's Word, but so far as they explain it correctly, they do set forth God's Word, and he who hears us,
hears our Lord.  Our Confession is a human explanation of
God's WVord, but so far as it correctly explains it, it sets forth
God's Word.  The man who regards it as"a correct explanation, or as "a summary and just exhibition" of the doctrines
of which it treats, is consistently a Lutheran.  No other man
is.  If any man can define Lutheran consistency in any better
way, we should be glad to have him do it; and if he thinks
human explanations are something antagonistic to scriptural
doctrine, we wish to know, if he be a clergyman or a Sundayschool teacher, or a father, why he spends so many Sundays
in the year in setting forth his'"human explanation" to
his people or his class or his children, instead of teaching
them Hebrew and Greek.  If he says that he believes that the
" human explanations " of the authorized version he reads, and
of the sermons he preaches to his people, or the instructions he
gives to his pupils or his children, are scriptural, because they
agree with Scripture, we ask him to believe that his church in
her faith, that the " human explanations" of her Confession
(framed in earnest, prayerful study of the Ioly Scriptures, and
in the promised light of the Holy Spirit) are correct and scriptural, may have as much to justify her as he has in his confidence in his own sermons, or his own lessons.  We do not
claim that our Confessors were infallible.  We do not say they
could not fail.  We only claim that they did not fail.
Those who smile at the utterance of a devout Father of the
Fidelity to tie Church:' I believe it, because it is impossible'Confessions, not smile because they do not understand him; yet
Ronianizing.
there would seem to be no solution but that given
in the absurdest sense of his words, for an objection sometimes
made to a hearty acceptance of the Lutheran Confession - to
wit, that such an acceptance is Romanizing. Yet there are




FIDELfTY T'O'THE CONFESSSTONS.                187
those who affect to believe that men who maintain the duty
of an honorable consistency with the Confessions of our Church,
are cherishing a Romish tendency.  If this meant that the doctrines of our Church really have this tendency; then it would be
the duty of all sound Protestants to disavow those doctrines,
and with them the name of the church with which they are
inseparably connected.  While men call themselves Lutherans,
that fact will go further before the unthinking world in favor
of the Lutheran Confessions, than all their protestations will
go against them.  If the Lutheran Church be a Romanizing
Church, we ought neither to bear the stigma of her name, nor
promote her work of mischief by giving her such aid as may
be derived from our own. But if the charge meant that those
stigmatized have this Romish tendency, because they are not
true to the Confessions of our Church, the thing really implied
is, that they are not Lutheran enough -- in other words, that
the danger of apostasy is connected, not with fidelity to
the Confession, but with want of fidelity.  If this were the
point which it is meant to press, we would heartily agree with
those who press it; and we would help them with every energy,
to detect and expose those who would cloak their Romanism
under a perversion of our Confession, as others defend their
fanaticism and heresies, under the pretence that the Confession
is in error.  As genuine Lutheranism is most Biblical among
systems which professedly ground themselves on the supreme
authority of God's word; as it is most evangelical among the
systems that magnify our Saviour's grace, so is our Church at
once most truly Catholic among all churches which acknowledge that the faith of God's people is one, and most truly Protestant among all bodies claiming to be Protestant.  She is the
mother of all true Protestantism.  IHer Confession at Augsburg, is the first official statement of Scriptural doctrine and
usage ever issued against Romish heresy and corruption.  Her
confessions are a wall of adamant against  Romanism.  The
names of Luther and her heroes who are among the dead, still
hold the first place among those of the opponents of Rome.
The doctrines of our Church have proved themselves the most
mighty of all doctrines in winning men from  Rome, and




188         CON SERVATIVE REFOR MATIO.
strongest of all doctrines in fixing the hearts of men, as a bulwark against all her efforts to regain the ground she had lost.
The anathemas of the Council of Trent are almost all levelled
at our Church; her soldiers have poured forth their blood on
the battle-fie1l, and the spirits of her martyrs have taken
flight from the scaffold and the stake, in preserving, amid
IRollish conspiracies and persecution, the truth she gave them.
Without our Church, there would be, so far as human sight
mayS pierce, no Protestantism on the face of the earth at this
hour, and without her Confession she would have perished
from  among men. It cannot be that loyalty to the Protestaltism  she made and saved, can demand treachery to that by
which she made and saved it. It cannot be that fidelity to the
truth which overthrew  Romanism, can involve connivance
with Romanism itself.
But there are others who, acknowledging for themselves the
force of all that can be urged for the Confessions, and not unwilling for themselves to adopt them, look with desponding
eye on the facts which seem to them to show that there can
be no large general acceptance in this country, so unchurchly
and unhistoric as it is, of these Confessions. Were we to grant
the gloomiest supposition possible, that would not affect our
duty.  Suppose it were true, that the arguments for the pure
doctrine of the Confessions seem to have little weight with men,
shall we cease to urge them?  After Nineteen Centuries of
struggle, Christianity is in minority in the world. After the
evidences of Christianity have been urged for some three centuries, there are many deists, more open and avowed even than
at the Reformation.  After centuries of argument for the
Trinity, there are, perhaps, more Socinians than ever. After
three centuries, in which the pure doctrine of justification has
been urged, millions in the Romish Church and very many
nominal Protestants reject it. With all the arguments for infant baptism, with the prodfs urged so long and so ably for the
validity of other modes of Baptism than immersion, how many
millions of Baptists there are! With the clear testimony of
Scripture and Hiistory for the perpetual obligation of the two
Sacraments, how many Friends there are (and their number is




WIDE CREEDS.                        189
increasing in Great Britain,) who deny it altogether! How
little headway a pure and consistent faith in the gospel makes,
after so many centuries! But what have we, to do with all
this? Our business is to hold and urge the truth in all its
purity, whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear.
Truth will, at length, reach its aim  and do its work.' The
faithful defence of the most bitterly contested doctrines has, for
centuries, helped to keep millions sound in the faith, and has
reclaimed many that had wandered.  This very time of ours
has seen the revival of the faith of our Church from all the
thraldom of rationalism. In the masses of the people, and
among the greatest theologians of the age, intense faith has
been reproduced in the very doctrines of the Confession, which
find the greatest obstacles in the weakness of human nature
or in the pride of the heart of man.
But if we must have a Creed, it is sometimes urged, why
have one less comprehensive than Christianity in its widest
sense? Why have a Creed which will exclude from a particular
church, any man whom  we acknowledge possibly to be a
Christian?  Why exclude from  the Church mili-.Wide Creeds.
tant, or from our part of it, the man we expect to
meet in the glories of the Church triumphant? Does not such
a course set up a claim for the particular Church, as if it were
the Church universal?  Does it not substitute a sectarian
orthodoxy for a Christian one? This theory, which logically
runs into the assertion that no particular church should exclude
from its communion any but those who, it is prepared to assert,
will certainly be lost, is, if fairly put, hardly specious, and in
the adroitness of the many ways in which it actually meets
us is merely specious. It goes upon a body of false assumptions.  The Church is not merely designed, as this theory
assumes, to bring into outward association, men who are to get
to heaven, but its object is to shed upon the race every kind
of blessing in the present life. The Church is bound to have
regard in her whole work, and in her whole sphere, to her
entire mission —even'though it should require the exclusion
of a man whose imbecility, ignorance, and erratic perverseness
God may forgive, but which would ruin the Chuirch.




190         CONSERVATIVE REFORNATIONr.
WTVhat is Christianity in its "widest" sense? How " wide"
must it be?  Is MAohammedanism  a corrupt Christianity?
Is every Unitarian, every Pelagian, every Swedenborgian, lost?
Has a " wide " Christianity, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper?
If it has, it excludes Elizabeth Fry, and Joseph John Gurney,
because they were Friends. If it has not, it tramples on our
Lord's commands. Can a particular Church which holds that
Immersion is not a necessary mode, be the home of a man who
teaches that it is? As long as there is a man in the world who
wishes to make Christianity " wider" than you do, you must
yield, unless you feel. sure that the man must be lost. NVhat!
will you have your Church so narrow, that he who is to get to
heaven shall not be of it? Never, if you wish to be consistent.
The moment you do it, you have your Church militant
which excludes a part of the Church triumphant.
But the theory assumes another great fallacy —which is,
that there is some fixed standard of responsibility, some ascerFallaciesoftthe tainable minimum of what is necessary to s-lvaargument.   tion, in the case of each man. But there is no such
standard: the responsibility has a wide range, for it embraces,
except in the extremest cases of ignorance and weakness, far
more than is necessary for the salvation of eve)ry man. M2  ch is
required from him to whom much is given. HIe only has merely
the responsibility which belongs to every man, who has no more
than that which is given to every man. He who has all the
opportunity of knowing God's whole truth, and God's whole
will, will not be saved on the standard of the Caffre or the
Digger. To make that which is essential to every man the
standard, to put it at the minimum at which any creature
could be saved, would be to encourage the lowering of the
faith and life of millions, to reach at best a few cases. But
even in this minimum, particular Churches would differ  a and
still some would exclude from  the Church militant, those
whom  others regarded as possibly part of the Church triumphant.
There is another fallacy involved in this theory. The Creed
does not, as this theory assumes, exclude from membership those
who merely have a defective faith -it is only those who teach




EXCOMMUNICATION-FORCE AND EXTENT.  19i
against a part of the faith or deny it publicly whom it shuts out.
Iginorance and mental imbecility may prevent many from conmprehending certain parts of a system, but no particular church,
however rigid, designs to exclude such from its Communion.
The theory ignores the fact that the Church should make
the standard of faith, and morals, the highest possible, not the.
lowest. She should lead men, not to the least faith, the least
holiness which makes salvation possible, but to the very highest-she should not encourage the religion whose root is a
selfish fear of hell, a selfish craving of heaven, but she should
plant that religion to which pure truth is dear for its own
sake, which longs for the fullest illumination, which desires
not the easy road, but the sure one.
This theory, too, in asserting that there is a false assumption of catholicity in such exclusions as it condemns, forgets
that the only discipline in the Ch-urch Universal is that now
exercised by the particular Churches.  A  pure particular
Church is not a sect, but is of the Church Catholic.  The particular Church must meet its own responsibility -it claims no
m:ore than the right to exclude from its own cor-  Force and e
munion - and does not pretend to force any other tentofexcomnunication.
particular Church to respect its discipline.  If we
exclude a man for what we believe to be heresy, that does not
prevent his union with another part of the Church which
regards his view as orthodox.  The worship of what we believe to be a wafer, may exclude a man from our Communion,
but it will prepare for him a welcome to the Church of Rome,
which believes that wafer to be incarnate God. There such a
man belongs.  His exclusion does not deny that a man may
believe in Transubstantiation and yet be saved. Nor let it be
forgotten that no excommunication is valid unless it be authorized of God. All the fulminations of all the particular Churches
on earth combined cannot drive out of God's kingdom the
man he is pleased to keep in it.  If the excommunication be
righteous, no man dare object to it; if it be unrighteous, the
man has not been excluded by it from the Church militant.
INo man can be really kept or forced out of the Church militant except by God's act or his own.




192          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Let us now test the principle by a particular case.  The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the one which in the whole compass of Lutheran  doctrine has been most objected to on the
ground just stated. The objector to specific Creeds asks,
whether the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacrament is a part of
~Christian orthodoxy, or only of Lutheran orthodoxy?  We
reply, that it is a part of both.  Lutheran orthodoxy, if it be
really orthodoxy, is, of necessity, Christian  orthodoxy, for
there is no other.  The Lutheran doctrinal system, if it be
orthodox, is, of necessity, Scriptural. and Christian.  If we
admit that the doctrine of the Sacrament taught by our Church
is taught also in the New Testament, the error to which it is
opposed is, of course, inconsistent with the New Testament,
and, therefore, with Christianity. Either the Lutheran doctrine on the Sacrament is Christian, or it is not.  If it be not
Christian, then it is not orthodoxy; if it be Christian, then
the opposite of it is, of necessity, not Christian.  As we understand the questioner to reason with us on our own ground,
and to grant our supposition, for argument's sake, we regard
his question as really answering itself, as we cannot suppose
that he maintains, that two conflicting systems can both be
sound, two irreconcilable statements both truthful, two doctrines, destructive of each other, both orthodox.
X  But, inasmuch as this exact construction of the drift of the
question makes the answer to it so obvious, we are inclined to
think that its point is somewhat different, and that what is
meant is, Whether it be necessary to a man's being a Christian
in general, or only to his being a Lutheran Christian, that he
should be sound in this doctrine?  To this we reply that, to
Whom may the perfect ideal of a Christian in general, it is
w-e recognize as essential that he should embrace the whole faith
Chlristias?    of the gospel, and that defective or false faith in
regard to the sacraments, so far mars, as defective faith on any
point will, the perfect ideal.  All other things being equal, the
Christian, who does not hold the New Testament doctrine of
the Sacrament, is by so much, short of the perfect ideal
reached, on this point, by the man who does hold that doctrine; or, supposing, as we do suppose, that this doctrine is




CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH  OF ROME.  193
purely held by our Church, by so much does the non-Lutheran
Christian fall short of the full life of faith of the Lutheran
Christian. It is in the " unity of the faith" that we are to
" come to the fulness of the stature of perfect men in Christ
Jesus."  But the question still seems so easy of solution, that
we apprehend another point may be: Can a man be a Christian, who does not receive what, on our supposition, as a
Lutheran, is the New Testament orthodoxy in regard to the
Sacrament? If this be the point, we unhesitatingly reply,
that a man may here be in unconscious error, and be a Christian. A man, who sees that the New Testament teaches a
doctrine, and yet rejects it, is not a Christian.  The man who
never has thoroughly examined the New Testament evidence
on the subject, and this is the position of many, is so far lacking in honesty.  The man who grossly misrepresents the doctrine, and coarsely vilifies it, is guilty of a great crime. Iere
the decision involves no difficulty, and yet it is one of the
hardest practical questions to determine, what amount of inconsistency with the demands of Christianity is necessary to prove
a man to be no Christian; and this difficult question pertains
not alone to the faith of the Christian, but to his life; it is
both doctrinal and practical.  Certainly, there are many points
of a self-consistent New Testament morality, in which men
come fearfully short, whom we yet think we are bound to consider as Christians -weak, inconsistent, and in great peril, yet
still Christians. It is hazardous, indeed, to provide for any
degree of aberration in Christian morals or in Christian faith.
Our Church is a liberal Church, in the true sense; she is liberal
with what belongs to her, but- not liberal in giving away her
Master's goods, contrary to His order. The truth, in its
minutest part, she does not trifle with. For herself and her
children, she must hold it with uncompromising fidelity. But
she heartily believes, that, even where some portion of the
truth is lost or obscured, God may, through what is left, perpetuate a Christian life. She believes that God has His own
blessed ones, kept through His almighty grace, through all
Christendom. She believes, that, in the Romish Church, Pascal and Fenelon, and many of the obscure and unknown, were
13




194         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.r
true followers of Jesus; she believes that Christ may preserve
many of His own there now. Even in considering the Pope
as in his claims and assumptions an Antichrist, she does
not exclude him as a person from the possibility of salvation;
but she dares not let go her truthful testimony against Romish
Christians in errors. She dare not let her children think that it
the Church of is a matter of indifference, whether they hold to
justification by faith, or justification by works,
or, as regards the Sacrament, hold to the opus operattom, Transubstantiation, and the Mass, or to the pure doctrine she confesses.  And here we throw  back upon such an objector his
own question. I-He acknowledges that Luther was a Christian
before he left the Church of Rome, and that God has His own
saints, even under the corrupt system  of that Church.  Are
his own views, then, against the opus operatum, against Transubstantiation and the Mass, a part of Christian orthodoxy, or
only of Protestant orthodoxy? Shall our Protestant creeds exclude
a man from our Protestant Churches and Pulpits, because he
is a Romanist, who, we yet acknowledge, may be God's child,
and an heir of heaven?  As to the great Communions, whose
distinctive life originated in the Era of the Reformation, the
case is no less clear.  We need hardly say how heartily we
acknqowledge, that, in the Evangelical Protestant Churches, in
their ministry and people, there are noble exemplifications of
Christian grace. Nevertheless, we do not believe that there is
a Christian living, who would not be more perfect as a Christian, in a pure New Testament faith in regard to the Sacraments, than he can be in human error regarding them, and we
believe that pure New Testament faith to be the faith which
is confessed by our Church.  At the same time, we freely
acknowledge, that, as Channing, though a Unitarian, was
Ch~ristilnl in more lovely morally than many a Trinitarian, so,
the Protestant  much more, may some particular Christians, who
Ohurches.
are in error on the matter of the Sacraments, far
surpass in Christian grace some individuals, who belong to a
Church, whose sacramental faith is pure.  Some men are on'the level of their systems, some rise above them, some fall below
them.




COURSE OF ERROR IN THE CHURCH.    195
A human body may not only live, but be healthy, in which
one lobe of the lungs is gone; another may be sickly and die,
in which the lungs are perfect. Nevertheless, the complete
lungs are an essential part of a perfect human' body.  We still
truly call a man a man, though he may have lost arms and
legs; we still call a hand a hand, though it may have lost a
finger, or be distorted.  While, therefore, we freely call systems'and men Christian, though they lack a sound sacramental doctrine, we none the less consider that doctrine essential to a
complete Christian system, and to the perfect faith of a Christian man.  The man who has lost an arm, we love none the
less. If he has lost it by carelessness, we pity his misfortune,
yet we do not hold him free from censure.  But, when he insists, that, to have two arms, is a blemish, and proposes to cut
off one of ours, then we resist him. Somewhere on earth, if the
gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church, there is a
Communion whose fellowship involves no departure from  a
solitary article of Christian faith - and no man should be willing to be united with any other Communion.  The man who
is sure there is no such Communion is bound to put forth the
effort to originate it.  He who knows of no Creed which is
true to the Rule of Faith, in all its articles, should at once prepare one that is. Every Christian is bound either to find a
Church on Earth, pure in its whole faith, or to make one. On
the other hand, he who says that the Church is wrong, confesses in that very assertion, that if the Church be right, he is
an errorist; and that in asking to share her communion while
he yet denies her doctrine, he asks her to adopt the principle
that error is to be admitted to her bosom, for as an errorist
and only as an errorist can she admit him.
But the practical result of this principle is one on which
there is no need of speculating; it works in one  Course of Eror
unvarying way.  When error is admitted into the il the Church.
Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are
always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say
to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and
weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of
others.  The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course




196         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves
to be spared interference with our private opinions.  Indulged
in this for a time, error goes on to assert equcal rights.  Truth
and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do
nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would
be partiality.  It is bigotry to assert any superior right for
the truth.  We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of
the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship.  What the
friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental.
Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential.
Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of
the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate
powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.  From  this point error soon
goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.  Truth
started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and
that only for a time.  Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points.  It puts men into positions, not as
at first in spite of their departure from the Church's faith, but
in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others
to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.
So necessary, so irresistible are these facts, and the principles
they throw into light, that we find in history the name of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, from the hour of its first distinctive use, linked for centuries with one unvarying feature
everywhere.  Divided among nationalities, speaking diverse
tongues, developing different internal tendencies within certain
Fidelit of the limits, and without absolute identity as to the
Fidelity  of  the  "
Lutheran Church universal recognition of certain books as standards
to er Confssion. of doctrine, we find one unchanging element; the
Evangelical Lutheran Church accepted the Augsburg Confession as scriptural throughout. Such a phenomenon as an
Evangelical Lutheran claiming the right of assailing a doctrine
taught in the Augsburg Confession was unknown.
When Spener, Francke, and the original Pietistic school
sought to develop the spiritual life of the Church, they did it
by enforcing the doctrines of the Church in their living power.




CHARACTER OF RATIONALISM.                   197
They accomplished their work by holding more firmly and
exhibiting more completely in all their aspects the doctrines of
the Reformation, confessed at Augsburg. The position of them
all was that the doctrines of our Church are the doctrines of
God's Word, that no changes were needed, or could be allowed
in them; that in doctrine her Reformation was complete, and
that her sole need was by sound discipline to maintain, and by
holy activityIto exhibit, practically, her pure faith.  These men
of God and the great theologians they influenced, and the noble
missionaries they sent forth, held the doctrines of the Church
firmly.  They wrought those great works, the praises of
which are in all Christendom, through these very doctrines.
They did not mince them, nor draw subtle distinctions by
which to evade or practically ignore them, but, alike upon the
most severely controverted, as upon the more generally recognized, doctrines of our Churcl, they were thoroughly Lutheran.
They held the Sacramental doctrines of our Church tenaciously,
and defended the faith of the Church in regard to Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, as they did all her other doctrines. It
was Semler and Bahrdt, Gabler, Wegscheider and Bretschneider, and men of their class, who first invented, or acted on, the
theory that men could be Lutherans, and assail the doctrines
of the Church.  Better men than those whose names we have
mentioned were influenced and perverted in different degrees
by the rationalistic spirit of the time. They did not assail the
doctrines of the Church, but they either passed them by in
silence, or defended them with a reservedness practically equivalent to a betrayal. It looked as if the edifice of our fathers',
faith might be utterly overthrown.  As Deism  was eating
away the spiritual life of the Episcopal Church of England
and of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; as Socinianism was
laying waste the Independent Churches of the same lands, as at
a later period it rolled over INew England; as Atheism swept
away Romanism  in France; so did Rationalism
Character of
rear itself in the Lutheran Church. Established Rationalism.
as our Church was on God's Word, what could
move her but to take from her that Word, or to lead her to
some new and false mode of interpreting it?  This was the




1-38        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
I
work of Rationalism-to pretend to hold the Word, but to
corrupt its sense, so that the Confession and the Word should
no longer seem to correspond.  The mischief seemed to be
incurable; but God did not forsake his own work. The evil
brought its own cure. The mischief wrought until it was
found that the idea of men calling themselves by the name of
a Church, and yet claiming the right to assail its doctrines,
was the idea of Infidelity in the bud   it was Belial allowed
to take shelter under the hem of the garment of Christ.  Any
man who will read thoughtfully the history of Rationalism in
Europe, and of the Unionism  which is now  too often its
stronghold, will not wonder at the earnestness of true Lutheranism in Germany, and of Synods which are in affinity with it,
in maintaining a pure Confession. He will have no difficulty
in comprehending their indisposition to tolerate indifferentism,
rationalism, and heresy, under the pretence of union. They
cannot call bitter sweet, while their lips are yet wet with the
wormwood which was forced upon them.
The history of Rationalism in our Church will show certain
phases, of which we will offer a hint:
I. In the first place, the doctrine of the Church was conceded to be true, but its relative importance was detracted
History of Ra- from. It was argued that doctrinal theories should
tionalisin.    be thrown into the background, and that directly
practical and experimental truths, separated from their true
connections in the profounder doctrines, should be exclusively
urged.  (Pseudo-Pietism and Fanaticism.)
II. From an impaired conviction of the value of these conceded doctrines, grew  a disposition to ignore the doctrines
which divided the Lutheran and Reformed Communions. The
Divine Word was not to be pressed in cases in which there was a
reluctance to accept its teachings. From this arose Unionistic
efforts on the basis of a general Protestant orthodoxy, and an
assimilation on the part of the Lutheran Church to the Reformed basis, tendency, and doctrine.
III. From the disposition to undervalue and ignore these
doctrines, arose the feeling that if they could be entirely set
aside, there would be a great gain to the cause of unity. Why




HISTORY  OF RATIONALISM.                 199
agree to differ, when, by a free criticism, the very causes of
differences could be thrown out of the way? These distinctive
doctrines originated in too strict a conception of the inspiration and weight of the Bible language.' Why not liberalize
its interpretation? Thus arose the earlier and more moderate
rationalism of Semler and of his School.
IV. Then came the beginning of the end. Men, still in the
outward communion of the Church, claimed the right to submit all its doctrines to their critical processes. Refined and
Vulgar Rationalism, mainly distinguished by their degrees of
candor, divide'd, the ministry, carried away the Reformed
Church, and, to a large extent, even the Romish, with our own,
broke up the liturgical, catechetical, and hymnological life, and
destroyed the souls of the people. Unblushing infidelity took
on it the livery of the Church. Men had rejected the Faith of
the Rule, and were still good Lutherans. Why not reject the
Rule of Faith, and be good Lutherans? The Faith of those
men of the olden time, men who were, by more than two centuries, wiser than their fathers, had proved to be mere human
speculation. Why might not the Rule be? They soon settled
that question, and the Bible was flung after the Confession, and
men were allowed to be anything they pleased to be, and to bear
any name they chose. The less Lutheran they were in the old
sense of the word, the more were they Lutherans in the new
sense. They not only insisted on being called Lutherans, but
insisted they were the only genuine Lutherans. Had not Luther
disenthralled the human mind?  Was not the Reformation
simply an assertion of the powers of human reason, and of the
right of private judgment? Was it not an error of Luther's
dark day, that, when he overthrew the fear of the Pope, he left
the fear of God —which simply substitutes an impalpable
Papacy for a visible one? Would not Luther, if he had only
been so happy as to have lived to read their writings, certainly
have been brought over to the fullest liberty? Who could doubt
it? So out of the whole work of the Reformer, the only positive result which they regarded him as having reached was
embraced in the well-known lines, which there is, indeed, no
evidence that he wrote, but which are so far in advance of




200         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
everything in his indubitably genuine works, as to be, in their
eyes, supra-canonical, to wit:
Wer nicht liebt Wein, Weib und Gesang,
Der bleibt ein Narr sein Leben lang.
This is all they have left as fundamental in the Reformer's
creed. Such is the Genesis, and such the Revelationof the
European History of the sort of Lutheranism which claims the
right to mutilate and assail the faith of the Church. Ought
we not to tremble at it and take heed how we make a single
step toward its terrible fallacy and its fearful results?
In the great mercy of God a reaction and revival in the true
estortion of sense is taking place. It goes on in the Old World.
the Church It goes on in the New.  The work is going on, and
Faith.  will go on, until the old ways have been found -
till the old banner again floats on every breeze, and the old
faith, believed, felt, and lived, shall restore the Church to her
primal glory and holy strength.  God speed the day! For our
Church's name, her history, her sorrows, and her triumphs,
her glory in what has been, her power for the good yet to be,
all are bound up with the principle that purity in the faith
is first of all, such a first, that without it there can be no true
second.




VI.
THE CONFESSIONS OF THE CONSERVATIVE
REFORMATION.
THE PRIMARY CONFESSION. THE CONFESSION OF
AUGSBURG.*
IT  is with  a solemn  and holy  delight we have learned  to
traverse the venerable edifice, which the hands of our fathers
erected in the sixteenth century. There is none of the glitter
which catches and fascinates the childish  eye, but   Spirit of the
all possesses that solid grandeur which fills the Reformation.
soul. Every part harmonizes with the whole, and conspires in
* The Bibliography we propose to give, in the notes to this dissertation, is
not a general one, but is confined to the works which are in the hands of the
writer, and, with a few exceptions, in his library. It will be found, however,
to embrace all that are of the highest importance, so far as the diligence of the
collector, stretching itself over years, has been able to bring them together.  We
give in this note only the Bibliography of the Bibliography of the Confession.
I. Notices in works of a general character.
BUDDEi Isagoge (1730) 426, 437.-NOESSELT, J. A.: Anweisung (3d ed. 1818)
ii. 272. —PLANCK, G. J.: Einleitung (1795) ii. 592. -DANZ: Encyclopoedie (1832)
415. -WALCH: Bibliotheca Theologica (1757) i. 327-362, iv. 1099. -NIEMEYER:
Prediger Bibliothek (1784) iii. 63-69. —NOESSELT: Kenntniss Bucher (1790)
Q 507, 508.-FUHRMANN: Handbuch der Theolog. Literat. (1819) ii. a. 500, 507.ERSCH: Literatur der Theologie. (1822) 119.-DANZ: Universal WSrterbuch.
(1843) 96, 186, 921. Supplem. 22. -WINER: Handbuch. (3d ed. 1838) i. 323, 572.
ii. 316. Supplem. (1842) "53.-KAYSERS: Index Librorum, Confession, etc.
II. Special notices of its Literature.
PFAFF, C. M.: Introd. in Histor. Theolog. Liter. Tubing. 1726. iii. 385-416. —
Jo. ALB. FABRICIUS: Centifolium Lutheranum (Hamb. 1728-30. ii. 8) i. 104-144,
201




202             CONSERVATIVE REFORMlATIOMr
the proof that their work  was not to pull down, but to erect.
The spirit of the Reformation  was no destroying angel, who
sat and scowled with a malignant joy over the desolation which
spread  around.  It was overshadowed  by  the wings of that
Spirit who brooded  indeed  on the waste  of waters and the
wilderness of chaos, but only that he might unfold the germs
of life that lay hidden there, and bring forth light and order
from  the darkness of the yet formless and void creation.  It
is vastly more important, then, to know what the Reformation
retained than what it overthrew; for the overthrow  of error,
though often an indispensable prerequisite to the establishment
of truth, is not truth itself; it may clear the foundation, simply to substitute one error for another, perhaps a greater for a
less.  Profoundly  important, indeed, is the history  of that
which  the Reformation  accomplished  against the  errors of
Romanism, yet it is as nothing to the history of that which it
accomplished for itself.  The overthrow  of Romanism  was not
ii. 583-.606.-Bibliotheca RErIMANNIANA (1731) p. 403.-WALCHII, J. G.: Introductio in Libr. Symbol.  Jena, 1732. 196-257. -WALCHII, J. G.: Religions.
streitigkeiten der Evang. Luth. Kirche.  Jena, 2d ed. 1733-1739. i. 35. iv. 4.WYALCH, J. G.: Chr. Concordienb.  Jena, 1750. p. 21.- BAUMGARTEN, S. J.: Erlauterungen der Symb. Schriften.  Halle, 1761. p. 54-60.-WALCaII, C. G. F.:
Breviar. Theolog. Symb. Eccl. Luth. Gottingen, 1765. p. 69-75. - BAUiMGARTEN,
S. J.: Geschichte der Religions-partheyen.  -Halle, 1866. p. 1150-1153. -J. W.
FEUERLEN: Bibliotheca Symbolica —edid. J. BARTH. RIEDERER (Norimb. 1768.)
8. p. 70 seq. —KOECHER: Bibliotheca theologiae symbolicae et catecheticse itemque liturgica.  Guelferb. 1751. 114-137.-H. W. ROTERMUND: Geschichte, etc.,
(1829) p. 192-203. -SEMLERI: Apparatus ad Libr. Symbol. Eccl. Luth.  Halae
Mag. 1775. pp. 39, 42. -BErK, C. D.: Commentar. histor. decret. relig. chr. et
formulae Lutheriae.  Leipz., 1801. p. 148, 794. -TITTMANN, J. A. H.;- Instit.
Symbolic. ad Sentent. Eccles. Evang. Lipsiae, 1811. p. 92. - UKERT: Luther's
Leben. Gotha, 1817. i. 227-293. -FUIJHRMANN: Handworterbuch der Christ.
Relig. u. Kirchengesch.  Halle, 1826. i. 537.  YELIN: Versuch einer historliter. Darst. der Symbol. Schriften. Niirnberg, 1829. p. 67. -PFAFF, K.: Geschichte des Reichst. zu Augsburg. Stuttg., 1830. p. v.-x. -BRETSCHNEIDER: Systemat. Entwickelung.  Leipz., (1804). 4th ed. 1841. 81-86. - C. A. HASE: Libr.
Symb. Lips., 1827 (1845) proleg. iii. —J. T. L. DANZ: Die Augsb. Confess., etc.
(1829) 1-4.-KOLLNER: Symb. der Luther. Kirche. Hamburg, 1837. p. 150152.- GUEREKE, H. E. F.: Symbolik (1839), 3d Aufl. Leipz., 1861. 104-110. -
MULLER, J. T.: Symb. Biicher. Stuttg., 1848. xv. xvii. —MATTHrs, K.: Compar.
Symbolik.  Leipz., 1854. p. 76. —HERZOG: Real Encyclop.  Hamb., 1864. i.
234.-HOFfMANN: Rud. Symbolik. Leipz., 1857. p. 234. -CORPUS -REORMATORUM, (1857), vol. xxvi. Pars Prior. 101-111. 201-204.




SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION.                  203
its primary object; in a certain sense it was not its object at
all. Its object was to establish truth, no matter what might
rise or fall in the effort. IHad the Reformation assumed the
form which some who have since borne the name of Protestants would have given it, it would. not even have been a splondid failure; the movement which has shaken and regenerated
a world would have ended in few miserable squabbles, a few
autos dCa fe; and the record of a history, which daily makes
the hearts of thousands burn within them, would have been
exchanged for some such brief notice as this: that an irascible
mnnk, named -Luder, or Luther, and a few insane coadjutors,
having foolishly attempted to overthrow the holy Roman See,
and remaining obstinate in their pernicious and detestable
heresies, were burned alive, to the glory of God and the Virgin
Mary, and to the inexpressible satisfaction of all the faithful.
The mightiest weapon which the Reformation employed against
Rome was, not Rome's errors, but Rome's truths.  It professed
to make no discoveries, to find no unheard-of interpretations;
but taking, the Scriptures in that very sense to which the
greatest of her writers had assented, uncovering the law and
the gospel of God which she retained, applying them  as her
most; distinguished and most honored teachers had applied
them, though she had made them  of none effect by her traditions, the Reformation took into its heart the life-stream of sixteen centuries, and came forth in the stature and strength of a
Christianity, grown from the infancy of primitive ages, to the
ripened manhood of that maturer period.  There was no fear
of truth, simply because Rome held it, and iho disposition to
embrace error, because it might be employed with advantage
to Rome's injury.  While it established broadly; and deeply
the right of private judgment, it did not make that abuse of
it which has since been so colmmon. From the position, that
the essential truths of the word of God are clear to any Christian mind that examines them properly, it did not leap to the
conclusion, that a thousand generations or a thousand examiners were as likely, or more likely, to be wrong thari one.
They allowed no authority save to the word of God, but they
listened respectfully to the witness of believers of all time.




201        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIONV
The tone which is imparted to the mind and heart, by the
theology of the Reformation, is just what we now most need.
But where are we to commence, it may be asked, in the infinite,lmportance of variety of works that have been written about the
the Confesions. Reformation and its theology? "Art is long and
life is fleeting."  And how is the clergyman to find the books,
or buy them when found, or read them when bought, destitute,
as he is too wont to be, alike of money and time? We reply,
that an immense treasure lies in a narrow compass, and within
the reach of every minister in our land. By a careful study
of the symbolical books of our Church, commencing with the
Augsburg Confession and its Apology, a more thorough understanding of the history, difficulties, true genius, and triumphs
of the Reformation will be attained, than by reading everything that can be got, or that has ever been written about that
memorable movement. It is, indeed, too much the fashion
now to read about things, to the neglect of the great original
sources themselves. In general literature much is written and
read about Homer and Shakspeare, until these great poets
attract less attention than their critics. In theology it is the
prevailing practice to have students read introductions to the
Bible, and essays on various features of it, to such a degree that
the Bible itself, except in an indirect form, is hardly studied at
all, and the student, though often introduced to it, never fairly
makes its acquaintance. All these illustrative works, if well
executed, have their value; but that value presupposes such a
general acquaintance with the books to which they serve as a
guide, as is formed by every man for himself who carefully
examines them.  The greatest value of every work of the
human mind, after all, generally lies in that which needs no
guide, no critic, no commentator. Their labors may display
more clearly, and thus enhance, this value, and are not to be
despised; but their subject is greater than themselves, and
they are useful only when they lead to an accurate and critical
knowledge of that with which a general acquaintance has been
formed by personal examination.  It is now conceded, for
example, that in the order of nature the general knowledge
of language must precede an accurate, grammatical acquaint



RELATIONS TO THE REFORMATION.                    205
ance with it.  They may 1-e formed indeed together, part preceding part, but if they must be separated, the general is better than the scientific. If, in a library, there were two cases,
one containing all the Latin grammars and, the other all the
Latin classics, and one boy was kept six years to the classics
and another six years to the grammars, the first would understand the language practically, the second would understand
nothing, not even the grammar.
And this principle it is easy to apply as regards its bearings
on those great masterly treatises which form our
Relations   to
Symbolical books.  They are parts of the Reforma- the Reformation.
tion itself: not merely witnesses in the loose sense
in which histories are, but the actual results, the quintessence
of the excited theological and moral elements of the time. In
them  you are brought into immediate contact with that sublime convulsion itself.  Its strength and its weakness, its fears
and its hopes, the truths it exalted, the errors and abuses it
threw  down, are here presented in the most solemn and
strongly authenticated form  in which they gave them to posterity.  They are nerves running from  the central seat of
thought of that ancient, glorious, and immortal time, to us,
who form  the extremities.  To see the force of every word,
the power of every allusion, requires an intimate acquaintance
with the era and the men, in forming which the student will
be led delightfully into a thorough communion and profound
sympathy with that second greatest period in human history.
The child of our Church will find occasion to exult, not only
in those brighter parts of our history and of our doctrines,
whose lustre fills every eye, but even in those particulars on
which ignorance, envy, and jealousy have based their powerless attacks;-will find, when he reaches a thorough understanding of them, new occasion to utter, with a heart swelling
with an honorable pride, " I, too, am a Lutheran."  We are
not such gross idolaters, nor so ignorant of the declarations of
these great men themselves, as to imagine that they left nothing
for their posterity to do. Whether their posterity has done
it, and done it well, is, however, a very distinct question. To
assume that, merely because we follow them in order of time,




206         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
we have gone farther than they in truth, is to lay the foundation of a principle more absurd and pernicious than the worst
doctrine of the Church of Rome, and is as foolish as to say, that
the child of to-day, four years of age, is a greater astronomer
than Newton, because he lives in the century after him.
But while we concede that we may and ought to advance,
we wish explicitly to say, that we mean by advance, progress
in the same direction.  We are aware of no particular in which
advance demands, or is even compatible with a desertion of
the fundamental principles of our fathers.  They may have
N.otureof true made mistakes, and nothing but mistakes; they
progress.  may have known nothing, and we may know every
thing; but we have seen no evidence that such is the case, and
until it be brought before us, we must beg indulgence for our
skepticism.  This much we can safely assert, that those who
understand best the theology of the Reformation, have most
confidence in it, and the strongest affection for it; to them it
seems still to stand in its original glory, firm as the eternal
mountains.  That which strikes them painfully, as they grow
more and more familiar with that stout heart, whose lifeblood is warming us, is that we have not advanced as we
should; that though we have the shoulders of these giants of
a former world, from  which, alas! a flood of infidelity and
theological frivolity seems to separate us, on which to stand,
there are so many things in which we do not see as far as they.
It is because slothfulness or ignorance prevents us from occupying that position to which they would lift us, because taking
a poor and narrow view of their labors, and measuring them
by some contemptible little standard, sometimes one set up by
their enemies, and yet oftener by those who are more injurious
than their enemies, their superficial and injudicious professed
friends, we permit our minds to be prejudiced against them.
A  simple heart is of more value than mere science in the
apprehension of religious truth; and never has there been witnessed such a union of gigantic powers, with such a child-like
spirit, as among the theologians of the sixteenth century.  In
vain do we increase the facilities for the attainment of knowledge, if we do not correspondingly strengthen the temper of




SPIRIT OF OUR TIME.                   207
rlind and heart essential to its acquisition. It by no means,
therefore, follows, that even minds of the same order in our
own day, would go beyond the point to which the Reformation was carried; because circumstances more embarrassing
than those of the sixteenth century may now lie around the
pathway of theological truth. Flattery is a more dangerous
thing than bodily peril; a vain and superficial tendency will
do more mischief than even an excess of the supernatural element, and the spirit of the Romish Church, and the  Spirit of our
prejudices insensibly imbibed in her communion, time adverse to
are not more pernicious as a preparation for the thoro"gh.
examination of divine truth, than is a cold, self-confident, and
rationalizing mind. If we do not contemptuously reject all
aid in search after truth, to whom can we go with more confidence than to the great authors of the Reformation?  We
know them at least to be sincere; no hireling scribblers, writing to tickle the fancy of the time; we know them to be the
thorough masters of their subjects, conscious that every word
would be examined and every argument fiercely assailed by
their foes. Every doctrine they established by the word of
God, and confirmed by the witness of his Church. Every
objection which is now urged, was then brought to bear upon
the truth.  Controversy has added nothing to its stores; they
knew perfectly those superficial, miscalled reasons which make
men now so confident in saying, that had the Reformers only
lived in our time, they would have abandoned much to which
they held. They knew them, but they lived and died unchanging in their adherence to what they had taught as truth. It
is a cheap and popular way of getting rid of anything in the
theology of the Reformation which is not palatable, by pretending that it is a remnant of Popery, as Rationalists evade
the force of Scripture declarations, by saying they are accommodations to Jewish prejudices.  Among these remnants of
Popery, have for instance been enumerated the doctrines of
the Trinity, and the deity of Christ, of the Atonement, of
eternal punishment, in short, of every thing which is distinctive of Evangelical Christianity. No position could be more
violent in regard to all the doctrines of our Confession. They




20S        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
not only can be demonstrated from Scripture, but can be shown
to have been fully received in the Church before Popery had a
name or a being. It would be far more natural to suppose,
that in the fierce and imbittered strife with that gigantic systeni of Error, a part of the Protestant party would be driven to
deny some truths, by whose abuse the Church of Rome strove
to maintain her power. The insinuation of Romish influence
is a sword with a double edge, and is almost sure to wound
those who handle it; it is, in fact, ordinarily but the refuge
of a sectarian spirit, which tries to accomplish by exciting
odium, what it failed to do by argument.
But are those Confessions, after all, of any value to the
American and American Lutheran preacher? it may be asked.
German.    We cannot conceal our sorrow, that that term,
" American," should be made so emphatic, dear and hallowed
though it be to our heart. Why should we break or weaken
the golden chain which unites us to the high and holy associations of our history as a Church, by thrusting into a false
position a word which makes a national appeal? Is there a
conflict between the two, when carried to their very farthest
limits? Must Lutheranism be shorn of its glory to adapt it
to our times or our land? No! Our land is great, and wide,
and glorious, and destined, we trust, under the sunlight of her
free institutions, long to endure; but our faith is wider, and
greater, and is eternal. The world owes more to the Reformation than to America; America owes more to it than to herself. The names of our Country and of our Church should
excite no conflict, but blend harmoniously together. We are
placed here in the midst of sectarianism, and it becomes us, not
lightly to consent to swell that destructive torrent of separatism which threatens the welfare of pure Christianity on our
shores more than all other causes combined. We are surrounded by the children of those Churches, which claim an
origin in the Reformation. We sincerely respect and love
them; we fervently pray that they may be increased in every
labor of love, and may be won more and more to add to that
precious truth, which they set forth with such power, those no
less precious doctrines which, in the midst of so wide an aban



AMERICAN AND  GERMAN.                      209
donment of the faith once delivered to the saints, God has, in
our Confession, preserved to us. But how shall we make ourselves worthy of their respect, and lift ourselves out of the
sphere of that pitiful little sectarianism which is crawling continually over all that is churchly and stable?  We must begin
by knowing ourselves, and being true to that knowledge. Let
us not, with our rich coffers, play the part of beggars, and ask
favors where we have every ability to impart them. No
Church can maintain her self-respect or inspire respect in
others, which is afraid or ashamed of her own history, and
which rears a dubious fabric on the ignorance of her ministry
and of her members.  Whatever flickerings of success may
play around her, she will yet sink to rise no more, and, worse
than this, no honest man will lament her fall; for however
such a moral dishonesty may be smoothed over, every reflecting man sees that such a Church is an organized lie, with a
ministry, congregations, churches, and societies united to sustain a lie. From this feeling a gracious Providence has almost
wholly preserved our Church in this country.  To whatever
extent want of information or the pressure of surrounding
denominations may have produced the practical departure of
individuals from  some of the principles of our Church, our
common origin and our glorious annals have formed a bond of
sympathy.  Struggling against difficulties which would have
crushed a church with less vitality, the Lutheran Communion
in this country has always preserved some honorable feeling
of her own dignity and proper value.  The salt which has preserved her is Germanic. On these shores she has yet, properly,
little history, comparatively; when she looks toward the realm
of her might and glory, she must cast her eye over the Atlantic
wave, and roll back her thoughts over the lapse of two centuries.  She has been, and is yet, passing through a period of
transition from one language and one national bond to another.
The question of language has interest only so far as it concerns
the question of Church life, and in its bearings on this should
be watched with a tender and trembling interest.  No doubt
there were cases in which the opposition of the earlier Lutherans in this country, to the introduction of the English
14




210         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
language in our Church, arose from narrow views and feelings
simply as Germans, but in yet more instances did it spring
from fears, which our subsequent history has shown not to be
wholly groundless, that Lutheranism itself  our life, our doctrines, our usages - so dear to their hearts, might be endangered by the change.
Whatever, then, may be our sentiments as to the judgment
they displayed, let us do honor, at least, to their motives.
They saw that the language of our land contained no Lutheran
literature, no history just to the claims of our Church, no spirit
which, on the whole, could be said fully to meet the genius of
our Church.  They feared that, under these circumstances, Lutheranism would melt away, or become the mere creature of
the influences with which it was surrounded. They clung to
their language, therefore, as a rampart which could shut out
for a time the flood which was breaking upon them  each day
with increasing force. For what, then, do we blame them?
Not for their intense love to the Church, or their ardent desire
to preserve it in its purity, nor for that sensitive apprehension
which is always the offspring of affection; not, in a word, that
they were Lutherans indeed. If we blame these venerable
men at all, it is that they were not Lutheran enough; that is,
that, with all their devotion to the Church, they had not
that inspiring confidence which they should have had in the
power of her principles, to triumph eventually over every obstacle.  Would that they could have realized what we believe
most firmly, (though part of it yet lies in the future,) that, after
all the changes of national existence, and of language, all pressure from the churches and the people around us, our holy faith
shall come forth in all her purity and power, eventually to perform, in the great drama in our western realm, a part as important as that which she bore in her original glory in the
history of the world.
And having spoken thus freely in regard to a misapprehension on one side of this question, we shall be equally candid in
speaking the truth upon the other.
It is evident that our American fathers clung to the German
language from no idea that there was any connection between




ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE CHURCH.                   211
Lutheranism  and that language as such-some mysterious
coherence between its sounds and inflections, and the truths
of our Church; so that, in the very nature of the case, and by
an essential necessity, the English language and Lutheranism
could not harmonize together.  It is fanaticism to attempt to
narrow our great Church into an English sect or a German one.
The Lutheran Church is neither English nor German; and
though both should cease to be the tongues of living men, she
cannot pass away. The greatest works of her original literature,
some of her symbols, part of her Church service and hymns,
were in the Latin language; and surely if she can live in a
dead language, she can live in any living one. She has
achieved some of her most glorious victories where other languages are spoken. She sought at an early period to diffuse
her principles among the Oriental Churches, and we will add,
that she is destined, on these shores, in a language which her
fathers knew not, to illustrate more gloriously, because in a
more unfettered form, her true life and spirit, than she has
done since the Reformation.
If the question may be mooted, How far shall we adopt the
principles of the Reformation, and of our earlier  Importance of
Church?  this admits of no discussion: Whether an acquaintance. with the Church.
we should make ourselves thoroughly acquainted
with those principles;- for the rejection even of error, unless
it result from  an enlightened judgment, and a mature intelligent conviction, has no value whatever - nay, is in itself a
worse error than any which it can possibly reject, for it rests
on the foundation on which almost all moral falsehood has
arisen. Let our ministry enter upon a profound study of
the history and of the principles of our Church, and if the result of a ripe judgment shall be any other than an increased
devotion to the first, and an ardent embracing of the second,
we shall feel ourselves bound to re-examine the grounds on
which such an examination has led us to repose with the confidence of a child on that maternal bosom, where so many,
whose names are bright on earth and in heaven, have rested
their dying heads, and have experienced that what she taught




212             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
them  was sufficient, not only to overcome every trial of life, but
every terror of the grave.
First in  place, and first in importance  among  those great
documentary  testimonies  of  the  Church  which  came  forth
Asbrg in the Reformation, is the Augsburg  Confession.
Confession.    The man  of the world  should  feel a deep interest
in  a document which bears to  the whole cause of freedom  as
close a relation as the " Declaration of Independence " does
*Works connected with the history of the Augsburg Confession, chronologically arranged.
1530, (and the works of contemporaries.)
1. LUTHER: Werke (Walch.) xvi. 734-2145.  Leipz. xx. 1-293.-Briefe: De
Wette,iv. 1-180. vi. 112-128. -2. MELANCHTHON: Epistolae etc. (Corp. Reform.)
ii. 1-462.  3. NURENBERG ENVOYS: Briefe: Strobels Miscellan. lit. inhalt. ii.
3-48. iii. 193-220. cf. Fikenscher. -4. Pro. Relig. Christ. res gestae in Comit.
Augustae Vind. hab. 1530. in Cyprian, Beylage vii.  Written by a Roman Catholic during the Diet, and published with the Imperial privilege. -5. IRBucK:
(Pontanus, Heinse) Verzeichniss der Handlung. herausgeg. von Foerstemann.
Archiv. Halle 1831. (Apologia MS.), in refutation of the work just mentioned.
- 6. OSIANDRI, PHILIPPI HASSIAE: Senat. Noremberg. Literae in Camerarii Vit.
Melanchthonis, ed. Strobel. 407-414. -7. SPALATIN: Berichte, in Luther's Werke,
Leipz. xx. 202-212. -8. SPALATIN: Annales Reformationis, published by Cyprian.
Leipz. 1718. 131-289.- 9. MYCONIUS: Ilistoria Reformationis, from 1517-1542,
published by Cyprian, 1718, p. 91, very brief. -10. CAFMERARIUS: Vita Melanchthonis (1566) Strobel. Noesselt, Halae 1777. 119-134. -1555. SLEIDAN: The General History of the Reformation, Englished and continued by Bohun. London,
1689. Fol. 127-140. -1574. WIGAND: Histor. de Augustana Confessione. Regiomont. 1574, in Cyprian Beylag. x. -1576. CHYTRAEUS: Histor. der Aug. Conf.
Rost. 1576. Frankfort 1580.-1578. Do. Latin. Frcf. ad Moen.-1582. Do. Histoire de la Conf. d'Auxpourg. mise en Francois par le Cop. Anvers.-1576.
COELESTINUS: Historia Comitio-rum. Frankf. on the Oder, 1576-77.-(Kirchner,
Selnecker, and Chemnitz): Solida ac vera Confess. August. Historia (against Wolf)
translat. per Godfried.  Lipsiae, 1685, 4to.-1620. SARPI: Histor. Codcil. Trident. London, 1620. 40-45.-1630. BAKIUS,R.: Confessio Augustana triumphans:
das ist die trefflich-sch6ne Geschicht der Wahr. Ungeend. Augsburg Confession.
Magdeb. 1630. -1631. SAUBERT: Miracula Aug. Conf. Norimb. 4to.  1646. CALOvius: Criticus sacer vel Commentar. sup. August. Conf. Lips. 1646, 4to. p. 19-45.
-1654. GOEBEL: Predigten, 1-119. -1665. CARPZOV: Isagoge. 2d.ed. 1675. 90107.- 1669. ARNOLD: Unparth. Kirchen u. Ketzer Historien. Schaffhausen, 1740. 3
vols. Folio. i. 809. 1230. - 1681. MAIMBOURG: Historie der Lutheranisme. Paris,
1680.  178-209. -1686. Du PIN: Bibliotheque. A new Ecclesiastical History of
the sixteenth century. London, 1720. Fol. ch. xxii. —SECKENDORF: Commentarius de Lutheranismo, 1686. Franc. and Lips. 1692. p. 150-209. i.bers. Frick. 
1714. Do. Reformations Geschichte von Roos, 1781.- 1705. MULLERI, J. J.: Historia von.. Protestation.. wie auch Augspurgische Confession, 1705, 4to.



THE, AUGSBURG COYFESSION.                                  213
to  our own  as Americans.   The philosopher should examine
what has  formed  the  opinions  and  affected the  destinies of
millions of our race. To the Christian it presents itself as the
greatest work, regarded  in  its historical relations, in  which
pure  religion has been  sustained by human hands.   The theologian will find it a key to a whole era of fervent, yet profound
thought, and the Lutheran, t~o whom  an argument on its value,
to  him, must be presented, is beyond the reach  of argument.
-1706 JUNIER: Ehrengedachtniss Lutheri. Lipsiae, 1706, 8vo. 1 30. -1708.
LOESCHER: Historia Motuum. 2d ec. 1723, 3 vols. 4to. i. 158-180. -1715. HILDEBRAND:  Historia Conciliorum. Ielmstadii, 1715, 311-314. -1716. FLEUTER'S
Historischer Katechismus. 3d ed. 1718. 339-365.   1719. CYPRIAN: Hilaria Evangelica. Gotha, 1719. Nachricht, von der Augspurg Confession, p. 551-555. -1727.
BUDDEUS: De Colloq. Charitat. Secul. xvi. (Miscellan. Sacra) 1727. —1730.
CYPRIAN: Historia der Augsb. Conf. aus den Original-Acten-mit Beylagen.
Gotha, 1730, 4to. Racknitz: Flores in Aug. Conf. 1730. —PFAFF: Lib. Symb.
Introd. Histor. cap. iii. - IOFFIMANN,C. G.: Summar. Betrachtung, der auf Augsp.
Reichstage, 1530. Actorum Religionis, 1730.-SALIG: Vollstandige Historic der
Aug. Conf. 3 vols. Halle, 1730, 4to. -Do. Geschichte der Aug. Conf. aus Sleidan,
Spalatin, Coelestinus, Chytraeus, Hortleder, Seckendorff u. MiUller. 1730. In the
form of a dialogue. -1732. WALCI-I, J. G.: Introd. in L. S. Jena, 1732. 157-482.
-HANE: Historia Crit. A. C.- 1740. MORERI: Le Grand Dictionaire Historique,
1740. 8 vols. Folio. Art. Confession d'Augsburg, and Diete. -1745. WEISMANN:
Introduc. in memorab. eccles. Histor. Sacr. Halae, 1745. i. 1498-1504. -1751.
BOERNERI: Institut. Theolog. Symbolicse. 23-55. -1761. BAUMGARTEN: Erleuterungen. 45.  1765. WALCHII, G. F.: Breviarium  Theolog. Symb. Ec. Luth.
Gotting. 1765. 57-75. -1775. SEMLERI: Apparatus ad Libr. Symb. 36. —1781.
PLANCK: Gesch. Protestant. Lehrbegriffs. Leipz. 1781. 8 vols. 8vo. iii. 1. 1-178.
— 1791. HENKE: Geschichte der Chr. Kirche. 4th ed. 1806.  iii. 139-143. ix.
(Vater) 94-97. —1782. WEBER: Kritische Gesch. d. Aug. Conf. Franf. 1782. 2
vols. 8vo. - 1804. SCHR6oICIH: Kirchengesch. seit der Reformat. Leipz. 1804. i.
442-482.-1811. TITTMANN: Instit. Symbol. 80-90.-1826. SCIOPPFF: Symb.
BUch. i. 24.- 1827. HASE: Libr. Symb. Lips. 1827. Prolegom  iii-cxiv.- 1829.
ROTERMUND: Geschichte des.. zu Augsb. ibergeb. Glaubensbek. nebst.. Lebensnachrichten. Hannover, 1829. 8vo. - CUNOW: Augsb. Confession, 1829. -HAAN:
Darstellung, 1829.- DANZ: Die Augspurg. Conf. nach ihrer Geschichte, etc. Jena,
1829, 8vo. -YELIN: Versuch, 55-60. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Gesch. d. Augsb. Confess. 1829. von Ammon: Jubelfestbuch, 1829.-1830. SCIIEBLER: Reichstag zu
Augsburg, 1830.- SPIEKER: Confessio Fidei, etc.  LOEBEB.  FACEUS. -PFAFF:
Geschichte des Reichst. zu Augs. u. des Augsb. Glaubensbek. Stuttg. 1830. -
TITTMANN: Aug. Conf. - FIKENSCHER: Geschichte des Reichst. zu Augsp. Numb.
1830, 8vo. — MRTENS: Ueber die Symb. Bucher. Halberstadt, 1830. 8vo. 63-80.
-1831. TITTMANN: Die Evangelische Kirche im 1530 und 1830. Leipz. 1831.MARHEINEKE: (1831.)-1833-1835. FonSTI',,~:lAANN: Urkundenbuch.            2 vols. -




214             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
It is our shield and our sword, our ensign and our arming, the
constitution of our state, the life of our body, the germ  of our
being.  It is the bond of our union throughout the world, and
by  it, and  with it, our Church, as a distinct  organization,
must stand or fall. IHer life began, indeed, before it, as the
vital point of the embryo  exists before the heart and brain are
formed, but having once evoked the Confession into which her
own life flowed -they live or perish together, as that embryo
grows or dies, as the vital organs expand in life or shrink in
death.
In  the Symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, the first
place, indeed, is justly held by those general Confessions, in
which the pure Church has united, in every age since their
formation, and in  which, throughout the world, it now  concurs.  These are the Apostles', the Niceeno-Constantinopolitan,
and Athanasian  creeds.  She thus vindicates her true  catholicity and antiquity, and declares that the name of Lutheran
does not define her essence, but simply refers to one grand fact
1835. BRETSCHNEIDER: Annales vitae Melanchthonis. a. 1530. (2d vol. of Corpus
Reform.)-Cox: Life of Melanchthon. Boston, 1835. Ch. viii.- 1837. KOLLNER:
Symb. d. Luth. Kirche. 150-226, -D'AUBIGNE: Reformation  (1837.)-1838.
AUDIN: Histoire de la vie, etc., de Martin Luther. Paris, 1845. Chap. xxiv.
xxv. Translated from the French. Philadelphia, 1841. Chap. xlvii. xlviii. Translated by Turnbull. London, 1854. Vol. ii. 319-353. -1839. STANG: M. Luther:
Sein Leben u. Wirken. Stuttg. 1839. 600-687. — RANIE: Reformation (1839.)
-1840. WESSENBERG: Kirchenversammlungen des 15ten und 16ten Jahrhunderts. iii. 115.-1841. RUDELBACH: Histor. kritisch.Einleitung in die Augsb.
Conf. Dresden,,1841. -1842. STEBBING: History of the Church from the Diet
of Augsburg, etc. London, 1842. i. 9-56. -NvUDECKErR: Die  Hauptversuche
zur Pacification  der Ev. Prot. Kirche Deutschlands, von der Reformation bis
auf unsere Tage. Leipz. 1846. 57-62.-1846. MICHELET: Luther; translated by
Smith. New York, 1846. p. 147.- 1847. FRANaccE: Lib. Symb. xiii-xx. -1848.
MiULLER: Symb. Bich. liv. Translated: The Book of Concord; New Market,
1851. xxxiii-xxxviii. 2d ed. 1854. 37-43.  1849. ZIMMERMANN: Luther's Leben
(Ref. Schr. iv.) 471-481. - 1853. SARTORIUS: Beitriage. 2d ed. 1-21. "The Glory
of the Augsburg Confession."-1854. HERZOG'S Real Encyclop. Hamb. 1854. i.
603-610. - MATTHES: Comparat. Symbolik. 61-67. - 1855. LEDDERHOSE: Life of
Melanchthon, translated by Krotel. Philadelphia, 1855. Chap. xi. - 1857. HorMANN: Rud. Symbolik. 229-231. - BINDSEIL, H. E.: Corpus Reformatorum. xxvi.
Pars. Prior. -  1866. GUERIKE: Handb. der Kirchen-Gesch. iii. ~ 176. (9th ed.)
1866. —WINER: Darstellung. 3d ed. ii. 1866.- 1868. KURTZ: Lehrbuch d. K. C.
{ 132. 6. 7.




ROMANISM AND ITS CREED.                     215
in her history, her restoration in the great Reformation.  The'most splendid phase of that portion of her annals is to be found
in the Diet of Augsburg, and the " Good Confession " which
she then " witnessed" before the mighty of the world. The
city of Augsburg has not been wanting in historical associations of high interest, but they are dim before its chief glory.
Its ancient spires, on which the soft light of many a sinking
sun had rested, were then illumined by a milder radiance,
which shall never set. It slopes towards two considerable
rivers, between which it lies embosomed, but never had that
" river which makes glad the city of God," so poured through
it its stream of life, as on that eventful day. Thrice since that
period the thunder of artillery and the clash of arms have
sounded around and within it    but it is our heroes whose
glory still keeps its name fresh in the memories of men, and
shall keep it when its palaces have crumbled into dust.
An age of darkness is a creedless age; corruption in doctrine
works best when it is unfettered by an explicit nomanism and
statement of that doctrine.  Between the Athana-  its Creed
sian Creed (probably about A. D. 434) and the sixteenth century, there is no new General Creed. Error loves ambiguities.
In the contest with Rome the Reformers complained bitterly
that she refused to make an explicit official statement of her
doctrine.  "Our opponents," says the Apology,* "do not bestow the labor, that there may be among the people some certain statement of the chief points of the ecclesiastical doctrines."  Just in.proportion to the blind devotion of men to
Popery were they reluctant to have its doctrines stated in an
authorized form, and only under the compulsion of a public
sentiment which was wrought by the Reformation, did the
Church of Rome at length convene the Council of Trent. Its
decisions were not completed and set forth until seventeen years
after Luther's death, and thirty-three years after the Augsburg
Confession. The proper date of the distinctive life of a particular Church is furnished by her Creed.  Tested by th,General
Creeds, the Evangelical Lutheran Church has the samne claim
as the Romish Church to be considered in unity with the early
* 231, 43.




216             CONSERVATIVE REFORiA TIOV.
Church,   but as a particular Church, with a distinctive bond
and token  of doctrinal union, she is more than  thirty  years
older than  the  Romish Church.  Our Church has the oldest
distinctive Creed now  in use in any large division of Christendom.  That Creed is the Confession  of Augsburg.   Could the
Church have set forth and maintained such a Confession as
that of Augsburg before the time over which the Dark Ages
extended, those  Dark  Ages  could  not have  come.   There
would have  been  no Reformation, for none would have been
needed.
The mighty  agitations caused by the  restoration  of divine
truth by Lutber and his great co-workers, had led
The Anugsbmlg 
Confession: Pre- to  attempts  at harmonizing  the  conflicting  elel""iinriesto p'e- ments, especially by action at the Diets of the Emparation of.*         )
pire.  At the Diet of Worms (1521) Luther refuses
to  retract, and  the Edict goes forth  commanding his seizure
* I. Official writings which prepared the way for the Augsburg Confession.
1. The visitational articles: the Saxon visitation articles.
a. The Latin Articles by Melanchthon, 1527.  These are extremely rare, and
are found in none of the older editions of Melanchthon or Luther.  Given in the
Corpus Reformatorum.  Vol. xxvi. (1857.) 7.
b. Melanchthon's Articles of Visitation in German, with Luther's Preface and
some changes by him. 1528. (Last Edition 1538.) Given in Melanchthon's Werke
(von Koethe) i. 83-130.  Corpus Reformatorum  xxvi. 49-in Luther's Werke.
Jena iv. 341. Leipzig, xix. 622. Walch. x. 1902. Erlangen xxiii. 3.  These articles are not to be confounded with the Saxon visitation articles of 1592, which
are given as an Appendix in various editions of the Symbolical Books (Miller, p.
845.)
2. The fifteen articles of Marburg. (October 3d, 1529.) cf. Feuerlin 42. These
articles are given in Luther's Werke, Jena iv. 469. Leipzig xix, 530. Walch. xvii.
2357. Erlangen 65, 88. Reformatorische Schriften von Zimmermann (1847) iii.
420.  In all these editions the fourteenth article (on Infant Baptism) has been
omitted, so that they make only fourteen articles.  Walch, however, (xxiii. 35,)
gives the fourteenth article among the omissions supplied (compare do. Pref, p.
6.) - In the Corpus Reformatorum. xxvi. 121-128. xiv.article given. - Zwingle's
Werke (Schuler u. Schulthess) ii. iii. 44-58. xiv. article given. - Chytraei Historia. 355. The fourteenth article omitted. -Miiller J. J. Historie. p. 305-309.
Fourteenth article given. -Rudelbach. Reformation Lutherthum  und Union
(Leipzig, 1839) Appendix 665-668. from  Muller, of course with fourteenth article. -They have been translated into Latin: Solida ac vera Confess. August.
Histor. p. 128-131.  Zwinglii Opera (Schuler et Schulthess) iv: ii. 181. cf. Seekendorf ii. 138. -In French in Le Cop's Chytraeus 463-466. -Into English by Dr.
Lintner. Missionary, 1857. (Without the fourteenth article.)




PRELIMINARIES TO PREPARATION.    217
anld the burning of his books; at the Diet of Nuremberg (1522)
Cheregati, the Papal Nuncio, demands the fulfilment of the
Edict of Worms, and the assistance of all faithful friends of
the Church  against Luther.  The first Diet at Spires (1526)
had virtually annulled the Edict of Worms, by leaving its
3. The xvii. articles of Schwabach, 1529, (miscalled frequently the Torgau
articles.) For the special Bibliography of these articles, cf. Walch. Bib. Theolog. Select. i. 330, and Introd. in L. S. 163. -Feuerlin 78, cf. Layritii: De Articulis Suobacens.  Wittenb. 1719. 4to. —Weber, Kritisch. Gesch. i. 13. K. Pfaff.
i. 94. Evangelical Review, i. 246-249 (which presents the confused view of Walch.
Introd. in L. S., and of the older writers.)
1 In June 1528, the first convention was held in Schwabach. The xxiii. articles
of that convention are not to be confounded, as they have been, with the xvii. articles of the second convention.
2. The second convention at Schwabach was fixed for October 16th, 1529.
a. At this convention the xvii. articles were presented.
They are given in Luther's Werke, Jena v. 14. Leipzig xx. 1-3. Walch xxi.
681, 778. Erlangen xxiv. 322.-Corpus Reformatorum  xxvi. 151-160. —Chytraeus, 22-26, Muller, Historie 442-448. Cyprian, Beylag. 159, most critically
in Weber, Krit. Geschicht. Beylagen i. and Corp. Reform.
They have been translated into Latin: Coelestinus i. 25. Pfaff, Lib. Symb.
Adpend. 3.-French: Le Cop's Chytraeus, p. 19.-English: Evangelical Review, ii. 78-84. (With the old title, " Articles of Torgau.")
b. Reply of Wimpina, Mensing, etc., to these articles, 1530.  This is given in
Luther's Werke, Jena v. 16. Leipz. xx. 3-8.
("      "    Walch. xvi. 766.
Cf. Seckendorf, lib. ii. 152. Cyprian 52. Evangelical Review, ii. 83.
c. Luther's answer to the outcry of the Papists on the xvii. articles, given in
Luther's Werke, Leipz. xx. 8.
"~      "    Walch, xvi. 778.
~"     "    Erlangen, 24, 319.
Cyprian, Beyl. 159.
4. The Articles of Torgau, 1530. (confounded frequently with the articles of
Schwabach.)-Cf. Seckendorf, ii. 151.  MUller 441.  Cyprian 52, who suppose
what we have called the "Articles of Swabach" to be in fact the articles sent
to Torgau. —Cf. Salig: i. 158. Walch: Luther's Werke xvi. 681, who suppose
the articles of Schwabach to have been somewhat changed and sent to Torgau.Cf. Weber: Krit. Gesch. i. 16-19. Foerstemann: Urkundenbuch i. 40-41.- Kllner: Symbolik. i. 156-168. -Corpus Reformator. xxvi. 161-170, who prove the
Articles of Swabach and those of Torgau to be totally distinct.  The Articles
of Torgau, truly entitled to that name, bear, in a large degree, to the second
part of the Augsburg Confession, the relation which the Schwabach Articles bear
to the first part. - The Articles of Torgau were discovered by Foerstemann (1833)
and given to the world by him, in his Urkundenbuch, i. 66-84. -Given also in
Corpus Reformatorum, xxvi. 171-200.




218         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
execution to the unforced action of the different Estates,
and it promised the speedy convocation of a General Council, or at least of a National Assembly. The second Diet
at Spires (1529) quenched the hopes inspired by this earlier
action.  It decreed that the Edict of WYorms should be
strictly enforced where it had already been received; the
celebration of the Romish Mass protected, and the preachers bound to  confine themselves to the doctrine of the
Romish Church in their teachings.  The Protest of the
Evangelical Princes against this decision, originated the name
PROTESTANTS.
The Protestant Princes made their appeal to a free General
Council. Charles V., after vainly endeavoring to obtain the
consent of the Pope to the convocation of a General Council,
summoned the Diet at Augsburg, promising to appear in person, and to give a gracious hearing to the whole question,
so that the "one only Christian truth might be maintained,
that all might be subjects and soldiers of the one Christ, and
live in the fellowship and unity of one Church."  To this end
the Emperor directed the friends of the Evangelical faith to
prepare, for presentation to the Diet, a statement on the points
of division.
In consequence of this order of the Emperor, the Elector of
Saxony, who was the leader of the Evangelical Princes, directed
Luther, in conjunction with the other theologians at Wittenberg, to draw up a summary of doctrine, and a statement of
the abuses to be corrected.  The statement drawn up in consequence of this, had, as its groundwork, Articles which were
already prepared; and as the Augsburg Confession is the ripest
result of a series of labors, in which this was one, and as much
confusion of statement exists on the relations of these labors,
it may be useful to give the main points in chronological
order.
1. 1529.  October 1, 2, 3. The Conference at Marburg took
place between Luther and the Saxon divines upon the one side,
and Zwingle and the Swiss divines on the other. Luther, in
conjunction with others of our great theologians, prepared the
XV. Marburg Articles, October, 1529. These Articles were




PRELIMINARIES TO PREPARATION.                     219
meant to show on what points the Lutherans and Zwinglians
agreed, and also to state the point on which they did not agree,
and as a fair statement of the points, disputed and undisputed,
were signed by all the theologians of both parties.
2. 1529.  Oct. 16.  On the basis of these XV. Articles were
prepared, by Luther, with the advice and assistance of the
other theologians, the XVII. Articles of Schwabach, so called
from the place at which they were presented.
3. 1529. Nov. 29. From the presentation of these XVII.
Articles at Smalcald, they are sometimes called the Smalcald
Articles.
4. 1530.  March 20.  These XVII. Articles of Luther revised were sent to Torgau, and were long called the Torgau
Articles, though they are in fact the revised Articles of Schwabach. These Articles are mainly doctrinal.
5. March 20.  In addition to these, a special -writing, of
which Luther was the chief author, in conjunction with Melanchthon, Jonas, and Bugenhagen, was prepared by direction
of the Elector, and sent to Torgau.  These articles are on the
abuses,* and are the Torgau Articles proper.
6. The XVII. doctrinal articles of Schwabach formed the basis
of the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession; the Articles of Torgau are the basis of its articles on abuses, and both
these are mainly from the hand of Luther.
In six instances, the very numbers of the Schwabach Articles correspond with those of the Augsburg Confession.
They coincide throughout, not only in doctrine, but in a vast
number of cases word for word, the Augsburg Confession being
a mere transcript, in these cases, of the Schwabach Articles.
The differences are either merely stylistic, or are made necessary by the larger object and compass of the Augsburg Confession; but so thoroughly do the Schwabach Articles condi
tion and shape every part of it, as to give it even the peculiarity
of phraseology characteristic of Luther.
To a large extent, therefore, Melanchthon's work is but an
elaboration of Luther's, and to a large extent it is not an
* For the latest and amplest results of historical investigation of these points,
see Corpus Reformat., vol. xxvi. (1858,) cols. 97-199.




220             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOi.
elaboration, but a reproduction.   To Luther belong  the doctrinal power of the  Confession, its inmost life and spirit, and
to Melanchthon its matchless form.   Both are in some sense its
authors, but the most essential elements of it are clue to Luther,
who is by pre-eminence its author, as Melanchthon is its composer.  If the authorship of the Confession should be claimed
for Melanchthon to the exclusion of Luther, it would open the
second great Reformer to the charge of the most unscrupulous
Its Authorship: plagiarism.  Even  had  Luther, however, had  no
lltllers re:'atiols direct share in the Augsburg Confession, the assertion would be too sweeping that he was in no sense
its author.   Not only as great leading minds are in some sense
the authors of all works that have germinated directly from
their thoughts, but in  a peculiar sense Luther was the  author
of Melanchthon's theological life; he was,as Melanchthon loved
to  call him, "his  most dear father."   All the  earliest  and
purest theology of Melanchthon is largely but a repetition, in
his own  graceful way, of Luther's thoughts; and  the Augs(Collected works, having an importance in the Interpretation and History of
the Augsburg Confessioli.
LUTr-IER. Opera Omnia (Latin) (1556-58.) Jena 1579-83. 4 Tom. Folio.-In
primum Librum Mose Enarrationes. 1555. Fol. - Schriften und Werke (Boerner
u. Pfeiffer.) Leipz. 1729-34. 22 vols. Folio. Greiff's Register. 1740. Fol.Sammtliche Werke. (Walch) Halle 1740-52. 24 vols. 4to. -Simrntliche Werke.
(Ammon, Erlsperger, Irmescher, Plochmann) Erlangen, 1826-1857. 65 vols.
(German) and 2 vols. Register. Invaluable for critical purposes. - Geist, oder
Concordanz der Ansichten, etc. Darmstadt, 1827-31. 4 vols. -Briefe, Sendschreiben u. Bedenken (De Wette), Berlin, 1826-56. 6 vols. (The last edited by Seidemann.) -Reformatorische Schriften, in Chronologischer Folge. (Zimmermann)
Darmstadt, 1846-49. 4 vols. 8vo. - (Lutherus Redivivus, oder des fiirnehmsten
Lehrers der Augspurg. Confess. D. M. Luther's hinterlassene Schriftliche Erklirungen... was der Augspurg. Confess. eigentliche Meinung u. Verstandt in allen
Articuln allezeit gewesen. (Seidel) Halle 1697.) —  MELANCTITHON. Opera Omnia
(Peucer.) Wittenb. 1562-64. 4 vols. Fol. -Opera quae supersunt omnia. (Bretschneider) Halle 1834-1856. 28 vols. 4to.  Indispensable to the student of the
Augsburg Confession, or of the Reformation in general. ~ The Loci Theologici
especially, are edited with a completeness unparalleled in the Bibliography of
Dogmatics.- MELANCHTHON. Corpus Doctrinae Christianae, das ist, Gantze Summa
der rechten Christlichen Lehre, etc. Leipzig, 1560. Fol. -Corpus Doctrinae
Christianae quae est summa orthodoxi et Catholici Dogmatis. Lipsiae, 1563.
Folio. -ZWINGLII Huldr. Opera, Completa Editio prima cur. Schulero et Schulthessio. Zurich 1829-1842. 8 vols. 8vo.




ABSENCE OF LUTHER FROM AUGSBURG.   221
burg Confession is in its inmost texture the theology of the
New Testament as Luther believed it.  Melanchthon had no
creativeness of mind, and but for Luther, his name would
hardly have taken a place among great theologians. I-le was
a sculptor who cut with matchless grace after the model of the
master.
For the absence of Luther from Augsburg, the reasons constantly assigned in history are obviously the real ones. Luther
was not only under the Papal excommunication,  Absence ofLubut he was an outlaw under the imperial ban. In therfrom Augsthe rescript of the Emperor he was styled "the burg.
evil fiend in human form," " the fool," and " the blasphemer."
His person would have been legally subject to seizure. The
Diet at Spires (1529) had repeated the Decree of Worms.'The
Elector would have looked like a plotter of treason had Luther
been thrust by him before the Emperor, and with the intense
hatred cherished by the Papistical party toward Luther, he
would not have been permitted to leave Augsburg alive. The
Elector was so thoroughly anxious to have Luther with him,
that at first he allowed his wishes to obscure his judgment, 
he attached such importance to the mild language of Charles
V., that he allowed himself to hope, yet, as his letter of March
14th shows, rather feebly, that even Luther might be permitted to appear. Luther left Wittenberg on the assumption
that he perhaps might be permitted to come to Augsburg.
But a safe-conduct was denied him. Had it been desired by
the Elector to have Luther out of the way, it would have been
far easier to the Elector, and pleasanter to Luther, to have kept
him at Wittenberg.
That Luther came to Coburg, is proof of the ardent desire
to have his counsel and co-operation; that he stopped there,
shows the greatness of the peril that would have attended his
going farther. But Luther's safety was not merely provided
for by'his detention here, but by placing him in the old castle
of the Duke of Coburg, which occupies a commanding height,
more than five hundred feet above the town, and which is so
well fortified by nature and art, that during the Thirty Years'
War, Wallenstein besieged it in vain. The arrangements




222         CONSERVATIVE REFORIMATION.
were planned by loving friends for his safety: Luther perfectly
understood the character and object of the arrangements, before
they were made, while they were in progress, and after all was
over. Thus, April 2d, writing before his journey, he says: "I
am going with the Prince, as far as Coburg, and Melanchthon
and Jonas with us, until it is known what will be attempted
at Augsburg."  In another letter of same date: "I am not
summoned to go to Augsburg, but for certain reasons, I only
accompany the Prince on his journey through his own domninions."  June 1, he writes: "I am waiting on the borders of
Saxony, midway between Wittenberg and Augsburg, for it
was not safe to take me to Augsburg."
The expressions of impatience which we find in his letters
during his stay at Coburg, only show that in the ardor of his
great soul, in moments of intense excitement, the reasons for
his detention at the castle, which had commended themselves
to his cooler judgment, seemed reasons no longer-death
seemed nothing —he would gladly face it as he had faced it
before, only to be in body where he was already in heart. "I
burn," he says, "to come, though uncommanded and uninvited."  His seeming impatience, his agony, his desire to heal
often, his refusal for the moment to listen to any excuses, were
all inevitable with such a spirit as Luther's under the circumstances; yet for places some days' journey apart, in those
troublous times, of imperfect communication, with special
couriers carrying all the letters, there was an extraordinary
amount of correspondence. We have about seventy letters of
Luther written to Augsburg during the Diet, and we know of
thirty-two written by Melanchthon to Luther, and of thirtynine written by Luther to Melanchthon in the five months of
correspondence, during the Diet, or connected with it in the
time preceding.@
Luther and Melanchthon went in company to Coburg, and at
Coburg the " Exordium " of the Confession was
Correspondence.
with Luther. Me- written. At Augsburg, Melanchthon, as was his
nchthonMsLetters wont, elaborated it to a yet higher finish. May
4, he writes to Luther: "I have made the exor* Luther's Letters, De Wette's ed., iii. iv.




THE ELECTOR'S LETTERS.                    223
diur  of our Apology somewhat more finished in style (retorikoteron) than I wrote it at Coburg."  Speaking of his work
he says: "In a short time, I myself will bring it, or if the
Prince will not permit me to come, I will send it."
By the Apology or Defence is meant the Confession, which
was originally designed to be in the main a defence of the
Evangelical (Lutheran) Confessors, especially in regard to their
practical application of their principles in the correction of
abuses. The second part was the one which at the time of the
preparation of the Confession was regarded as the more difficult,
and for the immediate objects contemplated, the more important.  The articles of faith were designed as a preparation for
the second part, and the judgment of Foerstemann and others
that by the " Exordium," Melanchthon meant not the Preface,
which there seems to be evidence was written in German by
Briick, and translated into Latin by Jonas, " but the whole
first part of the Confession, is not without much to render it
probable."
If we take Melanchthon's language, in his letter of May 5,
grammatically, it seems to settle it, that the Exordium was the
whole first part, for it is inconceivable that he would desire to
come all the way to Coburg to show Luther merely the Preface, more especially as we know that the Confession itself was
nearly finished at the time. In a letter of the same date, (May
4th,) to Viet Dietrich, who was with Luther, he says: " I will
shortly run over to you, that I may bring to the Doctor
(Luther) the Apology which is to be offered to the Emperor,
that he (Luther) may examine it."
For very obvious reasons, Melanchthon could not be spared
from Augsburg at this time even for an hour, to  Thl ~ecto.s
say nothing of the hazards which might have been Letters of May
incurred by the journey, which his great anxiety
for a personal conference with Luther inclined him to make.
But on May 11th, the Elector sent to Luther the Confession,
with a letter, in which he speaks of it as meant to be a careful
revision of those very articles of which Luther was the main
author. He says to Luther (Augsburg, May 11th): " As you




224        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and our other theologians at Wittenberg, have brought into
summary statement the articles of religion about which there
is dispute, it is our wish to let you know that Melanchthon has
further revised the same, and reduced them to a form, which
we hereby send you."    And it is our desire that you would
further revise the same, and give them a thorough examination,
and at the same time (daneben) you would also write how you
like it, or what you think proper to add about it or to it, and
in order that, on his Majesty's arrival, which is looked for in a
short time, we may be ready, send back the same carefully
secured and sealed, without delay, to this place, by the lettercarrier who takes this."
Luther had been the chief laborer in the articles of which
the Elector declared the Confession to be but a revision and reducing to shape - there could be little room for large changes,
and as the Emperor was expected speedily, the time was too
pressing to allow of elaborate discussions, which were indeed
unneeded where all were so absolute a unit in faith as our Confessors were. That margin would have been narrow, and that
time short, indeed, on which and in which Luther could not
have written enough to kill any Confession which tampered
with the truth.
The Elector's whole letter expressly assigns the natural and
cogent reason, that Luther's judgment might be needed at
once, in consequence of the expected advent of the Emperor, a
point which Melanchthon's letter of the same date also urges.
The haste is evidence of the anxiety to have Luther's opinion
and approval, as a sine qua non.
The Diet had been summoned for April 8th.  It was soon
after postponed to the 1st of May, and at this later date, had
it not been for the delay of the Emperor in appearing, the articles of Luther, on which the Confession was afterwards based,
would themselves have been offered. As it was, it was needful to be ready at any hour for the approach of Charles.. The
letter of the Elector implies that the original of the Confession
was sent td Luther. Great care was taken to prevent copies
from'being multiplied, as the enemies were eager to see it.
Even on June 25th, the day of its presentation, the Latin Con



MIELANOHTHON'S LETTER.                        225
fession, in Melanchthon's own handwriting, was given to the
Emperor.
With this letter of the Elector was sent a letter from
Melanchthon addressed "to Martin  Luther, his  Mellnchthon's
most dear father."  In it he says: "' Our Apology letter of May
11th.
is sent to you, although it is more properly a Confession, for the Emperor will have no time for protracted discussion.  Nevertlieless, I have said those things which I
thought most profitable or fitting.  With this design I have
embraced nearly all the articles of faith, for Eck has put forth
the most diabolical slanders against us, to which I wished to
oppose a remedy.  I request you, in accordance with your own
spirit, to decide concerning the whole writing (Pro tuo spiritu
de toto scripto statues.)  A question is referred to you, to which
I greatly desire an answer from  you.  What if the Emperor.. should prohibit our ministers from preaching at Augsburg?
I have answered that we should yield to the wish of the Emperor, in whose city we are guests.  But our old man is difficult to soften."  (The "old man " is either the Elector John,
so called to distinguish him  from his son, John Frederick, oi
the old Chancellor Brick.)  "Whatever therefore you think,
I beg that you will write it in German on separate paper."
What Luther was to write was his judgment both as to the
Confession and the question about preaching, and the " separate paper," on which he was particularly requested to write,
must mean separate from that which held the Confession. One
probable reason why Luther was so particularly requested not,
as was very much his wont, to write upon the nargin, was,
that this original draft of the Confession might have been
needed for presentation to the Emperor.  The original of Luther's replies to the Elector on both points (for to the Elector
and not to Melanchthon they were to be made, and were made,)
still remains.  Both are together —neither is on the margin
of anything, but both are written just as Melanchthon specially
requested, " in German," and on. " separate paper." *  It shows
* Ccelestinus, i., p. 40. Luther's Epistol. supplem. Buddei, 93. Salig. Hist. d.
Aug. Conf., i. 169. Cyprian,Beylage xiv. Ex Autographo. Luther's Briefe: De
Wette (Lett. 1213) himself compared the original in the Weimar Archives.
15




226         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the intensest desire to have the assurance doubly sure of Luther's concurrence, that under all the pressure of haste, the
original of the Confession was sent him.
That the highest importance was attached to Luther's judgment on this form of the Confession, is furthermore proved by
the fact that after the Confession was despatched, (May 11,)
everything was suspended at Augsburg, till he should be heard
from. "On the 16th of May, the Elector indicated to the
other States, that the Confession was ready, but was not entirely
closed up, but had been sent to Luther for examination."
Shortly after, Luther's reply of May 15, heartily indorsing the
Confession, without the change of a word, was received at
Augsburg.*
It is called "form  of Confession," in the Elector's letter to
Luther, because the matter of the Confession had been prepared
by Luther himself.  Melanchthon's work was but to revise that
matter, and give it " form," which revised form was to be subjected to the examination of all the Lutheran authorities and
divines at Augsburg, and especially to Luther.
As to the articles of faith, and the abuses to be corrected,
the matter of the Confession was already finished and furnished.
-much of it direct from Luther's hand, and all of it with his
co-operation and approval.  It was only as to the " form," the
selection among various abuses, the greater or less amplitude
of treatment, that all the questions lay.  The "form  of Confession " sent on May 11th was the Augsburg Confession, substantially identical with it as a whole, and, in all that is really
essential to it, verbally identical.  We have copies of it so
nearly at the stage at which it then was as to know that this
is the case. Melanchthon's letter expressly declares that nearly
all the articles of faith had been treated, and the Augsburg
Confession, in its most finished shape, only professes to give
"about the sum of the doctrines held by us."
But we need not rest in inferences, however strong, in regard
to this matter.  We have direct evidence from Melanchthon
himself, which will be produced, that Luther did decide, before
its presentation, upon what, in Melanchthon's judgment, was
*Corpus Reform., No. 700. K6llner, pp. 171, 175.




M.ELANCITHION'S LETTER.                   227
the Augsburg Confession itself.  His words prove that the
changes which Luther did not see were purely those of niceties
of style, or of a more ample elaboration of a very few points,
mainly on the abuses; in fact, that Luther's approval had been
given to the Confession, and that without it the Confession
never would have been presented.
The Elector's letter of May 11th was answered by Luther,
who heartily indorsed the Confession sent him, without the
change of a word. Nothing was taken out, nothing was added,
nothing was altered.  He speaks admiringly, not reprovingly,
of the moderation of its, style, and confesses that it had a gentleness of manner of which he was not master.
As the Emperor still lingered, Melanchthon used the time to
improve, here and there, the external form of the Confession.
Ile loved the most exquisite accuracy and delicacy of phrase,
and never ceased filing on his work. What topics should be
handled under the head of abuses, was in the main perfectly
understood, and agreed upon between him and Luther.  The
draft of the discussion of them was largely from  Luther's
hand, and all of it was indorsed by him.
The main matters were entirely settled, the principles were
fixed, and the questions which arose were those of style, of
selection of topics, of the mode of treating them, or of expediency, in which the faith was not involved. In regard to this,
Luther speedily hears again from his son in the Gospel.
May 22d, Melanchthon wrote to Luther:    " In the Apology, we daily change many things; the article on Vows, as it
was more meagre than it should be, I have re-  Melanchthon',
moved, and supplied its place with a discussion a.Letter of May 22.
little more full, on the same point. I am now treating of the
power of the keys also.  I wish you would run over the
Articles of Faith; if you think there is no defect in them, we
will treat of the other points as we best may (utcunque.)  For
they are to be changed from time to time, and adapted to the
circumstances."  In the same letter he begs Luther to write to
George, Duke of Saxony, because his letter would carry decisive weight with him: " there is need of your letters."
*Corpus Reformatorum, ii. Epist., No. 680.




228         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
This letter shows:
1. That Melanchthon desired Luther to know all that he
was doing.
2. That the Articles of Faith were finished, and that the
changes were confined to the Articles oni Abuses.
3. That in the discussions on Abnses, there were many questions which would have to be decided as the occasions, in the
providence of God, would determine them.
From three to four days seems to have been the ordinary
time of the letter-carrier between Augsburg and Coburg. The
Elector sent the Confession May 11th.  Luther replied May
15th, probably the very day he received it; his reply probably
reached Augsburg May 20th, and two days after, Melanchthon
sends him  the Articles of Faith, with the elaboration which
had taken place in the interval, and informs him  of what he
had been doing, and designs to do.
In part, on the assumption that Luther was not permitted
to receive this letter, a theory was built by Ricekert, a Rationalistic writer of Germany, that the Augsburg Confession was
meant to be a compromise with Rome, and that it was feared
that if Luther were not kept in the dark he would spoil the
scheme. But even if Luther did not receive Melanchthon's
letter and the Articles of May 22d, we deny that the rational
solution would be that they were fraudulently held back by
the friends of the Confession at Augsburg.  Grant that Luther never received them. What then? The retention of them
would have been an act of flagrant immorality; it was needless, and foolish, and hazardous; it is in conflict with the personal character of the great princes and leaders, political and
theological, who were as little disposed as Luther, to compromise any principle with Rome.  The Elector and BriUck were
on some points less disposed to be yielding than Luther.  The
theory is contradicted by the great body of facts, which show
that Luther, though absent in body, was the controlling spirit
at Augsburg. It is contradicted by the Confession itself,
which is a presentation, calm  in manner, but mighty in the
matter, in which it overthrows Popery from the very foundation. It is contradicted by the fierce replies of the Papists in




MIELA4NCHTHON'S LETTER.                    229
the Council, by the assaults of Popery upon it through all time,
by the decrees of the Council of Trent, whose main polemical
reference is to it.  It is contradicted by the enthusiastic admiration which Luther felt, and expressed again and again, for
the Confession.
The millions of our purified churches have justly regarded
it for ages as the great bulwark against Rome, and the judgment of the whole Protestant world has been a unit as to
its fundamentally Evangelical and Sceiptural character over
against Rome.  Its greatest defenders have been the most able
assailants of Popery.
It might as well be assumed that the Bible is a compromise
with the Devil, and that the Holy Ghost was excluded front
aiding in its production, lest he should embarrass the proceedings, as that the Augsburg Confession is, or was meant to be,
a compromise with Popery, and that Luther was consequently
prevented from having.a share in producing it.
If the letter really never reached Luther, the theory that it
was fraudulently kept at Augsburg by the friends of the Confession, that the whole thing was one of the meanest, and at
the same time, most useless crimes ever committed, is so extreme, involves such base wickedness on the part of its perpetrators, that nothing but the strongest evidences or the most
overwhelming presumptions justify a man in thinking such an
explanation possible.
If this letter, or others, never reached Luther, it is to be
attributed either to the imperfect mode of transmission, in
which letters were lost, miscarried, or destroyed by careless or
fraudulent carriers, of which bitter complaints constantly occur
in the letters of Luther and others at that time, or if there
were any steps taken to prevent Luther's letters reaching hinm,
these steps would be taken by the Romanists, who were now
gathering in increasing force at Augsburg.  The difficulty in
the way of communicating with Luther increased, as his being
at Coburg was kept secret fromn his enemies, and at his request,
in a letter which we shall quote, was kept secret in June even
from the body of his friends.
So much for the theory, granting its fact for argument's sake.




230           CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TI ON
But the fact is that Luther did receive Melanchthon's letter
of the 22d.  The letter was not lost, but appears in all the
editions of Melanchthon's letters, entire," and in the earliest
histories of the Augsburg Confession, without a hint, from  the
beginning up to Rickert's time, that it had not been received.
When we turn to Luther's letters, complaining of the silence
of his friends, we find no evidence that Melanchthon's letter
had not been received.  They create, on  the  contrary, the
strongest presumption that it had been received.  As it was
sent at once, (Melanchthon says that he had hired a letter-carrier before he began the letter,) it would reach Luther about
May 25th.
Luther's letter of June 1st to Jacob Probst, in Bremen,t
shows that he had intelligence of the most recent date from
Augsburg, that he was sharing in the cares and responsibilities
of what was then passing: " HIere, also, I am  occupied with
business for God, and the burden of the whole empire rests
upon us."  He then uses, in part, the very language of Melanchthon's letter of May 22d, as to the time when the Emperor
would be at Augsburg.   HTe quotes from that letter Melanchthon's very words in regard to Mercurinus: ~' I-e would have
nothing to do with violent councils - that it had appeared at
Worms what violent councils would  do.  He desired  the
affairs of the Church to be peacefully arranged."  He closes
his account of things at Augsburg by saying: "You have an
account of matters now as they are to-day at Augsburg " (hodie
habet.)
Luther did receive Melanchthon's letter of the 22d, and on
June 1st quotes largely from  it.
Up to this time, too, there is no complaint of suspension of
In the original Latin, in Corpus Reform., ii., No. 698. In German, in Walch's
Luther's Werke, xvi., No. 927.
t De Wette's Briefe, No. 1217. Buddeus, Suppl., No. 123.
Melanchthon: vix ante Pentecosten. Luther: forte ad Pentecosten.
iMelanc.: Nolle se violentis consiliis interesse. Luth.: Se nolle interesse
violentis consiliis. Mel.: Wormatiae apparuisse, quam nihil proficiant violenta
consilia. Luth.: Wormatiae vidisset, quid efficerent violenta consilia. Mel.
Vir summus Mercurinus. Luth.; Summus Mercurinus. Mel.: Res ecclesiasticue rite constituerentur. Luth.: Ecclesioe res cum pace constitui.




MELANCHTHON'S LETTER.                      231
communication with Augsburg, but, on the contrary, he reports up to the day on which he writes.
On June 2d, Luther writes to Melanchthon.*  There is no
word of complaint in this letter of any silence on the part of
Melanchthon,or of others at Augsburg.  He complains that
he is so overrun with visitors as to be compelled to leave Coburg for a day, to create the impression that he is no longer
there.  " I beg of you, and the others with you, in future to
speak and write so that no one will seek me here any longer;
for I wish to remain concealed, and to have you, at the same
time, to keep me concealed, both in your words and letters."
IIe then speaks of the report that the Emperor would not come
to Augsburg at all, and of his deep anxiety.  This letter shows
what was the subject of Luther's intense solicitude on the following days. A thousand alarming rumors reached him, and
he was anxious to hear, by every possible opportunity, from
Augsburg; at the same time, wishing to be concealed, he had
requested Melanchthon and his other friends to avoid sending
letters in a way that would make it known that he was at Coburg.  These two facts help to solve Luther's great solicitude
to hear news, and also, in part, as we have said, to account for
the irregularity in his receiving letters, as they would, in
accordance with his direction of June 2d, be sent with secrecy.
In Luther's letter of June 5th, he complains not that there
had been a long delay, but that they did not write by every
opportunity.  These were sometimes quite frequent.  In some
cases more than one opportunity occurred in a day.  None of
Luther's anxiety is about the Confession. In Luther's letter
to Melanchthon, of June 7th, he complains of the silence of his
friends at Augsburg, but in a playful tone.  In his letter of
June 19th, to Cordatus,t he says: "We have no news from
Augsburg.  Our friends at Augsburg write us none."  In his
letter to Gabriel Zwilling,4 June 19th, he says: " You will,
perhaps, get the news from Bernhard, for our friends have not
De Wette, Briefe, No. 1219. Buddeus, No. 124. In German, Walch xvi., p.
2826.
t De Wette,Briefe, No. 1229. Buddeus, No. 125. Walch xvi. 2833.
4 De Wette, No. 1230. Buddeus, No. 126. Walch xvi. 2836.




232         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
answered our letters through the whole month," (June.) Luther's letter of June 20th, to Justus Jonas, gives direct evidence how long the interruption of correspondence continued:
" Your letters have come at last, my Jonas, after we were well
fretted for three whole weeks with your silence."  The period,
therefore, does not embrace May 22d, but only the first three
weeks in June.  There is no reason whatever, therefore, for
doubting that Luther received Melanchthon's letter, and the
Articles of Faith of May 22d.  On June 1st, the Elector, John,
sent Luther secret advices of an important proposition which
he had received from  the Emperor.  If, therefore, there were
any furtive and dishonorable course pursued toward Luther,
the causes and results of it must, in some special manner, be
found between the Elector's secret advices of June 1st and the
letter to Luther from  Augsburg, June 15th; but there is
nothing in the course of events to suggest any such reason,
even if there were a fact which seemed to require something of
the sort - but there is no such fact. On the contrary, we shall
produce a fact which will sweep away all necessity for any further discussion of this point.
We have seen, 1st, that the Confession was sent by the
Elector, May 11th, to Luther, at Coburg, for his written judgment upon it, in its first form.
2d. That it was sent again, on the 22d of the same month,
by Melanchthon, and was received by Luther, in its second
form.
3d. We shall now show that it was sent as nearly as possible
in its complete shape to Luther, for a third time, before it was
delivered, and was approved by him in what may probably be
called its finel form.
The evidence to which we shall appeal is that of Melanchthon himself. It is first found in the Preface to his Body of
Christian Doctrine, (Corpus Doctrina,) 1560, and also in the
Preface to the first volume of the Wittenberg edition of his
works in folio.  It is reprinted in the Corpus Reformatorum,
vol. ix., VNo. 6932.  lie there says, in giving a history of the
Augsburg Confession:
* De Wette, No. 1232. Buddeus, No. 127.




MELANCHTHON'S LETTER.                      233
I. " I brought together the principal points of the Confession, embracing pretty nearly the sum  of the doctrine of our
Churches."
II. " I assumed nothing to myself, for in the presence of the
Princes and other officials, and of the preachers, it was.discussed
and determined upon in regular course, sentence by sentence."
III. " The complete form of the Confession was subsequently
(deinde) sent to Luther, who wrote to the Princes that he had
read the Confession and approved it.  That these things were
so done, the Princes, and other honest and learned men, yet
living, well remember."
IV. " After this (postea,) before the Emperor Charles, in a
great assemblage of the Princes, this Confession was read."
This. extract shows, 1, that this complete Confession -the
tota forma - the Articles on Doctrines and Abuses, as contrasted with any earlier and imperfect form of the Confession,
was submitted to Luther.
2. This is wholly distinct from Luther's indorsement of the
Confession as sent May 11th, for that was not the " totafornma,"
but relatively unfinished; that had not been discussed before
Princes, officials, and preachers, for they were not yet at Augsburg.   Nor was it then meant that the Confession should be
made in the name of all the Evangelical States.  It was to be
linited to Saxony. Luther's reply to the letter of May 11th
was not to the Princes, but to John alone. Up to May 11th,
the Elector (with his suite) was the only one of the Princes at
Augsburg.  On the 12th, the Landgrave of Ilesse came; on
the 15th the Nurembergers.  Not until after May 22d did
that conference and discussion take place, of which Melanchthon speaks. After the whole form of the Confession had been
decided upon, it was sent to Luther, received his final indorsement, and was presented to Charles.  This complete form was
identical in matter with the Confession as exhibited, although
verbal changes were made by Melanchthon up to the very time
of its delivery.
On LUTHER'S opinion of the Augsburg Confession, we propose
to let Luther speak for himself.
1. 1530, May 15. In Luther's reply to the Elector, he says:




234          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
" I have read the Apology (Confession,) of Philip, from beginning to end; it pleases me exceedingly well, and I know  of
nothing by which I could better it, or change it, nor would I
Luthers opin- be fitted to do it, for I cannot move so moderately
ion oftheAigs- and gently.  May Christ our Lord help, that it
burg Confession.
may bring forth much and great fruit, as we hope
and pray.  Amen." *
These words of admiration for Melanchthon's great gifts,
came from Luther's inmost heart.  Less than six months before
he had written to Jonas:  " All the Jeromes, Ilillarys, and
Macariuses together, are not worthy to unloose the thong of
Philip's sandal.  What have the whole of them together done
which can be compared with one year of Philip's teaching, or
to his one book of Common Places? "  Had Luther been at
Augsburg, he would have allowed the work of finishing " the
form of the Confession" to be given to no other hands than
Melanchthon's. " I prefer," he says, " Melanchthon's books to
my own, and would rather have them  circulated than mine.
I was born to battle with conspirators and devils, therefore my
books are more vehement and warlike.  It is my work to tear
up the stumps and dead roots, to cut away the thorns, to fill
up the marshes.  I aml the rough forester and pioneer.  But
Melanchthon moves gently and calmly along, with his rich
gifts from God's own hand, building and planting, sowing and
watering. "+
2. Between June 8th and 25th, we have Melanchthon's declaration,cited in our former extracts, as to Luther's approval of
the Confession in the form it took after the discussion.
3. June 3d.  Luther to Melanchthon: " I yesterday re-read
your Apology entire, with care (diligenter,) and it pleases me
exceedingly." X
4. July 6th, to IIausman: 1  he speaks lovingly of" our Confession which our Philip hath prepared.", Luther's Briefe, De Wette, 1213, Walch xvi, 785. In Latin: Coelestinus i,
40, Buddeus 93. In French: (Le Cop's) Chytraeus, p. 29.
t Buddeus, No. 100.         $ Pref. to Melanchthon on Colossians.
I In Latin: De Wette, No. 1243. Buddeus, No. 137. German: Walch xvi,
1082.
11 De Wette, No. 1245.




LUTHER'S OPINION.                      235
5. July 6, to Cordatus:  " The Confession of ours was read
before the whole empire. I am glad exceedingly to have lived
to this hour, in which Christ through his so great Confessors,
in so great an Assembly, has been preached in so glorious a
Confession, and that word has been fulfilled:  I Iwill speak of
thy testimonies in the presence of kings,' and this also has been
fulfilled:' and shall not be ashamed,' for' him who confesseth
me before men' (it is the word of him who cannot lie,)' I also
will confess before my Father who is in heaven.' "
6. July 6, to the Cardinal Albert, Archbishop of Mentz,
Primate of Germany: t " Your IHighness, as well as the other
orders of the empire, has doubtless read the Confession, delivered by ours, which I am persuaded is so composed, that with
joyous. lips it may say with Christ:'If I have spoken evil,
bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?'
It shuns not the light, and can sing with the Psalmist:' I will
speak of thy testimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed.'
But I can well conceive that our adversaries will by no means
accept the doctrine, but much less are they able to confute it.
I have no hope whatever that we can agree in doctrine; for
their cause cannot bear the light. Such is their bitterness,
with such hatred are they kindled, that they would endure
hell itself rather than yield to us, and relinquish their new wisdom. I know that this our doctrine is true, and grounded in
the holy Scriptures. By this Confession we clearly testify and
demonstrate that we have not taught wrongly or falsely."
7. July 9, to Duke John, Elector of Saxony:; "Our adversaries thought they had gained a great point in having the
preaching interdicted by the Emperor, but the infatuated men
did not see that by this written Confession, which was offered
to the Emperor, this doctrine was more preached, and more
widely propagated, than ten preachers could have done it. It
was a fine point that our preachers were silenced, but in their
stead came forth the Elector of Saxony and other princes and
lords, with the written Confession, and preached freely in sight
* De Wette, 1246. Walch xvi, 1083.
t De Wette, No. 1247. Walch xvi, 1085. In Latin: Buddeus, No. 139.
$ De Wqtte, No. 1050. Walch xvi, 969. Latin: Buddeus, No. 142.




236         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIONI.
of all, before the Emperor and the whole empire.  Christ surely
was not silenced at the Diet, and mad as they were, they Were
compelled to hear more from the Confession, than they would
have heard from the preachers in a year.  Paul's declaration
was fulfilled:' The word of God is not bound:' silenced in the
pulpit, it was heard in the palace; the poor preachers were not
allowed to open their lips - but great princes and lords spoke
it forth."
8. July 9, to Jonas:' "There will never be agreement
concerning doctrine" (between the Evangelical and Romish
Churches,) "for how  can Christ and Belial be in concord?
But the first thing, and that the greatest at this Council has
been, that Christ has been proclaimed in a public and glorious
Confession; he has been confessed in the light and to their face,
so that they cannot boast that we fled, or that we feared, or
concealed our faith.  My only unfulfilled desire about it is
that I was not present at this noble Confession.  I have been
like the generals who could take no part in defending Vienna
from the Turks.  But it is my joy and solace that meanwhile
mny Vienna was defended by others."
9. July 15.  Luther addresses a letter to his "most dear
brother in Christ, Spalatine, steadfast Confessor of Christ at
Augsburg;"f and again, July 20th," to Spalatine, faithful
servant and Confessor of Christ at Augsburg."}
10. July 20, to Melanchthon: " It was a great affliction to me
that I could not be present with you in the body at that most
beautiful and holy Confession of Christ" ~ (pulcherrima et sanctissimna.) August 3d, he sends a letter to Melanchthon, "his most
dear brother in Christ, and Confessor of the Lord at Augsburg."
11. But perhaps nowhere has Luther's enthusiastic admiration for the Augsburg Confession blazed up more brightly than
in his eloquent summary of what our Confessors had done at
the Diet.  It is in the last letter he wrote to Melanchthon,
before they again met at Coburg (September 15th):" You have
confessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the
Emperor, you have endured injuries, you have been drenched
* De Wette, No. 1251. Walch xvi, 1098.     t Buddeus, No. 154.
t Buddeus, No. 150.                        ~ Buddeus, No. 155.




LUTHER'S OPINION.                       237
in their revilings, you have not returned evil for evil. In
brief, you have worthily done God's holy work as becometh
saints.  Be glad then in the Lord, and exult, ye righteous.
Long have ye borne witness in the world, look up and lift up
your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.  I will canonize
yozt asfaithfld members of Christ, and what greater glory can ye
have than to have yielded Christ faithful service, and shown
yourself a member worthy of him? " -
12. In his Table Talk Luther said: "Such is the efficacy
and power of God's word, that the more it is persecuted, the
more it flourishes and spreads.  Call to mind the Diet at Augsburg, where the last trumpet before the judgment-day sounded.
How the whole world then raged against our doctrine! Our
doctrine and faith were brought forth to light in our Confession.  Our doctrines fell into the souls of many of the noblest
- men, and ran like sparks in tinder.  They were kindled, and
kindled others.  Thus our Confession and Defence came forth
in the highest glory." *
13. In the year 1533, t Luther united in demanding of candidates as a pre-requisite to entering the ministry, the declaration, "that they embraced the uncorrupted doctrine of the
Gospel, and so understood it, as it is set forth in the Apostles',.Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and as it is repeated in the
Confession, which our Churches offered to the Emperor at the
Diet of Augsburg, 1530, and the promise that. with God's help
they will remain steadfast in that conviction to the end, and
will faithfully perform their duty in the Church."
It is not wonderful that Melanchthon himself considered the
Confession as rather Luther's than his own, and called it " the
Confession of the revered Doctor Luther.";
This, then, is the result of the whole: The IHoly Ghost in
His ordinary illumination through the Word, is the true
source and original of the Augsburg Confession; its secondary
source is the whole Evangelical Church of 1530, the main organ
* Leipz., xx, 200. Tischreden (Fcersternman,) iv, 354.
t Buddeus, No. 178.
t Melanchthon Orat. (1553.) Pref. to Confessio Doctrine, 1551, in Corp. Ref.,
lib. xii, No. 5349.




238         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of whose utterance was, as to the matter and the substance of
the form, Luther; as to the finish and grace of the form,
Melanchthon: both acting with the advice, co-labor, and full
approval of the clerical and lay representatives of the Church.
Just as we accept this or that point of view, we may say that
the Augsburg Confession is the work  of the Evangelical
Church, or of the theologians and laymen at Augsburg, or of
Melanchthon, or of Luther.  "The Confession of ours,"  our
Confession which our Philip prepared," "your Confession,"
"my Confession," are all terms employed by Luther.  All
these statements are true, and perfectly harmonious —just as
we may say that the Declaration of Independence was the work
of the Thirteen Colonies, or of the Continental Congress, or of
its Committee, or of Thomas Jefferson.  Melanchthon, then,
was by pre-eminence the composer of the Confession, not as a
private individual, but as chief of a body of advisers, without
whose concurrence nothing was fixed,  Luther, by pre-eminence, as the divinely called representative of the Church, its
author.  Hence all candid writers have most heartily  indorsed Luther's own declaration, in which he not only claims
the Augsburg Confession as in one sense his own, but ranks it
among his most precious works: t "The Catechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg Confession
are mine." This claim he puts in, in no sense which conflicts with
the public character of the document, or of Melanchthon's
great merit, as in part the compiler, and as in part the composer of the Confession. Kcellner adds: " And he had the right
to say so."  Weber: says: "As to its matter, Luther was the
author of the Confession, not indeed the only one, but the primary one." "Melanchthon," says Danz, ~ "was the composer,
the editor, not the author, (Redacteur, nicht Urheber.)"
But are there not a few words of Luther in regard to the
Confession, which are in conflict with this enthusiastic approval?  We reply, there is not one word of the kind.  The
* Melanchthon, June 26. "I would have changed more things if my counsellors would have permitted it."
t Werke (Walch,) xxii, 4532. Koellner, 181 (45.)
t L. S. prol. ad C. A. p. viii.                I A. C. 8 3.




LUTHER'S OBJECTIONS.                       239
passages which have been cited to show that Luther was not
satisfied with the  Confession, in  some  respects, are  the
following:
1. June 29,* (to Melanchthon.)  " On my side more than
enough has been yielded in that Apology, which if they refuse,
I see nothing more which I can yield, unless they furnish
clearer reasons and Scripture proofs than I have yet seen them
furnish."  In this citation it is manifest that Luther does not
mean that any concessions have been made, by   Luther's alleged
others, for him. It is his own concessions of objections to the
Confession.
which he speaks, concessions not of doctrine or
of principle, but of preferences, very dear to him, which
might be renounced  if the truth  itself were not periled.
" Day and night " he adds, " I iam  occupied with the rlatter,
thinking over it, revolving it in my mind, arguing, searching
the entire Scriptures, and there grows upon me constantly that
fullness of assurance, in this our doctrine, and I am more and
more confirmed in the purpose, that I will yield nothing more,
come what may."  "I am  offended at your writing, that in
this cause, you follow my authority. I will not be, nor be
called, author in this cause. If it is not equally your cause, it
shall not be said that it was mine, and was imposed on you.
If it be my cause alone, I will manage it alone." "If we be
not the Church, or a part of the Church, where is the Church?
If we have not the Word of God, who has it? "  " As I have
always written, so I now write, I am ready to concede to them
everything, provided only, that the Gospel be left free to us.
But what conflicts with the Gospel I cannot concede."  This
shows that Luther felt that no concession in conflict with the
Gospel had been made in the Confession.
2. The letter of July 3d,t to Melanchth.on, is one wvhich
hRickert, with the prosiness characteristic of the Rationalistic
mind, is completely puzzled with, but he can make nothing of
* In Latin: Epistol. Mar. Luth. Buddeus, 113. Coelestin. i. 198. De Wette,
No. 1236. German: Jena (ed.1566) 40. Leipz. xx. 185. French: Chytroeus (Le
Cop) 131.
t Latin: Ep. M. L. Budd. 127. Coelestinus, 204. German: Walch xvi. 1082.
De Wette,No. 1243.




240         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
it, if it be not meant to censure the Confession. It must be
granted, that it opens in an extraordinary manner for a letter
of censure: "Yesterday, I read again carefully your Apology,
and it pleases me vehemently."  Now come the supposed words
of stricture: " But it errs and sins in one thing, that it acts
contrary to the Holy Scripture, where Christ says of himself,'We will not have this man to reign over us'; and falls upon
that reproof'the stone which the builders rejected.' But
where there is so great blindness and obstinacy, what can you
expect but to be rejected. For they do not grant us the name
of builders, a name which they arrogate to themselves, and
with justice; but we ought to glory in the name of destroyers,
scatterers, and disturbers; we should glory in being counted
with the wicked, as that stone itself was counted withthieves
and condemned with them.*"  To one familiar with Luther's
style and vein of thought, it is at once apparent that these
words are ironical: they burlesque, and hardly burlesque, the
absurd arguments and use of texts of which some of the
Romish Controversialists of that day were guilty. Luther begins
by playfully personating such an objector.  The Confession
will'have Christ to reign over us, but the objector urges this is
contrary to Scripture, which says:' We will not have t is man
to reign over us.' The Confession moreover is reproved by
Scripture for making a corner-stone of the very thing which
the builders rejected. We are the builders, and you reformers are the pullers down.  The humor of the passage consists
in making the opponents represent that as approval which the
Scripture condemns, that as reproach which the Scripture approves, and in throwing upon them their own claims to be builders. You are the builders, no doubt, the builders who rejected
the stone which has become the head-stone of the corner, in
the Confession.
3. The.letter of July 21,* to Justus Jonas, speaking of the
question which had been put,'Whether the Confession had
more articles to Spresent,' says: " Satan still lives, and has
observed that your Apology, treading softly, has passed over
Latin: Budd. 169. Coelestinus, 233. German: Walch xvi. 2843. De Wette.
No. 1266.




LUTHER'S OBJECTIONS.                   241
the Article of Purgatory, of the Worship of the Saints, and
most of all of the Pope as Antichrist. Unhappy Emperor, if he
proposes togive up the Diet to listening to confutations of Luther,
as if the present Apology did not give them enough to answer."
This means that although the Confession, by not making a
longer enumeration of abuses, had led to this demand, yet that
it had quite enough. The words moreover, in the most unfavorable sense, would only show  that Luther wished that
among the Articles of Abuses there should have been a declaration that the Pope is Antichrist, and a full handling of the
doctrine of Saint-Worship and Purgatory. But the Confession,
as a conjoint public document, could only discuss what a majority of those who were to unite in it thought best to present.
Melanchthon himself was overruled in regard to matters he
desired to introduce. The Augsburg Confession was no private document, but in the labors of both Luther and Melanchthon in connection with it, both were the organs of the whole
Church, and were compelled to sacrifice their mere private
preferences to the common judgment. Every sentence, every
word of the Augsburg Confession as it stands, embodies the
faith of Luther, and received his unqualified, repeated, and enthusiastic assent.
If, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, in
preparing his statement of the political abuses which justified
our separation from Great Britain, had wished to specify one
or two more than the Committee thought necessary, and which
were consequently not inserted, it would not weaken his claim
to the authorship of that document. Nor would the fact, that
he continued to think that it would have improved it to have
specified the one or two additional abuses, afiect the conscientious heartiness with which he indorsed that document, nor
impair the value of his testimony. But even the preference
of Luther, to which this is a fair parallel, was but transient,
and he came to see clearly what the whole world has since
seen, that in its silence, the Augsburg Confession is a model of
exquisite judgment, as in its utterances it is a masterpiece of
style.
The occasion of the Augsburg Confession was the command
16




242          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of the Emperor, -not that he demanded such a Confession,
but that under the leadings of God's providence it grew out
Oject o te of his summons.  The last was destined to become
Augsburg Con- first, and the first last.  The Confessors themfe3sioo.    selves did not at first realize the full value of the
opening which had been made for the proclamation of the
truth, but when it dawned upon them they showed themselves
worthy of their great position. They at first meant but an
Apology.  The faith they cherished, and the usages they practised, they simply wished to defend from  the current libels.
This object they did not lose sight of, but it became secondary.
Their distinctive object soon became the setting forth the great
points in the whole system of heavenly truth, and the showing
how, in its light, they had endeavored cautiously, and gently,
yet firmly, to remove the abuses which had arisen in the
Church of the West.  The Apology was transfigured into a
Confession. It was not only not meant to be a compromise with
Popery, but it clearly showed, and was designed to show, that
such a compromise is impossible.  Our Reformers had indeed
cherished a noble hope, which bitter experience was constantly
rendering feebler, that the whole Church of the West, redeemed from the thrall of the Pope, might return to her ancient
Scriptural faith, and, abjuring Roman Catholicism, attain once
more to Christian Catholicity, and become a Communion of
saints. If such a return had been possible, the Augsburg Confession, alike in the simplicity and purity of its statement of
doctrine, the conservatism of its whole tone, its firmness and
its gentleness, would have helped to facilitate it; but the bridge
it made was not meant to open the way back to error, Jbut to
aid men to come over to the pure faith.
The Confession, in Latin and German, was presented to the
The presenta- Diet on Saturday, June 25th, 1530. Both texts
tion of the Con- are originals; neither text is properly a translation
fession  Latin
and   Gerlan of the other; both present precisely the same docText.*     trines, but with verbal differences, which make the
*Manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession in the Archives. Cf. Kollner, 321
-336.
A. Latin manuscripts. K6llner 323-329. Corpus Reformatorum, xxvi, 213-226.




THE PRESENTATION OF THE CONFESSION. 243
one an indispensable guide in the full understanding of the
other; both  texts  have, consequently, the  same  authority.
The German  copy was the one selected, on national grounds,
to be read aloud.  Both  copies were taken  by the Emperor,
who handed the German to the Elector of Mentz, and retained
the Latin.  It is not now  known where either of the originals
is, nor with  certainty that either is in existence.  In addition
to seven unauthorized editions in the year 1530, the Confession
was printed, under Melanchthon's own direction, both in Latin
and Gerlnan, while the Diet was still sitting.  Authorized editions of this year, both in Latin and German, are in the hands
of the writer, and have been examined in preparing this work.
The Confession began to be multiplied at once.  Innumerable
editions of the originals, and translations into the chief languages of Europe appeared. Its enemies have helped its friends
to circulate it, and to preserve the re-issues of these originals
from  any change involving more than questions of purely literary interest.
When Melanchthon, in 1540, issued a varied Edition of the
Latin, though he declared that the changes were but verbal,
and that he designed  only to state more clearly the precise
doctrine of the Confession in its original shape, the changes
Xwere marked by foe and  friend.  In  Melanchthon's Edition
1. The Weimar MS: (Vin. Weim.) cf. Corp. Reform. 1. c. 223. Kollner 323.
Foerstemann, Urkundenb. i. 444. Weber i. 79-81. The variations are given in
\Veber, Foerst.emann, Hose, Muller, Corp. Reformat.   2. The Anspach: (Onold.
Ansb.) ut supra. - 3. The Hannoverian. Kollner 324. Weber i. 84. -4. Hessian I.
K6llner 325; Foerstemann i. 442, gives the variations. -5. Hessian ii. Foerstemann i. 444, gives the variations. -6. Dessau (Anhalt.) Cf. Weber i. 87, who gives
the variations. -7. The Nuremberg. Kollner 336; Weber i. 94, gives the variations.
--   The Ratisbon. Kollner 327; Foerstemann 446, gives the variations (Reg.)
-9. The WiJrzburger, Kollner 329; Foerstemann (i. 446) gives the variations.
B. German Manuscripts.
1. The Mentz copy in the Protocoll of the Empire. This was long regarded
as the original, and as such found a place in the Book of Concord (1580.) Cf.
Weber i. 165; Kollner 306.- 2. Spalatin's (Weimar i.)- 3. Weimar (ii.) -4.
The first Anspach (i.) —5. The second Anspach (ii.) —6. The third Anspach
(iii.)- 7. The Hannoverian. -8. The Nuremberg. -9. The Hessian. - 10. The
Munich [Munch.]-11. Nordlingen.-12. Augsburg.  Of all these Kollner,
Foerstemann and Weber give full descriptions, and the two latter the variations;
so also Muller, under the text of the Editio Princeps.




244             CON SER VATIVE RE  FORMJT1TIO N.
of 1531, trifling changes of a verbal nature had been made, but
in antithesis to both  this Edition  and  the  Original of 1530,
that of 1540 is called  the  Variata, because it has
The Augsbnr'
ConfessioD  Al- elaborated anew  some of the articles, and has made
tered.*       important changes.   The  first articles so treated
is the Article  on  Original Sin, (II) in which  the  changes are
these as given in brackets:'
" They also teach that after Adam's fall all men propagated
after the commnon course of nature [the natural morde] are born
with  sin [being born  have sin  of origin] that is without fear
of God, without trust toward God.   [But by sin of origin, we
understand, what the Holy Fathers so call, and all the orthodox
and piously instructed in the Church, to wit, liability (reatum)
by which those born, are  on  account of (propter) Adam's fall,
liable to (rei) the wrath of God and eternal death, as also, the
corruptionitself, of human  nature, which (corruption) is pro
pagated from  Adam,] and with concupiscence,  [And the corruption of human nature, defect of the original righteousness,
or integrity, or obedience, embraces concupiscence.]
* Melanchthon's varied edition of the Latin Confession of three kinds.
I. 1531, 8vo. II. 1540. 4to. III. 1542, 8vo.  Weber ii. 32-116.
I. Edition of 1531, 8vo. The variations slight. It has never been pretended
that they affect the meaning. Weber ii. 82-102. Corpus Reformat. xxvi. 337. —
Lutheri Opera, Jena (1583) iv, 191-203. -Melanchthon's Opera, Wittenb. 1562,
p. 27-38. - Corpus doctrine, Leipz. 1563, given with that of 1542.- This edition has often been confounded with the edition of 1530, 4to. (1. a.,) and was
actually introduced by Selnecker into the first Latin edition of the Book of Con
cord. Cf. Weber ii. 102; Kollner 348.  The variations are given in Hase: Prolegomena xv. Confess. Variat.Varietas, and are marked (A.)
II. Edition of the Latin Confession, 1540, 4to.  The variata. Weber ii. 103-107.
- Corpus Reformat. xxvi, 339.- It is given in Corpus Reformatorum xxvi, 351416, with the various readings. (Edit. of 1535, 1538.-The variations are
given in Hase: Prolegomena xv-lxxiv and are marked (B.) -It is translated in
"An Harmony of Confessions," &c., Cambridge, 1586. It is there called the
"first edition." Cf. Weber ii. 103, Kollner 349.
III. Latin Confession of 1542, 8vo.  The variata varied. -Weber ii. 108-116,
Corpus Reformat. xxvi, 345.-Given in Corpus Doctrinae, Lipsia, 1563. 1-56. 
Fabricii Harmonia 1573. -Melanchthonis Opera (Peucer) Witt. 1562. i. 39-58.
This has been frequently reprinted, and is sometimes confounded with the Variata of 1540. -The variations are given in Hase, and are marked (C.) and in
Corp. Reform. (ed. 4.) Cf. Weber ii. 108; Kollner 349.  It is translated in "an
Harmony," &c.  It is there called " the second edition."




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION ALTERED.  245
"And that this disease or vice of origin [And this defect is a
horrible blindness and non-obedience, to-wit, to lack that
light and knowledge of God which would have been in nature,
in integrity; likewise to lack that rectitude, that is perpetual
obedience, the true, pure and highest love of God, and like
gifts of nature in integrity.  Wherefore these defects and concupiscence, are things condemned, and in their own natute
worthy death; and the vice of origin] is truly sin... [They
condemn the Pelagians who deny the sin of origin, and think
that those defects, or concupiscence, are things indifferent or
penalties only, not things to be condemned in their own nature,
and who dream that man can satisfy the law of God, and can
on account of this obedience of his own be pronounced just
before God.]"
The Fourth Article (on Justification) is greatly enlarged,
and the treatment of the topic is very fine. The Fifth on the
Means of Grace asserts more distinctly than the original Confession the universality of the offer of Remission in the Gospel,
and is thus more positively Anti-Calvinistic in its expression on
this point.  The Sixth amplifies the doctrine of Holiness, in its
relations to Justification.  In the Ninth it is said: Baptism is
necessary to salvation [a.s a ceremony instituted by Christ.]
Infants through Baptism, being [colmmitted] to God, are received into God's favor, [and become children of God, as Christ
testifieth, saying of the little ones in the Church, Matt. xviii,'It is not the will of your Father in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish'.]  They condemn the Anabaptists
who affirm that infants are saved without Baptism'[and outside of the Church of Christ.] This is yet more decidedly than
the original Article incapable of a. Calvinistic construction. The
Articles on Free Will (xviii,) the Defence of Justification by
Faith (xx,) the Worship of Saints (xxi,) are all ably amplified.
The Articles on Abuses are recast and re-arranged.  It is not
to be disputed that in various respects, as a statement of doctrine,
the Variata has great beauty and great value, and that where
it indisputably is in perfect harmony with the original Confession, it furnishes an important aid in its interpretation.  Had
Melanchthon put forth the new matter purely as a private




246         CONSER VYATIVE REFOR MATI ON.
writing, most of it would have received the' unquestioniion admiration to which it was wxell entitled.  But he made the fatal
mistake of treating a great official document as if it were his
private property, yet preserving the old title, the old form in general, and the old signatures.  How would Jefferson have been
regarded if in 1786, ten years after the Declaration, he had sent
fbrth what he called the Declaration of Independence, enlarged
here, abridged there, with new topics, and new treatment, and
with what seemed at least a concession to the power from
whom we had separated, had added to this the names of the
Comnmittee and the vouchers of the Continental Congress, that
this was its act and deed for the nation?  Melanchthon did
worse than this. -The Declaration of Independence was the
mere form of an act consummated.  The Augsburg Confession
was a document of permanent force, and of continuous use.
To alter any of its doctrines, was to acknowledge that so far
the Confessors had erred, and to excite the suspicion that they
might have erred in more; and to alter the phrases, no matter
what explanation might be given, would be construed as involving alteration of doctrine.  Nor were the adversaries of our
faith slow in taking advantage of Melanchthon's great mistake.  The first public notice of the change came from  the
Roman Catholic side.  Melanchthon brought the Variata with
him to the Colloquy at Worms, at the beginning of 1541.*
The Augsburg Confession was by the request of the Protestants
(Lutherans) to be the basis of the discussion. Eck brought
to the Colloquy, from  the Imperial Archives of Mentz, the
German Original, which had been read at the Diet in 1530, and
had been given to the Emperor. lie opened with these words:
" Before all else I would prefer one thing.. Those of the other
part have offered to us a copy of the Confession and Apology,
not at all (minus) in. conformity with the llagenau Recess, in
virtue of which the Confession itself, as it was given (exhibita)
to his Imperial majesty, and the Princes, ought to have been
given to us also, nakedly and truly... waiving that point however, with a protest, we turn to thematter in hand."  To this
*Corpus Reformator. iv. No. 2132. P. Melanchthon. Leb. u. ausgewaihlt.
Werke, von Dr. Carl Schmidt. Elberfeld. 1861. 379.




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION ALTERED.   247
Melanchthon replied, " As to the dissimilarity of copies, I answer that the meaning of the things is the same (rerum eandem
esse sententiam,) although some things here and there, in the
later edition, are more freed fromi harshness, (mitigata) or are
more explicit."  To this Eck replied: "As to the variation
of copies, I could easily overthrow his reply, and show by ocular inspection, that not only in words, but in the things themselves, these copies depart from the Augsburg Confession. For
brevity's sake I defer what I have to say, to the Articles as
they come up in the colloquy, when I will make clear what I
have alleged, as in the Tenth Article, etc."  To this Melanchthon said:' We can reply more fitly elsewhere to what has
been urged in regard to copies -and let there be some moderation to charges of this sort."  To this Eck said:'" As to the
change of copies, I now purposely pass it by."  If Melanchthon consciously made a change of meaning in the Confession,
it is impossible to defend him  from  the charge of direct
falsehood. For ourselves we do not hesitate for a moment.
With all the mistakes into which Melanchthon fell through
his great love of peace, we regard him as above all suspicion
in any point involving Christian character. If the doctrine
of the Variata differs from that of the Confession, the change
was not designed by Melanchthon.  We go further and say,
that to accept it as a Canon, that the interpretation of the
Variata is to be conditioned by a belief that Melanchthon
designed no changes, will involve the interpreter in no absurdity. The Variata can be so interpreted as to be in sufficient
harmony with the Unaltered Confession, to leave Melanchthon's statement credible.  Of the changes in the Tenth Article (the Lord's Supper) we shall speak in another place. The
Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists acted as if they did not believe Melanchthon's statement that no alteration of doctrine
had been intended. In the Lutheran Church different views
were taken of the matter.  Those who believed Melanchthon's
declaration that the changes were purely verbal, the better to
express the very doctrine set forth at Augsburg, either passed
them over without disapproval, or were comparatively lenient
in their censure. Every instance of the seeming toleration of




248           CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
them in the Lutheran Church was connected with the supposition that the Altered Confession in no respect whatever differed from  the doctrine of the Unaltered.  There never was
any part of the Lutheran Church which imagined that Melanchthon had any right to alter the meaning of the Confession
in a single particular.  Melanchthon himself repeatedly, after
the appearance of the Variata, acknowledged the Unaltered
Augsburg Confession as a statement of his own unchanged
faith, as for example, at the Diet of Ratisbon in 1541.  In
1557, at the Colloquy at Worms, he not only acknowledged
as his Creed, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Smalcald Articles, but by name, and in writing,
condemned the Zwinglian doctrine.  But a few days before his
death (1560), he said: " I confess no other doctrine than that
which Luther propounded, and in this will abide to the end
of my life."  Any man who professes to accept the Altered
Confession, therefore, though he rejects the Unaltered, either
is dishonest, or assumes that Melanchthon was, and shows
himself willing to take advantage of his moral weakness.
The history of the Altered Confession demonstrates that not
only is it no gain to the peace of the Church, but produces a
yet more grievous disturbance of it, when the effort is made to
harmonize men by an agreement in ambiguous phraseology,
the adoption of terms which are to be accepted in one sense by
one set of men, and in another sense by another.
The Current Edition of the Augsburg Confession in LATIN,
the one which is found in the Book of Concord, is
The Current
Editions of the the reprint of Melanchthon's own first Edition of
Augsburg Con- 1530.  The Current Edition of the Confession in
ession:atinnd GERMAN, however, which is the one found in the
Book  of Concord, is not a reprint of Melanchthon's first Edition, and this fact requires some explanation.
Editions and Translations of the Augsburg Confession.
For the Litereature see FABRIcIus: Centifol. 109, 585-589.FEUIERLIN: Bibl. Symb.
[1st ed. 44-69] p. 40 seq.  MASCH: Beytrige zur Geschichte merkwirdig.
Biicher, [1769] i. 159.- SALIG: i. 695-737. KOECHER: Bibliotheca theol. Symbol.
145-149. WEBER: Kritisch. Geschichte. Vol. ii. - KSLLNER: Symbol. Luth. Kirch.
226-237. 344-353. - Corpus Reformatum xxvi. 201-264. 337-350. On the translations, of. Weber ii. 4. Feuerlin 60-64 [66-69.] Rotermund, 184. Danz. 38.




THE CONFESSION-CURRENT EDITIONS.  249
The original German was, as we have seen, deposited in  the
imperial archives at Mentz.  The Emperor ha.d  forbidden  the
Confession to be printed without his permission; nevertheless,
it appeared surreptitiously several times in the year, printed
The work of Weber, which is classic in the department of the criticism of the
text of the Confession, arranges the different editions according to the order of
their publication thus:
A. The unauthorized editions of the Augsburg Confession in 1530.  These
were issued contrary to the order of the Emperor, and without the knowledge of
the Protestant Princes. Weber i. 353-408. Danz. 35-40.  There were seven editions of this kind.
I. Latin: There was one Latin edition.  This is described by WEBER: i. 405408, and the variations (Eu. ANT.) from Melanchthon's are given by him in the
Beylagen to the second part of the Krit. Gesch. cf. Corpus Reformatorum xxvi.
231-234.
II. German.
1. Described by WEBER i. 357-366, and the various readings (Ae. Ex. 1.) given.
Beylag. z. Erst. Theil. iii. -2. Described by WEBER: i. 367-372, more correct
than the former. -3. Described by WEBER: i. 372-375, closely conformed to
No. 1.- 4. Described by WEBER: i. 376-381, closely follows No. 1. cf. Reimmani
Catalog. 403. Feuerlin 41.- 5. Described by WEBER: i. 381-387. cf. Salig. i.
711. Feuerlin 41. -6. Given by ZEIDLER in the supplemental volume of Luther's
Werke.  Halle 1702, p. 346-363.  Described by WEBER: i. 387-400, who gives
the variations (Ae. Ex. 2.) Compare in addition, KOLLNER Symbolik 228-231.
The whole of these, Weber has shown (400) are probably based on but one MS.
B. Melanchthonian Editions: cf. K(iLLNER, 231, 345. Melanchthon's Praefatio.
Salig. i. 471. Weber ii. 6.
1. The first of these, the EDITIO PRINCEPS, is the 4to edition, Latin and German. Wittenberg, 1530 (1531.) Copies of the Confession in this edition came to
Augsburg while the Diet was still in session.  WEBER i. 356. ii. 11.  HASE Proleg. v. 3, KOLLNER 234, cf. FEUERLIN NO. 253 (205) and above all, Corpus Reformator. xxvi, 234-258.
1. The LATIN, accurately reprinted, with various readings, in WEBER'S Kritisch.
Gesch. ii. Beylage i. Nothwend. Vertheidig. 1629. 24-223. The Latin of the ed.
princeps is also the Textus receptus of the Symbol. Books.  REINECII Concord.
Lips. 1708. Do. Lips. 1730. (A. C. Germ. et Latina cum  vers. Graeca.)  PFAFF:
Lib. Symb. Tubing. 1730 first critical edition. WALCII. Christlich. Concordienb.
Jena 1750. RECIHENBERG: Concordia Lips. 1732 (1677.)-TWESTEN: 1816. WINER:
1825. HASE: Libr. Symb. (1827) with various readings. -FRANCKE: Lib. Symb.
1846, with various readings, and compared with the German: MiLLER: Die Symb.
Bicher, 1848. - TITTANN: Confessio Fidei &c., ex prima Melanchthonis editione, Dresden 1830; 8vo. with notes. WEBER, 1830, with notes- FOERSTEMANN:
Urkundenbuch i. 470-559, with various readings.-CORPUS REFORMATORUM:
xxvi. 263-336, with various readings.  From  this edition we have the doctrinal articles in Schmucker's Pop. Theolog., 1834. Appendix i. Do. Lutheran Manual, 1855.  TRANSLATIONS.  It has been translated  into  French:




250             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
in  no case from  a copy of the original, but from  copies of the
Confession  made before  it had  reached  the  perfect form  in
which it was actually presented  to  the  Diet.   These editions
of the Confession  not only  being  unauthorized, but not preHistoire de la Conf. d'Auxpourg (Chytraeus) mise en Francois par Luc le Cop.
Anvers, 1582, 72-106; cf. Weber ii. 212-216. Fabricius, Cent. Luth. 588. — In
English: An harmony of Confessions, &c.  Cambridge 1586. -S. S. SCHMUCKEIR,
D. D., Popular Theology, 1834.  In the doctrinal articles the condemnatory
clauses are omitted, except in Art. xii, xiii, xvi, xvii.- E. HAZELIUS, D. D., Discipline, etc., 1841. 5-56. The doctrinal articles only, but with the condemnatory clauses. -C. P. KRAUTH: Augsburg Confession with notes. Philada. 1868.
On the translations of the Augs. Confess. into English, cf. WEBER ii. 216-218.
Under the direction of Thomas Cromwell, "who died a Lutheran" (Burnet) the
Augsburg Confession and Apology were translated by RICHARD TAVERNER into
English, and were printed in London, 1536.
2. The GERMAN of the Editio princeps (not the Text. recept. of the Symbol.
Books) cf. WEBER ii. 16-54; K6LLNER 346 (Cyprian Cap. x.)  Given in Luther's
Werke, Jena vi, 387. Leipzig, xx, 9. - TWESTEN: 1816.- TITTMANN: Die Augsburg Confess. nach den Original Ausgab. Melanchthon's. Dresden 1830, with
notes.-MiiLLER: Symb. Biicher, 1848. Abdricke von Melanchthon's erster
Ausgabe der Augsb. Confess. 861-904, with various readings.  The variations
from  the German Text. recept., as given in Baumgarten's Concord. (Rh, from
Rhaw -the printer of the original edition,)and in Walch: Concordienbuch (Wittenberg i.) Weber i. Beylag.iii.
II. Melanchthon's "improved" edition of the German Confession, 1533, 8vo.
Cf. Weber K. G. ii. 55-81.  Feuerlin, 44, 45 (48,) KSllner 347.  Given in Corpus
Doctrinm. Leipz. 1560. i-xlii. -WEBER: Augspurg. Confession nach der Urschrift im Reich's Archiv, nebst  einer Ehrenrettung Melanchthon's, Weimar, 1781.
8vo.  The mistake of Weber, which led to the issue of this edition, is one of the
curiosities of Theological Literature. (cf. Kllner Symb. 294.) It became the occasion of the preparation of his masterly work: The Critical History of the Augsburg Confession.
C. The Augsburg Confession (German) from a collation of the copy in the Imperial Archives (The received German text of the Book of Concord.) Kollner
349; Weber ii. 117-192. - Given in Chytrseus: Histor. der Augspurg. Confess.
(1576) 1580. 59-94. -C(ELESTINUS: Historia Comit. August, 1577. ii. 151-167.
-Concordia. Dresden 1580. Fol. 3-20. Nothw. Vertheidig. 1'629. 24-223. Muller,
Historia 595-649. Reineccius 1730.  Cyprian, Historia 1730.- WEnBER'  Krit.
Gesch. 1783, i. Beylage iii, with various readings.  Schott 1829; and in most of
the histories of the Augsburg Confession. -It is to be found in all the German,
and German-Latin editions of the Symbols. With various readings in Reineccius
1708.  Baumgarten 1747.  Walch 1750.  Twesten 1816.  Ammon 1829.  Miller
1848.  Schmucker: Lutheran  Manual, 1855.  325-339, gives the doctrinal
articles and the Epilogue.  TRANSLATIONS: The abridged translation of the articles on abuses in Dr. Schmucker's Popular Theology, p. 337, is from this edition.
In the Lutheran Manual, 283-309, a complete translation is given of the articles




THE CONFESSION-CURRENT EDITIONS.  251
senting it in the shape in which it had actually been delivered,
Melanchthon issued the Confession both in German and Latin.
The German  was printed  from   his  own  manuscript, from
which the copy had been taken to be laid  before the Diet.  It
reached Augsburg, and  was read  and  circulated  there, while
the Diet was still in session.  Melanchthon issued it expressly
in view  of the fact that the unauthorized  editions were not
accurate.
The first authorized  edition, the Editio Princeps, coming
from  the hand of its composer, and presenting not only in  the
nature of the case the highest guarantee for strict accuracy,
but surrounded  by jealous and watchful enemies, in the very
Diet yet sitting, before which it mwas read, surrounded by mlen
eager to  mark  and to  exaggerate the slightest appearance of
discrepance, was received by Luther and  the whole Lutheran
Church.   Luther knew  no other Augsburg Confession in the
German  than  this.  It was received into  the Bodies of Doctrine of the whole Church.  It appears in the Jena edition of
Luther's works, an edition  which  originated  in the purpose
of having his writings in a perfectly unchanged form, and was
on abuses, also from  this edition.  The Unalt. Aug. Conf. New York, 1847, do.
1848.  Phila. 1855, for the Lutheran Board of Publication. -The Christian
Book of Concord. New Market, 1851. Second edition revised, 1854.  The Confession was translated by Revs. A. and S. Henkel, for the first edition, and revised by C. Philip Krauth, P. D., for the second.
D. Combined editions. Cf. Weber ii. 193-206. Kollner 351.
I. Latin.  Fabricii Leodii: Harmonia Aug. Conf. Colon. 1573, Fol. It contains
1. A text claiming to be the original.  2. The variata of 1542.  3. Various readings from the 4to edition of 1530, and the 8vo of 1531.  Cf. Corpus Reformat.
xxvi, 225-229.-Corpus Doctrinae, Lips. 1563.  1. The Confess. of 1542. 2.
The 8vo of 1531.  Translation: An Harmony of Confessions, Cambridge, 1586.
II. German. Chytrmeus: Historia (1580.)  1. The received text from  the
archives. 2. The text of the Editio Princeps where it differs from the other.
III. German and Latin.  Nothwendige Vertheidigung des Aug. Apffels. Leipz.
1619. 24-223. Editio princeps of Latin, Textus recep. of the German. Reineccius
1708. Do. 1730. Walch 1750. Miiller 1848. Do. Tittmann 1830, Editio prihceps
of both.  TWOSTEN 1816. 1. ed. princ. of Latin and German. 2. German of the
ordinary edition.
IV. Greek, Latin and German (Dolscii) ed. Reineccius, 1730.
E. Versified. -Augspurgisches Lehr-lied. The Doctrinal articles only. In
Greek and Latin verse (Rhodomann) 1730.  There is also an English versification of the Doctrinal Articles in the oldest Moravian Hymn Books.




252         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.
there given as the authentic Confession in antithesis to all the
editions of it in which there were variations large or small.
In the Convention of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Princes at
Naumberg in 1561, among whom were two of the original
signers, this edition was declared to be authentic, and was
again  solemnly  subscribed, and the seals of the signers
appended.  Nothing could seem  to be more certainly fixed
than that this original edition of Melanchthon presented the
Confession in its most perfect form, just as it was actually
delivered ill the Diet.
But unhappy causes, connected largely with Melanchthon's
later attempts to produce unity by skilful phrases and skilful
concealments, led to a most groundless suspicion, that even in
the original edition there might be variations from the very
letter of the Confession as actually delivered. That there were
any changes in meaning was not even in those times of morbid
jealousy pretended, but a strong anxiety was felt to secure a
copy of the Confession perfectly corresponding in words, in
letters, and in points, with the original.  The original of the
Latin had been taken by Charles with him, but the German
original was still supposed to be in the archives at Mentz.
Joachim  II., in 1566, directed Coelestinus and Zochius to
make a copy from  the Mentz original.  Their copy was
inserted in the Brandenburg Body of Doctrine in 1572.
In 1576, Augustus of Saxony obtained from the Elector of
Mentz a copy of the same document, and from this the Augsburg Confession as it appears in the Book of Concord was
printed.  Wherever the Book of Concord was received, Melanchthon's original edition of the German was displaced,
though the corresponding edition of the Latin has been
retained.  Thus, half a century after its universal recognition,
the first edition of the Augsburg Confession in German gave
way to what was believed to be a true transcript of the
original.
Two hundred years after the delivery of the Confession, a
discovery was communicated to the theological world by Pfaff,
which has reinstated Melanchthon's original edition.  Pfaff
discovered that the document in the archives at Mentz was




DIVISIONS OF THE CONFESSION.                    253
not the original, but a copy merely, and the labors of Weber
have demonstrated that this copy has no claim to be regarded
as made from the original, but is a transcript from one of the
less-finished copies of the Confession, made before it had
assumed, under Melanchthon's hand, the exact shape in which
it was actually presented. While, therefore, the ordinary edition of the Augsburg Confession, the one found in the Book
of Concord, and from which the current translations of the
Confession have been made, does not differ in meaning at all
from  the original edition of Melanchthon, it is, nevertheless,
not so perfect in style, and where they differ, not so clear.
The highest critical authority, then, both German and Latin,
is that of Melanchthon's own original editions.*
The current edition of the German, and the earlier edition
of Melanchthon, are verbally identical in the larger part of
the articles, both of doctrine and of abuses. The only difference is, that Melanchthon's edition is occasionally somewhat
fuller, especially on the abuses, is more perfectly parallel with
the Latin at a few points, and occasionally more finished in
style.  When the question between them has a practical interest, it is simply because Melanchthon's edition expresses in
terms, or with greater clearness, what is simply implied, or
less explicitly stated in the other.
The structure of the Augsburg Confession bears traces of
the mode of its growth out of the Articles which formed its
groundwork.  It contains, as its two fundamental
parts, a positive assertion of the most necessary  iiStrt'f and
truths, and a negation of the most serious abuses. Augsburg ConIt comprises: I. THE PREFACE; II. TWENTY-ONE
PRINCIPAL ARTICLES OF FAITH; III. AN EPILOGUE-PROLOGUE,
which unites the first part with the second, and makes a graceful transition from the one to the other; IV. THE SECOND GREAT
DIVISION, embracing SEVEN ARTICLES ON ABUSES; V. THE EPILOGUE, followed by the SUBSCRIPTIONS.
The ARTICLES are not arranged as a whole with reference to
a system.  They may be classified thus:
* For the facts here presented, compare Weber Krit. Geschichte: Hase, Lib.
Symb, Francke do. Killner Symb, Luther. Kirch.. 342.




254         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
I. The CONFESSEDLY CATHOLIC, or Universal Christian Articles,- those which Christendom, Greek and Roman, have
confessed, especially in the Apostles' and Nicene Creed.  These
were the doctrines of the Trinity (I), the Incarnation (III), the
Second Coming of Christ, the General Resurrection, the Eternity of Rewards and Punishment (XVII), the Validity of Administration by Unworthy Ministers (VIII), the Offer of Grace
in Baptism, and the Right of Children to it (IX), Church Government (XIV), Civil Government (XVI), Free Will (XVIII),
and the Cause of Sin (XIX).
II. The PROTESTANT Articles, - those opposed to the errors 
in doctrine, and the abuses in usage, of the Papal part of the
Church of the West. To this the Confession, in its whole
argument, based upon the Holy Scriptures as a supreme rule
of faith, was opposed. But more particularly to the Pelagianism of Rome, in the doctrine of Original Sin (Art. II): its corruption of the doctrine of Justification (Art. IV): its doctrine
of Merit in Works (Art. VI, XX), of the Ministerial Office, as
an Order of Priests (Art. V), of Transubstantiation (Art. X),
of Auricular Confession (Art. XI), of Repentance (Art. XII),
of the Opus Operatum in Sacraments (Art. XIII), of Church
Order (Art. XX), of the true nature of the Christian Church
(Art. VII), and of the Worship of Saints (Art. XXI).
The entire second part was devoted to the argument against
the Abuses in the Church of Rome, especially in regard to Communion in One Kind (Abus., Art. I), Celibacy of the Priesthood (Art. II), the Mass (Art. III), Confession (IV), Humnan
Traditions (V), Monastic Vows (VI), Church Power, and especially the Jurisdiction of the Bishops (VII).
III. The EVANGELICAL Articles, or parts of Articles,- those
articles which especially assert the doctrines which are connected most directly with the Gospel in its essential character
as tidings of redemption to lost man, -the great doctrines of
grace.  These articles are specially those which teach the fall
of man, the radical corruption of his nature, his exposure to
eternal death, and the absolute necessity of regeneration (Art.
II); the atonement of Christ, and the saving work of the Holy
Spirit (Art. III); justification by faith alone (IV), the true




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION-ITS VALUE.  255
character of repentance, or conversion (XII); and the impotence of man's own will to effect'it (XVIII).
IV. The CONSERVATIVE Articles, the Articles which set forth
DISTINCTIVE BIBLICAL doctrines which the LUTHERAN Church
holds in peculiar purity, over against the corruptions of Romanism, the extravagance of Radicalism, the perversions of
Rationalism, or the imperfect development of theology.  Such
are the doctrines of the proper inseparability of the two natures
of Christ, both as to time and space (Art. III), the objective
force of the Word and Sacraments (Art. V), the reality of the
presence of both the heavenly and earthly elements in the
Lord's Supper (Art. X), the true value of Private, that is, of
individual Absolution (Art. XI), the genuine character of Sacramental grace (Art. XIII), the true medium  in regard to
the rites of the Church (Art. XV), the freedom  of the will
(XVIII), and the proper doctrine concerning the Cause of Sil
(XIX).  On all these points the Augsburg Confession presents
views which, either in matter or measure, are opposed to extremes, which claim  to be Protestant and Evangelical.  Pelagianizing, Rationalistic, Fatalistic, Fanatical, unhistorical tendencies, which, more or less unconsciously, have revealed themselves, both in Romanism  and in various types of nominally
Evangelical Protestantism, are all met and condemned by the
letter, tenor, or spirit of these articles.
Through the whole flows a spirit of earnest faith and of pure
devotion. The body of the Confession shows the hand of consummate theologians, the soul reveals the  inmost life of
humble, earnest Christians.
The Augsburg Confession has incalculable value as an abiding witness against the Errors of the Roman Cath-  The Augsburg
olic Church.  The old true Catholic Church was Confession: its
value.* 1. As a
almost lost in pride, avarice, and superstition.  The protest against
great labor of the body of the clergy was to defend  aomnim.
* Interpretation of the Augsburg Confession, in Commentaries, Notes and
Sermons.
Histoire de la Confess. d'Auxpourg (Chytraeus) par le Cop. Anvers 1582. p.:07-114. The notes are occupied with the citations, and historical allusions of
the Confession.
An Harmony of the Confessions, etc. "There are added in the ende verie




256             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the errors by which they were enriched. Two false doctrines
were of especial value to this enld: The first, that the Church
tradition is part of the Rule of Faith; the second, that good
works can merit of God.   With both the  formal and material
short notes in which both the obscure things are made plaine, etc." Cambridge,
1586. p. 593, ad fin.
MENTZER: Exegesis Augustanae Confessionis (1613) Frankfort, 1690.  Still
retains its position as a work of the highest value.- CALOVIUS: Criticus Sacer
vel Commentar. in August. Confess. Lips. 1646. 4to. pp. 920. Do. Theologia sec.
tenorem August. Confess., etc. 4to. pp. 1900. These two works only get as far as
the first article of the Confession. -ALTING H.: Exegesis Logica et Theologica
August. Confess. Amstelod. 1647. 5-114. -GOEBEL: Augustana Fidei Confess.
das ist die xxi Artikel.. erkliret. Frankf. a. M. 1654, Fol. pp. 1400.  Under the
title of Sermons, an elaborate Commentary on the Confession. - CALovIus: Synopsis Controversiarum etc. secund. seriem Articul. August. Confess. Wittenberg,
1685, 4to. pp. 1104. Lutherus Redivivus. Halle 1697. - HOFFMAN G.: Commentarius in August.  Confessionem. Tubing. 1717. 4to. pp. 400. A work of great
value. The portions of the other symbols parallel with the different articles of
the Augs. Confess. are brought together; the Wirtemberg Confession is also
brought into the harmony. - CYPRIAN: Historia der Augspurg. Confession. Gotha,
1730. p. 208-227. Specimens of a commentary on the i. xiii. xxii. xxviii. articles.
- VON SEELEN: Stromata Lutherana sive var. Script. ad... Augustan. Confess.
On the v. and vi. art. on abuses. xii.  On the citations of the Fathers. xvi.CAnPZOVII: Isagoge in L. Eccl. Luth. Symb. Lips. 1675. 95-763. After the lapse
of nearly two centuries, still the best of the eclectic works on the symbols.  The
Confession, and Apology are treated together. cf.' Fabricii Histor. Biblioth. iv.
264. - PFAF: Eccles. Evang. Libri Symb. Loca difficilia explanavit et vindicavit. Tubing. 1730. p. 28-86.  The notes are very brief, and very valuable. 
WALCH: Introductio in L. S... observat. histor. et theolog. illus. 1732. 157-408.
Classic, among the older works. -REINEcII: Concordia- adjectis, locis,% etc.
notisque aliis. Lips. 1735. 7-74.  The notes mostly critical, or connected with
the scriptural and patristic quotations in the Confession. -BOERNERI: Institutiones Theologiae Symbolicae. Lipsiae, 1751. -BAUMGARTEN: Erleuterungen.
2d. ed. 1761.  Compendious and rich. - WALCHII: Breviarium (1765,) p. 75-116.
-  SEMLERI: Apparatus (1775,) p. 42-127.  TITTMIANN: Institut. Symbol. (1811)
p. 91-134. -TITTMANN: Die Augsburg. Confession: Confessio Fidei. Dresden
1830  WINER (1825.) -SCHOPFF: Die S. B. mit historischen Einleit. kurz. Anmerk. u. ausf[ihrlichern Er6rterungen. Dresden, 1826. 24-103. -YELIN: Versuch (1829) p. 70-77. -SCHOTT C. H.: Die Augsb. Conf. mit historisch. Einleit.
u. erliuter. Anmerkungen. Leipz. 1829.  The Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
To which is prefixed a historical Introduction to the same, by C. H. Schott. New
York, 1848. - WEBER: Conf. August. animadversionibus, historicis, exegeticis,
dogmaticis et criticis. Halis 1830, 4to. - SPIEER: Confessio fidei... varii generis animadversionibus instruxit. Berolini 1830. - TITTMANN: De summ. princip. A. Conf. 1830. -LOCHMAN G., A. M. The History, Doctrine, etc., of the
Evang. Luth. Church. Part II, the Augsburg Confession, with explanatory notes




ITS POLITICAL VALUE.                             257
principles of the Church corrupted, what could result but'the
wreck of much that is most precious in  Christianity?   The
protest needed then is needed still.  The Roman Church has
indeed formally abrogated some of the worst' abuses which
found their justification in her false doctrines; the pressure
of Protestant thinking forces, or the light of Protestant science,
wins her children to a Christianity better than her theories;
but the root of the old  evil remains     the old errors are not
given up, and cannot be.  Rome once committed, is committed
beyond redemption.  It needs but propitious circumstances to
bring up any of her errors in all their ancient force.  The fundamental principle of infallibility, the pride of consistency, the
power which these doctrines give her, make it certain that
they  will not be  abandoned.  Against all of Rome's many
errors, and pre-eminently against those doctrines which are in
some way related  to them  all, the Augsburg Confession must
continue to hold up the pure light of the sole Rule of Faith,
and of its great central doctrine of justification by faith.*
The  Augsburg  Confession  had, and  has great value, in
view of the sound political principles it asserted and guaranteed.  Signed by the princes and free cities, it was a sovereign
ratification, and  guarantee of the rights of the   2d.Its olitical
Church  and of the  individual Christian  in  the   i'e""
State.   It asserted  the  independence  on  the  State  of the
Church, as a Church, the distinctness of the spheres of the
Church  and State, the  rights of the State over the Christian, as a subject, the Christian's duty to the State, as a
and remarks. Harrisburg, 1818. -SCIIMUCKER S. S., D. D. Elements of Popular
Theology, with special reference to the doctrines of the Reformation, as avowed
before the Diet at Augsburg in 1530. Andover, 1834. Do. Lutheran Manual, or
the Augsburg Confession illustrated and sustained. Philadelphia, 1855.- HAZELIUS E. L.: The Doctrinal Articles of the Augsburg Confession, with notes; in
the Discipline etc. of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of South Carolina.  Baltimore, 1841. -BEcK: Sammlung Symbol. Bicher  Evangelisch. Reform. Kirche.
2d ed. Neustadt, 1845. ii. 353-406. -FRANCKE: Libri Symb. Eccles. Lutheranae.
Lipsiae 1847, 9-50. -The Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Philada. 1855. (for
Luth. Board.) A few valuable notes by Prof. Schaeffer. - Sermons by Bakius,
Goebel, Tholuck, Schleiermacher, Harms, and Sartorius.
*Fikenscher. Gesch. d. R. z. Augsb. 208. KOLLNE1B ii. 395.
17




258         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
subject, and the supremacy of God's law and of the demands
of conscience over all unrighteous enactments of man. It
defined in brief, yet ample statements, the entire relation of
ecclesiastical and civil power.* It overthrew the conception
of the Church as a great world-dominating power —taught
the obligation of legitimate civil ordinances, the lawfulness
of Christians bearing civil office, the right of the State to
demand oaths, to enact penalties, and to wage "just wars,"
and the obligation of the Christian citizen to bear part in
then. It asserts that " God's command is to be more regarded
than all usage —that custom  introduced contrary to God's
command is not to be approved."    Christians should render
obedience to magistrates and their laws in all things," "save
only those when they command any sin, for then they must
rather obey God than men."  It overthrew monasticism and
enforced celibacy, those weaknesses of the State; curbed the
insolence of Pope, Bishop and Clergy, and restored the normal
and divine relations of man to man, of subject to ruler, of
Church to State, of God's law to human law, of loyalty to the
rights of conscience. The Lutheran Church gives to every
State into which she enters, her great voucher of fidelity to
the principles on which alone free governments can stand.
The Augsburg Confession was exquisitely adapted to all its
3. Itsvalue as objects, as a confession of faith, and a defence of
a confession and it. In it the very heart of the Gospel beat again.
apology.   It gave organic being to what had hitherto been
but a tendency, and knit together great nationalities in the
holiest bond by which men can be held in association. It enabled the Evangelical princes, as a body, to throw their moral
weight for truth into the empire.  These were the starting
points of its great work and glory among men. To it, under
God, more than to any other cause, the whole Protestant
world owes civil and religious freedom. Under it, as a banner,
the pride of Rome was broken, and her armies destroyed. It
is the symbol of pure Protestantism, as the three General
Creeds are symbols of that developing Catholicity to which
genuine Protestantism  is related, as the maturing fruit is
* Art. vii., xvi., xxviii.




ITS VALUE AS A GUIDE TO CHRIST.                 259
related to the blossom. To it the eyes of all deep thinkers have
been turned, as to a star of hope amid the internal strifes of
nominal Protestantism.  Gieseler, the great Reformed Church
historian, says:*  "If the question be, WTVhich, among all
Protestant Confessions, is best adapted for forming the foundation of a union among Protestant Churches, we declare ourselves unreservedly for the Augsburg Confession."  But no
genuine union can ever be formed upon the basis of the Augsburg Confession, except by a hearty consent in its whole faith,
an honest reception of all its statements of doctrine in the
sense which the statements bear in the Confession itself  If
there be those who would forgive Rome her unrepented sins,
they must do it in the face of the Augsburg Confession.  If
there be those who would consent to a truce at least with
Rationalism  or Fanaticism, they must begin their work by
making men forget the great Confession,which refused its covert
to them from the beginning.
With the Augsburg Confession begins the clearly. Its value as
recognized life of the Evangelical Protestant Church, a celtre of great
the purified Church of the West, on which her
enemies fixed the name Lutheran.  With this Confession her
most self-sacrificing struggles and greatest achievements are
connected.  It is hallowed by the prayers of Luther, among
the most ardent that ever burst from the human heart; it is
made sacred by the tears of Melanchthon, among the tenderest
which ever fell from the eye of man.  It is embalmed in the
living, dying, and undying devotion of the long line of the
heroes of our faith, who, through the world which was not
worthy of them, passed to their eternal rest. The greatest
masters in the realm of intellect have defended it with their
labors; the greatest princes have protected  it from  the
sword, by the sword; and the blood of its martyrs, speaking
better things than vengeance, pleads for ever, with the blood
of Him whose all-availing love, whose sole and all-atoning
sacrifice, is the beginning, middle, and end of its witness.
But not alone on the grand field of historical  5. Itsvalueas
events has its power been shown.  It led to God's a guidetoChrist.
* Theolog. Stud. u. Kritik, 1833, ii, 1142. Schenkel takes the same view.




260             CONSERVATIVE R EFORMATION.
Word millions, who have lived and died unknown to the great
world.  In  the humblest homes and  humblest hearts it has
opened, through ages, the spring of heavenly influence. It
proclaimed the all-sufficiency of Christ's merits, the justifying
power of faith  in Him; and  this shed  heavenly  light, peace
and joy, on the darkest problems of theburdened heart.   "It
remains forever," says Gieseler, " a light to guide in the right
path those who are struggling  in error."   It opened the way
to  the  true  unity  of the  Church  of Christ; and  if it has
seemed to divide, for a little  time, it has divided only to  consolidate, at length, the whole Church  under Christ's sole rule,
and in the one pure faith.
Its history, in its full connections, is the history of the cen6. Its valuefor turies midway in  the  fourth of which  we stand,
the'future.   and the future of the Church, which is the future
of the  race, can  unfold  itself from   the  present, only  in  the
power of the life which  germinates  from  the  great principles
which the Augsburg Confession planted in the world.
Can we honorably bear the name of Evangelical Lutherans,
The Augbrg honestly profess to receive the Augsburg Confession
confession  s a as our Creed, and honestly claim  to be part of the
Creed:,what is
involvedina right Church of our fathers, while we reject, or leave
recepionofit?   open to rejection, parts of the doctrine whose recep*Works on Dogmatics, and the history of Dogmatics, of value in the interpretation
or defence of the Augsburg Confession, or in illustration of the theology based
upon or deviating from it.
MELANCHTHONIS: Opera Dogmatica in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. xxi.xxiii.  a.  Loci Theologici (1521).  b. Examen ordinandorum.  c. Catechesis
puerilis.  d Explicatio Symboli Niceni.  e. Repetitio Augustanae Confessionis.
sive Confessio doctrinae  Saxonicarum  ecclesiarum.   Cf. GALL;E: Melanchthon
(1840) and Augusti's, Edit. of the Loci (1821), for Melanchthon's changes in doctrine. - FLACCII: a. Catalogus Testium veritatis (1556). b. Centurise Magdeburgenses. c. Clavis. d. Scholia in N. Test. -CHEMNITZ: a. de vera et substantiali
prsesentia. b. de duabus naturis. c. Loci Theologici. d. Examen Concil. Trident.
i. Theologiae Jesuitic. praecipua capit. - HUTTER: Compendium  Locor. Theologic (1610) ed. Schutze 1772.   OSIANDERL: Enchiridion Controvers. (1614.)HUNNIUS N: Epitome Credendorum (1625).- GERHARD J: a. Loci Theologici
(1610) (Cotta).  b. Confessio Catholica (1633).- CALOVIJS: a. Apodixis (1684).
b. Synopsis Controversiarum   (1653). c. Mataeologia papistica (1647).  d.
Biblia Illustrata. - KOENIG: Theologia positiva (1664). -QUENSTEDT: Theologia didactico-polemica (1685). -- BECHMANN: Adnotationes in Compendium




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION ASA CREED. 261
tion gave our Church her separate being and distinctive name,
and  led  to  the formation  of her  Confession, and  which  are
embodied  in its articles, and  guarded  in  their condemnatory
clauses, and which  our whole Church, for centuries, in  every
official act, maintained  as principal and  fundamental?  This
is the real question. All others are side issues. This question,
once agitated, can never be laid till it is fairly settled; and to
it, every conscientious man, every lover of our Church, should
bend  his prayerful thoughts.   A  testimony bearing  upon  the
great question, a testimony  of the  highest importance, and
entitled to be heard  first of all, is the CONFESSION  itself, about
whose claims so much is now  said.
In what light is the Augsburg Confession  regarded  in the
Augsburg  Confession itself?   This is a  primary question for
an honest man who  thinks of subscribing it: for if the Confession itself, in its origin, its history, its letter, protests against
certain  ideas, it would seem  that its witness against them   is
of more value than any other.   Look, then, at a few  facts:
I. The Confession exhibited the one, undivided faith of the
entire Lutheran  Church in the Empire.  It was not the work
of men without authority to  represent the Church; but was
Hutteri (1690).-BUDDEUS: a. Theologia Dogmatica (1723).  b. De veritate
religionis evangelicae (1729). c. Religions-Streitigkeiten 1724. d. Isagoge (1727).
-SCHMID J. A.: Breviarium theolog. polemic. (1710).-LANGE: Oeconomiasalutis
(1728).- REINHARD L. Theologia Dogmat. (1733). - WALCH J. G. a. Dogmatische
Gottesgelahr. (1749). b. Polemische (1752). c. Religions-Streitigkeiten (1724).CARPOV. (1737). -BAUMIGARTEN  S. J. a. Evangelische Glaubenslehre (1759). b.
Theologisch. Streitigkeiten. (1762) c. Religions-Parteyen (1766). -MosI-IEIM:
a. Streit-Theologie (1763). b. Theolog. Dogmat. (1758). —CARPZOV J. B. Jr.
Liber doctrinalis (1767). - WALCH C. W. F. a. Geschichte der Lutherischen Religion (1753). b. BibliothecaSymbolica (1770).- SEMLER: Institutio (1774). -
DOEDERLEIN (1780).- SEILER: a. Theolog. dogmat. polemica (1780). b. Doctrin.
Christian. Compend. (1779).-  MoRus: a. Epitome Theol. Christianae (1789). b.
Commnentarius in Epitom. (1797).-BECK: (1801). - STOR   & FLATT: Dogmatik (1803).- REINIARD F. V. (1801). - SCHOTT (1811).- BRETSCHNEDER:
a. Dogmatik (1814). b. Entwickelung  (1804).-WEGSCIEIDER:  Institutiones
(1815). -TWESTEN  (1826).- KNAPP (1827).- NITZSCO  (1829).-  (Schuman):
Melanchthon Redivivus, 1837. - HASE: a. Dogmatik (1826). b. Hutterus Redivivus (1829-1868). - KLEIN: (1822) Ed. LANGE (1835).    SCHMID H. Dogmatik
d. Evang. Luth. Kirche, (1843-1863). -MARTENSEN (1855).-SARTORIUS (1861).
-THOMASIUS (1863). -PHILIPPI (1863). -HOMAN (1860).-KAHNIS (1868).LUTHARDT (1868).




262         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the voice of all the Churches. Its groundwork was laid by
Luther; materials were brought together by the great theologians of the whole Lutheran Church -by Brentius, Jonas,
Spalatin, and others, who carefully examined and tested each
other's work. The matchless hand of Melanchthon was employed in giving the most perfect form, the most absolutely
finished statement of the faith; the Confession was subjected
to the careful examination of Luther, by whom it was heartily
approved.  Melanchthon's own account is: "I brought together the heads of the Confession, embracing almost the stum
of the doctrine of our Churches. I took nothing on myself. In
the presence of the Princes and the officials, every topic was
discussed by our preachers, sentence by sentence. A copy of the
entire Confession was then sent to Luther, who wrote to the
Princes that he had read, and that he approved the Confession."  Every position of the Confession had been pondered
again and again, had been tried in the crucible of the Word,
had been experienced in its practical power in the life, and had
been maintained against sharp attacks, by our great Confessors,
as well as by thousands of humble and earnest private Christians. For the immediate work of its preparation, there were
at least four months. It was on the 11th of May the Confession was first sent by the Elector to Luther, and it was not read
in Diet till the 25th of June; so that six weeks elapsed between
the time of its substantial completeness and of its presentation.
Every touch after that time was the result of striving after
absolute finish of style and perfection of handling. Never was
a Confession more thoroughly prepared, more carefully and
prayerfully weighed, more heartily accepted.
II. As various kingdoms, states, and cities embraced the
faith of God's word, as our Church had unfolded it, they
accepted this Confession as their own, and were known as
Evangelical Lutherans because they so accepted it. The Church
was known as the Church of the Augsburg Confession, and
that great document became a part of the defining terms of the
Church. The Lutheran Church was that which unreservedly
held the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its historical sense.
III. The arguments on which men rely now to shake the




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AS A CREED. 263
faith of the Church, had all been used before the Confession
was prepared. In fact, the Rationalistic argument had been
brought out with far more vigor and plausibility than usually
attend it now, and those who renew the unsuccessful attempts
of the original opponents of our faith, might with advantage to
their cause study those old errorists. Nothing has been added
to the argument of that day in the great substantial points on
either side.  After the learning and insinuating statement of
(Ecolampadius, whose work, Erasmus said, " might, if possible, deceive the very elect," and which Melanchthon considered
worthy of a reply-after the unflinching audacity of Carlstadt,
and the plausible argument of Zwingle, which was so shallow,
and therefore seemed so clear, it is not probable that the feeble
echo of their arguments, which is now alone heard in the maintenance of their views, would shake our fathers were they living. The Scripture argument stands now where it stood then,
and the Word, which was too strong for Luther's human
doubts then, would prove too strong for them now. It is not
the argument which has changed: it is as overwhelming now
as then; but the singleness of faith, the simple-hearted trust
-these have too often yielded to the Rationalizing spirit of a
vain and self-trusting generation. If our fathers, with their
old spirit, were living now, we would have to stand with them
on their confession, or be obliged to stand alone.  Luther
would sing now, as he sung then:
"The Word they shall permit remain,
And not a thank have for it."
IV. The very name of AUGSBURG, which tells us WHERE our
Confession was uttered, reminds us of the nature of the obligations of those who profess to receive it. Two other Confessions were brought to that city: the Confession of Zwingle,
and the Tetrapolitan Confession: the former openly opposed
to the faith of our Church, especially in regard to the Sacraments; the latter ambiguous and evasive on some of the vital
points of the same doctrine.  These two Confessions are now
remembered only because of the historical glory shed by ours
over everything which came into any relation to it.  But




264         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
can it be, that the doctrine which arrayed itself against the
Augsburg Confession at Augsburg can be the doctrine of that
Confession, or capable of harmonizing with it anywhere else;
that what was not Lutheranism  there is Lutheranism here;
that what was Lutheranism  then is not Lutheranism  now;
that Zwingle or Hedio of Strasburg could, without a change
of views, honestly subscribe the Confession against which they
had arrayed themselves, that very Confession, the main drift
of some of whose most important Articles was to teach the
truth these men denied, and to condemn the errors these men
fostered, or that men, who hold now what they held then, can
now honestly do what they would not and could not do then?
What could not be done then, cannot be done now.  A principle is as little affected by the lapse of three hundred years as
of one year.  It cannot be, that, consistently with the principles of our fathers,. consistently with  Church unity with
them, consistently with the Church name which their principles and their faith defined, men holding Romish, or Rationalistic, or Zwinglian error, should pretend to receive the Confession as their own.  Such a course effaces all the lines of
historical identity, and of moral consistency, and opens the
way to error of every kind.
V. The language of the Confession, when it speaks of itself,
is well worthy of attention.
1. It calls itself a (Confession, not a rule.  The Bible is the
only rule of faith, and this document confesses the faith of
which the Bible is the rule.
2. It calls itself a Confession of faith; of faith, not of men's
opinions or views, but of that divine conviction of saving truth,
which the Holy Ghost works through the Word.  It speaks
of that witlh which it has to do as " the holy faith and Christian religion," "the one only and true religion," " our holy
religion and Christian faith."  The title of the doctrinal portion of the Confession is., " Principal Articles of Faith."
3. The Confessors speak of this Confession of faith as "the
Confession of their preachers, and their own Confession," "the
doctrine which their preachers have presented and taught in
the C(hurehes, in their lands, principalities, and cities."  The




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AS A CREED. 265
Preface closes with the words: " This is the Confession of ourselves and of ours, as now distinctly follows, Article by Article."
They separate their faith alike from the errors of Rome and of
the fanatical and rationalizing tendencies of the day.
4. The Confession declares that: " The CHURCHES among us
teach " the doctrines set forth in the Articles. It is not simply
great princes, nor great theologians; it is the CHURCHES which
teach these doctrines. The private opinions of the greatest of
men are here nothing. It is the faith of the Churches which
is set forth, and those who acted for them spoke as their representatives, knowing the common faith, and not mingling
with it any mere private sentiments or peculiar views of their
own, however important they might regard them.
It is a great mistake to suppose that our Evangelical Protestant Church is bound by consistency to hold a view simply
because Luther held it.  Her faith is not to be brought to the
touchstone of Luther's private opinion, but his private opinion
is to be tested by her confessed faith, when the question is,
What is genuinely Lutheran?  The name Lutheran, as our
Church tolerates it, means no more than that she heartily
accepts that kNew Testament faith in its integrity, in whose
restoration Luther was so glorious a leader. When, at the
conferences at Augsburg, Eck produced certain passages from
Luther's writings, Brentius and Schnepf replied: " WVe are not
here to defend Luther's writings, but to maintain our Confession."  In showing that the Augsburg Confession is the Symbol of our time, the Formula of Concord rests its authority on
its being " the unanimous consent and declaration of our faith."
The private opinions of individuals, however influential, can
in no sense establish or remove one word of the Creed of the
Church. Any man who, on any pretence, gives ecclesiastical
authority to private opinions, is robbing the Church of her
freedom. She is to be held responsible for no doctrines which
she has not officially declared to be her own.
5. The Confessors say, at the end of the doctrinal Articles:
" This is almost the main portion (summna: chief points, principal
matters) of the doctrine which is preached and taught in our
Churches, in order to the true Christian instruction and




266          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
comfort of the conscience, as also for the edification of believers."  It calls the things it sets forth " the one, simple truth,"
and styles them  " the chief," or fundamental, " Articles"
(Hauptartikeln.)
The Confessors style and characterize the Confession as
" our Confession," as " the chief points of the doctrine taught
in our Churches," as "the main (or fundamental) Articles,"
as " the Articles of faith."  They say:  " Those things only
have been recited which seemed necessary to be said, that it
might be understood, that, in doctrine and ceremonies, nothing
is received by us contrary to Scripture; " and they declare, at
the close of their work, that it was meant as "'a sum of doctrine," or statement of its chief points, " for the making
known of our Confession, and of the doctrine of those who
teach among us."*
6. The Confessors say of this statement of the main points
of doctrine: "In it may be seen, that there is NOTHING which departs fron the Scriptures;"' it is clearly founded in the holy
Scriptures,"t "in conformity with the pure, Divine word and
Christian truth."  They declare, that, in these " main" or
fundamental " Articles, no falsity or deficiency is to be found,
and that this their Confession is godly and Christian (gSttlich
und Christlich)." They open the Articles on Abuses by reiterating that their Confession is evidence, that, " in the Articles
of faith, NOTHING is taught in our Churches contrary to the
Holy Scripture,": and the Confessors close with the declaration, that, if there be points on which the Confession has
not touched, they are prepared to furnish ample information,
"in accordance with the Scriptures," " on the ground of holy
Divine writ."
7. The Confessors say that in the Confession: " There is
NOTHING which departs from  the Church Catholic, the Universal
Christian Church." 
8. The Confessors moreover declare, that they set forth
* Epilogue, 69, 5.                            t Epilogue, 70, 6.
*  Nihil inesse, quod discrepat a Scripturis - in heiliger Schrift klar
gegriindet.
Ab Ecclesia Catholica - gemeine, Christlicher Kirchen.




THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AS A CREED. 267
their Confession that they may " not put their soul and conscience in the very highest and greatest peril before God by
abuse of the Divine name or word."
9. They declare, moreover, that it is their grand design in
the Confession, to avoid the "transmission as a heritage to
their children and' descendants of another doctrine, a doctrine
not in conformity with the pure Divine word and Christian
truth."
Our fathers knew well that human opinions fluctuate, that
men desert the truth, that convictions cannot be made hereditary; but they knew this also, that when men assume a name,
they assume the obligations of the name, that they may not
honestly subscribe Confessions unless they believe their contents; and they knew that after this, their great Confession,
men could not long keep up the pretence of being of them
who were anti-Trinitarian, Pelagian, Romish, Rationalistic, or
Fanatical.  They could transmit the heritage of their faith to
their children, trusting in God that these children would not,
for the brassy glitter of Rationalism, or the scarlet rags of
Romle, part with this birthright, more precious than gold.
Our fathers believed, with St. Paul, that the true faith is
" one faith," and therefore never changes. It is the same from
age to age. The witness of a true faith is a witness to the end
of time.  lWhen, therefore, Briick, the Chancellor of Saxony,
presented the Confession, he said: "  By the help of God and
our Lord Jesus Christ, this Confession shall remain invincible
against the gates of hell, To ETERNITY."




VII.
THE SECONDARY CONFESSIONS OF THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD.
IN  the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, the Augsburg Confession is followed by five other
statements of doctrine: the Apology; the Schmalcald Articles;
the two Catechisms; the Formula of Concord, in epitome, and
ampler declaration, with an appendix of testimonies: the six,
in conjunction with the three general Creeds, formContents and
bulk of the Book ing the Book of Concord. The Augsburg Confesof oncord.   sion, the Smaller Catechism, and the Epitome, may
be regarded as the texts, respectively, on which the Apology,
the Larger Catechism, and the Declaration are Commentaries.
The whole of these books can be embodied in a fair type in
an ordinary duodecimo volume.'When we think of the space
which a minister covers with the words in which during a
single year he states the sacred doctrines - when we look at
the many volumes in which particular authors have presented
the results of their labors on Scripture, the folios which have
been devoted to single topics, it hardly seems an excessive
demand on the part of the Church that she should ask ministers to study one small volume to reach the official expression
of her judgment on the greatest questions, which pertain to
pure doctrine, sound government, and holy life. Yet the Book
of Concord has been denounced apart from the character of its
contents on the ground that it contains so much. Be it right
268




BOOK OF CONCORD-CONTENTS AND BULK. 269
or wrong, be its teachings truth or falsehood, its bulk is sufficient to condemn it.
The very right of the Book to a hearing, at least as regards
its last five parts, has been further denied on the ground, that
a Church having once announced its Creed has no authority to
change it by adding to it —and that to change by adding, involves the same fallacy as to change by sutitraction; that consequently those who at one extreme accept the whole Book of
Concord, and those who reject the Augsburg Confession in
whole or part, at the other, are alike illogical. - In reply to
this these facts might be urged:
I. The use of the word " Creed," in the objection is open to
misapprehension.  If, by it, is meant WHAT a pure church believes, the faith and doctrine of a pure church, it is true that
these cannot be changed.  WHAT a pure church   May a Chulrch
believes is Scriptural, for a pure church means a  ch.age ilts Creed?
church whose faith is Scriptural. If it be Scrip- is believed.
tural, then to change it, is to abandon the truth, and to cease
to be a pure church. Moreover, thejcaith of any church is her
identifying point - losing that, she loses her spiritual identity.
If the Catholic Church had abandoned her faith in the Trinity,
she would have ceased to be the Catholic Church, and would
have become the Arian sect.  If the Protestant Episcopal
Church were carried over into the Romish faith, she would
cease to be the Protestant Episcopal Church, and would be a
part of the Romish apostasy. If the Evangelical Churches
were to abandon the Evangelical faith, they would become
Socinian or Universalist bodies, and if the Lutheran Church
were to change her faith, she would cease to be the Lutheran
Church, and would become either a new sect, or a part of this,
that, or other of the old sects. It is a contradiction in terms
to talk of a pure Church, as such, changing her faith.
II. But if by " Creed," be meant an official statement of the
faith held, it is a great mistake to assert that there can be no
Church authority to add to it.  As the Rule of  2. Creed as,
Faith, the written revelation of God, has been en- statement of belief.
larged by successive additions from the early records
which form the opening of Genesis, on through the Old and




270         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATION.
New Testaments, until the finished temple stands before us in
the Bible; so may the Church, as God shall show her her
need, enlarge her Confession, utter more fully her testimony,
and thus "change her Creed," to express more amply her one
unchanging faith.  If the Rule of an unchanging faith can be
added to, the Confession of an unchanging faith can also be
added to.
The identity of the Church faith resembles not the sameness of a rock, but rather the living identity of a man.  The
babe and the adult are identical.  They are the same being in
different stages of maturity: that which constitutes the individual does not change. The child does not grow to adult
maturity by any change in personal identity — but retaining
that identity grows by its attraction to itself, of what is consonant with its own unchanged nature.  Adult perfection is
reached not by amputations and ingraftings, but by growth, in
which the identifying energy conforms everything to its own
nature.  The faith of the Church now is identical with what
it was in the Apostolic time, but the relation of identity does
not preclude growth-it only excludes change of identity.
That faith must always be its essential self —whether as a
babe receiving milk, or as a man enjoying strong meat. In a
word, the advances are wrought, not by change in the Church
faith, but by the perpetual activity of that faith, a faith which
because it is incapable of change itself, assimilates more and
more to it the consciousness of the Church, her system of doctrine, her language, and her life.
To subtract from  a pure faith differs as largely from  a
healthy development of that faith in enlarged statements,
as the cutting off of an arm  differs from  the expansion
of its muscles, by healthful exercise.  The whole history
of the Church illustrates the truth of this principle. The
creeds recorded in the New Testament were generally confined
to  one point.  The Apostles' Creed, in the earliest form
Growth of the known to us, is a change of these primal creeds,
Creed.     in so far that it adds to their statements to make
the faith itself more secure.  The Apostles' Creed, as we
have it now, is a change of the earliest form, adding to its




GR0 WTHT  OF CREED.  271
words to secure more perfectly its things.  The Nicene Creed,
in its earliest shape was a change in the same way from  the
Apostles'.  The Nicene Creed, (Niceno-Constantinopolitan) in
the Greek, is a change of the earliest Nicene, by addition.
The Nicene Creed of the Churches of the West (both Roman
and Protestant) adds the " filioque " to the Nicene of the East.
The Athanasian Creed, though but the expansion of two main
points, is about six times as long as the Apostles' Creed.  Then
through  ages the Church lay fallow; the soil resting and
accreting richness for the time of a new breaking up, and of
a glorious harvest.  The first great undeniable token that
the warm rains from above were responsive to the toils of the
husbandman below, in the field of the Lord, was the upspringing of the blade of-the New Confession. The New Confession in its opening Word shows that it germinates from
the old seed: " The Churches among us, with great accord,
teach that the decree of the Nicene Council is true, and,
without any doubting, to be believed." (A. C. I.)  "Christ
shall return again, as saith the Apostles' Creed."  (A. C.
III.)  The other Confessions mark the same connection with
the ancient Creeds: "Shall sanctify believers- as teach the
Apostles' and Nicene Creed." (Ap. III.)  "As the Apostles
and Athanasianf Creeds teach." (Smal. Art. II, 4.). "Since
immediately  after the  time  of the  Apostles, nay, while
they were yet on earth, false teachers and heretics arose,
against whom, in the primitive Church, were composed Symbols, that is brief and categorical Confessions, which embraced
the unanimous consent of the Catholic Christian faith, and the
Confession of Orthodox believers and of the true Church, to
wit: the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds; we profess
publicly that we embrace them, and reject all heresies, and all
doctrines which have ever been brought into the Church of God,
contrary to them." (Formul. Concord. 517, 3.)-" Those three
Catholic and General Creeds are of the highest authoritybrief, but most holy Confessions, solidly founded in God's
word, most glorious Confessions."  (Do. 569, 4.)
The Augsburg Confession, itself, was a " change of creed, by
addition," inasmuch as it more amply confessed all the points




272         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMA TIOX.
of the Apostles', Nicene, and Atha.nasian Creeds, and added a
confession on manifold points, held, indeed, potentially and
implicitly in the faith of the pure Church, but never before
formally confessed by her.
But, furthermore, the Augsburg Confession, even as a Lutheran document, is an abiding witness of the right and duty
of Christian men, and a portion of the Christian Church to
amplify the confession of the faith, according to the leadings
of God's providence.  For the Augsburg Confession is really
not first, but fourth in the Genesis of our Church's first official
statement of her distinctive faith.  For first were the XV
Marburg Articles, in which the great representatives of our
Church made a statement of points of faith; then the XVII
Articles of Swabach, then the Articles of Torgau, and as the
outgrowth of the whole, and their noble consummation, last of
all, the Augsburg Confession.
The Augsburg Confession, itself, grew from its earliest shape,
at the beginning of the Conference at Augsburg, up to the
day of its delivery to the Emperor.  The one faith which it
confessed in its infant form, shaped its phrases, added to its
enumerations, guarded against misapprehensions more perfectly, until it reached its maturity.
III. The right to " change a creed," " by addition," is, if it
be fallacy at all, not a common fallacy, with the assumption of
a right to " change by subtraction."  The mistake here involved
odcfineisot is in using the word " change" ambiguously, and
to chDnge.   in making it falsely emphatic.  We deny the right
of a pure Church to change the faith: we hold that her creed
should not be changed; but we maintain, first, that to cut out
articles of faith bodily from her creed, and to mangle and
change the meaning of what remains, is to change her creed;
and secondly, that to leave her earlier creed untouched and
unvaried, to cling to it heart and soul, in its original and
proper sense, and in order to the maintenance of the faith it
treasures, to witness again, in ampler form, by adding clear
and Scriptural statements of doctrine, is not to change the
creed, but is the act of wisdom  to prevent its change.  If a
clergyman, on one Lord's Day, should succinctly set forth the




GENERAL JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH.   273
doctrine of justification by faith, and should find; that owing
to the brevity of his statement, the uncultured had misunderstood it, or the malicious had taken occasion to pervert it, he
might very properly, on the next Lord's Day, amplify his
statement, and thus " change his creed by addition," for every
sermon is a minister's creed.  If his doing so is a fallacy, it is
surely not a common fallacy with his retractation, denial or.
evasion on the second Lord's Day, of what he taught on the
first; not a common fallacy, even if his second statement
were needlessly extended, and though it introduced many
statements on other closely associated doctrines.
IV. We object also to all unnecessary multiplication of the
number or extension of the bulk of creeds.  So does the Lutheran Church, as a whole.  For nearly three centuries, no
addition has been made to her Symbolical Books; and although
it is quite possible that, for local reasons, parts of our Church
may enunciate more largely particular elements of  General jitlg.
her faith, we do not think it likely that the Luth- ment of the
Church as to deeran Church, as a whole, will ever add  to her sirableless  of
Symbols, not merely anything which can have such anple defi"ition
relations to them  as the Augsburg Confession has (which
would be impossible), but not even such as the Formula of
Concord has.
But this does not settle the question now before us.  We
think we have shown, that to have creeds additional to the
Augsburg Confession, is not in itself inconsistent or wrong.
Now to the point: Is it necessary or desirable that there should
be any such additional statements?  To this question, our
whole Church, without a solitary exception, which we can
recall, certainly with no important exception, has returned the
same reply, to wit: that it is desirable and necessary.  For
while it is a fact, that no creed, exclusively hers, except the
Augsburg Confession, has been formally accepted in every part
of the Lutheran Church, it is equally true that there is no important part of that Church which has not had, in addition, some other
Creed. No national, or great Lutheran Church, from the beginning of her full organization, to this hour, has had nothing but
the Augsburg Confession as a statement of her faith. For not
18




274         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
to speak of the three General Creeds to which the Lutheran
Church pays higher reverence than to the Augsburg Confession
itself, many of the Lutheran Churches before the preparation
of the Book of Concord, had their Bodies of Doctrine, as bulky
as the collection which has been so much decried for its vast
extent, and sometimes more bulky.  There lies before the
writer, for example, the first of these, the Corpus Doctrinse,
the Symbolical Books of Saxony and Misnia, printed in 1560,
edited by Melanchthon, which, in addition to the General
Creeds and the Augsburg Confession, has the Apology, and
four other extensive statements of doctrine, forming a folio of
more than a thousand pages. Every one of the seven ponderous Corpora Doctrine has additions to the Augsburg Confession, as, for example, the Apology, both the Catechisms of
Luther, and the Schmalcald Articles, in fact, everything now
in the Book of Concord which had appeared up to the time of
their issue.  The Church Orders and Liturgies of the Sixteenth
Century embraced Creeds.  We have examined nearly all of
them in the originals, or in Richter's. Collection.  We have
not noticed one which has the Augsburg Confession alone.
Itis anhistorical fact easily demonstrated, that the Book of
Concord diminished both the number of doctrinal
The Book of
Concord repressed statements and the bulk of the books containing
the multiplica- them, in the various Lutheran Churches. It not
tion of Creeds.
only removed the Corpora Doctrinoe, but the yet
more objectionable multiplied Confessions prepared by various
local Reformers, and pastors, of which not only lands, but
cities and towns had their own. So far from the Book of Concord introducing the idea of addition to the Augsburg Confession, it, in fact, put that idea under the.wisest restrictions. But,
not to dwell on this point further, it is certain that t' - Lutheran Church, with a positive, almost absolute unanimity,
decided, both before and after the Book of Concord, that it is
desirable to have more than the Augsburg Confession as a
statement of doctrine.
The Lutheran Church in America is no exception to this
rule. Her founders confessed to the whole body of the Symbols.  The General Synod recognizes, in addition to the Augs



BOOK OF CONCORD-CONTENTS OF.                     275
burg Confession, the Smaller Catechism for the people, and in its
Theological Seminary, originally, both Catechisms were mentioned in the Professor's oath.  In its present form the Smaller
Catechism  is retained.  But if the Smaller Catechism  be
adopted, and an ampler statement of doctrine be an unlawful
change, that Catechism  alone must be adopted, and the
Augsburg Confession which appeared a year later, be thrown
out.
The Book of Concord may be divided generically into two
parts: the first part selected, the second part original. The
first is formed by our Church Creeds, which it simply collected.
The second is the Formula of Concord, in two  Book  of Conparts, Epitome and Declaratio, which it first set cord, Contents of.
forth.  Every part of both these divisions, except the first part
of the first, would be rejected on the principle we now discuss;
in fact, if the principle were pressed through, logically, not
only would the Augsburg Confession, but the Apostles' Creed
itself be sacrificed to it.  The Church would have to recover the
earliest form of the Creed, or be creedless altogether.
First of all, then, let it be remembered, that five-sevenths of
what now forms the Book of Concord, were accepted in the
Lutheran Church before that Book was compiled: secondly,
that the  directly confessional part of the Formula  (the
Epitome) is very little larger than the Augsburg Confession,
the " Solid Declaration" being simply an exegesis and defence
of the Epitome.  Let us for the present look at these earlier,
parts of the Book of Concord. Taking then, one by one, the
Symbols which follow the Augsburg Confession in the Book
of Concord, let us ask whether it be wrong, to acknowledge
officially, that they set forth the faith of our Church? To
begin with the first of these,Is IT WRONG TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE APOLOGY AS A SYMBOL OF
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH?  This question we will answer by a
few facts.
I. It will not be denied that it presents one and the same
system of faith with the Augsburg Confession. It is in its
first sketch the Answer from the hand of the great Melanchthon, with the' advice and co-labor of the other theologians,




276         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOi.
to the Roman Catholic Reply to the Augsburg Confession. Prepared under the direction of the same authority that had origiTie Apology. nated the Confession, it was designed to present
it to the Emperor in the same way.  Happily, the Emperor
refused to allow its presentation: for that refusal has substituted for Melanchthon's sketch the Apology as we now have it.
Melanchthon, on receiving the Papal Confutation, at once
gave himself to the work of answering it in full. On the
journey from  Augsburg to Wittenberg, he labored on it.
At Altenburg, in Spalatin's house, he was engaged upon it on
Sunday, till Luther took the pen from his hand, telling him
that " on this day he should rest from such labor.  We can
serve God, not only by labor, but by rest; therefore he has
given us the third Commandment and ordained the Sabbath."*
No longer amid the confusion and disadvantages of a strange
place, but at home, Melanchthon prepares this defence, expansion and explanation of the Confession.  What can be more
obvious than the Providence which  reveals itself in the
occasion and character of the Apology?
II. Kollner, confessedly a most able writer, but not Lutheran in doctrine, says of the Apology: " It had from the very
beginning, and has had without dispute up to the recent times,
the validity of a Symbol."  WViner, that princely scholar,
whose laxity of doctrinal views gives more value to his testimony on this point, says:," Beyond dispute, with reference to
the matter it contains, this work takes the first rank among the
Symbols of the Lutheran Church."  We might multiply citations like these, but it is not necessary.
III. The Apology has been regarded indeed in our Church
as one of her noblest jewels. In making it one of her Symbols,
she confessed her profound love for it. In reply to one of the
fiercest assaults made upon her by the Jesuits, the Apology
without note or comment, was reprinted, as in itself an ample
reply to all the falsehoods that Romish malignity could invent
against our Church.
IV. In modern times, the attacks upon it have come first.* Salig: Hist. d. Augsp. Conf. I, 375. Ledderhose's Melanchthon. Transi
by Dr. Krotel, 115.




THE APOLOGY.                       277
from the covert infidels who crept into the Church under the
pretentious name of rationalists, and secondly from unionistic
theologians.  Over against this, the unvarying witness of the
Lutheran Church has been given to the pure teaching, the
great importance, and the symbolic validity of the Apology.
Let a few facts illustrate this.
1. The Lutheran States whose names are subscribed to the
Augsburg Confession, offered the Apology to the Diet, and the
sole reason why it did not take its place at once, symbolically co-ordinate in every respect with the Confession, was that
Romrish bigotry refused it a hearing.  The fierce intolerance of
the hour anticipated the objection to hearing anything further
in the way of explanation or vindication of the Confession.
Was it a fallacy of the same sort, for the Lutheran States to
prepare the Apology, as it would have been for them to have
come back to the Diet, having taken out everything in the
Confession, which Eck and his co-workers did not relish?
Prepared by the author of the Augsburg Confession, and
adopted by its signers, is it probable that the Apology was in
any respect out of harmony with the work it defended?
2. In 1532, the Evangelical Lutheran States presented it at
the Schweinfurth Convention as their Confession of Faith.
3. In 1533, Luther, in a consolatory, printed, public and
official letter, refers the Christians who were driven out of
Leipzig, to the Confession and its Apology, as setting forth
his faith and that of the Church. Both are incorporated in
all the old editions of Luther's works, as so thoroughly an
exhibition of his faith, of his thoughts and even of his phraseology, as really in an important sense to be considered his.
In the letter to the persecuted Lthern  t   p       Luthers at Leipzig, ther
says  " At Augsburg, our general (allgemeine) Confession
sounded in the ears of the Emperor and of the whole realm;
and then, by the press, in all the world.. Why should I say
more? There are my writings and public Confessions-our
Confession and Apology: in the Churches, our usages are before
men's eyes; wherein we superabundantly show  what we
believe and hold as certain, not alone in these Articles con*Werke: Leipz. xxi. 20. Walch; x. 2228.




278          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
cerning the Sacrament, but in all parts of the faith.. Therefore, Dear Friends, be firm, let no one mislead you, give ear to
no empty talk (Geschwatze), even though it should come from
our own side: but hold fast to our Confession and Apology...
Hold fast to the Gospel, and to St. Paul's doctrine, to which
also our Apology and our Church usage hold fast."
4. In 1537, at Schmalcald, the Apology, at the request of the
Princes, was thoroughly compared with the Augsburg Confession by the theologians, and then, as consonant with the Holy
Scriptures and the Confession, formally subscribed by them with
the  declaration, that they " believed and taught in their
Churches in accordance with the Articles of the Confession and
Apology." *
5. In 1539, in Denmark, it was prescribed as a doctrinal
guide to the Lutheran pastors.
6. In 1540, it was delivered to the Conference at Worms, as
a statement of Lutheran doctrine, and as a basis of discussions.
7. In 1541, it was solemnly confirmed by the'" Evangelical
Princes," "the Allied Estates of the Augsburg Confession,"
" the Protestant Princes and States," who say to the Emperor:
"And that no man may doubt what kind of doctrine is set forth
in our Churches, we again testify, that we adhere to the Confession which was presented to your Majesty at Augsburg,
and to the Apology which has been added -to it, nor do we
doubt that this doctrine is truly the Consent of the Catholic
Church, which has been delivered in the writings of the
Prophets and the Apostles, and has firm  testimonies of the
Apostolic Church, and of the learned fathers - and in this
faith and acknowledgment of Christ we shall ever call upon
God and show forth His praise, with His Catholic Church." t
8. It was incorporated in all the " Bodies of Doctrine," the
Corpora Doctrine " proper, of the  various parts of our
Church, without exception; and
9. In 1580, it took its due place in the Book of Concord.
* In all the editions of the Symbolical Books at the end of the Schmaicald
Articles.
tMelanchthon's Opera. Witeberg. iv. 752. Corp. Reformat. iv. col. 483. In
German: Walch: xvii. 865. (Bucers translation) Corp. Ref. iv. 493,494. (Melanchthon's Original.)




VALUE OF THE APOLOGY.                      279.
V. It deserves the place our Church has given it.  On the
merits of the Apology KXllner * says: " In considering its value
for its immediate purpose, it is difficult to praise this work enough,
alike as to its form  and the entire composition of it, and its
doctrinal matter.  It is written with an inimitable   altue of the
clearness, distinctness and simplicity, which must Apology.
carry conviction alike to the learned and the unlearned.  Its
moderation and modesty are worthy of the good cause it vindicated.  The mild and pious character of Melanchthon so
sheds its lustre on the whole, as to force the conviction that
the noblest views and purest piety, with no particle of unworthy aim, here struggle in behalf of religion.
As to its matter, it is undeniable, that it presents the truth
in the clearest light, and successfully maintains the Evangelical doctrine over against the Romish system. Its effectiveness
for the interests of the Gospel in its own era, is beyond description
(unbeschreiblich.)    Historically  considered, therefore, the
Apology may claim in the formation and confirmation of the
Evangelical Church an infinitely high (unendlich hoher) value.
To the Apology belongs an eternal value. If the Church should
make to herself new  symbols, she will take over her fundamental doctrines from this symbol, and to it will be due a holy
reverence to the end of time."
The same distinguished writer says in another work: t "Not
only for the immediate aim of its own time, but as absolutely
now as in the era of the Reformation, the Apology has its value
and importance for religious truth, inasmuch as it wrought all
that (indescribable effect), alone by the deepest and weightiest
truths of the Gospel, as the Augsburg Confession witnesses to
them, and the Apology more amply unfolds and establishes them.
The Augsburg Confession was an erudite State-paper, composed
with equal diplomatic foresight and caution, and Evangelical
simplicity, and for this very reason needed a fuller exposition..
IHence it was and is of inexpressible importance, that the illustrious man, to whom, to say the least, the superintendence of
the preparation of the Augsburg Confession had been given,
Symbol. d. Luth. Kirch. 436.
fDie gute Sache d. Luther. Symbol. geg. ihre Ankliag. Gottingen. 1847. p. 153.




280         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATIO.
should himself set in a yet clearer light its brief propositions,
in this second jewel of Evangelical Lutheran testimony; that
he should explain and establish them from the entire complex
of Evangelical Biblical truth.  The fundamental and essential
doctrine of the Evangelical Church, in its separation from the
human additions of the Romish priestly caste, consists in this,
that we are justified, not by the righteousness of works, but
by regeneration in the faith of the Gospel. And as this was
the centre from which the heroes of the faith in the Reformation fought out their triumphs, so is it now, not only profoundest truth, but is the chief doctrine of Christianity itself,
a doctrine which insures to Christianity and to the Evangelical
Church with it, a perpetual endurance-for it is the very
truth eternal itself. This doctrine in which is the ground and
essence of all Christianity, is established by Melanchthon in the
Apology with a greater accuracy than anywhere else."  "To
its importance testimony is borne in the attacks of its enemies,
who felt deeply the injury to their cause, connected with the
clear, luminous, and Scriptural argument, the dialectic skill,
the combination of repose and thoroughness, with a beneficent
warmth which characterize this writing.  In the grand thing,
the doctrine, it is as pure as the Confession to whose vindication it is consecrated." *
The next great Confession in the Book of Concord is the
SCHMALCALD ARTICLES. The very existence of these Articles
is a proof that neither the Lutheran authorities, who caused
them to be written, nor Martin Luther, who is their author,
TheSchmalcald nor the great theologians who advised in their preArticles.  paration, nor Melanchthon, Jonas, Bugenhagen,
Creutziger, Amsdorf, Spalatin, Brentius, and the other great
theologians and pastors of our churches who subscribed them,
imagined that to confess the Church's faith more fully involves
a fallacy.
The Articles were occasioned by the expectation that a free
General Council, so ardently desired from the beginning by the
Reformers, and so often promised, was at length about to be
convened. The Pope convened a Council, to be opened at
* Muller lxxix.




THE SCHMAL CALD ARTICLES.                    281
Mantua, on the 23d of May, 1537.  To this Council the Evangelical (Lutheran) States were invited to come; and until it
became manifest that it was not to be a free Council, they
showed a strong desire to be represented in it.
In consequence of the expectation that the truth would have
a hearing, the Elector desired to have a new statement of the
great doctrinal principles of our Church, touching those questions which would arise at the Council as matters of discussion
between Lutherans and Romanists.  This desire  Iow they origled him to commit to Luther the composition of i"ated
new Articles as a basis of Conference.  The Articles thus prepared were taken to the Convention of the Evangelical States,
held at Schmalcald, in February, 1537.  There they were thoroughly examined by our great theologians, and by them subscribed, and, from the place where they were signed, came to
be called the Schmalcald Articles.
The question at once suggests itself, Why was a new Confession prepared? Why was not the Augsburg Confession considered sufficient, in itself, or as sufficient in conjunction with
the Apology?  Was our Church giving way, or  Why they wre
changing her ground, or dissatisfied with her first necesary.
great Confession? Far from it.  The reasons were these:I. The Au.gsburg Confession had too much, in some respects,
for the object in view.  The object in view, in 1537, was to compare the points of controversy between the Lutherans and the
Romanists.  The Augsburg Confession is in large measure a
Confession of the whole faith of the Church universal, and
hence embraces much about which there is no controversy
between our Church and the Romish; as, for example, the doctrine concerning God and the Son of God. It was as much an
object of the Augsburg Confession to show wherein our Church
agreed with the Roman Church in so much of the faith as that
Church had purely preserved, as to show  wherein, in consequence of her apostasy from parts of the truth, our Church
departed from her. The Augsburg Confession had done its
great work in correcting misrepresentations of our Church on
the former points. It was now desirable that omitting the
discussion of what was settled, she should the more clearly ex



282         CONSEPRVATIVE REFOR MATION.
press herself on the points of difference.  This was the more
needful, because in the efforts to come to an agreement at
Augsburg, which followed the 25th of June, Melanchthon, in
his great gentleness, had made concessions, whose real point
the Romanists perverted, so as to find a warrant in them for
false interpretations of the Confession in its distinctive doctrines.  They understood well the two counter-tricks of polemica: the one, to exaggerate differences until innocence looks
like crime; the other to diminish differences until truth seems
nearly identical with error.  The Church wished the deck
cleared for action, that the truth disputed might put forth its
whole strength, and the truth obscured reveal its whole character.  But
II. The Augsburg Confession has too little for a perfect exhibition of the full position of our Church as to the errors of
Rome.  In 1530, our fathers rightly avoided an unnecessary
opening of points of difference;. for there was yet hope that
many in the Church of Rome would be drawn by the gentler
power of the truth, and that the fierceness of the conflict might
be allayed.  But the providence of God had made it imperative that the Church should more amply set forth now what
she had succinctly confessed in 1530.
III. The Augsburg Confession was not in the right key for the
work now to be done.  That Confession was the Church's embodiment of the Spirit of her Lord, when he is tender with
the erring.  Now the time had come when she was to embody
the Spirit of that same Lord, when he speaks in tones of judgment to the wilful and perverse.
Through the Augsburg Confession, even in the night of conflict which seemed to be gathering, the Church sang, " Peace
on earth," but in the Schmalcald Articles, the very Prince of
Peace seemed to declare that He had come to bring a swordthe double-edged sword of truth - the edge exquisitely keen.
and the scabbard thrown away. Therefore, wise and heaven-.
guided, the Church which had committed the olive branch to
Melanchthon, gave the sword to Luther.
The motion of the Augsburg Confession was to the flute, the
Schmalcald Articles moved to the peals of the clarion, and the




THE SCHMALCALD ARTICLJES-THEIR VALUE. 283
roll of the kettle-drum.  In the Augsburg Confession Truth
ilakes her overtures of peace, in the Schmalcald Articles she
lays down her ultimatum in a declaration of war.
That which was secondary in the Augsburg Confession is
primary in the Schmalcald Articles.  At Augsburg our Church
stood up for the Truth, that error might die by the life of
Truth; at Schmalcald she stood up against the error, that
Truth might live by the death of error.  To utter her new testimony, to take her new vantage ground, was to use conquests
made, as a basis for conquests yet to be made.
The Jesuits, indeed, set up the cry, that the Schmalcald
Articles are in conflict with the Augsburg Confession.  Our
Church, by an overwhelming majority, has answered the falsehood, by placing them  among her crown jewels. And there
they deserve to be.  "Not only were the doctrines of the
Church presented clearly, but they were stated so thoroughly
in Luther's style, might and spirit, that the era
whhTheirei value.
which he moved so profoundly, could not but recognize in them, alike a faithful image of the Truth, and a new
point of support for it.  In these Articles Luther presents
directly the principles of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church,
and of the Romish See, in their conflict.  In the name of the
Evangelical Church he has spoken against the whole Papacy a
bold and manly word, the word of refutation, with nothing to
weaken its force.  And this fact is decisive in establishing
their high value for our own time.  The impossibility of uniting the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church's pure life with Rome's
worldly aims, is set in so clear a light, that the Evangelical
Church will ever look upon this Symbol with the greatest reverence, and cling to it with true devotion.  Melanchthon's
Appendix to the Articles is classic alike in form  and matter.
For our Church these writings must ever remain very weighty,
and the more because outside of them there is nowhere else in
the Symbols so ample a statement about the Papacy, and what
is to be noted well, so ample a statement against it." (KBllner.)
"They form," says Miller,  " with the earlier Symbols a
complete whole, yet have, for the reasons given, an indepen* Die Symb. Bucher, lxxxii.




284          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
dent value, because in them the Lutherans for the first time,
expressly and at large, define their relations to the Pope and
the Papacy.   We may say, that in and with  them  the
Reformation closes, and the final separation from  Rome is
pronounced."
The compassion which moved our Lord when He saw the
multitudes, fainting and scattering abroad, as sheep having
no shepherd, was breathed by Him  into the heart
Luther's Catechisms:their o- of Luther, and originated the CATECHISMS.  The
casion and char- yearning to provide for the religious wants of the
neglected people, early showed itself in Luther's
labors,* and during the visitation in the Electorate of Saxony,
1527-1529, matured in the decision to prepare the Catechisms:
"This Catechism, or Christian instruction, in its brief, plain,
simple shape, I have been constrained and forced to prepare by
the pitiful need of which I have had fresh experience in my
recent work of visitation."  In its general idea, Catechizing,
the oral instruction, of the young especially, in the elements of
divine truth, is as old as religion itself, and has always been in
the Church; but to Luther belongs the glory of fixing the idea
of the Catechism, as the term is now used.  I-e is the father
of Catechetics proper, and the most ancient Catechism  now
used in the world is Luther's Shorter Catechism of 1529. In
the Catechisms he retained what the Ancient Church had
used as the basis of the elementary instruction, to wit: the
Decalogue, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer: only adding the
explanation of the Two Sacraments.  " In this he showed far
more Catechetical, Churchly-Didactic tact, than all the authors,
whose thread is that of a system, be this system what it may.
There is in the Catechisms a genuine conservatism, a holding
fast and development of that which already had its home as
the Christian Confession in the heart of the people. In the
explanations which follow his questions, What does this mean?
How does this take place? he has retained, almost word for
* See Luther's Catechetical Writings, beginning with the Exposition of the
Lord's Prayer for the simple laity, 1518. Werke: Leipz. xxii. Walch x. Erlangen xxi-xxiii. Luther's Catechisms. By John G. Morris, D. D. Evaug. Rev.
July, 1849.




CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITY.                     285
word, language found in Kero (the Monk of St. Gall, A. D. 750),
in his exposition of the Lord's Prayer, in fact, found yet earlier,
in the Sacramentary of Gelasius (Pope 492-496.)  It shows the
self-renunciation, with which Luther held aloof from the formulary manner of Dogmatics and from Polemics; it reveals the
art of saying much in little, yet with all its pregnant richness
never becomes obscure, heavy, unfit for the people.  These
qualities, in conjunction with that warm, hearty tone, in virtue
of which Lihe" (who simply repeats an expression of Luther
himself) " says the Catechism can be prayed, these - despite the
barbarism of times and tendencies, whose nature it has been
to have the least comprehension of the highest beauty - have
preserved to this little book its exalted place of honor." *
The love of the Church anticipated the orders of Consistories
in the universal introduction of Luther's Catechisms, and authority could come in only to sanction what was already fixed.
So truly did the Shorter Catechism embody the simple Christian
faith, as to become by the spontaneous acclamation of millions,
a Confession.  It was a private writing, and yet beyond all the
Confessions, the direct pulsation of the Church's whole heart
is felt in it.  It was written in the rapture of the purest Catholicity, and nothing from Luther's pen presents him more perfectly, simply as the Christian, not as the prince of theologians, but as a lowly believer among believers.
In the Preface to the Book of Concord the "Electors,
Princes, and Orders of the Empire, who adhere to the Augsburg Confession," declare in conclusion: " We propose in this
Book of Concord to make no new thing, nor in any  confessional
respect to depart from the truth of the heavenly authlority.
doctrine, as it has been acknowledged by our pious fathers and
ourselves.  By this divine doctrine we mean that which is
derived from the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and
embraced in the three Ancient Creeds; the Augsburg Confession,
delivered in 1530 to the Emperor Charles V.; the Apology
which followed it; the Schlmalcald Articles, and the CATEaHISMS of Dr. Luther.  Wherefore, it is our purpose in nothing
*Palmer in Herzog's: R. E. viii. 618. Do: Evang. Katechetik. Stuttg. 5. ed.
1864.




286         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
to depart from these in things or words, but by the grace of the
Holy Spirit, with one accord, to abide in this pious Consent,
and to regulate all decisions in controversies on religion, in
accordance therewith."   " And because this matter of religion pertains also to the laity, as they call them, and bears upon
their eternal salvation," says the Formula of Concord, " we.
publicly profess that we also embrace the SMALLER AND LARGER
CATECHISMS of Luther, regarding them as a sort of Bible of the
laity, wherein all those things are briefly comprehended which
in the Holy Scripture are more largely treated, and the knowledge of which is of need to a Christian man unto his salvation."
" These CATECHISMS have been received and approved by all the
churches of the Augsburg Confession, and are everywhere
used in the churches and schools publicly, and in private houses
- and in them the Christian doctrine, taken from God's Word,
is set forth with the utmost clearness and simplicity for the
use of the unlearned and of the laity." t
In chronological order, as writings, the Catechisms, which
appeared in 1529, would have preceded the Augsburg Confession, and this is the order in the Thuringian Corpus of 1561:
but the chronology,so far as the Book of Concord preserves it
in its arrangement, is that of acceptance as Confessions.
It would seem  as if by preeminent necessity the Catechism
of a Church should have an unmistakable indorsement as
Opinions of official and confessional. It is the Catechism  by
eminent men, in which her future ministers and her people are
regard to.    trained in the faith, in early life. If the Church
puts into the hands of her children statements of doctrine in
any respect false, she is the betrayer of their souls, not their
guardian.  A Catechism which embodies the pure faith in the
form best adapted to preserve and diffuse it among the people
is of inestimable value.  Such a Catechism, if we may accept
the judgment of the wisest and best men, our Church possesses.
"It may be bought for sixpence," said Jonas, " but six thousand worlds would not pay for it."  "Luther," says Polycarp
Lyser,  "has written a short Catechism, more precious than
*Muller. 21: 299: 518.5.                         t Do. 570.8.
4 In the Dedication of Chemnitzii Loci.




OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEANT                    287
gold and gems.  In it the purity of the Church doctrine, drawn
from  prophets and apostles, is so compacted into one entire
body of doctrine, and set forth in such luminous words, as not
unworthily to be esteemed a Canon, as that ywhich is drawn
entire from the Canonical Scriptures.  I can affirm with truth,
that in this one little book are embraced so many and so great
things, that if all faithful preachers, throughout their lives,
should confine themselves in their sermons to the hidden wisdom  of God shut up in these few  words, explaining  them
rightly to the people, and opening them at large fromn the Holy
Scriptures, they could never exhaust that boundless abyss."
"If," says Matthesius, * " Luther, in his whole course, had done
nothing more than to introduce these Catechisms into the
family, the school, and the pulpit, and to restore to the home
the blessings at meat, and the prayers for morning and night,
the world could never thank him  enough, or repay him."
"Such," says Seckendorf, t "is the union of pure doctrine and
of spirituality in the Lesser Catechism, that in its kind it has
no equal.. Above all is its explanation of the Apostles' Creed
admirable."  "Is there an eloquence which is sufficient- not
to do full justice to the theme - but in some degree to vindicate the value of the book? As I look upon the Churches
everywhere, in the enjoyment of the blessing it brings, I confess
that it surpasses all the range of my thought.  If I must make
the effort to express my regard for it, I acknowledge that I
have received more consolation, and a firmer foundation of my
salvation from Luther's Little Catechism, than from the huge
volumes of all the Latin and Greek Church writers together.
And although excellent theologians, not without success, have
imitated  Luther and  written  Catechisms, Luther's  Catechism in the judgment of all good men deserves the palm.":
Matthes,  who urges various objections to the Catechisms,
nevertheless adds: "' The little Catechism of Luther, with its
explanations, brief, adapted to the people, childlike, and at the
same time profound, meeting the wants of the mind and of the
* Sermons on the Life of Luther.  t Historia Lutheranismi. i. { 51.
J Heshusius, quoted in Fabricii: Centif. Luther. ad Cap. lxxxii.
{ Comparative Symbolik all. Christi. Confession. 1854.




288         C ONSERVATIVE R EFORMATION.
heart, is still the Catechism which impresses itself most readily
on the mwemory of children, and more than any other produces
the spirit and life of religion in them. If this be still the case,
who can measure the blessing it brought in the era of the
Reformation, when a new epoch of the religious nurture of
the people and of their children began with it? "  "There are
as many things in it as there are words, as many uses as there
are points." *     It is a true jewel of our Church, a veritable
masterpiece."    "It is impossible to estimate," says Kollner,T " the value of these Catechisms for their time.  Luther
gave in them not only a brief sketch of the fundamental truths
of the Gospel, but restored to life the actual Catechizing, the
primary instruction in religion.  The form  of the Catechism
was as fitting as its matter.  Luther was a man of the people;
like Paul he had the gift of speaking to the masses, as no one
else could, so that the simplest understood him, and heart and
soul were alike touched. And this language of the heart, sustained by Luther's whole mode of thinking as a theologian, is
the key-note of his Catechisms.  They bear the true impress
of his joyous assurance, of the earnest heartiness in which he
was unique, and of all that true piety which here presents in
conjunction the light and kindling which illumine the mind and
revive the affections." Ranke's words II may fitly close these
eulogies: "The Catechism which Luther published in 1529, and
of which he says that, old a Doctor as he was, he himself used it
as his prayer, is as childlike as it is profound, as easy of grasp
as it is unfathomable, as simple as it is sublime.  Happy he
who nourishes his soul with it, who clings fast to it  For
every moment he possesses a changeless consolation   he has
under a thin shell that kernel of truth which is enough for the
wisest of the wise."
We now approach the part of the Book of Concord, with
the acceptance or rejection of which, the Book as a whole is
Formula of likely to stand or fall.  If the Book of Concord did
Concord.   not contain the FORMULA OF CONCORD, it is very cer* Dr. I. F. Mayer.                             t Baumgarten.
+ Die gute Sache, 157.
If Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalt. d. Reformat. Berl. 1839. ii. 445.




FIRST DIVISION-PRELIMINARIES.                   289
tain that the most decided and persistent opposition it has
experienced would never have been raised.  There is no instance on record in which any State, city, or individual, accepting the Formula of Concord, rejected or objected to any other
of the Symbols.  To decide upon acknowledging it, is to decide
really upon the acknowledgment of the whole.  Was it needed?
Was it a restorer of concord, or a promoter of discord? Is it
a pure witness of the one unchanging faith?  Has it been
stamped by the Church as an authoritative witness of her
faith, and is it as such of force and value still? On these
questions it is impossible to form  an intelligent  Diisions ofits
opinion without recalling the main facts in the his- history.
tory of this great document.  This History may be divided
into FOUR parts.  FIRST: The events which rendered necessary
the preparation of a new  Confession.  SECOND: The events
terminating in the preparation of the Torgau Formula. THIRD:
The development of the Torgau Formula into the Bergen
Book, which in its revised form appeared as the Formula of
Concord, in the Book of Concord, Dresden, 1580.  FOURTH:
The subsequent reception of the Book of Concord. *
FIRST: Among the necessitating causes and preliminaries of
the preparation of the Formula, may be mentioned:
1. Melanchthon's vacillations, real and seeming. These were
due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it
was with melancholy; his aveirsion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his
extreme delicacy in matter of style; his excessive reverence for
the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his
anxiety that the whole Communion of the West  First division.
should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were "rei'iinaies.
impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.
The coworking of these, in different proportions at different eras,
produced inconsistencies of the most extraordinary kind, and,
when Luther was gone and the intellectual headship of the
Reformation devolved upon Melanchthon, the lack of self-consistence. and firmness, which had been his misfortune as a man,
assumed the character of a public calamity.' The whole work
* C. G. F. Walch: Breviarium L S. E. L. 198-219.
19




290         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIONA
of the Reformation, as represented in Melanchthon, seemed
destined to fall into chaos. Everywhere, his works in their
various editions, were in the hands of the friends and foes of the
Conservative Reformation.  The friends of that Iteformatioll
were embarrassed and confounded, and its enemies delighted
and encouraged, by perceiving endless diversities of statement
in the editions of books, rapidly succeeding each other, books
which, in their first form, Luther had endorsed as of Canonical
purity and worthy of immortality. The very Confessions of
the Church, determined by her authorities, and signed by her
representatives, were emended, enlarged here, abridged there,
changed in structure and in statement, as the restless spirit of
refining in thought or style moved Melanchthon. All his
works show the tinge of his mind at the time of their issue,
whether affected by his hopes that Rome would be softened,
or roused by the elusive prospect of real union with the less
radical part of the Zwinglians.  Melanchthon fell into a hallucination by which his own peace of mind was wrecked, his
Christian consistency seriously compromised, the spirit of
partisanship developed, the Church distracted and well nigh
lost. This was the hallucination that peace could be restored
by ambiguous formulas, accepted indeed by both parties, but
understood in different senses. It is a plan which has often
been tried and which never succeeds, where men are in earnest.
It not only does not bind men more closely, but leaves them
more widely alienated, more full of bitter mistrust.  Men must
be honest in their difference, if they are ever to be honest in
their agreement.
The three works of Melanchthon in which the changes were
most noted and most mischievous, are 1: the Augsburg Confession; 2: the Apology; and 3: the Loci Communes.
II. Connected closely with Melanchthon's vacillations, various Controversies rose among the theologians of the Augsburg
Confession, which may be stated as generically the conflict between the PHILIPPISTS, or adherents of Melanchthon, and the
more consistent LUTHERANS. The great name of Melanchthon
was used to shield much which there is no reason to believe
he would have approved.  Much that he wrote could be taken




MELANC HTHO  r                    291
in two senses. The Lutheran-Philippists, who took the more
charitable view, put the best construction on them, and were
reluctant to abandon one to whom the Church owed so much,
and whom Luther had loved so dearly. The rReformed put
upon Melanchthon's words the construction most favorable to
themselves. The Crypto-Calvinists made them their covert.
The enemies of the Reformation appealed to them as proof
that the first principles and doctrines of the Reformers had
been abandoned.  Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the disputed cases, this much is certain, that
they practically operated as if the worse sense were the real one,
and their mischievousness was not diminished but aggravated
by their obscurity and double meaning. They did the work
of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid error
might. We have twenty-eight large volumes of Melanchthon's writings- and at this hour, impartial and learned men
are not agreed as to what were his views on some of the profoundest questions of Church doctrine, on which Melanchthon
was writing all his life.
III. 1560. A great centre of this controversy was furnished
in the PHILIPPIC CoRPus DOCTRINE, 1560, to which the Philippists, especially in the Electorate of Saxony, desired to give
Confessional authority, an effort which was resisted by the
consistent Lutherans on the ground that it contained very
serious errors. It was in the unionistic part of our Church,
not the consistent part, that the tendency first appeared'to put
forth bulky Confessions, and the necessity for the Book of
Concord was largely generated by the greatly larger Bodies of
doctrine which were set forth by the Philippists.
The Philippic or Meissen German Corpus of 1560, contained:
1. The three General Creeds; 2. The Augsburg Confession
from the Wittenberg ed. 1553, enlarged and altered; 3. The
Apology; 4. The Repetition of the Augsburg Confession, written in 1551, to be sent to the Council of Trent; 5. The Loci
Theologici; 6. The Examen Ordinandorum; 7. The Answer
to the idolatrous Articles of Bavaria; and 8. A Confutation
of the Mahometan Error of Servetus. The corresponding
Latin Corpus of the same date, contains all the writings em



292         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
braced in the German: the Augsburg Confession is the Variata varied of 1542; and there is added to the whole Melanchthon's Reply to Stancar.
As this Corpus became the special rival of the Book of Concord, and the controversy so largely clustered around the question, Which should be preferred, this Corpus, or that Book?it may be well to note:
1. That the Corpus is greatly more bulky than the Book of
Concord.
2. With the exception of the General Creeds it is entirely
composed of Melanchthon's writings. Not a line exclusively
Luther's is in it. The Catechisms are not there; not even the
Schmalcald Articles are there. It was a silent dishonor put
upon Luther, and his faith and work, apparently in the name
of the Lutheran Church, by the men who afterwards clamored
that Melanchthon was not treated with due respect in the Book,
which yet gives the place of honor to Melanchthon's greatest
confessional works, the Augsburg Confession and the Apology,
and contains also his Tractate on the power of the Pope.
3. It is largely composed of private writings on which no
official action of the Church was taken.
4. The texts of its most important parts are changed greatly,
and corrupted.
5. There is much in it cumbrous, and wholly unsuited to
form a Confession.
6. It is ambiguous on some vital points, and unsound on
others.
7. A treachery and double-dealing unworthy of our holy
faith, and especially condemned by the frank directness, characteristic of Lutheran Christianity, underlies the whole conception of the issue of such a Corpus.
IV. The earlier Saxon CRYPTO-CALVINISM, which the Wittenberg theologians embodied in various publications. Confessing one system of faith, it held and furtively promoted the
doctrines of another, or ignored the truths it did not openly
assail. Many were involved in its meshes, who imperfectly
understood its nature, and were slow to believe the worst of it.
This greatly complicated the difficulties, and embittered the




FIRST PERIOD.                      293
controversies of this century. Again and again it circumvented and deceived the very men' who were engaged in the
effort to expose and overthrow it.
V. 1569. The alarming state of things led to various consultations on the part of our theologians, who heartily desired to
save the Church from being choked'with the upspringing of
error, or from being trodden down and torn to pieces in the
effort to root it out. Chief among thenl were JAMES ANDRE,
of Tiibingen, who at an early stage of his efforts made a journey into Lower Saxony, 1569, MARTIN CHEMNITZ, DAVID CHYTRAEUS, and NICHOLAS SELNECCER, all of them great theologians, moderate in spirit, earnest Christians, and intensely
devoted to the purity and peace of the Church.
VI. 1570. A Convention was convened at ZERBST, by the
Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, and by Julius, Duke of
Brunswick, for the promotion of concord among the theologians, 1570. Andree was satisfied with the results of the Convention, but they did not correspond fully with the expectation of others.  Heshus wrote against the Convention and
against Andree. So much had men in fact come to distrust
what was most specious, that Andrewe was suspected by some
of secret connivance with the errors, to the casting out of
which he was devoting his life.
VII. 1573. Two BOOKS, designed to promote peace, were prepared by Andree and sent to the theologians of Lower Saxony
for subscription: 1. Six sermons on the divisions which had
arisen between 1548 and 1573; 2. An exposition of the existing controversies. The first was sent in print. The second,
prepared by advice of Chemnitz, remained in manuscript.
VIII. 1574. The ELECTORAL-TORGAU ARTICLES were written
by the Saxon divines, by order of the Elector Augustus, 1574.
These Articles were suspected, perhaps not without reason, of
making concessions to Calvinistic errors. And.yet upon the
surface no charge seemed more groundless.  He who reads
them, supposing them to have been written in good faith, will
be apt to see in them a thorough rejection and confutation of
the Calvinistic Sacramentarianism. So perfect is the deception,
if it be one, that Selneccer, on a first reading, was delighted




294         CONSERVATIVE RE FORMATION. 
with them, and congratulated the Church of God, that at Torgau, so pure and sincere a Lutheran Confession had been set
forth.  He who reads them now, is more likely to be surprised
at Selneccer's change from this opinion, than at his having
formed it. The Calvinists themselves complained bitterly of
the severity of these Articles against them. Their leaders are
named, their views stated and refuted. Beza, who was named
in them more than once, wrote an answer to them. Iospinian
regards them  as the basis of the Formula of Concord. Even
Hutter * says that " the something of the Calvinistic jugglings
latent in them  is found in very few places," and attributes
their defects either to the writers' want of full information
about the points at issue, or to a charity which hoped by softness of style to win the enemies of truth to accept it. In a
time ill which sad experience had found no reason for jealous
care, these Torgau Articles would probably have been regarded
by all as Selneccer first regarded them.  A long succession of
causes of distrust can alone account for their being suspected.
IX. 1575. The SUABIAN-SAXON FORMULA OF CONCORD, mainly
the work of Cheinnitz and Chytraeus, appeared in 1575.
This is not to be confounded with the Confession of the
Churches of Lower Saxony, prepared by the same hands, 1571.
The " Exposition" of Andreme was well received by the Wiirtemberg theologians, but the Doctors of Lower Saxony, dissatisfied with it, desired Chemnitz and Chytraeus to elaborate on
it as a basis the Suabian-Saxon Formula, which was sent back
after careful revision by the representatives of the churches to
Wiirtemberg.  This Formula became a general ground-work
of the Formula of Concord.
THE SECOND PERIOD of the history of the Book of Concord
follows the preparation of the Suabian-Saxon ForSecond Pe:iod.
mula (1575) and ends with the completion of the
Torgau Formula.  The most important points embraced in it,
are these:
I. 1576. Feb. The Convention at Lichtenberg.  Augustus,
Elector of Saxony, saw that though the work of uniting the
Church was begun, it was very far from completion. Under
* Concordia Concor. ch. v.




SECOND PERIOD.                      295
the influence of this feeling, (Nov. 21, 1575) he sent to his
Privy Council, in his own hand-writing, a paper, worthy of a
Christian prince. It took just views of the peril of the time
and of its source, and so wisely marked out the principles, afterwards acted on, on which alone peace could be restored, that it
may be regarded as having laid "the first foundation-stone of
the Work of Concord."  "We are to look," said he, "more to
the glory of God, than to that of dead men."  " Unity among
us who claim to receive the Augsburg Confession, is impossible, while every land has a separate Corpus Doctrine. In
this way many are misled: the theologians are embittered
against each other, and the breach is constantly widened. If
the evil be not cured, there is reason to fear that by this embittering and confusion on the part of the theologians, we,
and our posterity, will be utterly carried away from the pure
doctrine. My plan is. that we who confess the Augsburg Confession, shall unite and compare views in a friendly way; that
three or four peace-loving theologians, and an equal number of
Civil Counsellors nominated by the heads of the States, meet
together, bringing with them the different Corpora Doctrine;
that they take the Augsburg Confession as their rule (Richtschnur); that they compare the Corpora, and take counsel
together how, out of the whole, to make one Corpus, which
shall be the common Confession of us all."  This paper led to
the assembling, (Feb. 1576,) of the Convention at Lichtenberg,
composed of theologians marked by that love of peace on which
the noble Elector justly laid so much stress. These twelve
theologians, among whom were Paul Crell of Wittenberg, and
Selneccer, determined upon three things as essential to the
establishment of concord:
1. All private self-seeking and ambition, all personal griefs
and contentions, all suspicions of injury and desire of revenge,
all the controversies and  controversial writings between
brethren, in the past, were to be given to eternal oblivionwere to be " as if they had never been."
2. The Philippic Corpus Doctrinae was confessed to have
been the occasion of misunderstanding.  " That useful and
good book, written by the sainted Philip, had been commended




296        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
by us, and introduced into the churches and schools; some
had styled it a Norm of doctrine and Confession. This had
been understood as designed to take the useful and admirable
spiritual writings of Luther, of precious memory, out,of the
hands of pastors and people. Certain points in the Corpus, as
Free Will, Definition of the Gospel, the Lord's Supper, want
of sufficient explicitness toward the Sacramentarians, had been
understood in a sense, or distorted to it, of which our Churches
have known, and now know, nothing."  While they therefore
regard it as " an admirable, good and useful book," they renounce it as a " Symbol, Norm, or Rule."  "The Norm of our
doctrine and Confession is this, We set and name, first of all,
and unconditionally, the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles,
the three (Ecumenical Creeds, and then the Augsburg Confession, the first, Unaltered, its Apology, the Catechisms of Luther and the Schmalcald Articles. If any one, because of the
doctrine of justification, desires to add Luther on the Epistle to
the Galatians, we would heartily agree with him."  They
then speak with severity of Crypto-Calvinistic books which
had been furtively prepared and circulated, and advise the repression of them.
3. They proposed that a Commission of theologians loving
truth and peace, taking the Augsburg Confession as a rule and
following its order, should prepare a clear statement in regard to the doctrines involved in controversy. They expressed
their approval of the great divines who had already done so
much in this direction, Chytraeus, Chemnitz, and Andree, and
added the name of Marbach.
II. 1575. Nov. 14. The Saxon, Henneberg and Wirtemberg
union of action. Though the earlier steps of this concerted
action preceded the Lichtenberg Convention, it yet, because of
its close connection with the Maulbrunn Formula, is more
naturally placed here.
1. It was said by an old French Chronicler, that the English
are sad even in their mirth. It might be said of our pious
Princes of the Sixteenth Century that they were religious even
at their amusements.  The Elector Augustus met George
Ernest, the old Count of Henneberg, at the hunt, and in a con



SECOND PERIOD.                      297
versation on the troubles of the time, said that he would
gladly correct the evils, especially those charged upon the
Wittenberg theologians, if he could be furnished with a distinct statement both of the false doctrines charged, and of the
truths opposed to them. The Count promised to have a paper,
of the kind desired, drawn up.
2. The Count of Henneberg (Nov. 1575,) met Louis Duke
of Wiirtemberg, at the nuptials of the Duke to the daughter
of Charles, Margrave of Baden. When the festivities were over
and the other princes had departed, the Count, the Duke, and
the Margrave, agreed to commit to Luke Osiander and Bidenmbach the preparation of such a writing as the Count had
promised.
3. These divines laid as the groundwork of their paper the
Suabian-Saxon Formula (see Divis. First viii.), compressing it
and adding proof passages from Scripture, and citations from
Luther. Their work was finished Nov. 14, 1575.
III. 1576. Jan. 19. The Maculbrunn Formula.
1. The document thus prepared was submitted to a number
of theologians, delegates of the princes.  They tested and
approved it in the Convention at the Cloister of Aaulaibriunn
(Jan. 19, 1576.)
2. The Maulbrunn Formula was sent, Feb. 9, 1576, by the
Count of Henneberg to the Elector of Saxony. The Elector
had meanwhile obtained (Jan. 17, 1576) a copy of the SuabianSaxon Formula (Div. First. viii.) from Duke Julius. The
Elector now placed both the Formulas, the Maulbrunn and
Suabian-Saxon, in the hands of Andree, for his advice.
3. Andree pursued a course in the matter worthy of his
venerable name, and of the confidence reposed in him at the
great crisis. Though the Suabian-Saxon Formula was built
so largely upon his own labors, he confessed that it was unfitted
for its end by the irregularities of its style, its copious use
of Latin words, and its diffuseness, while its indeterminateness
toward Melanchthon's writings might give rise to new controversies. The Maulbrunn Formula, on the other hand, which
was in some sense an abridgment of the Suabian-Saxon, was
too brief. His counsel, therefore, was that the two should be




298         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOOV.
made the basis of a third Formula, which, combining the
virtues of both, should avoid their faults.
4. This counsel of Andree was thoroughly approved of by
the Elector. As the great function of the Formula of the
future was to guard the true doctrine of the Augsburg Confession, and to this end it was necessary to fix and preserve its
uncorrupted text, the first movement of the Elector was
toward the securing of the copy of the Augsburg Confession,
in German, made by Spalatin during the Diet, in 1530.
IV. 1576, May. The Convention at Torgacu. The Elector did
not delay the now promising movement toward unity. He made
the arrangements for a convention of theologians, of different
lands, at Torgau.  Eighteen, out of twenty invited, appeared.
Eleven of the twelve delegates at Lichtenberg were of the
number, of whom  Selneccer was the  most distinguished.
The other names of greatest renown are Andrew, Chytraeus,
Chemnitz, Musculus, and Corner.  The deliberations were held
at the Castle of IIartenfels, the Rock of Hardness, a name of
happy suggestion for confessors of the truth in  troublous
times. The inspection of the two Formulas, the SuabianSaxon and the Maulbrunn, produced at once a oncurrence in
Andrem's opinion, that the one was too diffuse, the other too
brief, and an adoption of his advice to fuse both into a new
Formula.  They laid as the basis of the new, the SJ.abianSaxon Formula, departing occasionally from its arrarngement,
pursuing, as nearly as possible, the order of Articles in the
Augsburg Confession, and inserting an Article on tie Descent
into Hell.
V. Thus originated the BOOK or Formula of Tcrcgau, (1576),
after the toils and anxieties of seven years.  TLh  Lichtenberg
Convention had determined the general principle on which the
Concord should be established; the Suabian-Saxon Formula
had furnished its basis; the Maulbrunn Formula had aided in
the superstructure; the necessary combinations, additions and
eendenations, had been happily made at Torgau. Varied as
had been the difficulties, and wide as had been the gulf which
once yawned as if it would swallow up the Church, the accord
of spirit had now been such, that in ten days the work of




FORMULA-HISTOIRY OF THIRD PERIOD.   299
Torgau was finished. The theologians who met May 29, were
ready with the Torgau Opinion (Bedenken) June 7th, 1576.
All the theologians had borne an active part in its preparation,
but Andree and Chemnitz are justly regarded as its authors.
-The T1IRD PERIOD of the history of the Formula of Concord
opens with the sending forth of the Torgau Frorm-  rorla. iisula for examination by the Churches, (1576), tory of Third
and ends with the publication of the Book of Period
Concord, 1580.
I. The Elector AUGUSTUS, (June 7, 1576), having carefully
examined the Torgau Formula, and having laid it before his
counsellors, submitted it to the Evangelical orders of the Empire, in order that it might be thoroughly tested in every part.
II. The work was everywhere received  with  interest.
Twenty  conventions of theologians were  held  in  the
course of three months.  The Formula was scrutinized in
every part. The work found little favor with the Calvinists,
whether secret or avowed. The Reformed held a Conference at
Frankfurt, Sept., 1577, to avert what they considered a condemniation of their party. Delegates were there from other
countries. Elizabeth, Queen of England, sent ambassadors to
several of the Evangelical States, and especially to the Elector
Augustus, to avert the imaginary condemnation. The Elector,
in a courteous but firm letter, assured the Queen, through the
King of Denmark, that the object of the Formula was to
correct and prevent errors within the Churches of the Augsburg Confession, not to pass condemnation on other Churches.
Some of the friends of Melanchthon thought that the Formula
failed in not recognizing his merits. On the part of a few
theologians, there was a scarce suppressed ill-humor that they
had not been consulted in the preparation of the Formula.
But the great mass of the twenty-five responses testified to a
general approval of the Formula, and showed that the pure
faith still lived. Many opinions of great value were expressed
involving no change in doctrine, but suggesting various additions, omissions, and alterations of language.  It was clear
that the book had not yet reached the shape in which it could
fully meet the wants of the Church.




300         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
III. As soon as the answers were received, the Elector
Augustus, with the concurrence of Brunswick and Wiirtemberg,
called together the three greatest of the co-workers, Chemnitz,
of Brunswick, Andrese, of Tiibingen, and Selneccer, of Leipzig,
to revise the Torgau Formula in the light of the expressed
judgments of the Churches.  They met, with the cordial
consent of the Abbot Ulner, at the Cloister of Bergen, near
Magdeburg.
1. Here the Torgau Formula was submitted to itsfirst revision,
March 1-14, 1577. The work was done very conscientiously.
Every suggestion was carefully weighed, and estimated at its real
value, the treatment was made more compact, and an Epitome
of the Solid Declaration was prepared.  The theory, that a
second revision was made in April, at Bergen, has little to
sustain it.
2. The second and final revision of the Torgau Formula
took place at Bergen, May 19-28, 1577. To the " first Triumvirate" Brandenburg added Corner, and Musculus, of Frankfort on the Oder, and Mecklenburg, at the special request of
Augustus, sent Chytraeus of Rostock.  Though they passed
over the Formula with minute care, they found little to change.
IV. The last touches were put to the work.  At this stage,
(May 28, 1577,) we know it as the Bergen Formula. It was to
be known in history as the Formula of Concord, for this it was.
Between this time and its publication in 1580, no change was
made in it. There waited in it a silent might which the magic
touch of the press was to liberate, to its great mission in the
world.
V. But wonderful as had been the work done, much yet
remained to be done. When the Church first saw clearly the
way in which peace was to be won, she saw that it involved
four problems:  1. The determination what writings were to
be her standard of teaching; where was to be found a statement of doctrine which the Lutheran Church could accept unreservedly as her Confession. 2. The preparation of a Confession
which should apply the doctrines of holy Scripture, and'of
the earlier standards of teaching, to the new issues which convulsed the Church, and should protect the older standards




THIRD PERIOD.                      301
from corruption and false interpretations. 3. The securing
for both classes of Confession, the subscriptions of the teachers
of the Church, as representatives of its faith, and 4.  The
solemn sanction of the norm  of teaching by the Political
Estates, which would shield it against violence."
Two of these problems had now been happily solved:  The
Augsburg Confession; its Apology: the Schmalcald Articles
and the Catechisms had been fixed upon as the standard of
teaching; and the Bergen Formula had determined the new
questions, in accordance with that standard.  Two problems
remained. It was first contemplated to settle them by holding
a General Convention, a plan, wisely abandoned. The plan
adopted was, to submit the book for signature to the representatives of the Church in the various lands. In far the larger
part of the Lutheran States and Cities, the subscription was
promptly made. It was throughout voluntary. A free expression of opinion was invited. Force was put upon no man.
KNot even the enemies of the Formula pretended that such was
the case. The Apostates from it, at a later period, did not pretend that they had acted under constraint in signing it. It
was signed by three Electors, twenty-one Princes, twenty-two
Counts, twenty-four Free Cities, and by eight thousand of the
teachers of the Church.
VI. It was impossible, nevertheless, in the nature of the case
that there should be no dissenting voices. Few and feeble as
they were when contracted with the joyous response of a
major part of the Church, they were listened to with respect,
and no effort was spared to unite the whole Church. But as
one class of objections was often of the pettiest and most pitiful
nature, for the most part the merest effusions of the ill nature
of men who were too little to lead, and too vain to follow, and
as another class, though of a more dignified nature, were
drawn from mere motives of political jealousy, or State interest,
the gentleness and patience failed of their object. Those who
loved the Church best had hoped rather than expected, that
all the Estates would accept the bond of union. This holy hope
was not indeed consummated, but great beyond all expectation
* Anton: Gesch. d. Cone. formnel. I. 214.




302         CON ESERVATIVE REFORMATION.
were the results, nevertheless. If the Church's vote was not
absolutely unanimous, it was that of an immense majority. A
Church threatened with destruction, from the insidious working of error, had risen out of the chaos created by heresy which
pretended to be orthodox.  The darkness in which no man
could tell friend from foe had been swept.away. Deliverance
had come from a state of pitiful strife and alienation, over
which the enemies of God were already exulting as hopeless,
and which would have ended in the overthrow of the Reformation. But for the Formula of Concord it may be questioned
whether Protestantism  could have been saved to the world.
It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding
to death, and crises were at hand in history, in which Lutheranism was essential to the salvation of the whole Reformatory
interest in Europe.  The Thirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay indeed in the future of
another century, yet it was fought and settled in the Cloister
of Bergen.  But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirates, the
sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery
and division in the Church of the Reformation would have
done what the arts and arms of Rome failed to do. But the
miracle of restoration was w-rought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Lutheran Church had become
the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg, despite
the storm, the mildew and the worm, had ripened into the full
round fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession, in whi'ch
the Christian Church has ever embodied her faith.
The FOURTT  DIVISION of the History of the Formula of Concord embraces the events which followted its publication, Among
them may be enumerated, as most important, the following:
I. A number of Estates, not embraced in the first subscription, 1580,. added their signatures, in 1582. There was now a
grand total of eighty-six Evangelical States of the Empire
united in the Formula of Concord.
II. As regards its reception, out of Germany, may be noted
these facts:
1. The Princes and theologians by whom the Formula of
Concord had been given to the world, had made no effort to




FOURTH PERIOD.                       303
procure the subscription and cooperation of the Churches outside of the German Empire. The reasons for this course were
various. First, To have invited the co-working of other nationalities, would have complicated, to the degree of impracticability, what was already so tangled. Second, The
Fou'rth Period.
difficulties which originated the necessity for the
Formula of Concord were comparatively little felt outside of
Germany.  The whole doctrinal Reformation, outside of Germany, was in a certain sense secondary. Germany was the
battle-ground of the great struggle, and others waited, knowing that the decision there would be a decision for all.  Third,
Political barriers existed. In some lands where the Lutheran
Church had strength, the rulers were Reformed or Roman
Catholic. One of the Reformed monarchs indeed, King Henlry
of Navarre, desired to form an alliance with the Evangelical
States against the Roman Catholics, but the States, setting the
pure faith before all political considerations, declined the alliance, except on the basis of the Formula of Concord.
2. Denmark was the solitary exception to the rule in regard
to foreign lands, an exception due, probably, to the fact that
the wife of Augustus of Saxony was the sister of the King,
Frederick the Second. The feeling of Frederick II. was probably a mingling of aversion, inspired by some of his theologians
who were Crypto-Calvinistic or Philippistic, and of dread, lest
the Formula of Concord should introduce into his land the
controversies from  which it had hitherto been free.  How
blind and irrational the feeling of Frederick was, is shown by
the fact, greatly disputed but apparently well established, that
without reading it, or submitting it to his theologians, he threw
into the fire the superbly bound copy sent him by his sister, the
Electress.  On July 24th, 1580, he sent forth an order forbidding the bringing of a copy of the Book into Denmark, under
penalty of the confiscation of all the property of the offender,
and of his execution. Ministers and teachers, if convicted of
having a copy in their houses, were to be deposed. In spite
of this fierce opposition, the Formula came to be regarded in
Denmark with the highest reverence, and in fact, if not in
form, became a Symbol of the Danish Church.




304        C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
3. In IHOLSTEIN, it was speedily introduced and greatly
prized, and, in 1647, was formally accepted as a Symbol.
4. In SWEDEN, John II. (1568-1592) was on the throne. To
the cruel murder of his insane brother Eric, he added the
crime of persistent efforts to force Romanism on his people.
There of course, for the present, the Formnula could. not hope
for a hearing. But in 1593, the year after his death, the Council of Upsala determined upon its subscription, and its authority as a Symbol was still further fixed by later solemn acts of
official sanction.
5. In POMERANIA, LIVONIA and HUNGARY (1573-1597), it was
accepted as a Symbol.
III. It is worthy of note that some of the nominally Lutheran Princes and States either 1, never accepted the Formula
as their Confession, or 2, having accepted it, subsequently withdrew.
1. The city of Zweibriicken which had not received the Formula, went over, in 1588, to the Reformed Church. Anhalt,
about the same time, the Wetterau, in 1596, and Hesse, in
1604, made the same change.
2. In the Electoral Palatinate, Louis had been a devoted
friend of the work of Concord. On his death, 1583, John Casimir introduced the Reformed faith. In Brandenburg, in 1614,
under John Sigismund, an Electoral Resolution was set forth,
full of coarse abuse of the Formula and of its authors. The
Formula, nevertheless, continued to be loved and reverenced in
Brandenburg. In part of Brunswick, the Corpus Julium took
the place of the Book of Concord. It embraced everything in
the Book of Concord except the Formula, and had in addition
a work on doctrines by Chemnitz, and another by Urban
Regius. In the part of Brunswick which had had the Corpus
Wilhelminum, the Book of Concord and the Corpus were both
received as symbolical. The Corpus had all the matter of the
Book except the Formula.
IV. As might be anticipated, appearing in so controversial
an age and involving all the greatest questions of the time, the
Formula of Concord was assailed by the Reformed and the
Roman Catholics, and by a few nominal Lutherans. Most




FORMULA-MERITS AND  VAL UE.                  305
renowned among these earlier assaults were the " Christian Admonition" by Ursinus, 1581, the Anhalt Opinion, 1581, the
Reply of the Bremen Preachers, 1581, Irenmus' Examen, 1581,
and Ambrose Wolff's History of the Augsbuirg Confession,
1580. To these bitter libels, for they were little else, the three
great divines, Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, by order of
the three Electors, of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg,
replied. In 1599, appeared the Staffort Book (named from the
place of its publication,) in which the Margrave of Baden
assigned his reasons for rejecting the Formula of Concord.
They were so convincing to his own mind that he persecuted
his Lutheran subjects for not seeing the force of them. The
Book was answered by the Wiirtemberg and Electoral-Saxon
theologians, in 1600-1602.
Several Roman Catholic writers also assailed the Formula.
The most renowned of these was Cardinal Bellarmin in his' Judgment on the Book of Concord," Cologne, 1589. It now
forms the Fourth Part of his work on the Controversies of his
time, the master-piece of the Romish Polemic of the Sixteenth
Century. It was answered by Hoe of Hoenegg (1605) and
others.
In forming an estimate of the MERITS AND VALUE OF THE
FORMULA OF CONCORD, for which we have been prepared by the
glance taken at its history, the following facts may be worthy
of consideration:
I. The controversies which the Formula of Concord was
meant to settle, had produced incalculable mischief in the
Church, and absolutely needed settlement, if the  Foll.,iul  of
Church were to be saved.                         Concord. Its
merits and value.
1. The time was one of mighty agitations and of
strong convictions. Every question involving doctrine was regarded with an intensity of feeling, which a cold and skeptical
age is unable to understand. God's least word was something
for which men would spend their years in battle, would take
joyfully the spoiling of their goods, would abandon their homes
for exile, and would ascend the scaffold. They resisted unto
blood on the division of a hair, if they believed the hair to
belong to the head of Truth.
20




306         CONSERVATIVE REFORMALTION.
2. The age was one of vast upheaval, and of rapid reconstruction. The superstitions of centuries had been overthrown,
and the temple of a pure Scriptural faith was to be reared
upon their ruins.  Every man was a polemic and a builder,
eager to bear part in the wonderful work of the time. It was
an age of feverish excitement, and many passed through the
delirium  of weak mind overwrought, and fancied their ravings, inspirations.  It was the age of antitheses, in which
extravagances,by a law of reaction, rose in hostile pairs. Two
errors faced each other, and in their conflict trampled down
the faith which lay prostrate between them.  Extremists
treated truth as if it were habitable only at one pole, and the
proof that the one pole was untenable at once involved to them
the necessity of going to the other.
3. The controversies which followed Luther's death, arrested
the internal development of the  Church, and brought the
processes of its more perfect constitutional organizing almost to a
close. The great living doctrines, which made the Reformation,
were in danger of losing all their practical power in the absorption of men's minds in controversies. War, as a necessary
evil to avoid a greater, just war, as the preliminary to a pure
peace, is to be defended; but war, made a trade, treated as
a good, pursued for its own sake, and interminable, is the curse
of curses, and much of the controversy of the second half of the
Sixteenth Century was making a rapid transition to this type
of strife.  The Church was threatened with schisms.  Her
glory was obscured. Her enemies mocked at her. Her children
were confounded and saddened. Weak ones were turned from
her communion, sometimes to Zurich, or Geneva, sometimes to'Rome. Crafty men crept in to make the Lutheran Church
the protector of heresy. There was danger that the age which
the Conservative Reformation had glorified, should see that
grand work lost in the endless dissensions of embittered
factions.  Hence it is that the peculiar characteristic of the
Formula, on which its necessity and value depend, goes so far
in solving —what might otherwise seem  mysterious -that
while the larger part of the Lutheran Church received it with
enthusiasm, some did not accept it., The reason is: that while




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                    307
the Confessions set forth the faith of our Church, in her antagonism to the errors outside of her, the Formula, if not exclusively, yet in the main, is occupied in stating the truth,
and defending it, over against the errors which had crept into her,
and corrupted some of her children.  Ron.anism, with its artifices, had. misled some. Fanaticisn, sectarianism, and heresy,
had lured others; and the ardor of controversy against the
wrong, had led others, as, for example, the noble and great
Flaccius, to extravagance and over-statement, which needed
to be corrected.  The Lutheran Church was assailed by open
war and direct persecution, by intrigue, Jesuitical device, and
conspiracy. Romanism was active on the one hand, and sectarianism  on the other. False brethren, pseudo-unionists, endeavored by tricks of false interpretation to harmonize the
language of the Augsburg Confession, and of the earlier Confessions, with their errors. The mighty spirit of Luther had
gone to its rest. Melanchthon's gentleness sometimes degenerated into utter feebleness of purpose, and alike to the Romanists and the sectarians he was induced to yield vital points.
Not yet compacted in her organism, living only by her faith,
and centred in it, as her sole bond of union, the Lutheran
Church, in Germany especially, which was the great battleground, was called to meet an awful crisis.
No man who knows the facts, will deny that something
worthy of the responsibility involved in such great and cogent
issues had to be done. About the means there may be dispute,
about the end there can be none. The world is very much
divided between men who do things, and men who show that
they could have been done better, but the latter class, at least
admit that they had to be done.
II. The Church in this time of trial used the best means for
the needed end. She availed herself of the labors of the best
men, who proposed and carried out the best means for the preparation of the Formula of Concord.
1. First and greatest among these men, was the Elector
AUGUSTUS, of Saxony, (1533-1588,) son of Duke Henry, the
Pious. In 1548 he married Anna, daughter of Christian III.
of Denmark, who was universally beloved for her devoted adhe



308         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
rence to Lutheranism, and for her domestic virtues. Augustus
assisted in bringing about the religious peace of Augsburg, in
1555, by which the Protestants (Lutherans) obtained important
rights in common with the Roman Catholics.  The fact that
these benefits were confined to the " adherents to the Augsburg Confession," was one dangerous source of temptation to
the Reformed. It led men to pretend to adhere to that Confession, simply to secure the civil benefits connected with it.
The Elector was in advance of his time in the principles of
constitutional sovereignty.  In an arbitrary age he governed
by law. Ie consulted his parliament on all great questions,
and raised no money by taxation without their advice. His
edicts were so just that he has been called the Saxon Justinian.
His subjects regarded him with peculiar love and reverence.
By his skilful internal administration, he raised his country
far above the rest of Germany, introducing valuable reforms
both in jurisprudence and finance, and giving a decided impulse to education, agriculture, and manufactures. The Dresden Library owes to him  its origin, as do also most of its
galleries of arts and science.
Augustus bore a part in the Formula of Concord worthy of
him. To meet the necessary expenses connected with the Formula, the Elector himself paid a hundred thousand dollars in
gold. His gifts and efforts were unceasing till the great end was
attained. Noble and unsuspicious, he had been slow to believe
in the possibility of the treachery of the false teachers, whose
mischievous devices he at length reluctantly came to understand. The troubles they brought upon the Church whitened
untimely the Elector's head, but so much the more did he toil
and pray till the relief from the evil was wrought.  While the
theologians were engaged in conferences, the Elector and his
noble wife were often on their knees, fervently praying that
God would enlighten His servants with His Holy Spirit. In
large measure, to the piety, sound judgment, and indefatigable
patience of this great prince, the Church owes the Formula
of Concord.*
2. Next to the name of AUGUSTUS, is to be placed that of
* Hutter: Cone. Cone. ch. xi. Anton: i. 147, 148. K6llner: 533.




FOR MULA OF CONCORD.                      309
JACOB ANDREE, (1528-1590,) Professor and Chancellor of the
University at Tibingen, and Provost of the Church of St.
George. He was the pupil, friend, and colleague of Brentius.
" Ie was," says one who had no reason to tempt him to extravagance of eulogy,   a man of excellent genius, of large
soul, of rare eloquence, of finished skill -a man whose judgments carried the greatest authority with them."    At the
age of eighteen he was Dean at Stuttgart -and when, on the
capture of that city by the Spaniards, the Protestant preachers
were driven out, Andree remained, and exercised an influence in moderati g the victors.  HIe resigned, at the age of
twenty, his earliest place as a clergyman, rather than accept the
Interim, with its concessions to Romanism.  His labors as.a
Reformer, both in doctrine and discipline, and afterward as a
Conservator of the Reformation, were unwearied.  He was " in
journeyings oft," and all his journeyings were directed to the
good of the Church, and the glory of God. The estimate
which Planck makes of Andree, is confessedly an unkind and
unjust one, yet he says: "' Andrewe belongs not merely to the
learned, but to the liberal-minded theologians of his era... It
was not in his nature to hate any man merely because that
man was not orthodox.. It was not only possible for him to
be just, at least at the beginning, toward those who were in
error, but he felt a something to which it is not easy to give a
name, which  attracted him  to those that erred."   "His
writings," says Hartmann, "over one hundred and fifty in
number, are among the most interesting memorials of the
characteristics of the theological effort of the era. ITe was a man
of rich erudition, and of uiflagging diligence.  His eloquence
bore his hearers resistlessly with it. As a preacher, he was
full of fire and life.  His sermons were pre-eminently practical.
In negotiations, he was skilful and captivating."
3. Worthy of association with the venerable names of Augustus and Andrewe, is that of CHEMNITZ, (1522-1586,) Melanchthon's greatest pupil. At the age of fourteen, already revealing " a peculiar genius," he was sent to school at Wittenberg.
* Weismann: H. S. N. T. i. 1455. See Andrese, in lerzog's R. E. i. 310, by
Hartmann. Planck: Gesch. d. Protest. Theol. vi. 372.




310         CONSERTVATIVE REFORMATION.
There he received his first deep impressions of Luther, whom
he often heard in the pulpit, in, the fullest glory of his power.
When, nine years later, Chemnitz came to Wittenberg as a
University student, Luther was living, but the young scholar
had not yet decided on the theological studies with which his
renown was to be identified. To these Melanchthon drew him.
The learning of Chemnitz was something colossal, but it had
no tinge of pedantry. Hisjudgment was of the highest order.
His modesty and simplicity, his clearness of thought, and his
luminous style, his firmness in principle, and his gentleness in
tone, the richness of his learning and the vigor of his thinking,
have revealed themselves in such measure in his Loci, his
Books on the Two Natures of our Lord, and on the True Presence, in his Examen of the Council of Trent, his Defence of
the Fornlula of Concord, and his Harmony of the Gospels, as
to render each a classic in its kind, and to mark their author
as the greatest theologian of his time - one of the greatest theologians of all time.
4. The third man in the great theological "triumvirate,"
as its enemies were pleased to call it, was NIcHOLAS SELNECCER
(1530-1592).  He too was one of Melanchthon's pupils (1549).
In 1557 he became Court preacher at Dresden.  He was a
great favorite with the Elector Augustus.  His simple, earnest
Lutheranism led him to defend Hoffman against the persecutions of the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic party.  So little did
Augustus at that time understand the real character of the
furtive error against which, in after time, he was to direct the
most terrible blows, that Selneccer was allowed to resign his
place, (1561). The exile sought refuge in Jena.  There the
Flaccian troubles met him, and led to his deposition, but
Augustus recalled him (1568) to a position as Professor at Leipzig, in which he labored on, in stillness, not unobservant, however, of the mischiefs connected with the Crypto-Calvinistic
movements in Saxony. Finally the Elector, with his aid, had
his eyes opened to these evils, and the movements began which
terminated in the Formula of Concord.  In all these movements, Selneccer was very active and useful.  To him we owe
the Latin translation of the Formula.  Like all who bore part




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                      311
in that noble work, he was very fiercely assailed.  When the
Reformed party came into power, at the death of Augustus,
Selneccer was deposed, and not even allowed to remain in
Leipzig  as a private citizen.  His family was harassed by
Crell, and Selneccer himself was reduced to poverty. But such
a man could not long be crushed.  He was called to the superintendency in Ilildesheim.  Lying upon the bed of sickness, in
1592, he was summoned to Leipzig, as its Superintendent.
Crell had been overthrown.  Selneccer was borne back, dying
but vindicated, and breathed his last, in Leipzig, May 24, 1592.
The Church will sing his precious hymns, some of them set to
his own melodies,.to the end of time, and his memory will be
treasured as that of one of her great defenders in the time of
darkness.*
5. Nor were the three  men who were  associated with
Andrewe, Chemnitz, and Selneccer, unworthy to bear part with
these three chiefs in their great work. CHYTRAEUS (1530-1600),
of Wiirtemberg, was one of Melanchthon's favorite pupils.
Professor at Rostock, and Superintendent, renowned for his
solid judgment, his large culture, his moderation, his deep
insight into the needs of his time, his desire for the peace of
the Church, his fame was great in his own communion, but
was not confined to it.  His history of the Augsburg Confession is classic in its kind.  He was a " great and renowned
teacher, who had few equals."t   ANDREW MUSCULUS (15141581) was of Saxony.  In 1538, he was among the devoted
young men of the Reformation  who surrounded Luther.
None were,more devoted to the great leader than Musculus.
Hle says of Luther: "Since the Apostles' time, no greater man
has lived upon earth.  God has poured out all His gifts on
this one man.  Between the old teachers (even Iilary and
Augustine) and Luther, there is as wide a difference as between
the shining of the moon and the light of the sun." IHe was
an earnest defender of the faith, a fearless and powerful
preacher, unsparing of wrong, and active in all the works of
love.  CHRISTOPHER C6RNER (1518-1594) was of Franconia.
HIe was a Doctor and Professor of theology, at Frankfort on
* Herzog's R.: xiv, 226. (Hollenberg).    -t Weismann: H. E. i. 1457.




312        CONSERVATIVE REFORM2ATION.
the Oder, and General Superintendent of the Electorate of
Brandenburg, and author of a number of learned works. He
was styled the " Eye of the University."*
6. With these chief laborers were associated, at various
stages, a number of others. In some shape, the whole learning
and judgment of the Lutheran Church of that era had an
opportunity of making itself felt in the Formula of Concord.
7. The plan on which the work was carried through, was of
the best kind. The plan involved careful preparation of the
proper documents by the ablest hands, repeated revision, comparison of views, both in writing and by colloquy, the free expression of opinion by the various parts of the Church, the
concurrence of the laity and ministry, and the holding of a
large number of conventions. So carefully and slowly was the
work carried on, that in the ten years between its opening and
its close, the gifts and contrasts of the great men engaged in it
were brought to the most perfect exercise. Never was a work
of this kind so thoroughly done. The objections made to the
plan and its working are of the weakest kind. A General
Synod of all the Lutheran Churches was impossible, and if it
could have been convened, could not have sat long enough for
the needed discussions.  The General Consent, which is the
only thing of value which a General Synod could have given,
was reached in a far better way. The Formula, though prepared by a committee of great divines, was the act and deed
of the Lutheran Church, in its major part. The Formula of
Concord brought peace and blessing wherever it was honestly
received. The evil that remained uncorrected by it, remained
because of the factious opposition to it. All good in this evil
world is but proximate.  Even the divine blessing which
descends direct upon the world from the hand of God, is marred
by the passions of bad men, and the infirmities of the good.
The divine rule of faith does not force upon the unwilling a
perfect faith, nor should we expect a Confession of faith, however pure, to compel the unwilling to a consistent confession.
IV. The DOCTRINAL RESULT reached in the Formula of Concord is in conformity with the pure truth of the divine Word.
* J6cher: Gelelrten Lexic. Vol. i: col. 2106.




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                      313
The doctrines which the Formula was meant to settle, were
settled aright.  As preliminary to the whole discussion proper,
the Formula
1. Lays down, more sharply and clearly than had yet been
done, the principle, that Holy Scripture is the only and perfect
rule of faith. The Rtle sets forth the credenda- the things that
are to be believed.
2. It defines the proper functions of the pure Creed as the
Church's testimony and Confession of the truth derived from
the rule.  The Creed sets forth the credita - the things that
are believed.
In consonance with this Rule, and by necessity in consonance
with the pure Creeds of the past, the Formula determines over
against the errors of the time:
i. In regard to original sin, that it is not the essence, or substance, or nature of man, (Flaccius,) but a corruption of that
nature.
ii. Of free will, that there are not three efficient causes of conversion, of which one is man's will, (Philippistic,) but two only,
the Holy Spirit, and, as His instrument, the Word.
iii. Of justfication, that Christ is our righteousness, not
merely according to his divine nature, (Andrew Osiander,) nor
merely according to his human nature, (Stancar,) but according to both natures: and that justification is not an infused
righteousness, (Osiander,) but a pardon of our sins -is not
physical, but forensic.
iv. Of good works. Here are rejected the phrases: that good
works are necessary to salvation, (Major,) and that good works
are injurious to salvation, (Amsdorf,) and the truth is taught
First, that good works most surely follow true faith, as the
good fruit of a good tree; that it is the necessary duty of regenerate men to do good works, and that he who sins knowingly
loses the Holy Spirit; but that, nevertheless, men are neither
justified nor saved by their good works, but by " grace through
faith."  In a word, justification and its consequent salvation
are necessary to good works, not the converse. They precede,
the good works follow.  Second: " We reject and condemn the
naked phrase,'that good works are injurious to salvation,'




314          CONSERVATIVE REEFOR MA'TIO.
as scandalous and destructive of Christian discipline.  That
the works of a man who trusts in them are pernicious, is not the
fault of the works themselves, but of his own vain trust, which,
contrary to the express Word of God, he puts in them.  Good
works in believers are the indications of eternal salvation. It is
God's will and express command that believers should do good
works.  These the Holy Spirit works in them.  These works
for Christ's sake are pleasing to God, and to them He hath
promised a glorious reward in the life that now  is, and in
that which is to come.  In these last times it is no less necessary that men should be exhorted to holy living, should be reminded how necessary it is that they should exercise themselves in good works to show forth their faith and gratitude
toward God, than it is necessary to beware lest they mingle
good works in the matter of justification. For by an Epicurean persuasion about faith, no less than by a Papistical and
Pharisaic trust in their own works and merits, can men come
under condelmnation." 
v. Of the Lazw and the Gospel.  When the word Gospel is
taken in its general and widest sense, as embracing the entire
teaching of Christ and of His Apostles, it may be rightly said
that it is a preaching of repentance and remission of sins.  But
when the word Gospel is used in its specific and proper sense,
so that Moses as the teacher of the Law, and Christ the teacher
of the Gospel are contrasted, the Gospel is not a preaching of
penitence, and of reproof of sins, but none other than a most
joyful message, full of consolation, a precious setting forth
of the grace and favor of God obtained through the merits of
Christ.
vi. Of the third use of the La.. The Law of God has not only
a first use, to-wit, to preserve external discipline, and a second
use, to lead men to the knowledge of their sins, but has also a
third use, to wit, that it be diligently taught unto regenerate
men, to all of whom  much of the flesh still clings, that they
may have a sure rule by which their entire life is to be shaped
and governed.
i. Of the Lord's Sapper. This was by pre-eminence the
*Epitome 588-591. Solid. Declarat: 699-708.




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                     315
question which led to the preparation of the Formula, and it
is answered with peculiar di tinctness and fulness.  The statements in which it embraces the pure doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, are these:
The true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are
truly and substantially   present in the Holy Supper, and are
truly imparted with the bread and wine:
" They are truly received orally with the bread and wine.
but not in the manner imagined by the men of Capernaum,
(J1hn vi. 52,) but in a supernatural and heavenly manner, by
reason of the Sacramental union, a manner which human sense
and reason cannot understand.  We use the word' Spiritual'
in order to exclude and reject that gross, fleshly manner of
presence which the Sacramentarians feign that our Churches
hold. In this sense of the word spiritual, we also say that the
body and blood of Christ, in the Holy Supper, are spiritually
received... For though that participation be oral, the manner
of it is spiritual:"
They are received by all those who use the Sacrament: by
the worthy and believing, to consolation and life; by the unbelieving, to judgment.
Hence the Formula rejects and condemns:
The Popish Transubstantiation; the Sacrifice of the Mass;
the Communion in one kind; the adoration of the external
elements of bread and wine in the Supper:
The errors of the Zwinglians and Calvinists, such as these:
that the words of the Testament are not to be taken as they
sound; that only bread and wine are orally received; that the
body of Christ is received merely spiritually, meaning by this
merely by our faith; that the bread and wine are only tokens
by which Christians acknowledge each other; or that they are
figures, types, and similitudes of an absent body; that in the
Supper, only the virtue, operation, and merit of the absent body
and blood of Christ are dispensed; that the body of Christ is
in such sense shut up in heaven, that it can in no manner
whatever be on earth when the Holy Supper is observed:
"All language of a gross, carnal, Capernaitish  kind, in
regard to the supernatural and heavenly mystery:
* German: wesentlich. Latin: substantialiter.




316         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
" That Capernaitish eating of the body of Christ, as if it
were rent with the teeth and concocted as other food, which
the Sacramentarians, against the witness of their consciences,
after so many protestations on our part, maliciously feign,
that they may bring our doctrine into odium." *
viii. T'he Person of Christ.  The handling of this great theme
connects itself closely with the Lord's Supper.  The doctrine'
of the person of Christ presented in the Formula rests upon
the sublimest series of inductions in the history of Christian
doctrine. In all Confessional history there is nothing to' be
compared with it in the combination of exact exegesis, of dogmatic skill, and of fidelity to historical development. Fifteen
centuries of Christian thought culminate in it.  The doctrine
of the " Communicatio Idiomatum" is indeed but the repetition
which Christian science in its last maturity presents, of the
truth  that " the Word was made flesh."   The Apostle's
Creed already h-as it, when it says that God's " only Son, our
Lord, was conceived, horn, suffered, was crucified, dead, buried,
descended into hell, ascended to the heavens, and sitteth at the
right hand of the Father Almighty." The " idiomata' are inseparable from  the natura, the attributes are  inseparable
from the nature, and if there be a " communicatio" of natures,
there must be a " communicatio" of these attributes; that is,
the nature personally assumed must, in that assumption, be participant of the attributes of that nature to whose person it is
assumed.  If an Eternal Being was actually conceived and
born, if the impassible actually suffered, if the infinite was
actually fastened to the cross, if the immortal was dead, if He
whom  heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain,
was hidden in a grave, — if all this be not a riddle, but a
clear direct statement of doctrine —to accept the Apostles'
Creed is to accept the presupposition which necessitates the
reception of the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum.
If the Apostles' Creed does not mean that Jesus Christ;
is one person in whom  there is an inseparable connection
of the natures, so that the one person really does all that is
done, whether through one nature or through both, and the
* Epitome, 597-604. Solid. Declaratio. 724-760.




FORMULA OF CONCORD.                     317
one person really suffers all that is suffered, though it can suffer
only through the sole nature which is passible -if it means that
God's only Son did not die, but that another and human
person died; if it means that Ie who was born, and suffered,
and died, does not sit at the right hand of God, and is not the
judge of the quick and the dead, but that only another and
divine person so sits and shall so judge; if, in a word, the
Apostles' Creed means that Jesus Christ was not God's only
Son, but that one of His natures was God's Son, and the other
nature was not God's Son, and that Jesus Christ is not in fact
one person in two natures, but two persons, then does the
Apostles' Creed persistently say what it does not mean, and the
faith Catholic is a chaos of contradictions.  The Nicene Creed
asserts the same great doctrine at an advanced point of scientific ripeness. The only begotten, the Eternal Son, Maker of
all things, descends from  heaven, is made man, is crucified
(though infinite), suffers, (though impassible). He is one person,
to whom is referred all the glory that is divine, and all the shame
and pain that are human. The Athanasian Creed witnesses
still further: " Though he be God and man, He is not two, but
one Christ - one, not by the conversion of Divinity into flesh,
but by the assumption of humanity to God; one altogether,
not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For
as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is
one Christ, who " (God and man, one Christ,) " suffered for our
salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day." The Augsburg Confession takes up this thread of witness: " God the Son
became man, so that there be two natures, the divine and
human, in unity of person inseparably conjoined, one Christ,
truly God and truly man, who was born, truly suffered, was
crucified, dead and buried."
The Scripture faith represented in these witnesses, the
Formula sets forth at large in these propositions:
1. The divine and the human nature are personally united
in Christ. These natures are not commingled into one substance, nor is one changed into the other, but each nature
retains its essential properties, which can never become the
properties of the other nature.




318          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
2. The properties of the divine nature are, to be essentially,
n.aturally, and of itself omnipotent, eternal, infinite, everywhere present.  These neither are, nor can be, the attributes of
the human nature.  The attributes of the human nature
neither are, nor can be, the attributes of the divine nature.
3. Those things which are proper to the one nature only, are
attributed to the other nature not as separate, but to the whole
person. The divine nature does not suffer, but that person who
is God, suffers in His humanity. All works and all sufferings are
attributed not to the nature, but to the person. Each nature
acts, with the communion of the other, what is proper to it.
4. The human nature in Christ, because it is personally
united with the divine nature, beside and above its natural,
essential, and permanent human properties, has received peculiar,
supernatural, unsearchable, unspeakable prerogatives of majesty, glory, and power.
5. This impartation is not made by any essential or natural
outpouring of the attributes of the divine nature upon the
human nature, as if the humanity of Christ could have them
per se and separated from the divine essence, or as if through
that comrmunication the human nature of Christ had laid
aside its natural and essential properties, and was either converted into the divine nature, or was made equal in itself, or
per se, to the divine nature by these communicated attributes, or that the natural and essential properties of each are
the same, or at least equal.
6. Inasmuch as the whole fulness of the Godhead dwells in
Christ, not as in holy men and angels, but bodily, that is, as in
its own proper body, that Godhead, with all its majesty, virtue,
glory, and operation, where and as Christ will, shines forth in
that human nature; and in it, with it, and through it, reveals
and exercises its divine virtue, majesty, and efficacy.
7. Thus there is and abides in Christ one only divine omnipotence, virtue, majesty, and glory, which is proper to the divine
nature alone; but this same, which is one only, shines forth and
fully, yet voluntarily, exerts its power in, and with, and through
the assumed humanity in Christ.*
* Formul. Concor. Epit. et Sol. Declarat. art. viii.




FORMULA OF CONCORD.                      319
8. To make more clear the train of reasoning which results
in the doctrine of the Communion of properties, certain logical presuppositions, and certain definitions should be held in
mind. In the incarnation it is not two persons, to wit, a
divine person and a human person, which assume each other,
as if there were two co-ordinates, which equally took each
other; nor does one person, to wit, the divine, take another
person, to wit, a human person, so that there are two persons
in the union, the divine person assuming, and the human person assumed: but one person, having the divine nature, assumes
a human nature, so that there results a person in which two
natures are constituent, but in different ways -the divine nature
absolutely and independently personal, and the human nature
secondarily and dependently personal; the divine nature still
has, as it ever had, its own intrinsic personality; the human
nature is assumed to the divine nature, and neither had, nor
has any other personality than the one divine personality,
which it has in virtue of the union. The human nature of
Christ does not subsist per se, as does the humanity of every
other one of our race, but subsists in the person of the Son
of God. Hence, though the natures be distinct, the person is inseparable.  This complex divine-human person did not exist
before the union, and cannot exist except in and by the union;
and the second nature in the complex person has not existed as a nature before or separate from this union, and never
had, nor has, nor can have, personality apart from that union.
The Communicatio idiomatum is therefore no giving awty,
so that the giver ceases to have, and the receiver retains for
itself apart henceforth from the giver, but is the fellowship of
attributes, which the two natures possess in the one person,
the divine nature having these attributes intrinsically, and the
human nature having them in and because of its personal identification with the divine nature. In this relation the word
" communicate " employed actively, means to " confer a joint
possession," that is, the divine nature confers on the human a
joint possession of attributes in the person.  The word " communicate," used as a neuter verb, means to " have something
in common with another;" the human nature has the attri



320         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
butes in common with the divine nature, but derivatively only
in and through its personal union with the divine. The
" Communication, or Communion of properties" is therefore
the participation of these properties by the two natures.in
common in the one person, the divine nature having the attributes intrinsically, the human nature having them through
the divine and dependently. Though the Logos unincarnate
was a proper person before he took a human nature, the personality of the Logos incarnate involves the two natures. That
person which is not both human and divine is not Christ's
person, and that act or presence which is not both human and
divine is not Christ's act, nor Christ's presence.
The Errors rejected by the Formula are, on the one hand,
all that involve a confusion or transmutation of the natures;
the presence of Christ's human nature in the same way as
deity, as an infinite essence, or by its essential properties; all
equalizing of its essential properties with those of God, and all
ideas of its local extension in all places. The Errors, on the
other hand, are, that the human nature of Christ was alone in
the redemptory suffering and work, with no fellowship with it
on the part of the Son of God; that the presence of Christ with
us on earth is only according to His divinity, and that his
human nature has no part whatever in it; that the assumed
human nature in Christ has, in very deed and reality, no communication nor fellowship with, or participation in the divine
virtue, wisdom, power, majesty and glory, but that it has
fellowship with the divinity in bare title and name.
IX. OF THE DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO HELL. The treatment
of this difficult point is a model of comprehensiveness, brevity,
simplicity, and modesty. The doctrine may be arranged as a
reply to these questions:
1. Who descended?  Christ, Son of God, our Lord, therefore
divine; who was crucified, dead and buried, therefore human;
consequently, not the body alone, nor the soul alone, nor the
divinity alone, but Christ, the whole person, God and man.
This is the precise affirmation of the Apostles' Creed: "God's
only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Virgin Mary,
born, suffered, died, descended into hell."




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                    321
2. When?  Not before his death, (Calvin and Ursinus,) nor
at his burial, as identical with it, (Oecolampadius, Beza,)
but after his burial.
So the order of the Apostles' Creed: "Dead, buried, lie descended into hell."
3. Whither?  Not into a metaphorical hell, of pains of soul,
or of pains like those of the damned, (Calvin, Ursinus,) not
into the grave, (Oecolampadius, Beza,) nor the limbus patrum, a subterranean place of souls, (Bellarmin, and the Romanists generally, with some of the Fathers,) but into hell.
4. Why?  To give to our Lord a glorious victory and triumph, to overcome Satan, and to overthrow the power of hell
for all believers.
5. How? How it was done we may not curiously search,
but reserve the knowledge of it for another world, when this
and other mysteries shall be uncovered, which in this life surpass the power of our blind reason, and are to be received in
simple faith.
No Antitheses are added to this Article.
X. OF ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES; THE ADIAPHORA. Usages,
which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's word,
are in themselves no part of divine worship proper; in them
the Church may make such changes as are needed, due regard
being had to prudence and forbearance; but such changes
may not be made to avoid persecution, nor so as to impair the
clearness of the Church's testimony against the Papal religion.
No Church should condemn another because of unlikeness of
ceremonies, if they agree in doctrine and in all its parts, and in
the legitimate use of the sacraments.
XI. OF PREDESTINATION. " For this article," says  oillner,
" the Lutheran Church owes an eternal debt of gratitude to
the authors of the Formula."  The doctrine, it is true, had
not been the subject of controversy within the Lutheran
Church itself, but it was so vitally connected with the whole
range of theological truth, that it was wise to set it forth in its
Scriptural fulness.
The doctrine may be summed up in these theses:
1. " The foreknowledge or prevision of God, is that whereby
21




322         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION'.
he foresees and foreknows all things before they come to pass,
and extendeth to all creatures, whether they be good or evil."*
2. " Predestination or election is the purpose of the divine
will, and the eternal decree, whereby God out of pure mercy
hath chosen in Christ unto eternal life, and hath determined to
save all those who truly believe in Christ, and endure in that
faith unto the end."
3. "T The whole doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will
and ordination of God (all things, to wit, which pertain to our
redemption, calling, justification, and salvation), is to be embraced together in the mind... to wit, that God in his
counsel and purpose hath decreed these things following:' That the human race should be truly redeemed, and should
be reconciled unto God through Christ, who, by his innocence
and most perfect obedience, by his passion and most bitter
death, hath merited for us that righteousness which avails
before God, and life everlasting:
" That the merits of Christ and his blessings should, through
the Word and Sacraments, be brought, offered, and apportioned
unto us:
" He hath decreed also, that by His Holy Spirit, through
the Word announced, heard, and remembered, he will be efficacious in us, to bend our hearts to true repentance, and to
preserve us in true faith:
" It is His eternal purpose, that all who truly repent, andembrace Christ in true faith, shall be justified, received into favor,
and adopted as sons and heirs of eternal life:
" And they that are justified by faith he will sanctify in true
love, as the Apostle testifies, (Ephes. i. 4:)'According as he hath
chosen us in Him, before the foundation of the world, that'we
should be holy and without blame before him in love:''" God hath also determined in His eternal counsel, that in
their manifold and various weaknesses he will defend them
that are justified, against the world, the flesh, and the devil,
will lead and direct them in their way, and if they should fall,
will uphold them with His hand, that under the cross and in
temptation they may receive strong consolation, and may be
preserved unto life.
* Formula Concordiae, 728.




FORlMULA OF CONCORD.                     323
"It is His eternal decree that He will carry forward and
strengthen, and preserve unto the end that good work which
He hath begun in them, if only they steadfastly lean upon His
Word as their staff, beseech his aid with ardent prayers, continue in God's grace, and well and faithfully employ the gifts
they have received of Him:
"God hath also decreed that those whom He hath chosen,
called and justified, He will, in another and eternal life, save
and endow with glory everlasting."'
4. " Many receive the Word of God in the beginning with
great joy, but afterward fall away. The cause thereof is not
that God is not willing to give His grace to enable them.to be
steadfast in whom He hath begun that good work, for this is in
conflict with the words of St. Paul, (Phil. i. 6;) but the true
reason of their falling away, is that they again turn themselves
away from God's holy command wilfully, and that they grieve
and provoke the Holy Spirit, that they again entangle themselves in the pollutions of this world, and garnish again the
guest-chamber of their heart for Satan."t
5. " God hath from eternity most exactly and surely foreseen,
and knoweth, who of the number of them that!are called will
or will not believe in Christ, who of them that are converted
will or will not remain steadfast in the faith, and who of them
that have fallen into grievous sins will return, and who of
them will perish in their wickedness... But because the
Lord hath reserved such secret things for his own wisdom
alone, nor hath revealed anything of this matter in His Word,
much less hath commanded us to occupy our imaginations
with these mysteries, but rather hath forbidden us to take
them in hand: it doth not become us to give liberty to our
imaginations, to establish anything, argue thereon, or wish to
search out those most hidden things, but we should rest in his
revealed Word to which He hath referred us.":
6. " If any one set forth the doctrine of the eternal predestination of God in such manner that distressed minds can
derive no consolation from it, but rather occasion of despair is
given unto them, or so that impenitent persons are confirmed
* Formula Concordise, 802.  t Ibid. 809.:    Ibid. 812.




324         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
in their security, wickedness and wilfulness, then nothing is
more sure than that this article is not taught by him according
to the Word and will of God." e
7. " INot only the preaching of repentance, but the promise
of the Gospel is also universal, that is, belongs to all men.
For this reason Christ hath commanded' that repentance and
remission of sins  should be  preached among all nations;'' God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son;''Christ taketh away the sin of the world;'' He gave his flesh
for the life of the world;'' Iis blood is the propitiation for
the sins of the whole world;' Christ says:' Come unto Me
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest.'' God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might
have mercy upon all.''The  Lord is not willing- that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance.''The
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him."
The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all, and upon all them  that believe.''And this is
the will of the Father that every one which believeth on
Christ should have everlasting life.' And Christ wisheth that
in general unto all to whom repentance is preached, this promise
also of the Gospel should be set forth."t
8. "This calling of God, which he offereth to us through the
word of the Gospel is not feigned and pretended, but God by
that calling revealeth to us His will, to wit, that in those whom
Ile calls in this way He wisheth to be efficacious through His
word, that they may be enlightened, converted and saved.":
9. " The reason why many are called but few chosen, is not
the divine calling, which is made through the Word, as if
God's intent were this:' I indeed call outwardly to a participation in my heavenly kingdom, all to whom that word is set
forth: but it is not the thought of my heart that all should be
seriously called to salvation, but that a few only should be so
called; for my will is this, that a larger part of those whom I
call through the Word, shall neither be enlightened nor converted, although through my Word, by which they are called,
I signify my mind unto them otherwise,' for this would be to
* Formula Concordie, 728.   t Ibid. 804.     J Ibid. 805.




FORMULA OF CONCORD.                       325
impute to God contradictory wills, as if He who is the eternal
truth, were divided against Iimself, or spake one thing and
designed another." *
10. " As God in His eternal counsel hath ordained, that the
Holy Spirit shall, through the Word, call, enlighten, and convert the elect, and that He will justify and eternally save all
those who embrace Christ in true faith: so also in. that same
counsel He hath decreed, that He will harden, reprobate, and
consign to eternal damnation those who being called through
the Word put it away from them, and resist the Holy Spirit,
(who wisheth through the Word efficaciously to work and to
be efficacious in them,) and obstinately remain steadfast in that
rebellion." t
11. " The cause of this despising of the Word is not the foreknowledge or predestination of God, but the perverse will of
man, which refuses or wrests that mean and instrument of the
Holy Spirit which God offers to man in that He calls him, and
which resists the Holy Ghost.. as Christ sayeth:' How often
would I have gathered together and ye would not.'" "
Finally,. The Formula treats of'various factions, heresies
and sects, which have never embraced the Augsburg Confession.
The Errors enumerated and rejected are those of the Anabatists, "who are divided into a number of sects, of whom some
defend more, some fewer Errors;" of Schwenkfeldians; of the
New Arians; and of the New Antitrinitarians, who, as here
characterized, are either Tritheists, or Subordinationists.
Such is the doctrine, such are the antitheses of the Formula
of Concord.  They are in every part consonant with Holy
Scripture, with the General Creeds, and with the earlier Confessions of the Lutheran Church.  The Formula is but the old
doctrine repeated, systematized, applied and defended.  The
chief charge against the Formula of Concord is that it caused
a comnplete separation between the Lutheran and the ZwinglianCalvinistic Churches. This is a great mistake.  The cause of
the separation was the divergent convictions and principles on
both sides. The Formula did not originate a single one of the
questions it settled.  But the Formula of Concord was not
* Formula Concordie, 807.   t Ibid, 8G8.     + Ibid, 809.




326         C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
even the occasion of the separation.  So far was this from being
the case, that after the controversies which necessarily attended
the first appearance of the Formula of Concord, a far healthier
and kindlier feeling prevailed between the two Communions.
Before the Forimula, many things existed in their relations
which tended to demoralize the Reformed Church, as much as
it did to  disorganize and distress the Lutheran Church.
Truthful separation is far better.ithan dishonest union, and two
Churches are happier, and more kindly in their mutual relations, when their differences are frankly confessed, than when
they are clouding with ambiguities and double meanings the
real divergencies.  And even if two Communions are in downright conflict, it is better that the battles should be on the sides
of clearly marked lines, or well understood issues —should
be the struggles of nationalities, under the laws of war rather
than the savage, ill-defined warfare of the border, and of the
bush.  That the open transitions to the Reformed side of a few
nominally Lutheran States were really occasioned by the Formula, is not true.  Most of these movements were those of political force, in the face of the bitter regrets of the people.  No
State which honestly held the Augsburg Confession went over
to the Reformed.  If the Formula uncovered and shamed out
of the pretence of Lutheranism any who were making a mere
cloak of the Augsburg Confession, it is something to love it for.
It is charged upon the Formula of Concord that it repressed
the Melanchthonian tendency in our Church, and substituted the
fossilization of the letter and of the dogma for the freedom of
the spirit and of the Word.  This again is not true.  It is not
true that the spirit within our Church which the Formula encountered, was that of genuine freedom. It was rather the spirit
which was making a real bondage under the pretences of liberty, a spirit which was tolerant only to vagueness and laxity,
not to well-defined doctrinal conviction. It was a spirit which
softened and relaxed the Church when she needed her utmost
vigor and firmness.  It was a spirit of false deference to antiquity and human authority over against the Word. It yielded
now to a false philosophizing, now to the Reformed, now to
Rome.  It tried to adjust some of the most vital doctrines to




FORMULA  OF CONCORD.                     327
the demands of Rationalism on the one side, of Romanism on
the other. In the " Interims," it came near sacrificing all that
had been gained in the struggle with the Papacy. It confessed.
in effect, that the principle of the Reformation.could reach no
definite result, that the better path it claimed to open, led forever toward something which could never be reached.  So far
as Melanchthon's great gifts were purely and wisely used, the
Formula fixed these results in the Church. It did not overthrow the Confessional works in which Melanchthon's greatest
glory is involved. It established the Confession and Apology
forever as the Confession of the Church as a whole.  The Book
of Concord treats Melanchthon as the Bible treats Solomon.
It opens wide the view of his wisdom and glory, and draws the
veil over the record of his sadder cays. Melanchthon's temperament was more exacting than Luther's.  He made his
personal gentleness a dogmatism and demanded impossibilities.
The time of the deluge had come, —a world had to be purified;
and it was useless to send out the dove till the waters had
passed away. The era of the Reformation could not be an
era of Melanchthonian mildness.  To ask this, is to ask
that war shall be peace, that battles shall be fought with
feathers, and that armies shall move to the waving of olive
branches. The war of the Formula was an internal defensive
war; yet, like all civil wars, it left behind it inevitable wounds
which did not at once heal up. The struggle in Churches or
States, which ends in a triumph over the schism of their own
children, cannot for generations command the universal sympathy, with which the overthrow of a common foe is regarded.
All England is exultant in the victories over France, but even yet
there are Englishmen, to whom Charles is a martyr, and Cromwell a devil. The war of the Formula was fought for great
principles: it was bravely and uncompromisingly fought; but
it was fought magnanimously under the old banner of the
Cross. It was crowned with victory, and that victory brought
peace.
Most surely will time bring all that love our Church to feel,
that without the second war and the second peace, the war
and peace of Conservation, the richest results of the first, the




328        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
war of Reformation, would have been lost. Hopeless division,
anarchy, ruin and absorption, were the perils from which the
Formula of Concord saved our Church. The loss of Germany
would have been the loss of Lutheranism throughout the
world, and with it the loss of Protestantism itself.
Feeling the responsibility of their position, not without consciousness of the greatness of the work they had done, the
authors of the Formula of Concord humbly, yet joyously, closed
it with these solemn words: " Wherefore, in the presence of
Almighty God, and of Christ's whole Church, both of the
living, and of the generations which shall follow us, it has
been our purpose to testify, that of the Articles in Controversy; the Declaration we have now made, and none other, is
in very deed our doctrine, faith and Confession. In this Confession, by God's grace, we are ready with fearless hearts to
appear and render an account before the judgment-seat of Jesus
Christ. Against this Declaration we will speak nothing, and
write nothing, openly or secretly, but, the Lord helping us,
will remain steadfast in it to the end. In testimony thereof,
with mature deliberation, in the fear of God, and calling upon
His name, we have with our own hands set our names to this
Declaration."




VIII.
SOME MISTAKES IN REGARD TO THE HISTORY AND
DOCTRINES OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
CHURCH.
A REVIEW OF DR. SHEDD'S HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.*
IT cannot be claimed for Dr. Shedd's book that it is the profoundest and most exhaustive history of Christian doctrine,
but it may be asserted with justice that it is eminently pleasant
and readable.  But if it be not as profound as is conceivable,
it is as profound as its general aim permits it to be, and if it
does not always exhaust its subjects, it never exhausts its
readers.  We cannot concede to Dr. Shedd all that he seems to
claim, and we are sure with perfect sincerity, in regard to the
originality, or even the self-origination of his method.  It
varies so little from  that of some of the German works to
which he confesses his obligations, that without presupposing
their plan,we can hardly conceive that he would have fallen
upon his.  He investigates " each of the principal subjects by
itself, starting from  the first beginnings of scien-  Dr..Sedd'smistific reflection upon it, and going down to the tory of Doctrie.
latest forms of statement."  Dr. Shedd accepts, at the very
out-start, the idea of doctrinal development, and one of the
best features of his book and of its plan is, that he so clearly
and satisfactorily exhibits the processes and results of this
development.   Revelation is unchanging, but the  science
* History of Christian Doctrine. By William G. T. Shedd, D. D. In two
Volumes. New York: Charles Scribner.
329




330         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
which' classifies, and adjusts in their due relations to each
other its doctrines, which sees each in the light of all, and.
under whose guidance, to use the vigorous words of Dr.
Shedd, "the objections of the heretic or latitudinarian only
elicit a more exhaustive,and, at the same time, more guarded
statement, which carries the Church still nearer to the substance of revelation and the heart of the mystery," this science,
in its own nature, must have growth.  The man who takes up
the Bible now, without reference to what the minds of generations have.done towards its elucidation, is exactly as foolish as
the man who would effect to take up any great branch of science
without regard to what has been done before. The botanist's
Rule of faith was Eve's carpet and canopy, but not until Linneus
was the botanist's Confession of faith set forth.  Dr. Shedd
has well stated and well guarded the doctrine of development.
He shows that development is not creation, nor improvement.
Botany neither creates the plants, nor improves upon the facts
connected with them; but it develops into a more perfect
knowledge of them, and out of that higher knowledge into a
more perfect science. The plants themselves furnish the Rule
of the botanist's faith, but the Systema Plantarun is its creed.
The science develops, but it develops toward the absolute truth,
not away from it; and the more perfect the doctrinal development is, the nearer has it come to the ideal of God's mind,
which has its image in His word.
Much of Dr. Shedd's mode of thinking is certainly not the
outgrowth of anything characteristic of New England.  The
attitude of the original extreme Puritanism to the history of
the ancient Church, was very different from his. Puritanism,
as separatism, had no history for it, and hence it repudiated
history. It has lived long enough to have a history, to recede
from its extreme positions, and to receive new elements of life;
and Dr. Shedd's book is' one among many evidences that
Puritanism seeks a history, and begins to appreciate its value
-the value not only of its own history, but of the history of
the whole Church.  After all the diversities and terrible
internal strifes of the nominally Christian Church, there is not
any great part of it that can safely ignore absolutely any




DR. SHEDD'S HISTORY OF DO CTRINTE.    331
other great part. Puritanism  cannot say, even to Romanism,
" I have no need of thee," still less can it say so to the grand
portions of evangelical Protestantism. Dr. Shedd's book shows
that he has escaped from many of the narrownesses which obscured the genuine glory of Puritanism, for genuine glory it
has, and a great deal of it. No book of which we know, emanating from a New England mind, shows as much acquainta.nce as this book does with the character and weight of
Lutheran theology.
Nevertheless, one of the greatest weaknesses of the book is
its lack of a thorough and independent knowledge of our
Church.  Dr. Shedd, especially in his exhibitions of the
Patristic and English views, shows independent research; but
in the treatment of the Lutheran theology-he gives unmistakable evidence that his reading has been comparatively slight
among the masters, especially the old masters of our Church.
lHe has trusted too much to manuals, and yet has hardly used
them enough. IHe exhibits views as characteristic of Calvinistic divines, or of the Calvinistic symbols, which are mere
resonances of the Lutheran theology, whose glory it is, first to
have brought into the distinct sphere of science the great
Biblical truths of which we speak. The scientific development
of the doctrine of the redemptory character of the active obedience of Christ, is due to the Lutheran theologians. The true
and profound views of the person of Christ, which Dr. Shedd
presents in the language of Hooker and Hopkins, though involved in the Athanasian Creed, received their full scientific shape
from the Christological labors and Controversies of the Lutheran
Church in the Sixteenth Century.  The Lutheran Church has
been the ultimate spring of almost all the profound theological
thought of modern times. Even Calvinism, without it, would
not have been. Calvin was saved, we might almost say created,
by being first Lutheranized.
It is refreshing to find in Dr. Shedd's book so much that is
sound, and deep, and old; but which will, to the mass of thinkers in New England, seem like novelty. Nothing, indeed, is
so novel in New England as the old theology, in some of its
aspects. How, for example, must the doctrine of the true sac



332        CONSERVATIVE REFORMiA TION.
ramental presence mystify them? Dr. Shedd, perhaps wisely,
has spared them this. There are, indeed, great departments
of the history of doctrine on which he does not enter. He
gives us, for example, nothing direct on the doctrines of the
Church, of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper; yet these involve many of the most vital questions of the hour. On the
other hand, he has gone, we think, beyond the bound, in devoting a whole book to the history of Apologetics, and another to
an account of Symbols. He has done it so well, however, that
we not only forgive him, but thank him for it.
One very interesting feature of the book is its presentation of many of the Calvinistic doctrines in their coincidence with the Lutheran; as, for instance, in the paragraphs
on the " Lutheran-Calvinistic Theory of Original Sin," " The
Lutheran-Calvinistic Theory of Regeneration;" and on other
points. Dr. Shedd seems to fear that " the chief criticism that
may be made upon the work is, that it betokens subjective
qualities unduly for an historical production."  On the contrary, we think, that so far as is consistent with fidelity to
conviction, his book is remarkably free from  the offensive
obtrusion of merely personal opinions. There is not a page in
it whose tone is unworthy of the refined candor of a Christian
gentleman.  We are struck, indeed, as we have said, with
what we regard as mistakes in reference to the Lutheran Church,
but the statements of Dr. Shedd are made in a tone which relieves them of all asperity; and he knows so much more about
our Church than most writers of English who have attempted
to describe it, that we feel that his mistakes are involuntary.
They are fewer than might have been anticipated. Dr. Shedd
speaks of the Augsburg Confession as " the symbol which was
to consolidate the new evangelical Church into one external
unity, in opposition to that of Rome." " But the doctrines of
sin and redemption had been misstated by the Papal mind at
Trent; and hence the principal part of the new and original
work of the Lutheran divines was connected with these." This
collocation might mislead the reader, who forgets that the
Augsburg Confession was prepared fifteen years before the first
convention of the Council of Trent. Dr. Shedd speaks of the




ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.  333
Augsburg Confession as' the first in time" among our symbols. Twelve pages after, he corrects himself by mentioning
that the Two Catechisms were published in 1529, a year before
the Augsburg Confession.  Dr. Shedd says appreciatively:
" The general tone and spirit of the first creed of the Reformation is a union of firmness and mildness.  The characteristics
of Luther and Melanchthon, the two minds most concerned in
its formation, are harmoniously blended in it."
In Dr. Shedd's interesting volumes, we naturally look with
most interest for that which bears upon our own Church. His
remarks upon the origin, character and supposed imperfections
of the Augsburg Confession, may require some examination.
Dr. Shedd speaks of the Augsburg Confession as a  The origin of
public and received Confession of the common the Augsburg
faith of the Protestant Church. Taking the word confessi
" Protestant " in its original and strictly historical sense, this
is true, but it is not, nor was it ever the received Confession
of all whom we now call "Protestants."  Two counter Confessions, Zwingli and the Tetrapolitan, were prepared for
the Diet of Augsburg.  There are some defects too in Dr.
Shedd's statement of the origin of the Confession. He says:
"The process began with a commission from John, Prince of
Saxony, given in March, 1530, to his favorite theologians,
Luther, Justus Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon, to prepare a series of succinct and comprehensive articles to be discussed and defended as the Protestant form of doctrine."  Dr.
Shedd's statement in this sentence is defective, for it does not
furnish the reason of this commission, and it seems inaccurate
in making this commission the beginning of the process which
was completed in the laying of the Confession before the Diet
of Augsburg. The ultimate ground-work of the Augsburg
Confession is the Fifteen Articles of Marburg,which were the
result of the conference between the Zwinglians and Lutherans,
October, 1529. These are more closely related to the Seventeen
Articles of Schwabach than the Schwabach Articles are to the
Augsburg Confession. The real immediate beginning of the
process was in the summons of the Diet by the Emperor
Charles V., dated January, 1530, in which he stated as one of




334         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION,
the objects of the Diet, the comparison and harmonizing of the
conflicting views which were dividing the Church, and to this
end required of the evangelical princes a statement of their
doctrine. The Elector of Saxony, the leader of the Evangelical
States, foresaw that for any such comparison a clear and judicious statement in writing, both as to doctrines and abuses,
would be necessary on the part of the Protestants, (Lutherans,)
and gave the command to the four theologians, to prepare the
needed statement, and present it to him in eight days at Torgau. The shortness of the time allotted is the solution of the
fact, that "these theologians joined upon the work that had
already been performed by one of their number," though it is
not strictly accurate to say that the work had been performed
by one of their number, as Luther says, in so many words, in
his Preface to these Articles, that they were not his exclusive
work.*  His co-laborers in preparing them were Melanchthon,
Jonas, Osiander, Brentius and Agricola.  "In the preceding
year, (1529,) Luther, at a Convention of Protestants, at Schwabach, had prepared seventeen Articles, to be adopted as the
doctrinal bond of union. These Articles, this body of Commissioners appointed by Prince John  adopted, and, having
added to their number some new ones that had respect to certain ecclesiastical abuses, presented the whole to, the Crown
Prince, in Torgau, in March, 1530. Hence, they are sometimes
denominated the'Articles of Torgau.'"  The reader must not
suppose, as he might, that " Prince John" was one person, and
"the Crown Prince" another.  We do not know  why Dr.
Shedd prefers the title " Prince " to the more definite and historical term Elector, unless as a resident of New York, there
is special music to his ear in the style and title of that old time
pet of the Empire State, " Prince John" Van Buren.  And
why does he style the Elector the " Crown Prince? "
In the nomenclature of the best recent writers on the history
of the Augsburg Confession, the title " Schwabach Articles"
is confined to those of the 27th of October, 1529, and the name
of" Torgau Articles " is restricted to the Articles prepared by
* Sie sind nit von mir allein gestellet. The whole are given in Cyprian's Historia, (Gotha, 1730,) Beilage, p. 159. Corpus Reformatorum, xxvi. 138.




ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.  335
the four theologians at Wittenberg, March, 1530, and presented at Torgau. Dr. Shedd goes on to say: " This draft of
a Confession was then brought before the Imperial Diet, at
Augsburg, for examination and adoption.  Here it received
revision, and some slight modifications, under the leadership
of Melanchthon, who was present at the discussion before the
Diet, and was aided during the progress of the debate, by the
advice and concurrence of Luther, then at Coburg, in a free
and full correspondence. The Symbol having been formed in
this manner, was subscribed by the princes and authorities of
the Protestant interest, and in their name publicly read in
German, before the imperial assembly, and a copy, in both
German and Latin, presented to the Emperor. The Augsburg
Confession thus became the authorized doctrinal basis of Protestantism in Germany."  In this account we are compelled to
say there is more than one mistake. Neither this draft of a
Confession, nor any other draft, was ever brought before the
Imperial Diet, either for examination and adoption, or for any
other purpose. Of course, therefore, it received no revision
there, or modification. None of the processes connected with
the formation of the Confession, took place in the presence of
the Diet. The Diet knew nothing of its contents up to the
time of the reading of it. After the Elector had received, at
Torgau, the Schwabach, and the Torgau Articles proper, he
started for Augsburg, leaving, for prudential reasons, Luther
at Coburg, with the understanding that nothing final should
be done without consulting him. The Elector and his retinue
entered Augsburg, May 2nd, and remained there. During the
rest of the month, and for the first half of June, the secular
and ecclesiastical dignitaries were gathering for the Diet. In
this interval, from May 26th to June 20th, the Emperor not
having arrived, and no sessions of the Diet having taken place,
Melanchthon, with the aid and advice of the other theologians,
and of all the representatives of the Evangelical interest, given
in, sentence by sentence, did the work of composing the Confession which was to be submitted to the Diet, laying, as the
ground-work,the Articles of Schwabach and Torgau, but doing
far more than would be generally understood in Dr. Shedd's




336         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATION.
statement, that these Articles " received revision and some
slight modifications."  This Confession, when finished, was
sent by the Elector to Luther, by whom, without a solitary
change, or suggestion of a change, it was approved, May 15th,
one month previous to the entrance of the Emperor into Augsburg.  The first session of the Diet was held June 20th, and it
was determined that the religious questions should be taken
up first.
On the 23d of June, the Protestant Princes signed the Confession. On the 24th they received permission to present the
Confession on the following day. The material labor on the
Augsburg Confession was finished and approved by Luther
more than a month before the Diet met. In the intervening
weeks, Melanchthon elaborated the style, and gave higher
finish to the form of the Confession, and before the Diet met,
the Confession was finished. It was then no draft, but the
perfect Confession, which was in the hands of the Confessors,
when the Diet met; but neither draft nor Confession was ever
submitted for adoption to the Diet. It received, and could in
the nature of the case receive, no revision or " slight modification before the Diet."  Melanchthon was not present at the
discussion before the Diet, not only, although this would seem
to be enough, because there was no such discussion, but he was
not, in fact, present in the Diet at any discussions of any sort.
Melanchthon did not hear the Augsburg Confession read.
Justus Jonas was the only evangelical theologian who heard
the Confession read, an honor which may have been thought
due to his juristic skill, or to his official position.  There was
no discussion of the Articles of the Confession before the Diet,
and no debate in regard to them to make any progress, to be
shared in by Melanchthon, or to require the aid of Luther.
The Symbol was not formed in this manner, as we have" seen,
but was finished before the Diet began. Equally mistaken is
the statement, that Melanchthon entered upon a detailed refutation of the Romish Confutation, " so far as he could reconstruct the document from his own recollection on hearing it
read," as he did not hear it read, and was at first entirely dependent on " notes that had been taken by others who were




THE CONFESSION NOT ROMA NIZING.                  337
preseht at the reading." Dr. Shedd has evidently either been
following very inaccurate guides, or, for some reason, has misunderstood his authorities on these points.  His bibliography
of the literature of the History of Symbols does not, indeed,
seem to indicate that he has made it a matter of very thorough
study; for there is no mention made in it of works of the
very highest rank, as for example, of Carpzov, Baumgarten,
Boehmer, and Semler, among the older writers; of Plank,
Marheineke, Tittmann and Marsh, in the first quarter of the
present century; of Mohler and I{Kllner, whose merits are of
the most distinguished order; or of Matthes and Rudolph
Hoffman, and others, who, as good writers of the most recent
date, deserve mention.  The selectest bibliography ought to
embrace all of these. The truth is, however, that the separate
History of Symbols is not more properly in place in a history
of Doctrines, than a history of Polemics, of Patristics, or of
Biblical Interpretations would be, for all these are, incidentally,
sources of illustration of the History of Doctrine.  Each of
them is, moreover, comprehensive enough for a distinct treatment.  Dr. Shedd has made his plan too comprehensive, and
necessarily renders it relatively weaker at certain points.  The
plan which Dr. Holmes has rendered so renowned, of making
the weakest point as strong as the rest, is exquisite in theory,
but difficult in practical realization.
"The Augsburg Confession," says Dr. Shedd, " is divided
into two parts: the one, positive and didactic in  The Augsburg
its contents; the other, negative and polemic." cu"no oiig.o
R,, m a n i zing.
The Augsburg Confession, as it is usually and was  colsubstantiation no doctrino
most anciently divided, consists of the Preface, Chief of the Luthera
Articles of Faith, The Articles on Abuses, and the Church.
Epilogue. KbIllner makes a fifth part of the Epilogal Prologue,
which separates and unites the Articles on Abuses. Nevertheless,
Dr. Shedd very properly divides it, in a general way, into two
parts. The first of the chief parts, however, in addition to its
positive statements of doctrine, has negative antitheses on the
doctrines of the Trinity, Original Sin, the Efficacy of the Ministry, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Repentance, the Use of
Sacraments, of Civil matters, the Second Coming of Christ,




338         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and Free Will. On a number of the points, arguments ar e uiged,
Scripture is quoted and Patristic authorities appealed to, and in
the Article on Good Works, the prevailing character is entirely
Apologetic.  The Doctrine of Good Works had been stated in
the sixth article, the twentieth is devoted to the defence of it.
Dr. Shedd exhibits the thoroughly catholic and evangelical
character of the Augsburg Confession in regard to the Trinity,
Sin, Salvation, and the Last Things.  He goes on, however, to
make some strictures on certain points, and says:'Though
decidedly Protestant upon the cardinal points, the Augsburg
Confession contains some remnants of that unscriptural system,
against which it was such a powerful and earnest protest."
He admits, that upon the cardinal doctrines, the Augsburg
Confession is Protestant and sound.  He maintains, however,
that the same Confession contains some remnants of Romanism.
We feel at this point no little surprise in regard to Dr.
Shedd's admissions. He speaks of matters as of little moment,
which we could have supposed he, as a Calvinist, would esteem
as highly important. Is Dr. Shedd safe, for example, in conceding that the doctrines concerning the Eucharistic presence
and Absolution are not cardinal; for if the doctrines are
not cardinal, the errors in regard to them, cannot be; on
his premises, then, Transubstantiation itself is not a cardinal
error, an.d the Romish doctrine of priestly absolution is not
a cardinal error. We, as Evangelical Lutherans, hold that,
as error on these points is cardinal, so must the truth,
in regard to them, be cardinal. Fundamental errors are
the antitheses of fundamental truths only, and we Evangelical Lutherans actually cherish, on Dr. Shedd's own showing,
a stronger, and, as he would perhaps regard it, an extremer
opposition to the Romish errors on these points, than he does
- we do regard the Romish errors on these doctrines as cardinal,
but it seems he does not. He will find in our divines, through
centuries, this stern opposition to these very errors as cardinal,
and among no men, at this hour, is this feeling deeper, than
among the most tenacious adherents to the Augsburg Confession.  How  does he account for it then, that under the
nurture of this very Confession, which he supposes to be sym



THE CONFESSION NOT ROMANIZING.                  339
pathetic with Romanism at some points, there has been nursed
a deeper and more radical anti-Romish feeling on these very
doctrines, than his own?
Dr. Shedd goes on to say:   These Popish elements are found
in those portions particularly, which treat of the sacraments;
and more particularly in that article which defines the Sacrament of the Supper. In Article XIII, the Augsburg Confession is careful to condemn the Papal theory, that the sacraments
are efficacious, ex opere operato, that is by their intrinsic efficacy,
without regard to faith in the recipient, or to the operation of
the Holy Spirit; but when, in Article X, it treats of the
Lord's Supper, it teaches that' the body and blood of Christ
are truly present, and are distributed to those who partake of
the Supper.' This doctrine of Consubstantiction, according to
which there are two factors, viz.: the material bread and wine,
and the immaterial or spiritual body of Christ united or consubstantiated in the consecrated sacramental symbols, does not
differ in kind from the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation,
according to which there is, indeed, but one element in the
consecrated symbols, but that is the very body and blood of
Christ into which the bread and wine have been transmuted."
Nothing is more difficult, than for a thinker or believer of one
school, fairly to represent the opinions and faith of thinkers
and believers of another school. On the points on which Dr.
Shedd here dwells, his Puritanical tone of mind renders it so
difficult for him to enter into the very heart of the historical
faith of the Church, that we can hardly blame him, that if it
were his duty to attempt to present, in his own language, the
views of the Lutheran Church, he has not done it very successfully. From the moment he abandons the Lutheran sense of
terms, and reads into them a Puritan construction, from that
moment he wanders from the facts, and unconsciously misrepresents.
In noticing Dr. Shedd's critique on this alleged feature of
Romanism, we would say in passing, that the Augsburg Confession does not teach the doctrine of Consubstantiation.  From
first to last, the Lutheran Church has rejected the name of
Consubstantiation and everything which that name properly




340         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
implies. Bold and uncompromising as our Confessors and
Theologians have been, if the word Consubstantiation (which
is not a more human term  than Trinity and Original Sin are
human terms,) had expressed correctly their doctrine, they
would not have hesitated to use it.  It is not used in any Confession of our Church, and we have never seen it used in any
standard dogmatician of our communion, except to condemn
the term, and to repudiate the idea that our Church held the
doctrine it involves.  We might adduce many of the leading
evidences on this point; but for the present, we will refer to
but a few. Bucer, in his Letter to Comandcle, confesses tb.at
"he had done injustice to Luther, in imputing to him the
doctrine of Impanation," and became a defender of the doctrine
he had once rejected.  Gerhard, that monarch among our
theologians, says: " To meet the calumnies of opponents, we
would remark, that we neither believe in Impanation nor Consubstantiation, nor in any physical or local presence whatsoever.
Nor do we believe in that consubstantiative presence which
some define to be the inclusion of one substance in another.
Far from  us be that figment. The heavenly thing and the
earthly thing, in the Holy Supper, in the physical and natural
sense, are not present with one another."  Baier, among our
older divines, has written a dissertation expressly to refute this
calumny, and to show, as Cotta expresses it, " that our theologians are entirely free from it (penitus abhorrere.)"  Cotta, in
his note on Gerhard, says: " The word Consubstantiation may
be understood in different senses. Sometimes it denotes a local
conjunction of two bodies, sometimes a commingling of them,
as, for example, when it is alleged that the bread coalesces with
the body, and the wine with the blood, into one substance.
But in neither sense can that MONSTROUS DOCTRINE OF CONSUBSTANTIATION be attributed to our Church, since Lutherans do
not believe either in that local conjunction of two bodies, nor
in any commingling of bread and of Christ's body, of wine and
of His blood."  To pass from great theologians to a man of the
highest eminence in the philosophical and scientific world,
LEIBNITZ, in his Discourse on the Conformity of Reason with
Faith, says: "'Evangelical (Lutherans) do not approve of the




THE CONFESSION NOT ROMANVIZING.    341
doctrine of Consubstantiation or of Impanation, and no one
could impute it to them, unless he had failed to make himself
properly acquainted with their views."  To return again to
theologians, REINHARD says: "      Our Church has never taught
that the emblems become one substance with the body and
blood of Jesus, an opinion commonly denominated Consubstantiation."  MosHEIM  says: "Those err who say that we
believe in Imapanation.  Nor are those more correct who
charge us with believing Subpanation. Equally groundless is
the charge of Consubstantiation.  All these opinions differ very
far from the doctrine of our Church."
The insinuations of Rationalism against this doctrine of
our Church only strengthen the affirmations of her great
divines. If all the great Congregational authorities of New
England, of the past century and the present, were quite
agreed that a certain doctrine was not taught in the Saybrook
Platform, and the " liberal" gentlemen of the Theodore Parker
school were very zealous in showing that it was taught there,
would not Dr. Shedd consider the affirmation as sealing the
negation?  Would he not think that, if it were possible to
make a mistake in believing the great divines, there could be
no mistake possible in disbelieving the " liberal" polemics? We
beg him therefore, as he desires to do, as he would be done by,
not to think that our Lutheran Church, historically the mother
of pure Churches, in some sense even of his own Church among
them, has ever believed in the doctrine of Consubstantiation.
One word more on the allegation of Dr. Shedd, that there
are Romnanizing elements in our Confession. Nothing is more
easy, and few things are more perilous, than for Protestants to
insist that some peculiarity of this, or that part of a denominational system of doctrine, is a relic of Romanism. Dr. Shedd
makes this the solvent of our doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
just as the Baptist makes it the solvent of Dr. Shedd's doctrine of infant baptism, and as the Socinian makes it the solvent of Dr. Shedd's doctrine of the Trinity, of the divinity.of
Christ, and of his propitiatory sacrifice. Not everything we
learn from  Rome is Romish. Not only so, but, as earnest
Evangelical Protestants, we may admit, that deep and vital as




342         CONSERVATIVE REFOR MATION.
are the points in which we differ from Romanists, they are not
so vital as those in which we agree with them, and that Evangelical Protestants are not so remote from Romanists as they
are from false and heretical Protestants., Dr. Shedd (we use
pomanizng his name simply as giving concreteness to orthoelements.    dox New England Congregationalism,) agrees with
the Romanists as to the sole object of supreme worship, but
he does not so agree with his Socinian New England contemporaries, Protestant, plar excellence, as these Socinians assume to
be. Hence he is generically of the same religion with the Romanists, and would concede a fraternal affinity with Pascal, or
Fenelon, which he could not with any Unitarian, however
lovely in his personal character. We are not so much alarmed
therefore, as some men pretend to be with mere coincidence
with elements existing in the Romish Church.  If anything in
our Protestant doctrines or usages be, indeed, a perpetuation
of what is unscriptural in the Romish system, it should be
weeded out; but it does not follow, that because a thing is in
Rome, it is of Rome.  Once a pure Church of Christ, the
Church of Rome never lost all of her original endowments.
We feel that Dr. Shedd is altogether too conscientious and
noble a man to attempt to excite this kind of anti-Romish
odium as a cheap way of dispensing with argument. Nevertheless, so far as the authority of his name will carry weight
with it, he has helped, by the sentences he has written, to increase the weight of unjust reproach which has been heaped
upon our Church for centuries, for no other reason than for unswerving fidelity to what she is persuaded is the truth of God.
Our Church does hold, as Dr. Shedd also does, without change,
the great Trinitarian and Christological doctrines which were
preserved in their purity in the Church of Rome, but our
Church does not hold a view of the Lord's Supper coincident
with that of Rome, derived from it, or sustained by the same
kind of evidence, or open to the same invincible objections,
scriptural, historical and practical.  Dr. Shedd says: "This
doctrine of Consubstantiation does not differ in kind from the
Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation."  We need not stop
here to repeat that our Church does not hold, and never did




ROMANIZING ELEMENTS.                     343
hold. the doctrine of"  Consubstantiation." Be that as it may,
and waiving any further consideration of it for the present, we
cannot agree with Dr. Shedd, that in the sense in which he
seems to employ the words, our doctrine " does not differ in
kind from the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation."  So far
we concede that there is an agreement in kind, that over
against a merely ideal presence of Christ, wrought by the human mind in its memory, or by its faith, our Church in common
with both the Roman and Greek Churches, does hold to a
true presence of the whole Christ, the factor of which is not our
mind, but his own divine person.  We do not think him into
the Supper, but he is verily and indeed there. Faith does not
put him there, bilt finds him there.  So profoundly was Luther
impressed with the importance of holding to a presence which
did not play and fluctuate with the emotions and infirmities of
man, but which rested on the all-sufficiency of the person of
Christ, on which hangs the all-sufficiency of his work and
promise - that deeply as he felt, and triumphantly as he cornbated the Romish error of Transubstantiation, he nevertheless
declared that this error was not so radical as that of Zwingli
(whose view Calvin himself stigmatized as profane,) and said,
that if he must be driven to one extreme or the other, he would
rather, with the Pope, have Christ's true body without the
bread, than with Zwingli have the true bread without the true
body. Surely, that is a glorious error, if error it be, which
springs from trusting too far, too implicitly, in too child-like a
way in the simple words of our adorable Lord! If the world
divides on his utterances, we will err, if we err, with those who,
fettered by the word, bring every thought into captivity to the
obedience of Christ.  It was not the power of education, not
the influence of Romanistic leaven, but the might of the Word
of God, interpreted in regard to the Lord's Supper by the very
laws by which Luther was controlled in reaching the doctrine
of justification by faith, and every other cardinal doctrine, it
was this, and this only, which fixed his conviction.  After the
lapse of centuries, whose thoughts in this sphere we have
striven to weigh, whether for, or against, the doctrine of our
Church, with everything in the character of our times and of




344         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
our land unfavorable to a community in the faith of our fathers,
after a conscientious, prayerful examination of the whole
ground, we confess, and if need were, through shame and suffering, God helping us, would continue to confess, our profound
conviction that this doctrine which Dr. Shedd considers a relic
of Romanism is Scriptural to its core, and that no process can
dislodge it, which will not, carried logically through, bring the
whole temple of Evangelical truth to the ground.  No man can
defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and assail the Lutheran
doctrine of the Eucharist on the same principles of interpretation.
Nevertheless, he who is persuaded that the Romish doctrine
of Transubstantiation is unscriptural, is not thereby in the remotest degree logically arrayed against the Scriptural character
of the doctrine of our Church.  They are not, in such sense, of
one kind as to warrant this species of suspicion. They are the
results of greatly different modes of interpreting Scripture,
Romanisni and Zwinglianism, being of one kind in this, that
they depart from the letter of God's Word, interpreted by just
rules of language.  The Lutheran and Romish views differ
most vitally in their internal character and position, the one
taking its harmonious place in Evangelical doctrine, the other
marring its grace and moral consistency; Romanism  and
Zwinglianisn being of one kind in this, that both, in different
ways, exhibit dogmatic superficiality and inconsequence. The
Lutheran and Romish views are differently related to the doctrinal history of the Church, the one having its witnesses in
the earliest and purest ages, the other being unknown to the
ancient Church and generated in its decline; Romanism  and
Zwinglianism here being of one kind, in that both are unhistorical. The Lutheran and Romish views differ in their devotional and practical working; Romanism and Zwinglianism
here being of one kind, in that both generate the common
result of a feeble faith  the one, indeed, by reaction, the other
by development.  Nothing could be more remote from a just
representation of the fact than the charge that, in any undesirable sense, the Romish and Lutheran views of the Lord's
Supper are one in kind.




THE CONFESSIONS OF THE CHURCHES.   345
Dr. Shedd, after leaving the Augsburg Confession and its
Apology, enumerates the "series of symbolical writings,"
"which constitute a part of Lutheran Symbolism," and mentions -. The Confessio Saxonica; and, 2. The
The Confessions
Confessio WIVirtembergica. Neither of these Confes- of the Lutheran
sions can be regarded as a proper part of the sym- fnor of chle hn
bolical books of our Church.  They were for temporary ends, and were confined in their official recognition to a
very small part of the Church.  If Dr. Shedd is correct in supposing that the altered Confession of Melanchthon of 1540 is
Pelagianizing in regard to Regeneration, and more or less Calvinistic in regard to the Sacraments, it is not very likely that
the Saxon Confession of 1551, from  the same hand, would be
received by the Lutheran Church without suspicion; and
neither the claim made for it in its title, nor Dr. Shedd's endorsement of that claim, would completely overcome the innate
improbability of its being without reservation " a repetition of
the Augsburg Confession."
The Wlirtemberg Confession of Brentius, which was written
before Melanchthon's, is sound enough, but never has obtained
any general recognition. There are several writings which
could have been classed among our symbols with more propriety
than those mentioned by Dr. Shedd, as, for example, Luther's
Confession of Faith, (1528;) the Articles of Visitation, (1592,)
which are still authoritative in Saxony -often confounded in
this country with the earlier Saxon Articles of Visitation,
(1527;) and the Consensus Repetitts of 1664. Not one of them,
however, belongs to the Confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Dr. Shedd's account of the Formula Concordice strikes us as
peculiarly unfortunate.  No hint is given of the occasion for
the Confession, of the urgent necessities out of which it arose,
of the earnest desire for peace and unity which prompted its
formation, of the patient labors running over many years, in
which its foundations were laid, and of its masterly completion
and the enthusiastic spontaneousness of its reception. The
reader might imagine from Dr. Shedd's statements that this
book was an effect without any just cause. lIe says: " It was




346         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
drawn up by Andrew and others ii 1577."  The truth is, that
the labors of 1577, in which Chemnitz was a greater worker
than Andrewe, were merely the finishing labors of yearslabors whose results were embodied in the Torgau Book.  The
work of 1577 was, in reality, that of thorough revision.  Dr.
Shedd says the Formula Concordia was " presented to the Imperial Diet."  We are at a loss to guess out of what misconception this statement could have originated.  Not only is
there no historical voucher for any such statement, but the
thing itself, to any one who will recall the history of the times,
will be seen at once to be absolutely impossible; and yet, Dr.
Shedd, as if to show that there are degrees in the absolute,
adds that this Imperial Diet "sought to secure its adoption by
the Lutheran Church."  All this is purely aerial.  There was
no such Diet, no such presentation, and no such recommendation.  Dr. Shedd's pen is the magician's wand which has conjured up the whole. This is a serious charge to bring against
so eminent a scholar; but, feeling the full responsibility
involved in it, truth compels us to make it.
Dr. Shedd, still in his aerial movement, says of this empirical
Imperial Diet: "In this they were unsuccessful."  Dropping
any consideration of the lack of success of this hypothetical
Reception of Diet, in its phantasmagorial Decrees, we might say
the ormula con- that no official effort from any source has ever been
cordie.
made to secure the adoption of the Formula Concordie by the entire Lutheran Church.  The great German
princes and theologians to whom the Formula owed its existence made no effort to bring it to the attention of the Lutheran
Church in other lands, with the solitary exception of Denmark.
Nevertheless, by its own internal merits this Formula secured
from the first a reception by an immense majority of the Lutheran Churches, won its way against the deadliest opposition,
was finally received, almost without exception, where it was at
first rejected, has been acknowledged virtually in the few cases
in which it has not been acknowledged officially, and is received
now in almost every part of the Lutheran Church, in which
her proper doctrinal life has not been disturbed by rationalistic
or pseudo-unionistic principles.  It was originally signed by




RECEPTION OF THE FORMULA  CONCORDIE. 347
three Electors, three Dukes and Princes, twenty-four Counts,
four Barons, thirty-five imperial cities, in all by eighty-six
States of the Empire, and by eight thousand ministers of the
Gospel. In Denmark, where it was received by the King with
brutal violence, and its introduction prohibited under penalty
of death, it has long since been accepted, in fact, if not in form,
as a Symbol,*  In Holstein it was formally adopted in 1647.
In Sweden, because of the powerful influences tending to the
restoration of Popery under the king, it could not at first
secure an entrance; but in 1593, at the Council of Upsala, the
States determined upon its subscription, and its authority as a
Symbol was confirmed by later solemn acts. In Pomerania
and Livonia it obtained symbolical authority. In Hungary it
was approved in 1593, and formally adopted in 1597. In
France, Henry of Navarre desired to form a league with the
Lutherans against the Catholics, but the acceptance of the
Formula of Concord was made a condition on the part of the
Evangelical States, and the negotiations were broken off:
"The symbolical authority of the Formula of Concord for the
Lutheran Church, as such," says Kollner, " can hardly be
doubted. By far the larger part of those who regarded themselves as belonging to the Lutheran Church received it as their
Symbol. And as, to use the words of the Elector Augustus,
we have no Pope among us, can there be any other mode of
sanctioning a Symbol than by a majority? To this is to be
added, and should be especially noted, that a larger part of those
who did not receive it, objected to doing so, not on doctrinal
grounds, but partly for political reasons, freely or compulsorily,
as the case might be, partly out of attachment to Melanchthon,
partly out of a morbid vanity, because they had not been invited early enough to take part in framing the Concordia, and
had consequently not participated in it - and partly because,
in one land, those who had the most influence were Calvinistically inclined, although a large majority of the clergy approved
of the doctrines of the Formula. The inference, therefore, is
by no means to be made that there was a deviation in doctrine,
because there was not an acceptance of the Formula."
Kollner, p. 575.




348.        C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
It will be seen from  this that Dr. Shedd hardly does
justice to the historical dignity of this great Confession, when
It     he says: w" It was a polemic document, constructed
and contents.  by that portion of the Lutheran Church that was
hostile to the Calvinistic theory of the Sacraments."  Certainly, although the Formula is polemic in meeting error, its
main end is irenical, and its general tone exceedingly moderate.  When Dr. Shedd leaves the reader to imagine that this
Confession was not only, as it would seem from his representation mainly, but was exclusively directed against the Calvinistic theory of the Sacraments, he does injustice to the Formula and to the reader. Of the twelve Articles, but one is devoted to either of the Sacraments, and in the others there is
much in which true Calvinists would feel a deep sympathy -
much that nobly defends great points of doctrine common to
the whole Evangelical faith. In the first Article, which treats
of Original Sin - in the second, of the Freedom of the Will 
in the third, of Justification - in the fourth, of Good Works -
in the fifth, of the Law and the Gospel-in the sixth, of the
third use of the Law, the most rigid Calvinist would be forced
to confess that there is a noble and Scriptural presentation of
those great doctrines.  They defend what all pure Christendom
is interested in defending. In many of the antitheses of the
twelfth Article a Calvinist would heartily join, as he would in
the masterly discussion of the adiaphora in Article tenth.  In
Article eleventh, of the eternal foreknowledge and election of
God, the Calvinist would find the distinctive doctrine of Calvin
rejected, but he could not but be pleased with the profound
reverence and exquisite skill with which the doctrine is discussed, and by which it is redeemed from the extreme of Calvinism without running into the opposite and far more dangerous one of Pelagianism, or of low  Arminianism.  In the
Articles, seventh and eighth, a Calvinist might discover much
in regard to the Lord's Supper and the Person of Christ,in which
he might not concuri; and in. Article ninth, on the Descent of
Christ into Hell, he would find a view very different from
Calvin's, which Calvinists themselves now almost universally
reject. Nevertheless, he would discover in such a perusal., as




TEE D 0 CTRINE OF UBIQ UITY.               349
he certainly would not from Dr. Shedd's account, that this
supposed polemic document, originating in opposition to the
Calvinistic theory of the Sacraments, really defends much more
than it attacks that which Calvinists love.
Dr. Shedd says: " It carries out the doctrine of Consubstantiation" (which our Church never held) " into a technical statement," (every part of which had long before been  The Doctrine
made.) " Teaching the ubiquity of Christ's body," of Uliqlity.
says Dr. Shecd, though the Formula itself never speaks of the
"ubiquity" of Christ's body. "Ubiquity" was a term invented by those who wished to fix upon our Church the imputation of teaching a local omnipresence or infinite extension of
the body of Christ —errors which the Formula, and our
whole Church with it, reject in the strongest terms. The
doctrine of the Formula is that the body of Christ has no intrinsic or essential omnipresence as the divinity has; that after
its own intrinsic manner, and in virtue of its own essential
qualities, it has a determinate presence, and in that mode of
presence is not upon earth; but that, after ANOTHER MODE,
supernatural, illocal, incomprehensible, and yet real, it is
rendered present, " where Christ will," through the divine
nature, which has received it into personal union.
If the question were asked: How  is God omnipresent?
IHow can the undivided totality of IIis substance be in each
part of the universe? How can it be all in heaven and all
on earth, and all on earth without ceasing in any measure to
be all in heaven, and without motion or extension, without
multiplication of presences, and so that there is no more of
God in the whole universe than there is in each point of it?
If such a question were asked Dr. Shedd, we presume that,
bowing before the inscrutable mystery, he would reply: God is
present after the manner of an infinite Spirit- a manner most
real, but utterly incomprehensible to us. Grant, then, that
this infinite Spirit has taken to itself a human nature, as an inseparable element of its person, the result is inevitable.
Where the divine is, the human must be. The primary and
very lowest element of a personal union is the co-presence of
the parts. To say that the divine nature of Christ is per



350         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
sonally present without his humanity, is to deny that this
humanity is a part of that personality, and the doctrine of the
incarnation falls to the dust: Christ becomes no more than the
organ of a special revelation of Deity: IIis humanity is no
more properly one person with God than the burning bush was
one person with Jehovah. Accepting the doctrine of a real incarnation, the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, not in
itself, in which respect its presence is determinate, but through
the divine, is a necessary result and involves no new mystery.
If that whole Godhead which dwells in Christ's body can,
without motion, without leaving heaven, or extending itself,
be present with us on earth, then can it render present with us,
without motion or extension, that other nature which is one
person with it. What the divine nature of Christ has of
itself, his human nature has through the divine, which has
taken it to be one person with itself. This is one result of
that doctrine of the Communicctio idiomcutwmn,, of which, as we
shall see in a moment, Dr. Shedd offers so extremely inaccurate
a definition.  If the Evangelical Lutheran is asked, how can
Christ's human nature be present with us? he can reply: After
the manner in which an infinite Spirit renders present a human
nature, which it has taken to be an inseparable constituent of
its own person, a manner most real, but utterly incomprehensible to us. This is the doctrine at which Dr. Shedd levels, as
has often been done before him, the term Ubiquity.  It was
the whole Christ- the man as well as the God - who said:'" Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there
am  I in the midst of them."  It was the whole Christ who
said: " Lo  I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world."  And what the whole Christ promised, the whole
Christ -vill perform. On any other theory, the Christian on
earth has no more a personal Christ with him than the Patriarchs had; the New Dispensation has made no advance on the
Old; the divine nature, the second person of the Trinity, was
just as much on earth then as he is now; and all the light,
peace and joy, which a sense of the actual nearness, tender
guardianship, and personal sympathy of an incarnate Christ
sheds upon the soul, vanish in a haze of hyperboles, a miserable




THE D  CTRINE OF UBIQUITY.                   351
twilight of figures of speech, and the vigorous and soul-sustaining objectivity of Faith faints into a mere sentimentalism.
Cold speculation has taken our Lord out of the world he
redeemed, and has made heaven, not his throne, but a great
sepulchre, with a stone rolled against its portal.
Dr. Shedd says, moreover, in his extremely compact statement of the doctrinal essence of the Formula, of which our
readers, with the close of this sentence, will have every word,
that it teaches" the comnmunicatio idiomcatuvn, or the presence of
the divine nature of Christ in the sacramental elements."  We
cannot refrain from expressing our amazement that the writer
of a History of Christian Doctrine should give such a definition of so familiar a term.  We are forced almost to the conclusion   and it is the mildest one we can make for Dr. Sheddthat he has ventured to give a statement of the doctrine of our
Formula, without having read it with sufficient care to form a
correct judgment as to the meaning of its most important
terms.
The Doctor closes this paragraph with these words, which
certainly exhibit no very deep insight into the internal history
of our Church: " The Lutheran Church is still divided upon
this Symbol. The so-called High Lutherans insist that the
Formula Concordie is the scientific completion of the preceding Lutheran Symbolism," (Dr. Shedd seems to us constantly
to use the word "Symbolism" inaccurately;) "while the moderate party are content to stand by the Augsburg Confession,
the Apology, and the Smalcald Articles."  We can assure Dr.
Shedd, if we know anything of the Lutheran Church, that it is
not to be classified in this way. A man may hold very firmly,
that the Formula is the scientific completion of the system of
the earlier Symbols, and may reject it and them, or receive
them  with a reservation; on the other hand, a man may be
satisfied with the Augsburg Confession alone, but receiving it
in good faith, will be as high a Lutheran as Dr. Shedd would
like to see. The real point of classification as to the relation
of nominal Lutherans to the Confession seems to us to be
mainly this: Evangelical Lutherans, who are such in the historicalsense, heartily receive as Scriptural statements of doe.




352         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
trine, the Confessions of the Church in their proper meaning as
reached by the laws of language; while others who wear the
name, claim the right, in varying degrees of practical latitude,
to set aside, at their pleasure, part of these doctrines. This is
the vital issue, and its character is substantially the same,
whether a few of the Symbols or all of them are in question.
We might add that, under this latitudinarian claim, there
have actually been sheltered in the Lutheran Church such souldestroying errors as Socinianism  and Universalism, and that,
where the tendency has not run into the grosser heresies, the
pervading characteristic of those who represent its extremes is
that of laxity in doctrine, government, and discipline. There
is yet a third class, who, largely revealing practically the spirit
of a genuine Lutheranism, and more or less sympathizing with
its controverted doctrines, yet, without a positive acceptance
of them, confess that the logic of the position is with historical
Lutheranism, and are never consciously unjust to it.  This
class are regarded with affection and respect by the thoroughly
conservative part of the Church, and are bitterly assailed, or
noisily claimed by the fanatical element, as the anger produced
by their moderation, or the hope inspired by their apparent
neutrality, predominates.
Dr. Shedd, after disposing of the Lutheran Confession in
what, our readers will have seen, we do not consider a very
CalvinisticCon- satisfactory manner, next discusses the " Reformed
fessions.  (Calvinistic) Confessions."  In this whole section
he assumes the identity of the Zwinglian and Calvinistic systems, in which we are forced to regard him as mistaken.  In
the heart of doctrine and tendency, pure Calvinism  is often
more Lutheranizing than  Zwinglianizing, for Zwingli was
largely Pelagian.  Dr. Shedd seems to recognize nothing of the
mediating tendency of the school of Bucer, nor of the Melanchthonian type of doctrinal statement; but with a classification
which seems too sweeping and inaccurate, considers the Tetrapolitan, which was prepared several years before Calvin was
known as a theologian, (and which seems to be the first confessional statement of that doctrine of the Lord's Supper which
now  bears Calvin's name,) the Fidei Ratio of Zwingli, the




CAL VINISTIC CONFESSIONS.                  353
Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort and the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England, all as belonging to the same
class of Confessions.  Certainly, if the words Reformed and
Calvinistic are synonyms, as Dr. Shedd makes them, this grouping is open to very serious objections.  Wheen Dr. Shedd
reaches the Heidelberg Catechism, he bestows so little care
upon the arrangement of his facts, that the incautious reader
might be led into very serious mistakes. He might suppose,
for instance, that Frederick the First was a successor of John
Casimir.  He is told, in express terms, that Louis the Sixth
brought the Palatinate under the Formula Concordise in 1576,
(four years before it was published,) and if he is not on his
guard, will be sure to imagine that the troubles which followed
the mutations of 1576, and the subsequent ones under John
Casimir, (1583-1592,) led to the formation of the Heidelberg
Catechism in 1562. Dr. Shedd continues to call the Electors
(we know not why) " Crown Princes," and in general seems to
stumble from the moment he gets on German ground.  What
will intelligent preachers and laymen in the German Reformed
Church think, for instance, of this eulogy with which the
notice of the Heidelberg Catechism  closes: "In doctrine, it
teaches justification with the Lutheran glow and vitality, predestination and election with Calvinistic firmness and self-consistency, and the Zwinglian theory of the Sacraments with decision,....   and is regarded with great favor by the
High Lutheran party of the present day."  We will not undertake to speak for our German Reformed friends, except to
say,that this is not the sort of thing they talked, at their TerCentenary, and put into their handsome volume. As to " the
High Lutherans of the present day," if we are of them, as we
are sometimes charged with being, Dr. Shedd is right: the
Heidelberg Catechism is regarded by them with great favor 
all except its doctrines.  It is a neat thing - a very neat thing
-the mildest, most winning piece of Calvinism of which we
know. One-half of it is Lutheran, and this we like very much,
and the solitary improvement we would suggest in it would be
to make the other half of it Lutheran, too. With this slight
reservation, on this very delicate point, the High Lutherans
23




354          CONSERVATIVE R EFOR  ATI ON.
are rather fond of it than otherwise, to the best of their knowledge and belief.
We have not proposed to ourselves a general review of Dr.
Shedd's book, but simply to look at it with reference to its
statements in regard to our own Church.  Nevertheless, we
cannot avoid an allusion to what strikes us an extreme statement in apparent conflict with sound Theology.  It is in his
declaration that'" sin is in the strictest sense a creature."    The
Sin not a clea- original act of self-will is strictly creative from
ture.      nothing."  Dr. Shedd here seems to labor to show
that he is not speaking in a popular and rhetorical way, but
that over against such a style of language, he wishes to be
understood rigidly - sin is a creature —but God is not its
creator.  Man is as really and as strictly a creator as God is -
and sin is his creature.  Such language, if pressed, seems inconsistent with the nature of God, of man, of sin, and of
creature.  It denies that God is the alone Creator of all things;
it maintains, almost after a Manichean style, that evil is a
primal principle and that a man is the Ahriman of it; it
makes sin an objective reality, not the condition or act of a
subject, and elevates the mutilation and disease of the creature
to a rank in being with the creature itself. No more than the
surgeon creates by cutting off the leg of a man, does man create
sin by a self-originated destruction of his original righteousness,
on which follows that inordinate state of the natural reason
and  appetites which theologians call concupiscence.  The
impulse to theft, to lying, to impurity, is not a substance,
not a creature, but is the result of inordinate desire in which
self-love now unchecked by original righteousness and kindled
by the fomes of the self-corrupted will, reveals itself  It is
not a creature, but a moral phenomenon of the creature 
desire and purpose are not creatures, but exercises of the
faculties of the creature.  If sin be strictly a creature, it
must be the creature of God, and this part of Dr. Shedd's
theory really would make God the author of sin, an inference,
which, we are sure, no one could more earnestly resist than
himself.  The finite will can corrupt the creatures, but it
cannot add to them.




IX.
THE SPECIFIC DOCTRINES OF THE CONSERVATIVE
REFORMATION:
ORIGINAL SIN.
(AUGSBURG CONFESSION, ART. II.)
T    EHE   foundation  of the second  Article  of the  Augsburg
Confession, which  treats  of Original Sin, was laid  in
the Articles of the Colloquy at Marburg.  This colloquy took
place October 3d, 1529, and was designed to bring about, if
possible, an agreement between Luther and Zwingli,    Documentary
and their adherents.  Fifteen Articles were drawn  hstory of the
second Article of
up  by Luther.  Fourteen  of these were adopted  theA.Confession.
entire by both parties, and the fifteenth was received with
the exception of one point, to which the Zwinglians objected.
In these fifteen Articles are the roots of the Augs-   I Article of
burg Confession.  The fourth Article was on Orig- the Colloquy at
inal Sin  and is as follows:                                    arurg.
"In the fourth  place, we believe that original sin is from
Adam, inborn and inherited to us, and is a sin of such kind
that it condemns all men, and if Jesus Christ had not come to
our help, by his death  and life, we must have died therein
eternally, and  could  not have come to  God's kingdom   and
blessedness."'
* J. J. Muller's Historie, 306. Corpus. Reform. xxvi. 123. Compared with
Hospinian His. Sacr. ii. 77. On the whole Colloquy, cf.: Corp. Reform. i. Nos.
631-642. Seckendorf. Hist. Luth. ii. 139. Luther's Werke: Walch xvii. 2361,
2374, xxiii. 6, 35. Jena: iv. 469. Leipz. xix. 530. Erlangen: lxv. 88. Zimmermann: Ref. Schr. M. L. iii. 426. Luther's Briefe (De Wette, iii. 508.) Zwingli's
Werke (Zurich, 1830.): Germ. Vol. ii. P. iii. 44-58. Lat. iv. 173-204. Historia v. d.
Augsburg Confess. (Chemnitz, Selneccer, Kirchner) Leipz. 1584. Fol. 92-107.
Do. Lat. 1585. 113-133. Sculteti Annal. ad ann. 1529. 199. Chytrvei: Histor.
355




356           CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
In an ampler form  the same doctrine presents itself in the
Schwabach Articles.  These seventeen Articles are also from
the hand of Luther.  They are largely an elaboration of the
lcfarburg Articles, and are the direct groundwork of the doctriI. TheSchwn- al articles of the Augsburg Confession. The fourth
bach Articles.   Article runs thus: " That original sin is a true, real
sin, and not merely a weakness or defect, but such a sin as
would condemn al] men who spring from  Adam, and would
separate us from God forever, if Jesus Christ had not interceded
for us, and taken upon himself this sin, with all other sine
which follow therefrom, and by his suffering made satisfaction
therefor, and thus utterly taken them  away, and blotted them
out in himself, as in Psalm  li. and Rom. v. is clearly written
of this sin." 
I. TheArticle   In  the Latin and German  texts of the earliest
in the Augsburg
confession.  authorized Edition of each, we have as follows, the
ARTICLE ON ORIGINAL SIN.
Literal Translation of the           Literal Translation  of the
Latin.t                            German.e
II.                            The Second.
Also they teach, that after    Further is taught, (I) that
Adam's fall, all men begotten  after the fall of Adam, (II) all
after the  common  course  of  men who areborn naturally, are
nature are born with sin; that  conceived  and  born  in  sins,
is without the  fear of God, that is, that they all from  the
without trust in God, and with  mother's womb, are full of evil
d. A. C. 159. Lat. 643-646. Rudelbach: Ref. L. u. Un. 665-668.  Ebrard:
Abendmahl, 345-347.
* Corpus Reformat. xxvi. 153. Compared with the Latin in Pfaff. L. S. Appendix 4. Luther's Werke Walch: xx. 1-3. Chytrei: Hist. (1576) 19; Do,Lat.
(1578) 21; J. J. Muller's Histor. 442. Coelestinus: i. 25. Scultetus: Annal.
t For the Latin here translated, the writer has before him the original Wittenberg Edition of 1530-1531. He has compared it word for word with the text of
the Book of Concord (Muller's ed.), and finds that they do not differ in a word or
a letter.
t For the German we have translated from the original Editio Princeps of
Melanchthon,the Wittenberg 4to. 1530, 1531.




THE ARTICLE IN THE A. CONFESSION.   357
fleshly appetite, and that this desire and inclination, and can
disease or original fault is truly have by nature, no true fear of
sin, condemning and bringing God, no true love of God, (VII)
now also eternal death upon all no true faith irn God. That also
that are not born again by the same inborn plague and
baptism  and the Holy Spirit. hereditary sin is truly Sin, and
condemns all those under God's
wrath, who are not born (IV)
again (III) through baptism
and the HIoly Ghost.
They condemn the Pelagians,   Here (V) are rejected the
and others, who deny this orig- Pelagians, and others, who do
inal fault to be sin indeed: and not hold (VI) original sin to be
who, so as to lessen the glory sin, in order that they may
of the merits and benefits of show that nature is holy, by
Christ, argue that a man may natural power, to the reproach
by the strength of his own of the sufferings and merit of
reason be justified before God. Christ.
As the text of the German Ed. Princ. of Melanchthon, and
that in the Book of Concord, are not critically identical, and as
the distinction of the two texts will be alluded to occasionally in
these' dissertations, and is sometimes misunderstood, it may be
well at this point to illustrate more particularly the nature of
the differences.  The causes which led to the substitution of
the Formula text for the Melanchthonian have been given
elsewhere.*  Taking the Second Article, we present a
* p. 248-253.




358             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
TABULAR  VIEW   OF THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  THE
MELANCHTHONIAN AND THE FORMULA TEXTS.
1: is taught
2: adds: among us,          Mentz.   Nurem.   Nordl.   Ansp. 2.
3: adds: and preached
in our churches.  Weim. 1.
II.
1: fall of Adam.
2: Adam's fall.   Weim. 1.  Mentz.   Nurem.             Ansp. 2,3.
III.
1: wieder.
2: widerum.       Weim. 1.  Mentz.   Nurem.             Ansp. 2.   Ed. ant. 5.
IV.
1: geborn.
2: neu geborn.              Mentz,   Nurem. Nordl.   Ansp. 1, 2, 3.  Ed. ant. 1,2,
Aug.                3,4,5,6.
3: von neuem geborn. Weim. 1.
V.
1: Hie.                                               Hie, Ansp. 2.
Corrected.
2: Hieneben.                Mentz.                    Hie (neben).
Ansp. 2. First
3: Daneben.       Weim. 1.                             so written:
a line drawn
VI.                                             over neben.
1: halten.
2: haben.                   Mentz.                                 Ed. ant. 6.
VII.
1: KeinewahreGottcslieb.
2: Omit:             _All theMSS. Ed. ant. 1, 6.
In this tabular view, the Nos. I,  II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, refer
to the parts of the Article similarly  marked.   The reading
marked 1, is that of Melanchthon's Edit. Princeps; the reading
marked 2, that of the text in the Book of Concord; 3, a reading different from  both.  When the readings of the MSS. and
the editions surreptitiously printed  before Melanchthon's Ed.
Princeps difer  from  Melanchthon's, they  are  given  in  this
table.   For Melanchthon's readings are all the rest, in  each
case.  The complete list of the Codices in alphabetical order is
as follows:
CODICES: 1, Aug(sburg); 2, Cass(el); 3, Dresd(en); 4, Hanov(er); 5, Mentz; 6, Mun(ich); 7, Nurem(bTerg); 8, Nord(lingen); 9, Ansp(ach); 10, Ansp. 2; 11, Ansp. 3; 12, Weim(ar)
1; 13, Weim. 2.  PRINTED  ANTE-MELANCHTHONIAN  EDITIONS,
(Edit. antiq.) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, of 1530.




THE ARTICLE IN THE A. CONFESSION.    359
To give an example of the mode of using the Table, under
various readings: I, all the codices and editions sustain
Melanchthon's reading, except Mentz, Nur., Nordl., Ansp. 2,
and Weim. 1; under II, all but Weim. 1, Mentz, Nur., Ansp.
2, 3; under III, all'but Weim. 1, Mentz, Nur., Ansp. 2., Ed. ant.
5. The most remarkable is VII.  It is found alone in the
Editio Princeps, and Melanchthon's editions of the German.
Taking the aggregate of the testimony of Codices and Editions, it is about in the ratio of more than two for Melanchthon's
Editio Princeps, to one for the text of the Book of Concord,
and this too includes the readings of the earliest, and, consequently, immaturest of the Codices.  The Codices we have
given in alphabetical order, have been arranged chronologically,
thus: 1, Weim. 1 (Spalatin's autograph); 2, Ansp. 1; 3,
Hannov.; 4, Mentz, (long believed to be the original, and, as
such, was taken for the text of the Book of Concord); 5, Weim.
2; 6, Dresd.; 7, Ansp. 2; 8, Ansp. 3; 9, Cass.; 10, Mun.; 11,
Nur.; 12, Nord.; 13, Augs.  These Codices are copies of the
Confession made during its preparation, and, cceteris paribus,
the later the time at which the copy was made, the greater
the probability of its exact conformity with the text actually handed in.  An important mark  of maturity is the
addition of the subscriptions.  The first three are incomplete, the first six are without the subscription.  Beginning
with 7, Ansp. 2, the rest have the subscription except Mul.,
which is a fragment terminating in  the Articles on the
Mass. The facts we have presented demonstrate four things:
First, that the question of the two German texts which have
had Confessional authority in our Church, is purely critical.
For all doctrinal and practical ends the two texts are one.
Any principle which would really unsettle the text of the Confession of Faith, as a Confession, would much more unsettle
the text of the Rule of Faith, as a Rule.  The two texts of
the German Confession differ much less than the texts of the
Textus Receptus of the Greek, and of Tischendorf's Eighth
Edition. It does not disturb our faith that we have critically diverse texts of the Rule, for they teach the same faith,
nor will it disturb our confession that we have  slightly




360         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
diverse, critical texts of the German form of the Creed, for they
confess the same faith.  Second: The differences, even of a
critical kind, are of a very trifling character.  Third: The
Editio Princeps of Melanchthon is the highest critical authority.  Fourth: While the text of the Book of Concord has the
highest Confessional authentication, and ought not to  be
changed, except by authority of the Church, it is perfectly
consistent with this, that the Editio Princeps be used as an aid
in interpreting it.  Identical as the two texts are, for the most
part, in their very words, absolutely identical in doctrine, we
may thank God that we have in the two the historical evidence of the untiring conscientiousness of effort on the part of
our Fathers, to give the most perfect form of sound words to
the one faith, and that the two texts, so far from disturbing,
fix more absolutely that one sense of the Confession, the perception of which is essential to real unity on the part of those
who profess to accept it.
The Papal Confutation was read before the Emperor, Aug. 3d.
The second Article was approved so far as, 1: "they confessed
with the Catholic Church, that the fault of origin is truly sinIv. The Papal condemning and bringing eternal death to those
Confutation.   who are not born again of Baptism and the Holy
Ghost; as also in their condemnation of the Pelagians, ancient
and modern, whom the Church had already condemned."
2. " But the declaration of the Article, that original sin is
this, that men are born without the fear of God, without trust
toward God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to
every Christian that to be without the fear of God, and trust
in Him, is rather the actual offence of the adult, than the fault
of a new-born babe, which is not yet able to exercise reason, as
the Lord saith unto Moses, (Deut. i. 39:)'Your little ones,
which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil.'"
3. "But that declaration is also rejected in which they call
the fault of origin, fleshly appetite (concupiscentia), if by this
they mean that fleshly appetite is sin, which also remains sin
in a child after Baptism."
4. " For long ago the Apostolic See condemned two Articles of Martin Luther, the second and third, concerning sin




A COMMISSION OF FOURTEEN PERSONS.  361
remaining in a child after Baptism, and in regard to the incentive (fomes) which prevents the soul from entering heaven."
5. "But if, as St. Augustine uses the term, they assert that
the fault of origin is carnal appetite, which in Baptism  ceases
to be sin, their doctrine is to be received, since St. Paul also
teacheth, Eph. ii. 3, we are all born the children of wrath, and,
Rom. v. 12, in Adam we have all sinned."'
Seven persons on each side were appointed to compare the
views of the Protestants (Lutherans) and Romanists.  On each
side the commission consisted of two princes, two
V. A commisjurists, and three theologians.  The Romish theo- sion of fourteen
logians were Eck, Wimpina and Cochleus: the persons.
Protestant theologians were Melanchthon, Schnepf and Brentins.  Spalatin was added to the commission as notary.
1. Before this commission, the Lutheran Confessors presented the following explanation of the part of the second
Article which had been objected to: " When it is said in the
second Article, in the Latin, that man is born by nature without trust in God, and without fear of God, the language is to
be understood not alone of children who are too young to have
these emotions, but it means that when they are grown they
cannot, by their natural powers, have the fear of God, and
trust in Him.  And to be born thus, without this power and
gift, is a defect of that righteousness which ought to have been
derived to us from Adam (had he not fallen).  In the German
this Article is so clearly stated, that it cannot be impugned,
for it is there said that' We are not by nature able to fear
God, and trust in Him, in which words adults are also embraced.'
"In regard to the natural inclinations, we maintain, that the
nature of sin remains, but the condemnation is removed by
baptism." t
2. In regard to the second Article, Dr. Eck remarked
that, in the main part, it was in conformity with the teaching
of the Christian Church, but was defective in the definition,
and in calling fleshly appetite original sin, and in maintaining
* Latin in Hase's L. S. Proleg. lxxviii. German in Chytreus, H. A. C. 236, b.
Miller's Hist. Protestat. 746. Latin: Coelestinus, iii. 55.




362         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
that it remained sin before and after baptism; though, if the
terms were employed as St. Augustine used them, there would
be a logomachy, rather than an actual diversity between the
parties.
Melanchthon, in reply, begged leave to make an explanation
in regard to two points - first, as to the words " without fear
and trust;" and second, as to the incitement (fomes) to sin.
His explanation was, that he had wished to avoid the scholastic
phraseology, in which original sin is styled, the defect of original
righteousness (carentia rectitudinis originalis), which he had
expressed in the words, " without fear and trust," but the sense
was the same.
Dr. Eck replied, that Melanchthon's form and mode of expression were new, otherwise they would already have agreed
on the Article; but as there had been only an avoidance of the
ordinary term, the views of the two parties might be considered as harmonized.  On the second point, Dr. Eck acknowledged that the material of sin remains.  The two parties were
considered therefore as having agreed upon this Article.*
The statement of the result in this point, made by the Romish
portion of the commission to the Emperor (August 23d), is as
follows: -"  In this Article they agree with us, and rightly condemn the Pelagians and others, as, for example, the Zwinglians and Anabaptists, wh'o deny original sin. But in the definition of original sin they did not agree with us.  The
Lutherans, finally agreeing  with  our opinions, say, that
original sin is a want of original righteousness, that the
condemnation of this sin is removed in baptism, but that the
incitement (fomes), or fleshly appetite, remains in men even
after baptism."
An ample and admirable vindication of the Article against
the Romish Church, the Church which canonizes and deserts
Augustine, and reprobates and follows Pelagius, is found in the
Apology of the Confession.
In beginning the analysis of the Second Article of the
Augsburg Confession, its relations to the Articles between
which it is placed are worthy of notice. The First Article
From Spalatin's Protocol. in Muiller's Hist., 748.




RELATION OF SECOND ARTICLE TO FIRST. 363
treats of God in His essence, and in-His creation or creative
work. The Third Article treats of Christ, and of Iis redemptory work. These two Articles are naturally, and  Relationof the
indeed necessarily, connected by the Second ArtiBle, Second Article to
the  First  and
which shows how the creature of God, formed Third. TheAnaloriginally in the moral likeness of God, comes to ysCs.
need a Redeemer.
This Article of the Confession, if analyzed, will be found to
present either in so many words, or by just inference, the following points:
I. The doctrine of original sin is taught with great UNANIMITY by our Churches.
II. The true doctrine of sin presupposes a right ANTHROPOLOGY,
a true doctrine of man.
IIT. The TIME of the operation of original sin is the whole
time subsequent to the fall of Adam.
IV. The PERSONS affected by it are all human beings born in
the course of nature.
V. The MODE of the perpetuation of original sin is that of
the natural extension of our race.
VI. The great FACT asserted in this doctrine is this, that all
human beings are conceived in and born with sin.
VII. This sin RESULTS or reveals its working in  these
respects:
1. That all human beings are born without the fear of God.
2. That they are born without trust and love toward God.
3. That they are born with concupiscence, i. e., that from
their birth they are full of evil desire and evil propensity.
4. That they can have by nature no true fear, nor love of
God, nor faith in God.
VIII. The ESSENCE of original sin involves that this disease
or vice of origin is TRULY SIN.
IX. The natural CONSEQUENCE of this original sin is this,
that it condemns and brings now also eternal death.
X. The natural consequence is actually incurred by all who
are not BORN AGAIN.
XI. When the new birth takes place it is invariably wrought
by the HOLY SPIRIT.




364        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
XII. This new birth by the Holy Spirit has baptism as an
ORDINARY MEAN.
XIII. Baptism  is the ONLY ORDINARY mean of universal
application.
XIV. Our Church CONDEMNS:
1. The Pelagians.
2. All others who deny that the vice of origin is sin.
3. All who contend that man by his own strength as a
rational being can be justified before God.
4. Who thus diminish the glory of the merit of Christ, and
of his benefits.
In enlarging upon this analysis of the Second Article, it is
to be noticed then,
I. It affirms the unity of the Evangelical Church in the
Unity of the doctrine of Original Sin. The first words of the
Church in the First Article are understood before all the articles,
doctrine of OriginalSin.   to wit: "1The Churches among us teach, with
great accord" (magno consensu). "It is taught and held
with unanimity."
The Augsburg Confession avoided all minor matters, and all
statements of doctrine, in regard to which there was any
difference among those who presented it, who were the authorized representatives of their Churches. It embraces only the
leading fundamental articles of the Evangelical system, and
the minimum of detail in regard to these.
A Lutheran, historically and honestly such, cannot therefore
hold less than the Augsburg Confession; hence it is as true now,
as it was when the Confession was given, that our Lutheran
Churches hold, confess, and teach the same doctrine of Original
Sin, among themselves, to wit, the very doctrine confessed by
our Fathers at Augsburg.
If men like Wegscheider, Bretschneider, and other Rational
ists, or if Arminians, or Pelagians, or Semi-Pelagians, or for the
matter of that Demi-semi-pelagians, who choose to call themselves Lutherans, reject the doctrine, it only proves that they
are willing to bear a name to which they have no just claim
whatever. It is the distinctive position of the Reformation
with which, over against Rome, it stands or falls, that that




ANTHROPOLOGY.                       365
which properly constitutes, defines, and perpetuates in unity a
Church, is its doctrine, not its name or organization. While a
Church retains its proper identity it retains of necessity its
proper doctrine. Deserting its doctrine it loses its identity.
The Church is not a body which bears its name like England,
or America, which remain equally England and America,
whether savage or civilized, Pagan or Christian, Monarchical or
Republican.  Its name is one which properly indicates its faith
-and the faith changing, the Church loses its identity.
Pagans may become Mohammedans, but then they are no longer
Pagans - they are Mohammedans. Jews may become Christians, but then they are no longer Jews in religion. A Manichean man, or Manichean Church, might become Catholic, but
then they would be Manichean no more. A Romish Chiurch
is Romish; a Pelagian Church is Pelagian; a Socinian Church
is Socinian, though they call themselves Protestant, Evangelical, or Trinitarian. If the whole nominally Lutheran Church
on earth should repudiate the Lutheran doctrine, that doctrine
would remain as really Lutheran as it ever was. A man, or
body of men, may cease to be Luitherans, but a doctrine which
is Lutheran once, is Lutheran forever. Hence, now, as from the
first, that is not a Lutheran Church, in the proper and historical sense, which cannot -ex animo declare that it shares in
the accord and unanimity with which each of the Doctrines
of the Augsburg Confession was set forth.
II. The doctrine of the Second Article rests upon the presuppositions of a sound general Anthropology.
1. It presupposes a sound view of man as the proper subject
of redemption, capable of it and needing it. This is implied in
the very location of the Doctrine. Man is the subject of redemption, and hence appears, not as the angels do, simply
Anthropology.
as a creature of God, and within theology in its
strictest sense (as the doctrine concerning God), but in a place,
which is bounded upon the one side by Theology, on the other
by Soteriology. Man, in his two states of integrity and corruption, touches the Theology which goes before, the soteriology which follows after. He stands in the Augsburg
Confession where he now stands in nature, in history, and




366         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
in  grace, between God the Creator, and Christ the  Redeemer.
2. It presupposes a sound definition of man, as God's last and
highest earthly creature, consisting of body and soul, having
personality, freedom, moral'accountability, and immortality.
It rests upon the old idea of man expressed in the definition
of Hollazius: "Man is an animal, consisting of a rational soul
and an organic body, formed by God, endowed with his image,
in the first creation, that he might unfeignedly worship his
Creator, might live in holiness, and attain eternal blessedness."
3. It presupposes that the Biblical H-listory of man's creation
is literally true, that the first pair were the direct immediate creation of God, and that all mankind have sprung from
this one pair. All the dignity and possibilities of humanity rest
upon its derivation in an extraordinary manner from God. The
creation of the first man is narrated in general, in Gen. i. 26 seq.,
and more fully delineated in Gen. ii. 7 seq.  The seeming
diversities of the account arise from the difference of their
objects.  The derivation of all mankind from  a single pair, is
distinctly taught in the Holy Scriptures, and we find nothing
whatever in the facts of natural science to render it doubtful.  Science establishes the fact, that the whole human race
is of one species. It of course cannot say whether the race has
sprung from one pair or not, but science demonstrates that the
race might have sprung from  one pair, inasmuch as they all
belong to one species; what science shows to be possible, revelation distinctly teaches. Science moreover exhibits the following facts:
i. That nature is economical in its resources; that there is no
waste of means, and as, one pair is sufficient to have originated
the population of the globe, the scientific presumption is
strong, that there was but one pair.
ii. Natural science shows, that only animals of the same
species produce a permanently fertile offspring. Where animals,
though not of the same species, are sufficiently near in species to
have offspring, that offspring is invariably either absolutely sterile, or the power of propagation runs out speedily. Thus, to take
a familiar example, the mtule is the offspring of the horse and




ANTHROPOLOGY.                       367
the ass, and the mule is barren. But the children resulting
from the union of the most widely diverse human races are
permanently fertile; their posterity is extended from generation
to generation, so that in all countries, where, there is a mingling of races, extreme in their diversity, there are terms indicative of near, and of increasingly remote relations. Such
terms, for example, are: Mulatto, Quadroon; Octoroon, Mestizo; and many others.
iii. The traditions of the races largely point to a common
origin.  The history of man accounts for some of the most difficult facts, in regard to the distribution of mankind from one
centre, and overthrows the very hypotheses which seem to have
the largest amount of a priori probability.
iv. The languages of mnankind contribute a great deal of evidence as to the original unity of the races, which have become
widely sundered.  We ourselves cannot speak a sentence of
our native tongue, be it German or English, without giving
evidence that the whole of the Germanic race, of which the English is a part, are of East Indian origin. The population of
this New Continent, and the demonstrably oldest race of the
Old Continent, speak languages which had a common origin.
Both drew their language from that primitive tongue, of which
the Sanscrit is the oldest existing remnant.
The doctrine of the " Unity of the Human Race" is important in its bearing on the recognition of the equality and fraternity of all mankind. It is essentially connected with just
views of original sin, and the true view of the nature of
redemption. Although modern science has sometimes been
perverted to the weakening of man's faith in this great doctrine, yet the most eminent men of science, whether Christian
or not, have united in the judgment, that science does not
weaken, by any of Zts facts, the Scripture witness to the unity of
the human race.
The hypotheses which are opposed to the Scripture doctrine
of the Unity of the Human Race, are in general these:
The theory of the Coadamites, i. e. of the creation of several
original races.
The theory of the Preadac.ites, of men before Adam. This




368         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
was specially developed by Isaac Peyrerius, in his work, Prceadamitce, Amsterdam, 1655. He took the ground that in Gen.
i. 26 is narrated the creation of the first man, and in Gen. ii.
is narrated the later creation of Adam, from whom the Jews
spring.
The theory of Autochthons, which is the prevalent view
of skeptical naturalists, is that the race came from the earth, in
its original condition, by what is called  "generatio equivoca:"
or that man is the result of the development of -a lower
organization into a higher.
4. This Second Article presupposes that subsequent to the first
creation of man, which was immediate, all human beings are the
mediate creatures of God, and that consequently neither the body
nor soul of children results from an immediate creation by God,
but that both are mediated in the divine order of nature,
through the parents.
As the first of our race were the immediate creation of God,
so the Bible teaches that their descendants are the mediate
creation of God. Ps. cxxxix. 13; Acts xvii. 26; Heb. xii. 9.
The derivation of man from God, now, may therefore be described as a mediate creation, through omnipotence exercised ordinarily, while the creation of Adam was immediate, by omnipotence in its absoluteness.
The propagation, or origination of the human soul, has
The propaga- been explained  by three theories, viz:  Preextion of the soul. istence: Creationism: Traducianism.
The theory of Preexistence was maintained by Plato, who
dwelt upon a seemingly dim recollection of a former condition,
anamneesis.  It went over from  Plato  through  Philo, to
Origen, but never met with general acceptance in the Church,
and was expressly condemned in the Council of Constantinople
in 543. In recent times, it has been defended by Kant, who
thinks, in his work " Religion within the bounds of Pure Reason,"
that to the explanation of the radical evil in man is required
the intelligible fact of a decision made by him at some former
time.  Schelling has maintained the same view in his "Philosophical Investigation, in regard to the Essence of Freedom," 1809.
It has also been most ably defended by Julius Mueller, in his




PR OPA GA TION  OF THE SO UL.                 369
great work "On Sin" (4th Ed., 1858), (translated into English,
Clark's For. Libr.,) who employs it to solve the problem  of
Original Sin.  Nowhere, however, has the theory been put more 
beautifully, than in the lines of one of our great English poets,
Wordsworth, in his " Intimations of Immortality, from the Recollections of Childhood."  In that poem he makes this noble
statement of the Platonic theory:
"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The soul that rises with us, our life's star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar.
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But, trailing clouds of glory, do we come,
From Heaven, which is our home."
But beautiful as is this theory, and not without speciousness,
it will not bear the test of logic, nor of the witness of Scripture.  It only cuts the knot; it simply throws back the
question, puts it out of sight, and does not answer it. It is an
obvious subterfuge to get rid of a perplexity, and is like the
hopeless cosmography of the Hiindoos, except that it stops at
the elephant. It is opposed to the great fact of our human
experience, as to the similarity between the soul of the parent
and child, and is contradicted by the general drift of Scripture,
and specially by Gen. iii. and the whole argument in Rom. v. 12,
seq. It in truth involves simply an undeveloped metempsychosis,
a transmigration of the soul. Its latest defender is an American,
Dr. Edward Beecher, who lays this theory as part of the basis of
what he claims to be the solution of the "Conflict of Ages." (1854.)
The theory of Preexistenee in another form asserts simply
that all souls were created at the beginning, by the word of
God, and are united, at conception, with the human organism.
Immediate Creationism  maintains that there is a direct
creation of the soul by God, and that about the fortieth day
after conception it is united with the embryo. The passages
of Scripture which have been appealed to sustain this view
are Jer. xxxviii. 16; Isa. Ivii. 16; Zach. xii. 1; Acts xvii.
28; Ps. cxix. 73; Job x. 12; Do. xxxiii. 4; Numlb. xvi. 22;
24




370          CONSERVATIVE RlEFORMATION.
Do. xxvii. 16; Heb. xii. 9, and in the Apocryphal books, 2
Mace. vii. 22.  Jerome asserts that this was the view of the
Church, but this is an over-statement of the fact, although it
certainly was the view of a number of the Fathers.  Clemens
Alexandrinus says: " Our soul is sent from Heaven." Lactantius
says: "Soul cannot be born of souls." It is the predominant
view of the Roman'Church.  Most of the Reformed (Calvinistic) theologians maintain it, and usually with the theory that
by the union of the soul with the body the soul becomes sinful.
But this theory is really untenable.  The strongest of the
Scripture passages quoted to sustain it, imply no more than
that the spirit of man has higher attributes than his body, is preeminent as God's work, and the chief seat of his image, without at all implying that His creation of the soul is a direct one.
It would be quite as easy, not only to show from  other passages, but to show from a number of these, that the body of
man is the direct creation of God, which, nevertheless, no one
will maintain.
To Pelagians, and the Pelagianizing Romanists, this theory
indeed is not encumbered with the great moral difficulty arising
from  the acknowledgment of Original Sin, but to all others,
this view  involves, at its root, unconscious Gnosticism.  It
nakes. matter capable of sin and of imparting sinfulness. It
represents the parents of a child as really but the parents of
a mere material organism, within which the nobler part, all.
that elevates it, all that loves and is loved, is in no respect
really their child.  On this theory, no man could call his
child really his own. Ile has no more relation, as a parent, to
its soul, which is the child, than any other man in the world,
and is as really the father of that which constitutes a human
being, to every other person's children as he is to his own.
Moreover, with all the explanations and ingenious resorts
which have been found necessary in retaining this theory, there
is no escaping the inference, that it makesGod the author of
Sin. According to this theory, God creates a perfect, spotless,
holy soul, and then places it in a polluted body; that is, He
takes what is absolutely innocent, and places it, where it inevitably, not by choice, but of necessity, is tainted with sin,




STAr TUS INTEGRIT'A TIS.                  371
justly subject to damnation, and in a great majority of cases
actually reaches eternal damnation.  We do not hesitate to
say, that though the doctrine has been held by good men, who
have guarded with great care against obvious abuse, it could
be pressed until it would assume almost the character of a
"Doctrine of Devils."    
The third view is that of Tcadutcianism, or mediate Creationism: the theory that both body and soul are derived from
the parents. This theory corresponds with the prevailing and
clear statements of the Holy Scriptures, as, e. g. Gen. v. 3; Acts
xvii. 24-26. It is a doctrine absolutely demanded by the existence of original sin, and the doctrine that God is not the author
of sin. This view is defended, among the Fathers, especially by
Tertullian, Athanasius, Gregory of Nissen, and many others.
Augustine  remained  undecided, confessing  his ignorance,
yet leaning strongly to the Traducian View.  The Lutheran
Divines, with very few exceptions, are Traducian.  The expressions in the Symbolical Books, such as in the Catechism,
" I believe that God has created me," and in the Formula of
Concord, "God has created our souls and bodies after the fall,"
are meant of the mediate creation, not of the direct.
The trite theory of Traducianism is, that it is a creation by God,
of which the parents are the divinely ordained organ. The soul of
the child is related mysteriously, yet as closely, to the soul of
the parent as its body is to theirs, and the inscrutable mystery of the eternal generation of God's Son from the absolute
Spirit, mirrors itself in the origin of the human soul.
5. This Article presupposes, antecedent to all human sin, a
state of integrity. God said, Gen. i. 26, " Let us mcake man in our
image, after our likeness." This image of God in man  Status interiis something which is not absolutely lost, but is tatis, orthe state
fearfully marred. See 1 Cor. xi. 7; James iii. 9; of integrity.
Eph. iv. 24; and Col. iii. 10. The traditions of the race preserve the memory of a golden age, a time of innocence and
happiness; the Corfession implies that the race has fallen
from a condition of glory and bliss. Man was created with an
ability not to sin, which, had he been faithful, would have been
merged into a condition, in which he could not sin: the "'posse




372         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
non peccare" would have become a" non posse peccare," and the'4 posse non mori " would have been merged into " nonposse mori."
The abode of unfallen man was the Garden of Eden, or
Paradise. " The state of integrity was that happy condition of
man in which he was conformed to the image of God. The'image of God'is natural perfection, consisting, in conformity
with God the prototype, in wisdom, righteousness, purity, immortality, and majesty. It was concreate in the parents of our
race, so that they rightly knew and worshipped our Creator, and lived in holiness, and would have obtained a yet more
glorious blessedness." 
" In the widest conception of the image of God, there pertains to it everything which marks man as a rational being.
In this general sense, the image of God is not lost entirely,
though obscured.  In its more specific sense, it embraces the
religious element in man,;and its chief part is original righteousness. This involves the conformity of the understanding with
the knowledge and wisdom of God; conformity of the will with
the holiness of God, and with freedom; conformity of the cffections with the purity of God. The secondary conformity consisted,
partly, in the conformnity within man, and partly, in that which
was without man. The body of mai unfallen was an image of the
immortality of God. It was free from suffering and from calamity. It imaged the eternity of God by its immortality, its freedom from necessity of dying. Rom. v. 12; vi. 23. The perfection without man, which belongs to the image of God, was conformity of his outward dominion, with the power and majesty
of the Creator.  lie was Lord of the world, in which he had
been placed; all the creatures of the world, in which he had
been placed, were under his dominion. Gen. i. 26, ib. ii. 19." t
Over against just and Scriptural views of the image of God
are arrayed first the views which suppose it to have been one of
corporeal likeness. This was the view of the Anthropomorphites.  Next the Socinians and many Arminians, conceding
that it was in conjunction with immortality, yet restricted it
to the dominion over the animal world. The Pelagians and
* Hollazius.
t Quenstedt. See Hutterus Rediv. (Hase) i 80, and Luthardt Komp. d. Dogm. 4 41




THE STATE OF CORRUPTION.                      373
Rationalists suppose the image of God in its religious aspect
to have been little, if at all, injured. The Romish theology
has a Pelagianizing tendency.  The Fathers, of the Greek
Church distinguish between the image of God and his likeness,
referring the one to the rational nature of na7t, and the other to
the spiritutal nature of man.
The Reformation found a deep corruption in this, as in other
doctrines. Low views of justification prevailed because men
had low views of sin.  Over against the spurious theology of
the Church of Rome, the Apology says: " Original righteousness
was not only a just blending of the qualities of the body, but,
moreover, these gifts, the assured knowledge and fear of God,
trust in God, and the power of rectitude." The Formula Concordie: " Original righteousness is the concreate image of God,
according to which, man in.the beginning was created in truth,
holiness, and righteousness."  Hollazius says, "The principal
perfections constituting the image of God, are excellence of
understanding, perfect holiness, and freedom of will, purity of
desires, and a most sweet consent of the affections, with the
dictates of the understanding, and the government of the will,
all in conformity with the wisdom, holiness, and purity of God.
The less principal perfections of this image were: freedom
from every taint of sin in the body, immunity from corrupting
passions in the body, its immortality, and the full power of
ruling all earthly creatures."
6. To a correct conception of original sin it presupposes correct views of sin in general, as having its proper cause in the
finite will, not in the infinite will, and as embracing the condition of the finite will, as well as its~overt acts.
The need of redemption rests upon the fall from God through
sin.  Sin is the transgression of the law, or rather, it is that
which is not consonant with the law, it is the anti-  Te state of
legal, the unlegal, and the non-legal; John iii. 4, corruption.
vvoya. Melanchthon defines sin to be: "a defect,. or inclination,
or action, conflicting with the law of God."  Calovius defines
it still more compactly, but with the same sense, as:   Illegality, or deformity from the law: that is, the opposite to conform- "Solida Declaratio," p. 640.




374         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ity with the law."  Deformity, as here used, means a " want
qf conformity."  Miiller, in his great work on " The Christian
Doctrine of Sin," defines it to be a turning away from the love
of God to selfishness.  In the Holy Scriptures, sin is considered
as enmity against God; the carnal mind is enmity against God,
Rom. viii. 7. By the general consciousness of sin is derived
the general consciousness of the need of redemption. Gal. iii. 22.
It pertains to the very essence of religion, that sin, which is the
opposite of religion, takes its origin not from the Creator, but
from the creature; and however systems may have tended logically, actually to make God the author of sin, no system has unreservedly admitted such a conclusion. St. James says: " Let
no man, when he is tempted, say,'I am  tempted of God,' for
God is incapable of being tempted of evil, and he truly tempts
no one; but every man is tempted,.when he is drawn away by
the desire,which is his own, that is, by his own lust." The argument of St. James is, that God's incapacity of being himself
telmpted to sin, is evidence that he abhors it, and no being voluntarily causes that which he abhors. If God could be the
cause of sin in others, he would necessarily be the cause of it
in himself; in fact, to be the cause of sin in others is to be
sinful ourselves.  If God be the cause of sin, he would himself
be a sinner; but as it is conceded that God is himself free from
sin, he cannot be its cause.  Hence, the Augsburg Confession,
Art. XIX., says: "Although God creates and preserves nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the evil, i. e. of the
Devil and of wicked men, which, God not assisting, turns itself
from  God; as Christ says, John viii. 44, when he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of himself."  When the Confession says " non
adjuvante Deo," it does not mean that God does not assist in
the repression of this sin, and that consequently it takes place,
but. means that God in no sense assists to the production of
sinl; that proceeds from the will of the evil in its independent
self-moving power. The German expression parallel with this
is, that " the cause of sin is the will of the Devil and of all the
godless, which, so soon as God has taken away his hand, turns
itself from God to the evil."  But, by "the hand of God"
here is not meant the moral power by which he sways the will




THE STATE OF CORRUPTION.                      375
to good, but simply his repressive external power, and the
meaning is, that the sinful will consummates itself in sinful
act, wherever it is not repressed by the Providence of God.
Quenstedt embodies the faith of our Church, when he says
emphatically: " God is in no respect whatever the efficient
cause of sin as such, neither in part, nor in the whole; neither
directly, nor indirectly; neither per se, nor by accident; neither
in the species of Adam's fall, nor in the genus of sin of any kind.
In no respect is God the cause or author of sin, or can be called
such. See Ps. v. 5, ib. xlv. 12, Zach. viii. 17, 1 John i. 5,
James i. 13-17. But, whatever there is of want of conformity
with the law, &av)iw/, that is to be ascribed to the free will of the
creature itself, acting of its own accord.  See further, tHosea
xiii. 9, Matt. xxiii. 37."
In regard to these passages, which speak of a hardening on
the part of God, such as Exod. vii. 3, John vii. 10, Rom. ix. 18,
Hollazius says: "God does not harden men causally, or effectively, by sending hardness into the hearts of men, but (judicialiter,) judicially, permissively, and desertively."
The standing sophism  against just views of original sin is
that nothing is sin except it be voluntary; and that nothing
is voluntary, unless it be done with a distinct consciousness
and purpose of the will. But, over against this, the Scriptures
and sound logic teach, that to a true conception of what is voluntary, i. e. is of, or pertains to the will, belongs the state of the
will previous to any act. Before there can be a voluntary act,
there must be a state of the will which conditions that act.
Original sin, therefore, is voluntary sin on this broader and
more Scriptural conception of what is voluntary.  The New
England theology, in our country, has laid special stress
upon the false conception of what is voluntary.  The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says: "The adversaries (i. e.
Pelagianizing Romanists,) contend that nothing is sin except it be voluntary.  These expressions may hold good
among philosophers, in judging of civil morals, but they have
nothing to do with the judgment of God."  Hollazius says:
"The element of the voluntary does not enter into a definition
of sin, generically considered.  A sin is said to be voluntary,




376         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
either subjectively, as it inheres in the will, or eficiently, as it
results from the deliberate will. In this last respect, not all
sin is voluntary. This is held over against the Papists and Socinians, who define sin exclusively as the voluntary transgression of the law."
7. It presupposes that from  the original state of integrity
there was a FALL OF MAN into a state of sin.
The original Fall of man from  God resulted, according to
The;Fal of Gen. iii., from  external temptation and inward
Man.       desire, leading to doubt of the Divine goodness,
and transgression of the Divine command.  The consequences
of this Fall were: terror before the presence of God, not filial
reverence, but servile fear; the expulsion from Paradise; the
troubles of earthly life - temporal death only prevented by the
mercy of God - from passing into eternal death.
The Fall of man is, throughout, presupposed as a fact, in the
whole Biblical teaching in regard to original sin.  Rationalism  and Pseudophilosophism  have treated it as a fable;
an allegorical delineation of the passing away of the golden
age, a myth of the transition from instinct to moral freedom, or of the pernicious result of longing after a higher
condition.  " Without the  Fall,"  says I-egel, " Paradise
would have been but a park for beasts." The literal historical
sense of the narrative of the Fall is, nevertheless, the only one
consistent with the obvious intent of the Holy Scriptures.
There is nothing in the narrative unworthy of God, or
out of keeping with the laws of the human soul.  God gave
the colmmandment, allowed the temptation, that, by it, man's
natural holiness might be strengthened, if he would, by his free
will. The serpent was but the organ of the Devil; the essence
of the divine command lay in its setting forth love to God,
and acquiescence to His will, as that which should be supreme
in man. The transgression was an apostasy from this. The simpler the test, the clearer was its issue, the sublime.r its moral meaning. The more insignificant the outward act, the more certain it
is that the grandeur of the principle will not be confounded with
the grandeur of the circumstances. The principle of the necessity of the absolute acquiescence of the will of the creatures in




THE FALL OF MAN.                       377
the will of the Creator has none of the splendor of drapery in
Paradise that it has in the revolt of the angels in heaven, and
it stands out, for this reason, more nakedly, sharply, and legibly
in the history of the Fall of Adam, than in that of the fall of
Satan.  The littleness of the spirit of sin may readily be forgotten in the dazzling array of its raiments, or in the baleful
dignity of its mischievous results.
Hollazius defines the first sin thus:-" The first sin of man,
or F1all, is the transgression of the law of Paradise, in which
our first parents violated the divine interdict which forbade them  to eat the fruit of the'tree of knowledge of
good and evil,' being persuaded thereto by the Devil, and
abusing the freedom  of will, and thus brought on themselves, and on their posterity, born of them  in the order
of nature, the loss of the divine image,.grievous fault (culpam),
and liability (reatum) to temporal and eternal punishment. The
cause of the first sin is not God, but the Devil, who persuaded,
and man who transgressed the Divine law, being overcome by
the persuasion of the Devil, and abusing the freedom of the will.
Our first parents, in the Fall, directly violated a positive law, but
indirectly and virtually, by their disobedience, broke through
the restraints of the whole moral lIaC. The Fall of Adam was
not necessary to manifest the justice and mercy of God."
This deflection," says Quenste:lt, " embraces in its course
certain distinct acts of sin, which may be classed as follows:
i. Incretdulity, -not having faith in the word of God. ii. Affectation of the likeness of God.  iii. A purpose springing from
this transgression of the law.  iv. A carrying out of this purpose into action." In the Fall 6f our first parents began original
sin.  "It is called," says Quenstedt, " original sin, not because
it existed either from the beginning or origin of the world, or
of man, but partly, because it takes its origin in man, with the
origin of each man; partly, because it is the fount and origin
of all actual sin." Tertullian probably first introduced the term.
A  distinction is drawn between "peccatum originale originans," and " peccatum originale originatum." The latter is by
preeminence styled "original sin."  Thus "original sin," if not
by imputation, yet by some form of association, passed over to




378          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
all the posterity of Adam  and Eve.  The Formula Concordic
says: " The hereditary evil is that fault (culpa) or liability (reatus) whereby it comes that we all, because of (propter) the disobedience of Adam and Eve, are under God's abhorrence, and
are by nature children of wrath." * The Apology t says: " Some
dispute that original sin is not a vice or corruption in the nature
of man, but only a servitude or condition of mortality, which
they, who are propagated from Adam, without vice of their own,
but on account of another's fault, inherit.  We, that we may
show that this doctrine displeases us, make mention of concupiscence, and declare that a corruptf nature is born."  Whatever,
therefore, may be the relation of imputation to original sin,
our Church holds it to be an impious opinion, that our misery
and liability are merely the results of imputation.  The primary point is, that we.do actually participate, in our nature,
in the corruption wrought by the Fall.  " Original sin is that
vitiation of human nature arising from  the fall of our first
parents, accidental, (in the theological sense,) propagated by
human conception, proper and real in all men, whereby they
are destitute of the power of rightly knowing and worshipping
God, and are constantly impelled to sin, and exposed to eternal
death."
TII. The Second Article of the Confession sets forth the TIME
Time.  of the operation of original sin, to wit, that of the
whole period coinmencing wcith the Fall of Adam.
This implies:1. That man was created holy. IIe had original righteousness.
Gen. i. 26," Let us make mian in our image, after our likeness."  In these words image is not one thing, and likeness
another, but the word likeness defines the word image. An
image may be like that of a mirror, a mere reflection; but
this image is one which makes real likeness or similitude.
The grand element of the image of God in man, as created
originally, is that which conforms him to what is most essentially Godlike in God; that is, to His moral perfection, His
holiness, purity, and truth. In a certain sense, the spirituality
of man's nature, his immortality, his noble endowments of
* Page 639. p. 9.             t P. 51. p. 9.




TIME.                          379
intellect, affection, and active power, and his place in creation, a,
lord and ruler of the world, are associated with and bound up
with his bearing the image of God; hence, in Gen. i. 26, immediately after the words " Let us nmake macn" we have the
words, "Let him have dominion," where " dominion" is not identified with the " image," as some expositors would make it, but
is dependent on the image and likeness, and is conditioned by it,
for the ground of man's rule over the world is not his merely
intellectual gifts, in which probably the devils, certainly the
angels, surpass him, but the presumption and desire, on God's
part, of his ruling it in righteousness and holiness.  I-is intellectual powers are but the means by which his moral powers
carry out their ends.
The image of God is, preeminently, then, man's original
holiness; the conformity of his mind to the mind of God;
of his will to the will of God; in short, whatever is most completely and sharply antithetical to original sin.  Just what he
lost by sin, is preeminently what he possessed most completely'in the image of God, and in the original righteousness, wThich
was its vital part.  That man's moral nature is that which
has suffered most in the Fall, that his intellectual abilities, and
his power of outward rule over nature, are left in comparative
strength, is evidence that it was in his moral nature he
stood nearest to God.  The more glorious the image, the cornpleter was its wreck.  That this judgment as to the image of
God is correct, is shown by various passages of Scripture; as,
Eccl. vii. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10.
2. That he lost this righteousness.  From the exalted position nearest to God, he descended to the degradation' of
misery and sin.  In short, as original righteousness made him
like God in that which is most Godlike, so the Fall plunged
him into that which, in its essence, is most remote from God.
Now nothing is so completely in antagonism  to God as sin.
Ignorance is the counterpart to divine knowledge and wisdom;
weakness to divine omnipotence; but sin is set against the
very heart and moral glory of God.  The ignlorant and the
weak may-be children of God, and bear his image, but the
sinful are sundered from lHim by an impassable gulf; though




380         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
they had the knowledge of an archangel, and a might as
near that of God as the creature's might can be, yet with sin,
their image is that of the Devil, and not that of God.
3. That with this loss, originated humnan sin.
4. That man's nature thereby became a sinful one. Adam
remained in the state to which the original or primary sin
reduced him.  All human nature at the time of the Fall was
embraced in Adam and Eve; they were then the human race;
they actually formed all human creatures; therefore of necessity, when Adam and Eve fell, all human nature, then existing,
fell; all human creatures, actually existing, fell then as completely as if there had been millions instead of two; hence
the human race and human nature fell.
5. Lastly, under this thesis is asserted that original sin has
continued in the world from that hour to the present.
It is worthy of note that the Confession speaks of the Fall of
Adam only; Eve is not mentioned, though she was first in the
transgression.  Why at least is not the phrase, " Fall of our
wy is Atl;,, first parents? "  In this the Confession strictly folalone mentiolld? lows the line of Scripture representation: "By
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so
death  passed over upon  all men." Rom. v. 12.  In  the
Apostle's sense, sin did not enter into the world in Eve's transgression; nor did death enter into the world by her sinl; at
most, sin and death entered her.  While she was yet alone in
the transgression, sin had not yet entered the world, nor death
by sin. What had been possible for Adam, even as to the restoration of Eve, at this point, belongs perhaps to a sphere of
speculation into which it is not wise to enter, but it is certain
that the race yet stood in Adam. It was yet in his power to
save mankind.  The prohibition of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge was given directly, only to Adam, and took place
before the creation of Eve, (Gen. ii. 17-21.) It bound the
woman, not because God repeated it to her, but because she
was, in the nature of the case, under the same law with her
husband.  After the Fall, God says to Adam:  "Hast thou
eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst
not eat?" - but to Eve, while His words imply her great guilt,




WHY IS ADAM ALONE MENTIONED?                   381
IHe speaks of no such direct' command. Eve was not co-ordinate with Adam, but represented in him.  She sinned, personally, in her own personal act, but, in the full sense, she fell
only when Adam fell.
Adam's body was first formed - the entrance of the breath
of God made man, body and soul.  Eve was taken from
Adam, but this was no new inbreathing from God. She was
the emanation, so to speak, of the whole man- the effluence
of his body and soul, and the life of the whole race is that one
united life. Eve is called the mother of all living; but Adam
is the source of all living, including Eve. There is then but one
human life in the world - perpetuated and extended through
the generations —the emanation of the first life — that of
Adam.  llence the race has not fallen in Eve as well as in
Adam - because her life also was derivative.  The one primal
life derived from Adam brings with it the impress of Adam's
fallen nature.  Our nature is his very nature in emanation, as
our life of body and soul is his life in emanation -and as
the very life and nature are trmsnmitted, so are the Fall
and its penalty transmitted.  Adam's life and nature is the
sine qua non of our life and nature - Adam's sin the sine qua
non of our sin. 
IV. The Confession teaches that the persons affected by
original sin are all human beings born in the course of nature.
This implies that, without exception, all the children of our
race, alike all the children of the most holy and of the most
godless, have original sin. The character of the parent may,
within a certain limit, benefit or injure the innate tendencies to
character in the child; but character is not nature. All human
beings have the same nature. In this nature original sin
inheres, and all alike inherit it.. With reference to this inherited character, it is sometimes called hereditary sin. In German
its usual title is " Erbsiinde."
In the doctrine that all men (orines homines), born in the
course of nature, have this sin, is implied the falseness of the
Romish figment, in regard to the sinlessness of the mother of
our Lord. It rejects the idea of the immaculate conception of
Mary, which has been established in our own time as a




382          C'ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
doctrine of the Romish Church.  The doctrine of the immaculate conception, to wit: that the Virgin Mary zoas conceived and
born without sin, had been for centuries maintained by the Franciscans, and denied by the Domlinicans, but was set forth authoritatively by Pius IX. in 1854, as a doctrine of the Catholic
Church.*  The birth of Mary was a human birth, and hence,
hers was a nature with the taint of original sin.
In this thesis, moreover, is implied the freedom of our Lord
from original sin, for his birth was not in the course of nature.
Ie was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Apostles' Creed, Art.
II.); He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mlary
(Nicene Creed, Art. III.); and his birth was divine and supernatural.
And here, it is impossible not to be struck with the beautiful,
Scripture-like reticence of our Confession, for while it nlost
clearly either states or implies that original sin has been in the
world since Adam's Fall; that without that Fall it would not
have been; that our natural descent from himl actually is accompanied, in every case, by the inheritance of the moral nature,
into which, so to speak, he fell, it does not define how;t THEOIETICALLY, the sin of Adam  is related to us; does not touch
the question of imputation at all.  The Augsburg Confession
sets forth the chief Articles of Faith, the Faith of the Church
universal, that is of the true Catholic Church, but the doctrine
of inmputation, AS A THEORY, belongs to scientific theology.  The
Augsburg Confession presents the whole question, only in its
great practical elements, as these in some form or other are
grasped by faith, and take part in the general belief of the
Church.
We cannot recall a single passage, in any of our Confessions,
in which the imputation of Adam's sin is alluded to, even in
passing, as an Article of Faith.  The Confessions say no more
than that our fallen condition was " through the disobedience of
Adam," or " on account of it," and expressly reject the idea that
"original sin is derived to us by imputation only."t  "We
* See Preuss on the " Immaculate Conception, " which has been translated into
English, and Pusey's Irenicon.
t Formula Concordiae, 575.




WHY IS ADAM ALONE MENTIONED?                    383
reject," says the Formula, "and condemn  that doctrine
which asserts that original sin is only a liability and debt
derived to us, by the fault of another, without any corruption of our own nature."  These expressions, however, do
not exclude the doctrine of imputation in every shape. It is a
question of theology, as distinguished from the sphere of faith
proper, and to that it should be referred.
That all men are embraced in the operation of original sin,
is clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures.
1. It is taught in direct and positive assertion of the universality of original sin. Rom. v. 12, " Wherefore, as by one man,
sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."  Mark in the
passage the sphere of original sin; the word  men," and the
word "all," i. e. "all men."  Death itself is declared to be the
token and evidence, that all have sinned.  The dominion of
sin is as wide as the dominion of death, that is, it is universal.
It shows that the operation is not limited to adults; and
that there may be no mistake in regard to this, as if men
might suppose that infants were regarded as exceptions, it
says in verse 14, " death reigned... even over them that had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,"
i. e. over infants, who had not sinned by conscious acts of
transgression, as Adam and Eve did; but, if infants come
under it, a fortiori all others must. It adds in verse 15, "for
if through the offence of one the many be dead," (Greek,) and
in verse 18, " as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation," and in verse 19, "as by one man's disobedience, (the) many were made sinners."
2. In the specification of the classes embraced in  this
universal operation of original sin. Eph. ii. 3: " We all were
by nature children of wrath, even as others."  By "we all,"
is meant the Jewish Christians. "' We Jews'even as others,' "
i. e. Gentiles.  Jews and Gentiles embrace mankind, and
if even the members of God's elect race are  subject to
this law, d fortiori the Gentiles would be, if there were any
distinction.
3. In the Scriptural negation of any limitation of the uni



384          CONSERVATIVE R EFORMATION.
versality of original sin.  Job xiv. 4, "Who can bring a clean
thing out of an unclean? not one."
4. In the exceptional character of Jesus Christ, as alone free
froii original, as well as actual sin, in which is implied that
all but He are born in sin. "He knew no sin," 2 Cor. v. 21,
was "without sin," Heb. iv. 15.  " le was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," ib. vii. 26. In all this is
implied more than our Saviour's freedom from acts of sin.  To
our Lord, and to Him alone belongs, among men, an untainted
nature; to every other child of Adam pertains the curse of
original sin.  To the freedom  of our Lord's nature from original sin, it was essential that his conception should be of the
Holy Ghost, and his birth oit of the course of nature. They who
are not thus conceived and born must have the taint of origiual sin, that is, as the Confession affirms: The whole race,
whose conception and birth are in the sphere of nature, are conceived and born in sin.
V. The next thesis of the Confession pertains to the MODE of
perpetuation of original sin.
It connects this with the natural extension of our race.  Not
od    nly are human beings born with it, but it originates
with  their natural life, and  before'their natural
birth; and hence, with reference to each hunman being, it
comes to be called "original sin."  It is the sin which is so
mysteriously original with man. Its origin, and our origin, are
simultaneous. It is originated when man is originated, and because he is originated, and by his origination. Hence, the term
original, which has been objected to in the statement of the
doctrine, is more expressive and accurate than any that could
be substituted for it.  The great point in this thesis, is that sin
passes into the life of the race, not by imitation, as the Pelagians contend, but by hereditary congenital transmission, and
that this propagation is its natural source.
Over against the doctrine of Calvin and other speculators,
who maintain that: " the progeny of Adam  do not derive
their corruption naturally from  him, but that corruption depends upon the ordination of God," (see Calvin, on Gen. iii. 6,)
the Augsburg Confession distinctly connects original sin with




FA CT.                        385
the natural process of descent, " secundum naturam," i. e. with
natural propagation, and natural birth; and such is the clear
teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Ps. li. 5, "Behold! I was
shapen in iniquity."  See Gen. v. 1 & 3: in the first verse
we have, " in the likeness of God made he him;" and in the
third verse this antithesis, "and Adam begat a son, after his
image."  So our Lord Jesus says, (John iii. 6,)" That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is
spirit."  Eph. ii. 3, " We all were by nature children of wrath,"
that is, as Tyndale, Cranmer, and others say," were natural children of wrath." The sin of Adam is so related to the condition
of the race, that by and because of our natural descent from
him, sin and its penalty passes over to us. Rom. v. 12, "By
one man sin entered the world."
VI. Next the great fact is asserted, That all human beings
are conceived and born in sin and with sin,-" Nascantur cum peccato," "In Sinden empfangen und   Fact
geboren werden."
This fact can be mentally separated from the particular theory
upon which it rests.  Even Pagans have acknowledged the
fact. And those whose theory seemed irreconcilable with it,
and those who have even denied it in downright terms, have
been forced virtually to concede it.  All the refinement in.
terms, in philosophy, in the mode of statement or of argument,
has not been able to conceal the fact, that in, with, and under
our human nature, there lies something evil; foreign to the
original condition of man; foreign to the divine ideal, and to
man's own better ideal; something derived from parent to child,
producing misery, death, and despair; something that is the
power of all sinful results, and the seed of all sinful growths.
The Scripture testimony to this great fact is very explicit.
Gen. viii. 21, " The imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth," i. e. inclusively in his youth and ever after.  Gen. vi.
5," God saw that the wickedness of man," etc., "was only evil
continually." (Heb. lit. " evil all the day; " margin -" The whole
imagination.") The Hebrew word signifies not only the imagination, but also the PURPOSES AND DESIRES.
The actual condition of the race is depicted in the 14th Ps.,
25




386         CONSERVATI VE REFORMATION.
vs. 1, 2, 3, " They are corrupt, they have done abominable
works, there is none that doeth good," (an absolute negation.)
"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of
men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek
God. They are ALL gone aside, they are altogether become
filthy, there is NONE that doeth good, NO NOT ONE."  St. Paul
quotes these words as of universal application, covering Jews
as well as Gentiles, and although the Psalmist makes exception
of God's people, yet the exceptions are made by grace, and do
but confirm the rule. So in Job xv. 14, "What is man that
he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he
should be righteous."  So Jer. xvii. 9, " The heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? 
An absolute identity of result in all men in FACT implies the
existence of a common cause of that result. If all men, always
from earliest infancy to extremest old age, everywhere, under
all diversities of race, education, and outward circumstances, in
short, of everything in which they can differ, are sinful, then
must the root of sin be, not in any one thing, nor in all things
in which they differ, but in the thing or things which they
have in common. But the sole things which men have in
common, are their human nature, and their common original
inborn moral condition. In one of these must lie the spring
of universal sinfulness; but it cannot lie in their nature as
such; for nature as such is the work of God, and cannot therefore be sinful.  Sin is the perversion of nature, the uncreating,
as it were, of what God has created, a marring of His work. It
must lie then in man's moral condition, as fcllen and inheriting
original sin. The great acknowledged facts in the case then are
logically and necessarily connected with the theory of original
sin which is maintained in the Confession.
VII. The results or revelations of the workings of this original sin are, first, privative or negative, and second, positive.
SeventhThesis. i: Privative or negative showing itself in what we
The results.   have lost; we are without fear, without trust, "' sine
metu, sine fiducia." ii: Positive in what we have, " cum concupiscentia, with concupiscence."
i: 1. Privatively or negatively original sin shows itself, first




SEVENTH THESIS. THE RESULTS.                   387
in this, that all human beings are born without the fear of God.
Conf. "Sine metu Dei;" " Keine wahre Gottesfurcht haben."
This means not only that an infant does not and cannot consciously fear God, but that there is in it a lack of anything
which can potentially, or through any process of self-development or of natural education, exercise' sluc acfeacr of'God as He
demands of the creature.  We can by nature have a false fear,
or an instinctive fear of God, but not a true fear, hence the
emphasis of the German of the Confession, " Keine wahre,"
" no true fear."
2. A second element of the privative result is, that they are
born without trust in God, withoutfaith in Him or love for HIim.
In the fear of God there is a just contemplation of His natural
attributes, and that reverential awe which inspires the spirit of
obedience. In trust, faith, and love, there is a contemplation
of His moral attributes, drawing the heart to Him. Neither
)ur just fears, nor our just hopes toward God, are left untouched by original sin.  Conf., "Sine fiducia erga Deuinm;"
"I(einen wahren Glauben an Gott, keine wahre Gottesliebe."
There is innate in a child, before conscious exercise, a potential, true trust, faith, and love, toward its mother, and that trust
unfolds itself out of the potential into the actual.  Before a
child's first act of love toward its mother, there must be a
power of loving, and that power of loving must exercise itself:
There must be something in a child that can love before it does
love, and that something is born with the child. In other
words, a child may be said, with reference to this innate power,
to be born with trust toward its mother.  But it lacks in its
nature that which would enable it to exercise a true trust in
God, such as He demands.  Man may by nature have a false
trust in God, or an intellectual and natural trust, but nol that
higher and true trust which is in perfect keeping with God's
nature and His holy law. In order to this, grace must impart
something with which we are not born.
The Roman Catholic theologians, in their confutation of the
Augsburg Confession, say that the statement in this article in
regard to original sin is to be utterly rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God, and




388         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
without trust toward God, is rather the actual fault of the
adult than the fault of a new-born infant, which is destitute
of the use of reason, as the Lord says to Moses, Dent. i. 39,'" Your children, which in that day had no knowledge between
good and evil."  Melanchthon, in the Apology, replied by
referring to the German form of the Confession, which brings
out more clearly than does the Latin, that it is not the act,
but the power of fearing God and trusting in Him, which is
referred to, or as Melanchthon expresses it, not the act only,
but the gift and power of doing these things.  The Apology
is the best commentary on the disputed parts of the Augsburg
Confession, as well as an able defence of them.
ii. The positive result is that they are born with concupiscence, that is, that from their birth they are all full of evil desire and evil propensity. The Confession says, " Et cum concupiscentia."  German:' Dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voller
biser Lust und Neigung sind." The term concupiscence is a New
Test. term, Rom. vii. 7, 8, " I had not known lust (margin,' or
concupiscence')" etc., " wrought in me all manner of concupiscenee." So Col. iii. 5, " Mortify therefore your members which
are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
1. Thess. iv. 5, " Not in the lust of concupiscence."  The Greek
word which it translates, and which is used in a number of
places where it is not translated concupiscence, has the general
meaning of earnest and intense desire.  Thus our Saviour,
Luke xxii. 15, says, "' With desire (epithumia) I have desired
(epithumeo) to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
St. Paul says, (Phil. i. 23,) "Having a desire (epithumia) to depart;" 1 Thess. ii. 17, "Endeavoured with great desire." These
are the only cases, three out of thirty-seven, in which the word
epithumia is used without implying  something inordinate
and sinful.  The natural epithumia of an unsanctified nature
is always inordinate, carnal, sensual, impure: it is desire, lust,
concupiscence.  The word is also applied by metonymy to objects which kindle such desires. Every epithumia except that
of our Lord, and of the natures conformed to His nature, is
represented as sinful.  In the passage in Romans vii. 7, 8, con



SEVENTH  THESIS. THE RESULTS.                    389
cupiscence is represented as the motive power in covetousness.
In Col. iii. 5, it is distinguished from  inordinate affection and
covetousness, to which it is related as the root to the tree, or as
the trunk to the branches.  In 1 Thess. iv. 5, the "lust of concupiscence" is mentioned, that is, the lust or positive desire generated by the evil propensity inherent in our own nature; that
is, the actual evil desire by the original evil desire, or concupiscence; sin by sin; sin the offspring by sin the parent, the actual
sin of our charactr  being related to the original sin of our nature,
as child to mother. The Pelagianizing Romanist says, Lust, or
concupiscence, brings forth sin, therefore it cannot be sin, because the mother cannot be the child.  We reply, Concupiscence brings forth sin, therefore it must be sin, because child and
mother must have the same nature.  The grand sophism  of
Pelagianism is the assumption that sin is confined to acts, that
guilty acts can be the product of innocent condition, that the
effect can be sinful, yet the cause free from  sin- that the unclean can be brought forth from the clean.
The word concupiscence, therefore, as the representative of
epithumia in its evil sense, very properly designates that moral
condition which is antecedent to positive and conscious moral
acts.  It is the first phenomenon of personality in morals, and
no better practical definition can be given of it, than the simple
one of our Confession.  It is " evil desire" and "evil propensity," " bise Lust und Neigung."
The grand idea here lies in this, that sin is in us potentially
before it comes to the act; that the moral nature of the infant is
born with it, and does not originate in, nor date its origin from,
any conscious movement of the infant's will, any purpose of
its heart,'any act of its hands; but that, on the contrary, the
general character of that movement, purpose, and act of will,
heart, and hand, apart from  Divine grace, is inevitably conditioned as actually sinful, and that this actual sinfulness is
merely on the one side the result and token of a defect, and on
the other the positive exhibition of an evil tendency already
in being, from the time of the origin of the human nature of
the child. Hence, in a new sense, this sin may be called original.  It is that in which all other sins in some sense take their




390         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
origin. It throws its life into them; without it they might
not be; it is not only original, it is also the originating sin, or
that sin which gives the original to all others.
Negatively, then, original sin is the lack of original righteousness, that is, of the righteousness which man originally
had as God's creature, bearing His image, and is the perpetuation morally of original unrighteousness, that is, of the nonrighteousness which fallen man, as fallen, originally had.
Positively, original sin is evil desire and propensity, first existing potentially and seminally, so to speak, the power of all
sinful results, and the seed of all sinful growths; and then revealing itself invariably and necessarily in conscious and actual
sin, if not checked by the Spirit of God.
iii. As we have by nature no true fear of God, no true love
of God, no true faith in God, so neither can we get them  by
nature.  Conf., "Keinen von Natur haben kOnnen."  Original
sin is not only retrospective, looking back to the origin of our
race, but it is prospective, covering the future as it covers the
past, a pall upon the face of the nations. In the sphere of
nature it renders our condition utterly hopeless.  A  man
may by nature have a weak body, a feeble constitution,
an imperfection of speech, but in nature he may find relief
for them  all.  Strength may come by natural exercise, fluency by repeated efforts, but there is no power in man, in
his reason or in his will, none in education, none in the
whole store of the visible, or intellectual, or moral world, which
can repair this fatal defect, and render him  God's reverent,
loving, and trusting child.  There is no surf-beaten shore on
which man may go forth and train himself amid its thunders
and its whispers, to speak in true faith and love into the ear
of God words which may remove His righteous disapproval
of our sinful and sinning nature. In other words, in the sphere
of nature, original sin leaves us in utter and hopeless ruin.
Without faith it is impossible to please-God; without holiness
no man shall see the Lord; and by nature we are destitute of
faith and holiness potentially.  In our conscious, moral life
there can be no development of them  actually.  We neither
have, nor can have them, unless something not of us, nor of




ON THE NAMES DESIGNATING  ORIGINAL SIN. 391
nature, supervenes. " The natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto Him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14.
VIII. The essence of original sin involves that this disease or
vice of origin is truly sin.  Conf. Latin: " Quod-  Eighth Thesis.
que hie morbus seu vitium  originis vere sit pecca- Origina.l Sin is
turn." German: " Dass auch dieselbige angeborene ruly in.
Seuche und Erbsiinde wahrhaftiglich Suinde sei."
The application of a particular name to a thing raises the
question, first, whether that name has more than  On the names
one sense, and secondly, if it have, in what sense by, hihl original sin is  desigit is applied in the particular case under con- iatedinthe Consideration.  Is the name to be taken literally or fssion
figuratively?
The following names are applied to original sin in the Augsburg Confession: In the Latin, " vitium, morbus, peccatum"; in
the German, " Seuche " and "'uinde." As these names have been
most carefully employed, we must weigh them to realize their
full force, and to reach with precision the doctrine which they
are designed to convey.
These terms may be classified thus:
1. The terms that are used metaphorically, or by adaptation. 2. The terms used literally. To the first of these belong
" vitium," and " morbus," and " Seuche"; to the second, " peccatum" and " Siinde."
1. MORBUS. The word " morbus" is nowhere used in the
Vulgate. The word used where we might anticipate" morbus"
is usually "languor," and sometimes "e gritudo."  Morbus is
defined by lexicographers as a " sickness, disease, evil affection of body contrary to nature."  Original Sin as " morbus"
is, in general, sickness in spirit, analogous to disease in body.
The metaphorical transfer is very easy and obvious.  The
Confession does not at all mean that original sin is literally a
sickness or morbus.  The Apology,* with just severity, characterizes the scholastic absurdities: " Of the fomenting inclination (fomes) - they maintain that it is a quality of body,
* 79,7.




392         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and inquire whether it came by contagion of the apple, or from
the breath of the serpent? and whether medicines make it
worse?"
II. VITIUM. The word vitium is used in the Vulgate five
times.  It has the sense, "fault" of a bodily kind, even in
animals; " moral fault, vice," as in Job xx. 11: "Sin of his
youth."  Vulgate, "vices of his youth." Gal. v. 24: "The
flesh with the affections (margin'or passions') and lusts."
Rheims' transl. of Vulg., " vices and concupiscences." With the
Vulgate agrees in general the classic usage of the word vitium.
III. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORBUS AND VITIUM.  The
use of these two words in the Confession is not tautological,
but in the highest degree delicate and discriminating.  They
are not synonyms, but are used not only to convey a different
idea, but with a certain degree of antithesis. Cicero, in the
Tusculan Questions, Book 4, says, " Morbus is the corruption
of the whole body, such as is fever for example; vitium is
when the parts of the body are at variance among themselves,
from.which results pravity of the members, distortion, deformity."  So Nonius says, " Vitium  is an abiding impediment
of the body, such as blindness, lameness, unsoundness."
Morbus in German would be " Krankheit."  Vitium would
be " Fehler."  The one term may be said to be derived from
medicine, the other from surgery.
Morbus, in a theological sense, is moral sickness, disease, or
plague; vitium is moral vice, fault, or defect, maiming, mutilation, or distortion.
IV. THERE IS A CORRESPONDENCE therefore between the two
names vitium and morbus, and the two parts of the definition
of original sin:  a. VITIUM  corresponds with the negative
part of the definition.  Original sin as a defect of original
righteousness, the mutilation of the moral man, the lack of
something essential to his moral perfection, is vitium. b. MORBUS corresponds with the positive part of the definition. Original sin as the presence of a corrupting element infecting the
moral man, the indwelling of a pervading and positive evil
added to his constitution, is morbus.
In a word, the vitium takes away the good, the morbus




ON THE NAMES DESIGNATING ORIGINAL SIN. 39:3
brings in the bad.  Thevitium  is the lack of the true fear
and trust, the morbus is the concupiscence.
V. SEUCHE. The word Seuche does not translate either
morbus or vitium. Its Latin equivalent would'be " lues," and
it is one of the most generic words in German to express sickness. Its proper English equivalent is plague, and it is related
to pestilence and to disease as genus is related to species.
Luther uses the word "Seuche" thirteen times in the New
Testament.  Once he translates by it the word noseema, in
John v. 4, the only place at which it occurs.  In the twelve
other cases he uses it to translate " nosos," which is the synonym  of " noseema," and is translated  in the  authorized
version by the word " sickness" five times, "disease" six times,' infirmity" once. In the New Testament the word "nosos"
is used literally for bodily disease, except, perhaps, in Matt.
viii. 17,  He bare our sicknesses," where it has been taken,
though  without necessity, metaphorically for pain, sorrow,
evil of a spiritual kind. In the Old Testament, Luther uses
"' Seuche," first, to translate " Madveh," in the only two places in
which that word occurs, Deut. vii. 15, and xxviii. 60, where it
means literally" disease," and in the first of which the Septuagint renders it " nosos."  Secondly, Luther uses it to translate
Quehtev," Psalm cli. 6. Authorized Version," the destruction
which wasteth at noon-day," but Coverdale, Cranmer, and the
Liturgy Version of the Church of England, following Luther,
translate it " sickness," and the Genevan, and, among recent
translators, Noyes, "plague," and  Ainsworth, "stinging
plague."
The metaphorical idea of sickness is found in the Old Testament, as Hosea, v. 13, " Ephraim saw his sickness," i. e. his political weakness and wretchedness. Psalm ciii. 3, " Who healeth
all thy diseases," seems to be used metaphorically for spiritual
disorders in accordance with the parallelism of the first part,
"Who forgiveth all thine iniquities."   So Psalm  xli. 4,
" Heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee."  There sin is
represented as the disease of the soul, God as a physician,
grace as healing. The word "holiness" is only another way
of pronouncing the word " wholeness."  So Isa. vi. 10, "And




394         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
convert and be healed," that is, be healed of sin, which is the
disease of the soul.  The Chaldee Paraphrase and the Syriac
render: " and be forgiven."
The metaphorical transfer of the idea of disease and fault
to express moral condition is so obvious, that we find it in all
cultivated languages.  Cicero says, " As in the body there is
disease, sickness, and fault, so is there in the soul."
We have this triple parallel therefore:
body,                health,                  sickness,
mind,                sanity,                  insanity,
spirit,              holiness,                sin.
The analogies between MORBUS, disease and sin are very many.
Analogies b-  1. Morbus is in conflict with the original pertweennorbusand fection of body with which man was created,
Original Sin.  the original rightness or wholeness of body.
2. Morbus is a potency before it is revealed as a fact.
3. Morbus in its tendency is toward death.  The slightest
morbus developed to the last degree would destroy the body.
There is no morbus so slight that it has not brought death.
Strike out two letters, and morbus, " disease," becomes mors,
"death."
4 Morbus is common to the whole race.  Cicero, in the Tusculan Questions, 325, translates from Euripides this sentence,
" Mortalis nemo est quem  non attingit. dolor morbusque,"
" There is not one of our race untouched by pain and disease."
5. Morbus is the spring of pain, grief, and misery to the
body.
6. Morbus rests on an inborn tendency of the body.  It
could not touch the body of a sinless being without his permission.  Our Lord Jesus Christ could only endure it by the
act of His own will.
7. Morbus is primarily in the world, not because we sinned,
but because Adam sinned; he is the spring of original morbus,
as he is of origFinal peccatum.
8. Morbus depraves and corrupts the substance of the body,
but is not itself substance; it is not a creature of God, but a
defect in, and vitiation of, that which He created. The body
is His work, morbus the result of sin.




ANALOGIES BETWEEN MORBUS AND SIN.  395
9. Morbus is negatively the antithesis to health, the absence
of health; and secondly, in consequence of that lack, that which
was originally useful and pleasant becomes morbid and works
misery.  Take, for example, a healthy tooth; everything in it
is meant for use, and is promotive of comfort.  Take away its
healthy state, and although no new thing is created, there is
misery and uselessness in place of its former healthy condition;
there is positive pain there.
10. Morbus is real morbus, vere morbus, before it comes to
symptom.  A man is sick before he shows himself sick, and he
shows himself sick because he is sick.  He may be sick for a
time, and neither he nor others be aware of it. The symptom
is not the morbus, nor the cause of it, but the result, the effect,
the revelation of the morbus.  The fever is before the feverheat; the small-pox before the pustule; the obstruction of the
pores before the cough; there is morbus originis in the body
before there is morbus manifestus in it.
11. Morbus may be wholly independent of any act of ours.
We may have morbus because our neighbor has it.  A  child
may have it because the father has it, or the father may contract it from the child.  One has typhoid-fever or small-pox,
and another takes it from him. There is endemic morbus, epidemic morbus, contagious morbus, infectious morbus.  With
the mystery of disease staring us in the face in the physical
world, it becomes us to be humble and reverent in regard to
God's teachings in reference to the mystery of His permission
of hereditary sin in the moral world.
12. Morbus, not only as a generic tendency, but in specific
shape, may be hereditary. There is an Erb-seuche as well as
an Erbsiinde. When the skeptic shall thoroughly sound the
mystery of that arrangement of Providence by which the child
of consumptive parents may be born not only with a tendency
to consumption, but with actual consumption, then may he
with more show of reason ask us to sound for him the fathomless depths of the Divine permission of hereditary sin in our
world.
13. Morbus in some forms defies all the curative powers of
nature and of art. Men will be so sick as to die, despite all




396        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
original energies of the constitution, all medicines, and all
physicians.
14. Whatever be the philosophy of morbus, the great facts
are indisputable.  Men may wrangle as to how and why it is,
but they cannot deny that it is. They may believe that they
relieve difficulties by abandoning the old phraseology and coining new; but all the resources of language leave the facts and
the difficulties substantially where they were. The medical
theorists have new names, new theories, new medicines, but
men have continued to die, and will continue to die. The theological charlatan may try a new nomenclature, and assail with
sugar- and rose-water what the old doctors treated with the
most potent medicines, but sin will reveal itself in the world
with the old signs of virulence, and, trifled with, will work
death.
15. He who has false views of morbus, is not likely to obtain
a thorough cure of it. His determination to call a plagueboil a pimple, will not make it a pimple; tubercular consumption is not a trifling cough, nor a cancer a corn, because men
may think them such.  We can neither think facts out of
being, nor into being.
16. Morbus is ordinarily relieved by means. Sickness cannot heal itself, nor is it ordinarily healed by miracle.
17. The wrong remedy will not cure morbus, however sincere the misguided physician may be in recommending it, and
the deluded patient in using it. It is the dream  of a Rationalism close upon Deism, that error is practically as good as
truth, if a man heartily believes it to be the truth; that you can
substitute arsenic for salt with safety, if you believe it to be
salt. The kingdom of nature and of grace are both under law.
Things will be done after God's ordinance, or they will not be
done at all.
Analoges be-   The analogies between Vitium  and Original
tween vitium and Sin are also many and obvious.
Original Sin.
riginal   1. Vitium is universal.  Every body has some
defect. Thrasea (Pliny's Epistles 8, 22,) was wont to say,
"Qui vitia doit, homines odit," "Who hates faults, hates all
mankind."




ANALOGIES BETWEEN  VITIUM  AND SIN.  397
2. Vitiufn in some of its forms is, as Nonius says, " perpetua
et insanabilis atque  irrevocabilis causa," "a cause which
works always, beyond healing and beyond revoke."
3, and last. Vitium is privative, yet the privation is productive of positive misery.  Blindness is not a thing, but the
want of a thing.  When the first blindness took place, there
was no creation of blindness, but the mere privation of that
light which was given in the first creation: The absence of an
arm is not a thing, but the defect of a thing; God did not create
blindness or arnilessness, nor does a man become a creator by
making himself or his child armless or sightless. These conditions are in themselves but negations, yet what positive ill results
fiom these negations.  The ignorance of the blind, the helplessness of the maimed, result from these privative vitia. Though
blindness be, per se, not something, but nothing, though the
want of an arm be nothing, the deep grief is that where something should be there is nothing. The sophistry, therefore, that
mere negation, mere defect, is inoperative, is exposed even by
nature, for lack of operation is often the greatest of ills, and to
say that because original sin is not substance or essence there
can be no result from it, is in the last degree shallow and false.
This point has been felicitously stated by Melanchthon: "It is
useful to mark clearly the difference between the things created
by God, alnd sin, which is the disturbance or confusion of the
divine order: hence it is rightly said, Sin is a defect or privation.. And here lies the answer to the sophistical question,
Inasmuch as a defect is nothing, that is, is not a positive thing,
how can God be angry at nothing? The answer is, there is
a broad distinction between nothing privative and nothing negative.
For nothing taken in the privative sense requires a subject, and
is a certain destruction in that subject, on account of which
that subject is rejected, as the ruins of an edifice are a destruction or scattering of parts in the mass.  Thus Original Sin is
a defilement and confusion of the parts of man, and God hates
it, and on account of it is angered at the subject.  In disease
nothing has the sense of privation, inasmuch as the subject remains, and disease is a certain disturbance in the subject.  The
wounded man looks upon his wound sorrowfully, and knows




398          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
that the wound is not nothing negatively, but that the parts are
torn. Thus Paul grieved when he saw  the crimes of Nero,
for he knew  that they were not nothing negatively, but the
awful ruins of the work of God." *
The Thesis on the introductory terms to which we have been
dwelling, asserts that this disease or fault of origin, this inborn
plague and hereditary sin is truly and really sin.  The vere
and wahrhcaftiglich are opposed:
1. To the false, incorrect, or fictitious;
2. To the verbal.
To the 1st they are opposed, as the true; to the 2d, as the
real.  When we affirm  that original sin is truly and really
sin, we affirm the doctrine of the Church:
1. Against those who deny that human nature is in any
respect different from the condition in which it was at its
origin; who deny that original sin exists.
2. Over against those who concede that there is a real defect
in human nature since the Fall, but who deny that this defect
is sin.
3. Over against those who concede that original sin is, in
some sense, sin, but who, either in terms, or virtually, deny
that it is truly and really sin. Over against these is affirmed:
1. The true and real existence of original sin.
2. The true and real sinfulness of its character.
The doctrine is asserted against its deniers, and defined
against its corrupters.
Of original sin we say:
1. It is; 2. It is sin; 3. It is truly and really sin.
In these words lies a grand distinctive feature of the doctrine
of the Church, as opposed to the Pelagians or Pelagianizing
tendencies of a large part of the Roman communion, and of
Zwingli, as well as by anticipation of more recent heresies.
In these words is the very heart of just views of original sin:
We argue that ORIGINAL SIN IS TRULY SIN:
1. Because it has the relations and connections of sin.
*Loc. Theolog. ed. 1545. Opera. Witteburg. 1580. Fol. vol. i. 163. Chemnitii;
Loc. Theol. 1653. Fol. i. 128. Corp. Reformator. xxi, 646. This striking distinction is not drawn in any of the earlier editions of the Loci.




THE  RELATIONS AND  CONNECTIONS.                  399
2. It has the name and synonyms of sin.
3. It has the essence of sin.
4. It has the attributes of sin.
5. It does the acts of sin.
6. It incurs the penalties of sin.
7. It needs the remedies of sin.
8. Consequently, and finally, it is conformed to a true definition of sin.
1. We argue that original sin is truly sin because its
RELATIONS and CONNECTIONS are those of sin.  One. Tiherelations
of our great old divines* adopting a distinction      cones.
made by Bonaventura, says, " Sin is wrought in three ways:
" When person corrupts nature, as was done by Adam  and
Eve." —Two persons corrupted their own nature, and all human
nature with it.
"When nature corrupts persons, as in the propagation of
original sin."-The nature of the parents corrupts the child
who is born of them.
"When person corrupts person, as in actual sin."-The influence of one person over another by example, by corrupting
words, and other ways, leads man into acts of sin.
" At the beginning, actual sin took the precedence, and
original sin followed it; now, original sin takes the precedence,
and actual sin follows it."  As original sin, however, is presupposed as the internal force which opens itself in actual sin,
its relations are very direct, even with the forms of origin
which can in any sense, though but ideally, be separated from
its own.  It is begotten of sin, and hence is of necessity of the
nature of its parent, and therefore truly sin.. It is the begetter
of sin, and hence is of the nature of its child, and therefore
truly sin, for in nothing can a thing be more truly this or that,
than in its nature. It is the true child of true sin; the true
parent of true sin, and hence is itself true sin. Alike then in
the relations and connections of its Genesis and of its Revelation, original sin is truly sin.
2. Original sin, we argue further, is truly sin, because it has
the NAME and SYNONYMS of sin. It receives the names and syn* Quenstedt, Theologia Dogmatico-Polemica, I Vol. col. 914.




400          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
onyms of sin in the Word of God.  Psalms Ii. 5, " In sin did
my mother conceive me," where David speaks not of the sin
of his mother, but of a sin pertaining to himself, and regards
his moral condition, which he calls sin, as antecedent to his
2. The name birth -and as beginning with the beginning of his
and "ynonyms.  being.   So the German of the Confession:' In Siinden empfangen." Rom. v. 12, "By one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for
that all have sinned." Here the generic moral state of all of
our race is considered as sin.  " Sin dwelleth in me." "I In me,
that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing."  "The law of sin
which is in my members."  "Let not sin reign in your mortal
body."  Psalm li. 5, "I was shapen in iniquity."  John iii. 6,
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh." In these passages
original sin is called "' sin," " iniquity," and the " flesh."
In the phraseology of the early Christian writers, of the Reformers, of the Confessions of all pure Churches, of the profoundest later theologians, as well as of private Christians, the
names and synonyms of sin are confessedly applied to original
sin.
When men profess to believe in the reality of that which is
called original sin, yet object to the term, they have failed to
find or invent another term as expressive and less open to objection.  In the very act of opposing the doctrine that original
sin is truly sin, they drift into the use of terms whose natural
force involves that it is truly sin. If a general consciousness
ever embodied itself in the unhesitating application of a term,
then does the name of original sin prove that it is truly sin.
3. It has the essence of sin, which is deviation from the will of
God. In physical, irrational, or non-moral nature, as such, there
can be no deviation from  the will of God.  To deviate from
3. The sse His will, personal will is necessary.  Hence all de3. The essence.
viation from God's will is sin, and all sin is deviation from His will. When matter is said to be perverted from its
right use by the corrupt will, it is still true that, as matter, it
obeys the law under which God has placed it.  Fire is not
* The Chaldee paraphrase renders Yahham by a yet more radical term: impraegnat a est.




ESSENCE.                        401
deviating from the will of God in burning, though it surrounds
and consumes the body of Huss. All the deviation from God's
will, and all the sin, is in the will of devils and men, which has
brought the martyr to the stake. Whatever is not in accordance
with His will, has in it the essence of sin. But not only conscious
sins, but that condition of nature also in which they originate,
is the result, not of God's will, but of the abuse of the will of the
creature.  Whatever exists of which God cannot be said to be
the author, is sinful. But God is not the author either of the
fall of Satan, the temptation and lapse of Adam, the corruption of his nature, or of the consequent defect of righteousness,
and the evil desire inherited in human nature.  Hence all of
these have in them the essence of sin.
We ask, is the moral condition in which man is born in
conformity with the will of God, or in conflict with it? If it
be in conformity with it, it is not depravity -- it is a good thing.
If it is a deviation from i itit is not depravity merely, but
truly sin. There is no logical consistency at any point between
the extremest Pelagianisml and the strictest adhesion to the
faith of the Church on this point.
Not only, however, is original sin essentially sin, but it is
such preeminently.  It might be questioned whether a seed is
essentially vegetable, because in it, undeveloped, none of the.
obvious distinctive characteristics of vegetation meet the eye;
so that a grain of mustard-seed might be mistaken for a grain
of sand, and a skilful imitation of an acorn actually be
regarded as an acorn.  But the answer could be truly made
that not only is the seed vegetable in its essence, but I)reeminently so, as it is the necessary presupposition to all other vegetable existence; enfolds in it all vegetable capacity; determines
all vegetable character.  The nature of its potencies makes the
vegetable world.
And thus in the infant the dim traces of moral character
can be easily overlooked.  Sceptical sciolism may maintain
that there is nothing discernible in an infant which marks it,
any more than a kitten or a lamb, as a personal and moral agent;
nevertheless, it has a moral nature, which is to reveal itself in
moral character. That moral nature is marked by a defect and
26




402         CONSERVATI VE REFORMATION.
an evil propension which will affect the whole of its spiritual
life, and that defect and propension have in them the essential
element of sin; they are not in conformity with the will of
God. 
This inborn something, which is not in conformity with the
will of God, is related to temptation, incitement, and the
power of example, as the seed is related to the soil, the dew
and the sunshine which evolve it into germ, tree, flower, and
fruit.  It may be affirmed of the kingdom of darkness, which
has its parallels so often in the kingdom  of God, that its
course also is, first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn
in. the ear.
The question here, to give it shape from our figure, is not,
"Is a seed truly a tree?" but, " Is it truly vegetable? " " Has
it really the same nature as the tree? "  And the reply is, It
has.  Nay, rather the tree is but a phenomenon of the seed;
it is itself the parent seed developed, and its own perfect
potency ends in a seed. If the first seed that ever ripened was
a phenomenon of the first tree, this was because the first tree
was a direct creation, not a mediate growth; but under the law
of mediate growth, the seed is the proper presupposition of
the tree -the condition of its nature.  On the vegetable seed
depends the vegetable nature.  If you may call a seed yet ungrown truly vegetable, then you may call the seminal sin yet
ungrown truly sin. Original sin, therefore, has not only the
essence of sin, but it has that essence by preeminence. Nay,
it may be said to  be that essence, and relatively to it all
other sins may be said to be in some sense phenomenal, derivative, and dependent. There is an important sense, therefore,
in which even beyond the sins of act, original sin may be
affirmed to be truly sin. It is not a sin, it is sin.
4. We argue that original sin is truly sin because it has the
ATTRIBUTES of sin.
Is sin EVIL? so is original sin.  " God saw  that every
4. The attri- imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was
butesofsin.   only evil continually." Gen. vi. 5.
Is sin UNCLEAN? so is original sin. "' Who can bring a
clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Job xiv. 4. " What




THE ACTS OF SIN.                      403
is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a
woman, that he should be righteous? " Job xv. 14.
Is sin ABOMINABLE  and  LOATHSOME? so is original sin.
"The heavens are not clean in His (God's) sight.  How much
more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity
like water." Job xv. 15, 16.
Is s;n UNRIGHTEOUS? so is original sin. "What is he which
is borr, of a woman, that he should be righteous?" Job xv. 14.
Is sin IMPURE? so is original sin.  "The stars are not pure
in Iis (God's) sight, how much less man, that is a worm."
Job xxv. 4. Here the contrast is between the highest purity
imaged in the stars, and the deepest corruption embodied in
man, who, not in physical characteristics, nor in intellect, but in
moral nature, is a worm before the judgment of God-" man,"
paraphrases the Targum, " in life a reptile, in death a worm."
5. We argue that original sin is truly sin, because it does
the ACTS of sin.
"When we were in the flesh" (" that which is born of the
flesh is flesh"), " the motions of sin which were by. The acts of
the law, did work in our members to bring forth sin.
fruit unto death." Rom. vii. 5. "So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of
sin." Rom. vii. 25. " The flesh lusteth against the spirit." Gal.
v. 17. " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings,
and such like." Gal. v. 19-21. The works of the flesh are not
works done in the flesh, that is in the body, but works wrought
by the flesh, that is by the corrupt nature characteristic of all
that are born of the fesh. " The carnal mind is enmity against
God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be."  Rom. viii. 7.   If I do that I would not, it is no more I
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Rom. vii. 20.  " I see
another law  in my members, warring against the law  of
my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members." Rom. vii. 23. "The spirit that
dwelleth in us lusteth to envy."' Let not sin reign in your




404         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATON.
mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."
Rom. vi. 12.
6. We argue that original sin is truly sin because it incurs
the PENALTIES Of sin.' How then can man be justified with God? or how can he
be clean that is born of a woman?"   The stars are not pure in
His sight; how much less man, that is a worm? " Job xxv. 4, 5,
6. " When we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which
6. Tlepenalties were by the law, did work in our members to
of sin.    bring forth fruit unto death." Rom. vii. 5. "0,
wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from  the
body of this death?" Rom. vii. 24. "God.. condemned sin in
the flesh." Rom. viii. 3. " To be carnally minded is death."
Rom. viii. 6.  " By one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sinl; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned." Rom. v. 12. "Death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them  that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression." Rom. v. 14. "Through the offence
of one, many (oi polloi,' the many,' that is'mankind') be
dead." Rom. v. 15. "The judgment was by one to condemnation." Rom. v. 16. " By one man's offence death reigned by
one." Rom. v. 17. " Judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Rom. v. 18.  "They that are in the flesh cannot
please God." Rom. viii. 8. " We all were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others." Eph. ii. 3.
In these passages original sin comes before us in three
aspects as to penalty:
1. As punished by the penalty which comes upon the sins
of act, which original sin originates. The stroke which is
aimed at them, of necessity, strikes it also.
2. As punished together with the sin of act. Each is aimed
at, and each is smitten simultaneously.
3. As subject to punishment in itself antecedent to and separate from all sin in act. It bears the penalty which comes by
the sin of act; it bears the penalty which it meets in conjunction with the sin of act, and it is subject to punishment in
itself considered.  The range of penalty in which it is involved,
is, in one respect, larger than that of actual sin; for while, in




TH EE REMED Y.                     405
no case, can the penalty fall on actual sin without involving
original sin, there is one case, the third, in which it could fall
upon original sin, where there was as yet no sin of act.
If penalty then can mark its character, origi'nal sin is truly
sin.
7. We argue that original sin is truly sin, because it needs
the REMEDY of sin.
"Create in me a clean heart, 0 God! " Psalm li. 12.' Who
shall deliver me from  the body of this death? I
thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 7. Theremdy.
Rom. vii. 24.
This remedy is needed. 1, As to its essence; 2, as to its
author; and 3, as to its means.  " Putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Col. ii. 11.
" Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
" Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."  "That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
John iii. 3, 5, 6. "Christ loved the Church, and gave IHimself
for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing
of water by the word." Eph. v. 25, 26.
1. The texts we have cited show who need the remedy of sin;
to wit, all human beings.  " Except a man," that is, a human
being -every human being, old or young. Furthermore, all
that is born of the flesh, to wit, every human being, old or
young. Furthermore, in regard to Eph. v. 25, " Christ loved
the Church," etc., it may be said: Children are either a part of
the Church, or they are not.  If they are not of the Church,
they are not loved approvingly, and have no interest in Christ's
work, nor application of it. But this no one will maintain.
Then they are in the Church; but if in the Church they are,
according to St. Paul, in common with others, sanctified, and
of course regenerate, washed with water, and reached by the
word. But as the word cannot reach an infant didactically, it
must reach it sacramentally.  Infants then need, and receive
the remedy of sin, and as they have original sin only, it must
need the remedy of sin.
2. These passages show that, as to the essence of the remedy




406         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of sin, it is needed by original sin; to wit: The putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh; the being born again; the being
sanctified and cleansed.
3. These passages show that original sin needs the remedy
of sin as to its author- He who acquires it, Christ; He who
applies it,- the Holy Spirit; in general, God.
4. These passages show that original sin needs the remedy
of sil as to its means.
a. The circumcision of Christ, i. e. Christian circumcision; to
wit, that which in the Christian system answers to, and fulfils
what was shadowed by circumcision under the Jewish system,
to wit, Holy Baptism, which is the washing of water conjoined with the Word and the Holy Ghost, in the absence of
any one of which three elements there is no baptism.
b. The Word of God: didactically, that is, by preaching,
teaching, reading, meditation; and the same word set forth
and sealed by the sacraments.  Without these things, to wit,
Baptism and the Word, the body of the sins of the flesh cannot
be put off; but the body of the sins involves original sin.
8. We argue, finally, that original sin is truly sin, because it
is conformed to a true definition of sin. When the inspired. The defini- writers call the moral taint of our nature sin, they
tion.      give evidence in this, that as they define the term,
it is applicable to that taint.  Their idea of sin is of something
which man has; something which dwells in him; something
which is separate in ideal from his consciousness not only of
his own essence, but from the consciousness of his truer nature,
his more real self.
This sin is something inborn, which is first to be pardoned,
then controlled, and finally annihilated by a new birth, by the
grace of God, by the work of the Holy Spirit, by the entrance
on the glory of heaven, by the mighty power by which a risen
Saviour is to raise these vile bodies and make them like His
own body. These ideas underlie or rise upon every New Testament doctrine, duty, and hope.
Rationalism has made it a reproach that the doctrine of
original sin lies at the foundation of the evangelical system.
We accept the reproach as in fact a concession that the




THE DEFINITION.                       407
evangelical system grounds itself, where alone a just system in
regard to human restoration can be grounded; for the first
question, when disease is to be cured, is, What is that disease? Is it so trifling as to need no physician"?  Can a man
heal it himself? Will it heal itself simply by the general
energy.of the system? or is it radical true disease, mortal in its
tendency? Does it require for its treatment a physician of the
highest order, and remedies of the most exquisite adaptation
and potency?  To all of these questions, with characteristic
simplicity and practical force, our great Confession replies,
when it says: " Original sin is truly sin."
If it be asked, in what sense did our confessors use the word
sin? we reply, in what we have seen and shown to be its
scriptural sense.  Is it asked what did they, and what do we,
regard as its scriptural sense? we reply, the language of the
Confession tells us most explicitly what they meant by true sin,
and by that Confession in firm  faith we abide.  Yet it may
not be useless to give, as a further illustration of its meaning,
the definition of sin by Melanchthon, not only because of his
relation to the Confession as its composer, but yet more because
in his purest and happiest period, his definitions were as sound
in their substance as they were discriminating and felicitous in
their form. It may be doubted whether, before Melanchthon,
in his Loci of 1535, any successful attempt had been made to
define sin generically. The definitions of the fathers are either
of specific sin, original or actual, or are too vague for the purposes of science. Pelagius tried to show, from some of Augustine's definitions of sin, that original sin is not really sin. What
Augustine had said of sins of act, Pelagius applied to sin of
nature. Melanchthon, in his Loci of the Second Era,* (15351541), says: " Sin in Holy Scripture does not merely mean
something done (factum aliquod), but it signifies also a perpetuated fault (perpetuum vitium), that is a corruption of nature
conflicting with the law of God.  Sin therefore, generically
taken, is a perpetuated fault, or act, conflicting with the law of
God. Sin is divided into original and actual." -In the Loci
of the Third Era (1543-1559), he says that in Scripture the
* Corpus Reformatorum. xxi. 284, 378. In German: Do. xxii. 159.




408          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
name " sin properly signifies any thing liable (ream), and condemned by God, unless remission be made.  This general
description suits both original and actual sin.  But as the
definition only embraces what is relaiive, to wit, licbility
(reatus), the mind naturally seeks for that on account of which
man is liable (reus)."  Melanchthon then gives what may be considered the standard definition of sin in the Lutheran Theology.
It is almost verbally the definition which, first endorsed by
Luther's hearty approbation, and by our divines in general,
had been presented in opposition to Eck at the Colloquy at
Worms in 1541, and runs thus: " Sin is either a defect (defectus, want, lack, failure,) or inclination, or act conflicting with
the law of God, offending God, condemned by God, and making us liable (faciens nos reos) to eternal wrath and eternal
punishments, had  not remission  been  made."  " In  this
definition," adds Melanchthon, in the Loci, "the' defect'
and'inclination' correspond with original sin; the' act' embraces all actual sin, internal and external."   In his Definitions, t he repeats the same idea a little more compactly.
" Sin is whatever conflicts with the law of God -a defect, or
inclination, or act conflicting with the law of God, and making
the creature liable (ream) to eternal wrath, unless remission be
made for the Mediator's sake." In the Examen Ordinandorum,:
the definition is in substance the same; the most remarkable
difference is in the closing words: " And fully meriting (conmmerens) eternal wrath, unless remission were made for the
Son, the Mediator's sake."
If this definition of sin be a just one, then original sin is
truly sin, for it is, as we have shown, a defect, and an inclination in conflict with the law of God, offending God, and condemned by God.
IX. The natural consequence of this original sin is this,
that it "condemns and brings now also eternal
Ninth  Thesis.
The natural con- death;" "damnans et afferens nmne quoque eterseOf in.  - nam  mortem," "und verdamme..unter ewigen
inal sin.'al
Gottes Zorn."
1. The best key to the meaning of this declaration is found
* Corpus Reformator. xxi. 667. t Corp. Ref. xxi. 1077. $ Corp. Ref.xxiii. 12.




TRUTH  OF THESIS-SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE.  409
in the XVII. Swabach Articles of Luther.  In the fourth of
these articles of Luther, are these words: " Original sin is a
true real sin, and not merely a fault or a blemish, but a sin of
such kind as would condemn, and separate eternally  so,,, liistorifrom God, all men who spring from Adam, had not cal illustiatiouns
of this Thesis.
Jesus Christ appeared as our substitute, and taken
upon Iimself this sin, together with all sins which result from
it, and by Hiis sufferings made satisfaction therefor, and thus
utterly removed, and blotted them out in Himself, as in Ps. li.,
and Rom. v. 5. is clearly written of this sin."
2. The fourth Article of the Swabach series is evidently
based upon the fourth of the Articles prepared at the M'arburg
Colloquy.  That Article says: In the fourth place, we believe
that original sin is inborn, and inherited by us from  Adam,
and had not Jesus Christ come to our aid by his death and life,
we must have died therein eternally, and could not have come
to God's kingdom and blessedness.*
3. In Melanchthon's edition of the Confession in German,
published in 1533, the part of the Second Article now  under
consideration, reads thus: " This inborn  and original sin is
truly sin, and condemns under God's eternal wrath all who
are not born  again  through Baptism  and faith in Christ,
through the Gospel and Holy Spirit."t
4. In Melanchthon's Latin edition of the varied Confession
of 1540 and 1542, occur at this point these expressions: " Condemned to the wrath of God and eternal death."." Those
defects and that concupiscence are a thing criminal, in its own
nature worthy of death.":
1. The great proposition that original sin condemns and
brings now also eternal death, i. e. that, left to its  lThe Scrilptur
natural consequences, unchecked in any way by,viden,,          - f the
truth of the TheGod, this condemnation and death would be the s~S.
result, is already involved in the previous Thesis.  The present
Thesis was meant by the confessors to be the practical inference from that, and that Thesis was mainly set forth in order
to this, and the emphasis of the connection is this, that origi* Rudelbach's Ref. Luth. u. Union, p. 626.
J See Weber's ed. Weimar, 1781.            $ Hase, L. S., p. 15,




410         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATI02-N
nal sin is so truly sin as to bring its last and most fearful
result, the wrath and condemnation of God, and eternal death.
If original sin be truly sin, then, unchecked, it of necessity
involves men in the final results of sin. If in itself, in its own
essence and nature, it be sin, then is it in itself criminal, and
in its own nature deserving of condemnation, and if condemned
at all, it must, apart from God's grace, be condemned forever,
for nature halas in it no power of moral self-recuperation.  The
guilt of original sin would expose men to wrath, and its helplessness would prevent then  forever from  rising from  that
wrath. It is said that this sin "now  also" (nunc quoque)
"brings eternal death." This is true as over against the idea
that original sin brought death only to Adam, not to all his
posterity; or, that its effect was confined to the Old Dispensation, so that Christ's redemptory work per se, and without
the application of its benefits by the Holy Spirit through the
appointed means, releases the whole race from the liability pertaining to original sin; or, that children, because they are born
in Christendom, or of Christian parents, are ipso facto free from 
the penalty.  " Now also," as when Adam sinned; " now also "
in the New Dispensation, as under the Old; " now also," though
Christ has "been made a propitiation, not only for original,
but for all the actual sins of men " (C. A. iii. 3); "now also "
that there is a Christendom - original sin "brings eternal
death " to all that are not born again.
2. With this general presumption the language of Scripture
strictly agrees: " The wages of sin is death." kom. vi. 23. The
Apostle, in these words, is speaking not only inclusively, but
by preeminence, of the inherent sin of our nature.  He uses
them in logical connection with the proposition, " by one man
sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."  Rom. v. 12.
There is no break in the argument, and no change in the sense
of the words.  It is confessed that the sin of the first man
reduced all the race to the condition of his fallen nature. It
follows, then, that without some Divine arrest of natural consequence, the penalty which attended that condition in him
would attend it in us. In his case the penalty was death, so




TRUTH OF THESIS-SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE.  411
then must it be in ours. Death is so tenaciously allied to sin
that only God can separate them.
3. Nor is the moral mystery of this fact so deep relatively
as it is often regarded.  Death, even eternal death, as the
endurance of suffering, is not essentially so fearful a thing as
sin. It would be more in keeping with divine holiness to permit suffering in the highest degree than to permit sin in the
least degree. Suffering is the removal of a lesser good than
that which sin removes, and the bringing in of a lesser evil
than that which sin brings in.  Those, therefore, who admit
that the natural consequence of Adam's sin was, that sin
entered the world, and fixed itself there by God's permission,
admit a far greater mystery even than would be involved in
the doctrine that God would allow  suffering to enter an
unfallen world.  It would not so sorely test our a priori anticipation in regard to God to know that He allowed suffering in an
innocent world, as to know that He allows a race to lose its
moral innocence.
If we had been told that in one of the stars above us the
people are innocent, but that suffering is there; and that in
another, sin came in (by God's permission) to destroy the innocence of its people, the former statement would not shock our
moral sense, or create the same difficulty of harmonizing the
fact with God's spotless holiness and love of what is best as
the latter would. But the case isevenstronger,vastly stronger,
than this supposition would imply, for the difficulty that
presses us is not that suffering exists apart from  sin, but that
God, having allowed sin to enter the world, allowed the penalty of death to follow that sin.
Furtherlmore,if it were a doctrine of the Bible that the race
is actually lost forever because of original sin, the mystery of
the loss would be a less mystery than that of the permission of
sin.  Those who admit the existence and perpetuation of
original sin, admit therefore a mystery greater than the doctrine of the absolute loss of this sinful race in consequence of
original sin would be.  Here, as in all other mysteries of Revelation, Rationalism, touching with its plausible, but weak hand,
the less mystery is compelled to acknowledge the greater.




412         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
4. But the doctrine of the Confession is not that this loss of
the race actually takes place, but that original sin, unchecked
by God, tends to this, and that such, apart from the provisions
of his grace in Christ and the Holy Spirit, would be the result.
This is made very clear by the historical citations with which
our discussion of this Thesis opens.
5. If it be argued that it is impossible before any moral act,
or moral choice, a human creature should have an element
which, unchecked in its results, would produce death, we reply,
that it would much more seem impossible that before any
moral act, or moral choice, a human creature should have an
element which, not only unchecked, but with the mightiest
checks, actually results in conscious sin, and is itself sin. But
the latter is admitted by all who acknowledge the existence of
original sin. Much more then should they admit the former.
If we have sin without an act of our will, much more may we
have death, the result of that sin, without an act of our will.
6. We see, furthermore, that all the visible results of Adam's
sin to Adam are perpetuated to us his descendants, and this
creates a powerful presumption that the invisible results of that
sin are also perpetuated to us. The sorrows of Eve are the sorrows
of her daughters; the sorrows of Adam are the sorrows of his
sons; the curse of the ground, the curse of temporal death, the
exclusion from Paradise, all are perpetuated to us. But the principle on which God allows the perpetuation of a fellowship in
these visible results of Adam's fall is the principle on which He
would also allow the natural tendency of our sin to run out into
the invisible results of the Fall, that is, into eternal death. If
God had no right to allow the one tendency, He had no right to
allow tlhe other. If He has no right to allow Adam's sin to bring
upon us, apart from. His grace, Adam's spiritual curse, He has
no right to allow Adam's sin to bring upon us Adam's temporal curse. But confessedly, IHe does the latter, and has the
right to do it; equally therefore has He the right to do the
former, and if he does not, it is on another ground than that
of abstract justice.
It is not anything I did which places me in a sorrowful
world, with a frail body, a clouded mind, a sad heart, and




TRUTH OF THESIS-SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE.  413
under subjection to death; it is not what Idid, but what lam,
that subjects me to these, and I am what I am  because I
spring from Adam, and because he fell. And on that same mysterious, but indubitable principle, that what we are, as well as
what we do,determines our destiny, God might, in keeping with
the justice which nature reveals, actually subject the race to the
eternal destiny which was the result of sin, apart from the
Divine arrest of its tendency, to Adam. No human logic, which
acknowledges the Providence of God in nature, could overthrow
the proposition, even were it absolute, that original sin brings
eternal death to the race.
7. Nor is the language too strong, that original sin is, in its
own nature, worthy of death. The word of God teaches that
there are but two states possible, one of life, the other of death.
Death is always the result of what is due. Life is always the
result of grace.  Death is the wages of sin.  Eternal life is the
gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death is the natural due then of every human creature as a
creature of sin, and eternal life can only come to man as a
gracious and free gift. Nature, as well as voluntary character,
is regarded as properly subject to penalty.  "We were by
nature children of wrath, even as others," Eph. iii. 3, that is,
we who are Jews by nature, by our natural descent; we who are
born Jews are, by our natural birth, just as the Gentiles are, subject to wrath, because in both cases men are born with a sinful
nature.  Death is the due of sin.
8. That infants are included is not only necessary, logically,
and involved in the words of Paul just quoted, but is expressly
taught. " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."
9. The results of Adam's fall, and of Christ's mnediation, are
represented as entirely parallel in the range of their subjects;
the one embraces exactly the same persons as the other.  "If
Christ died for all, then were all dead." "As in Adam  all
died, so in Christ shall all be made alive," (in the resurrection).
" Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for
every man."  " By the offence of one, judgment came upon all




414         CONSERVATIVE REFORMlfATION.
men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by
one man's disobedience many (oi polloi,' the many,' mankind,)
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many,
('the many,' mankind,) be made righteous."
10. The reply might be made, however, that not all men are
actually justified through Christ, and that hence the parallel is
to be restricted, and that not all men are necessarily actually
involved in the death of sin. But in fact this limitation only
makes the parallel more perfect. Not all embraced in the
ideal of Christ's work are actually saved, because the work is
arrested in its tendency either negatively by lack of the means
appointed for its application, or positively by the natural will
of those who have the means, but resist their power. So, on
the other hand, not all embraced in the ideal of sin's work are
actually lost, because that work is arrested on God's side by
the means appointed as its antidote, and on man's side by the
divinely enlightened will of those who, having these means, do
not resist their power. Nature, so to speak, undoes Christ's
work in the one case, as grace undoes sin's work in the other.
God's work in grace in the one case, if unarrested, is ample
for the salvation of every human creature, as sin's work, in the
other case, if unarrested, is ample for the loss of every human
creature.  Thus the all-embracing work of love on the one
hand, freely giving life, and the all-pervading power of sin on
the other, meriting death, rest in the same generic mode of
Divine dealing. Take away Christ, and every human creature
dies in Adam; take away Adam, and every human creature
lives in Christ. But though the range of Adam's work and
of Christ's work be the same, the power of Christ's work transcends that of Adam's. God's love in Christ outweighs all.
"Not as the offence, so also is the free gift."  (The Apostle
takes a new point of view: he had shown wherein the offence
is as the free gift, to wit, in its range; now he looks at a
point in which the free gift transcends the offence.) "For
if through  the offence of one, many ('the many,' mankind,) be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded




TENTH THESIS.                      415
unto many."' Where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound."
Thus the cloud of death which hung upon the horizon of
our world in its morning parts before the beaming of the Sun
of Righteousness, and then, transfigured by His ray, billows
around His rising, purpling in His glory. Nothing can magnify His brightness, but this cloud diffuses it. That cloud lifts
itself more and more with the ascending Sun, and at His full
noon shall have melted away forever.
X. This natural consequence of original sin, to wit, condemnation and eternal death, is actually incurred by  Tenth Thesis.
The necessity of
all who are not born Cagain.  Conf., " His quinon 1 the new birth fur
renascantur."  " Alle die so nicht wiederum neu the pardon and
removal of origigeboren werden."                                 nal sin.
1. If the natural tendency and consequence of original sin be
death, one of two results is inevitable. Either sin actually
goes on and results in death, or its natural tendency is in some
way arrested.  Our tenth Thesis affirms that the only way in
which it can be arrested is for its subject to be born again.
By nature we are born to sin, and through sin to eternal
death. By grace we are born again to a renewed heart, and
through a renewed heart to eternal life.
2. The relative innocence of any human being cannot in
itself save him.  The innocence of any human being can only
be relative. There is a great difference in the character of
unregenerate persons relatively to each other, but there is no
difference whatever in their nature. A thousand things mould
and modify character, but the corrupt heart is untouched by
them all. The phenomena of a corrupt heart are infinitely
diversified, not only in their number, but in their intensity.
The young man whom  Jesus loved, and Judas who betrayed
his Lord, were diverse in their character. The one was lovely,
the other as odious as it was possible for unregenerated character to be. But they had alike an unchanged heart- their
nature was the same. The innocence of the young man, relatively to Judas, could not save him. The so-called innocence
of the best man falls infinitely more short of absolute innocence than it rises above the deepest absolute criminality




416         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
relatively. Every man is more guilty absolutely than he is
innocent relatively.
3. There is a relative innocence in the infant as contrasted
with the adult; this the Scriptures freely allow: "In malice
be ye children." 1 Cor. xiv. 20. Even the first budding of
sin seems only to lend the charm of vivacity to the little creature. The baleful passion which, in the matured Cain, darkens
all time with its deed of murder, may have made his father
and mother smile as it flushed and sparkled in the miniature
lines of anger traced on his face in childhood. But the nature
of Cain was the same in the first glow of anger as in the last,
and the nature which was in the first glow of anger was in
Cain before that anger arose. That anger did not make his
moral nature, but was made by it.  The great need of the
human creature is indeed to be saved from that moral nature,
and this can only be done by giving him a new heart. The
moral nature of the new-born infant is as truly a sinful one as
that of the grey-haired old reprobate, even as the physical
nature and mental nature of that babe are as really a human
nature, its body as really a human body, its soul as really a
human soul, as those of the ripe adult. God can no more save
sin in nature than he can save it in character, and hence a new
nature is as absolutely needed by an infant as by an adult.
To deny that an infant is capable of regeneration is to deny
that it is capable of salvation.  The tree is known by its fruit,
not made by it. While the tree is corrupt, the fruit must be
corrupt. If the tree be made good, the fruit will be good.
Our proposition, then, clothing it in the guise of our Saviour's
figure, would be this: That the outgrowth and fruit of this
tree of our human nature must inevitably be deadly, unless the
nature' of the tree itself be changed. The oak-nature is the
same in the acorn as in the monarch of the forest who has cast
his shade for centuries.  If the acorn grow, it inevitably
grows to the oak.
4. For the same great reason the relative innocence which
arises from  ignorance cannot save men. There are some in
nominal Christendom whose privileges are so few that their
accountability is relatively diminished. The millions of Jews,




TENTH THESIS.                      417
Mohammedans, and Pagans are relatively innocent in character, as compared with the unregenerate who have the full light
of the Gospel. Yet, however few and light, relatively, their
stripes may be, as they knew not their Master's will, it is evident that they too can never reach heaven with an unchanged
nature. Their disqualification is none the less real because it
is relatively less voluntary than that of others. Man is born
with a. moral nature, which unfits him for heaven. More than
this, the moral nature has in it something which God abhors
and condemns. Unless in some way another moral nature is
given him, he not only must negatively be excluded from
heaven, but must, positively, come under God's wrath.  It is
said, " As many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law; " but it is nowhere said, " As many as have been
holy without law, shall be saved without law." On the contrary, the Apostle's whole argument is designed to prove " all
the world" "guilty before God."
5. If the relative innocence, either of adults or of infants,
could save them from  death and take them  to heaven, their
natures being still under the power of inborn sin, heaven itself
would simply be, in one respect, earth renewed; it would be
the abode of sinful beings. In another respect it would be
worse than earth, for its sinful beings, unrestrained by the fear
of death, would yield themselves without check to the thoughts
and desires of their corrupt natures. Going to heaven would,
in the case supposed, make no more change in the heart than
going to church.  A bad heart may have its worst thoughts
in the best places. If sin could be self-generated in heaven, as
in the case of angels once holy' but now fallen, much more
might and would it, already existing, reveal itself there.  If
angels kept not their first estate in heaven, much more would
man there reveal his last and fallen estate; and it might as
well be said that to put Lucifer back in heaven unchanged is
to be thought of, as that our human nature unchanged is to
be placed there.
6. Hence the testimony of Scripture is of the most explicit
kind as to the absolute necessity of the new birth to every human
creature. Our Lord Jesus says: " Except a man (that is any
27




418         CONSERVATIVE REFOR,MATI'ON.
one and every one) be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God."  If our blessed Lord had, however, anticipated that
there might be an effort to evade the all-comprehending force
of his words, he could not more completely have made that
effort hopeless than by adding, as he did:' That which is
born of the flesh is flesh," that is, every human being born
naturally into our world is fleshly, and needs a new birth.
7. There is one absolute characteristic of all God's children:
"They were born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God," that is, no human creature, inl
and by his natural birth, is God's child, but must, in order
to this, be born of Him.  The " new creature" alone avails.
" Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him."
8. Before these invincible necessities of the case, and this
irresistible witness of God's Word, goes down the delusive idea
that the work of Christ covers the case either of Pagans or of
infants, without their being born again. Semi-Pelagianisni and
Arminianism, acknowledging some sort of original sin, and
some sort of a need of a remedy, have said that for Christ's
sake infants, having no conscious sin, are forgiven, and without anything further being needed, pass at death into heaven.
There are many who imagine that this view gives relief to the
great difficulty of the subject, that it avoids the doctrine that
infants may be lost, and yet concedes that they all are so far
sinners as to need a Saviour; that it proposes something that
shall be done for them, and yet escapes the obnoxious theory
of the possibility and necessity of infant regeneration. This view
has been mainly devised indeed to evade the last-mentioned
doctrine.  But it is far from escaping the pressure of the difficulty.  That difficulty is, that the nature of the child is a sinful nature.  To forgive absolutely that sin of nature simply
for Christ's sake, would be to remove the penalty, while the
guilty thing itself is untouched. It would be to suppose that
the child is removed from the penal curse of sin, yet left fully
under the power of sin itself. It involves the justification of
an unrenewed nature.  It supposes Christ's work to operate
apart from the applying power of the Holy Spirit, and on this
theory an unregenerate human creature, forgiven for Christ's




TENTH THESIS.                        419
sake, in its untouched sin, would pass into heaven still unregenerate.  The theory errs utterly either by excess or by lack.
If a child has not a sinful nature, it needs no Saviour.  If its
sin is not a proper subject of condemnation, it needs no forgiveness. But if it has a sinful nature, it needs not only a Saviour
from penalty, but a renewing power to save it from the indwelling of sin; if it is subject to condemnation, it not only
needs forgiveness, but the exercise of a gracious power which
will ultimately remove what is condemnable.  In other words,
it needs to be born again.
9. Nothing but downright Pelagianism of the extremest
kind can save any man logically from the conclusion we are
urging.  Original sin must be counteracted in its natural
tendency to death, first, by a power which removes its penalty,
and secondly, by a power which ultimately removes the sin
itself.  The power which removes the penalty is in our Lord
Jesus Christ, who made atonement for original sin, as well as
for the actual sins of men; the power which can remove the
sin itself is in the new birth.  The former, to use the old
theological terminology, is necessary to remove the reatus of
original sin, that is, its present guilt and immediate liability;
the latter is necessary to remove its fomes, the inciting fomenting power itself, or, as it is sometimes called, the materiale, or
essence of sin, which would, left to itself, ever renew the guilt
and its curse. It is as impossible to separate the justification
of an infant from its regeneration, as it would be to justify an
adult while his heart is unchanged. These two things, justification and regeneration, may be separated mentally, and are
really distinct, but they are never separated in fact.  Unless
there be regeneration, there will be no forgiveness. A regenerated man is always justified, a justified man is always regenerated; and unless a man be both, he is neither.  A justified
infant, unregenerate, is inconceivable in the kingdom of God;
such justification would belong to the kingdom of darkness.
Alike then to the attainment of both forgiveness and sanctification, or of either, there is a necessity which is most absolute; no human being has been, or can be, saved from eternal
death unless he be born again.




420         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATI ON
10. On this point, all sound theology of every part of our
common Christianity is a unit. It is not distinctively a Lutheran doctrine.  The Romish and Greek Churches recognize
the impossibility of the salvation of any human creature without a change from that condition into which he is born. The
Calvinistic theory (including that of the Calvinistic Baptists,)
involves the doctrine that infants need regeneration to fit them
for heaven; that they are capable of regeneration, that it actually takes place in the case of elect infants, and that it takes
place in this life.  Calvin: ~  "How, say they (the Anabaptists),
are infants regenerated, who have neither the knowledge of
good or evil? We answer, that it does not follow that there
is no work of God, because we are incapable of grasping it, for
it is clear that infants iwho are to be saved (as certainly some of
that age are saved) are previously regenerated (ante.. regenerari),
by the Lord."  That milder school of Calvinism, which mlercifully, and perhaps illogically, departs from the rigor of the
older and more self-consistent Calvinism, and believes that
none but elect infants die in infancy, does not, nevertheless7
depart from the old and true view, that the saved infant is
regenerate, and can only as regenerate be saved.
This great fact must not be forgotten, that on the main
difficulty of this part of the doctrine of original sin, all but
Pelagians are in unity of faith with our Church. The testimony of the Church through all ages is most explicit on this
point: That no unregenerate human being, infant or adult,
Pagan or nominal Christian, can be saved.  Without holiness,
no man shall see the Lord- but no man can be holy with his
natural heart unchanged.  Except we have the Spirit of
Christ we are none of His; but this Spirit is given to us in
and by the new birth alone.
XI. We have seen the absolute necessity of the new birth to
Eleventh The- every human creature, and we now affirn as our
sis. The Holy Eleventh Thesis: That as the new birth is absoSpirit the sole
anthor of the lutely essential to the salvation of every one of our
"newbirth.    race, so the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to
the new  birth.  " Durch  heiligen  Geist," "Per spiritum
sanctum."
* Instit. (IV, xvi. 17.)




ELEVENTH THESIS.                       421
When the new birth takes place, it is invariably wrought by the
Holy Spirit.  This proposition sounds like a truism.  Theoretically, all Christians, with any pretepsions to the name Evangelical, would accept it, and yet, practically, it is constantly
ignored.  Let our faith rest on this, that whether with means
or without means, the Holy Spirit is the author of regeneration, simply and absolutely; that the human being can aIccomplish no part of it whatever.  It is not man's own work, it is
not the work of his mind, of his heart, of his will, but it is
God's work in his mind, in his heart, in his will. The power
of an adult human being in the matter of his regeneration is
absolutely negative.  He can resist, he can thwart, he can
harden himself, but in and of himself he cannot yield, or consent, or make his heart tender.
The adult is as helpless positively, in the power of producing
his own regeneration, as the infant is. The adult can, indeed,
go, and must go to the preached word, and can and must go to
the Bible: he can use the means, and with them  conjoin fervent prayer; but it is the Spirit of God who regenerates the
man through the means, not the man who regenerates himself, either through the means or apart from them. The adult,
indeed, with the means, may either resist the Holy Spirit or
cease to resist.  IIe may refuse to let Him work, or he may
suffer Him  to work.  The difference in the course pursued
here makes the difference of result between two adults, one of
whom becomes regenerate, and the other does not.  It is not
that the one regenerates himself, and the other refuses to regenerate himself.  It is, that one suffers the Holy Spirit to regenerate him through the Word, and the other refuses to permit
Him. But even this negative power is derived from the presence of grace and of its means, for a man to whom the WTord
is set forth is ipso facto not in a condition of pure nature. Even
in the low realm of mere nature there are not wanting analogies to this spiritual fact. Man has, for example, physically
no self-nourishing power.  The nutritive property of food
exerts itself on him.  The food itself is the medium or means
of nutrition.  Man receives the food outwardly, and the mysterious power of nutrition exerts itself tlihrough the food thus




422         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TIOK.
received.  One man lives, the other starves; not that the first
has any power of self-nutrition, but that he received the outward thing through which the power of nutrition is exercised,
and did not counteract its effect; the other did not receive the
food, and consequently failed to receive the nutritive energy,
or receiving the food outwardly, like the first, presented something in his system which resisted the working of its nutritive power.  The dependence of the adult on nutriment is
the same as that of the infant.  The adult can, indeed, ask
for nutriment, an asking which is prayer, and the infant cannot. The adult, with reflective consciousness, craves, and with
reflective consciousness receives nutriment, which the infant
cannot do; but the life of neither is self-sustained. Both must
be nourished of God by means of food. The mystery of regeneration lies in this central mystery, that the new man is a creature, not a manufacture; he is born, not self-made; his moral
condition is the result, primarily, essentially, and positively,
of the divine will, not of his own -- he is the child of God:
" Which were born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God."  With  God all things are possible.
" God is able of the very stones to raise up children unto Abraham;" and if of the hard rock we tread upon, HIe could make
tender and faithful hearts, who shall attempt to limit His
energy in regard to any of our race, to whom his promises are
given? If God could, from inanimate Nature's hardest shapes,
raise up faithful children to faithful Abraham, much more can
Hle raise them  up from infants, the children of His peoplethe children of the covenant.  The internal processes of regeneration are hidden from  us.  "The wind bloweth where it
listeth (the Spirit breathes where He will), and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it coneth and
whither it goeth.  So is every one that is born of the Spirit."
God claims for I-Iimself the whole work of our regeneration.
"' ot by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to HIis mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."  Titus iii. 5.
The absolute essential in regeneration, and the only absolute
essential in the way of an agent, is the Holy Spirit: Not even




COVENANT PRIVILEGES.                       423
the means belong to this absolute essential, but merely to the
ordinary essentials. The only previous condition in the human
soul positively necessary when the Holy Spirit approaches it,
is that it shall not resist His work.   3efore the      e asout
The absolute
true doctrine of the supreme and sole necessity of  Essential.
the Holy Spirit's work, as the author of regeneration, the great
mystery of infant regeneration and of infalnt salvation passes
away.  The- Holy Spirit can renew the infant because it does
not resist His work.  If, therefore, the Holy Spirit wishes to
regenerate an infant, He can regenerate that infant. Who will
dispute this proposition?  We do not here affirm that He will
regenerate, or wishes to regenerate one of the many millions
who die in infancy.  We simply ask now for toleration to this
proposition, that the Holy Spirit, if He wishes, can renew the
nature of a child.  Admit this, and there is nothing more to
settle but the question of fact, and the decision of that question rests, not on speculation, but on the witness of the Word
of God.
If the Holy Spirit alone can produce this new birth, then it
is evident,
1. That the work of Christ cannot produce that new birth in
itself, separate from the applying power of the Holy Christ's Work.
Spirit. It is the gracious Spirit who " takes of the
things that are Christ's, and makes them ours."
2. The relation to Christian parents can, in itself, have no
regenerating power.  The child of the holiest of   Christian Paour race has the same nature as the child of the  rents.
most godless, and needs the same work of the Holy Spirit.
3. Nor can birth, in the midst of covenant privileges, have
ill itself a regenerating power. The child whose   Coven,,t Privparents are Christians, or who has one Christian ileg-s.
parent, is indeed " holy" (tyog), that is, is separated by the fact
of such birth from heathendom.  The children of Christendom
are, in virtue of that fact, generically Christian; not indeed
members of the Christian Church, as separated from  the
world, as some imagine, and receiving in their baptism merely
a recognition of a relation existing apart from  that baptism,
but members of the Christian world, considered as separated




424          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
from  the Pagan or Jewish world.  The child of Christian
parents, or of a Christian parent, is, so to speak, constructively
and provisionally, and by a natural anticipation, to be considered Christian, but is not actually such until it is baptized.
Thus a resident foreigner in our land is, constructively and
provisionally, an American citizen, but not actually such until
he is naturalized.
This is the true force of the passage to which we are alluding (1 Cor. vii. 14), and which is mainly relied on by those
who think that infants are born of the flesh into the earthly
kingdom of God -the Church.  This is apparent on a careful
examination of the text. The question before the Apostle was
this: If one of a married couple became Christian, the other
remaining Pagan, would this diversity of religion necessitate
a divorce? The Apostle replies it would not. "If any brother
hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with
him, let him not put her away.  And the woman which hath
an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell
with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband
is SANCTIFIED ('ictaasl) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
SANCTIFIED (        byicora) by the husband.  Else were your children
UNCLEAN (7.xSapTra); but now are they HOLY (<x,)."
Let it be noted, that three classes of persons are here spoken
of as holy or sanctified:
1. The unbelieving husband is sanctified;that is, is holy,
because his wife is a Christian.
2. The unbelieving wife is sanctified; that is, is holy, because
her husband is a Christian.
3. The children are sanctified; that is, are holy,because one
of the parents is a Christian. It is evident then that this sanctification is not a MORAL one. The Pagan husband is not, by
virtue of having a Christian wife, any less a godless man;
neither then can the Apostle mean that his child is holy
morally because its mother is holy. It is evident, furthermore,
that the sanctification is not an ECCLESIASTICAL one.  The
Pagan wife is not a member of the Church because her
husband is a Christian, neither then is her child holy ecclesiastically, separated to the Christian Church, because its father is




COVENANT PRIVILEGES.                      425
a Christian. It necessarily follows then that the sanctification
being neither moral, nor ecclesiastical, is GENERIC, and that this
generic character has a limitation in the nature of the question
and of thecase.  The question was: Do the children belong to
Christendom  or Heathendom?  The one parent is Christian,
the other Pagan.  Where is the generic relation of the child,
or offspring, whether infant or adult, of these parents? The
reply of the Apostle is: That God decides mercifully, what
could not be decided logically, and gives the children the
benefit of His goodness in considering them as generically
related to the better system, not to the worse.
The unbelieving father is, so far as this question is concerned,
constructively in Christendom, so that his child is no more a
Pagan child than if both parents were Christians.  On the
other side, the child is so far constructively in Christendom as
if both parents were Christians. The unbelieving father is so
far a Christian that his child is a member of Christendom, not
of Pagandom.  The child is so far holy that it is now one of the
children of Christendom, not one of the children of Pagandom.
WVithin the great world there is the generic aggregate of
persons belonging to the world of Pagandom, and to the world
of Christendom.  The world of Christendom is generically holy,
that is, as Christendom, it is separate generically from Pagandom.  But within the world of Christendom there is a further
separation.  The Church is sanctified, or holy, as separate from
the nominally Christian world; this is an ecclesiastical holiness. But within this Church there is yet a further separation
of genuine Christians from merely nominal ones, and this HOLINESS is MORAL. The answer of the Apostle is, not that the children (adult as well as infant) are MORALLY holy, nor that they are
ECCLESIASTICALLY holy, but that they are GENERICALLY holy,in a word, that they are just as little of Pagandom, just as
much children of Christendom, as if both parents were Christians.  All children who have either both parents, or but one
parent, Christian, alike belong, not to Christian saints, nor to
the invisible church, not to the Christian body in the visible
church, nor to the Christian family, in a word, they belong
not to the Christian species, but simply to the Christian genus




426         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
or Christian world, which we call Christendom. The real
question settled then by the Apostle is no more than this, that
the child of one Christian parent has the same spiritual relation as the child whose parents are both Christians, leaving it
in the main an open question what those relations are. Hence
the inference from this passage goes to the ground, that children
are members of the visible church by their birth, and much
more the inference that they are born again by virtue of their
relation to Christian parents.
4. Nor is there any power in death to regenerate.  There are
those who seem to think that the body is the seat of original
Deatlhnoregen- sin, and that all that is necessary to redeem  the
erating pe'r.  soul from the power of sin, is to separate it from
the body. But the true primary seat of sin is the soul. The
body can be spoken of as the seat of sin only in a secondary
sense, and because of the soul's connection with it. The mere
separation of the soul from  the body, cannot in itself change
the soul's moral condition.  He that is unregenerate before
death, remains unregenerate after death, unless after death the
Holy Spirit make the great change.  Death in itself can have
no such power, and no such tendency. But if the HIoly Spirit
can work this  change in an infant after death, He can
just as readily do it before its death, and the whole idea
of purgation after death, of a change of relation to God
after the departure of the soul, of a renewal of probation in an
eternal world, is utterly foreign to the entire tendency of the
New Testament doctrine.  To admit it, is to admit the existence of a purgatory; it would grant the Romnish doctrine in
its main point, and the controversy would narrow itself to the
comparative trifles of the duration and modes of that purgatory.  No such refuge is necessary.  The great change is
wrought by the Ioly Spirit alone, and the possibilities and
probabilities of human regeneration are limited by nothing
but His purpose and His power. Any regeneration for which
infinite poower is adequate, and which divine goodness purposes
and promises, may and will be wrought.
XII. This new birth by the Holy Spirit has Baptism as one
of its ordinary means.  Conf., " Durch die Taufe,"'" per Bap.




THE MARBURG ARTICLES..                    427
tismum."  The part of the Second Article of the Augsburg
Confession which comes under discussion in this thesis is
that which asserts that original sin brings eternal  Twelfth Thesis.
death to all those who are not born again OF SAP- t:"slto ofrgina
TISM and of the Holy Spirit.  We have shown the si"'
absolute necessity of being born again; we have seen that
the Ioly Spirit is absolutely essential to that new birth; it
now  remains to explain and vindicate  our Confession in
its declaration that the new  birth must also be of B3aptism.
As this is one of the points specially objected to, and as
these words have been omitted in the "Definite Platform,"
which, so far as its omission is evidence, denies not only the
necessity of baptism, but the necessity altogether either of the
new birth, or of the Holy Spirit to remove the results of original sin, we may be pardoned for dwelling at some length upon
it.  The doctrine of our Church in regard to baptism is one of
the few fundamental points on which any part of evangelical
Christendom avowedly differs with her. We propose to give,
first, some historical matter bearing upon the origin and
meaning of these words in our Confession.  We shall present
these chronologically.
1529. The fifteen doctrinal articles of Luther, prepared
at the Colloquy at Marburg, on this point run  i. The Marthus:                                              burg Articles.
" In the FOURTH place, we believe that original sin is a sin of
such kind that it condemns all men, and if Jesus Christ had
not come to our help with His life and death, we must have
died eternally therein, and could not have come to the kingdom and blessedness of God."
" In the FIFTH place, we believe that we are redeemed from
this sin, and from all other sins, and from eternal death, if we
believe on the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who died for us; and
without this faith we cannot be absolved from a single sin by
any work, condition, or order."
"In the SIXTH place, that this faith is a gift of God, which
we can gain by no antecedent work or merit, nor can reach by
any power of our own, but the Holy Ghost gives and furnishes




428          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATI OK
it where He will; in our hearts, when we hear the Gospel or
word of Christ."
"In the SEVENTH place, this faith is our righteousnes before
God." *
1530. The Marburg Articles which were signed by Luther,
II. The XvII Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius, and the
Doctrinal Arti- other leading theologians on both sides, were laid
cles..
by Luther as the ground-work of the XVII Doctrinal Articles, which were prepared the same year, and which
appeared in 1530.  These XVII Articles are the direct basis of
the doctrinal portion of the Augsburg Confession. In the fourth
of these Articles, Luther says: " Original sin would condemn all
men who come from Adar, and wuould separate them  forever
fromu God, had not Jesus Christ become our representative and
taken upon Himself this sin, and all sins which follow upon
it, and by His sufferings made satisfaction therefor, and thus
utterly removed and annulled them  iD Himself, as is clearly
taught in regard to this sin in Psalm ii., and 1lom. v." F
1533. In Melanchthon's German edition of the Confession,
III. The Ge- in 1533, the only edition in the German in which
vlan Edition of any variations were made by him, and which has
1533.
never been charged with deviating in any respect
in meaning from the original Confession, this part of the Article runs thus: " (Original Sin) condemns all those under God's
wrath who are not born again through Baptism, and faith in
CIRIST, through the Gospel and Holy Spirit.":
From these historical parallels and illustrations certain facts
IV.Meaningof are very clear as to the meaning of the Confesthe Confession. sion.
1. The Article teaches us what original sin would do if there
Drift of the were no redemption provided in Christ. The mere
Article.    fact that Christ has wrought out His work provides a sufficient remedy, if it be applied, to save every h/umnanZ
creature from the effects of original sin.  Let not this great fact
*The Articles are given in full in Rudelbach's Reformation, Lutherthum und
Union, p. 665.
f Luther's Werke: Jena v. 14. Mentzer: Exeges. Aug. Conf. 42.
t Weber's Edit. Weimar, 1781. Corpus Reformator. xxvi. 725.




WHO ARE REFERRED  TO IN THIS ARTICLE?  429
be forgotten. Let it never be left out of the account in looking at the mystery of original sin, that there is an ample
arrangelment by which the redemption of every human creature from  the results of original sin could be effected; that
there is no lack in God's PROVISION for saving every one of our
race from its results.    Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace
of God, tasted death for every man."
2. It is not the doctrine of our Confession that any human
creature has ever been, or ever will be, lost purely  Is;,,y,,ynlot
on account of original sin.  For while it supposes for orig-inal si
that original sin, if UNARRESTED, would bring death, o
it supposes it to be arrested, certainly and ordinarily, by the
Holy Spirit, through the divine means rightly received, and
throws no obstacle in the way of our hearty faith that, in the
case of infants dying without the means, the Holy Ghost, in
His own blessed way, directly and extraordinarily, may make
the change that delivers the child from the power of indwelling sin. Luther, in his marginal note on John xv. 22, says:
" Denn durch Christum ist die Erbsinde auffgehaben, und verdananet nach Christus zukunfft niemand.  On wer sie nicht
lassen, das ist, wer nicht gleuben wil."  "Through  Christ
original sin is annulled, and eondemneth NO MAN since Christ's
coming, unless he will not forsake it (original sin), that is, will
not believe."
3. It seems very probable from  the parallels, that the confessors had mainly, though not exclusively, in their  Wh
Who are maineye, in this particular part of the Article, original ly referred to in
sin as developing itself in atctual sin in the adult, thisArticle?
and requiring the work of the Holy Ghost to save men from
its curse. Hence the illustrious Pfaff, in his brief but very
valuable notes on the Confession, says: "The language here
has chiefly (maxime) reference to adults who despise baptism;"
and such is, unquestionably, the drift of the form  in which
Melanchthon puts it in the edition of 1533. The Larger Catechism* argues to the adult on the necessity of Baptism:
"Baptism  is no plaything of human invention, but has been
instituted by God Himself, who has earnestly and strictly com*486, C.




430          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
manded that we should cause ourselves to be baptized (wir uns
miissen taufen lassen), or we cannot be saved (oder sollen nicht
selig wercen). No mnan is to think of it as a trifling matter 
the mere putting on of a new coat."
GRAUER (who was styled " the shield and sword of Lutheranism "), in commenting on the words of the Confession, says: *
" Inasmuch as Baptism is necessary to salvation, it is carefllly
to be noted what, and of what sort, is that necessity.  When
the Augsburg Confession teaches that Baptism is necessary to
salvation, it refers to the ordinary mode which God observes in.
saving men.  For in that respect (ibi) Baptism  is necessary,
and, indeed, in such measure (ita) that if any one is unwilling
to be baptized, when it is in his power to obtain Baptism, he
shall surely be condemned; for the contempt of the Sacrament
condemns.  The meaning of the Augsburg Confession, therefore, is this, that Baptism is not a thing indifferent, which any
one may use at his liberty, but that it is an external mean of
such kind that every one embracing the Christian faith is
bound (debet) to use it, if it is possible for him  to obtain it.
But the matter is different in a case of necessity, when any
one cannot obtain it."
4. The Confession does not teach that the outward part of
Bcaptism regenerates those who receive it.  It says
Baptism, in
whatsense neces- that it is necessary to be born again of Baptism
sary.      and of the Holy Spirit. It is evident from this that
it draws a distinction between the two.  It implies that we
may have the outward part of Baptism performed, and not be
born again; but confessedly we cannot have the saving energy
of the Holy Ghost exercised upon us without being born again,
whether ordinarily in Baptism, or extraordinarily without
Baptism.  The very order of the words is significant, for the
confessors do not say, and would not say, "born of the Holy
Spirit and Baptism: " but the order is the very reverse, " of
Baptism and of the Holy Spirit."  Hence, while the doctrine of
the Confession is that the new birth itself is absolutely essential to salvation, and that the energy of the IHoly Spirit is
absolutely essential to the new birth, it is not its doctrine that
* Praelect. Academic. in August. Confess. Ed. Tert. Jena. 1659. p. 818.




IS BAPTISM ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY?   431
the outward part of Baptism is essential absolutely, nor that
regeneration necessarily attends it.  The necessity of the outward part of Baptism is not the absolute, one of the Holy
Spirit, who Himself works regeneration, but is the ordinary
necessity of the precept, and of the means.  It is necessary
because God has enjoined it, and voluntary neglect to do what
God has enjoined destroys man.  It is necessary because God
has connected a promise with it, and he who voluntarily
neglects to seek God's promises in God's connections will look
for them in vain elsewhere. It is necessary because God makes
it one of the ordinary channels of His grace, and he who voluntarily turns from  the ordinary channel to seek grace elsewhere, will seek it in vain. It is so necessary on our part that
we may not, we dare not, neglect it.  But on God's part it is
not so necessary that lie may not, in an extraordinary case,
reach, in an extraordinary way, what Baptism is His ordinary
mode of accomplishing. Food is ordinarily necessary to human
life; so that the father who voluntarily withholds food from
his child is at heart its murderer.  Yet food is not so abs.lutely essential to human life that God may not sustain life
without it.  God's own appointments limit us, but do not limit
Him.  Man does live by food alone on the side of God's ordinary appointment; yet he no less lives, when God so wills, not
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the.mouth of God.
5. Hence, of necessity, goes to the ground the assumption
that the Augsburg Confession teaches that unbap-    Baptism ab
tized infants are lost, or that any man deprived, soutely neces.
without any fault of his own, of Baptism is lost. sa"y?
When we say absolute, we mean that which allows of no exceptions. The absolute necessity of Baptism, in this sense, has
been continually denied in our Church.
The language of LUTHER is very explicit on this point.*
In his "Christliches Bedenken" (1542), in reply to anxious
Christian mothers, he (1) refutes and forbids the practice of
the Romish Church, of baptizing a child not fillly born, a
practice based upon the idea of the absolute necessity of Bap* Leipzig ed. of Luther's Works, Vol. xxii. pp. 400-422.




432         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
tism to the salvation of a child. (2) He directs that those who
are present should hold firmly to Christ's words, "unless a
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and
shall kneel down and pray that our Lord God may make this
child partaker in His sufferings and death, and shall then not
doubt that Ile knows full well how, in his divine grace
and pity, to fulfil that prayer. Wherefore, since that
little child has, by our earnest prayer, been brought to Christ,
and the prayer has been uttered in faith, what we beg is established with God, and heard of Hiim, and he gladly receiveth it,
as He Himself says (MAark x. 14): " Suffer the little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom
of God." Then should we hold that the little child, though it
has not obtained Baptism, is not, on that account, lost? "Dan
das Kindlein, ob es wohl die rechte Taufe nicht erlanget, davon nicht verloren ist."
This " Bedenken " of Luther was accompanied by an exposition of the 27th Psalm, by Bugenhagen, which
Bugenhagen. 
Luther endorsed.  The main object of Bugenhagen
in this treatise is to give consolation in regard to unbaptized children, over against what he calls the shameful error, drawn not
from God's Word, but front man's dreams, that such children
are lost.  Bugenhagen, after teaching parents to commit to
God in prayer their child which cannot be baptized, adds:
" Then shall we assuredly believe that God accepts the child,
and we should not commit it to the secret judgment of God.
To commit it to the secret judgment of God, is to throw to the
wind, and despise the promises of God in regard to little children," (pp. 400-422). Both Luther and Bugenhagen discuss
at large the argument for, and objections against, the doctrine
of the salvation of unbaptized little children, and demonstrate
that it is no part of the faith of our Church, that Baptism is
absolutely necessary: that is, that there are no exceptions or
limitations to the proposition that, unless a man is born again
of the-Water of Baptism, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God.
Luther and Bugenhagen condemn those who refuse to
_unbaptized children the rites of Christian burial, and who




IS BAPTISMI ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY?  433
object to laying their bodies in consecrated ground, as if they
were outside of the Church.  " We bury them," say they, " as
Christians, confessing thereby that we believe the strong assurances of Christ. The bodies of these unbaptized children have
part in the joyous resurrection of life."*
HOFFMAN (Tuebingen, 1727), to whom  we owe one of the
most admirable of the older expositions of the Confession,
says: "It does not follow from  these words that all children
of unbelievers, born out of the Church, are lost. Still less is
such an inference true of the unbaptized children of Christians;
for although regeneration is generally wrought in infants by
Baptism, yet it may be wrought extraordinarily by an operation of the Holy Spirit without means, which the Augsburg
Confession does not deny in these words. It merely desires
to teach the absolute necessity of the new birth, or regeneration, and the ordinary necessity of Baptism.  On the question
whether the infants of the heathen nations are lost, most of
our theologians prefer to suspend their judgment.  To affirm
as a certain thing that they are lost, could not be done without
rashness." t
FEUERLIN (Obs. to A. C. p. 10,) says: " In regard to the
infants of unbelievers, we are either to suspend our judgment
or adopt the milder opinion, in view of the universality of the
salvation of Christ, which can be applied to them by some
extraordinary mode of regeneration."
CARPZOv, whose Introduction to our Symbolical Books is a
classic in its kind, says: " The Augsburg Confession does not
say that unbaptized infants may not be regenerated in an
extraordinary mode.  The harsh opinion of Augustine, and of
other fathers, in regard to this, was based upon a misunderstanding of John iii. 5, for they regarded those words as
teaching an absolute necessity of Baptism, when, in fact, that
necessity is only ordinary   a necessity which binds us, and
will not allow us to despise or neglect Baptism, but does not
at all bind God to this mean, as if He could not, or would not,
in a case of necessity arising in His own providence, perform
that in an extraordinary way, which, in other cases, lie per* P. 418.                          X Pp.    7.
28




434         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.
forms in an ordinary one, through means instituted by Himself. As, therefore, the texts of Scripture speak of an ordinary
necessity, so also of that same sort of necessity, and of no
other, do Protestants speak in the Augsburg Confession."
It would be very easy to give evidence  on the same point
from  all our most eminent Lutheran writers on the doctrine
of our Church, but it is not necessary. No one who has read
them will need any citations to establish a fact with which he
is so familiar.  They who tell the world that it is a doctrine
of our Church that Baptism is absolutely essential, and that
all unbaptized persons are lost, can only be defended from the
charge of malicious falsehood on the plea of ignorance.  But
ignorance, if it assume the responsibilities of knowledge, is
not innocent.
6. The truth is, no system  so thoroughly as that of the
Infant salva- Lutheran Church places the salvation of infants on
tion in the Lu- the very highest ground.
theran system.       I                    i
The PELAGIAN system would save them  on the
ground of personal innocence, but that ground we have seen
to be fallacious. The CALVINISTIC system places their salvaTheCalvinistic tion on the ground of divine election, and speaks
System.    of elect infants, and hence, in its older and more
severely logical shape at least, supposed not only that some
unbaptized, but also that some baptized infants are lost.
1. In the Westminster Assembly's Confession, chap. vi., it is
said: "Our first parents.. sinned... The guilt of this sin was
imputed, and the same death, in sin and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity. Every sin, both original and
actual,. doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner,
whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the
law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual,
temporal, and eternal."  The infant, then, Christian or Pagan,
is born in " guilt," " bound over to the wrath of God and the
curse of the law, and so made subject to eternal death."  How
does Calvinism relieve it from this condition? The answer to
this is given in what follows.
2. The election of God rests upon nothing whatever foreseen
in the creature (ch. iii. 5), " as causes or conditions moving




THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM.                     435
Him thereunto."  The foreseen Christian birth, or early death,
of a child can, therefore, in no respect bear upon its election.
To assume that all children dying in infancy, even the children
of Christians, are elect, and yet that the preVision of their
being so born and so dying has no relation to their election, is
illogical.
3. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath
IIe... foreordained all the means thereunto.  Wherefore they
who are elected... are effectually called unto faith in Christ by
His Spirit working in due season; are justifed, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation.
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called,
justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only."
(Westm. Conf. iii. 6.)
According to this Article, where the " means thereunto"
are not, the election is not.  But in the Calvinistic system
Baptism is not the means of grace, but only the sign or seal of
grace (xxvii. 1).  What is the mean whereby " elect infants"
are effectually called unto " faith in Christ"? and do infants
have "faith in Christ? " are they "justified, sanctified, kept
through faith unto salvation "?  Only those who have the
means are among the elect, and only the elect have the effectual
means.  Then Pagan, Mohammedan, and Jewish adults and
infants are of necessity lost.  But has even a baptized infant
the means of effectual calling, of faith, of justification? The
Lutheran system says, It has. The Calvinistic system says, It
has not.  Either, then, the elect infant is saved without
means, or there are none elect who die in infancy.  But Calvinism denies both propositions, and is involved in hopeless
contradiction.  Either Baptism is properly a means of grace,
and not its mere seal, or, according to Calvinism, logically
pressed, no one dying in infancy is elect, and all infants are lost.
4. "All those whom  God hath predestinated unto life, and
those ONLY, He is pleased effectually to call by His Word and
Spirit.. "(x. 1). "This effectual call is notfrom anything at all
foreseen in man" (x. 2).  "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are
regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth.  So also are




136         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly
called by the ministry of the Word " (x. 3).  " Faith is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word " (xiv. 1).  Here
the system comes again into direct self-contradiction.  In the
face of chap. iii. 6, it is taught that there is an "effectual
call," without means, without anything outward, without the
ministry of the Word, or Sacraments, utterly out of the ordinary channel.  " It might be lawful," says Peter Martyr,'" to
affirm that young children be born again by the Word of God,
but yet by the inward Word, that is by the comfortable power
of Christ and his Holy Spirit."*  But if the Holy Ghost, without any means, regenerates some of the elect, why may there
not be elect Pagans reached in the same way? and if it be said
that only those born in Christendom are elect, and, of consequence, extraordinarily called, is not that an admission that
the mere fact of birth in Christendom in some sense influences
the election?  The BAPTIST system, which totally withholds
Baptism from the infant, and every system which, while it confers the outward rite, denies that there is a grace of the Holy
Spirit of which Baptism is the ordinary channel, are alike destitute, on their theory, of any means actually appointed of God
to heal the soul of the infant.
The ROMISH system, too Pelagian to think that original sin
could bring the positive pains of eternal death,
Romish System.
and too tenacious of the external rite to concede
that an infant can be saved without that rite, leaves its theologians, outside of this general determination, in a chaos of doubt.
Some of them reach the middle theory, that the unbaptized
infant is neither in heaven nor hell, but in a dreary limbo.
Others consign it to hell. The COUNCIL OF TRENT declares: " If
any one shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law are not
necessary to salvation, and that without them, or a desire
for them, men obtain... the grace of justification...; let
him be anathema."  " If any one shall say that Baptism.. is
not necessary unto salvation, let him  be anathema."t  The
CATECHISM of the Council of Trent (Quest. xxx): " Nothing
* Common Place. Transl. by Anthonie Marten. 1583. Lond. Fol. iv. 136.
t Sess. vii. Can. 4. De Baptism, Can. 5.




THE ROMISH SYSTEM.                       437
can seem more necessary than that the faithful be taught that
this Law of Baptism is prescribed by our Lord to all men, insomuch that they, unless they be regenerated unto God through
the grace of Baptism, are begotten by their parents to everlasting
misery and destruction, whether their parents be believers or
unbelievers." In exposition of the doctrine of Trent, BELLARMIN says: "The Church has always believed that if infants
depart from  this life without Baptism, they perish.  The
Catholic faith requires us to hold that little ones dying without Baptism are condemned to the penalty of eternal death."
"Yet are they not punished with the penalty of sense or of
sensible fire."  "It is probable that those little ones suffer an
internal grief (although a most mild one), forasmuch as they
understand that they are deprived of blessedness, are separated from the society of pious brethren and parents, are
thrust down into the prison of hell, and are to spend their life
in perpetual darkness."   DOOMINICUS A SOTO says that " in the
(Roman) Church it is a most fixed point that no little one
without Baptism  can enter into the kingdom  of heaven."
MALDONATUS  says "they are condemned, with the goats, to
the left hand; that at once upon their death they descend into
hell."  CANUST: "Their souls, with the bodies resumed, are
thrust out into darkness."
How beautiful and self-harmonious, over against all these,
is the view of our Church.  Over against the Cal- 
-              Llltlutheran System.
vinist, it knows of no  non-elect infants, but
believes that our children are alike in the eyes of Infinite
mercy.  Over against the Pelagians it confesses that all children are sinners by nature, and believes that the Holy Spirit
miust change those natures.  Over against the Anabaptists,
and the school which is at heart in sympathy with the Anabaptist theory, though it retains infant Baptism  as a form,
our Church believes that God has appointed Baptism as the
ordinary channel through which the Holy Spirit works a
change in the nature of a child. In the fact that there is an
ordinary means appointed, our Church sees the guaranty that
* Lib. I. De Bapt. ch. iv. Lib. VI. ch. ii., iv.,.vi.  t On Matt. xxv. 23.
4 Cited in Gerhard Confessio.Catholica, 1679. Fol. 1110.




438         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
God wishes to renew and save children, and what so powerfully'
as this prompts the blessed assurance that?f God fails to reach
the child in His ordinary way, He will reach it in some other?
The Calvinist might have doubts as to the salvation of a dying
child, for to him Baptism is not a sure guaranty, and its grace
is meant only for the elect; the Baptist ought logically to have
doubts on his system as to whether an infant can be saved, for
his system supposes that God has no appointed means for conferring grace on it, and as we are confessedly under a system
of grace and providence which ordinarily works by means,
the presumption is almost irresistible, that where God has no
mean to do a thing He does not intend to do it.  But the conservative Protestant cannot doubt on this point of such tender
and vital interest. The baptized child, he feels assured, is
actually accepted of the Saviour, and under the benignant
power of the Holy Ghost. In infant Baptism is the gracious
pledge that God means to save little children; that they have
a distinct place in His plan of mercy, and that He has a distinct mode of putting them in that place. When, then, in the
mysterious providence of this Lover of these precious little
ones, they are cut off from  the reception of His grace by its
ordinary channel, our Church still cherishes the most blessed
assurance, wrought by the very existence of infant Baptism,
that in some other way God's wisdom  and tenderness will
reach and redeem them. Our confidence in the uncovenanted
mercy of God is strong in proportion to the tenacity with
which we cling to Baptism  as an ordinary mean most necessary on our part, if we may possibly have it, or have it given.
Because in the green valley, and along the still waters of the
visible Church, God has made rich provision for these poor
sin-stricken lambs,-because He has a fold into which He
gathers them out of the bleak world, therefore do we the more
firmly believe that if one of them faint ere the earthly hands
which act for Christ can bring it to the fold and pasture, the
great Shepherd, in His own blessed person, will bear to it the
food and the water necessary to nurture its undying life, and
will take it into the fold on high, for which the earthly fold is
meant; at best, but as a safeguard foir a little while. But the




THE LUTHERAN SYSTEM.                      439
earthly fold itself, reared in the valley of peace, which lies
along that water which ripples with something of a heavenly
music, is a sure token of a love which will never fail of its
object  a visible pledge that it is not the sWill of our Father
in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
The Augsburg Confession, to sum up, affirms, as we have
seen, that there is an absolute necessity that every human
being should be born again.  It affirms, moreover, that the
work of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to the production of this change.  These points we have endeavored to
develop.  It affirms or implies, moreover, that Baptism is one
of the ordinary means by which the Holy Spirit works the
change, and that Baptism is the only ordinary means of universal application, that is, the only means applicable alike to
adults and infants.
In this is implied:
1. That the Holy Spirit ordinarily works by means.
2. That the Water and Word of Baptism is one of those means.
3. That the Water and Word of Baptism  operates not as
the proper agent, but as the means of that agent.
4. That the Holy Spirit may, and where He wvill, does work
the new birth in, with, and under the Water and Word of
Baptism, so that Baptism, in its completest sense, is the inseparable complex of Water, Word, and Spirit, bringing heavenly
grace.
5. That this grace is offered whenever Baptism is administered, and is actually conferred by the Holy Spirit, whenever
the individual receiving it does not present in himself a conscious voluntary barrier to its efficacy. This barrier, in the
case of an individual personally responsible, is unbelief. In
the case of an infant, there is no conscious voluntary barrier,
and there is a divinely wrought receptivity of grace. The
objector says, the infant cannot voluntarily receive the grace,
therefore grace is not given. We reverse the proposition and
reply, the infant cannot voluntarily reject grace, therefore the
grace is given. When we speak of a divinely wrought receptivity of grace, we imply that whatever God offers in the Word
or element bears with the offer the power of being. received.




440         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAII TION.
When He says to the man with a withered arm, " Reach
forth thine arm! " that which was impossible by nature is
made possible by the very word of command. The Word and
Sacraments per se break up the absoluteness of the natural
bondage; they bring an instant possibility of salvation. Grace
is in them so far prevenient that he who has them may be
saved, and if he be lost, is lost by his own fault alone.
Is our Confession warranted by Holy Scripture in presenting
these views of Baptism? We answer, unhesitatingly, It is.
The washing of Naaman (1 Kings v. 14) in the Jordan, may
be considered as a foreshadowing of the baptismal idea. A
promise was given to Naatlan, to wit, that his leprosy should
be healed. This promise was conditioned upon the presupposed faith of N:aamnan, but this faith was not sufficient; a
mean was appointed for the fulfilment of the promise, and
faith in the mean was as absolutely prerequisite in Naaman
as faith in the promise. Faith in God always involves faith
in His means as well as faith in His promises. If Naaman
had not believed the promise he would not have gone to the
Jordan; but if Naaman had believed the promise, and had
yet refused to go and wash- which was the attitude he actually assumed at first - he would not have been saved from the
leprosy.
The washing of Naaman was not an arbitrary association,
but was made of God a real and operative mean, so that in,
with, and under the water, the divine power wrought which
healed his leprosy. Naaman was bound to the means, so
that no element but water -no water but that of Jordanwould have availed to cleanse him. His faith would not
cleanse him without the water. Abana and Pharpar, and
every river that rolled, and every sea that lifted its waves,
would have rolled and risen in vain, for the water that was to
do such great things was not mere water, but that water
which God had enjoined, and with which his promise was
bound up (Luther: Smaller Catechism). Yet if Naaman,
earnestly striving to reach the Jordan after the promise, had
been providentially prevented, we may believe that God would
have wrought the cure without the means.




THE LUTHERAN SYSTEM.                     441
Let us look at the representations of the New Testament.
1. MARK xvr. 16. "lte that believeth, AND IS BAPTIZED,
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(The Saviour does not repeat the allusion to Baptism in the
second part of this sentence, because he that does not believe is already condemned, whether baptized or not.) Here
is something mentioned as a MEAN, to wit, Baptism, and
salvation is IN SOME SENSE conditioned upon it.  When men
read: " Ie that believeth, and is not baptized, shall be saved,"
they separate what God has joined, and contradict our Lord.
But here, doubtless, our Lord draws the distinction in which
our Chiurch follows Iim: faith is ABSOLUTELY essential to salvation, baptism ORDINARILY essential only.
2. ACTS II. 38. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and
BE BAPTIZED, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for
the remission of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost."  Here Baptism is represented as one mean, and for
those who could have it, as the indispensable mean, to the
remission of sin, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
3. ACTS xxrI. 16. " Arise and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
4. ROMANS VI. 3.   IKnow ye not that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death?
Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death."
5. 1 COR. XII. 13.  " For by one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body."  Here the agency of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and the fact that in Baptism rightly received we are
ingrafted into the one body of Christ, are distinctly taught.
6. GAL. IIr. 27.' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."  Baptism, in its whole
compass and intent, is not meant to introduce into mere outward relations, but bears with it a grace by which he who
rightly uses it is invested with the righteousness of Christ.
7. COL. II. 12. "Buried with Him  in Baptism, wherein
(i. e. in Baptism) also ye are risen with him through the faith
of the operation of God."
8. 1 PETER III. 20. "The ark.... wherein few, that is,
eight souls, were SAVED BY water. The like figure whereunto




442        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
even BAPTISM  doth also now  save us;" or, more literally,
" Which (that is, water) doth now save you also, (that is) the
antitype Baptism (doth now save you)."
9. JOHN III. 5. " Except a man be born of water, and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."  It is on this
verse preeminently the phraseology of the part of the Confession now under consideration is based. It embraces the
same class of persons of which our Confession speaks. The
Confession speaks of "all men naturally born after Adam;"
the Saviour speaks of " that which is born of the flesh," that
is, all our race, infant and adult. Our Confession says they
have sin; our Saviour says they are FLESH, that is, are corrupt.
The Confession says they must be born again, in order to be
saved; our Lord says that unless they are born again, they
cannot see the kingdom  of God. The Confession attributes
the new birth to the Holy Spirit as agent, so does our Lord;
the Confession attributes a part in the new birth to Baptism,
so does our Lord.  We must be born again of water.
ALFORD, not a Lutheran, does not go too far when he says:
" There can. be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the
words, that' to be born of water,' refers to the token or OUTWARD SIGN OF BAPTISM:'to be born of the Spirit,' to the thing
signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit.  All attempts
to get rid of these TWO PLAIN FACTS have sprung from DOCTRINAL PREJUDICES, bywhich the views of expositors have been
warpled. Such we have in Calvin, Grotius, Cocceius, Lampe,
Tholuck, and others. ALL THE BETTER AND DEEPER EXPOSITORS
have recognized the co-existence of the two - WATER and ths
Spirit.  So, for the most part the ancients: So Licke, in his
last edition, De Wette, Neander, Stier, Olshausen. Baptism,
complete, with WATER and the Spirit, is the admission into the
kingdom of God. Those who have received THE OUTWARD SIGN
AND THE SPIRITUAL GRACE have entered into that kingdom.... It is observable that here as ORDINARILY, the outward
sign comes first, and then the spiritual grace, vouchsafed in
and BY MEANS of it, if duly received."
10. EPHES. V. 25-27.  " Christ loved the Church, and gave
Himself for it, that He might SANCTIFY AND CLEANSE IT WITH




THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM.                    443
THE WASHING OF WATER by the Word, that lie may present it
to Himself a glorious Church."
11. HEB. x. 22.  " Let us draw near with a true heart, in
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from  an
evil conscience, and our BODIES WASHED WITH PURE WATER."
On this verse Alford remarks: c There can be no reasonable
doubt that this clause refers directly to Christian baptism.
The'washing of water,' Eph. v. 26, and'the washing of
regeneration,' Titus iii. 5, and the express mention of'our
bodies' here, as distinguished from' our hearts,' stamps this
interpretation with CERTAINTY,... for'our bodies' confines
the reference to an outward act. And so Theophylact, Theodoret, CEcumenius, etc., Bohme, IKuinoel, Tholuck, De Wette,
Bleek, Liinemann, Delitzsch, and the majority of commentators.  Still, in maintaining the externality of the words, as
referring, and referring solely to Baptism, we must remember
that BAPTISM ITSELF IS NOT a mere external rite, but at every
mention of it carries the thought further, to wit, to that spiritual washing of which it is itself symbolical and sacramental."
According to I)ELITZSCH, " THE WASHING THE BODY WITH PURE
WATER is purely sacramental, the effect of baptism taken in its
whole blessed meaning and fulfilment as regards our natural
existence.  As priests we are sprinkled, as priests we are
bathed... washed in holy Baptism."
12. 1 JOHN V. 6-8.  " This is Hie that came by WATER and
blood, EVEN Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by WATER
and blood. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in
one."
13. 1 COR. vi. 11. " But ye are WASHED, but ye are sanctilied, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
BY the Spirit of our God."
14. TITUS III. 5. "'Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the
WASHING OF REGENERATION, AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST,
which IIe shed on us abundantly."
ALFORD says: " Observe that here is no figure: the words
are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the out



441         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ward, visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace;
and as thus COMPLETE, it not only represents, but is the new
birth, so that, as in 1 Pet. iii. 21, it is not the mere outward
act or fact of Baptism  to which we attach such high and
glorious epithets, but that complete Baptism by water and the
Holy Ghost, whereof the first cleansing by water is, indeed,
the ordinary sign and seal, but whereof the glorious indwelling Spirit of God is the only efficient cause and continuous
agent.  Baptismal regeneration IS THE DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINE of the new covenant (Matt. iii. 11,) but let us take care
that we know and bear in mind what'Baptism' means: not
the mere ecclesiastical act, not the mere fact of reception, by
that act, among God's professing people, but that completed
by the Divine act, manifested by the operation of the Holy
Ghost in the heart and through the life."
The words of CALVIN on this same passage deserve to be produced: " It ought to be accepted as a principle among good
men, that God does not trifle with us by empty figures, but by
His own power performs that inwardly which by the external
sign he exhibits outwardly.  WHEREFORE BAPTISM IS FITLY
AND TRULY CALLED THE LAYER OF REGENERATION. He rightly
holds the power and use of the Sacraments, who so connects
the thing and the sign, that he neither makes the sign empty
and inefficacious, nor, on the other hand, for the sake of its
honor, detracts from the Holy Spirit what is due to Him."
This will suffice to show how amply, by the very text of
Holy Scripture, and even by the confession of interpreters who
are not of our Church, her Confession is authorized in declaring that Baptism is one of the ordinary means of the Holy
Spirit in working the new birth.
XIII.  That Baptism is the only ordinary means of univerThirteenth sal application will be denied by two classes alone.
Thesis. Baptism The first class are those who deny that Baptism is
the only ordinary
means of univer- a mean of grace at all, and those errorists are
salapplication.  already sufficiently answered by the passages we
have given from the Word of God. The second class are
those who deny that infants should be baptized, and who, consequently, maintain that there is no mean of grace provided




PELAGIUS.                         445
for them.  This error, so far as its discussion properly comes
under the head of Original Sin, has already been met. The
ampler discussion of the question belongs to the Article on
Baptism.
Here then we reach the close of the positive,part of the Article of the Augsburg Confession on Original Sin: the rest is
antithetical. This Article of the Confession, as we have seen,
is grounded in every line, and in every word, on God's sure
testimony, and proves, in common with the other parts of that
matchless Symbol in which it stands, that when our fathers
sought in God's Word for light, sought with earnest prayer,
and with the tears of holy ardor, for the guidance of the Holy
Spirit into the deep meaning of His Word, they sought not in
vain.
XIV.  In maintaining the true doctrine of Original Sin,
our Church, of necessity, condemns:                 Fourteenth
Thesis. Pelagian1. The Pelagians; that is, it condemns them  in ism in antithesis
their doctrine, not by any means in their person, to the Scriltur
doctlrine of Origiso far as that is separable fromi their doctrine.  n;l Sin..2. It condemns, in the same way, all others who deny that
the vice of origin is sin; and
3. It condemns all who contend that man, by his own
strength, as a rational being, can be justified before God; and
who thus diminish the glory of the merit of Christ, and of
His benefits.
Pelagius was a British monk, who flourished under the
Emperors Arcadius, Theodosius, and Honorius.
About the year 415 he began to teach unscriptural' I'eags.
views in regard to the freedom of the human will.  Violently
opposing the Manichaeans, who supposed a corruption in man
which involved an essential evil in his very substance, he ran
to the opposite extreme.
The errors of Pelagius, which our fathers had in view in
this solemn rejection of them in the Confession, are not difficult to ascertain. Our confessors knew the views of Pelagius
mainly from the powerful confutation of them in the works of
Augustine, who styled him the enemy of grace, and to these
we must go to ascertain what they meant to condemn in con



446         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
demning Pelagianism.  This is the more necessary, as there
are modern writers who maintain that Pelagius wa's not the
errorist Augustine supposed him to be, and that much of the
controversy was really a war of terms. We do not believe
this theory to be correct; we are satisfied that in all the main
points, Augustine perfectly understood and fairly represented
the position of Pelagius. But be this as it may, it cannot be
disputed that, to understand the meaning of our Confession,
we must take what was the accepted meaning of terms when
it was framed. The characteristics we now give of Pelagianism are based mainly upon the statements of Augustine, and,
for the most part, are literally translated from his very words.
1. The Pelagians " denied that little children born after
Adam  contract from their very birth the contagion of the old
death." The Augsburg Confession maintains, on the contrary,
that' after the fall of Acam, all human beings, born in the
order of nature, are conceived and born in sin."
2. "Little children are born without any fetter of original
sin."  They neither contract nor have it from their parents.
3. " There is, therefore, no necessity that they, by a second
or new birth, should be released from this."
4. The Pelagians did not deny the duty of baptizing infants,
nor did they dare to go so violently against the consciousness
and faith of the entire Church as to deny that Baptism is a
mean of regeneration.  Those who deny this in our day are
more Pelagian than Pelagius himself. The Pelagians contended that infants " are baptized, that by regeneration they
may be admitted to the kingdom of God, being thereby transferred from what is good to what is better, not that by that
renewal they were set free from any evil of the old obligation."
5. " If children were unbaptized, they would have, indeed, a
place out of the kingdom of God, yet, nevertheless, a blessed
and eternal life," in virtue of their personal innocence.
6. " If Adam had not sinned he would, nevertheless, have
died bodily, his death not being the desert of his sin, but
arising from the condition of nature."  Death is, therefore,
not the penalty of sin. These illustrations are extracted from
Augustine's Book on Heresies (chap. lxxxviii).




THE A  A BAPTISTS  ZWINGLI.                447
In the Second Book of Augustine on Perseverance (chap. ii.),
he says: " There are three points on which the Church Catholic mainly opposes the Pelagians.
7. " One of these doctrines with which she opposes them is,
that the grace of God is not given because of our merits.
8. "The second is, that whatever may be the righteousness
of a  an,, no one lives in this corruptible body without sins of
some kind.
9. " The third is, that man contracts liability by the sin of
the first man, and would come under the fetter of condemnation were not the accountability which is contracted by generation dissolved by regeneration."
10. In the same book he attributes to the Pelagians the doctrine that " Adam's sin injured no one but himself."
The following statements, drawn from other reliable sources,
will further illustrate the characteristics of Pelagianismn:
1. Pelagius originally asserted that man without grace can
perform all the commands of God. Under the pressure of the
urgency of his brethren he subsequently admitted that some
aid of Divine grace is desirable, but only that we might more
EASILY do God's commands.
2. That concupiscence or desire, which is in man by nature,
is good, and that the whole nature of man, even after the fall,
remains entire and incorrupt, so that even in spiritual things
he could do good, and fulfil the will of God.
3. That sin'is contracted entirely by example and imitation,
not at all by propagation.
The confessors, in the Antithesis, may have had reference,
moreover, to the Anabaptists, who maintained:      II. The Ana1. " That sin was so taken away by the death of baptists.
Christ that infants, under the New Testament, are born without sin, and are innocent, the servitude of death alone excepted;
2. "And, therefore, deny that infants are to be baptized,
since they are born subject to no sin."
It is not a matter of perfect agreement among the writers
on our Confession, whether Zwingli is alluded to
III. Zwingli.
in the Antithesis.  Our old standard writers are
almost unanimous in believing that he was, at least, one of




448         CONSERVATIVE REFOR.MATION.T
those alluded to.  Such is the view, for example, of Mentzer, Gerhard, Hloffinann, Carpzov, Walch, and Baumgarten.
Among recent writers CCELLN* devotes a considerable part of
a special treatise to the establishing of this point, and places it
beyond all reasonable doubt. It is true that Zwingli signed the
Articles of the Marburg Colloquy (1529), which were prepared
by Luther, the fourth of which treats of Original Sin, but which
shows, in common with the others, that Luther designed to make
the way to harmony of view as easy as could be consistent with
principle. In the Confession which Zwingli prepared to be presented to Charles V. at the Diet of Worms, he says: "Whether
we will, or wil. not, we are forced to admit that original sin, as
it is in the sons of Adam, is not properly sin, as has just been
explained.  For it is not a deed contrary to the law. It is,
therefore, properly a disease and a condition." " Infants have
not guilt, but have the punishment and penalty of guilt, to
wit, a condition of servitude, and the state of convicts. If,
therefore, it is right to call it guilt, because it bears the inflictions of guilt, I do not object to the term."  That is he did not
object to the term, provided it was clearly understood that the
term meant nothing.  In his book on Baptism, Zwingli says:
"-There is nothing in the children of believers, even before
Baptism, which can properly be called sin."
ALTING, the distinguished Reformed divine who wrote an,
Exegesis, Logical and Theological, of the Augsburg Confession, declares that it is a calumny to assert that Zwingli
denied that original sin is truly sin, and says that he merely
denied that it was ACTUAL sin.  But if by denying that it is
actual, he merely meant that it is not a sin committed by
deed, he denied what no one affirms; but if he meant that it
was not a real sin, then he denied the very thing which,
according to Alting, it is a calumny to charge upon him.
Zwingli was a patriot, and as such we admire him, but he
was, as compared with CEcolampadius, not to mention Calvin, an
exceedingly poor theologian. Justus Jonas says of him that
he occupied himself with letters in the face of the anger of the
Muses and of the unwillingness of Minerva -" Iratis Musis et
* Confess. Melanchthonis et Zwinglii, etc., 1830.




ZWINGL.                          449
invita Minerva."  It is not for their intrinsic value, but for historical reasons, that it is important to follow him in his views.
He certainly did not hold, thoroughly and consistently, the doctrine which is coached in the language of our Confession, that
" original sin is truly sin." IIis fallacy is the ordinary one, that
the character of sin is in the deed, not in the essence of moral
nature, which originates the deed; that sin cannot be, but
must always be done. In other words, he makes a real, not a
merely phenomenal difference between sin in us, and sin by us;
the sin we have, and the sin we do. Every such distinction is
Pelagian.  Zwingli illustrates the condition. of the race as that
of the children born to one who has been captured in war.
"Those born of him  are slaves, not by their fault, guilt, or
crime, but by the condition which followed a fault, for the
parent from  whom  they are born deserved this by his crime.
The children have no guilt."  All this naturally means that
our race inherits the penalties of guilt, but not guilt itself.
They are innocent, but are treated as guilty. In God's thoughts
they are spotless; in God's acts they are polluted. The providence of God, and the actual course of His administration, are
not a reflection of His judgment, but a perversion of it. Zwingli's illustration only aggravates the case. HIe takes one of
the most atrocious acts of human cruelty towards enemies in
war, and finds in it a parallel to God's dealings with man.
His theory leaves the most difficult facts untouched, while it
removes the only possible solution of them. Of all modes of
looking at the subject, this seems to be the most confused and
objectionable.  It is simply self-conflicting Pelagianism. Pelagianism denied both the effect and the cause. Zwingli leaves
the effect and denies the cause. In Zwingli's letter to Urban
Rhegius (1525), he says: "  What could be clearer than that original sin is not sin, but a disease? What could be weaker and
more alien to Scripture than to say that this calamity is alleviated by the laver of Baptism, and is not merely a disease? "
In the Book on Baptism, written the same year, he says:
"We affirm that original sin is only that disease which we
derive by inheritance. Therefore, original sin does not merit
damnation.  How  can it be that that which is disease and
29




450         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
contagion MERITS THE NAME OF SIN, OR IS SIN IN REALITY
(revera)?"
The language of the condemnatory clause also refers to
the Pelagianism of the Scholastics, and of many of
IV. Otler eelagianizinl teaclh- the Romish Church contemporary with the confessors. The Romish Church praises Augustine, and
follows Pelagius.
It also, by anticipation, condemns the Pelagianizing tendencies of the Council of Trent, and of the theologians who
defended its decisions, among whom  the Jesuits were preeminent.
It also, in the same way, condemns the Socinian, Arminian, and Rationalistic Theology, and the schools which approximate it. In short, all teaching which denies that the
fault of origin is sin -all teaching that favors the idea that
man by his own power of reason can be justified before God -
all teaching that tends to diminish the glory of the merit and
of the benefit of Christ, is here condemned.
In fairly estimating much of the plausible sophistry by
which Pelagianism is maintained, it is well to remember that
even when actual sin takes place, the condition or state of sin
must be antecedent to the act.  A being who has ever been
holy, must cease to be holy, before he can will or do sin. This
is the necessary order of succession and of conception, even if
it be granted that these stages are synchronal.  Not all real
precessions are precessions in time. The doing originates in
the willing, the willing presupposes the will as a faculty, the
will as a faculty must be in a determinate condition antecedent
to a determinate act, and the act takes its being and character
from the condition.  There can be no moral act without ante'
cedent moral condition.  The condition of the will may result
in four ways:
I. It may be concreate, as God establishes it: or,
II. It may be affected by influencesfrom without,-it may be
tested, tried, or tempted in the nature of things, or by another
will: or,
III. It may result from a self-determining power in the will
as a faculty: or,




OTHER PELAGIANIZING TEACHERS.                      451
IV. It may be innate and connate.
I. The first condition of the will of angels, and of Adam,
was concreate; it was holy and untempted.
II. Its second condition was that of the angels', tested in the
nature of things by the essential character of virtue, which, on
one side, is the negative of moral evil, the possibility of which
evil is implied in the very denial of it, and by moral freedom,
which is not continuously possible without choice.  It is also
the condition of Eve's will affected by the nature of things
within and without her, and by the will of the serpent.  It is
also the condition of Adam's will tested by the nature of
things, by the now corrupted will of his wife, and through her
by the will of the serpent. So far as the fruit attracted Eve
simply as pleasant to eat, and beautiful to look upon, the
attraction was purely natural, and morally indifferent.  The
prohibitory command meant that the natural instincts, even of
an unfallen creature, are not sufficient for the evolution of the
highest moral character, but that to this character it is essential that there shall be the voluntary and continuous conformity of the will of the creature to the will of the Creator.
Original righteousness is, per se, a condition of the will, and is
antecedent to the first act of will.  How a will, whose original
condition is holy, can come to a sinful condition, as it involves
an ultimate principle, cannot be grasped by man, yet, whatever may furnish the occasion, the cause is the will itself:
The cause of sin is the will of the wicked " (eausa peccati est
voluntas malorum). "The perverted will (verkehrte Wille) worketh sin.. which will has turned itself from God to evil (zum
Argen)." These words imply that sin the act, is the result of
sin the condition.  The condition of the will is the cause of the
moral act as moral, and the perverted condition of the will the
cause of the moral acts being perverted, that is, sinful.  We
reach the last point to which the mind of man can go, when
we assert that in the self-determining power of a finite holy
will lies the possibility of its becoming an unholy will. We
may say that the finite is, in the natttre of things, liable to the
possibility of sin, that the positive good of freedom in the
d Aug. Conf. Art. xix.




452          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOT.
creature involves the incidental evil of the power of abuse.
It is easy to multiply these common-places of the argument.
But none of these solutions bear upon the process of the change
of condition.  They may show that the change is possible, but
they do not show how it takes place.  Nor, indeed, is a solution
of the question of the how necessary here. The philosophy of the
mode in no way affects the certainty that the moral condition of
the will precedes and determines its acts. While a will is holy
in condition, it is impossible that it should be unholy in act. The
act is what the condition is.  The act has no moral character
except as it derives it from the condition of the will in which
it originated.  Things are not moral or immoral, only persons
are. The essential sin never comes to being in the thought or
act, but is, and must be, in being before there can be a sinful
thought or sinful act.  The thought or act is not the root of
sin, but sin is the root of the thought and act. " Out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts "-that is, evil thought is the outgoing from an evil heart - act from condition. "Every imagi-nation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil."  "Heart"
implies will in condition, and to this the "Limagination  of
the thoughts" is secondary and derivative.  The act is determined, the will is determining, and the self-existent cause of
its particular determination, beyond which cause we cannot go,
is its condition.  Each of the derivative conditions supposes a
preexistent one, and when we reach, as we soon must in this
retrospection, the first condition, which is the sine qua non of
the second, as the second is of the third, we reach a point at
which we are forced to acknowledge that all actual sin, in some
measure, results from a primary condition of the will.  As in
the order of nature there must be the process of thinking before
the result of thought, and there must be mind before thinking,
and a particular and specific condition of mind before the particular and specific thinking which eventuates in the particular and specific thought, so must there be the process of moral
activity before the resulting moral act, and a faculty of will
before the process of moral activity, and a particular and specific condition of the faculty of will before the particular and
specific willing which reveals itself in the particular moral act.




OTHER  PELAGIANIZING  TEACHtERS.                    453
WVhen we say that the morality of an act is conditioned by the
will, we mean simply that the character of the act is derived
from the condition of the will.  The sin is really in the condition of the will.  The sin done is but phenomenal to the real
sin. In this respect all sin is essentially original; and of the
two extremes of statement, it would be more logical to assert
that all sin is in its own nature original, and no sin in proper
essence actual, than to assume that all sin is actual, and no sin
original.  LUTHER:  "Original sin, or sin of nature, sin of
person, is the real cardinal sin (Hauptsiinde).  Did it not exist,
no actual sin would exist. It is not a sin which is done, like all
other sins, but it is, it lives, and does all sins, and is the essential
(wesentliche) sin."
If this estimate of the bearing of the condition of will upon
the controversy between the Church and Pelagianism be correct, it is evident that the great question at issue is, In which
of the four conditions enumerated is the will of man now?
I. It is Pelagian to assert that the  l'imnary co.ndition of the
will of man now is that of concreate holiness, as it was endowed
in the beginning by God.  "' Every man is born in the same
perfection wherein Adam was before his fall, save only the perfection of age.'?
IT. It is Pelagian to assert that the primary condition of the
will is now lmade by influencesfrom without.  "Adam  endamaged.. his posterity only by his example, so far forth as they
imitate hini."  "There is no original sin, or corruption of
human nature."
III. It is Pelagian to assert that the primary condition of the
will now is, or results from, a self-determiining exercise of the
will.  " Man of himself is able to resist the strongest temptations."  "The well-using of free-will and of natural powers is
the cause of predestination."
IV. It is Pelagian to deny that the present condition of our
will is inherited by natural descent:'" Adam  by his sin endamaged only himself," or, to assert that though our present condition of will may be connate, yet that this connate
condition is either 
* Hauss-postilla on the Gospel for New Year.




454         CO NSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
1. Like that of concreate holiness; or,
2. Like that of Adam when his condition was that of
tempted holiness, with the natural power of successful resistance; or,
3. That of self-determination, which still freely exercises
itself; or,
4. That of non-moral passivity, neutrality, or indifference.
Over against these, the Scripture view is:
I. That man's will is not in a condition of concreate holiness,
but has lost that condition.
II. That the positive element which affects its condition is,
not external, as example, education, or temptation, but internal,
corrupt desire, or concupiscence.
III. That its condition allows of no self-determining power
in the sphere of grace.
IV. That this condition is connate, is properly called sin, is
really sin, justly liable in its own nature to the penalties of
sin; that without the work of grace wrought, it would have
brought eternal death to the whole race, and does now bring
death to all to whom that work of grace is not, either ordinarily or extraordinarily, applied by the Holy Ghost.
Faithful to these doctrines, and over against all the tendencies which conflict with them, our Confession, both in its Thesis
and Antithesis, holds forth the truth of the exceeding sinfulness and the utter helplessness of man's nature, the goodness
of God, the all-sufficiency of Christ, and the freeness of
justification.
Looking at original sin as God's Word and our Church
teaches us to regard it, we shall
See its true character, and deplore the misery it has
wrought.
We shall go to Christ, the great Physician, to be healed
of it, and to the Holy Spirit, who, by His own means, Baptism  and the Word, applies for Christ the remedy we need;
taking of the things that are Christ's, and making them ours.
We shall be led to maintain a continual struggle against
it; we shall watch, pray, and strive, knowing that through
grace we are already redeemed from its curse; that by the




OTHER PELA GIANIZING TEA CHERS.              455
same grace, we shall be more and more redeemed here from
its power, and at last be wholly purged from it, and shall
form a part of that Church, loved and glorious, which shall
show no spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but shall stand
before her Lord holy and without blemish.
And now, in the language in which the incomparable Gerhard closes his discussion of original sin, let our words be:
"To Him that hath died for us, that sin might die in us; to
Him who came that He might destroy the works of the Devil,
and might restore to us the blessings lost by the Fall; to Jesus
Christ our Saviour, be praise, honor, and glory, world without
end. Amen! "




X.S
THE PERSON OF OUR LORD AND HIS SACRAMENTAL
PRESENCE.-THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN AND
THE REFORMED DOCTRINES COMPARED.*
(AUGSBURG CONFESSION.  ART. III.)
IN  the January number of the Bibliotheca Sacra, for 1863,
the opening article is a very elaborate one, from  the pen of
I. Dr. Gerhart's Rev. E. V. Gerhart, D. D.  Its subject is the " GerArticle.     nman Reformed Church."   It was read at the time
with  special interest, as  the  Puritanism   of New  England,
which has been supposed to carry out the Reformed principles
to their furthest extreme, and the German Reformed Church,
in  which  those principles were  more  modified  and  subdued
than in  any unquestionably Calvinistic Church, were brought
* BRENTIUS: De Personali Unione. Tubing. 1561. 4to.; Sent. de Lib. Bullinger.
Tubing. 1561. 4to.; De Majestat. Domin. nostri. Frankf. 1562. 4to.; Recogn. proph.
et Apostol. doctrin. Tubing. 1564. 4to. -BULL: Defens. Fid. Nicsenoe. Oxon. 1688.
4to. - CALIXTUS: F. U. Ref. ad Calov. Theses. (De Christo. 67.) Helmst. 1668.
4to.- CALOVIUS: Harmonia Calixt. Hieret. (De Christo. 938.) Witteb. 1655. 4to.;
Colleg. Disput. Controv. (De Christo. 62.) Witteb. 1667. 4to. - CHEMNITZ: De
duab. nat in Christo. Jena. 1570. 8vo. -DORNEIR: Entw. gesch. d. L. v. Person
Christi. 1845-56. 8vo.-GESS: Die L. v. d. Person Christi. 1856. 8vo. - HUNNIUS AEG.: De Persona Christi. Frallkf. 1597. 12mo.  LIEBNER: Christol. 1849.LCESCHER C.: Cons. Orthod. de Christo, Wittenb. 1699. 4to. - METSNER: De Artic.
Fid. Fundamrent. (p. 339.) Wittenb. 1675. 4to. - OSIANDER: Informat. Theologica.
Tubing. 1620. -SARTORIUS: D. L. v. Christi Person u. Werk. 1845.- SCHNECKENBURGER: Zur Kirchl. Christol. 1848. - STRAUCH: Consens. Repetit. Vindicat.
(190.) Witteb. 1668. -THOMAAsTUS: Christi Person u. Werk. 1857. - THUIMIUS:
Majestas Jesu Christi. Tubing. 1621. 4to.; De maj. Chr. doctr. Repetit. Tubing.
1624. 4to.-WEBER: Doctr. Bib. de nat. Corp. Christi. Halis. 1825. 4to; De natnra Christi. Halis. 1825. 4to. —WOLF: Eutychianism. Lutheranor. Wittenb.
1680. 4to.
456




DIFFERENCE  OF LUTH. AND CAL V. SYSTEMS. 457
into apparently intimate fellowship by Dr. Schaff's temporary
engagement at Andover.  The article of Dr. Gerhart is a very
able one, and we rejoiced that so full, and, in many respects,
so satisfactory an exhibition of the doctrines, usages, and history of the German Reformed Church had been given.  At
the time, however, we entered a kind, but most decided protest in general, against what Dr. Gerhart believed it necessary to say in regard to the Lutheran Church, in exhibiting
the contrast between her doctrines and those of his own
communion.
It is our desire, in the Dissertation which we now submit to
the reader, to place in a more permanent shape some facts
which were then drawn together, bearing upon the great doctrines of our Lord's person and presence.  They are doctrines
of the profoundest importance in themselves, and derive additional interest from the fact that on them, primarily, the great
division took place between the two Reformatory nlovements
of the Sixteenth Century. It is a division which has been fruitful in unspeakable mischiefs, and which, more than all other
causes, has made the struggle against Rome prolonged and
dubious. The responsibility of the division is a serious one,
and rests upon those who were in the wrong upon the great
questions themselves.
"The differences of Zwingli and Luther in temperament,
psychological organization, moral character, edu-  1I Diffe-ence
cation, and political as well as social relations," do of the Lutheran
anl    Calvillistic
not, in our judgment, satisfactorily account, as Systems. its
Dr. Gerhart supposes, for their divergence in the Source.
Reformation.  The root of the divergence lies in the very
nature of Christianity; and there can be no satisfactory solution of the differences between the Zwinglio-Calvinistic, and
the Lutheran Reformations, and the Churches which were
established upon them, except this, that the one accepted the
true, the other a mistaken meaning of God's Word, on certain
points. That is, and will forever remain, the real question
between them.
We have no less serious objection to Dr. Gerhart's statenent of the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ in




458         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOAN
the Lord's Supper. He states a number of important respects,
in which he supposes the two Churches to agree touching
Christ's sacramental presence.  lie then goes on to say: "' But
they differ as to the mode."  The inference here might seem
II Dtito be natural that the Churches agree as to a fact,
III.  Doctrine                             1 7  
of Christ's Pres- but not as to its philosophy, but this representation
ence.      is inadequate, for the point of difference is as to
the fact, and, indeed, in a very important sense, not at all as
to the mode.  Our controversy with Socinians is not as to the
mode of the Trinity, for we confess that we cannot explain how
the Trinal Unity exists, but it is as to the fact, whether there
be a true Trinity in Unity, and not a mere idea] distinction.
So in regard to the presence of Christ, our dispute is not as to
how he is present, which, like the whole doctrine of IIis person,
is an inscrutable mystery, but as to whether there be a true,
not an ideal presence. It is the essence of the doctrine, not its
form, which divides us from the Reformed.  Let them satisfy
us that they accept the fact, and we shall have no quarrel as to
the philosophy of the mode, so far as the question of mode
is separable from that of fact.  Let us agree as to the kind of
presence, its objective reality; let us agree that the true body
and true blood of Christ are truly present, so that the bread is
the communicating medium of the one, the cup of the other,
and use these terms in one and the same sense, and we can
well submit the mode of the mystery to the Omniscient, to
whom alone mode is comprehensible.
The next statement of Dr. Gerhart seems to us entirely a
IV. The L- mistaken one.  He says: "TThe Lutheran Church
theran Church
teaches no Local teaches that the veritable flesh and blood of Christ
Presence of
Christ.    are locally present, being in, with, and under the
consecrated bread and wine." On the contrary, the Lutheran
Church denies that there is a local presence of Christ's body
and blood, and if such a presence be meant, she would deny
that there is any presence of them "in, with, and under the
consecrated elements."  Between us and the Reformed there
never has been, there never can be, a controversy on so simple
a point as this.  The Lutheran Church maintains that there
is a true presence of Christ's human nature, which is neither




LOCAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST.                   459
local nor determinate. The body of Christ which, in its own
nature, is determinately in heaven, and is thus present nowhere
else, nor will be thus present on earth till His second coming,
has also ainother presence, diverse from the determinate, yet no
less true. It is present through that Divine nature into whose
personality it has been received, and with which it has formed
an inseparable union, whose lowest demand is the co-presence
of the two parts. If there be a place where the human nature
of Christ is not united with the second person of the Trinity,
then there is a place where the second person of the Trinity is
not incarnate. If this be granted, then the whole second person of the Trinity is unincarnate, for where God is, He is not
in part (for Ile is indivisible), but He is entire.  Then the
second person of the Trinity is either not incarnate at all, or
He is both incarnate and unincarnate; or there are two second
persons of the Trinity, with one of whom the human nature
of Christ is one person, the extent of the incarnation being
commensurate with that of our Saviour's body in heaven, and
the other second person of the Trinity omnipresent, but not
incarnate, all of which suppositions are absurd, and yet one or
other of them  must be accepted, if the Lutheran doctrine
be denied.  The truth is, that when we admit the personal
union of the human nature of Christ with a divine nature, we
have already admitted the fact, in which the mystery of
Christ's Sacramental presence is absorbed.  The whole Divine
person of Christ is confessedly present at the Supper, but the
human nature has been taken into that personality, and forms
one person with it; hence the one person of Christ, consisting
of the two natures, is present, and of necessity the two natures
which constitute it are present.
As the divine nature, without extension, expansion, or
locality, has a presence which is no less true than the local
presence, from which it is wholly diverse, so does it render
present the human, which is now in one personality with it,renders it present without extension, expansion, or locality;
for, as is the presence which the divine has, so must be the
presence of the human which it makes. If we are asked what
is the kind of the presence of the Divine nature of Christ, we




460         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
reply, it is a true, illocal presence, after the manner of an
infinite Spirit, incomprehensible to us; and if we are asked,
what is the kind of the presence of the human nature of
Christ, we reply, it is a true illocal preselnce after the manner
in which an infinite Spirit renders present a human nature
which is one person with it -a manner incomprehensible to
us. Nor is the idea at all that the human nature of Chlist
exercises through anything inherent in it this omnipresence,
for it remains, in itself, forever a true human nature, and is
omnipresent only through the divine.  The physical eye sees
through the essential power of the soul, and the soul sees by
the eye as its organ. So are the powers of the human Christ
conditioned by the essential attributes of the Godhead, and the
Godhead works through the Manhood of Christ as its organ.
The eye never becomes spirit, and the soul never becomes matter. So in Christ the divine forever is divine, the human forever
human, without absorption or confusion, though the human
acts through the divine, and the divine acts by the human.
The Lutheran Church does not hold to any local presence
of the body of Christ in, or any local conjunction of the body
of Christ with, or any local administration of the body of Christ
under the bread, or of His blood in, with, and under the wine.
The sphere of the reality of the sacramental mystery is not of
this world.  The sphere in which our Lord sacramentally
applies His redeeming work is that in which He made it.
That sphere was indeed on this earth, but not of it.  Our Lord
made His propitiatory sacrifice; it was a true and real sacrifice, but its truth and reality are not of the nature of this
earth, nor comprehensible by any of its modes of apprehension.
Judged by the world's standards, the blood of the Lamb of
God has no more efficacy than the blood of animal sacrifices.
But there is a sphere of reality in which the shedding of
Christ's blood was an actual ransom for the sins of the race.
The atonement is of the invisible world, and hence incomprehensible to us, who are of the visible. In the same order of
verities is the sacramental presence which applies what the
atonement provided.  It is a most true presence, but not in
the sphere of this life. If presence means location; if sacra



IS SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION ORAL?    461
mental is a convertible term with fleshly, earthly, natural, (as
the opposite of spiritual,) then the Lutheran Church would
deny that there is a sacramental presence of Christ.  But a
presence of the whole person of Christ, of the divine by its
inherent omnipresence, and of the human through the divine
— a presence, not ideal or feigned, but most true; not fleshly,
but spiritual; not after the manner of this earth, but of the
unseen world; not natural, but supernatural —this presence
the Lutheran Church maintains, and, God helping her, will
maintain to the end of time.
Dr. Gerhart goes on to say that the Lutheran Church holds
that " communicants, unbelievers as well as believ-. Is seraers, partake of the human nature of Christ with mental commuthe mouth; the one class of persons eating and nio oral?
drinking damnation to themselves, not discerning the Lord's
body, and the other class eating and drinking unto sanctification and everlasting life."  We have looked a little into
Lutheran theology, and must confess that the expression,
" partaking of the humnan nature of Christ with the mouth," is
one which we never met, and which is to us incomprehensible.
No such phrase occurs in the citations made from our Confessions by Dr. Gerhart, and no such phrase, we think, can be
found in them.  If there be such a phrase in any of our
approved theologians, we should have been glad to have Dr.
Gerhart quote it.  But waiving this, does the Lutheran
Church, as a whole, present in her Confession the words "with
the mouth," as an essential part of the definition of the sacramental reception of the body and blood of Christ? We reply,
She does not. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, the only distinctive
symbol universally recognized in the Lutheran Church, has
no such expression, although it was in part prepared to show
that our Church was free from the Zwinglian error on this
very question of the sacramental presence. The Apology,
which amplifies and defends the disputed statements of the
Confession, has not these words. The Smaller Catechism has
no such words. The Larger Catechism has no such words.
The Smalcald Articles have no such words. In Luther's Fourteen Articles drawn up at the Colloquy at Marburg, for the




462         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
express and sole purpose of comparing the conflicting views of
Zwinglians and Lutherans, not a word is said of a reception' by the lmouth." The same is true of the Wittenberg Concord, drawn up with like aims. The fact is, therefore, that
the defining term " by the mouth," cannot be demonstrated
to be an essential part of the Lutheran Confessional statement.
Entire national bodies of Lutherans have existed for centuries, and now exist, who have no such expression in their
Confessions.
It is true that the Formula of Concord, which appeared
thirty-four years after Luther's death, does use and defend the
term, and that this Formula, not without good reason, has
been generally received in the Germanic Churches, and either
formally or virtually by an immense majority of all our
Churches, and that it is confessedly a just and noble scientific
development of the Lutheran faith. But when the Formula
and our theologians speak of a reception by the mouth, they
speak, as we may, of the reception of the Holy Spirit in, with,
and under the preached Word, by the ear, not meaning at all
that there is, or can be, a physical grasping of the Holy Spirit
by the organ of sense, but that the Word is the medium,
through which His presence is operative, and that the Word,
and by Divine appointment, the Holy Spirit, in, with, and
under the Word, is received by the soul through the ear.
Our Gerhard, of whom the Professor of Franklin and Marshall College is almost a namesake, defines the words in question in this way: "The sacramental eating of the body of
Christ is none other than with the mouth to receive the eucharistic' bread, which is the communion of the body of Christ,'
(1 Cor. x. 16). This sacramental eating is said to be spiritual.,
because the body of Christ is not eaten naturally, and because
the mode of eating, like the presence itself, is neither natural,
carnal, physical, nor local, but supernatural, divine, mystical,
heavenly, and spiritual... The Word of God is the food of
the soul, and yet is received by the bodily ear." If, indeed,
there be.such a thing as a Sacrament, a something distinct
from language, as means of grace, it must be received in some
other way than by hearing, or sight, or in the mode in which




WHO RECEIVE CHRIST SACRAMENTALLY? 463
language addresses itself to them. If Baptism be a sacrament;
if the water, by its conjunction with the Word, becomes also
bearer of the grace which the Holy Spirit in His substantial
presence, in, with, and under both water anc Word, confers,
then is the reception of the Holy Spirit mediated, in some
sense, through the body which is touched by the water, as
well as through the ear, which hears the Word.  If, in the
Lord's Supper, the distinctive element is something to be
received by the mouth, then the mouth acts some essential
part in the reception of the thing offered in the Supper, be
that thing what it may. Any theory which rejects the idea
of oral reception in every sense, really denies the whole sacramental character of the Lord's Supper. If the bread communicates the body of Christ, and the bread is to be received
orally, the result is inevitable that the sacramental eating is
with the mouth.  Nor is this so isolated a marvel.  The Holy
Ghost is personally and substantially present in, with, and
under the Word.  When the blind, therefore, as they can and
sometimes do, read the Word by pressing the lips, instead of
the fingers, to the raised characters, there is, in some sense, an
oral reception of the Holy Ghost.
As to the doctrine that believers and unbelievers partake
sacramentally, though believers alone partake sav-  V. Who reingly, it seems to us that any doctrine which con- ceive Christ saccedes a responsibility in man, and an impartiality rainentally?
in God, must suppose that the sacrament qoer-s to all who
receive it the same thing; the difference in the result being
made by the faith or unbelief of the recipient.
Dr. Gerhart, indeed, himself says, that the Reformed Confessions deny, "That the objective efficacy of the sacrament
depends on the faith, or any frame of mind of the communicant." These words, as we understand them, involve the doctrine that there is a positive object in the sacrament, which
exists apart from the faith of the communicant. If the Doctor
uses the word " efficacy " in its ordinary acceptation, he must
either mean " efficacy " for good, in which case he goes beyond
the Lutheran doctrine, and falls into the opus operatum  of
Rome; or he must mean   efficacy" for evil or judgment, in




464         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the case of the unbelieving, in which case he practically takes
ground with the Lutheran Church on this point. Nor does it
seem to us that this doctrine of our Church can be successfully denied.  When the Word of God is preached, the sinner
who is melted to penitence, and the sinner who hardens himself against it, receive precisely the same Gospel. What the
ear receives in each case is exactly the same. The Gospel is
not miade Gospel by our faith, nor made mere sound by our
unbelief. Our unbelief cannot make the promise of God cease
to be His promise. Faith accepts, and unbelief rejects what
is: the one no more unmakles it than the other makes it. The
responsibility of the hardened hearer turns upon this very thing,
that receiving God's Word he does not discern it, but treats
it as if it were man's word; and so in the Lutheran view the
criminality of the unworthy conmmunicant is preeminently
this, that partaking of that bread, which is the communion
of Christ's body, he does not " discern the body of the Lord."
If the words "partake " or " receive " are so used as to imply
a salutary acceptance with the heart, then our Church would
say that believers alone partake in the Lord's Supper. But
faith must have an object, and the object of faith can always,
in the nature of things, be an object of unbelief. Our Church
maintains that the object on which the faith of the worthy
communicant, and the unbelief of the unworthy communicant,
rest, is the same.  Sacramentally they receive the same thing,
which efficaciously the believer alone receives, and the difference at the table of the Lord originates, not in the arrangement of God, but in the state of the recipient. Bread is bread,
although the diseased state of the man who receives it may
make it act like a poison. The presence of Christ is an absolute verity, and is no more affected in its reality by our unbelief, than a wedge of gold ceases to be gold because it may be
neglected or spurned as if it were brass.  A man may throw
away the wedge of gold, but it is no less gold, and has none the
less truly been placed in his hand.
Dr. Gerhart then goes on to say, contrasting the doctrines
of the two communions: " The Reformed Church, on the con.
trary, teaches that the divine-human Saviour is present, not




DOCTRINES OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.    465
locally, nor carnally, but spiritually."  To this we reply that
it is not on the contrary.  The Lutheran Church repeatedly
and unequivocally has denied all local or carnal presence of
Christ's body, and has affirmed that, as antagonistic to any
such conceptions; His presence is "spiritual."  Vhen the
word " spiritual," however, is used as the opposite  vI. The Reof " true," and means that His presence is one which bfrmed and Lutheran doctrines
rests on our intellectual operation, or on our faith, ofthe Lord'sSupand not on the nature of His own person, then our per.
Church denies that it is "spiritual."  Dr. Gerhart, however,
defines the words differently from either of these meanings.
He says: " Not locally, nor carnally, but spiritually; that is,
by the Holy Ghost."  The Reformed Church maintains that
Christ's sacramental presence is mediated by the Holy Spirit.
The Lutheran Church, on the contrary, maintains that it is
through the divine nature in Christ's own person, and that
Christ is present, not because the Holy Spirit enables Him to
oe present to faith, though absent in reality, but because, in
IIis own inseparable person, the Godhead is of itself present,
and the humanity is rendered present through the Godhead.
The Trinity is indeed indivisible, and the Holy Spirit is present at the Supper. But the persons of the Trinity have their
distinctive work.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine the mind and kindle the heart to the reception of the
great gift which the glorious Saviour, present in His own peraon, offers to the soul. The whole Christ is truly present
after the incomprehensible manner of that world of mystery
and of verity in which He reigns.  He applies, to faith, at His
table, the redemption which he wrought upon the cross.
Through His body and blood He purchased our salvationtruly and supernaturally; through His body and blood He
applies salvation -truly and supernaturally.  In Christ's Supper, as in His person, the human and natural is the organ of
the divine and supernatural which glorifies it.  As is the
redemption, so is its sacrament. The foundation of both is the
same, and lies forever inapproachable by man, in the lowest
depth of the eternal mind. In the redemption, nature furnished
the outward organ of the divine, in the frail body and the
30




466          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
flowing blood of our crucified Lord.  Through this organ an
infinite ransom was accomplished.  In the Supper, the organ
of the redemption becomes the organ of its application.  With
an artlessness which heightens its grandeur, this redemption,
which forever centres in Christ's sacred and undivided person,
veils its supernatural powers under the simplest elements which
sustain and revive our natural life. But faith none the less
clearly sees that the bread which we break is the communion
of Christ's body, and that the cup of blessing which we bless
is the communion of His blood.
In illustrating and defending the doctrine of God's Word,
we shall quote with some ful ness from Chemnitz as illustrative
of the Lutheran doctrine of the person of Christ, as bearing on
His presence in the Lord's Supper, and with reference to
various misapprehensions of it. We desire to present the views
of Chemnitz, the greatest of the dogmatic theologians of the
Chemnitz oi Sixteenth Century, not because of the weight which
the personal pes- his name bears, nor merely because of the exquisite
ence of Clhrist.
combination  of sound judgmlent, erudition, profound thought and clear reasoning, with great mildness, and a
simple and scriptural piety which characterized  him, but
mainly for two reasons.  First, because he bore so distinguished
a part in the preparation of the Formula of Concord, and in the
subsequent masterly defence of it; and secondly, because he was
of the school which, in order to narrow the ground of controversy, had preferred  caiving the question of a general omnipresence of Christ in His human nature, and confining attention
mainly to that presence in which His people are most directly
interested, His presence with His Church - everywhere and at
all times, and especially at His Supper.
"The words in the History of the Ascension are rightly
I. On the A,- taken in their simple, literal, and natural significacension and R- tion; for, when Christ ascended, according to the
turn  of  Christ.  
1. TheAscension description of the Evangelists, IHe was, by a visible
strictly Litell.  motion, lifted up on high, in a circumscribed form
and location of the body, so that, by a visible interval, Ite
departed further and further from  the presence of the Apos



CHRIST'S ASCENSIONW                       467
ties.  For such is the force of the words'to go uap,' to be
taken up,' to be parted from them,''to be received up,' which
are.employed in describing His ascension."
"That visible, manifest, bodily, or sensible intercourse or
sojourning, therefore, which, in a circumscribed  2. The As..nand visible form  He had hitherto had with IHis ssion l a certain
respect rcmo ving
disciples on earth, Ile has by His ascension with- Chist tfromus.
drawn from  us who are on earth, so that in that form, and in
that mode of presence, He does not now have intercourse with us in
the world."  "But (in the form and mode of presence just described) thus He appears in heaven to the angels and saints"
(Rev. xiv. 1).  "In that form  also in which the Apostles saw
Him ascend, He shall descend from heaven, in glory, to the judgment (Acts i. 2; iv. 16), in a visible and circumscribed form."
"So far, (that is, on all the points above specified,) as I conceive, WE (Beza and Chernnitz) AGREE, but the point  3 Points of
to be decided is this: Whether from what is true Agreement aIid
of Disagreenmrlwit
in  a certain respect (secundum quid), an inference with the lRemay be drawn  which involves EVERY respect -  formed. State of
the question as
whether from the aidmission of a fact in one and a regards the relacertain sense, an inference may be drawn as to the  ion of Christ's
I'~~~~~~~~~~~ "                  ~~~Ascension to Iis
same fact in another and a different sense-whether p.erso al.t presbecause Christ, in a visible form, and a mode of pres- "en'
ence perceptible by human senses, does not in His body, locally, have'intercourse with His Church on earth, we are, therefore, to
infer that in NO MODE is He present with His Church on earth
according to the human  nature He has assumed- whether
Christ neither knows, nor can have any other than that local,
visible, and sensible mode by which He can perform what the
words of His testament declare."  These words show clearly
why the famous expression of Beza, " that the body of Christ
is as remote from  the Supper as the highest heaven is from
earth," gave such offence.  It was not that our theologians
denied it, in a certain respect (secundum  quid), but that Beza
denied it absolutely in every respect (simpliciter).  Hence the
Formula Concordie (672), commenting on this language, expresses the offensive point of it thus: " That Christ is, in such
manner (ita, als) received in heaven, as to be circumscribed and




468         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
shut up in it, so that IN NO MODE WHATEVER (nullo prorsus mnodo -
keinerlei Weise) He can or will be present with us on earth in
His human nature."
"I cannot see the connection between the premises and the
The solhis  conclusion, when, though Christ says HIe will be
involved in the present in the use of His Supper, it is argued, that
Denial of Clirist's,.                           n 
Personal Prces- because this cannot be in any way of this world,
ence, becase of (for in this imode Christ has left the world, AND IS NO
tis ascension.
LONGER IN THE WORLD) therefore He is present there
IN NO OTHER MODE, though the words declare Ile is."  "A comparison of the parts in John xvi. will show in what sense
Christ has left the world, for IIe says (18):'I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world,' not that Ile had
left the Father, for He says (ch. viii. 29):' He that sent me is
with me: the Father hath not left me alone,' or as if the Father,
who fills heaven and earth, were not in this world, but because
He had humbled Himself, though He was in the form of God.
From the anctithesis, therefore, we may rightfully gather what
Christ means when he says:'Again I leave the world and go
to the Father,' to wit, that after His work was finished, His
humiliation removed, all infirmity and sorrow laid aside, He
would be exalted to the highest glory and power of the Father,
and would be transferred from the mode of this world's life to
a heavenly mode of existence with the Father. This explanation John himself gives (ch. xiii. 1-3), for when he tells us:'Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart
oit of this world unto the Father,' he subjoins this explanation:' Knowing that the Father had given all things into His
hands, and that He was come from  God, and went to God.'
NTay, Christ Himself gives us the explanation of these declarations of His. For when by His Resurrection He had passed
into another mode of existence, though He offered Himself
then present to be seen and touched by the Apostles, yet He
says (Luke xxiv. 44),' These are the words which I spake unto
you, WHILE I WAS YET WITH YOU.' lie shows, therefore, that
the sayings were already fulfilled, ('Yet a little while I am
with you,''I am no more in the world,'' I leave the world,')
and that they are to be understood, NOT OF AN ABSENCE IN EVERY




THE PRESENCE  OF CHRIST.                    469
SENSE (omni modo), but of another mode of life, of intercourse,
and of presence."
"Though, therefore, this presence be not in any way of this
world, which we can understand or comprehehd,..   conyet lie can fulfil (the sacramental promise) in clsoinl.
ANOTHER MODE, though it be incomprehensible to us.'Christ
is united and conjoined with us who are yet on earth,
not indeed in any gross mode of this life, a mode whi:ch would
make Him an object of touch (attingentie), but IN A SUPERNATURAL
AND HEAVENLY MODE, YET TRULY.''The Article of the Ascension, therefore, not only does not overthrow the simple and
genuine sense of the institution (of the Lord's Supper), but, on
the contrary, rightly explained, confirms the verity of it.'"
"We believe and confess that the Son of God assumed the
true and entire substance of a human nature, with  I. Te Body
those essential properties which naturally accorn- of Christ.
pany and follow the substance of human nature... That substance, with its essential properties, He retained also after His
Resurrection, though its infirmities were laid aside, which also,
though He is in glory, we believe He retains true and entire.
And according to those natural or essential properties, and on
account of the natural mode of a true body, we have such sayings in Scripture as these:'I was not there,'' He is not
here, but is risen.' According also to those properties, and
agreeably to the mode of a true body, Luther, with Augustine
and the Scholastics, believes that the body of Christ is now in
glory, in that circumscribed form  in which He showed Himself to Paul and Stephen, in which also He shall return to
judgment, and in which He is seen in heaven by angels and
saints."
" When Christ says:'Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of. The Presthem,' we rightly understand the promise of the ence of Christ.
1. The promise
WHOLE CHRIST, or of His entire person, for He says of Christ's presthat He, in whose name we are gathered, is present. ence.
But no one will dare to say that the name of Christ is His
divine nature alone. It is His whole person, in each nature,
and according to each nature, and, indeed, in His office of




470         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Mediator and Saviour, for it is admitted that when the Scrip.
ture says a thing is done in the name of Christ, it denotes
that this pertains to the person according to each nature."
"In regard to that presence of the whole Christ in the
Church, there are special promises in the Word of God. For
(Matt. xxviii.) when Jesus,after His Resurrection, had appeared
upon a mountain in Galilee to more than five hundred of His
disciples at once, when He was before them, not in His divinity
alone, but whole and entire, in both natures, so that by that
very presence on that mountain HIe gave the demonstration
and the confirmation of the fact that Hte had risen in His true
body, so that His disciples, when they saw Him, worshipped
him, and when some doubted, as if there were a spirit, or a
spectre appearing in an  outward and visible form, Jesus
approached and spake to them — all which, beyond controversy, pertains to the human nature which Christ assumed.
And when He gave the command to His disciples to gather a
Church throughout the whole world, He added the promise,'Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.'
That promise, therefore, is rightly understood of the whole
Christ, God and man, according to both natures; for He who
was then and there before them, promised Iifis presence with His
Church through all time -— but He was then present, not in His
Divinity alone, but showing that even after His Resurrection,
in glory, he had and retained the verity of His human nature.
And He who was then entire in each nature, by a sure word
and peculiar promise, says:'I am present with you' (wherever,
to wit, my Church shall be, throughout the whole world).
And there is no reason whatever, in that most sweet promise
of the presence of Christ in His Church, why we should separate and exclude that nature which was assumed by Him in
which Ike is our kinsman and brother, and by which we'are
members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones,' (Eph. v.
30,) since l-e, in giving the promise, marks and describes, by
many circumstances, the nature he assumed, as we have
shown from the text."
With similar conclusiveness does Chemnitz reason in regard
to other passages, as, for instance, Mark xvi. 19, 20.    "'The




CHRIST'S PRESENCE.                         471
Lord.. sat on the right hand of God, and they went forth
and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them  and
confirming the word with signs following.'  They preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them: therefore the Lord
Jesus worked with thenl everywhere."  So, also, in regard to
the words: " The Son of man which is in heaven " (John iii. 13.
" That Christ, according to His divine nature, is present with
His Church, and with all other creatures, is not
2. The Point of
questioned. The divine essence is infinite, inmeas- AgleOlment als to
urable, illimitable, uncompounded: the operation cltist s p,.l.-.
urable,                                         ence. Nature of
of God proceeds from  Hi-s power.... Wherefore,i.ileOllltipicrsit is usual and right to say that God is everywhere, "n,'
or in all things essentially, or by essence, presence, and power,
without mingling, circumscription, distraction, or mutation
of Himself. Because the divine nature is incapable of partition, not having part separate from part, it is total totally,
wherever it exists; nor is there part in part, but it is total in
all, total in each, and total above all, as Damascenus says. And
the old writers say: The divine essence is within all, yet is not
included   it is out of all, yet not excluded."  Luther, in a
passage so closely parallel with the one we have just quoted
from Chemnitz, that we cannot forbear placing the two side by
side, says: " God is not a Being with extension, of whom we
can say, IIe is so high, so broad, so thick; but He is a supernatural, unsearchable Being, who is total and entire in every
granule, and yet in, and over, and apart from all creatures...
Nothing is so small that God is not smaller, nothing so great
that God is not greater... Hle is, in a word, an ineffable
Being, over and apart from all that we can speak or think."' Since, however, in the person of Christ, there subsists
not only the divine, but the human nature, the  3. The mooted
question  at present concerns the latter, to  wit, llristit' pres
where and how the person of Christ, according to ece.
both natures, or in His assumed human nature, is present- or
wills, and is able to be present? "
After dwelling on Christ's presence at the Supper, Chemnitz
says:
"But not alone in that place - not at that time alone when




472          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
the Supper of the Lord is observed in the public assembly of the
Church, is the whole Christ, in both His natures, present with
the Church militant on earth, as if when that celebration was
over tie withdrew  His presence, and the members of His
Church, apart from that public assembly, were, while in their
vocations, their trials, and temptations, deprived of that most
sweet presence of Christ, their High Priest and King, their Head
and their Brother.  On the contrary, there is in the observance
of the Lord's Supper a public, solemn, and peculiar attestation
and sealing of the truth, that Christ, our Mediator andl Saviour,
wishes mercifully to be present with His Church, which is warring in the world, to be present, not with the hctaf, or with one
part of IHimself only, to wit, lHis divinity alone, BUT WHOLE AND
ENTIRE, that is, in THAT NATURE ALSO WHICQH HE HAS ASSUMED,
IN which lie is of like nature with us, our Kinsman and our
Brother- that nature in which He was tempted, so that He
might have compassion on us in our griefs - that nature in
which, by His sufferings and death, He finished the work of
our redemption, so that thus we may be rendered members of
His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Eph. v. 30).  And
because our reason cannot grasp or comprehend this, St. Paul
adds:'This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ
and the Church.'"
"The humanity which Christ, assumed was not, by that
IV. Modes of union with Deity, converted or transmuted into an
Presence. 1. The infinite or immiense essence, but has and retains in
body of Christ in
its own niture that very union, and after it, the verity of a human
Iocst.     nature, and its physical or essential properties, by
which a true human body consists in a certain, finite, and circumscribed symmetry (dimension) of members, and which,
consisting in a local or finite situation and position of members, has one part distinct from  another in a certain order.
The body of Christ, therefore, with the property of its own
nature, is essentially or naturally finite, that is, according to
its natural properties, which it has and retains even in that
union, IT LOCALLY AND CIRCUMSCRIPTIVELY OCCUPIES A CERTAIN
PLACE.*De duab. Nat. 174.




MODES OF PRESENCE REJECTED.                         473
"That mode of visible converse, and that circumscribed and
local form  of the presence of His body, according to the condition and mode of this earthly life, according to the flesh,
lie has by His ascension TAKEN FROM US WHOI are on earth.
And this is what He means when He says:'Again. Andas to its
I leave the world, —   e ye have not always.' These locality is no
longer on earlth.
words, therefore, speak oF A MODE OF PRESENCE, ac-'             t.
cording to the respect and condition of this world, A MODE
VISIBLE, SENSIBLE, LOCAL, AND CIRCUMSCRIBED, according  to
which mode of presence CHRIST IS NOW NO LONGER ORDINARILY
PRESENT WITH IIS CHURCH ON EARTH." *
" Since the body of Christ, neither in the (personal) union,
NOR IN GLORY, is transmuted into an infinite  or
3. Ts not presimmense substance, therefore through itself (per se), e,,t through the
and of itself (ex se), EVEN IN GLORY, IT IS FINITE in properties of a
glorified body,
the property of its nature, AND BY  THE MODE OF but in that mode
GLORIFIED BODIES IS SOMEWHERE (alicubi), the pre- isi"tv.
rogative of the personal union, as I have said, being excepted.
And in this visible form or condition of glorified bodies, Christ,
in His body, Is NOT PRESENT to us in this life, in the Church
militant on  earth, but is in the heavens, whence He shall
return to judgment, in that form  in which  He now  offers
Himiself to be seen by the souls of the blessed, and by angels."t
"According to the natural properties of a true body, or by
any essential attribute, the body of Christ (which., Mdesof),resis by the property of its nature finite) IS NOT PRES- nce rejected.
ENT in all places where the Supper is administered, EITHER BY
LOCAL CIRCUMSCRIPTION, OR BY ANY VISIBLE, SENSIBLE, OR NATURAL
MODE, respect, or condition of this world.  This mode has been
taken from the world."
" Nor is the presence such as that of glorified bodies: in that
form He will not appear till the final judgment."
"We by no means teach that the body of Christ, as a boundless mass, is expanded, distributed, diffused, drawn out, or
*Deduab. Nat. 175. The limitation which Chemnitz designs to make by the
word " ordinarily," has reference to such cases as the appearing of Christ to Saul
on the way to Damascus, to Stephen, etc., as he shows at large. Do. 176, 177.
tDo. 176. Cf. 177.




474         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
extended through all places (or as Damascenus expresses it,
that the flesh of Christ is corporeally co-extended with the
Deity assuming it,) so that IN THIS,WAY IT IS PRESENT."
"Nor by multiplication, or replication-as the image of
one body in many pieces of a broken mirror.  The body of
Christ is one, not many."
"By no means, also, do we think that the body of Christ,
either in (the personal) union, or in glory, its substance being
lost, and its essential properties abolished, is converted or
transmuted into a spiritual substance, infinite, immense, and
now in its essential property uncircumscribed, so that by reason
of its essential, infinite immensity, it is in all places, and fills
all things, as divinity in this mode, and in this respect is present everywhere; for the substance of the natures and their
essential properties remain in Christ unaffected, in that very
union and glory."
" Nor that the divine nature alone, and not the human also
is present."
" Nor that it agrees with the words of the institution, that
we should understand the presence of the merit, virtue, and
efficacy merely of the body of Christ, the substance of it being
excluded and separated."*
"Christ, according to His human nature, wills to be present
in His Church, where His Supper is celebrated on
5. The mode of
presence af- earth, and through the humanity Hle has assumed,
firmed.    as by an organ connate with us, as the ancients
express it, wishes to apply, confirm, and seal to us Iis benefits,
and thus to execute in the Church His office of life-giving,
according to both natures, through His life-giving flesh."t
The premise which is conceded is that " in a physical respect,
6. Thepremise in a natural mode and condition of this world, one
which is con- body, according to its essential or natural propercedled, and  the
infeence which ties, is not at the same time in different places, nor
is denied.    is there an essential or natural property in the body
of Christ of being in different places, nor is it by any essential
or natural attribute of Christ's body that it is present at the
same time in all those places where the Supper of the Lord is
* De duab. natur. 173.                   t Do. 178.




THE LUTHERAN  VIEW NOT EUTYCHIAN.  475
celebrated, as in divinity it is the essential attribute of infinite
immensity to be everywhere.  ALL THESE THINGS WE CONCEDE."
The inference which is denied is this: " But it by no means
follows from this that the divine power of the Son of God
cannot effect THAT, IN ANOTHER MODE than that which is natural and according to the physical properties of a body, or
in the sensible manner of this world, with His body remaining safe in its substance, and its essential properties abiding
TIE SHOULD BE PRESENT WHERESOEVER  -IE WILLS, IN A MODE
WHICH IS SUPERNATURAL, DIVINE, OR HEAVENLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO US."
" Nor is there a contradiction involved when the same body
is said to be in one place, IN THE NATURAL MODE, according to
its essential properties, and if it is maintained that beyond its
physical attributes, through the will and power of God, it is
present not in one, but in MANY places, in a SUPERNATURAL,
HEAVENLY, OR DIVINE MODE; for there is no contradiction when
what is contrary is attributed to the same thing IN DIFFERENT
RESPECTS AND MODES. And Justin rightly says: We commit
the things of nature to nature, the things of art to art, and the
things of God to God; but Him all things obey."
These extracts, as they throw light upon the Sacramentas
questions discussed by Dr. Gerhart, may also be useful in illustrating yet more directly the point next raised. After finishing his parallel between the doctrines of the two Churches on
the Lord's Supper, He takes up the " Reformed (and he might
have added, the Lutheran,) Doctrine of the Person  Go manifest
of Christ."  On this great point, according to Dr. ill te flesh. The
Lu th o ran docGerhart,' the Lutheran view is in the line of the trine of tie Per.
ancient Eutychian, and the Reformed in the line son ofCh'ist.
of the ancient Nestorian method of thought, though it would
be unjust to charge either Confession with holding the corresponding ancient heresy."
We shall not attempt to question the Doctor's position as to
the Nestorianizing element in the Reformed view,  Th Lutheran
but we think that the idea that the Lutheran view not Eutyview of the person of Christ is in the "line of the chian
ancient Eutychian," proceeds from a wholly incorrect judgment




476         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of what the Lutheran view is. On the contrary, the statements
of Lutheran doctrine, beyond every other, are guarded with
extraordinary care against the Eutychian tendency. We maintain, further, that no system is more thoroughly antagonistic
to Eutychianism than the Lutheran system, properly understood.  Even the Reformled doctrine itself has a point of
apparent contact with it, which Lutheranism has not. Eutyches taught that Christ has but one nature.  The Lutheran
Church holds "that the two natures, divine and human, are
inseparably conjoined in unity of person, one Christ, true God
and true man."*  Eutyches taught that the body of Christ
was not of the same substance as ours. The Lutheran Church
teaches that " Jesus Christ is man, of the substance of His
mother, born into the world, perfect man, of a rational soul
and human flesh subsisting.  One Christ, not by the conversion of divinity into flesh, but by the assumption of humanity
to God; one, indeed, not by confusion of substances, but by
unity of person, for as the rational soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ."t  The doctrine of Eutyches
is, moreover, expressly rejected in several passages of the
Formula Concordire.  But is not the Reformed doctrine, that
Christ's personal presence at the Lord's Supper is only in one
nature, a concession logically so far to Eutyches, that it seems
to admit that sometimes, and somewhere, nay, rather always,
almost everywhere, Christ has but one nature?
Alike removed frolm Nestorianism and Eutychianism, the
Illustration of doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church may
the Lutheran be thus illustrated:  The essential properties of
doctrine.
each nature of our Lord are undisturbed by their
union in Him, but as these two natures form one inseparable
person, the whole person is involved in the acts of each part
of it.  Everything that the Saviour did and suffered is both
divine and human, that is, it is personal. He did, and suffered
all, and He is both human and divine. Every act, indeed, is
done, every suflering endured, through or by the one or the
other nature, but not without the personal presence of the
other.  Jesus Christ wrought miracles through the divine
*Augsburg Confession, Art. II1.,    t Athanasian Creed, 29-35.




ILLUSTRATION OF THE LUTH. DOCTRINE.  477
nature, but they were wrought by the human nature. Through
His divine omnipotence sight was given to the blind, but His
divine omnipotence wrought it by His human' touch.  Jesus
Christ died according to His human nature, but His death
was the death of a divine person. Through His human infirmity He was crucified, but that human weakness wrought
by His divine majesty an infinite sacrifice.  Godhead cannot
bleed, but the Church is purchased by the blood of God; for He
who bleeds is in one inseparable person, God as well as man,
and His blood has efficacy, not because of the properties of the
nature according to which He bleeds, but because of the attributes of His whole person, which is divine.  HIad not He who
bled been personally God as well as man, Iis blood would not
have availed. Jesus Christ is essentially and necessarily omnipresent according to the divine nature, but His human nature
not of its own essence, or by a necessity resulting from its own
attributes, but because the divine has taken it into personal
union with itself, is rendered present through the divine.  The
divine neither loses nor imparts any essential attribute, nor
does the human lose any essential attribute of its own, nor
receive any essential attribute of the divine; but the divine,
omnipresent of itself, renders present the human which has
been taken into its own person.  The doctrine on which this
rests is known in theological technology as the " Communicatio
idiomatum," that is, the common participation of properties, the
doctrine that the properties of the divine and human natures
are actually the properties of the whole person of Christ, and
actually exercised by Him in the unity of His person.  We
Lutherans affirm that there is a real common participation of
the whole person in the properties of both natures.  The
Reformed deny it, and say that there is no real common participation, but that each nature is isolated from the other in its
attributes, and that the person of Christ has only the common
participation in the names of the two sets of attributes, the
human and divine.  In other words, the question which
divides us is between a comzmunicatio idiomatumn, and a communicatio nominurn, the question whether the two natures enjoy a
common participation of properties in the one person, or merely




478         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
a common participation of names. To Lutherans, the view we
reject seems logically to run out into a denial of the unity of
Christ's person, and of the reality of the incarnation.
It may tend to give a clearer view of the doctrine to present
Four points in four points in it, in the order in which they stand
the doctrine   in the Formula of Concord.
1. The Lutheran Church holds that from  a personal union
of the divine and human, it follows that there are not two
Christs, outwardly conjoined, one of whom is God, and the
other a man, but one Christ, who is both God and man in one
person.
2. These two natures are not fused into one substance, nor
is the one absorbed by, or transmuted into the other, but each
nature retains its essential properties, neither losing its own,
nor receiving those of the other.
3., Dr. Gerhart, in defining the true doctrine as he regards
it, says: "The Reformed predicated the essential attributes
of divinity of the divine nature only."  So do we. Dr. Gerhart is entirely mistaken in imagining that the doctrine of our
Church is in conflict with this position. In the very statement of our doctrine over against its opposite, the Formula
Concordiae says:* " The attributes of the divine nature are, to
be omnipotent, eternal, infinite, and of itself, according to the
attribute of its nature and of its own natural essence, to be
present everywhere, and to be omniscient. All these attributes
neither are, nor ever can become, the attributes of the human
nature." 
4. Nor is Dr. Gerhart more happy in stating a point of difference between the doctrine of our Church and his own, when
he says: " The Reformed predicated the essential attributes of
humanity of (Christ's) human nature only."  So do we. The
paragraph of the Formula of Concord next to th9 one _we have
quoted, says: " The properties of human nature are: To be a
corporeal creature, to consist of flesh and blood, to be finite
and circumscribed, to suffer, die, ascend, descend, to move from
place to place, to hunger, thirst, grow cold, suffer from heat,
and such like.  These never are, nor can become the attributes
of the divine nature."
* l'age 606.




SUTMMARY OF THE VIEW  OF OUR CHURCH. 479
Our Confessions teach that the essential attributes of Christ's
human nature belong to it forever.  He remains a true man,
with every essential property of the nature of a true man.
The divine nature loses no essential attributes of deity, and
the human nature receives none. To be essentially,
Summary of
or by virtue of its own nature, everywhere present, the view of our
omnipotent, and omniscient, is something divine; Church.
and hence the Lutheran Church holds that the Godhead alone
is essentially, and by virtue of its own nature, everywhere present, allwise, and almighty.  So also to be essentially, or by
virtue of its own nature limited, in presence, in power, and in
wisdom, pertains to the human nature, and hence the Lutheran
Church holds that the humanity of Christ is neither omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent, essentially or by virtue of its
otwn nature. The humanity of Christ has all the essential (by
no means, however, all the accidental) properties of ours, and
in and of itself is finite.  God became man, but Godhead does
not become humanity. A man is God —but humanity does
not become Deity. \In this aspect the Lutheran Church draws
a distinction, total and all-comprehending, between the presence of the Godhead of Christ and the presence of His humanity.  Omnipresence is the essential attribute of the divine, and
hence His Godhead is necessarily, in and of itself, in virtue of
its own nature, present.  But the essential attribute of the
human is to have a determinate presence, and hence the human
nature of Christ has such a determinate presence, nor in and
of itself would the human nature have any other presence; but
as it is in one person with the divine, it is in that one person
rendered present with and through the divine. In other words,
what the divine has in its essence and of itself, the human has
and exercises through the divine, in consequence of its personal union with it. We might imitate one of our Lord's own
deep expressions in characterizing it, and liight suppose Him
to say: "As my divine nature hath omnipresence in itself, so
hath it given to my human nature to have omnipresence in
itself."
From what has been said, our readers will be, prepared to
answer for themselves the' most specious objection which is




480         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO N.
brought against the doctrine of our Church.  That objection
is this: That to be omnipresent is an essential attribute of
Godhead, and, therefore, the humanity of Christ cannot be
omnipresent; for that would be to suppose humanity to have
Answer to the an essential attribute of divinity.  The reply is
leading objection
to the Lutheranl easy: To be omnipresent of itself, in virtue of its
doctrine.  own essence, is an attribute of the divine, and, therefore, the humanity of Christ is not, and cannot be omnipresent
of itself, in virtue of its owni essence; but the Godhead can render
it present through the divine, with which it is one person. The
one humanity of Christ can be present in two modes: one, finite
and independent, in which mode it is present of itself, by virtue
of its own essence; the other, infinite and dependent, in which
it is not present of itself, in virtue of its own essence, for that, we
admit, would be to claim for it a divine attribute, but is rendered present by the divine.  In other words, the Godhead,
which of itself is present, makes present the human, which is
one person with it. So, to be conscious in its own essence, or of
its own nature, is an essential property of soul, not of matter;
therefore, the human eye, in its own essence or nature, has no
power of being conscious of light; but when the eye is united
as a part of the body, in one person with the soul, the eye has
a real sight through the soul, as the soul has its sight by the
eye; but there are not two consciousnesses. The soul does not
give up its consciousness, nor does the eye receive it.  Both
retain their essential attributes.  The eye does not become
spirit, nor the soul become matter; nor has the soul one consciousness, nor the eye another; but the whole person has its
one consciousness, through the soul and by the eye. There is
a common participation of the two natures in the act of the
one person; and not verbally, but really, the man sees through
his soul and by his eye; the eye itself really receiving a distinct set of powers, from its union with the soul, and the soul
exercising its own essential power, under a wholly new set of
conditions, in consequence of its union with the eye.  But if
some minute philosopher persists in saying: You then attribute
to matter the consciousness which alone pertains to mind, we
reply: An independent, self-originating consciousness belongs




DOCTRINES OF THE PERSON  OF CHRIST.  481
to mind; but a dependent, soul-originated consciousness belongs to matter. There is no transfer of properties; but there
is a common participation in them.  And sq, in some sense,
and yet with the infinite difference made by the nature of the
subjects in this case, we reply to the sophism against the doctrine of our Church: The divine in Christ is forever divine;
the human forever human; but as they can never be confounded, so can they never be separated; and the one person
participates in both, and each has a personal communication
with the attributes of the other.  " Great is the MYSTERY of
Godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.
In Dr. Gerhart's further development of the doctrine of the
German Reformed Church, especially as related to  Tihe Reformed
and Lutheralu
that of the Lutheran Church, he goes on to say, in doctrines of the
immediate connection with the words on which we Person of Christ.
have already dwelt: "The Reformed..thus emphasizing
especially the difference of the two natures, though affirming
them  to be inseparably and eternally united in one person."
The German Reformed Church certainly does not affirm more
emphatically than the Lutheran that the two natures are different, although it may exaggerate the difference until it
obscures the doctrine of the unity. But when Dr. Gerhart
says that his Church affirms the two natures to " be inseparably and eternally united-in the one person," he strikes the very
rock which is fatal to the logical consistency of the whole
un-Lutheran view of this great subject. For at the Lord's
Supper he admits that the divine nature of Christ is present.
Now, either the human nature of Christ is united with the
divine there, or it is not. If it be there united with it, it
must be there present with it, for personal union implies not
only presence, but the most intimate species of presence. If it
be not united with it there, it is separated from it there, and
consequently not inseparably united.  Except in the locality
in which the human nature of Christ is confined, on the
Reformed theory, the human is separated from the divine and
the divine from the human.  So far then from the union, on
this theory, being inseparable, there is but a solitary point at
which the two natures are not separated. As is infinity to a
31




482          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
space of a few feet, so is the separateness of the two natures
of Christ to their uhity on the Reformed theory.  And this
shows that the divergence of the Reformed and Lutheran
views on the Lord's Supper originates in a radical diversity on
one point of doctrine, of the highest importance, in regard to
the person of Christ.  When the Augsburg Confession. * says
that the two natures are " in unitate personse inseperabiliter
conjunctwe," (in unity of person inseparably conjoined,) it asserts
what in its sense the Reformed doctrine denies. The connection
of the two doctrines of the inseparableness of Christ's person,
and the co-presence of them in the Supper, is no afterthought
of, the stricter Lutheran theology, but was distinctly before
Melanchthon's mind in the whole era of the composition of the
Confession. Thus, January 30, 1529, Melanchthon wrote: " It
is not to be imagined that the divilnity of Christ is an/ywhere where
His humanity is not; for what is this but to separate Christ? "t
And a little later, April, 1529:'" Why should there be these
contentions in regard to the Lord's Supper?  As all confess
that Christ is present in the communion (synaxi), according
to His divine nature, to what purpose is it to separate the
humanityffrom  the divinity? "".  In a similar strain he writes
to (Ecolampadius, April 8, 1529: " I look at Christ's pronmises
of this kind,' Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world!' where there is no need to tear away the divinity fromz
the humanity.  f Hence (proinde) I believe that this sacrament is
the testimony of a true presence... It is a sentiment unworthy
of Christians, that Christ in such a way occupies a part of
heaven - that He sits in it as.if shut up in prison...  We are
to form our judgment of heavenly things not from geometry,
but from the Word of God." ~  These extracts show that Melanchthon meant by an "' inseparable " union, one which excluded the separation in space as well as in time, and that the
doctrine of the Formula of Concord on the personal co-presence
Art. III. 1.
t Corp. Reform. I. No. 585. Non est fingendurm, alicubi esse divinitatem
Christi, ubi non sit humanitas. Quid hoc est aliud, quam seperare Christum?
j Corp. Ref. I. No. 596. Quid attinet discerpere humanitatem a divinitate?
i Corp. Ref. I. No. 598.




OUR SAVIO UR'S PRESENCE IN HEAVEN.   483
of both natures of Christ is but the doctrine of the Augsburg
Confession amplified.
Dr. Gerhart goes on to state very fairly the doctrines which
are necessarily involved in the view of his Church.  O  Savour's
He says: " Before the Ascension, the human was presence on
located on earth."  With this proposition as a earth
positive one, we agree; but if it means that even when on
earth the human nature of our Lord had no capacity of a
higher presence through the divine in the one person, our
Church would deny it.  Our Lord speaks of Himself to Nicodemus as " He that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven."  The difference between our Lord
on earth and in glory was not in what IHe had intrinsically,
nor in what He had the ability to do, but in what He voluntarily exercised, or chose to forego.  His humiliation consisted
in the ordinary abnegation of the use of the powers which
abode in Him intrinsically; but at times He chose, even on
earth, to reveal that glory.  Ie allowed the form  of God to
manifest itself in His transfiguration, and in His miracles, but
His equality with God was none the more positive then than
when His sweat, mingling with His blood, fell to the ground
in Gethsemane. He moved on earth in the ordinary voluntary
suspension of the exercise of His great prerogatives.,While
our Church, therefore, holds most firmly that His human
nature was on earth locally, she denies that it had no other
power of presence than the local, and that in every sense,
necessarily and unchangeably, it was on earth only.
But Dr. Gerhart states still more fully, and with even more
transparent fairness, the doctrine of his Church  Our Saviour's
thus: "After the ascension it (the human) was  e-sence. r Lienlocated at the right hand of God, and nowhere else, folsmed theory.
being excluded from the earth, and limited to the place of exaltation in heaven."  The symbolical orthodoxy of this position
he proves by a citation from the Genevan Catechism, which is
all very well, if the German Reformed Church is in the whole
unity of the Calvinistic faith; but is not so satisfactory, if that
Church, as we understand some of its ablest divines now to
contend, is not Calvinistic.




484          CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
In Dr. Gerhart's statement, if it be analyzed, are the following propositions: 1. That the human nature of Christ is localized.  2. That its locality is at the right hand of God.  3.
That by necessary consequence the right hand of God is a
locality. 4. That the human nature of Christ is nowhere else;
but is, 5. Excluded from  the earth; and, 6. Limited to the
place of exaltation in heaven.
On every one of these points the Lutheran Church differs from
The Lutheran the Reformed, if Dr. Gerhart presents the Reformed
Antithesis    view correctly, as we think, in the main, he does.
1. The generally received view in our Church is that even
the finite presence of our Saviour's human nature is not local,
but definitive, that is, that its mode of presence is more closely
analogous to that in which a created spirit is present, than to
that of unglorified matter. St. Paul declares that the resurrection body' is a spiritual body," that is, a body analogous in
its properties to spirit, and, as the antithesis to 6' natural," a
body with supernatural properties. That our Saviour at His
resurrection entered on the plenary use of the powers whose
exercise Ite had foregone in His humiliation, is so well known
as the doctrine of our Church, that we need cite no passages to
prove it.  But we might cite many passages from Calvinistic
writers to show that not all of them sympathize with the disposition to narrow the power of our Saviour's humanity. We
will give a single extract from  one of the most finished and
thoughtful Calvinistic writers of our day, the late Dr. James
Hlamilton.  It will be found in his delightful little volume,
"A. Morning beside the Lake of Galilee," which
1. The Saviour's
resurrectine-life. dwells upon one scene in our Saviour's resurrectionlaIiio'iu.  life on earth. IIe says: "Christ came in the morning.  So at first we are apt to say; but it would be putting it
more correctly, if we said that' Christ, who had been present
all the night, allowed Himself to be seen in the morning.  He
was now risen from  the dead, and had put on that glorious
body which evades our grosser sense, and needs an act of will
to make it visible.*  In His ubiquitous Godhead everywhere
*After His resurrection, Christ's body was only visible by a distinct act of His
will. - Chrysostom, quoted by Trench.




THE RIGHT HAND  OF GOD.                     485
present, at any moment, or in any place, lie could emerge to
view and-reappear in corporeal guise, so that former intimacy
was able to exclaim,' It is the Lord,' and so that He Himself
was able to say,' Reach hither thy hand, and'thrust it into
my side;' and as soon as the purpose was fulfilled, without
necessarily quitting the spot, the glorified body ceased to be
seen. In its escape from the sepulchre, more entirely transfigured than it had been on the Holy Mount, it was only when
the Lord Jesus so willed, that in flesh and blood, as of old,
that body stood revealed; and when the design was accomplished, it again retired into the super-sensual sphere of its
habitual invisibleness. It was I on this wise that Jesus showed
Himself,' when,at any period after His resurrection, He was seen
at all. It was not by entering an apartment, or by arriving
from a journey, but by coming forth from the impalpable and
viewless, that, whether to longing disciples or to the startled
persecutor, lie stood disclosed; no phantom, no mere vision,
courting severest scrutiny:' Handle me and see,' and into that
materialism, reembodied by His own divine volition, the normal
state of His glorified humanity was such as mortal sense cannot
grasp; and just as when the body was' earthy;' the thing supernatural was for His' face to shine as the sun,' so now that it
was' heavenly,' the thing supernatural was for that body to
come out appreciable by untransfigured organs -perceptible
to eyes and ears which were not yet immortal like itself."
If such was the nature of the manifestations of Christ's
spiritual body in what we might style the provisional intervals, what might we expect when it entered upon all the plenitude of its glory at the right hand of God?
2. For to us the right hand of God is not a place, nor is the
ascension to His right hand the rising to a place. If the right
hand of God means a place, we might well ask, Where is His
left hand? To sit at the right hand. of God is to be associated
in His sovereign rule, and to share in His sovereign power.
The right hand of God, if you relate it to presence,  2. Tho right
is everywhere; if you take it in its Scriptural use, hand of God.
it either means the omnipotence of God, or His regal majesty,
and has no reference to space at all.  When we teach that




486         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, we mean that He rules
in co-sovereignty with the Father, in a potency which, as it is
exercised on all things, must be in all places, a potency which,
as it is inseparable from the substance of this whole person, in
which it inheres, implies the presence of that whole person,
and, therefore, of His humanity, which is an essential and
inseparable constituent of that person.
3. Hence the Lutheran Church, while it firmly believes that
the presence which the human nature of Christ has in and of
itself is determinate and limited, believes that there is a presence of that human nature no less real, in and through the
divine nature with which it is one person, and that in this
mode of presence it is as really on earth as in heaven.  God
has given Him the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession; His mediatorial dominion is from  sea to sea, and from
the river unto the ends of the earth.  God has said: "I will
set His hand in the sea, and His right hand in the rivers," and
we devoutly rest in the faith that our Saviour rules not by
vicars, but in His own glorious and all-sufficient person, true
God and true man inseparably.  When we remember that the
3. Spirit and only absolute essence is Spirit, that all matter is
matter.    thought into being by the infinite Spirit, rests on
that essence for its continued existence, derives all its attributes from, owes all its properties to, the will which gave and
continues its being; when we remember that the body of our
Lord is in personal union with the absolute essence which
creates all things, we can easily draw the inference not only
that any properties which it was possible for God to will that
His body should have, should belong to it, but that it would
have an adaptation as a personal organ of the divine nature,
and properties necessary for that adaptation which would
infinitely transcend the sublimest forms of all other matter.
If such subtle matter, as the etherial medium which undulates
into light, be the mere raiment of God, what may be the exquisite subtlety of that matter which is assumed into His very
person?  Science detects a form of matter whose undulations,
in forming one color, are seven hundred and twenty-seven millions of millions in a second, and it is within the power of God




THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM.                       487
to give to matter properties which transcend those of light,
infinitely more than the properties of light transcend those of
lead or clay.  When we think of matter with this amazing
range of qualities, taken as the very organ of ipcarnate Deity,
we may realize that the demands of the "' spiritual body" of
our Lord, on faith, pertain to the highest mysteries and sublimest trust with which it called to justify its work of bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
Dr. Gerhart goes on to illustrate his position: "The Heidelberg Catechism," he says, "inquires in the forty-  Tie Ieidelibelrg
seventh Question:' Is not then Christ with us, as Catechism.
He has promised, unto the end of the world?' "  It seems as
if it were felt that the Reformed position was open to the suspicion of seeming to empty Christ's promise of its fulness.
Nor does the answer of the Catechism relieve this suspicion.
Its answer is: " Christ is true man and true God.  According
to His human nature, Hle is not now upon earth; but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He at no time
departs from us." The reply wears to us the air of a certain
evasiveness, as if it parried the question rather than answered
it.  It seems to answer a certain question, but really answers
another; or rather, it seems to answer affirmatively, but actually
answers negatively. If Christ.be true man and true God, then
humanity and divinity are inseparable elements of His essence;
where either is wanting, Christ is wanting.  If the question
be, Is the divine nature of Christ present? the Heidelberg
Catechism answers it, affirming that it is.  If the question be,
Is the human nature of Christ present? the t eidelberg Catechism answers, and says it is not.  But if the question be, as
it is, Is Christ present? the Heidelberg Catechism  does not
answer it, for it leaves the very heart of the query untouched:
Can Christ, in the absence of an integral part of His person,
really be said to be present? As far as the Heidelberg Catechism implies an answer to this question, that answer seems
to us to be, Christ is not present.  Ursinus, in His explanation
of the Catechism, is compelled virtually to concede this, for on
the thirty-sixth Question, in reply to the objection, that on
Hlis theory, as " the divinity is but half Christ, therefore only




488         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
half Christ is present with the Church," he replies: "If by
half Christ they understand one nature which is united to the
other in the same person, the whole reason may be granted:
namely, that not both, but one nature only of Christ, though
united to the other, that is, Ihis Godhead, is present with us."
Leydecker, in commenting  on this Question, says: "The
absence of the human nature does not take away the presence of
the Deity."  Heppe (himself Reformed) indeed declares that it
is the Reformed doctrine that " the humanity of Christ is not
a part of His person," and quotes to sustain this position,
Polanus, IHeidegger, Zanchius, and Cocceius, but it does not
strike us that Dr. Heppe has understood his authorities, or the
natural force of his own terms.
Nor does the Heidelberg Catechism relieve the grand difficulty of its theory by its next question and answer, which Dr.
Gerhart also quotes. " Question forty-eight: But if His human
nature is not present wherever His Godhead is, are not the two
natures in Christ separated from one another? By no means;
for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everyiwhere present, it must follow that the same is both beyond the limits of
the human nature He assumed, and yet none the less in it, and
remains personally united to it."  This reply, as we understand
it, runs out logically into this: The Godhead is inseparably
connected with the humanity, but the humanity is not inseparably connected with the Godhead; that is, one part of the
person is inseparably connected with the other, but the other
is not inseparably connected with that one part: the whole
second person of the Trinity is one person with the humanity
in one point of space, but everywhere else it is not one person
with it.  There is, in fact, apparently no personal union whatever, but a mere local connection - not a dwelling of the fulness of the Godhead bodily, but simply an operative manifestation; two persons separable and in every place but one
separated, not one inseparable person - inseparable in space as
well as in time.  As God dwells in His substantial presence
everywhere, as He has a special and gracious presence in the
bodies and souls of believers, as He so dwelt in inspired men
as to make them miraculous organs of truth and of supernatu



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM.                   489
ral powers, it is exceedingly difficult to prevent this low view
from running out into Socinianism, as, indeed, it actually has
run in Calvinistic lands, so that it became a proverb, often
met with in the older theological writers-"A young Calvinist,
an old Socinian."  This peril is confessed and mourned over
by great Calvinistic divines. New England is an illustration
of it on an immense scale, in our own land.  Even the Socinianism  of other parts of the Protestant world illustrates the
same tendency, for these communions have either developed
out of Calvinistic Churches, as, for example, the Arminians,
or have first gone over, practically, to the Reformed basis,
and on it have built their later Rationalism, as in the apostate
portions of the Lutheran Church. Just those portions of the
Reformed Churches which have been most free from Socinianism, are those which have been characteristically Lutheranizing, as the German Reformed and the Church of England.
And it seems to us that the most dangerous consequences
might be logically deduced from the Reformed theory. The
divine nature is a totality and an absolute unit, in which there
can be no fractions. It does not exist, and is not present, by
parts, but as a whole. It is present not by extension nor
locality, but after another manner, wholly incomprehensible to
us, not less real, but if there may be degrees of reality, more
real than the local. If the divine nature is present at all without the human nature of Christ, the whole of it is present
without that human nature.  If the whole divine nature of
Christ be present on earth without His human nature, then
the whole divine nature is unincarnate here.  If it be unincarnate here, then it could take to itself another human nature
on earth, or, for the matter of that, an infinite number of
human natures, each of them  as really one person with it
apparently, on this theory, as the human nature of Christ now
is. If, moreover, such a conjunction as this theory asserts is
really a unity of person, then this infinitude of human natures
being one person in the divine, would be one person with each
other also. Nor is this supposition of the evolution of such
a theory from these premises purely imaginary.  Dr. Brewster, in his Defence of the Theory of the Plurality of Worlds,




490         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATIO1.
has actually tried to solve certain difficulties by suggesting the
idea of multiplied cotemporaneous incarnations of the Son of
God in different worlds.  "Ma/y not the divine nature," he
says, "which  can neither suffer nor die, and which in our
planet, once only, clothed itself in humanity, resume elsewhere a physical form, and expiate the guilt of unnumbered
worlds? "' This is giving us Hindoo mythology for divine
theology, and substituting Vishnu for Christ.
This, then, is the result which our Church, guided by God's
Spirit in Htis Word, has reached: That a unity
The Result.
which does not imply the co-presence of its constituent parts cannot be called a personal unity, that unity
which is so perfect that the very identity of the subject of it
centres in it.  With this result our faith reverently coincides,
and our reason is in harmony with our faith.  To us there
seems no real incarnation possible, logically, on any other
theory; but if logic allowed it, the Word of Gnod would not.
Dr. Gerhart goes on to say: " The question arises logically:
The Lord's Sup- Since the humanity of Christ is limited to the right
per- Refortned h    Ge
Lnd Lthern hand of God, and believers on earth commune, in
views.     the Lord's Supper, with the flesh and blood of
Christ, no less than with IHis Spirit, how is the communion
established and maintained? "  As a voucher for the doctrine
which underlies the question, Dr. Gerhart gives, in a note, a
sentence from  Calvin's Confession of Faith, concerning the
Eucharist, 1537, which, literally translated, runs thus: " When,
therefore, we speak of the communion which believers have
with Christ, we mean that they commune not less with His
flesh and blood than with His Spirit, so that they thus possess
the whole Christ."  Dr. Gerhart goes on to say, in answer to
the question given above: " In opposition to the Ulbiquitarian
theory of the Lutherans, the Reformed theologians replied:
By the mysterious agency of the Holy Spirit, elevating the
hearts of believers to Christ in heaven, who feeds and nourishes them with the life-giving power of His flesh and blood."
If we analyze these sentences, we find that they express or
imply the following propositions:
*More Worlds than One. N. Y. 1854. p. 148.




PFIRST AND SECOND PROPOSITIONS.                 491
1. "The humanity of Christ is limited to the right hand of
God."  We have tried to show that the right  First Proposihand of God is not limited, but, on the contrary, tion.
involves omnipresent and omnipotent rule.  Whatever effect,
therefore, being at the right hand of God may have on the
humanity of Christ, it certainly does not limit it.
2. "Believers, on earth, commune, in the Lord's Supper,
with the flesh and blood of Christ."  If by this  Second Propois meant that none but those who receive the sition.
Lord's Supper in faith share in its blessings, the statement is
entirely Scriptural and Lutheran.  The Augsburg Confession
expressly rejects the idea of those who teach that " the Sacraments justify by the outward work wrought, (ex opere operato,)
and who do not teach that faith is required in the use of the
Sacraments."
But as the communion is not based upon something ideal,
but on a supernatural verity, upon a presence spiritual, heavenly, and incomprehensible in its manner, yet most true, a
presence of the human nature of Christ, as the mystery of this
presence has its heart not in us, but in the Incarnate Mediator,
we believe that alike to those who receive the Supper in faith,
and to those who receive it in unbelief, the object sacramentally
received is the same.  The believer embraces it in faith, to his
soul's health; and the unbeliever,' not discerning the Lord's
body," but treating that which he receives as if it were mere
bread, "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself," but it is
the same thing which is salutary to the one and judicial to
the other.  When a Paine, or a Voltaire, takes a Bible into
his hand to turn its life-giving nourishment to poison in his
own soul, the Bible is no less the Bible, no less really the organ
of the Holy Ghost, than when an Arndt or an Edwards bends
over it in the deepest devotion.  When the great Kohinoor
diamond shone in the head of the Hindoo idol, or when it
was in the hand of the soldier who stole it, it was no less a
diamond than it is now, lying amid the jewels of a great
empire.  When the Ark of the Lord sat in Dagon's temple, it
was no less the Ark than when it was enshrined in the HIoly of
Ifolies; and the judgment which went forth from it against




492         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the fishy idol, equally with the joyous light which gladdened
the High Priest when he went within the veil, attested it to
be the earthly throne of the Most High. It might as well be
said, that because the Romanist does not discern the bread in
the Supper, he receives no bread, as that the unbeliever,
because he does not discern the body of our Lord, does not
commune with it sacramentally.  Here is a grand distinctive
element in the Lutheran view, that, apart from all qualities in
the recipient, the presence of Christ's humanity in the Lord's
Supper is a positive reality.  The Sacramental communion
rests on His person, not on our ideas. To a sick man, the food
he receives may be as poison, but it is none the less food, with
all the powers of nutriment which inhere in food. The reason
that it does not nourish is in him, not in it.  So the bread of
life, whether offered in the Word or in the Sacrament, is the
same intrinsically, and in its proper virtue, though unbelief
converts that heavenly food to its own poison -changing,
indeed, its effect, but leaving its substance unchanged.
3. The communion, according to Dr. Gerhart, with the flesh
Third Ptoposi- and blood of Christ, tales place in the Lord's Saption.      per.  But why, we may ask, limit such a communion as he defines by the Lord's Supper? The bread and wine
are not the medium of it- and, as mere reminders of it, they
have not the power which the Word has.  On the Reformed
view, the Sacramental elements have a function limited by
their didactic or suggestive power over us; for, up to this
point, the Zwinglian and Calvinistic views are coincident. If
it be answered, that the whole transaction of the Supper, the
Word, and outward signs and special prayers, has extraordinary power, still it is the same in kind with the other means
of grace, however much it may differ from then  in degree.
Such a communion, in a word, as the believer has with Christ,
in the Holy Supper,'through the Holy Spirit, he can have, and
does have, on this theory, elsewhere. If the Lord's Supper
has no special organ of communion, (and if it has the Holy
Spirit only, it has no special organ, for IHe is the general organ
of all grace,) then it has no special character. If the bread
and wine are acknowledged as special organs, the external




FOURTH PROPOSITION.                    493
appointed media of the distinctive blessings of the communion, then you accept the Lutheran doctrine that Sacramental
communion is oral, for by oral communion is meant no more
than this-that that which is the organic medium  of the
communion is received by the mouth, that through the natural we reach the supernatural. Our theologians, when they
speak of a reception by the mouth, mean no more than thisthat he that receives the bread and wine by the mouth naturally, thereby, as by an organ, receives the humanity of Christ
sacramentally and supernaturally, just as when faith cometh
by hearing, the ear receives the outward word naturally, and
thereby organically receives the Ioly Spirit, mediately and
supernaturally, who conveys Himself in, with, and under that
word.
4. Dr. Gerhart says that the view of his Church is that the
communion "in the Lord's Supper" is "' with the  Fourth Propoflesh and blood of Christ no less than with His sitiol.
Spirit."  Here there seems to be a great advance on the Zwinglian view. A  communion involves communication on the
one part, and reception on the other. It is the Reformed doctrine apparently that the flesh and blood of Christ are communicated and received no less than His Spirit.  The Reformed
have insisted that to the question, YWhat is communicated and
received in the Lord's Supper? their answer is identical with
ours. Christ's body and blood are given and received. This,
Dr. Gerhart says, " was not at issue in the sixteenth century.
On this point, Reformed and Lutherans were agreed."  Even
Zwingli, in his letter to the German princes, says:   7 We have
never denied that the body of Christ is in the Supper."  Far
more strongly, Calvin, in his Institutes, says: "We are fed
with the flesh and blood of Christ.  Christ refreshes us with
the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. There
is a true and substantial communication of the body and blood of
our Lord."  "This mystery is in its own nature incomprehensible...  The body of our Lord was once offered for us that
we may now eat it (nune eo vescamur), and by eating, may
experience in us the efficacy of that one only sacrifice... Thus
sound the words of promise... We are commanded, therefore,




49-4         C ONSERTVATIVE REFORiMAT'ION.
to take and eat that body which was once offered for our salvation: that while we see ourselves participants of this, we
may trust that the virtue of His life-giving death is strong
within us."*  "There are those who say that to eat Christ's
flesh and drink His blood is nothing else than believing in
Calvin on the Christ Himlself.  But to ime it seems that Christ
Lord's Spper.  meant to teach something clearer and sublimer
than this... He meant to teach us that we have life given us
by true participation of Himself... By true communication
of Himself His life passes over into us and becomes ours,...
if so great a mystery can be embraced in words    a mystery
which I cannot even grasp in thought... I confess this lest
any should mete its sublimity with the measure of my infancy.... Though  the mind can reach what the tongue cannot
express, yet here the mind itself is overcome and overwhelmed
with the greatness of the thing... The mystery of the Holy
Supper consists of two things: the bodily signs.  and the
spiritual verity, which, through those symbols, is at the Game
time figured and imparted (exhibetur)... I say, therefore,
that in the mystery of the Supper, through (per) the symbols
of bread and wine, Christ is truly imparted (exhiberi) to us,
even His body and blood, in which he fulfilled all obedience
to obtain our justification: by which, to wit, we first are
united into one body with Him, then being made partakers of
His substance, we experience a virtue in the communication
of all good things... Those absurdities" (of inclusion, circumscription, and immensity,) "being set aside, I willingly
receive whatever it is possible to frame (facere potest) to
express a true and substantial communication of the body and
blood of Christ, which, under the sacred symbols of the Supper, is imparted (exhibetur) to believers... If any one ask me
in regard to the mode, I am  not ashamed to confess that the
secret is too high to be grasped by my mind, or to be set forth
in words..  I experience rather than understand it... In
His Holy Supper He commands me, under (sub) the symbols
of bread and wine, to take, eat and drink His body and blood.
*Institut. Lib. IV. ch. xviii. ~ 1. Ed. 1543. seq. Corp. Reformat. xxix. 199.
Ed. Amstel. ix. 364.




"THE UBIQUITARIAN  THEORY."                    495
I doubt not but that He truly offers them, and I receive
them." *
We could continue to fill pages with citations, of equal
force, from  Calvinistic writers.  Whatever iinterpretation
we put upon them, they at least make it clear that a large
part of the phraseology which our Church uses is accepted as
sound and Scriptural by those who do not receive her doctrine.
Those who shrink backl from the terms of our Church, as carnal, will find that her antagonists are compelled to use terms
just as open to misconstruction.  It is just as Calvinistic, on
the showing of Calvinistic standards, to speak of eating the
body and drinking the blood of Christ, in the Eucharist, as it
is Lutheran.  The question then lies fairly before the Christian-Which view, Calvinistic or Lutheran, nmore honestly
accepts the natural meaning of the premises, which is in more
logical harmony with their necessary issues, and which more
frankly stands by the obvious meaning of the terms chosen by
itself to embody its faith?
As both parties start with the same form of words as to the
premises, the first question here is, Do both accept  "'The Ubiquithem in the same sense?  On one point we admlit tlian theo'-y.
that both do —that is, that by the "flesh and blood of Christ,"
both mean His true human. body and blood -- the body which
hung upon the cross, and which still maintains its identity,
though glorified in heaven.  But when the question arises, Do
both mean the same thing when they speak of communing with
this body and blood of Christ, the reply is, They do not.  Here
the Reformed Church seems to us to take away with one set of
terms all that it had conceded with another.  But although it
differs from us, we cannot accept all of Dr. Gerhart's phraseology in regard to our Church as accurately marking the difference. He characterizes our doctrine as the "Ubiquitarian theory
of the Lutherans." We can conceive no reason why Dr. Gerhart
applies the word "Ubiquitarian," unless it is that he imagines
that there is some ground for the reproach against our doctrine,
which was originally couched under this word, which is, indeed,
*Institut. ch. xviii. 19, 22, 30. Corp. Ref. vol. xxix. 1003-1010. Ed. Amstelod. 1667. ix. 370. seq.




496         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
a barbarous and unnecessary one, and was devised by the enemies
of our Church to injure it. When our Church is charged with
the doctrine of the " Ubiquity " of Christ's human nature, it is
usually meant, either, 1: that the human nature in Christ is
everywhere present, in the same way as the divinity, as an
infinite essence, or by some essential virtue or property of its
own nature; or, 2: that the human nature has been made
equal to the divine, in its substance, essence, or essential properties; or, 3: that the humanity of Christ is locally expanded
in all places of heaven and earth- one and all of which our
Church rejects in the most unqualified terms. The Godhead alone
has an essential omnipresence.  The human nature has a personal omnipresence - that is, a presence not in or of itself, but
through the divine, in virtue of its personal union with it. It
is present not by extension or locality. The Godhead itself
is not present by extension or locality; neither does it render
the human thus present.  The divine nature is present after'the manner of an infinite Spirit, incomprehensible to us; and
the human is present after the manner in which an infinite
Spirit renders present a human nature which is one person
with it -a manner not less, nor more, incomprehensible to us
than the other.  The true designation of the Lutheran doctrine, on this point, would be, " The personal omnipresence of
the human nature of Christ."
In opposition to the Lutheran theory, Dr. Gerhart says:
he Reformed " The Reformed theologians (in  answer to the
Theory. Some question: How is this communion with the flesh
objections toit. and blood of Christ established and maintained?)
replied: By the mysterious agency of the Holy Spirit, elevating the hearts of believers to Christ in heaven, who feeds and
nourishes them  with the life-giving power of His flesh and
blood."  To this view, thus placed in antithesis to that of our
Church by Dr. Gerhart, we have many objections, some of
which, because of the antagonism in which he has placed the
two views, we feel it our duty to state. The Reformed view
acknowledges a mystery-" the mysterious agency " it says 
and so far concedes that, a priori, it has no advantage over
against the Lutheran view, on the general ground that our view




THE REFORMED THEORY.                      497
involves mystery. Rising, as it seems to us, in an unconscious
rationalism, it yet concedes that it cannot bring the question
into the sphere of reason; it simply takes it out of one
part of the realm  of mystery to lay it down in' another. We
suppose the mystery of the Supper to be that of the person of Christ; the Reformed view supposes its mystery to be
that of the work of the Holy Spirit.  But we dread lest the
rationalizing that fails to take the subject into the sphere of
reason may carry the thinker thither, and that the Reformed
view, which shifts the mystery, will run out into the Arminian
or Socinian view, which sets it entirely aside; for while the
Reformed view acknowledges a mystery, it is evident that it
hopes to find its account in the measurable relief of that mystery. It is a theory which seems to be reluctant to strain the
text, and yet has a bribe for the reason over against the literal
construction of that text.  It is an uncomfortable thing, for it
lays more on the heart than it lifts off the mind. ~ We object
to it, furthermore, that it seems to us to confound the distinctive work of two persons of the Trinity. It is the distinctive
work of the incarnate Son of God to redeem, and to apply His
redemption in His own person.  It is the distinctive work of
the Holy Spirit to work in us that faith which will savingly
use what Christ offers. We, no less than the Reformed, recognize the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Lord's
Supper; not, however, to do Christ's work, but to do Hiis own.
The Holy Spirit makes us savingly partakers in what is received
by the outward organs of the soul. Christ is intercessor for us
with the Father, and so secures for us the possibility of partaking in the blessings which centre in His person. The Holy
Spirit is intercessor for the Father and the Son with us, and
thus leads us actually to accept with the heart those most
blessed gifts which the Father and Son offer us.  In the
Lord's Supper, Christ gives to us Himself, and the Holy Spirit,
if we do not resist His sacred work, enables us, from the person of Christ thus given us, to draw those benefits of which
that person is the sole spring. That the sacramental giving
of Christ is the work of His own person, and not of the Holy
Spirit, is most explicitly taught in the portions of the New
S2




498         C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Testament which speak of the Lord's Supper. That it is the
work not of the Spirit, but of Christ, to impart to us Christ's
body and blood sacramentally, is demonstrated by the fact,
that when the Lord's Supper was instituted, the Holy Ghost
was not given in any of the distinctive functions allotted to
Him  under the New Dispensation.  These, it is distinctly
taught, were not to be exercised till Christ was glorified and
had gone to the Father. But whatever the words of the institution mean now, they meant when the Supper was instituted.
As they could not mean then that the Holy Ghost mediated
Christ's presence, which, if it were done at all, would be in the
highest degree a work of the New Dispensation, they cannot
mean it now. There is not a solitary passage in which the
sacramental impartation of Christ's body is associated with
the work of the Holy Spirit.  For a true presence of Christ on
earth the Reformed view substitutes an imaginary presence of
the believer in heaven.  The view seems to derogate from the
personal sufficiency of Christ.  It seems to separate properties
from the substance in which they inhere, to sunder the efficacy
from the Omnipotent Being who has that efficacy, to segregate
the mlerits of Christ from His undivided person, in which they
were wrought out. According to it, Christ's body can be truly
eaten without being truly present; it is rather we who are
communicated to Christ than He to us; the Holy Spirit lifts
us to heaven; the bread which we break is the communion of
our spirit to Christward, not the communion of the body of
Christ to usward. We are the centre of the mystery. Christ's
body is at one point on its circumference, and the Holy Spirit
its radius; the Holy Ghost can lift us to the body of Christ,
but the divine nature of Christ cannot bring that body to us
-our faith, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, can do what
incarnate omnipotence cannot do. IHow tangled is that which
promised to be so simple-how vague that which meant to be
so sharp and clear. The terminology of the Reformed view is,
in the last degree, perplexing, and wears the air of a want of
candor.  If it be accepted loosely, it runs out into the old
Zwinglian theory, which is also the view of a low Arminianism, and of Rationalism.  If it be accepted rigidly, it is less




LIMB OR CH'S JUDGMENT OF CALF. D O CTRINE. 499
intelligible, even to reason, than any other, and seems to us,
when thoroughly sifted, to have, at some point, all the difficulties of all the other views, without their internal harmony.
These weaknesses have been noted by others than Lutherans.
The great Remonstrant divine, Limborch, whose clearness of
thought, learning, and gentleness, are deservedly renowned,
and who certainly, as between the two views, is impartial
enough, says of the Calvinistic view: " It seems to  Limborcl'sja:ln
have been invented by Bucer, who, in his desire ment of the Ca.ln.     _   a1        *  *i.,,'i  JI   vinistic  Doctrine.
for peace, in order that be might reconcile theinistiDoctrine
Lutherans and the Zwinglians, devised ambiguous expressions, which both sides might subscribe, without changing
their opinion. But the attempt was a failure. The Lutherans
complained of the deceitful dealing of the Reformed, who took
back with one hand what they gave with the other... The
Reformed held that in the Supper there is a communion with
the physical substance of Christ's body, which they teach is
there truly, though not substantially present.  But the doctrine involves no less an absurdity than that of the Lutherans.
For that communion with the substance of Christ's body is
either a communion with the body of Christ as it remains in
heaven, or as it is verily present on earth, and in the use of the
Supper.  If they say the latter, they must admit the ubiq.uity
of the body of Christ, and go over openly to the camp of the
Lutherans.  If they say the former, they affirm contradictory
things; for how is it possible that the body of Christ, which is
in heaven, and nowhere else (as Beza says), should be truly
communicated and be food to us who are on earth, and nowhere
else? They say:. Our conjunction with the body of Christ is
made as by a spiritual mouth through faith, by which we cfln
render present to us many things which are absent. VWe
answer: 1. The conjunction, through faith, with Christ, ought
to precede the use of the Supper; otherwise the man is
unworthy who celebrates the Supper; for by the celebration
of it he testifies that he already has that colnmunion. 2. That
union which takes place through faith they expressly distinguish from the union which takes place in the Supper, which
latter they would have to embrace something more sublime




500         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and express.  3. The union by faith is not incomprehensible.
4. Nor does faith really render present things which are
absent, but only represents them to itself as if they were present, though they are actually absent, for it is' the substance of
things hoped for.' Heb. xi. 1. Moreover: 5. Our soul cal receive
no spiritual fruit from communion with the very substance of
the physical body and blood of Christ."*
Calvinism is forced to admit that its view does not solve the
mystery after all, but leaves it in its fathomless depth. It
requires Christ's person, the Holy Spirit, and the faith of
the believer,- three factors, confusing each other.  The first
factor is sufficient, and if justice is done it, the other two are
not needed for the objective substance of the Sacrament; they
come in at their proper place, not to help Christ to make what
He has perfectly made already, but to enable the recipient
to receive savingly what he is receiving sacramentally. The
Calvinistic view puts too much upon man, who is nothing,
because it concedes too little to Christ, who is everything.
There is more than wit, there is solemn argument in the illustration of a great old divine: " When Christ says,' Behold, I
stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me,' a Calvinist might answer, 0 Lord, there is
no need for you to wait so long at the door. Return to your
heaven, and when I wish to sup with you, I will fly up with
my wings of faith, and meet you there."t  With its great
advance upon the rationalism of Zwingli, the doctrine of Calvin still bore with it the fatal taint of the very view which he
calls "profane."  All that he gained in depth, as contrasted
with Zwingli, he lost in clearness.  He does not as fatly as
Zwingli contradict the text, but he does what Zwingli did not,
he contradicts himself. But two views will remain in the ultimate struggle, the rationalistic, Zwinglian, Arminian, Socinian
view; which fully and consistently denies the whole mystery,
on the one side, and the Scriptural, Catholic view, which
*Theologia Christiana. Ed. Tert. Amstelsed. 1700. Fol. Lib. V. ch. lxxi.
- IDannhauer: Reformirten Salve. u. Friedens-Gruss, quoted in Scherzer:
Collegium Anti-Calvinianum. Lipsi'a. 1704. 4to. 603.




LUTHS. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON  OF CHRIST.  501
fully and consistently recognizes it on the other. This is
the view of the objective reality of the presence held in its
purity in the Lutheran Church, and held in the Roman and
Greek Churches, though with the rubbish of" human additions heaped on it. The advance of either view presses out the
Calvinistic-and both views are advancing.  In some parts
of the Reformed Church, as in the Church of England, the
Episcopal Church, and the German Reformed Church, the
Catholic view is more and more in the ascendant. In other
parts of the Reformed Churches, the Zwinglian view has long
since so completely triumphed over the Calvinistic, that men
who imagine themselves defenders of the purest Calvinism,
reject contemptuously its fundamental doctrine of the Supper.
Calvinism has really at least six points. Its most ardent
defenders usually think it enough to maintain five. In their
dropping of Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, if we deny
their consistency, we cannot but praise their sagacity.  The
rigid logic which so wonderfully marks Calvin, in the other
parts of his system, seems to fail him here, and it is not surprising that the Churches which maintain the views of that
masterly thinker on almost every other point, have either positively rejected, or quietly practically ignored his sacramental
theories, which were, indeed, but an adaptation of the views
of Bucer, which their originator ultimately abandoned for those
of the Lutheran Church.  They were grafted on Calvin's system, not grown by it, and they fall away even when the trunk
retains its original vigor, or are retained, as the Unionistic
theology; though with great changes, now  retains them,
when everything, ordinarily embraced in Calvinism, is utterly
abandoned.
Our object in this dissertation is by no means to sit in judgment on the doctrines of the Reformed Church.  Th Lutheran
We have touched upon them  only so far as Dr. doctrine of the
Person of Christ
Gerhart has thought it necessary to bring them  a scriptural docinto a disparaging contrast with the faith of our tr'ine
Church -in a word, we have had no desire to attack them,
but simply to defend ourselves. We have dwelt upon the two
great doctrines of the person of Christ, and of the Lord's Sup



502         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
per, because these doctrines are of the highest importance, are
vitally connected, and have been most frequently misunderstood. The pure truth in regard to these grand themes, as
our Church holds it, is one of her highest glories, and she
must be forgiven if she is unwilling that any man should take
from her her crown.
Dr. Gerhart, in the paragraph which follows the one on
which we have been dwelling, goes on to say: " The Lutheran
Antithesis, (that is, in regard to the person of Christ,) was
developed from the Lutheran theory of the Sacrament."  If
Dr. Gerhart means no more than that God in His Providence
made the discussions in regard to the Lord's Supper the means
of bringing more fully and harmoniously into a well-defined
consciousness, and into clearer expression the doctrine of the
Scriptures in regard to the person of Christ, we do not object
to it; but if he means that the doctrine of our Church on the
person of Christ originated in the necessity of defending her
doctrine in regard to the Lord's Supper, we think he is wholly
mistaken.  The doctrine of our Church rests upon the direct
testimony of God's WNord, and her interpretation of the meaning of that Word is not one of her own devising, but had been
given ages before her great distinctive Confession, by the
Fathers and Councils of the pure Church.  We offer to our
readers some testimony on both these points.
John taught the doctrine of Christ's person which our
I.Allthingsare Church confesses, when he said (John xiii. 3),
given to Jesus " Jesus knowing that the Father had given all
according to His
human nature. things into Hiis hands, and that lie was come
John xiii. 3.  from God, and went to God; lie riseth from supper... and'began to wash the disciples' feet."
1. These words teach us what Jesus had: "ALL THINGS."
So in John iii. 35: " The Father loveth the Son, and hath
given ALL THINGS into His hand."  So in Matt. xi. 27, and
Luke x. 22: "ALL THINGS are delivered unto me of my
Father." What a plenitude of possession is here involved, and
what supernatural characteristics of person are necessary to
their reception. Unlimited possession involves supreme power
-and he cannot be omnipotent who is not onmipresent. The




ALL THINGS ARE GIVEN TO CHRIST.                 503
Lutheran need not fear to attribute too much to his adorable
Saviour when God himself gives to Him " all things."
2. In these words of John is implied that Christ, ACCORDING
TO HIS HUMAN NATURE, has all things. The name JESUS is not a
name drawn from His divine nature, but was given to Him in
His individuality after His incarnation.  The text says, moreover, that the Father had GIVEN all things into His hand. Now,
according to the divine nature of Christ, God can give Him
nothing, for that divine nature in its own essence has all
things absolutely.  Hence, here, and everywhere that God is
said to give Christ anything, or Christ is said to receive anything, it is given to Him according to His human nature, and
received by Him according to His human lnature.  Christ, then,
has received according to the one nature, to wit, the human,
what He intrinsically possessed in the other, to wit, in the
divine, or, as it has been expressed, Whatever Christ has in
the one nature by essence, He partakes of in the other by grace
- and this is the doctrine of our Church.
3. The whole point of John's antithesis, indeed, turns upon
this view of the person of Christ; for his vein of thought is
evidently this-that Jesus performed this act of touching
lowliness, the washing of His disciples' feet, the act of a servant, not in forgetfulness of His glorious majesty, and of the
plenitude of His gifts, but fully conscious of them.  Though
IHe knew His own supreme glory as the one to whom  the
Father had given ALL THINGS, He yet girded Himself, and bent
to wash the feet of His loved ones. Now, if'Ie had ALL THINGS
only according to the divine nature, there was no humiliation
involved, for according to the nature which had the glory, He
did not wash their feet -but as, confessedly, it was according to
His human nature, bending His human form, and using His
human hands to wash their feet, so must it have been according to that nature that He here humiliated Himself; and the
point is, that though as a man HIe had given into His hands
ALL THINGS, and was thus as man infinitely glorious, yet as
man, and in full consciousness of the glory which He shared'as
man, He humbled Himself to wash His disciples' feet.
That the expressions which attribute the plenary possession




504        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of ALL THINGS to Jesus according to His human nature, are
not to be deprived of the very fullest significance, becomes yet
more clear when we look at the passages which specify in
detail what are some of the things,: ALL" of which the
II.Jesnsis o,- Father has delivered to Him. Our blessed Lord
ipotent accord- says, for example (Matt. xxviii. 18): " ALL POWER
ing to His hulman.
nature. Matt. is given unto me in heaven and on earth."  Now
xxiii.s.    mark of whomn this affirmation is made. It is made
of One who stood before them confessedly a true man, coming
with the step of man, speaking through the lips of man, with
the voice of man, and saying: "All power is given unto me."
Surely, if HIe had meant that His human nature was to be
excluded from this personality He would have told His disciples so, for nothing could seem more clear than that the undivided Christ, the man as well as the God, affirmed this of Himself. But it is furthermore manifest that what Christ here says,
He says by preeminence of the human side of His person, for
He says:' All power is given unto me," but to Iis divine
nature, in its essence, nothing could be given. In virtue of that
essence, it was necessarily omnipotent. Supreme power, therefore, was conferred on the Mediator as to His human nature.
And yet there could not be two omnipotences in the person of
Christ, the one belonging to His divinity, the other to His
humanity. The divine did not part with its omnipotence to
the human, so that the divine now ceased to be omnipotent, and
the human became in its own essence omnipotent. This would
involve that the Godhead really ceased to be divine, and the
human became essentially divine   both of which are absurd.
As the Godhead, therefore, retains its essential omnipotence,
and yet the human receives omnipotence as a gift, the result
is inevitable. The one omnipotence pertains to the whole person - the divine possessing it essentially and of necessity, and
in itself; the human having a communion or participation
in it, in virtue of its personal union with the divine. Omnipotence becomes no essential attribute of the human nature of
Christ, but inheres forever in the divine, and is exercised by
the human only because it is taken into the one person of the
divine.




JESUS IS 1OMNIPOTENT.                    505
This power which is given to the human nature of Christ is
supreme - -  all power in heaven and in earth; " it is all-comprehending, involving every kind of power throughout the universe. It is a true omnipotence.  To have all power, implies
that the power shall be everywhere   but the power is not
separable from  presence of some kind.  If the Saviour is
almighty everywhere, lie must exercise that omnipotence
directly in His own person, or through a secondary agencybut as His person is a divine one, He needs no secondary
agency, the very same person that is mighty to all things is
present to be mighty. Yet, as if no conjecture, however direct
or irresistible, might be the ground of our hope, Ie closes His
glorious address to His disciples with the words:'. Lo! I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world."  lie who
uttered the promise fulfils it, but He who uttered it was man
as well as God -and in fulfilling it, He fulfilled it as man as
well as God.  So irresistible is the necessity for this view, that
writers who are not of the Lutheran Church have acknowledged it.  Alford, for example, commenting on the words,
Matt. xxviii. 20: " Lo! I lam with you," says, " I," in the fullest
sense: " not the divine presence, as distinguished from the humanity of Christ.  His humanity is with us likewise.  The presence of the Spirit is the effect of the presence of Christ." But
inference is hardly necessary.  The power of omnipresence is
a part of all power.
In Matt. xi. 27, Christ defines the sphere of His possession.
He has " all things " without exception; He indicates the manner in which they are derived: " All things are delivered unto
me," possessing them  from  eternity as God, I have received
them in time as man; He marks the person of the recipient:
" All things are delivered unto me," the one divine-human person, whose natures form one inseparable person; He draws the
inference: " Come," therefore, " unto me,"- the inseparably
divine and human -" ALL ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and Iwill give you rest." This one person, inseparably human
and divine, calls to Him the sorrowing of every place and of
every time, and promises in His own person, man as well as
God, everywhere and evermore to give them  rest.  And there




506         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAlTIO.
is no meaning, and no comfort in an incarnate Christ which
does not rest in the conviction that IHe is approached and
approaches both as man and as God.
In John xvii. 5, our Lord says: " And.now, 0 Father, glorify
thou me with thine own self, with the glory which
The perpetual
idcen tity  of I had with Thee before the world was."
Ch rist' perso.   In this text is implied, 1. That the person of
John xvii. 5.
Christ is divine-His glory is a common glory
with that of the Father; " with thine own self," " with thee;"
and like the Father's, it is from eternity, before the world, that
is, the creation, either in whole or in part "was."  It is
implied, 2. That the human nature is taken into the unity of
this divine person.  For Christ, true man, speaks of a glory
which HIe had with the Father before the world was. The
identity of person is involved throughout. The same person
who was then incarnate, was once unincarnate; the same person which was simply and unchangeably glorious in its essence,
was now humbled according to the nature whi6h it had
assumed into its personality.  It is implied, 3. That there is a
true communion of properties, for we have Christ praying
according to His human nature, that the Father may glorify
Him  according to that nature.  According to His divine
nature He could not pray, nor have anything given to HIim.
His prayer, then, means that He desires to be glorified according to His human nature, as He had been glorified in His divine
nature before the world was.  And this glory is not declarative, but essential, for it is a glory which HIe had antecedent
to the creation with the Father Himself, not with angels, but
before the world of men and angels had being.  But even if it
were declarative glory, all real declarative glory presupposes
essential perfection. Our Saviour, then, prays that the plenary
exercise of the attributes, and the plenary enjoyment of the
majesty which belonged to Him as God, may be shared in by
His human nature.
In Colossians ii. 9, it is said: "In Him [Christ] dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily."  The " fulness of the Godhead" is wholly different from  the "fulness of God."  The
"fulness of God" is that fulness of gifts and graces which




THE DO CTRINE IMPLIED.                      507
God imparts, and which believers have from Him.  The fulness of the Godhead is the plenitude of the divine nature in
all its attributes.  This is here intensified by the word "a all:"' all the, fulness." The Godhead is incarnate through the second
person of the Trinity, and the whole second person  The Godhead
of the Trinity dwells in Christ's humanity, which it dwelling in
has united to itself as its own bodqy.  All the fulness Christ bodily.
Y                   Col. ii. 9.
of the Godhead cannot personally dwell in Christ
and also personally be separate from  Christ, for personality
implies -not simply presence, but far more; it involves the most
absolute union. If all the fulness of the Godhead in the second
person of the Trinity dwells in Christ bodily, then there is no
fulness of that Godhead where it is not so dwelling in Christ;
and as the human in Christ cannot limit the divine, which is
essentially, and of necessity, ompipresent, the divine in Christ
must exalt the human. The Goahead of Christ is everywhere
present, and wherever present, dwells in the human personally,
and, therefore, of necessity renders it present with itself.
So thoroughly does this idea of the personal unity underlie
the New Testament conception of Christ, that we  The Doctrine
find it constantly assumed where no formal state- implied vwhere
there is no formal
ment of it is made.  Two examples of this may staterlenit. 3Iatt.
suffice.                                             xvii. 25; xii. 8.
When (Matt. xvii. 25) our Lord claimed, as man, the exemption from the duty of paying the Temple-tax, on the ground
that He had the receiving right of royalty, and was exempt
from  the paying duty of the subject, it implied that His
humanity was in such unity with His Godhead, that He could
argue from the one to the other.  If there were two persons,
He must have argued: My Godhead is exempt, but my
humanity is bound to the payment.  But His argument is
the very reverse: I am not bound as God, therefore I am not
bound as man; the logical link, of necessity, being: Because
my Godhead has taken my humanity into personal unity with
it.  But if Christ participates in divine rights according to
His humanity, He must participate in the divine attributes
which condition those rights.  This is the presupposition of
that.  That is the result of this.




508         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
" The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day," (Matt.
xii. 8; Mark ii. 28; Luke vi. 5,) that is, He has the dispensing
power of the Law-giver in regard to the ceremonial law. But
this He cannot have as Son of man, unless as Son of man He
has a personal identity with the Son of God.
These texts are but a little part of the testimony which
rmight be cited. The faith of our Church grounded
The Lutlleran
interpretatio upon them had been the faith of the Universal
not novel. Vies Church for ages.  The earliest ages of the Church
of the Fathers.  l            T    
are not, indeed, marked by dogmatic precision of
language.  The sciolist who is not deeply read into their testimony is sure to misunderstand it, and in any case it is' necessary to allow for lax phraseology and defective thinking.  No
existing system can find a perfect guaranty in the exact terms
used by the ancient Church.  Its testimony is to be construed
on broader principles than those of a mousing verbal criticism.
We must read the life of the ancient Church before we can
comprehend its letter   and its letter, construed by its life,
shows, with ever-increasing clearness, the underlying Christo]ogical system  which reached its scientific perfection in the
theology of the Augsburg Confession, as developed in the
Formula of Concord.  The Church all along was feeling after
an adequate confession of her faith in regard to the inseparable unity of the person of her Lord.  EPIPHANIUS had said:
"The flesh acquired the glory of Deity, a heavenly honor,
glory, and perfection, which it had not from  the beginning,
but received it in its union with God the Word."  CYRIL had
said: "' The Word had made common with. its own body the
good of its own nature." " As the Word is of God, so is the
man of the woman - there is, therefore, of both one Christ,
indivisible in Sonship, and in divine majesty." *  THEODORET
had said: "' The nature assumed for us was participant of the
same honor with that which assumed it."  DAMASCENUS had
said:  The divine nature communicates its own excellencies
to the flesh. The divine works are wrought through the body
* Cyril in Joan. L. II. ch. xlix. Cyril means that the humanity of Christ, "man,"
is derived from his mother, "woman," as his divine nature, "Word," is begotten
of the Father from eternity.




VIEWS OF THE FATHER S.                     509
as their organ." ATHANASIUS had said: " Whatever the Scripture declares that Christ had received in time, it affirms with
reference to His humanity, not with reference to His deity."
BASIL THE GREAT had Paid: " When it is declared by our Lord:' All power is given unto me,' the words are to be understood
of Him in His.incarnation, not in His Deity."  "As the Son
of God has been made participant of flesh and blood, so the
human flesh of our Lord has been made participant of Deity."*
AMBROSE had said: "All things are subject to Him according
to His flesh.  Christ, according to His humanity, shares the
throne of God."  "Thou art everywhere (ubique), and standing in our midst art not perceived by us." " One Christ is everywhere (ubique); here existing complete (plenus), and there
complete."t  CHRYSOSTOM had said: "The angels are commanded to adore Him  according to the flesh."  "Christ is
beyond the heavens, He is beyond the earth, He is wherever
He wills to be; wheresoever He is, He is entire; wheresoever
He is, and wheresoever thou art who seekest HIim, thou art
in Him whom thou seekest."T  THEOPHYLACT had said: "The
Father hath given all things into the hand of the Son according to His humanity."  " He fills all things with His rule and
working, and this He does in His flesh, for He had filled all
things before with His divinity."~  " The holy body of Christ.is communicated in the four parts of the world... He
sanctifies the soul of each with His body, through His flesh,
and exists entire and undivided in all everywhere." II (ECUMENIUS had said: "He-I  received as man what He had as God.
As man it was said to Him:' Sit at my right hand,' for as
God he had an eternal government." " By His divinity He had
aforetime filled all things, but being incarnate He descended
and ascended, that with His flesh He might fill all things." [
JEROME** had said: "The Lamb is everywhere (ubique)."
*Basilius in Homil. de Nativ. Christi.
tAmbrosius on Luke x. Lib. vii. ch. 47, and on Heb. iv.
J Horn. de John Bapt.
Q Theophylact on Eph. iv. 10.
IIn cap. xix. John.
C(Ecumenius on Eph. iv. 10.
* Adv. Vigilantium.




510         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
AUGUSTINE had said: " The humanity itself after the resurrection obtained divine glory."  "' The Son of man which is in
heaven.' I-Ie was on earth, and yet said that IHe is in heaven
- and what is more, that' the Son of man is in heaven,' that
lie might demonstrate that there is one person in two natures... There are not two Christs, two Sons of God, but one person, one Christ."  "Why shouldst thou separate man from
God, and make one person of God, another of man, so that
there would be, not a Trinity, but a Quaternity -for thou, a
man, art soul and body, and as soul and body is one man,
so God and man is one Christ? "*  The Church grounds
herself, then, in this great doctrine, on the direct testimony
of God's Word, accepted in the sense in which it had long
been understood by the best interpreters of the Ancient
Church.
So irresistible, indeed, is the logic of the case, and so strong
is the historical testimony by which the argument is sustained,
that we find the truth conceded in whole or in part by some
of the ablest representatives of the Churches which have most
violently opposed the Lutheran doctrine of the person of
Christ.  Bellarmine, and other Polemics of the Church of
Rome, in the blindness of their purpose to stamp our doctrine with the reproach of heresy, have violently assailed the
Lutheran doctrine of the personal omnipresence of Christ
according to both natures.  But, in addition to the Fathers,
Lutheran doc- men whose names have been held in honor in that
trine;. Adnis- Church at a later period have acknowledged, in
sions of soine wri-                                    b 
tersoftheChurch whole or part, what modern Romanists deny.
of Rome.   HUGO DE S. VICTORE t says: "From the nature of
its union with divinity, the body of Christ has this dignity, that 
it is at one time in many places." BIEL: says: " Not only can the
body of Christ be in diverse places definitively and sacramentally,
but. can by divine power be in many places circumscriptively."
Nor have there been entirely wanting, even among modern
Romanists, some who have conceded the truth of the Lutheran
*Augustine: De verb. Apostol. Serm. xiv.; Do. De Tempore. Serm. cxlvii.
-Lib. II. de Sacram. Pars viii. ch. xii.
IV. Sent. Dist. xi.




ADMISSIONS OF CALVINISTIC WRITERS.   511
doctrine of the fellowship of properties.  FABER STAPULENSIS
says: "Wherever Christ is, Ie is incarnate. But without Iis
body He is not incarnate.  That is a great faith which knows
that Christ is bodily where lie is sacramentally.  But that is
a greater faith that knows that He is absolutely everywhere
bodily."  "The body of Christ is wherever the Logos is, for'the Word was made flesh.' The Word is never without theflesh, nor the flesh without the Word."*  PAUL KEMER affirms:
"It is most easy, by many and firm reasons, to prove that Christ
is everywhere with His body," and so also ERTLIUS, FRANCUS,
and BARRADIUS.t
BIEL held, indeed, in common with  many  of the scholastics, that by divine power any natural body  2. Admissions of
could be simultaneously present in many places. Metaphysicians.
Nor has this theory lacked supporters of great name in modern
times. Among the Calvinistic metaphysicians, the proposition
that " the existence of one and the same body in many places is
not contradictory," has been maintained by GISBERT VOETIUS,
and defended by his sons, PAUL and DANIEL.  LEIBNITZ,T the
greatest metaphysician, in many respects, since Aristotle, says
that it cannot with reason be affirmed that a real presence of the
body of Christ in many places involves a contradiction, inasmuch
as no 6ne has yet explained in what the essence of body consists.
This theory, maintained, as it has been, by some of the
acutest thinkers of our race, shows, at least, that here is a
question which cannot be determined by mere speculation.
Nor are we destitute of admissions, on the part of Calvinistic
writers, which, in spite of the explanations which  3. Admi
3. Admissions
seem meant to take away with one hand what is of  Calvinistic
granted by the other, are virtual concessions of writers.
the truth of the Lutheran view.  Thus BEZA ~ says:' If you
will, I grant beside, that the humanity of Christ is also present, but in another respect, that is, not in itself, or by its
*Faber Stap. in 1 Cor. xii.
t Quoted in Gerhard's Loci (Cotta). iii. 517.
- See Letters of Leibnitz and Pelisson, and L.'s Discours d. l. Conform. de la
fois avec la raison, ~ 18, and Cotta's Note on Gerhard. iv. 548.
~ Opera. 659.




512         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
own essence, but inasfar as it coheres by personal union with
the Logos, which is everywhere."  ZANCHIUS: " The flesh of
Christ can be said to be.. omnipotent,.. everywhere present.. not in its own proper essence,..but in the person which
is common to it, with the divine nature."  "All the learned
and pious grant that the human nature of Christ is personally
~omnipotent, everywhere present. Not incongruously is it said
that the flesh is personally omnipotent and everywhere present,.. for it is such in the person."  The ZURICH THEOLOGIANSt
say: " Christ, that is, that person who is at the same time
true God and true man, is present with all things, governs
heaven and earth, and that according to each nature (utramque
naturam).  For the Son of God, after He assumed human
nature, wheresoever IHe is present and acts, is present and acts
as Christ, that is, as a person who is at once God and nan."
SOHNIUS: " If the humanity is not wherever the divinity is, to
wit, personally, or in personal subsistence, that is, if there be
not everywhere one person of the two natures, or if these two
natures be not everywhere united, there must, of necessity, be
two persons."  That these writers are consistent with these
premises, in their inferences, we do not pretend; but this
does but the more show how great is the pressure of that
truth, which, knowing the difficulty of explaining it away,
they are yet obliged to concede.
In the great practical question of the undivided adoration
Worship of of the humanity and Deity of Christ, there is no
Christaccording consistent position between the Lutheran doctrine
to  His  human
nature.    and the Socinian.  The Calvinistic divines, while
they show in various ways that there is great difficulty in harmonizing their view of the person of Christ with the worship of
Him in His human nature, are yet, for the most part, happily
inconsistent. No man can really pray to the undivided Christ
without in heart resting on the Lutheran doctrine of His person. Either the human nature of Christ is in inseparable unity
of person with the divine nature, or it is idolatry to worship
Christ according to the human nature.  This the Socinian controversialists in New England saw at once, and their arguments,
*Lib. de Relig. Prsefat. ad Lect. Lib. II. de Incarnat. 201.  tApolog. 108.




THE PERSON OF CHRIST.                    513
which assumed the Nestorianizing views of New England as
orthodox, and which the Orthodox there defended as Scriptural,
were consequently never fairly met.  One source of the rapid
and deadly triumphs of Socinianism in New England was the
unscriptural and lax views which the system claiming to be
orthodox held of the person of Christ.
From the views which have been presented of the Lutheran
doctrine of Christ's person, our readers will understand with what reservation they must accept Dr. Chit;e,  gre
Gerhart's statement, which follows the one on which misapprehension
corrected.
we have dwelt. IHe says that the Lutheran doctrine " involved the communicating of divine attributes to the
human nature of Christ, in virtue of which His human nature
was not limited to heaven, nor to any place at a time, but, like
the divine nature, was present in all places at the same time
where the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted and administered." For evidence of the correctness of this proposition,
the reader is referred to'" Herzog's Encyclopedia, by Dr. Bomberger."  We would protest against the authority of Ilerzog's
Encyclopdcia on any question involving a distinctive doctrine
of Lutheranism. Great as are the merits of that almost indispensable work, it is yet an unsafe guide on any question which
involves in any way the so-called Evangelical Union. The article on the Commrunicatio Idiomatain is written by Dr. Schenkel,
who is one of the last men to be selected for such a work. In
its whole texture it is Unionistic, and in some of its statements, demonstrably incorrect.  The article has been very
admirably translated by Rev. Dr. Krotel, for the Abridgment
of Herzog, edited by Dr. Bomberger.  We do not find, however, in the part of the article cited by Dr. Gerhart, nor indeed
in any part of it, a voucher for his definition, especially for the
statenent that our Church holds that the human nature of
Christ is present " like the divine nature." Dr. Schenkel, however anxious he might be to make out a case against our doctrine, could not have ventured on a statement which is not
only inconsistent with the whole theory of our Church, but is
contradicted, in express terms, in the Formula of Concord.
Here we will say, as we said before, if Dr. Gerhart will show.3




514         CONSERVATI E REFORMATION.
us a solitary passage in our Confession, or in any approved
author of our Church, which says that the human nature of
Christ is present " like the divine nature," we will confess that
we have too hastily pronounced upon his statements, and will
consent to sit at his feet as a learner in the doctrines of our
Church. Our Confessions, as we read them, again and again
assert the very opposite, and we will undertake, for every line
in the Heidelberg Catechism which repudiates the doctrine
that the human nature of Christ is present like the divine, to
produce twenty from our Confessions which repudiate it with
equal strength.
As Dr. Gerhart has cited no passage from  any Lutheran
authority which asserts the doctrine he imputes to us, it might
be sufficient for us simply to meet his statement with this
denial, but we will go further, and cite some passages of the
Formula of Concord in which it is expressly repudiated.
The Formula of Concord, in its VIIth Article, after asserting that the' divine virtue, life, power, and majesty are given
to the human nature assumedin Christ," goes on to say: 1. "This
declaration, however, is NOT to be accepted in such sense, as if
these were communicated, as the Father has communicated to
the Son, according to His divine nature, His own essence, and
all divine properties, whence He is of one essence with the
Father, and co-equal."
2. " For Christ only according to His divine nature is equal
to the Father: according to His human nature He is under
God."
3. " From these statements it is manifest that we imagine
no confusion, equalizing or abolishing of the natures in Christ.
For the power of giving life Is NOT IN THE FLESH OF CHRIST IN
THE SAME WAY IN WHICH IT IS IN IIS DIVINE NATURE, to wit, as
an essential property: this we have never asserted, never
imagined."
4. G" For that communion of natures, and of properties, is not
the result of an essential, or natural effusion of the properties
of the divine nature upon the human: as if the humanity of
Christ had them subsisting independently and separate from divinity; or as if by that communion the human nature of Christ had




THE PERSON OF CHRIST.                    515
laid aside its natural properties, and was either converted into
the divine nature, or was made equal in itself, and per se to the
divine nature by those properties thus communicated; or that
the natural properties and operations of each nature were identical,
or even equal. For these and like ERRORS have justly been
rejected and condemned by the most ancient and approved
councils on Scriptural grounds. FOR IN NO RESPECT is there to
be made, or admitted, any conversion, or confusion, or equalizing, either of the natures in Christ, or of their essential
properties."
5. "By these words,'real communication, really to communicate,' we never designed to assert any physical communication, or essential transfusion (by which the natures would be confounded in their essences, or essential properties), in the sense
in which some, craftily and maliciously, doing violence to
their conscience, have not hesitated, by a false interpretation,
to pervert these words and phrases, only that they may put
upon sound doctrine the burden of unjust suspicion.  We
oppose these words and phrases to a verbal communication,
since some feign that the communication of properties is no
more than a phrase, a mode of speech, that is, mere words and
empty titles.  And they have pressed this verbal communication so far that they are not willing to hear a word of any other."
6.'" There is in Christ that one only divine omnipotence,
virtue, majesty, and glory, which is proper to the divine nature
alone. But this shines and exerts its power fully, yet most
freely in, and with, the humanity assumed."
7. " For it is so as in white-hot iron,-the power of shining
and burning is not a twofold power, as if the fire had one such
power, and the iron had another peculiar and separate power
of shining and burning, but as that power of shining'and burning is the property of the fire, and yet because the fire is united
with the iron, and hence exerts that power of burning and shining in and with the iron, and through that white-hot iron, so,
indeed, that the glowing iron has from this union the power
both to burn and to shine, and yet all this is without the
change of the essence or of the natural properties either of the iron
or of the fire."




516         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The reader will please observe that this illustration is neither
designed as a proof of the doctrine, nor as an exhibition of the
mode of the union, but simply as an aid in removing a misunderstanding of the definition of terms.
8. "WVe believe, teach, and confess that there occurred no
such effusion of the Majesty of God, and of all His properties,
on the human nature of Christ, or that anything was withdrawn from the divine nature, or that anything from it was so
bestowed on another, that in this respect it no longer retained
it in itself; or that the human nature, in its own substance and
essence, received A LIKE MAJESTY, separate from the divine
nature and essence."
9. " For neither the human nature in Christ, nor any other
creature in heaven or in earth, is capacious of divine omnipotence in that way, to wit, that of itself it could have an
omnipotent essence, or have the properties of omnipotence in
itself and per se."
10. "For in this way the human nature in Christ would be
denied and completely changed into divinity, Which is repugnant to our Christian faith, and the teaching of the prophets
and apostles."
11. " TWe reject, therefore, and with one consent, one mouth,
one heart, condemn all errors departing from the sound doc-.trine we have presented; errors which conflict with the writings of the apostles and the prophets, with the received and
approved Ancient Creeds, and with our cherished Augsburg
Confession. THESE ERRORS we will briefly and summarily recite:
" That the human nature of Christ, because of the personal
union, is confounded with the divinity, or transmuted into it'
"That the human nature in Christ IN THE SAME WAY AS
DIVINITY, as an infinite essence, and by an essential virtue or
property of its own nature, IS EVERYWHERE PRESENT:
"That the human nature in Christ has become equal to
the divine nature in its substance or essence, and essential
properties:
"That the humanity of Christ is locally extended in all
places of heaven and earth, an affirmation which cannot be
made with truth, even of divinity:




THE PERSON OF CHRIST.                    517
" THESE ERRORS, and all others in conflict with sound doctrine,
we reject, and we would exhort all devout people not to attempt
to scrutinize this deep mystery with the curious search of
human reason, but rather with the Apostles of our Lord to
exercise a simple faith, closing the eyes of human reason, and
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of
Christ. But most sweet, most firm consolation, and perpetual
joy may they seek in the truth that our flesh is placed so high,
even at the right hand of the majesty of God, and of His
almighty power. Thus shall they find abiding consolation in
every sorrow, and be kept safe from every hurtful error."
With these beautiful words our Formula of Concord closes
its matchless discussion of the doctrine of our Redeemer's person, and with them we close, imploring the pardon of that
ever-present and ever-precious Saviour for our poor utterances
on such a theme, and beseeching Iim  to bless even this
unworthy offering to the strengthening of some faint heart in
the faith once delivered to the saints.




XI.
BAPTISM.
(AUGSBURG CONFESSION. ART. IX.)
THE Lutheran doctrine of Baptism may be stated summarily
in the following propositions:
I. " We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins."*
II. " The vice of origin -- the inborn plague and hereditary
sin- is truly sin, condemning, and bringing now also eternal
death upon all that are not born again by Baptism and the
Holy Spirit."t
III.' The ministry has been instituted to teach the Gospel
and administer the Sacraments; for by the Word and Sacraments, as by instruments, the Holy Spirit is given."4
IV. " Unto the true unity of the Church it is sufficient to
agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments."
V. "It is lawful to use the Sacraments administered by evil
men — and the Sacraments and Word are efficacious by reason
of the institution and commandment of Christ, though the
priests who impart them be not pious."~
VI. " The churches among us with common consent teach
concerning Baptism:
"1. That it is necessary to salvation.
"2. That by Baptism the grace of God is offered.
" 3. That children are to be baptized.
"4. That by Baptism they are offered and committed unto
God.
* Symb. Nicenum. t Aug. Conf. ii. 2. $ Do. v. 1, 2. i Do. vii. 2; viii. 1, 2.
518




BAPTISM.                        519
"5. And that thus offered by Baptism, they are received into
God's favor."
VII. The churches among us, with one consent, condemn the
Anabaptists, who  
"1. Allow not the Baptism of children, and who teach that
it is not right;
"2. And who affirm that children are saved without Baptism."*
Our Lord, in the course of His earthly ministry, authorized
His disciples to baptize (John iv. 1, 2), and previous to His
ascension, commanded them  to make disciples of all the
nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. xxviii. 19)..  Baptism.
The rite of Baptism, thus enjoined by our Lord, 
has been the subject of various disputes in the Christian
world. It is the object of this Dissertation to exhibit the faith
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in regard to the points of
dispute. Over against all who deny the divine institution and
perpetuity of Baptism, our Church maintains that " God has
instituted it," and that it is obligatory and necessary throughout all time (Aug. Conf., Art. V., VII., VIII., IX., XIII., XIV.),
so that without it the Church cannot exist in the world.
Serious differences of opinion, however, exist in Christendom,
even among those who recognize the perpetuity and obligation
of Baptism, as to what are essential to Baptism, even as to its
outward part. For, while all are agreed that the use of water,
and of the Word, is essential, some parts of the Christian
world maintain that the essential mode of Baptism is that of
the total immersion of the body, insomuch that this immersion
is absolutely necessary, and positively demanded by our Lord, and
the application of water in any other way whatsoever is no
Baptism. THE LUTHERAN CHURCH DOES NOT HOLD that immnersion is ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM.
That the Augsburg Confession uses the word " Baptism " in
its then current sense is indisputable. Baptism was commonly
administered in the sixteenth century by pouring, and sprinkling, as well as by immersion. In the Roman Catholic Agenda
(Mentz), 1513, the Rubric says: " He shall pour (fundat) the
*Aug. Conf. Art. ix.




520         C O NSERVATIVE REFOR MATI O N.
water thrice upon the head of the child, so that it shall reach
his head and shoulders." The Augsburg Ritual (1587) directs
that the priest, " taking water from  the font with his right
hand, shall gently pour it (perfundat) over the head and body
of the child three times."  The Roman Ritual directs, as the
normal mode, that the water shall be poured.  If immersion had been regarded by the confessors as a divine elenlent of Baptism, they  could  not but have  so  stated.
They declared  that men could not be in Church  unity
who did not agree as to the administration of the Sacraments.  That they do not object to the existing ideas of the
mode of Baptism shows that they received them. The Augsburg Confession speaks of the various washings, made in
various ways, under the Old Dispensation, as " the Baptisms
of the Law."* Melanchthon, in the Instruction to the Visitors (1528), says: " Baptism shall be observed as hitherto."t
Luther, in the XVII. Schwabach Articles (1529), designates
the prevailing mode, that mode which he had in his own mind
in using the word Tauf, as " Begiessen," pouring or sprinkling.4
These articles are the basis of the doctrinal part of the Augsburg Confession, and fix the sense of its terms. In Luther's
own form  of Baptism (1523), which is not to be confounded
with his abridgment and translation of the Romish form, he
directs that the water shall be poured upon the child.  "It
was the custom," says Funk,~ " at that time, to pour water
all over the child, as Bugenhagen tells us:'The pouring
(Begiessen) in Baptism — the pouring over (iibergiesset) the
head and shoulders of the child..is seen among us over all
Germany.'"
Attempts have, indeed, been made to show that Luther, at
Luther and tho least, held the necessity of immersion, and that the
Jewess.    Lutheran Church either held it with him, or was
inconsistent in rejecting it.  We shall show how groundless
these statements are.  One of the passages most frequently
appealed to, in the attempt to implicate Luther, is found in
* Augs. Conf. xxvi. 22. " The Baptisms of the Law washed the members, garments, vessels." Luther. Oper. Lat. Jen. 524.
t Corp. Ref. xxvi. 64.      $ Do.do. 156.        ~ P. 115.




LUTHER AND THE JEWESS.                     521
Walch's Edition of his works, X., 2637. In regard to this, the
following are the facts:
1. The passage referred to is from a letter of Luther, written from  Coburg, July 9th, 1530, in reply to an Evangelical
pastor, IHenry Genesius, who had consulted him  in regard to
the Baptism of a Jewish girl.  It will be noted from the date
that the letter was written a few months after the issue of the
Catechisms, in which it has been pretended, as we shall see,
that he taught the necessity of immersion.
2. The letter given in Walch, is also in the Leipzig edition
of Luther (XXII., 371), and is not in either edition in the
original language, but is a translation, and that from a defective copy of the original.  The original Latin is given in De
Wette's edition of Luther's Briefe (IV., 8), and contains a most
important part of a sentence which is not found in the German translation.  The letter in Walch cannot, therefore, be
cited in evidence, for it is neither the original, nor a reliable
translation of it.
3. The whole letter shows that the main point of inquiry
was not as to whether the girl should be baptized in this or
that mode, but what precautions decency demanded during
the baptism, provided it were done by immersion.
4. Luther says: " IT WOULD PLEASE ME, therefore, that she
should. modestly have the water POURED UPON HER (Mllhi
placeret, ut,. verecunde peqfunderetur), or, if she sit in the
water up to her neck, that her head should be immersed with
a trine immersion." (CapLt ejus trina immersione immergeretur.)
5. An inmmersionist is one who contends that Baptism must
be administered by immersion. The passage quoted is decisive
that Luther did not think Baptism  must be so administered.
He represents it as pleasing to him, best of all, that the girl
should have the water applied to her by pouring; or that, if
she were immersed, greater precautions, for the sake of decency,
should be observed, than were usual in the Church of Rome.
It is demonstrated by this very letter, that LUTHER WAS NOT
AN IMMERSIONIST.
6. In suggesting the two modes of Baptism, Luther was
simply following the Ritual of the Romish Church. In the




522         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Romish Ritual the direction is: " Baptism may be performed
either by pouring, immersion, or sprinkling; but either the
first or second mode, which are most in use, shall be retained,
according as it has been the usage of the churches to employ
the one or the other, so that either THE HEAD OF THE PERSON
to be baptized shall have a trine ablution -that is, either the
water shall be POURED UPON IT (perfutndatum-Luther quotes
the very word), or the HEAD shall be immersed (ut trina ablutione caput immergatur) -Luther again quotes almost verbatim.
In the Roman Ritual, furthermore, for the Baptism of adults,
it is said: "' But in the churches where Baptism is performed
by immersion, either of the entire body, or of the head only, the
priest shall baptize by thrice immersing the person, or his head "
(illum vel ccput ejus). It is a mistake, as these words demonstrate, to suppose that even if immersion be practised, there
must needs be a submergence of the whole body. The Roman
Ritual leaves the choice between the immersion of the whole
body, and the immersion of the head.  The immersion of the
head was performed in the case of infants, usually by dipping
the back of the head into the font.  Thus in the Ambrosian
Ritual: "' He shall dip the back of the child's head (ter occiput
mergit) three times in the water."  In the case of adults, the
solemn immersion of the head could take place, in the same
way, without any sort of immersion of the rest of the body;
or, the person could go into the water up to the neck, and the
solemn immersion of the head alone be made by the minister.
It is evident that in the second case, equally with the first, the
baptismal immersion was of the head only. The submergence
to the neck was a mere natural preparation for the other. It
is in this second manner that Luther directs, in case the
Jewess was immersed at all, that the  officiating minister
should immerse her head ~only. She was to seat herself in the
bath, and the only religious immersion was not that of her
whole body (as Rome permits, and the Baptists, if consistent,
would prescribe), but of her head only (ut ccput ejus inmmereretur). Luther, so far as he allowed of immersion at all, was not
as much of an immersionisl as the Ritual of Rome might have
made him, for he does not hint at the immersion of the whole




LUTHER AND THE JEWESS.                   523
body of the Jewess by the minister. An immersionist contends
that the whole body must be immerged by the officiating minister; not, indeed, that he is to lift the whole body and plunge
it in, but the whole immersion is to be so conducted as to be
clearly his official work, the person being led by him into the
water, and the immersion completed by his bending the body,
and thus bringing beneath the surface what was up to that time
uncovered. Luther preferred, if there was to be an immersion,
that the head only, not the body, should be immersed by the
minister (not illum  sed caput ejus).  Even to the extent,
therefore, to which he allowed immersion, Luther was. no
immersionist.
7. If Luther could be proved, by this letter, to be an immersionist, it would be demonstrated that he derived his view
from the Romish Church, and held it in common with her.
In like manner, the Church  of England, the Episcopal
Churches of Scotland and of the United States, and the
Methodist Churches, would be carried over to the ranks of
immersionists, for they allow the different modes. But these
Churches are confessedly not immersionist; therefore, Luther
was no immersionist.
8. Whatever Luther's personal preferences may have been
as to mode, he never even doubted the validity of Baptism by
pouring. But immersionists do not merely doubt it, they absolutely deny it; therefore, Luther was no immersionist.
9. An immersionist is one who makes his particular mode
of Baptism a term of Church communion, and an article of
faith. Luther was in a Church which did not prescribe
immersion as necessary —never made it an article of faith;
therefore, Luther was no immersionist.
10. Finally, the letter of Luther shows that he preferred
pouring. He says expressly that it would please him that the
water should be poured upon her, and gives this the first place;
and his directions in regard to the immersion, are given only
in the supposition that that mode might be decided upon - " if
she sit, etc., her head shall be immersed," etc., si sedens.
Whatever, therefore, may be the difference between the
doctrine of the necessity of immersion, and the "doctrine




524         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of immersion," we feel safe in affirming that Luther held
neither.
From Luther's Larger Catechism, by confounding the very
Luther's Cate- plain distinction between allowance, or even preferchisms.    ence of a mode, and a belief in its necessity, the
evidence has been drawn that our Confessions teach the Baptist doctrine of immersion.
Yet this very Catechism, in express terms, repudiates any
such doctrine, and acknowledges, in the most decisive manner,
what the Baptist doctrine denies - the validity of other modes
than immersion.  Mark these two sentences from  the Larger
Catechism: " Baptism is not our work, but God's.  For thou
must distinguish between the Baptism which God gives, and
that which the keeper of a bath-house gives. But God's work,
to be saving, does not exclude faith, but demands it, for without faith it cannot be grasped. For in the mere fact that thou
hast had water poured on thee, thou hast not so received Baptism as to be useful to thee; bit it profits thee when thou art
baptized with the design of obeying God's command and institution, and in God's name of receiving in the water the salvation promised.  This neither the hand nor the body can effect,
but the heart must believe."*  In these words there is an
express recognition of pouring or sprinkling (for the word used
by Luther covers both, but excludes immersion) as modes of
Baptism.
But there is another passage yet more decisive, if possible:
"We must look upon our Baptism, and so use it, as to
strengthen and comfort us whenever we are grieved by sins
and conscience. We should say: I am baptized, therefore the
promise of salvation is given me for soul and body. For to
this end these two things are done in cBaptism., that the body,
which can only receive the water, is wet by pouring, and that,
in addition, the word is spoken that the soul may receive it."t
Here not only is the recognition of pouring (or sprinkling)
*Catech. Maj. Muller, 490, 36, das Wasser iiber dich giessen. The Latin is,
" aqua perfundi."
t Do. 492, 45. German: "Der Leib begossen wird." Latin: " Corpus aqua
pcrfundatur."




LUTHER'S CATECHISMS.                    525
explicit, but if the words were not compared with other
expressions of Luther, it might be argued, that he and our
symbols went to the opposite extreme from that charged upon
them, and, instead of teaching that immersion is necessary,
denied its validity. So far, then, is the charge from being
verified, that we are authorized to make directly the opposite
statement. Luther and our Confessions repudiate utterly the
Baptist doctrine of the necessity of immersion.
In the original of the Smaller Catechism there is not a word
about immersion in a passage sometimes referred to. It is
simply, " What signifies this Water-Baptism? " (Wasser Tauffen.) " Immersion " is but a translation of a translation. The
same is the case with the Smalcald Articles.  The original
reads: " Baptism is none other thing than God's Word in the
water (im Wasser)." There is not a word about immersion. We
do not rule these translations out because they at all sustain
the allegation built on them. Fairly interpreted, they do not;
but we acknowledge the obvious rule accepted in such casesthat the originals of documents, and not translations of them,
are the proper subjects of appeal. A translation can carry no
authority, except as it correctly exhibits the sense of the original. Even the general endorsement of a translation as correct,
by the author of the original, is not decisive on a minute point
which he may have overlooked, or have thought a matter of
very little importance. A clergyman of our country translates
the commentary of an eminent German theologian, and receives
from him a warm letter of thanks, strongly endorsing the accuracy of the translation. Yet, not only in a possible deviation
of the translation from the original, but in any matter of
doubt, however slight, the original alone would be the source
of appeal. As the Lutheran Church accepts Luther's version
of the Bible, subject to correction by the original, so does she
accept any translation of her symbols, however excellent, subject to correction by the original.
But, even if the principle were not otherwise clear, the facts
connected with the translation of the different parts of the
Symbolical Books would be decisive on this point. The translation of the Smalcald Articles, made in 1541, by Generanus, a




526         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
young Danish student of theology, at Wittenberg, and who
was an intimate friend of Luther, was confessedly admirable,
pithy, and Luther-like. The translation which Selneccer prepared, or selected, for the Book of Concord, 1580, was an entirely
new one, very inferior to the old,@ and this, after undergoing
two sets of changes, is the one now ordinarily found in the
Latin editions of the Symbol.  This is one of the translations
to which appeal is made, in the face of the original, and language is used which leaves the reader under the impression
that these articles were translated under Luther's eye, and the
translation approved by him.
The German translation of the Apology, found in the Ecditio
Princeps of the German Concordia, and in most other editions,
adds some things which are not in the Latin, and omits some
things which are there. Which is the authority, Melanchthon's
Latin, or Jonas' German, if a dispute arise as to the meaning
of the Apology?
3. The Larger Catechism was first translated by Lonicer,
faithfully, and into good Latin. The second translation was
made by Opsopaus, and this was changed in various respects
by Selneccer, and thus changed, was introduced into the Book
of Concord.
4. The Smaller Catechism was first rendered into Latin by
an unknown hand, then by Sauermann.  "This translation
seems to have been introduced into the Concordien-buch, but
with changes," says K6llner.
The principle involved, which no honest scholar would try
to weaken, is well stated by Walch, in these words: t' It is
by all means proper to know what was the original language
of each of our Symbolical Books, since it is manifest that from
that, not from translations, we are to judge of the genuine and
true meaning of any book. What they teach we ought to see,
not in versions, but in the original language itself, especially
where the matter or meaning seems involved in some doubt.
Versions do not always agree entirely with the writings as
* "Diffuse and feeble." F. Francke: L. S. Eccl. Luth. Pars Sec. xi.
" Luther's ideas are often inundated in it." - Hase.
t Introd. in Lib., Symbol, 61.




LUTHER'S CA TECHISMS.                  527
their authors composed them; as the facts themselves show is
the case in our Symbolical Books also."
The allusions of Luther to the outward mode are never
found in his definition of Baptism.  His allusions to immersion
come, in every case, long after he has defined Baptism. Iis
definition of Baptism, in the Smalcald Articles, is: "Baptism
is none other thing than the Word of God in the water,
enjoined by his institution."  His definition of Baptism in the
Larger Catechisr, is thus: " Learn thou, when asked, What
is Baptism? to reply, It is not mere water, but water embraced in God's word and command. It is a mere illusion
of the Devil when our New Spirits of the day ask, How
can a handful of water help the soul?"  And then comes his
powerful vindication of this " handful of water" in its connection with the Word. In the Smaller Catechism, to the
question, " What is Baptism? " the reply is: " Baptism is not
mere water, but that water which is comprehended in God's
command, and bound up with God's Word."  Nowhere does
any Symbol of our Church say that Baptism is immersion, or
even allude to immersion when it speaks of that which constitutes Baptism.
That the word " begiessen," by which Luther indicates one
of the modes of Baptism, can only indicate pouring or sprinkling, and by no possibility immersion, every one even moderately acquainted with German very well knows. The proper
meaning of begiessen, as given by Adelung, is,'" Durck Giessen
nass machen," i. e., to wet by pouring or. dropping. Campe's
definition  is, " Durch Darangiessen einer Fliissigkeit mcass
machen," i. e., to wet by the pouring on of a fluid. Frisch
defines it: "Perfundi, affundendo madefacere," i. e., to pour
over, to wet by pouring upon. The Grimms define it by, "Perfundere," to pour over. When followed by " mit," governing
a noun, the "mit" is always to be translated "with," "mit
Vasser begiessen," " to wet with water by pouring it."  When
followed by "  auf," the " auf" means " upon."  When Adler,
Meissner, and others give " moisten," " bathe," " soak," and
similar words as an equivalent, it is in such phrases as, " to
bathe or moisten (begiessen) the hand with tears."  You may




528         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
use " begiessen " when the hand is bathed by the tears which
pour or drop upon it; but if the hand were bathed by immersing it in water, a German would no more use " begiessen " to
designate that act than we would use "pour."  We affirm
what every G(erman scholar knows, that with any allusion,
direct or indirect, to the mode in which a liquid can be
brought into contact with an object, " begiessen " never means,
and never can mean, either in whole or inclusively, " to
immerse."  It is so remote from it as to be antithetical to it,
and is the very word used over against the terms for immersion, when it is desirable distinctly to state that Baptism  is
not to be performed by immersion.
But if " begiessen " could ever mean to immerse, or include
that idea, we shall demonstrate specially that it has not that
force in Luther's German. Luther uses the word giessen
upwards of fifty times in his translation of the Bible, and
invariably in the primary sense of pour. The word " begiessen,"
in which the prefix " be" simply gives a transitive character
to the " giessen "   as we might say " bepour," - he uses five
times. Twice he uses it in the Old Testament, to translate
"Yah-tzak," which, in twenty other passages he translates by
" giessen," to pour.  The two passages in which begiessen is
used are, Gen. xxxv. 14, " Jacob poured (begoss) oil thereon,"hardly, we think, immersed his pillar of stone in oil; Job
xxxviii. 38, "Who can stay the bottles of heaven, when
the dust groweth (Marg. Hebr. is poured, begossen) into hardness," -hardly meaning that the compacting of the mire is
made by immersing the ground into the showers. Three
times Luther uses "begiessen" in the New  Testament, 1
Cor. iii. 6, 7, 8, "Apollos watered: he that watereth
(begossen, begeusst)" —referring to the sprinkling, or pouring
of water on plants.  So Luther also says: "Hatred and
wrath  are poured over  me (ueber mich begossen)," Jena
Ed. v. 55.
We have shown that the general usage of the language does
not allow of the interpretation in question. We have shown
that, if it did, Luther's German does not. We shall now
show that if both allowed it anywhere, it is most especially




L UTHER'S CA TE CHISMS.                529
not allowable in the Catechism, nor in Luther's use of it anywhere, with reference to Baptism.
Now for " giessen" and " begiessen," in their reference to Baptism  by Luther, in the Catechism  and elsewhere, can they
include not exclude immersion.? Let us try this.
1. Larger Catechism: Dacss du lassest das Wasser fiber di;h
giessen (quod te aqua perfundi sinis). We affirm that these words
have, to any one who knows anything of German, but one possible meaning, and that, like the verbal English translation of
the words " that thou lettest the water pour over thee," the
German cannot'mean "thou lettest thyself be dipped into the
water."
2. What mode of Baptism Luther had in his mind is clear,
furthermore, from the words in immediate connection with
those we have quoted, for he says: "This (the work of the
heart) the bent hand (Faust*) cannot do, nor the body," the
connection showing the thought to be this: neither the bent
hand of the administrator of Baptism, -bent to gather up and
pour the water, —nor the body of the recipient, can take the
place of faith, in securing the blessings of Baptism.
3. This is rendered clear again, from  the words, " Was
sollt ein hand voll Wassers der Seelen helfen?"  What can a
handful of water help the soul? This shows that the " handful of water " was connected with a received mode at that
time in the Lutheran Churches.
If the sense of begiessen, as applied to Baptism, were obscure,
(as it is not - no word more clearly excludes immersion) this
passage would settle it.
4. But there is abundance more of evidence on this point.
In Luther's own Ritual for Baptism, the officiating minister
"pours the water," (geusst Wasser auf) and says: " Ich tatfe
dich."
5. In the Article of Torgau, the fanatics, who in the Catechism are characterized as asking, "What can the handful of
water do," are represented as calling Baptism  "miserable
water, or pouring " (begiessen).
* As in Isaiah xl. 12, " Wer misset die VWasser mit der Faust." Eng. Ver.: "Who
hath measured the water in the hollow of his hand? "
34




530         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
6. In the letter of July 9th, 1530: "That standing, she
should have the water poured upon her (perfunderetur), or sit
ting, her head should be immersed (immergeretur)," surely not
both the same.
7. In the Wittenberg Liturgy of 1542, those are spoken of
who do " not dip (tauchen) the infants in water, nor (noch) pour
it upon them (begiessen)."
But Luther says the body is baptized; therefore, of necessity,
it is urged, by immersion. When St. Paul describes Baptism
in the words " having our bodies washed with pure water,"
he can hardly be said to prove himself an immersionist.
Luther's words are: " These two things are done in Baptism,
that the body, which is able to receive nothing besides the
water, is wet by pouring, and, in addition, the Word is spoken,
that the soul may embrace it."  Body and soul are two things
in Luther's mind, and it is not hard to see that the body does
receive what is poured on the head.
But if the criticism of the word " body " stood, it would do
no good, for water can be applied to the entire body by pouring (or even by sprinkling), as was largely, though not universally, the usage in our Church.  The water was poured so
copiously in some cases as to wet the entire body of the infant.
Luther, in speaking of the permanence of the Baptismal
Covenant, and of the power of returning, by repentance, to its
blessings, even after we fall into sin, says: "Aber mit TWasser
ob man sich gleich hundertmal lasset ins Wasser senken, ist dock
nicht mehr denn Eine Taufe."  This has been thus translated
and annotated: "''But no one dares to begiessen us with water
again; for if one should be sunk in water (ins wasser senken) a
hundred times, it is no more than one Baptism.' Here senken
is used along with begiessen, and to explain it."
But neither the translation, nor interpretation, is accurate.
"IDarf" does not mean'" dares," but means " needs," as the
Latin has it, "non est necesse."  The " ob gleich" has been
dropped, those important words which the Latin properly renders " etsi," "for even though one should be sunk."  " Senken "
is not used to explain begiessen. Luther does not mean that to
" pour upon with water " is equivalent to being " sunk in water




LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.  531
a hundred times."  The point is this: After the one Baptism,
the repentant sinner needs not that water should be poured
upon him again. No re-pouring can make a re-baptism. Nay,
if he were not merely poured upon, but sunk "into the water,
not once, but a hundred times, still, in spite of the quantity of
the water, and the manifold repetition of the rite, there would
be but one Baptism.  There is an ANTITHESIS, not a PARALLEL,
between " POUR" and " SINK," and between " ONCE" and a
" HUNDRED TIMES.'
Luther's translation of the words connected with Baptism,
proves that he was no immersionist.                Luther's trans1. Immersionists say that Baptisma should ac- lation of the
ways be translated immersion. Luther, throughout Bible
his translation of the Bible, NEVER translates it immersion (untertauchung), or dipping (eintauchung), or plunging (versenkung),
but always and exclusively, Baptism (Taufe).
2. Immersionists translate Baptismos immersion.  Luther
translates it either Baptism or washing. Mark vii. 4- Baptist Version: Immersion of cups, etc. Luther: wacshing. Do.
8 -Baptist Version: nimmersions; Luther: washing.
3. a. Immersionists say that Bcaptizo should always be translated to immerse.  Luther never translates it by immerse, nor
any of its equivalents, but with the exceptions we shall mention in a moment, by Taufen, to baptize.
b. Inmnersionists say, moreover, that en following bcatizo,
should be translated in,  I immerse you in water;" " he shall
immerse you in the Holy Ghost," etc. Luther translates as
does our English version: "I baptize you with (mit) water;"
" le shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," etc.
c. Luther translates 1 Cor. xv. 29, "What shall they do
which are baptized above the dead," and explains it t of administering Baptism "' at the graves of the dead," in token of faith
in the resurrection. The words of Luther are: " They are baptized at the graves of the dead, in token that the dead who
lay buried there, and over whom they were baptized, would
rise again. As we also might administer Baptism  publicly
in the common church-yard, or burial place.": Immersionists
*497. 78.    - Leipz. Ed. X. 384.  ~ Auslegung, Anno 1534.




632        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
generally prefer to consider the Baptism here as metaphorical,
and immerse the live saints in sorrows.
4. Immersionists say that the radical idea of Baptizo, in its
New Testament use, is not that of washing. Luther repeatedly
translates it to wash.  We will present some of these translations in contrast.  Translation on Immersionist principles:
Judith xii. 8, "Judith went out and immersed herself at a
spring near the camp;" Luther: " and washed herself in the
water."  Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25- Immersionist: "He that
immerses himself after touching a dead body; " Luther: "' That
washeth himself."  Mark vii. 5 -Immersionist:   (The Pharisees and all the Jews,) when they come from the market, unless
they immerse themselves, eat not; " Luther: "wash themselves."  Luke xi. 38    Immersionist: " That he had not
immersed himself; " Luther: " washed himself."
5. The Baptist version renders Baptistes, Inmerser; Luther,
always Tauffer, Baptist.
6. Immersionists say that Bapto always properly means, to
dip. Luther translates Rev. xix. 13: " I-e was clothed with
a vesture sprinkled with blood."
These proofs are enough to demonstrate that, judged as a
translator, Luther was no immersionist.
But it has been urged that Luther has used taufte, where
our translators have " dipped," 2 Kings v. 14. The fact is,
however, that this verse alone is enough to dispose of the false
theory. Our translators have " dipped," it is true; but as
Luther did not translate from  our authorized version, that
proves nothing. That same authorized version has " dipped"
in Rev. xix. 13, where Luther has "besprenget," " sprinkled."
The fact is, that if the ravages in the German, on the part of
those who are determined to make Luther a Baptist, or an
Anabaptist, against his will, are not arrested, they will not
leave a word in that language, once deemed somewhat copious,
which will express any mode of reaching the human body by
water, except by dipping; " begiessen" and " taufen " are disposed of, and " besprengen " can be wiped out exactly as " taufen " has been. The question, however, is worth a moment's
attention, Why Luther used the word "taufte," in 2 Kings v.




LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.  533
14?  The word " ta-bhal" is used sixteen times, but Luther
never translated it " taufen," except in this place. It is also
noticeable that in this place alone does the Septilagint translate
"ta-bhal" by "baptizo."  The Vulgate considers it as equivalent in meaning to " ra-hhatz" of the preceding verses, and
translates it  lavit," washed. The Targum considers the two
words as' equivalent.  So does the Syriac, and so the Arabic.
Pagninus' version gives to both the same meaning, but marks
the distinction between their form by translating " ra-hhatz,"
"lavo," and "ta-bhal," "abluo."  In his Thesaurus, he gives
as a definition of " ta-bhal," "lavare, baptizare," and translates
it in 2 Kings v. 14, "lavit se," washed himself.  Origen, and
many of the Fathers, had found in the washing of Naaman a
foreshadowing of Baptism.  De Lyra, Luther's great favorite
as an expositor, expressly calls this washing (2 Kings v. 14) a
receiving of Baptism. Luther saw in it the great idea of Baptism - the union of water with the Word, as he expressly tells
us, in commenting on the passage, in his exposition of the cxxii.
Psalm.*  The word " tanfte," therefore, is to be translated here,
as everywhere else in Luther's Bible, not by immerse, but by
"baptize."  Naaman baptized himself, not dipped himself in
Jordan, is Luther's meaning.  The Hebrew, ta-bhal, Luther
translates fourteen times, by tauchen, to dip, in accordance
with its accepted etymology.  But he also translates what he
regarded as its participle, by color or dye, Ezek. xxiii. 15.
According to the mode of reasoning, whose fallacy we are
exposing, wherever Luther uses "tatmfen," we may translate it
" to dye;" for the etymological force of a word, according to
this, is invariable, and all true translations of it must have the
same meaning.
Bapto Luther translates by " tauchen and eintauchen," to dip,
dip in; but he also translates by " besprerwgen " (Rev. xix. 13),
to sprinkle: but, according to this mode of reasoning, tauchen
and taufen both being equivalents, taz fen is sprinkling, and Baptism is sprinkling, and dipping is sprinkling.  By the way in
which it is proved that Taufe is immersion, may be proved that
both Taufe and immersion are sprinklings Baptizo Luther never
* Leipz. Edit. V. 461.




534        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
translated by tauchen, nor by any word which would be understood by the readers of his version to mean immersion. Whatever may be the etymology of:Tcatfe, its actual use in the German
language did not make it equivalent to immersion. Sprinkling
(Besprengen) or pouring (Begiessen) were called Taufe. If
Luther believed that the actual (not the primary or etymological) force of the word made immersion necessary, he was
bound before God and the Church to use an unambiguous
term. It is not true that " tauchen " or " eintauchen " had,
either then or now, that very trifling and vulgar sense which,
it is alleged, unfitted them  over against " tafen," to be used
to designate immersion. Luther uses them in his Bible, and,
when in his Liturgies he means to designate immersion, these
words are the very words he employs.
Luther used the ancient word Taufen, because, in the fixed
usage. of the German, Taufen meant to baptize.  Whatever
may have been the etymology of it, we find its ecclesiastical
use fixed before the ninth century. Otfried so uses it, A. D.
868. Eberhard and Maass, in their great Synonyrlik of the
German, say: " After Tatufen was limited to this ecclesiastical
signification, it was no longer used for Tauchen, and can still
less be used for it now that laufen (Baptism) is no longer performed by Eintauchen (immersion)."
The prepositions which Luther used in connection with' taufen," show that he did not consider it in its actual use as a
synonym of immerse: to baptize with water (mit), with the
Holy Ghost (mit). John baptized with water (mit); baptized
under Moses (unter) with the cloud (mit). It is not English to
talk of immersing with water; nor would it be German to follow "tauchen " or " eintauchen" by " mit;" nor any more so to
use " mit " after " tautyen," if taufen meant to immerse.
Furthermore, Luther has twice, 1 Cor. xv. 29, "To baptize
over the dead (iiber)," which he explains to refer to the baptism
of adults over the graves of the martyrs.
But Luther has not left us to conjecture what he considered
the proper German equivalent for baptizo and baptismos, in
their actual use-how much their actual use settled as to the
mode of Baptism. Five times only he departs from the render



LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.  535
ing by Taufe, or Taufen, but not once to use " tauchen," but
invariably to use Waschen, to wash.
Judith xii. 8: Und wusch sich im Wasser, washed herself;
(Gr.: Ebaptizeto; Vulg.: JBaptizat se).
Sir. xxxiv. 30 (25): Wer sich w'ascht, he who washes himself;
(Gr.: Baptizomenos; Vulg.: Baptizatur), what avails him  this
washing? sein Waschen? (Gr.: Loutron).
Mark vii. 24: Ungewcschen (aniptois) fZi'nden —sie waschen
(nipsontai), sie waschen sich (baptizontai), Tische zu waschen (baptismous); vii. 8: Zu waschen (baptismous).
Luke xi. 38; _Dass er sich nicht vordem Essen gewaschen hatte
(ebaptiste).
He translates baptizo as he translates nipto and louo.
Here is the demonstration, that while Luther believed, in
common with many philologists, that the etymological force
(Laut) of baptismos and baptisma is "immrersion," its actual
force in Biblical use is " washing," without reference to mode.
Luther treats it as having the same generic force with louo,
pluno, and nipto, all of which he translates by the same word,
waschen, just as our authorized version translates every one of
them, baptizo included, by wash. With the etymology of the
Greek goes also the etymology of the German.  The primitive
mode of washing, in nations of warm  or temperate countries,
is usually by immersion.  Hence the words in many languages
for the two ideas of dipping and washing come to be synonyms
— and as the word washing ceases to designate mode, and is
equally applied, whether the water be poured, sprinkled, or
is plunged in, so does the word which, etymologically, meant
to dip. It follows the mutation of its practical equivalent,
and comes to mean washing, without reference to mode. So
our word, bathe, possibly implies, primarily, to immerse. But
we now bathe by " plunge,"'" douch," or "shower-bath," and
we know that the wider use of the word "bathe " is very old
in English, as, for example, Chaucer* says:
"His heart-blood hath bathed all his hair."
If the baptismal commission had been given in English, and
*Knightes Tale, v. 2,009.




536         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the word used had been Bathe, the person who admitted that
the word "' bathe " covered all modes of applying water, but
who, in a case confessedly a matter of freedom, would prefer
immersion as the mode, because it corresponds with what he
believes to be the etymology of bathe, as well as with its actual
use, would do what Luther did in a cognate case, in 1519  of
which we are about to speak; but the inference that either
regarded the word in question as meaning to immerse, or as a
synonym of it, would be most unwarranted.
An attempt has been made to show that Luther was an
Luther  ety- immersionist, by citing his views of the etymology
mologies of the both of the Greek and German words involved.
ords.   The citation relied on for this purpose, is from the
sermon: Vom Sacrament der Tazufe,* which has been thus
given: "Die taufe (baptism) is called in Greek, baptismos; in
Latin, immersion, that is, when anything is wholly dipped
(ganz ins wasser taucht) in water which covers it."  Further,
"according to the import of the word Tauf, the child, or any
one who is baptized (getauft wird), is wholly sunk and immersed
(sonk und tauft) in water and taken out again; since, without
doubt, in the German language, the word Tacf is derived from
the word Tief, because what is baptized (tazfet) is sunk deep in
water. This, also, the import of Tazf demands.'
This translation is not characterized by accuracy. For
example, it renders both "Laut " and "Bedeutung," by the
one word import, when Luther expressly distinguishes between
" Laut" and " Bedeutung; " the former referring to the etymological or primary literal force of a word, and the latter to the
moral significance of a rite.
Further, it mutilates and mistranslates the words, which,
literally rendered, are:  Yet it should then be, and WOULD BE
RIGHT (und war recht) that one sink and baptize entirely in the
water, and draw out again, the child, etc." How different the
air of Luther's German from that of the inaccurate English.
There is another yet more significant fact. It OMITS, out of
the very heart of the quotation, certain words, which must
have shown that the idea that "begiessen " includes immersion
* Leipzig Edition, xxii. 139.




LUTHER'S ETYMOLOGIES OF THE WORDS. 537
is entirely false. The two sentences which are quoted are connected by these words, which are NOT QUOTED: "' And although
in many places it is no longer the custom to plunge and dip
(stossen und tatchen) the children il the font (die Tauf), but
they are poured upon (begeusst) with the hand, out of the font
(aus der Tauf)."  Here, over against immersion, as the very
word to mark the opposite mode, is used that " begiessen,"
which, it is pretended, refers to immersion. It seems to us
inconceivable that any one could read the passage in the original, without having the falsity of the former position staring
him in the face.
On the whole passage we remark:
First. That the sermon was published in 1519, among the
earliest of Luther's writings, ten years before the Catechism,
and when he had not yet made the originals of Scripture the
subject of his most careful study, and when his views were
still largely influenced by the Fathers and Romish theology.
It was published five years before he began his translation of
the New Testament, and more than twenty before he gave his
Bible its final revision. This raises the query whether his
views, after the thorough study of the Bible, connected with
his translating it, remained unchanged. We have given, and
can give again, ample proof that if Luther's meaning in 1519
implies the necessity of immersion, his opinion had undergone
a total change before 1529, when the Larger Catechism, whose
words are in question, was published.
Secondly. The passage is not pertinent to the proof of that
for which it is urged.  Luther designs to give what he supposes to be the etymological force of Baptismos and Taufe - not
to show their force in ACTUAL USE. That Luther affirns, not
that Baptismos and Taufe in actual use mean'6 immersion,"
but only etymologically, is clear. 1. From  the whole vein
of argument. As an argument concerning the etymology of
the words, it is pertinent; as an argument on the actual use
of either, it would be in the highest degree absurd.  2. From
his limitation by the word " Laut," which means " Etymology," as Luther himself translates it in the Latin, " Etyniologia." 3. By the fact that twice, in these very sentences,




538         CONSERVATIVE R EFOR MATI ON.
Luther uses Taufe not in the sense either of immersion or of
Baptism, but of "font."  4. That in his translation of the
Scriptures he uses " Taufe" for "Baptism," without limitation to mode. 5. That in his translation of the Romish
Ritual, and wherever else he wishes to indicate the idea of
immersion, he never uses taufe or taufeen, always tauchen or
untertauchung. 6. That in the only Baptismal Service properly Luther's own, he directs the water to be poured, with the
words, Ich taufe. 7. That he repeatedly recognizes the validity
of Taufe by pouring, which would be ridiculous, if Taufe in
actual use meant immersion.
Third. The Latin of Luther's Sermon on Baptism, in the
Jena Edition, an edition which excludes everything of his
which was not officially approved, makes very plain the drift
of the words quoted. It says: " The noun, Baptism, is Greek,
and can be rendered (potest verti) in Latin, Mersio," -"That
(i. e., the immersion and drawing out) the etymology of the
word (Etymologia nominis —Laut des Wbrtleins) seems to demand (postulare videtur)."  From  Luther's opinion on the
etymology of the words Baptism and Taufe, the inference is
false that he held that Baptism, in the ACTUAL USE of the word,
meant immersion, and that the German word Taufe, in ACTUAL
USE, had the same meaning. To state the proposition is to
show its fallacy to any one familiar with the first principles of
language.
1. That the etymological force and actual use of words are
often entirely different every scholar knows. Carnival is, etymologically, a farewell to meat. Sycophant, etymologically
and properly, means a fig-shower; miscreant is a misbeliever.;
tinsel means " sparkling," (Thetis, with the " tinsel-slippered
feet," Milton); carriage (Acts xxi. 15) means things carried;
kindly, in the Litany, according to kind; painful, involving
the taking of pains; treacle, something made from wild beasts.
The German schlecht, bad, originally meant good; selig, blessed,
is the original of our English word silly; the word courteous
has its root in a word which meant a cow-pen.
2. The very essence of the philological argument against the
necessity of immersion, turns upon this fact. If to admit that




LUTHER'S ETYMOLOGIES OF THE WORDS.  539
Bapto and Baptizo may, etymologically, mean to dip in, is to
admit that, in their ACTUAL USE, they mean exclusively to dip
in, then the argument against the Baptists, on the part of
many, is over.'
3. The English words Baptism and baptize are simply Greek
words in an English shape. As this argument puts it, they
also mean, throughout our authorized version and our whole
usage, exclusively immersion, or to immerse. So the Baptists.
contend as to their etymological and native force; but as they
concede that such is not the actual use of them in English,
even they, when they translate anew, give us "immersion"
and " immerse."
4. If the interpretation of Luther, we are contesting, stands,
Luther was an immersionist, did teach that immersion is the
synonym of Baptism and is necessary, did hold the " Baptist
doctrine of immersion;" but it is admitted that Luther did
none of these, therefore this interpretation cannot stand. The
argument makes Luther to be theoretically an immersionist,
and only saved by hypocrisy, or glaring inconsistency, from
being an Anabaptist in practice. The Martin Luther which
this new philology has given us is a disguised Anabaptist.
The positions are inconsistent with each other, and the arguments for them self-confuting.
What is the real meaning of Luther's words? It is that in
its etymological and primary force (Laut), the German term
Taufe, like the Greek baptismos, the Latin mersio, means immersion, but he does NOT say, and there is abundant evidence that
he did not believe, that in ACTUAL USE, either Taufe or baptisma means exclusively immersion, but, on the contrary, means
" washing" without reference to mode. We believe that many
scholars of anti-Baptistic schools will concede that Luther was
right in his position as to etymology, as all intelligent Baptists
will, and do, concede that the etymological and primary force
of any word, may be entirely different from that it has in
actual use.
2. Luther, in 1519, drew the inference that it would be
right and desirable that the mode of washing should conform
to the etymological and primary force, as well as to the actual




540         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
use of the word. That it would be right, if the Church preferred so to do, is, we think, undisputable; that it is desirable,
is, we think, very doubtful, and we can prove that such was
Luther's attitude to the mode when the' Catechisms were written.  That immersion is necessary, Luther denied in express
terms, in his book on the Babylonish Captivity of the same
period (1519).
3. Luther, in 1519, under the influence of the Romish Liturgy, and of the writings of the Fathers, believed that the
symbolical significance of Baptism, as pointing to the drowning and death of sin, though essentially unaffected by the
mode, is yet brought out more clearly in immersion, and at
that era so far preferred it. In his later Biblical Era, to which
his Catechism belongs, there is ample evidence that this preference was no longer cherished.
This, then, is in brief the state of the case. The point of
Luther's whole argument, in 1519, is, that inasmuch as immersion corresponds with the etymology of Baptism, as well as with
its actual general use, which embraces every kind of washing,
and as a certain signification common to all modes, is most
clearly brought out in immersion, it would be right, and sofar
desirable, that that mode, though not necessary, but a matter
of Christian freedom, should be adopted. Then, as always, he
placed the mode of Baptismi among the things indifferent, and
would have considered it heresy to make the mode an article
of faith. In the Church of Rome, some of the older rituals
positively prescribe immersion; and in the ritual now set forth
in that Church, by authority, there is a direction that, " Where
the custom exists of baptizing by immersion, the priest shall
immerse the child thrice." Luther, in his Sermon in 1519,
expresses his preference for immersion, not on the ground of
any superior efficacy, but because of its etymology, antiquity,
and significance as a sign: and when he alludes to the fact
that the children, in many places, were not so baptized, he
does not express the least doubt of the validity of their
Baptism.
In his book on the Babylonish Captivity, which appeared
in 1520, declaring his preference again for the same mode, he




LITURGIES OF LUTHER AND LUTH. CHURCEH.  541
expressly adds: "INOT THAT I THINK IT (immersion) NECESSARY. "
But this claim of necessity, and this only, is the very heart of
the Baptist doctrine. The strongest expressions in favor of
immersion occur in Luther's earliest works, and his maturer
preference, as expressed in later works, seem to have been no
less decided for pouring as an appropriate mode. Thus in his
Commentary on Genesis, one of his latest and ripest works,
he says: " The water which is poured (quae funditur) in Baptism is not the water given by God as the Creator, but given
by God the Saviour."t
We will now look at the testimony furnished on the point in
question by the Liturgies of Luther and the Lutheran Church.
1. The Taufbiichlein of Luther, 1523, is not a Lutheran
Ritual, but avowedly only a  translation  of a
The Liturgies
Romish service.  He declares, in the Preface to it, of Luther and of
that there was much in it which he would have th Lutheran
Church.
desired to remove, but which he allowed to remain
on account of the consciences of the weak, who might have
imagined that he wished to.introduce a new Baptism, and
might regard their own Baptism  as insufficient.  That in this
Ritual, therefore, the direction given to dip the child (tauchen)
only proves that the particular Romish Ritual followed by
Luther had that Rubric.
2. Bat after this Translation, later in this same year, 1523,
Luther issued his own directions for Baptism: Wie man recht
und verstandlich einen Menschen zum  Christenglauben taufen
soll4. This document, in the older editions of Luther's works,
has been erroneously placed under 1521. The Erlangen edition, the latest and most critical ever issued, gives it its true
place, under 1523.  In this direction, how RIGHTLY (recht) and
INTELLIGENTLY (verstdndlich) to baptize, Luther says: "The
person baptizing POURS THE WATER (geusst wasser auF), and
says, Ego Baptizo te," that is, in German, Ich tauf dich (I baptize thee). POURING, and pouring alone, is described as Bap.
*De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. Jena Edit., II. 273. "Non quod necessarium
arbitrer."
tOn ch. xxviii. Vol. iii. 91.
+ Leipz. xxii. 227. Walch, s. 2,622. Erlangen xxii. 168.




542         CONSERVATIVE REFORIA TION.
tism, and positively prescribed in the only Ritual of Baptism
which is properly Luther's exclusive work.
3. In 1529, the year in which the Catechisms of Luther
appeared, in which it is pretended that "the Baptist doctrine
of immersion " is taught, he wrote the Seventeen Articles of
Schwabach, or Torgau," which became the basis of the doctrinal Articles of the Augsburg Confession. In the Ninth
Article of these, he says: We baptize WITH water (mit WVasser),
- and Baptism is not mere miserable water, or SPRINKLING and
POURING (begiessen)." Here again the begiessen, the applying of
the water to the person, not the imnersing of the person in
water, is exclusively spoken of as the mode of Baptism.
4. In the Liturgy of Wittenberg,t Luther's own home
(1542), dipping and pouring are placed on the same footing in
every respect.  "Ins wasser tauchen -sie damit begiessen."
5. In the Liturgy of Halle, 1543,: the administrator is
expressly left free to use either pouring or dipping. "Zwischen dem Begiessen und Eintauchen wird die Wahl gelassen."
6. Bugenhagen, in the conjoined work from  Luther and
himself (1542), designing to comfort mothers who had lost
their children, says that Baptism of children, by pouring, was
prevalent in the Lutheran Churches of Germany (das begiessen,
siehet man noch bei uns iiber ganz Deutschland).
7. The Liturgy of the Palatinate of the Rhine, etc., 1556, of
which the original edition lies before us, says: "' Whether
the child shall have water poured on it once or thrice, be
dipped or sprinkled, is a MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE (mittelmnfssig).
Yet, that all things may be done in the Church in good order,
and to edification, we have regarded it as proper that the child
should not be dipped (gedaucht), but have the water poured
upon it (begossen werden)."  And in the Rubric: " Then shall
the minister pour water (begiesse) on the child."
8. The Liturgy of Austria, 1571, directs the Baptism to be
performed by copious pouring or sprinkling.~  The later usage
is so well known, that it is not necessary to multiply citations.
*Leipz. xx. 22. Walch xvi. 778. Erlangen xxiv. 321.
f Consistorial Ordnung, 1542; Richter K. O. I. 369.   $ Do. II. 15.
i "Mit Wasser reichlich begiessen, besprengen."




LITURGIES OF LUTHER AND LUTH. CHUR CH. 543
We shall close this part of our discussion with the words of
two well-known authors of the Lutheran Church in America.
Dr. Schmucker, in his Popular Theology, says, very truly:  The
question is not whether Baptism by immersion is valid; this
is not doubted... But the question is whether immersion is
enjoined in Scripture, and consequently is an essential part of
Baptism, so that without it no Baptism is valid, though it
contains every other requisite. On this subject the Lutheran
Church has always agreed with the great majority of Christian
denominations in maintaining the negative, and in regarding
the quantity of water employed in Baptism, as well as the
mode of exhibiting it, not essential to the validity of the ordinance." "The controversy on this subject (the mode of applying water in Baptism) has always been regarded by the most
enlightened divines, including Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz, as of comparatively inferior importance."
Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, in his work on Baptism, after showing
very conclusively that Luther was not an immersionist, closes
his discussion with these words: " We leave our readers
to judge for themselves, from the foregoing extracts, what
amount of credit is due to the objection made by some of our
Baptist brethren, that Luther believed in the necessity of submersion to the exclusion of effusion, or that he was not decidedly
in favor of children's being baptized. To our more enlightened
readers we may owe an apology for making our extracts so copious,
and dwelling so long on this subject; but the less informed, who
have been assailed again and again by this groundless objection, without ability to refute it, will know better how to
appreciate our effort."
It is hardly necessary to show that these views of the mode
of Baptism were held by all our old divines. A few citations
will suffice:
CHEMNITZ: * " The verb Bcaptizein does not necessarily import
immersion. For it is used, John i. 33, and Acts i. 5, to designate the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.  And the Israelites
are said, 1 Cor. x. 2, to have been baptized unto Moses, in the
* On Matt. xxviii. 19. Exam. Concil. Trid. Ed. 1653. See, also, Harmon.
Evang. C. xvi.




544         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
cloud and in the sea, who, nevertheless, were not immersed
into the sea, nor dipped into the cloud. Wherefore, Paul, a
most safe interpreter, says that to baptize is the same as to
purify or cleanse by the laver of water in the Word, Eph. v.
26. Whether, therefore, the water be used by merging, dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, there is a baptizing.  And even
the washing of hands, couches, and cups, in which water was
employed, whether by merging, dipping, or pouring, Mark vii.
4, is called Baptism. Nor in the Baptism instituted by Christ,
is there needed such a rubbing of the body with water as is
needed to remove the filth of the flesh, 1 Pet. iii. 21. Since,
therefore, our Lord has not prescribed a fixed mode of employing the water, there is no change in the substantials of Baptism, though in different Churches the water is employed in
different modes." 
FLACIUS ILLYRICUS: * " Baptizo, by metalepsis, signifies, to
wash, bathe (abluo, lavo). Hence, Mark vii. 4, says:' The Jews
have various Baptisms (i. e. washings) of cups and pots;' and
1 Peter iii. 21, says:'Our Baptism  is not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh.' Heb. vi. 2, the word Baptism refers
to the purifications and washings under the old dispensation."
STEPHEN GERLACH t says:   Herein Baptism is analogous to
circumcision, which, though local, yet availed, by its internal
action, to render the entire person acceptable to God. Thus
the laver of regeneration and renewal is most efficacious,
whether the person baptized be entirely merged, or dipped, or
some portion only of the body be sprinkled, only so that he be
baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
GERHARDI: t "Baptismos and Baptizein are employed to designate any kind of ablution, whether it be done by sprinkling,
pouring, or dipping."
QUENSTEDT: "Baptism, in general, signifies washing, or
ablution, whether it be done by sprinkling, pouring, dipping,
or immersion."
The question of the outward mode in Baptism, is far less
*Clavis, S. S.          t On Matt. xxviii. 19, in Osiander.
Loci. Ed. Cotta ix. 68.




INTERNAL EFFICACY OF BAPTISM-CONTEXT. 545
serious than the questions as to the internal efficacy of Baptism, its essence, its object, and results.  As closely connected
with the view of our Church on these points, we shall present
some facts in connection with that fundamental  Internal effiScriptural phrase in regard to  Baptism.  Our cacy of Baptism.
"'Born of water
Saviour says to Nicodemus, John iii. 6: "Ex- andoftheSpirit."
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit,. The C&itext.
he cannot enter into the kingdom  of God."  Does he refer
in these words to Baptism?  We think that no one ever
could have doubted that there is such a reference, unless he
had some preconceived theory of Baptism  with which the
natural meaning of these words came in conflict. The context and the text alike sustain and necessitate that interpretation which was the earliest, which was once and for ages
universal, and to this hour is the general one,- the interpretation which accepts these words as setting forth the Christian doctrine of Baptism.  We have said the CONTEXT proves
this.  We will give a few illustrations which seem to us perfectly conclusive on this point: 1. Baptism, in consequence
of the ministry of John the Baptist, was, at the time of the
interview between our Lord and Nicodemus, the great absorbing matter of interest in the nation. The baptizing of John
was the great religious event of the time. The subject of
Baptism, in its relation to the kingdom  of God, was the
grand question of the hour, and there was hardly a topic on
which Nicodemus would be more sure to feel an interest, and
on which our Lord would be mlore likely to speak.
2. The fact that John baptized was regarded as evidence that
he might claim to be the Christ; in other words, it was a settled part of the conviction of the nation that the Messiah would
baptize, or accompany the initiation of men into His kingdom
with the use of water. " The Jews sent priests and Levites to
ask John, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not;
but confessed, I AM NOT THE CHRIST," John i. 20. Not a word
had they uttered to imply that they supposed that he claimed
to be the Christ, but his answer, to what he knew to be their
thought, all the more potently proves that it was considered
that THE CHRIST WOULD BAPTIZE, that the beginning of His
3t




546         CONSERVATIVE REFORIMATION.
kingdom would be in Baptism, that IHe preeminently would
be the Baptizer. " They asked him, and said unto him, Why
baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ? " Nicodemus
came to settle in his mind whether Jesus was the Christ.
Nothing would be more sure to be a question with him than
this: Whether Jesus would claim the right to baptize? The
answer of John implied that he baptized by authority of the
Messiah, as His divinely appointed forerunner and provisional
administrator of this right of Baptism, whose proper authority
lay in Christ alone. Nicodemus would be peculiarly alive to
any allusion to Baptism, would be likely to understand as
referring to it any words whose obvious meaning pointed to
it, and our Lord would the more carefully avoid whatever
might mislead him on this point.
3. John continually characterized his work in this way:
"I baptize with water," Matt. iii. 2; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16;
John i. 26, 31, 33; Acts i. 5. At this time, and under all
these circumstances, the word "water" would be connected
specially with Baptism.
4. John had said of Jesus, shortly before this interview of
Nicodemus, Mark i. 8: " I, indeed, have baptized you with
water; but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost... "
Here, before the Ruler of the Jews, was the very person of
whom this had been uttered; and when he takes up these
words "water" and "the Spirit," it seems impossible that
Nicodemus should doubt their allusion to, and their close parallel with, John's words.
5. John had miade two kinds of utterances in regard to
Christ's work, and we beg the reader to note the great difference between them, for they have been confounded, and gross
misrepresentation of them has been the result.
The first of these utterances we have just given, Mark i. 8.
It was made to the body of John's disciples, and the two
things he makes prominent are Baptism with water, and Baptism with the Holy Ghost; that is, water and the Spirit.
The other utterance, Matt. iii. 7-12, was made to those to
whom he said: " O generation of vipers, who hath warned yo-:
to flee from the wrath to come? "  John knew that, as a class,




INTERNAL EFFICACY OF BAPTISM-CONTEXT. 547
the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to him were unworthy
of Baptism, yet as there were exceptions, and as he could not
search hearts, he baptized them all. Nevertheless, he says:
"Every tree which bringeth not forth good" fruit, is hewn
down and cast into the fire.  I, indeed, baptize you with
water, but He that cometh after me shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire.  Whose fan is in His hand, and
He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather the \wheat into
His garner, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable
fire."  When we look at these words in their connection,
remember the class of persons addressed, and notice how the
Baptist, in the way in which the word " fire " runs, fixes' its
meaning here, nothing seems clearer than this, that John has
in view not the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual, but
His great work in the mass, and not His purifying power in
those who are blessed by it, but His purifying power shown in
the removal and destruction of the evil. The wind created by
the fan descends alike upon the wheat and the chaff; both are
alike baptized by it, but with wholly different results. The
purifying power of the air is shown in both. It is a single
act, indeed, which renders the wheat pure by removing the
impurity of the chaff. " You5" says the Saviour to the generation of vipers, " shall also be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
His work shall be to separate you from the wheat. You, too,
shall be baptized with fire; the fire which destroys the impurity
which has been separated by the Spirit. See also Luke iii. 917. The addition of the word " fire " marks, with awful significance, what is the distinction of the cBaptism of the wicked; and
such an idea, as that the children of God are baptized withfire, is
not to be found in the New Testament. The only thing that
looks like it is Acts ii. 3, where it is said, "There appeared
unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them," but the fire here was symbolical of the character of the
TONGUES of the Apostles, of the fervor with which they glowed,
and of the light which they shed, in the varied languages in
which they spoke. John spoke of the Holy Spirit and fire,
when he addressed those who were not to enter the kingdom
of God. When he addressed true disciples, he associated




548         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAlTION,
water and the Spirit. When he spoke to the former, it was
of the Spirit first, and then of the fire.  When he speaks to
the latter, it is of water first, and then of the Spirit; the one
class is to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire, and are
lost; the others are baptized with water and with the Spirit,
and will enter the kingdom of God. When John contrasted
his Baptism with that of the Saviour, he meant not this: I
baptize with water only, without the Spirit, and IIe will baptize with the Spirit only, and not with water; he meant: I
baptize with water; that is all I can do in my own person, but
He who in His divine power works with me now, and baptizes
with the provisional measure of the Holy Spirit, will yet come
in His personal ministry, and then He will attend the Baptism
of water, with the full gospel measure of the Spirit. When
our Lord, therefore, taking up, as it were, and opening still
further the thought of John, adopts his two terms in the same
connection in which he had placed them, He meant that Nicodermus should understand by " water " and the " Spirit " the
outward part of Baptism, and that Divine Agent, who in it,
with it, and under it, offers His regenerating grace to the soul
of man.
6. It is not to be forgotten that Nicodemus was asking for a
fuller statement of the doctrine of the new birth. He asked:
"How can a man be born when he is old? "  The emphasis is
not on the word " can" alone, as if he meant to express a
doubt of the truth of our Saviour's proposition; the emphasis
rests also on the word "how."  Ile meant to say: "A man cannot be born again in the natural sense and ordinary way.
How, then, in what sense, and by what means, can he be born
again?" It is impossible that one interested in grace itself
should not be alive to its means. For our Saviour not to have
made an allusion to any of the divine modes, as well as to the
Divine Agent of the change, would seem to make the reply a
very imperfect one. But if any one of the means of grace is
alluded to, the allusion is certainly in the word " water;" and
admitting this, the inference will hardly be resisted that  "Baptism " is meant.
7. The entire chapter, after the discourse with Nicodemus,




'INTERNAL EFFICACY OF BAPTISM — TEXT.   549
is occupied with baptisms, baptismal questions, and baptismal
discourses.
a. In verse 23, the word " water " occurs:'"John was baptizing in lEnon, because there was much water there."
b. It is not unworthy of notice, that immediately following
the conversation of our blessed Lord with INicodemus, come
these words, " After these things came Jesus and his disciples
unto the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and
baptized."
c. John's disciples and the Jews came to him and said:
" Rabbi, he to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him."  Then John replies: "Ye
yourselves bear me witness that I said, lam not the Christ, but
that I am sent before him."  The authority for John's Baptism was secondary, derived from Christ.  Christ now takes
it into His own hands, and prepares to endow it with the fulness of the gifts of His Spirit.
The context of these words demonstrates that by " water"
our Saviour meant Baptism.  The evidence of the
2. The Text.
text itself is equally decisive that this is his meaning. It is conceded by all, that if the word " water " be taken
literally, it means " Baptism; " hence, all those who deny that
it refers to Baptism understand it figuratively, and in that fact
acknowledge that to prove that it is to be taken literally, is to
prove that it refers to Baptism.
We remark, then,
1. That to take the word " water " figuratively makes an
incongruity with the idea of a birth. It is said that water
here is the figure of the cleansing and purifying power of the
Holy Spirit. But there is an incongruity in such an interpretation. Had the Saviour meant this, he would naturally have
said: Except a man be cleansed, or washed with water, not
"born of" it.
2. One of the figurative interpretations is in conflict with
the evident meaning of the word " Spirit " here. For it is
clear from the whole connection, that the Spirit here means
the Holy Spirit as a person. In the next verse it is said:
"That which is born of the SPIRIT is Spirit," and in the 8th




550         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.O
verse: " So is every one that is born of the SPIRIT." No sound
interpreter of any school, so far as we know, disputes that the
word " Spirit," in these passages, means the Holy Spirit as a
person; and nothing is more obvious than that the word in
the 5th verse means just what it does in the following ones.
But if " water " is figurative, then the phrase water and Spirit
means, in one of the figurative interpretations, "'spiritual
water;" that is, the substantive Spirit is used as an adjective,
and not as the name of a person.  This false interpretation
makes the phrase mean "spiritual water," and Baptism  and
the Holy Spirit both vanish before it.  In its anxiety to read
Baptism  out of the text, it has read the Holy Spirit out of
it, too.
3. Another figurative interpretation turns the words the
other way, as if our Saviour had said: "Born of the Spirit
and water," and now it means not that we are to be born
again of " spiritual water," but that we,are to be born again
of the " aqueous or water-like Spirit."  But not only does such
a meaning seem poor and ambiguous, but it supposes the one
term,   Spirit," to be literal, and the other, " water," to be figurative; but as they are governed by the same verb and preposition, this would seem incredible, even apart from the other
cogent reasons against it. In common life, a phrase in which
such a combination was made, would be regarded as absurd.
4. The term  "to be born of" leads us necessarily to the
same result.
a. The phrase is employed in speaking of natural birth, as
in Matt. i. 16: " Mary of whom wCas born Jesus."
Luke i. 35:' That holy thing which shall be born of thee,
shall, be called the Son of God."  So in this chapter, "that
which is born of the flesh."
b. It is employed to designate spiritual birth. Thus John
i. 13: " (the sons of God) were born not of the blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."  Here
no symbolical title is used, but the literal name of the Author
of the new birth.  So in this chapter, v. 8: "So is every one
that is born of the Spirit."  John, in his gospel and epistles,
uses the phrase " to be born of" fifteen times.  In fourteen of




THE PARALLELS.                      551
them, it is not pretended that any of the terms used to designate the cause of the birth is symbolical.  The fifteenth
instance is the one before us.
The phrase to " be born of" is never connected elsewhere in
the [New Testament with terms indicative of the means or
cause of birth, which are symbolical in their character.  The
whole New Testament usage is in conflict with the supposition
that it is here linked with a symbolical term.
" Born of God" is used some eight or nine times.  " Born
of the Spirit " is used twice, and these, with the words before
us, exhaust the New Testament use of the phrase.
Without the context, then, the text itself would settle the
question, and demonstrate that our Lord referred to Baptism.
The words of our Lord Jesus to Nicodemus are the keynote
to the whole body of New Testament representa3. The parallels.
tion in regard to the necessity and efficacy of Baptism.  The view which regards the words " Born of water and
of the Spirit," as referring to Baptism, is sustained and necessitated by the whole body of PARALLELS in the gospels and
epistles. Let us look at a few of these:
1. In Titus iii. 5, Paul, speaking of God our Saviour, says:
"He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing
of the Holy Ghost."  Here the subject is the same as in
John iii. 5, the new birth, or regeneration. There is a parallel
between  "born of God," and   regeneration," and " renewing; "
between "water" and " washing," or laver. "The Spirit"
in the one is parallel with "the Holy Ghost " in the other,
and " Entering into the kingdom of heaven " in the one has
its parallel in the other, in the words, " Ie saved us."  What
a beautiful comment does Paul make on our Lord's word!
Take up the words in John, and ask Paul their meaning.
What is it to be " born again? "  Paul replies, " It is to experience regeneration and renewing." What is the " water," of
which our Lord says we must be born? It is the washing of
regeneration. What is the Spirit?  Paul replies, "The Ioly
Spirit."  What is it to enter the kingdom of God? It is to be
saved.
2. Ephes. v. 26: "Christ loved the Church and gave Him



552         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
self for it, that lie might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word."  In these words the new birth
is represented as sanctifying and cleansing; the "water" is
expressly mentioned; to be " born of water " is explained as a
" sanctifying and cleansing with the washing of water," and
the " Word " as a great essential of Baptism and organ of the
Ioly Spirit in it, is introduced.
3. Hebrews x. 21:'" Let us draw near with a true heart, in
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
Here Baptism. is regarded as essential to having a true heart
and full assurance of faith, and the mode in which " water " is
used is defined in the words, "having our bodies washed with
pure water."
4. In 1 John v. 6-8, speaking of Jesus: " This is He that
came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and
blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the
Spirit is truth.  And there are three that bear witness on
earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood." Here is a
most decisive confutation by John himself of the glosses put
upon his Master's words. They demonstrate that " water"
and " Spirit " are not one. " There are three that bear witness,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood."
5. The parallel in St. Peter is also very important.  1 Pet.
iii. 21, 22: " The Ark, wherein few, that is, eight souls were
saved by water.  The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth
now save us."  The water lifted the Ark above it, away from
the death which overwhelmed the world.  It separated the
eight souls from the lost, and saved them while it destroyed
the others.  Here the Apostle, speaking of " souls saved by
water," declares that Baptism, in such sense, corresponded
with the deluge, that we say of it also, "It saves us,"    the
implication being irresistible — that the whole thought inVolved is this: in the Church, as in the Ark, souls are saved
by water, that is, by Baptism. Having said so great a thing
of Baptism, the Apostle adds: "' Not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward
God."  That is, it is not as a mere outward purifier, or cere



THE PARALLELS.                      553
monial washing, Baptism operates. Its gracious effects are
conditioned on the state of the heart of him to whom they are
offered. He who in faith accepts Baptism  in its purifying
energy through the Spirit of God, also receives8it in its saving
result.
6. The words of our Lord-Jesus, elsewhere, fully sustain the
view which the Church takes of His meaning in John iii. 5.
In his final commission he charges the Apostles "to baptize"
the nations, Matt. xxviii. 19. and connects with it the promise:
" He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;" and adds:
"but he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16.
These words should be pondered.  We are not to separate
what God hath joined together. Who shall be saved? First,
He only that believeth.  That is decisive against the idea that
Sacraments operate apart from the spiritual state of the recipient. It is a death-blow to formalism - a death-blow to Rome
and to Oxford. We are justified by faith; that is written
with a sunbeam in the words: " HIe that believeth.. shall be
saved."  But is that all the Saviour said?  No! He adds:
" AND IS BAPTIZED, shall be saved."  Who dares read a " NOT"
in the words, and make our Saviour say, " -Ie that believeth,
and is NOT baptized, shall be saved'? But the man who says,
" Baptism is in no sense necessary to salvation," does contradict
the words of our Lord. But.if it be granted that in any sense
our Lord teaches that Baptism is necessary to salvation, then
it makes it highly probable that the same doctrine is asserted
in John iii. 5. The reader will please notice that we are not
now attempting to settle the precise meaning of either the
words in John or the parallels.  Our question now simply is,
What is the subject when our Saviour speaks of water and the
Spirit?
7. In the minds of the Apostles, the doctrines of our Lord,
of the necessity in some sense (we are not inquiring now in
what sense or with what limitations,) of Baptism to salvation,
was ever present. When the multitudes said to Peter, and to
the rest of the Apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we
do?" then Peter said unto them,   Repent, and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for




554         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIO.
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost." Now, mark  first, that Baptism and the Holy Spirit
are separately spoken of, as in John iii. 5; second, that Baptism is represented as a means or condition of receiving the
gift of the Ioly Ghost; third, that besides repentance Baptism is enjoined as necessary; fourth, that it is clearly set forth
as in some sense essential to the remission of sins.
8. The Apostles and other ministers of the Lord Jesus baptized all persons: " When they believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God, they were baptized,"
Acts viii. 12. When Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, he
said: " What doth hinder me to be baptized? "  And Philip
said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest;"
not, as some would say now, " If thou believest with all thine
heart, there is no need of being baptized."  Thus, Lydia and
her household; the jailer and his household.  No matter
where or when the Spirit of God wrought IHis work in men,
they were baptized, as if for some reason, and in some sense it
was felt that this was necessary to an entrance on the kingdom
of God.
9. Ananias said to Saul, after announcing to him the commission which God gave him: " And now, why tarriest thou?
Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord," Acts xxii. 16. Here Baptism is represented
as necessary, in some sense, even to a converted man, as a means,
in some sense, of washing away sins.
10. As resonances of the wonderful words of our Lord, we
have the Apostle's declaration: " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death, therefore, we are buried with Him, by Baptism, into death. By
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. For as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Thus comparing God's Word with itself do we reach a sure
ground. Context, text, and parallel, the great sources of a
sound interpretation of the living oracles, all point to one
result, in determining what our Lord spoke of when he said:
" Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."




RESORTS OF INTERPRETERS- HENDIADYS. 555
The form of speech to which recourse has most frequently
been had here to put a figure into the words, is that which
is called "   [HENDIADYS;"  that is, the phrase in which one
(hen) is presented by (dia) two (dys).  That is to. The resorts
say, two nouns are used where one noun would of interpreters.
sayi                      -'   Hendiadys.
answer, if the idea of the other were presented in         ys.
an adjective form.  Thus Virgil says: " We offered drink in
bowls and gold;" that is, in golden bowls, or bowl-shaped
gold.  By this hendiadys, the Saviour is said here to have
meant " spiritual water," or "the water-like Spirit."
Now let us look at this " hendiadys " by which it is proposed to set aside the natural meaning of our Saviour's words.
We remark:
1. That after a careful search, we cannot find a solitary
instance (leaving this out of question for a moment) in which
it is supposed that the Saviour used the form of speech known
as hendiadys. It was not characteristic of him.
2. Neither is it characteristic of John the Evangelist, whose
style is closely formed upon that class of our Lord's discourses
which he records in his Gospel.
3. Nor is it characteristic of the style of any of the New
Testament writers.  But three instances of it are cited in the
entire New Testament by Glass in his Sacred Philology, and in
every one of those three, the language is more easily interpreted without the hendiadys than with it.  Winer, the highest authority on such a point, says, in regard to hendiadys in
the New Testament:' The list of examples alleged does not,
when strictly examined,furnish one that is unquestionable."*
4. The passage in Matt. iii. 11: "' He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire," is the only one in which it is
pretended that a parallel is found with the one before us; but
we have shown in a former part of this Dissertation, that there
is no hendiadys here; the fire and the Holy Ghost are distinct
subjects. The persons addressed were neither to be baptized
exclusively with the Holy Spirit-like fire, or the fire-like Holy
Spirit, but just as our Lord says, with both; with the Holy
* Gramm. of N. T. Diction. Transl. by Masson. Smith, English & Co. 1859.
p. 652. Seventh Ed. by Liinemann. (Thayer.) Andover. Draper. 1869. p. 630.




556         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Spirit and with fire- the former, in His personality, separating
them  as the breath of the purifier's fan, and the latter consuming them as the purifier's flame.
5. But we have a little more to say in regard to this hendiadys; and that is, that if we even concede that it is used
here, it does not help the figurative interpretation at all. For
look at its real character a moment. Hendiadys does not affect
at all the question of the literalness or figurativeness of the
termns embraced in it; it does not change their meaning, but
simply their form. Take, for example, the illustration we
gave from Virgil: "bowls " and "gold" are both literal.; and
to have " golden bowls," you must have literal gold as well as
literal bowls; not gold analogous to a bowl, or a bowl like to
gold. So Lucan says of a horse: " He champed the brass and
the bit;" that is, the brass-formed bit; but the brass was real,
and the bit was real; it does not. mean the brass-like bit, or
the bit-like brass. So, in Acts xiv. 13, it is said that the
expression " oxen and garlands," is a hendiadys, and means
"garlanded oxen."  We are not sure that it does; but if it
does, it means there were literally garlands and literally oxen.
Oxen is.not figurative, meaning strength, of which the ox is a
symbol; nor does " garlands" mean "honored," though garlands are an image of honor. It does not mean that they
brought honored strength, or strong honor, to the gates; but
hendiadys or no hendiadys, it involves equally that there were
oxen and garlands.  So here, even supposing a hendiadys, we
must none the less have literally water, and literally the Spirit.
The only thing hendiadys proves, is, that the things it
involves are not separated; and if we suppose a hendiadys
here, it leaves both the water and the Spirit as literal terms,
and only involves this, that they are conjoined in the one birth.
In other words, hendiadys only makes a slight bend in the
route, and brings us after all to the same result as the most
direct and artless interpretation, to wit, that our Saviour
referred to Baptism in His words to Nicodemus.
Another resort, more extreme than the one we have just
disposed of, is that of the EPEXEGESIS, that is to suppose that
the " AND " gives the words this force: " Born of water, THAT




IS BAPTISM NECESSARY TO SALVATION?   557
rs TO SAY, of the Spirit."  It is contended that it is parallel to
such an expression as this: " God and our Father," which
mneans: " God, that is to say, our Father."  In the epexegesis,
one thing is spoken of in more than one aspect, and, hence,
under more than one term. For instance, in the
Epexegesis.
phrase we have quoted: "God and our Father"
means: That Being who is God, as to his nature, and Father, as
to his relation to us, God essentially, and Father relatively; in a
word, both God and Father.  It does not make the term  God
metaphorical, and the term Father the literal substitute for it.
If an epexegesis, therefore, were supposable in John iii. 5, the
phrase could only mean: Born of that which is water, as to
its outer part, and Spirit, as to its internal agent, that is, both
water and Spirit. It is, therefore, of no avail to resort to the
epexegesis here, even if it were allowable. But it is not allowable.  There is not an instance, so far as we know, in human
language, in which a noun used metaphorically is conjoined
by a simple " and " with a term which is literal and is meant
to explain it. In a word, the resorts of a false interpretation,
which are sometimes very specious, utterly fail in this case.
Our Lord has fixed the sense of his words so surely, that the
unprejudiced who weigh them calmly cannot be at a loss as to
their meaning.
The Augsburg Confession (Art. IX. 1) declares that Baptism
"is necessary to salvation."  Is it justified in so  Is Baptism
doing? Can we accept a statement apparently so necessary to salsweeping? Is it a Scripture statement?
In order properly to answer these questions, it is necessary
to determine what the Confessors meant.  In all human writings, and in the Book of God, occur propositions apparently
universal, which are, nevertheless, in the mind of the writer,
limited in various ways. What is the meaning of the proposition of our Confession? Is it absolute, and without exceptions, and if it.meant to allow exceptions, what are they?
The first question we naturally ask, in settling the meaning
of our Confession, is, What is Baptism?
The Platform, in, defining what Baptism  it supposes the
Church to connect with salvation, designates it as "such




558         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAT ION.
WATER BAPTISM."  But what our Church affirms of the blessings of Baptism, she does not affirm of " water Baptism,"
that is, of the application of water per se. The total efficacy
of the Sacraments is defined in the Augsburg Confession (Art.
l.VhatisBap- V. 2), thus, that through them and the word, "as
tism?       instruments, or means, God gives His Holy Spirit,
who worketh faith."  It would at once remove much of the
grossest prejudice against the doctrine of our Church, if it
were known and remembered that the Baptism of whose blessings she makes her affirmation, embraces not merely the external element, but yet more, and pre-eminently, the word and
the Holy Spirit. She regards it as just as absurd to refer any
blessings to Baptism, as her enemies define it, as it would be to
attribute to swords and guns the power of fighting battles
without soldiers to wield them.
Her first lesson on the subject is: "Baptism is not mere
water," (Cat. Min., 361, 2). " Wherefore," says Luther (Cat.
Maj., 487, 15), " it is pure knavery and Satanic scoffing, that
now-a-days these new spirits, in order to revile Baptism, separate from it the Word and institution of God, and look upon
it as if it were mere water from the well, and then, with their
childish drivelling, ask,'What good can a handful of water do
the soul?' Yes, good friend, who does not know that when
you separate the parts of Baptism, water is water? "   Baptism cannot be sole and simple water (do. 26), mere water cannot have that power."  " INot by virtue of the water" (do. 29).
" Not that the water (of Baptism) is in itself better than any
other water," (do. 14.) So in the Smalcald Articles: " We do
not hold with Thomas and the Dominican friars, who, forgetful of the word and the institution of God, say, That God has
conferred a spiritual power on water, which washes away sin
through the water " (320, 2).
" Baptism," says Gerhard,*" is the washing of water in the
Word, by which washing the whole adorable Trinity purifieth
from sin him who is baptized, not by the work wrought (ex opere
operato) but by the effectual working of the Holy Ghost coming
upon him, and by his own faith."  Such is the tenor of all the
* Loci (Cotta). ix. 318.




REGENERATION NOT PRECEDED BY BAPTISM. 559
definitions our Church gives of Baptism, from the simple elementary statements of the Catechism up to the elaborate definitions of the great doctrinal systems.
The assumption, then, that what the Church says of Baptism, she affirms of mere water Baptism, rests on a fundamental misapprehension.  Whatever is wrought in Baptism, is
wrought by the Ioly Ghost, through the Word, with the
water, in the believing soul.
"That some adults, by actual impenitence, hypocrisy, and
obstinacy, deprive themselves of the salutary effi-  2. Baptism is
cacy of Baptism, we freely admit."  Gerhard (IX. not always followed by regen170).                                              eratioli.  RtegenJust as clear as they are in their judgment that erationeot l
Baptism is not necessarily followed by regeneration, by Baptism.
are our Church and her great divines in the judgment that
regeneration is not necessarily preceded by Baptism, or attended by it.
The Augsburg Confession (Art. V.) declares the gospel (as
well as the Sacraments) to be the means whereby the Holy
Ghost works and confers faith, and (Art. VII.) presents the
gospel purely preached (as well as the Sacraments) as that
whereby the true Church is marked out and made.  "As we
come alone through the Word of God to God, and are justified, and no man can embrace the Word but by faith, it follows that by faith we are justified."  Apol. 99, 68.  "The
natural man is, and remains, an enemy of God, until, by the
power of the Holy Ghost, through the Word preached and
heard, he is converted, endowed with faith, regenerated and
renewed."  Form. Concord, 589, 5. " We cannot obey the
law  unless we are born again through the gospel."  Apol.
Conf. 140, 190. " Faith alone brings us to a new birth."  Do.
119, 61. "This faith alone justifies and regenerates."  Do.
138, 171. " Regeneration is wrought by faith in repentance."
Do. 253. "When, therefore," says Gerhard,* " they are baptized, who have already been regenerated through the Word,
as a spiritual seed, they have no need of regeneration through
Baptism, but in them Baptism  is a confirmation and sealing
of regeneration."
* Loc. viii. 325.




560         CONSERVATIVE REFOR 1MATION.
When Nicoderus asked, "How can a man be born when
he is old? " Jesus replied, "Of water and of the Spirit," and
extends the proposition to all "that which is born of the
flesh;" that is, to "all men after the fall of Adam, who are
3. Men may le born in the course of nature."  (A. C., Art. II.)
unbaptized and The necessity of the new birth He clearly predibesaved.  ates upon the fact that the flesh, which is such
by virtue of fleshly birth, requires this change.
That in John iii. 5, water means Baptism, the Platform
concedes: " The language of the Saviour, doubtless, refers also
to BBaptism."  But even critics who deny this, concede that in
John iii. 6, man is contemplated as the subject of original sin.
Those who concede this (and this all concede), and who concede
that " water " means Baptism (and this the Platform concedes),
concede that, not only in the phraseology, but in the connection, application, and argument of that phraseology, the Augsburg Confession is perfectly justified by the Saviour's language,
when it says (Art. II.) "this original sin" (" that which is
born of the flesh is flesh ") "brings now also eternal death"
(" cannot see the kingdom  of God ")" to those who are not
born again of Baptism (' water') and of the Holy Ghost." If
the case is made out from these words, against the Confession
of the Church, it is also made out against the Saviour, to whose
words it so closely adheres.  The dilemma, then, is irresistible,
either that both teach it, or that neither does. As regards the
effectual overthrow of their own position, it matters little
which horn the objectors take. If they take the one, then, on
their own concession, the Saviour teaches Baptismal regeneration; if they take the other, on their own concession, the Confession does not teach Baptismal regeneration. Is, then, the
inference warranted, that our Saviour, in His words, and our
Confession, in its use of them, mean to affirm an absolute and
unconditional necessity, that a man shall be born of water,
before he can enter into the kingdom of God? We reply, that
neither the Saviour nor the Confession meant to affirm this,
but simply an ordinary necessity.  " The necessity of Baptism
is not absolute, but ordinary." (Gerhard IX. 383.) Bellarmine
had argued from John iii. 5, for the Romish doctrine, that




ARE UNBAPTIZED INFANTS SAVED?                    561
unbaptized infants are lost.  Gerhard (IX. 287) replied: " 1.
The warning of Christ bears not upon the privation of the
Sacrament, but the contempt of it. 2. He describes the ordinary rule, from  which cases of necessity are excepted.  We
are bound to the use of the means, but God may show IIis
grace in extraordinary ways."
How touchingly and consolingly LUTHER wrote upon this
topic, is known to all admirers of his writings.  4, ub,,Bugenhagen, in the admirable Treatise already tized i fan ts
referred to, which is incorporated in  Luther's a
Works, and was issued with a Preface by him, shows at large
that neither to infants nor adults is the necessity of Baptism
absolute.  " Rather should we believe that the prayers of
pious parents, or of the Church, are graciously heard, and that
these children are received by God into His favor and eternal
life."
On the whole dark question of the relation of the heathen
world to salvation, the early writers of our Church generally
observe a wise caution. Yet even in the school of the most
rigid orthodoxy we find the breathings' of tender hope.  "It
is false," says Mentzer,* "that original sin in infants out of
the Church is an adequate cause of reprobation; for men are
never said in Scripture to be reprobated on that account solely.
But as faith alone' justifies and saves, so also, as Luther says,
unbelief alone condemns."?Egidius Hunnius, whonm  Gerhard pronounced the most
admirable of the theologians of his period, and of whom
another great writer affirms, that by universal consent he
holds the third place of merit after Luther, says:t "I would
not dare to affirm that the little children of heathen, without
distinction, are lost, for God desireth not the death of any -
Christ died for them also," etc.
Our Church, then, does not teach that Baptism  " is neces
sarily and unavoidably attended by spiritual regeneration,'
but holds that a man may be baptized, and remain then and
forever in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity,
* Oper. I. 959, quoted in Gerhard; Cotta.
In Quaest. in Cap. VII. Gen., quoted in Gerhard IX. 284.
36




562         CONSERV_4TIVE  REFORIMATION.
and therefore holds as heartily and fully as the Platform,*
"that Baptism in adults does not necessarily effect or secure
their regeneration."
In the next place, our Church regards Baptism  not as
5. Baptism not "4 (ssential " in its proper sense, but as " necessary."
essential.  That which is properly "essential," allows of no
degree of limitation; but that which is "necessary," may be
so in various degrees with manifold limitations.  It is' essential" to our redemption that Christ should die for us;
therefore, without limits of any kind, we affirm  that no
human being could be saved without His atoning work.  It
is "necessary" that we should hear the gospel, for it is the
power of God unto salvation; but the necessity of hearing
is limited in various ways.  It does not comprehend both
infants and adults, as that which is essential does.
The Augsburg Confession (Art. IX.) says, not that Baptism
6. Butneces- is essential, but simply that it is necessary —to
sary.      which the Latin, not to show the degree of necessity, but merely its object, adds'" to salvation."
In later editions of the Confession, Melanchthon, to remove
the possibility of misconstruction, added a few words to the
first part of the Ninth Article, so that it reads:'" Of Baptism,
they teach that it is necessary to salvation, as a ceremony instituted of Christ."  So far, at least, we think all could go in
affirming its necessity. And with such mild expressions, even
those who were most remote from  the Melanchthonian spirit
were satisfied.
" Among all orthodox Lutherans, I-utter is among the most
olthodox; no one has remained more thoroughly within the
bounds of the theology authorized and made normative by the
Church than he -no one has adhered with more fidelity, not
merely to the spirit, but to the very letter of the Symbols,
especially of the Form  of Concord."t  Yet Hutter exhausts,
in the following answer, the question: "' Is Baptism necessary
to salvation?"  "It is; and that because of God's command.
For whatever God has instituted and commanded, is to be
done, is precious, useful, and necessary, though as to its out* P. 29.           t Herzog's Encyclop. fuer. Theol. VI. 346.




BAPTISM NECESSARY- NOT UNCONDITIONALL Y. 563
ward form it be viler than a straw."*  So much and no more
does this great theologian say of the necessity of Baptism in his
Compend.  Later theologians have properly given prominence
to its necessity as a mean, but never have ascribed to it a necessity per se.
For, finally, on this point, the Church never has held, but
has ever repudiated the  idea  that Baptism  is  7. Yet not nn"unconditionclly essential" or necessary'"to  sal- con(litonlly.'
vation."
She has limited the necessity, first of all, by the "possibility
of having it "- has declared that it is not absolutely necessary,
and that not the deprivation of Baptism, but the contempt of
it condemns a mant -that though God binds us to the means,
as the ordinary instruments of His grace, He is not Iimself
limited by them.4  She teaches, moreover, that all the blessings of Baptism are conditioned on faith.  C. M., 490: 33 - 36.
The " Shorter Catechism" of Luther teaches that whatever Baptism gives, it gives alone to those " who believe that
which the Word and promises of God assure us of."  "The
water cannot do such a great thing, but it is done by the
Word of God, and faith which believes the Word of God,
added to the water."  We shall not give the reference for this,
as even the little children are supposed to know it by heart,
nor stultify ourselves or our readers by adducing authorities
for the catechetical doctrines of our Church.
The Lutheran Church holds that Baptism  is necessary to
salvation, inasmuch as God has commanded it, and obedience
to His commands is necessary to salvation; and, furthermore,
because He has appointed Baptism, as one ordinary and positive channel of His grace, through which channel we are to
seek the grace I-e offers. But our Church denies that, where
the command cannot be carried out, because of a necessity
which is of God's creating, the lack of the sacrament involves
the loss of the soul.
On the more difficult question, whether infants born out of
the Church are saved, many of our old divines, of the strictest
* Compendium Loc. XX. 3. This answer is taken from Luther's Larg. Cat.
t Luther's Werke: Leipz. Edit. XXII. 400-422.  $ Do. p. 412.




564         CONSERVATIVE REFORMIATION.
school, have maintained, as we have already seen,* that it
would be harsh and cruel to give over, absolutely, to condemnation, the infants of pagans, for the lack of that which it
8. Our tllelo- was impossible for them  to have.  This view has
gians in general. been dfended at large, by Dannhaner, Hulsemann,
Cotta.  Scherzer, J. A. Osiander, WTagner, Musaus, Spener,
and very many others. Some of our best theologians, who have
not considered the argument on either side as decisive, have
suspended their judgment in the case, as did Gerhard, Calixtus,
Meisner, Baldwin, Bechman, and others. HUNNIUS, whom Gerhard quotes approvingly, makes the statement of this middle
view, in these words: "That the infants of pagans are saved,
outside of the Church, is a matter on which the silence of
Scripture forbids us to pronounce with assurance on the one
side, yet I would not dare to affirm, on the other, that those
little ones, without distinction, are lost.
"For, 1. Since God desires the death of none, absolutely, it
cannot rightly be supposed that he takes pleasure in the death
of these little ones. 2. Christ died for them also. 3. They
are necessarily excluded from the use of the Sacraments.  Nor
will God visit the children with eternal death, on account of
the impiety of the parents. Ezek. xviii.  We commit them,
therefore, to the decision of God."
COTTA approves of the most hopeful view of their condition,
and argues for it-" 1. From  the infinite pity of God.  2.
The extent of the benefits wrought by Christ.  3. The analogy of faith - no one absolutely reprobated, but actual unbelief alone condemns. 4. Not the absence, but the contempt of
Baptism  condemns.  5. God can operate in an extraordinary
way.  6. Though original sin, in itself, merits damnation, and
is a sufficient cause of it, yet it is not (because of God's infinite
goodness) an adequate cause of the actual infliction of that
condemnation."
The facts we have dwelt upon dispose of another charge
9. Baptismal against our Church —the charge of teaching an
regenertion.   unscriptural doctrine in regard to regeneration,
and the relation of Baptism to it.
See Dissertation on Original Sin.




CONFESSION AND PLATFORM  COMPARED.  565
The Definite Platform  says of " Baptismal Regeneration:"
"By this designation is meant the doctrine that Baptism  is
necessarily and invariably attended by spiritual regeneration,
and that such water Baptism is unconditionally essential to salvation."  "Regeneration, in its proper sense of the term, consists in a radical change in our religious views-in our religious
feelings, purposes, habits of action."  The Miami Synod, in
1858, set forth what they suppose to be meant by the charge,
when " they utterly repudiate and abhor" (as well they may)
the following error: -"Baptismal regeneration- that is, that
Baptism  is necessarily connected with, or attended by, an
internal spiritual change ex opere operato, or from the mere outward performance of the act."*  Their definition and that of
the Platform  are substantially the same, though we do not
understand them to charge such a doctrine upon their Church
or its Confession.
The charge against our Church of teaching " Baptismal
Regeneration," as those who make the charge define it, is, as
we have seen, utterly ungrounded. It is not true in its general
statement nor in its details; it is utterly without warrant in
the whole, or in a single particular. Wre have presented a
few facts in elucidation and defence of the Scripture doctrine
of Baptism, as confessed by our Church, and as  The co,,termisrepresented and assailed in the Definite Plat- theory of Brpform.  It is always an interesting question, often
a very important one, If we give up that which is assailed,
what shall we have in the place of it?  This question is of
great importance in the present case.  What equivalent do
those propose to the Church, who ask her to give up her most
cherished doctrines? What is the doctrine which the Definite
Platform proposes as the true one, in. place of that theory of
" Baptismal Regeneration" which it denounces? It  l. Baptism of
is this, "Baptism in adults is a pledge and CONDI- adults. TheConfession  and the
TION of obtaining those blessings purchased by Platform  conChrist, and offered to all who repent, believe in pared.
Him, and profess His name by Baptism."
Now, is not that which is a CONDITION of obtaining a thing
*Luth. Observ. xxvi. 29.




566          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
necessary to it - and is not " salvation " the generic term for
the "blessings purchased by Christ?"  How, then, can the
Platform take offence at the Ninth Article of our Confession?
Just put them side by side:
Aug. Conf.: Baptism I is necessary ] to salvation.
Def. Plat.: Baptism  is a condition those blessings purchased.
of obtaining by Christ.
Then comes the question of the Baptism of infants.  What
2. Baptism of here is the view which is to supersede that anniInfants.    hilated theory (if that may be said annihilated
which never existed,) " that Baptism is a converting ordinance
in infants "
The theory is this (p. 31): " Baptism, in infants, is the pledge
of the bestownment of those blessings purchased by Christ, for all.
These blessings are, forgiveness of sins, or exemption from the
penal consequences of natural depravity (which would at least
be exclusion from heaven) on account of moral disqualification
for admission," etc.
Look now at this, and compare it with what our Confession
says on the Baptism of Infants.  (Art. IX.)  All that it says
on the subject is:
1.' That children are to be baptized."  Here the Platform
assents fully.
2. " That by this Baptism  they are offered and committed
to God."
Here, too, we apprehend, there will be no dissent, for it is
said: "  Baptism in infants, is the pledge of reception into the
visible Church of Christ, grace to help in every time of need."
3. "Being offered in Baptism to God, they are well-pleasing
to God, (that is,) are received into the favor of God," says the
Confession, and here it ceases to define the blessings of Baptism; but the Platform  goes much further.  " Baptism  in
infants," it says, "is a pledge."  The first blessing of which it
declares it to be a pledge is " forgiveness of sins," conceding
this, that infants have sins; that they need the forgiveness of
sins; that baptized infants have the pledge of the forgiveness of
their sins, and, of necessary consequence, that unbaptized infants




BAPTISM  OF INFANTS.                     567
have no pledge of the forgiveness of their sins; in other words,
that there is no pledge that the sins of unbaptized infants are
forgiven; for if they have the pledge, too, though they have
no Baptism, how can Baptism be the pledge of forgiveness?
The words that follow now, are explanatory of the preceding ones.  " These blessings are forgiveness of sins, or exemption from the penal consequences of natural depravity."  Forgiveness is defined to be " exemption from penal consequences."
Sins are defined to be "' natural depravity."
iNow wherein does this doctrine differ from the old one, that
in Baptism  the " reatus," or liability of original sin is taken
away, although the " materiale " remains? except, perhaps, in
this, That Luther supposes God graciously to do it by His Holy
Spirit through the Baptism, while the Platform  may mean,
that Baptism is only the pledge that it is done, but it is done
either way, and in both Baptism  is the proof, at least, that
it is done.
But we have, furthermore, a statement of what " the penal
consequences of natural depravity" are:' "W7hich would, at
least, be exclusion from heaven, on account of moral disqualification for admission."
Now, analyze this proposition, and you have the following
result:
1. That infants have natural depravity, which is a moral
disqualification for heaven.
2. That this natural depravity hccs penal consequences, that is,
is a punishable thing; that infants, consequently, htave moral
character, and some sort of moral accountability; are the subjects
of law, as to its obligation, for they have sins to be forgiven;
and of law as to its pains, for they are subject to "penal
consequences. "
3. That this punishment would be exclusion from heaven.
But this statement is qualified in a very remarkable way —
"would, at least, be exclusion from  heaven," —that is the
minimum. The words " at least," seem to mark this train of
thought: " They would, at least, be excluded from heaven, even
if they were not sent to hell."  Now this style of thinking, as
Apolog. Confess., 83, 35.




568         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATION.
it has in it, unconsciously to its author, we trust and believe
- as it has in it a tinge of Pelagianism - so it trembles, logically, upon the very border of that figment to which the Pelagianism  of the Church of Rome, combined with her strong
sacramentalism, leads her - the doctrine of a limbuts ifantitm.
She was too sacramental to admit that the original sin of a
child could be removed without Baptism; too Pelagian to concede that original sin must, in its own nature, apart from God's
grace, bring death eternal.  Her sacramentalism, therefore, kept
the unbaptized child out of heaven; her Pelagianism kept it out
of hell, and the conjunction of the two generated a tertium quid
- the fancy of a " limbus infcantun," or place which, without
being hell, was yet one of exclusion from heaven, a mild perdition, whereby infants not wholly saved were, nevertheless,
not totally lost. And the shadow of this very tendency shows
itself in the words we have quoted from the Platform..Connecting the three propositions now, with what has preceded them, we reach, then, furthermore,
4. That God grants forgiveness of the sins of the baptized
infant, forgives its natural depravity, exempts it, of course,
from the penal consequences thereof, and thus, if it is not saved
from  a liability to eternal death, it is, "at least," saved from
exclusion from heaven. If the Platform means that the sin of
an infant, unforgiven, would bring eternal death to it, then it
goes as far as the extremest views of the nature of original sin
can go, and vindicates the very strongest expressions of the Confession on this point; and if it means that original sin would
exclude it from heaven without consigning it to despair, it has
virtually the doctrine of the linbus infantum.
5. And finally, Baptism in infants is the pledge of all this
-they have the pledge-and, of consequence, unbaptized
infants have not. In other words, there is an assurance that
every baptized child has this great thing,'forgiveness of
sins. "
It is not surprising that, after all this, the Platform closes
its discussion on this point with these words (p. 31): " It is
proper to remark that the greater part of the passages in theformer Symbols, relating to this subject, are, and doubtless




BAPTISM  OF INFANTS.                     569
may be, explained by many, to signify no more than we above
inculcate."  We understand the author in this to concede, not
simply that they are so explained, but that they are, in fact,
susceptible of this explanation, and that this m.ay be really
their meaning.
It is our sincere belief, that if the energy which has been
expended in assailing as doctrines taught by our Confessions
what they do not teach, had been devoted to ascertaining what
is their real meaning, these years of sad controversy would
have been years of building up, and of closer union, not years
of conflict, years in which our ministry and members have had
their minds poisoned against the truth of God as held by our
Church.
But, while there are apparent points of identity with the
Church doctrine in that of the Platform, there is one chasm in
its theory which nothing can bridge over, a contradiction of
the most palpable and fatal character.  That vital defect is
this, that while this theory secures theforgiveness of an infant's
sins, it makes no provision whatever for the change of its sinful
nature.  While it provides for its exemption fiomn penalty, it
leaves utterly out of sight the correction of its depravity, which
is a more fearful thing than the penalty which follows it; for
in the pure judgment of sanctified reason, it would be better
to be holy and yet bear the penalty of sin, than to be sinful
and have the immunities of holiness; better to be sinless,
although in hell, than to be polluted and in heaven. The theory concedes that there is in "infants a moral disqualification
for heaven." It absolutely needs, therefore, before an infant
can have a pledge in Baptism of its salvation, that there shall
be a pledge provided for its moral qualification for heaven, and
this moral qualification must be REGENERATION.
But the theory not only does not provide for this, but as far
as it is stated in the Platform, absolutely excludes it. It says,
"Baptism in infants is a pledge of the forgiveness of sins,"
but it says not a word of the removal of sins in whole or in
part.  The cardinal defect, therefore,- is, that it provides a
pledge that the blessings which follow  regeneration shall'be
given, but provides none that the regeneration itself shall be




570         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
given - it provides that the child shall be saved from the penalty of sin without being saved, in whole or in part, from the
sin itself; saved, in fact, in its sins, not frown them. To what
end would a child enter heaven if its nature were unchanged.
Forgiving a sin in no sense changes its character.  And where
in the Word of God is there the shadow of that baleful doctrine, that the sins of an unregenerate person are forgiven; where
the shadow of that deadly error, that God has. provided a
Church, into which, by His own ordinance, and at His command, millions are brought, without any change in a nature
whose moral evil is such as would condemn them forever to
exclusion from heaven- where is the shadow of that fatal
delusion, that the curse of sin can be removed while the sin
itself remains dominant?
But if a refuge is sought in saying that infants are regenerated, but that Baptism, in all its parts, element, WMord and
Spirit, is not the ordinary channel of this grace, this is to
accept a theory which has every difficulty which carnal reason
urges against the doctrine of the Church, but which has nothing that even looks like a warrant for it in God's Word, and
which, run out logically, would destroy the whole character
of Christianity as a system  of wonderful means to beneficent
ends.
Dr. I-eppe, in his Dogmatik of the Evangelical Reformed
Church (1861), presents the doctrines of the CalCalvinistic and
Lutheran views vinistic Churches, and illustrates his text with
of Baptism con- citations from their standard theologians.  The docpared.
trine of the Lutheran Church, in regard to Baptism, is often very severely spoken of by Calvinists-it is,
indeed, one of the main points of attack.  Perhaps it may not
be without some interest to compare the Lutheran and Calvinistic views in regard to this important subject.
The definitions of Baptism which Heppe gives as purely Calvinistic and Reformed, are as follows:  "Baptism is a sacrament, in which those to whom the covenant of grace pertains, are
washed with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, that is, that to those who are baptized, it is signified and
sealed that they are received into the communion of the covenant




CALVINISTIC AND LUTH. VIEWS OF BAPTISM. 571
of grace, are inserted into Christ and His mystic body, the Church,
are justifed by God, for the sake of Christ's blood shed for us,
and regenerated by Christ's Spirit."  This definition he gives
from POLANUS. Another and shorter one h6 furnishes from
WOLLEBIUS, as follows: " Baptism is the first sacrament of the
new covenant, in which to the elect received into the family of
God, by the outward application of water, the remission of sins
and regeneration by the blood of Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, are
sealed."  He gives only one other, which is from HEIDEGGER,
thus: " Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, in which to each
and to every one embraced in the covenant of God, the inward washing from  sins through the blood and Spirit of Christ, is declared
and sealed."
The doctrine thus stated, and correctly stated, for it is the
doctrine of all genuine Calvinists, involves several things,
which the detractors of our Church may do well to ponder.
First, It draws a line between baptized infants as well as
between baptized adults, representing some as belonging to the
elect, some to the non-elect, some as belonging to the class to
whom  the covenant of grace pertains, others as not of that
class.  Shall we prefer this part of the doctrine to that which
teaches that God is the Father of all, and Christ the Saviour
of all, heartily loving all and desiring to save them?  Can a
mother believe it possible that between her two beloved little
children prattling at her knee, there may be, in God's love,
will, and purpose, a chasm cleft back into eternity, and running
down to the bottom of hell?  Can she believe this when her conscience tells her that the slightest partiality on her part, for the
one or the other, would be a crime?  Can she believe that
God's absolute sovereignty elects absolutely one of her children
to eternal glory, and passes by the other, when that passing
by necessarily involves its ruin forever?  Can it be wondered
at that High Calvinism has, in so many cases, been the mother
of UTniversalism -that men who start with the premise, that
the absolute sovereignty of God determines the eternal estate
of men, should draw the inference, not that He elects some to
life, and leaves the mass to go to perdition, but that He elects
all?  Shall we give up this part of the baptismal doctrine of




572         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the Church? And yet if we surrender it- if we say the doctrine of Baptism is not a/fundamlental one in our system, men
lay teach among us on this point what they please. What is
to prevent these views from being preached in our pulpits and
taught in our houses?
A  second feature of the Calvinistic view of Baptism  is,
that to those perfectly alike in all personal respects, Baptism
comes with entirely different functions.  To one infant it signs
and seals communion in the covenant, insertion into Christ, justification and regeneration; to another, perfectly alike in all
personal respects, it signifies an.d seals nothing.  No parent
knows what his child receives in Baptism, whether it be a
mere handful of water on its hair, or the seal of blessings,
infinite like God, and irrevocable to all eternity.  The minister does not know what he has done; whether he has sealed
the everlasting covenant of God with an immortal soul, or
thrown away time and breath in uttering mocking words, to
that little being which smiles and prattles, in utter unconsciousness that it is abandoned to a destiny of endless pain, of
unspeakable horror.  Can we give up the baptismal doctrine
of our Church for this?  Our Church tells us that Baptism
makes the offer of the same blessing to every human creature
who receives it; that a difference in the result of Baptism
depends upon no lack of the divine grace, on no secret counsel
of God, but upon the voluntary differences of adults-and
that as there are no such differences in infants, there is no difference in the effects of Baptism to them.  Surely Lutherans
should stand shoulder to shoulder in this, that whatever be the
blessing of Baptism, be it little or great, vague or well-defined,
it is offered alike to all, and conferred alike upon all who do
not present in themselves the voluntary barrier to its reception.
Yet if we say the doctrine of Baptism is non-fundamental, these
very errors may be set forth in our theological chairs, taught
in our Catechisms, and set forth in our pulpits.
A third element of the Calvinistic doctrine of Baptism is,
that to those for whom  any of the blessings of Baptism  are
designed, it supposes the sealing of as great blessings, as on the
strongest sacramental theory, even that of the Church of




CALVINISTIC AND LUTH. VIEWS OF BAPTISM. 573
Rome herself, is conferred by Baptism; it seals to the elect to
whom  alone its blessings belong, reception into the " communion, that is the fellowship in, the participation in, the covenant of grace," "insertion into Christ and His mystic body,"
"justification,'  "regeneration," and " the inward washing of
sin." Two infant brothers, twins, we will say, are offered for
Baptism; whatsoever is to come to pass has been unchangeably ordained by God from eternity in regard to them; one of
the twins may be " elect," may have been predestinated unto
everlasting life; the other is non-elect, is foreordained to everlasting death, particularly and unchangeably.  The twins die
in infancy, the elect one, by the terms of the theory, is regenerated, the non-elect is unregenerate; the one is saved, the
other is lost; the grace of Baptism  belongeth to the elect
infant according to the counsel of God's own will, and therefore "baptismal grace,"- that is a Calvinistic idea, too,-therefore baptismal grace is " not only offered, but really conferred on
that infant."  To an elect infant dying soon after its Baptism,
the Calvinistic theory seems to give as much as the highest
theory of "baptismal regeneration."  Let Lutherans remember that it is here conceded that the highest blessings which
our Church teaches us are connected alone with a worthy
entrance into the baptismal covenant, and a faitlhful continuance therein, are acknowledged by Calvinists to be actually
sealed therein - that is, that God sets his hand to it, by the
act of baptizing, that the elect do then have, or shall yet have,
if they have not then, justification, regeneration, and inward
washing from sin.  Shall we take offence at the doctrine of
our Church, which asks us to receive as an article of faith, in
regard to the efficacy of Baptism, no more than is summed up
in the words of our Confession, that "through Baptism the
grace of God is offered, that children are to be baptized, and
being through Baptism  offered to God, are received into His
favor?"
Here, then, we rest the case.  The doctrine of Baptism held
and confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church is, as we
believe all her doctrines are, absolutely accordant in every
part with the Word of God.  To abide by her Confession, is




574         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
to abide by the WVord, and there she and her true children
will rest. If we destroy the historical life of our Church, and
abandon her Confession, whither can we go? What system
can we accept which will meet so fully our wants?  If we
destroy or rend the Lutheran Church, or allow as normal and
final just as much deviation as the individual may wish from
all to which she has been pledged in her history, from all that
is involved in her very name, from all that gave her distinctive
being, what may we hope to establish in her place to justify so
fearful an experiment, and to indemnify the world for so great
a loss?
The final proposition of the Confession is antithetical, and
The Antithesis arranges itself into three parts:
oftheConfession.  1.  On this account the Anabaptists are condemned."  "Derhalben werden die Wiedertaufer verworfen."
Damnant Anabaptistas."
2. " Who disapprove of the Baptism of children and teach
that it is not right."     Welche lehren dass die Kindertauf
nicht recht sei."  "Qui improbant baptismumL puerorum."
3. " And affirm that children are saved without Baptism."
a' Et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri."
I. The Anabaptists took their name from their repetition of
The Anabap- Baptism in the case of those who had been baptists.     tized in infancy.  (Ana in composition indicates
repetition.) They have also been called Katabaptists from
their opposition to the Baptisr  of children.  The early Anabaptists with whom our Reformers had to contend, made their
main opposition to infant Baptism, and although they immersed,
they certainly gave little prominence (if they gave any) to
the question of mode, as compared with modern Baptists.
The sect of Anabaptists made their appearance in history
soon after the beginning of the Reformation, and excited disturbances in Saxony in 1522. The roots of the Anabaptist
movement, especially on its political side, strike deep into the
Middle Ages.  The Reformation was not its cause, although
Anabaptism often made the Reformation its occasion. Fanaticism always strives to corrupt the purity of faith in one direction, as Formalism  strives to stifle it in the other.  A pure




ARGUMENTS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.                  575
Church stands in living antagonism to the formalism of Rome,
and to the fanaticism of all pseudo-Protestantism. It has the
body, but disavows the flesh; it has spirituality, but carefully
guards it against running into spiritualism.
The most renowned of the Anabaptists in history was
THOMAS MUENZER, who was originally preacher in
iMuenzer.
Allstaedt.  He was deposed on account of his
fanaticism, and uniting himself with the Anabaptists, became
their leader.  He published a bitter attack upon the Baptism
of children. Leaving Saxony, he passed through a large portion of Germany with his associates, everywhere finding,
among a population degraded by the current Romanism,
abundance of adherents. Returning to Saxony, he established
himself at Muehlhus, where he aroused the peasantry, claimed
princely authority, gathered an army, abolished the magistracy, proclaimed that in future Christ alone was to be king,
and made war in 1525 upon the princes themselves.  The
rebel bands were defeated at Franckenhus, and Muenzer was
put to death. Prominent also among the Anabaptists were
those who were led by JOHN OF LEYDEN, SO called
John of Leyden.
from his having seized upon that city, where he
overthrew the magistracy, assumed the government with the
title of king, made laws to suit himself and his followers, and
practised great cruelties toward those who did not yield themselves to him. The city was besieged in 1526; an immense
number of his adherents were slain, and he himself was
put to death. It is evident that the Anabaptist movement was
political as well as religious, and was largely a reaction, blind
and ignorant, against gross abuses. The Anabaptists are condemned in the Confession, not in their persons, but in their
errors; the man was not condemned —the errorist, or more
strictly the error in the errorist, was condemned.
II. The SECOND point is: " Who disapprove of the Baptism
of children, and teach that it is not right."
It is natural here to look at the grounds on which the Anabaptists object to Infant Baptism, and say that it  Arguments of
is not right. The most plausible arguments which the Anabaptists.
they urge against it, have been in a large part anticipated in




576         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
our discussion, but we shall, nevertheless, notice the three
strongest, the only ones which seem to carry any weight with
them.  Much of the earlier Anabaptist argument has been
abandoned, as, for example, that as our Saviour was baptized
in the thirtieth year of his age, infants ought not to be baptized. The three arguments which have been urged with
most plausibility are:
1. That there is no express command for infant Baptism.
To this we reply: a. That there is an express command.
Our Lord commands his Apostles to make disciples of all
nations by baptizing them. The word " nations" embraces
infants.  " God hath made of one blood all nations of men."
(Acts xvii. 26.) The redemption is as wide as the creation,
and the power of application as wide as the redemption. The
"nations," therefore, which God has made, redeemed, and desires to gather into His Church, are nations of children as well
as of adults.  "It is most certain," says the Apology, "' that
the promise of salvation pertains also to little children. But
the promises do not pertain to those who are out of the Church
of Christ, for the kingdom of Christ cannot exist without the
Word and Sacraments.  Therefore it is necessary to baptize
little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to
them, according to Christ's command (Matt. xxviii. 19),' Baptize all nations,' in which words as salvation is offered to all,
so Baptism is offered to all- to men, to women, to children, to
infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be
baptized, inasmuch as salvation is offered in Baptism   in and
with Baptism the common grace and treasure of the Gospel is
offered to them."
b. When Jesus says: " That which is born of the flesh is
flesh," and " Except a man be born again of water and of the
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," lie teaches
that infants, inasmuch as they are flesh, must be born again of
water and of the Spirit, that is, must be baptized and become
regenerate.
c. If the express term  were necessary, men and women
equally with infants would be excluded from Baptism, because
* 163, 52.




ARGUM UENTS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.               577
none of them are specifically mentioned in the baptismal commission; in other words, there is a generic express command
to baptize infants on the one hand, and there is no specific
express command on the other either as regards sex or age.
d. Infant membership, sealed by a sacramental rite, was
established under the Old Testament. If it had been designed
to abolish infant membership under the New Dispensation, it
would have been necessary to do it in so many words. The question fairly put, then, is not, " Where is infant Baptism enjoined
in the New Testament? " but, " Where is it forbidden?"
e. Infant Baptism was practised by the Jews in New Testament times. Lightfoot, the greatest of the old rabbinical scholars, says, in his Harmony on John: * "The baptizing of infants
was a thing as commonly known and as commonly used before
John's coming, and at the time of his coming, and subsequently,
as anything holy that was used among the Jews, and they were
as familiarly acquainted with infant Baptism as they were
with infant circumcision."  And this he proves by abundant
citations from the Talmud and the old rabbinical writers. It
is inconceivable, therefore, that in such a state of things the
Apostles should not have forbidden infant Baptism, if it were
not meant that it should be administered.
f. The argument, a fortiori: If in the Old Testament, comparatively restricted as its range was, infants were embraced
in the covenant, much more in the New Testament, broader
and more gracious than the Old as it is, would they be embraced. But infants are embraced in the Old, much more
than in the New.
g. That is as really Scriptural which is by just and necessary
consequence deduced from Scripture, as that which is stated in
it in so many words. When the Bible says: "There is but
one God," it means just as much that the gods of the heathen
are false, as if it were said in so many words.
2. It is urged that a covenant requires Consciousness and
intelligence on the part of those whom it embraces; but infants
can have no consciousness of a covenant, therefore they cannot
be embraced in one.
*Opera, 1686. Vol. I. p. 390.
37




578         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
We reply to this: a. DIVINE covenants do not require consciousness and intelligence on the part of all whom  they
embrace. On the contrary, they embrace not only infants, but
prospectively generations unborn, as, for example, the covenant with Abraham  and his seed after him, sealed by the sacrament of circumcision.
b. tIUMAN covenants do not necessarily require consciousness
and intelligence on the part of all embraced in them, but rest
on the right of the adult generation to represent, and act for
their children and posterity. We are bound by the constitutional compact made by our fathers - bound by the covenants
and treaties with foreign nations made before we were born.
c. The baptismal covenant is a voluntary covenant in one
sense, that is to say, the child's will is presumed in the case.
If the child cannot consciously accept the covenant, neither can
it, nor does it, reject it. In another sense, however, the baptismal covenant is not voluntary. All human creatures are bound
to be children of God, and have not the right to say whether
they will or will not be His children. If my child has not
the right of self-decision as to whether it shall honor me as its
parent, but is absolutely bound so to do, though it never was
consulted, much more is that same child bound to honor God,
and I usurp no right pertaining to it, when, as its representative, I bind it by covenant to that to which it is bound without covenant.
3. It is urged that' sacraments do not benefit without faith;
but the infant has no faith, therefore Baptism  can do it no
good.
We reply to this: a. If infants demonstrably have no faith,
it would still be possible that in their Baptism there is a treasure of blessing, the full understanding and use of which is
reserved for them when they can have faith, even as a father
provides for his babe, or bequeaths to it many things which it
cannot use till it reaches adult life, though they belong to it
from the beginning.
b. But infants do have receptive faith. " When we say that
infants believe or have faith, it is not meant that they understand, or have consciousness of faith, but the error is rejected




FAITH OF INFANTS.                      579
that baptized infants are pleasing to God, and are saved, vwitnout any action of the Holy Spirit in them.  This is certain, that
the Holy Spirit is efficacious in them, so thatthey can receive
the grace of God and the remission of sins. The Holy Spirit
operates in them in His own way, which it is not in our power
to explain.  That operation of the Spirit in infants we call
faith, and we affirm  that they believe.  For that mean, or
organ, by which the kingdom of God, offered in the Word and
Sacraments, is received, the Scripture calls faith, and declares
that believers receive the kingdom of God. And Christ affirms,
Mark x. 15, that adults receive the kingdom of God in the same
way that a little child receives it; and, Matt. xviii. 6, He speaks
of the little ones which believe in Him."  These are the words
of Chemnitz,* and they mark the distinction we make in the
term receptive faith.  Faith as an act, like sin as an act, presupposes a condition of mind, which condition is the essential
thing in both cases, to which the act is merely phenomenal.
The act is intermittent, the condition is continuous.  The
worst of men does not cease to be a sinner merely because the
act of sinning ceases.  He may be in stupor, or in sleep, or his
present thoughts may be absorbed in something morally indifferent, and yet he is a sinner through the whole.  He is not
always sinning, but he is always sinful, because the essence of
character lies in the condition of the soul.  The believer may
be in stupor, or sleep, or his present thoughts be entirely absorbed in the necessary cares, or duties, or innocent enjoyments
of life, but he is a believer through the whole. He is not
always consciously exercising faith, but he is a believer always,
because the essence of character is the condition of the soul.
In the case of the infant, both on the side of nature and of
grace, there must be, and is, a stronger and more protracted
separation between the essential condition of sin and faith, and
the phenomenon of conscious sin and of conscious faith, than
in the case of the adult, but the condition is as real. By nature
the infant is as really a sinner, and by grace as really a believer,
as the adult is, though it can neither do sin nor exercise faith.
It has sin by nature, and has faith by grace.  Working out
* Examen. Cone. Trid. II. ii. x. 14.




580         CONSERVATIVE REFORiMATIOA.
under the law of the first condition, it will inevitably do sin, as
under the law of the second it will exercise faith. Faith justifies
by its receptivity alone. There is no justifying merit in faith as
an act, nor is there any in the acts it originates.  In the adult it
is divinely wrought: it is " not of ourselves, it is the gift of
God."  In the infant there is wrought by God, through the
IHoly Ghost, by means of the water and the Word, that receptivity of condition which it has not by nature. The Holy
Ghost offers grace, and so changes the moral nature of the
child that this nature becomes receptive of the grace offered.
This divinely wrought condition we call receptive faith, and
though its phenomena are suspended, it is really faith, and as
really involves what is essential to justification, as does the
faith of the adult.  The hand'of an infant may as really grasp
a diamond as if the infant knew the value of the treasure it
held, and if the natural hand can be the minister of acts whose
force it comprehends not, how much more may the supernatural hand? To accept the doctrine of original sin, and deny the
doctrine of a divine counterwork   the doctrine " that where
sin abounded, grace did much more abound "-is to make
nature potent, and grace weak -it is an aggravation of Manicheism, and gives us a Devil mightier than God. Many of the
Calvinistic divines have felt the difficulty under which their
system labors, and have modified it in various degrees, so as to
approximate the Lutheran view.  Calvin acknowledges "a
seed of faith in infants."  Ursinus * says they have an "inclinatory faith, or inclination to faitlh."  Voetius says " there is
in them a root, faculty, supernatural principle, seed, or nursery,
from whence, in its own time, faith rises up. It is related to
faith as seed is to the tree, the egg to the bird, the bulb to the
flower." Peter Martyr says that faith in infants is " incipient,
is in its principle and root, inasmuch as they have the Holy
Spirit, whence faith and all virtues flow forth... The age of
infancy is capable of the motions of faith, and Jeremiah and
John are witnesses that this age can be graced by the Hloly
Ghost."t
Nor was this great truth unknown in the Ancient Church.
* In Cateches. Q. 57.    - Quoted in Quenstedt. Theologia. II. 1142, 1145.




ARGUMENTS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.                  581
"Thou must number baptized infants among believers," says
Augustine  to a Pelagian: "thou darest not judge in any
other way, if thou art not willing to be a manifest heretic."
"In baptized infants, the Holy Spirit dwells, though they
know it not. So know they not their own mind,-they know
not their own reason, which lies dormant, as a feeble glimmer,
which is to be aroused with the advance of years."?'
c. Over against the proposition that nothing benefits without faith, we put the complementary proposition that nothing
condemns but unbelief; but infants who by nature are condemned, because of the unbelief of nature, though they are not
conscious of it, are by grace received into covenant, because by
grace they have faith, though they are unconscious, of it. If
infants can be regenerated and have remission of sins, then can
they have faith, which is an element in regeneration, and necessary to remission.
d. The Word does not profit, without faith, in the adult,
and yet it is the Word through wdiich the HIoly Ghost excites
the faith which secures the benefit. So is it in Baptism. It
offers the faith which receives, and offers to that faith the
grace of God; as the word of our Lord to the man with the
withered hand bore the power which made obedience to the
command possible. If Baptism offers grace to a child, then
may we be well assured that God, who does not mock us, gives
to that child what by nature it cannot have —a receptive
faith. All divine commands bear with them  the power of
their fulfilment under the law of grace.
e. The Apostles in their original ignorance reasoned about
children somewhat as the Anabaptists do. But Jesus said:'" Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me,
for of such is the kingdom  of heaven."  But the kingdom of
God is not a kingdom of unbelievers, or of unregenerate persons. All the tares in that kingdom are sown by the Devil.
III. The THIRD and last point in the antithesis is that the
Anabaptists' affirm that children are saved without Baptism,"
"et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri."
* De Verb. Apostol. Serm. xiv. Vol. X. 221.
t Do. Epist. 57. Op. IV. 180.




582         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Wee have seen that our own Confessors did not maintain the
absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation, and it may, therefore, seem surprising that they charge upon the Anabaptists as
an error what they themselves appear to concede. But if we
see the true force of their language, the difficulty vanishes, for
1. The Anabaptists contended that Baptism  was not the
ordinary channel of salvation to the child. Our Confessors
maintained that it is.
2. The Anabaptists contended that in fact children are not
saved by Baptism.  Our Confessors maintained that in fact
children are saved by it.
3. The Anabaptists contended that no child is saved by Baptism.  Our Confessors maintained that children are saved by
Baptism.
4. The Anabaptists contended that a baptized child who is
saved, is saved without respect to its Baptism. Our Confessors
maintained that it is saved of God by it as a mean.
5. When our Confessors conceded that an unbaptized child
might be saved, they rested its salvation on a wholly different
ground from that on which the Anabaptists rested it.  The
Anabaptists contended, on a Pelagian basis, that the child was
saved because of its innocence, and without a change of nature.
Our Confessors maintained that it was saved as a sinful being
for Christ's sake, and after renewal by the Holy Ghost. Our
Confessors, in a word, maintained that children are ordinarily
saved by Baptism; that this is God's ordinary channel of salvation to them. The Anabaptists contended that children are
in no case saved by Baptism; that it is not the ordinary channel of salvation; and this error of theirs is the one condemned
in the Confession.  The  Formula of Concord * makes all these
points very clear in its statement of the errors of the Anabaptists, which it enumerates thus: 1. " That unbaptized children
are not sinners before God, but are righteous and innocent, who,
without Baptism (of which, according to the opinion of the
Anabaptists, they have no need,) are saved in their innocence,
inasmuch as they have not yet attained to the use of their
reason. In this way they reject the entire doctrine of Original
Epitom. 558. 6, 7, 8. Solid. Declarat. 727. 11, 12, 13.




ARIGUMENTS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.                 583
Sin, and the doctrines which are dependent on it.  2. That
children are not to be baptized until they attain the use of
reason, and can make a profession of faith for themselves.  3.
That the children of Christians, because of their birth of Christian and believing parents, are holy, and children of God, without Baptism, and previous to it."
In summing up the doctrine of Baptism we are to remember:
1. The necessity of a true definition of Baptism.  Baptism
is not mere water, but embraces also the command of God;
the promise of God; the effectual work of the Holy Ghost,
offering to faith, in connection with the outward part of Baptism, the grace of God. Whatever is wrought in Baptism, is
wrought by the Holy Ghost, through the Word, with the
water, in the believing soul.
2. That in adults Baptism is not always followed by regeneration, and that regeneration is not always preceded by Baptism; that men may be baptized and be lost, and may be
unbaptized and be saved.
3. That unbaptized infants may be saved, and that the
infants of heathen may be saved; that Baptism, though not
absolutely essential in the theological sense, is yet necessary.
The whole doctrine of our Church, then, on the question,
"What is Baptism, and what are its blessings?" may be
summed up in these words:
By Christian Baptism our Church understands not' MERE
WATER " (Small. Cat. 361, 2), but the whole divine institution
(Larger Cat. 491, 38-40), resting on the command of the
Saviour, Matt. xxviii. 19 (Sm. Cat. 361, 2), in which He comprehends, and in which He offers the promise (Mark xv. 15;
Sm. Cat. 362, 8), and which is, therefore, ordinarily necessary
to salvation (A. C. ii. 2; ib. ix. 1, 3); in which institution,
water, whether by immersion (L. C: 495, 65), sprinkling or
pouring (L. C. 492, 45), applied by a minister of the Gospel
(A. C. v. 1; ib. 14), in the name of the Trinity (Sm. Cat. 361, 4),
to adults or infants (A. C. ix. 2), is not merely the sign of our
profession, or of our actual recognition as Christians, but is
rather a sign and testimony of the will of God toward us (A.
C. xiii. 1), offering us His grace (A. C. ix.), and not ex opere




584         CONSERVATIVE  REFOR MATION.
operato (A. C. xiii. 3), but in those only who rightly use it, i. e.
who believe from the heart the promises which are offered and
shown (A. C. xiii. 2; L. C. 49, 33), is one of the instruments
by which the Holy Ghost is given (A. C. v. 2), who excites
and confirms faith, whereby we are justified before God (A. C.
iv.; ib. v. 3), so that they who thus receive or use it, are in
God's favor (A. C. ix. 2), have remission of their sins (Nicene
Creed, 9), are born again (A. C. ii. 2), and are released from
condemnation and eternal death (A. C. ii. 2; Sm. C. 361, 6) so
long as they are in a state of faith, and bring forth holy works
(A. C. xiii. 1-6; Sm. C. 362, 11-14); while, on the other hand,
where there is no faith, a bare and fruitless sign, so far as
blessing is concerned, alone remains (L. C. 496, 73), and they
who do not use their Baptism  aright, and are acting against
conscience, and letting sin reign in them, and thus lose the
Hloly Spirit, are in condemnation, from  which they cannot
escape, except by true conversion (A. C. xiii.), a renewal of the
understanding, will, and heart (L. C. 496, 68, 69; F. C. 605, 70).
This is the doctrine of our Church, and not one letter of it
is destitute of the sure warrant of God's Word.  The intelligent examiner will soon discover that, while the whole sum
and tendency of the Romish and Romanizing doctrine of the
Sacraments is to make them a substitute for faith in the justification of man, the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, in consonance with the Holy Scriptures, makes them  a guard and
bulwark of the great central truth that " by grace we are
saved, through faith, and that not of ourselves,-it is the gift
of God." IHer view of the nature of the efficacy of the Word
and Sacraments, is the only one which solves the mysterious
question how God can be sovereign, and yet man be accountable; and' how  the Church can at once avoid the perilous
extreme of Pelagianism on the one hand, and of unconditional
Election and Reprobation on the other.




XII.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER THETICALLY
STATED.
(AUGSBURG CONFESSION. ART. X.)
IN approaching one of the highest, if not the very highest, of
the mysteries of our faith, it becomes us to prepare ourselves
for a most earnest, patient, and candid investigation  TheLords Supof the Scriptural grounds on which that faith rests. per. I. 01ld TesThe Lord's Supper has been looked at too much as sta dowl 1.The
if it were an isolated thing, with no antecedents, Sacraments in
Eden.
no presuppositions, no sequences; as if there were
nothing before it, nothing after it, helping to determine its
true character; while, in fact, it links itself with the whole system  of Revelation, with the most vital parts of the Old and
New Testament, so that it cannot be torn from its true connections without logically bringing with it the whole system.
There is no process by which the doctrine of the Lutheran
Church, in regard to the Lord's Supper, can be overthrown,
which does not overthrow the entire fabric of the Atonement.
No man can deem our distinctive doctrine of the Lord's Supper non-fundamental who thoroughly understands it in all its
relations.
The first thing worthy of note in regard to the sacramental
mystery is its antiquity. It meets us at the threshold of the
divine history of our race. In Eden we see already the idea of
natural and supernatural eating.  We have there the natural
eating terminating in the natural, in the words: " Of every
tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat."  Closely following
585




586         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
upon this we have the idea of supernatural eating, with the
natural bodily organ: " Of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die."  Man did eat of it, and found it a sacrament of death. In, with, and under that food, as a divine
means judicially appointed, was communicated death. That
m' ortal taste
Brought death into the world and all our woe."
The great loss of Paradise Lost was that of the Sacrament
of Life, of that food, in, with, and under which was given
immortality, so objectively, positively, and really that even
fallen man would have been made deathless by it:'" Now lest
he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live forever," Get. iii. 22. The great gain of Paradise
Regained is that of the Sacrament of Life.  Christ says: "I
am the life;" " The bread that I will give is My flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world." The cross of Christ is
the tree of life, and I-e the precious fruit borne by heavenly
grace upon it.  The cross is the centre of Paradise Regained,
as the tree of life was the centre of the first Paradise. Christ's
body is the organ of the life purchased by His obedience and
death. The Holy Supper is the sacrament of that body, and,
through the body, the sacrament of the life which that body
brings. But that same body is also a sacrament of death to
the unworthy recipient. The whole sacrament on its two sides
of death and life is in it united: salvation to the believer,judgment to the unworthy. After the creation of man, God's first
provision was for the generation and birth of the race, the foreshadowing of regeneration and of the new birth, for which, iiHoly Baptism, the first provision is made in the new creation
of the New Testament. The next provision made for man was
that of sustenance for the life given, or yet to be given. In
the Garden of Eden was a moral miniature of the universe;
and with the act of eating were associated the two great
realms of the natural and the supernatural; and with this was
connected the idea of the one as a means of entering the other,
of the natural as the means of entering into the supernatural.




THE SA CRAMENTS IN EDEN.                   587
There were natural trees, with purely natural properties, whose
fruit was eaten naturally, and whose benefits were simply natural; bodily eating, terminating in a bodilysustenance.  But
there was also the natural terminating in the supernatural.
There were two trees, striking their roots into the same soil,
lifting their branches in the same air-natural trees —but
bearing, by I-eaven's ordinance, in, with, and under their
fruitage, supernatural properties. One was the sacramental
tree of good. We call it a sacramental tree, because it did not
merely symbolize life, or signify it; but, by God's appointment, so gave life -in, with, and under its fruit  that to
receive its fruit was to receive life. The fruit which men
there would have eaten was the communion of life. On Gen.
iii. 22, the sound old Puritan commentator, Poole, thus paraphrases: "Lest he take also of the tree of life, as he did take
of the tree of knowledge, and thereby profane that sacrament
of eternal life."
With this tree of life was found the tree which was the sacrament of judgment and of death, and by man's relations to
that tree would be tested whether he were good or evil, and
by it he would continue to enjoy good or plunge himself into
evil. By an eating, whose organs were natural, but whose
relations were supernatural, man fell and died. This whole
mystery of evil, these pains and sorrows which overwhelm the
race, the past, the present, and the future of sin, revolve
around a single natural eating, forbidden by God, bringing
the offender into the realm of the supernatural for judgment.
We learn here what fearful grandeur may be associated in the
moral government of God, with a thing in itself so simple as
the act of eating. The first record of Revelation is a warning
against the plausible superficiality of rationalism. It was the
rationalistic insinuation of Satan, as to the meaning of God's
Word, which led to the Fall.  Abandon faith in the letter
of God's Word, said the Devil. Our first parents obeyed the
seductive insinuation and died.
In the Lord's Supper three great ideas meet us as they met
in Paradise.  There is in it, 1, Bread, which, as bread, is the
natural food of man, and belongs to all men. But there is




5, 8        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
also, 2, The supernatural element of life: "My flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world."  The natural bread, as the
sacramental bearer of this heavenly food, is the communion of
the body of Christ, that is, the medium by which the body is
communicated or imparted.  There is also in the lord's Supper, 3, The supernatural element of judgment, and that of judgment unto death: " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh damnation (or, judgment) unto himself,
not discerning the Lord's body." The tree of life, as our theologians well observed, was not a memorial, a symbol, a suggestive emblem or sign; but was a supernatural, efficacious, and
energetic means of life. "This tree," says Osiander (1589),
"by the divine ordination and will, bore fruit which could
preserve the bodily vigor of him who partook of it (' in perpetual youth') until man, having completed the term of his
earthly life, would, without dying, have been translated to his
life in heaven." So also the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil did not symbolize a result, but brought it. Life was in,
with, and under the fruit of the one tree; death, in, with, and
under the fruit of the other.
This view is not a modern invention. It is found in Ireneus,
St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret.  Gregory Nazianzen enlarges
upon the idea of " being made immortal by coming to the tree
of life."  St. Augustine says: "In the other trees there was
nourishment; in this one, a sacrament" (" in isto autem Saccra
mentum").  Vatablus (1557), a very judicious Roman Catho.
lic expositor, fairly expresses the general sense of the Fathers
in stating his own: " The tree of life was a sacrament, by
which God would have sealed immortal life to Adam, if he
had not departed from His commandment." Delitzsch: " The
tree of life had the power of ever renewing and of gradually
transfiguring the natural life of man. To have used it after
the Fall would have been to perpetuate forever the condition
into which he had fallen."
Nor is the true view without support from sources whence
we might least expect it.  Rosenmiiller (Rationalistic): " This
writer means that the weakened powers were to be revived by
eating of that tree, and this life was to be preserved forever."




FLESH AND BLOOD.                      589
Knobel (strongly Rationalistic): "This passage (Gen. iii. 22)
teaches that man, after partaking of the tree of life, would
have become immortal."  Dr. Bush, both  in  his earlier
and later notes on Genesis (1833, 1852), says: "Adam might
frequently have eaten (ed. 1859,'undoubtedly often ate') of
the tree of life before the Fall - sacramentally, as Christians
eat of the Lord's Supper. In regard to the driving from Paradise,  lest he also eat of the tree of life and live forever,' Irenaeus said:' God has so ordered it that evil might not be
immortal, and punishment might become love to man.' " Dr.
Bush, who, had his judgment been in the ratio of his other
endowments, would indisputably have taken the first rank
among American commentators on the Old Testament, says,
Gen. iii. 22, 23: "The language, it must be acknowledged,
seems to imply, that had man tasted of the tree of life, even
after his rebellion, he would have lived forever, and that he
was expelled from Paradise to prevent such a consequence."
The conclusion, however, is so little in keeping with Dr. Bush's
theology, that he undertakes to reason it away in a very feeble
and rationalistic manner, in the face of what he concedes to be
the obvious meaning of the passage.
Another hint toward the true view of the sacramental mystery is given us in the divine declaration, Gen. ix.  2. Flesh and
4: " But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood.
blood thereof, shall ye not eat."  Literally: "But flesh with
its soul (i. e. life), its blood, ye shall not eat." Still more literally: "in its soul."  At the root of this prohibition lay a
great typical idea, which can be fully understood only in the
light of the finished sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in
the light of His sacramental Supper, in which we participate
in, or have communion with that sacrifice.  The command
was repeated again and again, and the reason most generally
assigned was that the blood is the life of the flesh. But this
reason seems itself to require an explanation, and this we find
fully given in Leviticus, the book in which there is the amplest
display of the typical element of sacrifice. In Lev. xvii. 10-14,
we have a full explanation of the meaning of the reservation
of the blood. It is especially the 11th verse in which the




590         CONSERVATIVE REFORMiATION.
typical force of the prohibition is made manifest. Under the
Old Testament they actually ate of the body of the sacrifice,
but only drank a symbol of its blood. It is manifest that
the reservation of the blood pointed to something yet to be
accomplished, and hinted that the perfect communion in the
whole sacrifice was reserved for another dispensation. Only in
the light of this can we fully appreciate the startling character
of our Lord's command, when, for the first time in the history
of the chosen race, He gave the command to drink that which
He declared to be blood - and solved the mystery by calling
it the blood of the New Covenant.
When the three men, Gen. xviii., one of whom is called
3. The Super- Jehovah, appeared to Abraham, the patriarch set
natural and Nat- before them bread, flesh, butter, and milk, and they
al eating did eat; Verse 8. Here was the supernatural eating of the natural; the eating of natural food with the natural organ of an assumed body, and that body of course supernatural. These same three heavenly persons did eat (Gen. xix.
3) of unleavened bread in the house of Lot.
Is there a greater mystery in the sacramental eating, in
which the supernatural communicates itself by the natural, by
the natural bread to the natural mouth, than there is in this
true eating, in which the supernatural partakes of the natural?
If God can come down and partake of human food by human
organs, so that it is affirmed of Jehovah that He did eat, He
can lift the human to partake of what is divine by a process
which, though supernatural, is yet most real.
The relations of sacrifice to covenant in the Old Testament
4 Therelations suggest instructive parallels to the Lord's Supper.
of covenant to In Gen. xv. we have the covenant between God
sacrifice.
and Abraham sealed with sacrifice. In Gen. xxxi.
44-46, is presented the idea of eating as an act of covenant.
Laban said to Jacob: " Let us make a covenant," "and they
did eat there upon the heap; " where eating is the crowning
act of the covenant. But more than this is presented in this
chapter, for in the particulars of the ratification of the covenant, we are told (verse 54), " Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon
the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did




RELATIONS OF SACRIFICE TO SACRAMENT. 591
eat bread." Here is the idea, first, of sacrifice as the inseparable constituent in the covenant; then, of joint participation in
the sacrifice by eating of it, by the parties partaking in the
covenant through it. 
The idea of sacrifice under the Old Dispensation sheds light
upon the nature of the Lord's Supper.  " Without  5. The relations
the shedding of blood is no remission."  The slay- ofsacrificetosacing of the victim by shedding its blood, by which
alone its death could be effected, was properly the sacrifice.
After the sacrifice was made, two things were essential to
securing its end: first, that God should receive it; second, that
man should participate in it. The burning of the sacrifice
by fire from heaven was the means of God's accepting it on
the one side; and eating of it, the means of man's participating on the other. The truth is, that the sacrifice of the
Old Testament resolves itself into the very elements which
we find in the Lord's Supper. The Altar was the Table of
the Lord, and the whole conception of sacrifice runs out
into this, that it is a covenanting Supper between God and
man.
The sacrifice, through the portion burnt, is received of God
by the element of fire; the portion reserved is partaken of by
men, is communicated to them, and received by them. The
eating of one portion of the sacrifice, by the offerer, is as real
a part of the whole sacred act as the burning of the other part
is. Man offers to God; this is sacrifice.  God gives back to
man; this is sacrament.  The oblation, or thing offered, supplies both sacrifice and sacrament, but with this difference,
that under the Old Dispensation God received part and man
received part; but under the New, God receives all and gives
back all: Jesus Christ, in Iis own divine person, makes that
complete which was narrowed under the Old Covenant by the
necessary limitations of mere matter. But in both is this
common idea, that all who receive or commune in the reception of the oblation, either on the one part as a sacrifice, or on
the other as a sacrament, are in covenant; and in the light of
this alone is it, that not on Calvary, where the sacrifice was
made, but in the Supper, where the sacrifice is applied, the




592         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Saviour says: " This is the New Testament (the new covenant)
in My blood."
The New Testament strikes its roots down into the very heart
of the Old Dispensation, and to understand either
6. The Passover is a type of we must study both together.  Let us compare, in
the Supper.   the case of the paschal lamb and paschal supper, the
type and the fulfilment, and we shall see how the earlier sheds
light upon the later, and how both placed in their true relation illustrate each other. The following are but a part of the
points of illustration, but they may be sufficient to lead the
attentive student of God's Word to search for himself.
1. The passover was to be a lamb, and Christ is the true
Lamb.  " They shall take to them  every man a lamb," are the
words of the institution of the passover; Ex. xii. 3. The
key to the typical reference of the lamb is already given in the
words of Isaiah (liii.) " He " (the man of sorrows) " is brought
as a lamb to the slaughter."  But the New Testament unfolds
the typical reference in all its clearness.  " Behold the Lamb
of God " (John i. 29, 36); " the blood of Christ, as of a lamb;"
1 Pet. i. 12. It is by this name that Christ is revealed in the
glories of the apocalyptic vision: "In the midst of the elders
stood a Lamb," " the elders fell down before the Lamb: " " Worthy
is the Lamb that was slain."  The title " lamb " is applied to
our Lord between thirty and forty times in the New Testament.
2. The paschal lamb was to be typically perfect, and Christ
was truly perfect. The typical characteristics of the paschal
lamb it is not necessary here to dwell upon. It was to be perfect and unblemished in every respect to typify Iim, who both
in body and soul was spotless, " holy, harmless, undefiled, and
separate from sinners."  "Ye were redeemed.... with the
precious blood, of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;" 1 Pet. i. 12.
3. The paschal lamb was to be slain as a type of redemption, and Christ was to be slain for the verity of redemption.
" The whole assembly shall kill it;" Ex. xii. 6.  "Who killed
the Lord Jesus;" 1 Thes. ii. 15. "Lo, in the midst of the
throne stood a Lamb as it had been slain.  And they sung a
new song, saying, Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to




THE PASSOVER IS A TYPE OF THE SUPPER. 593
God by Thy blood. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain."
Rev. v. 6-12.
4. The Passover was a typical sacrifice in the realm of the
natural, and Christ is a true sacrifice in the realmi of the supernatural. "It is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover." Exodus
xii. 27. "Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us."  Christ
hath given Himself for us, an oqfering and a sacrifice to God.
"When I-e said: Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offering,
and offering for sin, Thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure
therein; which are offered by the law; then said He, Lo, I
come to do Thy will, O God! He taketh away the first, that
He may establish the second. By which will we are sanctified
through. the of ering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Psalm xl. 6-8; Heb. x. 8-10. "How much more shall the
blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from  dead
works?" Heb. ix. 14.
5. The Paschal Supper was a typical, natural eating of the
typical, natural lamb; the Lord's Supper is a true, supernatural
eating of the true, supernatural Lamb:   And they shall eat
the flesh in that night;" Exod. xii. 8. "The bread that I will
give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man-, ye have no life in
you. Whoso eateth My flesh hath eternal life. He that eateth
My flesh dwelleth in Me. My flesh is meat indeed;" John
vi. 51-56. "Thus shall ye eat it," said Jehovah; Exod. xii. 11.
"Take, eat," said our Lord.
6. The Paschal Supper was a typical, natural act; the Lord's
Supper is a true, supernatural act. " The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ?  Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink
this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord   he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or judgment) to himself,
NOT DISCERNING THE LORD'S BODY! " 1 Cor. x. 16; xi.
7. The Paschal Supper was a natural communion of the
38




594         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
type; the Lord's Supper is a supernatural communion of the
substance.
8. The Paschal Supper was a feast by which the typical was
presented in, with, and under the natural; the Lord's Supper
is a feast by which the true is presented in, with, and under
the natural.
9. In the Paschal Supper the body of the typical lamb was
received, together with the bread, after a natural manner; in
the Lord's Supper the body of the true Lamb is received,
together with the bread, after a supernatural manner.
10. The natural eating of the typical Paschal lamb belongs
to the sphere of lower reality —that is, of mere earthly and
carnal fact; the supernatural eating of the true Paschal Lamb
belongs to the sphere of higher reality — that is, of heavenly
and spiritual truth.
Thus does the dim twilight of the dawning Old Testament,
if rightly used, open to us a purer vision of truth than unwilling eyes can find in the sunlight of the New Testament. How
does the parallel run out into the minutest particulars between
these representative institutions of the two great dispensations!
11. Of the Paschal festival, Jehovah said: " This day shall
be unto you for a memorial; " of the Lord's Supper, the incarnate Jehovah said: "This do in remembrance of Me."  Luke
xxii. 19.
12. " The blood shall be to you for a token," says Jehovah.
"This is My blood of the New Testament "- " the communion
of the blood of Christ "-" is guilty... of the blood of the
Lord."
13. "When I see the blood I will pass over you, and the
plague shall not rest upon you," says Jehovah.  "This is My
blood," says our Lord, " shed for you and for many for the
remission of sins."
14. "' Ye shall keep it a feast," says Jehovah.  " Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast," 1
Cor. v. 8, or as Luther, bringing out still more clearly this
element in words, renders them: " We also have a Paschal
lamb, that is Christ, offered for us, wherefore let us keep passover."  (Oster-lamm, Ostern.)




THE PASSOVER IS A TYPE OF THE SUPPER. 595
15. "Ye shall keep it to the Lord. throughout your generations."  "Ye do show the Lord's death till He come;" 1
Cor. xi. 26. 
16. "The man that. forbeareth to keep the passover,
even the same soul shall be cut off from  among his people."
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood,
ye have no life in you."  "Whosoever eateth leavened bread,
that soul shall be cut off from Israel."  "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation [or judgment] to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this
cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."
1 Cor. xi. 29, 30.
17. "Strike the lintel.. with the blood."  "This is My
blood which is shed for many."  "Ye are come to the blood
of sprinkling,"   " elect.. through sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ."
18. "In one house shall it be eaten."  "Having an high
priest over the house of God "   " Christ whose house are we."
"Ye come into' one place."  "The members of that one body,
being many, are one body."  "The bread which we break, is
it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being
many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of
that one bread."
19. " Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out
of the house; " Ex. xii. 46. "We have an altar whereof they
have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle; " Heb. xiii. 10.
20. " When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep
the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and
then let them come near and keep it;" Exod. xii. 48. " For by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all
made to drink into one Spirit; " 1 Cor. xii. 13.
21. " One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto
the stranger that sojourneth among you;" Exod. xii. 49. " As
many of you as have been baptized into Christ; have put on
Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus."




596         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
22. " All the congregation of Israel shall keep it," (Ilebrew:
do it.)  Exod. xii. 48.    Drink ye all of this; this do ye, as
oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me;" Matt. xxvi. 27;
1 Cor. xi. 25.
ORIGEN:*  Christ our passover is slain, and this feast is to
be kept by eating the Resh of the Logos:"  "  O'-io 7r0 af.xa rIwv
Sevuri XpTToS xa0 Xpl soparccsiv esljovca trA aapxo0,ou?oyo'v." IBeza on 1
Cor. v. 7.: "Our whole life should be in conformity with
Christ, that feast of unleavened bread, in which we were made
partakers of that spotless Lamb who was slain."  Grotius:
"As by the blood of the Paschal lamb the Israelites were
delivered from destruction, so also Christians, by the blood of
Christ, are liberated from the common ruin of mankind. That
lamb was to be without fault, and Christ was without fault.
(See Luke xxii. 16.) Christ, therefore, is the mystic passover,
that is, the Paschal Lamb."  On 1 Cor. v. 7.
Amid all these transitions from type to fulfilment the change
is never from the more true to the less true, nor from the real
to the ideal, but there is either a coincidence in the natural
with an elevated use in the New Dispensation, or a higher
natural with a true supernatural attached to it.  There is in
both, for example, a coincidence in a real shedding of blood
though in the shedding of Christ's blood there is a supernatural
efficacy; there is in both a real eating, but in the one the com
munion effected is earthly, in the other it is heavenly. This
then is the point to which these great Biblical truths irresisti
bly lead us, that CHRIST IS THE TRUE PASCHAL LAMB, AND THE
SUPPER OF CHRIST IS THE TRUE PASCHAL SUPPER. What the
paschal lamb of the Old Dispensation typified, Christ is; and
what the Paschal supper of the Old Dispensation typified, the
supper of Christ is; and that which is promised and shadowed
in the Paschal supper is given in the Lord's Supper, in very deed
and substance.  The supernatural presence of Christ's body
and blood cannot be less true, but is more true, than the natural presence of the body and blood of the Paschal lamb.
That the true relation between the two Paschal lambs and
the two Paschal suppers should be most clear, it pleased God
* Cont. Celsum VIII.




THE PASSOVER IS A TYPE. OF THE SUPPER. 597
that there should be a coincidence in point of time between the
ending of the shadow and the full appearing of the substance.
The Sun of Revelation stood at its perfect zenith, and the
shadow was cast no longer by the substance, because the
shadow lay beneath Christ's feet.  The sun stands henceforth,
at its noontide, and we are done with shadows forever. Therefore it was written in God's purposes that the true Paschal
Lamb should be slain at the feast of the old Passover.  Our
blessed Lord dwelt upon the time as in itself an essential element of the perfectness of His work: " With desire have I
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." Luke
xxii. 15. "Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that
Iis hour was come."  John xiii. 1.
It was at the Passover time, in a Passover family group of
disciples, in a room prepared for the Passover, that the Lord's
Supper was instituted. The bread which our Lord brake was
bread provided for the Passover. The cup which IHe blessed
was filled with wine prepared for the Passover.  It is a new
Paschal Supper. But where is the slain lamb of this new
Paschal? Where is that verity in it of which the unspotted
lamb of the first Paschal is the type?  Where is that shed
blood of which the shed blood of the first Paschal is the type?
Is it to be characteristic of the New Testament Paschal Supper
that it shall have no Paschal lamb; that there shall be bread
and wine, but that the great element of the soul's nourishment,
the lamb itself of which these were but the accompaniments,
and as attendants of which alone they were given, that the lamb
shall be wanting? " Christ our Passover, our Paschal Lamb, is
slain for us; therefore let us keep the feast; " 1 Cor. v. 8. To
feed upon the Paschal Lamb is the grand object of the feast, and
if the Lord's Supper be but the- taking of bread and wine, the true
Paschal Lamb not being truly present,-and not truly received,
then is the substance more shadowy than the shadow, and the
Christian at his Supper has less than the Jew at his Passover. Well might a childlike faith breathe a sigh, as it
were an echo of the innocent words of Isaac: "' My father!
behold the fire and the wood; but W-HERE IS THE LAMB? "but a faith like that of Abraham, in the light of a new dis



598         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
pensation, will answer: " My son, God has provided Himself
a lamb."
"They said one to another: It is manna.  (Sept.: What is
7. The manna this?  Ti esti touto.)  And Moses said unto them,
in the desert.  This is the bread (Sept.: outos o artos) which the Lord
hath given you to eat. This is the thing (Sept.: Touto to rema)
which the Lord hath commanded;  Exod. xvi. 15. "I am
the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert,
and are dead.  This is the bread (outos estin o artos) which
cometh down from heaven, that he that eateth of it may not
die.  I am the living bread which came down from  heaven;
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever;, and the
bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world;" John vi. 49-57.  "All (our fathers) did
eat the same spiritual meat;" 1 Cor. x. 3.  Cyrill (Lib. iv.
in John xvi.): "The manna was not, therefore, the' living
food, but the sacred body of Christ is the food which nourisheth to eternal life."  Lombard{ (Lib. iv. Sentent.): "' That
bodily bread brought the ancient people to the land of promise
through the desert; this heavenly food will carry the faithful,
passing through the desert, to heaven."  Gerhard, John (Loci
xxii. ch. ii.): "By that bread which came down from heaven,
that is by Christ's body, we are nourished, that we perish not
with hunger in the desert of this world."
In quoting the sixth chapter of John, as bearing on the
Lord's'Supper, it may be well, once for all, to say that it is
quoted not on the supposition that it speaks of the Lord's Supper specifically, but that in stating the general doctrine of the
life-giving power of Christ's flesh and blood, it states a doctrine
under which the benefits of. the sacramental eating come as a
species.  If we come into supernatural, blessed participation
of Christ's flesh and blood, in the act of faith, without the
Lord's Supper, a fortiori we haye blessed participation of them
in the act of faith with the Lord's Supper. The sixth of John
treats of the grand end of which the Lord's Supper is the grand
means.  We partake of Christ's body and blood sacramentally,
in order that we may partake of them savingly. Of the latter,
not of the former, the sixth of John speaks.




TEE SACRAMENTAL OBJECTS.                    599
The doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as the Lutheran Church
believes it to be set forth in the New Testament, is thus defined
in her great general Symbol, the Augsburg Confes-  II. Th New
sion:                                              Testament doctrine of the
Of the holy Supper of our Lord, our Churches, Lord's Supper
with one consent, teach and hold                  thetically stated.
1. That the true body and blood of Christ are the sacramental objects.
2. That the sacramental objects are truly present in the
Lord's Supper.
3. That this true presence is under the form or species of
bread and wine.
4. That present, under this form  or species, they are communicated.
5. That thus communicated, they are received by all communicants.
6. That the opposite doctrine is to be rejected.
On each and all of these we affirm that the doctrine of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church is the Scriptural doctrine.
We affirm, first, then that it is a Scriptural doctrine, that
the true body and blood of Christ are the sacramental objects;
that is, that apart from any questions on other 1. The Sacrapoints, the true body and true blood of our Lord mental Objects.
are the objects set before us in the sacramental words, and
whether their presence be offered to contemplation, to memory,
to faith, or after a substantial, supernatural manner, it is the
true body and true blood of Christ, of which we are to make
our affirmation, or denial, when we state the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper.
By true body, we mean that body in which our Saviour was
actually incarnate, as opposed to His mystical body, which is
the Church, or any ideal or imaginary body. It is conceded
that it was His true body, not His mystical body, which was
given for us; but Christ, in the Lord's Supper, says: " This is
My body, which is given for you:" therefore the sacramental
object is His true body. As neither His mystical body, nor
the Holy Spirit dwelling in His body, nor a sign nor symbol
of His body, nor a memorial of His body, nor faith in His




600         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TI ON.
body was given for us, but His true body itself was given, it
and it alone, and neither one nor other of all the objects substituted for it, is the first sacramental object.
By  -Iis true blood, we mean that blood which was the
actual seat of His human vitality, that "precious blood"
wherewith we are bought.  It was confessedly His true blood
which was shed for the remission of sins; but Christ, in the
Lord's Supper, says: " This is My blood, wehich is shed for the
remission of sins."  Now, as neither a doctrine about His
blood, nor the efficacy of His blood, nor the Holy Spirit uniting
us with His blood, nor a sign, symbol, nor memorial of His
blood, nor faith in His blood was shed for sins, and as His true
blood alone was so shed, it, and none other of all the objects
substituted for it, is the second sacramental object.
Hence the objection is groundless that our Confession adds
to Scripture by saying that Christ's true body is the sacramental object, for although that adjective true, is not used in the
words of the institution, the idea is there, if the body which
was broken for us is Christ's true body, and His blood shed
for us His true blood. Calvin, and even Zwingli, were compelled to concede so much.
Hence also falls to the ground the charge of conflicting
repTisentations, when our theologians speak sometimes of the
naturalt body, and sometimes of the glorified body of Christ as
presei t.  Christ's true body, His natural body, and HIis glorified
body,:ire one and the same body in identity.  The words true
and natural, refer to its essence; the word glorified refers to its
condition.  The glorification of His body neither made it cease
to be true nor natural.  That is, it was no more an unreal,
ideal, or imaginary body, after the glorification than before.
It was identically the same body, but with a constant and
plenary exercise of glorious properties.  What Hle possessed,
but did not ordinarily use in the days of His humiliation, IHe
now constantly and fully exercises, and this new condition is
called His glorification.  Though His natural and true body is
present, its condition is glorified. But though its condition is
glorified, it is not in virtue of that glorification, but because
of, and through its union as one person with God, that it is




THE TRUE PRESENCE.                       601
present. This presence is spiritual, when that word is opposed
to carnal, but it is not spiritual when that word is opposed to
true' as if His presence were something wrought by our spirits.
His body is a spiritual body, as opposed to thle present conditions and limitations of flesh and blood, but it is not spiritual
as opposed to real and natural. All the pretended contradictions of our theology vanish when the terms of that theology
are taken in the sense in which it uses them.
We affirm it, secondly, to be a Scriptural doctrine that these
sacramental objects, to wit: the true body and true  2 The true
blood of Jesus Christ, are trulypresent in the Lord's presence.
Supper: Vere adsint - wahrhaftiglich gegenwoartig sei.
We oppose a true presence, first, to the Zwinglian theory,
that the presence of these objects is simply ideal, a presence to
our memory or contemplation: secondly, to the theory set forth
by Bucer in the Tetrapolitan Confession, further elaborated by
Calvin, and now generally known as the Calvinistic, to wit:
that the body and blood are present in efficacy through the
working of the Holy Spirit, in the believing elect.  In opposition to the first, we affirm it to be Scriptural, that the presence
is one wrought not by our ideas, memories, or contemplation,
but is a presence equally true, whether we do or do not think,
remember, contemplate, or believe.  In  opposition  to  the
second, we affirm, that the efficacy of Christ's body and blood
is not separable from  them, but is wrought by them  truly
present; that this efficacy is direct and personal, not mediated
by the Holy Ghost, but by Christ Himself, substantially present; that this presence does not depend for its reality (but
alone for its salutary results) upon the faith of the receiver,
and that its sole causes are the divine personality and beneficent will of the Institutor of the Supper.
We prove this, first, by the demands of all those types of the
Old Testament which contemplate Christ as the Paschal Lamb,
who is to be present in that nature in which He was slain, not
after the shadowy mode of the old dispensation, but after the
true mode of the new, in the KNew Testament Paschal. It. is
through His human nature that Christ is our Paschal Lamb
sacrificed; and, therefore, it must be through Iis human




602         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
nature that Christ, our Paschal Lamb, is eaten. If it was
not through His divinity, separate from His humanity, that He
was sacrificed upon the cross, it cannot be that through His
divine nature, separate from His humanity, He is given to us
at His table.
We prove it, secondly, by the demands of the type of Old
Testament sacrifices, which were not only to be offered to God,
but to be partaken of by the priests and offerers. That body
and blood which were offered to the Father, and by Iim
accepted, must also be partaken of by those for whom they
were offered, and the partaking'must be a true one, as the
offering itself was true —but in order to a true partaking,
there must be a true presence.
Thirdly, the words of the institution force us to this conclusion. For if it even be granted for a moment, for argument's sake, that these words might be taken symbolically,
the symbol only postpones, by one process, the general result,
but by no means sets it aside. A symbol must be the symbol
of some real thing; and there must be a point of analogy to
constitute a symbol; a sign must point to the reality of which
it is a sign; a symbolical act presupposes a real corresponding
act; and something symbolically done to a symbol implies that
something, to which that is analogous, is to be, or ought to
be, really done to a real object. Why, then, is bread the
symbol of Christ's body-not (as we have already shown)
the symbol of a doctrine about that body, or of its efficacy,
but of the body itself?  What is the point of analogy? It
must be that both are food. Then Christ's body must be conceded to be true food, or bread cannot be the symbol of it.
But if Christ's true body be conceded to be true food, then the
symbol has brought us to the acknowledgment of a true presence somewhere -but if there be a true presence aniywhere,
it will not be denied that it is in the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, if bread be the symbol of a true body, breaking bread
the symbol of a true breaking of a true body, then the eating
of that bread must be the symbol of a true eating of a true
body; but if it be granted that this takes place anywhere, it
will not be denied that it takes place in the Lord's Supper.




THE TR UE PRESENCE.                   603
Thus is the theory of the symbol really subversive of itself,
unless it be contended that we eat symbolically in the Supper
what we eat truly elsewhere, which no one is likely to maintain. The parallelism may be made more obVious by presenting it in a tabular view:
SYMBOL.                        REALITY.
1. Bread.                    1. True Body.
2. Breaking of Bread.        2. True Breaking of True Body.
3. Eating of Broken Bread.   3. True Eating of True Body,
truly Broken.
4. Cup (Contents).           4. True Blood.
5. Pouring Out.              5. True Blood, truly shed.
6. Drinking. I               6. True  Drinking  of  True
Blood, truly shed.
But it is impossible, on sound principles of interpretation, to
find a symbol in the words of the Institution. The Eucharist
combines three characters which forbid such an idea. 1. It
is a Supper. 2. It is Testamentary. 3. It is a Covenanting
Rite.
1. When at a Supper a guest has offered to him anything,
with the request to eat, and with assignment of the reason,
This is so and so -all laws of language lead us to expect that
the thing so offered shall be not the sign, symbol, or memorial of that which is to be eaten, but shall be the very thing
designated. If the words of the Institution had been: " Jesus
said, Take, eat, this is bread," would not the man be thought
to trifle who would urge that He gave them, not bread, but a
sign, symbol, or memorial of bread? Would he help himself
by appealing to interpretations of dreams, to parables, metaphors, figures, and symbols? By no means. Men would ask
him for an instance in which, at a supper, any one had said:
" Take, eat, this is bread," meaning that it was not bread, but
a symbol of bread.  Who would say, seriously, at a supper,
handing a man a book: " Take, eat, this is sponge-cake," meaning that, as a sponge-cake is light and pleasant to the body, so
is the book of which it is a symbol a light work, and pleasant to the mind? Why is it that the Supper of our Lord




604         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
stands separate in the world in this, that in it alone, in any
sense, symbolical or sacramental, imaginary or real, the guests
are invited to participate in the body of Him of whom it is the
memorial? Does not this fact alone demonstrate that Christ's
body is solitary in its powers and relations to men; that language in regard to it belongs to a wholly cdifferent sphere from
that which pertains to the bodies of other men; that we can
affirm of it what would be worse than blasphemy, what would
be incoherent raving, if made in regard to any Lut Christ?
Would any man at a supper devoted to the memory of Washington offer bread, and say: " Take, eat, this is Washington's
body "? Would he use such language at all, or, if he did, could
he mean thereby that the spirit of Washington, or his principles, or the efficacy of the work he had wrought through his
body, are the support of our civil life, as bread supports the
natural life? These suppositions look so monstrous that we
can hardly think of them gravely as they really are, that is as
actual parallels to the mode of interpretation substituted for
that of our Church, by men who pronounce our doctrine
unscriptural.  It is not overstating the fact to declare that as
a question of the laws of language, apart from philosophical
speculation or doctrinal system, the meaning of the words:
Take, eat, this is My body," are as clear as any passage from
Genesis to Revelation. Dr. Hodge says that the words have
been the subject of an immense amount of controversy, but so
have been the clear words which teach the Trinity, the Divinity of our Lord, the eternity of future punishments; not that
they are not clear, but that men will not admit them in their
obvious sense. A doctrine is not proved to be disputable simply because it is disputed.
Finally, to put this point in a. just light, suppose that our
Lord at the Supper had said: " Take, eat, this is bread," and
that men had arisen, who, in the face of this clear testimony,
had said it was not bread of which lie spoke, but His body,
and His body only, how would the patrons of the Zwinglian
theory, which in that case would have been related to the words
supposed, as the Lutheran view now is to the words used, how
would they have received such an interpretation? They would




THE TR UE PRESENCE.                    605
have received it with astonishment and reprobation, just as
their own interpretation deserves to be regarded, when our
Lord Jesus, stating what is that very thing for the reception
of which the Supper was instituted, says: "Take, eat, this is
My body."  If our Master's words would have been clear
according to the laws of language, in the terms we have, for
illustration's sake, supposed I-im to have used, then equally
clear, according to the same laws, are the words which He did
use. He who believes that the words supposed would have
proved that our Lord desired to commlunicate to His disciples
bread, must believe, if he be consistent, that the words He
actually used prove that IHe desired to communicate to themn
His body. If he objects to the latter inference, then his objection is derived, not from the laws of language, but from philosophical or rationalistic principles, which he is determined
shall override the clear word. Hence, we repeat the thought,
and close this part of the argument with it, that the meaning
of the terms of the Institution, as a pure question of language,
is as clear as the meaning of any part of the Word of God -
and that meaning is the one which our Church accepts and
confesses. If the absolute authority of God's Word stands,
the sacramental doctrine of our Church stands, for if it be
incontrovertible that it is unsound to interpret, "This is
bread," as meaning, " This is not bread, but is My body only,"
it is equally incontrovertible that it is unsound to interpret,
"' This is My body," as meaning, " This is not My body, but
bread only."
2. The words of the Eucharist are also Testamentary - they
are the Words of the WTill of our Lord, who is about to die, and
who invests His heirs with that whose possession gave them
all that He desired to secure to them. But who ever heard of
a will which bequeathed signs or symbols  not real possessions-to the heirs? If a will were produced in which the
Testator had said: It is my wish and will that M. N. should
have such and such a tract of land and so many thousand dollars; and when M-. N. came to claim land and money, he was
told that this " tract of land" was a sign or symbol of the
Heavenly Canaan,, which is the home of the soul, as an earthly




606        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
tract of land may be the residence of the body; and that the
thousands of dollars were simply a sign of incorruptible treasures in the other world; and that the testator meant only that
it was his wish and will that M. lN. should have these good
things of the other world, would he consider this sound interpretation? When Christ gives us Himself, He gives us everything. His body and blood are the organs of His Deity. In
giving them to us He gives all to us; but in giving to us
the mere signs of them, He would give us very little. All
bread is, as such, equally a symbol of His body; all wine is a
symbol of His blood. Give us but these symbols at His Testamentary Supper, and we have at the Lord's Supper only what
we may have at every meal. What we want is Christ Himself,
not symbols of Him.
But were the case less clear in regard to the Testamentary
words, were it possible with equal propriety to embrace a strict
or a loose acceptation of them, still the law holds good, that
where a dispute arises in which it is impossible to settle which
one of two meanings is the correct one, the preference shall be
given to the more literal of the two; and this rule is good
here. If we run the risk of erring, let it be by believing our
Lord too far, too closely, too confidingly, rather than by doubting or by trying to explain awaykthe natural import of His
words.
3. The Lord's Supper is a Covenanting Institution. But in
a Covenant as in a Testament, the things mutually conveyed and
received are not the signs nor symbols of things, but things
themselves. Whenever, as in the case of a will, disputes arise
as to a literal or a laxer meaning, that interpretation, other
things being equal, is always safest which adheres most closely
to the very letter of the terms.
But the character of the covenanting words is yet further
settled by their obvious allusion to the terms of the Old Covenant. "Moses took the blood of calves and of goats, and
sprinkled both the books and all the people, saying: This is
the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto
you." It is with these words in His mind that our Lord says:
" This is My blood (not the blood of calves and of goats) of the




THE TRUE PRESENCE.                    607
New Testament" (not of the Old). Surely, if in the forming
of the Old Covenant, which is a covenant of shadows, types
and symbols, there was true blood, not the sign or symbol of
blood, much more in the forming of the Newv% Covenant, which
is one of body, substance, and reality, we have not the symbol
of blood, but the true blood of the great sacrifice.
4. Let us now look for a moment at the words of the Institution singly: "Take, eat; this is My body given for you."
The Lutheran Church confesses that each word in this sentence
is to be understood literally. The taking is a true taking, the
eating a true eating. " This " means this - this which I tell
you to take, this which I tell you to eat, this is, truly is, " My
body," My true body truly given for My disciples. How have
those who favored a symbolical interpretation evaded the natural force of these words?
Against a sense so natural, so direct, so universally received
by the Holy Church of all ages, in its great assertion of an
objective presence of Christ's body and blood, its opponents
were bound to produce, not merely as probable a sense, but one
more probable. They were bound in undertaking to shake the
faith of Christendom, to produce an interpretation capable of
a clear statement, and of invincible proofs. They were morally
bound to have some agreement as to what was to be substituted
for the received interpretation, and by what principles its necessity was to be demonstrated from God's Word. This they have
attempted for nearly three centuries and a half, and up to this
hour the failure has been total in every respect. Luther records
seven of their conflicting interpretations. At the beginning
of the seventeenth century there were twenty-eight contradictory views urged by Calvinists. Vorstius confessed that " he
hardly knew whether the figure is in the copula or the predicate" -a confession really that he did not know that it is
in either. But Zwingli happily suggests that among all their
diversities, the opponents of the doctrine are agreed in the
effort to throw down the citadel. So that is done, it matters
little what arms are used. The efforts of our century have
brought the -opponents of the literal interpretation no nearer
together. They are as far as ever from a fixed sense of the




608         CONSERVATIVE REFORMMATION.
words, or a principle by which the sense can ever be fixed.
There is no position midway between the implicit acceptance
of the literal sense, and the chaos of eternal doubt.
The first view which was arrayed againat that of our Church
was the view of Carlstadt. HIe admitted the literal force of
every term  in the Institution, and interpreted thus: The
Saviour said, " Take, eat," and came to a full pause. Then
pointing, as it were, with His finger to His body, He uttered as
a distinct proposition, " This body is My body."  It is hardly
necessary to add that so preposterous an interpretation found
few friends.  Zwingli himself rejected it, and Carlstadt withdrew it.*
The word TAKE these interpreters have usually construed
literally, though why an imaginary body, or the symbol of a
body, might not be taken mentally, they cannot say. Men do
not open doors because a door is a symbol of Christ: why
should they take and eat bread because it is a symbol of His
body? A symbol is addressed to the mind; it derives its being
and takes its shape from the mind of the user, and is intellectually received by the person to whom it is addressed. The
mere symbol cannot be so identified with its object, as that an
inference from the object is logically applicable to the symbol,
or from the symbol, logically applicable to the object. We cannot say of one door more than another, " That door is Christ,"
but still less could we draw an inference from the symbol to
the object, or from the object to the symbol.
The symbolic theory, even were we to grant its assumption,
can give no intelligible reason for the statement, " This bread
is My body; This cup is My blood," for as a symbol, this
bread is no more Christ's body than any other bread; as one
lamb, one vine, or one shepherd, is no more a symbol of Christ
than another.  The symbol is founded on the common quality
of the thing symbolizing; the innocence of all lambs, the
nutritious character of all bread, the means of access furnished
by every door. It is evident that as it is only after Christ's
blessing the bread, that it is true that " This," which He now
commands us to " Take, eat," is His body —and that this
*Walch: Bibl. Theol. 1I. 419.




THE TR UE PRESENCE.                   609
bread was just as much a symbol of His body before the blessing as after it, and was and is, just as much a symbol out of the
sacrament as in it-that the " this " cannot refer to the bread
merely, nor can the bread in the Supper be no more than a
symbol. There is true body and true bread, so related that
the true bread is the medium of the sacramental communion
of the true body, and for this reason only could it be true, that
" this' bread, more than any other, could be called the body
of our Lord. Just as it would be blasphemy to say, " Man is
God," and is yet literally true of Christ, " This man is God,"
so would it be blasphemy to say, " Bread is Christ's body," and
yet it is literally true, " This bread is Christ's body." This
man is God personally, because of the personal union, and Thzis
* bread is the body of Christ sacramentally because of the sacramental union.  We cannot hand an empty purse and say,
"This is a thousand dollars; " but we can hand a full one and
say so.
The word EAT they have interpreted literally, though why
the eating ought not to be done symbolically or mentally, to
correspond with the symbolical or mental character of the
body, they cannot say. Certainly there are plenty of instances
of a figurative use of the word " Eat," while there are none of
such a use of the word "is." The Quakers are more consistent.
The word " THIS," they have interpreted variously. The
renowned Schwenckfeld gets at its meaning by reading the
Saviour's words backwards thus: My body is this, that is,
My body is bread - nourishes the soul as real bread nourishes
the body. That is, he makes the subject "this," the predicate;
and the predicate " My body," the subject. Those who have
entered the lists against the doctrine of our Church, usually
insist that " this " qualifies " bread " understood, that is, the
pronoun touto, which is neuter, qualifies the noun which is
masculine. Determined to be fettered by no laws of language,
they abrogate the rule -that a pronoun shall agree with the
noun it qualifies in gender.
Some theologians who have attacked the faith of our Church,
have, in order to make their work easy, been pleased to invent
arguments and positions for her. They have, of course, been
39




610         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
able to do with their imaginary arguments for her what they
could not do with her real arguments for herself. They have
found that upsetting the men of straw, of their own making,
was very different from uprooting the everlasting foundations
of the temple reared by God. One of these weak inventions
is, that our Church adopts this ungrammatical construction
of a neuter pronoun with a masculine noun, and that hence
she after all deserts the literal sense of the word, and that
her interpretation really is: "This (bread) is not My body,
but in, with, and under it My body is given."  But as the
Church does not consider the neuter pronoun as qualifying
the masculine noun, and does not interpolate the word bread,
but takes our Lord's words precisely as lie utters them, all
this ingenuity is thrown away.  It only shows how  she
might have argued, had she possessed as little grammar, as
little logic, and as little reverence for her Master's words
as is exhibited by such  antagonists.  From  the words:
"' This is My body," she only gathers this: " This is Christ's
body;" and neither on the one hand that the bread is not
His body, nor on the other that His body is given in, with,
and under it.  She acknowledges that the ecclesiastical (not
~Biblical) phrase' This bread is Christ's body," sets forth a
truth, as the Church uses and understands it; and from a
comparison of text with text, she knows that the bread is the
medium by which, in which, with which, under which the
body is imparted, but she reaches this by no reading out of the
text what is in it, nor reading into it, what is no part of it;
but by interpreting every word in that natural and proper
sense, which is fixed by the laws of language.  Our Saviour
says, Take, and we take; He says, Eat, and we eat; He says:
This (which He has just told us to take, eat) is My body, and
we believe it.  The affirmation is as literal as the command,
and we believe the one as we obey the other, to the letter, no
more understanding His affirmation to be, This is not My body,
than we understand Iis command to be, Do not take, Do not
eat.
" My body," some have interpreted to mean " symbol of My
body," but as this would make the Saviour say that the " sym



THE TRUE PRESENCE.                               611
bol of His body," not His body itself, was given for us, the
symbol of His blood, not His blood itself was shed for us, this
view is generally abandoned.  It was the viey of CEcolampadius, the Melanchthon of Zwingli in the Swiss Reformation, but
far greater than his master.  He was too good a scholar to be
ignorant that the metaphor, if there be one, must lie in one of
the nouns connected, and not iii the substantive verb which
connects them.  As the bread was indubitably literal bread, he
saw that he must either make " body " metaphorical, or abandon the idea of metaphor,  The later divines of this general
school rejected this theory with  an earnestness which  shows
thlat they  were  ashamed of it.  Thus  BEZA:* "The words
which follow, to wit,' which is given for you' and' which is
shed for you,' compel us to understand the words of the very
substance itself of the body and blood of Christ."     We do not
doubt that by the term body is meant that very body which was
assumed for our sakes and crucified."   This view  of Beza was,
indeed, the view  of the whole body of Calvinistic theologians,
with few  and inconsiderable exceptions.  The sole refuge left,
therefore, for the disputer of the doctrine of our Church, is
in the word "is."   The word "is," Zwingli t and those who
follow  him   say  means  " represents, signifies, is  a  symbol
* Epis. 5, ad Alaman. III. 202, and Adv. Illyricum, 217.
t Zwingli did not originate this interpretation.  He adopted it from Honius, a
contemporary whose name is now almost forgotten.  Zwingli's account of the
growth of his own theory is very interesting. He says: "I saw that the words' This is My body,' are figurative, but I did not see in what word the figure lay. At
this point, by the grace of God, it happened that two learned and pious men
came to consult on this matter; and when they heard our opinion (for they had
concealed their own, for it was not then safe to express opinions on the subject
freely) they thanked God, and gave me an untied package, the letter of a learned
and pious Hollander (Honius). In it Ifound this precious pearl that'is' here means'.signifies.' When we were compelled to explain our opinions openly it seemed
more discreet to open with that key the word in which the figure lies, than simply to say: It is a figure." —Opera, Turic., 1832. Vol. II. 606.
This frank history shows that Zwingli framed his theory first, and cherished
it for some time before he could see how the Word of God was to be harmonized
with it. Even when he came to see, that " is " means "signifies," he could find
no evidence of it, till it was revealed to him in that extraordinary vision of the
man of dubious color, which was so mercilessly ridiculed in the old controversies.




612           CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
of."  Hence they draw the inference that our Saviour means:
" This [bread] [represents, is a symbol of] My body." Because
then it is to be a symbol of His broken body, He breaks this
bread, and because it is to be a symbol of His body given, He
gives this bread, and because it is to be a symbol of His body
taken, they take this bread- and what then?   because it is
to be a symbol of His body eaten, they eat this bread.  Tho
symbol does not help its friends very far nor very long.
We have shown, that the laws of language forbid the application of the symbol here, even if the words in the abstract
would allow of it.  We now go farther, and maintain that the
word " is " cannot have the sense of " signify or be a symbol
of."   Taking the two  terms as convertible, as they  have
always been taken in this controversy by those who defend
them; we prove this: *
1. By the fact that no translations, ancient or modern, with
any pretension to character, so render the word.  We assert,
after a careful examination of all of those that have most
reputation, that not one so translates the word, whether they
originate in the Eastern, Western, Lutheran, or Reformed
Churches.  No man of character has ever dared to insert into
the text of his translation: This is a symbol of My body.
Where such terms as " means," " amounts to," or " signifies 
are used, though a superficial reader might imagine that they
are substituted for "is," they are really designed to express an
idea involved in the predicate. This use of them rests on the
fact that " is " always means " is."  Twice two amount to four
means that twice two are four.  Leo signifies lion, means that
Leo is lion.  But we can neither say twice two signify four,
nor Leo amounts to lion, still less that twice two are a symbol
of four, or Leo is a symbol of a lion.
*Zwingli (De Vera et Falsa Relig. Opera, Turici., 1832. III. 257, 258): "This
signifies (significat) My body... This thing, to wit, which I offer you to eat, is the
symbol (symbolum est) of My body... This which I now command you to eat and
drink shall be to you a symbol (symbolum erit... As often as ye eat this symbolic bread (panem symbolicum) "- and so innumerably. "To be a symbol of,"
or "to signify" in the sense of "be a symbol of," is the characteristic, fixed
Zwinglian interpretation of the word " is."




METAPHOR.                         613
2. No impartial dictionary of the Greek, whether general or
New Testament, assigns such a meaning to the word.  Where
such a meaning is assigned, it is manifestly for the very purpose of promoting this false view, for doctrinal reasons,
either rationalistic, as in such dictionaries as Schleusner's, or
Zwinglian, as in Parkhurst's.
3. No good dictionary of the English assigns such a meaning to the English verb' to be;" no good dictionary of the
Hebrew or of any language of which we know anything, assigns
such a meaning to the verb corresponding in each with our
verb to be, or with the Greek Eimi.
4. The expositors and dogmaticians who, for philosophical
or theological reasons, have been forced to maintain that the
word " is " means " is a symbol of," have utterly failed to produce a solitary instance in which the word is so used.
Let us look at some of the passages that have been cited to
prove that " is" may mean "is a symbol of."  Passages such
as these are favorites: "I am the vine, ye are the branches."
" I am the door."  " I am the bread of life."  But if the word
" is " means " is a symbol of," then Christ would say: "' I am
the symbol of a vine," "I am the symbol of a door," "I am the
symbol of bread," which is absurd.
Nor do such passages as 1 Cor. x. 4, help the symbolical
theory at all:   They all drank of that Spiritual Rock that
followed (or went with them): and that Rock was Christ."
The meaning of that passage is, that the real spiritual Rock
which attended them was the manifested Jehovah, that is, the
second person of the Trinity, Christ Himself in His preexistent
state. God is a rock; God is our true support; our.Met;aphor.
true support is God. The resolution into the literal
lies in the word rock, not in the word "' is."  So when we say,
Christ is the door, the vine, the foundation, the corner-stone,
the resolution of the expression into what is absolutely literal,
turns not upon the word "is," but on the word "door,"
" vine," or other noun, as the case may be. If you take Webster's Dictionary, or any other good dictionary, you will not
find that the substantive verb " to be " means to signify, but
you will find that the fifth meaning given to the word door is




614         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
" means of approach;" and you will find it quotes, as proof of
that meaning: " I am the door; by Me if any man enter in, he
shall be saved."  But if when we say, Christ is the door, we
do not mean Christ is the symbol of the door, neither can
we mean, when we say the door is Christ, that the door is the
symbol of Christ.  We mean in the one case, that Christ is
really and truly, not symbolically, the door- that is, IHe is the
real means of approaching God; and in the other, that the true
and real means of approach, the real door, is truly (not symbolizes) Christ. That is, the predicate and subject are just the
same in the second form of the sentence as in the first. " Christ"
is the subject, " door " the predicate, in both; but in the second
there is an inversion of the more common order, in which the
subject comes first.  When I point to a particular door, and
say, that door is a symbol of Christ, the word door is literal,
and means a door of wood; but when I say the door is Christ,
the word door is not taken literally, but the word is must be
so taken. Christ is the vine, the vine is Christ - Christ is not
a symbol of the vine, but is the true vine itself; the true vine
is not a symbol of Christ, but is Christ.  We say that Washington was the pillar of his country, or the pillar of our country was Washington; no more meaning that the pillar was a
symbol of Washington, than that Washington was the symbol
of a pillar; but meaning that Washington was the true pillar
of our country, and that the true pillar of our country was
Washiigton; the word pillar meaning in each case a support.
We could not lay hold of a literal pillar and say: Lean on this,
trust in this; this is that General Washington who fought
for our country.  We could not bring a man to a vine and say:
Attach yourself to this vine; this is Christ: or direct him to a
particular door, and say: Go through, enter in; this door is
Christ.
There is no parallel in the interpretation of DREAMS. " The
three branches (are) three days."  Gen. xl. 12. "The seven
good kine (are) seven years, and the seven good ears (are)
seven years."  Gen. xli. 16. " The seven thin kine (are) seven
years of famine."  1. There is no " are" in the original.  2.
The " branches," "kine," and "ears" are not real branches,




ZWINGLI'S REVELATION.                     615
real kine, nor real ears, but the ideals of a dream.  It is not
three branches, but the three branches of the dream that are
three days. The seven dream - branches, dream - kine, and
dream-ears are, to speak literally —to drop the idea of a
dream-seven years.  3. If "is," in interpreting    Ire;lns.
a dream, and because it so interprets, meant " signifies," it would have no bearing on the Lord's Supper, which
is not the interpretation of a dream.  4. "The seven empty
ears shall be seven years of famine."  Does that mean " shall
signify," as if they did not equally signify then? or does it
mean that the empty ears, if we express what they really are
and are to be, shall be " seven years of famine "?  5. Would
the inference be justifiable from this dream, that: Take, eat;
these are seven ears prepared for your food - means that there
were no ears, but only symbols of ears?  Pluck and strip;
these are branches covered with delicious fruit  that there
were no branches, no fruit, but symbols of them? If it would
not, there is no parallel.
When Zwingli supposed that he saw that "is " means " signifies, is a symbol of," a formidable difficulty still stood in the
way.  He could not find a passage in the Old or New Testament in which it had that sense, when, as he expresses it, "it
was not conjoined with a parable."  "We began, therefore, to
think over the whole, revolve the whole; still the examples
which occurred were the same I had used in the Commentary
(on True and False Religion), or of the same kind. I am about
to narrate a fact-a fact of such a kind that I  Zwiungi'sRevewould wish to conceal it, but conscience compels me lation. x.'ii.11
to pour forth what the Lord has imparted, though I know to what
reproach and ridicule I am  about to expose myself.  On the
thirteenth of April I seemed to myself, in a dream, to contend
with an adversary, a writer, and to have lost my power of
speech, so that what I knew to be true my tongue failed me in
the effort to speak... Though, as concerns ourselves, it be no
more than a dream we are telling, yet it is no light thing that
we were taught by a dream, thanks be to God, to whose glory
also we are telling these things.  We seemed to be greatly disturbed.  At this point, from a machine," (the theatrical appa



616         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ratus by which supernatural persons.were made to appear in
the air,)' an adviser was present (whether he was black or
white I do not at all remember; for it is a dream I am telling),
who said: You weakling! answer him that in Exod. xii. 11, it
is written:' It is the Phase-that is, the Passing over of the Lord.'
On the instant that this apparition showed itself I sprung from
my couch. I first examined the passage thoroughly in the
Septuagint, and preached upon it before the whole congregation with all my strength. This sermon dispelled the doubts
of the students, who had hesitated because of the obstacle of
the parable " (that " is " meant " signify " only when a Parable was explained).  "Such a Passover of Christ was celebrated
on those three days as I never saw, and the number of those, it
is thought, who look back to the garlic and flesh-pots of Egypt
is going to be far less."*  This narrative speaks for itself.
Zwingli confesses that he came to the Scripture to find argument for opinions already formed    opinions held, while the
search in which he was engaged for something to sustain them
was still fruitless.  I-le claims, evidently, the character of a
supernatural revelation for his dream; and there is something
inimitable in the simple egotism  of his expectation that his
discovery is going to damage the cause of the hankerers after
the flesh-pots of Egypt, by which he gracefully designates
Luther and the Conservative Church of the IReformation.
And yet the passage which to Zwingli seemed so decisive does
not help him in the least. In the words, Exod. xii. 11, " It (is)
the Lord's Passover," Zwingli assumes that " it " means " the
lamb," and that the sentence consequently results: " The lamb
is the Passover," that is, the lamb signifies, or is the sign or
symbol of the Passover. But 1: The word " is " is not there.
This was at once objected to Zwingli's view by those whom he
styles " the brawlers " (vitilitigatores).  He meets it by maintaining that " no one, unless he be ignorant of Hebrew, is unaware that Hua and Hayo, Hamah and Hanah, are constantly
taken for'he is," it is,'they are,' where they are not conjoined with the verb."t  But the answer was not to the point.
Zwingli was to furnish a passage from the Word of God in
Zwinglii Opera. Turici. 1832. III. 841.  t Opera. III. 344.




ZWINGLI'S REVELATION.                     617
which "is" means "a symbol of."  The passage on which he
relies does not have the word " is " at all.  Hie replies in effect,
the Word is understood, and if it were there it would have that
sense. But the fact that it is not there shows that it is the mere
substantive copula, and can have no such sense as Zwingli
claims. If "is" be involved in the subject, then all symbolical
possibility must lie in the predicate. Zwingli makes no appeal to
the Septuagint on this point: First, because the thing demanded
was an instance of a divine use of "is" in the sense "be a
symbol of."  It was acknowledged, on the conservative side,
that the HIebrew substantive verb has the same general force
in the Greek, and, therefore, Zwingli appealed to the Hebrew.
Hle could not appeal here to the Septuagint, for it is but a
human translation.  The question was not one of Greek, but
of the divine use of the substantive verb, common to both
Hebrew and Greek. Second: Apart from this, the Septuagint
is decisive against Zwingli, for it makes the proposition impersonal: "c Passover is to the Lord," not at all: "' The Lamb is
the passover."  2: The " it " does not refer to the lamb - but
to the whole transaction which takes place with girded loins,
and the eating of the lamb. The " it " is used indefinitely, as
if we would say, "Let us gather round the cheerful hearth,
let us light up the children's tree, for it is Christmas."  The
reason of the name "' Passover " follows in the twelfth verse.
" It is the Lord's Passover. For I will pass through the land."
What sense is there in the words: The lamb is a symbol of the
Passover, for I will pass through it?  3: In no sense in
which the word " Passover" could hold, whether in the act of
angelic transition, or the feast instituted to commemorate it,
could the lamb signify, or be a symbol of it.  The lamb was
that whose body was literally slain, and whose blood was literally shed, in making the Passover Covenant. It was not a
symbol of the passing over of the angel, for there is no analogy
between a slain lamb and a passing over. It was not a symbol
of the Feast of the Passover, but the chief material of the
feast.  Nor was the lamb a merorial of the original passing
over.  The Passover feast itself, as a whole, was. Nor was
the lamb a memorial of this feast, but simply a chief ele



618         CONSERVATIVE REFORMLAT[ON.
ment in it. 4: The word "Passover " here means the festival,
not the transition itself.  5: If the lamb could be called the
Passover feast, it would be so called, not because the lamb signified the feast, but because the feast wvs made on the lamb.
6: If the words had been used at an actual supper, and had
been " Take, eat, This is the body of the Paschal Lamb slain
for you," could Zwingli's interpretation of the verse in question overthrow the literal meaning of " is " in them? If not,
there is no parallel.
The ALLEGORY seems no better as a parallel. The allegory
leads us into a world where a being or thing is the designed
ideal representative of another.  The bundle on
Allegory.
Christian's back is the burden of sin.  The lions
are terrors in the way.  Vanity Fair is the godless world, the
dark river is death- that is, says the slovenly interpreter, signifies or is a sign of. Now an actual burden in real life may
be a symbol of a spiritual burden; living lions may be symbols
of the terrible; a real river a symbol of death; but the bundle,
lions, river of the allegory are as ideal as the symbol. In an
allegory, moreover, the framer has the reality in his mind
before the ideal representative.  The real is throughout the
subject, the allegorical representative the predicate. Hence, to
put them in their proper attitude both as to time and logical relation, we should say the burden of sin is the bundle on Christian's back; the terrors are the lions; death is the dark river.
That is the meaning even in the inverted order in which we
first put them -but the burden of sin is not the symbol of a
bundle -death not the symbol of a river. Hence the structure of an allegory not only does not sustain the Zwinglian
interpretation of the words of the institutor, but overthrows
it —for it demonstrates that the subject is not the symbol of
the predicate, but Zwingli's theory assumes that it is. But
were it otherwise, the Lord's Supper is no allegory.
A more dangerous falsity in interpretation, than the assumption that the word " is " may be explained in the sense of " signify," or "be a symbol of," is hardly conceivable.  Almost
every doctrine of the Word of God will melt under it.  " The
Word was God" would mean "The Word signified was a




ALLEG OR Y                       619
symbol of God."  " God is a Spirit" would mean "God is
the symbol of a Spirit." When it is said of Jesus Christ: " This
is the true God," it would mean that lie is the symbol or image
of the true God. By it Christ would cease to be the way, the
truth, and the life, and would be a mere symbol of them; would
no longer be the door, the vine, the Good Shepherd, the Bishop
of Souls, but would be the symbol of a door, the sign of a vine,
the figure of a shepherd, the representation of a Bishop. This
characteristic of the use of " is " is essential to the very morality of language, and language itself would commit suicide if
it could tolerate the idea that the substantive verb shall express
not substance but symbol.  Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification would all fuse and be dissipated in the crucible of this
species of interpretation. It would take the Bible from us,
and lay uponi our breasts, cold and heavy, a Swedenborgian
night mare of correspondences. The Socinian, and the Pelagian, and all errorists of all schools, would triumph in the
throwing of everything into hopeless confusion, and the Infidel
would feel that the Book he has so long feared and hated, deprived, as it now would be, of its vitality by the trick of interpreters, could, henceforth, be safely regarded with contempt.
Well might Luther write upon the table at Marburg: " This
is My body;" simple words, framed by infinite wisdom so as
to resist the violence and all the ingenuity of men. Rationalism in vain essays to remove them with its cunning, its learning, and its philosophy. Fanaticism gnashes its teeth at them
in vain. They are an immovable foundation for faith in the
Sacramental mystery, and the gates of hell cannot shake the
faith of the Church, that our Lord Jesus with the true body
and true blood which He gave for our redemption on the Cross,
is truly present in the Holy Supper, to apply the redemption
through the very organs by which it was wrought out. The
sacrifice was made once for all -its application goes on to the
end of time. The offence of the Master's Cross now rests upon
His table, and thither the triumph of the Cross shall follow it.
On the Cross and at the table the saints discern the body of
the Lord, and in simple faith are determined to know in both
nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.




620          CON SERVATIVE REFORMATAION.
The Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession declares that
Te      the true body and blood of Christ are truly present
cies of Bread and in the Supper " UNDER THE FORM (unter der Gestalt)
Wine. Transubstantiation; r- OF BREAD AND WINE.   The word "form" and the
manism;and Ra- German rword " Gestalt," which it translates, are
renderings, confessedly, of the Latin term  "species."  The Apology (164, 54, 57: illis rebus quse videntur,
sichtbaren Dingen), giving an equivalent of the word "species "
or "form," defines it, "those things which are seen, the visible things, bread and wine," and the Formula of Concord (674,
126) speaks of " the elements or visible species or form  of the
consecrated bread and wine."  The word " species " belongs to
the common terms of Theology, and is used by Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian authors. It is used, for example,
in the articles of the Marburg Colloquy, which were signed by
Zwingli. In classic Latin, " species " not only means "a. form,"
but "an object presented to the sight; " not only " figure,"
but the " nature of a thing." It also has the meaning " kind;"
hence the phrase " communion in both kinds," " both species."
So in English we use the words " species' and "kind" as
convertible.
The emphasis in the Tenth Article is not on the word species,
but on bread and iine - not as if it meant the species, not the
reality; but, on the contrary, the species or kinds of true bread
and true wine, not of the accidents of them. In a word, it asserts
that the visible objects in the Lord's Supper are real bread and
real wine. The doctrine of the Confession is that the visible
and earthly element in the Lord's Supper is true bread and true
wine (not their accidents), as the invisible and heavenly element
is the body and blood of Christ (not their symbols, nor the
memory of them, nor their spiritual virtue).
The words, FIRST OF ALL, reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
SECONDLY: They repudiate the Romish doctrine of sacramental concomitance, to wit: that because of their natural association, or concomitance, both the body and blood of Christ are
given, with each of the species sacramentally, that is, with the
bread both body and blood are given sacramentally, and with




THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE.   621
the wine both blood and body are given sacramentally.  The
Confession implies that the body only is given sacramentally by
the bread, the blood only is sacramentally given by the wine,
that from  a natural concomitance we cannot argue to a sacramental one, for the sacramental is wholly supernatural, and its
character depends on the will of Christ, who has appointed one
species for the sacramental impartation of His body, the other
for the sacramental impartation of Iis blood.  If natural concormitance were identical with sacramental impartation, it would
follow that our Lord had appointed the cup needlessly; that
the priest receives in the Mass the body and blood twice, the
blood by concomitance with the species of bread, and the body
by concomitance with the species of wine.  And if a natural
concomitance holds good for the sacramental character of the
bread in communion, it would hold equally good for its sacrificial character in the Mass.  One kind in the Supper would
logically justify one kind in the Mass.
THIRDLY: In this the Confession implies that the two species
or kinds, bread and wine, must both be used in order to having
a complete communion, and thus the doctrine is set forth, which
involves a rejection of the Romish abuse of the denial of the
cup, a denial which applies not only to the laity, but to the
communicant, whether lay or priestly. The priestly offerer of the
sacrifice of the Mass drinks of the cup, in making the sacrifice,
but when the same man approaches the table as a communicant, he receives only the bread.*
* As this distinction, though very important, is so little noticed, even by controversialists, and is so little known, as often to excite surprise among intelligeht
Protestants, the author addressed a note to Prof. George Allen (whose accuracy
as a scholar can only be equalled by his courtesy as a gentleman), asking of him
for the facts of the usage in the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is a member,
which illustrate what we have asserted. From him we obtained the following
statements: 1. There is not so properly a denial of the cup to the laity, as such,
as a restriction of it to the celebrant in the Mass. 2. When a priest receives
the Viaticum, the Communion on his death-bed, he does not receive the cup.
3. On Holy Thursday, in each diocese, the bishop celebrates, and the priests receive the Holy Communion only in one kind - they do not receive the cup. 4. In
the Mass of the Presanctified (on Good Friday), the celebrant himself receives
only in one kind. 5. The only occasion on which the cardinals receive the cup
in communing, is when the Pope celebrates on Holy Thursday; and this is done
on the ground "that in the Feast of the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament,




622           CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
FOURTHLY: In limiting the presence of the body and blood
first to the communicants (vescentihbs), and secondly, to them
in the Lord's Supper (adsint in Cwna), the Confession implies
that nothing has a sacramental character apart from its sacramental use: That the presence of the body and blood of Christ
is such that only the communicants can actualize it - it is not
a presence for mice and worms, but for man: and that this
presence is limited to the  Supper:  The body and blood  of
Christ cannot be reserved, laid up in monstrances, or carried
in procession, any more than the Holy Ghost can be laid up in
a Bible, or carried about in one.
FIFTHLY: In this denial of a change of the elements, and in
the maintenance that the presence is one to be actualized solely
by the sacramental eating and drinking, is involved the rejection
of the doctrine that the species in the Supper are to be worshipped, or that Christ Himself is to be worshipped as in the
species.  We can and should worship Christ at His table, but
precisely as we worship Him  away from  it.  He did not say,
Take, worship, but, Take, eat.  He did not say, This is My
Divinity, but this is My body, and the bread which we break
is not the shrine of His Deity, but the " Communion of His
body."  The presence  of Christ, which  is distinctive of the
Sacrament, is sacramental only, that is to say, we reach Christ
there as we reach HIim  nowhere else, only as His will makes a
specific difference.  We commune in His broken body and His
shed blood there, as it is impossible to commune with them
elsewhere, but we can worship Christ there in no other mode
than we worship Him  everywhere.
On the FIRST of these points, as conditioning all the rest, we
they, on that day, represent the chosen disciples." 6. The canons of the Council
of Trent, Sess. XXI., Can. II, say:  "Si quis dixerit, sanctam ecclesiam catholicam non justis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut laicos atque etiam clericos
non conficientes sub panis tautummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse:
anathema sit."
These facts compel a candid Protestant to admit, upon the one hand, that
simply as a communicant, as distinct from an offerer of the Sacrifice, simply as
one who comes to receive and not, also, to impart a benefit, the priest is put by
the Roman Catholic Church precisely on the same level as the layman; but they
also do much to intensify the feelings of a Protestant that there is both to priest
and people an exclusion from the communion in both kinds-the people never
receive the cup, and the priesthood never receive it as communicants.




TR A NS UBSTANTIA TION REJE C TED.             623
shall dwell more fully than on the others.  The word " Transubstantiation" was as unknown to pure antiquity as the
doctrine couched under it.  It first appeais in the Twelfth
Century. The first official use of the term was made in the
Lateran Council of 1215. The doctrine of Tran- Transubstantiasubstantiation  affirms that at the consecrating  tion rejected.
words the substance of bread and wine ceases to be, and in
their place, clothed with their accidents or properties, are the
body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; no
bread, but simply Christ's body, looking like bread, tasting
like  bread, feeling  like bread, nourishing  the body like
bread, corrupted like bread, eaten by mice like bread, conjoined with poison killing the body like poisoned bread, bearing on it the baker's mark like bread; but no bread, only body;
that there is no wine, but Christ's blood, smelling like wine,
red if the wine have been red, white if the wine have been
white, intoxicating like wine, spilling like wine, leaving permanent stains like wine, poisoning, if mixed with poison, like
poisoned wine, pronounced by chemical analysis to be wine, depositing the acids and salts like wine, but throughout no wine.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a doctrine not only
untaught in the Scriptures, but directly in conflict with their
letter.  It is in conflict with the analogy of faith, overthrow-.
ing logically indubitable parts of the faith; it is in conflict with
the nature of a sacrament, to which are required two real elements, the real earthly as well as the real heavenly; it is in
conflict with a fair parallel with Holy Baptism, in which it is
not pretended by the Church of Rome that there is any transubstantiation of the water; it is a doctrine utterly unknown
to Christian antiquity, the demonstrable invention of ages of
corruption, resisted by many of the greatest theologians even
under the Papacy, and the nurse of superstition, and of the
grossest idolatry; it is in conflict with the testimony of the
senses, subversive of all the laws of moral evidence, and by
overstretching faithinto credulity, tends to produce by reaction, universal skepticism. An acute nation which swings
into Transubstantiation, may swing out of it into Atheism.
This doctrine, of the mediaeval Church of Rome was very
early, and very positively, rejected by Luther, and our other




624         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
great Reformers. In 1520, Luther, in his book on the Babylonish Captivity, says: " For more than twelve hundred years
the Church held the right faith," (in regard to the Lord's
Supper,) " and never do the holy fathers make mention of that
portentous word and dream, Transubstantiation."  In 1522, in
his book against Henry VIII., he says,  "What they (the
Romanists) hold in regard to Transubstantiation is the merest
figment of the godless and blind Thomists;" and again, "I
declare it to be impious and blasphem.ous for any one to assert
that the bread is transubstantiated."  It were easy, if need
were, to fill pages with testimony of this kind; but it is
needless.
The Romanists, in their Confutation, objected to the Tenth
Article that it does not teach Transubstantiation, and, what
they there say, or what was said by their great theological
representatives at the Diet, is most important as showing how
the Confession was there understood, and, of course, how it is
to be understood now.  An examination of their official Confutation at once silences the pitiful old libel that the Roman
Catholics accepted the Tenth Article without reservation.  The
latest repeater of this ignorant, if not malicious, assertion, is
Rev. Wim. Good, by whom it has been the great misfortune
of the Low Church Party in England to seem to be represented. He quotes, at second hand we judge, (from the pages
of one of the bitterest zealots against the Lutheran Church,)
four words, drawn from  the Papal Confutation, which would
lead his readers to suppose that the Papists simply assented
to the Tenth Article as being sound, and hence he draws the
inference that the Article teaches the Romish view.  All this
is built on an isolation of four words out of more than a hundred.  The Romish Confutation, so far as it bears upon this
point, literally translated, runs thus:
"The Tenth Article in words offends nothing, when they
confess that in the Eucharist, after consecration legitimately
made, the body and blood of Christ are substantially and truly
present, provided that (si modo) they believe, that under each
species, the entire Christ is present, so that by concomitance, the
blood of Christ is no less under the species of bread than it is
under the species of wine, and so of the other. Otherwise in




TRANS UBSTANTIA TIO N REJECTED.                  625
the Eucharist, the body of Christ would be bloodless, contrary
to St. Paul, that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no
more.  Rom. vi.
One thing is to be added as an Article exceedingly necessary
(valide necessarium) to this Confession, that they shall believe
the Church (rather than some who falsely teach otherwise),
that by the omnipotent Word of God, in the consecration of
the Eucharist, the substance of the bread is changed into the body
of Christ."
Here it is clear, first, that so far as the Romanists give their
approval at all to the Tenth Article, it is of the most reserved
kind.  First, they speak of the " words " only, as not oifensive
on the one point that there is a true presence.  It is the only
case in which they qualify their approval by terms which imply
a suspicion that " the words " may not fairly convey what is
meant. Hoffmeister, indeed, expresses this insinuation, " unless,
indeed, they wish to impose upon us by a likeness of words."
Second, They declare that even these words are not offensive, solely, if they be so interpreted as to include the idea of
concomitance, which it is not pretended they express; they
carefully note that the Article does not teach Transubstantiation,
in this acknowledging that the doctrine is not implied, as has
been pretended, in the word " species."  In fact, as the Confession does not teach concomitance, but by implication rejects it,
the Romish Confutation does not really endorse heartily a
single word of it.
The discussion of the Tenth Article by' John Cochleus, sheds
no less light on the understanding of the Article by the Romanists at the time. This bitter enemy of the Reformation, who
was one of those who drew up the Confutation, says: " Though
that Article be brief, there are many things of which we complain
as wanting in it (multa tamen in eo desideramur).  Luther frivolously denying Transubstantiation, though in words he disputes at large against Zwingli and (Ecolampadius, yet in the
thing itself, he thinks with them, and is in collusion with them
(curm eis colludit).  And Luther's followers have reached such
a pitch of madness, that they refuse longer to adore the Eucharist,
because Luther has impiously taught that it is safer not to
40




626             CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
adore, and has openly denied the doctrine of concomitance.  And
now they have proceeded in the fury of their impiety to such
a degree as to  deny that the body  of Christ remains in  the
consecrated Host, except in  the use at the altar (extra altaris
usum).  Hence  they  falsely  and  impiously  call us idolaters,
because we retain  the body  of the Lord in  the consecrated
Host in the Tabernacles (Cibariis) for infirm  Communicants, or
when we bear it (the body) about in  monstrances and processions."  He quotes Melanchthon's words in the Apology, " with
those things which are seen, the bread and wine," as flagrantly
contradictory  of Transubstantiation  (turpiter  contradicit sibi
ipsi).*
In this connection it is worth noticing that, widely as Romanismn, with  its. Transubstantiation, and  Rationalism, with  its
Symbol, differ in their results, they run into their error by the
same fallacious principle of interpretation-  each  applying it
with  the  same  arbitrariness, but to  different objects.  The
Romanist wishes to  do away  with  the  Scripture  testimony
in regard  to the  bread  and wine; and, although  they  bear
*On the History and Literature of the Papal Confutation, which has great
value in the interpretation and defence of the Augsburg Confession, see the works
following:
BRILL: Aufd. evangel. Augapfel, 1629. 4to. (the German translation of the work
of Fabricius Leodius mentioned below). -DANZ: Augsburg Confess., Jena, 1829.
12mo., 6.-CHYTR^US. Hist. Aug. Conf., 119. (Confutation, 173, seq.) Ger.
Edit., 1577, p. 191. —CELESTINUS 1. 192 seq. Confutation III.-CYPRIAN. 87
seq.- FEUERLIN: Biblioth Symbol.-FICKENSCIHER: Gesch. d. Reichst. z. Augsburg, 1830, III. 324. —FOERSTEMANN: Urkundenbuch, 2 vols. 8vo. Halle, 1835,
II. 133-176.  FRANCIE: Lib. Symb. Eccl. Luth. Lips. 1847. Proleg. 12mo.
xxx.-xxxiii. (Confutation, Append. 43-69.)-GABLER: Nst. Theol. Jour., 1801,
443 seq. —HASE: Lib. Symb. Eccles. Evangel. Lips. 1827, 2 vols. 12mo. Proleg.
lxxiv.-lxxvi.  The Confutation, lxxvi.-cxiv.-HOFFMAN: Comment. in A. C.
Tubing., 1727. 4to. 205-213. — KILLNER: Symb. d. Luther. Kirche. Hamb. 1837,
p. 397-416.- MULLER, C. C.: Formulms Confutationis A. C. Lat. German. Lips.,
1808, 8vo. -- MULLER, J. J.: Hist. v. Protest. u. A. C. Jena, 1705, 4to. p. 653.PFAFF: Lib. Symbol. Eccl. Luth. —PLANCK: Protest. Lehrbeg. III. I. 52 seq.ROTERMUND: Gesch. d. z. Augsb. ubergeb. Glaubensbek. Hannov. 1829, 8vo.
109-116. -SAIG.: I. 224 seq. 378 seq.-SECKENDORF: Hist. Luth. II. 171.SEMLER: Apparat. in L. S. p. 73. -SPIEKER, C. G.: Conf. Fidei. Confutatio., etc.
Berlin, 1830. 8vo.  149-204. -WALCHTI, J. G.: Introd. in L. S. 416.  Xiscellan. Sacra.  205. -WEBER: Krit. Gesch. II. Vorred., and p. 439.




ROMAANISM[ AND RATIONALISM.                 627
their name before the Lord's Supper, during the Lord's Supper,
and after the Lord's Supper, he insists that there is neither
bread nor wine there, but only their accidents.  While our
Lord says' "This is my body," the Romani'st in effect makes
it: This seeming bread is no longer bread, but has become, has
been transubstantiated into, My body. He deserts the letter
and reaches Transubstantiation.  The Rationalist wishes to
retain the bread and wine, and therefore holds that what the
Scripture calls bread and wine, is bread and wine; but he
wishes to do away with the Scripture testimony in  omanism and
regard to the body and blood; and although the   tonls
- ~C                                            Their principle
Scripture says, that of that which the Saviour tells here the same.
them  to Take, eat, He declares most explicitly, This is My
body; and of that which He tells them  to drink, He says,
This is My blood- though it says that the bread is the communion of His body and the cup the communion of His blood
though it declares that the guilt of the heedless communi-cant is that he does not " discern the Lord's body," and that
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body
and blood of Christ; in the face of all this he insists that
there is in the Lord's Supper only the shadow, image, or sign
of the body and blood of Christ, not the true body and true
blood. With what face can a Rationalist meet a Romanist,
or a Romanist meet a Rationalist?  No wonder that the
Rationalist, after all, is less violent against Romanism than
against the pure doctrine of our Church. There is the secret
affinity of error between them; and Romanisim  does not so
hate Rationalism, Rationalism does not so hate Romanism, as
both hate unswerving fidelity to the Word of God. That the
Romish and rationalizing modes of interpretation are nearer
to each other than either is to the Lutheran, is admitted by
both Rationalists and Romanists.. The rationalizing interpreters make it one of the common-places of objection to the
Lutheran view that it has less in a literal interpretation of the
Scripture to sustain it than the Romish view has: that is, the
Romish view is less decisively opposed than the Lutheran is
to rationalistic modes of literal interpretation.
On the Romish side, Bellarmine and others take the ground




G62         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
that right principles of interpretation lead either to Romanistic
or Calvinistic views of the Supper.  As both these have the
common ground that the proposition of the Supper is: " This
bread is Christ's body," and as both argue that real bread cannot be real body, the one escapes the difficulty by maintaining
that there is no real bread in the Supper, the other that there
is no real body there; or, in other words, the Romanist,
Zwinglian, and Calvinist agree in an exegetical principle, and
simply vary in the application of it.
A single citation from two great authorities, the first Roman
Catholic, the second Calvinistic, will demonstrate this.  BELLARMINE, in his Discussion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist,
ch. xix., says,'"These words:'This is My body, necessarily
lead to the inference either that there is a true mutation of the
bread, as the CATHOLICS will have it, or a metaphorical mutation,
as the CALVINISTS will have it; but in no way admit of the
LUTHERAN view."
URSINUS, in his Explanation of the Catechism, II., Q. 78 
" As it is not true that the Papists retain the verbally literal,
so it is much less true (multo minus verum) that those (Lutherans)
retain the letter and true sense of the words."  " The letter is:' This, that is, this bread, is My body;' the meaning is,' That
visible, broken, and distributed bread is My true and essential
body.' But as this cannot be by essential conversion, but
mystically or by sacramental metonony, because the words,
according to the verbally literal, have a sense repugnant to
the verity of the Christian faith, therefore we say, that in the
words of Christ a fitting (conveniens) meaning is to be taught."
Do. p. 541. This, then, is the genesis of the two views: Body
cannot be bread, but as there is body there is no bread: bread
cannot be body, but as there is bread there is no body.
With such a principle, only a third possibility remains: it is
to apply it rigidly and consistently to every part of the Institution, to take away the bread with the Romanist, and the
body with the Rationalist, and theu we have the Lord's Supper of the Quaker and other mystics, with neither supernatural
reality nor outward element-all idea, all spirit. The extravagance of the Romish materializing of the presence of Christ's




CONCESSIONS OF U'N-LUTHERAN  WRITERS. 629
body, and of the rationalistic exaggeration, which leaves only
natural matter, run into the nihilism of the mystic.  You cannot annihilate either element in the Lord's Supper without
annihilating both.
In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, nevertheless, as in
almost all of her corruptions, the Church of Rome has not so
much absolutely removed the foundation, as hidden it by the
wood, hay, and stubble of human device.  Truth can sometimes be reached by running the corruptions of it back to the
trunk on which they were grafted.  Such an error as that of
Transubstantiation could never have been grafted on an original faith like that of Zwingli in regard to the Lord's Supper.
The tendency of the Zwinglian view, if it be corrupted, is to
laxer, not to higher, views of the sacramental mystery. Such
an error as the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the
Virgin Mary never could have been grafted on a faith originally Socinian. It is a corruption which presupposes as a truth,
to be corrupted in its inference, the divinity and sinlessness of
our Lord Jesus Christ; and just as the comparatively modern
corruption of the worship of the Virgin is a proof that faith in
the Godhead of Jesus Christ was part of the primitive faith, so
does the comparatively modern corruption of Transubstantiation prove that faith in the objective supernatural presence of
the body and blood of our Lord was part of the primitive faith.
A rotten apple always presupposes a sound apple.  However
corrupt a fig may be, we know that it grew on a fig-tree, and
not on a thistle.
Our fourth proposition in the analytic exhibition of the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession is:
That the true body and blood of Christ, truly  IV. TheSacrapresent in the Lord's Supper, under the species of mental Communion of the Body
bread and wine, are communicated.*                 aell Blood of
We have virtually proved this proposition in Chrnist- Zinglian  and Calvinproving the three which preceded it.  Neverthe- istieViews —Conless, in the affluence of Scripture evidence sustain- Lthesn  writ-'
ing the doctrine of our Church, we can well afford ers*German, ausgetheilt: Lat., distribuantur. In the Apology; Lat., exhibeantur; German, dargereicht.




630        C O NSERVATIVE REFORMATI O i
to give this thesis a distinct vindication. We affirm, then,
that this fourth proposition is explicitly taught in 1 Cor. x. 16:
" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
[ xoivwvc] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion [o,,vwica] of the body of Christ?"
This passage, in its express terms and in its connection, is
what Luther calls it — a thunderbolt upon the heads of errorists in regard to the Lord's Supper. The figment of Transubstantiation is overthrown by it, for it expressly mentions bread,
and that which communicates cannot be identical with that
which is communicated by it.  St. Paul expressly mentions
the two elements; the bread, which is the earthly; the body
of our Lord, which is the heavenly; the sacramental union,
and the impartation of the heavenly in, with, and under the
earthly. The passage equally overthrows all the Rationalistic
corruptions of the doctrine.  Zwingli says: The bread is the
sign of the body; Paul says: The bread is the communion of
the body; Zwingli says: The wine is the sign of the blood;
Paul says: The cup is the communion of the blood.  On
Zwingli's theory, any and all bread is, as such, the sign of
Christ's body; on Paul's theory, it is the bread which we break,
that is, the sacramental bread only, which is the communion
of Christ's body; on Zwingli's theory, any wine and all wine
is, as such, the sign of Christ's blood; on Paul's theory, only
the cup of blessing, whiczh we bless, in the Supper, is the comnmunion of Christ's blood; on Zwingli's theory, the relation of
the bread and body is that of symbol and of reality; on Paul's
theory, it is the relation of communicating medium and of the
thing communicated; on Zwingli's theory, we receive the cup
to be reminded of the blood; on Paul's theory, we receive the
cup to receive the blood. On Zwingli's theory, the argument
of the Apostle is sophistical and pointless in the last degree,
for as all bread is equally an emblem of Christ's body as food
for the soul, and all wine equally an emblem of Christ's blood
as the refreshing of the soul, any and every eating of bread,
and any and every drinking of wine, would be the communion
of His body and blood; therefore, to eat bread and to drink
wine at the table of Demons, would be, on Zwingli's theory




CONCESSIONS OF UN-L UTHERAN WRITERS. 631
of symbol, to have communion with Christ's body and blood;
for bread is a symbol of nourishment, wine a symbol of refreshing, without reference to the time or place of receiving them;
their whole character as symbols depends onewhat bread is, as
bread -on what wine is, as wine; and the Corinthian could
make the table of Demons a Lord's Supper by the simple mental act of thinking of the bread and wine as symbols of Christ's
body and blood. A vine, as a symbol of Christ, is equally a
symbol, whether it grows on the land of devil-worshippers or
of Christians; bread, as a symbol of Christ's body, is equally a
symbol, whether baked by Atheist, Jew, or Pagan; whether
eaten at the table of Demons or at the table of the Lord.
The logic of Zwingli's position is, then, exactly the opposite of
that of the Apostle, and would make his conclusion in the last
degree absurd.
Equally do the words overthrow the Calvinistic theory.
Calvin's theory is, that the Holy Spirit communicates the body
of Christ; Paul'3 is, that the bread communicates it; he mentions but two elements, bread and body. Calvin says, the Holy
Spirit communicates the blood of Christ; Paul says, that the
cup communicates it, two elements only again, cup and blood,
not three: cup, Holy Spirit, and blood. Calvin makes faith
the communicating medium; Paul says, the bread we break,
the cup we bless, is the comraunicating medium. Calvin makes
the communion of the body and blood of Christ, one which is
confined to worthy recipients, true believers, while to all others
there is but the communication of bread and wine; Paul is
speaking of what the communion also is to some who "eat
and drink unworthily," " not discerning the Lord's body,"
" eating and drinking damnation to themselves," "guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord," and yet he affirms that to
them the bread communicates the body, the cup, the blood of
Christ. Calvin's communion is one which can take place anywhere and always, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is always present, and faith can always be exercised; Paul's is expressly
limited to that with which the bread and cup are connected.
Calvin's is a communion of the virtue and efficacy of the body
and blood of Christ; Paul's is a communion of the body and




632         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
blood themselves.  Calvin's is the communion of an absent
body and blood; Paul's the communion of a present body and
blood, so present that bread, broken and given, imparts the
one, and the cup, blessed and taken, imparts the other. Calvin talks of a faith by which we spiritually eat an absent
body, Paul of elements by which we sacramentally eat a present body.
As by Zwingli's theory, so by Calvin's also, the argument of
the Apostle here is emptied of all force. For the argument
of the Apostle is addressed to those who eat and drink unworthily, that is to those who had not faith. The very necessity
of the argument arises from the presupposition of a want of
true faith in the Lord, on the part of those to whom it was
addressed.  But on the Calvinistic theory the communion of
the body and blood of Christ, and participation in them, are
confined to those who have faith. These Corinthians, therefore, had St. Paul taught them  a theory like that of Calvin,
might have replied: "Oh, no! as we are without true faith,
and are receiving unworthily, we receive nothing but bread
and wine, but as bread and wine were not the sacrifices which
Christ offered to God, we do not come into fellowship with
God's altar by partaking of them - therefore we are not guilty
of what you charge on us, to wit, the inconsistency of eating
and drinking at the same time, of the sacrifices offered on
God's altar, and of the sacrifices offered on the altar of Demons."  The Calvinistic theory makes the argument of the
Apostle an absurdity.
Two parallels in the connection help to bring out very vividly the Apostle's idea. One is the parallel with Israel: v. 18.
"'Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the
sacrifices partakers of the altar?"  The point seems to be most
clearly this: that the communion of the body of Christ in the
Supper is as real as the eating of the animal sacrifices in the
Jewish Church. Christ's body is the true sacrifice which takes
once for all the place of the Jewish sacrifices, and the sacramental communion, in which that body is the sustenance, in
ever-renewing application of the one only sacrifice, takes the
place of the Jewish eating of the sacrifice. The other parallel




CONCESSIONS OF UN-L UTHERAN WRITERS. 633
is with the eating the sacrifices and drinking of the cup offered
to idols, v. 21. The communion of the body and blood of
Christ is represented as no less real in its nature and positive
in its results than the other communication of the sacrificial
flesh and cup.
The parallel may be offered thus to the eye, as regards the
Jews and the Christians.
Israel after the flesh, or       Israel after the spirit, or
the Jews,                        Christians,
have the typical sacrifice       have the real sacrifice
of the body                      of the body
and blood                       and blood
of animals,                     of Christ,
on the typical altar,           on the true altar,
and eat                         and eat
of the typical sacrifice         of the true sacrifice
of animal body and blood        of Christ's body and blood
at the Jewish Festival,         at the Christian festival,
the sacrificial supper,         the Lord's Supper,
and thus partake                 and thus partake
of the typical altar.            of the true altar.
Here the parallel is between type and truth-in the parallel
between Pagans and Christians it is between falsehood and
truth.
In a word, the whole argument involves a parallel between
three things:
I. The Sacrificial meal of the Jews.
II. The Sacrificial meal of the Pagans.
III. The Sacrificial meal of the Christians, or Lord's Supper.
The common idea that underlies the triple parallel is, that in
each of these meals there is a true communion, communication,
or impartation of the thing sacrificed, whereby the receiver is
brought into the fellowship of the Altar, on which it was sacrificed, and thus into fellowship with the being to whom it was
sacrificed - the Pagan with the Demons, the Jew with God as
hidden in type, the Christian with God unveiled, and incarnate
in Christ.




634         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The parallel in the thought in Heb. xiii. 10-12 is also well
worthy of notice: " We have an altar, whereof they have no
right to eat, which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of
those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the
High Priest for sin, are burnt without the camp.  Wherefore,
Jesus, also, that He might sanctify the people with His own
blood, suffered without the gate."  Here is altar over against
altar, body over against body, blood over against blood, sacrifice over against sacrifice, eating over against eating. We
have the true altar over against the typifying altar, the true
body, blood, and sacrifice of Christ over against the typifying
body, blood, and sacrifice of beasts, the true sacramental and
communicating eating over against the typifying eating, which
foreshadowed, but could not consummate a communion.
If language can express a thought unmistakably,'the words
of Paul (I Cor. x.) imply that, in the Lord's Supper, there is
a supernatural reality, a relation between the bread and the
body of Christ, which makes the one the medium of the reception of the other; that our atoning sacrifice, after a different
manner, but a manner not less real than that of the sacrifice
of Jew and Pagan, is communicated to us in the Holy Supper,
as their sacrifices were given in their feasts. The Lord's Supper, indeed, may be regarded as a summing up of the whole
fundamental idea of Old Testament sacrifice, a covenant consummated by sacrifice, and entered into by the covenanting
parties, recei ving, each after the mode appropriate to him, that
which is sacrificed; the Almighty Father accepting His Son,
as the Victim  offered for the sins of the whole world, and the
world accepting in the Holy Supper the precious body and
blood which apply in perpetual renewal, through all generations, the merits of the oblation made, once for all, upon the
Cross.
The interpretation of these passages implied by our Church
in her Confession is sustained by the universal usage of the
Church Catholic, by the judgment of the greatest of the
fathers, Greek and Latin, by the opinion of the most eminent
dogmaticians and expositors, ancient and moderl, and even by
the concessions of interpreters who reject the Lutheran faith.




CONCESSIONS OF UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS. 635
1. The whole Church from the earliest period has called, and
now calls, the Lord's Supper the Communion.  That Supper
alone has this name.  But what solution of the sole application of this name can be given except that in it the body and
blood of Christ are communicated and received as they are nowhere else.  The universal Christian consciousness and language attest the supernatural reality of the presence of the
body and blood of Christ.
2. The drift of patristic interpretation may be gathered from
the extracts which follow:
IGNATIUS (Ordained by the Apostle Peter, ab. A. D. 43, d.
107): " The Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
There is one cup for the uniting (`vwav) of His blood."
JUSTIN MARTYR (d. 165): "The food over which the Eucharistic prayer has been made is the flesh and blood of the
incarnate Jesus."
IRENAEUS (d. 202): " When the mingled cup and the broken
bread receive the words of God, it becomes the Eucharist of
the body and blood of Christ."
AMBROSE (d. 307): " We receiving of one bread and of one
cup, are receivers and partakers of the body of the Lord."
CHRYSOSTOM (d. 407): "Very persuasively and fearfully He
speaks: For what He says is this, That very thing which is
in this cup is that which flowed from His side, and of that we
are partakers. Not only hathi He poured it out, but He hath
imparted of it to us all.  What is more fearful than this?
Yet, what more kindly affectioned?  The bread which we
break, is it not the communion (x0ovwVt) of the body of Christ?
Why does He not say Participation (ts-oX^)?  Because lie
wished to signify something more (than participation), and to
indicate the greatness of the joining together."  TIIEOPHYLACT*
and JOHN, of Damascus, adopt and repeat these words of
Chrysostom.
JEROME (d. 420):'" Is it not the Communion of the blood of
*TIIEOPHYLACT (1078): "Non dixit participatio, sed communicatio ut aliquid
exc.ellentius indicet puta summam unionem. Quid autem dicit hujusmodi est,
hoc quod in calice est, illud est quod effiuxit de latere Christi, et ex eo accipientes
communicamus, id est unimur Christo."




636        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Christ?  As the Saviour Himself saith: He who eateth My
flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him."
THEODORET (d. 456): " Enjoying the sacred mysteries, are we
not partakers with Him, the Master? "
JoHN OF DAMASCUS (d. 750): "As the body is united with
the Logos, so also we are united with Him by this bread."
"The Lord's Supper is called, and is, in very deed, a communion (xovcwJ/), because through it we commune (xo0;wv^;) with
Christ and become partakers of His flesh." Orthod. Fidei, lib.
IV. xiv.
3. The Reformers of the Non-Lutheran tendency make important concessions.
CALVIN: " The thing itself is also present, nor does the soul
less receive (percipiat) the communion of the blood, than we
drink the wine with the mouth."  " The wine is no longer a
common drink, but dedicated to the spiritual nourishment of
the soul, inasmuch as it is a token (tessera) of the blood of
Christ."
PETER MARTYR: "Ye are of the body of Christ, His members, participants (participes) of His body and blood." " Christians have association and conjunction with one another, which
hath its seat in this (in eo sita est), that they are participants
of the body and blood of Christ."
But no witness to the cogency of the passage is perhaps so
striking as that of ZWINGLI, who, in the effort to explain away
a text so fatal to his theory, falls upon this violent and extraordinary interpretation: " What, I ask, is the cup of blessing
which we bless, EXCEPT OUR OWN SELVES (quam nos ipsi)? HE
GIVES THE NAME OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST TO THOSE WHO TRUST IN
His BLOOD. In this passage the communion of the blood of
Christ are those who exult that they have obtained liberty in
Christ's blood. ALL WE who are participants of one bread and
one Cup, ARE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST AND THE BODY OF CHRIST
We have treated this point somewhat more verbosely, but we
have done it because this passage, either NOT UNDERSTOOD, OR
BADLY INTERPRETED, even by many learned men, has given to
the simple, occasion of believing that in the bread the body of
Christ is eaten, and in the wine tis blood is drunk."  Who




CONCESSIONS OF UN-LUTHERAN WRITERS. 637
does not feel that Zwingli would have weakened his cause less
by saying honestly, " I cannot harmonize this text with my
view," than he has by an interpretation so forced as to look
like evidence of purpose to make, in any wary, God's words
square with a certain assumption?
4. A few distinguished names among English and American
writers may be quoted. On these words, POOL, the great master among the old Puritan commentators, says:'The cup
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
that is, it is an action whereby and wherein Christ communicates Himself and His grace to us."  "The bread is the communion of the body of Christ; an action wherein Christians
have a fellowship and communion with Christ."  It will be
noticed that, in the face of the text, POOL substitutes " Christ"
for " body of Christ," and again for " blood of Christ."  Substitute the very term of the sacred Word for his substitute,
and PooL is forced to say of the Lord's Supper: "It is an
action whereby and wherein Christ communicates His blood
to us," " an action whereby Christians have a fellowship and
communion with the body of Christ," and this is, as far as it
goes, the very doctrine of our Church.
Bishop WILSON'S paraphrase is: " The bread which we break,
after consecration, is it not that by which we have communion
with Christ, our Head?"
HUSSEY explains the' communion " "by spiritually partaking of the blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist."
The OLDER TRANSLATORS in English bring out the true sense
very clearly: " Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless, partaking of the blood of Christ? " "Is not the bread, which we
break, partaking of the body of Christ? "  Such is the rendering of the earliest and latest Tyndale, of Coverdale, of Cranmer, and of the Bishops. The first English translation, and
for more than half a century the only one, which used the
word "communion" was the Genevan, which was made at
Geneva by English religious fugitives who were strong Calvinists,and who here followed Beza, evidently for doctrinal reasons,
as the marginal note shows. From the Genevan (1557) it went
into the Authorized Version (1611), which obscures the Apos



638         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOJN.
tie's reasoning by rendering koinonia, in the sixteenth verse,
communion, and koinonos, in the eighteenth verse, "partakers" and "fellowship."
HAMMOND translates the word xoivwvC " communication," and
paraphrases it: " The Christian feast of bread and wine in
the Lord's Supper is.. the making us partakers of the body
and blood of Christ," and refers to his note on Acts ii. 42, in
which he says: "The word koinonia is to be rendered, not
communion, but communication, by that, meaning distribution. or participation, by which any are made partakers of some
gift. In this notion is the word generally used in Scripture
for.. some kind of distributing or dispensing to others...
So in 1 Cor. x. 16, the participating of the body and blood of
Christ."
Bishop HALL (d. 1656):   That sacred cup. is it not that
wherein we have a joint communion with Christ, in partaking of Hiis blood? The bread.. is it not that wherein we. have communion with Christ, in a joint receiving of His
body?"
Archbishop SHARP: "' St. Paul here plainly teaches us that
these sacred signs make those who use them to have conmmunion with Christ crucified."
The WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY'S Annotations represent the
communion as " a sign or pledge of the spiritual communion
which we have together, who by faith participate in the body
and blood of Christ."
MATTHEW HENRY says: " He lays down his argument from
the Lord's Supper, afeast on the sacrificed body and blood of our
Lord."
MACKNIGHT translates: " Is it (the cup of blessing) not the
joint participation of the blood of Christ? Is it (the loaf
which we break) not the joint participation of the body of
Christ?"
ADAM CLARKE gives this as the force of the words: "We
who partake of this sacred cup, in commemoration of the death
of Christ, are made partakers of His body and blood, and thus
have fellowship with Him."
CONYBEARE and HowsON thus paraphrase the words: " When




CONCESSIONS OF UN-LUTHERAN WRITERS. 639
we drink the cup of blessing which we bless, are we not all
partakers in the blood of Christ? When we break the bread,
are we not all partakers in the body of Christ? " and say in
the note: " Literally, the cup of blessing whiech we bless, is it
not a common participation in the blood of Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not a common participation in the body
of Christ?"
PARKHURST, in his Greek Lexicon, gives as the proper definition of koinonia in this passage, "a partaking, participation."
Dr. ROBINSON defines the word; " a partaking, sharing," and
cites 1 Cor. x. 16 as an illustration of the meaning " participation."
ALFORD:'"Ioinonia, the participation (i. e. that whereby
the act of participation takes place) of the blood of Christ.
The strong literal sense must here be held fast, as constituting
the very kernel of the Apostle's argumentt.... If we are to
render this'estin' represents or symbolizes, THE ARGUMENT IS
MADE VOID."
Dr. JOHN W. NEVIN, in his Mystical Presence, speaking of
the language in this place, says: " This much it does most certainly imply, that the communion is something more than figurative or moral. It is the communion of Christ's body and
blood, a real participation in His true human life, as the one
only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world."
GILL, the great Baptist Rabbinist, on the words: "The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ? " says: " It is; for not only believers by this act have
communion with His mystical body, the Church, but with His
natural body, which was broken for them; they, in a spiritual
sense, and by faith, eat His flesh, as well as drink His blood,
and partake of Him."
Dr. SCHMUCKER, in his Catechism  says, that " worthy communicants, in this ordinance, by faith spiritually feed on the
body and blood of the Redeemer, thus holding communion or
fellowship with Him," and cites 1 Cor. x. 16 to prove it.
Dr. HODGE, of Princeton, says: "It is here assumed that
partaking of the Lord's Supper brings us into communion with




640         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATI02N.
Christ.... The Apostle's argument is founded on the assumption that a participation of the cup is a participation of the
blood of Christ; and that a participation of the bread is a participation of the body of Christ. Is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ; that is, is it not the means of participating
in the blood of Christ? He who partakes of the cup partakes
of Christ's blood.... By partaking of the bread, we partake
of the body of Christ."
5. We will cite as representative of GERMAN INTERPRETATION four names: the first representing the Ancient Lutheran
Orthodoxy; the second the intermediate Lutheran Theology
of the 18th Century; the third the Unionistic Theology of our
own era; and the fourth, a witness to the irresistible character
of the text, which compels a rationalistic commentator to acknowledge its true force.
CALOVIUS: " The earthly thing, to wit, the bread, is taken
in an earthly manner: the heavenly thing, to wit, the body of
Christ, is taken and eaten in a manner fitting it, that is, a
heavenly or mystical manner. As that union is sacramental
and is in mystery, and hence called mystical, the manner of
eating which depends upon it, is as regards the body of Christ'plainly mystical, sacramental, and incomprehensible to human
reason,' as Hinnius correctly observes."
S. J. BAUMGARTEN: " The communion of the cup with the
blood of Christ, can here be taken in a twofold mode: 1. The
cup stands in communion with the blood of Christ —is a
means of offering and imparting it. 2. The cup is a means
of uniting the participants with the blood of Christ-a means
whereby they are made participants of it. The second presupposes the first."
OLSHAUSEN:'" Were there in the Supper no communion with
Christ but in spirit, the words would be'Communion of
Christ,' not'communion of the body,''communion of the
blood of Christ.' As of course the language refers to Christ
in His state of exaltation, it is of His glorified flesh and blood
it speaks: these come, in the Supper, into attingence with
the participant, and thus mediate the communion."
RUECKERT is the last name we shall cite, and, as a witness on




THE COMMI UNION OF THE UNWORTHY.  641
the point here involved, no name could carry more force with
it. Rueckert is one of the greatest scholars of the.age, a historico-critical rationalist, at the furthest extreme from  the
Lutheran position, making it his peculiar boast that, rising
above all Confessions and parties, he accepts the results of
scientific exegesis.  He professes to  make it his law, "that
you are to lend nothing that is yours to your author, and omit
nothing that is his-you are not to ask what he ought to say,
nor be afraid of what he does say."  Rueckert, in his work on
the Lord's Supper,* after a very thorough investigation of the
sense of 1 Cor. x., says: " Paul.. sees in the Supper Christ's
body and blood.. as supersensuous and heavenly, which Hie
gives as food and drink at His table to believers, and indeed
without any exception, and without distinction between worthy
and unworthy participants."  IIe then shows that there is no
possibility of evading the acceptance of the doctrine except by
rejecting the authority of Paul, and byappealing to " the decision of rational thinking."  Rationalism itself, in the person
of one of its greatest representatives, being judge, it has no
foothold in the text.  Rueekert, moreover, confesses that the
earliest faith of the Church agrees with this result of the latest
scientific exegesis: " That in the Supper the body and blood
of Christ are given and received, was the universal faith, from
the beginning.... This faith abode in the aftertimne; the
Christian people (Gemeinde) never had any other, and in the
Ancient Church it had not a solitary person to oppose it; the
extremest heretics themselves never did it."
The Fifth Proposition in the analytical view of the doctrine
of the Augsburg Confession is:  That the true  V. The Conbody and blood of Christ, truly present and truly munion of the
communicated under the species of bread  and U wo'ty.
wine, are received by all communicants.T
"He that eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily, eateth  and
drinketh damnation (or, judgment) to himself, not discern* 1856. Pages 241, 297.
t See Seb. Schmidt: De princip. s. fundam. praes. Corpor. et. Sanguin. Christi
Argentor, 1699. Chap. xi.
j German: da.. genommsn wird. Latin: vescentibus. Apology: his qui
sacramentum accipiunt.
41




642         CONSERVTIE   EFOATIVE REFOR      ON.
ing (8cpivwv) the Lord's body," (because he hath not distinguished the body.. Syr. Ether.  Eateth and drinketh condemnation on himself, by not discerning... Syr. Murdock):
"Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty (JvoXo?) of the body and blood
of the Lord," (is guilty of the blood of the Lord and of His
body).  Syr. Etheridge.  1 Cor. xi. 27-29.
From the four propositions already established it is a necessary inference, and in the cogent texts just quoted it is expressly taught, that, while none but those who receive in faith
receive savingly, all who come to the Supper receive sacranentally, the body and blood of Christ.  As those to whom  the
gospel is a savor of death unto death, receive in common with
those to whom it is a savor of life unto life, one and the same
thing outwardly, to wit: the gospel; so do those who abuse,
to their own condemnation, the Lord's Supper, and those who
rightly use it to their soul's welfare, receive one and the same
thing sacramentally. It is the very essence of the sin of the
rejection of the gospel, that, receiving it outwardly, with the
attendant energy of the Holy Spirit in, with, and under it, the
rejector has not received it inwardly, and thus makes it not
merely practically void, but pernicious to his soul. So is it
the very essence of the sin of unworthy treatment of the Lord's
Supper, that, receiving it in its sacred and divine element, as
well as in its outward one, the communicant makes no inward
appropriation of the benefit there offered, but turns, by his
unbelief, the food of his soul to its poison. In the passages
quoted immediately after the Thesis, men, whose unworthiness
is such that their condemnation is sealed by their eating, are
represented as guilty of the body and blood of Christ; that is,
the object of their abuse is specifically declared to be, not bread
and wine, either in themselves or as symbols, but the body and
blood of Christ. That which-they are treating with contumely
is said to be the body of the Lord, and their crime is that
they do not discern it: " not discerning the body of the Lord."
But unbelief would be its own safeguard, if it were the communicant's faith, and not the will and institution of Christ,
which is the ground of the presence.  The unbeliever could




THE COMMUNION OF THE UNWORTHY.   643
say: "As I have no faith, there is no body of Christ to discern; there is no body and blood of which I can be guilty."
Of such men, moreover, the Apostle, in the previous chapter,
declared that the broken bread and the cup of blessing are to
them also the communion of the body and blood of Christ.
Let any man weigh solemnly the import of the thought:
He that eateth unworthily of this bread is guilty of the body
of the Lord; he that drinketh unworthily of this cup is guilty
of the blood of the Lord; and then let him ask himself, before
the Searcher of hearts, whether he dare resolve the Lord's Supper into a mere eating of a symbol of Christ's body, the drinking of a symbol of Christ's blood? Let it be remembered that
in the case of the Corinthians, deeply as they had sinned, there
was no designed dishonor of the sacramental elements, still less
of Christ, whom they set forth; there was no hatred to Christ,
no positive infidelity, and yet an unworthy drinking of the
sacramental cup made them "guilty of the blood of Christ."
The Apostle expressly tells us, too, whereon the fearfulness of
their guilt and the terribleness of their penalty turned: " They
ate and drank damnation to themselves, not discerning (making
no difference of) the Lord's body."  But on all the rationalistic
interpretations there is no body of the Lord there to discern.
To " discern " (diakrinein), elsewhere translated to " make
or put differences between," involves a correct mental and
moral judgment; it means to distinguish between two things
which there is a liability of confounding, to mark the distinction between one thing and another.  " Can I discern between
good and evil?" " That I may discern between good and bad."
" Cause them to discern between clean and unclean," that is,
to mark and make the distinction, in mind, feeling, and act.
To " discern the body of the Lord," is, therefore, to discriminate between it and something which is, or might be, confounded with it, to mark its difference from some other thing,
to believe, feel, and act in the conviction that it is not that
other thing, but is the body of the Lord. The point is, That
which you receive in the Lord's Supper is not mere bread and
wine, as your conduct would imply that it is, but is also the
body and blood of Christ; therefore, your guilt (taking its




644        CONSERVA4TIVE  REFORMATION.
root in a failure to discern this body and blood) is not that of
the abuse of bread and wine, but of the indignity offered to
His body and blood which they communicate; therefore your
punishment is not simply that of men guilty of gluttony and
drunkenness, but that of men guilty of a wrong done to the
body and blood of Christ; therefore sickness and death have
been sent to warn you of your awful crime, and if these warnings be not heeded, your final doomi will be to perish with the
world (v. 32).
The sacramental communion was ordained of Christ as the
means of the spiritual communion.  In its divine essence, that
is, in its sacramental character, the Lord's Supper is unchangeable, but its effects and blessings are conditioned upon the faith
of the recipient. The same sunlight falls upon the eye of the
blind and of the seeing alike; both eyes alike receive it, but
the eye of the seeing alone perceives it; it is communicated to
both; it is " discerned " by but the one. But the analogy fails
at an important point: In spirituals the lack of the perception
with the reception is voluntary, and, therefore, while the blind
eye:suffers privation only, the blind soul comes under condemnation. It is the blind man's misfortune that he does not see,
it is the unbelieving man's guilt that he does not discern. The
diseased and the sound eat of the same natural bread; but to
one it brings strength, to another it is without effect, and to
yet another it brings nausea and agony.  The difference of
result is owing to the difference of condition in the recipient.
The Holy Spirit breathes forever on and in the word, and is,
with it, received by all who hear the word, quickening the
yielding heart, and hardening the heart which resists Him.
Jesus said to every one of the disciples present, probably to
Judas, who betrayed, certainly to Peter, who soon after denied
Him: " Take, eat, this is My body given for you;" and the
ministers of Christ for eighteen centuries have said to every
communicant, believing or unbelieving, " Take, eat, this is the
body of Christ given for you," and what Christ said, and they
say, is unchangingly true. So far there is no distinction made
by the character of the recipient, for as much as this depended
upon Christ's will, and is therefore unchanging. "The gifts




THE COMMUNION OF THE UNWORTHY.   645
of God are without repentance," that is, there is no vacillation, repentance, or fluctuation of mind in God. But when to
these absolute words is added: " Do this in remembrance of
me," there comes in something dependent upon man's will, and
which may, therefore, fluctuate.  As it is true, even of the
man that perishes, that Christ's body was broken and His
blood shed for him,' for our Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace
of God, tasted death for every man;" as it is true that every
man in the Resurrection shall be called forth from  the grave,
for " as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,"
though some shall rise to glory, and others to shame; so is it
true that every man, however unworthy, sacramentally partakes of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, though it
be to his own condemnation.  As the unbelieving, under the
Old Dispensation, were, equally with the believing, outwardly
sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, though they received
not, for lack of faith, its blessings; as those who are unbelieving and baptized receive the baptism itself in its sacramental
entireness, though they do not appropriate its blessings, so do the
communicants in the Holy Supper confirm the testimony, that,
although unbelief shuts us out from the blessings of the promises and ordinances, we cannot thereby make them  of none
effect.  Our faith does not make, and our unbelief cannot
unmake them. The same objective reality is in every case
presented, and in every case it is one and the same thing, whose
benefits faith appropriates, and unbelief rejects.
That Judas was at the Supper of the Lord seems highly
probable. Matthew and Mark, after telling us that our Lord
"sat down with the twelve," describe the Institution of the Supper without giving a hint of the departure of Judas. Luke,
who proposed to write "1in order," and who is generally regarded as most precise in his chronology, in direct connection
with the words of the Supper, immediately after them, tells us
our Lord said: " But, behold! the hand of him that betrayeth
Me is with Me on the table."  (Latke xxii. 21.) The force of
the word "immediately," in John xiii. 30, is not such as to
exclude the possibility of what Luke seenms so distinctly to
assert, and what the two other synoptical evangelists more




646         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATION.
than imply, to wit, that Judas was present at the Lord's Supper, and such is the judgment of the oldest and best commentators, and, among them, of Calvin himself, and of others, who,
in common with him, had a doctrinal interest in denying the
presence of Judas. Moreover, as John does not give an account
of the Institution of the Supper, we may naturally settle the
chronological and other questions connected with it from the
synoptists. But if our Lord could say to Judas also, " Take,
eat, this is My body," then the sacramental character of the
Supper cannot depend upon the worthiness or faith of the
receiver.
In all divine provisions for the salvation of man, we must
discriminate between the essence, which is of God, and is, like
Him, unchanging, and the use of theni, which is by man, and
is conditioned on his faith. The divine reality is neither
affected by the character of the giver, nor of the receiver, as
a gold coin does not cease to be gold, though the giver hands
it away carelessly as a piece of brass, and the receiver takes it
as. brass and casts it into the mire. Faith is not a Philosopher's Stone; it cannot convert lead into gold; it can only
grasp what is. Nor can unbelief by a reverse process convert
gold into lead; it can only reject what is. "Unto us was the
gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word preached
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them  that
heard it."  The gospel, the word, the sacrament, remain one
and the same, but the profit connected with them depends upon
the faith of those that receive them.
God is not far from any one of us, yet none but the believing
realize the benefits of His presence. The multitude thronged
and pressed upon Jesus; His presence was equally real in its
essence to all, but the saving efficacy of it went forth in virtue
only to the woman who touched His clothes in faith.  (Mark
v. 30.) So Christ is present in the sacramental drapery alike
to all communicants, but the touch of faith is needed to participate in the virtue of His healing. The touch of those who
crucified our Lord was no less real than that of the woman
whose touch brought healing; but their touch, like the unworthy eating and drinking, made them " guilty of the body




THE COMMIUNION OF THE UNWORTHY.   647
and blood of the Lord."  And as no indignity which they
could offer to the raiment of our Lord could make them guilty
of His body and blood, so may we reason that no indignity
offered to bread and wine, even if they were the sacramental
medium of the body and blood of Christ, and still less if they
were but bread and wine, could make those who offered it
guilty of the body and blood of Christ. The truth is, that the
terms in which the guilt of the unworthy communicants is
characterized, and the fearful penalties with which it was visited, to wit, temporal judgments, even unto death, and eternal
condemnation with the world, if the sin was not repented of,
make it inconceivable that the objective element in the Lord's
Supper is bread and wine merely; but if the body and blood
be there objectively, then must they be received sacramentally
by all communicants. If it be said Christ cannot be substantially present to unworthy communicants according to IHis
human nature, otherwise they must derive benefit from it, it
might be correctly replied, neither can He be substantially
present with them  according to His divine nature. otherwise
they must derive benefit from that; but the latter is conceded
by the objector, therefore he must concede that his argument
is of no weight against the possibility of the former. Christ
is a Saviour, but He is also a judge.
But if it be granted that the presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the Supper is one which is fixed, absolute, and
unchanging, then must it be substantial, and not imaginary;
not a thing of our minds, but of His wonderful person; not
ideal, but true; faith does not make it, but finds it, unto life;
unbelief does not unmake it, but, to its own condemnation, fails
to discern it. The sacramental presence is fathomless, like the
Incarnation; like it, also, it is in the sphere of supernatural
reality, to which the natural is as the shadow. The presence
of the communicant at the Supper belongs to a lower sphere
of actuality than the presence of the undivided Christ in it;
and the outward taking and eating is the divinely appointed
means whereby the ineffable mystery of the commnunion of
Christ's body and blood is consummated, a communion heavenly and spiritual in its manner over against all that is earthly




648         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
and fleshly; but in its essence more true than all earthly truth,
more real than all earthly reality, more substantial than all
earthly substance.  The body and blood of Christ are more
truly present in the Supper than are"the bread and wine,
because. their sphere of presence is divine; the bread and wine
are but the gifts of the hand of God, the body and blood of
Christ are inseparable constituents of God's incarnate person.
The Non-Lutheran interpreters have made concessions of
great importance in their interpretation of these texts. GUALTHER, one of the greatest of the Zurich divines (d. 1586), says:
"Shall be held guilty of the same crime with Judas who
betrayed Christ, with the Jews and soldiers who scourged
Him, spit upon Him, wounded, crucified Him, and shed His
blood."
PAREUS: Heidelberg (d. 1622): "Judas betrayed, the Jews
condemned, the soldiers pierced Christ's body and shed His
blood upon the Cross. They who abuse the sacrament are
absolutely partakers in their crime (sceleri prorsus comrmunicant)."
SEBASTIAN MEYER, of Berne:' They commit murder (emedem
com-mittere) and shed the Redeemer's blood," " incur the dreadful crime of parricide."
One more proposition remains to be touched, but it is negative in its character, and in this dissertation we have proposed
to confine ourselves to the positive and thetical.  Here, therefore, we reach the end of our eihibition of the positive propositions in which our great Confession sets forth the faith of
our Church.'We have the five simple propositions which are
yielded by the analysis of the Tenth Article. We have viewed
them  purely as Scriptural questions.  We have treated them
very much as independent propositions, establishing each on
special evidence of its own. But, while the argument for the
faith of our Church is so strong on each head as well as on the
whole as to bear even this severe process, it should not be forgotten that none of these are, in fact, isolated. They cling
together with all the internal coherence of divine truth.  The
truth of any one of them implies the truth of all of them.  If
we have failed in establishing four separately, yet have sue



THE COMMUNIO.N OF THE -UNWORTHY.   649
ceeded in establishing one, then have we in establishing that
established the five.
The sense of the words of the Institution which our Church
confesses, which is derived from the words themselves, is sustained by every Scripture allusion to them.  Not only is there
not the faintest hint anywhere that they are figurative, but
every fresh allusion to them  gives new evidence that they are
to be taken as they sound. If the fferinjg of the ancient sacrifices pointed to a true offering of Christ, the eating of the sacrifices necessarily points to a true, though supernatural, commu-:nion of the body and blood which He offered. If the slaying of
the Paschal Lamb pointed to the slaying of Christ's body, the
sacramental reception of the body of the Lamb of God must be
a part of the New Testament Passover; the Lord's Supper cannot substitute an unreality for a reality, but must substitute
a higher reality for a lower one. If Moses meant what he said
when he declared, as he sprinkled the book and the people:
" This is the blood of the Testament which God bath enjoined
unto you " (Heb. ix. 20), then must our Lord be accepted at
His word, when, with the covenanting terms of the Old Testament, the Testament of Moses, so clearly in his eye, and meaning to mark the New Testament antithesis, He says: " This is
My blood, of the New Testament."  Every Scripture declaration in regard to the Supper of the Lord points, with an
unvarying tendency, to the great result which is treasured in
the faith of our Church.  When we ask, What- is it which
Christ tells us to Take, eat? He replies, This is My body, not
This is a sign of My body. When we ask, What does the
bread communicate? St. Paul replies, The bread which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? not the
communion of the sign of His body. When we ask, What is
he guilty.of who eats and drinks unworthily? the answer is,
He is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not of the sign
of the body or sign of the blood. When we ask, How did the
unworthy communicant come to incur this guilt? what did he
fail to discern? the reply is, Not discerning the Lord's body,
not that he failed to discern the sign or symbol of Christ's
body.  We cannot tear from its place the sacramental doctrine




650         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
of our Church without tearing up the whole Evangelical system. The principles of interpretation which relieve us of the
Eucharistic mystery take from us the mystery of the Trinity,
the Incarnation, and the Atonement.  We cannot remove
Christ from the Supper and consistently leave HIim  anywhere
else, and we can take no part of Christ from the Supper without taking away the whole. The very foundations of our faith
give way under the processes which empty the Lord's Supper
of its divine glory. The Sacramental Presence is the necessary
sequel, the crowning glory of the Incarnation and Atonement;
and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the word which
enables the eye of Faith to see God in the body, and redemption in the blood, enables it to see the body in the bread, and
the blood in the cup, not after the manner of the first man,
who is of the earth, earthy, but after the manner of the second
Man, who is the Lord from heaven.
The Lutheran Church believes, on the sure warrant of God's
vI. Summary word, that the body of our Lord Jesus remains a
View of the Lu- true human body, and as to its natural and detertheran Doctrine
of the 8acranen- minate presence has been removed from earth, and
tl Presence of is in the glory of the world of angels and the reChrist, on  three
Points. 1. Modes deemed. She also believes that in and through the
of Presence.   divine nature with which it forms one person, it is
present on earth in another sense, no less true than the former.
She believes that the sacramental elements are divinely appointed through the power of the Saviour's own benediction,
as the medium through which we participate, after a spiritual,
supernatural, heavenly, substantial, objective, and true manner, "in the communion of His body and of His blood."  (1
Cor. x. 16.) Our Church never has denied that the ascension
of Christ was real, literal, and local; never has denied that His
body has a determinate presence in heaven; never has maintained that it has a local presence on earth. Neither does she
impute to Him two bodies - one present and one absent, one
natural and the other glorified -but she maintains that one
body, forever a natural and true body as to its essence, but
no longer in its natural or earthly condition, but glorified, is
absent, indeed, in one mode, but present in another.  As she




MODES OF PRESENCE.                        651
believes that God is really one in one respect, and no less
really three in another respect, so does she believe that the
body of our Lord Jesus Christ is really absent in one respect,
and just as really present in another.  Christ has left us, and
He never leaves us —He has gone from us, and lie is ever
present with us; He has ascended far above all heavens, but
it is that Hle may fill all things.  As His divine nature, which
in its totality is in heaven, and in its fulness is in Christ bodily,
is on earth while it is in heaven, as that divine nature is present with us, without extension or locality, is on earth without
leaving heaven, is present in a manner true, substantial and
yet incomprehensible, so does it render the body of Christ,
which is one person with it, also present.  That body in its
determinate limitations is in heaven, and in and of itself would
be there alone, but through the divine, in consequence of the personal conjunction, and in virtue of that conjunction, using in
the whole person the attributes of the whole person in both
its parts, it is rendered present.  It is present without extension, for the divine through which it is present is unextended
-it is present without locality, for the divine through which
it is present is illocal. It is on earth, for the divine is on
earth -it is in heaven, for the divine remains in heaven, and
like the divine it is present truly and substantially, yet incomprehensibly.
In other words, as our Church believes that the one essence
of God has two modes of presence, one general and ordinary,
by which it is present to all creatures, and the other special
and extraordinary, by which it is present, so as to constitute
one person, after which mode it is present to none other than
to the humanity of Jesus Christ, and that both modes of presence, although unlike in their results, are equally substantial:
so does she believe that this one humanity taken into personal
and inseparable union with this one essence, has two modes of
presence: one determinate, in which it is related to space,
through its own inherent properties; the other infinite, in
which it is related to space in the communion of the divine
attributes, and that both modes of presence, though unlike,
are equally substantial.




652         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Is it said that to deny that Christ's sacramental presence is
local is to deny it altogether; that to affirm that His determinate presence is in the realm of angels and of the glorified, is
to affirm that He has no presence at all;on earth?.Be it said;
but then, at least, let the odious libel that our Church teaches
consubstantiation, or a physical presence, or a corporeal or
carnal mode of presence, be forever dropped.  Our Church
never has denied that, in the sense and in the manner in which
our Lord was once on earth, Ie is no longer here, but she
maintains that the illocal is as real as the local, the supernatural is as true as the natural.  "A local absence," as Andres
said, in his argument with Beza at Montbeillard, " does not
prevent a sacramental presence;" the presence of Christ's
humanity on earth, through the Deity, with which it is one
person, is as real as is its presence through the properties of
its own essence in heaven. The soundest theologians do not
hesitate to declare in propositions which seem contradictory,
but are not, " God is everywhere," and "God is nowhere,"
everywhere in His fathomless omnipresence - nowhere locally
or determinately; and as is the presence of the divine, such
is the presence it imparts to the humanity which is personally
united with it.  The man Christ Jesus is with us after one
manner, and He is not with us after another manner; He is
with us through the plenary exercise of His divine majesty,
not with us in the local or determinate restrictions of space.
"There is no contradiction in attributing contrary things to
the same subject, provided they be affirmed in different respects
and modes."*
The current view of un-Lutheran Protestantism practically
2. ALivingS- is, that all we need for our redemption is a dead
vior.     Christ.  We are to look back to Calvary to find
peace in thinking of what was there done, and at the Lord's
Supper we are to look back to the sacrifice once made for our
sins.  The current view  excludes the necessity of a living
Saviour in our redemption.  According to it, we redeem  ourselves, or the Spirit of God redeems us, by what Christ once
did, and without any personal work on Iis part now.  To the
*Chemnitz, De duab. Natuiis, 179.




A LIVING SAVIOUR.                     653
theology of a large part of the Church it would be no disturbing element if the divine nature of Christ had been separated
from the human after the resurrection.  Instead of a robust
and mighty faith which hangs upon a living Saviour, and lives
by His life, we have a religion of sentiment verging away into
sentimentality; a religion which lives by its own thoughts
about a Saviour of bygone times.  We have had in our hands
a book on the Lord's Supper, by an American preacher, the
frontispiece of which represents a lonely tombstone, and on it
the words: " To the memory of my Saviour."  Nothing could
more sadly, yet vigorously, epitomize the tendency of which
we speak-the graveyard tendency, which turns the great
festival of the redemption into a time of mourning, and coldly
furnishes forth the marriage tables with the baked meats of
the funeral. The glory of the Lutheran system in all its parts,
and especially in its doctrine of the Lord's Supper, is, that it
accepts, in all its fulness, the Apostle's argument, "If, when
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of
His Son, MUCH MORE, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His
LIFE."  Never, indeed, has the human heart been so taught as
by our system in its purity to turn to the death of Christ for
hope; but our Church has been led by the Holy Spirit too
deeply into all the fulness of truth to make an antagonism
between the death of her Saviour and His life.
If Christ must die to make our redemption, He must live to
apply it.  If the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the redemption made by His death, it is also a sacrament of the same
redemption applied by His life. If it tells us that His body
and blood were necessary to make our redemption, it tells us
also that they are still necessary to apply the redemption they
then made. He made the sacrifice once for all -- He applies it
constantly. We live by Him, we must hang on Him -the
vine does not send up one gush of its noble sap and then
remain inert. It receives the totality of life, once for all, but
the sap which sustains it must flow on - its one, unchanging
and abiding life puts itself forth into the new offshoots, and
by constant application of itself maintains the old branches.
If the sap-life ceases, the seed-life cannot save. Cut the branch




654         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAATION.
off, and the memory of the life will not keep it from withering; it must have the life itself - and this it must derive successively from the vine.  It could not exist without the original life of the vine, nor can it exist without the present life of
the vine, be its past what it may.  Faith cannot feed on itself,
as many seem to imagine it can-it must have its object.  The
ordinances, the Word, and the sacraments give to it that by
which it lives.  Faith in the nutritious power of bread does
-not nourish - the bread itself is necessary.
The man who feels a moral repugnance to the Scripture doctrine of the Eucharist, will find, if he analyzes his
3. The Propitia- 
tion and the Sac- feelings thoroughly, that they take their root in a
ramental Pres- repugnance to the doctrine of the atonement by
ence.          Z
Christ's body arid blood. The man who asks what
use is there in a sacramental application of them in the Lord's
Supper, really asks, what use was there in a redemptory offering of them on Calvary.  He may be using the terms of Scripture, but if He takes his inmost thoughts before his God, he
will probably find that he has been denying the true vicarious
character of the sacrifice of our Lord  that he has fallen into
that conception of the sacrifice on Calvary which is essentially
Socinian, for everything which brings down the oblation of the
Son of God into the sphere of the natural is essentially Socinian.
He will find that in his view his Lord is only a glorious martyr, or that the power of Hiis sacrifice is only a moral power;
that the cross is but a mighty sermon, and that those awful
words, which, in their natural import unbare, as it is nowhere
else unbared, the heart of Deity in the struggle of its unspeakable love and fathomless purpose; that all these are oriental
poesy-figures of speech —graces of language.  The theory
of the atonement, which pretends to explain it, is rotten at the
core. The atonement, in its whole conception, belongs to a
world which man cannot now enter.  The blessings and adaptations of it we can comprehend in some measure.  We can
approach them with tender hearts full of gratitude; but the
essence of the atonement we can understand as little as we
understand the essence of God.
If Christ, through His body broken, made remission of sins,




PROPITIATION AND SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE. 655
why do we ask to what end is the doctrine that the same
body through which He made the remission is that through
which He applies it? His body as szuc could make no remission of sins, but, through the Eternal Spirit, with which it
was conjoined in personal unity, it made redemption- Iis
body, as such, may have no power to apply the redemption or
to be with the redeemed, but, through the same relation by
which it entered into the sphere of the supernatural to make
redemption, it reveals itself now in that same sphere to apply
it. All theology, without exception, has had views of the
atonement which were lower or higher, as its views of'the
Lord's Supper were low or high. Men have talked and written as if the doctrine of our Church, on this point, were a
stupid blunder, forced upon it by the self-will and obstinacy
of one man. The truth is, that this doctrine, clearly revealed
in the NeW Testament, clearly confessed by the early Church,
lies at the very heart of the Evangelical system - Christ is the
centre of the system, and in the Supper is the centre of Christ's
revelation of Himself. The glory and mystery of the incarnation combine there as they combine nowhere else. Communion
with Christ is that by which we live, and the Supper is " the
Communion."  Had\ Luther abandoned this vital doctrine, the
Evangelical Protestant Church would have abandoned him.
He did not make this doctrine- next in its immeasurable importance to that of justification by faith, with which it indissolubly coheres —the doctrine made him. The doctrine of
the Lord's Supper is the most vital and practical in the whole
range of the profoundest Christian life - the doctrine which,
beyond all others, conditions and vitalizes that life, for in it
the character of faith is determined, invigorated, and purified
as it is nowhere else. It is not only a fundamental doctrine,
but is among the most fundamental of fundamentals.
We know what we have written.  We know, that to take
our Saviour at His word here, to receive the teachings of the
New Testament in their obvious intent, is to incur with the
current religionism a reproach little less bitter than if we had
taken up arms against the holiest truths of our faith. We
are willing to endure it. Our fathers were willing to shed




656        CONSERVATI VE REFORMATION.
their blood for the truth, and shall we refuse to incur a little
obloquy? The fact that we bear the name of a Church which
stood firm when rationalizing tendencies directed themselves
with all their fury against this doctrine of the Word of God,
increases our responsibility.  When, at a, later and sadder
period, she yielded to subtlety what she had maintained successfully against force, and let her doctrine fall, she fell with
it. When God lifted her from the dust, I-e lifted her banner
with it, and on that banner, as before, the star of a pure Eucharistic faith shone out amid the lurid clouds of her new
waifare, and there it shall shine forever. Our Saviour has
spoken; His Church has spoken. His testimony is explicit, as
is hers. The Lutheran Church has suffered more for her
adherence to this doctrine than from all other causes, but the
doctrine itself repays her for all her suffering. To her it is a
very small thing that she should be judged of man's judgment; but there is one judgment she will not, she dare not
hazard, the judgment of her God, which they eat and drink to
themselves who will not discern the Lord's body in the Supper of the Lord.
We do not wish to be misunderstood in what we have said
as to the moral repugnance to our doctrine of the Supper. We
distinguish between a mere intellectual difficulty and an aversion of the affections. How New Testament-like, how Lutheran
have sounded the sacramental hymns and devotional breathings of men whose theory of the Lord's Supper embodied little
of its divine glory. The glow of their hearts melted the frostwork of their heads. When they treat of sacramental communion, and of the mystical union, they give evidence, that,
with their deep faith in the atonement, there is connected, in
spite of the rationalizing tendency which inheres in their system, a hearty acknowledgment of the supernatural and inconprehensible character of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand,
the evidence is overwhelming, that, as low views of the Lord's
Supper prevail, in that proportion the doctrine of the atonement exhibits a rationalizing tendency. We repeat the proposition, confirmed by the whole history of the Church, that a
moral repugnance to the doctrine that the body and blood of




THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 657
Christ are the medium  through which  redemption is applied,
has its root in  a moral repugnance to  the doctrine that Iis
precious body and blood are the medium through which redemption was wrought.
It is now admitted by dispassionate scholars, who are not
Lutheran in their convictions,first, that the Zwing-. The Logic
VII. The Logic
lian doctrine was unknown  in the most Ancient of the Exegesis
Church.  Second: that the doctrine of our Church  sustained by its
History. The
in regard to  the Lord's Supper, was certainly the  Testimony of the
Ancient Clhurch.*
doctrine  of the fathers in the  Church  Catholic,
* ALBERTINUS: De Eucharistie Sacram. Libri tres. Sec. ex Patribus. Dav. 1654.
Folio.  Still the greatest of the defences of the Calvinistic view.- BELLARMINUS:
De Controv. Chr. Fidei. Paris. 1620. Folio. De Euchar. Lib. II. Chap. I. xxxix.,
Testimon. Patrum.  The greatest single piece of Polemic in defence of the
Church of Rome. - CLAUDE: The Catholick Doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages'
(in answer to Arnaud) touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian,
Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other Eastern Churches. From  the
French. London, 1683, Folio. (Calvinistic.) -COSIN: The History of Popish
Transubstantiation, to which is premised and opposed the Catholick Doctrine of. the Ancient Fathers. London, 1676, 8vo. (Vigorously Anti-Romish in its
negations, and decidedly Lutheranizing in its affirmation.) - ECHARIST: A full
view of the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Church relating to London.
1668, 4to. (Calvinistic.) - FABER, G. S.: Christ's Discourse at Capernaum  fatal
to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  London, 1840. 8vo. (Copious Patristic
Citation.) -GooDE, WM.: Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: 2 vols.
8vo. London. 1856. Chap. V. The Testimony of the Fathers. (A tissue of partisan falsification.  Anglican Low Church.)- HOSPINIAN: Histor. Sacramentarite
Pars Prior. Exp. Coen. Domin. in primitiv. et Veter. Eccles. Genev. 1681. Folio.
-MARHEINECKE: Sanct. Patrum de Praes. Chr. in Coen. Dom. Senten. Triplex.
Heid. 1811. 4to. - MELANCHTHON: Sententire veterum  aliquot Scriptorum  de
Coena Domini. (1530.) Corpus Reformat. xxiii. 727-753. -(ECOLA-iPAUIUS: De
Genuina verb. Dom. juxta vetustissimos auctores expositione Bas. 1525. 8vo.
Quid de Eucharistia veter. tam  Graeci, tum Latini senserunt.  Dialogus. (1530)
in (Ecolampad., et Zwingli Epistola. Lib. III.-PusEY, E. B.: The Doctrine of the
Real Presence, as contained in the Fathers from the death of St. John the Evangelist to the Fourth General Council, vindicated. Oxford and London. 1855. 8vo.
- WArTRLAND: Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture and antiquity. Oxford, 1868. 8vo. (Abundant patristic citation.) —The
recent German works which present more or less copiously the patristic history
of the doctrine are: 1. Doctrines and History: Ebrard, 1845; Kahnis, 1851;
Ruckert, 1856; 2. History: Dollinger, 1826; Engelhardt (Ztschr. fUr histor.
theol. 1842. Steiz, Jahrb. f. dtsche Theol. 1864-65. Meier, 1842. Baur, Tertullian, Doctr).  Tub. Ztschr. -1839.2. See Kahnis Dogm. ii. 182.  Luthardt
Dogm. i 74.
42




658         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
from the Fourth to the Ninth Century-the second theological
age, the golden, or, as it is called, the classic age of Christian
antiquity, to wit: that "the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist " is " real, according to substance, in, with, and under
the species," (Marheinecke). The first age, from the Apostolic
writings to the end of the third, is, we believe, no less decided
in its unity on the same doctrine.  To this conviction the
studies of the greatest of the English patristic scholars of our
age has led him. His testimony, given as the final result of
years of close investigation, has probably as great weight as
human testimony is capable of having on a point of this kind.
Of his vast patristic scholarship there is no dispute. Of his
great personal purity there is no question. Reared in a Church
which confesses the Calvinistic view of the Supper, his education was adverse to the perception of the force of testimony
sustaining the Lutheran view. If he be charged with Romanizing views, in some parts of his theological thinking, it may
heighten the value of his testimony here, where he maintains
the Catholicity of the Lutheran view, over against the Romrish
corruption in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the force
of the whole is heightened by his unconcealed aversion, in
many respects, to the Lutheran Church.  We mean, as the
reader has already anticipated, Dr. Pusey. In his vindication
of the doctrine of the real Presence, as contained in the fathers
from the death of St. John the Evangelist to the Fourth General Council, he demonstrates that " the belief that the elements
remain after consecration in their natural substance was not supposed of old to involve any tenet of consubstantiation:" that,' Consubstantiation was not held by the Lutheran body: "
which he demonstrates from the symbols of the Lutheran
Church, and from Luther himself.  By a most patient exami-'nation of evidence, which he cites in full, he shows, upon the
one hand, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is no doctrine of the earliest Church, and that the doctrine of a true,
objective presence of the body and blood of Christ, and under
the bread and wine, is its doctrine.  No better summary of his
labors, and of the conviction they strengthen in his mind, can
be given than that with which he closes his book:




SUMMlA R  Y OF PATRISTIC TE STIMONY.    659
"I have now gone through every writer who in his extant
works speaks of the Holy Eucharist, from the time when St.
John the Evangelist was translated to his Lord, to the dates
of the Fourth General Council, A. I). 451,,a period of three
centuries and a half. I have suppressed nothing; I have not
knowingly omitted anything; I have given every passage, as
far as in me lay, with so much of the context as was necessary
for the clear exhibition of its meaning.  Of course, in writers
of whom we have such large remains as St. Augustine and St.
Chrysostom, or in some with whom I am less faSummary of
miliar, I may have overlooked particular passages. Patristic TestiYet the extracts are already so large, so clear, and "mony y Dr. Pusey.
so certain, that any additional evidence could only
have coincided with what has been already produced.  Albertinus did his utmost on the Calvinistic side. His strength lies
in his arguments against a physical doctrine of Transubstantiation; his weakness, in the paradox which he strangely
maintains, that the Fathers did not believe a real Objective
Presence.  In so doing, he treats the Fathers as others of his
school have treated Holy Scripture on the other Sacrament.
When his school would disparage the doctrine of Baptism,
they select passages from Holy Scripture, in which it is not
speaking of that Sacrament. In like way Albertinus gains the
appearance of citing the Fathers on the orthodox side (as he
calls it), i. e., the disbelief of the Real Presence, by quoting
them when they are not speaking of the Holy Eucharist, but,
e. g., of the Presence of our Lord's Human Nature in Heaven,
or the absence of His Visible Presence upon earth; of the natural properties of bodies; or of spiritual, as distinct from sacramental Communion, or of the Eucharistic and outward Symbols,
under which the Sacramental Presence is conveyed. Supported,
as he thinks, by these, he proceeds to explain away, as he best
may, the clear and distinct passages which had hitherto been
alleged from the Fathers, in proof of the Doctrine of the Real
Presence. Yet the very diligence of Albertinus on the one
side, or of Roman Catholic controversialists on the other,
obviously gives the more security that nothing can have been
overlooked which could seem to support either side.




660         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
" In the present collection, I have adduced the Fathers, not as
original authorities, but as witnesses to the meaning of Holy
Scripture. I have alleged them on the, old, although now, on
both sides, neglected rule, that what was taught' everywhere,
at all times, by all,' must have been taught to the whole Church
by the inspired Apostles themselves.  The Apostles planted;
they watered; they appointed others to take their ministry, to
teach as they had themselves taught from God.  A universal
suppression of the truths which the Apostles taught aid the
unmarked substitution of falsehood, is a theory which contradicts human reason, no less than it does our Lord's promise to
His Church. There is no room here for any alleged corruption.
The earliest Fathers, St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ireneus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian; or St. Hippolytus,
state the doctrine of the Real Presence as distinctly as any
later Father.
"And now, reader, if you have got thus far, review for a
moment from what variety of minds, as of countries, this evidence is collected. Minds the most simple and the most philosophical; the female martyrs of Persia, or what are known as
the philosophic Fathers; minds wholly practical, as Tertullian
or St. Cyprian, St. Firrilian, St. Pacian, or St. Julius; or those
boldly imaginative, as Origen; or poetic minds, as St. Ephrem,
or St. Isaac, or St. Paulinus; Fathers who most use a figurative
and typical interpretation of the Old Testament, as St. Ambrose, or such as, like St. Chrysostom, from  their practical
character, and the exigencies of the churches in which they
preached, confined themselves the most scrupulously to the letter; mystical writers, as St. Macarius; or ascetics, as Mark, the
Hermit, or Apollos, or the Abbot Esaias; writers in other
respects opposed to each other; the friends of Origen, as St.
Didymus, or his opponents, as Theophilus of Alexandria and
St. Epiphanius; or again, St. Cyril of Alexandria or Theodoret; heretics or defenders of the faith, as Eusebius and
Theodorus, Hereacleotes, Arius, or St. Athanasius; Apollinarius or St. Chrysostom, who wrote against him, Nestorius or
St. Cyril of Alexandria - all agree in one consentient exposition of our Lord's words,' This is My body, this is My blood.'




SUMMARY OF PATRISTIC TESTIMONY.    661
Whence this harmony, but that one spirit attuned all the various minds in the one body into one; so that the very heretics
were slow herein to depart from it?
" There is a difference ofttimes in the setting, so to speak, of
the one jewel, truth.  We may meet with that truth where we
should not have expected it; some may even be deterred, here
and there, by the mystical interpretations of Holy Scripture,
amid which they fin.d it.  That mystical interpretation is no
matter of faith. But a mode of interpretation which presupposes any object of belief to be alluded to, when scarce anything is mentioned which may recall it to the mind, shows at
least how deeply that belief is stamped upon the soul. It is a
common saying, how'Bishop Home found our Lord Jesus
Christ everywhere in the Psalms, Grotius nowhere.' Certainly our Lord must have been much in Bishop HIorne's heart,
that everything in the Psalms spoke to his soul of Him.  So
much the more, then, must our Lord's gift of His body and
blood have been in the hearts of the early Fathers, that words
which would not suggest the thought of them to others spoke
it to them.
" But however different the occasions may be upon which the
truth is spoken of, in whatever variety of ways it may be mentioned, the truth itself is one and the same-one uniform,
simple, consentient truth; that what is consecrated upon the
altars for us to receive, what, under the outward elements is
there present for us to receive, is the body and blood of Christ;
by receiving which the faithful in the Lord's Supper do verily
and indeed take and receive the body and blood of Christ; by
presuming to approach which, the wicked (i. e. those who with
impenitent hearts wilfully purpose to persevere in deadly sin,
and yet venture to'take the sacrament') become guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord; i. e. become guilty of a guilt
like theirs who laid hands on His divine person while yet in
the flesh among us, or who shed Iis all-holy blood.
" Now, we have been accustomed to value Ante-Nicene Testimonies to the divinity of our Lord; ve. are struck when St.
Cyprian (while deciding as to the baptism of infants on the
eighth day) lays down the doctrine of the transmission of




662         C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
original sil as clearly as St. Augustine amid the Pelagian controversy.
"Yet the principle of these questions is one and the same.
The argument is valid for all or for none. Either it is of no
use to show that Christians, before the Council of Nice, did
uniformly believe in the divinity of our Lord, as the Church
has since, or it is a confirmation of the faith, that they did
receive unhesitatingly in their literal sense our blessed Lord's
words:' This is My body.'
" This argument, from the consent of those who had handed
down the truth before them, was employed as soon as there
were authorities which could be alleged. So rooted was the
persuasion that certain truth must have been known to those
who received the faith from the first, that even heretics resorted
to the argument, and garbled and misrepresented the Fathers
before them, in order to bring them  to some seeming agreement with themselves. The argument was used by minds in
other respects of a different mould.  Theodoret and St. Leo
appended to works on controversial points of faith citations
from the Fathers before them. St. Augustine vindicated a.gainst
Pelagius, and St. Athanasius against Arius, authorities which
they had misrepresented.  Even the Fathers, assembled from
the whole world in general councils, have, in proof of their
decisions, wherein all were agreed, alleged the authorities of
yet older Fathers, who were known in previous ages to have
handed down the Apostolic truth.
" Yes, along the whole course of time, throughout the whole
circuit of the Christian world, from east to west, from north to
south, there floated up to Christ our Lord one harmony of
praise.  Unbroken as yet lived on the miracle of the day of
Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit from on high swept over the
discordant strings of human tongues and thoughts, of hearts
and creeds, and blended all their varying notes into one holy
unison of truth.  From  Syria and Palestine and Armenia,
from Asia Minor and Greece, from Thrace and Italy, from
Gaul and Spain, from  Africa Proper and Egypt and Arabia,
and the Isles of the Sea, wherever any Apostle had taught,
wherever any martyr had sealed with his blood the testimony




SUMMARY OF PA[TRISTIC TESTIMONY.    663
of Jesus, from the polished cities or the anchorites of the desert,
one Eucharistic voice ascended:' Righteous art Thou, O Lord,
and all Thy words are truth.' Thou hast said,' This is My
body, this is My blood.' Hast Thou said, and shalt not Thou
do it? As Thou hast said, so we believe.
"Truly, O Lord,' Thy holy Church throughout all the world
doth acknowledge Thee.'"
But not alone from  the hand of one who, though in a nonLutheran Church, has become Lutheran on this point, have
we testimony as to the identity of our faith with the faith of
the early Church of the Fathers.  We have the same testimony
from others within the Reformed Church, whose concessions are
the more striking because those who make them still refuse to
accept the Lutheran faith.  On this point, one citation may suffice.  It is from Peter Bayle,* the unrivalled general scholar of
his age. He says: "There are Protestants who,
Peter Bayle.
without holding the opinions of the Lutherans, are,
nevertheless, convinced that, in forming hypotheses (to harmonize the statements of the Fathers on the Eucharist), the view of
the Augsburg Confession is preferable to all others in furnishing
a reason for the phrases of antiquity.  For, as the expressions
in regard to Jesus Christ which seem most directly in conflict
with each other are best harmonized-so that not even a
shadow of contradiction remains, by the supposition that he is
both God and man in unity of person -in the same way all the
terms, difficult, inflated, hyperbolic, simple, and direct, which
the Fathers used in speaking of the Holy Sacrament, can be
easily harmonized on the supposition that, in the Supper, is
present at once both the humanity of Christ and the substance
of the bread."
Nouv. de la Rep. des Lettres, 1687, Febr. Art. II., 129-131.




XIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER CONSIDERED
IN ITS ANTITHESIS.
(AUGSBURG CONFESSION. ART. X.)
W E have, in our previous dissertation, discussed the thetical
part of the Tenth Article, and now reach the closing words,
ThAtithiin which, very briefly stated, we have the antithesis.
The Antithesis.
It is in these words: first, in the Latin, " et ilmprobant secus docentes," " and they disapprove of those who teach
otherwise;" second, in the German, "derhalben wird auch die
gegenlehr verworfen," "therefore also the opposite doctrine is
rejected."  In the Latin, the errorists are spoken of; in the
German, the error.  The Latin was designed more especially'
for the learned classes, the German was meant for the people,
and is therefore more cautious even than the Latin against
phraseology, which might be misconstrued as a warrant for
personal animosity. Our confessors carefully avoided all appeals to the passions of men.  Everything harsh and revolutionary was contrary to the spirit of Conservative Reformation, which is wholly distinct from that of radicalism and
revolution. This conservative spirit prompts the softness of
the language toward persons: "'iimprobant," they "'are disapproved of;" while it bears, in all its force, the decisiveness
toward error; it "is rejected."  The errorists, moreover, are
regarded as errorists, not as individuals.  ~We may love, esteem, cherish, see their virtues, stand in any relation of amity,
which does not imply approval of error, or connivance at it;
but in so far as errorists are " secus docentes," teaching other664




WHO ARE MEANT IN THE ANTITHESIS?    665
wise-than the truth, we disapprove of them," improbamus."
So far as their doctrine is "gegenlehr," - counter to the
truth, - it is rejected (verworfen). It has been asked why the
"damnant," or harsher condemnatory word, is used  "imnpobnt"
in the antitheses to the other Articles, and the seem- -why used?
ingly milder " improbant " is used here?  The answer to this
is that the heresies condemned are more directly in conflict
with the general faith confessed by the whole Catholic or Universal Church in the (Ecumenical Creeds, and that the persons
specially had in view in this " improbant," professed to hold
with our confessors on every other point than that of the Supper, and some of them, as the Tetrapolitans, declared that even
on this point the differences were more verbal than real. Therefore our confessors, in the exercise of that charity which
"hopeth all things," and to avoid closing the door upon all
prospect of bringing those who professed to be so near them to
perfect accord, used the mildest term consistent with truth 
a term whlich, however, was none the less strong in the thing,
because of its gentleness in the form.
The question now arises, who are they that are here alluded
to, and why are they disapproved of, and their doc-            t
to^              "     ^ ^'-                Who a.re meant
trine rejected?  We might make various classifica- il the Antithtions of them. One of the most natural is derived?
from the various parts of the Divine testimony against which
their error is arrayed.  And here it must be remembered that
the antithesis is, in its logical sequence, prospective as well as
retrospective. It involves in its rejection all future errors
against the truth confessed, as well as errors then past or then
present.  If a new form of error were to arise to-day in conflict with the testimony of the Confession, it is disapproved of
by that anticipation with which truth, in its simple unity,
reaches the Protean forms of errors.  New heresies are, for the
most part, but the shifting of masks.  The errors classified
after the plan which we suggest may be arranged under three
generic heads: The errors, first, of those who are arrayed
against the Scripture testimony as to the outward element, to
wit, the Romish and Greek Churches, which, by their doctrine
of transubstantiation, deny the presence of true bread and true




666         CONSERVATIVE REFOR MATI O 
wine in the Lord's Supper.  Second, of those who deny the
Scripture testimony in regard to the internal or heavenly element, the Zwinglians, Calvinists, Socinians, and Rationalists,
who deny the objective presence of the true body and blood of
our Lord Jesus in his Supper. Third, of those who deny both,
who, combining, as it were, the two erroneous extremes, contend that in the Lord's Supper there is neither bread nor body
-wine nor blood-and maintain that the Supper is not an
objective, permanent institution, but a purely ideal, spiritual
thing. Such are the Quakers, and certain schools of mystics.
The long array of what claims to be argument in behalf of
the various mistaken views which are rejected in the Antithesis to the Tenth Article may be classified under these heads:
Arguments from a false grammar; a false lexicography; a
false rhetoric; a false philosophy; a false dogmatic; a false
construction of history; a false presumption as to the effect of
the Scriptural doctrine on the Christian life.
In regard to these various genera of error, and the arguments for them, some of the species have been abandonedsome have been already sufficiently noticed in the thetical
treatment of the doctrine  some are unworthy of notice.
We may, therefore, confine ourselves to the form  of error
in regard to the Lord's Supper which we are, practically,
most frequently called to meet. It is not likely that we will
meet a Carlstadtian, who will maintain that the key to the
words is that Christ pointed to His body, when He said,
"This is My body; " or an " Ecolampadian," who will say
that the word "body" is metaphorical; or a "Schwenkfeldian," who will argue that the subject is predicate, the predicate subject, and that the words are to be inverted, " My body
is this." The modern argument against the true doctrine of
the Lord's Supper rests ordinarily on two exegetical assumptions, both of which have the common feature that whereas
the truth rests on what Christ actually said, in. its direct sense,
these assume that the interpreter is justified in adding to our
Saviour's words, and in modifying their natural force.
Two chief centres of the most recent controversy, as to the
exegesis of the words of the institution, are " touto" and




"T 0 UT 0-" "THIS."                   6 7
" esti."  Does "touto" nmean "this bread "? does "esti" mean
"signifies, is a symbol of"?
Of' touto-" this,"-Capellus, a Reformed divine, says, " the
entire controversy hinges on the meaning of' iis.'"
" Touto" —'  This."
In regard to the proper grammatical force of " touto," the truth seems to be very simple.  The Saviour breaking bread and giving it to His disciples, and saying, "Take,
eat," commenced with the word " touto," a proposition which
might, in conformity with the truth, have ended either with the
word "artos," or, as it actually did, with the word " soma."
He might, looking at the thing given simply on its natural
side, have said, "This is bread," or might have said, as He
actually did say, contemplating it on its supernatural side,
" This is My body."  Hence, apart from all other reasons, it is
evident that neither the word " bread,' nor the word "' body,"
is to be supplied after " touto," as it is inconceivable that our
Lord should have uttered an identical proposition - a proposition whose two parts are tautological repetitions of each other,
or would be self-involved.  In the first case the proposition
would be "This bread is bread;" in the other it would be," This body is My body."  Hence, if there were no other
reason whatever for the interpretation, it is evident that the
"touto " is used here, as it is used'in all phrases fairly parallel with this - indefinitely indicating simply "this thing," -
"this," whose definite character is to be stated in the words
which follow. The grammatical question in hand here is
really this, and no more, whether the demonstrative pronoun "touto," in the neuter gender, standing where it does,
and used as it is, may be considered as qualifying. "artos,"
" bread," in the masculine  understood; in  other words,
whether we may read in "artos " after " touto," so as to make
the sense " This bread is My body "?  In advance of the direct
grammatical argument, we might settle the question by asking
of the reasoner to state his argument in Greek.  Now, stating
it in Greek, he will write what no educated Greek ever wrote -
"Touto artos."  What is not logical in Greek is not so in
English.  Now, then, we affirm, first, that it is the rule that a
pronoun shall agree with its antecedent, or the noun it quali



668          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
fies, in gender; second, that in the seeming exceptions to this
rule, in which the demonstrative pronoun is of a different gender from  the thing alluded to, that exception arises from the
fact that the thing is thought of as a.-hin.g, and not in the
grammatical force of its name; third, that in such cases, consequently, we may not supply the grammatical name of the
thing, but must conceive of it indefinitely as a thing, so that
in no case whatever is it lawful to read in after a derronstrative, a noun of a different gender from its own. The general
rule, therefore, stands in this case, and decides it. The rule
specifically applied here is, that a demonstrative pronoun
qualifying a noun agrees with that noun in gender.  Now
" touto " does not agree in gender with " artos," and " artos"
may, therefore, not be supplied.
Against the critic who maintains that we may reach grammatically the construction:'" This bread is," some of the points
which we consider decisive in the case are here: 1. The word
artos (bread) had not been used by our Lord at all. He had
simply said: " Take, eat, this is My body."  The word artos
the critic gets from Matthew's narrative. No such word as he
reads in was used antecedently to our Saviour's declaration.
He says that, as our Saviour uttered the words: " This is My
body," the " this" refers to the word artos. Our reply in brief
is, there was no word artos to refer to.  That word is Matthew's
word, written long after our Lord's ascension. The artos expressed cannot be the antecedent to our Saviour's toutto, for the
simple reason that there was no ~artos expressed.
2. Our second point is this, that as there is no precedent
artos standing in any possible grammatical relation to the touto,
if we get the artos in at all, we must get it in by supplying it
by conjecture'from  the mind of the speaker, and adding it
after the touto, thus: touto artos, a neuter pronoun qualifying
a masculine noun.
3. Our third point is, that the pronoun never varies from
the gender of the noun it qualifies, or agrees with.  Our inference, therefore, is, that as on the critic's theory, touto, a neuter
pronoun, must qualify artos, a masculine noun, that theory is




THE SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES.                     669
false, and is utterly overthrown by the RULE that a pronoun
shall agree with its antecedent in gender.
To every text cited or referred to by such a critic, one and
the same answer will apply. In not a solitary one does the pronoun differ in gender from the noun it qualifies, or which must
be supplied to make the desired sense. In not a solitary case
does a demonstrative pronoun differ in gender from the noun
which must be supplied in order to make a required rendering.
Not one instance can be found from Genesis to Malachi, in the
Septuagint, or from Matthew to Revelation, in the New Testament, in which such a conjunction must be made as that of
touto neuter with artos masculine, in order to reach the full
sense of a passage.
Many of the supposed examples, in addition to the general
lack of adaptation to their end, have a peculiar  The Scriptural
infelicity.  One is Galat. iv. 24: " Which things Examples.
are an allegory; for these are the two covenants."  "' These,"
it is said, is feminine, corresponding in gender with covenants,
though the antecedent'is "which things."    Which things,"
we reply, is neuter, it is true, but " which things " is a pronoun, and not the antecedent of the feminine "these."  Nor
has " covenants " anything to do with the gender of " these."
The true antecedents are "bondwoman" and " freewoman,"
v. 22, 23, and the meaning is, "these women" are the two
covenants. So clear is this, as the whole connection will show,
that Luther, in the first twelve editions of his New Testament,
and following him Tyndale and Coverdale, translate: " these
women; " the Genevan: " these mothers," and so the best interpreters of all schools, as Henry, De Wette, Fausset, Noyes.
But if the critic were right in his exegesis, the text would not
help him, for he could not read in "things," neuter, after "autai,"
feminine, so as to translate " these which things" autai atena.
The second example given is Rev. xx. 14: "This is the
second death." "'This' is masculine, and agrees with'death,'
though it really refers to the antecedent clause, which is, of course,
neuter!"  If the critic has a Greek Testament with a reliable
text, he will find that autos does agree with thanatos, and that
the text literally runs: This death is the second.  Even with




670         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the received text, a good sense is: This (death) is the second
death.  How, too, can he imagine, even on his ground, that a
"this" which refers to a previous sentence is parallel to a
" this " which has no sentence or word on which it grarmmatically depends.  Where is the parallel to touto artos?
In Matt. xxvi. 28: " This is My blood of the New Testament"
is not parallel; for it is not independent, and is connected with
what precedes by the gar "'for: " Drink of it,for this is My
blood. The pronoun autou (hereof, of it, of this) is connected
with what follows: Drink of it, for this is My blood, and moreover does agree in gender with the nouin poterion (cup), if a word
is to be supplied, the word which is actually supplied in Luke
xxii. 23: This cup is. Now, the critic will not deny that in
Luke xxii. 20, the gender of touto is determined by poterion
(cup), not by aima (blood), and if it is so there, so must it be
in Matt. xxvi. 27, where we know, on divine authority, that
if we supply a noun at all, poterion is to be supplied, and where
consequently the gender of touto would be determined, not by
the noun in the predicate, but by the noun understood.  If,
then, artos were the noun understo9d here, as the critic supposes, the very principle of the text to which he appeals is
decisive that the pronoun should be autos, masculine, not touto,
neuter.  If St. Luke had supplied a noun understood, as he
does in the case of poterion, he would, according to the critic's
principles, have written touto artos, which even he will not contend would be Greek. Yet, into this actually runs what he is
now contending for, and what he has to prove, to wit, that
the demonstrative pronoun requiring a noun to be supplied does
not agree in gender with that noun. Not a solitary example
adduced even contemplates the disproof of this position. Yet
this is the very thing which is to be disproved.
A true parallel in the main matter is found in 1 Cor. x. 28:
" If any of those that believe not bid you to a feast,.. if any
man say unto you: This is offered in sacrifice to idols, (more
literally, This is idol-sacrifice,'a thing offered to a god,') eat
not."  Here is a real as well as a verbal example; for it speaks
of the very eating of which St. Paul makes a contrasting parallel with the " communion of the body of Christ."  What does




LUTHERAN THEOLOGIANS.                      671' this " mean here? Not the idol-sacrifice, for that would make
an identical proposition: This idol- sacrifice is idol- sacrifice.
But there is no noun whatever in the context to which touto
can refer; the force of " this " is, therefore: This which you
are about to eat is idol-sacrifice. If a translator, on the ground
that he knew that flesh was used for sacrifice, should insist on
rendering, or on building on the rendering: This flesh is idolsacrifice, it would be decisive against him that touto is neuter,
and sarx (flesh) is feminine.  We need not multiply examples.
Our principle is so simple and easy of application, that even
the English reader can run it out for himself in these and other
passages. The testimony is unvarying, complete, and overwhelming, that in every case really parallel with the present
the view we take is correct, which is, that when Jesus says,
"Take, eat, this is My body," He means, This which I tell
you to Take, eat, is My body.
The correct view in regard to touto, to wit, that it cannot qualify or refer grammatically to artos, has been maintained by a large
majority of the best scholars in all parts of the religious world.
The accepted view of the Lutheran theologians is that touto
cannot refer grammatically to artos.  This is espe-  Lutheran Thecially illustrated among those we have examined oogialls.
by Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calovius, Carpzov, Oliarius, Scherzer,
Bengel, and the best both of our earlier and later commentators.  Gerhqrd, for example, says, in his Harmonia: "The
whole argument for transubstantiation from the words of the
institution rests upon the hypothesis that by the pronoun' this'
is denoted the bread.  But the'this,' used deictically, has
not reference to the bread alone, but to the whole complex.
If the bread alone were meant, what sort of a grammatical
construction would result?' Touto artos.'  When Paul,
1 Cor. x. 16, makes bread the subject, then the predicate is not'body of Christ,' but'communion of the body of Christ;'
when Luke places the'cup' as the subject, the predicate is
not' blood of Christ,' but the' New Testament' in His blood.
The pronoun'this' is therefore used, not adjectively, but
substantively, so that there is an exhibitive proposition."
The true view is accepted even by some of the ripest Roman




872        CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
Catholic scholars, much as the concession embarrasses the argu
ment for transubstantiation. Maldonatus, whose Commentary
on Matthew is regarded by Rornanists as the very best ever
written on that Gospel, is especially worthy of examination on
Roman Catho- this point.  When Romish testimony agrees with
licExposiors.  the Protestant, it has special value.
It is the view of many of the most thoughtful and reliable
Protestants who are not Lutherans, and who have a strong
dogmatic temptation to overcome, in order to be faithful to
the truth.  We will give a few of these, as they come from
sources where we might least expect them.
Dr. HENRY HAMMOND, a classic among the older commentators of the Church of England, says: "It must here be observed that the word touto, this, is not the relative to artos,
bread, but of the neuter, whereas that is of the masculine, and
consequently it is not here said, This bread is My body."
The best interpreters of the Calvinistic Unionistic School
have abandoned the theory that" touto " can refer grammatically to " artos." 
Dr. JOHN J. OWEN in his Notes on Matthew (New York,
Reforme Di- 1857), on this point, says: " The form of words in
vines.    the original does not refer so much to the bread,
which is not mentioned, as to the thing."
LANGE, the latest commentator of eminence on Matthew,
confessedly one of the greatest scholars of the age, but strongly
anti-Lutheran, says: " This is My body.  This, in the neuter,
therefore not directly 0 ipros (the bread)."
STIER, who was Unionistic, says, in regard to rwu~o: " If anything be certain in regard to this matter, it is the sober word of
Bengel, which is faicthfal to the simple letter, and has, therefore,
become classical,' hoc quod vos sumere jubeo,' this which I command you to take."  With this HENGSTENBERG, originally from
the Reformed side in the Union, concurs with what Stier calls
an " almost Lutheran approval."  STIER says further in the
note: " The Lutheran divines maintain this as the force: This
which I command you to eat.  They are right."  And again,
in the text: " There is good reason why our Lord does not say
this bread."




IN  WHAT SENSE THIS BREAD, ETC.                 673
ALFORD: "The form  of expression is important, not being' UaUo o apTo0,' not the bread, but the thing itself." Dr. SCHAFF
quotes these words of Alford as confirming the view of Lange,
and thus endorses the judgment of these two interpreters. We
may, therefore, say that the theory that "this," the confessed
subject in the sacramental proposition, means grammatically
"this bread," is a theory abandoned by the best scholars of the
school which is most interested in maintaining it.
But even if it were granted that the true resolution of the
grammatical form is into " This bread is My body,",I w,,at sense
the desired inference, that the meaning is, " This Thlis bread is the
body of Christ.
bread is a symbol of My body," is as remote as ever.
For, first, if Christ had said, " This bread is My body," He
would have implied that no other bread is His body: but as a
symbol all bread is equally Christ's body. Second: the reason
why this bread is Ilis body must lie in something which has
taken place, since there was simply bread upon the table at the
Lord's Supper.  It must be something which has taken place,
since that bread was in the mere natural sphere of all bread.
When it thus lay, it was not true of it that it was Christ's body
any more than all other bread is. Between the lying of that
bread on the table, a mere thing of nature in all its relations,
and the affirmation " This is My body," six things had occurred. 1. He " took " it, the incarnate Almighty, after whose
taking (Matt. xiv. 19) five loaves and two fishes had satisfied
the hunger of five thousand men, besides women and children,
and had left twelve baskets full of fragments.  He " took " it,
after whose taking (Matt. xv. 36) four thousand men, besides
women and children, were fed, and seven baskets of fragments
remained.  2. He "g7ave thanks," as He had done in the stupendous miracle of creation in which He fed the thousands
(Matt. xv. 36). 3. Ile " blessed " the bread, as in the supernatural feeding (Matt. xiv. 19), and in virtue of that word of omnipotent benediction, the border of the realm  of nature was
passed, and all that followed was under the powers and conditions of the infinite supernatural.  4. He " brake it," as He
had broken the mystic loaves and fishes (Matt. xv. 36).  5.
le "gcave it " to His disciples, as He had given the loaves and'
43




674         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
fishes to His disciples for the multitude (Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 36).
6. He had said, "Take, eat," and had assigned as the reason
why this solemn preparation had take-n place, and this command was now given: " This is My body."  If " this " means
"this bread," it means not that bread which was before the six
acts, but this bread, which is eaten after the six acts; and if it
be called the body of Christ now, it is not because it is a symbol of the body, for this it was then, but because it is now what
St. Paul expressly calls it, " the communion," or medium  of
the communication of Christ's body.  Conceived in this way
the word bread would mean the complex result of the sacramental union, the sacramental bread in its supernatural conjunction with the sacramental body. This bread, this complex,
is not symbol but reality.  It is literally Christ's true body, as
it is literally true bread.  As the words, " This man is God,"
applied to Christ, means, This man is literally God personally,
(in virtue of the personal union), yet is literally man naturally,
Christ is true man and true God; so the words, This bread is
Christ's body, mean, This bread is literally Christ's body sacramentally, (in virtue of the sacramental union,) yet is literally
bread naturally.  The Eucharist is true bread and true body.
Before the miraculous blessing of the five loaves and the fishes
it was true, That food is not food for thousands; after the blessing, it was true, This food is food for thousands: before the
blessing that bread was not the body of Christ; after the blessing, This bread is His body.
Hence the Ancient Church and the Lutheran Church, holding
The Ancienlt the same faith, have not hesitated at all to use the
Church.    expression, " This bread, or the sacramental bread,
is Christ's body," while both would repudiate as error the idea
that bread, as bread, can be called Christ's body.  The fathers
are very explicit in affirming that it is not bread, as bread, of
which they affirm  that it is Christ's body, but that bread
whose character is conditioned by the six sacramental acts of
our Lord. Thus Jerome*: " The bread which our Lord brake
and gave to His disciples is IJis body."  Gaudentiust: " When
our Lord reached the consecrated bread and wine to His disci* Epist. ad Hedebiam.            t In Exod. Tract 2.




THE ANCIENT CHURCH.                        675
pies, He said: This is My body."  Facundus*: "Our Lord
called the bread and cup which had been blessed, and which He
delivered to His disciples, His body and blood."  Maxentius t:
" The bread which the whole Church partakes'of in memnory of the
Lord's passion is His body."  Theodoret t: " After consecration,
we call the mystic fruit of the vine the Lord's blood."  Tertullian ~: " Christ, when He had taken bread, and distributed it
to His disciples, made it His body by saying,' This is My
body.'"  Cyril of Jerusalem I:'" When the invocation is made,
the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine His blood."
Gregory Nyssen ~: " At first the bread is common bread, but
after the mystery has consecrated it, it is both called and becomes
the body of Christ."  Augustine **: "Not all bread, but only
that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's
body."  The author of the Book on the Sacraments, imputed
to Ambrose (L. IV. ch. iv.): " Perhaps thou wilt say, My bread
(the bread of which I speak) is ordinary bread; but though
that bread is (ordinary) bread before the sacramental words, yet,
when the consecration takes place, the bread becomes the body of
Christ... How can that which is bread be the body of Christ?
By consecration.  By whose words is this consecration?  By
the words of the Lord Jesus.  Whatever else may have gone
before, as praise to God, and prayers, yet when the venerable
sacrament itself is to be consummated, the priest no longer
uses his own words, but uses the words of Christ.  Wherefore
it is Christ's word by which the sacrament is consummated.
What is Christ's word?  That by which the universe was
made out of nothing...It was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after consecration it is the body of Christ.  He
hath said, and it is done.  Wine and water are put into the
cup; but it becomes blood by the consecration of the heavenly
word."
The Lutheran Church, holding the same Eucharistic faith
with the Ancient Church, does not hesitate to employ the
* In Defens. 3. Capit. Lib. IX. c. ult.  t Dialog. 2. c. 13.
$ Dialog. 1.                         G Catech. Mystag. 2.
If Cont. Marc. L. IV. ch. 40.      ~ Orat. in Christ. Baptisma.
** Serm. de diversis. 87.




676         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
sa.me language in the same sense. Luther often uses the
expression: "This bread, or the sacramental bread, is the
body of Christ."  He does this with respect to three objects.
First, to assert the reality of the bread'over against the error
of transubstantiation. Second, to deny the exclusion of the
L  sacramental bread  from   the  complex  of  the
Saviour's meaning, as was done by Carlstadt; and,
third, to assert the character of the bread as the medium of a
true impartation of the body of Christ, involving a true presence of that body.  Thus of the first he says: "The gospel
calls the sacrament bread.  Consequently, the bread is the body
of Christ.  By this we abide; it is sure over against the dreams
of the sophists, that it is bread which it (the gospel) calls
bread."  tie is not speaking of touto in its relation to artos, or
to anything bearing upon it in any way. Luther is arguing
against transubstantiation.. Over against the theory that it is
the accidents of bread which are the Sacrament, on its earthly
side, he says that bread itself is.  He says: "Consequently,
that is, logically, over against transubstantiation, the bread,
not its accidents, is the body of Christ."  Whiie Luther and
the Lutheran Church deny that the expression " bread is the
body of Christ " is found in the Bible, they admit that there is
a sense in which it may be allowed as a part of human terrinology,and, where the Roomanist says the accidents of the
bread, and not bread itself, are the visible part of the Sacrament of. Christ, Luther replies: No; the bread, true bread,
is that Sacrament; and over against the Romish theory
that the mere species of bread, and not its substance, is the
communion of Christ's body, Luther maintains that true
bread is that communion, or, in virtue of the sacramental
union, that, in a certain sense, it is (not is like) the body of
Christ. On the second point, Luther demonstrates in his whole
argument against Carlstadt that the proposition cannot mean
"This body, to which I point, is My body, broken for you,"
but "This which I tell you to take, eat, is My body."  This
sacramental complex, in a word, is both bread and body; and,
because of the sacramental union, we can say, This bread is
*Werke. Leipzig Edi. Vol. XVIII. p. 421.




FORMULA OF CONCORD-GERHARD.    677
Chrst's body.  Hence, in the third place, Luther makes the
point: ", It is no longer mere bread of the oven, but bread of
flesh, or bread of body, that is, a bread which is sacramentally
one with the body of Christ... It is no more mere wine of the
vintage, but wine of blood, that is, a wine which has conme to
be a sacrcmental unit with the blood of Christ." *
In conformity with the ancient phraseology the Formula of
Concord declares: "The bread does not signify the  Fo.mul a of
absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent Concord. Gerblood of Christ; but by means of (propter) the sacramental union, the bread and wine are truly the body and
blood of Christ."t  Gerhard t has so admirably explained the
meaning of the ecclesiastical phrase " The bread is the body
of Christ," that a citation from  him  will render any other
unnecessary. " Although the proposition,' The bread is the
body of Christ,' does not occur in so many words in the Scripture, we do not, by any means, disapprove of it, inasmuch as
the church-writers, ancient and recent, frequently employ it.
From  the words of Christ,' Take, eat, this is My body,' and
the words of Paul,'The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,' we are to estimate its meaning and
explain it, and hence it is usual to call it a sacramental proposition.  This may be more clearly understood by noting what
follows. In all regular affirmative predications, it is required
that there shall be a mutual agreement and coherence between
the subject and the predicate.  If this agreement be intrinsic
and essential, the predications are essential; if it be extrinsic
and accidental, the predications are accidental.  From the rule
in logic, that one thing cannot be affirmed literally and without
type to be another thing (disparatum  de disparate proprie
adfirmate non posse predicare), the adversaries draw the inference that the proposition' The bread is the body of Christ' is
figurative. But they ought to know that besides those ordinary
predications, which conform to the rules of logic, there are in
*Werke. Leipzig. xix. 497: "Fleisches-brod oder Leibs-Brod so mit dem
Leibe Christi ein Sacramentlich Wesen. worden ist.. ein Wein, der mit dem
Blut Christi in ein Sacramentlich Wesen kommen ist."
tEpitome. Art. VII. ii.                Loci. Cotta. x. 155. 240 seq.




678         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
theology predications not in ordinary use (inusitati), in which,
on account of the mystic union, one thing is said, without a
trope, to be another thing. Such propositions are of two kinds,
personal and sacramental.  The personal are those in which
the human nature is predicated of the divine nature of the
Logos, and, on the other hand, the divine nature of the Logos
is predicated of the human nature assumed, in the concrete, to
wit, on account of the personal union. Such expressions are
these, God is man, Man is God, the Son of Mary is the Son of
God.  Sacramental propositions are those in which the heavenly thing is predicated of the earthly element, on account of
the sacramental union, such as these, the bread is the body of
Christ, the wine is the blood of Christ.  As in the abstract the
divine nature of the Logos is not predicated of the human, nor
the human of the divine, but only in the concrete, which is a
manifest proof that the personal union is the cause and source
of these predications; so also it is not predicated of the bread,
as such, but only in its sacramental use, that it is the body of
Christ; and hence it is usual to add to the subject, and say the
eucharistic bread, the consecrated bread, the bread which we
break is the body of Christ, and this again is a manifest proof
that the sacramental union is the cause and source of the latter
predication. If the adversaries say that the bread must be the
body of Christ either in a literal or afigurative sense, we answer
that there is a third sense, to wit, the sacramental, by which is
meant that the bread is the collating organ, the exhibitive symbol and vehicle, by which the body of Christ is communicated,
or as St. Paul expresses it, it is the communication (koinonia)
of the body of Christ.  The bread is not transmuted into the
body of Christ, nor is it a bare sign of the body of Christ, but
is the organ and mean whereby the body of Christ is communicated."
The new view of KAHNIS in regard to the Lord's Supper has,
for various reasons, excited an interest beyond anyView of Kahnis.
thing in its kind in our day; and as it links itself
with a confused perception of the points which are so clearly
put by Gerhard, we shall introduce it here, and, as an act of
justice to its author, shall give it entire, instead of breaking it




VIEW  OF KAHN'IS.                     679
into fragments to fit the parts of it into their most natural
place in our own discussion. The view of Kahnis has aroused
extraordinary feeling, not merely nor mainly because of his
distinguished ability as a theologian, but because, in various
writings, but especially in his work on the Lord's Supper
(1851), he had appeared as the defender of the distinctive
Lutheran faith -a faith to which he had shown his devotion
in 1848, by leaving the State Church of Prussia, to take part
with the persecuted Old Lutherans.  This faith, in more than
one vital respect, he has recently abandoned. Most conspicuous
among these changes are two, the first of which really necessitated the second. Kahnis abandons the doctrine of the proper
and supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, and gives Him the place
assigned by the theory of Subordination.  In doing this he, of
necessity, gives up the true doctrine of the Sacramental Presence-a presence which presupposes the Godhead of Christ,
and the personal union of His human nature with it.  In
Kahnis' work, in which he aims at presenting an historicogenetical delineation of the Lutheran Dogmatics, he unfolds
these changes of view.  His presentation of his theory and
argument on the Lord's Supper * is -is follows:
"The fact that in the exposition of the words of the Institution the teachers of the Church, in all ages, have been divided
into two camps, the one holding to a verbal sense, the other to
a metaphorical sense of the decisive words, is in itself enough
to set bounds to too confident a security on either side. Where
difficulties exist of the character which here meets us, it is well
to lay down propositions to which assent may, with justice, be
demanded.  FIRST: It is beyond dispute, that the proposition,
The bread is the body, the wine is the blood of Jesus, literally
taken, is impossible.  As in every proposition the subject is
placed in identity with the predicate, by means of the copula,
in such a way that the subject stands to the predicate in the
relation of the individual to the general, it follows that there
can be no logical meaning except in a proposition in which the
subject stands to the predicate as the individual stands to the
* Die Lutherische Dogmatik historisch-genetisch dargestellt. Leipz. 1861. Vol.
I. 616-626.




680         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
general. Now the bread (as bread) is not the body of Christ
(as body). Bread and body are heterogeneous ideas, which can
no more be united in one than the propositions: Wood is iron,
Hegel is Napoleon, and such like. So soon as a proposition
cannot be taken literally, as, for example, in the one just given,'Hegel is Napoleon,' the figurative exposition is in placeHegel is a Napoleon in the sphere of science.
"So, also, in the SECOND place, it is beyond dispute that the
proposition, This is My body, may be figurative (metaphorical).
The Scripture contains innumerable figurative propositions.
From the copula' is' it is alike impossible to demonstrate the
figurative or the literal character of the proposition. The copula
allows of no change of meaning.  Those who say that'is' is
equivalent to' signify' mean to say that either the subject or
the predicate of a proposition is to be taken figuratively.
" THIRDLY, as to the words of the Institution as they sound,
it may be affirmed, without contradiction, that in them  the
body of Christ is regarded as a body which is to be delivered to
death.  Though the body of the risen Saviour bore on it the
marks of the crucifixion (John xx.), and men shall recognize
Himi at His second coming as Him whom they pierced (Rev. i.
7), from which it follows that the slain body and the glorified
body are identical, yet the words of the Institution contemplate the body, not as glorified, but as put to death. That the
blood which was to be shed, that is, literally, the blood of
Jesus, which in His death left His body, has to be understood
of the death of Christ, is shown by the proposition as Paul and
Luke have it: This cup is the New Testament in My blood.
The blood which has mediated a new covenant is that which
was shed upon the cross, to wit, is the sacrificial death of Christ.
If, then, these propositions stand, we have a sure basis for
exposition.  The Lutheran Church has the indisputable fundamental principle of hermeneutics, that the literal exposition
has the first claim, if the literal sense be at all tenable-a principle of special force in this case, in which the words are of
such great importance -words which were given of the Lord
to Paul by special revelation. 1 Cor. xi. 25. (See Kahnis, Lehre
v' Abendm. 14 seq.)  But this is only possible when in the




VIEW  OF KAHNIS.                     681
proposition, This is My body (My blood), the subject is not
bread (wine).  When the determination of the subject is involved, it is decided upon the one hand by the connection,
on the other, by the predicate.  The connection demands as
subject bread (wine), as predicate, body (blood); and in this
way the exposition found itself directed to the supposition of
an internal connection of bread and body, and of wine and
blood, in which the predicate gives prominence to the chief
substance.  Thus the physician, in giving an essence in water,
says: This is a cordial. The'this,' in such a sentence, is'essence and water,' the predicate is the chief substance.
When Christ says,' My words are spirit and life,' from words
as the subject, which are partly spirit, partly letter, He educes
the essential substance.  This mode of speech, to which Luther
gives the name Synecdoche, is, in itself, admissible.  The
only question to be raised is, Is it admissible here? To a
renewed investigation which we have given the subject, on the
principle'day teacheth unto day,' the difficulties connected
with this view have presented themselves with increasing
force. According to the connection, the'this' is that which
Jesus took, brake, gave them  to eat, that is, the bread. In
the case of the cup, the subject is expressly specified as' this
cup.' Now cup (chalice), by the familiar metonomy'container
for thing contained,' stands for that which it contains.  But
what the chalice contains is wine.  Christ does not say,' That
which ye now eat is My body, that which ye now drink is
My blood, but that which I give you to eat and drink,' consequently is such in advance of the eating and drinking.  The
poteerion is the drink, as it was in the chalice before the disciples drank.  But before the eating and drinking it is still,
according to the Lutheran doctrine, bread and wine, not the
body and blood of Christ.  But that poteerion means the wine.
Yet undrunken is affirmed in Paul's exposition (1 Cor. x. 16):'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?' in which, beyond doubt,
the bread, as broken for eating, the cup, as blessed for drinking, is called the communion. That which places us in commu



682        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
nion with the body and blood of Christ (Abendm. 127 seq.),
consequently is such before the eating and drinking.  But if
bread (wine) be the subject, the literal meaning has to be
abandoned. To this we are necessitated by the proposition,'This cup is the New Covenant in My blood,' inasmuch as it is
impossible that a chalice of wine can itself be the covenant
relation between God and man established by Christ in HIis
death. The only exposition, therefore, is: This cup is a sign
of the new covenant in My blood. The supposition that body
and blood stand, by metonomy, for sign of body, sign of blood
(Eicolamnpadius, Calvin) is untenable.  No such metonomy
can be shown.  The proposition is like countless others, in
which the predicate is figurative.  Thus we say of a statue,
This is Blucher; of a serpent with his tail in his mouth: This
is eternity.  The supposition of a symbol is justified by the
manifest symbolical character of the whole transaction.  The
bread which is broken is the body which is broken (klomenon)
for us; the wine which is poured out of a large vessel into the
chalice is the blood which is shed for us (ekchunomenon). That
the breaking of the bread has a special significance is shown
by the designation of the bread which we break (1 Cor. x. 16),
parallel with the cup which we bless. So, also, in Baptism, the
submergence beneath the water is a symbolical act (p. 615).
Had it been the glorified body which Jesus, at the Institution,
offered in the bread, it might be imagined that somehow,
though still in a mysterious and obscure manner, there was an
impartation of it. But the body which was to be put to death,
which stood before the disciples, could not be the object of the
participation.
" To this point the exposition of Zwingli is justified. But
that it is impossible to stop here Calcvin acknowledged, yet
failed, because he rested the lever of his sacramental theory on
hypotheses destitute of Scriptural support. In the words'This do in remembrance of Me, our Lord commanded that
this Supper should be celebrated from that time on in commemoration of Him; and it has been so done to this day. As
often as it is celebrated Jesus dispenses, by the hand of the
ministrant, bread and wine, as signs of His body and blood,




VIEW  OF KA HNIS.                     683
ordained by Iim.  But signs ordained and dispensed by God,
through Christ, are not symbols -which would leave it undetermined how much or how little we are to impute to them,
but are a visible word of God (p. 613).  With the words of
Christ,'This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of
Me,' the apostle links the declaration:' For as often as ye eat
of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death till He come.' Inasmuch as the Supper is a participation of bread and wine as signs of the sacrificed body and
blood, it is a memorial feast in which the guest confesses his
faith in the sacrificial death of Christ.  But he who makes
such a confession before the Church, in reality must do it in
a state of mind fitting it.'Wherefore, whosoever shall eat
this bread, or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty (enochos) of the body and blood of the Lord' (v. 27).
Enochos, literally, bound for, when it has the sense of guilty, is
conjoined with the genitive either of the sin, or of the penalty,
or of the person and thing involved in the criminality incurred
(Bleek on Heb. ii. 15. II. 339 seq. cf. 552).  As immediately
before, the Supper is spoken of as a confession of the death of
Christ, we cannot well understand body and blood of Christ
otherwise than as referring to the death of Christ, in the sin
of which the unworthy communicant makes himself guilty
(Lev. v. 1-17; 2 Sam. xxii. 22; 2 Macc. xiii. 6). He who confesses the death of Christ unworthily is guilty of the death of
Christ.  All men are guilty of the death of Christ.  But he
who believes in Jesus Christ seeks from  Jesus Christ forgiveness of the sin which crucified Christ.  But he who receives
forgiveness of his sin is thereby absolved from the guilt of the
body and blood of Christ.  He, consequently, who receives the
Supper unworthily, really confesses: I have slain Christ, and
does not receive forgiveness from that sin, and is, consequently,
guilty of the body and blood of Christ.  In this passage,
beyond doubt, body and blood have the sense, death of Christ:' Wherefore let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread and drink of that cup.  For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.  For this cause are many
NV~~~L-1 -IVV   VLI~NVV~~~~~~~~~~~LILCIS~n1




684         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
weak and sickly among you, and many sleep' (v. 28-30). The
unworthy reception of the Supper, which involves so great a
guilt, produces, also, a serious punishment. He who eats and
drinks bread and wine in the Supper as if they were common
food and common drink, without considering that bread and
wine are the body and blood of Christ, draws upon himself, by
so eating and drinking, a penalty. Upon the body into which
he receives bread and wine he draws sickness and death. It
is at once apparent that such results cannot be explained on
the theory that this is a mere symbolical transaction, in which
there lies just so much as faith puts into it.  This feast, ordained and dispensed of God, through faith in Christ, has as
its substance the divine word concerning the sacrificial death,
which word, Jesus Christ, who has instituted this feast, imparts to the recipient. Inasmuch as the word of God, as
spoken or written, never goes forth void, but is a savor of
death unto death to every one to whom it is not a savor of life
unto life, so in the Supper the word concerning the atoning
death of Christ is not merely set forth, but Christ applies it,
by the hand of the ministrant, to the recipient for bodily reception.  But a visible word of God, which Christ applies to the
individual after the manner of sensible reception, is a sacramental word. The same result is reached by attentively considering 1 Cor. x. 16, seq. The discourse is of sacrificial flesh.
As in Israel those who ate of the sacrifice entered into the fellowship of the altar, so those who participated in the banquets
on the Heathen sacrifices entered into the fellowship of the
gods who are Demons. He who drinks the cup of the Lord
cannot drink the cup of Demons, and he who participates at
the table of the Lord cannot take part at the table of Demons.'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of' Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many,
are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that
one bread' (v. 16, 17). As the sacrificial flesh of the Jews and
Heathen united them with the altar, and, consequently, with
the God, or the gods, to whom the altar was reared, so is the
bread of the Supper the communion, that is, the medium  of




VIEW  OF KAU NIS.                     685
communion (that through which the communion is made) with
the body, the wine the communion with the blood.  Body and
blood of Christ cannot here mean the glorified corporeal nature
of Christ, but only that which is sacrificed, that is, the death
of Christ, because otherwise the point of comparison with the
sacrificial feast is lost. The death of Christ is the sacrifice;
bread and wine the sacrificial meal. But here again bread
and wine are not a mere symbol, but a sign which is, at the
same time, a medieum. Not faith, but bread and wine, brings
into union with the sacrificed humanity of Christ. As the
sacrificial flesh is not ordinary flesh, but a medium  of fellowship with the divine being to whom it pertains, so, also, in the
Supper, bread is not ordinary food, but a medium of fellowship
with the sacrificed corporeal nature of Christ, to whom it pertains.  Bread and wine, consequently, signs of the body and blood
of Christ, are, in virtue of the institution of Christ, the sacramental
word of the body and blood of Christ, which word, commanded by
Christ, applies to the death of Christ. The sacrificial death of
Christ is a fact of the past, which abides only in its power,
that is, in the reconciliation with God, which is its work. He,
consequently, who partakes of the Lord's Supper worthily,
that is, in faith, receives the virtue of the death of Christ, that
is, forgiveness of sins.  At this point Luther's doctrine is vindicated, according to which, forgiveness of sins is the proper
fruit of the believing participation in the Lord's Supper. This
doctrine Luther rested on the words: Broken for the forgiveness of sins, which he explained, not of the death of Christ,
but of the impartation of the body of Christ in the Supper.
This word concerning the forgiveness of sins, not the reception
of the glorified body, is, to him, the main thing in the Sacrament.  The body of Christ is to him but a pledge of the word.
But in this mode of apprehending it, the exposition of kl5omenon
is surely not tenable, for that word can only refer to the sacrificial death of Christ, as even the Formula of Concord teaches
(Abendm. 99, 209).  But even if this exposition were abandoned, the relation of the word touching the forgiveness of
sins to the glorified body would remain completely unadjusted
(Abendm. 358). Finally, however, Luther's doctrine ignores




686         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the weight which is attached to the death of Christ both by
the words of the institution and the apostle's doctrine of the
Supper.  In all the passages which we have just been considering, the language has reference, not to the glorified, but to the
broken, or given body, that is, the sacrificed body.  Even if
the Supper was not instituted in connection with the feast of
the Passover, yet Paul, in the words (1 Cor. v. 6, 7),'Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us,' and John (John xix. 36), by
applying to the unbroken body of our Lord the Old Testament command that the Paschal Lamb must not be broken
(Exod. xii. 46; Ps. xxxiv. 20), represent the death of Christ
as a paschal sacrifice.  We have seen (Dogm. I. 262 seq.) that
in the Passover lay the germ  of the later worship.  It was a
propitiatory sacrifice, and, at the same time, a sacrificial meal.
The fulfilling has separated into two elements the two parts
of the Paschal Feast, the offering and the eating. Christ, the
Paschal Lamb, was sacrificed on Golgotha, at the time when
the paschal lamb was offered in the temple.  This sacrifice,
which Christ offered in His own body to God, is the fulfilling
of all sacrifices, and, consequently, the last sacrifice, and has
an objective atoning efficacy for all men, and forever more.
After this sacrifice has been made, the appropriation of it
remains, until Christ's second coming, the essence of the Supper, the transfigured paschal festival.  In the bread broken
and the cup blessed, God imparts, through Jesus Christ, in
whose name it is dispensed, not merely a sign, but a visible
word, which, to the believing recipient, is a medium of communion, a word concerning the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
He who, in faith, partakes of the bread and wine as the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, receives the fruit of the
death of Christ, to wit, the forgiveness of sins.
" But even with this the significance of the Supper is not
exhausted.  To this the Passover, the type of the Supper,
already points. The paschal supper was not a mere appropriation of the propitiatory virtue of the paschal sacrifice. It was
the supper of the living fellowship of the people, of a unity of
families, with God (Dogm. I. 262 seq).  The Lord's Supper is,
consequently, also, no bare appropriation of the propitiatory




VIEW  OF KAHNIS.                     687
virtue of the death of Jesus. The blood of the sacrifice which
was offered to God is the life which has passed through death,
and makes atonement for the sins of men (Dogmn. I. 271 seq.,
and 584). In the New Testament, consequently, the blood of
Christ is not merely a concrete expression for death, but means
the life of this death, that is, the propitiatory power of it,
which forever dwells in the corporeal nature of Christ which
has passed through death (Rom. iii. 25; Eph. i. 7; 1 John
i. 7; Heb. ix. 25; xiii. 20, and see, on them, Olshausen, Harless, De WSette, Bleek: Abendm. 63 seq). Ie, therefore, who,
in faith, grasps the death of Christ, receives the propitiatory virtue of the blood of Christ -the virtue which dwells
in the glorified body of Christ.  Hence St. John (1 John v.
6-8) styles the Supper simply'the blood.' As the appearing
of Christ stood between water (Baptismr) and blood (death),
thus water and blood still testify of Him.  The blood which
testifies of Him can be nothing but the Supper.  The substance of the Supper is, consequently, Christ's death as a,
power of atonement.  But he who receives this power of the
glorified bodily nature of Christ, receives in himself Christ's
bodily nature itself, and in and with it the entire living Christ.
This is the mystical meaning of the discourse of Jesus in John
vi. Jesus Christ calls Himself the bread which has come down
from heaven, which gives life to him who eats of it. From
this thought He advances in v. 51:' And the bread which
I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world.' After the offence which the people took at Him, He
expresses this thought still more strongly:' Verily, I say unto
you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His
blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth My flesh, and
drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up
at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is
drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood,
dwelleth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he
shall live by Me. This is that bread which came down from
heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he
that eateth of this bread shall live forever' (v. 53-59). The




688         CONSERVATIVE R EFORMA TION.
bread of life which has come from heaven is the divine personality of Jesus Christ. To eat this bread can have no other
meaning than to appropriate Jesus in faith. Now, as Jesus
attaches to the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His
blood the same operations which are attributed to faith (v. 47)
and to the eating of the bread of heaven (v. 50, 51), namely,
eternal life, the eating of the flesh of Christ cannot be, specifically, anything else than the eating of the bread from heaven,
that is, the faith which unites with Christ. The flesh of Christ,
which He gives for the life of the world, is His body, which is
to be given in death, that is, is IHis death. Eating the flesh
and drinking the blood can, consequently, only mean the
receiving in us, in faith, Jesus as the Crucified for us. This
is the condition of salvation, of living fellowship with Christ,
of everlasting life, of the resurrection. He who receives in
himself Jesus Christ in His body and blood given to death,
receives, in this bodily nature, slain for us, the life of Jesus
Christ, which fills him with the powers of eternity. The unity
of this proposition lies, beyond doubt, in this, that the power
of the slain bodily nature of Christ is absorbed into the glorified bodily nature of Christ; so that he who grasps the sacrificed bodily nature of Christ with its propitiatory power,
together with the glorified corporeal nature, is filled, by it,
with the entire person of Christ. The discourse in John vi.
does not, primarily, treat of the Supper, but of that faith
which establishes a living fellowship between us and Christ.
But Christ, beyond doubt, designedly veiled the faith under
the image of an eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood,
in order to express the mystical thought which subsequently
was to be transferred to the body in the Supper, just as in
John iii. 5, Ile expressed the idea of Baptism. For the history
of the exposition, see Abendm. 114 seq. It is now alone that
we come to understand why Jesus calls bread and wine not
merely signs of His death, but of His body and blood, which
are to be given to death. Inasmuch as Christ designates His
death as a suffering which is to be endured by His body, His
blood, I-e means to express the thought that just as little as
broken bread ceases to be bread, and wine poured out ceases to




VIEW  OF KAHNIS.                       689
be wine, just as little does that dissolution destroy the substance of IHis body.  He does not give us His death to eat, but
His body.  The bread signifies Christ's body, the breaking of
the bread the killing of the body, the eating' of the bread the
appropriation of the slain body in faith. The Christian who
grasps the slain body of Christ in faith, appropriates to himself the death of Christ, and the body of Christ also, as he who
eats of the broken bread makes use of the breaking that he
may receive into him  the bread.  Hle who eats the broken
bread commutes it into his organism, consequently into his
life.  He who, in faith, grasps the slain body of Jesus Christ
makes it living by receiving into himself its vital power, that
is, its power of atonement. If, now, that which the body of Christ
suffered in death inheres in the glorified body, then he who receives
the atoning power immanent in the glorified body receives into hirmself the glorified body itself, and in and with it the whole Christ.
This is the truth which lies in the Lutheran exposition of the
words of institution. We cannot grasp the slain body in faith
without receiving the glorified body into us, because the virtue
of the slain body lies in the glorified body. This reception is,
it is true, no eating and drinking, but a spiritual reception by
faith as a medium. The Lord's Supper is a spiritual eating
and drinking (1 Cor. x. 3, 4, 12, 13.  See Abendml. 145, seq.)
He who, in faith, receives Christ's body and blood, receives
the whole Christ into himself (John vi. 59), which can take
place in no other than a spiritual manner. As, finally, the
feast of the Passover was a feast of fellowship in which the
people of Israel were contemplated as one great family of God
(Dogm. I. 263), so is the Lord's Supper a feast of fellowship in
which they who eat of the one bread are one body (1 Cor. x. 17)."
Such, without abridgment, is Kahnis' own statement of his
new faith, and of the argument for it.  The feebleness, vacillation, and self-contradiction involved in it are beyond expression.
At some point or other it exhibits the characteristic weakness
of almost every false view which has ever been taken of the Supper.  It is artificial, and yet not artistic; it is confused rather
than complicated; for with all its elaboration it is not difficult to
disentangle it. It wears the air of a self-tormented rationalism
44




690         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMA TION.
which abandons the faith, and is ashamed of its apostasy. It
does not propose a single new point.  All its issues were long
ago made and met. It is, in part, Zwinglianism tricked out
with rhetoric; in part, Calvinism reached by circuitous by-paths;
in part, a reproduction of the weak point in the Syngramm a
Suevicum   in short, a clumsy appropriation and fusion. of
exploded views, which yet assumes the air of original discovery.
It distributes, after the manner of a huntsman, alternate lashes
and morsels to Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther; but certainly has
this merit, that it would unite them so far that they would
perfectly agree that such a view, on such grounds, is untenable.  Such of the points made by IKahnis as have not been
anticipated in the previous part of our discussion will be taken
up in what follows.
It will be noticed that KAHNIS takes the true view of the
1. "Is." De necessary force of "is;" and in this is in comWette, and oth- plete conflict with the mass of rationalizing and
rationalistic interpretation from  Zwingli to this
hour.  The last refuge of this interpretation has been in the
word which Kahnis surrenders.
Thus, DE WETTE'S note on cri is this: " In these contested
words the 1e.1 (which, in the Aramaic denah hua gyphy, was
not expressed) is the bare logical copula, and can, in itself, just
as well amount to a real is (so Luther) or a symbolic is, that
is, signifies (so Zzwingli). But, in fact, the latter sense alone is
admissible; for the discourse and transaction is symbolical, like
that in John xx. 22 (He breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost), and in this instance, at
least, the actual body of Jesus could not have been the subject
of discourse.  Eivac has the latter sense in
"Luke xii. 1. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is
hypocrisy.
" Heb. x. 20. Through the veil, that is to say (0ouT'sEl) (id est,
das ist), His flesh.
" John xiv. 6. I am the way, the truth and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father but by Me.
" John xv. 1. I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman.




"IS."-DE WETTE, AND  OTHERS.                   691
"John xv. 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches  he that
abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit."
MEYER adds, as a proof-text, that i'l "'is the copula of the
symbolic or allegoric sense: "
Gal. iv. 24.  Which things are an allegory.  For these
(aC.TI;.) are the two covenants.
LANGE, for the allegorical and symbolical occurrence of S-Ti,
adds to Meyer and De Wette as proof, only Ex. xii. 11. Ye
shall eat it (the lamb) in haste; it is the Lord's passover.
OLSHAUSEN, to show that the sense of " signifies" is possible,
cites: I Pet. i. 28. The word of the Lord endureth forever.
And this is (roUTJ0o dE sti) the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you.  Philem. 12. Thou, therefore, receive him,
that is (0ouTErT), mine own bowels.  John x. 7. I am the door
of the sheep; x. 9. I am the door: by Me if any man enter
in, he shall be saved.
In other writers, both of earlier and later date, we have these
citations, as assumed parallels to the sacramental words: Gen.
xli. 26. The seven good kine are seven years; the seven good
ears are seven years.
With the Calvinists, in their theory of exhibitive sign, these
texts were favorites: Titus iii. 5. The washing of regeneration-as if Baptism were called regeneration. 1 Cor. x. 4. They
drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock
was Christ.  John i. 32. I saw the Spirit descending from
heaven like a dove -as if it were said the Spirit is the dove.
One of the most recent writers against the Lutheran view lays
stress on the passage: " All flesh (is) grass," which he thinks
indisputably means " All flesh is LIKE grass;" and thus proves
that " is " may mean " is like," and that the proposition of the
Supper, stated in full, is: " This bread is like My body."  It is
true the word'" is" is not in the original of either Isaiah or
Peter, but if it were, the interpretation proposed would stand,
in general, where it now stands; for when we change such a
phrase as: " All flesh is grass" into " all flesh is like grass,"
the word " like " is derived, not from the " is," (especially when
it is not there,) but from the "grass."  Consequently, we may




692         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
say: All flesh is grass-like; Napoleon is fox-like. The critic
fatally wounds his own theory, when, not at all to the point
for the purpose he has in view, he says: " The mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate, without the intervening copula
(the' is'), is common in most languages, particularly Hebrew,
and more especially in metaphorical language;" that is, the word
in which the metaphor lies, according to the critic's theory, is
not only not necessary, but the very fact that language is mIetaphorical leads to its omission.  The stress of the metaphor is so
violent upon the " is," as to squeeze it utterly out of the sentence.
1. Of the views of the critic in regard to metaphor, as
involved in the copula, with which the possibility
2. Of the nLature ofmetaphor of his interpretation of " is" stands or falls, it is
as affecting the enough to say that they are arrayed against the
force of  is."             
universal judgment of rational men; that they do
defiance alike to the statements of the most learned and of the
most popular works.  He says that in such a sentence as this:
"Napoleon is a fox," Napoleon is literal; which is very true;
and so also, he says, is fox. The one would, consequently,
mean the man of that name, and the other would mean, literally, the animal of that name.  Hence Napoleon is like "an
animal of the genus Vulpis, with a straight tail, yellowish or
straw-colored hair, and erect ears, burrowing in the earth,
remarkable for his cunning and his fondness for lambs, geese,
hens, and other small animals."*
2. How will our critic resolve this sentence: "' Napoleon is
Emperor of France, and a great fox?"  If " is " be literal and
"-fox " be literal, then he actually is a literal fox; if " is"
means is like, then NTapoleon is like the Emperor of France.
If, moreover, when we say Napoleon is a fox, the word fox
means the literal animal, what is meant by it when some one
adds: That fox will be caught yet?  Is it the literal animal of
the genus Vulpis, with the straight tail and the fondness for
geese, which is then meant? and yet cannot a child see that
the word fox is used in the second case as it was in the first?
3. The critic himself, when he comes to explain the phrase,
* Webster.




OF THE NATURE OF METAPHOR.                    693
proves that " is like " is not sufficient as the meaning of "is,"
but that he must make it mean, "resembles in his reputed
cunning."  The verb "to be" means, then, "to resemble in
reputed cunning" when it comes before tle word "fox;" it
also means.' to resemble in reputed firmness " when it comes
before " rock;" it means "to resemble in reputed feebleness'"
when it comes before " grass;" to resemble in reputed sweetness" when it comes before " rose."  In other words, it means
everything conceivable which begins with " resemble,' and has
such a range of meaning that we might set aside a vast host
of words with which our language is now encumbered.
4. To define, in a disputed case, the word " is " by " is like,"
is to do what, in its own nature, is inaccurate, and, in the present case, is absurd, for it repeats, in the definition, the word to
be defined. If " is " by itself means "is like," what does it
mean when combined with the word "like"?  If, when it is
said " lNapoleon is a fox," it means "is like a fox," what does
it mean in the sentence thus produced? Define the word "is"
in the sentence: Napoleon is a fox.  Now define the word " is"
in the sentence: Napoleon is like a fox.
The same objection virtually holds against all the other proposed definitions of "is."  " Signifies " means " is a sign of;"
"symbolizes" means "is a symbol of."  If This is my body
means This is a sign of my body, then This is a sign of my
body means This is a sign of a sign of my body; and this
renewed "is " having the same force again of " is a sign," we
have an interminable series in which nothing is or can be, but
everything must be the sign of something else.
5. What does our critic, on his theory, make of such expressions as this: Louis Napoleon is like a lamb, but is a wolf,
nevertheless? Why is it that when we ask what a thing is,
and the reply is: It is like so and so, we rejoin: We did not
ask you what it is like, but what it is? " He is not my brother,
but he is exactly like him." How can terms which are the very
opposite to each other in one case be synonyms in another?
6. How does this theory suit where the article is used in
metaphor: "I am the door."  I am like the door? What is
the door Christ is like? And if He is only like that door, would




694         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
it not be better to find the door itself? " I am the vine." 5Who
or what is that vine which Christ is merely like?  " Ye are
the branches."  Who are the branches, in fact, if the disciples
are merely like the branches?  "I am the way, the truth, and
the life."  WThat is the real way, the real truth, the real life,
which Christ merely resembles?
How  does it suit when a pronoun is added in metaphor:
"Israel is my floclk;" Israel is like my flock? What is God's
real flock which Israel is like?
How does it suit when an adjective is used in metaphor: " I
am the true Shepherd "?  Who is actually the true Shepherd
whom our Saviour is merely like?
How does it suit when qualifying nouns are added: " The
rock of my strength; rock of salvation; to come t,  the rock of
Israel; upon this rock I will build my church; I lay in Zion. 
a rock "?  Where is the theory in these that the metaphor is
not in the noun?
Iow does it suit in such phrases as: " Blessed be my rock"?
Is some. one who is lile my rock the object of blessing? " TUnto
Thee will I cry, O Lord, my rock."  If fox in metaphor is a
literal fox, what does our Saviour i can when He says of
Herod: " Go tell that fox "?
Can anything be more clear than that the metaphor, in such
cases, lies not in the substantive verb, which is unchanging in
its meaning, but in the noun?
Will the critic please tell us the canon by which he settles
it, that, in a certain case, where "is " connects two nominatives, it means or does not mean "is like"? How does he
know that, in the sentence: "Louis Napoleon is Emperor,"
the "is" does not mean "is like," and that, in the phrase:
"Louis Napoleon is a fox," it does mean " is like "? Does not
the name Emperor, in the one case, and the name fox in the
other settle it?  When he simply hears thus much: " Napoleon is," he cannot tell,.on his own theory, whether " is " means
"is," or " is like."  The metaphor must, then, lie, not in the
verb, but in the name; but it is conceded, that, in the Lord's
Supper, it does not lie in the name; therefore it is not there.
When Wendelin (d. 1652) published his system he said:




KE CKER MA NN-PIS CA TO.                  695
"The main controversy is on the meaning of the word'is,'"
and then states what had then come to be the accepted position
of his party: "' Is' is taken for signifies:'This is, that is, this
signifies my body.'  On account of this signification (propter
hanc significationern) of the copula, or verb is, we say that
Christ's words:' This is my body,' ought not to be understoodc
literally " (non debere intelligi proprie).  From Zwingli's time,
in fact, this has been the position, almost without exception,
of all who have attempted to defend the metaphorical character of the words, and this is the position of most writers of that
school now.  Yet so invincible are the facts and principles that
after the retreat to "is," as the point for a last struggle,
many of the best Zwingliau and Calvinistic writers   oncesions of
felt themselves compelled to abandon it.  At the the point by Calbeginning of the controversy Carlstadt and (Eco- it.
lampadius admitted that'" is " has the exact force claimed for
it by Luther.  On this point they stood with Luther against
Zwingli. They concurred with Zwingli's doctrine, but denied
the validity of his proof.  They supposed him to have reached
the truth by a process of error.  His conclusion was right,
though the reason which led him to it was wrong.  The three
men reached a common result of inference, though each one of
the three premises implied the falsehood of the other two.
Even after the violent controversies of the sixteenth century,
when both parties had so many reasons which made the most
powerful appeal to natural pride not to abandon a position with
which their cause had been identified, Calvinistic theologians
of the first rank confessed the old position in regard to " is"
entirely untenable.  Thus IECKEIRMANN (d. 1609)  Keckeinkman 1,
says:* "Some maintain that there is a trope in pic'to.
the copula, a position which it is impossible to  approve...
There cannot be a trope in it."  Still more extraordinary is
the admission of PIscATon of Herborn (d. 1626) who, following
Beza, in controversy with DANIEL HOFFMANN, of Helnstaidt (d.
1611), had fully committed himself to the position whose falsity
he came to confess.  In his first work he had said: " I affirm
that the metonory lies in the substantive verb' is,' and Iprove
* System. Theolog. III. 8.




696          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
it in this way: That metonomy is either in the subject, or in
the predicate, or in the copula of the proposition. But it is not
in the subject, nor is it in the predicate.  Therefore it is in the
copula."  The reply of HOFFMANN was so complete, that a result
almost without parallel in controversy took place.  Piscator
acknowledged that his position was untenable: " I have been
like a gladiator who, incautiously handling his sword, wounds
himself with it... There cannot be a trope in the copula' is.'
In brief, before I enter on this third struggle, I RETRACT my
former opinion."*  The ripest scholarship of the most recent
period, even under Calvinistic prepossessions, shows the wisdom
R o, i In   of Piscator's retraction.  Dr. EDWARD ROBINSON, for
Schaff Kais. example, the greatest of American New Testament
lexicographers, if, as a Puritan, he had been swayed by unconscious doctrinal influence (for of conscious misrepresentation
he was incapable), would have been, of course, on this point,
adverse to the Lutheran view.  It is a happy thing for the
truth here, that this eminent scholar, who so happily combined
the results of English and German culture, saw and expressed
the exact truth on this point.  He says of eimi: " The verb
eirni is the usual verb of existence, to be; and also the usual
logical copula, connecting subject and predicate: I. As the verb
of existence, to be, to exist, to have existence. II. As the logical
copula, connecting the subject and the predicate, to be; where
the predicate specifies who or what a person or thing is in
respect to nature, origin, office, condition, circumstances, state,
place, habit, disposition of mind, etc., etc.  But these ideas all
lie in the predicate, AND NOT IN THE COPULA, which mnerely connects
the predicate with the subject."  What Robinson says is one of
the elementary philological truths on which sound thinkers,
when once the point is fairly brought before their minds, cannot differ.  Thus, for example, we have in Bagster's Greek
Lexicon: t " Eimi, a verb of existence, to be, to exist; a simple
copula to the subject and predicate, and, therefore, IN ITSELF affecting the force of the sentence ONLY by its tense, mood, etc."  This
same statement, word for word, is made by Green in his
"Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament."t
* Scherzer: Colleg. Anticalv. Lips. 1704, 4to, 574.   t London, 1852, 4to.
t London, Bagster and Sons, 12mo.




LUTHER'S VERSION.                       697
The point on which the confusion of imperfect or careless
scholarship so often makes its blunders is brought out clearly
by Dr. Robinson when he says: " The SUBSTANTIVE OF THE PREDICATE often expresses not what the subject actlually is, but what
it is like, or is accounted to be; so that eimi may be rendered to
be accounted, etc."
Dr. PHILIP SCHAFF, in his note, in his translation of Lange's
Matthew, says: "The exact nature of the relation " (expressed by
the copula) " depends upon the nature of the subject and the predicate," that is, does not depend upon any mutations of meaning in the copula, and this, he says, " is an acknowledged law
of thought and language."  He adds: "It is, perhaps, more
correct to say that the figure in these cases does not lie, as is
usually assumed, in the auxiliary verb esti, but either in the
subject, or more usually in the predicate."* -KAIINIS, as we
have seen, acknowledges that his new view can find no support
in the copula, and says, very correctly: "' From the copula'is'
the figurative no more than the literal can be proven, in the
proposition.  The copula allows of no change of meaning.
Those who say that I is' is equivalent to signifies, mean to say
that either the subject or predicate of a proposition is to be
taken figuratively."t
Because of this very inflexibility of meaning in the copula
"is," the translations which desert the direct.arrangement of
the subject, copula, and predicate, drop the " is," and merge
the whole thought in one complex.  In this case the pretender
to knowledge is apt to be drawn into the fallacy that the words
which have the locality of the " is " translate the " is; " whereas,
in fact, they translate, in whole or part, the subject or predicate. Let us take Luther's version to illustrate  Lither's verthis. Where "' is " stands in the original in various sion.
combinations, Luther's version has upwards of one hundred
and sixty renderings, and yet " is" has, through the whole,
its one fixed sense: all the diversities arising from the connection of the "is"   none from  the "is" itself. Thus Gen.
xxvii. 12 (Heb.): " I shall be in his eyes as a deceiver; " Authorized Version: " I shall seem to him  as," etc.; Luther: "And
* Lange's Matthew, 471.            t Dogmat. I. 617.




698           CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
shall be esteemed (geachtet) before him," etc.  Does the Authorized Version mean to translate' is " by " seem; " or does Luther
mean to translate it by " esteemed"?  Not at all; but in both
cases the complete idea' to be in his eyes as," is expressed in
the more indirect form, and it must be assumed that   is " is
perfectly literal in its meaning, in order that the complex idea
may be reached.  Jacob must really and literally be as a deceiver to justify the statement that he will be esteemed as such.
WVe are not aware of an instance in which Luther uses " bedeuten" where "is" occurs in the original.  In Ezek. xlvi. 17
(Ileb.): " It shall be to him  to the year of liberty; " Authorized
Version: "It shall be his;" Luther: "'He shall possess (besitzen)'"; not that " is " neans to possess, but that to be to him,
or be his, does mean to possess.  The pronoun is involved in
the translation.  Deut. xxviii. 13: " Thou shalt be above only;"
Luther: " Ilover above " (Schweben).  The adverb is involved.
Isaiah  xv. 6: "There is no green thing;"  " There grows"
(wAichset).  The subject conditions the translation.
So inflexible is the substantive copula, that "is " may be
Inflexiblechar- written in a central column, and the ingenuity of
acter of the cop- lman may be defied to write a rational subject on
the one side of it, and a rational predicate of that
subject on the other side of it, to connect which shall require
the addition of any word whatever to the " is," or the substitution of any other word for it. Furthermore, we may add to
the word " is " such qualifying terms as will most distinctly
assert that it is to be understood, literally speaking, without
metaphor, dropping  all symbolical, allegorical, or figurative
language, and it shall thereby only the more effectually answer
as proof that in the very cases of dreams, allegories, and parables, and such like, as are cited to show a departure from  its
literal. force, that literal force is actually- if such a thing be
possible — intensified.    Is" is the great transmuter of the
figurative; into the literal.
is, are
Seven ears          dropping symbol          seven years.
The leaven of the Pharisees  "    allegory          hypocrisy.
The two women           "    figure        the two covenants.
The seed           literally speaking        the word.




RED UCTIO AD ABSURD'UM.                    699
The " is " is just as literal in a metaphor as in the plainest
and most prosaic sentence.  Those who deny this show that
they do not see the real point.  The seven ears literally are
seven years, though the seven ears are not literal ears, but
dreamaears.  If they were literal ears, they could not be years.
The leaven of the Pharisees literally is hypocrisy, but the leaven
of the Pharisees is not literal leaven; if it were, it could not be
hypocrisy.  The two women literally are the two covenants,
but the two women are not literal women, but allegorical
women. As natural women they could iot be covenants. The
seed literally is the word, but the seed is not literal seed, otherwise it could not be the word - it is Gospel-seed. Now, in the
case of metaphorical leaven, seed or bread, there is a metaphor
to drop, but in the case of literal leaven, seed, or bread, there
is no metaphor to drop; hence seven natural ears of corn cannot be seven years, nor can wheat or rye be the word, nor
baker's bread be Christ's body. " This is My body " can mean
but one thing, so far as the is is involved: This literally is My
body.  If there is a metaphor, it must lie in the word " body."
Is it Christ's literal body which is meant? If the body which
is given for us be Christ's literal body, then the sentence
-can mean only one thing: This literally is My literal body.
lWhen we say " the" Church is Christ's body, we mean that
the Church literally is Christ's body -literally is that which
is called Christ's body by the apostle.  Then the question,
Is there a metaphor? means, Is literal body meant?  The
answer here is, No; it is the assembly of believers in Christ.
If the apostle had written, The Church is the body of Christ
which was crucified, he would have written nonsense.  Why?
It seems incredible that on a basis so slight should have
rested the opposition of millions, for centuries, to the doctrine
of the Church.  The whole thing is capable of a reductio  ad
absurcldum. If "is'" means "is a symbol of," then  Reductioaltlibthe right way for our Lord to have announced slrclulm
the doctrine of a true presence would have been to say: " This
is not My body; " which would mean, " This is not a symbol
of My body," the inference, of course, being that as it is not a
symbol of the body, it is the body itself. On this style of




700        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
interpretation, we are to go through the New Testament, and
whatever it asserts " is," we are to declare is not, but is only a
symbol; and whatever it asserts is not, we are to declare is not
a symbol, and therefore the reality.  God is not a Spirit, but
is the symbol of a Spirit; and they be no symbols of gods which
are made with hands, and are, of consequence, real gods. God
hath chosen things which are not symbols to biing to naught
things that are symbols —that is, He has chosen the things
that are, to bring to nothing the things that are nothing
already. 0 glorious ihterpretation! throwing into the shade
the idea of the sceptic who wished to take all the " nots " out
of the Commandments, and put them into the Creed -the.matchless canon which covers all speech- the simple canon:
whatever is, is not, and whatever is not, is.
" Naught is everything, and everything is naught."
As around the words of our Lord, uttered by His own lips,
or breathed into His apostles by His Spirit, the controversy has
gathered, so in those words alone can the solution of their own
mystery be found.  The words themselves are a perfect rule of
faith, and if they have not brought the whole Church to a
unity, it is because not all have studied them enough in the
right spirit.  God the Holy Ghost, in making a revelation to
man by language, of necessity subjected His own words to the
How the con- laws of language; andLif the whole nominal Church
troversy is to be of Christ ever agrees in the doctrine of the Euchadecided.   rist, the agreement will be reached under the ordinary aid of the Spirit, by the right application of the laws of
language to the inspired words. The most vital question in
the controversy is, indeed, one to which even now the Eastern
Church, the unreformed Western Church, and the purified
Church of the West -the Lutheran Church - return the same
answer. The doctrine of the objective presence of the body
and blood of Christ in the Supper is the faith of a vast majority in Christendom now, as it has been from the beginning;
and mischievous as is the error of transubstantiation, it still
leaves the foundation of the Eucharistic mystery undestroyed,
while the rationalistic opposition destroys the foundation itself.




GRAMMATICAL AND RHETORICAL FIGURES. 701
But rationalism itself cannot, without doing violence to the
acknowledged ordinary laws of language, read into the words
of the Supper a metaphorical sense. Handle these words of
our Lord as boldly, construe them from as low a level as those
of ordinary men, still no metaphor can be found in them. This
assertion we hope to prove by a careful investigation of the
fundamental principles of metaphor, which we shall reduce to
thetical statements, and endeavor to illustrate.  We shall try
to present the rhetoric of the metaphor in the relation it bears
to its logic.
I. The metaphor belongs, according to a distinction made by
some writers, to the rhetorical figure, as distinguished from the
grammatical figure. The distinguishing difference between the
rhetorical figure and the grammatical is that the rhetorical is
based upon an ideal relation, the grammatical upon a real one,
or what is believed to be such. To say, HIe keeps  I.Grammnatical
a good table, this purse is gold, this cup is coffee, nld Rhetorical
this bottle is wine, is to use a grammnatical figure; ii.
for the relation of the subject to the predicate is that of real
conveyance. There is a real purse and real gold, a real cup
and real coffee, a real bottle and real wine; and the figure turns
simply upon the identification of the thing conveying with the
thing conveyed, both being real, and the thing conveyed being
communicated in some real respect by means of the thing
conveying.
Again, we say of particular books of the Bible: This book is
Isaiah, this book is John.  This is a grammatical figure, for
the relation of authorship is real on which the identification
rests. There is a real book, written by a real Isaiah, a real
John, and hence we give the name of the author to his work.
So we say: Here is my Milton, take down that Shakspeare,
my Burke is in twelve volumes, I have read Homer through;
or of pictures: This is a Raphael, this is a Salvator Rosa, this
is a copy from Titian, this is a Canova. Is your Madonna a
Murillo or a Michael Angelo?  All these are gralmmatical
figures, for they imply a real relation between the author or
painter who produces and the book, or work of art, produced.
Again, we say: His pen is able, his pencil is artistic; mean



702         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ing that the writing, of which the pen is the instrument, the
picture which is painted by the pencil, have these qualities.
Again, we say of a portrait or a statue: This picture is Washington, this statue is Napoleon.  The figure is grammatical,
for the identification is based upon a real likeness.  We can
say, This picture is meant for Washington; but it is not Washington-it is no more Washington than it is any other man,
that is, the identification lacks the reality of likeness.
Again, we say: His brain is clear, his hand is ready; because
of a real relation between the thought and its organ, the brain
-the energy and its organ, the hand.
There are two kinds of figures which may be called grammatical.  The one is METONOMY, based upon a real relation
between cause and effect, or of subject and adjunct; the second,
SYNECDOCHE, based upon a reca relation of the whole and its
parts, or of the genus and its species.  The question here is
not whether the words of the Supper contain a grammatical
figure, but whether they contain a rhetorical one -not whetler
there is in them  a metonomy, or a synecdoche, but whether
there is in them a metaphor?
II. Rhetorical figurative expressions, under whatever part
of speech they are couched, or however modified in form, presuppose a starting proposition which may, ordinarily, be easily
II. Metaphors reduced to a noun subject, connected by the copula
reducedtopropo- 4 is  with a noun predicate.  The word of God is
sharp, cutting to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, implies: God's word is a sword.  Man flourishes in the
morning, in the evening he is cut down, and withereth: Man is
a flower.  The righteous grows in majesty, his roots spread
forth by the river of life, and his fruits fail not: The righteous
man is a tree.  To this simplest form the words of the Institution are reduced, if they are metaphorical: This (bread) is My
body.
III. In a metaphor, in the form of a noun subject, connected
II. Metaphor by the substantive copula with a noun predicate,
always in the the metaphor always lies in the predicate, never in
predicate.
predicate.    the subject.
1. This is so clear in the ordinary arrangement of metaphori



IMETAPHOR ALWAYS IN THE PREDICATE.  703
cal propositions of this class, in which the subject.comes first,
that no one can dispute it. We will present a few illustrations
in a
TABULAR VIEW. 
Noun Subject.        Copula.      Noun Predicate.
God's word            is             a sword.
All flesh                            grass.
Herod               "               a fox.
The usurer             "             a leech.
The slanderer of the dead                   a hyena.
In all these propositions, in which the simple and usual form
of the metaphor is presented, it will not be denied that the
metaphor lies in the predicate.
2. The principle holds equally good —though an uncultivated reader may not, perhaps, as instantly and readily see it
-in'the inverted arraLngement of poetical style, in which the
predicate comes first: as, for example, if we say: A  sword —
is God's word; grass —is all flesh; a fox -is Herod, the subject and predicate are precisely the same as before.  It is still
God's word that is the sword, not the sword that is God's
word, and so with the others.  There is no new proposition;
there is a mere change in the order of the old one.
3. The principle holds good - though it requires yet a little
more reflection to see it —when the words which expressed
subject and predicate recur in an inverted order, with a newv
proposition as the result. For example, in the sentence, " Love
is heaven, and heaven is love," there are, undoubtedly, two
propositions, —not one proposition with two arrangements, as in
the examples under 2. "Love" has, under one genus, two
specific senses in both propositions, and in the first, heaven is
the predicate, and means exquisite happiness, and in the second
it is the subject, and means the estate of angels and glorified
men.  The first proposition means that love, such as is felt by
our race for each other, is exquisite happiness; the other means
that the heavenly estate of angels and the glorified is heaven,
indeed, because of the love they there cherish and the love
they there receive.




704          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
4. The principle holds good, even in a case in which we seem
to assert that the predicate ought to be the subject -the subject the predicate.  " You say, the slanderer is a serpent; nay,
rather say the serpent is a slanderer."  Here, undoubtedly,
there are two propositions, not a change of order in one proposition. In the first, slanderer is the subject, and is literal, serpent is the predicate, and is metaphorical; in the second, serpent is the subject, and is literal, and slanderer, the predicate,
is metaphorical, precisely as our rule asserts.  The force of the
change turns on the thought: You speak of the serpent as that
whose venom supplies the metaphor which intensifies our sense
of the venom of the slanderer; but, in fact, the venom of the
slanderer is that terrible thing which intensifies our sense of
the venom  of the serpent.  Such examples, then, do not contradict the rule, but are very striking evidences of its truth.
5. The inflexible character of this rule is shown by the fact
that if the noun which was the metaphorical predicate be actually made the subject of a proposition, the instant result is nonsense.  Thus: My flesh is bread, has a clear sense; Bread is
my flesh, if it be a mere inversion of order, with the subject
and predicate unchanged, has the same sense, a little less clear
and popular in the expression; but, Bread is my flesh, if bread
be the true subject, is nonsense.  Here applies what Kahnis
has so miserably misapplied, in his argument on the Supper:
Bread, as such, cannot be the flesh of Christ; and in metaphor,
because the flesh of Christ is bread, it is impossible that bread
should be the flesh of Christ.
We can say that a modest girl is a violet, but not that a
violet is a modest girl; a feeble man is a bulrush, but a bulrush
is not a feeble man; a politician is an eel, but an eel is not a
politician; truth is a lamp, but a lamp is not truth; God is a
rock, but a rock is not God; the Devil is a lion, but a lion is
not the Devil; the promises are manna, but manna is not the
promises; Christ is a lamb, but a lamb is not Christ; a gay
woman is a butterfly, but a butterfly is not a gay woman; a
proud man is a peacock, but a peacock is not a proud man;
a church rebuilt is a phoenix, but a phoenix is not a rebuilt




METAPHOR ALWAYS IN THE PREDICATE.  705
church; a drunkard is a perfect fish, but a perfect fish is not a
drunkard.
From  all this it follows irresistibly that if there be a metaphor in the words of the Supper, it lies in the noun " body,"
which is the confessed predicate.  The friends of the metaphor
are compelled by the laws of language to maintain the proposition: This literal bread literally is something which is meta-.
phorically styled the " body of Christ which is given for us."
It is impossible that the proposition should be: The body of
Christ which is given for us is something which is metaphorically styled, This bread: first, because they themselves declare
that the This bread is literally, not metaphorically, so styled;
and second, if it were not so, because bread is the subject, and
cannot involve the metaphor, body is the predicate, and must
involve the metaphor, if there be one.  So (Ecolampadius contended at the beginning, and so Kahnis contends now.  The
latest opposition to the true view grants that the received argument on its own side has, for nearly three centuries, rested on
a palpable fallacy. Iahnis picks up what Zwingli threw away,
and ends where (Ecolampadius begun. So far as this one point
is concerned, to wit, that if there be a metaphor it must lie in
the predicate, CEcolampadius and Kahnis are right —so far
Luther agreed with CEcolampadius, and Zwingli differed from
them  both.  Zwingli deserved the severest terms applied to
him by Luther, for failing, in so unscholarly a manner, to see
so obvious a point, and the long line of Zwingli's followers
ought to be held accountable before the judgment seat of all
earnest theological investigators of every school, for the slothful manner in which they acquiesced in so palpable an error.
Right or wrong in itself, the current Zwinglianism rests on an
assumption which is demonstrably false and preposterous.
IV. The SUBJECT in a metaphor is always the PRIMARY OBJECT of thought: it is that for which the predicate and copula
are brought in.* " Christ is the morning star: " Christ, the
* " The result which a spoken trope produces in the mind of the hearer is an
image of the PRIMARY OBJECT under the change of aspect caused by its being
viewed from the side of the secondary object; and the emotion which is excited
is consequent on this step." Spalding: Rhetoric, Enc. Brit. xix., 132.
45




706         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATIOT.
subject, is the primary object, and only to mark his majesty is
the predicate, " morning star," brought in at all. If the words
of the Institution are metaphorical, the "bread," as the subject, is the primary object, and the words are uttered for the
sake of telling us what the bread is, and the body is brought
in in a secondary way, to clear up the perception of the character of the bread.  The body and blood are brought into the
Supper for the bread and wine's sake, not the. bread and wine
for the sake of the body and blood.
V. This principle involves also that the primary object in a
metaphorical proposition is always the SUBJECT. In the ordinary construction of sentences the subject comes first. the predicate last. But on this principle the inverted order will not
obscure to us a perception of the real subject. " An open sepulchre is their throat,' (Rom. iii. 13): throat is the subject,
and in Luther's Version, and the King James', is put first.
" The head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is
the man, the head of Christ is God," (1 Cor. xi. 3). Christ,
man, God, are the subjects in the three propositions.  In Luther's Version they come first. "l Ie that soweth the good
seed is the Son of man."' Subject: Son of man.  " The field
is the world:" "world" is the subject; and so through that
passage (Matt. xiii. 37-40) the devil is the enemy, the end of
the world is the harvest, the angels are the reapers. The predicate is placed before the subject, in the explanation of a parable, because the object of the explanation is to show how those
predicates already mentioned fit the subject, which now first
comes into expression.  A  parable rests on a metaphorical
proposition whose subject is not expressed.
If the words of the Institution be metaphorical, and if the
primary object in it be the body and blood of Christ, they must,
of necessity, be the subject of the proposition. Now they are
the primary object, but they are not the subject.  Therefore
the words are not metaphorical.  As the subject in the words
is expressed, they are not of the nature of a parable.
VI. In a metaphor the subject, considered in itself, is related
to the predicate, considered as metaphorical -as a whole is
related to a part, or the greater to the less; the subject expresses




METAPHOR.                        707
the whole thing, the metaphorical predicate limits the mind to
one part or aspect, either specific or generic, of that whole.
"Christ is a sun." Here Christ, the subject, expresses the
whole being, Christ, and after it might follow a statement of
everything that Christ is: the predicate limits the mind to the
one aspect of that whole — Christ as the source of heavenly
illumination, that is, to a part of what He is. And this holds
good even when the predicate, in itself, as literal, is greater
than the subject; as, for example, the sentence:' My lover is
my God."  Here still, lover, in itself, expresses everything that
a lover is, while the term " my God," as metaphorical, expresses
simply one part or aspect of the emotion by which he stands
related to one person.
If the Eucharistic proposition be metaphorical, the bread,
as a whole, is the subject.  The metaphorical predicate, the
body, limits the mind to this bread in one aspect.  To what
aspect of bread is bread limited by calling it the "body of
Christ"?  The bread is a whole, the body a part.  What
part? The bread is the greater, the body the less. In what
respect?
VII. In the resolution of metaphors into literal terms, the
following principles are worthy of note:
1. In metaphor, there is a change of the ordinary signification of the word. In metaphor, "fox" is changed from  its
ordinary signification of a particular animal, and means a man
of craftiness; "rock" means a support and stay; a "lion"
means a hero; "Napoleon" means a man of distinguished
ability and success. But in the Supper there is no change of
meaning in the words.  This means this, bread means bread,
and body means body.
2. This change of ordinary signification is based on some
similitude, or analogy, between the thing named in the new
term and the thing to which that new term is applied.  Herod
is a fox, because an analogy to his craftiness is found in the
cunning of the fox. It is not the man, as a man, with whom
the animal, as an animal, is compared, but itis alone craftiness
in the animal which is compared with craftiness in the man.
Our God is a rock, because the mind traces an ideal resem



708         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
blance between the physical firmness of a rock and the moral
firmness of God.  Now if there be a metaphor in the Supper,
it must be based upon some ideal similitude between bread and
Christ's body. The bread is called Christ's body because there
is some respect in which that bread resembles the body.  But
the theory which accepts the metaphor makes the body resemble the bread, which is to subvert the metaphor. It is not the
fox that is Herod, the rock that is God, nor the body that is
bread; but Herod is the fox, God is the rock, and the bread is
the body.
3. In metaphor, the similitude is always ideal, either essentially or in the mode of regarding it.  When this similitude
is a real one, both in essence and degree, there is no metaphor.;
and hence a real similitude is expressed in different terms from
a metaphorical similitude.  We say, A cat is like a tiger, because of certain points of real physical likeness. There is likeness, but no metaphor.  We say, This cat is a tiger, she is so
fierce.  Here there is metaphor; for though there is a real
likeness between a cat and tiger, and the fierceness of both,
yet it is the fierceness of the tiger, as idealized, that is imputed
to the cat.  Or we may again say, This cat is like a tiger; but
if we wish to guard against the misconception that it is a redl
similitude between the whole subject and the whole predicate,
we mean, we have to add " in fierceness."  " Hegel is like Napoleon " might mean that he bore a real resemblance, physical
or otherwise, to him; " Hegel is a Napoleon " is open to no such
misunderstanding.  "The bread is like the body of Christ"
may mean, grammatically, as well that there is a real likeness
as an ideal one. Ience, to clear the phrase with the resolution
proposed, it would be necessary to add to the words: " This
bread is like the body of Christ " some such phrase as " in nutritiveness," or whatever may be assumed to be the matter of
analogy.
4. Hence it is a clumsy and inadequate mode of resolving a
metaphor simply to substitute "is likec" ifor "is," because it
leaves it an unsettled question whether the likeness is real or
metaphorical.  It both weakens and obscures the thought. If
for " John the Baptist is:Elijah" we substitute "is like Elijah,"




META PHOR.                        709
it may mean like him  in looks, or like him  in various undefined respects, and the sentence is at once robbed of vigor and
clearness.  If, to make it clear, we add " in the analogies of the
spirit distinctive of Elijah," it is not more clear, and is far less
strong than just as it stood: " John is Elijah." If the words
of the Supper be metaphorical, their obvious force is weakened
not stren gthened, obscured not cleared, by substituting " is like"
for "is."  But those who contend for the metaphorical sense
think their cause strengthened by this substitution.  If this be
so, there can be no metaphor. They are met by the horns of
a dilemma.  If " is like" cannot be inserted with advantage to
clearness, then, in the admission of their own argument hitherto, there can be no metaphor; if "is like "can be inserted
with advantage to the sense, then, as we have just shown,
there can be no metaphor.
5. Furthermore, while in the case of a naked, unqualified,
metaphorical noun in the predicate "is like" may merely
weaken the sense, in the case of a metaphorical noun qualified
by terms which link it with higher associations "is like"
destroys the sense. We may say: God is a rock, and then
God is like a rock; but if we say, God is the rock of our salvation, we cannot interpret: God is like the rock of our salvation.
~The Church is the body of Christ; the Church is like the body'of Christ; but not the Church is like the mystical body of
Christ. If we could say: Bread is body, and, consequently,
Bread'is like body, it would not follow that we could say:
Bread is like the body of Jesus Christ which was given for the
remission of sins.
6. The RESOLUTION of a metaphor, by making " is like" the
copula, weakens it, at best, but, the term  "'siyify'" does not
resolve the metaphor at all.  Where ",sig-nify "can be substituted as a copula for "is," there;is no metaphor.  Leo (the,word) signifies a lion, that is, leo in one language tand lion in
another, are verbal signs of the same thing, but Achilles does
not signify a lion.  The seed of the parable is ideal seed, not
natural; it does not signify the word, but that seed is the word,
and the word is that seed.  Natural seed may be used as the
symbol of gospel seed, that is, of the parable seed; but the para



710        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ble seed is not the symbol of anything else, but is itself the
thing symbolized by the natural seed -it is the word. If we
could say, as in a parable: This bread signifies the body of
Christ, it would mean that real bread is the symbol of ideal
bread, to wit, the communion bread, and that the thing idealized in the term communion bread is not the symbol, but the
thing symbolized, and is identical with the body. It is a striking illustration of the way in which the extremes of exegetical
absurdity meet, that to make a parallel between the language
of the Supper and of a parable, would end practically in an
error akin to transubstantiation. It would imply the identity
of the thing expressed ideally in the word bread, with the
thing expressed literally in the word body. It would leave, as
the only literal elements in the Supper, body and blood - no
real bread, no real cup; just as in the parable of the sower, the
only literal elements left are the Son of man, the word, the
world, the hearers.
7. Nothing is, in itself, metaphorical or symbolical. A lamb
as a lamb, a lion as a lion, is not a symbol. Neither the real
lion, nor the real lamb, is symbolical. It is the ideal lion or
lamb that is symbolical.  The mind makes it so. The mind
recognizes and accepts the analogy on which the metaphor or
symbol rests, and thus makes the symbol. Hence the bread,
as such, can be no more a symbol of the body than it can be th6
body itself. Bread, as bread, is no symbol, but a literal reality.
The moment we fix the fact that a piece of bread is to be regarded as a piece of bread, apart from the general analogies of
all bread, we entirely exclude that bread from any possible, relation to the symbol or metaphor. Christ could say, The bread
which I will give is My flesh, but not, the baker's bread, the
wheat bread, which I will give, is My flesh.
8. A symbolical dream and a parable differ essentially only in
the manner in which they are brought before the mind. The
dream is a parable pictured in sleep, and the parable is a symbolic dream  stated in words. Suppose, with no antecedent
dream, Joseph to have been inspired to say: The kingdom of
Egypt is like unto seven ears of corn, etc., we would have, by
a mere change of the manner of presentation, a parable; or if




METAPHOR.                         711
the Son of God, with the same intent as in a parable, had, in
a dream, presented to the minds of the apostles a man going
forth to sow, or fishermen casting a net, there would have been
a symbolic dream. Peter's vision can be shaped as a parable:
The kingdom of heaven is like to a great sheet, which was let
down, etc. In the explanation of a dream or parable, the subject,
though it may come last in the order of words, is the real, literal
thing which the dream or parable is meant to set forth. The
seven years are the subject of the dream's explanation; the
kingdom of heaven, and the Son of man, are the subject of the
explanation of the parable, and what God hath cleansed is the
subject of Peter's vision. In the explanation of dream and parable the subject is literal, and the predicate purely ideal; not a
literal thing symbolizing, but an ideal thing symbolized. In
the Supper, the subject is literal, and the predicate is literal.
There is no dream-bread or parable-bread, no dream-body or
parable-body.  No matter how you arrange subject and predicate in it, you can find no parallel with the dream or parable.
9. As in metaphor the figure turns upon the predicate considered not in its natural character, but only as an ideal with a
particular quality made prominent, the same noun predicate
may be used with very different senses. Either the terms or
associations will show, therefore, in every case, what quality in
the predicate is the basis of a good metaphor. Achilles is a
lion, for he is brave; the Devil is a lion, for he destroys; Christ
is a lion, for He is majestic. Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
for he shall be sagacious in strategy and resistless in attack;
the Devil is a serpent, for he is the sagacious perverter of men
— he is that "old serpent" which seduced Eve.  Now, as a
metaphorical predicate, the body of Christ fails to exhibit the
particular quality in which the metaphor lies. It explains
nothing, but needs explanation.  What quality of Christ's
body is imputed by metaphor to the bread?  The most conflicting replies have been made to the question by those who
insist that there is a metaphor. One says it is the quality of
nourishment; Christ's body nourishes, therefore bread is called
by its name.  Another says: Christ's body is broken, and, as
the bread is broken, it is called the body; and so on through a




712         CONSERVATIVE REFORMAATION.
range of conjectures ever increasing, and destined to increase,
because the solution, in this direction, rests upon lawless conjecture -it gets no light from the text, and its sole limit is
that of the ingenuity of man.
10. The name in the predicate in the metaphor is given to
the subject, so that we can continue to conceive of the subject
in all the aspects suggested by the name of the predicate within
the whole range of the ideal analogy. Any adjective or verb
that suits the predicate can so far be applied to the subject.
The righteous man is a tree; God has planted that tree by the
river of water; his leaf is ever green; his fruit is more and more
abundant; his root is struck more and more firmly into the soil;
if his branches are lopped off, it is to insure greater vigor; his
shelter is pleasant to those' who rest beneath it.  Now give
the name of the predicate, " body," to the subject, " bread,"
and attempt to carry out the figure in this way   apply to
the bread adjectives and verbs derived from  the body -and
the impossibility of a metaphor is at once apparent. We can
neither say, with a wider range, This bread is Christ's body,
and has suffered for us, was crucified for us, has ascended to
heaven; nor, with a narrower range, This bread is Christ's
body, and nourishes us with heavenly strength -he that eats
of it shall live forever- Christ gave this bread for the life of
the world. Take John vi., where there is a metaphor underlying, in which Christ's flesh is the subject and literal, in
which bread is the predicate and metaphorical, and contrast
it with. the words of the Supper, where the theory in question
admits that bread is the subject and literal, and maintains that
body, the predicate, is metaphorical. Now take Christ's flesh
as:bread, and see how the terms literally appropriate to bread
adapt themselves metaphorically to the flesh; then go to the
Supper, take bread as Christ's body, and see whether the terms
literally appropriate to Christ's body adapt themselves metaphorically to the bread, and you cannot fail to see that there
can be no metaphor here.
11. All figures properly rhetorical rise upon the common root
of the metaphor, and are reducible ultimately to metaphorical
propositions, that is, to propositions in which there is a subject




METAPHOR.                          713
with a metaphorical predicate, capable, for the rost part, of
being linked to it by the substantive copula " is."
"Though round his breast the rolling clouds are spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on his head."
The good man is a mountain.  "If he dare to light on me,
I shall brush him off:" he is an insect.  " The state is tossed
on the waves of civil strife:" the state is a ship.  "The sunshine of truth will scatter those falsehoods:" truth is a, sun;
falsehood is a cloud.  "The diapason closing full in man:"
nature is an instrument of music; man is the completion of
nature's mlusic. " From the egg to the apple, life is insipid:"
life is a banquet.  Hence all metaphorical language is but the
evolution of the primary idea.  It results from the ideal identification of the subject and predicate throu0ghout, so far as that
identification is primarily involved in the simple proposition.
Hence, after directly connecting the subject in a metaphorical
proposition with its predicate, we can go on to apply to the
subject the qualities of the predicate. The good man is a
mountain, and though clouds are about his breast, eternal sunshine is on his head.  The officious intermeddler is an insect,
and if he dare to light on me, I will brush him off. The state
is a ship, and is tossed on the waves of civil strife.  Can we
say, This bread is my body, and is given for you; this wine is
my blood, and has been shed for many for the remission of
sins?  If we cannot, there is no metaphor.
12. In didactic metaphors, whose object is not so much to
ornament as to make clear and vivify the meaning to the simple learner, predicates are chosen whose range of qualities is
smallest, in fact, if possible, confined to one quality.  The
favorite popular metaphors turn very much. upon the disposition to confine, as nearly as possible, th:e analogy to a single
quality in a single predicate. A  bee- and a wasp both sting,
yet if we say of a woman, " She is a bee," the first impression
made is that she is industrious; if we say, "She is a wasp,"
the hearer supposes we attribute ill-temper to her.  A bee is as
provident as an ant, but when we wish to find an image of
providence, we take the ant.  A hare is both swift and timid,




714        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
yet, whenwe call a man a hare, every one at once supposes us
to mean that he is timid. An elephant is sagacious as well as
ponderous, but when we say that a man is an elephant, we are
not thought to compliment his sagacity, but to allude to his
hugeness of body. The torch was once an image of illumination, now it is an image of destruction. We speak of the lamp
of knowledge, but of the torch of discord. The spider has
many points of metaphor, but in popular language his image is
narrowed to the mode in which he ensnares his prey. The ass
has had a varied fortune in metaphor. Homer compares his
hero t9 an ass; yet, from being the image of enduring bravery,
of strength, of contentment, of frugality, of meekness under
wrong, the ass has come to be almost exclusively the image of
stupidity.  The dog once went into metaphor on the strength
of his worst points; he now generally goes in on his best. Once
the question was put: Is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this thing? Now institutions of trust paint upon their sign the
dog, who, as he watches the chest, is an image of the institution in the incorruptible fidelity it claims for itself. If there
be a didactic metaphor in the Lord's Supper-and such it
would be most likely to be if there were any- it would select
the body of Christ as the predicate, because of one familiar quality which enabled it, more than any other, to make clear and
vivify the meaning of the bread. Will any one pretend that
such is the case?
13. In a metaphor the adjectives and verbs appropriate to
the predicate are applied to the subject. The adjectives and
verbs appropriate to the subject in a metaphor cannot be applied
to the predicate. " The child is a flower; it opens its petals to
the dawning sun; it strikes its root into the green earth; it is
tender, sweet, fragile."  We cannot correctly apply in this
same metaphor any of the qualities of the child to the flower,
or mingle the attributes of the subject with those of the predicate.  We can simply and solely consider the subject under
the metaphorical conditions of the predicate. We cannot say:
"The child is a flower; it strikes out its roots in the nursery;
that flower once had a father and mother, but, alas! the chill
wind came, and now the flower is an orphan."  If, therefore,




ME TA PHOR.                     715
there were any warrant for the textual reading on which is
based the interpretation: "This broken bread is my broken
body," it would imply that the body is metaphorically broken,
and that because the predicate body is identical in the metaphor with the bread, we can say that the bread is broken.
But it is granted by all that the breaking of the bread is literal.
It is said to be broken, because, and only because, it is broken.
Hence the a priori presumption is entirely in accord with the
external evidence that the true reading of 1 Cor. xi. 24, does
not embrace the word "broken."  If the word there were
genuine, there can be no metaphorical relation between the
breaking of the bread and the breaking of the body; but if
there were, it would produce an idea exactly the reverse of
that which the advocates of the metaphor desire. They wish
the breaking of the bread to figure the breaking of the body,
but, in fact, the breaking of the body would figure the breaking of the bread. If I say: " Hope is a broken reed," it is the
" broken " of the predicate which we refer to the subject, not
the reverse. It is not that hope is broken, and, therefore, we
make it the image of a broken reed; but it is the reed that is
broken, and we, therefore, make it the image of the broken
hope. The words are not: My body is this broken bread, but
(following the reading): This (bread) is my broken body.
14. A  verbal SYMBOL is simply a metaphorical predicate,
which is fixed in one determinate sense by general agreement
and understanding. It must conform to all the laws of metaphor. When the symbolic idea of the verbal symbol is embodied in a representation, or associated with a natural object,
apparent to the senses, a SYMBOL PROPER is the result. Thus,
when, for the first time, it was said: " The brave man is a lion,"
there was but a metaphor. When the authority derived from
a general use and agreement made the lion, by preeminence,
and exclusively, the metaphorical representative of courage,
the lion became the symbol of courage; and the carved or
painted lion becomes the symbol proper of courage. Before a
symbol can be assumed in language, there must be presupposed
a mnetaphorical predicate, and a fixing of it by general agreement in one only sense. When there can be no metaphor,




716         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
there can, a fortiori, be no symbol.  When we say: "'The
lamb is the symbol of Christ," it implies, first, that the lamb is
a metaphorical predicate of all gentle human beings; second,
that because of the preeminent gentleness of Christ, God has
authoritatively, in his word, fixed the predicate as descriptive
of his Son. Hence, when the artist paints the lamb in sacred symbolism, we at once know he means Christ; he represents the lamb bleeding, it is Christ the Sufferer he means;
the lamb bears the banner, it is Christ triumphant.
15. A TYPE is a person or thing divinely foreappointed as the
symbol of a person or thing not yet revealed.  It involves a
divine metaphor with the subject reserved for a future statement.  The type is related to the antitype as the predicate to
the subject.  The lamb is a symbol of Christ.  The paschal
lamb is a type of Christ.  For the same reason, as in the explanation of the parable and dream, the predicate, in the resolution of the type, is often placed first.  We can say " Christ
is our paschal lamb," or " Our paschal lamb is Christ," but in
either case Christ is the subject.
16. The descriptive terms we add to a metaphorical noun to
make its nature apparent must be such as to imply that it is
metaphorical, not such as would apply to it as literal. Instead
of saying, " His wit is a dagger," we may enlarge by saying,
"His wit is the dagger of an assassin; he plunges into the
heart of every man who offends him;" but we cannot say;
"His wit is a dagger purchased at Smith's hardware store."
We do not say: " The law of God is a lamp of brass with a
cotton wick;" " our life is the flowing river Schuylkill', which
runs into the Delaware;" "he was clothed with the mantle
of humility, made of blue cloth."  But to the words body and
blood'are: added just such terms as suit the literal body and
blood alone. It was the literal body which was given -the
literal blood which was shed for us and for many for the remission-of sins.  Contrast the words which in 1 Cor. xi. speak of
Christ's literal body with those which in chap. xii. speak of
His metaphorical body, His Church.  Take the words: This
is.my body which is for you -guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord -not discerning the Lord's body-which are found




"BREAD" METAPHORICALL Y USED.                    717
in chap. xi., and lay them  side by side with the terms in
which, in chap. xii., Christ's body, the Church, is spoken of;
the many members-the foot, the hand, the eye, the ear-now
ye are the body of Christ and members in particular,  and
note how striking the difference.  And in the Oriental cast of
thought, far more than in the Western, exists this very tendency to luxuriate in the details of metaphor.  The abstinence
from anything of the sort in the case of the Supper, which, if
it be metaphorical at all, involves the metaphor of metaphors,
is very significant.
Let us look for a moment longer at the bearing of these
principles on the Lord's Supper:
When the word bread is used metaphorically, or with a figurative allusion, it is a well established emblem of  I.," Bread" metfood or of nutrition - intellectual, moral or spirit- aphorically used.
ual.  As the fox is the emblem of cunning, the dove of gentleness, the rock of firmness, so is natural bread the emblem of
supernatural or spiritual nutriment.  The proposition " bread
is Christ's body," taken figlratively, would make bread the
literal thing, and Christ's body the emblem of it, and would
have to mean,  as Christ's body is supernatural or spiritual
food, so bread is natural bodily food."   The proposition,
" Christ's body is bread," on the other hand, makes Christ's
body the literal thing, and bread the emblem of it, and would
mean, "as bread is natural bodily food, so is Christ's body
supernatural or spiritual food." If it be said, Bread is like
Christ's body, the question at once arises, In what respect?
What is the well-known property of our Lord's body to which
we find a likeness in bread? If the reply is, Christ's body is
sacramentally eaten, and bread is like it, in that it is eaten
naturally, we would reply: The eating of Christ's body is a
recondite and imperfectly understood thing,  why, then, do
you take it as the illustration of something so simple and well
understood as the eating of bread?  Why illustrate the simple
by the obscure?  Why illustrate it at all? Yet more, however, if the reply is, Christ's body is broken, and bread, like it,
is broken, we would reply, It is not characteristic of bread to
be broken; thousands of things equally with it are broken:




7; 8        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
moreover, Christ's body is not naturally broken, but bread is;
hence, instead of illustrating the supernatural by the literal,
you are illustrating the literal by the supernatural.  What you
want to fit in with your theory is, that Christ should have
said, Take, eat, my body is like this bread; or, the breaking
of my body is like the breaking of this bread. But on this
theory he exactly reverses the statement.  He does not say,
My body is this; but, This is my body. Here, too, is one of
the sharp and noticeable distinctions between the thought in
John vi. and the thought in the Lord's Supper.  In John vi.
he says:' My flesh is bread; my flesh is meat indeed."  Here
he says: "This is my body."  If it were lawful to supply the
word "bread," bread would here be the subject, as it is there
the predicate. But, whether bread or the breaking of bread
be considered as that with which the body or breaking of the
body is to be compared, it would necessarily, to sustain the
theory of metaphor, or symbol, be the predicate. But it is here
manifestly the subject, as even the great mass of un-Lutheran
expositors are forced to admit.  But if bread or breaking of
bread be the subject, it is compared with the body, or breaking
of the body: that is, Christ is supposed to illustrate the
natural and familiar action by the remoter and less intelligible
which is absurd.
Schwenckfeld   saw whither this false theory would drive
him, to wit, that it would suppose that our Saviour, considering the eating of his body as the familiar thing, and the eating
of the bread, the thing that required illustration, which is so
manifestly false, that, to avoid it, he proposed to write the
words thus: My body is this bread, to wit, is spiritual bread,
as this is natural bread. If, now, the critic's view could be
taken as to the force of';,is," to wit, that it means " is like,"
he plunges headlong into the difficulty Schwenckfeld tried in
vain to escape. Even if there were a metaphor, it would not
have a parallel in the phrase, " Louis Napoleon is a fox;" but
in this: " A  fox is Louis Napoleon;" that is, a fox is like
Louis Napoleon; or, a rock is God; or, grass is flesh; or, a
door is Christ.
*The same view was maintained at a later period by John Lang.




THE "BREAKING"  OF BREAD, ETC.                     719
Just as plain is it that the phrase " breaking bread," if figurative, is the well-established emblem  not of the violent killing of a human being, but of supernatural or spiritual distribution or commnunication.  Why is bread' broken?  In order
to its being given, taken, and eaten.  Hence, when we speak
figuratively of breaking bread, we mean this: the higher thing,
of which the bread is the emblem, is given, taken,  II.The"Breakand eaten in some sense corresponding with the fig- in, of Bread",w
ure.  Hence, in the Lord's Supper, it is inconceiv- mtaphorical.
able, if the breaking of bread have a figurative reference, that
this reference should rest on the breaking of bread, not as the
means of its distribution, in order to be taken and eaten, but on
the violent tearing of it into pieces, as symbolical of crucifixion.
If, therefore, the sole connection were, as the critic imagines,
between breaking the body, the symbol would still contemplate
the bread which we break as the communication of Christ's body.
From these indisputable facts, as also from the sacred text,
it is most clear that, as the " breaking " of the bread  Iii. TheBreakin the Supper was distributive, that is, the natural ing o Bread and
the   distributive
means necessary to its distribution or commiunica- character of the
tion to the taker and eater of it as natural food, so, Supper.
by consequence, the breaking of Christ's body, to which it
would point, would be the communication of that body as
supernatural food.. The analogy is not this: That as bread
may be considered as figuratively killed by breaking it with
the hand into small pieces, so was Christ's body literally killed
by piercing it with the nails and the spear, but is most clearly
this: That as bread, in order to be naturally taken and eaten,
must be physically communicated, (to which the natural breaking was necessary,) so the body of our Lord Jesus, in order to
be sacramentally taken and eaten, must be supernaturally communicated.
The critic has said of the " resemblance in the fact that just
as he had broken the bread, so his body would be   IV.   The
broken," etc., that this is " the only one stated by "Breaking" of
Bread not indicaChrist himself" in regard to the bread and the tive ofthemode
body.  If we look at the sacred text, we find that of our Lord's
the critic is at issue wh it on t e v l  death.
the critic is at issue with it on three vital points:




720         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
1. Our Saviour does not say " would be broken,"' would be
shed," but uses the present participle in both cases: " is broken,"
"is shed."  If the critic insists that the.present participle has
a future sense, he is bound to give reason for his departure
from the letter.  Till the critic proves this, he has against him
the very letter of our Lord's word, testifying that he did not
compare that present breaking of the bread with the future
breaking of his body.
2. The sacred text, if we assume that the language is figurative, gives no warrant for the idea that the breaking of Christ's
body, and the shedding of his blood, refer as their distinctive
object to the mode by which his life was terminated, but both
refer to the impartation or communication of the body and
blood, as the applying organs of the, redemption wrought
through them. In other words, they are, in the Lord's Supper,
contemplated distinctively in their sacramental application, and
in their sacrificial character only as the sacrificial is to be presupposed, either in fact or in God's unchanging purposes, as
the necessary antecedent and ground of the sacramental. Bread
is broken in order to be communicated, and wine is poured out
in order to be imparted.  If these acts, then, are symbolical as
regards the body and blood of Christ, they contemplate the
one as broken, the other as shed, in order to communication
and impartation; and then there is a parallel in the words of
Paul: The cup of blessing, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ; the bread which we break, is it not the communion
of his body?
3. Matthew says our Lord brake the bread, but does not think
V.    thit necessary to record at all that our Lord said, My
Evangelists con- body broken - that is, according to the false theory,
neot thenB'- he failed to note the only resemblance which our
ing of the Bread
with the Break- Lord has authorized.  Mark is guilty, on the same
ingof teBody. theory, of the same omission -not a word about
the breaking of the bread as the point of comparison with the
breaking of the body. Luke has: IHe brake it, and gave unto
them, and said: This is my body which is given for you.  Not
a word about the breaking as a symbol of the crucifixion; but,
as if the breaking were merely a necessary part of the com



THE "BREAKING" OF BREAD, ETC.                   721
municative act ending in the giving, says: This is my body
given for you. Is the giving of a piece of bread also an emblem
of the crucifixion?  Is it not evident that broken and given
are considered as involving the same idea, and that the force is
"4 so broken as to be given "? Is it not clear that the giving of
His body is something which Christ himself does; that therefore the sacramental breaking or communication of it is His
own act, and that if He symbolizes any acts, it is His own acts,
and not those of His enemies?  Who does not see, if we assume
a figure, that the natural bread points to the supernatural
bread, which He tells us is Iis body, and that the natural
method by which the natural bread is communicated points to
the supernatural method, by which the invisible sacramental
bread, to wit, Christ's true body is given?
If in 1 Cor. xi. 24, we accept the Textus receptus, and read
" broken for you," the meaning of the word broken is determined by the facts already stated. It is to be harmonized with
St. Luke's "given," and with the omission of Matthew and
Mark. But the best text sustained by the oldest manuscripts,* is
without the word, and the editions of the greatest recent critics,
as for example Lachmann, Tischendorff, and Alford, omit it.
The attempt, therefore, to show  that our Saviour put the
sole stress on the breaking of the bread, is a com-  VI. The  at
plete failure, as is also the attempt to show that the tempt to make
ithe  exclusive
breaking contemplates our Saviour's death in its prallel in the
mode, and not as the sacrificial pre-requisite, in the Breaking, a failmind of God, to the sacramental communication.
The true view is strengthened by the fact that, although the
three Evangelists say of the blood: " shed for you," not one of
them speaks, nor does St. Paul speak, of the pouring, or shedding of wine at all; which would have been absolutely essential,
had the breaking partaken, as the critic seems to suppose, of
this pantomimic character.  If Christ had broken the bread to
symbolize, by that act, the breaking of His body, He must have
poured the wine to symbolize, by that act, the shedding of His
*As the Codex Sinaiticus, A., 4th century; Alexandrinus, A., 5th century;
Vaticanus, B., 4th century; Ephraem Syri, C., 5th century.
46




722        aCONSERVATIVE REFORiMATION.
blood. So absolutely necessary to his new theory does Kahnis
see the shedding of the wine to be, that he goes completely out
of the sacred record to assume that " the wine which is poured
out of a large vessel into the chalice is the blood which is shed
for us." This is not interpreting Scripture, but manufacturing
it- and the manufactured Scripture directly contradicts the inspired Scripture.  It is the cup of blessing which we bless, not
the cup of wine already poured and consecrated in the Supper,
not the skin-bottle of pouring which we pour before the Supper,
which is the communion of the blood of Christ. It is not
enough for Kahnis to add to St. Paul; he feels himself forced
to contradict him. But Kahnis is helpless. If the bread comes
into the Supper solely to be eaten, and the breaking is but a
natural mean toward the eating, a mean which can be used
either before the Supper or in it; if the wine comes into the
Supper solely to be drunken, and the pouring is but a natural
mean toward the drinking, a mean which can be used before or
in it, Kahnis's theory of symbol goes by the board.
On the very word, then, on which the critic builds his whole
theory, it goes to pieces. It is broken by "broken." Alike what
the four narratives say, and what they omit, is decisive against
him - as their words and their omissions strengthen the true
view, the view of our Church.
The critic, as we have seen, formally abandons in great stress,
VII. Summary in one important respect, the Zwinglian view of the
of the false meaning of the word " is" in the Lord's Supper.
heory.  He acknowledges that here it does not mean " symbolizes, represents." This he does, apparently, to avoid the
rock on which we showed, and have again shown, that the old
rationalistic symbolic theory struck and split, as soon as it was
launched. He concedes that the bread, as such, is not the symbol
of the body of Christ. So much for Zwinglianism. But, as he
goes on to admit, there is a solitary point not peculiar to bread,
in which there is a likeness to a solitary point, connected with
the history of our Saviour's body, but not peculiar to it. His
theory really is this: The bread does not here mean bread, but
the breaking of the bread. The body of Christ does not mean
His body, but the breaking of His body. The critic, with his




'THE FALSE THEORY CHARACTERIZED.    723
theory of pronouns, gets the proposition: This bread (touto
artos) is my body. Then, with his theory of the substantive
verb, this is made to mean: This bread is likemy body; then,
with the new theory of metaphor, bread means breaking of
bread; body means breaking of body; and the sacred words
mean this: This breaking of bread is like the breaking of my
body broken for you, therefore take this breaking of bread and
eat it. Hle abandons the argument on which the faith of our
Church was originally assailed, and admits the untenableness
of the philology of the anti-Lutheran rationalism of centuries.
Strange fallacy, which would make the breaking of anything,
whatsoever, a title to its being called the Lord's'  t^~~~~~~    VIII. The false
body, which assumes that the bread as such, that theory characis, as food, is not the symbol of Christ's body, but terize.
that the breaking of the bread is like the breaking of the body.
This theory assumes that it would be as proper to affirm that a
broken paving - stone, or a broken pane of glass, or a broken
dish, or a broken rope, is Christ's body, as that the bread of
His supper is; for the parallel is between breaking and breaking - broken bread and broken body. But if you concede that
it is between bread and body, then you are drawn to the
dreaded necessity of the true supernatural eating of the latter
as the parallel to the true natural eating of the former. How
pointless, too, opening in the lowest depth of Rationalism itself,
a lower deep, is it to say that the breaking of bread is like the
breaking of Christ's body, considering the breaking as the
means of putting that sacred body to death. Bread is an inanimate thing: how  can breaking it be like the putting of a
human being to death? Breaking bread is the very symbol of
quiet and peace. Who would dream of it as an appropriate
symbol of the most cruel and ignominious death? Bread is the
representative food, and, used in metaphor, is the symbol of
spiritual or supernatural food. The breaking of bread is the
means to giving it as food, and taking it as food, and as a symbol, the symbol of giving and taking a higher food. No one
would dream of the breaking of a piece of bread as the symbol
of killing a human body; and if so extraordinary a symbolic use
of it were made, it would require the most explicit statement, on




724        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the part of the person so using it, that such was its intent; and
when he had made it, the world would be amazed at so lame a
figure.
We join issue, then, with this theory, and maintain that if
there be a figure in the words, the figure must be this: that
the bread is a figure of the body of Christ, as the true bread 
and the breaking of that bread, so as to communicate it, a figure
of the true communication of that body. And thus our Lord
did not mean, in the word " broken "-if he indeed used it at all
-to point to the process by which His body was killed, but to
His body as the bread of life, broken or given to be the nourishment of the divine life of the believer. If His body be the
broken bread, it is as the communication of that body of which
He says: Take, eat; this is my body given for you.
Utterly apart from the divine majesty and the plenary outpouring of the great Spirit of his prophetic office upon our
Lord, it is a degradation to Him as the master of words,Himself the incarnate Word and revealer of the mind of God, as
the One who spake as never man spake, whose imagery combined, as they were never combined in human language, the
most exquisite simplicity with matchless sublimity and appropriateness,-it is a degradation of our Lord to torture the whole
drift of His words, so as to make them jejune and pointless, as
the critic has done. It sounds more like a Jewish taunt, than
a sober Christian utterance, to say that, as an appropriate representation of a living body pierced by nails and spear, our
Lord selected a loaf of bread, and brake it to pieces, and said:
This bread is my body -- not with allusion to the bread as food
at all; not with allusion to the breaking as the great distributive and communicative act, but simply to the breaking as
a means of destroying. We do not believe that from the Institution of the Supper to this hour the mere act of breaking the
bread, as such, has vivified to any human creature the sacrificial
agony and death of our Lord. We have searched the records
of the ancient Church in vain for such an idea: it is not found
in any of the Fathers whom we have examined. It is modern,
forced, and manifestly manufactured for certain doctrinal ends;
is in conflict with all the laws of human speech; is insulting to




TESTIMONY OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH.  725
our Lord, and is rejected by the best commentators of every
school, even by some of the ablest Calvinists, Zwinglians, and
Rationalists themselves.
The antithesis of the purified Church Catholic in modern
times is strengthened by the fact that the Church Catholic,
through its most ancient witnesses, asserts the same antithesis,
and bases it upon the same doctrine.  The Fathers are not
authorities, but they are witnesses.  The force of         
Testimony of
their testimony depends very much upon the nature the e a r  i es t
of the thing to which they testify, whether it be Churh.
something in regard to which they had ample opportunities of
being informed. It depends also upon its clearness, its harmony with itself and with the testimony of others. The statements of a witness or of a body of witnesses may carry with
them a moral force which is irresistible. The testimony of
the Fathers of the earliest Church in regard to the Lord's
Supper carries peculiar weight, because, from the nature of the
case, the meaning of the Lord's Supper must have been asked
for and determined at once. It is impossible that in the daily
communion, with which the Church began, and the very frequent communion with which the Church continued, there
should be no settlement of the question, What is the essential
character of this Sacrament?
There are those now who think that the permanence of the
Supper, and the practical fruits of it, are the only points of importance about it -its essential character may be left out of
view. But in fact, from the beginning to this hour, it has not
been possible to see why it should be permanent, or what fruits
it is meant to have, without understanding what it is. In the
very nature of the case, therefore, the essential character of the
Lord's Supper was no matter of remote speculation. It came
up instantly, and came up constantly. There are no two points
on which we would expect the witness of the ancient Church
to be more prompt and decisive than on the two Sacraments,
Baptism and the Supper, and the fact corresponds with the
anticipation. On nothing is the testimony of the primitive
Church more full, more clear, and more decisive, than on Baptism and the Supper. The testimony begins very early. The




726         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
first important witness is an Apostolic Father, IGNATIUS, for
whom it is claimed that he saw our Lord, and who, beyond
all dispute, was a pupil of the Apostles.  He was consecrated
pastor of the church of Antioch, by St. Peter, about A. D. 43;
and was put to death as a Christian about A.D. 107.
The importance of the testimony of the early Church in
regard to the Lord's Supper has been felt in all the churches.
Extremists, in the churches most alien in their faith to the testimony of the Fathers, have tried to torture their declarations,
if not so as to teach their own peculiar views, yet, at least, so
as not directly to contradict them. Some, as for example,
Marheineke, have claimed that the three leading views of
modern times all have their representatives among the Fathers.
In presenting the facts of most importance, it may be useful to
premise the following principles:- First. For the early Fathers,
lrinlciplestobe as mere thinkers, we need feel comparatively little
observd in inter- regard.  It is only where they are competent witpreting the Fathels.       nesses that we attach great value to what they say.;Second. We propose first to show, not what was the whole line
of patristic thinking, but what was the original view, so early
as to create a moral presumption that it was formed not by
speculative thinking, but on the direct teaching of the Apostles.
With this as a sort of patristic " Analogy of Faith," we shall
assume that the later Fathers agree, if their language can be
fairly harmonized with it.  Third. The easiest and simplest
interpretation of the Fathers is the best; the less use we make
of the complex ideas and processes of the scholastic or modern
theology the better.  If we find our faith in the Fathers, we
must not always expect to find it couched in the terms which
we should now employ. It is their faith rather than their theology we are seeking; and we should compare our faith with
their faith rather than our dogmatics with theirs.  Systematic
thinking and nicely balanced expression are the growth of
ages in the Church.  We must not suppose that the faith of
the Church is not found in a particular writer, because we miss
many of its now current phrases.  No existing system of theology, and no dogmatic statement of a single distinctive Christian doctrine, can find its absolute fac-simile in form in the writ



IGNA TI US.                      727
ings of the Christian Fathers - not the doctrine of the Trinity,
not the doctrine of Sin, not the doctrine of the person of
Christ, in a word, not any doctrine.  The oak of a thousand
years is not a fac-simile of itself at a hundred years; yet less a
fac-simile of the acorn from which it grew. Yet the oak is but
the acorn developed, its growth is its history; and if the bond
with its past be broken anywhere the oak dies.  Fourth. That
interpretation, all other things being equal, is best which most
naturally harmonizes all the sayings of a particular Father with
each other, or all the sayings of all the Fathers with each other.
We have no right to assume a contradiction in either case,
where a harmony is fairly possible.  Fifth. That is the best
interpretation of the past which most naturally accounts for
the sequel.  When a doctrine has taken an indubitable shape,
or even has undergone a demonstrable perversion and abuse,
we are to ask what supposition in regard to the precedent
doctrine best solves the actual development or the actual
abuse. Sixth. We reach the faith of a Father by the general
drift of his statements, although seeming, or even real contradictions with that general drift are to be found in his
writings. No man, perhaps, is perfectly self-consistent.  The
reader may discover inconsistencies which the writer himself
has not noticed.  The mass of mankind hold very sincerely
views which really involve a conflict. But in the ancient
Church, with the vast influx of men of every school of philosophy and of every form  of religious education - with the ferment of the wonderful original elements which Christianity
brought into human thought - with Christian science hardly
yet in existence, we would expect many discrepancies, especially
where dogmatic accuracy is required.
THE TESTIMONY OF ST. IGNATIUS.
There are three passages in St. Ignatius confessedly bearing
upon the Lord's Supper.  The first is from  the i. Tgatius, A.D.
Epistle to the Smyrnians: " They (the DocetMe, 43-107.
who denied that our Lord had a true body) abstain from the
Eucharist and prayer because they confess not that 1. To theSmyrthe Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus nirs-. 7.




728         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Christ, which (teen) suffered for our sins, which  (een) the
Father in His mercy raised again.  They then who speak
against the gift (dorean) perish while disputing.  Good had it
been for them to keep the feast of love (agapan), that they might
rise again."  Agapan has been translated " to love it," but the
better rendering seems to be "to celebrate it," agapee, i. e., the
Lord's Supper, taking its name from the " agapee," or " lovefeast," with which it commenced in the earliest Church, as in
the following paragraph it seems to be defined by the terms
" agapee poiein," in the sense of " celebrating the Eucharist."
The second citation is from the Epistle to the Philadelphians,
2. Tothe Phila- "Iaste ye then to partake of one Eucharist, for
delphians..4.  there is (or it is) the one flesh of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and one cup for the uniting of His blood (enosin,) one
altar." The third citation is from the Epistle to the Ephe3. Tothe Eple- sians, "Breaking one bread, which is the medicine
sians.  20.    of immortality; the antidote that we should not
die, but live in Jesus Christ forever."  It is very obvious, that
taking these words in their simple and native force, they best
accord with the doctrine of the Lutheran Church. In the first
place they affirm  positively that the Eucharist is the flesh
(einai sarka) of our Saviour Jesus Christ; that it is the one
flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which constitutes it. Secondly.
They distinctly affirm  that the flesh meant is that which suffered for our sins, "which the Father in His mercy raised
again; " thus overthrowing one of the most recent figments of
a very subtle, yet perverse interpretation, which, unable to
deny that there is an objective presence of Christ taught by the
Fathers, alleges that I-s body in the Eucharist is a body of
bread, or that the bread, as such, is His body; and that the
blood of Christ in the Eucharist is a blood of wine, that is,
that the wine itself is, as such, Christ's blood. Ignatius distinctly testifies that the body in the Eucharist is not a body
of bread, but is the body of that flesh which suffered for our
sins and was raised from  the dead. EBRARD* himself says:
" The fundamental argument against the possibility of a tropical use of the word' flesh' in Ignatius, lies in the fact that he
* Abendm. I. 254.




IGNA TIUS.                       729
speaks distinctly of that very flesh which was put to death
upon the cross, and was raised in glory by the Father."
Thirdly. The effects imputed to the Eucharist by Ignatius are
entirely inconsistent with the supposition of its being a mere
memorial or a mere spiritual communion.  IIe imputes to
it the power of producing the resurrection to eternal life; not
that he denies that the wicked shall rise again, but that like
St. Paul, when he speaks of attaining unto the resurrection of
the dead, he means the resurrection in its true glory, as a rising
to eternal life.  The medicine of immortality, the antidote to
death, the spring of life in Christ forever, can be no other than
Christ's flesh itself- the organ of His whole work.  KAHNIS.*
"From  these words it follows with certainty that Ignatius
regarded the consecrated elements as the media of a Divine
impartation of life, consequently as more than bare symbols;"
and EBRARD t admits, " When he calls the Eucharist a medium
of imniortality, it is clear that he was thinking not of a bare,
subjective memory of Christ, but of an actual approlpriation of
Christ and of all His graces."  Foulrthly. So far from the early
Church, as represented in Ignatius, being indifferent to the
doctrine held in regard to the Lord's Supper, we find that it
is distinctly marked as a heresy, practically resulting in the
eternal death of those who held it, that the Eucharist is not
the flesh of our Saviour.  Taking then the simple and direct
interpretation of Ignatius, we find him in perfect affinity with
the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession: 1st. In the
assertion that the true body and blood of our Saviour - that
which suffered and that which was raised -is present in the
Eucharist, actually constituting it.  2d. That true bread and
true wine are present.  3d. That the bread and wine given and
taken are the means by which the body and blood are imparted. When he says, That the cup is for the uniting
(" enosis ") of Christ's blood, the " enosis " points distinctly to
that specific idea which Paul expresses when he says, The cup
is the communion of Christ's blood, and which our Church
expresses by saying that the blood is in, with, and utnder the
cup. The word " enosis " is used by the Fathers to indicate the
uniting of two things, and is most frequently used for the unit* Dogmat. II. 195.                   t Abendm. I. 256.




730         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATIOr.
ing of the human and divine natures in Christ. Whether we
interpret the " enosis " here as implying that the cup is that
which unites, sacramentally, blood with wine, or blood with
the communicant, by impartation and reception, the great
idea remains unchanged, for either of these involves the other.
4th. Even the antithetical part of the Tenth Article has its
parallel in the condemnation of the Docetue for denying that
the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. That Ignatius teaches
the doctrine of the objective presence of the body and blood of
Christ in the Supper is shown among recent writers, by Engelhardt, Francke, Rudelbach, Sernisch, and Kahnis.
THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.
The second testimony we adduce is that of JUSTIN MARTYR
I. Justin Mar- (converted A. D. 133, put to death as a martyr, 165).
tyr, AD. 33.  If the claim be doubtful which has been made for
him, that he was a disciple of the Apostles, the other claim
may at least be allowed, that he was a man not far from the
Apostles either in time or virtue. The extract we make is
from his Apology. " Having ceased from the prayers, we greet
Apology, I. c. one another with a kiss; then bread and a cup
66, 67.    of water and wine are brought to him who presideth
over the brethren, and he, receiving them, sendeth up praise
and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son
and the Holy Spirit; and maketh at length an Eucharistic
prayer for having had these things vouchsafed to him. Those
called among us'deacons,' give to each of those present to
partake of the bread and wine and water, over which thanksgiving has been made, and carry it to those not present; this
food, (' trophee,') is amongst us called' Eucharist' (eucharistia),
whereof no one may partake save he who believeth that what
is taught by us is true, and hath been washed in that laver
which is for the remission of sins, and to regeneration, and
liveth as Christ hath delivered; for we do not receive it as
common bread (koinon arton) or as common drink (koinon
poma); but in  what way (on tropon) Jesus Christ our
Saviour being, through the word (dia logou) of God, incarnate'(sarkopoieetheis,) had both flesh and blood for our
salvation, so also have we been taught that the food over




JUSTIN MARTYR.                      731
which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word
(euchees logon), which is from Him-from which food our
blood and flesh are by transmutation (metaboleen) nourished
(trephontai)  is (einai) both the flesh and blood (kai sarka, kai
aima) of Him, the incarnate Jesus (sarkopoieethentos)."
Applying here the same simple principle of interpretation,
we find, first, that the lesh and blood of Christ are the
sacramental objects; second, that they are distinguished from
the bread and the wine; third, that they are so related to the
bread and wine that the reception of the one implies the
reception of the other —there is a sacramental unity and identification; fourth, that this relation is not one produced by the
figurative character of bread and wine, as symbols of body and
blood, but a relation subsequent to the consecration and produced by it; fifth, that a parallel of some kind is instituted
between the two natures of Christ, conjoined personally in His
incarnation, and the two elements, bread and body, cup and
blood, conjoined sacramentally in the Supper. Sixth. The antithesis is implied when it is said, That no one may partake of
this food among us save he who believeth that what is taught
by us is true. This means that the rejecter of this doctrine
of the Lord's Supper in common with tlhe rejecter of any other
article of faith is disapproved of and excluded from the Communion. Thus, again, is overthrown the false assumption that
the ancient Church allowed of known conflicting views in
regard to the Lord's Supper.  Seventh. These words of Justin
show that the supernatural character of the elements in the
Supper is dependent upon consecration. He distinctly affirms
that only after the word of God upon them do they possess
their character as the flesh and blood of Christ. This alone
overthrows the Zwinglian doctrine, for if the bread be the body
of Christ symbolically, it is such, as bread, quite independently
of any consecration. Eighth. Justin expresses the true doctrine
of what it is that does consecrate in the Supper; gives the
true answer to the question: What is it, by which that
which was before mere bread, now becomes, in virtue of a
supernatural relation, the body of Christ? He says, That the
consecration takes place through the prayer of the word, which




732        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATlON.
is from Him, i. e., Christ, (di euchees logon ton par autou). This
may include the Lord's Prayer, but by preeminence it expresses
the words of the institution, which we know, in fact, constituted
an essential part of the earliest liturgies; and St. Justin himself expressly mentions Christ's words as the words used in the
consecration, and makes them parallel with the consecrating
words used in the mysteries of " Mithra," which were a diabolic copy and parody of the Lord's Supper.
It has been asserted that the doctrine of Justin is that in
the Supper a new incarnation of Christ takes place. This view
has been maintained by Semler, HIahn, Neander, Baur, Engelhardt, and others. It has, following them, been most fully
presented by Semisch, in his Justin Martyr.*  " Justin," says
Semisch, "regards the Supper as it were a repeated incarnation; as the incarnation was consummated in this, that the
Divine Logos assumed flesh and blood, so he supposes that the
presence of Christ in the Supper mediates itself in this, that
the Divine Logos unites Himself with bread and wine as His
body and blood. Bread and wine do not change physically in
the Supper, but neither do they remain common bread and
common wine. They are, after the Eucharistic prayer by
which they are consecrated, as it were the vessel in which the
Divine Logos dwells, and are, consequently, really, even if only
figuratively, the body and blood of the Logos." This means
that the bread is not the medium of the communication of the
body of Christ, but is in some sense literally the new body of
the unincarnate Logos. That is to say, that the Divine nature
of Christ, separate from His human body, puts on the bread of
the Eucharist as a new body; hence this bread is a body to the
unincarnate Logos. That this is not Justin's view is very clear,
first, because he connects with his own representation the
words of the institution; clearly showing that he had in his
mind the words, "my body, my blood," there occurring in that
sense almost undisputed, in which they are accepted by universal Christendom, even by those who deny the doctrine of the
true presence.  When Justin speaks of the body of Christ he
*Semisch, C. A.: Justin der Martyrer, 1840-42, (translated by J. F. Ryland,
Edinb., 1843, 2 vols., post 8vo).




J USTIN MART YR.                    733
evidently has in view those words in which Christ says:'" My
body given -my blood shed for you."  Who can believe that
Justin imagined an impanate and invinate Jesus; and that he
was so beclouded as to imagine that this bread-body could be
the body which was given for men, this wine-blood, the blood
which was shed for mankind for the remission of sins. The
bread and the cup cannot be thought of as that body of Christ
which was given and that blood which was shed for the remission of sins. Nothing, but the impossibility of any other view,
would justify us in fixing so monstrous a theory upon the
language of Justin.  Second. Justin is very careful to express
how far the parallel between the personal co-presence of the two
natures of Christ and the sacramental co-presence of the two
elements of the Supper goes and does not go. The "on tropon,"
which we have translated, "in what way," does not mean to
state that the modes of the two things are identical, but simply
to show that the first is a voucher for the second; that there
is such a parallel; that the first authenticates and, to a certain
degree, explains the second; but not at all that there is an identity of mode, still less that the second is a repetition of the first.
In the Septuagint and New Testament, " on tropon " has the
sense, "As, even as, what manner, corresponding to," Ezek. xlii.
7: "After the manner of," Ezek. xlv. 6. "Outoos " has the
sense, " So, even so, likewise, thus." There are passages in the
Biblical Greek in which the two expressions are related precisely as in Justin.  2 Maccab. xv. 40, " As (on tropon)
wine mingled with water is pleasant, even so (outoos) speech
finely framed delighteth."  Acts i. 11, " In like manner as (on
tropon) ye have seen Him go into heaven, this same Jesus shall
so (outoos) come."  2 Tim. iii. 8, " Now as (on tropon) Jannes
and Jambres withstood Moses, so (outoos) these also resist the
truth."  Not identity but similarity is expressed in every case.
Justin clearly says, that the " word," in virtue of which the
Eucharist becomes Christ's flesh and blood, is the word of the
prayer, or prayer of the word, " euchees logou." It is not the
Logos which effects the change of which he speaks, but the
prayer of the word which is from Him, to wit, from Jesus
Christ, whom  he has just styled the " incarnate Logos."




734          CONSERVATIVE  REFOR MATION.
Finally, he says, in downright terms, that it (the bread and
wine) are the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, exactly the
opposite of the position of Semisch, and of those who agree
with him, which is, that the bread and wine are the body and
blood of the unincarnate Logos. Now, could Justin call the unincarnate Logos Jesus?  The Logos separated from the human
nature is not Jesus.  This manufactured theory represents
Jesus as both incarnate and unincarnate, as having one abiding
body of flesh, and innumerable ever-renewed bodies of bread,
as approaching unincarnate the elements and taking them to
Him, the bread as another body than His true body, the wine
as another blood than  Iis true blood.  That great scholars
should have acquiesced in a theory of such intrinsic absurdity
— a theory which has nothing, in the language of Justin, to
necessitate or even excuse it - can only be accounted for by the
endemic disease of thought and feeling which in German theology so largely infects even those who most wish to escape it.
The ambitious ardor of scholarship, the desire after originlality,
the love of novelty, the chaotic subjectivism which Rationalism,
though baffled and defeated, leaves behind it, impair the solid
judgment, and diminish  the value of the labors of many
of the greatest recent theologians.*  Thierscht says of this
theory, " I declare  that this whole statement is throughout fabulous.  It has arisen from pure misunderstanding, and
is undeserving of further notice. It would destroy the entire
connection of the Christian faith, and annihilate the most hallowed doctrine of the ancient Church -the doctrine of the
Incarnation."  The Roman Catholic theology long endeavored
to find in the words " kata metaboleen," that is, " by transmutation," a warrant for Transubstantiation; but these words so
evidently refer to the transmutation of the bread and wine, as
"Es will jedermann im Laden feil stehen, nicht dass er Christum order sein
Geheimniss wolle offenbaren, sondern sein eigen Geheimniss und sch6ne Gedanken, die Er iber Christi Geheimniss halt, nicht umsonst gehabt haben."Luther.  ("Everybody has his wares to offer-not that he wishes to reveal
Christ and His secret, but that he is anxious that his secret and the beautiful
idea he has about Christ's Secret shall not be lost.")
f In his able "Prelections on Catholicism and Protestantism," vol. ii., p. 247.




JUSTIN MARTYR.                      735
the sustenance of man, that Dcellinger, the ablest defender of
the Romish views in our day, abandons the position.  It is
decisive against Romanism and Calvinism. " The Lutheran
theologians," says Kahnis, "are justified in finding in this
passage a testimony to the doctrine of the sacramental union
of the body and blood of Christ with the elements; and in
regarding this, not as the testimony of one Church teacher, but
of the Church, as Justin represents it."   The least justification of all," says Semisch, "has the Reformed Church, in appealing to these words of Justin in defence of its views of the
Lord's Supper; for not only is there throughout not a word in
regard to a merely symbolical relation of the elements of the
Supper to the body and blood of Christ, but the very opposite
is clearly expressed in the declaration that the bread and wine
of the Supper are not common bread, but the body and blood
of Christ. The parallel which Justin draws between the incarnation of Jesus and the act of the Supper make it absolutely
necessary to suppose that as the corporeal nature of the incarnate Redeemer was a real one, so also the bread and wine of
the Supper are to be taken in a real sense for the body and
blood of Christ."  Even DORNER * says: " Although it is not
strictly correct to identify his doctrine completely with the
Lutheran, yet, from what has been said, it is evident that it
stands most near to the Lutheran."  EBRARD t puts the construction on the words: "As Jesus, supernaturally begotten,
had His creaturely flesh in order to secure our redemption, so
this Eucharistic food, which has been consecrated by prayer, -
this food wherein we are nourished conformably to the transmutation of the creation,-is the body and blood of Christ (a
supercreaturely food having respect to the Redeemer). Under
metabolee, I believe, we are neither to understand the transmutation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ
nor into our flesh and blood, but the world-historical fact of
the transformation of the creaturely into the sanctified- the
redeemed." On this, KAINIS  adds: "This exposition, and the
argument for it, is to such a degree arbitrary and unhistorical,
that we regard a refutation of it as unnecessary."
* Person Christi, II. 401.  t Abendm. I. 260.  $ Abendm. 186.




-736        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
THE TESTIMONY OF IREN2US.
Our next great primary witness is St. IRENAUS, martyr. He
lived near the time of the Apostles. He was most intimate with
Polycarp, who was one of the Apostle John's best beloved
friends, and from Polycarp's own lips he heard what John told
in regard to Christ: " Noting these things," he says, " in my
heart." Tertullian styles Irenseus, " the most exact investigator
of all doctrines."  Erasmus says: "His writings breathe that
ancient vigor of the Gospel, and his style argues a spirit ready
for martyrdom."  The school of Asia Minor, alike in the range
of its science and the purity of its faith, was the great
school of this era; and its most faithful and profound representative in its best tendencies is Irenmeus. HTe has expressed
III. Irenus, himself in several passages with great clearness in
F., 176-202.  regard to the Eucharist.  The most important
passage in regard to the essence and effects of the Eucharist
is found in his " Book against Heresies," b. 4, ch. 18, ~ 45.
He holds up against the Gnostics the confession of the Church
as embodied in fact in the Supper.  First of all, the offering
of the products of nature-the bread and wine, which are the
body and blood of Christ-is in conflict with the dualism of the
Gnostics, according to which the world is not regarded as
created by the Supreme God. Second. He urges against it the
Church faith that our bodies, through the Supper, receive the
potencies of the resurrection. This is opposed to the Gnostic
dualism between matter and spirit. Ile speaks thus: "How
shall they know certainly that that bread, over which thanks
are given, is the body of their Lord, and that the cup is the
cup of His blood, if they do not acknowledge Him as the Son
of the Creator of the world, that is, Iis Word, through which
Word wood yields fruit, and fountains flow, and the earth
yieldeth blade, ear, and full corn. If the Lord belong to another Father, how was it just, that, taking bread of this our creation, He confessed that it was His own body, and He affirmed
that the mingled drink of the cup was His own blood."
" Altogether vain are they who deny the salvation of the
flesh and despise its regeneration, saying that it is not capable
of incorruption. But if it will not be saved, in truth, the Lord




IREN.E US.                      737
has not redeemed us by Iis blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communication of His blood, nor the bread which
we break the communication of His body; for blood is not
save of veins and flesh, and of the rest of hutnan substance, in
which the Word of God was truly made."
"IIow say they that the flesh passeth to corruption, and
partaketh not of life, the flesh which is nourished from the
body of the Lord and His blood. Either let them (i.e. heretics)
change their mind or abstain from offering the things above
spoken of (that is, the Eucharist). Our doctrine harmonizes
with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our doctrine,
and we offer to God His own, carefully teaching the communication and union of the flesh and spirit, and confessing the
resurrection.' For as the earthly bread (literally, the bread from
the earth,) (apo gees artos), receiving the invocation of God, is no
longer coimmon bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things,
an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the
Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the
resurrection to eternal life."
Here we see distinctly, First, the doctrine of the copresence,
really and truly, of the two elements,  the earthly one, true
bread; the heavenly one, true body; the earthly one, the true
cup; the heavenly one, the true blood. Second. We see that
the earthly is regarded as the communicating medium of the
heavenly, and a supernatural efficacy, reaching both body and
soul, is connected with them. We see, moreover, that the
consecration (the ekkleesis or epikleesis) of God produces the
union of the earthly and heavenly. The doctrine of Irenmus
alike is opposed to the Romish denial of the bread and the
Reformed denial of the body.
Very violent is the pretext of Dcellinger and M6hler, who
make the earthly part the body and blood of Christ, and the
heavenly part, the Logos; but the passage says nothing about
the Logos, nor would the Fathers call the Logos a pragma, a
thing or part of the Eucharist.  The "epigeion" (earthly)
manifestly refers to the "apo gees," (just before,) the earth,
from which the bread is said to come, and with reference to
which it is called  earthly."
47




738         CONSERVATIVE  REFOR MATION.
Some of the Reformed say that Ireneus means by the heavenly element the significance of the elements: others maintain
that he means a certain virtue or operation supposed to be infused into the elements. But these evasions of the meaning of
Ireneus are, First, opposed to the direct letter of his statement:
the significance, or virtue, would not justify the word " consist."
Bread does not CONSIST of wheat and symbolic meaning, nor of
wheat and spiritual power.  Second. To the argument of Irenseus: " Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have hope of the resurrection." Does he attribute
so great a thing to a virtue (not to speak of a significance) in
the bread and wine?  Possibly the ardor of partizanship might
lead some to reply, HIe does; but such a reply is precluded by
his words in immediate connection: " How say they (the heretics) that our flesh comes to corruption, and does not receive
life, that flesh which is nurtured by the body and blood of the
Lord."  Third. To the direct assertion of Irensus, in a parallel
place: * "Where the mingled cup and bread receives the word
of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ."
Dorner,+ after showing the untenableness of Semisch's theory, adds: "As Semisch concedes, the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is excluded by the words of Ireneus, and no
less is the Reformed conception.  This does not indeed demonstrate that the Lutheran view  is that of Irenseus, yet it
cannot be denied that Ireneus stands more closely to it."
Thiersch says: "So much stands indisputably firm  that the
body and blood of Christ is as certainly the' ouranion' (the
heavenly thing) of the Eucharist, as the bread derived from
the earth, and the wine derived from the earth, is the'epigeion' (the earthly thing) of the Eucharist."  "But," adds
Kahnis, "this relation one to the other, of the heavenly and
earthly matter, is the characteristic feature of the Lutheran
doctrine."
On the meaning of the testimony of these earliest Fathers, a
Marheineke's most important concession is made by MARHEINEKE.:
Concession.    This concession is the more striking because it is
connected with his effort to establish the theory that the
*Adv. Hares, V. 296.           tIn his Per. Ch, vol. ii., p. 496.
t Sanctor. Patrum de Prsesent. 22-31.




MIARHEINEKE'S CONCESSION;                   739
Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper was predominant in
the first four centuries.  Marheineke, after presenting the evidence on which he rests his theory, goes or to say: " There are
other sayings of other Fathers (of this era), which, in whatsoever way they may be tortured, seem to admit of no other
meaning than that of the real presence of our Lord." Such is
that of JUSTIN MARTYR. "By no force, and by no artifice (nulla
vi nulloque artificio), can his words be harmonized with the
symbolic interpretation. The presence of Christ is true in the
same sense in which the bread and wine are in themselves true,
and there is a conjunction of Christ with them."  " IRENEsu
does not say that the earthly is but the figure of the heavenly,
but teaches that there is a conjunction of the heavenly, to wit,
the Son of God, with that earthly nature, bread and wine.'Christ declared that the bread is His own proper (idion) body,
and the cup His own proper (idion) blood;' from which words
ought to be gathered what he means by the'earthly' and'heavenly' things. The typical sense, therefore," (the Reformed) " and the hyperbolic" (the Romish) " Irenaeus clearly
excludes. WTeighing with a just balance, we shall see that
Irenaeus held the middle view " (the Lutheran) " in regard to
the real presence."
From the simple sense, then, of their own language, and from
the concessions of men of eminence, who had reason to grant
as little force as the testimony could possibly bear to our doctrine, it is fixed that the earliest witnesses of the faith of
Christendom  accord with the confession of the Lutheran
Church in regard to the objective sacramental presence of the
body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper. They stand asa
bulwark alike against the false spiritualism which reduces the
Divine mystery to the level of nature, and that carnalism which
makes it a prodigy arrayed against nature. They maintain, as
our Church does, that the sacramental presence is neither natural nor unnatural, but supernatural, that is, is neither conditioned by the laws of the lower natures, nor contrary tothem,
but is conformed to the laws of the Supreme Nature.
The ancient Church Catholic professed to have one concordant faith. That interpretation, therefore, of the utterances of




740         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
individual witnesses is most probable, all other things being
equal, which best accords with the claim. The faith once delivered to the saints has abode through all time. By separating the testimony, and by assuming that the Christian Church
for centuries had no fixed doctrine, no faith in regard to the
Eucharist, but that there was a mere chaos of conflicting private opinions, the Fathers have been forced into contradiction
of each other and of themselves. But if it first be allowed that
the whole testimony of the Fathers, as adduced by Romanists,
Lutherans, and Reformed, may be internally harmonious, and
if that possible- harmony be tested by the effort to arrange the
whole in a self-consistent system, the Romish and Reformed
views alike fail to meet the demands of the case; and the whole
testimony, as a whole, corresponds from beginning to end with
the Lutheran faith.  We claim  that the Latin and Greek
Fathers had the same faith touching the Eucharist, and that
the faith they held is identical with that confessed in the Tenth
Article of the Augsburg Confession. This we shall endeavor
to establish by a Systematic Statement of their views in their
own words.
1. The Fathers clearly assert the substantial reality of the bread
Systematic and wine before, during, and after the Supper.
Statement of the Their utterances, decisive against Transubstantiation,
views of the Fathers.     have been perverted to a denial of the objective true
presence, which they firmly held. They call these visible elements " bread and wine" throughout; they speak of them  as
"of the creature," "made of the fruits of the earth," as "' the
food of life," " the substance of bread and wine," (THEOPHYLACT
in Marc. 14,) the bread is " made up of many united grains," is
" wheat," "1 the nature of bread remains in it," (CHRYSOSTOM,)
" not altering nature," (THEODORET).*  The wine is "the blood
of the vine," "fruit of the vine," "wine pressed out of many
grapes," as conjoined with water it is " mixed," "the mystical
symbols depart not from their own nature, for they remain still
in their former substance," (ousia) (THEODORET).t  So express
is the language of THEODORET against Transubstantiation, that
in the edition of his Dialogues, published in Rome, 1547, by
* Dialog. I., IV.                    t Dialog. II.




THE VIE WS OF THE FA THER S.                    741
Nicolinus, printer to the Pope, it is admitted that his view is
unsound (from  the Romish point of view), and the apology is
made for him  that the Church had not y=t fixed the doctrine
by her decree.  No less express is the language of Pope GELAsiUS (A. D. 492): * "  ertainly the Sacraments of the body and
blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made
partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature
of bread and wine does not cease to be (tamuen esse non desinit
substantia, vel natura panis et vini)."  So helpless are the acutest Romish controversialists, Baronins, Bellarrnin, Suarez, and
others, before this passage, that they try to prove that another
Gelasius wrote the book.  But not only have these arguments
been overthrown by Protestant writers, but the Jesuit LABBE,
renowned for his learning and his bitter antagonism to Protestantism, has completely vindicated the claim of Pope Gelasius
to the authorship of the book.t
2. They sometimes speak of the elements, simply considered
as bread and wine, in their natural relations and characteristics
-as taken from  the earth, nourishing the body, passing into
the circulation of the blood.  "Food by which our blood and
flesh are nourished by transmutation," (Justin;) " by which the
substance of our flesh is nourished and consists," (Irengeus).
3. They sometimes speak of the elements, considered in themselves, as natural symbols; bread and wine as the most obvious
symbols of spiritual nutrition and reviving, and this natural symbolism remains through the Supper. CYPRIAN: "As common
bread, which we eat daily, is the food of the body, so that supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul, the healing of the mind."
" Because, among all things that are the food of life, bread and
wine seem most to strengthen and refresh our infirmity,itis with
great reason that lie was pleased through these two things to
confirm the mystery of His Sacrament. For wine both gladdens
us and increases our blood; and, therefore, not unfitly the blood of
Christ is figured by it." T In this aspect the elements are sometimes styled symbols, signs, figures, types of the body and blood.
*De duabus natur. in Chr. adv. Eutych. et Nestor. in Bibl. Patr. Mag. IV., I.
422
tCave: Hist. Lit. Ann. 492, p. 298. Deyling: Obs. Misc. 361.
4 Druthmar (Christianus) on Matt. 26.




742         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
o passage in any of the Fathers asserts that the elements in
the Supper are merely signs or symbols. The passages of TERT'ertullialln's  TULLIAN, in which the word "' figure" is applied to
plication of the the Lord's Supper, have been the subject of much
word "Figure"
to the io's controversy.  In the first of these passages,* he
supper.   is speaking of the prophecies concerning Christ. He
first urges Psalm xcvi. 10, according to a reading peculiar to
some of the Greek writers, of which Justin also makes mention: "' The Lord hath reignedfrom the wood."  This " wood,"
says Tertullian, is "' the wood of the cross."  " This wood," he
continues, "Jeremiah prophesies of (xi. 9)  that the Jews
should say,' Come, let us put wood upon Ilis bread;' undoubtedly
meaning upon His body. For so did God reveal even in the
Gospel, which you receive as genuine, calling bread His body;
so'that, hence, already you may understand that He assigned to
bread the figura of His body, whose body the prophet hadfigurated upon bread, of old, the Lord himself meaning in after
time to explain the mystery."  In this passage nothing seems
to us more clearly Tertullian's train of reasoning than this:
Jeremiah meant by " wood " the cross, by " bread " Christ's
body. Christ, by calling "' bread " His body, gave the key to
Jeremiah's meaning.  This bread is the figura, the real thing
which Jeremiah figurated, or couched under afgural; and this
bread is that figure (now opened), because this bread is lmy
body. Jeremiah calls Christ's true body, which was to have
the cross laid upon it, bread. Why? Because, replies Tertullian, there was to be a bread which should be Christ's true
body. Jeremiah calls that bread which was true body    and
Christ opens the mystery by declaring that there is a bread,
to wit, the Encharistic bread-which is His true body, "assigning to bread the figura of His body," as the prophet before had
assigned to His body the figura of bread. IHe identifies the panis
of the prophet with the panis of the Communion; and, by consequence, as the panis of the prophet is really the body which
was crucified, so is the panis of the Communion really the body
which was crucified.  That the Calvinistic interpretation is
impossible, is very clear. As Tertullian reasons, if the panis in
*Adv. Marcion, III, XIX.




TER TULLIA N.                    743
the Supper is not Christ's body, but the sign of it, then the
panis in the prophet would not mean Christ's body, but would
mean the sign of it; and the inference would be that he means,
let us put the wood upon the sign of His body, that is, on the
bread - which would make the inference exactly the opposite
of that which Tertullian does make, would cause him to stultify himself and the prophet, and instead of confuting Marcion,
he would play into his hands. Tertullian's whole point is this,
what "' bread " means in Jeremiah, it is in the Supper.  It
means Christ's body in Jeremiah, because it is Christ's body in
the Supper. "To assign the (prophet's) figura of His body to
the (sacramental) bread," means that what the prophet figured,
~that is meant by bread as a figura, to wit, Christ's body, is by
Christ assigned to the sacramental bread —what the first
means, the second is, to wit, Christ's body.
In another passage the same thought is repeated. He is
showing that the " wood" of the cross is prophesied  Aders. Judgo.
of. He again quotes Jeremiah: "'Let us put wood Clap- x
upon His bread.' Assuredly wood was put upon His body. For
so Christ hath revealed, calling bread His body, whose body
aforetime the prophet figurated upon bread."  The point again
is, Why does the prophet give the name of bread to Christ's
crucified body? The answer is, Christ gives the name of His
crucified body to bread. But how does this answer meet the
case? for the prophet, as Tertullian marks and emphasizes, has
done exactly the opposite. The prophet calls Christ's body
bread. Christ calls the bread His body. If Christ by this one
phrase means that the bread is the sign of His body,.the prophet by the other would of necessity mean that the body is
the sign. of the bread, which is absurd. The whole point of
Tertullian rests again upon the supposition that it is one and
the same thing which is called " bread'" by the prophet and by
Christ; and that because Christ calls bread His body, bread in
the prophet means His body. On the contrary, if by " bread "
Christ means not his body, but the symbolic signs of his body,
then the prophet does not mean His body by bread, but the
symbolic sign of His body; and Jeremiah's bread is bread.
These facts prepare us for a clearer view of the passage in




744         CONSERVATIVE REFORZMATION.
which this same argument is opened in its greatest fulness by
Tertullian: "The law figurated Christ's passion, The bread reAdv. narcioii, ceived and distributed to His disciples, le made that
V. 40.'   body of His own (ilium suum), by saying,  This is
my body,' that is, figura of my body.  But there would not have
been a figura unless there would be a body of verity. But an
empty thing; which is phantasm, cannot receive a figura.  Or
if He feigned that bread was His body, because He lacked verity
of body, it would follow that He delivered up bread for us.
But why does Ile call bread His body? Marcion understands
this to have been the ancient figura of the body of Christ, who
said, through Jeremiah:' They have thoutathoughthought against
me, saying, Come, let us cast wood upon His bread,' to wit;
the cross upon His body.  Wherefore, I-e who sheddeth light
on the things of old, hath, by calling bread His own body, made
sufficiently clear what He then meant' bread' to signify. That
ye may also recognize the ancient figura of blood in the wine,
Isaiah will aid."  No passage in the most ancient Fathers
has been so triumphantly appealed to by the rejecters of the
objective presence as this; and yet, carefully examined, it is
not for them; it is not neutral, but is utterly against them.
The " figura " here is not a symbolic figure in the Supper, but
is the "figura " of prophecy.  This is most clear, First. From
the whole drift of the argument, which turns upon the evidence
that the Old Testament figurates, presents figures of the things
of the New. Second. From the tenses of the verb which follows
"figura of ny body."  "For there would not have been (non
fuisset) a figure unless there would be (esset) a body of truth."
"Fuisset " in the pluperfect, contrasted with " esset " in the
imperfect, distinctly marks that the figura pertains to the past
prophecy, as the esset does to the later Eucharist..Third. The
figura is expressly said to be the ancient figura. "This to have
been (fuisse, perfect) ancient Jigura (veterem  figuram) of the
body of Christ."  Fourth. The figura of the blood is expressly
called the " ancient figure." Fifth. The same argument which
was used in connection with the other passages applies with
equal force here.  The thought is, Christ made the bread His
body by the consecrating words; and thus this bread, now




TER TULLIAN.                       745
by sacramental conjunction His body, is identified by Him with
the ancient prophetic figura of His body.  The thing which
the prophet calls bread is literally Christ's body; the thing which
Christ offers in the Eucharist is literally 6hrist's body. Hence,
we recognize the ancient figura of the body in the bread, as we
" recognize the ancient figura of the blood in the wine." " As
now ITe bath consecrated His blood in wine, who under the
Old Covenant figurated wine in blood," so now IHe hath consecrated His body in bread, as under the Old Covenant I-He figurated bread in His body.  What is figure there is reality here
— the figura and reality are thus identified —the bread of
Jeremiah and the bread in the Supper are one and the same
thing, to wit, the body of Christ.
4. They constantly distinguish between the elements considered as before the consecration and after it. IREN2EUS: " The
bread which receives the vocation of God in the administratioh
of the Supper." ISIDORE: " That which being made of the fruits
of the earthis sanctified and made a sacrament, the Spirit of
God operating invisibly." THEODORET: "After consecration, we
call the fruit of the vine the Lord's blood." CYRIL of Jerusalem: * " The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the invocation is mere bread and wine."
5. They assert that the bread after consecration is not in every
respect what it was before.  IRENEUS: "I It is not common
bread."  " Though that bread be bread before the sacramental
words, yet, when the consecration is added, of bread it becomes
Christ's body."t  " Our bread and cup is not mystical, but is
made mystical to us by a certain consecration,"    CYRIL of
Jerusalem: "After invocation, the bread becomes the body of,Christ, and the wine His blood."
6. They assert the presence of two elements; the first of
which is earthly, the second, heavenly. IREN US:  "It is a
Eucharist consisting of two things, an earthly thing and hea* Cat. Myst. Prim.
t De Sacramentis, Lib. IV., imputed to Ambrose.
$Augustine, Contr. Faust. L. XX. c. 13, fit non nascitur.
Adv. Her. IV. 34.




746         CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
venly thing."  AUGUSTINE:   "It consists of two things, the
visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood.
of our Lord Jesus, the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ."  ITESYCHIUS: "At the
same time bread and flesh."  AUGUSTINE:   One thing is the
object of vision, the other of the understanding."
7. They assert that the heavenly is received in the earthly.
TERTULLIAN: t "'In the bread is accounted the body of Christ.
His blood He hath consecrated in wine."  CYRIL f of Jerusalem': "In the type of bread IHis body is given thee, and in the
type of wine EIis blood, that thou mayest be of one body and
of one blood with Him.  His sacred flesh and precious blood
we receive in the bread and wine."  AUGUSTINE: ~ "Receive
in the bread that which hung upon the cross. Receive in the
cup that which was shed from Christ's side." Ile severely
reproves Urbicus II for "reproachful words against the whole
Church of Christ from  the rising of the sun unto the going
down thereof;" and most of all because he does not believe
that "now also the blood is received in the cup."  CtIRYSOSTOM: ~T "That which is in the cup is that which flowed from
His side, and of it we are partakers."  FACUNDUS: " The Sacrament of His body and blood, which is in the consecrated
bread and cup.  They contain in them the mystery of His body
and blood."
8. They assert that the heavenly is received with the earthly.
CHRYSOSTOM: ** " With those things which are seen, we believe,
are present the body and blood of Christ."
9. They assert that the heavenly is received under the
earthly. IILARY: tt "Under the Sacrament of the flesh to be
communicated to us, He hath mingled the nature of His own
flesh... We truly under a mystery receive the flesh of His
body."  CYRIL of Jerusalem: 4:  "Under the species of bread
*Apud. Gratian. II. 48.    tDe Oratione, IV. Adv. Marc. IV. 40.
$ Cateches IV. Epist. ad. Coelosyr.  { Ad. Neophytos, I.
II Epist. LXXXVI.                    T Hom. XXIV. in I. Cor.
** Horn. XXIV. in I. Cor. De Sacerdot. III.  tt De Trinitat. VIII.
XJ Catech. Mystagog. 4.




TIFE FA4 THER S.                    747
the body is given there, and under the species of wine the blood
is given there."  BERNIARD: " What we see is the species of
bread and wine: what we believe to be under that species is
the true body and true blood of Christ, which hung upon the
cross, and which flowed from His side."
10. They expressly deny that the elements, considered in their
distinctive sacramental character, are figures of the body and
blood.  JOHN of Damascus:' "The bread and wine are not the
figure of Christ's body and blood, but the very body of our
Lord: inasmuch as the Lord himself has said, This is not the
figure of a body, but my body; not a figure of blood, but my
blood. If some, as for example St. Basil, have called the bread
and wine images and figures of the body and blood of the Lord,
they have said it not after the consecration, but before it."
NICEPHORUS: t  " We do not call these things image or figure,
but the body of Christ itself."
11. The Fathers considered the Lord's Supper as a great act
in which believers alone could lawfully unite -those who received the pure faith, and who were regenerate of water and
the Holy Ghost - none but the baptized, who were living as
Christian men, were allowed even to look upon it.  JUSTIN
MARTYR: " Of the Eucharist, no one may partake save he who
believeth that what is taught by us is true, and hath been washed
in that laver which is for the remission, of sins and to regeneration, and liveth as Christ hath delivered."
12. They applied to it names and epithets which imply its
supernatural character.  They call it " a mystery " in the latter
sense, as a thing surpassing all grasp of reason -" a mystery
before which we should tremble."  IGNATIUS styles it'" The
medicine of immortality; the antidote against death, which
secures life in God through Jesus Christ; the purifier; the
arrester of evil; the bread of God; the bread of heaven."
JUSTIN calls it, "The assumption into the fellowship of the
Son."  DIONYSIUS: "The initiation into the mystery of mysteries."  The NICENE CANON: "The viaticum; the supply for
the journey of life."  DAMASCENUS: "The amulet against every
evil; the purifier from every spot; the earnest of the life and
*De Fide Orthodox, IV. 13.      t Allatius de perpet. Cons. III, 15.




748         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the kingdom yet to come."  BASIL prays that he may receive
it as the viaticum of life everlasting and the acceptable defence
before the awful bar of God.  CIIRYSOSTOM calls it " The table
which is the sinew of our soul; the bread of the ulnderstanding;
the ground of confidence. It is hope, salvation, light, and life."
" On account of this body, I am no longer earth and ashes -- am
no more captive but free; for its sake I hope for heaven, the
life immortal, the state of angels, the near converse with
Christ."
13. They find prophecies and types of it everywhere in the
Old Testament. AMBROSE: " I-ear holy David speaking of the
table in (Ps. xxiii. 5), foreseeing these mysteries, and rejoicing:
lie that receiveth the body of Christ shall never hunger." The
Fathers find types of the Eucharist in the Paschal Lamb, the
manna, the blood of the Old Covenant, the shew-bread,and the
flesh of the sacrifices.
14. They lay great stress on the divinity and omnipotence of
Christ, as essential to the possibility of the sacramental presence
and to the comprehension of its character.  CIRYSOSTOM: " It
is not man who makes the bread and wine the body and blood
of Christ, but Christ himself, who was crucified for us. By the
power of God, those things which are set forth are consecrated
through the medium of the words, This is my body." IRENJEUS:
" How shall they (the heretics) know that the Eucharistic bread
is the body of their Lord, and the cup the cup of Iis blood, if
they do not acknowledge Iim as the Son of the Creator of the
world, His Logos, through whom the tree grows fruitful, the
fountains rise, and who giveth first the blade, then the ear;
then the full corn in the ear."  AMBROSE:  "Wbhat word of
Christ bringeth the Sacrament to pass?  That word by which
all things were made - the heaven, the earth, the sea.  The
power of the benediction is greater than the power of nature."
CYPRIAN:'" That bread is made flesh by the omnipotence of the
Word."
15. They. insist upon following the literal force of the words,
accepting them by faith, however the senses and natural reason
may conflict with it; and declining even to attempt to define




THE FATHERS.                        749
the mode of the presence. CHRYSOSTOM:   "We believe God
everywhere, though to our senses and thought that which He
says seems absurd. His word surpasses our sense and reason.
In all things, but especially in mysteries, we regard not alone
the things which lie before us, but we cling also to IHis words.
Our senses are easily deceived; His words cannot mislead us.
When therefore He says: This is my body, there is no ambiguity to hold us; but we believe and perceive clearly with the
eyes of the understanding."  CYRIL of Alexandria: "fHow He
can give us His flesh, it is impious to ask. He who asks it has
forgotten that nothing is impossible with God.  We, bringing
to the mysteries a firm faith, never think or urge in such
lofty matters that question, How? It is a Jewish word. When
God worketh, we do not ask: How? but commit to Him alone
the way and knowledge of His own work."  DAMASCENUS:t
" Of the mystery, we know only that the word of Christ is true,
and efficacious, and omnipotent - the mode is unsearchable."
16. They represent sacramental communion as oral, corporeal.
IRENAUS: s     " How say they that the flesh which is nourished
by the body and blood of the Lord, falls to corruption? How
deny they that the flesh which is nourished by the body and
blood of the Lord, is capable of receiving the gift of God, which
is life eternal."  TERTULLIAN:   "The flesh is washed (in
baptism), that the soul may be purified; the flesh is fed with
the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nurtured
of God."  CYPRIAN: I "Those mouths, sanctified by heavenly
food —the body and blood of the Lord."  CHRYSOSTOM: 
"Purify thy tongue and lips, which are the portals of the ingress of the Christ.:No common honor is it that our lips receive the body of the Lord." CYRIL: *  "Christ dwelleth in us
corporeally by the communication of His flesh." AUGUSTINE: tt
" It seemed fit to the Holy Ghost, that in honor of so great a
Sacrament, the body of the Lord should enter the mouth of the
* Homil. in Matt. 83.             t- Orth. Fid. IV. 14.
$ Lib. IV. 34; V. 4.                ~ De Resurrect. Carn. 8.
(I De Laps. 1 2.                    In I. Cor. xxvii.
**In John xiii., Lib. X.
ttEpist. 118, Contr..Adv. leg. et proph. II. 9.




750         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Christian before any other food. Christ Jesus giving us His flesh
to eat and His blood to drink, we receive with faithful heart and
with the mouth; although it seems more fearful to eat human
flesh than to perish, more fearful to drink human blood than to
shed (our own)." GREGORY:  " The blood of the Lamb is now
upon the side-posts, when it is drunken not only with the
mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart."
"His blood is poured into the mouths of believers."  LEO: 
"Doubt not of the verity of the body and blood of Christ, for
that is taken by the mouth which is believed by faith."
17. They affirm that the unworthy, whether administrators
or recipients, impart or partake of the body and blood of Christ.
CYPRIAN: " They dare to profane the holy body of the Lord,"
(by giving it to the impenitent).  " With polluted mouth he
drinketh the blood of the Lord. With defiled hands he taketh
the body of the Lord."  CHRYSOSTOM: T " How shall he dare
to approach the judgment-bar of Christ who has dared with
impious hands and lips to touch His body."  "How can we
receive the body of Christ with such reproach and contumely."
AMBROSE said to the Emperor Theodosius: ~ " With what
rashness dost thou take with thy mouth the cup of precious
blood, when by the fury of thy words innocent blood has been
spilt."  AUGUSTINE: I "Is it right, that from the mouth of
Christians, when the body of Christ has entered, should come
forth the wanton song, as it were the poison of the Devil? "
OECUMENIUS: T "' The unworthy with their impure hands receive Christ's most sacred body, and bring it to their execrable
mouth."  LEO: ** " With unworthy mouth they receive the
body of Christ."  THEODORETUS: tt " To Judas His betrayer,
also, the Lord imparted His precious body and blood."
18. They institute a parallel, in certain respects, between the
incarnation of the second person of the Trinity and the sacramental presence. JUSTIN:  As Jesus Christ, being through the
word of God incarnate, had both flesh and blood for our salva* Hom. XXII., Pasch. Dialog. IV.    tDe jejun. 6.
4 Eph. Horn. I.              ~ Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. V. 17.
IIDe Tempor. Serm. 215.      ~ In I Cor. xi.
** De Quadrag. Serm. iv.    t- I Cor. xi.




THE FA THER S.                     751
tion, so also, as we have been taught, the food... is the flesh and
blood of the incarnate Jesus."  HILARY: * "'The Word was
made flesh, and we through the food of the Lord truly receive
the Word made flesh." AUGUSTINE: t "The Eucharist consists
of two things- the visible species, and the invisible flesh and
blood of our Lord - the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, as the person of Christ consists and is constituted of God
and man (sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur Deo et
homine)."  CYPRIAN: t "As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity was hidden, so the divine
essence infuses itself ineffably by the visible Sacrament."
19. They affirm in the strongest manner the identity of the
true body and blood with the body and blood which are given
in the Supper.  CHRYSOSTOM: ~ "That which is in the cup is
that which flowed from His side; and of that we are partakers."  AMBROSE: I "There is that blood which redeemed His
people.... It is His own body and blood we receive."  "The
body (in the Eucharist) is that which is of the Virgin."
20. They compare the Eucharist with the most stupendous
miracles under both dispensations, appealing to the miracles
against the deniers or perverters of the sacramental doctrine.
Such passages are so numerous and familiar as to require no
quotation.
The whole testimony of the Fathers can be arranged into a
self-harmonizing system accordant with the Lutheran doctrine.
Neither Romanisit nor Calvinism can make even a plausible
arrangement of this kind on their theories.  The Fathers held,
in the Supper, to the true presence of the elements, and so cannot be harmonized with Romish Transubstantiation: they
taught a true presence of the body and blood of Christ, and so
cannot be harmonized with the Calvinistic spiritualism. Alike
in their assertions and negations, they accord with the positive
doctrine of the Lutheran Church, and the antithesis of that
doctrine to error.
So steadfast was the faith of the Church on this point that
*De Trinit. VIII. 13.  t Apud Gratian. de Consecr. II. 48.
$ Serm. de Sacra. Coen.  ~ In I. Cor. Hom. XXIV.
1j De Sacram. VI. 5.




752        CONSERVATIVE REFOR MATIOV.
the very heretics, to whose theory the doctrine of the true
presence was most fatal, did not dare to deny it.
The Pagan revilers and persecutors of the Church, with their
clumsy calumny, that the Christians in their assemblies ate
human flesh covered with meal, bear witness to the truth they
so coarsely misunderstood.
The profound impression made by the Christian faith in the
Eucharistic mystery is shown in the attempts of idolaters to
imitate and counterfeit it.
The superstitious views and practices which grew up in the
Christian Church are evidence of the awful reverence with
which the Eucharist was regarded. Abuses argue uses, superstitions imply truths, by which their characteristics are in some
measure conditioned; and the history of errors in the doctrine
of the Eucharist strengthens the evidence, already so strong,
that the doctrine of the true objective presence was the doctrine
of the earliest and purest Church.
The LITURGIES of the ancient Church testify to the same
great fact; and their witness is the more important, as it shows
in an official form  the faith of the Church. In the most
ancient Liturgy in existence, that contained in the APOSTOLIC
CONSTITUTIONS, and which is the general model of all the others,
the bishop of the congregation is directed, on delivering the
bread, to say: The body of Christ. The deacon, at the giving
of the cup, says: The blood of Christ- the Cup of
tUrg.   Life. The communicant replied, Amen. In the Liturgy of St. MARKI, the words are: " The holy body, the precious
blood of our Lord and God and Saviour." The First Council of
Tours, A. D. 460, directed these words to be used: " The body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to the remission of
sins and everlasting life."  In the Liturgy of St. JAMES, the
bishop, before participating, prays: " Make me worthy by Thy
grace, that I, without condemnation, may be partaker of the
holy body and the precious blood, to the remission of sins and
life eternal."  In the Horologion of the Greek Church is the
prayer: " Let Thy spotless body be to me for renission of sins,
and Thy divine blood for the communication of the Holy Spirit,
*Renaudot. I. 162.




THE LITURGIES.                     753
and to life eternal."  In the Roman Canon:': Free me by Thy
holy body and blood from all my iniquities, and all evils."
In the Service of GREGORY the Great, the formula of distribution is: " The body - the blood-of our Lord Jesus Christ,
preserve thy soul."
In the time of Charlemagne, the form was: " The body -
blood-of our Lord Jesus Christ, preserve thy soul unto everlasting life."
The Apostolic Constitutions direct that before the Communion, the deacon shall make proclamation: "Let none of
the catechumens, none of the unbelievers, none of the heterodox be present. Let no one come in hypocrisy. Let us all
stand before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer our
sacrifice." The prayer is made: " Send down Thy Holy Spirit,
that He may show this bread (to be) the body of Thy Christ,
and this cup the blood of Thy Christ (apopheenee ton arton
touton soma tou Christou sou)." IHere, in the earliest form, the
true function of the Holy Ghost in the Supper is clearly stated
-not the consummation of the sacramental mystery, by His
working, but the illumination of the soul, so that it may in
faith grasp the great mystery there existent, and may have
shown to it by the Holy Ghost that the bread and cup are indeed the body and blood of Christ.
After the Communion, the deacon says:'" Having received
the precious body and the precious blood of Christ, let us give
thanks to Him who hath accounted us worthy to be partakers
of these His holy mysteries."  In the Liturgy of St. JAMES,
after the Communion, the deacon says: " We thank Thee, O
Christ, our God, that Thou hast thought us worthy to be partakers of Thy body and blood, to the forgiveness of sins and
everlasting life; " and the bishop says: " Thou hast given us,
O God, Thy sanctification in the partaking of the holy body
and of the precious blood of Thine only-begotten Son, Jesus
Christ."  The Liturgy of St. MARK: " We render thanks to
Thee, 0 Master, Lord our God, for the participation of Thy
holy, undefiled, immortal, and heavenly mysteries which Thou
hast given us."
*Clementis Opera Omnia. Paris, 1857. Constitut. Apostol. L. VIII. xii.-xiv.
48




754          CONSERVATIVE  REFOR MATION.
Thie ANCIENT GALLICAN Missal: * " As we do now show forth
the verity of this heavenly Sacrament, so may we cleave unto
the verity  itself of our  Lord's  body  and  blood."   The
MOZARABIC: t  "Hail, sacred flesh! forever, highest sweetness. I will take the bread of heaven, and call on the name
of the Lord.... Having our strength renewed by Christ's
body and blood, and being sanctified by the same, we will
render thanks unto  God."  The AMBROSIAN:' "What we
have taken with the mouth, O Lord, may we receive with
pure mind; that of the body and blood of our Lord... we
may have perpetual healing."  Through  the whole of the
worship of the Christian ages runs the confession that it is the
undivided person of Christ to which the heart of the Church
turns: a Christ who is everywhere God, everywhere man; a
Christ in whom  dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily; a
Christ who has passed through all the heavens, and ascended
up far above them all, that he might fill all things.
With these breathings compare the private prayers of the old
saints which have been left on record —the prayers of Ambrose,
Basil, Chrysostomr, Damascenus, and Aquinas, -which show
how lowly, how tender, how trusting is the spirit inspired by
a healthful recognition of the great abiding mystery of the
New Dispensation.
Jesu pie quem nunc velatum adspicio,
Quando fiet illud, quod jam sitio,
Ut te revelata cernens facie
Visu sim beatus tu9e glorie? ~
*Martene: De Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus. Ed. Noviss. Venitiis. 1783. 4 vols. Fol.
I. 166. tDo. 171. jDo. 175. Martene gives about forty orders of service, all
having the common element of a complete recognition of the sacramental mystery.
Q [O holy Jesus, whom veiled I now behold, when shall that be for which I
thirst, when, beholding Thee with open face, I shall be blessed in the sight of
Thy glory?] The Hymn of Aquinas: Adoro te.




XIV.
OBJECTIONS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF
THE LORD'S SUPPER, AS CONFESSED BY THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
TEHE objections to the Lutheran doctrine almost without
exception involve the false DEFINITION of it which is couched
in the words " Consubstantiation," "Impanation."  From the
time that the passions of men were roused in the       Objecton
Sacramentarian controversy, these terms of reproach derived from a
ft t   i ~r-t  t false cdfinition.
were freely used against it.  No man used such f            tio.
terms more bitterly than ZWFINGLE. Yet not only did Zwingle,
in his original doctrine, when he rejected Transubstantiation,
accept, and for years retain, the same Eucharistic doctrine as
Luther,* but even subsequently to his rejection of the doctrine
he acknowledged that it had not the offensive characteristics
he afterward so freely imputed to it.  He wrote in      Nt 
1. Not Origin1526: "You steadfastly affirm  that the true flesh ally m ad e.
of Christ is here eaten, under the bread, but in an Zwingle.
ineffable mode " (sed modo quodam ineffabili).t  But the moral
descent of error is very rapid.  Before Luther had written a
line against him, Zwingle had styled the believers in the doctrine of the true presence, " Carnivorae, Anthropophagites, Cannibals," "a stupid race of men;" the doctrine itself he pronounced "impious, foolish, inhuman," and that its practical
consequence was   loss of the faith."  But so much is confessed
*See Lampe: Synops. H. E., 1721, 332. Cyprian, Unterricht, v. Kirchl. Vereinigung,1726, 163. Zwingle: Comm. de ver. et fals. relig. Apolog. Libel, de Can.
Missae.
t Ad Theod. Billican. et Urb. Rhegius Epistol. respons. Huld. Zwinglii.
Cyprian: Unterr. 176.
755




756         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
that Zwingle when he held this doctrine, and Zwingle when he
yielded it, and was yet comparatively just, acknowledged that
it taught " an ineffable mode."
The same is true of (ECOLAMPADIUS.  He not only at first
held but zealously defended the same doctrine with Luther;
2. (colarpa- defended it against the very charge involved in
dius.      the name, " Consubstantiation."  In his sermon on
the Sacrament of the Eucharist, preached in 1521,* he says:
" I do not pronounce it a mere figure, such as was the Paschal
Lamb. Far from us be the blasphemy of attributing to the
shadow as much as to the light and truth; and to those figures
as much as to the most sacred mystery. For this bread is not
merely a sign, but is the very body of the Lord itself (sed est
corpus ipsum Domini).  We simply confess, therefore, that the
flesh and blood of Christ are present and contained; but in
what manner (quo paeto), we do not seek to discover; nor is it
necessary nor useful that we should... In what mode, He
who sits above the heavens, at the right hand of the Father, is
truly present on the altars, inasmuch as it is a thing which it
is impossible for us to know, is a matter which should not disturb us. What wonder is it since we know not in what mode
Christ, after His resurrection, came into the presence of His
disciples while the doors were closed?... What is that thing
of inestimable price which is hidden within this covering (intra
involucrum hoc delitescit)? It is the true body and true blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ-that body which was born, suffered,
died for us, and was afterward glorified in the triumph of the
Resurrection and Ascension."
The attitude of CALVIN has been already illustrated. At
Strasburg he took his place among Lutheran ministers, signed
the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (1539), represented the
Lutheran Church at various conferences, was charged with
holding the doctrine of Consubstantiation, was complained of
at a later period (1557), by the preachers and the Theological
Faculty at Zurich, as " wishing to unite his doc3. Calvin.
trine with that of the Augsburg Confession, as in
the very least degree unlike (minime dispares)."  The same
4 Cyprian: Unterr. 183.




OBJECTION ANSWERED  LUTHER.                      757
Faculty, in 1572, wrote: "Calvin, of blessed memory, seemed,
to pious and learned men in France, not to be in unity with
our Churches in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper."
The reproach of teaching such a carnal presence as is involved
in the word Consubstantiation is therefore an after-thought
of opponents.  How groundless it is, can be made evident by
a long array of witnesses.' I will call it," says Luther,* " a
Sacramental Unity, forasmuch as the body of Christ and bread
are there given us as Sacrament: for there is not a   Objection
natural or personal unity, as in God and Christ; it answered.
is perhaps also a different unity from  that which  1. ther
the Dove had with the Holy Ghost, and the Flame with the
Angel (Exod. iii. 2) —in a word, it is a Sacramental Unity."
"We are not so insane," says Luther, elsewhere,t " as to believe
that Christ's body is in this bread, in the gross visible manner
in which bread is in a basket, or wine in the cup, as the fanatics would like to impute it to us... As the Fathers, and we,
at times, express it, that Christ's body is in the bread, is done
for the simple purpose of confessing that Christ's body is there.
This fixed, it might be permitted to say, It is in the bread, or,
It is the bread, or, It is where the bread is, or as you please
(wie man will).  We will not strive about words, so long as the
meaning is fixed; that it is not mere bread we eat in the Supper,
but the body of Christ."  In 1537, he wrote to the Swiss: 
" In regard to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
we have. never taught, nor do we now teach, either that Christ
descends from heaven or from  God's right hand, or that He
ascends, either visibly or invisibly.  We stand fast by the
Article of Faith,' He ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the
right hand of God.' And we commit to the divine omnipotence, in what way (wie,quomodo) His body and blood are given
tb us in the Supper..  We do not imagine any ascent or descent, but merely hold fast in simplicity to His words, This is
My Body; This is My Blood."  Luther says, in his Larger
* Werke: Altenb. III. 864; Leipz. XIX. 496. (Bek. v. Abendm., 1528.)
- Werke: Altenb. III. 709; Leipz. XIX. 406. (Serm. v. Sacra., 1526.)
Werke: Leipz. XXI. 108; Jena, VI. 507; Witteb. XII. 205; Altenb. VI. 4;
Walch, XVII. 2594. Briefe: De Wette, V. 83; Buddeus: 258.




758          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
Confession: "It is rightly and truly said, when the bread is
shown, touched, or eaten, that Christ's body is shown, touched,
and eaten."  This sentence, perhaps more than any he ever
wrote, has been urged to show  that he held the doctrine of
Consubstantiation.  But that he used these words in " no
Capernaitish, or natural sense, but in a mystic and sacramental
sense, to indicate that in the use of this Sacrament the bread
and body are most presentially united and unitedly present," *
is very clear from his whole train of thought and the words
that follow: " This remains fixed, that no one perceives the body
of Christ, or touches it, or bruises it with the teeth: yet is it
most sure that what is done to the bread, is, in virtue of the sacramental Union,rightly and truly attributed to the body of Christ."
It is very clear that Luther is availing himself, in this line of
thought, of the distinction made in the doctrine of the person
of Christ. That is affirmed of the body of Christ in the sacramental Concrete which is denied of it in the natural abstract.
The consecrated bread is so far sacramentally identifed with this
body, of which it is the Communion, that in a sacramental sense
that can be affirmed of this body which is not true of it in a
natural sense.  So in Christ Jesus we can say, speaking in the
personal Concrete, God bled, God died; that is, such is the personal concrete that we can " rightly and truly " make personal
affirmation in words which, if they expressed a natural abstract,
would not be true.  If the termi God is used to designate this
abstract of nature, it is thus equivalent to divinity, and it is
heterodox to say divinity, or the divine nature, or God, in
that sense, suffered. In sacramental concreteness then, not in
natural abstractness, according to Luther, is the body of Christ
eaten.  What is eaten is both bread and Christ's body.  Both
are eaten by one and the same objective act; but because of the
difference in the modes of their presence, and the nature of the
object - the one being a natural object, present in a natural
mode, the other a supernatural object, present in a supernatural mode, the one objective act is natural in its relation
to the natural, and supernatural in its relation to the supernatural. So to the eye of the prophet's servant, by one objec* Hutter: Lib. Chr. Concord. Explicat., 625.




COLLOQUIES WITH THE ZWINCLIANS.    759
tive act there was a natural vision of the natural hills around
the city, and a supernatural vision of the supernatural hosts 
the horses of fire, and chariots of fire. So to the hand of the
woman, by one objective act there was a natural touch of the
natural garment of the Saviour, and a supernatural touch of
the divine virtue, which the garment veiled. So to the blind
man who washed in the Pool of Siloam, by one objective act
of washing there was a natural removal of the clay, and a supernatural virtue which removed the blindness. In his Book:
" That the words yet stand firm," * Luther says: " How it takes
place... we know not, nor should we know.  We should believe God's word, and not prescribe mode or measure to Him."
The true intent of our Church, in the language used in regard
to the Lord's Supper, is shown in the definitions used in connection with the early efforts at producing harmony with the
Zwinglians.  When the Landgrave of Hesse invited Luther to
a Colloquy with Zwingle atMarburg (Oct. 1529), Luther replied:
" Though I cherish little hope of a future peace, yet the. diligence and solicitous care of Your Highness in this. olloqui
2.   Colloquies
matter is very greatly to be praised... God help- with the zwinging me, I shall not permit those, of the adverse.ans.
part, to claim with justice that they are more earnestly desirous of peace and concord than I am." In that Colloquy, the
parties were agreed: " That the Sacrament of the Altar is the
Sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that
the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood is specially (precipue) necessary." When Melancthon drew up a brief
statement of the points of difference between the view of the
Zwinglians, he speaks of two general modes of the presence
of the body of Christ, -the one local, the other the " mode unknown (arcano) by which diverse places are simultaneously
present, as one point to the person Christ... Although we
say that the body of Christ is really present, yet Luther does
not say that it is present locally, that is, in dimension (mole),
circumnscriptively, but by that mode, by which the person of
Christ, or the whole Christ, is present to His entire Church and
to all creatures."  The comparison of views finally led to the
* Werke: Jena, III. 341.




760         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
WVittenberg Concord, touching the Supper of the Lord, entered
into by Bucer, Capito, Musculus, and others originally of the
Zwinglian party, and LUTHER, MELANCTHON, CRUCIGER, BUGENHAGEN, MENIUS, and MYCONIUS. In this CONCORD, both united
in declaring: *
1. " That according to the words of Irenseus, there are two
things in this Sacrament, -a heavenly and an earthly. They
believe, therefore, and teach, that with (cum) the bread and
wine, the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially
present, imparted (exhiberi), and taken.
2. "And although they disapprove of Transubstantiation,
and do not believe that the body of Christ is locally included
in the bread, or that it is in any other wise (alioqui,sonst) united
corporeally with the bread, apart from the participation of the
Sacrament, yet they confess and believe, that through the
Sacramental Unity, the bread is Christ's body; that is, they
hold that when the bread is given the body of Christ is truly
present at the same time, and truly given.
3. " To the unworthy also are truly imparted (exhiberi) the
body and blood of Christ; but such receive it to judgment; for
they abuse the Sacrament, by receiving it without true repentance and faith.
4. " For it was instituted to testify that the grace and benefits of Christ are applied to those who receive it; and that
they are truly inserted into Christ's body, and washed by His
blood, who truly repent, and comfort themselves by faith in
Christ.
5. " They confess that they will hold and teach in all articles
what has been set forth ii the Articles of the Confession " (the
Augsburg) "and the Apology of the Evangelical Princes."
In the HEIDELBERG DIscUssioN (1560), the Fifteenth Thesis
maintained by the Lutheran divines was this: " We repudiate
Heidelberg also those gross and monstrous opinions which some
Discussion, 1560. falsely impute to us, to wit, Popish transubstantiation, local inclusion, extension or expansion of the body of
*Chytrseus: Hist. A. C. Lat., 1578, 680. Germ., 1580, 374. French, 1582,
497. Seckendorf: Hist. Luth., lib. iii., p. 133. Loescher: Hist. Motuum, i. 205.
Rudelbach: Ref. Luth. u. Union, 669.




BRENTIUS.                          761
Christ, mingling of the bread and wine with the body and
blood of Christ." *
BRENTIUS t (1570) belongs to the first order of the men of his
era, aid, as an authoritative witness, is perhaps next to Luther
himself. He says: " It is not obscure that a human
Brentius, 1570.
body can, by its own nature, be in but one place;
but this is to be understood as regarding the manner of this
outward world.  Whence also Christ himself, even when, after
I-is resurrection, He was in the kingdom  of His Father, yet
when He appeared to His disciples in this world, appeared in
one place only. But far other is the manner of the heavenly
kingdom.  For in it, as there is no distinction of times, but all
are one eternal moment, so is there no distinction of places,
but all are one place, nay, no place, nay, nothing of those things
which human reason can think -' which eye hath not seen
(says Paul), nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart
of man.' Inasmuch, therefore, as Christ is in the heavenly
kingdom, and the Supper of Christ also is heavenly, we are not,
in the celebration of it, to think of a certain magnitude, or littleness, or even local position or circumscription of the body of
Christ, but every carnal imagination being cast asides we are
to rest with obedient faith in the word of Christ."  "As we
have said before, there is here no magnitude or littleness, or
length or thickness, or any sort of carnal tenuity to be imagined.
Of a surety as bread and wine are truly present, so also the
body and blood of Christ are truly present, but each in its own
mode: the bread and wine are present in a visible and corporeal
mode, the body and blood in a mode invisible, spiritual, and
heavenly, and unsearchable by human reason.  For as the
capacity of man cannot grasp in what mode Christ, true God
and true man, when He' ascends above all heavens, fills all
things,' so it cannot reach by its own thoughts in what mode the
body and blood of Christ are present in the Supper." t "C Christ's
body and blood are present, not transubstantially (as the Papists
Grundlich. Wahrhaftig. Historia d. Augs. Conf. Leipz., 1584, fol. 436. Do.
in Latin, ling. transl. per Godfried, Lipsie, 1585, 4to, 545.
t Catechesimus pia et util. explicat. illustrat. Witteberg, 1552, 12mo, 661-667.
Cf: Evang. sec. Joann, Homil. explic. Francf., 1554, fol. 670.




762         CONSERVA TIVE  REFORMATION.
dream), nor locally (as some calumniously assert we believe)...
Ours have often, and at large, testified in express words that
they in no manner attribute local space to the presence of the
body of Christ in the bread.  We are therefore unjustly
accused of drawing down Christ's body from heaven, or including it locally in the bread, or of making a Christ of many bodies
and of many places." *' We do not deny that there is a sense
in which it can be truly said that Christ is on the earth, or in
the Supper, only according to (juxta) the divine nature... that
is, though Christ, true God and man, fills all things both by
His divinity and humanity, yet He has not the majesty originally from the humanity itself, which by its own nature can
only be in one place, but has it alone from  the divinity, from
which however the humanity is in no place separated." t  "As
a thousand years before God are scarce one day, nay rather,
not one moment, so a thousand places are before Him, not a
thousand places; but rather the minutest point.": 1  All places
above and beneath are to Iim one place, nay, no place, nay, no
point or place... Such terms applied to Him, as' filling' the
heavens,'being everywhere,'  dwelling,''descending,''ascending,' are but transfers of metaphor." ~
The FORMULA OF CONCORD 11 (1580), in defining its own position, quotes and indorses Luther's words: " Christ's body has
three modes of presence: First. The comprehensible, corporeal
mode, such as He used when He was on earth, - the local. To
this mode of presence the Scripture refers when it says, Christ
Formula of has left the world.  Second. In another incompreConcor, 1580.  hensible and  spiritual mode  it can be present
illocally.  Moreover, it can be present in a divine and heavenly
mode, since it is one person with God."  The current error
about this view of our Church is, that she holds that the body
and blood of Christ are present in the first of these modes,*De personali Unione, Tiibingse, 1561, 4to, 1, 2.
f Sententia de Libello Bullinger, Tiibinge, 1561, 4to, XII. See also his book:
"De Majestate Domini et de vera praesentia Corp. et Sang. ejus Francofort,
1562, 4to; "and his "Recognitio Prophetic. et Apostol. Doctrinse, Tibings, 1564."
$ In Lib. I Sam. Horn. XIV.          i Contra Asotum. Peric. II.
11 667, 98-103.




CHEMNITZ.                        763
a view she entirely rejects.  Though she denies that this presence is merely spiritual,- if the word spiritual means such as is
wrought by our spirit, our meditations, our faith, -yet, over
against all carnal or local presence, she maintains that it is
spiritual.'"When," says the Formula of Concord,  "'Dr.
Luther or we use this word' spiritually,' in reference to this
matter, we mean that spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode,
according to which Christ is present at the Holy Supper....
By that word'spiritually,' we design to exclude those Capernaitish imaginings of a gross and carnal presence, which, after
so many public protestations on the part of our Churches, the
Sacramentarians still try to fix on them.  In this sense we say
that the body and blood of Christ in the Supper is received,
eaten, and drunken spiritually.... The mode is spiritual."
" We reject and condemn, with unanimous consent, the Papal
Transubstantiation."    We reject and condemn with heart
and mouth, as false and full of fraud, first of all, the Popish
Transubstantiation."  "It is said that the body and blood of
Christ are'under the form  of bread and wine,' and'in the
Supper,' not to imply a local conjunction or presence, but for
other and very different reasons."  " Our first reason for using'
the phrases, that the body of Christ is under, with, in, the
bread, is by them to reject the Popish Transubstantiation, and
to set forth that the substance of the bread is unchanged."
The words " under " and " in" are meant to teach that "the
bread which we break, and the cup we bless, are the Communion
of the body and blood of Christ;" that is, communicate that
body and blood to us, —or, in other words, we receive the
body and blood, with the bread and wine, or " in " or "'under"
them as a medium.  By, in, with, and under the act of receiving the sacramental bread and wine truly and naturally, we
receive the body and blood of Christ, substantially present,
truly and supernaturally, after a heavenly and spiritual manner.
CHEMNITZ ( 1586): t "All these passages of Scripture with
wonderful accord show, prove, and confirm the proper and
simple doctrine that the Lord's Supper consists
Chemnitz, 1586.
not only of the outward symbols of bread and wine,
670, 105, 108; 641, 34; 541, 22.  1 De Fundam. SS. Coene. ch. IX.




764         C ONSERVATIVE REFORMATI ON.
but also of the very body and blood of our Lord.... But by
what mode (quo modo) this takes place, or can take place, it is
not for me to search out (meum non est inquirere)."
ANDREA (t1590),* to whom more, perhaps, than to any other
theologian, we owe the Formula of Concord, says:' From the
sinister and perverted interpretation of Luther's
Andreew, 1590.
meaning, as if he taught that Christ's body is
affixed to the bread, or imprisoned in it, both he and those who
stand with him are far removed. To say and teach that the
bread signifies the body of Christ, is a figure, is also a sign of
the body of Christ, if the terms be rightly understood, derogates nothing from  the meaning of our Lord's words.  For
who denies that the bread is a figure or sign of the body of
Christ?... But if any one contend that the bread is a naked
sign, an empty figure, and signification, of a body not present
but absent, he sets forth a doctrine at war with the teachings
of Christ and of Paul.... The word'corporeally' may be
used in three ways: First. Naturally, as the Capernaites construed our Lord's words, when tie spoke of' eating His flesh
and drinking His blood.' Second. To indicate that not naked
signs and figures of the body of Christ are present, but that
there is given to us with the bread that very body which was
crucified for us.  Third. To mark the outward and corporate
signs, bread and wine, inasmuch as Christ imparts to us His
body, spiritual food, corporeally; that is, with corporeal things
or signs. For bread and wine are corporate things, with which
at the same time is extended spiritual food and drink....
Luther used the terms to teach that with the bread and wine
are imparted the body and blood of Christ as heavenly food,
with which the soul is refreshed and the body strengthened
to immortality.... By the word'spiritually,' we understand
is indicated a mode which is heavenly and spiritual, above the
order of nature; a mode which can only be grasped by faith; a
mode beyond the reach of our present reason and understanding- one of God's greatest mysteries...  The mode is no
natural one, but recondite and heavenly... With this mystery, locality has nothing to do..... If it had, one of these
*De Coena Domini. Francof. 1559, 12mo. 27, 29, 33, 36, 40, 48, 72, 76.




ANDRE.                          765
opinions would necessarily follow: Either that the body of
Christ is extended into all places, or that it is hurried from one
place to another, or that innumerable bodies of Christ are
daily everywhere made from particles of bread (the Popish
halucination).  But each one of these views weakens and utterly
takes away the presence of the body of Christ. If the body of
Christ were expanded into all places of the world, it would not
be communicated entire anywhere, but one part would be distributed here, another there. That the body of Christ is borne
from place to place, and passes into the bread, is an affirmation
which could only be made by one who had lost his senses; and
were this not so, the theory would imply that the body cannot
be present in all places at the same moment.  Add to this that
such a doctrine is directly in conflict with Ioly Scripture. -As
to the third view, we have shown in our previous discussion how
contradictory, how abhorrent to the Christian religion and our
faith, is the idea that many bodies are formed of the substance
of bread, as by a prayer of magic.
" Set therefore before thee that Christ who is neither extended into all places nor borne from one place to another;
but who sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and there imparts to thee His flesh and blood.... Is it not possible for
thee to understand this mystery, in what manner divine power
effects this? This mystery faith alone grasps. In what way
(quo pacto) body and blood are communicated to us in this
Sacrament is so great a thing that the mind of man in this life
cannot comprehend it...  The true body and blood of Christ
are given in a heavenly and spiritual way which He knows,
and which sorrowing and agitated consciences experience, and
which surpasses the power of the mind of man.... The whole
Christ is given to us in the Sacrament that we may be one flesh
with Him."
In the COLLOQUY AT MONTBELIARD * (1586), between Beza, as
the representative of Calvinism, and Andreae, the great
Lutheran divine laid down first in his Theses, and afterwards
repeatedly in the discussion, the principle of a supernatural
*Acta Colloq. Mont. Belligart. 1594, 4to, 3, 5, 16, 17. Gesprach.etc., Tubing.
1587, 4to, 4, 22, 25.




766         CONSERVATI E REFORMATION.
and heavenly presence over against a presence which is natural,
physical, and earthly.  In his conversation with the Baron de
Cleroan, previous to the Colloquy, Andree said: " The mode
of the presence, inasmuch as it is not natural or physical, but
heavenly and divine, and the eating, not Capernaitish, is to be
committed to God and His omnipotence.... Beza and his
adherents charge the Churches of the Augsburg Confession
with teaching a Cyclopian and Capernaitish eating - a bruising of Christ's body with the teeth, and a swallowing it. Such
an idea never entered the mind of Luther, or of our Church.... From all the writings of our divines not a letter can be
produced to sustain such a charge; on the contrary, they have
constantly, in most unmistakable language, condemned the idea
of such an eating."  In the Theses prepared for the Wirtemberg Theologians by Andree, the Fourth says: " We do not
hold a physical and local presence or inclusion of the body and
blood of Christ."  The Tenth, and last, affirms: " The MODE in
which the body and blood are present is not expressed in
Scripture; wherefore we can only affirm so much in regard
to it that it is supernatural, and incomprehensible to human
reason.... Therefore in this divine Mystery we lead our reason
captive, and with simple faith and quiet conscience rest on the
words of Christ."
HUTTER (t 1611):  "When we use the particles' in, with,
under,' we understand no local inclusion whatever, either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation."  "Hence is clear the
odious falsity of those who charge our churches with teaching
that' the bread of the Eucharist is literally and substantially
the body of Christ;' that' the bread and body conHutter, 1611.
stitute one substance;' that'the body of Christ in
itself (per se), and literally, is bruised by the teeth,' and all other
monstrous absurdities (portentosa absurda) of a similar nature.
For we fearlessly appeal to God, the searcher of hearts and the
judge of consciences, as an infallible witness, that neither by
Luther nor any of ours was such a thing ever said, written,
or thought of." t
* Libri Christians Concordix, Explicatio, Witteberg, 1608, 669.
tDo. 526, 624.




OSIANDER- CARPZO V.                      767
ANDREW  OSIANDER (Chancellor of the University of Tiibingen) (t 1617): " Our theologians for years long have strenuously denied and powerfully confuted the doctrine
~  *,.,.  1- 1  *  ^  r  Osiander, 1617.
of a local inclusion, or physical connection of the
body and bread, or consubstantiation.  We believe in no impanation, subpanation, companation,or consubstantiation of the
body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or conjoining of
bread and body, as our adversaries, in manifest calumnies,
allege against us.  The expressions in, with, and under are
used, first, in order to proscribe the MONSTROUS DOCTRINE of
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, and secondly, to assert a true presence
over against the doctrine that the Lord's Supper is a mere
sign." *
MENTZER (t 1627): t "There is no local concealment of
Christ's body, or inclusion of particles of matter under the
bread.  Far from us be it that any believer should
Mentzer, 1627.
regard Christ's body as present in a physical or
natural mode.  The eating and drinking are not natural or
Capernaitish, but mystical or sacramental."
JOHN GERHARD (t 1637):  " On account of the calumnies of
our adversaries, we would note that we do not believe in impanation, nor in CONSUBSTANTIATION, nor in any physical or local
presence.  Some of our writers, adopting a phrase from  Cyril,
have called the presence a bodily  one; but they use
that term by no means to designate the mode of  erhd,37.
presence, but simply the object" (to show what is present, to
wit, the body of Christ, but not how it is present),' nor have
they at all meant by this that the body of Christ is present in
a bodily and quantitative manner."    We believe in no consubstantiative presence of the body and blood. Far from us be
that figment. The heavenly thing and the earthly thing in
the Lord's Supper are not present with each other physically
and naturally." 11
CARPZOV (t 1657): ~ "To compress into a few words what is
*Disputat. xiii., Ex Concord. Libro. Francofurt, 1611, pages 280, 288.
t Exeges. Aug. Conf.      I Loci (Cotta) x. 165.
i Corporalem.             I[ See also Harmonia Evang., ii. 1097.
~ Isagoge, 345-350.




768         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
most important in regard to this presence, we would remark:
1. That it is not finite, either physical, or local, or definite, but
infinite and divine. 2. That as there is not one
Carpzov, 1657.
mode only of divine presence, but that presence
may be general, or gracious, or glorious, as the scholastics distinguish it, so this presence (of the body and blood of Christ)
is neither to be referred to the general nor the glorious, but to
the gracious; so that it constitutes that special degree of this
gracious presence which is styled sacramental. That which is
supernatural is also true and real. When this presence is called
substantial and bodily, those words designate not the MODE of
presence, but the OBJECT.  When the words in, with, under,
are used, our traducers know, as well as they know their own
fingers, that they do NOT signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local
co-existence, or impanation.  The charge that we hold a local
inclusion, or Consubstantiation,is a calumny.  The eating and
drinking are not physical, but mystical and sacramental. An
action is not necessarily figurative because it is not physical."
MusEUS (t 1681): * "On the question, By what mode (quo
modo) that which we receive and eat and drink in the Holy
Supper is Christ's body and blood, we freely confess our ignorance."   "The sacramental eating is sometimes
Musseus, 1681.
called spiritual, that is, an eating not gross, not
carnal, but wholly incomprehensible  the mode is supernatural,
and beyond the grasp of the mind of man.... That gross and
carnal eating which the Capernaites (John vi.) imagined is
denied by the Formula of Concord, and when Calvinists attribute this view to us, they are guilty of calumny."t
SCHERZER (t 1683): T To the objection that the particles " in,
with, under, imply an inclusion of the body of Christ in the
bread and a concealing of it under the bread, and
Scherzer, 1683.   
a consequent reduction of the body to the proportion and dimensions of the bread," he says: I. "From  presence
to locality, no inference can be drawn.  Those particles imply
presence, not locality. For they are exhibitive, not inclusive.
* De Sacra. Coena. Jene., 1664, 85.
f Preelect. in Epitom.Formul. Concord. Jenee, 1701, 4t.o, 259, 260.
Collegium Anti-Calvinianum, Lipsis, 1704, 4to, 606, 630, 632.




CAL OVI US - Q UENS TED T.                  769
II. Quantitative proportion is required to local inclusion, but
not to sacramental presence. In the German hymn, the phrase:' Hidden in the bread so small (Verborgen in brod so klein)', the'IHidden,' notes a mystic hiding-that the body of Christ is
not open to the senses; not a physical one, which is local; the
words' so small,' are a limitation of the bread, not of the body."
He shows that Calvin, Beza, and others of the Calvinistic
school, use these particles also.  "By oral, we do not mean corporeal, in the Zwinglian sense....Corporeal eating, in the
Zwinglian sense, we execrate (execramur)."
CALOVIUS (t 1686): * "The mode is ineffable, and indescribable by us.  We distinguish between a natural, a personal, and
a sacramental presence, in which last sense only the
Calovius, 1686.
body of Christ is present... There is no question
in regard to a Capernaitish eating and drinking, such as some
of the hearers of our Lord at Capernaum dreamed of (John vi.
21); as if Christ had taught a deglutition of His body... a
swallowing of His blood. This delirium our adversaries are
accustomed to charge upon us falsely and calumniously....
The mode is not natural, but supernatural.... The bread is
received in the common, natural manner; the body of Christ in
the mystic, supernatural manner.... We do not assert any
local conjunction, any fusion of essences, or Consubstantiation, as
our adversaries attribute it to us; as if we imagined that the
bread and the body of Christ pass into one mass.  We do not
say that the body is included in the bread, but only that there
is a mystic and sacramental conjunction of substance with substance, without any insubstantiation or consubstantiation."
QUENSTEDT (t 1688) t: " The manducation and drinking are
called oral, not with reference to the mode, but to the organ.
Luther calls it corporeal; but this form of expresQuenstedt, 1688.
sion is not to be understood of the mode, as if this
spiritual food were taken in a natural mode as other food....
Of the one sacramental or oral eating and drinking there are
two modes - the physical and hyper-physical... The body and
Synopsis Controversiarum, Wittenb. 1685, 4to. Pp. 793, 814. See also Calovii:
Apodixis Artic. Fid. Wittenb. 1699, 4to. P. 385.
Theologia. Didactico-Polem. Lipsia, 1715, Fol. II., 1223, 1231, 1232.
49




770         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
blood of Christ are not eaten and drunken in a physical mode... The mode of the presence of the body and blood is mystic,
supernatural, and heavenly.... The body of Christ is spiritual
food, nourishing us not to this life, but to the spiritual and
heavenly life... The body of Christ does not enter the mouth,
as if moved from without, it entered locally, deserting its former
place, and taking a new one in the mouth.... There is no distraction to be feared in that food which is present with a divine
presence. Each believer enjoys God as the highest good, but
the same presence is communicated to the flesh of Christ."
BAIER, J. G. (t 1695)*: " The sacramental union is neither
substantial, nor personal, nor local. Hence it is manifest that
impanation and Consubstantiation, which are charged
Baier, 1695.
upon Lutherans by enemies, are utterly excluded.
There is no sensible or natural eating of the body of Christ.
Alike the presence and the eating and drinking of the body
and blood of Christ are insensible, supernatural, unknown to
the human mind, and incomprehensible. As to the MODE in
which the body and blood of Christ are present and received in
the Supper, we may acknowledge our ignorance, while we firmly
hold to the fact."  The same distinguished writer published a
dissertation on " Impanation and Consubstantiation," which is
entirely devoted to the vindication of our Church from the
charge of holding these errors. t
LEIBNITZ (t 1716),4 distinguished as a profound theological
Leibitz, 1716. thinker, as well as a philosopher of the highest
order, says: " Those who receive the Evangelical
(Lutheran) faith by no means approve the doctrine of CONSUBSTANTIATION, or of impanation, nor can any one impute it to
them, unless from a misunderstanding of what they hold."
BUDDEUS (t 1728): "All who understand the doctrines of
our Church know that with our WHOLE SOUL WE ABHOR THE
DOCTRINE OF CONSUBSTANTIATION AND OF A GROSS UBIQUITY OF THE
FLESH OF CHRIST. They are greatly mistaken who suppose
*Theolog. Positiv. Lipsise, 1750, p. 661.
t Dissertatio Historica-theologica de Impanat. et Consubstantiat,. Conformit6 de la foy avec raison, ~ xviii. Dissertatio de Conformitate.
TUbingen, 1771.




ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS.                     771
the doctrine of impanatlon to be the doctrine of Luther and
of our Church.  The doctrine of impanation, if we distinguish it from that of assumption, can mean nothing else than
a local inclusion of the body of Christ in the bread.  To admit
such a doctrine would be to admit the grossest
^   Buddeus, 1728.
absurdities; they, therefore, who impute it to our
Church, prove only their ignorance of our doctrine.  In either
sense, in which the word CONSUBSTANTIATION can be taken, the
doctrine cannot, in any respect, be attributed to our Church;
it was always far from the mind of our Church. The sacramental union is one which rea:son cannot comprehend, and the
taking, eating, and drinking are done in sublime mystery."*
COTTA (t 1779) t makes the following remarks upon the
different theories of sacramental union: " By IMPANATION is
meant a local inclusion of -the body and blood in
the bread and wine.  Gerhard has rightly noted
that the theologians of our Church utterly abhor this error.
The particles in, with, under are not used to express a local
inclusion.  As our theologians reject impanation, so also they
reject the doctrine of CONSUBSTANTIATION. This word is taken
in two senses. It denotes sometimes a local conjunction of two
bodies; sometimes a commingling or coalescence into one substance
or mass.  But in neither sense can that MONSTROUS DOGMA of CONSUBSTANTIATION be attributed to our Church; for Lutherans
believe neither in a local conjunction nor commixture of bread
and Christ's body, nor of wine and Christ's blood."
We could multiply testimony on this point almost without
end. No great dogmatician of our Church, who has treated
of the Lord's Supper at all, has failed to protest in some form
against the charge we are considering.
The less candid or less informed among the Roman Catholic
writers have made the same groundless charge against our
Church, while other writers in the same Church  Roman Cathohave acknowledged the falsity of it.  One example li writers.
of the former will suffice.
* Miscellanea, ii. 86, seq. Catechet. Theologia, ii. 656. Instit. Theol. Dogm.
v. Xi. 
t In Gerhard's Loci, x. 165.




772          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
PERRONE   says of the Lutherans: "Some of them  have
brought in'the doctrine of hypostatic union of the incarnate
Weord with the bread, which union they call imPerrone.
panation; others affirm a consubstantiation, as they
call it, or a commixture or concomitance."  Perrone has not
only been following Romish guides, but he has selected the
worst among them.
BEGAN (t 1624) t says: " Luther seems to assert impanation;"
but even this, he goes on to show, is not true of the Lutheran
Bec, 1624.   Church. BELLARMIN (t 1621)::   Luther insinuBellarnii, 1621. ates the impanation of Rupert and John of Paris,
but does not state it explicitly." IHe then goes on to show
that Martin Chemnitz and the other Lutherans did not hold
this view.
MOEHLER: " Luther had already rejected the doctrine of
transubstantiation; but he still continued, with his accustomed
coarseness and violence, yet with great acuteness
Moehler, 1S38.
and most brilliant success, to defend against Zwinglius the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  For whenever the doctrinal truth is in any degree on his side, he is
always an incomparable disputant, and what he puts forth on
this subject in his controversial writings is still deserving of
attention."
CARDINAL WISEMAN I) refers to " consubstantiation or companation in the chrysalis proposition" (the Tenth Article of the
Augsburg Confession), "in which we must try to suppose it
originally contained."  The cardinal means that
W, 6. the Confession " does not so much impugn the doctrine of transubstantiation as leave it aside;" but that if it
does not leave transubstantiation an open question, it teaches
consubstantiation; and that, out of deference to its friends, he is
willing, in his good nature, to try to think the doctrine is there.
But it is worthy of note that in the cardinal's whole argument
in "The Real Presence proved from Scripture," there is no posi* Prelect. Theologic. L. III.  t Manual Controvers. L. II.
t Lib. III. de Euch. Ch. XI.   ~ Symbolism. Transl. by Robertson. { xxxv.
II The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the
Blessed Eucharist proved from Scripture. Lond. 1836. Lects. II. and VIII,




ROMAN CATHOLIC DIVINES.                      773
tion taken which involves the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The ablest parts of the book are a far better defence of the
Lutheran doctrine than  of the Roman Catholic.  Cardinal
Wiseran was too able a controversialist to attempt to identify
in the argument (whatever he might assume in the definition) the
doctrine of transubstantiation with the doctrine of a real presence.  He argues exclusively from Scripture for the latter, and
merely takes for granted the former.  This he admits in his
closing lecture:' In concluding these lectures on the Scriptural proofs of the real presence, I will simply say, that
throughout them  I have spoken of the doctrine" (the real
presence) " as synonymous with transubstantiation. For as by
the real presence I have understood a corporeal presence, to the
exclusion of all other substance, it is evident that the one is, in
truth, equivalent to the other. On this account I have contended for the-literal meaning of our Saviour's words, LEAVING
IT AS A MATTER OF INFERENCE that the Eucharist, after consecration, is the body and blood of Christ."
The most judicious Romish controversialists, like the cardinal, separate the two questions.  BOUVIER * and Perrone,t for
example, prove, in the first article, " the real pres- Bouvier 1854
ence;" in the second, they discuss the'" mode of the
real presence   transubstantiation."  The fact is that the two
lines of argument are directly contradictory.  The processes
of exegesis which establish the doctrine of the true presence
overthrow the doctrine of transubstantiation.  The Romanist
is on the Lutheran ground when he proves the first; he is on
the Calvinistic ground when he attempts to prove the second.
Many of the ablest divines of the Calvinistic Churches have
acknowledged the libellous character of the charge   Admissions of
that the Lutheran Church holds the doctrine of  Cnlvinistic DiCONSUBSTANTIATION.  While BUCER (t 1551) was
still with the Zwinglians, he wrote (1530) to Luther: " You do
not maintain that Christ is in the bread locally; and you acknowledge that though Christ exists in one place of heaven in
the mode of a body, yet he can be truly present in the Supper,
*Institut. Theolog. Sept. Edit. Parisiis, 1850. III. 3, 31.
tPrselectiones Theologicse. Paris, 1852. II. 155, 208.




774          CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
through the words and symbols."   In  his Retractation  he
says:  "To  Lather, and those  who stood with  him, was
attributed a grosser doctrine concerning the presence and
reception  of the Lord  in the Supper than that which  I
afterwards found, and now  testify, they ever held.  I disapproved of certain forms of speech, as, that the sacraments confirmed faith and strengthened the conscience, that Christ
was received in the sacrament, and that this reception was
corporeal: which forms I now acknowledge I can use piously
Bucer.   and profitably."* WOLFGANG MUSCULUS (t 1563) t:
Musculus.    I do not think that any one ever said that the
Whitaker.
bread is naturally or personally the body of our
Lord; and Luther himself, of pious nlemory, expressly denied
both modes."  WHITAKER (t1595) t: " Luther taught no personal union of the flesh of Christ with the bread."
SALMASIUS (t 1653):   "Consubstantiation, or fusion of natures, is the colmmixtion of two substances as it were into one;
but it is not this which the followers of Luther believe; for
they maintain the co-existence of two substances distinct in
two subjects.  It is the co-existence, rather, of the two subSalmasius.  stances than their consubstantiation."   Nothing
Stapfer.   would be easier than to multiply such citations.
Some have been given in other parts of this work, and with
one more we will close our illustrations of this point.  We
shall quote from  STAPFER, who, probably beyond any other of
the writers of Polemics, is a favorite among Calvinists.  He
first states   the points in which  Calvinists and Lutherans
agree on the Lord's Supper: " They AGREE,
"a. That the bread is not changed into the body of Christ:
after the consecration the outward signs remain bread and wine.
* Given in Verpoorten: Comment. Histor. de Martino Bucero. Coburg, 1709.
I xx. xxiii.
tLoci Comm. Theolog. Bern, 1560, 1583. Folio, 771. Quoted in Baier: De
Impanat. 13. Musculus was originally of the Strasburg school. His Loci are
of the Helvetic type.
$ Prsel. de Sacr. Franc. 1624, 561. Quoted in Baier, 13.
Q Simpl. Verin. sive Claudii Salmasii De Transubstant. Ed. Sec. Lugdun. Bat.
1660, p. 509.
IIInstitut. Theolog. Polemic. Universae. Tigur, 1748, 12mo, V. 227.




ADMISSIONS OF CALVINISTIC DIVINES.  775
" b. The bread is not to be adored.
" c. The Sacrifice of the Mass is an invention which casts
contempt on the Sacrifice of the Cross.
" d. The carrying about of the host in processions is absurd
and idolatrous.
" e. The mutilation of the Supper, by giving only the bread,
is impious, and contrary to the original institution.
"f. The use and virtue of the Sacrament is not dependent
on the intention of the consecrator.
"g. The body and blood of Christ are present verily and
really in the Eucharist, not to our soul only, but also to our
body. They are present by power and efficacy.
" h. Only believers, by means of the right use of this Sacrament,
are made partakers of the fruits of the sufferings and death of
Christ; unbelievers receive no benefit.
"THEY DIFFER in these respects:
"  a. The brethren of the Augsburg Confession teach: That
the body and blood of Christ are present with the signs in the
Supper substantially and corporeally.
" But here it is to be observed that these brethren do not
mean that there is any consubstantiation or impanation. On
the contrary, PFAFF, the venerable Chancellor of Tiibingen,
protests, in their name, against such an idea. He says: *' All ours agree that the body of Christ is not in the Eucharist
by act of that finite nature of its own, according to which it
is now only in a certain " pou" (somewhere) of the heavens;
and this remains that the body of Christ is not in the world,
nor in the Eucharist, by diffusion or extension, by expansion
or location, by circumscription or natural mode. Yet is the
body of Christ really present in the Holy Supper. But the
inquisitive may ask, How?  I answer, our theologians, who
have rightly weighed the matter, say that the body and blood
of Christ are present in the Holy Supper according to the
omnipresence imparted to the flesh of Christ by virtue of the
personal union, and are sacramentally united with the Eucharistic symbols, the bread and wine; that is, are so united,
that of the divine institution, these symbols are not symbols
* Instit. Theol. Dogm. et Moral. III. iii. 740, 743.




776          C ONSERVATIVE  REFORMIATION.
and figures of an absent thing, but of a thing most present, to
wit, the body and blood of Christ, which are not figurative,
but most real and substantial. Wherefore the body and blood
of Christ are present, but not by a presence of their own - a
natural and cohesive, circumscriptive and local, diffusive and
extensive presence, according to which other bodies are said
to be present   but by a divine presence, a presence through
the conjunction of the Logos with the flesh of Christ. We,
rejecting all other modes of a real Eucharistic presence, hold,
in accordance with our Symbolical books, that union alone
according to which the body and blood of Christ, by act of
the divine person, in which they subsist, are present with the
Eucharistic symbols.  We repeat, therefore, all those of the
Reformed do wrongly who attribute to us the doctrine of consubstantiation, against whom we solemnly protest.'
" b. The adherents of the Augsburg Confession hold that the
true and substantial body and blood of Christ.. are received
by unbelievers as well as by believers, orally. Pfaff thus expresses it:'Though the participation be oral, yet the mode is
spiritual; that is, is not natural, not corporeal, not carnal.'"
Not only however have candid men of other Churches repudiated the false charge made against our Church, but there
have not been wanting those, not of our Communion, who have
given the most effectual denial of these charges by approaching very closely to the doctrine which has been maligned, or by
accepting it unreservedly.*
The Lutheran Church has been charged with self-contradiction
in her interpretation of the words of the Eucharist in this
respect, that, contending that the words " This is
II. Objection:
Tht the exegesis my body" are not figurative, she yet considers that
is self-colntrdic- there is a figure in the second part of the narrative
tory - answered.
of the Lord's Supper, as set forth by St. Luke, xxii.
*See, for example, the remarks of Theremin, the F6nelon of the Reformed
Church (Adalbert's Confession), and of Alexander Knox, who was so profound
and vigorous as a writer, and so rich in deep Christian experience: " Treatise
on the Use and Import of the Eucharistic Symbols," in " Remains." 3d edition,
London, 1844.




OBJECTION.                        777
20: that when our Lord says: "This cup (is) the New Testament in my blood," the word "cup " is used figuratively for
" contents of the cup;" and that we do not hold that the cup
is literally the New Testament. If we allow a figure in the
second part, does it not follow that there may be a figure in
the first? To this we answer, First. Either the modes of expression in the two parts are grammatically and rhetorically
parallel, or they are not.  If they are not parallel, there not
only can be no inconsistency in different modes of interpreting,
but they mast be interpreted differently.  If they are parallel,
then both doctrines are bound to authenticate themselves by
perfect consistenqy in the mode of interpreting. Both agree
that the word " cup " involves " contents of the cup."  Now
treat them as parallel, and on the Calvinistic view results logically, " The contents of this bread is my body, the contents of
this cup is my blood, or, the New Testament in my blood "that is, they reach the Lutheran view. If Lutherans are inconsistent here, it is certainly not that they fear to lose by consistency.
We at least accept the result of our exegesis of the word
" cup," (which our opponents admit is here right,) whether it
be consistent with our former exegesis or not. If any man
believes that the " contents of the cup " is the blood of Christ,
he can hardly refrain from believing that the bread is the Communion of His body. But our opponents will no more accept
the necessary consequence of our exegesis where it coincides
with their own, than where it differs; for while on their ovn
exegesis, with which they claim that on this point ours is identical, the " cup " means "contents of the cup;" to avoid the
necessary inference, or rather the direct statement, that the
"contents of the cup " is Christ's blood, they go on to say,
" the contents of the cup " we know to be wine; the cup therefore really means, not in general the " contents of the cup,"
but specifically "wine."  The word "cup," as such, never
means "wine."   When Jesus says of the cup,   This cup
is the New  Testament in my blood," the meaning they
give it is, after all, not as Lutherans believe, that the " contents of the cup" is the New Testament in Christ's blood,




778         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION,
but that " this wine is like the New Testament in Chrlit's
blood, or the pouring out of this wine like the pouring out of
the New Testament- or of the blood which is its constituting
cause."  The interpretation, therefore,; of the word' cup,"
which they grant to be a correct one, if legitimately accepted,.
overthrows their doctrine.
But this still leaves untouched the point of the alleged inconsistency between the principles on which our Church interprets
the " first " and " second " parts of the formula of the Lord's
Supper. But our Church does not believe, as the alleged inconsistency would involve, that there is a rhetorical figure in the
words, " This is my blood," or,' This cup is the New Testament
in my blood."  If, in a case fairly parallel, we acknowledge in
the second part of the formula what we denied in the first,
then, and then only, could we be charged with inconsistency.
But in this case there is no parallel whatever, nor even the
semblance of inconsistency. We do not interpret any word of
the "second " part of the formula metaphorically, and therefore cannot be inconsistent with our denial of a metaphor in
the " first."  We do not interpret the word " cup " to mean
"sign," " symbol," or " figure " of cup; but because a literal
cup actually contains and conveys its literal contents, so that
you cannot receive the contents without receiving the cup, nor
the cup, without receiving the contents; they are so identified,
that, without dreaming of a departure from the prose of everyday life, all the cultivated languages of men give the name
"cup " both to the thing containing and the thing contained.
There is, however, this difference -that the thing designed to
contain bears the name " cup " even when empty, but the
thing contained bears the name " cup " only in its relations
as contained. A wine-cup may hold no wine; a cup of wine
involves both wine as contained, and a cup as containing. The
word "cup" may mean, without metaphor:'First. The vessel
meant to contain liquids, whether they be in it or not. Second.
The liquid which is contained in such a vessel, or is imparted
byit. Third. The vessel and liquid together. Before the sacramental cup was filled, the word " cup" would be applied to it
in the first sense. In the words: " He took the cup," Luke




THE CUP.                        779
xxii. 17, the word " cup " is used in the third of these senseslie took the cup containing, and through it the contents. In
the words: " Divide it among yourselves," the cup is conceived
of in the second sense - divide the contained cup, by passing
from one to the other the containing cup, with its contents. In
the words of the institution: " This cup is the New Testament," the contained cup, in the second sense, is understood -
the contained as mediated through the containing - that which
this cup contains is the New Testament in my blood. In such
a use of the word " cup " there is no metaphor, no rhetorical
figure whatever. It is a grammatical form of speech; and if
it is called a " figure," the word " figure " is used in a sense
different from that which it has when it is denied that there
is a " figure " in the first words of the Supper. We deny that
there is a rhetorical figure in any part of the words of the
Institution.
While in the history of the second part of the Supper, Matthew and Mark upon the one side, and Luke and St. Paul
upon the other, are perfectly coincident in'meaning, that is a
radically false exegesis which attempts to force the language
of either so as to produce a specific parallelism of phraseology.
According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus took the cup, and,
having given thanks, gave it to His disciples, saying,' Drink ye
all of it; for this is that blood of mine, the (blood) of the New
Covenant, the (blood) shed for many for the remission of sins."
These words grammatically mean: " Literally drink, all of you,
of it. For it; this which I tell you all to drink, is that blood
of wine, the blood of the New Covenant; the blood shed for
many for the remission of sins."  So far as Matthew and Mark
are concerned, the exegetical parallel in the Lutheran interpretation of both parts is perfect.  Their meaning is clear and
unmistakable.  Luke and Paul state the same thought in its
Iebraizing form, which is less conformed than the Greek to
our English idiom. " In the same manner also, (taking, giving thanks, blessing,) He gave them  the cup after they had
supped, saying: This the cup (is) the New Covenant in my
blood, which (cup) is poured out for you."
The grammatical differences between the two accounts are




780        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
several. First, in Matthew and Mark the subject is the demonstrative pronoun touto, this, which I command you to drink,*
in Luke and Paul, the subject is: " This the cup " " poured out
for you:" meaning of both, differently expressed, this which
I command you to drink (Matt., Mark), to wit, the cup "poured
out for you," (Luke,) the poured out, the shed contents of
the cup, are the blood of Christ, (Luke, Paul). Second. The
copula is the same: Esti, is. Expressed in Matthew, Mark,
and Paul.  Understood in Luke. But it can only be left unexpressed on the theory that the proper force of the substantive copula is unclhangeable. It cannot mean, This which I tell
you to drink is a symbol of my blood, or, This the cup is the
symbol of the New Covenant. Third. The predicate is different
grammatically, but identical really: In Matthew  and Mark
the predicate is; My blood; the blood of the New Covenant;
the blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
In Luke and Paul, the predicate is: The New Covenant in my
blood. The blood constitutes the Covenant, the Covenant is
constituted in the blood. In Matthew and Mark, our Lord
says: That which Iis disciples drink in the Eucharist is the
shed blood of the New Covenant. In Luke and Paul lie says,
That the cup poured out for them, which they drink, is the
New Covenant (constituted) in His blood. Now, cup and that
which they drink are two terms for one and the same thing;
and blood of the New Covenant and New Covenant of the
blood are one and the same thing, as an indissoluble unity. They
are a cause and effect continuously conjoined. The blood is
not something which originates the Covenant, and gives it a
separate being no longer dependent on its cause; but the blood
is forever the operative cause of the Covenant in its application,
of which it was primarily the cause in its consummation. That
which we drink in the Supper is the shed blood of Christ -
and that shed blood is the New Covenant, because the Covenant
is in the blood, and with the blood. This is the identity of
*So even Meyer: "Dieses was ihr trinken sollet." So far and so far only
the Grammar carries him; but he presumes to add, not from any knowledge
gained from the text, but from Lightfoot, that what they were to drink was "the
(red) wine in this cup."




THE CUP.                          781
inseparable conjunction.  Now  attempt the application of the
symbolical, metaphorical theory in this case. Can it be pretended
that the symbolical or metaphorical blood of Christ, not I-is
real blood, was shed for the remission of sins.? * or that the
symbol of the New Covenant, not the New Covenant itself, is
established in the blood of Christ?  As to the theory that
"cup " does not mean generically "contents," but specifically
" wine," it is at once arrayed against the laws of language; and,
here, is specially impossible, because the cup-content is said
to be shed or poured for us (" for the remission of sins "). That
cannot be said of the wine.  But as Matthew  and Mark expressly say it is "the blood which is shed," and Luke and
Paul say it is " the cup " which is shed, it is clear that cup is
the content-cup, and that the content-cup shed for us is Christ's
blood, not a symbol of it.
The cup is not said to be the New Testament simply, but the
New Testament in Christ's blood.  Now if the contents be mere
wine, this absurdity arises with the metaphorical interpretation:
Wine is the symbol of the New Testament in Christ's blood -
but wine is also the symbol of the blood, on the same theory.
In one and the same institution, therefore, it is a symbol, both
of the thing constituting, to wit, the blood, and of the thing
constituted, to wit, the New Testament.  But if it be said, to
avoid this rock, that it is a symbol of the thing constituted,
because it is a symbol of the thing constituting, that implies
that there is a grammatical metonymy of the effect for the
cause it involves and includes; and this throws out the rhetorical figure, and admits just what the Lutheran Church
claims here.
How completely different the use of " cup " in grammatical
metonymy is from  its use in metaphor, is very clear when we
take a case in which the word " cup " is actually used in metaphor: " The cup which my Father hath given me shall I not
*This is not pretended even by the advocates of the symbolical theory. Meyer
interprets: "'This is my blood of the Covenant;' my blood serving for the
closing of the Covenant with God." He falls back upon esti, as what he calls
"the Copula of the Symbolic relation." That such a character in the copula is
a pure figment, we have tried to show in a previous dissertation.




782        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
drink it?"  Here there is no literal cup, no literal contents;
but anguish is figured under the word. Not so is it when our
Lord says: "lie that giveth a cup of cold water -"  The
containing cup is not of water, but of wood or metal: it is the
cup contained, our Lord means; but He uses no figure, but
plain every-day prose.
While metaphor proper is never used in a testament to
directly designate the thing conveyed, the grammatical metonymy is constantly so used. A man may direct in a will that
a cup of wine shall be given to every tenant on the estate, --
so many barrels of ale, so many sacks of wheat, be distributed
at a particular time.
The cup is called the New Testament, not because of the identity of sign and thing signified, but because of the identity of
cause and effect - the cup contained is Christ's blood, and that
blood is literally the New Testament causally considered.
It has been objected that, as our Saviour was visibly present,
the disciples could not have understood that what they took
from His hands and ate was truly the Communion- the comIII. Objection. municating medium of His body. This objection
-The supposed reveals the essentially low and inadequate views of
impressions   of
the first disci- the objector, both as to the person of Christ and
ples.     the doctrine of the Church.  First. It assumes as
a fact what cannot be proven, as to the understanding of the
disciples. Second. Whatever may have been the limitation of
the faith of the disciples at that time, when they were not yet
under the full illumination of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament measure, and there was necessarily much they did not
understand at all, and much that they understood very imperfectly, we have strong and direct evidence, as we have already
shown, of their mature and final understanding of our Lord's
words, to wit, that these words do involve a true, supernatural,
objective presence of His body and blood.  Third. All the earliest Fathers who were the disciples of the apostles, or of their
immediate successors, show that it was their faith that in the
Lord's Supper there is a supernatural, objective communication of the body and blood of Christ, and in connection with.the other facts make it certain that this was the understanding




OBtrECTION, FROM THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 783
and the faith of the apostles themselves. The more difficult to
reason the doctrine of the true presence is shown to be, the
stronger is the presumption that the doctrine was reached
neither by the exercise of reason nor by the perversion of it,
but by the witness of the New Testament writings and the
personal teachings of the apostles.
It is objected that it is inconceivable that Christ, then present, visibly and locally, could have given His body sacramentally in a true, objective sense. There is a strong
appeal made to the rationalism of the natural mind.'from thetisl
Christ in His human form is brought before the presence of
Christ.
mental vision, sitting at the table, holding the
bread in His hand; and men are asked, " Can you believe that
the body which continued to sit visibly and palpably before
them, was communicated in any real manner by the bread?"
It is evident at first sight that the objection assumes a falsity,
to wit, that the body of Christ, though personally united with
Deity, has no mode of true presence but the visible and palpable. The objection, to mean anything, means, "Can you
believe that what continued in a visible and palpable mode of
presence before their eyes, was communicated in a visible and
palpable mode of presence with the bread?"  To this the
answer is: " We neither assert nor believe it  " If, to make the
argument hold, the objector insists, " That, if the body were
not communicated in that visible and palpable mode, it could
be communicated in no true mode," he abandons one objection
to fly to another; and what he now has to do is to prove that
the palpable and visible mode of presence is the only one possible to the body of our Lord which is in personal union with
Deity. It is interesting here to see the lack of consistency
between two sorts of representations made by the objectors
to the sacramental presence of Christ. The first is, We cannot
believe that He was sacramentally present then at the first
Supper because He was bodily so near. The second is, He cannot be sacramentally present now, because His body is so far off.
But alike to the argument from mere natural proximity, or
from  mere natural remoteness, the answer is: The whole
human nature of our Lord belongs on two sides, in two sets of




784         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
relations, to two diverse spheres.  That His body was before
their eyes in the manner of the one sphere, is no reason why
it should not be imparted to theia, after the supernatural and
heavenly manner of the other, in the sacramental mystery. If
the local reality is not contradictory to spiritual reality, neither
is it to the supernatural. If they could receive a body spiritually, they could receive it supernaturally. If they could have
it imparted by the Holy Ghost, they could have it imparted
by the Son. If the disciples could trust their eyes for the
natural reality, and walk by sight in regard to it, they could
trust Christ's infallible word for the supernatural reality,
walking then, as we must ever walk in the high and holy
sphere of the Divine, by faith, not by sight. The Lutheran
doctrine of the Eucharist in no degree contradicts the testimony of the senses. Whatever the senses testify is in the
Eucharist, it acknowledges to be there. We have the vision, feeling, and taste of bread and wine, and we believe there is true
bread and true wine there. But body and blood, supernaturally present, are not the objects of the senses. The sight,
touch, tastes are wholly incapable of testimony to such a presence, and are equally incapable of testifying against them.
There are things of nature, naturally present, of which the senses
are not conscious. There are probably things in nature which
the senses may be entirely incapable of perceiving.  How much
more then may the supernatural be supernaturally present
without affording our senses any clue. The senses in no case
grasp substance; they are always and exclusively concerned
with phenomena.  What if the supernatural here be present
as substance without phenomena? We deny that there is a
phenomenal presence of the body and blood of Christ. We hold
that there is a substantial presence of them. IHow little we
may build upon the assumptions of human vision, is shown by
the fact that the Docetists believed that the whole appearing
of Christ was but phenomenal; that Iis divinity clothed itself,
not with a true human body, but with a spectral and illusive
form, which men took to be a real body; it was the substance
of divinity in the accidents of humanity.  The Romish view
of the Supper is the Docetism of the earthly elements; the




OBJECTION, FROM THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 785
Calvinistic view is the Docetism of the heavenly elementsthe one denies the testimony of the senses in the sphere of the
senses, and the other denies the witness of the faith in the
sphere of faith. The senses are competent witnesses as to
where bread is; but they are not competent witnesses for or
against the supernatural presence of a body which is in personal union with God. We have no more right to reject the
reality of the presence, which God's word affirms of Christ's
body, after an invisible mode, than we have, with the Docetists, to reject the reality of His visible presence. We no. m6re
saw Christ at the first Supper than we now see Him at His
Supper. We believe that Hie was visibly present at the first,
on the same ground of divine testimony on which we believe
that He was invisibly present inr the sacramental communication. If the objector assumes that, on our hypothesis, the first
disciples had a conflict between sight and faith, we now, at least,
have no such conflict; for we have the same testimony in regard
to both - the testimony of our senses - that the word of God
declares both. With equal plausibility, if we are to reason
from the limitations of our conceptions, it might be maintained
that the divine nature of Jesus Christ could not be present at
the first Supper. Was not that divine nature all in heaven?
How then could it be all in the Supper? Was it not all at
Christ's right hand, all at Christ's left hand, all above Him,
all beneath Him? How could it be all in Him? IHow could
the personal totality of Deity be present in Christ when the
personal totality of Deity was present in each and every part
of the illimitable? If the totality of the Deity could be really
in the humah nature of Christ, and at the same time really in
the bread, could not that inseparable presence of the humanity which pertains to it, as one person of the Deity, be at once
conjoined with the Christ visible before them, and the Christ
invisible of the sacramental Communion? What the divine
nature has of presence per se, the human nature has through
the divine. We can no more explain the divine presence than
we can the human. It is indeed easier, if the divine be granted,
to admit the presence of a humanity, which is taken into the
divine personality, than it is to rise from the original low plain
50




786        CONSERVATIVE REFORM'ATION.
of natural thinking, to the primary conception of the omnipresence of the divine. The objectors admit the latter: they
thus admit the greater myst.ery; yet they blame us for admitting the less. They admit the great'fundamental cause of
the mystery, to wit, the inseparable union of the human
nature with the divine personality; and then deny the necessary effect and result of that cause.  Vhen Zwingle, at Marburg, declares that " God does not propose to our belief things
which we cannot comprehend," Melancthon makes this indignant note: " Such foolish words fell from him, when in fact
the Christian doctrine presents many articles more incomprehensible and more sublime (than that article of the true presence); as, for example, that God was made man, that this person
Christ, who is true God, died."*  The doctrine of the personal
omnipresence of the humanity of Christ, at the point at which it
stands in theology, is less difficult to receive than that of the
essential omnipresence of God at the place at which it stands in
theology. To the eye, the senses, -reason, experience, Jesus
Christ was but a man. He who can believe, against the apparent evidence of all these, that the bleeding and dying Nazarene
was the everlasting God, ought not to hesitate, when He
affirms it, to believe that iwhat is set before us in the Holy
Supper is more than meets the eye, or offers itself to the grasp
of reason. The interpretation which finds mere bread in the
Institution finds logically mere man in the Institutor.  When
Jesus sat visibly before Nicodemus, the palpable and audible
Son of man, He said: " The Son of man" (not " the Son of
God") "is in heaven."  If that Son of man could be with
Nicodemus in the manner of the lower sphere of His powers,
and at the same time in heaven in the higher sphere, he could
be with His disciples at the solemn testamentary Supper, after
both manners, revealing the one to them in the natural light
which flowed from His body, and the other in that truer light
of the higher world of which He is Lord —the light which
streams upon the eye of faith.
But there is an impression on the minds of many that the
well-established results of philosophical thinking in the modern
*Chytreus: Hist. Aug. Conf. (Lat.), Frankf., a. M., 1578, 641.




PHILOSOPHY, I IODER N.                   787
world are in conflict here with the Church's faith.  But those
who are familiar with the speculations of the last three centuries are aware that so far from this being the case, V. Philosophy,
the whole history of metaphysical thought duping   Modern.
that era has shown, with increasing force, the entire inability
of philosophy to disturb, by any established results, the simple faith which rests on the direct testimony of the word.  A
glance at the various modern schools will demonstrate this.
Why, then, if we ask for the light of that modern philosophy
which it is thought can clear up the mystery left by revelation, why, in any case, do we believe, or know, or think we know,
that there is a human body objectively in our presence? It is
regarded by the mass of thinkers as certain that we never
saw a human body, never felt it; but that the consciousness
of the human soul is confined to its own modifications and impressions, and that our conviction that the modification we
perceive, when we are convinced that a human body is before
us. is the result of an objective body, and consequently presupposes its substantial existence, is an act not of cognition, but
of faith   a faith which has been repudiated by the whole
school of pure idealists, by many of the greatest European
speculators, and in the philosophy of nearly the entire Orient.
So far as philosophy, therefore, can determine it, we have no
more absolute cognition of the objective, visible presence of a
natural body than we have of the objective, supernatural, invisible presence of a supernatural body.  Our persuasion of
either presence is an inference, an act of belief conditioned by
testimony.  We may think we have more testimony for the
first inference than for the second; but it is none the less inference: it-is not cognition.  We believe that bread is there, on
the evidence of the senses; we believe that Christ's body is
there, on the evidence of the word. The knowledge or belief of
the nonego, or external world, involves one of the grandest problems of speculative philosophy. The popular idea that we are
cognizant of the very external things in themselves which we
are said to see, hear, and feel, is entirely false. All accurate
thinkers, of every school, admit this.  This is the common
ground of the extremest idealism and of the extremest realism.




788         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Hegel and Hamilton stand together upon it. So much is not
speculation: it is demonstration; and yet to the mass of minds
this demonstrated fact in metaphysics seems as palpable and
ridiculous a falsehood as could be devised.
What modern philosophy can do here will be best seen by
looking at such of its results and efforts as most decidedly involve the matter under discussion.
The school of theological idealism, in which Berkeley is the
great master, maintained that there is no substance proper
except spirit, the divine Spirit, God, or created or finite
Theological spirits, among whom are men. While the common
idealism.-Beke- theistic view is that the will of God is the ultimate'ey.       cause of properties or phenomena, and that he has
made them inhere in substances, which thus become intermediate causes of the properties which inhere in them, Berkeley
holds that there is no intermediate cause of properties, no substance in which they inhere, but that the ultimate cause, God's
will, is the only cause, and that it groups them without substance, under the same laws of manifestation, as the common
view supposes to be conditioned by substance.  Spirit is the
only substance; there is no essential nonego relative to an individual ego, except other egos. Objective reality presupposes
originating mind, and mind acted upon. There are but two
factors in all finite cognition: the ultimate causal mind, and
the mind affected by it. Phenomena are but operations under
laws of mind on mind, and in ultimate cause, of the infinite
upon the finite. Annihilate spirit, and all reality ceases. The
world which appeals to our consciousness is but the result of
the operations of the Divine mind upon the human.  Berkeley
does not deny the reality of the phenomena, but he says that
the solution of the phenomena is not the existence of a material substance -a thing which all philosophy grants that
we can only conceive and can never reach -but the solution is
the direct agency of that divine cause which, in the ordinary
philosophy, is considered as a cause of causes, that is, what
the ordinary philosophy says, God works through substance
"intermediately," the idealist says God works through phenomena, without substance, "immediately."   The whole




TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM~-KANT.    789
question, therefore, between the Christian theological idealist
and the Christian cosmo-thetical idealist is, really, whether
God operates through phenomena, grouped simply by His
causative will according to fixed laws, or, on the other hand,
through objective substances in which attributes actually inhere; whether lie operates upon our mind in producing impressions we connect with a supposed external world " immediately "or "'mediately." It has been said by great philosophers,
who rejected the former species of idealism, that though no man
can believe it, no man can confute it; and it is claimed by
its advocates that it never has been confuted.  That no man
can believe it, is certainly not true.  We have the same evidence that confessedly deep thinkers have believed it that we
have that men believe any other doctrine. But if the deepest
thinking of some of the deepest thinkers can reach such a
theory, where shall we place the crudities of the popular philosophy or want of philosophy?  How little can it settle by its
speculations.
The school of " transcendentac idealism.," if it be proper to call
it " idealism " at all, has its greatest modern representative in
Kant and it is said, "Kant cannot, strictly speaking, be called
an idealist, inasmuch as he accepts objects outside of the Ego,
which furnish the material for ideas, a material to  Transcendental
which the Ego, in accordance with primary laws, Idealism-Kant.
merely gives form."*  The weakness of Kant's system was its
arbitrary separation between the practical and the speculative.
He held that the data of perception are valid in the practical
sphere both of thought and action, but cannot be accepted as
proven, and therefore valid, in the sphere of speculation. The
practical here reached a result which transcended the powers of
the speculative. To the speculative it was not, indeed, disproven, but only non-proven; yet, as non-proven, it made his
system one which admitted, on one side, the speculative possibility of the purest idealism, while on the other, at the sacrifice
of internal consistency, he reached for himself a hypothetical
realism, or cosmo-thetical idealism.  All speculative thinking
in Germany since has, more or less, turned upon the vindicaFiirtmaier: Philosoph. Real Lexicon. Augsburg, 1854, Idealismus.




790          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
tion or repairing of this inconsistency, or the running out of
one or other side of it to the exclusion of the other.
The school of subjective idealism, or absolute subjectivity, holds
that all existence is subjective. Mind is the only essence. It
sets aside a cosmos or external reality altogether, denies the
objective existence of all matter, maintains that our seeming
consdiousness, through our senses, is not really the result of
anything outside the mind.  The assumed external thing, and
the image of it, are one thing, and that is a modification of the
mind.  The conscious person, the ego, is the sole proper reality.
SubjctiveIdel- Thi is isFichte's system in its entire form.  Kant
isn. - Pite.    had avoided absolute idealism  by granting the
existence of sensuous intuitions to which real objects, distinct
from the mind, correspond.  But as the notions of pure reason,
or universal notions, are not, according to Kant, to be styled
objectively real because their objective reality cannot be demonstrated; and as it is equally impossible, on the principles
of Kant, to demonstrate the objective reality of sensuous iptuitions, Fichte drew the inference that these latter ought also to
be regarded as mere subjective phenomena, and that consequently all so-called realities are but creations of the Ego, and
all existence no more than thought.*
Fichte's later views are essentially different. tie held in his
riper period that it is not the finite ego or limited consciousness, but God the primary consciousness, whose life reveals
itself in the infinite multiplicity of circumstances, who is to be
regarded as the ultimate reason of all essence.
The school of objective idealism  holds to the system  of the
absolute identity of the object supposed to be perceived, and the
subject, the mind, perceiving.  This school is represented in
Schelling in his second stage, and Hegel in his first, and
jctive Idel Cousin.  Both the external thing  and the  conism — Hegel.  scions person are existences equally real or ideal;
but they are manifestations of the absolute, the infinite, or
unconditioned.  Mind and matter are phenomenal. modifications of the same common substance.
* These views are developed especially in his work: Ueber den Begriff der
Wissenschaftslehre (1794), 1798, and in his Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre, Jena and Lpz. (1794), 1802.




REALISTIC IDEALISM.                    791
The soberest and best form of idealism, which is indeed also
realism, recognizes the external world as a real thing, but
holds that we can have cognition of it, not as it is in itself, but
as it is phenomenally, and that we reach a "mediate knowledge" of the phenomena by the direct cognition of consciousness. The mind is really modified by these phenomenal causes,
and its inference, that its own states presuppose  Realistic Ideal
ultimate substantial realities without which these ism
phenomena would not be, is a just inference. Hamilton calls
this class " Hypothetical Dualists," or cosmothetic idealists,
and says that to it " the great majority of modern philosophers
are to be referred."  It is an idealism which acknowledges
realities which transcend the sphere of the senses, and which
is thus compelled to admit that natural faith can challenge for
its verities as just, if not as positive, an assurance as is given
by direct cognition. All that the human mind immediately
and absolutely knows is its own states of consciousness —
everything else is inference, intuitive conviction, irresistible
faith. " Mediate knowledge" is only intellectual faith.
The greatest representative of another school in effect admits
all this. Sir William Hamilton says: " The existence of God
and immortality are not given us as phenomena, as objects of
immediate knowledge."  Metaphysics: Lect. VII.  "The existence of an unknown substance is only an inference we are
compelled to make from the existence of known phenomena."
"Of existence absolutely and in itself, we know nothing."
" All we know is known only under the special conditions
of our faculties."  "In the perception of an external object, the mind does not know it in immediate relation to
itself, but mediately in relation to the material organs of
sense."  Lect. VIII.  " Consciousness is a knowledge solely of
what is now and here present to the mind. comprehends
every cognitive act; whatever we are not conscious of, that we
do not know."  Dissert. Supplem. to Reid. " Consciousness is
the condition of all internal phenomena.. comprises within its
sphere the whole phenomena of mind."  Lect. X.  "Consciousness is an immediate, not a mediate, knowledge. We
know  the mental representation.. immediately.  the past




792         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
mediately. through the mental modification which represents
it:  Consciousness is co-extensive with our knowledge.. our
special faculties of knowledge are only modifications of consciousness.  All real knowledge is an immediate knowledge.
What is said to be mediately known, is, in truth, NOT KNOWN to
be, but only BELIEVED to be; for its existence is only an inference, resting on the belief that the mental modification truly
represents what is in itself beyond the sphere of knowledge."
Lect. XII.
The philosophical thinkers,whose leader we have just quoted,
who claim to be the school of " Common sense," and vindicate their position as consonant with the popular interpretation of consciousness, are entitled by Sir William  Hamilton,
Natural Ra- "Natural Realists."  It is evident, in the Lectures
ism.       of that illustrious philosophical scholar, that he
started with one set of views, and experienced at least three
changes before he reached his final position; and this final position is virtually a practical return to the first.  These are as
follows: 1. The mind has no immediate knowledge except of
its own states.  We only immediately know that of which we
are conscious, and we can only be conscious of our own mental
states. Our knowledge of the external world is therefore MEDIATED by our consciousness; it is an inference based on intuition
and irresistible processes   is, strictly speaking, belief, not cognition.  This is the first view, or Cosmothetic Idealism.
2. The popular impression of what consciousness affirms is
the true standard of consciousness. We are conscious of whatever the mass of people think we are conscious of. But the
mass of mankind suppose they are conscious of the very objects
themselves in the external world.  Therefore, we are conscious
of the external verities themselves.  This we may call Vulgar
Realism.
3. The objective causes of perception, which is a form of consciousness distinct from  self-consciousness, are only such parts
of the nonego as come in contact with the sensorium, or bodily
organ of perception.  Of these the soul has immediate cogni
tion. Organic Realism.




NATURAL REALISM.                      793
4. The soul and body are personally united, so that our perceptions are composite, embracing the sensuous organ as modified
by the nonego in contact with it, and the mind as also modified
in a manner which cannot be explained. The nonego outside
of the man is, however, on this theory, still hypothetical.
For, first of all, it does not claim that we are conscious or perceptive of what is outside of the individual, as a total complex
of soul and body; and, secondly, to reach the nonego which it
claims to establish, it is compelled to acknowledge that the
ego is a personal unity — both soul and body. The modified
organ is, therefore, a part of the ego; and the theory meets the
horns of a dilemma. If it says the modification of the organ
is within the man, though outside of the mind, and, therefore,
is perceived as a nonego, it denies its own definition of the
complex person on which the theory rests - for the man is the
ego.  But if the total man be'the ego, then that which is within either part of his person is within the ego; and the modifications of the man, be they where they may, are modifications
of the ego, and not objective realities existent beyond it.  This
last view approximates the true view, which may be styled
Personal Realism. It is in substance a renewal of the first
theory, but with the great improvement of a true, yet still inadequate, view of the personality and unity of man. Personal
Realism regards man as a being of two natures, inseparably
conjoined in unity of person, so that he is not a soul and a
body, but a psychical flesh, or incarnate soul. Apart from the
personal relation of these two parts, there can be no man, no
true human body, and no true human soul.
Between death and the resurrection there is only a relative,
not an absolute separation between soul and body; and the
resurrection itself is a proof that the two natures are essential
to the perfect, distinctive, human personality. A human spirit
absolutely disembodied forever would not be a man, but only
the spirit of a man. At the resurrection, in consequence of the
changed condition of unchanged essences, man shall be a spiritual body, or an incorporate spirit.  Before the resurrection, as
the dead live " to God," both as to body and soul, both body
and soul live to each other "to God," and still constitute one




794         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
person "to God." Man has the primary natural life, in which
he lives in both soul and body, to man and God, in the sphere
of nature. Man has the provisional, intermediate, and supernatural life, in which he lives no more to nman, but " lives to
God " in both soul and body in the sphere of the supernatural.
Man has the ultimate eternal life, the resurrection life, which
is the natural life of heaven, in which he lives to God and
man. Then is he a spiritual body-an incorporate spirit.
Both natures in the highest perfection are forever in superorganic union. Matt. xxii. 32, Luke xx. 38: " God is not a God
of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him," (in Him,
Arab.; with Him, _Ethiop.) This is to show, not that the soul
is immortal, but -that the "dead are raised," 37. Marcion,
who acknowledged only the Gospel of Luke, rejected this whole
passage. He held to the immortality of the soul, but rejected
Christ's teaching of the immortality of man. The covenant
God is the God of the whole person. If God is the God of
Abraham, he is the God of the whole Abraham; and the
whole Abraham, body and soul, lives. But as to the body he
is dead to man; nevertheless, as to the body, he still lives to
God. Body and soul are to God a living inseparable, linked
even after death in the sphere of the supernatural    the sphere
which is to God. Between death and the resurrection., the body
and soul remain one person in the mind and in the hand of God.
The soul of the dead Christ was separated from His body,
so far as every natural and organic bond is concerned; but His
body, through the three days, remained still in personal unity
with the divine nature, with which the soul also was united.personally; and both, being held inseparably to the one person,
were in it held to each other still as parts of one person. So
that the body of Christ truly "crucified, dead, and buried,"
still lived to God; and the personal union of the human nature,
body and soul, and of the divine nature, was unbroken. In
virtue of the mediatorial covenant, by which all who die in
Adam are made alive in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 22), the personal
relation of the bodies and souls of all the dead remains unbroken to God. But pre-eminently in the case of those who
are in "mystic union " with God —a union which involves




NATURAL REALISM.                      795
both body and soul - what is called death does not break that
union with Him as regards either part.  The body and soul,
separatec as to the old organic bond of nature, are united still
to each other by being united to God-for all live to -Him. The
whole person in both natures lives to God, therefore the whole
person in both natures lives forever - man is immortal. The
intermediate relation must be provisional. Dead men can only
live, even as to the body, to God, with a view to that direct
reunion of the body with the spirit which takes place in the
resurrection. Therefore, the "dead are raised."
All, then, according to the theory which is the highest in
its assumption as to our absolute knowledge of the " nonego "or external world - all then that we know is so much of light,
as is successively brought upon the optic nerve, so much of
vibrating air as reaches the auditory nerve, and so through
the little range of the other senses. The objective reality, which
causes the undulation of light which produces the image on
the retina; the objective reality which produces the vibrations,
which the tympanum  communicates to the auditory nerve;
all this is equally, as on the second theory, to be accepted on
the ground of intuitive belief, or of logical process; it is inferred
and believed, not known. How little then, on the showing of
philosophy itself, even in its extremest pretensions, is it able to
do in fixing or unfixing our faith in the testimony of God.
These views, which we have presented, are the sum of all
the best philosophical thinking on the subject of the relation
of the mind and its cognitions to the reality of an external
world.
Our conviction then, that the causes of sensation have an
objective substantiality, is at its root ethical rather than intellectual. It rests upon the veracity of God. No theist can
deny that if God will so to do, every impression we now receive
could be made upon us without the existence of matter. What
we call the testimony of our senses is worth nothing whatever,
except on the assumption that God is true; and to take that
very word of His- one of whose grand objects is to correct
the mistakes of our natural senses and natural thinking -to
treat this as a something whose plain teachings are to be set




796         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
aside by the very thing whose infirmity necessitates the giving
of it, is as unphilosophical as it is unchristian.
An objection which is a species under the metaphysical, and
which is, perhaps more frequently used than any other, is, that
it is impossible that a true human body should be really present
in more than one place at the same time-the
Objection from
the nature of essential nature of the body, and the essential
space.     nature of space, make the thing impossible.  It is
worthy of note that the objection is usually put in the vague
assertion that a body, or a human body, cannot be thus present.
In this already lies a certain evasiveness or obscuration of the
real question. The incautious thinker is thrown off his guard,
as if the assertion controverted is that a body, or a human
body in general, that every and any body can be present in the
sense denied. There is a fallacy both as to what is present, and
what the mode of the presence is.  As to the first, the question
fairly stated is: Can Christ's body be present?  Can a body
which is in inseparable personal unity with the Godhead be
present?  Can that, which no human body simply as such
could do, be done by the body of our Lord, whose relations and
powers are unique and transcendent? The question of possibility all through is not what is possible to a human body, in
its natural and familiar limitations, but what is possible to
God.  Is there evidence that it is His will that the body of
our Lord should be sacramentally present at His Supper; and
if God wills it, is it possible for Him to fulfil it? If the evidence is clear that God does so will, that man is no Christian who denies that His will can be consummated; and that
man, who, because he thinks the thing is impossible, refuses to
accept what, but for that diieculty, he would acknowledge to be
invincible testimony as to God's will, is a Rationalist; his
mode of interpretation is Socinianizing, though he may be
nominally orthodox.
On the question of possibility, it is well to remember, first,
that we do not know the absolute limits of the possible.  All
sound philosophers acknowledge that there are incontrovertible
The impossible. facts whose possibility not only cannot be demonSelf-existence.  strated, but which are overthrown speculatively by




CREA TI 0 N- OMNIPR ESENCE.                 797
all the logic which man is able to bring to bear upon the question.
The philosophy of the world of thinkers has mysteries, which
it accepts as irresistibly proven or attested to consciousness,
which are as impossible, logically, as the doctrine of the Trinity,
or the personal presence of the undivided Christ in His Supper.
All systems of Christian theology, even the lowest, acknowledge that certain things, which seem to reason and logic impossible, are not only possible but actual; as, for example, that
there should be a self-existent being. If there be one thing,
which, beyond all others of its class, seems to the mind of man
logically impossible, it is this very thing of SELF-EXISTENCE;
yet it is most clear that we must choose between the idea of
one self-existent or of a vast number of self-existents. The normal
mind of man, on an intelligent presentation of the whole case,
at once chooses the former, and thus concedes that the impossible, logically, is the presupposition of all that is possible and
actual.  Because self-existence seems to us impossible, we are
compelled to believe in the self-existent.  We have to choose
between, once for all, accepting the seemingly impossible, and
thus having a ground for all that is possible, or, accepting the
same seemingly impossible, multiplied infinitely.  But having
accepted the seemingly impossible in essence, by believing in
God, we are again compelled to acknowledge the seemingly
impossible in act, by accepting the fact of creation.
n^~~~~..    ". - ^.. Creation.
Granted an infinite mind, yet does it seem impossible that by its mere will, material and intellectualbeing should
come into existence.  We are compelled to acknowledge that
out of material nothing material something is brought to
being.  The lowest thing that is, we argue, must imply preexistent mind, to adapt it to its ends; yet the highest thing
that is, God himself, though He be an entity'of perfect adaptation, is not adapted, but is absolute.
Another mystery recognized in all Christian theology is that
there should be a substantial PRESENCE of this Being, such that
the whole of His essence shall be in each part of
the universe; and yet that there shall be no multi- 
plication of essence or presence; that the entire essence should
pervade infinity, and yet be indivisible; so that there is no




798        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
part of God anywhere, and that the whole of God is everywhere, no less in the least than in the greatest, no less in the
minutest part than in the absolute whole; in place, yet illocal,
in all parts, yet impartible, in infinity, yet unextended.
The idea of ETERNITY, of something to which all time is unrelated, to which millions are no more than a unit, each being
relatively to eternity nothing, of which a trillion
e trillion of years is no larger part than the minutest
fraction of a second- a something of which we are compelled
to conceive as back of us, and before us, but which is not back
of us nor before us; in which we seem surely to have reached
the middle point, this centre at which we stand, but which
has no middle point; an infinite gone, and an infinite to come,
but which has not gone and is not to come, but ever is, without past, or future, or proportion; this is a something which
to reason and logic is utterly incomprehensible and impossible
upon the one side, as on the other it is the irresistible necessity of our thinking. It is inconceivable how it is, or even
what it is; but we can no more doubt that it is than we can
doubt our own being.
If we come within the limits of the theology of the Catholic creeds, we find the seemingly impossible here also accepted
as necessary truth. That the entire essence of the Godhead,
the unity of the divine Being unimpaired, shall in its modifications form the personality of the three persons;
each person having the whole essence, yet being
personally distinct from each of the others, not three essences,
nor one essence in three thirds, but one essence entire in each
-this swallows up the understanding of man. That the
infinite Godhead should so take to itself a true human body,
that the "human" and "divine" shall henceforth be one
Hypostatic person, so that we can say, not by mere acunion.     commodation of language, but literally, "Christ
made the universe, and God purchased the Church with
His own blood" —this is fathomless. God is substantially
present in every human creature: How is it then that but
one of our race is God  incarnate?  However fathomless
then, a doctrine whose basis is the truth, that the God of




ONUS PR OBANDI                      799
eternity, the God of omnipotence, the God of the unity in
trinity, has a human nature, forming one person with His own,
may be, we are bound to accept it, if Ihis word teaches it; and
we have seen that His word does teach it.
There has been great disingenuousness among some of the
opposers of the Scripture doctrine of the Lord's Supper. They
have first urged the speculative difficulties of natural reason
against the direct sense of the text; then professing to be willing to bow before the Word of God with absolute
Onus prolandi.
submission, they yet claim to have shown, on the
ground of natural reason, that the Word does not teach the
doctrine for which we here contend. Now the true mode of
Scripture interpretation is: First. To fix the direct and literal
sense of the words by the laws of language. Second. To adhere to that sense, unless, under a law acknowledged by God's
Word itself, we are bound to accept a figurative sense. Those
who depart from the literal sense in a disputed case are always
by that fact thrown upon the defensive. He who has the
literal sense of the text with him, is under no obligation to
argue for his doctrine until it shall be shown that the literal
sense is not tenable. On the main point of the objective presence, proven by taking the words in the literal sense, the immense majority of Christendom has been and is a unity. Those
who deny the doctrine are bound to show that the literal sense
cannot (not simply may not) be the true one. To say the literal
sense cannot be the true one, because a small minority in the
Christian Church think that sense involves something in conflict with their reason, is not only rationalistic, but egotistic
and conceited in the last degree. Those who accept the literal
sense have quite as much natural reason, quite as much power
of seeing the difficulties it suggests, as the rationalizing minority. The question can never be settled on that ground. The
attempt to do it has only wrought division.  It has made
chaos where Christendom  before had order.  The Reason,
which has rejected the literal sense, has never been able to fix
another. It has dropped pearl after pearl of truth into its
vinegar, and the total result is spoiled vinegar and ruined pearls.
The Reason has been injured by the abuse of the truth, and the




800         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
truth has been perverted by the abuse of the Reason. But even
on the low ground on which this rationalizing wishes to put
this question, it has not the strength it claims for itself. If
we consent, for argument's sake, to carry the question out of
the sphere of the supernatural, where it belongs, to the sphere
of the natural, where it does not belong, how little are we
The natural. prepared to affirm of the ultimate power of God in
Nature of things. the natural world. We indeed speak of the nature
of things, and may say, the thing being so, its nature must be
so; but we may not speak of a nature of things alien to and
superior to the will of God. Even if we grant that there is
a nature of things not the result of the will of God; as, for example, the nature of God himself, and the nature of the finite
as finite, of the created as created, of the made as inferior to
the maker; yet we cannot hold that the absolute nature, or the
relative nature, is contradictory to the absolute will. God is not
omnipotent as the result of His willing to be omnipotent; but
neither is omnipotent nature possibly contradictory to the absolute will. The nature of the created as created, the nature by
which the creature, in virtue of its being a creature, is of
necessity, and not as a result of will, not creator, but creature,
is not contradictory to the will of God. His will perfectly
concurs, though it is not the cause of the nature of things, abstractly considered. But all things themselves exist by God's
will.  Without His will, therefore, there would be no things,
and consequently no concrete nature of things.  The concrete
nature of things, therefore, is the result of God's will. While,
therefore, the creature cannot be the creator, and, by the essential necessity of the presupposition, only the creature results
from the divine will, and of necessity has a creaturely and finite
nature, yet it is simply and solely because of the divine will
that things exist, and that there is an existent nature of things.
Whatever, therefore, may be the speculative relation into
which the mind puts the abstract nature of things and the
divine will, the'actual nature of things and the divine will are
in perfect harmony; and the actual nature would have no
being without the will. Actual things and their actual nature,




SELF- CONTRADICTION.                    801
in a word, are so related to God's will that, knowing them, we
know it - knowing it, we know them.
We admit that there are ideas, or what are called ideas,
which are self-contradictory, and to which, therefore, there
can be no corresponding realities.  Yet, in regard to the great
mass of things, which the uncultured mind would assert to be
absolutely self-contradictory, and not necessarily merely such
to our faculties, it may be affirmed, that the deepest thinkers
would deny that they were demonstrably absolutely contradictory. Most things are said to be self-contra-  Selfcont,.dicdictory because we have never seen them, nor are tio,.
we able to conceive of them, in harmony. But with finite
faculties, this only demonstrates their relative, not their absolute, self-contradiction.  Over an immense field of thought, we
are not safe in affirming or denying certain\ things to be selfconsistent or self-contradictory.  Any man, who will take up
the systems of human speculation wrought out by the greatest
minds of all ages, will find that there is almost nothing, in the
way of supposition, which can be set aside on the ground that
the human mind invariably rejects it as impossible.  It is
wonderful how few  things there are not only not demonstrably absolutely impossible, but which are relatively impossible to all minds.
John Stuart Mill (one of the most vigorous and most skeptical of the speculative thinkers of our day) maintains that, in
a certain course which is conceivable, the human mind would
come to consider the proposition that twice two are five as fixed,
as it now considers the proposition that twice two are four.
A few extracts from  the examination of Hamilton's Philosophy, by this illustrious thinker, will show what results are
compatible with the ripest philosophical thinking.  He presents the following among the results of the latest speculation:
"If things have an inmost nature, apart, not only from the
impressions which they produce, but from all those which they
are fitted to produce, on any sentient being, this inmost nature
is unknowable, inscrutable, and inconceivable, not to us merely,
but to every other creature."  "Time and Space are only
modes of our perceptions, not modes of existence; and higher
51




802         CONSERVATIVE REFORLMATION.
intelligences are, possibly, not bound by them. Things, in
themselves, are neither in time nor in space."  Brown is "of
opinion that though we are assured of the objective existence
of a world external to the mind, our knowledge of this world
is absolutely limited to the modes in which we are affected by
it."  "There may be innumerable modes of being which are
inaccessible to our faculties. The only name we can give them
is, Unknowable." Chap. II.  Quoting Htamilton's Declaration,
" There is no ground for inferring a certain fact to
be impossible merely from our inability to conceive
its possibility," Mill adds, "I regard this opinion as perfectly just. If anything which is now inconceivable by us
were shown to us as a fact, we should soon find ourselves able
to conceive it.  We should be in danger of going over to the
opposite error, and believing that the negative of it is impossible.  Inconceivability is a purely subjective thing, arising from
the mental antecedents of the individual mind, or from those
of the human mind generally, at a particular period, and cannot give us any insight into the possibilities of Nature. But
were it granted that inconceivability is not solely the consequence of limited experience, but that some incapacities of
conceiving are inherent in the mind, and inseparable from it,
this would not entitle us to infer that, what we are thus incapable of conceiving, cannot exist.  Such an inference would
only be warrantable, if we could know a priori that we must
have been created capable of conceiving whatever is capable
of existing; that the universe of thought and that of reality...
must have been framed in complete correspondence with one
another.  That this is the case... is the foundation (among
others) of the systems of Schelling and Hegel; but an assumption more destitute of evidence could scarcely be made, nor can
we easily imagine any evidence that could prove it, unless it
were revealed from  above. What is inconceivable cannot,
therefore, be inferred to be false.... What is inconceivable
is not, therefore, incredible." Chap. VI.  Furthermore, to
argue from  the inconceivable as deducible from the supposed
properties of matter would be very fallacious in fact, while
we see the idealism  of Asia, part of Germany, and of New




HA MIL T O.                      803
England, denying at one extreme the very existence of matter,
and the materialism of part of Europe and America insisting,
at the other extreme, that nothing exists but matter. A third
tendency, represented in Locke and his school, throws a bridge
by which men can pass over to the first or the second, by making
the world of the senses the only world of cognition, and by maintaining that there is nothing in the nature of things, nothing
in the nature of matter or of thought, to prevent matter from
being endowed with the power of thought and feeling. But
this is in effect to obliterate the essential distinction between
spirit and matter. If matter can be endowed with the property
of thinking, it can be endowed with all the other properties of
mind; that is, mind can be matter, matter can be mind; but
if the finite mind can be finite matter, the infinite mind can
be infinite matter, and we reach a materialistic pantheism.
The skeptical school of Locke itself being judge, we can, from
the limitations usually belonging to matter, draw no inference
against the presence of the body of Christ in the Supper.
While we repudiate all these extremes of speculation, we
yet see in them that the human mind is unable to settle what
are the precise limitations imposed by the ncture of things on
matter and spirit, or to say how much or how little of what is
commonly considered the exclusive property of the one God
may be pleased to give to the other. Sir William Hamilton
says, " It has been commonly confessed that, as substances, we
know not what is matter, and are ignorant of what is mind."*
" Consciousness in its last analysis... is a faith."  "Reason
itself must rest at last upon authority; for the. original data
of reason do not rest on reason, but are necessarily accepted by
reason on the authority of what is beyond itself.  These data
are, therefore, in rigid propriety, belief or trust.   il
I,,     I     n ^   -r -r   v7./            Hamilton.
Thus it is that in the last resort we must, perforce,
philosophically admit that belief is the primary condition of reasonz and not reason the ultimate ground of belief. We are
compelled to surrender the proud Intellige ut Credas of Abelard, to content ourselves with the humble Crede ut intelligas
of Anselm." " We do not in propriety know that what we are
* Discussions. Appendix.




804         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
compelled lo perceive as not self is not a perception of self, and
we can only on reflection believe such to be the case."    Mill
sums up the opinion of Hamilton as this: "Belief is a higher
source of evidence than knowledge; belief is ultimate: knowledge only derivative; knowledge itself finally rests on belief; natural beliefs are the sole warrant for all our knowledge. Knowledge, therefore, is an inferior ground of assurance
to natural belief; and as we have belief which tells us that
we know, and without which we could not be assured of the
truth of our knowledge, so we have, and are warranted in
having, beliefs beyond'our knowledge; beliefs respecting the
unconditioned, respecting that which is in itself unknowable."
How little we are competent to decide on the metaphysic
of a personal union, in which an infinite person takes to itself
a human nature, is manifest when we attempt the metaphysic
of that personal union with which we are most familiar -the
union of soul and body in man. In our own persons, we are
not always, perhaps are never, able to draw the line between
what the body does through the soul, and what the soul does
by the body. In ourselves there is a shadow of the marvel of
the Communicatio idiomatum.  The soul is not mechanically,
nor merely organically, united with the body, but is incarnate,
" made flesh." It takes the body into personal unity with it,
so that henceforth there is a real fellowship of properties.
What the soul' has per se, the body has through the soul in
the personal union. There is a real conjoint possession of
powers by body and soul in the one human person. The body
has real properties, by means of the union with spirit, which
it could not have as mere matter.  That which is per se but
Fello.nshp of flesh, is, in the personal union, body; and body is
Properties in tie an integral part of the person of man. It receives
human person.
personality from the spirit —not that the spirit
parts with its personality so as in any sense to lose it, nor that
the body receives it intrinsically, so as in any sense to hold it
apart from the spirit, but that this one personality, essentially
inhering in the spirit, now pertains to the complex being man;
two natures share in one personality, the one by intrinsic pos* Note A, in Reed, pp. 749, 750.




FELLOWSHIP OF PROPERTIES.                      805
session, the other by participation resulting from the unity;
so that henceforth no act or suffering of the body is without
the soul, no act or passion of the soul is without the body; all
acts and passions are personal, pertaining to athe whole man.
Though this or that be relatively according to one or other
nature, it is not to the exclusion of the other: "My soul
cleaveth to the dust " and " My flesh crieth out for the living
God."  The human body has actual properties, in virtue of its
union with spirit, which are utterly different front and beyond
what matter, merely as matter, can possibly have.  Because
this great truth has been ignored, philosophy stands helpless
before the question, How the soul can receive impressions by
the body? The attempts of the greatest of thinkers to solve
this problem seem more like burlesques, than serious efforts.
The personal unity of man alone solves the mystery. No theory
but this can meet the facts of our being.  None but this can
avoid the two shoals of Absolute Idealism  and Absolute Materialism.  "The soul," says Tertullian,* "is not, by itself,
man, nor is the flesh, without the soul, man.  Man is, as it
were, the clasp of two conjoined substances."  " Man," says a
work attributed to Augustine, though evidently, in part, of
later date,t " consists of two substances, soul and flesh: the soul
with reason, the flesh with its senses, which senses, however, the
flesh does not put into activity (movet), without the fellowship
(societate) of the soul."  " The soul," says the same ancient
book,  "! is so united to the flesh, that it is one person with the
flesh. Of God as author, soul and flesh become one individual,
one man: hence, what is proper to each nature remaining safe,
that is added to the flesh, which is of the soul, and that is
added to the soul, which is of the flesh: according to the unity
of person, not according to the diversity of nature.  What,
therefore, is proper to each, is common to both; proper according to nature, common according to person."
But if the body assumed by the soul has a new range of
properties, which give it a dependent exaltation, how mu-ch
more may we expect that when these conjoint natures, form*De Resurrect. Carnis.            t De Spirit. et Anim., C. III.
$ Augustini Opera, VI., App. 810. Liber de Spirit. et Anima(., C. XLI.




806         CO NSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
ing a human nature, are taken into personal union with the
divine, there shall be a real personal participation by that
human nature in the attributes of the divine. And if we may
thus argue from  the body that is, the natural body, how
greatly is the argument strengthened by the fact that this same
body, in its exalted attributes, as glorified at the resurrection,
is so perfect an organ of the spiritual, so conformed to the
spiritual in its unity, that St. Paul calls it " spiritual body."
Now Christ's body is a spiritual body, and, by means of the
Spirit whose organ it is, exercises spiritual functions; Christ's
body is a divine body by means of the divine person it incarnates, and through that person exercises divine powers. A
"spiritual body " is not a spirit which is a body, nor a body
which is a spirit, but a true body, so pure, so exalted in its
properties and in its glory, that it is more like our present conceptions of spirit than it is like ordinary matter, and is' thereby
fitted to be the absolute organ of the spirit. If we can limit
the properties of a spiritual body by what we think we know
of a natural body, the whole representation of the apostle is
made void. "It doth not yet appear [is not yet manifested]
what we shall be," but it is most certain that our conceptions
of it are far more likely to fall below the truth than to rise
above it.
It becomes us then to be modest in our affirmation as to
what it is possible for God to do even with our natural bodies.
Much more should we be modest in affirming what may be the
possibilities of a body forming one part of a divine person.
Let us acknowledge that we can no more comprehend how a
spirit, even God himself, should be entire in more than one
place at one time, than we can conceive of a body thus present.
All thinkers acknowledge that in the actual conception, the
definite framing to the mind of the presence alike of body or
spirit, there is an invincible necessity of connecting locality
with it. Now the presence of spirit demonstrates that presence and locality are neither identical nor inseparable; and if
the argument, that they seem so, is demonstrative as to body,
it is equally so as to spirit; but if it be granted that this seeming identity is false as regards spirit, then it may be false as




TRANSUB STANTIATION.                     807
regards body.  Philosophy never has determined what space
is- never has determined that it has an actual being- but be
space what it may, the fact that our own souls are in our
bodies, yet illocal, shows that there is no contradiction in the
ideas of being in space, in locality, yet not having locality
in it.
While, as regards the divine and human natures of Christ,
we can, in both cases, define the general kind of presence, we
cannot define in either the specific mode. It is so in the doctrine of the Trinity: we define the general kind of unity and
threefoldness, but not the mode. We may thoroughly know
up to a certain point what a thing is not, and yet be wholly
ignorant beyond a certain other point what it is. We may
know that a distant object is not a house, not a man, not a
mountain, but be wholly ignorant what it is, or we may know
what it is without knowing how it is.  In the great mysteries
we can know that they are not this or that. We may know
further, to a certain extent, what they are (their kind,) but the
mode of their being is excluded from  our knowledge by the
fact that they are mysteries.  If we knew that, they would
be mysteries no more.
iNow the whole objection to the presence of Christ's body
assumes a certain " quo modo" -starts with the assumption
that Christ's body is limited as ours is, and that our doctrine
assumes that it is present in mode and kind as ours is - both
assumptions being absolutely false.  Between the kind of presence which Christ's body has in the Supper and that which
our body has in the world, there is a parallel in some part, but
not in all; but as to the MODE, there is, so far as we know, no
parallel whatever.
VI. There are several questions in the'metaphysic of this doctrine which are entirely distinct, yet are often confounded; and
as a result of this confusion, the doctrine of the true presence is
thought to be encumbered with the same metaphysical contradictions as the figment of transubstantiation.
The first question is, do attributes, qualities, or accidents inhere
in substance?  Tothis the true reply is, They do. No abstract
attribute, quality, or accident can have an objective existence.




808         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
Second. Is the reason of quality in the substance, so that
essentially different qualities prove essentially different substances, and essentially different substances must have essentially different qualities?  The answer is affirmative.
Third. Does the character of a quality, as determined by the
substance, have a real correspondence with the phenomenon in
which the human mind is cognizant of the quality?  The
answer is, Yes.
If these answers be tenable, then the doctrine of transubstantiation goes to the ground; for it assumes that the qualities of bread and wine do not inhere in bread and wine, and
may consequently exist abstractly from  bread and wine: not
only that a something which is not bread and wine may have
all their qualities, but that a nothing, a non-essence, may have
all their qualities. This theory, which is practically so materiVI. Objection: that alizing, runs out speculatively into nihilism.  It asthe sa;le line of sumes that the reason of the qualities of bread and
argument. can be
urged for tran- wine is not in the substance of bread and wine;
substantiation.  and that, consequently, the connection is purely
arbitrary; that the reason of the qualities of body and blood
is not in the substance or nature of body and blood, and that
consequently there is no reason in the essential nature of things
why all bread should not have the qualities of human body and
all body the qualities of bread. If the seeming loaf of bread
may be Christ's body really, the seeming body of Christ might
have been really a loaf of bread.  We may be in a world in
which nothing that seems is in correspondence with what is.
The innocent family which thinks that it is eating bread is
indulging in cannibalism, and some unfortunate wretch is hung
on supposition of his having committed murder, when, in fact,
what he plunged his knife into was but a loaf of bread, clothed
with the accidents of a man.  Transubstantiation unsettles
the entire ground of belief and thought, and conflicts with the
veracity of God in nature, as it does with His testimony in
His Word.
A little reflection will show that not one of these metaphysical difficulties connects itself with the doctrine of the true
sacramental presence.  It grants that all the attributes of




SUBSTANCE AND  CONDITION.                   809
bread inhere in the bread, and all the attributes of Christ's
body inhere in His body: tfie reason of this inherence is not
arbitrary; but bread has its qualities because it is bread, and
body has its qualities because it is body; bread cannot have
the qualities of body because it is not body, and body cannot
have the qualities of bread because it is not bread; and the
phenomena by which the mind recognizes the presence of bread
and body correspond with the qualities of each, so that the real
phenomenal evidences of bread are proofs of true bread, and the
phenomenal evidences of body are proofs of true body. So far,
then, it is clear that the doctrine of the true presence is in
perfect accord with the sound metaphysic with which the doctrine of transubstantiation conflicts. But it will be urged that
the difficulty remains that the phenomenal evidences of the
presence of true body are wanting in the Supper, and that our
doctrine is so far in conflict with the testimony of the senses,
equally with the Romish. This difficulty, which has often
been triumphantly urged, has really no force. The senses
may be competent to decide on the presence and reality of
what is offered to them, but may be incompetent to decide
whether a thing is really present, which does not come within
their sphere. That I see the furniture in my room is proof
that there is furniture there; but that I do not see the air in
my room is no proof that air is not there. That I see the
bread in the Supper is proof that bread is there; but that I do
not see the body is no proof that the body is not there. But,
says the objector, if the body be there, it must be clothed with
the essential attributes of body, such as visibility and tangibility. You would see it and touch it, if it were there, on
your own principles that properties inhere in substance. The
theological answer to this is, that this objection assumes the
natural presence of a natural body per se, while the doctrine
to which it professes to be an objection is, that there is a
supernatural presence of a supernatural body through the
divine, with which it is one person. The metaphysical answer
is, that though the properties which become known phenomenally, inhere in substance, the same substance, under different
conditions. exhibits different properties. I take a compound




810        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
substance which we call ice: it is visible, tangible, hard, and
very cold. If it is struck, it returns a sound. It will not take
fire, and puts out fire, and occupies in space a few inches. It
melts and flows, and becomes warm; it occupies less space; it
still will not take fire, but puts out fire-still visible, still
tangible, still audible on a stroke, and can be tasted. I
increase its temperature to a certain point, and it becomes
invisible, intangible, intensely hot, inaudible; its volume has increased to between sixteen hundred and seventeen hundred cubic
inches for every cubic inch as water. From its passivity'it
has become a force of the most tremendous potency, rivalling
in its awful energy the lightning and the earthquake. The
developed qualities of the substance which we first saw as ice,
bear thousands swiftly over land and water, or, bursting their
barriers, carry death and destruction with them. But science
takes this substance and divides it into its elements. One of
these is hydrogen. The heavy mass of ice has yielded tile
lightest of all known bodies; the extinguisher of combustion
has given a substance of high inflammability; the hard has
yielded one of the few gases which have never been liquefied.
The other element, oxygen, is also one of the gases which have
never been liquefied. The liquid of the world is produced by
the union of two substances which cannot themselves be liquefied. The ice has no magnetic power, the oxygen has. Take
the oxygen of our original lump of ice, and introduce the hydrogen of the same lump into it in a stream, and the two elements
that quenched flame sustain it; or bring them together in a mass,
and apply fire to them, and the union is one in which a terrific
explosion is followed by the reproduction of the water which,
under the necessary conditions, may become ice again. The
circle has been run. Now if, under the changed conditions of
nature, such marvellous phenomenal changes may take place
in connection with the elements, with no change in their substance, who can say how far other changed conditions of nature may carry other substances in the sphere of nature? Yet
more, who can say what the changed conditions in the supremest sphere of omnipotence may effect phenomenally in the
sphere even of the natural, and, afortiori, in the sphere of the




OUR LORD'S DECLARATIONS.                     811
supernatural?  Qualities inhere in substance; but substance,
under changed conditions, may put forth new qualities, or withdraw all the qualities that are objects of sense.  That which
can be seen, handled, and felt as a body, w5 may justly believe
is a body; but that same body under different conditions, and
at the will of Him it incarnates, may be present, yet neither be
seen nor handled.
It is not logical to say, because what I see is matter, what I
do not see is not matter. The senses only show us what is, not
what must be. " What is visible is matter," is logical: " what
is matter is visible," is sophistry. " What bears all the tests
to which. the senses can subject a true body is a true body," is
logical: "what is a true body must be subject to all the tests
of the senses," is sophistry. What bore all the tests of all the
senses, as water, was fairly proved to be such; but the same
water passed into conditions in which it was attested by none
of the senses, yet was none the less water.  Hence our senses
can and do prove that there is bread and wine in the Supper;
but they do not and cannot prove that the body and blood of
Christ are not there. The argument of the senses is conclusive against transubstantiation, but presents nothing whatever
against the doctrine of the true presence.
VII. A seventh objection often urged, different in form from
some of the others, yet essentially one with them, is, that
" Jesus declares that He will leave the world, and has left the
world; therefore He is not present at His Supper."  To this
we answer, First, that if the expressions which speak of the
absence of Jesus from  the world are to be pressed without
the Scriptural limitations as to the nature of His absence,
it would follow that His divine nature is also vii. Our Lord's
absent; for these expressions, be their force what Declarations that
He will leave  the
it may, always refer to his whole person. He never vorll.
says, My body or My human nature will go away, but "  I go
away."  Now the " I " expresses the person; if, therefore, the
phrases are to be urged in such fashion as to preclude any sort
of presence of His human nature, they will equally preclude
any sort of presence of His divinity. Co-presence, that is, inseparable conjunction of the two elements of a person, is not




812        CONSERVATIVE REFORMA TION.
only an essential of personality, but it is the primary essential
element -such an element as is presupposed in every other,
and without which the personal union could not exist. It is
the minimum, not the maximum; the first, not the last, demand of personality. But the objector admits that Christ is
present according to His divinity, and must, therefore, admit
that He is present according to His humanity.  Secondly. Our
Lord, when He speaks of His absence, makes it.antithetical,
not to His essential presence, but simply to one kind of that
presence, to wit, the continually visible or purely natural. So
strongly is this the case, that after His resurrection, in view
of the fact that, though yet visibly upon earth, He was even
then no longer in the old relations, Iie speaks of Himself as
in some sense not present with them: " These are the words
which I spake unto you while Iwas yet with you." (Luke xxiv.
44.) Here our Lord, after giving the strongest proof that He
was then present bodily, expressly, over against a mere presence
of His spirit, or disembodied soul, declares, at the same time,
that He is in some sense no longer with them; that is, after
the former manner, and in the old relations.  Already, though
on earth, he had relatively left them.  He thus teaches us that
there may be an absence, even with the most positive tokens
of natural presence, as there may be a presence, with the most
positive tokens of natural absence. The incarnate Son of God
is not excluded in the words, " I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."  He conforms to his own description of the good
shepherd, as one who does not leave the sheep. (John x. 12.)
When He says, " I came forth from the Father, and am come
into the world," does it mean that he so came forth from the
Father as no more to be present with Him, and so came into
the world as to be absent from heaven (that Son of man who
"is in heaven," John iii. 13)? If it does not, then, when He
adds, " I leave the world, and go to the Father," it does not
mean that lie so leaves the world as to be no more present in
it, and so goes to the Father as to be absent from His Church.
(John xvi. 28.) In a word, all the declarations in regard to
Chrlst's absence are qualified by the expressed or implied




OUR LORD'S DECLARATIONS.                    813
fact that the absence is after a certain kind or mode only - a
relative absence, not a substantial or absolute one. There is a
relative leaving in human  relations.  " A  man shall leave
his father and mother, and cleave to his wife," and yet he
may remain under their roof; he leaves them  relatively, in
rising  into  the new  relation.  As representatives of the
supremest domestic obligation, the parents are left; for his
supremest domestic obligation is now to his wife. Hence, our
Lord does not make the antithesis he shall leave parents, and
go to his wife, but he shall leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife. A  pastor may leave a congregation, as
pastor, and yet remain in it as a member. A merchant may
leave a firm, yet retain the room he had in their building. But
these cases are not simply parallel. They illustrate the argument
a fortiori.
The presence of God is regarded either as substantial or as
operative and phenomenal. The substantial may exist without
the phenomenal; the phenomenal cannot exist without the
substantial. God's substantial presence is alike everywhere 
as complete in the lowest depths of hell as in the highest glory
of heaven; as perfect in the foulest den of heathen orgies as
in the assembly of saints, or on the throne before which seraphim  veil their faces. But His phenomenal presence varies
in degrees.  "Our Father who art in  leavcen," marks His
purest phenomenal presence, as making that Home to which
our hearts aspire. As there is phenomenal presence, so is there
phenomenal absence; hence, God himself is frequently represented in Scripture as withdrawing Himself, and as absent,
though, in His essence, Ile neither is, nor can be, absent from
any part of the Universe.  The absence of God is, so to speak,
a relative absence, a phenomenal absence; the tokens of Providence or grace by which this presence was actualized, not only
to faith, but even to experience, are withdrawn. So the natural phenomenal tokens of the presence of the undivided Christ
are withdrawn, yet is IHe substantially still present, and as thus
present is operative in the supernatural phenomena of His
grace.
T'hirdly. Just as explicitly as Christ, the whole Christ, is said




814         CONSERVATIVE REFOR.MATIONr
to be absent, is lie affirmed to be present:''Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them." (Matt. xviii. 20.) " Lo, I am with you alway,all the days,-even unto the end of the world." (Matt. xxviii.
20.)  "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
Father will love him, and we'will come unto him, and make
our abode with him." (John xiv. 23.) The light of His presence shone around Saul, and the words of HIis voice fell upon
Saul's ear. (Acts ix. 4-7; xxii. 6-11.) " The night following "
Paul's appearing before the council, " the Lord stood by him, and
said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as thou hast testified of me
in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." (Acts
xxiii. 11.) Christ'filleth all in all." (Eph. i. 23.) He is" in the
midst of the seven candlesticks; zwalketh in the midst of them;
holdeth the seven stars in I-s right hand; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches, and the seven stars are the
angels of the seven churches." (Rev. i. 13; ii. 20; iii. 1.) The
glory of Christ ruling without vicars had been seen even by
the Old Testament saints, and Jehovah had said to David's
son, who was David's Lord, " Rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies." (Psalm cx. 2.)
If, then, it be logical to say the Scripture declares He is
gone, therefore He is not here, it is equally logical to say the
Scripture affirms that IHe is here, therefore I-e is not gone.
Both are meant, relatively, and both are true, relatively. Both
are equally true in the sense, and with the limitation which
Scripture gives to both; both are untrue in the sense which a
perverse reason forces upon them.  It is true both that Christ
is gone, and that He is here; he is gone, phenomenally, He is
here, substantially.  It is false that Christ is either gone or
here, as the carnal mind defines Iis presence or His absence.
Absent in one sense, or respect, He is present in another; both
senses being equally real, though belonging to different spheres
of reality. The one belongs to the reality of the natural, in
the sphere of the senses; the other belongs to the reality of the
supernatural in the sphere of faith.
Fourthly. If it be urged that Christ "' ascended into heaven,"
therefore He is not on earth, we reply, He not only has ascended




OUR LORD'S DECLARATIONS.                        815
into heaven, but, according to the apostle, Iie has passed through
the heavens (Heb. iv. 14),* " is made higher than the heavens 
(IHeb. vii. 26),  and has " ascended up far above all heavens "
(Eph. iv. 10); but, with the apostle, we add,j'not that IIe may
desert all things, or be absent from them, but "that He might
fill all things."  One of the grandest passages in CHRYSOSTOM    t
opens the true sense of these words: 6' Christ (at HI-s Ascension)
bffered the first fruits of our nature to the Father; and, in the
Father's eye, because of the glory of Him who offered, and the
purity of the offering, the gift was so admirable that He received
it with His own hands, and placed it next to Himself, and said:'Sit Thou at My right hand.' But to which natutre did God say,'Sit Thou at My right hand?'  To that very nature which
heard the words,' Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt
return.' Was it not enough for that nature to pass beyond the
heavens?  Was it not enough for it to stand with angels?
Was not such a glory ineffable?  But it passed beyond angels,
left archangels behind it, passed beyond the cherubim, went
up high over the seraphim, speeded past the Principalities, nor
stood still till it took possession of the Throne of the Lord.
Seest thou not what lieth between mid-heaven and earth? Or,
rather, let us begin at the lowest part.  Seest thou not what
is the space between hell (adou) and earth, and from  earth to
heaven, and from heaven to the upper heaven, and from  that
to angels, from  them to archangels, from  them to the powers
above, from them  to the very Throne of the King?  Through
this whole space and height, He hath carried our nature."
(EcUMENrus: " With His unclothed Divinity He, of old, filled
all things; but, incarnate, he descended and ascended, that
He might fill all things according to His flesh (meta sarkos)."
THEOPHYLACT: "C As before He had filled up all things by His
divinity, He might now fill all things, by rule and operation, in
His flesh." -- GROTIUS: " That is above the air and ether, which
*This is the correct rendering of the passage. So the Vulgate and Arabic:
penetravit Coelos. (The 2Ethiopic makes it a passing through the heavens, in His
coming into the world.) Von Meyer: Durch die Himmel gegangen. Stolz:
gedrungen.. Allioli, Gossner: die Himmel durchdrungen. De Wette: hindurchgegangen. So McKnight, Bible Union, Noyes, Alford.
t In Ascens. D. N. Jesu Christi. Opera, II. 534.




816         CONSERVATIVE REFORM ATION.
region is called the third heaven, and the heaven of heavens, and
in the plural' heavens,' and by pre-eminence'heaven,' Acts ii.
34; i. 10; I Cor. xv. 47; Eph. vi. 9."  Many of the Calvinistic
divines appeal to this passage as proving the omnipresence of
Christ, and, by consequence, His Deity.
But if Christ has ascended up far above all heavens, He has
ascended according to the body.  But if the body of Christ
has ascended far above all heavens, by the processes of natural
motion, it must have passed with a rapidity to which that of
light is sluggish, and must have been capable of enduring processes which would not only have destroyed, but utterly dissipated, a natural body.  But when a theory which calls in
nature to its aid is compelled to acknowledge that a human.
body, fettered by the ordinary laws of natural presence, is hurried at a rate to which that of nearly twelve millions of miles
in a minute is slowness itself, it asks for a trust in nature,
what is harder to the mind than the most extreme demands
of the supernatural. The nearest of the fixed stars, whose
distance has yet been measured, is about twenty billions of
miles from us, and requires three and a third years for its light
to reach us. "It has been considered probable, from  recondite investigations, that the average distance of a star of the
first magnitude from the earth is 986,000 radii of our annual
orbit, a distance which light would require 15-} years to traverse; and, further, that the average distance of a star of the
sixth magnitude (the smallest distinctly seen without a telescope) is 7,600,000 times the same unit, to traverse which,
light, with its prodigious velocity, would occupy more than
120 years.  If, then, the distances of the majority of stars
visible to the naked eye are so enormously great, how are we
to estimate our distance from those minute points of light discernible only in powerful telescopes?  The conclusion is forced
upon us that we do not see them  as they appeared within a
few years, or even during the lifetime of man, but with the
rays which proceeded from them several thousands of years
ago."    " The distance of a star whose parallax is 1" is about
twenty trillions of English miles. A spider's thread before the
*Hinld's Astronomy, quoted in Chambers's Encyclopedia. Article: Stars.




OUR LORD'S DECLARATIONS.                    817
eye of a spectator, at the same distance, would suffice to cancel
the orbit of the earth; and the breadth of a hair would blot
out the whole planetary system. But a star having this parallax is at a moderate distance in comparison of innumerable
others, in which no parallactic motion whatever can be distinguished.  Supposing the distance of one of them to be only a
thousand times greater, a ray of light darted from it would
travel between 3,000 and 4,000 years before it reached the
earth; and if the star were annihilated by any sudden convulsion, it would appear to shine in its proper place during that
immense period after it had been extinguished from the face
of the heavens. Pursuing speculations of this kind, we may
conceive, with Huygens, that it is not impossible that there
may exist stars placed at such enormous distances that their
light has not yet reached the earth since their creation." *
_Now, if the presence of Christ is merely local, if HIe is above
all heavens only by confinement to one place, Iis ascension to
this one place involves something which may claim to be natural, but which is really super-supernatural.  If the doctrine
of the supernatural invites faith, the figment of the supersupernatural demands credulity.  Calvin interprets " above all
heavens" as meaning " beyond this created universe.  The
heaven in which Christ is, is a place above all the spheres....
Christ is distant from us by interval of space... for when
it is said above all the heavens, it involves a distance beyond
that of the circumference beneath sun and stars, and, consequently, beyond that of the entire fabric of the visible Universe."
VIII. Another shape which the same objection takes is:
"Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, and therefore He is not
on earth."  This assumes that the " right hand of God " is a
locality; and to this it is sufficient to reply, by asking the
question, If the right hand of God be a place, in what place
is God's left hand? Where is the place that God's right hand
is not?  If God's right hand means place at all, it means, not
one place, but all place. If, moreover, Christ's human nature
* Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eighth edition), Art.: Astronomy, iv. 81.
52




818         CONSERVATIVE REFORM'ATION.
cannot be on earth, because it sitteth at " God's right hand,"
neither can His " divine" nature be present, for the same
reason; for Christ sits at the right hand of God in His whole
VIII Objection. person, and according to botih natures. If to sit at
christ is at Goe's God's right hand involves the limitations of localright hand. ity, then the divine nature of Christ cannot be there.
But to sit at the right hand of God has no reference whatever to locality. To sit at the right hand of a king is a
Biblical idiom for participation in the office, prerogatives, and
honor of a king.  " To sit at the right hand of God " means,
therefore, " to be in that condition of plenary divine glory,
majesty, and dominion which belongs to God." We invert the
argument, therefore: we say, Christ is at the right hand of
God, therefore He is here. God is not mutilated nor divided;
He is without parts (impartibilis, Aug. Conf., Art. I.). Whereever God is, His right hand is; whereyer His " right hand"
is, He is; therefore the "right hand of God," so far as the
question of presence is involved, is everywhere. His throne is
as wide as the Universe   The " hollow of His hand" holds
creation!  He who sits at God's right hand is omnipresent,
just as he who is sitting at the right hand of an earthly monarch is " ipsofacto" where that monarch is. When Jesus rose
from the dead, He said, " All power is given unto me in heaven
and on earth;" but the power of "presence" is a primary
part, a necessary element of all power or omnipotence; that is,
omnipresence and omnipotence so cohere that no being can
have one of them without having both; and as Jesus says this
power is given to Him, it must have been given to Him as
man, for, as God, He held it essentially and necessarily. Jesus
Christ our adorable Lord is not only essentially omnipotent
and essentially omnipresent as God, but is personally omnipotent and personally omnipresent in that human nature also
which has, been taken into absolute and inseparable unity with
the divine. All objections vanish in the light of His glorious
and all-sufficient person.  That the true and supernatural
communion with his Lord in His " Supper " -which is the
Christian's hope -can be, rests upon the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ bodily; that it will be, rests upon the




"IN, WITH,  UNDER."                  819
absolute truth of Him  who cannot deceive us.  He who is
incarnate God can do all things: Ie who is the Truth will
fulfil all His assurances.
IX. It has been made an objection that the formula in which
the Lutheran theologians, combining different expressions in the
symbols, usually set forth the truth of the presence, is not warranted, even if the Lutheran doctrine be true, inasmuch as
the Scripture does not say that the body of Christ
is " in, with, and under the bread." It is urged that I. otbjection'        ^    ^    -    o7~~~~~~~~~ "~~ ~ ~in, with, under."
we ought to adhere to the Biblical phrase, nay, that
we attempt to substitute for a Biblical expression, which
allows of various meanings, one of our own, which can have
but one sense. It has been asked, If our Lord meant that
His body was to be given "in, with, and under the bread,"
why did He not say so in so many words? This feeble
sophistry we have tried to dispose of, in a general way,
in a previous discussion.* The men who urge it have their
own phrases by which they ignore the direct teachings of
the word of God. Let any man admit, without equivocation, as the very letter of Scripture asserts, I. That what Christ
commands us to take, eat, and drink, is His body and blood,
and II. That the bread we break is the communion of His
body, and the cup we bless the communion of His blood, and
we shall have no quarrel with him, as we are sure he will have
none with us, about the phrase, "in, with, and under," which
means no more nor less than the Scripture phrase. Bread and
wine are there, Christ's body and blood are there; the bread
and wine communicate the body and blood; that is what the
Scripture says, and this, and no more, is what the Church
saEys.
The implication that if Christ had used the phrase current
in our Church, those who now reject our doctrine would have
embraced it, was long ago noticed and answered by Luther.
In his Greater Confession, he says: "If the text was, In the
bread is my body, or, With the bread, or, Under the bread,
then would the fanatics have cried,' See I Christ does not say,
Pp. 184-186.




820         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
The bread is my body, but In the bread is my body.' Gladly
would we believe a, true presence if He had only said,'This is
my body.' That would be clear  but He only says,'In the
bread, with the bread, under the bread, is my body.' It consequently does not follow that His body is there. If Christ had
said, In the bread is my body, they could more plausibly
have said, Christ is in the bread spiritually, or by significance.
For if they can find a figure in the words, This is my body,
much more could they find it in the other words, In the bread
is my body; for it is a clearer and simpler utterance to say
This is my body than to say In this is my body."  Certainly
it is a stronger affirmation of the divinity of Christ to say
Christ is God, than to say God is in Christ, God is with Christ,
or God is under the form of Christ.
No phraseology can be framed which in itself will shut up
men to a fixed sense who are determined in advance not to
accept that sense. The history of the terms must be brought
in, in such case, to silence, if it cannot convince. Yet even
the amplest history which fixes a sense beyond the cavil, which
is restrained by an ordinary self-respect, is not sufficient to
overcome the persistent obstinacy of determined perverseness.
There are no words in the past whose sense is more absolutely
fixed by every attestation of the letter and the history than
the words of the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession.
Yet in the face of those clear words, and of that ample history,
men have done with that Article just as they have done with
God's word:'" The body and blood," say they, quoting it, " are
truly present "- that is, by the contemplation of faith-" under
the species of bread and wine," as symbols of an absent thing,
and " are imparted " figuratively, spiritually, and ideally " to
those who eat" with the mouth of faith. Hence the Confes.
sors "disapprove of those who teach the opposite doctrine;"
that is, disapprove of themselves and the Church they repre
sent: "Wherefore also the opposite doctrine," to wit, the
Lutheran doctrine, " is rejected," and the Zwinglian, Bucerian,
Calvinistic, is accepted.  We are making no humorous exaggeration. The Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession has




CONTINUAL PRESENCE.                    821
actually been manipulated in such a way, by the class whom
Luther characterizes, as to make the object of it the rejection
of the faith held by the Lutheran Church, the vindication of
her enemies, and the stultification of her friends.
X. But it is argued that the doctrine of the continual personal
presence of the humanity of Christ annihilates the very theory
it is intended to aid; for in making the body of Christ always
present, everywhere, it renders impossible any special presence,
such as the sacramental presence must be supposed to be.
Hence it would follow that the Lord's Supper is no more a
communion than any other supper is, and " this bread" no
more than any other bread, the communion of Christ's body.
This objection, if honestly urged, implies a complete ignorance
of the doctrine of the true presence. The substantial presence,
though presupposed in the sacramental, is not simply identical
with it. The sacramental presence is the substantial presence
graciously operative, in, with, and under the elements divinely
appointed to this end. God is everywhere present, yet the
Pagan cannot find Him for want of the divine means to actualize that presence. The Holy Ghost is everywhere present,
but He can be found only in His Word and the X.Continualpresordinances, and cannot be found in nature, or in encenoarguany  -iok   7f  rrn  T   ~   >   f*    ment against sacany book of man. The divine nature of the Son ram..ental presof God is personally present with every human e n~
creature,, nay, is in every believer, yet no man thereby becomes
incarnate God. All substantial presence, in the divine economy,
becomes operative through means. The Lord's Supper is no
exception to this rule. The relation of the supernatural reality
conveyed, to the natural element conveying, is not that of
mechanical union, or of passive copresence, but is that of sacramental union, of voluntary operativeness, in virtue of which
the consecrated elements are the media of a communication
which would not take place without them. Hence, while the
generic, substantial presence of the whole Christ perpetually
characterizes His state of plenary exercise of the prerogatives
of His undivided divine-human person, the specific operativeness of that presence which renders it sacramental is dependent
upon Christ's will, and is confined to the Supper. "Christ," says




822         CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
the Formula of Concord," can be with His body... wherever lie wills (wo er will - ubicunque voluerit), and there especially where He has promised that presence in His word, as in
His Ioly Supper."
XI. An objection is urged by Kahnis, that, "' according to the -
Lutheran doctrine, there is but bread and wine, not the body
and blood of Christ, before the eating and drinking," and
therefore were that doctrine true, Christ would not have said,
This is my body, " but would have had to say, This is going
to be my body when you eat it."  Were the point made by
KIahnis correctly made, the inference justified would not be
that the doctrine of the true presence is untenable, but that
there ought not to be a limitation of the presence to the act
of eating and drinking.  But the point is not correctly made.
The very opposite is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church.
The Augsburg Confession says, " The body and blood of Christ
XI. Objection. are present in the Supper, and there communicated
Nothing sacra- and received."  The distinction is made between
romsacraetal the generic presence which is " in the Supper,) and
use.       the specific participation made by the reception of
the sacrament imparted.  From  the beginning of the Supper,
strictly defined, (that is, from the time when Christ's consecrating words are uttered in His name by His authority,) to its end,
(that is, until the last communicant has received the elements,)
or, in other words, from the first time to the last' " in the Supper " in which, by Christ's authority, it is declared,' This is
Christ's body, This is Christ's blood," that of which this affirmation is made, is His body, and is His blood. When He said,
Take, eat, this is My body, undoubtedly He meant, Take, eat,
because it is My body. The presence of the body in the order
of thought precedes the command to Take, eat, though in point
of time they are absolutely simultaneous. IHe imparts His
presence that there may be a reason for the sacramental eating.
But He imparts it with His word, by whose omnipotent force
the element becomes a sacrament. Therefore, when IIe speaks,
we know it is done. The mathematical moment need not
concern us. We know the sacramental moment. But the
* 695, 92.




OBJECTION.                       823
presence of the body is not mechanical, but voluntary; it is
conditioned on the strict observation of the essentials of the
institution.  The body is present for sacramental impartation,
and if the object of the external act of consecration precludes the
communion, if the elements are merely to be reserved or carried
about in procession for worship, there is no reason to believe
that there is any sacramental presence of Christ's body whatever. Hence the emphasis of the Confession,   in the Supper,"
cutting off in one direction an objection like that of Kahnis,
and in another the Romish abuse of the reservation, procession, and worship associated with the elements.
In the Formula of Concord  the error of the Romish Church
is defined as this: "They feign that the body of Christ is
present under the species of bread, even outside of the conducting of the Supper (to wit, when the bread is shut up in the pyx,
or carried about as a show and object of worship). For
nothing has the character of a sacrament outside of God's
command, and the use to which it has been appointed by
Christ." This implies that within the entire conducting of
the Supper, properly so called, as distinct from the mere preliminaries, or the things following it, the body of Christ is
sacramentally present; and the principle that nothing has a
sacramental character apart from the divine command and
use, is properly limited by its antithesis to the abuses of the
Romish Church.  The doctrine of the Lutheran Church is,
that the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ
begins with the beginning of the Supper, and ends with the
end of the Supper. The presence does not depend upon the
individual eating; the eating simply actualizes a presence
existing; that presence is vouchsafed on condition that the
divine essentials of the institution be observed. " As to the
consecration, we believe, teach, and confess, that the presence
of the body and blood is to be ascribed solely to the Almighty
power of our Lord Jesus Christ... The words of the institution are by no means to be omitted... The blessing (1 Cor.
x. 16) takes place through the repetition of the words of
Christ." t   The true presence is produced, not by the eating,
*670, 108; 665, 82.          t Formula Concord. 530, 9.




824          CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION.
or the faith of the communicants, but simply and solely by the
power of Almighty God, and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.  For those most true and
omnipotent words of Jesus Christ, which He spake at the
original institution, were not only efficacious in that first
Supper, but their power, virtue, and efficacy abide through all
time; so that in all places where the Lord's Supper is celebrated in accordance with Christ's institution, by virtue of and
in the power of those words which Christ spake at the first
Supper, His body and blood are truly present, communicated,
and received." *  Luther says, " TVWen (wenn-quando), according to His command and institution in the administration of
the Lord's Supper, we say,'This is My body,' then (so-tum) it
is Iis body."    " Melancthon defines the sacramental action
relatively to what is without, that is over against the inclusion
and carrying about of the Sacrament; he does not divide it
against itself, nor define it against itself." T In a word, unless
the sacramental action is entire, as Christ ordained it, His
sacramental presence will not be vouchsafed at all; if it be
entire, His presence is given from its beginning to its end. If
it be argued, in a little sophistical spirit, that we cannot tell
till the distribution whether the action will be complete, it is
enough to reply that we have all the assurance that we have
in any case of moral certainty.  Christ himself knows the end
from the beginning. At the beginning, middle, and end of the
Supper, the minister need not fear to assert, nor the people to
believe, the very words of Christ, in their simplest literal force.
It is not going to be but is, when Christ says it is.
XII. The most extraordinary charge against the Lutheran
doctrine of the Lord's Supper is that made by Roman Catholics
and by some of the Anglican High Church school,
XII. Objection.
That the doctrine to wit, that the Lutheran doctrine, while it asserts
is useless in the the objective character of the presence of the body
Lutheran System.
and blood of Christ, is able to make very little use
*Formula Concord. 663, 74, 75.
~t Quoted in the Formula Concord. 664, 78, as confirmatory of its position. See
also Gerhard: Loci. Loc. xxii., xvii., 194. (Ed. Cotta x. 327-329.)
Luther. Opera Lat. Jen. iv. 586.




EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS.                    825
of the presence —in fact, might do as well practically without
it. The objection urged, virtually is that the doctrine of justification by faith makes null the benefits of the Lord's Supper
as involving a true presence.
On the general question of the efficacy of sacraments, Chemnitz* has expressed the doctrine of the Church with his usual
judgment:  If regard be had to the necessary dis-  Cliemnitz on
tinction, the explanation is not difficult as to the toleefficacyofthe
Sacraments.
mode in which God does confer grace and the sacraments do not confer it?   God the Father reconciles the
world unto Himself, accepts believers, not imputing their trespasses unto them.  Certainly the sacraments do not confer
grace in this manner, as God the Father Himself does.  Christ
is our peace.  The death of Christ is our reconciliation. We
are justified by His blood.  The blood of Christ cleanseth us
from  all sin.  He was raised again for our justification.
Assuredly Baptism does not purge away our sins in that manner in which Christ Himself does. There is the Holy Spirit's
own proper efficacy in the conferring and application of grace.
And the sacraments are certainly not to be put upon an equality with the Holy Spirit, so as to be regarded as conferring
grace in an equal and, in fact, an identical respect with the
IHoly Spirit Himself. Does it follow, then, that nothing is to
be attributed to the sacraments?  Certainly the words of
Scripture attribute something to the sacraments.  But most
carefully and solicitously, when we dispute concerning the virtue and efficacy of sacraments, must we avoid taking from
God, and transferring to the sacraments what properly belongs
to the grace of the Father, the efficacy of the Spirit, and the
merit of the Son of God: for this would be the crime of idolatry; nor are sacraments to be added as assisting and partial
causes to the merit of Christ, the grace of the Father, and the
efficacy of the Holy Spirit; for this would involve the same
crime. For there is no other name given under heaven among
men.'My glory will I not give to another.' How, then,
does Baptism  save us? How is it the laver of regeneration?
This, Paul explains very simply, when he says:' Ie cleansed
*Examen Concil. Trid. (Ed. Francof. a. M. 1707)295-298.




826         CONSERVATIVFE REFORMAT.I ON.
the Church with the laver of water by the word.' Wherefore
the Apology to the Augsburg Confession rightly says that
the effect, virtue, and efficacy is the saime in the word and in
sacraments, which are the seals of the promises, in which
respect St. Augustine calls them  visible words. The gospel is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,
not because some magical power adheres in the letters, syllables, or sounds of the words, but because it is the medium, organ or instrument by which the Holy Spirit is
efficacious, setting forth, offering, imparting (exhibens), distributing and applying the merit of Christ and the grace of
God to the salvation of every one that believeth: so also to
the sacraments is attributed power or efficacy, not that in the
sacraments outside or apart from the merit of Christ, the pity
of the Father, and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, is grace to be
sought unto salvation; but the sacraments are instrumental
causes, so that through these means or organs the Father
wishes to impart, give, apply, His grace: the Son to communicate His merit to believers: the Holy Ghost to exercise His
efficacy to the salvation of every one that believeth.
" In this way God retains His own glory, so that grace is
sought nowhere but with God the Father; the price and cause
of the remission of sins and eternal life are sought nowhere
but in the death and resurrection of Christ; the efficacy of
regeneration unto salvation is sought nowhere but in the operation of the Holy Ghost.. In the use of the sacraments faith
does not seek or have regard to some virtue or efficacy in the
outward elements of the sacraments themselves; but in the
promise which is annexed to the sacraments, it seeks, lays hold
on, and receives the grace of the Father, the merit of the Son,
and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit... There is here a twofold
instrumental cause.  One is, as it were, God's hand, by which,
through the word and the sacraments in the word, he offers,
imparts (exhibet), applies, and seals to believers the benefits
of redemption.  The other is, as it were, our hand, to wit,
that, by faith, we seek, lay hold on, and accept those things
which God offers and imparts (exhibet) to us through the
word and sacraments.  There is no such efficacy of sacraments




EFFICA CY OF THE SACRAMENTS.                   827
as if God, through them, infuses or impresses grace to salvation, even on those who do not believe or accept.  The meaning of the sentence:'It is not the sacrament which justifies,
but the faith of the sacrament,' is not that faith justifies without accepting the grace which God offers and imparts in the
word and sacraments, or that it accepts the grace without
the means or organ of the word and sacraments.  For the object of faith is the word and sacraments; nay, rather, in the
word and sacraments the true object of faith is the merit of
Christ, the grace of God, and the efficacy of the Spirit. Faith
justifies, therefore, because it lays hold of those things in the
word and sacraments.  God does not impart His grace in this
life all at once, so that it is straightway, absolute, and finished,
so that God has nothing more to confer, man nothing more to
receive; but God is always giving and man is always receiving, so as ever to be more closely and perfectly joined to
Christ, to hold more and more firmly the pardon of sins; so
that the benefits of redemption, which have been begun in us,
may be preserved, strengthened, and increased.  Wherefore
the sacraments are not idle or bare signs, but God, through
them, offers to believers His grace, imparts it, applies it, and
seals it... Between the promise and faith the relation is so
close that the promise cannot benefit a man without faith, nor
faith benefit a man without the promise... In this sense Luther says:'The sacraments were instituted to excite, nourish,
strengthen, increase, and preserve faith, so that whether in
the promise naked, or in the promise in the vesture of the sacramental rite, it may grasp and accept grace and salvation.' " In
discussing more particularly the benefits of the Eucharist, the
same great writer says: * "'Faith, in the reception of the
Eucharist, should reverently consider and, with thanksgiving,
embrace all the riches and the whole treasure of the benefits,
which Christ the Mediator, by giving up His body and shed-.
ding His blood, has purchased for His Church... That they
also receive the remission of sins, who are conscious of grievous
crimes, and do not renounce them, but cherish still the purpose of evil-doing, who bring no fear of God, no penitence or
"Examen Concil. Tric. (Ed. Francoff. a. M. 1707,) 364, 366.




828         CONSERVATIVE REFORMA lTION.
faith, but knowingly persist in sins contrary to their consciences, is something which in no manner whatever is taught
by us. For among us men are seriously admonished that
those who do not repent, but who persevere in sins against
conscience, eat and drink judgment to themselves, and become
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  For the offence
against God is aggravated by their taking the Eucharist in
impenitence, and treating with indignity the body and blood
of the Lord. In order that the eating may profit men, it is
necessary that they, should have penitence, the fear of God,
which works dread of sin and of His wrath against it and
destroys the purpose of evil-doing. Faith also is necessary,
which seeks and accepts remission of sins in the promise."
" Inasmuch as in the Eucharist we receive that body of Christ
which was delivered for us, and that blood of the New Testament which was shed for the remission of sins, who can deny
that believers there receive the treasure of all the benefits of
Christ? For they receive that in which sins are remitted, in
which death is abolished, in which life is imparted to us; that
by which Christ unites us to Himself as members, so that He
is in us, and we in Him....'Not only does the soul rise
through the Holy Ghost into a blessed life, but the earthly
body is brought back by that food to immortality, to be raised
to life in the last day' (Cyril). In the Eucharist, therefore,
we receive a most sure and admirable pledge of our reconciliation with God, of the remission of our sins, of immortality,
and of the glory to come. And in very deed Christ hath
abundantly poured out in this sacrament the riches of His
divine love toward men; for that body which Hie delivered for
us unto death, He gives to us in the Supper for food, that by
it, as divine and life-giving food, we may live, may be nurtured
and grow, and strengthen, and so turned to Him as never to
be separated from Him, as Augustine piously says, on the Person of Christ:'Thou shalt not change me unto Thee, but
Thou shalt change Thyself unto me.' "
Gerhard sums up the benefits of the Lord's Supper as either
principal or secondary: " The principal fruits are: the showing of the Lord's death, the forgiveness of sins, the sealing of




IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE.                    829
faith, spiritual union with Christ. The secondary are: re
newal of the baptismal covenant, the arousing of love to God
and our neighbor, the confirmation of patience and hope, the
attestation of our resurrection, the serious aniendment of life,
public confession of Christ."*
It is not in the power of language to go beyond the statement of the blessings which the Lutheran Church believes to
be associated with the believing reception of the Lord's Supper.  The quarrel of Romanists and their friends with her is
not that she diminishes the benefits of the Supper, but that
she makes them conditioned on faith.  The real thing with
which they quarrel is the doctrine of justification by faith.
We have dwelt at what may seem  disproportioned length
upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; but we have done so
not in the interests of division, but of peace. At this point
the division opened, and at this point the restoration of peace
must begin.  Well-set bones knit precisely where they broke;
and well knit, the point of breaking becomes the strongest in
the bone. The Reformation opened with a prevailingly conservative character. There lay before it not merely a glorious
possibility, but an'almost rapturous certainty, waiting upon
the energy of Reform  guided by the judgment of Conservatism. The Reformation received its first appalling check in.
the invasion of its unity in faith, by the crudities of Carlstadt,
soon to be followed by the colder, and therefore yet more mischievous, sophistries of Zwingle. The effort at reformation, in
some shape, was beyond recall. Henceforth the question was
between conservative reformation and revolutionary radicalism. Rome and the world-wide errors which stand or fall
with her, owe their continued baleful life, not so much to the
arts of her intrigue, the terror of her arms, the wily skill and
intense devotion of Jesuitism and the orders, as they owe it
to the division and diversion created by the radicalism which
enabled them to make a plausible appeal to the fears of the
weak and the caution of the wise. But for this, it looks as if
the great ideal of the conservative reformation might have
* Gerhard's Ausf. Erklaer. d. heilig. Taufe u. Abendm. 1610, 4to, ch. xxiii. Do.
Loci Theolog. Loc. xxii. ch. xx.




830        CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION.
been consummated; the whole Church of the West might
have been purified. All those mighty resources. which Rome
now spends against the truth, all those mighty agencies by
which one form of Protestantism tears down another, might
have been hallowed to one service- Christ enthroned in His
renovated Church, and sanctifying to pure uses all that is
beautiful in her outward order. The Oriental Church could
not have resisted the pressure. The Church Catholic, transfigured by her faith, with robes to which snow has no whiteness and the sun no splendor, would have risen in a grandeur
before which the world would have stood in wonder and awe.
But such yearnings as these wait long on time. Their consummation was not then to be, but it shall be yet.




INDEX.
(The Roman Numerals indicate the entire Dissertations so numbered.)
PAGE                                                  PAGE
ALdam, Original state............... 378  Augsburg  Confession,
Fall................................. 379            Luther's opinion of........... 234
Alone mentioned............... 380    -              Object of........................   242
Adiaphorce.......................... 321                      Presentation of................ 242
Aldine, Greek Text............... 96, 98                       Texts of................ 242-253
Allegory), Nature of................. 618                  M- anuscripts  of............ 244, n
Allens, George, Prof., Communion                               Editions  and  Translations
of  Priests...........................   621,  n            of..............................   248
Altinf,  H., Lutheran   and  Re-                               Bibliography  of............ 248, n
formed Churches..................... 133  Structure of...................  253
Amibrose, Lord's Supper...... 635, 675                   ~    Divisions of..................... 253
America, Lutheran  Church  in,                                 Value of...................    255
General Council of................... 162                -  Protest against Romanism.. 255
~__     _-  Church in, the Fathers                          Interpretation of, Bibliograof.....................    218                  phy.......................... 255, 
AmericacL   and German............ 20 3                       Political value of.............. 257
Anabapt'ists, Pelagian............ 447                        Value  as a Confession  anl.... InfantBaptism.... 574-576, 581                               Apology....................... 258
Andrece...........................297, 309                   A  centre of associations..... 259
Anthropology, Original sin..... 365                            A  guide to Christ............. 259
Apology of Augsburg Confes-                          -          Value for the future...... 260
sion................................ 275-280              Dogmatic  works  on, BibliValue of.......................... 279                  ography................... 260, n
Original sin......... 373, 375, 378             ~    as a creed, right reception
Infant Baptism............... 576                           of.........................260-267
Aquinas, (Hymn,) Lord's Supper 754                             Dr. Shedd  on............. 332-337
Arnold, Dr., Germans............ 155                            "Romanizing Elements"... 342
Articles, Electoral-Torgau........ 293                        Texts of Latin and German  356
Audin, Cause of Reformation.....    3                                 Melancthonian  & ForHistory of Luther........... 10, 22                           mula..................... 358
Luther's visit to Rome.......  25                    Papal Confutation.............. 360
Luther's Bible..................  32                Commissionon.................  361
Luther and Madeleine.......           43  -          Original Sin.................... 363
Augsburg Confession, 31, 179, VI.                              Article...........II. 130, 244, IX.
Variata.............   180, 243-248.............III.              X.
-on  original sin.......... 409............ IX. 130,         XI.
on  necessity  of Bap-                        -...............X.               XII.
tism...................... 562.............. "              XIII.
Bibliography of...... 201, n..............                  XIV.
-   History of................ 212                  -     -      Perversion of..... 820
_ —----        ~  Bibliography, 212, n. 220, n            -         --   "In the Supper"  823
Preparation of.................. 216. —............ XIII........... 339.- ~     --     Preliminaries to......... 216............... XIX..... 374
B ibliography  of..... 216, n   Augustine, Original Sin 361, 362, 407
Authorship of.................. 220' Traducianism.................. 371
Luther's relations to......... 220                      Pelagianism.................... 447
831




832                                     INDEX.
PAGE                                           PAGE
Augustine, Person of Christ 469-510  Bayle, Peter, Fathers on Lord's
Infants, believers.............. 581          Supper.................................. 663
Tree of Life..................... 588  Bellarminne,  Romanism    and
- Lord's Supper, 675,746, 749, 750             Calvinism............................... 628
751.                                      -Consubstantiation............. 772
----  (?) personal unity of man... 805  Bible, Luther's.................. 8, 12, 32
Augustus,  Elector   of  Sax-                      --  in Middle Ages.................    7
ony.................................  296, 308  ~_     — First  Polyglot..................  8
-  where it fell open.............   9
Baier, Lord's Supper............... 770  --- the only Rule..................  14'Baptismt, Lutheran  Doctrine  of                    -human explanations of...... 185
129, XI.                                     Birth, New, Necessity of absoRelations of, to Original Sin 427    lute................................. 415-439
Necessity of.............. 427, 557             Infants need.................... 416
in what sense...... 430, 562   ---  Infants capable of............ 418
— ~-     ~  not absolute....... 431, 563  ---  Holy Spirit, sole author of.. 420
- ~     ~ --  Luther..................... 431   B —    aptism  one ordinary mean 439
— Bugenhagen.............. 432                    -445.
~___  --  Hoffman................... 433  Body, Spiritual.................... 806
-Feuerlin.................. 433  Book of Concord......               127, VII.
- ~    ~_ --  Carpzov................... 433    --  against persecution........... 144
Ordinary means of grace 439-444  Bread and  Wine, Species of... 620
Alford......... 442, 443, 444               -  in what sense "the body and
Calvin...................... 444            blood of Christ "...... 673-678
only means of universal ap-           --        metaphorically used........;. 717
plication....................... 444     -  breaking of..................... 719
Disputes in regard to......... 519   - -  no symbol of crucifixion..... 723
-     Immersion not essential to 519  Brentius, Hallam  on............. 76, n
-    -  use of the word in Augsburg            -    -  Lord's Supper.................. 761
Confession................   520  Buddeus, Lord's Supper.......... 770
force of word "'begiessen" 527
-531.                               Calovius, Consubstantiation...... 769
Luther, translation of words           Calvin  on Luther.................... 132
connected with........ 531-536           -  signed unaltered Augsburg
-  Luther,   Etymologies   of                             Confession.................... 180
words...........            536        -Infant Regeneration......... 420
~-    ~  did not regard Immer-                 -  Confession of Faith........... 490
sion as necessary 540-542           -  Lord's Supper 493-495, 630, 636,
Mode in Lutheran Liturgies 541                       756.
542                                      -Faith in Infants............... 580
Testimonies of Drs. Kurtz                  -as a Lutheran Minister...... 756
and Schmucker........... 543  Calvinism    self-contradictory 435, 436
-     views of the old Lutheran               — Socinianizing tendency of... 489
Divines.................. 543, 544  -— View of Baptism............ 570
Internal efficacy of 545-557, 583                  --  compared   with  the
584.                                                 Lutheran view   571-573
-— Not mere water......... 558, 583  Carlstadt............... 27, 30, 608, 666
Regeneration  does not al-             Caarpzov, Consubstantiation...... 768
ways follow.................. 559  Catechism, Luther's................  32
--    Difference between " essen-                  --  Heidelberg... 351-353, 487, 488
tial" and "necessary".. 562              -Genevan......................... 483
--         Lutheran theologians on ne-          Ceremonies, Ecclesiastical....... 321
cessity of................... 564  Charles V., Reformation..........  18
-- C-Calvinistic  and   Lutheran                    -  at Augsburg.....................  31
views compared...... 570-574          --  at Luther's grave..............  44
----- Infant, argument for... 576-581   Cheimnitz.............................. 309
Basis Confessional of Luther-                       -on   Personal Presence  of
an Church, Reasons for............ 179                  Christ.....................466-475




INDEX.                                         833
PAGE                                           PAGE
Chemnitz, Body of Christ......... 469  Church, Missions in................. 15
-  meaning of Baptizo........... 543           -          Church Constitution..  152
----  Consubstantiation............ 763                     Fidelity of, to her Con_ —  Sacraments, efficacy of...... 825                          fesesions................. 196
Christ, Descent into hell........... 320            -        Acquaintance with, im--  Person of, Formula of Con-                                  portance of............ 211
cord............... 316, 514-517     --            elationsto Zwinglian-~  -   Lutheran and Reform-                               Calvinistic churches 325
ed Doctrine of........  X.   --              History and doctrines
-    -  Sacramental Presence of....  X.                         of, some mistakes in
~ —   -       Bibliography......... 456, n                      regard to............ VIII.
--— Presence, Doctrine of... 458, 469               -        not Romanizing......... 187
-  --  not local.................. 458  ---             Theological Seminary
-~~~-  -       but true...............459-461                   of, at Philadelphia... 164
---- Ascension of.........466, 814-817  --                    Charity of................. 142
-Body of.......................... 469       -Life in................... 154
~ —_ _  inseparable  unity  of  His                      --   Nationalities of.......... 155
person........................ 481    --        Mission of, in America 159
----  in heaven.................. 483, 484    --             Future of.............. 161
Resurrection Life of......... 484               --        RelationstootherCom-~  Lutheran  Doctrine  Scrip-                             munions............... 138
tural..................... 501-507               Worship, divine in..... 153
-- -   Sustained  by  the    Church, Reforned, ImportFathers........... 508-510      ance of Lutheran Church to....... 311
-~ ~-  -     ~ - Scholastics........ 510  Chytrceus............................'311
~- ~   - ~      ~some modern Ro-               Cltaude, Lutherans.............. 136
manists......... 511  CUrner.................................. 311
~-~~-        Metaphysicians... 511  Comn unicatio  idiomata ^tn  476
~- ~    ~ -     admissions of Cal-       -481.
vinists..... 511, 512  Commlt' lniont  Sacramental,  in
~ —  - Worship  of, according  to                what sense oral....................... 461
His human nature......... 512                    spiritual............ 462-465
—.   body and blood  of, Sacra-                    -         who receive?............ 463
mental Communion........ 629               in one kind................. 621
-person, Unity  of, not dis-                      -of the unworthy......... 641-648
solved by death........... 794              (Koinonia, 1  Cor. x   16.)
Christtianity, Essential idea of.. 113                    Force of word......... 629-641
Christiauns, whom may we recog-                        Assembly, Westminster, annize as.................................  192           notat.......................... 638
Chrysostoin, Omnipresence  of                          Baumgarten, S. J........... 639
Christ........................... 509            Bishop's Bible.............. 637
- Tree of Life.................... 588              Calovius......................    639
--   Lord's Supper 635, 660, 740, 746                   Clarke, Adam............ 638
748-751.                                    Conybeare and Howson...... 638
Ascension of Christ........... 815                Coverdale.................... 637
Church................................. 195          Genevan Version............ 637
Church, Ancient, Sacramental                           Gill..................... 639
presence..................    657-663                Hall, Bp........................ 638
sustains Antithesis in Art.                      Hammond.                        638
X........................ 725-752          Henry, Matthew............. 638
Church, Evangelical Protestant.. 114  -                Hodge, Dr..................... 639
-  Lutheran, Reformed Testi-                         Hussey................637
mony to....................... 132          Macknight........................ 638
-    Controversies of........ 147               Nevin, J. W., Dr............ 639
-~-   --  Theological Science in 148                  Olshausen................. 640
149, 151.                        -    Parkhurst....................... 639.-.-          in United States...... 150            Pool.......................... 637
-            Education in............ 151            Rckert....................  41
53




834                                       INDEX.
PAGE                                             PAGE
CotG nunion, Schmucker, S. S.,                        340; Carpzov, 768; Musxus, ScherDr........................................ 639     zer, 768; Calovius, Quenstedt, 769;
Sharp, Arbp.................... 638             Baier, 340; Leibnitz, 340; Buddeus,
----     Tyndale.......................... 637       770; Cotta, 340, 771; Pfaff, 775;
~ —    Wilson, Bp...................... 637          Mosheim, 341; Reinhard, 341.
Complutensian  Text........... 96, 99              3. Roman   Catholic  Divines,  771;
ConcowitC ince,    Sacramental,                       Perrone, Beccan, Moehler, Wiserejected................................. 620      man, 772; Bouvier, 773.
Concord, Book of.................. VII.    4. Calvinistic Divines, 755-757, 759:
~-~___     -    Contents of......... 268, 275         Bucer, 340, 773; Musculus, Whit~ —  -        repressed   multiplica-                aker,  Salmasius,   Stapfer,  774;
tion of creeds........ 274           Waterland, 130; D'Aubigne, 131.
Concord, For'mula of                      28.......... 288  Cop   la................................... 696
~          ~H- H- History.................... 289        interpretation of.............. 696
- ~__    ~ —    Reception................ 302           Bagster's Gr. Lex............. 696
Merits.................... 305            Carlstadt........................ 695
Value............... 305, 328             Green's Gr. Lex............... 696
-      plan........................ 312           Hoffman, D.................... 696
doctrines.........  312, 348                 Kahnis....... 696, 697, 704, 705
M- elancthon in.......... 326                 Luther........................... 696
~____  -~  closing words of........ 328                 Keckerman..................... 695
Dr. Shedd on............ 345          E- colampadius........... 695, 705
"The Bread is Christ's                     Piscator......................... 696
body..................  677           Robinson................. 696, 697
modes of presence...... 762                Schaff...................... 696, 697
-      When is the presence                       Wendelin........................ 694
vouchsafed?.... 823, 824   Corpora Doctrine............... 291
Sui-abian-Saxon... 294  Corruption,  the state of......... 373
Confession, what shall be our?.. 167  Cotta, Lord's Supper.......... 340, 771
Confessions, distinctive........... 168  -               salvation of Pagan infants.. 564
Fidelity to....................... 169   Council,  General,  of  E.  L.
~      ~- object of  theological                Church in America, Fundamental
training............... 176      Principles.............................. 162
M-inisterial  efficiency               Creation'............................ 797
dependent on......... 177  Creationtisn, immediate......... 369
-  Subscription to................. 177  Creed, Apostles'.........1.......... 168
notinconsistent with author-                     implies  the  Communicatio
ity of Rule of Faith........ 184                idiomatum.................... 316
not Romanizing................ 186  Creeds, wide......................... 183
Importance of.................. 204           -        fallacy of argumentfor 190.
- Relations of, to Reformation  205  ---  may a church change......... 269
the Reformed................. 352  -         -  growth of........................ 270
Confutation,  Papal,  of Augs-                  ---    defining of...................... 272
burg Confession.................... 624           -  Formula of Concord on...... 313
History and Literature of 626, n  Crypto- Calvinism................ 292
Consecration  in the Supper..... 179  Cup in  Supper.................... 777-782
Conservatism of Lutheran Ref-   Cyril of Jerusalem, Lord's
ormation.......................... 49, 202      Supper.................................. 675
-  Ranke on......................  84
Consubstantiation rejected by                    Dannhaucer, Calvinistic view of
Lutheran Church............ 130, 339          Christ's presence..................... 500
Proof of this:                              Death no regenerating power..... 426
1.  From   Confessions  of  Lutheran   Denmark.............................. 156
Church, Formula, 130, 762.                  Development, Shedd on........ 330
2. Lutheran  Diyines:  Luther, 130,  Dreans, interpretation of......... 614
757; Brentius, 761; Chemnitz, 764;
Andrew, 764; Hutter, 758, 766;  Election, Calvinistic................. 434
Osiander, 767; Mentzer, Gerhard,                     Infant............................ 435




IND EX.                                          835
PAGE                                             PAGE
Election, unconditional, and Pe-                 Gospel and Law, Formula of Conlagianism..............................  584  cord......................................   314
Elements,  Worship  of,  or  of                  Grauer, Baptism..................... 437
Christin...........................     622  Gregory  Nyssen, Lord's SupEmnser  Counter-translation.. 104-107               per...................................... 675
Ephes, iv. 10., "above all heav-                 Gregory   the   Great,  Lord's
ens ".............................. 815-817     Supper................................. 750
Erasn m s, Greek Text..............  97                   Service of....................... 753
-    Luther and.......................  66  Grotius, "all heavens "............ 816
ErIror and Errorists................. 143   Guilty of the Body and Blood, (1
Course of........................ 195      Cor. xi. 27-29)................... 642-648
Formula of Concord on...... 325   ---    Calvinists, Gualther, Meyer,
Eternity................................ 798               Pareus on..................... 648
Eucharist 130, 314,337, X., XII -XIV.                     Syriac version................. 642
Eutychianisin, Lutheran  doc-                    Gustavus Adolphus.............. 156
trine not in affinity with..... 475, 476  Gustavus  Vasaa.................... 156
Evangelical, name of Lutheran
Church.................................. 116  HaLntilton, Jas., Dr., ResurrecExcommunication, Force and                         tion Life of our Lord............   484
extent of.............................. 191  Hamnilton, Wm., Sir, 791, 792, 803
Exorcism................. 135, 136, 154           804.
Hebrews iv. 14, "passed through
Fcucatdus, Lord's Supper........ 675               the heavens "....................  816
Faith, Rule of............... 14-17, 165  Iegel, Fall.............................. 376
Supreme Authority of. 184                       Philosophy............... 790, 802
Formula of Concord on 313  Hell, Descent of Christ into........ 320
Fundamental principles of.. 163  Heppe,CalvinisticviewofBaptism  570
Confession of.................... 166  Heretics and Heresy......... 143, 144
Church, Restoration of...... 200            ~        Ancient, Lord's Supper...... 752
Fathers, use of, in Reformation..  15  EHigh Churchismn  Lutheranism
-on Lord's Supper 635, 725, 740             not....................................... 141
-   Rules in interpretation of... 726  Hollazius,  Fall....................... 377.igure, in  what sense used  by                  Htluguenots, Sympathy with, exFathers.................................. 741    pressed in Book of Concord....... 145
~ —-- use of word, by Tertullian.. 742  Hunnius, Salvation of Pagan InFigures, Grammatical and Rhe-                       fants..................................... 564
torical................................... 701  HIuttter, Baptism, necessity of..... 562
Flacius, Illyricus, Baptizo.........   544  Htyfgeins................................. 817
Fundamentals, union in......... 181  Hypostatic Union................. 798
nature of................. 182, 183
Idealism, Theological.............. 788
Gaudentius, Lord's Supper..... 674                        Transcendental..............  789
Geneva, Church of, Lutherans                              Subjective....................... 790
and Reformed......................... 137             Objective........................ 790
Gerhard, Baptism................... 544                   Realistic......................... 791
"- Touto" and "Artos "...... 671  Idiotmat 2um   Cominmunicatio,
"The  bread   is  Christ's                       Formula of Concord.... 316-320
body"............. 677, 678                   Apostles' Creed................. 316
Gerhart, E. V., Dr., Article of,                      -Nicene Creed..................  317
Reviewed............................   X.             Athanasian Creed............. 317
Gerlach, Stephen, Baptism........ 544                    Augsburg Confession......... 317
Ger wman  Character............... 155  iIgnatiuts, Lord's Supper 635, 727-730
Language, Luther.............  13  Impossible, the..................... 796
Gerinany, Reformation in.........  17  Imputation........................  382
God, Right hand of............ 485, 817  Inants,  unbaptized, 431, 561,582,583
Goebel, Luther, author of  Ref-                          sin of............................. IX.
orma;tion............................... 125          elect.................. 434, 571-574
Lutheran  Church 126. 151, 155                      of unbelievers.................. 433




836                                         INDEX.
PAGE                                               PAGE
Infants of heathens.......433, 561-564   Kahnis adds to, and contradicts
~ —--     salvation  of..................... 434      Scripture........................ 722
regeneration of................ 569                 misstates   Lutheran   Doc~'~-    -    consequences of deny-                          trine.................... 822, 823
ing....................... 570  Kind  and   lode................... 807
faith of..................... 578-581  Kinox, A., Lord's Supper....... 776, n
~-    -   defined by Chemnitz... 579  KIoellner, Augsburg  Confession,
Calvinistic admissions                Luther's................................ 238
in regard to........... 580  -        -  Apology......................... 276
heldby AncientChurch  581  Krotel, Dr., Schenkel's Article... 513
Integrity, the state of............. 371  Kurtz, H., Lutheran Church...... 125
lrenaLus, Lord's Supper 635, 736-739
Doellinger....................... 737  Law  and Gospel, Formula of ConDorner........................... 738       cord...................................... 314
Moehler......................... 738              third use of..................... 314
Semisch.......................... 738  Life, Tree of...........................   86'Is"   cannot mean  "is a symbol                            Bush.............................. 589
of"...............................  612-619              Delitzch........................  588
De Wette on................... 690                Gregory Nazianzen........... 588
Meyer, Olshausen,  Lange,.                      Vatablus......................... 588
the Calvinists............... 691  Light..................................... 816
cannot involve Metaphor.... 692  Lightfoot, Infant Baptism......... 577
Calvinistic  theory  involves             Lii^borch, Calvinistic  doctrine
that it does................... 695       of Lord's Supper..................... 499
yet is  abandoned  by  best               Liturgies, Ancient, Sacramental
Calvinistic writers: Kec-                 presence................................ 752
kermann, Piscator, Rob-                Lord's Day........................... 132
inson, Schaff........... 695-697  Luther, Theses....................1-4, 27
~ —  Luther's renderings of....... 697                      Bible, Translation of... 8, 12, 32
inflexible character of....... 698                        versions preceding.....  13
reductio ad absurdun....... 699                 -       first sight of............ 9-11
See "Copula."                                          New   Testament,  Translation of................. III.
teeromte, Lord's Supper...... 635, 674               -      -      Boyhood, preparation
John   of  DCamascus,  Lord's                                         for..................    89
Supper........................... 635, 636  -                  Education.................  89
eudaas at the first Supper.......... 645                          Hebrew  and Greek....   90
Jtudg(nent, private.................. 169                -         Fritzsche..................  90
use and abuse of........ 171             -          Piety......................  90
- --  limitation  of....... 172, 175    --                German Style............  91
~...- abuse of, not to be re-                              Translations, earliest 92, 93
strained by persecu-               --            First Draft..............   93
tion..................... 173                  Versions   and   texts
how   to  be   re-                              used............... 93-100
strained......... 174           -         order of books......100, 101
Justification, Formula  of Con-                      R- -            evision.................  101
cord....................          313            -      Early impressions...... 102
Justin  Mar-tyr, Lord's Supper 635,                      -         enemies............. 103-107
730-735.                                                 -      latest revisions.......... 107
D Doellinger...................... 735             -         advances of literature  108
Dorner............................ 735                   rival translations....... 109
Ebrard........................... 735                    defects  and  excellenKahnis........................... 735                           ces................ 109, 110
Thiersch......................... 734        ~-          Revision.................. 111
-- -- early  studies....................  10
JKahnis, Lutheran Church........ 146    --   a Reformer because a ChrisLord's Supper, on                   678    tia.                                          18
-      -       Lord's Supper, on.............       i.........  a...............    18
-     controverted............. 690  --           pictured by pencil and pen  II.




IND EX                                                  837
PAGE                                                    PAGE
Luther, childhood....................  23   Luther,  Characterized, Hare   78
- --  youth..............................  24                          Hase..........................   78
-   university life..................  25                          Heine.........................  45
-visits Rome.................. 25, 26                      -        Herdr......................  80
--   begins the Reformation......  27                                Kahnis.....................         82
-      at Diet of Worms...............  28            --           Kidder.......................  52
-     -   at the Wartburg..............  29    --                         ohlrausch.................  72
--   struggle with fanaticism.....  29                                 Lessing.....................  45
~ —   and Melancthon...............  30                      -        Melancthon........ 85, 86, 89
~ —   Marriage........................  30                            Menzel......................   46
--- and Zwingle....................  30                              Palavicini.............  83
- --  Augsburg Confession 31,221,222                          -        Ranke...............               84
--   -- Catechisms......................   32                 -        Raumer, V. F..............  83
occasion................  284              -         Reuss........................ 109
~ — ~        character.............. 284                 -        Robertson........    71
~____-  --  authority................. 285                          Schlegel................ 4-50
~ —  opinions.......................... 286                  -        Smythe.....................  71
--     Church Service.................  33                          Stang........................  85
----  in private life..............  33                      -        Vaughan....................  70
at Christmas................. 34-36                         Wieland.....................  85
- ~-     Letter to little Hans... 36, 37, n                   -        Zwingle..................... 132
- -     Madeleine.................. 38-43  -                      Character, Summary of... 86, 87
- --   Last days and death...... 43, 44                       -unity, desire for............... 138
-     Charles V. at his tomb......  44                    - Swiss Church.................. 139
Characterized,   Atter-                                   Waldenses....................... 140
bury......................  50   -             on mode of Baptism.......... 520
-        Audin....... 5, 25, 26, 32, 43  -             -    the Jewess................. 520-524
- -          Bancroft, A., Rev......... 50                - Catechisms, on Baptism   524-527
Bancroft, G................  72   -                    on Lord's Supper....... 819, 823
Bayle........................  51   Lutheran, name.............. 117-122
-      Bengel.......................  31   LutheraC                 Churchi, distinctive
-       Bossuet.....................  53           principle  of............................. 123
Bower........................  53                 character and claims of...... 124
Brewster...................   55   -              compared           with        other
Buddeus...................... 59                             churches............... 125, 126
Bunsen...........         6...... 65 66          -   Doctrines of..................... 126
Calvin................. 132   -                  -           misrepresented........ 129
Carlyle....... 23, 28, 39, 56    - -  neither Arminian  nor CalChemnitz..................   57                     vinistic........................ 127
Claude......................  57   -               -   Rule of Faith, and Creed... 128
Coleridge..............58, 59   -            -   Confessions of, Shedd on.... 345
Cox...................   60   Lutheranisin, historical......... 180
Coxe......................   59
Cyclopedia Br. Soc.......  63   Man, Fall of........................... 376
Rees'.................   65    --                 personal unity.............. 804
D'Aubign...................  60   M ac nna, Type of Christ's Body.
Dictionnaire Historique   61                              Cyril.............................. 598
-     D'Israeli...................  61            Gerhard.................. 598
Doederlein.................   62                     Lombard........................ 598
Dupin...................   63   MIarbburg, Colloquy  at, Arti--           Erasmus.................  66-70            cles of................................... 355
Fritzsche..............  90    --   -                     Original Sin............. 427
-            Gelzer........................  70   Marheineeke, Fathers....... 726, 738
-        Gerhard..................  73  3Martyr, Peter, Faith of Infants 580
-    -         Guericke..............  71                       Lord's Supper.................. 636
--  -Guizot..... 71 Martyrs of the  Vord...........    8
--           Hagenbach................  73 _LMary,  the Virgin............... 381, 382
Hallam...................  74   Matter  and Spirit................. 486




838                                      IND EX
PAGE                                           PAGE
Maxentius, Lord's Supper....... 675  Philosophy lodlern, Doctrine
Melancthon,    correspondence                     of true presence...................... 787
with Luther......................   227  Pictetts, Lutherans and Calvin-  Relations to Augsburg Con-                  ists................................   137
fession......................... 219  Pietists, early.......................... 196
-- -  Luther's admiration of...... 234  PrJedestination,  Formula   of
-  Formula of Concord.... 326, 327    Concord........................... 321-327
--  Original Sin..................... 362  Pre-existence of soul............. 368
-~-    ~-  definition of........ 407, 408  Presence, the true............. 601-612
-      on   inseparable   unity  of               -  Sacramental, Lutheran DocChrist's person............. 482              trine, summary view of... 650
Metaphor, none in  the Lord's                             -657.
Supper............................... 613       --  Modes of.................. 650, 812
-  nature and laws of............. 701  --           History of Doctrine..... 657-663
Metaphysic of doctrine of Sup-                  -— Literature.................... 657, n
per, distinct questions on......... 805  ---  Controversy on, how  to be
--   sound, in harmony with doc-                          decided....................... 700
trine of true presence 809-811         -     Continual,   no   argument
Metonymy..................... 701, 702                    against Sacramental....... 821
Michelet, on Luther.................   3  -— Sacramental, when  does it
Mill, J. Stuart........... 801, 802, 804                  begin?........................ 822
MSode and  Kind.................... 807  Progress, true, nature of......... 206.Mutsculus........................... 311  Propitiation  and  Sacramental
presence......................... 654, 657
N-amne, Denominational.............. 115  Protestant, name  of Lutheran
Natural................................. 800      Church................................... 117
Nature of things.................. 800  Pusey, Dr.,  Testimony  of  the
Navarre, King of.................... 132          Fathers........................... 658-663
Nestorianism........................ 475
evin, J.W.,Dr., Lutheran Church 157  Quenstedt, Fall...................... 377
Nothing, privative and negative 397                 -  Baptism.......................... 544
Consubstantiation............ 769
Objects, the Sacramental..... 599-601
aEcocla padius, Lord's Supper 666,  Race, hluman, unity of......... 366
756.                                         Rationalism, character of...... 197
a(cumreniuts, Ascension............ 815  -              and Romanism................. 627
Omnipresence...................... 797  Realism, Natural.................... 792
Onusprobandi rests on oppo —  Personal......................... 793
sers of Scripture doctrine of Sup-           Refornmation, Church  of the,
per............................ 799    Conservative........................... IV.
Oral Jleantducation......... 461-463  -            -Early efforts for...............  19
Original Sin, See Sin, Original.. 280             ~    Era, characteristics of... 12, 18
Osiander,   A.,  Consubstantia-                        Festival of                         4
tion................................ 767         -Lessons of, for our time... 19-21
~_-   Occasion and cause...........1-21
Pagans and Idolaters, calumnies                     -  Providence and Word in...  17
in regard to Lord's Supper....... 752  -— Results of......................  32
--  imitations of Supper......... 752  ---  Solutions of its cause.........   5
Paschal Lamb, type of Christ 592  --                     Value of...................... 20, 21
-597.                                        -— Confessional Principle.......  V
Passover, a type of Lord's Sup-                               Confession of..... VI., VII.
per................................. 592-598  --    -     Primary Confession of VI.
Pelagianis.................. 445-454  ----                Secondary Confessions
~ —   and unconditional election.. 584                         of........................ VII.
Pelagius.......................... 445-447  ---  Spirit of.......................... 201
Persecution................... 144    --  Conservatism  of............... 203
Person, human, unity of, fellow-               --             Specific  Doctrines  of IX.
ship of properties in......... 804, 805              X., XI., XII., XIII., XIV., XV.




INDEX                                           839
PAGE                                            PAGE
Regeneration, Baptismal... 564-570  Sin, Original, analogies......... 394
Reuss, Luther's Translation....... 109                   relations and connections... 399
Ronmanisin and Rationalism..... 627               -      synonyms.................. 400
--     Lutheran Church, great bul-                 --  essence............. 400
wark against................ 187       --   ttributes........................ 402
---  and Augsburg Confession... 228                  — acts................... 403
255.                                 -     - penalties......................... 404
f1ome, Church of, originally pure   14                    remedy.....................  405
Christians in........... 194                     definition................. 406'~ -  --  Creeds..................... 215  -        -  natural consequence......... 408
Riickert, Augsburg Confession...2 228                    Scripture proof of............ 409
239.                                                  new birth....................... 415
-  Lord's Supper.................. 641  --              relation of Baptism  to........ 427
~ —-  no man lost for, only......... 429
Sacramn ental character............ 622  -           -  practicaluses of doctrine... 454
Sacraments, efficacy of............ 825                    -455.
-Chemnitz on........ 825-828  Soul, propagation of.................. 368
--  Gerhard on......... 828-829  Space, nature of...................... 796
Salvation, Infant, Lutheran Sys-                Spanheint, Lutherans and Caltem................................. 434-439   vinists............................ 134
~      ~~- --  Calvinistic System  434-436  " Species," meaning of............ 620
-_ ~    ~-  -   Pelagian System........ 434  Spirit and matter..................... 486
-      Romish System......... 436  Stapfer, Lord's Supper....... 774-776
"Sanctified,"  (1 Cor. vii. 14)                 Stars................................. 816
sense of................................. 424  Sutpper, Lord's, Lutheran  docSaviour, a living..................... 652         trine of................................  192
Scanedinavians.. 152, 153, 156, 157                -     Formula of Concord.......... 314
Schaff, Lutheran piety.............. 155  ---   Reformed   and   Lutheran
Schelling........................ 790, 802                doctrines of................... 465
Schenckel, Communicatio Idiom-                  -— differences noted......... 491-493
atum.................................... 513  ---  Reformed theory of, objecSchmalcald Articles............ 280                       tions to.................  496-501
Origin of........................ 281          two views of.................... 500
- -  Necessity of..................... 281  --         doctrine of, theticallystated XII.
- Value............................. 283   ---   --  in its antithesis....... XIII.
Schwabadch Articles....... 356, 409                       — who are meant?........ 665
Schwenckfeld, Lord's Supper.. 610,    --  objections to.................. XIV.
666, 718.                                                 I. False definition........ 755
Scriptures, not a Creed............ 183  ---                II. Self-contradiction..... 766
~    interpretation of.............. 799  -            III. Impressions  of  DisSelf-contradiction............... 801                           ciples................... 782
Self-existence..................... 796  -            -    IV. Visible presence....... 783
Selneccer........................... 310               V. Modernphilosophy... 787
Shedd, History of Christian Doc-                           VI. Transubstantiation... 807
trine.................................... VIII.   ---   VII. Christ has left world 811
Sin, Original................. 280, IX.  ---  VIII. Right hand of God... 817
*Formula of Concord..........  13                  IX. "In, with, under,"... 819
not a creature.................. 354  ---          X. Continual presence... 821
-_-        unity of Church............... 364  ---    XI. Sacramental use...... 822
-  time of operation.............. 378          -   XII. Efficacy.................. 824
_-involves all men............... 381                 Old Testament foreshadows
__-      imputation...................... 382              of.......................... 585-598
— mode of perpetuation......... 384    --  New Testament doctrine..... 599
fact of............................ 385  -  -  Fathers' Interpretation of... 635
-   result..............................  386       Non-Lutheran Reformers... 636
----   truly sin......................... 391       -English    and    American
--  names............................. 391            writers................... 637-640
--      -morbus and vitium............ 392  -        -  German interpreters......... 640




840                                      IND EX.
PAGE                                            PAGE
Supper, superstitions in............ 752  Turretin, J., Lutherans and Redoctrine, importance of..... 829          formed............................... 137
Symbol, Symbolical Books... 715, 716  Type...................................... 716
Synecdoche........................... 702
Systems, Lutheran and Calvinis-                  Ubiquitty  of Christ's body not
tic, difference of, source............ 457      held by Lutheran Church........... 131
---   Dr. Shedd....................... 349
Tertullian, Lord's Supper.. 675, 742                     Dr. Gerhart............... 495, 496
-745.                                         Unionis............................. 198
-    - personal unity of man........ 805   Unity, Church, true 137, 141, 142, 182
Testament,   New,   Luther's                    Unworthy, Communion of the... 641
translation..........................  III.    -648.
-- defects in....................... 110   Ursinus, faith of infants........... 580
- order of books in.............. 100          -Romish and Lutheran inter— revision and publication...... 101                       pretation..................... 628
- early impressions............. 102
-- enemies of...................... 103  Vcetius, faith of infants.......... 580
-     counter-translations... 104, 109  yVulate, Luther'sNew Testament  93..-    -growth of literature of...... 108    -96.
- merits of......................... 111
Texts, Greek, Luther's............  96  Wiggers, Lutheran Church........ 125
Theodoret, Lord's Supper.. 635, 675  -— Denmark........................ 156
Theophylact, Lord's Supper.... 635  -                   Sweden..................... 156, 157
~ —  Ascension...................... 815  Will, Free, Formula of Concord 313
Thereenin, Lord's Supper.....  776, n   -— conditions of................... 450
Theses, Luther's.......................   2  -— Pelagian views of....... 453-454
Thirty  Years' War......... 20, 156   FViner, Apology....................... 276'This"  (touto).................. 667-673   Wittenberg, beginning of Ref- Alford.....................  673     ormation................................  1
Hammond....................... 672   Word of Godl, cause of the RefHengstenberg.................. 672        ormation................................   6
-  Lange.......................   672   Works Good, Formula of ConM —   aldonatus.................... 673       cord.................................  313
— Schaff............................ 673
Thoro.ughness,  spirit  of  our                 Xinenes,   Cardinal,   Polyglot
time, adverse to....................... 207     Complutensian........... 8, 96, 99, 108
Torgan, Book of..................... 298
Traducianism..................... 371  Zwin.le, Luther...................... 133
Transubstantiation, Formula                     --       Pelagian.................... 447-450
of  Concord..............................  315              denial of..................  448
__- Dr. Shedd....................... 343  ---  on Lord's Supper 607, 611, 615
-     rejected..................... 623-629               -618, 629, 630, 636.
-  Fathers, testimony against.. 740              --  original doctrine of........... 755
--     opposed to soundmetaphysic 808  -— gave a check to Reformation 829
Trinit.................................. 798
THE END.