The Early Christian Creeds

X. The Strasburg Controversy On Predestination Between Zanchi And

X. THE STRASBURG CONTROVERSY ON PREDESTINATION BETWEEN ZANCHI AND MARBACH (1561-1563). [593]

This is the last specific doctrine discussed in the Formula of Concord (Art. XI.). The German and Swiss Reformers alike renewed, as an impregnable fortress in their war against the Pelagian corruptions of Rome, the Augustinian system, with its two closely connected doctrines of the absolute spiritual slavery or inability of the unregenerate will of man, and the absolute predestination of God; though with the characteristic difference that Luther and Melanchthon emphasized the servum arbitrium, Zwingli the providentia, Calvin the prædestinatio. In other words, the German Reformers started from the anthropological premise, and inferred from it the theological conclusion; while Calvin made the absolute sovereignty of God the cornerstone of his system. Luther firmly adhered to the servum arbitrium, but was more cautious, in his later years, on the mystery of the prædestinatio. [594] Melanchthon gave up both for his synergism and the universality of grace, though he continued in friendly correspondence with Calvin, who on his part put the mildest construction on this departure. The rigid Lutherans all retained Luther's view of total depravity in opposition to synergism, and some of them (namely, Amsdorf, Flacius, Brenz, Wigand, and, for a time, Heshusius) were also strict predestinarians. [595] But the prevailing Lutheran sentiment became gradually averse to a particular predestination, all the more since it was a prominent doctrine of the hated Calvinists. The Formula of Concord sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these contradictory positions. In regard to the slavery of the human will, the Formula of Concord, following Luther, went even further than Calvin, and compared the natural man with a dead statue, or clod, and stone; while Calvin always (so far agreeing with the later Melanchthon) insisted on the spontaneity and responsibility of the will in sinning, and in accepting or rejecting the grace of God.

The discussion of this subject was opened by the fierce polemic Tilemann Heshusius, who, in his defense of the corporeal presence against the Sacramentarians (Jena, 1560), first attacked also Calvin's doctrine of predestination, as Stoic and fatalistic, although a year afterwards, in opposition to synergism, he returned to his former view of an absolute and particular predestination. Beza answered his attack with superior ability. [596]

Of more importance was the controversy between Marbach (a friend of Heshusius) and Zanchi within the Lutheran denomination itself. It decided its position on the question of predestination and perseverance.

The Church of Strasburg had received from its reformer, Martin Bucer (who on account of the Interim followed a call to the University of Cambridge, 1549, and died there, 1551), a unionistic type, and acted as mediator between the Swiss and German churches. The Reformed Tetrapolitan Confession, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, and the Wittenberg Concordia (a compromise between the Lutheran and Zwinglian views on the eucharist), were held in great esteem. Calvin and Peter Martyr, who preached and taught there, made a deep impression. The celebrated historian Sleidanus, and the learned founder and rector of the academy, John Sturm, labored in the same spirit.

Jerome Zanchi (Zanchius, 1516-1590), a converted Italian, and pupil of Peter Martyr, became his successor as Professor of Theology at Strasburg in 1553. He was one of the most learned Calvinistic divines of the age, and labored for some time with great acceptance. He taught that in the eucharist Christ's true body broken for us, and his blood shed for us, are received in the sacrament, but not with the mouth and teeth, but by faith, and consequently only by believers. This was approved by his superiors, since the communion was not a cibus ventris sed mentis, and the same view had been taught by Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Zell, and Martyr. He opposed ubiquity, and the use of images in churches. He taught unconditional predestination, and its consequence, the perseverance of saints, in full harmony, as he believed, with Augustine, Luther, and Bucer. He reduced his ideas to four sentences: 1. The elect receive from God the gift of true saving faith only once; 2. Faith once received can never be totally and finally lost, partly on account of God's promise, partly on account of Christ's intercession; 3. In every elect believer there are two men, the external and the internal--if he sin, he sins according to the external, but against the internal man, consequently he sins not with the whole heart and will; 4. When Peter denied Christ, the confession of Christ died in his mouth, but not his faith in his heart.

Several years before Zanchi's call to Strasburg, a Lutheran counter-current had been set in motion, which ultimately prevailed. It was controlled by John Marbach (1521-1581), a little man with a large beard, incessant activity, intolerant and domineering spirit, who had been called from Jena to the pulpit of Strasburg (1545). Inferior in learning, [597] he was superior to Zanchi in executive ability and popular eloquence. He delighted to be called Superintendent, and used his authority to the best advantage. He abolished Bucer's Catechism and introduced Luther's, taught the ubiquity of Christ's body, undermined the authority of the Tetrapolitan Confession, crippled the church of French refugees, to which Calvin had once ministered, weakened discipline, introduced pictures into churches, including those of Luther, and began to republish at Strasburg the fierce polemical book of Heshusius on the eucharist. This brought on the controversy.

Zanchi persuaded the magistrate to suppress the publication of this book, because of its gross abuse of Melanchthon and a noble German Prince, the Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, and because it denounced all who differed from his views of the corporeal presence as heretics. From this time Marbach refused to greet Zanchi on the street, and gathered from the notes of his students material for accusation that he taught doctrines contrary to the Augsburg Confession. He objected, however, not so much to predestination itself as to Zanchi's method of teaching it a priori rather than a posteriori.

The controversy lasted over two years. Zanchi visited and consulted foreign churches and universities. The answers differed not so much on predestination as on perseverance. [598]

The theologians of Marburg (Hyperius, Lonicer, Garnier, Orth, Roding, Pincier, and Pistorius), Zurich (Bullinger, Martyr, Gualter, Lavater, Simler, Haller, Zwingli Jr.), and Heidelberg (Boquinus, Tremellius, Olevianus, and Diller) decided in favor of the theses of Zanchi. The ministers of Basel counseled peace and compromise; the divines of Tübingen approved of the doctrine of predestination, but dissented from the theses on perseverance; even Brenz thought the matter might be amicably settled. The divines of Saxony decided according to their different attitudes towards Melanchthon: the Melanchthonians liked Zanchi's doctrine of the eucharist, but disliked his view of predestination; the anti-Melanchthonians hated the former, but were favorable to the latter, because it was so strongly taught by Luther himself (De servo arbitrio).

At last the 'Strasburg Formula of Concord' was adopted (1563), which prescribed the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536 as the rule of doctrine on the Lord's Supper, and asserted the possibility of the loss of faith, yet without denying predestination. [599] Calvin judged that it only threw a veil over the truth. Predestination was with Calvin and Luther an independent and central dogma; the later Lutherans assigned it a subordinate and subsidiary position, and denied its logical consequence, the perseverance of saints. This was also the position of Marbach.

Zanchi subscribed the Strasburg Formula with a restriction, but for the sake of peace he soon followed a call to a Reformed Italian church at Chiavenna, and, being driven away by a pestilence to a mountain, he wrote a full account of the Strasburg troubles. [600] He was supported in his position by the worthy Sturm and several professors, but had the disadvantage of being a foreigner unacquainted with the German tongue. The pastors, backed by the people, triumphed over the professors. What Marbach had begun, his pupil Pappus completed. Strasburg was thoroughly Lutheranized, the Tetrapolitan Confession formally abolished as 'Zwinglian,' and the Formula Concordiæ introduced (1597). [601]

Yet, after all, the spirit of Bucer never died out. From Strasburg proceeded Spener, with his blessed revival of practical piety and a better appreciation of the Reformed Confession; [602] and from the theological faculty of Strasburg hail more recently the appreciating biographies of Beza, Bucer, and Capito (by Baum), and Melanchthon (by Carl Schmidt), and the best edition of the works of Calvin (by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss). Thus history slowly but surely rectifies its own mistakes.

THE PREPARATION OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD. [603]

These controversies turned the Lutheran churches in Germany into a camp of civil war, exposed them to the ridicule and obloquy of the Papists, and threatened to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The danger was increased by the endless territorial divisions of Germany, where every Prince and magistrate acted a little pope, and 'every fox looked to his own pelt.' [604]

The best men in the Lutheran communion deeply deplored this state of things, and labored for peace and harmony. Augustus, Elector of Saxony (1533--1588), a pious and orthodox, though despotic Prince, controlled the political part, and paid the heavy expenses of the movement. [605] Jacob Andreæ, Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the University at Tübingen (1528-1590), a pupil and friend of Brentius, a man of rare energy, learning, eloquence, and diplomatic skill, managed the theological negotiations, made no less than one hundred and twenty-six journeys, and sacrificed the comforts of home and family (he had twelve children) to the pacification of the Lutheran Church. [606] Next to him, and at a later period, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the greatest pupil of Melanchthon and the prince among the Lutheran divines of his age, [607] and Nicholas Selnecker (1530-1592), [608] originally likewise a Melanchthonian, took the most important part in the movement, and formed with Andreæ the theological 'triumvirate,' which finally completed the Form of Concord. [609]

The first attempts at union were made at the conferences in Frankfort, 1558; Naumburg, 1561; Altenburg, 1568; Wittenberg, 1569; Zerbst, 1570; Dresden, 1571; but they utterly failed and increased the dissension.

After the violent suppression of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony (1574), and the death of Flacius (1575) and some other untractable extremists, the work was resumed by the Elector and other Princes. Theological conferences were again held at Maulbronn (1575), Lichtenberg (1576), and Torgau (1576). Three forms of agreement were prepared, which, though not satisfactory, served as a basis for the Formula of Concord. The first is the Swabian and Saxon Formula, written by Andreæ (1574), and revised by Chemnitz and Chytræus (1575).' [610] The second is the Maulbronn Formula, prepared by the Swabian divines Lucas Osiander and Balthasar Bidembach (Nov. 14, 1575), and approved by a convent of Lutheran Princes in the Cloister of Maulbronn (Jan. 19, 1576). [611] The former was found too lengthy, the latter too brief. Hence on the basis of both a third form was prepared which combined their merits, but omitted the honorable mention of the name of Melanchthon. This is the 'Torgau Book,' consisting of twelve articles. [612] It was mainly the work of Andreæ and Chemnitz, and completed by a convention of eighteen Lutheran divines at the Castle of Hartenfels, at Torgau, June 7, 1576. It was sent by the Elector Augustus to all the Lutheran Princes for examination and revision. It was closely scrutinized by twenty conventions of theologians held within three months, and elicited twenty-five vota, mostly favorable; even Heshusius and Wigand, the oracles of orthodoxy, were pleased, except that they wished an express condemnation of Melanchthon and other 'authors and patrons of corruptions.'

At last the present Formula of Concord was completed, on the basis of the Torgau Book, by six learned divines--Andreæ (of Tübingen), Chemnitz (of Brunswick), Selnecker (of Leipzig), Musculus (of Frankfort-on-the-Oder), Cornerus, or Körner (also of Frankfort), and Chytræus (of Rostock)--who met in March and May, 1577, in the Cloister of Bergen, near Magdeburg, by order of the Elector of Saxony. Hence it is also called 'The Bergen Formula.' [613] The Preface was written two years later by the same authors, in the name of the Lutheran Princes, in two conventions at Jüterbock, January and June, 1579. Three years elapsed before the new symbolical book was signed and solemnly published, by order of Augustus, at Dresden, June 25, 1580, the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, together with the other Lutheran symbols, in one volume, called the 'Book of Concord,' which superseded all similar collections. [614] The Elector Augustus celebrated the completion of the work, which cost him so much trouble and money, by a memorial coin representing him in full armor on the storm-tossed ship of the church. [615]

The Formula of Concord, like the three preparatory drafts on which it is based, was first composed in the German language, and published, with the whole Book of Concord, at Dresden, 1580. The Latin text was imperfectly prepared by Lucas Osiander, and appeared in the Latin Concordia, at Leipzig, 1580; then it was materially improved by Selnecker for his separate German-Latin edition of the Formula (not the Book) of Concord, Leipzig, 1582; and was again revised by a convent of Lutheran divines at Quedlinburg, 1583, under the direction of Martin Chemnitz. In this last revision it was published in the first authentic Latin edition of the Book of Concord, Leipzig, 1584, and has been recognized ever since as the received Latin text. It was also translated into the Dutch, Swedish, and English languages, but seldom separately published. [616]

__________________________________________________________________

[487] The name was chosen after older formularies (e.g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the Formula Concordiæ Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio princeps (1580) the book is called 'Das Buch der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols ('Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordiæ,' 'Book of Concord'). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition.

[488] The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally 'eingeteufelte [endiabolisthentes], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,' and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: 'Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum peri deipnou kuriakou instaurat;' comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin behaved admirably on that occasion; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said: 'Even if he should call me a devil, I would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God.' And to Melanchthon he wrote (June 28, 1545): 'I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!' Melanchthon entirely agreed with him.

[489] Kahnis {Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to 'a truly evangelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Conservative Reformation, p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says: 'Melanchthon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with melancholy; his aversion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his anxiety that the whole communion of the West should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.' Comp. on this whole subject the works of Galle: Characteristik Melanchthon's als Theologen und Entwicklung seines Lehrbegriffs (Halle, 1840), pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; Matthes: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.; Gieseler: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq.; Heppe: Die confessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq.; Carl Schmidt: Philipp Melanchthon. (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq.; Kahnis, l.c. pp. 515 sqq.

[490] Ep. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537): 'Scias, amplius decennio nullum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, quin hac de re cogitarim.'

[491] Loci theol. first ed. 1521, A. 7: 'Quandoquidem omnia, quæ eveniunt, necessario juxta divinam prædestinationem eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostræ libertas.' In the edition of 1525 he says: 'Omnia necessario evenire Scripturæ docent. . . . Nec in externis nec in internis operibus ulla est libertas, sed eveniunt omnia juxta destinationem divinam. . . . Tollit omnem libertatem voluntatis nostræ prædestinatio divina.' (Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 88, 93, 95.) In his Commentary on the Romans, published 1524 (cap. 8), Melanchthon calls the power of choice a 'ridiculum commentum,' and derives all things, 'tam bona quam mala,' from the absolute will of God, even the adultery of David ('Davidis adulterium') and the treason of Judas ('Judæ proditio'), which are the proper work of God ('ejus proprium opus') as much as the vocation of Paul; for he does all things not 'permissive, sed potenter.' He saw this doctrine so clearly in the Epistle to the Romans and other portions of Scripture that passages like 1 Tim. ii. 4 (all men, e.g., all sorts of men) must be adjusted to it. See Galle, pp. 252 sqq., and Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in 16ten Jahrh. (Gotha, 1857) Vol. I. pp. 434 sqq. In December, 1525, Luther expressed the same views in his book against Erasmus, which he long afterwards (1537) pronounced one of his best works. Comp. p. 215, and Köstlin, Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 37, 323. But on Melanchthon the reply of Erasmus (1526) had some effect (as we may infer from the tone of his letter to Luther, Oct. 2, 1527, Corp. Reform. Vol. I. p. 893).

[492] So in the Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XVIII.: 'De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et diligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendæ justitiæ spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quæ sunt Spiritus Dei.' In Art. XIX. the cause of sin is traced to the will of man and the devil.

[493] First in a new edition of his Commentary to the Romans, 1532, and then in the edition of the 'Loci communes theologici recogniti,' 1535. Here he declares that God is not the cause of sin, but the 'voluntas Diaboli' and the 'voluntas hominis sunt causæ peccati;' that we should keep clear of the 'deliramenta de Stoico fato aut peri tes anankes,' that the human will can 'suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo externa legis opera facere,' but that it can not 'sine Spiritu Sancto efficere spirituales affectus, quos Deus requirit. . . . Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos viderimus ne repugnemus. Constat enim peccatum oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei. Chrysostomus inquit: ho de helkon ton boulomenon helkei. Id apte dicitur auspicanti a verbo, ne adversetur, ne repugnet verbo.' (See Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 371-376.) In a new revision of his Loci, which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death, and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes--the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will of man; and states that the will may accept or reject God's grace. 'Veteres aliqui,' he says (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 567, 659), 'sic dixerunt: Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gr tiam, i.e., audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. . . . Cum promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriæ voluntates, necesse est in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, i.e., necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Hæe dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usus in exercitiis fidei et in vera consolatione, cum æquiescunt animi in Filio Dei monstrato in promissione, illustrabit hanc copulationem causarum, verbi dei, spiritus sancti, et voluntatis.' This is the chief passage, which was afterwards (1553) assailed as synergistic. Comp. Galle, pp. 314 sqq.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 426 and 434; Heppe, l.c. pp. 434 sqq., and Die confessionelle Entwicklung der alt protest. Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 107 and 130; Kahnis, l.c. Vol. II. p. 505.

[494] He says (1559): 'Existimo ad confirmandas mentes consensum Vetustatis plurimum conducere' (quoted by Galle, p. 452). He endeavored to prove the agreement of the fathers with Luther in Sententiæ Patrum de Cæna Domini, March, 1530. He there quotes Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenæus, Ambrose, and John of Damascus, and labors also to bring Augustine on his side, but with difficulty (as he says that the body of Christ in uno loco esse), and he admits that some passages of Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Basil might be quoted against Luther. See Galle, pp. 390 sqq.

[495] He wrote to Luther from Augsburg, July 14,1530 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 193): 'Zwinglius misit huc confessionem impressam typis. Dicas simpliciter mente captum esse. De peccato originali, de usu sacramentorum veteres errores palam renovat. De ceremoniis loquitur valde helvetice, hoc est barbarissime, velle se omnes ceremonias esse abolitas. Suam causam de sacra coena vehementer urget. Episcopos omnes vult deletes esse.'

[496] In this respect the learned Dialogus of Oecolampadius (1530), directed against his Sententiæ, made a decided impression on his mind. See Galle, p. 407, and Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 428. He found a great diversity of views among the fathers ('mira dissimilitudo,' see letter to Bucer, 1535, Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 842), but strong proofs for the figurative interpretation in Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and all those who speak of the eucharistic elements as figures, symbols, types, and antitypes of the body and blood of Christ (see his letter to Crato of Breslau, 1559, quoted by Galle, p. 452).

[497] He first renounced Luther's view, after an interview with Bucer at Cassel, in a letter to Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 822: 'Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere, fui enim nuncius aliæ,' i.e., Luther's), and in a confidential letter to Brentius, Jan. 12, 1535 (Ib. Vol. II. p. 824, where he speaks in a Greek sentence of the typical interpretation of many of the ancients). Then more fully in the revision of his Loci Theol., 1585 (de cæna Domini, in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 478 sq.). In the Wittenberg Concordia (1536) he and Bucer yielded too much to Luther for the sake of peace (compare, however, Dorner, p. 325), but in 1540 he introduced his new conviction into the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (see above, p. 241), and adhered to it. In his subsequent deliverances he protested against ubiquity and artolatreia, and the fanatical intolerance of the ultra-Lutherans, who denounced him as a traitor. Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were inseparably united on this point: 'Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hac causa posse divelli' (Admonitio ultima ad Westphalum, Opp. VIII. p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanchthon stood entirely on Calvin's side (l.c. p. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: 'Melanchthon kam, ohne auf Calvin Rücksicht zu nehmen, ja ohne von dessen Lehre wissen zu können, auf selbständigem Wege zu derselben Ansicht, welche bei Calvin sich ausgebildet hatte' (Das Dogma u. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 437). Yet in the doctrine of predestination they were wide apart. A beautiful specimen of harmony of spirit with diversity in theology! After his death Calvin appealed to the sainted spirit of Melanchthon now resting with Christ: 'Dixisti centies, cum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu! Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus' (Opp. VIII. p. 724).

[498] Dorner, l.c. p. 354: 'Melanchthon hat Luther's christologische Ansichten aus der Zeit des Abendmahlsstreites nie getheilt. Die Menschwerdung besteht ihm in der Aufnahme der menschlichen Natur in die Person des Logos, nicht aber in der Einigung (unio) der Natur des Logos mit der Menschheit in realer Mittheilung der Prädicate der ersteren an die letztere. Die communicatio idiomatum ist ihm nur eine dialektische, verbale: die Person des Logos ist Person des ganzen Christus und trägt die Menschheit als ihr Organon.'

[499] 'Responsio Phil. Mel. ad quæstionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 961): Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere. . . . In hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli: "Panis, quem frangimus, koinonia esti tou somatos." Et copiose de fructu Cænæ dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum koinonia declarandum est. Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistæ dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale Corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse koinonian, i.e., hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quæ fit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt. . . . Adest Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inguit: "Manete in me, et ego in vobis."' Comp. on the whole eucharistic doctrine of Melanchthon the learned exposition of Heppe, in the third volume of his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16ten Jahrh. pp. 143 sqq. He says, p. 150, with reference to the passage just quoted: 'Immer und überall betont es Melanchthon, dass Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahle mitgetheilt wird, inwiefern daselbst eine Mittheilung des Lebendigen Leibes, der gottmenschlichen Person Christi stattfindet, dass die Vereinigung Christi und der Gläubigen, für welche das Abendmahl gestiftet ist, eine persönliche Gemeineschaft, persönliches, lebendiges, wirksames Einwohnen des Gottmenschen in dem Gläubigen ist.' See also Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.

[500] Their friendship was, indeed, seriously endangered, and for some time suspended, but fully restored again; for it rested on their union with Christ. Luther wrote to Melanchthon, June 18, 1540 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 293): 'Nos tecum, et tu nobiscum, et Christus hic et ibi nobiscum.' He spoke very highly of Melanchthon's Loci in March, 1545, and in January, 1546, he called him a true man, who must be retained in Wittenberg, else half the university would go off with him (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 10; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 432-435). Dorner justly remarks (l.c. p. 332 sq.): 'Wenn zu dem Edelsten in Luther auch die ihn zum Reformator befähigende Weitherzigkeit und Demuth gehörte, womit er die eigenthümlichen Gaben Anderer, vor allem Melanchthon's anerkannte, so war es das Bestreben jener engherzigen Freunde, Luthern auf sich selbst zu beschränken, der Ergänzungsbedürftigkeit auch dieser vielleicht grössten nachapostolischen Persönlichkeit zu vergessen und, was ihnen jedoch nicht gelang, auch ihn selbst derselben vergessen zu machen.' Melanchthon, on his part, although he complained at times of Luther's philoneikia (as a pathos, not a crimen), and overbearing violence of temper, and thought once (1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a 'prison,' admired and loved him to the end, as the Elijah of the Reformation and as his spiritual father. In announcing to his students the death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) on the day following, he paid him this noble and just tribute: 'Obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima senecta mundi,' and added, 'Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam et genus doctrinæ ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas, quæ hunc casum sunt secuturæ.' Comp. Planck, l.c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77.

[501] While sick at Smalcald, 1537, he told the Elector of Saxony that after his death discord would break out in the University of Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. Seckendorf, Com. de Lutheranismo,' III. p. 165.

[502] 'Ego æquissimo animo,' he wrote to Camerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p.684), 'vel potius anaisthetos fero insolentiam kai hubreis multorum, et dum vivam moderate faciam officium meum.'

[503] Melanchthon applies to them a saying of Polybius, that 'volentes videri similes magnis viris,' and being unable to imitate the works (erga) of Luther, they imitated his by-works (parerga), 'et producunt in theatrum stultitiam suam.' Calvin more severely but not unjustly remarks (in his second defense against Westphal, 1556): 'O Luthere, quam paucos tuæ præstantiæ imitatores, quam multas vero sanctæ: tuæ jactantiæ simias reliquisti!' See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435, and especially Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 79 sqq.

[504] The term Philippists (from the Christian name of Melanchthon, who was usually called Dr. Philippus) is wider, and embraced the Synergists, while the term Crypto-Calvinists applies properly only to those who secretly held the Calvinistic doctrine, on the eucharist, but not on predestination. Some of the strict Lutherans--as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Heshus--held fast to the original views of Luther and Melanchthon on predestination, and taught that man was purely passive and even repugnant (repugnative) in the work of conversion. Comp. Landerer in Herzog, Vol. XI. p. 538.

[505] Kahnis (Vol. II. p. 520) thus characterizes the two parties: 'Dort [among the strict Lutherans] das Princip des Festhaltens, hier [among the Philippists] das Princip des Fortschreitens; dort scharfe Ausschliesslichkeit, hier Weite, Milde, Vermittelung, Union; dort fertige, faste Doctrin, hier praktische Elasticität.'

[506] In the Preface to the Magdeburg Confession, 1550, Luther is called 'the third Elijah,' 'the prophet of God,' and Luther's doctrine, without any qualification, 'the doctrine of Christ.' See Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums, pp. 42, 43. In the Reussische Confession of 1567 (Heppe, p. 76) it is said: 'We quote chiefly the writings of Luther as our prophet (als unseres Propheten), and prefer them to the writings of Philippus and others, who are merely children of the prophet (Prophetenkinder) and his disciples.' The overestimate of Luther is well expressed in the lines--

'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr,

Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.'

[507] Prof. Heppe, in his Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchlichen Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576 (Cassel, 1863), gives extracts from twenty Luthern Confessions which appeared during this period of twenty-eight years.

[508] Disputatio de originali peccato et libero arbitrio inter Matthiam Flacium Illyricum et Victorinum Strigelium, 1563; Flacius: De peccato orig., in the second part of his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 1567; Til. Heshusius: Antidoton contra impium et blasphemum dogma M. Fl. III. 1572, 3d ed. 1579; Wigand: De Manichæismo renovato, 1587; Schlüsselburg: Cat. hær. 1597, Lib. II.; Planck, Vol. V. pp. 1, 285; Döllinger: Die Reformation, etc. Vol. III. (1848), p. 484; Ed. Schmid: Des Flacius Erbsündestreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1849, Nos. I. and II.; Frank: Die Theologie der Concordienformel, Vol. I. p. 60; Dorner, p. 361, and the monograph of Preger on Flacius and his Age. Vol. II. p. 310.

[509] About forty adherents of Flacius, driven to German Austria (Opitz, Irenæus, Cölestin, etc.), issued in 1581 a declaration against the 'Form of Concord,' as inconsistent with Luther's pure doctrine on original sin; but in 1582 they fell out among themselves. As late as 1604 there were large numbers of Flacianists in German Austria. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 492 sq.

[510] This remarkable man, born 1520, at Albona, Istria (in Illyria, hence called Illyricus), was a convert from Romanism; studied at Basle, Tübingen, and Wittenberg under Luther and Melanchthon, and became Professor of Hebrew in the University of Wittenberg. Luther attended his wedding, and raised him from a state of mental depression almost bordering on despair. In consequence of his opposition to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interim, Flacius removed to Magdeburg (April, 1549), where he opened his literary batteries against Melanchthon and the Interim, and undertook with several others the first Protestant Church history, under the title of 'The Magdeburg Centuries.' In 1557 he was elected Professor in the newly founded University of Jena, but was deposed (1562), persecuted, and forsaken even by his former friends. He spent the remainder of his life in poverty and exile at Ratisbon, Antwerp, Strasburg, and died in a hospital in Frankfort-on-the-Main, March 11, 1575. Many of his contemporaries, and the learned historian Planck, represent him merely as a violent, pugnacious, obstinate fanatic; but more recently his virtues and merits have been better appreciated by Twesten (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Berlin, 1844), Kling (who calls him one of those witnesses of whom the world was not worthy, in Herzog. Vol. IV. p. 410), and W. Preger (M. Fl. Illyr. und seine Zeit, Erlangen. 1859-61, 2 vols.). Heppe, from his Melanchthonian standpoint, judges him more unfavorably, and thus characterizes him (in his Confessionelle Entwicklung, etc., p. 138): 'M. Flac. Illyricus war ein fanatischer Verehrer Luther's, der von allen Parteigenossen durch Kraft, Consequenz, Klarheit und Sicherheit seiner theologischen Speculation und durch Energie des Willens wie des Denkens hervorragend, kein Opfer und kein Mittel--auch nicht den schändlichsten Verrath am Vertrauen Melanchthon's--scheute, um sein klar erkanntes Ziel, nämlich die, Vernichtung Melanchthon's and der bisherigen Tradition des Protestantisimus zu erreichen und dem Bekenntniss der Kirche einen ganz anderen Charakter aufzuprägen als der war, in dem es sich bisher entwickelt hatte.' The library of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, possesses a rare collection of the numerous polemical tracts of Flacius. He has undoubted merits in Church history and exegesis. His best works, besides the 'Magdeburg Centuries,' are his Catalogus testium veritatis, Basil. 1556, and his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 2 P. Basil. 1567.

[511] By to sumbebekos Aristotle means a separable property or quality, which does not essentially belong to a thing. In this sense Flacius denied the accidental character of sin, and maintained that it entered into the inmost constitution, just as holiness is inherent and essential in the regenerate.

[512] For fuller information, see Pfeffinger: Proposit. de libero arbitrio, 1555; Flacius; De orig. peccato et libero arbitrio, two disputations, 1558 and 1559; Schüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. 1598 (Lib. V. de Synergistis); Planck, Vol. IV. p. 553; Galle, p. 326; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 437; Gust. Frank: Gesch. der Prot. Theol. Vol. I. p. 125, and his art. Synergismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 326; Fr. H. R. Frank: Theol. der Conc. F. Vol. I. p. 113; Dorner, p. 361; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially Schmid and Preger (quoted p. 268).

[513] See above, p. 262.

[514] 'Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam.'

[515] Especially his book de servo arbitrio. Luther calls the voluntas of the natural man noluntas, and compares him to the column of salt, Lot's wife, a block and stone. Similar terms are used in the 'Form of Concord.'

[516] Osiander: Disputationes duæ: una de Lege et Evangelio (1549), altera de Justifications (1550), Regiom. 1550; De unico Mediatore Jes. Chr. et Justificatione fidei confessio A. Osiandri, Regiom, 1551; Schmeckbier, Königsberg, 1552; Widerlegung der Antwort Melanchthon's, 1552. Anton Otto Herzberger: Wider die tiefgesuchten und scharfgespitzten, aber doch nichtigen Ursachen Osianders, Magdeburg, 1552; Gallus: Probe des Geistes Osiandri, Magdeb. 1552; Menius: Die Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt, wider die neue alcumistische Theologia Osianders, Erfurt, 1552; Jo. Wigand: De Osiandrismo, Jena, 1583 and 1586; Schlüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. Lib. VI.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 249; Baur: Disqu. in Osiandri de justif. doctrinam. Tüb. 1831; Lehnerdt: De Osiandri vita et doctr. Berol. 1835; H. Wilken: Osianders Leben, Stralsund, 1844; Heberle: Os. Lehre in ihrer frühsten Gestalt (Studien u. Kritiken, 1844, p. 386); Ritschl: Rechtfertigungslehre des A. Os. (in Jahrb. für D. Theol. 1857, p. 795); R. T. Grau: De Os. doctrina, Marb. 1860; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 469; Gass, Vol. I. p. 61; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 81; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 150; J. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 1-47; Dorner, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, Döllinger in his Reformation, ihre Entwicklung and Wirkungen, Vol. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account of the Osiandric controversy.

[517] See Köstlin: Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq.

[518] He thought that 'after the death of the lion he could easily dispose of the hares and foxes.' But the germ of his doctrine was already in his tract, 'Ein gut Unterricht und getreuer Rathschlag aus heil. göttlicher Schrift,' 1524. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, he requested Melanchthon, in the presence of Brentius and Urban Regius, to introduce into the new confession of faith the passage Jer. xxiii. 6, 'The Lord our Righteousness,' which he understood to mean that Christ dwells in us by faith, and works in us both to will and to do. See Wilkens, p. 37; Döllinger, p. 398.

[519] 'Christus secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus habitat.'

[520] 'Per humanitatem devenit in nos divinitas.'

[521] 'Nemo potest esse mediator sui ipsius.' Petrus Lombardus says: 'Christus mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.'

[522] Wigand: De Stancarismo, Lips. 1583; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IX.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 449; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 480; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 156.

[523] Georg Karg was born 1512, studied at Wittenberg, was ordained by Luther and Melanchthon, became pastor at Oettingen, afterwards at Ansbach, and died 1576. He was a rigid Lutheran in the Interimistic controversies, but otherwise more a follower of Melanchthon.

[524] Thomasius: Hist. dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 158; Dorner, p. 345; Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg's view was afterwards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 573; Schweizer: Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16.

[525] D. G. Major: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols.; N. von Amsdorf: Dass die Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schädlich,' eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch die heiligen Paulas und Luther gepredigt, 1559; several tracts of Flacius, Wigand, and Responsa and Letters of Melanchthon on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Reform. Vols. VIII. and IX.; Schlüsselburg, Lib. VII.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 469; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 493; Thomasius: Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 264; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 122; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 149; Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 733; Dorner, p. 339.

[526] See his classical description of faith in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans (Walch, Vol. XIV. p. 114, quoted also in the 'Form of Concord,' p. 626, ed. Müller): 'Der Glaube ist ein göttlich Werk in uns, das uns verwandelt und neu gebiert aus Gott und tödtet den alten Adam, macht uns ganz andere Menschen . . . und bringet den heiligen Geist mit sich. O! es ist ein lebendig, geschäftig, thätig, mächtig Ding um den Glauben, dass es unmöglich ist, dass er nicht ohne Unterlass sollte Gutes wirken; er fragt auch nicht, ob gute Werke zu thun sind, sondern ehe man fragt, hat er sie gethan, und ist immer im Thun. Weraber nicht solche Werke thut, der ist ein glaubloser Mensch. . . . Werke vom Glauben scheiden is so unmöglich als brennen und leuchten vom Feuer mag geschieden werden.' In another place Luther says: 'So wenig das Feuer ohne Hitze und Rauch ist, so wenig ist der Glaube ohne Liebe.'

[527] Loci theol. ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): 'Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonæ conscientiæ seu operum, quæ Deus nobis præcipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem. . . . Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata (Matt. xix. 17). . . . Justificamur ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (Eph. ii. 10). . . . Acceptatio ad vitam æternam seu donatio vitæ æternæ conjuncta est cum justificatione, i.e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, quæ fide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita æterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam æternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent' (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 429).

[528] 'Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem.'

[529] He found it necessary afterwards to qualify his proposition, especially since Melanchthon, to his surprise, did not quite approve it. He assigned to good works a necessitas debiti, as commanded by God, a necessitas conjunctionis, as connected with faith, but no necessitas meriti. Our whole confidence is in Christ. 'Hominem,' he said, 'sola fide esse justum, sed non sola fide salvum.'

[530] Viz., the words, 'Es ist gewisslich wahr, dass die Tugenden Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung, und andere in uns sein müssen und zur Seligkeit nöthig seien.' In Pezel's edition of Melanchthon's 'Bedenken' the words zur Seligkeit are omitted. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 496.

[531] 'Bona opera perniciosa (noxia) esse [not in themselves, but] ad salutem.' Whoever held the opposite view was denounced by Amsdorf as a Pelagianer, Mameluk, zweifältiger Papist and Verläugner Christi.

[532] See the extracts from Flacius, in Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq.

[533] See the theses in Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq.

[534] See his brief Judicium on the Majoristic controversy, 1553, Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 194, and his more lengthy German letter ad Senatum Northusanum (Nordhausen), Jan. 13, 1555; Ibid., pp. 410-413. 'Diese Deutung, 'he says (p. 412), 'ist zu fliehen: gute Werke sind Verdienst der Seligkeit; und muss der Glaub und Trost fest allein auf dem Herrn Christo stehen, dass wir gewisslich durch ihn allein, propter eum et per eum, haben Vergebung der Sünden, Zurchnung der Gerechtigkeit, heiligen Geist, und Erbschaft der ewigen Seligkeit. Dieses Fundament ist gewiss. Es folget auch eben aus diesem Fundament, dass diese andere Proposition recht und nöthig ist: gute Werke oder neuer Gehorsam ist nöthig von wegen göttlicher, unwandelbarer Ordnung, dass die vernünftige Creatur Gott Gehorsam schuldig ist, und dazu erschaffen, und jetzund wiedergeboren ist, dass sie ihm gleichförmig werde.' Melanchthon heard from an Englishman that this controversy created great astonishment in England, where no one doubted the necessity of good works to salvation, nor failed to see the difference between necessity and merit.

[535] In accordance with the word of Augustine: 'Opera sequuntur justificatam, non præcedunt justificandum.' Three or four of the framers of the 'Form of Concord' were inclined to Major's view, and endeavored at first to prevent its condemnation; but the logic of the Lutheran principle triumphed.

[536] Luther's Werke, Vol. XX. p. 2014 (ed. Walch); Wigand: De antinomia veteri et nova, Jen. 1571; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IV.; Förstemann: Neues Urkundenbuch (Hamburg, 1842), Vol. I. p. 291; J. G. Schulzius: Historia Antinomorum, Viteb. 1708; Planck, Vol. II. p. 399, Vol. V. I. 1; Thomasius, p. 46; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 372; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p.397; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 80; Gass, Vol. I. p.57; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 146; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. pp. 246, 262; Dorner, p. 336; Elwert: De Antinomia Agricolæ Islebii, Tur. 1836; K. J. Nitzsch: Die Gesammterscheinung des Antinomismus, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1846, Nos. I. and II.

[537] Gass says (Vol. I. p. 57): 'Die Reformation war selbst Antinomismus, insofern sie mit dem werkheiligen auch das gesetzliche Princip, wenn es die Seligkeit des Menschen bewirken will, verwarf. Melanchthon hatte Gesetz und Evangelium wie Schreck- und Trostmittel einander entgegengestellt und nur auf das letzere die Rechtfertigung gebaut, während er doch unter dem Gesetz den bleibenden Inhalt des göttlichen Willens zusammenfasst.'

[538] Many of his utterances, as quoted by Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 45 sqq., sound decidedly antinomian, but must be understood cum grano salis, and in connection with his whole teaching. Some of the most objectionable are from his 'Table Talk,' as when he calls Moses 'the master of all hangmen' and 'the worst of heretics.'

[539] Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider; Luther called him Grickl) was born at Eisleben, 1492 (hence Magister Islebius), and studied at Wittenberg, where he boarded with Luther. He was a popular preacher at Eisleben, and became Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, 1536, and chaplain of Elector Joachim II. at Berlin, 1540. In 1548 he took a leading part in the Augsburg Interim, and denied the essential principles of Protestantism, but protested afterwards from the pulpit against the necessity of good works (1558). He died at Berlin, 1566. Luther was more vexed by him, as he said, than by any pope; he charged him with excessive vanity and ambition, and declared him unfit to teach, and fit only for the profession of a jester (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 321). He refused to see him in 1545, and said, 'Grickl wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickl bleiben.' Bretschneider and Gieseler suppose that Melanchthon incurred Agricola's displeasure by not helping him to a theological chair in Wittenberg. He must have had, however, considerable administrative capacity. Döllinger charges the Reformers with misrepresenting him and his doctrine.

[540] 'Prædicatio legis ad pænitentiam.' Chursächsische Visitations-Artikel, 1527 and 1528, Latin and German, ed. by Strobel, 1777.

[541] Westphal: Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opiniomum de Cæna Domini ex Sacramentariorum libris congesta, Magdeb. 1552 (chiefly against Calvin, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and John à Lasco); Recta Fides de Cæna Domini ex verbis Ap. Pauli et Evangelistarum demonstrata, 1553; a tract on Augustine's view of the eucharist, 1555; another on Melanchthon's view, 1557; then Justa Defensio against John à Lasco; and, finally, Apologia contra corruptelas et calumnias Johannis Calvini, 1558. Calvin: Defensio sanæ et orthodoxæ doctrinæ de sacramentis, Gen. and Tiguri, 1555; Secunda Defensio planæ et orthod. de sacram. fidei contra Joach. Westphali calumnias, 1556; Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum, 1557; Dilucida Explicatio sanæ doctr. de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Cæna, against Heshusius, 1561. (All these tracts of Calvin in his Opera, Vol. IX. ed. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Brunsv. 1870.) Minor eucharistic tracts on the Lutheran side by Brenz, Schnepf, Alber, Timann, Heshusius; on the Calvinistic side by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Beza, and Hardenberg. Wigand: De Sacramentariismo, Lips. 1584; De Ubiquitate, Regiom. 1588; Schlüsselburg, Lib. III.; Planck, Vol. V. II. 1; Galle, p. 436; Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 525-744; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 439, 454; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 384; Stähelin: Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 112, 198; Schmidt: Melanchthon, pp.580, 639; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 132, 164; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 1-164; Mönckeberg: Joach. Westphal und Joh. Calvin, 1865; Dorner, p. 400; also Art. Kryptocalvinismus in Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 122; and the Prolegomena to the ninth volume of the new edition of Calvin's Opera (in Corp. Reform.).

[542] See Utenhoven's Simplex et fidelis narratio, etc., Bas. 1560, and the extracts from it by Salig, Vol. II. pp. 1090 sqq., and Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 536 sqq. Mönckeberg attempts to apologize for Westphal, but without effect. Compare the remarks of Dorner, p. 401.

[543] 'Fatemur,' he says in his First Defense, 'Christum, quod panis et vini symbolis figurat, vere præstare, ut animas nostras carnis suæ esu et sanguinis potione alat. . . . Hujus rei non fallacem oculis proponi figuram dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa et veritas conjuncta est: quod scilicet Christi carne et sanguine animæ nostræ pascantur' (in the new edition of his Opera, Vol. IX. p. 30). In the Second Defense: 'Christum corpore absentem doceo nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quæ ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere ut nobis vivifica. sit sua caro (Vol. IX. p. 76). . . . Cænam plus centies dici sacrum esse vinculum nostræ cum Christo unitatis (p. 77). . . . Spiritus sui virtute Christus locorum distantiam superat ad vitam nobis e sua carne inspirandam' (p. 77). . . . And in his Last Admonition: 'Hæc nostræ doctrinæ summa est, carnem Christi panem esse vivificum, quia dum fide in eam coalescimus, vere aninas nostras alit et pascit. Hoc nonnisi spiritualiter fieri docemus, quia hujus sacræ unitatis vinculum arcana est et incomprehensibilis Spiritus Sancti virtus' (Vol. IX. p. 162).

[544] He wrote to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1554 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 362): 'Quod in proximis literis hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam p&acelig;cipue odio mei eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me opprimendum.' To Hardenberg, in Bremen, May 9, 1557: 'Crescit, ut vides, non modo certamen, sed etiam rabies in scriptoribus, qui artolatreian stabiliunt.' And to Mordeisen, Nov. 15, 1557 (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 374): 'Si mihi concedatis, ut in alia loco vivam, respondebo illis indoctis sycophantis et vere et graviter, et dicam utilia ecclesiæ.' He gave, however, his views pretty clearly and dispassionately shortly before his death in his vota on the Breslau and Heidelberg troubles (1559 and 1560).

[545] His German name was Hesshusen. He was one of the most pugnacious divines of his age; born 1527 at Nieder-Wesel, died 1588 at Helmstädt. See Leuckfeld's biography, Historia Heshusiana (1716), and Henke, in Herzog, Vol. VI. p. 49.

[546] In his last book against Bullinger (1564). See Hartmann, Brenz, p. 252.

[547] He was undeceived by a new deception. The crisis was brought about by the discovery of a confidential correspondence with the Reformed in the Palatinate, and especially by the appearance in Leipzig of the anonymous Exegesis perspicua controversiæ de Cæna Domini, 1574 (newly edited by Scheffer, Marburg, 1853), which openly rejected the manducatio oralis, and defended Calvin's view of the eucharist (though without naming him), while the Consensus Dresdensis (1571) had concealed it under Lutheran phraseology. This work was generally attributed to Peucer and the Wittenberg Professors, in spite of their steadfast denial, but it was the product of a Silesian physician, Joachim Cureus. See the proof in Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 468 sqq.

[548] Cruciger, Moller, Wiedebram, and Pezel (whom the Lutherans called Beelzebub) refused to recant. The first went to Hesse, the second to Hamburg, the other two to Nassau. The old and weak Major yielded to the condemnation of Melanchthon's view. Several other Wittenberg Professors were likewise deposed.

[549] Peucer was released in 1586, at the intercession of the beautiful Princess Agnes Hedwig of Anhalt, and became physician of the Prince of Dessau, where he died, 1602. He wrote the history of his prison life, Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ, ed. by Pezel, Tig. 1605. On his theory of the real presence, see Galle, pp. 460 sqq. He rejected the Lutheran view much more strongly than his father-in-law, Melanchthon, and thought it had no more foundation in the Bible than the popish transubstantiation. Comp. Henke: Casp. Peucer und Nic. Crell, Marburg, 1865.

[550] He was charged with intermeddling in matters of religion, and advising a dangerous treaty with the Reformed Henry IV. of France against Austria. The suit was referred to an Austrian court of appeals at Prague, and decided in the political interest of Austria with a violation of all justice. His confession of guilt before his heavenly Judge was distorted by his fanatical opponents into a confession of guilt before his human judges. It is often stated that he was not beheaded for religion ('non ob religionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem,' as Hutter says, Concordia concors, pp. 448 and 1258). But his Calvinism, or rather his Melanchthonianism (for he never read a line of Calvin), was the only crime which could he proved against him; he always acted under the direction and command of the Elector, and he had accepted the chancellorship with a clear confession of his views, and the assurance of his Prince that he should be protected in it, and never be troubled with subscribing to the 'Form of Concord.' As judge, he was admitted, even by his enemies, to have been impartial and just to the poor as well as the rich. Comp. Hasse: Ueber den Crell'schen Process, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1848, No. 2; Vogt in Herzog, Vol. III. p. 183; Richard: Dr. Nic. Krell. Dresden, 1859; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 296 sqq.; Henke: C. Peucer und N. Crell, Marburg, 1865.

[551] Such details are recorded by Salig, Vol. III. p. 462; Hartmann and Jäger: Brenz, Vol. II. p. 371; Galle: Melanchthon, p. 449 sq.; Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 592, 694; Droysen: Geschichte der Preuss. Politik, Vol. II. p. 261; Sudhof: Olevianus und Ursinus, p. 239; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 164.

[552] J. Wiggers: Der Saligersche Abendmahlsstreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1848, No. 4, p. 613.

[553] Dorner: Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2d ed. Vol. II. pp. 665 sqq.; Heppe: Gesch. des D. Prot. Vol. II. pp.75 sqq.; G. E. Steitz: Art. Ubiquität, in Herzog's Encykl. Vol. XVI. pp. 558-616, with an addition by Herzog, Vol. XXI. p. 383; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 452, 462; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 161; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 165-396. Comp. also the literature on the eucharistic controversy, p. 279.

[554] Origen first taught the ubiquity of the body of Christ, in connection with his docetistic idealism, but without any regard to the eucharist, and was followed by Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. 40, and Adv. Apollinar. c. 59). They held that Christ's body after the resurrection was so spiritualized and deified as to lay aside all limitations of nature, and to be in all parts of the world as well as in heaven. See Gieseler's Commentatio qua Clementis Alex. et Origenis doctrinæ de corpore Christi exponuntur, Gott. 1837, and Neander's Dogmengeschichte, Vol. I. pp. 217, 834. Cyril of Alexandria held a similar view (Christ's body is 'every where,' pantachou), but in connection with an almost monophysitic Christology. Scotus Erigena revived Origen's ubiquity, gave it a pantheistic turn, and made it subservient to his view of the eucharistic presence, which he regarded merely as a symbol of the every where present Christ. Neander, Vol. II. p. 43.

[555] On Luther's Christology and ubiquity doctrine, see Heppe (Ref.): Dogmatik, des D. Protest. im 16ten Jahrh. Vol. II. pp. 93 sqq., and Köstlin (Luth.): Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 118, 153, 167, 172, 512. Köstlin, without adopting Luther's views of ubiquity, finds in them 'grossartige, tiefe, geist- und lebensvolle Anschauungen vom göttlichen Sein und Leben' (Vol. II. p. 154).

[556] In his Grosse Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl, published 1528 (in Walch's ed. Vol. XX.; in the Erlangen ed. Vol. XXX.), he says: 'Kann Christus' Leib über Tisch sitzen and dennoch im Brot sein, so kann er auch im Himmel und wo er will sein und dennoch im Brot sein; es ist kein Unterschied fern oder nah bei dem Tische sein, dazu dass er zugleich im Brot sei. . . . es sollte mir ein schlechter Christus bleiben, der nicht mehr, denn an einem einzelnen Orte zugleich eine göttliche and menschliche Person wäre, und an allen anderen Orten müsste er allein ein blosser abgesonderter Gott und göttliche Person sein ohne Menschseit. Nein, Geselle, wo du mir Gott hinsetzest, da must du mir die Menschheit mit hinsetzen. Die lassen sich nicht sondern und von einander trennen; es ist Eine Person worden und scheidet die Menschseit nicht so von sich, wie Meister Hans seinen Rock auszieht und von sich legt, wenn er schlafen geht. Denn, dass ich den Einfältigen ein grob Gleichniss gebe, die Menschheit ist näher vereinigt mit Gott, denn unsere Haut mit unserm Fleische, ja näher denn Leib und Seele.'

[557] He ridicules the popular conception of heaven and the throne of God as childish: 'Die Rechte Gottes,' he says, l.c., 'ist nicht ein sonderlicher Ort, da ein Leib solle oder möge sein, nicht ein Gaukelhimmel, wie man ihn den Kindern pflegt vorzubilden, darin ein gülden Stuhl stehe und Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer Chorkappen und gülden Krone. . . . Die Rechte Gottes ist an allen Enden, so ist sie gewisslich auch im Brot und Wein über Tische. . . . Wo nun die Rechte Gottes ist, da muss Christi Leib und Blut auch sein; denn die Rechte Gottes ist nicht zu theilen in viele Stücke, sondern ein einiges einfältiges Wesen.' If this prove any thing, it proves the absolute omnipresence of Christ's body. And so Brentius taught.

[558] De inhabitatione Dei in Sanctis ad Osiandrum, 1551 (Consil. Lat. Vol. II. p. 156): 'Tota antiquitas declarans hanc propositionem: Christus est ubique, sic declarat: Christus est ubique personaliter. Et verissimum est, Filium Dei, Deum et hominem habitare in sanctis. Sed antiquitas hanc propositionem rejicit: Christus corporaliter est ubique. Quia natura quælibet retinet sua idiomata. Unde Augustinus et alii dicunt: Christi corpus est in certo loco. . . Cavendum est, ne ita astruamus divinitatem hominis Christi, ut veritatem corporis auferamus.' In a new edition of his lectures on the Colossians (1556 and 1559), he maintains the literal meaning of the ascension of Christ, 'i.e., in locum coelestem. . . . Ascensio fuit visibilis et corporalis, et sæpe ita scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco esse, ubicunque vult. Corpus localiter alicubi est secundum verum corporis modum, ut Augustinus inquit.' See Galle, p. 448.

[559] See on his Christology chiefly Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 99 sqq.

[560] 'Finitum non capax est infiniti.'

[561] Both parties published an account--the Lutherans at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the Reformed at Heidelberg. The latter is more full, and bears the title: Protocollum, h. e. Acta Colloquii inter Palatinos et Wirtebergicos Theologos de Ubiquitate sive Omnipræsentia corporis Christi. . . . A. 1564 Maulbrunni habiti (Heidelb. 1566). See a full résumé of the Colloquy in Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 666-685; Sudhoff: Olevian und Ursin, pp.260-290; in Hartmann: Joh. Brenz, pp. 253-256, and in the larger work of Hartmann and Jäger on Brenz, 1840-42, Vol. II.

[562] Andreæ asserted that Christ's body, when in Mary's womb, was omnipresent as to possession (possessione), though not as to manifestation (non patefactione). Sudhoff, p. 279. This is the Tübingen doctrine of the krupsis. See below.

[563] The same Lutherans, who so strenuously insisted on the literal interpretation of the esti, outdid the Reformed in the figurative interpretation of all these passages, and explained the ascension and heaven itself out of the Bible.

[564] Ebrard says (Vol. II. p. 685): 'So endete das Maulbronner Gespräch mit einer vollständigen Niederlage der Lutheraner.' Sudhoff (p. 290): 'Es kann von niemandem in Abrede gestellt werden, dass die Pfälzer als Sieger aus diesem Streite hervorgegangen,' and he publishes several manuscript letters giving the impressions of the Colloquy on those present. The Swabians returned discontented, but without change of conviction. Dorner, although a Lutheran, and a Swabian by descent, gives the Reformed Christology in many respects the preference before the Lutheran, and says (Vol. II. p. 724): 'Es ist unbestreitbar, dass die reformirte christologische Literatur, die um die Zeit der Concordienformel ihren Blüthepunkt erreicht, durch Geist, Scharfsinn, Gelehrsamkeit und philosophische Bildung der lutherischen Theologie vollkommen ebenbürtig, ja in manchen Beziehungen überlegen ist.' He then gives a fine analysis of the Christology of Beza, Danæus, Sadeel, and Ursinus.

[565] See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 466 sq.

[566] In a series of tracts: De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, 1561 (written in 1560); Sententia de libello Bullingeri, 1561; De Divina majestate Domini nostri J. Christi ad dexteram Patris et de vera præsentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in cæna, 1562; and Recognitio propheticæ et apost. doctrinæ de vera Majestate Dei, 1564. In Brentii Opera, 1590, T. VIII. pp. 831-1108. Against Brenz wrote Bullinger: Tractatio verborum Domini Joh. XIV. 2, Tiguri, 1561; Responsio, qua ostenditur, sententiam de cælo et dextera Dei firmiter adhuc perstare, 1562; also Peter Martyr and Beza. The Roman Catholics sided with the Reformed against the Lutheran ubiquity. On the Christology of Brenz, comp. Dorner: Entw. Geschichte der Christologie, Vol. II. pp. 668 sqq.; Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 646 sqq. (Brenz und die Ubiquität); and Steitz in Herzog, Vol. XVI. pp. 584 sqq.

[567] 'Majestatem divinam tempore carnis suæ in hoc seculo dissimulavit seu ea sese (ut Paulus loquitur) exinanivit, tamen numquam ea caruit. . . . Texit et obduxit suam majestatem forma servi.'

[568] 'Eum tunc manifesto spectaculo voluisse testificari et declarare, se verum Deun et hominem, hoc est, una cum divinitate et humanitate sua jam inde ab initio suæ incarnationis omnia implevisse.'

[569] 'Ubicunque est Deitas, ibi etiam est humanitas Christi.'

[570] Brenz was followed by Jacob Andreæ, Schegck, and the Swabians generally, who have shown a good deal of speculative genius (down to Schelling, Hegel, and Baur), and also by a few divines of North Germany, as Andreas Musculus, John Wigand, and for a time by Heshusius, who afterwards opposed absolute ubiquity. Leonhard Hutter and Ægidius Hunnius, who were Swabians by birth, likewise took substantially the Swabian view, though more for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the 'Formula of Concord.' See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 775.

[571] In his important work: De duabus naturis in Christo, de hypostatica earum unione, de communicatione idiomatum et aliis quæstionibus inde dependentibus, Jenæ, 1570, and often reprinted. Comp. Steitz, l.c. pp. 592-597; and Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 695 sqq. Heppe says (Dogm. Vol. II. p. 131): 'Der Gegensatz der melanchthonischen und der würtembergisch-brenzischen Christologie ist sonnenklar. Jene erbaut sich auf dem Gedanken, dass Gott wirklicher Mensch geworden ist, während diese sich um den Gedanken lagert, dass ein Mensch Gott geworden ist.'

[572] 'Præsentia hæc assumtæ naturæ in Christo non est naturalis, vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a voluntate et potentia Filii Dei, h. e. ubi se hmnana natura adesse velle certo verbo tradidit, promisit et asseveravit.'

[573] Confessio et doctrina theologorum in Ducatu Wurtembergensi de vera præsentia corporis et sanguinis J. Chr. in Cæna dominica. Here the absolute ubiquity is taught, not, indeed, in the way of a 'diffusio humanæ naturæ' or 'distractio membroram Christi,' but so that 'homo Christus quoque implet omnia modo cælesti et humanæ naturæ imperscrutabili.' See the German in Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchl. Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben, p. 63. Melanchthon concealed his grief over this change of Brenz beneath a facetious remark to a friend on the poor Latinity of this confession ('Hechingense Latinum:' Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 1036; comp. Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 454; J. Hartmann: Joh. Brenz, p. 249).

[574] Heshusius wrote concerning this Colloquy: 'Constanter rejicio ubiquitatem. Chemnitzius, Kirchnerus, Chytræus antea rejecerunt eam: nunc in gratiam Tubingensium cum magno ecclesiæ scandalo ejus patrocinium suscipiunt, ipsorum igitur constantia potius accusanda est.' Comp. Acta disput.Quedlinb.; Dorner, Vol. II. p. 773; Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 316; and G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 259 (Helmstädt und die Ubiquität).

[575] The Saxon Solida decisio, 1624, and an Apologia decisionis, 1625; Feuerborn: Sciagraphia de div. Jes. Christo juxta humanit. communicatæ majestatis usurpatione, 1621; Kenosigraphia christologike, Marburg, 1627; Mentzer: Juxta defensio against the Tübingen divines, Giss. 1624; Thummius: Majestas J. Christi theanthropou, Tüb. 1621; Acta Mentzeriana, 1625; Tapeinosigraphia sacra, h. e. Repetitio sanæ et orthod. doctrinæ de humiliatione Jesu Christi, Tüb. 1623 (900 pp. 4to). On the Romish side: Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novum, Dilling. 1627; Alter und neuer lutherischer Katzenkrieg v. d. Ubiquität, Ingolst. 1629; Cotta: Historia doctrinæ de duplici statu Christi (in his edition of Gerhard's Loci theologici, Vol. IV. pp. 60sqq.); Walch: Religionsstreitigkeiten, Vol. I. p. 206; Vol. IV. p. 551; Baur: Gesch. der L. v. d. Dreieinigkeit, Vol. III. p. 450; Thomasius: Christi Person und Werk, Vol. II. pp. 391-450; Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 788-809; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 336.

[576] Hence they were called Kenotiker, Kenoticists.

[577] Hence their name, Kryptiker, Krypticists.

[578] Indistantia, nuda adessentia ad creaturas, præsentia simplex.

[579] Actio, operatio, præsentia modificata. This amounts to pretty much the same thing with the omimpræsentia energetica of the Calvinists.

[580] The same applies to omnipotence. The Tübingen divines gave an affirmative answer to the question, 'An homo Christus in Deum assumptus in statu exinanitionis tamquam rex præsens cuncta, licet latenter, gubernarit?' They made, however, an apparent concession to their opponents by assuming a brief suspension of the use of the divine majesty during the agony in Gethsemane and the crucifixion, in order that Christ might really suffer as high-priest. See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 799.

[581] 'In an individual,' says Strauss, in the dogmatic conclusion of his first Leben Jesu (Vol. II. p. 710}. 'in one God-man, the properties and functions which the Church doctrine ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures--the incarnate God--the infinite externalizing itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude.'

[582] So Thomasius, Liebner, Gess. But the absolute ubiquity also has found an advocate in Philippi (Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, Vol. IV. I. pp. 394). Dr. Stahl, the able theological lawyer, in his Die lutherische Kirche und die Union (Berlin, 1859, pp.185 sqq.), admits that the ubiquity question has no religious interest except as a speculative basis for the possibility of the eucharistic presence, and approaches Ebrard's view of an 'extra-spacial, central communication of the virtue' of Christ's body to the believer. Dr. Krauth defends Chemnitz's view, and what he would rather style 'the personal omnipresence of the human nature of Christ' (l.c. p. 496). But the human nature of Christ is impersonal, and simply taken up into union with the pre-existent personality of the Divine Logos.

[583] Æpinus: Comment, in Psa. xvi. Frcf. 1544, and Enarratio Psalmi lxviii., with an appendix de descensu Christi ad inferna, Frcf. 1553. A. Grevius: Memoria J. Æpini instaurata, Hamb. 1736; Dietelmaier: Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi, Norimb. 1741, Alt. 1762; Planck, Vol. V. I. pp. 251-264; König: Die Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt, pp. 152 sqq.; Güder: Die Lehre der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten, Bern, 1853, pp. 222 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 160 sq.; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. p. 397 sqq.

[584] A Hellenized form (Aipeinos, high, lofty) for his German name Höck, or Hoch. He was born, 1499, at Ziegesar, Brandenburg; studied at Wittenberg, became pastor at St. Peter's, Hamburg, 1529, Superintendent in 1532, introduced the Reformation into that city, signed the Articles of Smalcald, 1537, stood in high esteem, and died 1553. He was a colleague of Westphal, and opposed with Flacius the Leipzig Interim.

[585] Sept. 1550, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. p. 665. Comp. Schmidt, Melanchthon, p. 554 sq. In his Loci, Melanchthon passes by the descensus as unessential. In a letter to Spalatin, March 20,1531 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 490), he expresses his inability to explain the dark passage, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. He was pleased with Luther's sermon at Torgau, but added, in a private letter to Anton Musa (March 12, 1543, Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 58), that Christ probably preached the gospel to the heathen in the spirit world, and converted such men as Scipio and Fabius. (Zwingli likewise believed in the salvation of the nobler heathen.) He wrote to Æpinus, April 20, 1546 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 116), to preach the necessary doctrines of faith, repentance, prayer, good works, rather than speculations on things which even the most learned did not know.

[586] Comp. Flacius: Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen, etc.; Entschuldigung geschrieben an die Universität zu Wittenberg der Mittelding halben, etc.; Wider ein recht heidnisch, ja Epicurisch Buch der Adiaphoristen, darin das Leipzische Interim vertheidigt wird, etc.; and other pamphlets, printed at Magdeburg (as the 'Kanzlei Gottes'), 1549; Wigand: De neutralibus et mediis, Frcf. 1560; Schlüsselburg: Cat. Hæret. Lib. XIII. (de Adiaphoristis et Interimistis); Biek: Das dreifache Interim, Leipz. 1725, Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 85-248; H. Rossel: Mel. und das Interim (at the close of Twesten's monograph on Flacius, Berlin, 1844); Ranke: Deutsche Gesch., etc. Vol. V.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435; Herzog: Encykl. Vol. I. p. 124; Vol. VIII. p. 288; Schmidt: Mel. pp. 491, 495, 524; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 113, 116; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 1-120; Dorner, p. 331.

[587] See his humorous letter to Buchholzer in Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 235), which might have considerably embarrassed the anti-Adiaphorists had they known it. He advises Elector Joachim II. that in introducing the Reformation he may, if he desired it, put on one or three priestly garments, like Aaron; may hold one or even seven processions, like Joshua before Jericho; and may dance before it, as David danced before the ark, provided only such things were not made necessary for salvation.

[588] See the text of the two Interims in Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 193-196 and 201-203; the Interim Lipsiense, also, in Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. The term gave rise to sarcastic conundrums, as Interimo, interitus, Hinterim, der Schalk ist hinter ihm (the villain is behind it). On the political aspects of the Interim, see the fifth volume of Ranke.

[589] To the Augsburg Interim he was decidedly opposed, and he had also sundry objections to the ceremonial part of the Leipzig Interim. He is only responsible for its doctrinal part. See his letters from this period in Corp. Reform. Vols. VI. and VII., and Schmidt's Mel. pp. 507 and 524.

[590] In a letter to his enemy, M. Flacius, dated Sept. 5, 1556, he was not ashamed to confess, after some slight reproaches, 'Vincite! Cedo; nihil pugno de ritibus illis, et maxime opto, ut dulcis sit ecclesiarum concordia. Fateor etiam hac in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas deliberationes. Sed illa quæ mihi falsa a te et a Gallo objiciuntur, refutabo.' Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 841 sq. And to the Saxon pastors he wrote, Jan. 17, 1557 (Vol. IX. p. 61): 'Pertractus sum ad aularum deliberationes insidiosas. Quare sicubi vel lapsus sum, vel languidius aliquid egi, peto a Deo et ab Ecclesia veniam, et judiciis Ecclesiæ obtemperabo.'

[591] Thus he concisely states the case on the long title-page of his Apology, or Entschuldigung, etc., addressed to the University of Wittenberg, with a letter to Melanchthon, Magdeburg, 1549. The concluding words of the title state the aim of the Interim thus: 'Das Ende ist die Einsetzung des Papstthums und Einstellung des Antichrists in den Tempel Christi, Stärkung der Gottlosen, dass sie über der Kirche Christi stolziren, Betrübung der Gottfürchtigen, item Schwächung, Einführung in Zweifel, Trennung und unzählige Aergerniss.' He relates of Melanchthon that he derived from an eclipse of the moon in 1548 the vain hope of the near death of the Emperor, which would end these troubles. He also published several confidential letters of Luther to Melanchthon, written during the Diet at Augsburg, 1530, upbraiding him for his philosophy and timidity.

[592] Opera, Vol. IX. p. 51, and Letters of Calvin, by J. Bonnet, English translation, Vol. II. p. 257. A letter of similar spirit and import to Melanchthon, by his friend Anton Corvinus (Räbener), a distinguished reformer in Hesse and Göttingen, who suffered imprisonment for his opposition to the Interim, was recently discovered in the Royal Library at Hanover by Iwan Franz, and published in Kahnis, Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theol. 1874, pp. 105 sqq., from which I quote the following passages: 'O Philippe, o inquam Philippe noster, redi per immortalem Christum ad pristinum candorem, ad pristinam tuam sinceritatem! non languefacito ista tua formidine, pusillanimitate et inepta moderatione nostrorum animos tantopere! Non aperito hac ratione ad Papatus recurrentem impietatem ac Idolomanias fenestram ac januam! Non sis tantorum in Ecclesia offendiculorum autor! Ne sinas tua tam egregia scripta, dicta, facta, quibus mirifice de Ecclesia hactenus meritus es, isto condonationis, moderationis, novationis nævo ad eum modum deformari! Cogita, quantum animi ista nostra carnis ac rationis consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant.! Perpende, quam placari etiam istis condonationibus adversarii nostri non queant, qui totius Papatus doctrinam et omnes ex cequo impios cultus reposcunt et ex nostra levitate spem concipiunt se hac in re facile voti compotes futuros. Detestatur Dominus apud Jeremiam eos, qui manus pessimormn confortant, ut non convertatur unusquisque a malitia sua. Cur igitur in tam ardua causa non tales nos gerimus ut hujusmodi detestatio competere in nos haud possit? qua perversitate arundo huc illuc ventis agitata dici quam Johannis constantiam imitari malumus! . . . Proinde Te, o noster Philippe, iterum atque iterum per ilium ipsum Christum redemptorem nostrum et brevi futurum judicem rogamus, ut professionis tuæ memor talem te cum reliquis Vitebergensibus jam geras, qualem Te ab initio hujus causæ ad Electoris captivitatem usque gessisti, hoc est, ut ea sentias, dicas, scribas, agas, quæ Philippum, Christianum Doctorem decent, non aulicum Philosophum.'

[593] Planck, Vol. VI. pp.809 sqq.; Röhrich: Geschichte der Reform. im Elsass, bes. in Strassburg, 3 Theile, Strasburg, 1830-1882; Schweizer: Centraldogmen der Reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 418-470 (a very full and able account); Heppe: Dogmatik des D. Protest. Vol. II. pp. 44-47; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 178-184; Fr. H. E. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 121-344.

[594] The Philippist Lasius first asserted (1568) that Luther had recalled his book De servo arbitrio (1525), but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito, 1537, as one of his very best ('nullum enim agnosco meum justum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio, et Catechismum'). And, indeed, it is one of his most powerful works. Luthardt (Die Lehre vom freien Willen, Leipz. 1863, p. 122) calls it 'eine mächtige Schrift, stoltz, wahrheitsgewiss, kühn in Gedanken und Wort, voll heiligen Eifers, gewaltigen Ernstes, aus innerster Seele herausgeschrieben. . . . Kaum irgendwo sonst ergiesst sich gleich mächtig und reich der Strom seines Geistes.' Only in regard to predestination Luther may be said to have moderated his view somewhat, although he never recalled it, that is, he still taught in his later writings (in his Com. on Genesis, Ch. VI. 6, 18; Ch. XXVI.) the distinction and antagonism between the revealed will of God, which sincerely calls all to repentance and salvation, and the inscrutable secret will which saves only a part of the race; but he laid the main stress practically on the former and the means of grace, and thus prepared the way for the 11th Article of the Formula of Concord. 'Scripsi,' he wrote in 1536, 'esse omnia absoluta et necessaria, sed simul addidi, quod adspiciendus sit Deus revelatus' (Opera exeg. Vol. VI. p. 300). Luthardt (l.c. p. 146) correctly says (in opposition both to Lütkens and Philippi) that Luther never recalled, but retained his earlier views on predestination and the necessity of all that happens, and only guarded them against abuse. The result of Köstlin's investigation is this, that Luther never attempted a solution of the contradiction between the secret and the revealed will of God. 'Das eben ist seine Lehre, dass unser Erkennen nicht so weit reicht, und dass wir uns auch das Unbegreifliche und Unverständliche gefallen lassen müssen. . . . Er selbst spricht aus, dass ein Widerspruch für uns stehen bleibe, den wir nicht lösen können noch sollen.' Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. p. 328.

[595] See the proof passages in Frank's Theol. der Concord. formel, Vol. IV. pp. 254-261; Luthardt, pp. 240-244; Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 691-712; and Schweizer, l.c.

[596] See Schweizer, l.c. pp. 402 sqq. Heshusius and Westphal invented the name Calvinists, which henceforth was used by Lutherans for the Reformed, as the term Zwinglians had been before. The term sacramentarians was applied to both without distinction.

[597] Melanchthon called him mediocriter doctus, but his own estimate was much higher, and in his inaugural he spoke with such arrogance that Bucer feared he would prove a great misfortune for the Church at Strasburg. See Röhrich and Schweizer, p. 420.

[598] Zanchii Opera, Pt. VII. pp. 65 sqq., and Pt. VIII. pp. 114 sqq.; Schweizer, pp. 448-470.

[599] Printed in the Strasburger Kirchenordnung of 1598. and in Löscher's Historia motuum, Vol. II. p. 229 sq. See Schweizer, pp. 440 sqq.

[600] It is addressed to Philip of Hesse (Oct. 1, 1565), and given by Schweizer, pp. 425-436. Zanchi accepted afterwards a call to a professorship at the Reformed University of Heidelberg, where he died, 1590. He received also calls to England, Lausanne, Geneva, Zurich, and Leyden, and was justly esteemed for his learning and character. A complete edition of his works appeared at Geneva in eight parts, in 3 vols. folio.

[601] Comp. Heppe, Gesch. des D. Protest. Vol. IV. pp.312-315.

[602] Spener was born at Rappoltsweiler, in Upper Alsace, but his parents were from Strasburg, and he was educated there, and called himself a Strasburger. Kliefoth (as quoted by Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 399), from his own rigid Lutheran stand-point, says, not without good reason: 'Mit Spener beginnt jener grosse Eroberungszug der reformirten Kirche gegen die lutherische, der seitdem verschiedene Namen, erst Frömmigkeit, dann Toleranz, dann Union, dann Conföderation auf sein Panier geschrieben hat.'

[603] For the fullest account, see the sixth volume of Planck's, and the third volume of Heppe's history.

[604] As Brenz says: 'Es luge ein jeglicher Fuchs seines Balges.'

[605] 80,000 gulden. Augustus was a zealous Lutheran without knowing the difference between Lutheranism and Philippism, and supported or punished the champions of both parties as he happened to be led or misled by his courtiers and the theologians.

[606] On this remarkable man, see Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 372 sqq.; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 376 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 219; Hartmann in Herzog, Vol. I. p. 312; Johannsen, Jacob Andreæ's Concordistische Thätigkeit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1853, No. 3. Andreæ has often been too unfavorably judged. His contemporary opponents called him 'Schmidlin' (with reference to his father's trade), 'Dr. Jacobellus, the Pope of Saxony, the planet of Swabia, the apostle of ubiquity, allotrio-episcopus, a worshiper of Bacchus and Mammon,' etc. He no doubt had a considerable share of vanity, ambition, and theological passion (which he displayed, e.g., against poor Flacius, even after his death). But there is no reason to doubt the general purity of his motives, and, compared with some other orthodox Lutherans of his age, he was even liberal, at least in his earlier years. At a later period he denounced the alterations of the Augsburg Confession, and compared Melanchthon to Solomon, who at first wrote glorious things, but was afterwards so far led astray that the Bible leaves it doubtful whether he were saved ('ob er zu unserm Herrgott oder zu dem Teufel gefahren sei'). He seemed to be predestinated for the work of his life. Planck gives a masterly (though not altogether just) analysis of his character, from which I quote a specimen, as it fairly represents the spirit and style of his celebrated history (Vol. VI. p. 274): 'In halb Deutschland herumzureisen, und an jedem neuen Ort mit neuen Menschen zu unterhandlen--hier mit dem Ministerio einer Reichsstadt, und dort mit einer kleinen Synode von Superintendenten, welche die Geistlichkeit einer ganzen Grafschaft oder eines Fürstenthums repräsentiren--heute mit Flacianern und morgen mit Anhängern der Wittenbergischen Schule und Verehrern Melanchthons--jetzt mit den Hauptpersonen, die an dem gelehrten Streit den vorzüglichsten Antheil genommen, und jetzt mit den Schreiern, die bloss den Lärm vermehrt, und dazwischen hinein mit einem oder dem andern Stillen im Lande, die bisher im Verborgenen über den Streit geseufzt hatten--und allen diesen Menschen alles zu werden, um sie zu gewinnen--es gab wirklich kein Geschäft in der Welt, das für ihn so gemacht war, wie dieses, so wie es auch umgekehrt wenige Menschen gab, die für das Geschäft so gemacht waren, wie er. Nimmt man aber noch dies dazu, dass sich auch der gute, Andreæ selbst dazu für gemacht hielt, dass in die natürliche Thätigkeit seines Geistes auch zuweilen ein kleiner Windzug von Ehrgeiz und Eitelkeit hineinblies, dass er auch für den Reiz der bedeutenden Rolle, die er dabei spielen, und des Aufsehens, das er erregen würde, nicht unfühlbar war, ja dass selbst der Gedanke an das [den] Verkehr, in das er dabei mit so manchen Fürsten und Herrn kommen, an die Ehrenbezeugungen, die man ihm hier und da erweisen, an die Raths-Deputationen, die ihn in so mancher kleinen Reichsstadt bewillkommen, an die Gastpredigten, die man ihm auftragen, und an die Ehrfurcht, womit dann die ehrliche Bürger einer solchen Stadt, die noch keinen Kanzler von Tübingen gesehen hatten, mit Fingern auf ihn weisen würden--dass auch der Gedanke daran den heiteren und offenherzigen Mann, der es mil seinen kleinen Schwachheiten nicht so genau nahm und sie eben so leicht sich selbst as andern vergab, auf gewisse Augenblicke sehr stark anziehen konnte--nimmt man alles diess zusammen, so wird man auch hinreichend erklärt haben, wie es kommen konnte, dass er vor den Schwierigkeiten seines übernommenen Geschäfts nicht erschrak, die sich ihm doch ebenfalls bei seiner Klugheit, bei seiner Weltkenntniss, und bei seiner besondern durch manche Erfahrung erkauften Kenntniss der Menschen, die er dabei zu bearbeiten hatte, lebhafter als hundert andern darstellen mussten. Gewiss standen auch diese Schwierigkeiten lebhaft genug vor seiner Seele, aber der Reiz, durch den er in das Geschäft hineingezogen wurde, war so stark, dass er ihm schwerlich hätte widerstehen können, wenn er nicht nur die Mühe und Arbeit, die es ihn kosten, sondern auch den tausendfachen Verdruss, den es ihm machen, die zahllosen Kränkungen, die es ihm zuziehen, und selbst alle die stechenden Erinnerungen, durch die es ihm sein Alter verbittern sollte, vorausgesehen hätte.' Andreæ, in connection with Vergerius, founded the first Bible Society, for Sclavonic nations (1555). His grandson, Johann Valentin Andreæ (1586-1654), was a man of genius and more liberal views, and a great admirer of the order and discipline of the Reformed Church in Geneva, which he sadly missed in Germany.

[607] Author of Loci theologici; Examen Concilii Tridentini; Harmonia Evangeliorum (completed by Polycarp Leyser and John Gerhard); De duabus in Christo naturis, and other works of vast learning. The Romanists called him a second Martin Luther, and said: 'Si posterior non fuisset, prior non stetisset.' This reminds one of the line, 'Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset.'

[608] He prepared the second Latin translation of the Form of Concord, and is best known by one of his hymns ('Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ,' etc.; although it is only in part from him). His numerous theological writings are forgotten. He was a little man with short legs, at first a Philippist, then a rigid Lutheran ('parvus Flacius'); hence in turn attacked by all parties. 'Die Reformirten, gegen die er den Vers wandte: "Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem wort und steur' der Zwinglianer Mord!" und denen er die Schändung seiner Tochter in letzter Instanz zuchreiben zu müssen glaubte, nannten ihn das "Lutheräfflein;" bei den strengen Lutheranern hiess er: "Schelmlecker, Seelhenker, Seelnecator;" bei den Melanchthonianern: "Judas alter in suspensus," Auch mit seinem Freund Andreæ ist er zuletzt zerfallen. . . . Ein Jahrhundert später wurde er unter die deutschen Propheten gerechnet.' G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 221.

[609] The remaining three authors were David Chytræus, Professor in Rostock (d. 1600), who remained a faithful Melanchthonian, and met the violent abuse of the zealots with silence; Andreas Musculus, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder (d. 1581), who denounced Melanchthon as a patriarch of all heretics, and praised Luther as the sun among the dim stars of the old fathers; and Christopher Körner, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, a friend of Chytræus, but unfortunate in his children, who sunk into the lowest vices (G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 222).

[610] Schwabisch-Sächsische Concordie, Formula Suevica et Saxonica, or Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas Ecclesias, published from MS., in the original and revised form, by Heppe, Geschichte des Deutschen Protest. Vol. III., Beilagen, pp. 75-166, and 166-325. They were preceded by six sermons of Andreæ (1573). Likewise republished by Heppe.

[611] See Heppe, Vol. III. pp. 76 sqq.

[612] The 'Torgische Buch' or 'Torgisch Bedenken, welchergestalt oder massen vermöge Gottes Worts die eingerissene Spaltungen zwischen den Theologen Augsburgischer Confession christlich verglichen und beigelegt werden möchten, anno 1576.' It was republished by Semler, with Preface and notes, Halle, 1760, but much better by Heppe, Marburg, 1857; second edition, 1866.

[613] Or, Das Bergische Buch. English writers usually call it 'Form of Concord,' though 'Formula' is more correct.

[614] See the titles on p. 220, and literary notices in Köllner, pp. 562 sqq. Andreæ directed the editing of the German Book of Concord, Glaser and Fuger read the proof. The manuscript was deposited in the library of the chief church at Dresden, and burned up with it July 19, 1700. The first Latin Concordia (1580) was superintended and edited, though without proper authority, by Selnecker; the second edition (1584) was issued by authority of the Electors. There are few separate editions of the Formula of Concord, the first by Selnecker, Lipz. 1582. See Köllner, p. 561.

[615] See a description in Penzel's Saxon. Numism. as quoted by Planck, Vol. VI. p. 689. Augustus dismissed Andreæ (1580), ostensibly with great honor and rich presents, but in fact much displeased with the garrulus Suevus, who had spoken disrespectfully of his theological ignorance, had fallen out with Chemnitz and Selnecker, and made many enemies. See a full account in Heppe. Vol. IV. pp. 256-270.

[616] See the authorized Latin text of the Epitome, with a new English translation, in Vol. III. pp. 93 sqq. An English Version of the Formula from the German text appeared in The Christian Book of Concord; or, Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, New Market, Va., 1851, 2d ed., 1854. It professes to be literal, hut is very stiff and unidiomatic. __________________________________________________________________

§ 46. The Form of Concord, Concluded.

Analysis and Criticism.

The Formula of Concord consists of two parts--the Epitome and the Solida Repetitio et Declaratio. Both treat, in twelve articles, of the same matter--the first briefly, the other extensively. They begin with the anthropological doctrines of original sin and freedom of the will; next pass on to the soteriological questions concerning justification, good works, the law and the gospel, the third use of the law; then to the eucharist and the person of Christ; and end with foreknowledge and election. This order is characteristic of the Lutheran system, as distinct from the Calvinistic, which begins with the Scriptures, or with God and the eternal decrees. The most important articles are those on the Lord's Supper and the Person of Christ, which teach the peculiar features of the Lutheran creed, viz., consubstantiation, the communication of the properties of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ, and the ubiquity of Christ's body.

The Epitome contains all that is essential. It first states the controversy (status controversiæ), then the true doctrine (affirmativa), and, last, it condemns the error (negativa). In the Solid Repetition and Declaration this division is omitted; but the articles are more fully explained and supported by ample quotations from the Scriptures, the fathers, the older Lutheran Confessions, and the private writings of Dr. Luther, which swell it to about five times the size of theEpitome.

Each part is preceded by an important introduction, which lays down the fundamental Protestant principle that the Canonical Scriptures are the only rule of faith and doctrine, [617] and fixes the number of (nine) symbolical books to be hereafter acknowledged in the Lutheran Church, not as judges, but as witnesses and expositions of the Christian faith; namely, the three oecumenical Symbols (the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, [618] the Apology of the Confession, the Articles of Smalcald, the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Luther, [619] and the Formula of Concord. The Scriptures contain the credenda, the things to be believed; the Symbols the credita, the things that are believed. Yet the second part of the Formula quotes Dr. Luther, 'piæ sanctoeque memoriæ,' as freely, and with at least as much deference to his authority, as Roman Catholics quote the fathers. Melanchthon, the author of the fundamental Confession of the Lutheran Church, is never named, but indirectly condemned; and as to poor Zwingli, he is indeed mentioned, but only to be held up to pious horror for his 'blasphemous allæosis.' [620] Thus the supremacy of the Bible is maintained in principle, but Luther is regarded as its regulative and almost infallible expounder.

We now proceed to give a summary of the Formula.

Art. I. Of Original Sin.--It is not the moral essence, or substance, or nature of man (as Flacius taught with the old Manichæans), but a radical corruption of that nature, which can never be entirely eradicated in this world (against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies).

Art. II. Of Free Will.--Man, in consequence of Adam's fall, has lost the divine image, is spiritually blind, disabled, dead, and even hostile to God, and can contribute nothing towards his conversion, which is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, through the means of grace. The Formula, following Luther, uses stronger terms on the slavery of the will and total depravity than the Calvinistic Confessions. It compares the unconverted man to a column of salt, Lot's wife, a statue without mouth or eyes, a dead stone, block and clod, [621] and denies to him the least spark of spiritual power. [622] He can not even accept the gospel (which is the work of pure grace), but he may reject it, and thereby incur damnation.

This article condemns the fatalism of the Stoics and Manichæans, the anthropological heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, but also and especially the Synergism of Melanchthon and the Philippists. The chief framers of the Formula--Andreæ, Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Chytræus--were at first in favor of Synergism, which would have been more consistent with Article XI.; the Swabian-Saxon Concordia, drawn up by Chemnitz and Chytræus, and the Torgau Book actually contained synergistic passages. [623] But they were omitted or exchanged for others, and consistency was sacrificed to veneration for Luther.

There is an obvious and irreconcilable antagonism between Art. II. and Art. XI. They contain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological science, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into a creed. The Formula adopts one part of Luther's book De servo arbitrio (1525), and rejects the other, which follows with logical necessity. It is Augustinian--yea, hyper-Augustinian and hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and anti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It indorses the anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If man is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the grace of God (as Art. II. teaches), he can only be converted by an act of almighty power and irresistible grace (which Art. XI. denies). If some men are saved, without any co-operation on their part, while others, with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the difference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable decree of God. On the other hand, if God sincerely wills the salvation of all men (as Art. XI. teaches), and yet only a part are actually saved, there must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost towards converting grace (which is denied in Art. II.).

The Lutheran system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either from Art. II. in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or from Art. XI. in the direction of Synergism and Arminianism. The former would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine, which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less by some of the ablest modern Lutherans. [624] In either case the second article needs modification. It uses the language of feeling rather than sober reflection, and gives the rhetorical expressions of subjective experience the dignity of symbolical statement. We can, indeed, not feel too strongly the sinfulness of sin and the awful corruption of our hearts. Nevertheless, God's image in man is not lost or exchanged for Satan's image, but only disfigured, disabled, and lying in ruins. Man is, indeed, in his prevailing inclination, a slave of sin, yet susceptible of the influences of divine grace, and remains moral and responsible in accepting or rejecting the gospel, before as well as after conversion. His reason, his conscience, his sense of sin, his longing for redemption and for peace with God, his prayers, his sacrifices, and all the 'testimonia animæ naturaliter christianæ,' bear witness with one voice to his divine origin, his divine destination, and his adaptation to the Christian salvation. [625] But on the other hand there are innumerable mysteries of Providence in the order of nature as well as of grace, and inequalities in the distribution of gifts and opportunities, which baffle solution in this present world, and can only be traced to the inscrutable wisdom of God. The human mind has not been able as yet satisfactorily to set forth the harmony of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

Art. III. Of Justification by Faith.--Christ is our righteousness, not according to the divine nature alone (Andrew Osiander), nor according to the human nature alone (Stancar), but the whole Christ. God justifies us out of pure grace, without regard to antecedent, present, or subsequent works or merit, by imputing to us the righteousness of the obedience of Christ. Faith alone is the medium and instrument by which we apprehend Christ. Justification is a declaratory or forensic act--a sentence of absolution from sin, not an infusion of righteousness (Osiander).

Art. IV. Of Good Works.--Good works must always follow true faith, but they are neither necessary to salvation (Major), nor dangerous or injurious to salvation (Amsdorf). Salvation is of free grace alone, apprehended by faith.

Art. V. Of the Law and the Gospel.--The object of the law is to reprove sin and to preach repentance; the gospel (in its specific sense) is a joyful message, the preaching of Christ's atonement and satisfaction for all sins.

Art. VI. Of the Third Use of the Law--i.e., its obligation to believers, as distinct from its civil or political, and its pædagogic or moral use in maintaining order, and leading to a conviction of sin. Believers, though redeemed from the curse and restraint of the law, are bound to obey the law with a free and willing spirit. Antinomianism is rejected.

Art. VII. Of the Lord's Supper.--The most important controversy and chief occasion of the Formula--hence the length of this Article in the second part. It sets forth clearly and fully the doctrine of consubstantiation (as it is usually called, in distinction from the Romish transubstantiation), i.e., of the co-existence of two distinct yet inseparable substances in the sacrament. It is the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of the true body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine (in, cum, et sub pane et vino), and the oral manducation of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing communicants, though with opposite effects. The sacramental union of Christ's real body and blood with the elements is not an impanation or local inclusion, nor a mixture of two substances, nor a permanent (extra-sacramental) conjunction, but it is illocal, supernatural, unmixed, and confined to the sacramental transaction or actual use. [626] Nor is it effected by priestly consecration, but by the omnipotent power of God, and the word and institution of Christ. The body of Christ is eaten with the mouth by all communicants, but the notion of a Capernaitic or physical eating with the teeth is indignantly rejected as a malignant and blasphemous slander of the sacramentarians. [627]

The Formula condemns the Romish dogma of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, but with equal or greater emphasis the Reformed and Melanchthonian (Crypto-Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real presence and fruition of Christ by faith, or by believers only, without making a distinction between Zwinglians and Calvinists, except that the latter are called 'the most pernicious of all sacramentarians.' [628]

Art. VIII. Of the Person of Christ.--This article gives scholastic support to the preceding article on the eucharistic presence, and contains an addition to the Lutheran creed. It teaches the communicatio idiomatum and the ubiquity of Christ's body. It raised the private opinions and speculations of Luther, Brentius, and Chemnitz on these topics to the authority of a dogma. Some regard this as the crowning excellence of the Formula; [629] others, even in the Lutheran communion, as its weakest and most assailable point. [630] It was certainly very unwise, as history has shown, to introduce the scholastic subtleties of metaphysical theology into a public confession of faith.

The Formula derives from the personal union of the two natures in Christ (unio hypostatica, or personalis) the communion of natures (communio naturarum), from the communion of natures the communication of properties or attributes (communicatio idiomatum, a term used first by the scholastics), and from the communication of properties the omnipresence or ubiquity of Christ's body. The controversy between the Lutheran and Reformed, who both professedly stand on the common theanthropic Christology of Chalcedon, refers to the nature and extent of the communication of properties, and especially to the ubiquity of Christ's body derived therefrom.

The Formula (in the Second Part) distinguishes three kinds of the communicatio idiomatum, which were afterwards more fully analyzed, defined, and designated by the Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth century. [631]

1. The genus idiomaticum, by which the attributes of one or the other nature are communicated to the whole person. Thus it is said that 'the Son of God was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh' (Rom. i. 3), that 'Christ was put to death in the flesh,' and that 'he suffered in the flesh' (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 1). [632] Here Luther's warning is quoted against Zwingli's alloeosis, as 'a mask of the devil.'

2. The genus apotelesmaticum, or the koinonia apotelesmaton, [633] which has reference to the execution of the office of Christ: the communication of redeeming acts of the whole person to one of the two natures. Christ always operates in and through both. Thus Christ, neither as God nor man alone, but as God-man, is our Mediator, Redeemer, King, High-Priest, Shepherd, etc. He shed his blood according to his human nature, but the divine nature gave it infinite value (1 Cor. xv. 3: 'Christ died for our sins;' Gal. i. 4; iii. 17; 1 John iii. 8; Luke ix. 56).

3. The genus majestaticum, or auchematicum, [634] i.e., the communication of the attributes of the divine nature to the assumed humanity of Christ. 'The human nature of Christ,' says the Formula, 'over and above its natural, essential, and permanent human properties, has also received special, high, great, supernatural, inscrutable, ineffable, heavenly prerogatives and pre-eminence in majesty, glory, power, and might, above all that can be named (Eph. i. 21).' [635] . . . 'This majesty of the human nature was hidden and restrained in the time of the humiliation. But now, since the form of a servant is laid aside, the majesty of Christ appears fully, efficiently, and manifestly before all the saints in heaven and on earth, and we also in the life to come shall see his glory face to face (John xvii. 24). For this reason, there is and remains in Christ only one divine omnipotence, power, majesty, and glory, which is the property of the divine nature alone; but this shines forth, exhibits, and manifests itself fully, yet spontaneously, in, with, and through the assumed, exalted human nature in Christ; precisely as to shine and to burn are not two properties of iron, but the power to shine and to burn is the property of the fire--but since the fire is united with the iron, it exhibits and manifests its power to shine and to burn in, with, and through this red-hot iron; so that also the red-hot iron, through this union, has the power to shine and to burn, without a change of the essence and of the natural properties of the fire or of the iron.' [636]

The Lutheran scholastics make here a distinction between the operative attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) and the quiescent attributes (eternity, infinitude): all were communicated to Christ for inhabitation and possession, but only the operative for use--chresis, usurpatio (Matt. xxviii. 18; John xvii. 2, 5, 27; Col. ii. 3).

4. Strict logic would require a fourth genus (genus tapeinotikon, namely, the communication of the attributes of the human nature to the divine nature. But this is rejected by the Formula and the Lutheran scholastics, on the ground that the divine nature is unchangeable, and received no accession nor detraction from the incarnation. [637] This is a palpable inconsistency, [638] and is fatal to the third genus. For if there is any real communication of the properties of the two natures, it must be mutual; the one is the necessary counterpart of the other. If the human nature is capable of the divine, the divine nature must be capable of the human; and if, on the other hand, the divine nature is incapable of the human, the human nature must be incapable of the divine. Luther felt this, and boldly uses such expressions as 'God suffered,' 'God died,' which were familiar to the Monophysites. [639]

The battle-ground between the Lutheran and the Reformed is the genus majestaticum, for which John of Damascus had prepared the way. But just here the Formula is neither quite clear nor consistent. It was unable to harmonize the two different Lutheran Christologies represented among the authors by Andreæ and Chemnitz. [640] It teaches, on the one hand (to guard against the charge of Eutychianism and Monophysitism), that the attributes of the divine nature (as omnipotence, eternity, infinitude, omnipresence, omniscience) 'can never become (intrinsically and per se) the attributes of the human nature,' and that the attributes of the human nature (as corporeality, limitation, circumscription, passibility, mortality, hunger, thirst) 'can never become the attributes of the divine nature.' [641] (This quite agrees with the doctrine of Chemnitz and of the Reformed theologians.) But, on the other hand (in opposition to Nestorianism and the 'sacramentarians,' as the Reformed are called), the Formula asserts that, by virtue of the hypostatic or personal union of the two natures and the communion of natures, one nature may, nevertheless (by derivation and dependency), partake of the properties of the other, or at least that the human nature, while retaining its inherent properties, may and does receive (as peculiar prerogatives, or as dona superaddita) the attributes of divine glory, majesty, power, omniscience, and omnipresence. [642] Thus God is really man, and man is really God; Mary is truly the mother of God, since she conceived and brought forth the Son of God; the Son of God truly suffered, though according to the property of his human nature; Christ as man, not only as God, knows all things, is able to do all things, is present to all creatures, and was so from the moment of the incarnation. For (as the Solid Declaration expressly states) Christ, according to his humanity, received his divine Majesty 'when he was conceived in the womb and became man, and when the divine and human natures were united with each other.' That is to say, the incarnation of God was at the same time a deification of man in Christ. (This was the Swabian theory of Brentius and Andreæ.)

As regards the ubiquity in particular, the Formula is again inconsistent. The Epitome favors the doctrine of the absolute ubiquity of Christ's body in all creatures (as taught by Luther, Brentius, Andreæ), and says that Christ, 'not only as God, but also as man, is present to all creatures . . . is omnipresent, and all things are possible and known to him;' the Solid Declaration, on the contrary, asserts only the relative ubiquity or multivolipresence (as taught by Chemnitz); but neutralizes this again by quoting, with full approbation, Luther's strongest passages in favor of absolute ubiquity. [643] Hence there arose a fruitless controversy on the subject among the orthodox Lutherans themselves, as has been already stated.

The Formula, therefore, is not a real union of the Swabian and Saxon types, but only a series of concessions and counter-concessions, and a mechanical juxtaposition of discordant sentences from both parties. [644] The later orthodoxy did not settle the question, and both theories continued to find their advocates. Moreover, the Formula does not answer and refute, but simply denies the objections of the Reformed divines, and falls back upon the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the hypostatic union, which is declared to be the highest mystery next to the Trinity, and the one 'on which our whole consolation, life, and salvation depend.'

As regards the states of humiliation (exinanitio) and exaltation (exaltatio), the Formula, in the passages already quoted, teaches the full possession (ktesis), and a partial or occult use (kresis), of the divine attributes by Christ from the moment of his existence as a man. His human nature, and not the divine pre-existent Logos, is understood to be the subject of the humiliation in the classical passage Phil. ii. 7, on which the distinction of two states is based. Consequently the two states refer properly only to the human nature, and consist in a difference of outward condition and visible manifestation. The humiliation is a partial concealment of the actual use (a krupsis chreseos) of the divine attributes communicated to the human nature at the incarnation; the exaltation is a full manifestation of the same. As to the extent of the concealment or actual use, there arose afterwards, as we have seen already, a controversy between the Giessen and Tübingen divines, but was never properly settled, nor can it be settled on the christological basis of the Formula. [645] The modern school of Lutheran Kenoticists depart from it by assuming a real self-renunciation (kenosis) of the divine Logos in the incarnation, but thereby they endanger the immutability of the Deity, and interrupt the continuity of the divine government of the world through the Logos during the state of humiliation.

We add some general remarks on the Christology of the Formula, as far as it differs from the Reformed Christology. After renewed investigation of this difficult problem, I have been confirmed in the conviction that the exegetical argument, which must ultimately decide the case, is in favor of the Reformed and against the Lutheran theory; but I cheerfully admit that the latter represents a certain mystical and speculative element, which is not properly appreciated in the Calvinistic theology, and may act as a check upon Nestorian tendencies.

1. The scholastic refinements of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, and especially the ubiquity of the body, have no intrinsic religious importance, and owe their origin to the Lutheran hypothesis of the corporeal presence. [646] They should, therefore, never have been made an article of faith. A surplus of orthodoxy provokes skepticism.

2. The great and central mystery of the union of the divine and human in Christ, which the Formula desires to uphold, is overstated and endangered by its doctrine of the genus majestaticum, or the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ. This doctrine runs contrary to the asunchutos and atreptos of the Chalcedonian Creed. It leads necessarily--notwithstanding the solemn protest of the Formula--to a Eutychian confusion and æquation of natures; for, according to all sound philosophy, the attributes are not an outside appendix to the nature and independent of it, but inherent qualities, and together constitute the nature itself. Or else it involves the impossible conception of a double set of divine attributes--one that is original, and one that is derived or transferred.

3. The genus majestaticum can not be carried out, and breaks down half-way. The divine attributes form a unit, and can not be separated. If one is communicated, all are communicated. But how can eternity ab ante (anfangslose Existenz), which is a necessary attribute of the divine nature of Christ, be really communicated to a being born in time, as Jesus of Nazareth undoubtedly was? How can immensity be transferred to a finite man? The thing is impossible and contradictory. An appeal to God's omnipotence is idle, for God can not sin, nor err, nor die, nor do any thing that is inconsistent with his rational and holy nature.

4. The doctrine has no support in the Scriptures; for the passages quoted in its favor speak of the divine human person, not of the human nature of Christ; as, 'I am with you alway;' 'all power is given to me;' [647] 'in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;' 'in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.' And as to the state of humiliation, such passages as Luke ii. 52; Mark xiii. 32; Heb. v. 8, 9, are inconsistent with the teaching of the Formula that he was omniscient as man from the mother's womb.

5. The Christology of the Formula makes it impossible to construct a truly human life of our Lord on earth, and turns it into a delusive Christophany, or substitutes a crypto-pantheistic Christ for a personal, historical Christ.

6. The familiar illustrations of the iron and fire, and body and soul, used by the Formula, favor the Reformed rather than the Lutheran theory; for the iron does not transfer its properties to the fire, nor the fire to the iron; neither are the spiritual qualities of the soul, as cognition and volition, communicated to the body, nor the material properties and functions of the body, as weight and extension, eating and drinking, to the soul: both are indeed most intimately and inseparably connected--the soul dwells in the body, and the body is the organ of the soul--but both remain essentially distinct. The same is the case with the other illustration which is borrowed from the intercommunication or inhabitation (perichoresis, immanentia, permeatio, circumincessio) of the persons of the Holy Trinity; for the peculiar properties (idia, idiotetes) of the persons are not communicated or transferred--paternity and being unbegotten (agennesia) belongs to the Father alone, sonship (gennesia, filiatio) to the Son alone, and procession (ekporeusis, processio) to the Holy Ghost alone.

7. The ubiquity of the body is logically necessary for the hypothesis of consubstantiation, and both stand and fall together. For the eucharistic multipresence must be derived either from a perpetual miracle (performed through the priestly consecration, or by the power of the Holy Ghost, both of which the Lutherans reject), [648] or from an inherent quality of the body itself, which enables it to be present wherever and whenever it is actually partaken of by the mouth of the communicants.

8. But ubiquity proves too much for consubstantiation by extending the eating of Christ to every meal (though this is inconsistently denied), and depriving the eucharistic presence of all specific value. Yea, it is fatal to it, and leads, we will not say to the Calvinistic, but rather to a crypto-pantheistic theory of the eucharist; [649] for a body which is intrinsically and perpetually omnipresent must be so spiritual that it can only be spiritually present and spiritually be partaken of by faith. [650]

9. Ubiquity is not only unscriptural, but antiscriptural, and conflicts with the facts of Christ's local limitations while on earth, his descent into Hades, his forty days after the resurrection, his ascension to heaven, his visible return to judgment. We freely admit that Christ's glorified body is not subject to the laws of earthly substances or confined to a particular locality; it is a 'spiritual' body (comp. 1 Cor. xv.), with its own laws of rest and locomotion, which transcend our present knowledge; nevertheless it is and ever remains a body, as real as the resurrection body of saints which will be fashioned like unto it (summorphon to somati tes doxes autou), and as heaven itself is real, from which Christ will return 'in like manner' as the apostles 'saw him go into heaven.' The ubiquitarian exegesis here runs into an ultra-Zwinglian spiritualism to save the literalism with which it started. But, feeling its own weakness, it falls back again at last upon the literal understanding of the esti in the words of institution.

10. This first and last resort of consubstantiation is given up by the ablest modern exegetes, [651] who agree in the following decisive results: (a) That the disputed word esti was not even spoken by our Lord in Aramaic, and can have no conclusive weight, (b) That the substantive verb may designate a symbolical as well as a real relation between the subject and the predicate, as is evident from the nature of the case and from innumerable passages of Scripture, (c) That in this case the literal interpretation would lead to transubstantiation rather than the semi-figurative (synecdochical) consubstantiation; since Christ does not say what the Lutheran hypothesis would require: 'This is my body and bread,' 'This is my blood and wine (or in, with, and under the bread and wine).' (d) That the figurative or metaphorical interpretation (whether in the Zwinglian or Calvinistic sense) is made necessary in connection with the touto for houtos, poterion for oinos, or aima, as well as by the surroundings of the institution of the Lord's Supper, viz.: the nature of the typical passover, the living, personal presence of our Lord, with his body still unbroken and his blood still unshed, which could not be literally eaten and drunk by his disciples.

This, of course, only settles the exegetical basis, and still leaves room for different doctrinal views of this sacred ordinance, into which we can not here enter. [652]

11. The Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist overlooks the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit, and substitutes for it the corporeal presence of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who brings the believer in and out of the sacrament into a living union and communion with the whole Christ, and makes the perpetual virtue and efficacy of his crucified body on the cross, i.e., his atoning sacrifice, and of his glorified body in heaven, available for our spiritual benefit.

12. Finally, as regards the two states of Christ, the Reformed Christology is right in making the pre-existent Logos (Logos asarkos) the subject of the kenosis, or self-humiliation, instead of the human nature (or the Logos ensarkos), which was never before en morphe theou, and consequently could not renounce it in any way. The incarnation itself is the beginning of the humiliation. In this interpretation of Phil. ii. 7 the Reformed Church is sustained not only by Chrysostom and other fathers, but also by the best modern exegetes of all denominations, including Lutherans. [653]

Art. IX. Of Christ's Descent into Hell..--The fact of a real descent of the whole person of Christ, the God-man, after his death, into the real hell (not a metaphorical hell, nor the grave, nor the limbus patrum) is affirmed, and its object defined to be the defeat of Satan and the deliverance of believers from the power of death and the devil; but all curious questions about the mode are deprecated and left for the world to come.

Art. X. Of Church Usages and Ceremonies, called Adiaphora.--The observance of ceremonies and usages neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God, should be left to Christian freedom, but should be firmly resisted when they are forced upon us as a part of divine service (Gal. ii. 4, 5; v. 1; Acts xvi. 3; Rom. xiv. 6; 1 Cor. vii. 18; Col. ii. 16).

This article was a virtual condemnation of Melanchthon's course in the Interim controversy.

Art. XI. Of God's Foreknowledge and Election.--No serious controversy took place on this doctrine in the Lutheran Church, except at Strasburg between Zanchi and Marbach (1561). The rigid predestinarianism of Luther and the Flacianists quietly gave way to the doctrine of the universality of divine grace, while yet the anthropological premises of the Augustinian system were retained (in Art. I. and II.).

The Formula teaches that there is a distinction between foreknowledge (præscientia, prævisio, Vorsehung, Matt. x. 29; Psa. cxxxix. 16; Isa. xxxvii. 28) and foreordination (prædestinatio, electio, ewige Wahl, Eph. i. 5); that foreknowledge pertains alike to the good and the evil, and is not the cause of sin and destruction; that foreordination refers only to the children of God; that this predestination of the elect is 'eternal, infallible, and unchangeable,' and is the ultimate and unconditional cause of their salvation; that God, though he elects only a portion, sincerely desires all men to be saved, and invites them by his Word to the salvation in Christ; that the impenitent perish by their own guilt in rejecting the gospel; that Christians should seek the eternal election, not in the secret but in the revealed will of God, and avoid presumptuous and curious questions.

Thus the particularism of election and the universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man (Art. II.), and the guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he can not accept, are illogically combined. The obvious contradiction between this article and the second has already been pointed out. [654]

The authors felt the speculative difficulties of this dogma, and emphasized the practical side, which amounts to this: that believers are saved by the free grace of God, while unbelievers are lost by their own guilt in rejecting the grace sincerely offered to them. Later Lutheran divines, like John Gerhard, labored hard to show that God not only sincerely desires the salvation of all men alike, but that he also actually gives an opportunity to all men even in this present life. [655] But the argument fails with regard to the heathen, who form the greatest part of the race even to this day (not to speak of the world before Christ): and hence the Lutheran view of the actual universality of the offer of grace necessitates an essential change of the orthodox doctrine of the middle state, as far as those are concerned who never heard of the gospel in this world.

Art. XII. Of Several Heresies and Sects.--This article rejects the peculiar tenets of the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians, New Arians, and Antitrinitarians, who never embraced the Augsburg Confession.

To the second part of the Formula there is added a Catalogue of Testimonies from the Scriptures and the fathers (Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus) concerning the divine majesty of the human nature of Christ, in support of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, as taught in Art. VIII. This Appendix was prepared by Andreæ and Chemnitz; but it has no symbolical authority, and is often omitted from the Book of Concord. [656]

RECEPTION, AUTHORITY, AND INTRODUCTION. [657]

The Form of Concord, as it is the last, is also the most disputed of the Lutheran symbols. It never attained general authority, like the Augsburg Confession or Luther's Catechism, although far greater exertions were made for its introduction.

It was adopted by the majority of the Lutheran principalities and state churches in Germany; [658] also by the state church of Sweden, the Lutherans in Hungary, and several Lutheran synods in the United States. [659]

On the other hand, it was rejected by a number of Lutheran Princes and cities of the empire, [660] and by King Frederick II. of Denmark. [661]

Some countries of Germany, where it had been first introduced, rejected it afterwards, but remained Lutheran; [662] while others, in consequence of the doctrinal innovations and exclusiveness of the Formula, passed over to the Reformed Confession. [663] It is a significant fact, that the successors of the three Electors, who were the chief patrons and signers of the Formula, left the Lutheran Church: two became Reformed, and one (the King of Saxony) a Roman Catholic.

OPPOSITION AND DEFENSE.. [664]

The Formula gave rise to much controversy. It was assailed from different quarters by discontented Lutherans and Philippists, [665] Calvinists, [666] and Romanists. [667]

The chief objection was to the new dogma of ubiquity.

The Lutherans attacked, according to their stand-point, either the concessions to the Swabian scheme of absolute ubiquity, or the absence of a direct condemnation of Melanchthon and other heretics, or the rejection of the Flacian theory of original sin, or the condemnation of Synergism. The last point could be made very plausible, since the chief authors of the Formula, Andreæ, Chemnitz, and Selnecker, had at first been decided synergists. Chytræus remained true at least to his love and admiration for Melanchthon, which subjected him to the suspicion of Crypto-Philippism and Calvinism. [668]

The Reformed, led by Ursinus (chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism), justly complained of the misrepresentations and unfair condemnation of their doctrine under the indiscriminate charge of sacramentarianism, [669] and explained the qualified sense in which the Reformed signed the Augsburg Confession in the sense of its author, with wholesome strictures on the unprotestant overestimate of the authority of Luther. They exposed with rigid logic the doctrinal contradiction between Arts. II. and XI., quoted Luther's views on predestination against the Formula, and refuted with clear and strong arguments the new dogma of ubiquity, which is contrary to the Scriptures, the oecumenical creeds, and sound reason, and destructive of the very nature of the sacrament as a communion of the body of Christ; for if the body is omnipresent, and there can be but one omnipresence, it must be present like God himself, i.e. like a spirit, every where whole and complete, without parts and members, and thus the lineaments and concrete image of Christ are lost. Sadeel pointed out the palpable inconsistency between the hyperphysical and ultrasupernatural outfit of Christ's body for the eucharistic presence, on the one hand, and the emphasizing of a corporeal presence and oral manducation on the other, as if this were the main thing in the sacrament, while the communion of the believing soul with the person of Christ was almost lost sight of. [670]

Strange to say, the Roman Catholics were just as decidedly opposed to ubiquity, though otherwise much nearer the Lutheran doctrine of the sacraments. Bellarmin, the greatest controversialist of Rome, exposes the absurdity of a dogma which would destroy the human nature of Christ, and involve the presence of his body in uteris omnium feminarum, imo etiam virorum, and the presence extra uterum from the moment of conception, and in utero after the nativity. In his polemic work against Protestantism he urges five arguments against ubiquity, [671] viz.: (1.) It abolishes the sacramental character of the eucharist. (2.) It leads to the Calvinistic spiritual presence and spiritual eating by faith--the very error of the sacramentarians which this Lutheran dogma was to overthrow. [672] (3.) It destroys the specific effect of the eucharist, and makes it useless. (4) It is refuted by the other Lutheran doctrine which confines the presence to the time of the use of the sacrament. [673] (5.) It is a makeshift to evade the power of priestly consecration which creates the eucharistic presence. [674]

Outside of Germany and Switzerland the Formula of Concord excited little or only passing polemical interest. Queen Elizabeth endeavored to prevent its adoption because it condemned the Reformed doctrine, and threatened to split and weaken the Protestants in their opposition to the united power of Rome. She sent delegates to a convention of Reformed Princes and delegates held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, Sept 1577. [675] The Anglican divines of the sixteenth century rejected ubiquity as decidedly as the Continental Calvinists. [676] Evangelical Episcopalians hold the Reformed view of the sacraments; and as to modern Anglo-Catholic and Ritualistic Episcopalians, they greatly prefer the Romish or Greek dogma of transubstantiation to the Lutheran consubstantiation. [677]

The attacks upon the Formula, especially those proceeding from Lutherans and the Palatinate divines, could not be ignored in silence. Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Kirchner, by order of the three electoral patrons of the work, convened at Erfurt, [678] Oct. 23,1581 (afterwards at Braunschweig and Quedlinburg), and prepared, with much labor and trouble, an elaborate 'Apology,' called the 'Erfurt Book,' in four parts. [679] It called forth new attacks, which it is unnecessary here to follow.

Later Fortunes.

During the palmy period of Lutheran scholasticism the Formula of Concord stood in high authority among Lutherans, and was even regarded as inspired. [680] Its first centennial (1680) was celebrated with considerable enthusiasm. [681] But at the close of another century it was dead and buried. The Pietists, and afterwards the Rationalists, rebelled against symbololatry and lifeless orthodoxy. One stone after another was taken down from the old temple, until it was left a venerable ruin. Those very countries where subscription to creeds had been most rigorously enforced, suffered most from the neological revolution.

Then followed a period of patient research and independent criticism, which led to a more impartial estimate. Planck, the ablest Lutheran historian of the Formula, with complete mastery of the sources, followed the leading actors into all the ramifications and recesses of their psychological motives, political intrigues, and theological passions, and represents the work as the fabrication of a theological triumvirate, which upon the whole did more harm than good, and which produced endless confusion and controversy. [682] Köllner, another learned and impartial Lutheran, concedes to it higher merit for the past, but no dogmatic significance for the present, except in the article on predestination. [683] Heppe, the indefatigable historian of the German post-Reformation period, from a vast amount of authentic information, carries out the one-sided idea that the Lutheranism of the Formula is an apostasy from the normal development of German Protestantism, by which he means progressive, semi-Reformed, unionistic Melanchthonianism. [684] Even Kahnis thinks that the Lutheran theology of the future must be built on the Melanchthonian elements which were condemned by the Formula. [685]

With the modern revival of orthodoxy, the Formula enjoyed a partial resurrection among Lutherans of the high sacramentarian type, who regard it as the model of pure doctrine and the best summary of the Bible. By this class of divines it is all the more highly esteemed, since they make doctrine the corner-stone of the Church and the indispensable condition of Christian fellowship. In America, too, the Formula has recently found at least one able and scholarly advocate in the person of Dr. Krauth, of Philadelphia. [686]

Yet the great body of the Lutheran Church will never return to the former veneration for this symbol. History never repeats itself. Each age must produce its own theology. Even modern Lutheran orthodoxy in its ablest champions is by no means in full harmony with the Formula, but departs from its anthropology and Christology, and makes concessions to Melanchthon and the Reformed theology, or attempts a new solution of the mighty problems which were once regarded as finally settled. [687]

An Impartial Estimate.

The Formula of Concord is, next to the Augsburg Confession, the most important theological standard of the Lutheran Church, but differs from it as the sectarian symbol of Lutheranism, while the other is its catholic symbol. Hence its authority is confined to that communion, and is recognized only by a section of it. It is both conclusive and exclusive, a Formula of Concord and a Formula of Discord, the end of controversy and the beginning of controversy. It completed the separation of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, it contracted the territory and the theology of Lutheranism, and sowed in it the seed of discord by endeavoring to settle too much, and yet leaving unsettled some of the most characteristic dogmas. It is invaluable as a theological document, but a partial failure as a symbol, just because it contains too much theology and too little charity. It closes the productive period of the Lutheran reformation and opens the era of scholastic formalism.

The Formula is the fullest embodiment of genuine Lutheran orthodoxy, as distinct from other denominations. It represents one of the leading doctrinal types of Christendom. It is for the Lutheran system what the Decrees of Trent are for the Roman Catholic, the Canons of Dort for the Calvinistic. It sums up the results of the theological controversies of a whole generation with great learning, ability, discrimination, acumen, and, we may add, with comparative moderation. It is quite probable that Luther himself would have heartily indorsed it, with the exception, perhaps, of a part of the eleventh article. The Formula itself claims to be merely a repetition and explication of the genuine sense of the Augsburg Confession, and disclaims originality in the substance of doctrine. [688] But there were two diverging tendencies proceeding from the same source. The author of the Confession himself understood and explained it differently, and the Formula added new dogmas which he never entertained. It excludes, indeed, certain extravagances of the Flacian wing of Lutheranism, but, upon the whole, it is a condemnation of Philippism and a triumph of exclusive Lutheranism. [689]

The spirit of Melanchthon could be silenced, but not destroyed, for it meant theological progress and Christian union. It revived from time to time in various forms, in Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf, Neander, and other great and good men, who blessed the Lutheran Church by protesting against bigotry and the overestimate of intellectual orthodoxy, by insisting on personal, practical piety, by widening the horizon of truth, and extending the hand of fellowship to other sections of Christ's kingdom. The minority which at first refused the Formula became a vast majority, and even the recent reaction of Lutheran confessionalism against rationalism, latitudinarianism, and unionism will be unable to undo the work of history, and to restore the Lutheran scholasticism and exclusivism of the seventeenth century. The Lutheran Church is greater and wider than Luther and Melanchthon, and, by its own principle of the absolute supremacy of the Bible as a rule of faith, it is bound to follow the onward march of Biblical learning.

The great length of this section may be justified by the intrinsic importance of the Formula Concordiæ, and the scarcity of reliable information in English works. [690]

__________________________________________________________________

[617] 'Die einige Regel und Richtschnur (unica regula et norma), nach welcher alle Lehren and Lehrer gerichtet und geurtheilt werden sollen.' Comp. Psa. cxix. 15; Gal. i. 8. The extent of the Canon, however, is not defined, as in several Reformed Confessions, and the question of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is left open.

[618] 'Die erste ungeänderte Augsb. Confession' (Augustanam illam primam et non mutatam Confessionem). The Preface (pp. 13, 14) rejects the Altered Augsburg Confession (of 1540), if it be understood as teaching another doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

[619] These are called the 'Laienbibel' (laicorum biblia, the layman's Bible), 'darin alles begriffen, was in heiliger Schrift weitläuftig gehandelt, und einem Christenmenschen zu wissen vonnöthen ist.'

[620] Sol. Decl. Art. VIII. p. 678 (ed. Müller): 'Die gotteslästerliche allæosis Zwinglii,' which Dr. Luther condemned 'als des Teufels Larve, bis in den Abgrund der Höllen.'

[621] Solida Declaratio, Art. II. § 24 (p. 662 ed. Rech., p. 534 ed. Müller): 'Autequam homo per Spiritum Sanctum illuminatur, convertitur, regeneratur et trahitur . . . ad conversionem aut regenerationem suam nihil inchoare, operari, aut coöperari potest, nec plus quam lapis, truncus, aut limus (so wenig als ein Stein oder Block oder Thon)'. Thomasius und Stahl disapprove of these expressions, and Luthardt (Lehre v. freien Willen, p. 272) admits, at least, that they are unfortunately chosen (unglücklich gewählt). Fr. H. R. Frank defends them.

[622] Ibid. Art. II. § 7 (p. 656 ed. Rech., p. 589 ed. Müller): . . . 'homo ad bonum prorsus corruptus et mortuus sit, ita ut in hominis natura post lapsum ante regenerationem ne scintillula quidem spiritualium virium (nicht ein Fünklein der geistlichen Kräfte) reliqua manserit aut restet, quibus ille ex se ad gratiam Dei præparare se aut oblatam gratiam apprehendere, aut eius gratiæ (ex sese et per se) capax esse possit, aut se ad gratiam applicare aut accommodare, aut viribus suis propriis aliquid ad conversionem suam vel ex toto vel ex dimidia vel ex minima parte conferre, agere, operari aut coöperari (ex se ipso tanquam ex semet ipso) possit (oder aus seinen eigenen Kräften etwas zu seiner Bekehrung, weder zum ganzen noch zum halben oder zu einigem dem wenigsten oder geringsten Theil, helfen, thun, wirken oder mitwirken vermöge, von ihm selbst, als von ihm selbst). . . . Inde adeo naturale tiberum arbitrium, ratione corruptarum virium et naturæ suæ depravatæ, duntaxat ad ea, quæ Deo displicent et adversantur, activum et efficax est.' This and similar statements are followed by quotations from Dr. Luther, where he compares the natural man to 'a column of salt, Lot's wife, a clod and stone, a dead statue without eyes or mouth.' All he said against Erasmus, and later, in his Commentary on Genesis, about free will, is indorsed. Flacius inferred from the same teacher his Manichæan error, which the Formula condemns in Art. I.

[623] See these passages in Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 486, note 24; Heppe, Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel verglichen, etc.; Luthardt, Lehre vom freien Willen, pp. 262 sqq. Comp. also the remarks of Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 718 sqq.

[624] As Thomasius, Stahl, Harless, Hoffmann, Luthardt, Kahnis. See Luthardt, Die Lehre vom freien Willen, pp. 378 sqq.

[625] Well says Goethe--

'Wär' nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,

Wie könnte en das Licht erblicken!

Lebt' nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft,

Wie könnt' uns Göttliches entzücken?'

[626] 'Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum, seu actionem divinitus institutam' (Sol. Decl. p. 663). Gerhard and the later Lutheran theologians describe the presence as sacramentalis, vera et realis, substantialis, mystica, supernaturalis et incomprehensibilis, and distinguish it from the præsentia gloriosa (in heaven), hypostatica (of the logos in the human nature), spiritualis (operativa, or virtualis), figurativa (imaginativa, symbolica). It is a parousia, not an apousia (absence), nor enousia (inexistence), nor sunousia (co-existence in the sense of coalescence), nor metousia (transubstantiation). They reject the term consubstantiation in the sense of impanation or incorporation into bread, or physical coalescence and fusion. The Formula itself does not use the term.

[627] And yet Dr. Luther himself unequivocally taught the literal mastication of Christ's body. He gave it as the sum of his belief, to which he 'would adhere though the world should collapse,' that Christ's body was 'ausgetheilt, gegessen und mit den Zähnen zerbissen' (Briefe, ed. by De Witte, Vol. IV. p. 572, comp. p. 569). He instructed Melanchthon to insist on this in the conference he had with Bucer in Cassel, Dec. 1534; but Melanchthon, though not emancipated from Luther's view at that time, declined to shoulder it as his own, and began to change his ground on the eucharistic question. Corp. Ref. Vol. II. p. 822. Comp. Schmidt, Mel. p. 319; Ebrard, Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 375 sqq.

[628] Planck (Vol. VI. pp. 732 sqq.) charges the Formula with willful misrepresentation of Calvin's view, which he had so clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly set forth, especially in his tracts against Westphal, and which had since been embodied in the Confessions of the Reformed churches. Thomasius, Stahl, and other orthodox Lutherans, freely admit the material difference between Calvin and Zwingli in the theory of the eucharist.

[629] My friend, Dr. Krauth, goes so far as to say (1.c. p. 316): 'The doctrine of the person of Christ presented in the Formula rests upon the sublimest series of inductions in the history of Christian doctrine. In all confessional history there is nothing to be compared with it in the combination of exact exegesis, of dogmatic skill, and of fidelity to historical development. Fifteen centuries of Christian thought culminate in it.' But in his lengthy exposition he does not even mention the important difference between the Swabian and Saxon schools, nor the various forms of the communicatio idiomatum, and evades the real difficulty by resolving, apparently (p. 318), the communication of divine properties into an efficacious manifestation of the Godhead in and through the assumed humanity of Christ--which has never been disputed by Reformed divines.

[630] Even Luthardt admits at least the artificial construction of the Christology of the Formula, and its inconsistency with the historical realness of the picture of Christ in the Gospels (Compend. der Dogmatik, p. 144; comp. also Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, Vol. III. p. 338 sq.). The modern Lutheran Kenoticists, Thomasius, Hofmann (Luthardt inclines to them, p. 155)--not to speak of the extreme form to which Gess carried the kenosis--virtually depart from the Formula of Concord, which pronounces it a 'blasphemous perversion' to explain Matt. xxviii. 18 ('all power is given to me,' etc.) in the sense that Christ had ever laid aside or abandoned his almighty power in the state of humiliation (Epit., at the close of Art. VIII.).

[631] We anticipate, for the sake of clearness, from the later orthodox writers the names of the three genera. The substance is already in the Formula, and in the treatise of Chemnitz, De duabus naturis in Christo, 1580. For a fuller exposition, with ample quotations from Chemnitz, John Gerhard, Hafenreffer, Hutter, Calov, Quenstedt, König, Baier, Hollaz, see Heinrich Schmid's Dogmatik der evang. lutherischen Kirche (2d ed. 1847), pp. 252 sqq.; comp. also Luthardt, pp. 144 sqq., and Kahnis, Vol. II. pp. 335 sqq.

[632] This genus was subsequently subdivided into three species, corresponding to the concretum of the divine nature, the concretum of the human nature, and the concretum of both natures, of which the idiomata are predicated, viz., (a) idiopoiesis, or oikeisis, i.e., 'appropriatio, quando idiomata humana de concreto divinæ naturæ enuntiantur,' Acts iii. 15; xx. 28; 1 Cor. ii. 8; Gal. ii. 20; Psa. xlv. 8. (b) Koinonia ton theion, 'divinorum idiomatum, quando de persona verbi incarnati, ab humana natura denominata, idiomata divina ob unionem personalem enuntiantur,' John vi. 62; viii. 58; 1 Cor. xv. 47. (c) Antidosis, or sunamphoterismos, 'alternatio s. reciprocatio, qua tam divina quam humana idiomata de concreto personæ sive de Christo, ab utraque natura denominato, prædicantur,' Heb. xiii. 8; Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 18. See Schmid, p. 258.

[633] 'The expression is borrowed from John of Damascus. apotelesma means properly completion of the work (consummatio operis), effect, result; but it is here used for each action in the threefold office of Christ.

[634] From auchema, gloria. This genus is also called beltiosis, huperupsosis, metadosis, theosis, apotheosia, theopoiesis, unctio.

[635] Sol. Decl. Art. VIII. p. 685 (ed. Müller).

[636] P. 689.

[637] Sol. Decl. p. 684: 'Was die göttliche Natur in Christo anlanget, weil bei Gott keine Veränderung ist (Jac. 1,17), ist seiner göttlichen Natur durch die Menschwerdung an ihrem Wesen und Eigenschaften nichts ab-oder zugegangen, ist in oder für sich dadurch weder gemindert noch gemehret.' This raises the question how far the unchangeableness of God is affected by the incarnation, about which Dr. Dorner has written some profound articles in the Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, 1856 and 1858.

[638] As Thomasius and Kahnis (Vol. III. p. 339) admit.

[639] 'Weil Gottheit und Menschheit,' he says (Vol. XXX. p. 204, Erl. ed.), 'Eine Person ist, so giebt die Schrift um solcher persönlichen Einigkeit willen auch alles, was der Menschheit widerfährt, der Gottheit, und wiederum. Und ist auch also in der Wahrheit. Denn da musst du ja sagen: Die Person leidet, stirbt; nun ist die Person wahrhaftiger Gott: durum ist's recht geredet: Gottes Sohn leidet.'

[640] See above, pp. 290-294.

[641] Epit. VIII. (p. 545, ed. Müller): 'Wir gläuben, lehren und bekennen, dass die göttliche und menschliche Natur nicht in ein Wesen vermenget, keine in die andere verwandelt, sondern ein jede ihre wesentliche Eigenschaften behalte, Welche der andern Natur Eigenschaften Nimmermehr Werden. Die Eigenschaften göttlicher Natur sind: allmächtig, ewig, etc., sein, welche der menschlichen Natur Eigenschaften nimmermehr werden. Die Eigenschaften menschlicher Natur sind: ein leiblich Geschöpf oder Creatur sein, etc., welche der göttlichen Natur Eigenschaften nimmermehr werden.' Comp. the Sol. Decl. Art. VIII.

[642] Epit. VIII. (p. 545): 'Sondern hie ist die höchste Gemeinschaft, welche Gott mit dem Menschen wahrhaftig hat, aus welcher persönlichen Vereinigung und der daraus erfolgenden höchsten und unaussprechlichen Gemeinschaft alles herfleusst, was menschlich von Gott, und göttlich vom Menschen Christo gesaget und gegläubet wird; wie solche Vereinigung und Gemeinschaft der Naturen die alten Kirchenlehrer durch die Gleichniss eines feurigen Eisens, wie auch der Vereinigung Leibes und der Seelen im Menschen erkläret haben.' The Sol. Decl. repeats the same at greater length.

[643] The words ' dass Christus auch nach und mit seiner assumirten Menschheit gegenwärtig sein könne und auch sei, wo er will,' clearly express the multivolipræsentia of Chemnitz and the Saxons. Nevertheless, Chemnitz, to his own regret, could not prevent the wholesale indorsement and quotation of Luther's views--that wherever Christ's divinity is, there is also his humanity; that he may be and is in all places wherever God is; that the ascension is figurative; that the right hand of God is every where, etc. Hence it is scarcely correct when Kahnis says (Vol. II. p. 581) that the compromise of the Formula leans to the side of Chemnitz. Compare the thorough discussion of Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, Vol. II. pp. 710 sqq., who clearly shows that Chemnitz made several fatal concessions to the Swabian Christology. Hence the opposition of Heshusius and the Helmstädt Lutherans (see p. 293).

[644] Dorner, Vol. II. p. 771, 'Die Vermittlungsversuche des I. Andreæ und Chemnitz erreichten in Betreff des eigentlichen Gegensatzes zwischen den Schwaben und Niederdeutschen keine innere Einigung, sondern nur eine Vereinigung van disharmonischen Sätzen von beiden Seiten her in einem Buch. Die Folge war daher nicht Eintracht, sondern vielseitige Zwietracht.'

[645] The Formula teaches the ktesis with a partial kenosis chreseos, and so far seems to favor the later Giessen view, although the issue was not yet fairly before the authors. Sol. Decl. Art. VIII. (p. 767 ed. Rech., p. 680 ed. Müller): 'Eam vero majestatem statim in sua conceptione etiam in utero matris habuit, sed ut apostolus loquitur (Phil. ii. 7), se ipsum exinanivit, eamque, ut D. Lutherus docet, in statu suæ humiliationis secreto habuit, neque eam semper, sed quoties ipsi visum fuit, usurpavit.' An occasional use of the divine attributes during the state of humiliation was expressly conceded by the Giessen divines; they only denied the constant and full (though secret) use contended for by the Tübingen school. See above, p. 295. The Lutheran scholastics were more on the side of the Giessen divines.

[646] This is admitted, in part at least, by Dr. Stahl, one of the ablest and most clear-headed modern champions of orthodox Lutheranism, when he says: 'Die Lehre von der Allgegenwart des Leibes Christi ist, abgesehen von der Anwendung auf das Abendmahl, von gar keinem religiösen Interesse' (Die lutherische Kirche und die Union, Berlin, 1859, p. 185).

[647] It is objected that omnipotence could not be given to the divine person of Christ, who had it from eternity essentially and of necessity, but only to his human nature. But this reasoning implies a virtual denial of the kenosis, or laying aside of the pre-existent glory which Christ had as God, and was going to take possession of again as God-man at his exaltation, John xvii. 5 (doxason me . . . te doxe e eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi).

[648] According to the Romish liturgy, the elements are literally changed or transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ by the consecration of the priest when he repeats the words of institution, Hoc est corpus meum; and hence the priest is blasphemously said to create the body of Christ. But, according to the Oriental and Greek liturgies, the presence of the body and blood of Christ is effected by the Benediction or Invocation of the Holy Ghost, which follows the recital of the words of institution. Calvin and the Reformed liturgies likewise bring in the agency of the Holy Ghost, but simply for conveying the energy or the power and effect of the body and blood of Christ in heaven to the believing communicant.

[649] The Roman Catholic Bellarmin (see below) and Reformed polemics (also Steitz on Ubiquity, in Herzog's Encykl.) argue that the ubiquity dogma destroys the Lutheran corporeal presence, and logically ends in the Calvinistic theory of the spiritual real presence. But we would rather say that it ends in a crypto-panchristism, which is quite foreign to Calvin. The doctrine of ubiquity was, before Luther, always connected with a leaning to Gnosticism and Pantheism, as in Origen and Scotus Erigena.

[650] The Lutherans exclude all ideas of local extension or expansion from the body of Christ, and describe it just as the scholastics and the ancient philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Philo) describe the presence of incorporeal substances, and especially of the Deity itself, which is 'unextended,' 'indistant,' 'devoid of magnitude,' not part of it here and part of it there, but whole and undivided every where and nowhere. See Cudworth's Intellectual System of the Universe, Harrison's ed. (Lond. 1845), Vol. III. p. 248.

[651] Including such unbiased philological commentators as De Wette and Meyer. See especially Meyer on Matthew xxvi. 26 (pp. 548 sqq. of the 5th ed.), and my annotations to Lange on Matthew, Am. ed., pp. 470-474. Kahnis, who formerly wrote an elaborate historical work in defense of the Lutheran doctrine (Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, Lipz. 1851), has more recently (1861) arrived at the conclusion that 'the Lutheran interpretation of the words of institution must be given up,' though he thinks that this affects only the Lutheran theology, not the Lutheran faith.

[652] I have briefly expressed my own view in Com. on Matthew, p. 471: . . . 'But we firmly believe that the Lutheran and Reformed views can be essentially reconciled, if subordinate differences and scholastic subtleties are yielded. The chief elements of reconciliation are at hand in the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic theory. The Lord's Supper is: (1.) A commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ's atoning death, and a renewed application of the virtue of his broken body and shed blood. (This is the truth of the Zwinglian view, which no one can deny in the face of the words of the Saviour: 'Do this in remembrance of me.') (2.) A feast of living union of believers with the ever-living, exalted Saviour, whereby we truly, though spiritually, receive Christ with all his benefits, and are nourished by his life unto life eternal. (This was the substance for which Luther contended against Zwingli, and which Calvin retained, though in a different scientific form, and in a sense rightly confined to believers.) (3.) A communion of believers with one another as members of the same mystical body of Christ. . . . It is a sad reflection that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper--this feast of the unio mystica and communio sanctorum, which should bind all pious hearts to Christ and each other, and fill them with the holiest and tenderest affections--has been the innocent occasion of the bitterest and most violent passions and the most uncharitable abuse. The eucharistic controversies are among the most unrefreshing and apparently fruitless in church history. Theologians will have much to answer for at the judgment-day for having perverted the sacred feast of divine love into an apple of discord. No wonder that Melanchthon's last wish and prayer was to be delivered from the rabies theologorum. Fortunately, the blessing of the holy communion does not depend upon the scientific interpretation and understanding of the words of institution, but upon the promise of the Lord, and upon childlike faith which receives it, though it may not fully understand the mystery of the ordinance. Christians celebrated it with most devotion and profit before they contended about the true meaning of those words, and obscured their vision by all sorts of scholastic theories and speculations. Fortunately, even now Christians of different denominations and holding different opinions can unite around the table of their common Lord and Saviour, and feel one with him and in him who died for them all, and feeds them with his life once sacrificed on the cross, but now living forever. Let them hold fast to what they agree in, and charitably judge of their differences; looking hopefully forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb in the kingdom of glory, when we shall understand and adore, in perfect harmony, the infinite mystery of the love of God in his Son our Saviour.'

[653] See, especially, Meyer (who ably defends the patristic and Reformed exegesis against the objections of De Wette and Philippi), and Braune on Phil. ii. 6 sqq. (Am. ed. of Lange). The latter says: 'hos of has for its antecedent Christo Iesou, and points to his ante-mundane state, as verses 7 and 8 refer to his earthly existence, and verses 9-11 refer to his subsequent glorified condition. The subject is the Ego of the Lord, which is active in all the three modes of existence. It is the entire summary of the history of Jesus, including his ante-human state.' Among the dogmatic theologians of the Lutheran Church, Liebner, Thomasius, Kahnis, Gess, and others, give up the old Lutheran exegesis of the passage. Kahnis (in the third volume of his Luth. Dogmatik, 1868, p. 341) makes, as the result of his earnest investigation, the following clear and honest statement: '(a) Dass Paulus in der Offenbarungsgeschichte Jesu Christi drei Stadien unterscheidet: das Stadium der Gottesgestalt, da der Logos beim Vater war; das Stadium der Knechtsgestalt, das mit der Selbstverleugnung Christi in der Menschwerdung begann und zur Erniedrigung am Kreuze fortging; das Stadium der Erhöhung, da im Namen Christi sich alle Knie beugen und ihn als Herrn bekennen. (b) Dass das Subjekt der Erniedrigung der logos asarkos ist, wie schon die alte Kirche in ihren namhaftesten Lehrern sah, die reformirten Theologen richtig erkannten und auch die bedeutendsten neueren Ausleqer aller Confessionen zugestehen, das Subjekt der Erhöhung aber der logos ensarkos. (c) Dass die Entäusserung (eauton ekeuose) darin besteht, dass der Logos sich der Gottesgestalt (morphe theou) d. h. des Herrlichkeitsstandes beim Vater begab, um Knechtsgestalt (morphe doulou) anzunehmen, d.h. ein Mensch wie wir zu werden, ja als Mensch sich zum Kreuzestode zu erniedrigen (etapeinosen eauton): Entäusserung also gleich Menschwerdung ist. Darnach fordert dieses Lehrstück eine andere Fassung, als die alte [Luther.] Dogmatik ihm gab.'

[654] See above, p. 314. Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. der Prot. Theol. pp.366 sqq. Planck (Vol. VI. p. 814) charges this article with a confusion not found in the other parts of the Formula, and Gieseler (Vol. IV. p. 488) with putting together contradictory positions; while, on the other hand, Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der ev. luth. Kirche, etc. p. 222) sees here only supplementary truths to be reconciled by theological science, and Guericke (in his Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 419) calls the logical inconsistency of the Formula 'divinely necessitated' (eine göttlich nothwendige Verstandes-Inconsequenz).

[655] Loc. Theol. Tom. IV. pp. 189 sqq. (de Electione et Reprob. § 7; de Universalitate Vocationis, § 135}.

[656] Tittmann and Hase omit it; Müller gives it (pp. 731-767).

[657] Comp. among recent works especially the third volume of Heppe's Geschichte des D. Protest, pp. 215-322, and the whole fourth volume. The chief data are also given by Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 489-493, and by Köllner, 1.c. pp. 573-583.

[658] The Preface of the Book of Concord is signed by eighty-six names representing the Lutheran state churches in the German empire; among them are three Electors (Louis of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, and John George of Brandenburg), twenty Dukes and Princes, twenty-four Counts, thirty-five burgomasters and counselors of imperial cities. The Formula was also signed by about 8000 pastors and teachers under their jurisdiction, including a large number of ex-Philippists and Crypto-Calvinists, who preferred their livings to their theology; hence Hutter was no doubt right when he admitted that many subscribed mala conscientia. Yet no direct compulsion seems to have been used. See Köllner, p. 551, and Johannsen, Ueber die Unterschriften des Concordienbuches, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie, 1847, No. 1.

[659] It was adopted in Sweden at a Council of Upsala, 1593; in Hungary, 1597. In America it is held by the Lutheran Synodical Conference, and by the General Council, but rejected by the General Synod (see p. 224).

[660] The Landgrave of Hesse, the Palatinate John Casimir, the Prince of Anhalt, the Duke of Pomerania (where, however, the symbol afterwards came into authority), the Duke of Holstein, the Duke of Saxe-Luneburg, the Counts of Nassau and Hanau, the cities of Strasburg, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Spires, Worms, Nuremberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Danzig, Nordhausen.

[661] Frederick II. strictly prohibited, on pain of confiscation and deposition, the importation and publication of the Form of Concord in Denmark (July 24, 1580), and threw the two superbly bound copies sent to him by his sister, the wife of Augustus of Saxony, unceremoniously into the chimney-fire. See Köllner, p. 575 sq.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 493, note 54; and Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 275 sqq. Nevertheless the document afterwards gained considerable currency in Denmark.

[662] So the Duchy of Brunswick recalled the subscription in 1583. Duke Julius, one of the most zealous promoters of the Form of Concord, became alienated for personal reasons, because he was severely blamed by Chemnitz and several Princes for allowing one of his sons to receive Romish consecration (Dec. 5, 1578), and two others the tonsure, to the great scandal of Protestantism. He was afterwards strengthened by the doctrinal opposition of Heshusius and the Helmstädt Professors, who rejected the Formula for teaching absolute ubiquity. The Corpus doctrinæ Julium was retained in Brunswick and Wolfenbüttel. See Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 667 sqq., and especially Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 203 sqq. These Brunswick troubles brought about an alienation between Andreæ (who labored to reconcile the Duke) and Chemnitz (who was deposed by the Duke). In a widely circulated letter of April 8, 1580, Chemnitz compared Andreæ to a fawning and scratching cat ('cum coram longe aliud mihi dicas, wie die Katzen, die vorne lecken und hinten kratzen'). Heppe, p. 214.

[663] So the Palatinate, which, after a short Lutheran interregnum of Louis, readopted the Heidelberg Catechism under John Casimir (1583), Anhalt (1588), Zweibrücken (1588), Hanau (1596), Hesse (1604), and especially Brandenburg under John Sigismund (1614). In this respect the Formula of Concord inflicted great territorial loss upon the Lutheran denomination. The greatest loss was the Palatinate and the Electoral, afterwards the royal house of Brandenburg and Prussia.

[664] See lists of controversial works for and against the Formula of Concord in Walch, Feuerlin, and Köllner. Comp. also Hutter, Conc. conc. Ch. XXXVII. (p. 958), Ch. XLI. (p. 976), Ch. XLV. (p. 1033), and Ch. XLV. (p. 1038); Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 270 sqq.; and G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 251-266. Hutter sees in the general attack of 'the devil and his organs, the heretics,' against the Formula, a clear proof that it was composed instinctu Spiritus Sancti, and is in full harmony with the infallible Word of God (p. 976).

[665] The rigidly orthodox Heshusius and the Helmstädt divines (in the Quedlinburg Colloquium, 1583), Christopher Irenæus (an exiled Flacianist, formerly court chaplain at Weimar, 1581), Ambrosius Wolff (or Cyriacus Herdesianus, of Nuremberg, 1580), the Bremen preachers (1581), the Anhalt theologians (1580, 1581), and the Margrave of Baden (in the Stafford Book, 1599).

[666] Ursinus (in connection with Zanchius, Tossanus, and other deposed Heidelberg Professors, who, under John Casimir and during the rule of Lutheranism in Heidelberg, founded and conducted a flourishing theological school at Neustadt an der Hardt, 1576 to 1583): Admonitio Christiana de libro Concordiæ (or Christliche Erinnerung vom Concordienbuch), Neostadadii in Palatinatu, Latin and German, 1581 (also in Urs. Opera, Heidelberg, 1612, Vol. II. pp.486 sqq.). It consists of twelve chapters, and is very able. Extract in Sudhoff, Olevianus und Ursinus, pp. 432-452; comp. Schweizer in Herzog, Vol. X. pp. 263-265. Ursinus and some of his pupils defended this work against the Lutheran 'Apology,' in Defensio Admonitionis Neost. contra Apologiæ Erfordensis sophismata, Neost. 1584. Beza wrote Refutatio dogmatis de ficticia carnis Christi omnipræsentia; Dansæus an Examen of Chemnitz's book De duabus in Christo naturis, Genev. 1581; Sadeel, a very able tract, De veritate humanæ naturæ Christi, 1585 (in his Opera, Genev. 1592). Of later Reformed writings must be mentioned the Emdensche Buch (1591), and especially Hospinian's Concordia discors (1607), which called forth Hutter's Concordia concors (1614).

[667] The ablest Roman assailant was Robert Bellarmin: Judicium de libro quem Lutherani vocant Concordiæ, Ingolst. 1587, 1589, etc. (in his Opera, Col. Ag. 1620, Vol. VII. p. 576). Against him Hoe ab Hoenegg wrote Apol. contra R. B. impium et stolidum judicium, Fref. 1605. Bellarmin also repeatedly notices the Christology of the Formula in his great controversial work against Protestantism. See below.

[668] See Schütz, Vita Chytræi, and Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 395 sqq.

[669] This complaint the Erfurt Apology of the Formula of Concord admitted to be just, at least in part. The Formula makes no distinction between Zwingli and Calvin; condemns Zwingli's 'allæosis' (by which he meant only to guard against a confusio and æquatio naturarum) as a mask of the devil; charges the Reformed generally with a Nestorian separation of the two natures in Christ, and a denial of all communion between them; with childish literalism concerning the right hand of God and the throne of glory; with shutting Christ up in heaven, as if he had no more to do with us, etc.

[670] Dorner, in his History of Christology (Vol. II. pp. 718-750), gives an admirable and impartial summary of the Reformed argument. Dr. Kahnis, of Leipzig, from his Lutheran standpoint, thus fairly and liberally characterizes the Reformed opposition to the Form of Concord (Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 590): 'Die Reformirten vertraten den Standpunkt des Verstandes, welcher zwischen Endlichem und Unendlichem abstract(?) scheidend (finitum non est capax infiniti) der menschlichen Natur Christi keinen Antheil an den göttlichen Eigenschaften einräumt; den Standpunkt der Realität, welcher in der Betrachtung der Person Christi, von dem Wandel auf Erden ausgehead, der rein menschlichen Entwicklung Christi freien Raum schaffen will; den Standpunkt des Praktischen, der bei den sicheren Thatsachen der persönlichen Vereinigung Beruhigung fasste, ohne sich in gnostisch-scholastische Theorien verspinnen zu wollen.'

[671] Lib. III. de Sacramento Eucharistiæ, cap. 17. Comp. also cap. 7, and Lib. III. de Christo (where he refers to the views of Luther, Brentius, Wigand, Heshusius, and Chemnitz on ubiquity).

[672] His reasoning is curious: 'Quod est ubique, non potest moveri, nec transire de loco ad locum; ergo licet corpus Christi sit in pane, tamen non manducatur, cum panis manducatur, quia non movetur, nec transit cum pane e manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachmn; nam etiam antea erat in ore et in stomacho, priusquam panis eo veniret. . . . Sequitur aut esse inanem cænam Domini, aut saltem spiritualiter sumi per energiam et per fidem, et solum a piis, qui habent fidem, et hoc est, quod volunt Calvinistæ.'

[673] 'Si enim corpus Christi ubique est, erit etiam ante usum in vane.

[674] Bellarmin (De Sacr. Euch. Lib. III. c. 7), after quoting Augustine against the sententia ubiquistarum Lutheranorum, thus defines the Roman view: 'Nos fatemur Christi corpus non esse ubique diffusum; et ubicunque est, habere suam formam et partium situm, ac dispositionem; quamvis hæc figura, forma, dispositio partium in cælo conspiciatur, ubi locum replet; in Sacramento autem sit quidem, sed non repleat locum, nec videri a nobis possit.'

[675] Comp. on Elizabeth's action and the Convent of Frankfort, Hutter's Concordia concors, Cap. XVI. and XVII. (pp. 513-523); Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 591-611; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 5 sqq., 16 sqq., and 72 sqq.

[676] Cranmer was at first inclined to the Lutheran, theory, but gave it up afterwards. His fellow-Reformers held the Zwinglian or Calvinistic view. Bishop Hooper thus speaks of ubiquity: 'Such as say that heaven and the right hand of God is in the articles of our faith taken for God's power and might, which is every where, they do wrong to the Scripture and unto the articles of our faith. They make a confusion of the Scripture, and leave nothing certain. They darken the simple and plain verity thereof with intolerable sophisms. They make heaven hell, and hell heaven, turn upside down and pervert the order of God. If the heaven and God's right hand, whither our Saviour's body is ascended, be every where, and noteth no certain place, as these uncertain men teach, I will believe no ascension. What needeth it?--seeing Christ's body is every where with his Godhead. I will interpret this article of my creed thus: Christus ascendit ad dextram Patris. Patris dextra est ubique: ergo Christus ascendit ad ubique. See what erroneous doctrine followeth their imaginations!' Early Writings of John Hooper, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, Martyr, 1555; ed. by the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843, p.66. The 'Declaration of Christ and his Office,' from which this passage is taken, was first published at Zürich. 1547, in the early stage of the ubiquitarian controversy. See also the Remains of Archbishop Grindal, Camb. 1843, p. 46.

[677] Comp. the eucharistic works of Pusey (1855), Philip Freeman (1862), Thomas L. Vogan (1871), and John Harrison (against Pusey, 1871).

[678] In the Gasthof zum grünen Weinfasse. This gave rise to some joke and mockery.

[679] The first part was directed against the Neustadt Admonition of Ursinus and his colleagues, the second against the Bremen pastors, the third against Irenæus, the fourth against Wolf. Timothy Kirchner, of the Palatinate, prepared the first three parts, Selnecker and Chemnitz the last. They were published singly, and then jointly at Dresden, 1584, and distributed by the Elector Augustus among all the churches of Saxony. See Hutter, pp. 978 sqq. and 1038 sqq. (De Apol. Libri Concord. et de Colloquio Quedlinburgensi); Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 284-311.

[680] Hutter (Conc. conc. p. 976), Deutschmann, and others, who called it theopneustos.

[681] Anton, 1.c. Ch. X. Erste Concordien-Jubelfreude, pp. 134 sqq. J. G. Walch, in his Introd. 1732, represents the last stage of orthodox veneration before the revolution of sentiment took place.

[682] See his judgment, Vol. VI. pp. 690 sqq.; 816 sqq. and passim. Planck's history is, even more than Hospinian's Concordia discors, a chronique scandaleuse of Lutheran pugnacity and bigotry in the second half of the sixteenth century.

[683] Symb. Vol. I. p. 596: 'Die Concordienformel hat dogmatisch nur insofern noch Werth, als sie mit den früheren Symbolen übereinstimmt. . . . Allein die Lehre von der Prädestination ausgenommen, kann ihr für das Dogma wie für die äusseren Verhältnisse der Kirche nur der wenigste eigenthümliche Werth unter allen Symbolen der Kirche zugestanden werden. Eigenthümlich ist nur die Ausbildung und mehr systematische Gestaltung des Lehrbegriffs der Kirche als eines Systems.' This is too low an estimate of the whole document, and too high an estimate of Art. XI.

[684] In his numerous works, so often quoted.

[685] Dogm. Vol. II. p. 517: 'Man darf, . . mit Zuversicht aussprechen, dass die Zukunft der theologischen Forschung an dem Fortschreiten auf dem von Melanchthon eingeschlagenen Wege hängt.'

[686] Dr. Krauth calls the Formula 'the amplest and clearest confession in which the Christian Church has ever embodied her faith,' and he goes so far as to say: 'But for the Formula of Concord, it may be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the world' (Conservative Reform. p. 302). And this in full view of the independent Protestantism in Switzerland, France, Holland. England, and Scotland, which materially differs from the distinctive theology of this book, and was in vain condemned by it!

[687] We can simply allude to the internal differences of the Erlangen, Leipzig, and Rostock schools of Lutherans; to Luthardt on the freedom of the will; to Thomasius on the Kenosis; to Kahnis on the Lord's Supper, inspiration, and the canon of the Scripture; to the Hofmann and Philippi controversy on the atonement; to Hengstenberg's articles on justification and the Epistle of James; to the disputes on the millenarian question; and to the controversy on Church government and the relation of the ministry to the general priesthood of believers, in which Huschke, Stahl, Kliefoth, Vilmar, and Löhe take High-Church ground against the Low-Church views of Höfling, Harless, Diedrich, etc. Some of these controversies, especially the question of the ministerial office (Amtsfrage), are also disturbing the peace of the orthodox Lutherans in America, and divide them into hostile synods (the Missouri Synod versus the Grabau Synod, Iowa Synod, and portions of the General Council, not to mention several subdivisions). The eschatological controversy separates the Iowa Synod from Grabau and the Missourians, who denounce millenarianism as a heresy. The smallest doctrinal difference among orthodox Lutherans in America is considered sufficient to justify the formation of a new synod with close-communion principles. And yet all these Lutherans adopt the Formula Concordiæ as the highest standard of pure Scripture orthodoxy. Is this Concordia concors, or Concordia discors?

[688] See the Preface. An able argument for this agreement is presented by Prof. Thomasius, of Erlangen, in his Das Bekenntniss der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in der Consequent seines Princips, Nürnberg, 1848. He develops the doctrines of the Formula from Luther's doctrine of justification by faith as the organic life-principle of the Lutheran Church. But the Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist with the communicatio idiomatum and ubiquity of the body have--as the creeds of the Reformed churches prove--no necessary connection with justification by faith; and on these points, which constitute the peculiar features of the Formula, the author of the Augsburg Confession himself represented, even before Luther's death, a different line of development.

[689] Andreæ, in a letter to Heshusius and Wigand, of July 24, 1576, giving an account of the results of the Torgau Convention (quoted by Heppe, Vol. III. p. 111), thus characteristically sets forth the object of the whole movement in which he and the Elector Augustus were the chief leaders: 'Hoc enim sancte vobis affirmare et polliceri ausim, Illust. Electorem Saxoniæ in hoc unice intentum, ut Lutheri Doctrina partim obscurata, partim vitiata, partim aperte vel occulte damnata, pura et sincera in scholis et Ecclesiis restituatur, adeoque Lutherus, hoc est Christus, cuius fidelis minister Lutherus fuit, vivat. Quid vultis amplius? Nihil hic fucatum, nihil palliatum, nihil tectum est, sed juxta spiritum Lutheri, qui Christi est.' And Chemnitz wrote, June 29, 1576: 'Mentio librorum Philippi expuncta est, et responsione hoc in parte retulimus nos ad Lichtenbergense decretmn.' Some zealots, like Heshusius, desired that Melanchthon should be condemned, by name, in the Formula, but Andreæ thought it better 'to cover the shame of Noah,' and to be silent about the apostasy of the Lutheran Solomon. Dr. Krauth, too, says (Conservative Reform. p. 327): 'The Book of Concord treats Melanchthon as the Bible treats Solomon. It opens wide the view of his wisdom and glory, and draws the veil over the record of his sadder days.' In the Formula itself he is nowhere named, but in the Preface to the 'Book of Concord' his writings are spoken of as 'utilia neque repudianda ac damnanda, quatenus cum ea norma, quæ Concordiæ libro expressa est, per omnia consentiunt.'

[690] There is no full and satisfactory account of the history and character of the Form of Concord in the English language, except in Dr. Krauth's Conservative Reformation and its Theology, pp. 288-328; and this, in accordance with the aim of this learned and able author, is apologetic and polemic rather than historical. Dr. Shedd, in his valuable History of Christian Doctrine (Vol. II. p. 458), devotes only a few lines to it. Dr. Fisher, in his excellent work on the Reformation (N. Y. 1873), disposes of it in a foot-note (p. 481). In Dr. Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, etc. (London, 1874), it has no place among the Protestant Confessions, and the brief allusion to it sub 'Lutherans,' p. 269, only exposes the ignorance of the writer. The doctrines of the Form of Concord are frequently, though mostly polemically, noticed in Dr. Hodge's Systematic Theology (N.Y. 1873, 3 vols.). __________________________________________________________________

§ 47. Superseded Lutheran Symbols. The Saxon Confession. The Würtemberg Confession. 1551.

Literature.

Heinrich Heppe: Die Bekenntniss-Schriften, der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands, Cassel, 1855. This collection contains (besides the oecumenical Creeds, the Augsburg Confession of 1530, the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540) the Confessio Saxonica, pp. 407-483, and the Confessio Würtembergica, pp. 491-554.

Phil. Melanchthonis Opera quæ supersunt omnia, or Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider and Bindseil, Vol. XXVIII. (Brunsvigæ, 1860), pp. 329-568. This vol. contains the Latin and German texts of the Conf. Saxonica with critical Prolegomena.

The Book of Concord embraces all the Lutheran symbols which are still in force; but two other Confessions deserve mention for their historical importance, viz., the Saxon Confession and the Würtemberg Confession.

Both were written in 1551, twenty-one years after the Confession of Augsburg and twenty-six years before the Formula of Concord, in full agreement with the former as understood by its author, and without the distinctive and exclusive features of the latter. Both were intended (like the Articles of Smalcald) for the Roman Catholic Council, and, although they failed in accomplishing their direct object, they exhibit the doctrinal status of the Lutheran or the entire Evangelical Church of Germany at that period. It is this Protestantism which received legal toleration and recognition in the German Empire by the Treaty of Passau, 1552, and three years afterwards, without the restriction as to time, at the Diet of Augsburg. [691] But in the succeeding generation the exclusive and more energetic school of Lutheranism prevailed, and found its expression in the Formula of Concord, which superseded those interimistic Confessions.

1. The Saxon Confession (Confessio Saxonica) was drawn up by Melanchthon for the Council of Trent, which, after a brief transfer to Bologna by Paul III., in March, 1547, was again convened at Trent by Julius III., May 1, 1551. The German Emperor had previously (Feb. 13) invited the Protestant States to send delegates, promising them full protection, and his best endeavor to secure 'a Christian, useful reformation, and abrogation of improper doctrines and abuses.' Melanchthon expected nothing from a conference with Bishops and Cardinals, but considered it wise and politic to accept the Emperor's invitation, provided he would secure to the Protestant delegates a hearing before the Council. His advice was the best that could be given under the circumstances, and was accepted by Elector Maurice of Saxony. [692] He was requested to prepare a 'Repetition and Exposition of the Augsburg Confession,' usually called the 'Saxon Confession.' [693] To finish this work with more leisure, he went with his friend Camerarius to the Prince of Anhalt at Dessau.

The document is not merely a repetition of the Augsburg Confession, but an adaptation of it to the changed condition of affairs. In 1530 Melanchthon still hoped for a reunion with Rome, and wrote in an apologetic tone, avoiding all that might irritate the powerful enemy; now all hope of reunion had departed, and Protestantism had made a decided progress in ecclesiastical consolidation and independence. Although the Confession was composed after the defeat of the Protestant Princes by the Emperor, and in the midst of the Adiaphoristic troubles, it shows no disposition whatever to recede from the doctrinal positions taken at Augsburg; on the contrary, the errors and abuses of Rome, which made separation an imperative duty, are freely exposed and refuted. The Scriptures, as understood by the ancient Church in the oecumenical Creeds, are declared to be the only and unalterable foundation of the Evangelical faith. [694] The distinctive Evangelic doctrines and usages in opposition to Rome are comprehended under the two articles of the Apostles' Creed: 'I believe the forgiveness of sins,' and 'one holy Catholic Church.' The former excludes human merit and justification by works; the latter the political and secular conceptions and corruptions of the Church, which is represented to be a spiritual though visible communion of believers in Christ. The controverted articles are considered in twenty-three sections, in the order of the Augsburg Confession, namely: Original Sin, Forgiveness and Justification, Free Will, Good Works, New Obedience, the Church, the Sacraments, Satisfaction, Marriage, Monastic Life, Invocation of Saints, Civil Magistrate. The Saxon Confession is signed, not by Princes, as the Augsburg Confession was, but, as Melanchthon suggested, only by theologians, viz., Bugenhagen, Pfeffinger, Camerarius, Major, Eber, Melanchthon, and the Superintendents of Electoral Saxony, who convened at Wittenberg, July 9, for the purpose, and unanimously adopted the work of their dear and venerable 'Preceptor,' as the clear expression of their own faith in full harmony with his Confession of 1530. It was a beautiful moment in Melanchthon's life, for which he felt very grateful to God. [695] The danger was now much greater than in 1530, for the Elector Maurice was in league with the victorious Emperor. The theologians of Brandenburg, Ansbach, Baireuth, Mansfeld, Pomerania, Palatinate, Hesse, Würtemburg, and Strasburg likewise sent in their consent to this Confession. [696]

The Council convened in May, 1551, was adjourned to October, and again to January next. Melanchthon was ordered to proceed to Trent, but to stop at Nuremberg for further instructions. While at Nuremberg, in January, 1552, he wrote a preface to Luther's Commentary on Genesis, and expressed himself very decidedly against the preceding acts of the Council. [697] In the mean time the Saxon and Würtemberg lay-embassadors received a hearing at Trent, not, indeed, before the whole Council in public session, but before a private congregation. They requested that the members of the Council be released of their oath of obedience to the Pope, and be free to decide the questions by the rule of the Scriptures alone. A few prelates were inclined to accede, but the majority would never have sacrificed the principle of tradition, nor reconsidered the decrees already adopted. The Saxon embassadors urged Melanchthon to proceed on his journey, but he delayed on account of the rumors of war. The treacherous Elector Maurice of Saxony cut the Gordian knot by making war upon his ally, the Emperor, in the spring, 1552, drove him from Innspruck, scared the fathers of Trent to their homes, and achieved, in the Treaty of Passau (Aug. 2, 1552), ratified at Augsburg (1555), the first victory for liberty of conscience to Protestants, to which the Emperor reluctantly yielded, and against which the Pope never ceases to protest.

II. The Würtemberg Confession (Confessio Würtembergica) [698] Was prepared for the same purpose, at the same time and in the same spirit, by Brentius, the Reformer of the Duchy of Würtemberg, in the name of his Prince, Duke Christopher, who likewise resolved to send delegates to the Council of Trent. For Brentius, like Melanchthon, had no confidence in this partial popish Council, but advised, nevertheless, compliance with the Emperor's request, since a refusal might be construed as disobedience and contempt, or as an act of cowardice. The Confession was approved by a commission of ten Swabian divines, and by the City of Strasburg. It was also approved at Wittenberg, as agreeing with Melanchthon's Confession. It was found best to send two Confessions, one representing the Evangelical Churches of the North, the other those of the South of Germany, to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy.

The Würtemberg Confession contains a preface of Duke Christopher, and restates, in thirty-five articles, the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession and other controverted points, for the purpose of showing that the Evangelical Churches agree with the pure doctrine of the apostles, and of the catholic and orthodox Church. [699] On the Lord's Supper this Confession goes a little beyond the Saxon; but there is no trace of the ubiquity of Christ's body, of which Brentius, ten years afterwards, became a zealous advocate.

Brentius was among the Würtemberg and Strasburg delegates to Trent, and actually arrived there, March 18, 1552, but only to return in April without accomplishing any thing. [700] It is very doubtful whether he and Melanchthon would have made a deep impression upon the Council, which was already committed to the cause of popery and had sanctioned some of its most obnoxious doctrines.

__________________________________________________________________

[691] Heppe, 1.c. p. xxix.: 'Der in der Conf. Saxonica und in der Conf. Würtembergica entfaltete Lehrbegriff der Augsburgischen Confession ist es, welcher i. J. 1555 zu kirchenstaatsrechtlicher Geltung kam. Dieses erhellt schon aus den Beschlüssen der im Mai 1554 zur Vorbereitung der Reichstagsverhandlungen gehaltenen evangelischen Conferenz, in dem die daselbst versammelten chursäschsischen, hessischen und strassburgischen Deputirten erklärten: Auf bevorstehendem Reichstage habe man als einziges Bekenntniss die Augsburgische Confession festzuhalten. Da aber die sächsische und die würtembergische Confession mit derselben durchaus übereinstimmten, so habe man entweder jene oder eine von diesen dem Kaiser zu übergeben.'

[692] See several letters from February to April, 1551, in the Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. (1840), especially pp. 736-739, where Melanchthon gives his views on the Council of Trent; and Schmidt, Melanchthon, pp. 534 sqq.

[693] It appeared first in Latin at Basle, 1552, under the title: 'Confessio Do | ctrinæ Saxonicarum | Ecclesiarum Synodo Tridentinæ ob | lata, A.D. 1551, in qua,' etc. The original MS., with the title 'Repetitio Confessionis Augustanæ: An. 1551, Witebergæ scripta,' etc., and with corrections from Melanchthon's own hand, is preserved in the library of the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, to which Selnecker presented it in 1580. From this Heppe and Bindseil have derived their text; the latter with a critical apparatus from eight printed editions. It was translated into German by John Maetsperger, 1552, and by Georg Major, 1555. The Latin text was often republished separately at Leipzig, Wittenberg, Frankfort, etc., and in the Melanchthonian Corpora Doctrinæ; also in the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, Genev. 1612 and 1654, in the Sylloge Confessionum, Oxf. 1804 and 1827 (pp. 237-323); and more recently by H. Heppe, l.c., and by Bindseil, who gives also Major's German translation, in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVIII. pp. 370 sqq. On the various editions, see Bindseil, pp. 347 sqq.

[694] Art I. De doctrina: 'Affirmamus clare coram Deo et universa Ecclesia in cælo et in terra, nos vera fide amplecti omnia Scripta Prophetarum et Apostolorum: et quidem in hac ipsa nativa sententia quæ expressa est in Symbolis, Apostolico, Nicæno et Athanasiano.'

[695] See his letter to Prince George of Anhalt, July 11, 1551, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. p. 806 sq., and the letter of Major to Jonas, July 14, ibid. p. 809.

[696] See Heppe, 1.c. p. xxvii., and especially the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., which gives after the subscriptions the assenting judgments of the churches above mentioned.

[697] Jan. 25, 1552, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. pp. 918-927.

[698] The full title, as given by Heppe and Bindseil, is 'Confes | sio Piæ Doctri | næ, quæ nomine illu | strissimi Principis ac Domini Chri | stophori Ducis Wirtembergen | sis et Teccensis, ac Comitis Montisbe | ligardi, per legatos ejus Die XXIIII. | mensis Januarij, Anno MDLII. Con | gregationi Tridentini Conci | lii proposita est.' It was first printed at Tübingen, 1551; then in 1556, 1559, 1561, etc. It is also embodied in the Opera Brentii, Tübingen, 1590, Tom. VIII. pp. 1-34, in Corpus et Syntagma Conf. (from a Frankfort ed. of 1561), and in Heppe, 1.c. pp. 491-554. It is frequently quoted in part under different heads, together with the Saxon Confession, in the Reformed Harmonia Confessionum, Genev. 1581. Comp. Pfaff, Acta et scripta publica Ecclesiæ Wirtembergicæ, Tüb. 1720; Salig, Historie der Augsb. Conf. Tom. I. pp. 673 sqq.; and Hartmann, Johannes Brentz. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften (Elberfeld, 1862), pp. 211-221.

[699] Prefat.: 'In nostris ecclesiis non nisi veræ apostolicæ, catholicæ, et orthodoxæ doctrinæ locum datum esse.'

[700] See Sleidanus, De statu relig. et reipublicæ Carolo V. Cæsare commentar. Tom. III. pp. 317-333; Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVIII. p. 334, and Hartmann, 1.c. p. 215. The other theological delegates to Trent were Beurlin, Heerbrand, Vannius (Wanner), of Würtemberg, and Marbach and Sellius, of Strasburg. Sleidanus was one of the lay-delegates from Strasburg. __________________________________________________________________

§ 48. The Saxon Visitation Articles, 1592.

Literature.

Articuli Visitatorii, Anno Christi 1592 in Electoratu et Provinciis superioris Saxoniæ publicati, et Judicibus Con istoriorum, Superintendentibus, Ministris ecclesiarum et scholarum, nec non Administratoribus bonorum ecclesiasticorum, quin et ipsis Patronis et Collatoribus ad subscribendum et servandum propositi et demandati. They are printed in Corp. juris eccles. Saxonici, Dresden, 1773, p. 256, and added to Hase's edition of the Lutheran Symbols, pp. 862-866, the Berlin edition of the Concordia (1857), pp. 849-854, and Müller's Symb. Bücher, pp. 779-784.

Gründliche Verantwortung der vier streitigen Artikel, etc. Leipzig, 1593.

A. Hunnius: Widerlegung des Calvinischen Büchleins wider die vier Artikel, 1593.

Comp. Schroekh: Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, Vol. IV. pp. 660 sqq.; Henke: Art. Hunnius in Herzog, Vol. VI. pp. 316-321; Müller: Symb. Bücher, pp.cxxi. (Introd.) sqq.; G.Frank: Geschichte der Protest. Theologie (1864), Vol. I. pp. 290 sqq.

The Four Articles of Visitation of Electoral Saxony owe their origin to the revival and second overthrow of Crypto-Calvinism, and reflect the fierceness and bitterness of this contest. [701] They continued in force till the present century, but never extended their authority beyond Saxony. They are strongly anti-Calvinistic, and may be regarded as an Appendix to the Formula of Concord, with which they fully agree.

They were written in 1592, and first published in German in 1593. [702] Their object was to perpetuate the reign of exclusive Lutheranism. They are based on the articles of a Colloquy between Andreæ and Beza at Mömpelgard (1586). The chief author was Dr. Aegidius Hunnius, one of the foremost Lutheran divines of his age, a native of Winnenden in the Duchy of Würtemberg, professor of theology at Marburg (1576-1592), and afterwards at Wittenberg (d. 1603). [703] He was commissioned with several others to visit the churches and schools of Saxony for the purpose of suppressing every trace of Crypto-Calvinism. All clergymen and teachers, and even the civil officers, were required to subscribe the four Articles or lose their places. A great feast of thanksgiving closed the visitation.

The hardest fate was reserved for Chancellor Crell, who, after ten years' imprisonment, was executed (1601), ostensibly for political offenses, but really for opinions which were once honored by the name of Philip Melanchthon. The preachers who attended this auto-da-fé of hyper-Lutheran orthodoxy told Crell that by his wicked Calvinism he had caused in many cases a dangerous delay of infant baptism, undermined the authority of the ministry, and deserved the fire of hell. They laughed at his prayer on the scaffold; whereupon he prayed to God not to change their laughter into weeping. The executioner, holding the severed head high up in the air, said: 'This was a Calvinistic stroke.' [704]

The four Articles give a very clear and explicit summary of those peculiar doctrines which distinguish the Lutheran creed from those of all other Protestant churches. The first refers to the Lord's Supper, and teaches the real presence and oral fruition of the true and natural body of Christ by all communicants. The second treats of the Person of Christ, and teaches, in support of the eucharistic omnipresence, the communication of the attributes whereby the human nature of Christ became partaker of the whole majesty, honor, power, and glory of his divine nature. The third teaches baptismal regeneration and the ordinary necessity of baptism for salvation. [705] The fourth teaches the universal atonement, and the vocation of all men to salvation, with the possibility of a total and final fall from grace.

In the negative part the opposite doctrines of the Calvinists are rejected. These were henceforth held in perfect abhorrence in Saxony, and it was a common proverb, 'Rather a Papist than a Calvinist.' [706]

As the Articles are a very clear and succinct statement of the specific doctrines of Lutheranism as opposed to Calvinism, and not easy of access, they are here given in full:

Articulus I.

De Sacra Coena.

pura et vera doctrina nostrarum ecclesiarum de sacra coena.

I. Quod, verba Christi: 'Accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum: Bibite, hic est sanguis meus,' simpliciter, et secundum literam, sicut sonant, intelligenda sint.

II. Quod in Sacramento duæ res sint, quæ exhibentur et simul accipiuntur: una terrena, quæ est panis et vinum; et una coelestis, quæ est corpus et sanguis Christi.

III. Quod hæc Unio, Exhibitio et Sumptio fiat hic inferius in terris, non superius in coelis.

IV. Quod exhibeatur et accipiatur verum et naturale corpus Christi, quod in cruce pependit, et verus ac naturalis sanguis, qui ex Christi latere fluxit.

V. Quod corpus et sanguis Christi non fide tantum spiritualiter, quod etiam extra Coenam fieri potest, sed cum pane et vino oraliter, modo tamen imperscrutabili et supernaturali, illic in Coena accipiantur, idque in pignus et certificationem resurrectionis nostrorum corporum ex mortuis.

VI. Quod oralis perceptio corporis et sanguinis Christi non solum fiat a dignis, verum etiam ab indignis, qui sine poenitentia et vera fide accedunt; eventu tamen diverso. A dignis enim percipitur ad salutem, ab indignis autem ad judicium.

Articulus II.

De Persona Christi.

pura et vera doctrina nostrarum ecclesiarum de hoc articulo, de persona christi.

I. In Christo sunt duæ distinctæ Naturæ, divina et humana. Hæ manent in æternum inconfusæ et inseparabiles (seu indivisæ).

II. Hæ duæ Naturæ personaliter ita sunt invicem unitæ, ut unus tantum sit Christus, et una Persona.

III. Propter hanc personalem Unionem recte dicitur, atque in re et veritate ita se habet, quod Deus Homo, et Homo Deus sit, quod Maria Filium Dei genuerit, et quod Deus nos per proprium suum sanguinem redemerit.

IV. Per hanc Unionem personalem, et quæ eam secuta est, exaltationem, Christus secundum carnem ad dexteram Dei collocatus est, et accepit omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra, factusque est particeps omnis divinæ majestatis, honoris, potentiæ et gloriæ.

Articulus III.

De Baptismo.

pura et vera doctrina nostrarum ecclesiarum de hoc articulo s. baptismatis.

I. Quod unum tantum Baptisma sit, et una ablutio, non quæ sordes corporis tollere solet, sed quæ nos a peccatis abluit.

II. Per Baptismum tanquam lavacrum illud regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus Sancti salvos nos facit Deus et operatur in nobis talem justitiam et purgationem a peccatis, ut qui in eo foedere et fiducia usque ad finem perseverat, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam.

III. Omnes, qui in Christum Jesum baptizati sunt, in mortem ejus baptizati sunt, et per Baptismum cum ipso in mortem ejus consepulti sunt, et Christum induerunt.

IV. Baptismus est lavacrum illud regenerationis, propterea, quia in eo renascimur denuo et Spiritu Adoptionis obsignamur ex gratia (sive gratis).

V. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum coelorum. Casus tamen necessitatis hoc ipso non intenditur.

VI. Quicquid de carne nascitur, caro est, et natura sumus omnes filii iræ divinæ: quia ex semine peccaminoso sumus geniti, et in peccatis concipimur omnes.

Articulus IV.

De Prædestinatione et æterna Providentia Dei.

pura et vera doctrina nostrarum ecclesiarum de hoc articulo.

I. Quod Christus pro omnibus hominibus mortuus sit, et ceu Agnus Dei totius mundi peccata sustulerit.

II. Quod Deus neminem ad condemnationem condiderit, sed velit, ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis perveniant, propterea omnibus mandat, ut Filium suum Christum in Evangelio audiant, et per hunc auditum promittit virtutem et operationem Spiritus Sancti ad conversionem et salutem.

III. Quod multi homines propria culpa pereant: alii, qui Evangelium de Christo nolunt audire, alii, qui iterum excidunt gratia, sive per errores contra fundamentum, sive per peccata contra conscientiam.

IV. Quod omnes peccatores poenitentiam agentes in gratiam recipiantur, et nemo excludatur. etsi peccata ejus rubeant ut sanguis; quandoquidem Dei misericordia major est, quam peccata totius mundi, et Deus omnium suorum operum miseretur.

Sequitur Falsa et Erronea Doctrina Calvinistarum.

De Sacra Coena.

I. Quod supra posita verba Christi figurate intelligenda sint, et non secundum literam, sicut sonant.

II. Quod in Coena tantum nuda signa sint, corpus autem Christi tam procul a pane, quam supremum coelum a terra.

III. Quod Christus illic præsens sit tantum virtute et operatione sua, et non corpore suo. Quemadmodum sol splendore et operatione sua in terris præsens et efficax est, corpus autem solare superius in coelo existit.

IV. Corpus Christi esse typicum corpus, quod pane et vino tantam significetur et præfiguretur.

V. Quod sola fide, quæ in coelum se elevet, et non ore, accipiatur.

VI. Quod soli digni illud accipiant, indigni autem, qui talem fidem evolantem sursum in coelos non habent, nihil præter panem et vinum accipiant.

Falsa et Erronea Doctrina Calvinistarum.

De Persona Christi,

quæ potissimum iii. et iv. articulo purioris doctrinæ repugnat.

I. Quod Deus Homo, et Homo Deus est, esse figuratam locutionem.

II. Quod humana Natura cum divina non in re et veritate, sed tantum nomine et verbis communionem habeat.

III. Quod Deo impossibile sit ex tota omnipotentia sua præstare, ut corpus Christi naturale simul et instantanee in pluribus, quam in unico loco sit.

IV. Quod Christus secundum humanam Naturam per exaltationem suam tantnm creata dona et finitam potentiam acceperit, non omnia sciat aut possit.

V. Quod Christus secundum Humanitatem absens regnet, sicut Rex Hispaniæ novas Insulas regit.

VI. Quod damnabilis idololatria sit, si fiducia et fides cordis in Christum non solum secundum divinam, sed etiam secundum humanam ipsius Naturam collocetar, et honor adorationis ad utramque dirigatur.

Falsa et Erronea Doctrina Calvinistarum.

De Sacro Baptismo.

I. Baptismum esse externum lavacrum aquæ, per quod interna quædam ablutio a peccatis tantum significetur.

II. Baptisimum non operari neque conferre regenerationem, fidem, gratiam Dei et salutem, sed tantum significare et obsignare ista.

III. Non omnes, qui aqua baptizantur, consequi eo ipso gratiam Christi aut donum fidei sed tantum electos.

IV. Regenerationem non fieri in, vel cum Baptismo, sed postea demum crescente aetate, imo et multis in senectute demum contingere.

V. Salutem non dependere a Baptismo, atque ideo Baptismum in causa necessitatis non permittendum esse in Ecclesia, sed in defectu ordinarii Ministri Ecclesiæ permittendum esse, ut infans sine Baptismo moriatur.

VI. Christianorum infantes jam ante Baptismum esse sanctos, ab utero matris, imo adhuc in utero materno constitutes esse in foedere vitae æternæ cæteroqui Sacrum Baptisma ipsis conferri non posse.

Falsa et Erronea Doctrina Calvinistarum.

De Prædestinatione et Providentia Dei.

I. Christum non pro omnibus hominibus, sed pro solis electis mortuum esse.

II. Deum potissimam partem hominum ad damnationem æternam creasse, et nolle, ut potissima pars convertatur et vivat.

III. Electos et regenitos non posse fidem et Spiritum Sanctum amittere, aut damnari, quamvis omnis generis grandia peccata et flagitia committant.

IV. Eos vero, qui electi non sunt, necessario damnari, nec posse pervenire ad salutem, etiamsi millies baptizarentur, et quotidie ad Eucharistiam accederent, præterea vitam tam sancte atque inculpate ducerent, quantum unquam fieri potest.

__________________________________________________________________

[701] See above, p. 283.

[702] Under the title: 'Visitation-Artikel im gantzen Churkreiss Sachsen. Sampt derer Calvinisten Negativa und Gegenlehr, und die Form der Subscription, welchergestalt dieselbe beyden Partheien sich zu unterschreiben sind vorgelegt worden.'

[703] He was aided in the composition by Mart. Mirus, George Mylius, and Joshua Lonnerus. Mirus was called by Hospinian 'Inquisitor Saxoniæ, because, as the Lutherans explained this term of reproach, he cleaned the Lord's vineyard of cunning foxes and wild hogs. His last wish was to die an enemy of Calvinists and Papists. Frank, l.c. Vol. I. p. 296.

[704] See Frank, Vol. I. p. 297, and Henke's monograph on Casp. Peucer und Nic. Crell, 1865.

[705] Baptism was performed with exorcism in Lutheran churches, and it was counted one of the chief crimes of the Crypto-Calvinists that they abolished this rite. A Saxon pastor who baptized without exorcism gave great offense to the peasants, who cried after him: 'The naughty priest has not expelled the devil' (Der lose Pfaffe hat den Teufel nicht ausgetrieben).

[706] It is almost incredible to what extent the Lutheran bigotry of those days carried its hatred of Zwinglianism and Calvinism. We give a few characteristic specimens. Schlüsselburg (Superintendent of Ratzeburg), one of the most learned champions of Lutheran orthodoxy, in his Theologiæ Calvinistarum Libri Tres, Francoforti ad Mænum, 1592, tries to prove that the Calvinists are unsound in almost every article of the Christian faith ('Sacramentarios de nullo fere doctrinæ Christianæ articulo recte sentire'), and has a special chapter to show that the Calvinistic writings overflow with mendaciis, calumniis, conviciis, maledictis, et contumeliis. He regards many of their doctrines as downright blasphemy. Philip Nikolai, a pious Lutheran pastor at Unna, afterwards at Hamburg, and author of two of the finest German hymns ('Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern,' and 'Wachet auf! ruft uns die Stimme'), called the God of the Calvinists 'a roaring bull (Wucherstier und Brüllochs), a bloodthirsty Moloch, a hellish Behemoth and Leviathan, a fiend of men!' (Kurtzer Bericht von der Calvinisten Gott und ihrer Religion, Frkf. 1597; Die erst Victoria, Triumph und Freudenjubel über des Calvin Geistes Niederlag, 1600; Calvinischer Vitzliputzli, etc. See Frank, Vol. I. p. 280. Provost Magirus, of Stuttgart, thought that the Calvinists imitated at times the language of Luther, as the hyena the human voice, for the destruction of men. John Modest wrote a book to prove that the Sacramentarians are no Christians, but baptized Jews and Mohammedans ('Beweis aus der heiligen Schrift dass die Sacramentirer nicht Christen sind, sondern getaufte Juden und Mahometisten, Jena, 1586). John Prätorius, in a satire (Calvinisch Gasthaus zur Narrenkayffen, etc.), distinguishes open Calvinists, who have no more sense than a horse or an ass; secret Calvinists, who fish in the dark; and several other classes (see Frank, Vol. I. p. 282 sq.). The second Psalm, speaking of the rebellion against Jehovah and his Anointed, was applied to the Calvinists, and their condemnation was embodied in catechisms, hymns, and popular rhymes, of which the following are fair specimens:

'Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort

Und wehr der Calvinisten Mord.'

'Wenn ein Calvinist spricht, Gott grüss dich,

So wünscht sein Herz, der Tod hol dich.'

'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr

Vergehet nun und nimmermehr,

Und ob's gleich bisse noch so sehr

Die Calvinisten an ihrer Ehr.'

'Gottes Wort und Lutheri Schrift

Sind des Papsts und Calvini Gift.' __________________________________________________________________

§ 49. AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, 1655.

Finally, we must briefly notice an unsuccessful attempt to increase the number of Lutheran symbols which was made during the Syncretistic controversies in the middle of the seventeenth century. [707]

George Calixtus (1586 to 1656), Professor of Theology in the University of Helmstädt (since 1614), which had previously protested against the ubiquity dogma of the Formula of Concord, was disgusted with the exclusive and pugnacious orthodoxy of his day, and advocated, in the liberal and catholic spirit of Melanchthon, peace and conciliation among the three great Confessions--the Lutheran, Catholic, and Reformed. He went back to the Apostles' Creed and the oecumenical consensus of the first five centuries (consensus quinquesecularis) as a common basis for all, claiming for the Lutheran Church only a superior purity of doctrine, and surrendering as unessential its distinctive peculiarities. This reaction against sectarian exclusiveness and in favor of Catholic expansion within the Lutheran communion was denounced by the orthodox divines of Wittenberg and Leipzig as Syncretism, i.e., as a Babylonian mixture of all sorts of religions, or a Samaritan compound of Popish, Calvinistic, Synergistic, Arminian, and even atheistic errors. A war to the knife was waged against it, and lasted from 1645 to 1686. Calixtus had expressed a hope to meet many Calvinists in heaven, but this was traced directly to an inspiration of the devil.

The chief opponent of Syncretism was Abraham Calovius, the fearless champion of an infallible orthodoxy, admired by some as the Lutheran Athanasius, abhorred by others as the Lutheran Torquemada; in his own estimation a strenuus Christi athleta, certainly a veritable malleus hæreticorum; of vast learning and a herculean working power, which no amount of domestic affliction could break down. [708] His daily prayer was, 'Reple me, Deus, odio hoereticorum.' He excluded Calixtus, as well as Bellarmin, Calvin, and Socinus, from heaven. As the best means of suppressing this complex syncretistic heresy, and of preventing a schism in the Lutheran Church, he prepared in 1655 a Repeated Consensus of the truly Lutheran Faith, which was finally published in Latin and German at Wittenberg in 1664. [709]

This creed first professes and teaches, in the order of the Augsburg Confession, the orthodox doctrine, and then rejects and condemns no less than eighty-eight syncretistic heresies, proved from the writings of Calixtus, Hornejus, Latermann, and Dreier. The first fundamental section anathematizes the Calixtine concession of the imperfection of the Lutheran Church, the relative recognition of Catholics and Calvinists as Christian brethren, and the assertion of the necessity of Church tradition alongside of the Scriptures. The following doctrines are rejected, not simply as doubtful, erroneous, or dangerous opinions (which some of them are), but as downright heresies: That the article of the Trinity is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament; that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers as a gift, not as an essence; that theology need not prove the existence of God, since it is already certain from philosophy; that Jews and Mohammedans are not idolaters; that original sin is simply a carentia justitiæ; that souls are created by God (creationism); that Christ's body is not omnipresent; that sanctification enters in any way into the idea of justification; that the true Church embraces also Calvinists, Papists, and Greeks; that infants have no faith; that John vi. treats of the Lord's Supper; that man is active in his conversion; that symbolical books are to be only conditionally subscribed quatenus Scripturæ S. consentiunt; that the symbols contain many things as necessary to salvation, which God has not fixed as such; that unbaptized infants are only negatively punished; that good works are necessary to obtain eternal life. A prayer that God may avert all innovations and corruptions from the Orthodox Church, and preserve it in this repeated consensus, forms the conclusion.

This new symbol goes far beyond the Formula of Concord, and would have so contracted Lutheranism as to exclude from it all independent thought and theological progress. It prolonged and intensified the controversy, but nowhere attained ecclesiastical authority. It was subscribed only by the theological faculties of Wittenberg and Leipzig, and rejected by the theologians of Jena, who were pupils of the celebrated John Gerhard, and occupied a milder position. With the death of Calovius the controversy died out, and his symbol was buried beyond the hope of a resurrection. Orthodoxy triumphed, but it was only a partial victory, and the last which it achieved.

During these violent controversies and the awful devastations of the Thirty-Years' War, there arose among a few divines in the Lutheran, Reformed, and Catholic Churches an intense desire for the reunion of Christendom, which found its expression in the famous adage so often erroneously attributed to St. Augustine: 'In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. [710] It had no practical effect, but sounds like a prophecy of better times.

Soon afterwards arose a second and more successful reaction in the Pietism of Spener and Francke, which insisted on the claims of practical piety against a dead orthodoxy in the Lutheran Church, just as the school of Coccejus did in the Reformed Church of Holland, and the Methodism of Wesley and Whitefield in the Church of England. Then followed, toward the close of the eighteenth century, the far more radical reaction of Rationalism, which broke down, stone by stone, the venerable building of Lutheran orthodoxy, and the whole traditional system of Christian doctrine. Rationalism, in its various forms and phases, laid waste whole sections of Germany, especially those where once a rigorous orthodoxy had most prevailed; it affected also the Reformed churches of the Continent, and, in a less degree, those of England and America. Fortunately the power of this great modern apostasy has been broken, in the nineteenth century, by an extensive revival of the principles of the Reformation, with a better appreciation of its Confessions of Faith, not so much in their subordinate differences as in their essential harmony. __________________________________________________________________

[707] H. Schmid: Geschichte der Synkretistischen Streitigkeiten in der Zeit des Georg Calixt, Erlangen, 1846. W. Gass: G. Calixt und der Synkretismus, Breslau, 1846; and his Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik, Vol. II. p. 68. Baur: Ueber den Charakter und die Bedeutung des calixtin. Synkretismus, in the Theol. Jahrbücher for 1848, p. 163. E. L. Th. Henke: G. Calixtus und seine Zeit, Halle, 1853-1860, 2 vols.; and his Art. Synkretismus and Synkretistische Streitigkeiten, in Herzog, Vol. XV. (1862), pp. 342 and 346. G. Frank: Geschichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. Vol. II. 1865, p. 4.

[708] Abraham Calov (properly Kalau) was born in 1612 at Mohrungen, Prussia (the birthplace of the great Herder--'Esau and Jacob from one womb'), and labored with untiring industry as Professor and General Superintendent at Wittenberg from 1650 to his death, 1686. He stood in high esteem, and controlled the whole faculty, except Meisner, who fell out with him in 1675, so that they no more greeted each other, not even at the communion altar. The Elector, George II., always stayed at his house when he was at Wittenberg. Calovius wrote a system of theology, in twelve volumes (Sytstema locorum theolog. 1655-1677), a Commentary on the whole Bible against Grotius, in four folios (Biblia illustrata, 1672), and an endless number of polemical works against ancient and modern heretics, some of which had to be prohibited. His domestic history is perhaps without a parallel. He buried no less than thirteen children and five wives in succession. At the death-bed of the fourth he sang with all his might the hymn, 'Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern,' especially (as Tholuck relates) the last stanza, 'Wie bin ich doch so herzlich froh.' etc. He asked her whether she were willing to go to her Lord; she replied: 'Herr Jesu, dir leb' ich, Herr Jesu, dir sterb' ich.' A few months after the death of his fifth partner, when seventy-two years of age ('senili amore, morbo nequaquam senili, vehementer laborans,' and 'maxima cum multorum offensione'), he led to the altar the youthful daughter of his colleague, Quenstädt. A friend of Spener wrote to the latter, May 10, 1684 (as quoted by Tholuck): 'The septuagenarian senex consularis has prostituted himself strongly intra and extra ecclesiam. What is the use of all learning, if one can not control his appetites? He is said to be so debilitated that he can not walk five steps sine lassitudine.' Calovius enjoyed his sixth marriage only two years. For a full account of him, see Tholuck, Wittenberger Theologen, 1852, pp. 185-211, and his Art. Calov, in Herzog, Vol. II. p. 506; also Gass, Geschichte der protest. Dogm. Vol. I. p. 332; and G. Frank, Vol. II. p. 26. Tholuck characterizes him thus (W. Theol. p. 207): ' Gemüthlose Zähigkeit bei innerlich kochender Leidenschaftlichkeit erscheint als Grundzug dieses theologischen Charakters; weder auf der Kanzel, noch in vertraulichen Briefen, noch in den theologischen Schriften ein Lebenshauch christlicher, selten auch nur menschlicher Wärme. Die Menschen erscheinen ihm wie Zahlen, und unter den dogmatischen Problemen bewegt er sich wie unter Rechenexempeln.'

[709] 'Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ in illis doctrinæ capitibus, quæ contra puram et invariatam Augustanam Confessionem aliosgue libros symbolicos in Libro Concordiæ comprehensos, scriptis publicis impugnant D. G. Calixtus, ejusque complices.' First published in the Consilia Theologica Wittebergensia, 1664, then often separately by Calovius. A new edition by the late Prof. Henke of Marburg: Consensus repetitus fidei veræ Lutheranæ, MDCLV. Librorum ecclesiæ evangelicæ symbolicorum supplementum, Marburg, 1847 (pp. viii. and 70). For a summary, see H. Schmid, l.c. pp. 376 sqq., and Frank, l.c. Vol. II. pp. 12 sqq. Calovius wrote no less than twenty-eight books against the Syncretists, the principal of which are Syncretismus Calixtinus, 1653; Synopsis controversiarum . . . cum hæreticis et schismaticis modernis Socinianis, Anabaptistis, Weigelianis, Remonstrantibus, Pontificiis, Calvinianis, Calixtinis, etc. 1652; and Harmonia Calixtino-hæretica, etc., 1655. See H. Schmid, l.c. p. 237, who with all his orthodox sympathies complains of the endless repetitions and prolixity of these controversial writings. They are almost unreadable. I have before me a defense of the Consensus Repetitus, by Aegidius Straucher. Wittenb. 1668 (551 pp.), the mere title of which covers twenty-nine lines.

[710] Dr. Lücke (in a special treatise, Göttingen, 1850) traces the authorship with some degree of certainty to Rupert Meldenius, who belonged to the irenical school of the seventeenth century. Comp. Klose, in Herzog, Vol. IX. p. 304. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Seventh Chapter. The Creeds Of The Evangelical Reformed Churches.

SEVENTH CHAPTER.

THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCHES. __________________________________________________________________

§ 50. The Reformed Confessions.

Literature.

I. Collections of Reformed Symbols.

Harmonia | Confession | Fidei | Orthodixarum, et Reformatarum Ecclesiarum, | quæ in præcipuis quibusque Europæ Regnis, Nationibus, et Provinciis, sacrum Evangelii doctrinam pure profitentur: quarum catalogum et ordinem sequentes paginæ indicabunt. | Additæ sunt ad calcem brevissimæ observationes: quibus turn illustrantur obscura, tum quæ in speciem pugnare inter se videri possunt, perspicue atque modestissime conciliantur: et si quæ adhuc contraversa manent, syncere indiciantur. | Quæ omnia, Ecclesiarum Gallicarum, et Belgicarum nomine, subjiciuntur libero et prudenti reliquarum omnium judicio. Genevæ apud Petrum Santandreanum. MDLXXXI. (4to).

This is the first attempt at comparative Dogmatics or Symbolics. It grew out of a desire for one common Creed, which was modified into the idea of a selected harmony. In this shape it was proposed by the Protestants of Zurich and Geneva, intrusted to Beza, Daneau, and Salnar (or Salnard, or Salvart, minister of the Church of Castres), and chiefly executed by the last of the three. It was intended as a defense of Protestant, and particularly Reformed, doctrine against the constant attacks of Romanists and Lutherans. It does not give the Confessions in full, but extracts from them on the chief articles of faith, which are classified under nineteen sections. It anticipates Winer's method, but for harmonistic purposes. Besides the principal Reformed Confessions, three Lutheran Confessions are also used, viz., the Augsburg, the Saxon, and the Würtemberg Confessions. The work appeared almost simultaneously with the Lutheran Formula of Concord, and may be called a Reformed Formula of Concord, though differing from the former in being a mere compilation from previous symbols. (I imported a well-bound copy, which seems to have been the property of the Elector John Casimir, whose likeness and escutcheon are impressed on the cover. He suggested the preparation of such a work.)

An English translation of this irenic work appeared first at Cambridge, 1586 (12mo), and then again in London, 1643 (4to), under the title: 'An Harmony of the Confessions of Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches, which purely profess the holy doctrine of the Gospel, in all the chief kingdoms, nations, and provinces of Europe, etc. All which things, in the names of the Churches of France and Belgia, are submitted to the free and discreet judgment of all the Churches. Newly translated out of Latin into English, etc. Allowed by public authority.' According to Strype (Annals of the Reformation, ad a. 1586), Archbishop Whitgift, owing to some jealousy among publishers, first forbade the publication of the Harmony, but afterwards allowed it.

A new edition by Rev. Peter Hall (Rector of Milston, Wilts), under the modified title: The Harmony of Protestant Confessions: exhibiting the Faith of the Churches of Christ, Reformed after the pure and holy doctrine of the Gospel, throughout Europe. Translated from the Latin. A new edition, revised and considerably enlarged. London, 1842 (640 pages, large 8vo).

Corpus et Syntagma | Confessionum | Fidei, | quæ in diversis regnis et nationibus, ecclesiarum nomine fuerunt authentice editæ: in celeberrimis conventibus exhibitæ, publicaque auctoritate comprobatæ, etc. (first ed. Aureliæ Allobrog. 1612). Editio nova, Genevæ, sumptibus Petri Chouët, 1654.

The first edition of this rare and valuable book was probably compiled by Gaspar Laurentius, who is not named on the title-page, but who signs himself in the dedicatory Epistle to Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, before the 'Orthodox Consensus' (in Part III.), and says, in the 'General Preface,' that he edited this Consensus a. 1595, and now (1612) in a much improved form. His object was the same as that of the Harmony, viz., to show the essential unity of the evangelical faith in the multiplicity and variety of Confessions which, as the Preface says, in the absence of conspiracy, only strengthen the harmony, and mutually illustrate and supplement each other, like many orthodox expositions of the Scriptures. The second edition, of which I have a copy, is a large quarto volume, consisting of three main parts, the several documents being paged separately. It contains the principal Reformed Confessions down to the Synod of Dort, three Lutheran Confessions, and several other documents, as follows: 1. The Harmonia sive Concordantia Confessionum Fidei per (xiii.) Articulos digesta, with the Symbolum Apostolicum, as the basis of a general consensus, supported by Scripture texts and references to the various Confessions of the collection (8 pp.); 2. Confessio Helvetica posterior, reprinted from a Zurich edition of 1651: 3. Confessio Helvetica prior (or Basileensis II.), 1536; 4. Confessio Basileensis I. (or Mylhusiana), 1532; 5. Confessio Gallica, from the Latin edition of 1566; 6. Confessio Anglicana, 1562; 7. Confessio Scotica of 1560, and the second of 1580; 8. Confessio Ecclesiarum Belgicarum, 1559; 9. Confessio Czengerina, the Hungarian Confession, 1570; 10. Confessio Polonica, or Consensus Poloniæ (Sendomirensis) 1570; 11. Confessio Argentinensis S. Tetrapolitana, 1531; 12. Confessio Angustana, from the Wittenberg edition of 1540; 13. Confessio Saxonica, s. Misnica, 1551; 14. Confessio Wirtembergica, 1552; 15. Confessio Illustrissimi Electoris Palatini, Friderici III., 1576; 16. Confessio Bohemica (the first of the two Bohemian Confessions, which was presented to King Ferdinand in 1535. It contains a Preface by Luther. The second was compiled 1575); 17. Consensus Ecclesiarum Majoris el Minoris Poloniæ, Lithuaniæ, etc., 1583. Appended: Acta et Conclusiones Synodi Generalis Thoruniensis; 18. Articuli Confessionis Basileensis of the year 1647; 19. Canones Synodi Dordrechtanæ, 1619; 20. Confessio Cyrilli Patriarchæ Constantinop., 1631; 21. Catholicus Consensus, viz., A Harmony of Christian Doctrine, compiled from the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, under the following heads: (a) On the Word of God as the Rule of Faith; (b) On God, the Trinitarian and Christological Doctrines; (c) On Divine Providence; (d) On the Head of the Church; (e) On Justification; (f) On Free Will, Original Sin, Election and Predestination; (g) On the Sacraments; (h) On Idolatry, the Worship of Images, etc.; (i) On the True Way of Worshiping and Serving God; (k) On the Church and the Ministry; (l) Resurrection and the Future State.

Confessiones Fidei Ecclesiarum Reformatarum. Græce et Lat. Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Confessio, interpr. Jac. Revio, et Catechesis interpr. F. Sylburgio. Lugd. Bat. Elzev. 1635, 12mo; Amstel. 1638, 12mo. Ultrajecti, 1660, and often. (This little volume contains a Greek translation of the Belgic Confession by Revius, and a Greek translation of the Heidelberg Catechism by Sylburg, both with the Latin text in the second Column, for the use of schools in Holland.)

A Collection of Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, books of Discipline, etc., of Publick Authority in the Church of Scotland. Together with all the Acts of the Assembly which are Standing Rules concerning the Doctrine, Worship, Government, and Discipline of the Church of Scotland. [By William Dunlop.] Edinburgh, 1719, 1722, in 2 vols. (A third volume was promised, but never appeared, as far as I know.) This rare and valuable collection contains, in the first volume, the Westminster Standards; in the second volume, the Confession of Faith of the English Congregation at Geneva, the Scotch Confession of 1560, the Scotch Confession of 1580, the National Covenant of 1638, Calvin's Catechism, the Heidelberg, and some other Catechisms and Books of Discipline. The first volume has also a long Preface (153 pp.) on the Purpose and Use of Creeds.

Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandæ Ecclesiæ editarum. Oxon. 1804. Ed. altera et auctior (under the revision of Bishop Lloyd). Oxon. 1827. No editor mentioned. This Collection (suggested by Bishop Cleaver) is very elegantly printed in the Clarendon Press, but has no critical value, and is incomplete. It contains: The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Basle Confession (1532), the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540 (to which, in the second edition only, was added the Augustana of 1530), the Saxon Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort, all in Latin, and without a translation or introduction.

Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt, Ed. J. Chr. G. Augusti. Elberfeldi, 1827, 8vo. Contains three Helvetic, the Gallic, the Anglican, the Scotch, the Belgic, the Hungarian, Polish, and Bohemian Confessions, the Canons of Dort, the Consensus Helveticus, and the Geneva and Heidelberg Catechisms, with an historical and literary dissertation.

Die Symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche. Zum ersten Male aus dem Lateinischen vollständig übersetzt und mit histor. Einleitungen und Anmerkungen begleitet. . . . Für Freunde der Union und für alle, die über Entstehung, Inhalt und Zweck der Bekenntniss-Schriften sich zu belehren wünschen. (By Friedrich Adolph Beck.) 2 Theile. Neustadt a. d. Orla, 1830; 2te wohlfeile Ausg. 1845. A good edition, with brief introductions and notes. The Augsburg Confession and the Creed of Pius IV. are appended to the Second Vol., pp. 350-410.

Sammlung Symbolischer Bücher der evang.-reformirten Kirche für Presbyterien, Schullehrer, Confirmanden, und alle welche eine Union auf dem Grunde der heilsamen Lehre und in der Einheit der alten wahren Kirche Christi wünschen. Herausgeg. von J. J. Mess. 3 Theile. Neuwied, 1828, 1830, and 1846, 8vo.

H. A. Niemeyer: Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis publicatarum. Lips. 1840 (851 pages large octavo, with 88 pages of Introductory Preface), and Collectionis Confessionum Appendix, qua continentur Puritanorum Libri Symbolici. Lipsiæ, 1840 (pp. 113). This is the most complete Latin collection of Reformed Symbols, and contains thirty-one in all, including the Zwinglian and early Swiss Confessions. It is, however, poorly edited, without an index and table of contents. Niemeyer had completed the large volume before he had seen a single copy of the Westminster Standards, and he published them nine months afterwards in an Appendix.

Die Bekenntniss-schriften der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche. Mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen, herausgegeben von E. G. Adolf Böckel (Oberhofprediger and General Superintendent in Oldenburg). Leipzig, 1847 (884 large octavo pages). The best German collection, containing thirty-two Reformed Symbols, including the Anglican Catechism and the Arminian Confessions, which Niemeyer omits.

Die Bekenntniss-schriften der Reformirten Kirchen Deutschlands. Herausgegeben von Dr. Heinrich Heppe. Elberfeld, 1860 (310 pp.). Contains the Confession of Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate (1577), the Repetitio Anhaltina (1581), Anfrichtige Rechenschaft von Lehr und Ceremonien (1593), Consensus Ministerii Bremensis Ecclesiæ (1595), the Confession of the General Synod held at Cassel (1608), a Report on the Faith of the Reformed Churches in Germany (1607), the Confession of John Sigismund of Brandenburg (1614), another Confession of the same (1615), and the Emden Catechism (1554), all in German.

J. Rawson Lumby (Cambridge): The Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, with Special Reference to the Articles of the Church of England (in preparation; to be published in Cambridge and London, 1875).

II. Historical and Doctrinal Works Bearing on the Reformed Confessions.

1. The doctrinal works of Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, OEcolampadius, Bullinger, Ursinus, Olevianus, Knox, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Grindal, Jewell, Hooker, and other Reformers and standard divines of the sixteenth century.

2. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche. Biographies of Zwingli, Calvin, OEcolampadius, and the other Reformers, by Baum, Christoffel, Hagenbach, Heppe, Pestalozzi, Schmidt, Stähelin, Sudhoff, etc. Elberfeld, 1857-1862. Ten Parts. One volume of this series--Christoffel's Life of Zwingli--is translated into English, but without the extracts from his writings.

3. Older Controversial Works of Reformed Divines:

J. Hoornbeek: Summa controversiarum religionis cum infidelibus, hæreticis, schismaticis. Utrecht, 1658. 1676, 1689; Francf. a. O. 1697, 8vo.

Fr. Turretin: Inst. theologiæ elenchticæ. Geneva, 1682, 1688, 3 vols. 4to; Utrecht, 1701, 4 vols. 4to, etc.

B. Pictet: De consensu et dissensu inter Reformatos et Augustanæ Confessionis fratres. Genev. 1700.

F. Spanheim: Controversiarum de religione cum dissidentibus elenchus hist. theol. Leyd. 1687; fifth edition, Leyd. 1757, 4to.

Du Gerdes: Elenchus veritatum, circa quas defendendas versatur theol. elenchthica. Gröningen, 1740, 4to.

J. F. Stapfer: Institutiones theologicæ polem. Zurich, 1743-47, 5 vols. 8vo.

Du Wyttenbach: Theol. elenchticæ initia. Francf. a. M. 1763, 1765, 2 vols. 8vo.

Comp. also the list of older dogmatic works of the Reformed Church in Heppe's Dogmatik der evang.-reform. Kirche, at the end of Preface, and in Schweizer's Glaubenslehre der evang.-reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. xxi.-xxiii.

4. Recent Historico-Dogmatic Works:

H. Heppe (Marburg): Dogmatik der evang.-reform. Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, Elberfeld, 1861; and his Dogmatik des Deutschen Protestantismus im 16ten Jahrh. Gotha, 1857, 3 vols.

Alex. Schweizer (Zurich): Die Protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der Reformirten Kirche. Zurich, 1854-56, 2 vols. Also his Glaubenslehre der evang.-reform. Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt. Zurich, 1844-47, 2 vols.

Aug. Ebrard (Erlangen): Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte (Frankfurt a. M. 1846), the second vol.; and also his Christliche Dogmatik. Königsberg, 1851, 1852, 2 vols.

Charles Hodge (Princeton): Systematic Theology. New York, 1873, 3 vols.

J. J. van Oosterzee (Utrecht): Christian Dogmatics. Translated from the Dutch by Watson and Evans. London and New York, 1874, 2 vols.

The Reformed Confessions are much more numerous than the Lutheran, because they represent a larger territory and several nationalities--Swiss, German, French, Dutch, English, and Scotch--each of which produced its own doctrinal and disciplinary standards, since the geographical and political divisions and the close relations to the civil government determined also the number of ecclesiastical organizations. The productive period of the Reformed movement, moreover, extended far into the seventeenth century, especially in England, and some of the most important confessions, as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards, were made long after the symbolic development of the Lutheran Church had reached its culmination and rest in the Formula of Concord. Finally the Reformed Church departs further from the authority of ecclesiastical traditionalism than the Lutheran, and allows more freedom for the development of various types of doctrine and schools of theology within the limits of the Word of God, to which it more rigidly adheres.

But with all this variety, the Reformed symbols are as much agreed in the essential articles of faith as the Lutheran, and differ even less than the Augsburg Confession, as explained by its author and his school, differs from the Formula of Concord. [711] They exhibit substantially the same system of doctrine, and are only variations of one theme according to the wants of the national Churches for which they were intended. The Reformed Churches were never organically united under one form of government, and even every little canton in Switzerland (as every Lutheran principality in Germany) has its own ecclesiastical establishment; [712] but they recognized each other as branches of the same family, and kept up a lively intercommunion. Even the leading divines and dignitaries of the Episcopal Church of England, during the sixteenth century, freely corresponded with the Reformed Churches of Switzerland, France, and Holland, and the difference in church polity was no bar to church fellowship.

There are in all over thirty Reformed creeds. But many of them had never more than local authority, or were superseded by later and maturer forms. None of them has the same commanding position as the Augsburg Confession in the Lutheran Church. Those which have been most widely accepted and are still most in use are the Heidelberg or Palatinate Catechism, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Westminster Confession. The second Helvetic Confession and the Canons of Dort are equal to them in authority and theological importance, but less adapted for popular use. All the rest have now little more than historical significance.

As to origin and theological character, the Reformed Confessions may be divided into Zwinglian and Calvinistic. The earlier were the product of Zwingli and his Swiss coadjutors, the later date from Calvin or his pupils and successors, and exhibit a more advanced and matured state of doctrine, with a difference, however, as to the extent to which they are committed to the Calvinistic system; some accepting it in full, while others maintain a reserve in regard to its angular points and rigorous logical consequences.

As to the country in which they originated and for which they were chiefly intended, we may divide them into Swiss, German, French, Dutch, English, and Scotch Confessions.

To the Swiss family belong the Confessions which proceeded from the Churches of Zurich, Basle, Berne, and Geneva, partly of Zwinglian and partly of Calvinistic origin.

The German family embraces the Tetrapolitan Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Brandenburg and Anhalt Confessions, and a few others. They are less pronounced in their Calvinism, and mediate between it and the Lutheran Creed.

To France and the Netherlands belong the French and the Belgic Confessions, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and also the Arminian Articles, which differ from the Calvinistic creeds in five points.

The English family embraces the Thirty-nine Articles, the old Scotch Confessions, and the later Westminster Standards.

Besides, there are Bohemian, Polish, and Hungarian Confessions of lesser importance.

Note.--We take the term Reformed here in its catholic and historical sense for all those Churches which were founded by Zwingli and Calvin and their fellow-reformers in the sixteenth century on the Continent, and in England and Scotland, and which agreed with the Lutheran Church in opposition to the Roman Catholic, but differed from it in the doctrine of the real presence, afterward also in the doctrine of predestination. By their opponents they were first called in derision Zwinglians and Calvinists, also Sacramentarians or Sacramentschwärmer (by Luther and in the Formula of Concord), and in France Huguenots. But they justly repudiated all such sectarian names, and used instead the designations Christian or Evangelical or Reformed, or Evangelical Reformed or Reformed Catholic. The term Reformed assumed the ascendency in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere. Beza, e.g., uses it constantly. Queen Elizabeth, in sundry letters to the Protestant courts of Germany in 1577, speaks throughout of ecclesiæ reformatæ, and once calls the non-Lutheran Churches ecclesiæ reformatiores, more Reformed, implying that the Lutheran is Reformed also.

The Lutherans, before the last quarter of the sixteenth century, called themselves likewise Christian and Evangelical, sometimes Reformed, and since 1530 the Church or Churches of the Augsburg Confession, or Verwandte der Augsburgischen Confession. For a long time they disowned the terms Lutheranus, Luthericus, Lutheranismus, which were first used by Dr. Eck, Cochlæus, Erasmus, and other Romanists with the view to stigmatize their religion as a recent innovation and human invention. (A Papist once asked a Lutheran, 'Where was your Church before Luther?' The Lutheran answered by asking another question, 'Where was your face this morning before it was washed?') Erasmus speaks of Lutherana tragædia, negotium Lutheranum, factio Lutherana. Hence the Lutheran symbols never use the term Lutheran, except once, and then by way of complaint that the 'dear, holy Gospel should be called Lutheran.' [713] Luther himself complained of this use of his name; nevertheless he had no objection that it should be duly honored in connection with the Word of God, and thought that his followers need not be ashamed of him. [714] They thought so, too; and, forgetting St. Paul's warning against sectarian names, they gradually themselves appropriated the term Lutheran, or Evangelical Lutheran, as the official title of their Church, since about 1585, under the influence of Jacob Andreæ, the chief author of the Formula of Concord, and Ægidius Hunnius, and in connection with the faith in Luther as a special messenger of God for the restoration of Christianity in its doctrinal purity. See the proof in the little book of Dr. Heinrich Heppe, Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnungen 'reformirte' und 'lutherische' Kirche, Gotha, 1859, pp. 28, 35, 55.

The negative term Protestant was used after 1529 for both Confessions by friend and foe, and is so used to this day; but it must be explained from the historical occasion which gave rise to it, and be connected with the positive faith in the Word of God, on the ground of which the evangelical members of the Diet of Spires protested against the decision of the papal majority, as an encroachment on the rights of conscience and an enforcement of the traditions of men.

On the Continent of Europe it is still customary to divide orthodox Christendom into three Confessions or Creeds--the Catholic (Greek and Roman), the Lutheran, and the Reformed--and to embrace under the Reformed all other Protestant bodies, such as Methodists and Baptists, or to speak of them as mere sects. But this will not do in England and America, where these sects, so called, have become powerful Churches. Reformed is sometimes used among us in a more general sense of all Protestant Churches, sometimes in a restricted sense of a particular branch of the Reformed Church. The Continental terminology suits the ecclesiastical statistics of the sixteenth century, but must be considerably enlarged and modified in view of the greater number of Anglo-American Churches. We shall devote a separate chapter to those Protestant evangelical bodies which have taken their rise since the Reformation. __________________________________________________________________

[711] This doctrinal consensus of the Reformed Creeds has been shown as early as 1581 in the Harmonia Confessionum above quoted.

[712] In this respect the Churches of the United States, being free from government control, are much better organized, according to creeds, without allowing the State boundaries to interfere with their organic unity.

[713] Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XV. (VIII. p. 213 ed. Müller): 'Das liebe, heilige Evangelium nennen sie [the Papists] Lutherisch.' The name of Luther, however, is often honorably mentioned, especially in the Formula of Concord.

[714] 'Wahr ist's,' he says (Works, Erl. ed. Vol. XXVIII. p. 316), 'dass du bei Leib und Seele nicht sol1st sagen: ich bin Lutherisch oder Päpstisch; denn derselben ist keiner für dich gestorben, noch dein Meister, sondern allein Christus, und sollst dich (als) Christen bekennen. Aber wenn du es dafür hältst, dass des Luthers Lehre evangelisch und des Papstes unevangelisch sei, so musst du den Luther nicht so gar hinwerfen. Du wirfst sonst seine Lehre auch mit hin, die du doch für Christi Lehre erkennest; sondern also musst du sagen: der Luther sei ein Bube oder heilig, da liegt mir nichts an; seine Lehre aber ist nicht sein, sondern Christi selbst.' And in another place (Vol. XL. p. 127): 'Und wiewohl ich's nicht gern habe, dass man die Lehre und Leute Lutherisch nennt, und muss von ihnen leiden, dass sie Gottes Wort mit meinem Namen also schänden, so sollen sie doch den Luther, die Lutherischen Lehre und Leute lassen bleiben und zu Ehren kommen.' __________________________________________________________________

I. Swiss Reformed Confessions.

§ 51. Zwinglian Confessions.

Literature.

H. Zwinglii Opera ed. Gualther (Zwingli's son-in-law), Tig. 1545 and 1581, 4 Tom.; ed. M. Schuler u. J. Schulthess, Tig. 1828-42, 8 Tom. The last and only complete edition contains the German and Latin works, with a supplemental volume of tracts and letters, published 1861. A judicious selection from his writings, in German, for popular use, was edited by Christoffel, Zurich, 1843-46, in fifteen small volumes, also in the second part of his biography of Zwingli.

Biographies of Zwingli by Myconius, Nüscheler, Hess, Rotermund, Schuler, Hottinger, Röder, Tichler, Christoffel (Elberfeld, 1857), and especially Mörikofer: Ulrich Zwingli nach den urkundlichen Quellen, Leipzig, 1867-69, 2 vols. Hottinger and Christoffel are translated into English, but the latter without the valuable extracts from Zwingli's writings. Güder's art. on Zwingli, in Herzog's Encykl. Vol. XVIII. pp. 701-766, is a condensed biography. Robbins, Life of Zwingli, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1851.

Also A. Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte (Francf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 1-112 (an able vindication of Zwingli against misrepresentations). Ed. Zeller: Das theologische System Zwingli's, Tüb. 1853. Ch. Sigwart: Ulrich Zwingli, der Charakter seiner Theologie, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Picus von Mirandula, Stuttg. 1855. H. Spörri: Zwinglistudien, Leipz. 1866. Merle d'Aubigné: History of the Reformation, 4th vol. (French, English, and German). Hagenbach: Geschichte der Reform., 4th ed. Leipz. 1870, pp. 183 sqq. G. P. Fisher: The Reformation, New York, 1873, pp. 137 sqq.

Zwingli (1484-1531) represents the first stage of the Reformed Church in Switzerland. He began what Calvin and others completed. He died in the prime of life, a patriot and martyr, on the battle-field, when his work seemed to be but half done. His importance is historical rather than doctrinal. He was the most clear-headed and liberal among the reformers, but lacked the genius, depth, and vigor of Luther and Calvin. He held opinions on the sacraments, original sin (as a disorder rather than a state of guilt), and on the salvation of all infants (unbaptized as well as baptized) and the nobler heathen, which then appeared radical, dangerous, and profane. He could conceive of a broad and free Christian union, consistent with doctrinal differences and denominational distinctions. He was a patriotic republican, frank, honorable, incorruptible, cheerful, courteous, and affable. He took an active part in all the public affairs of Switzerland, and labored to free it from foreign influence, misgovernment and immorality. He began at Einsiedeln (1516), and more effectively at Zurich (since 1519), to preach Christ from the pure fountain of the New Testament, and to set him forth as the only Mediator and all-sufficient Saviour. Then followed his attacks upon the corruptions of Rome, and the Reformation was introduced step by step in Zurich, where he exercised a controlling influence, and in the greater part of German Switzerland, until its progress was suddenly checked by the catastrophe at Cappel, 1531.

Zwingli was scarcely two months younger than Luther, who survived him fifteen years. Both were educated and ordained in the Roman Church, and became innocently and providentially reformers of that Church. Both were men of strong mind, heroic character, fervent piety, and commanding influence over the people. Both were good scholars, great divines, and fond of poetry and music. [715] Both labored independently for the same great cause of evangelical Protestantism--the one on a smaller, the other on a larger field. But their endowment, training, and conversion were different. Zwingli had less prejudice, more practical common-sense, clear discrimination, sober judgment, self-control, courtesy, and polish--Luther more productive genius, poetic imagination, overpowering eloquence, mystic; depth, fire, and passion; and was in every way a richer and stronger, though rougher and wilder nature. Zwingli's eyes were opened by the reading of the Greek Testament, which he carefully copied with his own hand, and the humanistic learning of his friend Erasmus; while Luther passed through the ascetic struggles of monastic life, till he found peace of conscience in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Zwingli broke more rapidly and more radically with the Roman Church than Luther. He boldly abolished all doctrines and usages not taught in the Scriptures; Luther piously retained what was not clearly forbidden. He aimed at a reformation of government and discipline as well as theology; Luther confined himself to such changes as were directly connected with doctrine. He was a Swiss and a republican; Luther, a German and a monarchist. He was a statesman as well as a theologian; Luther kept aloof from all political complications, and preached the doctrine of passive obedience to established authority. They met but once in this world, and then as antagonists, at Marburg, two years before Zwingli's death. They could not but respect each other personally, though Luther approached the Swiss with the strongest prejudice, looking upon him as a fanatic and semi-infidel. [716] They came to an agreement on every article of faith except the real presence in the eucharist. Zwingli proposed, with tears, peace and union, notwithstanding this difference, but Luther refused the hand of Christian fellowship, because he made doctrinal agreement the boundary-line of brotherhood. [717]

Zwingli wrote four dogmatic works of a semi-symbolic character, which are closely interwoven with the history of the Reformation in German Switzerland, and present a clear exhibition of the Reformed faith in the first stage of its development. These are the Sixty-seven Articles of Zurich (A.D. 1523), the Ten Theses of Berne (1528), the Confession of Faith to the German Emperor Charles V. (1530), and the Exposition of the Christian Faith to King Francis I. of France (1531). [718]

1. The Sixty-seven Articles, or Conclusions. [719]

They were prepared for a public disputation held January 29, 1523, in the city of Zurich, where Zwingli was chief pastor from 1519, and were victoriously defended by him, in the presence of the civil magistrate and about six hundred persons, against Dr. Faber, the General Vicar of the Bishop of Constance, who appeared to superintend the meeting rather than to defend the old doctrines, and was unwilling or unable to answer the arguments of a learned and powerful opponent. The magistrate passed a resolution on the same day approving of Zwingli's position, and requiring all the ministers of the canton to preach nothing but what they could prove from the holy gospel. A second disputation followed in October, on the use of images and the mass, before about nine hundred persons, including three hundred priests and delegates from different cantons; a third disputation took place in January, 1524. The result was the emancipation from popery, and the orderly and permanent establishment of the Reformed Church in the city and canton of Zurich.

These Articles resemble the Ninety-five Theses of Luther, which opened the drama of the Reformation in Germany, October 31, 1517, but they mark a considerable advance in Protestant conviction. They are full of Christ, as the only Saviour and Mediator, and clearly recognize the Word of God as the only rule of faith. They attack the primacy of the Pope, the mass, the invocation of saints, the meritoriousness of human works, fasts, pilgrimages, celibacy, and purgatory, as unscriptural traditions of men. They are short, and, in this respect, like the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, better adapted for a creed than the lengthy confessions of that age. But they never had more than local authority. We give a few specimens:

1. All who say that the gospel is nothing without the approbation of the Church, err and cast reproach upon God.

2. The sum of the gospel is that our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, has made known to us the will of his heavenly Father, and redeemed us by his innocence from eternal death, and reconciled us to God.

3. Therefore Christ is the only way to salvation for all who were, who are, and who shall be.

4. Whosoever seeks or shows another door, errs--yea, is a murderer of souls and a robber.

7. Christ is the Head of all believers.

8. All who live in this Head are his members and children of God. And this is the true Catholic Church, the communion of saints.

15. Who believes the gospel shall be saved; who believeth not shall be damned. For in the gospel the whole truth is clearly contained.

16. From the gospel we learn that the doctrines and traditions of men are of no use to salvation.

17. Christ is the one eternal high-priest.

18. Christ, who offered himself once on the cross, is the sufficient and perpetual sacrifice for the sins of all believers. Therefore the mass is no sacrifice, but a commemoration of the one sacrifice of the cross and a seal of the redemption through Christ.

19. Christ is the only Mediator between God and us.

22. Christ is our righteousness. From this it follows that our works are good so far as they are Christ's, but not good so far as they are our own.

24. Christians are not bound to any works which Christ has not commanded.

26. Nothing is more displeasing to God than hypocrisy.

27. All Christians are brethren.

34. The power of the Pope and the Bishops has no foundation in the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine of Christ.

49. I know of no greater scandal than the prohibition of lawful marriage to priests, while they are permitted for money to have concubines. Shame! (Pfui der Schande!)

50. God alone forgives sins, through Jesus Christ our Lord alone.

57. The Holy Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life.

2. The Ten Theses of Berne.

After the Conference between the Reformed and the Roman divines (headed by Dr. Eck), held at Baden, in Aargau, May, 1526, which formed a turning-point in the history of the Swiss Reformation (more decided than the similar disputation between Luther and Eck in Leipzig, 1519), the Reformation triumphed in Berne, the most conservative and aristocratic as well as most influential canton of the confederacy. Three ministers, Berthold Haller, Francis Kolb, and Sebastian Meyer, friends of Zwingli, and a gifted layman, Nicolas Manuel, who was a statesman, poet, and painter, had previously prepared the way under great opposition. The magistrate convened a convocation of the clergy and laity, which continued nineteen days, from January 6 to 26, 1528, discussing ten theses which Zwingli had revised and published at the request of Haller. Delegates appeared from other cantons (except the Roman Catholic), and the South German cities of Constance, Ulm, Lindau, and Strasburg. The Bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne, and Sion were also invited, but declined to attend, except the Bishop of Lausanne, who sent a few doctors. Dr. Eck, who had figured as the champion of Romanism in Baden (as well as previously at Leipzig), prudently disdained at this time to follow 'the heretics into their corners and dens.' The principal champions of the Reformed cause were Zwingli (who also preached two very effective sermons on the Apostles' Creed, and against the mass), OEcolampadius, Haller, Kolb, Pellican, Megander, Bucer, and Capito. They carried a complete victory, and hereafter Berne, Zurich, and Basle--the three most enlightened and influential German cantons--were closely linked together in the Reformed faith. [720]

The Bernese Theses are as follows:

1. The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.

2. The Church of Christ makes no laws and commandments without the Word of God. Hence human traditions are no more binding on us than they are founded in the Word of God.

3. Christ is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Hence it is a denial of Christ when we confess another ground of salvation and satisfaction.

4. The essential and corporeal presence of the body and blood of Christ can not be demonstrated from the Holy Scripture.

5. The mass as now in use, in which Christ is offered to God the Father for the sins of the living and the dead, is contrary to the Scripture, a blasphemy against the most holy sacrifice, passion, and death of Christ, and on account of its abuses an abomination before God.

6. As Christ alone died for us, so he is also to be adored as the only Mediator and Advocate between God the Father and the believers. Therefore it is contrary to the Word of God to propose and invoke other mediators.

7. Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life. Hence all masses and other offices for the dead are useless.

8. The worship of images is contrary to the Scripture. Therefore images should be abolished when they are set up as objects of adoration.

9. Matrimony is not forbidden in the Scripture to any class of men, but permitted to all.

10. Since, according to the Scripture, an open fornicator must be excommunicated, it follows that unchastity and impure celibacy are more pernicious to the clergy than to any other class. [721]

In his farewell sermon, Zwingli thus addressed the Bernese: 'Victory has declared for the truth, but perseverance alone can complete the triumph. Christ persevered unto death. Ferendo vincitur fortuna. Behold these idols, behold them conquered, mute, and scattered before us. The gold you have spent upon these foolish images must henceforth be devoted to the comfort of the living images of God in their poverty. In conclusion, stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. v. 1). Fear not! the God who has enlightened you, will enlighten also your confederates; and Switzerland, regenerated by the Holy Ghost, shall flourish in righteousness and peace.'

3. The Confession of Faith to Emperor Charles V. [722]

Zwingli took advantage of the meeting of the famous Diet at Augsburg, held A.D. 1530, to send a Confession of his faith addressed to the German Emperor Charles V., shortly after the Lutheran Princes had presented theirs (June 25). It is dated Zurich, July 3, and was delivered by his messenger at Augsburg on the 8th of the same month, but it shared the same fate as the 'Tetrapolitan Confession' of Bucer and Capito: it was never laid before the Diet, and was treated with undeserved contempt. Dr. Eck wrote in three days a refutation, [723] slanderously charging Zwingli that for ten years he had labored to root out from the people of Switzerland all faith and all religion, and to stir them, up against the magistrate; that he had caused greater devastation among them than the Turks, Tartars, and Huns; that he had turned the churches and convents founded by the Hapsburgers (the Emperor's ancestors) into temples of Venus and Bacchus; and that he now completed his crime by daring to appear before the Emperor with such an impudent piece of writing. The Lutherans (with the exception of Philip of Hesse, who sympathized with Zwingli) were scarcely less indignant, and much more anxious to conciliate the Catholics than to appear in league with Zwinglians and Anabaptists. They felt especially offended that the Swiss Reformer took strong ground against the corporeal presence, and incidentally alluded to them as persons who 'were looking back to the flesh-pots of Egypt.' [724] Melanchthon, who was at that time not yet emancipated from the Catholic tradition on that article, judged him insane. [725]

Zwingli, having had no time to consult with his confederates, offered the Confession in his own name, and submitted it to the judgment of the whole Church of Christ, under the guidance of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

In the first sections he declares, as clearly and even more explicitly than the Lutheran Confession, his faith in the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, as laid down in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (which are expressly named). He teaches the election by free grace, the sole and sufficient satisfaction of Christ, and justification by faith, in opposition to all human mediators and meritorious works. He distinguishes between the internal or invisible, and the external or visible Church; the former is the company of the elect believers and their children, and is the bride of Christ; the latter embraces all nominal Christians and their children, and is beautifully described in the parable of the Ten Virgins, of whom five were foolish. Church may also designate a single congregation, as the church in Rome, in Augsburg, in Leyden. The true Church can never err in the foundation of faith. Purgatory he rejects as an injurious fiction which sets Christ's merits at naught. On original sin, the salvation of unbaptized infants, and the sacraments, he departs much further from the traditional theology than the Lutherans. He goes into a lengthy argument against the corporeal presence in the eucharist. On the other hand, however, he protests against being confounded with the Anabaptists, and rejects their views on infant baptism, civil offices, the sleep of the soul, and universal salvation.

The document is frank and bold, yet dignified and courteous, and concludes thus: 'Hinder not, ye children of men, the spread and growth of the Word of God--ye can not forbid the grass to grow. Ye must see that this plant is richly blessed with rain from heaven. Consider not your own wishes, but the demands of the age concerning the free course of the gospel. Take these words kindly, and show by your deeds that you are children of God.'

4. The Exposition of the Christian Faith to King Francis I. [726]

This is, as Bullinger says, the swan song of Zwingli, in which he surpassed himself. He wrote it in July, 1531, three months before his death, at the request of his friend Maigret, the French ambassador to Switzerland, and sent it in manuscript to Francis I., King of France (1515-1547), who, from political motives, showed himself favorable to the Protestants in Germany and Switzerland, while he persecuted them at home. A few years before he had dedicated to him his 'Commentary on the true and false Religion' (1525), and a few years afterwards (1536) Calvin dedicated to him his Institutes, with a most eloquent and powerful letter; but the frivolous monarch probably never read these voices of warning, which, if properly heeded, might have changed the whole history of France.

This last document of Zwingli is clear, bold, spirited, full of faith and hope. In a brief preface he warns the most Christian King of France against the lies and slanders circulated against the Protestants. He first treats of God, the ultimate ground of our faith and only object of worship. We do not despise the saints and sacraments, we only guard them against abuse; we honor Mary as the perpetual Virgin and Mother of God, [727] but we do not worship her in the proper sense of the term, which we know she herself would never tolerate. The sacraments we honor as signs or symbols of holy things, but not as the holy things themselves. Then he speaks of the holy Trinity, and the incarnation of the eternal Son of God for our salvation, who made a full satisfaction for all our sins. He gives an able exposition of the two natures in the one person of Christ, his death, resurrection, ascension, and return to judgment. He rejects purgatory as a papal fiction. He dwells very fully on the doctrine of the Sacraments, especially the eucharistic presence (rejecting ubiquity). The remaining chapters are devoted to the Church, the Magistrate, the remission of sins, faith and works, eternal life, and an attack on the Anabaptists, with whom the Protestants were often confounded in France. In conclusion, he entreats the king to give the gospel free course in his kingdom; to imitate the example of some pious princes in Germany; to judge by the fruits of the Reformed faith wherever it was fairly established; and to forgive the boldness with which he approached his majesty. The urgency of the case demanded it. An appendix is devoted to the mass, with proofs from the fathers, especially from Augustine, in favor of his view on the Lord's Supper. __________________________________________________________________

[715] See Zwingli's poems, written during the pestilence, in Hagenbach, 1.c. p. 216, and another, p. 404. He published a moral poem, under the title The Labyrinth, as early as 1510, while priest at Glarus (Opera, Tom. II. B. pp. 243 sqq.; Mörikofer, Vol. I. pp. 13 sqq.). His preference for Puritanic simplicity in public worship gave rise to the fiction of his hostility to music. He was, on the contrary, singularly skilled in that art, and was called in derision by the Papists 'the evangelical lute-player.' A contemporary says that he never knew a man who could play on so many musical instruments--the lute, the harp, the violin, etc. [Zwingli's copy of the N. T. was confined to Paul's epistles and Hebrews.--Ed.]

[716] Once, at least, Luther speaks kindly of Zwingli, in a letter to Bullinger, of Zurich, May 14, 1588 (De Wette, Vol. V. p. 112): 'Libere enim dicam: Zwinglium, postquam Marpurgi mihi visus et auditus est, virum optimum esse judicavi, sicut et OEcolampadium.' In the same letter he says that Zwingli's death caused him much pain. But this personal respect did not prevent him from using the most violent language against his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which he held in utter abhorrence to the last, and this all the more because his fanatical colleague Carlstadt, who gave him infinite trouble, had first proposed and defended it by an untenable exegesis. This accounts also for his absurd charge of fanaticism against the clear, sober-minded, jejune Zwingli. 'Es ist fast lächerlich,' says the mild and impartial Hagenbach (p. 280), 'wenn Luther mitten in seiner schwärmerisch tobenden Leidenschaft den ehrlichen Zwingli einen Schärmer nennt, ihn, der von aller Schwärmerei so fern war. Es sei denn, dass man den idealistischen Zug in ihm (und der war allerdings dem derben Realismus Luthers zuwider) mit diesem Namen bezeichnen wolle. Man betrachte auch nur sein Bildniss! Dieser energische, feste, satte Kopf, diese in Stein gehauene, markante Physiognomie, diese breite Stirn, dieses volle klare Auge, diesen geschlossenen Mund mit runden Lippen--genug! ich überlasse einem Lavater die vollendete Deutung des Bildes (der in ihm "Ernst, Nachdenken, männliche Entschlossenheit, eine sich zusammenziehende Thatkraft, einen schauenden, durchdringenden Verstand" erkennt), und berufe mich allein auf die Geschichte, welche den lebendigen Commentar zu diesem Bildniss ausmacht.'

[717] On the relation of Luther and Zwingli, see Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 214 sqq.; Hagenbach, pp. 278 sqq.; and an essay of Hundeshagen in the Studien und Kritiken for 1862. Zwingli himself thus described his relation to Luther in 1523, when the German Papists began to denounce his doctrine as a Lutheran heresy: 'Ich habe, ehe noch ein Mensch in unserer Gegend etwas von Luther's Namen gewusst hat, angefangen das Evangelium Christi zu predigen, im Jahr 1516. Wer schalt mich damals lutherisch? . . . Luther's Name ist mir noch zwei Jahre unbekannt gewesen, nachdem ich mich allein an die Bibel gehalten habe. Aber es ist, wie gesagt, nur ihre Schlauheit, dass die Päpstler mich und Andere mit solchem Namen beladen. Sprechen sie: Du musst wohl lutherisch sein, du predigest ja, wie Luther schreibt; so ist meine Antwort: Ich predige ja auch wie Paulus; warum nennst du mich nicht vielmehr einen Paulisten? . . . Meines Erachtens ist Luther ein trefflicher Streiter Gottes, der da mit so grossem Ernste die Schrift durchforscht, als seit tausend Jahren irgend einer auf Erden gewesen ist. Mit dem männlichen, unbewegten Gemüthe, womit er den Papst von Rom angegriffen hat, ist ihm keiner nie gleich geworden, so lange das Papstthum gewähret hat, alle Andern ungescholten. Wessen aber ist solche That? Gottes oder Luthers? Frage den Luther selbst, gewiss sagt er dir: Gottes. Warum schreibst du denn anderer Menschen Lehre dem Luther zu, da er sie selbst Gott zuschreibt, und nichts Neues hervorbringt, sondern was in dem ewigen, unveränderlichen Worte Gottes enthalten ist? Fromme Christen! gebet nicht zu, dass der ehrliche Name Christi verwandelt werde in den Namen Luthers; denn Luther ist für uns nicht gestorben, sondern er lehrt uns den erkennen, von dem wir allein alles Heil haben. Predigt Luther Christum, so thut er's grade wie ich; wiewohl, Gott sei Dank! durch ihn eine unzählbare Menge mehr als durch mich und Andere, denen Gott ihr Mass grösser oder kleiner macht, zu Gott geführt wird. Ich will keinen Namen tragen, als meines Hauptmannes Jesu Christi, dessen Streiter ich bin. . . . Es kann kein Mensch sein, der Luther höher achtet, als ich. Dennoch bezeuge ich vor Gott und allen Menschen, dass ich all' meine Tage nie einen Buchstaben an ihn geschrieben habe, noch er an mich, noch verschafft, dass geschrieben werde. Ich habe es unterlassen, nicht dass ich jemand desswegen gefürchtet, sondern weil ich damit allen Menschen habe zeigen wollen, wie gleichförmig der Geist Gottes sei, da wir so welt von einander entfernt und doch einmüthig sind, aber ohne alle Verabredung, wiewohl ich ihm nicht zuzuzählen bin; denn jeder thut, soviel ihm Gott weiset.'

[718] They are all embodied in the Collections of Niemeyer and Böckel. Niemeyer (Collectio, pp. 3-77) gives the first two in Swiss-German and in Latin, the last two in Latin only. Böckel {Bekenntniss-Schriften, pp. 5-107) gives them in High-German, and adds the 'Brief Christian Instruction' which Zwingli wrote in the name of the Magistrate of Zurich, Sept. 1523, for the preachers and pastors, treating of the Gospel and the Law, of Images, and of the Mass (pp. 13-34).

[719] Articuli sive Conclusiones LXVII. H. Zwinglii, a. 1523. They were published by Zwingli himself before the disputation, with the title: 'The following 67 Articles and opinions I, Ulrich Zwingli, confess to have preached in the honorable city of Zurich, on the ground of the Scripture which is called theopneustos [i.e. inspired by God], and I offer to defend them. And should I not correctly understand the said Scripture, I am ready to be instructed and corrected, but only by the Scripture.' On the different editions, see the notices of Niemeyer, Præfatio, pp. xvi sqq.

[720] See Samuel Fischer, Geschichte der Disputation zu Bern, Berne, 1828; Melch. Kirchhofer, Berthold Haller, oder die Reformation in Bern, Zurich, 1828; C. Pestalozzi, B. Haller, nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Elberfeld, 1861, pp. 35 sqq. (in Vol. IX. of the Lives and Writings of the Fathers and Founders of the Reformed Church); Zwingli's Werke, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, Vol. II. I. pp. 630 sqq. Luther was not well pleased with this triumph of Zwinglianism, and wrote to Gabriel Zwilling, March 7 (De Wette, Vol. III. No. 959): 'Bernæ in Helvetiis finita disputatio est; nihil factum, nisi quod missa abrogata et pueri in plateis cantent, se esse a Deo pisto liberatos.' He also prophesied an evil end to Zwingli.

[721] The German copy adds: 'Alles Gott und seinem heiligen Wort zu Ehren.'

[722] Ad Carolum Rom. Imperatorem Germaniæ comitia Augustæ celebrantem fidei Huldrychi Zwinglii ratio (Rechenschaft). Anno MDXXX. Mense Julio. Vincat veritas (Zurich). In the same year a German translation appeared in Zurich, and in 1543 an English translation. See Niemeyer, p. xxvi. Comp. also Böckel, pp. 40 sqq.; Mörikofer, Vol. II. pp. 297 sqq.; and Christoffel, Vol. II. pp. 237 sqq.

[723] Repulsio Articulorum Zwinglii. Zwingli replied in Ad illustrissimos Germaniæ principes Augustæ congregatos, de convitiis Eckii (Opera, Vol. IV. pp. 19 sqq.).

[724] 'Quod Christi corpus,' says Zwingli, 'per essentiam et realiter, hoc est corpus ipsum naturale in coena aut adsit aut ore dentibusque nostris manducatur, quemadmodum Papistæ, et quidam qui ad ollas Egyptiacas respectant, perhibent, id non tantum negamus, sed errorem esse qui verbo Dei adversatur, constanter asseveramus.'

[725] See his letter to Luther of July 14, 1530, quoted on p. 263.

[726] Christianæ Fidei ab H. Zwinglio predicatæ brevis et clara Expositio ab ipso Zwinglio paulo ante mortem ejus ad Regem Christianum scripta. Under this title Bullinger edited the work, with some omissions and changes, from the author's MS., with a preface, 1536. He calls Zwingli fidelissimus evangelii præco et Christianæ libertatis assertor constantissimus. Leo Judæ prepared a free German translation: Eine kurze, klare Summe and Erklärung des christl. Glaubens, etc., Zurich (no date). Niemeyer took his text directly from a copy of the manuscript made by Bibliander, in the library at Zurich (pp. xxviii. and 36 sqq.). Christoffel (Vol. I. p. 368) states that the original MS. of Zwingli is still in the public library of Paris. A High-German translation in Böckel, pp. 63 sqq., and Christoffel, Vol. II. pp. 262 sqq.

[727] Zwingli retained this term, but with a restriction to the human nature united to the Logos. __________________________________________________________________

§ 52. Zwingli's Distinctive Doctrines.

Zwingli's doctrines are laid down chiefly in his two Confessions to Charles V. and Francis I. (§ 51), his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione (1525), and his sermon De Providentia Dei (1530).

Of secondary doctrinal importance are the Explanation of his Articles and Conclusions (1523); his Shepherd (a sort of pastoral theology); several tracts and letters on the Lord's Supper, on Baptism and re-Baptism; and his Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, the Romans, and Corinthians (edited, from his lectures and sermons, by Leo Judä, Megander, and others).

Zwingli's theological system contains, in germ, the main features of the Reformed Creed, as distinct from the Lutheran, and must be here briefly considered.

1. Zwingli begins with the objective (or formal) principle of Protestantism, namely, the exclusive and absolute authority of the Bible in all matters of Christian faith and practice. The Reformed Confessions do the same; while the Lutheran Confessions start with the subjective (or material) principle of justification by faith alone, and make this 'the article of the standing and falling Church.' This difference, however, is more a matter of logical order and relative importance. Word and faith are inseparable, and proceed from the same Holy Spirit. In both denominations a living faith in Christ is the first and last principle. Without this faith the Bible may be esteemed as the best book, but not as the inspired word of God and rule of faith.

2. Zwingli teaches the doctrine of unconditional election or predestination to salvation (constitutio de beandis, as he defines it), and finds in it the ultimate ground of our justification and salvation; faith being only the organ of appropriation. God is the infinite being of beings, in whom and through whom all other beings exist; the supreme cause, including as dependent organs the finite or middle causes; the infinite and only good (Luke xviii. 18), and every thing else is good (Gen. i. 31) only through and in him. It is a fundamental canon that God by his providence, or perpetual and unchangeable rule and administration, [728] controls and disposes all events, the will and the action; otherwise he would not be omnipotent and omnipresent. There can be no accident. The fall, with its consequences, likewise comes under his foreknowledge and fore-ordination, which can be as little separated as intellect and will. But God's agency in respect to sin is free from sin, since he is not bound by law, and has no bad motive or affection; so the magistrate may take a man's life without committing murder. [729] But only those who hear the Gospel and reject it in unbelief are foreordained to eternal punishment. Of those without the reach of Christian doctrine we can not judge, as we know not their relation to election. There may be and are elect persons among the heathen; and the fate of Socrates and Seneca is no doubt better than that of many popes.

Zwingli, however, dwells mainly on the positive aspect of God's providence--the election to salvation. Election is free and independent. It embraces also infants before they have any faith. It does not follow faith, but precedes it. Faith is itself the work of free grace and the sign and fruit of election (Rom. viii. 29, 30; Acts xiii. 48). We are elected in order that we may believe in Christ and bring forth the fruits of holiness. Faith is trust and confidence in Christ, the union of the soul with him, and full of good works. Hence it is preposterous to charge this doctrine with dangerous tendency to carnal security and immorality. [730]

This is substantially Zwingli's doctrine, as he preached it during the Conference in Marburg (1529), and taught it in his book on Providence [731] It was afterwards more fully and clearly developed by the powerful intellect of Calvin, [732] who made it the prominent pillar of his theology and impressed it upon the majority of the Reformed Confessions, although several of them simply teach a free election to salvation, without saying a word of the decree of reprobation.

On this subject, however, as previously stated, there was no controversy among the early Reformers. They were all Augustinians. Luther heard Zwingli's sermon on Providence in Marburg, and made no objection to it, except that he quoted Greek and Hebrew in the pulpit. He had expressed himself much more strongly on the subject in his famous book against Erasmus (1525). There was, however, this difference, that Luther, like Augustine, from his denial of the freedom of the human will, was driven to the doctrine of absolute predestination, as a logical consequence; while Zwingli, and still more Calvin, started from the absolute sovereignty of God, and inferred from it the dependence of the human will; yet all of them were controlled by their strong sense of sin and free grace much more than by speculative principles. The Lutheran Church afterwards dropped the theological inference in part--namely, the decree of reprobation--and taught instead the universality of the offer of saving grace; but she retained the anthropological premise of total depravity and inability, and also the doctrine of a free election of the saints, or predestination to salvation; and this after all is the chief point in the Calvinistic system, and the only one which is made the subject of popular instruction. In the Lutheran Church, morever, the election theory is moderated by the sacramental principle of baptismal regeneration (as was the case with Augustine), while in the Reformed Church the doctrine of election controls and modifies the sacramental principle, so that the efficacy of baptism is made to depend upon the preceding election.

3. The most original and prominent doctrine of Zwingli is that of the sacraments, and especially of the Lord's Supper.

He adopts the general definition that the sacrament is the visible sign of an invisible grace, but draws a sharp distinction between the sacramental sign (signum) and the thing signified (res sacramenti), and allows no necessary and internal connection between them. The baptism by water may take place without the baptism of the Spirit (as in the case of Ananias and Simon Magus), and the baptism by the Spirit, or regeneration, without the baptism by water (for the apostles received only John's baptism; the penitent thief was not baptized at all, and Cornelius was baptized after regeneration). Communion with Christ is not confined to the Lord's Supper, neither do all who partake of this ordinance really commune with Christ. The Spirit of God is free and independent of all outward ceremonies and observances.

As to the effect of the sacraments, Zwingli rejects the whole scholastic theory of the opus operatum, and makes faith the necessary medium of sacramental efficacy. He differs here not only from the Romish, but also from the Lutheran theory. He regards the sacraments only as signs and seals, and not strictly as means or instrumentalities of grace, except in so far as they strengthen it. They do not originate and confer grace, but presuppose it, and set it forth to our senses, and confirm it to our faith. As circumcision sealed the righteousness of the faith of Abraham, which he had before in a state of uncircumcision (Rom. iv. 11), so baptism seals the remission of sin by the cleansing blood of Christ, and our incorporation in Christ by faith, which is produced by the Holy Spirit. In infant baptism (which he strongly defended against the Anabaptists, not indeed as necessary to salvation, but as proper and expedient), we have the divine promise which extends to the offspring, and the profession of the faith of the parents with their pledge to bring up their children in the same. The Lord's Supper signifies and seals the fact that Christ died for us and shed his blood for our sins, that he is ours and we are his, and that we are partakers of all his benefits. Zwingli compares the sacrament also to a wedding-ring which seals the marriage union.

He fully admits, however, that the sacraments are divinely instituted and necessary for our twofold constitution; that they are significant and efficacious, not empty, signs; that they aid and strengthen our faith ('auxilium opemque adferunt fidei'), and so far confer spiritual blessing through the medium of appropriating faith. In this wider sense they may be called means of grace. He also gives them the character of public testimonies, by which we openly profess our faith before God and the world, pledge our obedience to him, and express our gratitude for mercies received. Hence the name eucharist, or gratiarum actio.

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Zwingli teaches, in opposition to the Romish mass, that it is a commemoration, not a repetition, of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, who offered himself once for all time, and can not be offered by any other; that bread and wine signify or represent, but are not really, the broken body and shed blood of our Lord; that he is present only according to his divine nature and by his Spirit to the eye of faith (fidei contemplatione), but not according to his human nature, which is in heaven at the right hand of God, and can not be present every where or in many places at the same time; that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is a spiritual manducation, or the same as to believe in him (John vi.), and no physical manducation by mouth and teeth, which, even if it were possible, would be useless and unworthy and would establish two ways of salvation--one by faith, the other by literal eating in the sacrament; finally, that the blessing of the ordinance consists in a renewed application of the benefits of the atonement by the worthy or believing communicants, while the unworthy receive only the outward signs to their own judgment.

He therefore rejects every form of a local or corporeal presence, whether by transubstantiation, impanation, or consubstantiation, as contrary to the Bible, to the nature of faith, and to sound reason. He supports the figurative interpretation of the words of institution [733] by a large number of passages, where Christ is said to be the door, the lamb, the rock, the vine, etc.; also by such passages as Gen. xli. 26, 27 (the seven good kine are seven years), Matt. xiii. 31-37 (the field is the world; the tares are the children of the wicked one; the reapers are the angels), and especially Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25 (the cup is the New Testament in my blood). He proves the local absence of Christ's body by the fact of his ascension to heaven, his future visible return to judgment, and by such passages as, 'I go to prepare a place for you;' 'The poor you have always with you, but me you have not always;' 'I go to my Father;' 'The heaven must receive him until the times of restitution of all things.' He also points out the inconsistency of Luther in maintaining the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and yet refusing the adoration; for wherever Christ is he must be adored.

I add his last words on the subject from the Confession sent to King Francis I. shortly before his death: 'We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper; yea, we believe that there is no communion without the presence of Christ. [734] This is the proof: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. xviii. 20). How much more is he present where the whole congregation is assembled to his honor! But that his body is literally eaten is far from the truth and the nature of faith. It is contrary to the truth, because he himself says: 'I am no more in the world" (John xvii. 11), and 'The flesh profiteth nothing" (John vi. 63), that is to eat, as the Jews then believed and the Papists still believe. It is contrary to the nature of faith (I mean the holy and true faith), because faith embraces love, fear of God, and reverence, which abhor such carnal and gross eating, as much as any one would shrink from eating his beloved son. . . . We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religions, believing, and pious heart (as also St. Chrysostom taught). And this is in brief the substance of what we maintain in this controversy, and what not we, but the truth itself teaches.' To this he adds the communion service, which he introduced in Zurich, that his Majesty may see how devoutly the sacrament is celebrated there in accordance with the institution of Christ. This service is much more liturgical than the later Calvinistic formulas, and includes the 'Gloria in Excelsis,' the Apostles' Creed, and responses.

Closely connected with the eucharistic controversy are certain christological differences concerning ubiquity and the communicatio idiomatum, which we have already discussed in the section on the Formula of Concord.

Zwingli's doctrine of the Eucharist is unquestionably the simplest, clearest, and most intelligible theory. It removes the supernatural mystery from the ordinance, and presents no obstacles to the understanding. Exegetically, it is admissible, and advocated even by some of the ablest Lutheran scholars, who freely concede that the literal interpretation of the words of institution, to which Luther appealed first and last against the arguments of Zwingli, is impossible, or, if consistently carried out, must lead to the Romish dogma. [735] Philosophically and dogmatically, it labors under none of the difficulties of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, both of which imply the simultaneous multipresence of a corporeal substance, and a physical manducation of Christ's crucified body and blood--in direct contradiction to the essential properties of a body, and the testimony of four of our senses. It has been adopted by the Arminians, and it extensively prevails at present even among orthodox Protestants of all denominations, especially in England and America. [736]

Zwingli is no doubt right in his protest against every form, however refined and subtle, of the old Capernaitic conception of a carnal presence and carnal appropriation (John vi. 63). He is also right in his positive assertion that the holy communion is a commemoration of the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and a spiritual feeding on Christ by faith. But he falls short of the whole truth; he does not do justice to the strong language of our Lord, especially in John vi. 53-58, concerning the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man (whether this be referred directly or indirectly to the Lord's Supper, or not). After all deduction of carnal misconceptions, there remains the mystery of a vital union of the believer with the whole Christ, including his humanity, viewed not, indeed, as material substance, but as a principle of life and power.

This Calvin felt. Hence he endeavored to find a via media between Zwingli and Luther, and assumed, besides the admitted real presence of the Divine Lord, a dynamic presence and influence of his glorified and ever-living humanity, and an actual communication of its life-giving power (not the matter of the body and blood) by the Holy Ghost to the worthy communicant through the medium of faith--as the sun is in the heavens, and yet with his light and heat present on earth. This theory passed substantially into the most authoritative confessions of the sixteenth century, and must therefore be regarded as the orthodox doctrine of the Reformed Church.

On three other points--namely, original sin, the salvation of infants, and the salvation of the heathen--Zwingli had peculiar views, which were in advance of his age, and gave great offense to some of his friends as well as to Luther, but were afterwards adopted by the Arminians.

4. The Reformation was born of an intense conviction of the sinfulness of man and the absolute need of a radical regeneration. Zwingli makes no exception, and describes the corruption and slavery of the natural man almost as strongly as Luther, although he never passed through such terrors of conscience as the monk in Erfurt, nor had he such hand-to-hand fights with the devil. [737] He derives sin from the fall of Adam, brought about by the instigation of the devil, and finds its essence in selfishness as opposed to the love of God. He goes beyond the Augustinian infralapsarianism, which seems to condition the eternal counsel of God by the first self-determination of man, and he boldly takes the supralapsarian position that God not only foresaw, but foreordained the fall, together with the redemption, that is, as a means to an end, or as the negative condition for the revelation of the plan of salvation. He fully admits the distinction between original or hereditary sin and actual transgression, but he describes the former as a moral disease, or natural defect, rather than punishable sin and guilt. [738] It is a miserable condition (conditio misera). He compares it to the misfortune of one born in slavery. [739] But if not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is an inclination or propensity to sin (propensio ad peccandum), and the fruitful germ of sin, which will surely develop itself in actual transgression. Thus the young wolf is a rapacious animal before he actually tears the sheep.

5. Zwingli was the first to emancipate the salvation of children dying in infancy from the supposed indispensable condition of water-baptism, and to extend it beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. This is a matter of very great interest, since the unbaptized children far outnumber the baptized, and constitute nearly one half of the race.

He teaches repeatedly that all elect children are saved whether baptized or not, whether of Christian or heathen parentage, not on the ground of their innocence (which would be Pelagian), but on the ground of Christ's atonement. He is inclined to the belief that all children dying in infancy belong to the elect; their early death being a token of God's mercy, and hence of their election. A part of the elect are led to salvation by a holy life, another part by an early death. The children of Christian parents belong to the Church, and it would be 'impious' to condemn them. But from the parallel between the first and the second Adam, he infers that all children are saved from the ruin of sin, else what Paul says would not be true, that 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. xv. 22). At all events, it is wrong to condemn the children of the heathen, both on account of the restoration of Christ and of the eternal election of God, which precedes faith, and produces faith in due time; hence the absence of faith in children is no ground for their condemnation. [740] As he believed in the salvation of many adult heathen, he had the less difficulty in believing that heathen children are saved; for they have not yet committed actual transgression, and of hereditary sin they have been redeemed by Christ. We have therefore much greater certainty of the salvation of departed infants than of any adults.

This view was a bold step beyond the traditional orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Church, in keeping with her doctrine of original sin and guilt, and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation (based upon Mark xvi. 16 and John iii. 5), teaches the salvation of all baptized, and the condemnation of all unbaptized children; assigning the latter to the limbus infantum on the border of hell, where they suffer the mildest kind of punishment, namely, the negative penalty of loss (poena damni or carentia beatificæ visionis), but not the positive pain of feeling (poena sensus). [741] St. Augustine first clearly introduced this wholesale exclusion of all unbaptized infants from heaven--though Christ expressly says that to children emphatically belongs the kingdom of heaven. He ought consistently to have made the salvation of infants, like that of adults, depend upon their election; but the churchly and sacramental principle checked and moderated his predestination theory, and his Christian heart induced him to soften the frightful dogma as much as possible. [742] As he did not extend election beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church (although he could not help seeing the significance of such holy outsiders as Melchizedek and Job under the old dispensation), he secured at least, by his high view of the regenerative efficacy of water-baptism, the salvation of all baptized infants dying in infancy. To harmonize this view with his system, he must have counted them all among the elect.

The Lutheran Creed retains substantially the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration, and hence limits infant salvation to those who enjoy this means of grace; [743] allowing, however, some exceptions within the sphere of the Christian Church, and making the damnation of unbaptized infants as mild as the case will permit. [744] At present, however, there is scarcely a Lutheran divine of weight who would be willing to confine salvation to baptized infants.

The Reformed Church teaches the salvation of all elect infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not, and assumes that they are regenerated before their death, which, according to Calvinistic principles, is possible without water-baptism. [745] The second Scotch Confession, of 1580, expressly rejects, among other errors of popery,' the cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament.' [746] Beyond this the Confessions do not go, and leave the mysterious subject to private opinion. Some of the older and more rigid Calvinistic divines of the supralapsarian type carried the distinction between the elect and the reprobate into the infant world, though always securing salvation to the offspring of Christian parents, on the ground of inherited Church membership before and independent of the baptismal ratification; while others more wisely and charitably kept silence, or left the non-elect infants--if there are such, which nobody knows--to the uncovenanted mercies of God. But we may still go a step further, within the strict limits of the Reformed Creed, and maintain, as a pious opinion, that all departed infants belong to the number of the elect. Their early removal from a world of sin and temptation may be taken as an indication of God's special favor. From this it would follow that the majority of the human race will be saved. The very doctrine of election, which is unlimitable and free of all ordinary means, at all events widens the possibility and strengthens the probability of general infant salvation; while those Churches which hold to the necessity of baptismal regeneration must either consistently exclude from heaven all unbaptized infants (even those of Christian Baptists and Quakers), or, yielding to the instinct of Christian charity, they must make exceptions so innumerable that these would become, in fact, the rule, and overthrow the principle altogether.

In the seventeenth century the Arminians resumed the position of Zwingli, and with their mild theory of original sin (which they do not regard as responsible and punishable before and independent of actual transgression), they could consistently teach the general salvation of infants. The Methodists and Baptists adopted the same view. Even in the strictly Calvinistic churches it made steady progress, and is now silently or openly held by nearly all Reformed divines. [747]

Whether consistent or not, the doctrine of infant damnation is certainly cruel and revolting to every nobler and better feeling of our nature. It can not be charged upon the Bible except by logical inference from a few passages (John iii. 5; Mark xvi. 16; Rom. v. 12), which admit of a different interpretation. On the other hand, the general salvation of infants, though not expressly taught, is far more consistent with the love of God, the genius of Christianity, and the spirit and conduct of him who shed his precious blood for all ages of mankind, who held up little children to his own disciples as models of simplicity and trustfulness, and took them to his bosom, blessing them, and saying (unconditionally and before Christian baptism did exist), 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven,' and 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in nowise enter therein.'

6. Salvation of adult heathen. This is a still darker problem. Before Zwingli it was the universal opinion that there can be no salvation outside of the visible Church (extra ecclesiam nulla satus). Dante, the poet of mediæval Catholicism, assigns even Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, to hell, which bears the terrible inscription--

'Let those who enter in dismiss all hope.'

But the Swiss Reformer repeatedly expressed his conviction, to which he adhered to the last, that God had his elect among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that, together with the saints of the Old Testament from the redeemed Adam down to John the Baptist, we may expect to find in heaven also such sages as Socrates, Plato, Aristides, Pindar, Numa, Cato, Scipio, Seneca; in short, every good and holy man and faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end. [748]

For this liberality he was severely censured. The great and good Luther was horrified at the idea that even 'the godless Numa' (!) should be saved, and thought that it falsified the whole gospel, without which there can be no salvation. [749]

Zwingli, notwithstanding his abhorrence of heathen idolatry and every relic of paganism in worship, retained, from his classical training in the school of Erasmus, a great admiration for the wisdom and the manly virtues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and was somewhat unguarded in his mode of expression. But he had no idea of sending any one to heaven without the atonement, although he does not state when and how it was applied to those who died before the incarnation. In his mind the eternal election was inseparably connected with the plan of the Christian redemption. He probably assumed an unconscious Christianity among the better heathen, and a secret work of grace in their hearts, which enabled them to exercise a general faith in God and to strive after good works (comp. Rom. ii. 7, 10, 14, 15). All truth, he says, proceeds from the Spirit of God. He might have appealed to Justin Martyr and other ancient fathers, who traced all that was true and good among the Greek philosophers and poets to the working of the Logos before his incarnation (John i. 5, 10). [750]

During the period of rigorous scholastic orthodoxy which followed the Reformation in the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, Zwingli's view could not be appreciated, and appeared as a dangerous heresy. In the seventeenth century the Romanists excluded the Protestants, the Lutherans the Calvinists, the Calvinists the Arminians, from the kingdom of heaven; how much more all those who never heard of Christ. This wholesale damnation of the vast majority of the human race should have stirred up a burning zeal for their conversion; and yet during that whole period of intense confessionalism and exclusive orthodoxism there was not a single Protestant missionary in the field except among the Indians in the wilderness of North America. [751]

But in modern times Zwingli's view has been revived and applauded as a noble testimony of his liberality, especially among evangelical divines in Germany, and partly in connection with a new theory of Hades and the middle state.

This is not the place to discuss a point which, in the absence of clear Scripture authority, does not admit of symbolical statement. The future fate of the heathen is wisely involved in mystery, and it is unsafe and useless to speculate without the light of revelation about matters which lie beyond the reach of our observation and experience. But the Bible consigns no one to final damnation, except for rejecting Christ in unbelief, [752] and gives us at least a ray of hope by significant examples of faith from Melchizedek and Job down to the wise men from the East, and by a number of passages concerning the working of the Logos among the Gentiles (John i. 5, 10; Rom. i. 19; ii. 14, 15, 18, 19; Acts xvii. 23, 28; 1 Pet. iii. 19; iv. 6). We certainly have no right to confine God's election and saving grace to the limits of the visible Church. We are indeed bound to his ordinances and must submit to his terms of salvation; but God himself is free, and can save whomsoever and howsoever he pleases, and he is infinitely more anxious and ready to save than we can conceive. __________________________________________________________________

[728] Zwingli defines providentia to be perpetuum et immutabile rerum universarum regnum et administratio.

[729] This illustration is used by Myconius in defending the Zwinglian view of Providence. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 133. The illustration of Zwingli, Opp. IV. p. 112, concerning the adulterium Davidis and the taurus, is less happy.

[730] As a matter of history, it is an undeniable fact that the strongest predestinarians (whether Augustinians or Calvinists or Puritans) have been the most earnest, energetic, and persevering Christians. Edward Zeller (a cool philosopher and critic of the Tübingen school) clearly explains this connection in his book on the Theological System of Zwingli, pp. 17-19: 'Gerade die Lehre von der Erwählung, der man so oft vorgeworfen hat, dass sie die sittliche Kraft lähme, dass sie zu Trägheit and Sorglosigheit hinführe, gerade diese Lehre ist es, aus welcher der Reformirte jene rücksichts- und zweifellose, bis zur Härte und Leidenschaftlichkeit durchgreifende praktische Energie schöpft, wie wir sie an den Helden dieses Glaubens, einem Zwingli, einem Calvin, einem Farel, einem Knox, einem Cromwell, bewundern, welche ihn vor den Zweifeln und Anfechtungen bewahrt, die dem weicheren, tiefer mit sich selbst beschäftigten Gemüth so viel zu schaffen machen, von denen selbst der grosse deutsche Glaubensheld Luther noch in späten Jahren heimgesucht wurde. Die wesentliche religiöse Bedeutung dieser Lehre, ihre Bedeutung für das innere Leben der Gläubigen, liegt nicht in der Ueberzeuzung von der Unbedingtheit des göttlichen Wirkens als solchen, sondern in dem Glauben an seine Unbedingtheit in seiner Richtung auf dieses bestimmte Subjekt in jener persönlichen Gewissheit der Erwählung, welche den Unterschied der reformirten Erwählungslehre von der augustinischen ausmacht, und eben darauf beruht es auch, dass die theoretisch ganz richtigen Konsequenzen des Prädestinatianismus in Beziehung auf die Nutzlosigkeit und Gleichgültigkeit des eigenen Thuns den Reformirten nicht blos nicht stören, sondern gar nicht für ihn vorhanden sind. Was er in den Sätzen von der ewigen Vorherbestimmung aller Dinge, von dem unwandelbaren Rathschluss der Erwählung und der Verwerfung, für sich selbst findet, das ist nur die unzweifelhafte Gewissheit, persönlich zum Dienst Gottes berufen zu sein, und vermöge dieser Berufung in allen seinen Angelegenheiten unter dem unmittelbarsten Schutz Gottes zu stehen, als Werkzeug Gottes zu handeln, der Seligkeit gewiss zu sein. Die Heilsgewissheit ist hier von der sittlich religiösen Anforderung nicht getrennt, der Einzelne hat das Bewusstsein seiner Berufung nur in seinem Glauben, und den Glauben nur in der Kräftigkeit seines gottbeseelten Willens, er ist sich nicht seiner Erwählung zur Seligkeit ohne alle weitere Bestimmung, sondern wesentlich nur seiner Erwählung zu der Seligkeit des christlichen Lebens bewusst; die Erwählung ist hier nur die Unterlage für das praktische Verhalten des Frommen, der Mensch verzichtet nur desshalb im Dogma auf die Kraft und Freiheit seines Willens, um sie für das wirkliche Leben und Handeln von der Gottheit, an die er sich ihrer entäussert hat, als eine absolute, als die Kraft des göttlichen Geistes, als die unerschütterliche Selbstgewissheit des Erwählten zurückzuerhalten.'

[731] Zwingli, being requested by Philip of Hesse (Jan. 25, 1530) to send him a copy of his sermon, which he had preached without manuscript, reproduced the substance of it, and sent it to him, Aug. 20, 1530. under the title, Ad illustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum sermonis de Providentia Dei anamnema. Opera IV. pp. 79-144. See a full extract in Schweizer's Centraldogmen, Vol. I. pp. 102 sqq. Ebrard makes too little account of this tract.

[732] In the later editions of his Institutes; for in the first edition he confines himself to a very brief and indefinite statement of this doctrine.

[733] That is, of the verbal copula esti, est=significat, not of touto (Carlstadt), nor soma= figura corporis (OEcolampadius, on the ground that Christ probably did not use the verb at all in the original Aramaic). Zwingli was always inclined to a tropical interpretation, and averse to the notion of a carnal presence, but was led to his exegesis in 1522 by a tract of Honius (Hoen), a lawyer of Holland, De eucharistia, which taught him in qua voce tropus lateret. See Ebrard, Vol. II. p. 97. His controversy with Luther began when he wrote a letter to Matth. Alber, at Reutlingen, Nov. 16, 1524.

[734] 'Christum credimus vere esse in coena, immo non credimus esse Domini coenam nisi Christus adsit.' Niemeyer, p. 71.

[735] See above, p. 327.

[736] Dr. Hodge, e.g., does not rise above the Zwinglian view. He denies that Christ is present in any other way than spiritually, and that believers receive any other benefit than 'the sacrificial virtue and effects of the death of Christ on the cross,' which he maintains was received already by the saints of the Old Testament and the disciples at the first Supper, before the glorified body of Christ had any existence. 'The efficacy of this sacrament, as a means of grace, is not in the signs, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy Spirit.'--System. Theol. Vol. III. pp. 646, 647, 650.

[737] Dorner (in his History of German Theology, p. 287) says that Zwingli retained from his humanistic culture a certain disposition to 'an aesthetic consideration of sin,' i.e., to see in it something disgraceful, unworthy, bestial rather than diabolical.

[738] Defectus naturalis, or, as he often calls it in his Swiss-German, a Brest, i.e. Gebrechen. 'Die Erbsünd,' he says in his book on Baptism,' ist nüts (nichts) anders weder (als) der Brest von Adam her. . . . Wir verstond (verstehen) durch das Wort Brest einen Mangel, den einer ohn sin Schuld von der Geburt her hat oder sust (sonst) von Zufällen.' He distinguishes it from Laster and Frevel, vice and crime. He explains his view more fully in his tract De peccato originali ad Urbanum Regium, 1526, and also in his Confession to Charles V., 1530.

[739] 'Peccatum originale non proprie peccatum est, non enim est facinus contra legem. Morbus igitur est proprie et conditio.' Fidei Ratio ad Carol. V. Cap. IV. (Niemeyer, p. 20).

[740] Fidei Ratio, Cap. V. (Niemeyer, p. 21): 'Hinc constat, si in Christo secundo Adam vitæ restituimur, quemadmodum in primo Adam sumus morti traditi, quod temere damnamus Christianis parentibus natos pueros, imo gentium quoque pueros. Adam enim si perderere universum genus peccando potuit, et Christus moriendo non vivificavit et redemit universum genus a clade per istum data, jam non est par salus reddita per Christum, et perinde (quod absit!) nec verum, "Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vitæ restituuntur." Verum quomodocunque de gentilium infantibus statuendum sit, hoc certe adseveramus, propter virtutem salutis per Christum præstitæ, præter rem pronunciare qui eos æternæ maledictioni addicunt, cum propter dictam reparationis causam, tum propter electionem Dei liberam, quæ non sequitur fidem, sed fides electionem sequitur.' In another passage against the Catabaptists he says: 'Electi eligebantur antequam in utero conciperentur: mox igitur ut sunt, filii Dei sunt, etiamsi moriantur antequam credant aut ad fidem vocentur. Comp. Zeller, 1.c. p. 162.

[741] The limbus infantum is, so to speak, the nursery of hell, on the top floor and away from the fire, as Bellarmin says, in loco inferni altiori, ita ut ad eum ignis non perveniat. In a still higher region was the limbus patrum, the temporary abode of the saints of the Old Testament, but this was vacated at the descent of Christ into Hades, when those saints were freed from prison and translated into Paradise.

[742] 'Parvulos non baptizatos in damnatione omnium lenissima futuros' (Contra Jul. lib. V. c. 11); 'Infantes non baptizati lenissime quidem, sed tamen damnantur. Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos sine baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros' (De pecc. mer. et rem. cap. 16). Pelagius was more liberal, and assumed a middle state of half-blessedness for unbaptized infants between the heaven of the baptized and the hell of the ungodly. See particulars in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 835 sqq.

[743] Conf. August. Art. IX.: 'Damnant Anabaptistas qui . . . affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri.' In the German edition the last clause is omitted.

[744] Calovius (in the consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ, 1655), in the name of the strict Lutherans, rejected the milder view of a merely privative punishment of unbaptized infants, as held by Calixtus (see Henke, Georg Calixtus, Vol. II. Pt. II. p. 295), but it was defended by others. Fr. Buddæus, one of the most liberal among the orthodox Lutherans, describes the condition of heathen infants as admodum tolerabilis, though they are exclusi a beatitudine (Instit. Theol. dogm. Lips. 1723, p. 631). Others leave the children to the mercy of God. See V. E. Löscher's Auserlesene Sammlung der besten neueren Schriften vom Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode, 1735; republished by Hubert Becker, 1835.

[745] Westminster Conf. chap. x. § 3: 'Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.' The last sentence may be fairly interpreted as teaching the election and salvation of a portion of heathen adults.

[746] 'Abhorremus et detestamur . . . crudele judicium contra infantes sine baptismo morientes, bapitismi absolutam quant asserit necessitatem.' Niemeyer, pp. 357, 358.

[747] Dr. Hodge, the most orthodox Calvinistic divine of the age, very positively teaches (Syst. Theol. Vol. I. p. 26) the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, and represents this as the 'common doctrine of evangelical Protestants.' This may be true of the present generation, and we hope it is, though it is evidently inapplicable to the period of scholastic orthodoxy, both Lutheran and Calvinistic. He supports his view by three arguments: 1. The analogy between Adam and Christ (Rom. v. 18, 19, where we have no right to restrict the free gift of Christ upon all more than the Bible itself restricts it); 2. Christ's conduct towards children; 3. The general nature of God to bless and to save, rather than to curse and destroy.

[748] His last and fullest utterance on this subject occurs towards the close of his Expositio Chr. Fidei, where, speaking of eternal life, he thus addresses the French king: 'Deinde sperandum est tibi visurum esse sanctorum, prudentium, fidelium, canstantium, fortium, virtuosorum omnium, quicunque a condito mundo fuerunt, sodalitatem, coetum et contubernium. Hic duos Adam, redemptum ac Redemptorem: hic Abelum, Enochum, Noam, Abrahamum, Isaacum, Jacobum, Judam, Mosen, Josuam, Gedeonem, Samuelem, Pinhen, Heliam, Heliseum, Isaiam, ac deiparam Virginem de qua ille præcinuit, Davidem, Ezekiam, Josiam, Baptistam, Petrum, Paulum: hic Herculem, Theseum, Socratem, Aristidem, Antigonum, Numam, Camillum, Catones, Scipiones: hic Ludovichum pium antecessoresque tuos Ludovicos, Philippos, Pipinnos, et quotquot in fide hinc migrarunt maiores tuos videbis. Et summatim, non fuit vir bonus, non erit mens sancta, non est fidelis anima, ab ipso mundi exordia usque ad eius consummationem, quem non sis isthic cum Deo visurus. Quo spectaculo quid lætius, quid amænius, quid denique honorificentius vel cogitari potent? Aut quo iustius omnes animi vires intendimus quam ad huiuscemodi vitæ lucrum?' See Niemeyer, p. 61. Similar passages occur in his Epistles, Commentaries, and tract on Providence. Comp. Zeller, p. 163.

[749] 'Hoc si verum est, totum evangelium falsum est.' Luther denied the possibility of salvation outside of the Christian Church. In his Catech. Major, Pars II. Art. III. (ed. Rechenb. p. 503, ed. Müller, p. 460), he says: 'Quicunque extra Christianitatem (ausser der Christenheit) sunt, sive Gentiles sive Turcæ sive Judæi aut falsi etiam Christiani et hypocritæ, quanquam unum tantum et verum Deum esse credant et invocent (ob sie gleich nur Einen wahrhaftigen Gott gläuben und anbeten), neque tamen certum habent, quo erga eos animatus sit animo, neque quidquam favoris aut gratiæ de Deo sibi polliceri audent et possunt, quamobrem in perpetua manent ira et damnatione (darum sie im ewigen Zorn und Verdammniss bleiben).'

[750] Dr. Dorner, with his usual fairness and fine discrimination, vindicates Zwingli against misrepresentations (Gesch. d. Prot. Theol. p. 284): 'Man hat daraus eine Gleichgültigkeit gegen den historischen Christus und sein Werk erschliessen wollen, dass er [Zwingli] auch von Heiden sagt: sie seien selig geworden; was die Heiden Weisheit nennen, das nennen die Christen Glauben. Allein er sieht in allem Wahren vor Christo mit manchen Kirchenvätern eine Wirkung und Offenbarung des Logos, ohne jedoch so weit zu gehen, mit Justin die Weisen des Alterthums, welche nach dem Logos gelebt haben, Christen zu nennen. Er sagt nur, sie seien nach dem Tode selig geworden, ähnlich wie auch die Kirche dasselbe von den Vätern des Alten Testaments annimmt. Er konnte dabei wohl diese Seligkeit als durch Christus gewirkt und erworben denken und hat dieselbe jedenfalls nur als in der Gemeinschaft mit Christus bestehend gedacht. Ist ihm doch durch den ewigen Rathschluss der Versöhnung Christus nicht bloss ewig gewiss, sondern auch gegenwärtig für alle Zeiten. So sind ihm jene Heiden doch selig nur durch Christus. Freilich das sagt er nicht, dass sie erst im Jenseits sich bekehren; auch erschneidet mit dem Diesseits die Bekehrung ab. Er lässt ihre im Diesseits bewährte Treue gegen das ihnen vom Logos anvertraute Pfund wahrer Erkentniss die Stelle des Glaubens vertreten. Aber es ist wohl kein Zweifel, dass er sie im Jenseits zur Erkentniss und Gemeinschaft Christi gelangend denkt. Bei den Frommen Alten Testaments fordert auch die Kirche zu ihrem Heil nicht eine bestimmtere Erkenntniss Christi im Diesseits, die sie höchstens den Propheten' zuschreiben könnte.' Ebrard (in his History of the Dogma of the Lord's Supper. Vol. II. p. 77) fully adopts Zwingli's view: 'Jetzt wird ihm wohl Niemand mehr daraus ein Verbrechen machen. Wir wissen, dass Röm. ii. 7: "Denen, die in Beharrlickkeit des Gutesthuns nach unvergänglichem Wesen trachten," ewiges Leben verheissen ist, wir wissen dass nur der positive Unglaube an das angebotene Heil weder hier noch dort vergeben wird, dass nur auf ihn die Strafe des ewigen Todes gesetzt ist; wir wissen, dass auf die erste Auferstehung der in Christo Entschlafenen noch eine zweite der ganzen übrigen Menschheit folgen soll, die alsdann gerichtet werden sollen nach ihren Werken, und dass im neuen Jerusalem selber die Blätter des Lebensbaumes dienen sollen zur Genesung der Heiden (Apok. xxii. 2). Zwingli hat also an der Hand der heiligen Schrift das Heidenthum ebenso wie das Judenthum als an den stoicheiois tou kosmou gehörig (Gal. iv. 1-3) angesehen, und mit vollem Rechte einen Socrates neben einen Abraham gestellt. Ihm besteht die Seligkeit darin, dass das ganze Wunderwerk der göttlichen Weltpädagogik in seinen Früchten klar und herrlich vor den Blicken der erstaunten Seligen da liegt.'

[751] John Eliot, the 'Apostle of the Indians,' labored among the Indians in that polemical age. He died 1690, eighty-six years of age, at Roxbury, Massachusetts. David Brainerd (d. at Northampton, Mass., 1747) likewise labored among the Indians before any missionary zeal was kindled in the Protestant churches of Europe.

[752] John iii. 18, 36; xii. 48; Mark xvi. 16. __________________________________________________________________

§ 53. The First Confession of Basle. A.D. 1534.

Literature.

Jac. Christ. Beck: Dissertatio historico-theologica de Confessione Fidei Basileensis Ecclesiæ, Basil. 1744.

Melchior Kirchhofer: Oswald Myconius, Antistes der Baslerischen Kirche, Zürich, 1813.

Burckhardt: Reformationsgeschichte von Basel, Basel, 1818.

K. R. Hagenbach: Kritische Geschichte der Entstehung und der Schicksale der ersten Basler Confession und der auf sie gegründeten Kirchenlehre, Basel, 1827 (title ed. 1828).

J. J. Herzog: Leben Joh. OEkolampads und die Reformation der Kirche von Basel, Basel, 1843, 2 vols.

Hagenbach: Leben OEkolampads und Myconius, Elberfeld, 1859. (Part II. of Väter und Bergründer der reform. Kirche.)

Escher, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyklop. Art. Helvet. Confess. Sect. II. Part V.

Beck: Symb. Bücher der ev. reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 28 sqq.

The two Confessions of Basle are published in German and Latin by Niemeyer, Coll. pp. 78-122: in German alone by Beck and Böckel in their collections. The best reprint of the First Confession of Basle, in the Swiss dialect, with the Scripture proofs on the margin, is given by Hagenbach at the close of his biography of OEkolampad und Myconius, pp. 465-470.

The First and Second Confessions of Basle belong to the Zwinglian family, and preceded the age of Calvin, but are a little nearer the German Lutheran type of Protestantism.

The rich and venerable city of Basle, on the frontier of Switzerland, France, and South Germany, since 1501 a member of the Swiss Confederacy, renowned for the reformatory OEcumenical Council of 1430, and the University founded by Pius II., became a centre of liberal learning before the Reformation. Thomas Wyttenbach, the teacher of Zwingli, attacked the indulgences as early as 1502. In 1516 Erasmus of Rotterdam, at that time esteemed as the greatest scholar of Europe, took up his permanent residence in Basle, and published the first edition of the Greek Testament and other important works, though, after the peasant war and Luther's violent attack on him, he became disgusted with the Reformation, which he did not understand. He desired merely a quiet literary illumination within the Catholic Church, and formed a bridge between two ages. He died, like Moses, in the land of Moab (1536). [753] Wolfgang Capito (Köpfli), an Alsacian, labored in Basle as preacher and professor from 1512 to 1520, in friendly intercourse with Erasmus, and was followed by Caspar Hedio (Heid), who continued in the same spirit, and corresponded with Luther. Another preacher in Basle, Wilhelm Röublin, carried on the Corpus Christi festival a large Bible through the city, with the inscription, 'This is the true sanctuary; the rest are dead men's bones.'

The principal Reformer of Basle is John OEcolampadius (Hausschein, b. 1482, d. 1531), who stood to Zwingli in a similar relation as Melanchthon to Luther: inferior to him in originality, boldness, and energy, but superior in learning, modesty, and gentleness of spirit. He was his chief support in the defense of his doctrine on the eucharist, and took a prominent part in the Conference with Luther at Marburg. Born at Weinsberg, he studied philology, scholastic philosophy, law, and theology with unusual success at Heilbronn, Bologna, Heidelberg, and Tübingen. When twelve years old he wrote Latin poems, and at fourteen he graduated as bachelor of arts. He excelled especially as a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and published afterwards learned commentaries on the prophets and other books of the Bible. He aided Erasmus in the edition of his Greek Testament, 1516. He was well-read in the fathers, and promoted a critical study of their writings. After having labored as preacher for some time in different places, and taken some part in the reformatory movements of Germany, he settled permanently at Basle, in 1522, as pastor of St. Martin and as professor of theology. Here he introduced, with the consent of the citizens, the German service, the communion under both kinds, and other changes. But it was only after the transition of Berne that Basle came out decidedly for the Reformation. It was formally introduced Feb. 9, 1529, according to the model of Zurich, but in a rather violent style, by the breaking of images and the dissolution of convents, yet without shedding of blood. In other respects the Reformed Church of Basle is conservative, and occupies a middle position between Zwinglianisrn and Lutheranism. OEcolampadius died Nov. 24, 1531, a few weeks after his friend Zwingli. He communed with his family, and took an affecting farewell of his wife, his three children (Eusebius, Irene, and Aletheia), and the ministers of Basle. His last words were: 'Shortly I shall be with the Lord Christ. . . . Lord Jesus save me!' [754]

The First Confession of Basle (Confessio Fidei Basileensis prior) was prepared in its first draft by OEcolampadius, 1531, [755] brought into its present shape by his successor, Oswald Myconius, [756] 1532, and first published by the magistrate with a preface of Adelberg Meyer, burgomaster of Basle, Jan. 21, 1534. [757] Two or three years afterwards it was adopted and issued by the confederated city of Mühlhausen, in the Alsace; hence it is also called the Confessio Mühlhusana (or Mylhusiana).

It is very simple and moderate. It briefly expresses, in twelve articles, the orthodox evangelical doctrines of God, the fall of man, the divine providence, the person of Christ, the Church and the sacraments, the Lord's Supper (Christ the food of the soul to everlasting life), Church discipline, the civil magistrate, faith and works, the judgment, ceremonies and celibacy, and against the views of the Anabaptists, who were then generally regarded as dangerous radicals, not only by Luther, but also by the Swiss and English Reformers. This is the only Reformed Confession which does not begin with the assertion of the Bible principle, but it concludes with this noteworthy sentence: '"We submit this our Confession to the judgment of the divine Scriptures, and hold ourselves ready always thankfully to obey God and his Word if we should be corrected out of said holy Scriptures.' [758]

'This Confession,' says the late Professor Hagenbach of Basle, [759] 'has remained the public Confession of the Church of Basle to this day. It is, indeed, no longer annually read before the congregation as formerly (on Maundy-Thursday at the ante-communion service), but ministers at their ordination are still required to promise "to teach according to the direction of God's Word and the Basle Confession derived therefrom." A motion was made in the city government in 1826 to change it, but the Church Council declared such change inexpedient. Another motion in 1859 to abolish it altogether was set aside. But the political significance of the Confession can no longer be sustained, in view of the change of public sentiment in regard to the liberty of faith and conscience.' __________________________________________________________________

[753] Erasmus turned his keen wit first against the obscurantism of the monks, but afterwards against the light of the Reformation. He said to Frederick the Wise at Cologne, before the Diet of Worms (within the hearing of Spalatin): 'Lutherus peccavit in duobus, nempe quod tetigit coronam pontificis et ventres monachorum.' But when Luther, Zwingli, OEcolampadius took wives, he called the Reformation a comedy which ended always in a marriage.

[754] See the particulars in Herzog's OEkolamp. Vol. II. pp. 248 sqq. He was buried with all the honors of the city in the Minster. But the mouth of slander spread the lie that he had committed suicide, to which even Luther, blinded by dogmatic prejudice, was not ashamed to give ear. Melanchthon had great respect for OEcolampadius, stood in friendly correspondence with him, and derived from him a better knowledge of the patristic doctrine of the eucharist.

[755] See Herzog, 1.c. Vol. II. pp. 217-221, and Hagenbach, Joh. OEkol. und Oswald Mycon. pp. 350 sqq. OEcolampadius, in his last address to the Synod of Basle, Sept. 26, 1531, added a brief, terse confession of faith, and a paraphrase of the Apostles' Creed. But the assertion that he composed the Confession of Basle in its present shape, and sent it to the Augsburg Diet, 1530, rests on a mistake, and has no foundation in any contemporary report.

[756] His proper name was Geisshüssler. He was born at Luzerne, 1488; taught and preached at Zurich; after Zwingli's death he moved to Basle, was elected Antistes or first preacher, died 1552, and was buried in the Minster. He must not be confounded with Friedrich Myconius, or Mecum, the Lutheran reformer of Thuringia, and court chaplain at Gotha (d. 1546).

[757] Under the title, 'Bekanntnuss unseres heiligen Christlichen Glaubens wie es die Kylch (Kirche) zu Basel halt.' It is signed by 'Heinrich Rhyner, Rathschreiber der Statt Basel.' See the German text, with the marginal notes, at the close of Hagenbach's biography of OEcolampadius and Myconius. A Latin edition appeared 1561 and 1581, which was reproduced in the Corpus et Syntagma Confess., under the title 'Basiliensis vel Mylhusiana Confessio Fidei. anno M.D.XXXII. Scripta Germanice. Latine excusa 1561 et 1581.' Here the date of composition (1532) is given instead of the date of publication (1534). The more usual spelling is Basileensis and Mühlhusana. A better Latin edition was issued, 1647, by the Basle Professors--Theod. Zwinger, Sebastian Beck, and John Buxtorf--for the use of academic disputations; and this Niemeyer has reprinted, pp. 85 sqq.

[758] 'Postremo, hanc nostrum Confessionem judicio Sacræ Biblicæ Scripturæ subjicimus: eoque pollicemur, si ex prædictis Scripturis in melioribus instituamur (etwas besseren berichtet), nos omni tempore Deo et sacrosancto ipsius verbo, maxima cum gratiarum actione, obsecuturos esse.'

[759] Joh. OEkolampad und Oswald Myconius, p. 353; comp. his History of the Conf. pp. 190 sqq. __________________________________________________________________

§ 54. The First Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1536.

See Literature in § 53. Comp. also Pestalozzi: Heinrich Bullinger, pp. 183 sqq.

The First Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica prior), so called to distinguish it from the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, is the same with the Second Confession of Basle (Basileensis posterior), in distinction from the First of 1534. [760] It owes its origin partly to the renewed efforts of the Strasburg Reformers, Bucer and Capito, to bring about a union between the Lutherans and the Swiss, and partly to the papal promise of convening a General Council. A number of Swiss divines were delegated by the magistrates of Zurich, Berne, Basle, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, Mühlhausen, and Biel, to a Conference in the Augustinian convent at Basle, January 30, 1536. Bucer and Capito also appeared. Bullinger, Myconius, Grynæus, Leo Judæ, and Megander were selected to draw up a Confession of the faith of the Helvetic Churches, which might be used before the proposed General Council. It was examined and signed by all the clerical and lay delegates, February, 1536, and first published in Latin. [761] Leo Judæ prepared the German translation, which is fuller than the Latin text, and of equal authority.

Luther, to whom a copy was sent through Bucer, expressed unexpectedly, in two remarkable letters, his satisfaction with the earnest Christian character of this document, and promised to do all he could to promote union and harmony with the Swiss. [762] He was then under the hopeful impressions of the 'Wittenberg Concordia,' which Bucer had brought about by his elastic diplomacy, May, 1536, but which proved after all a hollow peace, and could not be honestly signed by the Swiss.

The Helvetic Confession is the first Reformed Creed of national authority. It consists of twenty-seven articles, is fuller than the first Confession of Basle, but not so full as the second Helvetic Confession, by which it was afterwards superseded. The doctrine of the sacraments and of the Lord's Supper is essentially Zwinglian, yet emphasizes the significance of the sacramental signs and the real spiritual presence of Christ, who gives his body and blood--that is, himself--to believers, so that he more and more lives in them and they in him.

It seems that Bullinger and Leo Judæ wished to add a caution against the binding authority of this or any other confession that might interfere with the supreme authority of the Word of God and with Christian liberty. [763] __________________________________________________________________

[760] Hagenbach, l.c. p. 357: 'Basler Confession heisst diese Confession nur weil sie in, nicht weil sie für Basel verfasst ist (ähnlich wie die Augsburger Confession von dem Ort der Uebergabe den Namen hat). Bezeichnender ist daher der Name erste Helvetische Confession, weil sie das Gesammtbekenntniss der reformirten Schweizerkirchen ist.'

[761] Sub titulo: 'Ecclesiarum per Helvetiam Confessio Fidei summaria et generalis,' etc. The German is inscribed, 'Eine kurze und gemeine Bekenntniss des heiligen, wahren und uralten christlichen Glaubens der Kirchen, etc., Zürich, Bern, Basel, Strassburg, Constanz, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, Mühlhausen, Biel, etc., 1536, Februariy.'

[762] See his letter to Jacob Meyer, burgomaster of Basle, Feb. 17, 1535, and his response to the Reformed Cantons, Dec. 1, 1537 (in De Wette, Vol. V. pp. 54 and 83). Luther kept the peace with the Swiss churches only for a few years. In his book against the Turks, 1541, he calumniated without provocation the memory of Zwingli; in August, 1543, he acknowledged the present of the Zurich translation of the Bible sent to him by Froschauer, the publisher, but scornfully declined to accept any further works from preachers 'with whom neither he nor the Church of God could have any communion, and who were driving people to hell' (see his letter in De Wette, Vol. V. p. 587); in 1544 he violently renewed, to the great grief of Melanchthon, the sacramental war in his 'Short Confession of the Sacrament;' and shortly before his death he was not ashamed to travesty the first Psalm thus: 'Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio Sacramentariorum: nec stetit in via Cinglianorum, nec sedet in cathedra Tigurinorum.' (See his letter to Jac. Probst of Bremen, Jan. 17, 1546, in De Wette, Vol. V. p. 778. Comp. also on this whole subject Hagenbach, l.c. p. 358, and Pestalozzi, l.c. pp. 216 sqq.). Myconius was not disturbed by these outbursts of passion, and continued to respect Luther without departing from the doctrine of his friend Zwingli. He judged, not without some reason, that the two Reformers never understood each other; that Luther stubbornly believed that Zwingli taught the sacrament to be an empty sign, and Zwingli that Luther taught a gross Capernaitic eating. See his letter of Sept. 7, 1538, to Bibliander, in Simmler's Collection, Vol. XLV., and Hagenbach, p. 350.

[763] This addition, which is not found in any copy, is thus stated by Hagenbach and Niemeyer (Proleg. p. xxxvi.): 'Durch diese Artikel wollen wir keineswegs allen Kirchen eine einzige Glaubensregel vorschreiben. Denn wir erkennen keine andere Glaubensregel an als die heilige Schrift. Wer also mit dieser übereinstimmt, mit dem sind wir einstimmig, obgleich er anders von unserer Confession verschiedene Redensarten brauchte. Denn auf die Sache selbst und die Wahrheit, nicht auf die Worte soll man sehen. Wir stellen also jedem frei, diejeniqen Redensarten zu gebrauchen, welche er für seine Kirche am passendsten glaubt, und werden uns auch dergleichen Freiheit bedienen, gegen Verdrehung des wahren Sinnes dieser Confession uns aber zu vertheidigen wissen. Dieser Ansdrücke haben wir uns jetzt bedient, um unsere Ueberzeugung darzustellen.' Pestalozzi. p. 186, gives the same declaration more fully. __________________________________________________________________

§ 55. The Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566.

Literature

Confessio Helvetica Posterior. The Latin text, Zurich, 1566, 1568, 1608, 1651, etc.; recent editions by J. P. Kindler, with Preface of Winer, Sulzbach, 1825; by Fritzsche, Turici, 1839; and by Ed. Böhl, Vienna, 1866: also in the Collections of Corpus et Syntag. Confess., Oxford Sylloge, Augusti, and Niemeyer. The German text appeared frequently--Zurich, 1566; Basle, 1654; Berne, 1676, etc., and in the Collections of Beck, Mess, and Böckel. French ed. Geneva, 1566, etc. English translations in Hall's Harmony of Protestant Confessions (not complete); another by Owen Jones: The Church of the Living God; also the Swiss and Belgian Confessions and Expositions of the Faith, translated into the English language in 1862. London (Caryl Book Society), 1865 (complete, but inaccurate), and a third by Prof. Jerem. H. Good (of Tiffin, O.) in Bomberger's Reformed Church Monthly (Ursinus College, Pa.), for Sept. 1872, to Dec. 1873 (good, but made from the German translation).

Joh. Jak. Hottinger: Helvetische Kirchengeschichte, Zurich, 1708, Part III. pp. 894 sqq.

Hagenbach: Kritische Geschichte der Entstehung und Schicksale der ersten Basler Confession. Basel, 1827 (1828), pp. 85 sqq.

Niemeyer: Collect., Prolegomena, pp. lxiii.-lxviii.

L. Thomas: La Confession Helvétique, études historico-dogmatiques sur le xvi^e. siècle. Genève, 1853.

K. Sudhoff: Art. Helvetische Confession, in Herzog's Theol. Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. V. pp. 749-755.

Carl Pestalozzi: Heinrich Bullinger. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen. Elberfeld, 1858 (5th Part of Väter und Begründer der reform. Kirche), pp. 413-421.

Before we proceed to the Calvinistic Confessions, we anticipate the Second Helvetic Confession, the last and the best of the Zwinglian family.

Bullinger.

It is the work of Henry Bullinger (1504-1575), the pupil, friend, and successor of Zwingli, to whom he stands related as Beza does to Calvin. He was a learned, pious, wise, and faithful man, and the central figure in the second period of the Reformation in German Switzerland. Born at Bremgarten, in Aargau, [764] educated in Holland and Cologne, where he studied patristic and scholastic theology, and read with great interest the writings of Luther and the Loci of Melanchthon, he became on his return intimately acquainted with Zwingli, accompanied him to the Conference at Berne (1528), and after laboring for some years at Cappel and Bremgarten, he was chosen his successor as chief pastor (Antistes) at Zurich, Dec. 9, 1531. This was shortly after the catastrophe at Cappel, in the darkest period of the Swiss Reformation.

Bullinger proved to be the right man in the right place. He raised the desponding spirits, preserved and completed the work of his predecessor, and exerted, by his example and writings, a commanding influence throughout the Reformed Church inferior only to that of Calvin. He was in friendly correspondence with Calvin, Bucer, Melanchthon, Laski, Beza, Cranmer, Hooper, [765] Lady Jane Grey, [766] and the leading Protestant divines and dignitaries of England. Some of them had found an hospitable refuge in his house and with his friends during the bloody reign of Mary (1553-58), and after their return, when raised to bishoprics and other positions of influence under Queen Elizabeth, they asked his counsel, and kept him informed about the progress of reform in their country. This correspondence is an interesting testimony not only to his personal worth, but also to the fraternal communion which then existed between the Anglican and the Swiss Reformed Churches. [767] Episcopacy was then not yet deemed the only valid form of the Christian ministry. He opened his house also to Italian Protestants, and treated even the elder Sozino, who died at Zurich, with great kindness and liberality, endeavoring to restrain his heretical tendency. In the latter years of his life he was severely tried by the death of his best friends (Bibliander, Froschauer, Peter Martyr, Pellican, Gessner, Blaarer, Calvin, Hyperius), and by a fearful pestilence which deprived him of his beloved wife and three daughters, and brought him to the brink of the grave. He bore all with Christian resignation, recovered from disease, and continued faithfully to labor for several years longer, until he was called to his reward, after taking affectionate farewell of all the pastors and professors of Zurich, thanking them for their devotion, assuring them of his love, and giving each one of them the hand with his blessing. He assumed the care of the Church of Zurich when it was in a dangerous crisis; he left it firmly and safely established.

Composition.

Bullinger was one of the principal authors of the First Helvetic Confession, and the sole author of the Second. In the intervening thirty years Calvin had developed his amazing energy, while Romanism had formularized its dogmas in the Council of Trent.

Bullinger composed the Second Helvetic Confession in 1562, in latin, for his own use, as an abiding testimony of the faith in which he had lived and in which he wished to die. He showed it to Peter Martyr, who fully consented to it, shortly before his death (Nov. 12, 1562). Two years afterwards lie elaborated it more fully during the raging of the pestilence, and added it to his will, which was to be delivered to the magistrate of Zurich after his death, which he then expected every day. [768]

Publication.

But events in Germany gave it a public character. The pious Elector of the Palatinate, Frederick III., being threatened by the Lutherans with exclusion from the treaty of peace on account of his secession to the Reformed Church and publication of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), requested Bullinger (1565) to prepare a clear and full exposition of the Reformed faith, that he might answer the charges of heresy and dissension so constantly brought against the same. Bullinger sent him a manuscript copy of his Confession. The Elector was so much pleased with it that he desired to have it translated and published in Latin and German before the meeting of the Imperial Diet, which was to assemble at Augsburg in 1566, to act on his alleged apostasy.

In the mean time the Swiss felt the need of such a Confession as a closer bond of union. The First Helvetic Confession was deemed too short, and the Zurich Confession of 1545, the Zurich Consensus of 1549, and the Geneva Consensus of 1552 touched only the articles of the Lord's Supper and predestination. Conferences were held, and Beza came in person to Zurich to take part in the work. Bullinger freely consented to a few changes, and prepared also the German version. Geneva, Berne, Schaffhausen, Biel, the Grisons, St. Gall, and Muhlhausen expressed their agreement. Basle alone, which had its own Confession, declined for a long time, but ultimately acceded.

The new Confession appeared at Zurich, March 12, 1566, in both languages, at public expense, and was forwarded to the Elector and to Philip of Hesse. [769] A French translation appeared soon afterwards in Geneva under the care of Beza.

In the same month the Elector Frederick made such a manly and noble defense of his faith before the Diet at Augsburg, that even his Lutheran opponents were filled with admiration for his piety, and thought no longer of impeaching him for heresy.

Authority.

The Helvetic Confession is the most widely adopted, and hence the most authoritative of all the Continental Reformed symbols, with the exception of the Heidelberg Catechism. Besides the Swiss Cantons and the Palatinate, in whose name it was first issued, the Reformed Churches of Neufchatel (1568), Basle, France (at the Synod of La Rochelle, 1571), Hungary (at the Synod of Debreczin, 1567), Poland (1571 and 1578), and Scotland (1566) [770] gave it their sanction. It was well received also in Holland and England. [771]

It was translated not only into German, French, and English, but also into Dutch, Magyar, Polish, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish. [772]

CHARACTER AND VALUE.

Like most of the Confessions of the sixteenth century, the Helvetic Confession is expanded beyond the limits of a popular creed into a lengthy theological treatise. It is the matured fruit of the preceding symbolical labors of Bullinger and the Swiss Churches. It is in substance a restatement of the First Helvetic Confession, in the same order of topics, but with great improvements in matter and form. It is scriptural and catholic, wise and judicious, full and elaborate, yet simple and clear, uncompromising towards the errors of Rome, moderate in its dissent from the Lutheran dogmas. It proceeds on the conviction that the Reformed faith is in harmony with the true Catholic faith of all ages, especially the ancient Greek and Latin Church.

Hence it is preceded by the Imperial edict of 380 (from the recognized Justinian code), which draws the line between orthodoxy and heresy, and excludes as heresies only the departures from the Apostolic and Nicene faith. It inserts also the brief Trinitarian creed ascribed to the Roman Pope Damasus (from the writings of Jerome), and referred to in said decree as a standard of orthodoxy. [773] Harmony in the fundamental doctrines of the ancient Church is declared sufficient, and brotherly union consistent with variety in unessentials, such as in fact always has existed in the Christian Church. As in former Confessions, so also in this, Bullinger distinctly recognizes, in the spirit of Christian liberty and progress, the constant growth in the knowledge of the Word of God, and the consequent right of improvement in symbolical statements of the Christian faith.

Upon the whole, the Second Helvetic Confession, as to theological merit, occupies the first rank among the Reformed Confessions, while in practical usefulness it is surpassed by the Heidelberg and Westminster Shorter Catechisms, and in logical clearness and precision by the Westminster Confession, which is the product of a later age, and of the combined learning and wisdom of English and Scotch Calvinism. [774]

CONTENTS.

In view of the importance of this Confession, I give here a condensed translation of the original. [775] It consists of thirty chapters, which cover in natural order all the articles of faith and discipline which then challenged the attention of the Church.

Chap. I. The Holy Scriptures.--This chapter lays down the evangelical rule of faith, or the objective principle of Protestantism.

We believe and confess that the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the true Word of God, and have sufficient authority in and of themselves, and not from men; since God himself through them still speaks to us, as he did to the Fathers, the Prophets, and Apostles. They contain all that is necessary to a saving faith and a holy life; and hence nothing should be added to or taken from them (Deut. iv. 2; Rev. xxii. 18, 19).

From the Scriptures must be derived all true wisdom and piety, and also the reformation and government of the Churches, the proof of doctrines, and the refutation of errors (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17; 1 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Matt. x. 20). God may illuminate men directly by the Holy Spirit, without the external ministry; yet he has chosen the Scriptures and the preaching of the Word as the usual method of instruction.

The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, though they may be read for edification, are not to be used as an authority in matters of faith. [776]

We condemn the doctrines of the Gnostics and Manichæans, and all others who reject the Scriptures in whole or in part.

Chap. II. The Interpretation of the Scriptures; the Fathers, Councils, and Traditions.--We acknowledge only that interpretation as true and correct which is fairly derived from the spirit and language of the Scriptures themselves, in accordance with the circumstances, and in harmony with other and plainer passages (2 Pet. i. 20, 21).

We do not despise the interpretation of the Greek and Latin fathers and the teaching of Councils, but subordinate them to the Scriptures; honoring them as far as they agree with the Scriptures, and modestly dissenting from them when they go beyond or against the Scriptures. In matters of faith we can not admit any other judge than God himself, who through his Word tells us what is true and what is false, what is to be followed, and what is to be avoided.

We reject traditions which contradict the Scriptures, though they may claim to be apostolical. For the Apostles and their disciples could not teach one thing by writing, and another by word of mouth. St. Paul preached the same doctrine to all the churches (1 Cor. iv. 17; 2 Cor. i. 13; xii. 18). The Jews likewise had their traditions of the elders, but they were refuted by our Lord as 'making void the Word of God' (Matt. xv. 8, 9; Mark vii. 6, 7).

Chap III. Of God, his Unity and Trinity.--We believe and teach that God is one in essence (Deut. vi. 4; Exod. xx. 2, 3, etc.), and three in persons--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Father hath begotten the Son from eternity; the Son is begotten in an unspeakable manner; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from both, and is to be worshiped with both as one God. There are not three Gods, but three persons--consubstantial, coeternal, distinct as to person and order, yet without any inequality. The divine essence or nature is the same in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Luke i. 35; Matt. iii. 17; xxviii. 19; John i. 32; xiv. 26; xv. 26).

In short, we accept the Apostles' Creed, which delivers to us the true faith.

We therefore condemn the Jews and Mohammedans, and all who blaspheme this holy and adorable Trinity. We also condemn all heretics, who deny the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Chap. IV Of Idols, Images of Gods and of Saints.--As God is a spirit, he can not be represented by any image (John iv. 24; Isa. xl. 18; xliv. 9, 10; Jer. xvi. 19; Acts xvii. 29, etc.).

And although Christ assumed man's nature, yet he did so not in order to afford a model for sculptors and painters. He instituted for the instruction of the people the preaching of the Gospel, and the sacraments, but not images. Epiphanius tore down an image of Christ and some saint in a church, because he regarded it contrary to the Scriptures.

Chap. V. The Adoration and Invocation of God through the only Mediator Jesus Christ.--God is the only object of worship (Matt. iv. 10). And he is to be worshiped 'in spirit and in truth' (John iv. 24), and through our only and sufficient Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ (1 Tim. ii. 5; 1 John ii. 1).

Hence we neither adore nor invoke the departed saints, and give no one else the glory that belongs to God alone (Isa. xlii. 8; Acts iv, 12).

Nevertheless, we neither despise nor undervalue the saints, but honor them as the members of Christ and the friends of God, who have gloriously overcome the flesh and the world; we love them as brethren, and hold them up as examples of faith and virtue, desiring to dwell with them eternally in heaven, and to rejoice with them in Christ.

Much less do we believe that the relics of saints should be worshiped. Nor do we swear by saints, since it is forbidden to swear by the name of strange gods (Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. x. 20).

Chap. VI. The Providence of God.--We believe that the wise, eternal, and almighty God by his providence preserves and rules all things in heaven and earth (Psa. cxiii. 4-6; cxxxix. 3-4; Acts xvii. 28; Rom. xi. 36).

We therefore condemn the Epicureans, who blasphemously affirm that God neither sees nor cares for men (Psa. xciv. 3-9).

We do not despise as unnecessary the means whereby divine Providence works, but make use of them as far as they are commended to us in the Word of God. We disapprove of the rash words of those who say that our efforts and endeavors are vain.

St. Paul well knew that he was sailing under the providence of God, who had assured him that he must bear witness at Rome (Acts xxiii. 11), and that not a soul should perish (xxvii. 21, 34); nevertheless, when the sailors were seeking flight, he said to the centurion and the soldiers: 'Unless these abide in the ship, ye can not be saved' (ver. 31). For God has appointed the means by which we attain to the end. [777]

Chap. VII. Of the Creation of all Things; of Angels, the Devil, and Man.--This good and almighty God created all things, visible and invisible, by his eternal Word, and preserves them by his coeternal Spirit (Psa. xxxiii. 6; John i. 3). He made all things very good and for the use of man (Gen. i. 31).

We condemn the Manichæans who impiously imagine two coeternal principles, the one good, the other evil, and two antagonistic gods.

Angels and men stand at the head of all creatures. Angels are ministers of God (Psa. civ. 4), and ministering spirits sent for them who shall be heirs of salvation (Heb. i. 14).

The devil was a murderer and liar from the beginning (John viii. 44).

Some angels persevered in obedience, and are ordained unto the faithful service of God and men; but others fell of their own accord and ran into destruction, and have become enemies of God and men.

Man was made in the image and likeness of God, and placed by God in paradise as ruler over the earth (Gen. i. 27, 28; ii. 8). This is celebrated by David in the 8th Psalm. Moreover, God gave him a wife and blessed them (Gen. ii. 22 sqq.).

Man consists of two diverse substances in one person--of an immortal soul, which, when separated from the body neither sleeps nor dies, and of a mortal body, which at the last judgment, shall be raised again from the dead.

We condemn those who deny the immortality, or affirm the sleep of the soul, or teach that it is a part of God.

Chap. VIII. Of Man's Fall, Sin, and the Cause of Sin.--Man was created according to the image of God, in true righteousness and holiness, good and upright. But by the instigation of the serpent, and through his own guilt, he fell from goodness and rectitude, and became, with all his offspring, subject to sin, death, and various calamities.

Sin is that inborn corruption of man, derived and propagated from our first parents, whereby we are immersed in depraved lusts, averse to goodness and prone to all evil, and unable of ourselves to do or think any thing that is good. And as years roll on, we bring forth evil thoughts, words, and deeds, as corrupt trees bring forth corrupt fruits (Matt. xii. 33). Therefore we are all by nature under the wrath of God, and subject to just punishment.

By death we understand not only the dissolution of the body, but also the eternal punishments of sin (Eph. ii. 1, 5; Rom. v. 12).

We therefore acknowledge that there is original sin in all men, and that all other sins, whether mortal or venial, also the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, spring from this same source. We acknowledge also that sins are not equal, but some are more grievous than others (Matt. x. 14, 15; xi. 24; 1 John v. 16, 17).

We condemn the Pelagians, who deny original sin; the Jovinianists, who with the Stoics declare all sins to be equal; and those who make God the author of sin against the express teaching of Scriptures (Psa. v. 5-7; John viii. 44).

When God is said to blind or harden men, or to give them over to a reprobate mind (Exod. vii. 13; John xii. 40), it is to be understood as a righteous judgment. Moreover, God overrules the wickedness of men for good, as he did in the case of the brethren of Joseph.

Chap. IX. Of Free Will and Man's Ability.--The will and moral ability of man must be viewed under a threefold state.

First, before the fall, he had freedom to continue in goodness, or to yield to temptation.

Secondly, after the fall, his understanding was darkened and his will became a slave to sin (1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 5; John viii. 34; Rom. viii. 7). But he has not been turned into 'a stone or stock;' nor is his will (voluntas) a non-will (noluntas). [778] He serves sin willingly, not unwillingly (servit peccato non nolens, sed volens). In external and worldly matters man retains his freedom even after the fall, under the general providence of God.

Thirdly, in the regenerate state, man is free in the true and proper sense of the term. His intellect is enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand the mysteries and the will of God; and the will is changed by the Spirit and endowed with the power freely to will and to do what is good (Rom. viii. 5, 6; Jer. xxxi. 33; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; John viii. 36; Phil. i. 6, 29; ii. 13).

In regeneration and conversion men are not merely passive, but also active. They are moved by the Spirit of God to do of themselves what they do. But even in the regenerate there remains some infirmity. The flesh strives against the spirit to the end of life (Rom. vii. 14; Gal. v. 17).

We condemn the Manichæans, who deny that evil originated in the free will of man, and the Pelagians, who teach that fallen man has sufficient freedom to keep God's commandments. The former are refuted by Gen. i. 27; Eccles. vii. 29; the latter by John viii. 36.

Chap. X. The Predestination of God and the Election of Saints.--God has from eternity predestinated or freely chosen, of his mere grace, without any respect of men, the saints whom he will save in Christ (Eph. i. 4; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10).

God elected us in Christ and for Christ's sake, so that those who are already implanted in Christ by faith are chosen, but those out of Christ are rejected (2 Cor. xiii. 5). [779]

Although God knows who are his, and a 'small number of the elect' is spoken of, yet we ought to hope well of all, and not rashly count any one among the reprobate (2 Tim. ii. 19; Matt. xx. 16; Phil i. 3 sqq.).

We reject those who seek out of Christ whether they are chosen, and what God has decreed concerning them from eternity. We are to hear the gospel and believe it, and be sure that if we believe and are in Christ, we are chosen. We must listen to the Lord's invitation, 'Come unto me' (Matt. xi. 28), and believe in the unbounded love of God, who gave his own Son for the salvation of the world, and will not that 'one of these little ones should perish' (John iii. 16; Matt. xviii. 14). [780]

Let, therefore, Christ be the mirror in which we behold our predestination. We shall have a sufficiently evident and sure testimony of being written in the book of life if we live in communion with him, and if in true faith he is ours and we his.

And if we are tempted concerning our predestination, let this be our comfort--that God's promises are general to believers, as he himself says: 'Seek, and ye shall find, and whosoever asketh shall receive' (Matt. vii. 8 sq.). We pray with the whole Church, 'Our Father which art in heaven;' by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ, and we are often fed in the Church by his flesh and blood unto life everlasting. Thus strengthened, let us 'work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it, is God who worketh in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure' (Phil. ii. 12, 13). [781]

Chap. XI. Jesus Christ true God and Man, and the only Saviour of the World.--We believe and teach that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was from eternity predestinated by the Father to be the Saviour of the world; that he was begotten of the Father from all eternity in an ineffable manner (Isa. liii. 8; Micah v. 2; John i. 1). Therefore the Son, according to his Divinity, is coequal and consubstantial with the Father; true God, not merely by name or adoption or by conferring of a dignity, but in essence and nature (1 John v. 20; Phil. ii. 6; Heb. i. 2, 3; John v. 18; xvii. 5).

We abhor the blasphemous doctrine of Arius and Servetus in opposition to the Son of God.

We also believe and teach that the same eternal Son of God became the Son of Man, of the seed of Abraham and David, not through the will of man (Ebionites), but he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the ever-Virgin Mary (ex Maria semper virgine), as taught in the gospel history and the Epistles (Matt. i. 18; Luke i. 34, 35; 1 John iv. 3; Heb. ii. 16). The body of Christ was therefore neither a mere appearance, nor brought down from heaven (the Gnostics, Valentinus and Marcion). Moreover his soul was not without reason (Apollinaris), nor his flesh without a soul (Eunomius); but he had a rational soul, and a flesh with senses capable of true suffering (Matt. xxvi. 36; John xii. 27).

Hence we acknowledge in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ two natures, a divine and a human, which are conjoined and united in one person without absorption or confusion and mixture.

We worship one Lord Christ, not two; one true God-Man, coequal (or of one substance, consubstantialis, homoousios) with the Father as regards his divine nature, and coequal with us men, sin only excepted (Heb. iv. 15), as regards his human nature.

We therefore abominate Nestorianism, which dissolves the unity of person, and Eutychianism, Monothelitism, and Monophysitism, which destroy the proper character of the human nature.

We do not teach that the divine nature of Christ did suffer, nor that the human nature of Christ is every where present. The true body of Christ was not deified so as to put off its properties and to be absorbed into the divine substance. But we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ did truly suffer for us in the flesh (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 1), and that the Lord of glory was crucified for us (1 Cor. ii. 8). For we accept believingly and reverently the 'communication of properties,' which is deduced from the Scriptures and employed by the ancient Church in explaining and harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages. [782]

We believe and teach that Christ, in the same flesh in which he died, rose from the dead (Luke xxiv. 30), and ascended to the right hand of God in the highest heaven (Eph. iv. 10), which signifies his elevation to the divine majesty and power, but also a definite place (John xiv. 2; Acts iii. 21).

The same Christ will come again to judgment, when the wickedness of the world shall have reached the highest point, and Antichrist corrupted the true religion. He will destroy Antichrist, and judge the quick and the dead (2 Thess. ii. 8; Acts xvii. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 17). The believers will enter into the mansions of the blessed; the unbelievers, with the devil and his angels, will be cast into everlasting torment (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Tim. ii. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 7).

We reject all who deny the real resurrection; who teach the ultimate salvation of all the godless, and even the devil. We also reject the Jewish dream of a millennium, or golden age on earth, before the last judgment.

We believe and teach that Christ is the only Redeemer of the whole world, in whom all are saved that were saved before the law, under the law, and under the gospel, or will yet be saved to the end of the world (John x. 1, 7; Acts iv. 12; xv. 11; 1 Cor. x. 1, 4; Rev. xiii. 8).

We therefore confess and teach with a loud voice: Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of the world, the King and High-priest, the true Messiah, whom all the shadows and types of the Law and the Prophets did prefigure and promise. God did send him to us, and we need not look for another. There remains nothing but that we should give all glory to him, believe in him, and rest in him alone.

And, to say much in a few words, we sincerely believe and loudly confess all that has been determined out of the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is contained in the creeds and decrees of the first four oecumenical Councils held in Niceæ, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, in the Creed of St. Athanasius, and all similar creeds; and we reject all contrary to the same. In this manner we retain, unchanged and entire, the Christian, orthodox, and catholic faith; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid creeds which does not correspond with the Word of God and aid in setting forth the true faith. [783]

Chap. XII. The Law of God.--The law of God explains the will of God and the difference between what is good and bad, just and unjust. It is therefore good and holy. It is twofold: the law of nature inscribed on the hearts of men (Rom. ii. 15), and the written law of Moses. The latter we divide for perspicuity's sake into the moral law, comprehended in the two tables of the Decalogue (Exod. xx.; Deut. v.); the ceremonial law, concerning worship and sacred rites; and the judicial, concerning polity and economy.

The law of God is complete, and allows no addition nor subtraction (Deut. iv. 2; Isa. xxx. 21). It is given to us, not that by keeping it we might be justified, but that we may be led to a knowledge of sin and guilt, and, despairing of our own strength, turn by faith to Christ (Rom. iv. 15; iii. 20; viii. 3; Gal. iii. 21-24). Christ is the end of the law, and redeemed us from the curse of the law (Rom. x. 4; Gal. iii. 13). He enables us to fulfill the law, and his righteousness and obedience are imputed to us through faith.

The law is abolished inasmuch as it no more condemns and works wrath in them that believe, who are under grace, and not under the law. Besides, Christ has fulfilled all the types of the law, and put the substance in the place of the shadows; in him we have all fullness. Nevertheless, the law is useful in showing us all virtues and vices, and in regulating the life of new obedience. Christ did not come to destroy, but to fulfill the law (Matt. v. 17).

We therefore condemn old and modern Antinomianism.

Chap. XIII. The Gospel of Jesus Christ.--The law works wrath and announces the curse (Rom. iv. 15; Deut. xxvii. 26); the gospel announces grace and blessing (John i. 17). Nevertheless, those who lived before and under the law were not deprived altogether of the gospel, but had great promises (Gen. iii. 15; xxii. 18; xlix. 10). The promises were partly temporal, partly spiritual and eternal. By the gospel promises the fathers obtained salvation in Christ.

In the strict sense of the term the gospel is the glad tidings of salvation by Christ, in whom we have forgiveness, redemption, and everlasting life. Hence the history of Christ recorded by the four Evangelists is justly called the gospel.

Compared with the legalism of the Pharisees the gospel appeared to be a new doctrine, as it is even now called new by the Papists; but in fact it is the oldest doctrine, for God foreordained from eternity to save the world through Christ, and has revealed this plan in the gospel (2 Tim. i. 9, 10). It is therefore a grave error to call our evangelical faith a recent innovation.

Chap. XIV. Of Repentance and Conversion.--Repentance (metanoia) is a change of heart produced in a sinner by the word of the gospel and the Holy Spirit, and includes a knowledge of native and actual depravity, a godly sorrow and hatred of sin, and a determination to live hereafter in virtue and holiness. True repentance is turning to God and all good, and turning away from the devil and all evil. It is the free gift of God, and not the result of our own strength (2 Tim. ii. 25).

We have examples of true repentance in the woman that was a sinner (Luke vii. 38), in Peter after his fall (xxii. 62), in the prodigal son (xv. 18), and the publican in the temple (xviii. 13).

It is sufficient to confess our sins to God in private and in the public service; it is not necessary to confess to a priest, for this is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures; although we may seek counsel and comfort from a minister of the gospel in time of distress and trial (comp. James v. 16).

The keys of the kingdom of heaven, out of which the Papists forge swords, sceptres, and crowns, are given to all legitimate ministers of the Church in the preaching of the gospel and the maintenance of discipline (Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 23; Mark xvi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19). We condemn the profitable popish doctrine of penance and of indulgences, and apply to them Peter's word to Simon Magus: ' Thy money perish with thee' (Acts viii. 20).

Chap. XV. Of True Justification of Believers.--'To justify' means, with the Apostle when treating of this subject, to remit sins, to absolve from guilt and punishment, to receive into grace, and to pronounce just (Rom. viii. 33; Acts xiii. 38; Deut. xxv. 1; Isa. v. 23).

By nature we are all sinners and guilty of death before the tribunal of God, and we can be justified only by the merits of Christ crucified and risen again. For his sake God is reconciled, and imputes to us not our sins, but the righteousness of Christ as our own, so that we are purged and absolved from sin, death and damnation, and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, God alone justifies and justifies only for Christ's sake, not imputing to us our sins, but the righteousness of Christ.

We therefore teach and believe, with the Apostle, that the sinner is justified by faith alone in Christ (sola fide in Christum), not by the law, nor by any works (Rom. iii. 28; iv. 2 sqq.; Eph. ii. 8, 9). Righteousness is imputed to faith because it receives Christ as our righteousness and ascribes all to the grace of God, but not because it is our work: it is the gift of God. As we receive food by eating, so faith appropriates Christ.

We do not divide justification by ascribing it partly to the grace of God or to Christ, and partly to our works or merits, but solely and exclusively to the grace of God in Christ through faith. We must first be justified before we can do good works. Love is derived from faith (1 Tim. i. 5; Gal. v. 6).

Therefore we speak here not of a false, dead faith, but of a living and vivifying faith which lives in Christ, our life, and proves its life by living works. Even James (chap. ii.) does not contradict our doctrine, for he speaks of a dead faith which even demons have, and he shows that Abraham proved his living and justifying faith by works.

Chap. XVI. Faith and Good Works, their Reward and the Merit of Man.--Christian faith is not a human opinion and persuasion, but a most firm confidence and clear and steady assent of the mind, a most certain apprehension of the truth of God as laid down in the Scriptures and the Apostles' Creed, and therefore of God himself as the highest good, and especially of the divine promise and of Christ, who is the crown of all promises. Such a faith is a free gift of God, who of his grace grants it to his elect through his Holy Spirit by means of the preaching of the gospel and believing prayer when and in what measure he pleases. This faith has degrees and is subject to growth; hence the prayer of the Apostles: 'Lord, increase our faith' (Luke xvii. 5). [Then follow a number of Scripture proofs: Heb. xi. 1; 2 Cor. i. 20; Phil. i. 29; Rom. xii. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Rom. x. 16; Acts xiii. 48; Gal. v. 6, etc.]

We teach that good works proceed from a living faith, through the Holy Spirit, and are done by believers according to the will and rule of the Word of God (2 Pet. i. 5 sqq.; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 6, 23).

Good works must be done, not to merit thereby eternal life, which is a free gift of God (Rom. vi. 23), nor for ostentation or from selfishness, which the Lord rejects (Matt. vi. 2; xxiii. 5), but for the glory of God, to adorn our calling and to show our gratitude to God, and for the good of our neighbor (Matt. v. 16; Eph. iv. 1; Col. iii. 17; Phil. ii. 4; Tit. iii. 14). Although we teach that man is justified by faith of Christ and not by any works, we do not condemn good works. Man is created and regenerated by faith in order to work unceasingly what is good and useful. 'Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit' (Matt. vii. 17). 'He that abideth in me, the same bringeth forth much fruit' (John xv. 5). 'We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. ii. 10).

We condemn, therefore, all who despise good works or declare them useless; at the same time we do not deem them necessary to salvation, in the sense that without them no one was ever saved; for we are saved by Christ alone; but good works are necessarily born of faith, and improperly salvation may be ascribed to them which properly is ascribed to grace (Rom. xi. 6).

God is well pleased and approves of works which are done by us through faith (Acts x. 35; Col. i. 9, 10). He also richly rewards them (Jer. xxxi. 16; Matt. v. 12; x. 42). But we ascribe this reward not to the merits of man who receives it, but to the goodness and faithfulness of God who promises and grants it, although he owes nothing to his creatures. Even if we have done all, we are unprofitable servants (Luke xvii. 10). We say with Augustine, that God crowns and rewards in us, not our merits, but the gifts of his grace. It is a reward of grace, not of merit. We have nothing but what we have received (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 7).

We therefore condemn those who so defend the merits of men as to set at naught the grace of God.

Chap. XVII. Of the Catholic and Holy Church of God, and of the only Head of the Church.--Since God willed from the beginning that men should be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, it follows of necessity that there always was, and now is, and shall be to the end of time, a Church or an assembly of believers and a communion of saints, called and gathered from the world, who know and worship the true God in Christ our Saviour, and partake by faith of all the benefits freely offered through Christ. They are fellow-citizens of the same household of God (Eph. ii. 19). To this refers the article in the Creed: 'I believe the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints.'

And as there is but one God, one Mediator between God and man, Jesus the Messiah, one pastor of the whole flock, one head of this body, one Spirit, one salvation, one faith, one testament or covenant, there must needs be but one Church, which we call catholic, that is, universal, spread throughout all parts of the world and all ages.

We therefore condemn the Donatists, who confined the Church to some corners of Africa, and also the Roman exclusiveness, which pretends that the Roman Church alone is the catholic Church.

The Church is divided, not in itself, but on account of the diversity of its members. There is a Church militant on earth struggling against the flesh, the world, and the devil, and a Church triumphant in heaven rejoicing in the presence of the Lord; nevertheless there is a communion between the two. The Church militant is again divided into particular Churches. It was differently constituted among the Patriarchs, then under Moses, then under Christ in the gospel dispensation; but there is only one salvation in the one Messiah, in whom all are united as members of one body, partaking of the same spiritual food and drink. We enjoy a greater degree of light and more perfect liberty.

This Church is called the house of the living God (1 Tim. iii. 15), built of lively and spiritual stones (1 Pet. ii. 5), resting on an immovable rock, the only foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11), the ground and pillar of the truth (1 Tim. iii. 15). It can not err as long as it rests on the rock Christ, on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles; but it errs as often as it departs from him who is the truth. [784] The Church is also called a virgin, the bride of Christ, the only and beloved (2 Cor. xi. 2), and the body of Christ, because the believers are living members of Christ under him the head (Eph. i. 23, etc.).

The Church can have no other head than Christ. He is the one universal pastor of his flock, and has promised his presence to the end of the world. He needs, therefore, no vicar; for this would imply his absence. [Those who introduce a double headship and government in the Church plainly belong to the errorists condemned by the Apostles (2 Pet. ii.; Acts xx.; 2 Cor. xi.; 2 Thess. ii.).] [785]

But by rejecting the Roman head we do not introduce disorder and confusion into the Church of Christ, since we adhere to the government delivered by the Apostles before there was any Pope. The Roman head preserves the tyranny and corruption in the Church, and opposes and destroys all just reformation.

They object that since our separation from Rome all sorts of controversies and divisions have arisen. As if there had never been any sects and dissensions in the Roman Church, in the pulpits, and among the people! God is indeed a God of order and peace (1 Cor. xiv. 33); nevertheless there were parties and divisions even in the Apostles' Church (Acts xv.; 1 Cor. iii.; Gal. ii.). God overrules these divisions for his glory and for the illustration of truth.

Communion with the true Church of Christ we highly esteem, and deny that those who separate from it can live before God. As there was no salvation out of the ark of Noah, so there is no certain salvation out of Christ, who exhibits himself to the elect in the Church for their nourishment. [786]

But we do not so restrict the Church as to exclude those who from unavoidable necessity and unwillingly do not partake of the sacraments, or who are weak in faith, or still have defects and errors. God had friends even outside of the Jewish people. We know what happened to Peter, and to chosen believers from day to day, and we know that the Apostle censured the Christians in Galatia and Corinth for grave offenses, and yet calls them holy churches of Christ. Yea, God may at times by a righteous judgment allow the Church to be so obscured and shaken as to appear almost annihilated, as in the days of Elijah (1 Kings xix. 18; comp. Rev. vii. 4, 9); but even then he has his true worshipers, even seven thousand and more; for 'the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his' (2 Tim. ii. 19). Hence the Church may be called invisible, not that the men composing it are invisible, but because they are known only to God, while we are often mistaken in our judgment. There are also many hypocrites in the Church, who outwardly conform to all the ordinances, but will ultimately be revealed in their true character and be cut off (1 John ii. 19; Matt. xiii. 24, 47).

The true unity of the Church is not to be sought in ceremonies and rites, but in the truth and in the catholic faith, as laid down in the Scriptures and summed up in the Apostles' Creed. Among the ancients there was a great diversity of rites without dissolving the unity of the Church.

Chap. XVIII. On the Ministers of the Church, their Institution and Offices.--God always used ministers for gathering and governing the Church (Rom. x. 14, 17; John xiii. 20; Acts xvi. 9; 1 Cor. iii. 9, etc.).

God employed the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets as teachers of their age. At last he sent his only-begotten Son, filled with infinite wisdom, to be our infallible guide. Christ chose the Apostles, and these ordained pastors in all the Churches (Acts xiv. 23), whose successors have taught and governed the Church to this day.

The ministers of the New Testament are called Apostles, prophets, evangelists, bishops, presbyters, pastors, and teachers (1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11). In subsequent times other names were introduced, as patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, archpresbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, etc. But we are satisfied with the offices instituted by the Apostles for the teaching and governing of the Church.

A minister should be lawfully called and chosen by the Church, and excel in sacred learning, pious eloquence, prudence, and unblemished character (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 5). When elected, a minister should be ordained of the elders by public prayer and the laying on of hands. We reject arbitrary intruders and incompetent pastors. But we acknowledge that innocent simplicity may be more useful than haughty learning.

A minister of the New Testament is not a priest, as in the Jewish dispensation, offering sacrifices for the living and the dead. Christ is our eternal High-priest, who fulfilled and abolished typical sacrifices by his one perfect sacrifice on the cross; and all believers are priests offering spiritual sacrifices--namely, thanksgiving and praise to God continually.

All ministers are equal in power and commission. Bishops and presbyters were originally the same in office, and governed the Church by their united services, mindful of the words of the Lord: 'He who will be chief among you, let him be your servant' (Luke xxii. 26). Jerome (Com. on Titus) says: 'Before, by the instigation of the devil, party spirit and sectarianism arose, the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters; but afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized belonged to him, not to Christ, it was decreed that one of the presbyters should by election be placed over the rest, and be intrusted with the care of the whole Church, and thus the seed of schisms be destroyed.' But Jerome does not present this decree as divine, for he soon adds that presbyters and bishops know that this distinction is based on ecclesiastical custom, and not on divine command. Therefore no one can be lawfully forbidden to return from human custom to the ancient constitution of the Church of Christ.

The chief duties of ministers are the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, the care of souls, and the maintenance of discipline. To do this effectually they must live in the fear of God, pray constantly, study the Scriptures diligently, be always watchful, and shine before all by purity of life. In the exercise of discipline, they should remember that the power was given to them for edification and not for destruction (2 Cor. x. 8; comp. Matt. xiii. 29).

We reject the error of the Donatists, who make the efficacy of the preaching and the sacraments to depend on the moral character of the minister. The voice of Christ must be heard and obeyed even out of the mouth of an unworthy servant (Matt. xxiii. 3); and the sacraments are efficacious to the worthy recipient by virtue of their divine appointment and the Word of Christ. On these things St. Augustine has much disputed from the Scriptures against the Donatists.

Nevertheless, proper control and discipline should be exercised over the doctrine and conduct of ministers in synods. False or immoral teachers should not be tolerated, but warned or deposed. We do not disapprove general or oecumenical councils if they are conducted, according to the apostolic example (Acts xv.), for the welfare, and not for the corruption of the Church.

As the laborer is worthy of reward, the minister is entitled to the maintenance of himself and family from the congregation he serves (1 Cor. ix. 9 sqq.; 1 Tim. v. 18, etc.). Against the Anabaptists, who denounce ministers living off their ministry.

Chap. XIX. The Sacraments of the Church of Christ.--With the preaching of the Word are joined sacraments or sacred rites instituted by God as signs and seals of his promises for the strengthening of our faith, and as pledges on our part for our consecration to him.

The sacraments of the Jewish dispensation were circumcision and the paschal lamb; the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Papists count seven sacraments. Of these we acknowledge repentance, ordination of ministers, and marriage as useful institutions of God, but not as sacraments. Confirmation and extreme unction are inventions of men, which may be abolished without any loss. We abhor all merchandise carried on with the sacraments by Romish priests.

The supreme benefit of the sacraments is Christ the Saviour, that Lamb of God slain for our sins from the foundation of the world, and that Rock of which all our fathers drank. So far the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments are the same. But we have the abiding substance.

Sacraments consist of the Word, the sign, and the thing signified. By the Word of God and institution of Christ they become sacraments and are sanctified. The sign in baptism is water, the thing signified is regeneration or the washing from sins. The sign in the Lord's Supper is bread and wine, the thing signified is the veritable body and blood of Christ sacrificed for us. The signs are not changed into the things signified; for then they would cease to be sacramental signs, representing the things signified; but they are sacred and efficacious signs and seals. For he who instituted baptism and the Supper intended that we should receive not the outward form only, but the inward blessing, that we should be truly washed from all our sins through faith, and be made partakers of Christ.

The truth and power of the sacraments depend neither on the worthiness of the minister nor that of the receiver, but on the faithfulness of God. Unbelievers do not receive the things offered; but the fault is in men, whose unbelief doth not annul the faith of God (Rom. iii. 3).

Chap. XX. Of Holy Baptism.-- Baptism is instituted by Christ (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15). There is only one baptism in the Church; it lasts for life, and is a perpetual seal of our adoption. To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, initiated, and received into the covenant, into the family and the inheritance of the sons of God, that, cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ, we may lead a new and innocent life. We are internally regenerated by the Holy Ghost, but we receive publicly the seal of these blessings by baptism. Water washes away filth, and refreshes and comforts the body; the grace of God inwardly and invisibly cleanses the soul.

By baptism, we are separated from the world and consecrated to God. In baptism we confess our faith and pledge obedience to God. We are enrolled into the holy army of Christ to fight against the World, the flesh, and the devil.

Later human additions to the primitive form of baptism, such as exorcism, the use of burning light, oil, salt, spittle, we judge to be unnecessary.

Baptism is not to be administered by women or by midwives, but by the ministers of the Church.

We condemn those who deny that children of believers should be baptized. For to children belongs the kingdom of God, and they are in covenant with God--why then should not the sign of the covenant be given to them? We are therefore no Anabaptists, and have no communion with them.

Chap. XXI. Of the Holy Supper of our Lord.--The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, is a grateful commemoration of the benefits of redemption, and a spiritual feast of believers instituted by Christ, wherein he nourishes us with his own flesh and blood by true faith unto eternal life. It signifies and seals to us the greatest benefit and blessing ever conferred on the race of mortals, that he truly delivered his body and shed his blood for the remission of our sins. In it we eat his flesh which is meat indeed, and drink his blood which is drink indeed (Matt xxvi. 20 sqq.; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 21 sqq.; John vi. 51 sqq.).

This eating is not corporeal and Capernaitic, by the mouth and the stomach, but spiritual, i.e., by the Holy Ghost through faith. 'The flesh,' corporeally eaten, 'profiteth nothing; it is the spirit that quickeneth' (John vi. 63). 'I am the bread of life; he that cometh unto me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst' (John vi. 51). So that eating and drinking here means to come unto Christ and to believe in him. As Augustine says: 'Why preparest thou the tooth and the stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten.'

Besides the spiritual eating, in the daily communion of the soul with Christ, there is also a sacramental eating, whereby the believer not only inwardly partakes of Christ, but also receives the visible signs and seals of his body and blood at the Lord's table. [787] And with the signs he receives the thing itself. [788] He is nourished and strengthened by spiritual food. The signs are also sure pledges that Christ died not only for men in general, but also individually for every believing communicant. Besides, in partaking of this ordinance we obey the command of our Lord, celebrate his atoning death, give thanks for the great redemption, and openly profess our faith before the congregation.

But those who commune unworthily and without faith receive only the visible signs to their own condemnation or judgment (1 Cor. xi. 27 sqq.).

We therefore do not so conjoin the body and blood of Christ with bread and wine as to say that the bread itself is the body (except sacramentally), or that the body of Christ is corporeally hid under the bread, aud should be adored under the form of bread, or that whosoever receives the signs receives also necessarily the thing itself. [Against the Lutheran theory.] The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father (Mark xvi. 19; Heb. viii. 1; xii. 2); and hence we must raise our hearts to heaven.

And yet he is not absent from his people when they celebrate his communion. For as the sun in heaven is efficaciously present with us, so much more is Christ the sun of righteousness with us, not, indeed, corporeally, but spiritually by his enlivening and vivifying operation, even as he in the Last Supper explained that he himself would be present with us (John xiv.-xvi.). Hence we have not a Supper without Christ, but an unbloody and mystical Supper, as universal antiquity called it.

Moreover, the Lord's Supper reminds us that we are members of his body, and should live peaceably with all our brethren, and grow and persevere in holiness of life.

Therefore it is very proper that we should duly prepare ourselves by self-examination in regard to our repentance and faith in Christ (1 Cor. xi. 28).

As to the external celebration, we adhere to the original form, consisting in the annunciation of the Word of God, devout prayers, the Lord's action, and its repetition in breaking bread, and distributing it together with the wine, in eating the body and drinking the blood of our Lord, in grateful remembrance of his death, in thanksgiving, and in holy reunion of the brethren as one body.

We disapprove of the withdrawal of the cup contrary to the express command of our Lord: 'Drink ye all of it' (Matt. xxvi. 27).

The mass--whatever it may have been in ancient times--has been turned from a salutary institution into a vain show, and surrounded with various abuses, which justify its abolition.

Chap. XXII. Of Sacred and Ecclesiastical Assemblies.--It is lawful and right for all men privately to read the Scriptures for edification. At the same time the maintenance of religion demands regular public services. These should be conducted decently, in order, and for edification, in the language understood by the people.

Chap. XXIII. Of Church Prayers, Singing, and Canonical Hours.--Public prayers in sacred assemblies should be made in the vulgar tongue understood by all. Every prayer is to be offered to God alone, through the sole mediation of Christ, not to saints or through them. Churches are at liberty to vary from the usual forms. Prayers are not superstitiously to be confined to particular places or hours. Long and tedious prayers in public assemblies should be avoided. Singing is not indispensable, but lawful and desirable. Canonical hours are not prescribed in the Scriptures, and are unknown to antiquity.

Chap. XXIV. Of Feasts, Fasts, and the Choice of Meats.--The Lord's day is consecrated, from the times of the Apostles, to the worship of God and to sacred rest. But we observe it in Christian freedom, not with Jewish superstition, neither do we believe that one day is in itself holier than another.

If congregations in addition commemorate the Lord's nativity, circumcision, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, we greatly approve of it. But feasts instituted by men in honor of saints we reject, though the memory of the saints is profitable, and should be commended to the people with exhortations to follow their virtues.

True Christian fasting consists in temperance, abstinence, watchfulness, self-government, and chastisement of our flesh, that we may the easier obey the Spirit. Such fasting is a help to prayer and all virtues.

There are also public fasts appointed in times of affliction and calamity, when people abstain from food altogether till evening, and spend all time in prayer and repentance. Such fasts are mentioned by the Prophets (Joel ii. 12 sq.), and should be observed when the Church is afflicted and oppressed. Private fasts are observed by each of us as we may judge it profitable to our souls.

All fasts ought to proceed from a free and willing mind, and be observed in a spirit of true humility, in order to vanquish the flesh and to serve God more fervently, but not in order to gain the favor of men or the merit of righteousness.

The fast, of forty days (Lent) has the testimony of antiquity, but is not enjoined in the Scriptures, and ought not to be imposed upon the conscience of the faithful. There was great diversity and freedom in the early Church as to the time of fasting, as we learn from Irenæus, and Socrates the historian.

As to the choice of meats, we hold that in fasts we should abstain from all such food or drink as stimulates the carnal desires. But otherwise we know that all the creatures of God are good (Gen. i. 31), and may be used without distinction, but with moderation and thanksgiving (1 Cor. x. 25; Tit. i. 15). Paul calls the prohibition of meats a doctrine of the demons (1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.), and reproves those who by excessive abstinence wish to acquire the fame of sanctity.

Chap. XXV. Of Catechizing, and of the Visitation and Consolation of the Sick.--The greatest care is to be bestowed on the religious instruction of the youth, especially in the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the nature of the sacraments. Churches should see to it that children receive catechetical instruction.

It is one of the chief duties of Christian pastors to visit, comfort, and strengthen the sick, and pray for them in private and in public. But the extreme unction of the Papists we disapprove.

Chap. XXV. Of the Burial of the Faithful, the Care of the Dead, of Purgatory, and the Apparition of Spirits.--The bodies of believers, which are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and will rise again in the last day, should be honorably committed to the earth, without superstition, and their relatives, widows, and orphans should be tenderly cared for.

We believe that the faithful after death go directly to Christ, and need not the prayers of the living. Unbelievers are cast into hell, from which there is no escape.

The doctrine of purgatory is opposed to the Scriptures, and to the plenary expiation and cleansing through Christ (comp. John v. 24; xiii. 10).

The tales about the souls of the departed appearing to the living and requesting their services for deliverance we judge to be mockeries or deceptions of the devil. The Lord forbids necromancy (Deut. xviii. 10); and the rich man was told that if his brethren on earth hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead (Luke xvi. 30).

Chap. XXVII. Of Rights and Ceremonies.--The ceremonial law of the Jews was a schoolmaster and guardian to lead them to Christ, the true Liberator, who abrogated it so that believers are no more under the law, but under the gospel freedom. The Apostles would not lay the burden of Jewish ceremonies on the new converts (Acts xv. 28). The more of human rites are accumulated in the Church, the more it is drawn away from Christian liberty and from Christ himself, while the ignorant seek in ceremonies what they should seek in Christ through faith. A few pure and moderate rites consistent with the Word of God are sufficient.

Difference in ceremonies, such as existed in the ancient Church, and exists now among us, need not to interfere with union and harmony in doctrine and faith. In things indifferent, which are neither good nor evil, the Church has always used liberty (1 Cor. viii. 10; x. 27 sqq.).

Chap. XXVIII. Of Church Property.--The wealth of the Church should be used for the maintenance of public worship and schools, the support of ministers and teachers, and especially also for the benefit of the poor.

Misapplication and abuse of Church property through ignorance or avarice is a sacrilege, and calls for reformation.

Chap. XXIX. Of Celibacy, Marriage, and Economy.--Those who have the gift of celibacy from heaven, so as to be pure and continent from their whole heart, may serve the Lord in that vocation in simplicity and humility, without exalting themselves above others. If not, they should remember the apostolic word: 'It is better to marry than to burn' (1 Cor. vii. 9).

Marriage (the remedy for incontinence, and continence itself) was instituted by God, who blessed it richly, and inseparably joined man and woman to live together in intimate love and harmony (Matt. xix. 5). Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 28).

We condemn polygamy, and those who reject second marriages.

Marriage should be contracted in the fear of the Lord, with the consent of parents or their representatives, and for the end for which it was instituted.

Children should be brought up in the fear of the Lord, properly supported by their parents (1 Tim. v. 8), and be taught honest arts or trades.

We condemn the doctrine which forbids marriage, or indirectly slights it as unholy and unclean (1 Tim. iv. 1). We execrate unclean celibacy, secret and open fornications, and the pretended continency of hypocrites.

Chap. XXX. Of the Magistrate.-- The civil magistrate is appointed by God himself (Rom. xiii.) for the peace and tranquillity of the human race. If opposed to the Church, he can do much harm: if friendly, he can do the Church most useful service.

The duty of the magistrate is to preserve peace and public order; to promote and protect religion and good morals; to govern the people by righteous laws; to punish the offenders against society, such as thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, and incorrigible heretics (if they are really heretics). [789]

Wars are justifiable only in self-defense, and after all efforts at peace have been exhausted.

We condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that a Christian should not hold a civil office, that the magistrate has no right to punish any one by death, or to make war, or to demand an oath.

All citizens owe reverence and obedience to the magistrate as the minister of God in all righteous commands, and even their lives when the public safety and welfare require it. Therefore we condemn the despisers of the magistrate, rebels and enemies of the commonwealth, and all who openly or artfully refuse to perform their duties as citizens.

We pray to God, our merciful heavenly Father, to bestow his blessing upon princes and rulers, upon us, and upon all his people, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour: to whom be praise, and glory, and thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen. __________________________________________________________________

[764] He was one of five sons of Dean Bullinger, who, like many priests of those days, in open violation of the laws of celibacy, lived in regular wedlock, but was much respected and beloved even by his bishop of Constance. He opposed Samson's traffic in indulgences, and became afterwards a Protestant through the influence of his son.

[765] Bishop Hooper wrote from prison shortly before his martyrdom, May and December, 1554, to Bullinger, as 'his revered father and guide,' and the best friend he had ever found, and commended to him his wife and two children (Pestalozzi, l.c. p. 445).

[766] Three letters of this singularly accomplished and pious lady, the great-granddaughter of Henry VII., to Bullinger, full of affection and gratitude, are still preserved as jewels in the City Library of Zurich, but his letters to her are lost. She translated a part of his book on Christian marriage into Greek, and asked his advice about learning Hebrew. Edward VI., against the will of Henry VIII., bequeathed his crown to Lady Jane Grey to save the Protestant religion, and this led to her execution at the Tower of London, Feb. 12, 1554, by order of Queen Mary. She met her fate with the spirit of a martyr, and sent, as a last token of friendship, her gloves to Bullinger, which were long preserved in his family (Pestalozzi, l.c. p. 445).

[767] See the Zurich Letters, published by 'The Parker Society,' Cambridge, second edition (chronologically arranged in one series), 1846. They contain, mostly from the archives of Zurich (the Simmler Collection), Geneva, and Berne, letters of Bishops John Jewel, John Parkhurst, Edmund Grindal, Edwin Sandys, Horn, John Foxe, Sir A. Cook, and others to Bullinger, as also to Gualter (Zwingli's son-in-law), Peter Martyr, Simmler, Lavater, Calvin, and Beza. The news of Bullinger's death was received in England with great grief. W. Barlow wrote to J. Simmler (Bullinger's son-in-law), March 13, 1576 (p. 494): ' How great a loss your Church has sustained by the death of the elder Bullinger, of most happy memory, yea, and our Church also, towards which I have heard that he always entertained a truly fraternal and affectionate regard, and indeed all the Churches of Christ throughout Europe.' Bishop Cox wrote to Gualter in the same year (p. 496): 'My sorrow was excessive for the death of Henry Bullinger, whom, by his letters and learned and pious writings, I had . . . known intimately for many years, although he was never known personally to me. Who would not be made sorrowful by the loss of such and so great a man, and so excellent a friend? not to mention that the whole Christian Church is disquieted with exceeding regret that so bright a star is forbidden any longer to shine upon earth.'

[768] See Bullinger's notes to the list of his writings; J. H. Hottinger, Schola Tigurina, p. 76; J. J. Simmler, Oratio de historia Confessionis Helveticæ, in Simmler's Collection, as quoted by Pestalozzi, l.c. pp. 416 sq. and 641. Also J. J. Hottinger, Helvet. Kirchengesch. Pt. III. p. 894.

[769] The full title is: 'Confessio et Expositio simplex Orthodoxæ Fidei, et Dogmatum Catholicorum synceræ Religionis Christianæ. Concorditer ab Ecclesiæ Christi Ministris, qui sunt in Helvetia, Tiguri, Bernæ [Glaronæ, Basileæ], Scaphusii [Abbatiscellæ], Sangalli, Curiæ Rhetorum, et apud Confoederatos, Mylhusii item, et Biennæ: quibus adjunxerunt se et Genevensis [et Neocomensis] Ecclesiæ Ministri [una cum aliis Evangelii Præconibus in Polonia, Hungaria, et Scotia]; edita in hoc, ut universis testentur fidelibus, quod in unitate veræ et antiquæ Christi Ecclesiæ perstent, neque ulla nova, aut erronea dogmata spargant, atque ideo etiam nihil consortii cum ullis Sectis aut Hæresibus habeant. Ad Rom. cap. X. vers. 10. Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Tiguri: Excudebat Christophorus Froschoverus, Mense Martio, MDLXVI.' Glarus, Basle, Appenzell, Neufchatel, Poland, Hungary, and Scotland, which we have included in brackets, approved the Confession at a later period, and hence are not mentioned in the first edition, but partly in the second edition of 1568, and more fully in those of 1644 and 1651.

[770] The ministers of Scotland wrote to Beza, September, 1566: 'Subscripsimus omnes, qui in hoc coetu interfuimus, et hujus Academiæ sigillo publico obsignavimus.' This is stated after the Preface in the edition of the Corpus et Syntagma, and in Niemeyer, p. 465, but without naming the coetus and Academia.

[771] I find no evidence of a formal sanction by the Anglican Church; but that the Confession was well received there may be inferred from the high esteem in which Bullinger was held (see p. 391), and still more from the fact that his Decades (a popular compend of theology in five series of sermons, each containing ten sermons) were, next to Calvin's Institutes, the highest theological authority in England, and were recommended, as late as 1586, to the study of young curates along with the Bible. See Ch. Hardwick: A History of the Christian Church during the Reformation (third edition, London, 1873, p. 241), where the following order of the Southern Convocation is quoted from Wilkins, IV. 321: 'Every minister having cure, and being under the degrees of master of arts and bachelor of law, and not licensed to be a public preacher, shall, before the second day of February next, provide a Bible, and Bullinger's Decades in Latin and English, and a paper book,' etc. On Bullinger's Decades, and his abridgment of the same in the Handbook of the Christian Religion (1556), see Pestalozzi, pp. 386, 469, 505 sqq.

[772] See Niemeyer, Proleg. p. lxvii. sq.

[773] Several creeds bear the name of Damasus, and are given by Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, pp. 179-190. The form inserted in the Confession is from a letter to Jerome (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, Tom. XI. p. 145), and is thus referred to in the Imperial edict: 'Cunctos populos . . . in ea volumus religione versari quam divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis . . . quamque Pontificem Damasum sequi claret, et Petrum Alexandriæ Episcopum, virum Apostolicæ sanctitatis.'

[774] I add some testimonies on the Second Helvetic Confession. Hagenbach (l.c. p. 86): 'In ihrer ganzen Anlage and in der Durchführung einzelner Punkte, namentlich in praktischer Beziehung (in der Scheidung des Geistlichen and Weltlichen, u.s.w.) ist sie ein wahres dogmatisches Kunstwerk zu nennen.' Pestalozzi (Bullinger, p. 422): 'Diese Confession, zu der Bullinger zweimal Angesichts des Todes sich bekannte, erscheint als das reife Ergebniss seines Glaubenslebens, seiner reichen inneren und äusseren Erfahrung, als der Inbegriff seiner theologischen Ueberzeugung wie seiner kirchlichen Grundsätze, als die ächte, wahrhafte Entwicklung und Fortbildung seiner früheren Bekenntnisse, zumal der ersten helvetischen Confession (von 1536). Sie ist ein Muster von Klarheit und Einfachheit, wie selbst hervorragende Gegner anerkennen, ausgezeichnet durch den Ueberblick, der das Ganze der christlichen Lehre umfasst, der völlige Ausdruck von Bullingers Gesinnung, scharf ausgeprägt gegenüber den Verirrungen des römisch-katholischen Kirchenthums, milde in Bezug auf die lutherischen Besonderheiten, ohne doch der eigenen Ueberzeugung irgend Eintrag zu thun. Was aber vornehmlich beachtenswerth, sie ist durchaus getragen von dem vollen, klaren und ruhigen Bewusstsein, das mit so durchgreifender Kräftigkeit Bullinger beseelte, der ächten apostolischen und katholischen Kirche anzugehören, der wahrhaft berechtigten und rechtgläubigen Kirche Christi. Sie ist fern davon, bloss mit der Bibel in der Hand alles das zu verwerfen, was nicht ausdrücklich in der heiligen Schrift gelehrt und geboten ist, wiewohl ihr diese von höchster Geltung ist, als oberste Richtschnur der christlichen Wahrheit. Sie bricht nicht mit dem geschichtlich Gewordenen (der Ueberlieferung), ausser sofern dieses der Schrift nicht gemäss ist. Die ganze Entwicklung der christlichen Kirche seit den Tagen der Apostel bis auf die Gegenwart ist ihr von hohem Werthe und findet ihre ernste Berücksichtigung, nur dass sie sich nach der obersten Norm muss richten lassen. Insofern steht sie mit ihrer evangelischen Schwesterkirche lutherischen Bekenntnisses ganz auf demselben Boden und kann ihr stets die Hand reichen zur Annäherung, möglicher Weise auch zu einer Einigung, wenn gleich die Auffassung der christlichen Wahrheit nach gewissen Richtungen hin sich unterscheiden und deshalb die Entscheidung über diese oder jene einzelnen Lehrpunkte und Gebräuche verschieden ausfallen mag.' Dr. Hodge (Syst. Theol. Vol. III. p. 634): 'The Second Helvetic Confession is, on some accounts, to be regarded as the most authoritative symbol of the Reformed Church, as it was more generally received than any other, and was sanctioned by different parties.'

[775] The full Latin text will be found in Vol. III.

[776] This is the first symbolical exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Canon. The Lutheran symbols leave this question open.

[777] Here we have a clear recognition of secondary causes in opposition to fatalism and determinism which has sometimes been charged upon Calvinism. The Westminster Confession (Chap. III.) is still more explicit: 'God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts ii. 23; iv. 27, 28; xvii. 23, 24, comp. with 36; Matt. xvii. 12; John xix. 11; Prov. xvi. 33).

[778] Expressions used by Luther, Flacius, and the Formula of Concord. The Helvetic and other Reformed Confessions are much more guarded on this point, and teach that man, though totally depraved, remains a moral and responsible being in the act of sinning. Melanchthon, in his later period, came to the same view, but went beyond it into synergism. Comp. above, pp. 262, 270.

[779] 'Ergo non sine medio, licet non propter ullum meritum nostrum, sed in Christo et propter Christum nos elegit Deus, ut qui jam sunt in Christo insiti per fidem, illi ipsi etiam sint electi, reprobi vero, qui sunt extra Christum.'

[780] Comp. ver. 10 and 11. A very strong passage for the doctrine of infant salvation, and so understood by Zwingli and Bullinger.

[781] This Tenth Article is moderately Calvinistic or Augustinian, and neither Arminian nor Melanchthonian (synergistic), as has sometimes been claimed. Comp. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 476; also Sudhof's art. in Herzog.

[782] 'Nam communicationem idiomatum ex Scripturis petitam et ab universa vetustate in explicandis componendisque Scripturarum locis in speciem pugnantibus usurpatam, religiose et reverenter recipimus et usurpamus.' It is an error, therefore, to charge the Reformed Church with rejecting the communicatio idiomatum. It admits the communication of the properties of one nature to the whole person, but denies the communication of the properties of one nature to the other, viz., the genus majestaticum, so called, whereby the infinite attributes of the divine nature (as omnipresence and omnipotence) are ascribed to the human nature, and the genus tapeinoticon, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the divine. Either of these forms leads necessarily to a Eutychian confusion of natures. The Lutheran Church teaches the genus majestaticum, as a support to its doctrine of the Eucharist, but rejects the genus tapeinoticon.

[783] An express and emphatic indorsement of the oecumenical Creeds, on the ground of their agreement with the Scriptures: 'Et ut paucis multa hujus causæ dicamus, quæcunque de incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et comprehensa symbolis ac sententiis quatuor primarum et proestantissimarum Synodorum celebratarum Niceæ, Constantinopoli, Ephesi, et Chalcedone, una cum beati Athanasii Symbolo, et omnibus his similibus symbolis, credimus corde syncero, et ore libero ingenue profitemur, condemnantes omnia his contraria. Atque ad hunc modum retinemus inviolatam sive integram fidem Christianam, orthodoxam atque catholicam: scientes, symbolis prædictis nihil contineri, quod non sit conforme Verbo Dei, et prorsus faciat ad synceram fidei explicationem.'

[784] 'Non errat illa, quamdiu innititur petræ Christo et fundamento Prophetarum et Apostolorum. Nec mirum, si erret, quoties deserit illum, qui solus est veritas.'

[785] The passage in brackets, according to the Zurich MS., was substituted by Bullinger on the margin for the following sentence, which he wished to have canceled (see note in Niemeyer, p. 501): 'We reject the Romish fiction concerning an official head and title of the servant of the servants of Christ; for experience proves that this is an empty boast, and that the Pope makes himself an enemy of Christ, and exalts himself above God, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself that he is God' (2 Thess. ii. 4).

[786] 'Ut extra arcam Noë non erat ulla salus, pereunte mundo in diluvio, ita credimus, extra Christum, qui se electis in Ecclesia fruendum proebet, nullam esse salutem certam: et proinde docemus, vivere volentes non oportere separari a vera Christi Ecclesia.' This high estimate of the Church reminds one of Cyprian's 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,' of Tertullian's 'Qui ecclesiam non habet matrem, Deum non habet patrem,' and of Augustine's 'Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me commoveret ecclesiæ auctoritas.' Calvin, in his Institutes (lib. IV. c. 1), uses similar language. But we must remember that the Calvinistic system does not bind election to the visible means of grace, and admits the possibility of salvation without baptism. Bullinger denies only the certainty of salvation (salutem certam) outside of the Church (comp. above what follows); and so must be understood the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. XXV. 2, when it asserts that out of the visible catholic or universal Church 'there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.'

[787] 'Præter superiorem manducationem spiritualem est et sacramentalis manducatio corporis Domini, qua fidelis non tantum spiritualiter et interne participat vero corpore et sanguine Domini, sed foris etiam accedendo ad mensam Domini accipit visibile corporis et sanguinis Domini sacramentum.' This is strangely mistranslated by Owen Jones (l.c. p. 173): 'Moreover, also, the sacramental eating of the body of the Lord is a superior spiritual eating,' etc. Bullinger rightly distinguishes between the purely spiritual communion with Christ's flesh and blood (i.e., his real humanity), spoken of in the sixth chapter of John, and the sacramental communion in the Eucharist, which includes all the benefit of the former with the additional blessing of the visible signs and seals of Christ's body broken for us, and Christ's blood shed for us.

[788] 'Qui foris vera fide sacramentum percipit, idem ille non signum duntaxat percipit, sed re ipsa quoque, ut diximus, fruitur.'

[789] 'Coërceat et hæreticos (qui rere hæretici sunt) incorrigibiles, Dei majestatem blasphemare et Ecclesiam Dei conturbare, adeoque perdere non desinentes.' The same view of the right and duty of the civil government to punish heretics is expressed in other Confessions. The Reformers differed from the Roman Catholics, not so much in the principle of persecution as in the definition of heresy and the degree of punishment. Nevertheless, the Reformation inaugurated the era of religious toleration and freedom. __________________________________________________________________

§ 56. John Calvin. His Life and Character.

Literature

I. Works and Correspondence of Calvin.

Joannis Calvini. Opera quæ supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, theologi Argentoratenses. Brunsvigæ, 1863 sqq. (in the Corp. Reform.). So far (1884) 27 vols. 4to. The most complete and most critical edition.

Older Latin ed., Geneva, 1617, in 12 vols. folio, and Amstelod. 1671, 9 vols. fol.

An English edition of Calvin's Works, by the 'Calvin Translation Society,' Edinburgh, 1842-1853, in 52 vols.

Convenient editions of Calvin's Institutes, by Tholuck (Berol. 1834 and 1846); the Commentaries on Genesis, by Hengstenberg (Berol. 1838), on the Psalms (Berol. 1830-34), on the New Testament (except the Apocalypse, 1833-38, in 7 vols.), by Tholuck.

His most important works were also written in French.

A German translation of his Institutes, by Fr. Ad. Krummacher (1834), of his Comment., by C. F. L. Matthieu (1859 sqq.).

The extensive correspondence of Calvin was first edited in part by Beza and Jonvillers (Calvin's secretary), Genevæ, 1575, and other editions; by Bretschneider (the Gotha Letters), Lips. 1835; by A. Crottet, Genève, 1850; then much more completely by Jules Bonnet, Lettres Françaises, Paris, 1854, 2 vols.; an English translation (from the French and Latin) by D. Constable and M. R. Gilchrist, Edinburgh and Philadelphia (Presbyt. Board of Publ.), 1855 sqq., in four vols. (the 4th with an index), giving the letters in chronological order (till 1558). The last and best edition is by the Strasburg Professors in Calvini Opera, Vol. X. Part II. to Vol. XV., with ample Prolegomena on the previous editions of Calvin's Letters and the manuscript sources.

Compare, also, A. L. Herminjard: Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française, (beginning with 1512). Genève and Paris, 1866, sqq., 5th vol. 1883. A most important work, with many new letters from and to the Reformers, illustrated by historical and biographical notes; the correspondence of Calvin begins Tome II. p. 278.

II. Biographies of Calvin.

Th. de Bèze: Histoire de la vie et la mort de J. Calvin, Genève, 1564; second French ed. enlarged and improved by Nic. Colladon, 1565, recently republished by A. Franklin, Paris, 1864; Latin ed. by Beza, as an introduction to Calvin's Letters, 1575, reprinted in Tholuck's ed. of Calvin's Commentaries. There are also German, English, and Italian translations. The second French and the Latin editions should be consulted. This work of Beza, together with Calvin's Letters and Works, furnishes the chief material for an authentic biography.

Hieron. Bolsec (a Carmelite monk, then physician at Geneva, expelled on account of Pelagian views and opposition to Calvin, 1551, returned to the Roman Church 1563): Histoire de la vie de Jean Calvin, Paris, 1577 (Genève, 1835); then in Latin: De J. Calvini magni quondam Genevensium ministri vita, moribus, rebus gestis, studiis ac denique morte, Coloniæ, 1580. 'A mean and slanderous libel,' inspired by feelings of hatred and revenge. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 205.

Jacques Le Vasseur (R.C.): Annales de l'église cathédrale de Noyon, Paris, 1633. Contains some notices on the youth of Calvin.

Jacques Desmay (R.C.): Remarques sur la vie de J. Calvin hérésiarque tirées des Registres de Noyon, Rouen, 1657.

Drelincourt: La défense de Calvin contre l'outrage fait à sa mémoire, Genève, 1667; in German, Hanau, 1671. A refutation of the slanders of Bolsec.

Paul Henry (pastor of a French Reformed Church in Berlin): Das Leben Johann Calvins des grossen Reformators, etc., Hamburg, 1835-44, 3 vols.; also abridged in one vol., Hamburg, 1846. English translation by Stebbing, London and New York, 1854, in 2 vols. The large work is a valuable collection rather than digestion of material for a full biography by a sincere admirer.

E. Stähelin (Reformed minister at Basle): Johannes Calvin; Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, Elberfeld, 1863, 2 vols. (in Väter und Begründer der reform. Kirche, Vol. IV. in two parts). Upon the whole the best biography, though not as complete as Henry's, and in need of modification and additions from more recent researches.

T. H. Dyer: Life of Calvin, London, 1850. 'Valuable and impartial' (Fisher).

Felix Bungener: Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre et ses écrits, Paris, 1862; English translation, Edinb. 1863.

F. W. Kampschulte (a liberal Roman Catholic, Professor of History at Bonn, died an Old Catholic, 1871): Joh. Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I. (Vols. II. and III. have not appeared). A most able, critical, and, for a Catholic, remarkably fair and liberal work, drawn in part from unpublished sources.

Guizot (the great historian and statesman, a descendant of the Huguenots, d. at Val Richer, Sept. 12, 1874): St. Louis and Calvin, London, 1868. Comp. also his sketch in the Musée des protestants célèbres.

The work of the Roman Catholic Audin: Histoire de la vie, etc., de Calvin, Paris, 1841, 5th ed., 1851, in 2 vols. (also in English and German), is mostly a slanderous caricature, based upon Bolsec.

III. Biographical Sketches and Essays.

H. Mignet: Mémoire sur l'établissement de la réforme et sur la constitution du Calvinisme à Genève, Paris, 1834.

J. J. Herzog: Joh. Calvin, Basel, 1843; and in his Real-Encyklop. Vol. II. p. 511.

E. Renan: Jean Calvin, in Études d'histoire réligieuse, 5th ed., Paris, 1862; English translation by O. B. Frothingham (Studies of Religious History and Criticism, New York, 1864, pp. 285-297).

Philip Schaff: John Calvin, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 1857, pp. 125-146.

Henry B. Smith: John Calvin, in Appleton's American Cyclopædia, New York, Vol. IV. (1859) pp. 281-288.

James Anthony Froude: Calvinism, an Address delivered to the Students of St. Andrew's, March 17, 1871 (In his Short Studies on Great Subjects, Second Series, New York, 1873, pp. 9-53).

A. A. Hodge (of Alleghany, son of Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton): Calvinism, in Johnson's Universal Cyclopædia (New York, 1875 sqq.), Vol. I. pp. 727-734.

Lyman H. Atwater: Calvinism in Doctrine and Life, in the Presbyt. Quarterly and Princeton Review, New York, Jan. 1875, pp. 73-106.

IV. Histories of the Reformation in Geneva.

Abr. Ruchat (Professor in Lausanne): Histoire de la réformation de la Suisse, Genève, 1727 sqq. 6 vols.; new edition, with appendices, by Prof. Vulliemin, Nyon, Giral. 1835-1838, 7 vols.

C. B. Hundeshagen (Professor in Berne, afterwards in Bonn, d. 1872): Die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1532-1558. Nach meist ungedruckten Quellen. Bern, 1842.

J. Gaberel (ancien pasteur): Histoire de l'église de Genève depuis le commencement de la réforme jusqu'en 1815. Genève, 1855-63, 3 vols.

P. Charpenne: Histoire de la réforme et des réformateurs de Genève. Paris, 1861.

Amad. Roget: L'église et l'état à Genève de vivant Calvin, 1867; and Histoire du peuple de Genève depuis la réforme jusqu'à l'escalade. Genève, 1870.

Merle d'Aubigné (Professor of Church History at Geneva, d. 1872): History of the Reformation in Europe in the time of Calvin (from the French), New York, 1863-1879, 8 vols. (the second division of his general history of the Reformation. The last two volumes were edited from the author's MSS. They carry the history down to the middle of the 16th century.

G. P. Fisher: The Reformation. New York, 1873, Ch. VII. pp. 192-241.

For the political history of Geneva preceding and during the time of Calvin are to be compared Fr. Bonnivard: Les Chroniques de Genève, edited by Dunant (Gen. 1831, 4 vols.); Galiffe: Matériaux pour l'histoire de Genève; J. P. Bérenger: Histoire de Genève jusqu'en 1761 (1772, 6 vols.); and the Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Genève (1840 sqq.).

Calvin'S Life

After the death of Zwingli and the treaty of Cappel (1531), the progress of the Reformation was checked in German Switzerland, but only to make a more important conquest in French Switzerland, and from thence with the course of empire to move westward to France, Holland, beyond the Channel, and beyond the seas.

The supremacy passed from Zurich to Geneva. Providence had silently prepared the person and the place. The 'little corner' on the borders of Switzerland and France, known since the days of Julius Caesar, was predestinated, by its location and preceding history, for a great international mission, and has nobly fulfilled it, not only in the period of the Reformation of the Church, but also in the nineteenth century on the field of international law and peaceful arbitration. After varying fortunes, Geneva became an independent asylum of civil and religious freedom, and furnished the best base of operation for John Calvin, who, though a Frenchman by birth and a Swiss by adoption, was a cosmopolitan in spirit, and acted as the connecting link between the Germanic and Latin races in the work of reform. Farel, Viret, and Froment had destroyed the power of Popery, but to Calvin was left the more difficult task of reconstruction and permanent organization.

John Calvin, [790] the greatest theologian and disciplinarian of the giant race of the Reformers, and for commanding intellect, lofty character, and far-reaching influence one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity, was born at Noyon, in Picardy, July 10, 1509. His father, Gerard Chauvin, a man of severe morals, was secretary to the Bishop of Noyon; his mother, a beautiful and devout, but otherwise not remarkable woman. He received his first training with the children of a noble family (de Mommor), to which he was gratefully attached. His ambitious father destined him for the clerical profession, and secured him even in his twelfth year the benefice of a chaplaincy of the cathedral--an abuse not infrequent in those days of decay of ecclesiastical discipline. He received the tonsure, but not the ordination for the priesthood; while Zwingli and Knox were once priests, and Luther both priest and doctor, in the Church they were called to reform. His elder brother, Charles, became a priest at Noyon, and died a libertine and an infidel in the same year in which John proclaimed his faith to the world (1536)--as if to repeat the startling contrast of Esau and Jacob, reprobation and election, from the same womb. [791] Another remarkable coincidence is the fact that the Reformer studied scholastic philosophy under the same Spanish instructor of the College de Montaigu at Paris in which a few years afterwards Ignatius Loyola, the famous founder of Jesuitism--the very opposite pole of Calvinism--laid the foundation of his counter-reformation. [792]

Calvin received the best education which France could afford, in the Universities of Orleans, Bourges, and Paris, first for the priesthood, then, at the request of his father, for the law. [793] He early distinguished himself by excessive industry, which undermined his constitution, severe self-discipline, and a certain censoriousness, for which he was called by his fellow-students 'the Accusative Case.' [794] He made rapid progress. Even as a student of nineteen he was often called to the chair of an absent professor, so that (as Beza says) he was considered a doctor rather than an auditor. When he left the university he was the most promising literary man of the age. He might have attained the highest position in France, had not his religious convictions undergone a radical change.

Protestant ideas were then pervading the atmosphere and agitating the educated classes of France even at the court, which was divided on the question of religion. Two of Calvin's teachers, Cordier (or Corderius, who afterwards followed him to Geneva) and Wolmar, were friendly to reform, and one of his relatives, Olivétan, became soon afterwards (1534) the first Protestant translator of the Bible into French. He seems, however, to have exerted as much influence on them as they exerted on him. [795]

His first work was a commentary on Seneca's book on Mercy, which he published at his own expense, April, 1532. [796] It moves in the circle of classical philology and moral philosophy, and reveals a characteristic love for the nobler type of Stoicism, great familiarity with Greek and Roman literature, masterly Latinity, rare exegetical skill, clear and sound judgment, and a keen insight into the evils of despotism and the defects of the courts of justice, but makes no allusion to Christianity. Hence it is quite improbable that it was an indirect plea for toleration and clemency intended to operate on the King of France in dealing with his Protestant subjects. [797] His earliest letters, from 1530 to 1532, are likewise silent on religious subjects, and refer to humanistic studies, and matters of friendship and business. [798]

His conversion to the cause of the Reformation seems to have taken place in the latter part of 1532, about one year after the death of Zwingli. [799] The precise date and circumstances are unknown. It was as he himself characterizes it, a sudden change (subita conversio) from Papal superstition to the evangelical faith, yet not without previous struggles. He tenaciously adhered to the Catholic Church until he was able to disconnect the true idea and invisible essence of the Church from its outward organization. Like Luther, he strove in vain to attain peace of conscience by the methods of Romanism, and was driven to a deeper sense of sin and guilt. 'Only one haven of salvation is left for our souls,' he says, 'and that is the mercy of God in Christ. We are saved by grace--not by our merits, not by our works.' After deep and earnest study of the Scriptures, the knowledge of the truth, like a bright light from heaven, burst upon his mind with such force that there was nothing left for him but to abjure his sins and errors, and to obey the will of God. He consulted not with flesh and blood, and burned the bridge after him. [800]

There never was a change of conviction purer in motive, more radical in character, more fruitful and permanent in result. It bears a striking resemblance to that still greater event near Damascus, which transformed a fanatical Pharisee into an apostle of Jesus Christ. And indeed Calvin was not unlike St. Paul in his intellectual and moral constitution; and the apostle of sovereign grace and evangelical freedom never had a more sympathetic expounder than the Reformer of Geneva.

With this step Calvin renounced all prospects of a brilliant career, upon which he had already entered, and exposed himself to the danger of persecution and death. [801] Though naturally bashful and retiring, and seeking one quiet hiding-place after another, he was forced to come forward. He exhorted and strengthened the timid believers, usually closing with the words of St. Paul: 'If God be for us, who can be against us?' There is no evidence that he ever was ordained by human hands to the ministry of the gospel; but he had an extraordinary call, like that of the prophets of old, and the Apostle of the Gentiles. This was felt by his brethren, and about a year after his conversion he was the acknowledged leader of the Protestant party in France.

For awhile matters seemed to take a favorable turn at the court. His friend, Nicholas Cop, a learned physician, was even elected Rector of the University of Paris. [802] At his request Calvin prepared for him an inaugural address on Christian philosophy, which Cop delivered on All-Saints' Day, in 1533, in the Church of the Mathurins, before a large assembly. He embraced this public occasion to advocate the reform of the Church on the basis of the pure gospel. [803] Such a provocation Catholic France had never before received. The Sorbonne ordered the address to be burned. Cop was warned, and fled to Basle; Calvin--as tradition says--escaped in a basket from a window, and left Paris in the garb of a vine-dresser, scarcely knowing whither he was going. A few months afterwards the king himself took a decided stand against the Reformation, and between Nov. 10, 1534, and May 3, 1535, twenty-four Protestants were burned alive in Paris, while many more were condemned to less cruel sufferings. [804]

For more than two years Calvin wandered a fugitive evangelist, under assumed names, from place to place. We find him at Angonlême with his learned friend, the young canon Louis du Tillet, using his excellent library, and probably preparing his 'Institutes;' then at the court of Queen Margaret of Navarre, the sister of Francis I., where he met Le Fèvre d'Estaples (Faber Stapulensis), the aged patriarch of French Protestantism, and Gérard Roussel, her chaplain, who advised him 'to purify the house of God, but not to destroy it;' at Noyon (May, 1534), where he parted with his ecclesiastical benefices; at Poictiers, where he celebrated, with a few friends, for the first time, the Lord's Supper according to the evangelical rite, in a cave near the town, called to this day 'Calvin's Cave;' at Orleans, where he published his first theological work, a tract against the Anabaptist doctrine of the sleep of the soul between death and the resurrection, using exclusively Scriptural arguments with rare exegetical and polemical skill; [805] again (towards the close of 1534) at Paris, where he met for the first time the unfortunate Michael Servetus, and challenged him to a disputation on the Trinity. But the persecution then breaking out against the Protestants forced him to forsake the soil of France. With his friend Du Tillet he fled to Strasburg, where he arrived utterly destitute, having been robbed by an unfaithful servant, and formed an intimate friendship with Bucer. Thence he went to Basle, where he quietly studied Hebrew with Capito and Grynæus, and published the first edition of his 'Institutes' (1536). In the spring of 1536 he spent a short time at the court of the Duchess Renée of Ferrara, the daughter of Louis XII., a little, deformed, but highly intelligent, noble, and pious lady, who gathered around her a circle of friends of the Reformation, and continued to correspond with him as her guide of conscience. [806] Returning from Italy, where he was threatened by the Inquisition, [807] he paid a flying visit to Noyon, and had the pleasure to gain his only remaining younger brother Anthony and his sister Mary to the Reformed faith. With them he proceeded to Switzerland, intending to settle at Basle or Strasburg, and to lead the quiet life of a scholar and an author, without the slightest inclination to a public career. But God had decreed otherwise.

Passing through Geneva in August, 1536, where he expected to spend only a night, Calvin was held fast by William Farel, the fearless evangelist, who threatened him with the curse of God if he preferred his studies to the work of the Lord. 'These words,' says Calvin (in the Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms), 'terrified and shook me, as if God from on high had stretched out his hand to stop me, so that I renounced the journey which I had undertaken.' [808] Farel, a French nobleman, twenty years older than Calvin, and like him driven by persecution to Switzerland, where he destroyed the strongholds of idolatry with the zeal of a prophet, did a great work when 'he gave Geneva to the Reformation,' but a still greater one when 'he gave Calvin to Geneva.'

This was the turning-point in Calvin's life. Once resolved to obey the voice from heaven, the timid and delicate youth shrunk from no danger. Geneva was then a city of only twelve or fifteen thousand inhabitants, but within its narrow limits it was to become 'the scene of every crisis and every problem, great or small, which can agitate human society.' [809] It then represented 'a tottering republic, a wavering faith, a nascent Church.' Calvin felt that a negative state of freedom from the tyranny of Savoy and Popery was far worse than Popery itself, and that positive faith and order alone could save the city from political and religious anarchy. He insisted on the abolition of immoral habits, the adoption of an evangelical confession of faith and catechism, the introduction of a strict discipline, Psalm singing, and monthly celebration of the Lord's Supper, with the right of excluding unworthy communicants. [810]

The magistrate refused to comply, and forbade Calvin and Farel the pulpit; but they, preferring to obey God rather than men, preached at Easter, 1538, to an armed crowd, and declared their determination not to administer the holy communion, lest it be desecrated. On the following day they were deposed and expelled from the city by the great Council of the Two Hundred.

Calvin, again an exile, though now for the principle of authority and discipline rather than doctrine, spent three quiet and fruitful years (1538-41) with Bucer at Strasburg, as teacher of theology and preacher to a congregation of several hundred French refugees. [811] Here he became acquainted with the German Reformation, for Strasburg was the connecting link between Germany and France, as also between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism. But he was disagreeably impressed with the want of Church discipline, and the slavish dependence of the German clergy on the secular rulers. His French congregation was admired for its activity and order. In Strasburg he wrote his tract on the Lord's Supper, his Commentary on the Romans, his masterly answer to Cardinal Sadolet's letter to the Genevese, and his revision of Olivétan's French translation of the Bible. Some of these books attracted the favorable notice of Luther, whom he never met in this world, but always esteemed, with a full knowledge of his faults, as one of the greatest servants of Christ. [812]

In September, 1540, he married Idelette de Bure (a little town in Gueldres), a grave, pious, modest, amiable, and cultivated widow, with three children, whose first husband he had converted from Anabaptism to the orthodox faith. She was in delicate health, but very devoted to him, and satisfied all his desires. He lived with her in perfect harmony nine years, and she bore him one child, a son who died in infancy. He seldom alludes to her in his correspondence, but always in terms of respect and love; and in informing his friend Viret of her departure, he calls her 'the best companion, who would cheerfully have shared with me exile and poverty, and followed me unto death; during her life she was to me a faithful assistant in all my labors; she never dissented from my wishes even in the smallest things.' Seven years afterwards, in a letter of consolation to a friend (Rev. Richard de Valeville, of Frankfort), he says: 'I know from my own experience how painful and burning is the wound which the death of thy wife must have inflicted upon you. How difficult it was for me to become master of my grief. . . . Our chief comfort, after all, is the wonderful providence of God, which overrules our affliction for our spiritual benefit, and separates us from our beloved only to reunite us in his heavenly kingdom.' His grief at her death, and at the death of his child, reveals a hidden spring of domestic affection which is rare in men of his austerity of character and absorption in public duty. He remained a widower the rest of his life. [813]

From the Strasburg period dates also his intimate friendship with Melanchthon, which was not broken by death, and is the more remarkable in view of their difference of opinion on the subject of predestination and free-will. He met him at religious conferences with Romanists, at Frankfort (1539), at Worms (1540), and at Regensburg (Ratisbon, 1541), which he attended as delegate from Strasburg. Their correspondence is a noble testimony to the mind and heart of these great men, so widely different in nationality, constitution, and temper--the one as firm as a rock, the other as timid as a child--and yet one in their deepest relations to Christ and his salvation. They represent the higher union of the Lutheran and Reformed, the Teutonic and the Romanic types of Protestantism. This truly Christian friendship was touchingly expressed by Calvin a year after the death of the Preceptor of Germany (1561): 'O Philip Melanchthon! for it is upon thee that I call, upon thee, who now livest with Christ in God, and art there waiting for us, until we shall also be gathered with thee to that blessed rest! A hundred times, worn out with fatigue and overwhelmed with care, thou didst lay thy head upon my breast, and say, "Would to God that I might die here, on thy breast!" And I, a thousand times since then, have earnestly desired that it had been granted us to be together. Certainly thou wouldst have been more valiant to face danger, and stronger to despise hatred, and bolder to disregard false accusations. Thus the wickedness of many would have been restrained, whose audacity of insult was increased by what they called thy weakness.' [814]

'It would be difficult,' says Guizot, 'to reconcile truth, piety, and friendship more tenderly.'

In the mean time the Genevese had been brought by sad experience to repent of the expulsion of the faithful pastors, and to feel that the Reformed faith and discipline alone could put their commonwealth on a firm and enduring foundation. The magistrate and people united in an urgent and repeated recall of Calvin. He reluctantly yielded at last, and in September, 1541, after passing a few days with Farel at Neufchatel, he made a triumphant entry into the beautiful city on lake Leman. [815] The magistracy provided for him a house and garden near the Cathedral of St. Pierre, broadcloth for a coat, and, in consideration of his generous hospitality to strangers and refugees, an annual salary of five hundred florins, [816] twelve measures of wheat, and two tubs of wine. The rulers of Strasburg, says Beza, stipulated that he should always remain a burgess of their city, and requested him to retain the revenues of a prebend which had been assigned as the salary of his professorship in theology, but they could not persuade him to accept so much as a single farthing.

This second settlement was final. Geneva was now wedded to Calvin, and had to sink or swim with his principles. [817] He continued to labor there, without interruption, for twenty-three years, till his death, May 27, 1564: fighting a fierce spiritual war against Romanism and superstition, but still more against infidelity and immorality; establishing a model theocracy on the basis of Moses and Christ; preaching and teaching from day to day; writing commentaries, theological and polemical treatises; founding an academy, which in the first year attracted more than eight hundred students, and flourishes to this day; attending the sessions of the consistory and the senate; entertaining and counselling strangers from all parts of the world; and corresponding in every direction. He was, in fact, the spiritual head of the Church and the republic of Geneva, and the leader of the Reformed movement throughout Europe. And yet he lived all the time in the utmost simplicity. It is reported that Cardinal Sadolet, when passing through Geneva incognito, and calling on Calvin, was surprised to find him residing, not in an episcopal palace, with a retinue of servants, as he expected, but in a little house, himself opening the door. The story may not be sufficiently authenticated, but it corresponds fully with all we know about his ascetic habits. [818] For years he took but one meal a day. [819] He refused an increase of salary and presents of every description, except for the poor and the refugees, whom he was always ready to aid. He left, besides his library, only about two hundred dollars, which he bequeathed to his younger brother Anthony and his children. [820] When Pope Pius IV. heard of his death, he paid him this high compliment: 'The strength of that heretic consisted in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I had such servants, my dominions would extend from sea to sea.' [821]

His immense labors and midnight studies, [822] the care of all the churches, and bodily infirmities--such as headaches, asthma, fever, gravel--gradually wore out his delicate body. He died, in full possession of his mental powers, in the prime of manhood and usefulness, not quite fifty-five years of age, leaving his Church in the best order and in the hands of an able and faithful successor, Theodore Beza. Like a patriarch, he assembled first the syndics of Geneva, and afterwards the ministers, around his dying bed, thanked them for their kindness and devotion, asked humbly their pardon for occasional outbursts of violence and wrath, and affected them to tears by words of wisdom and counsel to persevere in the pure doctrine and discipline of Christ. It was a sublime scene, worthily described by Beza, [823] and well represented by a painter's skill. [824]

The Reformer died with the setting sun. 'Thus,' says Beza, 'God withdrew into heaven that most brilliant light, which was a lamp of the Church. In the following night and day there was immense grief and lamentation in the whole city; for the republic had lost its wisest citizen, the Church its faithful shepherd, the academy an incomparable teacher--all lamented the departure of their common father and best comforter next to God. A multitude of citizens streamed to the death-chamber, and could scarcely be separated from the corpse. Among them also were several foreigners, as the distinguished English embassador to France, who had come to Geneva to make the acquaintance of the celebrated man. On the Lord's day, in the afternoon, the remains were carried to the common graveyard on Plainpalnis, followed by all the patricians, pastors, professors, and teachers, and nearly the whole city, in sincere mourning.'

Calvin expressly forbade the erection of any monument over his grave. [825] The stranger asks in vain even for the spot which covers his mortal remains in the cemetery of Geneva. Like Moses, he was buried out of the reach of idolatry. The Reformed Churches of both hemispheres are his monument, more enduring than marble. On the third centenary of his death (1864), his friends in Geneva, aided by gifts from foreign lands, erected to his memory the Salle de la Réformation--a noble building, founded on the principles of the Evangelical Alliance, and dedicated to the preaching of the pure gospel and the advocacy of every good cause.

Calvin'S Personal Character.

Calvin was of middle, or rather small stature (like David and Paul), of feeble health, courteous, kind, grave and dignified in deportment. He had a meagre and emaciated frame, a thin, pale, finely chiseled face, a well-formed mouth, a long, pointed beard, black hair, a prominent nose, a lofty forehead, and flaming eyes. He was modest, plain, and scrupulously neat in dress, orderly and methodical in all his habits, temperate and even abstemious, allowing himself scarcely nourishment and sleep enough for vigorous work. His physical tent barely covered the mighty spirit within. Conscience and logic, a commanding mind and will, shone through the thin veil of mortality. [826]

How different Luther and Zwingli, with their strong animal foundation, and their abundance of flesh and blood! Calvin seemed to be all bone and nerve. Beza says he looked in death almost the same as alive in sleep. [827]

His intellectual endowments were of the highest order and thoroughly disciplined. He had more constructive, systematizing, and organizing genius than any other Reformer, and was better adapted to found a solid, compact, and permanent school of theology. He was not a speculative or intuitive philosopher, but a consummate logician and dialectician. Luther and Zwingli cut the stones from the quarry; Calvin gave them shape and polish, and erected a magnificent cathedral of ideas with the skill of a master architect. His precocity and consistency were marvelous. He did not grow before the public, like Luther and Melanchthon, and pass through contradictions and retractations, but when a mere youth of twenty-six he appeared fully armed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, and never changed his views on doctrine or discipline. He had an extraordinary and well-stored memory, a profound, acute, and penetrating intellect, a clear, sound, and almost unerring judgment, a perfect mastery over the Latin and French tongues. His Latin is as easy and elegant, and certainly as nervous and forcible, as Cicero's, yet free from the pedantic and affected purism of a Bembo and Castalio. [828] He is one of the fathers of modern French, as Luther is the father of modern German. His eloquence is logic set on fire by intense conviction. His Preface to the 'Institutes,' addressed to the King of France, is reckoned as one of the three immortal prefaces in literature (to which only that of President De Thou to his French History and that of Casaubon to Polybius can be compared); and his 'Institutes' themselves, as has been well said, are 'in truth a continuous oration, in which the stream of discussion rolls onward with an impetuous current, yet always keeps within its defined channel.' [829]

He surpassed all other Reformers (except Beza) in classical culture and social refinement. He was a patrician by education and taste, and felt more at ease among scholars and men of high rank than among the common people. Yet he was quite free from aristocratic pride, despised all ostentation and display, and esteemed every man according to his real worth.

History furnishes, perhaps, no example of a man who with so little personal popularity had such influence upon the people, and who with such natural timidity and bashfulness combined such strength and control over his age and future generations. Constitutionally a retiring scholar and a man of thought, he became providentially a mighty man of action and an organizer of churches.

His moral and religious character is impressed with a certain majesty which keeps the admirer at a respectful distance. [830] He has often been compared to an old Roman Censor or Stoic; but he resembles much more a Hebrew Prophet. Severe against others, he was far more severe against himself, and was always guided by a sense of duty. Fear of God, purity of motive, spotless integrity, single devotion to truth and duty, unswerving fidelity, sincere humility are the prominent traits of his character. Soaring high above the earth, he was absorbed in God--who alone is great--and looked down upon man as a fleeting shadow. The glory of the Lord and the reformation of the Church constituted the single passion of his life. His appropriate symbol was a hand offering the sacrifice of a bleeding heart to God. [831]

It must be admitted that this kind of greatness, while it commands our admiration and respect, does not of itself secure our affection and love. There is a censoriousness and austerity about Calvin and his creed which repelled many good men, even among his contemporaries. [832] He looked more to the holiness than to the love of God. His piety bears more the stamp of the Old Testament than that of the New. He represents the majesty and severity of the law rather than the sweetness and loveliness of the gospel, the obedience of a servant of Jehovah rather than the joyfulness of a child of our heavenly Father.

Yet even this must be qualified. He sympathized with the spirit of David and Paul as much as with the spirit of Moses and Elijah, and had the strongest sense of the freedom of the gospel salvation. Moreover, behind his cold marble frame there was beating a noble, loving, and faithful heart, which attracted and retained to the last the friendship of such eminent servants of God as Farel, Viret, Beza, Bucer, Bullinger, Knox, and Melanchthon. 'He obtained,' says Guizot, 'the devoted affection of the best men and the esteem of all, without ever seeking to please them.' [833] John Knox, his senior in years, sat at his feet as a humble pupil, and esteemed him the greatest man after the Apostles. Farel, in his old age, hastened on foot from Neufchatel to Geneva to take leave of his sick friend, and desired to die in his place. Beza, who lived sixteen years on terms of personal intimacy with him, revered and loved him as a father. And even Melanchthon wished to repose and to die on his bosom. His familiar correspondence shows him in the most favorable light, and is a sufficient refutation of all the calumnies and slanders of his enemies.

He lacked the good-nature, the genial humor, the German Gemüthlichkeit, the overflowing humanity of Luther, who for this reason will always be more popular with the masses; but he surpassed him in culture, refinement, consistency, and moral self-control. Both were equally unselfish and unworldly. Both were headstrong and will-strong; but Calvin was more open to argument and less obstinate. Both had, like St. Paul, a fiery and violent temper, which was the propelling force in their hard work, and in fierce battles with the pope and the devil. Hegel says somewhere that 'nothing great can be done without passion.' [834] It is only men of intense convictions and fearless courage that make deep and lasting impressions upon others. But temper is a force of nature, which must be controlled by reason and regulated by justice and charity. Luther came down like a thunder-storm upon his opponents, and used the crushing sledge-hammer indiscriminately against Eck, Cochlæus, Henry VIII., Erasmus, the Sacramentarians, and Zwinglians; while Calvin wielded the sharp sword of irony, wit, scorn, and contempt in defense of truth, but never from personal hatred and revenge. 'Even a dog barks,' he says, 'when his master is attacked; how could I be silent when the honor of my Lord is assailed?' [835] He confessed, however, in a letter to Bucer, and on his death-bed, that he found it difficult to tame 'the wild beast' of his wrath, and humbly asked forgiveness for his weakness. He had no children to write to, and to play with around the Christmas-tree, like Luther, but he appears to better advantage in his relations with men and women. He treated them, even the much younger Beza, as equals, overlooked minor differences, and in correcting their faults expected the same manly frankness from them in return; while Luther, growing more irritable and overbearing with advancing years, made even Melanchthon tremble and fear. But we should charitably remember that the faults of these truly great and good men were only the long shadows of their extraordinary virtues. [836]

It may be found strange that Calvin never alludes to the paradise of nature by which he was surrounded on the lovely shores of Lake Leman, in sight of the lofty Alps that pierce the skies in silent adoration of their Maker. But we look in vain for descriptions of natural scenery in the whole literature of the sixteenth century; and the proper appreciation of the beauties of Switzerland, as well as of other countries, is of more recent date. Calvin had no special organ nor time for the enjoyment of the beautiful either in nature or in art, but he appreciated poetry and music. [837] He insisted on the introduction of congregational singing in Geneva, and wrote himself a few poetic versions of the Psalms, and a hymn of praise to Christ, which are worthy of Clement Marot and reveal an unexpected vein of poetic fervor and tenderness. [838] The following specimen must suffice:

'I greet thee, who my sure Redeemer art,

My only trust, and Saviour of my heart!

Who so much toil and woe

And pain didst undergo,

For my poor, worthless sake:

We pray thee, from our hearts,

All idle griefs and smarts

And foolish cares to take.

'Thou art the true and perfect gentleness,

No harshness hast thou, and no bitterness:

Make us to taste and prove,

Make us adore and love,

The sweet grace found in thee;

With longing to abide

Ever at thy dear side,

In thy sweet unity.

'Poor, banished exiles, wretched sons of Eve,

Full of all sorrows, unto thee we grieve;

To thee we bring our sighs,

Our groanings, and our cries:

Thy pity, Lord, we crave;

We take the sinner's place,

And pray thee, of thy grace,

To pardon and to save.'

Tributes To Calvin.

I add some estimates of Calvin's character, which represent very different stand-points. [839]

Beza, who knew Calvin best and watched at his death-bed, concludes his biography with these words:

'Having been an observer of Calvin's life for sixteen years, I may with perfect right testify that we have in this man a most beautiful example of a truly Christian life and death, which it is easy to calumniate but difficult to imitate.' [840]

Bungener, a pastor of the national Church of Geneva, and author of several historical works, says: [841]

'Let us not give him praise which he would not have accepted. God alone creates; a man is great only because God thinks fit to accomplish great things by his instrumentality. Never did any great man understand this better than Calvin. It cost him no effort to refer all the glory to God; nothing indicates that he was ever tempted to appropriate to himself the smallest portion of it. Luther, in many a passage, complacently dwells on the thought that a petty monk, as he says, has so well made the Pope to tremble, and so well stirred the whole world. Calvin will never say any such thing; he never even seems to say it, even in the deepest recesses of his heart: every where you perceive the man, who applies to all things--to the smallest as to the greatest--the idea that it is God who does all and is all. Read again, from this point of view, the very pages in which he appeared to you the haughtiest and most despotic, and see if, even there, he is any thing other than the workman referring all, and in all sincerity, to his Master. . . . But the man, in spite of all his faults, has not the less remained one of the fairest types of faith, of earnest piety, of devotedness, and of courage. Amid modern laxity, there is no character of whom the contemplation is more instructive; for there is no man of whom it has been said with greater justice, in the words of an apostle, "he endured as seeing him who is invisible."'

Jules Michelet, the French historian, remarks: [842]

'Among the martyrs, with whom Calvin constantly conversed in spirit, he became a martyr himself; he felt and lived like a man before whom the whole earth disappears, and who tunes his last Psalm, his whole eye fixed upon the eye of God, because he knows that on the following morning he may have to ascend the stake.'

Ernest Renan, once educated for the Romish priesthood, then a skeptic, with all his abhorrence of Calvin's creed, pays the following striking tribute to his character: [843]

Calvin was one of those absolute men, cast complete in one mould, who is taken in wholly at a single glance: one letter, one action suffices for a judgment of him. There were no folds in that inflexible soul, which never knew doubt or hesitation. . . . Careless of wealth, of titles, of honors, indifferent to pomp, modest in his life, apparently humble, sacrificing every thing to the desire of making others like himself, I hardly know of a man, save Ignatius Loyola, who could match him in these terrible transports. . . . It is surprising that a man who appears to us in his life and writings so unsympathetic should have been the centre of an immense movement in his generation, and that this harsh and severe tone should have exerted so great an influence on the minds of his contemporaries. How was it, for example, that one of the most distinguished women of her time, Renée of France, in her court at Ferrara, surrounded by the flower of European wits, was captivated by that stern master, and by him drawn into a course that must have been so thickly strewn with thorns? This kind of austere seduction is exercised by those only who work with real conviction. Lacking that vivid, deep, sympathetic ardor which was one of the secrets of Luther's success, lacking the charm, the perilous, languishing tenderness of Francis of Sales, Calvin succeeded, in an age and in a country which called for a reaction towards Christianity, simply because he was the most christian man of his generation.'

Guizot, a very competent judge of historical and moral greatness, thus concludes his biography: [844]

'Calvin is great by reason of his marvelous powers, his lasting labors, and the moral height and purity of his character. . . . Earnest in faith, pure in motive, austere in his life, and mighty in his works, Calvin is one of those who deserve their great fame. Three centuries separate us from him, but it is impossible to examine his character and history without feeling, if not affection and sympathy, at least profound respect and admiration for one of the great Reformers of Europe and of the great Christians of France.'

Prof. Kahnis, of Leipzig, whose personal and theological sympathies are with Luther, nevertheless asserts the moral superiority of Calvin above the other Reformers: [845]

'The fear of God was the soul of his piety, the rock-like certainty of his election before the foundation of the world was his power, and the doing of the will of God his single aim, which he pursued with trembling and fear. . . . No other Reformer has so well demonstrated the truth of Christ's word that, in the kingdom of God, dominion is service. No other had such an energy of self-sacrifice, such an irrefragable conscientiousness in the greatest as well as the smallest things, such a disciplined power. This man, whose dying body was only held together by the will flaming from his eyes, had a majesty of character which commanded the veneration of his contemporaries.'

Prof. Dorner, of Berlin, the first among the theologians of the age, distinguished by profound learning, penetrating thought, rare catholicity of spirit, and nice sense of justice and discrimination, says:

'Calvin was equally great in intellect and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sympathy and faithfulness to friends, yielding and forgiving towards personal offenses, but inexorably severe when he saw the honor of God obstinately and malignantly attacked. He combined French fire and practical good sense with German depth and soberness. He moved as freely in the world of ideas as in the business of Church government. He was an architectonic genius in science and practical life, always with an eye to the holiness and majesty of God.' [846]

Prof. Gr. T. Fisher, of Yale College, New Haven, gives the following fair and impartial estimate of Calvin: [847]

'When we look at his extraordinary intellect, at his culture--which opponents, like Bossuet, have been forced to commend--at the invincible energy which made him endure with more than stoical fortitude infirmities of body under which most men would have sank, and to perform, in the midst of them, an incredible amount of mental labor; when we see him, a scholar naturally fond of seclusion, physically timid, and recoiling from notoriety and strife, abjuring the career that was most to his taste, and plunging, with a single-hearted, disinterested zeal and an indomitable will, into a hard, protracted contest; and when we follow his steps, and see what things he effected, we can not deny him the attributes of greatness. . . . His last days were of a piece with his life. His whole course has been compared by Vinet to the growth of one rind of a tree from another, or to a chain of logical sequences, He was endued with a marvelous power of understanding, although the imagination and sentiments were less roundly developed. His systematic spirit fitted him to be the founder of an enduring school of thought. In this characteristic he may be compared with Aquinas. He has been appropriately styled the Aristotle of the Reformation. He was a perfectly honest man. He subjected his will to the eternal rule of right, as far as he could discover it. His motives were pure. He felt that God was near him, and sacrificed every thing to obey the direction of Providence. The fear of God ruled in his soul; not a slavish fear, but a principle such as animated the prophets of the Old Covenant. The combination of his qualities was such that he could not fail to attract profound admiration and reverence from one class of minds, and excite intense antipathy in another. There is no one of the Reformers who is spoken of, at this late day, with so much personal feeling, either of regard or aversion. But whoever studies his life and writings, especially the few passages in which he lets us into his confidence and appears to invite our sympathy, will acquire a growing sense of his intellectual and moral greatness, and a tender consideration for his errors.' __________________________________________________________________

[790] The Latinized form of the French Chauvin or Cauvin. He sunk, even in name, his nationality in his catholicity.

[791] Guizot (pp. 153, 155): 'Evidently Charles Calvin lived and died a dissolute man and an unbeliever, and at the same time remained chaplain of the Catholic church of his native town. The sixteenth century abounds in similar instances. . . . The same thing was going on every where; unbelievers and fervent Christians, libertines and men of the most austere lives, were springing up and living side by side. Two contrary winds were blowing over Europe at that period, one carrying with it skepticism and licentiousness, while the other breathed only Christian faith and the severest morality. One of these arose chiefly from the revival of the ancient literature and philosophy of Greece and Rome; the other sprang from the struggles made in the Church itself, and in its councils, to arrive at a reform which was at the same time greatly desired and fiercely opposed. . . . It was, in short, the age which produced Erasmus and Luther in Germany, and Montaigne and Calvin in France.' Merle d'Aubigné (Vol. V. p. 455) conjectures that Charles Calvin became a convert to Protestantism on his death-bed, for which the infuriated priests had him buried by night between the four pillars of a gibbet.

[792] Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 223.

[793] It seems (according to Jacques Le Vasseur, 1.c. 1153 sqq., as quoted by Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 226) that Gerard Chauvin became involved in difficulty with his ecclesiastical superiors, and was even excommunicated. Kampschulte conjectures that this was probably the reason why he ordered his son to exchange the study of theology for that of law. But Calvin himself (in his Commentary on the Psalms) assigns a different motive: 'Mon père m'avoit destiné à la Théologie; mais puis après, d'autant qu'il considéroit que la science des Loix communément enrichit ceux qui la suyvent, ceste espérance luy fait incontinent changer d'avis.' The study of the law was of great use to Calvin in the organization and control of Church and State in Geneva.

[794] A notice of Jacques Le Vasseur, which agrees with Beza's statement that he was 'tenera ætate mirum in modum religiosus' and 'severus omnium in suis sodalibus vitiorum censor.'

[795] According to Beza and Stähelin (Vol. I. p. 88), Calvin took part even in the first edition of Olivétan's French New Testament (1534). But this seems to be an error; see Reuss, Révue de Theologie, 1866, No. III. p. 318, and Kampschulte, p. 247. He revised, however, the second edition, which included the Old Testament (1535), and wrote the preface (see Stähelin, pp.89 sq.).

[796] 'L. Annei Se- | necæ, Romani Senato- | ris, ac philosophi clarissi- | mi, libri duo de Clementia, ad Ne- | ronem Cæsarem: | Joannis Calvini Noviodunæi commentariis illustrati. | Parisiis . . . 1532.' Reprinted from the ed. princeps in the new edition of the Opera, Vol. V. (1866), pp. 6-162. The commentary is preceded by a dedicatory epistle, and a sketch of the life of Seneca.

[797] As is asserted by Henry, Herzog, Dorner (p. 375), and also by Guizot (p. 162), but justly denied by Stähelin (Vol. I. pp. 14 sqq.) and Kampschulte (p. 238). The work is not dedicated to Francis I., but to Claude de Hangest, the Abbot of St. Eloy (Eligius), afterwards Bishop of Noyon, his former schoolmate; and the implied comparison of the French king with Nero, and the incidental mention of the Neronian persecution ('quum Nero diris suppliciis impotenter sæviret in Christianos,' Opera, Vol. V. p. 10), would have been fatal to such an apologetic aim. Calvin sent a copy to 'Erasmus, and called him 'the honor and the chief delight of the world of letters'--literarum alterum decus ac primæ deliciæ (see his letter to Claude de Hangest, April 4, 1532, in Herminjard, Tom. II. p. 411).

[798] They were recently brought to light by Jules Bonnet and Herminjard. They are chiefly addressed to his fellow-student, Francis Daniel, an advocate of Orleans, who acknowledged the necessity of the Reformation, but remained in the Church of Rome. See the Edinburgh edition of Calvin's Letters, by Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 3; Herminjard, Vol. II. pp. 278 sqq.; and Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. pp. 3 sqq. His first letter to Daniel is dated 'Melliani (i.e. Meillant, south of Bourges, not Meaux, as the Edinburgh edition misunderstands it), 8 Idus Septembr.,' and is put by Herminjard and the Strasburg editors in the year 1530 (not 1529).

[799] Stähelin puts his conversion in the year 1533 (Vol. I. p. 21). But we have a familiar letter from Calvin to Martin Bucer, dated Noyon, 'pridie nonas Septembres,' probably of the year 1532, in which he recommends a French refugee, falsely accused of holding the opinions of the Anabaptists, and says: 'I entreat of you, Master Bucer, if my prayers, if my tears are of any avail, that you would compassionate and help him in his wretchedness. The poor is left in a special manner to your care--you are the helper of the orphan. . . . Most learned Sir, farewell; Thine from my heart (Tuus ex animo): Calvin' (J. Bonnet's Letters, Vol. I. pp. 9-11; the Latin in Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. p. 24). Kampschulte (Vol. I. p. 231) infers even an earlier acquaintance of Calvin with Bucer, from a letter of Bucer to Farel, May 1, 1528, in which he mentions a juvenis Noviodunensis studying Greek and Hebrew in Strasburg (Herminjard, Vol. II. p. 131, and Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. p. 1); but this youth was probably his relative Olivétan, who was likewise a native of Noyon (Herminjard, Vol. II. p. 451). Besides, there were several places in France of the name Noviodunum. In a letter of Oct., 1533, to Francis Daniel (Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 12, and Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. p. 27), Calvin first speaks openly of the Reformation in Paris, the rage of the Sorbonne, and the satirical comedy against the Queen of Navarre.

[800] He alludes to his conversion only twice, and briefly, namely, in the remarkable Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, and in his answer to Cardinal Sadolet (Opera, Vol. V. pp. 389-411 sq.). In the latter he describes his mental conflicts and terrors of conscience.

[801] He says (Ad Sadoleti Epistolam, Opera, Vol. V. p. 389) that if he had consulted his personal interest he would never have left the Roman Church, where the way to honor would have been very easy to him. Audin, in tracing Calvin's conversion to wounded ambition, exposes (as Kampschulte justly observes, p. 242) his utter ignorance of Calvin's character, whose only ambition was to serve God most faithfully.

[802] Bulæus, Historia universitatis Parisiensis, Vol. VI. p. 238; Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 243.

[803] The incomplete draft of this address has recently been discovered by J. Bonnet among the manuscripts of the Geneva library. In it Calvin explains the great difference between the law and the gospel, and charged the Sophists, as he called the scholastic theologians, Nihil de fide, nihil de amore Dei, nihil de remissione peccatorum, nihil de gratia, nihil de justificatione, nihil de veris operibus disserunt; aut si certe disserunt, omnia calumniantur, omnia labefactant, omnia suis legibus, hoc est sophisticis coërcent. Vos rogo, quotquot hic adestis, ut has hæreses, has in Deum contumelias numquam æquo animo feratis.' See Kampschulte, p. 244.

[804] This is recorded with some satisfaction by a Catholic writer in the Journal du Bourgeois de Paris, quoted by Guizot, p. 168. That Francis I. was present at these horrible executions is denied by Michelet, Martin, and Guizot.

[805] Psychopannychia, in Opera, Vol. V. pp. 165-232. The Preface is dated 'Aureliæ, 1534.' The second edition appeared in Basle, 1535. This work forms a contrast to his commentary on Seneca as great as exists between the classics and the Bible. In matters relating to the future world. Calvin allows no weight to reason and philosophy, but only to the Word of God. On the merits of this book, see Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 36 sqq.

[806] Guizot, speaking at some length of this correspondence, makes the remark (p. 207): 'I do not hesitate to affirm that the great Catholic bishops, who in the seventeenth century directed the consciences of the mightiest men in France, did not fulfill the difficult task with more Christian firmness, intelligent justice, and knowledge of the world than Calvin displayed in his intercourse with the Duchess of Ferrara. And the Duchess was not the only person towards whom he fulfilled this duty of a Christian pastor. His correspondence shows that he exercised a similar influence, in a spirit equally lofty and judicious, over the consciences of many Protestants.'

[807] He took the route of Aosta and the Great St. Bernard. His short labors and persecution in Aosta were, five years later (1541), commemorated by a monumental cross and inscription--'Calvini fuga'--which was restored in 1741, and again in 1841, and stands to this day. See Gaberel, Vol. I. p. 100; Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 110; Guizot, p. 209: and Merle d'Aubigné, Vol. V. p. 454.

[808] According to Beza (Vita), Farel used these words: 'At ego tibi studia, prætexenti denuntio, omnipotentis Dei nomine, futurum, ut, nisi in opus istud Domini nobiscum incumbas, tibi non tam Christum quam te ipsum quærenti Dominus maledicat.' Beza adds that Calvin was 'territus hac terribili denuntiatione.' Merle d'Aubigné gives a very dramatic account of this scene, Vol. V. pp. 456 sqq.

[809] Guizot, p. 210.

[810] Mémoire de Calvin et Farel sur l'organisation de l'église, de Genève, recently brought to light by Gaberel (Hist. de l'église de Genève, 1858, Tom. I. p. 102), and in the Strasburg edition of the Opera, Vol. X. Pt. I. pp. 5-14. See a summary in Kampschulte, Vol. I. pp. 287 sqq.

[811] Guizot says fifteen hundred. On Calvin's life and labors in Strasburg, see especially the full accounts of Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 168-318, and Kampschulte, Vol. I. pp. 320-368.

[812] Luther wrote to Bucer: 'Greet Calvin, whose little works I have read with remarkable pleasure;' and Melanchthon wrote: 'Calvin is in high favor here (magnam gratiam iniit).' See. Calvin to Farel, Dec. 12, 1539; Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 226; and De Wette's edition of Luther's Letters, Vol. V. p. 210. Calvin wrote to Bullinger, when the latter was provoked by the last rude assault of Luther upon the Zwinglians (1544): 'I implore you never to forget how great a man Luther is, and by what extraordinary gifts he excels. Think with what courage, what constancy, what power and success he has devoted himself to this day to the overthrow of the reign of Antichrist and the spreading of the doctrine of salvation far and near. As for me, I have often said, and I say it again, though he should call me a devil, I would still give him due honor, and recognize him, in spite of the great faults which obscure his extraordinary virtues, as a mighty servant of the Lord.' See Henry, Vol. II. p. 351; Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 204; Guizot, p. 243; Opera, Vol. XI. p. 774.

[813] Comp. the beautiful tribute to Idelette de Buren, by Jules Bonnet, in the fourth volume of the Bulletin pour l'histoire du protestantisme français (1860), and Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 274-283.

[814] This passage occurs on the first page of his book against the fanatical Lutheran, Heshusius (Opera, Vol. IX. p. 461): 'O Philippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis, nosque illic expectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur. Dixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu. Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe animosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina, et ad spernendam invidiam, falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo cohibita fuisset multorum improbitas, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam vocabant, crevit insultandi audacia.' Comp. on the relation of Calvin to Melanchthon, the full discussion of Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 230-254; also Guizot, p. 246.

[815] The date is variously given--Sept. 10 by Roget, Sept. 12 by Guizot, Sept. 13 by Kampschulte (following Beza).

[816] 'Worth about 3600 francs, or £150 at the present time.'--Guizot, p. 257. A syndic received only one fifth of this sum; but Calvin's house was a home for poor refugees of faith from France and other lands, the widows and orphans of martyrs, so that he had often not a penny left. See Stähelin, Vol. II. p. 391, and Hagenbach, Kirchengesch. Vol. III. p. 581.

[817] Well says Kampschulte (Vol. I. pp. 385 sq.): 'Genf war im Herbst 1541 den geistlichen Tendenzen Calvins dienstbar geworden, es war an den Siegeswagen des Reformators gefesselt und musste ihm folgen trotz allen Sträubens, trotz aller Auflehnungsversuche, die später nicht ausgeblieben sind. Nicht anders fasste Calvin selbst seine Stellung von vorne herein auf. Für ihn ergab sich sein Herrscherrecht über Genf aus dem wunderbaren Gange der letzten Ereignisse mit der Zweifellosigkeit eines von Gott selbst erklärten Glaubenssatzes. Schimpflich vor drei Jahren vertrieben, sah er sich mit den grössten Ehren auf den Schauplatz zurückgeführt, den ihm Farel einst in ernster Stunde "im Namen des allmächtigen Gottes" angewiesen: mit Jubel wurde er von demselben Volke begrüsst, das ihm unversöhnlichen Hass geschworen! . . . Calvin fühlte sich fast nur noch als Werkzeug in der Hand Gottes, durch den ewigen göttlichen Rathschluss, ohne jedes persönliche Zuthun, für Genf bestimmt, um des Herrn Willen, wie er ihn erkannt, auf diesem wichtigen Fleck der Erde ohne Furcht und Scheu zu verkündigen, jenes Programm, welches er in der christlichen Institution niedergelegt, hier zur Ausführung zu bringen, dem Herrn hier ein christliches Geschlecht zu sammeln, das der übrigen Welt als Leuchte diene.'

[818] This fact is related by Drelincourt in his Defense de Calvin (1667), and Bungener (p. 503), and is believed in Geneva, but doubted by Guizot, p. 237, for chronological reasons which are not conclusive (Sadolet died 1549). 'Se non e vero, e ben trovato.'

[819] Beza: 'Per decem minimum annos prandio abstinuit, ut nullum omnino cibum extra statam coenæ horam sumeret.' Sometimes he abstained for thirty-six hours from all food.

[820] See his testament in Beza's Vita.

[821] Quoted by Guizot, p. 361.

[822] 'Somni pene nullius,' says Beza in his closing remarks.

[823] With Beza's account of his parting addresses (in the French and Latin edition of the Vita) should be compared the official copy, which Bonnet published in the Appendix to the French Letters, Tom. II. p. 573, and the Strasburg editors at the close of the 9th vol. of the Opera (Discours d'adieu aux membres du Petit Conseil, pp. 887-890, and Discours d'adieu aux ministres, pp. 891-894). Comp. also Stähelin. Vol. II. pp. 462-468.

[824] Hornung's picture of Calvin on his death-bed.

[825] Beza, however, wrote a suitable poem, in Latin and French, which might have been inscribed on the tomb. See his Vita, at the close, and Opera, Vol. V. pp. xxvi. sqq. (with three other French sonnets); a German translation in Stähelin, Vol. II. p.470.

[826] See different portraits of Calvin--in Henry (small biography), in first volume of the Opera, in Stähelin, in first volume of Merle d'Aubigné; also Hornung's Calvin on his death-bed, and the medallion portrait made at the festival of the Geneva Reformation. [In technical disregard of Calvin's wish the large mural monument was erected in Geneva, 1917, commemorating the Reformation and containing figures of Calvin, Luther, etc.--Ed.]

[827] Beza thus tersely describes him (at the close of the Vita): 'Statura fuit mediocri, colore subpallido et nigricante, oculis ad mortem usque limpidis, quique ingenii sagacitatem testarentur: cultu corporis neque culto neque sordido, sed qui singularem modestiam deceret: victu sic temperato, ut a sordibus et ab omni luxu longissime abesset: cibi parcissimi, ut qui multos annos semel quotidie cibum sumpserit, vintriculi imbecillitatem causatus: somni pæne nullius: memoriæ incredibilis, ut quos semel aspexisset multis post annis statim agnosceret, et inter dictandum sæpe aliquot horas interturbatus statim ad dictata nullo commonefaciente rediret, et eorum, quæ ipsum nosse muneris sui causa interesset, quantumvis multiplicibus et infinitis negotiis oppressus, nunquam tamen oblivisceretur. Judicii, quibuscunque de rebus consuleretur, tam puri et exacti, ut pæne vaticinari sæpe sit visus, nec aberasse meminerim, qui consilium ipsius esset sequutus. Facundiæ contemptor et verborum parcus, sed minime ineptus scriptor, et quo nullus ad hunc diem theologus (absit verbo invidia) purius, gravius, judiciosius denique scripsit, quum tamen tam multa scripserit, quam nemo vel nostra vel patrum memoria.'

[828] Who would substitute respublica for ecclesia, genius for angelus, lotio for baptismus, etc.

[829] Fisher, The Reformation, p. 198.

[830] This was the judgment of the magistrate of Geneva, expressed in these words (June 8, 1564): 'Dieu, lui avait imprimé un charactère d'une si grande majesté.'

[831] 'Cor meum velut mactatum Domino in sacrificium offero.' Subscribed below his autograph in the frontispiece of Henry's smaller biography.

[832] His ungrateful enemy, Balduin, started the saying among the Genevese, 'Rather with Beza in hell than with Calvin in heaven.' And yet they obeyed and revered him. Beza, it should be remembered, was the perfection of a French gentleman; yet his theological system was even more severe than that of Calvin, and he carried the dogma of predestination to the extreme of supralapsarianism. I have met with not a few French, Scotch, and American Christians who, in the combination of severity and purity, gravity and kindliness of character, reminded me strongly of Calvin and Beza. I may mention Gaussen, Malan, Merle d'Aubigné, Pio ie Adolph Monod, and Guizot.

[833] Page 362.

[834] 'Nichts Grosses geschieht ohne Leidenschaft.'

[835] The strongest terms of Calvin against ferocious enemies are canes, porci, bestial, nebulones (with reference, no doubt, to Scripture usage-- Isa. lvi. 10; Matt. vii. 6; Phil. iii. 2; Rev. xxii. 15); but they are mild compared to the coarse and vulgar epithets with which Luther overwhelmed his opponents, without expressing any regret afterwards, except in the case of Henry VIII., where it was least needed, and made the matter worse.

[836] Calvin, though fully aware of the defects of Luther, often expressed his admiration for him (see p. 430), and in January, 1545 (a year before Luther's death), he sent him a letter (which Melanchthon was afraid to hand to the old lion on account of his excited state of feeling against the Swiss), closing with these touching words: 'If I could only fly to you and enjoy your society, even for a few hours! . . . But since this privilege is not granted to me on earth, I hope I may soon enjoy it in the kingdom above. Farewell, most illustrious man, most excellent minister of Christ and father [pater, al. frater], forever venerable to me. May the Lord continue to guide you by his Spirit to the end for the common good of his Church.' Opera, Vol. XII. p. 8.

[837] Guizot says (p. 164): 'Although Calvin was devoted to the severe simplicity of evangelical worship, he did not overlook the inherent love of mankind for poetry and art. He himself had a taste for music, and knew its power. He feared that, in a religious service limited to preaching and prayer only, the congregation, having nothing else to do than to play the part of audience, would remain cold and inattentive. For this reason he attached great importance to the introduction and promotion of the practice of Psalm-singing in public worship. "If the singing," he said, "is such as befits the reverence which we ought to feel when we sing before God and the angels, it is an ornament which bestows grace and dignity upon our worship; and it is an excellent method of kindling the heart, and making it burn with great ardor in prayer. But we must at all times take heed lest the ear should be more attentive to the harmony of the sound than the soul to the hidden meaning of the words" (Instit. Ch. XX.). With this pious warning, he strongly urged the study of singing, and its adaptation to public worship.' Comp. Gaberel, Vol. I. p. 353.

[838] These poetic pieces were recently discovered, and published in the sixth volume of the new edition of his 0pera (1867), pp. 212-224. His Salutation à Jésus-Christ was translated into German by Stähelin, and into English by Mrs. Smith, of New York, for Schaff's Christ in Song, London edition, p. 549. His Epinicion Christo cantatum is a polemic poem in Latin hexameters and pentameters, composed during the Conference at Worms, 1541, in which he describes the Romish polemics Eck, Cochlæus, Nausea, and Pelargus as dragged after the chariot of the victorious Redeemer. Opera. Vol. V. pp. 417-428.

[839] We omit Henry and Stähelin, from whom it would he difficult to select passages in praise of Calvin. See especially the entire Seventh Book of Stähelin, Vol. II., pp. 365-393: Calvin als Mensch und als Christ.

[840] 'Ego historiam vitæ et obitus ipsius, cujus spectator sedecim annos fui, bona fide persequutus testari mihi optimo jure posse videor, longe pulcherrimum vere Christianæ tum vitæ tum mortis exemplum in hoc homine cunctis propositum fuisse, quod tam facile sit calumniari, quam difficile fuerit æmulari.'

[841] Calvin, etc. English translation, pp. 338, 349.

[842] In his Histoire de France au seizième siècle, quoted by Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 276.

[843] In his article on Jean Calvin, above quoted, pp. 286, etc. The translation is by O. B. Frothingham, a radical Unitarian in New York.

[844] St. Louis and Calvin, pp. 361 and 362.

[845] Die Lutherische Dogmatik, Vol. II. pp. 490, 491.

[846] Geschichte der Protest. Theologie, pp. 374 and 376. I add his considerate judgment of Calvin in full: 'Die nach Zwingli's and OEcolampad's Tode verwaiste reformirte Kirche erhielt am Johann Calvin, gleich gross an Geist und Character, einen festen Mittelpunkt und eine ordnende Seele für Lehre und Kirchenverfassung. Durch ihn wurde Genf statt Zürichs die neue reformirte Metropole; und dieses Gemeinwesen bewies eine wunderbare, weithin erobernde Kraft. . . . Calvin's persönliche Erscheinung war die eines altrömischen Censors; er war von feinem Wuchs, blass, hager, mit dem Ausdruck tiefen Ernstes und einschneidender Schärfe. Der Senat von Genf sagte nach seinem Tode, er sei ein majestätischer Charakter gewesen. Liebenswürdig im socialen Leben, voll zarter Theilnahme und Freundestreue, nachsichtig und versöhnlich bei persönlichen Beleidigungen, war er unerbittlich streng, wo er Gottes Ehre in Hartnäckigkeit oder Bosheit angegriffen sah. Unter seinen Collegen hatte er keine Neider, aber viele begeisterte Verehrer. Französisches Feuer und praktischer Verstand schienen mit deutscher Tiefe und Besonnenheit einen Bund geschlossen zu haben. War er auch nicht spekulativen oder intuitiven Geistes, so war dagegen sein Verstand und sein Urtheil um so eindringender und schärfer, sein Gedächtniss umfassend; und er bewegte sich ebenso leicht in der Welt der Ideen und der Wissenschaft, wie in den Geschäften des Kirchenregiments. Zwar ist er nicht ein Mann des Volkes, wie Luther, sondern in seiner Sprache mehr der Gelehrte, und seine Wirksamkeit als Prediger und Seelsorger kann daher mit der Luthers nicht verglichen werden. Dagegen ist er mehr ein architektonischer Geist und zwar sowohl im Gebiete der Wissenschaft als des Lebens. Beide sind ihm in ihrer Wurzel eins, und seine dogmatischen Constructionen, so kühn sie in der Folgerichtigkeit ihrer Gedanken sind, behalten ihm doch immer zugleich erbaulichen Charakter. Auch wo er verwegen in die göttlichen Geheimnisse der Prädestination einzudringen sucht, immer leitet ihn der praktische Trieb, der Heiligkeit und Majestät Gottes zu dienen, für das Gemüth aber den ewigen Ankergrund zu finden, darin es im Bewusstsein der Erwählung durch freie Gnade sicher ruhen könne.'

[847] The Reformation, pp. 206 and 238. __________________________________________________________________

§ 57. Calvin's Work.

Of Calvin it may be said, without exaggeration, that he 'labored more' than all the other Reformers.

He raised the little town of Geneva to the dignity and importance of the Protestant Rome. [848]

From this radiating centre he controlled, directly or indirectly, through his writings and his living disciples, the Reformed, yea, we may say, the whole Protestant movement; for, wherever it had not already taken root, as in Germany and Scandinavia, Protestantism assumed a Calvinistic or semi-Calvinistic character. [849]

His heart continued, indeed, to beat warmly for his native land, which he reluctantly left to share the fortunes of truth exiled, and he raised the cry which is to this day the motto of his faithful disciples: 'France must be evangelized to be saved.' But his true home was the Church of God. He broke through all national limitations. There was scarcely a monarch or statesman or scholar of his age with whom he did not come in contact. Every people of Europe was represented among his disciples. He helped to shape the religious character of churches and nations yet unborn. The Huguenots of France, the Protestants of Holland and Belgium, the Puritans and Independents of England and New England, the Presbyterians of Scotland and throughout the world, yea, we may say, the whole Anglo-Saxon race, in its prevailing religious character and institutions, bear the impress of his genius, and show the power and tenacity of his doctrines and principles of government. [850]

From him proceeded the first Protestant missionary colony in the newly discovered American Continent. [851]

He conceived the idea of a general Evangelical Alliance which, though impracticable in his age, found an echo in Melanchthon and Cranmer, and was revived in the nineteenth century (1846) to be realized at no distant future. [852]

His work and influence were twofold, theological and ecclesiastical. With him theory and practice, theology and piety, were inseparably united. Even when, soaring beyond the limits of time, he dared to lift the veil of the eternal decrees of the omniscient Jehovah, he aimed at a strong motive for holiness, and a firm foundation of hope and comfort. On the other hand, his moral reforms are all based upon principles and ideas. He was thoroughly consistent in his views and actions.

His Theology.

As a scientific theologian, Calvin stands foremost among the Reformers, and is the peer of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. He has been styled the Aristotle of Protestantism. Melanchthon, 'the Teacher of Germany,' first called him 'the Theologian,' in the emphatic sense in which this title was given to Gregory of Nazianzen in the Nicene age, and to the inspired Apostle John. The verdict of history has confirmed this judgment. Even Rationalists and Roman Catholics must admit his pre-eminence among the systematic divines and exegetes of all ages. [853]

The appearance of his Institutes of the Christian Religion [854] (first in Latin, then in French) marks an epoch in the history of theology, and has all the significance of an event. This book belongs to those few uninspired compositions which never lose their interest and power. It has not only a literary, but an institutional character. Considering the youth of the author, it is a marvel of intellectual precocity. The first edition even contained, in brief outline, all the essential elements of his system; and the subsequent enlargements to five times the original size were not mechanical additions to a building or changes of conviction, [855] but the natural growth of a living organism from within. [856]

The 'Institutes' are by far the clearest and ablest systematic and scientific exposition and vindication of the ideas of the Reformation in their vernal freshness and pentecostal fire. The book is inspired by a heroic faith ready for the stake, and a glowing enthusiasm for the saving truth of the gospel, raised to a new life from beneath the rubbish of human additions. Though freely using reason and the fathers, especially Augustine, it always appeals to the supreme tribunal of the Word of God, to which all human wisdom must bow in reverent obedience. It abounds in Scripture-learning thoroughly digested, and wrought up into a consecutive chain of exposition and argument. It is severely logical, but perfectly free from the dryness and pedantry of a scholastic treatise, and flows on, like a Swiss river, through green meadows and sublime mountain scenery. It overshadowed all previous attempts at a systematic treatment of Protestant doctrines, not only those of Zwingli and Farel, but even Melanchthon's Loci theologici, although Calvin generously edited them twice in a French translation with a complimentary preface (1546). [857]

No wonder that the 'Institutes' were greeted with enthusiastic praises by Protestants, which are not exhausted to this day. [858] They created dismay among Romanists, were burned at Paris by order of the Sorbonne, and hated and feared as the very 'Talmud' and 'Koran of heresy.' [859] In spite of severe prohibition, they were translated into all the languages of Europe, and passed through innumerable editions. Among the Protestants of France they acquired almost as much authority as Luther's Bible in Germany, and comforted the martyrs in prison. In England, after the accession of Elizabeth, they were long used as the text-book of theology; and even the moderate and 'judicious' Hooker prized them highly, and pronounced Calvin 'incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy.'

This remarkable work was originally a defense of the evangelical doctrines against ignorant or willful misrepresentation, and a plea for toleration in behalf of his scattered fellow-Protestants in France, who were then violently persecuted as a set of revolutionary fanatics and heretics. Hence the dedicatory Preface to Francis I. As the early Apologists addressed the Roman emperors to convince them that the Christians were innocent of the foul charges of atheism, immorality, and hostility to Caesar, so Calvin appealed to the French monarch in defense of his equally innocent countrymen, with a manly dignity, frankness, force, and pathos never surpassed before or since. It is a sad reflection that such a voice of warning should have had so little effect, and that the noble French nation even this day would rather listen to the revolutionary 'Marseillaise' of Voltaire and Rousseau than to the reformatory trumpet of Calvin.

The 'Institutes,' to which this dedication to the French monarch forms the magnificent portal, consist of four books (each divided into a number of chapters), and treat, after the natural and historical order of the Apostles' Creed, first of the knowledge of God the Creator (theology); secondly, of the knowledge of God the Redeemer (christology); thirdly, of the Holy Spirit and the application of the saving work of Christ (soteriology); fourthly, of the external means of salvation, viz., the Church and the Sacraments. [860]

The most prominent and original features of Calvin's theological system, which have left their impress upon the Reformed Creed, are the doctrine of Predestination and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. By the first he widened the breach between the Reformed and the Lutheran Church; by the second he furnished a basis for reconciliation.

The Doctrine Of Predestination.

All the Reformers of the sixteenth century, including even the gentle Melanchthon and the compromising Bucer, under a controlling sense of human depravity and saving grace, in extreme antagonism to Pelagianism and self-righteousness, and, as they sincerely believed, in full harmony not only with the greatest of the fathers, but also with the inspired St. Paul, came to the same doctrine of a double predestination which decides the eternal destiny of all men. Nor is it possible to evade this conclusion on the two acknowledged premises of Protestant orthodoxy--namely, the wholesale condemnation of men in Adam, and the limitation of saving grace to the present world. If the Lutheran theology, after the Formula of Concord (1577), rejected Synergism and Calvinism alike, and yet continued to teach the total depravity of all men and the unconditional election of some, it could only be done at the expense of logical consistency. [861]

Yet there were some characteristic differences among the Reformers. Luther started from the servum arbitrium, Zwingli from the idea of an all-ruling providentia, Calvin from the timeless or eternal decretum absolution. Calvin elaborated the doctrine of predestination with greater care and precision, and avoided 'the paradoxes' of his predecessors. He made it, moreover, the corner-stone of his system, and gave it undue proportion. He set the absolute sovereignty of God over against the mock sovereignty of the Pope. It was for him the 'article of the standing or falling Church;' while Luther always assigned this position to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this estimate, both were mistaken, for the central place in the Christian system belongs only to the person and work of Christ--the incarnation and the atonement. Finally, the Augustinian and Lutheran predestinarianism is moderated by the sacramentarian principle of baptismal regeneration; while the Calvinistic predestinarianism confines the sacramental efficacy to the elect, and turns the baptism of the non-elect into an empty form.

Predestination, according to Calvin, is the eternal and unchangeable decree of God by which he foreordained, for his own glory and the display of his attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation. The decree is, therefore, twofold--a decree of election to holiness and salvation, and a decree of reprobation on account of sin and guilt. [862] The latter is the negative counterpart, which strict logic seems to demand, but against which our better feelings revolt, especially if it is made to include multitudes of innocent children, for their unconscious connection with Adam's fall. Calvin himself felt this, and characteristically called the decree of reprobation a 'decree horrible, though nevertheless true.' [863] All he could say was that God's will is inscrutable, but always holy and unblamable. It is the ultimate ground of all things, and the highest rule of justice. Foreordination and foreknowledge are inseparable, and the former is not conditioned by the latter, but God foresees what he foreordains. If election were dependent on man's faith and good works, grace would not be free, and in fact would cease to be grace. Man's holiness is not the cause or condition, but the effect of God's election. The unequal distribution of gospel privileges can be traced only to the secret will of God. All men are alike corrupt and lost in Adam; some are saved by free grace, others, who are no worse by nature, reject the gospel. These are undeniable every-day facts, and admit of no other explanation within the limits of the present life; and as to the future world, we know nothing but what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures.

Calvin carried the doctrine of the divine decrees beyond the Augustinian infralapsarianism, which makes the fall of Adam the object of a permissive or passive decree, and teaches the preterition rather than the reprobation of the wicked, to the very verge of supralapsarianism, which traces even the first sin to an efficient or positive decree, analogous to that of election. But while his inexorable logic pointed to this abyss, his moral and religious sense shrunk from the last inference of making God the author of sin, which would be blasphemous, and involve the absurdity that God abhors and justly punishes what he himself decreed. Hence his phrase, which vacillates between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism: 'Adam fell, God' providence having so ordained it; yet he fell by his own guilt.' [864]

Calvin defended this doctrine against all objections with consummate skill, and may be said to have exhausted the subject on his side of the question. His arguments were chiefly drawn from the Scriptures, especially the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; but he unduly stretched passages which refer to the historical destiny of individuals and nations in this world, into declarations of their eternal fate in the other world; and he escaped the proper force of opposite passages (such as John i. 29; iii. 16; 1 John ii. 2; iv. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9) by a distinction between the secret and revealed or declared will of God (voluntas arcani and voluntas beneplaciti), which carries an intolerable dualism into the divine will.

The motive and aim of this doctrine was not speculative, but practical. It served as a bulwark of free grace, an antidote to Pelagianism and human pride, a stimulus to humility and gratitude, a source of comfort and peace in trial and despondency. The charge of favoring license and carnal security was always indignantly repelled by the Pauline 'God forbid!' It is moreover refuted by history, which connects the strictest Calvinism with the strictest morality.

The doctrine of predestination, in its milder, infralapsarian form, was incorporated into the Geneva Consensus, the Second Helvetic, the French, Belgic, and Scotch Confessions, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, the Canons of Dort, and the Westminster Standards; while the Thirty-nine Articles, [865] the Heidelberg Catechism, and other German Reformed Confessions, indorse merely the positive part of the free election of believers, and are wisely silent concerning the decree of reprobation, leaving it to theological science and private opinion.

Supralapsarianism, which makes unfallen man, or man before his creation (i.e., a non ens, a mere abstraction of thought), the object of God's double foreordination for the manifestation of his mercy in the elect, and his justice in the reprobate, was ably advocated by Beza in Geneva, Gomarus in Holland, Twisse (the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly) in England, Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840) in New England, but it never received symbolical authority, and was virtually or expressly excluded (though not exactly condemned) by the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Assembly, and even the 'Formula Consensus Helvetica' (1675). [866] All Calvinistic Confessions, without exception, trace the fall to a permissive decree, make man responsible and justly punishable for sin, and reject, as a blasphemous slander, the charge that God is the author of sin. And this is the case with all the Calvinistic divines of the present day. [867]

Calvin'S Doctrine Of The Lord'S Supper.

Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, on which he spent much deep and earnest thought, is an ingenious compromise between the realism and mysticism of the Lutheran, and the idealism and spiritualism of the Zwinglian theory. It aims to satisfy both the heart and the reason.

He retained the figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and rejected all carnal and materialistic conceptions of the eucharistic mystery; but he very strongly asserted, at the same time, a spiritual real presence and fruition of Christ's body and blood for the nourishment of the soul. He taught that believers, while they receive with their mouths the visible elements, receive also by faith the spiritual realities signified and sealed thereby, namely, the benefit of the atoning sacrifice on the cross, and the life-giving virtue of Christ's glorified humanity in heaven, which the Holy Ghost conveys to the soul in a supernatural manner; while unbelieving or unworthy communicants, having no inward connection with Christ, receive only bread and wine to their own judgment. He thus sought to avoid alike the positive error of Luther and the negative error of Zwingli (whose view of the Eucharist he even characterized as 'profane'), and to unite the elements of truth advocated by both in a one-sided and antagonistic way. Luther and Zwingli always had in mind a corporeal or dimensional presence of the material substance of body and blood, and an oral manducation of the same by all communicants--which the one affirmed, the other denied; Calvin substituted for this the idea of a virtual or dynamic presence of the psychic life-power and efficacy of Christ's humanity, and a spiritual reception and assimilation of the same by the organ of faith, and therefore on the part of believing communicants only, through the secret mediation of the Holy Spirit. [868]

Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist was substantially approved by Melanchthon in his later period, although from fear of Luther and the ultra-Lutherans he never fully committed himself. It passed into all the leading Reformed Confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and must be regarded as the orthodox Reformed doctrine. Zwingli's theory, which is more simple and intelligible, has considerable popular currency, but no symbolical authority. [869]

Calvin thus combined his high predestinarianism with a high view of the Church and the Sacraments. Augustine and Luther did the same to a still greater extent, with more prominence given to the sacramental idea. It is the prerogative of great minds to maintain apparently opposite truths and principles which hold each other in check; while with minds less strong and comprehensive, the one principle is apt to rule out the other. In the Catholic and Lutheran Churches the sacramental principle gradually overruled the doctrine of absolute predestination; in the more rigid Calvinistic school, the sacramental principle yielded to the doctrine of predestination. But the authoritative standards are committed to both.

Calvin As An Exegete.

Among the works which have more or less influenced the Reformed Confessions we can not ignore Calvin's commentaries. To expound the Scriptures in books, from the chair, and from the pulpit, was his favorite occupation. His whole theology is scriptural rather than scholastic, and distinguished for the skillful and comprehensive working up of the teaching of the Bible, as the only pure fountain of revealed truth and the infallible rule of the Christian faith. As it is systematically comprehended in his 'Institutes,' and defended in his various polemical tracts against Sadolet, Pighius, the Council of Trent, Caroli, Bolsec, Castallio, Westphal, Heshusius, so it is scattered through his Commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and the principal books of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms and the Prophets. He opened this important series of works, during his sojourn at Strasburg, by an exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (1539), on which his theological system is chiefly based.

He could assert with truth on his death-bed that he never knowingly twisted or misinterpreted a single passage of the Scriptures, that he always aimed at simplicity, and restrained the temptation to show acuteness and ingenuity. He regarded it as the chief object of a commentator to adhere closely to the text, and to bring out clearly and briefly the meaning of the writer. He detested irrelevant talk and diffuseness, and avoided allegorical fancies, which substitute pious imposition for honest exposition. He combined in a very rare degree all the necessary hermeneutical qualifications, a fair knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, sound grammatical tact, thorough sympathy with the spirit and aim of the Bible, and aptitude for fruitful practical application. He could easily enter into the peculiar situation of the Prophets and Apostles, as though he had been with them in their trials, and shared their varied experience. He is free from pedantry, and his exposition is an easy, continuous flow of reproduction. He never evades difficulties, but frankly meets and tries to solve them.

With all his profound reverence for the Word of God, to which his reason bows in cheerful obedience, he is not swayed by a peculiar theory of inspiration or dogmatic prejudice, but shows often remarkable freedom and sagacity in discovering the direct historical import of prophecies, in distinction from their ulterior Messianic bearing. [870] He notices the difference of style and argument in the Second Epistle of Peter as compared with the first, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews as compared with the undisputed Pauline Epistles. He never ventured to explain the mysteries of the Apocalypse. Luther, with an equally profound reverence and enthusiasm for the Word of God, was even much bolder, and passed sweeping judgments on whole books of the canon (as the Epistle of James, the book of Esther, and the book of Revelation), because he could not find enough of Christ in them. Calvin and his followers retained the Canon in full, but excluded more rigidly the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.

The scholastic Calvinism and Lutheranism of the seventeenth century departed from the more liberal view of the Reformers on the mode and degree of inspiration, and substituted for it a rigid mechanical theory which ignored the human and historical aspect of the Scriptures, and reduced the sacred writers to mere penmen of the Holy Ghost. This theory found symbolical expression in the 'Formula Consensus Helvetica' (1675), which advocates even the inspiration of the Hebrew-vowel points, and cuts off all textual criticism.

Upon the whole, Calvin is ' beyond all question the greatest exegete of the sixteenth century,' [871] which of all centuries was the most fruitful in this department of sacred learning. Luther was the prince of translators; Calvin, the prince of commentators. Augustine and Luther had occasionally a deeper intuition into the meaning of difficult passages, and seized on the main idea with the instinct of genius; but Calvin was more accurate and precise, and more uniformly excellent. Modern commentators have made great progress in textual criticism and grammatical and historical exegesis, but do not attain to his religious depth and fervor. His commentaries have stood the test of time, and will always be consulted with profit. Scaliger, who was displeased with all men, said that no scholar had penetrated so deeply into the meaning of the Prophets as Calvin; the Roman Catholic critic Richard Simon admitted that his commentaries would be 'useful to the whole world,' if they were free from declamations against popery; and of all older expounders none is more frequently quoted by the best modern critical scholars than John Calvin. [872]

Calvin'S Church Polity.

The practical and ecclesiastical part of Calvin's work is in some respects even more important than his theology, and must be briefly considered in those features which have affected the Calvinistic Confessions. These are the duty of discipline, the principle of lay-representation, and the autonomy of the Church in its relation to the State. In these points Calvinism differs from Lutheranism, and also from Zwinglianism and Anglicanism. Calvin aimed at a moral and social as well as a doctrinal and religious reformation, and succeeded in establishing a model Church, which excited the admiration not only of sympathizing contemporaries, like Farel and Knox, [873] but even of visitors of other creeds long after his death. [874] During the eighteenth century his severe system of theology and discipline gave way to the prevailing spirit of Socinianism and the revolutionary spirit of Jean Jacques Rousseau--the counterpart of Calvin; but revived in the nineteenth century, though in a modified form, so that Geneva has become a second time the centre of evangelistic labors in the French-speaking world. [875]

1. Discipline.--Calvin's zeal for discipline, especially for the honor of the Lord's table, in excluding unworthy communicants, was the cause of his expulsion from Geneva, the cause of his recall from Strasburg, the condition of his acceptance, the struggle and triumph of his life. He had a long and fierce conflict with the ferocious politico-religious party of the Libertines, or 'Spirituals,' as they called themselves, who combined a pantheistic creed with licentiousness and free-lovism, and anticipated the worst forms of modern infidelity to the extent of declaring the gospel a tissue of lies of less value than Æsop's Fables. [876] He regarded them as worse enemies of God and the truth than the Pope. They resorted to personal indignities and every device of intimidation; they named the very dogs of the street after him; they one night fired fifty shots before his bedchamber; they threatened him in the pulpit; they approached the communion table as if to seize the sacred elements, when he cried out, 'You may break these limbs and shed my blood, I would rather die than dishonor the table of my God,' whereupon they left the church. On another occasion he walked into the midst of an excited mob and offered his breast to their daggers. It seems incredible that a man constitutionally 'unwarlike and timorous' should have completely overcome at last such a powerful and determined opposition, which reached its height in 1553.

The system of discipline which he established saved Geneva from anarchy, into which the Libertines would have plunged it, and was a training-school of self-government for other Reformed Churches; but it was carried to unwarrantable excesses in the punishment of religious and civil offenses, and even innocent amusements, and entered too much into details of private and domestic life.

2. Presbyterian and Synodical Church Polity.--It rests on the principle of ministerial equality, and the principle of lay-representation by elders or seniors in the government of the Church. This polity, founded by Calvin, was consistently carried out in the Presbyterian Churches of France, Holland, Scotland, England, and the United States; but in German Switzerland and Germany it succeeded only partially, while the Church of England retained the Episcopal hierarchy. Calvin himself, however, was not an exclusive Presbyterian. He allowed modifications of the form of government in different countries. He did not object to Episcopacy or the liturgical worship in England; he only protested against the ecclesiastical supremacy of Henry VIII. and a number of abuses.

3. The Autonomy of the Church.--The German Reformers, including Zwingli, yielded too much authority to the civil rulers in matters of religion. Calvin theoretically made the Church independent in her own sphere, and claimed for her the right of self-government. This leads consistently to a separation of Church and State, where the latter is hostile to the former, as was the case in France and to some extent in Scotland. In recent times the Calvinistic Churches, without changing their creed, tend naturally towards complete freedom, from State control. Yet in practice he had no idea of such a separation. He regarded the civil and the spiritual power as the two arms of God's government in the world, which should co-operate together for the same end--the glory of God and the good of society: the Church by infusing a religious spirit into the State, the State by protecting and promoting the interests of the Church. He established, after the model of the Old Testament, a theocracy at Geneva, and governed it by tacit consent as long as he lived, presiding over the 'Venerable Company' of Pastors, and exerting a molding influence upon the civil legislation of the little republic of about 20,000 inhabitants. [877]

Bossuet, Möhler, and other Roman Catholic divines saw in this a return to the hierarchy, with Calvin as its pope. He has sometimes been compared to Hildebrand; and Kampschulte remarks that the dominion of the spiritual sovereignty was more thoroughly carried out in Geneva than by the Gregories and Innocenses in the Middle Ages. But Calvin's theocracy differed essentially from the Roman Catholic by its popular (though by no means democratic) basis: it was not priestcraft ruling over statecraft, but a self-governing Christian commonwealth. Geneva was an aristocratic republic, ruled by the clergy and the people in orderly representation and friendly co-operation. The highest civil and executive power was lodged in the 'Little Council' of twenty-four syndics, the highest ecclesiastical power in the 'Consistory,' composed (at first) of six pastors and double that number of lay-elders. [878]

Religious Persecution And Religious Freedom.

Unfortunately Calvin inherited from the Theodosian Code and the Catholic Church the worst feature of the theocratic system, namely, the principle of appeal to the secular arm for the temporal, and, if necessary, capital punishment of spiritual offenses, as being offenses against the order and peace of society. This principle is inconsistent with liberty of conscience (which Beza called a diabolical dogma), and justifies all manner of persecution, as duty or policy may suggest. With his intense antagonism to the papal tyranny, he might have thrown off this relic of the Middle Ages, if it had not been for his conviction of the perpetual validity of the Mosaic civil code and his theocratic theory. He thought that the burning of innocent people by Romanists was no good reason why Protestants should spare the guilty.

It was the misfortune of Calvin that this false theory, which confounds two distinct spheres and ignores the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, was brought to its severest test and explosion under his own eye, and to the perpetual injury of his fair fame. "We mean, of course, the terrible theological tragedy of the Spanish physician Michael Servetus, a restless fanatic, a pantheistic pseudo-reformer, and the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century, who attacked the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as tritheistic and atheistic, as the greatest monstrosity, and the source of all corruption in the Church. After being condemned to death, and burned in effigy by the Roman Catholic authorities in France, [879] he fled to Geneva, was arrested, tried, and executed at the stake, for heresy and blasphemy, by the civil government, with the full consent of Calvin, except that he made an ineffectual plea for a mitigation of the punishment (by a substitution of the sword for the fagot). [880]

Severely as we must condemn the great Reformer, from the standpoint of our modern civilization, for this the saddest mistake of his life, it is evident that even here he acted consistently and conscientiously, and that the blame attaches not to his personal character (for towards sincere and earnest heretics, like Lælius Socinus, he showed marked courtesy and leniency), but to his system, and not to his system alone, but to the inherited system of his age, which had not yet emerged from the traditions of the Romish pseudo-theocracy. The burning of Servetus was fully approved by all the Reformers--Beza, Farel, Bucer, Bullinger, even the mild and gentle Melanchthon. [881] If Romanists condemned Calvin, they did it from hatred of the man, and condemned him for following their own example even in this particular case. The public opinion of Christendom at that time and down to the eighteenth century justified the right and duty of civil government not only to protect but to support orthodoxy, and to punish heresy by imprisonment, exile, and death; and this right was exercised, with more or less severity, in all countries of Europe, and even in Puritan New England during the colonial period. Protestants differed from Romanists only in their definition of heresy, and by greater moderation in its punishment. Protestants complained of being innocently persecuted in France, Spain, Holland, and under the bloody Mary in England; and Catholics raised the same complaint against the systematic cruelty of the penal code of Queen Elizabeth, which looked to the utter extermination of Romanism and Puritanism alike.

A protest against the principle of persecution, first raised by Justin Martyr and Tertullian in the early Church, but forgotten as soon as the Church ascended the throne of the Cæsars, was revived by heretical Anabaptists and Socinians, who themselves suffered from it, without having a chance to persecute their persecutors, and who thus became martyrs of religious freedom. All honor to them, even to Servetus, for the service they rendered under this view to future generations. Liberty is the sweet fruit of bitter persecution. During the seventeenth century this feeble and isolated protest was considerably strengthened by Arminians, Baptists, and Quakers for the same reason; and during the eighteenth century Christian liberality and philanthropy on the one hand, and religious indifferentism and infidelity on the other, made such progress that the doctrinal foundations of persecution were gradually undermined, and toleration (as it was first patronizingly and condescendingly called, and is still called in despotic countries) became the professed policy of civilized governments. But this is not enough: all Christian governments should legally recognize and protect liberty of conscience, as an inherent and inalienable right of every immortal soul; and this requires for its full realization a peaceful separation of Church and State, or an equality of all denominations before the law.

In view of this radical revolution of public opinion on the subject of persecution, it becomes a practical question whether those sections of the Protestant confessions of faith which treat of the relation of Church and State should not be reconstructed and adapted to the principle of religious freedom, all the more since the Papal Syllabus has consistently condemned it, as being one of the errors of modern times. Such a change, at all events, is necessary in the United States, and has actually been made in the American revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and of the Westminster Confession.

The principle of religious liberty does not necessarily, as was formerly supposed, imply indifference to truth or a weakening of intensity of conviction. It follows legitimately from a sharper discrimination between the secular and spiritual sphere, between the Old and the New Testaments, between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ, and from the spirit and example of Him who said, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' and who commanded the carnal-minded Peter to 'put up his sword into the sheath.' God alone is Lord of the conscience, and allows no one with impunity to interfere with his sovereign right. Religion flourishes best in the atmosphere of freedom, and need not fear error as long as truth is left free to combat it.

It is nevertheless true that Calvinism, by developing the power of self-government and a manly spirit of independence which fears no man, though seated on a throne, because it fears God, the only sovereign, has been one of the chief agencies in bringing about this progress, and that civil and religious liberty triumphed first and most completely in Calvinistic countries. 'Calvin,' says Guizot, 'is undoubtedly one of those who did most towards the establishment of religious liberty.' __________________________________________________________________

[848] The eminent French historian, H. Martin (in his Histoire de France depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'en 1789, Tom. VIII. p. 325 of the fourth edition, Par. 1860), thus speaks of what Calvin did for the city of Geneva: 'Calvin ne la sauve pas seulement, mais conquiert à cette petite ville une grandeur, une puissance morale immense. Il en fait la capitale de la Réforme, autant que la Réforme peut avoir une capitale, pour la moitié du monde protestante, avec une vaste influence, acceptée ou subie, sur l'autre moitié. Genève n'est rien par la population, par les armes, par le territoire: elle est tout par l'esprit. Un seul avantage matériel lui garantit tous ses avantages moraux: son admirable position, qui fait d'elle une petite France républicaine et protestante, indépendante de la monarchie catholique de France et à l'abri de l'absorption monarchique et catholique; la Suisse protestante, alliée necessaire de la royauté française contre l'empereur, couvre Genève par la politique vis-à-vis du roi et par l'épée contre la maison d'Autriche et de Savoie.'

[849] Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. xii.: Der romanische Reformator zählte seine Anhänger in der romanischen, germanischen und slavischen Welt und zeigte sich überall, wo nicht das Lutherthum in dem deutschen Character eine Stütze fand, diesem überlegen.' He quotes the fact that in Bohemia, which borders on Germany, the Slavonian Protestants nearly all profess Calvinism, while Lutheranism is confined to the Germans. The same is still more the case with the Anglo-Saxon race in England, America, and Australia, and in the mission fields among the heathen. In Italy and Spain, too, the Waldenses and the evangelical Churches are, both in doctrine and discipline, much more Calvinistic than Lutheran; but so far Protestantism has a very feeble hold on the Latin races, which are more apt to swing from popery to infidelity, and from infidelity to popery, than to adopt the via media either of Lutheranism or Calvinism or Anglicanism.

[850] 'In his vast correspondence we find him conversing familiarly with the Reformers--Farel, Viret, Beza, Bullinger, Bucer, Grynæus, Knox, Melanchthon--on the most important religious and theological questions of his age; counseling and exhorting Prince Condé, Jeanne D'Albret, mother of Henry IV., Admiral Coligny, the Duchess of Ferrara, King Sigismund of Poland, Edward VI. of England, and the Duke of Somerset; respectfully reproving Queen Marguerite of Navarre; withstanding libertines and the pseudo-Protestants; strengthening the martyrs, and directing the Reformation in Switzerland, France, Poland, England, and Scotland. He belongs to the small number of men who have exerted a moulding influence, not only upon their own age and country, but also upon future generations in various parts of the world; and not only upon the Church, but indirectly also upon the political, moral, and social life. The history of Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States for the last three hundred years bears upon a thousand pages the impress of his mind and character. He raised the small republic of Geneva to the reputation of a Protestant Rome. He gave the deepest impulse to the Reform movement, which involved France, his native land, in a series of bloody civil wars, which furnished a host of martyrs to the evangelical faith, and which continues to live in that powerful nation in spite of the horrid massacre of St. Bartholomew and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the dragoonades and exile of hosts of Huguenots, who, driven from their native soil, carried their piety, virtue, and industry to all parts of Western Europe and North America. He kindled the religious fire which roused the moral and intellectual strength of Holland, and consumed the dungeons of the Inquisition and the fetters of the political despotism of Spain. His genius left a stronger mark on the national character of the Anglo-Saxon race and the Churches of Great Britain than their native Reformers. His theology and piety raised Scotland from a semi-barbarous condition, and made it the classical soil of Presbyterian Christianity, and one of the most enlightened, energetic, and virtuous countries on the face of the globe. His spirit stirred up the Puritan revolution of the seventeenth century, and his blood ran in the veins of Hampden and Cromwell, as well as Baxter and Owen. He may be called, in some sense, the spiritual father of New England and the American republic. Calvinism, in its various modifications and applications, was the controlling agent in the early history of our leading colonies (as Bancroft has shown); and Calvinism is, to this day, the most powerful element in the religious and ecclesiastical life of the Western world.'--From the author's Essay on Calvin, in the Bibl. Sacra for 1857.

[851] On the interesting French colony in Brazil, 1556, consisting of two clergymen and about two hundred members of the Church of Geneva, see Stähelin, Vol. II. pp. 234 sqq. The colony was broken up by the interference of the French government and by Papal intrigues. But it was a harbinger of the later emigrations of persecuted Huguenots in several parts of North America, who enriched the Presbyterian, Dutch, and German Reformed and other Churches.

[852] Comp. Stähelin, Vol. II. pp. 198, 241.

[853] The Strasburg editors of Calvin's Works, though belonging to the modern liberal school of theology, thus characterize him as a theologian (Opera, Vol. I. p. ix.): 'Si Lutherum virum maximum, si Zwinglium civem Christianum nulli secundum, si Melanthonem præceptorem doctissimum merito appellaris, Calvinum jure vocaris theologorum principem et antesignanum. In hoc enim quis linguarum et literarum præsidia, quis disciplinarum fere omnium non miretur orbem? De cujus copia doctrinæ, rerumque dispositione aptissime concinnata, et argumentorum vi ac validitate in dogmaticis; de ingenii acumine et subtilitate, atque nunc festiva nunc mordaci salsedine in polemicis, de felicissima perspicuitate, sobrietate ac sagacitate in exegeticis, de nervosa eloquentia et libertate in paræneticis; de prudentia sapientiaque legislatoria in ecclesiis constituendis, ordinandis ac regendis incomparabili, inter omnes viros doctos et de rebus evangelicis libere sentientes jam abunde constat. Imo inter ipsos adversarios romanos nullus hodie est, vel mediocri harum rerum cognitione imbutus vel tantilla judicii præditus æquitate, qui argumentorum et sententiarum ubertatem, proprietatem verborum sermonemque castigatum, stili denique, tam latini quam gallici, gravitatem et luciditatem non admiretur. Quæ cuncta quum in singulis fere scriptis, tum præcipue relucent in immortali illa Institutione religionis Christianæ, quæ omnes ejusdem generis expositiones inde ab apostolorum temporibus conscriptas, adeoque ipsos Melanthonis Locos theologicos, absque omni controversia longe antecellit atque eruditum et ingenuum lectorem, etiamsi alicubi secus senserit, hodieque quasi vinetum trahit et vel invitum rapit in admirationem.' To this we add a remarkable tribute of a liberal Roman Catholic historian who abhors Calvin's doctrine of absolute predestination, and yet becomes eloquent when he speaks of the literary merits of his 'Institutes.' 'Sein Lehrbuch der christlichen Religion,' says Kampschulte (Vol. I. p. xiv.), 'bringt die kirchliche Revolution in ein System, das durch logische Schärfe, Klarheit des Gedankens, rücksichtslose Consequenz, die vor nichts zurückbebt, noch heute unser Staunen und unsere Bewunderung erregt.' Ibid. p. 274: 'Calvin's Lehrbuch der christlichen Religion ist ohne Frage das hervorragendste und bedeutendste Erzeugniss, welches die reformatorische Literatur des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts auf dem Gebiete der Dogmatik aufzuweisen hat. Schon ein oberflächlicher Vergleich lässt uns den gewaltigen Fortschritt erkennen, den es gegenüber den bisherigen Leistungen auf diesem Gebiete bezeichnet. Statt der unvollkommenen, nach der einen oder andern Seite unzulänglichen Versuche Melanchthon's, Zwingli's, Farel's erhalten wir aus Calvin's Hand das Kunstwerk eines, wenn auch nicht harmonisch in sich abgeschlossenen, so doch wohlgegliederten, durchgebildeten Systems, das in allen seinen Theilen die leitenden Grundgedanken widerspiegelt und von vollständiger Beherrschung des Stoffes zeugt. Es hatte eine unverkennbare Berechtigung, wenn man den Verfasser der Institution als den Aristoteles der Reformation bezeichnete. Die ausserordentliche Belesenheit in der biblischen und patristischen Literatur, wie sie schon in den früheren Ausgaben des Werkes hervortritt, setzt in Erstaunen. Die Methode ist lichtvoll und klar, der Gedankengang streng logisch, überall durchsichtig, die Eintheilung und Ordnung des Stoffes dem leitenden Grundgedanken entsprechend; die Darstellung schreitet ernst und gemessen vor und nimmt, obschon in den späteren Ausgaben mehr gelehrt als anziehend, mehr auf den Verstand als auf das Gemüth berechnet, doch zuweilen einen höheren Schwung an. Calvin's Institution enthält Abschnitte, die dem Schönsten, was von Pascal und Bossuet geschrieben worden ist, an die Seite gestellt werden können: Stellen, wie jene über die Erhabenheit der heiligen Schrift, über das Elend des gefallenen Menschen, über die Bedeutung des Gebetes, werden nie verfehlen, auf den Leser einen tiefen Eindruck zu machen. Auch von den katholischen Gegnern Calvin's sind diese Vorzüge anerkannt und manche Abschnitte seines Werkes sogar benutzt worden. Man begreift es vollkommen, wenn er selbst mit dem Gefühl der Befriedigung und des Stolzes auf sein Werk blickt und in seinen übrigen Schriften gern auf das "Lehrbuch" zurückverweist.'

[854] The full title of the first edition is 'Christia- | næ Religionis Insti- | tutio totam fere pietatis summam et quic | quid est in doctrina salutis cognitu ne- | cessarium, complectens: omnibus pie- | tatis studiosis lectu dignissi- | mum opus, ac re- | cens edi- | tum. | Præfatio ad Chri- | stianissimum Regem Franciæ, qua | hic ei liber pro confessione fidei | offertur. | Joanne Calvino | Nouiodunensi authore. | Basileæ, | M.D.XXXVI.' The dedicatory Preface is dated 'X. Calendas Septembres' (i.e. August 23), without the year; but at the close of the book the month of March, 1536, is given as the date of publication. The first two French editions (1541 and 1545) supplement the date of the Preface correctly: 'De Basle le vingt-troysiesme d'Aoust mil cinq cent trente cinq.' The manuscript, then, was completed in Aug. 1535, but it took nearly a year to print it. The eighth and last improved edition from the pen of the author bears the title: 'Institutio Chri- | stianæ Religionis, in libros qua- | tuor nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus, ad aptissimam | methodum: aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut propemodum opus | novum haberi possit. | Joanne Calvino authore. | Oliva Roberti Stephani. | Genevæ. | M.D.LIX.'

[855] 'In doctrina,' says Beza, towards the close of his Vita Calv., 'quam initio tradidit ad extremum constans nihil prorsus immutavit, quod paucis nostra memoria theologis contigit.' Bretschneider was quite mistaken when he missed in the first edition the doctrine of predestination, which is clearly though briefly indicated, pp. 91 and 138. See Kampschulte, p. 256.

[856] The Strasburg editors devote the first four volumes to the different editions of the Institutes in both languages. Vol. I. contains the editio princeps Latina, of Basle, 1536 (pp. 10-247), and the variations of six editions intervening between the first and the last, viz., the Strasburg editions of 1539, 1543, 1545, and the Geneva editions of 1550, 1553, 1554 (pp. 253-1152); Vol. II. the editio postrema of 1559 (pp. 1-1118); Vol. III. and IV. the last edition of the French translation, or free reproduction rather (1560), with the variations of former editions. The question of the priority of the Latin or French text is now settled in favor of the former. See Jules Bonnet, in the Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du protestantisme français for 1858, Vol. VI. pp. 137 sqq., Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 55, and the Strasburg editors of the Opera, in the ample Prolegomena to Vols. I. and III. Calvin himself says expressly (in the Preface to his French ed. 1541) that he first wrote the Institutes in Latin ('premièrement l'ay mis en latin') for readers of all nations, and that he translated them afterwards for the special benefit of Frenchmen. In a letter to his friend, Francis Daniel, dated Lausanne, Oct. 13, 1536, he writes that he began the French translation soon after the publication of the Latin (Letters, ed. Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 21), but it did not appear till 1541, bearing the title 'Institution de la religion Chrestienne composée en latin, par Jean Calvin, et translatée en français par luymesme.' The erroneous assertion of a French original, so often repeated (by Bayle, Maimbourg, Basnage, and more recently by Henry, Vol. I. p. 104; III. p. 177; Dorner, Gesch. der protest. Theol. p. 375; H. B. Smith, 1.c. p. 283; and Guizot, p. 176, who assumes that the first French ed. was published anonymously), arose from confounding the date of the Preface in the French editions (23 Aug. 1535) with the later date of publication (1536). It is quite possible, however, that the dedication to Francis I. was first written in French, and this would most naturally account for the earlier date in the French editions. On the difference of the several editions, comp. also J. Thomas, Histoire de l'instit. chrétienne de J. Calv., Strasb. 1859, and Köstlin, Calvin's Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1868.

[857] See the Preface in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 847-850. It is written in excellent taste, and with profound respect and affection for Melanchthon, whose work, he concludes, 'conduit à la pure verité de Dieu, à laquelle it nous convient tenir, nous servant des hommes pour nous aider à y parvenir.'

[858] See the eulogies of Bucer, Beza, Sainte-Marthe, Thurius, Blunt, Salmasius, John von Müller, and others, quoted by Henry and Stähelin (Vol. I. pp. 59 sqq.). To these may be added some more recent testimonies. Guizot says (1.c. p. 173): 'The Institutes were and are still the noblest monument of the greatness of mind and originality of idea which distinguished Calvin in his own century. More than that, I believe this book to be the most valuable and enduring of all his labors; for those churches which are specially known as the Reformed Churches of France, Switzerland, Holland, Scotland, and the United States of America received from Calvin's Institutes the doctrine, organization, and discipline which, in spite of sharp trials, grave mistakes, and claims which are incompatible with the progress of liberty, have still, for more than three centuries, been the source of all their strength and vitality.' Hase (in his Kirchengeschichte) calls the Institutes 'die grossartigste wissenschaftliche Rechtfertigung des Augustinismus voll religiösen Tiefsinns in unerbittlicher Folgerichtigkeit der Gedanken.' G. Frank (Gesch. der Protest. Theol. Vol. I. p. 74): 'Wie Melanchthon hat auch Calvin seinen Glauben zusammengefasst in einem besonderen Werke, der Inst. rel. chr., nur methodischer, folgerichtiger, überlegner, die grösste Glaubenslehre des 16 Jahrh. ist sie wie ein hochgewölbter, dunkler Dom, darin der Ernst der Religion in andächtigem Schauer sich über die Seele legt.' H. B. Smith (1.c. p. 288): 'It is the most complete system [of theology] which the 16th century produced, nor has it been supplanted by any single work.' Baur (Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 27) calls it 'in every respect a truly classical work, distinguished in a high degree by originality and acuteness of conception, systematic consistency, and clear, luminous method.' To many editions of the Institutes the well-known distich of the Hungarian Paul Thurius is affixed: 'Præter apostolicas post Christi tempora chartas, Huic peperere libro sæcula nulla parem.'

[859] Florimond de Ræmond, Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l'hérésie de ce siècle, pp. 838, 883, quoted by Kampschulte (p. 278), who adds: 'Seine Schrift des Reformationszeitalters ist von den Katholiken mehr gefürchtet, eifriger bekämpft und verfolgt worden, als Calvin's Christliche Institution.' See his own judgment quoted on pp. 446 sq., note.

[860] The first edition of the Institutes contains only six chapters: 1. De lege, with an explanation of the Decalogue; 2. De fide, with an exposition of the Apostles' Creed; 3. De oratione, with an exposition of the Lord's Prayer; 4. Of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; 5. Of the other so-called Sacraments; 6. Of Christian liberty, Church-government, and discipline.

[861] Schleiermacher, the greatest divine of the nineteenth century, has defended Calvinism as the only consistent system on the basis of the orthodox anthropology and eschatology (though he runs it out into a final, unscriptural universalism); and his pupil, Alexander Schweizer, of Zurich (in his Glaubenslehre der evang. reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 79 and 81), thus clearly and sharply states the logical aspect of the case: 'Der reformirte Lehrbegriff, consequent gegründet auf das Materialprincip schlechthiniger Abhängigkeit von Gott und von da aus das menschliche Thun beleuchtend, ohne dessen willensmässige Natur zu verkleinern, ist weniger durch seinen Determinismus anstössig geworden, als durch das dualistisch Particularistische der auf die Prädestination angewandten Weltansicht. Gerade dieses aber gehört der Weltansicht aller damaligen Confessionen gleich sehr an and folgt wirklich aus der Vorstellung, dass unser ewiges Loos beim irdischen Sterben entschieden sei, nur hienieden Erlöste selig werden, alle Andern aber verdammt bleiben. . . . Das Harte am reformirten Lehrbegriff ist der dualistische Particularismus, der aber allen Confessionen gemein durch die reformirte Consequenz nur heller in's Licht gestellt wird, wodurch allein, falls er irrig wäre, die Förderung zur Wahrheit angebahnt ist. 1. Dualistischer Particularismus ist die Idee, dass in der Menschen- und Engelwelt die einen selig werden, die andern ewig verdammt. Diess war die Ansicht aller kirchlichen Confessionen, indem der Universalismus, die Beseligung aller rationalen Kreaturen in allen drei Confessionen, als hæretische Irrlehre abgewiesen wurde. 2. Liegt im Particularismus Hartes, die Güte Gottes Beschränkendes, so ist es ungerecht, darüber nur die reformirte Confession anzugehen, die weiter nichts gethan, als gelehrt hat: Das Weltergebniss müsse dem Weltplan entsprechen, somit habe Gott ewig grade diese Welt mit diesem Ergebniss gewollt und eine particularistische Prädestination bei sich beschlossen, wovon nun alle Weltentwicklung einfach die Ansführung sei; denn dass alles anders herauskomme, als Gott es gewollt, heisse Gott von den Kreaturen abhängig machen, die Kreaturen zu Göttern machen, Gott aber zum Ungott.' Comp. also Baur, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. (1867), pp. 144 sqq.

[862] 'Præscientiam quum tribuimus Deo, significamus omnia semper fuisse ac perpetuo mamere sub ejus oculis; ut ejus notitiæ nihil futurum aut præteritum, sed omnia sint præsentia, et sic quidem præsentia, ut non ex ideis tantum imaginetur (qualiter nobis obversantur ea quorum memoriam mens nostra retinet), sed tanquam ante se posita vere intueatur ac cernat. Atque hæc præscientia ad universum mundi ambitum et ad omnes creaturas extenditur. Prædestinationem vocamus æternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita æterna, aliis damnatio æterna præordinatur. Itaque, prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem prædestinatum dicimus.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 21, § 5 (Opera, Vol. II. pp. 682, 683). Comp. his Articuli de prædest., first published from an autograph of Calvin, Vol. IX. p. 713.

[863] 'Iterum quæro, unde factum est ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus æternæ morti involveret lapsus Adæ absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? Hic obmutescere oportet tam dicaces alioqui linguas. Decretum quidem horribile, fateor; infitiari tamen nemo poterit quin præsciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo præsciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat. In præscientiam Dei si quis hic invehatur, temere et inconsulte impingit. Quid enim, quæso, est cur reus agatur coelestis judex quia non ignoraverit quod futurum erat? In prædestinationem competit, si quid est vel justæ vel speciosæ querimoniæ. Nec absurdum videri debet quod dico, Deum non modo primi hominis casum, et in eo posterorum ruinam prævidisse, sed arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse. Ut enim ad ejus sapientiam pertinet, omnium quæ futura sunt esse præscium, sic ad potentiam, omnia manu sua regere ac moderari.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 7 (Vol. II. p. 704).

[864] 'Lapsus est enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censuerat; cur censuerit, nos latet. Certum tamen est non aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat, nominis sui gloriam inde merito illustrari. Unde mentionem gloriæ Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita. Justum enim esse oportet quod laudem meretur. Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante, sed suo vitio cadit. . . . Propria ergo malitia, quam acceptrat a Domino puram naturam corrupit; sua ruina totam posteritatem in exitium secum attraxit.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 8 (Vol. II. p. 705). The difference between the supralapsarians and infralapsarians was not agitated at the time of Calvin, but afterwards during the Arminian controversy in Holland. Both schools appealed to him. The difference is more speculative than moral and practical. In creating man free, God created him necessarily temptable and liable to fall, but the fall itself is man's own act and abuse of freedom. God decreed sin not efficiently but permissively, not as an actual fact but as a mere possibility, not for its own sake but for the sake of the good or as a negative condition of redemption. Besides, sin has no positive character, is no created substance, bat it is privative and negative, and consists simply in the abuse of faculties and gifts essentially good.

[865] There is a dispute about the precise meaning of Art. XVII.; but, as Prof. Fisher says (The Reform. p. 335), 'the article can not fairly be interpreted in any other sense than that of unconditional election; and the cautions which are appended, instead of being opposed to this interpretation, demonstrate the correctness of it."

[866] Can. IV.: 'Ita Deus gloriam suam illustrare constituit, ut decreverit, primo quidem hominem integrum creare. tum ejusdem lapsum permittere, ac demum ex lapsis quorundam misereri, adeoque eosdem eligere, alios vero in corrupta massa Relinquere, æternoque tandem exitio devovere.' This does not go beyond the limits of Augustinianism. Van Oosterzee errs when he says (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I. p. 452) that the Form. Cons. Hel. asserts the supralapsarian view; while Hodge errs on the other side when he says (Syst. Theol. Vol. II. p. 317) that this document contains 'a formal repudiation of the supralapsarian view.'

[867] Dr. Hodge, who best represents the Old School Calvinism in America, rejects supralapsarianism and defends infralapsarianism, which he defines thus (Syst. Theol. Vol. II. pp. 319 and 320): 'According to the infralapsarian doctrine, God, with the design to reveal his own glory--that is, the perfections of his own nature--determined to create the world; secondly, to permit the fall of man; thirdly, to elect from the mass of fallen men a multitude whom no man could number as "vessels of mercy;" fourthly, to send his Son for their redemption; and, fifthly, to leave the residue of mankind, as he left the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins.'

[868] Calvin taught his view of the Eucharist in the first edition of his Institutes (cap. 4, De Sacramentis, pp. 236 sqq., in the new ed. of the Opera, Vol. I. pp. 118 sqq.; comp. Ebrard, Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 412), and in the Confessio fidei de eucharistia. (1537); then more fully in the later editions of the Institutes, 1.c. Lib. IV. cap. 17, 18; in his two Catechisms (1538 and 1542); in his admirable tract De Coena Domini (first in French, 1541, then in Latin, 1545; see Opera, Vol. V. pp. 429-460); in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549); and he defended it in several polemical treatises against Westphal (1555-1557) and Heshusius (1561).

[869] See, on this whole subject, the very elaborate exposition of Ebrard, Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 402-525; Baur, Geschichte der christl. Kirche, Vol. IV. pp. 398-402; and Nevin's article on the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in the Mercersburg Review for Sept. 1850, pp. 421-548 (in defense of his 'Mystical Presence'). Dr. Nevin has clearly and correctly stated Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist and abundantly fortified it with quotations from all the symbolical standards, in entire harmony with Ebrard (who indorsed him in the Studien und Kritiken). After rejecting both the dogma of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, he says (p. 429): 'In opposition to this view, the Reformed Church taught that the participation of Christ's flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper is spiritual only, and in no sense corporal. The idea of a local presence in the case was utterly rejected. The elements can not be said to comprehend or include the body of the Saviour in any sense. It is not there, but remains constantly in heaven, according to the Scriptures. It is not handled by the minister and taken into the mouth of the communicant. The manducation of it is not oral, but only by faith. It is present in fruition accordingly to believers only in the exercise of faith; the impenitent and unbelieving receive only the naked symbols, bread and wine, without any spiritual advantage to their own souls. Thus we have the doctrine defined and circumscribed on both sides; with proper distinction from all that may be considered a tendency to Rationalism in one direction, and from all that may be counted a tendency to Romanism in the other. It allows the presence of Christ's person in the sacrament, including even his flesh and blood, so far as the actual participation of the believer is concerned. Even the term real presence Calvin tells us he was willing to employ, if it were to be understood as synonymous with true presence; by which he means a presence that brings Christ truly into communion with the believer in his human nature as well as in his divine nature. The word real, however, was understood ordinarily to denote a local, corporal presence, and on this account was not approved. To guard against this, it may be qualified by the word spiritual; and the expression will then be quite suitable to the nature of the doctrine as it has been now explained. A real presence, in opposition to the notion that Christ's flesh and blood are not made present to the communicant in any way. A spiritual real presence, in opposition to the idea that Christ's body is in the elements in a local or corporal manner. Not real simply, and not spiritual simply, but real and yet spiritual at the same time. The body of Christ is in heaven, the believer on earth; but by the power of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the obstacle of such vast local distance is fully overcome, so that in the sacramental act, while the outward symbols are received in an outward way, the very body and blood of Christ are at the same time inwardly and supernaturally communicated to the worthy receiver, for the real nourishment of his new life. Not that the material particles of Christ's body are supposed to be carried over, by this supernatural process, into the believer's person. The communion is spiritual, not material. It is a participation of the Saviour's life; of his life, however, as human, subsisting in a true bodily form. The living energy, the vivific virtue, as Calvin styles it, of Christ's flesh, is made to flow over into the communicant, making him more and more one with Christ himself, and thus more and more an heir of the same immortality that is brought to light in his person.'

[870] In his exposition of Gen. iii. 15, he understands the 'woman's seed' collectively of the human family in its perpetual struggle with Satan, which at last culminates in the victory of Christ, the head of the race. Comp. also his remarks on Isa. iv. 2; vi. 3; Psa. xxxiii. 6; Matt. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 6-8.

[871] Reuss: Geschichte der H. Schriften des N. T., 4th edition, p. 564.

[872] See the frequent references to him in the Commentaries of Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Lücke, Bleek, De Wette, Meyer, Alford; also the Essay of Tholuck, 'Die Verdienste Calvin's als Ausleger der heil. Schrift,' 1831 (reprinted in his Vermischte Schriften, Vol. II. pp. 330-360); Ed. Reuss, Calvin considéré comme exégète (Revue, Vol. VI. p. 223); and Stähelin, Joh. Calvin, Vol. I. pp. 182 sqq. Stähelin says (p. 198): 'Der altlestamentliche wie der neutestamentliche Bibelerklärer, der Lutheraner, wie der Unirte und Reformirte, der wissenschaftliche Exeget, wie der populäre Schriftausleger alle schöpften und schöpfen immer noch aus der Arbeit Calvins bei weitem das Meiste und Beste, was sie von Schrifterklärung aus dem Reformationszeitalter beibringen.' Comp. also Kahnis, Dogmatik, Vol. II. p. 492, and Herzog, Encykl. Vol. II. p. 528.

[873] John Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, who studied at the feet of Calvin, though four years his senior, in a letter to his friend Locke, in 1556, called the Church of Geneva 'the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles. In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but manners and religion to be so sincerely reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place besides.' Farel wrote, in 1557, that he never saw Geneva in such excellent condition before, and that he wonld rather be the last there than the first any where else. There, it was said, the pure gospel is preached in all temples and houses (Calvin himself preached daily, every other week); there the music of psalms never ceases; there hands are folded and hearts lifted up to heaven from morning till night and from night until morning. The Italian refugee, Bernardino Ochino, gives a most favorable description of the moral condition of Geneva. See his Life by Beurath (1875), p. 169.

[874] Dr. Valentine Andreæ of Würtemberg (a grandson of Jacob Andreæ, the chief author of the Formula of Concord), a great and shining light of the Lutheran Church in Germany during the desolations of the Thirty-Years' War (d. 1654), visited Geneva in the early part of the seventeenth century, and held it up as a model of moral purity well worthy of imitation. 'Als ich in Genf war,' he says in his Respublica Christianopolitana, 1619, 'bemerkte ich etwas Grosses, woran die Erinnerung, ja vielmehr, wonach die Sehnsucht nur mit meinem Leben absterben wird. Nicht nur findet sich hier das vollkommene Institut einer vollkommenen Republik, sondern als eine besondere Zierde und Mittel der Disciplin eine Sittenzucht, nach welcher über die Sitten und selbst die geringsten Ueberschreitungen der Bürger wöchentlich Untersuchung angestellt wird, zuerst durch die Viertelsinspectoren, dann durch die Senioren, endlich durch den Magistrat, je nachdem der Frevel der Sache oder die Verhärtung und Verstockung der Schuldigen es erfordern. In Folge dessen sind denn alle Fluchworte, alles Würfel- und Kartenspiel, Ueppigkeit, Uebermuth, Zank, Hass, Betrug, Luxus, u.s.w., geschweige denn grössere Vergehungen, die fast unerhört sind, untersagt. Welche herrliche Zierde für die christliche Religion solche Sittenreinheit, vor der wir mil allen Thränen beweinen müssen, dass sie uns fehlt und fast ganz venachlässigt wird, und alle Gutgesinnten sich anstrengen, dass sie in's Leben gerufen werde! Mich, wofern mich die Verschiedenheit der Religion nicht abgehalten, hätte die sittliche Uebereinstimmung hier auf ewig gefesselt, und mit allem Eifer habe ich von da an getrachtet, dass etwas Aehnliches auch unserer Kirche zu Theil würde. Nicht geringer als die öffentliche Zucht war auch die häusliche meines Hausherrn Scarron ausgezeichnet durch stetige Gebetsübungen, Lectüre der heiligen Schrift, Gottesfurcht in Worten und Thaten, Masshalten in Speise und Kleidung, dass ich eine grössere Sittenreinheit selbst im väterlichen Hause nicht gesehen.'

[875] The Haldanes repaid the debt of Scotland to Geneva, and, in connection with Cesar Malan, gave the first impulse to a revival which resulted in the establishment of a Free Church, and a school of theology distinguished by the labors of Gaussen, Merle d'Aubigné, Pronier, La Harpe. The old National Church which Calvin founded has likewise undergone a salutary change, though the old rigor can never be restored. In point of literary culture and social refinement, Geneva always retained the first rank among French cities next to Paris.

[876] See Calvin's Instructio adv. fanaticam et furiosam sectam Libertinorum, qui se Spirituales vocant, written first in French, 1544, Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 145-252. Comp. Trechsel's art. Libertiner in Herzog's Real-Encykl., and Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 383 sqq.

[877] Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 471: 'Der Grundgedanke, von dem der Gesetzgeber Genfs ausgeht, ist die Theokratie. Calvin will in Genf den Gottesstaat herstellen. Nur Einer ist ihm König und Herr in Staat und Kirche: Gott im Himmel. In seinem Namen herrscht jede irdische Gewalt. Gottes Herrscherruhm zu verkündigen, seine Majestät zu verherrlichen, seinen heiligen Willen zur Ausführung zu bringen und seine Bekenner zu heiligen, ist die gemeinsame Aufgabe von Staat und Kirche.' Comp. Stähelin, Vol. I. pp. 319 sqq.

[878] Guizot says of this ecclesiastical organization (p. 265): 'In its origin it was a profoundly Christian and evangelical system; it was republican in many of its fundamental principles and practices, and at the same time it recognized the necessity of authority and order, and originated general and permanent rules of discipline.' Michelet calls the Geneva of Calvin 'the city of the spirit, founded by Stoicism on the rock of predestination;' and Kampschulte (p. 430), 'the metropolis of a grand, sublime, and terrible idea.'

[879] See the acts of the process of Servetus at Vienne and Lyons (first published by the Abbé d'Artigny, Paris, 1749), in Calvin's Opera, Vol. VIII. pp. 833 sqq.

[880] For full discussion of the trial and execution of Servetus and Calvin's part in them, see Schaff: Ch. Hist., VII., 680-793. A large boulder has been placed by Swiss and French Protestants at the spot where the Spaniard suffered, to serve as an expiatory monument, expressing regret for the tragedy and at the same time respect for Calvin. On the one side is the record that Michael Servetus of Villeneuve, Aragon, b., Sept. 29, 1511, was executed there, Oct. 26, 1553, and on the other the inscription: Fils respectueux et reconnaissants de Calvin, notre grand Réformateur, mais condamnant une erreur qui fut celle de son siècle et fermement attachés à la liberté de conscience selon les vrais principes de la Réformation et de l'Evangile nous avons élevé ce monument expiatoire, le 27 Octobre, 1903. (We, respectful children of Calvin, our great Reformer, but condemning an error which was the error of his age and firmly attached to liberty of conscience according to the true principles of the Reformation and the Gospel, have erected this expiatory monument, Oct. 27, 1903). Calvin was called by Renan "the most Christian man of his age."--Ed.

[881] It may he questioned whether Zwingli and Luther, had they lived, would have sanctioned the execution; their impulses at least were more liberal. With all his polemic violence in argument, Luther disapproved of the shocking cruelties against the Anabaptists in Germany, and said that 'on this plan, the hangman would be the best theologian.' __________________________________________________________________

§ 58. The Catechism of Geneva. A.D. 1536 AND 1541.

Literature.

Calvini Opera, ed. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Vol. V. (1866), pp. 313-362 (the first draft, or Catechismus prior, 1538); Vol. VI. (1867), pp. 1-160 (the second catechism, in French and Latin).

Niemeyer, pp. 123-190 (the Latin text of the Larger Catechism, together with the prayers and liturgical forms); comp. his Proleg. pp. xxxvii.-xli.

The German text of the Larger Catechism in Beck (Vol. I. pp. 208-292), and Böckel (pp. 127-172).

An English translation, probably by the same Marian exiles who prepared the 'Geneva Bible,' appeared first at Geneva, 1556; then in Edinburgh, 1564; and is reprinted in Dunlop's Confessions, Vol. II. pp. 139-272; also in Horatius Bonar: Catechisms of the Scotch Reformation (Lond. 1866), pp. 4-88. It is divided into fifty-five Sundays.

Stähelin: Joh. Calvin, Vol. I. pp. 124 sqq.

The commanding influence of Calvin's theology and Church polity is manifest in all the leading confessions of the Reformed Churches, especially the French, Dutch, and Scotch, also in the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, and the Westminster Standards. But the confessions which he himself prepared were intended, like those of Zwingli, for local and temporary rather than general purposes, and possess only a secondary authority. These are the Geneva Catechism, the Zurich Consensus, and the Geneva Consensus. [882]

Calvin, like Luther and other Reformers, did not consider it beneath his dignity, but rather a duty and a privilege, to utilize his profound learning for the benefit of children by adapting it to their simplicity. He made general education and catechetical instruction the basis of the republic. [883]

During his first residence at Geneva (1536), he prepared a catechism, in the French language, together with a form of discipline, as a basis of instruction for the newly reformed Church of that city. [884] It is a brief summary of the Christian religion, a popular extract from his 'Institutes.' It treats, in fifty-eight sections (but not in the form of question and answer), of the religious constitution of man, the distinction between false and true religion, the knowledge of God, the original state of man, free-will, sin and death, the way of salvation, the law of God, the Ten Commandments, the sum of the law (Matt. xxii. 37), the aim of the law, faith in Christ, election and predestination, the nature of faith, justification and sanctification, repentance and regeneration, faith and good works, an exposition of the articles of the Apostles' Creed, and the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the Church, human traditions, excommunication, and the civil magistrate. Then follows a short confession of faith, in twenty-one articles, extracted from the Catechism, which was to be binding upon all the citizens of Geneva--probably the first instance of a formal pledge to a symbolical book in the history of the Reformed Church. [885]

After his return from Strasburg Calvin rewrote the Catechism on a larger scale, and arranged in questions and answers: the catechist drawing out the information, and the pupil or child seeming to teach the master. It was prepared in great haste, for the printer demanded copy without giving him time to revise it. He often desired to perfect the book, but found no time. [886] It appeared in French, 1541 or 1542, [887] in Latin, 1545, [888] and very often. It was also translated into Italian (1551 and 1556), Spanish (1550), English (1556), German, Dutch, Hungarian, even into Greek and Hebrew. [889] It was used for a long time in Reformed Churches and schools, especially in France and Scotland, and served a good purpose in promoting an intelligent piety and virtue on the solid basis of systematic Biblical instruction. Educational religion, which grows with our growth, is the most substantial, and must ever be the main reliance of the Church.

The object of this work, as explained in the preface, was to restore the catechetical instruction of the ancient Church, so sadly neglected by the Papists, who substituted for it the ceremony of confirmation, and to secure greater unity of faith and doctrine in the scattered Reformed congregations. Calvin showed his churchly tact in making the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer the basis. The leading idea is man's relation to God, and his heavenly destination. The whole is divided into five parts, as follows: 1. Of Faith--an exposition of the Creed (which here, as in the Heidelberg Catechism, precedes the Ten Commandments, while in the earlier Catechism of Calvin the opposite order was observed); [890] 2. Of the Law, or the Ten Commandments; 3. Of Prayer; 4. Of the Word of God; 5. Of the Sacraments. In the French edition the Catechism is divided into fifty-five lessons, for the fifty-two Sundays of the year and the three great festivals--a method followed in the later editions of the Heidelberg Catechism. [891]

Calvin's Catechism is fuller than Luther's, but less popular and childlike. It prepared the way and furnished material for a number of similar works, which have gradually superseded it, especially the Anglican (Nowell's), the Heidelberg, and the Westminster Catechisms. The Anglican Catechism is much shorter and more churchly in taking its starting-point from Baptism. The first question of the Westminster Catechism makes the glory of God 'the chief end of man,' and is a happy condensation of the first three questions of Calvin. [892] The Heidelberg Catechism begins more subjectively with 'the only comfort of man in life and in death,' herein betraying its German origin; but this also was suggested by the next questions of Calvin concerning the highest good or felicity of man and the firm foundation of our salvation. Otherwise the Heidelberg Catechism adheres to the order of the Genevan more closely than the Westminster, by retaining, as a basis of the dogmatic section, the Apostles' Creed (which the Westminster Catechism merely adds as an appendix). [893]

Guizot gives the preference to Calvin's Catechism over those modern ones which begin with speculative questions on the nature and existence of God. 'Calvin,' he says, [894] 'proceeds in a very different manner; he does not seek God--he knows him, possesses him, and takes God as his starting-point. God the Creator, man his creature, and the relation of man to God--these form the fundamental facts and natural basis of the history, doctrines, and laws of Christianity. Calvin's Catechism commences thus: "What is the chief end of human life?" "To know God." And this first assertion is the mainspring of all the principles and religious duties which are afterwards presented, not as the discoveries of the human mind, but as communications made by God in order to meet man's aspirations, and enable him to regulate his life. It is neither a scientific method, nor is the Catechism a philosophical work; it contains the assertion of a real, immemorial, universal, and historical fact, and explains the consequences of that fact. It is the natural and legitimate method of imparting religions instruction, inherent in the very first principle of all religion; it is especially in harmony with the origin and history of Christianity, and no one has ever recognized its power or proved its efficacy more fully than Calvin.' __________________________________________________________________

[882] They were not included in the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, which appeared in Geneva.

[883] George Bancroft calls Calvin 'the father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free schools.'--Liter. and Histor. Miscellanies, p. 406.

[884] The Latin translation has been recently republished by the Strasburg editors from a Basle edition: 'Catechismus, sive Christianæ Religionis institutio, communibus renatæ nuper in Evangelio Genevensis Ecclesiæ suffragiis recepta et vulgari quidem prius idiomate, nunc vero Latine etiam . . . in lucem edita. Joanne Calvino autore. Basileæ, A. M.D. XXXVIII.' See the Prolegomena to Opera, Vol. V. pp. xli. sqq. The French original, which was probably printed at Geneva, 1537, seems to have been lost.

[885] 'Confessio Fidei, in quam jurare cives onmes Genevenses et qui sub civitatis ejus ditione agunt, jussi sunt: excerpta e Catechismo quo utitur Ecclesia Genevensis.' It begins with the Word of God and ends with the magistrate. It seems to have been drawn up before the Catechism, immediately after the disputation at Lausanne, for Beza says: 'Tunc edita est a Calvino Christianæ doctrinæ quædam veluti formula, vixdum emergenti e papatus sordibus Genevensi Ecclesiæ accommodata. Addidit etiam Catechismum,' etc.

[886] So he said himself on his death-bed; see Stähelin, Vol. II. p. 467.

[887] 'Le Catechisme de l'Église de Genève, c'est à dire le Formulaire d'instruire les enfans en la Chrestienté fait en manière de dialogue ou le ministre interrogue et l'enfant respond.' The oldest copy extant was found in the ducal library at Gotha, printed 1545. On other editions, see the Prolegomena to Opera, Vol. VI.

[888] 'Catechismus Ecclesiæ Genevensis, hoc est, Formula erudiendi pueros in doctrina Christi. Autore Joanné Calvino.' The Preface to the Latin edition is dated 'Genevæ, 4 Calendas Decembris, 1545.' The Strasburg editors give the French and Latin texts of 1545 in parallel columns, Vol. VI. pp. 8-159. In many editions Calvin's Liturgy is added.

[889] Beza, in Vita, ad ann. 1541: 'Scripsit Catechismum Gallice et Latine, ab illo priore minime discrepantem, sed multo auctiorem, et in quæstiones ac responsiones distributum: quem merito nobis liceat admirandum quoddam opus vocare, tantopere plurimis etiam exteris populis probatum, ut non modo vernaculis plurimis linguis, utpote Germanica, Anglica, Scotica, Belgica, Hispanica, sed etiam Hebraice ab Immanuele Tremellio Judæo Christiano, et Græce ab Henrico Stephano legatur elegantissime conversus.' The title of the Greek translation is, Stoicheiosis tes Christianon pisteos, e Katechismos, kata ten palaian onomasian. Græce et Latine, 1563.

[890] He made the Apostles' Creed the basis of his 'Catechism' and 'Institutes,' not because he believed it to be literally the product of the Apostles, but because it is a faithful summary of their teaching ('ex eorum scriptis fideliter collecta,' 'tiré de la pure doctrine apostolique'), and a formula which best expresses the common Christian faith ('formula confessionis, quam inter se communem habent Christiani omnes').

[891] The distribution into Sundays appears first in the French edition of 1548, which has a 'Table pour trouver le lieu du Catechisme que le Ministre explique un chascun Dimanche.' See Opera, Vol. VI. Proleg. p. x. The First Book of Discipline of Scotland (1560), ch. 11, directs the ministers to teach the children Calvin's Catechism--'the most perfect that ever yet was used in the Kirk'--every Sunday afternoon in the presence of the people. See Bonar, l.c. pp. 3, 4.

[892] Calvin's Catechism. Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Min. Quis humanæ vitæ præcipuus est finis?

1st Ques. What is the chief end of man?

Puer. Ut Deum, a quo conditi sunt homines, ipsi noverint.

Ans. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Min. Quid causæ habes, cur hoc dicas?

Puer. Quoniam nos ideo creavit et collocavit in hoc mundo, quo glorificetur in nobis. Et sane vitam nostram, cujus ipse est initium, æquum est in ejus gloriam referri.

Min. Quod vero est summum bonum hominis?

Puer. Illud ipsum.

[893] Comp. Karl Sudhof: Olevianus und Ursinus (1857), pp. 88 sqq. Calvin is also responsible for the unhistorical interpretation of Christ's descent into Hades, by which he understood the anticipation of the sufferings of hell in Gethsemane and on the Cross. This is quite inconsistent with the position of this article between the burial and the resurrection. Ihe Westminster Catechism falls into another error by making it mean simply, 'He continued in the state of the dead and under the power of death till the third day.'

[894] St. Louis and Calvin, p. 348. __________________________________________________________________

§ 59. The Consensus of Zurich. A.D. 1549.

Literature.

I. Consensio Mutua in re Sacramentaria ministrorum Tigurinæ Ecclesiæ et J. Calvini ministri Genevensis Ecclesiæ jam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita. Tiguri, 1549. In Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 689-748. Comp. Proleg. pp. xliv. sqq. Defensio sanæ et orthodoxæ de sacramentis eorumque vi, fine, et usu, et fructu quam pastores et ministri Tigurinæ ecclesiæ et Genevensis antehac brevi Consensionis mutuæ formula complexi sunt. Johanne Calvino autore, Tiguri, 1555, in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 1-40. The same volume contains the later eucharistic tracts of Calvin against the attacks of Joachim Westphal (1556 and 1557) and Tilemann Heshusius (1561).

The Consensus Tigurinus with Calvin's Exposition is also reprinted in Niemeyer's Collect. pp. 191-217; a German translation (in part) in Beck and Böckel.

II. On the History of the Zurich Consensus, see Calvin's correspondence with Bullinger, 1548 and 1549, Opera, Vols. XII. and XIII. Hundeshagen: Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, etc.; Henry: Calvin, Vol. II. pp.128 sqq.; Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 484-524; Pestalozzi: Bullinger, pp. 373-387; Stähelin: Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 112-124.

In the sacramental controversy--the most violent, distracting, and unprofitable in the history of the Reformation--Calvin stood midway between Luther and Zwingli, and endeavored to unite the elements of truth on both sides, in his theory of a spiritual real presence and fruition of Christ by faith. [895] This satisfied neither the rigid Lutherans nor the rigid Zwinglians. The former could see no material difference between Calvin and Zwingli, since both denied the literal interpretation of 'this is my body,' and a corporeal presence and manducation. The latter suspected Calvin of leaning towards Lutheran consubstantiation and working into the hands of Bucer, who had made himself obnoxious by his facile compromises and ill-concealed concessions to the Lutheran view in the Wittenberg Concordia (1536).

The wound was reopened by Luther's fierce attack on the Zwinglians (1545), and their sharp reply. Calvin was displeased with both parties, and counselled moderation. It was very desirable to harmonize the teaching of the Swiss Churches. Bullinger, who first advanced beyond the original Zwinglian ground, and appreciated the deeper theology of Calvin, sent him his book on the Sacraments, in manuscript (1546), with the request to express his opinion. Calvin, did this with great frankness, and a degree of censure which at first irritated Bullinger. Then followed a correspondence and personal conference at Zurich, which resulted in a complete union of the Calvinistic and Zwinglian sections of the Swiss Churches on this vexed subject. The negotiations reflect great credit on both parties, and reveal an admirable spirit of frankness, moderation, forbearance, and patience, which triumphed over all personal sensibilities and irritations. [896]

The first draft of the Consensus Tigurinus, from November, 1548, consists of twenty-four brief propositions drawn up by Calvin, with annotations by Bullinger, to which Calvin responded in January, 1549. They assert that the Sacraments are not in and of themselves effective and conferring grace, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, acts through them as means; that the internal effect appears only in the elect; that the good of the Sacraments consists in leading us to Christ, and being instruments of the grace of God, which is sincerely offered to all; that in baptism we receive the remission of sins, although this proceeds primarily not from baptism, but from the blood of Christ; that in the Lord's Supper we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, not, however, by means of a carnal presence of Christ's human nature, which is in heaven, but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the devout elevation of our soul to heaven. [897]

In the month of March Calvin sent twenty Articles to the Synod of Berne, [898] but in this canton there was strong opposition to Calvin's rigorism, which subsided only after his death. [899]

In May, 1549, he had, in company with Farel, a personal interview with Bullinger in Zurich at his cordial invitation, and drew up the Consensus as it now stands, in Twenty-six Articles. It was published in 1551 at Zurich and at Geneva. [900] It contains the Calvinistic doctrine, adjusted as nearly as possible to the Zwinglian in its advanced form, but with a disturbing predestinarian restriction of the sacramental grace to the elect. [901] The truth of the Zwinglian view is fully acknowledged in opposition to transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but the real life union with Christ in the sacrament is as clearly asserted, and made still more plain in the 'Exposition' of the Consensus which Calvin wrote four years afterwards (1554). 'The Sacraments,' he declares, 'are helps and media (adminicula et media), by which we are either inserted into the body of Christ, or being so inserted coalesce with it more and more, till he unites us with himself in full in the heavenly life. . . . The Sacraments are neither empty figures, nor outward badges merely of piety, but seals of the promises of God, attestations of spiritual grace for cherishing and confirming faith, organs also by which God efficaciously works in his elect.' [902]

The Consensus was adopted by the Churches of Zurich, Geneva, St. Gall, Schaffhausen, the Grisons, Neuchatel, and, after some hesitation, by Basle, and was favorably received in France, England, and parts of Germany. Melanchthon declared to Lavater (Bullinger's son-in-law) that he then for the first time understood the Swiss, and would never again write against them; but he erased those passages of the Consensus which made the efficacy of the sacrament depend on election.

While the Consensus brought peace and harmony to the Swiss Churches, it was violently assailed by Joachim Westphal, of Hamburg (1552), in the interest of the ultra-Lutheran party in Germany, and became the innocent occasion of the second sacramental war, which has been noticed in the section on the Formula Concordiæ. [903] __________________________________________________________________

[895] See § 57, pp. 455 sqq.

[896] See the details in Ebrard, Pestalozzi, and Stähelin, who speak in the highest terms of the truly Christian spirit which characterized the two leaders of the Swiss Reformation.

[897] Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 693 sqq.

[898] Ibid. pp. 717 sqq.

[899] See Hundeshagen, and Stähelin, Vol. II. pp. 125 sqq. Calvin complained on his deathbed of the ill-treatment he had repeatedly received from the government of Berne.

[900] Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 733 sqq. These Twenty-six Articles alone are given, with Calvin's Exposition of 1554, in Niemeyer's Collectio, pp. 191-217.

[901] Art. XVI. 'Præterea sedulo docemus, Deum non promiscue vim suam exserere in omnibus qui sacramenta recipiunt: sed tantum in electis. Nam quemadmodum non alios in fidem illuminat, quam quos præordinavit ad vitam, ita arcana Spiritus sui virtute efficit, ut percipiant electi quod offerunt sacramenta.' Yet this is qualified in Art. XVIII. 'Certum quidem est, offeri communiter omnibus Christum cum suis donis, nec hominum infidelitate labefactari Dei veritatem, quin semper vim suam retineant sacramenta: sed non omnes Christi et donorum ejus sunt capaces. Itaque ex Dei parte nihil mutatur: quantum vero ad homines spectat, quisque pro fidei suæ mensura accipit.' See the lengthy discussion of Ebrard, 1.c. pp. 503 sqq. He fully adopts the doctrine of the Consensus with the exception of the predestinarian restriction, which, however, is inseparable from the Calvinistic system, as formerly held by Ebrard himself.

[902] 'Sacramenta neque inanes esse figuras neque externa tantum pietatis insignia, sed promissionum Dei sigilla, testimonia spiritualis gratiæ ad fidem fovendam et confirmandam, item organa esse quibus efficaciter agit Deus in suis electis, ideoque, licet a rebus signatis distincta sint signa, non tamen disjungi ac separari,' etc. Niemeyer, p. 204.

[903] See pp. 279 sqq. A full account of the controversy of Calvin with Westphal is given by Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 525 sqq., and by Nevin in the Mercersburg Review for 1850, pp. 486 sqq. __________________________________________________________________

§ 60. The Consensus of Geneva. A.D. 1552.

Literature.

I. De Æterna Dei prædestinatione qua in salutem alios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit: item de providentia qua res humanas gubernat, Consensus pastorum Genevensis Ecclesiæ a Jo. Calvino, expositus. Genevæ, 1552. Reprinted in the Opera, Vol. VIII. (187O), pp. 249-366. Also in Niemeyer. pp. 218-310. The German text in Böckel (Die Genfer Uebereinkunft), pp. 182-280.

II. Alex. Schweizer: Die Protest. Centraldogmen der Reform. Kirche, Vol. I. (1854), pp.l80-238; Henry Vol. II. p. 285; Vol. III. pp. 40 sqq.; Stähelin, Vol. II. (1863), pp. 271-308, and Vol. I. pp. 411 sqq.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination [904] met with strong opposition, which drew from him some able defenses.

The first assault came from an eminent Roman Catholic divine, Albertus Pighius, 1542, who taught the freedom of will almost to the extent of Pelagianism, and conditioned predestination by foreknowledge. [905] Calvin wrote a reply to the first part (1543), and dedicated it to Melanchthon, who in the second article of the Augsburg Confession had expressed the Augustinian doctrine of total depravity. [906]

A more troublesome opponent was Jerome Bolsec, formerly a Carmelite monk from Paris, then a fugitive Protestant and physician at Geneva and Lausanne, a restless and turbulent spirit. He denounced Calvin's doctrine of predestination as godless and blasphemous, and tried to break down his influence, but was publicly refuted and admonished, and at last expelled from Geneva (1551) and from Berne (1555). He returned to France and to the Roman Church (1563), and thirteen years after Calvin's death he took cruel revenge by a shameless and malignant libel (1577 and 1588), long since refuted. [907]

These attacks were the occasion of the Consensus Genevensis, which first appeared at Geneva, 1552, in the name of the pastors of that city. Calvin contemptuously alludes in the preface to Bolsec, but without naming him, and directs his attack mainly against Pighius (whose doctrine of predestination he had not noticed in the previous work), and a certain Georgius of Sicily (whom he calls an ignorant monk, more deserving of contempt than persecution). The Consensus is, in fact, the second part of his controversial treatise against Pighius (the first being devoted to free-will). It is an elaborate theological argument for the doctrine of absolute predestination, as the only solid ground of comfort to the believer, but is disfigured by polemical violence, and hence unsuited for a public confession. It received the signatures of the pastors of Geneva on account of the disturbances created by Bolsec, but was not intended to be binding for future generations. Beyond Geneva it acquired no symbolical authority. The attempt to enlist the civil government in favor of this dogma created dissatisfaction and opposition in Berne, Basle, and Zurich. Several of Calvin's old friends withdrew; Bullinger counseled peace and moderation; Fabri, of Neuchatel, declared the decree of reprobation untenable; Melanchthon, who in the mean time had changed his view on free-will and predestination, wrote to Peucer that Geneva attempted to restore Stoic fatalism, and imprisoned men for not agreeing with Zeno. [908]

The dissatisfaction was increased and the matter complicated by the trial and execution of Servet which soon followed (1553), and by the controversy with Castellio, which involved likewise the doctrine of predestination, together with the question of inspiration and the canon. Sebastian Castellio [909] (1515-1563), a convert from Romanism, a classical philologist of unusual ability and learning, an advocate of toleration, and a forerunner of Socinianism and Rationalism, was received by Calvin into his house at Strasburg (1510), and called by him to the head of the college at Geneva (Sept., 1541), but was refused admission to the clergy on account of his 'profane view' of the Canticles, which he regarded as a sensual love-song. [910] These and other theological differences caused his resignation or dismissal from the school, though with an honorable letter of recommendation from Calvin (Feb. 17, 1545). He removed with his family to Basle, and spent there the remainder of his life--for eight years in great poverty, supporting himself by literary and manual labor, then as professor of Greek in the University (since 1553). His principal work is a Latin translation of the Bible (1551), which was much praised and censured for its pedantic Ciceronian elegance. He attacked Calvin and the Church of Geneva very bitterly in anonymous and pseudonymous books, to which Calvin and Beza replied with equal bitterness. In his 'Dialogue on Predestination,' he charges Calvin with making God the author of sin, and dividing the will of God into two contradictory wills. His own view is that all men are alike created in God's image and for salvation, and are by nature the sons and heirs of God; but that final salvation depends upon faith and perseverance. God loves even his enemies, else he could not command us to love them, and would be worse than the wild beast, which loves its own offspring. God's foreknowledge involves no necessity of human actions: things happen, not because God foreknew them, but God foreknew them because they were to happen. God wills a thing because it is right, and not vice versa. He reasons as if there were an established moral order outside and independent of God. He compares God to a musician who unites two tunes because they harmonize. Christ came as a physician to heal all the sick, and if some remain sick it is because they refuse the medicine. The famous passage about Jacob and Esau (Rom. ix.) does not refer to these individuals (for Jacob never served Esau), but to the nations which proceeded from them; and 'to hate' means only 'to love less;' moreover, Esau was not foreordained to sell his birthright, but he did this by his own guilt. Paul himself says that God will have all men to be saved, and that 'he concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.' Castellio died a few months before Calvin, without leaving a school behind him; but his ideas were afterwards more fully developed by the Socinians and Arminians. [911]

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the doctrine of predestination made headway in the Reformed Church. It was strongly advocated in Zurich by Peter Martyr. His opponent, Theodor Bibliander (Buchmann), a distinguished Orientalist, 'the father of exegetical theology in Switzerland,' and a forerunner of Arminianism, was removed from his professorship of Hebrew on account of his advocacy of free-will (1560), though his salary was continued to his death (1564). [912] The dogma of predestination consolidated the Calvinistic creed, as the dogma of consubstantiation consolidated the Lutheran creed. Both these distinctive dogmas maintained their hold on the two Churches until the theological revolution towards the close of the eighteenth century began to undermine the whole fabric of Protestant orthodoxy and to clear the way for new creations. __________________________________________________________________

[904] See § 57, pp. 450 sqq.

[905] Pighius of Campen (d. at Utrecht, Dec. 26, 1542) wrote against Luther and Calvin De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia, Colon. 1542, dedicated to Cardinal Sadolet. This book was first greatly lauded by the Romanists, but after the Council of Trent had fixed its more cautious doctrine of free-will and condemned semi-Pelagianism, it was put by the Spanish Inquisition on the Index of forbidden books.

[906] Defensio sanæ et orthodoxæ doctrinæ de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii adv. calumnias A. Pighii Campensis, Genevæ, 1543. Opera, Vol. VI. pp. 225-404.

[907] On Bolsec, see Bayle, Dict.; Henry, Calv. Vol. III. pp. 48 sqq.; Trechsel, Antitrinitarier, Vol. I. pp. 185 sqq.; Baum, Beza, Vol. I. pp. 160 sqq.; and especially Schweizer, l.c. pp. 205-238. It is a sad fact that the blind zeal of modern Romanism has repeatedly republished the libel of Bolsec, with its wicked and absurd charges of theft, adultery, unnatural crimes, blasphemy, insanity, and invocations of the devil. See Audin's biography of Calvin, which has gone through six editions in French (also translated into German and English), and several popular polemic tracts, published by the Society of St. Francis of Sales, of which Stähelin gives some specimens, Vol. I. p. 414.

[908] Bullinger prepared, March, 1553, for an English friend (Barthol. Traheron), a tract, whose title indicates his partial dissent from Calvin: 'De providentia Dei ejusque prædestinatione, et quod Deus non sit auctor peccati, . . . in quo quæ in Calvini formulis loquendi circa hæc improbet, candide et copiose satis exponit, 3 Mart. 1553.' (Appended by mistake to Peter Martyr's Loci communes, Gen. 1626. See the extracts of Schweizer from a MS. copy in Zurich, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. pp. 266 sqq.). Bullinger disapproved of the supralapsarian assertion, 'Deum non modo ruinam (lapsum) prævidisse sed etiam arbitrio suo dispensasse.' Nevertheless, he called Peter Martyr, who was a strict predestinarian, to Zurich, took sides with Zanchi in the Strasburg controversy, and expressed the infralapsarian view in the Second Helvetic Confession, Art. X. See J. H. Hottinger, Histor. eccles. Vol. VIII. p. 723; Schweizer, pp. 237 and 255 sqq.

[909] Also written Castallio (by Calvin); in French, Chateillon and Chatillon, probably from his birth-place in Savoy.

[910] 'Carmen lascivum et obscænum, quo Salomo impudicos suos amores descripserit.' Castellio doubted the verbal inspiration, and called the Greek of the New Testament impure.

[911] On Castellio, see Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. pp. 310-373, and his essay, S. Castellio als Bestreiter der calvinischen Prädestinationslehre, in the Theol. Jahrbücher of Baur and Zeller, 1851.

[912] See Schweizer, pp. 276 sqq. __________________________________________________________________

§ 61. The Helvetic Consensus Formula. A.D. 1675.

Literature.

I. Formula Consensus Ecclesiarum Helveticarum Reformatarum, circa Doctrinam de Gratia universali et connexa, aliaque nonnulla capita (Einhellige Formul der reform. eidg. Kirchen, betreffend die Lehre von der allgemeinen Gnad und was derselben anhanget, sodann auch etliche andere Religionspunkten). Composed A.D. 1675; first printed at Zurich, 1714, as an appendix to the Second Helvetic Confession; then 1718, 1722, etc., in Latin and German. The official copy, in both languages, is in the archives of Zurich. The Latin text has a place in Niemeyer's Collectio, pp. 729-739; the German text in Böckel, pp. 348-360.

The writings of Amyraut, Cappel, and La Place; their friends, Paul Testard, Jean Daillé, and David Blondel; their opponents, Pierre du Moulin, Fr. Spanheim, and André Rivet; and the decisions of the Synods of Alençon, Charenton, and Loudon (1637-1669). See below.

II. J. Jac. Hottinger (d. 173S): Succincta et solida ac genuina Formulæ Consensus . . . historia, Latin and German, 1723. By the same: Helvetische Kirchengeschichte, Zurich, Theil III. pp.1086 sqq.; IV. pp. 258, 268 sqq.

Bayle: Dict. art. Amyraut.

Ch. M. Pfaff: Dissertatio histor. theologica de Formula Consensus Helv. Tübingen, 1723.

J. Rud. Salchli: Stricturæ et observationes in Pfaffi dissertationem de F. C. Bern, 1723.

(Barnaud:) Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des troubles arrivées en Suisse à l'occasion du Consensus. Amsterd. 1726.

Walch: Religionsstreitigkeiten ausserhalb der luth. Kirche, Jena, 1733, Vol. I. pp. 454 sqq.; III. pp. 736 sqq.

Hagenbach: Kritische Gesch. der ersten Basler Confession. Basle, 1827, pp. 173 sqq.

Alex. Schweizer: Die Protest. Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der Reformirten Kirche. Zweite Häfte (Zurich, 1856), pp. 439-563. By the same: Die Enstehung der helvetischen Consensus-Formel, aus Zürich's Specialgeschichte näher beleuchtet, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie for 1860, pp. 122-148 (gives an extract from the MS. of J. H. Heidegger's Gründliche und wahrhaftige Historie). Comp. also Schweizer's art. Amyraut, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. 2d ed. Vol. I. pp. 356-361; and on the Life and Writings of Amyraut, in the Tübinger Theol Jahrbücher for 1852.

F. Trechsel: Helvetische Consensus-Formel, in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. V. pp. 755-764 (partly based on MS. sources).

Gust. Frank: Geschichte der Protestant. Theologie, Leipz. 1865, Vol. II. pp. 35 sqq.

Aug. Ebrard: Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. (1866), pp. 538 sqq. and 552 sqq. Also his art. on Amyraldism (against Schweizer), in the Reform. Kirchenzeitung for 1853, No. 27 sqq.

The Helvetic Consensus Formula (Formula Consensus Helvetica) is the last doctrinal Confession of the Reformed Church of Switzerland, and closes the period of Calvinistic creeds. It has been called a 'symbolical after-birth.' It was composed in 1675, one hundred and eleven years after Calvin's death, by Professor John Henry Heidegger, of Zurich (1633-1698), [913] at the request and with the co-operation of the Rev. Lucas Gernler, of Basle (d. 1675), and Professor Francis Turretin, of Geneva (1623-1687). [914] It never extended its authority beyond Switzerland, but it is nevertheless a document of considerable importance and interest in the history of Protestant theology. It is a defense of the scholastic Calvinism of the Synod of Dort against the theology of Saumur (Salmurium), especially against the universalism of Amyraldus. Hence it may be called a formula anti-Salmuriensis, or anti-Amyraldensis.

The Synod Of Dort And The Theology Of Saumur.

The Twenty-third National Synod of the Reformed Church in France, held at Alais, Oct. 1, 1620, adopted the Canons of Dort (1619), as being in full harmony with the Word of God and the French Confession of 1559, and bound all ministers and elders by a solemn oath to defend them to the last breath. The Twenty-fourth National Synod at Charenton, September, 1623, reaffirmed this adoption. [915]

But in the theological academy at Saumur, founded by the celebrated Reformed statesman Du Plessis Mornay (1604), there arose a more liberal school, headed by three contemporary professors--Josué de la Pace (Placeus, 1596-1655), Louis Cappel (Capellus, 1585-1658), and Moyse Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus, 1596-1664)--which, without sympathizing with Arminianism, departed from the rigid orthodoxy then prevailing in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches on three points--the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the particular predestination, and the imputation of Adam's sin.

Saumur acquired under these leaders great celebrity, and attracted many students from Switzerland. It became for the Reformed Church of France what Helmstädt, under the lead of Calixtus, was for the Lutheran Church in Germany; and the Helvetic Consensus Formula of Heidegger may be compared to the 'Consensus repetitus' of Calovius (1664), which was intended to be a still more rigorous symbolical protest against Syncretism, although it failed to receive any public recognition. [916]

The further development of the Saumur theology was arrested by the political oppression which culminated in the cruel revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. (1685), and aimed at the utter annihilation of the Reformed Church in France. But its ideas have silently made progress, and were independently revived in more recent times.

Verbal Inspiration.

Louis Cappel, the most distinguished of an eminent Huguenot family, and one of the first Biblical scholars of the seventeenth century, made the history of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures his special study, and arrived at conclusions which differed from the orthodox theory of a literal inspiration. He discovered and proved that the Hebrew system of vocalization did not date from Adam, nor from Moses, nor from Ezra and the Great Synagogue, but from the Jewish grammarians after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud. [917] This view is confirmed by the absence of vowels on Jewish coins, on the Phoenician and Punic monuments, on the inscription of the Moabite stone (discovered 1868), and by the analogy of the other Semitic languages. Cappel unsettled also the traditional view of the literal integrity and sacredness of the Masoretic text, and showed that the different readings (Keri and Ktib}, while they had no bearing on faith and morals, and therefore could not undermine the authority of the Scriptures, are not to be traced to willful corruption, but must be consulted, together with the ancient translations, in ascertaining the true text. [918]

These views, which are now generally accepted among Biblical scholars, met with violent opposition. Even the Buxtorfs, father and son, at Basle, who immortalized themselves by their rabbinical learning, advocated the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowels. The Protestant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, both Calvinistic and Lutheran, was very sensitive on this point, because it substituted an infallible Bible for an infallible papacy; while the Roman orthodoxy cared much more for the divine authority of the Church than for that of the Scriptures.

Universal And Particular Predestination.

Moses Amyraut, originally a lawyer, but converted to the study of theology by the reading of Calvin's 'Institutes,' an able divine and voluminous writer, developed the doctrine of hypothetical or conditional universalism, for which his teacher, John Cameron (1580-1625), a Scotchman, and for two years Professor at Sanmur, had prepared the way. His object was not to set aside, but to moderate and liberalize Calvinism by ingrafting this doctrine upon the particularism of election, and thereby to fortify it against the objections of Romanists, by whom the French Protestants were surrounded and threatened. Being employed by the Reformed Synod in important diplomatic negotiations with the government, he came in frequent contact with bishops, and with Cardinal Richelieu, who esteemed him highly. His system is an approach, not so much to Arminianism, which he decidedly rejected, as to Lutheranism, which likewise teaches a universal atonement and a limited election. [919]

Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things inevitably to pass--the good efficiently, the bad permissively. [920] He also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation. But in addition to this he taught that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike (également pour tous), on condition of faith, so that on the part of God's will and desire (voluntas, velleitas, affectus) the grace is universal, but as regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it and thereby make it ineffective. The universal redemption scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa. He reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures; Calvinism reasons from the result, and makes actual facts interpret the decrees. Amyraut distinguished between objective grace which is offered to all, and subjective grace in the heart which is given only to the elect. He also makes a distinction between natural ability and moral ability, or the power to believe and the willingness to believe; man possesses the former, but not the latter, in consequence of inherent depravity. [921] He was disposed, like Zwingli, to extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church, inasmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen, and may produce in them a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith without knowledge; while within the Church he operates more fully and clearly through the means of grace. Those who never heard of Christ are condemned if they reject the general grace of providence; but the same persons would also reject Christ if he were offered to them. As regards the result, Amyraut agreed with the particularists. His ideal universalism is unavailable, except for those in whom God previously works the condition of faith, that is, for those who are included in the particular decree of election. [922]

Amyraut's doctrine created a great commotion in the Reformed Churches of France, Holland, and Switzerland. Jean Daillé (1594-1670), [923] David Blondel (1591-1655), [924] and others considered it innocent and consistent with the decrees of the Synod of Dort, where German Reformed and Anglican delegates professed similar views against the supralapsarianism of Gomarus. But Peter du Moulin (Molinæus, since 1621 Professor of the rival theological school of Sedan), Frederick Spanheim (1600-1649, Professor in Leyden), Andrew Rivet (1572-1651, Professor in Leyden), and the theologians of Geneva opposed it as a departure from the orthodox faith and a compromise between Calvinism and Arminianism. [925]

The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God, and the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world,' that he will have 'all men to be saved,' that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world,' that 'he shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all.' On the other hand, it was objected that God could not really will and intend what is never accomplished; that he could not purpose an end without providing adequate means; that, in point of fact, God did not actually offer salvation to all; and that a universalism based on an impossible condition is an unfruitful abstraction. [926]

The national Synods at Alençon, 1637; at Charenton, 1645; and at Loudun, 1659 (the last synod permitted by the French Government), decided wisely and moderately, saving the orthodoxy of Amyraut, and guarding only against misconceptions. He gave the assurance that he did not change the doctrine, but only the method of instruction. And his opponents were forced at last to admit that the idea of a universal grace, by which no one was actually saved unless included in the particular, effective decree of election, was quite harmless. In this way universalism and particularism were equally sanctioned, and a schism in the French Church was avoided. [927] The literary controversy continued for several years longer, and developed a large amount of learning and ability, until it was brought to an abrupt close by the political oppressions of the Reformed Church in France. [928]

MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE IMPUTATION [929]

All Augustinians and Calvinists agree in the doctrine of total depravity and original sin in consequence of Adam's fall; but differences arose among them concerning the imputation of Adam's sin and guilt to his posterity. The majority advocated the realistic theory of an actual, though impersonal and unconscious, participation of the whole human race in the fall of Adam as their natural organic head, who by his individual transgression vitiated the generic human nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt state by physical generation to his descendants. This, the old Augustinian view, was renewed by the Reformers. Others, since the seventeenth century, adopted the federal theory of a vicarious legal representation of mankind by Adam, in virtue of an assumed covenant of works made with him by the Sovereign Creator, to the effect that Adam should stand a moral probation in behalf of all his descendants (acting like a guardian for children yet unborn, or like a representative for future constituents), and that his act of obedience or disobedience, with all its consequences, should be judicially imputed to them, or accounted theirs in law. [930] Still others combined the two theories so as to make imputation rest both on the moral ground of participation and on the legal ground of representation.

In connection with this doctrine of hereditary sin there arose among the Calvinists of the seventeenth century a controversy about immediate or antecedent, and mediate or consequent imputation. [931] The theory of immediate imputation makes all descendants of Adam responsible for his disobedience as participants in actu, and condemns them independently of, and prior to, native depravity and personal transgression, so that hereditary guilt precedes hereditary sin. The theory of mediate imputation makes inherent depravity derived from Adam, and this alone, the ground of imputation and condemnation (vitiositas præcedit imputationem). The school of Montauban, Rivet of Leyden, the elder Turretin of Geneva, Heidegger of Zurich, Garissol, Maresius, and the supralapsarians and federalists advocated the former, some exclusively, some in connection with mediate imputation. La Place (Placeus) of Saumur denied immediate imputation of a foreign sin as arbitrary and unjust, and allowed only a mediate imputation, but claimed to be nevertheless in full harmony with Calvin's teaching on this subject.

The Reformed national Synod at Charenton, near Paris, in 1645, rejected the theory of La Place (yet without calling him to an account or naming him), at least so far as it restricts the nature of original sin to the mere hereditary corruption of Adam's posterity. In vindication of the decree of the Synod, Rivet prepared a collection of passages on imputation (many of them very general and inconclusive) from Reformed and Lutheran confessions and the writings of Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and others.

The Consensus Formula.

Several years after the leaders of the Saumur theology had passed from the stage of history it was thought desirable by some of the prominent divines of Switzerland to protect their Churches against possible danger from the new doctrines of Saumur, which were imported through writings and students, and met with considerable sympathy, especially in Geneva. It was feared--and not without reason-- that, however innocent in themselves, they might lead, by legitimate logical development, to an ultimate abandonment of the system of Calvinism.

Hence the new Formula of orthodoxy which forms the subject of this section, was agreed upon by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of Zurich, Basle, and Geneva, and adopted in other Reformed cantons as a binding rule of public teaching for ministers and professors. Its authority was confined to Switzerland, and even there it could not maintain itself longer than about half a century. French ministers, who fled to Lausanne after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, refused to sign it; the great Elector Frederick William of Brandenburg (1686), and afterwards the Kings of Prussia and England, and the Corpus Evangelicorum at Ratisbon (1722), urged the Reformed cantons, in the interest of peace and union, to abandon the Formula. It gradually lost its hold upon the Swiss churches, and was allowed to die and be buried without mourners. Nevertheless the theology which it represents continues to be advocated by a respectable school of strict Calvinists in Europe, and especially in America.

The Helvetic Consensus Formula was not so much intended to be a new confession of faith, as an explanatory appendix to the former Confessions (resembling in this respect the Saxon Visitation Articles, which were an appendix to the Lutheran Formula of Concord, to guard the churches of Saxony against the dangers of crypto-Calvinism). The document does not breathe the fresh and bracing air of faith and religious experience which characterize the Confessions of the Reformation period. It is the product of scholasticism, which formularized the faith of Calvin into a stiff doctrinal system, and anxiously surrounded it with high walls to keep out the light of freedom and progress. Nevertheless it is more liberal than is generally represented and than might be expected from the bigotry and polemical violence of the seventeenth century. Heidegger was personally mild and modest; he spoke the truth in love, and resisted the pressure of extremists in Switzerland and Holland, who suspected even him of unsoundness, and desired a formal condemnation of the schools not only of Saumur but also of Cocceius and Cartesius. Instead of this, he speaks in the preface of the Formula, respectfully and kindly, of the Saumur theologians, and calls them venerable brethren in Christ, who built on the same foundation of faith, and whose peculiar doctrines are not condemned as heresies, but simply disapproved. [932]

The Formula consists of a preface and twenty-six canons or articles, which clearly state the points of difference between strict Calvinism and Salmurianism. They teach the following points:

1. The literal inspiration of the Scriptures and the integrity of the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament, including the vowels as well as consonants; so that we need not resort to manuscripts, translations, and conjectures. [933] Art. 1-3. Against Cappel.

This attempt to canonize the Hebrew vowels gave great offense to Claude, Daillé, and other French Calvinists; and Heidegger explained to Turretin that the object of the Formula was only to guard the authority and integrity of the original text, and not to decide grammatical and critical questions. But in its natural effect such a mechanical theory of inspiration, which, to be of any practical use, requires a perpetual literary miracle in the preservation of the text, would supersede all textual criticism, and make the Targums, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and other ancient versions, worse than useless.

2. God decreed from eternity, first, to create man innocent; second, to permit (permittere) the fall; third, to elect some to salvation, and thus to reveal in them his mercy, but to leave the rest in the corrupt mass (alios vero in corrupta massa relinquere), and to devote them to eternal perdition. (This is clearly the Augustinian infralapsarianism.) In the gracious decree of election Christ himself is included, as the Mediator and our first-born Brother. The doctrine of an antecedent hypothetical will or intention of God [934] to save all men on condition of faith is rejected as unscriptural and as involving God in imperfection and contradiction. Art. 4-6. Against Amyraut.

3. The covenant of works made by God with Adam before the fall, promising to him eternal life (symbolized by the tree of life in Paradise), on condition of perfect obedience. Art. 7-9. Against Amyraut.

4. Immediate imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity who fell in him, their representative head (in ipso ut capite et stirpe), and forfeited the promised blessing of the covenant of works. Man is thus doubly condemned, for his participation in the sin of Adam and for his hereditary depravity; to deny the former makes the latter doubtful. [935] Art. 10-12. Against La Place, not because he asserted mediate or consequent imputation (which the Formula likewise teaches), but because he excluded the other.

5. Limited atonement. Christ died only for the elect, and not indiscriminately for all men. [936] The infinite value and inherent sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction is not denied, but the divine intention and the practical efficiency are limited, and adjusted to the particularism of the decree of election. Art. 13-16. Against Amyraut.

6. The actual vocation to salvation never was absolutely general (numquam absolute universalis), but was confined to Israel in the old dispensation and to Christians in the new (Matt. xi. 25; Eph. i. 9). God's revelation in nature and providence (Rom. i. 19, 20) is insufficient for purposes of salvation, though it leaves the heathen without excuse for rejecting even this remnant of the knowledge of God. The external call of God through his "Word is always serious, and so far effective that it works salvation in the elect, and makes the unbelief of the reprobate inexcusable. [937] Art. 17-20. Against Amyraut, who extended the vocation beyond the limits of the visible Church and the ordinary means of grace.

7. The natural as well as moral inability of man to believe the gospel of himself. [938] This twofold inability has its ground in the depravity of our nature, from which only the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit can deliver us (1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 6). Art. 21, 22. Against Amyraut.

8. A twofold covenant of God with man--the covenant of works made with Adam and through him with all men, but set aside by the fall, and the covenant of grace made only with the elect in Christ, which is forever valid, and exists under two economies, the Jewish and the Christian. The saints of the Old Testament were saved by the same faith in the Lamb of God as we are (Apoc. xiii. 8; Heb. xiii. 8; John xiv. 1); for out of Christ there is no salvation. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament in words, figures, and types, sufficiently for salvation, though not as clearly as in the New. For no one can believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity. Amyraut's doctrine of three essentially different covenants--natural, legal, and evangelical, with different degrees of knowledge and piety--is disapproved. Art. 23-25.

The concluding article (the 26th) prohibits the teaching of new or doubtful and unauthorized doctrines which are contrary to the Word of God, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and other Reformed symbols. __________________________________________________________________

[913] Author of Concilii Tridentini Anatome historico-theologica; Enchiridion Biblicum; Historia sacra patriarcharum; and Histoire du Papisme.

[914] Author of the Institutio theologicæ elenchthicæ (1679-85), which still keeps its place among the best systems of Calvinistic theology. New edition, Edinburgh and New York, 1847, in four volumes. His son, John Alphonsus (1671-1737), Professor of Church History in Geneva, was inclined to Arminianism, and advocated toleration. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. II. pp. 784 sqq.

[915] Aymon Tous les Synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France. A 1a Haye, 1710, Vol. II. pp. 183, 298; Schweizer, 1.c. pp. 229 sqq.

[916] See p. 851, and Schweizer's comparison of the two documents, Vol. II. pp. 532 sqq.

[917] 'Arcanum punctationis revelatum,' added to his Commentarii et notæ criticæ in Vetus Testamentum, Amst. 1689. Cappel wrote this tract in 1622, and sent the MS. to the elder Buxtorf. of Basle (d. 1629), who returned it with the advice to keep back his view. It was first published anonymously by Erpenius at Leyden, 1624. Twenty years afterwards Buxtorf the younger (d. 1664) attacked it in his Tractatus de punctorum origine, antiquitate et autoritate, Basil. 1648. Against this Cappel wrote his Vindiciæ Arcani punctat. revel., but they were not published till 1689, by his son, Jacques C., in an Appendix to his Commentary. His views on the late origin of the Hebrew vowels were anticipated by rabbinical scholars, Abn-Ezra (d. 1174) and Elias Levita (d. 1549).

[918] Critica sacra, etc., Paris, 1650, folio; another edition, by Vogel, in three volumes, Halle, 1775-86. The work was finished October, 1634, but the printing was delayed by the opposition of the Protestants until his son, Jean Cappel, who seceded to the Roman Church, procured a royal privilege for its publication in Paris.

[919] Amyraut's writings on this subject are: Traité de la Prédestination (also in Latin), Saumur, 1634; Echantillon de la doctrine de Calvin sur la Prédestination, 1637; De la justification, 1638; De providentia Dei in malo, 1638; Defensio doctrinæ Calvini de absoluto reprobationis decreto, 1641; Dissertationes theol. quatuor, 1645; Exercitatio de gratia universali, 1646; Disputatio de libero hominis arbitrio, 1647; Sermons sur divers textes de la Ste. Écriture, 1653; Irenicum sive de ratione pacis in religionis negotio inter Evangelicos, 1662. Amyraut wrote besides a system of Christian Ethics (in six volumes), and a number of exegetical and practical works. See a list in Herzog, Vol. I. pp. 296 sq.

[920] 'Ou de permettre tellement les mauvaises, que l'événement soit entièrement undubitable.'

[921] The same distinction was a century later made by New England Calvinists under the lead of Jonathan Edwards, who knew of the Saumur theology through the works of Stapfer.

[922] 'Notre saint éternel depend de cette condition, que nous appellons la foy; cette foy depend de la grace de Dieu et de la puissance de son Esprit; cette grace, cette puissance de l'Esprit depend du conseil de l'election de Dieu, et ce conseil n'ayant autre fondement que sa volonté est constant et irrevocable, l'événement sursuit necessairement. Ce conseil depend de la libre volonté de Dieu.' Schweizer, pp. 296 sq.

[923] Joh. Dallæi: Apologia pro duabus synodis nationalibus, altera Alensone 1637, altera Carentone 1645 habitis adv. Fr. Spanhemii Exercitationes de gratia universali. Amst. 1655 (1227 pages), and Vindiciæ Apologiæ pro duabus synodis. Amst. 1657. See extracts in Schweizer, pp. 390 sqq. Daillé is best known by his work Sur l'usage des Pères (De Usu Patrum).

[924] Actes authentiques touchant la paix et charité fraternelle aves les Protestantes, etc. Amst. 1655. Blondel is best known by his De la primauté en église (1641), and other historical works. He was Secretary of the French Synod, which made him honorary professor, with a salary sufficient to enable him to devote himself without pastoral care to his studies. He had an enormous memory, and when blind in his old age he dictated two folios on difficult points in chronology.

[925] See especially Pierre du Moulin: Examen de la doctrine des Messieurs Amyraut et Têtard touchant la prédestination et les poins, qui en dependent, Amsterd. 1638; and Eclaircissement des controverses Salmuriennes, ou défense de la doctrine des églises réformées sur l'immutabilité des decrets de Dieu, etc. Leyden, 1648. Spanheim (the elder): Disputatio de gratia universali, Lugd. Bat. 1644; and Exercitationes de gratia universali, Lugd. Bat. 1646 (1856 pages). André Rivet: Opera omnia, Lugd. Bat. 1651-60, Vol. III. pp. 828-878.

[926] The orthodox Lutherans, as far as they took notice of this controversy, saw in Amyraldism a concealment of Calvinism, a mockery on the part of God, a bridge to Syncretism, and characterized the gratia Amyraldina as a gratia Calvina, non divina. So Reheboldus, De natura et gratia Mosi Amyraldo opposita, Gissæ, 1651 (quoted by G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 43). Among American divines, Dr. Hodge notices this controversy (Syst. Theology, Vol. II. p. 322), and says that hypothetical redemption is liable to the objections against both Augustinianism and Arminianism. 'It does not remove the peculiar difficulties of Augustinianism, as it asserts the sovereignty of God in election. Besides, it leaves the case of the heathen out of view. They, having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of this decretum hypotheticum, and must therefore be considered as passed over by a decretum absolutum.' But Amyraut does notice the case of the heathen; see above.

[927] Schweizer, pp. 307 sqq.; Ebrard, p. 555.

[928] Schweizer gives a very full account of the writings on both sides, pp. 320-439. In modern times the great Schleiermacher has revived Amyraldism on German soil, but in a much bolder form, and at the expense of the Scripture doctrine of eternal punishment. He widens Calvinism (which he very acutely defends against Lutheranism and Arminianism) into a real and effective universalism of salvation, and makes the particularism of election and reprobation merely a temporary means to this end. Schweizer, one of his ablest pupils, adopts this solution of the problem in his Christliche Glaubenslehre, Leipzig, 1872, Vol. II. Part II. pp. 78 sqq. and 444 sqq. But this solution is subject to all the objections of what in America is popularly called the system of Universalism: it turns conversion into a process of nature or necessity; it dulls the edge of warning; freedom implies the continued power of resistance; repentance becomes more and more difficult, and at last impossible, especially in hell and in the case of the devil and diabolized men.

[929] Syntagma thesium theologicarum in academia Salmuriensi disputatarum, Ed. II. Salmur. 1664. Placeus: De statu hominis lapsi ante gratiam, 1640; his defense, De imputatione primi peccati Adami, 1655, in his Opera omnia, 1699 and 1702, two vols. Against him, A. Rivet: Decretum Synodi nationalis Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Galliæ, A.D. 1645 de imputatione primi peccati omnibus Adami posteris, cum Ecclesiarum et doctorum protestantium consensu, ex scriptis eorum collecto, in the Opera Theol. of Rivet, Rotterd. 1660, Tom. III. pp. 798-827, translated in part in the Princeton Review for 1839, pp. 553-579. Comp. also Schweizer's art. Placeus, in Herzog, Vol. XI. pp. 755-57, and several American treatises on the imputation controversy by Hodge, Baird, Landis, G. P. Fisher, quoted in my annotations to Lange's Com. on Rom. v. 12 (pp. 191 sqq.), where the exegetical aspects are fully discussed in connection with the classical passage eph' o pantes hemarton

[930] Foedus operum, or foedus naturæ, as distinct from foedus gratiæ. The only Scripture passage which the Federalists alleged in favor of this primal covenant is Hos. vi. 7: ' For they, like Adam [k?dm], have broken the covenant;' but others translate with the Sept.: 'They [are] like men [who] break a covenant' (hos anthropos parabainon diatheken.)

[931] Turretin (Instit. Pars I. pp. 556, Loc. ix. de peccato, Qu. X.) charges De la Place with inventing this distinction to evade the force of the synodical decision of Charenton, 1645. Augustine and the Reformers did not use the terms, and hence are quoted on both sides.

[932] 'Salvum enim utrinque per Dei gratiam stat fundamentum fidei. . . . Salva unitas corporis mystici et Sprititus. . . . Salvum denique apud nos semper tenerrimæ caritatis vinculum,' etc. The original draft of the Formula was even milder and much shorter. Schweizer has, in a purely historical interest, vindicated the memory of Heidegger and the comparatively moderate character of the Consensus Formula. See his extracts from the MS. of Heidegger's Report, in Niedner's Zeitschrift, above quoted, and his art. Heidegger, in Herzog's Real. Encykl.

[933] 'In specie autem Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti Codex, quem ex traditione Ecclesiæ Judaicæ, cui olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retinemus, tum quoad consonas, tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res, tum quoad verba theopneustos, ut fidei et vitæ nostræ, una cum. Codice Novi Testamenti sit canon unicus et illibatus, ad cuius normam, ceu Lydium lapidem, universæ, quæ extant, Versiones, sive orientales, sive occidentales exigendæ, et sicubi deflectunt, revocandæ sunt.' The same theory of plenary inspiration of words and thoughts, which dates from Rabbinical orthodoxy, but was not held by the Reformers, prevailed in the Lutheran Church since John Gerhard, and is even now extensively held, especially in England and America, by those whose faith in the Word of God is not affected by modern criticism. It was most ably defended by the venerable Dr. Louis Gaussen (1790-1863), Professor in the Free Church Theological School of Geneva, in his works on Theopneusty (1840; second edition, 1842), and on the Canon (1862, two vols.). Dissent from him led to the resignation of his colleague, Scherer. Gaussen admitted, however, the individualities of the sacred writers, and compares them to the keys of an immense organ, on which the Holy Spirit played.

[934] Called voluntas conditionata, velleitas, misericordia prima, desiderium inefficax.

[935] Art. X. 'Censemus igitur peccatum Adami omnibus ejus posteris judicio Dei arcano et justo imputari' (Rom. v. 12, 19; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). Art. XI. 'Duplici igitur nomine post peccatum homo natura, indeque ab ortu suo, antequam ullum actuale peccatum in se admittat, iræ ac maledictioni divinæ obnoxius est; primum quidem ob paraptoma et inobedientiam, quam in Adami lumbis commisit; deinde ab consequentem in ipso conceptu hereditariam corruptionem insitam, qua tota ejus natura depravata et spiritualiter mortua est, adeo quidem, ut recte peccatum originale statuatur duplex . . . imputatum videlicet, et hereditarium inhærens.'

[936] Art. XIII. 'Pro solis electis ex decretorio Patris consilio propriaque intentione diram mortem oppetiit [Christus], solos illos in sinum paternæ gratiæ restituit, solos Deo Patri offenso reconciliavit et a maledictione legis liberavit.' Art. XVI. 'Haud probare possumus oppositam doctrinam illorum qui statuunt, Christum propria intentione et consilio tum suo tum Patris ipsum mittentis, mortuum esse pro omnibus et singulis, addita conditione impossibili, si videlicet credant.' The ablest modern advocate of this limited atonement theory is Dr. Hodge, Syst. Theol. Vol. II. pp. 544 sqq.

[937] Art. XIX. 'Vocatio externa quæ per præconium Evangelicum fit, etiam vocantis Dei respectu, seria et sincera est. . . . Neque voluntas illa respectu eorum, qui vocationi non parent, inefficax est, quia semper Deus id, quod volens intendit, assequitur,' etc.

[938] Art. XXI. 'Moralis ea impotentia dici possit, quatenus scilicet circa subjectum et objectum morale versatur: naturalis tamen esse simul et dici debet, quatenus homo phusei, natura, adeoque nascendi lege, inde ab ortu est filius iræ' (Eph. ii. 2). Dr. Hodge likewise defends this doctrine against the New School Calvinists, who, with Amyraut, claim for man the natural ability, but admit his moral inability. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

II. The Reformed Confessions of France and the Netherlands. __________________________________________________________________

§ 62. The Gallican Confession. A.D. 1559.

Literature.

I. Editions of the Gallican Confessions.

The original French text in Theod. de Beza: Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France, Antw. 1580, Tom. II. pp. 173-190; in Niemeyer's Collectio Conf. in eccles. reformatis public. pp. 311-326; and in the Zeitschrift für die histor. Theologie for 1875, pp. 506-544, with an introduction by Dr. Heppe. The shorter recension in the new edition of Calvin's Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 739 sqq. The text, as revised by the Synod of Rochelle (1571), was often printed in French Bibles, and separately. Comp. the Toulouse edition of 1864, entitled Confession de Foi et Discipline ecclésiastique des églises réformées de France (Société des livres religieux, pp. 9-35).

The Latin translation: Gallicarum ecclesiarum Confessio Christianissimo Carolo IX. regi anno MDLXI. exhibita. Nunc vero in Latinum conversa, ut omnino constet eas ab omnibus hæresibus sive sectis esse prorsus aliena. Anno Domini 1566--and often reprinted; also in Corpus et Syntagma Conf. 1654, pp. 77-88, and in Niemeyer's Collectio, pp. 327-339.

A German translation appeared first at Heidelberg, 1562 (see Niemeyer, Præfat. p. 1.); also in Böckel's Bekenntniss-Schriften der evang. reform. Kirche, pp. 461-474.

An English translation in John Quick's Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, Lond. 1692, Vol. I. pp. vi.-xvi.

II. History of the Reformation and the Reformed Church in France.

See partly the Literature on Calvin, quoted p. 421.

Theod. Beza: Histoire ecclés. des églises réformées au royaume de France (1521-63), Antw. 1580, 3 vols.

Jean Crespin (d. 1572): Livre des martyrs (Acta Martyrum), depuis Jean Hus jusqu'en 1554. Geneva, 1560; enlarged edition, Genève, 1617, and Amsterd. 1684.

Serranus (Jean de Serres, historiographer of France, 1540-98): Commentarius de statu religionis et reipublicæ in regno Galliæ, 1571-73 (five parts).

Theod. Agrippa d'Aubigné (Albinæus, a Huguenot in the service of Henry IV.; d. at Geneva, 1630): Histoire universelle de mon temps, 1616-20, 3 vols.

Du Plessis Mornay: Mémoires et correspondance. Paris, 1824-25.

John Quick (a learned Non-conformist, d. 1706): Synodicon in Gallia Reformata; or, the Acts, Decisions, Decrees, and Canons of the National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France. London, 1692, 2 vols. fol. (with a history of the Church till 1685). Much more accurate than Aymon.

Aymon: Tous les synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France. La Haye, 1710, 2 vols. 4to.

E. A. Laval: Compendious History of the Reformation in France . . . to the Repealing of the Edict of Nantes. London, 1737-41, 7 vols.

Smedley: History of the Reformed Religion in France. London, 1832, 3 vols.

G. de Félice: Histoire des Protestants en France. Toulouse, 1851; Engl. translation, by Lobdel, 1851. By the same: Histoire des synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France. Paris.

W. G. Soldan: Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich bis zum Tode Karl's IX. Leipzig, 1855, 2 vols.

G. von Polenz: Geschichte des französischen Calvinismus bis zur Nationalversammlung i. J. 1789, zum Theil aus handschriftl. Quellen. Gotha, 1857-64, 4 vols.

E. Stähelin: Der Uebertritt Heinrich's IV. Basle, 1856.

Ath. Coquerel: Histoire des églises du désert. Paris, 1857, 2 vols.

W. Haag: La France protestante. Paris, 1858 (biographies).

Weiss: Histoire des réfugiés protestants de France depuis la révocation de l'édit de Nantes jusqu'à nos jours. Paris, 1853; English translation, London, 1854, 2 vols.

Much valuable information on the early history of Calvinism and French Protestantism generally is contained in Herminjard's Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue français, Genève and Paris, 1866 sqq. (so far 4 vols.), and in the Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du Protestantisme français. Documents historiques inédits et originaux XVI ^e, XVII^ e, et XVIII^ e siécles. Paris (3, rue Lafitte), 1854-63; so far 22 vols.

III. General Histories of France touching upon the Reformation Period.

Thuanus (Jacques Auguste de Thou--born, 1553; died, 1617): Historiarum sui temporis libri 138, from 1546-1607 (several editions in five, seven, and sixteen volumes). The author was a moderate Catholic, witnessed the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and helped to prepare the Edict of Nantes. His history was put in the Index Expurg. 1609.

Lacretelle: Histoire de France pendant les guerres de la religion. Paris, 1822, 4 vols.

Sismondi: Histoire des Français, Par. 1821-44, 31 vols. (from vol. 16th).

Jules Michelet (born, 1798): Histoire de France, 1833-62, 14 vols. (vols. 8 and 9).

Sir James Stephen: Lectures on the History of France, 1857, third edition, 2 vols.

Leop. Ranke: Französische Geschichte namentlich im 16. und 17. Jahrh. 1852-68, 6 vols. (English translation in part, London, 1852, 2 vols.)

Henri Martin: Histoire de France depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'en 1789, fourth edition, Paris, 1855-60, 16 Tom. (Vols. VII. to X.).

French Protestantism.

In France the Reformation seemed to be better prepared than even in Germany, if we look only at the surface of the situation. The French Church had always maintained a certain independence of Rome, under the name of Gallican rights or liberties. Paris was, it is true, the chief seat of orthodox scholasticism, and the Sorbonne took an early opportunity to condemn Luther and his writings (1521); but it nursed also the spirit of mysticism and disciplinary reform, which led to the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle. In the South a remnant, of the Waldenses had survived the bloody persecutions. The humanistic studies flourished greatly at Paris, Orleans, Bourges, and found favor at the court of Francis I. (1494-1547), who invited classical scholars from Italy, thought of calling Erasmus and even Melanchthon to his capital, and aided, for political, reasons, the Protestants in Germany, while yet he inflicted imprisonment and death upon them in France.

For half a century, and amid bloody civil wars, three conflicting tendencies, represented by Calvin, Rabelais, and Loyola--who happened to be in Paris at about the same period--struggled for the mastery: Calvinism, with its high intelligence and uncompromising virtue; the Renaissance, with its elegant culture and frivolous skepticism; and Jesuitism, with its reactionary and unscrupulous fanaticism. Francis I. wavered between the Renaissance, which suited his natural taste, and Romanism, which was the religion of the masses of Frenchmen; his gifted sister, Queen Margaret, of Navarre (grandmother of Henry IV.), protected the Reformation and the Renaissance, and harbored at one time Calvin, and at another the Libertines. Romanism triumphed first over Protestantism, and afterwards over semi-evangelical Jansenism, and France reaped infidelity and the Revolution.

Calvinism, always in the minority, and too stern and exacting for the national character, after a period of heroic martyrdom, gained for a time a limited legal existence under Henry IV. in the Edict of Nantes (1598), but was expelled under Louis XIV. to fertilize other countries, and reduced to a proscribed sect of the desert at home, where nevertheless, like the burning bush, it could not be consumed, and was providentially preserved for better days. [939]

The father of French Protestantism in its unorganized form is Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis, 1455-1537), Professor of the Sorbonne and tutor of the royal princes. He translated the Bible from the Vulgate (completed 1530); he taught, even before Luther and Zwingli, [940] the doctrine of justification by faith without human works or merit, and the supremacy of the Bible as a rule of faith, and predicted a reformation, saying to his pupil, Farel, 'God will renovate the world, and you will be a witness of it;' but he had to flee to Strasburg, and afterwards to the court of Queen Margaret.

In the same spirit labored his friends and pupils--Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who fostered evangelical doctrines and practices in his diocese, but afterwards timidly joined in the condemnation of Luther; Melchior Wolmar, a native of Germany, Professor of Greek in Bourges and teacher of Calvin; Louis de Berquin (1489-1599), a royal counselor, who was burned at the stake; Clement Marot (1495-1544), the favorite poet of his age and translator of the Psalms in verse; Peter Robert Olivetan (d. 1538), a relative of Calvin and translator of the Bible into French (printed at Neuchatel, 1535); William Farel (1489-1565), Peter Viret, Anton Froment, Calvin, and Beza--who were driven to French Switzerland. The radical extravagances of Anabaptists and anti-Trinitarians also spread in France, and were confounded by the government with the sound evangelical doctrines, and made a pretext for persecution.

But it was only after Calvin, himself the greatest Protestant of France, had taken up his permanent abode in Geneva, that the Reformation movement was organized into a separate Church, and acquired a national importance. He therefore, and his friend and successor Beza, may be regarded as the fathers of the Reformed Church of France. Geneva became an asylum for their persecuted countrymen, and the nursery of evangelists. Henceforward French Protestantism assumed a Calvinistic type in doctrine and discipline, but, owing to the hostile attitude of the government, it was kept separate and distinct from the state. Although cruelly persecuted, and numbering its martyrs by thousands, it spread rapidly among the middle and higher classes, and in 1558 it embraced four hundred thousand followers.

The first national Synod was held in Paris, May 25-28, 1559, under the moderatorship of François de Morel, then pastor of Paris, a friend and pupil of Calvin. [941] It gave the Reformed Church a compact organization by the adoption of the Gallican Confession of Faith, in connection with a Presbyterian form of government and discipline, which remained the firm basis of the Church as long as she was allowed to exist and to hold national Synods, twenty-nine in all, the last being that at Loudun, 1659.

Antoine De Chandieu.

The Gallican Confession is the work of John Calvin, who prepared the first draft, and of his pupil, Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, who, with the Synod of Paris in 1559, brought it into its present enlarged shape. [942]

Chandieu, or, as he is also called, Sadeel, [943] was born 1534, of a wealthy noble family, in the castle Chabot, in Burgundy, studied law in the University of Toulouse, was converted to Protestantism in Paris, renounced a splendid career, studied theology at Geneva, was ordained 1554, and elected pastor of the small Reformed congregation in Paris. He was imprisoned 1557, escaped under the name Sadeel, was again imprisoned, but delivered by the hand of Anton de Bourbon (the father of Henry IV.), engaged in mission work near Poitiers, and returned to his congregation in Paris, 1559. He presided over the third National Reformed Synod at Orleans, 1562, attended as delegate the seventh National Synod at La Rochelle, 1571, barely escaped the massacre of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24), fled with his family to Geneva, and taught theology at Lausanne. He received a commission in 1578 to attend a Protestant Union meeting at Frankfort, suggested by the Elector John Casimir, but never carried out. He was called back to France as chaplain of King Henry of Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.), returned to Geneva, 1589, and labored there as pastor and Professor of Hebrew till his death, Feb. 23, 1591. Beza esteemed him very highly. De Thou recommends him for 'noble birth, fine appearance, elegant manners, learning, eloquence, and rare modesty.' [944] Sadeel wrote twenty-three books and tracts, mostly in Latin, some in French, relating to Christian doctrines (especially the Word of God; the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ; the human nature of Christ; the spiritual manducation of his body), Church discipline, and the history of martyrs. [945]

The Gallican Confessions.

On a visit to the mission church of Poitiers, after the holy communion, Chandieu was requested by the brethren to suggest to the church in Paris the importance of preparing a common confession of faith and order of discipline. [946] Calvin was consulted, and sent three delegates with a draft of a confession to Paris. This was enlarged and adopted by the Synod at Paris, 1559; presented, with a Preface, to King Francis II. at Amboise, 1560, and afterwards by Beza to Charles IX. at the religious conference in Poissy, 1561. It was revised and ratified at the seventh National Synod held at La Rochelle, 1571, with Beza as moderator, in the presence of the Queen of Navarre and her son (Henry IV.), and Admiral Coligny. Hence it is also called the 'Confession of Rochelle.' Three copies were written on parchment--one for La Rochelle, one for Geneva, one for Béarn--and signed by the ministers and elders present. [947]

As to the text, the French is the original, but it exists in two recensions: the shorter contains thirty-five articles, the larger forty articles. The latter was sanctioned by the Synod of La Rochelle. [948] It was often printed in different languages, and attached to many French Bibles.

CONTENTS.

The Gallican Confession is a faithful summary of the doctrines of Calvin. It begins with God (art. 1), his revelation (2), and the Scriptures as the Word of God and certain rule of our faith, which is above all customs, edicts, decrees, and councils (3-5). The three oecumenical Symbols are adopted (5), because they agree with the Word of God. The Holy Scripture teaches the unity of essence and tripersonality of God--the Father, who is the first cause, principle, and origin of all things; the Son, his eternal Word and Wisdom, eternally begotten by the Father; the Holy Spirit, his virtue and power eternally proceeding from both (6). God in three co-working persons created all things, visible and invisible (7); and governs all things, even sin and evil, yet without being the author of sin, but so making use of devils and sinners as to turn to good the evil which they do, and of which they alone are guilty (8). Man was created pure and perfect, but fell by his own guilt, and became totally corrupt and a slave of sin, although he can still discern good and evil (9). All posterity of Adam is in bondage to original sin, which is an inherited evil (not an imitation merely), and sufficient for condemnation; even after baptism it is still sin, but the condemnation of it is abolished out of free grace (10, 11). God, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, calls out of this corrupt mass those whom he has chosen in the Lord Jesus Christ, without regard to their merit, to the praise of his glorious grace, leaving the rest in their corruption and condemnation, to the praise of his eternal justice (12). [949]

Jesus Christ is our all-sufficient Saviour, and 'made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption' (13). He assumed our human nature, being God and man in one person, like unto us in body and soul, yet without sin. We detest all ancient and modern heresies on the person of Christ, especially that of Servetus (14). The two natures in the one person of Christ are inseparably united, and yet remain distinct, so that the divine nature retains its attributes, being uncreated, infinite, and omnipresent, and the human nature continues finite and circumscribed (15). By the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross we are reconciled to God, and have the forgiveness of all our sins (16, 17). Our justification is founded on the remission of sins by the atoning death of Christ, without any merit of our own, and is apprehended and appropriated by faith alone (18-20). By this faith we are regenerated, and receive grace to lead a holy life, according to the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Faith, then, of necessity produces good works, but these works are not accounted to us for righteousness, which must rest exclusively on the satisfaction of Christ; otherwise we would never have peace (21, 22). Christ is our only Advocate before the Father. We therefore reject the intercession of saints, and all other devices which detract from the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ, as purgatory, monastic vows, pilgrimages, auricular confession, indulgences. We reject them not only on account of the false idea of merit attached to them, but also because they impose a yoke upon the conscience (23, 24).

The Church, with the ministry and preaching of the Word of God, is a divine institution, and must be respected and obeyed. The true Church is the company of believers who agree to live according to the Word of God, and to advance in holiness. Nevertheless there may be hypocrites and reprobates in it, who can not destroy its character and title. We reject the papacy for its many superstitions, idolatries, and corruptions of the Word and Sacraments. But as some trace of the true Church is left in the papacy, together with the virtue and efficacy of baptism, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the personal character of the minister, we teach that those who received baptism in the Romish Church do not need a second baptism. The true Church should be governed by pastors, elders, and deacons. All true pastors have the same authority and power under one head, the only sovereign and universal bishop, Jesus Christ; and consequently no Church shall claim any authority or dominion over the other (25-33). [950] The Sacraments are added to the Word as pledges and seals of the grace of God to aid and comfort our faith. They are external signs through which God operates by the power of his Spirit. Their substance and truth is in Christ; separated from him they are empty shadows. There are but two Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is the permanent pledge and signature of our adoption; by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be cleansed by his blood and renewed by the Holy Ghost. The Lord's Supper is the witness of our union with Christ, who truly nourishes us with his broken body and shed blood through the secret and incomprehensible power of his Spirit. We hold that this is done spiritually and by faith, not because we substitute imagination or thought for reality and truth, but because this great mystery surpasses our senses and the order of nature. In Baptism and the Lord's Supper God really gives us what they represent. Those who approach the Lord's table with true faith, as a vessel, receive the body and blood of Christ, which nourish the soul no less than bread and wine nourish the body (34--38).

God has instituted kingdoms, republics, and other forms of government, whether hereditary or elective, for the order and peace of society. He has given the sword to the magistrate for the punishment of sin and crime, and the transgressions of the first as well as the second table of the Decalogue. [951] We must therefore obey the magistrate, pay tribute and taxes with a good and free will, even if the rulers are unbelievers. We therefore detest those who would resist authority, establish community of goods, and overthrow the order of justice (39, 40). __________________________________________________________________

[939] On an old seal, the device of which has been preserved, the French [Reformed] Church may be seen represented under the image of the burning bush of Moses, with this motto: "Flagror, sed non comburor." These words sum up the tragical history of our Church. This Church has been essentially militant; she has known better, perhaps, than any other what it is to fight for life. . . . Most young Frenchmen are brought up in a holy horror of Protestantism; and traces of this early impression are even found clinging to the minds of men of independent thought--nay, of those whose boast it is that they are free-thinkers.'--A. Decoppet, in his report on the Reformed Church in France, at the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance in New York, 1873. See Proceedings, p. 72. The synodical seal, with the above motto and the date 1559, is reproduced on the title-page of the first volume of Bersier's Histoire du Synode Général de l'église réform, de France 1872 (Paris, 1872).

[940] His Commentary on the Pauline Epistles appeared in 1512.

[941] An account of this Synod in Polenz, Vol. I. pp. 435 sqq. Owing to the troubles of the times there were only eleven congregations represented--Dieppe, Paris, Angers, Orleans, Tours, etc.

[942] Quick, in the Synod. Gall. Ref. (London, 1692, Vol. I. p. xv.), says: 'Calvin first drew up the Confession itself.' But Beza, in his History, connects Chandieu prominently with the origin of the Confession, without expressly naming him as the author. It is based, in part at least, on a shorter Confession to the King (Au Roy), which Calvin probably prepared, 1557, for the congregation of Paris, in vindication against false charges. See Bonnet, Lettres de Calvin, Tom. II. p. 131, and Opera, Vol. IX. p. 715 (comp. Proleg. p. lix.). Calvin also wrote another French Confession of Faith, in the name of the French Churches, during the war, to be presented to the Emperor Maximilian and the German Diet at Frankfort, 1562. Reprinted in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 753-772.

[943] The Hebrew name for Chandieu, i.e. Champ de Dieu, Field of God.

[944] Histor. Lib. XXIX. (on occasion of his election as president of the National Synod of Orleans, 1562): 'Ecclesiæ Parisiensis pastor, adolescens, in quo præter gentis nobilitatem, oris venusta facies, eruditio, eloquentia cum singulari modestia certabant.'

[945] Ant. Sadeelis Opera theologia, edited after his death by his son John, and dedicated to Henry of Navarre, Genev. 1592; fifth edition, 1620. He also wrote three sonnets on Calvin's death, and Octonaires sur la vanité du monde. See France protestante, s. v. Chandieu, Vol. III. pp. 320-332; Bulletin de la société de l'histoire du protestantisme français, 1853, p. 279; G. von Polenz, Gesch. des franz. Calv., Vol. I. p. 435; Borrel (pastor in Nismes), art. Chandieu in Herzog, Real-Encykl. Vol. XIX. p. 318. On Sadeel's Christology, see Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi, Vol. II. pp. 725, 733 sq., etc.

[946] Beza, Histoire, etc., Tom. I. pp. 172 sq., quoted in Calv. Opera, Vol. IX. p. lvii.

[947] The Geneva copy has been reproduced in fac-simile by Ed. Delessert. See Heppe, p. 513.

[948] 'D'autant que nostre confession de foy est imprimée de differentes manières, le Synode declare que celle-là est la véritable confession de nos Églises reformées de France qui commence par ces paroles: "Nous croyons qu'il y a un seul Dieu," etc., laquelle a esté dressée au premier Synode national tenu à Paris, le 25 mai de l'an 1559.' Quoted in Calv. Opera, Vol. IX. p. lix., from Aymon. The shorter edition is printed in Opera, Vol. IX. p. 739, under the title Confession de Foy faite d'un commun accord par les Églises qui sont dispersées en France et s'abstienent des idolatries papales. The larger edition is incorporated in the third volume of this work. It substitutes in the title for 'qui sont,' etc., the words 'qui désirent vivre selon la pureté de l'évangile de nostre Seigneur Jesus-Christ.' Comp. Heppe, pp. 509 sqq.

[949] 'Laissant les autres en cette même corruption et condamnation, pour démontrer en eux ca justice, comme aux premiers il fait luire les richesses de sa miséricorde.'

[950] The National Synod of Gap, 1603, inserted an article (31) declaring the pope to be 'the Antichrist and man of sin,' but the Synod of La Rochelle (1607) struck it out on account of the protest of the king. Heppe, p. 537.

[951] 'Il a mis le glaive en la main des magistrats pour réprimer les pechés commis non seulement contre la seconde table des commandements de Dieu, mais aussi contre la première.' This clause justifies civil punishment of heresy. It is one of the chief causes why even orthodox members of the National Synod of 1872 were opposed to the re-adoption of this Confession in full. __________________________________________________________________

§ 63. The Declaration of Faith of the Reformed Church in France. A.D. 1872.

Literature.

XXX^ e Synode général de l'Église Réformée de France, Première session tenue à Paris du 6 Juin au 10 Juillet, 1872. Procès verbaux et actes publiés par l'ordre du Synode. Paris, 1873. (Comp. also the Compte Rendu of the secretaries, and the discourses of Laurens, Pécaut, Ath. Coquerel, Fontanès, Colani, and Clamagerau, which appeared during the session.)

Do. Second session tenue a Paris du 20 Novembre au 3 Décembre, 1873. Paris, 1873.

Eugène Bersier: Histoire du Synode général de l'Église Réformée de France, Paris, 6 Juin au 10 Juillet, 1872. Paris, 1872, 2 vols. E. B. attended the Synod of 1872, as a delegate of the Free Church of France, and gave an account of it in the Journal de Genève. He has since joined the National Church.

The thirtieth meeting of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in France forms an epoch in its history. It resumed the series of twenty-nine National Synods after an interruption of two hundred and twelve years. [952] The last was held at Loudun (Anjou), and was brought to a close in Jan., 1660, by an order of Louis XIV. prohibiting such synods in future, on the pretext that they were too expensive and troublesome, and that their business could be transacted in provincial synods. Daillé, the moderator, protested in vain. This act of injustice aimed to destroy the force of the Reformed communion by breaking it up into incoherent sections, and was crowned by the sweeping Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (Oct. 22, 1685), which deprived France of a million of her best citizens, and reduced the remnant of Protestants to a forbidden sect The history of this dark period is full of touching and dramatic interest. 'The Reformed Church of the Desert,' under 'the most Christian' King of France, like the primitive Church under the sway of heathen Rome, had to hold its synodical meetings in the open fields, in mountain-passes, and caverns of the earth. [953] In those meetings the Gallican Confession was read, and prayer offered for the persecuting king. The spread of infidelity, which followed as a reaction against the tyranny of superstition and bigotry, brought first an edict of universal toleration under Louis XVI. (1787), and soon afterwards a total overthrow of Christianity and social order, until Napoleon, in 1802, restored the Roman Church as the religion of the majority of Frenchmen, and the Reformed Church as the religion of a small though respectable minority, but both under the pay and control of the State, and without the right of synodical self-government and discipline. [954]

This right, denied by the Bourbon, the Napoleon, and the Orleanist dynasties, was at last restored to the Reformed Church by the Republican government under Thiers, who, by an edict of Nov. 29, 1871, authorized the Consistories in France and Algiers to elect delegates to a General Synod. Under these auspices the General Synod convened in the Temple du Saint-Esprit, at Paris, from June 6th to July 10th, 1872. It consisted of one hundred and eight delegates (forty-nine ministers and fifty-nine laymen), the legitimate descendants of those few humble but enthusiastic and heroic pastors and elders who met in the same city, in 1559, with torture and death staring them in the face. It was opened by a sermon of pastor Charles Babut of Nîmes on John viii. 14. Charles Edouard Bastie, pastor of Bergerac (Dordogne), was elected moderator. The object of the Synod was to again effect a complete organization on the basis of a confession of faith and a system of discipline.

But the preparation and adoption of a confession of faith is a more difficult task in the nineteenth century than it was in the sixteenth. For, like all other Protestant denominations, the French Church had during the eighteenth century undergone a theological revolution, and is still in a process of transition. The doctrinal system of the Gallican Confession had lost its hold upon a large portion of the clergy and laity; and even the most orthodox Protestants could not subscribe that article which, in harmony with the general sentiment of the sixteenth century, conceded to the civil government (hostile as it then was to the Huguenots) the power to punish heresy by the sword. [955] On the other hand, that venerable document, which embodied the faith of the fathers and martyrs of the French Church, could not be ignored without ingratitude and want of self-respect. Under these circumstances the General Synod, at its thirteenth session, June 20, 1872, adopted a middle course in the following declaration of faith, proposed by Charles Bois, Professor of Church History at Montauban:

'The Reformed Church of France, on resuming her synodical action, which for so many years had been interrupted, desires, before all things, to offer her thanks to God, and to testify her love to Jesus Christ, her Divine Head, who has sustained and comforted her during her successive trials. 'Au moment où elle reprend la suite de ses Synodes, interrompus depuis tant d'années, l'Église réformée de France éprouve, avant toutes choses, le besoin de rendre grâces à Dieu, et de témoigner son amour à Jésus-Christ, son divin Chef, qui l'a soutenue et consolée durant le cours de ses épreuves. 'She declares, through the organ of her representatives, that she remains faithful to her principles of faith and freedom on which she was founded. 'Elle déclare par l'organe de ses représentants qu'elle reste fidèle aux principes de foi et de liberté sur lesquels elle a été fondée. 'With her fathers and her martyrs in the Confession of Rochelle, [956] and with all the Churches of the Reformation in their respective creeds, she proclaims the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures in matters of faith, and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification. 'Avec ses pères et ses martyrs dans la Confession de la Rochelle, avec toutes les Églises de la Réformation dans leurs symboles, elle proclame l'autorité souveraine des Saintes Écritures en matière de foi, et le salut par la foi en Jésus-Christ, Fils unique de Dieu, mort pour nos offenses et ressuscité pour notre justification. 'She preserves and maintains, as the basis of her teaching, of her worship and her discipline, the grand Christian facts represented in her religious solemnities, and set forth in her liturgies, especially in the Confession of sins, the Apostles' Creed, and in the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper.' 'Elle conserve donc et elle maintient, à la base de son enseignement, de son culte et de sa discipline, les grands faits chrétiens représentés dans ses solennités religieuses et exprimés dans ses liturgies, notamment dans la Confession des péchés, dans le Symbole des Apôtres, et dans la liturgie de la saint Cène.'

This moderate Confession was adopted by 61 votes against 45, or a majority of only 16 members. [957] Among the affirmative votes are those of Babut, Bois, Breyton, Dhombres, Juillerat, and the venerable octogenarian Guizot, whose last public act was a testimony of faith on the floor of this General Synod of the Church of his fathers, declaring before his retirement that the Church must affirm its faith in the supernatural incarnation, the miracles, the resurrection of Christ, or cease to be a Church. The rationalistic minority, including Colani, Coquerel (Athanase and Etienne), Pécaut, Rivet, protested against the adoption of any creed, and asserted the right of each pastor, elder, and private member of the Church to adhere to whatever creed he may think proper. Nevertheless, they expressed their determination to hold on to the National Reformed Church.

The French Government ratified the decision of the Synod (1873). Subscription to its Confession may be hereafter a qualification of electors. The liberal party abstained from participation in the second session of the General Synod held in Nov. and Dec., 1873, and sent in a request to agree to a peaceful separation; but this request was refused. [958]

Hence the Rationalists, if they have sufficient interest in positive Christianity, will be obliged to secede and organize a new society similar to the Unitarian body in England and the United States.

A separation is preferable to an unnatural alliance at the expense of truth and charity. And it would be all the more honorable if it be done with an equitable division of Church property.

The acts of the General Synod of the National Church had the double effect of virtually excluding the rationalistic party, and of attracting to a closer fellowship the Free Church, which, like the Free Churches in French Switzerland, represents modern evangelical Calvinism, independent of state support and state control. [959] __________________________________________________________________

[952] See a list of the French National Synods in Bersier, Vol. II. pp. 429 sqq.

[953] Eight of these forbidden Synods were held between 1726 and 1763.

[954] Napoleon's motive was chiefly of a political character. He needed religion as a basis of society, and Protestantism as a check upon the ambition of popery; yet he professed to a number of Protestant pastors to be a friend of the liberty of conscience, whose 'indefinite empire begins where the empire of law ends,' and he authorized them to brand with the name of Nero any one of his successors who should violate this liberty. Napoleon III. professed the same policy, but threw the weight of his power into the scale of Romanism, and made a distinction between the private liberty of conscience, which nobody can touch, and the public liberty of worship, which requires a recognition by the State.

[955] Art. 39: 'God has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of his Commandments.' It was on that ground that Servet's execution in Geneva for blasphemy was justified.

[956] That is, the Gallican Confession as revised and adopted by the National Synod of La Rochelle, 1571. See § 62.

[957] Two members were absent. The official report says: 'Le nombre des votants est de 106. Majorité absolue 54. Le dépouillement du scrutin donne 61 bulletins blancs, 45 bulletins bleus.'

[958] The following action was taken by the Synod in reference to the petition of the minority: 'The Assembly, considering that the General Synod is the high court of the Church, and so acknowledged by the State; considering that the decisions arrived at in reference to the Confession of Faith reproduce the doctrines on which the Reformed Church of France was founded, and that, therefore, all who reject them are ipso facto without the pale of the Church; considering that none can be constrained to remain in a Church the creed of which he rejects, and from which he wishes to retire--every man having entire liberty to remain or separate himself, according to the dictation of his conscience; considering that the Synod has taken no resolutions to restrict the liberty of any, especially none to prevent the retirement of any pastors and members in order to found another Church, and none to prevent such persons from obtaining the recognition of the State, the advantages of the concordat, and an equitable share of ecclesiastical temporalities; considering, lastly, that it is not the business of the General Synod itself to inaugurate the formation of a new Church, its mission being to construct, and not to rend asunder, passes to the order of the day.'

[959] The Free Church, or 'Union of the Evangelical Churches in France' (l'Union des églises évangéliques de France), to which Pressensé, Fish, and Bersier belong, owes its existence to the rationalism in the National Church which, at the synodical meeting held after the February Revolution of 1848 (without government sanction, and hence without legislative effect), refused to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. This induced Frederick Monod to secede, while his more distinguished and equally conscientious brother Adolph remained, to the benefit of the National body, which since that time has become more orthodox. The Union manifests a good deal of missionary zeal and literary activity, and reacts favorable on the Established Church. Bersier, in his History of the General Synod, expresses himself satisfied with its results (close of Introduction to Vol. I. p. lvii.): 'Nos sympathies personnelles sont avec la droite dans les trois grandes questions que le Synode a eu à résoudre: celle de l'autorité du Synode, celle de la déclaration de foi, celle enfin des conditions de foi et de doctrine auxquelles les pasteurs et les électeurs devront désormais souscrire. Nous estimons que par ces trois votes la majorité a accompli des actes nécessaires, et que si, par un abus de pouvoir que nous ne voulons pas prévoir, le gouvernement refusait de ratifier son oeuvre [the ratification has since been granted], elle aurait néanmoins posé les fondations futures sur lesquelles, avec ou sans appui de l'État, l'Église réformée devra désormais s'élever.' __________________________________________________________________

§ 64. The Belgic Confession. A.D. 1561.

Literature.

I. Editions of the Confession.

La Confession de Foi des églises réformées Wallonnes et Flamandes (Apoc. ii. 10, 1 Pierre iii. 15). Reimprimée par décision de la Société Évangélique Belge. Bruxelles, 1850 (Librairie Chrétienne Évangélique, Rue de l'Impératrice, 33). The authentic French text, as revised by the Synod of Dort, with a brief historical and critical introduction.

The Latin text is found in different recensions, in the Corpus et Syntagma (1612 and 1654): in the Acts, of the Synod of Dort; the Oxford Sylloge; Augusti's Collect. (the text of Dort); Niemeyer's Collect. (the translation of Hommius, 1518, with various readings).

English translations, likewise differing in minor details, in the Harmony of Prot. Conf.; in the Constitution of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America (very good); and a new one made in 1862 by Owen Jones: Church of the Living God, London, 1865, pp. 203-237 (incomplete and inaccurate).

German translation in Beck (Vol. I. pp. 293 sqq.), and Böckel (pp. 480 sqq.).

A Greek translation by Jac. Revius (Pastor of the Church at Deventer): Ekklesion tes Belgikes exomologesis, Ultrajecti, 1660; earlier eds. in 1623 and 1653.

Comp. Herzog: art. Belgische Confession, in his Real-Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. II. p. 238; M. Goebel: art. Guido de Brès, ibid. Vol. V. p. 465.

II. Historical..

H. Grotius: Annales et Hist. de rebus Belgicis (1556-1609). Amstel. 1658.

H. Venema: Institutiones historiæ ecclesiæ V. et N.T. Tom. VII. p. 252 (ad ann. 1563).

J. le Long: Kort historisch Verhaal van den oorsprong der Nederlandschen Gereformeerden Kerken ondert Kruys, beneffens alle derselver Leeren Dienst-Boeken. Amst. 1741.

Gerh. Brandt (Arminian): Historie der Reformatie in en omtrent de Nederlanden. Amst. 1671-74, 4 vols. (Also in French: Histoire de la Réformation des Pays-Bas, 1726, and in English by Chamberlayne, London, 1720-23, 4 vols.).

Ypey en Dermout: Geschiedenissen der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk. Breda, 1819-27, 4 vols.

Van der Kemp: De Eere der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk. Rotterd. 1830.

Gachard: Correspondance de Guillaume le Taciturne, Prince d'Orange, 1847-58, 6 vols.

Groen van Prinsterer: Archives ou Correspondance inédite de la maison d'Orange-Nassau (1552-84), 1857-61, 10 vols.; second series (1584-1688), 6 vols. 1857-61.

Wm. H. Prescott: History of the Reign of Philip II., King of Spain. New York, 1855-58, 3 vols.

A. Henne: Hist. du règne de Charles V. en Belgique. Brux. 1858 sqq. 10 Tom.

J. L. Motley: The Rise of the Dutch Republic, London and New York, 1856, 3 vols. By the same: History of the United Netherlands, New York, 1861, 4 vols.

M. Koch: Untersuch. über die Empörung der Niederlande. Leipz. 1860.

F. Holzwarth: Abfall der Niederlande. Schaffhausen, 1865-72, 3 vols.

The Reformation In The Netherlands.

The Low Countries, conquered from the sea by indomitable energy--the land of Erasmus, of free cities, of inventions, and flourishing commerce --was flooded, through merchants, soldiers, and books, with Protestant ideas from Germany and France, as with waters from the Rhine and the Meuse. Already in 1521 Charles V., who afterwards regretted that he had not burned Luther at Worms, issued from that city an edict for the suppression of heresy in this the most valuable of his inherited dominions. To Belgium belongs the honor of having furnished the first martyrs of evangelical Protestanism in Henry Voes and John Esch, two Augustinian monks, who were burned at the stake in Brussels, July 1, 1523, reciting the Apostles' Creed and singing the Te Deum, and who were celebrated by Luther in a stirring hymn. [960] This was the fiery signal of a fearful persecution, which reached its height under Philip II. of Spain, and the executor of his bloody designs, the Duke of Alva, but resulted at last in the establishment of national independdence and of the Reformed Church in a large part of the Netherlands. The number of her martyrs exceeds that of any other Protestant Church during the sixteenth century, and perhaps that of the whole primitive Church under the Roman empire. [961] During the ever-memorable conflict under William of Orange, who was assassinated by a fanatical papist in 1584, and his second son Maurice--an able military commander and strict Calvinist (d. 1625)--the Bible, with the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, was the spiritual guide and comforter of the Protestants, and fortified them against the assaults of the enemy. Calvinism, which fears God and no body else, inspired that heroic courage which triumphed over the political and religious despotism of Spain, and raised Holland to an extraordinary degree of commercial and literary eminence. [962]

GUIDO DE BRÈS.

The chief author of the Belgic Confession is Guido (or Guy, Wido) de Brès, a noble evangelist and martyr of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. He was born about 1523 at Mons, in Hennegau, educated in the Roman Church, and by diligent reading of the Scriptures converted to the evangelical faith. Expelled from his country, he sought refuge in London under Edward VI., where he joined the Belgic fugitives, and prepared himself for the ministry. Afterwards he studied at Lausanne, and became a traveling evangelist in Southwestern Belgium and Northern France--from Dieppe to Sedan, from Valenciennes to Antwerp. After the conquest of French Flanders he was, together with a younger missionary from Geneva, Peregrin de la Grange, taken prisoner, put in chains, and hanged on the last day of May, 1567, for disobedience to the commands of the court at Brussels, and especially for the distribution of the holy communion in the Reformed congregations. From prison the youthful martyr wrote letters of comfort to his brethren, his old mother, his wife, and his children, and met his death as if it were a marriage-feast. [963] In his proper home Protestantism was completely suppressed, but in the neighboring countries of Holland and the Lower Rhine it spread and flourished.

The Belgic Confession.

The Belgic Confession was prepared in 1561 by Guido de Brès, with the aid of Adrien de Saravia (professor of theology in Leyden, afterwards at Cambridge, where he died, 1613), H. Modetus (for some time chaplain of William of Orange), and G. Wingen, in the French language, to prove the Reformed faith from the Word of God. [964] It was revised by Francis Junius, of Bourges (1545-1602)--a student of Calvin, pastor of a Walloon congregation at Antwerp, and afterwards professor of theology at Leyden--who abridged the sixteenth article, and sent a copy to Geneva and other churches for approval. It was probably printed in 1562, or at all events in 1566, and afterwards translated into Dutch, German, and Latin. It was presented to the bigoted Philip II., 1562, in the vain hope of securing toleration, and with an address which breathes the genuine spirit of martyrdom. The petitioners protest against the charge of being rebels, and declare that notwithstanding they number more than a hundred thousand, and are exposed to the most cruel oppression, they obey the Government in all lawful things; but that rather than deny Christ before men they would 'offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire, well knowing that those who follow Christ must take his cross and deny themselves.' [965]

The Confession was publicly adopted by a Synod at Antwerp (1566), then at Wesel (1568), more formally by a Synod at Emden (1571) [966] by a national Synod at Dort (1574), another at Middelburg (1581), and again by the great Synod of Dort, April 29, 1619. But inasmuch as the Arminians had demanded partial changes, and the text had become confused, the Synod of Dort submitted the French, Latin, and Dutch texts to a careful revision. Since that time the Belgic Confession, together with the Heidelberg Catechism, has been the recognized symbol of the Reformed Churches in Holland and Belgium. [967] It is also the doctrinal standard of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America, which holds to it even more tenaciously than the mother Church in the Netherlands. [968]

CONTENTS.

The Belgic Confession contains thirty-seven Articles, and follows the order of the Gallican Confession, but is less polemical and more full and elaborate, especially on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church, and the Sacraments. [969] It is, upon the whole, the best symbolical statement of the Calvinistic system of doctrine, with the exception of the Westminster Confession.

The Text.

The text has undergone several modifications as regards the wording and length, but not as regards the doctrine.

The French text must be considered as the original. [970] Of the first edition of 1561 or 1562 no copies are known. The Synod of Antwerp, in Sept., 1580, ordered a precise parchment copy of the revised text (of Junius) to be made for its archives, which copy had to be signed by every new minister. This manuscript has always been regarded in the Belgic churches as the authentic document. [971] The Synod of Dort ordered a new revision, with a view to bring the Latin, French, and Dutch texts into harmony on the basis of the manuscript copy of 1580. The Leyden edition of 1669 gives in two parallel columns the original text and the revised text of Dort. A Rotterdam edition of the Psalter, 1787, carefully reprints the original text in the old spelling from the manuscript, with the changes of Dort in notes. The Brussels edition of 1850 presents the ancient text of 1580, as revised at Dort, in modern French. [972]

Next in authority is the Latin text, but of this there are likewise several recensions, a shorter and a larger. The first Latin translation was made from the revised French copy of Francis Janius, probably by Beza, or under his direction, for the Harmonia Confessionum, Geneva, 1581 (distributed under different heads, with the other Confessions). [973] The same passed into the first edition of the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, Geneva, 1612. Another translation was prepared, 1618, for the use of the Synod of Dort, by Festus Hommius, pastor in Leyden, and one of the scribes of that Synod. [974] This text was revised in the following year by that Synod, and thus approved and incorporated with its acts in the 146th session. [975] The revision of Dort was reproduced in the second edition of the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., 1654. [976] The excellent English version in use in the Reformed Dutch Church of America is made from the Latin text of the Synod of Dort. __________________________________________________________________

[960] See a part of it, in English and German, quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 311 (Am. ed.).

[961] Grotius estimates the number of Protestant martyrs in Holland, under one reign, at one hundred thousand. Gibbon (History of the Decline, etc., at the close of Ch. XVI.) confidently asserts that 'the number of Protestants who were executed by the Spaniards in a single province and a single reign, far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries, and of the Roman empire.' And Motley (History of the Rise of the Dutch Republic, Vol. II. p. 504) says of the terrible reign of Alva: 'The barbarities committed amid the sack and ruin of those blazing and starving cities are almost beyond belief; unborn infants were torn from the living bodies of their mothers; women and children were violated by the thousands, and whole populations burned and hacked to pieces by soldiers in every mode which cruelty in its wanton ingenuity could devise.'

[962] It is strange that Motley, in his great works on the Rise, and the History of the Dutch Republic, ignores the Belgic Confession, and barely mentions the name of Guido de Brès.

[963] See, on Guy de Brès, the enlarged edition of Crespin's Histoire des Martyrs, Genève, 1617, pp. 731-750, and the Brussels edition of the Conf. de foi, p. 19.

[964] Saravia, in a letter to Uytenbogardus (Apr. 13, 1612), quoted by Niemeyer (Proleg. p. lii.) and Gieseler (Ch. Hist. Vol. IV. p. 314, Am. ed.), says: 'Ego me illius confessionis ex primis unum fuisse auctoribus profiteor, sicut et Hermannus Modetus: nescio an plures sint superstites. Illa primo fuit conscripta Gallico sermone a Christi servo et martyre Guidone de Brès, sed antequam ederetur ministris verbi Dei, quos potuit nancisci, illam communicavit: et emendandum si quid displiceret, addendum, detrahendum proposuit, ut unius opus censeri non debeat. Sed nemo eorum, qui manum apposuerunt, umquam cogitavit fidei canonem edere, verum ex canonicis scriptis fidem suam probare.'

[965] The address is given in full by Böckel, 1.c. pp. 480-484.

[966] The Brussels ed. (p. viii.) says: 'Le 8 Octobre, en 1571, il fût statué par le premier synode national des Églises wallonnes et flamandes ténu à Embden, que cette Confession serait signée par tous les membres présents au dit synode et par tous ceux qui seraient admis au saint ministère.'

[967] The Société évangélique or Église Chrétienne missionnaire belge requires from its ministers a qualified subscription to the Belgic Confession with 'une réserve préalable en repoussant ce qui dans la Confession belge regarde l'exercise du pouvoir civil en matière de foi.'

[968] The following formula of subscription is required from ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church in America: 'We, the underwritten, Ministers of the Word of God, residing within the bounds of the Classis of N. N., do hereby sincerely, and in good conscience before the Lord, declare by this our subscription, that we heartily believe, and are persuaded, that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the [Belgic] Confession and [Heidelberg] Catechism of the Reformed [Dutch] Church, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made in the National Synod held at Dordrecht, in the year 1619, do fully agree with the Word of God. We promise, therefore, diligently to teach, and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same by our public preaching or writings. We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine, and particularly those which are condemned in the above-mentioned Synod, but that we are disposed to refute and contradict them, and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church pure from such errors. And if hereafter any difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrine should arise in our minds, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or by writing, until we have first revealed such sentiment to the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, that the same may be there examined,' etc.

[969] Ebrard (Handbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengesch. Vol. III. p. 319) says that besides the Gallican Confession as the basis, use was made also of the Friesian Confession of Utenhoven, which the English exiles brought with them to Emden, and of the Catechism of Laski.

[970] It is entitled, 'Confession de Foy faicte d'un commun accord pour les fidèles qui conversent ès Pays-Bas, lesquels désirent vivre selon la pureté de l'Évangile de nostre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.' This title is followed by two mottoes--the one from Apoc. ii. 10: 'Sois fidèle jusques à la mort et je te donneray la couronne de vie;' the other from 1 Pet. iii. 15: 'Soyez tousjours appareillez à respondre à chacun qui vous demande raison de l'espérance qui est en vous.' On the second leaf there is over the head of the first article the brief title, 'Confession vrayement Chrétienne contenant le sommaire de la doctrine de Dieu et salut éternel de l'âme.'

[971] The Brussels ed. says (p. 39): 'C'est probablement d'après la copie de Junius que cette Confession a été imprimée dans le livre des Martyrs de Crespin. Le text de Crespin ne diffère pas de celui du manuscrit authentique.'

[972] This careful edition, issued by the Evangelical Society of Belgium, is reproduced in the third volume of this work, together with the English version now used by the Dutch Reformed Church in America. Both agree, sentence for sentence.

[973] See Note critique at the close of the Brussels edition, p. 39: 'Junius envoya une copie de cette révision à Genève. Theodore de Beza la fit imprimer [in French?]. C'est lui, sans doute, qui la traduisit en latin, comme elle se trouve dans "l'Harmonia Confessionum," Genevæ, 1581.' That this was the first Latin translation is stated in the Harmonia, p. 3: 'Belgica, Gallice omnium Belgicarum Ecclesiarum nomine anno 1566 edita, ac demum anno 1579 [1571?] in publica Belgii Synodo repetita et confirmata, Belgiceque versa. Nunc denique a nobis etiam Latine expressa.'

[974] 'Confessio ecclesiarum reformatarum in Belgio. . . . in usum futuræ synodi nationalis latine edidit et collegit Festus Hommius.' Ludg. Batav. 1618. Niemeyer (pp. 360 sqq.) gives this translation, which more nearly agrees with the older version, and he adds some readings from the first edition of the Corpus et Syntagma.

[975] See the extracts from the Acts of the 144th Session, April 29, 1619, in Niemeyer, p. lv.

[976] Under the title Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Christiana atque Orthodoxa Confessio, summam doctrinæ de Deo et æterna animarum salute complectens, prout in Synodo Dortrechtana fuit recognita et approbata. The articles are numbered, but have no titles. The difference between this and the first Latin translation may be judged from the following specimen: Harmonia Confessionum, 1581 (p. 36). Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, ed. II., 1654 (p. 129).

Art. I. Corde credimus, et ore confitemur, unicam esse et simplicem essentiam spiritualem, quam Deum vocamus, æternum, incomprehensibilem, inconspicuum, immutabilem, infinitum, qui totus est sapiens, fonsque omnium bonorum uberrimus.

Art. I. Corde credimus, et ore confitemur omnes, unicam esse et simplicem essentiam spiritualem, quam Deum vocamus, eumque æternum, incomprehensibilem, invisibilem, infinitum, omnipotentem, summe sapientem, justum et bonum, omniumque bonorum fontem uberrimum. __________________________________________________________________

§ 65. The Arminian Controversy. A.D. 1604-1619.

Literature.

I. Arminian Sources.

Scripta adversaria Collationis Hagiensis. In Dutch, Gravenhage, 1612; in Latin, by Petrus Bertius, Leyden, 1616. This contains the authentic text of the Remonstrance.

Remonstrantia, or the Five Articles of 1610. A German translation in Böckel's Evang. Reform. Bekenntniss-Schriften. Leipzig, 1847, pp. 545-553.

Simon Episcopius (Prof. at Leyden, 1612; expelled by the Synod of Dort, 1618; Prof. at the Remonstrant Seminary, 1634; d. 1643): Confessio seu Declaratio Pastorum qui Remonstrantes vocantur, etc. Harderw. 1621 in Dutch, 1622 in Latin (German transl. in Böckel, l.c. pp. 572-640). Also his Apologia pro Confessione Remonstr., 1629. Both are included in the works of Episcopius, 2d ed. London, 1678, Vol. II. Part II. pp. 69 sqq.; 95 sqq.

Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena ministrorum Remonstrantium in foederato Belgio. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. Harderwiici, 1620. This volume (a copy of which is in the Union Theol. Seminary Library) contains the official acts and dogmatic writings of the Remonstrants in explanation and defense of their five articles against the decisions of the Synod of Dort, including a lengthy exposition of the ninth chapter of Romans and other Scripture passages quoted against them.

Jac. Arminius (1560-1609): Disputationes publicæ et privatæ. Ludg. Bat. 1614, 2d ed. (with the Oratio Petri Bertii de vita et obitu Arminii.). Armin. Opera, Lugd. Bat. 1629; and other editions. English translation of The Works of James Arminius, by James Nichols and William Nichols. London, 1825, 1828, and 1875, 3 vols.

Also the writings of Episcopius (d. 1643); Grotius (d. 1645); Limborch (d. 1714); Clericus (d. 1736); Wetstein (d. 1754), and other distinguished Arminian scholars. Comp. A. van Cattenburgh: Bibliotheca Scriptorum Remonstrantium. Amst. 1728.

II. Anti-Arminian or Calvinistic Sources.

The Acts and Proceedings of the National Synod of Dort: Acta Synodi Nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, autoritate ordinum generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dortrechti habitæ anno 1818 et 1619. Accedunt plenissima de quinque articulis theologorum judicia. Dord. 1620, 4to. (The judicia theologorum are omitted in the Elzevir folio ed. of the same date.)

The Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain concerning the Articles of the Synod of Dort, signed by them in 1619 [? Lond. 1624].

Reports of Breitinger, the Hessian, and other foreign delegates.

III. Historical and Controversial.

P. Molinæus (Calvinist): Anatome Arminianismi. Leyden, 1619, etc.

N. Vedel (Calv.): Arcana Arminianismi. Leyden, 1632-34, 4 Parts, 4to.

Peltius: Harmonia Remonstrantium et Socinianorum. Ludg. 1633.

Byssen: De prædestinatione contra Remonstrantes et Jesuitas. Gorchum, 1660.

Sam. Rhetorfort: Examen Arminianismi. Utrecht, 1668.

Janus Uytenbogaert (Arminian): Kerckelijcke Historie, etc. Rotterdam, 1647.

Jac. Triglandius (Calvinist): Kerekelijcke Geschiedenissen van de vereen. Nederlanden. Leyden, 1650.

Jo. Halesii Historia Concilii Dordraceni; J. L. Moshemius vertit, variis observationibus et vita Halesii auxit. Hamburg, 1724. John Hales (1584-1656), Canon of Windsor--called 'the Ever-memorable'--attended the Synod of Dort, by which he became a convert to Arminianism, and wrote Golden Remains; Letters from the Synod of Dort; Acta Synodi Dordr.; Sententia Arminii; see Works, 1765, 3 vols.

Peter Heylin (a friend of Laud and Arminian, d. 1662): Historia Quinquarticularis; or, a Declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the Five Controverted Points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. London, 1660, in 3 Parts.

Gerhard Brandt (Remonstrant preacher at Amsterdam, d. 1685): Historie der Reformatie (History of the Reformation in and about the Low Countries, from the Eighth Century down to the Synod of Dort), Amst. 1677-1704, 4 vols. Very full on the Remonstrant controversy. An English translation, by Chamberlayne, London, 1720-23, 4 vols. fol. (The last volume gives the history from 1600 to 1623.) Also in French, 1726.

Zeltner (d. 1738): Breviarium controversiarum cum Remonstrantibus agitatarum. Norimb. and Altdorf, 1719.

Jac. Regenboog: Hist. der Remonstranten, in Dutch, Amsterd. 1774 sqq., 3 vols.; in German, Lemgo, 1741-84.

G. S. Franke: Historia dogmatum Arminianorum. Kiel, 1814.

Thomas Scott: The Articles of the Synod of Dort; with a History of Events which made way for that Synod, etc. London, 1818. (Calvinistic.)

James Nichols (Arminian): Calvinism and Arminianism compared in their Principles and Tendency. Lond. 1824, 2 vols. (An ill-digested mass of materials.)

M. Graf: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Synode von Dordrecht. Basle, 1825.

D. de Bray: L'histoire de l'Église Arminienne. Strasburg, 1835.

Joannes Tideman (Remonstrant preacher at Rotterdam): De Remonstrantie en het Remonstrantisme. Historisch onderzoek. Te Haarlem, 1851 (pp. 131).

H. Heppe (Melanchthonian): Historia Synodi Nat. Dordr. in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol., 1853, pp. 227-327. Contains the Report of the Hessian deputies to Landgrave Moritz, with Introduction and Notes. The same: Art. Dortrecht in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. III. p. 486.

Alex. Schweizer: Centraldogmen. Zurich, Vol. II. (1856) pp. 31-201.

G. Frank: Geschichte der Protest. Theol. Leipz. 1862, Vol. I. pp. 403 sqq.

M. Schneckenburger (independent, d. 1848): Vorlesungen über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren protest. Kirchenparteien, ed. by Hundeshagen. Frankf. a. M. 1863, pp. 5-26.

William Cunningham (Calvinist): Historical Theology. Edinb. 1864, Vol. II. ch. xxv. pp. 371-513.

E. Böhl (Calvinist): Blätter der Erinnerung an die Dordrechter Synode, 250 Jahre nach ihrem Zusammentritt allen Freunden der reform. Lehre gewidmet. Detmold, 1868 (41 pp.).

John L. Motley: The Life and Death of John of Barneveld, Advocate of Holland. N.Y. 1874, 2 vols. chs. viii. and xiv. Motley gives the political history of the period, but barely touches on the Synod of Dort, and with strong antipathy to Calvinism.

Comp. also Whedon (Methodist), art. Arminianism, and A. A. Hodge (Presbyterian), Calvinism, both in Johnson's Cyclop. Vol. I. (1874), representing both sides. Also art. Arminianism, in M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclop. Vol. I. p. 412 (Methodist).

The Arminian controversy is the most important which took place within the Reformed Church. It corresponds to the Pelagian and the Jansenist controversies in the Catholic Church. It involves the problem of ages, which again and again has baffled the ken of theologians and philosophers, and will do so to the end of time: the relation of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It started with the doctrine of predestination, and turned round five articles or 'knotty points' of Calvinism; hence the term 'quinquarticular' controversy. Calvinism represented the consistent, logical, conservative orthodoxy; Arminianism an elastic, progressive, changing liberalism. Calvinism triumphed in the Synod of Dort, and excluded Arminianism. So, in the preceding generation, strict Lutheranism had triumphed over Melanchthonianism in the Formula of Concord. But in both Churches the spirit of the conquered party rose again from time to time within the ranks of orthodoxy, to exert its moderating and liberalizing influence or to open new issues in the progressive march of theological science.

ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF ARMINIANISM TILL 1618.

The Arminian controversy arose in Holland towards the close of the heroic conflict with foreign political and ecclesiastical despotism. This very contest of forty-five years' duration, so full of trials and afflictions, stimulated the intellectual and moral energies of an honest, earnest, freedom-loving, and tenacious people, and made the Protestant part of the Netherlands the first country in Christendom for industry, commerce, education, and culture. The Universities of Leyden, founded in 1575, as the city's reward for its heroic resistance to Spain, Franecker (1585), Groningen (1612), Utrecht (1636), and Harderwyk (1648) soon excelled older schools of learning. The general prosperity of the United Provinces excited the admiration of the foreign delegates to the Synod of Dort, where they found clean and stately mansions, generous hospitality, and every comfort and luxury which commerce could bring from all parts of the earth. This was the soil on which the Calvinistic system was brought to its severest test. The controversy was purely theological in its nature, but owing to the intimate connection of Church and State it became inevitably entangled in political issues, and shook the whole country. The Reformed Churches in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, and Scotland took a deep interest in it, and sided, upon the whole, with the Calvinistic party; while the Lutheran Church sympathized to some extent with the Arminian.

The founder of Arminianism, from whom it derives its name, is James Arminius (1560-1609). [977] He studied under Beza at Geneva, was elected minister at Amsterdam (1588), and then professor of theology at Leyden (1603), as successor of Francis Junius, who had taken part in the revision of the Belgic Confession. He was at first a strict Calvinist, but while engaged in investigating and defending the Calvinistic doctrines against the writings of Dirik Volckaerts zoon Koornheert, [978] at the request of the magistrate of Amsterdam, he found the arguments of the opponent stronger than his own convictions, and became a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and of the freedom of will. He saw in the seventh chapter of Romans the description of a legalistic conflict of the awakened but unregenerate man, while Augustine and the Reformers referred it to the regenerate. He denied the decree of reprobation, and moderated the doctrine of original sin. He advocated a revision of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. He came into open conflict with his supralapsarian colleague, Francis Gomar (1563-1645), who had conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, but now became his chief antagonist. Hence the strict Calvinists were called 'Gomarists.' The controversy soon spread over all Holland. Arminius applied to the Government to convoke a synod (appealing, like the Donatists, to the very power which afterwards condemned him), but died of a painful disorder before it convened. [979] He was a learned and able divine; and during the controversy which embittered his life he showed a meek, Christian spirit. 'Condemned by others,' said Grotius, 'he condemned none.' His views on anthropology and soteriology approached those of the Melanchthonian school in the Lutheran Church, but the tendency of his theology was towards a latitudinarian liberalism, which developed itself in his followers. [980]

After his death the learned Simon Episcopius (Bisschop, 1583-1644), his successor in the chair of theology at Leyden, afterwards professor in the Arminian College at Amsterdam, [981] and the eloquent Janus Uytenbogaert (1557-1644), preacher at the Hague, and for some time chaplain of Prince Maurice, became the theological leaders of the Arminian party. The great statesman, John van Olden Barneveldt (1549-1619), Advocate-General of Holland and Friesland, and Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the most comprehensive scholar of his age, equally distinguished as statesman, jurist, theologian, and exegete, sympathized with the Arminians, gave them the weight of their powerful influence, and advocated peace and toleration; but they favored a republican confederacy of States rather than a federal State tending to monarchy, against the ambitious designs of Maurice, the Stadtholder and military leader of the Republic, who wished to consolidate his power, and by concluding a truce with Spain (1609) they incurred the suspicion of disloyalty. [982] The Calvinists were the national and popular party, and embraced the great majority of the clergy. They stood on the solid basis of the recognized standards of doctrine. At the same time they advocated the independent action of the Church against the latitudinarian Erastianism of their opponents.

The Arminians formularized their creed in Five Articles (drawn up by Uytenbogaert), and laid them before the representatives of Holland and West Friesland in 1610 under the name of Remonstrance, signed by forty-six ministers. The Calvinists issued a Counter-Remonstrance. Hence the party names Remonstrants (Protestants against Calvinism), and Counter-Remonstrants (Calvinists, or Gomarists). A Conference was held between the two parties at the Hague (Collatio Hagiensis) in 1611, but without leading to an agreement. A discussion at Delft, 1613, and the edict of the States of Holland in favor of peace, 1614, prepared by Grotius, had no better result.

The Synod Of Dort.

At last, after a great deal of controversy and complicated preparations, the National Synod of Dort [983] was convened by the States-General, Nov. 13, 1618, and lasted till May 9, 1619. It consisted of eighty-four members and eighteen secular commissioners. Of these fifty-eight were Dutchmen, the rest foreigners. The foreign Reformed Churches were invited to send at least three or four divines each, with the right to vote.

James I. of England sent Drs. George Carleton, Bishop of Llandaff (afterwards of Chichester); John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury; Samuel Ward, Professor of Cambridge; the celebrated Joseph Hall, afterwards Bishop of Exeter and Norwich (who, however, had to leave before the close, and was replaced by Thomas Goad), and Walter Balcanquall, a Scotchman, and chaplain of the King. The Palatinate was represented by Drs. Abraham Scultetus, Henry Alting, Professors at Heidelberg, and Paulus Tossanus; Hesse, by Drs. George Cruciger, Paul Stein, Daniel Angelocrator, and Rudolph Goclenius; Switzerland, by Dr. John Jacob Breitinger, Antistes of Zurich, Sebastian Beck and Wolfgang Meyer of Basle, Marcus Rutimeyer of Berne, John Conrad Koch of Schaffhausen, John Deodatus and Theodor Tronchin of Geneva; Bremen, by Matthias Martinius, Henry Isselburg, and Ludwig Crocius. The Elector of Brandenburg chose delegates, but excused their absence on account of age. The national Synod of France elected four delegates--among them the celebrated theologians Chamier and Du Moulin--but the King forbade them to leave the country. King James instructed the English delegates to 'mitigate the heat on both sides,' and to advise the Dutch ministers [984] 'not to deliver in the pulpit to the people those things for ordinary doctrines which are the highest points of schools and not fit for vulgar capacity, but disputable on both sides.'

The Synod was opened and closed with great solemnity, and held one hundred and fifty-four formal sessions, besides a larger number of conferences. [985] The expenses were borne by the States-General on a very liberal scale, and exceeded 100,000 guilders. [986] The sessions were public, and crowded by spectators. John Bogerman, pastor at Leuwarden, was elected President; Festus Hommius, pastor in Leyden, first Secretary--both strict Calvinists. The former had translated Beza's tract on the punishment of heretics into Dutch; the latter prepared a new Latin version of the Belgic Confession. The whole Dutch delegation was orthodox. Only three delegates from the provincial Synod of Utrecht were Remonstrants, but these had to yield their seats to the three orthodox members elected by the minority in that province. Gomarus represented supralapsarian Calvinism, but the great majority were infralapsarians or sublapsarians.

Thus the fate of the Arminians was decided beforehand. Episcopius and his friends--thirteen in all--were summoned before the Synod simply as defendants, and protested against unconditional submission.

Orthodox Calvinism achieved a complete triumph. The Five Articles of the Remonstrance were unanimously rejected, and five Calvinistic canons adopted, together with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. A thorough and most excellent revision of the Dutch Bible from the Hebrew and Greek was also ordered, besides other decisions which lie beyond our purpose.

The victory of orthodoxy was obscured by the succeeding deposition of about two hundred Arminian clergymen, and by the preceding though independent arrest of the political leaders of the Remonstrants, at the instigation of Maurice. Grotius was condemned by the States-General to perpetual imprisonment, but escaped through the ingenuity of his wife (1621). Van Olden Barneveldt was unjustly condemned to death for alleged high-treason, and beheaded at the Hague (May 14, 1619). His sons took revenge in a fruitless attempt against the life of Prince Maurice.

The canons of Dort were fully indorsed by the Reformed Church in France, and made binding upon the ministers at the Twenty-third National Synod at Alais, Oct. 1, 1620, and again at the Twenty-fourth Synod at Charenton, Sept., 1623. In other Reformed Churches they were received with respect, but not clothed with proper symbolical authority. In England there arose considerable opposition. [987] The only Church outside of Holland where they are still recognized as a public standard of doctrine is the Reformed Dutch Church in America.

The Synod of Dort is the only Synod of a quasi-oecumenical character in the history of the Reformed Churches. In this respect it is even more important than the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which was confined to England and Scotland, although it produced superior doctrinal standards. The judgments of the Synod of Dort differ according to the doctrinal stand-point. It was undoubtedly an imposing assembly; and, for learning and piety, as respectable as any ever held since the days of the Apostles. Breitinger, a great light of the Swiss Churches, was astonished at the amount of knowledge and talent displayed by the Dutch delegates, and says that if ever the Holy Spirit were present in a Council, he was present at Dort. Scultetus, of the Palatinate, thanked God that he was a member of that Synod, and placed it high above similar assemblies. Meyer, a delegate of Basle, whenever afterwards he spoke of this Synod, uncovered his head and exclaimed 'Sacrosancta Synodus! Even Paolo Sarpi, the liberal Catholic historian, in a letter to Heinsius, spoke very highly of it. A century later, the celebrated Dutch divine, Campegius Vitringa, said: 'So much learning was never before assembled in one place, not even at Trent.' [988]

On the other hand, the Remonstrants, who had no fair hearing, abhorred the Synod of Dort on account of its Calvinism and intolerance. The Lutherans were averse to it under the false impression that the condemnation of Arminianism was aimed at their own creed. Some secular historians denounce it as a Calvinistic tribunal of inquisition. [989]

The Canons of Dort have for Calvinism the same significance which the Formula of Concord has for Lutheranism. Both betray a very high order of theological ability and care. Both are consistent and necessary developments. Both exerted a powerful conservative influence on these Churches. Both prepared the way for a dry scholasticism which runs into subtle abstractions, and resolves the living soul of divinity into a skeleton of formulas and distinctions. Both consolidated orthodoxy at the expense of freedom, sanctioned a narrow confessionalism, and widened the breach between the two branches of the Reformation.

Arminianism After The Synod Of Dort.

The banishment of the Arminians was of short duration. After the death of Prince Maurice of Nassau (1625), and under the reign of his milder brother and successor, Frederick Henry, they were allowed to return and to establish churches and schools in every town of Holland, which became more and more a land of religious toleration and liberty. In this respect their principles triumphed over their opponents. [990] They founded a famous Theological College at Amsterdam (1630), which exists to this day, and has recently been removed to Leyden.

Peace was not so favorable to their growth as controversy. They gradually diminished in number, and are now a very small sect in Holland, almost confined to Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

But their literary and religious influence has gone far beyond their organization. Their eminent scholars, Hugo Grotius, Episcopius, Limborch, Curcellæus, Clericus (Le Clerc), and Wetstein, have enriched exegetical and critical learning, and liberalized theological opinions, especially on religious toleration and the salvation of unbaptized infants. Arminianism, in some of its advocates, had a leaning towards Socinianism, and prepared the way for Rationalism, which prevailed to a great extent in the Established Churches of Holland, Geneva, and Germany from the end of the last century till the recent reaction in favor of orthodox Calvinism and Lutheranism. But many Arminians adhered to the original position of a moderated semi-Pelagianism.

The distinctive Arminian doctrines of sin and grace, free-will and predestination, have been extensively adopted in the Episcopal Church since the reign of Charles I., and in the last century by the Methodists of Great Britain and America, and thereby have attained a larger territory and influence than they ever had in the land of their birth. [991] Methodism holds to the essential doctrines of the Reformation, but also to the five points of Arminianism, with some important evangelical modifications. __________________________________________________________________

[977] His Dutch name is Jacob van Hermanns or Hermanson, Harmensen.

[978] Koornheert was Secretarius at Haarlem, and a forerunner of the Remonstrants (d. 1590). He attacked the doctrine of Calvin and Beza on predestination and the punishment of heretics (1578), wrote against the Heidelberg Catechism (1583), and advocated toleration and a reduction of the number of articles of faith. His works were published at Amsterdam, 1630. See Bayle, art. Koornheert, and Schweizer, Vol. II. p. 40. Another forerunner of Arminianism was Caspar Koolhaas, preacher in Leyden, who was protected by the civil magistrate, but excommunicated by a provincial Synod at Haarlem, 1582. It should be remembered also that Erasmus, the advocate of free-will, against Luther, was held in high esteem in his native country, and that the views of Castellio, Bolsec, and Huber had made some impression.

[979] In the same year (1609) the Pilgrim Fathers of New England arrived in Leyden, where they enjoyed religions freedom till their departure for America (1620). Arminius was born in the same year in which Melanchthon died (1560).

[980] Caspar Brandt: Historia vitæ J. Arminii, ed. by Gerhard Brandt (son of the author), with additions by Mosheim, 1725; Engl. transl. by Guthrie, Lond. 1854. Bangs's Life of Arminius, N. York, 1843. Mosheim calls him 'a man whom even his enemies commend for his ingenuity, acuteness, and piety.' His motto was, 'A good conscience is a paradise.' In his testament (see extract in Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 508, note 7), he affirms that he diligently labored to teach nothing but what he could prove from the Scriptures, and what tended to edification and peace among Christians, excepting popery, 'with which,' he says, 'there can be no unity of faith, no bond of piety and peace.' Grotius was much milder towards the Catholics.

[981] Limborch: Vita Episcopii. Amst. 1701.

[982] On Barneveldt, see the work of Motley; on Hugo Grotius, the monograph of Luden, Berlin, 1806.

[983] In Dutch, Dordrecht or Dordtrecht; in Latin, Dordracum--an old fortified town in which the independence of the United Provinces was declared in 1572.

[984] See the nine instructions of James to the delegates, in Fuller, Ch. H. of Brit. Vol. V. p. 462.

[985] The Dutch delegates held twenty-two additional sessions on Church government.

[986] The five English delegates were allowed the largest sum, viz., ten pounds sterling per day--more than any other foreign divines.--Fuller, l.c. p. 465.

[987] See Hardwick's History of the Thirty-nine Articles, ch. ix., and Heylin's Historia Quinquarticularis.

[988] Schweizer, Vol. II. pp. 26, 143 sq.; also, Graf, and Böhl, 1.c.

[989] Motley (Life and Death of John of Barneveld, Vol. II. p. 309) caricatures the Synod of Dort in a manner unworthy of an impartial historian. 'It was settled,' he said, 'that one portion of the Netherlands and of the rest of the human race had been expressly created by the Deity to be forever damned, and another portion to be eternally blessed. . . . On the 30th April and 1st May the Netherland Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism were declared infallible.'

[990] Hugo Grotius carried the principle of toleration so far that it was said Socinus, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, and Arius contended for his religion as seven cities for the birth of the divine Homer. See the verse of Menage, quoted by G. Frank, Geschichte der Protest. Theologie, Vol. I. p. 410.

[991] The Wesleys were Arminians, while Whitefield was a Calvinist. They separated on the question of predestination. __________________________________________________________________

§ 66. The Remonstrance.

The Arminian or quinquarticular controversy started with opposition to the doctrine of absolute decrees, and moved in the sphere of anthropology and soteriology. The peculiar tenets are contained in the five points or articles which the Arminians in their 'Remonstrance' laid before the estates of Holland in 1610. They relate to predestination, the extent of the atonement, the nature of faith, the resistibility of grace, and the perseverance of saints.

The Remonstrance is first negative, and then positive. It rejects five Calvinistic propositions, and then asserts the five Arminian propositions. The doctrines rejected are thus stated:

1. That God has, before the fall, and even before the creation of man, by an unchangeable decree, foreordained some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation, without any regard to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, and simply because it so pleased him, in order to show the glory of his righteousness to the one class and his mercy to the other. (This is the supralapsarian view.)

2. That God, in view of the fall, and in just condemnation of our first parents and their posterity, ordained to exempt a part of mankind from the consequences of the fall, and to save them by his free grace, but to leave the rest, without regard to age or moral condition, to their condemnation, for the glory of his righteousness. (The sublapsarian view.)

3. That Christ died, not for all men, but only for the elect.

4. That the Holy Spirit works in the elect by irresistible grace, so that they must be converted and be saved; while the grace necessary and sufficient for conversion, faith, and salvation is withheld from the rest, although they are externally called and invited by the revealed will of God.

5. That those who have received this irresistible grace can never totally and finally lose it, but are guided and preserved by the same grace to the end.

These doctrines, the Remonstrants declare, are not contained in the Word of God nor in the Heidelberg Catechism, and are unedifying, yea dangerous, and should not be preached to Christian people.

Then the Remonstrance sets forth the five positive articles as follows:

Article First.

Conditional Predestination.--God has immutably decreed, from eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the end; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers and unconverted (John iii. 36).

Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge, and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men.

Second Article.

Universal Atonement.--Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, and his grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. But its inherent sufficiency does not necessarily imply its actual efficiency. The grace of God may be resisted, and only those who accept it by faith are actually saved. He who is lost, is lost by his own guilt (John iii. 16; 1 John ii. 2).

The Arminians agree with the orthodox in holding the doctrine of a vicarious or expiatory atonement, in opposition to the Socinians; but they soften it down, and represent its direct effect to be to enable God, consistently with his justice and veracity, to enter into a new covenant with men, under which pardon is conveyed to all men on condition of repentance and faith. The immediate effect of Christ's death was not the salvation, but only the salvability of sinners by the removal of the legal obstacles, and opening the door for pardon and reconciliation. They reject the doctrine of a limited atonement, which is connected with the supralapsarian view of predestination, but is disowned by moderate Calvinists, who differ from the Arminians in all other points. Calvin himself says that Christ died sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis.

Third Article.

Saving Faith.--Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (John xv. 5).

Fourth Article.

Resistible Grace.--Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many resist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii.).

Fifth Article.

The Uncertainty of Perseverance.--Although grace is sufficient and abundant to preserve the faithful through all trials and temptations for life everlasting, it has not yet been proved from the Scriptures that grace, once given, can never be lost.

On this point the disciples of Arminius went further, and taught the possibility of a total and final fall of believers from grace. They appealed to such passages where believers are warned against this very danger, and to such examples as Solomon and Judas. They moreover denied, with the Roman Catholics, that any body can have a certainty of salvation except by special revelation.

These five points the Remonstrants declare to be in harmony with the Word of God, edifying and, as far as they go, sufficient for salvation. They protest against the charge of changing the Christian Reformed religion, and claim toleration and legal protection for their doctrine. __________________________________________________________________

§ 67. The Canons of Dort.

The Canons of Dort are likewise confined to five points or 'Heads of Doctrine,' and exhibit what is technically called the Calvinistic system--first positively, then negatively, in the rejection of the Arminian errors. [992] Each Head of Doctrine (subdivided into Articles) is subscribed by the Dutch and foreign delegates.

First Head Of Doctrine.

Of Divine Predestination.--Since all men sinned in Adam and lie under the curse [according to the Augustinian system held by all the Reformers], God would have done no injustice if he had left them to their merited punishment; but in his infinite mercy he provided a salvation through the gospel of Christ, that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life. That some receive the gift of faith from God and others not, proceeds from God's eternal decree of election and reprobation.

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, he has, out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen from the whole human race, which has fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. These elect, though neither better nor more deserving than others, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by him, and bestow upon them true faith, conversion, justification and sanctification, perseverance to the end, and final glory (Eph. i. 4, 5, 6; Rom. viii. 30).

Election is absolute and unconditional. It is not founded upon foreseen faith and holiness, as the prerequisite condition on which it depended; on the contrary, it is the fountain of faith, holiness, and eternal life itself. God has chosen us, not because we are holy, but to the end that we should be holy (Eph. i. 4; Rom. ix. 11-13; Acts xiii. 38). As God is unchangeable, so his election is unchangeable, and the elect can neither be cast away nor their number be diminished. The sense and certainty of election is a constant stimulus to humility and gratitude.

The non-elect are simply left to the just condemnation of their own sins. This is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger (Cat. Ch. I. Art. 15).

Second Head Of Doctrine.

Of the Death of Christ. [Limited Atonement.]--According to the sovereign counsel of God, the saving efficacy of the atoning death of Christ extends to all the elect [and to them only], so as to bring them infallibly to salvation. But, intrinsically, the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations; because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Saviour for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves. [993]

Third And Fourth Heads Of Doctrine.

Of the Corruption of Man, his Conversion to God, and the Manner thereof.--Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy; but revolting from God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in [all] his affections.

Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature in consequence of a just judgment of God.

Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of any saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation.

What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law could do, that God performs by the operation of his Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation: which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means whereof it hath pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament.

As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called; for God hath most earnestly and truly declared in his Word what will be acceptable to him, namely, that all who are called should comply with the invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him.

It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves.

But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as he hath chosen his own from eternity in Christ, so he calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of his own Son, that they may show forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light; and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the Apostles in various places.

Faith is therefore the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred, breathed, and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should, by the exercise of his own free will, consent to the terms of salvation, and actually believe in Christ; but because he who works in man both to will and to do, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.

Fifth Head Of Docrine.

Of the Perseverance of the Saints.--Whom God calls, according to his purpose, to the communion of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he delivers also from the dominion and slavery of sin in this life; though not altogether from the body of sin and from the infirmities of the flesh, so long as they continue in this world.

By reason of these remains of indwelling sin, and the temptations of sin and of the world, those who are converted could not persevere in a state of grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end.

Of this preservation of the elect to salvation, and of their perseverance in the faith, true believers for themselves may and do obtain assurance according to the measure of their faith, whereby they arrive at the certain persuasion that they ever will continue true and living members of the Church; and that they experience forgiveness of sins, and will at last inherit eternal life.

This certainty of perseverance, however, is so far from exciting in believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them carnally secure, that, on the contrary, it is the real source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering and in confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God; so that the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incentive to the serious and constant practice of gratitude and good works, as appears from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

In opposition to the Canons of Dort, Episcopius prepared a lengthy defense of the Arminian Articles and a confession of faith in Dutch, 1621, and in Latin, 1622. It claims no binding symbolical authority, and advocates liberty and toleration. [994] __________________________________________________________________

[992] The term 'rejectio errorum,' instead of the condemnation and anathemas of the Greek and Roman Churches in dealing with heresies, indicates that Protestant orthodoxy is more liberal and charitable than the Catholic.

[993] The advocates of a limited atonement reason from the effect to the cause, and make the divine intention co-extensive with the actual application; but they can give no satisfactory explanation of such passages as John iii. 16 ('God so loved the world,' which never means the elect only, but all mankind); 1 John ii. 2 ('Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world'); 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9. All admit, however, with the Articles of Dort, that the intrinsic value of the atonement, being the act of the God-man, is infinite and sufficient to cover the sins of all men. Dr. W. Cunningham says: 'The value or worth of Christ's sacrifice of himself depends upon, and is measured by, the dignity of his person, and is therefore infinite. Though many fewer of the human race had been to be pardoned and saved, an atonement of infinite value would have been necessary, in order to procure for them these blessings; and though many more, yea, all men, had been to be pardoned and saved, the death of Christ, being an atonement of infinite value, would have been amply sufficient, as the ground or basis of their forgiveness or salvation' (Historical Theol. Vol. II. p. 331). Similarly, Dr. Hodge, Vol. II. pp. 544 sqq. After such admissions the difference of the two theories is of little practical account. Full logical consistency would require us to measure the value of Christ's atonement by the extent of its actual benefit or availability, and either to expand or to contract it according to the number of the elect; but such an opinion is derogatory to the dignity of Christ, and is held by very few extreme Calvinists of little or no influence. Cunningham says (p. 331): 'There is no doubt that all the most eminent Calvinistic divines hold the infinite worth or value of Christ's atonement--its full sufficiency for expiating all the sins of all men.'

[994] A German translation in Böckel's Bekenntniss-Schriften, pp. 545-640. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Iii. The Reformed Confessions Of Germany.

§ 68. The Tetrapolitan Confession.

Literature.

I. Editions of the Confessio Tetrapolitana.

The Latin text was first printed at Strasburg (Argentorati), A.D. 1531, Sept. (21 leaves); then in the Corpus et Syntagma (1612 and 1654); in Augusti's Corpus libr. symb. (1827), pp. 327 sqq.; and in Niemeyer's Collect. Confess. (1840), pp. 740-770; comp. Proleg. p. lxxxiii.

The German text appeared first at Strasburg, Aug. 1531 (together with the Apology, 72 leaves); then again 1579, ed. by John Sturm, but suppressed by the magistrate, 1580; at Zweibrücken, 1604; in Beck's Symbol. Bücher, Vol. I. pp. 401 sqq.; in Böckel's Bekenntniss-Schriften, pp. 363 sqq.

II. History.

Gottl. Wernsdorff: Historia Confessionis Tetrapolitanæ. Wittenb. 1694, ed. iv. 1721.

J. H. Fels: Dissert. de varia Confess. Tetrapolitanæ fortuna præsertim in civitate Lindaviensi. Götting. 1755.

Planck: Geschichte des Protest. Lehrbegrifs, Vol. III. Part I. (second ed. 1796), pp. 68-94.

J. W. Röhrich: Geschichte der evangel. Kirche des Elsasses. Strassburg, 1855, 3 vols.

J. W. Baum: Capito und Butzer (Elberf. 1860), pp. 466 sqq. and 595.

H. Mallet, in Herzog's Encykl. Vol. XV. pp. 574-576.

Comp. also the literature on the Augsburg Diet and the Augsburg Confession, especially Salig and Förstemann, quoted in § 41, p. 225.

The Reformed Church In Germany.

The mighty genius of Luther, aided by the learning of Melanchthon, controlled the German Reformation at first to the exclusion of every other influence; and if Lutheranism had not assumed a hostile and uncompromising attitude towards Zwinglianism, Calvinism, and the later theology of Melanchthon, it would probably have prevailed throughout the German empire, as the Reformed creed prevailed in all the Protestant cantons of Switzerland. But the bitter eucharistic controversies and the triumph of rigid Lutheranism in the Formula of Concord over Melanchthonianism drove some of the fairest portions of Germany, especially the Palatinate and Brandenburg, into the Reformed communion.

The German branch of the Reformed family grew up under the combined influences of Zwingli, Calvin, and Melanchthon. Zwingli's reformation extended to the southern portions of Germany bordering on Switzerland, especially the free imperial cities of Strasburg, Constance, Lindau, Memmingen, and Ulm. It is stated that the majority of the Protestant citizens of Augsburg during the Diet of 1530 sympathized with him rather than with Luther. Calvin spent nearly three years at Strasburg (1538-41), and exerted a great influence on scholars through his writings. Melanchthon (who was a native of the Palatinate), in his later period, emancipated himself gradually from the authority of Luther, and sympathized with Calvin in the sacramental question, while in the doctrines of divine sovereignty and human freedom he pursued an independent course. He trained the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism (Ursinus), reorganized the University of Heidelberg (1557), which became the Wittenberg of the Reformed Church in Germany, and threw on several occasions the weight of his influence against the exclusive type of Lutheranism advocated by such men as Flacius, Heshusius, and Westphal. He impressed upon the German Reformed Church his mild, conciliatory spirit and tendency towards union, which, at a later period, prevailed also in a large part of the Lutheran Church. The German Reformed Church, then, occupies a mediating position between Calvinism and Lutheranism. It adopts substantially the Calvinistic creed, but without the doctrine of reprobation (which is left to private opinion), and without its strict discipline; while it shares with the Lutheran Church the German language, nationality, hymnology, and mystic type of piety. [995] The great majority of German Reformed congregations have, since 1817, under the lead of the royal house of Prussia, been absorbed in what is called the Evangelical or United Evangelical Church. The aim of this union was originally to substitute one Church for two, but the result has been to add a third Church to the Lutheran and Reformed, since these still continue their separate existence in Germany and among the German emigrants in other countries. [996]

BUCER.

Among the framers of the character of the Reformed Church in Germany, Martin Bucer (Butzer), [997] Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, and Caspar Hedio occupy the next place after Zwingli, Calvin, and Melanchthon. Bucer (1491-1551), the learned and devoted reformer of Strasburg, and a facile diplomatist, was a personal friend of Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin, and a mediator between the Swiss and the German Reformation, as also between Continental and Anglican Protestantism. He labored with indefatigable zeal for an evangelical union, and hoped to attain it by elastic compromise formulas (like the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536), which concealed the real difference, and in the end satisfied neither party. He drew up with Melanchthon the plan of a reformation in Cologne at the request of the archbishop. During the Interim troubles he accepted a call to England, aided Cranmer in his reforms, and died as Professor of Theology at Cambridge, universally lamented. In the reign of Bloody Mary he was formally condemned as a heretic, his bones were dug up and publicly burned (Feb. 6, 1556); but Elizabeth solemnly restored the 'blessed' memory of 'the dear martyrs Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius.' In attainments and fertility as a writer he was not surpassed in his age. [998]

The Confession Of The Four Cities.

The oldest Confession of the Reformed Church in Germany is the Tetrapolitan Confession, also called the Strasburg and the Swabian Confession. [999]

It was prepared in great haste, during the sessions of the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, by Bucer, with the aid of Capito and Hedio, in the name of the four imperial cities (hence the name) of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau which, on account of their sympathy with Zwinglianism, were excluded by the Lutherans from their political and theological conferences, and from the Protestant League. They would greatly have preferred to unite with the Lutherans in a common confession; but at that time even Melanchthon was more anxious to conciliate the Papists than the Zwinglians and Anabaptists; and of the Lutheran princes the Landgrave Philip of Hesse was the only one who, from a broad, statesman-like view of the critical situation, favored a solid union of the Protestants against the common foe, but in vain. Hence after the Lutherans had presented their Confession, June 25, and Zwingli his own, July 8, the Four Cities handed theirs, July 11, to the Emperor, in German and Latin. It was not read before the Diet, but a Confutation full of misrepresentations was prepared by Faber and Cochläus, and read October 24 (or 17). The Strasburg divines were not even favored with a copy of this Confutation, but procured one secretly, and answered it by a 'Vindication and Defense' (as Melanchthon wrote his Apology of the Augsburg Confession during the Diet). The Confession and Apology, after being withheld for a year from print for the sake of peace, were officially published in both languages at Strasburg in the autumn of 1531. [1000]

The Tetrapolitan Confession consists of twenty-three chapters, besides Preface and Conclusion. It is in doctrine and arrangement closely conformed to the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg, and breathes the same spirit of moderation. The Reformed element, however, appears in the first chapter (On the Matter of Preaching), in the declaration that nothing should be taught in the pulpit but what was either expressly contained in the Holy Scriptures or fairly deduced therefrom. [1001] (The Lutheran Confession, probably from prudential and irenical considerations, is silent on the supreme authority of the Scriptures.) The evangelical doctrine of justification is stated in the third and fourth chapters more clearly than by Melanchthon, namely, that we are justified not by works of our own, but solely by the grace of God and the merits of Christ through a living faith, which is active in love and productive of good works. Images are rejected in Ch. XXII. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Ch. XVIII.) is couched in dubious language, which was intended to comprehend in substance the Lutheran and the Zwinglian theories, and contains the germ of the view afterwards more clearly and fully developed by Calvin. In this ordinance, it is said, Christ offers to his followers, as truly now as at the institution, his very body and blood as spiritual food and drink, whereby their souls are nourished to everlasting life. [1002] Nothing is said of the oral manducation and the fruition of unbelievers, which are the distinctive features of the Lutheran view. Bucer, who had attended the Conference at Marburg in 1529, labored with great zeal afterwards to bring about a doctrinal compromise between the contending theories, but without effect.

We may regard the Strasburg Confession as the first attempt at an evangelical union symbol. But Bucer's love for union was an obstacle to the success of his confession, which never took deep root; for in the Reformed Churches it was soon superseded by the clearer and more logical confessions of the Calvinistic type, and the four cities afterwards signed the Lutheran Confession to join the Smalcald League. Bucer himself remained true to his creed, and reconfessed it in his last will and testament (1548), and on his death-bed. [1003] __________________________________________________________________

[995] Dr. Heppe, in his numerous and learned works on the history and theology of the German Reformation period, endeavors to identify the German Reformed Church with Melanchthonianism (which was only an element in it), and Melanchthonianism with original German Protestantism (which was prevailingly Lutheran in the strict sense of the term), thus overestimating the influence of Melanchthon and underrating the influence of Zwingli and Calvin. His books are very valuable, but one-sided, and must be supplemented by the writings of Alex. Schweizer (Die Centraldogmen) and others on the same subject.

[996] The large German Protestant population of the United States is divided among Lutherans (the most numerous), German Reformed, and Evangelicals (or Unionists). A considerable number is connected with English denominations, especially the Methodists and Presbyterians.

[997] He wrote his name in German Butzer (i.e., Cleanser, from putzen, to cleanse), in Latin Bucerus, in Greek Boukeros. See Baum, l.c. p. 88.

[998] See a chronological list of his very numerous printed works in Baum, pp. 586 sqq. Baum says: 'An Fruchtbarkeit kommt ihm [Bucer] kaum Luther gleich, trots dem dass er bei weitem mehr als Luther, ja in seiner letzten Lebensperiode beinahe beständig, auf Reisen, Conventen, Reichstagen und Colloquien, in befreundeten Städten und Orten als Organisator der Kirchenreformation abwesend und in Anspruch genommen war. Mit einer beispiellosen Elasticität des Geistes angethan, mit einem fieberhaftigen Thätigkeitstriebe behaftet, schrieb er, vermöge des ungemeinen Reichthums seiner Kenntnisse mit solcher fabelhaften Leichtigkeit und Unleserlichkeit, dass nicht allein zu dem Meisten was von Anderen gelesen werden sollte, ein mit seiner die Worte blos andeutenden Schrift genau vertrauter Amanuensis nothwendig war, sondern dass er auch neben seinen Amtsgeschäften noch bei weitem mehr förderte als zwei der geübtesten Schreiber in's Reine bringen konnten. Er hat umfangreiche Bücher auf seinen Reisen geschrieben.' His best amanuensis, Conrad Huber, began a complete edition of his works, of which the first volume only appeared at Basle, 1577 (959 pages, folio). It is called Tomus Anglicanus, because it contains mostly the books which Bucer wrote in England. Many of his MSS. are preserved in Strasburg and in England.

[999] Confessio Tetrapolitana, C. Quatuor Civitatum, C. Argentinensis (Argentorati), C. Suevica, die Confession der vier Städte, das Vierstädte-Bekenntniss.

[1000] Under the title, 'Bekandtnuss der vier Frey und Reichstätt, Strassburg, Constantz, Memmingen und Lindaw, in deren sie keys-Majestat, uff dem Reichstag zu Augspurg im xxx. Jar gehalten, ires glaubens und fürhabens, der Religion halb, rechenschaft gethon haben.--Schriftliche Beschirmung und verthedigung derselbigen Bekandtnuss, gegen der Confutation und Widerlegung, so den gesandten der vier Stätten, uff bemeldtem Reichstage, offentlich fürgelesen, und hie getrewlich eingebracht ist.' At the end, 'Getruckt zu Strassburg durch Johann Schweintzer, uff den xxii. Augusti, MDXXXI.' Shortly after the appearance of the German original there appeared a Latin translation, which, however, did not contain the Apology. The title is as follows: 'Confessio Religionis Ckristianæ Sacratissimo Imperatori Carolo V. Augusto, in Comitiis Augustanis Anno MDXXX. per legatos Civitatum Argentorati, Constantiæ, Memmingæ, et Lindaviæ exhibita. Si quis voluerit voluntati ejus obtemperare, is cognoscet de doctrina utrum ex Deo sit an ego a me ipso loquar Joh. VII.' At the end, 'Argentorati Georgio Ulrichero Andlano Impressore Anno MDXXXI., mense Septemb.'--These titles are copied from Baum, l.c. p. 595. Comp. Niemeyer, Proleg. pp. lxxxiv. sq. A new German translation from the Latin is given in Walch's edition of Luther's Works, Vol. XX. pp. 1966-2008.

[1001] 'Mandavimus iis, qui concionandi apud nos munere fungebantur, ut nihil aliud quam quæ sacris literis aut continentur, aut certe nituntur, e suggestu docerent. Videbatur namque nobis haud indignum, eo in illo tanto discrimine confugere, quo confugerunt olim et semper, non solum sanctissimi Patres, Episcopi, et Principes, sed quilibet etiam privati, nempe ad authoritatem Scripturæ arcanæ. Ad quam nobiliores Thessalonicensium auditum Christi Evangelium explorasse, divus Lucas cum laude illorum memorat, in qua Paulus summo studio versari suum Timotheum voluit, sine cuius authoritate, nulli Pontifices suis decretis obedientiam, nulli patres suis scriptis fidem, nulli denique Principes suis legibus authoritatem unquam postularunt, ex qua demum ducendas sacras conciones, et magnum Sacri Imperii concilium Nurembergæ, anno Christi M.D.XXIII. celebratum sancivit. Si enim verum divus Paulus testatus est, per divinam Scripturam hominem Dei penitus absolvi, atque ad omne opus bonum instrui, nihil poterit is veritatis Christianæ, nihil doctrinæ salutaris desiderare, Scripturam qui consulere religiose studeat.'

[1002] 'De hoc venerando corporis et sanguinis Christi sacramento omnia, quæ de illo Evangelistæ, Paulus et sancti Patres scripta reliquerunt, nostri fide optima docent, commendant, inculcant. Indeque singulari studio hanc Christi in suos bonitatem, semper depredicant, qua is non minus hodie, quam in novissima illa coena, omnibus qui inter illius discipulos ex animo nomen dederunt, cum hanc coenam, ut ipse instituit repetunt, verum suum corpus, verumque suum sanguinem, vere edendum et bibendum, in cibum potumque animarum, quo illæ in æternam vitam alantur, dare per sacramenta dignatur, ut jam ipse in illis, et illi in ipso vivant et permaneant, in die novissimo, in novam et immortalem vitam per ipsum resuscitandi, juxta sua illa æternæ veritatis verba: "Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus meum," etc. "Bibite ex eo omnes, hic calix est sanguis meus," etc. Præcipua vero diligentia populi animos, nostri ecclesiastæ ab omni tum contentione, tum supervacanea et curiosa disquisitione, ad illud revocant, quod solum prodest, solumque a Christo servatore nostro spectatum est, nempe ut ipso pasti, in ipso et per ipsum vivamus, vitam Deo placitam, sanctam, et ideo perennem quoque et beatam, simusque inter nos omnes unus panis, unum corpus, qui de uno pane in sacra coena participamus. Quo sane factum est, ut divina sacramenta, sacrosancta Christi coena, quam religiosissime, reverentiaque singulari apud nos et administrentur, et sumantur.' Ebrard (Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 93) says of Bucer, that he had the theological elements for a true doctrinal union of the Lutheran and Reformed views of the eucharist. 'In der richtigen exegetisehen Grundlage völlig mit Zwingli einig, brachte er das Element, welches auch in Zwingli keimartig vorhanden gewesen, aber in der Hitze des Streites ganz zurückgetreten war--die Lebensgemeinschaft oder unio mystica mit der Person Christi--im Sinne der Tetrapolitana (d.i. im Sinne der nachherigen calvinisch-melanchthonischen Lehre) zur Entwicklung.'

[1003] Baum, pp. 569, 572. __________________________________________________________________

§ 69. The Heidelberg Catechism. A.D. 1563.

Literature.

I. Standard Editions of the Catechism.

Official German editions of 1563 (three), 1585, 1595, 1684, 1724, 1863 (American). The original title is 'Catechismus | Oder | Christlicher Underricht, | wieder in Kirchen und Schu- | len der Churfürstlichen | Pfaltz getrieben | wirdt. | Gedruckt in der Churfürstli- | chen Stad Heydelberg, durch | Johannem Mayer. | 1563.' With the Electoral arms. 95 pages.

There is but one copy of the first edition known to exist, and this did not come into public notice till 1864. It belonged to Prof. Hermann Wilken, of Heidelberg, whose name it bears, with the date 1563; was bought by Dr. Treviranus, of Bremen, in 1823, given by him to Dr. Menken, bought back after Menken's death, 1832, and is now in the University Library at Utrecht. I examined it in October and November, 1865, at Bremen. It has the remark, 'Diesses ist die allererste Edition, in welcher Pag. 55 die 80ste Frag und Antwort nicht gefunden wirdt. Auff Churfürstlichen Befehl eingezogen. Liber rarissimus.' The Scripture texts are quoted in the margin, but only the chapters, since the versicular division (which first appeared in Stephens's Greek Testament of 1551) had not yet come into general use. A quasi fac-simile of this copy was issued by the Rev. Albrecht Wolters, then at Bonn (now at Halle), under the title, 'Der Heidelberger Katechismus in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt, herausgegeben nebst der Geschichte seines Textes im Jahre 1563.' Bonn, 1864. Comp. his art. in the Studien und Kritiken for 1867, pp. 1, 2.

Niemeyer, in his collection of Reformed Confessions, pp. 390 sqq., gives, besides the Latin text, a faithful reprint of the third German edition, with the eightieth question in full.

Philipp Schaff: Der Heidelberger Katechismus. Nach der ersten Ausgabe von 1563 revidirt und mit kritischen Anmerkungen, sowie einer Geschichte und Charakteristik des Katechismus versehen. Philadelphia (J. Kohler), 1863; second edition, revised and enlarged, 1866. This edition was prepared for the tercentenary celebration of the Heidelberg Catechism, and gives the received text of the third edition with the readings of the first and second editions, and the Scripture proofs in full.

The Latin translation was published in 1563, and again in 1566, under the title, 'Cate- | chesis Religio- | nis Christianæ, | quæ traditur in Ecclesiis | et Scholis Pala- | tinatus. | Heydelbergæ. | Excusum anno post Christum | natum M.D.LXVI.' I saw a copy of this ed. Latina, in the library of the late Dr. Treviranus, in Bremen (1865). On the title-page the words are written, 'Editio rara et originalis;' also the name of G. Menken, the former owner. The Scripture references are marked on the margin, including the verses. The eightieth question is complete (with 'execranda idololatia'), pp. 62 and 63, and supported by many Scripture texts and the Can. Missæ. The questions are divided into fifty-two Sundays. 'Precationes aliquot privatæ et publicæ,' a 'Precatio scholastica,' and some versified prayers of Joachim Camerarius (the friend and biographer of Melanchthon), are added.

The best English, or rather American, edition of the Catechism is the stately triglot tercentenary edition prepared at the direction of the German Reformed Church in the United States, by a committee consisting of E. V. Gerhart, D.D., John W. Nevin, D.D., Henry Harbaugh, D.D., John S. Kessler, D.D., Daniel Zacharias, D.D., and three laymen, and issued under the title, 'The Heidelberg Catechism, in German, Latin, and English; with an Historical Introduction (by Dr. Nevin), New York (Charles Scribner), 1863.' 4to. The German text is a reprint of the third edition after Niemeyer, with the German in modern spelling added; the English translation is made directly from the German original, and is far better than the one in popular use, which was made from the Latin. It is the most elegant and complete edition of the Catechism ever published, but it appeared before the discovery of the editio princeps, and repeats the error concerning the eightieth question (see Introd. p. 38).

II. Commentaries.

The commentaries and sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism are exceedingly numerous, especially in the German and Dutch languages. The first and most valuable is from the chief author, Zach. Ursinus: Corpus Doctrinæ orthodoxæ, or Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. by his pupil, David Pareus, and repeatedly published at Heidelberg and elsewhere--1591, 1618, etc.--in Latin, German, Dutch, and English. An American edition, on the basis of the English translation of Bishop Dr. H. Parry, was issued by Dr. Williard (President of Heidelberg College, Tiffin, O.), Columbus, O. 1850. Other standard commentaries are by Coccejus (1671), d'Outrein (1719), Lampe (1721), Stähelin (1724), and van Alpen (1800). See a fuller list by Harbaugh in 'Mercersb. Rev.' for 1860, pp. 601-625, and in Bethune's Lectures.

Of more recent works we name--

Karl Sudhoff: Theologisches Handbuch zur Auslesung des Heidelberger Catechismus. Francf. a M. 1862.

Geo. W. Bethune (D.D., and minister of the Ref. Dutch Ch., N.Y.; d. 1862): Expository Lectures on the Heidelb. Catech. N. York, 1864, 2 vols., with an alphabet. list of works by Van Nest at close of Vol. II.

Hermann Dalton (Ger. Ref. minister at St. Petersb.): Immanuel. Der Heidelberger Katechismus als Bekenntniss- und Erbauungsbuch der evangel. Kirche erklärt und an's Herz gelegt. Wiesbaden, 1870 (pp. 539).

III. Historical Works on the Catechism.

H. Alting (Prof. of Theology at Heidelberg and Gröningen, d. 1644): Historia Ecclesiæ Patatinæ. Frankf. a. M. 1701.

B. G. Struve: Pfälzische Kirchenhistorie. Frankf. 1721, Ch. V. sqq.

D. L. Wundt: Grundriss der pfälzischen Kirchengeschichte bis zum Jahr 1742. Heidelb. 1798.

Jaques Lenfant: L'innocence du Catéchisme de Heidelberg. Heidelb. 1688 (1723).

J. Chr. Köcher: Katechetische Geschichte der Reformirten Kirche, sonderlich der Schicksale des Heidelberger Katechismi. Jena, 1766, pp. 237-444.

G. J. Planck: Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie von Luther's Tode, etc. Vol. II. Part II. pp. 475-491. (This is Vol. V. of his great work on the Geschichte der Entstehung, etc., unseres protestant. Lehrbegriffs.)

Heinr. Simon van Alpen; Geschichte u. Literatur des Heidelb. Katechismus. Frankf. a. M. 1800. Vol. III. Part II. (The first two volumes and the first part of the third volume of this catechetical work contain explanations and observations on the Catechism, which are, however, semi-rationalistic.)

Joh. Chr. W. Augusti: Versuch einer hist.-kritischen Einleitung in die beiden Haupt-Katechismen (the Luth. and Heidelb.) der evangelischen Kirche. Elberfeld, 1824, pp. 96 sqq.

Rienäcker: Article on the Heidelb. Catechism in Ersch und Gruber, Allgem. Encyklop. Sect. II. Part IV. pp. 386 sqq.

Ludwig Häusser: Geschichte der Rhein-Pfalz. Heidelb. 1845. Vol. II.

D. Seisen: Geschichte der Reformation zu Heidelberg, von ihren ersten Anfängen bis zur Abfassung des Heidelb. Katechismus. Eine Denkschrift zur dreihundertjährigen Jubelfeier daselbst am 3. Jan. 1846. Heidelb. 1846.

Aug.. Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. F. a. M. 1846. Vol. II. pp. 575 sqq.

K. Fr. Vierordt: Geschichte der Reformation im Grossherzogthum Baden. Nach grossentheils handschriftlichen Quellen. Karlsruhe, 1847.

John W. Nevin: History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism. Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 1847. (The best work on the Catechism in English.) Comp. Dr. Nevin's able Introduction to the triglot tercentenary edition of the H. C. New York, 1863, pp. 11-127.

Karl Sudhoff: C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1857.

G. D. J. Schotel: History of the Origin, Introduction, and Fortunes of the Heidelberg Catechism (in Dutch). Amsterdam, 1863.

Several valuable essays on the Heidelberg Catechism, by Plitt, Sack, and Ullmann, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, and by Wolters and Trechsel, ibid, for 1867.

Tercentenary Monument. In Commemoration of the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism. Published by the German Reformed Church of the United States of North America, in English and German. The German ed. by Dr. Schaff, with an historical introduction. Chambersburg and Philadelphia, Pa. 1863. This work contains about twenty essays, by European and American theologians, on the history and theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.

J. I. Doedes (Prof. at Utrecht): De Heidelbergsche Catechismus in zijne eerste Levensjaren 1563-1567. Historische en Bibliografische Nalezing met 26 Facsimiles. Utrecht, 1867 (pp. 154). Very valuable for the early literary history of the H. C., with fac-similes of the first German, Latin, and Dutch editions.

The Reformation In The Palatinate.

The Palatinate, one of the finest provinces of Germany, on both sides of the upper Rhine, was one of the seven electorates (Kurfürstenthümer), whose rulers, in the name of the German people, elected the Emperor of Germany. After the dissolution of the old empire (1806) it ceased to be a politico-geographical name, and its territory is now divided between Baden, Bavaria, Hesse Darmstadt, Nassau, and Prussia. Its capital was Heidelberg (from 1231 till 1720), famous for its charming situation at the foot of the Königsstuhl, on the banks of the Swabian river Neckar, for its picturesque castle, and for its university (founded in 1346).

Luther made a short visit to Heidelberg in 1518, and defended certain evangelical theses. In 1546, the year of Luther's death, the Reformation was introduced under the Elector Frederick II. Melanchthon, who was a native of the Palatinate, and twice received a call to a professorship of theology at Heidelberg (1546 and 1557), but declined, acted as the chief counselor in the work, and aided, on a personal visit in 1557, in reorganizing the university on an evangelical basis under Otto Henry (1556-59). He may therefore be called the Reformer of the Palatinate. He impressed upon it the character of a moderate Lutheranism friendly to Calvinism. The Augsburg Confession was adopted as the doctrinal basis, and the cultus was remodeled (as also in the neighboring Duchy of Würtemberg) after Zwinglian simplicity. Heidelberg now began to attract Protestant scholars from different countries, and became a battle-ground of Lutheran, Philippist, Calvinist, and Zwinglian views. The conflict was enkindled as usual by the zeal for the real presence. Tilemann Heshusius, whom Melanchthon, without knowing his true character, had recommended to a theological chair (1558), introduced, as General Superintendent, exclusive Lutheranism, excommunicated Deacon Klebitz for holding the Zwinglian view, and even fought with him at the altar about the communion cup. This public scandal was the immediate occasion of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Frederick Iii.

During this controversy Frederick III., surnamed the Pious (1515-1576), became Elector of the Palatinate, 1559. He made it the chief object of his reign to carry out the reformation begun by his predecessors. He tried at first to conciliate the parties, and asked the advice of Melanchthon, who, a few months before his death, counseled peace, moderation, and Biblical simplicity, and warned against extreme and scholastic subtleties in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. [1004] He deposed both Heshusius and Klebitz, arranged a public disputation (June, 1560) on the eucharist, decided in favor of the Melanchthonian or Calvinistic view, called distinguished foreign divines to the university, and intrusted two of them with the composition of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was to secure harmony of teaching and to lay a solid foundation for the religious instruction of the rising generation.

Frederick was one of the purest and noblest characters among the princes of Germany. He was to the Palatinate what King Alfred and Edward VI. were to England, what the Electors Frederick the Wise and John the Constant were to Saxony, and Duke Christopher to Würtemberg. He did more for educational and charitable institutions than all his predecessors. He devoted to them the entire proceeds of the oppressed convents. He lived in great simplicity that he might contribute liberally from his private income to the cause of learning and religion. He was the first German prince who professed the Reformed Creed, as distinct from the Lutheran. For this he suffered much reproach, and was threatened with exclusion from the benefits of the Augsburg Treaty of Peace (concluded in 1555), since Zwinglianism and Calvinism were not yet tolerated on German soil. But at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1566, he made before the Emperor a manly confession of his faith, and declared himself ready to lose his crown rather than violate his conscience. Even his opponents could not but admire his courage, and the Lutheran Elector Augustus of Saxony applauded him, saying, 'Fritz, thou art more pious than all of us.' He praised God on his death-bed that he had been permitted to see such a reformation in Church and school that men were led away from human traditions to Christ and his divine Word. He left in writing a full confession of his faith, which may be regarded as an authentic explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism; it was published after his death by his son, John Casimir (1577).

Ursinus And Olevianus.

Frederick showed his wisdom by calling two young divines, Ursinus and Olevianus, to Heidelberg to aid in the Reformation and to prepare an evangelical catechism. They belong to the reformers of the second generation. Theirs it was to nurture and to mature rather than to plant. Both were Germans, but well acquainted with the Reformed Churches in Switzerland and France. Both suffered deposition and exile for the Reformed faith.

Zacharias Ursinus (Bär), the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, was born at Breslau, July 18, 1534, and studied seven years (1550-1557) at Wittenberg under Melanchthon, who esteemed him as one of his best pupils and friends. He accompanied his teacher to the religious conference at Worms, 1557, and to Heidelberg, and then proceeded on a literary journey to Switzerland and France. He made the personal acquaintance of Bullinger and Peter Martyr at Zurich, of Calvin and Beza at Geneva, and was thoroughly initiated into the Reformed Creed. Calvin presented him with his works, and wrote in them the best wishes for his young friend. On his return to Wittenberg he received a call to the rectorship of the Elizabeth College at Breslau. After the death of Melanchthon he went a second time to Zurich (Oct., 1560), intending to remain there. In the following year he was called to a theological chair at Heidelberg. Here he labored with untiring zeal and success till the death of Frederick III., 1576, when, together with six hundred steadfast Reformed ministers and teachers, he was deposed and exiled by Louis VI., who introduced the Lutheran Creed. Ursinus found a refuge at Neustadt an der Hardt, and established there, with other deposed professors, a flourishing theological school under the protection of John Casimir, the second son of Frederick III. He died in the prime of his life and usefulness, March 6, 1583, leaving a widow and one son. In the same year Casimir succeeded his Lutheran brother in the Electorate, recalled the exiled preachers, and re-established the Reformed Church in the Palatinate.

Ursinus was a man of profound classical, philosophical, and theological learning, poetic taste, rare gift of teaching, and fervent piety. His devotion to Christ is beautifully reflected in the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism, and in his saying that he would not take a thousand worlds for the blessed assurance of being owned by Jesus Christ. He was no orator, and no man of action, but a retired, modest, and industrious student. [1005] His principal works, besides the Catechism, are a Commentary on the Catechism (Corpus doctrinæ orthodoxæ) and a defense of the Reformed Creed against the attacks of the Lutheran Formula of Concord.

Caspar Olevianus (Olewig), born at Treves Aug. 10,1536, studied the ancient languages at Paris, Bourges, and Orleans, and theology at Geneva and Zurich. He enjoyed, like Ursinus, the personal instruction and friendship of the surviving reformers of Switzerland. He began to preach the evangelical doctrines at Treves, was thrown into prison, but soon released, and called to Heidelberg, 1560, by Frederick III., who felt under personal obligation to him for saving one of his sons from drowning at the risk of his own life. He taught theology and preached at the court. He was the chief counselor of the Elector in all affairs of the Church. In 1576 he was banished on account of his faith, and accepted a call to Herborn, 1584, where he died, Feb. 27, 1585. His last word was a triumphant 'certissimus,' in reply to a friend who asked him whether he were certain of his salvation. Theodore Beza lamented his death in a Latin poem, beginning

'Eheu, quibus suspiriis,

Eheu, quibus te lacrymis

Oleviane, planxero?'

Olevianus was inferior to Ursinus in learning, but his superior in the pulpit and in church government. He wrote an important catechetical work on the covenant of grace, and is regarded as the forerunner of the federal theology of Coccejus and Lampe. He labored earnestly, but only with moderate success, for the introduction of the Presbyterian form of government and a strict discipline, after the model of Geneva. Thomas Erastus (Lieber), Professor of Medicine at Heidelberg, and afterwards of Ethics at Basle (died 1583), opposed excommunication, and defended the supremacy of the state in matters of religion; hence the term 'Erastianism' (equivalent to Cæsaropapism).

Preparation And Publication Of The Catechism.

The Heidelberg Catechism, as it is called after the city of its birth, or the Palatinate (also Palatine) Catechism, as it is named after the country for which it was intended, was prepared on the basis of two Latin drafts of Ursinus and a German draft of Olevianus. The peculiar gifts of both, the didactic clearness and precision of the one, and the pathetic warmth and unction of the other, were blended in beautiful harmony, and produced a joint work which is far superior to all the separate productions of either. In the Catechism they surpassed themselves. They were in a measure inspired for it. At the same time, they made free and independent use of the Catechisms of Calvin, Lasky, and Bullinger. The Elector took the liveliest interest in the preparation, and even made some corrections.

In December, 1562, Frederick submitted the work to a general synod of the chief ministers and teachers assembled at Heidelberg, for revision and approval. It was published early in 1563, in German, under the title 'Catechismus, Or Christian Instruction, as conducted in the Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate.' [1006] It is preceded by a short Preface of the Elector, dated Tuesday, January 19, 1563, in which he informs the superintendents, clergymen, and schoolmasters of the Palatinate that, with the counsel and co-operation of the theological faculty and leading ministers of the Church, he had caused to be made and set forth a summary instruction or Catechism of our Christian religion from the Word of God, to be used hereafter in churches and schools for the benefit of the rising generation.

The Third Edition And The Eightieth Question.

There appeared, in the year 1563, three official editions of the Catechism with an important variation in the eightieth question, which denounces the Romish mass as 'a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ, and as an accursed idolatry.' In the first edition this question was wanting altogether; the second edition has it in part; the third in full, as it now stands. [1007] This question was inserted by the express command of the Elector, perhaps by his own hand, as a Protestant counter-blast to the Romish anathemas of the Council of Trent, which closed its sessions Dec. 4, 1563. Hence the remark at the end of the second and third editions: 'What has been overlooked in the first print, as especially on folio 55 [which contains the eightieth question], has now been added by command of his electoral grace. 1563.'

The same view of the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass was generally entertained by the Reformers, and is set forth as strongly in the Articles of Smalcald and other symbolical books, both Lutheran and Reformed. It must be allowed to remain as a solemn protest against idolatry. But the wisdom of inserting controversial matter into a catechism for the instruction of the youth has been justly doubted. The eightieth question disturbs the peaceful harmony of the book, it rewards evil for evil, it countenances intolerance, which is un-Protestant and unevangelical. It provoked much unnecessary hostility, and led even, under the Romish rule of the Elector Charles Philip, in 1719, to the prohibition of the Catechism; but the loud remonstrance of England, Prussia, Holland, and other Protestant states forced the Elector to withdraw the tyrannical decree within a year, under certain conditions, to save appearances.

Translations.

The Heidelberg Catechism was translated into all the European and many Asiatic languages. It has the pentecostal gift of tongues in a rare degree. It is stated that, next to the Bible, the 'Imitation of Christ,' by Thomas à Kempis, and Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress,' no book has been more frequently translated, more widely circulated and used. Whole libraries of paraphrases, commentaries, sermons, attacks, and defenses were written about it. In many Reformed churches, especially in Holland (and also in the United States), it was and is to some extent even now obligatory or customary to explain the Catechism from the pulpit every Sunday afternoon. Hence the division of the questions into fifty-two Sundays, in imitation of the example set by Calvin's Catechism. [1008]

A Latin translation, for the use of colleges, was made by order of the Elector, by Joshua Lagus and Lambert Ludolph Pithopoeus, and appeared soon after the German, since Olevianus sent a copy of each to Bullinger, in Zurich, as early as April, 1563. [1009] It is, however, much inferior to the German in force and unction. The Latin text was often edited separately as well as in the works of Ursinus, in connection with his commentary and other Latin commentaries, and in collections of Reformed symbols. [1010]

There are three Dutch translations: the first appeared at Emden, 1563; the second, by Peter Dathenus, in connection with a Dutch version of the Psalter, in 1566, and very often separately. [1011]

A Greek translation was prepared by a distinguished classical scholar, D. Frid. Sylburg, 1597. [1012]

Besides these there are editions in modern Greek, in Hebrew, Arabic, etc. [1013]

Three or four English translations were made from the Latin, and obtained a wide circulation in Scotland, England, and America. [1014] A more correct one from the German original was prepared for the tercentenary celebration of the Catechism, by a learned and able committee appointed by the German Reformed Synod in Pennsylvania, but has not yet come into public use. [1015]

The merits of the Latin and English translations, and their relation to the German original, may be seen from the following specimens:

The German Original, 1563. The Latin Version, 1563.

Frage 1. Was ist dein einiger Trost im Leben und im Sterben?

Qu. 1. Quæ est unica tua consolatio in vita et in morte?

Das ich mit Leib und Seele, beides im Leben und im Sterben, nicht mein, sondern meines getreuen Heilandes Jesu Christi eigen bin, der mit seinem theuren Blute für alle meine Sünden vollkommen bezahlet, und mich aus aller Gewalt des Teufels erlöset hat; und also bewahret, dass ohne den Willen meines Vaters im Himmel kein Haar von meinem Haupte kann fallen, ja auch mir alles zu meiner Seligkeit dienen muss. Darum er mich auch durch seinen heiligen Geist des ewigen Lebens versichert, und ihm forthin zu leben von Herzen willig und bereit macht.

Quod animo pariter et corpore, sive vivam, sive moriar, non meus, sed fidissimi Domini et Servatoris mei Jesus Christi sum proprius, qui pretioso sanguine suo pro omnibus peccatis meis plenissime satisfaciens, [1016] me ab omni potestate diaboli liberavit, meque ita conservat, ut sine voluntate patris mei coelestis, ne pilus quidem de meo capite posit cadere: imò verò etiam omnia saluti meæ servire oporteat. Quocirca me quoque suo Spiritu de vita æterna certum facit, utque ipsi deinceps vivam promptum ac paratum reddit.

Frage 2. Wie viele Stücke sind dir nöthig zu wissen, dass du in diesem Troste seliglich leben und sterben mögest?

Qu. 2. Quot sunt tibi scitu necessaria, ut ista [1017] consolatione fruens, beatè vivas et moriaris?

Drei Stücke: Erstlich, wie gross meine Sünde und Elend sei. Zum Andern, wie ich von allen meinen Sünden und Elend erlöset werde. Und zum Dritten, wie ich Gott für solche Erlösung soll dankbar sein.

Tria. Primum, quanta sit peccati mei et miseriæ meæ magnitudo. Secundum, [1018] quo pacto ab omni peccato et miseria liberer. Tertium, quam gratiam Deo pro ea liberatione debeam.

Scotch Edition of 1591. Bishop Perry's Translation (1591). From Dunlop's Collection (1722). Oxford Edition of 1601.

Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life and in death?

Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in lift and death?

That in soul and body, whether I live or die, I am not mine own, but I belong unto my most faithful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ: who by his precious blood, most fully satisfying for all my sins, hath delivered me from the whole power of the Devil; and doth so preserve me, that without the will of my heavenly Father, not so much as a hair can fall from my head: yea, all things are made to serve for my salvation. Wherefore by his Spirit also, he assureth me of everlasting life, and maketh me ready and prepared, that henceforth I may live unto him.

That both in soul and body, whether I live or die, I am not mine own, but belong wholly [1019] unto my most faithful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by his precious blood most fully satisfying for all my sins, hath delivered me from all the power of the devil, and so preserveth me, that without the will of my heavenly Father not so much as a hair may fall from my head, yea all things must serve for my safety. Wherefore by his Spirit also he assureth me of everlasting life, and maketh me ready, and prepared, that henceforth I may live to him.

Ques. 2. How many things are needful for thee to know, to the end [that] thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die an happy man?

Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou enjoying this comfort mayest live and die happily?

Three things. First, What is the greatness of my sin, and of my misery. Secondly, By what means I may be delivered from all my sin and misery. Thirdly, What thankfulness I owe to God for that deliverance.

Three. The first, what is the greatness of my sin and misery. The second, how I am delivered from all sin and misery. The third, what thanks I owe unto God for this delivery. The Received American Version, 1771. The New American Version, 1863.

Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life and in death?

That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who, with his precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation; and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready henceforth, to live unto him.

That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou in this comfort mayest live and die happily?

Three; the first, how great my sins and miseries are; the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Three things: First, the greatness of my sin and misery. Second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery. Third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.

Note.--All the English versions, except the last, follow the Latin in its departures from the German, as 'most faithful Lord' (fidelissimi Domini) for 'faithful' (getreuen), 'heavenly Father' (Patris coelestis) for 'Father in heaven' (Vater im Himmel). The dependence on the Latin may be seen also in the words 'most fully satisfying' (plenissime satisfaciens), 'delivered' (liberavit) for 'redeemed' (erlöset), 'delivery' (liberatio) for 'redemption' (Erlösung) and in the omission of 'heartily' (von Herzen), for which, however, the common American version (which seems to have made use also of the Dutch version) substitutes 'sincerely.'

Character And Aim.

The Heidelberg Catechism answers the double purpose of a guide for the religious instruction of the youth and a confession of faith for the Church.

As a catechism it is an acknowledged masterpiece, with few to equal and none to surpass it. Its only defect is that its answers are mostly too long for the capacity and memory of children. It is intended for a riper age. Hence an abridgment was made as early as 1585, but no attempts to simplify and popularize it have been able to supersede it.

As a standard of public doctrine the Heidelberg Catechism is the most catholic and popular of all the Reformed symbols. The German Reformed Church acknowledges no other. The Calvinistic system is herein set forth with wise moderation, and without its sharp, angular points. This may be a defect in logic, but it is an advantage in religion, which is broader and deeper than logic. Children and the mass of the people are unable to appreciate metaphysical distinctions and the transcendent mysteries of eternal decrees. The doctrine of election to holiness and salvation in Christ (or the positive and edifying part of the dogma of predestination) is indeed incidentally set forth as a source of humility, gratitude, and comfort (Ques. 1, 31, 53, 54), but nothing is said of a double predestination, or of an eternal decree of reprobation, or of a limited atonement (comp. Ques. 37). These difficult questions are left to private opinion and theological science. This reserve is the more remarkable since the authors (as well as all other Reformers, except Melanchthon in his later period) were strict predestinarians.

Plan And Arrangement.

The Heidelberg Catechism follows the order of the Epistle to the Romans, and is divided into three parts. The first two questions are introductory. The first part treats of the sin and misery of man (Ques. 3-11; comp. Rom. i. 18-iii. 20); the second of the redemption by Christ (Ques. 12-85; comp. Rom. iii. 21-xi. 36); the third of the thankfulness of the redeemed, or the Christian life (Ques. 86-129; comp. Rom. xii.-xvi.). The second part is the largest, and contains an explanation of all the articles of the Apostles' Creed under the three heads of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the sacraments is rightly incorporated in this part, instead of being treated in separate sections, as in the Roman and Lutheran Catechisms. The third part gives an exposition of the Decalogue (as a rule of obedience, viewed in the light of redemption) and of the Lord's Prayer.

This order corresponds to the development of religious life and to the three leading ideas of repentance, faith, and love. The conception of Christian life, as an expression of gratitude for redeeming grace, is truly evangelical. In older catechisms the five or six parts of a catechism--namely, the Creed, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the Lord's Supper--are mechanically co-ordinated; here they are worked up into an organic system.

The execution is admirable throughout. Several answers are acknowledged gems in the history of catechetical literature--e.g., the definition of faith (Ques. 21), on providence (Ques. 27 and 28), on the significance of the Christian name (Ques. 31 and 32), on the benefit of the ascension (Ques. 49), and on justification by faith (Ques. 60).

The Spirit Of The Catechism.

The genius of the Catechism is brought out at once in the first question, which contains the central idea, and strikes the key-note. It is unsurpassed for depth, comfort, and beauty, and, once committed to memory, can never be forgotten. It represents Christianity in its evangelical, practical, cheering aspect, not as a commanding law, not as an intellectual scheme, not as a system of outward observances, but as the best gift of God to man, as a source of peace and comfort in life and in death. What can be more comforting, what at the same time more honoring and stimulating to a holy life than the assurance of being owned wholly by Christ our blessed Lord and Saviour, who sacrificed his own spotless life for us on the cross? The first question and answer of the Heidelberg Catechism is the whole gospel in a nutshell; blessed is he who can repeat it from the heart and hold it fast to the end. [1020]

It would be difficult to find a more evangelical definition of faith than in Ques. 21: 'Faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.' How rich and consoling is the lesson derived from God's all-ruling Providence in Ques. 28! 'That we may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and for what is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that no creature shall separate us from his love, since all creatures are so in his hand that without his will they can not so much as move.'

The Catechism is a work of religious enthusiasm, based on solid theological learning, and directed by excellent judgment. It is baptized with the pentecostal fire of the great Reformation, yet remarkably free from the polemic zeal and intolerance which characterized that wonderfully excited period--by far the richest and deepest in Church history next to the age of Christ and his inspired apostles. It is the product of the heart as well as the head, full of faith and unction from above. It is fresh, lively, glowing, yet clear, sober, self-sustained. The ideas are Biblical and orthodox, and well fortified by apt Scripture proofs. [1021] The language is dignified, terse, nervous, popular, and often truly eloquent. It is the language of devotion as well as instruction. Altogether the Heidelberg Catechism is more than a book, it is an institution, and will live as long as the Reformed Church.

Comparison With The Luthern And Westminster Catechisms.

The Heidelberg Catechism stands mediating between Luther's Small Catechism, which appeared thirty-four years earlier (1529), and the Shorter Westminster Catechism, which was prepared eighty-four years later (1647).

These are the three most popular and useful catechisms that Protestantism has produced, and have still the strongest hold upon the churches they represent. They have the twofold character of catechisms and symbolical books. They are alike evangelical in spirit and aim; they lead directly to Christ as the one and all-sufficient Saviour, and to the Word of God as the only infallible rule of the Christian's faith and life.

Luther's Catechism is the most churchly of the three, and adheres to the Catholic tradition in its order and arrangement. It assigns a very prominent place to the Sacraments, treating them in separate chapters, co-ordinate with the Decalogue, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer; while the others incorporate them in the general exposition of the articles of faith. Luther teaches baptismal regeneration and the corporeal presence, and even retains private confession and absolution as a quasi-sacrament. Heidelberg and Westminster are free from all remnants of sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, and teach the Calvinistic theory of the sacraments, which rises, however, much higher than the Zwinglian.

On the other hand, the Lutheran and the Heidelberg Catechisms differ from the Westminster in the following points: 1. They retain the Apostles' Creed as the basis of doctrinal exposition; while the Westminster Catechism puts it in an appendix, and substitutes a new logical scheme of doctrine for the old historical order of the Creed. 2. They are subjective, and address the catechumen as a Church member, who answers from his real or prospective personal experience; while the Westminster Catechism is objective and impersonal, and states the answer in an abstract proposition. 3. They use the warm and direct language of life, the Westminster the scholastic language of dogma; hence the former two are less definite but more expansive and suggestive than the Presbyterian formulary, which, on the other hand, far surpasses them in brevity, terseness, and accuracy of definition.

Upon the whole we prefer the catechetical style and method of the creative Reformation period, because it is more Biblical and fresh, to that of the seventeenth century--the age of scholastic orthodoxy--although we freely concede the relative progress and peculiar excellences of the Westminster standard. [1022]

The Heidelberg Catechism differs from that of Luther--1. By its fullness and thoroughness, and hence it is better adapted to a maturer age; while that of Luther has the advantage of brevity and childlike simplicity, and adaptation to early youth. The one has one hundred and twenty-nine, the other only forty questions and answers, and of these only three are devoted to the exposition of the Apostles' Creed, while the Sacraments receive disproportionate attention. 2. The Heidelberg Catechism gives the words of the Decalogue in full, according to the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and follows the old Jewish and Greek division, which is adopted by the best commentators; while Luther presents merely an abridgment, [1023] and follows the Roman division by omitting the second commandment and splitting the tenth into two. [1024] 3. The former gives a summary of the law, through which comes the knowledge of sin, in the first part (Ques. 3 and 4), but explains the Decalogue in the third division, viewing it in its Christian aspect as a permanent rule of life; while Luther regards the law in its Jewish or pedagogic aspect, as a schoolmaster leading men to Christ, and hence he puts it as the first head before the Creed. Ursinus correctly says: 'The Decalogue belongs to the first part so far as it is a mirror of our sin and misery, but also to the third part as being the rule of our new obedience and Christian life.' [1025] 4. In the rendering of the Creed, besides minor verbal differences, the Heidelberg Catechism retains 'the holy catholic Church,' with the addition of 'Christian' (eine heilige allgemeine christliche Kirche); while Luther's omits 'catholic,' and substitutes for it 'Christian.' [1026] 5. In the Lord's Prayer the Heidelberg Catechism uses the modern form 'Our Father' (Unser Vater), while Luther in his Catechism (though not in his translation of Matt. vi. 9 and Luke xi. 2) adheres to the Latin and old German form of 'Father our' (Vater unser), a difference tenaciously maintained by German Lutherans. The former divides the Prayer into six petitions (with the Greek commentators), and renders ek ponerou 'from the evil one' (vom Bösen, i.e., from the devil); while Luther (with Augustine) numbers seven petitions, and translates (herein agreeing with the English version) 'from evil' (vom Uebel).

The difference between the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms is chiefly one of nationality. Where the choice is between the two, the former will be used in preference by Germans, the other by Scotch and English Presbyterians. The Westminster Shorter Catechism has the advantage of greater condensation and precision. It is not impossible to make a better one than either by blending the excellences of both. They represent also two types of piety: the one is more emotional and hearty, the other more scholastic and intellectual. This appears at once in the first question. The Heidelberg Catechism asks: 'What is thy only comfort in life and in death?' The Westminster: 'What is the chief end of man?' The one goes at once into the heart of evangelical piety--the mystical union of the believer with Christ; the other goes back to the creation and the glory of God; but both teach the same God and Christ, and the same way of salvation, whereby God is glorified, and man is raised to everlasting felicity in his enjoyment.

History Of The Catechism.

1. The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted with great joy, and was at once introduced into the churches and schools of the Lower Palatinate; while the Upper Palatinate, under the governorship of Louis (the eldest son of Frederick III.) remained strictly Lutheran.

But, like every good book, it had to pass through a trial of probation and a fire of martyrdom. Even before it was printed an anonymous writer attacked the Heidelberg Synod which, in December, 1562, had adopted the Catechism in manuscript, together with sundry measures of reform. [1027] After its publication it was violently assailed by strict Lutherans for its alleged Zwinglian and Calvinistic heresies, and by Jesuits on account of the condemnation of the idolatry of the mass in the eightieth question. The first opponents were Lutheran princes (Margrave Charles II. of Baden, Duke Christopher of Würtemberg, the Palatine of Zweibrücken), and Lutheran divines, such as Heshusius, Flacius, Brentius, and Andreæ. [1028] Ursinus wrote an able apology of his Catechism, which is embodied in several older editions since 1584. A theological colloquy was held at Maulbronn in April, 1564, where the theological leaders of the Lutheran Duchy of Würtemberg and the Reformed Palatinate, in the presence of their princes, debated for six days in vain on the eucharist and the ubiquity of Christ's body. Both parties were confirmed in their opinions, though the Reformed had the best of the argument. [1029]

Frederick III., notwithstanding his appeal to Melanchthon and the Altered Augsburg Confession, was openly charged with apostasy from the Lutheran faith, and seriously threatened with exclusion from the peace of the empire. Even the liberal Emperor Maximilian II. wrote him a letter of remonstrance. His fate was to be decided at the Diet of Augsburg, 1566. At this critical juncture the pious Elector boldly defended his Catechism, which, he said, was all taken from the Bible, and so well fortified with marginal proof-texts that it could not be overthrown. He declared himself willing to yield to God's truth, if any one could show him any thing better from the Scripture, which was at hand for the purpose. Altogether he made, at the risk of his crown and his life, such a noble and heroic confession as reminds us of Luther's stand at the Diet of Worms. Even his Lutheran opponents were filled with admiration and praise, and left him thereafter in quiet possession of his faith. 'Why do ye persecute this man?' said the Margrave of Baden; 'he has more piety than the whole of us.' The Elector Augustus of Saxony gave similar testimony on this memorable occasion. [1030]

Thus the Catechism had gained a sort of legal existence in the German empire, although it was not till after the Thirty-Years' War, in the Treaty of Westphalia, that the Reformed Church, as distinct from the Lutheran, was formally recognized in Germany.

After the death of Frederick it had to pass through another persecution in the home of its birth. His successor, Louis VI. (1576-1583), exiled its authors, and replaced it by Luther's Catechism and the Formula of Concord. But under the regency of Frederick's second son, Prince John Casimir, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Reformed Church were restored to their former honor, and continued to flourish till the outbreak of the Thirty-Years' War.

This war brought terrible devastation and untold misery upon Heidelberg and the Palatinate, which were laid waste by the merciless Tilly (1622). Then followed the repeated invasions of Turenne, Melac, and Marshal de Lorges, under Louis XIV. The Palatinate fell even into the hands of Roman Catholic rulers (1685), and never again rose to its former glory. Thousands of Protestants emigrated to America, and planted the Catechism in Pennsylvania, so that what it lost in the old world it gained in the new. The indifferentism and rationalism of the eighteenth century allowed all creeds to go into disuse and neglect. In the nineteenth century faith revived, and with it respect for the Heidelberg Catechism; but, owing to the introduction of the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Grand Duchy of Baden, to which Heidelberg now belongs, it was merged into a new catechism compiled from it and from that of Luther. [1031]

2. The history of the Palatinate Catechism extends far beyond the land of its birth. It took deeper root and acquired greater influence in other countries. Soon after its appearance it commended itself by its intrinsic excellences to all Reformed Churches of the German tongue. It was introduced in East Friesland, Jülich (Juliers), Cleve (Cleves), Berg, the Wupperthal, Bremen, Hesse Cassel, Anhalt, Brandenburg, East and West Prussia, the free imperial cities, in Hungary, Poland, and in several cantons of Switzerland, as St. Gall, Schaffhausen, and Berne. [1032] In the royal house of Prussia it is still used in the instruction of the princes, even after the introduction of the union of the two confessions. [1033]

It was surrounded with a large number of learned works which fill an important place in the history of Reformed theology. Eminent professors made it the basis of lectures in the University.

In no country was the Catechism more honored than in Holland and her distant colonies in Asia and Africa. It soon replaced the catechisms of Calvin and Lasky. The synods of Wesel, 1568, of Emden, 1571, and of Dort, 1574, recommended and enjoined its use; and ministers were required to explain it to the people in fifty-two lessons throughout the year in the afternoon service of the Lord's day. In the beginning of the sixteenth century the Arminians called for a revision of it, to remove certain features to which they objected. But the famous General Synod of Dort, after a careful examination, opposed any change, and, in its 148th Session, May 1, 1619, it unanimously delivered the judgment that the Heidelberg Catechism 'formed altogether a most accurate compend of the orthodox Christian faith; being, with singular skill, not only adapted to the understanding of the young, but suited also for the advantageous instruction of older persons; so that it could continue to be taught with great edification in the Belgic churches, and ought by all means to be retained.' This judgment was agreed to by all the foreign delegates from Germany, Switzerland, and England, and has thus an oecumenical significance for the Reformed communion.

The Heidelberg Catechism was also clothed with symbolical authority in Scotland, and was repeatedly printed 'by public authority,' even after the Westminster standards had come into use. It seems to have there practically superseded Calvin's Catechism, but it was in turn superseded by Craig's Catechism, and Craig's by that of the Westminster Assembly.

3. From Holland the Heidelberg Catechism crossed the Atlantic to Manhattan Island (1609), with the discoverer of the Hudson River, and was the first Protestant catechism planted on American soil. A hundred years later, German emigrants, driven from the Palatinate by Romish persecution and tyranny, carried it to Pennsylvania and other colonies. It has remained ever since the honored symbol of the Dutch and German Reformed Churches in America, and will continue to be used as long as they retain their separate denominational existence, or even if they should unite with the larger Presbyterian body.

One of the first acts of the reunited Presbyterian Church in the United States, at the session of the General Assembly in Philadelphia, May, 1870, was the formal sanction of the use of the Heidelberg Catechism in any congregation which may desire it. [1034]

4. In the year 1863, three centuries after its first publication, the Heidelberg Catechism witnessed its greatest triumph, not only in Germany and Holland, but still more in a land which the authors never saw, and in a language the sound of which they probably never heard. The Reformation was similarly honored in 1817, and the Augsburg Confession in 1830, but no other catechism.

In Germany the tercentenary celebration of the Heidelberg Catechism was left to individual pastors and congregations, and called forth some valuable publications. [1035]

The German Reformed Church in the United States took it up as a body, and gave it a wider scope. She made the three-hundredth anniversary of her confession the occasion for a general revival of theological and religious life, the publication of a triglot edition of the Catechism, the endowment of a tercentenary professorship in her seminary, and the collection of large sums of money for churches, missions, and other benevolent objects. All these ends were accomplished. The celebration culminated in a general convention of ministers and laymen in Philadelphia, which lasted a whole week, January 17-23, 1863, in the midst of the raging storm of the civil war. About twenty interesting and instructive essays on the Catechism and connected topics, which had been specially prepared for the occasion by eminent German, Dutch, and American divines, were read in two churches before crowded and attentive assemblies. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Frederick III., Ursinus, and Olevianus were called from their graves to reproduce before an American audience the ideas, trials, and triumphs of the creative and heroic age of the Reformation. Altogether the year 1863 marks an epoch in the history of the Heidelberg Catechism and of the German Reformed Church in America. [1036]

Opinions On The Catechism.

We close this chapter with a selection from the many warm commendations which the Heidelberg Catechism has received from distinguished divines of different countries.

Henry Bullinger, the friend and successor of Zwingli, himself the author of a catechism (1559) and of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), wrote to a friend:

'The order of the book is clear; the matter true, good, and beautiful; the whole is luminous, fruitful, and godly; it comprehends many and great truths in a small compass. I believe that no better catechism has ever been issued.' [1037]

The Hessian divines quoted by David Pareus:

'There is no catechism more thorough, more perfect, and better adapted to the capacity of adults as well as the young.'

The English delegates to the Synod of Dort, George Carleton (Bishop of Llandaff), John Davenant (afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), Archdeacon Samuel Ward, Dr. Thomas Goade, and Walter Balcanqual, said:

'That neither their own nor the French Church had a catechism so suitable and excellent; that those who had compiled it were therein remarkably endowed and assisted by the Spirit of God; that in several of their works they had excelled other theologians, but that in the composition of this Catechism they had outdone themselves.' [1038]

The favorable judgment of the Synod of Dort itself has already been quoted.

Dr. Ullmann (d. 1865), formerly Professor at Heidelberg, and one of the best Church historians of the nineteenth century: [1039]

'The Heidelberg Catechism, more systematically executed than Luther's, unfolds upon the fundamental thoughts of sin, redemption, and thankfulness, the Reformed doctrine, yet without touching upon predestination, with rare pithiness and clearness, and obtained through these excellences not only speedy and most extended recognition in the Reformed Churches, but is to-day still regarded by all parties as one of the most masterly productions in this department.'

Dr. Aug. Ebrard, one of the ablest and most prolific German Reformed divines: [1040]

'For wonderful union of dogmatic precision and genial heartiness, [1041] of lucid perspicuity and mysterious depth, the Heidelberg Catechism stands alone in its kind. It is at once a system of theology and a book of devotion; every child can understand it at the first reading, and yet the catechist finds in it the richest material for profound investigation.'

Max Göbel, the author of an excellent history of Christian life in the Reformed Church: [1042]

'The Heidelberg Catechism may be properly regarded as the flower and fruit of the entire German and French Reformation; it has Lutheran fervor, Melanchthonian clearness, Zwinglian simplicity, and Calvinistic fire blended in one, and therefore--notwithstanding many defects and angles--it has been (together with the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540), and remains to this day, the only common confession and doctrinal standard of the entire German Reformed Church from the Palatinate to the Netherlands, and to Brandenburg and Prussia.'

Karl Sudhoff, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, then pastor of the German Reformed Church at Frankfort-on-the-Main: [1043]

'A peculiar power and unction pervades the whole work, which can not easily be mistaken by any one. The book, therefore, speaks with peculiar freshness and animation directly to the soul, because it appears as a confident, joyous confession of the Christian heart assured of salvation. It is addressed to the heart and will as much as to the head. Keen and popular unfolding of ideas is here most beautifully united with the deep feeling of piety, as well as with the earnest spirit of revival and joyous believing confidence. And who that have read this Catechism but once can mistake how indissolubly united with these great excellences is the powerful, dignified, and yet so simple style! What a true-hearted, intelligible, simple, and yet lofty eloquence speaks to us even from the smallest questions!'

Dr. K. B. Hundeshagen, Professor of Theology at Heidelberg, afterwards in Bonn (d. 1873), calls the Heidelberg Catechism a 'witness of Reformed loyalty to the Word of God, of Reformed purity and firmness of faith, of Reformed moderation and sobriety,' and a work 'of eternal youth and never-ceasing value.' [1044]

Dr. Plitt, formerly Pastor in Heidelberg, then Professor of Theology in Bonn: [1045]

'The Heidelberg Catechism still lives; it has not died in three hundred years. It lives in the hearts of Christians. How many catechisms have since then disappeared, how many in the last thirty or forty years, and have been so long sunk in the "sea of oblivion," that one scarcely knows their titles. The Heidelberg Catechism has survived its tercentenary jubilee, and will, God willing, see several such jubilees. It will not die; it will live as long as there is an Evangelical Church.'

Dr. Henry Harbaugh, late Professor of Theology at Mercersburg (d. 1867), a gifted poet and the author of several popular religious works: [1046]

'It is worthy of profound consideration, that the Heidelberg Catechism, which has always ruled the heart, spirit, and body of the Reformed side of the Reformation, has no prototype in any of the Reformers. Zwingli and Calvin can say, It is not of me; it has the suavity but not the compromising spirit of Melanchthon. It has nothing of the dashing terror of Luther. What is stranger than all, it is farthest possible removed from the mechanical scholasticism and rigid logic of Ursinus, its principal author. Though it has the warm, practical, sacred, poetical fervor of Olevianus, it has none of his fire and flame. It is greater than Reformers; it is purer and sounder than theologians.'

Dr. J. W. Nevin, successively Professor of Theology in the Presbyterian Seminary at Alleghany, in the German Reformed Seminary at Mercersburg, and President of Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa.: [1047]

'In every view, we may say, the Catechism of the Palatinate, now three hundred years old, is a book entitled, in no common degree, to admiration and praise. It comes before us as the ripe product of the proper confessional life of the Reformed Church, in the full bloom of its historical development, as this was reached at the time when the work made its appearance. Its wide-spread and long-continued popularity proclaims its universal significance and worth. It must have been admirably adapted to the wants of the Church at large, as well as admirably true to the inmost sense of its general life, to come in this way into such vast credit. Among all Protestant symbols, whether of earlier or later date, there is no other in which we find the like union of excellent qualities combined and wrought together in the same happy manner. It is at once a creed, a catechism, and a confession; and all this in such a manner, at the same time, as to be often a very liturgy also, instinct with the full spirit of worship and devotion. It is both simple and profound; a fit manual of instruction for the young, and yet a whole system of divinity for the old; a text-book, suited alike for the use of the pulpit and the family, the theological seminary, and the common school. It is pervaded by a scientific spirit, beyond what is common in formularies of this sort; but its science is always earnestly and solemnly practical. In its whole constitution, as we have seen, it is more a great deal than doctrine merely, or a form of sound words for the understanding. It is doctrine apprehended and represented continually in the form of life. It is for the heart every where full as much as for the head. Among its characteristic perfections deserves to be noted always, with particular praise, its catholic spirit, and the rich mystical element that pervades so largely its whole composition. . . . Simple, beautiful, and clear in its logical construction, the symbol moves throughout also in the element of fresh religious feeling. It is full of sensibility and faith and joyous childlike trust. Its utterances rise at times to a sort of heavenly pathos, and breathe forth almost lyrical strains of devotion.'

Dr. Hagenbach, the well-known historian (d. at Basle, 1874): [1048]

'The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted not only in the Palatinate but in all Reformed churches as the correct expression of the Reformed faith, and attained the authority of a genuine symbolical standard. It was translated into nearly all languages, and has continued to be the basis of religious instruction to this day. . . . Its tone, notwithstanding the scholastic and dogmatizing or (as Ullmann says) constructive tendency, is truly popular and childlike.'

Then he quotes several questions as models of the catechetical style.

Dr. Dalton, of St. Petersburg: [1049]

'The Heidelberg Catechism exhibits the harmonious union of the Calvinistic and the Melanchthonian spirit. It is the ripe fruit of the whole Reformation and the true heir of the treasures gathered, not in ten years, but during that entire period. It is thoroughly Biblical, and represents its particular denominational type with great wisdom and moderation. We feel from beginning to end in the clear and expressive word the warm and sound pulse of a heart that was baptized by the fire and Spirit from above, and knows what it believes.'

It is gratifying that the Lutheran hostility of former days has given way to a sincere appreciation. Drs. Guericke and Kurtz, two prominent champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the nineteenth century, in almost the same words praise the Heidelberg Catechism for 'its signal wisdom in teaching, its Christian fervor, theological ability, and mediating moderation.' [1050] Dr. Julius Stahl, an eminent jurist and the ablest apologist of modern Lutheranism within the Prussian Union, derived the religious revival of the Lutheran Church in his native Bavaria and his own conversion chiefly from the late venerable Reformed pastor and professor, Dr. J. Chr. G. L. Krafft, in Erlangen (died 1845). 'The man,' he said, before the General Synod at Berlin, 1846, 'who built up the Church in my fatherland, the most apostolic man I ever met in my life, Pastor Krafft, was a strict adherent of the Reformed creed. Whether he carried the Heidelberg Catechism in his pocket I know not, but this I know, that he caused throughout the whole land a spring to bloom whose fruits will ripen for eternity.' [1051] __________________________________________________________________

[1004] Responsio Ph. Mel. ad quæstionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Nov. 1, 1559), in Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. pp. 960 sqq. It is the last public utterance of Melanchthon on the eucharistic question, and agrees substantially with the doctrine of Calvin, as it was afterwards expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism.

[1005] On the door of his study he inscribed the warning, 'Amice, quisquis huc venis, aut agita paucis, aut abi, aut me laborantem adjuva.'

[1006] See the original title in the literature above.

[1007] By the discovery of the copy of the first ed., 1864, the origin of the eightieth question was satisfactorily decided. A second copy of the original ed. is in the Imperial Library of Vienna. The Brit. Museum contains a copy of the Engl. trans. by "William Turner, Doctor of Physick, Imprinted at London, by Richard Jones, 1572."--Ed.

[1008] This division was first introduced in the Latin edition of 1566, perhaps earlier. Van Alpen, Niemeyer, and others are wrong in dating it from the German edition of 1573 or 1575.

[1009] Doedes gives a fac-simile of the title-page of the Latin edition of 1563, from a copy in the University Library at Utrecht. It is nearly the same as the title of the edition of 1566, given in the literature above.

[1010] Niemeyer (pp. 428 sqq.) reproduces the edition of 1584, which agrees with the ed. princeps of 1563 (as far as I can judge from the few fac-simile pages given by Doedes), and with the text in the Oxford Sylloge, while that in the Græco-Latin edition of Sylburg slightly differs. Dr. Louis H. Steiner, of Frederick City, Md., published an elegant and accurate edition under the title 'Catechesis Religionis Christianæ seu Catechismus Heidelbergensis. Baltimore, 1862.' He gives the variations of three Latin editions: of Cambridge, 1585; of Geneva, 1609 (formerly in the possession of Chevalier Bunsen); and the Oxford Sylloge, 1804.

[1011] On the Dutch translations, see especially the learned work of Professor Doedes, of Utrecht, pp. 74-128, with fac-similes at the end of the volume.

[1012] I have before me a Græco-Latin edition of the Catechism katecheseis tes chrispanikes threskeias, by Sylburg, and of the Belgic Confession by Jac. Revius, printed at Utrecht, 1660. Earlier editions I see noticed in catalogues.

[1013] Niemeyer (Proleg. p. lxii.) mentions a Polish translation by Prasmovius, a Hungarian by Scarasius, an Arabic by Chelius, a Singalese by Konyer, besides French, Italian, Spanish, English, Bohemian, modern Greek, and Hebrew versions. Doedes (p. 41) adds a Persian and a Malayan translation. There are no doubt many other versions.

[1014] An English edition, without the name of the translator, appeared A.D. 1591 at Edinburgh, 'by publick Authority, for the Use of Scotland,' and also repeatedly in connection with the 'Psalm-Book and the Book of Common Order.' It is embodied in Dunlop's Collection of Confessions of Faith, etc., of publick authority in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1719-1722), Vol. II. pp. 273-361, and reproduced by Dr. Horatius Bonar in his Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation (London, 1866), pp. 112-170. Dr. Bonar says (p. 171): 'There are several translations of the Heidelberg or Palatine Catechism; and our Church [the Church of Scotland] seems not to have kept to one. In the edition of the Book of Common Order before us (1615), the Catechism is given alone; in that which Dunlop has followed, it has the "Arguments" and "Uses" of Bastingius.' Another translation by Bishop Henry Parry, of Worcester (d. 1616), appeared (together with the commentary of Ursinus) at Oxford, 1509 and 1601. It was often republished--at Edinburgh, 1615 (with sundry variations, see Bonar, p. 172), again in London, 1633, 1645, 1728, 1851, and quite recently (from the Oxford edition of 1601, with the variations of the edition of 1728) by Dr. Gerhart and Dr. Louis Steiner in the 'Mercersburg Review' for 1861, pp. 74 sqq. The one now in use in the Dutch and German Reformed Churches in America, is traced (by the late Dr. De Witt of New York) to Dr. Laidlie, originally from Scotland, minister at Flushing, Long Island, and was adopted, 1771, by the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church. These three English translations seem to be only different recensions of one translation compared with the Latin text.

[1015] See the tercentenary triglot edition of 1863, noticed in the literature above.

[1016] So also the Oxford Sylloge. The ed. Græco-Latina of Sylburg reads instead: plenissima solutione facta.

[1017] Al. edd. illa.

[1018] Al. Alterum.

[1019] The redundant 'wholly' occurs also in the Edinburgh edition of 1615, which, to judge from the specimens given by Horatius Bonar (in Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, p. 172), is a reprint of Parry's translation with a few variations.

[1020] Dr. Nevan {Tercentenary Edition, Introd. p. 95) says: 'No question in the whole Catechism has been more admired than this, and none surely is more worthy of admiration. Where shall we find, in the same compass, a more beautifully graphic, or a more impressively full and pregnant representation of all that is comprehended for us in the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? For thousands and tens of thousands, during the past three hundred years, it has been as a whole system of theology in the best sense of the term, their pole-star over the sea of life, and the sheet-anchor of their hope amid the waves of death. But what we quote it for now is simply to show the mind that actuates and rules the Catechism throughout. We have here at once its fundamental conception and the reigning law of its construction; the key-note, we may say, which governs its universal sense, and whose grandly solemn tones continue to make themselves heard through all its utterances from beginning to end.'

[1021] Ques. 44 is hardly an exception; for the idea therein expressed is no error per se, but only a false interpretation of the article on Christ's descent into hell (Hades) in the Apostles' Creed, which places it, as an actual fact, between death and the resurrection, in accordance with the Scriptures (Luke xxiii. 43; Acts ii. 27, 31; 1 Pet. iii. 19; iv. 6; Eph. iv. 9, 10); while the Catechism, following Calvin and Lasky, understands it figuratively of Christ's suffering on the cross.

[1022] 'It may be questioned,' says Dr. Bonar, of the Free Church of Scotland, 'whether the Church gained any thing by the exchange of the Reformation standards for those of the seventeenth century. The scholastic mold in which the latter are cast has somewhat trenched upon the ease and breadth which mark the former; and the skillful metaphysics employed at Westminster in giving lawyer-like precision to each statement have imparted a local and temporary aspect to the new which did not belong to the more ancient standards. Or, enlarging the remark, we may say that there is something about the theology of the Reformation which renders it less likely to become obsolete than the theology of the covenant. The simpler formulas of the older age are quite as explicit as those of the later; while by the adoption of the Biblical in preference to the scholastic mode of expression they have secured for themselves a buoyancy which will bear them up when the others go down. The old age of that generation is likely to be greener than that of their posterity.' (Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, Preface, p. viii.)

[1023] For example, the fourth (third) commandment is thus condensed: 'Du sollst den Feiertag heiligen' (Thou shalt keep holy the rest-day).

[1024] Comp. p. 251, note 2.

[1025] The Germans express the different aspects of the law by calling it a Sündenspiegel, Sündenriegel, and Lebensregel, a mirror of sin, a bar of sin, and a rule of life.

[1026] Hence in Germany the term 'Catholic' and 'Romanist' are used synonymously, and the proverb 'Das ist um katholisch zu werden' expresses a desperate condition of things. The English Churches have properly retained the term 'catholic' in its good old sense, instead of allowing Romanists to monopolize it.

[1027] This curious document, which throws light upon that Synod hitherto little known, has been recently recovered and published by Wolters in the Studien mud Kritiken for 1867, No. 1, pp. 15 sqq. The Lutheran author, perhaps a dissenting member of the Synod, gives a list of the measures for the introduction of the Catechism and the abolition of various abuses, and accompanies them with bitter marginal comments, such as: 'This is a lie and against God's Word;' 'This is the Anabaptist heresy;' 'To spread Zwinglianism;' 'Friss Vogel oder stirb;' 'Ad spargendam zizaniam;' 'Ut citius imbibant venenum;' 'Evangelii abrogatio;' 'Hispanica inquisitio.'

[1028] See on this Lutheran opposition Wolters, l.c., and in his earlier book, Der Heidelb. Katechismus in seiner Urgestalt (1864), pp. 141-196; Nevin, Introd. to the Tercent. Ed. pp. 42 sqq.; and especially Sudhoff, Olevianus und Ursinus, pp. 140 sqq.

[1029] See above, pp. 288 sqq.

[1030] Hundeshagen says of Frederick III.: 'He is acknowledged to be the greatest ruler which the evangelical Palatinate ever had, and as to personal piety and loyalty to his faith the shining model of an evangelical prince.' See his art. on the City and University of Heidelberg, in the Gedenkbuch der 300 jähr. Jubelfeier des Heidelb. Kat. pp. 58, 59.

[1031] On the symbolical status of the Evangelical Church in Baden, see two essays of Dr. Hundeshagen, Die Bekenntnissgrundlage der vereinigten evangelischen Kirche im Grossherzogthum Baden (1851), and an address delivered before a Pastoral Conference at Durlach, on the same subject, 1851, republished in his Schriften und Abhandlungen, ed. by Dr. Christlieb, Gotha, 1875, Vol. II. pp. 119 sqq.

[1032] The editions used in the Canton Berne have an anti-supralapsarian addition to Question 27: 'Und obwohl die Sünden durch Gottes Fürsehung werden regiert, so ist doch Gott keine Ursache der Sünde; denn das Ziel unterscheidet die Werke. Siehe Exempel an Joseph und seinen Brüdern, an David und Simei, an Christo und den Juden.' This addition is found as early as 1697. Noticed by Trechsel in Studien und Kritiken for 1867, p. 574.

[1033] So I was informed by the late court chaplain, Dr. Snethlage, of Berlin, who was originally Reformed, and who confirmed several members of the royal family.

[1034] A special committee, appointed by the Old School Assembly of 1869, reported to the first reunited Assembly of 1870, after a laudatory description of the Heidelberg Catechism, the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted: 1. Resolved, That this General Assembly recognizes in the Heidelberg Catechism a valuable Scriptural compendium of Christian doctrine and duty. 2. Resolved, That if any churches desire to employ the Heidelberg Catechism in the instruction of their children, they may do so with the approbation of this Assembly. See the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for 1870, p. 120, and the Memorial volume on Presbyterian Reunion (New York, 1870), p. 454.

[1035] Among these we mention the articles on the Heidelberg Catechism by Ullmann, Sack, Plitt, Hundeshagen, Wolters, and Trechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, 1864, and 1867, the discovery and reprint of the ed. princeps by Wolters (1864), and a collection of excellent sermons by distinguished Reformed pulpit orators, under the title, 'Der einzige Trost im Leben und Sterben,' Elberfeld, 1863.

[1036] See the Tercentenary Monument (574 pages), and the Gedenkbuch der dreihundert jährigen Jubelfeier des Heidelberger Katechismus (449 pages), both published at Philadelphia. 1863. The German edition gives the correspondence and essays of Drs. Herzog, Ebrard, Ullmann, Hundeshagen, Lange, and Schotel, in the original German, together with a history of the Catechism by the editor. The Anglo-American essays and addresses of Drs. Nevin, Schaff, Gerhart, Harbaugh, Wolff, Bomberger, Porter, De Witt, Kieffer, Theodor and Thomas Appel, Schneck, Russell, Gans, and Bausmann, are found in full in the English edition.

[1037] 'Arbitror meliorem Catechismum non editum esse. Deo sit gloria qui largiatur successum' (1563). See Ursinus, Apol. Catech. in the Præfatio.

[1038] This judgment is quoted on the title-page of the later editions of Bishop Parry's translation, London ed. 1728; reprinted, London, 1851.

[1039] In Piper's Evang. Kalender for 1862, p. 191. Comp. also his art. in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, and in the Gedenkbuch, etc.

[1040] Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 604.

[1041] Or, fullness of soul (gemüthliche Innigkeit).

[1042] Geschichte des christl. Lebens, Vol. I. p. 392.

[1043] Theol. Handbuch zur Auslegung des Heid. Kat. p. 493.

[1044] See his instructive review of Sudhoff's Handbuch, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1864, pp. 153-180. It is gratifying to me that this distinguished divine fully indorses, on p. 169, the view which I had previously given of the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism and its relation to Calvinism in opposition to Sudhoff on the one hand and Heppe on the other.

[1045] In the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, p. 25.

[1046] In the Mercersburg Review for 1857, p. 102.

[1047] Tercentenary Edition, Introd. pp. 120-122.

[1048] Kirchengeschichte, Leipz. 1870 (3d edition), Vol. IV. p. 312.

[1049] Immanuel. Der Heidelb. Kat., etc., 1870, p. 15.

[1050] Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 610 (7th edition), and his Symbolik. Kurtz, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, p. 508 (5th edition).

[1051] See art. Krafft, by Goebel, in Herzog's Encykl. Vol. VIII. p. 37. __________________________________________________________________

§ 70. The Brandenburg Confessions.

(Confessiones Marchicæ.)

Literature.

Hartknoch: Preussische Kirchenhistorie. Frankf. 1686.

Zorn: Historia derer zwischen den Lutherischen und Reformirten Theologis gehaltenen Colloquiorum. Hamburg, 1705.

D. H. Hering: Historische Nachricht von dem ersten Anfang der evang.-reformirten Kirche in Brandenburg und Preussen unter dem gottseligen Churfürsten Johann Sigismund, nebst den drei Bekenntniss-Schriften dieser Kirche. Halle, 1778. The same: Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der evangel.-reform. Kirche in den Preuss. Brandenburg. Ländern. Berlin, 1787.

C. W. Hering: Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionsversuche seit der Reformation. Leipzig, 1836, 1837.

Beck: Symbol. Bücher der ev.-reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 472 sqq.; Vol. II. pp. 110 sqq., 130 sqq.

Niemeyer: Collectio, Proleg. pp. lxxiv. sqq. and 642-689.

Böckel: Die Bekenntniss-Schriften, etc., pp. 425 sqq.

Möller: Joh. Sigismund's Uebertritt zum reform. Bekenntniss, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1858, pp. 189 sqq.

Alex. Schweizer: Die Protest. Centraldogmen, Vol. II. pp. 6 sqq., 525 sqq., 531 sqq.

Comp. Herzog's Encyklop. articles: Leipziger Colloquium, Vol. VIII. p. 286; Joh. Sigismund, Vol. XIV. p. 364; and Thorn (by Henke), Vol. XVI. p. 101.

Brandenburg, the central province of Prussia, with Berlin as its capital, ruled since 1415 by princes of the house of Hohenzollern, at first embraced the Lutheran Reformation, but at the beginning of the seventeenth century the Elector became Calvinistic, drawing with him a few influential ministers and congregations. This Reformed diaspora received an accession of about twenty thousand exiled Huguenots under the liberal policy of the great Elector Frederick William (1620-1688), the proper founder of the Prussian monarchy, who secured the legal recognition of the Reformed Church in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).

There are three Reformed Confessions of Brandenburg--namely, the Confession of the Elector Sigismund (1614), the Leipzig Colloquy (1631), and the Declaration of Thorn (1645). They bear a moderately Calvinistic, we may say a Unionistic, type, and had a certain symbolical authority in Brandenburg till the introduction of the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in 1817. The great Elector mentions them together in 1664. The Canons of Dort were respectfully received but never adopted by the Brandenburg divines.

THE CONFESSION OF SIGISMUND. A.D. 1614.

See the original German text in the collections of Beck, Niemeyer, Böckel, and also in Heppe's Bekenntniss-Schriften der reform. Kirchen Deutschlands, pp. 284-294.

John Sigismund (or Siegmund), Elector of Brandenburg (b. 1572, d. 1619) and ancestor of the royal line of Prussia, was brought up in the rigorous orthodoxy of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, and in his twenty-first year a solemn pledge was exacted from him by his father that he would always adhere to this creed (1593). But religious compulsion had on him an effect directly contrary to that contemplated (as is often the case with independent minds). His social relations with Holland, Cleves, and the Palatinate gave him a favorable impression of the doctrines and discipline of the Calvinistic Churches. In 1608 he succeeded to the throne. At Christmas, 1613, he publicly professed the Reformed faith by receiving the holy communion, according to the Reformed rite, in the Dome of Berlin, together with fifty-four others, including his brother John George, the Count of Nassau, Ernst Casimir, and the English embassador.

This act was the result of conscientious conviction. [1052] It was meant to be not so much a change of creed as a further progress in Protestantism, but it created a great sensation, and called forth violent protests from Lutheran princes and pulpits. [1053] An edict forbidding public denunciations had little effect. A fanatical mob arose in rebellion against the Reformed preachers, and plundered their houses (1615). The great majority of the Elector's subjects and his own wife remained Lutherans. [1054]

Nevertheless, his transition was of great prospective importance, for the house of Brandenburg was destined to become, by extraordinary talents and achievements, one of the leading dynasties of Europe, and to take the helm of the new Protestant German empire.

In May, 1614, Sigismund issued a personal confession of faith, which is called after him and also after his country. It was drawn up by himself, with the aid of Dr. Pelargus, General Superintendent at Frankfort-on-the-Oder. It is brief, moderate, conciliatory, and intended to be merely supplementary concerning the controverted articles. The Elector professes faith in the 'true, infallible, and saving Word of God, as the only rule of the pious which is perfect, sufficient for salvation, and abides forever.' Then he accepts, as agreeing with the Bible, the oecumenical creeds (namely, the Apostles', the Nicene, the Athanasian, also the doctrinal decisions of Ephesus, 431, and of Chalcedon, 451), and the Augsburg Confession of 1530, with the later improvements of Melanchthon.

In regard to the controverted articles, Sigismund rejects the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body, and exorcism in baptism as a superstitious ceremony, and the use of the wafer instead of the breaking of bread in the communion. He adopts the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments, and of an eternal and unconditional election of grace, yet with the declaration that God sincerely wished the salvation of all men, and was not the author of sin and damnation.

In conclusion the Elector expresses his wish and prayer that God may enlighten his faithful subjects with his truth, but disclaims all intention to coerce their conscience, since faith was the free gift of God (John vi. 29; 2 Thess. iii. 2; Phil. i. 29; Eph. iii. 8), and no one should presume to exercise dominion over men's religion (2 Cor. i. 24). He thus freely waived, in relation to his Lutheran subjects, the right of reformation, which was claimed and exercised by other Protestant princes, and established a basis for religious liberty and union.

This wise toleration was in advance of the age, and contrasts favorably with the opposite policy of the Elector Augustus of Saxony, who forced the Formula of Concord upon his people, and answered the Emperor Maximilian II., when he interceded for the release from prison of Peucer (Melanchthon's son-in-law): 'I want only such servants as believe and confess in religion neither more nor less than I myself believe and confess.' [1055] These times of terrorism over men's consciences are happily passed, and Sigismund's toleration has become the settled policy of his successors to this day.

The conduct of Luther and Zwingli at Marburg gave tone and character to all subsequent union conferences of the two confessions they represent. The Reformed, with a larger charity, were always willing to commune with Lutherans notwithstanding minor doctrinal differences; while the Lutherans, with a narrower conscience and a more compact system of theology, refused the hand of fellowship to the Reformed, and abhorred as a syncretistic heresy all union that was not based upon perfect agreement in dogma; yea, during the seventeenth century they would rather make common cause with Romanists than Calvinists, and went so far as to exclude the Calvinists from heaven. [1056] Fortunately Calixtus and his school, who had the Melanchthonian spirit, formed an honorable exception, and the exception, after much misrepresentation and persecution, has become the rule in the Lutheran Church.

THE COLLOQUY AT LEIPZIG. A.D. 1631.

See the German text of the Colloquium Lipsiense in Niemeyer, pp. 653-668, and in Böckel, pp. 443-456.

In the midst of the fierce polemics between the Churches and the horrors of the Thirty-Years' War growing out of it, there arose from time to time a desire for union and peace, which was strengthened by the common danger. In 1629, Ferdinand II., a pupil of the Jesuits, issued an edict aiming at the destruction of Protestantism, which might have been accomplished had not Gustavus Adolphus soon afterwards appeared on German soil. It was during this period that the classical union sentence (often erroneously attributed to Augustine), 'In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity,' was first uttered as a prophetic voice in the wilderness by a Lutheran divine of the school of Calixtus, and re-echoed in England by Richard Baxter. [1057]

Under the operation of this feeling and the threatening pressure of Romanism, the Elector Christian William of Brandenburg, accompanied by his chaplain, John Bergius, and the Landgrave William of Hesse, with the theological Professor Crocius and Chaplain Theophilus Neuberger, met at Leipzig with the Elector George of Saxony and the Lutheran divines Matthias Hoë of Hoënegg, Polycarp Leyser, and Henry Höpfner, to confer in a private way about a friendly understanding between the two confessions, hoping to set a good example to other divines of Germany. The conference lasted from March 3 to 23, 1631, and each session continued three hours.

The Augsburg Confession of 1530, with Melanchthon's subsequent explanations, was made the basis of the proceedings, and was discussed article by article. They agreed essentially on all the doctrines except the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, the oral manducation of his body in the eucharist by worthy and unworthy communicants. The Reformed divines were willing, notwithstanding these differences, to treat the Lutherans as brethren, and to make common cause with them against the Papists. But the Lutherans were not prepared to do more than to take this proposal into serious consideration.

The question of election was then also taken up, although it is not expressly mentioned in the Augsburg Confession. They agreed that only a portion of the race was actually saved. The Reformed traced election to the absolute will of God, and reprobation to the unbelief of men; the Lutherans (adhering to the happy inconsistency of the Formula of Concord) brought in God's foreknowledge of the faith of the elect, but they derived faith itself entirely from God's free electing grace. The difference was therefore very immaterial, and simply a matter of logic.

In conclusion, the theologians declared that the conference was intended not to compromise the Churches and sovereigns, but only to find out whether and to what extent both parties agreed in the Twenty-eight Articles of the Augsburg Confession, and whether there was reason to hope for some nearer approach in the future, whereby the true Church might be strengthened against the Papists. In the mean time the proceedings of the conference were to be regarded as strictly private, and not to be published by either party without the consent of the other. The theologians of the two Churches were to show each other Christian love, praying that 'the God of truth and peace grant that we may be one in him, as he is one with the Son (John xvii. 21). Amen, Amen in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.'

The document is not signed by the princes who arranged the conference, but only by the theologians -- namely, Drs. von Hoënegg, Leyser, Höpfner (Lutherans), and Bergius, Crocius, Neuberger (Reformed). [1058]

The proceedings were characterized by great theological ability and an excellent Christian temper, and showed a much closer harmony than was expected. They excited considerable sympathy among the Reformed at home and abroad. But the Lutheran members were severely taken to task for favoring syncretism, and in vindicating themselves they became more uncompromising against Calvinism than before. The conference was in advance of the spirit of the age, and left no permanent effect.

THE COLLOQUY OF THORN. A.D. 1645.

The official edition of the Acts: Acta Conventus Thoruniensis celebrati a. 1645, etc., Warsaw, 1646 (very incorrect). The Acts, with the two Protestant Confessions (which were excluded from the official Acts), in Calovius, Historia Syncretistica (1682), 1685, pp. 199-560. The Reformed Declaratio Thoruniensis, Latin, in Niemeyer (pp. 669-689); German, in Böckel (pp. 865-884).

The Colloquy of Thorn, in West Prussia (Colloquium Thoruniense), was likewise a well-meant but fruitless union conference in a time of sectarian intolerance and the suicidal folly of the Thirty-Years' War.

In this case the movement proceeded from the Roman Catholic king, Wladislaus IV., of Poland (1632-1648). In this country moderate Lutherans, Calvinists, and Moravians had formed a conservative union in the Consensus of Sendomir (1570), and a treaty of peace secured equal civil rights to Protestants and Romanists (Pax Dissidentium in 1573). But this peace was denounced by the Pope as a league of Christ with Belial, and undermined by the Jesuits, who obtained the control of the education of the Polish nobility, and are to a large extent responsible for the ultimate dismemberment and ruin of that unfortunate kingdom.

Wladislaus made a patriotic effort to heal the religious discords of his subjects, and invited Romanists and Dissenters (Protestants) to a charitable colloquy (colloquium caritativum, fraterna collatio) in the city of Thorn, which was then under the protection of the King of Poland (since 1454), and had embraced the Lutheran faith (1557). It began April 18, 1645, in the town-hall. There were three parties. The twenty-eight Roman deputies, including eight Jesuits, were determined to defeat the object of peace, and to prevent any concessions to Protestants. The Reformed had twenty-four delegates, chief among them the electoral chaplains John Bergius and Fr. Reichel, of Brandenburg, and the Moravian bishop Amos Comenius. The Lutheran deputation consisted of fifteen, afterwards of twenty-eight members; the most prominent were Calovius of Dantzic and Hülsemann of Wittenberg, the champions of the strictest orthodoxy, and George Calixtus of Helmstädt, the leader of a mild and comprehensive union theology. [1059] The sessions were private ('plebs penitus arcenda'). The king's chancellor, Prince George Ossolinski, presided.

The first business, called 'liquidatio,' was to be the preparation of a correct statement of the doctrinal system of each party. The Roman Catholic Confession, with a list of rejected misrepresentations, was ready early in September, and read in the second public session, Sept. 16. It was received among the official acts. On the same day the Reformed Confession was read, under the title Declaratio doctrinæ, ecclesiarum Reformatarum catholicæ. But the Romanists objected to the word 'catholic,' which they claimed as their monopoly, and to the antithetical part as being offensive to them, and excluded the document from the official acts. The Lutheran Confession was ready the 20th of September, but was even refused a public reading. [1060]

The Protestants sent a deputation to the king, who received them and their confessions with courtesy and kindness; but the Romanists demanded more alterations than the Protestants were willing to make, and used every effort to prevent the official publication of heresies. Unfortunately the dissensions among the Lutherans, and between them and the Reformed, strengthened the Romish party. The Colloquy closed Nov. 21, 'mutua valedictione et in fraterna caritate,' but without accomplishing its end. Calixtus says: 'The Colloquy was no colloquy at all, certainly no colloquium caritativum, but irritativum.' It left the three confessions where they were before, and added new fuel to the syncretistic controversy in Germany, [1061] Calovius and Hülsemann charged Calixtus with aiding the Calvinists in their confession. The city of Thorn, which spent 50,000 guilders for the conference, suffered much from the Thirty-Years' War, also by a plague, and became the scene of a dreadful massacre of Protestants, Dec. 7, 1724, stirred up by the Jesuits in revenge for an attack on their college.

The Declaration of Thorn [1062] is one of the most careful statements of the Reformed Creed, and the only one among the three confessions of this Colloquy which acquired a practical importance by its adoption among the three Brandenburg Confessions. It is divided into a general part (generales professio) and a special declaration (specialis declaratio). The former acknowledges the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the original Hebrew and Greek, as the only perfect rule of faith, containing all that is necessary for our salvation. It adopts, also, in a subordinate sense, as explanatory summaries of Scripture doctrine, the oecumenical Creeds, and doctrinal decisions of the ancient undivided Church in opposition to the trinitarian, christological, and Pelagian heresies. [1063] Finally, as regards the controversy with Rome, it accepts the Altered Augsburg Confession and the Consensus of Sendomir (1570) as correct statements of the Scripture doctrines, differing in form, but agreeing in essence.

The 'Special Declaration' states the several articles of the Reformed system, both in its agreement with, and in its departure from, the creeds of Romanists and Lutherans.

The document is signed by a number of noblemen and clergymen from Poland, Lithuania, and Brandenburg. __________________________________________________________________

[1052] Some writers, including Voltaire, trace the change to political motives--viz., that Sigismund wished to secure the friendship of Holland and England--but without proof. On the contrary, it was bad policy, and in its immediate effect rendered the Elector very unpopular among his German fellow-sovereigns and his own people. 'Kein Wort,' says Böckel, p. 427, 'keine Handlung des Kurfürsten Johann Sigismund verräth, dass ihn irgend eine unreine Nebenabsicht geleitet habe.' See also Möller and Hollenberg, l.c.

[1053] See Hutter's Calvinista aulico-politicus.

[1054] Dr. Tholuck (Geist der luther. Theologen Wittenbergs, p. 118, referring to Hartknoch's Preuss. Kirchenhistorie, p. 544) mentions the fact that Anna, the wife of Sigismund, in her will and testament ordered her chaplain in the funeral sermon to disown the Calvinistic (?) heresy that Christ's blood and death are merely a man's blood and death.

[1055] The Emperor replied: 'Das wage ich von meinen Dienern nicht zu fordern.' The same Elector Augustus said that 'if he had only one Calvinistic vein in his body, he wished the devil (sic!) would pull it out.'

[1056] Dr. Hülsemann of Wittenberg traced the charitable hope of Calixtus that he would meet many Reformed in heaven to the inspiration of the devil ('spes dubio procul a diabolo inspirata'). Calixtus asked, Who inspired this opinion of Hülsemann? Leyser wrote a book to show that communion with Papists was preferable to communion with Calvinists. Another book of that age professed to prove that 'the damned Calvinistic heretics have six hundred and sixty-six theses in common with the Turks.' The French Reformed Synod of Charenton in 1631 sanctioned the admission of Lutheran sponsors in baptism on the ground of essential agreement of the Augsburg Confession with the Reformed doctrine. This resolution was pronounced 'atheistic' by Lutherans as well as Romanists. The spirit of Lutheran bigotry in that classical period of polemic confessionalism and exclusivism is well characterized and illustrated by Dr. Tholuck, in his Geist der luther. Theologen Wittenbergs im 17ten Jahrh. (1852), pp. 115, 169, 211, etc. Comp. also above, p. 346; Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III. Pt. II. (1853), p. 456; Hase, Kirchengesch. 9th ed. p. 510.

[1057] See Lücke's treatise, Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, etc., des kirchlichen Friedensspruches, etc., Göttingen, 1850. He traces it to Rupertus Meldenius, the obscure author of Parænesis votiva pro pace ecclesiæ ad theologos Augustanæ Confessionis (before 1635), directed against the philodoxia and philoneikia of the theologians, and commending humility and love of peace. Here the sentence occurs, 'Si nos servaremus in necessariis Unitatem, in non necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Caritatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostræ.' A copy of the first edition of this book, though without date, is preserved in the City Library of Hamburg.

[1058] The proceedings were published by Hoë of Hoënegg, and by Bergius, 1635. See literature in Niemeyer, Proleg. p. lxxix.

[1059] It took Calixtus nearly three weeks to travel from Helmstädt to Thorn.

[1060] The Latin text in Calovius's Hist. syncret. pp. 403-421; the German and Latin texts were separately issued at Leipzig, 1655, and at Dantzic, 1735. See also Scripta facientia ad Colloquium Thoruniense; accessit G. Calixti consideratio et epikrisis, Helmstädt, 1645, and Calixti Annotationes et animadversiones in Confessionem Reformatorum, Wolfenbüttel, 1655.

[1061] Hence the distich on the Synod of Thorn: 'Quid synodus? nodus: Patrum chorus integer? æger: Conventus? ventus: Gloria? stramen. Amen.'

[1062] The full title is 'Professio Doctrinæ Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniæ, Magno Ducatu Lithuaniæ, annexisque Regni Provinciis, in Conventu Thoruniensi, Anni 1645, ad liquidationem Controversiarum maturandam, exhibita d. 1 Septembris.' First published at Berlin, 1646, under the title 'Scripta partis Reformatæ in Colloquio Thoruniensi,' etc.

[1063] In the expression of agreement with the ancient Church the Declaration of Thorn is more explicit than any other Protestant confession, Lutheran or Calvinistic or Anglican. After saying that the summary of Scripture doctrine is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Words of Institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the Declaration proceeds: 'Si quid vero, in hisce Doctrinæ Christianæ capitibus, dubitationis aut controversiæ de genuino eorum sensu exoriatur, profitemur porro, nos amplecti ceu interpretationem Scripturarum certam et indubitatam, Symbolum Nicænum et Constantinopolitanum, iisdem plane verbis, quibus in Synodi Tridentinæ Sessione tertia, tanquam Principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, et Fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod portæ inferorum nunquam prævalebunt, proponitur. 'Cui etiam consonare Symbolum, quod dicitur Athanasianum, agnoscimus: nec non Ephesinæ primæ, et Chalcedonensis Synodi Confessiones: quinetiam, quæ Quinta et Sexta Synodi, Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum reliquiis opposuere: quæque adversus Pelagianos olim Milevitana Synodus et Arausicana secunda ex Scripturis docuere. Quinimo, quicquid primitiva Ecclesia ab ipsis usque Apostolorum temporibus, unanimi deinceps et notorio consensu, tanquam Articulum fidei necessarium, credidit, docuit, idem nos quoque ex Scripturis credere et docere profitemur. 'Hoc igitur Fidei nostræ professione, tanquam Christiani vere Catholici, ab omnibus veteribus et recentibus Hæresibus, quas prisca universalis Ecclesia unanimi consensu ex Scripturis rejecit atque damnavit, nos nostrasque Ecclesias segregamus.' __________________________________________________________________

§ 71. Minor German Reformed Confessions.

Heinrich Heppe: Die Bekenntniss-Schriften der reformirten Kirchen Deutschlands. Elberfeld, 1860. (Contains nine confessions of secondary importance, most of which are not found in other collections.)

The remaining Confessions of the Reformed Churches in Germany have only a local importance, and may be briefly disposed of.

1. The Confession of Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, 1577.--It was his last will and testament, and was published after his death by his son, John Casimir. It may be regarded as an explanatory appendix to the Heidelberg Catechism. It is a clear and strong testimony of his catholic and evangelical faith, and contains some wholesome warnings against the unchristian intolerance of the princes and theologians of his age. [1064]

2. The Confession of Anhalt, or Repetitio Anhaltina (i.e., a Repetition of the Augsburg Confession), 1581. [1065] --It was prepared chiefly by Wolfgang Amling, Superintendent of Anhalt, and laid before a conference with Hessian divines held at Cassel, March, 1579.

The duchy of Anhalt, on the banks of the Elbe and Saale (formerly divided into four duchies, called after the principal towns, Anhalt-Dessau, Anhalt-Zerbst, Anhalt-Bernburg, Anhalt-Cöthen, in 1853 united into two, 1863 into one) embraced the Lutheran reformation in 1534, but during the controversies which led to the Formula Concordiæ it adhered to Melanchthon, and finally passed over to the Reformed faith in 1596. Prince John George married a daughter of Prince Casimir of the Palatinate, and introduced the Heidelberg Catechism and a simpler form of worship. At a later period (1644) Lutheranism was partly re-established, but Dessau, Bernburg, and Cöthen remained Reformed.

The 'Anhalt Repetition' can scarcely be numbered among the Reformed Confessions. It belongs to the Melanchthonian transition period, and represents simply a milder type of Lutheranism in opposition to the Flacian party. It recognizes, along with the Altered Augsburg Confession and the Corpus Doctrinæ of Melanchthon, the Smalcald Articles and Luther's Catechisms, and professes even the manducatio oralis and the manducatio indignorum. [1066] This is clearly incompatible with the Reformed system of doctrine.

3. The Confession of Nassau, 1578, prepared, at the request of Count John of Nassau-Dillenburg, by the Rev. Christopher Pezel, who had been expelled from Saxony for Crypto-Calvinism. It was adopted by a general synod of that country, and first printed in 1593. It is Melanchthonian in the sense of the Altered Augsburg Confession and the Confession of Saxony, and rejects the doctrine of ubiquity as an unscriptural innovation and fiction. [1067]

4. The Bremen Confession (Consensus Ministerii Bremensis), prepared, 1598, by the same Pezel, who in the mean time had removed to Bremen, and signed by the pastors of that city. It is more decidedly Reformed, and adopts the Calvinistic view of predestination. Among, the books herein approved and recommended to the study of the pastors are also the Geneva Harmonia Confessionum, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Decades of Bullinger, and the Institutes of Calvin, as well as the works of Melanchthon. [1068]

5. The Hessian Confession, adopted by a General Synod at Cassel, A.D. 1607, and published 1608. [1069] It treats only of five articles: the Ten Commandments, the abolition of popish picture idolatry, the Person of Christ (against ubiquity), the eternal election, and the Lord's Supper (against the manducatio indignorum). The Heidelberg Catechism and a modification of Luther's Small Catechism were both used in Electoral Hesse. [1070]

6. The Confession of the Heidelberg Theologians, of 1607, is an exposition of what the Reformed Churches of Germany believe, and what they reject. [1071]

7. The Catechism of Emden, 1554, prepared, after the model of Calvin's Catechism, by John a Lasko, or Laski (1499-1560), a converted nobleman and reformer of Poland. It was used in the Reformed Church of East Friesland, where he labored several years. It was afterwards superseded by the Heidelberg Catechism, which is partly based upon it. [1072] __________________________________________________________________

[1064] The German text is given by Heppe, pp. 1-18; a Latin translation in the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, with a Preface by John Casimir.

[1065] The German text in Heppe, pp. 19-67, the Latin in Niemeyer, pp. 612-641. Böckel excludes it from his collection because it is not strictly Reformed.

[1066] Ebrard (Kirchen- and Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 575) is certainly wrong when he says that the Repetitio Anhaltina proves that the Anhalt clergy 'schon damals ganz und gar reformirt über die Person Christi und das h. Abendmahl dachte.' It expressly asserts in Art. vii. that even 'indigne viscentes non quidem nudum aut communem panem calicemque manducant et bibunt, sed ipsum corpus et sanguinem Domini in Sacramento Coenæ manducantes et bibentes . . . rei fiunt corporis et sanguinis Domini.' See Niemeyer, p. 628, and Heppe, p. 46.

[1067] Heppe, pp. 68-146.

[1068] Ibid. pp. 147-243.

[1069] Ibid. pp. 244-249.

[1070] Comp. Heppe, Geschichte der Hessischen Generalsynoden von 1568-1582, Kassel, 1847, 2 vols. The vexed question whether Hessia is Lutheran or Calvinistic has called forth a large controversial literature, in which the numerous works of this indefatigable investigator of the early history of German Protestantism are very prominent.

[1071] Heppe, pp. 250 sqq.

[1072] Ibid. pp. 294-310. Comp. Bartels, Johannes a Lasco, in the ninth volume of the valuable series of Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche (1861), pp. 53 sq. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Iv. The Confessions Of Bohemia, Poland, And Hungary.

§ 72. The Bohemian Brethern and the Waldenses.

Literature.

Franz Palacky (Historiographer of the Kingdom of Bohemia): Geschichte von Böhmen grösstentheils nach Urkunden und Handschriften. Prag. (1836 sqq.), 3d ed. 1864 sqq. 5 vols. (the 5th vol. comes down to 1526). The same: Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus, vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi Concilio actam . . . illustrantia. Prag. 1869 (mostly from unpublished sources). The same: Die Vorläufer des Hussitenthums in Böhmen. Prag. 1869 (new ed.). The same: Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges. 1873, 2 vols. Palacky was a descendant of the Bohemian Brethren, and is the best authority on Bohemian history. He died May 27, 1876.

Jos. Alex. von Helfert: Hus und Hieronymus. Prag. 1853.

Anton Gindely: Böhmen und Mähren im Zeitalter der Reformation. Prag. 1857, 1858, 2 vols. (containing the History of the Bohemian Brethren from 1450-1609). The same: Quellen zur Geschichte der Böhm. Brüder, in Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Vol. XIX. Wien, 1859. Gindely is a Roman Catholic, but kindly disposed to the Bohemian Brethren, and thoroughly at home in their literature.

Chr. Ad. Pescheck: Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen. Leipzig, 1850, 2d ed. 2 vols.

E. H. Gillett (d. 1875, in New York): Life and Times of John Huss; or, The Bohemian Reformation of the 15th Century. Boston, 1864, 2d ed. 2 vols., 3d ed. 1871.

W. Berger: Joh. Hus und Kaiser Sigmund. Augsb. 1871.

L. Krummel: Utraquisten und Taboriten. Gotha, 1871.

Fr. von Bezold: König Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die Husiten. 1872. By the same: Zur Geschichte des Husitenthums. München, 1874.

Jaroslav Goll: Quellen und Untersuchwngen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. Prag, 1878 (I.).

HUS [1073] AND THE HUSSITES.

The reformation in the Kingdom of Bohemia (now a political division of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), began with John Hus and Jerome of Prague, who were influenced by the doctrines of Wycliffe, and who carried with them the greater part of the population, the Slavic Czechs. They were condemned by the oecumenical Council of Constance as heretics, and burned at the stake, the former July 6, 1415, the latter May 30, 1416. But their martyrdom provoked the Husite wars which would have resulted in the triumph of the Husites, had not internal divisions broken their strength.

The followers of Hus were, from 1420, divided into two parties, the conservative Calixtines, so called from their zeal for the chalice (calix) of the laity, or Utraquists (communio sub utraque specie), and the radical Taborites, so named from a steep mountain which their blind but brave and victorious leader, Ziska (d. 1424), fortified and called Mount Tabor. The Calixtines accepted the compromise of communion in both kinds, which the Council of Basle offered to them (1433), and mostly returned to the Roman Church. The Taborites rejected all compromise with the hated papal Antichrist, and demanded a thorough reformation, but they were defeated by the allied Romanists and Calixtines near Prague, 1434, and subdued by George Podiebrad, 1453.

The Bohemian Brethern.

From this time the Taborites disappeared as a party, but from their remnants arose, about 1457, a new and a more important sect, the Unitas Fratrum (Jednota bratrská), as they called themselves, or the Bohemian Brethren. [1074] They adhered to the rigid discipline of the Taborites, but were free from their fanaticism and violence. They endeavored to reproduce, in peaceful retirement from the world, the simplicity and spirituality of the Apostolic Church as they understood it. They held to the Bohemian version of the Bible revised by Hus [1075] as their only standard of faith and conduct. They rejected worldly amusements, oaths, military service, and capital punishment; they opposed the secular power of the clergy, and denounced the Pope of Rome as Antichrist. At first they received the sacraments from Calixtine and Romish priests who joined them.

In 1467 they effected an independent organization at a synodical meeting held in the village of Lhota, which was attended by about fifty members, priests and laymen, scholars and peasants, under the lead of Michael, formerly a Catholic priest. After praying and fasting, they elected by lot (Acts i. 26) three priests out of their number, and laid hands on them. Then they were all solemnly rebaptized. But not satisfied with this independent reconstruction of the Church, they sought regular ordination from a Waldensian bishop, Stephen of Austria, who was reported to have been ordained by a Roman bishop in 1434, and who afterwards suffered martyrdom in Vienna. Stephen ordained Michael; Michael ordained Matthias of Kunwald, and then, laying down his dignity, asked to be ordained afresh by Matthias, who was the first of the three elected by lot, and significantly bore the name of the supplementary apostle. This shows the vacillation of the Brethren between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, as well as between radical independency and historical conservatism. [1076] But they retained, or meant to retain, an unbroken succession of the episcopate, and transmitted it afterwards to the Moravian Church. [1077]

The Brethren were cruelly persecuted; many were tortured and burned; others fled to neighboring Moravia, where for a short season they were unmolested. In the beginning of the sixteenth century they numbered in Bohemia about 200,000 members with 400 parishes. They had three printing establishments in 1519, while the Romanists had only one, and the Utraquists two. They made valuable contributions to evangelical hymnology. Their most fruitful author was Lucas of Prague (d. 1528), who did more for the organization of the society than its founder Gregor, and wrote over eighty books. [1078]

The Waldenses.

Literature.

I. The Waldensian MSS., mostly in the libraries of Geneva, Cambridge, Dublin, and Strasburg. The older prints are not reliable. See a description of these MSS. in Herzog, Die romanischen Waldenser, pp. 46 sqq. The Morland MSS. of Cambridge were brought to light again by Henry Bradshaw, 1862.

II. The accounts of mediæval Catholic writers: Bernard Abbas Fontis Calidi (Fonte Claude, d. 1193); Alanus de Insulis (d. 1202); Stephanus de Borbone (Etienne de Bourbon, d. 1225); Yvonet (1275); Rainerius (1250); Pseudo-Rainerius; Moneta of Cremona; Gualter Mapes, of Oxford.

Roman Catholic historians are apt to confound the Waldenses with the heretical Albigenses and Cathari, and include them in the same condemnation; while some of the older Protestant historians reverse the process to clear the Albigenses of the charge of Manicheism.

III. Historical works, mostly in the interest of the Waldenses:

J. P. Perrin: Histoire des Vaudois. Geneva, 1619. English translation with additions by R. Baird and S. Miller. Philadelphia, 1847.

Pierre Gilles: Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées--autrefois appellées églises Voudoises. Geneva, 1655.

Jean Leger (pastor and moderator of the Waldensian churches, afterwards of a Walloon church at Leyden): Histoire générale des églises évangéliques des vallées de Piémont ou Vaudoises. Leyden, 1669, 2 vols. fol. A German translation by Von Schweinitz. Breslau, 1750.

S. Morland: History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont. London, 1658. Morland was sent by Cromwell to Piedmont; he brought back a number of Waldensian MSS., and deposited them in Cambridge.

Jacques Brez (Waldensian): Histoire des Vaudois. Paris, Lausanne, and Utrecht, 1796.

S. R. Maitland: Tracts and Documents illustrative of the History of the Doctrines and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses. London, 1832.

Ant. Monastier: Histoire de l'église Vaudoise. Paris and Toulouse, 1847, 2 vols.

Alexis Muston (Waldensian): Histoire des Vaudois. Paris, 1834. The same: L'Israel des Alpes, première histoire complète des Vaudois. Paris, 1851, 4 vols.

Chr. U. Hahn: Geschichte der Waldenser. Stuttgart, 1847. (The second volume of his learned Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter.) Contains many valuable documents.

A. W. Dieckhoff: Die Waldenser im Mittelalter. Göttingen, 1851. Marks an epoch in the critical sifting of the documents, but is too negative, and unjust to the Waldenses.

Herzog: Die romanischen Waldenser. Halle, 1853. Also his valuable art. Waldenser in his Real-Encyklop. Vol. XVII. pp. 502 sqq. Based upon a careful examination of the Waldensian MSS.

C. A. G. von Zezschwitz: Die Katechismen der Waldenser und Böhmischen Brüder als Documente ihres wechselseitigen Lehraustausches. Kritische Textausgabe, etc. Erlangen, 1863. Compare his System der christl. kirchl. Katechetik, Leipz. 1863, Vol. I. pp. 548 sqq.

Palacky: Verhältniss der Waldenser zu den böhmischen Secten. Prag, 1869. (38 pp.)

Edmund de Schweinitz: The Catechism of the Bohemian Brethren. Translated from the Old German. Bethlehem, Pa., 1869.

G. Lechler: Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation. Leipz. 1873, Vol. I. pp. 46-63.

F. Wagenmann: Waldenser, in Schmidt's Encyklop. des gesammten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens, Vol. X. (1875), pp. 259-274.

Soon after their organization the Brethren came into friendly contact with the older and like-minded Waldenses (Vaudois), so called from their founder, Peter Waldo, or Waldus, a lay evangelist of Lyons (about 1170), who gave his rich possessions to the poor. They called themselves originally the Poor of Lyons, who by voluntary poverty and celibacy aimed at evangelical perfection. [1079] The early confessional and catechetical books of the two sects are closely connected. The Brethren derived, as already noted, their episcopate from the Waldenses, and in 1497 they sent two delegates, Lucas of Prague and Thomas of Landskron (Germanus), to France and Italy, who reported that the Waldenses in those countries were far advanced in the knowledge of Scripture truth, while elsewhere they found nothing but false doctrine, superstition, loose discipline, and corrupt morals. [1080] On the other hand, many of the exiled Waldenses, who spread in every direction, [1081] emigrated to Bohemia, attracted by the religious commotions of that country, and coalesced with the Brethren into one community.

The Bohemian Brethren and the Waldenses made a near approach to evangelical Protestantism, and are the only mediæval sects which have maintained their existence to this day. But we must distinguish between their position before and their position after the Reformation, which marks an important epoch in their creed. Much confusion (as Gieseler observes) has been introduced into their history both by friend and foe.

The Waldenses formed at first no separate church, but an ecclesiola in ecclesia, a pious lay community of Bible-readers. They were well-versed in Scripture, and maintained its supremacy over the traditions of men; they preached the gospel to the poor, allowing women also to preach; and gradually rejected the papal hierarchy, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the worship of saints and relics, the mass, transubstantiation, the oath, and capital punishment. Being excommunicated by Lucius III. (1184) and other popes as schismatics and heretics, they seceded and became a persecuted church. They had a clergy of their own with bishops, priests, and deacons. The origin and succession of their orders are involved in obscurity. They survived the fierce persecutions in France and the valleys of Piedmont, and extended their influence through emigrants to other countries, kindling a zeal for the study of the Scriptures in the vernacular, and strengthening the opposition to the papal Church. When they heard the glad tidings of the Reformation, they sent a deputation--Morel and Masson--to OEcolampadius, Bucer, and other reformers, in 1530, and derived from them clearer views of the distinction between canonical and apocryphal books, justification by faith, election and free-will, the marriage of the clergy, and the nature and number of sacraments. At a synod in the valley of Angrogne, Sept. 12-18, 1532, which was attended also by Farel and two other Reformed preachers of French Switzerland, the Reformation was adopted by a large majority, and subsequently carried out. Since that time the Waldenses became and remained a regular branch of the Reformed Church. [1082]

In the course of time the consciousness of this change was obscured, and in their polemic zeal against Romanism they traced the Reformed doctrines to their fathers, who certainly prepared the way for them. Their manuscripts were interpolated and assigned to a much earlier date. [1083] Some of their historians even constructed an imaginary Waldensian succession of pure evangelical catholicity up to the apostolic age, in opposition to the papal succession of an apostate pseudo-catholicity, which they dated from the fictitious donation of Constantine to Pope Sylvester and the consequent secularization of the Church. This is the Protestant counterpart of the Romish caricatures of the Reformation, and deserves equal condemnation in the name of common honesty and historical truth.

A critical examination and comparison of the Waldensian manuscripts and the reports of the conferences with the Reformers have exposed these literary frauds, and produced at first a reaction against the Waldenses and in favor of the Bohemian Brethren, from whom some of their books were supposed to be derived. But on still further examination it appears that there was a mutual exchange of views and writings between the two, and that the assertions of some later Bohemian Brethren concerning their independence are as little to be trusted and as clearly unfounded as the claims of the Waldenses. Their oldest writings, from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, were popular translations of the Scriptures and extracts from the fathers, followed by more extended works, such as La Nobla Leyczon [1084] (i.e., lectio, a didactic poem on Bible history and an exhortation to repentance), the Cantica, an allegorical exposition, or application rather, of the Song of Songs, and several poems and ascetic tracts. The second class embraces the writings of the fifteenth century (on Purgatory, the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments), which are more or less dependent on the Confessio Taboritarum (1433), and other Hussite documents. [1085] The third class was not composed or put into its present shape till after the adoption of the Reformation in 1532. Their chief confession is based upon the Gallican (1559), and was issued during the fearful massacre of 1655. [1086]

The indebtedness of the Waldenses to the Reformation for a purer creed does not deprive them of a claim to the deep sympathy of all Protestant Christians, which in the period of their fiercest persecution in Piedmont (1655) provoked the threat of Cromwell to make the thunder of English cannon resound in the castle of St. Angelo, and inspired the sublime sonnet of Milton--

'Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones

Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold;

Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,

When all our fathers worshiped stocks and stones.

Forget not: in thy book record their groans,

Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold

Slain by the bloody Piedmontese, that rolled

Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans

The vales redoubled to the hills, and they

To heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow

O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth sway

The triple tyrant; that from these may grow

A hundredfold, who having learnt thy way

Early may fly the Babylonian woe.'

The last lines sound like a prophecy; for since the day of liberty dawned on Italy (in 1848), that venerable martyr church has, from its mountain retreats in Piedmont, with youthful vigor established missions in nearly all the cities of the peninsula.

THE WALDENSIAN CATECHISM (1489) AND THE BOHEMIAN CATECHISM (1521).

The doctrinal affinity of the Waldenses and the Bohemian Brethren appears especially in their Catechisms, which are the most important of all their writings before the Reformation, and which prove their zeal for Christian education on the basis of the Scriptures. They bear such a striking resemblance to each other that the one must be in part a copy from the other. The Waldensian Catechism has a better claim to originality, and, although not nearly as old as was formerly supposed, [1087] must have been written before 1500; while the Bohemian, in the form in which it was presented to Luther, first appeared in print in 1521 or 1522, and was probably the work of Lucas of Prague (d. 1528), who had visited the Waldenses in Italy and France (1489). But both rest probably on older sources. Palacky brought to light (1869) a similar Catechism, which he derives from Hus before 1414. [1088]

The Waldensian Catechism, called 'The Smaller Questions,' [1089] intended for children, is a remarkable production for an age of prevailing popular superstition and ignorance. It consists of fifty-seven questions by the teacher (lo barba, i.e., uncle), and as many answers by the pupil (l'enfant). It embodies the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and is divided into three divisions--Faith (Ques. 6), Hope (Ques. 32), and Love (Ques. 47). This division was suggested by St. Paul (1 Cor. xiii. 13) and Augustine (Enchiridion), and is followed also in the Greek Catechism of Mogila and the Russian Catechism of Philaret. Under the head of Faith we have a practical exposition of the Apostles' Creed and the Ten Commandments, showing their subjective bearing on a living faith. In the Second Part (Ques. 32), Love is defined to be a gift of the Holy Spirit and an intimate union of the human will with the divine will. In the Third Part (Ques. 48), Hope is defined to be a certain expectation of grace and future glory. The Catechism is directed against the idolatry and superstition of the anti-Christian Church, but the opposition is indirect and moderate. The characteristic Waldensian features are the distinction between a living and a dead faith (Ques. 8); the six evangelical commandments (Ques. 21); the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Ques. 23); the distinction between the true or essential (invisible) Church (la gleisa de la part de la substancia), which consists of all the elect of God in Christ, known only to him, and the outward or institutional (visible) church (de la part de li menisteri), i.e., the ministers and the people subject to them (Ques. 35); and the rigid exposition of the second commandment against all forms of idolatry (Ques. 29). Of the sacraments it is said (Ques. 46): 'Two are absolutely necessary for all; the rest are less necessary.' This clearly indicates that the Catechism was written before the Reformation period, when the Waldenses rejected all but two sacraments.

The Bohemian Catechism is longer, having seventy-five questions and answers. It follows the "Waldensian in the general arrangement and first part, and introduces also (like the Greek catechisms) the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount (Ques. 31); it has more to say of idolatry, the worship of Mary, the saints and martyrs, and especially on the Lord's Supper; but these additions lack perspicuity, and are too long for the use of children.

The following specimen will give an idea of these Catechisms, and the relation they sustain to each other and to the Catechism ascribed to Hus:

The Waldensian Catechism. The Waldensian Catechism. The Bohemian Catechism. Las interrogacions menors. Translated. (von Zezschwitz, p.41) 1. Si tu fosses demandà qui sies-tu? Respont: 1. If thou art asked, Who art thou? Answer: 1. Was bistu? Antwort: Di. [1090] Yo soy creatura de Dio racional e mortal. I am a creature of God, rational and mortal. A. Ein vernunfftige schopfung Gottes vnd ein tötliche. 2. Dio perque te ha creà? 2. For what end has God made you? 2. Warumb beschüff dich Gott? Di. Afin que yo conoissa lui meseyme e cola e havent la soa gracia meseyme sia salvà. That I may know and serve him, and be saved by his grace. A. Das ich in solt kennen un liephaben vnd habende die liebe gottes das ich selig wurdt. 3. En que ista la toa salù? 3. On what rests thy salvation? 3. Warauff steht dein seligkayt? Di. En tres vertùs substantials de necessità pertenent a salù. On three fundamental virtues, which are necessary to salvation. Auff dreyen göttlichen tugenden. 4. Quals son aquellas? 4. Which are they? 4. Welche seints? Di. Fè, sperancza e carità. Faith, Hope, and Love. A. Der glaub, die lieb, die hofnung. 5. Per que cosa provarès aiczo? 5. How do you prove this? 5. Bewer das. Di. L'apostol scriv. 1 Cor. xiii.: aquestas cosas permanon, fè, sperancza e carità The Apostle writes, 1 Cor. xiii., 'Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.' A. S. Paul' spricht, utzundt bleyben vns dize drey tugendt, der glaub, die lieb vnd die hofnung, vnd das gröst ausz den ist die lieb. 6. [Qual es la prumiera vertù substancial? 6. Which is the first fundamental virtue? 6. Welches ist die erst grundtfest deiner seligkayt? Di. La fè. Car l'apostol di: non possibla cosa es placzer a Dio senza la fè. Mas a l'appropiant a Dio conven creyre, car el es e serè reguiardonador de li cresent en si.] Faith; for the Apostle says, 'It is impossible to please God without faith: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him [Heb. xi. 6]. A. Der glaub. 7. Qual cosa es la fè? 7. What is faith? 7. Bewer das. Di. Segond l'apostol Heb. xi. es subsistencia de las cosas de sperar e argument de las non appareissent. [1091] According to the Apostle, Heb. xi., faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [1092] A. S. Paul' sagt zu den Juden, es ist vnmüglich Gott zugefallen on den glauben, dann d'zünhenen [1093] will zu Gott, der musz gelauben das Gott sey, auch das er ein belöner sey der die in suchen. [1094]

8. De quanta maniera es la fè? [1095] 8. How many kinds of faith are there? [1096] 8. Was ist der glaub? Di. De doas manieras, czo es viva e morta. Two kinds, a living faith and a dead faith. A. S. Paulus sagt, der glaub ist ein grundfest der ding welcher man hat zuversicht, vnd ein bewerung der vnsichtigen. [Hus (third Ques.): Duplex est fides, altera viva, altera mortua.] 9. Qual cosa e fè viva? 9. What is living faith? 9. Welches glaubens bistu? Di. Lo es aquella, laqual obra per carità, testificant l'apostol Gal. v.; [czo es l'observancza de li comandament de Dio. Fè viva es creyre en Dio, czo es amar luy meseyme e gardar li seo comandament.] It is faith active in love (as the Apostle testifies, Gal. v. 6), that is by keeping God's commandments. Living faith is to believe in God, that is, to love him and to keep his commandments. A. Des gemainen christenlichen. 10. Qual cosa es fè morta? 10. What is dead faith? 10. Welches ist der? Di. Segond Sanct Jaques, la fè, s'ilh non ha obras, es morta en si meseyme; e dereco, la fè es ociosa sencza las obras. O fè morta es creire esser Dio, creyre a Dio, creyre de Dio, e non creire en Dio. [1097] According to St. James, faith which has no works is dead in itself; faith is idle without works. Or dead faith is to believe that God is, to believe about God, of God, but not to believe in God. [1098] A. Ich gelaub in Gott vatter almechtigen, etc. [The Apostles' Creed in full.] 11. De laqual fè siès-tu? 11. What is your faith? 11. Welcher unterschaid ist diser glaube? Di. De la vera fè catholica e apostolica. [1099] The true catholic and apostolic faith. [1100] Das ein glaub ist lebendig, der ander tod. 12. Qual es aquella? 12. Which is that? 12. Was ist der tod glauben? Di. Lo es aquella, la qual al conselh de li apostol es departià en docze articles. It is the one which at the Council of the Apostles was divided into twelve articles. [1101] A. Es ist zu glauben Gott den herrn zu sein, Gott dem herren, vnd von Gott dem herrn, aber nicht in Gott den herrn. [1102] 13. Qual es aquella? 13. Which is it? 13. Was ist der lebendig glauben? Di. Yo creo en Dio lo payre tot poissent. I believe in God the Father Almighty, etc. A. Es ist zu glaubn in Gott den vater, den sun, den heylig geyst. [Now follows the Apostles' Creed in full.] __________________________________________________________________

[1073] Hus (i.e., Goose) and Hussites (from the Bohemian genitive Husses) is the correct spelling, followed by Palacky and Gindely, instead of Huss and Husites.

[1074] This name applies also to the members who emigrated to Moravia, Saxony, and Poland; but the name Moravian Brethren does not occur until the 18th century, when Zinzendorf incorporated into his own society (the Moravians, properly so called) the last survivors of the Bohemian brotherhood, who had come from Moravia to Saxony. See Gindely, Vol. I. p. 36. They were also called Waldenses, and in derision Picards (probably the same as Beghards) and Grubenheimer, Pit-dwellers (because they held divine service in pits and caves).

[1075] Another Bohemian version or revision of the New Testament was made from the Greek by Blahoslav, a member of the Unitas Fratrum and the author of a Bohemian grammar (d. 1571).

[1076] Gindely reports this from the scanty and conflicting sources, and adds the remark (Vol. I. p. 37): 'Es zeigt das Schwanken des Gemüths und den Zweifel an die Berechtigung der gethanen Schritte, dass die Brüder in ihren Schriften gleich nach der Wahl jede Differenz zwischen priesterlicher and bischöflicher Würde verwarfen, mil ängstlicher Gewissenhaftigkeit aber bei sich die letztere einführten.'

[1077] The last bishop of the old Unitas Fratrum was John Amos Comenius (or Komensky, a Czech, born in Moravia, 1592, died at Amsterdam, 1671), who acquired great celebrity by his new method of instruction by pictures and illustrations, and by his Janua Linguarum reserrata and his Orbis pictus. His nephew, D. E. Jablonsky, was elected and ordained bishop by a Synod of Bohemian Brethren in Poland, 1698, and he ordained David Nitschmann, the first bishop of the Moravians, 1735. See E. von Schweinitz, The Moravian Episcopate (Bethlehem, Pa., 1865; comp. his art. Moravian Church, in Johnson's Univ. Cyclop. Vol. III.), and Benham, Origin and Episcopate of the Bohemian Brethren (Lond. 1867). The Moravian episcopate depends on the Bohemian, and the Bohemian on the Waldensian episcopate, which in the thirteenth century did not claim to rest on apostolic succession. Comp. the quotations in Gieseler, Kirchengesh. Vol. II. Pt. II. pp. 640, 641.

[1078] Gindely, Vol. I. p. 2OO, and Von Zezschwitz, Lukas von Prag, in Herzog's Encyklop., Supplem. Vol. XX. pp 23 sqq., 31. Gindely, however, places no high estimate on the writings of Lucas, and charges him with great obscurity. They are mostly extant in manuscript.

[1079] The Dominican Stephen of Borbone says: 'Incepit hæc secta circa annum ab incarnatione Domini 1170 . . . Waldenses dicti sunt a primo huius hæresis auctore, qui nominatus fuit Waldensis. Dicuntur etiam Pauperes de Lugduno quia ibi inceperunt in professione paupertatis.' They were also called Leonistæ, from Leona, Lyons; Sabatati, from their wooden sandals (sabot); and Humiliati, from their humility.

[1080] Joachim Camerarius, in his Historica narratio de Fratrum orthod. ecclesiis in Bohemia (ed. by his grandson, Heidelb. 1605), gives a full account of two deputations of the Brethren to the Waldenses, one in 1467, and the other in 1497. See Herzog, pp. 290 sqq., and Gindely. Vol. I. pp. 88 sq.

[1081] Pseudo-Rainerius: 'fere nulla est terra, in qua hæc secta non sit.'

[1082] Herzog, pp. 378 sqq.

[1083] Leger dates, without any proof, the Nobla Leyczon and the Waldensian Catechism from the year 1100; the Confession of Faith, the tracts on Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints, from 1120; the book on Antichrist from 1126.

[1084] Given in the original by Herzog, pp. 444-457, from the Geneva MS., with the variations of the Dublin text. Herzog assigns it to the year 1400. Ebrard, Ueber das Alter der Nobla Leyczon, in the Zeitschrift für histor. Theologie, 1864, and in his Kirchengesch. Vol. II. p. 193, traces it to the beginning of the thirteenth century, and defends the date of the Geneva MS., that the work was written fully eleven hundred years after St. John wrote, 'It is the last time' (1 John ii. 18), i.e., about 1200.

[1085] See the comparison in Dieckhoff, pp. 377 sqq.

[1086] See Vol. III. pp. 757 sqq.

[1087] Leger, Monastier, and Hahn trace it to the beginning of the twelfth century.

[1088] Dieckhoff (pp. 98-115), from an imperfect knowledge of the Waldensian Catechism (as given by Perrin and Leger), maintained the priority of the Bohemian Catechism, and charged the Waldenses with gross plagiarism. Dr. Herzog (pp. 324 sq.) inclined to the same opinion, but with some qualification, and first edited the original text of the Waldensian Catechism from the Dublin MSS. in the Romance language (pp. 438-444). Since then Prof. Von Zezschwitz, of Erlangen, has published (1863) both Catechisms in their authentic form, with an elaborate argument for the priority of the Waldensian from internal evidence and from its affinity with other undoubted Waldensian documents. Ebrard (Vol. II. p. 491) assents to this view, and says: 'The Waldensian Catechism is thoroughly and characteristically Waldensian.' But Palacky traces both to a Bohemian Catechism (of about 4 pages) which he found in the imperial library of Vienna, and published, with a Latin version, in his Docmnenta relating to Hus (pp. 703, 708). The authorship of Hus, however, is a mere conjecture ('cuius autor Hus esse videtur'). The resemblance extends only to a few questions, and does not settle the point of priority; for Palacky himself admits that the Waldenses were in Prague as early as 1408, and known to Hus. 'The Hussites,' he says (Das Verhältniss der Waldenser, etc., p. 20), were both disciples and teachers of the Waldenses, but more the latter than the former.'

[1089] Las interrogations menors. The more extensive work on Antichrist was likewise arranged in questions and answers.

[1090] That is, Discipulus. In other copies, L'enfant.

[1091] Hus begins with Ques. 7 (Quid est fides? Respondet S. Paulas in Ep. ad Hebr., etc.), and gives the substance of Ques. 6, but omits Ques. 1-5, and has no trace of a threefold division.

[1092] Hus begins with Ques. 7 (Quid est fides? Respondet S. Paulas in Ep. ad Hebr., etc.), and gives the substance of Ques. 6, but omits Ques. 1-5, and has no trace of a threefold division.

[1093] That is, hinzunahen.

[1094] Hus begins with Ques. 7 (Quid est fides? Respondet S. Paulas in Ep. ad Hebr., etc.), and gives the substance of Ques. 6, but omits Ques. 1-5, and has no trace of a threefold division.

[1095] The Waldensian Catechism begins with the subjective faith, the Bohemian Catechism (Ques. 1O) with the objective faith, as laid down in the Creed. Hus agrees with the former.

[1096] The Waldensian Catechism begins with the subjective faith, the Bohemian Catechism (Ques. 1O) with the objective faith, as laid down in the Creed. Hus agrees with the former.

[1097] The distinction between credere Deum, credere Deo, and credere in Deum often occurs in the writings of Hus and in the Catechism ascribed to him (Palacky, p. 710).

[1098] The distinction between credere Deum, credere Deo, and credere in Deum often occurs in the writings of Hus and in the Catechism ascribed to him (Palacky, p. 710).

[1099] This is fuller than 'the common Christian faith' in the Bohemian Catechism (Ques. 9).

[1100] This is fuller than 'the common Christian faith' in the Bohemian Catechism (Ques. 9).

[1101] According to the mediæval tradition. Hus puts the names of the apostles before each article, and adds the damnatory clause of the Athanasian Creed.

[1102] The distinction between credere Deum, credere Deo, and credere in Deum often occurs in the writings of Hus and in the Catechism ascribed to him (Palacky, p. 710). __________________________________________________________________

§ 73. The Bohemian Confessions after the Reformation. A.D. 1535 and 1575.

The Reformation And Counter-Reformation In Bohemia.

Comp. the work of Pescheck, quoted p. 565; and Reuss: La Destruction du Protestantisme en Bohème. Strasburg, 1867.

The Reformation rekindled the fire of the Husite movement, and made rapid progress within and without the Catholic Church. The Bohemian Brethren sent, from 1520, several delegations to Wittenberg to confer with Luther. They received new light in doctrine, but painfully missed discipline in the churches of Germany. Luther was at first displeased with their figurative theory of the Lord's Supper, their views of justification, and the celibacy of the clergy, and induced them to conform them to his teaching, but afterwards he treated them with a degree of indulgence and forbearance that contrasts favorably with his uncompromising antagonism to the Zwinglians. Nevertheless, the Bohemian Brethren, like the Waldenses, ultimately passed in a body to the Reformed communion, with which they had more sympathy in matters of doctrine and discipline. [1103] Besides them we find in Bohemia, after the Reformation, three Protestant parties, Utraquists, Lutherans, and Calvinists.

There was at one time, during the reign of Maximilian II., a fair prospect of the conversion of the whole Bohemian nation, as also of the German provinces of Austria, to Protestantism; but before the work was consolidated, the Jesuits, backed by the whole power of the Hapsburg dynasty, inaugurated a counter-reformation and a series of cruel persecutions which crushed the evangelical faith, and turned that kingdom into a second Spain. The bloody drama of the Thirty-Years' War began at Prague (1618). Emperor Ferdinand II. (1619-1637), a fanatical pupil of the Jesuits, fulfilled his terrible vow to exterminate heresy by all possible means, though he should have to reign over a desert. The execution of twenty-seven of the most distinguished Protestants, in June, 1621, was the signal for this war of extermination. The richest families were deprived of their property. Protestant worship was forbidden. Protestant churches, schools, and hospitals were razed to the ground, or turned into Jesuit churches and colleges. All Protestant preachers, professors, and school-teachers were ordered, in 1624, to leave the country within a week, under pain of death. Bohemian and German Bibles and all Bohemian works published after 1414, being suspected of heresy, were destroyed in immense quantities on marketplaces and beneath the gallows. One Jesuit, Anton Koniasch (1637) boasted that he had burned over 60,000 books. Thus the whole Czech literature and civilization was overwhelmed with ruin, and ignorance as dark as midnight spread over the land. [1104] Protestants were forbidden the rights of citizens; they could not carry on a trade, nor contract marriage, nor make a will. Even light and air were denied them. 'More than thirty thousand Bohemian families, and among them five hundred belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could or would not emigrate held to their faith in secret. Against them dragonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were converted. The "Converters" (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... A desert was created; the land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had 4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian historians.' [1105]

The exiled Bohemian Brethren became the nucleus of the Moravian Brotherhood (1722), and in this noble little Church, so distinguished for its missionary zeal, they continue to this day. Their last and worthy Bishop, Amos Comenius, died an exile in Holland, 1671, with the hope of the future revival of his persecuted Church, which was fulfilled through the labors of Count Zinzendorf. But even in Bohemia Protestantism could not be utterly annihilated. It began again to raise its feeble head when Emperor Joseph II. issued the Edict of Toleration (1781). The recent revival of Czech patriotism and literature came to its aid. The fifth centenary of the birth of Hus was celebrated at Prague, 1869, and his works and letters were published. In 1875 there were forty-six Reformed congregations in Bohemia and twenty-two in Moravia. The number of Lutheran congregations is smaller, and they belong almost entirely to the German part of the population.

THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSION OF 1535.

The Latin text in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., and in Niemeyer, pp. 771-818; the German text in Böckel, pp. 780-830.

The Bohemian Brethren surpass all Churches in the number of their confessions of faith, which amount to no less than thirty-four from 1467 to 1671, in the Bohemian, Latin, and German languages. [1106] But they were all superseded by two, respectively called the First and the Second Bohemian Confessions.

The first of these confessions was prepared, after the example of the Lutherans at the Diet of Augsburg, in proof of their orthodoxy, signed by the noblemen belonging to the Unitas, and laid by a deputation before King Ferdinand at Vienna, Nov. 14, 1535, who promised to take it into consideration. [1107] It was written in Latin by an unknown author, probably by John Augusta, Senior of the Brethren, and, after the death of Lucas of Prague, their most influential leader (d. 1572), and with his aid it was translated into German. [1108]

The confession consists of a long apologetic preface against the charges of heresy and immorality, and of twenty articles. It closely resembles in form and contents the Augsburg Confession. In Art. XII., on Baptism, it is stated that the Brethren had formerly rebaptized converts, but that they had given up this practice as useless. Infant baptism is acknowledged (Matt. xix. 14). The doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Art. XIII.) is accommodated to the Lutheran theory, though framed somewhat vaguely. [1109]

The Bohemians sent the confession with a deputation to the Reformers at Wittenberg (1536). Luther disapproved the articles on celibacy and justification, but after the Brethren had made some corrections he published the document, at their request and expense, in 1538, with a favorable preface. In later editions the Bohemians made many changes. [1110]

THE SECOND BOHEMIAN CONFESSION. A.D. 1575.

The Latin text in Niemeyer, pp. 819-851; the German text in Böckel, pp. 827-849.

The historical notices I have chiefly derived from Pescheck's Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, 2d ed. Vol. I. pp. 103 sqq., and from Gindely's Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Vol. II. pp. 141 sqq.

The mild and liberal Emperor Maximilian II. (1564-1576) was kindly disposed towards his Protestant subjects, and had a certain degree of sympathy with their creed. While holding a diet at Prague he allowed the non-Catholic Bohemians to compose a united confession of their faith. The Utraquists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Bohemian Brethren laid aside their disputes and agreed upon a moderate doctrinal statement, which is more particularly called the Bohemian Confession. [1111] It was prepared in the Bohemian language by two divines--Dr. Paul Pressius and M. Krispin [1112] --and adopted with some changes by the Diet of Prague. It was presented to Maximilian, May 17, 1575. He gave the delegates the verbal promise of protection in their faith and worship. It was afterwards presented to Maximilian's son and successor, Rudolph II., 1608, who, under the political pressure of the times, in an imperial letter, or charter, granted the Protestant Bohemians equal rights with the Roman Catholics, a separate consistory at Prague, and the control of the university (1609). But these concessions were of short duration. Emperor Matthias violated the compact, and Ferdinand II. annulled it by his Edict of Restitution (1629), which gave the Romanists full power to suppress Protestantism.

The Second Bohemian Confession consists of an address to Maximilian II. and twenty-five articles on the holy Scriptures, on God, the Holy Trinity, the fall and original sin, free-will, the law, justification, faith and good works, the Church, the sacraments, etc. It is in essential agreement with the Augsburg Confession and the older Bohemian Confession. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is conformed to the later Melanchthonian view. A German translation was transmitted to the divines at Wittenberg, and approved by them Nov. 3, 1575. A Latin translation appeared in 1619. __________________________________________________________________

[1103] They wrote afterwards to Beza (Dec. 3, 1575): 'Lutherus nostra sic fuit interpretatus, quasi ipsius sententiæ sint consentanea, sua quidem ille culpa, non nostra.' Zezschwitz, p. 153; Ebrard, Vol. III. p. 400. They had sent a deputation to Bucer and Calvin at Strasburg in 1510, who were well received.

[1104] See, on this wholesale destruction of books, Pescheck's Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, Vol. II. pp. 93 sqq. Bohemian works published from 1414 to 1635 are exceedingly rare, or are to be found only outside of Bohemia in the libraries at Herrnhut, Dresden, and Leipzig.

[1105] Heusser, The Period of the Reformation, English translation, New York, 1874, p. 426. Dr. Döllinger, in his concluding address at the Bonn Union Conference in August, 1875, speaking of the suppression of the Reformation in Austria, made the following remarks: 'Nach römischer Lehre ist eine katholische Regierung verpflichtet, die Andersgläubigen zu unterdrücken. Die Päpste haben die Habsburger durch die Jesuiten stets zur Befolgung dieser Lehre angehalten. In der zweiten Hälfte des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts war die Bevölkerung in einigen überwiegend deutschen Erbstaaten fast zu neun Zehntel protestantisch. Durch das System der Zwangsbekehrung und der Austreibung der Protestanten wurde am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts and im 17. der römische Katholicismus wieder herrschend. Die wenigen Schriftsteller, welche Oesterreich im 17ten Jahrhundert hatte, klagen einmüthig über den Schaden, den die Protestanten-Austreibung dem Wohlstand Oesterreichs gebracht. Man darf sagen, es macht sich noch heute fühlbar, dass damals der beste Theil der städtischen Bevölkerung vertrieben wurde. Sine grosse geistige Versumpfung ist die Folge der engen Verbindung der Habsburger Dynastie mit der Curie gewesen. Ich sage: der Habsburgischen Dynastie; die jetzige Dynastie ist die lothringische, aus welcher ganz andere Regenten hervorgegangen sind. Ihr gehört Joseph II. an, aber auch die andern Kaiser dieser Dynastie haben nicht ihre Unterthanen um der Religion willen unterdrückt. Oesterreich leidet noch jetzt an den schlimmen Folgen früherer Missregierungen, aber es ist ein Staat, der noch eine Zukunft hat, und sein neues Emporblühen ist von grosser Wichtigkeit für Europa. Wenn wir den Satz des Herrn; an ihren Früchten sollt ihr sie erkennen, auf das Papalsystem anwenden, so können wir nur ein hartes Urtheil über dasselbe fällen. Das jetzige Verhalten des römischen Stuhles zeigt aber, dass er aus der Weltgeschichte nichts gelernt hat, dass sie ihm ein mit sieben Siegeln verschlossenes Buch ist.'

[1106] Gindely enumerates them in Fontes, etc., pp. 453 sqq. Comp. Zezschwitz, in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. Vol. XX. p. 31.

[1107] Confessio Fidei ac Religionis, Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemiæ, serenissimo ac invictissimo Romanorum, Bohemiæ, etc., Regi, Viennæ Austriæ, sub anno Domini 1535 oblata.'

[1108] So Gindely, Vol. I. p. 233, 238. Niemeyer (Proleg. p. lxxxvi.) asserts: 'Prodiit primum lingua Bohemica, deinde Latine reddita Vitembergæ publici juris facta est.' But Gindely is a much better authority in Bohemian matters.

[1109] 'Docent etiam, quod his Christi verbis, quibus ipse panem corpus suum, et vinum speciatim sanguinem suum esse pronunciat, nemo de suo quidquam affingat, admisceat aut detrahat, sed simpliciter his Christi verbis, neque ad dexteram neque ad sinistram declinando credat.'

[1110] See Niemeyer, Proleg. p. lxxxvii.

[1111] 'Confessio Bohemica, hoc est, Confessio sanctæ et Christianæ fidei, omnium trium Ordinum Regni Bohemiæ, Corpus et Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Coena sub utraque specie accipientium,' etc.

[1112] A new chapter in the history of Bohemia--now called Czechoslovakia--and of the followers of Huss was opened with the war, 1914. After nearly 400 years of subjection to Austria, the country gained its freedom and was made a republic, with T. G. Masaryk, who had spent some time in the U. S., as president, 1918. Religious liberty was established, the statue of Mary, erected on the central square of Prag, pulled down, and a massive monument dedicated to Huss with an address by Masaryk. The 'Czechoslovak National Reformed Catholic Church,' now constituting 4 per cent, of the population, was organized, 1920, and occupies a position midway between Romanism and Protestantism, leaning to the Greek Church. Its first bishop received consecration from a Serbian bishop. It uses the national tongue in worship and practises clerical marriage and the elective principle in the choice of its bishops. The Hussites, adopting the name 'The Evangelical Union of Bohemian Brethren,' have doubled in numbers and carry on a theological seminary in Prag with a full faculty, partly supported by the state and occupying quarters in the university buildings. In 1925 the papal nuncio, as a protest at the part taken by Masaryk and the government at a Huss celebration, left Prag. Papal relations were re-established, 1927. Masaryk holds the degree of doctor of theology from the theological seminary in Prag for a thesis on Huss.--Ed. __________________________________________________________________

§ 74. The Reformation in Poland and the Consensus of Sendomir. A.D. 1570.

Literature.

Consensus Sendomiriensis, in Niemeyer, pp. 561 sqq. The German text in Beck, Vol. II. pp. 87 sqq.

Joannis a Lasco: Opera tam edita quam inedita recensuit vitam autoris enarravit A. Kuyper.. Amstel. 1866, 2 Tom. The first volume contains his dogmatic and polemic writings, including the Responsio adv. Hosium (1559); the second his Confession, Catechisms, and Letters, including a few from Poland, 1556-59 (Vol. II. pp. 746-765). His Letters were previously published by Gerdesius, in his Scrinium antiquarium, Groning. 1750.

Dan. Ern. Jablonski: Historia consensus Sendomiriensis inter evangelicos regni Poloniæ et M.D. Lithuaniæ in synodo generali evangelicorum utriusque partis Sendomiriæ A.D. 1570 die 14 Aprilis initi. Berolini, 1731.

C. G. von Friese: Reformationsgeschichte von Polen und Lithauen. Breslau, 1786, 3 vols.

Valerian Krasinski (an exiled Polish Count): Historical Sketch of the Rise, Progress, and Decline of the Reformation in Poland. London, 1838 and 1840, 2 vols. German translation by W. Ad. Lindau. Leipz. 1841. Krasinski: Sketch of the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations. Edinburgh, 1851. The same in French (Histoire religieuse des peuples slaves), Paris, 1853, with an introduction by Merle d'Aubigné.

G. W. Th. Fischer: Versuch einer Geschichte der Reformation in Polen. Grätz, 1855-56, 2 vols.

P. Bartels: Johannes a Lasco. Elberfeld, 1860. In Vol. IX. of Leben der Väter der reform. Kirche.

Dr. Erbkam: Art. Sendomir, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. XXI. pp. 24-45. Dr. Erdmann: Art. Polen, ibid. Vol. XII. pp. 1 sqq.

The history of the Reformation in Poland is as sad as that in Bohemia. It started with fair prospects of success, but was suppressed by the counter-reformation under the energetic and unscrupulous leadership of the Jesuits, who took advantage of the dissensions among Protestants, the weakness of the court, and the fickleness of the nobility, obtained the control of the education of the aristocracy and clergy, and ultimately brought that unfortunate kingdom to the brink of internal ruin before its political dismemberment by the surrounding powers.

Poland In The Sixteen Century.

Poland became a mighty kingdom by the union with Lithuania (1386) and the successful wars with the Teutonic order in Prussia. In the middle of the sixteenth century it extended from the shores of the Baltic to the Black Sea, and embraced Great Poland (Posen), Little Poland (Warsaw), Lithuania, Samogitia (Wilna), Courland, Livonia, Esthland, Podlesia, Volhynia, Podolia, Ukraine, and the Prussian territories of Dantzic, Culm, and Ermeland. The population was Slavonic, with a large number of Germans and Jews. It originally received Christianity from the Greek Church, through Bohemia, but, owing to its close connection with the German empire, it became, like Bohemia, Roman Catholic during the tenth century. The government was in the hands of the nobility, which controlled the king. The power of the Church was restricted to spiritual affairs, and weakened by the immorality of the clergy.

The Reformation.

Poland never showed special devotion to the Roman See, and during the Council of Constance manifested some sympathy with the reform of Hus. Waldenses, Bohemians, and all classes of Protestants, even Socinians and Anabaptists, found hospitable shelter.

The Lutheran Reformation was introduced by Polish students returning from Wittenberg, and by Lutheran tutors employed in the families of the nobles. It triumphed in the German cities of Dantzic (1525) and Thorn (1530).

Among the Slavonic population and the higher nobility, and in the University of Cracow, Calvinism made rapid progress. It was patronized by Prince Nicholas Radziwill, the Chancellor of Poland under King Sigismund Augustus II. (1548-1572). The king himself corresponded with Calvin, and read his 'Institutes' with great zeal. Calvin dedicated to him his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in some remarkable letters solemnly urged him to use the favorable opportunity for the introduction of the pure doctrine and worship of Christ before the door might be forever closed. In a large kingdom with strongly feudal institutions he would allow, for the sake of unity and order, and after the model of the ancient Church, the episcopal organization, with an archbishop and a regular succession; but he thought that under the circumstances the Reformation could not be introduced without some irregularity, since the papal bishops had become the open enemies of the gospel. He became at last discouraged by the indecision of the king, and lost confidence in the sincerity of the nobles. His fears were only too well realized. [1113]

Another powerful element were the Bohemian Brethren, who, driven from their native land in 1548, emigrated in large numbers and organized forty congregations in Great Poland. [1114] They were well received, and, by the affinity of race and language, their purity, simplicity, and strict discipline, they made a deep impression on the Slavonic Poles. The Brethren united with the Calvinists at the first general Protestant Synod held at Kosminek, 1555. The latter adopted the confession, liturgy, and episcopal government of the former. This step was highly approved by Calvin, who wrote to a Polish nobleman, Stanislaus Krasinski: 'From a union with the Waldenses [as the Brethren were sometimes called] I hope the best, not only because God blesses every act of a holy union of the members of Christ, but also because at the present crisis the experience of the Waldenses, who are so well drilled in the service of the Lord, will be of no small benefit to you.' He also advocated union with the adherents of the Augsburg Confession as this was understood and explained by its author. He was invited by the nobility to Poland, but could not leave Geneva.

John A Lasco.

In Calvin's place appeared, by his advice and probably at the invitation of the king, John a Lasco, or Laski, a Polish nobleman, distinguished among the Reformers of the second rank. Born at Warsaw, 1499, and educated for the priesthood by his uncle, the Archbishop of Gnesen and Primas of Poland, he made a literary journey to Holland and Switzerland, and became personally acquainted with Zwingli at Zurich (1524) and with Erasmus at Basle (1525), who shook his faith in the Roman Church. [1115] On his return to Poland he endeavored to introduce a moderate reformation, but the country was not prepared for it. He declined an offer to a bishopric, and sacrificed bright prospects to his conviction, preferring to be in a foreign land 'a poor servant of Christ crucified for him.' He labored several years as Reformed pastor in Emden, East Friesland, until the Interim troubles drove him and his friends to England. He organized in London three congregations of Dutch, German, French, and Italian emigrants (ecclesiæ peregrinorum) on a Presbyterian and voluntary basis, under the protection of Archbishop Cranmer and Edward VI. The persecution of Queen Mary forced him again to wander in exile. When he landed with a hundred and seventy-five members of his flock in Denmark, 1553, he was refused shelter in cold winter because he could not subscribe to the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence. He fully experienced the force of his motto, 'The pious have no home on earth, for they seek heaven.' After laboring a short time in a congregation of English and other pilgrims in Frankfort-on-the Main, he accepted the invitation to his native country in 1556, and was made General Superintendent of Little Poland. Here he prepared, with the aid of other scholars, an admirable Polish translation of the Scriptures, published after his death, organized Reformed Churches (which increased in his time to the number of one hundred and twenty-two), and confirmed the union of the Calvinists with the Bohemian Brethren, although he himself preferred the Presbyterian polity with lay representation to the Bohemian episcopacy, and differed from their view of the Lord's Supper and other articles of their confession. He died Jan. 7, 1560, in the midst of work and care. [1116]

PETER PAUL VERGERIO. [1117]

During the same period Poland was twice visited (1557 and 1559) by another remarkable man among the secondary reformers-- Peter Paul Vergerio (1498-1565), formerly papal nuncio to Germany and Bishop of Capo d'Istria. [1118] In the attempt to refute the Lutheran writings he had become a Protestant, introduced the Reformation in the Italian parts of the Grisons (Valtellina, Poschiavo, and Bregaglia), and then took up his residence in Tübingen under the protection of Duke Christopher of Würtemberg, writing many books and making important missionary journeys. He was well received in Poland by Prince Radziwill and the king. He associated mainly with Lutherans and the Bohemian Brethren, but labored for the cause of union, like Laski. [1119]

He aided the Reformation by his able pen, and the Roman historian Raynaldus says that 'this wretched heretic led many weak Catholics into the camp of Satan.' But his stay in Poland was too short to leave permanent results.

The Papal Reaction And Triumph.

In the mean time the Roman Catholic party, under the leadership of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Bishop of Ermeland (d. 1579), was very active. Pope Paul IV. sent a nuncio, Lipomani, to Poland, and urged the king to banish Laski and Vergerio from the country, and to suppress, with every power at his command, the rising heresy, if he would save his honor, his crown, and his soul. The weak king vacillated between the advice of Calvin and the threats of the Pope, and did nothing. He allowed the glorious opportunity to pass, and died in 1572, the last of the House of Jagellon. The nobles were likewise undecided, and many of them were carried away by the Unitarian heresy which began to spread in Poland in 1558.

During the interregnum which followed the death of Sigmund Augustus, the nobles, before electing a new king, concluded in 1573 a patriotic treaty of peace for the protection of religious freedom, under the name of Pax Dissidentium--that is, of the Roman Catholic and the three evangelical Churches. [1120] They required Duke Henry of Anjou, the brother of the King of France and a violent enemy of the Huguenots, to accept the treaty as a condition of the crown, hoping to break it afterwards. On being peremptorily told by the Great Marshal, in the midst of the act of coronation, 'Si non jurabis non regnabis' he took the oath in spite of the remonstrance of the Romish party; but he left Poland in 1574, being called to the throne of France after the death of his brother, Charles IX. His Protestant successor, Stephen Bathori of Transylvania (1575-86), took the same oath, but afterwards joined the Roman Church and opened the door to the Jesuits This was the turning-point.

Under Sigmund III.--a Swedish prince, who had been educated and converted by Jesuits, and was elected king in 1587--there began a series of vexations and oppressions of the Protestants which gradually reduced them to a poor remnant, except in the Prussian part of Poland where the German element prevailed. Even Laski's relations and the four sons of Radziwill returned to the Roman Church; one of these sons became a cardinal; another made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and spent five thousand ducats for the purchase and destruction of Polish Bibles which his father had published (1563) at his expense. [1121] Hence the great scarcity of this work. It was an essential part of the Jesuit counter-reformation to burn the whole Protestant literature, and thus, to suppress all independent thought. In this it succeeded only too well. The Polish nation, after the light of the gospel was extinguished, hastened step by step to its internal and external ruin.

The Consensus Of Sendomir.

After the death of Laski (1560) and Prince Radziwill (1567) the Protestants had no commanding leader, and felt the more the necessity of some union for their own safety. An organic union would have been the best, and would perhaps have made them strong enough to carry the king and the nobles with them. But for such a step they were not prepared. Instead of this the Lutherans (influenced by the liberal advice of the Melanchthonian divines of Wittenberg), the Calvinists, and the Bohemian Brethren effected a confederate union at the Synod of Sendomir, [1122] April 14, 1570, and expressed it in the Consensus Sendomiriensis, the only important confessional document of the evangelical Churches in Poland. It was published by authority, in Latin and Polish, in 1586, with a preface signed by Erasmus Gliczner, Lutheran Superintendent of Great Poland, in the name of the ministers of the Augsburg Confession, by John Laurentius, Superintendent of the Bohemian Brethren in Great Poland, and by Paulus Gilovius, Superintendent of the Reformed Churches in Little Poland. [1123]

The Consensus sets forth that the three orthodox evangelical Churches are agreed in the doctrines of God, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the person of Christ, justification by faith, and other fundamental articles, as taught in the Augsburg, the Bohemian, and Helvetic Confessions, against papists, sectarians, and all enemies of the gospel; that in the unfortunate sacramentarian controversy they adopt that explanation of the words of institution which distinguishes (with Irenæus) between the earthly form and the heavenly substance in the Lord's Supper, and regards the visible elements not as mere signs, but as conveying to the believer truly through faith that which they represent. [1124]

Then follows a long extract on the sacraments from the Repetition of the Augsburg Confession, or Saxon Confession, which Melanchthon prepared in 1551 for the Council of Trent.

The Consensus thus adopts the later Melanchthonian or Calvinistic theory; it avoids the characteristic Lutheran terms (manducatio oralis, etc.), and demands faith as the medium of receiving the matter represented by the elements. The doctrine of predestination was not touched, as there seems to have been no controversy about it.

In conclusion the Consensus acknowledges the orthodoxy and Christian character of the three parties, and pledges them to cultivate peace and charity, and to avoid strife and dissension, which greatly hinder the progress of the gospel. They should seal this compact by exchange of pulpits and of delegates to general synods, and by frequent sacramental intercommunion; each denomination retaining its peculiarities in worship and discipline which (according to the Augsburg and the Saxon Confessions) are consistent with the unity of the Church.

Then follow the signatures of noblemen and ministers.

Great joy was felt at this happy result, and was expressed by mutual congratulations and united praise of God.

A few weeks afterwards, May 20, 1570, a synodical meeting was held at Posen in the same spirit of union, and twenty brief supplementary articles were adopted for the purpose of confirming and preserving the Consensus. [1125] One of the articles forbids polemics in the pulpit. When the people, who stood outside of the house where the meeting was held, heard the happy conclusion, they joined in the singing of the Te Deum, with tears of joy and gratitude to God. The union was sealed on the following Sunday by two united services in the Lutheran church and in the Bohemian chapel.

The Consensus was again confirmed by the general synods at Cracow, 1573; Petricow, 1578; Vladislav, 1583; and Thorn, 1595. The last was the largest synod ever held in Poland. [1126]

The Lutherans who adhered to the Formula of Concord (1580) withdrew from the Consensus. But the spirit of union which produced it passed into the three Brandenburg Confessions of the seventeenth century, and revived in the Evangelical Union of Prussia. [1127] __________________________________________________________________

[1113] On Calvin's relation to Poland, see Stähelin, Joh. Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 22 sqq.

[1114] Vergerius wrote, 1557, to Stanislaus Ostrorog: 'Esse jam in Polonia circiter XL ad eorum normam institutas ecclesias, quæ sane florent, multo autem plures propediem instituendas.'

[1115] Erasmus spoke of Laski in the highest terms, and sold him his library for three hundred crowns, with the privilege of retaining it till his death. Krasinski, l.c. p. 98 (German ed.).

[1116] He wrote to Calvin, Feb. 19, 1557 (Opera, Vol. II. p. 746): 'Ita nunc obruor curis ac negotiis, mi Calvine! ut nihil possim scribere. Hinc hostes, illinc falsi fratres nos adoriuntur, ut non sit quies ulla, sed et pios multos habemus, sit Deo gratia! qui nobis sunt et adiumento et consolationi.'

[1117] See Chr. H. Sixt: Petrus Paulas Vergerius, . . . eine reformationsgeschichtliche Monographie (Braunschweig, 1855), pp. 391 sqq. and 437 sqq. Comp. also Herzog's art. Vergerius, in his Real-Encykl. Vol. XVII. pp. 65 sqq.

[1118] See Chr. H. Sixt: Petrus Paulas Vergerius, . . . eine reformationsgeschichtliche Monographie (Braunschweig, 1855), pp. 391 sqq. and 437 sqq. Comp. also Herzog's art. Vergerius, in his Real-Encykl. Vol. XVII. pp. 65 sqq.

[1119] He thought at one time of joining the Unitas Fratrum, being disgusted with the renewal of the sacramental war. Even Melanchthon once expressed a similar desire, 'in Valdensium ecclesiis me inserere et in illis mori; placent enim mihi summopere.' See his letter to V. Dietrich, quoted by Herzog, p. 71.

[1120] The Roman Catholics objected to being called Dissidentes, and were opposed to the whole treaty.

[1121] Krasinski, p. 297.

[1122] A town on the Vistula in Little Poland. Krasinski and Gindely call it Sandomir.

[1123] The full title is 'Consensus in fide et religione Christiana inter Ecclesias Evangelicas Majoris et Minoris Poloniæ, Magnique Ducatus Lithuaniæ et cæterarum ejus regni provinciarum, primo Sendomiriæ Anno MDLXX. in Synodo generali sancitus, et deinceps in aliis, ac demum in Wlodislaviensi generali Synodo Anno MDLXXXIII. confirmatus, et Serenissimis Poloniæ Regibus, Augusto, Henrico ac Stephano oblatus, nunc autem ex decreto Synodico in publicum typis editus. Anno Christi MDLXXXVI.' This edition contains the supplementary resolutions of the Synods of Posen (1570), Cracow (1573), Petricow (1578), and Vladislav (1583). It was reprinted at Thorn, 1592 and 1596 (with the Acta et conclusiones synodi generalis Thoruniensis anni 1595); at Heidelberg, 1605; at Geneva, in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., 1612 and 1654 (from the Heidelberg edition); at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1704 (with a Preface and German translation of Dr. Sam. Strimesius); and at Berlin, 1731, in Jablonski's Historia cons. Send. Niemeyer (1840) gives the Latin text from the edition of Thorn, with all the supplements (pp. 551-591). Böckel excludes the Consensus (as not being strictly Reformed) from his collection. Beck gives the German text, but without the additions; and so also Dr. Nitzsch, in his Urkundenbuch der Evangelischen Union (Bonn, 1853), pp. 72 sqq.

[1124] Niemeyer, p. 554: 'Convenimus in sententia verborum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut illa orthodoxe intellecta sunt a patribus, ac imprimis Irenæo, qui duabus rebus, scilicet terrena et coelesti, hoc mysterium constare dixit; neque elementa signave nuda et vacua illa esse asserimus, sed simul reipsa credentibus exhibere et præstare fide, quod significant. Denique ut expressius clariusque loquamur, convenimus, ut credamus et confiteamur, substantialem præsentiam Christi [not corporis et sanguinis Christi], non significari duntaxat, sed vere in coena eo [sc. Christo] vescentibus repræsentari, distribui, et exhiberi corpus et sanguinem Domini symbolis adjectis ipsi rei minime nudis, secundum Sacramentorum naturam.' The Lutheran members demanded the phrase 'præsentiam corporis Christi' for 'præsentiam Christi,' and the insertion of the entire article of the Saxon Confession on the Lord's Supper. The first request was denied by the Calvinists and Bohemian Brethren; the second was granted, because the Saxon Confession uses the words 'in hac communione vere et substantialiter adesse Christum' (not corpus Christi). See Gindely, Gesch. der Böhm. Brüder, Vol. II. p. 86.

[1125] Consignatio observationum necessariarum ad confirmandum et conservandum mutuum Consensum Sendomiriæ Anno DN. MDLXX. die 14 April, in vera religione Christiana initum inter Ministros Augustanæ Confessionis et Fratrum Bohemorum, Posaniæ eodem anno, Maii 20 facta, et a Ministris utriusque coetus approbata ac recepta. Printed in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., and in Niemeyer, pp. 561-565.

[1126] See the Acts of these synods relating to the Consensus and to matters of discipline, in Niemeyer, pp. 565-591.

[1127] See above, pp. 545 sqq. Comp. also Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Evangelischen Union, pp. 80 sqq. __________________________________________________________________

§ 75. The Reformation in Hungary and the Confession of Czenger.

Literature.

I. The Latin text of the Confessio Czengerina, or Hungarica, in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., and in Niemeyer, pp. 539-550; the German text in Böckel, pp. 851-863.

II. P. Ember (Reform.): Historia ecclesiæ reform. in Hungaria et Transylvania (ed. Lampe). Utrecht, 1728.

Ribini (Luth.): Memorabilia Aug. Conf. in regno Hungariæ. 1787, 2 vols.

Geschichte der evang. Kirche in Ungarn vom Anfang der Reformation bis 1850 [by Bauhofer, not named]. Mit einer Einleitung von Merle d'Aubigné. Berlin, 1854.

Gieseler: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 258 sqq. (Am. ed.).

Baur: Geschichte der christl. Kirche, Vol. IV. (1863), pp. 214 sqq., 552 sqq.

Ebrard: Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. (1866), pp. 415-432.

E. L. Th. Henke (d. 1872): Neuere Kirchengeschichte (ed. by W. Gass). Halle, 1874, Vol. I. pp. 352 sqq.

Burgovszky: Art. Ungarn, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. XVI. pp. 636 sqq.

Hungary, an extensive and fertile country on the banks of the lower Danube, once an independent kingdom, then united with the empire of Austria, and containing a mixed population of Magyars, Germans, Slowaks, Ruthenians, Croats, Serbs, etc., received the first seeds of the Christian religion from Constantinople; but the real apostle of the Hungarians was Stephen I. (979-1038), a king and a saint, who by persuasion and violence overthrew heathenism and barbarism, gave rich endowments to the churches and clergy, and brought his country into close contact with the Roman Church and the German Empire.

THE REFORMATION.

The way for the Reformation was prepared by Waldenses and Bohemian Brethren who sought refuge in Hungary from persecution. The writings of Luther found ready access among the German population, and were read with avidity, especially the one on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Many young Hungarians, among them Matthias Dévay (De Vay), called 'the Hungarian Luther,' [1128] and Leonard Stöckel, studied at Wittenberg; others, as John Honter, at Basle; and on their return they introduced the new doctrines at Ofen, Cronstadt, and other cities, without any compulsion or aid from the government. It was a spontaneous movement of the people. Even some bishops and other dignitaries of the Roman Church became Protestants from conviction.

In 1545 a meeting of twenty-nine ministers at Erdöd adopted a creed of twelve articles in essential agreement with the Augsburg Confession. Another Lutheran synod at Medwisch (Medias), in 1548, drew up the Confessio Pentapolitana, which represented five free cities in Upper Hungary, and was declared legal in 1555. The Saxon or German population of Hungary and Transylvania remained mostly Lutheran.

On the other hand, the majority of the Magyars or Hungarians proper (the ruling race in that country) were more influenced by the Latin writings of Melanchthon and Calvin than by the German of Luther, and during the violent eucharistic controversies in Germany embraced the Calvinistic creed, which they formally adopted at the Synod of Czenger, 1557, and which they nominally profess to this day. [1129] A large number of Magyar pastors left the Lutheran Confession and embraced Calvinism in 1563. The Presbyterian polity and discipline were introduced by the Synods of Tarczal, Göntz, and Debreczin. Thus the separation of the two evangelical Churches was completed.

Protestantism made rapid progress under Maximilian II. At the close of the sixteenth century the larger part of the people and the whole nobility, with the exception of three magnates, had accepted the Reformation. It gave a vigorous impulse to national life and literary activity. 'It is astonishing to see the amount of religious information which was then spread among the citizens and the lower classes, and the fertility of the press in places where now not even an almanac is printed.' [1130]

But under the reign of Rudolph II., King of Hungary from 1572 to 1608, began the counter-reformation of the Jesuits (among whom Peter Pázmány, a nobleman of Calvinistic parents, was the most successful in making converts), and a series of cruel persecutions by the Hapsburg rulers, urged on by the Popes, which continued for nearly two centuries, amid reactions, rebellions, civil wars, and wars with the Turks. A Jesuitical formula for the conversion of Hungarian Protestants pronounces awful curses on the evangelical faith, with the promise to persecute it by the sword. Whether genuine or not, it shows the intense bitterness of the conflict. [1131] General Caraffa, a cruel papist, erected in the market-place at Eperjes a bloody scaffold, or 'slaughter-bank,' where for several months daily tortures and executions by fire and sword took place (1657). [1132]

Protestantism survived these trials. Joseph II., by his famous Edict of Toleration, Oct. 29, 1781, secured to the followers of the Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions liberty of conscience and public worship. His brother and successor, Leopold, confirmed it in 1791. The remaining restrictions were removed in 1848. The present number of Protestants in Hungary is about three millions, or one fifth of the whole population (which in 1869 amounted to fifteen millions and a half). The Lutheran Confession prevails among the German population; the followers of the Reformed or Helvetic Confession are twice as numerous, and are mostly Magyars.

The Hungarian Confession.

The Hungarian Confession, or Confessio Czengerina, was prepared and adopted at a Reformed Synod held at Czenger in 1557 or 1558, [1133] and printed in 1570 at Debreczin. [1134]

It treats, in brief articles or propositions, of the Triune God, of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Scripture designations of the Holy Spirit, the rules for explaining the phrases concerning God, the law and the gospel, the rights and sacraments of the Church, Christian liberty, election, the cause of sin, and the only mediator Jesus Christ. It is preceded by a strong Biblical argument against the anti-Trinitarians and Socinians, who had spread in Transylvania. It vehemently rejects the Romish transubstantiation and the Lutheran 'sarcophagia,' [1135] but also the 'sacramentarian' view of a purely symbolical presence, and teaches that Christ is truly though spiritually present, and communicates himself in the Lord's Supper as the living bread and the celestial drink, with all his gifts, to the believer. [1136] It defends infant baptism against the Anabaptists. It teaches a free election, but is silent about reprobation, and denies that God is the author of sin. Later synods professed more clearly the doctrine of predestination and the perseverance of saints.

This Confession presents some original and vigorous features, but has only a secondary historical importance. It was practically superseded by the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which is far superior, and was subscribed by the entire Reformed clergy of Hungary convened at Debreczin in 1567. The Heidelberg Catechism was also introduced. __________________________________________________________________

[1128] Dévay lived in the home of Luther, who calls him 'vir honestus, gravis et eruditus.' He sympathized, however, with Melanchthon in the eucharistic controversy, and inclined to the Calvinistic view, so as to cause complaint on the part of the strict Lutherans in Hungary (1544). See Luther's Letters, Vol. V. p. 644 (ed. De Wette), and Henke, p. 355.

[1129] We say nominally, for both the Reformed and Lutheran Churches of Hungary have been much affected by rationalism. This applies, however, to nearly all the State Churches of the Continent.

[1130] Burgovszky, l.c. p. 643.

[1131] See above, p. 92, note 2.

[1132] Sismondi and Merle d'Aubigné (l.c. p. ix.) state that the persecutions of the Hungarian Protestants surpassed in cruelty the persecutions of the Huguenots under Louis XIV.

[1133] The date is uncertain.

[1134] Debreczin is a royal free city in the northeastern part of the Hungarian Lowland, with about fifty thousand inhabitants, and contains the principal Calvinistic college of the kingdom. In 1849 it was the seat of the revolutionary government of Kossuth, and the independence of Hungary was there declared in the Reformed Church.

[1135] 'Damnamus Papisticum delirium . . . primo panem transsubstantiari, et offerri in missa: deinde sola accidentia panis manere. . . . Ita et eorum insaniam damnamus, qui asserunt Sarcophagiam, id est, ore corporali sumi corpus Christi naturale, sanguinolentum, sine ulla mutatione et transsubstantiatione.'--Niemeyer, pp. 544 sq. The severe judgment of the Lutheran doctrine was a retaliation for the condemnation of Zwingli and Calvin as sacramentarians by a Lutheran Synod of Hermanstadt. Ebrard, Vol. III. p. 424.

[1136] 'Rejicimus et eorum delirium, qui Coenam Domini vacuum signum, vel Christi absentis tantum memoriam his signis recoli docent. Nam sicut Christus est Amen, testis fidelis, verax, veritas et vita . . . ita Coena Domini est præsentis et infiniti æternique Filii Dei unigeniti a Patre memoria: qui se et sua bona, carnem suam et sanguinem suum, id est, panem vivum et potum coelestem, Spiritus Sancti ope per verbum promissionis gratiæ, offert et exhibet electis fide vera evangelium Christi apprehendentibus.'--Page 545. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

V. The Anglican Articles Of Religion.

§ 76. The English Reformation.

Literature.

I. Works on the Thirty-nine Articles.

(a) Historical.

Charles Hardwick (B.D., Archdeacon of Ely, and Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, d. 1859): A History of the Articles of Religion; to which is added a Series of Documents from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615, together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. Cambridge, 1851 (reprinted in Philadelphia, 1852); second edition, thoroughly revised, Cambridge, 1859 (pp. 399).

(b) Commentaries.

Thomas R. Jones: An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles by the Reformers; being Extracts from the Works of Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, Jewell, Philpot, Pilkington, Coverdale, Becon, Bradford, Sandys, Grindal, Whitgift, etc. London, 1849.

Thomas Rogers (Chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft): The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England, an Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. London, 1579, 1585, 1607, and other editions (under various titles). Newly edited by J. J. S. Perowne, for 'The Parker Society,' Cambridge, 1854. This is the oldest commentary, and was countenanced by Bancroft, to whom it was dedicated.

Gilbert Burnet (Bishop of Salisbury; b. 1643, d. 1715): An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Oxford, 1814 (Clarendon Press), and other editions. Revised, with notes, by James R. Page.

Richard Laurence, L.L.D. (formerly Reg. Prof. of Hebrew in Oxford): An Attempt to illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical. In eight sermons (Bampton Lectures for 1834). Oxford, third edition, 1838.

Edward Harold Browne (b. 1811, Bishop of Winchester since 1873, formerly of Ely): An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal. London, 1850-53, in two vols.; since often republished in one vol. (ninth edition, 1871); Amer. edition, with notes by Bishop Williams of Connecticut, New York, 1865.

A. P. Forbes (Bishop of Brechin): An Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, with an Epistle dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. Oxford and London, 1867. (High Church.)

E. W. Jelf (Canon of Christ Church, Oxford): The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England explained in a Series of Lectures. Edited by J. R. King. London, 1873.

II. History of the Reformation in England.

(a) Documents and Contemporary Sources.

Works of the English Reformers, published by 'The Parker Society,' Cambridge, 1841-54, fifty-four vols. Contains the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Sandys, Coverdale, Jewell, Grindal, Whitgift, the Zurich Letters, etc.

The State Calendars, now being published under the direction of the Master of the Rolls.

John Foxe (one of the Marian exiles, d. 1587): Acts and Monuments of the Church, or Book of Martyrs. London, 1563, and often in three or more volumes. Not accurate, but full of facts told in a forcible style.

Wilkins: Concilia Magnæ Brittaniæ et Hiberniæ (446-1717). Four vols. folio. 1736 sq.

E. Cardwell: Documentary Annals of the Church of England (1546-1716), Oxford, 1844, 2 vols.; Synodalia (1547-1717), Oxford, 1842, 2 vols.; The Reformation of the Laws in the Reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, Oxford, 1850.

(b) Historical Works.

John Strype (a most laborious and valuable contributor to the Church history and biography of the English Reformation period; b. 1643, d. 1737): Ecclesiastical Memorials . . . of the Church of England under King Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary (London, 1725-37; Oxford, 1822, 3 vols.); Annals of the Reformation . . . in the Church of England during Queen Elizabeth's Happy Reign (London, 1738; Oxford, 1824, 4 vols.; Memorials of Archbishops Cranmer (2 vols.), Parker (3 vols.), Grindal (1 vol.), Whitgift (3 vols.). See his Complete Works, Oxford, 1822-40, in twenty-seven vols.

Gilbert Burnet: The History of the Reformation of the Church of England. London, 1679 sqq., 7 vols., and other editions. New edition by Pocock.

C. Hardwick: History of the Christian Church during the Reformation, third edition (by W. Stubbs). London, 1873, pp. 165-249.

Fred. Seebohm: The Oxford Reformers, Colet, Erasmus, and More. London, 1869. The same: The Era of the Protestant Revolution. 1874.

The Church Histories of England and of the English Reformation by J. Collier (non-Juror), Dodd (Rom. Cath.), Thos. Fuller (Royalist; Church History of Great Britain until 1658 and The Worthies of England), Neal (History of the Puritans), Heylin, Soames, Massingbeard, Short, Blunt, Waddington, Weber, d'Aubigné, Fisher.

Also the secular Histories of England by Hume, Macaulay (the introductory chapter), Hallam (Constitut. Hist.), Lingard (Rom. Cath.), Knight, Froude, Ranke, Green, in the sections on the Reformation period.

The last and, in its final results, the most important chapter in the history of the reformation was acted in that remarkable island which has become the chief stronghold of Protestantism in Europe, the ruler of the waves, and the pioneer of modern Christian civilization and constitutional liberty. The Anglo-Saxon race is intrusted by Providence with the sceptre of empire in its eastward and westward coarse. The defeat of the Armada was that turning-point in history when the dominion in which the sun never sets passed from Roman Catholic Spain to Protestant England.

The Reformation in Britain, favored by insular independence, was a national political as well as ecclesiastical movement, and carried with it Church and State, rulers and subjects; while on the Continent it encountered a powerful opposition and Jesuitical reaction. It began with outward changes, and was controlled by princes, bishops, and statesmen rather than by scholars and divines; while in other countries the reform proceeded from the inner life of religion and the profound study of the Scriptures. Good and bad men, from pure and low motives, took part in the work, but were overruled by a higher power for a noble end. [1137] England produced no reformers of such towering genius, learning, and heroism as Luther and Calvin, but a large number of learned and able prelates and statesmen, and a noble army of martyrs worthily led by Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, and Rogers. It displayed less theological depth and originality than Germany and Switzerland, where the ideas and principles of the Reformation were wrought out, but a greater power of practical organization. It gave the new ideas a larger field of action and application to all the ramifications of society and all departments of literature, which entered upon its golden age in the reign of Elizabeth, and which, in wealth of genius and in veneration for the truths of Christianity, far surpassed that of any other nation. [1138] Although at first despotic and intolerant, English Protestantism by its subsequent development became the guardian of civil and religious liberty. The fierce struggle between 'the old and new learning' lasted for more than a century, and passed through a baptism of blood which purified and fertilized the soil of England and became the seed of new colonies and empires beyond the sea.

The British Reformation is full of romantic interest, and developed a great variety of strongly marked characters, who still excite the passions, prejudices, and contradictory judgments of writers and readers. It is a succession of tragedies; it abounds in actions and reactions, in crimes and punishments, in changes of fortune, in men and women elevated to the pinnacle of power and happiness and hurled to the abyss of disgrace and misfortune. It furnishes a striking illustration of the truth that the history of the Church, as well as of the world, is a judgment of the Church. This idea of righteous retribution imparts a thrilling moral effect to the tragedies of Shakspere, who lived at the close of these shifting scenes, and gathered from them his marvelous knowledge of human nature, in all its phases and conditions, such as no poet ancient or modern ever possessed.

The richest fruit of the British Reformation is the translation of the Bible--the work of three generations, the best ever made, and to this day the chief nursery of piety among the Protestant denominations of the English-speaking race; and next to it that noble responsive liturgy which animates and regulates the devotions of the Episcopal communion on land and sea. These two works are truly national institutions, and command a veneration and affection above all other books, not only by their sacred contents, but also by their classical diction, which sounds in the ear like solemn music from a higher and better world.

Epochs Of The English Reformation.

The history of the English Reformation naturally divides itself into four periods:

1. From 1527 to 1547. The abolition of the authority of the Roman See over England and the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. This was chiefly a destructive process and a political change of the supreme governing power of the Church, prompted by unworthy personal motives, but it prepared the way for the religious reformation under the following reign. The despotic and licentious monarch, whom Leo X. rewarded for his book against Luther with the title 'Defender of the Faith,' remained a Catholic in belief and sentiment till his death; he merely substituted king-worship for pope-worship, a domestic tyranny for a foreign one, by cutting off the papal tiara from the episcopal hierarchy and placing his own crown on the bleeding neck; but he could not have effected so great a revolution without the sanction of Parliament and a strong clerical and popular current towards ecclesiastical independence and reform, which showed itself even before his breach with Rome, and became dominant under his successor.

2. From 1547 to 1553. The introduction of the Reformation in doctrine and worship under Edward VI., Henry's only son, and the commencing conflict between the semi-Catholic and the Puritan tendencies. The ruling genius of this period was Archbishop Cranmer, the Melanchthon of England, who by cautious trimming and facile subservience to Henry had saved the cause of the Reformation through the trials of a despotic reign for better times.

3. From 1553 to 1558. The papal reaction under Henry's oldest daughter, Mary Tudor, that 'unhappiest of queens and wives and women.' [1139] She had more Spanish than English blood in her veins, and revenged the injustice done to her mother, Catharine of Aragon. Her short but bloody reign was the period of Protestant martyrdom, which fertilized the soil of England, and of the exile of about eight hundred Englishmen, who were received with open arms on the Continent, and who brought back clearer and stronger views of the Reformation. The violent restoration of the old system intensified the hatred of Popery, and forever connected it in the English mind with persecution and bloodshed, with national humiliation and disgrace. 'The tale of Protestant sufferings was told with wonderful pathos and picturesqueness by John Foxe, an exile during the persecution, and his "Book of Martyrs," which was (under the following reign) set up by royal order in the churches for public reading, passed from the churches to the shelves of every English household.'

4. From 1558 to 1603. The permanent establishment of the Reformed Church of England in opposition both to Roman Catholic and to Puritan dissent during the long, brilliant, and successful reign of Queen Elizabeth.

This masculine woman, the last and the greatest of the Tudors, inherited the virtues and vices of her Catholic father (Henry VIII.) and her Protestant mother (Anne Boleyn). [1140] She was endowed with rare gifts by nature, and favored with, the best education; she was brave and bold, yet prudent and cautious; fond of show, jewelry and dress, yet parsimonious and mean; coldly intellectual, high-tempered, capricious, haughty, selfish, and vain, and well versed in the low arts of intrigue and dissimulation. She trusted more in time and her good fortune than in Almighty God. She was destitute of religious enthusiasm, and managed the Church question from a purely political point of view. She dropped the blasphemous title 'Head of the Church of England,' and was content to be the supreme 'Governor' of the same. [1141] But with this limitation the royal supremacy was the chief article in her creed, and she made her bishops feel her power. 'Proud prelate,' she wrote to the Bishop of Ely, when he resisted the spoliation of his see in favor of one of her favorites, 'you know what you were before I made you what you are! If you do not immediately comply with my request, by God! I will unfrock you.' As a matter of taste she liked crucifixes, images, and the gorgeous display of the Roman hierarchy and ritual; and, being proud of her own virginity, she disliked the marriage of the clergy; she insulted the worthy wife of Archbishop Parker by refusing to call her 'Madam,' the usual address to married ladies. But she had the sagacity to perceive that her true interests were identified with the cause of Protestantism, and she maintained it with a strong arm, aided by the ablest council and the national sentiment, against the excommunication of the Pope, the assaults of Spain, and the intrigues of the Jesuits at home. This is the basis of the popularity which she enjoyed as a ruler with all classes of her subjects except the Romanists.

Her ecclesiastical policy at home was a system of compromise in the interest of outward uniformity. It was fortified by a penal code which may be explained though not justified by the political necessities and the general intolerance of the times, but which was nevertheless cruel and abominable, and has been gradually swept away by the progress of a nobler and more enlightened policy of religious liberty.

As in the case of her predecessors, we should remember that the policy of Elizabeth was merely the outward frame which surrounds the true inward history of the religious movement of her age. The doctrinal reformation with which we are concerned was begun in the second and completed in the fourth period.

With the reign of Elizabeth ended the great conflict with Rome. It was followed by the internal conflict between Puritanism and Episcopacy, which, after a temporary triumph of the former under Cromwell, resulted in the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church and the expulsion of Puritanism (1662), until another revolution (1688) brought on the final downfall of the treacherous Stuarts and the toleration of the Dissenters, who thereafter represented, in separate organizations, the left or radical wing of English Protestantism. __________________________________________________________________

[1137] Robert Southey (Life of Wesley, Vol. I. p. 266, Harpers' edition) says: 'In England the best people and the worst combined in bringing about the Reformation, and in its progress it bore evident marks of both.'

[1138] Fisher (The Reformation, p. 533): 'The boldness and independence of the Elizabethan writers, their fearless and earnest pursuit of truth, and their solemn sense of religion, apart from all asceticism and superstition, are among the effects of the Reformation. This is equally true of them as it is of Milton and of the greatest of their successors. Nothing save the impulse which Protestantism gave to the English mind, and the intellectual ferment which was engendered by it, will account for the literary phenomena of the Elizabethan times.' Even that brilliant and racy French critic, Taine, must acknowledge the constant influence of 'the grave and grand idea of religion, of faith and prayer,' upon such writers as Bacon, Raleigh, Burton, and Sir Thomas Browne.

[1139] Tennyson, in Queen Mary, act v. scene 2.

[1140] Her character is admirably drawn by Froude, and by the latest historian of England, J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People (London, 1875), pp. 362-370.

[1141] Parliament, in the act of supremacy (1534), declared King Henry, his heirs and successors, to be 'the only supreme head, on earth, of the Church of England, called the Anglicana Ecclesia.' For denying this royal supremacy in spiritual matters, More and Fisher suffered martyrdom. The thirty-seventh of the Elizabethan Articles modifies it considerably, but still claims for 'the Queen's Majesty the chief power in this Realm of England, . . . unto whom the chief government of all estates, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain,' etc. Elizabeth disclaimed the sacerdotal character which her father had assumed, but retained and exercised the vast power of appointing her prelates, summoning and dissolving convocations, sanctioning creeds and canons, and punishing heresies and all manner of abuses with the civil sword. __________________________________________________________________

§ 77. The Doctrinal Position of the Anglican Church and her Relation to other Churches.

The Reformed Church of England occupies an independent position between Romanism on the one hand, and Lutheranism and Calvinism on the other, with strong affinities and antagonisms in both directions. She nursed at her breasts Calvinistic Puritans, Arminian Methodists, liberal Latitudinarians, and Romanizing Tractarians and Ritualists. This comprehensiveness of the Church as a whole is quite consistent with the narrowness and exclusiveness of particular parties. It repels and attracts; it caused the large secessions which occurred at critical junctures in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, but it also explains the individual accessions which she continually though quietly receives from other Churches.

The English mind is not theorizing and speculative, but eminently practical and conservative; it follows more the power of habit than the logic of thought; it takes things as they are, makes haste slowly, mends abuses cautiously, and aims at the attainable rather than the ideal. The Reformation in England was less controlled by theology than on the Continent, and more complicated with ecclesiastical and political issues. Anglican theology is as much embodied in the episcopal polity and the liturgical worship as in the doctrinal standards. The Book of Common Prayer is catholic, though purged of superstitious elements; the Articles of Religion are evangelical and moderately Calvinistic. [1142] The hierarchical, sacerdotal, and sacramental systems of religion are congenial and logically inseparable; they moderate and check the Protestant tendency, and if unduly pressed they become Romanizing. In great minds we often find great antagonisms or opposite truths dwelling together unreconciled; while partisans look only at one side. Augustine, Luther, and even the more logical Calvin, believed in divine sovereignty and human responsibility, free election and sacramental grace, and combined reverence for Church authority with independence of private judgment. The English Church leaves room for catholic and evangelical, mediæval and modern ideas, without an attempt to harmonize them; but her parties are one-sided, and differ as widely as separate denominations, though subject to the same bishop and worshiping at the same altar. She is composite and eclectic in her character, like the English language; she has more outward uniformity than inward unity; she is fixed in her organic structure, but elastic in doctrinal opinion, and has successively allowed opposite schools of theology to grow up which claim to be equally loyal to her genius and institutions. She has lost in England by those periodical separations which followed her great religious movements (the Puritan, the Methodist, the Anglo-Catholic) nearly one half of the nation she once exclusively controlled; yet she remains to this day the richest and strongest national Church in Protestant Christendom, and exercises more power over England than Lutheranism does over Germany or Calvinism over Switzerland and Holland. In the United States the Protestant Episcopal Church is numerically much smaller than most of the denominations which in England were cast out or voluntarily went out from the established Church as Non-conformists and Dissenters; but she will always occupy a commanding position among the higher classes and in large cities, because she represents the noble institutions and literature of the aristocratic, conservative, and venerable Church of England.

The Melanchthonian Influence.

Germany received Roman Catholic Christianity from England through Winfrid or Boniface, and in turn gave to England the first impulse of the evangelical Reformation. The writings of Luther were read with avidity by students in Oxford and Cambridge as early as 1527. Cranmer spent some time in Germany, and was connected with it by domestic ties. [1143] Henry VIII. never overcame his intense dislike of Luther, kindled by their unfortunate controversy on the seven sacraments, and strengthened by Luther's breach with Erasmus; but he respected Melanchthon for his learning and wisdom, and invited him to assist in reforming the English Church. [1144] He entered into negotiations with the Wittenberg divines and the Lutheran princes of the Smalcald League, but chiefly from political motives and without effect.

Under Edward VI. the influence of the Melanchthonian theology, as embodied in the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Suabian Confession (1552), became more apparent, and can be clearly traced in Cranmer's earlier writings, in some of the Articles of Religion, and in those parts of the Book of Common Prayer which were borrowed from the 'Consultation' of Archbishop Hermann of Cologne, compiled by Bucer and Melanchthon (1543). Hence the English Church has been called sometimes by Lutheran divines an Ecclesia Lutheranizans.

But the peculiar views of Luther on the real presence and the ubiquity of Christ's body found no congenial soil in England. Cranmer himself abandoned them as early as Dec. 14, 1548, when a public discussion was held in London on the eucharist; and he adopted, together with Ridley, the Calvinistic doctrine of a virtual presence and communication of Christ's glorified humanity. He held that 'Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, and spiritually in them that worthily eat the bread and drink the wine; but, on the other hand, contended that our blessed Lord is really, carnally, and corporally in heaven alone, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.' [1145] This doctrinal change was embodied (1552) in the revision of the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI.; the prayer of oblation was converted into a thanksgiving, and the old formula of distribution, which was compatible even with a belief in transubstantiation ('The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc.), was replaced by another which a Zwinglian may approve ('Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee,' etc.). In the Elizabethan Service-Book the two formulas were combined (the second being an explanation of the first), and have ever since continued in use.

In the violent controversies which agitated Germany after Luther's death, and which led to the Formula of Concord, England sided with the milder Melanchthonian school. Queen Elizabeth made an effort to prevent the adoption of the Formula and the condemnation of the Reformed doctrines. [1146]

The Zwinglian And Calvinistic Influence.

The doctrines of Zurich and Geneva began to spread in England under the reign of Edward VI. Calvin, whose books were prohibited by Henry VIII. (in 1542), corresponded freely with the Duke of Somerset (Oct. 22, 1548), Edward VI., and Cranmer, and urged a more thorough reformation of doctrine and discipline, and a better education of the clergy, but left episcopacy untouched, which he was willing to tolerate in England as well as in the kingdom of Poland. [1147] His controversy with Pighius about predestination excited considerable sympathy in England (1552), and his doctrine of the eucharist gained ground more rapidly. Cranmer called to his aid prominent Reformed and Unionistic divines, such as Peter Martyr, Ochino, Laski, Bucer, and Fagius, and gave them high positions in Oxford, Cambridge, and London. It is characteristic of his catholicity of spirit that in 1548 he conceived the plan of inviting Melanchthon of Wittenberg, Bullinger of Zurich, Calvin of Geneva, Bucer of Strasburg, Peter Martyr, Laski, and others to Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a union creed for all evangelical Churches. [1148] John Hooper, who had resided two years at Zurich, was made Bishop of Gloucester (1551), although he went even beyond Bullinger and Calvin in matters of clerical vestments and ceremonies, and may be called a forerunner of Puritanism. He died heroically for his faith under Mary (1555). John Knox was elected one of the chaplains of Edward VI., and was offered the bishopric of Rochester, which he declined. He exerted considerable influence, and would no doubt have retained it under Elizabeth, had he not (together with his teacher and friend, Calvin) incurred her personal dislike by his trumpet-blast 'against the monstrous regimen of women,' which was provoked by the fatal misgovernment of her sister. [1149]

Under the reign of Mary the English exiles formed the closest ties of personal and theological friendship with the Reformers of Switzerland, and on their return under Queen Elizabeth they took the lead in the restoration and reconstruction of the Reformed Church of England. Bishop Jewel, the final reviser of the Thirty-nine Articles, wrote to Peter Martyr at Zurich (Feb. 7, 1562): 'As to matters of doctrine, we have pared every thing away to the very quick, and do not differ from you by a nail's breadth; for as to the ubiquitarian [i.e., the Lutheran] theory there is no danger in this country. Opinions of that kind can only gain admittance where the stones have sense.' [1150]

Bullinger's 'Decades' were for some time the manual of the clergy. Afterwards Calvin's 'Institutes' became the text-book of theology in Oxford and Cambridge. [1151] Even his Catechism was ordered to be used by statute in the universities (1587). Next to him his friend and successor, Beza, was for many years the highest theological authority. The University of Cambridge, in thanking him for the valuable gift of Codex D of the New Testament, in 1581, acknowledges its preference for him and John Calvin above any men that ever lived since the days of the Apostles. [1152] Beza's editions of the Greek Testament, his elegant Latin translation, and exegetical notes were in general use in England during the reigns of Elizabeth and James, and were made the chief basis not only of the Geneva Bible (1560), but also of the revision of the Bishops' Bible under King James (1611). [1153]

It is not too much to say that the ruling theology of the Church of England in the latter half of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century was Calvinistic. [1154] The best proof of this is furnished by the 'Zurich Letters,' [1155] extending over the whole period of the Reformation, the Elizabethan Articles, the Second Book of Homilies (chiefly composed by Bishop Jewel), the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, and the report of the delegation of King James to the Calvinistic Synod of Dort. [1156]

Episcopacy.

This theological sympathy between the English and the Continental Churches extended also to the principles of Church government, which was regarded as a matter of secondary importance, and subject to change, like rites and ceremonies, 'according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word' (Art. XXXIV.). The difference was simply this: the English Reformers, being themselves bishops, retained episcopacy as an ancient institution of the Church catholic, but fully admitted (with the most learned fathers and schoolmen, sustained by modern commentators and historians) the original identity of the offices of bishop and presbyter; while the German and Swiss Reformers, being only presbyters or laymen, and opposed by their bishops, fell back from necessity rather than choice upon the parity of ministers, without thereby denying the human right and relative importance or expediency of episcopacy as a superintendency over equals in rank. The more rigid among the Puritans departed from both by attaching primary importance to matters of discipline and ritual, and denouncing every form of government and public worship that was not expressly sanctioned in the New Testament.

The most learned English divines before the period of the Restoration, such as Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Field, Ussher, Hall, and Stillingfleet, did not hold the theory of an exclusive jure divino episcopacy, and fully recognized the validity of presbyterian ordination. They preferred and defended episcopacy as the most ancient and general form of government, best adapted for the maintenance of order and unity; in one word, as necessary for the well-being, but not for the being of the Church. Cranmer invited the co-operation of Lutherans and Calvinists even in the most important work of framing the Articles of Religion and revising the Liturgy, without questioning their ordination; his own views of episcopacy were so low that he declared 'election or appointment thereto sufficient' without consecration, and he was so thoroughly Erastian that after the death of Henry he and his suffragans took out fresh commissions from the new king. [1157] His three successors in the primacy (Parker, Grindal, and Whitgift) did not differ from him in principle. 'Archbishop Grindal,' says Macaulay, 'long hesitated about accepting a mitre, from dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of opinion that the word bishop should be abandoned to the Papists, and that the chief officers of the purified Church should be called superintendents.' The nineteenth of the Elizabethan Articles, which treats of the visible Church, says nothing of episcopacy as a mark of the Church. The statute of the thirteenth year of Elizabeth, cap. 12, permits ministers of the Scotch and other foreign Churches to exercise their ministry in England without re-ordination. After the union with Scotland the English sovereign represented in his official character the national Churches of the two countries, and when in Scotland, Queen Victoria takes the communion from the hands of a Presbyterian parson. Prominent clergymen of the Church of England, such as Travers (Provost of Trinity College, Dublin), Whittingham (Dean of Durham), Cartwright (Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, afterwards Master of Warwick Hospital), and John Morrison (from Scotland), had received only Presbyterian ordination in foreign Churches. Similar instances of Scotch, French, and Dutch Reformed ministers who were received simply on subscribing the Articles occurred down to the civil war. The English delegates to the Synod of Dort, which was presided over by a presbyter, were high dignitaries and doctors of divinity, one of them (Carleton) a bishop, and two others (Davenant and Hall) were afterwards raised to bishoprics. Archbishop Ussher, the greatest English divine of his age, who in eighteen years had mastered the whole mass of patristic literature, defended episcopacy only as a presidency of one presbyter over his peers, and declared that when abroad he would take the holy communion from a Dutch Reformed or French minister as readily as from an Episcopalian clergyman at home.

But the reigns of James and Charles I. form the transition. In the heat of the Puritan controversy both parties took extreme ground, Presbyterians and Independents as well as Episcopalians, and claimed exclusive Scripture authority and divine right for their form of government. Truth and error were mixed on both sides; for the primitive government was neither Episcopalian nor Presbyterian nor Independent, but apostolic; and the Apostles, as inspired and infallible teachers and rulers of the whole Church of all ages, have and can have no successors, as Christ himself can have none.

The doctrine of the divine and exclusive right of episcopacy was first intimated, in self-defense, by Bishop Bancroft, of London (in a sermon, 1589), then taught and rigidly enforced by Archbishop Laud (1633-1645), the most un-Protestant of English prelates, [1158] and was apparently sanctioned in 1662 by the Act of Uniformity, which forbade any person to hold a benefice or to administer the sacraments before he be ordained a priest by Episcopal ordination. By this cruel Act two thousand ministers, including some of the ablest and most worthy men in England, were expelled from office and driven into non-conformity.

Notwithstanding this change, the Church of England has never officially and expressly pronounced on the validity or invalidity of non-episcopal orders in other Churches; she only maintains that no one shall officiate in her pulpits and at her altars who has not received episcopal ordination according to the direction of the Prayer-book. [1159]