... V mW^^^ 1^ p;? "m A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. BY WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D. IN TWO y OLTJMES. VOL. II. NEW YOKK: CHARLES SORIBNER, 124 GRAND STREET. 1863. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by CHAELES SCEIBNEE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Bouthern District of New Tork. JOHN F. TROW, PeINTBE, StEBBOTYPBB, and ELEcmOTYPER, No. 50 Greene Street, New York. CONTENTS or THE SECOND VOLUME. BOOK FOURTH. HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. CHAPTER I. Theories of tlie Origin of the Soul. PAGE § 1. Pre-existence, ...... 3 §2. Oreationism, ...... 10 §3. Traducianism, . . . . . .13 § 4. Mediaeval and Modern Theories, . . 23 OHAPTER IL The GreeTc Anfhropolog'y. § 1. Preliminary statements, . . . . .26 § 2. The Alexandrine Anthropology, ... 31 § 3. Later- Alexandrine and Antiochian Anthropology, . . 86 § 4. Recapitulatory Survey, ..... 41 CHAPTER m. The Latin Anthropologjj. § 1. Tertullian's Traducianism, . . . . .43 § 2. Anthropology of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Hilary, . 47 U CONTENTS. PAOB § 3. Anthropology of Augustine, . . . . .50 §4. Recapitulation, ..... 91 CHAPTER IV. Felagianism and Semi-Felagianism. § 1. Pelagianism, ....... 93 §2. Semi-Pelagianism, ..... 102 CHAPTER V. The Ansehnic Anthropology. § 1. Anselm's theory of Original Sin, .... Ill § 2. Anselm's idea of the "Will and Freedom, . . 127 OHAPTER VL The Papal Anthropology. § 1. Tridentine theory of Original Sin, .... 140 § 2. Tridentine theory of Regeneration, . . . 149 CHAPTER vn. Anthropology of the Eeformers. §1. Lutheran-Calvinistic theory of Original Sin, . . 152 § 2. Lutheran-Calvinistic theory of Regeneration, . . 164 § 3. Melanchthon's Synergism, . . . . " . 173 § 4. Zuingle's doctrine of Original Sin, . . . 174 CHAPTER VIII. The Arminian Anthropology. § 1. Arminian theory of Original Sin, .... 178 § 2. Arminian theory of Regeneration, . . . 186 ¦§3. Recapitulation, ...... 194 CONTENT^ iii CHAPTER IX. Total suney of the hiatory of Anthropology, .197 PAOB BOOK FIFTH. HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. CHAPTER I. Soteriology ofthe Ancient Ghurch: A. D. 70-730, § 1. Preliminary stateraents, ..... 203 § 2. Gnostic and Ebionite theories of the Atonement, . 205 § 3. Soteriology of the Apostolic Fathers, . . . 207 § 4. Early Patristic Soteriology, .... 212 § 5. Alexandrine Soteriology, ..... 226 § 6. Soteriology of Athanasius, and the Greek Fathers, . 237 § 7. Soteriology of Augustine, and Gregory the Great, . . 253 § 8. Recapitulatory survey, ..... 266 OHAPTER II. Soteriology ofthe Mediaeval Church: A. D. 730-1517. gl. Anselm's theory of satisfaction, .... 273 § 2. Soteriology of Abelard, and Lombard, . . . 286 §-3. Soteriology of Bernard, and Hugh St. Victor, . . 289 § 4. Soteriology of Bonaventura, .... 292 § 5. Soteriology of Aquinas, ..... 304 § 6. Soteriology of Duns Scotus, .... 815 5 7. Recapitulatory survey, ..... 317 CHAPTER IIL The Papal Soteriology. 1 1. Preliminary statements, ..... 319 j 2. Soteriology of the Council of Trent, . . . 321 ; 8. Soteriology of Bellarmin, . . . . .328 IV CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. Soteriology of the Eeformers. PAGE § 1. Forerunners of the Reformation, .... 333 § 2. Protestant and Anselmic Soteriologies c'ompared, . 885 § 8. Recapitulatory survey, ..... 845 CHAPTER V. The Grotian Soteriology. § 1. Preliminary statements, ..... 347 § 2. Grotian idea of law and penalty, . . . 850 § 3. Grotian theory of relaxation and substitution, . . 856 § 4. Critical estimate of the Grotian Soteriology, . . 866 CHAPTER VL The Arminian Soteriology. § 1. Positive statements, ...... 370 § 2. Arminian objections to the theory of satisfaction, . 874 CHAPTER VIL The Socinian Soteriology. § 1. Socinian idea of justice, ..... 376 1 2. Socinian objections to the theory of satisfaction, . 879 BOOK SIXTH, HISTORY OP ESCHATOLOGY. OHAPTER I. Second. Advent of Christ, §1. MiUenarianism, ...... 889 § 2. Catholic theory of the Second Advent, . . . 398 CONTENTS. V OHAPTER IL f -5/* '~ , The Eesurrection, , f }• ,.; PAOB j 1. The Intermediate State, . . .'--.' . 400 j 2. The Resurrection-Body, ..... 408 OHAPTER m. The Final State. 1 1. Day of Judgment, ...... 408 12. Purgatory, ...... 409 § 8. Endless Rewards and Punishment, .... 411 BOOK SEVENTH. HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. OHAPTER L Ancient and Mediaeval Symbols. ; 1. Preliminary statements, ..... 423 J 2. Apostles' Creed, ...... 428 J 8. Nicaeno-Oonstantinopolitan Symbol, . . . 435 J 4. Chalcedon Symbol, ..... 488 ; 5. Athanasian Creed, . . . . . .439 ) 6. Recapitulatory survey, ..... 440 CHAPTER n. Modern Symbols. \ 1. Lutheran Confessions, ..... 444 1) Augsburg Confession, .... 445 2) Apologia Confessionis, .... 454 3) Confessio Saxonica, .... 456 VI ^. .;- ' CONTENTS. PAGB 4) Confessio Wurtemburgica, . 456 5) Articles of Smal cald. 456 6) Luther's Catechisms, . . 457 7) Formula Concordiae, 457 §2. Reformed (Calvinistic) Confessions, . 458 1) Confessio Tetrapolitana . 458 2) Zuingle's Fidei Ratio, . . 459 3) First Helvetic Confession, . 465 4) Consensus Tigurinus, . . 467 5) Consensus Genevensis, 468 6) Second Helvetic Confession, . . 469 7) Formula Consensus Helvetici, 472 8) Heidelberg Catechism, . 473 9) Confessio Belgica, . 476 10) Confessio Gallicana, . . 476 11) Confessio Scoticana, 476 12) Canons of Dort, . 476 13) Thirty-Nine Articles, 479 14) Westminster Confession, . 479 15) Savoy Confession, . 480 16) Cambridge Platform, . . 482 17) Boston Confession, 485 18) Saybrook Platform, . . 490 §3. Papal Confessions, 491 §4. Confessions of the Greek Church, . . 494 §5. Arminian Confessions, 495 §6. Socinian Confessions, . 498 BOOK FOURTH. HISTORY ANTHROPOLO G Y TOL. n. — 1 LITERATURE. AuGUSTitrDB : Operum Tom. X. Vossius : Historia de controversHs quaa Pelagius ejusque reliquiae moverunt. ¦ Gangaup : Metaphysische Psychologie des Augustinus. WiGGBHS : Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus. II. Theile (first part translated by Emerson). Nbahdeb : Church History, H. 557-627. Guericke : Church History, § 91-93. CALvm : Institutes, Book II. UsHEB : Works, Vol. HI. Whitakek : On Original Sin. Taylor (Jbebmt) : On Original Sin. Whitby : On Original Sin. MiJLLEB : Christliche Lehre von der Siinde (translated by Puls ford). Hasse : Anselm von Canterbury, Buch IT. Cap. ix-xi. Rkdepbitnino : Origenes, in locis. Baur : Der Gegensatz des CathoUcismus und Protestantismus. Mohlbb: Symbolik. CHAPTER I. THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OP THE SOUL. § 1. Pre-existence. The inquiry and the theory respecting the ori gin of the human soul exerted a decisive influence upon the formation of the Doctrine of Sin, and hence we commence with this topic. The views of the Ancient Church concerning the origin of the soul ran in three directions ; though not with equal strength, or to an equal extent. The three theories that appear in the Patristic pe riod are: Pre-existence, Creationism, and Tradit- danism} ' " La premiere difficulty est, dans un autre monde, ou dans une comment I'ame a put gtre infectSe autre vie, ok elles avoient p6che, du p6ch6 originel, qui est la ra- et avoient 6t6 condamnees pour cine des pdch6s actuels, sans qu'il cela a cette prison du corps hu- y ait eu de I'injustice en Dieu a main ; opinion des Platonicens I'y exposer. Cette difficult^ a qui est attribute k OrigBne, et fait naitre trois opinions sur I'or- qui trouve encore aujourd'hui des igine de I'Sme m6me : celle de la sectateurs. Henri Morus docteur preexistence dea dmea humaines Anglois a soutenu quelque chose 4 HISTORY OP AITTHROPOLOGY. The theory of Pre-existence tesuilies that all hu man souls were created at the beginning of creation, — ^not that of this world simply, but of all worlds. All finite spirits were made simultaneously, and prior to the creation of matter. The intellectual universe precedes the sensible universe. The souls of men, consequently, existed before the creation of Adam. The pre-existent life was Pre- Adamite. Men were angelic spirits at first. Because of their apostasy in the angelic sphere, they were transferred, as a pun ishment for their sin, into material bodies in this mundane sphere, and are now passing through a disciplinary process, in order to be restored, all of them without exception, to their pre-existent and angelic condition. These bodies, to which they are joined, come into existence by the ordinary course of physical propagation ; so that the sensuous and material part of human nature has no existence pre vious to Adam. It is only the rational and spirit- de ce dogme dans un livre exprfes. bourg. Cependant eUe n'est pas Quelques-uns de ceux qui soutien- 6tablie entiferement parmi eux, nent cette preexistence, sont allds puisque les universitas de Jena, jusqu'a la metempsycose ... La de Helmstat, et autres y ont 6t6 seconde opinion est celle de la contraires depuis long-tems. La traduction, comme si I'Sme des troisiSme opinion et la plus repue enfans 6toit engendrde (per tra- aujourd'hui est celle de la crea- ducem) de I'toe ou des Smes de tion : elle est enseignde dans la ceux dont le corps est engendr6. plus grande partie des ecoles S. Augustin y 6toit port6, pour Chr6tiennes, mais elle regoit le mieux sauver le p6ch§ originel. plus de difficult^ par rapport au Oette doctrine est enseignde aussi p6ch6 originel." Lbibnitz : Th6- par la plus grand partie des the- odic6e, Partie I. 86. ologiens de la Confession d'Aus- PRE-EXISTENCE. ual principle of which a Pre-Adamite life is as serted. The principal defender of this theory was Ori gen. Some things akin to it are to be found in the Pythagorean and Platonic speculations, — ^particu larly in the doctrine of metempsychosis, or trans migration of souls from one body into another; and in the theory that man's innate ideas are remi niscences of an antecedent life in a higher world than that of sense of time.^ But Origen endeavored ' Gang AUF : Psychologie des Au gustinus, p. 235 sq. ; Beausobee : Manicheisme, VI. iv. ; Studien UND Kritiken, Vol. IX. — In the Phssdo, Plato maintains the doc trine of the pre-existence of the soul. He lays down the position that 71 pd'^rjiTis OVK d'^Xo t\ rj dpa- p.vTia-is. This position ho supports by the following argument. When the soul awakes to consciousness, and begins to have intellectual perceptions, it observes that such a thing is good, and that such a thing is beautiful, and that such a thing is true, etc. But at the same time it perceives that these objects, thus denominated, are not goodness, beauty, and truth themselves, but only participate in theso qualities. The soul, therefore, possesses ideas of good ness, beauty, and truth, distinct from any particular things in which such properties inhere. But these ideas, the soul brings with it. They are not derived from the things of time and sense, because the soul carefully distin guishes between them and the concrete sensible object. It says : " This beautiful object which I see is not beauty itself, but only a man ifestation of it." But these ideas of absolute beauty, goodness, and truth are not figments of the brain, to which there is no ob jective correspondent. There ac tually are such objects as eternal truth, eternal beauty, and eternal goodness. Now, argues Plato, the fact that the soul upon awak ing to intellectual perception is already in possession of such ideas proves that it has had a vision of the corresponding objects in a previous mode of existence. The knowledge of these abstract ideas is only the recollection of a pre existent vision enjoyed by the soul, before its union with the body. 'Ho-ai/ Spa ai ^jfvxdi Kal irporepov, rrpXv eivai ev dt^pairov eSei, jfaipts trapdrav, Ka\ (f)p6m]iriv eixov. "It was a beautiful system b HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. to defend the theory of Pre-existence upon Scrip ture grounds, though he was undoubtedly much influenced by the speculations of pagan philosophy in adopting it. The Mosaic narrative of the tempt ation and apostasy, in Genesis iii, according to him, is an allegorical representation of the fall of the finite spirit from the higher into the lower sphere. Adam in the Hebrew is a generic term, and denotes not an actual historical individual, but the image and representative of the race. The serpent em blematizes the devil ; the death threatened is not temporal but eternal death, of which the death of the body is the shadow and symbol ; the expulsion from paradise is the loss of the pre-existent blessed ness, and the " coats of skins " signify the clothing of the fallen spirit in a material body. That the which represented that the forms of pure mutual afiections their of all that is good and fair in the love of these heavenly images, visible world, having an inde- and improved their acquaint- pendent previous existence in the ance with them by serene con- Supreme Mind, had indeed be- templation, they should after come obscured and tarnished in death wing back their flight again their union with the matter of to those realms of beatific vision the visible world ; but that the which had once before been their souls of men, having before their happy home." London Quab- entrance into the body once in a terly Eevxew. 1838. higher sphere gazed upon the This theory reappears also in original patterns or ideas of beau- some portions of English litera- ty, and justice, and holiness, are ture, — as, for example, in Words- do w from a faint reminiscence worth's Ode on Immortality. kmdled by such imperfect shad- „ onr birth is but a sleep, and a forgetting: ows of those lovely realities as The soul that rises with us, our life's the dark and gross things of the ^^^' il, i.-ii i-'Vi J iT- i -J, Hath had elsewhere its setting, earth still exhibit; and that if And cometh from afar." they cherished by the exercise PRE-EXISTENCE. 7 narrative is to be explained in this manner, and not to be understood literally, is plain, says Origen, to every one who penetrates into the real meaning of Scripture, and takes worthy views of the Divine Being. Such allegorical costume for the higher truths is not strange ; it is found in the Greek sym bolism. Plato's myths of Poros and Penia, in the Symposium, have much similarity with this Mosaic account of the fall,^ Origen also interprets the lan guage of the apostle Paul respecting the creation " groaning and travailing in pain together " (Rom. viii. 19), as referring to the low and degraded con dition of spirits who once occupied a higher sphere. Alluding to the fall of some of the angelic spirits, he says : " Hence God the creator made them bodies suited to a most degraded condition (congrua hu- milibus locis), and fabricated the visible world for them, and sent into this world ministering angels, for the care and discipline of those who had fallen." '^ Origen also cites Rom. ix. 11 sq., in proof of the pre-existence of the human soul, remarking that "there was no injustice in Jacob's suppla.nting Esau in the womb, in case we suppose him to have been chosen of God on the ground of merit acquired in a preceding life (ex praecedentis vitae meritis), so that he deserved to be preferred to his brother." ^ 'Origenes: De Princip. IV. i. "OEiOENESiDe Principiis, III. v. 16 ; Contra Oelsum, IV. xxxix. ' Origenes : De Principiis, II. See Thomasius : Origenes, 191, ix. (Ed. Bas. p. 705). 192 ; Sohubebt : Geschichte der Seele, p. 657. 8 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. Another proof for the soul's pre-existence is derived by Origen, from the parable of the vineyard and the laborers, in Matthew xx. 1 seq. They who are hired first are Adam and those of that time. They who are hired at the third hour are Noah and his generation. Abraham and his generation are hired at the sixth hour ; Moses and his generation at the ninth. All mankind at, and since, the time of Christ, are represented by the laborers employed at the eleventh hour.^ But these are described as having been standing idle all the day long, — that is during the entire saeculum represented by the "day" spoken of in the parable. "If therefore," says Ori gen, "the soul has no existence anterior to the body, but is generated with it (ptjvsaTtaQTj), how could those who were born since the birth of Christ have been in existence, to stand idle pre vious to that event ? " " The theory of Pre-existence may be said to rise and set with Origen. Only here and there was a voice heard in its favor after his death ; and during his life-time it was confined chiefly to the Alex andrine school. Cyril of Alexandria' and Nemesius of Emesa,* defend the doctrine of the simple pre existence of the soul, but not of its fall in a pre- ' This allegorical interpretation * Oyeillus Albxandeinus : is to be found in the middle ages. Com. in Johan. Op. IV. p. 78 sq. See Oedeeious Vitalis : I. 40, * Nbmesius : De natura homi- Bohn's Ed. nis, cap. ii. "Oeigenbs: In Matt. Tract. X. (Ed. Basil 1571, p. 81.) PRE-EXISTENCE. 9 existent state. The theory, however, was generally refuted and combatted, so that by the latter part of the 4th century it had become obsolete. Jerome ^ denominates it a st'ulta persuasio to believe " that souls were created of old by God, and kept in a treasury ; " and Philastrius ^ enumerates it among the heresies. Augustine * opposes the doctrine of a fall in a pre-existent state, as contradicting the Scripture statement that " God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good." He also remarks that if earthly bodies were given to fallen spirits on account of the sins they have com mitted, the bodies should be proportioned to the degree of the sins ; and that the devils, therefore, should bave worse bodies than men, — which Augus tine thinks is not the fact. The theory of Pre-existence, it is obvious, is the most extreme form of individualism as applied to the origin of man. It rejects the idea of race-con nection, and race-unity, in every form. Each human individual is created by a distinct fiat at the very beginning of creation, and antecedent to all mate rial worlds. As such, it has no physical or generic connection with other souls ; but is a pure unit alone and by itself And this individualism, pure and simple, pervades its entire history. It apostatizes alone and by itself; it is associated with a material ' HiEEONYMus : Ep. LXX vin, 'Augustinus : De civitate Dei, Ad Marcellinum. XL xxiii. " Feilabtbius : Haereses, XCIX. 10 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. body, as a disciplinary infliction, alone and by it self; and it is redeemed alone and by itself, only to be stiU liable to another and yet another apos tasy, alone and by itself The notion of a created species, a common human nature, is wholly and energetically excluded by the theory of Pre-exist ence. The material body, into which the rational spirit descends from its antecedent sphere of exist ence, is, indeed, propagated ; but this is only a tem porary prison, and not a permanent constituent of humanity. The sensuous and earthly part of man, according to the Origenistic theory, is not a part of his real and proper humanity. § 2. Oreationism. 2. The theory of Oreationism maintains that God immediately creates de nihilo a new soul, in every instance that a new individual of the human family is born. But the human body is not created de nihilo, in this successive manner. This part of man is created in and with Adam, and is propa gated from him. Oreationism met with far more favor in the Ancient Church, than the doctrine of Pre-existence. Its advocates cited in favor of it, the declaration of Christ, in John v. IT : "My Father worketh Uth erto, and I work," — ^interpreting the " work " here spoken of as that of creation, and not providence OREATIONISM. 11 merely. They also quoted Ps. xxxiii. 15 : "He fashioneth their hearts alike ; " and Zech. xii. 1 : " The Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him." Speaking generally, the theory of Oreationism was the dominant one in the Eastern Church, and found advocates in the Western. Jerome asserts that God " quotidie fabricatur animas," and cites in proof the above-mentioned texts of Scripture.^ He remarks that Oreationism is the true church doc trine (ecclesiasticum est), though not much received as yet by the Western bishops. In another place, however, he refers the inquirer upon the subject of the soul's origin to Augustine, whose work De origine animae, although it does not explicitly de cide the question, he praises, and shows an inclina tion to Augustine's views.'' Hilary of Pictavium is the most explicit advocate of Oreationism in the West. In his tractate upon Psalm xci (§ 3), he lays down the position that the souls of men are daily (quotidie) originated by the secret and un known operation of divine power. Oreationism, it is obvious, is a mixed theory. As respects the human soul, it teaches that there are as many repeated and successive fiats of crea tion, as there are individuals in the series of human beings ; while so far as the human body is concern ed, there is but a single creative fiat. In the in- * Hieronymus : Ad Pammachi- ' Hieronymus : Epist. LXXVIII, um, a 397. LXXIX. 12 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. stance of each and every individual soul after Adam, there is creation, but not procreation or propaga tion. In the instance of each and every individual body after Adam, there is procreation or propaga tion, but not creation. The physical part of every man, considered as a creation de nihilo, dates back of birth and individual existence, to the creative act mentioned in Genesis i. 27; but his spiritual part, as a creation de nihilo, dates back only to birth, or to the commencement of individual ex istence, in whatever generation, or year of the world, that may happen to be. Reckoning from the strict and absolute creation of each, the body of a man of this generation, upon the theory of Oreationism, would be six thousand years older than his soul ; for there is this interval of time between the creative fiat that originated the former, and the creative fiat that originated the latter. The theory, therefore, is a composite one. It has affinities with Traducianism, in adopting the idea of race-connec tion, and generic unity, so far as respects man's sen suous nature. And it has affinities with Origen's theory of Pre-existence, in excluding the idea of species when applied to the human soul, and in adopting the idea of pure individuality alone. The tenet of pre-existence in the angelic world, it rejects. TRADUCIANISM. 13 § 2. Traducianism, The theory of Traducianism maintains that both the soul and body of the individual man are propagated. It refers the creative act mentioned in Gen. i. 27 tothe human wai^re, or race, and not to a single individual merely. It considers the work of creating mankind de nihilo, as entirely completed upon the sixth day ; and that since that sixth day the Creator has, in this world, exerted no strictly creative energy. He rested from the work of cre ation upon the seventh day, and still rests. By this single act, all mankind were created, as to both their spiritual and their sensuous substance, in and with the first human pair, and from them have been individually procreated and born, each in his day and generation. According to Traducianism, creation is totally distinct and diflferent from birth. Creation relates to the origination de nihilo of the total substance or nature of mankind, considered as a new and hitherto non-existent species of being. Birth is subsequent to creation, and refers only to the modifications which this substance undergoes, — its individualization in the series of generations. Hence man can be created holy, and be born sinful. By creation he may be endowed with the moral image and righteousness of his Maker; while by birth, or rather at birth, he may be possessed of a moral guilt and corruption that was originated after creation, and before birth. 14 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. This view of the origin of the soul was first stated with distinctness by Tertullian, and from his time onward gained ground and authority in the Western Church ; while the Eastern Church, as has been remarked, preferred the theory of Oreation ism. The Biblical support for Traducianism was derived from Paul's statement of the Adamic con nection and the origin of sin, in Romans v. 12-19, corroborated by 1 Cor. xv. 22 : " In Adam all die," Eph. ii. 3: "And were by nature children of wrath, Heb. vii. 10 : " For Levi was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedec met him," Ps. li. 5 : " Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me," and Gen. v. 3 : " And Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." Tertullian was the first to state this theory in express terms, and defend it upon speculative grounds. He does it in a somewhat crude and materializing manner, because he atterapts to ex plain and illustrate the manner in which the indi vidual life is deduced from the generic. In this respect, he falls into the same error into which Justin Martyr, and the first theoretic Trinitarians, generally, fell, in the speculative construction of the doctrine ofthe Trinity. Inhis tract De Anima (c. 19), Tertullian remarks that " the soul of man, like the shoot of a tree, is drawn out (deducta) into a physical progeny from Adam the parent stock." In another place (c. 27), in this same tract, TRADITOIANISM. ^ 15 he asserts that " both substances (body and soul) are conceived, finished, and perfected together;" and holds to both a corporeal and a psychical gen eration, each proceeding from its own appropriate base, though each is inseparable from the other, and both are simultaneous.-^ The Traducian theory continued to gain ground in the North- African, and in the Western European Church, by reason of its affinity with that particu lar mode of stating the doctrine of sin which pre vailed in these churches. Jerome remarks that in his day it was adopted by " maxima pars occidenta- linm." Leo the Great (f 461) asserts that the " catholic faith teaches that every man, with refer ence to th-e substance of his soul as well as of his body, is formed in the womb." ^ Among the Orien tals, this theory obtained little currency. Gregory Nyssa,' and Anastasius Sinaita,* alone, were inclined to adopt it. But the theologian who contributed most to the currency and establishment of Traducianism was Augustine. And yet this thinker, usually so ex plicit and decided, even upon speculative points, nowhere in his works formally adopts the theory itself. In his Opus imperfectmn (IV. 104) he re- ' Nam etsi duas species confite- " Leo Magnus : Epist. XV, Ad bimur seminis, corporalem et ani- Turribim. malem, indiscretas tamen vindi- ' Geeooeius Nyss : De hominis camus, et hoc modo contempora- opiflcio, c. 29. les ejusdemque momenti." De •Anastasius Sin: Homilia in Anima, o. 27. Bandini Monumenta, H. 54. 16 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. plies to Julian : " You may blame, if you will, my hesitation because I do not venture to affirm or deny that of which I am ignorant ; you may say what you please concerning the profound obscurity of this subject ; nevertheless let this doctrine be fixed and unshaken that the guilt of that one man is the death of all, and that in him all died." ^ Yet Augustine's entire speculation upon the origin and nature of sin is indirectly, and by implication, an earnest defence of the Traducian theory. His an thropology, as we shall see when it comes up for examination, is both illogical and inconceivable without it. The transmission of sin, to which Augustine held, logically involves, as Tertullian had perceived before him, the transmission of the sinning soul; and this implies the Adamic existence and unity. The attitude and tendency of Augustine's mind, in respect to the two systems of Oreationism and Traducianism (for the theory of Pre-existence he expressly rejects and argues against),'^ may be seen from an analysis of the first book of his treatise De Anima, Renatus had sent Augustine the work of Vincentius Victor, in which the doctrine of Ore ationism was defended, Augustine in his critical reply takes the ground that Victor cannot demon- ' Similar statements are made De peccatorum meritis et remiss. in Ep. XC, Ad Optatum ; De H. 36, III. 10. Genesi ad literam X. 21 ; Ep. ' Augustinus : De civitate Dei, CXLin, Ad Marcellinum ; and XL 28. TRADUCIANISM. 17 strate from Scripture, the position that souls are created and in-breathed in every instance of birth, and asserts that we are in ignorance upon the whole matter. He examines one by one those texts which Victor has quoted, and contends that they are insufficient to prove Oreationism. In sum ming up, he remarks, that if any one prefers to hold that souls are created in each individual in stance, he must take care not to hold the four fol lowing errors : 1. That the souls thus immediately created are made sinful at the instant of creation, by the Creator, through an original sin, or sinful disposition, that is infused into them, and which is not truly their own sin ; 2. That those who die in infancy are destitute of original sin, and do not need that baptism which puts them in possession of the merits of Christ ; 3. That souls sinned in some other sphere before their connection with flesh, and that for this reason they were brought down into sinful flesh ; 4. That the newly-created souls of those who die in infancy are not punishable for existing sin, but only for sins which it is foreknown they would have committed had they been permitted to arrive at a suitable age.-' The difficulties that beset the subject of the origin of the individual soul, whether the theory of creation or of traduction be adopted, are very clear ly stated by Augustine in his epistle Ad Optatum^ ' Augustinus : De Anima, Liber I. (Opera X. 481. 482, Ed. Migne), 2 18 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. his treatise De peccatorum meritis et remissione, his tract De amAma, and his exegetical work De Genesi ad Ut&ram. We will briefly give the line of re mark in these treatises, which we take from the learned and discriminating work of Gangauf ^ upon the Metaphysical Psychology of Augustine. So far as the question of the divine agency in creation is concerned, says Augustine, we may ac cept either Oreationism or Traducianism. By either theory, God is recognized as the creator ; for even in case the theory of traduction or generation be adopted, God is stiU the absolute origin and author, inasmuch as in the primal act of creating the human soul he so created it that it possesses the power of reproducing and perpetuating itself in individual souls, just as in the sphere of nature and matter the first seed is indued with the power to reproduce individuals after its own kind. This endowment of reproductive power, says Augustine, as much re quires creative energy to account for its existence, as does the existence of the first seed, or the first soul ; " for who can make a seed to produce indi viduals invariably after its kind, except that Being who made the seed itself from nothing ? " Never theless, continues Augustine, both theories have their difficulties. In reference to Traducianism, the question arises, how it is possible to hold to such a propagation of the soul without falling into ma- ' Gangaup: Metaphysische Psy- stilck IH. § 3. p. 248. sq. ehologie des Augustinus, Haupt- TRADUCIANISM. 19 terialism, and regarding the soul as a corporeal entity, after Tertullian's example, whose fancies in this respect need not awaken our wonder, since he represents God the creator himself as corporeal.^ On the other hand, he who adopts Traducianism finds little difficulty with the doctrine of original sin, whUe the advocate of Oreationism finds a great difficulty here. For the soul as newly created (and it is newly-created in every individual instance according to the Creationist) cannot be anything but a pure and perfect soul. It cannot be tainted with evil of any kind ; but on the contrary, as com ing immediately from the creator's hand, must pos sess his holy image and likeness. If, now, it be thus pure and perfect, the question arises: Why does it deserve to be associated at very birth with a diseased and dying body, and to be stained and polluted with a corrupted sensuous nature ? '^ The ' Augustine, however, takes any diversity of parts in himself; Tertullian too literally. In com- he is altogether uniform." This, batting the Gnostic idea of the of course, could not be, if he were deity, which was hyperspiritual- corporeal or material. Augustine izing, Tertullian, it is true, em- himself (De Genesi ad literam, X. ploys phraseology that is ma- xxv. 41) remarks that Tertullian, terializing, and has furnished "quoniam acutus est, interdum ground for the charge of mate- contra opinionem suam visa veri- rialism. But if he is interpreted tate superatur. Quid enim verius by his context, it will be found, dicere potuit, quam id quod ait we think, that he meant merely quodam loco, ' Omne corporale to assert that God, though a spirit, passibile est' (De anima. c. 7)? is a substance or essence. "Cor- Debuit ergo mutare sententiam, pus " in his vocabulary is equiva- qua paulo superius dixerat etiam lent to " substantia." He express- Deum corpus esse." ly d^lares that "God has not ° This was an objection strongly 20 . HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY, fact that its connection with such a body does not depend at all upon the soul, but rests entirely upon the will of the creator, would seem to imply that God himself is the cause of the soul's deteriorated state and condition. But if so, its restoration would be no act of grace. It would, rather, be a matter of obligation, since the creator would be merely healing a wound which he himself had made. Fur thermore, in the case of infants who die without baptism, — a thing that occurs in thousands of in stances, and with the Divine foreknowledge, — how is the justice of God to be vindicated, if such infantile souls, without any agency and fault of their own, are visited with disease, sickness, pain, and death tem poral and eternal ? Can we believe that the cre ator makes these newly-created spirits guilty at the time of creating them, and then inflicts these evils upon them as a punishment ? How, upon the theory of Oreationism, shall we find an interval of time between the act that creates the soul and the act that unites it with a diseased and mortal body, of sufficient length for Satan to present his temptation, and the newly-created spirit to yield and fall ? Neither is it any relief to say that God punishes the souls of unbaptized infants upon the ground of those sins which they would have cominitted had urged by the Pelagians, as Augus- et ipsa sola poenam meretur ; in- tine remarks in De peccatorum justum esse . . . ut hodie nata meritis III. iii. 5, — " Si anima non anima non ex massa Adae, tam est ex traduce, sed sola caro, ipsa antiquum peccatum portet alie- tantum habet traducem peccati, num." TRADUCL^NISM. r , 21 they lived, and which he foreknew they would com mit. For this would conflict with the nature of retribution and the idea of justice. Punishment supposes some actual offence in the past. It is always retrospective. Hence penalty cannot be anticipated. No being can be justly punished in advance. If he can be, then there is nothing to prevent a child who dies at the age of three years, from being punished for all the sins which he would have committed had he lived upon earth to the age of forty, or sixty, or sixty thousand years. With respect to such questions as the following, which were urged against the theory of Creation- ism : Why does God create souls for children who die at birth, or immediately after? and why does he create souls in the instance of adulterine oflf spring ? Augustine remarks, that he thinks he could give an answer from the position of Oreationism. But to the question: Why does God punish an infant soul ? he can give no answer from this posi tion. Augustine finally remarks, that if one goes to the Scriptures for a decisive settlement of the question at issue between Oreationism and Tra ducianism, he does not obtain it. In respect to the doctrine of original sin, the preponderance of Scripture proof is upon the side of Traducianism. But passages may be quoted in favor of the soul's new creation in each individual instance; stiU, no one of them is so decisive that it might not be in- 22 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. terpreted in favor of its traduction. All such passages prove, indeed, that God is the giver, the creator, the former of the human soul. But lum he is, whether by in-breathing them newly-created, or by the traduction (trahendo) of them from the parent, the Scriptures nowhere say.^ "As yet," says Augustine (Ep. CXO, Ad Optatum), " I have found nothing certain and decisive in the canonical Scriptures, respecting the origin of the soul." ^ It is evident from these trains of remark, which are drawn from a very wide surface in Augustine's writings, that his mind felt the full force of the mysteries that overhang the origin of the indi- ' Proinde quia non dixit ex ani ma viri factam animam mulieris, convenientius creditur eo ipso nos admonere voluisse, nihil hic aliud putare, quam de viri anima nove- ramus, id est similiter datam esse mulieri ; cum praesertim esset e-videntissimse occasionis locus, ut si non tunc quando formata est, postea certe diceretur, nbi ait Adam, 'Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea.' Quanto enim carius et amantius- que diceret, Et anima de anima mea? Non tamen hine tam mag na quaestio jam. sohita est, ut umim horum manifestum certnim- que teneam'us." Augustinus : De Genesi ad lit. X. i. 2. 'In his final revision of his works he says : " Quod attinet ad ejus (sc. animi) originem, qua flt ut sit in corpore, utrum de iUo uno sit qui primum creatus est, quando factus est homo in ani mam vivam, an semper ita fiant singulis singulae, nec tune scie- bam nec adhuc scio." Eetractati- ones I. i. 8. — At the time when Augustuie wrote the 2d and 8d books of his treatise De libero ar bitrio, viz. : about 395, he attrib uted more value to the theory of pre-existence than he afterwards did, as the following extract proves. " Harum autem quatuor de anima sententiarum, utrum de propagine veniant, an in singulis quibusque nascentibus novae fi ant, an in corpora nascentium jam alicubi existentes vel mittantur di vinitus, vel sua sponte laiantur, nullam temere affirmwre oporte- biW'' De libero arbitrio, HI. xxi. MEDIAEVAL AND MODERN THEORIES 23 vidual soul, and its inborn sinfulness. That his mind inclined to Traducianism, the course of reason ing which has been delineated plainly shows. That he was not averse to Oreationism, provided the problem of sin could be solved in a way to accord with what he believed to be the teaching of Scrip ture and the Christian experience, is evident from the following remark which he makes respecting this theory in his letter to Jerome : " Ecce volo ut ilia sententia mea sit, sed nondum esse confirmo." Again in this same letter he says to Jerome : " Teach me now, I beg of you, what I shaU teach ; teach me what I shall hold; and tell me if souls are every day, one by one, called into being from nonentity, in those who are daily being born." ^ § 4. Mediaeval and Modern Theories. In the Middle Ages, the theory of Oreationism prevailed over the rival theory. Traducianism fell into disrepute with the Schoolmen,^ for two rea sons : 1. Because they regarded it as conflicting with ' Augustinus : De origine ani- caro Adae, et prona efiecta ad li- mae, seu epistola CLXVI, Ad bidinem ; ita seminata caro secum Hieronymum. Compare Elbuey : trahens infectionem vitiat ani- Eccl. Hist. Book XXIIL xvii. mam. In carne est materialiter " " Licet igitur anima non sit ex et originaliter, et in anima for- traduce, tamen originalis culpa ab maliter tanquam in subjecto." anima Adae transit ad animas pos- Bonaventura : Compendium terum mediante, carne per concu- Theologicae Veritatis (De cor- piscentiam generata ; ita quod si- ruptela peccati Lib. HI. cap. cut ab anima peccanti infecta fuit viii.). 24 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. the doctrine of the soul's immortality, and as ma terializing in its influence. 2. Because, rejecting as most of them did, the anthropology of Augus tine, and adopting the Greek anthropology, they had less motive than Augustine had, for favoring the theory of the soul's traduction. The revival of the Augustinian anthropology at the Reformation naturally led to the re-appearance of the Traducian theory. The symbols of both the Lutheran and the Calvinistic divisions, so far as they make any speculative statement at all upon the subject, generally enunciate, or at least logic ally involve, the doctrine of the Adamic unity in respect to both soul and body. But as we have seen Augustine himself hesitating to take a decided position respecting the origin of the individual soul, it is not strange that minds in the Protestant Church that were agreed upon the doctrine of original sin, should diflPer upon this metaphysical question. Ad vocates of both Traducianism and Oreationism are to be found among the early Protestant divines.^ ' Luthee taught Traducianism, sed propagatas fuisse." Calovi- and the Lutheran theologians, us, HI. p. 1084, and Hollaz, take generally, followed him, with the the same view. exception of Calixtus, who Calvin, and the Reformed par- adopts Oreationism in his treatise, ty generally, declare for Creation- De animae creatione. Geehaed ism, though retaining the Augus- (Loci IX. viii. § 116, 118.) leaves tinian doctrine of original sin. the determination of the manner Calvin (Inst. II. i. 7) takes the to the philosophers; but holds ground that the decision of the that " animas eorum qui ex Ad- question, as between the two the- amo et Eva progeniti fuissent, non ories, is unimportant. " Who creatas, neque enim generatas, wUl be solicitous about a trans- MEDIAEVAL AND MODERN THEORIES. 25 The subject itself, like other purely speculative ones, has attracted less attention for two centuries past, than it did in the previous history of the Church. One of the most decided of modern advo cates of Traducianism is the American theologian Edwards, in his treatise On Original Sin} mission of the soul, when he hears that Adam received the or naments that he lost, no less for us than for himself? that they were given, not to one man only, but to the whole human nature ? " Beza (Qu 47.) rejects Traducian ism decidedly: "Doctrina de ani mae traduce mihi perabsurda vi detur, quoniam aut totam ani mam aut partem ejus traduci oporteret." Peteb' Maetye (Thes. 705.) declares that: "Ani mae non sunt omnes simul crea- tae ab initio, sed creantur quoti die a deo corporibus inserandae." PoLANUs (p. 2183) asserts : "Eo dem momento Deus creat animam simul et unit corpori infecto." See Hagbnbaoh : Dogmenge schichte, § 248 ; Hasb : Hutterus Redivivus, § 85. ' Samuel Hopkins, also, (Works, I. 289) seems to have been a Traducianist. " The moth er, therefore, according to a law of nature, conceives both the soul and body of her son ; she does as much towards the one as towards the other, and is equally the in strumental cause of both.'' CHAPTER II. THE GREEK ANTHROPOLOGY.' § 1. PreUmiina/ry Statements. The universality of human sinfulness, and the need of divine grace in Christ in order to deliver ance from it, were acknowledged in the doctrinal system of the Christian Church from the beginning. There was no denial, except among the confessedly heretical sects, of the doctrines of Sin and Redemp tion stated in this general form. In constructing the more specific statements there was, however, a diflference of opinion in the Ancient Church, which showed itself in two great tendencies. The one re sulted in what we shall denominate the Oreek An- ' Compare Gueeiceb : Church in many instances gives a deeper History, §§ 91, 92, 93. Whitby on color to the quotation as extract- Original Sin (Chapters VI- VIII) ed, than it wears in its original cites from those Fathers who connections. Wiggkes' Augus- deny the imputation of Adam's tinism, Chap. XXH, presents the sin to his posterity as a ground views of the earlier Pathers, in of condemnation ; he is somewhat respect to the contested points biased by his polemic aims, and between Augustine and Pelagius. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 27 thrapology ; the other in the Latin Anthropology} These types of doctrine were not rigorously con fined, the one to the Eastern and the other to the Western Church. But each waa the predominating scheme within its own borders, while yet each found some advocates, and exerted some influence within the limits of the other. The two questions upon which the controversy turned were the following: 1. Is man's power to good diminished by sin, and if so to what extent ? 2. What is the precise relation which the agency of the human wiU sustains to the workings of the Holy Spirit, in regeneration ? ' " While in the Western Church the Augustinian scheme of doctrine had become dominant, in the Greek Chnrch the older, and more indefinite mode of ap prehending the doctrines of grace, of free-wUl, and of providence, a theory bordering upon Pelagian ism, had been preserved." Ne- ANDEE : HI. 554. The reformers of the English Church recognized the diflference between the an thropology of the East and the West, a fact noticed by Hallam : Constitutional History, VII. i. See, also. Mackintosh : Ethical Philosophy, Section III. (p. 106. Pa. Ed.). "He leut Burnet's commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles to me, and I have now a distinct recollection of the great impression which it made. I read with peculiar eagerness and pleas ure, the commentary on the 17th article, — that which regards Pre destination ; and I remember Mr. Mackenzie's pointing out to me, that though the bishop abstained from giving his o-wn opinion on that subject, in the commentary, he had intimated that opinion not obscurely in the preface, when he says that ' he' was of the opinion of the Greek Church, from which St. Austin departed.' I was so profoundly ignorant of what the opinion of the Greek Church was, and what St. Austin's deviations were, that the mysterious magnifi cence of this phrase had an extra ordinary effect on my imagination. My boarding mistress, the school master, and the parson, were or thodox Calvinists. I became a warm advocate for free will, and before I was fourteen I was prob ably the boldest heretic in the coimtry." Mackintosh's Life, 1.5. 28 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. The views of the entire Church, both the West ern and Eastern, upon these points, during the 2d and 3d centuries were shaped very much by the controversy with Gnosticism. The dualistic theory of the universe, held by the Gnostic, involved the eternity of evil as well as of good, and the further tenet that man is sinful by creation, because all creation is the work of the Demiurge. In opposi tion to this view, the Christian Fathers contended for the biblical doctrine that man was created holy, and a free moral agent, and that by the misuse of his moral freedom he is himself the author of his own sin.^ Again, the Gnostic, dividing mankind into three classes, — ol izvuvfiaTixol, ol ^pvj^ixoi, ol vXixol, — asserted that only the first class were capa ble of being redeemed, and that the other two classes, who constituted the great mass of mankind, 'Justin Maetye (Apol. 1.54) to be good, and that one to be evil, thus argues against the Pagan then neither the one nor the oth- doctrine of fate. "But lest any er can be justly approved or con- should infer from what has been demned ; so that unless we sup- said, that we are assertors of fa- pose that man has it in his power tal necessity, and conclude that to choose the good, and refuse prophecy must needs infer pre- the evil, no one can be accounta- destination, we shall clear our- ble for any action whatever. But selves as to this point also; for to prove that men are good or we learn from these very proph- evil by choice, I argue in this ets that rewards and punishments manner : We see in the same per- are to be distributed in propor- son a transition to quite contrary tion to the merits of mankind, actions ; but now were he neces- And it is a truth which we our- sitated either to be good or bad, selves profess ; for if it be not so, he would not be capable of this but all things are determined by contrariety." Compare, also, fate, then farewell freedom of Apologia I. 10 ; and 80. will : and if this man is destined PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. •'^^;, . 29 were hopelessly given ,over to evil lusts and satanic powers. In opposition to this theory, the Christian Fathers maintained the essential moral equality and similarity of aU. men, and contended that the varie ties of character seen in human society are varie ties in the manifestation only, and not of the inward disposition, and that even these are owing to cir cumstances, and to the diflferent use which indi viduals make of their faculties and powers. It was a natural consequence of this polemic attitude towards Gnosticism, that the anthropology of the 2d and 3d centuries of both the Western and the Eastern Church was marked by a very strong emphasis of the doctrine of human freedom. At a time when the truth that man is a responsible agent was being denied by the most subtle opponents which the Christian theologian of the first centuries was called to meet, it was not to be expected that very much reflection would be expended upon that side of the subject of sin which relates to the weak ness and bondage of the apostate will. The Gnostic asserted that man was created sinful, and that he had no free will. The Ancient Father contented himself with rebutting these statements, without much reference to the consequences of human apos tacy in the moral agent, and the human will itself. When, therefore, the question respecting these cortr sequences was raised, it is not surprising that there was some variety in the answers that were given 30 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. by the diflferent theological schools, and parties, of Primitive Christendom.^ ' These varieties of opinion have been observed and con ceded. Says Calvin (Inst. II. i. 4) : "On the subject of original sin the Fathers had much contention, nothing being more remote from natural reason, than that all should be criminated on account of the guilt of one, and thus his sin become common ; which seems to have been the reason why the most ancient doctors of the Church did but obscurely glance at this point, or at least explained it with less perspicuity than it required." Hookee (On Justiflcation, Works, II. 680), making a distinction between error of ignorance, and distinct and persistent heresy, remarks: " Was not their opinion danger ous, who thought the kingdom of Christ should be earthly ? was not theirs, who thought the gos pel should be preached only to the Jews ? What more opposite to prophetical doctrine concern ing the coming of Christ, than the one ? concerning the catholic church than the other ? Yet they which had these fancies, even when they had them, were not the worst men in the world. The heresy of free-will was a mill stone about the Pelagian's neck ; shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable against all those Fathers in the Greek church; who being mispersuaded, died in the en"or of free-will ? " Whitby (On Original Sin, Ch. viii.) makes the following statements. "We have, flrst, the great Peta/nius (De incar. lib. xiv. cap. 2. § 1), ingen uously confessing : ' That the Greeks in their writings seldom make any mention, and never an express mention, of original sin.' 'Whitaker (Original Sin, lib. ii. c. 2),. after he had produced many passages in which the Fathers have spoken of original sin and free will incautiously, and with too little exactness, has these words: 'Why should I recite many other passages of the same kind ? From these it abundantly appears that the Fathers before the rise of Pelagius did very often think and write more inaccurate ly of original sin and free will, in which two articles his heresy did mainly consist, than it became great doctors of the church ; and God suffered Pelagius to go on for a while, that the catholic Fa thers might learn to judge and speak more soundly concerning matters of so great consequence. And therefore, what the Magde burg Centuriators have written, — that the Fathers ascribed too much to man's power, have something darkened the subject of human corruption, and explained it in a manner too slight and mean, — is so true that nothing can be more certain. Du Moulin, also, holds ALEXANDRINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 31 § 2. The Alexandrine Anthropology. The most unqualified position, in reference to the power of free will in apostate man, was taken by the Alexandrine School. This was partly the result of the excessive speculative tendency by which this school was characterized, and partly of its collision with Gnosticism. The Alexandrines represent the will of man as possessed, notwith standing its apostasy in a pre-existent state, of a plenary power to good, and able to turn from sin by the exercise of its own inherent energy (avTS- iovciov), Olement of Alexandria asserts that " to believe' or to disbelieve is as much at the command with Petavius and Whitaker; but 'Vossi'us endeavors to prove that the Greek and Latin Fathers taught the same doctrine of origi nal sin essentially." Niebuhe (Life and Letters, p. 530. N. Y. Ed.), remarks that, " aU who are acquainted -with church history know, that no system of doctrine respecting redemption, hereditary sin, grace, &c., existed for at least the first two centuries after Christ ; that on these points, opinions and teaching were un fettered, and that those were nev er considered as heretics who simply accepted the creed (tbe so- called Symbolum Apostolieum), kept in communion with the church, and were subject to her discipline." — In investigating the anthropology of the Fathers, gen eraUy, it is of great importance to notice whether the writer is speaking of man as fallen, or as unfallen. Assertions made re specting the primitive freedom of man as he is by creation should not be transferred to his apostate condition ; and, on the other hand, statements that relate to the bondage and helplessness of the apostate -wiU are not to be applied to the unfaUen human will. Unless this distinction is taken into -view, one and the same -writer wUl, oftentimes, be found to teach contradictions ; sometimes asserting freedom, and sometimes bondage, - 32 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. of our will as to philosophize or not to philoso phize." "Man, like every other spiritual being, can never lose the power of arbitrary choice. By means of this power, noble minds, at all times, here and hereafter, aided by that Divine Power which is indispensable to success, are lifting themselves up from ignorance and deep moral corruption, and are drawing nearer to God and the truth." ^ Yet these statements undergo some modifica tion. Clement also insists upon the necessity of divine influences in order to deliverance from sin, because, although man is able to commence moral improvement by the resolute decision of his will, he cannot bring it to completion without the aid of divine grace. " God," he remarks, " co-operates with those souls that are willing." " As the phy sician furnishes health to that body which syner- gizes towards health [by a recuperative energy of its own], so God furnishes eternal salvation to those who synergize towards the knowledge and obe dience of the truth." '^ In these extracts, which might be multiplied, Clement teaches that the initiative, in the renewal and change of the sinful heart, is taken by the sinner himself The first motion towards holiness is the work of man, but it needs to be succeeded and strengthened by the influences of the Holy Spirit, Whenever, ' Rbdepenning : Origenes, I, dives salvus, Cap. XI. ; Stromata 133-185. Vin. ' Olbmens Axbxandeinus: Quis ALEXANDRINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 33 by virtue of its own inherent energy, the soul is itself willing, then God co-operates, and concurs with this willingness.^ These views of Clement, respecting the power to good in apostate man, were shared by Origen."^ In the third book of the De Principiis, he argues that the assertion of the apostle that man's salva tion " is not of him that willeth," but " of God that showeth mercy," means merely that the existence of the will as a faculty depends upon Divine power, and not that the use of the faculty is thus dependent. "As we derive it from God that we are men, that we breathe, that we move, so also we derive it from God that we will. But no one would infer from the fact that our capacity to move, the hand, e. g., is from God, that therefore the motion of our hand in the act of murder, or of theft, is from God."* Throughout this first chapter of the third book of the De Principiis, in which Origen enunciates his view of human freedom, and examines the Scripture texts that relate to this subject, he holds that the relation which the human will sus tains to moral good is precisely the same as that ' Justin Maetye (Apologia I. ' For Origen's anthropology, 10) remarks that, " though we had compare Rbdepenning : Origenes, no choice in our creation, yet in II. 318, 360. sq. ; Thomasius : our regeneration we have ; for Origenes, p. 195. sq. God persuades only, and draws 'Oeigenes: Tom. I. 720. Ed. us gently, in our regeneration, by Bas. 1771. co-operating freely with those ra tional powers he has bestowed npon us." VOL. II. — 3 34 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. which it sustains to moral evil. The wUl initiates both holiness and sin ; so that, in Origen's view, it is as incorrect to deny to the human will, be it fallen or unfallen, the power to holiness, as it would be to deny it the power to sin. Origen's position is, that the will of man is the ultimate eflScient in either direction, or else it is the ultimate efl&cient in neither direction, Origen's view of the relation which the agency of the human will sustains to Divine power in re generation, coincides with that of Clement, The finite faculty begins the process of right action, and divine grace perfects and completes it. The faculty by which to will the right, man has from God ; but the decision itself is his own act, God's part is therefore greater than man's ; as the creation of a faculty is greater than the use of it. Moreover^ every right beginning of action on the side of man, requires a special succor and assistance from God. Through the Holy Spirit this succor is granted, according to the worthiness of the individual ; and thus every right act of man is a mixture of self- choice and divine aid.-' The views of Clement and Origen respecting original sin harmonized with these views of free will and regeneration. To understand their theory ' RBDEPENNrsG : Origenes, IL 522 ; De Princ. III. 279 ; Sel. in 818. His citations are : Fragm. Ps. p. 571, 672 ; Tom. in Matt. de Princ. III. p. 85 ; Hom. in Jer, XII. 561, VIII. 170; Com. in Rom. iv. ALEXANDRINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 36 of original sin, it will be necessary first to exhibit their psychology. They subdivided the constitu tion of man into oafia, tfjvxn, and nvtvfia. The first, was the material part ; the second included the principle of animal life, together with the sen suous appetites and passions that relate to the phys ical world ; while the third was the rational and spiritual principle, including the will and the moral affections of human nature. Original sin, according to the Alexandrine theologians, was confined to the two first subdivisions in the trichotomy. It was an inherited corruption which has its seat in the body and the sensuous nature, but does not inhere in the nviii^a, because this is not propagated, and there fore cannot inherit anything. Adopting then, as the Alexandrine anthropologist did, the theory of pre-existence, it waa easy to see that the rational part, the nvtvfia, coming down from the angelic sphere, would be kept, more or less, in isolation from the body and its sensuous corruption, and might thus be regarded as able by its intrinsic energy to rule and overcome this "original sin," this corrupted sensuousness, that was all around it, but was not in \i} Original sin, being only physical corruption, and pertaining only to the bodily and physical nature, was not regarded as truly and properly culpable by ' 'KvembeKTOv rav x^^P°^<"' ''^ Princ. HI. i, Thomasius : Orige- mievpa. Oeigen in Joh. xxxii. nes, p. 196. 11; ii. 9; in Matt. x. 11; de 36 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. the Alexandrine school. There is no guilt except in the wrong action of the iivtv^a. Sin, in the strict sense, therefore, has no origin in Adam, but is the act of the individual will, either in a previous world, or in this one. That the individual will, in every instance, yields to the solicitation of the corrupt sensuousness, Origen accounts for by the force of example and education, and not by any connection or union between the posterity and the progenitor. "Parents," says Origen, "not only generate their children, but also imbue them ; and they who are born are not merely the children, but the pupils, of their parents ; and they are urged to the death of sin, not so much by natural connection (natura), as by training. For illustration, if a man aposta tizing from Christianity should take up the worship of idols, would he not teach the children that should be begotten, to worship demons and oflfer sacrifice to them ? This is what Adam did when he apos tatized from God." ^ § 3. Later- Alexa/ndrine and Antiochian Anthro pology, The Anthropology indicated in these state ments of Clement and Origen, in a modified form, became the type of doctrine in the Oriental Church generally. It received a modification in three par- ' Obigenes : Com. in Rom. v. 18, Opera II. p. 534. Ed. Basil, 1571. / / LATER-ALEXANDRINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 37 ticulars : 1. The theory of pre-existence was re jected, and that of creationism was substituted. 2. There was more recognition of the indirect eflfects of the Adamic transgression upon the soul itself, including the will (nvtvfia), 3. There was a more qualified assertion of power to holiness in the fallen man. These modifications are apparent in the writings of the Later-Alexandrine School, composed of those Greek theologians who had felt the influence of Origen, viz. : Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Cyril of Alexandria. These Fathers endeavored to exhibit the doctrine of the universality of sin in its relation to the sin of Adam, yet did not adopt that doc trine of a propagated sinfulness of the will (nvivfia) which we shall meet with in the Latin Anthro pology. Original Sin, with them also, is not cul pable. It is only an inherited disorder of the sen suous nature, from which temptation issues, and to which the will yields ; and not until this act of the will is there any sin, properly so called, in man. Athanxisius was engaged with the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity all his life, and exhibits his anthropological opinions only rarely, and in passing. But his view of original sin would probably be sum med up in the above-mentioned statement. Hagen bach (Dogmengeschichte, § 108) quotes a remark of Athanasius, to the eflfect that " many men have be- 38 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. come pure from ^ sin," ^ in proof of his own state ment that Athanasius did not hold to the universal ity of sin. But the remark of Athanasius when read in its original connection shows that he was speak ing not of the unregenerate, but of those who were the subjects of renewing divine influence. " Many," he says, " have heen made holy and clean from ^^n ; nay Jeremiah was hallowed from the womb ; never theless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," and thus "man remained m.ortal and corruptible as befc»'e, liable to the affec tions proper to his nature." Oyril of Jerusalem makes the following state ments respecting original sin : " When we come into the world we are sinless (dva/udprrjTOi), but now we sin from choice." "Where God first sees a good conscience there he bestows the saving seal." " We did not sin before our souls came into the world ; but coming into it free from evil, we transgress by the choice of our mind. There is no kind of souls that are either sinful or righteous by nature, but that we are either the one or the other proceeds only from free choice." "The sentence of death threatened against Adam extended to him and all his posterity, even unto those who had not sinned as Adam did when he disobeyed God by eating the ' HoXXoi yap oZv ayioi yeyovaai Kjo&apoi ira(7i]r dpaprlas. Contra Ari- anoB, III. 33. LATER-ALEXANDRINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 39 forbidden fruit." ^ Cyril here implies, that as infants have not sinned by a conscious and deliberate act of choice they have not sinned at all, and that death passes upon them not as penalty, but for other rea sons. Gregory Nazianzen denominates unbaptized children da^ga'yiaTOvg jutv, dnov^Qovg Ss} Gregory Nyssa asserts a universal tendency to sin in man kind, but denies sin in the sense of guilt, in in fants.* The Antiochian School, represented by Theo dore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, adopted substantially the same anthropology with the Later-Alexandrines. They held the doctrine of the Adamic connection only so far as the physi cal nature is concerned, and taught that there is an inherited evil, or corruption, but not an inherited sin. The best representative of this school, and per haps of the Greek anthropology generally, is Ohry- sostom. He concedes that the mortal Adam could beget mortal descendants, but not that the sinful Adam could beget sinful descendants. The doctrine of propagation, according to him, applies, to the physical nature of man, but not to his spiritual and voluntary. The first progenitors of the human race brought corruption, i. e, a vitiated sensuousness, but not a sinful will into the series of human beings, ' Oyeillus Hieeos. : Oateohe- " Geegoeius Naz. : Orationes, ses, rv. xix. ; I. *iii. Compare XL. p. 563, B. Whitby : On Original Sin, Oh. " Geegoeius Nys. : De oratione VT. Dom. ; De Infantibus. 40 • HIBlOHY OF ANTHROPOLOGY, and these .latter universally adopt it, and strengthen it, by the strictly individual choice of their will. In his Commentary upon Eomans v., Chrysostom thus expresses his views. " It is not unbefitting (ovSsv dTtecxog) that from that man who sinned, and there by became mortal, there should be generated those who should also sin, and thereby become mortal ; but that by that single act of disobedience another being is made a sinner, what reason is there in this ? No one owes any thing to justice, until he first becomes a sinner for himself (oixod-sv). What, then, is the meaning of the word d^agroXo)., in the phrase ' were made sinners ? ' It seems to me, to denote liability to suffering and death." Here, plainly, Chrysostom limits the connection of Adam with his posterity to that part of man which is other than the strictly voluntary part. The union of Adam and his posterity accounts for the origin of strong animal passions, of inordinate sensual ap petites, but not for the origin of voluntary wicked ness. This, as it is the act of wiU, and not the mere working of sensuous appetite, has a purely individual origin. Chrysostom's theory of regeneration was firmly synergistic.^ If man upon his side works towards holiness, God's grace will come in to succor and ' Synergism (an nature is not created with hoUness, but that holiness is a su- ' " Sed in corpore vitae UUus, concupisceret ; ut ei necesse esset ubi homo, nisi peccasset, non erat aut subjugari, aut reluctari.''' Au- moriturus, alius procul dubio sta- gustinus : Op. imperf. cont. Juli- tus fuit : unde aut nulla ibi, aut anum, Ub. V. (Vol. X. p. 1449, talis, quaUs nunc est, libido non Ed. Migne.) fuit, qua caro contra spiritum 148 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. pernatural endowment specially bestowed after the act of creation proper is complete. For the loss of this endowment simply puts man back to the nega tive and characterless position upon which he stands by creation. But this cannot be a position of gmlt and sin properly so called. If so, then God creates man in a sinful state. Original sin, according to the Tridentine theologiafis, is, indeed, a conflict between the flesh and the spirit, between the body and the mind. It is a state of corruption, and of inordinate physical desires. But this is not a state of sin and guilt. This conflict is necessary from the nature of the case. For by creation, the flesh is inordinate, and the spirit is weak. It is not untU something subsequent to creation is bestowed, — viz, : the super natural gift that subdues the lower to the higher part, — ^that righteousness or positive moral charac ter exists. That act, therefore, whereby this right eousness is lost, the act of original transgression, is not one that plunges man into guilt proper, but only into corruption or an inordinate and ungovern ed condition of the lower nature, — which inordinate condition belongs to the flesh by creation, just as the properties of matter belong to matter by crea tion. Hence, Bellarmin remarks that " the state of man after the fall of Adam differs no more from the state of man as created in pu/ris natwralibus [i. e. previous to the bestowment of the supernatural gift of original righteousness], than a man originally naked differs from one who was once clothed, but TRIDENTINE THEORY OF ORIGINAL SIN. 149 has been stripped of his clothing ; neither is human nature any worse, if we except the guilt of the act of transgression in eating the forbidden fruit, than it was made by God, nor does it labor under any more ignorance or inflrmity than it labored under as created in pu/ris 'naturalibus. Hence, the cor ruption of nature results, not from the subtraction of any gift belonging to nature by creation, nqr from the addition to it of any evil quaUty, but sole ly from the loss of a supernatural gift which was over and above the gifts of nature." ^ In conformi ty with this, the Council of Trent decide that in dweUing sin in the regenerate is not properly sia. After stating that concupiscence (concupiscentia vel fomes) remains in the baptized, they add that " this concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes denom inates sin (Eom. vi. 12, vii. 8), the holy synod de clares the catholic church never understood to be caUed sin because it is really and truly sin in the regenerate, but because it is from sin, and inclines to sin." ^ § 2. The Tridentine Tiieory of Regeneration. Holding such views ofthe nature of original sin, it was logical that the Tridentine theologians should combat the doctrine of human impotence, and the ' Bellaeminus : De gratia pri- " Canones Teidentini : Sessio mi hominis, c. v. V. 150 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. helpless dependence of the apostate wiU upjm-the Divine efficiency in order to its renewal. They .idopt the theory of synergism in regeneration, and defend it with great earnestness. " If any one," say the Tridentine Canons, " shaU afSrm that the free wUl of man was lost, and became extinct, after the sin of Adam. ... let him be accursed. If any one shaU affirm that the free wiU of man, moved and excited by God, co-operates nothing by assenting to God thus exciting and calling, so that it disposes UTid prepares itself for obtaining the grace of justi fication, but like some inanimate object does nothing at aU, but is merely passive, let_him be accursed. If any one shaU afBrm that all works that are~]^er- formed before justification, from whatever reason they are done, are really and truly sins, and merit the displeasure of God, or that the more a man en deavors to dispose himself for grace, the more does he sin, let him be accursed. If any one shall affirm that the sinner is justified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is requisite which may co operate to the attainment of the grace of justificar tion, and that the sinner does not need to be pre pared and disposed by the motion of his own wUl, let him be accursed." ^ There was no part of the anthropology of the Eeformers which the divines of Trent opposed with more vehemence, than the monergistic theory of re- ' Canones Teidentini : Sessio VI. Canones iv. v. vii. ix, TRIDENTINE THEORY OF REGENERATION. 151 generation. The theory that man cannot co-operate efficiently in the regenerating act was, and is to this day, represented by the Papal theologians as fatal ism. This is the charge made by Bellarmin, and by Mohler. CHAPTEE VII. ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. § 1. Luther cm- Calvinistic Theory of Original Sin. The Eeformers constructed the doctrines o£-Sin and Eegeneration after the same general manner with Augustine and Anselm ; so that the somewhat I minute account which we have given of the AiigJQS'^ 1 tinian and Anselmic anthropologies renders j^detaU- I ed representation of the Protestant anthropology I unnecessary. The principal Lutheran and Calvin istic symbols agree in their definitions of sin and grace, and from them we shall derive our account. The leaders of the Protestant Eeformation reaf firmed, in opposition to the Papal anthropology, lie Augustinian doctrine that original sin is truly^and properly sin, and also that it was committed in Adam. The Augsburg Confession is explicit re specting the guilt of original sin, in the following terms. " The churches teach that after the fall of Adam, aU men propagated according to ordinary LtFTHERAN-OALVINISTIC THEORY. 153 generation, are born with sin, that is without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concu piscence {tncd-vfiia), and that this disease (morbus) or original depravity (vitium originis) is truly sin, damning, and bringing eternal death upon those who are not regenerated by baptism and the Holy Spirit. They also condemn the Pelagians and oth ers, who deny this original depravity to be sin." ^ The explanatory defence of the Augsburg Confes sion, which goes under the name of the Apologia, explains what the authors of this Confession meant by their assertion that original sin is " concupi scence." " Some persons assert that original sin is not a depravity (vitium) or corruption in the na ture of man, but only a condition of servitude or mortality which the descendants of Adam come into without any proper and personal guilt. Further more, they assert that no one is under condemnar tion to eternal death on account of original sin. It is as when slaves are born of a slave woman, and come into this servile condition without any fault of their nature, but through the misfortune of their mother.^ In opposition to this view, we have made mention of concupiscence, and have called it desire, to indicate that the nature of man is born corrupt and vitiated." ' 'Hasb: Libri Symbolici, pp. 'Habe: Libri Symbolici, p. 30 9, 10. sq- • This was Zuingle's view ; see History of Symbols. 154 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. The Papal opponents of the Eeformers had con verted the doctrine of original sin into the doctrine of original evU, and had defined original sin SiS, fo mes, — not sin itself, but the fuel of sin ; n^t the de pravation of the wiU, but the corruption of the sensuous nature only. Taking this merely physical theory of the Adamic sin, they had gone so far as to raise the questions : " What is the particular quality of the body in which this fomes consists ; was it contracted from eating the apple (contagio pomi), or from the breath of the serpent ; and can it be cured by medicines ? " AUuding to these no tions, Melanchthon, the author of the Apology, re marks that the " scholastic doctors " bury up the real matter in discussion. " When they speak of original sin, they do not specify the greater and gra ver faults of human nature, — namely, ignorance of God, contempt of God, destitution of the fear of God and of trust in Him, hatred of the government of God, terror at the justice of God, anger against God, despair of God's favor, reliance upon things visible." ^ It is this class of sins which the Symbol has in view, when it speaks of original sin, and which it sums up under that term and name. The same view of original sin is taught with yet greater decision and particularity, in the Formula Concordiae. This symbol carries out the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession to their logical results, ' Hase : Libri Symbolici, p. 52. LUTHER AN-OALVINISTIO THEORY, 155 and is the best expression of scientific Lutheranism. After distinctly rejecting the view of Flacius, which made original sin to ba the substance of the human soul, and after asserting that sin in all its forms is the soul's agency and not the soul's essence, the For mula Concordiae aflSrms, that " Christians ought not only to acknowledge and define actual faults and transgressions of the commands of God to be sins, but they ought also to regard that hereditary dis ease (morbus) by which the whole nature of man is corrupted, as a specially dreadful sin, and, indeed, as the first principle and source of aU other sins, from which all other transgressions spring as from their root," The first position in the statement of the doctrine of original sin, according to the For mula Concordiae, is that "this hereditary evil is guilt (culpa) or crime (reatus) ; whence it results that aU men, on account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, are odious in the sight of God, and are by nature the chUdren of wrath, as the apostle testifies," ^ The same view of original sin was adopted by the Calvinistic division of the Protestants. Calvin defines original sin to be " an hereditary pravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoadous to tlie Divine wrath, and producing in us those works which the Scripture caUs ' works of the flesh.' 'Hase: Libri Symbolici, pp. 639, 640. 156 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. And this is, indeed, what Paul frequently denomi nates ' sin ; ' whUe the works which proceed then,ce, such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, mur ders, reveUings, he caUs the ' fruits of sin,' — ^though they are also caUed 'sins' in many passages of Scripture, and even by himself This thing, there fore, should be distinctly observed: namely, that our nature being so totally vitiated and depraved, we are, on account of this very corruption, consid ered as convicted, and justly condemned in the sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but right eousness, innocence, and purity. And this liability ' to punishment arises not from the delinquency of another ; for when it is said that the sin of Adcmi renders us obnoxious to the Divine judgment, it is not to be understood as if we, being innocent, were umdeservedhj loaded with the guilt of his sin; but, j because we are aU subject to a curse, in consequence j of his transgression, he is therefore said to have in- I volved us in guilt. [N^evertheless, we derive from him, not the punishment only, but also the pollution I to which the punishment is justly due. Wherefore Augustine, though he frequently caUs it the sin of another, the more clearly to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet at the same time also as serts it properly to belong to every individual. And the apostle himself expressly declares, that ' death has therefore passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' — ^that is, home been involved in original sm. And therefore infants themselves, as they bring LUTHER AN-OALVINISTIO THEORY, 157 their condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfulness of another. For though they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet they hav^ the seed of it within them, , , , Whence it follows that this native de pravity is properly accounted sin in the sight of God, because there could be no guilt without crimed'' ^ / Calvin does not examine the metaphysical grounds for the imputation of the Adamic sin, so fully as do Augustine and Anselm, But the extract cited above involves the doctrine of the unity of the race in the primitive apostasy. It teaches that origi- " nal sin is not a mere individual sin, but is common or generic ; otherwise, the individual " being inno- eent " would be " undeservedly loaded with the guUt of a sin not his own," and foreign to him. We derive from Adam, "not the p-rndshmmt only, but also the pollution to which the punishment is justly due." The clearest and most explicit statement of the doctrine of original sin in its relations to the Adamic connection, that was made in any of the Calvinistic symbols of the 16th and I7th centuries, is found in the Formula Consensus Helvetici. This creed sus tains the same relation to the Calvinistic system that the Formula Concordiae does to the Lutheran. It is confined to the doctrines of original sin and ' Oalvin : Institutes, II. i. 158 HISTORY OF ANT:tROPOLOGY, grace, and upon these subjects makes statements that are more exhaustive and scientific than are found in any of the other creeds drawn up by the Eeformed or Calvinistic theologians. It was com posed by the distinguished Swiss divines Heidegger, Turretine, and Gereler, primarily to oppose a par ticular theory of original sin and election which was obtaining some currency, and which these theolo gians regarded as a deviation from genuine Calvin ism. In order to a proper understanding of the positions of the Formula, it is necessary to give a brief account of this theory. In the year 1640, Joshua Placaeus, a distin guished theologian of Saumur, in the west of France, published the theory,^ that God cannot justly, and therefore does not actually, impute Adam's sin itself to his posterity, but only the con sequences of that sin. And inasmuch as punish ment follows imputation, God cannot justly and does not actually punish Adam's sin itself in the posterity, but only the consequences of that sin, — viz. : the corruption of nature resulting from it, and transmitted by propagation. The apostatizing act itself was the act of the individual Adam simply and solely. The posterity, therefore, did not par ticipate in it, and therefore it could not be im'me- diately imputed to them as guUt. But the conse- ' Placaeus : Theses theologici de imputatione primi peccati Ad de statu hominis lapsi ante gra- ami. tiam ; foUowed by Disputationes LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIO THEORY. 159 quences of that individual apostatizing act of Adam, — ^viz. : the corruption of the whole nature, issuing from it and transmitted to the posterity, — ^are im puted to them. This imputation of the effects of Adam's act of apostasy, Placaeus denominated " me diate ; " whUe the imputation of the apostatizing act itself, or of the cause of these effects, he caUed "immediate." "If," says Placaeus, "by the first sin of Adam, his first actual sin be meant, and not his habitual sin which followed it, then imputation must be distinguished into immediate or antecedent, and mediate or consequent. The first imputation occurs immediately, that is without the medium of any corruption. The last imputation occurs medi ately, that is through the medium of hereditary and inward corruption. The former . precedes inward and hereditary corruption, in the order of nature ; the latter foUows it. The former is the cause of inward and habitual corruption; the latter is the effect." Placaeus rejects the former, and admits the latter.^ In opposition to this theory of " mediate " impu tation, the Formula Consensus makes the following statements. " As God entered into a covenant of works with Adam, not only for himself but also with the whole human race in him as the head amd root, so that the posterity who were to be born of him would inherit the same integrity with which he was ' MiiusoHEE- Von Colln -Ueudecebe: Dogmengeschichte, IH. 438. 160 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. created, provided he should coutinue in it ; so Adam by his sad faU sinned not for himself only, but for the whole human race who were to be bom 'of blood and the wiU of the flesh,' and lost the bless ings promised in the covenant. We are of opinion, therefore, that the sin of Adam is imputed to aU his posterity by the secret and just judgment of God. For the apostle testifies that ' In Adam all have sinned. By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners ; ' and, ' In Adam aU die ' (Eom. V. 12, 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). But it does not appear how hereditary corruption, as spiritual death, could fall upon the entire human race by the just judgment of God, unless some faidt (delictum) of this same human race (ejusdem generis humani), bringing in the penalty of that death, had preceded. For the most just God, the judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty. Wherefore man, pre vious to the commission of any single or ' actual ' transgression, is exposed to the divine wrath and curse from his very birth (ab ortu suo), and this in a twofold manner ; first, on account of tlie transgres- j sion {naQuitvafxa) and disobedience which he com mitted in the- loins of Adam / and secondly, on account of the hereditary corruption inherent in his conception, which is the consequence of this primi tive transgression, and by which his whole nature is depraved and spiritually dead. Thus it appears that original sin, by a strict discrimination, is two- \ , fold, and consists of the imputed guilt of Adam's LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIC THEORY. 161 transgression and the inherent hereditary corruption consequent upon this. For this reason, we are un able to assent to the view of those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by the ordinance of God, and, consequently, deny that his sin is imr mediately imputed to them, and who, under the ' notion of a ' mediate ' and consequent imputation, not only do away with the imputation of the first sin, but also expose the doctrine of innate and here ditary corruption itself to grave peril." ^ According to this statement of Turretine and- Heidegger, mediate imputation must rest upon im mediate ; and hoth imputations must be asserted. They did not consider it conformable to justice, to impute an effect without imputing the cause. The posterity could not properly be regarded as guilty for their inward corruption of heart and will, unless they were guilty for that primal Adamic act of apostasy which produced this corruption. It does not appear reasonable, they say, that a corrupt nature should be transmitted and imputed to the universal race of mankind, '•'¦sinless some faulV (deUctum), some voluntary and culpable act, " of this same human race had preceded." The attempt, therefore, of Placaeus, to sever the inherited de- ' FoEMULA Consensus Helve- viz. : the natural nnion between Tioi, X.-XIL (Niemeyer's Col- Adam and his posterity, and the lectio, p. 733). — Tueeetine also political ox forensic\na.m.yr\er^- asserts both imputations in his by he is " the representative of Institutes, upon two grounds, the whole human race." vol n. — 11 162 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. pravity from the Adamic act of apostasy, to impute the effect but not the cause of the effect, appeared to them in the highest degree illogical. More than this, it brought the doctrine of innate depravity itself into " grave perU." For, according to the theory of " mediate imputation," moral corruption together with temporal and eternal death come upon the posterity, while yet the posterity have no part in that primitive act of apostasy which is the originating cause, and sole justifying reason of this very corruption and death. The justice of the Divine procedure, according to Turretine and Hei degger, is imperilled by a method that permits the misery and corruption that issue from an act of sin to fall upon a posterity who do not participate in that act, and are innocent of it. The Adamic sin itself must, therefore, be imputable to the posterity, in order to legitimate the imputation of its conse quences. And, furthermore, this act, they imply, must be imputed upon real and not nominal grounds. The imputation of Adam's sin must not be a " gratuitous " imputation, for this would yield only a " gratuitous " condemnation. Eighteousness may be imputed when there is no righteousness; but sin cannot be imputed when there is no sin. " David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God impuleth righteousness without works ; saying. Blessed are they whose iniquities are for'- given, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin " (Eom. LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIO THEORY. 163 iv. 6-8). The imputation of righteousness when there is no inherent and real righteousness, accord ing to this explanation of St. Paul, is simply the for giveness of iniquity, or the non-imputation of sin. It is a gratuitous imputation, and a gratuitous jus tification. But when Placaeus proposed to carry the doctrine of a gratuitous imputation, such as holds true of Christ's righteousness, over to Adam's sin, and proposed to impute the Adamic ^guilt with out any real and inherent demerit upon the part of the posterity, in the same manner that the right eousness of Christ is imputed without any real and inherent merit upon the part of the elect, Turretine and Heidegger opposed him. The doctrine of a gratuitous justification is intelligible and rational ; but the doctrine of a gratuitous damnation is unin telligible and absurd. Hence the Formula Consen sus taught that " man previous to the commission of any single or ' actual ' transgression, is exposed to the divine wrath and curse from his very birth, . . . first, on account of the transgression and dis obedience which he committed in tlie loins of Adxmnr The posterity must be really, and not fictitiously, in the person of the progenitor, in order that they may be " immediately " and justly charged with a com mon guilt.^ ' The Swiss theologian Stapfee the corrnption of the nature, but and the elder Edwaedb have been denying the imputation of the represented as adopting the San- flrst act of apostasy. The late mur theory of imputation, that Principal Cunninoham so repre- is, as affirming the imputation of sents Stapfer in his " Eeformers 164 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. § 2. LutheranrCahinistic Theory of Regeneration, The leading Protestant symbols adopt the Au gustinian view of regeneration, and particularly of the impotence to good of the apostate wiU. One and the Eeformation" (p. 384). But this seems to be an error. The foUowing extract from Stap fer, which Edwards quotes with approbation (Original Sin, Works IL 484. New York Ed.), is sufii cient to prove that he held to the imputation of both the Adamic sin and its consequences. " Our opponents contend with us chief ly on this account : that accord ing to our doctrine of original sin such an imputation of the first sin is maintained, that God with out any regard to universal native corruption esteems all Adam's posterity as guUty, and holds them liable to condemnation purely on account of that sinful act of their first parent ; so that they, without any respect to their own sin, and so as innocent in themselves, are destined to eter nal punishment. I have, there fore, ever been careful to show that our opponents do injuriously suppose those things to be separa ted, in our doctrine, which are by no means to be separated. The whole of the controversy which they have with us about this matter evidently arises from this : that they suppose the mediate and the immediate imputation are distinguished one from the other, not only in the manner of concep tion, but in reaUty. And hence they conceive of imputation as immediate only, and abstractly from the mediate ; whUe onr di vines suppose that neither one ought to be conceived of aeparately from the other. Therefore, I choose not to nse any such dis tinction, or to suppose any such thing [as a separation of the two], in what I have said on the sub ject ; but have only endeavored to explain the thing itself, and to reconcile it with the divine attri butes. And therefore I have everywhere conjoined both of these conceptions concerning the impu tation of Adam's first sin as insep arable, and judged that one ought never to be considered separately from the other. [And although I have abstained from using the distinction, I have nevertheless implied both kinds of imputation in my statements, nor have I in fact departed from the opinion of our divines, or from that of the apostle Paul."] This last clause in brackets is omitted in Edwards's quotation from Stap fer. See Stapfeeus : Institu tiones, Cap. xvii. § 78. Op. IV. p. LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIO THEORY. 165 of the most striking characteristics of the anthro pology of the first Protestant theologians is the marked difference which they find between the un- 562. Ed. Tiguri, 1745. Edwaeds is equally explicit in affirming the imputation of both the Adamic transgression and its conse quences. In the opening of his treatise " On Original Sin," he remarks as follows : " By original sin, as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate sinful depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude as to include not only the depra/city of nature, but the imputation of Adam,'s first sin ; or in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam's posteri ty, in the divine judgment, to par take of the punishment of that sin. So far as I know, most of those who hwee held one of these have maintained the other ; and most of those who hame opposed one 'hatie opposed the other ; both are opposed by the author (Taylor) chiefly attended to in the foUow ing discourse, in his book on Original Sin; and it may, per haps, appear in our future con sideration of the subject, that they are closely connected, and that the arguments which prove the one establish the other, and that there are no more diffieulties at tending tlie allowing of one than the oiAer."— The views of Stap fee respecting the voluntariness of original sin are expressed in the foUowing objections and re plies. "Objection: In order that any action may be called sin, it must be free and voluntary, for whatever occurs compulsorily, or in unconsciousness and without our consent and will, cannot be regarded and imputed to us as sin. But if we are corrupt by birth, the consent of our will is excluded. Hence, corruption by birth cannot be held to be sin, or imputed to us as such. Reply: In the first place, there is ample room for such a voluntary con sent, in the instance of birth-sin. Eor the human race is to be re garded as one moral person, which person in Adam its head, not its natural merely but also its federal head, made a covenant with God, and in so doing gave consent to all those things which Adam as a public person stipulat ed and performed for himself and all his posterity. But where there is consent there is a place for will and liberty ; and where these are, there can be transgres sion of the law and sin. In the second place, if man is born cor rupt, and is such from the flrst moment of his existence, he also sins spontaneously ; bnt in being a spontaneous transgressor of the 166 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. fallen and the faUen Adam, or between man by cre ation and man by apostasy. Man as created has plenary power to be perfectly holy. Man as apos tate is destitute of this power. According to Luther and Calvin, the loss of power to good is one of the inevitable effects of sin, so that sin might be defined to be an inabUity to holiness. Hence they refuse to attribute to fallen man those gifts and energies of unfallen humanity which they held to have been ! lost in and by the voluntary act of apostasy. After ¦ this act of self-will, which is subsequent to the cre ative act, they concede to man no power to become spiritually perfect and holy. The utmost to which he is competent, without renewing grace, is acts of external morality. " The churches," says the Augs burg Confession, " teach that the human will has a certain liberty suflBcient for attaining morality (civi lem justitiam), and choosing things that appear rea sonable. But it has not the power, without the Spirit of God, to attain holiness or spiritual right eousness, because the carnal man cannot {ov Svva rai) know spiritual things (1 Cor. ii. 14). Augus tine says this in the same words (Hypognosticon, lib. iii.), ' We acknowledge that free wiU is in aU men ; that it has indeed a rational judgment by means of which it is able to begin and finish, with out God's grace, not those things which pertain to God, but those works that relate to this present law, he consents to that corrup- sin." Stapfeeus : Institutiones, tion, and thus it is also his own Cap. XVI. § 58, 69. LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIC THEORY. 167 life, — the good as well as the bad. The good, I say ; meaning those which are in their place right and proper : e. g. : to choose to work in the field, to choose to eat and drink, to choose to have a friend, to choose to have clothes, to choose to build a house, to marry a wife, to learn an art, or whatever allowable and proper thing it may be that pertains to the present life.' The churches also condemn the Pelagians and others who teach that without the Holy Spirit, by natural powers (naturae viri bus) alone, we are able to love God supremely."^ Consonant with these statements of the Augsburg Confession, is the following from the Apology. " The human will is able, after a certain sort (aliquo modo), to attain civil righteousness, or the righteousness of works : It is able to converse about God, to render to God an external worship, to obey magistrates and parents in externals, to keep the hands from mur der, adultery, and theft. . . . We concede, therefore, to the will of man the power to perform the exter nal works of the law, but not the inward and spirit ual works, — as, for example, to truly revere God, to truly trust in God, to truly know and feel that God regards us with pity, hears our prayers, and pardons our sins, &c. These are the genuine works of the first table of the law, which no human heart is able to perform without the Holy Spirit, as Paul says (2 Cor. ii. 14) : ' The natural man, that is man using ' Hasb : Libri SymboUci, p. 15. 168 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. only his natural powers, perceiveth not the things of God.' " ^ The Formula Concoidiae, the symbol of High Lutheranism, teaches that " before man is iUuminated, converted, regenerated, and drawn by the Holy Spirit, he can no more operate, co-operate, or even make a beginning towards his conversion or regeneration, with his own natural powers, than can a stone, a tree, or a piece of clay." '^ Luther's ex pressions respecting the impotence of the sinful will are marked by his usual decision and boldness. At the Leipsic Disputation, he compared man to a saw in the hand of the workman ; and in his commenta- ry upon Genesis xix. he says : " In spiritualibus et divinis rebus, quae ad animae salutem spectant, homo est instar statuae salis, in quam uxor patri- archae Loth est conversa ; imo est similis trunco et lapidi, statuae vita carenti, quae neque oculorum, oris, aut uUorum sensuum cordis usum habet." In his work De servo a/rbitrio, written against Eras mus, he compares the divine exhortations to obedi ence addressed to men, to the irony of a parent who says ' Come now,' to a little child, although he knows that he cannot come.' The Eeformed or Calvinistic division of the Pro testants were equaUy positive and clear, in their as- ' Hash : Libri Symbolici, pp. ° Compare also Luthee : On 218-219. Galatians ii. 20. ^ Hase : Libri Symbolici, p, 662. LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIC THEORY, 169 sertion of the bondage of the apostate will, and of the monergistic theory of regeneration. The First Helvetic Confession, an important Calvinistic symbol drawn up under the influence of BuUinger, makes the following statement. " We at tribute free wiU to man in this sense, viz. : that when in the use of our faculties of understanding and will we attempt to perform good and evil actions, we are able to perform the evil of our own accord and by our own power, but to embrace and follow out the good, we are not able, unless Uluminated by the grace of Christ, and impeUed by his Spirit. For it is God who works in us to will and to do, according to his good pleasure ; and from God is salvation, from ourselves perdition."^ The Second Helvetic Confession, drawn up entirely by BuUinger, is yet more explicit and detailed upon the subject of re generation, and the relations of the human will to it. It considers the state of man in three respects : first, his state before his fall ; second, his state after his faU ; third, the nature of his agency in regeneration. Its language is as follows : "Man before the fall was upright (rectus) and free ; he was able to remain holy, or to decline into evil. He declined to evU, and involved in sin and death both himself and the whole race of men. Next, we must consider the condition of man after the faU. The inteUect of man was not taken away by the faU, neither was he ' Nibmeteb : CoUectio, pp. 116, 117. 170 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. robbed of his wUl and changed into a stock or stone ; but his inteUect and wUl were so changed and enfeebled (imminuta), that they cannot any longer perform what they could before the faU. The intellect is darkened, and the will has been converted from a free into an enslaved faculty. For it is the servant of sin ; not unwillingly, but wiUing ly. For it is still a will, and not a nill (voluntas, non noluntas dicitur). Hence, in respect to sin, man is not coerced either by God or by Satan, but does evil of his own voluntariness (sua sponte) ; and in this respect exercises the freest possible choice. But in respect to holiness, the intellect of man does not of itself rightly judge concerning divine things. The scripture requires regeneration in order to sal vation. Hence our first birth from Adam contrib utes nothing to our salvation. Paul says, ' The nat ural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spirituaUy dis cerned.' The same apostle asserts, that 'we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any good thing as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of God.' But it is evident that the mind or intellect is the guide and leader ofthe wiU ; if therefore the guide is blind, it is easy to see how far the wiU also is affected. Wherefore, there is no free will to good in an un renewed man ; no strength for acting holily. Our Lord, in the Gospel says : ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of LUTHERAN-CALVINISTIC THEORY. 171 sin.' And the apostle Paul asserts that 'the car nal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not sub ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.' In the third, place, we are to consider whether the re generate have free will, and how far (an regenerati sint Uberi arbitrii, et quatenus). In regeneration, the inteUect is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that it apprehends the mysteries and will of God. And the wiU itself is not only changed (muta tur) by the Spirit, but is strengthened in its en ergies (instruitur facultatibus), so that it sponta neously wills and performs the good. Unless we concede this we deny Christian liberty, and bring in legal servitude. The prophet (Jer. xxxi. ; Ezek. xxxvi.) represents God as saying : ' I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.' Our Lord (John vii.) also says : ' If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' Paul, also, says to the Philippians (Phil. i. 29) ; ' Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake ; ' and again (Phil. i. 6) : ' I am confident that he which hath begun a good work in you, will perfect {sTUTsXsosi) it until the day of Jesus Christ ; ' and again (Phil. ii. 13) : ' It is God which worketh in you, both to wUl and to do,'" Eespecting man's agency in regeneration, the Second Helvetic Confession teaches that the _hu- man activity is the effect of the Divine activity. "The regenerate," says this creed, "in the choice 172 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. and working of that which is good, not only act passively, but actively also (regenerates in boni electione et operatione, non tantum agere passive, sed active). For they are acted upon by God, that they themselves may act what they do act (aguntur enim a Deo, ut agant ipsi, quod agant). Eightly does Augustine adduce the fact that God is styled our helper (adjutor). But no one can be helped, except as there is activity in him (nequit autem adjuvari, nisi is, qui aliquid agit). The Manichaeans despoU man of all activity, and make him as a stock or stone." ^ By the above phrase " acting passively," the formers of this creed appear to mean, that the sinful will, in relation to the strictly renewing agency of the Holy Spirit, is recipient, or is acted upon, whUe yet it is a wUl and not a stone ; and by " acting ac tively," they mean that as a consequence of this passivity it becomes spontaneously active in hoh ness. The regenerating energy does not find or leave the human wiU inert and Ufeless, Uke a stock 1 or stone, but makes it wilUng and energetic to good, with the same energy and intensity with wliich it \ had been wiUing and energetic to evU. 'Khmeyeb: CoUectio in locis. melanchthon's synergism. 173 § 3. Melanchthon^s Synergism. Melanchthon took a leading part in the con struction of the Augsburg Confession and the Apol ogy ; both of which asserted the Augustinian doc trine of original sin, and the monergistic theory of regeneration. But when the diflficult points in volved in the doctrine of grace and regeneration came to be discussed among the Protestants, and the Calvinistic division, in particular, asserted the helplessness of the human wiU with great energy, and emphasized the tenet of election and predes tination, Melanchthon receded somewhat from his earlier opinions, and adopted a species of synergism. He expressed his views in a revised form of the Augsburg Confession, which goes under the name of the Va/riata, and in his important theological manual, entitled Loci Communes. Instead of ex plaining regeneration as Luther and Calvin did, and as he himself did when the Augsburg Confession was drawn up, as the effect of the Divine efficiency simply and solely, he asserts that " concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis, verbum Dei, Spiritus Sanctus, et humana voluntas assentiens nec repugnans verbo Dei." The human soul, according to Melanchthon, though apostate, yet retains an appetency faint and ineffectual, yet real and inalienable, towards the spiritual and the holy. Into this seeking, or faint striving (clinamen) in the right direction, the grace 174 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. of God enters, and brings it to a result. This form of synergism, though the nearest to monergism of any, because it reduces down the human factorjto a minimum is, yet, not the monergism of Luther and Calvin. Hase, who is certainly not biassed in favor of monergism, remarks that " the synergism ema nating from Melanchthon may be regarded as a re mote tendency to Pelagianism ; first, in that the co operation of man toward his own change of charac ter (Bessrung) appears to be founded upon natural endeavors, and not upon the inward operation of the Holy Spirit ; and secondly, in that the non- resistance of the sinner at the commencement of the change of heart is represented as a positive active concurrence of will." ^ § 4. Zuingle^s Doctrine of Original Sin. The only one of the leaders of the Protestant Eeformation who did not accept the Augustinian ] doctrine of original sin was Zuingle. This active and energetic mind seems to have inclined to that theory, prevalent in the second and third centm-ies, which we have designated by the general name of the Greek anthropology, and which reappeared in Semi-Pelagianism. But the opinions of Zuingle upon original sin were confined to the circle of his ' Hase : Hutterus Eedivivus, p. ee : Dogmengeschichte, III. 428. 275. See further extracts in Compare History of Symbols, s-u- MiJNSciiEK-VoN Colln-Neudbok- pra. zuingle's doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN, 175 own personal influence, and did not spread like those of Luther and Calvin through the Protestant churches. They were not adopted into any symbol, and did not constitute the foundation of any ecclesi astical body, Zuingle sent a statement of his theological senti ments to the diet at Augsburg in 1530, where so many religious parties were represented. It is en titled Zuingle's Fidei Ratio, and from it we extract the following representation of his views of original sin, " I think this in regard to original sin. That is properly sin which is transgression of the law ; for where no law is there is no transgression ; and where there is no transgression there is no sin properly so caUed, — that is to say, so far as by sin is meant wickedness, crime, viUainy, or guilt. I acknowl edge, therefore, that our flrst father sinned a sin that is truly sin, — that is, wickedness, crime, and turpitude. But those who are generated from that person did not sin in this manner, — for what one of us bit with his teeth the forbidden apple in Para dise ? Hence, whether we will or no, we are com peUed to admit that original sin, as it is in the pos terity of Adam, is not truly sin, in the sense alrea dy spoken of; for it is not a crime committed against law. Consequently, it is properly speak ing a disease and condition. A disease, because as Adam fell from love of himself, so also do we fall. A condition, because as he became a slave, and o^nojxious to death, so also -we are bom slaves 176 history of ANTHROPOLOGY. i and children of wrath, and obnoxious to death . . . Adam died, on account of sin, and being thus dead, that is sentenced to death, in this condition [status] he generated us. Therefore we also die, — so far as he is concerned, by his fault and culpability ; but so far as we are concerned, by our condition and disease, or, if you prefer, 'sin,' — but sin improperly so called. Let us iUustrate by an example. A man is taken captive in war. Upon the ground of his own personal hostility to his captors, and treachery towards them, he deserves to be made a slave, and is so held. Now they who are born of him in this condition are slaves, — not by virtue of their own fault, guilt, or crime, but by virtue of their condi tion [status], which condition is the consequence of the guilt of their father, who had deserved to come into it by his individual fault. The children in this instance are not laden with crime itself, but with the punishment, fine, loss, or damage of crime, — ^that is, with a wretched condition of servitude." * The difference between this view, and that of the Lutheran and Calvinistic symbols from which we have quoted, is plain. So far as the will is con cerned, Zuingle does not hold the doctrine of the Adamic unity, and hence he cannot concede from his position the doctrine of a common apostasy and guilt. The Adamic transgression, according to the Zuing- Uan theory, was only nominally and by a mental fiction the transgression of the posterity, and hence ' NiBMBTEB : CoUectio, pp. 20, 21. zuingle's doctrine qf original jSIN. 177 the sinfulness of it when attributed to the posterity, is only nominal. At the same time, he left unan swered that question which drove Augustine to wards the theory of Traducianism, viz. : Why are the posterity of Adam, who by the supposition are entirely innocent of Adam's act of apostasy, visited with aU the dreadful temporal and eternal conse quences of that act ? For Zuingle expressly says that the posterity, though guiltless of the primitive act of apostasy, are "born slaves, and children of wrath, and obnoxious to death." VOL. n. — 12 CHAPTEE VIII. THE ARMINIAN A N T H E O P 0 L OG Y. § 1. Arminian theory of Original Sin. The Protestant Eeformation reinstated, we have seen, the Augustinian anthropology. Both the Lu- / theran and Calvinistic creeds teach the doctrines of the Adamic unity, both as to soul and body, of the imputation of the original act of apostasy to aU men and the guilt of original sin, and of monergism in regeneration. < The Arminians were a Protestant party who receded from this dogmatic position of the first Ee formers, and made some modifications of the doc- ' For sources see : Aemtntus : loe : On Original Sin ; Jobs Opera (translated ' by Nichols) ; Tayloe : On Original Sin ; Wmi- Episooprus : Opera, Ed. Eoter- by : On Original Sin ; Owen : Dis- dami, 1665 ; LiMBOEOHus : Theolo- play of Arminianism ; Edwaeds: gia Christiana ; Beandt : History On Original Sin ; Hallam : Lit- of the Eeformation in the Low erature of Europe, Vol. II. (Har- Countries, Vol. III. ; Jeeemy Tay- pers' Ed.). ARMINLAJSr THEORY OP ORIGINAL SIN. 179 trines of sin and grace which were in the direction of the Greek anthropology and the Semi-Pelagian ism of the Ancient Church, though not identical in every respect. The clearest and most particular statement of the Arminian system, in its first form, is found in the Confession or Declaration^ drawn up by Episcopius, and in the Apology which he subsequently compos ed in explanation and defence of it. The writings of Arminius, although they do not furnish any for mal creed-statement, nevertheless throw much light upon the process by which Arminianism was grad ually formed by a mind that had been trained up under Beza, and had reacted from his supra-lapsari- anism. The Arminian anthropology accepts the doctrine of the Adamic unity, and states it in substantially the same phraseology with the Lutheran and Cal vinistic symbols ; but it explains the phraseology very differently from them. The language of the Confession or Declaration^ upon this subject, is the ' Confessio sive Declaratio Ke- time when this sin was commit- monstrantium ; Apologia pro Oon- ted, were in their loins, and who fessione. Episcopius : Opera II. have since descended from them Ed. Koterdami, 1665. by the natural mode of propaga- " The statement of Aeminius is tion, according to the primitive also very closely similar in phrase- benediction. For in Adam 'all ology to that of the Calvinistic have sinned.' Wherefore, what- symbols. "The whole of this ever punishment was brought [Adamic] sin, however, is not pe- down upon our flrst parents, has cuUar to our flrst parents, but is likewise pervaded, and yet pur- common to the entire race and to sues aU their posterity. So that aU their posterity, who, at the aU men ' are by nature the chil- 180 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. following. "Adam together with Eve transgressed the law of God. By this transgression, man, in ac cordance with the divine threatening, was made lia ble to eternal death and manifold miseries, and was deprived of that primitive felicity which he had re ceived in creation . . . But since Adam was the stem and root of the whole human race ... he in volved all his posterity who, as it were (quasi), had been shut up in his loins and were to issue from him by natural generation, in the same death and mis ery, and implicated them with himself, so that all men, indiscriminately, the Lord Jesus Christ alone being excepted, through this one single sin of Adam (per hoc unicum Adami peccatum) have been de prived of that primitive felicity, and have lost that true righteousness which is necessary in order to eternal life, and thus are born even now exposed to that death which we have mentioned, and to mam- fold miseries. And this is commonly denominated original sin. Ln respect to which, nevertheless, the doctrine must be held, that tlie most benevolent God has provided for all a remedy for that general evil which was derived to us from Adam, free and gra tuitous in his beloved Son Jesus Christ, as it were a new and another Adam. So that the hurtful error of those is plainly apparent, who a/re accustomed to dren of wrath,' obnoxious to con- nius : Disputatio VH. (Nichols' demnation, and to temporal as translation, I. 486). weU as to eternal death." Abmi- arminian theory of original sin. 181 found 'upon that [original] sin the decree of ahsolute reprobation, invented by themselves." ^ The doctrine of Eedemption seems to be brought to view in the above statement, in such a connection as to imply, that the evil which has come upon the posterity of Adam is of the nature of a misfortune, and not of a fault. It is not a sin that intrinsically merits eternal reprobation, so that God would have been just had he provided no redemption from it. Mankind are indeed subject to loss by their connec tion with the progenitor, but the Divine compassion has granted a compensation in the method of salva tion. Hence, when this phraseology respecting the Adamic connection and sin comes to be interpreted in the Apology, we find that the Arminian theolo gians hold original sin to be original e^*'? only, aud not guilt. The following extracts from the careful explanation "given by Episcopius show this, " The Eemonstrants do not regard original sin as sin prop erly so called, which renders the posterity of Adam deserving of the hatred of God ; nor as an evil which by the method of punishment properly so called (per modum proprie dictae poenae) passes from Adam to his posterity ; but as an evil, infirmity, injury (infirmitas, vitium), or by whatever other name it may be called, which is propagated to his posterity by Adam devoid of original righteousness, ' Confessio Kbmonsteantium : Caput VII, 182 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY, Whence it results, that all the posterity of Adam, destitute of the same righteousness, are whoUy unfit for, and incapable of attaining eternal life, — either to return of themselves into favor with God, or to discover a way whereby they may return, — except God by his new grace go before them, and restore as well as supply (restituat ac sufficiat) new strength by which they can attain it. And this the Eemon strants believe to have been signified by the expul sion of Adam from paradise, the type of heaven. For this calamity (calamitas) happened not only to Adam, but was common with him to all the pos terity of Adam. But that original sin (peccatum originis) is not evil in any other sense than this, — that it is not evil in the sense of implying guilt and desert of punishment (malum culpae, aut malum poenae), — is plain. It is not evU in the sense of implying guilt, because to be born is confessedly an involuntary thing, and therefore it is an involuntary thing to be born with this or that stain (labes), in firmity, injury, or evil. But if it is not an evil in the sense of implying guUt, then it cannot be an evU in the sense of desert of punishment ; because guilt and punishment are correlated , . , So far, there fore, as original sin is an evil, it must be in the sense in which the Eemonstrants define the term ; and is called original *mby a misuse of the word 'sin' {xaraxQi^GTixag). And this was the very sentiment of Zuingle, — at least that which he at first asserted. ARMINL^N THEORY OF ORIGINAL SIN. 183 and defended ; whether he afterwards retracted it, is not certain." ^ In defining the doctrine of imputation, the au thor of the Apology denies that the posterity were one with Adam in the primal act of apostasy, and, consequently, affirms that the Adamic transgression cannot be imputed to the posterity as truly and properly their sin. "The Eemonstrants acknowl edge that the sin of Adam may be said to be im puted to his posterity, so far forth as God has willed that the posterity of Adam should be born subject to the same evil to which Adam subjected himself byhis sin,* or, so far forth as God has permitted the evil, which had been inflicted upon Adam as a punishment, should flow and pass over to his pos terity [not as punishment, but as propagated evil]. But tliere is no ground for the assertion, that the sin of Ada/m was imputed to his posterity in the sense that God actually judged the posterity of Adam to he guilty of, a/nd chargeable with (reos), the same sin ' Apologia pro Confessione Ee- rectly a part of tbe penalty threat- monstrantium. Cap. VIL in Epis- ened to Adam. The body of oopius : Opera II. Adam was mortal by creation, " Yet this " evil," according to but in case he had not sinned, the statement in the Confessio death would not have befaUen it, nve Decla/ratio, is " eternal death, by reason of a divine prevention, together with manifold miseries." — "mortem homini primo natu- Eternal death, therefore, falls as ralem fuisse, sed mortem, quae punishment upon Adam, and as naturalis homini futura fuisset, evU but not punishment upon the non eventuram homini fuisse di- posterity. In the Apology, it is vino beneflcio, nisi peccaret." taught that temporal death, or Apologia, Cap. VIL the death of the body, is not di- 184 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. a/nd crime (culpa) which Ada/m had committed. Neither scripture, nor truth, nor wisdom, nor divine benevolence, nor the nature of sin, nor the idea of justice and equity, aUow that they should say that the sin of Adam was thus imputed to his posterity. Scripture testifies that God threatened punishment to Adam alone, and inflicted it upon Adam alone ; the Divine benevolence, veracity, and wisdom, do not permit that one person's sin should be imputed, strictly and literally, to another person ; it is con trary to the nature of sin, that that should be re garded as sin, and be properly imputed as sin, which was not committed by individual wiU (pro pria voluntate) ; it is contrary to justice and equity, that any one should be charged as guUty, for a sin that is not his own, or that he should be judged to be reaUy guilty who in respect to his own individ ual voluntariness is innocent, or, rather, not guilty. And the injustice is the greater, in proportion as the punishment which foUows the imputation is severer. Consequently, it is the height of injustice, when the penalty is an eternal suffering." -^ Arminius, also, in his Apology or Defence, remarks : " It may admit of discussion, whether God could be angry on ac count of original sin which was born with us, since it seems to be inflicted upon us by God as a punish ment of the actual sin which had been committed by Adam, and by us in him [putatively or nominaUy, 'A-pologia pro Confessione Eemonstrantium, Cap. VII. ARMINIAN THEORY OF ORIGINAL SIN. 185 i. e.J ... I do not deny that it is sin, but it is not actual sin . . . We must distinguish between ac tual sin and that which is the cause of other sins, and which on this very account may be denominated ' sin.' " ^ In further proof of the position, that the hereditary evil which is transmitted by propagation does not render the soul worthy of eternal damna tion, as it would if it were really and properly sin, the Apology makes the foUowing statement respect ing the character of infants: "The Eemonstrants decide with confldence, that God neither will, nor justly can, destine to eternal torment any infants who die without actual and individual sins, upon the ground of a sin which is caUed ' original,' which is said to be contracted by infants by no individual fault of theirs, but by the fault of another person, and which is believed to be theirs for no other rea son than that God wUls arbitrarily to impute it to them. This opinion is contrary to the Divine be nevolence, and to right reason ; nay it is uncertain which is greater, its absurdity or its cruelty." These extracts are sufficient to prove that the Arminian theologians did not believe that the unity between Adam and his posterity, which they as serted in their Confession or Decla/ration, was of such a nature as to make the flrst sinful act of Adam a common act of mankind, and thereby justify the imputation of original sin as truly and properly sin. ' Aeminius : Works by Nichols, I. 374. 186 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. Though employing the Augustinian phraseology respecting the Adamic connection, they put a dif ferent interpretation upon it from that which is found in both Lutheran and Calvinistic syinbols. Their objection to the doctrine that original sin is guilt, proceeds upon the assumption that Adam's act of apostasy was purely individual, and that the posterity were not in the progenitor in any such real sense as the phraseology of their own doctrinal statements, if taken in its strict and Uteral accepta tion, would imply. § 2. Arminia/n Theory of Regeneration. The Arminian anthropology also accepts the doc trine of the impotence to good of the apostate wUl, and states it in substantially the same phraseology with that of the Lutheran and Calvinistic symbols ; but it makes explanations and modifications that bring it into conflict with some fundamental posi tions ofthe Eeformers upon this subject. The Confession or Declaration of the Eemon strants makes the following statement : " Man has not saving faith from himself, neither is he regen erated or converted by the force of his own free will ; since, in the state of sin, he is not able, of and by himself, to think, will, or do any good thing, — any good thing that is saving in its nature, partic ularly conversion and saving faith. But it is neces sary that he be regenerated, and wholly renewed. ARMINIAN THEORY OF REGENERATION. 187 by God in Christ, through the truth of the gospel and the added energy of the Holy Spirit, — ^in intel lect, affections, will, and all his faculties, — so that he may be able (possit) rightly to perceive, meditate upon, will, and accomplish that which is a saving good." ^ This taken by itself, and understood in its literal obvious sense, would express the monergism of Augustine, Anselm, and the Eeformers ; but a the ory of grace is associated with it that differs essen tiaUy from theirs. This theory is presented in the following extract from the Confession : " Although there is the greatest diversity in the degrees in which grace is bestowed in accordance with the Divine will, yet the Holy Spirit confers, or at least is ready to confer, upon all and each to whom the word of faith is ordinarily preached, as much grace as is sufficient for generating faith and carrying forward their conversion in its successive stages. Thus, suf ficient grace for faith and conversion is allotted not only to those who actually believe and are convert ed, but also to those who do not actually believe, amd a/re not in fact converted. ... So that there is no decree of absolute reprobation." ^ This view of grace is synergistic. Every man that hears the gospel re ceives a degree of grace that is sufficient for regene ration. If, therefore, he is not regenerated it must be from the want of some hv/man efficiency to_co-^ operate with the Divine ; and therefore the differ- ' Confessio sive Declaratio, ° Confessio sive Declaratio, Cap. XVII. Cap. XVIL 188 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. ence between the saved and the lost, the elect and the non-elect, is ultimately referable to the human will. So far as the divine infiuence is concerned, the saved and lost stand upon the same position, and receive a degree of grace that is sufficient to save. But the former makes the grace effectual by an act of his own will ; whUe the latter nuUifies it by the same method. According to the monergistic theory, on the contrary, no man receives a grace that is sufficient for regeneration who does not receive such a degree of Divine influence as overcomes his hostile will ; so that regeneration is not conditioned upon any human efficiency, but is the result of a sovereign and irresistible energy. The dependence upon grace, in regeneration, in the Arminian anthro- •pologj, is partial ; in the Calvinistic anthropology, isjotal, " Grace," says Limborch,^ " is not the soli tary, yet it is the primary cause of salvation ; for the co-operation of free will is due to grace as a primary cause ; for unless the free wiU had been excited (excitatum) by prevenient grace, it would not be able to co-operate with grace." Here the influence of grace upon the will is that of excitation or stimulation, and not of renovation. Hence Lim borch can properly denominate the will's activity, co-operation. The faculty is inert and sluggish, as distinguished from averse and hostUe, and hence it can co-work in its own regeneration. ' Theologia Christiana, Lib. IV. cap. xiv. § 21. ARMINIAN THEORY OF REGENERATION. 189 The doctrine of human inability and divine grace is stiU further modifled by the Arminian theologians, by the position that God cannot demand faith irrespective of the bestowment of grace. This is very explicitly asserted by Arminius, in his an swer to the question : ' Can God, now, in his own right, require from faUen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself? Or does God bestow on all and every one, to whom the gospel is preach ed, sufficient grace by which they may believe if they wiU ? ' This was one of ' Nine Questions ' that were presented to the professors of divinity in the university of Leyden, for the purpose of obtaining their views ; and to it Arminius gave the following reply : " The parts of this question are not opposed to each other ; on the contrary they are in perfect agreement. So that the latter clause may be con sidered as giving the reason, why God may require from fallen man faith in Christ which he cannot have of himself For God may require this, since he has determined to bestow on man suffiicient grace by which he may believe. Perhaps, therefore, the question may be thus stated : ' Can God, now, in his own right, demand from fallen man faith in Christ which he cannot have' of himself, though God neither bestows on him, nor is ready to be stow, sufficient grace by which he may beUeve?' This question must be answered by a direct negative. God cannot by any right demand from fallen man faith in Christ which he cannot have, of himself. 190 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. except God has either bestowed, or is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe ifhewiU."^ This doctrine that the obUgation to faith does not rest upon faUen man irrespective of the aids of ' the Holy Spirit grew logically out of the Arminian definition of original sin. The inherited corruption has indeed brought man into such a condition that he cannot renew and save himself; but his cor- V ruption is an 'infirmity' or 'injury' and not a sin and fault. It is physical evil, and not culpable transgression. It is the result of Adam's individual act of apostasy, and not of an agency common to him and his posterity. The disability, therefore, under which man labors at birth is a misfortune, and not a crime. Original sin is not guUt. As a conse quence, it is no more ' than equitable, that God should furnish a grace that shall be a sufficient as sistance to overcome the inherited evU. In accord ance with this view, the Apology of the Eemon strants teaches that God grants a common grace to the heathen, which if rightly used is sufficient to secure moral virtue and salvation. The argument is as foUows : " In order that an act may be morally good, it is sufficient if it accords with right reason, — 1, e., if it proceeds from a mind which, though it be ignorant of the written law and the gospel, is really actuated by a desire for virtue, honesty, and probity, and does not intend to do anything con- ' Aeminius : Works by Nichols, I. p. 383. ARMINIAN THEORY OP REGENERATION. 191 trary to the divine wUl, and is not influenced by vain glory and self-love. For that a morally good act does not necessarily include the distinct inten tion to do only that which the written law or gos pel commands, — viz. : the positive desire to promote the divine glory, and faith in Christ, — ^is evident from the nature of the case ; for there have been many in every age, and stiU are to this day, who never even heard of the written law and gospel, who, nevertheless, no one would venture to deny, were and are morally good and virtuous (quos tamen moraliter bonos ac virtuosos esse aut fuisse, nemo facUe negaverit)." In answer to the objec tion drawn from the text : " Without faith it is im possible to please God," the Apology explains this to refer to a special divine approbation, such as was shown to Enoch in his translation. It has no gen eral reference. Again, the text: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," does not refer to justifying faith, but to sincerity and confidence in the mind.^ With this, accords the following statement of Limborch, who ranks with Episcopius as authority in the estimation of the Dutch Arminians. The question is asked: Are all those who are destitute of the knowledge of the gospel to be numbered among the lost, upon the ground that they have no means whereby they can attain to eternal Ufe ? To this Lim borch answers : " This does not appear at all con formable to truth. ... On the contrary, if certain ' Apologia Eemonstrantium, Cap. VI. Episcopius : Opera H. 146. 192 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. [pagans], in proportion to the measure of strength granted to them through that grace which is com mon to all men, strive after natural uprightness (honestati naturali operam dent), we believe that they also are pleasing to God (Deo gratos esse), in proportion to the kind of life they lead, nor are cer tainly excluded from salvation, and at the very least are not to be adjudged to eternal fire." ^ Such being the Arminian theory of original sin and regeneration, it was natural and logical that the Arminian statement of the doctrine of pre destination and election should also differ from that of Augustine and Calvin in a very marked degree. Arminius's first doubts in respect to the Calvinism in which he had been educated took their origin in this part of the system. Beza, under whom he had studied theology, had adopted the svprdrlapsaricm statement of the doctrine of pre destination, which renders the doctrine more austere and repeUing than the infra-lapsa/riom ' representa tion. In his reaction, he, and his foUowers after 'Theologia Christiana, Lib. rv. shall apostatize, and from this cap. U. apostasy some be recovered and ' Supra-lapsarianism holds, that some reprobated, are merely the the decree to eternal bliss or eter- means of accomplishing the pri- nal woe precedes, in the order of mary decree. According to the nature, the decree to apostasy ; Infra-lapsarians, the decrees to Infra-lapsarianism holds that it create men, and that they shaU succeeds it. According to the apostatize, are prior to that of Supra-lapsarians, the primary de- election and reprobation ; because cree is to bliss or woe ; and the men are elected from out of a decr«es to create men, that they state of sin and ruin, or else are ARMINIAN THEORY OF REGENERATION. 193 him, adopted a theory of election and predestina tion which differs essentially from that of the Ee formers, and from the Augustinian. It is the theory of conditional election; or of election upon the ground of a foreseen faith. Arminius's views are explicitly stated by him self, in his Declaration of Sentiments, which he de livered before the States of Holland in 1608, and are as follows : " The first decree of God concerning the salvation of man is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator. The second decree of God is that by which he decreed . to receive into favor tiiose who repent and believe . . . but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all im penitent persons and unbelievers. The third divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer, in a sufficient and efficacious manner, the means which were necessary for repentance and faith. The fourth divine decree is that by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he hnew from all eternity those indi viduals who would believe through his preventing grace, a/nd through his subsequent grace would per severe, . . . and by which foreknowledge, he Uke wise knew those who would not beUeve and perse vere." ^ reprobated in it. Election sup- mar, who endeavoured to commit poses apostasy as a fact. The the Synod to Supra-lapsarianism, Synod of Dort favoured Infra- ' Arminius : Works by Nichols, lapsarianism, in opposition to Go- I. 247. VOL. n. — 13 194 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. Upon examining this phraseology it wUl be found to teach that the decree of election is not a decree to originate faith in the sinner, but to reward faith in him. So far as the production of faith itself is concerned, the electing decree only furnishes the " means " which are necessary for repentance and faith. The efficiency that is to use these means is partly the energy of the Holy Spirit, — ^implied in the administration of the means " in a sufficient and efficacious manner," — and partly the energy of the human wiU. By this last, the decree of election is conditioned, God decrees to bestow salvation upon those who make the " means " which he be stows, and the degree of divine infiuence which he grants, actuaUy efficacious by their own self-deci sion.^ § 3. Recapitulation. A recapitulation of the principal characteristics of the Arminian anthropology, as derived from the original sources, gives the following particulars : 1, The Arminians, in the controversy with the Calvinists, asserted that original sin is not guilt ; and that a decree of reprobation to eternal punishment could not be founded upon it.*^ 2. The Arminians ' Compare History of Symbols. sufBcient to condemn the whole " " The Synod rejects the error human race, and merits temporal of those who teach that it is not and eternal punishment." Ca- true that original sin of itself is nones Synodi Dordreohtanae, RECAPrrULATION. 195 held that original sin does not include a sinful incli nation of the wUl ; it is an inherited corruption whose seat is the physical and inteUectual parts, but not the voluntary.^ 3. The Arminians asserted that by reason of original sin, man of himself is unable to be morally perfect and holy ; but inasmuch as the inherited corruption which is the cause of this ina biUty is involuntary, the inability is a misfortune and not a fault, and therefore man is not obligated to be morally perfect without the renewing grace of the gospel. 4. Adam's act of apostasy was pure ly individual, and therefore cannot be imputed to his posterity as guilt. 5. The will of man, though not competent to perfectly obey the law of God without the assisting influence of the Holy Spirit, is competent to co-operate with that assistance.^ 6. The influence of the Holy Spirit is granted upon condition that the human will concurs and co-works. Cap. in. IV. NiEMEYEE : Collec- nones Syn. Dordrecht. Niemey- tio, p. 717. BE : CoUectio, p. 713. ' " The synod rejects the error ' " The synod condemns the er- of those who teach that spiritual ror of those who teach that grace gifts are not lost from the will of and free wUl are each partial and man in spiritual death, because concurrent causes at the com- the will was never corrupted in mencement of conversion ; that itself, but is only impeded by the grace does not precede the eflS- darkness of the intellect and the ciency of the will in the order of inordinate appetites of the flesh : causality, — that is, that God does which impediments being remov- not efiiciently aid (juvare) the ed, the wUl is able to exert its in- wiU of man to conversion, before nate freedom,— that is, of itself, the will itself moves and deter- either to wUl or to choose, or not mines itself." Canones Synodi to wUl or not to choose whatso- Dordreohtanae, Niemetee : Col- ever good is set before it." Ca- lectio, p. 715. 196 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. The success of the divine influence depends upon the use which man makes of his own will ; conse quently, election is conditional upon a foresight that a particular man will co-operate with the Holy Spirit. • CHAPTEE IX. TOTAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY. A REVIEW of the ground we have gone over in Anthropology will help to generalize, and classify, the materials which we have thus coUected from the various sources and authorities. . In the fwst place, the doctrines of sin and grace, in their more difficult and scientific aspects, did not seriously engage the attention of the Church during the first three centuries after the closing of the New Testament Canon. No controversy arose respecting original sin and regenerating grace, untU the open ing of the 5th century. The Church, both East and West, generally held the doctrine of an inherited corruption as distinguished from an inherited guilt, the doctrine of synergistic regeneration, and was si lent upon the doctrine of election and predestination. Secondly, At the same time, in these first centuries, previous to the Pelagian controversy, there were two tendencies at work, that had reference to the 198 HISTORY OP ANTHROPOLOGY. doctrine of original sin. One was, to convert the doctrine of inherited corruption or evil, into that of inherited guUt. The other was, to abolish the doc trine of inherited corruption altogether. The first tendency reached its terminus in Augustinianism; the second in Pelagianism. Thirdly. The theory of Pelagius, which rejected the doctrine of original sin in any definition of it, was condemned by the whole Church, East and West. This left within the Church two main currents of opinion in anthropol ogy, — ^that of the 2d and 3d centuries, and that of Augustine ; or, the Greek and Latin Anthropologies. The first was the doctrine of inherited evU but not inherited guilt, with its logical coroUaries. The last was the doctrine of inherited guilt, with its logical results. Fourthly. The Augustinian anthropology was rejected in the East, and though at first tri umphant in the West, was graduaUy displaced by the Semi-Pelagian theory, or the theory of inherited, evil, and synergistic regeneration. This theory was finally stated for the Papal Church, in an exact form, by the Council of Trent. The Augustinian anthropology, though advocated in the Middle Ages by a few individuals Uke Gottschalk, Bede, Anselm, and Bernard, slumbered until the Eeformation, when it was revived by Luther and Calvin, and op posed by the Papists. Fifthly. After Protestantism had become established, the old antagonism between the two theories of inherited guilt and inherited evU, again revived in the Calvinistic and Arminian TOTAL SURVEY. 199 controversy, and has perpetuated itself down to the present time, — ^the whole of modern evangelical Christendom being ranged partly upon one side, and partly upon the other side of the line that sep arates these two systems. The opposing currents of opinion in Anthropolo gy, then, have been the following. In the Ancient Church, the Greek and Latin anthropologies in their more general forms prevaU at first, and gradually pass over into the more distinct statements of Au gustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism, — Pelagianism being rejected by both parties. In the Mediaeval Church, Semi-Pelagianism has fuU sway, with the exception of a few individual minds. At the Reformation, the Protestants re-instate Augustinian ism, and the Papists maintain the mediaeval Semi- Pelagianism. In the Modern Church, the Calvin ists re-affirm the positions of the first Protestant symbols, while the Arminians recede from them to wards the Semi-Pelagian theory, — ^both parties aUke rejecting the Socinianism which had come into ex istence, and which corresponds to the Pelagianism of the Ancient church. BOOK FIFTH. HISTORY SOTERIOLOGY, LITEEATUEE. Ansblmttb : Cur Deus Homo ? Petavius : De theologicis dogmatibus. Liber xii. BEiiiiABMnros : Disputationes de controversus fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos. Gebhardus : Loci Theologici, Tom. IV. Canones CoNCiLn Tridentini : in locis. Grotius : Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione. CuRCELLAEUs : Institutio religionis Christianae, Liber VII. Socnors : Praelectiones Theologicae, Cap. XVl.-XVIII. Hooeer : On Justification. Davbnant : Disputatio de justitia (translated by AUport). Owen : On Justification. Magee : On Atonement and Sacrifice. Baur: Versohnungslehre. Mohler : SymboUk (translated by Eobertson). Baur : Der Gegensatz des KathoUcismus und Protestantismus. Etaugblische Kirchenzeitung, 1834 : GescMchtliches aus der Versohnungs-und Genugthuungslehre. Hasse : Anselm von Canterbury, Bd. II. Rbdepenning: Origenes. CHAPTEE I. SOTERIOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. § 1. Preliminary Statements, In presenting the history of the Doctrine of Atonement, we shall use the term in its strict signi fication, as denoting the expiatory work of Christ. Soteriology has sometimes been made to include the subjects of Christology and the Incarnation in such a manner that the distinctively piacular agency of the Eedeemer constitutes only a very subordinate part of this division of Dogmatic History. The doc trinal history of Petavius^ furnishes a striking ex ample of this. This writer treats of the work of Christ under the general head of the Incarnation. WhUe the entire work comprises sixteen books, each containing upon an average fifteen chapters, the sacrificial work of Christ is briefly discussed in one, or at most in two,* of the chapters of the twelfth ' Pbtavius : De theologicis dog- " Chapters VI. and IX. matibus. 204 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. book. This was owing partly to the fact that the Person of Christ, in this history of ecclesiastical opinions, was far more in the eye of the historian, than the world of Christ ; and partly because the distinctively Protestant doctrine of vicarious satis faction was not very much a matter of interest for the strenuous though learned Jesuit. While, there fore, the history of the Arian and SabeUian heresies, and of the Monophysite and MonotheUte controver sies, is thoroughly written, and drawn from the im mediate sources, the opinions of the apostolic, pa tristic, and scholastic periods, respecting the rela tions of the work of Christ to Divine justice, are exhibited in a very meagre and unsatisfactory man ner. Taking the term atonement in its technical sig nification, to denote ihe satisfaction of Divine justice for the sin of man, by the substituted penal sufferings of the Son of God, we shall find a slower scientific unfolding of this great cardinal doctrine than of any other of the principal truths of Christianity. Our investigations in this branch of inquiry will disclose the fact, that while the doctrines of Theology and Anthropology received a considerably fuU develop ment during the Patristic and Scholastic periods, it was reserved for the Protestant church, and the Modern theological mind, to bring the doctrines of Soteriology to a correspondent degree of expansion. GNOSTIC AND EBIONITE THEORIES. 205 § 2. Gnostic and Ebionite Theories of the Atone ment, During the first two centuries, the Christian the ologian was led to investigate the doctrine of the work of Christ, either by the attacks of heretics, or the defective statements of pretended believers. As in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, we found exact statements to be forced upon the church by the inaccurate statements of false teachers, so we shaU see in the history of the doctrine of Atonement, that the truth received its scientific development no faster than the Christian mind was urged up either to a defensive, or a polemic position, by the activity of the heretic or the latitudinarian. There were two heretical views of the Atonement, during the first two centuries, which, inasmuch as they affected the true view of the work of Christ, gave direction to the orthodox statements of it. These were the Gnostic and the Ebionite. Gnosticism appeared in two forms, and broach ed two theories respecting the Person and work of Christ. That of BasiUdes (a. d. 125) affirmed only a human suffering in the Eedeemer, which was not expiatory, for two reasons : first, because as merely human it was finite, and inadequate to atone for the sins of the whole world of mankind ; and, secondly, because the idea of substituted penal suffering is in admissible. Penal suffering, or suffering for pur- 206 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. poses of justice, Basilides maintained, of necessity impUes personal criminality in the sufferer, and therefore can never be endured by an innocent per son Uke Christ. The principle of vicarious substi tution, in reference to justice, is untenable. The Gnosticism of Marcion (a. d. 150) affirmed a divine suffering in the Eedeemer, which however was only apparent, because the Logos having assumed a do cetic, or spectral human body, only a seeming suffer ing could occur. This suffering, like that in the scheme of Basilides, could not of course be expia tory.-^ It was merely emblematical, — designed to symbolize the religious truth, that man in order to his true and highest Ufe must die to the earthly Ufe. The Ebionite denied any connection between man and God in the Person of the Eedeemer, other than that which exists in the life of any and every man. Eejecting the doctrine of expiation altogeth er, he occupied the position of the Jew, whom Paul so constantly opposes, and insisted upon a purely legal righteousness. If now we examine these Gnostic and Judaizing theories, we find that they agree in one capital re spect,^ — viz. : in the rejection of the Scripture doc trine of a real and true expiation of human guilt. The Gnostic and the Ebionite, though differing ' " For Thou hadst not forgiven hy the crucifixion of a phantasm, me any of these things in Christ : which I believed Him to be ? " nor hid He abolished by His cross Attgustinb : Confessions, V. ix. the enmity which by my sins I 16. had incurred. For how could He, SOTERIOLOGY OP THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 207 much in their general notions respecting the Person of Christ, both agreed in regard to his atoning work. Both alike rejected the doctrine of atone ment, in the strict and proper meaning of the term, as signifying the satisfaction of justice. § 3.. Soteriology of the Apostolic Fathers. The first endeavour of the orthodox mind, in opposition to these heretical opinions, was, conse quently, to exhibit the nature and purpose of the sufferings and death of Christ. So far as their nature is concerned, they were uniformly and dis tinctly affirmed to be the sufferings and death of a theanthropic Person, — ^i. e., a being in whom Deity and humanity were mysteriously blended in the unity of a single personality. With respect to their purpose, the point with which we are more immedi ately concerned, we shaU find less distinctness in the earlier than in the later periods of the history of this doctrine ; yet at the same time, an unequivocal statement that the purpose of Christ's death is judi cial, and expiatory of human guilt. In the writings of the ApostoUc Fathers, we ob tain the views of the Church upon the doctrine of the Atonement during the first half century after the death of the last inspired apostle (a. d. 100- 150). Examining them, we find chiefly the rep etition of Scripture phraseology, without further at tempt at an explanatory doctrinal statement. There 208 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. is no scientific construction of the doctrine of Atone ment in the writings of these devout and pious dis ciples of Paul and John ; yet the idea of vicarious satisfaction is distinctly enunciated by them. Poly- ca/rp (f 168), the pupil of John, writes in his Epistle to the PhiUppians: " Christ is our Saviour ; for through grace are we righteous, not by works ; for our sins, he hcts even taken death iipon himself, has become the servant of us aU, and through his death for us our hope, and the pledge of our righteousness. The heaviest sin is unbeUef in Christ ; his blood wiU be demanded of unbeUevers ; for to those to whom the death of Christ, which obtains the forgiveness of sins, does not prove a ground of justification, it proves a ground of condemnation." "Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered himself to be brought even to death for ou/r sins / . . . let us, therefore, without ceasing, hold steadfastly to him who is our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, ' who bare ou/r sins in his own body on the tree.'"^ Lgnatius (f 116), the pupil of John, is perhaps somewhat less urgent than Polycarp, in respect to the point of vicarious satisfaction. He seems more incUned to consider the work of Christ in reference to the sanctification than the justifica tion of the believer. It is a favourite view with him, that the death of Christ brings the human soul into communion with Christ, It is the means 'PoLTCAEPUs: Ad Philippos, 1, 8. SOTERIOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 209 of imparting that principle of spiritual life which was lost in the fall. Christ's redemptive work is a manifestation of love, of self denying and self-impart ing affection on the part of the Eedeemer, by which a corresponding affection is wrought in the heart of the believer. And yet the expiatory agency of Christ is explicitly recognized by Ignatius. In one passage, he speaks of Christ as the One " who gave himself to God, an offering and sacrifice for us.-^ In another place, he bids believers to " stir " themselves up to duty, " by the blood of Godr In another place, he remarks that " if God had dealt with us accord ing to our works, we should not now have had a be ing ; " but that now under the gospel, we " have peace through the fiesh, and blood, and passion of Jesus Christ}' -^ In Barnabas, the pupil of Paul, we flnd a clear expression of the atoning agency ofthe Eedeem er. Such phraseology as the foUowing contains the doctrine of justification as distinguished from sancti fication: "The Lord endured to deUver his body to death, that we might be sanctified by the re mission of sins which is by the shedding of that blood. " ^ Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians speaks, generally, more of Christ's work than of other parts of the Christian system, and dweUs particularly upon his death. The view of Christ's sufferings, he says, 'Ignatius: AdEphesos, 1 ; Ad "Baenabas: Epistola, 5. Magnesios, 10 ; Ad TraUios (Pre face). VOL. n. — 14 210 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. consumes pride, teaches us humUity, and draws us to the death of penitence (c. Y). Hence it is a chief sign and duty of a Christian continually to have the death of Christ before his eye. His meaning in this, says Dorner, is not merely that Christ has pre sented us an example of humUity and patience, though this thought is not foreign to Clement (c. 16) ; but his death is the principle, or efficient cause of true repentance, — ^i. e., works that repent ance which in faith receives actual forgiveness of sins. For " his blood was given for us, was poured out for our salvation ; he gave, by the will of God, his body for owr body, his soul for our souV (c. 49). Every explanation of these passages, continues Dor ner, is forced, which does not find in them the idea of vicarious substitution, and this not merely in the sense of a subjective disposition, like that which led Christ to suffer for the good of others, but an ob jective work producing objective results, in refer ence to the Divine nature and government. ^ Hence, the name so frequently given to Christ in the Epis tle to the Hebrews of " high priest " is very com mon in Clement. The following extracts exhibit the distinctness with which Clement discriminated justification from sanctification : " Let us look stead fastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious his blood is in the sight of God, which being shed for our salvation hath obtained the grace of repent- DoENUE : Person Christi, I. 138 sq. SOTERIOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 211 ance to the whole world. . . . We are not jus tified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the works which we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which almighty God hath justified all men from the be ginning." ^ In the statement that " we are not jus tified by the works which we have done in holiness of heart," the most subtle form of the doctrine of justification by works is precluded, fourteen cen turies before its enunciation at Trent. It is evident from this examination of the very brief writings of the Apostolic Fathers, that they recognized the doctrine of atonement for sin by the death of the Eedeemer as one taught in the Scrip tures, and especially in the writings of those two great apostles, John and Paul, at whose feet they had most of them been brought up. They did not, however, venture beyond the phraseology of Scrip ture ; and they attempted no rationale of the dogma. Their unanimous and energetic rejection of the doc trine of justification by works evinces that they did not stand upon the position of legalism. The evan gelical tenet was heartily and earnestly held in their religious experience, but it was not drawn forth from this its warm and glowing home, into the cool and clear Ught of the intellect, and of theological science. The relations of this sacrificial death to the justice of God on the one hand, and to the conscience of ' Clemens Romassus : Ad Coriuthos, 7, 32. 212 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. man on the other, — ^the judicial reasons and grounds of this death of the most exalted of Personages, — were left to be investigated and exhibited in later ages, and by other generations of theolo gians. § 4. Early Patristic Soteriology. Passing from the Apostolic to the Primitive Fathers, we find some progress in the scientific statement of the doctrine of Atonement. Yet, taken as a whole, the body of Patristic theology exhibits but an imperfect theoretic comprehension of the most fundamental truth in the Christian sys tem, — ^imperfect, that is, when compared with the , very able scientific construction of the doctrine of the Trinity which we have found in the Patristic writings. One characteristic of the Early Patristic Soteri ology which strikes the attention is the important part which the doctrine of Satan plays in it. The death of Christ is often represented as ransoming man from the power and slavery of the devil. Such passages as Colossians ii. 15, and Hebrews ii. 14, — " Having spoUed principalities and powers [Satanic dominion], he made a show of them openly, triumph ing over them in it. ... That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil," — 'Were made the foundation of EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 213 this view.^ The writer who exhibits it more plainly and fully than any other, is Lrenaeus { f 200 ?). As an iUustration of his sentiments, we quote a passage from the first chapter of the fifth book of his important work, Adversus Haereses : " The Word of God [the Logos], omnipotent and not wanting in essential justice, proceeded with strict justice even against the apostasy or kingdom of evil itself (apostasiam), redeeming from it (ab ea) that which was his own originaUy, not by using violence, as did the devil in the beginning, but by persuasion (secundum suadelam), as it became God, so that neither justice should be infringed upon, nor the original creation of God perish." * Two interpretations of this phraseology are pos sible. The " persuasion " may be referred to Satan, or to man; and the "claims" alluded to may be regarded as those of the devil, or of law and jus tice. The first interpretation is that of Baur, who thinks that he discovers a heretical idea in Irenaeus, the great opponent of heretics ; a Gnosticising tend ency in the most vehement opposer of Gnosticism. According to Baur, Irenaeus substitutes the Devil for the Demiurge, in his scheme, so that the differ ence between himself and his opponents is merely nominal. The Gnostic, with his crude notions of a ' Perhaps a text like Isaiah xlix. ^ Ieenaeus : Adversus Haereses, 34 : " Shall the prey be taken from V. i. 1 (Ed. Harvey). See further the mighty, or the lawful captive extracts from Irenaeus, in MiJN- be delivered ? " falls into the same sohee-Von Colln, I. 426. class. 214 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. Supreme Deity, and a descending series of inferior divinities, very naturally attributed to the inferior being what properly belongs only to the Supreme God. Creation, for example, was the work of a sub ordinate divinity, the Demiurge in his terminology. The Creator of the world and the God of Chris tianity, in the Gnostic scheme, were two distinct beings, in necessary and irreconcilable hostility to one another. Man has fallen into the power of the Demiurge and his demons, and redemption, accord ing to the Gnostic, is the endeavor of the Highest Divinity to deliver man from their power. Now, according to Baur, Irenaeus, living in the very midst of the heat and glow of this ingenious and imposing system of speculation, though intend ing to oppose it with all his might, was yet imcon sciously affected by the spirit of the time, and moulded into his own system elements that were purely Gnostic. The notion of a conflict between the Eedeemer and the Demiurge, Baur contends, laid the foundation for the first form of the orthodox theory of the atonement.^ The ransoming of man from the power and slavery of Satan, in the view of this writer, is equivalent to the ransoming of man from the power and bondage of the Demiurge and his demons ; and, accordingly, we have in the treatise of Irenaeus, though written professedly against the Gnostic scheme, only an expansion bf ' Baue : Versohnungslehre, 28, 29. EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 215 the same general notions that appear in the Ophite and Marcionite Gnosticism.^ But the other view which may be taken of this phraseology of Irenaeus, and of the Early Fathers is unquestionably the correct one, and to this we turn our attention ; first making some preliminary remarks respecting the Early Patristic Soteriology. It is not to be denied that in the writings of the first three centuries, disproportionate attention is bestowed upon the connection between redemption and the kingdom of darkness, and upon the relation of apostate man to Satan. The attribute of divine justice ought to have been brought more con spicuously into view by the theologian of this period, and the person and agency of the devil have retired more into the back-ground. It was reserved for a later age, as we shall see, to make this modification in the mode of apprehending the doctrine, and thereby bring the Soteriology of the church into closer agreement with the general instructions of revelation. For it is very plain that in seizing so rankly, as the theological mind of this age did, upon those few texts in which the connec tion and relations of Satan with the work of Christ are spoken of, and allowing them to eclipse those far more numerous passages in which the Ee deemer's work is exhibited in its reference to the beiug and attributes of God, it was liable to a one- ' Compare Doenbe'8 criticism upon this view of Baur. Person Christi, I. 497 (Note). 216 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. sided construction of the doctrine. Eedemption un questionably in one of its aspects looks hell-ward. The kingdom of Satan does feel the influence of the mediatorial plan, and any theory that should en tirely reject this side and relation of the atone ment would be destitute of some features that are distinctly presented in the Scripture representations of the general doctrine. But it was an error in the Soteriology of these first ages that a subordinate part of the subject should have been made so promi nent, and in some instances so exclusive a charac teristic. Having made this concession, however, in respect to the scientific value of the Early Patristic theory of the atonement, we proceed to show that there was a difference in kind between it and the Gnostic theory, and no essential difference between it and the later Protestant theory. This difference consists in the recognition oi the judicial andi piacu lar nature of Christ's work, AU true scientific development of the doctrine of the Atonement, it is very evident, must take its departure from the idea of divine justice. This conception is the primary one in the Biblical repre sentation of this doctrine. The terms, "propitia tion" and "sacrifice," and the phraseology, "made a curse for us," "made sin for us," "justified by blood," "saved from wrath," which so frequently occur in the revealed statement of the truth, im mediately direct the attention of the theologian to that side of the divine character, and that class of EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY, 217 divine attributes, which are summed up in the idea of justice. And as we follow the history of the doctrine down, we shaU find that just in proportion as the mind of the Church obtained a distinct and philosophic conception of this great attribute, as an absolute and necessary principle in the divine na ture, and in human nature, was it enabled to specify with distinctness the real meaning and purport of the Eedeemer's Passion, and to exhibit the rational and necessary grounds for it. Now turning to the writings of the Patristic period, we shaU see that the sufferings and death of the Eedeemer are, in the main, represented as sustaining their most immediate and important rela tion to the justice of God. It is not to be dis guised that the distinctness with which this is done varies with different writers. We shall find in this period, as in every other one, some minds for whom the pollution of sin is more impressive than its criminality, and in whose experience the doctrine of justification is less formative than the doctrine of sanctification. For, in tracing the construction of a systematic doctrine, we are to observe that there may be agreement between the views of two differ ent writers, while yet one grasps the subject with much greater firmness, discriminates with much greater distinctness, and affirms with much greater confidence and certainty, than the other. Again, the neglect to make the positive and scientific state ment is by no means tantamount to a denial of the 218 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. positive and scientific statement. The mind may merely be in obscurity, and unable to take a clear scientific view, much more, to present one. But its tendency is towards the thorough systematic state ment, and though unable to make it itself would cordially accept it when made by another mind. Compare Irenaeus with Anselm, for example. That part of the work against the Gnostic heretics which treats of the atonement is by no means equal in clearness, discrimination, and fuUness, to the Cur Deus Homo ; and yet it would be incorrect, for this reason, to represent the soteriology of Irenaeus as contradictory to that of Anselm. In these in stances, in which the difference between two writers is owing to further expansion, and not to intrinsic contradiction in opinions, the text applies, " He that is not against us, is for us." Consider, for example, the following extract from the Epistle Ad Diognetum. "God himself gave up his own Son a ransom for us {vntQ nficov), the holy for the unholy, the good for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the cor ruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins, but his righteousness ? In whom was it possible for us the unholy and the un godly to be justified, except the Son of God alone ? O sweet exchange ! O wonderful operation ! O un looked for benefit ! That the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one^ that the righteousness of EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 219 one should justify many ungodly."^ Is not the whole doctrine of vicarious satisfaction contained in these words ? Would not the attempt to find their fuU meaning short of this require the same sort of effort, and ingenuity, which must be employed in order to explain away the element of vicariousness from such Scripture texts as teach that the Ee deemer was " made sin," was " made a curse," and is a propitiatory sacrifice ? The silence of the writer respecting those questions which arise when the scientific construction of the doctrine is attempted, — such as : How is the penal suffering of the Divine substitute made efficacious to the sinner ? How is this suffering an infinite and adequate one? — ^the silence upon these and kindred questions, the an swer to which would involve a fuller development of the doctrine of the Person of Christ than had yet been made, and the neglect to enter into a system atic construction, is very far from being evidence that the writer of this Epistle rejected the doctrine of pardon through expiation, as Baur contends.'^ For one needs only to ask the question : Would a the ologian who positively and totally rejected the doc trine of satisfaction have expressed himself at all in the terms of this extract ? to see that the faith and feeling of an Anselm and a Luther dwelt in the heart of this writer of the second century. ' Epistola ad Diognetum. Jus- doubtedly belongs to the 2d cen- TiNus Maettb : Opera, p. 238, Ed. tury. Par. 1742. Though prohably not ^ Batte : Versohnungslehre, 26 the work of Justin Martyr, it un- (Note). 220 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. Eeturning again to Irenaeus, we find in the very extract cited by Baur as proof that Irenaeus sub stituted the Devil for the Demiurge in his soteri ology, the evidence that he too took his departure from the attribute of divine justice. For why could not the Deity deliver man from Satan by force, by the mere exercise of the divine omnipo tence ? Because, in the words already cited, " the Logos, omnipotent and not 'wanting in essential justice, proceeded according to strict justice even towards the kingdom of evil (apostasiam), redeem ing from it that which was His own originally, not by violence but by persuasion, as it became God, so that neither justice should be infringed upon, nor the original creation of God perish." In this ex tract, Baur asserts that diabolum is the elliptical word, so that the " persuasion " exercised by God terminates upon Satan. The Deity persuades the Devil to relax his grasp upon a being who originally belonged to God, and has come into the power of Satan only by deception, and consequently by in justice. To this interpretation there are three objections.^ 1. This mode of representing the relation be tween the Supreme Being and the Satanic Spirit implies a dualistic theory of God and universe ; but there is no dualism in the system of Irenaeus. In the Gnostic theory, the two beings, and the two '"Whether Irenaeus regards sentation, but Origen teaches this the ransom as actually paid to the unmistakably." Hasse : Anselm, devil, is not clear from his repre- II. 487. EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 221 kingdoms of light and darkness, stand very nearly upon an equality. It would be in keeping with Gnostic ideas, to represent the Holy One as plying the Evil One with arguments and entreaties to release a creature whom he could not deliver by vir tue of resources within himself But there is no such dualism in Irenaeus. No one can peruse the five books against the Gnostic heresies, without see ing on every page evidences of that exalted idea of the Supreme Being which pervades the Scriptures, and which utterly forbids that leveling process by which the Infinite Jehovah is degraded to a mere rival of Satan, and by which the kingdom of darkness becomes as eternal and independent as the kingdom of Ught. If we do not find the Soteriology of Irenaeus as fuUy elaborated as that of the Eeform ers, we do find that his Theology, in respect to the point of the absolute supremacy of God over evil as well as good, is as distinct and scriptural as that of Calvin himself. We must therefore refer the " persuasion," spoken of in this extract from Irenaeus, to man ; such indeed is indisputably the reference in other passages.'^ Irenaeus means to ' Compare Ieenaeus : Adver- enim homo non vicisset inimicum sus Haereses, V. xxv. (Ed. Har- hominis, non juste victus esset vey). Some light is thrown upon inimicus." Here the word " jus- the meaning of the word "jus- t6 " evidently signifles fitness or tice " in the extract under consid- adaptation. He who redeems eration, by the following passage man must be both God and man, firom Adversus Haereses, III. vi. — as Irenaeus proceeds to argue (Ed. Harvey): "Haerere itaque in the context. See, also, Doenee: fecit et adunivit quemadmodum Person Christi; I. 479 (Note). praediximus, hominem deo. Si 222 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. teach, that as man fell freely, by the deception and persuasion of the Devil, so he must be recovered from his fall in a manner consistent with moral free dom. Mankind did not apostatize through compul sion, but by persuasion (suadendo) ; consequently their redemption must take the same course, even though Satan should derive advantage from this renunciation of the use of power on the part of the Almighty, and the consequent possibility, by reason of the appeal to the free will of the creature, of man's still remaining his slave. 2. Again, the "justice " spoken of in this extract, by which the method of salvation is limited, is plainly an attribute in the Divine Nature, and not a mere claim of the Devil upon either man or God which re quires satisfaction. The two attributes of omnipo tence and justice are exhibited side by side, and the latter limits the former, by virtue of its necessary moral character. The former is merely a natural at tribute, and unalUed with a moral one like justice, or still more if opposed to it, would not be the attribute of a holy and good Being. Isolated omnipotence is isolated force, and as such belongs properly to the pantheistic conception of the Deity. In the theistic conception, all the natural attributes are regulated by the moral, and cannot be regarded as operating in isolation from each other, or in opposition to each other. This Irenaeus clearly teaches, in saying that the " Logos all powerful, and perfectly just, yet pro ceeds in strict just/ice even in respect tothe apostate EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 223 world itself" The doctrine taught in this phrase ology is the same that is contained in the Protestant statement of the doctrine of the atonement, viz. : that the work of Christ preserves the harmony of the divine attributes in the plan of redemption, so that the omnipotence of the Deity shall not over throw the justice of the Deity, by arbitrarily remit ting the penalty due to transgression without any satisfaction of law. 3. StiU another evidence that Irenaeus contem plated the "justice" whose claims were tobe satis fied by the atonement of the Son of God, as intrinsic in the Deity, and not extrinsic in Satan, is found in the fact that he held to the absolute and not merely relative necessity of the death of Christ, in order to human salvation. We shaU have occasion hereafter to allude to this point, and therefore shall touch it briefly here. In discussing the nature of the atonement, the question naturaUy arises : Does the necessity of ex piation in order to pardon arise from the nature of the case, or from an arbitrary arrangement ? could the Deity have dispensed with any or all satisfac tion of justice, or is justice of such an absolute and necessary character, that it would be as impossible to save the guilty without an antecedent satisfaction of this attribute, as it would be for God to Ue ? Now, in answering this question, Irenaeus is found among that class of the Fathers who affirm the ab- 224 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. solute necessity of an atonement ; ^—another class inclining to the view of a relative necessity, or a necessity dependent upon the optional wUl and ap pointment of God. This is conclusive evidence that he could not have regarded the chief and sole ob stacle in the way of human redemption as consist ing in Satan's character and claims. For nothing extrinsic to the Deity could thus inexorably Umit the divine omnipotence. Yet, according to Irenaeus, this omnipotence is thus limited. The necessity of atonement is absolute and unavoidable. The lim itation must, therefore, be a ^eZf-limitation, and pro ceed from an immanent attribute in the Deity, and this attribute is eternal justice. We conclude this sketch of the opinions of Ire naeus with a paraphrase and expansion of Dorner's summing up.^ " Justice, in the scheme of Irenaeus, stands between the physical attributes of infinity, omnipotence, etc., and the ethical attributes of com passion and love, as a protector and watch. For this reason, God will and can accomplish no work that is spiritual in a merely physical manner ; he must win over man by the manifestation of that which is spiritual, — that is, by the highest and fuUest possible exhibition of his love. But love is of two kinds, active and passive ; the former manifests itself by doing something to its object, the latter by suffering something for it. The highest and fuUest manifes- ' Ieenaeus : Adversus Haere- " Doenee : Person Christi, I. ses, HI. xix. (Ed. Harvey). 480. EARLY PATRISTIC SOTERIOLOGY. 225 tation of love would consequently include the pas sive form of the affection, as well as the active form, — an endurance namely, of suffering in behalf of the object of benevolence, if suffering is necessary from the nature of the case. But suffering is absolutely necessary, because now that sin and guilt have come into the world divine justice cannot be satisfied except by penal infliction. Consequently the mani festation of the love of God takes on a passive as well as active form, and vicariously bears the pen alty of guUt in the place of the criminal." For these reasons, therefore, it is impossible to concede the position of Baur, that the foundations of the Church doctrine of the atonement were laid in the theory of the satisfaction of the claims of Satan, and not of divine justice. If this theory can be found in any of the Christian Fathers, it must be in Irenaeus. But this writer shows no traces of such a dualism as is implied in a struggle between God and Satan. He represents the limitations in the method of redemption as being of an absolute and inexora ble nature, such as can proceed only out of an im manent attribute of the Godhead. One of the most important portions of his work ^ is devoted to the proof that the sufferings of Christ were real, and * Ieenaeus : Adversus Haere- fonnd of satisfaction done by the ses. III. xix. (Ed. Harvey). It is sufierings of Christ to divine jus- a singular assertion of Neandee tiee," — especially, as he finds the (Church History, I. 642) that in doctrine of satisfaction in the the writings of Irenaeus, "not comparatively brief and indirect the slightest mention is to be statements of Justin Martyr. VOL. n. — 15 226 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. not, as the Gnostic maintained, spectral and docetic ; and this for the purpose of showing that the satis faction made for sin was real and absolute. It can not, therefore, be supposed that this influential church Father of the early centuries was involved, without being aware of it, in the errors of Gnos ticism, and that his Soteriology is only a modifica tion bf a scheme which he spent his best strength ia combating. § 5. Alexa/nd/rine Soteriology. Passing from Irenaeus to the school of Alexan drine theologians, we come to less correct and dis criminating views of the atonement. This school, of whom Clement of Alexandria and Origen were the founders and heads, felt the influence of the Gnostic systems to some extent, besides being it self animated by a remarkably strong speculative spirit. The Alexandrine theologian was unduly engaged with those questions respecting the origin of the material universe, and of moral evil, which had so bewildered the mind of the Gnostic. Men like Origen desired to answer these questions, and in the endeavour oftentimes lost sight of those more strictly theological subjects which .address themselves to the moral consciousness of man, and are connected with his religious character and future destiny. Such thinking upon such subjects ALEXANDRINE SOTERIOLOGY. 227 falls more properly within the sphere of cosmogony and theosophy, than of theology. We had occasion to observe, that the Gnostics all agreed in denying the vicariousness and judi cial intent of Christ's suffering, however greatly they differed among themselves upon other points. Neander remarks that Basilides " admitted no such thing as objective justification in the sight of God, or forgiveness of sin in the sense of deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin. Every sin, whether committed before or after faith in the Eedeemer, or baptism, must, according to his scheme, be in like manner expiated by the sufferings of the individual himself" ^ But though the word " expiate " is em ployed in this statement of the opimons of Basi lides, it is plain from the fact that a forensic justifi cation is excluded, that it can be employed only in the sense of purification. Suffering is disciplinary only. The scherae of Basilides did not recognize sin in the form of guilt, and thereby related to law and justice. It was evil, disharmony, corruption, and bondage ; but not a crime originated by the free will of a responsible creature, distinct from, and ac countable to his creator. The "expiation" of sin spoken of was only the disciplinary suffering which the individual sinner undergoes, in the process of purification. It was not penal, or satisfactory to justice. The school of Valentinus held the same general ' Neandee : Churoh History, I. 412, 413. 228 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. views upon this point, with that of Basilides. Ptole maeus, one of the leading disciples of Valentinus, writing to Flora, a Christian woman whom he en deavoured to convert to Gnostic views, represents punitive justice as something irreconcilable with the perfect goodness of the Supreme God, from whom he contends this world with its evil and suffering could not have sprung. On the contrary, he repre sents justice, in the strict sense, to be the peculiar attribute of the Demiurge, and hence a sort of medium quality lying between the perfect goodness of the supreme Deity, and unmixed evil. In ac cordance with these views, he supposed that that portion of the Old Testament economy which was penal and judicial in its nature proceeded from the Demiurge ; and, as contradicting the essential char acter of the Supreme God who is unmixed benevo lence, was afterwards wholly aboli^ed by the Sav iour. In consistency with these views, he regarded the capital punishment of the murderer as only a second murder, because it is retributive instead of disciplinary and educational, and the state gen erally as belonging only to the kingdom of the Demiurge, because it is founded upon and repre sents that retributive justice which is altogether foreign from the Supreme God.^ There is no need to quote from the opinions of other schools of Gnosticism, in further proof that the attribute of justice was subtracted from the nature ' Nbandbe : Church History, I. 437-439. ALEXANDRINE SOTERIOLOGY. 229 of the Supreme Being, and placed in that of an in ferior, and, to some extent if not entirely, hostile one. Justice is regarded in this scheme as some thing unjust, tyrannical, not founded in reason, and therefore not found in the Supreme Deity. That such a view should be taken of an attribute so fun damental to all sovereignty and dominion, is not strange, when we consider the radical error and fatal defect of the system. Gnosticism did not hold the doctrine of creation from nothing ; it held only that of development out of antecedents. As a con sequence it could not logically hold the doctrine of a free finite wiU. There was for it no truly and strictly accountable moral agent. Man, like nature, was an evolution from the essence of the Supreme Deity, not directly indeed, but really, through a descending and a degenerating series of powers and attributes. The successive grades of this evolution become feebler and feebler as they recede further from the aboriginal fountain of existence, until man appears, the last link and refuse of the interminable series, the feeble vanishing point of a primarily tremendous process of life and energy. Now where upon this scheme, is there any free will or free agency for man ? Where, any finite unit distinct from the Deity, capable of self-determination, left free to re main holy as created or to fall into evil, and held responsible for the use of this high but hazardous endowment ? Is it strange that such a being as this, the poor remnant and dreg of a course of develop- 230 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. ment that has been degenerating and corrupting for ages upon ages, a miserable wreck thrown upon the shores of existence by the ebb and flow of tides fluctu ating through infinite space and everlasting time, — ^is it strange that such a being as this, with no true cen tre and starting point of its own, should be affirmed to sustain no legitimate relations to such an awful attribute as retributive justice ? Is it strange that in the plan by which such a being was to be redeemed from the evil and misery which are inevitably con nected with such a descending series of evolutions, no provision was needed or was made for guilt or crime, and that only a purifying process constitutes the entire process of human restoration, according to the Gnostic ? Now the school of Clement and Origen, though opposing the Gnostic system with earnestness, was nevertheless influenced and affected by it to some extent. To how great an extent, is a somewhat dis puted question amongst dogmatic historians. We are inclined to regard the views of Origen concerning the doctrine of Atonement and all the related topics, as being at a greater remove from the scriptural data and view, than concerning the other doctrines of Christianity. This was the weak point at which the latitudinarian tendencies of this remarkable man showed themselves with most distinctness and en ergy, — as indeed the doctrine of Atonement was not the strongest side of the Patristic system generally. There were several opinions in the scheme of ALEXANDRINE SOTERIOLOGY. 231 Origen which tended to confuse and injure his gen eral view of the doctrine whose history we are in vestigating. They were the following : 1. The opinion that all finite spirits were created in the beginning of creation, that their number un dergoes no increase, and that their history is that of alternate fall and redemption, from eternity to eter nity. Origen held that God could not create an infinite number of rational beings, because his prov idence could not extend to every particular of a series as boundless as himself.^ Hence, all the va riety that is to be seen in the history of the created universe does not spring from the continual pro duction of new creatures, but from changes in the old and preexisting number. God did not create by new and different orders of beings, as angel and man. The history of man is only the change which has resulted from the apostasy of a determinate number of angelic spirits, in the angelic world, who are to be both punished and redeemed in this their mundane state of existence. The effect of such a theory as this would nat urally be, to diminish the degree and amount of evil involved in the apostasy of a rational spirit. It makes the event too common. If alternate fall and recovery is the order of the universe, then it is impossible that the former should be the most dreadful of catastrophes, or the latter the ' Oeigenes : De Principiis, II. 8 (Tom. I. 703, Ed. Basil, 1572). 232 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. most wonderful of divine interferences. If when the responsible creature faUs, he falls for once and for evermore, and there is from the nature of the case no salvation except by a divine intervention, which constitutes a remarkable anomaly in the Divine economy, and does not at all belong to the natural order of the universe, then sin and redemp tion have a stupendous meaning upon both sides. But if apostasy is to be expected with regular uni formity as the cycles roll around, and redemption is to be repeated with the same uniformity whenever the occasion occurs, and the occasion occurs repeat edly, it is evident that nothing but very low con ceptions can result of the nature of moral evU, and of its expiation and removal.^ The doctrine of the preexistence and apostasy of a fixed number of rational spirits in one mode of being, and their post- existence and redemption in another mode of being. ' Origen held that the efficacy pare, also. Com. in Matt. xiii. 8. of Christ's death extended to the On Eom. v. 10, he remarks, "tan- entire apostate world, quoting in tam esse vim crucis Christi et proof Coloss. i. 20 : " By him to mortis ejus quae ad sanitatem et reconcile all things unto himself, remedium non solum humano whether they he things in earth, huic nostro ordini, sed coelestibus or things in heaven," and also virtutibus ordinibusque sufiiciat." Heb. ii. 9 : Christ " tasted death Origen also taught that Christ's for every man," meaning every redeeming agency still continues sinful creature. He remarks in his state of exaltation, and that (Com. in Johan. II. 6, and I. 40) he is saving the apostate continu- that Christ is " the great high ally, until the entire apostate nni- priest not only for man but for verse is restored. See Thoma- every rational creature " (n-aiToj sius : Origenes, p. 230, 59. XoyiKou TJ)V dna^ ^virlav). Com- ALEXANDRINE SOTERIOLOGY. 233 and so onward endlessly, is wholly unfavourable to just views of the awful nature of moral evil as crime before law, and of the tremendous nature of spir itual apostasy as an event that can be remedied only by the most unusual and extraordinary efforts of the Supreme Being. 2. A second opinion of Origen which tended to a defective and erroneous conception of the doctrine of Atonement was, that punishment is not judicial but disciplinary. In his Homilies upon Ezekiel he makes the foUowing statement : " If it had not been conducive to the conversion of sinners to em ploy suffering, never would a compassionate and benevolent God have inflicted punishment upon wickedness." ^ Here, plainly, the judicial and retrib utive nature of punishment is entii'ely overlooked, and by impUcation, denied. In other places, he represents reformation as being the object of punish ing the sinner ; but since punishment fails, God sends his Son to break the strength of sin, so that man's suffering may be spared. The death and sufferings of Christ are represented as operating in a mystic, and somewhat magical way, upon the world of demons and df evU, so that the power of sin over mankind is shaken, and they are thereby redeemed. The right eousness of God, says Origen, is seen in the fact that God does not declare sinners to be righteous and show them favour, but in the fact that he first makes ' Eedepenning : Origenes, II. 407. 234 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. them holy, and then remits their punishment.* Men are justified by being sanctified. Such statements show that the judicial relations of sin are omitted in Origen's soteriology. The remission of sin is made to depend upon arbitrary will, without reference to retributive justice, as is evinced by his assertion that God might have chosen milder means to save man, than he did ; e. g., that he might by a sovereign act of his will have made the sacrifices of the Old Testa ment to suffice for an atonement for man's sin.^ 3. A third opinion of Origen conducing to a defective view of the atonement was, that the pun ishment of sin is not endless.' This opinion flows logically from the preceding one that punishment is not penal, but disciplinary. For an eternal suf fering for sin, from the nature of the case, cannot consist with the amendment of the sinner. When, therefore, owing to the exceeding strength of hu man sinfulness, punishment has so lost its reform ing power that even if continued forever no change of character could be wrought by it, God sends the Eedeemer who by his death in a mysterious way breaks this power of sin, and thereby restores him to holiness. The death of Christ is thus a manifes tation of love alone, and not of love and justice in union. Clement of Alexandria, the teacher of Ori gen, makes the following representations, according 'Oeigenes: Com. in Eom. iii. "Ebdepenmng: Origenes, 11.409. See Eedepenning : Origenes, II. 'Oeigenes: Hom. 19, in Jerem.; 409. De Princip. I. 6. ALEXANDRINE SOTERIOLOGY. 235 to Eedepenning. " The deep corruption of mankind fiUs God, whose compassion for man is as unlimited as his hatred towards evil, not with anger, for he is never angry, but with the tenderest and most pitiful love. Hence he continuaUy seeks all men, whom he loves for their own sake and their resemblance to God, as the bird seeks her young who have fallen from the nest. His omnipotence, to which nothing is impossible, knows how to overcome aU evil, and convert it into good. He threatens, indeed, and pun ishes, but yet only to reform and improve; and though in public discourse the fruitlessness of re pentance after death be asserted, yet hereafter not only those who have not heard of Christ will receive forgiveness, but it may be hoped that the severer punishment which befalls the obstinate unbelievers will not be the conclusion of their history. For man, like every other spiritual being, can never lose his free will. By means of this power, at all times, here and hereafter, noble minds, aided by that divine power which is indispensable to success, are lifting themselves up from ignorance and deep moral corruption, and are drawing nearer in greater or less degree, to God and the truth." * Upon looking carefully at each of these three opinions of Origen, it is easy to perceive that they ' Eedepenning: Origenes, 1. 133 are: Cohortatio, 74, 79,82, 89; -185. The citations from Clem- Stromata, VI. 763, 764. VII. 832, ent, upon which Eedepenning re- 895, 860. I. 369 ; Paedegogus, I. lies for the above representation, 102, 137, 140, 142, 149. III. 302. 236 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. are incompatible with the doctrine of a satisfaction of divine justice. The repeated faU of the soul being a part of the course and constitution of the universe, it is absurd to put this event into any sort of relation to such an attribute as that of eternal justice, except it be a figurative one. If punish ment is merely corrective, it is impossible to regard it as retributive, and to provide for its remission by the judicial suffering of a substituted victim, and that, too, an inflnite one. And if punishment is not in its own nature endless and absolute, but may be stopped at any point at the option of the sove reign, then it is absurd to speak of any such claims of justice as necessitate an infinite suffering for moral evU, such as can be endured only by the finite transgressor in an endless duration, or by the infi nite substitute in a limited period. Still it ought to be added, that oftentimes the phraseology of Origen, and many of his represen tations taken by themselves, favour the doctrine of vicarious atonement, — so much so that Thomasius, who has composed a valuable monograph upon Origen, contends that this doctrine may be found in this Father, as weU as in Irenaeus. Were it not that the opinions which have been specified enter as constituent parts into the theological system of the Alexandrine School, it would not be difficult to quote many passages from the writings of Clement and Origen whose most natural meaning would im ply the strict and technical doctrine of vicarious ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 23Y satisfaction. But these fundamental principles, that have been mentioned, are so contrary to the doc trine of Christ's expiation, that we are compelled to give these passages a modified meaning, and to acknowledge that only a very defective and erro neous conception of this cardinal truth of Chris tianity is to be found in the Alexandrine Soteri ology.* § 6. Soteriology of Athanasi'us, a/nd the Greek Fathers. Before proceeding to exhibit the history of the doctrine of Atonement in the Polemic period (A. D. 254-Y30), it is pertinent to make an intro ductory remark respecting the general course of theologizing in this age. The subjects upon which the ecclesiastical mind expended most re flection during these five centuries were those of Theology with the cognate subject of Christology, and Anthropology. It was natural, consequently, that in the polemic heat and energy of the period, those parts of the Christian system which were most vehemently assailed, and which stood in greatest need of exact definition and strict phraseology, ' This is also Mosheim's opin- III. § 27. For extracts from Ori- ion: Commentaries, II. 161 sq. gen respecting the doctrine of Compare also the whole of Mo- atonement, see : Munsohbe-Von sheim's criticism of Origen's the- Colln, I. 427. ologizing: Commentaries, Cent. 238 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. should acquire the fuUest development, and some what at the expense of other portions. Hence, the subtle and profound statement of the doctrine of the two natures in the one Person of Christ em-' ployed the mind of the theologian of this period, more than the exhibition of the doctrine of the wm^k of Christ. The anthropological doctrine of sin, during the controversy with Pelagius, was discussed with a prevaUing reference to the work of the Holy Spirit, Its subjective relations to the wUl of the creature, more than its objective relations to the justice and moral government of the creator, constituted the subject-matter even of this contro versy, which was yet better fitted than any other one of this Polemic period to result in a more scientific construction of the doctrine of Atonement. We need not, therefore, be surprised to find that even in this age of great theological activity, the cardinal truth of Christianity did not receive its fullest examination and clearest statement. Still, in this instance as in the previous one, we are not to regard mere silence, or a faUure to make a distinct statement, as tantamount to the denial and rejection of the truth. This we found to be the error in the judgment which the school of Baur passes upon the soteriology of the Apologetic period (A, D. 100- 254) ; and although there is less liability to commit it in reference to the Polemic period, be cause an evident advance in the mode of appre hending the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is ap- ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 239 parent, still the same species of argument, derived from the failure to reduce the doctrine to a per fectly scientific form, might be built upon the yet incomplete soteriology of the Polemic period. The argument in this case is precisely the same in kind with that which should seek to prove that the un lettered believer, whose theological knowledge is mostly in his heart and experience, positively rejects the doctrine of atonement, or the doctrine of the trinity, because he is unable to analyse and com bine its elements, and place them in the unity of a comprehensive system. Having made this prefa tory remark, we proceed now to take the measure of the attainments of the ecclesiastical mind of this period, respecting the doctrine in question. And in the outset, it is obvious to the investigator, the moment he passes over from the one period to the other, that some scientiflc progress has been made. The tone is firmer and bolder, the discrimi nation is clearer and truer, and the dogma stands out with greater prominence from the mass of heret ical and opposing theories. Turning to the works of the leading theologians of this age, we are able to determine how far the catholic mind had advanced toward a scientific and self-consistent theory of the atonement. Athanasius ( f 373), though laying out the chief strength of his powerful intellect in the trinitarian controversy, is distinct and firm in maintaining the expiatory nature ofthe work of Christ. He recognizes 240 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. its relations to the attribute of divine justice, and has less to say than his predecessors respecting its rela tions to the kingdom and claims of Satan. The more important bearings of the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, it is evident, were now beginning to re ceive a closer attention, while less stress was laid upon its secondary aspects. We can find in the represen tations of Athanasius, the substance of that doctrine of plenary satisfaction of eternal justice by the the anthropic sufferings of Christ which acquired its full scientific form in the mind of Anselm, and which lies under the whole Protestant Church and theology,* Athanasius composed no tract or treatise upon the Atonement, and we must consequently deduce his opinions upon this subject from his incidental statements while discussing other topics. In his Discourses {Orationes) against the Arians, there are frequent statements respecting the work of Christ, in connection with those respecting his person and dignity, and from these we select a few of the most distinct and conclusive, " Christ as man endured death for us, inasmuch as he offered himself for that purpose to the Father." Here, the substitutionary nature of his work is indicated, " Christ takes our '" Andere Lehrer, wie Ath ana- ung unter welcher Gott, ohne sius und Cyrillus Hieros. legen Verletzung seiner Wahrhaftig- den Begriff einer Gott abgetrage- keit, den Menschen den ihnen ge- nen Schnld zum Grunde, und se- drohten Tod erlassen konnte." hen in dem Tode Jesu die Beding- Mijnsohee-Von Colln, I. 425. ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 24:% ' sufferings upon himself, and presents them to the Father, entreating for us that they be satisfied in him." Here, the piacular nature of his work is taught, together with his intercessory office. " The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men, and a death of death." * " Desiring to annul our death, he took on himself a body from the Virgin Mary, that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for all, he might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our life through subject to bondage." * " Laden with guilt, the world was condemned of law, but the Logos assumed the con demnation {xqiftci), and suffering in the flesh gave salvation to aU." ' Here, the obUgation. of the guilty world is represented not as relating to Satan but to law ; and the Eedeemer assumes a condemnation, or' in the modern Protestant phraseology becomes a voluntary substitute for the guilty,, for purposes of legal satisfaction. There are two other portions of the writings of Athanasius which are very valuable, as indicating the opinions that prevailed in the Church during the 4th century respecting the being of God and the person of Christ, and incidentally respecting the doctrine of Atonement. They are the Aoyoq xaToc 'EXkrivav {Oratio contra Gentes), and the ' Athanasius : Contra Arianos, I. 60 ; compare Cont. Arianos, I. I. 41 ; IV. 6 ; I. 45. 51 ; II. 62. Doenee : Person ' Athanasius : Defensio Fidei Christi, I. 955, remarks that simi- Nicaenae, § 14. lar statements are frequent in the 'Athanasius: Contra Arianos, two Gregories, and Basil. VOL. n. — 16 242 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. UsQi rrjg ivav&Qanrjaaag rod Aoyov {De inca/rna- tione Dei). These tracts exhibit a remarkable union of the best elements of the Grecian philoso phy, with the most inward and cordial reception of Christianity ; and show that the " father of ortho doxy," as he was called, did not shrink from a meta physical construction of Christian doctrines, and believed that they could be defended and main tained upon the necessary grounds of reason. In his Oratio conira Gentes, aimed against the erroneous views of the popular skeptical philosophy of the day, he endeavors to evince the absolute independ ence and self-sufficiency of the Deity, in opposition to a theory that would identify him with creation, or make him a part of it. Having established this fundamental position of religion, he then proceeds in his tract De Lncarnatione to show that the Lo gos, both before and after his incarnation, partakes of this same self-sufficiency, which he has shown in his previous discussion belongs to the necessary idea and definition of God, This leads him indirectly to speak of the atonement of Christ, in its relations to the necessary nature and character of the God head, and in so doing he gives expression to views which harmonize exactly with the modern Protes tant view of the doctrine. " Suppose," he says, " that God should merely require repentance in order to salvation? This would not in itself be improper, did it not conflict with the veracity of God, God cannot be un- ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 243 truthful, even for bur benefit. Eepentance does not satisfy the demands of truth and justice. If the question pertained solely to the corruption of sin, and not to the guilt and Ul-desert of it, repentance might be sufficient. But since God is both truthful and just, who can save, in this emergency, but the Logos who is above all created beings ? He who created men from nothing could suffer for aU, and be their substitute. Hence the Logos appeared. He who was incorporeal, imperishable, omnipresent, manifested himself He saw both our misery and the law's threatening; he saw how inadmissible {ccTonov) it would be for sin to escape the law, except through a fulfilment and satisfaction of the law. Thus behold ing both the increasing depravity of men, and their condemnation to death, he had compassion upon them, and assumed a body not from any necessity of nature (cpvatcog dxolov&ia), for his essence is in corporeal." * In another place, in this treatise upon the Incarnation, he makes the statement that " the first and principal ground of the Logos' becoming man was that the condemnation of the law, by which we are burdened with guilt and eternal pun ishment, might be removed by the payment of the penalty."^ This is the strongest possible statement of the doctrine of penal satisfaction. For Athanasius is by no means disposed to overlook or underesti- ' Athanasius : De Incarnatio- ' Athanasius : De lncarnatio ne, c. vii. See Doenee: Person ne, c.xi.-xiv., quoted by Doenee: Christi, I. 837. Person Christi, I. 840. 244 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. mate the fact that one purpose of the incarnation was to reveal the Godhead to man. He emphasizes the truth that the Word became the " light of men." And yet in this passage he asserts that the first and principal ground of the incarnation is not the illu mination of the human soul, but the expiation of its guUt. In this extract, the prophetic office of Christ is set second to his priestly, as distinctly as in the writings of the Eeformers themselves. Comparing Athanasius, then, with the theologians of his cen tury, we find that his view of the Atonement, with respect to the two vital points of substitution and satisfaction, was second to none in explicitness and firmness. He refers the death of Christ to the ne cessary nature and attributes of God without any ambiguity, embarrassment, or confusion of mind, and joins on upon the Biblical idea of a sacrifice to satisfy offended law and justice, with as much clearness and energy as any theologian previous to the time of Anselm. The historical development of the doctrine, how ever, evinces as we foUow it down the centuries that the same gradual progress in acquiring a scientific understanding of the Scripture representations is going on, which we have found in other branches of dogmatic history. Queries now begin to be made whether the representation of a ransom paid to Satan has not been too prominent in the catholic soteriology, and whether the other relations of the ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 245 work of Christ should not be investigated and ex hibited. We find, for example, Gregory Nazianzen { f 390) expressing doubts, and raising inquiries, that indicate that the theological mind was sinking more profoundly into the substance of revelation, and drawing nearer to a correct logical construction of the great doctrine. " We were," he says, "under the power of the Evil One, since we had sold our selves to sin, and had received in exchange the lust for iniquity. If, now, a ransom is given only to the one who has possession of the thing to be ransomed, then I ask to whom was the price of ransom given ? To the Evil One himself ? Shame on the rash thought {cpsi) T^g v^Qsag) ! Then the robber would receive not merely /rom God, but God himself as a ransom and exceeding rich reward for his tyranny. Or is the ransom paid to the Father ? But here the ques tion arises, in the first place, why should it be ? for God is not the being who is forcibly retaining us in his power. And, in the second place, what reason can be assigned why the Father should take delight in the blood of his only-begotten Son ? since he did not even accept Isaac who was offered to him by his father Abraham, but changed the sacriflce of a ra tional being into that of an animal ? Or, is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not be cause he himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the divine government of the universe (hi oixovofilav), and because man must be sanctified 246 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. through the incarnation of the Son of God." * Here, although the completely adequate statement con tained in the Anselmic and Eeformed soteriology is not made, there is an approximation to it. The divine government requires this death of Christ, though the divine nature does not. But it would be impossible to foUow out the position that the principles by which the administration of the uni verse is conducted require an atonement for sin, without coming to the yet deeper and more ultimate position of the Anselmic theory that the nature and attributes of the Godhead also require it. For what is God's moral government but an expression of God's moral character ; and that which is needed in order to satisfy the objective principles of the former is needed to satisfy the subjective qualities of the latter. If we examine the soteriology of the Greek Church during the last half of the 4th and the first half of the 5th centuries, we meet with very clear conceptions of the atonement of Christ. The distinct ness of the views of Athanasius upon this subject undoubtedly contributed to this ; for this great mind exerted as powerful an influence upon the Eastern doctrinal system, generally, as Augustine exercised over the Western. Athanasius, we have seen, re ferred back, in his analysis of the doctrine, to the veracity of God. God had threatened death as the ' Geegoeius Naz. : Oratio, gorius Naz. p. 486. Baur : Ver- XLII. Compare Ullmann : Gre- sohnungslehre, p. 88. ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 24*7 punishment of sin. If, now, sin were remitted with out any infliction of any kind, either upon the sin ner or his Eedeemer, the truth of God would be turned into a Ue. The next step, consequently, was to the conception of an exchange or substitution of penalty; and Athanasius himself took this step. The substitute {xard'klrikov) for the death of the sinner was the death of the Saviour. This idea of substitution runs through all the Greek soteriology of the 4th and 5th centuries, and prepared the way for further statements conceming the nature and worth of Christ's sufferings, some of which we wUl now specify. Cyril of Jerusalem (f 386), and Eusebius of Caesarea { f 340), in the earlier part of the 4th cen tury, had already urged the point that Christ took the penalty of sin upon himself, and furthermore that his sufferings were not of less worth than those of mankind, because he was a theanthropic Person in whom divinity and humanity were perfectly blended. In this connection, Cyril gives utterance to a statement respecting the value and sufficiency of Christ's sufferings which reminds of those strong statements of Luther upon this subject, which a legal spirit finds it so diflficult to interpret or understand. He thus expresses himself " Christ took sin upon his own body. He who died for us was no insig nificant {ficxqog) creature, he was no mere animal victim {ovx rjv nqo^arov aid&rjTOv), he was no mere man, he was not an angel, but he was God incarnate. 248 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. The iniquity of us sinners was not so great as the righteousness of him who died for us ; the sins we have committed are not equal to the atonement made by him who laid down his life for us."* Eusebius reasons as follows upon Christ's satis faction: "How then did he make our sins to be his own, and how did he bear our iniquities ? Is it not from thence, that we are said to be his body, as the apostle speaks, 'Ye are the body of Christ, and members, for your part, or of one another.' And as when one member suffers aU the members suffer, so the many members sinning and suffering, he, according to the laws of sym pathy in the same body, seeing that being the Word of God he would take the form of a servant and be joined to the common habitation of us aU, took the sorrows or labours of the suffering mem bers on him, and made all their infirmities his own, and according to the laws of humanity, bore our sor row and labour for us. And the Lamb of God did not only these things for us, but he underwent tor ments, and was punished for us {dXXd xal vn'tq rifiav xoXaO&iig xai rif^oqiav -vnoo^cov, riv aiirog fisv OVX acpacXtiv) ; that which he was no ways exposed to for himself, but we were so by the multitude of our sins ; and thereby he became the cause of the pardon of our sins ; namely, because he underwent death, stripes, reproaches, transferring the thing ' Ou TotrauTij IjV tS>v A/jLapraASiv tos tj hixaioirvvrj. OteILUS HiebOS. : IJ avojila, oar) tov vvfparro^vijaKov- Catecheses, Lib. XIII. § 33. ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 249 which we had deserved to himself ; and was made a curse for us, taking to himself the curse that was due to us ; for what was he, but a price of redemp tion for our souls ? In our person, therefore, the oracle speaks, — whilst freely uniting himself to us, and us to himself, and making our (sins or) passions {ndd-rj) his own, he says, ' I have said, " Lord be merciful to me, heal _^my soul, for I have sinned against thee." ' " * The conceptions of vicariousness and infinite worth, in connection with the sufferings of the Eedeemer, were very plainly at work in the mind of the Eastern theologians, so far as it was represented by men like Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Caesarea, But these conceptions were wrought out into stUl greater clearness in the Eastern Church, by those controversies respecting the Person of Christ which commenced soon after the Trinita rian controversy was ended, and continued for more than two centuries. The student of doctrinal histo ry is generally wearied by the minuteness and tedi ousness of those pertinacious analyses which were connected with the Nestorian, the Monophysite, and Monothelite controversies. They were undoubtedly too much prolonged, and, what is of more impor tance, were too often prosecuted with an ambitious, an envious, or a malignant temper. But they were nevertheless productive of some good results, to the ' Eusebius : Demonstratio Ev- by Owen : On Justification, Oh. angelica. Lib. X. c. 1, quoted viii. 250 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. general system of Christian doctrine. The Nes torian controversy, in particular, had the effect to bring in juster views of the nature of Christ's Per son, and consequently of the real nature of his suf ferings. The error of Nestorianism was the exact opposite to that of Eutychianism, so far as concerns the sufferings of Christ. The Eutychians held that the suffering was purely and solely of deity, whUe the Nestorian party taught that it was purely and solely of humanity. For although Nestorianism ac knowledged the alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, it so separated the two natures from each other' in his Person, that the suffering which the Eedeemer endured derived no character or value from his divinity, and was in reality not different from that of any mere man. The Church, in op position to Nestorianism, contended that the mere juxtaposition of two natures, so that each should still remain a personality by itself, was inconsistent with the catholic doctrine of a peculiar species of suffering which must not be attributed either to sole deity or sole humanity, but to a theanthropric Person combining both species of being. In this controversy, Cyril of Alexandria { f 444) took a leading part, and in his writings we find very exalted conceptions of the worth and efficacy of Christ's atoning death, springing naturally out of his apprehension of the union of the two natures in one personality. Since, in the scheme of CyrU the two elements, the divine and the human, were ATHANASIUS AND THE GREEK FATHERS. 251 blended in the most thorough manner possible, short of a mixture or confusion which should change each into a third species of substance neither human nor divine (an error against which the catholic mind was careful to guard), — since there was this thor ough union and personal interpenetration of deity and humanity in the theory of Cyril, — it is easy to see that the sufferings of a Personage so consti tuted could be regarded as of strictly infinite value. Hence a very common idea, and one frequently emphasized in the writings of Cyril, is, that Christ did not suffer as a mere ordinary man suffers, that his blood was not the blood of a common man, — for if it were, it could not suffice for the salvation of the whole world, — and that only a God-Man could suffer. One for aU, and once for aU.* We flnd this same distinct recognition of the vicarious nature of Christ's sufferings, and of their adequacy for purposes of atonement, in that dis tinguished theologian of the Sth century, John of Damascus (f 750). The opinions of this mind were highly esteemed in the Greek Church, and in the Oriental Church generally. His "Exd-rjocg nloTscog {Expositio fidei) was long the text-book in systematic theology at the East, and exerted ' See the quotations from Cy- the general drift of Cyril's soteri- ril's Com. in Johannem, in Baue : ology. Cyril went to the verge Versohnungslehre, p. 102 (Note), of Eutychianism at the time of Baur's inferences, however, are the council of Ephesus, but after- drawn too much from detached wards retreated from it, and ac- passages, and not enough from cepted the decisions at Chalcedon. 252 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. no little influence upon the Scholastic theology of the Latin Church. After the division of the two churches, the Western theologians devoted less and less attention to the writings of the Greek Fathers, but John Damascene, standing as he did at the opening of the era of Scholasticism, and partaking strongly of the systematic spirit which prevaUed in it, was studied with interest and effect by the Latin Schoolmen. Upon the subject of the atonement, this writer follows the general views of the preced ing Greek theologians, especiaUy Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. We have already noticed the doubts expressed by this latter writer, whether the death of Christ sustained so much relation to the claims of Satan as the earlier soteriology had im plied, and whether its highest and principal refer ence was not to the attribute of justice in the Di vine Nature. John Damascene does not merely raise the query, but expresses himself with energy upon the point. "He, who assumed death for us, died, and offered himself a sacrifice to the Father ; for we had committed wrong towards him {ama na%Xrjfj.fxsXr)xai^sv), and it was necessary for him to receive our ransom {Xvtqov), and we thus be de livered from condemnation. For God forbid that the blood of the Lord should be offered to the tyrant ! " * ' Johannes Damascenus : Expositio Fidei, HI. xxvii. AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT. 253 § 1. Soteriology of Augustine, and Gregory the Great, Augustine (f 430) is a writer whose opinions upon any subject deserve examination, and espe cially upon the cardinal truth of the Christian sys tem. He marks the period immediately succeeding that represented by the Greek theologians of the 4th century, during which the spirit of investigation and of science was passing from the declining Ori ental, to the strengthening Western churches. His prominent position, moreover, in the history of the Christian system generally, would lead us to infer a very great influence from his writings in the con struction of so fundamental a doctrine as that of the Atonement. Upon examination, however, this ex pectation is somewhat disappointed. The strength and energy of Augustine's intellect were expended upon other parts of the Christian system ; so that the subject of Soteriology did not receive such a profound and satisfactory treatment from him, as did that of Anthropology. Augustine's view of the work of Christ is essentially that of the Fathers who had preceded him ; neither falling short, nor making any marked advance in scientific respects. Indeed, he seems to take very nearly the view which we have seen to have been held by Irenaeus re specting the judicial aspects of the doctrine. The claims of Satan are sometimes recognized in connec- 254 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. tion with those of justice, as in the following pas sage, which is very simUar in its phraseology to that of Irenaeus. "God the Son being clothed with humanity subjugated even the devil to man, extorting nothing from him by violence, but over coming him by the law of justice ; for it would have been injustice if the devU had not had the right to rule over the being whom he had taken captive." * In other passages, as also in Ignatius, the claims of Satan are not noticed, and only the connection between man's sin and God's justice is aUuded to, — ^the reconcUiation between the two antagonisms being effected, as in the Protestant statement of the doctrine, by an expiatory sacrifice. "AU men," he says, "are separated from God by sin. Hence they can be reconciled with him, only through the remission of sin, and this only through the grace of a most merciful Saviour, and this grace through the one only victim of the most true amd only priest^'' ^ In another place, alluding to our Lord's comparison of his own crucifixion with the lifting up of the serpent by Moses, Augus tine thus expresses himself: " Our Lord did not in deed transfer sin itself into his flesh as if it were the poison of the serpent, but he did transfer death ; so that there might be, in the likeness of human ' Augustinus : De libero arbi- gratiam misericordissimi salvato- trio, III. X. (Ed. Migne, I. 1285). ris, per unam victimam verissimi " " Non ergo reconcUiari nisi sacerdotis." Augustinus : De peccatorum remissione, per unam pec. mer. I. Ivi. AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT. 255 flesh, the punishment of sin without its personal guilt, whereby both the personal guUt and punish ment of sin might be abolished (solveretur) from human flesh." * These passages, and many others like them scat tered all through his writings, prove indisputably that Augustine held the doctrine of vicarious satisfac tion. That he did not hold it, however, in a form as perfectly well-discriminated as that in which it appears in the Anselmic theory, and stiU more in the soteriology of the Eeformation, there is equally clear proof. Augustine sometimes confuses justifi cation with sancufication, from not limiting the former term to its strict signiflcation as the antith esis of sanctification. He sometimes employs "jus- tificatio " as equivalent to the whole work of re demption. The difference between the judicial and the renovating side of redemption was not always kept in view by that usually sharp and aquUine eye. We find some few passages in Augustine which can be construed, and are by the Papal writers, to mean that man is justified in part by an inherent or subjective righteousness. This inward righteousness is indeed regarded as the work of God in the soul, and not the product of the human will. This we should expect, of course, from a mind holding with such energy and firmness as did ' Augustinus : De pec. mer. I. 7 (Ed. Migne, IV. 592) ; Confes- Ix. Compare Enarratio in Ps. 1. siones, p. 239. 256 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. Augustine to the doctrines of total depravity, and prevenient grace. Man cannot, indeed, attribute this inward and subjective righteousness to himself as the author, and, so far, a sense of merit and a legal spirit would be excluded. But Augustine, judging from a few passages in his works, was not always careful, as were Luther and Calvin when treating of the grounds of justification, to direct at tention to the fact that so far as the guilt of man is concerned, no possible amount of inward right eousness, even though wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit, can be an atonement, or ground of ac quittal from condemnation. Holiness of heart con tains nothing of the nature of an expiation. This is found only in judicial suffering. It is not an adaptation of means to ends, there fore, when justification is sought to be accomplished by sanctification. The "justification of the ungod ly,^'' of which St, Paul speaks, — ^i. e, the judicial acquittal from condemnation, of a soul that is still polluted with indwelling sin, and will be more or less until it leaves the body, — cannot of course be founded upon any degree of holiness that has been Wrought within it by the Holy Spirit, It must rest altogether upon an outward and finished work, namely the atoning suffering of the Son of God, This declarative act of God, whereby, on the ground of the objective satisfaction made to law by the Eedeemer, he forgives the past, must be carefully distinguished from the subjective transforming work AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT, 257 of God in the soul, whereby he secures its holiness for the future, Augustine is not always careful to mark this distinction. The term "justification" is sometimes confused with that of "sanctification," by being made to include it. The following passage from his treatise against Julian is in point. " God justi fies the ungodly not only by remitting the sins he commits, but also by giving him inward love, which causes him to depart from evil, and makes him holy through the Spirit." * According to the Reformed symbols, justification rests only upon remission of sins, and remission of sins only upon the atonement of Christ. To implant a principle of love, is no part of justification. It is with reference to this occasion al confusion of the two constituent parts of redemp tion, and the attribution to one of what belongs to the other, that Calvin makes the following remark: " The opinion of Augustine, or at least his manner of expression, is not to be altogether praised. For though he excellently despoils man of aU the praise of righteousness, and ascribes the whole to the grace of God, yet he refers grace to sanctification, in which we are regenerated by the Spirit to new- ' Augustinus : Opus imperfec- infused righteousness is the tum contra Julianum, II. clxv. ground and cause of justification. Compare Wiggees : Augustinism, though he often employs the term p. 201. Davbnant, On Justifica- " justificatio," sometimes in the tion, I. 202, and elsewhere, con- sense of absolution from condem- tends in opposition to BeUarmin nation, and sometimes of sanctifi- that Augustine never teaches that cation. VOL. II. — 17 258 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. ness of life." * The implication of Calvin's criticism here evidently is that the grace which remits pen alty should be referred solely to the atoning work of Christ, and not at all to the sanctifying agency of the Holy Ghost. God acquits the human soul from condemnation because the Son of God has ex piated its guUt, and not because a holy character has been produced within it. This latter is the consequent and not the antecedent. "Whom he justifies," upon an entirely objective ground, him he sanctifies by a subjective operation in the soul. "^ Another evidence that Augustine's view of the doctrine of Atonement shared in the imperfect science of the Patristic period, is found in the fact that in some places, at least, he teaches only a rela tive necessity for an atonement. " They are fool ish," he says, "who say that the wisdom of God ' Calvin : Institutes, IH. xi. are not justified only by faith, but ' The foUowing reference to by all the [inward] gifts and vir- Augustine's phraseology is made tues of God given to us. Now in Luthee's Table Talk (Bell's what is your opinion, sir ? Do Trans. Ed. 1652, p. 208). " Philip you hold that a man is justified Melanchthon said to Luther, the by this regeneration as is St. Aus- opinion of St. Austin of justifica- tin's opinion ? Luther answered tion (as it seemeth) was more per- and said, I hold this, and am cer- tinent, fit, and convenient, when tain that the trne meaning of the he disputed not, than it was when gospel and of the apostle is, that he used to speak and dispute ; for we are justified before God gra- this he saith : ' We ought to cen- tis, for nothing, only by God's sure and hold that we are justi- mere mercy wherewith and by fied by faith, that is by our regen- reason whereof he imputeth right- eration, or being made new crea- eousness unto us in Christ." tures.' Kow if it be so, then we Owen (Justification, Chap. IV.) AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT. 259 could not liberate men otherwise than by God's as suming humanity, being born of a woman, and suf fering at the hands of sinners." * In another place, he thus expresses himself: " When the question is asked whether there was no other way whereby God could liberate man, than by his Son's becoming incarnate and undergoing the suffering of death, it is not enough merely to say that this is a good way, but also to show, not that no other mode was in the power of him who can subject aU things to his con trol, but that no more suitable mode could have been adopted." ^ Here, the divine omnipotence is separated from the divine justice, and the possibU- also aUudes to this widening out of the term justification so as to include sanctification, as liable to introduce error into soteriolo gy. "The Latin derivation and composition of the word 'jus tificatio,' woidd seem to denote an internal change from inhe rent unrighteousness to right eousness ; by a physical motion and transmutation, as the school men speak. For such is the sig nification of words of the same composition. So 'sanctification,' 'mortification,' ' vivification,' and the like, all denote a real internal work on the subject spoken of. Hereon, in the whole Eoman school, justification is taken for the making of a man to be inhe rently righteous by the infusion of a principle or habit of grace. . . . And this appearing [appar ent] sense of the word possibly deceived some of the ancients, as Austin in particular, to declare the doctrine of free gratuitous sanctification, without respect to any works of our own, under the name of justification. For neither he, nor any of them, ever thought of a justification before God, con sisting in the pardon of our sins and the acceptation of our per sons as righteous, by virtue of any inherent habit of grace in fused into ns, or acted by us.'' ' Augustinus : De agone Chris tiano, 0. 10. " Augustinus : De Trinitate, XIII. X. "I am truly ashamed of those divines, who have no thing more commonly in their mouths, both in their disputa tions and discourses to the people, than 'that God might by other 260 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. ity of an infringement upon the moral attribute by the arbitrary inight of the natural attribute is con ceded within the sphere of the infinite. But this is to degrade the infinite to the level of the finite, by subjecting it to the same limitations and hazards with the finite. The necessity of an atonement is made to depend ultimately upon the divine option. It is not founded in the divine nature, or in the attribute of justice. This theory, if logically car ried out, conducts to the position of Origen, that God might by an act of mere will have constituted the sacrifice of bulls and goats a sufficient sacrifice for human guilt. But logic could not stop even at this point. For inasmuch as there is no absolute and metaphysical necessity of an atonement, and the whole provision for satisfying justice is resolved in the last analysis into an optional act on the part of God, it follows that, so far as the Divine Being is concerned, an atonement might be dispensed with altogether. For the same arbitrary and almighty will that was competent to declare the claims of justice to be satisfied by the finite sacrifice of bulls means have provided for the safe- tervening sacrifice, forgive sins, ty and honor of his justice, but not the least syllable is mention- that that way by the blood of his ed in the whole sacred writings : Son was more proper and becom- nor am I afraid to aflErm that a ing.' So said Augustine of old : more convenient device to weak- but what then ? Of that absolute en our faith, love, and gratitude power, which they dream of, by cannot be invented." Owen : On which he might, without any in- Divine Justice, Part II. Chap. vii. AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT. 261 and goats would be competent, also, to declare that those claims should receive no satisfaction at all. Any principle that is surrendered in part is surren dered entirely. But it would be unjust to impute to Augustine, and those other Fathers who in this period hesitated to assert the absolute necessity of the sufferings of Christ in order to the salvation of man, the logical consequences of their position. They were afraid of Umiting the power of God, and the more so, in contrast with the claims of Satan, of which we have seen they made far too much ; and the undiscriminating statements which faU from them in such connections can be properly cited only to show, that it was reserved for an eye that saw more profoundly than did theirs into the idea of eternal justice, and a mind that apprehended the Pauline distinction between justification and sancti fication more accurately and adequately than did theirs, to make the final scientific construction of the doctrine of Atonement. This deficiency in Augustine's soteriology com pared with the Anselmic and Protestant flnds its natural explanation in the fact, that the energy of his mind was almost entirely absorbed in the doc trine of the soul's renovation by divine influence. In the flrst place, his own inward experience had been eminently that of spiritual bondage, corrup tion, and pollution. The need of grace in the form of a renewing, strengthening, and purifying power. 262 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. had been very vividly and painfully felt by him. * In the second place, the controversy with Pela gius directed the attention of Augustine stUl more earnestly to the doctrine of renovation and sancti fication by the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the atonement, though consequentially involved and in peril if the views of Pelagius should be rigorously run out to their ultimate, did not, nevertheless, come very much into the controversy. From these two causes then, — by reason of a peculiarity in his own religious experience, and the polemic interest which he felt, — the force and depth of Augustine's intellect were drawn off from the atonement proper, and expended upon that side of the general doc trine of redemption which relates to the delivery of the soul from the power and pollution, as distin guished from the guUt and condemnation, of sin. Following the history of the doctrine of Atone ment downward in the Latin Church, we find in the century succeeding that in which Augustine produced his principal treatises, one writer whose tone is firm, and whose views are discriminating, but from whom, however, such a tone and view would not have been expected considering his eccle siastical position and circurastances. This writer is Gregory the Great, bishop of Eome (f 604). He ' This, of course, is not to be the need of grace in the form of understood in the sense of deny- an atonement and remission of ing that Augustine had any ex- sin. It is spoken in a compara- perienoe of sin as guUt, and of tive sense only. AUGUSTINE AND GREGORY THE GREAT. 263 stands at the opening of that era of power and in fluence which the Eoman Church was destined to pass through, as the acknowledged head of Western Christianity. Occupying such a position, and being the first marked representative of the hierarchical spirit which was now to mould and corrupt Chris tianity for a thousand years to come, we are nat urally surprised to find in the theological writings of one whom some regard as the first pope, repre sentations of the atoning work of Christ so much in accordance with the Pauline conception of it. The views of Gregory are expressed with even more clearness and firmness than those of some preced ing theologians, who were yet less immediately connected with that distinctively Eoman Church whose greatest guilt consists in mutilating and nul- Ufying the most strictly evangelical of all the Chris tian doctrines, that of justification solely through the atonement of the Son of God. In his writings, Gregory lays great stress upon the idea of a sacrifice offered in the death of Christ. He starts from the conception of guilt, and from this derives immediately the necessity of a thean thropic sacrifice. " Guilt," he says, * " can be extin guished only by a penal offering to justice. But it would contradict the idea of justice, if for the sin of a rational being like man, the death of an irrational animal should be accepted as a sufficient atonement. ¦ Geegoeius Magnus : Moralia in Jobum, XVII. xlvi. 264 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. Hence, a man must be offered as the sacrifice for man ; so that a rational victim may be slain for a jrational criminal. But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin ? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man de scending in the ordinary course would be free from sin ? Hence, the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption (culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth (exhibuit) for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice," * With regard to the question : To whom is this sacrifice offered ? in other words : To what extent do the claims of Satan come into view in Gregory's scheme ? even Baur, with all his determination to find the doctrine of Satan's claims in the CathoUc soteriology, makes the following remark upon the passage from the Moralia just quoted: "It is not indeed expressly said that the sacriflce is offered to God, but this is implied in the conception of a sacri fice. Not in the devU consequently (though Greg ory cannot indeed altogether get rid of the notion of a devil), but only in God, does the cause lie why Jesus must die for the sin of man," ^ ' "Fecit pro nobis sacrificium, quae et humanitate mori, et jus- corpus suum exhibuit pro pecca- titia mundare potuisset." toribus, victimam sine peccato, ' Baue : Versohnungslehre, 93. RECAPITULATORY SURVEY. 265 § 8. Recapitulatory Survey, We have now traced the history of the doctrine of Atonement down to the opening of the Scholas tic Era, and before commencing the account of the course of this great truth of Christianity during this, and the following period of the Eeformation, we will briefly cast a glance backward over the course we have travelled. It was remarked in the beginning of this history, that the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction acquired its scientific form more slowly than did the other great truths of Christianity, and that it was reserved for the Modern Church to give it an expansion and definition equal to that which the doctrines of The ology and Anthropology had received in the Ancient Church. The history thus far verifies the remark. We have seen that the Apostolic Fathers merely repeated the Scripture phraseology which contained the truth that was warm and vital in their Chris tian experience, but did not enunciate it in the exact and guarded statements of a scientific for mula. Next, we find the Primitive Fathers of the 2d and 3d_ centuries endeavouring to exhibit the doctrine in a more speculative form. Their success was but partial ; for secondary elements and truths were made too prominent, whUe strictly primary elements and truths, though not denied or rejected, were yet not presented with sufficient boldness in 266 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. their scientific schemes. The claims of God and of the attribute of justice were thrown too much into the background, by those of Satan. And yet the judicial aspects of the subject were continuaUy pressing themselves with increasing force upon the reflection of theologians. A more moderate and scriptural view ofthe kingdom of Evil, and ofits head and prince, was gradually taking the place of that exaggerated conception which, in reality, bordered too much upon the dualism of the East, to be en tirely consonant with that truth which the prophet sought to enforce upon the Persian monarch, when he proclaimed that God " makes peace and creates evU." Satan and his kingdom, while a real exist ence was conceded to both, were beginning to be seen in their true relations to Jehovah, who is as supreme in reference to the kingdom of sin, as to the kingdom of holiness. The sufferings of the God-Man began to be contemplated by the scien tific mind more exclusively in their relations to the attributes and government of God. Though the claims of Satan were still, to some extent, regarded as the ground of the necessity of Christ's death, the drift of speculation was steadily towards the simple position, that the atonement was made for the satis faction of justice alone, and that the only claims that are cancelled by it are the claims of law and of God. It is necessary, however, to call attention to a new phenomenon which begins to appear in the Sth REOA.PrrULATORY SURVEY. 267 and 6th centuries, in order to obtain a full view of the state of this doctrine at the close of the Patris tic period, and particularly in order to account for the great change that came over it, in the Papal period which succeeded. The religious experience - ofthe church itself, during the last half of the first six centuries, was undergoing a great change. In the first place, the sense of sin was decUning gen eraUy, The more secular and temporal aspects of Christianity, owing partly to the alliance between Church and State, and still more to the corrupt tendencies of human nature itself, were eclipsing its more directly spiritual relations to the character and necessities of sinful humanity. Hence there was a declining sense of the need of redemption, in the church at large. Moreover, to aggravate the evil, the attention of the earnest and thoughtful minority was somewhat drawn away from the aton ing work of Christ, to human substitutes for it in the form of penances. What little sense of guilt there was in the church, was somewhat dissipated, or at least made more shallow, by being expended upon those " sacrifices which can never take away sin," * In the second place, as we have had occasion to observe in the instance of Augustine, there was some confusion of ideas coming into the theoretical ' The tendency to mix works example, represents martyrdom with faith pertains to every age, as a cooperating ground of for- and is found very early in dog- giveness. See Puset's transla- matic history. Teetullian, for tion of Tertullian, 1. 106, Note b. 268 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. construction of the doctrine itself. This was partly a cause, and partly an effect of that decline in the popular experience which we have just spoken of; for we are reminded at this point, as we are at < every point in the internal history of the Church, that the process of decline is one of development, and that the relation of the corrupting elements to each other is not that of mere cause and effect, but of action and reaction. Perhaps, if the feeling of guilt in Augustine's mind had been as poignant and penal as it was in Luther's, or if his eye had been as penetrating and judicial upon this single topic as was that of Calvin; perhaps if this great theolo gian of the Patristic period had been as thorough and profound upon this side of the subject of sin, as he was upon the other, a statement of the doctrine of justification by faith without works might have been originated in the 5th century, that by the blessing of God would have prevented the Papacy, and precluded those ten centuries of "voluntary humility," worshipping of saints, and justification by works. When the popular feeling of a period is becoming less correct and healthy, nothing in the way of means does so much towards a change and restoration, as strict accuracy, which is the same as strict orthodoxy, in the popular creed. The creed may, indeed, in the outset be far in advance of the general sentiment and feeling, but being not only the truth but the whole truth, and not only the whole truth but nothing biit the truth, it begins to RECAPITULATORY SURVEY. 269 draw magnetically upon the human mind, until it eventually brings it close and entirely up to its own height and vantage ground. In the period of which we are speaking, or more properly in the latter part of it, it was coming to be the popular feeling, that the pardon of past sin must depend, to some extent at least, upon the character and works of the indi vidual ; that the atonement of the Son of God must, in some slight degree at least, be supplemented, or strengthened, or perfected, by the works or the feelings of the believer. Even when there was the strictest orthodoxy in referring the holy character or works to the influences of the Holy Spirit, there was error, and in reality the germ of the Papal theory, in referring the remission of past transgres sion to renovated character and righteous works, as a procuring cause in connection with the death of the Eedeemer. It was defective soteriology, to rep resent sanctification in conjunction with the atone ment of Christ as a ground of pardon. A keener vision, that could see the distinction between the guilt of sin and its poUution, would not have con founded the work of the Sanctifier with that of the Atoner. A clearer discrimination, which could separate the penal and retributive elements of sin from its blinding, corrupting, and enslaving effects upon a rational spirit, would not have blended and confused the two parts of redemption in such a man ner that one was liable to disappear from the mind and reflection of the Church. In short, a more 270 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. scientific and technical accuracy, a stricter reference of each of the two elements in sin to the tioo corre sponding sides of redemption, would have contrib uted greatly to fasten the eye of the individual upon his relations to eternal justice, and upon that infinite oblation which, aloTie and of itself sets the criminal once more in right relations with this fun damental attribute. In this way, the notion that a finite sacrifice can expiate guilt, either wholly or in part, or that the struggle after holiness, even if suc cessful, can oflfeet transgression and pacify conscience, would have been more likely to have been banished from the Church. These germs of corruption in the soteriology of the Church, which we have thus noticed as begin ning to appear during the last half of the Patris tic period (a. d, 400-600), were gradually un folded during the four centuries that intervened between the decline of the Patristic theology, and the breaking forth of the Scholastic. With the ex ception of John of Damascus in the Greek Church, and Alcuin and Scotus Erigena in the Western, this period of four hundred years (a, d. 600-1000) is marked by no individual minds of much historic character and power. Of these, the Greek theolo gian and the spiritual guide of Charlemagne are by far the most biblical in their opinions concerning the doctrine whose history we are investigating. The views of John Damascene we have already briefly noticed, and those of Alcuin agreed with RECAPITULATORY SURVEY. 271 those of Augustine. The soteriology of Erigena was essentially defective, and could not be other wise, springing as it did from a pantheistic view of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ. According to him, the incarnation was merely the immanence of God in the world, — a popular way of expressing the philosophic truth that God acquires distinct self- consciousness in the creature. All that was said, in a former part of this history, respecting the incom patibility of the Gnostic pantheism with the doc trine of man's distinct existence, real freedom, and amenability to retributive justice, applies with full force to the pantheism of this remarkable man, who seemed to stand by himself, and whose pantheistic views, it ought to be observed, were rejected and opposed by the church and the clergy of his time. But the decline in respect to true views of the vicarious atonement of Christ, during this interme diate period, was owing to more general causes, than merely the opinions and influence of leading individ uals. The masses of merely nominal Christians who began to be brought into the Church, after its tri umph over Paganism was complete and its aUiance with the State was perfected, constituted a body without a soul, — an aggregate of professing Chris tians without any religious experience. That pain ful process of self-knowledge, of conviction of guUt and sense of need of divine grace, which ought to initiate and precede all profession of Christianity, was too generally unknown in those large masses of 272 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. population who in these centuries bore the name, and enjoyed aU the external rights and privileges of church members. Here and there, undoubtedly, there were individual minds, or a community, in whom the experience of the day of Pentecost was to be found, — a consciousness of sin, a cry for mercy, and a self-despairing recumbency upon the atone ment of the Eedeemer, even though confused and beclouded by the notions of the time respecting the additional need of personal penances and ecclesiasti cal absolutions. But the Church as a whole knew little of this experience, and hence, while holding in a passive and hereditary manner the Patristic state ments respecting the Trinity and the Person of Christ, it was coming to hold a theory respecting Sin and Eedemption that was altogether opposed to that form of doctrine which had prevaUed during the flrst four centuries, in both the Eastern and the Western Church. CHAPTEE II. SOTERIOLOGY OF THE MEDIAEVAL CHUECH. § 1. Ansehn^s Theory of Satisfaction. After this rapid glance at the condition of the doctrine of atonement during the last half of the first ten centuries, we pass to the examination of the soteriology of the Scholastic age. It begins with Anselm's (f 1109) theory of satisfaction, elab orately wrought out in his Cur Deus Homo ? It is remarkable that the bursting forth of a new spirit of inquiry, the dawning of a new era after five hundred years of stagnation and darkness, should have commenced with the sudden appearance of a mind of such remarkable depth, clearness, and living piety, as that of Anselm. We do not find the usual antecedents and gradual preparation, for the advent of such a spirit. The sun rises without a dawn, or a morning twUight. In the very open ing of a new era which followed close upon a period of great superstition, and misapprehension of the VOL. II. — 18 274 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. true nature of sin and atonement, we find a view of the work of Christ, decidedly in advance of the best soteriology of the Patristic age, and agreeing substantially with that of the Eeformation. Such phenomena as these, in the bistory of the church, seem to conflict with the doctrine of historical de velopment, because it is so difficult to discover anv connection between antecedents and consequents. The truth is, however, that we are not able to de tect the connection, because of the deficiency in our knowledge of the interior life of those distant and dark ages. God undoubtedly, in this as in all other instances in which he does not employ a miracu lous agency, conducted the process upon the ordinary principles of his administration, and made it a con tinuity, though marked by sudden and striking changes. It finds its analogy in those processes in the vegetable world, in which the one common principle of life, after periods of long external slumber, breaks forth into unusual external power and splendour ; as when the dull and prickly cac tus suddenly, and to all outward appearance with out any preparation, bursts into a gorgeous flower. In this tract, entitled Cur Deus Homo f\ Anselm begins and ends with the idea of an absolute neces sity of an atonement, in order to the redemption of man. Everything is referred to a metaphysical, or necessary ground, and hence we have in this ' Translated in the Bibliotheca Saoea, Oot. 1854, and Jan. 1855. anselm's theory of satisfaction. 275 theory the first metaphysique of the Christian doc trine of Atonement. Not that the idea of a meta physical necessity in reference to the atonement was entirely unknown up to this time. We have already noticed, that an Athanasius had distinctly urged that necessity of an expiation in order to for giveness of sin which is fouuded in the divine attri butes of justice and veracity, and we have found this view, for substance and informally, in all the better Patristic soteriology. But we have this view, now for the first time, in Anselm's tract, re duced to a systematic and scientific form, and cleared of those excrescences which were connected with it in the Ancient Church. Anselm is the first instance in which the theologian plants himself upon the position of philosophy, and challenges for the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, both a ra tional necessity, and a scientific rationality. The fundamental position of the Cwr Deus Homo is, that the atonement of the Son of God is absolutely or metaphysically necessary in order to the remission of sin. Anselm concedes by implication, through out his work, that if it cannot be made out that the vicarious satisfaction of divine justice by the thean thropic suffering of Jesus Christ is required by a necessary and immanent attribute of the Divine Nature, then a scientific character cannot be vindi cated for the doctrine ; for nothing that is not metaphysically necessary is scientific. Hence, in the very beginning of the tract, he affirms that a 276 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. mere reference to the divine benevolence, without any regard to the divine justice, cannot satisfy the mind that is seeking a necessary basis in the doc trine of atonement. For benevolence is inclined to dispense with penal suffering, and of itself does not demand it.* It is not the attribute of mercy, but the attri bute of justice, which insists upon legal satisfaction, and opposes an obstacle to the salvation of a sin ner. Setting aside, therefore, the divine justice, and taking into view merely the divine compassion, there does not appear to be any reason why God should not by an act of bare omnipotence deliver the sinner from suffering and make him happy. This conducts Anselm to that higher position from which the full-orbed nature and character of the Deity is beheld, and he proceeds to show that com passion cannot operate in an isolated and independ ent manner in the work of redemption, and that if anything is done for the recovery and weal of the transgressor, it cannot be at the expense of any necessary quality in the divine nature, through the mere exercise of an arbitrary voUtion, and an un bridled omnipotence. The leading positions, and the connection of ideas, in this exceedingly profound, clear, and logi cal tract of the llth century, are as follows. ' Anselmus : Cur Deus Homo, Proslogium, c. 8, 9, and Hasse : I. 6. Compare also Anselmus : Anselm von Canterbury, II. 276. anselm's theory of satisfaction. 277 Beginning with the idea of sin, Anselm defines this as the withholding from God what is dus to him from man. Sin is debt.* But man owes to God the absolute and entire subjection of his will, at aU times, to the divine law and will. This is not given, and hence the guilt, or debt, of man to Deity. The extinction of this guilt does not con sist in simply beginning again to subject the wUl entirely to its rightful sovereign, but in giving satisfaction for the previous cessation in so doing. God has been robbed of his honour in the past, and it must be restored to him in some way, while at the same time the present and future honour due to him is being given. But how is man, who is still a sinner and constantly sinning, to render this double satisfaction, viz. : satisfy the law in the future by perfectly obeying it, and in the past by enduring its whole penalty? It is impossible for him to render it ; and yet this impossibility, argues An selm, does not release him from his indebtedness or guilt, because this impossibility is the effect of a free act, and a free act must be held responsible for aU its consequences, in conformity with the ethical maxim, that the cause is answerable for the effect. But now the question arises : Cannot the love and compassion of God abstracted from his justice come in at this point, and remit the sin of man without 'This is in accordance with petition, "forgive ns our debts" Christ's definition of sin, in the (o^ttX^fiaTa). 278 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. any satisfaction? This is impossible, because it would be irregularity (aliquid inordinatum), and injustice. If unrighteousness is punished neither in the person of the transgressor, nor in that of a proper substitute, then unrighteousness is not sub ject to any law or regulation of any sort ; it enjoys more liberty than righteousness itself, which would be a contradiction and a wrong. Furthermore, it would contradict the divine justice itself, if the creature could defraud the creator of that which is his due, without giving any satisfaction for the rob bery. Since there is nothing greater and better than God, there is no attribute more just and necessary than that primitive righteousness innate to deity which maintains the honour of God. This justice, indeed, is God himself, so that to satisfy it, is to satisfy God himself Having in this manner carried the discussion into the very heart ofthe divine nature, and shown that a necessary and immanent attribute of the Deity stands in the way of the non-infliction of punishment and the happiness of the transgressor, Anselm proceeds to consider the possibility of sat isfying the claims of justice, — the claims of Satan being expressly denied. There are two ways, he says, in which this attribute can be satisfled. First, the punishment may be actually inflicted upon the transgressor. But this, of course, would be incom patible with his salvation from sin, and his eternal happiness, because the punishment required is eter- anselm's theory of SATISFACTION. 279 nal, in order to offset the infinite demerit of rob bing God of his honour. It is plain, therefore, that man cannot be his own atoner, and render satisfac- '\ tion for his own sin. A sinner cannot justify a sin ner, any more than a criminal can pardon his own crime. The second, and only other way in which the attribute of justice can be satisfied is by sub stituted or vicarious suffering. This requires the ' agency of another being than the transgressor. But here everything depends, upon the natu/re a/nd character of the Being who renders the substituted ; satisfaction. For it would be an illegitimate pro- ' eedure to defraud justice by substituting a less for a more valuable satisfaction. It belongs, therefore, to the conception of a true vicarious satisfaction, that something be offered to justice for the sin of man that is greater than the finite and created, or, in Anselm's phrase, is " greater than all that is not God." In other words, an infinite value must per tain to that satisfaction which is substituted for the sufferings of mankind. But he who can give, and has the right to give, out of his own resources, something that is greater than the finite universe, must himself be greater than all that is not God, or than all that is finite and created. But God alone is greater than all that is not God, or the created universe. Only God therefore can make this satis faction. Only Deity can satisfy the claims of Deity./ But, on the other hand, man must render it, other wise it would not be a satisfaction for man^s sin. 280 history of soteriology. Consequently, the required and adequate satisfac tion must be theanthropic, i, e,, rendered by a God- Man. As God, the God-Man can give to deity more than the whole finite creation combined could render. Furthermore this theanthropic obedience and suffering was not due from the mere humanity of Christ. This was sinless and innocent, and jus tice had no claims, in the way of suffering, upon it. And, moreover, only a man's obedience, and not that of a God-Man, could be required of a man. Consequently this Divine-Human obedience and suffering was a surplusage, in respect to the man Christ Jesus, and might overfiow and inure to the benefit of a third party, — in other words, to the benefit of the transgressor for whom it was volun tarily rendered and endured. This satisfaction made by incarnate Deity to meet the claims of one of his own attributes, An selm represents as even more than an equivalent for the sin of mankind. We meet with phraseol ogy in the second book of the Cu/r Deus Homo ?, * upon this point, that is strikingly like that which we have noticed in Cyril of Jerusalem.** " You have indeed most plainly proved," says the pupil with whom the dialogue is carried on, "that the life of this man is of so sublime, and so precious a nature as to suffice for satisfying what is due to jus- * Anselmus : Our Deus Homo, * Ante, p. 248. II. c. 14, 17. anselm's theory of satisfaction. 281 tice for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely moreP In another place, it is remarked that " the life of the God-Man is greater incomparably than those sins which are exceeded beyond all power of estimation by his death." And in another passage, the infinite dignity and worth of the atoning death of the incarnate Deity is sought to be exhibited, by the following questions and answers. " If that God- Man were here present before you, and, you mean while having a full knowledge of his nature and character, it should be said : ' Unless you slay that Person the whole world and the whole created uni verse will perish,' would you put him to death, in order to preserve the whole creation ? I would not, even if an infinite number of worlds were spread out before me. But suppose again, it were said to you : * You must either slay him, or the guilt and misery of all the sins of the world will come upon you' ? I would say, in answer, that I would sooner incur the aggregated guilt and misery of all the sins, past and future, of this world, and also of all the sin in addition that can possibly be conceived of, rather than incur the guilt of that one sin of kUling the Lord of Glory."* The limits of this work do not permit a fuller ' There is a " direction " for the its thorough rejection of self-mer- visitation ofthe sick, composed by it, and its vital acceptance of the Anselm (Opera I. 686, Ed.Migne), atonement of Christ. It runs as which is not excelled even by the follows, in the version of Owen salient evangelism of Luther, in (On Justification), "Dost thou 282 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. examination of this remarkable composition, which exhibits a depth, breadth, and rigour of thinking, that is not surpassed by any production of the same believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ ? The sick man answereth, yes. Then let it be said to him : Go to, then, and whilst thy soul abideth in thee, put all thy con fidence in this death alone, place thy trust in no other thing, com mit thyself wholly to this death, cover thyself wholly with this alone, cast thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself wholly in this death. And if God would judge thee, say, Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy judgment ; and other wise I will not contend, or enter into judgment with thee. And if he shaU say unto thee, that thou art a sinner, say, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. If he shall say unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say. Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and all my sins; and I offer his merits instead of (pro) my own, which I ought to have, but have not. If he shall say that he is angry with thee, say. Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy anger." In Migne's edition, after the self-commendation of the soul into the hands of God, there follows an invocation of the Virgin which is manifestly an in terpolation of some zealous and unscrupulous Papist. It is as fol lows : " Postea dicat, Maria, ma ter gratiae, mater misericordiae, tu nos ab hoste protege, et hora mortis suscipe : per tuum ergo, Virgo, Filium, per Patrem, et Spiritum Sanctum, praesens adsis ad obitum meum, quia imminet exitus. Amen." The difference between the Mariolatry of this passage, and the Paulinism of the ' ' direction" for visiting the sick, is too great to have proceeded from the same intuition. The use of "nos" indicates that it is part of an ecclesiastical liturgy. In the first extract, the flrst person sin gular is intense all the way through. It is diflScult in the light of such an extract as this, as well as of the positions of the Cur Deus Somo f to account for the statement of Neandee (Church History, IV. 500), that "the idea of a passive obedience, the idea of a satisfaction by suffering, of an expiation by assuming the punishment of mankind " was "far from Anselm." Neander thinks that Anselm held only to the doctrine of a satisfaction hy obedience of the law, — what he calls satisfaetio activa. In this he agrees with Baue. anselm's THEORY OF SATISFACTION. 283 extent in theological literature, and deserves to be studied and pondered by every Protestant divine. For it is obvious to remark that such a view of the atonement as is here exhibited is thoroughly Bibli cal, and thoroughly Protestant. There may be in cidental views and positions in this tract, with which the modern theologian would not wholly agree ; but certainly so far as the general theory of vicarious satisfaction is concerned this little trea tise contains the substance of the Eeformed doc trine ; while at the same time, it enunciates those phUosophical principles which must enter into every scientific construction of this cardinal truth of Chris tianity. On both the theoretic and the practical side, it is one of the Christian classics. For in distinctly denying the claims of Satan, and in distinctly asserting the absolute and inde feasible claims of justice, the Anselmic theory im parts a necessary and metaphysical character to the doctrine of Atonement, by virtue of which it be comes scientific, and defensible at the bar of first principles. It enables the inquirer to see that no other mode is possible, — that there is no alternative for the divine benevolence, but either to leave the guilty transgressor to the natural and ordinary course of justice, or else to deliver him from it by satisfying its claims for him and in his stead. Baur, indeed, makes the objection that the attribute of justice entirely overrides and suppresses that of love ; and that this exact and absolute satisfaction 284 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. of aU the claims of legal justice, though imparting great compactness and self-consistence to the the ory, yet denudes it of aU its tender and merciful features and aspects. He remarks,* that according to the Anselmic theory of satisfaction, the whole work of redemption is carried out "not for the sake of man, but solely for the sake of God," — ^for the sake of an inward necessity grounded in the essence of Deity. But this does not foUow by any means. On the contrary, the compassion of God is seen in its most tender, because its only sdf sacri ficing form, in this light and flame of justice and law. The "inner necessity" of the divine nature does, indeed, require that justice be maintained by the punishment of sin. But Baur forgets that, in Anselm's view there are two ways in which sin can be punished. And the fact that God chooses the one that spares man and tasks God, — ^the fact that he satisfies his own justice for the sinner, instead of leaving the sinner to satisfy it by an endless misery in his own person, — shows in the most conclusive and affecting manner that Eedemption has manJs welfare in view, as well as the best interests of the universe, and the majestic glory of the divine nature. With good right does Anselm say, at the close of his investigation, " the compassion of God, which appeared to be lost entirely when we were considering the justice of God and the sin of man, ' Baue : Versohnungslehre, 170. anselm's THEORY OF SATISFACTION. 285 we have now found to be so great and so consistent with justice, that nothing greater or more just can be conceived of For what compassion can equal the words of God the Father addressed to the sin ner condemned to eternal punishment, and having no means of redeeming himself: 'Take my only- begotten Son, and make him an offering for thy- seK' ; or the words of the Son : ' Take me, and ransom thy soul'? For this is what both say, when they invite and draw us to faith in the gos pel. And can anything be more just than for God to remit all debt, when in this way he receives a satisfaction greater than all the debt, provided only it be offered with the right feeling ? " * In closing this brief sketch of Anselm's theory of the Atonement, it is evident that if his views and experience, as exhibited in the (Jur Deus Homo f, could have become those of the church of which he was a member and an ornament, the re vival of the doctrine of justification by faith in the Lutheran Eeformation would not have been needed. Such a profound and spiritual conception of sin, such a clear and penetrating consciousness of guilt, such adoring and humbling views of the divine majesty, such calm and searching apprehensions of the divine justice, such annihilation of human merit in the eye of law, and such an evangelic estimate of the atonement of the God-Man, if they could have ' AusBLMUB : Cur Dens Homo ? IL 20. 286 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. been made elements and influences in the general religious experience of the Western Church, that eleventh century would have exhibited a spirit of judgment and of burning, of profound humility and self denial, of purity and self consecration, that would have been a dazzling contrast to the actual religious character which it presents. But the so teriology of Anselm, though exerting no little influ ence through his immediate pupils, did not pass over into the church at large. The sphere of his activity was the Norman and Anglo-Norman Churches. These were then upon the frontiers of Christendom, and the metropolitan clergy, as weU as the imperial church, knew little or nothing of that vigorous and vital piety, and that profound and thorough theologizing, which in one of the darkest centuries in church history was radiating from the cloister of Bee, and the see of Canter bury.* § 2. Soteriology of Abelard and Lombard. The Eoman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, as does every ecclesiastical organization of the present day that is connected with the state, contained within its communion a variety of opin ions and views, some of which were directly op- ' For the life and labors of Anselm, see the excellent monograph of Hasse. ABELARD AND LOMBARD. 287 posed to others. To the theory of Anselm which we have just exhibited, stands in the very sharpest contrast the theory oi Abelard (f 1142). The acute ness of this Schoolman was not sufficiently regulated by moral earnestness, and informed by a profound reUgious experience. We perceive immediately, in passing from the writings of Anselm to those of Abelard, that we are in communication with a very different spirit. The profound heights of contem plation and the abysmal depths of experience have vanished. Attributes like that of justice, and facts like that of sin, are far less transcendent in their meaning and importance. The atonement is looked at from a much lower level. Abelard begins and ends with the benevolence of God. This is divorced from and not limited by his holiness, and is regarded as endowed with the liberty of indifference. The deity can pardon upon repentance. There is nothing in the Divine Nature which necessitates a satisfaction for past transgres sion, antecedently to remission of penalty. Like creating out of nothing, redemption may and does take place by a flat, by which sin is abolished by a word, and the sinner is received into favour. Noth ing is needed but penitence in order to the remis sion of sin. The object of the incarnation and death of Christ, consequently, is to produce sorrow in the human soul. The life and sufferings of the God- Man were intended to exert a moral impression upon a hard and impenitent heart, which is thereby 288 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. melted into contrition, and then received into favour by the boundless compassion of God. Abelard at tributes much to the intercessory agency of the Ee deemer. As the God-Man who has perfectly obeyed the divine law, Christ possesses a weight of influ ence with the Father which secures blessings for the sinful. In such connections, he alludes to the idea of justice. Christ was perfectly holy and just himself, and it is "just" that such a being should be heard in behalf of those for whom he became incar nate and suffered. But by justice is here meant merely fitness or propriety. When it comes to the properly judicial and retributive attribute in the Divine Nature, Abelard denies the doctrine of satis faction, and contends that God may remit the pen alty by a sovereign act of will. The only characteris tic which the theory of Abelard possesses in com mon with that of Anselm is its denial that the claims of Satan were satisfied by the death of the Eedeemer. "If a slave," says Abelard, "should de sert his master, his master could justly demand that he be given up. But if a slave should seduce his fellow-slave from obedience to the master of both of them, how absurd it would be for this slawe to set up a claim to the services of the one whom he had seduced," * That very celebrated Schoolman Peter Lomba/rd (f 1164), whose influence and authority in the ' Abelaed : Com. ad Eom. Lib. Colln : Dogmengeschichte, II. II ; quoted in Mijnsoheb-Von 163. BERNARD AND ST. VICTOR. 289 Eoman Church is hardly second to that of Aquinas himself, declared decidedly for the soteriology of Abelard, and against that of Anselm. In his the ory, the influence of the death of Christ is spent upon the subjective character of the individual soul, in softening, subduing, and sanctifying. At the same time, however, Lombard's representation ap parently, but only apparently, verges towards the Anselmic theory. The claims of justice are met to a limited extent by the sufferings of the Ee deemer. They deliver man from the temporal penal consequences of sin, provided baptism be adminis tered and penance be performed. Lombard's prin cipal work, entitled LAber Sententiarum, is a collec tion of aU the views of the Eoman Catholic Church, and an attempt to combine them into one system. But such an eclecticism as this, which endeavours to harmonize the theory of Anselm with that of Ab elard, must necessarily fail. Lombard's real views were the same as those of Abelard, and the fact that the work of Christ must be supplemented by baptism and penance accounts for the remarkable popularity which the Liber Sententiarum has always enjoyed in the Papal Church. § 3. Soteriology of Berna/rd and High St. Victor, In the writings oi Bernard of Clairvaux (f 1153), we meet a more evangelical view of the atoning VOL. n. — 19 290 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. work of Christ. He combats the soteriology of Abelard, as he also does his other doctrinal opin ions. First, he opposes the view which Abelard held in common with Anselm, that Satan has no claims upon man, and that no Satanic claims are met by the sacrifice of Christ. Bernard, though not a mystic proper, had a mystical tendency. He belonged, as was noticed in the history of PhUo sophical Systems, to the Mystic Scholastics. Deep ly devout in his spirit, he also cherished a high veneration for the opinions of the Fathers, especially Augustine. The rejection of a theory which en tered so extensively into the soteriology of the Primitive Fathers, as did that of Satan's claims, was regarded with disfavour by Bernard, even though the pious and orthodox Anselm had given it his sanc tion. Connected, moreover, as it was in the in stance of Abelard with other views that were un doubtedly heterodox, and with a rationalistic spirit, it was natural that a mind inclined like Bernard's to rest in a traditional and received orthodoxy should oppose this rejection of the old doctrine of Satan's claims. Secondly, Bernard opposes the opinion of Abelard that remission of sins may occur by a sovereign act of will, without any satisfaction of the claims of law. His own religious experience was too thorough, and his respect for the opinions of the past too implicit, for him to adopt a theory that renders the Old Testament sacrificial ceremony an inexplicable enig- BERNARD AND ST. VICTOR. 291 • ma, deprives the New Testament representations of their meaning, and agrees substantially with the later Socinian theory of redemption. At the same time, we do not find Bernard agreeing with Anselm respecting the metaphysical necessity of satisfaction. He hesitates to denominate sin an infinite evil, and to attribute to it an infinite guilt. As a conse quence, he is not boldly distinct in asserting the in finite worth of the satisfaction of Christ. He is not ready, with Anselm, to assert an absolute necessity, intrinsic to the divine nature, for an atonement, but prefers to stand with Augustine upon the ground of a relative necessity founded upon the optional will and arrangement of God. In short, the differ ence between these two theologians, who undoubt edly were much aUke so far as concerns their religious experience and practical use of truth, consists in the fact that Anselm was a metaphysician, and could not stop untU he had traced back his faith to the eternal and necessary principles of the divine na ture and government; while Bernard could hold the doctrine at a middle position, without subject ing it to the rigorous tests and conclusions of sci ence, to whose methods he was somewhat disinchned, from his mystical tendency. Of similar general character with Bernard, was that other interesting Mystic Scholastic, Hugo St. Victor (f 1140). His view of the atonement, how ever, approaches somewhat nearer, in technical re spects, to that of Anselm, than did that of Bernard. ,292 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY, WhUe unwilling to give up the old patristic notion of a satisfaction of Satan's claims, he is distinct in asserting and exhibiting the relations of the work of Christ to the divine nature. The sacrificial ele ment, as distinguished from the legal, is very ap parent in this Schoolman, He speaks often of the Deity a^ propitiated, and fastens upon those pass ages of Scripture in which this Old Testament idea is presented, " The Son of God," he says, " by becoming a man paid man's debt to the Father, and by dying expiated man's guilt," * Here, both the legal and the sacrificial elements are combined in one proposition. § 4, Soteriology of Bona/ventura, Thus far, we have been examining the opinions prevalent in the first part of the Scholastic Age, — viz., in the llth and 12th centuries. The highest in tensity and energy of the systematizing spirit does not display itself untU we pass into the last half of the period. The Schoolmen of the 13th and 14th centuries, though originating no views of more origi nality, on either side of the subject, than those of Anselm and Abelard, yet put the existing materials, whether derived from the Patristic or the Earlier Scholastic soteriology, into a more systematic and ' Hugo St. Viotoe : De sacramentis, c. 4. SOTERIOLOGY OF BONAVENTURA, 293 comprehensive form. Among these later School men, we shall direct attention first, and with some particularity, to Bonament'wra (f 1272). This author, foUowing the analytic and exhaus tive method introduced by Peter Lombard, dis cusses the subject of the atonement under the six foUowing questions. First : Whether it was fit in itself (congruum) that human nature should be restored by God. Secondly : Whether it was more fitting that human nature should be restored by a satisfaction of justice, than by any other method. Thirdly : Whether any sinless creature could render satisfaction for the whole human race. Fourthly: Whether any sinful man assisted by divine grace could make satisfaction for his own sins. Fifthly: Whether God was under obligation to accept the method of satisfaction by the death of Christ. Sixthly : Whether God could have saved the human race by some other method. We present the entire plan of his work, not for the purpose of following it out into each of its divisions, but in order to show by an example the acute, analytic, and all-compre hending method of handling subjects which was so peculiar to the later Schoolmen like Bonaventura, Alexander Hales, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aqwinas, When subjected to the torture of such a scrutinizing and searching analysis, a doctrine or truth must necessarily be torn into pieces, and ex amined down to its minutest filaments and elements. The invention of the Scholastic method had the 294 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY, same effect in the intellectual world, that the inven tion of the cotton gin, and of the roller with revolv ing knives, has had in the material. Subjects are reduced to their fibre. In order to give, within as brief a space as pos sible, the views of Bonaventura, we will exhibit the trains of thought in his answer to the second of these questions, viz. : " Was it more fitting that human nature should be restored by a satisfaction of justice, than by any other method ? " In an swering this question in the affirmative, Bonaven tura proves that the restoration of human nature by a satisfaction is the most fitting method, because most conducive to the maintenance : 1. of the Di vine justice ; 2. of the Divine wisdom ; 3. of the Divine omnipotence ; 4. of the Divine honour and majesty. He comes to his conclusion, by the fol lowing train of reasoning. Eedemption by the method of legal satisfaction is the most fitting method, because God is both merciful and just, and consequently both attributes should be manifested and maintained together. Hence it was fitting that God should demand satisfaction for the dishonour and injury done to himself by man's transgression, and if man could not render this satisfaction, to provide a Mediator who could satisfy for him and in his stead. If God had been inherently unwUling to pardon sin, and had inexorably insisted upon the infliction of penalty upon the criminal, he could not have manifested his attribute of mercy. If, on the SOTERIOLOGY OF BONAVENTURA. 295 other hand, he had pardoned sin without any satis faction of law, he could not have manifested his at tribute of justice. Thus the method of forgiveness through a satisfaction is the most befitting, taking into view the entire nature and character of God. But the same fitness is apparent if we take into view the nature and character of man. The object in restoring the human race is to conduct it from a state of guilt to a state of justification, and from a state of misery to a state of glory. Inasmuch as man has done dishonour to the majesty of God, it is fitting that he should do honour to the justice of God by enduring punishment ; and as it is more praiseworthy in the innocent man to obtain eternal life by merit than without merit, so also it is more praiseworthy in the guilty man to be reconciled to God through a satisfaction of aU legal claims, than by a method that disregards and tramples upon them. After having in this manner established the affirmative of the question, Bonaventura proceeds to specify and refute some objections to his posi tion. 1. It is first objected, that nothing can be so fitting and proper in God as the manifestation of his kindness and compassion, and that the forgive ness of sin without a penal satisfaction would be the greatest proof of such compassion. To this it is re plied, first, that the fitness of anything is founded in its necessity. It is necessary that God should be just, but not necessary that he should show mercy. 296 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. Hence, it follows that compassion towards a crim inal is not more fitting and proper than justice towards him. But, secondly, it is hot true that re mission by a mere volition that involves no sacri fice upon the part of God is a greater evidence of love, than remission through the blood of his Only- Begotten Son. There is no benevolence greater than that which endures suffering and death for another's welfare, 2, It is secondly objected, that the Divine independence and self-sufficiency would appear in a finer light, if God were to pardon with out any satisfaction. To this it is replied, that the requirement of an atonement does not imply any conditioning of the Creator by the creature, for it is a diviiie attribute which demands the satisfaction of law, God is wholly independent of man in the work of redemption, though not independent of his own nature and character. As God requires obe dience to his law, not because he is dependent upon his creatures, but because his nature and attributes demand it, so he requires an atonement for the same reason, 3, It is thirdly objected, that the Divine omnipotence would be more impressively exhibited in pardoning sin without a satisfaction, than with one. To this it is replied, that if the Divine omnipotence should abolish the claims of the Divine justice by an act of arbitrary will, one attribute in the Godhead would destroy another. But this would be suicidal ; and a suicidal exercise of power is not the most impressive mode of ex- SOTERIOLOGY OF BONAVENTURA. 297 hibiting power. Even if this could be conceived as possible, and the Divine omnipotence were re garded as able to restore the human race by a word, in the exercise of a naked and lawless al mightiness, God would yet be obliged to prefer the more difficult because the more regular method of restoration through an atonement. 4. It is ob jected, in the fourth place, that the restoration of man without a satisfaction of justice would lay him under greater obligation to love and praise God. This is denied, because the surrendry of the Only- Begotten Son of God obligates the redeemed far more than a mere remission of sin without any sub stituted suffering would. That God incarnate en dured the pains of death for us is a fact of even greater impressiveness than the forgiveness of sin itself. The foundation of human salvation is even greater than the salvation. 5. Fifthly, it is ob jected that God by forgiving sin without an atone ment sets an example that can be imitated by man, while on the other scheme he cannot be imitated by his creatures. To this it is replied, that man in his private and individual capacity is not required to imitate God in all respects, and particularly when the judicial attributes of his character are involved. Punishment and retribution belong solely to the Godhead. " Vengeance is mine, I wUl repay, saith the Lord" (Eom, xu, 19), This attribute cannot be wielded at all by man, except as delegated to civil power and authority. But in respect to be- 298 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY, nevolence, and the disposition to sacrifice self for the good of another, — ^the chief attribute which the individual man needs to have in view for imita tion, — God in giving his Son as a judicial substi tute for his rebeUious creatures has set forth the highest possible example for imitation, 6, It is ob jected, in the sixth place, that it would be more fitting in God to restore the human race imme diately, and without any such intervention of the creature as occurs in the assumption of human nature by the Son. Immediate rather than instru mental agency is more worthy of God, This is de nied, because it is characteristic of Infinite Good ness to permit the creature to co-work with itself^ so far as the nature of the creature allows of this. In the work of redemption, such a co-operation is not only possible but necessary, in order to sympa thy between the Eedeemer and the redeemed. In the work of creation no such co-operation of the Finite with the Infinite is possible, because the energy is not spent upon already existing mate rials. In answering the third and fourth questions, viz. : whether a sinless created being could make satisfaction for the human race, and whether a sin ful man if assisted by divine power could atone for his own sins, — Bonaventura takes the -negative with energy and decision. Any single individual, how ever exalted he might be, is stUl finite, and com pared with God, whose honour has been injured, is SOTERIOLOGY OF BONAVENTURA. 299 on a common level with all other creatures. Con sequently, his suffering would not be equivalent to the sufferings of an entire race of beings. More over, the idea of a satisfaction requires that it be, rendered by the same species of being by whom the offence was committed. Consequently, the atone ment for man's sin must be made in man's nature, and not in an angelic. It would not be fitting that the human race should owe its salvation to another species of created beings. Hence only a God-Man can render satisfaction, — man, that humanity may suffer ; God, that the suffering may be of infinite value. In answer to the objection, that the life of Christ was of more value than his death, as life gen erally is better than death, and that consequent ly the life without the death would have been a more adequate satisfaction, Bonaventura asserts that the idea of satisfaction necessarily involves that of penal suffering, thus identifying those two concep tions, satisfaction ^nd expiation, which Baur, we have noticed, mistakenly asserts, are not identified with each other in the Anselmic theory. To conclude this notice of Bonaventura, we re mark that the influence of Anselm upon him is very apparent, and very great. He is on the side of An selm St. Victor and Bernard, against Abelard and Peter Lombard, and exhibits the truth with a clear ness of understanding, an acuteness of analysis, and a systematizing talent that render him one of the most interesting writers among the Schoolmen. At 300 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. the same time, this writer, like others of whom we have spoken, differed from Anselm in respect to the question : Is this conceded necessity of a satisfaction of divine justice, absolute or relative ? Is satisfac tion of law necessary because God wills it, or does he wiU it because it is necessary ? We have found Anselm maintaining the absolute and metaphysical necessity of satisfaction in order to remission, and declaring it to be impossible from the very nature of God to dispense with it, if the guilty is to be saved. As the necessary nature of right and wrong does not depend upon the optional will of God, neither does the necessity of an atonement rest upon it. He was led to this because he regarded it as contradictory to the idea of God, to conceive of a schism in the Deity, and an intestine conflict between the divine attributes. He held that the philosophical idea of God excludes that possibility of acting contrary to truth and justice, by ihe exer cise of bare will, which attends a finite and proba tionary nature like that of man, Anselm, conse quently, could not distinguish as did Bonaventura and some of the later Schoolmen, two kinds of om nipotence in the divine nature, one of which is regu lated, and the other unregulated, by the other attri butes of the Godhead. Alexander Hales (f 1245), in answering the standing question : Can human nature be restored without a satisfaction ? brings out this distinction of an abstract and a concrete omnipotence in the foUowing manner. " When it SOTERIOLOGY OP BONAVENTURA. 301 is said that God cannot restore human nature with out a satisfaction, it is to be observed, with due respect to the opinion of the blessed Anselm, that divine power is to be contemplated in two forms, — absolutely, or by itself alone, and relatively, or in connection with other attributes (cum ordine). In contemplating the divine power as absolute, we conceive of a certain infinite energy (virtus) in the Deity that is abstracted from the rest of his nature, and transcends all limitations ; and with respect to ihis form, the divine power cannot have terms set to it (non est determinare) ; and it is conceded that considered in this mode, the divine omnipotence is able to restore human nature without a satisfaction. But in contemplating the divine power relatively, we consider it in its references to justice and mercy, and so considered, it is conceded that omnipotence can do nothing except in accordance with justice and mercy." * The doctrine that there is an abstract omnipo tence in God by which he might have pardoned sin without an atonement, if applied by a rigorous logic, would neutraUze all that clear and cogent ar gumentation which we have seen Bonaventura em ployed to show, that it is " more fitting that human nature should be restored by a satisfaction of jus- > Hales : Summa, Pars IH, Works H. 125 (Harpers' Ed.); Quaestio i, Membrum 4. Quoted Cudworth : Intellectual System, by Baub : Versohnungslehre, II. 532 (Tegg's Ed.). 215. Note. Compare Hallam: 302 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. tice, than by any other method." * For it implies that it is possible for the natural attributes of God to be at war with his moral ones ; in other words, that the Infinite Creator is subject to that same pos sibility of iUegitimate action that pertains to a finite and mutable creature. It implies that the philoso phical idea of the Deity does not prevent his being conceived of as acting contrary to a part of his own nature. ^ The doctrine of the metaphysical possi- ' Bonaventuea sometimes makes statements respecting the two kinds of omnipotence that are in flat contradiction to his reply to the objection, that " the omnipotence of God wonld ap pear in a more striking light, if sin were remitted without an atonement." He says, e. g. : " God might have liberated man by the method of mere compas sion, nor would there have been anything prejudicial to justice in this, if God had so willed it. For he could have abolished all de merit, and have restored man to his primitive condition byhis om nipotence alone, and there would have remained in the universe nothing inordinate nor unpunish ed." Baue: Versohnungslehre, 228. 'This idea of an "abstract" omnipotence accompanies the history of the doctrine of atone ment down from the earliest, to the latest times. In the Ancient Church, Ire'naeiis (Adv. Haer. III. XX.), Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, and Ambrose, contend for an ab solute necessity of Christ's satis faction; while Athanaaiua, Au gustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene assert only a relative necessity. In the Mediaeval Church, Anselm,, and perhaps Hugh St. "Victor, as sert an absolute, while Abela/rd, Bernard, Lombard, Hales, Bona ventura, ani. Aquinas (Cont. Gent. rv. liv. lv.) concede only a rela tive necessity. In the 17th cen tury, the subject was discussed by Owen, and Twisse (the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly) ; the former asserting, and the lat ter denying, the absolute necesr sity of a satisfaction. See Owen's tract, On the Nature of Justice. Geehaed (Loci IV. Ixxxiv.) claims that Augustine wavered between the two views ; but he is mistaken, as is evident from Aug. De Trinitate, XIIL x. et alia. Neandee (IV. 497) re marks, that Augustine "started SOTERIOLOGY OF BONAVENTURA. 303 biUty of the remission of sin without a satisfaction of justice, furthermore, implies that the natural at tributes of God are more central and ultimate than his moral and ethical, — that might in the Deity is more fundamental and absolute than right. * Logi caUy, it takes the key-stone out of the arch upon which the whole doctrine of an atonement rests. For on this scheme, when the final centre of truth is reached, a satisfaction of justice can be dispensed with; omnipotence in God "cannot have terms set to it," and therefore it can abolish the claims of law, without satisfying them. It was, however, merely a speculative opinion in many instances. For many of its advocates were equaUy earnest with their op ponents, in contending for the inexorable necessity of a satisfaction, when the attribute of justice is taken into view ; but they were not equally consist ent with them, in holding the opinion that justice the inquiry whether any other ments are altogether astonishing ; way would have been possible; viz., 'That sin-punishing justice and, considered from the point should be natural to God, and of view of the divine omnipo- yet that God, sin being supposed tence, he believed the answer to exist, moAj either exerciae it or must be in the affirmative." 'not exercise it' They may also Hooker (Eccl. Pol. V. li.) teaches say, and with as much propriety, a relative necessity. that truth is natural to God ; but ' Owen (Dissertation on Divine npon a supposition that he were Justice, Chap. II.) notices the self- to converse with man, he might contradiction there is, in conced- either use it, or not ; or, that om- ing that justice is an essential nipotence is natural to God ; but attribute in God, and yet that it upon a supposition that he were can be set aside by an act of phys- inclined to do any work without ical omnipotence, in the follow- (extra) himself, that it was free to ing terms : " To me, these argu- him to act omnipotently or not." 304 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. itself inight be abstracted, and the problem solved at a yet more central point in the divine nature, at which power is isolated from aU the ethical attri butes of Deity, and becomes lawless, and capable of doing anything and everything. * § 5. Soteriology of Aquinas, Thonias Aquinas (f 1274) deserves particular attention, in the history of the doctrine of atone ment. He is the strongest systematizer among the Schoolmen, and on account of his important posi tion in the Mediaeval Church and theology merits a detaUed examination. But inasmuch as his opin ions upon the atonement resemble so closely those of Bonaventura, whose views we have discussed somewhat at length, we are relieved from the ne cessity of a minute investigation. The dogmatic views of Aquinas respecting the atonement are found in the third part of his Summa Theologiae, or system of divinity. ^ He employs the same analytic method so common to the School men, and exhausts the subject by a series of ques tions and their answers. The first inquiry is con- 'It is important to inquire, different from saying that he whether oftentimes this might could have dispensed with satis- not have been the question in faction altogether. the mind : " Could not the Deity ' Aquinas : Summa Theologia, have provided an atonement in Quaestiones, XLVI.-XLIX. another way ? " This is very SOTERIOLOGY OF AQUINAS. SOS cerning the nature of Christ's Passion. He en deavours to exhibit its nature, by proposing twelve queries, of which we give only the two following : 1. Was it necessary that Christ should suffer in order to the salvation of man ? 2. Was any other method of human salvation possible ? Aquinas answers the first of these questions, in accordance with the metaphysics of Aristotle, by distinguishing the different modes of conceiving of " necessity." If, by necessity be meant that which from its very nature cannot but be, and whose non-existence can not be conceived of, then there was no necessity for the sufferings of Christ. That the Logos should be come incarnate, and die upon the cross, is not founded in any antecedent and a-priori necessity in the constitution of the Divine Being or of the universe. The necessity is subsequent and a poste riori, — i. e., is consequent upon the origin of moral evil, and even then only in case it is proposed to save transgressors from the consequences of their transgression, a procedure which is itself entirely optional upon the part of God, inasmuch as he is under no necessity to redeem mankind from their sins. Again, if by necessity external compulsion be meant, then the sufferings of Christ were not neces sary. But, thirdly, a thing is necessary when it is indispensable in order to the attainment of some other thing, and in this sense the death of Christ is necessary. It is not, indeed, a matter of necessity, that man's sin should be pardoned, but if it be par- VOL. n. — 20 306 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. doned, it is necessary that Christ should first make satisfaction to justice for its commission. Suppos ing the fact of sin and the fact of a divine intention to deliver man from it be given, then, says Aqui nas, the sufferings of Christ become necessary, both in respect to the attribute of justice, and the attri bute of mercy, — ^in respect to justice, because Christ by his sufferings must completely satisfy its claims ; in respect to mercy, because, in man's condition of inability to satisfy the demands of the law for him self, God can display no higher compassion than in providing a satisfaction for him, and in his stead. In answering the second question, viz. : Whether redemption could have been accomplished in some other method ? Aquinas defines his position re specting the metaphysical necessity of atonement. Even though it is, abstractly considered, possible to save man in some other manner, it becomes impos sible, he says, when once God has determined to accomplish the work in the way and manner he has. Aquinas, Uke Bonaventura, holds only to a relative necessity of the atonement. He, too, while contending with great earnestness and intellectual acumen, that a satisfaction for sin must be made to justice before sin can be remitted, if, and so long as, justice is taken into the account, yet asserts the possibility of throwing this attribute out of the ac count, in a determination of what the Supreme Being is able to do. His reasoning is as follows. " If God had willed to liberate man from sin with- SOTERIOLOGY OF AQUINAS. 307 out any satisfaction, he would not have done any thing contrary to justice. For he is not like a human or finite judge. The human judge cannot, without injury to justice, dismiss a criminal without punishment, because it is his function to infiict pun ishment upon crime committed against another than himself, — say, against another man, or against the general weal, or against a higher officer than him self. But God is the supreme judge and chief good of the whole universe, and there is no other being than himself with whose interests he, as a judge, is intrusted. Consequently, if God sees fit to remit that penalty which has been affixed to law only for his own glory, no injustice is done, more than when a man forgives his fellow-man an injury done to him self alone, without requiring any satisfaction at his hands," This reasoning, it is evident, is founded upon the same view with that of Bonaventura, re specting the relation of the physical to the moral attributes of God, It assumes that the former are more central and fundamental than the latter, and asserts the possibility of their disjunction in the Divine administration. It implies the right of om nipotence to abolish justice ; the right of power to nullify law. For although the offence of sin is com mitted against the same Being who is the judge and punisher of sin, yet if as sovereign he should pardon it without the satisfaction of law, he would unquestionably put honour upon his omnipotence and dishonour upon his justice. The physical at- 308 HISTORY OP SOTERIOLOGY. tribute would thus be all-controlling, and the Di vine nature would become a mere unlimited and characterless force. An inward schism and self- defection would take place in the Deity, whereby one part of his nature, by a purely arbitrary act of his own, would be set in contradiction to another part ; whereby the physical attributes would be arrayed in hostility to the ethical, in the very place of their harmony and equilibrium. We find in Aquinas several new points raised, respecting the work of Christ. The first relates to the mode in which the atonement of the Son of God becomes available to the believer. Aquinas an swers the objection that merit and demerit are per sonal, and that therefore vicarious satisfaction is impossible, by. the doctrine of the unio mystica ex isting between the believer and the Eedeemer.* Founding his view upon the statement of St. Paul (Eph. V. 30), that believers are members ofthe body, the flesh, and the bones of the Lord, he supposes, ' The word " mystical " was customs, or usages of men know employed in the sense of " mys- or allow of. They are one mya- terious,'' and signified that which tical person, whereof, although is unique, and anomalous. Christ's there may be some imperfect re- Person is " mystical " ; his suffer- semblances found in natural or ings are "mystical"; and the political unions, yet the union relation between him and the from whence that denomination believer is " mystical." Owen ia taken between him and us, is (On Justification, Ch. VIII.) re- of that nature, and arises from marks that " Christ and believers such reasons and causes, as no are neither one natural person, personal union among men (or nor a legal or political person, the union of many persons) has nor any suoh person as the laws, any concern in." SOTERIOLOGY OF AQUINAS. 309 that a peculiar species of connection exists between the Church and its Head, by virtue of which the common principles and maxims that pertain to in dividual and secular life cease to be applicable. The relation of the believer to the Son of God is not the external one, of one individual to another individ ual, but an anomalous one, whereby a communion of interest and moral life is established, so that the sinner united by faith to his Saviour may become a ground and cause of judicial infliction upon his aton ing Substitute, and the incarnate Word may become the sinner's sin-offering, and atonement. We do not find in Aquinas very full, or very clear, repre sentations upon this difficult point ; but this idea of the mystical oneness between Christ and the Church pervades his soteriology with considerable boldness. Though allusions are made to it in the earlier writers, especially in connection with the cognate doctrine of the unity of Adam and his posterity, yet it may be said that the " angelic doctor," as he was termed in the panegyrical phraseology of the time, was the first to give it prominence in the theory of Eedemption. The second new point we notice in this writer is the distinction between satisfaetio and meritum. In the Anselmic theory, the work of Christ was contemplated in its relations to justice solely. The deliverance of man from condemnation was the great object in view. This is the prevalent mode of contemplating the subject in the Patristic, and 310 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. the EarUer Scholastic soteriology. But we find Aquinas raising that question which was afterwards so earnestly discussed in the Calvinistic and Armi nian controversies of the 17th century, — the ques tion, namely, whether Christ did not earn for the believer a title to eternal life, as well as of freedom from condemnation to eternal death. Aquinas an swers this question in the affirmative, and makes the technical distinction between the satisfaction which Christ made by his sufferings to justice, and the merit of his obedience to the law by virtue of which the redeemed are entitled to the rewards of eternity. In other words, we find in the theory of Aquinas an anticipation of the later distinction be tween the " active " and " passive " righteousness of Christ. A third new point observable in the soteriology of Aquinas is the doctrine of a superabundance in the merits of Christ. The Passion of the Eedeemer was not merely sufficient, it was also a superabun dant satisfaction for the sins of the human race. This position needs to be carefully distinguished from the statements of Anselm, in which he gives expression to his view of the infinite worth of Christ's satisfaction. There was little danger of magnifying the value of the Eedeemer's Passion, in connection with the infinite demerit of sin, and hence the Anselmic theory is far more satisfactory than that of Aquinas, in respect to the point under review. This later Schoolman, though intending to SOTERIOLOGY OF AQUINAS. 311 follow the opinions of the earlier, imperceptibly de parts from him, by reason of a less spiritual and profound view of the nature of moral evil. Hence, in regard to the distinction between justification and sanctification, we find Aquinas involved in the confusion which we have noticed in Augustine. There is much less affinity between the soteriology ofthe Eeformation and that of the " angelic doctor," than between it and that of Anselm ; and, to this day, the Eoman Catholic theologians of the more intelligent and devout class, who are not satisfied with the lowest forms of the Papal soteriology, and yet are not prepared for the New Testament theory in its purity, appropriate the opinions of Aquinas rather than those of Anselm. There is little doubt that the doctrine of a superabundance in the satis faction of Christ, in connection with a defective view of the degree and amount of evil that was to be atoned for by it, contributed toward the distinctively Papal theory of works of supererogation, and of a treasury of merit at the command of the Church, The distinctively Eomish soteriology of Aqui nas is betrayed when he comes to treat of the re mission of sin, and particularly when he specifies the ground of it. Anselm, we have seen, referred it solely to the atoning "^ork of Christ. In his the ory, justification is the simple and sole act of God, whereby he acquit^ the guilty on the ground of the infinite satisfaction that has been made for sin. So far as the pardon of sin is concerned, man can do 312 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. nothing. The criminal cannot pardon himself, nei ther can he purchase or earn a pardon by satisfying the claims of law. He cannot do this m ^ar^. The sinner is totally dependent upon God for the re mission of sin, both in respect to the declarative act by which he is acquitted, and in respect to aU that judicial procedure and apparatus of atonement which must precede the declarative or justifying act. In the Anselmic scheme, as in the Protestant, remission of sin is the pure, simple, and sole act of Deity, without any co-operation or assistance from humanity. * But not so in the theory of Aquinas. Notwithstanding all that he has said, and weU said, respecting the claims of justice, and the vicarious satisfaction of the Son of God, Aquinas, as does the subsequent Tridentine scheme, vitiates all that he has hitherto maintained on these points, by teaching that the remission of sin depends to a cer tain extent upon the character and conduct of the individual, as a ground, or procwing cause. The confusion of justiflcation with sanctification, which we have observed in some passages of Augustine, re-appears in Aquinas in a more distinct and settled 'Eomans xi. 6. "And if by circumcised, Christ shall profit grace, then it is no more of you nothing. For I testify again works : otherwise grace is no to every man that is circumcised, more grace. But if it be of that he is a debtor to do the works, then it is no more grace, whole law. Christ is become of otherwise work is no more work, no effect unto you, whosoever of Galatians v. 2-5. "Behold I you are justified by the law : ye Panl say unto you, that if ye be are fallen from grace." SOTERIOLOGY OP AQUINAS. 313 statement. In conformity with this view, Aquinas represents the expiatory value of the atonement as dependent upon the beUever's conformity to law. In order that the satisfaction of Christ may be an adequate one for the sinner, he must be "config ured " to Christ. The atonement is not sufficient alone and by itself It must be supplemented by personal character and good works, and in some cases by penances. This " configuration " to Christ, requisite in order that His satisfaction may be com plete, is brought about in a sacramental manner by baptism. In case of sin after baptism, the believ er must be " configured " to Christ by a per sonal suffering in the form of penance, as well as by the acceptance of the sufferings of the Ee deemer. Aquinas concedes that the suffering of Christ is of far greater value than that of the man himself, yet plainly teaches that the latter enters as a co-operating factor with the former, in laying the foundation for the remission of the com mitted sin. It is not in itself sufficient to atone for sin, but in connection with the sacrifice of Christ it has a value of its own which cannot be dispensed with in making up the full sum of legal satisfaction. The penance of the baptized man is imperfect ; it has not the merit of condignity (condigna peccato) ; but it is graciously accepted in connection with, and reUance upon, the satisfaction of Christ. * ' Aquinas (Summa, Quaestio requisite that those who sin after xlviii. Artie. 3) asserts that " it is baptism should be configured to 314 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. We have in these views of Aquinas sufficient reason for asserting, that notwithstanding the cor rectness of his soteriology up to a certain point and in certain relations, the fatal errour of the Eomish theory is contained in it. This errour, to state it in a word, does not consist in denying the need of a satisfaction of justice, or even the great value of Christ's satisfaction for sin, but in asserting in con nection with this, the necessity of a co-operating and completing satisfaction on the part of man. The amount of this finite element varies in different writers and ages of the Eomish Church, but the pre sence of the element itself in any amount is what the suffering Eedeemer through something of penalty or passion which they endure in themselves, which nevertheless is far from being a strict offset for sin (con digna peccato), even though the sacrifice of Christ cooperate with' it." Again (Summa, Pars III. Quaest. i. Art. 1), Aquinas distin guishes two kinds of satisfaction, — that of the God-man, and that of man. The first is that of " con dign " or strict satisfaction, as the act of God incarnate. The sec ond, that of man, may be said to be " imperfectly sufficient, by rea son of the willingness of the of fended party to accept it, although it is not a strict and literal satis faction." The boldest form of stating the doctrine of a cooper ating satisfaction on the part of man is found in Gabriel Biel, (Sententiae, Lib. III. Distinct, xix, Conclus. 5). "Though Christ's passion is the principal ground of merit upon which grace is con ferred, nevertheless it is not the sole and total meritorious cause, because with the merits of Christ there always concurs some act of him who receives grace, which [act] has either the merit of con dignity, or congruity." See Baue: Versohnungslehre, 243, 351. Compare with Aquinas's distinc tion of two kinds of satisfaction, one of which does not satisfy, Pascal's account of the "prox imate power " and " sufficient grace " of the Jesuits, in the first and second Provincial Letters. SOTERIOLOGY OF DUNS SOOTUS. 315 distinguishes the distinctively Papal from the dis tinctively Protestant theory of the atonement.* § 6. Soteriology of Duns Scotus, A controversy respecting the atonement sprang up between Dims Scotus and the foUowers of Aqui nas, which involved fundamental principles in ethics and religion, and divided the Eomish Church into two great parties of Thomists and Scotists. Duns Scotus denied the Anselmic doctrine that sin is of infinite demerit, and consequently denied that the suffering of Christ is of infinite value.^ The rela tion of the atonement of the Son of God to the sin of mankind, he maintained, is merely an arbitrary and constituted one. The principle upon which he " The thoroughly Papal idea of the lives of the most exemplary adWm^ to personal merit by works of the Eoman Catholics. For is expressed with great naivetd by example, Tillemont, a Jansenist, 8T.SiM:oN(Memoires,Vol.I. Chap, and a very devout and pure- iii, St. John's Translation). " The minded man, thus writes to his king particularly expressed his brother who was sub-prior of regret that my father [who had La Trappe: "Everybody is not just deceased] had not been able obliged to fast as you do at La to receive the last sacraments. Trappe, but everybody is obliged I was able to say that a very to resist the desires of concupis- short time before, my father had cence, which pride and the re- retired for several days to Saint mains of our corruption constant- Lazare, where was his confessor, ly excite in us, and to expiate the and added something on the piety sins into which we thus fall." of his life." The idea of a good Beaed : Port Eoyal II. 182. man's expiating his own sins in ' Baue : Versohnungslehre, part is continually appearing in 250 sq.- 316 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. founded his theory was : " Tantum valet omne crea- tum oblatum, pro quanto acceptat Deus illud, et non plus."* There is no interior fitness and adaptation between Christ's atonement and man's sin. God was pleased to accept this particular sacrifice as an offset and equivalent for human transgression, not from any intrinsic value in it, but because he so pleased. He might have accepted any other substitute, or he might have dispensed with accepting any substitute at all. ^ In opposition to this view, the followers of Aquinas maintained the old Anselmic theory of the infinite demerit of sin, and the infinite and ob jective value of Christ's satisfaction. In this con troversy, the soteriology of the adherents of Aquinas is more in harmony with the Protestant view and feeling ; so that we might reverse what Melanchthon remarks of Augustine, and say, that "the opinion of Aquinas is more pertinent, fit and convenient when he disputed than it was when not disput ing." And yet it would be difficult to see how the followers of Aquinas could in the end avoid the conclusions of Duns Scotus, if they started from that doctrine of a relative necessity of satisfying justice which we have seen Aquinas held, in common with all the Schoolmen excepting Anselm, If omnipo tence and bare will are more ultimate in the Divine Nature than justice and truth are, then it is difficult ' Duns Sootus : Dist. xx. lib. ' Geehaedus : Loci Theologici, iii., in Sent. Lombardi, Quaest, I. Tom. IV. p. 122. RECAPITULATORY SURVEY. 317 to see how Scotus can be censured for holding, that in the last analysis God can dispense with an atone ment altogether, and that whatever value the exist ing judicial provision possesses in the divine plan, it possesses not in itself, but solely by virtue of its op tional acceptance by the Omnipotent One who is not limited by anything, not even by hia own moral attributes. The controversy, however, ran high be tween the adherents of Aquinas and Scotus, — ^the Dominican order generally siding with the former, and the Franciscan with the latter. The Nominal ists in philosophy also naturally favoured the views of Scotus, as his theory was that of a nominal and putative satisfaction, in distinction from a real, and objective one. The extravagantly speculative minds of the age, those who have given the reputation of hair-splitting and excessive dialectics to Scholasti cism, also adopted the positions of Scotus. § 7. Recapitulatory Survey, Casting a swift glance backward over this Scho lastic period, we recapitulate the following facts, as the summary of what we have found in the history of the doctrine of Atonement. 1. The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, or sub stituted penalty, was the general form of doctrine among all classes of minds within the pale of the Church, as it was in the Patristic period. All pro fess to adopt it, and its explicit denial or rejection 318 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. was deemed heresy. The Socinian position was not taken or defended by the Mediaeval theologians. 2. The doctrine of vicarious satisfaction was held in the purely Biblical form by Anselm, without mixture of foreign elements, or subtraction of intrin sic and essential characteristics. Had the Anselmic soteriology prevailed in the theory and practice of the Church generally, the Eeformation ofthe 16th century would have occurred in the llth. 3. The doctrine of vicarious substitution was not maintained in this pure and unqualified form by the successors of Anselm. Some of them, and those nearest to him in time, did not adopt his theory in its strictly sci entific form, while yet they retained in feeling and practice its substantial features. Others, and these the later Schoolmen, while retaining the doctrine nominally and in phraseology, in reality essentially altered it ; first, by confounding sanctification with justification, and, secondly, by teaching that an additional merit derived either from the church through its sacraments, or from voluntary penance on the part of the individual, is requisite in order that the satisfaction of Christ may be a complete and efficacious one. 4. In the departure from the Anselmic theory of an absolute as distinguished from a relative satisfaction, we find the germs of the subsequent Papal soteriology which during the middle and latter part of the Scholastic period shoot up with rankness and luxuriance. CHAPTEE IH. THE PAPAL SOTERIOLOGY. 1. Preliminxt/ry Statements, The history of the doctrine of Atonement in the Middle Ages has disclosed two tendencies within the Western Church, in respect to the nature of Christ's work, — the one strict, and the other lax. The first has its representative in An selm, and its expression in the theory of an infinite and real satisfaction. The second has several repre sentatives, because it involves a descending scale. Some of the immediate successors of Anselm, — such as Bernard, the St. Victors, and Bonaven tura, — ^retained the substance of the Anselmic view in their practical representations, yet at the same time in their theoretic statements made some modi fications of the scientific positions of Anselm ; of which the most important was the adoption (by Bonaventura for example) of the doctrine of the " relative " necessity of the atonement. The logical force and implication of these modifications was 320 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. neutralized, in a great measure, by the reliance of the heart upon the Person and work of the Ee deemer, in the instances, certainly, of the penitent and devout Bernards and St. Victors. But the tendency itself was off and away from the strict exactitude of science, and it could not remain sta tionary. We have already noticed in Aquinas, and still more in Lombard, the theory of a mixed justi fication, resting partly upon the work of Christ, and partly upon the works of the individual ; while the Abelards and Scotuses made statements of the doc trine of atonement that were regarded by Bernard and the adherents of Aquinas as positively hereti cal. The consequence was that in process of time the strict tendency was entirely overcome by the lax one. The Anselmic theory disappeared en tirely from the heart of the Eoman Church, and remained concealed in, at most, a very narrow cir cle, until it burst forth with renewed energy and vitality in the soteriology of the Eeformation. The lax theory prevailed, becoming more loose and lati tudinarian as the corruption of both theory and practice advanced within the Papal Church, until it finally obtained a distinct expression, and an ecclesiastical authority, in the Soteriology of the Council of Trent} ' This council was formally Sept. 17, 1549 ; was re-convened opened at Trent, Dec. 13, 1545 ; at Trent, May 1, 1551 ; was sus- held its first session, Jan. 7, 1546 ; pended, April 28, 1552 ; was re- was transferred to Bologna, March opened, Jan. 18, 1562, and sat to 12, 1547 ; was there dissolved, Dec. 4, 1563. TRIDENTINE SOTERIOLOGY, 321 § 2. Soteriology of the CounoU of Trent, The Tridentine theory makes inward holiness in conjunction with the merits of Christ the ground of justification. It founds human salvation upon iwo corner-stones. The doctors of Trent construct their exact and formal definition of justification out of that one element of error which, we have seen, somewhat vitiated the soteriology of Augustine. The unintentional confounding of the distinction between justification and sanctification, which ap pears occasionally in the Patristic writers, becomes a deliberate and emphatic identification, in the scheme of the Papal Church. The Anselmic and Protestant soteriologies mean by the term "justification," that divine act, instan taneous and complete, by which sin is pardoned. If we distinguish the entire work of redemption into two parts, a negative and a positive, justification in the Pauline and in the Eeformed signification would include the former and would include nothing more. Justification is the negative acquittal from condem nation, and not in the least the positive infusion of righteousness, or production of holiness. This posi tive element, the Eeformers were careful to teach, invariably accompanies the negative ; but they were equally careful to teach that it is not identical with it. The forgiveness of sin is distinct and dif ferent from the sanctification of the heart. It is an VOL. n. — 21 322 HISTORY OF SOTERIOLOGY. antecedent which is always followed, indeed, by its consequent ; but this does not render the consequent a substitute for the antecedent, or one and the same thing with it. * But the Council of Trent resolved justification into sanctification, and in the place of a gratuitous justification and remission of sins through the expiation ofthe Eedeemer, substituted the most subtle form of the doctrine of justification by works that has yet appeared, or that can appear. For the doctors of Trent do not teach, in their canonical statements, that man is justified and accepted at the bar of justice by his external acts of obedience to the moral or the ecclesiastical law. This is, indeed, the doctrine that prevails in the common practice of the Papal Church, but it is not the form in which it appears in the Tridentine canons. According to these, man is justified by an inward and spiritual act which is denominated the act of faith; by a truly divine and holy habit or principle infused by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit. The ground of the sinner's, justification is thus a divine ' The Westminstee Confession the other, it is subdued ; the one thus states the distinction between doth equally free all believers justification and sanctification. from the revenging wrath of "Although sanctification be in- God, and that perfectly in this separably joined with justifica- life, that they never fall into con tion, yet they differ, in that God demnation ; the other is neither in justification i»ipM pii regnum mundi occa- > Eusebius : Eccl. Hist. IH. xxxix. MrLLENABIANISM, 397 paturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis." * The English Confession of Edward VL., from which the Thirty Nine Articles were afterwards condensed, condemns it in nearly the same terms as the Augsburg. " Qui millenariorum fabulam revocare conantur, sacris Ute ris adversantur, et in Judaica deliramenta sese prae cipitant." * The Belgic Confession guards the state ment respecting the second advent of Christ, by teaching that the time of its occurrence is unknown to all created beings, and that it will not take place until the number of the elect is complete. " Credimus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, quando tempus a Deo praestitum, quod omnibus creaturis est igno tum, advenerit, et numerus electorum completus fuerit, e caelo rursus venturum, etc," ^ The history of Chiliasm since the Eeformation presents few points of importance. During the present century, individual minds in England and America, and upon the Continent of Europe, have attempted to revive the theory, — ^in some instances, in union with an inteUigent and earnest orthodoxy ; in others, in connection with an uneducated and somewhat fanatical pietism. The first class is re- presentedi by Delitzsch and Auberlen in Germany, and by Cumming, EUiott, and Bonar in Great Britain ; the second class by the so-caUed Advent ists and Millerites in the United States. The facts, then, estabUshed by this account of 'Hasb: Libri Symbolici, p, 14 'Niembtee: Oolleotio, p. 600, 'Niemeybe: CoUectio, p, 387. 398 history of eschatology. MUlenarianism in the Ancient, Mediaeval, and Mod ern Churches, are the following : 1. That MiUena rianism was never the oecumenical faith of the church, and never entered as an article into any of the creeds. 2. That MiUenarianism has been the opinion of individuals and parties only, — some of whom have stood in agreement with the catholic faith, and some in opposition to it. § 2. Catholic Theory of the Second Advent. The pressure of persecution being lifted off, the church returned to its earlier and first exegesis ofthe Scripture data concerning the end of the world, and the second coming of Christ. The representations in Eev. xx. were once more interpreted by those in Matt. XXV,, which speak only of an advent at the day of judgment ; and by the instructions given by St, Paul, in 2 Thess. ii., to correct the erroneous in ference which the Thessalonian Church had drawn from his first Epistle to them, " that the day of Christ is at hand." The personal coming of Christ, it was now held, is not to take place until the final day of doom ; until the gospel has been preached " unto the uttermost part of the earth " (Acts i, 8) ; until the Jews have been converted to Christianity, after " the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in " (Eom, xi,) ; and until that great apostasy has oc curred which is mentioned by St. Paul (%^Thess. ii. catholic theory. 399 3). The eschatology of the oldest symbol became the "oecumenical doctrine, and the Church in all its ages, without even a hint of any other appearance of the risen Eedeemer, has confessed in the phrase ology of the Apostles Creed its belief, that " He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty ; from thence he shaU come to judge the quick and the dead." CHAPTEE II. the resurrection.' § 1. The Intermediate State. The opinions of the Early Fathers concerning the residence of the soul in its disembodied state, Taetween death and the resurrection, were somewhat fluctuating. The idea of a Hades, or under-world, where departed spirits dwell, was familiar to the Hebrew mind as it was to the Greek, and so far as this idea passed over to Christianity it tended to the doctrine of a state intermediate between this earthly life, and the everlasting abode of the soul assigned to it in the day of judgment. Justin Martyr represents the souls of the righteous as taking up a temporary abode in a happy, and those of the wicked in a wretched place ; and stig matizes as heretical the doctrine that souls are im mediately received into heaven at death.'* Tertulr ' The materials in this and the Hagenbach : History of Doctrine succeeding chapter are derived (Smith's Ed.). mostly from Baumgaeten-Ceu- 'Justinus Maetye: Dialogus 8IUS : Dogmengeschichte, and cum Tryphone, §§ 5. 80. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 401 Man held that the martyrs went at once to the abode of the blessed, but that this was a privilege peculiar to them, and not granted to other Chris tians.* Cyprian, on the other hand, says nothing of an intermediate state, and expresses the confident belief that those who die in the Lord, by pestilence or by any other mode, wiU be at once taken to him.^ In the Alexandrine School, the idea of an intermediate state passed into that of a gradual purification of the soul, and paved the way for the later Papal doctrine of purgatory.* The doctrine of an intermediate state not only maintained itself, but gained in authority and influ ence during the Polemic period (250-730). Am^ hrose taught that " the soul is separated from the body at death, and after the cessation of the earth ly life is held in an ambiguous condition (ambiguo suspenditur), awaiting the final judgment."* Aur gustine remarks that " the period (tempus) which intervenes between the death and the final resur rection of man, contains souls in secret receptacles, who are treated according to their character and conduct in the flesh." ^ " The majority of ecclesias tical writers of this period," Hagenbach remarks, " believed that men do not receive their full re- ' Teetullianus : De anima, lv ; * Ambbobius : De Cain et Abel, De resurrectione, xliii. II. ii. " Cypeiauus : Adv. Demetrinm ; " Augustinus : Enchiridion, De mortalitate. cix. ' Eedepenning : Origenes, 235. VOL. n. — 26 402 HISTORY OF ESCHATOLOGY. ward till after the resurrection of the body." Here and there, however, there was a dissenting voice. Gregory Nazianzen supposed that the souls of the righteous, prior to the resurrection of the body, are at once admitted into the presence of God; in which opinion he seems to be supported by Gen/na- dius, and Gregory the Great. Eusebius also de clares that Helena, the mother of Constantine, went immediately to God, and was transformed into an angelic substance. In the Middle Ages and the Papal Church, the doctrine of an intermediate state was, of course, re tained and defended in connection with that of purgatory. In the Protestant Church, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected ; but some difference of sentiment appears respecting the intermediate state. Calvin combatted the theory of a sleep of the soul between death and the resurrection (Psychopan- nychy), which had been revived by some of the Swiss Anabaptists, and argues for the fuU con sciousness of the disembodied spirit. The Second Helvetic Confession expressly rejects the notion that departed spirits reappear on earth. Some theologians endeavored to establish a distinction between the happiness which the disembodied spirit enjoys, and that which it will experience after the resurrection of the body. They also dis tinguished between the judgment which takes place at the death of each individual, by which his des tiny is immediately decided, and the general judg- THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 403 ment at the end of the world. Speaking generally, the doctrine of an intermediate state has found most favour in the Lutheran division of Protestants. In the English Church, since the time of Laud, the doctrine has found some advocates, chiefly in that portion of it characterized by high church views, and a Eomanizing tendency. The followers of Swedenborg adopt the tenet, in a highly gross and materializing form. § 2. The Resurrection Body. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was from the beginning a cardinal and striking tenet of the Christian Church. The announcement of it by Paul at Athens awakened more interest, and pro voked more criticism, than any other of the truths which he taught (Acts xvii. 32). All the early Fathers maintain this dogma with great earnestness and unanimity, against the objections and denial of the skeptics, — of whom Celsus is the most acute and scoffing in his attacks. Most of them beUeved in the resuscitation of the very same body that lived on earth. Only the Alexandrine School dissented upon this point. Justin Martyr affirms that the body will rise again with all its members. Even cripples will rise as such, but at the moment of resurrection will be made physicaUy perfect. Ire naeus asserts the identity of the future with the 404 HISTORY OF ESCHATOLOGY. present body. Tertullian wrote a tract upon the resurrection, maintaining that the very same body will be raised that was laid in the grave. He an swers the objection that certain members of the body will be of no use in the future life, by the re mark that the bodily member is capable of both a lower and a higher service. Even upon earth, the mouth serves not only for the purpose of eating, but also of speaking and praising God. Cyprian foUows TertuUian in his representations. Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, on the other hand, adopt a spiritualizing theory of the resurrection. Origen teaches that a belief in the doctrine of the resurrec tion of the body is not absolutely essential to the profession of Christianity, provided the immortality of the soul be maintained. Yet he defended the church dogma against the objections of Celsus, re jecting, however, the doctrine of the identity of the bodies, as giving a handle to scoffers. These ideal izing views of the Alexandrine School were adopted by several of the Eastern theologians ; for example, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, and perhaps Basil} But they were combatted at both the East and the "West, with great vehemence. Jerome maintained the identity of the resurrection-body with that laid in the grave, in respect to the very ' Synesius of Cyrene acknowl- was interpreted, by some, as an edged that he could not adopt the entire denial of the doctrine of current view in the church re- the resurrection. specting the resurrection, which THE RESURRECTION BODY. 405 hairs and teeth. This last he proves by the " gnash ing of teeth " in the world of woe. Augustine, in the earlier part of his Christian life, was somewhat inclined to the spiritualizing view ofthe Alexandrine School ; but afterwards defended the more sen suous theory, though being careful to clear the doc trine of gross and carnal additions. Chrysostom as serted the identity of the two bodies, but directs particular attention to the Pauline distinction of a " natural body " and a " spiritual body." Gregory the Great maintained substantially the same views with Augustine. The doctrine of the Ancient Church, that the hu man body will be raised with all its component parts, passed into the Middle Ages, and was regarded as the orthodox doctrine. Thomas Aquinas, founding upon the Patristic theory, goes into details. " The resur rection will probably take place toward evening, for the heavenly bodies which rule over all earthly mat ter must first cease to move. Sun and moon wUl meet again at that point where they were probably created. No other matter wiU rise from the grave than what existed at the moment of death. If all that substance were to rise again which has been consumed during the present life, it would form a most unshapely mass. The sexual difference wUl exist, but without sensual appetites. All the organs of sense will still be active, with the exception of the sense of taste. It is, however, possible that even this latter may be rendered more perfect, and 406 HISTORY OF ESCHATOLOGY. fitted for adequate functions and enjoyments. Hair and nails are one of the ornaments of man, and are therefore quite as necessary as blood and other fluids. The resurrection bodies wUl be exceedingly fine, and be delivered from the corpulence and heavy weight which is now so burdensome to them ; nevertheless, they wiU be tangible, as the body of Christ was touched after his resurrection. Their size will not increase after the resurrection, nor wiU they grow either thicker or thinner. To some ex tent they will still be dependent on space and time ; yet the resurrection bodies wUl move much faster, and more easily, from one place to another, than our present bodies; they will be at liberty to follow the tendencies and impulses of the soul. They are glorified, bright, and shining, and can be perceived by glorified eyes alone. But this is true only in reference to the bodies of the blessed. The bodies of the damned are to be ugly and deformed, incor ruptible, but capable of suffering, which is not the case with the bodies of the saints." * These repre sentations afterwards found their vivid embodiment in the poetry of Dante, and the painting of EaffaeUe and Michael Angelo. Scotus Erigena endeavoured to revive the ideas of Origin, but his opinions found no favour. The Patristic theory of the resurrection body was transmitted, also, to the Protestant churches, * Aquinas : Summa, P. iii. Qu. 75 ; quoted by Hagenbach ; His tory of Doctrine, § 204. THE RESURRECTION BODY. 407 and the history of the dogma in modem times ex hibits comparatively few variations from the tradi tional beUef, — and these, mostly in the line of Ori gen's speculations. CHAPTEE III. THE FINAL STATE. § 1. Day of Judgment. The doctrine of a general judgment was, from the first, immediately connected with that of the resurrection of the body. Mankind are raised from the dead, in order to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. The Fathers founded their views of the day of doom upon the represen tations and imagery of Scripture. They believed that a general conflagration would accompany the last judgment, which would destroy the world; though some ascribed a purifying agency to it. Some of them, like Tertullian and the more rhetori cal of the Greek Fathers, enter into minute details, while others, like Augustine, endeavour dogmat ically to define the facts couched in the figurative language of Scripture. These two classes also per petuate themselves in the Mediaeval Church. In the Middle Ages, it was a popular opinion that the judgment would take place in the vaUey of Jehos aphat. But it was found difficult to unite in a DAY OF JUDGMENT. 409 single scene aU the various imagery of Scripture, — such for example, as the darkening of the sun and moon, and yet the effulgence of light accompanying the advent of the judge. Hence theologians like Aquinas (Qu. 88, Art. 2.) maintained that the judgment would take place mentaliter, because the oral trial and defence of each individual would re quire too much time. In the Modern Church, the course of thought upon this doctrine has been sim Uar to that in the Ancient and Mediaeval, The symbols of the different Protestant communions ex plicitly affirm a day of judgment at the end of the world, but enter into no details. Individual specu lations, as of old, vibrate between the extremes of materialism and hyper-spiritualism. § 2. Purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory was intimately con nected with that of an intermediate state, and was developed along with it. In proportion as the con dition of the soul between death and the resurrec tion was regarded as very different from its con dition after the final judgment, it was natural that the intermediate state should be looked upon as one in which the everlasting destiny is not irrevocably fixed, and in which there might possibly be a de liverance from evU and perU, Those of the early Fathers who held the doctrine of an intermediate 410 history of eschatology. place, made no practical distinction between the condition of the soul previous to the resurrection, and its condition after it. The wicked were misera ble, and the good were happy, — and that eternally. The chief difference between the intermediate state, and the final state, for either the sinner or the saint was, that in the former the soul is disembodied, and in the latter it is " clothed upon " (2 Cor. v. 2). But in course of time, the difference between the inter mediate and the final state of the soul became greatly magnified. The Scripture doctrine that there are degrees of reward and punishment in the future world was construed by some of the later Fathers in such a manner, as to bring the lowest grade of reward into contact with the lowest grade of punishment, and thereby to annihilate the differ ence in kind between heaven and hell. Thus, the intermediate state gradually came to be regarded as the region in which the spirit is in a vague and un decided position in respect to endless bUss and woe, and consequently as one in which the escape from everlasting misery is stiU possible. The doctrine of a purification of believers, only, in the intermediate state, shows itself as early as the 4th century. The cleansing was confined to those who had become partiaUy sanctified in this Ufe. Augustine supposes that the teachings of St. Paul in 1 Cor. Ui. 11-15 imply, that the remainders of corruption in the renewed soul may be purged away in the period between death and the final judgment. PURGATORY. 411 The idea of a purifying fire is distinctly presented by Gregory Nazianzen. But the Papal doctrine of purgatory does not yet appear. It is not until the time of Gregory the Great (f 604), that the doc trine attains its full form. He lays it down as an article of faith, and is the first writer who clearly propounded the idea of a deliverance from purga tory by intercessory prayer, and masses for the dead (sacra oblatio hostiae salutaris). " Comparing," says Hagenbach,* " Gregory's doctrine with the earlier, and more spiritual notions concerning the efficacy of the purifying fire of the intermediate state, we may adopt the statement of Schmidt, that ' the be lief in a lasting desire after a higher degree of per fection, which death itself cannot quench, degenerated into a belief in purgatory} " The dogma of purgatory, thus gradually formed, passed into the Middle Ages, and was embodied firmly in the Papal system by the decisions of the CouncU of Trent. Its place and influence in the Papal Church are weU known. § 3. Eternal Rewards amd Punishment. That the blessedness of the good is unchanging and eternal, has been the uniform faith of the Church in all ages. Eepresentations concerning the nature of this happiness vary with the culture, and inteUec- ' Hagenbach : History of Doctrine, § 141. 412 HISTORY OP ESCHATOLOGY. tual spirit, of the time or the individual, Justin Martyr regards the blessedness of heaven as con sisting mainly in the continuation of the happiness of the miUennial reign, heightened by the enjoy ment of immediate intercourse with God, Origen holds that the blessed dwell in the aerial regions, passing from one heaven to another as they progress in holiness. At the same time, he condemns those who expect sensuous enjoyment in the heavenly state. The soul will " have a clear insight into the destinies of men, and the dealings of Providence. Among the teachings of God in that higher state, will also be instruction about the stars, ' why a star is in such and such a position, why it stands at such and such a distance from another,' etc. But the highest and last degree is the intuitive vision of God himself, the complete elevation of the spirit above the region of sense." The Greek theolo gians, like Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory Nyssa, adopted the views of Origen, and taught that the blessedness of heaven consists in enlarged knowl edge of divine things, intercourse with the saints and angels, and deliverance from the fetters of the earthly body. Augustine believed that the heavenly happiness consists in the enjoyment of peace which passes, knowledge, and the vision of God which can- riot be compared with bodily vision. One important element in the happiness of the redeemed, according to him, is deliverance from all hazards of apostasy, sin, and death, — the non posse peccare et mori. ETERNAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT. 413 The Schoolmen, while holding the essential fea tures in the Patristic theory, endeavoured to system atize this subject, as they did every other one. They divided heaven into three parts, — the visible heaven, or the firmament ; the spiritual heaven, where saints and angels dwell ; and the intellectual heaven, where the blessed enjoy the beatific vision of the Trinity. Degrees of happiness are bestowed according to the grade of perfection. Aquinas supposed different gifts of blessedness, denoted by the corona aurea which is bestowed upon aU the blessed, and the particular aureolae for martyrs and saints, for monks and nuns. Some of the Mystics, as Suso, describe the heavenly happiness under imagery derived from lovely Alpine valleys, and bright meadows, and the joyful abandonment of heart incident to the open ing of the vernal season. But they are careful to remark, that all such descriptions are only an image of an ineffable reality. The Modem Church maintains the doctrine of everlasting blessedness in essentially the same form with the Ancient and Mediaeval. The tendencies to materialize, or to spiritualize it, vary with the grades of culture and modes of thinking. The popular mind still instinctively betakes itself to the sensuousimage- ry and representations, with Justin Martyr and Ter tullian ; while the educated intellect seeks, with Ori gen, the substance of heaven in the state of the soul. " Most certainly," says one of this class, " there is per fect happiness beyond the grave, for those who ha/ve in 414 HISTORY OP ESCHATOLOGY. this world begun to enjoy it, and this is by no means different from that which we may here at any time begin to possess. We do not enter into this state of happiness, merely by being buried. Many wUl seek happiness in the future life, and in the infinite series of future worlds, as much in vain, as in the present life, if they think it can be found in any thing but that which is now so near to them, that it can never be brought nearer, — viz., the Eternal." The punishment inflicted upon the lost was re garded by the Fathers of the Ancient Church, with very few exceptions, as endless. Clement of Rome (Ep. ii. 8) affirms, that " after we leave this world, we are no longer able to confess sin, and to turn from it " {ovx tTi bvva^id-a ixtl siofj-oXoyrjOaG^at Tj fiaravouv he). Justin Martyr {ante^oh i. p. 128) asserts the eternity of future punishments, in oppo sition to Plato's doctrine, that they would last a thousand years. Minucius FeUx (Cap. 35) remarks of the damned : " Nec tormentis, aut modus uUus aut terminus." Cyprian (Ad. Demetr.), in similar terms, says of the lost : " Cremabit addictos ardens semper gehenna, et vivacibus flammis vorax poena, nec erit, unde habere tormenta vel requiem possint aliquando, v^ finem. Servabantur cum corporibus suis animae infinitis cruciatibus ad dolorem. . . . Quando istinc excessum fuerit, nuUus jam pceni tentiae locus est, nullus satisfactionis effectus: hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur ; hic saluti aeternae cultu Dei, et fructu fidei, providetur." Augustine ETERNAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT. 415 argues that the misery of the lost wiU be endless, from the use of the word aiaviog in Matt. xxv. 41, 46, which, he maintains, must have the same signi fication when applied to the punishment of the evil, as to the recompense of the good. " If both things are alike aiaviog, then the term must be interpreted to mean either that both are transitory, or that both are everlasting. 'Eternal' punishment and 'eter nal' life are contrasted with each other. To say that ' eternal ' life will have no end, but that ' eter nal ' punishment will have an end, is absurd." Ee specting the nature of the punishment, Augustine considers that separation from God constitutes the ¦ severity and dreadfulness of it ; but leaves it to the individual to choose between the more sensuous, or the more spiritual mode of interpretation, — adding, that it is better to unite them together.* Chrysos tom employs his powerful eloquence in depicting the everlasting torments of the lost ; but remarks that it is of more consequence to know how to escape hell, than to know its locality or its nature. The only exception to the belief in the eternity of future punishment, in the Ancient Church, ap pears in the Alexandrian School. Their denial of the doctrine sprang logicaUy out of their anthropo logy. Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, we have seen, asserted with great earnestness the tenet of a plenary and inalienable power in the human wUl to ' Augustinus : Enchiridion, § 112; De moribus ecclesiae, c. 11 ; De civitate, XXL Ix. 10, 416 HISTORY OF ESCHATOLOGY. overcome sin. The destiny of the soul is thus placed in the soul itself The power of free wiU {avr&^ov- 6iov) cannot be lost, and if not exerted in this world, it stiU can be in the next ; and under the full Ught of the eternal world, and the stimulus of suf fering there experienced, nothing is more probable than that it will be exerted.* Hence, in opposition to the catholic faith, Origen maintained the doc trine of the final restoration of all human souls. At the same time, he acknowledged that this doc trine might easily become dangerous to the uncon verted, and sometimes speaks of an eternal condem nation, and the impossibility of conversion in the world to come. Yet, in close connection with this very statement, he calls the fear of eternal punish ment a beneficial " deception " appointed by God. " For many wise men," he says, " or such as thought themselves wise, after having apprehended the real and absolute truth respecting endless punishment, and rejected the delusion, have given themselves up to a vicious life. So that it would have been much better for them to have continued in the de lusion, and believed in the eternity of future punish ment."^ The views of Origen concei-ning future retribution were almost wholly confined to his school. Faint traces of a behef in the remission of 'Clement and Origen both tracts in Baumgaeten-Ceusius: found the flnal recovery of Satan Dogmengeschichte, II. 218. and his angels, upon this abiding " Baumgaeten-Ceusius : Dog- existence of free will to good in mengeschichte, II. 890 ; Hagen- the rational spirit. See the ex- baoh : History of Doctrine, § 78. ETERNAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT. 417 punishments in the future world are visible in the writings of Didymus of Alexandria, and in Gregory Nyssa, The annihilation of the wicked was taught by Arnobius, With these exceptions, the Ancient Church held that the everlasting destiny of the human soul is decided in this earthly state. The Mediaeval Church received the traditional doctrine respecting endless retribution. Heaven and hell were separated by an absolute and impas sable gulf, but the intermediate space between them was subdivided into purgatory, which lies nearest to hell ; the Umbus infantum, where aU unbap tized children remain ; and the limbus patrum, which is the abode of the Old Testament saints, and the place to which Christ went to preach redemp tion to the spirits in prison. This last limbus was also called Abraham's bosom. Aquinas considers the torments of the damned to consist in useless re pining and murmuring. They can change neither for the better, nor for the worse. They hate God, and curse the state of the blessed. Mystics like /Skyo describe the misery of the lost, in the same vivid and sensuous phrase in which they depict the happiness of the saints. " O ! separation, ever lasting separation, how painful art thou ! O ! the wringing of hands ! O ! sobbing, sighing, and weep ing, unceasing howUng and lamenting, and yet never to be heard. . . Give us a mUlstone, say the damned, as large as the whole earth, and so wide in circum ference, as to touch the sky all around, and let a VOL. n.— 27 418 HISTORY OF ESCHATOLOGY. little bird come once in a hundred thousand years, and pick off a small particle of the stone, not larger than the tenth part of a grain of millet, after another hundred thousand years let him come again, so that in ten hundred thousand years he would pick off as much as a grain of miUet, we wretched sinners would ask nothing but that when this stone has an end, our pains might also cease ; yet even that can not be ! " The Inferno of Dante delineates the Me diaeval ideas of final retribution in letters of fire. The Dantean inscription upon the infernal gate : " Leave all hope behind, ye who enter here," ex presses the sentiment of the Mediaeval Church, with scarcely an exception. Even the adventurous Scotus Erigena, though suggesting a revival of Origen's theory of the restitution of all things, did not deny the eternity of the punishments of hell. He attempted to combine both doctrines, by assert ing the abolishment of evil considered as a kingdom, or a system, while yet it might continue to exist for ever in certain incorrigible individuals. The Modern Church has accepted the traditional faith upon this subject. In proportion as the inspi ration and infaUibility of Eevelation have been con ceded, the doctrine of an absolute and therefore endless punishment of sin has maintained itself, — ^it being impossible to eliminate the tenet from the Christian Scriptures, except by a mutilation of the canon, or a violently capricious exegesis. The de nial of the eternity of future punishments, in modem ETERNAL REWAEDS AND PUNISHMENT. 419 times, has consequently been a characteristic of those parties and individuals who have rejected, either partiaUy or entirely, the dogma of infallible inspi ration. BOOK SEYENTH. HISTORY SYMBOLS. LITEEATUEE. GuEEiCKE : Allgemeine Christliche Symbolik. WrNBB: Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschie- denen Christliche Kirchenparteien. Walch : Introductio in libros Ecclesiae Lutheranae symbolicos. Calovius : Synopsis Controversiarum. Hase : Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Evangelicae (Lutheran Symbols). Mbtbb : Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. Niembtbh : CoUectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis publi- catorum (Calvinistic Symbols). Augusti : Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum (Calvinistic Symbols). St:ebitwolf : Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Catholicae (Roman Cath olic Symbols). Kimmel : Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Orientalis (Greek Symbols). CHAPTEE I. ANCIENT AND MEDIAEVAL SYMBOLS. § 1. Preliminary Statements. The subject of Symbolism naturally follows that of Special Dogmatic History. The construction of single doctrines bythe thinking of the Church is suc ceeded by their combination into creeds and confes sions of faith ; and, therefore, the history of the first process should be completed by that of the second. The importance of this topic is apparent, in the first place, from its very close connection with that of systematic theology. It differs from it, as the pro cess differs from the product ; as the history of a science differs from the science itself. Theology con structs the compact and solid creed, while Symbolism gives an account of its plastic and flowing construc tion. The two subjects are therefore reciprocally related, and connected, by that great law of action and re-action which prevails in the mental world, as that of cause and effect does in the material. Hence, one serves to explain, verify, or modify, the other. Again, the history of Creeds is important, be- 424 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. cause it imparts clear and precise conceptions of the differences between ecclesiastical denom inations. Each particular branch of the Chris tian Church possesses its peculiarities, by virtue of which it is denominational and particular. It is sometimes difficult to specify this point of differ ence; so much so, that the hasty observer often times concludes, from the general simUarity in their religious experience, that there is really no differ ence between the doctrinal bases of all those de nominations who " hold the head," and are properly called evangelical. The peculiarities of evangelical churches appear with more distinctness in their creeds, than in their religious experience ; and hence the scientific observer must leave the sphere of feel ing and practice, and pass over into that of theory and dogmatic statement, in order to reach the real difference between the varieties of Christians. For there is a difference. Organizations cannot be founded, and, still less, maintained from age to age, upon mere fictions and imaginary differences. Tried by the test of exact dogmatic statement, there is a plain difference between the symbol of the Armin ian, and that of the Calvinist ; but tried by the test of practical piety and devout feeling, there is but Uttle difference between the character of John Wesley and that of John Calvin. And this for two reasons. In the first place, the practical religious life is much more directly a product of the Holy Spirit, than is the speculative construction of Scripture PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 425 truth. Piety is certainly the product of divine grace ; but the creed is not so certainly formed un der a divine Ulumination. Two Christians, being regenerated by one and the same Spirit, possess one and the same Christian character, and therefore, upon abstract principles, ought to adopt one and the same statement of Christian beUef. On attempt ing its construction, however, they pass into the sphere of the human understanding, and of human science, and it is within this sphere that the diver gence begins, and the foundation for denominational existence is laid. In the second place, the diver gence is seen in the creed rather than in the charac ter, because one mind is more successful in un derstanding and interpreting the Christian experi ence itself, than another is. Unquestionably, evan gelical denominations would be much more nearly agreed in their dogmatic theology, if the power of accurate statement were equally possessed by all. But one individual Christian comprehends the Chris tian experience more clearly and profoundly than another, who yet, by virtue of his regeneration, is equally a subject of it ; and, as a consequence, he comprehends the Scriptures more profoundly, and is better qualified than his fellow Christian to con struct a clear, comprehensive, and self-consistent creed. All doctrinal history evinces, that just in proportion as evangelical believers come to possess a common scientific talent for expressing their com mon faith and feeling, they draw nearer together 426 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. SO far as regards their symbolic literature. WhUe, on the contrary, a slender power of self-reflection and analysis, together with a loose use of terms, drives minds far apart within the sphere of scientific theology who often melt and flow together within the sphere of Christian feeUng and effort. Science unites and unifies wherever it prevails ; for science is accuracy in terms, definitions, and statements. In the third place, the history of Symbols is im portant, because it contributes to produce this talent of clear apprehension, and power of accurate state ment. Symbolism affords a comparative view of creeds. It is therefore to theology, what compara tive anatomy is to physical science, or comparative phUology is to linguistic. When languages began to be compared with languages, many obscurities were cleared up which overhung the old method of investigating them, and the whole subject of defini tions underwent a great improvement. The mean ing of language became much more precise and fuU, than it had been, under this light thrown back wards and forwards, and in every direction, from a great number of languages investigated together. The same effect is produced by the comparative study of confessions of faith. Probably nothing in the way of means would do more to bring about that universal unity in doctrinal statement which has been floating as an ideal before the minds of men amidst the denominational distractions of Pro testantism, than a more thorough and general ac- PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 427 quaintance with the symbols of the various denomi nations, and the history of their origin and forma tion. There would be less misapprehension and misrepresentation of the views of other parties, which is one of the chief obstacles to uniformity in confessions of faith. The honest objections that trouble the minds of those who refuse to adopt a particular form of statement would be seen, and, thus, would be more likely to be answered, instead of overlooked or perhaps ridiculed. On all sides, and for aU minds, more light would be poured upon the profound mysteries of a common Evangelical Christianity, if theologians were in the habit of looking over the whole field of symbolic literature, instead of merely confining themselves to the exam ination of a single system. Such study would by no means result in destroying confidence in any one system, and induce that eclecticism which results in a mere aggregation that possesses no fundamental unity, and no self-subsistent force of its own. On the contrary, the theological mind would become immoveably settled in its conviction, that this or that confession of faith is the closest to Scripture data, and when asked for its symbol would exhibit it, and defend it. But, at the same time, this very confidence would beget calmness and moderation in dealing with a mind of different doctrinal views; and calmness and moderation do much toward bringing controversialists to that point of view where they see eye to eye. 428 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. § 2. Apostles' Creed. The Apostle Peter, in his answer to the inquiry of Christ : " But whom say ye that I am ?", made the first formal confession of faith under the Chris tian dispensation. The answer : " Thou art Christ, the Son of the Uving God" (Matt. xvi. 16), was re garded by the Eedeemer as the doctrinal basis of his kingdom upon earth; for "upon this rock," — this cordial acknowledgment of his character and redeeming work, — ^he informed his disciples he would found his church. * A short and simple confession similar to this was made by the early converts to Christianity. The candidate for admission to the church, at his baptism, professed his faith in Christ as the Ee deemer of the world. The eunuch baptized by Philip said solemnly, in connection with the admin istration of the rite : " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts, viu. 37.) Along with this recognition of the deity of Christ and his me diatorial work, admission into the church was also connected with a confession of belief in the doctrine of the trinity. The baptismal formula, which was invariably used, in accordance with the solemn and explicit command of Christ, naturally led to the ' The Protestant understands that by it is meant the peraon of the " rock " to be the confession Peter. of Peter ; the Papist contends apostles' creed. 429 adoption of this doctrine into the confession made by the new convert from Paganism or Judaism. And it would have been the deepest hypocrisy and dishonesty in the candidate for baptism, to reject a doctrine that was taught and commended to him by the officiating minister, at the very moment of his reception into the church, and in the very phrase ology of his initiation. In this way, the confession of faith made in the Apostolic age, by the neophyte, combined the doctrine of the trinity with that of the deity of Christ, and his mediatorial Person and work. This confession, at first, was exceedingly brief and simple, and not adopted by any formal action of the church in its public capacity, — ^for, as yet, general councils, or even local ones, were un known. There is every reason, nevertheless, for be Ueving that the practice of confessing one's faith was general and uniform among the churches. Paul reminds Timothy of the " good profession " which he had made before many witnesses (1 Tim. vi. 12); and in 1 Tim. iii. 16, there seems to be a summary that indicates a current creed-form. The concurrent testimony of the primitive Fathers goes to show that from the first, admission into the church was connected with the pubUc acknowledg ment of certain truths. Out of these confessions, which each church adopted and used in the reception of its members, there was formed, at a very early date, what is call ed the Symbohtm Apostolicum. The term evfi^oXov, 430 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. from 6v/j,fidXX£tv (conferre), denotes that the for mula was a collocation and combination. Eufinus, at the end of the 4th century, would find in this etymology the proof of the apostolic authorship of this creed. It was constructed, he maintained, out of matter which each one of the Apostles brought in, and threw into a common stock ; 6v(A,fioXov oti sxaGTog OvvsfiaXe. The objections to this view of Eufinus, which maintained itself down to the Eeformation,* that the Apostles formally and verbally drew up the creed which goes under their name, are the follow ing. 1. No mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, of any synod of the Apostles in which they composed a creed for the Christian Church, — a synod far too important to be unnoticed. 2. The Fathers of the first three centuries, in disputing with the heretics, while endeavoring to prove that the doctrine of this creed is apostolic in the sense of scriptural and true, never assert that the Apostles personally composed it. Eusebius, for example, would certainly have cited it as the Apostles' work, if he had known or believed it to be theirs. 3. This creed is cited by the Primitive Fathers with minor variations. Some of them omit the clause relating to the " descent into hell ; " others, those concerning the " communion of saints," and the "life everlasting." This they would not have ventured ' Lauebntius Valla (t 1546) was the first to dispute the apostolic authorship of it. apostles' creed. 431 to do, had they known the creed to be an inspired document. But that this symbol, is of the very earliest an tiquity cannot be doubted ; and that it is apostolic in the sense of harmonizing with the Apostles' doc trine in Scripture, is equally clear. The words of Luther respecting it are lively. "This confession of faith we did not make or invent, nor did the Fathers before us ; but as a bee collects honey from the beautiful and fragrant flowers of all sorts, so is this symbol briefly and accurately put together out of the books of the prophets and apostles, i. e. out of the whole sacred Scripture, for children and sim ple hearted Christians. It is called theApostles' symbol or confession, because Christian truth could not possibly be put into a shorter and clearer state ment than this. And it has been in the church from the beginning ; since it was either composed by the Apostles themselves, or else brought togeth er from their writings or preaching, by some of their best pupils." * The Apostles' Creed runs as follows : " I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth ; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius PUate, was cru cified, dead, and buried ; He descended into hell ; the third day He rose again from the dead ; He ascend- ' LuTHEB : Kirchenpostille, Th. xiv. 11. (Lpz. Ed.). 432 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. ed into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty ; from thence He shaU come to judge the quick and the dead. I beUeve in the Holy Ghost ; the Holy CathoUc Church ; the com munion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; the res urrection of the body ; and the life everlasting." * ' We append here the summa ries of the Christian faith given by Ieenaeus and Teetulllan. Their coincidence with the Apos tles' Creed is apparent; while yet their variations from it show that they are not mere copies of it. "The Church, though scat tered through the whole habita ble globe to its utmost bounds, has received from the apostles and their pupils the belief, in one God, Father almighty, the maker of heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them ; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of Grod, who was made flesh for our sal vation ; and in the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets an nounced the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the incarnate ascension into hea ven of the beloved Christ Jesns our Lord, and his re-appearance {napovalciv) from the heavens with the glory of the Father, in order to gather together into one {avaKi(^a\aii)iTaHabb: Libri Symbolici, 9, 10. LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 449 words, 'We acknowledge that free wiU is in aU men ; that it has, indeed, a rational judgment, by means of which it is able to begin and to finish without God's grace not those things which pertain to God, but only those works which pertain to this present Ufe, the good as well as the bad, — the good I say, meaning those which are in their place right and proper ; e. g. to will to work in the field, to wiU to eat and drink, to will to have a friend, to wUl to have clothes, to will to build a house, to will to marry a wife, to will to raise cattle, to learn an art, or whatever good it may be that pertains to this present life.' The churches also condemn the Pelagians and others who teach, that without the Holy Spirit, by natural powers aloue, we are able to love God supremely." * This Confession, then, ex hibits the Latin in distinction from the Greek an thropology, and favours the monergistic theory of regeneration. In its soteriology, the Augsburg Confession, as would be expected, is eminently evangelical. " The churches teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own power, merit, or works, but are justified on account of Christ, through faith, when they believe that they are received into fa vour and their sins are remitted for Christ's sake, who made satisfaction for our sins by his death. This faith God imputes for righteousness before ' Hase : Libri Symbolici, 14. VOL. II.— 29 450 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. Him (Eom. iii. and iv.)."* After alluding to the alteration made by the Papists in their statement of the doctrine of good works, — viz., that man is justified not by works alone, nor by faith alone, but by faith and works together, which is the Tridentine theory, — ^the Confession proceeds to speak thus con cerning good works : " Our good works cannot reconcile God, or merit remission of sins, grace, and justification, but we obtain all these by faith alone ; by believing that we are received into favour for the sake of Christ, who alone is the mediator and propitiation by which the Father is reconciled. This doctrine respecting faith is everywhere taught by Paul ' By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, &c.' . . . Our churches also teach that it is necessary to perform good works, not however in order to merit pardon and remis sion of sins, but because God wills and commands them." " In its eschatology, the Augsburg Confession enunciates the catholic doctrine concerning future retribution and the second advent of Christ. " The churches condemn the Anabaptists, who are of opin ion that there will be an end to the punishment of lost men and devils. They likewise condemn those who are disseminating Jewish opinions, that prior to the resurrection of the dead the saints are to pos- ' Hash : Libri Symbolici, 10. ' Hasb ; Libri Symbolici, 17, 18. LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 451 sess the kingdoms of the world, the wicked being everywhere overcome " (oppressis). * Though decidedly Protestant upon the cardinal doctrines, the Augsburg Confession contains some remnants of that unscriptural system against which it was such a powerful and earnest protest. These Popish elements are found in those portions partic ularly which treat of the sacraments ; and more particularly in that article which defines the sa crament of the Supper. In Article XIH, the Augsburg Confession is careful to condemn the popish theory, that the sacraments are efficacious " ex opere operato,^'' — that is, by their intrinsic effica cy, without regard to faith in the recipient, or to the operation of the Holy Spirit, — but when in Ar ticle X. it treats of the Lord's Supper, it teaches that " the body and blood of Christ are truly pres ent, and are distributed to those who partake of the Supper." ^ This doctrine of Consubstantiation, according to which there are two factors, — viz., the material bread and wine, and the immaterial or spiritual body of Christ, — ^united or consubstantiar ted in the consecrated sacramental symbols, does not differ in kind from the Papist doctrine of Tran substantiation, according to which there is indeed but one element in the consecrated symbol, but that is the very body and blood of Christ into which the bread and wine have been transmuted. The Lu- • Ease : Libri Symbolici, 14. " Hase : Libri Symbolici, 12. 452 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. theran theory, like the Popish, promotes a supersti tious feeling in reference to the Eucharist, and does much towards nullifying the meaning and effect of Article XIIL, in which a magical effect ex opere ope rate is denied to the sacraments. Another feature in this symbol evincing that the riddance of Papal errors was not complete, is the point of Absolution, Article XII, thus defines it, " Eepentance properly consists of these two parts ; the first is contrition, or the terrors of an awaken ed conscience, together with the acknowledgment of sin; the second is faith, which is conceived by an apprehension of the gospel promise, or by abso lution, and which believes that the individual's sin is remitted on account of Christ, consoles the con science, and deUvers from fear," By " absolution " is meant the official declaration of the clergyman to the penitent that his sins are forgiven him, upon finding or believing that he is exercising a godly sorrow, and is trusting in the blood of Christ, The creed adopts this practice from the custom of the Eoman Catholic Church, and like this finds its warrant for it in the words of Christ : " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re mitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained " (John xx, 23). In their explana tion and defense of the Augsburg Confession, enti tled Apologia Confessionis, the Lutheran divines, speaking of this power of the keys, say: "And since God reaUy renews the soul by his word, the LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, 453 keys really remit sin, according to Luke x, 16 : 'He that heareth you heareth me.' Wherefore the voice of him who gives absolution is to be believed not otherwise than as a voice sounding from heaven." ^ Now, although this act of absolution is merely de clarative, and the most thoroughly evangelical view is taken of the ground and cause of the re mission of sins, it is evident that this act and practice puts the penitent into wrong relations to the church and the clergy, and paves the way for the distinctively Papal theory upon these points. It is true, indeed, that if there be godly sorrow for sin and a hearty faith in the work of Christ, the soul is forgiven ; but no human authority can pronounce a person to be actually pardoned, and absolve him as such, without pronouncing at the same time, by im plication, that the said person is truly penitent and believing, — a fact that cannot be unqualifiedly as serted by any but the Searcher of hearts. In re taining this power of absolution, and in exercising it, the Lutheran Church unintentionally tempted its members to an undue reliance upon a human deci sion, and drew them away from a simple trust upon the work of Christ, contrary to its own theory and faith. In the year 1540, ten years after the adoption of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon put forth an edition of the symbol, in Latin, which goes un- ' Ease : Libri Symboliisi, p. 16T. 454 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. der the name of the variola, — the original edition being denominated the invariata. The changes in troduced into it by Melanchthon relate to the sub jects of regeneration and the sacraments. Me lanchthon, as the controversy went on between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, became more and more inclined to synergism. The original Confes sion, as we have seen in the history of anthropolo gy, was decidedly monergistic, but the altered edi tion leans to the theory of co-operation in regenera tion. With respect to the sacraments, it inclines to the Calvinistic theory, showing the reaction against the Semi-Popish theory of consubstantiation The original unaltered Confession, alone, has sym^ bolical authority in the Lutheran Church ; but par ties and individuals within it have received the Con fessio variata with favour. The influence of Me lanchthon's synergism is very apparent in some of the Lutheran theologians of Germany of the present generation, in the assertion of the existence of a re cipiency, or preparation for the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is referred to the instinctive strivings of the human soul by virtue of its divine origin. The adoption of this view shows itself in decided opposition to the Augustino-Calvinistic doctrines of election and predestination, and a strongly polemic attitude towards the Calvinistic system. The next document possessing symbolical au thority in the Lutheran Church is the Apologia Confessionis. LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 455 The Protestants having thus put forth the Augs burg Confession as the summary of their belief, the Papal theologians who were present at the diet were summoned by the emperor Charles V. to pre pare a critical examination and refutation of it. This they did in a document entitled Confutatio Confessionis Augustanae, which was read in the imperial assembly on the 3d of August, 1530. The emperor approved it, and demanded that the Pro testants should return to the doctrinal basis of the Catholic Church. They asked for a copy of the Confutation, for examination, which was refused, Melanchthon then entered upon a detailed refuta tion of the Confutatio, so far as he could reconstruct the document from his own recollection on hearing it read, and from notes that had been taken by oth ers who were present at the reading, — afterwards revising and perfecting his work, by the aid of an authentic copy of the Papal treatise that finally came into his possession. This defence of the Augs burg Confession contains an expansion of the dog matic positions of this document, together with some attacks upon the Papal system ; although the ¦ work, as a whole, breathes the mildness and mode ration of the peace-loving theologian who composed it. In doctrinal respects, it is even more decided than the original Confession, particularly upon the two points most at issue between Protestants and Papists, viz. : sin and justification. The Protestants proposed to present this Apolo- 456 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. gy at the diet held on Sept. 22d, 1530 ; but the em peror declared that he would neither hear, nor re ceive, any more documents from the Protestants. Thus, the Apology received no public adoption at that time. It was from the first, however, regarded by the Protestant theologians as a symbolical docu ment, and in 1537 was subscribed as such by them at Smalcald. In connection with the Augsburg Confession, it constitutes the sum and substance of the Lutheran theology, and both togetljer constitute the doctrinal basis of the Lutheran Church. The results to which the Protestants had come in these two productions were wrought over, and presented at other times, before other bodies, and in other forms, according as the interests of the Pro testants required. In this way, a series of symbol ical writings resulted which constitute a part of Lu theran Symbolism, The following are the most important of these, 1, The Confessio Saxonica, or Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae, was drawn up by Melanchthon for the use of the Council of Trent, in 1551, and is a repetition of the Augsburg Con fession, as the title indicates. 2. The Confessio Wurtemburgica was composed by Brenz for the use of the same council, in 1552, 3, The Articles of Smalcald were drawn up by Luther in 1536, and subscribed by the evangelical theologians, in Febru ary, 1537, They contain, in substance, the doc trines of the Augsburg Confession and the Apolo gy, presented in a decidedly polemic form. For LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 457 their purpose was both defensive and aggressive. By this time, the Protestant cause had become strong politicaUy as weU as morally, and when the pope, at the suggestion of the emperor, sought to call a general council at Mantua, in 1537, these Ar ticles served to consolidate the Protestant opposition, and to prevent the Protestant churches from taking any part in an ecclesiastical assembly in which their own opinions were already condemned beforehand. In the second part of these Articles, Luther, with his characteristic energy, attacks the claims of the pope to be a universal bishop, as contrary to the nature and spirit of the true evangelical church. Melanchthon signed the articles with the conciliato ry remark, that he for himself should be willing to concede to the pope the bishopric of bishops jwre humano, and on the ground of past usage and for the sake of peace, if the pope would concede evan gelical doctrine to the Protestants. This disturbed the mind of the earnest reformer, who saw that re conciliation with Eome was now impossible and un desirable, and on parting with Melanchthon, after the convention at Smalcald, Luther left him the blessing : " May God fiU you with hatred of the pope." 4. Luther's two Catechisms, Major and Mi nor, were published in 1529, — the first for the use of preachers and teachers, the last a guide in the instruction of youth. These, it will be noticed, were published before the Augsburg Confession. 5. The Formula Concordiae was drawn up by Andrea 458 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. and others, in 1577, and presented to the imperial diet, which sought to secure its adoption by the en tire Lutheran Church. In this they were unsuccess ful. It is a polemic document, constructed by that portion of the Lutheran Church that was hostile to the Calvinistic theory of the sacraments. It carries out the doctrine of consubstantiation into a tech nical statement, — ^teaching the ubiquity of Christ's body, and the communicatio idiomatum, or the presence of the Divine nature of Christ in the sacra mental elements. The Lutheran Church is stiU divided upon this symbol. The so-called High Lu therans insist that the Formula Concordiae is the scientific completion of the preceding Lutheran symbolism ; while the moderate party are content to stand by the Augsburg Confession, the Apolo gy, and the Smalcald Articles. § 2. Reformed {Calvinistic) Confessions. The Eeformed, or Calvinistic, Churches were less successful than the Lutheran in maintaining an out ward and visible unity, and one consequence is a much more varied symbolical literature. The oldest Confession of that branch of Protest antism which was not satisfied with the Lutheran tendency and symbol is the Confessio Tetrapolitana, — so called, because the theologians of four cities of upper Germany, Strasburg, Costnitz, Memmingen, OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 459 and Lindau, drew it up, and presented it to the em peror at the same diet of Augsburg, in 1530, at which the first Lutheran symbol was presented. The principal theologian concerned in its construction was Martin Bucer, of Strasburgh. It consists of 22 articles, and agrees generally with the Augsburg Confession. The points of difference pertain to the doctrine of the sacraments. Upon this subject it is Zuinglian. These four cities, however, in 1532 adopted the Augsburg Confession, so that the Confessio Tetrapolitana ceased to be the formally adopted symbol of any branch of the church, al though it was always held in high repute among the Swiss churches, particularly on account of its Zuin glian attitude upon the sacramental controversy. And this brings us to the views of Zuingle himself, who exerted a great influence upon the Eeformed Churches, in the opening period of Protestantism. Zuingle sent a confession of faith, entitled Fidei Ratio, embodying his own individual opinions, to that notable diet at Augsburg in 1530, where so many reUgious parties and interests were repre sented. Previously to this, Zuingle had exhibited his views in sixty-seven articles drawn up in 1523, but almost wholly upon points pertaining to the ex ternals of Christianity, and particularly the sacra ments. But in this document he discussed the car dinal subjects of religion, and laid the foundation of that peculiar aspect of Protestantism which goes under his name. 460 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. On examination, this creed is found to differ from the Augsburg Symbol. 1. Upon the sub ject of original sin, the language of Zuingle is as follows. "I think this in regard to original sin. That is properly sin which is a transgression of the law ; for where there is no law, there is no trans gression ; and where there is no transgression, there is no sin properly so called, — ^that is to say, so far as by sin is meant wickedness, crime, viUainy, or guilt. I acknowledge, therefore, that our father sinned a sin that is truly sin, i. e., wickedness, crime, and turpitude. But those who are generated from that person did not sin in this manner ; for what one of us bit with his teeth the forbidden apple in Paradise ? Hence, whether we will or not, we are compelled to admit that original sin, as it is in the sons of Adam, is not truly sin, in the sense already spoken of, for it is not a crime committed against law. Consequently, it is, properly speaking, a dis ease and a condition. A disease, because, as he lapsed from love of himself, so also do we lapse ; a condition, because, as he became a slave and obnox ious to death, so also we are born slaves and chUd ren of wrath, and obnoxious to death. . . . Adam died on account of sin, and being thus dead, that is sentenced to death, in this condition he gen erated us. Therefore we also die, — so far as he is concerned, by his fault and criminality ; but so far as we are concerned, by our condition and disease, or, if you prefer, sin, but sin improperly so called. OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 461 Let us iUustrate by an example. A man is taken captive in war. On the ground of his own hostility to his captors, and treachery towards them, he deserves to be made a slave, and is so held. Now, they who are born of him in this condition are slaves, not by' virtue of their own fault, guUt, or crime, but by virtue of their condition, which condition is the conse quence of the guUt of their father, who had deserved to come into it by his fault. The children in this in stance are not laden with crime, but with the punish ment, firie, loss, or danger of crime, — i. e., with a wretched condition, a servitude."-^ The difference between Zuingle's theory of original sin, and that of Luther and his associates as exhibited in the extracts given from the Augsburg Confession, is apparent. It is the reappearance of the old difference between the Greek and Latin anthropologies, upon this sub ject. 2. The second principal point of difference between Zuingle's Fidei Ratio, and the Augsburg Confession, relates to the sacrament of the Supper. Zuingle's mind was a remarkably clear one, and made distinctions with great luminousness. Eespect ing the Eomish theory, that there is an intrinsic efficacy in the sensible sign and material symbol, he makes the same general statement with the Lutheran confession, only in a more vivid and keen style. " I believe," he says, " nay I know, that all sacraments, so far from conferring grace, do not even bring or "Nibmbtee: CoUectio, 20, sq. 462 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. dispense it. In this, O Csesar, I may perhaps seem to you to be too bold and confident. But this is my opinion. For inasmuch as grace comes, or is given, by the Divine Spirit, the entire gift of grace in the end is resolved into the influence of the Holy Ghost alone. For a vehicle or guide is not necessary to the Spirit ; for that is the real virtue and power in any instance which conveys or moves other things, and not that which needs to be conveyed or moved. We never read in the Scriptures that sensible and material things, such as the sacraments are, certainly and in every instance convey the Holy Spirit ; but if sensible things, are themselves ever conveyed and made operative by the Spirit, then it is this Spirit, and not the sensible thing, that is the ultimate effi cient energy. If, when the mighty wind rushed onward, the tongues of flame were borne onward by the wind, then the wind was not lifted and conveyed by the tongues of flame. So, likewise, it was the wind that brought the quails and blew away the locusts ; but no quails or locusts ever pos sessed such wings as to bear onward the winds." ^ To the sacrament of the Supper, Zuingle applies the principle thus stated and illustrated, with great energy and decision, in such a manner as to ex clude both the theory of consubstantiation and transubstantiation. His reasoning is full and de tailed. He argues from scripture, from reason, and ' Niemetee : CoUectio, 24, sq. OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS, 463 from history ; and maintains that view of the eucharist which is now widely prevalent in the Protestant churches, " I believe," he says, " that in the eucharist the body of Christ is truly present to the eye of faith, — that is, that those who thank God for the benefits conferred in Christ do acknowledge that he assumed real human flesh, really suffered in it, really washed away our sins by his blood, and thus aU that was done by Christ becomes, as it were, a present reality to those who behold these sym bols with the eye of faith. But that the body of Christ is present in essence and real substance, — in other words, that the natural body of Christ is present in the Supper, and is masticated by our teeth, as the Papists and certain persons who look back to the flesh pots of Egypt assert, — we not only deny, but affirm to be contrary to the word of God,"^ Zuingle concludes with specifying the particulars in respect to which the bread and wine are symbolical, and his whole theory may be sum med up in the statement, that the sacrament is com memorative by means of emblems. The Fidei Ratio of Zuingle was the work of an individual mind, and as such bears a private and not a public character. Though not adopted by any secular or ecclesiastical body, it nevertheless exerted great influence among the Swiss churches, and upon one branch of the Eeformed doctrine. In this ' Fiembtee : CoUectio, 26. 464 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. same year, 1530, Zuingle also drew up, for the use of the Swiss, a briefer statement of doctrine, sub stantially the same with the Fidei Ratio, under the title of Fidei brevis et clara Expositio, The Zuinglian system prevailed in the Swiss cantons, and especiaUy in the city of Basle and its neighbouring aUy Miihlhausen. Oswald Myconius drew up, as early as 1532, a Confession in twelve articles, after a sketch which Oecolampadius had made, which goes under the name of the First Basle Confession {Basiliensis prior Confessio Fidei). The cities of Basle and Miihlhausen adopted it, but it never obtained general currency. It is a brief and simple creed in its structure, presenting with distinctness the evangelical view of justification and the sacraments, and is considerably reserved re specting the more speculative aspects of Christian doctrine. Concerning the character of man, it speaks as follows : " We confess that man in the beginning was made upright, after the image of God's righteousness and holiness, but that he has fallen wilfully into sin, by which the whole human race has become corrupt and subject to condemna tion, our nature has been weakened, and has ac quired such an inclination to sin, that whenever it is not restored by the Spirit of God, the man of himself never wUl do anything good." -^ The most important of all the Eeformed Con- ' Niemetee : CoUectio, 79. OALVINISTIC CONFESSIONS. 465 fessions that were constructed previous to the pub lic appearance of Calvin, is the First Helvetic Con fession {Confessio Helvetica Prior), sometimes de nominated the Second Basle Confession. It origin ated as foUows, In the year 1535, the most distin guished Eeformed theologians of Switzerland assem bled at Aarau, to counsel with reference to a union with the Lutherans of Germany. The first step to be taken in order to this was, of course, to draw up a creed expressive of their own views, and indicating how far they could go towards meeting the Luther ans upon controverted points. In 1536, deputies were sent for this purpose, from Basle, Zurich, Berne, Schafhaiisen, St. Gall, Miihlhausen, and Biel. They met in Basle, and appointed three theologians of their number to draft a confession of faith. These three were BuUinger of Zurich, Oswald Myconius and Simon Grynaeus of Basle, with whom were after wards associated Juda of Zurich, and Groszman of Berne. This confession was subscribed March 26, 1536, by the authorities secular and ecclesiastical of the seven above-named cantons, and was adopted by aU the Eeformed cantons of Switzerland as their symbol. In 1537, it was sent to the Lutheran theo logians at Wurtemberg, and at Smalcald, without effect, however, so far as the union of the two par ties was concerned. The First Helvetic Confession is pacific in its tone. When compared with the views of Zuingle, it is easy to see that the Swiss theologians advanced VOL. n. — SO 466 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. toward the Augsburg Confession in no inconsidera ble degree, without, however, taking exactly the same position respecting the controverted points. Its language upon the subject of original sin is as follows. " Man, the most perfect image of God on the earth, and having the primacy of all visible creatures, consisting of soul and body, of which the last is mortal and the first immortal, having been created holy by God, lapsing into sin (vitium) by his own fault, drew the whole human race into the same with himself, and rendered it obnoxious to the same calamity. And this disease (lues) which id termed ' original,' so pervaded the whole human race, that the child of wrath and enemy of God can be cured by no power except the divine granted through Christ. We attribute free will to man in this sense, viz. : that when in the use of our faculties of knowing and willing we attempt to perform good and evil actions, we are able to perform the evil of our own accord and by our own power, but to embrace and foUow out the good we are not able, unless illumin ated by the grace of Christ, and impeUed by his Spirit, for it is God who works in us to will and to do according to his good pleasure ; and from God is salvation, from ourselves perdition," ^ In its anthropology, then, the First Helvetic Confession agrees with the Augsburg in recognizing the Adamic connection. It differs from the Augs- ' NiBMETEE : CoUectio, 116, sq. CALVENISTIO CONFESSIONS. 467 burg Symbol, in asserting by implication instead of directly, that original sin is guilt, and agrees with it in denying a recuperative power in the fallen will, — a point upon which Zuingle's Fidei Ratio is silent, neither affirming nor denying. The approximation of this principal Swiss Confession to the Lutheran is not so near upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, though it is easy to see some slight modification of the Zuinglian theory. The phraseology is as follows. " In the mystic supper, the Lord offers his body and blood, that is, himself, to those that are truly his, that they may live more and more in him and he in them. Not that the bread and wine are, in their own substance, united with the substance of the body and blood of the Lord ; but the bread and wine, by the institution of our Lord, are symbols through which is exhibited a true communication by the Lord himself, through the ministers of the church, of his own body and blood, not as the perishing food of the flesh, but as the nourishment of eternal life." ^ The Eeformed Confessions thus far examined were constructed previously to the public appear ance of Calvin, and without any direct influence from him. We come now to those Which were drawn up, more or less, under his influence. The Concensus Tigurinus was composed by Calvin himself, in 1549, and was adopted by the Zurich theologians. It comprises twenty-six articles^ which • Niemetee : CoUectio, 120, sq. 468 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. treat only of the sacrament of the Supper. It grew out of a desire upon the part of Calvin, to effect a union among the Eeformed upon the doctrine of the Eucharist. The attitude of Calvin respecting the Sacramentarian question was regarded by the Luther ans, as favourable rather than otherwise to their pecu liar views. His close and cordial agreement with Luther upon the fundamental points in theology, together with the strength of his phraseology when speaking of the nature of the Eucharist, led the Swiss Zuinglians to deem him as on the whole fur ther from them than from their opponents. In this Consensus Tigurinus, he defines his statements more distinctly, and left no doubt in the minds of the Zurichers that he adopted heartily the spiritual and symbolical theory of the Lord's Supper, The course of events afterwards showed that Calvin's theory reaUy harmonized with Zuingle's ; for as the Luther an scheme of consubstantiation expanded, the two parties became less and less cordial, so that the High Lutheran of the present day exhibits a tem per towards the Calvinistic theory of the sacraments hardly less inimical than that which the early Lu theran manifested towards the Papacy, Calvin, in 1551, drew up a confession entitled the Consensus Genevensis, which contains a very full exhibition of his theory of Predestmation, to which topic it is confined. Its purpose was, to unite the Swiss churches in the reception of his own views, upon a topic far more difficult of comprehension OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 469 than the sacraments, and respecting which there was some difference of opinion among the Swiss the ologians. Zuingle had taught the doctrine of abso lute predestination, and so far as his views had pre vailed in Switzerland there was a readiness to re ceive those of Calvin. In this Consensus, which the Genevan theologians adopted, and which acquired almost universal authority among the Eeformed churches of Switzerland, the Calvinistic theory of Predestination is presented with great clearness and comprehensiveness. The Second Helvetic Confession {Confessio Hel vetica Posterior) is one of the principal symbols of the Eeformed Church. It was constructed by BuUinger, in 1564, who was intrusted with this la bour by a body of Swiss theologians, mostly from the cantons of Zurich, Berne, and Geneva. It was adopted by all the Eeformed churches in Switzer land, with the exception of Basle (which was con tent with its old symbol, the First Helvetic), and by the Eeformed churches in Poland, Hungary, Scotland, and France, It enunciates the strictly Calvinistic view of the sacraments in opposition to the Lutheran view, and maintains the Calvinistic theory of predestination. As this creed represents the theology of that great division of Protestantism which received its first forraation under the guid ance of Zuingle and the Swiss theologians, and was completed under that of Calvin and his coadjutors, it merits some detailed examination. 470 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. 1. Upon the doctrine of the Trinity, its teaching is as foUows. " We believe that God, one and indi visible in essence, is, without division or confusion, distinct in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that the Father generates the Son from eternity, the Son is begotten by an ineffable genera tion, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from each, and that from eternity, and is to be adored together with each, so that there are not three Gods, but three persons, consubstantial, co-eternal, and co equal, distinct as hypostases, and one having prece dence of another as to order, but with no inequality as to essence." ^ 2. Eespecting the doctrines of Pre destination and Election, the Helvetic statement is as follows. " God, from eternity, predestinated or elected, freely and of his own mere grace, with no respect of men's character, the saints whom he would save in Christ, according to that saying of the apos tle : ' God chose us in himself before the foundation of the world.' Not without a medium, though not on account of any merit of ours. In Christ, and on account of Christ, God elected us, so that they who are engrafted in Christ by faith are the elect, but those out of Christ are the reprobate." ^ 3. Upon the topics of Sin, Free Will, and Justification, the Helvetic Confession makes the following statements. "Sin we understand to be that native corruption of man, derived or propagated to us all from our first ' Niemetee : CoUectio, 470, 471. ' Niemetee : CoUectio, 481. OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 471 parents, by which, immersed in evil concupiscence and averse from good, but prone to all evil, full of all wickedness, unbeUef, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. In the unrenewed man there is no free wiU to do good, no power for performing good. The Lord in the gospel says, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' The apostle Paul says, ' The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither in deed can be.' " ^ " Justification, in the meaning of the apostle, signifies remission of sins, absolution from guilt and punishment, reception into favour, and pronouncing just," — all upon the ground of the fact, that " Christ took the sins of the world upon himself, endured their punishment, and satisfied di vine justice." ^ Concerning the Eucharist, this sym bol is Zuinglian. It teaches that the elements are signs, — not vulgar or common, but " sacred " " con secrated " emblems. " He who instituted the Sup per, and commanded us to eat bread and drink wine, willed that believers should not perceive the bread and wine only, without any sense of the mys tery (sine mysterio), as they eat bread at home, but they should partake spirituaUy of the things signi fied, i. e. be washed from their sins through faith in Christ's blood and sacrifice." ^ The Second Helvetic Confession, besides having ' Nibmbtbr : CoUectio, 477, 480. ' Niemetee: CoUectio, 494. ' Niemetee : CoUectio, 514, 515, 472 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. great currency among the Eeformed churches with in and without Switzerland, was recast and condens ed into two other symbols : 1. The Confessio Pala tina ; 2. The Repetitio Anhodtina. These were lo cal confessions, drawn up for the use of provincial churches only. The Formula Consensus Helvetici, one of the most scientific of Calvinistic symbols, was composed at Zurich, in 1675, by Heidegger, assisted by Fran cis Turretin of Geneva, and Gereler of Basle. It was adopted as their symbol by nearly all the Swiss churches, though with hesitation on the part of some of them. Controversies, however, continued with out abatement among them, so that this symbol did not prove to be the bond of union which it was de signed to be, and since 1722 it has ceased to have authority as an authorized symbol, though much es teemed by the High Calvinistic party. This Confession was called out by that modified form of Calvinism which, in the 17th century, emanat ed from the school at Saumur, represented by Amy- rault, Placaeus, and Daille. Concerning the Atone ment, its language is as follows. " We do not agree with the opinion of those who teach that God pur poses the salvation of all men individually, provided only they believe, by reason of his philanthropic be nevolence, or because he is moved by a certain love of the fallen race of mankind that is prior to his purpose of election ; by a certain ' conditional will,' or ' primal compassion,' as they term it, — ^that is, by CALVINISTIC CONFESSIONS. 473 a wish or desire on his part that is inefficacious."^ Upon this, foUows a statement of the doctrine of atonement that limits its application to the individ ual by the electing purpose of God, which purpose infallibly secures the saving acceptance of the atone ment by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Eespect ing the doctrine of Original Sin, the Formula Con sensus teaches, that the ground of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity as guilt, is a real and not a nominal one ; in other words, that the charge of original sin upon the individual, as true and proper sin, is founded upon its commission by the race in the person of the progenitor, and not upon its ficti tious imputation to the individual by an arbitrary act of God. The phraseology is as follows. " We are of opinion, that the sin of Adam is imputed to all his posterity by the secret and just judgment of God. For the apostle testifies that all sinned in Adam ; that by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners ; and that in the same man aU die. But it does not appear how hereditary corrup tion, as spiritual death, could faU upon the entire human race, by the just judgment of God, unless some fault (delictum) of this same human race, bringing in (inducens) the penalty of that death, had preceded. For the most just God, the judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty." ^ The Heidelberg Catechism {Catechismus Palati- " Niemetee: CoUectio, 732, "Niembtee: CoUectio, 733. 474 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. nus) ^ possesses the double character of a symbol, and a book for systematic instruction. In connection with the Second Helvetic Confession, it is the most generally adopted of the Eeformed Confessions, and has great authority outside of the particular com munions that adopt it. As early as the middle of the 16th century, the Palatinate of the Ehine, a large and important division of Germany lying upon both banks of the river, had adopted the Augsburg Confession, chief ly under the influence of its crown princes. In the year 1560, the crown prince Frederick III, intro duced the Swiss doctrine and worship. His succes sor, Lewis VL, in 1576 carried the Palatinate back again to a Lutheran symbol, the Formula Concor diae. John Casimir, the successor of Lewis, restored the Eeformed doctrine, which after that time became the prevalent one in the Palatinate. In order to give the Eeformed party a definite and established organization, Frederick III. commissioned two Hei delberg theologians to compose a catechism. These were Ursinus, a student of Melanchthon's, and Ole vianus, — the first of whom performed the principal labour. The catechism was laid before the superin tendents or bishops, and preachers, in 1562, for their acceptance ; and in the following year it was pub- ' See the excellent Monograph man Eeformed Church in Amer- commemorative of the tercente- ica, by Scribner, New York, nary of this symbol, published 1863. under the auspices of the Ger- CALVINISTIC CONFESSIONS. 475 Ushed, in the name of the crown prince, as the doc trine of the Palatinate, and was introduced into the churches and schools of the land. The Heidelberg Catechism is one of the best of the many systems' of Christian doctrine that were constructed in the prolific period of the Eeforma tion. Though not composed directly for such a purpose, as were the Lutheran Formula Concordiae and the Calvinistic Formula Consensus, it is better fitted than either of them to unite both branches and tendencies of Protestantism. It consists of three parts. The first treats of the misery of man ; the second of his redemption ; the third of his happy condition under the gospel. It contains 129 ques tions and answers, arranged for the 52 Sabbaths of the year. In doctrine, it teaches justification with the Lutheran glow and vitality, predestination and election with Calvinistic firmness and self-consisten cy, and the Zuinglian theory of the sacraments with decision. It was originally composed in German; has been translated into Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as into nearly all the languages of modern Europe; was approved by the highly Calvinistic synod of Dort, and is regarded with great favour by the High Lutheran party of the present day. The Confessio Belgica was first drawn up as a private confession by Von Bres, in 1561. It con tains 37 articles, and is thoroughly Calvinistic. It was composed in French, and was first printed in Walloon French and Dutch in 1562. In 1571, it 476 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. was revised, and adopted by the entire Holland Church in the 16th century. After another revis ion of the text, it was publicly approved by the synod of Dort in 1618. The Confessio Gallicana, a Calvinistic symbol, was composed by a synod of the Eeformed party convened at Paris in 1559. Theodore Beza sent a copy of it to Charles IX. It was subscribed by a synod at Eochelle in 1571, and is the adopted con fession of the French Protestant Church. The French Eeformed churches in Holland also receive this as their symbol. The Confessio Scoticana was constructed in 1560, by the Scottish preachers, — principally by John Knox. It is Calvinistic in substance and spir it, and was introduced throughout Scotland by state enactment. The Canons of the Synod of Dort constitute a highly important portion of the Calvinistic symbol ism. In the beginning of the 17th century, Armin ianism had arisen in Holland, and to oppose it this synod was convened. Besides the Holland theolo gians, there were representatives from many of the foreign Eeformed or Calvinistic churches, — though the former had the preponderating influence.* The ' The synod was composed of 61 East Friesland, and Bremen. The HoUanders, — viz. : 5 professors. States General levied one hun- 36 preachers, and 20 elders, — dred thousand guilders upon the and 28 foreign theologians, from provinces, to defray the expenses England, Scotland, the Palati- of the deputies to the synod. nate, Hesse, Switzerland, Nassau, OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 477 synod met Nov. 13, 1618, and continued in session until May 9, 1619 ; held discussions with the Ee monstrants, or Arminians, who appeared in synod by 13 deputies headed by Episcopius ; and drew up, during the 154 sessions, 93 Canones which com bat the principal tenets of the Arminians, and de velope the Calvinistic system. The Eeformed churches in the Netherlands, France, the Palatinate, the greater part of Switzerland, and the Puritans in Great Britain received these canons as the scientific and precise statement of Christianity. The English Episcopal Church, in which at that time the Armin ian party was dominant, rejected the decisions of this synod, and a royal mandate of James I., in 1620, forbade the preaching of the doctrine of predestina tion. The Dort Canons are composed in a positive, and a negative form. After the statement of the true doctrine according to Calvinism, there follows a re jection of the opposing Arminian errors. The fol lowing extracts from the Rejectio errorum indicate the views of the Synod upon the doctrines of Origi nal Sin, Free WiU, and Atonement. "The synod rejects the error of those who teach that it is not true that original sin of itself is sufficient to con demn the whole human race, and merits temporal and eternal punishment The synod rejects the error of those who teach that spiritual gifts, that is good ' dispositions and virtues, such as holi ness and justice, could have had no place in the wiU 478 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. of man when first created, and consequently could not be separated from it in the fall The sy nod rejects the error of those who teach that spiritual gifts are not lost from the will of man in spiritual death, because the will was not corrupted, but is only impeded by the darkness of the mind, and the inordinate appetites of the flesh, — which impediments being removed, the will is able to ex ert its innate freedom, i. e. of itself either to wUl or to choose, or not to will or not to choose, whatever good is set before it The synod condemns the error of those who teach that grace and free wiU are each partial and concurrent causes at the commencement of conversion ; that grace does not precede the efficiency of the will, in the order of causality, — i. e., that God does not efficiently aid the will of man to conversion, before the wUl itself moves and determines itself. .... The synod re jects the error of those that, teach that Christ by his satisfaction has not strictly merited faith and sal vation for those to whom this satisfaction is effectu ally applied, but that he has only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary power of treating de novo with mankind, and of prescribing whatever new conditions he pleases, the performance of which depends upon the free will of man, so that it may be that no man wiU fulfil them, or that all men wUl." 1 ' Niemetee : CoUectio, in locis. OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 479 The Thirty-Nine Articles of the English Church, Uke the constitution of the English State, were a gradual formation. Under King Edward VL, arch bishop Cranmer and bishop Eidley drew up a sym bol, in 1551, for the Eeformed Church in England, which was entirely Calvinistic in substance and spirit. This was adopted by a synod at London, in 1552, and thereby received public sanction. It goes under the name of " The Forty-Two Articles of Edward Sixth." This symbol was revised by the bishops of the English Church under Queen Eliza beth, in 1562. The revision comprised a creed of thirty-nine articles, which was sanctioned by a synod in London in 1562, and by act of Parliament in 1571. It is a Calvinistic creed upon all points of doctrine with the exception of the sacraments. With respect to this subject, it was intended to be a mean between the Lutheran and Calvinistic theo ries. Its polity is prelatical episcopacy, the reigning sovereign being the earthly head of the church. The Westminster Confession is the result of the deliberations of the Westminster Assembly, a synod of divines called by Pariiament, in opposition, how ever, to the will of Charles L, for the purpose of settling the government, liturgy, and doctrine of the Church of England, It met July 1, 1643, and sat till February 22, 1648, four years sis months and twenty-two days, in which time it held 1163 ses sions. The members were chosen from the several counties of England, and thus the council contained 480 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. representatives of the Presbyterian, the Episcopa han, and the Independent parties. The great pre ponderance, however, was on the part of the Pres byterians, since many of the Episcopal divines, though elected, refused to attend, upon the ground that as the king had declared against the convoca tion it was not a legal assembly ; and the Indepen dents were a far smaller body than either of the other two. The system of doctrine constructed by this Assembly is thoroughly Calvinistic, and bears a close resemblance to the canons of the synod of Dort, The Westminster Confession was adopted as their doctrinal basis by the Presbyterians ofEngland, and took the place of the Confessio Scoticana in Scotland, It is also the symbol of the Presbyterian Church in America.* The Savoy Confession is a symbol adopted by the Puritan Independents in England, who were not satisfied with the Westminster Confession so far as the polity and discipline of the churches was con cerned. As yet they haiformally adopted no com mon creed. The Presbyterian assembly had urged them to this, reminding them that their brethren in New England had already done it. Under the au thority of CromweU, an assembly was convened at the Savoy, in London, October 12, 1658, composed of above one hundred ministers and delegates from ' See Neal : History of the Pu- bly, for an acconnt of the West- ritans, and HBTHEEiNaTON : His- minster Confession. tory of the Westminster Assem- OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 481 the Independent churches, among whom were John Howe, then Cromwell's chaplain, John Owen, Joseph Caryl, and Thomas Goodwin, who is styled by Anthony Wood " the very Atlas and patriarch of Independency." A committee was chosen, of whom Goodwin and Owen were at the head, to draw up a new confession, with the instruction to keep as close to the Westminster upon doctrinal points as possible. This they did, saying in their preface that they fuUy consent to the Westminster Confession, for the sub stance of it.* The Savoy Cenfession differs from the West minster upon the subject of polity. It teaches " that every particular society of visible professors agreeing to walk together in the faith and order of the gospel is a complete church, and has full power within itself to elect and ordain all church officers, to exclude aU offenders, and to do all other acts re lating to the edification and weU-being of the church. . . . The way of ordaining officers, that is, pastors, teachers or elders, is, after their election by the suffrage of the church, to set them apart with fasting and prayer, and imposition of the hands of the eldership of the church, though if there be no imposition of hands, they are nevertheless rightly ' " The diflference between these agreed with the Presbyterians in two confessions is so very smaU, the use of the Assembly's cate- that the modern Independents chism." Neal: Puritans, IL 178 have in a manner laid aside the (Harper's Ed.). nse of it in their famUies, and VOL. n. — 81 482 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. constituted ministers of Christ ; for it is not allowed that ordination to the work of the ministry, though it be by persons rightly ordained, does convey any office-power, without a previous election of the church. No ministers may administer the sacra ments but such as are ordained and appointed there unto. The power of all stated synods, presbyteries, convocations, and assemblies of divines, over partic ular churches is denied ; but in cases of difficulty, or difference relating to doctrine or order, churches may meet together by their messengers, in synods or councils, to consider and give advice, but without exercising any jurisdiction." * The connection between the Calvinism of the Continent and the Puritanism of England, we have seen, is very close and intimate ; that between the Puritanism of Old England and of New England is equally close, so that this is a proper place in this history of Symbols to introduce the creeds of the New England churches. The oldest of them, and one of the most important, is the Cambridge Plat form. In 1646, a bill was presented to the Gen eral Court of Massachusetts, for calling a synod of the churches to draw up some platform of disci pline and church government." The biU was passed, but owing to scruples of some of the deputies the law did not take effect. The matter was then pro- ' Neal : Puritans, II. 178, 179 was the only directory in use np (Harper's Ed.), to this time. ' Cotton's " Book of the Keys " CALVINISTIC CONFESSIONS. 483 pounded to the churches, and by them a synod was convened. It met, sat fourteen days, and then ad journed to June 8, 1647, Owing to epidemical sick ness it soon adjourned, and met again August 15, 1648. At this session, the Platform was constructed and adopted. The synod consisted of the clergy of Massachusetts, with as many others as could be col lected from the other New England colonies. Hub bard and Higginson, who personaUy remembered them, describe them as " men of great renown in the nation from whence the Laudian persecution exiled them. Their learning, their hoUness, their gravity, struck all men that knew them, with admi ration. They were Timothies in their houses, Chry- sostoras in their pulpits, and Augustines in their disputations." The Platform prepared by this synod, which sat fourteen days, was presented in October, 1648, to the churches and the general government, for their consideration and acceptance. It was adopted by the churches, and after some discussion by the gen eral court, — the latter declaring " their approbation of the said form of discipline, as being, for the sub stance thereof, what they had hitherto practised in their churches, and did believe to be according to the word of God." Thus, the document received in Massachusetts the sanction of law, and was adopted and in force in all the. New England colonies, untU superseded in Connecticut by the Saybrook Plat form, in 1708. 484 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. The Cambridge Platform is wholly confined to polity. It makes no statements of doctrine whatever. Like the Savoy Confession, it refers to the Westmin ster Symbol for a dogmatic statement. In their preface, the authors of the Cambridge Platform say : "Having perused the public confession of faith agreed upon by the reverend assembly of divines at Westminster, and finding the sum and substance thereof, in matters of doctrine, to express not their own judgment only, but ours also ; and being like-' wise called upon by our godly magistrates, to draw up a public confession of that faith which is con stantly taught and generaUy professed amongst us ; we thought good to present unto them, and with them to our churches, and with them to all the churches of Christ abroad, our professed and hearty assent and attestation to the whole confession of faith, for substance of doctrine, which the reverend assembly presented to the religious and honourable parliament of England, excepting only some sections in the 25th, SOth, and 31st chapters of their confes sion, which concern points of controversy in church discipline, touching which we refer ourselves to the draft of church discipline in the ensuing treatise." Eespecting the subject of church government and discipline, this Platform agrees with the polity of the Savoy Confession, — teaching as that does, that the in dividual church possesses all political power within itself, even to the ordination of its minister,and that councils or synods have nothing but advisory powers. OAxvnsasTio ooistfessions. 485 The second New England symbol, both in time and importance, is the Boston Confession. A synod of the churches in the province of Massachusetts, called by the General Court, assembled in Boston September 10, 1679, in which the Cambridge Plat form was re-adopted as the form of church polity. This synod then held a second session. May 12, 1680, for the purpose of forming a confession of ^ faith. On the 19th of May, 1680, the result of the deliberations of this synod was presented to the General Court for acceptance, whereupon the fol lowing order was passed : " This court having taken into serious consideration the request that hath been presented by several of the reverend elders, in the name of the late synod, do approve thereof, and accordingly order the confession of faith agreed upon at their second session, and the platform of discipline consented unto by the synod at Cambridge anno 1648. to be printed for the benefit of the churches iu present and after times." This is the only dogmatic confession that has been drawn up in the New England churches and by the New England divines, and for this reason it deserves some particular notice and examination. The Cambridge Synod of 1648 adopted the Westminster Symbol, in place of forming a new one for themselves. This Boston Synod of 1680 both adopt an antecedent symbol, and construct another of their own. In their preface to their Confession, the Boston Synod employ the following language. 486 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. " It hath pleased the only wise God so to dispose in his providence, as that the elders and messengers of the churches in the colony of Massachusetts in New England, did, by the call and encouragement of the honoured general court, meet together Sep teraber 10, 1679. This synod at their second ses sion, which was May 12, 1680, consulted and con sidered of a confession of faith. That which was consented unto by the elders and messengers of the Congregational churches in England who met at the Savoy (being for the most part, some small varia tions excepted, the same with, that which was agreed upon first by the assembly at Westminster, and was approved of by the synod at Cambridge in New England, anno 1648, as also by a general assembly in Scotland), was twice publicly read, exarained, and approved of, — ^that little variation which we have made from the one, in compliance with the other, may be seen by those who please to compare them. But we have, for the main, chosen to express ourselves in the words of those reverend assemblies, that so we might not only with one heart, but with one mouth, glorify God and our Lord Jesus Christ, As to what concerns church government, we refer to the platform of discipline agreed upon by the mes sengers of these churches anno 1648," Having thus re-affirmed the Calvinism of the Westminster and Savoy Confessions, this synod proceed to the formation of a confession of faith in their own language and terms ; from which the fol- OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. 487 lowing citations exhibit the views of the New England churches and divines of that period. " In the unity of the God-head, there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ; the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding ; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father ; the Holy Ghost eternaUy proceeding from the Father and the Son," This confession, it is obvious, like the Calvinistic confessions generally, adopts the Nicaeno-Oonstantinopolitan Trinitarianism. The Anthropology of the Boston Confession is indicated in the following extracts. " God having made a cov enant of works and life thereupon, with our first parents, and all their posterity in them, they being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan did wilfuUy transgress the law of their creation, and break the covenant in eating the forbidden fruit. By this sin, they and we in them fell from original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root, and by God's appointment standing in the room and stead, of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by or dinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to aU good, and wholly inclined to aU evU, do proceed all actual transgressions. Every r 488 ' HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary there unto, 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 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to do good or evU. Man in his state of innocency had freedom and power to will and do that which is good and weU pleasing to God ; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it. Man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able byhis own strength to convert hiraself, or to prepare himself thereunto. The wiU of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only." The Boston Confession agrees, then, with the Latin in distinction from the Greek anthropology, in maintaining the two posi tions that original sin, equally with actual, is guilty transgression of law, and deserves the punishment of eternal death ; and that the will of man after the fall does not possess that power to good which it had by creation and anterior to its apostasy.* • This doctrine of the impo- endorsed by the most important tence of the apostate wiU, thus of the New England synods, was OALVINISTIO CONFESSIONS. *89. The Soteriology of this confession is seen in the foUowing extract. " Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified, and did by the sacrifice of himself, in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper real and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf; yet in asmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both re-affirmed by the two most dis tinguished of New England the ologians. The elder Edwabds (On the WUl, Pt. HI. § iv.) com bats the power of contrary choice, without which self-con version is impossible, in the fol lowing terms : " The wiU, in the time of a leading act or inclina tion that is diverse from or op posite to the command of God, and when actually under the in fluence ofit, is not able to exert itself to the contrary, to make an alteration in order to a compli ance. The inclination is unable to change itself; and that for this plain reason, that it is unable to incline to change itself." Hop kins (Works, L 283-285) remarks, that " every degree of inclination contrary to duty, which is and must be sinful, necessarily implies and involves an equal degree of difficulty a/nd inability to obey. For, indeed, such inclination of the heart to disobey, and the dif ficulty or inability to obey, are precisely one and the same. This kind of difficulty, or inability, therefore, always is great accordr ing to the strength and fixedneaa of the incUnation to disobey ; and it becomes total and abaolute when the hea/rt ia totally corrupt, and wholly oppoaed to obedience. . . . St. Paul says : ' The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nei ther indeed can he.' None can think the apostle means to ex cuse man's enmity against God, because it renders him unable to obey the law of God, and cannot be subject to it. The contrary is strongly expressed, viz., that this enmity against God is exceeding criminal, in that it is directly op posed to God and his law, and in volves in ita nature an utter ina biUty to obey the Ioajo of Ood, — yea, an absolute impossibility." 490 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS, the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners," Upon the topics, then, of trinitarianism, anthro pology, and soteriology, the Boston Confession of 1680 is in harmony with the Protestant confessions of the Old World, And what is especially worthy of notice, with regard to those shades and differen ces of doctrinal statement which prevailed within the wide and active mind of Protestantism, the New England churches, as represented by this syn od, adopted the more strict and not the more latitudi narian statements of doctrine, Eespecting the more difficult and disputed points in dogmatic theology, the Boston Confession gives the same definitions, and takes the same positions, with the Augsburg Confession of the German Lutherans, the Second Helvetic of the Swiss Calvinists, the Dort Canons of the Dutch Calvinists, and the Westminster Con fession of the English Puritans. A synod of the churches in the Connecticut colony met in 1703, which adopted the Westminster and Savoy Confessions, and drew up certain rules of ecclesiastical discipline. This synod was only pre paratory, however, to another more general one which they had in contemplation. In 1708, a synod was convened by the legislature, and met at Say brook. This body adopted for a doctrinal confes sion the Boston Confession of 1680, and drew up the Saybrook Platform of government and disci pline which approximates to the Presbyterian, in PAPAL CONFESSIONS. 491 delegating judicial powers to churches organized into a "Consociation." The confession of faith and platform were approved and adopted by the legis lature of Connecticut, in October, 1708. § 3. Papal Confessions. The fountain-head of the modern Papal theology is the Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini. The need of a general synod to counteract the progress of the Protestant churches had long been felt by the Papal body, and after considerable delay pope Paul III. convened one at Trent, on the 13th of December, 1545, which with intermissions continued to hold its sessions until the year 1563. A papal buU of Pius IV., issued on the 26th of January, 1564, confirmed the decisions of the synod ; for bade, under the severest penalties, all clergymen and laymen from making explanations or commen taries upon them; and reserved to the pope the further explication, as need might be, of the more obscure points of doctrine contained in them. The Tridentine Syrabol did not immediately acquire equal authority in all Eoman Catholic countries. In the greater part of Italy, in Portugal, in Poland, and by the German emperor, the council of Trent was formally declared to be oecumenical. But in Catho lic Germany its decisions were only tacitly accepted ; in Spain, Naples, and Belgium, they were adopted 492 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. with a special reservation of royal rights ; and in France, where the council met with strong opposi tion, they were received only by degrees, and with respect to strictly dogmatic points. The decisions of the Tridentine Council, which were passed not unanimously but by a majority vote, fell into two classes. The first, entitled Decreta, contain detaUed statements, in positive propositions, of the Papal doc trine; the second, entitled Canones, explain in a brief manner the meaning of the Decreta, and con demn the opposite tenets of the Protestant church, — ending, always, with the words " anathema sit." Their teachings in theology, anthropology, soterio logy, and eschatology, have been indicated in the several divisions of this history. A second document possessing symbolical author ity in the Papal Church is the Professio fidei Tri dentina, which pope Pius IV., in a bull issued in 1564, required all public teachers in the Eomish Church, all candidates for clerical or academical honours, and all converts from other churches, to subscribe. It is composed of the Nicaeno-Oonstan tinopolitan symbol, together with extracts from the Tridentine Canons. It obligates the subscriber to belief in the Nicene doctrine ; in the entire body of ecclesiastical tradition ; in the interpretation which the Church has given to the Scriptures ; in the seven sacraments and their Catholic adminis tration ; in the statements of the Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification ; in the PAPAL CONFESSIONS. 493 mass, transubstantiation, purgatory, invocation of saints, and worship of images ; in the authority of the church to give absolution ; in the Eoman Church as the mother and teacher of all other churches ; and in the pope as the vicegerent of Christ to whom obedience is due. A third document of a symbolical character in the Papal Church is the Catechismus Romanus, drawn up at the command of the pope by three distinguished Papal theologians, under the supervi sion of three cardinals. It was published in Latin, under the authority of Pius IV., in 1556, and intro duced into Italy, France, Germany, and Poland, by the votes of provincial synods. It adheres closely to the Tridentine Canons; though it enters into details upon some points respecting which the Tri dentine Canons are silent, such as the sovereignty of the pope and the limbus patrum. Although this catechism was published by papal authority, several other catechisms have attempted to supplant it. The Jesuits, toward the close of the 16th century, during the controversies that arose respecting pre destination, endeavored to weaken the influence of the Eoman Catechism, by the two Catechisms of Ca nisius, a member of their body. One of these was intended to be a dogmatic manual for clergymen, and the other a book of instruction for children and youth. They were translated into many lan guages, and exerted a great influence in connection with the educational system of the Jesuits. The 494 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. pope, however, refused to give them papal authority, though strongly urged to do so by the Jesuit party. The Catechism of Bellarmin, published in 1603, also the work of a Jesuit, was authorized by pope Clement VIH. as a true exposition of the Eoman Catechism, and obtained a wide circulation. Besides these documents, the Confutatio Confessionis Augustanae or answer to the Augsburg Confession, the bull Unigenitus of Clement XI. issued in 1711, and the liturgical books of the Eoman Church, particularly the Missale Romanum and the Breviarium Roma- num, are important auxiliary sources of the Papal doctrine. § 4. Confessions of the Greek Church. The Greek Church lays at the foundation of its dogmatic system the Apostles' Creed, and the de cisions of the seven oecumenical councils which were held previous to the schism between the East and the West, — viz., the first and second Nicene, in 325 and 787 ; the first, second, and third Constantino poHtan, in 381, 533, and 680 ; the Ephesian in 431, and the Chalcedon in 451. It differs from the Eoman Church, in rejecting the decisions of all councils held at the West since the division of the two churches. Besides these, there are several symbolical docu ments which the Greek Church adopts as the ex pression of its faith. The most important of them ARinNIAN CONFESSIONS. 495 is the Confessio Orthodoxa, drawn up in 1642, by Peter Mogilas, the metropolitan bishop of Kiew, to counteract a tendency towards Protestantism that was showing itself in the Eussian Church. It was published first in Eussian, then in Modern Greek, and afterwards in Latin and German. An other creed is the Confessio Dosiihei, composed by a Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, in opposition to the Calvinistic systera. Still another is the Confessio Gennadii, which the patriarch Gennadius of Con stantinople composed and presented to the sultan Mohammed H., on his conquest of Constantinople in 1453, as the statement of the Christian faith. It does not enter into the differences between the Greek and Latin systems, but is an expression of the general truths of the Christian religion. § 5. Arminian Confessions. The Arminians take their name from Arminius (fl609), first a pastor at Amsterdam, afterwards professor of divinity at Leyden. He had been ed ucated by Beza in the opinions of Calvin, but as early as 1591 began to express his dissent from Calvinism, upon the points of free-wiU, predestina tion, and grace, as being too rigid and severe. The Arminians were also called Eemonstrants, because in 1611 they presented a remonstrance to the States- General of Holland, praying for reUef from the harsh treatment of their opponents. 496 HISTORY OP SYMBOLS. The Arminians formally adopted no symbol. One of their characteristics was a lower estimate than the Eeformed churches cherished, of the value of confessions generally. Hence, their opinions must be sought in the writings of their leading minds. The principal sources are the following : 1. The writings of Arminius ; particularly his contro versy with Francis Gomar, his colleague. 2. The Confessio Pastorum qui Remonstrantes vocantur, drawn up by Episcopius (f 1643), 3, The Remon- strantia of Peter Bertius, — a specification of the five articles {Quinque articulares) held by the Arminians, in opposition to the Calvinistic five points, 4, The writings of Grotius (apologetical and exegetical) ; of Limborch (dogmatical) ; of Curcellaeus, Wetstein, and Le Clerc (exegetical). The controversy between the Arminians and Cal vinists turned chiefly upon three Calvinistic points, viz. : the absolute decree of election ; the irresisti- bleness of special grace ; and the liraitation, in the divine intention, of the merit of Christ's death to the elect. 1. The Arminians held that the decree of election is conditional, or dependent upon the divine foreknowledge that grace will be rightly used in the instance of the elect. The Dort Canons main tain that the electing decree secures the right use of grace itself, as weU as bestows grace. 2. The Ar minians held that the atonement of Christ is in tended for all men alike and indiscriminately. As matter of fact, however, it saves only a part of ABMESriAN CONFESSIONS. 497 mankind. The reason why the atonement does not save aU men alike and indiscriminately lies in the fact, that the wUl of the finaUy lost sinner defeats the divine intention. There is no such degree af grace as is irresistible to the sinful will. The effect ual appUcation of the atonement, therefore, depends ultimately upon the decision of the sinner's wiU, and this decision in the case of the lost defeats the divine purpose. In opposition to this view, the Dort Sy nod held that the atonement, though sufficient in value for the salvation of aU men, was intended only for those to whom it is effectuaUy applied, viz. : the elect. The Holy Spirit possesses a power that is ir resistible, in the sense that it can subdue the obsti nacy of any human wUl however opposed to God. Hence, the application of the atonement depends, ul timately, not upon the sinner's decision but the divine determination to exert special grace. There is, there fore, no defeat of the divine intention, and the atone ment saves all for whom it was intended. 3. The Arminians held that grace is necessary in order to salvation, but that regenerating grace may be both resisted and lost. The Dort Synod, on the contrary, held that regenerating as distinct from common grace is able to subdue aU opposition of the sinful will, and therefore cannot be resisted in the sense of being defeated or overcome, and therefore can not be lost. VOL. n. — 32 498 HISTORY OF SYMBOLS. § 6. Socinian Confessions. The Socinians laid stiU less stress upon symbols than the Arminians. The principal writings having a confessional character among them are the fol lowing : 1. The Cracovian Catechism, — composed mostly of passages of Scripture. It was drawn up by Schomann, and published in 1574, for the use of the Polish churches. 2. The Catechism of Faustus Socinus, — ^published at Eacovia, 1618, in an un finished form, owing to the death of Socinus. 3. The Racovian Catechisms, — ^the larger composed by Schmalz and Moscorovius, and published in 1605 ; the sraaller by Schmalz, in 1605. These are the principal symbolical product of Socinianism, and are drawn very much from the writings of the Socini. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. ABELARD, i. 46, 163 ; his view of faith and reason, i. 186 ; his trini tarianism, i. 337 ; his soteriology, ii. 287. Absolution (Lutheran), ii. 452. Acceptilation, ii. 347, sq. Advent (second) of Christ, ii. 398, 450. Adventists, ii. 397. Agassiz, i. 1. Aebiman, i. 245. Albertcs Maqnds, i. 82, ii. 293. Alogi, i. 259. Alcuin, i. 177, ii. Ill ; his statement of the relation of the person to the essence, i. 347 ; soteriology of, ii. 270. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, his opposition to Arius, i. 307. Alexandrine School, i. 67, 159 ; anthro pology of, ii. 31 ; soteriology of, ii. 226. Ambrose, i. 12, 348, ii. 34, 49 ; anthro pology of, ii. 48, sq. ; eschatology of, ii. 401. Ammon, i. 218. Amalrioh, of Bena, i. 179, 227. Anti-Judaizing Gnostics, i. 116. Anti-Trinitarians, i. 253. Akgelo, i. 5. Anselm, i. 11, 46, 164, 177, 179, ii. 218 ; his view of reason and faith, i. 179 ; argument for Divine existence, i. 231, sq. ; his use of substantia and essen tia, i. 370 ; his trinitarianism, i. 376 ; anthropology of, ii. 114r-139 ; defini tion of original sin, ii. 115, sq. ; rela tion of the individual to the species. ii. 120, sq. ; realism of, ii. 117 ; idea of the will and freedom, ii. 127, sq. ; inability of the creature to originate holiness, ii. 132 ; impossibility of God's originating sin, ii. 136 ; soteri ology of, ii. 273, sq. ; maintains the absolute necessity of atonement, ii. 274 ; definition of sin as debt, ii. 277 ; strict satisfaction required, ii. 279; his evangelical " direction " for the visitation of the sick, ii. 282 ; influ ence of his system, ii. 286, 318 ; his soteriology compared with the Pro testant, ii. 336, sq., 355 ; his idea of law, ii. 355. Antiochian School, anthropology of, ii. 39 ; attitude of towards Felagianism, ii. 101. Anhalt, confession of, ii. 471. Anabaptists, ii. 450. A priori argument for the divine exist ence, i. 238. A posteriori argument for the divine existence, i. 230. ApoUinarism, i. 394. Apologia confessionis Augustanae, ii. 455. Apologies, i 30, 103 ; defect in mediae val, i. 188. Aquikas, i. 12, 46, 82, 179, ii. 293; his riew of faith and reason, i. 181 ; his trinitarianism, i. 376 ; relation of the indiridual to the species, ii. 121; soteriology of, ii. 304, sq. ; relative necessity of atonement, ii. 306 ; doc trine of unio mystica, ii. 308, 337 ; 500 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. distinction between satisfaetio and meritum, ii. 309 ; doctrine of supera bundance of merit, ii. 310; confu sion of justification with sanctiflca tion, ii. 812; his notion of 'conflgu- ration,' ii. 313 ; distinction of merit of condignity and congruity, ii. 329 ; his eschatology, ii. 405, 409, 413, 417. Aristotle, on the enslaved will, i. 54, 55 ; on immortality, i. 55 ; his defini tion of faith, i. 54. Aristotelianism, influence of, i. 52 ; er rors of, i. 53, sq. ; agreement with Platonism, i. 57 ; prevalence of, i. 66, 76, 81. Arius, i. 307, ii. 435. Arianism, relation of to Origenism, i. 307 ; christology of, i. 393. Arminians, confessions of, ii. 495, sq. Arminianism, anthropology of, ii. 178- 196 ; definition of original sin, ii. 179 ; original sin not guilt, ii. 182, 477, sq. ; impotence of the sinful will, ii. 186 ; God caunot require faith ir respective of grace, ii. 189; doctrine of the Adamic unity, ii. 190 ; doctrine of conditional election, ii. 198, 496 ; soteriology of, ii. 870, sq. ; Christ's death not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty, ii. 378 ; not a complete satisfaction, ii. 374. Arnobius, i. 229. Arnobius, the younger, ii. 103. Artemonites, i. 68, 259. Athanasius, i. 46, 70, 229, 280 ; his de finition of Sabellianism, i. 260 ; his opinion of Origen, i. 291; of the Semi-Arians, i. 313 ; of Eusebius, i. 813; his doctrine of eternal genera tion, i. 321, sq., 327, 332, sq. ; his doctrine of the Holy Ghost, i. 356, 361 ; his definition of hypostasis, i. 369 ; his anthropology, ii. 37 ; his so teriology, ii. 239, sq. Athenagoras, i. 119, 127. Atonement, defined, ii. 204; relatire and absolute necessity of, ii. 223, 258, 800, 802, 816. Auberlin, ii. 397. Angsburg Confession, trinitarianism of, i. 879; anthropology of, ii. 152, sq., 165, sq. ; soteriology of, ii. 842 ; condemns chiliasm, ii. 596 ; account of, ii. 445, sq. Augustine, i. 46, 230 ; Platonic studies of, i. 69 ; acquaintance with Aristo tle's writings, i. 74, 152 ; his idea of rerelation, i. 143 ; of the church, i. 144 ; his De civitate Dei, i. 154 ; his definition of faith, i. 155, 158 ; riew of relation of faith to reason, i. 161 ; of miracles, i. 167 ; of eternal genera tion, i. 344 ; specimens of his trinita rian exegesis, i. 351; combats pre existence, ii. 9 ; attitude towards tra ducianism, ii. 15, sq., 77 ; his anthro pology, ii. 50-91 ; his earlier syner gism, ii. 51 ; his conception of the power of contrary choice, ii. 55, 65 ; his distinction between relative and absolute perfection, ii. 65 ; his con ception of Toluntariness, ii. 58 ; his idea of will and freedom, ii. 60, sq. ; riew of freedom and necessity, ii. 64 ; of the bondage of the will, ii. 66 ; his theory of regeneration, ii. 66 ; de grees of grace, ii. 68 ; his doctrine of predestination, ii. 70 ; of irresistible grace, ii. 73 ; concerning the salra- tion of pagans, ii. 74 ; doctrine of the Adamic unity, ii. 76-79, 90 ; of the voluntariness of sin, ii. 79-91 ; im possibility of God's sinning, ii. 84 ; his soteriology, ii. 253, sq. ; occasion al confusion of justification with sanc tification, ii. 255 ; maintains a relative necessity of atonement, ii. 258 ; his eschatology, ii. 401, 405, 408, 410, 412, 414. Avitus, of Vienne, ii. 105. BACON, i. 8, 65. Barnabas, i. 267; soteriology of, ii. 209 ; chiliasm of, ii. 390. Basil, the Great, his doctrine of the Holy Ghost, i. 367 ; his eschatology, ii. 404. Basle, confession of, ii. 464. Basilides, ii. 205, 227. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 501 Baumqarten-Crusius, method of, i. 86 ; extracts from, i. 130, 153. Baur, i. 231, 261 ; his statement of Origen's trinitarianism, i. 297, 800 ; of Irenaeus's soteriology, ii. 213, sq. ; his objection to Anselm's doctrine of satisfaction, ii. 234 ; his statement of the difference between the Protes tant and Papal soteriologies, ii. 331 ; his criticism on the Grotian theory of satisfaction, ii. 366. Baxter, i. 92, 204. Bede, ii. 111. Begotten, eternally. See Generation. Belgic Confession, ii, 475 ; its definition of justification, ii. 340 ; notice of chi liasm, ii. 397. Bbllakmin, ii. 144, 151 ; his soteriology, ii. 828 ; twofold justification defined, ii. 829. Bentlet, i. 207, 216. Bernard, i. 46, 179 ; his view of faith and reason, i. 183 ; his trinitarianism, i. 376 ; his soteriology, ii. 289. Bertius, ii. 496. Beryl, i. 255, ii. 485. Biel, i. 82 ; his soteriology, ii. 814. Boccaccio, i. 87. Boethius, i. 78. Bolingbroke, system of, i. 200 ; its in fluence in France, i. 216. Bonar, ii, 897. Bonaventuea, his creationism, ii. 23 ; soteriology of, ii. 293, sq. Boston Confession, ii. 484, sq. Botle, i. 207. Breviarium Romanum, ii. 494. Bucer, i. 444. Bugenhagen, ii. 446. Bull, i. 290, 312, 338 ; his view of Ori gen's trinitarianism, i. 301 ; opinion concerning the Nicene use of ovaia and iiritrraa-is, i. 869; concerning the Nicene idea of subordination, i. 339. BuLLiNGEE, ii. 465. Bunsen, i. 255, 263. Burnet, i. 404. Burton, i. 270. Buthos, i. 240. Butler (Bishop), his Analogy, i. 212, Butler (Archer), i. 249. C./ESAEIUS of Aries, ii. 105. Calvin, i. 46, 91, 144, 158, 811, ii. 80 ; his trinitarianism, i. 320, 321, 880, sq. ; his creationism, ii. 24 ; con ception of human bondage, ii. 66 ; his anthropology, ii. 165 ; his criticism upon Augustine's soteriology, iu 257. Cambridge platform, ii. 482, sq. Cassiodorus, i. 73. Catechism, of Lnther, ii. 457 ; Eomanus, ii. 493 ; of Canisius, ii. 493 ; of Bel larmin, ii. 493 ; Socinian, ii. 498. Celsus, i. 68, 118, 183 ; ii. 403. Cerinthus, ii. 890. Chalcedon, council of, i. 398 ; christo logy of, i. 399, sq. Chaucer, i. 88. Christ, person of, i. 892, sq., 899. See Person. Chrysostom, anthropology of, ii. 39; eschatology of, ii. 405, 416. Chubb, i. 200. Church (unirersal), defined, i. 32. Gircumincession, i. 347. Clarke (Samuel), i. 207, 215 ; his trini tarianism, i. 386, sq. Clement of Alexandria, i. 117, 119, 124, 129, ISO, 147, 229 ; trinitarian ism of, i. 274, sq. ; anthropology of, ii. 31 ; soteriology of, ii. 230, sq. ; his idea of future punishment, ii. 235 ; attacks chiliasm, ii. 395 ; escha tology of, ii. 404, 415. Clement of Eome, i. 265, 267; sote riology of, d. 209 ; eschatology of, ii. 414. Coleridge, i. 1, 66, 159. Collins, i. 199, 215. CONDILLAO, i. 216, 217. Congregational churches, trinitarian ism of, i. 493, ii. 484. Consensus Tigurinus, ii. 467; Gene vensis, ii. 468. Consubstantiation, ii. 451. Conybeare (John), his reply to Tindal, i. 203. 502 ALPHABETICAL IWDEX. Cowper, i. 8, 168, 226. Creation de nihilo, i. 11, sq. Creationism, defined, ii. 10 ; preralence of, ii. 11 ; critical estimate of, ii. 11. Ceeuzee, i. 207. Cudworth, i. 11, 59, 63, 129, 204, 205, 243, 826, 347, 849. Curcellaeus, ii. 349, 370. CuriER, i. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, anthropology of, ii. 38 ; soteriology of, ii. 247. Cyril of Alexandria, i. 338, 398, ii. 8 ; soteriology of, ii. 250. Cyprian, anthropology of, ii. 47 ; chi liasm of, ii. 394; eschatology of, ii. 401, 404, 414. D'ALEMBEET, i. 217. Damian of Alexandria, i. 377. Dante, i. 87. Des Cartes, i. 1, 95. Deism, i. 97, 98. Delitzsch, ii. 397. Derelopement, defined, i. 8 ; discrimi nated from creation, i. 11 ; discrimi nated from improrement, i. 15. Didymus, of Alexandria, ii. 417. Diderot, i. 217. Dinanto, David of, i. 179, 190, 227. Dionysius of Rome, his statement of trinitarian theories, i. 304. Dominicans, ii. 317. Dorner, i. 281 ; ii. 210 ; his opinion regarding Origen's trinitarianism, i. 300 ; regarding Irenaeus's soteriol ogy, ii. 224. Dort, synod of, ii. 194, 195 ; canons of, ii. 476, sq., 496. Dositheus, confession of, ii. 495. Dualism, i. 226, 228. EBIONITISM, i. 106, 259 ; its denial of atonement, ii. 206. Eckart, i. 227. Edwards, Jonathan, trinitarianism of, i. 383 ; traducianism of, ii. 25 ; his theory of imputation, ii. 163 ; his anthropology, ii. 488. Elliott, ii. 397. Enclyclopaedism, i. 216, 217. Engelhardt, method of, i, 57. Epicureanism, i. 60, 63. . Epiphanius, i. 106, 152, 861. Episcopius, ii. 181, 349. Ephesus, council of, i. 398. Erasmus, i. 83. Essence, distinguished from Person, i. 363, 364. Eusebius, of Caesarea, i. 106, 263 ; trini tarianism of, i. 810 ; anthropology of, ii. 247; his opposition to chiliasm, ii. 395. Eusebius, of Nicomedia, i. 310. Eutychianism, i. 397, ii. 250. FATHERS (Primitire), attitude of towards philosophy, i. 121-123, 126, 153 ; anthropology of, ii. 29 ; soteriol ogy of, ii. 265. Faith, pagan idea of, i. 154; patristic definition of, i. 156, sq. ; relations of to reason, i. 184 ; not the procuring cause of justification, ii. 838, 840. Faustus, of Eheginm, ii. 103. Ficinus, i. 86. Fleury, i. 343. Formula Concordiae, anthropology of, ii. 154, sq.,168 ; its definition of jus tification, ii. 338; its distinction of actire and passive righleousness, ii. 342 ; its origin, ii. 458. Formula Consensus Helretici, anthro pology of, ii. 157, sq. ; origin of, ii. 472. Franciscans, ii. 317. French philosophers, their interpreta tion of Locke, i. 94. PusELi, i. 12. GAITJS, ii. S94. Gale, i. 129; his Court of the Gen tiles, i. 205. Gallican confession, ii. 476. Gangauf, ii. 5, 54. Gaunilo, i. 235. Generation (Eternal), distinguished from creation, i. 317, sq. ; from ema nation, i. 318 ; necessity of, i. 323, sq. ; distinguished from human genera tion, i. 384, 343 ; confined to the hy- ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 503 postatioal character, i. 389, sq., 348 ; metaphysical definition of, i. 347 sq. Gennadius, ii. 103. Gereler, ii. 159. Gibbon, i. 120. Gieseler, i. 149. Gilbert of Poictiers, i. 377. Gill, on eternal generation, i. 344. Gladstone, i. 57. Gnosticism, i. 114, 252 ; its theory of creation, ii. 28 ; of evil, ii. 28 ; of atonement, ii. 205 ; its idea of just ice, ii. 229. God, in history, i. 25 ; name of, i. 223 ; proofs of his existence, i. 229, sq. ; impossible that he should sin, ii. 55. GrOMAE, ii. 496. Gottschalk, anthropology of, ii. 113, 114. Greek anthropology, ii. 27, 41 ; its idea of will, ii. 60, sq. ; its prevalence, ii. 198. Greek Churoh, i. 40, 861 ; confessions of, ii. 294. Gregory Nazianzen, i. 71, 858 ; his anthropology, ii. 89 ; his eschatology, ii. 404, 411, 412. Gregory Nyssa, i. 71, 152, 358, 361 ; anthropology of, ii. 39 ; eschatology of, ii. 404, 412, 417. Gregory the Great, ii. 74 ; soteriology of, ii. 262 ; eschatology of, ii. 405, 411. Geotius, i. 57, ii. 496 ; soteriology of, ii. 347, sq. ; law a positive enact ment, ii. 350 ; strict punishment de pendent upon the divine will, ii. 353 > law capable of relaxation, ii, 354 ; his theory of relaxation, ii. 356 ; the death of Christ required to prevent the eril consequences of relaxation of law, ii. 368 ; his theory of substi tution, ii. 360 ; tbe sufferings of Christ not a strict, but an accepted satisfaction, ii. 362 ; his disclaimer of acceptilation, ii. 364 ; alliance of his theory with the Anselmic, ii. 366 ; with the Socinian, ii. 367. Getnaeds, ii. 465. GuEEICKE, i. 255, 262, 268, 294, 310, 892, ii. 26, 51, 114. HAGENBACH, method of, i. 85 ; ex tracts from, i. 146, 161, 354, ii. 44, 400, sq. Hales, i. 82, ii. 293. Hallam, i. 202, ii. 27. Haltburton, reply to Herbert of Cher bury, i. 204. Haetey, i. 57. Hepelb, i. 267. Hegel, i. 96, 227, 240. Heideggee, ii. 158. Heidelberg catechism, soteriology of, ii. 844 ; origin and acconnt of, ii. 473, sq. Helppeeich, i. 81, ii. 39. Heltetius, i. 216. Helretic (First) Confession, anthropol ogy of, ii. 169, 466. Helretic (Second) Confession, trinitari anism of, i. 379 ; anthropology of, ii. 169 ; soteriology of, ii. 343 ; origin and account of, li. 469. Herbert of Cherbury, i. 97; system of, i. 192. Hermas, chiliasm of, ii. 390. Hierocles, i. 118. Hilary, i. 226, ii. 103, 440 ; trinitari anism of, i. 377 ; creationism of, ii. 11 ; anthropology of, ii. 49, 50. Hildebeet, i. 182. Hindoo trinity, i. 244. Hippolytus, i. 226; trinitarianism of, i. 285 ; anthropology of, ii. 43. History, definition of, i. 7 ; sacred and secular, i. 18, 24; profane, i. 19; re lation of dogmatic to external, i. 25 ; general dogmatic, i. 33 ; special dog matic, i. 34, 39 ; biographic, i. 43. HoBBs, system of, i. 197. Hooker, i. 88, 258, 264, 318, 892, 396, ii. 30 ; soteriology of, ii. 323, 831 ; defi nition of a trinitarian person, i. 34, 846 ; of Christ's person, i. 897, 404, 407. Hopkins (Samuel), trinitarianism of, i. 383 ; christology of, i. 408 ; tradu cianism of, ii. 25 ; original and actual sin, ii. 81 ; anthropology of, ii. 489. Horsley, i. 57, 386. Howe, i. 232, 317, 343, 365, ii. 74. 504 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. Humanitarians, 1. 259. Hume, i. 138, 202. Hypostasis, i. 868, 864. IGNATIUS, i. 265; soteriology of, ii. 208 ; epistles of, i. 266, 267. Imputation, mediate, ii. 158, sq., 472 ; immediate, ii. 159, sq., 472. Infinite, positire conception of, i 185. , Infralapsarianism, ii. 192. Intermediate state, ii. 400 sq. Irenaeus, i. 11, 106,117,147,174; trin itarianism of, i. 282 ; soteriology of, ii. 213, sq. ; chiliasm of, ii. 892 ; doc trine of resurrection, ii. 403 ; symbol of, ii. 432. JACOBI, i. 159. Jansenists, i. 191. Jehovah, translation of the word in the Septuagint, i. 224. Jerome, i. 332 ; eschatology of, ii. 404. John Damascene, i. 177 ; soteriology ii. 251. Johnson (Samuel), i. 168. Judaism, i. 105. Judaizing Gnostics, i. 115. Justice, as related to omnipotence, ii. 222. Justin Martyr, i. 119, 121, 127, 128, 186, 174 ; trinitarianism of, 268, sq. ; anthropology of, ii. 28, 88 ; soteriol ogy of, ii. 218 ; eschatology of, ii. 400, 403, 412, 413, 414. KANT, theism of, i. 95 ; deism of, i. 97, 218; moral argument for di vine existence, i. 289 ; his idea of the will as a power of causation and not of alternative choice, ii. 62. Kliefoth, method of, i. 88. LACTANTIUS, i. 55, 127 ; chiliasm of, ii. 396. Latin anthropology, ii. 27, 45, 91; its idea of will, ii. 60, sq. ; its preva lence, ii. 198. Lardner, i. 215. Lechler, i. 203. - Leibnitz, i. 71, 95, ii. 1. Leland, i. 173, 198, 201. Leo, the Great, ii. 111. LlEBNER, i. 81. Limborch, ii. 188, 349, 870,496; sote riology of, ii. 371, sq. Locke, philosophy of, i. 98. Logic, function of, i. 2. Logos-idea, i. 230; derived from the Old Testament and not from Plato, i. 130. Lombard, soteriology of, ii. 288. Lucian, i. 63. Luther, i. 46, 90, 145, 166 ; traducian ism of, ii. 24; anthropology of, ii. 152, sq. ; criticism of upon Augus tine's soteriology, ii. 258 ; on the Apostles' creed, ii. 431 ; catechisms of, ii. 457. Lutheran church, symbols of, ii. 444, sq. MACAULAY, i. 198. Mackintosh, ii. 27. Macedonians, i, 358. Magee, criticism of upon Socinus, 11. 879. MANDBriLLE, 1. 203. Manichaeans, i. 146. Marcellus of Ancyra, i. 361. Meier, i. 800, 303, 304. Melanchthon, i. 47, 91 ; synergism of, ii. 173, 454. Method, importance of in history, i. 1. Methodology, aim of, i. 4. MUlenarianism, relation of to the Later- Jewish doctrine ofthe Messianic king dom, ii. 389 ; never the Catholic doc trine, ii. 391, 394. Milman, i. 79, 82, 154, 173, 245, 896. Minucius Felix, i. 129 ; eschatology of, ii. 414. Miracles, i. 165 ; not magical,- i. 166 ; not unnatural, i. 167. Mirandola, i. 86. Missal (Roman), ii. 493. Mohammedanism, i. 178. Mohler, ii. 151. Monarchians, i. 254, 260, 809 ; christol ogy of, i. 394. Monergism, ii. 44. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 505 Monographs (Biographic), i. 45. Monotheism, in the pagan world, i. 55, 56, 126. Monophysitism, i. 397, More (Henry), reply of to Hobbs, i. 205. Morgan, attack of upon the Old Testa ment, i. 200. Morgan, on the trinity of Plato, i. 57. Mosheim, his opinion respecting Ori gen's theological system, ii. 237. Mother of God, i. 399. MuNSCHER-VoN CoLLN, 1. 292 ; ii. 93. Myconius, ii. 464, 465. Mysticism, two species of, i. 79. Mystics, Platonism of, i. 77 ; scholasti cism of, i. 77, 182 ; latitudinarian, i. 81, 86 ; heretical, i. 80. "VTAGBLSBACH, i. 57. Xl Nature. See Essence and Person. Natural religion, contrasted with re vealed, i. 137. Neander, i. 27, 63, 230, 258, 298, 299, ii. 114; opinion of concerning the Logos-idea, i. 180; concerning Sa bellianism, i. 259; concerning Ori gen's trinitarianism, i. 299, 302; con cerning Irenaeus's soteriology, ii. 225; concerning Anselm's soteriolo gy, ii. 282. Nestorianism, i. 396, 399, ii. 250. New Nicenes, i. 871. New Platonism, i. 60, 61, 64. Nicene Council, problem before, i. 308 ; its idea of sonship, i. 829, sq. ; criti cal estimate of its results, i. 372, sq. Niebuhr, i. 65, ii. 31. Niedner, i. 27. NoETUs, i. 255, ii. 435. Nominalists, ii. 817. Nominal Trinitarians, i. 256 ; christolo gy of, i. 393. Nonconforming divines, philosophy of, i. 92. OCCAM, i. 82, 90, 227. Oecolampadius, ii. 464. Old Nicenes, i. 371. Omnipotence, scholastic doctrine of an abstract, ii. 301. 'Olioio-ia-ios, i. 310, 811, 874. 'O/iooimos, i. 309-812, 314, 874, ii. 436. Orange, council of, its decision against Semi-Pelagianism, ii. 105. Origen, i. 46, 106, 117, 130, 133, 157, 172 ; his idea of faith and science, i. 159, 164 ; trinitarianism of, i. 288, sq. ; distinction between &ehs and S Srehs, i. 293; theological aim of, i. 289; view respecting the Holy Spirit, i. 303 ; his idea of eternal generation, i, 307, 326; his theory of pre-existence, ii. 5, sq. ; anthropology of, ii. 33 ; soteriology of, ii. 230 sq. ; opposition to chiliasm, ii. 895; eschatology of, ii. 404, 412, 416. Original sin, discriminated from actual, ii. 81 ; is guilt, ii. 17, 48, 76, 79-91, 117-127, 153, 155-163, 448, 466, 471, 478, 477, 478, 488 ; is not guilt, ii. 35, 37, sq., 94, 100, 146, 147-149, 175, 181-185, 460. Ormusd, i. 245. Ov(ria, i. 363, 364. Owen, i. 92, ii. 480; on confounding justification with sanctification, ii. 259 ; on a relatire necessity of atone ment, ii. 260; on dirine justice, ii. 303. PAGANISM, i. 105. Palatine confession, ii. 471. Pantheism, i. 13, 97, 226. Papal system, i. 378; confessions, ii. 491, sq. Papias, chiliasm of, ii. 390. Pascal, i. 169. Patripassians, i. 254, 261 ; Christology of, i. 394. Paulus, i. 218. Paul, of Samosata, i. 257. Pearson, his definition of eternal gen eration and procession, i. 819. Person, meaning of the term in trinita rianism, i. 348, 346, 363, 364, 371; meaning ofthe term in anthropology, i. 343 ; ii. 117, 118, 120, 123-126. Person of Christ, four factors in the conception of, i. 892 ; two natures in, not confused, i. 400; not divi- 506 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. ded, i. 401 ; illustrated by reference to man's personality, i. 402 ; properties of both natures attributable to the person, i. 403 ; suffering of the per son truly infinite, i. 404 ; the divin ity, and not the humanity, the basis of Christ's personality, 1. 406 ; the Logos united himself with human nature, and not with a human indi vidual, i. 407. Pelagius, fundamental positions of, ii. 93, sq. ; his riew of the difference be tween Adam and his posterity, ii. 94 ; his idea of grace, ii. 96 ; of regenera tion, ii. 96 ; explanation of i(p' ^ iu Bom. r. 12, ii. 95; his ecclesiastical trials, ii. 98, sq. ; preralence of his riews, ii. 199. Petavius, ii. 203 ; opinion of respect ing the Nicene use of oia-la and vTroa-TtttTis, i. 369 ; Semi-Pelagian ism of, ii. 113. Petrarch, i. 87. Philosophy, influence of upon dogma tics, i. 28. Philosophia prima. Bacon's estimate of, i. 3 ; Plato's and Aristotle's estimate of, i. 2. Philo, i. 61. Pietists, i. 191. Placaeus, his theory of mediate impu tation, ii. 158, sq., 472. Plato, riews of, respecting the popular religion, i. 56 ; respecting God, i. 138 ; respecting immortality, i. 139 ; trinity of, i. 243 ; his doctrine of pre existence, ii. 5. Platonism, errors of, i. 58, sq. ; influ ence of, i. 52, 62, 70, 76, 86, 229 ; agreement with Aristotelianism, i. 59. Platform, Cambridge, ii. 482; Say brook, ii. 490. Pliny, i. 61, 2C2. Plutaeoh, i. 61, 194. Polonorum Fratres, i. 384. Polycarp, i. 157 ; soteriology of, ii. 208. Pope (Alexander), i. 201. Porphyry, i. 63, 118. Praxeas, i. 255, ii. 435. Pre-existence, definition of, ii. 4; Ori gen its chief adrocate, ii. S., sq. ; preralence of, ii. 8 ; critical estimate of, ii. 9. Presbyterian Church, trinitarianism of, i. 383. Priestley, i. 386, ii. 379. Procession (Eternal), i. 340, 844. Professio Fidei Tridentina, ii. 492. Prosper, ii. 103. Protestantism, soteriology of, ii. 321, 386 ; anthropology of, ii. 448. PYEEH0,i. 202. QmNQUE articulares, ii. 496. Quicumque Symbolum, i. 71, 351, ii. 489. EACOVIAN creed, i. 884. Rationalism, i. 218. Eedepenning, i. 294, 300, 301, ii. 33, 234, sq. Eeformers, philosophy of, i. 89. Eemonstrants. See Arminians. Resurrection, ii. 403, sq. Rerelation, relation of to dogmas, i. 23 ; relation of to reason, i. 129, 130, 135, sq., 151 ; an infallible authority, i. 142 ; rague idea of, i. 171. Righteousness, active and passive, ii. 841. ' Ritter, i. 231 ; statement of coinci dences between Plato and Aristotle, i. 58 ; opinion respecting Origen's trin itarianism, i. 300. RirETUs, ii. 382. RoHE, i. 218. Eoscellin, i. 377. EosENKEANz, method of, i. 87. Eousseau, i. 217. SABELLIUS, i. 257, sq., ii. 435. Sabellians. See Monarchians. Sacraments, ii. 451. Satan, claims of, as related to redemp tion, ii. 213, sq. Saumur, school of, ii. 158, 472. Saroy confession, ii. 480. Saybrook platform, ii. 490. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 507 SoHAPF, i. 268. Schelling, i. 96, 240, 362 ; opinion o. respecting the Hebrew archives, i. 206 ; system of, i. 227. Schiller, i. 219. Schleiermacher, i. 226, 390; system of, i. 99. Scholasticism, i. 78, 84. SooTus (Dims), i. 82, 90, 227 ; soteriol ogy of, ii. 815, 847. Scotus (Erigena), i. 46, 177, 226 ; trin itarianism of, i. 377 ; soteriology of, ii. 271 ; eschatology of, ii. 406, Hi. Scotch philosophers, their interpreta tion of Locke, i. 94. Scoticana confessio, ii. 476. Scriptures, mutilations of by heretics, i. 146. Self-existence distinguished from ne cessary existence in the trinitarian controrersy, i. 888. Semi-Arians, i. 313, 356, 358, ii. 437. Semi-Pelagianism, ii. 102, sq. ; relation of to the Greek anthropology, ii. 108 ; its principal positions, ii. 109 ; pre valence of, ii. 199. Servetus, i. 884. Shaftsbury, opinions of, i. 198. Sherlock, i. 214, 347. SiLESius, i. 227. Sin, originated de nihilo, i. 16, 86, ii. 54, 57, 63 ; original, ii. 37, 42. See Original Sin. Scepticism, Judaistic, i. 105 ; Pagan, i. 105, 117; Gnostic, i. 113; in the Church, i. 179 ; modern, i. 192. Smalcald, articles of, ii. 456. Socinus, i. 883, 384; his idea of justice, ii. 376 ; justice the product of option al will, ii. 377 ; his objections to the doctrine of satisfaction, ii. 379, sq. Socinian confessions, ii. 493. Sonship (Eternal). See Generation. Soteriology, of the Gnostics, ii. 205 ; of the Ebionite, ii. 206 ; ofthe Apostolic Pathers, ii. 207-212 ; ofthe Primitive Fathers, ii. 212-226 ; of the Alexan drine school, ii. 226-237; of the Greek Fathers, ii. 237-253; of Au gustine, ii 253-260 ; of the school men, ii. 273-818 ; of Trent, ii. 819- 332; of the Eeformers, ii. 333-346 ; of Grotius, ii. 847-370; ofthe Armin ians, ii. 870-875; of Socinus, ii. 376- 386. Sozomen, i. 858. Spinoza, i. 96, 138, 227. Spirit (Holy), Nicene doctrine of, i. 865. Stapfer, his theory of imputation, ii. 168, sq. Stillingfleet, i. 57, 145. Stoicism, i. 61. Subordination, of the Son to the Father, i. 820. Substance, ambiguity of the term in the Latin trinitarianism, i. 370. See Es sence and Person. Supernatural, as related to the natural, i. 165. Supralapsarianism, ii. 192. Suso, i. 85 ; eschatology of, ii. 413, 417. Swedenborg, ii. 403. Swift (Jonathan), i. 201. Symbol, Athanasian, (Quicumque), i. 71, 351, sq., ii. 489 ; Nicene, i. 314, ii. 436 ; its relations to the Apostles' Creed, ii. 436; ConstantinopoHtan, i. 359, ii. 435 ; Apostles', ii. 428 ; not composed by the Apostles, ii. 430 ; importance of, ii. 483 ; relation of to the Nicene, ii. 436; Chalcedon, ii. 438. Symbols, history of, i. 41 ; importance of the study of, ii. 423, 426. Synergism, ii. 40. Synesius, i. 225; eschatology of, ii. 404. TATIAN, i. 119, 127, 225. Taulee, i. 85. Taylor (Jeremy), his idea of freedom, ii. 64. Terms (technical), use of, i. 362 ; trin itarian, i. 863, sq. Tertullian, i. 46, 67, 117, 122, 123, sq., 143, 146, 174, 229, 282 ; trinitarianism of, i. 277, sq. ; traducianism of, ii. 14, sq., 43, sq. ; alleged materialism of, ii. 19 ; his synergism, ii. 46 ; defectire 508 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. soteriology of, ii. 267 ; chiliasm of, ii. 392 ; eschatology of, ii. 401, 404, 408, 413 ; his symbol, ii. 432. Tetratheism, i. 377. Theism (Greek), i. 55, 61, 64, 100. Theodoret, i. 858. Theodotians, i. 269, ii. 486. Theophilus of Antioch, i. 12. Thirty-Nine Articles, trinitarianism of, i. 382 ; origin of, ii. 478. Thomasius, i. 294, 298, 802. Thomists and Scotists,- controversy between, ii. 315, 349. Tigurinus, consensus, ii. 467. Tindal, i. 199, 203, 215. TOLAND, i. 199. Toledo, synod of, i. 361. Torgau, articles of, ii. 446. Traducianism, definition of, iu 13 ; pre valence of, ii. 14 sq., 23, sq., 44, sq. Transubstantiation, ii. 451. Trent, council of, ii. 491 ; its ambiguous statements, ii. 140 ; definition of orig inal sin, ii. 141 ; of original righteous ness, ii. 142 ; idea of creation, ii. 144 ; of apostasy, ii. 146 ; guiltlessness of original sin, ii. 147 ; relation of the flesh to the spirit, ii. 148 ; theory of regeneration, ii. 149 ; its soteriology, ii. 321, sq. ; justification resolved into sanctification, ii. 322 ; denial of justi fication by faith alone, li. 325 ; justi fication is progressive and not in stantaneous, ii. 327 ; its mixture of human with the dirine satisfaction, ii. 329, 345. Trinity, pagan, i. 243 ; Platonic, i. 248 ; Hindoo, i. 244; inadequate illustra tions of, i. 276 ; finite analogue of, i. 366, sq. Trypho, Justin Martyr's dialogue with, i. 112. Turretine, his doctrine of imputation, ii. 159, sq. TwESTEN, i- 137, 166 ; his statement of the relation of the Person to the Es sence, i. 346. ULLMANN, i. 81, 407. Unigentius (Bull), ii. 494. Unitarianism, i. 388; relation of to the ancient Anti-Trinitarianism, i. 385. Unity of God, taught by pagan sages, i. 65, 56, 126; distinguished from singleness, i. 348. Usher, ii. 106. YALENCE, council of, ii. 105. Valentinus, his (Gnostic) idea of justice, ii. 228. Variata, edition of the Augsburg Con fession, ii. 464. Vaughn, i. 81. Victor (Hugo St.), soteriology of, ii. 291. Vincent of Lerins, ii. 103. Voltaire, i. 217. Von Colln, i. 85. WATERLAND, i. 246, 275, 276, 287, 290, 303, 821, 388, 886 ; his riew of Origen's trinitarianism, i. 302 ; definition of Sonship, i. 321 ; of gen eration by will, i. 825 j of hypostatical character, i. 340 ; his distinction be tween self-existence and necessary existence, i. 388. Wegscheider, i. 218. Wessel, soteriology of, ii. 324. Westminster Confession, origin of, ii. 479 ; its distinction between justifi cation and sanctification, ii, 322; trinitarianism of, i. 382. Whewell, i. 1, 362. Whitby, ii. 26, 30. Wicliff, i. 87 ; soteriology of, ii. 338. Wiggers, ii. 26, 51. Wolff, i. 95. Wordsworth (Christopher), i. 255, 287. Wordsworth (William), i. 6. Wurtemburg Confession, ii. 456. ZUINGLE, ii. 153 ; anthropology of, ii. 174, sq. 460, sq. ; sacramental theory of, ii. 461, sq. ; his fidei ratio, ii. 459, sq., 467 ; his doctrine of pre destination, ii. 468. i«^' ^~x -% Wk l^t^. PJ^ >>. ^J'^.^ c?'1 s®>