Third Edition, revised
Translated from German and Latin
by
and
Augsburg Publishing House Minneapolis 15, Minn.
Copyright 1875
and 1889, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs
Copyright 1899, Henry A. Jacobs and
Charles E. Hay
This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. Preface, table of contents, index and formatting added by Daniel North.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825
USA Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126
This reprint edition has been prepared by permission of the United Lutheran Publication House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The title page identifies the translators of this volume. The worth of their labor is attested by the appearance of this reprint in response to requests from seminary professors and students some sixty years after the last previous editions.
The title page also indicates the nature of the original work. It is not a dogmatic text so much as it is a compilation of theological statements drawn from the writings of fourteen prominent Lutheran theologians who lived during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These quotations are employed to support and clarify the Christian faith after the pattern of presentation developed in the early Lutheran tradition.
In their own preface the translators point out that, “The aim of the compiler was of a purely historical character . . . not to afford a summary of absolutely final definitions of Lutheran Theology, but to exhibit the teaching that had been current up to the time of Rationalism.” Notwithstanding the present emphasis on “back to Luther,” the great systematizers who followed him will remain important. A frank recognition of their limitations does not weaken respect for their contribution. It is this respect, and the fact that so small a part of the voluminous writings of these theologians is available in English, which underlies the decision to reissue this volume.
An element of grateful commemoration also upholds the publication of this work. The English edition of Hay and Jacob’s translation of Schmid’s The Doctrinal Theology of the Lutheran Church, in 1875, ranks with the translation of The Book of Concord, and Charles Porterfield Krauth’s The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, as a significant contribution to the restoration of true Lutheranism in America.
While a reprint does not permit it, the desirability of revision is recognized. Both the author and translators have reckoned with this need. From the Preface to the Third and Fourth Editions we quote, “The second edition of this translation published in 1889, aimed at a faithful reproduction of the Fifth Edition of the original, the last published in the life of its author, together with such additions from the same authorities from which Dr. Schmid had compiled, as would render the work more serviceable to American students. In the present edition, we have followed in general the same plan, but have taken the liberty of dispensing with a few of the quotations from the old theologians, which no one will miss, as, e.g., the long discussion on demoniacal possession. Dr. Schmid’s own statements are unchanged and unabbreviated; but his compilations have been edited and enriched. A similar attempt was made in Germany about five years ago, by Professor Dr. Franck, of Erlangen, Dr. Schmid’s son-in-law.”
Finally, a report that Professor Ratchow of the University of Münster is planning a German revision of Schmid points to the general recognition of the enduring worth of the work.
THOMAS P. SOLEM
Luther Theological Seminary
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
January 1961
Ap. Conf., | Apology of the Augsburg Confession. |
Art. Smalcald, | Smalcald Articles. |
Behm., | Bechmann. |
Br., | Baier. |
Brchm., | Brochmann. |
Cal., | Calovius. |
Cat. Maj., | Luther’s Large Catechism. |
Cat. Min., | Luther’s Small Catechism. |
Chmn., | Chemnitz. |
Chmn. ex. c. Trid., | Chemnitz on the Council of Trent. |
Chmn. d. c. D., | Chemnitz on the Lord’s Supper. |
Conf. Aug., | Augsburg Confession. |
Form. Conc., | The Formula of Concord. |
Grh., | Gerhard. |
Hfrffr., | Hafenreffer. |
Holl., | Hollazius. |
Hutt., | Hutterus. |
Kg., | Koenig. |
Mel., | Melanchthon. |
Quen., | Quenstedt. |
Schrzr., | Scherzer. |
Seln., | Selnecker. |
Symb. Nic., | Nicene Creed. |
§ 1. Of Theology in General, etc.
THE Introduction treats: 1. Of Theology in general; 2. Of the Subject of Theology, Religion; 3. Of the Source of Theology, Revelation in general (with an appendix, on the Use of Reason in Theology); 4. Of the Holy Scriptures, in which Revelation is contained; 5. Of the Articles of Faith, which comprise the contents of the Holy Scripture; and of the Symbolical Books, which contain the Confession of the Church.
§ 2. Meaning of the terms, Natural and Revealed
By Theology we understand, according to the etymology of the term,
the knowledge of doctrine of God and of divine things [1]. Such a knowledge we gain,
partly in a natural way, by the use of reason alone, partly in a supernatural way,
by special revelation; and hence Theology is divided into Natural and Revealed. [2]
In both cases, however, Theology is not a mere outward knowledge, by which the understanding
alone is enriched, but is of such a nature as to make man truly wise, and show him
the way to be saved; hence Theology, strictly so-called, must be defined: “Eminently
practical wisdom, teaching from the revealed Word of God all things which sinful
man, who is to be saved, needs to know and to do, in order to attain true faith
in Christ and holiness of life.”[3] (HOLL.1.) If
[1] QUEN. (I, 1); “Theology, if you consider the force and usage of the word is nothing else than λογος περι του θεον, what is said about God and divine things, as πνευματολογια is what is said about spirits, and αστρολογια, what is said about the stars.”
The word is sometimes employed in a wider and sometimes in a narrower sense. The different significations are thus stated by HOLL. (3): “The word Theology is employed in a fourfold sense; (a) most comprehensively, for every doctrine concerning God, whether true or mixed with errors; (b) comprehensively, for true Theology, either in itself considered, or as communicated; either of men on earth or of saints in heaven; either natural or revealed; (c) specially, of revealed Theology, that guides mortal man to eternal life; (d) most specifically, of the doctrine concerning the one and triune God.”
In all these significations, reference is had merely to the Theology of the
creature, i.e., to the knowledge which creatures have of God, and not to that which
God has of Himself. Theologians distinguish also between these, and call the former
theologia εκτυπος (derived Theology), and the latter
theologia αρχετυπος (original
Theology), by which they mean to say that our knowledge of God, although derived
and not original, is, nevertheless, absolutely correct, because derived from God,
and only the faithful copy of His own knowledge. HOLL. (3 and 4): “Archtypal Theology
is the knowledge which God has of Himself, and which in Him is the model of another
Theology, which is communicated to intelligent creatures. Ectypal Theology is the
science of God and divine things communicated to intelligent creatures by God, after
His own Theology, as a pattern. We thus prove our assertion: (1.) Man was made complete,
in the image of God. But the image of God consisted in a knowledge of God conformed
to the divine wisdom. Therefore its archetype was the infinite wisdom of God. (2.)
Fallen man “is renewed in knowledge after the image of God,”
[2] HOLL. (5): “The Theology of the Way is twofold, natural and revealed (supernatural). The former is that according to which God is known both by innate ideas, and by the inspection of created things. The latter is the knowledge of God and of divine things, which God communicates to man upon earth, either by immediate revelation or inspiration (to prophets and apostles), or by mediate revelation or the divine Word, committed to writing.”
[3] Still more frequently Theology is called a practical habit. As it appeared to the theological writers that the expression science gave too much prominence to the mere acquaintance with the subjects concerned, they therefore sought a definition in which it should be distinctly expressed that by Theology there was meant a divinely-wrought knowledge, such as urged its possessor to put to practice what he learned.
[By dogmaticians
follow the mediaeval mystics and some scholastics, in defining Theology as “wisdom”
rather than “science,” thus emphasizing the need of spiritual illumination for the
apprehension
QUEN. (I, 11): “We are here speaking of Theology, not as to what it signifies in a book, but as to what it is, subjectively in the mind.”
GRH. thus defines (II, 13): “Theology, viewed as a discipline and concretely, is a divinely-given discipline, bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit through the Word, whereby he is not only instructed in the knowledge of divine mysteries, by the illumination of the mind, so that what he understands produces a salutary effect upon the disposition of his heart and the actions of his life, but so that he is also qualified to inform others concerning these divine mysteries and the way of salvation, and to vindicate heavenly truth from the aspersions of its foes; so that men, abounding in true faith and good works, are led to the kingdom of heaven.”
QUEN. (I, 16): “A distinction is made between theoretical habits, which consist wholly in the mere contemplation of the truth, and practical habits, which, indeed, require a knowledge of whatever is to be done, but which do not end in this, nor have it as their aim, but which lead to practice and action. Theology, we refer, not to the theoretical, but to the practical habits.”
HOLL. (8) thus states the reasons
for this distinction: “(1) Because the immediate aim of Theology is true faith in
Christ, the operation of which is twofold, viz.: internal, which embraces Christ
with His benefits, and external, which produces good works, the fruit of righteousness.
The ultimate end of Theology is eternal happiness, which consists not only in the
intuitive knowledge of God, but also in the enjoyment of God. (2) Because Theology
treats of man, not theoretically, as the subject of its description, as certain
qualities are ascribed to man in Physiology, but as the subject of its operation,
or how he, as a sinner, is to be freed from his misery and transferred into a state
of blessedness . . . (3) Because Paul himself defines Theology to be ‘the knowledge
of the truth which is after godliness.’
[4] QUEN. (I, 11): “The term Theology
is taken either essentially, absolutely, and as a mental habitude, for the knowledge
which the mind holds and to which it clings, or in as far as it is a habit of the
human mind;
As to the subject-matter of Theology, systematically considered, out of which it is drawn, HOLL. (11) states: “It consists of theological truth, i.e., of facts or conclusions known or deduced from the supernatural revelation of God.” In regard to the subject-matter concerning which it treats: “Theology in general discusses God and divine things, in so far as they have been truly revealed through the divine Word to sinful man, to be believed and practiced. Specifically, it teaches by what ways and means mortal man, corrupted by sin, is to be introduced into eternal life.”
Theology is divided, according to KG., (3) into: “Catechetical, or simple, such as is required of all Christians, and acroamatic, or more accurate, which is the province of the learned and ministers of the Word. The latter is divided, according to the method of treating it, into exegetical, which is employed in the exhibition of the sacred text; didactic strictly so-called, which discusses theological subjects in order and systematically; polemic, which treats of theological controversies; homiletic, which teaches the method of preaching to the people; casuistic, which solves doubtful cases of conscience; ecclesiastical, which treats of church discipline, visitations, synods, etc., etc.
Corresponding to the two definitions of Theology, we have (HOLL. 13 seq.):
“The Theologian properly and strictly so-called; a regenerated man, firmly believing
in the divine Word, that reveals the mysteries of faith, adhering to it with unshaken
confidence, apt in teaching others and confuting opponents. A Theologian, in the
general sense of the term, is a man well instructed in the department of Theology,
whereby he is rendered prompt in expounding and defending heavenly truth. The Theologian
in a wider sense may be one who while rightly discharging the office of a Theologian
by expounding, confirming and defending theological truths, is, nevertheless, destitute
of sincere holiness of disposition.” The “theological knowledge of a truly regenerated
and renewed man” is described as “spiritual knowledge, by which the literal sense
of the Biblical language is applied according to the use designed by the Holy Spirit
and produces spiritual and godly emotions of the heart;”
§ 3. Religion, True and False
THE subject of Theology is accordingly, Religion.[1] Religion is the way and manner in which God is worshiped. That is a false religion in which God is worshiped in a manner that does not accord with His nature and will; that is the true and right religion in which this is done in the manner which He regards as right and which He prescribes,[2] so that hereby man, estranged from God, is brought back again to Him, and secures his salvation. This proper manner is taught in the Holy Scriptures; and thus the true religion, more accurately defined, is that in which God is worshiped in the manner therein prescribed, and therefore the Christian Religion is the true one.[3] The proper manner of worshiping God must, accordingly, first of all, manifest itself in that disposition of soul towards God which is agreeable to Him, and secondly, in love toward our neighbor and the practice of all the virtues enjoined by God.[4] In the widest sense, therefore, Religion embraces all that God commands to be believed and to be done.[5]
[1] HOLL. (32): “Some suppose the term Religion to be derived
from religando (Lactantius), others from relegendo (Cicero). According to the former
derivation, religion signified the obligation rightly to worship God, or, that which
imposes upon man obligations and duties. According to the latter etymology, religion
is diligent attention to those things which pertain to the worship of God. The former
derivation is more generally received.” — QUEN. “Synonymous are
θρησκεια,
[2] QUEN. (I, 19): “The Christian religion is the method of worshiping God prescribed in the Word, by which man, separated from God by sin, is led back to God, through faith in Jesus Christ (who is both God and man), so that he is reunited with God, and enjoys Him eternally.”
HOLL. (33): “Religion, improperly speaking, signified the false, properly speaking, the true method of worshiping God.”
HOLL. (60): “As opposed to the true Religion, we have not only false religion, but also atheism or irreligion. A false religion is that in which either false gods are worshiped, or the true God is improperly worshiped. Irreligion is that in which impious men regard all religion with contempt, so that, denying the providence and punitive justice of God, they boldly and recklessly do as they please.”
[3] HOLL. (34): “The true Religion is that which is conformed to the Divine Word.”
That the Christian religion is the true one is proved by CAL. 1: 152 sqq.:
“(1) From the requisites of a true religion. A religion which is true and proceeded from God, must have these characteristics: (a) Not to teach false, corrupt or absurd things. (b) Not to be new but to have existed since the creation of man as an institution for communicating salvation. (c) Not to have perished or hereafter to perish. (d) Not to leave men in their former errors, much less to sink them the more deeply, but to lead them to holiness. All these characteristics pertain to no other than the Christian religion; since every other religion teaches false, absurd, base things, has originated since men, etc.
(2) From the truth of Scripture. For since the Christian religion is comprised in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, its truth will be proved from the truth of these Scriptures, as elsewhere set forth.
(3) From the religion of the Hebrews. For the religion of the Christians and of the ancient patriarchs is one and the same.
(4) From the supreme dignity
of its rewards. For the excellence of the Christian religion is displayed by the
fact that in all ages and nations, none can be produced either more excellent in
its rewards, more perfect in its precepts, more sublime in its mysteries or more
admirable in the method in which it is to be propagated. For while among the Greeks
some entertained the hope of life after the end of the present life, nevertheless
they spoke with great hesitancy concerning it (Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo, Cicero’s
Tusculan Disputations, Seneca’s Epistles). Philosophers were divided into diverse
opinions concerning the end of man, some making virtue the reward, others contending
that pleasure is the highest good; the Christian religion, however, offers the true
knowledge of this end, promising, after this life, a happy existence not only for
the soul, but also for the body; nor are the joys it promises vile, as the
(5) From the supreme holiness of its precepts. The sacred rites of the heathen, throughout almost the whole world, were full of cruelty. The mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus abounded in obscenity. How profane and unworthy of God is Mohammedanism, the Koran can testify. The Christian religion requires an absolutely holy worship of God, holy trust in Him, and all that is most worthy of God; and of like nature are the duties towards our neighbor which it enjoins. Mohammedanism was born in war, breathes nothing but war, is propagated everywhere by war, while Christianity prohibits every injury, and wishes good to all. Many of the most eminent Greek philosophers praised a community of women, and even did not disapprove of sodomy, which was commended by the example of the gods. But the Christian religion teaches that marriage must be held most holy. . . . In short, nothing excellent can be found in any nation which is not taught in the Christian religion with still greater purity, and under sanction of divine authority, as modesty, temperance, prudence, the duties of magistrates and subjects, of parents and children, of husbands and wives, the avoidance of sin, etc.; so that the sum of all its precepts is, to love God above all things, and our neighbor as ourselves.
(6) From the sublimity of its mysteries. For whatever mystery other religions seem to have easily brings to those better informed the suspicion of vanity. Only the mysteries of the Christian religion are entirely placed beyond the reach of man’s understanding, and can be convicted of no falsity or superstition.
(7) From the propagation of the Christian religion. For there is no religion so widely diffused. If Paganism be mentioned, you mention one name, but not one religion.
(8) From the mode of its propagation. For the Christian religion made such progress,
not by violence or arms, or the example of kings and the powerful. The first teachers
of Christianity were of humble rank, and yet, through their agency, within thirty
years it not only pervaded all parts of the Roman Empire, but was extended to the
Parthians and inhabitants of India,
(9) From the multitude of its miracles. For, as the faith of the Old Testament was attested by most remarkable miracles, performed at various times but especially on the departure from Egypt and the entrance into Canaan, whereby its fame was spread abroad among the Gentiles, so far more numerous and more illustrious miracles proclaim the authority of the New Testament.
(10) From the magnanimity of its martyrs.
(11) From testimony of other religions. ‘The Jews,’ says Augustine (De Civitate Dei, 1. xviii., c. 45), ‘are dispersed throughout the earth, and by their scriptures give a testimony that we have not invented the prophecies concerning Christ. The Mohammedans acknowledge Christ as the greatest prophet; and among the heathen many things occur corroborating its testimony in historical matters.’
(12) From the efficacy and power of Christian doctrine, in arousing, swaying, and soothing souls, attested not only by Scripture, but by innumerable examples of those converted to faith in Christ.”
[4] QUEN. (I, 20): “The Christian religion may be viewed either μερικως (in part), or ολικως (as a whole). Taken in the former sense it signifies, first and principally, the immediate worship of God, viz., ευοεβεια, or the piety which has regard to the worship of God according to the first table of the Law; secondarily, it signifies those other duties by which God is mediately worshiped, which have respect to the second table of the Law. The love of our neighbor presupposes love to God; hence, secondarily and by analogy, the duty of love to our neighbor comes under the name of religion.”
BR. (16): “The term Religion signifies, in a stricter sense, either the habit of the will by which we are inclined to the love, honor and worship due God, on account of His excellence; or, the acts themselves, of honoring or worshiping God on account of His excellence; and, at the same time, it signifies, on the part of the intellect, the true knowledge of God; on the part of the will, the other virtues (or virtuous acts) which aim at the honor and worship of God. But, in a wider sense, it denotes the whole circle of virtues or acts, that pertain to the worship of God.”
[5] HOLL.
(43): “Under the name of the Christian Religion is comprehended whatever is to be
believed and to be done by sinful man, in order to attain eternal life. As God is
religiously worshiped by true faith and the sincere effort to perform good works,
We observe further, that GRH. and BR. do not treat of Religion as a separate topic. BR. has, under the head of “The Nature and Constituent Elements of Theology,” only the following proposition (14): “In Natural Theology the means of attaining happiness are the acts of the mind and will directed towards God, by which God is rightly known and worshiped. They are known by one name, Religion.” This is explained by the definition which the theologians give of Theology, for in accordance with this there is little material left for a special section on the subject of Religion.
§ 4. Revelation, — not Reason, nor Tradition.
In order to understand what is true and correct Theology, we must inquire for the Source from which we derive our knowledge of it. QUEN. 32: “The source (principium) is that from which anything, in some manner or other, proceeds.” This is the Revelation given by God.[1] By this divine Revelation we understand here, not that which is given in nature, but that given in the Word (supernatural, as distinguished from natural revelation).[2] More accurately, therefore, we say: the source of theological knowledge is the revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures,[3] and this is, moreover, the only source of Theology,[4] and neither reason,[5] nor, at a later date, tradition, or the appeal to the consentaneous doctrine of the ancient church,[6] is to be ranked with it; nor are supplementary revelations now to be expected from any quarter.[7]
[1] CAL. (I, 269); “Revelation is taken either in a formal sense, for the act of the divine communication, or objectively for that which is divinely revealed. The former sense is here intended.”
[2] HOLL. (61): “We speak here not of that general revelation or natural manifestation, by which God makes Himself known both by the innate light of nature and by the effects conspicuous in the kingdom of nature. But we speak of the special and supernatural revelation, which is twofold, immediate and mediate. The Holy Spirit immediately illuminated the prophets and apostles, and suggested to them conceptions of things and of words concerning doctrines of faith and moral precepts. At the present day God reveals Himself to men by means of the Word written by the prophets and apostles.” Revelation is, therefore, defined as: “The external act of God, by which He makes Himself known to the human race by His Word, in order that they may have a saving knowledge of Him.” — QUEN. I,32.
CAL. (I, 268) thus states the proof that this divine revelation
exists: “It having been proved, if this should be denied, that God is, and that
there must be some method in which God may be worshiped by men, we must teach, that
it cannot be but that God has revealed that method, so that He may be worshiped
properly; then, that God wishes men to be led to the enjoyment of Himself, and also,
that He has revealed unto men the manner in which they are to be thus led; finally,
the fact that God has revealed Himself, must be taught from history, which revelation
God has seen fit abundantly to accompany with miracles and documents, by which we
are rendered absolutely certain that it is truly divine.
[3] QUEN. (I, 32): “The
source of Theology is the written, divine revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures.”
HOLL. (61) more accurately: “Christian Theology is derived from an infallible source
of knowledge, viz., divine revelation, which, for the present state of the Church,
is mediate, i.e., comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostles.” As
proof,
Inasmuch, however, as the religion of the Old and New Testaments is to be regarded as substantially the same, QUEN. (I, 32) adds the remark: “As the divine revelation became more full, in the course of time, so also did Theology, which was based upon it; and as the former, just so the latter, gathered up its own additions in the progress of time, God meanwhile imparting new revelations. These additions did not relate to those things which constitute the foundation of faith and salvation, but to other things which render the statement and comprehension of these more complete, or which relate to various circumstances, rites, and ceremonies, and to ecclesiastical order and discipline.”
If, therefore, the Holy Scriptures are thus the Source of Theology, we are authorized to draw the following conclusion: “Whatever the Holy Scriptures teach is infallibly true.” Hence, the early divines speak of a twofold source, viz., the source indefinitely stated, i.e., by a single term; and the source more fully stated, i.e., by an entire proposition. The former is the Holy Scriptures. The latter, from which the doctrines of the Christian faith are deduced, and into which they are again merged, is this proposition: “Whatever God has revealed in His Word, that is infallibly true, and must be reverently believed and embraced.” From the Holy Scriptures, then, as this source, are drawn all doctrinal truths. “The source, whence theological conclusions are drawn, is but one, viz., the Word of God, or, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ Theological conclusions are nothing else than truths concerning the faith, elicited and deduced from the Word of God.
[4] QUEN. (I, 33): “The sole, proper, adequate, and ordinary
source of Theology and of the Christian Religion is the divine
Further (I, 36): “Divine revelation is the first and last source of sacred Theology, beyond which theological discussion among Christians dare not proceed. For every doubt concerning religion in the mind of a true Christian is removed by divine revelation, and by this the faith of the believer grows so strong, and is so firmly established, that it frees his mind from all fear and suspicion of deception, and imparts to him a firm assurance.”
[5] QUEN. (I, 38): “Human or natural reason is not the source of Theology and supernatural things.”
[6] CAL. (I, 304): “We contend that, over and above the written Word of God, there is at present no unwritten Word of God concerning any doctrine necessary to the Christian faith and life, not comprehended in the Scriptures, that ever came forth from the apostles, was handed down by tradition, was preserved by the Church, and is to be received with equal reverence.”
QUEN. (I, 44): “The consent of the Primitive Church, or of the Fathers of the first centuries after Christ, is not a source of Christian faith, either primary or secondary, nor does it produce a divine, but merely a human or probable belief.” In reference to this latter clause, HOLL. (71): “The consent of the Fathers is not to be esteemed of little, but of great importance, as a ground of credibility, as a secondary source of theological conclusions (viz., because it furnishes opinions or conceptions that are probably true), and as a demonstrative and invaluable testimony that the early bishops of the Catholic Church understood and expounded passages of the Holy Scriptures in the same sense in which the Evangelical Church of the present day understands them.”
[7] HOLL. (63): “After the completion
of the canon of Scripture, no new and immediate divine revelation was given to be
a fundamental source of doctrine,
§ 5 Excursus. Concerning the Use of Reason in Theology
By the term Reason, we may understand either, the capacity of intellectual apprehension in general — and this is essential to man, for it is only by means of this capacity, which distinguishes him from irrational animals, that he can comprehend the truths of religion; [1] or, the capacity of acquiring knowledge and appropriating truths. [2] The knowledge, however, which one thus acquires is, even if true, still defective and unsatisfactory, [3] and therefore Reason is by no means the source from which man can draw the knowledge of saving truths, [4] but for these the revelation contained in Holy Scripture remains ever the only source.
The question now arises, How is Reason related to this revelation, and what use can Theology make of Reason?
Inasmuch as Reason also derives its knowledge from God, Reason and Revelation are, of course, not opposed to each other. [5] This hold true, however, only of Reason considered per se, of Reason as it was before the fall of man. This would have remained conscious of the limits of its sphere; would not have sought to measure divine things by the rule of natural knowledge; would have subordinated itself to Revelation, [6] and would have known that there are truths which, although not in antagonism with it, are yet far beyond its reach. [7]
But the case if very different with Reason as it dwells now in fallen man; for
we must concede that, by man’s fall, such a change has occurred that Reason now
often assumes a position of antagonism to revealed truth. [8] It still, indeed,
possesses some knowledge of divine things, but this knowledge is obscured in proportion
to the moral depravity of man, and it now, more easily than before, transcends the
assigned limits. If now Reason, even before the fall of man, had to keep within
modest limits, with respect to the truths of Revelation, much less dare it now,
in the fallen condition of man, assume to judge in regard to divine things, or subject
the truths of Revelation to its tests; still less dare it reject that which does
As to the use, then, that is to be made of Reason in Theology, it follows, from what has been said, that Reason stands in the relation merely of a handmaid to the latter. [11] In so far as it is the capacity for intellectual apprehension in general, the use that is to be made of it will consist in this, that man, by its help, intellectually apprehends the truths of Theology, and accepts from it the means of refuting opponents. In so far, however, as it also conveys knowledge, one may also employ it in the demonstration of a divine truth; in such a case, Reason would contribute whatever of natural knowledge it has acquired. And just in the same proportion as Reason has suffered itself to be enlightened by divine Revelation, will it be able to demonstrate the harmony of divine truth with natural knowledge. [12]
[1] Cal. (I, 358): “Human Reason denotes two things. On the one hand, it designates the intellect of man, that faculty of the rational soul that must be exercised in every kind of knowledge, since it is only by the reason or intellect that man can understand.” . . . HOLL. (69): “Without the use of reason we cannot understand or prove theological doctrines, or defend them against the artful objections of opponents. Surely not to brutes, but to men using their sound reason, has God revealed the knowledge of eternal salvation in His Word, and upon them He has imposed the earnest injunction to read, hear, and meditate upon His Word. The intellect is therefore required, as the receiving subject or apprehending instrument. As we can see nothing without eyes, and hear nothing without ears, so we understand nothing without reason.”
[2] CAL. (ibid.): “On the other hand, Reason, denotes Philosophy itself, or the principles known from nature, and the discussion or ratiocination based upon these known principles.” These principles are divided “into organic and philosophical (strictly so called). The former (organic) relate to the mediate disciplines, grammar, rhetoric, and logic.” — (QUEN. (I, 39): “These are to be employed in Theology, as the means of becoming acquainted with Theology, since without them, neither the sense nor significance of the words can be derived, nor the figures and modes of speech be properly weighed, nor the connection and consequences be perceived, nor discussions be instituted”). The latter (the philosophical) are again divided into “philosophical principles absolutely and unrestrictedly universal (general or transcendental), which consist of a combination of terms essential and simply necessary, so that they cannot be overthrown by any argument, not even by the Scripture; e.g., ‘It is impossible for anything to be and not to be at the same time;’” and “philosophical principles restrictedly universal (special or particular), which are indeed true, to a certain extent, hypothetically, or so far as mere natural knowledge extends, but which, nevertheless, admit of limitation, and which may be invalidated by counter evidence drawn from revelation, if not from nature; e.g., ‘As many as are the persons, so many are the essences,’ etc.” HOLL (68). Through these philosophical sources we can also gain a knowledge of God, for there is a natural knowledge of God, described elsewhere by the Theologians under the heads of the innate, and the acquired knowledge of God.
[3] CAL. (II, 47): “Of the natural knowledge of God there is predicated, as to those things that are revealed in nature, imperfection; and as to the supernatural mysteries of faith, entire worthlessness [nullitas].
[4] HOLL. (69): “Meanwhile, nevertheless, human reason is not a fountain, or primordial element, from which the peculiar and fundamental principles of faith are derived.”
[5] FLACIUS, with his assertion, that “the knowledge of God, naturally implanted, is a light full of error, fallacious and deceptive,” and subsequently, Daniel Hofmann (“Philosophy is hostile to Theology; what is true in Philosophy is false in Theology”), gave especial occasion to dispute the antagonism between Reason and Revelation.
CAL. (I, 68): “That Philosophy is not opposed to Theology and is
by no means to be rejected as brutish, terrene, impure, diabolical, we thus demonstrate:
1. Because the true agrees with the true, and does not antagonize it. But what is
known by the
As the antagonism was still asserted,
the Theologians endeavored to prove it to be only apparent. CAL. (I, 74): “We must
distinguish between a real and an apparent contradiction. The maxims of Philosophy
and the conclusions of Theology do not really contradict each other, but only appear
to do so; for they either do not discuss the same subject, or they do not describe
the same condition, mode, or relation to it; as when the philosopher says that the
essence is multiplied with the multiplication of persons, he declares this of finite
and created persons, not of divine, of which he knows nothing; concerning the latter,
the theologian teaches that this is not true. When the philosopher says, ‘Of nothing,
nothing comes,’ i.e., by way of generation, he does not contradict the theologian,
who teaches that by the way of creation something does come from nothing. Let Philosophy
remain within the limits of its own sphere, then it will not contradict Theology,
for this treats of a different subject. But it is not wonderful that those who confound
Philosophy and Theology should find contradictions between them, for they pervert
both.” QUEN. (I, 43): “We must distinguish between contrariety and diversity. Philosophy
and the principles of Reason are not indeed contrary to Theology, nor the latter
to the former; but there is a very great difference between those things that are
divinely revealed in Scripture and those which are known by the light of nature.” — As
the Theologians here opposed those who asserted a contradiction between Reason and
Revelation, they also controverted those who claimed too much for Reason, as over
against Revelation, by maintaining that, because Reason came from God, that which
opposes it cannot be true. This charge was brought against the Calvinists, Socinians,
and Arminians. It was admitted, in opposition to them, that Reason in itself does
not contradict Revelation; an inference, however, which might have become derogatory
to divine truth, was obviated by explaining any seeming contradiction on the ground
that Reason, in such a case, had overstepped its proper limits. To the proposition:
“In nowise can that be true which is repugnant to reason,” GRH. (II, 371) replies:
“Not human Reason, but divine Revelation, is the source of faith, nor are we to
judge concerning the articles of faith according to the dictation of Reason, otherwise
we should have no articles of faith, but only decisions of Reason. The cogitations
and utterances of Reason are to be restricted and restrained within the sphere of
those things
[6] GRH. (II, 372): “Sound reason is not opposed to the faith, if we accept as such that which is truly and properly so-called, namely that which does not transcend the limits of its sphere, and does not arrogate to itself decisions in regard to the mysteries of faith; or which, enlightened by the Word, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, does not follow its own principles in the investigation of the mysteries of faith, but the light of the Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
[7] GRH. (II, 372): “The articles of faith are not in and of themselves contrary to Reason, but only above Reason. It may happen, by accident, that they be contrary to Reason, namely, when Reason assumes to decide concerning them upon its own principles, and does not follow the light of the Word, but denies and assails them. Hence the articles of faith are not contrary to, but merely above Reason, since Reason before the Fall was not yet corrupt and depraved; but since the Fall they are not only above but also contrary to corrupt Reason, for this, in so far as it is thus corrupt, cannot control itself, much less should it wish to judge articles of faith by its own principles.”
[8] GRH. (II, 371): “We must distinguish
between Reason in man before and since the Fall. The former, as such, was never
opposed to divine Revelation; the latter was very frequently thus opposed through
the influence of corruption.” GRH. (II, 362): “Natural human Reason since the Fall
(1) is blind, darkened by the mist of error, inwrapped in the shades of ignorance,
exposed to vanity and error,
[9] GRH. (II, 371): “We are to make a distinction between the reason of man unregenerate and regenerate. The former counts the mysteries of faith foolishness, but the latter, in so far as it is such, does not object to them. Then only, and only so long, is it regenerate as it follows the light of the Word, and judges concerning the mysteries of the faith, not by its own principles, but by the Scriptures. We do not reject Reason when regenerated, renewed, illuminated by the Word of God, restrained and brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; this does not draw its opinions, in matters of faith, from its own sources, but from Scripture; this does not impugn the articles of belief as does Reason when corrupt, left to itself, etc. We must distinguish also between Reason partially rectified in this life, and that which is fully rectified in the life to come. The former is not yet so completely renewed, illuminated, and rectified that it would be impossible for it to oppose the articles of faith and impugn them, if it should follow its own guidance. Just as there remains in the regenerate a struggle between the flesh and the spirit, by which they are tempted to sin, so there remains in them a struggle between faith and Reason, in so far as it is not yet fully renewed; this, however, excludes all opposition between faith and Reason.”
[10] QUEN. (I, 43): “Reason is admissible as an instrument, but not as a rule and a judge: the formal principles of Reason no one rejects; its material principles, which constitute its rule for judging the mysteries, no wise man accepts. No material principle of Reason, as such, but only as it is at the same time a part of Revelation, produces faith theologically: that God is, we know from nature; we believe it, however, only through the Scriptures. It does not follow, because some parts of Scripture are axioms known by nature, that therefore Reason is the regulator of theological controversies.” Id. (I, 43): “Theology does not condemn the use of Reason, but its abuse and its affectation of directorship, or its magisterial use, as normative and decisive in divine things.”
[11] HOLL. (71): “Reason is not a leader, but an humble follower of Theology. Hagar serves as the handmaid of her mistress, she does not command; when she affects to command she is banished from the sacred home.”
[12] QUEN. (I, 42): “A distinction must be made between the organic or instrumental use of Reason and its principles, when they are employed as instruments for the interpretation and exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in refuting the arguments of opponents, drawn from Nature and Reason, and discussing the signification and construction of words, and rhetorical figures and modes of speech; and the normal use of philosophical principles, when they are regarded as principles by which supernatural doctrines are to be tested. The former we admit, the latter we repudiate.” The following from QUEN. explains and expands this idea: “It is one thing to employ in Theology the principles and axioms of Philosophy for the purpose of illustration, explanation, and as a secondary proof, when a matter is decided by the Scriptures; and another to employ them for the purpose of deciding and demonstrating, or to recognize philosophical principles, or the argumentation based upon them, as authoritative in Theology, or by means of them to decide matters of faith. The former we do, the latter we do not. There must be a distinction made between consequences deduced by the aid of reason from the Holy Scriptures, and conclusions collected from the sources of nature and reason. The former must not be confounded with the latter. For it is one thing to use legitimate, necessary consequences, and another to use the principles of Reason. It is one thing to draw a conclusion and deduce consequences from the declarations of Scripture, according to logical rules, and another to collect consequences from natural principles. A sort of illustration of heavenly matters can be sought for among those things which Reason supplies, but a demonstration can never be obtained from that source, since it is necessary that this should proceed from the same sphere to which the truth which is to be proved belongs, and not from a foreign one.”
This
doctrine of the use of reason GRH. develops in a manner somewhat different, although
substantially the same as follows, under the topic, “The Use of Reason in the Rule
of Faith.” (I, 76, sq.): (1) The organic use is the following: When our reason brings
with it, to the work of drawing out the treasures of divine wisdom hidden in the
Scriptures, knowledge of the grammatical force of words, logical observance of order,
rhetorical elucidation of figures and acquaintance with the facts of nature, derived
from the philosophical branches. This use we greatly
Id. (II, 9): “Although some things are taught in Theology, which can be learned in some measure by the light of Nature and Reason, yet human Reason cannot undertake to become thoroughly acquainted with the mysteries of faith, properly so called, by means of its own powers; and as to such things as, already known from Nature, are taught in Theology, it need not seek for proof elsewhere than in their own proper source, the Word of God, which is abundantly able to prove them. . . . In this latter manner the Theologian becomes indebted, for some things to the philosopher; not, indeed, as though he were not able to know them without the aid of philosophical principles, from Scripture, as the proper and native source of his own science, but because, in the course of the investigation, he perceives the truth of the proposition according to the principles of philosophy.”
That to
which GRH. here merely alludes, the later Theologians, such as QUEN., BR., and HOLL.,
develop at greater length when treating of the pure and mixed articles; by the former
of which are understood those which contain truths that can be known only by Revelation,
by the latter such as contain truths which may, at least in part, be otherwise known. HOLL. (68): “Mixed articles of faith may, in some measure, be known by the principles
of Philosophy. But the pure articles of faith can be learned and proved only from
Holy Scripture as the appropriate, fundamental, and original source.” But the remark
of QUEN. is well worthy of attention, that (I, 39) “in the mixed articles we grant
that philosophical principles may be employed; not, indeed, for the purpose
IN treating of the Holy Scriptures as the recorded revelation of God, we speak 1, of what is understood by the Holy Scriptures and Inspiration; 2, of the Attributes of the Holy Scriptures; 3, of the Canon.
§ 6. Of the terms, Holy Scriptures and Inspiration.
God determined that His revelation should be committed to writing, so that it might
be preserved pure and uncorrupted throughout all future time; [1] therefore He has
deposited it in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. [2]
[1] CHMN. (Exam. Conc. Trid. I,20): “We show . . . . why and wherefore the Holy Scriptures were written; because, viz., by tradition purity of doctrine was not preserved; but, under shelter of that term, many strange and false things were mingled with the true.”
GRH.(II, 26): “‘Why did God desire His Word, at first orally promulgated,
to be committed to writing?’ The principal causes appear to have been the following:
1. The shortness of human life. 2. The great number of men. 3. The unfaithfulness
[2] GRH. (II, 13): “The scriptures have their designation from the formal, external
act, viz., that of writing, by which the Word of God, at first orally promulgated,
was, by the command of God, recorded. God himself made the grand and majestic beginning
of this work when He inscribed His law on Mount Sinai, upon tablets of stone, which,
on this account, are called ‘the writing of God.’
Terms synonymous with Holy Scripture are (Id. II,16): γραφη or
γραφαι,
[3] GRH. (II, 427): “The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God reduced to writing, according to His will, by the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, perfectly and perspicuously setting forth the doctrine of the nature and will of God, that men may thereby be brought unto eternal life.”
HOLL. (77): “In the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God signified formally the purpose of God, or the conception of the divine mind, revealed for the salvation of men immediately to the prophets and apostles, and mediately, through their ministrations, to the whole race of man.”
For the sake
of the greatest possible accuracy, the following distinctions
[4] GRH. (II, 15): “That there is no real difference between the Word of God and
the Holy Scriptures, viewed in reference to the matter contained in them, is proved,
1. By the subject-matter of Scripture. The prophets and apostles wrote that, and
nothing else than that, which, taught by divine inspiration, they had before preached
orally,
CAL. (I, 528): “The
fanatical sects, especially, deny that the Scriptures are, strictly speaking, the
Word of God, maintaining that the internal Word of God alone can properly be called
the Word of God.” (Schwenckfeld, Rathmann, Weigel.)
[5] GRH. (II, 16): 1. “This distinction of the Papists between the written and unwritten Word may, in a certain sense, be admitted, viz., if by the term ‘unwritten Word’ be understood the divine revelation proclaimed orally by the patriarchs before the Mosaic books were written, but after the publication of the Scripture Canon, there can be no unwritten Word of God, as distinct form Scripture.”
2. “We must distinguish between the leading truths of divine revelation which are necessary, essential, etc., and their more full explanation. The prophets and apostles committed to writing the principal doctrines of revelation, which are necessary to be known by all, and which we do not deny that they explained orally at greater length.”
[6] QUEN. (I, 56): “The internal
form, or that which gives existence to the Scriptures, so that they are indeed the
Word of God, that, namely, which constitutes them and distinguishes them from all
other writings, is the inspired sense of Scripture, which, in general, is the conception
of the divine intellect concerning divine mysteries and our salvation, formed from
eternity, and revealed in time and communicated in writing to us; or it is divine
inspiration itself,
[7] QUEN. (I, 55): “The efficient or principal
cause of Scripture is the triune God,
GRH. (II, 26): “The instrumental
causes of Holy Scripture were holy men of God,
QUEN. (I, 55): “God, therefore,
alone, if we wish to speak accurately, is to be called the author of the Sacred
Scriptures; the prophets and apostles cannot be called the authors, except by a
kind of catachresis.” To the remark that prophets and apostles may be called the
amanuenses of God, QUEN. (I:52) adds: “And not as though these divine amanuenses
wrote ignorantly and unwillingly, beyond the reach of and contrary to their own
will; for they wrote cheerfully, willingly and intelligently. They are said to be
φερομενοι, driven, moved, urged on by the Holy Spirit, not as though they were in
a state of unconsciousness, as the Enthusiasts pretended to be, and as the heathen
feigned that there was a certain ενθουσιασμος in their soothsayers; not, further,
by any means, as though the prophets themselves did not understand their own prophecies
or the things which they wrote, which was formerly. . . . the error of the Montanists;
but, because they wrote nothing of their own accord, but everything at the dictation
of the Holy Spirit.” Inasmuch as it holds good of all the sacred writers, that they
are inspired, those are also accounted such who were not, in the strictest sense,
apostles. HOLL. (80): “By the name apostles we here designate those holy men of
God, who, after the birth of Christ, wrote the Scriptures of the New Testament;
although they did not all belong to the college of the apostles, chosen by Christ,
before His ascension, to teach all nations; but who, after Christ’s ascension, were
numbered with the apostles; such were Matthias (whose writings, however, we do not
possess) and Paul. But also those apostolic men, nearest to the apostles in office
and dignity, are called apostles in a wider sense; such are Mark and Luke, the evangelists,
cf.
[8] HOLL. (83): “Inspiration denotes as well the antecedent divine
instigation or peculiar impulse of the will to engage in writing, as the immediate
illumination by which the mind of the sacred writer is fully enlightened through
the supernatural illumination of divine grace, and the conceptions of the things
to be written are
The opposite view
is that held by the Papists, who foolishly assert that the evangelists and apostles
did not write by any divine command, but were incidentally urged by some accidental
circumstance originating elsewhere, or by necessity. It is, indeed, granted that
we do not possess the proof of an express and outward command of God in the case
of each of the sacred writings, but it is at the same time observed that the want
of this is not felt where the impulse exists. GRH. (II, 30): “In the holy men of
God, the external command and the internal impulse correspond to each other. For
what else is that divine impulse than an internal and secret command of precisely
the same authority and weight with one that is external and manifest?” The latter
is proved (by HOLL. (81), but also in the same manner by all the earlier writers)
to have existed in the case of all the books of Scripture: “1. By the general command
of Christ,
[9] Hereby an inspiration both of subject-matter and of the words is asserted, from which it follows that there is absolutely nothing in the Holy Scriptures that is not inspired. These assertions are contained in the following two sentences (of HOLL., 83 and 85):
“I. The conceptions of all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures were immediately communicated by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.
“II. All the words, without exception, contained in the Holy Manuscript, were dictated by the Holy Spirit to the pen of the prophets and apostles.”
These two sentences we illustrate by the following remarks of QUEN. and HOLL. In reference to No. I: 1. “In inspiration, we recognize a divine assistance and direction, which includes the inspiration and dictation of the Holy Spirit; but we deny as insufficient such a bare divine assistance and direction as would simply prevent the sacred writers from departing from the truth in speaking and writing. . . . The Holy Spirit guides others also in writing, i.e., so that we observe here a difference in this respect, that the Holy Spirit so directed the inspired men, that He at the same time suggested and communicated all things to them in so far as they are recorded in Scripture.” — QUEN, I,68.
2. Inspiration embraces all that is contained in Scripture, and therefore
also those things which could have been otherwise known to the apostles and prophets,
because in this case it was necessary that these things should be said just at the
particular time when the design which God had in view required it. HOLL. (84): “The
things which were known to the sacred writers may be considered either absolutely
and in themselves, or relatively, in so far as they were to be written by the purpose
of God. In the former manner they were previously known by the sacred writers, but
not in the latter. For, although the sacred amanuenses may have known
3. In like manner inspiration embraces things that are not of a spiritual nature. HOLL. (83): “There are contained in Scripture historical, chronological, genealogical, astronomical, natural-historical, and political matters, which, although the knowledge of them is not actually necessary to salvation, are nevertheless divinely revealed, because an acquaintance with them assists not a little in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in illustrating the doctrines and moral precepts. If only the mysteries of the faith, which are contained in the Holy Scriptures, depend upon divine inspiration, and all the rest, which may be known by the light of nature, depend merely upon the divine direction, then not all of Scripture is inspired. But Paul declares that the whole of Scripture is divinely inspired. Therefore not only the mysteries of the faith, but also the remaining truths that may be known by the light of nature, which are contained in Scripture, are divinely suggested and inspired;” therefore,
4. Even apparently unimportant matters are, none the less,
to be regarded as also inspired. QUEN. (I, 71): “A matter may be of small moment,
considered in itself and with reference to the estimation in which it is held by
men, and yet of great importance if we regard the end and wise design which God
has in view with regard to it. Many things in Scripture seem to be of small account
(
In
relation to No. II., HOLL. (87): “The divine inspiration of the words known by common
usage, was necessary to the proper expression of the mind of the Holy Spirit. For
the prophets and apostles were not at liberty to clothe the divine meaning in such
words as they might of their own accord select; but it was their duty to adhere
to, and depend upon, the oral dictation of the Holy Spirit, so that they might commit
the Holy Scriptures to writing, in the order and connection so graciously and excellently
given, and in which they would appear in perfect accordance with the mind of the
Holy Spirit.” QUEN. (I, 76) thus accounts for the variety of style: “There is a
great diversity among the sacred writers in regard to style and mode of speaking,
which appears to
CAL., however (I, 574), remarks: “The Holy Spirit, Supreme Author of the Holy Scriptures,
was not bound to the style of any one, but, as a perfectly free teacher of languages,
could use, through any person soever, the character, style, and mode of speech that
He chose, and could just as easily propose the divine oracles through Jeremiah in
a highly ornate style, as through Isaiah in one of great simplicity. But He regarded
not so much the ability of the writers to speak as the character of the subjects
concerning which He wished them to speak; and, throughout the whole, He used His
own authority (αυτεξουσια) under the guidance of His unlimited wisdom. So that we
need not wonder that the same Spirit employed diversities of style. . . . The cause
of this diversity of style is the fact that the Holy Spirit gave to each one to
speak as He pleased.” Yet CAL. adds also: “Although the style of Scripture is plain
and very well suited, not only to the genius of the readers and hearers, but also
to the old and customary style of speech of the sacred writers, yet there may be
recognized in it a condescension, συγκαταβασις, of the Holy Spirit; because He accommodated
Himself sometimes to the ordinary method of speaking, leaving to the writers their
own style of speech; but it must not be denied that the Holy Spirit breathed into
them the words.” The inspiration of the Hebrew vowel-points was included in this
theory; conf. GRH.’s argument ex absurdo
(II, 272): “It would follow that the Scriptures
were not communicated by God through the prophets, so far as the single words are
concerned, since without the vowel-points the words cannot possibly exist; therefore
not all Scripture is inspired.” From the theory of verbal inspiration there arose
also the assertion: “The style of the New Testament is free from every trace of
barbarism and from solecisms.” (QUEN., I, 82.) The proof of verbal inspiration was
drawn, 1. From
[10] Inspiration is, therefore, a divine agency employed in connection with the recording of the truth, and, in several respects, it differs from Revelation.
If we consider the latter as embracing the whole compass of
Christian faith, it owes its very existence to inspiration. CAL. (I,
[11] HOLL. (88): “Divine inspiration, by which the subject-matter and the words to be spoken, as well as those to be written, were immediately suggested to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit, preserved them free from all error, as well in the preaching as in the writing of the divine Word.”
CAL. (I, 551): “No error, even in unimportant matters, no defect of memory, not to say untruth, can have any place in all the Holy Scriptures.”
QUEN.
(I, 80):
“We are to distinguish between the conversation
§ 7. The Attributes of the Holy Scriptures.
If the Holy Scriptures are really the Word of God, then it follows that we are bound to yield to them implicit faith and obedience. As they are the only source of truth, they must contain this entirely and so clearly that we can really learn it from them. And they are, finally, as the Word of God, the only means by which we can attain unto faith, and, therefore, must also be able to awaken this faith in us. We ascribe to them, therefore, the attributes of authority, perfection or sufficiency, perspicuity and efficacy. [1]
§ 8. (1.) Authority
BR.: “The authority of the Holy Scriptures is the manifest dignity that inclines the human understanding to assent to their instructions, and the will to yield obedience to their commands.” We believe what the Holy Scriptures declare, simply because they declare it, and it is they that beget faith in us, and they are the only source from which we derive our faith. They are, at the same time, the only inspired book, and by this they are distinguished from all other writings. It is therefore only from them that we can learn what is true in divine things; and they furnish the means by which we can everywhere distinguish between truth and error. The authority of Holy Scripture is, accordingly, divided into: “(a) Causative authority, by which the Scriptures create and confirm in the mind of man assent to the truths to be believed. (b) Normative or canonical authority, by which authentic Scripture is distinguished from other writings and versions, and that which is true from that which is false.” [2] HOLL. (104.)
(a) Causative Authority. This rests
upon the fact, that we acknowledge God as the author of the Holy Scriptures, [3]
and this we prove by the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. [4] The proofs of inspiration
are, it is true, derived in the first instance only from the Holy Scriptures themselves,
and already presuppose faith in the Holy Scriptures themselves, on the part of those
who admit them as evidence. But, for the Church and her members, there is no need
of proof for the inspiration of Scripture, for her very existence depends upon this
faith, and this faith precedes all proofs; [5] without this no article of faith
could be based upon the Holy Scriptures. [6] Therefore, the proof that the Holy
Scriptures are inspired, or, what amounts to the same thing, that they are of divine
origin, and consequently possess full authority in matters of faith, is required
only for those who are yet without the Church, or who, if within her pale, are not
confirmed in the faith. But it lies in the nature of the case, that no proof can
be given to those, which they cannot, in an unbelieving frame of mind, evade; for
the only absolutely stringent proof lies in the fact, that the Holy Spirit bears
witness in the heart of each individual, and thus convinces him of
(b) Normative
or Canonical Authority. HOLL. (125): “The canonical authority of Scripture is its
supreme dignity, by which, in virtue of its meaning, as well as of its divinely
inspired style, it is the infallible and sufficient rule, by which all that is to
be believed and done by man in order to secure eternal salvation, must be examined,
all controversies in regard to matters of faith decided, and all other writings
adjudged.” [12] Accordingly, we must acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the only
rule and guide of our life, by which alone all controversies in regard to divine
things must be settled, [13] so that in no case is the addition of any other authority
required, by which they may be decided. [14] But if the Holy Scriptures are thus
the only judge of controversies, the question arises: How is this decision to be
obtained from them? It lies in the nature of the case, that not every one can accomplish
this with equal success, for certain previous conditions are required for this purpose,
without which the
[1] The attributes are variously enumerated by the early divines. CAL. and QUEN. add to those we have mentioned, infallible truth, the power of interpreting itself, normative and judicial authority, which are again by others incorporated in those we have mentioned.
Some theologians also add the following as secondary attributes: (1) “Necessity; or, that it was necessary for the Word of God to be committed to writing, in order to preserve the purity of the heavenly doctrine. (2) Integrity and perpetuity; or, that the Holy Scriptures have been preserved entire, and will be thus perpetually preserved. (3) Purity and uncorrupted state of its sources; or, that the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, have not suffered, in all copies, any corruption, either through malice or carelessness, but have been preserved by Divine Providence, free from all corruption. (4) Authentic dignity; or, that the Hebrew text alone of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, is to be regarded as authentic, nor is any version to be counted worthy of such supreme authority. (5) The liberty of all to read for themselves.” — CAL., I, 450.
[2] BR. (82): “The authority of Scripture,
so far as it regards
[3] BR. (80): “The authority of Scripture, viewed in itself and absolutely, or with reference to its contents, depends upon God, the sole Author of Scripture, and results from His veracity and great and infinite power.” GRH. (II, 36): “Inasmuch, then, as the Holy Scriptures have God for their author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, therefore they also possess divine authority; because they are inspired, they are in like manner self-commendatory, winning faith by virtue of their own inherent excellence.”
[4] BR. (81): “So far as we are concerned, or that we may be convinced that the Holy Scriptures are worthy to receive faith and obedience, not only these perfections of God must be known, but also the dependence of Scripture upon God, or its inspiration by Him.” Our conviction, however, rests upon the two theses: “(1) Whatsoever Scripture is recorded by divine inspiration, that is certainly and infallibly true. (2) The Holy Scriptures were recorded by divine inspiration.”
[5] GRH. (I, 9): “Those who are within the Church do not inquire about the authority of Scripture, for this is their starting-point. How can they be true disciples of Christ if they pretend to call in question the doctrine of Christ? How can they be true members of the Church if they are in doubt concerning the foundation of the Church? How can they wish to prove that to themselves which they always employ to prove other things? How can they doubt concerning that whose efficacy they have experienced in their own hearts? The Holy Spirit testifies in their hearts that the Spirit is truth, i.e., that the doctrine derived from the Holy Spirit is absolute truth.”
[6] GRH. therefore very properly observes, that the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is no article of faith, but rather the fountain-head of the articles of faith. (I, 11): “The doctrine concerning the Canon is, properly speaking, not an article of faith, since Moses, the prophets, evangelists, and apostles did not fabricate in their writings a new article of faith superadded to the former, which they taught orally.”
[7] GRH. (II, 37): “The first (testimony) is the internal witness of the
Holy Spirit, who, as He bears witness to the spirit of believers that they are the
sons of God,
QUEN. (I, 97): “The ultimate reason by and through which we are led to believe with a divine and unshaken faith that God’s Word is God’s Word, is the intrinsic power and efficacy of that Word itself, and the testimony and seal of the Holy Spirit, speaking in and through Scripture. Because the bestowment of faith, not only that by which we believe in the articles, but even that by which we believe in the Scriptures, that exhibit and propose the articles, is a work that emanates from the Holy Spirit, or the Supreme Cause.”
HOLL. (116): “By the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit,
is here understood the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God,
attentively read or heard (His own divine power being communicated to the Holy Scriptures),
moving, opening, illuminating the heart of man, and inciting it to obedience unto
[8] Therefore GRH. (II, 36) distinguishes,
among those who stand without the pale of the Church, two classes: “Some are
curable,
who come with minds tempered and desirous of learning; others are incurable, who
come with minds unyielding and obstinate, and who contumaciously resist the truth,
[9] QUEN. (I, 98): “Those arguments both of an internal
and external nature, by which we are led to the belief of the authority
[10] GRH. (II, 37): “I. The internal criteria inherent in the Scriptures themselves, some of which are found in the causes, others in the effects, some in the subject-matter, others in incidental circumstances. Such criteria are antiquity, the majesty of the subjects discussed, peculiarity of style, harmony of all parts, dignity of the predictions concerning future events, the reality of their fulfilment, divinity of the miracles by which their doctrine is confirmed, the violence of the diabolical opposition to it, the efficacy of Scripture itself in persuading and moving to action. II. The external testimonies (which can be drawn from all classes of men), among which is pre-eminent the testimony of the Church, to which we may add that of the martyrs, who sealed the doctrine taught in Scripture with their blood, and also, the punishment of blasphemers and persecutors, who contumaciously opposed this doctrine.”
The later divines present these proofs in substantially the same manner as HOLL. (106): “The external criteria (which are derived, not from Scripture, but from other sources) are (a) the antiquity of Scripture; (b) the singular clearness of the sacred writers, their desire after knowledge and truth; (c) the splendor of the miracles by which the heavenly doctrine is confirmed; (d) the harmonious testimony of the Church, spread over the whole earth, to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures; (e) the constancy of the martyrs; (f) the testimony of other nations to the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures; (g) the successful and rapid propagation of the Christian doctrine through the whole world, and its wonderful preservation during so many persecutions; (h) the extremely severe punishments inflicted upon the despisers and persecutors of the Divine Word.” In reference to these, HOLL. remarks (109): “We premise these external criteria, in order to prepare the minds of the unbelieving for reading and meditating upon the Holy Scriptures with interest and desire . . . it is necessary that first of all unbelievers be led by external criteria to regard it as not improbable that the Holy Scriptures had their origin in God, and therefore begin to respect, read, and meditate upon them.”
The internal criteria
(“drawn from the intrinsic nature and attributes of Scripture,” BR.) are: “(a) the majesty of God, testifying
[11] GRH. (I, 9): “Although the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of the very highest importance, yet we are not to make a beginning with it in the conversion of such men, i.e., they are not to be commanded to wait until the Holy Spirit bears witness immediately in their hearts concerning the authority of Scripture, but they are to be directed to the testimony of the Church, which, in this respect, performs the part of a preceptor to the unbelieving disciple. Just as, therefore, it is necessary for a pupil first to believe, until he afterwards becomes able to form an independent judgment concerning the things taught, so it is necessary for an unbeliever to yield assent to the testimony of the Church, which is the first step towards ascertaining the authority of Scripture; then the internal criteria of antiquity, prophecies, etc., are to be added. Yet the testimony of the Church alone is not sufficient to convince an unbeliever of the divine authority of the Scriptures, since he may, perhaps, still be in doubt whether this be really the true Church of God. Wherefore, as it is the duty of the preceptor, not only to propose precepts, but also to corroborate their truth; so it is not sufficient for the Church to declare that these are divine Scriptures, unless it accompany its declaration with reasons. Then at length it may follow that the Holy Spirit shall bear testimony in the heart of the inquirer, and prove the truth of His words.”
The testimony of the Church varies in weight, according as it is derived from the
earlier or from the later Church. GRH. (I, 10): “The primitive Church, that heard
the apostles themselves, excelled in being the original recipients of the sacred
books, and in being favored with the living instruction of the apostles and with
a number of miracles to prove the authority of the canon; the next age, in which
the autographs of the apostles were still preserved, excelled the former in the
more complete fulfilment of New Testament prophecies, in the abundance of versions
of both Testaments into various languages, and in the testimony concerning the Holy
Scriptures extracted from various writings of believers; and it excelled the age
succeeding it, by possessing the autographs of the evangelists and apostles, the
voice of the ancient Church, and a number
Occasion is here taken to protest against the Romish axiom, “All the authority of Scripture depends upon the Church,” and to guard against such an interpretation being put upon what has been above stated. HOLL. (120): “The authority of the Holy Scriptures neither depends upon the Church of the divine, pre-eminent dignity in which its power lies; nor, in order that it may be known, does it need the testimony of the Church either, as the grand and ultimate source of proof for the divine authority of Scripture, or as the only and absolutely necessary arguments.” GRH. (II, 38) remarks (1): “It is one thing for the Church to bear witness to the Scriptures and their authority ministerially, and another to confer upon Scripture its authority dictatorially and judicially. From the ministry and testimony of the Church, we are led to acknowledge the authority of Scripture, but from this it by no means follows that the authority of Scripture, either in itself, or in respect to us, depends alone upon the authority of the Church; because, when we have once learned that the Scriptures are divine and contain the Word of God, we no longer believe the Scriptures on account of the Church, but on account of themselves; because, viz., they are the voice of God, which is αυταλεθεια, and hence αυτοπιστος, which we know must be believed on its own account and immediately. (2) It is one thing for us to become acquainted with the authority of the Scriptures by the testimony of the Church, and another, for the whole authority of the Scripture, so far as we are concerned, to depend solely upon the testimony of the Church. The former we concede, the latter we deny; because, beside the testimony of the Church, we have two other classes of evidence for the authority of Scripture, and in the same class, that embraces the testimony of the Church, other external evidences derived from all kinds of men may be adduced; yet, at the same time, we do not deny, that the testimony of the Church is to be preferred to all others in this class. (3) It is one thing to speak of the testimony of the primitive Church, which received the autograph of the sacred books from the apostles, and handed down a credible testimony concerning them to posterity, and another, to speak of the authority of the present Church.”
QUEN. (I, 93) notices, in addition, the objection of the Papists,
“The Church is more ancient than the Scriptures; therefore, it has greater authority;”
to which he replies: “We must make a distinction between the Word of God contained
in the Scriptures, and the act of writing itself, or, between the substance of Scripture,
[12] HOLL. (125): “The Holy Scriptures exercise their highest canonical authority, when a controversy arises concerning the truth of a doctrine, and the truth is to be confirmed and falsehood to be confuted; but the Scriptures exert their faith-producing authority, as often as the unbelieving are to be converted to the Christian faith, or the weak faith of believers is to be strengthened.”
[13] GRH. (I, 28): “The Holy Scriptures are the rule of our faith and life; therefore, also, the judge of theological controversies.” (I, 30): “Add to this, that all the qualities of a rule, properly so called, belong to Scripture. For a rule should be certain, fixed, invariable, fundamental, suited to meet every case, always self-consistent. But these qualities belong neither to tradition, nor to the teachings of human reason, nor to the writings of the fathers, nor to the Pope, nor to the decrees of councils, but to the Holy Scriptures alone.” FORM. CONC. (Preface, 1): “We teach, that the only rule according to which all doctrines and all teachers are to be estimated and judged, is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament.” (Compare also the remarks of QUEN. (I, 150): “When we say that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and of life conformed to the will of God, we do not speak of every age of the Church, for there was a time when the Church was instituted and governed without the written Word of God, the time, viz., before Moses; but we refer to that age in which the first written canon was prepared, and especially to the New Testament times, in which all things necessary to faith and the worship of God have been written down, and with great care collected into the canon.”)
HOLL. (125): “As a rule of knowledge, it performs a two-fold function, directive and corrective. For it directs the thoughts of the human mind, so that they abide within the bounds of truth; and it corrects errors, inasmuch as it is properly its own rule of right and wrong. Wherefore, the Holy Scriptures are called the Canon, or rule, partly on account of their directive character, because the true faith and pure morals are learned from them; partly on account of their corrective character, since controversies in regard to the faith are decided by them, and whatever is right and godly is retained, and what is erroneous and ungodly is rejected.”
Others, as CAL. and QUEN., express this by a separate
attribute, viz., the normative and judicial authority. CAL. (I, 474): “The Holy
Scriptures are a rule, according to which all controversies in regard to faith or
life in the Church should, and can be, decided (
[14] Hence, the two corollaries of QUEN. (I, 158, 167): “(1) It is therefore not necessary that there should be in the Church a supreme, regularly appointed and universal judge, who, seated upon a visible throne, is peremptorily to decide all strifes and controversies that arise among Christians concerning faith and religion, and orally and specifically to pronounce sentence in regard to them. We cannot acknowledge as such a judge either the Roman pontiff, or the fathers, or councils. (2) Nor is the decision concerning the mysteries and controversies of the faith to be granted to human reason, nor to an internal instinct or secret spirit.”
[15] CHMN. (Trid.): “The Church has the
right and liberty of deciding.” GRH. (II, 359): “If the Church is ‘the pillar and
the ground of the truth,’ and we are ‘commanded to hear it’ (
But the right which is hereby ascribed to the Church is carefully distinguished from that which belongs to the Holy Scriptures. This is usually done in the following manner: (1) The principal judge is the Holy Spirit; the instrumental judge, the Holy Scriptures; the ministerial (inferior) judge, the clergy. In regard to the latter, however (“whose duty it is to seek for the decision of the Supreme Judge as laid down in Scripture, and from this to teach what is to be done, to interpret this, and decide in accordance with it”), it is maintained ‘that this judge should not pronounce sentence according to his own will, but according to the rule laid down by the Supreme Judge,’ i.e., according to the Holy Scriptures, which we therefore call the decision of the Supreme Judge, the rule of the inferior judge, and the directive judge (GRH., II., 366).
And QUEN. (I, 150): “An inferior decision, viz., of a teacher
The Church is, therefore, it is true, a visible judge, but merely discretive, who, in the exercise of sound judgment, distinguishes truth from falsehood. She is, however, “not a judge, specially and strictly so called, viz., authoritative and decisive, pronouncing sentence authoritatively, and by virtue of the authority belonging to her, compelling the disputants to acquiesce in the whole opinion she may propose without further investigation.” (HOLL., 146.)
[16] GRH. (II, 359): “Whatever
pertains to a spiritual person, may be regarded as belonging to all children and
members of the Church. The reason of this is, that by spiritual person, we understand
not merely the clergy, according to the nomenclature of the Papists, but all the
children of the Church, who are controlled by the Spirit of God.
QUEN. (I, 150): “We assert
that every believer, according to the measure of the gift of God, can and ought
to judge, not indeed, in all controversies, but concerning the doctrines necessary
to salvation, and to mark the difference between brass and beans by his own discretive
judgment. Not that every one should follow his own notions, as the Papists accuse
our churches of doing, but that he should submit himself to the judgment of the
Holy Spirit, recorded in the Scriptures, and examine all things according to the
tenor of this decision, but leave to the learned the public decision of controversies.
In accordance with this, a distinction is made between “the public and the private ministerial (inferior) judge. The public judge is the clergy; the private, each member of the Church, or private person.”
[17] GRH. (II, 367): “We must distinguish between power and its exercise. The Holy Scriptures
are indeed sufficient and adapted, by virtue of their authority, and the perfection
and perspicuity of their character, to decide controversies; but, through the fault
of human weakness and wickedness, it happens that this effect does not always, nor
with all persons, follow their application; just as the Gospel is the power of God
unto salvation to all such as believe,
[18] HOLL. (125): “The causative
authority of the faith differs from the canonical authority of Scripture, because
the Scriptures beget divine faith, through the inspired sense, which sense of Scripture
remains one and the same, whether expressed in the original idiom of Scripture,
or in a translation conformed to the original text. So that the illuminating power,
connected with the sense of Scripture, effectually manifests itself in the production
of faith, not only by means of Scripture in the original tongues, but also through
translations, provided the translations be perspicuous and conformed to the authentic
text. Such is Luther’s translation of the Bible, which is used in our churches by
the faithful; which, when read, or heard, is as efficacious is causing assent to
the faith, as if they should read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek
of the New, or hear it read and expounded by a teacher, although the words of that
translation were not immediately inspired by God. But, that the Scriptures may have
canonical authority, it is necessary, that not only the sense, but also the words,
shall have been derived immediately from God. For to canonical and normal authority
in matters of doctrine and practice, an absolute certainty and infallibility in
the words themselves is necessary, which does not exist except in the original text
of Scripture, for this depends immediately upon divine inspiration. Translations
are
§ 9. (2.) Perfection, or Sufficiency.
From the fact that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it necessarily follows that all that is contained in them is perfectly true; from the fact that they are the only Word of God given to us, it further follows that, if we are at all to learn the way of life, it must be perfectly taught in the Holy Scriptures, [1] and this is what is meant by their perfection or sufficiency. GRH. (II, 286): “That the Scriptures fully and perfectly instruct us concerning all things necessary to salvation.” [2] And, indeed, so perfectly must everything necessary to salvation be contained in the Holy Scriptures, whether declared in express words or to be learned inferentially, [3] that we never find occasion to make up deficiencies from another source; whence, all doctrines claiming to be derived from oral tradition are to be rejected. GRH. (I, 25): “Laying aside tradition, we are to adhere to Scripture alone.” [4]
[1] HOLL. (173) distinguishes: “the perfection
of Scripture (a) in reference to the subject-matter; since no inspired book, received
into the permanent canon of the faith, perishes. (b) In reference to the form; that
no error has crept into the authentic text by the negligence or perfidy of transcribers.
(c) In reference to the end to be attained; for it sufficiently teaches man all
doctrines and moral precepts necessary to salvation.” Of the latter, viz., perfection
as to the end to be accomplished, we are here speaking. BR. (136): “We only assert
that the Scriptures are perfect in reference to the accomplishment of their end,
and in this opinion we all agree. Those things are said to be perfect in reference
to their end which want nothing that is necessary for the attainment of that end.
But the ultimate aim of Scripture is our salvation; the intermediate, faith in Christ.”
Of perfection in the second sense, we have already spoken, under the head of inspiration.
In reference to perfection, in the first sense, BR. (135) remarks: “We do not so
much refer to the number of the books that ever were written by the sacred penmen,
of which some referred to by the names of their authors or titles in the remaining
books of Scripture are supposed to have perished; but we refer to the perfection
of the Scriptures that remain in regard to the accomplishment of their end. Moreover,
also, as to those
GRH. remarks, in addition, that the Holy Scriptures are not to be regarded as perfect only since the canon of the Old and New Testament has been closed. (II, 286): “The perfection of the Holy Scriptures is to be estimated not by the number of the books, but from the sufficiency of the doctrine necessary to be known, in order to salvation. That which was written at any particular age of the Church, constituted a perfect canon, since the divine revelation was perfectly developed, so far as that age required it, in those books. Thus, when only the books of Moses were extant, the Scriptures were perfect, i.e., with respect to that age of the Church, in which not many revelations had been made which God wished to be committed to writing.”
[2] QUEN. (I, 102): “The Holy Scriptures contain with perfect fulness and sufficiency all things necessary to be known in order to Christian faith and life, and therefore to the attainment of eternal salvation.”
This GRH. (II, 286, sq.): proves. “(1) From their plain designation
and title,
[3] CAL.
(I, 610): “We assert, that the Holy Scriptures sufficiently and adequately contain
all things necessary to faith and a Christian life, and we think that those other
things also in the Scriptures should be clearly and sufficiently considered, which,
GRH. (II, 286): “We by no means say that the Scriptures are perfect in such a sense that all things which are necessary to be known for faith and practice are contained in the Scriptures, literally and in so many words, but some of them in substance, others literally; or, what is the same thing, that some are contained in them explicitly and others by implication, so that by legitimate and undeniable inference they can be deduced from them.” QUEN. (I, 102) thus guards against the misapprehension of his remark: “We do not say, with the Papists, that the Scriptures are perfect by implication or contain all things necessary to faith, as in a root or germ, or common source, or, as it were, in outline. . . . so that they do not themselves really contain all things, but show whence and where they are to be sought, with a reference to the Church and her traditions, from which the defects of those doctrines which are wanting may be supplied.”
[4] Hereby the papal doctrine of tradition is rejected, which CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 110) thus describes: “They pretend that many things necessary to faith and practice were handed down by the apostles which are not comprehended in Scripture. To this claim they add another, viz., that those things which are handed down and observed in the Roman Church, and cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, are the very things which were orally transmitted by the Apostles and not comprehended in Scripture.”
Whence HOLL. (178): “Tradition is the instruction orally given by Christ and the Apostles, which is neither substantially nor literally contained in Scripture, but by continuous succession is preserved in the Church.” To which is replied: “We infer from the perfection of Scripture that it needs in no way the aid of tradition in the articles of faith necessary to salvation.” (GRH. II, 307.)
Inasmuch as the word, tradition, was used in such different senses in the Holy Scriptures, and such various significations applied to it, the Dogmaticians take occasion accurately to designate the sense in which they reject tradition, and from this signification carefully to distinguish those which in a certain sense they admit. CHEMN. in Exam. Trid. I, 110 seq., marks eight different significations, viz.:
“(1) Those things which Christ and the Apostles orally delivered, and which were afterwards committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles, are often called traditions.
“(2) The books of Holy Scripture have been guarded by the Church during an uninterrupted series of ages and in a connected and sure succession, and they have been faithfully transmitted to posterity and handed down, as if from hand to hand, unto us.
“(3) Irenaeus and Tertullian celebrate apostolical tradition . . . They do not, indeed, propose and prove any other doctrines of faith by tradition than those which are contained in Scripture; but they show, and prove also by tradition, those same doctrines which are contained in Scripture.
“(4) There are traditions concerning the exposition, the true sense or native meaning, of Scripture.
“(5) The fathers sometimes thus designate those doctrines which are not contained in so many words and syllables in Scripture, but are derived from clear Scripture testimony, by sound, certain, indisputable, and evident reasoning.
“(6) The term is applied to the universal consent of the fathers. The phrase is common, ‘by the tradition of the fathers’ (patres ita tradiderunt).
“(7) When the ancients made mention of unwritten tradition they did not understand by them doctrines of faith to be received without, over and above Scripture, even if they could not be proved by any Scripture testimony; but they spoke concerning certain rites and customs, which on account of their antiquity they ascribed to the Apostles.
“(8) Traditions relating both to faith and practice, which cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, which nevertheless the Council of Trent commands to be received and venerated with the same reverence and pious feeling as the Scriptures themselves.”
HOLL. (178)
accordingly divides the traditions of the Church into “ritual, historical, exegetical,
evidential, and dogmatical.” Only the latter class is here referred to. HOLL.: “We
do not disapprove of all the ritual traditions of the Church, but the theological
rule observed by CHEMN. in his Exam. Conc. Trid. must be adhered to, viz., ‘Let
the ceremonies in the Church be of an unessential nature, few in number, devout,
and useful for edification, order, and decorum; let the observance of them be left
free, so as to avoid giving offence,’ and so that they may be instituted, changed,
or abrogated with a reference to edification, to times, places, and persons. We
admit historical tradition, concerning the
Syncretism then gave occasion to further specifications in regard to the idea of tradition. G. CALIXTUS has said: “It should not be doubted, that from the writings of the ancient Church, which are still extant, the common belief of antiquity can be sufficiently ascertained, and that should be regarded as apostolical, which they unanimously teach and declare that they receive as apostolical.” To which CAL. (I, 327) replies: “Although some innovators differ from the Papists in this, that they do not recognize any article of faith that is merely traditional and not contained in the Scriptures, or receive any doctrine as taught by the Apostles, which is not written; yet they side with the Papists in this, that they accept as the Word of God something not written and handed down by the Apostles, and wish some apostolical tradition, I know not what, handed down to us through the writings of the fathers, to be regarded as the undoubted Word of God.” And, page 330, the additional statement: “Although it is not to be doubted that the Apostles taught not only by writings but also viva voce, and that the Word which they preached, no less than what is comprehended in the Scriptures, is to be regarded as the undoubted Word of God, yet we neither can, nor ought to, gratify the Papists by teaching that there is still extant some additional Word of God communicated by the Apostles, and handed down from them to us, which should be received as infallible and indubitable, along with the prophetical and apostolical Holy Scriptures.
§ 10. (3.) Perspicuity.
If the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to salvation, and if they alone
contain it, they must necessarily exhibit
From what has
here been said, it naturally follows, further, that in all cases in which the interpretation
of a passage is doubtful, the decision dare never be found anywhere else than
[1] The fullest description of perspicuity we find in BR. (138): “Perspicuity, or that those things which are necessary to be believed and done by man in seeking to be saved, are taught in Scripture in words and phrases so clear and conformed to the usage of speech, that any man acquainted with the language, possessed of a common judgment, and paying due attention to the words, may learn the true sense of the words, so far as those things are concerned which must be known, and may embrace these fundamental doctrines by the simple grasp of his mind; according as the mind of man is led, by the Scriptures themselves and their supernatural light, or the divine energy conjoined with them, to yield the assent of faith to the word understood and the things signified.”
The proof, according to QUEN. (I, 121, 122):
“(1) From
[2] GRH. (I, 26): “It is to be observed that when we call the Scriptures perspicuous, we do not mean that every particular expression, anywhere contained in Scripture, is so constituted that at the first glance it must be plainly and fully understood by every one. On the other hand, we confess that certain things are obscurely expressed in Scripture and difficult to be understood . . . But this we do assert, and endeavor in every way to prove, that the perspicuity of the Scriptures is of such a nature that a certain and consistent opinion can be drawn from them concerning the doctrines whose knowledge is necessary to salvation.” Whence it follows (II, 329) that “the knowledge of those things, which are nowhere plainly and perspicuously revealed in Scripture, is not absolutely necessary to salvation.”
QUEN. (I, 118): “We do not maintain that all
Scripture, in every particular, is clear and perspicuous. For we grant that certain
things are met with in the sacred books that are obscure and difficult to be understood,
QUEN. (I, 18) distinguishes
between “onomastic, chronological, topographical, allegorical, typical, prophetical
(i.e., predictions, but unfulfilled) matters, and those which are historical, dogmatical,
or moral. If in the former class, especially in points relating to style and order,
there should occur some difficulty or obscurity,
[3] GRH. (II, 329): “Observe that some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and what is obscurely expressed in one passage is more clearly explained in another.”
QUEN. (I, 118): “It is one things that there should at times be some difficulty and obscurity in the statement of the mysteries of the faith and of those things that must be believed in order to salvation; and another, that this obscurity should be nowhere cleared up in the Scriptures themselves, if a comparison be instituted with parallel passages and the analogy of faith as contained in Scripture be called into requisition. Doubtless what is expressed in one place obscurely, appears perfectly clear in another; and what in one passage is hidden under tropes and figures, is elsewhere disclosed in plain and simple language; and thus upon many difficult passages of Scripture, light is thrown by others that are more clear.”
[4] GRH. (II, 329): “Observe that, is asserting perspicuity, we do not exclude the godly study of the Scriptures by reading and meditation, nor the use of the aids necessary to the interpretation of the Scriptures.”
QUEN. (I, 119): “We are to distinguish between men who, on account of their immature age and their want of familiarity with the language in which they read the Scriptures, meet with difficulty through unskillfulness or ignorance, or who are prejudiced by preconceived erroneous opinions, and those with whom this is not the case. . . . For we presuppose a sufficient knowledge of the language, maturity of age, a mind not filled with prejudice and erroneous opinions, and also a legitimate and good translation of the original text.”
BR. (146): “For he who does not attend
to the words themselves, but follows his own prejudices and makes the words of Scripture
conform to them, can err even in perspicuous passages and in investigating the true
sense.” Whence HOLL. (149): “The perspicuity of Scriptures is not absolute, but
dependent upon the use of means, inasmuch as, in endeavoring to understand it, the
divinely instituted method must be accurately observed. For there is required: (1)
Prayer to God the Father of Lights. (2) A
[5] Wherefore QUEN. (I, 118) distinguishes between
“obscurity in the object contemplated and that which lies in the subject contemplating
it. The Scriptures, especially in things necessary to salvation, are not obscure
in and of themselves, or through a want of native clearness and plainness, but they
are lucid and perspicuous. They may be obscure, however, accidentally, on account
of the incapacity and blindness of the human mind, and through the malice of heretics
and the heterodox who superadd to their natural blindness a voluntary one, and maliciously
close the eyes of their mind against the clearest light of Scripture. (
[6] GRH. (I, 26): “The clearness of Scripture is twofold; as Luther says, ‘One kind is external, lying in the ministry of the Word, the other in the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man understands a single iota in the Scriptures by the natural powers of his own mind, unless he have the Spirit of God; all have obscure hearts. The Holy Spirit is required for the understanding of the whole of Scripture and of all its parts. If you allude to the external clearness, there is nothing left obscure and ambiguous, but all things brought to light by the Word are perfectly clear.’”
GRH. (I, 52): “Some, who have not yet been enlightened
by the Holy Spirit, may have a knowledge of the Scripture doctrines, and acquire
an historic faith by the outward ministration of the Word; but an absolutely certain,
firm, and saving knowledge they
CAL. (I, 657): “Although the external sense of Scripture may be understood by the unregenerate, yet the saving and internal sense, joined with hearty assent, cannot be attained without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.”
[7] GRH. (II, 338): “A literal acquaintance with the articles of the faith is not sufficient to salvation, but there must also be a spiritual knowledge, for the acquisition of which the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary; and this is to be obtained by humble prayer.”
BR. (150): “In order
that man may properly understand the plan of salvation, two things are necessary:
first, that by the natural powers of his mind he comprehend those things that necessarily
must be known by him in order to his salvation; and secondly, that he embrace these,
thus apprehended as true and
[8] HOLL. (149): “The Scriptures are called clear, not in respect to the subject-matter, but to the words, for even subjects that are not clear may be expressed with clear and perspicuous words.”
QUEN. (I, 117): “We must make a distinction between the clearness of the subjects
which are revealed in Scripture and the plainness of the words by which the revealed
subjects are expressed. We refer not to the former but to the latter; for we acknowledge
that many mysteries are contained in the Scriptures, abstruse and
[9] QUEN. (I, 137): “From no other source than the Holy Scriptures themselves can a certain and infallible interpretation of Scripture be drawn. For Scripture itself, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture or through it, is the legitimate and independent (ανυπευθυνος) interpreter of itself.”
And further, QUEN. (I, 144): “We cannot, therefore, acknowledge the harmonious opinions of the ancient teachers of the Church or the decisions of councils as a certain and unquestionable rule and measure of scriptural interpretation, nor the Roman pontiff as the supreme, infallible interpreter of the Holy Scriptures.”
[10] QUEN. (I, 137): “The most obscure passages, which need explanation, can and should be explained by other passages that are more clear, and thus the Scripture itself furnishes an interpretation of the more obscure expressions when a comparison of these is made with those that are more clear; so that Scripture is explained by Scripture.”
[11] GRH. (I, 53): “From those perspicuous passages of Scripture a rule of faith is gathered, which is, so to speak, a summary of the heavenly doctrine extracted from the clearest passages of Scripture. Whatever, therefore, is necessary, is clearly expressed in the Holy Scriptures, says Chrysostom. If certain things in them are very obscure, the knowledge of these is not necessary to all for their salvation; and hence, although we may not always ascertain their true and genuine interpretation, it is sufficient if, in interpreting them, we propose nothing that conflicts with the rule of faith.”
(II, 424): “All interpretation of Scripture should
be according to the analogy of faith. This canon is taught in
GRH.
(I,
54) thus states all the rules that apply to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures:
“(1) Without the light of the Holy Spirit, our mind is blind so far as the understanding
and interpreting of Scripture are concerned. (2) In addition to this blindness,
natural to us all, some are blinded by peculiar wickedness and an unyielding obstinacy,
whose eyes the Holy Spirit either has opened or has wished to open, but they have
contumaciously resisted Him; neither of these kinds of blindness, however, makes
or proves the Scriptures obscure. (3) Because our mind is blind, we are prayerfully
to implore the light of the Holy Spirit. (4) But this illumination of the mind the
Holy Spirit does not confer immediately, but by the light of the Word heard and
meditated upon. (5) Inasmuch as the doctrines necessary to be known by every one
in order to salvation are taught in Scripture in clear and perspicuous language,
(6) the remaining passages of Scripture receive light from these. (7) For from the
perspicuous passages of Scripture, a rule of faith is deduced to which the exposition
of the remainder must be conformed. (8) And if we cannot ascertain the precisely
literal sense of all passages, it is sufficient that in their interpretation we
do not propose anything contrary to the analogy of faith. (9) Nevertheless, it is
also of importance that we rightly and accurately interpret the more obscure passages
of Scripture, which can be done if we apply the means adapted to remove the difficulties.
(10) That we may discover these means, we must seek the causes of the obscurity.
(11) Some Scripture passages are obscure in themselves, when singly considered,
others when compared with other passages; if they merely seem to conflict with other
passages, this obscurity may be removed by reconciling the passages. (12) Those
that are obscure in themselves and singly are so either as to their subject-matter
or as to their words. The obscurity in regard to the subjects discussed is removed
by those settled axioms, in individual articles of belief, which are to be regarded
as the unfailing guide. (13) The obscurity in regard
[12] GRH. (I, 67):
“There is but one proper and true sense of each passage, which the Holy Spirit thereby
intends, and which is drawn from the proper signification of the words, and only
from this literal sense available arguments may be derived.” But this literal sense
may be either strictly literal, which the Holy Spirit intends when the words are
taken in their usual signification, e.g., God is a spirit (
QUEN. (I, 131): “When our theological writers approve of the following scholastic axioms, viz.: ‘Mystical theology can prove nothing, parabolic theology cannot be advanced in argument, solid and effective arguments for proving the doctrines of the faith and refuting errors can be drawn only from the literal sense of Scripture,’ they do not exclude, but at the same time include, mystical applications of the literal sense of this or that biblical passage, made by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Holy Scriptures; yet they exclude allegorical and parabolical interpretations that men have devised and forced upon the Scriptures. For applications of the literal sense of this or that passage or sacred narrative, that are shown to exist and are explained in the Scriptures themselves, can be used in proof, just as other things that are literally expressed in the Scriptures. When, therefore, in any plain Scripture passage there is an accommodation of the literal sense to a spiritual subject, then its validity for proving or disapproving is just as great.” “The mystical sense, as it may be loosely styled, is divided by the Lutheran theologians into the allegorical, typical, and parabolical. It is called the allegorical sense, when a Scriptural historical narrative of things that really occurred is applied to a certain mystery or spiritual doctrine by the intention of the Holy Spirit in an allegorical manner; it is called typical when, under external facts or prophetic visions, things hidden, either present or future, are prefigured, or especially matters relating to the New Testament are shadowed forth; and parabolical, when something is described as having really occurred, and yet applied to designate something else that is spiritual.” (CAL. I, 665.)
The Romanists distinguish between the allegorical sense, the tropological (when the words or facts under consideration refer to something that relates to morals), and the anagogical (when the words or facts are used with a reference to eternal life).
§ 11. (4.) Efficacy.
CAL. (I, 478): “That the Holy Scriptures are living and efficacious, and a means of illumination, conversion, and salvation, prepared and vivified by Divine power.”
This subject will be treated of subsequently under the head of the Means of Grace.
§ 12. Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books.
The written Word of God consists of the Word of God of the Old and the Word of God of the New Testament. [1] In the collection, however, that contains both of these, we find also other writings, which we do not call the Word of God in the same sense. We distinguish these two kinds of writings in the following manner, viz.: we call the first class canonical books, i.e., such as, because they are inspired by God, [2] are the rule and guide of our faith; [3] the others, apocryphal books, i.e., such whose divine origin is either doubtful or has been disproved. [4] Although both kinds are found in the Bible, only those of the first class are admitted as a rule of faith, whence they are called the Canon (catalogue, or number, of the canonical books), while those of the other class may contribute their share to the edification of believers, but are not to be regarded as the Word of God, and from them, therefore, no proof for any doctrine of the faith is to be drawn. [5]
Whether a book is canonical or not, we are then to ascertain
by the signs whereby we recognize the Word of God in general as such, as of the
divine origin, as inspired. [6] The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more conclusive
evidence than anything else of the divine character of the contents of a book; next
to this come all the other kinds of evidence which we have enumerated under the
head of the Authority of Holy Scripture (§ 8, Note 10) as the external and internal
criteria. [7] Among the latter, the testimony of the Church in the earliest ages
in regard to the canonical character of a book is of special importance, for it
is assuredly a matter of the highest moment if we know
As canonical books of the Old Testament we acknowledge: (1) Genesis; (2) Exodus; (3) Leviticus; (4) Numbers; (5) Deuteronomy; (6) Joshua; (7) Judges; (8) Ruth; (9) I and II Samuel; (10) I and II Kings; (11) I and II Chronicles; (12) Ezra and Nehemiah (or second Ezra); (13) Esther; (14) Job; (15) Psalms; (16) Proverbs; (17) Ecclesiastes; (18) Song of Solomon; (19) Isaiah; (20) Jeremiah; (21) Lamentations; (22) Ezekiel; (23) Daniel; (24) twelve minor prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. [10]
As apocryphal: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, I, II, and III Maccabees, III and IV Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Syracides. As appendices: Epistle of Jeremiah, annexed to Baruch, Appendix to Daniel, Supplement to Esther, Prayer of Manasseh.(GRH.) [11]
In the New Testament we have no apocryphal books in the same sense as in the Old Testament; but still there are single books of the New Testament in regard to whose origin and authors the evidence is not in all cases equally consentaneous. A certain distinction must therefore be made between them and the others that are equally authenticated by every species of evidence; and yet this distinction, resting as it does merely upon the want of entire agreement in the evidence, whilst very important testimony of various kinds is at hand to prove their canonical authority, is not of so much importance as to prevent us from making a canonical use of these books. [12]
The books of the
New Testament authenticated by all the testimonies are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, [13] and John, Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, his two
Epistles to the Corinthians, his Epistles to the Galatians,
Those in regard to which doubts are entertained by some are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of James, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.
[1] GRH. (II, 50): “The biblical books
are distinguished into the books of the Old and New Testaments. The books of the
Old Testament are those which were written before the appearance of Christ; the
books of the New Testament, those which were written after the appearance of Christ,
and addressed to the Church. It is to be observed, that the books of the Old Testament
are called such, not because they do not manifestly contain anything of the substance,
grace, and felicity of the New Testament promised through Christ to those believing
in Him, but because they predict and prefigure that as future and to be fulfilled
in due time, which in the New Testament is announced as complete.
HOLL. (129), as to the relation between the Old and New Testaments: “The books of
the Old Testament were committed to the Israelitic Church, those of the New Testament
to the Christian Church, collected from all nations. Yet the Christian Church receives
the canonical books of the Old Testament on account of the most admirable harmony
of the prophetic and apostolic writings, on account of their great utility, and
especially in obedience to the command of Christ,
[2] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I,85): “The Canonical
Scriptures derive their eminent authority mainly from the fact that they are divinely
inspired,
[3] CHEMN. (Ex.
Trid. I,81): “The Scriptures are called canonical, the canonical books, or the canon
of Scripture, because they are a rule according to which the edifice of the faith
of the Church is to be so constructed and framed that whatever agrees with this
rule is to be regarded as right, sound, and apostolical;
[4] GRH. (II, 53): “The apocryphal books are so called απο του αποκρυπτειν, which signifies concealed, either because their origin was not clearly ascertained by those by whose testimony the authority of the true Scriptures has been handed down to us (Augustine); or, because they are not read publicly in the churches as a source of proof for ecclesiastical doctrines, but merely as a means of moral improvement.” HOLL. (131): “The apocryphal books are those which are found in the volume of Scripture, but do not belong to the canon, and were not written by immediate divine inspiration.” This definition applies only to those which accompany the canonical Scriptures; another class consists of those “which contain fable, errors, and lies, and hence are not to be read in the churches.” GRH. (II, 55): “The former kind are called apocryphal, in the sense of obscure (absconditi), i.e., uncertain and hidden as to their origin; the other class, in the sense that they deserve to be kept obscure (abscondendi) and ought not to be read in the churches.” CAL. (I, 491): “The division of the books of Scripture into canonical and apocryphal is improper and equivocal, since only the former meet the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the latter merely having the name.”
[5] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 93): “Are
then these books to be absolutely condemned and rejected? This we by no means demand.
Of what use then is this whole discussion? We reply, That the rule of faith or sound
doctrine in the Church may be certain. The fathers taught that authoritative proof
of ecclesiastical doctrine was to be drawn only from the canonical books. . . . The
authority of canonical Scripture alone was judged competent to decide in disputed
questions; but the other books, which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal,
they desired indeed to have read in the churches, merely however for the edification
of the people, not as proof in matters of doctrine. No dogma is, therefore, to be
deduced from these books which has not clear and indubitable support and evidence
in the canonical books. No controverted topic can be decided by these books, if
there be not other and conclusive
CAL. (I, 492): “Two things are necessary to constitute a canonical book; first, inspiration, or the immediate divine impulse, which proves the document in question to be divine truth, or the very Word of God; secondly, the divine sanction (canonicatio divina), by which God constitutes His written Word the perpetual and universal rule of the Church.”
HOLL. (129): “The canonical books are those whose doctrines and single words were committed to writing by the prophets and apostles, by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and were communicated to the Church by God, and received by her as the infallible rule of faith and morals for man who is to be saved.”
[6] HOLL. (126): “We judge of the canonical authority of Scripture with reference to its doctrines, by the same proofs and arguments by which we decide in regard to its divine origin. For the Holy Scriptures are an infallible rule or canon of faith and morals, because they derive their origin immediately from God, and are designed by Him for canonical use. Wherefore, when the abovementioned criteria convince us that the meaning or doctrine of Scripture has proceeded immediately from God, there is no need of an extended demonstration of canonical authority, so far as the doctrine of the canon is concerned.”
[7] HOLL. (126): “The canonical authority of Scripture, considered as to its doctrines, is proved by external and internal criteria, but especially by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit illuminating the minds of men, through the Scriptures attentively read or heard from the mouth of a teacher.”
[8] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 85): “That this whole matter, in itself of such vast importance,
might be perfectly secure against all imposture, God selected certain men to write,
furnished them with many miracles and divine testimonials, that there might be no
doubt that those things which they wrote were divinely inspired. Finally, these
writings, divinely inspired, were at the time when they were written, by common
consent, with public indorsement, presented, given, and intrusted to the Church,
that she should, by all possible care and forethought, preserve them uncorrupted,
transmit them thence from hand to hand, and intrust them to posterity. And as the
ancient Church, in the time of Moses, Joshua, and the prophets, so also the primitive
Church in the time of the apostles, could give certain testimony as to which writings
were divinely inspired. For she knew the authors whom God commended
As to the manner in which the primitive Church proceeded in this matter, CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 87) thus expresses himself: “The testimony of the primitive Church, in the times of the apostles, concerning the genuine writings of the apostles, the immediately succeeding generations constantly and faithfully retained and preserved; so that when many others afterwards were brought forward, claiming to have been written by the apostles, they were tested and rejected as supposititious and adulterated, first, for this reason, that it could not be shown and proved by the testimony of the original Church either that they were written by the apostles, or approved by the living apostles, and transmitted and intrusted by them to the Church in the beginning; secondly, because they proposed strange doctrine not accordant with that which the Church received from the apostles, and was at that time still preserving fresh in the memory of all.”
[9] HOLL. (126): “But the canonical authority of Scripture,
in reference to the original language, or the authentic Hebrew text
The intent of this passage
and the one quoted in the eighth note is the following: The internal and external
criteria may indeed beget in us a human faith, but not a divine; the latter can
be produced only by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And this must not necessarily
be obtained by the use of the original text: a translation will answer quite as
well, since the power of the Holy Spirit lies in the sense and not in the letter
of the Word. Wherefore, also, we cannot become divinely assured, in regard to the
idiom in which any of the sacred books has been written, by an internal experience.
For information on this point we are therefore referred to historical evidence;
and the state of the case thus appears to be, that the testimony of the Holy Spirit
is necessary to assure us of the divinity of the Scriptures, to which must be added
historical proofs to satisfy us as to the language in which a sacred book was written,
as to its author, etc. For BR. (112) thus expresses himself: “The internal illuminating
power of the Scriptures is associated with the sense in every language, in such
a manner, that it does not point out precisely the words of the original text as
essentially different from other equivalent words of the same or any other language,
text or version.” But the other criteria, which prove the inspiration of the doctrine
contained in Scripture, either do not at all relate to the material part, or the
words, of Scripture, but only to the formal part, or the doctrine; or, when they
do in some degree relate to the words and their connection, and are employed to
prove in general that God is the author of the words of Scripture in any idiom,
whatever it may be, they still cannot clearly indicate the precise words and letters
in which each book of Scripture was originally committed to writing. There remains,
therefore, the testimony of the Church, which does not, indeed, confer canonical
or normative dignity upon the books of Scripture in any particular language, nor
does it by its own authority induce that reception of the divine faith by which
the inspiration of that idiom is believed; but notwithstanding this, inasmuch as
it historically proves a certain idiom or writing to be the original of the books
of Scripture, in which it received them as written by the sacred penman, thus producing
a moral certainty in regard to it, it now joined with that which the Scriptures
themselves teach, and with which the Holy Spirit intimately connects his own influence, holds a place
It is still worthy of remark that it cannot be clearly understood, from the passages quoted from Hollazius and Baier, whether these theologians supposed that, as each individual can attain only by the testimony of the Holy Spirit unto divine faith in the revelation by Christ, so in like manner each individual can be convinced of the divinity of each single book of Scripture by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The contrary might seem to be proved by the fact that the most of the theologians speak of the testimony of the Holy Spirit only when they are discussing the grounds upon which the authority of Scripture rests (so GRH.); for when it is asserted that each individual attains to divine assurance of the authority of Scripture only through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, this is still somewhat different from the assertion that the canonicity of each separate book must be proved in the case of each individual by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And Chemnitz, further, does not mention, in this connection, this testimony of the Holy Spirit; but, in order to prove the canonicity of the separate books, points only to the testimony of the earliest Church, which could appeal to the indorsement of the Apostles. And, finally, in all the investigations by the Dogmaticians, in regard to the canonicity of a single book, there is never any allusion to the testimony of the Holy Spirit (Luther’s well-known expression of opinion, in regard to the Epistle of James, must not here be taken into the account), but they are all conducted upon the basis of historical evidence. The true state of the case appears most probably to be, that the question whether the proof of the canonicity of a particular book is to be distinguished from the proof of the divine authority of Scripture in general, was never clearly brought home to the consciousness of our theologians; so that the passage quoted in this note, and in Note 6, are designed merely to preclude the error of supposing that the historical testimony of the Church can establish divine faith in the Scriptures in general.
[10] Many theologians divide the books of the Old Testament into legal, historical, dogmatical, and prophetical.
QUEN. (I, 236): “All those books, therefore, of the Old Testament,
and only those, are canonical, which (1) were written by the prophets and in the
prophetic spirit, i.e., by immediate Divine inspiration (
[11] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 91): “The reason why those books have been denied canonical authority is obvious. For some of them were written after the time of the prophets, when the people of Israel no longer had prophets, such as the ancient ones were; and they were written by those who had not the divine testimonies, as the prophets had, concerning the truth and authority of their doctrine. Some of these books, indeed, bear the names of prophets, but do not possess certain proofs of having been written by those to whom they are attributed. This is the manifest reason why they have been removed from the canon of Scripture.” The most extensive investigations in regard to the separate canonical and apocryphal books of the Old and New Testament are to be found in GRH., vol. ii, loc. i, c. vi-xi.
[12] We find that the earliest Dogmaticians insist more than the later upon
the difference between these and the other undoubtedly canonical books. The most
strenuous of all is CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 192): “I have cited the testimony of the
ancients, not only that the catalogue of those writings of the New Testament may
be known which have not sufficiently sure, strong, and consentaneous proofs of their
authority, but more especially that the reasons may be known why there should have
been any doubt concerning them. (1) Because the ancients did not possess sure, strong,
and consentaneous evidence that the original apostolic Church bore testimony that
these books were approved by the apostles and recommended to the Church. (2) Because
it does not certainly appear, by the testimony of the earliest and ancient Church,
whether these books were written by those whose names they bear; but they have been
regarded as published by others under the name of the apostles. (3) Since some of the ancients
The assertion that the authority of these books had never been doubted is contradicted by BR. (120): “It cannot indeed be denied that some of the ancients did so doubt in regard to these writers, as to refuse to them the authority that belongs to inspired books;” but he also says concerning them: “They are not ignored when we are asked for the rule of faith, but they have authority in such case by common consent at the present day among Christians, especially those of our confession.” He does not go into the special proof of this position, it is true, but probably for the reason that he did not regard the doubt raised by so few as of sufficient importance to make this necessary.
[13] In reference to the gospels of Mark and Luke, CHEMN. (Eq. Trid., I, 87) remarks: “That Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, were divinely called to write the gospel, Augustine thus explains, lest namely it should be thought that, in reference to the preaching and reception of the Gospel, it made any difference whether those proclaimed it who followed the Lord while here in the flesh as disciples and servants, or those who believed what they clearly learned from these; and that it was providentially so arranged by the Holy Spirit, that to some of those who followed the apostles authority was given, not only for preaching, but also for writing the Gospel,” etc.
§ 13. What are Articles of Faith?
THE whole subject matter of revelation naturally divides itself into single propositions, which we call articles of faith. “An article of faith is a part of the doctrine, revealed in the written Word of God, concerning God and divine things, proposed to the sinner to be believed in order to his salvation.” HOLL. (43) [1] Taken together, these articles form the sum of what the Christian is to believe, [2] and they are closely connected together, standing in the same relation to the general contents of revelation as the members of a body to the body itself. The articles of faith have their origin solely in the Holy Scriptures; [3] but, inasmuch as their contents embrace some truths which could not be known in any other way, and others of which some knowledge may be gained by the light of nature; and, inasmuch as all the truths contained in them are not of equal importance for our salvation, and do not stand in equally intimate connection with it, the articles of faith may be divided into,
I. The pure articles (which are known only by divine revelation), and the mixed (which are manifest not merely from revelation, but also from the light of nature. BR. (43). [4]
II. The fundamental and non-fundamental.
HOLL. (46): “The fundamental articles are parts of the Christian doctrine so necessary to be known that, when they are not known, the foundation of the faith is not savingly apprehended or retained by man; and when they are denied by him, to that same extent it is overturned.” [5]
(53): “The non-fundamental articles are parts of the Christian doctrine which
one may be ignorant of or deny, and yet be saved.” [6] But the fundamental articles
are again divided into “primary, without the knowledge of which no one can attain
unto eternal salvation, or which must be known in
The whole of the articles of faith the Church has collected in the Symbols. These contain the confession of faith which the Church has put forth at different times, and are therefore divided into the symbols of earlier and later times. [9]
[1] HOLL. (43): “The term, article, is derived from artus, and this from arcto. It properly signifies members of the body closely joined together, as the joints of the fingers closely cohere. Metaphorically, the word article is applied to the parts of the doctrine of faith, which are most intimately joined together.” QUEN. (I, 241): “So that articles of faith are parts of the doctrine of faith, divinely revealed for our salvation, which are most intimately united to each other and to the whole, as the parts or joints of a finger, and into which the whole structure of the Christian religion may be resolved, as a finger into its joints. And their connection is so intimate that, when one is removed, the rest cannot continue sound and whole.” The word is sometimes taken in a wider, and sometimes in a narrower sense. HOLL. (44): “Collectively, it signifies a whole head of doctrine; distributively, any assertion or enunciation which constitutes a part of Christian doctrine. The Christian doctrine is divided into heads or theological loci, and these again into certain theses. The heads of doctrine are called articles of faith, as well as the theses under the separate heads; e. g., the theological locus [general topic] concerning Christ is called an article of faith, and the proposition, ‘Christ, in the flesh, sitteth at the right hand of God,’ is also called an article of faith.” Sometimes, merely the mysteries of the faith are meant by the articles of faith. BR. (42): “It is certain that the term, article of faith, is sometimes used in a stricter sense, as accurately denoting the mysteries of faith necessary to be believed in order to salvation, namely, the pure articles, and of these the fundamental alone.”
[2] QUEN. (I, 241): “The subjects with which the articles of faith are occupied
are τα πιστα, the credenda, the things to be believed as such. For a distinction
must here be made between the historical and the dogmatical, and between the moral
doctrines, which teach what is to be done or avoided, and the doctrines of faith,
which treat of what is to be believed or not believed. For although faith, generally
viewed, may have respect to all that is contained in the
GRH. (VII, 165): “Since those things which are propounded in the Scriptures as matters of faith, are not of one kind, but some pertain to the faith directly and per se, and other in certain respects and remotely, such as historical descriptions of deeds performed by the saints, so not all the matters contained in the Scriptures can be regarded as articles of faith, strictly and accurately speaking, but only those doctrines the knowledge of which is necessary to salvation.”. . . . And, after an appeal to Thomas Aquinas: “If the Jesuits in the Ratisbon Colloquium had observed this principle of the teacher, they never would have blurted forth the assertion: ‘It is an article of faith, that the dog of Tobias wagged his tail.’”
If the Dogmaticians
found it necessary, over against the Romanists, to guard against too wide a use
of the term, “articles of faith,” they found it equally necessary, at a later day,
in opposition to Calixtus, to guard against a too narrow use of the same expression.
After the example of Bonaventura, he divided the doctrines into antecedent, constituent,
and consequent. In the first class he included everything that man can know by means
of his reason, without the aid of revelation; in the second, all in the strict constituting
the faith, and standing in special relation to the salvation provided by Christ,
and that cannot remain unknown without peril to salvation. In the third class he
included all those doctrines which are derived only by inference from the special
doctrines of the faith. The term “articles of faith” he applied only to those of
the second class. “The constituent articles of faith are those which, in themselves
and their substance, so to speak, and as divinely declared, must be known and believed,
from the necessity both of means and of the command. . . . The knowledge of the antecedents
and consequents is not a matter for every one, but only for the more advanced.”. . . . In
opposition to him, therefore, the distinction was made, that everything contained
in the Scriptures that refers to the faith is an article of faith. As Calixtus further
maintained: “That the Apostles’ Creed sufficiently comprehended all the articles
of faith, so that the ignorance of other doctrines might be regarded as by no means
harmful to salvation;” and: “That the Apostles’ Creed was a mark for distinguishing
not only Christians from the heathen, but also the orthodox or Catholics from heretics;
so that whoever received the Apostles’ Creed should be considered members of the
Catholic Church and subjects of the kingdom of Christ, and were by no means to be
condemned as heretics,
[3] HOLL. (44): “A true article of faith must be
(a) revealed in the written Word of God; (b) have reference to the salvation of
man; (c) be intimately connected with the remaining doctrines of the faith; and
(d) be not apparent to unaided reason.” QUEN. (I, 242): “For it is possible for
doctrines to be perspicuously and plainly propounded in Scripture, while their subjects,
peculiar to faith, may not be clearly apprehended, as the mystery of the Trinity,
etc., etc., since by the light of nature they would never have been known; whence
faith is said to be occupied with such things as are not seen.
In opposition to the assertion of the Socinians: “Whatever is absolutely necessary to salvation, must necessarily be with simple and entire literalness written in the Scriptures,” we have the statement of CAL. (I, 804): “Although we acknowledge that those things which must be believed in order to salvation ought to be clearly taught and exhibited in the Holy Scriptures, so that they may be drawn thence by all, yet we do not admit that they are there expressed precisely, or literally, so that those things which are deduced by easy, ready, and obvious inference from the Holy Scriptures, are not to be considered as articles of faith and necessary to be believed.”
[4] QUEN. (I, 242): “There are some doctrines in Scripture which are simply pista (matters
of faith), and cannot be at all learned from reason, but are infinitely above it;
there are also some things to be believed which, although they are revealed in Scripture
and necessary to be known, are nevertheless of such a nature that even reason by
the use of her own principles could attain some sort of knowledge of them; hence
arise the pure and mixed articles. The former are derived from the Word of God alone
and are simply matters of faith, as the article concerning the Trinity, etc., etc.;
the latter, although they may be known n some degree from the light of nature, are
nevertheless purely matters of faith, in so far as they are known by divine revelation;
e.g., that God is, etc., is known from evident proofs, and is believed on the authority
of the divine revelation. Yet all such things as may be known to some extent by
the light of nature, are not matters of faith so far as they are apprehended
Of the pure articles of faith HOLL. (45) remarks: “They treat of the mysteries of faith that transcend the comprehension of unaided human reason. Μυεισθαι (mystery) is derived from μυειν, which signifies to have closed eyes, to compress the mouth, and consequently to be silent. From μυειν is formed μυεειν, which signifies to imbue any one with honest doctrine. Μυεισθαι is the same as to be initiated into sacred things. Ο μυστης is a man initiated into sacred things, or who is imbued with such knowledge of sacred things, that he may teach them, and is to be heard with reverential silence. To μυστηριον, in profane authors, signifies every secret matter that dare not be rashly mentioned, but especially the sacred Eleusinian mysteries of Ceres, guarded by the strictest silence. In sacred literature, mysteries are divine and supernatural matters, unknown to unaided reason, not intuitively perceived, but divinely revealed for the sake of our salvation.”
[5] QUEN. (I, 242): “The fundamental articles, or those that cannot be unknown,
or at least not denied, consistently with faith and salvation, are those which are
intimately connected with the foundation of the faith. A foundation, generally speaking
is, as N. Hunnius defines it, ‘that which is the first in any structure, which lies
beneath the whole structure, and is not sustained by anything else.’” Thus the foundation
of the faith is that upon which the faith, and, indeed, the whole of Christianity,
as a house that is to be built and upheld, is based. And, inasmuch as a foundation
is sometimes the same as a cause, a fundamental article is such a doctrine as serves
to produce and establish faith and eternal salvation, or which explains some cause
of faith and salvation. QUEN., according to the method of Hunnius, distinguishes
a threefold foundation. “1. Substantial, the object upon which man rests his confidence,
from the beneficial effect of which he expects eternal salvation; or, it is the
proper object of faith, which is the triune God, to be embraced by faith in Christ,
the Mediator. 2. Organic, the Word of God, which is as a seed, out of which Christians
are born again; thus it is also called a foundation, inasmuch as it is a means of
generating faith, and a source of doctrine which lies underneath faith, and thus
is a foundation of faith. 3. Dogmatic, that first part of the
[6] BR. (56): “E.g., concerning the sin and eternal ruin of certain angels, concerning the immortality of the first man before the Fall, concerning Antichrist, concerning the origin of the soul, whether by creation or traduction.” But he adds to this: “At the same time, moreover, we are to be careful in regard to this matter, lest by embracing or professing error we rashly sin against divine revelation and God Himself; especially, lest something be maintained, through the persuasion of others, contrary to conscience, whereby the foundation and the truth of one or more of the fundamental articles of the faith are overturned. For thus, as by a mortal sin, faith and the Holy Spirit may be and are entirely driven away.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 243): “Among these fundamental article of faith a certain order has been established in regard to the relation which they sustain to each other, and to an intermediate as well an ultimate end; so that some are called primary and others secondary fundamental articles, some are said to be of the first, others of the second rank.”
The primary articles are subdivided. 1. By some into constituitive and conservative articles. QUEN. (I, 243): “Constitutive fundamental articles, according to N. Hunnius, are those which constitute the very foundation of the faith, or are the immediate cause of faith, as ‘God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” The conservative are those which do not, indeed, immediately cause faith itself, but which are necessarily implied in the immediate cause faith itself, but which are necessarily implied in the immediate cause of faith; e.g., that God is true and omnipotent, etc.; where he further observes that, “for any doctrine to constitute a foundation of the faith, it is necessary to the production of faith, that none of them be wanting, nor any other doctrine admitted which may militate, directly or indirectly, against the doctrine in question, or render it in any wise inefficient in producing faith.” 2. Others divide them “into (a) antecedent articles of faith, which do not, indeed, cause justifying and saving faith, nor are absolutely and immediately necessary to its existence, but which are, nevertheless, necessary to the complete and permanent establishment of those doctrines which produce and constitute the faith, which cannot be done when these are not taught or are unknown or denied (the doctrine of the existence of a divine revelation, of the existence of God, His power, etc., etc., of the divinity of the Mediator, the sinfulness of man, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment); (b), into constituent articles of faith, which immediately and most nearly relate to our salvation, and intrinsically constitute and cause faith (the Christian doctrines of the love which God bears to man, of the merit and universal atonement of Christ, and its application to individual cases); (c), into consequent articles of faith, which so necessarily follow established faith that, if they be not held, faith itself again is lost (the eternal duration of God, the executive justice of God, the efficacious sanctification of God, the intercommunication of attributes and operation in the person of Christ, the regal office of Christ, etc., etc.).” HULSEMAN (in QUEN. I, 243).
[8] HOLL.
(51): “The secondary fundamental articles are those, a simple want of acquaintance
with which does not prevent our salvation, but the pertinacious denial of, and hostility
to, which overturn
The distinction between the articles of faith, as fundamental principal and less principal, is met with already in Gerhard, who took it from the Scholastics; but in the fully developed form above cited, it first appears in N. Hunnius. Reformed theologians, in order to bring about a union of the two confessions, had denied the existence of a fundamental difference between them, and for this purpose had generalized the definition of the term fundamental as much as possible. To guard against falsely irenic attempts, Hunnius then wrote his “Careful Examination of the Fundamental Doctrinal Difference between the Lutherans and the Calvinists. Wittenberg, 1626.”
[9] QUEN. (I, 21): “A summary of true religion (and of the articles
of faith) is contained in the Symbols, embracing the Christian faith; these are
either ancient, or oecumenical, received throughout all Christendom” (Apostles’
Creed, the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesian, Chalcedonic, and Athanasian Creeds),
or more recent and, by reason of their less solemn sanction, particular (the
In regard to the relation of the earlier to the later symbols, HOLL. remarks (Comp. 7): “Those which were approved by the unanimous consent of the whole Catholic Church, viz., the three oecumenical symbols, possess far greater authority than those which have received the sanction and approbation of only a few particular churches.”
As to the meaning of the word Symbol. — CAL. (I, 101): “They are called symbols because they were the tokens of the ancient Church, by which the orthodox could be distinguished from the heterodox.” HOLL. (54): “They are public confessions, drawn up after much deliberation and consultation, in the name of the Church, by orthodox men, with reference to certain articles of faith, so that the members of the orthodox Church might be removed from the ignorance and heretical wickedness of infidels, and be preserved in the proper profession of the faith.” As there are a number of them, HUTT. (Comp. 6) remarks: “Our churches recognize many symbolical books, but only as the same kind of evidence for the doctrine of their day.”
In reference to the relation sustained by the Symbolical Books to the
Scriptures, cf. the FORM CONC. (Of the Compendious Rule and Guide, 7): “There is
thus a very clear distinction made between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments and all other writings; and the Holy Scriptures are acknowledged as the
only judge, rule, and guide by which, as by a Lydian stone, all doctrines are to
be tried and adjudged, whether they be godly or ungodly, true or false. But the
other symbols and other writings. . . . do not possess decisive authority,. . . . but merely
furnish testimony for our religion and explain it, and show in what manner at particular
times the Holy Scriptures were understood and explained, in regard to controverted
points, by the learned men who then lived in the Church.” This relation was not
discussed, however, in the works of the Dogmaticians until the time of Hutter; and
the same was the case with the question as to the importance and necessity of the
symbols. The relation, as it was regarded at the end of the orthodox period, is
thus expressed by HOLL. (56): “The Holy Scriptures and the Symbolical Books differ;
because: (1) The Holy Scriptures were communicated by immediate inspiration from
God to holy men of God, led by the Holy Spirit. The Symbolical Books are sacred
writings, composed by orthodox men, divinely endowed with the privilege of mediate
illumination (in a strict sense no symbol of the church can be called inspired).
For although
Of the necessity of the Symbolical Books (Id. 59): “The
Symbolical Books are necessary, not absolutely but hypothetically, for the condition
of the Church, which was induced by weighty reasons to their publication, (a) to
establish solid, permanent, and firm concord in the Church of God, so that there
may be a certain compendious form or type approved by universal consent, in which
the common doctrine, which the churches of the purer doctrine profess, collected
from the Word of God, may be contained; (b) to furnish an account of the Christian
religion, if it be demanded by the civil
§ 14. Division of the Subject.
The chief design of the creation of man, and that of revelation also, is, that God may be known. [1] Theology, therefore, must begin with the doctrine concerning God. [2]
The doctrine concerning God may be divided into (1) The doctrine of the existence, the nature, and the attributes of God. (2) The doctrine of the particular manner in which God subsists, i.e., the doctrine of God as triune. (3) The doctrine of the works of God, i.e., of Creation. (4) The doctrine of the manner in which God preserves His works and cares for them, i.e., the doctrine of Providence. (5) The doctrine of the angels, as the ministering beings among the works of God.
§ 15. Preliminary Statement. The Natural and Supernatural Knowledge of God.
The full and saving knowledge of God
we obtain, of course, only from revelation. But aside from this there exists a knowledge
of God, for we find it even among the heathen. We can therefore distinguish a twofold
source from which the knowledge of God may be derived, the one, the volume of
The natural knowledge is either innate or acquired, i.e., a certain knowledge of God is inborn, and this can be expanded and further confirmed by the contemplation of the works and ways of God in nature and history. [4] The knowledge thus arising, though in itself true, may nevertheless be corrupted and changed into error through the moral depravity existing in man; [5] it is at best very imperfect, making known indeed something concerning God, e.g., His existence and somewhat of His attributes and will, but this never in its entire extent, and never in such manner as to give to man an absolute certainty, so as to furnish a trustworthy guide for his faith and life; [6] much less does it suffice to secure his salvation. [7] The reason of this imperfection lies, however, in the depravity of human nature, which, since its fall, can no longer lift itself up to a perfect knowledge of God. All knowledge thus derived we must therefore regard as the remnant of a knowledge which, but for the Fall, we would have possessed in full measure. [8] It serves, accordingly, rather to awaken in us a longing after true and perfect knowledge (cognitio paedagogica), and in some measure to regulate our moral deportment, even before the knowledge communicated by revelation has reached us (cognitio paedeutica); and it can also be profitably employed along with the revealed knowledge (cognitio didactica). [9] We still need revelation, therefore, in order to acquire full and true knowledge. [10]
[1] GRH. (III, 1): “That this
doctrine concerning God is necessary, is proved (1) by the design for which man
was created. Just as all things else were created on account of man, so man was
brought into being in order rightly to know and worship, to love and honor God his
Creator. . . . (2) By the design for which God reveals Himself. God, coming forth from
the hidden seat of His majesty, not only in the creation of the world, but also
and most of all in the revelation of His Word, out of His boundless goodness unto
men reveals Himself, surely with no other aim than that men may rightly know God
through this revelation, and may preserve and hand down to their posterity the true
doctrine concerning God, free from any intermixture of error and in its integrity.”
[2] GRH. (ibid.): “As the Holy Scriptures are the only source of knowledge in Theology, so God, boundless in goodness, supreme in power, is the only and absolute source of existence, not only with reference to the Holy Scriptures themselves (in which the Word of God or the divine revelation is contained), but also with reference to the divine works concerning which Theology treats. The centre of all Scripture, the nucleus of Theology, the end and aim of our knowledge and desire, all these are one and the same. We pass, therefore, in convenient order, from the article concerning the Scriptures to the article concerning the Nature of God and the Divine Attributes.”
QUEN. (I, 250): “The chief end of man and of all Theology is God, and the knowledge, worship, and enjoyment of God; with the doctrine concerning Him, therefore, we properly begin, when Theology is teated after the manner of a practical discipline.”
HOLL. (187): “As Theology is a practical science, we are first of all to treat of its design. But as the aim of Theology is twofold, in part objective, that is, the infinitely perfect and supremely beneficent God, and partly formal, that is, the beholding and beatific fruition of God; so the objective end of Theology, namely, God, who thoroughly satisfies the desire of man, is first to be considered.”
[3] GRH. (I, 93): “Two things lead to the knowledge of God: the creature and the Scripture (Augustine).”
HOLL. (188): “The knowledge of God is sought both by the light of Nature or Reason, and by the light of Revelation.”
[4] QUEN. (I, 251): “The natural knowledge of God is that by which man, without any special revelation, may know of himself, though very imperfectly, by the light of Nature and from the Book of Nature, that there is some supreme Divinity, that He, by His own wisdom and power, controls this whole universe, and that He has brought all things into being.”
GRH. (I, 93): “Innate
knowledge is that common conception concerning God engraven and impressed upon the
mind of every man by Nature, and hence from the womb, as though from principles
born within us or κοιναις εννοιαις (which are nothing else than certain remains
and ερειπια of the divine image, sparks and scintillations of that clear light which
shone with full splendor in the mind of man before the fall), which also embrace
some knowledge of God; as, that He is one, good, etc.” (III, 42): “These scintillations
(Id., III, 42): “Natural knowledge is acquired by the human mind from the external Book of Nature, i.e., from the contemplation of the divine effects and ways, by the exercise of its natural powers.” As such effects of the divine agency, GRH. enumerates (I, 94): “(1) The creation of things visible. (2) The variety, beauty, and order of created things. (3) The supporting, governing, and preserving of created things. (4) The profuse bestowment of the various gifts which minister to the necessities of man and other living beings. (5) The notice and retribution of the avenging eye and hand of God. (5) The working of miracles. (7) The foretelling of future events. (8) The periodical overthrow of kingdoms. (9) The nature of the human mind. (10) The fragments of natural knowledge, and among these the distinction of good and evil. (11) The terrors, gnawings, and stings of conscience. (12) The series of efficient and final causes.”
[Mel. (Loci, 1542) cites as proofs of the Divine existence: 1. The order of Nature, which could not have arisen or be maintained by accident, or have arisen from matter. The perpetuity of species, e.g., that men are born of men, and cattle of cattle, is cited as one illustration. 2. The nature of the human mind. A senseless and irrational thing cannot be the cause of an intelligent nature. 3. Moral distinctions made universally by men. These could not have originated from matter. 4. The universality of the testimony to God’s existence. 5. Terrors of conscience, implying a Supreme Judge. 7. Organization of political society, which could not have arisen accidentally, but points to a divine mind, implanting within man the capacity and laws of order. 7. The series of efficient causes implying a First Cause. If the series were infinite, there would be no order among the causes, and none would necessarily cohere. 8. Final causes prove a designing mind. Everything in Nature is arranged with reference to an end.]
[GRH. (III, 4) recapitulates proofs
of philosophers and scholastics: 1. The series of moving objects in this world implies
a First Mover. 2. The order of efficient causes implies a First Cause. 3.
QUEN. (I, 253): “The natural knowledge of God is twofold; partly εμφυτος, or by nature impressed upon the minds of men in their very origin, innate and implanted, by which men recognize God through certain principles born within them, as it were by certain fragments and remains of the divine image, without any research or operation of the mind; partly επικτετος, or acquired, because it is evolved through the inborn principles of nature through a process of reasoning and the accurate contemplation of created things, or gathered from the works of God in creation and those traces of divinity which are scattered throughout the universe. The former is called subjective; the latter, objective. The former all men, even infants, possess; but the latter is not found in all. The former is propagated by generation; the latter by the instruction of others, or also by personal culture and investigation. The former may be called constitutional knowledge, for it belongs to us after the manner of a constitutional tendency, even before the use and exercise of reason; the latter, actual, because it exerts itself and is obtained by reasoning and research.” Compare also the remark of GRH. (III, 46): “Finally, we observe, that when Ostorodus says that men do not obtain whatever knowledge they have of God or of divinity from nature, or from the contemplation of created things, but alone by hearing and from the teaching of others, the word, “hearing,” is ambiguous. For if Ostorodus means that for all knowledge of God there is required a special manifestation of God through the Word, this we totally deny; but, if by the word, hearing, be understood the doctrine and precepts derived from our ancestors, who followed nature alone as a teacher, then we say that this, no less than the principles connate with us, and also the contemplation of created things, belongs to natural knowledge. But, although the arguments are distinct by which we demonstrate as well the innate as the acquired natural knowledge of God; yet, when the Photinians deny both, it is sufficient for us to prove against them that there is some natural knowledge of God, from whatever source derived, whether from natural instinct, or intuition, or the instruction of others, who have followed Nature alone as a teacher.”
CAL., in opposition to the Socinians, thus sums up the
propositions
The proof for the existence of an innate knowledge is drawn from
The acquired knowledge is proved from
[5] QUEN. (I, 253): “That the natural knowledge of God is true, is evident from this,
that the apostle expressly calls it αλεθεια,
[6] CAL. (II, 47): “The imperfection of the natural knowledge of God as to those things which are revealed in nature, and its nullity as to the supernatural mysteries of faith.”
QUEN. (I, 253): “The natural knowledge of God is imperfect mainly in two respects:
(1) as regards its object, this being either altogether unknown (and here belongs
the Gospel, which is a mystery hidden from the ages), or not fully known (and here
belongs the doctrine of the Law, which man knows from natural
CHMN.
(Loci, I, 20): “The natural knowledge of God either amounts to nothing, or is imperfect,
or languid. It amounts to nothing, since all philosophy knows nothing whatever of
the gratuitous promise of the forgiveness of sins; for the Son of God has revealed
this to the Church from the bosom of the Eternal Father,
In regard to the substance of what is known by the light of nature, QUEN. (I, 255): “The controversy here is not whether man, naturally or without revelation, can recognize το τι εστι, what and who is the true God, according to all the peculiarities of the divine nature; and whether he can naturally fully understand His providence and His special will in the government of the Church and in the eternal salvation of men: for all these things are to be sought only through the revealed Word. But the question is whether man can naturally know το υτι, whether God be, and in general recognize what that Divine Being is, who is the cause of all things in nature, who is just, good, holy, is to be worshiped, etc.; and so, whether man without a revelation can have any adequate knowledge concerning the true God or any true conceptions concerning God, although in particular he may apply them improperly, as e.g., to that which is not truly God.”
With the last remark
from Quenstedt compare the statement of Gerhard (I, 96): “We must distinguish between
the conception of God, derived by the heathen mind from the contemplation of
Through the light of nature man attains, therefore, only “a partial knowledge concerning the power, wisdom, goodness and providence of God.” GRH. (III, 60): “Man has been deprived of the knowledge of God, so far as the integrity of natural knowledge is concerned, for the greater part of it has been obliterated from his mind by sin; so far as its purity is concerned, for the knowledge yet remaining is very much obscured; and, in view also of the peculiar wickedness of certain persons.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 261): “The natural knowledge of God is not adequate to secure everlasting
life, nor has any mortal ever been redeemed, nor can any one ever be redeemed, by
it alone.
MEL. (I, 9): “Although, in some way, the human mind comes to the knowledge of the fact that God punishes the guilty, nevertheless concerning reconciliation it knows nothing without the revelation of the divine promise.”
[8] QUEN. (I, 254): “We must distinguish between the natural knowledge of God, viewed in its original integrity, and the same in its fragmentary remains; the former is a perfect θεονγνωσια, constituting a part of the mental condition of our first parents, as graciously created; the latter, on the other hand, is a partial and imperfect knowledge of God, still inherent in our corrupt nature since the Fall. It is as it were a little spark of primeval light, a small drop from a vast ocean, or an atom of the ashes of a splendid house in ruins.”
[9] CHMN. (Loci, Part I, 21): “The reasons why God
imparted the external knowledge of Himself to the minds of all men are: (1) For
the sake of external discipline, which God wished to be exercised by all men, even
the unregenerate; (2) that God might be sought after (
CAL. (II, 40): “The use of the natural
knowledge of God is (1) Paedagogical, for seeking after the true God, who has manifested
Himself through the Scriptures in the Church; (2) Paedeutical, for
[10] QUEN. (I, 268): “The supernatural or revealed knowledge of God is that saving knowledge of the triune God and of divine things, drawn from the written word of God, which has flourished from the beginning of the Church and was ordained for human salvation.”
CHMN. (Loci Th., I, 22): “The saving knowledge of God through which we obtain eternal life, is that revealed through the Word, in which God makes known Himself and His will. To this revelation, God has bound His Church, which knows, worships, and glorifies God only as He has revealed Himself in this Word, so that in this way the true and only Church of God may be distinguished from all heathen religions.”
§ 16. (1). The Certainty of the Divine Existence.
Although the divine existence is postulated in the natural human consciousness, which furnishes many proofs of it, [1] yet we become perfectly certain of it only through revelation. [2]
§ 17. (2.) The Essence of God.
Our knowledge of the essence of God (quid sit Deus) is also mainly derived from
revelation, for the Holy Scriptures give us in His names, attributes, and works
a description of God Himself. [3] And with the knowledge thus derived we must be
satisfied, for we know concerning the essence of God nothing more, and nothing more
specific, than what the Holy Scriptures teach. We acquire, indeed, from this source no
From what has been said, it is manifest in what sense God may be defined. He cannot be literally defined, i.e., we cannot express in words what God is as to His essence, what He is in Himself, because no adequate conception can be formed of Him; but a definition of God, in a wider sense, may nevertheless be given, in so far, namely, as, upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures, a description of God may be presented, according to which we can most clearly distinguish between Him and other essences. [5]
Upon the authority of the description of God given in the Holy Scriptures, we can thus define Him as an Infinite Spiritual Essence.
[6] [1] See above, § 15, Note 4.
[2] GRH. (III, 40): “To some it may seem that this question in the Church is superfluous, since it is known and conceded by all that God exists, and there is no people, however barbarous, that denies that God exists, and that He is to be worshiped (though it may not know how to worship Him), and so the knowledge of God is naturally innate in all. . . . But, nevertheless, we must prove that God exists, (1) for the confutation of those who deny that there is a God; (2) for the confirmation of our faith (. . . in great and severe temptations, says Chemnitz, we are all either Epicureans or Stoics; our mind must therefore be established by the consideration of the arguments which prove that there is a God, and that He exercises a providential care over human affairs); (3) for the perfecting of natural knowledge (. . . since the natural knowledge of God is imperfect and languid, and so must be confirmed, widened, and deepened from the Word divinely revealed.”)
[3] CAL. (II, 110): “That God exists, special scriptural statements testify, especially those which communicate His names, words, and works.”
GRH. (III, 14): “To synonymics belong the names of God, in the exposition of which the principal part of the doctrine concerning God consists, because our theology in this life is almost wholly grammatical, whence whatever we may know concerning God is called a name of God. . . . The names of God are general or special. In a general and wide sense, a name of God is whatever is predicated of God; thus the term was employed by the ancients, who, under the designation of names, embraced also the attributes or characteristics.”
QUEN. (I, 268): “In determining the question what God is, we must first consider the divine names, some of which, either in view of their etymology or from the manner in which they are used in Scripture, indicate the essence of God and are commonly called essential, as Jehovah, Jah, Elohim; others are derived from the divine attributes, as when God is called omnipotent, just, wise; others from the divine works, as when He is called Creator, Preserver, etc.”
[4] CHMN. (Loci Th., I, 24): “As we are not to think of God otherwise than as He has revealed Himself in the Word He has given, these questions (concerning the essence and the will of God) have certain prescribed limits, within which the human mind, contemplating God, must confine itself. For dangerous errors have arisen on this subject, for no other reason than because the point of view was not rightly taken, or because human curiosity in this discussion wandered farther than was meet.” . . .
SELN. (I, 53): “It has been said that we ought to be content with the descriptions of God which are given by God Himself.”
ID. (I, 51): “Hilary says: We understand that only that is to be heartily believed concerning God, in reference to which He himself authoritatively testifies that it is to be believed concerning Him. What, therefore, God is absolutely, and what is His nature and substance, we know that no one can state, imagine, comprehend, or declare by an essential definition, either by any dialectic reasoning or by the keenness of the human intellect. For, since neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those that love Him, how much less can the dulness of the human mind grasp God Himself? Whence many are accustomed to say, that it is easier to define what God is not, than what He is.”
Thus GRH. says (III, 15) of the divine majesty: “The variety of divine names expresses
the divine majesty. For since, in consequence of its infinite perfection, the divine
majesty cannot be fully recognized by us, therefore so many divine names are given
BR. (173): “It must be confessed that in this life we may not have a specific, proper, and adequate conception, well-defined and clear, of the divine essence; for we know but in part.”
[5] Thus already CHMN. asks (Loc.
Th., I, 25), after the example of the Scholastics: “If a definition must explain
the nature of the thing defined so as to lead the mind, as it were, into the very
thing itself, how then can God be defined?” — and answers; “The reply is easy: It
is indeed true, concerning our knowledge of God in this life (
GRH. (III, 70) therefore distinguishes: “(1) Between a perfect definition, which exactly conforms to the accuracy of logical rules, and a description drawn from the Scriptures. (2) Between knowledge and comprehension. That is comprehended which is perfectly known; that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. We know God, indeed, but we do not comprehend Him, i.e., we do not perfectly know Him, because He is infinite. Here we must note, however, that the knowledge of God derived from the Word is called perfect, as well by reason of its end, for it is sufficient for salvation, as by way of comparison with natural knowledge, which is very obscure and imperfect. (3) Between the knowledge of God in this and in another life. . . . The latter, or intuitive definition is the most perfect of all, for we shall then see God in the future life, face to face. . . . (4) A nominal definition may be given, but not an essential one.”
CAL. (II, 142) distinguishes in the same way between a definition rigidly taken and a definition broadly applied.
GRH. (III, 68) proves the inadmissibility of a definition in the strict sense: “(1) From the want of a genus. That of which there is no true and proper logical genus cannot be defined, because the genus is an essential part of a definition. But God has no true and proper logical genus; because, if there were such a genus, that would be in the same terms essentially and equally predicated of God and of creatures, which cannot be done, because God as the Creator and the creature are separated from each other by an infinite interval, and there is nothing that can be equally predicated of both. (2) From the divine perfection. God is the supreme Being, so He has nothing beyond Him; but whatever is properly defined is defined through something going before . . . (3) From a sufficient enumeration. If God may be properly defined, that would be either an essential or a causal definition. Essential it could not be, because that consists in genus and specific differentia. But God has no name of the same genus with other beings, nor is His most simple essence composed of genus and differentia. Neither can it be a causal definition, since God is the cause of all things, but of God there is no cause.”
[6] This position is taken by Calovius, Quenstedt, Koenig; while others, as Baier (173), Hollazius (229), thus define: “God is a spiritual Being, subsisting of Himself; or, more concisely: God is an independent Spirit.”
The individual terms are explained as follow:
(1) BR. (172): “By the term divine essence is meant that which is first thought of in God, and through which God is adequately distinguished from all other things, and which, in our mode of conception, is the root and source of all the perfections which, as attributes, are ascribed to God.”
(2) QUEN. (I, 284): “The term spiritual essence is a common
conception. For the term essence is common to God and creatures, but belongs to
God originally and independently, to creatures secondarily and by way of dependence.
And the term spirit also is analogically predicated of God and angels, and also
of the souls of men.” (The difference that is observed when these two terms are
predicated of God and of creatures respectively, is still more accurately indicated
in the statement: “Essence, substance, spirit, and consequently the remaining attributes
which are ascribed at the same time to God and to creatures, are predicated of God
and of rational creatures not συνωνυμος, univocally, nor ομωνυμως, equivocally,
but αναλογως, analogically, so that they belong to God πρωτως and absolutely, to
creatures δευτερως and by way of dependence, analogy being properly thus employed
with reference to an intrinsic
(3) “But the predicate infinite expresses the peculiar conception; for by this God, as an infinite Sprit, is distinguished from angels and the souls of men, or finite spirits, and by this infinity of His own, God transcends all the bounds of being, so that He cannot be limited by time or place or any other thing, but, considered simply in His own nature and essence, He is of Himself and absolutely infinite. Nor do we speak of God as compounded, when we form both a common and a peculiar conception concerning Him. For that is a distinction of the reason only, and not a real one. (God is infinite, not by virtue of quantitative extension, since He is devoid of all quantity, but by virtue of essence and perfection.)”
The independence is thus explained by BR. (173): “For, as by this, God is adequately distinguished
from all other things, so there is nothing that you can earlier conceive of in God,
as a peculiar and specific conception, than this, that He is not from another, and
so exists of Himself and necessarily. Proof-texts:
The more popular definition of God (definitio Dei nominalis) is: “By the term, God, is understood the first Being, because He is of Himself and is the cause of all other things, and because He preserves and governs all things;” concerning which HOLL. remarks (187): “All men in the present life discover in themselves that they do not and cannot otherwise conceive of God than as related to created things, as the first Being, because from Him is the cause of all other beings, and He preserves and governs all; or as the Being most excellent of all, than whom nothing can be, or be thought of as being. better or more perfect.”
The earliest theologians,
who did not as yet treat of the attributes as a special topic, embrace them all,
together with a notice of the Trinity, in the definition of God. Thus MEL. (Loci Theol., I, 13): “God is a spiritual essence, intelligent, eternal, true, good, pure,
just, merciful, most free, of vast power and wisdom, the eternal Father who begat
the Son, His own image, from eternity, and the Son, the co-eternal image of the
Father, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding
§ 18. (3.) The Attributes of God.
The doctrine of the attributes of God comprises only the more specific description of the divine nature, as the same is set forth in the Holy Scripture. [1] The attributes are, therefore, not to be considered as something supplementary to the essence of God, which may be laid aside without detriment to the substance of God; [2] but in them we describe the divine essence only according to its special features, because we cannot otherwise conceive of it (they are thus variously characterized on account of the feebleness of our conception). Hence it also follows that the attributes are to be regarded as unchangeable and permanent. [3]
We acquire our knowledge of the divine attributes, in general, only from the Holy Scriptures, as has been already said, and yet these are here taught, either only by way of popular representation, or without any design of aiding us in constructing a systematic doctrinal statement of the divine attributes. To accomplish this, we must have recourse to other expedients. A correct and exhaustive arrangement of the divine attributes we may, however, attain, if, starting out with the proposition that God is the Most Perfect Essence, we endeavor to enumerate all His perfections; inasmuch as the attributes of God are nothing else than the description of the most perfect Essence. These perfections we ascertain in a threefold way:
1. By ascribing to God, in the highest sense, all the perfections which we can discover in His creatures, inasmuch as no perfection can be wanting to God of which we find creatures possessed.
2. By removing from our conception of God all imperfections which we observe in creatures, as nothing in any wise imperfect can be ascribed to Him, and by attributing to Him all the opposite perfections.
3. By ascribing to Him all the perfections which necessarily must have belonged to one who was able to create and accomplish what God has done. It is, therefore, by the way of eminence, [4] of negation, [5] and causality, [6] that we arrive at a comprehensive knowledge of the divine attributes.
The attributes found in this way may be variously classified; usually they are divided either into negative and positive (HOLL. (237), “the former being those by which the imperfections found in creatures are removed from God; the latter, those by which perfections are simply affirmed concerning God;” or, into such as describe God as He is in Himself and such as describe Him in His relation to the world). Therefore, a. Attributes ανενεργητα, quiescent (which, viz., have no specific reference to certain acts), or immanent, which describe the divine essence absolutely and in itself, without reference to an operation, and so directed towards no act; b. Attributes ενεργητικα, or operative, and exerting themselves outwardly, having reference to other things, which describe the divine essence relatively, with reference to an operation, and so are recognized as ordained for certain acts. [7] We follow the former division, and arrange the attributes of God, therefore, in the following manner:
BR. (174): I. The NEGATIVE are: unity, simplicity, immutability, infinity, immensity, eternity.
1. “Unity;
the attribute of God, by which we conceive the divine essence to be absolutely single;
not only undivided, but also indivisible and incommunicable by any multiplication
of Himself.” HOLL. (238) “Unity is ascribed to God, as well absolutely, i.e., that
the divine essence is undivided; as exclusively, i.e., when we recognize God as
one, beside whom there is none other.
2. “Absolute Simplicity, by which God is truly and really uncompounded (not
compounded of matter and form, of integral parts, of subject and accident, of nature
and subsistence).
3. “Immutability consists in this, that God is liable
to no change, either as to existence (inasmuch as He is immortal
“Immutability is the perpetual identity of the divine essence and all its perfections, with the absolute negation of all motion, either physical or ethical.” QUEN. (I, 288).
4. “Infinity, because the essence of God is contained within no
bounds (either of time. of place, or of anything else).
5.
“The Immensity of God consists in this, that the divine essence cannot be measured
by, or included within, any local limits.
“Immensity is the interminable ubiety, by virtue of which God cannot but be everywhere, in His own essence, or it is the absolute interminability of the divine essence. It flows from infinity, which, with respect to time, is eternity, and, with respect to space, is immensity.” QUEN. (I, 288). From this there follow: a, the power of being illocally present, absolutely everywhere; b, the (ubiety and) omnipresence, by virtue of which God is actually present to all His creatures.” [10]
6. The Eternity
of God, absolutely so called (for it does not signify merely a very long time),
indicated that the existence or duration of God is permanent, without any beginning
or end, without succession or change.
II. THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES. BR. (174): “Life, knowledge, wisdom, holiness, justice, truth, power, goodness, perfection.”
1. Life. QUEN. (I, 289): “The attribute by which the divine essence always shows itself active.” [11]
2. Knowledge. QUEN. (I, 289): “By which He, through
one simple and eternal act of the intellect, knows all things whatever that have
been, are, and shall be, or even in any way can be. Nor only absolutely, but also
that which is conditionally future or possible.
3. “The Wisdom of God signifies that
most accurate judgment
“The Omnisapience of God is that, by which He most thoroughly penetrates all those things which infinitely surpass the reach of human and angelic judgment.” QUEN. (I, 290).
4. “Holiness, by which He, conformably
to His own Law, desires all things that are right and good.
“The holiness of God is the supreme purity in God, absolutely free from all stain or vice, and requiring due cleanliness and purity in creatures.” QUEN. (I, 292).
5. Justice. “The supreme and immutable rectitude of the divine will, demanding from rational creatures that which is right and just.” QUEN. (I, 292).
“Justice is a divine attribute ενεργητικον, by virtue of which God
wishes and does all those things which are conformed to His eternal Law (
6. “Veracity, by which God is unfailing in speaking the truth and keeping His promises.
7. Power. “The divine attribute by which God can accomplish everything that can possibly be done without implying an imperfection in God.” HOLL. (272).
“Power is that by which God independently,
through the eternal activity of His own essence, can do absolutely everything that
does not involve a contradiction.
8 and 9. “Goodness belongs to God, not only absolutely and in itself,
which is His very perfection, or the essence of God, since He contains within Himself
all perfections (
[1] QUEN. (I, 284): “Attributes are nothing else than inadequate conceptions of the divine essence, involving in part the essence itself of the object, and inwardly designating the same. Inasmuch as our finite intellect cannot adequately conceive of the infinite and most simple essence of God by a single adequate conception, therefore it apprehends the same by distinct and inadequate conceptions, inadequately representing the divine essence which inadequate conceptions are called the affections and attributes of God; affections, because they designate the divine essence; attributes, because they are attributed to the same by our intellect.”
HOLL. (234): “The attributes of God are called perfections, because they most perfectly declare God’s essence.”
[2] CHMN. (Loc. Th. I,29): “An accident does not belong to God. . . . By an accident, that is meant which can either be lost, or can be added to a substance before existing, or can depart while the substance itself remains.”
CAL. (II, 221): “The attributes are by no means accidental, but, on the part of the object, they are the essence of God itself, regarded under various modes or respects of consideration, since essentials are usually referred to by that name. For if they were accidents, they would add a new entity or perfection, and the essence of God would not of itself be complete. If they were to belong to God in the manner of accidents, God’s essence would not be altogether immutable, because liable to accidents.”
QUEN. (I, 296):
“Before any operation of our intellect, divine attributes are truly and properly
in God; yet they are not accidents, nor are they predicated of God in the manner
of inherence or composition.” And this is further explained by the following:
(I,
297): “The divine attributes do not denote anything superadded to the divine essence,
but are only inadequate conceptions of an infinitely perfect essence. The divine
essence is like a boundless ocean of all infinite perfections, which the human
intellect has not the ability to exhaust, by one single conception, and, therefore,
by means of various conceptions, draws drop by drop, as it were, something from
that infinity.” (Ibid.) “The divine attributes imply the divine essence itself,
which we apprehend now with this and then with another perfection, as if we would
distribute the essence itself into a number of conceptions, representing the same
Hence follow the proposition (GRH. III, 84): “The divine attributes, considered in and of themselves, are really and absolutely one with the divine essense.” CAL. (II, 222): “IF they really differed from the essence after the manner of accidents, a composition in God would be predicated; and since, by nature, accidents come after essence, former and latter in the order of nature would have a place in God, both of which are contrary to the faith. If they were to be actually distinguished, they would not be predicated in the abstract of God, who in the abstract is said to be truth, life, love. If God’s power were to differ from His essence, God would not be αυτεξουσιος, i.e., powerful in Himself, but on account of the power superadded to His essence.”
There is, indeed, a certain difference between essence and attributes, otherwise they would not be separately treated. This distinction is thus stated by QUEN. (I, 300): “The essential attributes of God are distinguished neither from the divine essence nor from each other really, or from the nature of the object, as matters altogether diverse, or as two or more different objects or diverse modes of one and the same simple object, but they are so distinguished only to the reason.”
A distinction from the nature of the object, would occur if the objects were different, as body and soul; but a distinction from reason occurs, when anything is only conceived of as distinct, although it is not distinct in fact. HOLL. (235) expresses this distinction thus: “Divine attributes are distinguished from the divine essence and from each other not nominally, nor really, but formally, according to our mode of conceiving, not without a certain foundation of distinction.” To wit: not “nominally” because “divine attributes imply distinct conceptions, therefore they differ more than nominally” nor “really,” because “the divine essence is most simple, destitute of all real composition” but “formally,” etc., “because we form single conceptions of the operations of the single attributes, although they do not exist separately in the divine nature.”
[3] GRH. (III, 84): “The attributes exist inseparably in God; for, as it is impossible that the essence of an object be separated from the object itself, so also the attributes cannot be separated from God, since they are the very essence of God.”
[4] HOLL. (190):
“By way of eminence, according to which whatever we discover in creatures to be
especially perfect, we ascribe in the most eminent manner to God, by virtue of the
very
While here perfections are ascribed to God which in a certain sense can be predicated also of a creature, GRH. (III, 86) appends the twofold remark: (1) That we must be careful to observe that they belong to man only secondarily, but to God originally. . . . “Of God they are predicated essentially, εξοχικως, and, therefore, altogether in a peculiar way; of certain creatures only accidentally and through a participation and resemblance: of God they are predicated in the abstract; of creatures, only in the concrete. The goodness of God not only belongs to God essentially, and is itself the essence of God, but also in the cause and rule of goodness in man.” (2) That those attributes which in the case of man express an affection, when ascribed also to God do not indicate a weakness or mutability like that of the creature, in accordance with the principle (ibid): “Whatever things are transferred from creatures to God must first be freed from all imperfections, and then only, as that which is perfect, are they to be ascribed to God.” (I, 110): “Nor do those affections which Scripture ascribes to God prove any mutability of the divine essence; for those things which are spoken of ανθρωποπαθος, must be understood θεοπρεπως.”
CHMN. (Loc. Th., 29): “It is objected that some things are affirmed of God with respect to time: as, ‘the Word was made flesh,’ and became for us a Creator, an aid in times of trouble, and a refuge. Therefore, all this is predicated of God accidentally. Cyril replies: ‘With respect to creatures, some things are affirmed of God under the limitations of time; and these are affirmed accidentally,’ not because anything happens, with change, to God’s substance, but as an accident of the creature in which the change occurs.”
[5] HOLL. (191): “By way of negation,
according to which we remove from God whatever implies imperfection in creatures,
and ascribe to Him an opposite perfection, according to the self-evident principle
of nature, that there is no defect in that which is supremely perfect. Relying upon
this principle of nature, we call God independent,
[6] HOLL. (190): “By way of causality, according to which we recognize from the effects an efficient First Cause; from creatures, a Creator; and from the most beautiful and wise government of this universe, a most excellent, most powerful, and most wise Preserver and Governor. Here an argument is derived from the very evident axiom: An effect is proved from the cause, and its perfection.” N.B. Except in the writings of GRH., we find the method adopted after the time of Dionysius only incidentally noticed, it is true; and HOLL. mentions it barely as that by which we can acquire a natural knowledge of God: but we may with good reason assign it this place; for, although it is not questioned that we obtain a clearer and more comprehensive knowledge of the divine attributes from revelation than natural knowledge teaches, yet we cannot believe ourselves limited, with regard to the divine attributes, to the Holy Scriptures in such a way as only to have the single attributes enumerated for us out of the Scriptures, but we must rather be able from them to form for ourselves such a conception of the Divine Essence that we may from it deduce the attributes; and thus, from the standpoint of revelation itself, this threefold way of eminence can be evolved.
[7] GRH. (III, 85) enumerates still other distributions: “(1) Some attributes are predicated at the same time of God and of creatures, such as those by which things are signified which in creatures are accidents, but in God are substances, as when God is said to be good, wise; but others are predicated of God alone, as those by which things which belong to God alone are explained, as when He is said to be eternal, infinite. (2) Some attributes are attributes to God properly, as that He is good, wise, etc.; others improperly and figuratively, when, by anthropopathy, human members and affections are ascribed to Him. (3) Some are affirmed of God in the abstract, as when He is said to be life, goodness, truth; others in the concrete, as when He is said to be living, good, and true. (4) Some are internal, as infinity, eternity, spirituality; others are external, and these are either inimitable, as omnipotence, etc., or imitable. (5) Some belong to God from eternity, as that He is infinite; others belong to Him in time, as that He is the Creator and Preserver, yet these, as relative terms, do not prove any change made in God Himself in time, but denote that a new work has been produced by Him, and that a change has been made in creatures.”
Those Dogmaticians
who divide the attributes into immanent and externally operative, usually cite a
greater number. CALOV. (II,
[8] HOLL. (238): “God is said to be one, not in kind, but in number, since He is a being entirely alone, not only in Himself undivided, but also indivisible, because of the entire simplicity of the divine essence, as there is no composition in God.”
GRH. is the only one of the Dogmaticians who considers unity as not an attribute, but as a characteristic, of the divine essence. For the relation of the unity of God to the Trinity, see § 19.
[9] GRH. (I, 124): “But did the work of creation change God, or make Him changeable? By no means; for in time He did that which, from eternity, He had decreed in His immutable will.”
[10] GRH. (III, 122): “The
immensity and essential omnipresence of God is thus to be understood (1), that God
is present to all things, not only by virtue and efficacy, nor only by sight and
knowledge, but also in His entire and individual essence, for He is immense and
infinite, not only in power and knowledge, but also in essence; (2), that God is
everywhere present, not συνεκτος, so as to be comprehended, but συνεκτικως, so as
to comprehend and contain all things; not περιεκτως and περιγραπτως, but
περιεκτικως.
The Scholastics say that God is everywhere, not locally or by way of circumscription, . . . nor
definitively, . . . but repletively;
HOLL. (275): “God’s omnipresence is a divine ενεργπτικον attribute, by virtue of which God is present to all creatures, not only by the nearness of His substance, but also by His efficacious working. The divine presence, according to the Scriptural idiom and its complex meaning, implies two things (1), αδιαστασια, or the substantial presence of God with creatures; (2), ενεργεια, or effectual operation. Therefore, two things are here to be proved: (a), that God, with respect to His substance, is everywhere present; (b), to a full and accurate definition of the divine presence, the effectual operation also of God as a definitive part is required by the light of the Holy Scripture.”
[11] QUEN. (I, 289): “God is life (1), essentially,
for He is αυτοζωος, having life εν εαυτω (
[12] QUEN. (I, 289):
“Although the knowledge of God is one and simple, and cannot be separated into parts
or species, yet, with respect to objects, a manifold distinction is generally observed.
This distinction is (1) into natural, or that of simple intelligence, and
free,
or that of sight. The former, which is called also abstract and indefinite, is that
by which God knows Himself, and not only those things which are, which have been,
or are about to be, but also all possible things, viz., those which can happen and
exist, although they never will happen or exist; yea, He is acquainted even with
those things which are impossible. The latter, viz., the knowledge of free vision,
which is called both intuitive and definite, is that by which God regards all things
as present, sees Himself in Himself, and all other things which at any time have
existed, or now exist, or will truly exist, both in Himself, as in the universal
cause, and in their proximate causes and in themselves. The Scholastics add a third,
and name it mediate, according to which they say that God is acquainted with those
things which can exist, with the condition interposed that it is limited to that
which the creatures, if created with certain conditions, would be free to do, or
would be allowed to effect. Natural knowledge precedes every free act of
[13] BR. (191 and 192) discusses the topic of the will of God, not as a separate attribute, as many Dogmaticians do, but as supplementary to the attribute of wisdom; and from the will of God deduces the attributes of holiness, justice and truth.
HOLL. (261): “The will of God is the divine essence itself, conceived of under the mode of power, seeking the good and shunning the evil that is known by the intellect.”
The name of the divine will is more particularly described as follows:
BR. (193): “The will of God is distinguished into natural and free. According to the former, God is said to will that which He is not able not to will. According to the latter, He is said to will that which He was able also not to will, or to will the opposite. According to the former manner, He is said to will Himself; according to the latter manner, created things.”
HOLL. (262): “You say: The necessity to will and love Himself seems to be an imperfection in God, both because it is like the mode of operation of natural agents, which is imperfect, and also because freedom is a greater perfection than necessity. Reply: Necessity in acting is threefold. One kind is violent, which is from without. A second is natural, which is, indeed, from within, yet is inanimate or at least irrational. Both are imperfect. A third is natural, vital, and in the highest degree voluntary. This is a great perfection, and such a necessity to will and love exists in God in respect to that which is a supreme and infinite good. Yea, this necessity is more perfect than the freedom to which it is opposed.”
BR. (194): “The free will
of God is distinguished as: (1) efficacious and inefficacious. That is efficacious
by which God wills something to be effected. Inefficacious is that by which something
in itself please God, although He does not intend to effect it. The efficacious
will again is divided into absolute, by which God wills something without a condition;
and conditional, by which He wills something under a condition; (2) absolute, by
which He wills that something be effected by His own absolute power, or by His power
as not bound by second causes; and ordinate, by which He wills that something be
effected by His own ordinate power, or by His power as bound to second causes and
to a certain order of means appointed by Himself; (3) first or antecedent, by which
He wills something from Himself alone, or entirely from His own inclination, without
any regard being had to the circumstances; and second
BR. (198): “A distinction of the divine will also occurs, into
a will of the sign
and of the purpose. The former is meant when the name, will, is ascribed to an effect
or object of the divine will, namely as a sign of the will in God.
[14] HOLL. (246): “God is holy, (1) independently
and by His essence: creatures dependently and through a quality superadded to the
essence; (2) immutably, inasmuch as the holiness of God cannot fail, or undergo
a change like that of a creature,
[15] QUEN. (I, 293): “The objects of
the divine omnipotence are not only such things as God wills to do, but also such
as are in any way possible, and therefore, all those things which do not involve
contradiction, as (1) such as have no mode of existence. Thus God is unable to render
a deed undone; (2) such as imply a fault or defect, as to be able to lie, to sin,
to die. For to do such things is not a proof of power, but of impotence. The potentia
of God is not separated from divine potestas, δυναμις,
from εξουσια,
“Although divine power is unique, yet because
of its different relations, it can be distinguished into absolute, by which God
can most absolutely effect whatever can exist; and ordinate, which the accustomed
government of the universe displays. By the former, God can frame a new world, from
the stones raise up children to
[16] HOLL. (245): “The goodness of God is the conformity of the divine essence to the divine will.” It has been distinguished into essential goodness, or perfection, and moral goodness, or holiness.
§ 19. The Doctrine is a Mystery.
THE Holy Scriptures declare that God is but one, and yet they also
ascribe Divinity to three, viz., Father, Son, and Spirit; and thus we learn from
them that there is one God, but that this one God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Here
a proposition is stated which is altogether beyond the grasp of reason; the doctrine
it contains belongs therefore to those we designate as mysteries. [2] Concerning
this mystery the Holy Scriptures alone can give us any information, therefore upon
them alone this doctrine is based. [3] But the Holy Scriptures do not unveil for
us this mystery; they rather reveal the doctrine as a mystery, and it is therefore
to so great an extent a mystery, that we here upon earth can never attain to a perfectly
correct conception or comprehension of it, [4] and at best can only approximate
this by analogies drawn from the sphere of human knowledge. [5] Therefore the Church
desists from any attempt to fathom this mystery, but applies in this case most rigidly
her rule of extracting the substance of her faith alone from the Holy Scriptures.
She simply assigns to herself the task of most carefully collecting and arranging
the subject-matter of what the Scriptures teach in regard to this mystery, and is
the more urgently impelled to do this, because the matter in hand is one of no less
importance than to learn what conceptions God wishes us to form concerning Himself.
[6] Therefore she demands of every one, who wishes to belong to the Church, that
he believingly accept this revelation contained
The Church arrives at the doctrine of the Trinity by observing that in the Holy Scriptures, on the one hand, the unity of God is taught; and on the other, Divinity is ascribed to three, Father, Son, and Spirit; that, accordingly, a certain distinction is recognized in God, and a plurality in Him is indicated. [11] These predicates concerning God, contained in the Holy Scriptures, of unity, plurality, and diversity, the Church combines in the formula:
The one divine essence subsists in three persons; or (what is the same thing),
In the Deity there are three persons and one essence; or,
God is one in essence, but the same God, one in essence, is threefold in person.
The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, is that in which a peculiar and incomprehensible application of the term three to the divine persons is taught, but in such a manner that not anything composed of three, but three persons of one essence are postulated. God is triune, therefore, because, in essence one, He has three modes of subsistence. [11]
The meaning of this formula is further explained by the Church as follow:
(1) The unity therein expressed is that of the divine essence. [13] This unity of essence is, more specifically, a numerical unity, i.e., it is of such a nature that it can be predicated only of one. Hence, it follows that when it is said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, these three are not to be designated as three Gods, each having a special divine essence (Symb. Athanas.: Non tres Dii, set unus Deus); and that we are not to associate with the word being [Wesen, essentia] exactly the same signification that it has when applied to man (essentia hominis), for that is just the difference between the essential nature of God and that of man, i.e., that God’s nature in one numerically, and that of man is one in kind. [14] Father, Son, and Spirit are, therefore, God in such a sense, that entire divinity is predicated of each of the three; the one and undivided essentia is ascribed to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and undivided divine essence is entire in each [14] (tota in singulis), whence it further follows that, as in God there is no objective distinction between nature and attributes, divinity as well as all its attributes must be ascribed to each of these three. [16]
(2) A plurality in God, and, therefore, a certain distinction
between Father, Son, and Spirit, is indeed clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures,
but this is (a) no plurality of essence (pluralitas essentialis), as has already
been shown; further, it is (b) no plurality of accidents (pluralitas accidentalis), i.e.,
personality is not something added to the being of God, as a special peculiarity
or characteristic, for the principle applies to God In Deum nulla accidentia cadunt.
[17] (§ 18, note 2.) Plurality may perhaps be best described as a pluralitas hypostatica
seu personarum, [18] i.e., as one, according to which each of the three persons
is to be conceived of as a self-subsistent subject; which statement, however, must
be at once qualified by the
The personal peculiarities, moreover, according to the Holy Scriptures, are five: αγεννησια (the not having been begotten) and paternity in the Father — active procession (spiratio) in the Father and the Son — sonship, in the Son — passive procession in the Holy Spirit. [24]
The personal acts, or inward operations, are two: (of the Father) generation (of the Father and Son), spiration.
The opera ad extra are three: of the Father, creation; of the Son, redemption; of the Holy Spirit, sanctification.
From the peculiarities and acts mentioned in Scripture, according to which the begetting of the Son is ascribed to the Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, it follows, finally, that we are to assign the first place to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. [25]
The Church indicates both, viz., the unity and the distinction,
by the term ομοουσια, which it predicates of the three persons. [26] From this unity
there is just as legitimately derived the περιχωρησις (immanentia, immeatio, circumincessio,
inexistentia mutua et singularissima) [the mutual and most peculiar inherence],
by which one person in virtue of the unity of essence is within another (
The predicates which are to be ascribed
to the three persons may accordingly be thus classified:
“II. The Son of God [30] is the Second Person of the Godhead, begotten of the Father from eternity, [31] of the same essence and majesty with the Father, who with the Father from eternity breathes forth the Holy Spirit, and in the fulness of time assumed human nature in His own person, that He might redeem and save the human race.” Id. (305).
“III. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead, of the same essence with the Father and the Son, who from eternity proceeds from the Father and the Son, [32] and in time is sent forth [33] by both, to sanctify the hearts of those who are to be saved.” [34] Id. (329).
[1] The doctrine concerning the Trinity can properly be treated of as distinct from that concerning God in general, for we should first discuss the essence and attributes of God in themselves, and then the particular manner in which this essence subsists and thus becomes common to three.
QUEN. (I, 284): “The consideration of God is twofold, one absolute, another relative. The former is occupied with God considered essentially, without respect to the three persons of the Godhead; the latter, with God considered personally. The former explains both the essence and the essential attributes of God; the latter describes the persons of the Holy Trinity, and the personal attributes of each one.”
CAL. (III, 1): “The doctrine of the divine persons follows the doctrine of the divine attributes. This doctrine explains the mystery of the Holy Trinity, in order that we may know who is the one, true, and eternal God, whether, as He is one in essence, He is so also in person, or not; and who these divine persons are, who are to be regarded as the one, true God; namely, that according to the Catholic faith, they are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
[2] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 33): “The things that are declared concerning the Trinity of persons in the most holy Godhead are wonderful and far above all comprehension of creatures.”
GRH. (III, 220): “The mystery of the Trinity can in no way be clearly proved a priori from
natural reason, nor ought such an attempt to be made.” . . . (III, 221): “To learn
a doctrine that has been placed far above all comprehension of human reason, human
reason cannot be led, from its own principles; for otherwise it would not be above
reason. But such is the doctrine of the Trinity, as is inferred from
KG. (30): “Its sublimity is such that it is υπερ νουν, υπερ λογον, και υπερ πασαν καταλεψιν (above thought, above speech, and above all comprehension), and therefore, from reason, it neither can nor ought to be attacked, or refuted, or demonstrated, whether a priori or a posteriori.” QUEN. (I, 318): “Yea, not even the possibility of this mystery can be obtained from the light of nature, since to reason, consulting its own principles, it seems absurd and impossible.”
GRH. (III, 229): “Such is the nature and character of the mystery of the Trinity, and of other mysteries properly so called, that they transcend the comprehension of reason, i.e., that reason, without the revelation of the Word, cannot attain to the knowledge of them, and that even when the revelation of the Word has been given, reason cannot and ought not to affirm, from its own principles, anything whatever concerning them. Therefore also, in these mysteries, it ought not to oppose its own reasonings to the heavenly truth.”
The question, How, then, must the testimonies be judged which have been produced from heathen writers, for constructing the mystery of the Trinity? is thus answered (GRH., III, 227): “(1) In some there are only similar things, but not the same with Christian doctrine. They agree with us in words; they differ from us in the explanation and meaning of the words. (2) Others teach the same things, but have derived them (a) partly from the reading of the Holy Scriptures; (b) partly from conversation with Hebrews; (c) partly from the revelations of oracles and the Sibyls.”
[3] GRH. (III, 217): “From the proper and only source of theology, viz., from the Word of God, the confirmation of this mystery must be derived.”
KG.: “The source (principium), therefore, through which this mystery becomes known, and ought to be framed, is divine revelation alone, communicated to us in the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testament.”
[4] This is implied already in the statement
contained in Note 2, viz., that this doctrine cannot be proved from reason by an
a posteriori argument. GRH. (III, 233): “The mysteries of faith are above reason,
not only in such a sense and respect that reason, without the revelation of the
Word, cannot aspire to their knowledge, but also that even with the revelation of
the Word, reason still cannot, in any manner, comprehend the same; because in
[5] HFRFFR. (44): “Is it possible, nevertheless, for this plurality of unity to be, in any wise, adumbrated by certain analogies or most rude outlines? In the entire universe, nothing can be found to express the mystery of the adorable Godhead. For God, the Creator, surpasses creatures by immense intervals of degrees; yet, in order that we may be able even to stammer something concerning so great a mystery as this, and to raise up and excite our thoughts to the adorable sublimity of the same, pious antiquity has attempted to illustrate so great a matter by analogies derived from creatures.” (47): “Yet, in all these analogies, the points of unlikeness are greater than those of likeness; for there is nothing in heaven or in earth which can express the nature of the infinite God, nor is there any voice or reason that can adequately explain so great a mystery.”
GRH. (I, 209): “We must make a distinction between a class of a posteriori declarations
and proofs, by which this mystery, first revealed in the Scriptures, is in a manner
explained and shown to be not absurd; and, on the other hand, accurate a priori
demonstrations, according to which we absolutely deny that this can be investigated
or proved by us.” The Church Fathers sought for traces of the Trinity in the creature,
and found what they regarded as reflections of it (imagines), in intellectual and
rational creatures, and traces of it (vestigia), in irrational creatures. As to
the arguments thence derived, GRH. says (III, 224): “(a) They only illustrate, they
do not prove; (b) there is in them more unlikeness than likeness; (c) they are derived
a posteriori, not a priori; they are not the parents, but the offspring of thought;
(d) we must use them prudently and cautiously; (e) they cannot be presented against
an adversary, they can delight a believer.” Accordingly, the question “Whether Thomas
Aquinas was right in saying that what the Christian faith declares of the Trinity
could be proved from natural reason to be not impossible,” is thus answered, “Among
Christians, instructed in the Word of God, and embracing by faith the mystery of
the
QUEN. (I, 318): “These natural agreements, and the analogy of created things to this mystery of faith, do not generate faith, but only human opinion.”
[6] CHMN. (I, 33): . . . “Because we must think of God as He has revealed Himself, we believe, acknowledge, confess, and call upon three persons.” . . . Although the Trinity is a mystery beyond the reach of reason, yet we learn through it what conceptions God wishes us to form concerning Him. MEL. (Loc. Th., I, 19): “The Church acknowledges God as such an eternal and omnipotent Creator as He has revealed Himself to be, and, although we cannot thoroughly understand these mysteries, yet in this life, God wishes this our knowledge and worship of Him to be begun and to be distinguished from that which is false; and in His Word He has propounded, by infallible testimonies, a revelation, in which we, as the unborn infant in the maternal womb, drawing nutriment from the umbilical vessels, might sit inclosed and draw the knowledge of God and life from the Word of God, in order to worship Him as He has made Himself known.”
[7] KG. (30): “The necessity of believing this doctrine is such that it not only
cannot be denied, but even cannot be ignored by anyone without a loss of salvation.
[8] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 36): “Even in ancient times it offended
many that the Church, in speaking of the article of the Trinity, was not content
with the simple peculiar phraseology which the Son of God Himself employed when
revealing the doctrine concerning God, and which the Holy Ghost followed in the
prophets and apostles; but that it introduced into the Church foreign appellations
from the irreligious schools of the heathen . . . and the orthodox fathers were oppressed
with great hatred by the heretics on this specious pretext, viz., that the Church
ought not to believe concerning the inaccessible light of the Godhead otherwise
than as the Godhead Himself, coming forth from the hidden abode of His majesty,
has manifested Himself; neither ought it [the Church] to speak otherwise, but that
it should imitate the language of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, express also the
very words in just so many syllables and letters. For neither ought the weakness
of the human mind to assume this to itself, viz., in regard to these mysteries placed
above and beyond the sight of human intelligence, to hope to be able to speak more
becomingly and skilfully than the Son of God Himself, who alone knows the Father,
and has revealed to us what we know of God, or the Holy Ghost, who alone knows the
things which are of God (
[9] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 33): “Neither is it something new, devised by the Council of Nice (as some blasphemously assert that the doctrine of the Trinity was first framed in the Councils of Nice and Constantinople), while, before that, the Church piously believed that there was one God. But we solemnly declare that it is the most ancient and constant harmonious testimony of the Church from the very beginning.”
[10] GRH. (III, 236): “Do terms derived from the ordinary usage of language, and adapted to this mystery, retain in this application in every respect the same signification? Reply: By no means, but the Church presents them with the right to its citizenship, and uses them in a peculiar signification.”
CHEM. (Loc. Th., I, 38): “As the Church speaks of subjects of which reason is ignorant, it also employs these terms in a sense somewhat different from that in which they have commonly been used.”
[11] A general survey of the doctrine is presented by Baier (208) under the following heads:
“I. That the Father differs really from the
Son, the Son from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both; so that one is in fact
Father, another Son, and another Holy Ghost. (Christ says that the Father is other
than Himself,
“II. That not only the Father, but also the Son and Holy Ghost, are true and eternal God.”
“III. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three gods, but one God.”
GRH. (I, 194): “The general theory will be comprised under the following heads: (1) That there is one undivided essence of these three persons. (2) That these three persons are truly and really distinct from each other. (3) That they are distinguished by their own personal properties.”
[12] We must carefully distinguish triune from threefold, which signifies: composed of three. GRH. (III, 254): “We say that God is triune, but we are forbidden, by the Christian religion, to say that He is threefold.”
[13] Essence: ουσια, also substance, φυσις, nature. GRH. (III, 251): “Moreover, they preferred to use the name essence rather than substance (a) to indicate that God is an ουσια υπερουσιος [an essence superior to essence], not included in the categories among which substance is first; (b) because God, unlike the essences of created things, does not exist beneath (substat) accidents, but His attributes are His very essence; (c) because the name substance is ambiguous, for it is sometimes put for ουσια, and sometimes for υποστασις.”
HOLL.
(284): “The word essence, ουσια, is not indeed found in Holy Scripture in just so
many letters, but nevertheless is derived from it by easy inference. For (a) in
the Old Testament God is called יהוה essentiator; therefore he has an essence, and
that, too an independent essence, etc.; (b) in the New Testament God is named ο ων,
[14] GRH. (III, 239): “A great,
yea an infinite distinction presents itself in the predicates, when I predicate
of three human individuals, humanity, or human nature, and when I predicate of the
three persons of the Godhead, a divine nature, or essence. The essence of men is
a universal term which does not actually exist per se, but is only inferred in thought
and conceived of by the intellect. But essence, in that which is divine, is not
an imaginary something, as genus or species, but actually exists, although it is
communicable.” CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39): “Therefore the Church understands by the
term essence not a universal term, as philosophers name human essence, but a divine
nature truly existing, which is communicable and common to three persons, and is
entire in each. But what this is with respect to the definition of the matter, I
say is not known, unless we say that the attributes given in the definition of God
are the very essence of God.” “The essence with respect to divine persons
(α) is
not a species, because the persons of the
[15] GRH. (I, 194): “The essence of the three persons of the Godhead is one and undivided. . . . For, if there are three persons of the Godhead, and, nevertheless, the true God is only one, it follows thence that there is one essence of the three persons of the Godhead. If there were one essence of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost, one of the two alternatives would undoubtedly follow, viz.: either that there is not one true God, or that the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded from the true Godhead.”
GRH. (III, 238): “The word (ουσια),
used of God, signifies an essence common to the three persons of the Godhead, one
in number
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 43) cites as different modes
of expression employed with reference to the unity of God, the following: “One and
indistinguishable nature; one and the same substance; simple, one and undivided
divinity; one and indifferent essence; in essence there is unity; there are three
persons, co-eternal and co-equal; three persons, of one substance and inseparable
equality, one God; the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one; their
glory, equal; their majesty, co-eternal; in this Trinity nothing is before, nothing
after, nothing greater or less, but the entire three persons are co-equal and co-eternal
to each other. . . .
[16] GRH. (III, 257): “There are three, to each of whom belongs the name of Jehovah and God, and likewise, truly divine attributes, works, and glory, viz., the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Therefore, essence is thus defined: BR. (217): “By the name, essence or ουσια, there is meant the divine nature, as it is absolutely in itself, all of which, with its attributes, is most simply one and singular, and, thus, also of the three persons the essence is only one; so, indeed, that there is also one intellect of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by which they understand; one will of the three, by which they wish; and one power, by which they operate outside of the divine essence.”
QUEN. (I, 321): “The divine essence itself is that pertaining to God, by which God is what He is.”
HOLL. (284): “The essence of God is God’s spiritual and independent nature, common to the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
[17] HFRFFR. (48): “Plurality in the unity of divinity is not accidental, for God is most absolute and simple, and no accidents occur in Him. Therefore, since there are no accidents, no plurality can arise hence.”
[18] HFRFFR. (48): “Plurality in unity of the divinity is
hypostatic, i.e., of persons, for the essence, indeed, of the divinity
By person, υποστασις, there is understood, “an individual, intelligent, incommunicable substance, which is not sustained, either upon another or from another.” Thus CHMN., (Loc. Th., I, 39). This definition is thus explained by SELN. (I, 76): “A substance is said to be individual and peculiar, in order to distinguish it from accident, and to remove the error of those who have thought that person signifies only a distinction of employments. It is said to be incommunicable, on account of the distinction of persons, because the Father does not communicate His hypostasis to the Son, or Holy Ghost, but each person has His own peculiar subsistence and being; although essence itself is said to be communicable” (“the subsistence of one persons cannot be communicated to another person, for the reason that each person possesses a peculiar and ultimate act of subsistence, so that it cannot be farther determined by another person.”) HOLL. (284): “Not sustained by another, excludes the opinion of those who think that as there are two natures in Christ, so also there are two persons.”
HOLL. (284): “An intelligent suppositum: a stone, a tree, a horse, are, indeed, called supposita, but not persons, because they are without intellect.”
A still more accurate distinction is made between persons, regarded materially, or in the concrete, and person, considered formally, or in the abstract. HOLL. (ib.): “A person, considered materially, is an intelligent suppositum. But a suppositum is a υφισταμενον, or a subsistence, singular, incommunicable, not sustained by another (a singular subsistence, not a singular substance; for persons, considered in the concrete sense, is not a substance, but a υφισταμενον, a singular subsistence, which consists of substance and an ultimate mode of subsisting. We call a person a singular υφισταμενον, and not an individual; because the latter implies a logical reference to a particular species, which is predicated of the individual. But God is not predicated of the divine persons, under the mode of species, nor do these differ in essences, diverse in number, just as do individuals). But formally or abstractly considered, a person is an independent and communicable subsistence of singular, complete, and intelligent substance.”
The meaning of this distinction will be more clearly apparent
The term υποστασις is employed in doctrinal writings as synonymous with person, but strictly speaking there is still a difference between them. HOLL. (285): “According to the testimony of Damascenus, the Fathers called the same thing hypostasis and person. Nevertheless, person differs from hypostasis, in this, that hypostasis is common to an intellectual nature, and to one destitute of reason; but person is affirmed only of an intellectual nature.”
QUEN. (I, 320): “υποστασις
is received either in the concrete, or materially, when it implies, at the same
time, an object itself and the mode of the object, and marks an essence, distinguished
by a hypostatic character, i.e., a person, in the sense in which Christ is said
to be χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως,
The Greek and Latin Fathers did not at once agree in the usage of the terms here employed and in the distinction between υποστασις and ουσια. It was only from the time of Athanasius that the expressions were uniformly used in the sense above given.
BR. (216): “Although the Greeks and Latins contended for awhile
with each other (for the former thought that by the name, person, there was designated
among the Latins an occupation or external habit, and on this account, three persons
did not imply or express the real distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but
the Latins thought that υποστασις, in the nominative case, denoted the essence itself,
so that if three υποστασις are admitted, three
[19] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39): “Thus, in the Church, the term υποστασις, or person, is used in a different sense from the usage of common speech. Among men we know what a person is; among angels we understand what it is. Peter, Paul, and John are three persons to whom one human nature is common. But they differ very much, (1) in substance, because one entirety is distinct from another (totus a toto), (2) in time, (3) in will, (4) in power, (5) in work. . . . But in the Trinity Persons are not thus distinguished, as an angel from an angel, and a man from a man (nor do they differ in time, will, power, work; but, in the persons of the Trinity, there is co-eternity, one will, one power, one working). Likewise in creatures, it does not follow that where one person is, there, because of their common nature, the others also are. And this distinction must necessarily be observed; for the mystery at which even the angels are astonished, would not be so great, if the one essence were three persons, in the manner that Michael, Gabriel, Raphael are three persons, to whom one angelic nature is common and equally belongs.”
In reference to the two terms, “essence” and “persons,” CHMN. remarks (Loc. Th., I, 39): “These are grammatical observations, not idle exhibitions of acuteness; but if they have no other, they yet have this use, that, with the foundations thoroughly known, we can speak very cheerfully with the Church for the sake of harmony. But, if any one would cavil that the terms essence and person are not sufficiently peculiar to designate this hidden mystery of unity and Trinity, he has this reply that Augustine gives: ‘Human language labors from its absolutely great poverty. Nevertheless the term, “three persons,” has been adopted not for the purpose of expressing this, but so as not to keep altogether silent concerning it. For, by this term, the eminence of the ineffable matter cannot be expressed.’”
[20] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 39). “The persons of the divinity do not differ essentially as in creatures, where each one has his own peculiarity, nor is there only a distinction of reason therein as Sabellius wished; but they are really distinguished, nevertheless in a manner incomprehensible and unknown to us.”
QUEN. (I, 326): “They are distinguished really, i.e., they are distinct from each other, even when all operation of the human intellect ceases.”
[21] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 42): “The persons
are distinguished,
[22] QUEN. (I, 414): “Personal divine actions ad intra are those which are limited to God Himself, in such a manner that they, nevertheless, as a source of action, pertain to the divine essence, not in so far as it is common to all three persons, but as it has been determined by certain hypostatic characters and properties. Hence, these personal works ad intra have been divided, i.e., they are not common to three divine persons, but are peculiar to only one person or to two persons.”
As, in Note 20 above, the question was concerning the distinction between the single persons, so here the question is concerning the distinction between essence and person.
QUEN. (I, 326) answers: “A divine person is distinguished in one way from essence, and in another way from another person; from the former not in fact but in thought, with its foundation in fact; but from the latter actually, even when all operation of the human intellect ceases.” The former distinction is a distinction “not actually, or from the nature of the thing itself, nor modally, but in thought, which is proved as follows: for, if the relation of paternity, filiation, and procession were really distinguished from the divine essence, then something real would be superadded to it, and in the divine persons which are constituted by these relations, and, therefore, in God Himself, there would be a real compounding.” (I, 327) . . . “Thus divine essence and relations are actually one thing, and the former is separated from the latter in thought and the apprehension of the mind alone; or, in other words, by our mode of conception, yet in such a manner that the foundation and occasion of the distinction exists in fact.”
(Id.) (328): “The true and real distinction of the divine persons does not introduce a division or multiplication of the divine essence. For God is not divided into three persons, but the three persons, distinct from each other, undividedly share the essence, one in number undivided and infinite, in such a manner that each persons has the same essence, without its multiplication or division. For, in this mystery, several persons are considered hypostatically, not several things essentially. But these three really distinct persons are and remain ομοουσιοι.”
[23] QUEN. (I, 415): “External actions ad extra, or emanent and transient actions, are those which both relate to an object outside of God, and are performed outside of God, producing or leaving an effect outside of God.”
GRH. (I, 199): “These works
are undivided, because in them the three persons are together and work together. . . . In
God there is so great unity, and so great power of one and the same essence, that
to individual persons individual and peculiar works, which are wrought separately
in creatures, ought by no means to be assigned;” whence follows the statement: “By
one person named in works ad extra, the entire Trinity is meant.” QUEN. (I, 328):
“The reason of this rule is the unity of the divine essence, the common participation
in the power to act, the equality of the operations, and the identity of the works
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, hence, there then follows an equality of denomination.
Nevertheless, this clause must be added to the rule of Augustine: ‘The order and
distinction of persons being preserved;’ for, inasmuch as the Father has an essence
from Himself, therefore He also acts of Himself, the Son acts and works from the
Father, and the Holy Ghost from both.
By the addition of this clause:
“the order and distinction of persons being preserved,” the canon, “the works ad
extra are undivided,” is more accurately defined; for the Dogmaticians do not wish
directly to call in question the statement that even in the works ad extra the distinction
of persons may be recognized. Not without reason, do they believe that in the Scriptures
a work ad extra is ascribed to the one person and not to another; and the difference
which, notwithstanding all the oneness of essence, is yet indicated in the order
which is assigned in the Scriptures to the single persons, and in accordance with
which the Father is placed first, the Son second, etc., seems to them to indicate
also a difference in the order and in the manner in which the single persons work.
So CHMN. already states (Loc. Th., I, 42): “Works ad extra are considered, as Luther
has remarked, in a twofold manner: First, absolutely, and thus they are without
distinction, and are called works of the three persons in common. Secondly, relatively,
when they are considered in the order in which the persons act, or with reference
to what is the property of each person, and which person acts immediately.” The
order in working and the relation in which the three persons stand to a work ad extra, the Dogmaticians find most clearly stated in
Still another case is mentioned by QUEN. (I, 415): “Personal actions ad extra are, in a certain respect and manner, also essential or common to all three persons, viz., by reason of efficiency or source, and inchoatively; but they are personal or peculiar to any one divine person by reason of their end, or terminatively, because they are terminated in a certain person. Thus, the Spirit appeared only in the visible form of a dove. The voice from heaven, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ belonged to the person of the Father alone, and the Son of God alone appeared under the form and habit of man, in the time of the Old Testament, and in that of the New Testament was born of the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh. But, nevertheless, the entire Trinity was operative, with regard to that flesh of the Son alone, and that voice of the Father alone, and that form of a dove of the Holy Ghost alone.”
[24] The Dogmaticians in part distinguish also between the hypostatical
characteristics or personal qualities and the personal notations. By the former,
they understand those peculiarities which one person possesses having distinct reference
to another, and by the latter, the marks by which, in general, one person can be
recognized as distinct from another. Thus QUEN. (I, 330): “Some
HOLL. (285) distinguishes: “Personal properties, i.e., relations founded upon a personal act, constituting a person in the being (esse) of a certain person, and, by relative opposition, introducing a distinction from another person” (of such he enumerates three: paternity, filiation, and procession), and “personal notations, i.e., modes of recognizing the divine persons and distinguishing them ad intra.” These, taken in a wider sense, and constitutively of each person, in the being (esse) of such person, comprehend the personal properties, and as such are regarded the five enumerated in the text. More strictly taken, however, or significatively, i.e., such as do indeed describe the divine persons and indicate the distinction between them, but still do not constitute a person, in the being of such person, they are distinct from the personal properties. Of these there are two, viz., αγεννησια and spiratio activa.
[25] QUEN. (I, 327): “From the real distinction of persons,
arises their order, both in subsisting and in operating. Nevertheless, we must distinguish
between the order of nature, of time, of dignity, of origin, and of relation. Among
the divine persons, there is not an order of nature, because, they are ομοουσιοι
[consubstantial]; nor of time, because they are co-eternal; nor of dignity, because
they have the same honor. But there is among them an order of origin and relation,
because the Father is of no one, the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Ghost is
of both. An order among the divine persons in subsisting is proved from the procession
or emanation of one person from the other. For if the Father proceeds from no one,
but has His essence of Himself, as the fountain and source of the Holy Trinity,
and the Son has His essence of the Father by eternal generation, and the Holy Ghost
has the same of the Father and the Son, by eternal procession, it follows that the
Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third person, and
this order, both fixed in nature itself and unchangeable, is clearly shown in the
formula of baptism.
[26] GRH. (III, 243): “The term ομοουσιος
embraces both ideas,
(Id.): “For the Father and the Son are not ετερουσιοι of different or diverse essence; they are not συνουσιοι, as men who have one common essence, nor only ομοιουσιος, of like substance, but ομοουσιος, having the same essence, eternity, will, work, power, and glory.”
[CHEMN. (I, 43): “By this term, the unity of the essence is signified, viz., that there is one eternity, one will, a common operation, and equal glory, and, at the same time, the distinction of persons is indicated.”]
[27] QUEN. (I, 328) further adds, as a consequence of ομοουσια: “The
most perfect communion of all essential perfections, and the identity both of the
divine works ad extra and the mode of action, so that they do the same things and
in like manner;
In the περιχωρησις the Dogmaticians usually also distinguish “π. essentialis, the absolutely unique immanence of one divine person in the other,” and “π. personalis, that inmost and ineffable permeation, by which the divinity of the λογος intimately permeates, inhabits, and perfects the assumed human nature.” The discussion of the latter does not belong here.
[28] HOLL. (301): “The name, ‘Father,’ is received
here not ουσιοδος, or essentially, but υποστατικως, or personally. The name, Father,
essentially taken, belongs not to the first person alone of the Godhead, but to
all the divine persons equally; inasmuch as, received in this sense, it introduces
a relation to creatures, of whom God is said to be the Father, both on account of
creation, as the angels are regarded sons of God,
[29] QUEN. (I, 332): “The characteristic of the Father
ad extra is manifested
in the work of creation, preservation, and of the government of the universe. For
the work of creation is ascribed to the Father, in a peculiar manner, in the Holy
Scriptures and the Apostles’ Creed, i.e., not exclusively, nor εξοχικως, or only
particularly, much less as a principal cause, so that the Son is only an instrument,
but on account of personal order, because the Father, through the Son and Holy Ghost,
has created, preserves, and governs
[30] QUEN. (I, 332): “The second person is the Son of God, not by υιοθεσια,
or gracious adoption; nor on account of gracious and glorious union with God, and
love — for thus all the pious, the blessed, and the holy angels are sons of God;
nor on account of His wonderful conception by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the
Virgin Mary, as the Socinians wish, but through and on account of a true, peculiar,
essential, most singular [unparalleled] and inexplicable eternal generation, and
thus is the Son of God properly, incommunicably, and alone. In a few words: He is
the Son of God, not χαριτι, or by grace, but φυσει, or by nature,
HOLL. (305): “Hence, the Son of God is called His own,
[31] For this reason, according to HOLL. (322), there is ascribed to the Father, as a hypostatical characteristic, eternal active generation, and to the Son, filiation, or passive generation, “by which the Son of God is produced by the Father, as His substantial image, really and literally, yet in a manner hyperphysical and inexplicable, by an eternal communication of one and the same essence.”
More detailed description of generation. HOLL. (322-325):
“The generation of the Son of God is not improper, metaphorical, or
accidental (as
is the regeneration of sinful men), but proper, true, and substantial. Proof: a.
He would not be God’s own Son, if His generation were improper or metaphorical;
b. God the Father, in producing His Son, communicated to Him His essence in such
a manner that He is His image; not physical (‘which occurs, in matter and out of
matter, in time, having relation to that which is before and after, and is an essential
change from that which has no being into a being.’ QUEN. I, 385), but hyperphysical
(‘which occurs from eternity, without any succession of time, matter, and change,
and which consists alone in the communication of essence.’ QUEN. I, 385); not
temporal,
but eternal. Proof: a. From passages of Scripture which testify that the Son is
eternal; b. From the relation between the Father and the Son. The first person is
the eternal Father, therefore the second person also is the eternal Son; c. Because,
otherwise, the essence of the Father would be affirmed to be changeable, if, in
time, He had begun to beget the Son. Furthermore, from
Concerning the eternity of generation, QUEN. (I, 330) says further: “This generation of the Son does not occur by derivation
or transfusion, nor by an action which may begin or cease, but it occurs by an unceasing
emanation, like which there is nothing to be found in nature. For God the Father
from eternity begat, and always begets, and never will cease to beget His Son. For,
if the generation of the Son should have an end, it would also have a beginning,
and this would not be eternal. Nevertheless, this generation cannot be said, for
this reason, to be imperfect and successive, for the act of generation in the Father
and the Son is considered perfect in work and constant in operation.” The consequence
of passive generation, is the passive sending forth. QUEN. (I, 338): “The consequence
of this passive generation is the passive sending of the Son of God into the flesh,
which is not accurately the incarnation of the same, for they differ as former and
latter, He having been first sent and, afterwards, made of a woman,
Note — “The
sending forth of the Son of God (1) is not a local and separative removal, as though
He had been locally removed from the highest heaven to the lowest earth, and had
been separated from His Heavenly Father. For this conflicts with the infinite and
intimate identity of the persons of the Father and the Son; (2) it is not an imperious
sending forth, but one of free consent, and therefore proves, between the one sending
and the one sent, no inequality, such as the Arians once attempted to derive thence,
and as the Socinians at the present day maintain. In divine things a sending
According to GRH. (I, 288), the difference between to beget and
to create is: “To beget is, from one’s own substance, to produce something similar
according to essence. To create is to make, out of nothing, something different
from the substance of the Creator.” QUEN. (I, 330) says, indeed: “Although this
generation is most peculiar and most true, yet the mode itself of generation is
unknown to us and ineffable,” and yet he attempts, as follows, to form at least
an approximate conception of it: “This divine generation, however, can be adumbrated
by the similitude of rays of the sun, flowing from the solar body with a perpetual
dependence. For, as the sun is not older than its rays, nor the one begetting prior,
in time, to the one begotten; so, the eternal Father, from eternity, generated the
Son; and, just as the sun has, from the beginning, generated its own rays, and even
now begets them, and will continue to generate them, and nevertheless, it cannot
be inferred thence that the generation of the rays of the sun is not yet perfect,
so also, from eternity, God has begotten, and always begets, and will never cease
to beget His own Wisdom, and, nevertheless, it cannot on that account be said that
the generation of the Son is not yet perfect. The Holy Ghost,
[32] The hypostatic character of the Holy Ghost is “passive spiration, or the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, i.e., the eternal origin of the Holy Ghost, by which He is sent forth, within the bosom of the Godhead, by the Father and the Son, by the communication of an essence numerically one and the same, as the common breath of both.” HOLL. (337.) QUEN. (I, 343): “The origin of the Holy Ghost, by which, within the Godhead, He received, through an ineffable procession, from the Father and the Son, an essence the same in number.”
HOLL. (337): “It is called passive
spiration, not physically, as though it implied passive power or imperfection,
but
grammatically,
“The spiration here understood is not external, like the breathing of Christ upon His
disciples,
An analogy for the conception of the procession was sought by some of the Dogmaticians in the going forth of the word from the mouth, and in our spirit. GRH. says, however, concerning the former (I, 321): “Our word proceeds in such a manner from the heart, that there is an evanescent sound, but the Holy Ghost so proceeds that there is a subsisting person.” Of the latter (ibid.): “The spirit of God is ασωματος, of altogether the same nature and essence with Himself, but our spirit is corporeal, because an exhalation from the most refined and subtle portion of the blood, and not at all the same nature with the soul.”
Proof of the procession
from Father and Son, HOLL. (337): “Holy Scripture teaches in express words, that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from God the Father.
[33] The consequence
of the procession is the temporal sending forth of the Holy Ghost. QUEN. (I, 331):
“The sending forth, in time, of the Holy Ghost upon and to the apostles and other
believers, is the manifestation, or consequence and effect, of the eternal procession.
The latter is eternal and necessary; the former is gracious, intermitted, and free,
and likewise conditionate;
[34] The scriptural proof we give partly according to GRH., and partly according to QUEN. and HOLL.
In the Old Testament GRH. finds indicated: “Where God is spoken of, I. a plurality of persons, and II. when by name, a Trinity of persons.”
I. The plurality is shown (I, 186 seq.):
(a) By those passages which employ the plural term Elohim,
concerning God . . .
(b) By the passages in which God speaks of Himself in the plural number,
(c) By the passages in which God speaks of God, and the Lord
of the Lord; for there, in like manner, plurality of persons is signified.
(d) By the passages in which
mention is made of the Son of God; for it is necessary that He be also true God.
II. The three persons in one essence, are proved (I, 190 sq.):
(a) From the passages
in which three persons of the Godhead are distinctly enumerated,
(b) From
the passages in which the name of Jehovah and God is thrice repeated in one connection;
for there, according to the corresponding mode of revelation of the Old Testament,
three persons of the Godhead are implied.
(c) From the Trisagion of the angels.
(d) From the passages in which God speaks concerning God, and the Lord concerning the Lord, as above. I, c.
But of the Old Testament proof-passages for the Trinity, GRH.
In the New Testament there is shown, I. The Trinity of persons in God; and, II. The true divinity of each person.
I. The Trinity of persons.
QUEN. (I, 324 seq ):
“The Holy Trinity is proved in three ways: (1) From
II. The true divinity of each person.
1. (QUEN. I, 329): “The Deity of the Father is proved (1) by the names peculiar to the true God alone; (2) by attributes, e.g., eternity, infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.; (3) by works truly and purely divine; (4) by the truly divine worship.”
2. (I, 332 sq.): “The Deity of the Son is proved:
I. From His names. Some names are essential, others personal. Those are essential which express the divine nature and essence of Christ. Personal names are those which designate His person.
(1) Divine essential names:
In the Old Testament, Christ, the branch of David, is called Jehovah, our righteousness.
(2) Divine
personal names: Christ is called in Holy Scriptures, (a) God’s own Son,
II. From Divine Attributes
For the Son of God is: (1) Eternal,
III. The Divine Works of the Son, proving His deity, are
either ad intra, as the active procession of the Holy Ghost, and the sending of
the same (elsewhere discussed); or ad extra, since in the Scripture divine works
ad extra are ascribed to Christ, the Son of God. From them His true deity is effectually
proved. Moreover, there is ascribed to Him: (1) The creation of the world,
IV. The
final argument for the deity of Christ is derived from His divine worship and honor.
These are ascribed to Him (1) in general,
(3) (I, 340): “The Deity of the Holy Ghost is proved:
I. From His divine names. For He is distinctly called Jehovah,
II. From essential divine attributes
ascribed to Him; namely, Eternity,
III. From divine works, such as the creation of the universe,
IV. From divine worship, such as (a) Adoration,
§ 20. Creation a Divine Work.
THE doctrine of the Divine works follows next in order to that of the existence, essence, and attributes of the triune God. The first outward work of God (opus ad extra) is the creation of the world. [1] Concerning this creation the Holy Scriptures teach us:
(1) That it is a work of God, which He accomplished without the cooperation or assistance of any creature, [2] of His own free will, [3] and solely by means of His omnipotent creative Word; [4] a work of the one true God, and, therefore, of the Triune God. [5]
(2) As God is, in the true sense of the word, Creator of the world, this fact
excludes every conception of a material existing from eternity out of which God
only made, prepared, or fashioned the world; on the contrary, the material itself,
of which the world consists, was created by God. This is expressed in the proposition,
that the world was created from nothing, which is intended to mean that there was
nothing in
(3) As a specific beginning of creation is taught in the first chapter of Genesis, this at once excludes the conception of a world existing from eternity. [7]
(4) The world, if we mean by this term its entire construction and arrangement as existing at the end of the six days of creation, came into being, according to the narrative in Genesis, not at once, but gradually (“during a period of six days God made all things which He created and made, observing an admirable order”). The manner of their production (ordo creationis) is described in the first chapter of Genesis, and from this account we can distinguish: (a) The creation of matter; (b) The separation of the different kinds of materials created from nothing; (c) The arrangement of the rude masses and their construction into the form in which they appeared at the end of the days of creation. [8] We can thus also distinguish between immediate and mediate creation; the former being the creation from nothing, and the latter the arrangement of the previously created materials. [9]
(5) The first and highest aim of creation is the glory of God, for God wishes to be recognized
and revered as the great God that He is. (
(6) If the world is thus entirely the creature of God, it follows, finally, as is
indeed expressly stated,
This is all comprehended in the definition: “Creation
is an act of God, who is one and alone, and an undivided work of the three persons
of the Godhead, by which the Father, through the co-eternal Son, in the co-eternal
Holy Spirit, of his own free will, in six distinct days, formed all things, visible
[1] The distinction between works ad intra and ad extra, which we discussed in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, is not introduced by some of the Dogmaticians until they treat of the present topic.
QUEN. (I, 415) divides divine actions ad extra into: “actions of power, as the creation and preservation of the world;” “actions of mercy, as the redemption, calling, regeneration, conversion, and salvation of the human race;” and “actions of justice, as the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the damnation of devils and the wicked.”
Concerning the connection of the doctrine of the creation with that of the Trinity, CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 112): “Thus far, in the article of the Trinity, God has been described as He is in His secret nature, and mention has, indeed, been also made of the works of God, but, especially, of those which divinity works within itself, apart from every creature. But God, who has made darkness His hiding-place, and who dwells in inaccessible light, coming forth from His secret abode, has manifested Himself, also, in works ad extra, . . . and, because the first manifestation ad extra was made in the work of creation, the article concerning the creation immediately follows.”
[2] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 115): “Creation
is an action of the one God. This is said, because of those who have proposed a
number of sources; It is, likewise, an action of God alone, which neither ought
to be, nor can be, ascribed to any creature (
CALOV. (III, 897): “In the primeval creation there was no instrumental cause or means, because God created all things by the Word.”
[3] QUEN. (I, 417): “Neither was there any antecedent cause, except the purpose of God alone, communicating Himself, not from the necessity of nature, but from the freedom of His will.”
CALOV. (III, 896): “The impelling cause of creation is the immense goodness of God, prompted by which, as He wished to communicate the highest good, He most freely communicated Himself.”
HOLL. (357): “Creation is a free, divine action, because God framed the universe, not induced thereto by necessity, as though He needed the service of creatures (since He is absolutely independent, αυταρκεστατος), but freely, as He was able to create or not to create and to frame sooner or later, in this or in another manner.”
[4] Hence creation is also described as “not successive, but, with respect to every individual being created, instantaneous, for God framed everything, not by any movement or laborious exertion, but when He said, ‘Let there be light,’ immediately there was light.” — HOLL. (ib.).
CALOV. (III, 900): “The action is not properly successive, but instantaneous, for the individuals, which God created, He created in as instant, without movement or succession, although, if these be regarded collectively, the creation was completed in six days (νυχθημερα); not that He devoted those entire days to creation, but that He created something in the moments of each day.”
[5] CALOV. (III, 889): “The efficient cause of creation is God, one and alone.”
GRH. (IV, 4): “But that one true God is Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost; therefore, in Scripture, the work of creation is ascribed to the Father
and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Of the Father it is affirmed,
HOLL. (352): “In Holy Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed the work of creation
is ascribed, in a peculiar manner, to God the Father: (a) Because of the order of
working; for this reason, that what the Father has of Himself to do and to create,
the Son of God and the Holy Ghost have of the Father. (b) Because, in the works
of creation, God the Father, by His most efficacious word of command, manifested
His own omnipotence,
CHMN.
(Loc. Th., I, 115): “We must not dispute too curiously concerning the distinction
of persons in the work of creation, but let us be content with the revelation, that
all things were created
[6] QUEN. (I, 417): “There was no material of creation out of which (materia ex qua), with respect to things created on the first day. For they were created on the first day, not from any pre-existing material, whether eternal or created before, but were made from purely negative nothing. When it is said that the works of the first day were created ‘from noting,’ the particle ‘from’ does not designate the material out of which, but excludes it. For, by ‘from nothing,’ there is nothing else denoted than the starting-point (terminus a quo); i.e., the nothing, from which all things are said to have been made, has respect not to the material, but only to the starting-point, and ought to be understood of the order of creation; and the particle ‘from’ can be correctly translated by ‘after,’ so that the sense may be: After nothing, as the starting-point, something was made.”
CHEMN. (Loc. Th., I, 115): “That the ‘material from which’ was not from eternity, but all things were created from nothing; i.e., although things did not exist, they began to be when God spake . . . Moreover, it is said that they were created from nothing, not as we commonly say, ‘they contend about nothing,’ i.e., about a trifling matter; but as when something is made, springs up, and comes into being, and there is not anything out of which it may be made.”
GRH. (IV, 7): “They occasion the madness of the Stoics, who devised two eternal principles, νους και υλη, mind, or God, and matter, which they imagined was, during the ages of eternity, a confused chaos, and, at a certain time, was at length brought into form by mind.”
In connection
with this doctrine, the Dogmaticians call attention also to the difference in the
meaning of the words create, beget, and make. See above, § 19, note 31. From the
distinction between create and beget, arises the proposition (HOLL. (356)): “God
did not create this visible world from His own essence, nor did He, as it
CALOV. (III, 899): “Creation does not consist in emanation from the essence of God, nor in generation, nor in motion, or natural change, . . . but in outward action, by which, by means of infinite power, things are produced from nothing.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 421): “The world neither has been from eternity nor could it have been created from eternity.” Proof (ibid. 422): “(a) From the history of creation; (b) from the end and destruction of the world; (c) from the eternity peculiar to God alone; (d) from the manner of its production, viz.: because all things were created from nothing, it follows that the material from which (materia ex qua) was not from eternity.” While it is thus asserted that the world could not have been created from eternity, we still dare not express ourselves in such a manner as though the world had been created at a particular time, since we cannot conceive of a time as having existed before the world.
Concerning this point, the Dogmaticians usually express themselves
as follows: HFRFFR. (67): “Moses (
The question, “Why God did not create the world sooner, and what He did whilst alone and unemployed in that eternity,” is repulsed as “a question of madmen curiously inquiring into such things as have no profit.” (HFRFFR. (69.)
[8] HFRFFR. (72): “From
QUEN. (I, 417): “The action of creation comprises three steps: (1) The production, on the first day, of the crude material, which was the germinal source, as it were, of the entire universe; (2) The distinction and disposition of simple creatures during the first three days: for, on the first day, He separated light form darkness; on the second, by interposing the firmament, the waters beneath from those above; and, on the third, the earth from the waters; (3) The furnishing and completion of the world, which was brought to perfection in the second period of three days; for, on the fourth day, He furnished the heavens with luminaries; on the fifth, the water with fishes, and the atmosphere with winged creatures; and, finally, on the sixth, the earth with animals, and, at last, with the chief of all animate beings, viz., with man.”
The later Dogmaticians usually treat of man, as the last of created beings, in a separate section, which they place before that of Providence. But we think we can appropriately here insert the essential features of the topic in the following propositions:
(a) As to his position in the world, the remark of QUEN. (I, 511): “God, to give, as it were, the last touch to the work of creation, framed the most noble of creatures, for whose sake he had produced all the rest, viz., man.”
(b) Definition, HOLL. (406): “Man is an animal, consisting of a rational soul and an organic body, framed by God, and endowed at the first creation with God’s own image, in order that he might sincerely worship the Creator, live a godly life, and attain eternal happiness.”
(c) The first man was Adam. QUEN. (I, 543): “Adam, framed by God on the sixth day of the first hexahemeron, is the
first of all men, and the parent of the entire human race, throughout the whole
globe,
(d) Of the mode of production, QUEN. (I, 512): “It consists in this, that God made
man (α) with singular deliberation, taken concerning this work,
(e) Of the internal, constitutive principles of man. QUEN. (I, 513):
“They are the material and the physical form. The material is an animate organic
body, before the Fall impassible, and not mortal.
(f) The question,
“Whether human souls are created daily by God, or are propagated per traducem,”
is answered thus by QUEN. (I, 519): “The soul of the first man was immediately created
by God; but the soul of Eve was produced by propagation, and the souls of the rest
of men are created, not daily, nor begotten of their parents as the body or souls
of brutes, but, by virtue of the
Of the body, HOLL. says further (411): “(a) The body is a true part of man, without which he is not a true and entire man.” (412): “(b) The human soul has not been cast by God into the body as into a foul prison, by which it is hindered from being able to elevate itself and fly upward to the knowledge, love, and worship of God.” (The antithesis of the Mystics.) Of the soul, HOLL. (409): “The soul is said to have been breathed into man by God, but not from God. For God did not, from His own substance, breathe into man a soul.” (417): “The human soul neither emanated from the divine essence, nor by spiritual regeneration and mystic union with the triune God does it return or flow back to the divine essence.” Hence, BR. (237): “God created man, producing his body from the earth, but his soul from nothing, and joining it to the body.”
[9] QUEN. (I, 417): “All things were created from nothing, nevertheless some immediately, viz., the works of the first day, and others mediately, viz., by means of the material which God had before created from absolutely negative nothing, viz., the works of the succeeding five days.” (Ibid. 418): “The former is of the highest order, and is creation, primarily or properly so-called, through which God, without the intervention of another, acted immediately upon nothing, by calling forth from it that which has a real and positive essence; but the latter is creation of the second order, secondarily and less principally, yet properly so-called, by which God produced something from a material pre-existing, but crude and altogether confused.”
[10] QUEN. (I, 418): “The ultimate end of creation is
the glory of God. For in and through creation God manifested (a) the glory of His
goodness by sharing His goodness with creatures; (b) the glory of His power, by
creating all things from nothing; by His will and Word alone; (c) the glory of wisdom,
which shines forth from the multitude, variety, order, and harmony of things created,
GRH. (IV, 4): “In order that God, who is invisible by nature, might be known also from things visible, a work was wrought by Him, to manifest the workman by its visibility.”
QUEN. (I, 418): “The intermediate end of creation is the advantage
of men. For God made all things for the sake of man, but man He made for His own
sake,
[11] CHEMN. (Loch. Th., I, 116): “To the definition of creation
this also belongs: that all things which God made are very good,
QUEN. (I, 418): “From this statement we exclude the defects of nature, which began only after man’s fall.”
CALOV. (III, 902): “Well-pleasing to God are the consequences of creation, the rest from the work of creation, as well as the power and dominion exercised over creatures.”
[12] QUEN. (I, 415): “Creation is an external action of the triune God, whereby, to the praise of His name and the advantage of men, in the space of six days, by the command alone of His most free will, He omnipotently and wisely produced from nothing all things visible and invisible.”
BR. (248): “Creation is defined as an action ad extra of the triune God, whereby
God, impelled by His goodness, produced this world and all things that are therein,
first, indeed, as simple bodies, from no pre-existing material; then out of simple
bodies, as a crude and confused material, He produced mixed bodies; nay,
§ 21. The Doctrine taught by both Reason and Revelation.
GOD is not a workman who, when he has completed his work leaves it to itself and goes his way” [Augustine]; but, having created the world, He sustains it and continually cares for it. [1] Therefore the Holy Scriptures never speak of the creation without at the same time alluding to the superintending care that is exercised over the world; and in this very fact the Christian finds the highest consolation, that he is permitted to regard God as continually present in the world, caring for the greatest just as for the least, and hindered by nothing in the exercise of His care. This consolation we may, indeed, in part derive from the contemplation of the world by the light of Nature, and from observing the course of its affairs; but it is only the certainty which Revelation communicates that establishes us immovably in this confidence. [2]
The Providence of God [3] specially manifests itself: I, in His preserving what has been created in the world; II, in His cooperating with all that occurs; and III, in His leading and directing everything in the world. The doctrine of Providence is accordingly divided into the doctrines of Preservation, Concurrence, and Government [4] (Conservatio, concursus, gubernatio.)
I. “Preservation is the act of Divine Providence whereby
God sustains all things created by Him, so that they continue in being with the
properties implanted in their nature and the powers receive
II.
Concurrence. [8] The doctrine of Divine Providence implies far more than merely
that God creates and uphold the world. If this were all, then we would have to refer
all the changes and transactions that occur in the world entirely to creatures,
and God would have no further share in all this than merely to give to His creatures
the ability thus to act. But God is to be regarded as, in a far higher sense than
this, present in the world. The Holy Scriptures teach us that He is an active participant
in all that transpires in the world; that nothing that occurs could take place without
Him and His active co-operation; that, therefore, ever single effect, change, or
transaction in the world comes to pass only through the influence of God. In this,
God is not, indeed, as in creation and preservation, the sole cause of that which
happens; for God has given to living creatures a will that is to be employed in
actions, and has imparted even to inanimate things a power which we are to regard
as the efficient cause of changes. God’s Providence can, therefore, by no means
be so regarded, as if He alone were the author of all that is done; for, in that
case, this will, which we must assume in the case of living creatures, would not
have justice done to it, and the power that belongs to inanimate things would not
be called into exercise: yet God is nevertheless the cooperative cause of all that
occurs. In all transactions, therefore, that proceed from a creature, the creature
itself is just as much a cause as God is; He, on the other hand, is always to be
regarded as co-operating: every change, effect, or transaction that occurs is, accordingly,
to be referred at the same time to both, to the creature and to God. [9] This is
expressed in the doctrine
III. “Government is the act of Divine Providence by which God most excellently orders, regulates, and directs the affairs and actions of creatures according to His own wisdom, justice, and goodness, for the glory of His name and the welfare of men.” (CAL., III, 1194.) [16] God actively participates in actions for the express purpose of directing the whole world according to His own purposes. As, therefore, preservation has reference to the existence and continuance of created things, government has reference to the actions that proceed from these creatures. God inclines and leads them according to His will so as to accomplish His designs: and this government of God extends over the whole as well as over each single part, over the great as well as over the small. [17]
Inasmuch as God, however
allows men in their freedom to have their own way, as we have already seen under
the doctrine of concurrence, this marks distinctly the character of His government;
for He governs in such a manner that this liberty is not restricted. Hence, much
is done that would not be done if so wide a range were not allowed to human liberty;
(1) Much is done that cannot at all be said to meet the special approbation of God; but God permits it, suffers it to occur, because He does not choose to enforce His own preference by doing violence to or prohibiting human liberty, and therefore seeks to accomplish His aims in some other way (permission). [18]
(2) Thus God often is content with merely hindering the accomplishment of what would be contrary to His purposes (hinderance). [19]
(3) He knows, too, how to sway the freely performed actions of men, after they have been permitted by Him to occur (whether they be good or evil), in such a way that they must be subservient to and in accordance with His own purposes (direction). [20]
(4) As, finally, He is Himself the source from which proceeds all power and ability to act, so He knows also how to attain His own ends by withholding the necessary power, or by holding this within certain limits which it dare not transcend, when men are about to act contrary to His will (determination). [21]
Of Providence in general, as comprehending preservation, concurrence, and government, we have yet to remark:
(1) That it affects everything, but not uniformly; on the other hand, everything is affected by it just in proportion to the relative importance of its position in the world. And, as man occupies the highest place in the world, Providence has special reference to him; most specifically, however, it is exercised with reference to the godly, as God’s chief purpose in regard to man is his salvation. [22]
(2) The providence of God ordinarily employs second causes, and thus accomplishes its designs; but God is by no means restricted to the use of these second causes, for He often exercises His providence without regard to them, and operates thus contrary to what we call the course of nature, and hence arises the difference between ordinary and extraordinary providence. [23]
(3) Finally, divine providence is exercised differently with reference to that which is evil and that which is good. [24]
“Providence is the external action of the entire Trinity, [25] whereby (a) God most efficaciously upholds the things created, both as an entirety and singly, both in species and in individuals; (b) concurs in their actions and results; and (c) freely and wisely governs all things to its own glory and the welfare and safety of the universe, and especially of the godly.”
[1] GRH. (IV, 52): “God, the Creator of all, did not desert the work which He framed; but, by His omnipotence, up to the present time preserves it; and, by His wisdom, rules and controls all things in it.”
[2] GRH.
(IV, 52): “Scripture joins both, viz., that the faithful heart must believe that
God is both Creator and Provider,
[The arguments from Nature are thus enumerated by HUTT. (218): “1.
The order and perpetual effect of Nature, as the fixed and perpetual movement of heavenly
bodies, the fertility of the earth, the constant flow of streams, the perpetuation
of distinct species of animals and plants. 2. The condition of the intelligent human
mind. For what is irrational can never be the cause of an intelligent nature. 3.
The distinction between what is honorable and dishonorable, which could not originate
from accident or from matter. 4. Natural knowledge, which even in its obscurity,
since the Fall, convinces man that there is a Divinity who controls and governs
all things. 5. Terrors of conscience in the minds of the guilty on account of crimes
[3] QUEN. (I, 527): “Providence is so named from providere, and denotes the act of foreseeing and cherishing anxious care concerning objects pertaining to self.”
“The term Providence (προνοια) does not occur in the
canonical books in the sense in which it is here employed, but only in
Scriptural Proof. HOLL. (424): “All Scripture
is nothing else than a brilliant mirror, from which, in whatever direction you turn,
the ever watchful eye of providential direction clearly shines forth.” Hence, in
[4] Providence is divided into these three parts,
so far as it is a work of God ad extra. Before it becomes such, however, certain
acts must have taken place in God Himself, viz., a foreknowledge of that upon which
His providential care is to be exercised, and a purpose to exercise this care. If
we take both of these into the account, Providence may be divided, HOLL. (424):
“(a) into προγνωσις (foresight or foreknowledge): (b) προθεσις (the purpose or decree
of God); and (c) διοικησις (the actual preservation, co-operation, or concurrence
and governing, with respect to things created).” BR. (303): “Opinions vary, inasmuch
as some contend that, by the name, Providence, there is meant not so much the immanent
acts of the divine mind and will, as the outward act of preserving and governing.
Some indeed teach that, by this name, an immanent act is denoted, and they believe
that it pertains formally to the intellect, and, by way of consequence, to the will;
others vice versa. Nevertheless, it is easily perceived that this entire controversy
HOLL. (421 and 422): “The providence of
God, with respect to προγνωσις και προθεσις, is an internal
act
With reference to foreknowledge it is remarked: (a) That the expression
to know beforehand only inaccurately describes God’s knowledge of everything, since
the knowledge of God is not mediated by a succession of time and of thought, as
ours is, but is rather intuitive, by virtue of which He sees everything, the past,
the present, and the future at once, as it were in a mirror. GRH. (IV, 66): “In
our knowledge there is a two-fold activity of thought. In the first place, only
according to succession, since, when we understand anything in an act, we turn from
it to understand
(b) The question, “Whether foreknowledge bring necessity to things
foreknown, or whether it be certain that things are foreknown by God in such a manner,
that now, by some necessity, they cannot occur otherwise?” HUTT. (Loc. Comm., 256)
answers thus: ‘Neither harmonizes with the truth. For every object is foreseen or
foreknown by God as it is in its own nature, and according to its results, so that
this foreknowledge depends upon the event, but the event does not depend upon the
foreknowledge. As Jerome infers: ‘The foreknowledge of future things does not make
that which God knew would take place immutable; for, because of God’s knowledge
of future things, it is not necessary for us to do that which He foreknew, but what
we will do according to our own will He knows as future.’ Thus a solar or lunar
eclipse does not occur because foreknown and predicted long before by mathematicians,
since it would have occurred from natural causes, even though no mathematician should
have foreknown or predicted it; so, also, what God has foreknown or foreseen is
not immutable, or of fatal necessity, for the reason that He has foreknown or foreseen
it, but it is immutable because man’s will, freely doing this or that, has not changed,
since if it would change, this also God would foreknow.” . . . Still further: “It is
one thing when I say that with respect to divine foreknowledge, something is immutable
or occurs necessarily; but another thing, when I say that a thing is immutable because
of God’s foreknowledge, or, what is the same, that foreknowledge brings necessity
to things foreknown. The former assertion is orthodox, but the latter is not; inasmuch
as the latter expression names a cause, on account of which the matter cannot be
otherwise, but the former denotes only the truth and
[HUTT. illustrates: “I see that Peter is limping. As I see it, it must be so, for my vision is not deceived; and since it is actually occurring, it cannot be otherwise, but must be. Nevertheless, my seeing Peter limp cannot be said to cause him to limp, for he is not impelled by my vision, and no necessity of limping is imposed upon him, since he would limp even though not seen by me, and he would be able not to limp, if the natural cause were otherwise: but if this were otherwise, I would also see it. In the same way, we do nothing that God has not foreseen, and yet this foreknowledge of God is not the cause of our actions.”]
GRH. (IV, 69): “If you do not yet fully perceive the subject, thus regard it: The foreknowledge of God does not bring immutability to objects a priori, but only a posteriori; i.e., when God knows that a thing is, it is necessary for it to be. Nevertheless, in the meanwhile, a thing by its own nature, and with respect to its own cause, could be otherwise, and then God would have foreknown it otherwise. Things either present, or past, or future, do not depend upon knowledge; but knowledge depends upon the thing and event which is foreknown as just such as it is, so that if it would not have been, that fact also would have been foreseen by God.”
Related thereto is the question: “Whether the divine foreknowledge rests upon a previous decree?” which HOLL. (432) answers thus: “The foreknowledge and decree of God concerning future things are eternal and simultaneous on the part of God; but, according to our mode of conception, the foreknowledge of God precedes the divine decree.”
[5] HOLL. (442):
“God preserves species and individual. Species He preserves by keeping the essences
of objects from destruction, and imparting to them constancy. Individuals He preserves,
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 125): “It is the office of Providence to watch over and aid the order which it has given to nature, so that every substance has its becoming strength, motions, and actions.”
[6] GRH. (IV,
83): “Created things subsist not of themselves, and from their own strength, but
God upholds all things by the word of His power,
HOLL. (441): “Divine preservation is an act not merely negative or indirect, for it does not consist in the fact that God does not wish to destroy or annihilate the things that He has framed, but to leave to them their strength, as long as they can flourish and endure from the energy given to them by creation; but it is a positive and direct act, by which God, through a true and real influence, enters in a general way into the efficient causes of the objects that are to be preserved, so that in their nature, properties, and strength, they continue and remain.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 531): “God preserves all things by the continuance of the action by which He first produced them. For the preservation of a thing is, properly speaking, nothing else than a continued production of it, nor do they differ except by a designation derived from without.” HOLL. (441): (Creation and preservation) “are distinguished by different connotatives. For creation connotes that the object had not existed before; preservation supposes that the object had existed before. Creation gives a beginning of being; preservation, a continuance of being.”
[8] The Dogmaticians do not all assign this place to the doctrine of the divine concurrence; the earlier, as GRH. and CAL., and among the later BAIER, following CAL., divide the subject of Providence into only preservation and governing, and discuss the doctrine of the concurrence only in a supplementary way.
HOLL. (440): “Some theologians think that the acts, to the
exercising of which, with respect to creatures, Divine Providence is limited, are
two, preservation and governing, which latter is said to signify both the general
concurrence with second causes,
From the time of QUEN., it became customary to enumerate three acts
of providence. Practically it matters little what division is adopted, yet the latter
division has this in its favor, that the manner in which God exercises providence
is at once included in the doctrine of providence. It is then declared: 1. That
the
[9] QUEN. (I, 531): “God not only gives and preserves to second causes the power to act, but immediately influences the action and effect of the creature, so that the same effect is produced not by God alone, nor by the creature alone, nor partly by God and partly by the creature, but at the same time by God and the creature, as one and the same total efficiency, viz., by God as the universal and first cause, and by the creature as the particular and second cause.” The action of God and the action of man are simultaneous actions. QUEN. (I, 545): “In reality, the influence of God is not one action, and the operation of the creature another; but the action is one and indivisible respecting both, and dependent upon both, upon God as the universal cause, upon the creature as the particular cause. As an act of writing, the same in number, depends upon the hand and the pen, and one part does not depend upon the hand and the other upon the pen, but each part entirely upon the hand and entirely upon the pen; so God’s concurrence is not prior to the creature’s own action by the priority of causality, since it is, in fact, entirely the same action. Hence God, just as also the second cause, produces the entire effect, which comes to pass by an exterior action of God, inwardly included in the action of the creature, one and the same with it.”
As scriptural proof, the following passages are cited:
If, thus, every change, effect, or act which comes to pass
is ascribed at the same time both to God and to the creature, the Dogmaticians inquire
whether we do not encroach upon the doctrine of Providence; or whether, if we maintain
the integrity of this doctrine, we do not exclude the co-operation of the creature
and all its free movements. HUTT. (Loc. Com., 228) thus states the objection: “If
all things are subject to divine government, they either can occur otherwise than
God decreed from eternity to govern them or they cannot occur otherwise; if the
former, Divine Providence will be deceived; but if the latter, Divine Providence
“That,” says HUTT. (256), “is defined as contingent which, when it comes to pass, is neither impossible nor necessary, but has a cause which, from its own nature, could act otherwise, such as the human will; or, as others . . . define it, ‘that is contingent which, by its own nature, can either be or not be, which can be constituted either in this or in another manner, or which can happen or not happen, and, before it happens, can be prevented from happening; when, indeed, it does happen, it has a cause which, by its own nature, could act otherwise, and whose contradictory would not be impossible.’ As an example . . . the betrayal by Judas was a contingent event, for Judas could have abstained from that crime, and not have betrayed his Master; so that when he actually betrayed Him, there was, nevertheless, in him a cause, which, by its own nature, could have acted otherwise, i.e., it could have restrained him from that deed.”
The answer to the above objection he then introduces by means
of two distinctions (228): “The first distinction is this: Everything mutable and
immutable is described in two modes: in one mode, when anything by its own nature,
per se, absolutely has been so composed, that it either can or cannot be constituted
otherwise; in another mode, when something is either mutable or immutable, not per se, but by way of accident — not absolutely, but conditionally. As an example: God
is immutably good and wise, per se and absolutely. Angels, likewise, are also immutably
good and wise, but not per se or absolutely, but by way of accident; in so far as,
without doubt, they have already been so confirmed in good as no longer to be able
to fall. So, too, as an example of mutability: Adam was mutably good before the
Fall, for if he had not been such, he would not have been able to fall; but because
he could have remained good if he had wished, this mutability in him is very correctly
stated to have existed not absolutely and per se, but only from the condition of
his will. Since the Fall, all believers are in like manner mutably good, not absolutely
and per se. For in the state of corruption it could not occur otherwise, because
their goodness is mutable. The second distinction is of that which is necessary,
or, in other words, of necessity. For in our theology . . . there is a twofold necessity
constituted, of which the one is
Then HUTT. answers the first question, “May Divine Providence be deceived?” as follows: “These two distinctions being presupposed, to the latter member of the disjunctive, the categorical and affirmative answer is given, that those things which have been foreseen by God cannot be otherwise constituted, or, as is the same, they are not mutable, except relatively and with this condition, namely, that these things are constituted immutably, not absolutely or per se, or, in other words, by absolute necessity, but only by accident, or from the condition of the objects foreseen. For God foresaw how everything would be and would result, from its own causes, whether natural or voluntary, and in this respect the Providence of God cannot be deceived. But if from their nature they would have been otherwise, God would have foreseen this also, and thus His Providence would not have been deceived. In this respect it is most correctly denied that things foreseen could be constituted otherwise than as they have been foreseen.”
The second question, “Does Providence, therefore, bring necessity to the things foreseen, and,
as a consequence, is contingency removed?” HUTT. thus answers: “A reply is most
correctly made by another distinction. But if, indeed, pure or absolute necessity,
or necessitas consequentis, be understood, it is absolutely denied that Providence
brings necessity to things foreseen. For thus no place would be left any longer
for natural causes, nor any liberty of the human will. Nevertheless, that both are
subordinate to the Providence of God, and can exist, together with it, without
[10] QUEN. (I, 544): “The question in this place is not whether God communicates and preserves to second causes the power to operate, for this mode of concurrence ascribes to God no more than that He preserves the existence of objects and their power to act, which He gave them in the beginning; but the question here is, whether God immediately influences according to the requirement of each, the action, and with the action the effect, as such, of the second causes.” QUEN. (I, 544) thus defines the terms causa prima et secunda: “The first cause is that which is entirely independent, but upon it all other things, if there be any, depend; this is God. A second cause is that which recognizes another cause prior to itself, upon which it depends; such are the efficient created causes, which, although they operate through primary and relative virtue, nevertheless depend upon the first cause, as for their existence, so also for their operation. For existence, I say, because without His preservation they could exist in operating not even for a moment, and because without the co-operation of the same they could neither operate nor, in operating, produce their effects.”
QUEN. (I, 532) justly remarks: “With the divine concurrence with respect to the object
there coincide the divine omnipresence, which is an act of Divine Providence, and
formally and definitely, viz., in the Biblical sense, denotes both the substantial,
illocal, incommunicable, illimitable presence with creatures, which the Scholastics,
in the description of the concurrence of God with creature, call the immediatio
suppositi,
[11] QUEN. (I, 531): “The objects of the concurrence are all the
actions and effects, as such, of second causes. It is only the general and indeterminate
concurrence that is here discussed, i.e., it is here merely in general asserted
that no action is accomplished without the co-operation of God; but the character
of this concurrence is not here taken into the account. It is, therefore, indeed,
readily granted, but not here specially developed, and the concurrence
[12] QUEN. (I, 545): “With second causes, God concurs according to the need and
requirement of each, i.e., when, as often as, and in the manner that, the cause,
according to the condition of its nature, demands this concurrence. For God does
not change the nature of the agents or the manner and order of their action, but
He permits natural agents to act naturally, free agents to act freely. . . . With second
causes God concurs according to their nature, by operating conformably to His most
sympathetic, universal disposition, freely with the free, necessarily with the necessary,
feebly with the feeble, vigorously with the vigorous.” HOLL. (444): “With necessary
agents God concurs uniformly, e.g., with fire, in order for it to burn, with the
sun, in order for it to shine. With free agents God concurs variously, leaving to
them their free decision and the free power to choose this or that; for the order
that God has once established He does not easily change,
[13] The most
difficult problem in the science of Theology is that of exhibiting the method of
the divine concurrence in the evil actions of men, without at the same time in any
wise throwing the blame of the evil upon the first cause, i.e., upon God. The Dogmaticians
employ for this purpose the two formulae: “God concurs in producing the effect,
not the defect; God concurs as to the materials, not as to the form.” The former
of these is intended to teach that God has indeed furnished the power through which
the action could have become a good one; but that, if on the part of
QUEN. (I, 545): “We distinguish between the action and the αταξια of the action; between the effect and the defect. The Supreme Being concurs with the actions and the effects, but not with the αταξια of the actions; for, although the universal cause influences the entire action of the particular causes, yet indeed, of the αταξια and evil, as such, if it inhere in an action, there is no other cause than a creature, inasmuch as in acting it departs from its own rule and the order of the First Agent, viz., God, and applies the divine concurrence otherwise than it should. Hence we say in the thesis that God influences the actions and effects, as such, of second causes, i.e., as the actions and effects are, in their entity or essence, to the exclusion of the idea of the defects and faults, which have no entity, and originate from a deficiency of action in the causes. In short, God enters into sinful actions, with respect to their entity and natural form (species naturae), and not with respect to their deformity and moral form (species moris). He also concurs in disgraceful acts, and is inwardly present to them, yet in such a manner as not to be defiled, inasmuch as spiritual substance is liable to pollution no more than is the sun.” (HUTT. (234): “God, as the universal cause, affords only this, viz., that you are able to act, but the fact that you act wickedly proceeds from a particular cause, viz., your perverse will.”)
HOLL. (443): “With the formal ανομια or αταξια of actions
morally evil, God undoubtedly does not concur by any positive influence, because
wickedness is a defect and privation, not proceeding from God the Most Perfect,
in whom no defect can occur, but from a human will failing in its action. But God
concurs with the remote, not with the proximate material of actions morally evil.
The former is an indeterminate act; the latter is an act determinate and applied
to a prohibited thing. When, for example, Eve extended her hand to the forbidden
fruit, two acts were present: (1) the extension of the hand; (2) the extension applied
to the forbidden fruit. The former act is said to be the remote material; the latter,
the proximate material. With the latter, God does not concur, because His concurrence
is general and indeterminate; and, therefore, the determination
[14] HOLL. (443): “God concurs with the actions of creatures by the immediateness
of His power and being. He concurs by the immediateness of His being (immediatione
suppositi), because God, by His substance, is especially near to creatures operating,
inasmuch as He fills all in all.
[15] HOLL. (445): “Those who teach a previous concurrence, are guilty of a contradiction with respect to what succeeds. For if God concur, He does not precur; if He co-operate, He does not pre-operate. A premotion is an antecedent act; but concurrence is not antecedent, but occurs when the action itself is produced. If divine concurrence were to predetermine free agents to action, they would act necessarily, not freely.”
QUEN. (I, 544): “Second causes or agents, whether natural or free, have not, for the eliciting of an action, the need to be excited by a previous impulse, in the manner in which a pick, a hammer, or an axe receives a previous motion from the workman, as they either have a power for operating that is peculiar to themselves and innate, as fire, or they are the power itself of action, as heat; yea, if created things could in no way exert themselves without that previous excitation, it would follow that their will is excited also to vicious actions.”
[16] QUEN. (I, 533): “Governing
is an act of Divine Providence, by which God symmetrically arranges each and every
creature, in its peculiar strength, actions, and suffering, to the
[17] CALOV. (III, 1196): “As Preservation is most particularly occupied with the
essences, strength, and faculties of men, and of other objects, especially those
that are permanent, so Governing is occupied pre-eminently with the actions and
sufferings of all men and things. . . . But this governing is not only universal, but
extends also to the individual actions, and moderates and directs them all.
The difference between the Christian and the ante-Christian doctrine of Providence is stated by CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 129) as follows: “It is well known of what nature the dogma of Epicurus was, who altogether did away with Providence, viz., that God, who is supremely happy, is not affected with the care of governing inferior things, because such an occupation would interfere with His happiness, and would not be worthy of His divine excellence. Therefore, he concedes that in second causes there is a certain strength, according to which, when an application of an agent to that which is passive occurs, an action and change ensue; but he denies that this action is controlled and governed by God. Yea, he says that God does not care; but, just as atoms floating in the sun are turned about without order, and by chance, so that the same atom which has been before in the upper part is now in the middle, and afterwhile will be at the bottom, if the chance should so carry it, so Epicurus imagines that second causes fluctuate, by chance and without order, and that results are indeed produced from the application of sufficient causes, but says that the application itself of the causes does not occur by means of the government and control of God, but as the chance may have happened.”
The Christian
doctrine of Providence, therefore, excludes every conception of a blind necessity
as well as of a mere chance. HOLL. (437): “We are not to maintain a stoical fate,
by which all things occur from absolute and inevitable necessity; nor the more rigid
astrological fate,
(Id. 440): “Fortune, which is an accidental event,
accompanying a result intended by a cause acting freely, does not exist with respect
to the omniscient and most wise God (
[18] QUEN. (I, 533): “Permission is an act of governing Providence, by which
God does not employ hindrances which no finite agent can overcome, or knows how
to overcome, in order to restrain rational creatures, inclining of their own accord
to sin, from an evil forbidden by the Law, but, for just reasons, permits them to
rush into sins,
[19] QUEN. (I, 534): “Hindrance is an act of governing Providence,
by which God limits the action of creatures according to His judgment, so that they
do not produce the result, which
[20] QUEN. (I, 534): “Direction is an act of governing
Providence, by which God so regulates the good actions of creatures, that they tend
and are led to the object intended by God (
[21] QUEN. (I, 534): “Determination is an act of governing Providence, by which
God has appointed to the strength, actions, and sufferings of creatures, certain
limits within which they are restrained, both with respect to time and with respect
to greatness and degree,
[22] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 127):
“Although the Providence of God extends to all creatures, yet it has its grades.
For it is especially intrusted with the government of the human race,
BR. (308): “Divine Providence has also, with respect to the acts towards which it is directed, its
own grades, and, above other creatures, relates to men, but, in the human race,
especially to believers,
QUEN. (I, 529) distinguishes between the general and
the special object of Providence. The general object consists of all things in general
which exist,
As man is the centre of the entire creation, and thus also of Divine Providence, the Dogmaticians discuss at length the relation in which Providence stands to the origin, the progress, and the end of human life.
QUEN. (I, 529): “God controls the life of men partly
in its entrance, by forming and preserving men in the maternal womb (
Concerning (1) HOLL. (427): The
entrance of human life embraces both its formation and preservation in the womb
of the mother, and its being brought forth from the womb.” Thereupon BR. remarks
(309): “For this reason it is correctly stated that God has respect not only to
the universal, but also to the particular cause, and supplies the defect of second
causes, or, at least, directs and governs them in acting. This, indeed, some explain
so as to affirm, on the one hand, that when the wonderful variety, and connection,
and structure of the members of the body are considered, an efficient particular
cause acting with knowledge is required; and, therefore, that another and more sublime
virtue than that which is in the seed (commonly called δυναμις πλαστικη), and which
cannot be conceived of unless as belonging to God Himself, concurs with a special
influence. On the other hand, also, when the immateriality of the soul is considered,
and the fact, therefore, that it must be produced independently of the subject,
or from nothing; and that such a production demands an infinite power of action,
and is, therefore, peculiar to God alone; they infer that, for the production of
the human soul, God affords a special and determinate influence. But others, although
they believe that the human body and soul are alike produced by the parents themselves
as second causes, with the concurrence of God as the universal cause, nevertheless
regard the acts of protection afforded in the production and the birth of man, against
various calamities and dangers, as many eminent proofs of peculiar divine care and
favor; in addition to universal, they ascribe to God also a special or particular
concurrence, and refer thither the passage,
Concerning (2) HOLL. (427):
“God controls the progress of life,
Concerning (3) BR. (312): “Divine Providence
respects the termination of human life, not only so far as by a common law there
is given to every one his own constitution, by virtue of which he can, with the
general concurrence of God, attain a certain space of life (the natural limit of
life,
[23] CHMN. (Loc Th., I, 128): “That
God has not been bound to second causes in such a manner as to do nothing else than
as second causes excite Him, but that, beyond the customary order of second causes,
and contrary to the common course of nature, He
QUEN. (I, 535): “Providence is extraordinary when God operates either
without means, or beyond or above means, or contrary to means and their nature,
or, what is the same, above and beyond the order instituted by Himself, e.g.,
[24] HOLL. (448): “Providence with reference to good, is that which by preservation maintains, by co-operation promotes, and by governing directs the good of creatures to the praise of the divine glory. Providence with reference to evil, is that by which God is occupied with moral evil, not as an indifferent observer, but as the most just Judge, and, therefore, by acts preceding, attending, and following sin, exercises justice tempered by grace.” In the discrimination here made, the different relation in which God stands to the good and the evil is explained essentially in the same manner as in the doctrine of the divine government (comp. notes 18-21). The difference consists only in this, that here the more general conception of Providence is assumed, which embraces both government and preservation.
As acts of Providence
preceding sin, HOLL. (448-450) has enumerated: “Foresight, aversion to the sin foreseen,
and hindering.” As acts attending: “Support of the nature acting wickedly, concurrence
with the remote material of a vicious action, permission of the αταξια adhering
to the sinful action, limiting determination of the sin, direction to a good end.”
As acts following: “Imposing of the divine penalties,
[25] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 125): “Providence is a general action of God, by which He is present with His creature, sustaining and preserving it, as long as He wishes it to be preserved, and preserves the order of His work appointed by Himself, not by any fatal necessity, but as a most free agent; so that, for the sake of men, He controls all things, and moderates, changes, and hinders many things with respect to second causes.”
GRH. (IV, 136) thus summarily states the whole doctrine of Providence:
“The action of Divine Providence is either eternal, viz., προγνωσις και προθεσις,
or of time, viz., the preservation and governing of things created; and this, too,
either ordinary, through means, or extraordinary, without means, or contrary to
means. Both are occupied with all things, especially with human nature,
§ 22. When were they created?
CERTAINTY in regard to the existence of angels we attain only through revelation; for reason can at best make their existence only possible or probable. [1] They are, indeed, not referred to in the history of the creation; nevertheless we know that they are beings created by God, and we have reason to believe that they were not created before, nor after, but within the six days of creation; yet we know nothing further as to the day upon which they were created. [2]
The Holy Scriptures furnish us with more specific information, both in regard to the nature of the angels and their moral condition.
The Holy Scriptures represent the angels as, indeed, finite, because
created, but intelligent and spiritual, therefore incorporeal beings, which, without
needing a body, nevertheless have a personal subsistence. (QUEN. I, 444): “The angels
are spiritual substances (
From this description of their nature, and of the design of their creation, as given in the Holy Scriptures, there follows the series of attributes which we are to ascribe to them, and whereby we become better acquainted with their nature. [5]
From the nature of angels as spiritual beings, there follow:
1. The attributes of indivisibility, invisibility, immutability, immortality, eternal duration, illocality, definitive ubiety, and agility. For purely spiritual beings can neither be divisible nor visible (indivisibilitas — invisibilitas); [6] not physically changeable, for only that which is material is subject to such a physical alteration and development (immutabilitas); [7] not mortal, for only that which is corporeal is perishable; they, however, in duration are imperishable (immortalitas — duratio aeviterna.) [8] Further, they are not present at any particular place in such a manner as to occupy there a portion of space; and yet they are not everywhere present as God is, but are always present only at one particular place, yet in such a manner that they can be at any place they may choose, even the smallest, because they have no body that can occupy space (illocalitas — ubietas definitiva). [9] Finally, as they are not restricted in their movements by space and time, they can move with amazing celerity (agilitas). [10]
2. As intelligent beings, the angels possess the attributes of knowledge and freedom of the will, and, in view of the service for which they are designed, the attribute of power. God has therefore bestowed upon them reason, [11] and free will, [12] and great, though not unlimited, might and power. [13]
The Holy Scriptures divide angels into good and evil, assuming thus a difference in their moral condition. This could not, however, have existed from the beginning; for, as everything that at the creation proceeded from the hand of God was good, the angels must have been good also; at that time, therefore, we must assume that the moral condition of all of them was equally good. The difference in this respect must have arisen subsequently. We must distinguish, therefore, the original condition and that which was consequent upon this (status originalis et originalem secutus).
The original condition was one in which all the angels were equally good, righteous, and holy, endowed by God with wisdom and with the ability perfectly to perform the will of God, [14] yet with such freedom of the will, also, that the possibility of disobedience towards God and of apostasy was not excluded. [15] With these gracious gifts the angels were endowed by God, in order that by the proper use of the same they might attain to the end for which they were created, namely, the beatific sight and enjoyment of God; the original condition is therefore called the state of grace. [16] As, however, some of the angels made a bad use of the liberty that had been granted to them, the original condition ceased, and there arose that difference of moral condition in consequence of which the angels became divided into two classes, the good and the evil, the former entering into the state of glory, and the latter into the state of misery. [17]
From the time when the angels separated
into two classes, a change took place also in those who did not become disobedient
towards God. For, because they remained faithful to God and true to that which is
good, they have, as a reward for this, been so confirmed in that which is good that
they can no longer be in danger of falling, and that even the possibility of their
sinning no longer exists. BR. (267): “Those are called good (angels)
who have persevered
in the goodness or righteousness and holiness in which they were created, and have
been confirmed by God in that which is good, as a gracious reward for their obedience,
so that they can no longer lose this goodness, or sin, or become evil.” [18] Thus
the good angels have, at the same time, reached the goal for which they were originally
created by God, for they have attained to the enjoyment of beholding God, and so
have entered upon the state of glory. [19] The enlargement of all the powers originally
bestowed upon them is merely a consequence of this condition. [20] If they were
wise before (in the state of grace), they are now still more so, because they now
see God; [21] if they were holy before, they are now still more so, in such a sense
that there is not now even a possibility of their sinning. Their liberty is, however,
The employment of good angels consists (a) in worshiping God and (b) serving Him
in the world by protecting and watching over the pious, as well as by punishing
and restraining the wicked. QUEN. (I, 450): “The duties and works of the good angels
are to worship and praise God,
For these services, which they render to men, they deserve our gratitude, but ever species of worship or adoration addressed to them is wicked and superstitious. [25]
The Scriptures give us some intimation of a diversity of rank among the angels, without, however, giving any specific information on the subject. [26]
They are thus designated on account of their disobedience toward God, and the evil disposition remaining in them since the Fall. [27] HOLL. (396): “The evil angels are those who did not persevere in concreated wisdom and righteousness, but of their own free will turned away from God and the rule of right, and became the perpetual enemies of God and men, to be plagued with eternal torments.” In what this disobedience toward God consisted, cannot with certainty be learned from the Scriptures, but it is highly probable that pride was the sin through which they fell away from God. [28] The cause for this sin lay entirely in their will, with which they of their own accord turned away from God, and it was in no sense owing to any outward necessity or any defect in their nature. [29] How many of them thus apostatized from God, at what time, and whether all at once — concerning all this we have no certain information in the Scriptures. We know only this, that their apostasy preceded the fall of man, and that one evil angel stands at their head, as their leader and chief. [30]
As, however, the obedience of the good angels was followed by a reward, so the fall of the wicked angels was followed by a punishment on the part of God, namely this, that those who once apostatized from God remained forever rejected by Him, and accordingly have been transferred from the state of grace in which they hitherto stood, into a condition of the greatest misery (status miseriae); but they have to expect still heavier punishments at the judgment day. [31]
And as, in the case of the good angels, their transfer into the state of glory was followed by an enlargement of the powers originally conferred upon them, so the transfer of the wicked angels was likewise followed by a diminution of the powers originally conferred. They retain, indeed, those gifts and powers that are inseparable from their nature, but their knowledge is no longer, as in the state of grace, a source of blessing, but greatly obscured, and hence they think perversely about God and divine things. [32]
But the wicked angels make it their work to detract to the utmost from the glory of God and to hinder men in their attempts to secure their temporal and eternal welfare. [33] Yet they cannot, even in this way, with all their malice, entirely avoid serving God, for He makes use of them to punish the wicked and to chasten the godly for their own good. [34]
Definition. — QUEN. (I, 455): “Angels are finite spirits, complete, intelligent, endowed with great power and originally created by God in righteousness and holiness, for the glory of God and the service of man; of whom some by their own free will fell from their Creator and from concreated perfection, and were consequently deprived not only of the favor and felicity which they had, but also of the beatific vision of God which they might have been able to enjoy, and were cast into infernal fire for perpetual torment without any hope of pardon. The rest, however, continued in their original condition, and were so established by God in that which is good that they neither wish nor are able ever to lose it or fall away from it, and are enjoying God eternally.”
[1] QUEN. (I, 443): “That angels really exist is taught
both by express declarations of Scripture,
BR. (251): “It is scarcely possible that the existence of angels can be clearly demonstrated from the light of nature, although probable reasons may be assigned for it.”
As to the meaning of the word,
QUEN. (I, 442): “The name angel does not describe the nature of the being, but its office,
and signifies one sent, a legate, a messenger. Hence Augustine: ‘Do you ask for
the name of their nature? It is spirit. Do you inquire concerning the name of their
office? It is angel.’ The word angel etymologically signifies messenger. But by
the universally received usage and style of Scripture language it designates a nature
and a specific creature.” Yet because the word is originally nothing more than a
designation of office, it is used in the Scriptures with reference also to the Son
of God, as the uncreated Angel.
[2] CHMN.
(Loc. Th., I, 122): “Since Moses does not describe the creation of angels, many
curious inquiries have arisen, as, e.g., When were they created? . . . But, as the Scriptures
do not state the precise time and day of the creation of angels, we gladly remain
in ignorance of that which we neither can nor ought to know. It is enough, therefore,
for us to know (1) that the angels did not come into existence of their own accord,
nor were begotten from the substance of God, but were created; (2) that the angels
did not exist from eternity, nor indeed before that beginning when all things which
are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, began to be. For to have been in
the beginning can be said of Him alone through whom all things were made, and who
is eternal.
QUEN. (I, 459): “The angels were created by God (
[3] The angels are called “complete substances, or substances subsisting per se,” because they do not need a body in order that in conjunction with it they may constitute a person. HOLL. (378): “The human soul is an incomplete spirit, designed in itself and by its very nature to enter into the composition of an entire man. Hence also a separated soul has a natural propensity and inclination towards a body, with which as a component part it constitutes a complete man; but angels are not naturally designed to constitute a unit in themselves, along with a component part, but they have an essence terminating in itself. Wherefore the soul is an incomplete spirit, and angels are complete spirits.” Thus the following distinction can be made between angels and men, that the former are complete spirits and the latter incomplete spirits; while the difference between God and the angels is, that He is an uncreated and infinite spirit, while they are created and finite spirits. BR. (254): “As the angels have a spiritual essence in common with God and the human soul, so they differ from God in that their essence is not infinite, but finite, and from the soul of man in that their substance is complete.”
The proof that angels are complete substances
is drawn by QUEN. (I, 444): “(1) From their names, for they are called guardians,
[4] CAL. (IV, 23): “The purpose for which angels were created
was, with respect to God, His praise and the execution of the divine will (
[5] The most of the Dogmaticians divide the attributes of angels into negative and affirmative. As the former class, they enumerate indivisibility, invisibility, immutability, immortality, illocality. As the latter, knowledge, freedom of the will, power, eternal duration, definitive ubiety, agility. Instead of following this merely external method of arrangement, we prefer treating these attributes, after the example of CAL., BR., and others, in the order corresponding to the nature of angels; but we enumerate them, nevertheless, after QUEN. and HOLL., as they are less extensively treated by CAL. and BR.
[6] QUEN. (I, 445): “The indivisibility
of an angelic substance is owing to its incorporeity or immateriality, for what
is not made of matter, is no quantity, nor has it parts outside of parts, and consequently
is not divisible into quantitative parts.” Id. (I, 446): “Invisibility is a consequence
of spirituality; for a spirit cannot be seen by bodily eyes, hence also the angels
are enumerated among invisible beings (αορατα).
[7] The immutability
of angels is restricted, as one that is not such absolutely, but comparatively and
relatively. HOLL. (382): “God alone is absolutely immutable, the angels are immutable
only relatively; because they are not subject to physical mutations, which are peculiar
to natural bodies. For the angels do not beget,
[8] (a) When immortality is ascribed to angels, this is intended to express that there is nothing in them, as incorporeal beings, who for this reason are not subject to change or decay, that could occasion their death; but it is not meant thereby to deny that God has power over their life also.
CAL. (IV, 24): “Although they may be remanded again into nothing
by God, through His absolute power, by whom they were created from nothing, and
may thus be called corruptible, as God alone is incorruptible, and as He alone has
immortality,
(b) QUEN. (I, 446): “Endless
duration is attributed to angels, as the mean between eternity and time. Eternity
is that which belongs to God alone, and is without beginning or end. Time, which
belongs to corporeal creatures, has both beginning and end. But endless duration
has a beginning, yet is without end.” CAL. (IV, 28): “The created duration of things
indestructible in their nature is distinguished from time, and is called endless
duration [sempiternity]
[9] The angels, as incorporeal beings, occupy no space, and hence are illocal. QUEN. (I, 446): “The angels are not in a place by circumscription, as natural bodies, because they are spirits, but they rather co-exist with a corporeal place or with a body.” Yet they are not omnipresent, but always present only at a particular place. This latter idea is expressed by the attribute of alicubitas (being somewhere). QUEN. (I, 446): “There is attributed to them που or ubi (a somewhere), in which an angel definitively is. For angels are in a certain space by designation, or definitively, i.e., their substantial, not merely virtual, presence is limited (definitur) in a certain space, so that they are there, and not in other spaces, and much less everywhere; and, because an angel is devoid of parts, the whole angel is not only in the whole place, but the whole angel can exist in every part of the place, even the very least, yea, in a point.” The manner in which the being somewhere (das Irgendwosein) is predicated of angels, of God, or of physical bodies, is described by the following distinctions: Of the angels, it is said that “they are somewhere definitively (in ubi definitivo), since they at their own pleasure limit a certain space for themselves, in the whole of which they wholly are, and wholly in each part of the space, because their essence is indivisible.” Of God, it is said that “He is somewhere repletively (in ubi repletivo), since He fills all in all.” Of physical bodies, it is said that “they are somewhere circumscriptively or occupatively (in ubi circumscriptivo seu occupativo), because they occupy a space commensurate with themselves, and are circumscribed by the surrounding air.” HOLL. (384): “But the angels are not somewhere repletively, because they are not everywhere, like God; nor are they somewhere occupatively since they do not occupy a space commensurate with the peculiarity of their spiritual nature. For measure depends upon quantity, and an angel is devoid of that.”
[10]
HOLL. (384): “Wonderful is the agility and velocity of angels, so that without local
motion, which is a quality of bodies, and thus also without a succession of parts,
which they do not have, they are able to change the where of their presence with
extreme celerity. Yet it does not appear that angels are entirely devoid
[11] “That the knowledge of angels is great and superior to that of
all men, because joined with the knowledge of the Son of God; and yet that it is
not infinite, since they are ignorant of the day of judgment,” is deduced from
[12] HOLL. (382): “The will accompanies
the intellect; liberty accompanies the will. The angelic will is free, as well with
respect to immanent acts, of choosing or refusing this or that object, as
[13] HOLL.
(382): “The power of angels is great, but finite. (1) It is great, for they are
called ‘mighty in strength’ [R. V.]
[14] QUEN. (I, 446): “As to their original state, all angels were in the beginning created by God equally righteous, good and holy, to glorify God and render Him a holy service.”
This is proved: (a) By the general statement appended
to the narrative of the creation,
HOLL. (385): “The grace spoken of bestowed (1) on the part of the intellect, a certain habitual intellectual light or concreated knowledge for the recognition of God and of His will; (2) an habitual holiness of the will, by which the angels were able in the state of probation to begin and to end all their actions conformably to the eternal law of God.”
NOTE. — It is further remarked that
they were created in great numbers; how great these were is not known by us.
QUEN. (I, 446): “Because the angels were not to be multiplied as men by procreation, but
were created at once by God, so there was a certain number of them from the beginning,
which, as it was not increased in the course of time, nor will be increased, so
also it will
[15] HOLL. (385): “Perfect righteousness was concreated with the angels, but it was not inamissible or incapable of being lost. For the will of the angels in the state of grace was not fully fixed upon perpetually loving and choosing the good; but God granted to them liberty of will and a concreated propensity towards the good, so that there was in them, not a very near, but a very remote capacity to sin, consisting in the negation both of impeccability and of the inamissibility of the concreated blessings.”
QUEN. (I, 447): “The fall of certain angels did not occur in consequence of any concreated inclination or proclivity to evil, but through the abuse of internal liberty, i.e., certain angels fell while no intrinsic principle was inclining or determining them to a fall, while no external motive for falling was constraining or necessitating them; but because they had not yet been confirmed in the Good, and were indifferent to good and evil, they abused their liberty, and with perfect freedom left their own place.”
N. B. — The whole context shows that QUEN.’s phrase, “indifferent to good and evil,” is not meant to express indecision in regard to good or evil, but only the capacity to choose the one as well as the other; and that the phrase is selected with special reference to the subsequent condition in which the good angels are described as confirmed in that which is good.
[16] HOLL. (384): “The original state is the state of grace, which all the angels possessed in the original creation through the grace of the omnipotent Creator, and in which they were created equally wise and holy, and were placed upon the way to eternal happiness.” CAL. (IV, 57): “Before they were confirmed in the Good, they were on the way to happiness; but they had not yet reached the goal itself, namely, happiness.”
[17] QUEN. (I, 447): “With regard to their subsequent condition, some of the angels continued in their concreated goodness, truth, and holiness, and were confirmed in it by God; but others, by sinning through their own free will, fell away from their Creator. And hence arose the distinction between the good and the evil angels.”
The condition of the good angels, after that
period, is called the state of glory, and that of the evil angels the state of misery.
HOLL. (384): “The state of glory is that in which the angels who continued in concreated
wisdom and holiness, having been admitted to the unobscured vision of God, perpetually
enjoy His
[18] HOLL. (386): “The good angels are those who continued in concreated true wisdom and holiness, and are so illumined by God with the light of glory and so confirmed in the Good that, free from the danger of sinning, they clearly behold God and the perpetually enjoy His goodness.” QUEN. (I, 447): “They are called good angels, not so much on account of their entitative, metaphysical, or transcendental goodness, which belongs to all angels, even the evil (for, in as far as they have existence, in so far also they are good); nor only on account of their concreated good habit, for in this respect also they were just like the evil angels, who also equally had the same at first; but also on account of their good deeds, or their obedience yielded to God and their perseverance in the Good, and, finally, on account of their confirmation in the Good. The formal reason, therefore, why they are denominated good angels is, because they persevered in the truth and goodness in which they have been created, and are now so confirmed in it that they never will either wish or be able to fall from it.”
[19] Three things, therefore, according to CAL. (IV,
55), are to be predicated of the good angels: “(1) Persistence and continuance in
concreated truth and holiness. (2) Divine confirmation in the Good, which signifies
an eternal, immutable persistence in the blessings bestowed in creation, strength
in the Good, or the gift of absolute perseverance, and the great increase of those
blessings. Hence arises impeccability.” QUEN. (I, 448): “Good angels are so confirmed
in the Good that, as before they were only able not to sin, now they are altogether
unable to sin.
HOLL. (386): “He who clearly beholds God, the chief Good, cannot
but burn with perpetual love towards Him for he beholds nothing in Him but what
is good and to be loved; but he who perpetually loves God cannot sin.” Id.: “The
good angels, then, are confirmed in the Good when the light of glory is infused
into them by God, so that their confirmation in the Good is practically nothing
else than the infusion of the light of glory, in which they intuitively recognize
God.” That the angels, after having once been admitted into the state of glory,
cannot possibly sin, is inferred principally from
This introduction to the state of glory is described, indeed, as a reward which the good angels receive from God, but yet only as one that proceeded from the free grace of God; at the same time it is described as having been determined upon from eternity, but not by an absolute decree.
HOLL. (387): “The glory of the angels who are confirmed in the
[20] QUEN. (I, 448): “It is to be observed in general, that now, in consequence of and after this confirmation, there are greater excellences and perfection in angels than before the confirmation.”
HOLL. (388): “The angels acquired through the gift of confirmation more excellent knowledge, more perfect holiness, more perfect freedom, greater power, more complete concord.”
[21] QUEN. (I, 448): “As to the intellect of the angels, it shines no
doubt with more illustrious radiance, since they have reached the goal and are enjoying
the beatific vision of God, in which there is fulness of joy,
[22] CAL. (IV, 60): “(1) Holiness, not only that
by which they were marked as holy when in the state of grace; but being more perfect
now in holiness, they are confirmed in the Good and established in the state of
glory. From the more perfect knowledge of God there has resulted a more perfect
love of God, and so also a more perfect holiness; and, since they are always (δια παντος)
illuminated by the most glorious light of the knowledge and holiness of
God,
[23] QUEN. (I, 449): “The power of the good angels is very great.
For, though they were endowed with great strength at their creation, they have acquired
still more, since they have been advanced into the state of glory, and by it are
enabled to overcome the power of the devils. Hence they are called ‘those that excel
in strength.’
[24] AP. CONF., p 224, 8. Comp. also p 117. HOLL. (390): “The holy angels perform their works and duties by standing before God (with a most joyful psalmody (ψαλμωδια) they sing the praises of God; with the most humble worship (λατρεια) they revere and adore God; with the most prompt service (λειτουργια) they execute the will of God), by assisting godly men, and by resisting devils and wicked men.”
More specifically BR. (272) (in imitation of the earliest Dogmaticians, viz., CHMN.,
GRH.): “The good angels perform various functions in their happy life, some of which
pertain to their own happiness (for their happiness does not consist in idleness,
but in part itself signifies a certain activity (ενεργεια): in part, besides, admits
various functions, to be performed by those who are happy): others are ministerial,
by which the angels serve God and Christ, the God-man (
AP. CONF. Art. xxi, 8: . . . “We freely grant that the angels pray
for us. For we have the testimony of
BR. (276): “It
belongs to the office of the angels, with reference to the ecclesiastical estate,
to promote the ministry of the Word; and especially, to this end, they were present
as servants at the promulgation of the Mosaic Law (
(Ib.): “The political estate the angels serve by preventing
the bonds of the government from being sundered (
Id. (277): “The domestic estate they
serve by promoting the marriage of the godly (
(Ib.): “Finally, there will be a special duty of the angels,
which they will perform on the last day, when they will accompany Christ coming
to judgment, and announce His arrival with the sound of trumpets (
The Dogmaticians acknowledge that they have no definite answer to the question, whether every one have his own so-called guardian angel. BR. (274): “This is certain, that the guardianship of any man is not in such a way assigned to a particular angel that he is deprived of the aid of the rest. But it still may be asserted with probability, that one angel is appointed for the protection of each godly person, and that in extraordinary cases many angels are sent to the help of single individuals.”
[25] AP. CONF. P. II, Art. II: “Although the angels in heaven pray for us, . . . yet it does not hence follow that they are to be invoked, adored, etc., by us.” BR. (278): “On account of these perfections which we discover the angels to possess, and because they favor and assist us very greatly, it is also becoming that we praise and love them, and take heed lest we offend them by evil actions. But it is not becoming in us to direct our prayers to the angels. For that is either impious and idolatrous (namely, if we address religious prayers to them with the belief that they can bestow upon us spiritual gifts), or it is at least useless and ill-advised.”
HOLL. (392): “Angels are not to be religiously adored or invoked.”
[26] HOLL. (392): “THere is
no doubt as to the existence of a certain order among the good angels, but what
or what manner of angelic order that is, we think no one can know in this life.
Proof: (a) From the general rule, according to which God wishes everything in the
Church Militant to be done decently and in order,
[27] QUEN. (I, 450): “Angels are called evil, not because of their essence, for in respect to their essence they are good, and were created along with the rest of the angels in truth, holiness, and righteousness; but (1) in respect to their evil conduct, viz., their malicious defection and apostasy from God; (2) in respect to the habitual wickedness, or the horrible depravity of their nature, which was consequent upon that conduct; (3) in respect to their perseverance and persistence in incorrigible wickedness; and (4) on account of their evil doings, for they perpetrate only evil.”
[28] QUEN. (I, 452): “It does not appear what exactly was the first
sin of the evil angels. The temptation, however, with which Satan attacked and overcame
our first parents,
[29] QUEN. (I, 452): “The generic form of the diabolical fall consisted in the free and spontaneous turning away from God and the rule of right. For they were able to persevere in truth and concreated holiness and not fall away from it; they were able by the grace of creation to keep the rule of right; of their own accord, therefore, and freely they sinned, by the abuse of the freedom that was bestowed upon them. For they did not sin through any defect or impotence of nature, but from pure malice and contumacy, and by the spontaneous abuse of the will conferred upon them.”
[30] QUEN. (I, 452): “Those
who fell were individual angels, whose number is not mentioned in the Scriptures;
that they were many, however, we infer from the multitude of demons,
Id. (I, 453): “In what order the wicked angels sinned, whether all at once, whether one after another, or whether first one fell and by his example and persuasion induced others to apostasy and the fall, concerning this the Scholastics dispute, but ατερ γραφης, with no scriptural ground for their opinions.”
HOLL. (300): “It is probable that the wicked angels fell under the guidance of a certain leader or
chief, whom the Scriptures call Satan and the devil,
As to the time of the fall: HOLL. (Ib.): “They fell, not within the
six days of creation, but after they were ended (
[31] BR. (280): “The crime having been committed, all those angels lost the grace that had been concreated with them, and so fell into the most horrible misery without hope of restoration.”
CAL. (IV, 318): “The punishment of the wicked angels is partly the eternal desertion of God, whence they can never be converted; partly, rejection to infernal torments to be endured forever.”
HOLL.
(403) more specifically distinguishes the punishment of loss from the punishment
of the senses: “The punishment of loss, which is also designated as privative, is
the most lamentable casting away of grace and glory. The punishment of sense consists
of the positive torments which the demons have been keenly enduring ever since the
fall, and the still greater ones which they will undergo on the day of final judgment.
(
To the question, “Why may not the wicked angels be restored
[32]
QUEN. (I, 454): “The evil angels did not lose, through their fall, their natural
knowledge, or that which they had by the light of nature; for they know God and
other supernatural things after a certain manner. But that knowledge of supernatural
things is joined, 1, with great hatred and murmuring against God; 2, with jealousy,
envy, and rage against good angels, godly men and saints in heaven; 3, with ignorance,
doubt, error, and forgetfulness.
[33] HOLL. (400): “The doings of the wicked angels are of various kinds, but they
are all directed to the injury of the divine glory (
Among the evils that are inflicted upon individual persons
by the evil spirits is to be especially reckoned corporeal and spiritual possession.
The general description of this we cite from QUEN. (I, 456): “It is an action of
the devil, by which, through the permission of God, he instigates men to sin, and
occupies and torments their bodies, that they may throw away their eternal salvation.
Through the former, viz., the instigation to sin, there originates the spiritual
possession; through the latter, viz., his occupation of human bodies, there originates
the corporeal possession. The former is meant when it is said that the devil possesses
and fills the minds and hearts of the wicked, enters into them, and works in them,
[34] BR.: “Meanwhile God Himself uses the ministry
of evil spirits for chastening the godly in this world (e.g., Job), and for punishing
the wicked, as well in life (
§ 23. General Statement.
IN the first part we treated of God in general, and of the works that He has made; we now proceed to treat of Man, for whose sake the world was made, and for whose redemption Christ appeared. Here we are to describe his moral condition, i.e., the condition in which he now is, and because of which he needs redemption. [1] Inasmuch, however, as his present moral condition cannot be described without first explaining how it came to be, since it is no longer the original condition in which he was created, the description of the moral condition in which man now is must be preceded by the description of his original condition. [2]
The second part, therefore, falls into two divisions: I. THE STATE OF INTEGRITY; II. THE STATE OF CORRUPTION.
§ 24. State of Integrity Defined.
The state of integrity is the original condition of man created
after the image of God, in goodness and rectitude.” QUEN. (II, 2.) The first condition
of man is thus designated, because in it he was entirely uninjured and incorrupt
in all his endowments, powers, and attributes. [3] This
(1) Wisdom and the power to understand perfectly, according to the measure of his necessities, things divine, human and natural. [9]
(2) Holiness and freedom of the will, according to which man loved God and that which is good, and possessed the power to live, in all respects, in conformity with the will of God. [10]
(3) Purity of the natural affections, and the perfect harmony of all his powers and impulses. [11] HOLL. (470): “The perfections constituting the image of God were an intellect excelling in knowledge, perfect holiness and freedom of the will, absolute purity of the sensuous appetites, and the most harmonious agreement of the affections with the decision of the intellect and guidance of the will, in conformity with the wisdom, holiness, and purity of God, as far as was consistent with the capacity of the first man.”
These spiritual
and moral excellences, thus described, are the true reason why man is called the
image of God. [12] They are also summed up in the expression “original righteousness.”
[13] With these there are yet connected, as a natural consequence from them, corporeal
excellences, and a peculiarly exalted position in relation to the external world,
[14] viz., (a) corporeal impassibility and immortality, for neither suffering nor
death could touch man thus spiritually and morally endowed; and (b) external dominion
over the other animals (
All these excellences we must designate as natural to man in his
original state, not indeed in the sense that if he lost them he would no longer
be the same being; but yet in this sense, that they were created along with him,
and that they cannot be separated from him without making his whole condition different
from what it formerly was. This is expressed in the statement, that the image of
God is a natural perfection, and not an external, supernatural, and supplementary
gift. [17] This condition, with all its excellences, man would also have propagated
to his posterity (by natural generation,
[1] QUEN. (II, 1): “The subject of Theology is man, who fell into
misery from his original happy state, and who is to be brought back to God and eternal
salvation. The discussion here is not of
[2] HOLL. (461): “Concerning the Fall of man, the condition from which (terminus a quo) as well as the condition into which he fell (terminus ad quem) is to be considered. The condition from which he fell, is the state of innocence or integrity. The misery of fallen man cannot be accurately measured, unless the happiness which preceded it, and of which man, alienated from God, deprived himself, can be exactly estimated. For the loss of anything is understood from previous possession of it, and the magnitude of an evil is estimated by the good which has been lost.” The various conditions of man, CAL. (IV, 385) enumerates in the following order: “The states of man, which come to be considered in Theology, are diverse. One before the Fall, which is called the state of innocence; one after the Fall, which again is divided into a state of sin without grace, which they call a state of sin or corruption, and a state of sin under grace, through a gracious renovation commenced in this life, and to be completed in the next: whence the state of grace in this life is called the state of renovation, to which the state of glory succeeds in another life. . . . Moreover, although God desires the renovation of all men, and the Scriptures and Theology have been directed to this point, yet many are not renewed, and these, consequently, after this life, are compelled to undergo another state, viz., that of eternal condemnation. Thus, if all the conditions of man are to be regarded, five states may be assigned to him, viz., of nature innocent, corrupt, renewed, glorified, and condemned; or a state of innocence, of misery, of grace, of eternal glory, and of eternal shame. The Papists err, who invent yet another state, which they call that of the purely natural (purorum naturalium); which is nothing more than a mere figment of the Scholastics; since, indeed, a man never did exist, nor could exist, with the simple negation both of innocence and grace and of sin and misery, who was neither just nor unjust, and who neither pleased nor offended God.” In the topic which is under discussion by us, only the first two states are considered, for the subject of Theology is only “man in a state of sin, who is to be restored to salvation.”
[3] CAL. (IV, 389): “It is called a state of integrity, because man in it was upright and uncorrupt
(
[4] BR. (289): “It is evident that there are other creatures which are called very good, and, though created according to a certain form, agreeably to the divine intellect, yet not in the image of God.”
[5] HOLL. (462): “The formal requisites of an image, generically considered, are:
(a) Resemblance, or agreement with the model or prototype; because it is the property
of an image to represent that of which it is an image; but this cannot be done without
resemblance; (2) Origin, or the process by which the image is made after the model,
because the image was made to imitate the prototype, for the sake of representing
it.” The difference, according to HOLL. (Ib.), between a vestige (vestigium) and
an image, is expressed in the following manner: “An image clearly represents that
of which it is an image; a vestige obscurely points to that of which it is a vestige.
In all creatures are seen the vestiges of divine power, wisdom, and goodness; but
in unfallen man the image of God shone forth with full splendor.” HOLL. (464): “דמות
is the archetype, like which anything is made, as is indicated by the prefix כ.
But צלם is the ectype in which the express resemblance is seen. Hence the meaning
of the words: ‘Let us make man in a condition which may be determined according
to our perfections and bear our likeness.’ Cf.
[6] It is well known that the expression, “image of God,” is employed in a variety
of significations, and therefore we must ascertain from other passages in what respect
man can be said to be like God. In the following passages, CAL. (IV, 572) furnishes
the proper rule according to which we can discover the resemblance which we are
considering: “Inasmuch as the conformity of man to God, as an archetype, is found
to be manifold, and, in respect to this conformity, the image of God is variously
defined by different persons, the following rule should be particularly observed,
lest we should here depart from the proper sense of the Scriptures: That the conformity
of man to God refers to the image of God, which, having been impressed upon our
first parents in creation, and having been almost entirely lost through transgression
is to be restored by renovation in this life, and, chiefly, in blessed regeneration
for the life to come.” This rule points to the passages,
A distinction is made, also, in the “accidental” image of
God “understood generically and figuratively, or specifically and literally.” In
the former sense, the resemblance of man to God is asserted “on account of a certain
analogy or similarity to God.” (HOLL. (463): “The substance itself of the human
soul, exhibits certain things that are qeia or divine, and stands related to the
Divinity as to a model. For God is a spirit, immaterial, intelligent, acting with
a free will, etc. These predicates can, in a certain manner, be affirmed of the
human soul.”) In this sense, however, man did not lose it through the Fall, and,
therefore, it can be affirmed of him also after the Fall,
[7] GRH. (IV, 242): “In the following passages (
[8] BR. (293): “The divine image, in the special acceptation
of the term, implies certain accidental perfections, created in the intellect and
will of the first man, conformable to the perfections
GRH. (IV, 248): “This is the description of the image of God in the first man, given in the Scriptures, namely, that it was righteousness and true holiness, by which are meant the highest rectitude, integrity, and conformity to the divine Law, of all the powers of soul and body — the highest perfection, innocence, and purity of the whole man, which his nakedness and his dwelling in Paradise prove.”
[9] BR. (293): “In respect of intellect, God bestowed
upon the first men, in imitation of Himself, as of a model, a certain wisdom, i.e.,
a certain habitual enlightenment or perfection of intellect, so that they attained
a high degree of knowledge in things divine, human, and natural, and that which
was sufficient for their primeval state.” The proof of this, according to QUEN.
(II, 5) appears: “(1) from
The nature and extent of this wisdom are more particularly defined in the following, BR. (294): “The intellect of man understood the essence and will of God, so far as it was necessary to attain this end, viz., that the intellect might prescribe the worship that should be rendered to God, or so far as was essential to right and holy living.” This wisdom is described as “of such a nature that it could still be increased in the course of time, and not as so perfect and comprehensive that it could extend to the knowledge of the free decrees of God, or that it implied a perfectly accurate knowledge of all natural things.”
QUEN. (II, 6): “This knowledge of Adam was excellent, full, perfect, and
such as no man since the Fall can acquire, either from the volume of Nature or from
that of Scripture. When, therefore, the inquiry is made, whether the intellect of
the apostles, after the reception of the Holy Ghost, was superior to that of Adam
before the Fall — the reply is: We must distinguish between the knowledge of divine
things and the mysteries of faith, and the perfect and complete knowledge of all
things natural and useful to man. In reference to the former, we can believe that
the apostles possessed greater knowledge than Adam, because, after the advent of
Christ, these things were known more fully and distinctly than before.
HOLL. (471): “The knowledge of Adam was truly excellent, and sufficient
for his primeval state; but it was not the intuitive knowledge of God. For the clear
vision of God is not given on earth, but is promised to be given in heaven.
[10] BR. (294): “In regard to the will, spiritual strength was bestowed by God upon man, or an habitual inclination and prompting to love God above all things, and to do all things according to the direction of an intellect rightly illuminated; but to avoid what it judged should be avoided, and to govern the lower powers of his nature, lest they should in some way break forth into inordinate and sinful acts.”
QUEN. (II, 6): “The perfection of the will of the first man, therefore, consisted (1) in a natural inclination to that which is good, which altogether excluded every proximate power of erring; (2) in a free and unhindered volition of good, and the execution of that volition: and thus there was in him a holy freedom of the will, and a free holiness which excluded all sin. But his will was free in such a way that it inclined only to good, and was not prone to the choice of evil or the neglect of good; whatever occurred afterwards, happened through an unfortunate abuse of the freedom of the will.” But “holiness in the first man did not introduce absolute impeccability, but only a relative freedom from sin in his will.”
[11] HOLL. (474): “There were in the first man the most exact harmony and wonderful agreement of all the higher and lower powers of his nature. For reason most promptly obeyed the divine law, the will reason, the sensuous appetite the will, the affections the appetite, and the members of the body the affections.”
BR. (295): “For this
reason it is that our first parents, in the state of integrity, knew not that they
were naked, neither blushed; i.e., their sensuous appetites (although an object
were present which could entice them) were not influenced, even in the least degree,
by any inordinate affection.
HOLL. (474): “There is an antithesis of the Papists and Socinians, ascribing to our first parents a concreated rebellion of the sensuous appetite against the judgment of sound reason.”
[12] BR. (296): “This wisdom, righteousness, and holiness of the first men so express the idea of the divine image, that it is from them only, speaking in the abstract, that man can be called the image of God.”
[13] The expression, “original righteousness,”
was the one more frequently employed, in the earliest systems of divinity, to point
out man’s original condition. AP. CONF. (I, 17): “Original righteousness implies
not only an equable temperament of the bodily qualities, but also these gifts, viz.,
a more certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or a certain rectitude
and power of attaining them. And this is proved by the Scriptures, when they say
(
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 227): “Original righteousness was not only the receiving, but also the rectitude and soundness, of all the powers.” It consisted not only in an equable temperament of the body, but especially in the rectitude of the powers of the soul. It comprehended not only the second table of the Law, but also the first. Nor did it consist only in external actions, or the inferior powers of man. This is, in substance, all that the earliest divines say concerning the state of integrity. The view which has been given in the text belongs to a later period.
Concerning the expression, original righteousness, CALOV. remarks
in addition (IV, 598): “It is called righteousness, not as this virtue is distinguished
from others (which is called particular righteousness), but as general righteousness,
in the common acceptation, which, however, is here understood in a higher sense,
comprehending not only all moral, but also spiritual virtues, not merely those which
relate to the will, but those also which have respect to the intellectual
[14] Many divines include these excellences in their definition of image; yet they make a distinction between “the image partly received (μερικως), which denotes knowledge and original righteousness, and the image wholly received (ολικως) which embraces all things that complete the image of God.” The excellences of the first class they call “the principal perfections, whose seat is the soul;” those of the second class are called “the less principal, whose seat is the body.” The latter class QUEN. (II, 7) divides into those which are within man and those which are without him. If these excellences are included in the definition of the image of God, then the following is of value in reference to the difference between the image of God and original righteousness, QUEN. (II, 3): “The image of God and original righteousness differ as the whole and a part. The image of God includes as well the principal as the secondary conformity with God; but original righteousness is ordinarily received as embracing only the principal conformity.”
[15] (a) HOLL. (475) proves impassibility
in the following manner: “Painful and destructive sufferings are the punishment
of sin (
QUEN. (II, 7) remarks on this point: “The first
men in the state of innocency had a body incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it
was not exposed to those things which could have injured their natural disposition
and contributed to the death and corruption of the body. Such things were: a freedom
from all injuries arising from pain and trouble, special protection against rains,
winds, heat, diseases, etc., and other inconveniences, which now, since the Fall,
are innumerable (
(b) Immortality.
QUEN. (II, 7): “It is proved from
We must distinguish (1) between the immortality which denotes absolute freedom from the power and act of dying (and thus God is immortal, and angels, our souls, and the bodies of the redeemed and the damned), and (2) the immortality which denotes a freedom from the proximate power of dying and the natural tendency to death, and, at the same time, from the act of dying, in such a manner, however, that death could happen upon a certain proposed condition; and such was man’s immortality in his state of integrity. We must make a distinction between absolute freedom from death, which will exist in another life, and a conditional or decreed freedom, which existed in the first state of man (viz., as long as he should not sin), and which did not exclude but included the use of food and drink, and especially the eating of the tree of life, by which means our first parents were enabled, in a natural way, to perpetuate life. It is one thing not to be able to die, and another to be able not to die, and still another not to be able not to die. The last belongs to all sinners, the second to Adam in his state of integrity, and the first to the blessed.” (II, 8.)
(c) Dominion.
HOLL. (475): “(a) God granted to the first man dominion over sublunary things, extending
over seas and lands, but not over the stars of heaven, except as far as he converted
their influence to his own advantage. (b) That dominion was not absolute and direct,
but relative and useful, which denotes the inhabiting of the earth, with the use
of its fruits. (c) Dominion is received either in its etymological signification
for the right and power of ruling, or formally for actual ruling. In the former
sense, it is the less
BR. (297) cites some more corporeal excellences, viz.: “But God bestowed upon man in respect of his body also a certain image of Himself, inasmuch as not only the perfections of the soul expressed themselves through the external acts of the body, but, in addition, the members themselves, of the organic body, have a certain analogy to the divine attributes, viz.: the countenance, erect towards heaven, furnishes a semblance of the divine majesty; but particularly the immortal body, or that which could endure forever and remain free from every corruption, bears, according to the intention of God, a resemblance to the divine immortality.” Yet Baier perceives that not all these excellences were lost by the Fall, and reckons them in part, therefore, as belonging to the image of God generically received.
[16] Therefore the original condition of man is called a most happy one. QUEN. (II, 2): “The happiness of it appeared (1) from the condition of the soul, which was wise and holy; (2) from the condition of the body, which was beautiful, not susceptible of suffering, and immortal; (3) from the condition of life, which was happy and blessed; (4) from the condition of his habitation, which was most pleasant, truly a garden of pleasure, called Paradise.”
GRH. (IV, 247): “Hence it happened that man, joyful, blessed, and contented, delighted in God, his Creator, there being in him neither fear, nor terror, nor sadness.”
[17] BR. (296): “Therefore also this divine image was a natural endowment, or it belonged naturally to man, so that he might rightly perform his connatural acts; since, in the absence of this, his nature would not have been pure, but impure.”
HOLL. (477): “The image of God did not, indeed, constitute the nature of the first man, after the manner of an essential part; nor did it emanate from his nature, per se and necessarily, as if properly inseparable from it: yet it was natural to the first man, because by creation it began to exist with his very nature, and thus both belonged to him and was deeply impressed in him, and also thoroughly perfected his nature in the state of integrity, so that he could attain his end; it could be propagated, also, to posterity by natural generation.”
The different significations in which
the word natural is used are, according to QUEN. (II, 9), the following: “Anything
is said to be natural (1) by constitution (constitutive), viz., that which constitutes
a nature itself, and is either the nature itself, or an essential
Original Righteousness
is, therefore, not a supernatural gift, for “that is supernatural which does not
belong to nature from its origin, but by special grace is superadded by God to supply
its imperfection.” If original righteousness, then, were said to be a superadded
gift, that would conflict with
HOLL. (478): “Antithesis of the Papists, who maintain that the image of God was a supernatural gift superadded to man for the purpose of supplementing his connatural imperfection, as a wreath or garment adorns a man externally, and as the rein restrains the horse. But as the nature of man and of the horse remains incorrupt when the garment and the rein are removed, thus they suppose that the nature of man was not corrupted by the Fall, the image of God having been removed, but that it remained upright.”
Together with this assertion is also rejected the other concerning the status purorum naturalium. (See Note 2.)
[18] On this point the Dogmaticians are not agreed. GRH., CAL., QUEN., and other call the gracious indwelling of the Trinity, etc., a supernatural gift; others, as HOLL., understand this also as a natural gift. HOLL. (484): “There are, indeed, some theologians of great reputation who think that the grace of God and the indwelling of the most Holy Trinity were supernatural to the first man. Yet, if we consider (1) that the nature of the first man never was nor ever could be upright without the indwelling and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and (2) that original sin, which came into the place of the divine image after the fall of Adam, introduced into fallen man not only corporeal but also spiritual death (which consists in the deprivation of the mystical union of the soul with God) we agree with those authors who decide that divine grace and the indwelling of the most Holy Trinity were not supernatural, but natural, to the first man.”
On the other hand, HOLL. (ib.) points out as supernatural gifts “extraordinary revelation and that which is connected with it (viz., positive law and supernatural strength to fulfil it).”
“The State of Corruption is that condition into which man voluntarily precipitated himself by his own departure from the chief good, thus becoming both wicked and miserable. QUEN. (II, 48).
THIS state was brought about by sin, and we have, therefore, here to treat: (1) Of sin in general. (2) Of the particular sin by which this state was brought about, as well as of the state itself. (3) Of the actual sins proceeding form it; and finally, (4) Of the powers yet remaining in man after the Fall, or, of the question to what extent man yet possesses freedom of the will.
§ 25. Of Sin in General.
According to
The immediate consequence of sin is that the sinner, who broke the commandment which he was bound to obey, incurred guilt which deserves punishment. HOLL. (502): “The consequence of sin is responsibility for guilt and liability to punishment.” [6] The punishment is partly temporal, partly eternal.
[1] BR. (388 sq.): “By the Law is to be understood the eternal and immutable wisdom and decision of God concerning those things which belong or do not belong to a rational creature, as such, united with His will, that they may or may not be done.”
[2] HOLL. (497): “A sinner is a rational creature, endowed with a free will, and subject to the divine Law, who departs from it, by doing what it forbids, and neglecting what it enjoins.” (501): “That which is voluntary (το εκουσιον), does not enter into the definition of sin generically considered. Sin is called voluntary, either subjectively, as far as it inheres in the will, or effectively, according as it proceeds from a deliberate volition. Not every sin is voluntary in the latter mode. Sin is called voluntary, either formally, which is committed by one’s own volition, or virtually, which was voluntary in the root and stock of the human race, from which it has been propagated to posterity, whose will would have been the same as that in Adam, had they lived at the same time with him” [i.e., sin may be voluntary, when not volitionary]
[3] MEL. (Loc. Th., 56): “God is not the cause of sin, nor is sin a thing contrived or ordained by Him, but it is a horrible destruction of the divine work and order.”
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 146): “The explanation also must be noted, of what is intended when it is said that God is not the cause of sin, viz., that He neither desires or approves of sin, neither does He influence the will to sin. For some understand that He is not the author of sin in such a sense, as in the beginning to create it, or to have it in Himself, or to produce it through Himself, but that men sin nevertheless by the will of God, and that God produces sins not only permissively, but also efficiently, in men and by men; yet He is not, in their view, therefore to be called the author of sin. Therefore is added, as if for the sake of explanation: ‘author and cause of sin.’”
QUEN. (II, 49): “God is in no manner the efficient cause
of sin. Neither in part nor in whole, neither directly nor indirectly,
How God stands related to sin was shown in the discussion on the doctrine of concurrence.
[4] QUEN. (II, 49): “Whatever
want of conformity to Law (ανομια) there ever is in a rational agent must be ascribed
to the free will of the creature itself, as being spontaneously deficient in acting.
[5] CONF. AUG. (19): “Concerning the cause of sin, they teach that, although God creates and preserves nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, namely, the devil and impious men, which without the assistance of God turns itself away from God.”
CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 148): “The devil is the first author of sin: (1) because by his own free will he himself turned away from God; (2) because he is the cause of sin in the human race in this way, that he deceived and seduced Eve in the state of integrity, so that she departed from God.”
[6] HOLL. (502): “Guilt is a moral foulness or deformity, resulting from an act inconsistent with the Law and unworthy of a rational creature, and inhering in the sinner as a shameful stain. Responsibility for guilt (reatus culpae) is an obligation, by which man, on account of an act inconsistent with the moral Law, is held, as if bound, under sin and its blemish, so that in consequence of this act, the sinner is regarded and pronounced detestable.”
“The divine punishment is a grievous evil
by which God, the offended Judge, punishes the guilt before incurred and not yet
forgiven, so as to display His justice and majesty, and vindicate from contempt
the authority of the Law. Liability to punishment
§ 26. Man’s First Transgression, and the State thereby produced. viz., Original Sin.
It was the first of the human
family who committed the first sin. These, seduced by Satan under the form of a
serpent, of their own free will, transgressed the prohibition of God (
Concerning this state,
finally, it must be asserted, that it is natural to us in that sense in which this
is said of original righteousness in the state of integrity. Were this state different,
man would not cease to be man, and hence it does not constitute man’s essence, but
is connected with the essence, or the nature of man as he is now born, and that
too in the most intimate and inseparable manner; and as no man is now born, except
in that depraved state, so also this state can never be lost by man, as long as
he lives on the earth. Man, when he becomes a partaker of the Holy Ghost, can indeed
refuse obedience to his evil propensity; and, when redemption through Christ is
apprehended by faith, he is also freed from the consequences of sin, i.e., the wrath
of God and punishment; but yet the evil inclination to sin always remains in him.
All this is expressed in the adjuncts of original sin, which QUEN. thus enumerates
(II, 62): 1. Natural Inherence,
§ 27. Of Actual Sins.
Original Sin is the ground and source of all actual transgressions. By these we
are to understand, however, not only sins which manifest themselves in outward acts,
but also those which depend upon purely internal acts of man. HUTT. (Loc. c. Th.,
346): “Actual transgression is every act, whether external or internal, which conflicts
with the Law of God.” [1] They are numerous and diversified, and are divided, according
to QUEN. (II, 65), in the following manner: I. “In respect of an internal defective
cause in the agents, into voluntary and involuntary. A voluntary sin is an act by
which man transgresses the divine Law, by a deliberate volition, contrary to the
dictates of conscience. Involuntary sin is an act inconsistent with the Law, committed
without sure knowledge or a deliberate purpose of the will.” Involuntary sin is
accordingly divided into sins of ignorance and of infirmity. [2] II. “In respect
of the person sinning, 1, into our own sins and the sins of others. Our own sins
are those which we ourselves contract, either by doing what has been prohibited,
or by omitting to do what has been commanded. Those are called the sins of others,
which are indeed perpetrated by others, but in which we share or participate; [3]
2, into venial and mortal. Venial sins are those which, as soon as they are committed,
and at the very moment when they are perpetrated, have pardon connected with them
by an indissoluble bond. Mortal sins are those which produce spiritual death at
the very moment when they are committed.” [4] III. “In respect of the material in
which (in qua) they are committed, they are divided into internal and external.
Internal are those of the heart; external are those of word and deed.” [5] IV. “In
respect of the material about which (circa quam) they are committed; into sins against
the first table immediately and directly, and those against the second table, i.e.,
against God, against a neighbor, and against the person of the transgressor himself.”
V. “In respect of the sinful act itself: into sins of commission and of omission.
Sins of commission are those which consist in positive acts which come into conflict
with a negative precept. Sins of omission consist in the refusal or omission of
acts which are prescribed by a positive precept.” (BR. 440.) [6] VI. “In respect
of the effect: into sins which cry out for punishment, and those which do not. Of
the former kind are vicious acts which provoke God to vengeance, although men are
silent or only connive at them. The latter are those which God endures through His
longsuffering, and either postpones the punishment, or, if they have been committed
by the regenerate, forgives.” [7] VII. “In respect of their adjuncts, sins are divided
into, 1, more or less grievous (on account of the greater or less fault or wickedness
connected with them); [8] 2, into secret and manifest; [9] 3, into dead and living.
Dead sins are those which indeed remain in us, but are not known as sins, or certainly
not considered as great as they really are. Living sins are those which are known
to be such, and rage even after the knowledge of the Law,
§ 28. The Freedom of the Will.
Since so great a change has taken place in man through the Fall, the
question remains to be discussed, What powers to act does he still retain? [1] For,
since all these powers are dependent upon knowledge and will, it is natural that,
so far as knowledge and will are weakened or lost, these powers to act should also
thereby suffer. But the question, as to the powers retained by man, is identical
with that as to how far freedom of the will (liberum arbitrium) in regard to his
actions pertains to him [2] As, however, various opinions have often been entertained
in reference to this liberum arbitrium, it is necessary, first of all, that we definitely
determine the proper significance of this term. If we understand by it the will
itself, then it cannot be questioned that since the Fall this still belongs to man,
for without this he would cease to be man. [3] In like manner it belongs also to
the nature of man that neither in his will nor in his acts, neither externally nor
internally (by instinct), can he be determined by irresistible necessity. [4] All
this is therefore to be predicated of man after the Fall, no less than before it,
for all this belongs strictly to the essential nature of man, which suffered no
change through the Fall. But, if we understand by liberum arbitrium that power of
willing, in virtue of which man can act in everything, in good as well as in evil,
entirely without hindrance, just as he pleases (“the liberum arbirium is that power
of the will which, following the judgment of reason, enables man most freely to
embrace the good and resist the evil” (HUTT., Loc. c. Th., 269)), [5] then it follows,
from the change that has occurred in man through the Fall, that this cannot now
be predicated of him. If this change consists in the loss of the divine image, it
at once follows that man can no longer freely choose between good and evil, but
has lost the power to will and to do that which is good. [6] If, then, we would
describe more particularly the liberum arbitrium, as it exists in fallen man, we
must say, that man, in consequence of the evil disposition that dwells within him
since the Fall, is no longer able to will or to do anything really good and acceptable
to God, viz., nothing of all that the Holy Scriptures designate and prescribe as
such, because all of this can be accomplished only under the special influence of
the Spirit of God. He is therefore so completely destitute of the liberum arbitrium
in rebus spiritualibus, [7] that he cannot of his own accord even cherish a desire
for salvation and a change of his present depraved condition. [8] And in this condition
all that remains to him is liberum arbirium in malis (liberty of choice in regard
to what is evil), [9] and liberum arbitrium in rebus externis, [10] namely, in all
those things which being recognizable by the light of reason, are within the reach
of the natural powers, without needing the aid of a truly good disposition. [11]
[1] GRH. (V, 87): “Connection with the preceding. We have seen above in what wonderful
and miserable ways original sin, like poison, has pervaded all the powers of man,
how intimately the corruption arising from it has adhered to human nature, what
pestilential fruits that envenomed seed has produced. It remains for us to inquire,
what there is yet of strength in man.” CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., 179): “This is the question,
What human powers are there after the Fall to produce obedience to the Law, when
darkness is in the mind, aversion to God in the will, and in the heart rebellion
against the Law of God? And, because not only external civil acts are demanded by
the Law of God, but a perfect and perpetual obedience of the whole human nature,
what, and how much can the will of man accomplish? Therefore the caption of this
section would have been more clearly stated, concerning man’s powers, than concerning
the freedom of the will.” [2] QUEN. (II, 170): “These powers remaining in man after
the Fall are otherwise called the freedom of the will.” GRH. (V, 87), thus explains
the term liberum arbitrium, or freedom of the will: “These powers of man are best
judged of from the rational soul by which he is distinguished from the brutes, and
is constituted a distinct species. Two faculties belong to the rational soul, viz.,
mind and will: the former performs its office by knowing, discriminating, reflecting,
judging; the latter by choosing and rejecting. From the concurrence of both, that
is produced which is commonly called the free determination, which is a faculty
of the mind and will, so that the determination belongs to the mind and the free
belongs to the will.” Therefore HOLL. (573): “The proper and adequate seat of free
determination is the will. But the intellect concurs antecedently, and by way of
preparation (paraskeuastikwß), in the execution of the free determination.” QUEN.
(II, 170): “The term ‘free determination’ is not given in so many words in the Scriptures;
yet is found for substance, and in equivalent terms, in
§ 29. Sources of Salvation.
If man is to be redeemed from the lost condition in which
he lies since the Fall, this can be accomplished only through divine grace. This
exhibits itself in three acts, one of which proceeds from the Father, another from
the Son, and the third from the Holy Ghost. The Father is moved with compassion
towards fallen man, and this impels Him to the gracious determination to effect
redemption by the sending of the Son. The Son accomplishes this redemption, and
the Holy Spirit offers to man the means whereby he can appropriate it to himself.
The third part of our work therefore treats: I. Of the benevolence of God the Father
towards fallen man, who is to be delivered and blessed; II. Of the fraternal redemption
of Christ; III. Of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption15
1 5 HOLL. (585): “The sources of salvation are the acts of divine grace, upon which
the eternal salvation of men depends. The Saviour Himself,
§ 30. Benevolence of God.
The gracious will of God, to deliver fallen men from their ruined condition,
is the first thing we have to consider, for it is this that originates the sending
of the Son, who accomplishes the redemption, and the sending of the Holy Spirit,
who applies it to individual persons. This, His gracious will, God at once announced
in His promise (recorded in
§ 18, Note 13. [9] HOLL. (600): “Although the first compassion of God, by
which He pitied the human race that had fallen into sin, and in fact the appointment
of a Mediator, and the administration of the means of salvation, are absolute, yet
the merciful will of God to confer remission of sins and eternal salvation is not
absolute, but relative and limited by justice, because it has respect to the satisfaction
of Christ, by which divine justice was satisfied.” QUEN. (III, 5): “It is founded
in Christ, and is limited to the ends and means by which He is moved.” In regard
to the will of God, in general (HUTT., Loc. c., 782): “The will of God, in this
mystery, is not considered according to its own most simple essence; it is distinguished
only according to our understanding, and access to it does not lie open to our mind;
but by reason of His act, with respect to things created, God goes forth beyond
His own essence. According to the former method of consideration the will in God
is just as indivisible as it is impossible for the essence of God itself to be divided
into parts. But, according to the latter method of consideration, namely, as the
will of God goes forth beyond its essence to creatures, it is twofold. For, whatever
God wills to take place in created things, He wills either simply or with a determined
mode or condition. The former will is commonly called, in the schools, absolute,
and is joined with the immutable necessity of the event; according to this He calls
those things which are not, as though they were,
§ 31. Statement of the Subject.
THE redemption designed by God from eternity was accomplished in time by His only begotten Son,
Jesus Christ, [1] and of this we are now to treat. The subject will be discussed
under three heads: I. The Person of the Redeemer. II. The Work by which He accomplished
Redemption. III. The several States in which He appeared from the time of His incarnation.
[1] HOLL. (650): “The Redeemer of the human race is Jesus Christ. The Redeemer is
called Jesus, i.e., Saviour, because He was to save His people from their sins,
§ 32.
Of the Personal Union. In Christ the Redeemer we recognize a duality of natures
and a unity of person, as expressed in the statement: “In Christ, born of the Virgin
Mary, are two natures, a divine, that of the Word (ho logoß), and a human nature,
so united that Christ is one person.” (CHMN., Loc. Th., I, 75.) We are to treat,
therefore, in succession, first, of the two natures in Christ, and secondly, of
the person of Christ. I. Of the Two Natures in Christ. — Christ is God and man. This
is otherwise thus expressed: He exists in two natures, the divine and the human.
[1] The divine nature He has of God the Father, and from eternity; the human nature
He assumed in time from the Virgin Mary. [2] Each of these natures is to be regarded
as truly genuine and entire, [3] for Christ is true God and true man. [4] As true
man He participates in all the natural weaknesses to which human nature is subject
since the Fall — He participates therein, however, not in consequence of a natural
necessity, but in consequence of His own free will, for the accomplishment of His
mediatorial work; for, as He was born of a human being, the Virgin Mary, but not
begotten of a human father, His human nature did not inherit any of the consequences
of Adam’s sin. [5] This does not prevent us from ascribing to Christ a true, complete
human nature, like our own, as this is, indeed, predicated of Adam when not yet
fallen, inasmuch as original sin, that we have inherited in consequence of the sin
of Adam, has not given man another nature. It does, however, follow from the peculiar
circumstances connected with the birth of Christ, and from the peculiar relation
which the divine logoß sustains to this human nature, that certain peculiarities
must be predicated of the human nature of Christ which distinguish it from that
of other men. These are (1) the anupostasia [i.e., want of personality]; (2) the
anamarthsia [i.e., sinlessness]; (3) the singularis animae et corporis excellentia
[i.e., the peculiar excellence of soul and body.] [6] The first results from the
peculiar relation which the divine logoß entered into with the human nature; for
this latter is not to be regarded as at any time subsisting by itself and constituting
a person by itself, since the logoß did not assume a human person, but only a human
nature. Therefore there is negatively predicated of the human nature the anupostasia,
inasmuch as the human nature has no personality of its own; and there is positively
predicated of it the anupostasia, inasmuch as this human nature has become possessed
of another hypostasis, that of the divine nature. The anamarthsia (sinlessness)
is expressly taught in many passages of the Scriptures (
§ 33. Continuation.
The hypostasis of the divine nature having thus, through the personal union, become
at the same time that of the human nature, and thus no longer only a divine but
a divine and human nature being now predicated of the person of the Redeemer, a
real communion of both natures is thereby asserted, in consequence of which the
two natures sustain no merely outward relation to each other; for, as the hypostasis
of the divine nature is not essentially different from this nature itself, and this
hypostasis has imparted itself to the human nature, it therefore follows that there
exists between the divine and human nature a true and real impartation and communion.
[1] The first effect of the personal union is, therefore, the “communion (also communication)
of natures.” QUEN. (III, 87): “The communion of natures is that most intimate participation
(koinwnia) and combination (sunduasiß) of the divine nature of the logoß and of
the assumed human nature, by which the logoß, through a most intimate and profound
perichoresis, so permeates, perfect, inhabits, and appropriates to Himself the human
nature that is personally united to Him, that from both, mutually inter-communicating,
there arises the one incommunicable subject, viz., one person.” As, however, in
the act of union, the divine nature is regarded as the active one, and the divine
logoß as that which assumed the human nature, so the intercommunion of the two natures
must be so understood as that, between the two natures, the active movement proceeds
from the divine nature, and it is this that permeates the human. [2] It is, indeed,
just as difficult for us to form an adequate conception of this as in the case of
the personal union, and we must be satisfied with analogies, which furnish us with
at least an approximate conception of it. Such we may find, e.g., in the union of
soul and body; in the relation in which the three persons of the Godhead stand towards
each other; or in the relation between iron and fire in red-hot iron. Just as the
soul and body do not stand outwardly related to each other, as a man to the clothing
that he has put on, or as an angel to the body in which he appears, but as the union
between soul and body is a real, intimate and perfect one, so is also the union
and communion of the two natures. As body and soul are inseparably united, and constitute
the one man, so are also the human and divine natures most inseparably united. As
the soul acts upon the body and is united with it, without there being any mingling
of the two, the soul remaining soul and the body remaining body, so are we also
to regard the communion of the two natures in such a light, that each abides in
its integrity. As, finally, the soul is never without the body, so also the logoß
is to be regarded as always in the flesh and never without it. [3] If, now, there
really exists such a communion of natures, it follows — I. That the personal designations
derived from the two natures must be mutually predicable of each other; that we
must therefore just as well be able to say, “The man (Christ Jesus) is God,” as
“God is man,” which expressions, of course, do not signify that God, having become
man, has ceased to be God, but rather, that the same Christ, who is God, is at the
same time man (HOLL. (686): “The Son of God, personally, is the same as the Son
of man: and the Son of man, personally, is the same as the Son of God”); whence
the predicate “man” belongs just as much to the subject God as the predicate “God”
belongs to the subject man. [4] For, if we refuse to say this, we would betray the
fact that we conceive, not of two natures in Christ, but rather of two persons,
each remaining as it originally was, which would be Nestorianism. From the communion
of natures are, therefore, deduced the personal designations, i.e., statements in
which the concrete of one nature (as united) is predicated of the concrete of the
other nature; i.e., the two essences really (alehqwß) different, the divine and
the human, are in the concrete reciprocally predicated of one another, really and
truly, yet in a manner very singular and unusual, in order to express the personal
union. [5] To guard against a misunderstanding of these personal designations, it
may be more particularly stated that they are (1) not merely verbal, i.e., they
are not to be understood as if only the name, but not the nature thereby designated,
were predicated of the subject, as Nestorius does, when he says of the son of Mary,
He was the Son of God, ascribing to the subject a title, as it were, but altogether
refusing to acknowledge that He who was the son of Mary was also really the Son
of God; (2) not identical (when the same thing is predicated of itself); i.e., the
predicates that are ascribed to the subject dare not be so explained as if they
applied to it only in so far as the predicate precisely corresponds to the nature
from which the designation of the subject is derived. The proposition, “The Son
of God is the son of Mary,” dare not, therefore, be interpreted, “The man who is
united with the Son of God is the son of Mary;” (3) not metaphorical, figurative,
or tropical; as when, in the predicate that is applied to a subject, not the essential
nature itself of the subject is ascribed to it, but only particular qualities of
this predicate are appropriated to the subject, so that it might be said, in a figurative
sense, God is man, as we understand the expression when it is applied to a picture:
“This is a man,” “a woman;” or, when it is said of Herod, “He is a fox;” (4) not
essential and univocal; as if the subject, in its essential nature, were that which
the predicate ascribes to it (the expression, “God is man,” would then mean, The
nature of God is this, that it is the nature of man). The personal designations
are rather — (1) Real; i.e., that which is ascribed to the subject really and truly
belongs to it. (2) Unusual and singular; for, as there is no other example of the
personal union, so there are no other examples of the personal designations. But
from the communion of natures it follows also — II. That there is a participation
of the natures in the person as well as of the natures with each other. [6] This
is set forth in the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. BR. (467): “The communicatio
idiomatum is that by which it comes to pass that those things which, when the two
natures are compared together, belong to one of them per se and formally, are to
be truly predicated, also, of the other nature (either as regards concretes, or
for that which is peculiar to it.)” [7] According to this doctrine, therefore, it
is neither possible to ascribe a quality to one of the two natures, which is not
a quality of the whole person, nor is it possible to predicate an act or operation
of one of the two natures, in which the other nature does not participate (not,
however, in such a way as if along with the qualities or the acts proceeding from
them, their underlying essence were transferred to the other nature). [8] There
exists, therefore, a communicatio idiomatum between the natures and the person,
and between the natures reciprocally. [9] The communicatio idiomatum is, therefore,
of several genera, of which we enumerate three (for so many are distinctly mentioned
in the Scriptures), [10] the idiomatic, majestatic, and apotelesmatic. I. THE IDIOMATIC
GENUS. If the two natures are really united in one person, then every idioma (peculiarity)
that originally belongs to one of the two natures must be predicated of the entire
person; the idiomata (peculiarities) of the divine nature, as well as those of the
human nature, must belong to the person of the Redeemer. If, therefore, to be born
or to suffer is an idioma of the human nature, then we must just as well be able
to say, “Christ, the God-man, was born, suffered,” as it is said of Him, “by Him
were all things created,” although creation is an idioma of the divine nature. [11]
For, if we will not say this, but maintain that an idioma of the human nature can
be predicated only of the concrete of the human nature, and an idioma of the divine
nature only of the concrete of the divine nature, so that we would say: “The man,
Jesus Christ, was born,” “by Christ, who is God, all things were created;” then
the personal union would be set aside, and it would appear that two persons and
not two natures are recognized. [12] But it is just in this that the personal union
shows itself to be real, that all the idiomata which belong to the one or the other
nature are equally idiomata of the person. As, further, in virtue of the communion
of natures, and of the personal designations resulting therefrom, it is all the
same whether we designate Christ by both of His natures or only by one of them,
an idioma of one of the two natures can be just as readily predicated of the concrete
of the one as of the other; we can, therefore, just as well say, “God is dead,”
as, “the man, Jesus Christ, is Almighty.” [13] While, however, the idiomata of the
two natures are attributed to the concrete of both natures (to Christ, the God-man)
or to the concrete of one of the two natures (God — the man, Christ Jesus), it by
no means follows from this that therefore the idiomata of the one nature becomes
those of the other; for the two natures are not in substance changed by the personal
union, but each of them retains the idiomata essential and natural to itself. Therefore
it is only to the person that, without further distinctions, the idiomata of the
one or of the other nature can be ascribed; but this can in no wise happen between
the natures themselves, in such a sense as though each of them did not retain the
idiomata essential to itself. [14] To avoid such a misunderstanding in statements
of this kind, it is usual to designate particularly from which nature the idiomata
predicated of the person are derived. [15] General Definition. — HOLL. (693): “The
first genus of communicatio idiomatum is this, when such things as are peculiar
to the divine or to the human nature are truly and really ascribed to the entire
person of Christ, designated by either nature or by both natures.” [16] This genus
the later Dogmaticians divide into three species, according as the different idiomata
are predicated of the concrete of the divine nature, or of the concrete of both
natures. These species are “(a) idiopoihsiß (appropriation), or oikeiwsiß (indwelling),
when human idiomata are ascribed to the concrete of the divine nature.
§ 34. The Threefold Office of Christ.
The doctrine of the Person of Christ is followed by that of the Work
that He performed; for to accomplish this was the 1 8 GRH. was the first to treat
of this entire doctrine under a separate head; before his day it was discussed in
connection with other doctrines, usually under the head of Justification; and the
form, too, in which the doctrine is now set forth, appears for the first time complete
(though in brief outlines) in GRH. MEL. is the first to use the expression, Kingdom
of Christ; he does this, however, in the doctrine of the resurrection. STRIGEL then
annexed the Priesthood of Christ, which afterwards was developed into the sacerdotal
and prophetic offices. We cannot ignore the fact, that this topic has failed to
receive anything like as thorough a discussion and development as many others. very
design of His incarnation. This Work is the redemption of the human race. CONF.
AUG., III: “They teach, that the Word, i.e., the Son of God, assumed human nature . . .
that He might reconcile the Father to us and become a sacrifice, not only for original
sin, but also for all the actual sins of men.” To accomplish this work of redemption
was the work assigned to Christ upon earth, and the undertaking that He assumed.
We designate it as His mediatorial work, and understand by it all that Christ did
to effect a redemption, and all that He is still doing to make it available to men.
“The mediatorial office is the function, belonging to the whole person of the God-man,
originating theanthropic actions, by which function Christ, in, with, and through
both natures, [1] perfectly executed, and is even now accomplishing, by way of acquisition
and application, all things that are necessary for our salvation.” QUEN. (III, 212)
[2] This work Christ undertook in its whole extent, i.e. (1) While upon earth, He
Himself announces to men the divine purpose of redemption, and provides that after
His departure it shall be further announced to men. (2) He Himself accomplishes
the redemption, by paying the ransom through which our reconciliation with God is
effected. (3) After His departure He preserves, increases, guides, and protects
the Church of the Redeemed thus established. As these three functions correspond
to those of the Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings, the mediatorial office
of Christ is accordingly divided into the Prophetic, Sacerdotal, and Regal offices.
[3] [1] The Dogmaticians say here, expressly, that Christ is Mediator according
to both natures, as would indeed naturally and properly follow from the topic just
discussed. Erroneous opinions upon this subject, that arose even in the bosom of
the Evangelical Church itself, furnished the occasion of giving prominence to it,
and so we see the FORM. CONC. already denouncing existing errors upon this subject
(Epit., Art. III, 2 sq.: Concerning the righteousness of faith before God): “For
one side (Osiander) thought that Christ is our righteousness only according to the
divine nature. . . . In opposition to this opinion, some others (Stancar, the Papists)
asserted that Christ is our righteousness before God only according to the human
nature. To refute both errors, we believe . . . that Christ is truly our righteousness,
but yet neither according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human
nature alone, but the whole Christ, according to both natures.” . . . QUEN. (III, 212):
“For both natures concur for the mediatorial office, not by being mingled, but distinctly
and with the properties of both remaining unimpaired, and yet not separately, but
each with impartation of the other.” [2] GRH. (III, 576): “The office of Christ
consists in the work of mediation between God and man, which is the end of incarnation,
[3] GRH. (III, 576): “The office of Christ is ordinarily stated as threefold, that of a prophet, a priest, and a king; yet this can be reduced to two members” (thus Hutter), “so that the office of Christ is stated as twofold, that of a priest and of a king. For the priest’s office is not only to sacrifice, pray, intercede, and bless, but also to teach, which is a work that they refer to His office as a prophet.” QUEN. (III, 212): “Yet, by most, the tripartite distinction is retained.” “THe appropriateness of this distribution is proved according to GRH. (ib.): (1) From the co-ordination of Scripture passages. It is correct to ascribe just as many parts to the office of Christ, as there are classes to which those designations can be referred which are ascribed to Christ with respect to His office, and passages of Scripture which speak of the office of Christ. But now there are three classes to which the designations which are ascribed to Christ, with respect to office, can be referred. Therefore, etc. (2) From the enumeration of the benefits coming from Christ. Christ atones before God for the guilt of our sins . . . which is a work peculiar to a priest. Christ publishes to us God’s counsel concerning our redemption and salvation, which is the work of a prophet. Christ efficaciously applies to us the benefit of redemption and salvation, and rules us by the sceptre of His Word and Holy Ghost, which is the work of a king.” . . .
§ 35. The Prophetic Office.
By the Prophetic Office we understand the work of Christ, in so
far as He proclaims to men the divine purpose of redemption, and urges them to accept
the offered salvation. [1] This work Christ performed as long as He was upon the
earth; He thereby acted as a prophet, for it was the business of prophets to teach
and to declare the will of God; [2] and, in consequence of the greater dignity and
power that belonged to Him as the God-man, He performed this work in a much more
perfect and effective manner than all the prophets that preceded Him. [3] But this
did not cease with His departure from the earth; on the other hand, by the establishment
of the sacred office of the ministry, Christ made provision that this work should
still be performed, and that, too, with the same efficiency as before, inasmuch
as He imparted to the Word and the Sacraments, the dispensation of which constitutes
the work of the ministry, the same indwelling power and efficiency that belong to
Himself by virtue of His divine nature; and thus, in them and through them, He is
still effectively working since His departure. [4] His prophetic office is, therefore,
to be regarded as one still perpetuated, and we are to distinguish only between
its immediate and mediate exercise. [5] “The prophetic office is the function of
Christ the God-man, by which, according to the purpose of the most holy Trinity,
He fully revealed to us the divine will concerning the redemption and salvation
of men, with the earnest intention that all the world should come to the knowledge
of the heavenly truth.” (QUEN., III, 212) [6] From this prophetic office Christ
is called a Prophet,
§ 36. The Sacerdotal Office.
The second office of Christ is to accomplish the redemption
itself and reconciliation with God. [1] Christ thereby performed the work of a priest,
for it was the office of priests to propitiate God by the sacrifices they offered,
and therewith to remove the guilt which men had brought upon themselves. Christ,
however, did not, like the priests of the Old Testament, bring something not His
own as a sacrifice, but Himself, whence He is both priest and sacrifice in one person.
[2] This part of His work is called the Sacerdotal Office. “The sacerdotal office
consists in this, that Christ holds a middle ground between God and men, who are
at variance with each other, so that He offers sacrifice and prayers that He may
reconcile man with God.” [3] (BR., 491.) Accordingly it is subdivided into two parts,
corresponding to the two functions that belong to priests, i.e., the offering of
sacrifice and intercessory prayer. [4] The work is, therefore, in part already accomplished,
and in part is still being executed by Christ. The first part of it is called satisfaction,
by which expression, at the same time, the reason is implied why reconciliation
with God was possible only through a sacrifice; because thereby satisfaction was
to be rendered to God, who had been offended by our sins, and therefore demanded
punishment. [5] The other part is called intercession. I. SATISFACTION. — If the
wrath of God, which rests upon men on account of their sins, together with all its
consequences, is just and holy, then it is not compatible with God’s justice and
holiness that He should forgive men their sins absolutely and without punishment,
and lay aside all wrath together with its consequences; not compatible with His
justice, for this demands that He hold a relation to sinners different from that
He holds towards the godly, and that He decree punishment for the former; not with
His holiness, for in virtue of this He hates the evil; finally, it is not compatible
with His truth, for He has already declared that He will punish those who transgress
His holy Law. [6] If God, therefore, under the impulse of His love to men, is still
to assume once more a gracious relation to them, something must first occur that
can enable Him to do this without derogating from His justice and holiness; [7]
the guilt that men have brought upon themselves by their sins must be removed, a
ransom must be paid, an equivalent must be rendered for the offence that has been
committed against God, or, what amounts to the same thing, satisfaction must be
rendered. [8] Now, as it is impossible for us men to render this, we must extol
it as a special act of divine mercy [9] that God has made it possible through Christ,
and that He for this end determined upon the incarnation of Christ, so that He might
render this satisfaction in our stead. [10] In Him, namely, who is God and man,
by virtue of this union of the two natures in one person, everything that He accomplishes
in His human nature has infinite value; while every effort put forth by a mere man
has only restricted and temporary value. Although, therefore, a mere man cannot
accomplish anything of sufficient extent and value to remove the infinite guilt
that rests upon the human race, and atone for past transgressions, yet Christ can
do this, because everything that He does and suffers as man is not simply the doing
and suffering of a mere man, but to what He does there is added the value and significance
of a divine and therefore infinite work, [11] in virtue of the union of the divine
and the human nature, and their consequent communion; so that, therefore, there
can proceed from Him an act of infinite value which He can set over against the
infinite guilt of man, and therewith remove this guilt. In Christ, the God-man,
there is therefore entire ability to perform such a work, and in Him there is also
the will to do it. But a twofold work, however, is to be accomplished. The first
thing to be effected is, that God cease to regard men as those who have not complied
with the demands of the holy Law. This is done, when He who is to render the satisfaction
so fulfils the entire Law in the place of men that He has done that which man had
failed to do. Then it must be brought about that guilt no longer rests upon men
for which they deserve punishment, and this is accomplished when He who is rendering
satisfaction for men takes the punishment upon Himself. Both of these things Christ
has done; [12] the first by His active obedience (which consisted in the most perfect
fulfilment of the Law), for thereby He, who in His own person was not subject to
the Law, fulfilled the Law in the place of man; [13] the second by His passive obedience
(which consisted in the all-sufficient payment of the penalties that were awaiting
us), for thereby He suffered what men should have suffered, and so He took upon
Himself their punishment, and atoned for their sins in their stead. [14] Through
this manifestation of obedience to the divine decree in both these respects, Christ
rendered, in the place of man, [15] a satisfaction fully sufficient [16] and available
for all the sins of all men, which is designated as the former part of the sacerdotal
office by which Christ, by divine decree, through a most complete obedience, active
and passive, rendered satisfaction to divine justice, [17] infringed by the sins
of men, to the praise of divine justice and mercy, and for the procurement of our
justification and salvation.” HOLL. (735). [18] But since Christ rendered satisfaction,
as above stated, He thereby secured for us forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation,
which we designate as His merit that is imputed to us. QUEN. (III, 225): “Merit
flows from satisfaction rendered. Christ rendered satisfaction for our sins, and
for the penalties due to them, and thus He merited for us the grace of God, forgiveness
of sins, and eternal life.” [19] II. INTERCESSION. — For, after Christ had thus offered
Himself as a sacrifice for men, the second part of His priestly office consists
in His actively interceding with the Father, when He had been exalted to His right
hand, upon the ground of His merit, so that men thus redeemed may have the benefit
of all that He has secured for them by His sufferings and death, of everything,
in fact, that can promote their bodily, and especially their spiritual welfare.
“Intercession is the latter part of the sacerdotal office, by which Christ, the
God-man, in virtue of His boundless merit intercedes truly and properly, and without
any detriment to His majesty; intercedes for all men, but especially for His elect,
that He may obtain for them whatsoever things He knows to be salutary for them,
for the body, and especially for the soul (but chiefly those things which are useful
and necessary for securing eternal life),
But the price of redemption must be paid God, and to Him the satisfaction must be
rendered. HUTT. (Loc. Com., 430): "Neither the devil, nor sin, nor death, nor hell,
but God Himself, was the ruler holding the human race in captivity, as He delivered
it to the infernal prison by this sentence, ‘Thou shalt surely die.' The devil bore
only the part of a lictor; sin was like chains; death and hell, like a prison. Therefore,
the price of the redemption was to be paid not to the devil,
[11] QUEN. (III, 228): “It was the infinite God that was offended by sin; and because sin is an offense, wrong, and crime against the infinite God, and, so to speak, is Deicide, it has an infinite evil, not indeed formally, . . . but objectively, and deserves infinite punishments, and, therefore, required an infinite price of satisfaction, which Christ alone could have afforded.” GRH. (III, 579): “The guilt attending the sins of the entire human race was infinite, inasmuch as it was directed against the infinite justice of God. An infinite good had been injured, and, therefore, an infinite price was demanded. But the works and sufferings of Christ’s human nature are finite, and belong to a determined time, i.e., are terminated by the period of His humiliation. In order, therefore, that the price of redemption might be proportionate to our debt and infinite guilt, it was necessary that the action or mediation not only of a finite, viz., a human, but also of an infinite, i.e., a divine nature, should concur, and that the suffering and death of Christ should acquire power of infinite price elsewhere, viz., from the most effectual working of the divine nature, and thus that an infinite good might be able to be presented against an infinite evil.” Cf. the doctrine of the third genus of communicatio idiomatum. Christ, as the God-man, could afford such a satisfaction. QUEN. (III, 227): “The source from which” (Christ made satisfaction) “comprises both natures, the divine, as the original and formal source, and the human, as the organic source, acting from divine power communicated through the hypostatic union.” Cf. FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., III, 56.
NOTE. — The passages cited prove that the Dogmaticians attached so much importance to the union of the divine and human natures for the special reason that, if the divine nature had not participated with the human in suffering, in the manner indicated in § 33, Note 23, this suffering would not have had an infinite value, and in this they follow the theory of Anselm. But this theory still further magnifies the importance of the union of the two natures in Christ by another consideration, stating that “if this service of infinite value had not been rendered by one who was at the same time man, it would have been of no avail for us men;” and without this addition the theory is confessedly incomplete. Although our Dogmaticians do not expressly mention this point, we may still assume that they silently included it. This assumption is justified by the self-consistency of the Anselmic theory, which they on this subject adopted.
[12] QUEN. (III, 244): “The means by the intervention of which satisfaction was afforded is the price of Christ’s entire obedience, which embraces (1) the most exact fulfilment of the Law; (2) the enduring, or most bitter suffering, of the penalties merited by us transgressors. For by His acts Christ expiated the crime which man had committed against justice, and by His sufferings He bore the penalty which, in accordance with justice, man was to endure. Hence the obedience of Christ, afforded in our place, is commonly said to be twofold, the active, which consists in the most perfect fulfilment of the Law, and the passive, which consists in the perfectly sufficient payment of penalties that awaited us. The distinction into active and passive obedience is not very accurate, as Dr. Mentzer well remarks, because the passive obedience does not exclude the active, but includes it, inasmuch as the latter was wonderfully active, even in the very midst of Christ’s death. Hence Bernard correctly called Christ’s action passive, and His passion active. ‘From the Scriptures and with them we acknowledge only one obedience of Christ, and that the most perfect,’ says the already quoted Mentzer, ‘which, according to the will of His Father, He fulfilled with the greatest holiness and the highest perfection in His entire life, and by the action and suffering of death.’ The active obedience is His conformity with the very Law. And therefore, properly and accurately, and by itself, it is called obedience. But what is ordinarily called passive obedience is the enduring of a penalty inflicted upon the violator of the Law. If this is to be named obedience, it will be so called in a broad sense, or from its result, for it is certain that alone and without the accompaniment of active obedience, it is not conformity with the very Law . . . . The obedience of Christ is with less accuracy called passive, because He voluntarily did and suffered all things for us and our salvation.”
[13] HOLL.
(737): “By His active obedience, Christ most exactly fulfilled the divine Law in
our stead, in order that penitent sinners, applying to themselves, by true faith,
this vicarious fulfilment of the Law, might be accounted righteous before God, the
judge,
In the doctrine of the active obedience,
the following points come into consideration: (1) That God could not forgive us
if we could not be considered as having satisfied the demands of the divine Law. QUEN. (III, 244): “For, inasmuch as man was not only to be freed from the wrath
of God as a just judge, but also, in order that he might stand before God, there
was a necessity for righteousness which he could not attain except by the fulfilment
Concerning the nature of the Law that Christ fulfilled, HOLL. (737): “The Law to which He was subject is understood both as the universal or moral, and the particular, i.e., the ceremonial and forensic.” QUEN. (III, 245): “And the Law was thus fulfilled by the Lord: (1) the ceremonial, by showing its true end and scope, and fulfilling all the shadows and types which adumbrated either His person or office; (2) the judicial, both by fulfilling those things which in it belonged to common, natural, and perpetual law; (3) the moral, in so far as by His perfect obedience, and the conformity of all the actions of His life, He observed the Law without any sin and defect, reaffirmed its doctrine which had been corrupted by the Pharisees, and restored it to its native integrity and perfection.”
Andr. Osiander gave occasion to the supplementing of the passive by the active obedience. The doctrine was first developed by Flacius (in his work, “Concerning Righteousness vs. Osiander,” 1552) in the following manner: “The justice of God, as revealed in the Law, demands of us, poor, unrighteous, disobedient men, two items of righteousness. The first is, that we render to God complete satisfaction for the transgression and sin already committed; the second, that we thenceforth be heartily and perfectly obedient to His Law if we wish to enter into life. If we do not thus accomplish this, it threatens us with eternal damnation. And therefore this essential justice of God includes us under sin and the wrath of God . . . . Now there are often two parts of this righteousness due to the Law: the former, the complete satisfaction of punishment for sin committed, for, since it is right and proper to punish a sinner, one part of righteousness is willingly to suffer the merited punishment; the other part is perfect obedience, which should then follow and be rendered. Therefore the righteousness of the obedience of Christ, which He rendered to the Law for us, consists in these two features, viz., in His suffering and in the perfection of His obedience to the commands of God.”
The FORM.
CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 14) states the doctrine thus: “Therefore the righteousness
which, out of pure grace, is imputed before God to faith or believers, is the obedience,
the suffering, and the resurrection of Christ, by which, for our sake, He made satisfaction
to the Law and expiated our sins. For since Christ is not only man, but God and
man in one undivided person by reason of His own person, He was no more subject
to the Law than He was to suffering and death, as He was the Lord of the Law. For
this reason, His obedience (not only that by which in His entire passion and death
He obeyed the Father, but also that by which, for our sake, He voluntarily subjected
Himself to the Law and fulfilled it by His obedience) is imputed to us for righteousness,
so that because of the entire obedience which, for our sake, Christ rendered His
Heavenly Father, both by doing and suffering, God forgives us our sins.” Cf. III,
57. Intimations of this doctrine occur, indeed, already in the writings of earlier
theologians, even in those of Luther, but before the time of the FORM. CONC., the
obedience of Christ was considered mainly with reference to His sufferings. Thus
MEL. (Loc. c. Th., II, 212): “Since, therefore, men did not afford obedience, it
was necessary either that they should perish as a punishment, or that another one
pay the penalty or ransom; therefore by His wonderful and unerring counsel, the
Son of God, by interceding for us, paid the ransom, and drew
For the history of the doctrine of the active obedience, see Fr. H. R. Frank: “The Theology of the Form. Conc.,” II, 1861. J. G. Thomasius: “The Person and Work of Christ,” Part III, Division 1, second edition. 1863.
[14] HOLL.
737): “By the passive obedience, Christ transferred to Himself the sins of the whole
world (
[15] The satisfaction which Christ has made is, therefore, a vicarious satisfaction. HOLL. (737): “To a vicarious penal satisfaction, (a) if it be formally regarded, there is required: 1. A surrogation, by which some one else is substituted in the place of a debtor, and there is a transfer of the crime, or an imputation of the charge made against another. 2. A payment of penalties, which the substituted bondsman or surety makes in the place of the debtor; (b) considered with regard to the end, the payment of the penalty, for obtaining the discharge of the debtor, occurs in such a way that he is declared free from the crime and penalty.” The attacks of the Socinians against the vicarious satisfaction are refuted by GRH. (VII, 1. xvii, c. ii, § 37, sq.), and QUEN. (De officio Christi, pars polemica, qu. 6). The chief objection: “The action of one cannot be the action of another; the fulfilment of the Law is an action of Christ; therefore the fulfilment of the Law cannot be our action,” HOLL. (734) refutes thus: “An action is considered either physically, as it is the motion of one acting, or morally, as it is good or evil. The action of one can be that of another by imputation, not physically, but morally.”
[The argument of GRH. is: 1. Christ is our mediator,
The counter-arguments of the Socinians
are then examined: e.g., Against (1) they urge, that Moses was also a mediator.
This is conceded. But there is more in the antitype than in the type. The manner
in which Christ is said to be mediator is especially taught in Scripture,
Among the general objections of the Socinians, the chief
is that any satisfaction conflicts with the gratuitous remission of sins; as a creditor
cannot be said to remit a debt gratuitously, for which a satisfaction is rendered. GRH. answers that there is no opposition,
but only a subordination,
[16] QUEN. (III, 246): “The form or formal mode of the satisfaction
consists in the most exact and sufficient payment of all those things which we owed . . . . Indeed
this very payment of the entire debt of another, freely undertaken by Christ, and
imputed to Him in the divine judgment, was sufficient, not merely because accepted
of God. For in this satisfaction God did not, out of liberality, accept anything
that was not such in itself, neither, in demanding a punishment due us and rendered
by a surety, did He abate anything; but in this satisfaction Christ bore everything
that the rigor of His justice demanded, so that He endured even the very punishments
of hell, although not in hell, nor eternally . . . . Therefore the satisfaction of Christ
is most sufficient and complete by itself, or from its own infinite, intrinsic value,
which value arises from the facts, (1) that the person making the satisfaction is
infinite God; (2) that the human nature, from the personal union, has become participant
of divine and infinite majesty, and therefore its passion and death are regarded
and esteemed as of such infinite value and price as though they belonged to the
divine nature.
[The students of the history of the doctrine of the “Active Obedience,” have occupied themselves too exclusively with polemical treatises. In practical works, its formulation is much earlier than 1553. It is distinctly taught in the Third Homily of the Church of England (Cranmer) of 1547, in the Articles for the Reformation of Cologne (Melanchton and Bucer) of 1543, and the Brandenburg-Nürnberg Articles of 1433. What is especially interesting is, that this earliest document was prepared by Andrew Osiander himself, with the assistance of Brentz. Its presentation is as follows:
“This Mediator, treated thus with God: First, He directed His entire
life to the will of the Father; did for us what we were under obligation to do,
and yet could not do; and fulfilled the Law and all righteousness for our good,
Nowhere, in the whole range of Lutheran theology, are these two forms of the obedience more sharply discriminated than in the above]
[17] QUEN. (III, 228): “The real
On the real object, GRH. VI, 306: “1. Scripture everywhere speaks indefinitely when it treats of the satisfaction
rendered for sins by Christ.
That, by faith, men become partakers of the most perfect satisfaction rendered by Christ, we prove by the following arguments:
1. Scripture describes our reconciliation with God to be such that God no longer remembers our sins,
2. The complete forgiveness of sins is inconsistent with a debt of satisfaction yet to be rendered for the punishment. That for which a satisfaction is still exacted is not yet completely forgiven. No one would say that a creditor who still demands a satisfaction, had forgiven a debtor. When all the debt is forgiven, the obligation to pay even the least part is removed, etc.
The contrary doctrines are the various opinions of the Scholastics and Papists: (a) That “we can make satisfaction for our guilt;” (b) that while “we cannot make satisfaction for our guilt, we can for the penalty;” (c) that “eternal punishment is, by the power of the keys, commuted to temporal punishment, so as to bring it within our ability;” (d) that “while eternal guilt and punishment are remitted, the obligation to some temporal punishment remains.” Thus Bonaventura: “In sinning, the sinner binds himself to eternal punishment. Divine mercy, in justifying, remits all the guilt and subjection to eternal punishment. But since mercy cannot prejudice justice, whose office it is to punish what is wicked, it releases in such a way that he remains under subjection to only a relatively small amount of temporal punishment.”
In the controversy, the very practical question
arose as to how then we are to regard the temporal afflictions of the justified.
These, the Papists argued, were a fulfilment of the obligation of punishment, and
thus satisfactions. The Lutherans, especially CHEMNITZ in his Examen, “De Satifactione,”
maintained that, properly speaking, they were not punishments, but chastisements.
“What before forgiveness were punishments of sinners, after forgiveness became the
contests and exercises of the justified” (Chrysostom in GERHARD). GERH. (VI, 319):
“The former are indications,
II. (QUEN., III, 238): “The personal
object comprises (not angels, but) each and every sinful man, without any exception
whatever. For He suffered and died for all, according to the serious and sincere
good pleasure and kind intention of Himself and God the Father, according to which
He truly wills the salvation of each and every soul, even of those who fail of salvation;
not κατα δοξαν (in appearance), but
κατ αληθειαν (in truth, i.e., not in imagination
or conjecture, but in very deed, and most truly,
On the personal object:
GRH., IV, 178: “If the reprobate are
condemned because they do not believe in the Son of God, it follows that to them
also the passion and death of Christ pertain. For, otherwise, they could not be
condemned for their contempt of that which, according to the divine decree, does
not pertain to them. The former is distinctly affirmed,
He next shows how the Calvinists have attached another sense to the Scholastic axiom,
which they have adopted: “Christ died sufficiently, but not efficiently for all.”
The Scholastics meant by this, that Christ potentially saved all, and that the reason
that all do not partake of His grace must be found in their own guilt, in
“The former refer the cause of the inefficiency to the men themselves; by the latter, it is referred to the decree of God.”
The chief arguments in opposition to the universality of the satisfaction are recounted:
1. “Christ says, that He lays down His life for
His sheep,
2.
“If Christ truly died for all, the effect and fruit of His death must pertain to
all” But (a) that alms be received, there must be not only a hand to give, but also
a hand to take. It is not enough that the benefits of Christ, acquired by His death,
are offered; they must also be received by faith. (b) This faith God ordinarily
enkindles in the heart through the Holy Spirit, working in Word and Sacraments;
but they who repel the Word, and resist the Spirit, are, by their own fault, deprived
of the benefits of Christ’s death. (c) This is clearly shown from
3. “Christ made no
satisfaction for those for whom He does not pray. But for the reprobate He does
not pray,
4. “That for which
there could have been no use, we must not believe to have been done by God. But
there would be no use of a universal merit, since some of the reprobate for whom
Christ would have then suffered were already in hell.” With equal reason we could
conclude that Christ did not suffer for Abraham, Isaac, and the other saints of
the Old Testament, since they had already attained that which is said to come through
Christ’s passion. We should rather say, according to
[18] QUEN. (III, 253): “Satisfaction is an act of the sacerdotal office of Christ, the God-man, according to which, from the eternal decree of the triune God, out of His immense mercy, He cheerfully and voluntarily substituted Himself as the bondsman and surety for the entire human race, which, through sin, had been cast into incredible misery; and, having taken upon Himself each and every sin of the entire world, by His most perfect obedience and the suffering, in their place, of the penalties that men had merited, made satisfaction, on this earth, during the whole time of His humiliation, and especially in His last agony, to the Holy Trinity that had been most grievously offended; and, by thus making a satisfaction, acquired and earned for each and every man the remission of all sins, exemption from all penalties, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”
[19] Concerning the relation of satisfaction
and merit, HOLL. (736): “(1) Satisfaction precedes, merit follows; for Christ has
merited righteousness and life eternal by rendering a satisfaction. (2) Satisfaction
is made to God and His justice,; but Christ has merited salvation, not for God,
but for us. (3) Merit precedes the payment of a price; satisfaction, the compensating
of an injury. Therefore, by His satisfaction, Christ made a compensation for the
injury offered to God, expiated iniquity, paid the debt, and freed us from eternal
penalties; but, by His merit, He acquired for us eternal righteousness and salvation.
(4) The satisfaction rendered by Christ is the payment of our debts, by which we
were under obligations to God; but merit arises from the fulfilment of the Law and
the suffering that is not due.” The entire obedience which Christ rendered avails
for us, and Christ did not need to merit anything for His own person. This the Dogmaticians
express in the following manner: “Christ, as a man, merited nothing for Himself,
by His obedience; because, through the personal union, Christ was given all the
fullness of the Godhead (
[20] CONF. AUG. (XXI, 2): “The Scripture propoundeth unto us one Christ, the mediator, propitiator, high priest, and intercessor.” AP. CONF. (III, 44): “Christ who sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father, and perpetually maketh intercession for us.”
QUEN. (III, 264):
“Of this priestly act in the type, we may read in
[21] QUEN. (III, 256): “He does not indeed intercede for those who, having died
in impenitence, are in hell, suffering eternal punishments (for He is not their
intercessor, but the judge condemning and punishing them), but in general for all
those who still live in the world, and still have the gate of divine grace standing
open before them, whether they be elect or reprobate. For He interceded for the
transgressors, or His crucifiers,
[22] HOLL. (749): “The intercession
of Christ is not merely interpretative through the exhibition of His merits” (“as
though Christ interceded for us not by prayers, but by His merit alone, and its
eternal efficacy” (QUEN. III, 257)); “for the word, εντυγχανειν,
[23] QUEN. (III,
258): “This intercession will not be terminated by the end of the world, but will
continue to all eternity,
As, in
[24] HOLL. (751): “Redemption is not simple, absolute,
and metaphorical, but precious, satisfactory, and literal,
The expressions used in Holy
Scripture to denote redemption are (a) in the Old Testament גְּאֻלָה.
[25] The Dogmaticians KG., QUEN., and
HOLL., treat still more fully of redemption, distinguishing (1) the captive (the
whole human race). (2) The one holding the captive (God,
§ 37. The Regal Office.
To Him, who announced to the world God’s gracious purpose of redemption, and who Himself accomplishes the redemption, the dominion over the world is committed; and, in exercising this dominion, He performs a regal function. This regal dignity belongs to Christ, as God, from eternity; but from the moment of His incarnation His humanity also participated in it. [1] Yet, as long as He tarried here upon earth, He did not exercise this regal dominion in its full extent; but rather, as long as He was in the state of humiliation, refrained, for the most part, from its use and exercise, and not until the time of His exaltation did He enter upon the complete exercise of this, His regal dominion. [2] Inasmuch as Christ is thus King and Lord of the world, His dominion extends over everything that is in the world and belongs to it; and there appertains to Him not only the preservation and government of the world in general, but also the preservation and government of the Church in particular. At the same time, this His dominion extends not only over the present, but equally also over the future world. This kingdom of Christ is, in itself, only one, and embraces the whole world, the present and the future, with all that it contains. Yet this one kingdom can also be distinguished as a threefold one, in the same sense in which we distinguish at present the world and the Church, and in which we distinguish the citizens of this and of the future life, of heaven and of earth. Accordingly, the world and the Church, in this life, are regarded as each a special kingdom, over which Christ rules; and those who are in the life to come constitute the third kingdom. This threefold kingdom is designated as the kingdom of power, of grace, and of glory. The first is called the Kingdom of Power, because it is the kingdom in which Christ exercises His divine power by governing and upholding the world; the second is called the Kingdom of Grace, because in this Christ operates through His saving grace; the third is called the Kingdom of Glory, because He therein unfolds, in all its perfection, His divine glory before the eyes of all who are there assembled. [3]
The regal office is accordingly defined as, “The theanthropic function of Christ, whereby He divinely controls and governs, according to both natures the divine and the human (and the latter, as exalted to the Right Hand of Majesty), all creatures whatever, in the kingdom of power, grace, and glory, by infinite majesty and power: as to the divinity, by virtue of eternal generation; as to the assumed humanity, by virtue of the personal union belonging to Him.” (QUEN., III, 264.) [4]
To the Kingdom of Power (“in which Christ powerfully rules over this universe, and upholds it and providentially governs it”) belong all creatures in the world, visible and invisible; [5] Christ’s dominion extends over them all, and all must be subject unto Him. By Him everything is upheld and governed. [6]
To the Kingdom of Grace (“in which Christ collects the Church Militant
upon earth, governs it, furnishes it with spiritual gifts, preserves and defends
it, to the praise of the divine name, to the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, and
the salvation of believers,”
To the Kingdom
of Glory, finally (“in which Christ most gloriously rules the Church Triumphant
in heaven, and fills it with eternal felicity, to the praise of the divine name
and the eternal refreshment of the saved,”
[1] QUEN. (III, 260): “Just as Christ, in His prophetic and
QUEN. further remarks (III, 261): “One in number is that regal power which Christ,
according to His divine nature, has, and according to His human nature, possesses.
Only the mode of having it varies; for what, according to His divinity, He has by
eternal generation from eternity, that, according to His humanity, through and because
of the personal union, He has received in time, and fully exercises now in the state
of exaltation.” His power to rule, even according to His human nature, is evident
from
[2] HOLL. (764): “Christ immediately, in His
very conception, was anointed to a regal dignity, and, during His visible intercourse
upon the earth, possessed the power to rule, and sometimes exercised it according
to His pleasure. But, in the state of humiliation, He voluntarily refrained from
the most full and uninterrupted employment of His rule.” Christ, therefore, “during
that time in which He visibly dwelt on this earth, was a true King.
[3] HUTT. and HFRFFR.
still account, as belonging to the regal office, only His dominion over believers;
and GRH., who was contemporaneous with them, was the first to include under the
regal office all the relations in which Christ is Lord and King, and in this they
were imitated by all the later Dogmaticians. Of course, no doctrinal difference
was hereby intended. The faith of the Church always was, that Christ was Lord and
King of the world. Thus we have it stated, e.g., by CHMN. (De duab. naturis, 205):
As to the division itself. GRH. (III, 578): “The kingdom of Christ is considered either in this or in the future life. In this life, it is called the kingdom of power or grace; . . . in the life to come, it is called the kingdom of glory.” BR. (498): “The regal office of Christ is threefold, according to the diverse nature of those whom He regards as His subjects, and governs diversely. For although, if you regard the words themselves, the kingdom of grace, as well as that of glory, may seem to be comprised under the kingdom of power, as both truly depend upon divine power imparted to the human nature of Christ, yet the usus loquendi requires it to be named the kingdom of grace, with respect to the spiritual blessings which are conferred in this world, and the kingdom of glory, with respect to the glory of the future world; while the kingdom of power signifies a universal government.” QUEN. (III, 264): “Some say that Christ reigns in the world by power, in the Church by grace, in heaven by glory, and in hell by justice.” In regard to the last, HOLL. observes (763): “You say, that ‘also a fourth kingdom of Christ is mentioned, viz., the kingdom of justice over the wicked angels and condemned men. Reply: We refer the kingdom of justice to the kingdom of power.” On the other hand, BR. (501): “Some, referring both (the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of justice) to the same kingdom of glory, say that the glorifying of the elect belongs by itself to the former; but the condemnation of the wicked . . . they refer to the latter in the manner in which under other circumstances opposites are wont to be referred to the same faculty.”
The threefold division is, accordingly,
not to be understood as if there were three separate kingdoms over which Christ
rules, but the reason of the division lies (1) partly in the different divine influences
which Christ exerts. The same persons who are in the kingdom of grace are also in
the kingdom of power; but in the one kingdom the divine saving grace, and in the
other the divine power, is exercised; (2) partly in the difference of the places
in which they
QUEN. (III, 264): “The kingdom of grace includes, or rather presupposes, the kingdom of power; for the kingdom of power is required for the kingdom of grace, or the Church, which in this world is to be established, ruled, etc., through the ministry of the Spirit by means of the Word and Sacraments.”
[4] GRH. (III, 578): “The regal office is that according to which Christ as the God-man governs all things in heaven and earth, and especially protects His Church against enemies.” On the other hand, HFRFFR. (353) (see note 3): “The regal office is that according to which, to the end of the world, through the ministry of the Word, He collects His citizens, and, having furnished them with eminent gifts, vigorously defends them against enemies (in whose midst He rules), and at length crowns them with eternal glory and honor.”
[5] QUEN. (III, 265): “The object or matter with
which this government is occupied comprises all the works of God in general, or
all creatures, visible, invisible, corporeal, incorporeal, animate, inanimate, rational,
irrational.
[6] GRH. (III, 578): “The kingdom of power is the general dominion over all
things, or the governing of heaven and earth,
[7] HOLL. (763): “The subjects, in this kingdom of grace,
are all believing men, who constitute the Church Militant. The regal acts are the
collecting, governing, adorning, and preservation of the Church, His defense of
it against the enemies of grace, and His ruling in their midst.
[8] QUEN. (III, 267): “The Word and Sacraments are the
instrumental cause, for it pleased
the King in Zion,
[9] QUEN. (III, 270): “The end of
the world will indeed terminate the mode of the kingdom of grace, but not the essence
of the kingdom. That which is said in
[10] HOLL. (763): “The
subjects in this kingdom of glory are both good angels and glorified men (who in
faith continue in the kingdom of grace to the end.
[11] QUEN. (III, 273): “Christ, the king of glory, indeed, even
as a man, immediately from His first conception, was the possessor of all glory,
but did not actually rule gloriously until after His exaltation, when His sufferings
were finished. This very kingdom
§ 38.
As the works of redemption,
for whose accomplishment the λογος became man, could be brought about only through
suffering and death, it is altogether natural that we should see Christ, through
all His earthly life, even until the completion of His work of redemption, going
about in the form of a servant, subject to all the weaknesses and infirmities of
human nature. Not until after His resurrection did He lay aside the form of a servant
and appear in divine glory. Accordingly, from the time of the incarnation of Christ,
we have to predicate of Him a two-fold condition, that of the form of a servant
and that of glory. Inasmuch, however, as in consequence of the communicatio idiomatum,
resulting from the unio personalis, the human nature participated in all the attributes
and glory of the divine nature; and, inasmuch as, in accordance with this, a condition
of divine glory would naturally have been looked for from the moment of the incarnation;
we cannot comprehend the antecedent condition in the form of a servant without assuming
that Christ voluntarily refrained from a glory that belonged to Him. And this indeed
is the teaching of the Scriptures in
(BR. (482): “The State of
Humiliation consists in this, that Christ for a time renounced (truly and really,
yet freely) the plenary exercise of the divine majesty, which His human nature had
acquired in the personal union, and, as a lowly
“The State of Exaltation is the state of Christ, the God-man, in which He, according to His human nature, having laid aside the infirmities of the flesh, received and assumed the plenary exercise of the divine majesty.”[9]
I. THE STATE OF HUMILIATION. — The
following are the principal aspects in which the humiliation of Christ reveals itself: HOLL. (759, sq.) [10] “1.
Conception,
2. Nativity; which besides was accompanied with many humiliating
circumstances. “
3. Circumcision; by
which Christ, at the same time, made Himself subject to the Law. “
4. Education; according to which Christ also subjected Himself to the laws of domestic life. “The education was His becoming accustomed, in boyhood, to the mode of life customary in Israel, and to a manual occupation.” [14]
5. The visible intercourse of Christ in the world; by which He exposed Himself to all kinds of ill treatment from those who surrounded Him, and to all the discomforts of a lowly life. “The intercourse of Christ was His most holy association, in the days of His flesh, with all kinds of men, even the most contemptible, an association full of troubles, inconveniences, and dangers.” [15]
6. The great suffering; the bodily and mental anguish which Christ endured in the last days of His earthly life. “The great suffering of Christ is the extreme anguish which our Redeemer suffered toward the end of His life, two days before His death, partly in His soul, partly in His body, by enduring to the end the most extreme and bitter sorrows.” [16]
7. The Death of Christ. “The death of Christ is His loss of life through the dissolution of the natural union of body and soul.” [17]
8. The Burial. “The burial of Christ was the placing of the body of our Redeemer, who had died upon the cross, in a new tomb, in demonstration of the truth of His death.”
II. THE STATE OF EXALTATION. — This begins with the return of Christ to life, [18] and exhibits itself to the lower world by the descent, to this world by the resurrection and ascension, attaining its completion in the session at the Right Hand of God the Father. [19]
1. The Descent
to the Lower World. After Christ had been again restored to life, and before He
had given to men in His resurrection from the dead the proof that He was alive,
[20] He descended to hell (
HOLL. (777): “The Descent of Christ to the lower world is the true, real, and supernatural movement by which Christ, having been freed from the chains of death and restored to life, in His entire person betook Himself to the lower regions, that He might exhibit Himself to the evil spirits and to condemned men as the conqueror of death.” [24]
2. The Resurrection. After His descent to hell, three days after
His death, Christ appears again upon earth to a small circle of intimate friends.
Along with death, however, He
HOLL. (779): “The resurrection is the act of glorious victory by which Christ, the God-man, through the same power as that of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, brought forth His body, reunited with the soul and glorified, from the tomb, and showed it alive to His disciples, by various proofs, for the confirmation of our peace, fellowship, joy, and hope in our own future resurrection.” [25]
3. The Ascension. After Christ had shown Himself to His disciples as one raised
from the dead, He ascended to heaven, i.e., His human nature also betook itself
into heaven, where it had not yet been. (
HOLL. (784): “The
ascension is the glorious act of Christ by which, after having been resuscitated,
He betook Himself, according to His human nature, by a true, real, and local motion,
according to His voluntary determination (per liberam oeconomiam),
4. The Sitting at the Right Hand of God. This expression signifies the assumption,
on the part of the human nature of Christ, of the full divine glory and dominion;
for not until His ascension did the human nature of Christ assume, in all its extent,
the real exercise of all the divine glory from which it had refrained in the state
of humiliation. (
HOLL. (786): “The sitting at the right hand of God is the
[1] HOLL. (765): “Although in an ecclesiastical and figurative sense the incarnation is sometimes said to be a self-renunciation (‘where it is employed in reference to the kind inclination by which the λογος inclined Himself to pity and assist us, and, descending from heaven, deigned to assume human nature. This self-renunciation, figuratively and in an ecclesiastical sense so termed, is called the humiliation of incarnation, GRH., III, 562’), yet properly speaking, and in accordance with scriptural usage, the incarnation must not be called self-renunciation (exinanitio). For (1) self-renunciation is predicated of the incarnate (ενσαρκος) Son of God, or Christ, the God-man; incarnation, of the not yet incarnate (ασαρκος) Son of God; (2) when the self-renunciation is removed by exaltation, the state of incarnation remains.”
[2] HOLL. (767): “Christ
was humbled (exinanitus est) according to His human nature considered in the personal
union.” Id.: “The subject (of the humiliation) is the human nature alone, but considered
in the union; for (1) since the divine nature is immutable and most perfect, it
cannot be exalted and humbled; (2) the self-renunciation extended even to the death
of the cross,
[3] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 216): “Neither was it only after His resurrection that the entire fulness of the divine nature began to dwell bodily in Christ; as though, after the occurrence of the hypostatic union in conception and before the ascension, and sitting at the right hand, either any empty vacancy or partialness of divine nature dwelt bodily in Christ; or as though the hypostatic union or personal indwelling of the entire fulness of the Godhead, in the assumed nature of Christ, became in the process of years constantly greater, more intimate, fuller, and more complete: for, from the first moment of the hypostatic union, the entire fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, or, in other words, in the flesh, or assumed nature, of Christ.”
HOLL.
(765): “The self-renunciation of Christ consists formally . . . not in the entire abdication
or abandonment of divine majesty, . . . for (1) this could not have occurred without
a dissolution of the personal union; for, since it is a perfect and inner
[4] HOLL. (765): “Self-renunciation
does not consist in the mere concealment or hiding of divine majesty;” for, (1)
self-renunciation does not pertain to Christ in His exaltation, although there pertains
to Him in that state a hiding of majesty,
[GRH. III, 575; “1. If
by κρυψις, or hiding, there be understood a simulation, we deny that the self-renunciation
should be thus described: because there was a true and real self-renunciation, embracing
both αρσις, i.e., abstaining from the use, not of just any, but of the plenary communicated,
divine majesty and virtue, which the apostle calls κενωσις; and θεσις, i.e., the
assumption of a servile form, and extreme humiliation, which the apostle joins to
the κενωσις. Just as, on the other hand, exaltation embraces both αρσις, viz., the
laying aside of the form of a servant and human infirmities, which Christ had spontaneously
assumed, and θεσις, viz., the full use and administration of dominion in the entire
universe, all of which are ascribed to Christ not feignedly or κατα φαντασμα, but
truly. 2. κρυψις can be referred both to the communication of majesty, and to the
employment of communicated majesty. In the former respect it is rightly so-called,
because the divine majesty was hid in the assumed flesh, but not separated from
it; and all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are said to be hid in Him,
[5] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 216): “Self-renunciation, therefore, does not
signify a deprivation, removal, despoiling, putting off, casting aside, laying down,
removal, want, absence, defect, destitution, or vacancy of the fulness of the Godhead,
which, from the very moment of conception, dwelt in Christ bodily. But it respects
its use or employment, because, being covered by weakness during the time of self-renunciation,
it did not always shine in and through the human nature of Christ, and through it
fully and clearly exercise itself; for, for a short time withdrawing and withholding
from activity and divine virtue present and dwelling bodily
HOLL. (765): Self-renunciation “consists in the abdication of the full and uninterrupted use of divine majesty, the assumption of the form of a servant, likeness to other men, and the most humble obedience.”
The detailed description of the state of humiliation is given by HOLL. (766): “Four requisites must be combined in order to describe fully the self-renunciation of Christ: (1) κενωις” (“intermission, withholding, restraining of the full activity, of the constant and universal divine majesty and excellence really imparted to Christ as a man,” QUEN. (III, 334)); “(2) λεψις μορφης δουλου, the taking upon Himself the condition of a servant, for Christ was treated and sold in the manner of a servant, and endured a servant’s punishment; (3) ομοιωσις ανθρωπων, likeness to the lower and meaner class of men, especially to the Israelites, in His birth, circumcision, ablactation, His trade as a carpenter, His intercourse, and mode of life; (4) ταρεινωσις υποτακτικη, most humble, active, and passive obedience.”
The Dogmaticians find the state of humiliation described
in
[6] HOLL. (767): “Generally speaking, Christ in the state of
self-renunciation abstained
from the full, universal, and incessant use of eternal glory, imparted through the
personal union to His assumed flesh.
GRH. (III, 575) develops the practical side of this doctrine, on the basis
of
[7] HOLL. (775): “Exaltation (υπερυψωσις,
QUEN. (III, 368): “The form of exaltation consists in the laying aside of the servile condition or the form of a servant, and in the full, universal, and uninterrupted employment of the divine majesty, received in the personal union and possessed during the period of self-renunciation. (For in exaltation there was not given to Christ new power, virtue, or majesty, which He did not have before, but there was only conferred upon Him the full power of administering His kingdom, which He had received through the union itself.”
The principal passage in which
the State of Exaltation is described is (besides
CHMN. (de duab.
nat., 218) thus contrasts the terms, incarnation, humiliation, and exaltation: “Accordingly
it is from this also manifest, that a confusion of articles of faith cannot occur,
but that they are and remain distinct, and that each contains something peculiar
to itself. For in incarnation there occurred a hypostatic union of the Godhead of
the λογος, with assumed humanity, in which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt
personally from the first moment of conception. But by reason of self-renunciation,
its employment and manifestation were for a time postponed, and, as it were, suspended,
so that it did not exercise itself through the assumed humanity immediately and
always. Moreover, by the ascension, infirmities being laid aside and self-renunciation
removed, He left the mode of life according to the conditions of this world, and
departed from the world. Moreover, by sitting at the Right Hand of God, He entered
upon the full and public employment and display of the power, virtue, and glory
of
[8] HOLL.
(768): “The state of self-renunciation lasted from the first moment of conception
to the last moment of rest in the sepulchre.” QUEN. (III, 367): “The beginning of
the exaltation (terminus a quo), and that through which it was attained, is the
preceding passion and self-renunciation. The limit to which (terminus ad quem) is
infinite glory and majesty (
[9] The doctrine, as here
stated is not so clearly set forth in the FORM. CONC. This asserts, indeed, very
decidedly, that Christ, already here upon earth, was in possession of the divine
glory, even according to His human nature; but, along with passages in which it
is said that Christ, during His life upon earth, renounced the exercise of this
glory, there are also others in which a renunciation is not mentioned. To passages
of the former kind belong the following: FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. VIII, 26): “From
this union and communion of natures, the human nature possesses, since the resurrection
from the dead, that exaltation over all creatures in heaven and on earth, which
is really nothing else than that Christ entirely laid aside the form of a servant,
and yet did not lay aside the human nature, but retains it to all eternity, and
that, according to His assumed human nature, He was raised to the full possession
and use of divine majesty. Moreover, He had this majesty immediately at His conception,
even in the womb of His mother; but, as the Apostle (
To the second class (Sol. Dec., VIII, 73): “But this certainly does not occur in such a manner, that as man He knows and can accomplish only some things; just as other saints, by the power of the Holy Ghost, know and can accomplish certain things. For, since Christ, by reason of His Divinity, is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, and from Him, no less than from the Father, the Holy Ghost proceeds, . . . undoubtedly, through the hypostatic union, the entire fulness of the Spirit has been imparted to Christ, according to the flesh, which has been personally united to the Son of God. Moreover, this exerts its entire power most freely in and with the human nature of Christ, and through it; not in such a manner as that Christ, according to His human nature, knows only some things and is ignorant of others, and can accomplish certain things yet cannot accomplish others; but even now, according to His assumed human nature, He knows and can accomplish all things . . . 75. Moreover, it is manifest from history that there was a sect called Agnoetae, because they imagined that the Son, as the Word of the Father, indeed knew all things, but that His assumed nature was ignorant of many things. This heresy also Gregory the Great refuted.”
The FORM. CONC. was still undecided in regard to this topic, because the Dogmaticians of that day were not agreed upon it. Some, following BRENZ
(De divina majestate Domini nostri Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei patris et de vera
praesentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in coena, 1562) asserted that Christ, even
in the state of humiliation, was not only in possession of the divine glory, but
also exercised it here, only not openly. (“He lay dead in the sepulchre, in humiliation;
living, He governed heaven and earth, in majesty; and this, indeed, during the time
of His humiliation, before His resurrection.”) The others followed CHMN. (De duabus
naturis in Christo, 1570), who, it is true, also ascribed the possession of divine
glory to Christ, but taught a partial renunciation of
According to this theory of the Tübingen Theologians, there was,
therefore, no κενωσις (renunciation) in the proper sense of the word, but merely
a κρυψις (concealment); for the divine dominion, according to this view, was exercised
also during the state of humiliation
This view was opposed by the theologians of GIESSEN (MENZER and FEUERBORN),
who adopted that of CHEMNITZ. The question at issue was this: “Whether the man Christ,
having been taken into union with God, during the state of His humiliation governed,
as a present king, all things, though in secret?” This question the Giessen theologians
denied, and those of Tübingen affirmed. In the case of the former, the doctrine
naturally assumed a different aspect in consequence of a different conception of
omnipresence. They rejected absolute omnipresence; therefore
They also believed themselves, therefore,
not to be hindered by the previously prevalent assumption, that Christ, according
to His human nature, had for a season renounced the use and exercise of the divine
dominion; and they maintained that Christ, according to His divine nature, exercised
dominion over the world until the completion of His work of redemption, without
His human nature taking any part therein. According to their theory, moreover, the
exaltation was real (as indeed the positive statements of the Holy Scriptures seemed
to them to demand) in such a sense that, not until it occurred, therefore not until
the resurrection, did the human nature obtain the full use and the full exercise
of the divine dominion; whereby, however, it was not meant to deny that the human
nature partially, and by way of exception, as in the performance of miracles, made
use of this dominion (which feature was made especially prominent by the Saxon theologians).
The difference between the state of humiliation and that of exaltation they held
to be this, that the human nature did not assume the full use of the divine dominion
until the introduction of the latter.
After the decision (1624) pronounced by the Saxon theologians, which in the main was favorable to the Giessen theologians, those of Tübingen modified their views in this direction, in this one point, that they also admitted a humiliation in a literal sense, with reference to the functions of the sacerdotal office, in accordance with which, therefore, Christ, in relation to these, renounced the use of the divine glory during His passion and death, and in connection with everything that He did in behalf of the work of redemption. But this difference still continued between the two parties, that the Tübingen theologians, adhering to their former opinion, so far as the prophetic and the regal offices are concerned, regarded the humiliation as a mere occultation, and characterized it as only exceptional, when Christ, during His life upon earth, in certain cases renounced the exercise of the dominion belonging to His human nature; while the Giessen divines, in direct opposition to this view, considered it exceptional, when Christ, during His life upon earth, made use, on the part of His human nature, of the right of divine majesty that belonged to Him. The controversy was interrupted by the Thirty Years’ War, but the succeeding theologians adopted the views of the Giessen and Saxon theologians, as above stated, with the exception of some of those of Tübingen, who afterwards, indeed, attached no great importance to the controversy, but still favored the doctrinal tendency of their University (comp. COTTA, Diss. II, GRH., in Loc. Th., IV). A full discussion of this doctrine and description of the controversies connected with it may be found in QUEN. III, 389, sq. and THOMASIUS: “The Person and Work of Christ,” Part II, second edition, 1857, p. 429.
[10] QUEN. (III, 338): “The self-renunciation of Christ in general consists of two acts, viz., the abdication of the full and universal use of imparted majesty, and the assumption of the form of a servant. This form or condition of a servant, in turn, includes under it certain acts in which it was most clearly manifest.”
Other distributions
than those given in the text are as follows: GRH. (I, 361): “Conception, the being
borne about in the womb, birth, growth in age and wisdom, obedience in the form
of a servant even to the death of the cross, which was followed by burial.”
[11] HOLL. (769): “We now are considering this not absolutely, with respect to itself, but in so far as it pertains to the state of self-renunciation, or, in so far as the flesh of Christ, although not of male seed, was nevertheless formed in the womb of woman; in connection with which it is certain that some infirmities occur.”
GRH. (I, 361): “From the fact which I have mentioned, that conception, and
the being borne about in the womb, and birth from the womb of His mother, belong
to the state of self-renunciation, if we reflect, it can be understood that Adam
was a true man, who, nevertheless, was neither conceived in the womb nor born from
the womb of a mother; therefore, in the same manner, the Son of God, without such
a conception and birth, could have assumed human nature, but He wished in all things
to be made like to His brethren,
[12] BR. (483): “In this” (birth) “the fact is especially considered that the fruit of Mary’s womb, having passed through the accustomed months of gestation, was thus at length brought to light, in accordance with the common lot of men. But the opinion of some, that Mary brought forth her son while her womb was closed, is uncertain; more certain and manifest are the lowliness of His birth and the humble condition and poverty of His parents.”
[13] HOLL. (769):
“Circumcision is an act of most humble obedience on the part of Christ, by which
He not only lay in a very low state of self-renunciation beneath the knife of the
circumciser, but also was made subject to the divine Law, although He was the Lord
of the Law,
[14] HOLL. (770): “According to which, Christ
voluntarily subjected Himself to the care of His father, Joseph, and the commands
of His mother, Mary,
[15] BR. (484): “He was made subject to the magistracy and regarded equal or inferior to others; for the purpose of satisfying hunger and thirst, He ate and drank ; being wearied, He slept, and endured the troubles of labors and journeys, dangers, temptations, sadness, poverty, reproaches, etc.”
[16]
BR. (484): “Especially the aggregation of afflictions which Christ suffered during
the period of two days before His death; in connection with which the forsaking,
mentioned in
[17] QUEN. (III, 360): “Its formal nature
consists in the true, voluntary and local separation of the soul from the body (
[18] HOLL. (776): “Ζωοποιησις, or quickening, is Christ’s liberation from death and the reunion of soul and body, by which Christ, according to His flesh, began to come again to life. This is not a peculiar grade of exaltation, but a prerequisite condition for preparing the subject, namely, Christ, to receive the full and universal use of divine majesty.”
[19] HOLL. (776): “The revived Christ exercised His divine majesty
through certain clearly marked grades: (1) by descending ad inferos,
He exhibited Himself alive to the wicked spirits and condemned men as the
conqueror of death; (2) by rising again, He declared to the apostles, and,
through them, to the entire world, that through His death He had made
satisfaction to divine justice; (3) by ascending to heaven, He showed angels and
blessed men that He was the conqueror not only of death, but also of wicked
spirits, and the Savior of men; (4) by sitting at the Right
[20] QUEN. (III, 373): “The moment of time of the
descent is, according to
[21] HOLL. (778): “Christ descended into hell, not for the purpose of suffering
any evil from the demons (
[22] QUEN. (III,
371): “The descent of Christ ad inferos, figuratively taken, is understood either
metaphorically, as denoting that most exquisite and truly infernal pain and anguish
which, in the time of His passion, Christ felt and bore in His most holy soul,
[23] QUEN. (III, 372): “Christ, the God-man, and therefore His entire person (and hence not only according to His soul, or only according to His body), after the reunion of soul and body, descended to the very place of the damned, and to the devils and the damned manifested Himself as conqueror. For the descent, since it is a personal action, cannot be ascribed otherwise than to the entire person of the God-man. And, as in the Apostles’ Creed it is said of the entire God-man that He suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, so also it is said of the same that He descended into hell.” The descent is very naturally, predicated of Christ, the God-man, i.e., it is taught that Christ, the God-man, was for a time in hell; but the descent itself is predicated only of the human nature of Christ. “Christ descended into hell, not according to His divine nature; for, according to this, He was in hell before, filling all things through His dominion . . . . Therefore, Christ descended, according to His human nature. For the predications θανατωθεις σαρκ and ζωοποιηθεις, belong to the human nature alone.” (QUEN., III, 373.)
[24] The doctrine as here
set forth belongs to the period of the later Dogmaticians. Until the time of the
FORM. CONC., no explanation whatever was attempted of the phrase, “Descendit ad inferos,” which was found already in the Apostles’ Creed. The FORM. CONC., however,
was led to make a statement concerning it, mainly in consequence of controversies
originating with the Hamburg Superintendent, JOHN AEPIN (1549). According to him,
the descent of Christ was “a part of that entire obedience which He rendered for
our redemption.” (“The simple and plain confession of AEPIN: I believe that the
descent of the soul of Christ to hell was a part of Christ’s passion, i.e., of the
contests, dangers, difficulties, pains, and punishments, which, for our sake, He
took
A question of entirely different character
was agitated, in 1565, by the court chaplain, John Parsimonius, in Stuttgard. “He
These two theologians were
the occasion of having an article concerning the descensus ad inferos inserted in
the FORM. CONC. This contains, however, no decisions concerning the questions agitated
by them, but rather keeps aloof from useless inquiries, and limits itself to the
firm adherence to the confession that Christ, by His descent, “has destroyed hell
for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death, of the devil, of
eternal damnation, and of the jaws of hell.” FORM. CONC. (Epit., IX): “There was
a controversy concerning this article among some theologians who profess the Augsburg
Confession, as to when and how our Lord Jesus Christ, as our Catholic faith testifies,
descended to those in hell, whether this were done before or after His death. In
addition it was asked whether He descended only by His soul alone, or His divinity
alone, or indeed by soul and body, and whether this were done after a spiritual
or after a bodily manner. It was also disputed whether this article was to be referred
to the Passion, or indeed to
For the history of this article, see FRANK: “The Theology of the FORM. CONC. (III, 1863) de descensu ad inferos,” in whose words we have cited the doctrines of AEPIN (which he obtained, in part, from a manuscript in the library at Wolfenbuettel) and Parsimonius.
Concerning the different explanations of the descensus ad inferos, GRH. (I, 362): “Concerning the descensus ad inferos, the opinions of the old and more recent theologians greatly vary: (1) Some have altogether omitted this article. Thus, the several Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Toledo have not mentioned it. (2) Clement, of Alexandria, says that Christ and the apostles descended to those in hell to preach the Gospel to the minds of the damned, and to carry to believers the hope of salvation. (3) Chrysostom refers the descensus ad inferos to the power of working miracles, by which Christ raised many from the dead. (4) Some in a general manner receive the descensus ad inferos as referring to the entire state of humiliation (Sohnius). (5) Some hold that descending ad inferos is the same as being buried (Bucer, Beza). (6) Some understand this descent with reference to the pains which Christ suffered in His soul (Calvin). (7) Some understand it with reference to the power and virtue of Christ’s death extending even to the dead. We say with Luther that this article is not to be treated with acuteness and anxious care, as to how it occurred, and what the descensus ad inferos means, but the most simple opinion must be retained, just as the words read. We believe, therefore, that Christ undoubtedly descended ad inferos, . . . and that by Himself He has delivered us from the power of death and of Satan, from eternal damnation, and therefore, from the jaws of hell.”
[25] QUEN. (III, 377): “The term ‘resurrection’ is received
either comprehensively, according as it is an official meritorious act, and belongs
to both natures, or restrictedly, according as it is
(Id., 387): “The material is the same body in substance and number
that endured the death of the cross, reunited with the soul, the same in number
which before had departed from it, but clothed with new qualities,
THE DESIGN OF THE RESURRECTION,
according to HOLL. (783): “Christ rose again in order to manifest the victory which
He had obtained over death and the devil,
[26] QUEN. (III, 380): “The ascension is regarded
either in a
QUEN. (III, 382): “Of the general goal of
the ascension, the passages
GRH. (XIX, 152): “We in no wise affirm that the ascension of Christ was an αφανισμος,
disappearance or evanescence; nor any more αορασια [invisibility], just
as before by divine virtue He had at different times rendered Himself invisible:
but we sincerely believe and confess that Christ’s αναληψις [being taken up] was
a τοπικη μεταστασις, a local transfer, a visible elevation, a true and real ascension,
by which Christ, on Mount Olivet, was visibly lifted up on high from the earth,
and, the infirmities of this life being laid aside, was transferred to heaven, and
placed at the Right Hand of
[27] Cf. FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., VIII, 28. Br. (487): “God’s Right Hand is not any
definite place, but the omnipotent power of God itself, which fills heaven and earth,
GRH. (III, 509):
“(a) The Right Hand of God. The sitting at the Right Hand of God must be understood
to be of like nature with the right hand of God. Now the Right Hand of God is not
a bodily, circumscribed, limited, definite place, but it is the infinite power of
God and His most efficacious majesty in heaven and earth; it is that most efficacious
dominion by which God preserves and governs all things. For thus the Right Hand
of God is described in Holy Scripture, that it has been magnified in power, and
breaks to pieces its enemies,
“(b) Sitting at God’s Right Hand. This is most
correctly and
It is here to be observed that this sitting at the Right Hand of God is described
as the last and highest act of the exaltation; hence CHMN. (Loc. Th.) remarks: “Scripture,
therefore, explains Christ’s sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty,
as referring to the exaltation of the human nature in Christ to the highest majesty
and power over all things.” Rightly, therefore, QUEN. also, in harmony with all
the Dogmaticians, remarks (III, 385): “The subject sitting at the Right Hand of
God is the incarnate λογος,
[Reformed theologians,
when not treating the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, often reach the same conclusions,
or closely approach them (as may be seen from the following citations in Heppe’s
Dogmatik (1861, pp. 364, sq.): LEIDENER: “The Right Hand of God here cannot be received
literally, since God is a spirit, and, accordingly, has not flesh and bones; but
is taken metaphorically for the highest degree of glory, to which, after His passion
and ascension, Christ was raised by the Father.” RIIS.: “The session at the Right
Hand of God can be understood not properly and literally, but figuratively and metaphorically,
in order to designate the supreme dignity and power of Christ; the metaphor being
derived from the custom of kings, who are wont to put at their right hands those
to whom they concede a degree both of honor and power in governing next themselves.
This phrase is understood of the nearest degree of honor in
§ 39. Preliminary Remarks.
BEFORE passing on to the consideration of the subject next in order, we preface
the remark, that a number of dogmatic topics, belonging in this connection, were
not further developed until by the later Dogmaticians, and were by them for the
first time assigned a special place in the system; these are the topics of Vocation,
Illumination, Conversion and Regeneration, Mystical Union and Renovation, which
all the earlier Dogmaticians mention only occasionally, and usually in the section
concerning Free Will, but have not more fully elaborated. Not until the time of
CAL. did the Dogmaticians begin to arrange these topics together; by so doing they
seek to collect, under one general topic, all that is to be said concerning what
God, or more accurately, the Holy Ghost, does, in order to induce fallen man to
accept of salvation through Christ, and what takes place in order to bring about
the designed change in man. From the time of QUEN. this was all embraced under the
head, The Grace of the Holy Spirit in the Application of Redemption. [1] It cannot
be denied that thereby an advance was made in the systematic development of Dogmatics;
and, as the earlier Dogmaticians did so little towards giving definite shape to
the conceptions here in question, we find ourselves limited to the later Dogmaticians
for our statements in illustration of this subject. Yet the introduction
[1] QUEN. (III, 461) defends the arrangement thus: “The Triune God is very desirous of our salvation, and all the three persons of the Godhead are actively engaged in securing our eternal salvation. God the Father appointed everlasting happiness and the peace of heaven for us, of His own most gracious will and in His eternal counsel; Christ, the Son of man and of God, purchased for us the appointed salvation by His blood-bought redemption, and the Holy Spirit offers and applies the purchased salvation and spiritual blessings through the Word and Sacraments. As we have hitherto considered the grace of the Father’s commiseration and love, and the grace of the fraternal redemption, it remains for us to treat of the applying grace of the Spirit, which is completed in several distinct acts.” (HOLL. (791): “The applying grace of the Holy Spirit is the source of those divine acts by which the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God and the Sacraments, dispenses, offers to us, bestows and seals the spiritual and eternal favors designed for man by the great mercy of God the Father, and procured by the fraternal redemption of Jesus Christ.”)
[2] This arrangement is employed by nearly all the later Dogmaticians, some of them slightly changing the order of the topics. BR. alone considers faith and works separately from the means of salvation. His plan is this: after the Offices of Christ, he introduces Faith in Christ, Regeneration and Conversion, Justification, Renovation, and Good Works. HOLL. subjoins to the articles concerning calling, illuminating, converting, regenerating, justifying, indwelling and renewing grace, the following, viz., preserving grace (HOLL. (963): “Preservation is that act of grace by which the Holy Spirit, dwelling in justified and renewed men, defends them by supernatural strength against the temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh, which solicit to sin and apostasy from God, and sustains and increases their faith and holiness, that they may not fall from grace, but persevere in it and be eternally saved;”) and glorifying grace (HOLL. (790): “Glorification is the act of grace by which God transfers those who are justified, and who remain faithful until death, from the kingdom of grace to the kingdom of glory, that they may obtain eternal happiness and praise God eternally.”)
The earlier Dogmaticians treat only of Justification, Faith, Good Works, Repentance, and Confession, without attempting a systematic arrangement, and in the free form of unconnected topics, as has been done by Melanchthon.
§ 40. The Agent, the Means, the Result.
As it was Christ who accomplished the work of redemption, so it is the Holy Spirit who offers us the means whereby we can appropriate that redemption to ourselves. The means is Faith, the effect of faith is Justification.
§ 41. I. Faith.
After reconciliation with God has been brought about through Christ,
inasmuch as, in man’s stead, He fulfilled the Law and made satisfaction for the
sins of the world, thence-forward this new salvation is preached unto men, and through
it the forgiveness of sin is offered to them (
Faith, considered with reference to its individual elements, consists accordingly of —
1. “Knowledge, and that explicit, of things to be believed, especially concerning Christ and His merit, concerning the grace of God, or the remission of sins, and concerning the salvation to be obtained thereby from God.” BR. (503). [3]
2. “Assent, i.e., an approving judgment of the intellect, by which we believe that those things which the Scriptures say concerning Christ and His merit and atonement for our sins, and concerning the grace of God and the promises of the free forgiveness of our sins for Christ’s sake, are certainly and indubitably true, and by which we absolutely acquiesce in them.” [4] QUEN. (IV, 283).
3. “Confidence, an act by which the will rests in Christ, the Mediator, both as our present good and as the cause of another good, namely, the remission of sins and the attainment of eternal life.” BR. (506). [5]
None of these elements dare be wanting and no one of them
alone constitutes the faith of which we here speak. [6] A real knowledge of the
promises is essential to faith. A mere informal or implicit faith (such as says
that it believes what the Church believes) is not sufficient, but there must be
an explicit faith. [7] Faith consist, further, not in the mere recognition and crediting
of that which is promised, while the person may be inwardly indifferent towards
it (fides historica); it is therefore not sufficient simply to regard as true the
preaching of salvation. Therefore is neither a general assent sufficient (a belief,
in general, that God is just and merciful, and has sent His Son into the world as
Redeemer, but without any specific application of these truths,
Faith is, accordingly, the firm confidence which any one has attained that he dare trust in the salvation of Christ. [10] As such it is called special, also saving or justifying faith, [11] and it is the only means whereby we become partakers of salvation. [12] But this faith man cannot beget within himself, in any manner, by his own power: for man’s natural want of confidence in God can be overcome only by God Himself. If, therefore, a man believe, this faith is to be regarded as a work of God in him, [13] and the Word and Sacraments are the means which God employs for this purpose. [14]
But where such faith is wrought by God
in man, there also, along with it, there has occurred a moral transformation; for
he who has not recognized the comfort that is embraced in the offered salvation
would not think of embracing it. But this comfort presupposes knowledge of sin and
abhorrence of it. Where, therefore, this faith exists, there is always along with
[1] BR. (502): “Although through
the passion and death of Christ there was truly offered whatever of satisfaction
could be demanded from all the men in the world for the extinction of the debt incurred
through their offences, and thus to appease God and reconcile them to Himself; nevertheless,
God wished that sinners should acknowledge the satisfaction offered to Him for them
by the Son of God, and make it their own by faith; and so He wished that whoever
embraces the Saviour by faith may enjoy His merit.” Faith, in this sense, is “subjective,
or that by which one believes (faith, properly so-called, which dwells in a believing
man as a subject), and, as such, is distinguished from objective faith, or that
which is believed (which is the doctrine of faith, and which is figuratively called
faith, because it is the object of faith.
[2] AP. CONF. (II, 48): “The faith which justifies is not merely historical knowledge, but assent to the promise of God, in which remission of sins and justification are freely offered through Christ. Lest any one should suppose that it is mere knowledge, we add further: it is to wish to receive the proffered remission of sins and justification. — 81. Thus we are reconciled to the Father and receive the forgiveness of sins when we exercise confidence in the mercy promised in Christ.”
CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., II, 270):
1. “The Scripture calls faith
[3] BR. (503): “Belief can take place
only in regard to those things which are mentally conceived or embraced in simple
apprehension. Hence, knowledge is commonly regarded as the first step of faith,
or the first part or the beginning of faith. That knowledge is necessary to faith
in Christ, is proved by
[4] QUEN (IV, 283): “The second act of faith, (viz., assent)
is more distinctive than the first (viz., knowledge), for even heretics may have
knowledge and yet not yield assent to the Word known. But this assent is not
superficial, doubting, vacillating, but should be decided and strong, on which
account it is called the evidence of
[5] HOLL. (1178): “Confidence is an act of the will, by which the sinner, converted and regenerate, earnestly desires and seeks the mercy of God, secured by Christ’s merit, and embraces Him both as his own present good, and as the cause of the forgiveness of sins and of eternal salvation, relies upon Him against all terrors, and securely reclines and rests upon Him.”
QUEN. (IV, 284): “This confidence is nothing else than the
acceptance
or apprehension of the merit of the God-man, appropriating it to ourselves individually.
The following passages indicate the apprehension:
[6] BR. (508): “This, therefore, is the faith which is said to apprehend Christ or His merit, particularly as it is assent joined with confidence, or confidence joined with assent, consisting of these acts united, and is designated now by the name of the former, and then by that of the latter, the other always being implied. Whence it appears how faith exists in different faculties; in the understanding and will, namely, as something compounded and united in divers acts directed to the same object, and preserving a certain order amongst themselves and towards that one and the same object.”
HOLL.
(1166): “Faith is in the intellect with respect to knowledge; and assent, in the
will with respect to confidence.” QUEN. (IV, 282): “These three parts of faith are
expressed by
[7] BR. (503): “Explicit faith is that by which the thing to be believed, although it be not clearly known, or although all the things in it that are cognizable be not intelligibly apprehended, yet is in itself known distinctly, or in such a manner that it can be distinguished from other objects. With this is contrasted an implicit knowledge by which any one, e.g., is said to believe that Christ is the Redeemer, when he believes that those things are true which the Church believes, although he has no knowledge whatever as to what those things are which the Church believes.”
[8] HOLL. (1178): “By general
assent, the universal promises of the grace of God and the merit of Christ are regarded
as true. By special assent, the converted, regenerate sinner regards these general
promises as pertaining to him individually. In
[9] QUEN. (IV, 284, from CHMN., ex.): “It
may be proved that confidence is the principal part of faith. (1) From etymology.
Faith and confidence (fides and fiducia,
πιστις and πεποιθησις) have one and the
same origin; both come from a Greek word (πειθω), which means I persuade, I convince,
cf.
[CHEMNITZ, Examen (Preuss’ ed. I:192), much fuller: “1.
From the nature and property of a gratuitous promise. For my confidence in my salvation
does not depend upon the fact that the perspicacity of my understanding, by its
acuteness, can penetrate the heaven of heavens, and scrutinize what is decreed concerning
me in the secret counsel of the Trinity, but that God coming forth from His secret
light, has revealed His will to us in His Word, as Paul, in
“2. From the peculiar office of Justifying Faith. John had a special purpose
in saying of faith (
“3. The doctrine concerning
the use of the Sacraments furnishes the most consoling arguments concerning the
certainty of the salvation of believers. For it is certain that the Son of God has
added, by His own institution, to His promise of grace, the seals which are called
sacraments; viz., that the promise of the Gospel be presented not only in general,
but that, in the sacramental action, the general promise is offered, applied, and
sealed to every one using it in faith; and that too, so that the weakness of faith
which can feebly sustain itself by a general and naked promise, may be sustained
and comforted by the efficacy of the Sacraments. Thus,
“4. From the testimonies of Scripture
concerning the sealing of believers by the Holy Ghost,
Another term is arrhabo, a word of Hebrew origin, signifying
a pledge whereby suretyship is ratified and confirmed, not certainly that there
may be doubt concerning it, but that faith in it may be undoubted . . . . For, since
we are saved, but as yet only by hope,
“5. From the examples of the saints: Abraham,
“6. Doubt, conflicting
with confidence, is reproved in Scripture, in explicit terms,
[10] Faith can therefore equally well be defined as “Confidence in mercy for Christ’s sake, or assent to the promise of grace through Christ, or apprehension of Christ or of His merit, or the confident and individual application of the doctrines of salvation, rightly learned from the Word of God, and approved with a firm consent, made in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation through and on account of Christ’s merit.” (Cf. note 1.)
HOLL. (1163): “Faith in Christ is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which the converted and regenerated sinner savingly recognizes, with firm assent approves, and with unwavering confidence applies to himself, the Gospel promise of the grace of God and of the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation, to be obtained through the atonement and merit of Christ, so that he may be justified and eternally saved.”
The object of special faith is, accordingly, HOLL. (1166), “Christ the Mediator,
so far as He is offered to us in the promise of the Gospel as the meritorious cause
of the grace of God and of the remission of sins (
[11] Special faith distinguished from general. HOLL. (1164): “General faith is that
by which man, who needs salvation, believes all things to be true which are revealed
in the Word of God. Of this species of faith we are not now speaking, because we
are treating of faith as the means of salvation, and therefore in reference to a
special or peculiar object, which has the power of recovering salvation lost by
sin, and in consideration of which, faith may be considered among the means of salvation.
Special faith is therefore that by which the sinner, converted and regenerated,
applies to himself individually the universal promises in reference to Christ, the
Mediator, and the grace of God accessible through Him, and believes that God desires
to be propitious to him and to pardon his sins, on account of the satisfaction of
Christ, made for his and all men’s sins. It is therefore called special faith, not
because it has any special promise as its object, which is made specially to the
believer, but on account of the application by which, under the universal promise
of the grace of God and the merit of Christ, it reaches him individually. AP. CONF.
II, 44: “This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for
Christ’s sake, his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ’s sake, God is reconciled
and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us.” On the relation of
general and special faith, CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., II, 268): “Justifying faith (special)
presupposes and includes general faith, which, with a firm persuasion, determines
that those things are most certainly true which are disclosed in the Word of God.
For when this general foundation totters, then a firm confidence in the evangelical
promise cannot be conceived, nor can it be retained in time of trouble. Justifying
faith has thus many properties in common with general.” Against the objections of
Catholicism, he says: “The Papists constantly traduce our doctrine, as if we invented
a partial faith which is not Catholic, because it may be detached from the other
articles of belief and the entire Word of God, and restricted to the single item
of Christ, the Mediator; as if the assent to other parts of the Word of God were
not necessary, but arbitrary. To
[12] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 38): “It is faith alone, and nothing else whatever, which is the means and instrument by which the grace of God and the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel are embraced, received, and applied to us.”
HOLL. (1173): “For justifying faith is the receptive organ and, as it were, the hand of the poor sinner, by which he applies and takes to himself, lays hold of, and possesses those things which are proffered in the free promise of the Gospel. God, the supreme Monarch, extends from heaven the hand of grace, obtained by the merit of Christ, and in it offers salvation. The sinner, in the abyss of misery, receives, as a beggar, in his hand of faith, what is thus offered to him. The offer and the reception are correlatives. Therefore the hand of faith, which seizes and appropriates the offered treasure, corresponds to the hand of grace which offers the treasure of righteousness and salvation.”
[13] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 10): “Faith is the gift of God, by which we apprehend aright Christ, our Redeemer, in the Gospel.” GRH. (VII, 162): “We are so corrupted and depraved by sin, that we not only need redemption, the pardon of sins, the gift of salvation and eternal life, but that we also cannot of ourselves and from our own power produce even faith through which to become partakers of divine grace and heavenly blessings. God, therefore, pitying us, acted as a faithful physician, who not only carries medicine to the patient to cure him, but in addition, if there be occasion, and the invalid cannot do it, attends to the administration of it himself.”
QUEN. (IV,
281): “God is the principal efficient cause of saving faith.
[14] AP. CONF., II, 73: “We do not exclude the Word or the Sacraments. We have said above that faith is conceived from the Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in the highest degree.”
GRH. (VII,
163): “He does not wish to produce faith in the hearts of men immediately, or by
enthusiastic raptures of the Holy Spirit, but mediately by the preaching, hearing,
and reading of the Word, and meditation upon it. Therefore the instrumental cause
of faith is the preaching of the Word. The Holy Spirit not only offers in the Gospel
the vast benefits procured by the passion and death of Christ; but operates also
through the Word upon the hearts of men, and kindles in them faith by which they
embrace and apply to themselves the proffered mercies.” The difference in regard
to the order in which the Word and Sacraments influence adults and children is thus
laid down by QUEN. (IV, 282): “The conferring means in adults are, first, the Word
preached, heard, read, and devoutly considered.
Agreeably to this, HOLL. (1186) distinguishes “faith
(which essentially and absolutely considered is one), in relation to the mode of
knowledge, as direct, which directly leads to Christ and the grace of God afforded
in Him (for example, infants believe, but they cannot yet prove their faith [explorare
fidem suam] for want of ripened judgment), and as reflex and discursive, by which
a man regenerated believes and perceives that he believes, so that he can say with
Paul,
[15] AP. CONF. (II, 45): “Because faith comforts and lifts up the heart in repentance, i.e., in its distresses, renews us, and brings the Holy Spirit, enabling us to obey the Law of God.”
Ib. (64): “But when we say of such faith, that it is not mere idle thinking but that it delivers us from death and begets new life in our hearts, and is a work of the Holy Spirit, it does not co-exist with mortal sin, but produces good fruits only so long as it is really present.”
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., IV, 10): “As Luther writes in the introduction
to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: ‘Faith is a divine work in us which changes
us, divinely regenerates, mortifies
[16] HOLL. (1163): “A false, or vain and dead, faith is equivocally called
faith, as it is only an empty persuasion and boasting of faith, or a bold presumption
upon the mercy and grace of God on account of the merit of Christ, in an impenitent
man, indulging himself in sin. Concerning this, see
[17] AP. CONF. (II, 56):
“Faith does not justify or save because it is a meritorious work, but only because
it accepts the proffered mercy.” Ibid. (74): “Love, also, and good works ought to
follow faith; wherefore, they are not so excluded that they should not follow it,
but confidence in the meritoriousness of love or works is excluded in justification.”
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 41): “That which Luther has well said remains true,
‘Faith and works agree well and are inseparably connected, but it is faith alone
which receives the blessing without works, and yet it is never alone.’” 42. “In
regard to the question, how faith justifies, this is Paul’s doctrine on this point,
that faith alone without works justifies, inasmuch as it applies and communicates
to us the merit of Christ. But when it is asked how and by what indication a Christian
man can recognize and distinguish either in
QUEN. (IV, 281) thus combines the various statements in regard to faith; “If you inquire after the origin of justifying faith, it is heaven-derived; if in regard to the means by which it is proffered, it is begotten by the Word of God and the Sacraments; if in regard to the effects, it attains the pardon of sins; if in regard to the consequences, they are shown through the holy works of love; if in regard to the reward, it is recompensed in eternal salvation; if in regard to the relation to virtues, it is the root and foundation of the rest.”
[18] HOLL. (1187): “Certainty belongs to faith in Christ, (a) on the part of the
object believed, in which there can be no falsehood. For the Word of God, which
is received by the assent of faith, is most true, on account of the authority of
God who reveals it; (b) on the part of the subject, or of him who believes, and
who most firmly adheres to and depends upon the divine promises. For faith is the
evidence of things not seen,
[19] HOLL. (1186): “Faith is weak or infirm, when either
a feeble light of the knowledge of Christ glimmers in the intellect, or the promise
of grace is received with a languid and weak assent, or confidence struggles with
an alarmed conscience. So
§ 42. (2) Justification.
The effect of faith is justification; [1] by which is to be understood
that act of God by which He removes the sentence of condemnation, to which man is
exposed in consequence of his sins, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to
him the merit of Christ. BR. (574): “Justification denotes that act by which the
sinner, who is responsible for guilt and liable to punishment (reus culpae et poenae),
but who believes in Christ, is pronounced just by God the judge.” [2] This act occurs
at the instant in which the merit of Christ is appropriated by faith, [3] and can
properly be designated a forensic or judicial act, since God in it, as if in a civil
court, pronounces a judgment upon man, which assigns to him an entirely different
position, and entirely different rights. [4] By justification we are, therefore,
by no means to understand a moral condition existing in man, or a moral change which
he has experienced, but only a judgment pronounced upon man, by which his relation
to God is reversed, [5] and indeed in such a manner, that a man can now consider
himself one whose sins are blotted out, who is no longer responsible for them before
God, who, on the other hand, appears before God as accepted and
1.
REMISSION OF SINS (
2.
THE IMPUTATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST[6] (
This doctrine, according to which, in the act of justification, all man’s works are excluded and the whole is considered as effected by God’s grace, constitutes the central point of the knowledge which we owe to the Reformation; [16] in it there is offered man a sure and firm foundation upon which he may build his hopes of salvation, and a sure way pointed out to him of obtaining it. [17]
[1] QUEN. (IV, 286): “The immediate effect of faith is the remission of sins, adoption, justification, union with Christ, access to God, and peace of conscience. Among these effects of faith, justification is the principal, to which all the rest can be referred.”
[2] QUEN. (III, 526): “Justification is the external, judicial, gracious act of the most Holy Trinity, by which a sinful man, whose sins are forgiven, on account of the merit of Christ apprehended by faith, is accounted just, to the praise of God’s glorious grace and justice and to the salvation of the justified.”
[3] BR. (574): “For with and through faith man is at once justified; so that the act by which faith is conferred upon man, and the act by which man is justified, are simultaneous, although faith is by nature first in order and justification subsequent to it.”
[4] BR. (574): “Justification has a forensic sense, and denotes that act by which God, the judge, pronounces righteous the sinner responsible for guilt and liable to punishment, but who believes in Jesus.”
CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., II, 250): “Paul everywhere describes
justification as a judicial process, because the conscience of the sinner accused
by the divine Law before the tribunal of God, convicted and lying under the sentence
of eternal condemnation, but fleeing to the throne of grace, is restored, acquitted,
delivered from the sentence of condemnation, is received into eternal life, on account
of the obedience and intercession of the Son of God, the Mediator, which is apprehended
and applied by faith.” According to this, justification signifies to pronounce righteous.
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 17): “The word justification signifies in this matter
to pronounce righteous, to absolve from sins and the eternal punishment of sins
on account of Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to faith by God.” BR. (575):
“Although the Latin word justificare is compounded of the adjective justus and the
verb facere, it does not denote in general usage, and especially in the Scriptures
when sinful man is said to be justified before God, the infusion of an habitual
righteousness, but, according to the import of the Hebrew word הִצְדִּיק (
[5] BR. (577): “Justification does not mean a real and internal change of man.” HOLL. (928): “Justification is a judicial, and that, too, a gracious act, by which
God, reconciled by the satisfaction of Christ, acquits the sinner who believes in
Christ of the offenses with which he is charged, and accounts and pronounces him
righteous. Since this action takes place apart from man, in God, it cannot intrinsically
change man. For, as a debtor for whom another pays his debt, so that he is considered
released from the debt, undergoes not an intrinsic but an extrinsic change in regard
to his condition, so the sinner who is reputed and pronounced free from his sins,
on account of the satisfaction of Christ applied by true faith, is changed, not
intrinsically, but extrinsically, with respect to his better condition. The point
from which this external change takes place (terminus a quo) is the state of being
responsible for guilt and liable to punishment; because thereby the sinner remains
in a state of sin and wrath (
[6] QUEN. (III, 524): “Our justification before God consists in the remission and non-imputation of sins and the imputation of righteousness of Christ.” The FORM. CONC. sometimes presents both these expressions conjointly, and sometimes it describes the sentence of justification as having reference only to the remission of sins. It says (Epit., III, 4): “We believe that our righteousness before God consists in this, that the Lord forgives us our sins through mere grace . . . . For He gives and imputes to us the righteousness of the obedience of Christ; on account of this righteousness we are received into favor by God, and are accounted just.” And it says (Sol. Dec., III, 9): “Concerning the righteousness of faith, we confess that the sinner is justified before God, i.e., is absolved from all his sins and from the sentence of most righteous condemnation, and adopted into the number of the children of God and regarded as an heir of eternal life.” . . . The same course is adopted by other Dogmaticians. No difference is thereby intended in the matter itself. BR. mentions, as the form of justification, only the forgiveness of sins, because he presupposes the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as that upon which the forgiveness if based. He says (588): “It is certain that, when we call the form of justification the forgiveness or non-imputation of sins, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not excluded, . . . nor the imputation of this faith itself for righteousness. That is, we mean to say, that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and of faith itself, is only logically prior to that forensic act of justification by which men are absolved from the guilt of sins; for to the question, Why does God justify man? the a priori explanation is given, Because God imputes to man the righteousness or merit of Christ apprehended by faith, or so judges it to belong to man that he is on this account absolved from the guilt of his sins.” Other Dogmaticians express themselves differently in regard to the relation existing between the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
QUEN. (ib.): “These parts (so to speak) are not different or distinct essentially
(τω ειναι), but merely logically (τω λογω); for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness
is essentially nothing else than the remission of sins, and the remission of sins
is nothing else than the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, so that either word
separately taken expresses the whole nature of justification. Whence the apostle
Paul,
In earlier times, indeed,
the definition of renovation or regeneration was also included in that of justification.
Thus MEL. says (Loc. Com. Th., II, 207, sq.): “The first (degree) of evangelical
liberty is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, justification, or the imputation
of righteousness and acceptance to eternal life, and the inheritance of eternal
life, are bestowed upon us freely on account of the Son of God . . . . The second degree
is the gift of the Holy Spirit, who enkindles new light in the mind and new emotions
in the will and heart, governs us, and begins in us eternal life.” And the AP. CONF.,
II, 72: “Because to be justified signifies that the wicked are made righteous through
regeneration, it signifies also that they are pronounced or reputed as righteous.
For the Scripture uses both these methods of speaking.” Ib., III, 40: “Although
it is generally admitted that justification signifies not only the beginning of
renovation, but the reconciliation by which we are afterwards accepted.” When, afterwards,
these phrases were taken separately, and in the definition of justification only
the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness were included,
no change of doctrine was thereby introduced. MEL. and the AP. meant thereby only
to say that as faith, by which one apprehends the merit of Christ, is wrought by
the Holy Spirit, regeneration in its beginnings is at the same time implied in it.
AP. II, 45: “This special faith, by which any one believes that his sins are forgiven
for Christ’s sake, and that God is reconciled and rendered propitious for Christ’s
sake, attains the forgiveness of sins and justifies us. And because in penitence
i.e., in our spiritual distress, He comforts us and encourages our hearts, regenerates
us and bestows the Holy Spirit, so that then we can obey the divine Law.” To this
statement the later theologians also adhered. See Note 10. They were influenced,
however, by the controversies that
[7] QUEN. (III, 525): “The form of imputation consists in
the gracious reckoning of God, by which the penitent sinner, on account of the most
perfect obedience of another, i.e., of Christ, apprehended by faith according to
Gospel mercy, is pronounced righteous before the divine tribunal, ‘just as if this
obedience had been rendered by the man himself.’” AP. CONF. (III, 184): “To be justified
here signifies, according to forensic usage, to absolve a guilty man and pronounce
him just, but on account of the righteousness of another, viz., of Christ, which
righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith . . . . Because the righteousness
of Christ, is given to us through faith, faith is righteousness in us imputatively,
i.e., it is that by which we are caused to be accepted of God in consequence of
the imputation and ordination of God.” The expression: the righteousness of Christ,
is explained as follows in the FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 14): “The righteousness
(of Christ), which is imputed before God out of pure grace to faith, or to believers,
is the obedience, passion, and resurrection of Christ, by which He satisfied the
Law for our sake and atoned for our sins.” Synonymous with the expression: “the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to us,” is that other: “the merit or obedience
of Christ is imputed to us.” And also this one: “faith is imputed to us for righteousness,”
CHMN.
(Loc. Th., 274) vindicates the doctrine of imputation, against the Papists, as follows:
“There is an imputation which is based upon and has reference to a foundation in
the person working, to whom the imputation is made, and this is done not as a matter
of grace, but as a matter of debt. But there is another imputation, which neither
has nor refers to a foundation, in view of nor by reason of which the imputation
is made, but is based upon the grace and mercy of God, who justifies the wicked.
And in this, that he says by this imputation the wicked man is justified, he shows
that the foundation is altogether different in the believer to whom this imputation
is gratuitous; to whom, namely, not
“This exposition explains the whole doctrine and refutes many cavils . . . . The Jesuits say, a referring act (relatio) without a foundation is an empty phantasm and an illusion, as if Crassus, burdened with debt, were saluted as rich. Such, they say, is imputative righteousness, which has no foundation inherent in ourselves. But these cavils are abundantly refuted by what we have already said. For we do not teach that God, through any levity, imputes righteousness to believers without any foundation; but we affirm, from the Word of God, that there needs to be ever so firm a foundation of gratuitous imputation — that the righteousness inherent even in Abraham and David could not be the foundation of that referring act (relatio) and imputation, but there was need that the Son of God should become incarnate . . . . The righteousness of faith is, therefore, not of the least but of the greatest reality, for Christ is our righteousness; nor is it an empty phantasm, for it is the result of the divine thought and judgment.” In regard to the meaning of the word justification, HOLL. further remarks (914): “Imputation, in the doctrine of justification, is not taken in a physical sense, so as to signify to insert, to implant, but in a moral, judicial, and declarative sense, so as to signify to adjudicate, to attribute, to ascribe, to transfer, confer, devolve upon another the effect of a voluntary act by one’s own estimate and decision.”
The reality of imputation BR. shows as follows (581): “It is called imputation,
not as an empty or imaginary transfer of the merit of one to another, destitute
alike of a basis and fruit; but because it is an act of the intellect and will of
him who exercises the judgment, by which he adjudges that the merit of one, which
is offered for
[8] The Dogmaticians distinguish (QUEN., III, 517):
“The impulsive internal cause of our justification, which is the purely gratuitous
grace of God (
[9] HOLL. (903): “The receptive means, or that
on the part of the sinner which receives Christ’s merit, and the grace of God founded
upon it, is faith.” Faith is thus, indeed, considered a cause, but
[10] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 32): “It is properly said that
believers, who are justified by faith in Christ, in this life at first obtain indeed
an imputed righteousness of faith, but then also they have an incipient righteousness
of new obedience or of good works. But these two things are not to be confounded
or intermingled in the doctrine of justification by faith in the sight of God.” CHMN. (
[11] FORM. CONC. (Sol.
Dec., III, 27): “It is necessary that a person should be righteous before he can
perform good works.” AP. CONF. (II, 36): “It is very foolishly asserted by adversaries,
that men, deserving of eternal wrath, merit the pardon of sin by an act of love
which they put forth, since it is impossible to love God unless beforehand the pardon
of sins has been apprehended by faith. For the heart truly perceiving God to be
angry, cannot love Him unless He is shown to be appeased; human nature cannot
[12] CHMN. (
[13] MEL. (I, 192): “As it is of much importance that this exclusive particle (gratis) should be properly understood, I will explain the four reasons on account of which it is necessary to retain and defend it: (1) That due honor be ascribed to Christ; (2) that conscience may retain a sure and firm consolation (if this exclusive particle be ignored, doubt is strengthened, to wit, if you suppose that there is no pardon unless you have a contrition or a love sufficiently worthy, doubt will adhere, which produces at one time contempt of God, at another hatred and despair); (3) that true prayer may be offered; (4) that the difference between the Law and the Gospel may be seen.”
[14] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 36): “Paul means this when he urges
with so much diligence and zeal, in the matter of justification by faith, the exclusive
particles by which works are excluded from it, such as these: ‘without works,’ ‘without
the law,’ ‘without merit,’ ‘by grace alone,’ ‘gratis,’ ‘not of works.’ But all these
exclusives are embraced in these words, when we teach, ‘we are justified before
God, and saved, by faith alone.’ For in this way our works are excluded, not indeed
in the sense that true faith can exist without contrition, or as if good works did
not necessarily follow true faith (as its most certain fruits), or as if believers
in Christ ought not to perform them; but works are excluded from the
In order to specify very particularly the sense
in which the phrase, “we are justified by faith alone,” is used, and to guard against
misunderstandings, the Dogmaticians append a number of explanations, from which
we select the following. QUEN. (III, 552 sq.): “(1) We do not here speak of that
energy (ενεργεια) of faith, or of that operation of justifying faith, which manifests
itself in various acts of virtues, as love, hope, etc.; but of the operation which
is peculiar to it, native and singular, and is entirely incommunicable to all other
moral excellencies, namely, the apprehension and application of the merit of Christ.
(2) The exclusive particle ‘alone’ does not exclude different kinds of causes, but
subordinates them. For it is not opposed (a) to the grace of God, the principal
efficient cause of justification; (b) nor to the merit of Christ; (c) nor to the
Word and Sacraments, which are the instrumental causes of our justification, on
the part of God offering and granting; but (d) to our works, for it is they that
are excluded by this proposition, so that the proposition, faith alone justifies,
is equivalent to this, faith without works justifies. (3) Distinguish between the
exclusion of works with respect to their actual presence, and with respect to the
communication of efficiency. Works are excluded not from being present, but from
the communication of efficiency; not that they are not present to faith and the
justified, but that they have no energy or causation in connection with faith in
the justification of man. (4) Distinguish between faith considered in
[15] The most correct and common expression is, “we are justified by faith; that is, through faith.” Synonymous in import are the expressions, “we are justified by grace, by the merit, by the obedience of Christ.” (Comp. FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., III, 9 and 12.) If the expression be used, “faith alone justifies,” to avoid all misunderstanding, this is explained as follows. MUSAEUS (in HOLL.): “When it is said concerning faith, in the nominative case, that IT justifies, the language seems to be figurative. The meaning is not that faith absolves a man from sins and accounts him righteous; but faith is said to justify, because God, in view of it, regards us righteous, or because faith (not by its own, but by the worth of Christ’s merit) moves God to justify us.” HOLL. (ib.). “Osiander justly remarks: ‘If we wish to speak accurately and according to Scripture, it must be said that God alone justifies (for it is an act of God alone), but by faith man is justified.’ For faith of itself does not justify, because it is merely apprehensive. The mode of speaking, because it has become so common to say, faith alone justifies, can be retained, if the phrase be properly explained in accordance with Scripture usage.”
[16] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 6): “This article in regard to the righteousness of faith is the chief one in the entire Christian doctrine, without which distressed consciences can have no true and firm consolation, or rightly appreciate the riches of Christ’s grace. This is also confirmed by the testimony of Luther, when he says, if this one article remains uncorrupted the Christian Church will remain uncorrupted, in harmony, and without party divisions; but if it is corrupted, it is impossible successfully to oppose a single error or a fanatical spirit.”
CHMN. (Loc. Th., II, 216): “This one point mainly distinguishes the Church
from all nations and superstitions, as Augustine says: ‘The Church distinguishes
the just from the unjust, not by the law of works but by the law of faith.’ Yea,
this article is, as
[17] The later theologians add further:
“The effects and properties of justification.” As effects, QUEN. (III, 526) enumerates:
“(1) our mystical union with God,
§ 43. Concomitants and Consequences of Justifying Faith.
Having discussed faith as the means by which we partake of salvation, and justification as the effect of faith, there remain to be described the internal conditions and the moral change which occur in man at the same time with and after justification. But these, however, are also operations of the Holy Ghost. Agreeably to the order in which the Holy Spirit produces them [1] we enumerate: 1. The Call; 2. Illumination; 3. Regeneration and Conversion; 4. Mystical Union; 5. Renovation.
§ 44. (1.) Vocation.
“The Call is the act of grace by which the Holy Spirit manifests by means of the Word of God
His will in regard to the salvation of sinners to those persons who are out of the
Church, and offers them benefits from Christ the Redeemer, that they may be led
to the Church, converted, and obtain eternal salvation.” HOLL. (803). [2] The grace
of God through which He desires to effect man’s salvation, begins with the
Call,
for God must present salvation to man, since uncalled, man would not even desire
it. It is distinguished as indirect and direct, or, what is here equivalent, as
general and special. [3] By the former is understood the call which reaches man
through conscience and the natural knowledge of God, and thus awakens only in general
an undefined longing for salvation, which is yet unknown to him; by the latter,
the call which comes through the preaching of the Gospel, and directly invites to
entrance into the kingdom of God, to conversion, and to the reception of salvation
in Christ. It is only the latter which is here discussed. It is not merely an external
call, but is invariably accompanied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, of such
a kind that the person so called cannot fail to perceive the drawing of the Holy
Spirit, and that his conscience testifies that he has great reason to follow this
call; it is, therefore, at once as seriously intended as it is always efficacious.
[4] As, in the preaching of the Gospel, the only possibility is afforded, by which
man can obtain salvation through Jesus Christ (the instrumental cause is the external
preaching of the Word.
The call is, therefore, extended equally to all men, inasmuch as saving grace is offered to all men through the same means. But an inequality occurs in regard to the order, the manner, and the time of the call: to some it comes earlier than to others; for some it continues longer than for others; some receive the preaching of the Gospel immediately from heralds sent by God, while others receive it at third hand. [10]
The proof that the call has reached all nations and all individuals it is not indeed easy for us to produce, but from history and revelation we know the following: First, that there were three times in which God caused the news of salvation to be solemnly proclaimed in such a manner that thereby, upon each occasion, opportunity was given to all then living to hear it; whereby, at the same time, it became possible for them to hand down these glad tidings to all their posterity. These periods were, the days of Adam, of Noah, and of the Apostles. [11]
If then, in the course of time, some people be found who are entirely ignorant of the preaching of the Gospel, this does not militate against the universality of the call, but arises from this, that these people did not faithfully preserve the truth preached to them or did not lay it to heart, in consequence of which their posterity have to suffer. It is through their guilt that the call which God designed to be universal became particular. [12]
Moreover, we know that God did not limit His solemn call to the three occasions
we have cited, but that He also adopted all kinds of expedients whereby the call
afterwards could reach nations and individuals. [13] Why God, however, caused
[1] HOLL. (795): “The
acts of applying grace, according to the order in which they cohere, and follow
one another, are the call, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification,
mystical union with the Triune God, renovation, preservation of faith and holiness,
glorification.” Thus they are enumerated by nearly all the later Dogmaticians. Justification,
which we have already discussed, we now omit. HOLL. (ib.) thus vindicates this arrangement:
“This order, and, as it were, concatenated series of acts of applying grace, we
learn from
[2] QUEN.’s extended definition (III, 466): “Calling is the act of the applying grace of the Holy Spirit, by which He manifests towards the whole race of fallen man the most gracious will of God through the external preaching of the Word, in itself always sufficient and effective, and offers to all men the benefits obtained through the merit of the Redeemer, with the serious intention that all may be saved by Christ, and be presented with eternal life.”
[3] In the former manner KG. and QUEN. distinguish; in the
The term is strictly taken, as it signifies the direct call by which God calls men to faith and repentance, by means of the Word read or preached, and offers to them the grace of conversion by which they may be converted and partake of salvation.
HOLL. (803): “A general and pedagogical call to the Church is that by which God more obscurely and from afar invites sinners who are out of the Church to inquire in regard to the true worship of God and the assembly in which it flourishes, and leads them to the gate of the Church. The general call occurs: (a) Objectively, by the manifestation of the government and the divine beneficence towards creatures; (b) Efficaciously, by the efficacious divine influence and impulse, by which, both from theoretic and practical innate notions, and from proofs of the divine benignity, practical conclusions are produced in the minds of unbelievers to inquire, although in an unequal degree, concerning the true worship of God; (c) Cumulatively, through the rumor concerning the Church spread over the world.”
[4] QUEN. (III, 463): “The
form of the call consists in a serious (
[5] In regard to the call which comes to
men by the preaching of the Gospel and by that of the Law, HOLL. (807): “God calls
poor sinners directly and savingly to the Church by the Gospel (
AP. CONF. (V, 51): “God terrifies by the Law, that there may be place for consolation and vivification, because hearts secure and not perceiving the wrath of God despise consolation.”
[6] QUEN. (III, 463): “The ministerial cause is either the ordinary
minister of the Word,
[7]
QUEN. (III, 462): “The mediate call is that by which God in the Old Testament called
some by the ministry of angels, or men, and now, since the institution of the Gospel
ministry, calls by men alone. We use the term immediate, not with reference to the
medium or Word, without which no salutary call can take place, but in reference
to men, because God Himself presented the Word without human assistance. Thus
“Ordinary vocation is that which is accomplished by the divinely
appointed means, that is, by the external and visible ministry of the Word. Extraordinary
is when any one is called to the light of
[8] QUEN. (III, 463): “The
impelling and moving internal cause is nothing but the mercy and goodness of God
founded in the merit of Christ,
[9] HOLL. (809): “When we say that the call to God’s kingdom is universal, we do not assert that the doctrine of the Gospel was actually announced to each and every man openly and immediately by ministers specially sent; but that God most merciful has so clearly made known the doctrine of the Gospel concerning obtaining salvation by faith in Christ, that all men, without exception, can arrive at the knowledge of it, so that God has not by a divine decree denied to any nation or any person the benefit of the doctrine or the way by which he may attain to its knowledge.”
[10] HOLL. (816): “Ordinary calling is equal in
substance, or so far as it is essentially considered (because we are called by grace
equally salutary; because the same powers of believing are offered to all; because
we are called by the same means, by the same Gospel, by the same baptism of equal
efficacy, if you regard the divine purpose); but it is unequal in regard to order,
mode, degree, time, and interval. As to the order, the Gospel was first to be preached
to the Jews and afterwards to the Gentiles,
[11] HUTT.
(Loc. Com., 788): “God has revealed His Word at least three times to the whole world.
First, after the creation of the world, in the Adamitic Church. Then, after the
deluge, in the house and family of Noah. Then, after the ascension of Christ to
heaven, in the departure and dispersion of the apostles into the whole world. (Concerning
the apostolic age it was said: ‘Where the Apostolate does not come, the Epistle
does.’ — quo non venit αποστολη, εο επιστολη.
[12] GRH. (IV, 188): “The call is universal, as to God who issues it, but it
becomes special through the fault of man: First, inasmuch as some reject it with
Epicurean contempt; some also persecuting and violently repelling it. Then, inasmuch
as, by the fault of ancestors, the lost Word is not always in fact preached in all
nations and places.” HOLL. (810): “That the Gentiles were formerly, and many nations
now are, destitute of the preaching of the Gospel, is their own fault, not the will
and plan of God, denying them arbitrarily the light of the Gospel. For, (1) Those
nations despise the Word of God and maliciously reject it: (2) They neglect the
call and knowledge of Christian doctrines and rites in general, known by report
to all the world; (3) They do not apply to a proper use the instructive and effective
call, viz., so as to inquire after the true worship of God and the assembly in which
it prevails. For which reason they deprive themselves, by their own faults, of the
salutary call which is made by the preaching of the Gospel.” To the objection, the
son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, HUTT. (789) replies: “The meaning
of our thesis is this, that the descendants suffer on account of the fault of their
parents in this, that they are born without the Church; but not that, on account
of the ingratitude of their parents, all power of hearing the divine Word, or even
salvation itself, is cut off from or denied to them. The former we assert, the latter
we deny. The former is merely a temporal punishment, which still does not exclude
or prevent them from coming to the Church and hearing the Word of God, although
born without the Church . . . . For now, just as formerly, God
And GRH. (IV, 190): “If the case of Gentile children be adduced, the answer to this and similar things is: The judgments of God may be hidden; they can never be unjust. Many things pertaining to this head of doctrine are beyond our reach by the light of nature and of grace, which we will at some time understand better by the light of glory. These children not only derive a taint of corruption from their parents, but likewise spring from such ancestors as were intrusted with the precious deposit of His Word, that was to be handed down to their descendants, and of the Sacraments, by which also their children might be received to the grace of God. Let them accuse, therefore, the sins of parents, not the justice and mercy of God. Nor do we improperly require that such objectors should satisfy us that these children, if they had attained maturity, would have received the proffered grace of God, and not rather have imitated the sins of their parents.”
[13] HUTT.
(Loc. Com., 789): “So foul was the ingratitude of the greater portion in this matter
(at the time of the preaching in those three great periods), that it cast away that
treasure, as well to its own loss, as what is worse, by its own fault. But nevertheless,
in the midst of this stupendous ingratitude of the world and contempt of the Word,
God still wished that the rays of His mercy should shine forth in this, that the
Church of God (or the people who for the time being carefully cherished the incomparable
treasure of the divine Word) was always assigned a prominent place in the world,
so that any nation or people, if not extremely unconcerned, could readily be acquainted
with the preaching of the divine Word. As indeed, even to-day, the Christian religion
cannot but be sufficiently accessible to Jews and Turks, as those who are everywhere
living in the midst of Christians, unless they themselves prevent it by extreme
obstinacy.” HOLL. (810): “Although except in most recent times, the universal, stated
and actual preaching of the divine Word, did not always and everywhere extend to
all nations; yet God did not altogether withhold the universal call from any nation,
nor refuse to any man access to the Church. For God calls many nations, (a) by a
less formal
[14] QUEN. (III, 465): “That God
bestows the light of the Gospel upon one nation, while another is neglected; that
some Turks, Americans, and other barbarians are converted to the faith, others who
are their equals are left in their unbelief — this must also be ascribed to the hidden
and unsearchable judgment of God. It must be acknowledged that God does some things
in regard to the order, mode, time, and degree of the call according to His sovereign
pleasure.” But GRH. (IV, 191): “But let us admit, that in these and similar special
cases, we cannot find out and explain exactly the causes of the divine counsels;
nevertheless we must buy no means have recourse to the absolute decree of reprobation,
but adhere firmly to those asserted general statements,
The Symbolical Books abide by the simple statement: “That not only the preaching of repentance, but likewise the promise of the Gospel is universal, that is, it pertains to all men” (FORM. CONC., II, 28), and that the call is effected by the Word, without investigating further special cases which occur, and which present a seeming contradiction to the doctrine of the universality of the call.”
§ 45. (2.) Illumination.
As, to the natural man, everything spiritual is foolishness, and he cannot perceive it, but, on the other hand, many prejudices and doubts prevent him from rightly understanding that which is spiritual, the call would be fruitless, if the Holy Spirit did not so operate that the Gospel should appear in its true light and significance to man. [1]
On this account the further operation of the Holy Spirit aims
at the removal of this folly of the natural man, at displacing his doubts and
prejudices, and furnishing him correct knowledge and comprehension of the
substance and meaning of the Gospel. The aim, therefore, here is not only an
external
The Holy Spirit having brought about such a result, everything is done on the part of God, and it remains for the will of man to determine whether this salvation is to be received. [4] This is the effect which the Holy Spirit designs to produce by illumination. “Illumination is the act of applying grace, by which the Holy Spirit, through the ministry of the Word, teaches a man who is a sinner and called to the Church, and continues to instruct him in an ever-increasing measure, with the earnest purpose to remove the darkness of ignorance and error, and imbue him with the knowledge of the Word of God, by instilling from the Law the conviction of sin, and from the Gospel the apprehension of divine mercy, founded upon the merit of Christ.” [5] HOLL. (819). Illumination is, accordingly, more immediately an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the intellect of man; He addresses Himself however in this act at least mediately to the will, in as far as this illumination is designed, by the conviction of the misery of sin which it produces, and by presenting the grace of God, to conduct to conversion and the sanctification of the will. [6] It takes place in every man who lays to heart the call of the Holy Spirit, and opens his ear and heart, but not without this, as the Holy Spirit never works by constraint and never when man resists; [7] and He never comes to men except through the divine Word, [8] of which its ministers are the vehicle, [9] and which those who desire to be illuminated must permit to work in them in prayer and religious meditation. [10]
As the Word of God is divided into Law and Gospel, so can illumination, as it is
effected by the one or the other, be distinguished as legal or evangelical; and,
according to the diverse missions intrusted to the Law and the Gospel respectively,
the former will reveal to man only his sins and the wrath of God
Like all other knowledge, that produced by the Holy Spirit is not instantaneous, but gradual, as may be seen from this, that the knowledge here spoken of consists of various particulars, which follow one another in natural order. [13] And as, in the order of nature, external precedes internal knowledge, so here the Holy Spirit produces an external, which is preparatory to the internal knowledge, and then produces the internal; so that there may be further a distinction between a literal and pedagogic illumination, and one that is spiritual and entirely saving. [14] But as man attains the one as well as the other kind of knowledge only upon proper conduct on his part in reference to the grace ministered to him, the operation of the Holy Spirit, if the will of man do not proceed further, may also be restricted to the first; or, the operations of the Spirit may be restricted to the intellect, and not extend to the will of man as they should, [15] in which case the object of the Holy Spirit is not entirely accomplished in man, and the illumination is not perfect; [16] yet it still cannot be denied, that this first state of illumination is effected by the Holy Spirit. [17]
[1] HOLL. (850): “In an unilluminated man there is not merely a negative ignorance,
but also an ignorance of depraved inclination, which is error contrary to true knowledge,
because the natural man not only does not receive the things of the Spirit of God,
but they are foolishness unto him,
[2] HOLL. (819): “An objective illumination is not intended here, presenting
externally the light of the divine Word, but an effective one, in which the Holy
Spirit enkindles the light of knowledge,
[3] HOLL. (850): “Blindness of the intellect, filled with the darkness
of ignorance and error (
[4] HOLL. (820): “The first and principal design of illumination is to prepare man for conversion. For thus the natural darkness, the ignorance of the mysteries, and the errors opposed to them, are expelled by grace from the mind of man, and he is imbued with a knowledge of God and of sacred things, and illuminated, as if by a light, so that he is prepared to receive justifying grace. This illuminating grace, therefore, precedes the completion of conversion.”
[5] HOLL. (850): “Divine illumination consists formally in the instruction of the
Holy Spirit by means of the read or preached Word, not merely external, but likewise
internal, and penetrating efficaciously the inmost recesses of the human heart,
so that the darkness of ignorance and error is expelled, and the light of supernatural
knowledge is infused into it.” Id. (819): “Enlightening grace is called
teaching
grace, because the Holy Spirit, in enlightening, teaches all things necessary to
salvation,
[6] HOLL. (828): “First, the intellect of the sinner led to the Church is
immediately enlightened (
[7] Id. (827): “The most gracious God seriously designs
to illuminate all men, but only they are actually illuminated who, called and led
to the Church, receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, and listen attentively to the
divine Word, read it, and meditate upon it. The grace of the Holy Spirit is not
irresistible, for the sinner, if obstinately perverse, may hinder the supernatural
illumination of the Holy Spirit by opposing a veil or malicious obstacle,
[8] Id. (820): “The Holy
Spirit does not immediately, but by means of the divine Word, enlighten us,
[9] Id. (826): “The Holy Spirit truly and really enlightens
the souls of men in darkness in regard to sacred things by means of ministers of
the Word, performing in the right way the public office of teaching,
[10] Id. (844): “To obtain spiritual
illumination, three auxiliaries are necessary: prayer (
“I. The illumination and regeneration of the sinner do not take place by the purgation or abstraction of the soul from created objects, and the turning of it in upon itself.” The following explanations are added:
“(a) We do not disallow all abstractions of the mind from foreign objects and secular cares in the actual use of the Word and in godly meditations and prayers. We oppose that abstraction or annihilation by which the mind is presumed to be withdrawn from all creatures and from the divine gifts, and loses itself in God.
“(b) We do not condemn all resignation, since our divines inculcate a temperate and godly resignation (Gelassenheit). We reject that resignation which involves the destruction of all the affections, desires, and thoughts.
“(c) We must distinguish from the descent into the heart or soul for the purpose of bringing to remembrance sin, or the state of misery, and searching for repentance and faith, that introspection whose object is to apprehend the inner light immediately revealing . . . . The present controversy has respect to the introversion of the mind upon itself, to wait for, and observe, and apprehend the internal light, immediately making revelations.”
II. (847): “So far from expecting in silence a supernatural divine light, the external
Word of God, which is a most clear light, is on the contrary to be earnestly preached,
carefully heard, frequently read, attentively pondered, and, in addition, devout
prayers,
(848): “(a) When the Mystics distinguish between silence of words, thoughts, and desires, we approve of the first silence, i.e., of words in a certain respect; for meditation on the divine Word is aided by silence in our houses: but we disapprove of the silence of desires and thoughts.
“(b) The expectation of divine assistance, united with silence, is proper for true Christians, but not the silent expectation of directly revealing light.
“(c) The doctrine of an internal Sabbath of the soul, so far as it denotes (α) cessation from works of the flesh, (β) rest of the soul in God, (γ) meditation on the divine mercies, (δ) the desire and expectation of the eternal Sabbath, is retained and inculcated in our churches. But an internal Sabbath is rejected, so far as it denotes, not only a silence of words, but of all the thoughts and senses.”
[11] Id. (824): “Illumination, in respect
to the illuminating means, is either legal or evangelical. The former is that which
manifests to us sin, the wrath of God, and the temporal and eternal punishments
of sin (
“The Gospel illuminates the hearts of men, that they may know the glory of Christ, raised indeed upon the cross, but also conveyed to heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father. The Gospel, therefore, declares and manifests the mercy, the wisdom, and the justice of God the Father, in the open face of Christ, who is His express image.”
[12] Id. (825): “The divine Law, like lightning, has a terrible, slaying
and condemning light. But the Gospel, like the beneficent sun, diffuses an exhilarating
and vivifying light,
[13] Id. (851): “Ordinary illumination is not accomplished instantaneously, but by intervals, by degrees, by acts frequently repeated, that man may be disposed and prepared to admit continuously more and more light of the truth, so that if he should repel the first degree of illumination, the Holy Spirit may deny him the next, for it cannot occur without the first.”
“Note. — We speak now of ordinary, not of extraordinary illumination. We do not doubt that God, by special and extraordinary grace, and by His absolute power, can entirely illuminate a man at once, so that he may be acquainted with all the articles of faith, since we know that the Holy Spirit infused the gift of tongues into the apostles instantaneously.”
[14] Id. (840): “Illumination
in regard to the man receiving the heavenly doctrine is either literal and pedagogic
or spiritual and completely saving. The former is that operation of the Holy Spirit
by which, through His grace externally assisting and preparing the way, He instructs
with a literal knowledge of the doctrines of religion the intellect of an unregenerate
man, who is nevertheless inclining towards regeneration, and produces an historical
assent to the Gospel, so that he may be more and more disposed to receive saving
faith (
QUEN. (II, 77), expresses the distinction thus: “Pedagogic illumination is merely literal and external, when any one is instructed in the knowledge of divine truth, and is convinced of its certainty in his conscience, but has not this known truth as yet sealed in his heart with the seal, or confirmed by the gracious indwelling, of the Holy Spirit: spiritual, gracious, and internal, when any one, for instance, truly regenerate, not only has a literal understanding of the evangelical doctrine, but is at the same time the temple of the Holy Ghost, inhabited, graciously by Him; or, when the truth is not only known and admitted, but at the same time is strengthened, confirmed, and sealed by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit graciously dwelling in the heart.”
[15] HOLL. (829): “As supernatural illumination is a successive act of applying grace, therefore, without the sanctification of the will, the illumination may be imperfect in the intellect. This is in opposition to all the mystic writers, who regard the purgative process as antedating the illuminative.”
[16] Id. (843): “The sinner is illuminated pedagogically to the end that he may be disposed and prepared for spiritual illumination, by which not only his intellect is enlightened, but his will directed to the love of God and his neighbor. If the sinner who is to be converted does not attain this spiritual illumination, his knowledge of the letter is insufficient, unfruitful, not saving, because it is not applied to its proper use; therefore it may be called finally false, because the true end designed by God is frustrated.” Imperfect illumination, and pedagogical, is moreover ascribed by many divines to the grace of God assisting, and perfect illumination to the grace of God indwelling. Illumination is perfect only when grace dwells in man, and he permits his will to be sanctified by it, in which case progress is made from it to sanctification.
[17] Imperfect and pedagogical illumination is also not natural, but supernatural; (id., 831): “because (a) it proceeds from the light of a special revelation; (b) it is obtained by us through a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit; (c) it is occupied with the mysteries of faith; (d) and is divinely designed for a spiritual end. We cannot but particularly notice that divines, truly orthodox, have never divided illumination into natural and supernatural.”
§ 46. Regeneration and Conversion.
These are the terms descriptive of the state of one who has really entered into the new kingdom of grace. Both are used in the Holy Scriptures, sometimes in a wider, at others in a narrower sense, and often interchangeably. In the former case they describe the entire state of acceptance of the pardoned sinner, with all the moral powers which are now at his command, and embrace, therefore, in them justification and sanctification; in the latter case, in which indeed they do not directly exclude one another, but yet are also not exactly identical, they describe simply the internal change which has taken place in the entire condition of man, without including the power to lead a holy life. The two conceptions may be distinguished thus, that by regeneration is understood only the actual presence of the new spiritual life, as it is effected in man by the operation of the Holy Spirit; by conversion, the conditions also which must be performed on the part of man in order that he may attain such a spiritual life. [1] As thus the two expressions diverge in a certain sense, they may also be considered separately.
I. “REGENERATION is the act of grace by which the Holy Spirit gives the sinner saving faith, that, his sins being pardoned, he may become a son of God and an heir of eternal life.
[2] HOLL. (876): i.e., that work by which God overcomes the spiritual blindness of the natural man, and his spiritual inability to believe in the gracious plan of salvation, and creates in him the power of exercising faith. [3] There takes place, therefore, in the regeneration of man, a change [4] which consists in this, that, instead of the former blindness in spiritual things, there is spiritual knowledge; in place of unbelief there is faith, so that this entirely altered spiritual condition of man is represented figuratively by the term, a new birth, and the regenerate man as a new creature. [5]
As regeneration is conditioned by the conduct of man in regard to the influence exerted upon him, it will take place at once, or gradually, as man’s resistance is greater or less. The former takes place with children, in whom there is no other resistance than that which dwells in every natural man, which, however, is overcome by the Holy Ghost, operating in Baptism; the latter occurs with all adults, in the case of whom resistance only gradually disappears. [6]
But the operation of the Holy Spirit is always, however, efficacious, in such a sense that on God’s part all the energies which are needed to enable man to believe and lead a spiritual life are readily and altogether sufficiently offered to him; but this grace is not compulsory, therefore not irresistible, for its acceptance depends on the free will of man. [7] Therefore regeneration is likewise on the part of God indeed perfect, since He endeavors to effect regeneration perfectly on man, and to transform him into an entirely new creature; on the side of man, however, only more or less perfect as he permits this grace of the Holy Spirit to be entirely or only partially efficacious in him. [8]
It depends, too, upon the fidelity of man, whether he will persevere in the new condition of regeneration or not, and thus regeneration is also amissible; but, at the same time, it is recoverable by the grace of God, for the way of return to the state of regeneration, so long as life lasts, is open to him who has fallen from grace. [9]
II. CONVERSION. — There is no other way of attaining to faith and a spiritual life than by God’s turning man from sin to Himself, and “conversion is thus the act by which the Holy Spirit is said to convert the sinner, and the sinner is said to be converted.” (HOLL. 852). [10]
Conversion, then, is to be called a work of God, so far as this change cannot at all be produced without the agency of divine grace. So far, however, as this change cannot occur without an internal movement in man, which is conditioned by his own will, conversion in another point of view can be regarded as proceeding from man. Conversion is accordingly distinguished as transitive and intransitive. [11] In the latter sense it is identical with repentance, a movement of the mind excited by the converting and regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the sinner detests with unaffected sorrow his sins recognized from the divine Law, and at the same time lays hold by true faith of the satisfaction and merit of the Mediator Christ and the mercy of God obtained thereby and promised in the Gospel, and applies it to himself that, having freely obtained the pardon of his sins, he may be eternally saved.” (HOLL. 1141.)
The acts preceding conversion are more particularly the following:
1. The unconverted and unregenerate man being from his birth under the dominion of sin and his sinful propensities, manifesting themselves boldly in actual sins, the first act of grace aims to divert him from this state of sin, and, with this end in view, to beget in him real pain for past sins, and a desire to be freed from the dominion which sin has exercised over him, viz., contrition (“a serious and holy sorrow of heart, leading the sinner to hate the sins made known to him by the Law of God.”) [12]
2. The second act of divine grace is this, that it drives man, alarmed on account of his sins, to take refuge in the merit of Christ, which covers his sins and is accounted as his merit; [13] so that conversion, which commences in contrition, is finished in faith. The former is produced by the preaching of the Law, the latter by the preaching of the Gospel. [14]
From what has been said, it follows that conversion, like
regeneration,
[1] HOLL. alone deviates from this distinction, who first treats of conversion, then of regeneration, and so separates them that the form of conversion strictly taken consists in the excitation of contrition, the form of regeneration in the donation of faith. (856): “As it is one act of applying grace by which God produces contrition, and another act of grace by which He imparts in the contrite sinner a confidence that relies on Christ’s merit; so the former act of grace is called conversion (taken in the strictest sense), and the latter act is called regeneration. Contrition is the effect of converting grace, faith is the effect of regenerating grace. Penitence, taken in a wide sense, is the effect of both acts of grace, viz., conversion and regeneration conspiring to accomplish one end.” In this way, doubtless, the one idea is clearly distinguished from the other; but nevertheless HOLL. is not able, in its further discussion, to retain this distinction, and is compelled to connect faith with conversion. Most of the other divines pursue the order of our text, and desire, in treating the two aspects separately, rather to bring out two phases of one and the same conception than to keep them altogether apart from each other. Ordinarily this alone is given as the difference: “The two differ: (1) in regard to the subjects; regeneration pertains to adults and children; conversion properly to adults, as children cannot properly be said to be converted; (2) in regard to the means: regeneration is effected by the Word and Sacraments; conversion by the Word alone.”
[2] BR. (532): “Regeneration is an action of God,
by which He endows man, destitute of spiritual strength, but not obstinately resisting,
out of His mere grace for Christ’s sake, by means of the
[3] Therefore QUEN. (III,
482): “The point from which it proceeds generically is the death of sin, not taken
in its entirety (ολικως), as it introduces, in addition to a privation of powers
of believing, likewise a deficiency of strength for holy living, together with the
dominion and guilt of sin; but taken partially (μερικως), so far as it affirms the
want of the power of savingly knowing and embracing the justifying object. In particular,
on the side of the intellect, the starting-point is the great blindness and multiform
debility in regard to the saving knowledge of the saving object,
[4] But this spiritual change is not a substantial one (for there is
not another substance of intellect and will introduced by regeneration, the pre-existing
natural substance having been destroyed), but an accidental one (introducing new
qualities into the intellect and will of man, not merely enlightening and exciting
the preexisting). QUEN. (III, 484): “As in the resurrection of the body the flesh,
numerically the same which we have borne, shall be reproduced, furnished, however,
with different properties; so, in regeneration, the same natural substance of our
body remains, the properties only being changed. Regeneration does not destroy nature,
but perfects and directs it; it does not change it so that it ceases to be nature.
The antithesis is (a) that of the Fanatics, who assert that by regeneration the
substance of the former body is destroyed, and, the same soul remaining, a new body
is given differing essentially from the former; (b) that of the Flacians, who assert
that God, in regeneration and conversion, so creates a new heart and a new man,
that the substance and essence of the old Adam,
[5] QUEN.
(III, 485): “’A new man’ and ‘new creature,’
[6] HOLL. (885): “The regeneration of infants is instantaneous, but the ordinary regeneration of adults is successive. In infants, as there is not an earnest and obstinate resistance, the grace of the Holy Spirit accompanying Baptism breaks and restrains their natural resistance that it may not impede regeneration; wherefore, their regeneration takes place instantaneously. In the regeneration of adults there are many difficulties to be removed by care, and illumination and instruction extended over a long time are to be afforded from the divine Word, until a full faith is enkindled in the mind.”
QUEN. (III, 483): “Regeneration is successive, not always instantaneous, but gradual and increasing; and although the quickening takes place in the moment in which faith is produced in us, and Christ, the true sun of righteousness, arises in our hearts, yet the spiritual life displays itself in successive acts.” BR. (530): “Nor is there any contradiction to this in the name, regeneration, whose force and signification are to be estimated from the analogy of generation, which takes place, indeed, in an instant; for that comparison must not be extended too far . . . . Those who say that regeneration is instantaneous, seem to understand by it either justification or the conferring of the beginning of faith as to the first holy thought and pious desire.”
[7] HOLL. (885): “Regeneration is the action of the Holy Spirit, efficacious
and sufficient to produce faith, but it is not irresistible (
[8] QUEN. (III, 483): “Regeneration on the part of God regenerating is perfect, and so does
not admit of a greater and less any more than carnal generation; on the part of
men receiving, it is imperfect (because sinners imperfectly receive the influence
of the Holy Spirit), because moral evil is always near them,
[9] HOLL. (886): “The grace of regeneration is lost when sins subversive
of conscience are deliberately committed (
[10] QUEN. (III, 500): “Conversion is the action of the applying grace of the Holy Spirit, whereby, together with the Father and Son, of absolutely pure grace, founded in the merit of Christ, through the preaching of the Word, He transfers the adult spiritually dead from his state of sin to a state of faith, successively as to the preparatory acts, but in an instant as to the ultimate act, by a divine and supernatural but resistible power, so that, repenting, he may obtain by faith the remission of his sins, and partake of eternal salvation.” Conversion may here be considered in a broader or narrower sense.
QUEN. (III, 489): “Conversion is used either in a wide
sense as embracing not only transfer from a state of sin to one of faith, but likewise
justification and renovation, and the continuation of this new state in its entire
extent,
HOLL. (854) distinguishes still further: “Conversion taken in a special sense, as the act of grace by which the Holy Spirit excites in the sinner sincere grief for his sins, by the word of the Law, and enkindles true faith in Christ by the word of the Gospel, that he may obtain remission of sins and eternal salvation;” and (in accordance with what was said under the head of Regeneration, note 1), “Conversion in the most special sense, as the act of grace by which the Holy Spirit restrains, subdues, and breaks the will and heart of the sinner in the midst of his sins, that he may detest his sins with grief of mind and thus be prepared for receiving faith in Christ.”
[11] BR. (533): “The word conversion
is taken in a double sense in the Scriptures, inasmuch as at one time God is said
to convert man, and at another man is said to convert himself, although as to the
thing itself the action is one and the same.” The first is called “transitive conversion,
because it does not terminate in God who is the agent, but passes from Him to another
subject, to wit, to the sinner,” and is distinguished as “active, so far as it proceeds
from God, and as passive, so far as it is received by man,
[12] HOLL. (868): “The starting-point
is sin, both actual sins, so far as, after they are committed, they remain morally
as if ratified or not retracted; and habitual, so far as they not only imply the
want of that habitual perfection which ought to exist, but likewise the propensity
to all the evils which are the fountain and cause of actual sins.” BR. (539): “That
actual sins may be abolished by conversion, it is necessary first, that they should
be retracted by the sinner, and that they be recognized by the intellect, not only
with the speculative judgment that they are truly sins, but likewise with the practical,
that efforts are to be made for the abolition of sins, and circumspection employed
in regard to the mode and means by which they may be abolished; on the side of the
will, efficacious dissatisfaction with sins, or a detestation of them united with
grief, is required.” (543): “Conversion tends to abolish habitual sins by the same
acts by which it tends to abolish actual sins; yet in such a way, that they should
be abolished or expelled not only morally, but physically
QUEN. (III, 492) more exactly: “The starting-point
in general is the state of sin,
[13] BR. (541): “It is necessary,
moreover, that the mind should aim at the abolition of actual sins, both with respect
to the offense against God and the obligation of sinners to make satisfaction to
God, which indeed can be effected solely by faith in Christ, the Mediator, and in
His merit and satisfaction for our sins; and, when faith lays hold of this, the
mind turns to God,
[14] AP. CONF. (V, 28): “We maintain that repentance consists of two parts, viz., contrition and faith.” GRH. (VI, 234): “The number of leading divisions of the heavenly doctrine, by the ministry of which the Holy Spirit proclaims true and saving repentance and produces it in the hearts of men, is the same as the number of essential parts of repentance. There are now two general classes of heavenly doctrine by which the Holy Spirit preaches and produces repentance, viz., the Law and the Gospel. Therefore there are two essential parts of repentance. The connection of the major premise is plain, because each of these two doctrines produces its peculiar and proper effect in converting man; these two effects, although different from each other, nevertheless concur harmoniously to the production of the one common end of repentance. The Law produces pain, by manifesting the atrocity of sin and the anger of God against it, and accusing man on account of his transgression. The Gospel offers to terrified and contrite man Christ, the Mediator, who died on the altar of the cross for our sins.”
The AP.
CONF. adds further (V, 28): “If any one desire to add a third (part), namely, fruits
worthy of repentance, that is, a change of the whole life and conduct for the better,
we will not oppose;” and MEL. (Loc. c. Th., II, 4): “The parts are contrition and
faith. New obedience ought necessarily then to follow; if any one desire to call
this a third part, I have no objection.” From
The
later divines discuss more particularly the two parts of conversion, contrition
and faith, under the head of penitence as intransitive conversion, which generally
follows the doctrine of the Sacraments. As the contents are similar and the difference
only this, that transitive conversion is considered the operation of God, repentance,
that is, intransitive conversion, as the movement inwardly taking place in man as
the consequence of this operation, we therefore unite both articles into one. The
Symbolical Books, likewise, and the earlier divines, treat of this subject only
as one topic, viz., under the head of repentance. Contrition is defined by the later
divines as “the first act of repentance by which the sinner, struck by the lightning
of the Law, aroused by the sense of divine anger on account of the sins that he
has committed, is sorry after a godly sort, is thoroughly alarmed, and earnestly
detests his sins.
[The term “auricular,” as applied to confession, is used in two senses. As a confession made orally, and received by the ear of the confessor, it is applicable to Lutheran confession. But as the term is ordinarily used for the compulsory enumeration of details by the Romish Church, our Lutheran theologians most emphatically repudiate it. “It would, manifestly be a logomachy, were it to be asserted that the kind of confession here understood is not auricular. In the conferences at Augsburg in 1530, an agreement had so far been reached that the controversy on this point might have been regarded as ended (see Coelestine’s History, § III, p 55). But it is well known that the Council of Trent silently receded from the concessions previously made by the Catholic theologians, prescribed the necessity of the confession of all sins (even of thoughts), and declared it godless to deny the possibility of the complete confession of all sins, or to name it spiritual tyranny. It is clear that, in this sense, the Lutherans could not admit of auricular confession. They allowed, indeed, a confession of sins entering into details, and gave this the preference above a merely general or summary confession; yet for this they applied no constraint, but left it to the conscience of everyone, whether he should confess individual sins to his pastor, or be satisfied with the general declaration that he was a sinner, and desired forgiveness.” See “Apology,” ut supra, Augusti’s Christliche Archaelogie, III, 93 sq.]
[15] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 199): “Conversion or renovation is not a change that is accomplished and perfected always in a single moment in all its parts, but it has its beginnings and its advances, through which, in great weakness, it is perfected. It is not, therefore, to be understood that I am to wait, with a secure and indolent will, until renovation or conversion have been accomplished, according to the stages already described, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, or without any movement on my part. Nor can it be shown with mathematical accuracy where the liberated will begin to act.”
[16] BR. (563): “That divine operation by which conversion
is produced in man by the Law and the Gospel is usually called grace.” This one
and the same grace is usually distinguished as prevenient, operating, and co-operating,
though even here the distinctions are not always uniform. BR. (563). “By
prevenient
grace is understood the divine inspiration of the first holy thought and godly desire.
This grace is called prevenient, because it is prior to our deliberate consent,
or because in this way the will of the person to be converted is anticipated. Operating
grace is that which directly follows the commencement of conversion and has reference
to its continuance; by which it comes to pass that man by an effort, although weak,
inclines to Christ, the Mediator, and the promises of gratuitous pardon for Christ’s
sake, and resists doubts. According to others, indeed, operating grace is referred
to the commencement of conversion, and coincides with prevenient and exciting grace
as to the effect, and is called operating because without us and without our free
consent it operates in us. Co-operating grace is that operation which aids and strengthens
or corroborates the intellect already in some measure assenting to the divine promises,
and the will trusting in Christ, and so operates with the will, which concurs by
the yet weak powers before received. By others, again, the co-operating grace of
God is described as that by which God concurs with man already converted, in preserving
the powers conferred upon him, increasing them, and assisting so that his faith
may not fail” (in which case co-operating grace is more applicable to sanctification). QUEN. (III, 494) and others divine into “assisting grace, which acts exterior to
man, and indwelling grace, which enters the heart of man and, changing it spiritually,
inhabits it.” To the former belong “incipient or prevenient grace, exciting grace,
operating grace, and perfecting grace,” of which the first three operate as preparatory
acts, but by the latter the act of real conversion is accomplished; indwelling grace
occurs only after conversion, in sanctification. “The grace of God acts before conversion,
in it, and after it. The
[17] BR. (564): “It is properly said that man is merely passive in the commencement of conversion.” QUEN. (III, 508) presents the thought more fully thus: “Conversion is taken either in a wide sense, so that it includes also the preparatory acts, and thus man is passive in reference to each act or degree; or in a narrow sense, for the transfer from a state of wrath to one of grace, which is instantaneous by means of the gift of saving faith, and in which undoubtedly God alone works, man being subjected to this divine action as a passive object.” This statement naturally flows from the doctrine of the state of corruption (compare § 28, Note 8, sq., and FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., II, 7), and thus an answer is furnished to the question,, “In what way does the will of man act in his conversion?”
HUTT., who very thoroughly discusses this question in his Loc. Com., makes this
preliminary remark (p. 281): “Occasion for this question is given by the fact that,
in the conversion of an unregenerated man, the change cannot take place unless good
actions concur and spiritual exercises intervene, such as struggling with the flesh,
contending with unbelief, assent to the divine Word, and such like. It has been
therefore asked, and is to-day asked, whether these exercises, or even any part
of them, can be attributed to the power of human ability. But that this question
may be rightly answered, it must first be observed, in general, that the conversion
of man to God is not always one and the same thing, but may be of two distinct kinds,
according to the two distinct subjects who are converted. Some of those who are
to be converted are altogether beyond the limits of the Church, commonly known as
infidels, and such are all they who live without any connection with the Church;
others, however, live in the midst of the assembly of the called, and were brought
into connection with the
“For it is asked (1) Whether,
since the Fall, all the powers have been so broken, or rather extinguished, in spiritual
matters, that not the
Here the
question, however, arises: How then can conversion be effected in man otherwise
than against his will or without his knowledge? Both these inferences are rejected. HUTT. (Loc. Com., 284): “There have been those who asserted that the will of unregenerate
man in conversion is in a hostile attitude, so that the Holy Spirit effects conversion
by violent drawings, or by a kind of force, in those who are unwilling and resisting.
This opinion has elements of both truth and falsehood in it. For it is true that
the natural man can do nothing of himself but resist the Holy Spirit . . . . Thus it
is also true, that some have been converted when they were violently raging against
God. But what is hence inferred is most false, viz., that they were converted while
repugnant and reluctant. For it is most certain that they in whom this resistance
does not cease never are converted to God . . . . Others answer, that man in conversion
not only does nothing, but is converted while unconcerned and not knowing what is
being done with him. This opinion manifestly savors of Enthusiasm . . . . For, although
unregenerate man cannot know of himself and of his own powers what is being done
with him, yet the Holy Spirit removes this stupor and illuminates his mind, so that
now he knows what is being done with him and yields his consent to the Holy Spirit.”
The Word of God is designated as the means which God employs for conversion, and
to the unregenerate nothing more is ascribed than the power to hear or to read this
Word of God. FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., II, 53): “This Word of God man, while yet unregenerate,
can hear with his outward ears or read . . . . Through this means or instrument, namely,
the preaching and hearing of His Word, God operates, softens our hearts, and draws
man, so that through the preaching of the Law he recognizes both his sins and the
wrath of God, and experiences true terrors and contrition in his heart. And through
the annunciation
And HOLL. (873): “When man lies dead in sins, lives along securely, never thinking about his conversion, God, most merciful, comes to him anticipatingly, and by means of the Word, either heard or read or retained in his mind, thereupon excites good emotions in his mind which the divines call unavoidable, because he cannot evade their presence and perception; which also, in a certain way, can be called irresistible, as to their origin and their perception, because the sinner is in no way able to oppose himself to the excitation of them by the Word, or to his own perception of them, but can only withhold his acquiescence in them. ‘The first emotions,’ says J. Musaeus, ‘can be called irresistible, so far as they precede our thinking, so that it is not in our power to prevent them from arising; although, after they have arisen, they can be resisted, so as not to take root, and they can be hindered or altogether suffocated.’”
[18] FORM. CONC.
(Sol. Dec., II, 65): “It follows, as soon as the Holy Spirit, through the Word and
Sacraments, has begun
[19] QUEN. (III, 498): “The conversion of man is the action of divine grace alone operating,
and is accomplished by the same infinite power by which God creates anything from
nothing and raises from the dead; and it is, moreover, effected through the means
of the Word, which has that supernatural and divine power inherent in it, and which
it exerts in the conversion of man,
§ 47. (4.) The Mystical Union.
The Holy Scriptures assert that God dwells in the
believer, and express by this a peculiar union of God with him, which Dogmatics
distinguish as a mystical union. This takes place at the instant in which man is
justified and regenerated, and is inseparably united with justification and regeneration,
so that, as we associate with justification the forgiveness of sins, and with regeneration
the power to believe, so in the mystical union we describe the direct operation
of both these acts of divine grace, which consists in this, that God makes His abode
in a peculiar manner in the justified or regenerate. [1] By this mystical union
more is expressed than a mere agreement of the will of man with the will of God,
or a mere union of both in love, or a mere influence and communication of spiritual
gifts on the part of the Holy Ghost. [2] The passages,
[1] In regard to the order in which the mystical union follows upon the preceding regeneration and justification, QUEN. (III, 621): “Regeneration, justification, union, and renovation are simultaneous, and, being more closely united than the ingredients of an atom (quovis puncto mathematico arctiores), so cohere that they cannot be separated or rent asunder. Yet, according to our mode of conceiving of them, justification and regeneration are prior in order to the mystical union. For when in regeneration, a man receives faith, and by faith is justified, then only does he begin to be mystically united to God. But renovation is subsequent to union, for from good works, which are the effects of renovation, the existence of both justification and the mystical union is inferred, a posteriori; therefore they follow each other in this order, according to our conception. Regeneration precedes, that faith may be attained. Justification follows, which is of faith. The mystical union then occurs, which is succeeded by renovation and sanctification.”
According to another mode of considering this, it may be said that union precedes justification inasmuch as faith precedes justification; and in faith, as the organ by which the union is effected, its beginning is already presupposed. Therefore HOLL. (933), after consenting to this view, adds: “Although the mystical union, by which God dwells in the soul as in a temple, may, according to our mode of conception, follow justification in the order of nature, it is however to be acknowledged that the formal union of faith, by which Christ is apprehended, put on, and united with us, as the mediator and the author of grace and pardon, logically precedes justification. For faith is imputed for righteousness, so far as this receives the merit of Christ, and so unites it with ourselves as to make it ours.”
The union may be conceived as an act, inasmuch as it takes
[2] QUEN. (III, 623): “The mystical union does not
consist merely in the harmony and tempering of the affections, as when the soul
of Jonathan is said to be united to David,
[3] HOLL. (932) defines: “The mystical union is the
spiritual conjunction of the triune God with justified man, by which He dwells in
him as in a consecrated temple by His special presence, and that, too, substantial,
and operates in the same by His gracious influence.” QUEN. (III, 622): “The mystical
union is the real and most intimate conjunction of the substance of the Holy Trinity
and the God-man Christ with the substance of believers, effected by God Himself
through the Gospel, the Sacraments, and faith, by which, through a special approximation
of His essence, and by a gracious operation, He is in them, just as also believers
are in Him; that, by a mutual and reciprocal immanence they may partake of His vivifying
power and all His mercies, become assured of the grace of God and eternal salvation,
and preserve unity in the faith and love with the other members of His mystical
body.” While QUEN. thus, already in his definition of the mystical union, incorporates
with it union with Christ, the God-man, CAL. (X, 526) distinguishes between the spiritual
union of the regenerate with the triune God and the conjunction with Christ, the
God-man; and he thus defines the latter: “The mystical union of Christ with the
believer is a true and real and most intimate conjunction of the divine and human
nature of the theanthropic Christ with a regenerated
This
Mystical Union is further described in the Holy Scriptures by the expressions: the
espousal of believers with Christ,
[4] CAL. (X, 511):
“Although we do not admit an essential union after the manner of a graft that coalesces
in one numerical essence with the trunk of the tree, yet we think that here there
takes place not only that common union of men with the substance of God of which
we are told in
HOLL. (933): “The general union
is that whereby all believers and unbelievers live and move and have their being
in God. As fishes in water and birds in the air, so all men live and move and are
in God, because He gives to all life and breath and all things.” QUEN. (III, 614):
“The general union of all men with the substance of God the Creator is indicated
in
The special
union is partly “a gracious one, in the Church Militant, whereby God dwells in the
regenerate by His substantial presence, and operates in them by His special concurrence,
[5] QUEN. (III, 624): “This union does
not consist in transubstantiation, or the conversion of our substance into the substance
of God and of Christ, or vice versa, as the rod of Moses was converted into a serpent.
Nor in consubstantiation, so that of two united essences there is formed one substance.” HOLL. (939): “(a) God dwells in us as in temples, by the favor of the mystical union,
[6] QUEN. (III, 624): “The mystical union does not consist in a personal
union or a coalition of extremes united into one hypostasis or person, such as in
the union of the divine and human nature in Christ; so that the believer, united
to Christ, could say, I am Christ.” HOLL. (939): “Paul teaches that Christ and believers
being mystically united remain distinct persons,
§ 48. (5.) Of Renovation.
It is not enough that man learns to know his sins and hate them, nor that in regeneration he becomes
able to grasp the merit of Christ by faith. God desires also that man should exercise
this turning away from sin and this return to Him in a moral life, that he cease
to be the old and become a new man, leading day by day a more holy life before God.
And God Himself works in this direction by His divine grace, seeking to draw off
man more and more from sin, and to encourage and strengthen him for that which is
good. This operation, however, wrought by God in man, is called renovation, so far
as through it a change is wrought in man, in consequence of which he may be called
a new man; [1] also sanctification, so far as now his life begins to become holy.
[2] HOLL. (946): “Renovation is an act of grace, whereby the Holy Spirit, expelling
the faults of a justified man, endows him with
[1] Renovation, too, is taken in a wider
and narrower sense. BR. (593): “Renovation in general denotes any action by which
old things, or things which are injured or weakened or corrupted by age, or in any
other way, are restored. So, in the spiritual renovation of man, taken more widely,
the old man, as to his entire condition, that is, the deficiency of every kind of
spiritual power, the guilt and dominion of sin, is destroyed; and the new man as
to his entire extent, that is, his spiritual strength, freedom from guilt, and the
habitual gift, by which the dominion of sin is subdued, is said to be produced,
QUEN. (III, 632) thus discriminates
renovation from regeneration and justification: “Renovation differs (a)
As to the
efficient cause. Regeneration and justification are actions of God alone; renovation
is indeed an action of God, but not of God alone, for the regenerate man also concurs,
not in his own strength, but through divinely granted power. (b) As to the subject.
Man altogether dead in sins is the subject of regeneration. The sinner, indeed,
is the subject of justification,
[2] It is likewise taken either in a wider sense, so that it embraces in its limits
calling, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification, and renovation,
as
[3] HOLL. (947): “Renovation is an act of applying grace by which the Holy Spirit abolishes the inherent remains of sin in the justified man that it may not reign, and produces in him internal and external affections conformed to the divine will, and thus spiritually good, that, being endowed with the renewed image of God, he may live piously, soberly, and justly, to the glory of God the most holy.”
BR. (607), (representing renovation more as a state): “Renovation is a combination of spiritual acts which the regenerate man, God assisting graciously by His Word and Sacraments, puts forth by means of the spiritual strength afforded him as to his intellect, will, and sensual appetite, in order to destroy the remains of sin, and to acquire greater sanctity, in the way of salvation, to the glory of God.”
[4] QUEN. (III, 634): “The old man is the
starting-point (terminus a quo), the new man the goal (terminus ad quem),
“The form
of renovation consists in the expulsion of mental errors and the illumination of
the mind,
[5] HOLL. (955): “As the body of sin in
process of time is more and more weakened by the regenerate man, so the regenerate
man is transformed more and more into the image of God from glory to glory by the
Holy Spirit (
[6] QUEN. (III, 636): “Renovation in this life is partial and imperfect, admitting
degrees, and therefore it never attains the highest acme of perfection. For sin
remains in the regenerate, affects their self-control, the flesh lusts against the
Spirit, and therefore our renovation progresses from day to day, and is to be continued
through life,
The question whether the new man, if sin still cleaves to him,
[7] QUEN. (III, 633): “The first efficient cause is the entire
Trinity (
SUPPLEMENTARY.
§ 49. Of Good Works.
Renovation makes itself known by good works. [1] By these we understand
such acts as are performed by the regenerate
[1] BR. (607): “To the doctrine
concerning renovation belongs
[2] HOLL. (1190): “Good works are free acts of justified persons, performed through the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit, according to the prescription of the divine Law, true faith in Christ preceding, to the honor of God and the edification of men.”
[3] AP. CONF. (III, 15): “We profess, therefore, that there is a necessity for the Law to begin in us and to increase more and more. And we embrace both together, viz., spiritual emotions and external good works.” HOLL. (1190): “By works here are understood not only external visible actions (which proceed from the hand or tongue), but internal affections of the heart and movements of the will, and thus the entire obedience and inherent righteousness of the regenerate. A distinction is, therefore, to be made between internal and external good works. The former are seen by the eyes of God alone, and comprise the inner thoughts of the mind, the movements of the will, and the pure affections of the heart (such as love, the fear of God, confidence towards God, patience, humility). The latter are seen not only by God, but likewise by man, and manifest themselves by outward demeanor, words, and actions. It has seemed good to holy men of God to use the appellation of works rather than habits or affections, as all the praise of true virtue consists in action, and as external works are more known than internal qualities and affections; finally, as the works of the regenerate alone are deserving of the praise of good works.” QUEN. (IV, 306): “A good work is that which God commands, and which is done with the disposition, manner, and purpose for which it has been commanded.” HOLL. (1198) adds also: “A good intention is to be accounted among good internal works.”
[4] HOLL. (1190):
“The works of regenerate and justified men are called good, not absolutely, as if
they were perfectly good, but in their kind, because (a) they derive their origin
from the good Spirit of God,
[5] Much more, all
good works are imperfect. HOLL. (1199): “The good works of regenerated and renovated
men do not reach that degree of perfection that they cannot increase (
[6] HOLL. (1191): “The source through which the
renewed man performs good works is true and living faith in Christ (
GRH. (VIII, 14): “Since
the works of even the regenerate are imperfect and impure, therefore, that they
may please God, it is necessary that faith in Christ should be added, on account
of whom apprehended by faith, not only the person, but likewise the good works,
of the regenerate please God. Hence it is said that faith is the form of good works
in the regenerate.” AP. CONF. (III, 68): “’Works,’ which although they are performed
in the flesh not yet entirely renovated, which retards the motions of the Holy Spirit
and imparts some of its own impurity, nevertheless on account of faith are holy
and divine works, the offerings and administration (politia) of Christ, showing
His kingdom before the world.” HOLL. (1193): “Although these works are imperfect
and impure, they are nevertheless acceptable to God, because their stains are covered
with the veil of Christ’s most perfect obedience, which the
[7] AP. CONF. (III, 4): “Because faith brings the Holy Spirit and produces a new life in the heart, it is necessary that it should produce spiritual affections in the heart. After we are justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear God, to love, to ask and expect assistance of Him . . . we begin likewise to love our neighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy emotions. These things cannot take place unless, being justified by faith and regenerated, we receive the Holy Spirit . . . . Likewise, how can the human heart love God while it perceives Him to be dreadfully angry, and to be oppressing us with temporal and perpetual calamities? But the Law always accuses us, and constantly shows that God is angry. Therefore, God is not loved till after we have obtained mercy through faith.”
[8] FORM. CONC. (IV, 8): “Although those works which tend
HOLL. (1193): “The upright works of unregenerate
men (whether they be out of the Church or have an external connection with it, GRH.
(VIII, 6)), which contribute to external order and the preservation of society,
are civilly and morally to some extent good; but they are not good theologically
and spiritually, nor do they please God; and, therefore, inasmuch as they are destitute
of the constituents of really good works, they are properly called splendid sins.”
When, for instance, on the basis of
[9] AP. CONF.
(III, 68): “The works are to be done on account of the command of God; likewise,
for the exercise of faith; further, on account of confession and giving of thanks.”
QUEN. (IV, 308): “Good works are not indifferent or arbitrary, but evidently necessary
for every man, particularly for the regenerate, though not by a necessity of constraint.
Good works should be spontaneous and free, not constrained. For they are necessary,
neither to acquire salvation (as a means), nor to earn salvation (as a merit), nor
to attain salvation (as an indispensable condition or cause), nor to reach it (as
a mode of coming to a final goal), nor, finally, to preserve it (as a conserving
cause). But we hold good works to be necessary, by the necessity, (1) of the divine
command,
[10] HOLL. (1203): “Good works are not actions free
from the necessity of obligation or duty, but are said to be actions free from the
necessity of constraint (because they are not extorted by the threats of punishment,
or externally, and in appearance, performed contrary to the will), and of immutability
(since the will is no longer determined to the constant thought and perpetration
of evil, as before conversion; but can freely choose, and do good works by supernatural
strength, received from the Holy Spirit; can likewise choose evil works by the remains
of the flesh, still adhering to it, since it is not determined to good as the angels
are); and are performed by the regenerate, freed from the servitude of sin by the
Holy Spirit (
[11] AP. CONF. (III, 73): “We teach that rewards are proposed and promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are deserving, not of pardon, grace, or justification (for we obtain these solely by faith), but of other bodily and spiritual rewards in this and a future life.”
HOLL. (1215): “The regenerate have respect in the performance of good
works, first, to the glory of God (
REMARKS — The greater part
of the divines add further an article on the performance of good works, which QUEN.
has most fully developed. (IV, 309): “The performance of good works in its widest
extent can be called the Christian warfare. For the life of the faithful Christian
is a continual spiritual warfare,
§ 50. Preliminary Statement.
THE Holy Ghost employs external and visible means, by which He produces in men the effects above described, [1] and appropriates to them salvation in Christ, and we can only then consider an effect as certainly produced by the Holy Spirit when it has been brought to pass through these external means. [2] These means of grace, as they are called, are the Word of God and the Sacraments. All those, then, who through these means have become partakers of the salvation in Christ, constitute an association which we call the Church.
Part IV, hence, treats, (1) Of the Word of God; (2) Of the Sacraments as the means of grace; (3) Of the Church. [3]
IN treating of the Word of God, [4] we consider its efficacy, and the division of its contents.
§ 51. The Efficacy of the Word of God.
As the Holy Spirit, through whom alone men are converted, operates only by
the Word, this Word must possess the power of producing in man all those effects
which are described in the preceding article, On the State of Grace. And this power
[1] QUEN. (IV, 1): “We have heretofore treated of the grounds of our salvation; we must now consider the means by which we attain to it. The means, properly so called, on the part of God, are the Word and Sacraments, the saving antidotes to our spiritual disease.”
The Word and Sacraments are also designated as means of salvation under the general idea of the Word — as the Sacraments are designated as the Visible Word.
CONF. AUG. (V, 2). FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., XI, 76):
“The Father will draw none to Himself without means, but He employs His Word and
Sacraments as the ordinary means and instruments.” ART. SMALCALD. (VIII, 3): “We
must firmly maintain that God bestows His Spirit and grace on none unless through
the Word and by the external Word previously declared, that we may fortify ourselves
against the Enthusiasts, who boast they have the Spirit
[2] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., II, 56): “We should not and cannot always judge of the presence, operations, and gifts of the Holy Spirit from our feelings (the manner and time, viz., when they are experienced in the heart); but, inasmuch as these are often cloaked under much infirmity, we should be convinced from the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is assuredly the ministry and instrument of the Spirit, by which He truly and efficaciously operates in our hearts.”
[3] From what was said in the remarks preliminary to the articles on Faith and Justification, it follows that we cannot entirely adhere to the systematic division of the Dogmaticians in this Part IV. They do not treat, namely, of Faith and Works until under this head, and they call Faith also a means of salvation, according to which, therefore, they embrace more than do we under the phrase, means of salvation. This they can do, because they distinguish between “the means of salvation on the part of God, δοτικα, or those offering salvation (the Word and Sacraments), and the means of salvation on our part, ληπτικον, or that apprehending the offered salvation (faith in the merit of Christ).” In this section the Dogmaticians also treat the subject of the last things (death, resurrection of the dead, etc.), inasmuch as they designate these as means “in a general sense, or executive and isagogical, that is, means divinely instituted, without the previous occurrence of which God does not accomplish the sentence of glorification, and by the final intervention of which men persevering in the faith are introduced into heaven.”
As we have assigned to the article of faith another place, it also appears better to separate that of the last things from this section, so as to confine ourselves, in it, to the proper and limited conception of the means of grace.
[4] The Word, which, in the article Of the Holy Scriptures, was described as the source of knowledge, is here viewed as a means of grace.
HOLL. (992): “The Word of God is here considered
not as the
The Dogmaticians remark, in advance, that by the Word they do not understand the bare external letters of the written Word. QUEN. (I, 169): “We must distinguish between the Word of God as it is materially expressed and exhibited in the written characters, points, letters, and syllables adhering to paper or parchment . . . or also in the sound and the external words formed in the air . . . and formally considered, as the divine conception and sense which we find expressed in these written letters and syllables and in the words of the preached Gospel. In the former sense it is called the Word of God only figuratively (σημαντικως); in the latter, however, κυριως, properly and strictly, it is the Word of God, the wisdom of God, the mind of God, the counsel of God. We ascribe not to the former, but to the latter, divine power and efficacy.”
CAT. MAJ., DECAL. (101): “Such is its virtue and power that where it is recalled to mind, or heard and considered with serious attention and interest, it never passes away without fruit, but always engages, retains, and excites the hearer with some new intelligence, delight, and devotion, and purifies his feelings and thoughts. For the words are not putrid or dead, destitute of sap and vigor, but truly living and efficacious.”
The Symbolical Books do not express themselves distinctly on the efficacy of the Word of God. The more fully stated views of the following Dogmaticians, according to which this efficacy or power is supernatural, if not precisely in the language of the Symbolical Books, are still in accordance with the opinions maintained in them.
[5] QUEN. (I, 170): “The innate power and tendency of God’s Word is always
to convince men of its truth, unless its operation is hindered and prevented by
voluntary self-assertion and contumacy superadded to a natural repugnance.” Hence
the Word is to be regarded as producing an effect wherever it is used; but at the
same time it depends on the conduct of men whether it has the special effect designed
by its author. “The second act is considered either as the ενεργεια and operation
or as the effect itself. If it be regarded as the energy and operation, then it
always accompanies the Word of God preached, read, or heard, i.e., it always exerts
itself when legitimately used, since the Word of God is never inoperative, but always
operative. But, if it be considered as the effect itself, this does not always follow,
in consequence of the impediment interposed by the subject or on account of the
hardness of the hearts upon which it operates. Although, therefore,
QUEN. (I, 170): “When we attribute to the Word a divine power and efficacy to produce
spiritual effects, we wish not to be understood as speaking of the Gospel only,
but also of the Law. For, although the Law does not produce these gracious results
directly and per se, i.e., kindle faith in Christ and effect conversion, since this
is rather to be ascribed to the Gospel, still the letter is not on this account
dead, but is efficacious after its kind: for it killeth,
[6] HOLL. (992): “The efficacy of the divine Word is not only objective or significative, like the statue of Mercury, for instance, which points out the path, but does not give power or strength to the traveler to walk in it, but it is effective, because it not only shows the way of salvation, but saves souls.”
[7] QUEN. (I, 170): “The Word works not only by moral suasion, by proposing a lovely object to us, but also by a true, real, divine, and ineffable influence of its gracious power, so that it effectually and truly converts, illuminates, etc., the Holy Spirit operating in, with, and through it; for in this consists the difference between the divine and the human word.”
BR. (123): “(The Holy Scriptures have an active, supernatural force or power) which is to be sought neither in the elegance of their style, nor in the sublimity of their thoughts, nor in the power of their arguments; but it is far superior to every created and finite agency.”
It is a supernatural power in distinction from that which human eloquence possesses. But in another aspect it is also called natural, inasmuch as the Word of God cannot be conceived of without such an efficacy. QUEN. (I, 172): “We say that there is a natural efficacy in the Word of God, because it naturally belongs to it, and its essence and nature are such that it could not be the true Word of God unless it contained within itself that divine power and virtue to convert men, etc., etc.” BR. (124), however, observes: “To avoid ambiguity and disputes, we avoid the use of this term.”
[8] HOLL. (993): “A divine power is communicated to the
[9] QUEN. (I, 183): “We are to assume here not only a certain conjunction or union of distinct actions, or even a unity of aims or effects, but also a unity of energy and operation. For the Holy Spirit does not by Himself do something, and the Word of God by itself something else, in the conversion of men; but they produce the one effect by one and the same action. For such is the peculiar nature of the principal and subordinate causes, intrinsically united together, that they produce an effect by one and the same action. Thus the soul and the eye see by a single action, and not by distinct actions.”
[10] BR. (1124): “Truly that same infinite virtue which
is essentially per se and independently in God, and by which He enlightens and converts
men, is communicated to the Word, and, although it is communicated to the Word,
yet it must be considered as divine.” . . . But it by no means follows from this that
there is a commingling of God and the Word in regard to this divine power; hence
BR. (128) says: “They frequently and diligently impress it upon us that the same
virtue belongs to God and the Scriptures, but not in the same way; for that of God
is essential, fundamental, original, and independent, while that of the Scriptures
is dependent and participative or derived.” . . . Hence it is said of the Word that
it exhibits its power and efficacy οργανικως, or
instrumentally . . . . QUEN. (I, 172):
“The divine Word is not
[11] QUEN. (I, 170): “Whether the Word be read or not, whether it be heard and believed or not, yet the efficacy of its spiritual effects is always intrinsically inherent in it by the divine arrangement and communication, nor does this divine efficacy only come to it when it is used. For the Word of God, as such, cannot even be conceived of apart from the divine virtue and gracious working of the Holy Spirit, because this is inseparable from the Word of God.”
HOLL. (993) uses the following figures: “It possesses and retains its internal power and efficacy even when not used, just as the illuminating power of the sun continues, although, when the shadow of the moon intervenes, no person may see it; and just as an internal efficacy belongs to the seed, although it may not be sown in the field.”
In order to avoid misapprehension, it is expressly observed that the Word does not operate physically (by the contact of an agent, as opium, poison, fire, etc.), but morally (by enlightening the mind, moving the will, etc.); and a distinction is made between the efficacy of the Word considered in the first act and in the second act, or between efficacy and efficiency. When it is said that the Word operates extra usum, when not used, it is only meant that the power is constantly inherent in the Word, just as the power to give light always exists in the sun; so that, when the Word is to produce a certain effect, the power must not first come to it, but that the Word exercises its legitimate influence only where it is properly used.”
QUEN. (I, 171): “The first act is the operating power δυναμις ενεργητικη; the second act is the real operation. The Word does not exhibit its efficacy in the second act unless in the legitimate use of it.”
QUEN. (ib.) (from his Theses against Rathman): “The distinction we make is
not unreasonable, between the power, or the first act, and the divine operation,
or second act, of the outwardly read or preached Word. Per se, and in itself, it
always is a power, or has in itself a power, to move all readers and hearers, hypocrites
as
The Lutheran theologians, in general, had reason to illustrate very particularly the doctrine of the operation of the Word of God, in order to oppose the Enthusiasts and Mystics, who held that the Holy Spirit operated rather irrespectively of the Word than through it; and to oppose also the Calvinists, who, led by their doctrine of predestination, would not grant that the Word possessed this power per se, but only in such cases where God chose. Hence the position that the Word also possessed a power extra usum was specially defended against Rathman (1628), who denied it, and who appears to have maintained only an objective efficacy of the Word of God. (QUEN. (I, 174) gives the following opinions of Rathman: “Rathman compares the Word of God to a statue of Mercury, to a picture, to a sign, and even to a channel; namely, to instruments altogether passive and inoperative. He asserts, moreover, that the divine efficacy is external to the Word of God, separable from it at any moment, and merely auxiliary (παραστατικον); that the Holy Spirit with His virtue joins Himself to the Word only in the mind or heart of man, and only then when it is legitimately and savingly used.”) But an efficacy extra usum must necessarily be maintained, if the Word of God is not to be put on a precise level with every human word.
HOLL. (992) thus sums up the doctrine: “The Word of God is the most efficacious means of salvation, for its power and efficacy are not only objective, but also effective; not consisting in moral suasion, but in supernatural operation; not external and coming to it when used by men, but intrinsic in the Word; not accidental, but necessary, by a divinely ordained necessity, and therefore not separable, but perpetual, inherent in the Word itself extra usum, as the first act. This efficacy is truly divine, producing the same effect as the Holy Spirit, who is perpetually united with the Word, which (effect) the Spirit influences together with the Word, by the divine power which belongs to the Holy Spirit originally and independently, but to the divine Word communicatively and dependently, on account of its mysterious, intimate, and individual union with the Spirit.”
[12] QUEN. (I, 171): “We must distinguish between the mere natural instruments, such as the staff of Moses, the rod of Aaron, etc., employed by God to produce a supernatural effect, and His essential supernatural means, such as the Word of God and the Sacraments. The former are destitute of a new motive or elevating power wherewith to produce a new effect beyond their proper and natural power; but the latter, from their very origin and production, are endowed with a sufficient, i.e., a divine and supreme power and efficacy, nor do they need any new and peculiar elevating power beyond the ordinary efficacy already infused into them for producing the spiritual effect.” The later theologians, therefore, prefer calling the Word a means rather than an instrument of the Holy Spirit, although they do not hold that the latter expression, which is used also in the Symbolical Books, is altogether inadmissible, provided that no mere lifeless instrument is thereby understood.
MUSAEUS (in Br., 131) distinguishes between “instruments which are not united with an operative cause, unless they be in use, such as an axe, hammer, etc., and instruments which always have an operative cause impliedly and virtually united with them even when not used;” and he holds that the expression instrument, in relation to the Word of God, is admissible only in the latter sense. Another distinction is that which is made between passive and cooperative instruments. But QUEN. (I, 186) says: “We grant that the Word of God may be called the instrument or organic cause of conversion, etc., namely, when considered concretely and as administered, so far as the Word of God is externally read or preached. For these external means are truly organs, into which the Spirit enters with His virtue and efficacy.”
[13] HULSEM. (in QUEN., I, 186) says: “That elevation of the sense of the Word, as they call it, is by no means an accessory and separate power of the Holy Spirit, which may sometimes be absent from the Word; but the Word of God embraces in itself, by its own natural constitution, wonderful and inexplicable divine energy and power of penetration, far better adapted than the sentences of Seneca and Cato to arouse the minds of readers.”
§ 52. The Law and the Gospel.
The Word of God is divided, according to the different results it produces in men, whose salvation it is to effect, into Law and Gospel. [1]
I. THE LAW, in
which God, by command and prohibition, has made known His will to men, and to the
fulfilment of
The Law there given contains the most perfect rule for our moral conduct, [8] and applies to us no less than to the Israelites. [9] It binds us to the most perfect obedience, and threatens temporal and eternal punishment in case of disobedience; [10] but also promises eternal life to him who perfectly observes it.
As, however,
no one since the Fall is able perfectly to keep the Law, we cannot say that the
Law avails for our salvation, [11] but it rather serves, first of all, to lead to
the knowledge of sin, and render man receptive for the salvation that is in Christ.
[12] The former the Law effects by teaching us the difference which exists between
its requirements and our deeds; the latter, by alarming us the more we come short
of the requirements of the Law, and by constraining and impelling us to long earnestly
for a refuge from the wrath of God with which He has threatened every violator of
the Law. Thus the Law drives us to Christ, who promises us such a refuge. It is
also predicated of it that it contains a call to repentance, and hence we include
within the Law everything which contributes
II. THE GOSPEL. As the Law contains the declaration of the divine will, promising a reward to him who keeps it, and threatening punishment to him who violates it, so the Gospel, in distinction from the Law, contains the doctrine of the gracious pardon of sins, which we receive as a gratuity for Christ’s sake through faith. [15] Thus, in the preaching of the Gospel, the means are pointed out to men by which they may escape the condemnation which the Law suspends over them. And when men are brought to a knowledge of sin through the Law, the Gospel enters, holds forth the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and all the benefits therewith associated; [16] and aims at producing faith in them, by which they appropriate to themselves the salvation in Christ.
Different, then, as are the Law and the Gospel in their signification, [17] yet there is no contradiction between them. As they were both alike given by God, so they are both always and equally binding; they both alike have a work to accomplish in all men; they have in view the same final result, namely, the salvation of men, [18] to the attainment of which end each contributes its part. As, by the preaching of the Law, knowledge of sin and repentance are produced, so, by the preaching off the Gospel, faith is effected. The efficacy of the one follows that of the other; but the efficacy of the one does not hence entirely cease where the efficacy of the other begins, for the Law still continues to be a rule for the regenerate, to which he conforms his moral conduct, and it thus works in him a penitence which is renewed daily, inasmuch as it still continually convinces him of his sins. [19]
[1] The division of the Word of God, according to its historical
publication in the world, into the Old and New Testaments, belongs to the section
which treats of the Scriptures. The division specified above, i.e., Law and Gospel,
must be treated under this
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., v. 23): “These two kinds of doctrine, viz., repentance and faith, were held in the Church of God from the beginning of the world, yet with a proper distinction. For the posterity of the patriarchs, as well as the patriarchs themselves, not only carefully remembered that man in the beginning was created by God just and holy, and by the guile of the serpent disobeyed the command of God, and thus became a sinner; . . . but they also encouraged and consoled themselves by the most precious announcement concerning the Seed of the woman, . . . and concerning the Son of David who was to restore the kingdom to Israel and to become the light of the Gentiles.”
[2] HOLL. (996): “The divine Law is the command of God, in which this supreme Lord and Legislator prescribes that which is to be done by men, and prohibits that which is to be avoided, binding them to render a perfect obedience, or, in the deficiency of this, visiting them with punishment.”
The term Law is also used in the sense
“(1) of everything that is taught by God,
HOLL. (ib.): “But here the words Law and Gospel are taken, as far as they are adequately contradistinguished.”
[3] HOLL. (997): “The divine Law is either universal and perpetual, or particular and temporary. The universal and perpetual Law is the immutable rule of all moral actions, by which God binds all men to do that which is honest and right, and to avoid that which is dishonest and unjust. It is called also the moral Law. The particular and temporary Law is that which God gave to the Israelites alone, binding them to the obedience of it; it is either ceremonial or judicial, and ceased with the cessation of the Hebrew polity.”
[4] HOLL. (1026): I. “The Ceremonial Law
is the command of God, by which the supreme Lord and Legislator bound the people
of the Old Testament, and through Moses prescribed to them a
“The chief end of the Ceremonial Law is the signification and adumbration of the benefits of Christ, as well as their application by sacraments and sacrifices. The subordinate end is the admonition of sin, the observance of proper order in ecclesiastical assemblies and rites, and the separation of the Jewish Church from all association with the Gentiles.” (Id., 1027)
II. “The Forensic or Judicial Law is the command of God, by which He bound the Israelites in the times of the Old Testament, and through Moses prescribed to them a form of political government so that external discipline might be preserved in civil society, and the Jewish polity, in which Christ was to be born, might be distinguished from the polity of other nations. The forensic Law uttered precepts concerning all those things which pertained to the administration of the Israelitic republic, and came under the cognizance of the forum or court of the Jews.” (Id., 1030.)
“The design of the Forensic Law is (1) The preservation of external discipline in civil society. (2) The separation of the Jewish polity from that of other nations. (Id., 1031.)
[5] QUEN. (IV, 1): “That the Jewish Law is abrogated is evident from the fact that, since the destruction of the Jewish polity and temple, there is no place for sacrifice or the execution of the forensic Law.”
[6] BR. (398): “It is otherwise called the Law of Nature, because it is employed about those things which are naturally and per se either honorable or base; whether they be such as agree or disagree with rational nature. It is also called the Moral Law, in so far as it relates to morals, or to the mode of life which is becoming or unbecoming to a rational creature.”
HOLL. (997): “The Natural Law is the command of God impressed naturally on the minds of all, by which they are informed and bound to do those things which per se are right and honorable, and to avoid those things which per se are wicked and base.”
QUEN. (IV, 3): “It is the light and dictate of right reason divinely given to man, enabling him intellectually to discriminate between the common notions of what is just and unjust, honorable and base, that he may understand what is to be done and what is to be avoided.”
[7] The Moral Law is therefore divided into the Natural or Connate Law and the Moral Law specially so called.
QUEN. (IV, 1): “In original, uncorrupted nature the natural and moral Laws were entirely the same, but in corrupted nature a great part of the Natural Law has been obscured by sin, and only a very small part of it has remained in the mind of man; and so a new promulgation of Law was instituted upon Mount Sinai, which Sinaitic law is particularly called the Moral Law, and does not in kind differ from the Natural Law.”
HOLL. (1002): “The Moral Law, specially so called, is the command of God superadded to the Natural Law in the divinely revealed Word, which was often repeated from the beginning of the world, and at last solemnly promulgated on Mount Sinai and reduced to writing, distinctly teaching what is right and forbidding what is wrong, directing all our actions and feelings, binding all men to the most perfect obedience, or, in the deficiency of this, to the most excruciating torments.” MEL., Loc. Comm.: “The Law is doctrine divinely revealed, teaching what we ought to be, to do and to omit to do.”
GRH. (V, 223): “The Moral Law is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue.”
The Dogmaticians generally hold that a primordial Law preceded the Sinaitic Law, by which they understand those preparatory revelations which were given to primaeval men and the patriarchs.
HOLL. (1003): “The primordial Moral Law
is that which was given to our first parents,
HOLL. (1002) thus states the difference between the Natural and
the Moral Law: “The Natural Law does not differ as to matter from the Moral Law
specially so called, for indeed the Natural Law is summarily contained in the Decalogue;
but it differs from it as to form. For (1) the Natural Law is inwardly written by
nature on the minds of men, the Moral Law is promulgated externally, uttered by
the voice of God, and reduced to writing; (2) the Natural Law is more imperfect
and obscure, the Moral Law is more perfect and clear. The former directs external
discipline; the latter governs and rules the internal as well as the external conduct
of men.” Concerning the Natural Law, HOLL. (999) further admits, that “there nevertheless
remain certain vestiges of it, namely,
[8] We hence find in the Dogmaticians a very exact exposition of the Decalogue, comprehending the whole science of ethics.
CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., II, 23): “Such is the brevity of the precepts of the Decalogue that Moses called them ten words. And yet in that brevity is comprehended everything that pertains to the love of God and of our neighbor, and those short sentences are to be the rule and line by which we may ascertain what constitutes sin.”
[9] HOLL. (1019): “The Sinaitic Moral Law is the perfect rule of things to be done and things to be avoided, neither has it been enlarged by new precepts added by Christ, but only more fully declared and purged from Pharisaic corruptions or additions.”
[10] Quen. (IV, 8): “The internal form of the Moral Law consists in
a directive and constraining power with respect to doing or avoiding moral acts,
binding the conscience to most perfect obedience, or, if this be not rendered, bringing
the most dreadful punishment, temporal and eternal, on the violator.
[11] BR.
(630): “The Moral Law has been given for eternal life, but upon the condition of
its complete fulfilment (
[12] BR. (636): “The Law, which teaches what is to be done and what
is to be avoided, and binds to the most perfect observance of these things, charging
the most grievous guilt upon all manner of transgressors, by so doing leads men
to the knowledge of their sins and to grief concerning then, and so renders them
desirous for a mediator.” QUEN. (IV, 9): “The subsequent aim is the knowledge of
our inability, which fails to fulfil the Law (
[13] FORM. CONC. (Epit. V, 4): “Whatever is contained in the Holy Scriptures that convinces of sins, that truly belongs to the preaching of the Law.” Therefore, just as the Old Testament contains the Gospel, also (comp. note 1) in like manner the New Testament contains the Law.
FORM. CONC. (V, 11): “Yet, meanwhile, it is true and proper that the apostles and ministers of the Gospel should confirm the preaching of the Law, and begin with it in dealing with those who as yet do not feel their sins and are not disturbed by a sense of the divine wrath.” Hence to the preaching of the Law can be reckoned, from a certain view of the subject, even the preaching of the death of Christ.
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., V, 12): “For what more severe and terrible indication and declaration of the wrath of God against sin is there, than the passion and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? But yet, so far as this displays the wrath of God and alarms men, it is not properly a preaching of the Gospel or Christ, but of Moses and the Law against the impenitent.”
[14] HOLL. (1021): “(1) The political use of the Law consists in
the preservation of external discipline, that wicked and licentious men may be turned
away from heinous offences, by presenting before them the penalties and rewards.
According to this use, the Law is a bridle or barrier by which sinners are restrained.
(2) The elenchtical use consists in the manifestation and reproof of sins, and also
in the demonstration of the most severe divine judgment.
QUEN. (IV, 10): “The first use pertains to unregenerate and obstinate sinners; the second and third to men about to be justified; the fourth to those who are justified and regenerate.” The FORM. CONC. and the earlier Dogmaticians favor only a threefold use of the Law, political, pedagogical, and didactic. The later Dogmaticians have divided the pedagogical use into two parts, one of which they call the elenchtical use. The question introduced in the Antinomian controversy, whether the Law is to be inculcated to the regenerate, and its observance urged on them, is thus determined by the FORM. CONC. (Epit., 6:4): “Although they are regenerated and renewed in the spirit of their minds, yet regeneration and renovation are not perfect in all respects in this life, but only begun. Believers are constantly struggling in the spirit of their minds with the flesh, i.e., with their corrupt nature, which cleaves to us even to our death. And on account of the old Adam who yet dwells in the understanding, the will, and all the powers of man, it is necessary that the Law of God should always shine before us.” . . . When, however, the Law is still held before the regenerate, its significance is thus more particularly described: “That the Law here means only one thing, namely, the immutable will of God, according to which all men ought to regulate their mode of life.”
[15] FORM. CONC. (V, 5): “We hold the Gospel to be specifically that doctrine which teaches that man should believe, who has not kept the Law, and is therefore condemned by it; namely, that Jesus Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sin, and thus has procured remission of sin, righteousness before God, and eternal life, without any merit intervening on the part of the sinner.” FORM. CONC. (V, 21): “Everything that consoles terrified minds, everything that offers the favor and grace of God to transgressors of the Law, is properly called the Gospel, i.e., the cheering message, that God does not wish to punish our sins, but for Christ’s sake to forgive them.”
BR. (631): “The Gospel is the doctrine of the grace of God and of the gratuitous pardon of sin for the sake of Christ the Mediator, and His merit apprehended by faith.” Hence, as far as this grace is declared in the Old Testament, so far does it also contain the Gospel. (Note 1.) Hence, BR. (ib.): “This doctrine was revealed not only in the New Testament, but also in its own way in the Old Testament (in the New more clearly).” Such intimations in the Old Testament are cited as occurring, not only in the protevangelium to the patriarchs and prophets, but also in the Ceremonial Law. BR. (632): “It is certain that those things which were contained in the ceremonial laws, had the force of Law, so far as they commanded certain acts and rites; yet as far as they represented Christ the Mediator, and His merit to be apprehended by faith, by certain rites, such as types and shadows, they are properly to be considered as Gospel.” As to the relation of the Law and Gospel to the Old and New Testaments, QUEN. (IV, 61) says: “The Old Testament and the Law, and the New Testament and the Gospel, are not identical, but distinct; for they differ as the containing and the contained. For the Old Testament contains the Law as its part, but not to the exclusion of the Gospel, and the New Testament contains the Gospel as its portion, but not to the exclusion of the Law; and thus the evangelical intention of God respecting the remission of sin, grace, and salvation through the death of Christ, is declared not only in the books of the New, but also in those of the Old Testament.”
The word
Gospel can also be used in various senses. HOLL. (1032): “Generally, but with less
propriety, the word is used to designate the whole doctrine of the New Testament,
taught by Christ and the Apostles,
On the whole Antinomian controversy, which properly belongs in this connection, see FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., V), in which also the different statements in the preceding Symbolical Books, in regard to the Law and the Gospel, are explained according to the different senses given above.
[16] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., V, 24): “We believe and confess
that these two heads of Christian doctrine should be diligently taught and enforced
in the Church of God even to the end of time, yet with a proper distinction. For,
by the preaching of the Law and its severe threatenings, through the Gospel ministry,
the hearts of impenitent men are to be alarmed and brought to a knowledge of their
sins and to the exercise of repentance; yet not so that they may despair on account
of their sins, but that they may flee to Christ . . . . Wherefore, after they have come
to a knowledge of their sins by the Law, their alarmed consciences are to be so
directed that they may receive solid consolation from the preaching of the Gospel
of Christ.” HOLL. (1038): “The Gospel preaches and offers to us the grace of Christ,
the merit of Christ, and all the benefits derived from Him.” QUEN. (IV, 6): “The
form of it is the gratuitous promise of grace,
[17]
The distinctions are stated by HOLL. (1039) as follows: “The Moral Law and the Gospel
differ: (1) As to the manner of their revelation and recognition. The Law is in
some measure known from the light of Nature; for it was communicated to the mind
of man at his creation, and it was not entirely extinguished by the Fall,
[18] BR. (633): “The Law and the Gospel agree (a) as to the author of both, who is God; (b) as to the subject to whom they are given, namely, all men; (c) as to their design, which is eternal salvation; (d) as to their duration, which is to the end of the world.”
[19] HOLL. (1041): “The Law and the
Gospel practically are united, as if in a certain mathematical point. They concur
in producing: (1) the repentance of sinners (repentance consists of two parts, contrition
and faith, and so it is the αποτελεσμα, or the common function of converting and
regenerating grace. The Law, in converting man, does its part by exciting and producing
contrition. The Gospel, in regenerating man, also does its part by enkindling faith
in Christ. There results, therefore, repentance, as the effect, from the concurrence
of the Law and the Gospel); (2) the renovation of a justified person (in sanctification,
the Law is at hand as a normative principle, or the rule of a holy life; it prescribes
and teaches what is to be done and what omitted, and binds to obedience, but it
does not confer new strength for a spiritual and holy life: therefore the Gospel
comes in as a succor and productive principle, which furnishes strength and power
to men, enabling them rightly to walk in the ways of God. Wherefore the Law and
the Gospel concur in producing one holy act in the work of
§ 53. Of the Sacraments in General.
SAVING grace is imparted to man not only through the Word, but also through the Sacraments;
[1] and, as in the case of the Word, so also in the case of the Sacraments, an external
and visible element, which in the sacred rite is offered to man, becomes the vehicle
of the Holy Ghost. [2] A Sacrament is, therefore, a holy rite, appointed by God,
through which, by means of an external and visible sign, saving grace is imparted
to man, or, if he already possess it, is assured to him. [3] The Evangelical Church
enumerates only two such rites, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for only through
these two rites, in accordance with the direction of Christ, is such saving grace
imparted, and, among all the sacred ordinances prescribed in the Scriptures, it
is only in these two that these two distinguishing characteristics of a sacrament
are combined, viz., (1) a special divine purpose, in accordance with which, in the
sacred rite, and external element is to be thus employed; and (2) the promise given
in the divine Word that by the application of this element evangelical saving grace
shall be imparted.
Hence (1)
the words of the institution must be uttered during the administration of the ordinance,
according to the direction of the Founder, for, before that, the element is only
an external, simple, and inoperative object; (2) it must be administered and received
in the manner prescribed by the Founder; [8] and (3) it must be administered only
to those who already belong to the Church, or to those who desire to be received
into it through the Sacrament. Finally, order requires that, except in extraordinary
cases, it be administered only by regular ministers of the Church. [9] When all
these things are observed in this sacred act, according to the instruction of its
Founder, then it is a Sacrament; nor is the moral character or the internal intention
of the administrator, [10] or the faith of the recipient, [11] necessary to constitute
the act a Sacrament. Still, the good or evil effect of the Sacrament depends on
the faith or unbelief of the recipient, just as in the case of the good or evil
effect of the divine Word. [12] The immediate design of the Sacrament is to impart
saving grace to man, or to establish those in it who already possess it. [13] At
the same time, however, the Sacraments, as they are administered only within the
Church, serve as a mode of recognizing those who partake of them as members of the
Church; they serve, likewise, to remind the recipients of the blessings of salvation
that are imaged forth in them, to stimulate
[1] BR. (639): “Since, besides the Word of God, the Sacraments also are means of regeneration, conversion, and renovation, and therefore of conferring, sealing, and increasing faith, we must also treat more particularly of these.”
[2] QUEN. (IV, 73): “God has added to the Word of the Gospel as another communicative (δοτικον) means of salvation, the Sacraments, which constitute the visible Word.” Strictly speaking, there is but one means of salvation, which is distinguished as the audible and visible Word; through both one and the same grace is imparted to man, at one time through the mere Word, at another through the external and visible element.
CHMN. (Ex. Trid., II, 35): “For God in those things which pertain to our salvation, is pleased to treat with us through certain means; He Himself has ordained this use of them, and instituted the Word of Gospel promise, which sometimes is proposed to us absolutely by itself or nakedly, and sometimes clothed or made visible by certain rites or Sacraments appointed by Him.” The two means of salvation are thus distinguished only by the manner in which they operate on men. AP. CONF. (VII, 5): “As the Word enters the ear that it may reach the heart, so the external rite strikes the eye that it may move the heart.” The effect of both is the same. AP. CONF., 1. c.: “The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as Augustine has forcibly expressed it, viz., a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is presented to the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Wherefore, the effect of both is the same.” Comp. below, Note 13.
[3] AP. CONF. (VII, 3): “(The Sacraments are) rites commanded by Christ, and to which is added the promise of grace.” AP. CONF. (XII, 18): “A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God holds out to us that which the promise annexed to the rite offers.”
BR. (650): “A Sacrament in general may be defined as an action divinely appointed through the grace of God, for Christ’s sake, employing an external element cognizable by the senses, through which, accompanied by the words of the institution, there is conferred upon or sealed unto men the grace of the Gospel for the remission of sins unto eternal life.”
GRH. (VIII, 328): “A Sacrament is a sacred and solemn rite, divinely instituted, by which God, through the ministry of man, dispenses heavenly gifts, under a visible and external element, through a certain word, in order to offer, apply, and seal to the individuals using them and believing, the special promise of the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission of sins.”
HUTT. (Comp. Loc. Th., 221, 214): “A Sacrament is a sacred action, divinely instituted, consisting partly of an external element or sign, and partly of a celestial object, by which God not only seals the promise of grace peculiar to the Gospel (i.e., of gratuitous reconciliation), but also truly presents , through the external elements, to the individuals using the sacrament, the celestial blessings promised in the institution of each of them, and also savingly applies the same to those who believe.” By the grace of the Gospel is understood “the applying grace of the Holy Spirit namely, grace that calls, illuminates, regenerates, etc.” The differences of these definitions, and the reason why we have quoted so many of them, will appear in Note 6.
[4] GRH. (VIII, 207): “We say that two things are absolutely requisite to constitute a Sacrament, properly so called, viz., the Word and the element, according to the well-known saying of Augustine; ‘The Word is added to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.’ This assertion is based upon the very nature and aim of the Sacraments, since the Sacraments are intended to present to the senses, in the garb of an external element, that same thing that is preached in the Gospel message; from which it readily follows that neither the Word without the element, nor the element without the Word, constitutes the Sacrament. By the Word is understood, first, the command and divine institution through which the element, because thus appointed by God, is separated from a common, and set apart for a sacramental use; and, secondly, the promise, peculiar to the Gospel, to be applied and sealed by the Sacrament. By the element is meant not any arbitrarily chosen element, but that which has been fixed and mentioned in the words of institution.”
[5] It is generally acknowledged that the question as to what sacred rites can be
called Sacraments, cannot be decided merely by the signification of the word Sacrament,
for this word has been somewhat arbitrarily used to designate these two sacred rites.
According to its etymology, it is derived from sacrare (Varro, Book IV), and signifies
every consecrated thing, hence the money deposited by contending parties with the
priest, “to the end that he
According
to this canon, the doctrine of seven Sacraments, held by the Church of Rom, is rejected.
Luther, as early as his Larger
CHMN. (Ex.
Trid., II, 14) treats it most extensively: “Any ordinance that is to be properly
regarded as a Sacrament of the New Testament must have the following requisites:
(1) It must have an external, or corporeal and visible, element or sign, which may
be handled, exhibited, and used in a certain external rite. (2) The element or sing,
and the rite in which it is employed, must have an express divine command to authorize
and sanction it. (3) It must be commanded and instituted in the New Testament.
The later theologians say: “There is required for a Sacrament (1) that it must be an action commanded by God; (2) it must have a visible element divinely prescribed (united with the celestial object through the medium of the words of the institution (HOLL., 1054)); (3) it must have the promise of evangelical grace.”
[6] By this the early Dogmaticians mean as yet
nothing more than that the element thus consecrated by the Word must not be regarded
as ordinary or common; hence HFRFFR. cites as the substantials of a Sacrament, the
element and the Word, and in this sense Luther also appears to have taken it, when
in CAT. MAJ. (IV, 17) he says of Baptism: “It is not mere natural or common, but
divine, celestial, sacred, and saving water . . . and this just for the sake of the
Word, which is the divine and sacred “Word.” But the later Dogmaticians unite another
sense to it. (See the history of the origin of the later modes of expression in
BR., p. 670, who proves that occasion for a different mode of expression was for
the first time given at the Mümpelgard Colloquy (1586) in consequence of the controversy
which there arose between Beza, on the one side and Jacob Andreae and Luke Osiander
on the other.) They distinguish, for instance, in a Sacrament, “a twofold material,
a terrestrial and a celestial, and they understand by the former the element or
external symbol, which is the corporeal visible object . . . ordained to the end that
it might be the vehicle and exhibitive medium of the celestial object (water in
Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper). By the latter they understand an
invisible and intelligible object (presented in an earthly object, as the divinely
instituted medium), on which the effect of the Sacrament principally depends;” yet
they remark that for the latter the word materia or
matter is not an adequate one
(since the Sacrament
QUEN. (IV, 75): “But what that is which comes in each sacrament under the name of res coelestis, can and should be known in its proper place, i.e., from the words of the institution of each Sacrament.” This materia coelestis is not in their opinion identical with the grace of the Gospel; hence, they do not (as in the passages above referred to in CAT. MAJ. and HFRFFR.) adopt as the essence of a Sacrament the Word and element, but they still carefully distinguish the Word from the materia coelestis, and hold that the latter is imparted by the word of consecration. (HUTT. (Loc. c., 597): “The Word is never sacramentally joined either with the terrestrial or the celestial part; and;, hence it does not enter into the substance of the Sacrament. Therefore, the Word cannot be called either the material or the form of the Sacrament . . . . .Thus I say, that this Word is the effective cause (αιτιος ποιητικος), i.e., it causes that these two essential parts constitute one Sacrament in the use of the Sacraments.”) Neither do they regard the materia coelestis as identical with evangelical grace, which the earlier Dogmaticians also teach is conferred through the Sacrament; but they believe that that grace is conveyed only through the medium of the materia coelestis. While the earlier Dogmaticians only maintain that, with the word of consecration, the external element ceases to be a common and external one, without distinguishing the imparted divine material as something separate from the Word, the later theologians regard the two as distinct. It is easy to understand how they were led to this conclusion. In the Lord’s Supper, namely, the body and blood of Christ are communicated; there is, therefore, through eh word of consecration, something added and brought to man which is as different from the Word as it is from saving grace. Something corresponding to this they think must be assumed in regard to Baptism also, and in both cases they designate it as a celestial material.
When we compare the views of the earlier
Dogmaticians with those of the more modern, we find their difference to consist
in this, that the earlier Dogmaticians are solely concerned to prove the analogy
of the Word and Sacraments as the two means of salvation, according to which in
the one case, evangelical grace is
QUEN. (IV, 75): “As a Sacrament
is composed of a terrestrial and a celestial object, there must necessarily be a
certain union and κοινονια which we properly call sacramental. For that union is
neither essential, nor natural, nor accidental, but, in view of the material united,
it is extraordinary; in regard to the design , it is sacramental. Therefore, one
does not exist without the other, for instance, water without the Spirit, nor the
Sprit without water, because these two are most intimately united in the sacramental
act, nor can one be a Sacrament without the other.” This method of developing the
doctrine, which from the times of GRH. was generally adopted, though with many diversities
of statement as to what constitutes the celestial material in Baptism, was opposed
only by BR. and several other theologians of Jena. As, namely, the celestial material,
which has to be assumed in Baptism, is altogether different from that which is found
in the Lord’s Supper; inasmuch, also, as the union of the material and the element
in the two Sacraments is very different; and, finally, inasmuch as those who hold
this doctrine neither agree as to what is meant by this celestial material, nor
use the term in the same literal sense as in the case of the Lord’s Supper; therefore,
BR. contends that the expression, celestial material, should be entirely ignored
in the doctrine of the sacraments in general, and we should adhere to the simple
doctrine of the earlier Dogmaticians, who do not mention it at all. He speaks, therefore,
only of a terrestrial material (644):
[7] HFRFFR. (465): “It is especially
required that in each Sacrament, the whole action, as instituted and ordained by
Christ, should be observed; neither in the use of the Sacraments to be applied to
foreign ends and objects. Hence the rule: ‘Nothing has the authority or nature of
a Sacrament beyond the application and action instituted by Christ.’ For example,
if the water of Baptism
[8] HOLL. (1060): “The form of a Sacrament is the external action (and that entirely occupied about the terrestrial and celestial part of each Sacrament), which is constituted of three formal observances, immediately following each other (1) The recitation of the words of the institution (consecration). (2) The sacramental dispensation (δοσις). (3) The reception of the Sacrament (ληψις).”
1. “The consecration, i.e., the separation from a common to a sacred use, which is made by reciting and pronouncing the words of the institution.” GRH. (VIII, 240): “The consecration is not, (1) a mere recitation of the words of the institution directed only to the hearers, (2) nor is the change of symbols, which consecration effects, a mere change of names, a significative analogy, a representation of an absent celestial thing, . . . but it is a sacred and efficacious action, by which the sacramental symbols are truly sanctified, i.e., separated from a common and set apart for a sacramental use. But there is no (a) magical or superstitious action dependent of the dignity or quality of the person, i.e., on the power and character of the minister, who renders the Sacrament valid by the force of his intention; nor (b) is it to be thought that there is a certain occult subjective power in the sound or number of words, by which the consecration is accomplished; (c) nor that by it the external elements are essentially changed and transubstantiated into the heavenly object: but the presence of the heavenly, and its union with the earthly object, depend altogether upon the institution, command and will of Christ, and upon the efficacy of the original institution continuing in the Church even until the present day, which the minister, or rather Christ Himself by the voice of the minister, continually repeats. The minister, therefore, in the consecration, (10 repeats the primitive institution of the Sacrament according to the command of Christ: ‘Do this,’ etc., etc.; (2) he testifies that he does this not of his own accord, nor celebrates a human ordinance, but, as the divinely appointed steward of the mysteries, he administers the venerable Sacrament in the name, authority, and place of Christ; (30 he invokes the name of the true God, that it may please Him to be efficacious in this Sacrament according to His ordinance, institution, and promise; (4) he separates the external elements from all other uses to a sacramental use, that they may be organs and means by which celestial benefits may be dispensed.”
2. As to the dispensation: “We must distinguish between the thing itself and its mode; between the δοσις and ληψις themselves (the giving and receiving) and the δοσεως και τροπος (the manner of giving and receiving). The δοσις και ληψις, i.e., the administration, dispensation, presentation, and reception of the Sacrament are essential, nor do they allow of any exception; but the mode of the administration and reception admits of some liberty and variation. A few examples will render it more plain. In Baptism, it is absolutely necessary that a person should be baptized with water, i.e., washed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but it is no matter whether this ablution be performed by immersion into water or by affusion with water.” HOLL. (1057): “The Church cannot change anything in the substantials of the Sacraments, yet she rejoices in the liberty of making some change in the circumstantials.”
[9] HOLL. (1056): “God has intrusted the right of dispensing the
Sacraments to the Church, which commits the execution or exercise of this right,
for the sake of order and propriety, to the called and ordained ministers of the
Gospel. But in case of extreme necessity, where the Sacrament is necessary and could
not be omitted without peril of salvation, any Christian, whether layman or woman,
may validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism or initiation.
[10] AP. CONF. (IV, 47): “The Sacraments are efficacious, even if they be administered by wicked ministers, because the ministers officiate in the stead of Christ and do not represent their own person.”
QUEN. (IV, 74): “The
Sacraments do not belong to the man who dispenses them, but to God, in whose name
they are dispensed, and therefore the gracious efficacy and operation of the Sacrament
depend on God alone,
[11] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 24): “We thus conclude and declare that even if a bad and vicious man should take or distribute the Lord’s Supper, he yet takes the true Sacrament, i.e., the body and blood of Christ, not less than the man who takes or distributes it in the most worthy manner. For this Sacrament is not founded on the holiness of man, but on the Word of God . . . 27 . . . It is conclusively demonstrated that this presence is to be understood not only of the eating by believing and worthy persons, but also buy the unbelieving and unworthy.”
HOLL. (1061): “Faith is not required to the substantial integrity of a Sacrament (just as the Word of God, which hypocrites hear, is the true Word, so also that is a Sacrament which adult hypocrites, destitute of faith, receive).”
[12] The Evangelical Church herewith most distinctly opposes the Romish doctrine of the efficacy of the Sacrament ex opere operato. (AP. CONF., VII, 18): “We condemn the whole crowd of Scholastics, who teach that the Sacraments confer grace on him who places no hindrance in the way, ex opere operato, even though there be no good impulse in the recipient. This is plainly a Jewish notion, to suppose that we are justified by a mere ceremony or external work, without any good impulse of the heart, i.e., without faith . . . . We teach that faith is necessary to the proper use of the Sacraments: a faith which believes the promises and receives the things promised, which are here offered in the Sacrament. And the reason of this is plain and undeniable. A promise is useless to us unless it be embraced by faith. But the Sacraments are signs of the promises. Therefore faith is necessary to their proper use.”
CHMN. (Ex. C. Trid., II, 36): “The instrumental cause in this doctrine is twofold:: one is, as it were, the hand of God, by which, through the Word and Sacraments, He offers, presents, applies, and seals the benefits of redemption to believers; the other is, as it were, our hand, by which we in faith ask, apprehend, and receive those things which God offers and presents to us through the Word and Sacraments. The efficacy of the Sacraments is not such as though through them God were to infuse and impress grace and salvation even on the unbelieving or those receiving them without faith.”
HOLL. (1061): “Faith
is necessarily required in order to the reception of the salutary efficacy of the
Sacrament.” Id. (1064):
[13] HOLL. (1062): “The primary design of the Sacraments is the offering, conferring, applying, and sealing of Gospel grace.” “Gospel grace is offered to all who use the Sacraments; it is conferred on those who worthily use them; it is applied and sealed to adult believers.” Hence the Sacraments are not merely significative signs but such as also present and tender what they set forth; for this is included already in the idea of a Sacrament as the means of salvation. When in the Symbolical Books (AP. CONF., V, 42, A.C., XIII) they are called “signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us,” they are such “not essentially, as if their whole nature and essence were limited to signifying, or as if the very nature of the earthly and the heavenly object in all the Sacraments were merely significative.” (GRH., VIII, 213.)
Of the false views of the word, Sacrament, CHMN. (Ex. C. Trid., II, 33) says: “In our times some take too low a view of the Sacraments. They hold that the Sacraments are nothing else than signs and marks of the Christian profession, by which Christians are distinguished from Jews and the heathen . . . . Some have thought that the Sacraments are only the symbols of Christian society, by which we may be excited and bound to the mutual performance of duties. Others see nothing else in the use of the Sacraments than mere allegories or representations of Christian mortification unto sin, regeneration, and quickening, etc. . . . There are those who seem desirous of appearing to entertain exalted views of the Sacraments, and yet teach that the Sacraments are only signs of grace, offered and exhibited before, and irrespective of the use of the Sacraments; so that through the Sacraments God confers and presents nothing to those who with faith use them, but that they are only the signs of grace offered before and in another way. Allied to this is the opinion of those who think that the use of the Sacraments is only by way of commemoration, to excite faith which elsewhere and in another way, but not in the true use of the Sacraments, seeks and receives grace; just as such commemoration can be derived also from pictures.”
GRH. (VIII, 215): “Those who follow Calvin hold to a twofold signification in the Sacraments: one by which the terrestrial object signifies the absent celestial object; the other, by which the entire Sacrament signifies the spiritual grace.”
CHMN. (II, 35): “The Ap. CONF. correctly declares that the effect, virtue or efficacy of the Word and of the Sacraments, which are the seals of the promises, is the same . . . . As, therefore, the Gospel is the power of God unto the salvation of every one that believeth, not because there is any magical force in the letters, syllables, or sounds of the words, but because it is the means, organ, or instrument by which the Holy Spirit is efficacious, proposing, offering, presenting, distributing, and applying the merit of Christ and the grace of God to the salvation of every one that believeth; so also is power and efficacy attributed to the Sacraments, not because saving grace is to be sought in the Sacraments above and beyond the merit of Christ, the mercy of the Father, and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, but that the Sacraments are instrumental causes in this way, that through these means or organs the Father desires to present, bestow, and apply His grace, the Son to communicate His merit to believers, and the Holy Spirit to exercise His efficacy for the salvation of everyone that believeth. As, according to this, the Sacraments effect the same grace as the Word, the question may arise, Why has God employed a twofold means to this end? CHMN. (Ex. C. Trid., II, 29) answers: “To such attacks and to the clamors of fanatics, we properly reply from the Word of God, that the Sacraments which God has instituted to be aids to our salvation can in no way be considered either useless or superfluous, or be safely neglected and despised . . . . And, indeed, (as Chrysostom says) if we were angels, we would need no external sign; but our carnal infirmity hinders, disturbs, distracts, and weakens our faith. For it is hard to continue firmly persuaded of those things proposed in the Word which are not apparent to the senses . . . . Moreover faith, when it determines that the divine promise is in general a living one, is yet principally concerned about the question, Does this promise belong to me individually? . . . God, therefore, who is rich in mercy . . . desires to present His grace to us only in one way, that is, by His mere Word; but He desires also to help our infirmity by certain aids, namely, by Sacraments instituted and annexed to the promise of the Gospel, i.e., by certain signs, rites, or ceremonies obvious to the senses, that by them He might admonish, instruct, and make us sure that what we see performed in a visible manner, externally, is effected internally in us by the power of God.”
“In this way the Sacraments are, in respect to us, signs
confirming our faith in the promise of the Gospel; in respect to God, they are organs
or instruments, through which God in the Word presents, applies, seals, confirms,
increases, and preserves the grace of
HOLL. (1065): “The Sacraments are necessary by the necessity of the precept and of the means. They have no absolute, but an ordinate or conditionate necessity.” QUEN. (IV, 77): “Baptism is necessary in infants, not only by the necessity of the precept, but by the necessity of the means, because there is no other means by which they may be regenerated; but in adults it is necessary by reason of the precept, because in that case it requires faith. The Eucharist is necessary to all Christian adults by the necessity of the precept.”
[14] HOLL. (1062): “The secondary designs
of the Sacraments are: (a) That they may be marks of the Church, by which it is
distinguished from unbelievers” (“and symbols of confession by which we separate
ourselves from other sects.” QUEN., IV., 77). “(b) That they may be monuments of
the benefits of Christ.
Observation. — As the Old Testament also contains the Word of God
as a means of salvation, the Dogmaticians hold also that there are Sacraments in
it, and regard as such circumcision and the passover, the types of Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper. CHMN.
§ 54. Of Baptism.
Of the two Sacraments, Baptism precedes the Lord’s Supper. [1] We are to treat of the nature of Baptism, the form in which it is to be administered, and the design of its institution.
1. Baptism is an act enjoined
by the Lord, and accompanied with a promise,
2. But if we expect such
a result from Baptism, it must be
3. The immediate design of Baptism is, finally, to work saving grace
in man. [6] But also the Word of God has the like effect, Baptism is intended to
produce this result only in such cases in which it is applied at an earlier period
than the Word; this is the case with infants who are not yet susceptible to the
preaching of the Gospel. [7] But in adults who, with their already developed reason,
can understand the preaching of the Gospel, the Word has precedence, and produces
its results before the Sacrament. But, in such instances, Baptism serves to seal
and establish the gracious result already accomplished by the Word. [8] Hence in
the case of adults, who are yet to be baptized, faith must be demanded as the condition
on which the ordinance effects this blessed end. [9] This cannot be expected of
infants; but it does not follow that they are for that reason to be deprived of
Baptism, for they need grace as well as adults, and are invited to it by God. It
is, therefore, God’s will that they be baptized, and Baptism serves also to create
in them this faith. [10] The efficacy of Baptism is not limited to the moment of
its administration, but it continues to confer strength upon its subject. Nor is
this efficacy lost if, in its administration, the intended result, because of some
hindrance on man’s part, be not immediately produced; for still, if the ordinance
were properly administered, a covenant has been entered into with God, and thereby
there is forever established a disposition on God’s part to produce the gracious
effect to its full extent, when the individual no longer strives against it. [11]
At the same time, in repentance man still has the means to appropriate to himself
the blessed efficacy of Baptism, of which he has hitherto by his own neglect been
deprived; for repentance is nothing else than a continuation or renewal of that
which was symbolically indicated in Baptism, namely, crucifying the old man within
Finally, Baptism is necessary, because it is commanded by God; but, as God can save us through other means also, we hope that the children of Christian parents who, without their own fault, are prevented from being baptized, will not be lost. [14]
As Baptism, at the same time, distinguishes us from the great
mass of those who do not belong to the Church, and imposes on us the obligation
to be faithful to our baptismal covenant, the following may be considered as secondary
designs of Baptism: (1) The distinction between Christians and Gentiles, and the
union of the former with the Church,
[1] GRH. (IX, 67): “The Sacrament of Baptism must be considered first, as it precedes the Lord’s Supper in (1) the time of its institution, for it was divinely established in the very commencement of the New Testament dispensation; (2) in administration, for John and the disciples of Christ baptized before the Lord’s Supper was instituted; (3) in order, for Baptism is the first portal to grace, the Sacrament of initiation; the Lord’s Supper is the Sacrament of confirmation. By Baptism we are regenerated; by the Lord’s Supper we are fed and nourished to eternal life. As therefore in nature, so also in grace, we must be born before we are fed; we must be begotten before we can grow. By Baptism we are received into the covenant of God; by the Lord’s Supper we are preserved in it. By Baptism faith and the other gifts of the Spirit are excited in us; by the Lord’s Supper they are increased and confirmed. Baptism was prefigured by circumcision; the Lord’s Supper, by the paschal lamb. No one can have access to the Lord’s Supper unless he has been baptized; as in the Old Testament none but the circumcised were permitted to eat the paschal lamb.”
The Dogmaticians have extensively discussed
the question, What relation did John’s Baptism sustain to that of Christ? CHMN.
(Ex. C. Trid., II, 66): “The same difference that exists between the Word concerning
Christ to come, Christ coming, and Christ offered [to men in the preaching of the
Gospel], exists also between
[2] CAT. MAJ. (IV, 14): “If you be asked, What is Baptism? answer, that
it is not mere water, but such as is comprehended and included in the Word and command
of God, and sanctified by them, so that it is nothing else than a water of God,
or a divine water; not that it is in itself of more value than other water, but
that God’s Word and commandment are added to it.” (See ART. SMALCALD, V, 2, 3.)
The earlier Dogmaticians were satisfied with this simple expression, and hence designate,
as the substance of the Sacrament, the external element of water and the Word of
the institution and promise. (CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., III, 161): “The distinction is
to be retained, viz., that the substance of Baptism consists in the act and in the
words, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.’”) But the later writers (see Of the Sacraments in General, note 6, p. 544
sq.) speak of a double matter in Baptism: the earthly object, which is natural,
pure water, everywhere at hand; and the heavenly object, by which they designate
that which they suppose is super-added by the words of the consecration. This most
of them consider to be the whole Trinity, others the Holy Spirit, and others
the
blood of Christ. These different views arise from the fact that some of them regard
the heavenly object as indicated in the baptismal formula, others in
[3] BR. (693): “Baptism may be defined as a sacred action, instituted by Christ, by which men are washed with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and are thus regenerated and renewed, that they may secure eternal life.”
ART. SMALCALD (V, 1): “Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God with washing
in water, according to His institution and command; or, as Paul says,
HOLL. (1080): “Baptism is a sacred and solemn
action divinely instituted, by which sinful men, living and actually born,
[4] GRH. (IX, 137): “The form
of Baptism consists in the action, that is, in the mersion of the person baptized
into water, or, what is just as well, in the affusion of water, and in the recitation
of the words of the institution: ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father,’ etc.;
so that there are, in general, three substantial parts
The signification of the words of the institution employed in the administration of Baptism is thus explained by GRH. (IX, 132): “When the Officiating minister says: ‘I baptize thee,’ etc., the words are to be taken in this sense: (1) That Baptism is not a ceremony devised by man, but an ordinance of the true God, and a holy Sacrament divinely instituted . . . . (2) That he does not administer this Sacrament of his own private will, but in the place of God, the dispenser of whose mysteries and whose minister he is . . . . (3) That on this water of Baptism the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the one true God, is invoked, that in this action, commanded by Him, He may be present, according to His promise, and receive the baptized person into favor . . . . (4) That the water of Baptism is no longer simply and merely water, but water through which the whole blessed Trinity desires to be efficacious to the salvation of the subject baptized, and therefore through which the Trinity, in this very action of the baptizing minister, operates efficaciously according to His promise, ‘I baptize thee,’ etc., i.e., I testify that by this Sacrament thou art received into the covenant of grace, that the Father accepts thee as his child, that the Son washes thee from thy sins bin His blood and clothes thee with the garment of righteousness, that the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews thee to eternal life, so that in this way thou mayest become a child of God the Father forever . . . . (5) That the person baptized, being thus received by His Sacrament into the covenant of grace, is obligated to know the one true God through His Word, to supplicate, worship, and serve Him alone.” . . .
To the act, as above described, there is added
a series of ceremonies and usages more or less important, all of which are, however,
not essential to Baptism, but are intended only to render the act more solemn. GRH.
(IX, 308, sq.) specifies these as usual in our Church: “The admonition concerning
original sin [since John admonished those coming to his baptism, of the fruitlessness
of their lives,
[5] CAT. MAJ. (IV, 53): “If the Word is connected with the water, Baptism must be regarded as proper and valid, even if faith be not connected with it. For my faith does not constitute Baptism, but it receives and apprehends it. Baptism is not vitiated or corrupted by men abusing it or not properly receiving it; for it is not bound to our faith, but to the Word of God.”
The same is true with regard to the state of mind of the person who administers it, and Baptism even by a heretic is not invalid. HOLL. (1084): “If Baptism be administered by a heretic, who retains the substantials of the ordinance, we must not doubt its efficacy. But if it may be administered in a flourishing church, where an orthodox minister can be procured, it is a great sin to ask it of a heretic. But in a church under oppression, in a case of urgent necessity, it may be asked for and received without blame from a heretic who uses the customary formula of Baptism; but then a protest must be added that the infant is not to be bound by this Baptism to embrace false doctrine.” Baptism by others than ministers, in case of necessity (Noth-taufe), is also valid. HOLL. (1081) says: “Ordinarily, ministers of the Church, legitimately called and ordained, orthodox, and of a blameless life, administer Baptism. Extraordinarily, however, and in case of necessity, any godly Christian, skilled in sacred rites, whether male or female, can administer the ordinance.”
[6] CAT. MAJ. (IV, 24): . . . ”Hence, conceive of the
whole thing as simply as possible, namely, that the power, work, fruit and end of
Baptism is to save men . . . . But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered
from the tyranny of sin, death, and the devil, to be transferred into the kingdom
of Christ, and to dwell with Him forever.” GRH. (IX, 148, 157): “As Baptism is not
simply water, but water comprehended in, sanctified by, and united to the Word of
God, it is not therefore used to wash away the impurity of the body, but it is a
divine and salutary means and organ by which the whole sacred Trinity efficaciously
operates for the salvation of man. Although the effects of Baptism are various and
multiform, yet, following the apostle,
HOLL., more generally (1095): “The primary design of Baptism is the offering application,
conferring, and sealing of evangelical grace.” HFRFFR. (497): “The fruit or effect
of Baptism is regeneration and the remission of sins (
In opposition to the assertion of the Papal Church, that “sin is destroyed by Baptism, so that it no longer exists,” the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by Baptism is thus more particularly defined: “The guilt and dominion of sin is taken away by Baptism, but not the root or incentive (fomes) of sin.” (HOLL., 1096) AP. CONF. (I, 35): “(Luther) always thus wrote, that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, although the material of sin, as they call it, may remain, i.e., concupiscence. He also affirmed of this material, that the Holy Spirit, given by Baptism, begins to mortify concupiscence and creates new emotions in man. Augustine speaks to the same effect when he says: ‘Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not that it does not exist, but that it is not imputed.’”
[7] GRH. (IX, 236): “There is no other ordinary means of regeneration than the Word and the Sacrament of Baptism. By the Word infants cannot be influenced, but only adults, who have come to years of discretion. It remains, therefore, that they are regenerated, cleansed from the contagion of original sin, and made partakers of eternal life, through Baptism.”
[8] BR. (690):
“But here, as regards the immediate design [of Baptism] a diversity exists in respect
to the different subjects. For faith is at first conferred upon and sealed to all
infants alike by Baptism, and by this faith the merit of Christ is applied to them.
But adults, who receive faith from hearing the Word before their
GRH. (IX, 169): “To infants Baptism is, primarily, the ordinary means of regeneration and purification from sin; . . . secondarily, it is the seal of righteousness and the confirmation of faith. To adult believers it serves principally as a seal and testimony of the grace of God, sonship and eternal life; but in a less principal sense it increases renovation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Infants by Baptism receive the first fruits of the Spirit and of faith; adults, who through the Word have received the first fruits of faith and of the Holy Spirit, procure an increase of these gifts by Baptism.”
HFRFFR. (5000): “But what? Suppose one is regenerated by the Word. Has he need of Baptism also? And can Baptism be said to be to him the laver of regeneration? Answer: Both. For believers, too, ought to be baptized, unless they be excluded by a case of necessity. And when they are baptized, Baptism is truly to them the laver of regeneration, because it augments regeneration, wrought by the Word, by a wonderful addition; because, also, the sacramental act seals the regeneration of faith to absolute certainty.”
[9]
“Although Baptism, where it is rightly performed, is a Sacrament and offers saving
grace, without any respect to the faith of the recipient, yet it is also true that,
in the case of adults, a beneficial result follows only where Baptism is received
by faith. The question: Is a hypocrite, therefore, also regenerated, if he receives
Baptism? is thus answered by HFRFFR. (499): “In such a case we must distinguish
between the substance of Baptism and its fruits. For a hypocrite, if he be baptized,
receives indeed true Baptism, as to its substance, which consists in the legitimate
administration of the Sacrament according to the words of the institution and in
the promise of divine grace. But as long as he perseveres in his hypocrisy and infidelity,
he is destitute of its salutary fruits and effects, which only believers experience.
Therefore, God really offers His grace and forgiveness of sins to him who is baptized,
and desires on His part to preserve that covenant perpetually firm and entire without
any change, so that the grace promised in the covenant may always be accessible
to him who is baptized, and that he may enjoy it as soon as he repents; but as long
as he remains a hypocrite and impenitent, he is destitute of it.” QUEN. (IV, 117):
“Even to all hypocrites Baptism offers spiritual gifts,
From this follows the antithesis against the Romanists, who maintain: “That Baptism confers grace ex opere operato, i.e., by virtue of the sacramental action itself, so that faith is excluded by the efficiency of sacramental grace.”
[10] BR. (696): “That infants are to be baptized,
is plain from the testimony of
CAT. MAJ. (IV, 49): “That the Baptism of infants is pleasing and grateful to Christ is abundantly manifest from what He Himself has done, viz., because God has sanctified, and made partakers of the Holy Spirit, many of those who were baptized immediately after their birth. But there are many also, at the present day, of whom we perceive that they have the Holy Spirit, as they give certain proof of this, both in doctrine and life; just as by the grace of God there is granted to us the ability to interpret the Scriptures and know Christ, which very one knows to be impossible without the aid of the Holy Spirit . . . . But if the Baptism of children were not pleasing to Christ, He would not give to any of them the Holy Spirit, nor even a particle of it; and, that I may say in a word what I think, there would not have been among men a single Christian through all the ages that have elapsed until the present day.”
The objection of the opponents, viz., “The Sacraments are of no
advantage without faith, but infants have no faith,” is considered untenable; for
faith is taken into the account only in the case of adults, who are already capable
of being influenced by the Word. Stated generally, however, the proposition, “that
the Sacraments are operative only when faith is present,” is false; for the Sacrament,
as a means of salvation and as the visible Word, is designed, just as the audible
Word, to produce faith, and really produces it when there is no hindrance opposed
to it on the part of man, which is the case in children. BR. (690) says: “Infants,
on account of their age, cannot put any hindrance in the way of divine grace, or
maliciously oppose it, and hence they immediately obtain grace by the use of the
constituted and unimpeded means.” GRH. (IX, 246): “We therefore invert the argument:
Infants have no faith, viz., with respect to their corrupt nature, because, on account
of their carnal generation from their parents, they are flesh; therefore, they are
to be baptized, that they may secure faith and salvation.” The Dogmaticians accordingly
maintain most positively, upon the authority of
QUEN. (IV, 153) calls attention to a difference between the primary and immediate act or operation of justifying faith, “by which it reposes in Christ the Mediator and apprehends His benefits by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the internal and formal faith which we attribute to children; and the secondary and mediate, by which faith is drawn out externally towards our neighbors in acts of charity, which we deny to infants.” . . . The objection, that infants are incapable of faith because their reason is not developed, he opposes with the distinction “between an intelligent and rational soul, and its operation and use. Faith requires an intelligent and rational soul as its subject, and hence faith cannot be excited in brutes; yet this faith does not depend on the operation and use of the same.”
CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., III, 160): “We by no means grant that infants who are baptized
are either without faith or are baptized on the faith of others. The faith of others,
indeed, that is, of parents or those offering them, leads children to Christ in
Baptism,
[11] BR. (690): “Baptism efficaciously
contributes to the confirmation
CHEMNITZ (Examen, Preuss. ed., p.
276): “Christ Himself affirms that the action of Baptism respects not merely either
the past or the present, but He uses the future in
CAT. MAJ. (IV, 76): “In Baptism, grace, the Spirit, and the power are given to the baptized, to subdue the old man in us, that the new man may come forth and be strengthened. Hence Baptism always remains the same; and, although any one driven by the storms of sin may fall away from it, yet the way of access to it is always open, that we may again subject the old man under the yoke of repentance. But it is not necessary to be again sprinkled with water; for, if we were immersed in water one hundred times, yet it would be only one Baptism. But the work and the signification continues and is permanent.”
HOLL. (1097): “Baptism is of such wonderful efficacy, in consequence of its divine appointment, that God, on His part, in view of the baptismal covenant, recalls the sinner to Himself and forgives his offences, if he be penitent; and the contrite sinner, on his part, panting after the grace of God, can encourage himself by the remembrance of his Baptism.”
HFRFFR. (497): “But ‘Do we not often sin again after Baptism?’ True, but that requires no repetition of Baptism; for God, who, in this ordinance enters into a covenant of grace with us, is unchangeable in His will and promises, and on His part seriously and earnestly desires to preserve it perpetually inviolate, firm, and unbroken. Only let us return by repentance to Him who in Baptism has promised us grace and forgiveness of sins; and thus, in the newness of life we shall finally enjoy the fruits of Baptism, of which we have in the meanwhile been deprived by impenitence.”
[12] CAT. MAJ. (IV, 64): “Finally, we must not omit to mention, or fail to understand, what is signified by Baptism, and why God has commanded this Sacrament, whereby we are first admitted to the Christian communion, to be administered with such external signs and acts. The work, moreover, or act, is, that we who are to be baptized are plunged into water, by which we are covered, and, after having been immersed, we are again drawn forth. These two things, to be plunged into the water and to come out of it again, signify the power and efficacy of Baptism, which are nothing else than the destruction of the old Adam and the resurrection of the new man. These two things are to be unceasingly practiced by us throughout our whole life; so that the Christian life is nothing else than a daily Baptism, begun indeed once, but continually perpetuated.” (74): “From this you see very clearly that Baptism, both by its efficacy and its signification, embraces also the third Sacrament, which they are accustomed to call penance, which really is nothing else than Baptism, or its exercise. For what is penitence, unless it be earnestly to attack the old man, that his lusts may be subdued, and to put on the new man? Wherefore, if you are living in penitence, you are living in Baptism, which not only signifies this new life, but also produces it, both beginning and carrying it on.” (79): “So that repentance or penitence is nothing else than a return and re-approach to Baptism, that what had before been begun, but negligently intermitted, may again be sought and practiced.”
[13] QUEN. (IV, 117): “Baptism, properly administered,
is not to be repeated and reiterated: (1) because it is the Sacrament of
[14] GRH. (IX, 282): “(We teach) that Baptism, as the ordinary Sacrament of initiation, and the means of regeneration, is necessary for regeneration and salvation to all without exception, even to the children of believers; yet, meanwhile, that, in case of deprivation or of impossibility, the children of Christians may be saved through an extraordinary and peculiar divine dispensation. For the necessity of Baptism is not absolute, but ordinate. On our part, we are bound to receive Baptism; yet an extraordinary act of God is not to be denied in the case of infants brought to Christ by godly parents and the Church through prayer, and dying before the blessing of Baptism could be brought to them, since God will not so bind His grace and saving efficacy to Baptism, but that He is both willing and able to exert the same extraordinarily in case of deprivation . . . . We neither can, nor ought to, rashly condemn those infants that die either in their mother’s womb, or suddenly for any cause before receiving Baptism; we should rather conclude that the prayers of godly parents, or, if the parents in this matter are neglectful, the prayers of the Church, poured out before God for these infants, are mercifully heard, and that they are received into favor and life by God.”
HOLL. (1098): “Baptism is necessary, through the necessity of precept and means, i.e., through an ordinate and not an absolute necessity; inasmuch as we believe that the children of Christians dying without Baptism are saved.”
[15] KG. (244) this compendiously states the designs of Baptism: “There is a
supreme
design of Baptism, and an intermediate one. The supreme design is either absolutely
supreme, viz., the glory of the divine wisdom and goodness; or secondarily supreme,
viz., the salvation of souls. The intermediate design is either primary or secondary.
The primary, in infants, is the conferring of faith and of covenant grace; in adult
believers, the confirmation and sealing of faith and grace; with respect to all
kinds of candidates for Baptism, the offer of faith and grace, and the spiritual
§ 55. (2.) The Lord’s Supper.
As in Baptism, so in the Holy Supper, we distinguish essential nature, form, and design.
1. ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE. — This is expressed in the words of the institution, to which alone we are referred; [1] and these declare, if we interpret and understand them agreeably to the language (and we dare not adopt any other mode, [2]), that we are to partake therein not only of bread and wine, but at the same time also of the body and blood of Christ. [3] According to this, bread and wine are only the external visible elements through which the body and blood of Christ are communicated, and the Holy Supper is the sacred act in which this takes place. “The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under bread and wine, instituted and commanded by the Word of Christ to be eaten and drank by us Christians.” CAT. MAJ. (V, 8). [4] But, in order most distinctly to state the meaning of such a participation of the body and blood of Christ, we add:
(a) That, as by bread and wind real and true bread an real wine are understood, so also, by the body and blood of Christ, the real and true body and the real and true blood of Jesus Christ, as He possesses both since His glorification, must be understood; [5] and, as the bread and wine, so also this body and this blood of Christ are really and truly present. [6]
(b) That
in the same sense, and in the same manner, in which we partake of bread and wine,
so also we partake of the body and blood of Christ; so that therefore in both cases
the participation is not to be understood in a metaphorical, but in a literal sense.
As there is therefore an oral and real participation of bread and wine, so there
is also of the body and blood of Christ; [7] but yet so that, in the mode of the
participation, the same differences which naturally exist between bread and wine
and body and blood are here also to be
Inasmuch as, according to this, we cannot partake of bread and wine in the Holy Supper without at the same time partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and inasmuch as we can partake of the body and blood of Christ only through the medium of the participation of the bread and wine, we perceive from this, that in the Holy Supper a peculiar union of the body and blood of Christ takes place with the bread and wine. [9] But we are not able to describe this union, according to its essential nature, for it is unique in its character and incomprehensible; hence we must limit ourselves to removing false representations of it. It would be a false representation of it if we believed in a change of one substance into the other, as the Romish Church does in the dogma of transubstantiation, which is altogether a false doctrine, for the Holy Scriptures declare both that the bread and wine, and that the body and blood, are present in the Holy Supper; or, if we believed in the combination of both substances into one; or, if we thought that this union were one extending beyond the Lord’s Supper and continually existing; or, if we maintained that the body and blood were somehow locally included in the bread and wine; or, finally, if we held that this union is of the same nature as that between the divine and the human nature of Christ. [10]
2. THE FORM. — In the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us only when the mode prescribed by the Lord in this solemnity is perfectly observed. there must be, therefore: (a) The consecration. (b) The consecrated elements must be really distributed and partaken of; for only in these cases do bread and wine cease to be common and ordinary elements, and at the same time the body and blood of Christ are comprehended in and by them. [11] Where all this is done, there also the Holy Supper is a real Sacrament, and neither the faith of the communicant [12] nor the state of mind of the officiating minister [13] is a condition of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ.
3. THE DESIGN. — According to the express command of the Lord, Christians are to partake of the Holy Supper in remembrance of Him. [14] The believing participation will have the effect that the communicants, with the body and blood of Christ, will receive also all the benefits which Christ procured by the offering of His body on the cross. All the benefits, then, which Christ procured for us by His death, are communicated to us in the Holy Supper, [15] but yet in such manner that faith is presupposed as already existing in those who partake of the Holy Supper; and therefore the effect of the Supper does not consist in the production, so much as in the more thorough establishment and confirmation and more cordial appropriation of those benefits. [16] The most prominent result is: (a) The sealing of the Gospel promise of the remission of sins, and the confirmation of our faith, for no surer and more certain pledge can be given us than the body and blood of Christ; (b) The ingrafting into Christ and spiritual nourishment to eternal life, for it is in the Supper that the closest union with Christ takes place. [17] In the participation of the Holy Supper, Christians acknowledge themselves as belonging to one Head, and thus the Holy Supper, at the same time, serves to strengthen the bond of love among them. [18]
[1] HOLL.
(1107): “The norm of the whole doctrine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is given
in the words of the institution, which are found in
CHMN. (de
c. Dom., 9): “As some dogmas of the Church and single articles of faith have, as
it were, their proper foundation in certain particular passages of Scripture where
they are expressly taught and explained, so that their true and genuine meaning
may be properly sought and surely gathered from those passages; so, beyond controversy,
the correct doctrine of the Lord’s Supper has its peculiar place and proper foundation
in the words of the institution. All confess and yield this to the words, but when
the thing spoken of comes to be treated, there is plainly a difference. For all
the Sacramentarians, however many there may be, do not derive what they wish to
think and believe concerning the Lord’s
[2] FORM. CONC. (Epit. VII, 7): “We believe, etc., that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be taken in any other sense than as the words sound to the very letter.” HOLL. (1111): “We must not depart from the obvious meaning of the words of the Holy Supper, but they are to be understood most simply and literally as they stand. Note: We do not here speak of all the words of the institution, but of the substantial and constitutive words: ‘This is my body, this is my blood.’”
BR. (703) very briefly condenses the
proof as follows: “That these words of Christ are to be taken in their native force
and intention, and that we are not to pervert them from their proper signification
to a figure, appears: (1) From the common and natural rule of interpretation, which
retains the literal signification, unless urgent necessity compel us to adopt a
figurative one; which rule is indeed most solicitously to be observed in regard
to supernatural subjects and those which pertain to faith. (2) That when the three
Evangelists and Paul, at different times and places, speak of the institution of
the Lord’s Supper, not one of them ever intimates that the words have a figurative
meaning, or that we are to believe that we eat, not the body, but a sign of the
body; a that we drink, not the blood, but a sign of the blood. (3) From the harmony
of
[3] The literal sense is thus explained by HOLL. (1108): “In the former proposition (this is my body) the demonstrative pronoun this denotes the entire sacramental complex, consisting of everything in the Sacrament composed of the wine and the blood of Christ, mysteriously united.” (Inasmuch as the pronoun this is employed with regard to both the bread and the body, the Romish doctrine of a transubstantiation is excluded.) “The substantive verb is connects the predicate with the subject, and denotes that that which is offered in the Holy Supper is really and truly not only bread, but also the body of Christ.”
The meaning
of the words then is this: “This which I offer to you, which you are to receive
and eat, is not only bread, but it is besides my body. This which I offer to you,
and which you are to receive and drink, is not only wine, but besides it is my blood.”
Or, as it is most frequently expressed: “In, with, and under the bread and wine,
Christ presents His true body and blood to be truly and substantially eaten and
drank by us.” This mode of expression is confirmed by the FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec.,
VII, 35) thus: “Besides those phrases used by Christ and Paul [viz., that of the
body of Christ], we employ other forms of speech also, e.g., when we say that the
body of Christ is present and presented under the bread; this we do for weighty
reasons. For, first, we use these phrases in order to reject Romish transubstantiation.
In the next place, we wish also in this way to teach the sacramental union of the
substance of the unchanged bread with the body of Christ. In the same way, the passage,
[4] HUTT. (Loc. Th., 230): “The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which the true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under bread and wine, is truly distributed to all who eat and drink, and the promise of grace is applied and sealed to every believer.”
KG. (248): “The Lord’s Supper is the second New Testament Sacrament, in which God, to-day, by the hand of the regular minister of the Church, through the medium of the consecrated bread, truly and really presents to the communicants His true and substantial body to be eaten by the bodily mouth, yet in a supernatural way; and through the medium of the consecrated wine, He truly and really presents to the communicants His true and substantial blood, to be drank by the bodily mouth, yet in a manner hyperphysical and unknown to us; and by this He confirms their faith and seals to them His covenant grace, to the praise of His goodness and wisdom, and the salvation of those who partake.”
In the
Scriptures this Sacrament is called the Lord’s Supper, δειπνον κυριακον,
The Dogmaticians accordingly distinguish between the celestial and the terrestrial matter in the Lord’s Supper. HOLL. (21116): “The terrestrial matter of the Lord’s Supper is partly bread; in regard to its substance genuine. It is not important, however, in regard to its quantity, whether it be more or less, or whether it be round or oblong; in regard to its quality, whether it be unfermented or fermented; in regard to the kind of grain, whether it be wheat, rye, or barley. It is partly wine; in regard to its substance, genuine; but it is of no account whether it be red or white, pure or somewhat diluted with water. The celestial matter is the true and substantial body of Christ, and also the true and substantial blood of Christ.”
[5] CHMN. (d. c. D., 14): “When, in speaking of the
bread in the Lord’s Supper, we say that it is the body of Christ, the word
bread
has and retains its literal signification. And when to the word body is added the
phrase, ‘which is given for you,’ we are
[6] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 9): “It is taught, that in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of Christ are truly present, and distributed and received under the form of bread and wine.”
GRH. (X, 165): “After it is demonstrated that the words of the Holy Supper are to be taken κατα το ρητον, according to their genuine, literal and natural meaning, the opinion of our churches concerning the true, real, and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper cannot be doubtful or uncertain, since it immediately flows from the words of the institution κατα ρητον, and taken literally.” This presence is called sacramental (ib., 168), “because the celestial object in this mystery is bestowed and presented to us through the medium of external sacramental symbols; it is called true and real, to exclude the figment of a figurative, imaginary, and representative presence; substantial, to exclude the subterfuge of our opponents concerning the merely efficacious presence of the body and blood of Christ in this mystery; mystical, supernatural, and incomprehensible, because in the mystery the body and blood of Christ are present, not in a worldly manner, but in a mystical, supernatural, and incomprehensible manner. Some of our theologians have called it a corporeal presence, but only with respect to the object and not at all to the mode; they wish to say by this, that not only the virtue and efficacy, but the substance itself of the body and blood of Christ is present in the Holy Supper; for they oppose this word to spiritual presence as it is defined by their opponents, but by no means wish to say thereby that the body of Christ is present in a corporeal and quantitative manner.”
In order to reply to the charge, that the Lutheran Dogmaticians had only inferred the doctrine of this presence from their doctrine of the person of Christ, HUTT. (Loc. c., p. 716) remarks: “We must consider, that in this controversy concerning the Eucharist, not one, but two different questions are mooted. One of these is concerning the will and intention of Christ: ‘Whether He wished really to present His body to be eaten in the Supper and His blood to be drank, and so to be most closely present by His body and blood in the Eucharistic bread and wine?’ In regard to this Luther maintained, that we agree with him, that beyond all doubt the decision of this question is to be sought nowhere else than in the article concerning the Lord’s Supper. The other question is concerning the power of Christ: ‘Whether He be really able to be present, by His body and blood, in all places where this Sacrament is dispensed?’ In regard to this, he must be stupid who maintains that the decision is to be sought anywhere else than in the article concerning the person of Christ.” If, namely, in the article just mentioned, the possibility, at least, of an omnipresence of Christ was proved, in general (comp. § 33, note 20, at the end), then nothing of consequence can any longer be objected to this mode of special presence which takes place in the Lord’s Supper.
The Dogmaticians take pains to distinguish carefully
between this kind of presence and other kinds of presence. Luther, already, made
three distinctions of this kind. Comp. FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., Vii, 99): “Christ
could be anywhere: first, in a comprehensible and corporeal manner, which He employed
when He sojourned corporeally upon earth, when He was quantitatively circumscribed
in a certain place . . . . Secondly, He can be present anywhere in another, incomprehensible
and spiritual manner, so as not to be circumscribed by a place, but to penetrate
all creatures, by virtue of His own perfectly free will; just as my sight penetrates
the air, or the light penetrates the water, and is in these things, and yet is not
circumscribed by a place . . . This manner of being present Christ employed when in
His resurrection, He came forth from the closed and sealed tomb, . . .
and thus He is
also in the bread and wine of the Supper . . . . Besides, He can be anywhere present
in a divine and celestial manner, according to which He is one person with God.
In this way creatures are much more nearly present to Him and more easily penetrated
than according to the second kind of presence.” In addition to the distinction made
between the presence assumed in the Lord’s Supper and the general presence (by virtue
of which Christ, the
Other erroneous conceptions
are guarded against by CAL. (IX, 307), as follows: “We maintain that the body and blood of
The objection urged by the Zwinglians against
this presence, viz.: “If the body of Christ be present at the same time in Heaven,
and upon earth in the Lord’s Supper, it necessarily follows that it is not a true
and human body, for such majesty can be attributed to God alone, but the body of
Christ is not at all capable of it,” is set aside by the doctrine of the Communicatio
Idiomatum (Genus III), to the fuller development of which the Lutheran Church was
led by these very objections on the part of the Reformed. (Comp. FORM. CONC., VIII,
De Persona Christi.) QUEN. (IV, 200) replies to this objection: “There is no contradiction;
the body of Christ is finite, and the same is substantially present everywhere (and
especially in the Lord’s Supper) without any extension and division. Both these
statements agree with the Scriptures; both are to be believed, nor is the one to
be opposed to the other. The axiom which our adversaries here usually bring up against
us, viz., ‘a natural and finite body cannot be at one and the same time in many
places,’ avails only in so far as a natural mode of presence is concerned, and is
therefore incorrectly applied to articles of mere faith, or is rather used in opposition
to the words of Christ. And if the human nature of Christ, without any prejudice
to its reality and finiteness, could be assumed into the infinite person of the
Logos, why, therefore, may not the body of Christ be substantially present everywhere
(and especially in the Lord’s Supper) without any prejudice to its reality? Place
is an accident; it does not constitute a body, but is accidentally consequent upon
some other accident, for instance, quantity, for the explanation of which no actual
limitation is required, but for which the quality of being limitable is of itself
sufficient. And accurately speaking, it is not locality, but locability, not the
being in a place, but the ability to be in a place, that its the quality of a physical
body. The multiplication of the limit of the presence is not the multiplication
of the subject that is present; the variety of the mode is not the multiplication
of the thing. The same Christ is present in the Eucharist without the multiplication
of Himself, as the same God is present in all believers without multiplication.
Further objections
are the following “(1) That the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ according
to His human nature is opposed to the doctrine of the real, peculiar, divine presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.” To this HOLL. (1125) replies:
“We distinguish between the general and special omnipresent, and nevertheless is
presented to a particular person by a special kind of presence. For thus we read
that the omnipresent Holy Spirit descended on Christ in the form of a dove,
[7] HOLL. (1130): “The body and blood of Christ, in the proper administration of the Lord’s Supper, are received, eaten and drank by the communicants, not only by the mouth of faith, but also by the mouth of the body.”
CHMN. (d. c. D., 19): “It is certain that not bread alone is eaten in the Lord’s Supper, for of that which is received and eaten in the Supper, Christ says, ‘This is my body.’ Therefore, in the Holy Supper there is eaten the body of Christ also; but not simply mentally and spiritually, by faith alone. For, if the word eat in those words of the Holy Supper meant that faith ascended above all heavens in its thoughts, the Lord’s Supper might be celebrated without the external oral reception of anything, which no one has ever dared to imagine. The word eat, therefore, in this place, has and retains its literal and natural signification. For Christ commanded a taking in His Supper when He said, ‘Take;’ and He defines the mode of reception to be with the bodily mouth, when He adds, ‘Eat.’ But of that which is taken by the mouth and eaten the Son of God Himself adds, ‘This is my body.’ But it is impossible that one and the same word, in the same proposition, should at the same time have a literal and a figurative meaning.”
But from this oral manducation, which, because it occurs
only in the Lord’s Supper, is called sacramental, there is to be distinguished the
spiritual manducation. FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 61): “There is a twofold eating
of the flesh of Christ; one is spiritual, of which mainly Christ speaks in
The different senses in which the Lutherans and Calvinists employ
these terms are thus stated by GRH. (X, 303): “The Calvinists thus define the
sacramental
eating: that we receive by the mouth the bread, which is the Sacrament, i.e., only
the sign, of the absent body of Christ. We thus describe the sacramental eating:
that we receive with the mouth the bread which is the communion of the truly present
body of Christ. The Calvinists thus define spiritual manducation: that the soul
elevates itself, and its organ, viz., faith, to heaven, and there enjoys the body
and blood of Christ, i.e., applies to itself the benefits derived from the giving
of His body and the shedding of His blood. We by no means deny the application of
the benefits of Christ by faith, i.e., the spiritual eating and drinking of the
body and blood of Christ, as spoken of in
[8] CHMN.
(de c. Dom., 20): “If the union or presence of the body of Christ in the bread were
physical, constituted in a natural way and after the manner of the things of this
world, then the evident and manifest manner of the sacramental manducation could
be reasonably asked for and could also be shown. For the manducation is the same
in kind as the union or presence of Christ in the Supper. But that union or presence
is not physical, constituted after the manner of the things of this world. It is
therefore more easy to show what sacramental eating is not than what it is. It is
plainly not physical, which consists in the mastication, deglutition, and digestion
of the substance which is eaten, because the presence of Christ in the Supper is
not natural, constituted after the manner of the things of this world; yet nevertheless
not figurative or feigned, but true and substantial, although it is effected by
a supernatural, celestial, and inscrutable mystery.” Accordingly, there is indeed
assumed an oral manducation of bread and wine, as of the body and blood; but, because
these substances are in their nature so different, the mode of manducation in each
is also distinguished. In the bread and wine, as physical and earthly things, the
mode assumed ins physical; in the case of the body and blood, as heavenly things,
the mode of manducation assumed is hyperphysical. HOLL. (1130): “The sacramental
eating and drinking is an undivided single action, by which at one and the same
moment we eat the eucharistic bread and the body of Christ sacramentally united
to it. But the mode of this one eating and drinking is twofold. For, although he
terrestrial and celestial object is received by one and the same organ, yet this
is not done in the same way. Bread and wine are received by the mouth immediately
and naturally; the body and blood of Christ are received mediately and supernaturally.”
The physical and hyperphysical mode are thus described by HOLL. (1130): “The former
is that by which food, taken into the mouth, is passed into the stomach, digested,
and ejected. The latter is that by which food that is offered is, indeed, received
through the mouth into the body, but is not digested and ejected in a natural way.
Angels ate (
QUEN. (IV, 204): “We must distinguish between the
manducation itself, with its form, definition, and properties, on the one hand,
and the accidents and consequents of manducation on the other. We cannot say: ‘The
body of Christ is literally eaten, therefore it is masticated by the teeth,’ etc.
For it is not essential to literal eating and drinking, in general, that the meat
and drink should pass by means of deglutition into the stomach, since the above
stated accidents and consequents pertain only to the physical mode of manducation
and not to the hyperphysical.” The physical mode of eating the body and blood is
rejected, under the name also of Capernaitic manducation (according to
[9] GRH. (X, 116): “The sacramental presence and union is effected in such a way that, according to the appointment of our Saviour Himself, the body of Christ is united to the consecrated bread, as a divinely appointed medium; and, to the consecrated wine as a medium also divinely appointed, the blood of Christ is united in a manner incomprehensible to us. Thus in a sublime mystery, with the bread, by one sacramental eating, we take and eat the body of Christ, and with the wine, in one sacramental drinking, we take and drink the blood of Christ.” Ib. (302): “We teach, therefore, that in the Holy Supper we do not receive the bread, alone and by itself, nor the body of Christ, alone and by itself; . . . but, that with the wine the blood of Christ is received, and this in consequence of the mystical and sacramental union of the bread and the body and of the wine and the blood of Christ,, which has its origin in the appointment of the true and omnipotent Christ, but which cannot be understood, nor should it be investigated by human reason.”
HFRFFR. (517): “The sacramental union is such a real and true conjunction of the consecrated bread with the body of Christ, and of the consecrated wine with His blood, in which, by virtue of the institution and ordination of Christ, in the administration and reception of the Holy Supper, the true body and blood of Christ are taken, eaten, and drank together with the bread and wine.”
QUEN. (IV, 181): “The complex
subject [viz., the τουτο in the words of the institution signifies that a terrestrial
and a celestial object are conjointly given to be eaten and drank. But what are
conjointly given, in a real presentation, these are also united after their own
peculiar manner. Now, in the Holy Supper the eucharistic
HOLL. (1120): “The sacramental union of the terrestrial and the celestial object implies the mutual presence and communion of the bread and the body,, also, that of the wine and the blood of Christ, so that the consecrated bread is the vehicle of the body, and the consecrated wine is the vehicle of the blood of Christ.”
In order to avoid all misconception, it is added with special emphasis, that only the body and blood of Christ, and not the whole Christ, body and soul, are united with the bread and wine; hence there is a difference between the presence of Christ and the participation of the body and blood of Christ.
QUEN. (IV, 200): “It is one thing that the whole Christ is present in the Holy Supper, and another that the whole Christ or the celestial object is united with the element of bread and wine, and thus also the whole is sacramentally eaten. The former we affirm, the latter we deny. For we say that the body of Christ only is united with the bread, and the blood with the wine, and sacramentally received by the mouth of the body, but that the whole Christ is received spiritually by the mouth of faith.”
For the difference in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper between the Lutheran and the Reformed, see FORM. CONC., VII, 2-9.
GRH. (X, 184) states the
difference as follows: “Our opponents contend (1) that the body of Christ is substantially
present only in heaven; hence they draw an argument against the presence of His
body in the Supper from the article of His ascension; (2) that Christ in His human
nature is not present on earth, but that He was taken to heaven, and will remain
there until the last day; (3) that presence in many places is opposed to the nature
of a true body; hence they argue against our opinion from the properties of a true
body; (4) that the body of Christ was as much present to Abraham and to the godly
of the Old Testament as He is to us in the sacrament of the Eucharist; (5) that
the eating of His body can be performed alone by faith soaring to heaven; (6) that
the body of Christ is communicated and united to us by the operation of the Holy
Spirit; yet it remains in heaven, where it is received until the last day; (7) that
the presence is asserted not on account of the bread, but on account of man (according
to which they oppose the means to the end, which, nevertheless, are subordinates);
(8) that the sacramental union consists in a mere form and analogy; which they thus
explain, that the bread is a sign, figure, and representation of the body, which
is absent, according
[10] HFRFFR. (517): “The sacramental union is not (1) a transubstantiation of the
bread into the body of Christ, for to a union at least two things are necessary;
(2) it is not a consubstantiation or commixture of the substances, but in both the
bread and wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed; (3)
nor is it a local or durable adhesion or conjunction to the bread and wine apart
from the use of the Supper; (4) nor the inclusion of some small corpuscle lying
hid under the bread (impanation); (5) nor is it, finally, a personal union of the
bread and body of Christ, such as exists between the Son of God and the assumed
humanity.” [The late Dr. Krauth has given the following tabular statement,
which will show how the Lutheran doctrine has often been mistaken for consubstantiation: The Theories of presence may be thus classified: “I. SUBJECTIVE: 1. Natural — Zwingli. 2. Supernatural — Calvin. II. OBJECTIVE: 1. Monistic; one substance only really present — the
body and blood; Roman Catholic transubstantiation. 2. Dualistic; the two substances
really present — bread and wine, body and blood. a. Substantial conjunction of the
two — consubstantiation, impanation, as held by John of Paris and Rupert; falsely
charged on the Lutheran Church. b. Sacramental conjunction — mystical mediating relation
of the natural (bread and wine) to the supernatural (body and blood), each unchanged
in its substance, and without substantial conjunction; the Lutheran view.” Johnson’s Cyclopaedia, CONSUBSTANTIATION.]
[11] GRH. (X, 261): “The form of this Sacrament consists in an action, and in one which Christ and the apostles observed in its administration, and, not only by their own example, but also by a precept, commanded to be observed. The three sacramental acts belonging to the form and integrity of this Sacrament are gathered from the description of the Evangelists: (1) Christ took the bread and blessed it; (2) He gave and distributed the broken bread to the disciples; (3) the disciples received and ate the consecrated bread . . . . There are then three sacramental acts: (1) The consecration of the bread and cup; (2) the distribution of the consecrated bread and cup; (3) the sacramental eating and drinking of the distributed bread and cup.” FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 83): “But this consecration, or recitation of the words of the institution of Christ, does not alone constitute the Sacrament, if the whole action of the Supper, as ordained by Christ, be not observed, e.g., when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, or partaken of, but is shut up, or offered as a sacrifice, or carried about in procession. For the command of Christ (do this) which embraces the whole action, must be wholly and inviolably observed. Rule: Nothing can be called a Sacrament unless administered as instituted by Christ, or according to the manner divinely appointed.”
From what has been said it follows that the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in excluding the laity from the participation of the cup, is utterly rejected, and it is maintained “that as eating is an essential part of the Sacrament, so also is drinking; he who receives it in one kind only does not partake of the whole Sacrament, but only a part.” QUEN. (IV, 226, 227). And yet QUEN. himself remarks (IV, 225): “The laity in the papacy do not on this account sustain injury to their souls, because they are deprived of the cup of the Lord; for the sin belongs to the priests, and only the suffering of injury to the people: and although the laity do not derive the benefit of the cup by partaking of the cup, because it is denied to them, yet God will make amends for this in some other way, and relieve their misery.”
QUEN. (IV,
179): “The consecration consists (a) in the separation of the external elements,
the bread and wine, from a common and ordinary use; (b) in the benediction, or setting
them apart for sacred use, as appointed in the Holy Supper, by solemn prayers and
thanksgiving; (c) in the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the body and
blood of Christ, so that the consecrated bread becomes the communion of the body,
and the consecrated wine becomes the communion of the blood of Christ.” (For “by
virtue of the Word the element becomes a Sacrament, without the
GRH. (X, 270): “But since Christ, in the institution of the Holy Supper, expressly commanded us to do in its administration what He did, it follows that the minister of the Church, in celebrating the Supper, should repeat the words of the institution, and consecrate the bread and wine in this manner, and distribute it to the communicants . . . . This consecration of the Eucharist is (1) not a magical incantation, essentially transmuting, by the power of certain words, the bread into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ; nor (2) is it only the historical repetition of the institution; . . . but it is (3) an efficacious αγιασμος (sanctification) by which, according to the command, ordination, and institution of Christ, sanctification is, as it were, carried over from the first Supper to the Supper at the present day, and the external elements destined to this sacred use, so that with these the body and blood of Christ are distributed.”
We do not, indeed, attribute to the recitation of the words of the institution such power as to make the body and blood of Christ present by some hidden efficacy inherent in the words, much less essentially to change the external elements; but we sincerely believe and profess that the presence of the body and blood of Christ depends entirely upon the will and promise of Christ, and upon the perpetually enduring efficacy of the original institution: nevertheless we also add, that the repetition of the primeval institution, made by the minister of the Church, is not merely historical and doctrinal, but also consecratory; by which, according to the appointment of Christ, the external symbols are truly and efficaciously set apart to sacred use, and in the very act of distribution become the communion of the body and blood of Christ.” . . . FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 77): “It is not our doing, nor our pronouncing, but the command and appointment of Christ, that cause the bread to become the body and the wine to become the blood of Christ, and this is continually taking place from the first institution of the Supper to the end of the world: and by our ministry these things are daily distributed.”
It was also a matter of dispute between the
Lutherans and Romanists whether the consecrated host should be adored. GRH. says,
in regard to this (X, 353): “When the matter of the adoration of the host is discussed
with the Romanists, the question, properly speaking, is not (1) whether Christ,
the Godman, who is really present in the administration of the Holy Supper, and
distributes to us His body and blood by means of the bread and wine, is to be adored;
for this we not only gladly admit, but also urge and inculcate; . . . (2) nor is the
question strictly this, whether very special reverence is to be paid to this Sacrament,
according to the rule of the divine Word; for we ourselves teach that the body and
blood of Christ, which are presented to us in this Sacrament by means of external
symbols, are to be distinguished from common food and drink; . . . and (3) there is
properly also no question here as to the external reverence which is shown in the
distribution and reception of the Eucharist; for we ourselves teach that profound
reverence should be shown by the external deportment, and he who truly and heartily
believes that Christ Himself, truly present in the administration of the Eucharist,
feeds us with His body and blood, will manifest his profound faith and devotion
by bowing his knee, and yielding external reverence . . . . Concerning these matters,
therefore, there is no question between us and the Romanists; but the three points
in controversy are particularly these: (1) The Romanists maintain that the Sacrament
of
QUEN. (IV, 233): “The Lord’s Supper consists in a sacramental action, viz.,
in the consecration, distribution, eating and drinking; and so we deny that, aside
from the use of distribution, eating, and drinking, the body and blood of Christ
are permanently united under the forms of bread and wine after the consecration,
and we teach that the elevation, carrying about, and adoration of the consecrated
wafers is not the worship of Christ (κριστολατρεια), but the worship of bread
(αρτολατρεια).”
(234): “That the sacrament of the Supper is not a permanent thing, but a temporary
action, is proved (1) From the description which Christ gives of it. Whatever is
described by Christ Himself as to its form, by means of actions, and has its complement
and perfection in them, that is not a permanent thing, but an action. But the sacrament
of the Eucharist is described by Christ Himself, as to its form, by actions, such
as blessing, distribution, eating, drinking, and has its complement and perfection
in these. Therefore, etc. (2) From the assertion of Paul,
(3) From the nature of the Sacrament. No Sacrament, aside from its use as divinely appointed, is truly a Sacrament, therefore the Eucharist is not. The reason is, an institution is not observed except in its use; but where an institution is not observed, there there is no Sacrament. A Sacrament is entire through aggregation; if, therefore, one of the aggregates or connected parts be wanting, there is no Sacrament.”
[12]
GRH. (X, 397): “Faith does not belong to the substance of the Eucharist; therefore,
it is not on account of the faith of those coming to the Lord’s Supper that the
bread is the communion of the body of Christ, nor does the bread cease to be the
communion of the body of Christ on account of their unbelief.” Hence, “hypocrites
and the unworthy also partake of the substance of the Sacrament, although they do
not receive its benefits.
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 63): “The godly receive the body and blood of Christ as a certain pledge and confirmation that their sins are surely pardoned; . . . but the wicked receive the same body and the same blood of Christ also with their mouth unto judgment and condemnation.” QUEN. (IV, 250): “The antithesis of the Calvinists, who maintain that the unworthy and hypocrites receive only the half of the Sacrament, viz., the external signs, but not the whole Sacrament, i.e., they are not made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but receive only the mere and empty signs.”
FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 68): “But it must also be distinctly
declared who are the unworthy guests in this Holy Supper; those, namely, who come
to the Table of the Lord without true penitence and contrition, without true faith
and a serious determination to amend their lives. These bring upon themselves condemnation,
i.e., temporal and eternal punishment, by their unworthy oral manducation, and make
themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ . . . . But the worthy guests in the
Holy Supper are those Christians, weak in faith, timid, desponding, who, while they
revolve in their minds the greatness and multitude of their sins, are alarmed; who,
in reflecting upon their great impurity, judge themselves unworthy of this most
precious treasure and of the benefits of Christ; who feel and deplore the infirmity
of their faith: these are the worthy guests . . . . Their worthiness, therefore, consists
neither in the greatness nor in the weakness of
[13] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 32): (Luther), “I confess, concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drank in the bread and wine, even if the ministers who distribute the Lord’s Supper, or those who receive it, do not believe, or otherwise abuse the Holy Supper. For the Lord’s Supper is not based upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon the Word of God and His appointment.”
But the Lord’s Supper is always to be distributed only by the minister. QUEN. (IV,
177): “The dispenser of this Sacrament is none other than the minister of the Church,
so that its administration is not to be intrusted to any private person, even in
a case of necessity . . . (a) Because Christ committed the administration to the apostles.
(b) Because He dispensed it, representing the person of the administrant. (c) Because
He committed the administration of the Sacraments, as well as the preaching of the
Word, to the apostles,
[14] AUG. CONF. (de Missa, III, 30): “Christ commands us to do this in memory of Him; wherefore the Lord’s Supper was instituted, that faith, in those who partake of the Sacrament, may call to mind the benefits which it receives through Christ, and may encourage and console the timid conscience. For, to remember and feel the benefits which are truly presented to us, is to remember Christ.” HOLL. (1138): “The commemoration and annunciation of the death of Christ are made in true faith, when we consider and believe that His body was sacrificed as a victim for us on the altar of the cross. But the application of faith, as far as it relates to the body of Christ, is called the spiritual eating of the body of Christ, without which a mere oral manducation does not produce the saving benefit of the Eucharist, because all spiritual benefits are received by faith.”
QUEN. (IV,
237): “The Eucharist is not an external, visible, and properly so-called propitiatory
sacrifice, or a procurer of all kinds of benefits, in which the body and blood of
Christ are truly and literally offered to God under the visible form of bread and
wine; but it is only a commemoration of the propitiatory sacrifice once offered
by Christ upon the altar of the cross.” HOLL. (1139): “Observe II. The word
sacrifice
may be used either literally or figuratively. Figuratively, it is used (1) for every
act which is done that we may cleave unto God in holy fellowship, and having in
view the end that we may become truly happy. (2) For the worship of the New Testament
and the preaching of the Gospel,
[15] GRH. (X, 364): “The design and benefits of the Holy Supper are very many in number, inestimable as regards their utility, and inconceivable in importance. For, when we receive in the Holy Supper the literal body of the Son of God Himself, crucified for us, and His own literal blood shed on the altar of the cross for our sins, it plainly follows from this that all things which Christ meritoriously procured for us, by delivering His body and shedding His blood, are applied, conferred upon, and sealed to us in the salutary use of this Sacrament . . . . But Christ embraces all and each of these benefits with wonderful brevity in the words of the institution, when He declares that His same body is offered to us to be eaten which was broken for us on the cross, . . . and when He commands us to do this in memory of Him.”
[16] Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are thus distinguished: The former is the Sacrament of initiation, the latter the Sacrament of confirmation. GRH. (X, 2): “By Baptism we are regenerated and renewed; by the Lord’s Supper we are fed and nourished unto eternal life. In Baptism, especially that of infants, faith is kindled by the Holy Spirit; in the use of the Supper it is increased, confirmed, and sealed. By Baptism we are grafted into Christ; by the salutary use of the Lord’s Supper we receive a spiritual increase in this relation. By Baptism we are received into the divine covenant; by the use of the Eucharist we are preserved in it, or, when we fall from it by sins against conscience, we are restored to it by true penitence.”
CAT. MAJ. (V, 23): “By Baptism we are at first regenerated, but nevertheless the old and vicious covering of flesh and blood adheres to man. Now, there are here many impediments and assaults by which we are so severely tried, on the part of the world and of the devil, that we often grow weary and weak, and sometimes even fall into the filth of sin. Hence this Sacrament is given to us, that by its use our faith may again restore and refresh its strength; that it may not retreat or finally fall in this contest, but become daily stronger and stronger. For the new life is so constituted that it may continually increase and gather strength as it advances.”
[17] HOLL. (1138) combines both under the general name of evangelical
grace which is communicated to us through the use of the Holy Supper. “Christ’s
design in offering His body to be eaten by us . . . is, that evangelical grace, or the
divine grace promised and offered to us in the Gospel, may be applied and sealed
to us individually. When we attentively consider this, the act of applying grace
becomes very clearly known. God promises through regenerating grace to bestow faith
upon all. This regenerating grace, and its effect, viz., faith, God confirms, strengthens
and increases through the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Moreover, he who receives
the body and blood of the Lord may be most firmly assured that the promise of the
Gospel belongs to him individually . . . . Next, through justifying grace God forgives
the sins of the regenerate and imputes to them the righteousness of Christ; which
justifying grace and forgiveness of sins are sealed in the Holy Supper. For, when
we receive in the Holy Supper the very body of Christ which was delivered up to
death for us . . . then we are positively assured, as by a seal of the New Testament,
that the forgiveness of sins is imparted, bestowed upon, and applied to
[18] HOLL. (1139): “Being
united through the Holy Supper with Christ, the Head, they are also united with
one another as members of the mystical body, and thus the Eucharist is the basis
of love between us and our neighbor,
It follows from the conception
of the Eucharist that (1) as a rule, it should be administered in the public congregation,
and not in private, unless in a case of necessity. When, moreover,
§ 56. Of the Church [1] in a Wider and a Narrower Sense.
IN view of the efficiency which God has communicated
to the means of grace appointed by Him, it may naturally be expected (
[6] Only those who belong to this communion are certain of their salvation, for the only way of salvation lies in the faith which is the faith of this communion (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). [7] To this communion, moreover, the promise is given that it shall endure for all times, [8] and it can never utterly fall into error, because in the Word of God it possesses the eternal truth. [9]
If moreover, the members of this communion are joined together by the like hope
and the like faith, it is just as natural as it is desired by God, that those who
dwell together in the same place and at the same time, should combine in a close,
visible community; so that thus the one, universal Church should take the form of
several particular churches (ecclesia universalis — particularis), [10] and its actual
existence be also externally recognized by such combination. It then becomes the
duty of each such congregation to draw others also into the same saving fellowship
with Christ, and for this end to employ the means of grace by which individuals
can be gained. The particular [or individual] Church will then have to count all
such as belonging to it, who unite themselves to it, though it be only by an outward
profession: for, first, as it cannot, like God, look into the heart, it has no means
whereby to determine whether any individual has indeed inwardly followed the call
addressed to him; secondly, it can still always hope, in regard to those who at
first have only outwardly accepted the call, that, through the power of the divine
Word and Sacraments, they will still in time give inward heed to it. Concerning
the particular church we cannot, however, assert so unconditionally, that it is
a congregation of believers, i.e., of such as have accepted the saving grace offered
to them; to it, therefore, the definition of the Church
The Church (in the
wider sense) is further called a true or a
[1] GRH. (XI, 7): “The word Church [ecclesia]
(from εκκαλειν)
generically signifies an assembly or congregation, whence it is applied to political
and secular assemblies. In order, therefore, that the holy assembly of the Church
may be distinguished from secular assemblies, it is called the Church of God, η εκκλησια του θεου,
[2] HOLL. (1292): “The Head of the
Church is Christ, the God-man (
The Church is, accordingly,
the kingdom in which Christ exercises His dominion; hence many Dogmaticians append
the doctrine
In connection with the foregoing proposition, the following antitheses to the Roman Catholic doctrine are presented:
HOLL. (1293): (a) “Neither from necessity, nor from Christ’s free will and appointment, are we to recognize, in addition to Christ, any other head of the Church, that in Christ’s stead visibly governs the Church Universal.”
(b) (1295): “Christ never appointed the Apostle Peter the general head of His Church, neither did He grant to him primacy of power and jurisdiction over the Catholic Church.”
(c) (1297): “The Pope of Rome is neither the successor of Peter in the episcopate nor the head or monarch of the Catholic Church.”
The
Protestant Dogmaticians, in expounding the passage,
[3] HOLL. (1300): “The inner and essential form of the Church consists
in the spiritual union of true believers and saints, who, as members of the Church,
are bound together with Christ the Head, through true and living faith (
[4] BR. (742): “Those men whom God, in accordance with His eternal decree, has granted His faith and grace, taken collectively are called the Church.”
“Men who are true
believers and saints constitute the material of the Church.” Hence the Church is
defined as “the congregation of saints who truly believe in the Gospel of Christ,
and have the Holy Ghost.” (AP. CONF., IV, 28.) It is better defined, “the congregation
of saints,” than “the congregation of the elect,” as some define it; “because the
title, ’saints and believers,’ is broader than ‘elect.’ Wherefore since the Catholic
Church embraces within its limits, not only the elect, properly and accurately so
The scriptural proof that the Church is the congregation of saints, according
to QUEN. (IV, 489): “In Scripture passages (1) the Church is called the mystical
body of Christ,
[5] BR. (742): “Believers, considered with respect to the present life, are called the Church Militant; but with respect to the other life, or the life to come, the Church Triumphant.”
GRH. (XI, 10): “That is called the Church Militant, which in this life is still fighting, under the banner of Christ, against Satan, the world, and the flesh. (Here observe that this description pertains only to the Church of the elect, and if indeed it ought to be applied to the assembly of the called, it must be added that the Church Militant has been called and established for the purpose of fighting bravely against these contending powers, an object common to all those called into the Church.)”
“That is called the Church Triumphant, which, being transferred to heavenly rest, and relieved from the labor of fighting and the danger of being overcome, triumphs in heaven against all contending powers.”
“The Church is called militant from its spiritual war, or battle against the devil,
“The Church derives the name, triumphant, from the spiritual triumph
or victory obtained over its enemies,
[6] SYMB. NIC.: (I believe) “One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church.”
1. GRH. (XI, 35): “The Church is said
to be one, because it is gathered by one Lord, through one Baptism, into one mystical
body, under one Head, governed by one Spirit, bound together in the unity of the
common faith, hope, and love (
2. GRH. (XI, 36): “The Church is said to be holy, from
3. AP. CONF. (IV, 10): “And it calls the Church catholic, so that we may understand that the Church is not an external polity of certain nations, but rather the men scattered throughout the entire globe, who agree concerning the Gospel, and have the same Christ, the same Holy Ghost, and the same Sacraments.”
HOLL. (1302): “The Church is called catholic (καθ ολον, according to that which is entire or universal), either
with respect
to its properties, because of its doctrine and faith, in so far as it professes
the faith that the whole body of believers has at all times professed; or with respect
to its extent, because of its being spread over the entire globe, not like the Old
Testament Church, taken from a particular tribe or nation, but from all nations
on the whole globe. That
4. HOLL. (1303):
“The Church is called apostolic, partly because it was planted by the apostles,
and partly because it has embraced and been built upon the doctrine handed down
by the apostles, ‘on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,’
[7]
GRH. (XI, 39): “It is necessary for every one of those who are to be saved, to be
a living member and true citizen of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; and those
who are outside of the Church are, necessarily, aliens from God, from Christ, from
the benefits of the heavenly kingdom, and the hope of eternal salvation. This is
proved (1) by
[8] CONF. AUG. (VII, 1): “They teach that the one holy Church is to continue forever.”
GRH. (XI, 107): “We, in no way, say that the Church Catholic
[9] GRH. (XI, 143): “The entire
Church never errs in such a manner, that there are not some who, following the simple
guidance of the Word, by the direction and effectual working of the Holy Ghost,
are so sanctified as to retain the foundation of salvation, to persevere exempt
from fundamental errors, and be kept by the power of God unto salvation, although
these are sometimes few and so concealed by the public prevalence of persecutions
and corruptions that they are not recognized publicly by the world,
Id. (XI, 143): “Concerning the Church of the elect still warring on earth, we must distinctly reply, that, since errors are two-fold, some being fundamental and overthrowing the very foundation of faith, while others are non-fundamental, existing at the same time with the foundation of faith, and since error likewise can occur in a two-fold manner, either for a time or to the end, those who are elect may, for a time, be involved, and some even actually are involved not only in errors of a less grievous character, but even in fundamental errors. Yet these, in the meantime, before the end of life, again free themselves from such errors; for otherwise they would not be elect properly so called. They do not persevere to the end in fundamental errors, but may be involved in the less grievous errors, not only for a time, but even to the end; nevertheless, by the fire of the cross and of trial, these are diminished in them so as not to defeat their salvation.”
[10] BR. (759): “The Church of Christ, scattered throughout the entire world, comprehends many particular assemblies, which also have appropriated to themselves the name and title of churches; for, although believers themselves are thus diffused over the earth, they still, being united here and there by certain bonds, grow into certain congregations and establish such, served by one regular and complete ministry, which is nevertheless distinct from the ministries of other congregations.”
QUEN. (IV, 479): “The Church
is said to be universal, for a double reason: (1) With respect to place. (2) With
respect to time. With respect to place, the Church is said to be the general assembly
which is collected from different nations throughout the whole world, for church
fellowship and participation, through the
[11] The Church in the wider sense is, therefore, named “the
assembly of the called,”
and, as “the Church broadly and improperly so called” (“the entire assembly of the
called, in which all those who come together with the outward profession to hear
the Word and use the Sacraments are regarded as members of the Church”), it is distinguished
from “the Church strictly (properly, accurately, principally) so called (the entire
assembly of true believers and saints), who are furnished not only with the outward
profession of faith and the outward use of the Sacraments, but also with true faith
of heart and inner regeneration.” The ecclesia late dicta is therefore termed Church
“by synecdoche, viz., of a part for the whole, by which there is ascribed to the
entire assembly, composed of good and evil, that which belongs to only a part.”
To the Church in the former sense, the following passages refer:
[12] GRH., CONF. CATH.: “We do not affirm that there are two Churches, the one true and internal, and the other nominal and external; but we say that the Church is one and the same, viz., the entire assembly of the called considered in a twofold manner, namely, εσωθεν [from within] and εξωθεν [from without], or, with respect to the call and outward association, consisting in the profession of faith and the use of the Sacraments, and with respect to inner regeneration and internal association, consisting in the bond of the Spirit. In the former manner and respect we grant that even hypocrites and those who are not saints belong to the Church; but in the latter manner and respect we contend that only true believers and saints belong to it.” On the other hand, HUTT. (Loc. c. Th., 508): “Although it is by no means sufficient for salvation that you be in the Church, described thus generally, and only with respect to the outward profession of Christian faith, yet salvation itself cannot be found by any one outside of this assembly. And here the comparison of the Church with the ark of Noah is in point. For, as no one was saved outside of this while the deluge lasted, and yet not all who were in the ark were saved eternally, so outside of this Church of the called no one is saved, and yet not every one embraced in this vast assembly of the Church is saved.”
[13] HUTT. (Loc.
Th., 194): “If you consider the outward fellowship of signs and rites of the Church,
the Church Militant is said to be visible, and embraces all those who are within
the assembly
BR. (769): “The Church, properly
so called, is, indeed, not distinctly visible (or recognizable, so that we may be
able to know distinctly and individually who those are that truly compose it as
its members; for faith neither meets the senses, neither can we understand with
much certainty what there is in others,
The same remarks, moreover, apply to this distinction
as to that between the Church as taken in a broader or narrower sense. GRH.
Besides, false conceptions of the Invisible Church are guarded against by the following statements (ib.): “That the Church of the elect is said to be invisible, not because the godly scattered through the world do not come under the sight of men with respect to their person, but because faith and the divine election, by virtue of which they belong to the Church as true members, do not appear in them — they are seen as men having bodies, and not as elect men; nor is the Church of the elect said to be invisible because the godly and elect have no intercourse whatever with the visible ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and with the outward practice of divine worship, but because the inner gifts of the Holy Ghost, by which, in the sight of God, they are distinguished from corrupt and dead members, are in no way manifest to the sight of men.” As a secondary reason for distinguishing between the Church visible and invisible, GRH. (XI, 85) states the following: “Because not only do earthly governments surpass the Church in outward splendor, but heretical assemblies also very often excel it in wealth, power, etc.; and therefore that the Church may not be judged from its outward appearance, it is said to be invisible, i.e., that the pitiable, despised, and small assembly, in which are many weaknesses, and which is not only oppressed by persecutions and the cross, but is also disgraced by many causes of offence and stumbling-blocks, is the Church, concerning which we must decide not from its outward form, but from the Word, and of which we must judge in accordance with the norm of the Word. And in this sense, and respect we grant that the Church, in this signification, is not constantly invisible in the same manner, i.e., it does not always lie hidden, oppressed, despised, and degraded, but, like the moon, varies, and increases and diminishes its external splendor; for sometimes it is oppressed by persecutions and obscured by clouds of heresies, and sometimes enjoys true tranquillity, and shines most clearly with pureness of doctrine.”
While the distinction between the Church visible and invisible was not expressed, in direct words, in the Symbolical Books, and by the earliest Dogmaticians, as Melanchthon, we nevertheless find the substance of it set forth in the following statements: AP. CONF. (IV, 5): “The Church is not only the fellowship of outward matters and rites, as other governments, but is principally a fellowship of faith and the Holy Ghost in hearts . . . . And this Church alone is called the body of Christ, because Christ renews, sanctifies, and governs it by His Spirit . . . . Although, therefore, hypocrites and wicked men are members of this true Church, according to the outward rites, nevertheless, when the Church is defined, it is necessary to define that Church which is the living body of Christ, and likewise is the Church both in name and reality.” But the earliest Dogmaticians do not set out, as we do, with the conception of the Church as an assembly of saints; and they, moreover, employ the expression, visible Church, in a different sense. Thus MEL. (Loc. c. Th., 284): “The visible Church is the assembly of those embracing the Gospel of Christ, and using aright the Sacraments, in which, through the ministry of the Gospel, God is efficacious.” Their purpose is to rebuke those who refuse to attach themselves to any visible Church, saying that the Church does not assume a visible form. By the assertion that the Church is visible, Melanchthon means, therefore, only to say, that there are indeed certain marks by which a church can be recognized as the true one. AP. CONF. (IV, 20): “Nor, indeed, are we imagining a Platonic state, as some impiously satirize us; but we say that this Church exists, viz., those truly believing and righteous scattered through the entire globe. And we add its marks, the pure doctrine of the Gospel and the Sacraments.”
[14] BR. (761): “The more eminent praises and the promises of perpetual duration, which in the Scriptures are ascribed to the Church, ought not to be referred to any definite, particular church, but to the Church of Christ considered absolutely.”
[15] GRH., CONF. CATH.: “The distinction of the Church into visible and invisible is opposed to the opinion of the Papists, that the Church of Christ is so confined to the Pope of Rome and the prelates who are in the regular succession, that whatever they affirm and believe must necessarily be received by all, and that there dare be no dissent from these in any manner or upon any pretext. Likewise, to the belief of those who flatter themselves in their offences, and think that they cannot be damned, as they are members of the visible Church.”
[16] GRH. (XI, 13): “But, inasmuch as to the saints and true
[17] HOLL. (1317): “Every particular and visible church may be so corrupted by fundamental errors, that the teachers professing false doctrine may prevail, and constitute the public ministry, the small number of true believers lying concealed under the multitude of errorists.”
GRH. (XI, 109): “We say that not this and that particular church alone, but absolutely all the particular churches, and, therefore, the entire visible Church, can be obscured by a cloud of corruptions, errors, scandals, heresies, persecutions, etc., and be reduced to such a condition that its outward splendor and glory may fail, and there may no longer remain any manifest and visible assembly to rejoice in the pure ministry of the Word as it sounds forth publicly.” Hence, in opposition to the Catholics (ib.): “We therefore deny that the Church has been bound to any fixed seat in such a manner as to continue in it, with visible glory, by any perpetual succession; as our adversaries say of the Romish Church, that that is the only Catholic Church, in which the Pope is the vicar of Christ.” Yet, on the other hand (ib. 110): “Nor is the Church ever hidden in such a manner as not to be seen by some, if not by the world and the unbelieving, yet by pious confessors, in exile and concealment; nay even, as in the deepest state of self-renunciation, Christ, the Head of the Church, sent forth some rays of His divine majesty, from which His true divinity could be recognized, so, in the deepest depression of the Church, the confession of some of the martyrs shines forth, and presents the clearest testimony to the perpetuity and truth of the Church.”
[18] HOLL. (1306): “The true or pure Church
is an assembly of men, in which all things necessary to be believed for salvation,
and to be done for attaining holiness of life, are clearly taught from
(1307): “A false or impure church is an assembly of men, in which the doctrine of faith is publicly proclaimed from the Word of God, with a mixture of errors and corruptions, and the Sacraments administered, it is true, yet not distributed in that manner, and for that end, in and for which they were appointed by Christ.”
“OBSERVATION. The true and false Churches are here opposed to each other, not by way of contradiction, in accordance with which a church which is clearly not a church is a false church, e.g., an assembly of Mohammedans, treading under foot all of the true religion; but privatively, as a false church is a falsified, vitiated, corrupted, impure church.” It is not asserted, however, in reference to the latter, that there may not be some within it who are saved, since even in such a church the Word of God is still preached. HOLL. (1313): “In a church in which the Word of God is publicly read and explained and preached, and, in like manner, Baptism is administered uncorrupt in its essentials, spiritual sons of God, and heirs of eternal life, can be and are born. But, in a corrupted church (the Roman and Greek), the Word of God is publicly read and explained, etc. Therefore, ” etc. (1314), “in a false church specifically so called, in so far as in the same the Word of God is publicly read and explained, and Baptism is administered uncorrupted in essentials, regeneration and salvation are granted, yet not without great danger of souls, because these can be so obscured by false dogmas, that either the light of faith is not enkindled, or, being enkindled in Baptism, is overwhelmed and extinguished by errors.”
The phrase “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” which our Church also adopts (comp. Note 7), does not, therefore, directly exclude the members of another particular church from the hope of salvation, since one may be regenerated even in such a church. The phrase is therefore not understood in our Church as it is in the Roman Catholic. That church declares salvation to be impossible for any one who belongs to another particular church, while we maintain by this statement only this, that he who would be sure of his salvation must belong to the assembly of the saints.
[19] HOLL. (1307):
“The proper (essential and principal) marks of the true visible Church, from which
its truth is recognized in such a manner that it can be distinguished from every
Further: “Whole and entire churches are not to be estimated from the pastors alone, nor from some few; wherefore whole churches are not immediately to be condemned if either the pastors or some few depart from soundness and purity of doctrine, because the ears of hearers are often purer than the lips of teachers, and many in a corrupt state of the Church, retaining, after having received Baptism, the fundamental articles of the heavenly doctrine, either do not assent to the errors in reference to them which the false teachers scatter, or cling to these without any pertinacity, or again release themselves from them before the end of life.”
Finally: “Yet we must observe that there are certain grades
of this purity, because the Word of God is preached in the Church sometimes with
greater and sometimes with less purity; nor does a church immediately cease to exist
if the teaching on some articles of religion be even for the most part not pure.
The more purely and truthfully, therefore, the Word of God is preached in a church,
and the more nearly the preaching and doctrine approach the form of Holy Scripture,
the purer and truer will be the church; but the farther it departs from the rule
of the Word, the more impure and corrupt will be the state of a church. Yet it is
not through every corruption that a church ceases to exist, because we have shown
In opposition to the Donatists and Montanists, it is very earnestly maintained that the marks above mentioned are the only essential ones; but that, also, where these exist, it is the duty of every one to connect himself with this Church. MEL. (Loc. c. Th., 284): “Neither let us praise the stragglers who wander about and attach themselves to no church, because they never find a church of such a type as that in it something is not wanting in morals or discipline; but let us search for a church in which the articles of faith are correctly taught, and to this let us attach ourselves.”
The marks which the Roman Catholic Church assigns as those of a true Church are rejected as deceptive. They are the following: “The name Catholic, antiquity, uninterrupted duration, amplitude or multitude of believers, succession of believing bishops in the Roman Church, agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church, union of the members among themselves and with the head, sanctity of doctrine, efficacy of doctrine, holiness of life of its founders, glory of miracles, light of prophecy, confession of adversaries, unhappy end of enemies, temporal felicity conferred upon those who have defended the Church.” Of the mark of antiquity, HOLL. (1312) observes: “By the primitive Church either that is meant which existed indeed many centuries ago, although very corrupt, or the apostolic Church. If the former, the true Church cannot be distinguished from the ancient corrupt Church. If the latter, the mark is indeed correct, but is consistent with our belief. For to agree with the primitive apostolic Church means to embrace the pure doctrine which that Church held.”
§ 57. The Church, Collective and Representative.
The entire number of those who are called
to salvation in Christ cannot equally participate in all the affairs of the Church
by giving counsel, direction, or decision; it seeks, therefore, an instrumentality
through which it can be represented, and to which it assigns this business, and
it finds this in the Ministry, which is, therefore, not only entrusted with the
business of publicly proclaiming the faith of the Church, [1] but also of leading
the Church, and of discussing and deciding all the questions that may arise in it.
The Ministry we therefore call the representative Church, as distinguished
[1] HOLL. (1320): “The profession of faith which is announced by the voice of pastors, when they inculcate doctrine in public congregations and declare it for the reception of hearers, is regarded as the common confession of the entire Church and of the individual members.”
[2] HOLL. (1277): “The Collective Church (ecclesia synthetica,
The question here under consideration is, more
generally stated, the following, viz.: “To whom does the government of the Church
belong?” To this HUTT. answers (Loc. Com. Th., 568): “We contend that the aristocratic
form of government is the best, and belongs most properly to the Church Militant
on this earth.” More accurately: “It is our belief that it is the best and most
advantageous of all forms of Church government, if the Church be united in the unity
of the faith and Spirit into one mystical body, under one universal Head, Christ,
and under one equal ministry of teachers, or pastors, or bishops of the Church.
But the belief of the Romanists is this, that the best and most advantageous of
all forms of Church government is, if the Church, in addition to Christ, recognize
also a visible Head on this earth, namely, the Pope of Rome.” . . . HUTT. then proceeds
(581): “The question is, If the monarchical form of government cannot exist, what
form, therefore, has a place in the Church?” and answers: “I think that we ought
to reply to this question not in an absolutely categorical manner, but we should
proceed to it distinctly, according to the threefold relation which the Church sustains.
For (1) the Church may be considered with respect to its supreme and only Head,
which is Christ Jesus alone. In this respect, we acknowledge that the government
of the Church is purely and absolutely monarchical. Again (2) the Church may be
considered with regard to its mystical body, which grows together from the entire
organism of called believers into one body, and is quickened by one Spirit. Now,
in so far as, in the election and calling of ministers, the votes and suffrages
of the entire people and all the three hierarchical orders are required; in so far,
likewise, as the privileges, benefits, rights, and dignities of the Church are not
confined to this or that order alone, or this or that man, but have been handed
down and committed by Christ and the apostles to the entire Church; so far, certainly,
FLACIUS ILLYRICUS judged not improperly that the government of the Church possessed
something in common with a
[3] HOLL. (1320): “In councils, the teachers and delegates of the Church are assembled” (Br. (773): “Laymen, provided they be experienced and skilful in sacred affairs, godly, and peace-loving”), “to whom the power has been committed, by the entire communion of believers, of examining and deciding concerning the public interpretation of doctrine in doubtful and controverted points.”
As in councils the clergy largely preponderate, there is no need in the definition of the Representative Church just given, of any special mention of the laity.
“The
subjects with which councils are occupied are questions concerning the doctrines
of faith, the practical duties, and the ceremonies of the Church of Christ. Example,
[4] HOLL. (1324): “There are general councils, to which learned and godly men are called either from all or from very many parts of the Christian world. There are also particular or national councils, to which learned and godly men of a single nation are summoned; or provincial, in which the teachers of a single province assemble; or diocesan, which consist of religious men of a single diocese.”
[5] HOLL. (1322): “The invisible President of the council
is the Holy Ghost (
“The political president controls the outward order of the councils, affords, to those conferring, security from external violence, prevents tumults, suppresses controversies, approves the decisions of the greater and better part, sanctions them by a public edict, and carries them into execution. The ecclesiastical president controls the internal affairs of the Church, or those particular ecclesiastical actions which pertain to the doctrine of faith, not with coercive, but with ordinate authority, and accurately states, and clearly explains, the questions to be considered.”
(1323): “The arbiters and judges in the councils
are, in addition to the presiding officers, not only bishops, teachers, and pastors,
but laymen also, well versed in sacred literature, godly lovers of truth and peace,
delegated by the churches to give their vote concerning the subjects proposed (
[6] HOLL. (1321): “The power to announce and convoke a council, belongs
to an orthodox civil magistrate; in the absence of whom believers themselves can,
without injustice to the heterodox princes of their domains, appoint an ecclesiastical
assembly. NOTE. — If the magistrate be heterodox and unbelieving, nevertheless the
right and power to convoke councils does not cease, if the orthodox earnestly request
it. But, if, when it is asked, he do not assent to it, the bishops themselves, in
accordance with the example
Hence, the antithesis against the Roman Catholic Church: “1. The right and authority to announce councils, especially general councils, does not belong to the Pope of Rome, but to the highest political magistrate. 2. The president (ecclesiastical) is not necessarily the Roman bishop, or his legates, but those who are chosen for this office by the suffrages of the bishops.” (QUEN., IV, 516.)
[7] The only principle and norm, by which to decide controverted questions
concerning doctrines and morals, is canonical Scripture (
[8] HOLL. (1325): “Councils possess great authority,
and this is both decretory (in establishing good order, and appointing rites, and
correcting the morals of the Church, in order that all things may be done decently
and in order,
[9] HOLL. (1325): “Although some authority is a posteriori given to councils by the consent of churches existing throughout the entire world” (“the councils which are received by a majority of churches, are judged to possess such authority, that from them the doctrine of the true Church may be inferred not obscurely”), “yet, this is not infallible or free from danger of erring (for those who, when out of the council, are liable to mistake, remain the same even when assembled in a council; but teachers of the Church, when out of the council, are liable to mistake . . . . Therefore . . . ).”
§ 58. Of the Three Estates in the Church.
Although all the members of the Church
have the same heavenly calling, their earthly calling is not the same. On the other
hand, they are divided into three estates, of which one (status ecclesiasticus)
is called to arouse, maintain, and increase faith in the Church by the preaching
of the divine Word
§ 59. 1. Of the Ecclesiastical Estate, the Ministry.
As the Word and Sacraments are the means through which alone
a Church can come into existence, God has willed and ordered that these means shall
always be employed; thereby He has willed the office of the preaching of the Word
and the administration of the Sacraments. [2] This office is, therefore, one of
divine appointment, [3] and God has at times Himself immediately called single individuals
into it, while now He does it only mediately, [4] namely, through the Church, which
has received from Him the right and the authorization to do it. [5] The whole number
of those who are intrusted with this office we call the Ministry. Individual teachers
now must, therefore, have received their call and authorization from the Church,
if they are legitimately to have the right to teach and administer the Sacraments.
[6] It confers their office upon them, moreover, by the solemn rite of ordination,
[7] an act by which, indeed, not a special supernatural power or gift is imparted
to the person ordained, but which, nevertheless, in ordinary cases, dare not be
omitted, because order in the Church and the example of the ancient Church, require
it. [8] With ordination the Church commits to them the obligation and the right
to preach the Word of God and to maintain obedience to it, to dispense the Sacraments
and to forgive or retain to individuals their sins (potestas ordinis — potestas clavium).
[9] In all these functions the Minister does not act in his own name, but, as by
the authority, so also in the name of Christ; all the effect, therefore, that follows
the Word preached and the Sacraments administered by him, proceeds not from him,
but from God. [10] Thus he has also, according to
[1] GRH. (XII, b. 2): “Three estates or orders appointed by God in the Church are enumerated, viz., the ecclesiastical, the political, and the domestic, which also are frequently called hierarchies. The domestic order is devoted to the multiplication of the human race; the political, to is protection; the ecclesiastical, to its promotion to eternal salvation. The domestic estate has been established by God against wandering lusts; the political against tyranny and robbery; the ecclesiastical against heresies and corruptions of doctrine.”
[2] CONF. AUG. (Art. V): “For the obtaining of this faith (of justification), the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For, by the Word and Sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given; who worketh faith where and when it pleaseth God in those that hear the Gospel . . . . They condemn the Anabaptists and others, who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward Word, through their own preparations and works.”
BR. (785): “For the collection and preservation of the Church it is necessary that certain men discharge the office of preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments; in order that, through these means, faith may be conferred upon men, and when conferred may be strengthened and increased. And this is the office which is called the ministry of the Church.”
GRH. (XIII,
224): “The ministry of the Church is a sacred and public office divinely appointed,
and intrusted, through a legitimate call, to certain men, in order that being instructed
they may teach the Word of God with peculiar power, may administer the Sacraments,
and preserve church discipline, for the purpose of
[3] HUTT. (Loc. Th., 186):
“The ministry of the Church has been established certainly not by man, but by God
Himself,
[4] HOLL. (1332): “By the divine call is here understood the appointment of a certain and suitable person to the ministry of the Church, with the right to teach in public, to administer the Sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline, made by God either alone or by the intervening judicial aid of men.”
BR. (787): “Moreover, God
calls men to the ecclesiastical office, sometimes immediately (as Moses and the
most of the prophets in the Old Testament were called, and likewise the apostles
in the New Testament), i.e., by no intervening judicial aid of other men; and at
other times mediately, namely, through the Church, which, in the name of God, commits
this office to certain persons.” (HOLL. (1333): “An immediate call is not to be
expected in the Church to-day.” ) Concerning the difference between the mediate
and the immediate call, GRH. (XXII, b. 75): “The difference between the mediate
and immediate call consists always and only in this, that the former is effected
through ordinary means, divinely appointed for this purpose, but the latter through
God Himself, who manifests His will concerning the immediate call of a person, either
by Himself or through some representative.” The mediate call, therefore, is to be
considered no less a divine call. GRH. (XII, b. 79): “For, (1) It is referred to
God as its author,
The “mixed call, by which God Himself names a certain person, but yet wills that he be called through others, as representatives (thus Aaron through Moses),” is not regarded by most of the Dogmaticians as constituting a distinct species.”
[5] HOLL.
(1334): “The less principal cause constituting the ministry is the Church, to which
the right has been granted by God of electing, ordaining, and calling suitable ministers
of the divine Word, nevertheless with the observance of becoming order in the exercise
of this right,
[6] CONF. AUG. (XIV): “Concerning ecclesiastical orders, they teach that no man
should publicly in the Church teach or administer the Sacraments except he be rightly
called.” (HUTT. “(1) On account of God’s command,
[7] GRH. (XII, b. 145):
“Ordination is a public and solemn declaration or attestation, through which the
ministry of the Church is committed to a suitable person, called thereto by the
Church, to which he is consecrated by prayer and the laying on of hands, rendered
more certain of his lawful call, and publicly, in the sight of the entire Church,
solemnly and seriously admonished concerning his duty.” Concerning the person to
be ordained,
Of the ceremonies to be observed
in ordination, GRH. (XII, b. 163): “In our churches we retain the laying on of hands,
and reject the anointing. We make use of the χειροθεσια, not as though it were a
sacramental symbol, appointed by Christ Himself, and commanded to be employed in
this rite, but we use this ceremony according to our freedom, both because it descends
to us from the practice of the Apostolic Church (
Ordination is, therefore, no Sacrament, GRH. (XII, b. 147): “The belief of our churches is this, that ordination may be called a Sacrament, if the word be received in a wide sense; yet, if we wish to speak most accurately, in such a manner that only that be termed a Sacrament which has an outward element or sacramental symbol, appointed in the New Testament by Christ Himself, to which has been attached the promise of grace, for offering, applying and sealing the remission of sins, according to which sense and signification Baptism and the Eucharist are called Sacraments: in such a sense, signification and respect, we deny that ordination is a Sacrament.”
On the other hand, APOL. (VII,
11): “But if the word be understood of the ministry of the Word, we should not seriously
[8] GRH. (XII, b. 168): “We do not deny that, in ordination, the gifts of the Holy Ghost,
necessary for the discharge of the duties of the ministry of the Church, are conferred
and increased. Yet, we make a distinction between the grace of reconciliation, or
of the remission of sins, and the grace or ordination, since many receive the grace
of ordination who nevertheless do not receive the grace of reconciliation; and we
say further that the bestowal and increase of the gifts necessary for the ministry
are by no means to be ascribed to the laying on of hands as a sacramental symbol
truly so called, and divinely appointed, but to the prayers of the Church and the
presbytery, to which the promise of hearing has been divinely made.” HOLL. (1342):
“The necessity of ordination is ordinate, for the sake of good order or decorum,
and because of the divine command (
GRH. (XII, b. 146): “We deny that ordination is necessary by reason of any special divine command, as this cannot be produced; or by reason of any such effect as the Papists ascribe to it, viz., as though by it any indelible character was imprinted, or as though it conferred, ex opere operato, gifts requisite to the ministry, concerning which no promise can be adduced from the sayings of Christ and the apostles; or by reason of any absolute and pure necessity.” . . .
[9] BR. (792): “The ministry of the Church bears with it the power and office (1) of teaching publicly, and administering the Sacraments according to order; (2) the power and function of remitting and retaining sins.” The former is termed the power of the order (potestas ordinis); the latter, the power of the keys (potestas clavium, called also potestas jurisdictionis).
CONF. AUG. (Of Church Power, VII, 5): “Now, their judgment is this,
that the power of the keys, or the power of the bishops, by
[10]
AP. CONF. (Of the Church, 28): “Nor is the efficacy of the Sacraments destroyed,
because they are administered by the unworthy; because they present before us the
person of Christ by virtue of the call of the Church, and do not present before
us their own persons, as Christ testifies (
[11] HOLL. (1348): “The power which ministers of the Church have to remit sins is not absolute (αυτοκρατορικη), or principal and independent (which belongs to God alone, against whom alone sin is committed), but ministerial and delegated (διακονικη), by which to contrite and penitent sinners they remit all sins without any reservation of guilt or punishment, not only ιστορικως, or by way of signification and declaration, but also effectually and really, yet οργανικως (instrumentally).”
The remission is “delegated,
Ministers of the Church remit sins not “by way of signification,” but “effectively; for they really bind and loose, and do not merely declare the binding and loosing that has occurred in heaven; because he who receives a key to unlock and open does not show that another has opened, but he himself opens. For the key is not the same as the declaration of the act of opening, and to unlock is not the same as merely to declare that another has unlocked. Through the Word of God, ministers really and effectively convert, regenerate, etc.; therefore, they also really and effectively remit sins.”
BR. (798):
“That which is declared by the voice of the minister
HOLL. (1349): “The power that ministers of
the Church have to retain sins is not principal and independent, but ministerial
and delegated (the right to the key of binding, Christ has intrusted to the Church,
as a spiritual mother of a family. The exercise of this right He has intrusted to
the apostles and their successors,
[12] CONF.
AUG. (XXVIII, 21): “Again, by the Gospel, or, as they term it, by the divine right,
bishops, as bishops, that is, those who have the administration of the Word and
Sacraments committed to them, have no other jurisdiction at all, but only to remit
sin, and to take cognizance of doctrine, rejecting doctrine inconsistent with the
Gospel, and excluding from the communion of the Church, without human force, but
by the Word, those whose wickedness is known. And herein, of necessity, the churches
ought, by divine right, to render obedience unto them, according to the saying of
GRH. (XIII, 214) under the caption, “Things Hostile
to the Ministry of the Word,” discusses the chief hindrances to the efficiency of
the Gospel ministry. He makes a distinction between the faults of the pastors and
the faults of the hearers. Of the former he enumerates: “(1) abuse of the office,
and of the power of the keys; (2) corruptions of doctrine, which degenerate into
heresies, if obstinacy be added; (3) faults of character and life.” Among the faults
of hearers, he gives prominence to “(1) the contempt of the ministry . . . (2) καισαροπαπια,
by which some claim for the political magistracy absolute power over the ministers
of the Church. They decide that the regulation of the ministry belongs to regal
affairs, and ascribe to the magistracy the power, according to its pleasure and
without the consent of the Church, to appoint and reject ministers, and to prescribe
laws according to its own discretion. They refuse to submit themselves to Church
discipline, and strive to put a muzzle upon the Holy Ghost when He censures their
errors and crimes.” A heresy he thus defines: “A heresy is any private opinion,
which any one selects for his reception in preference to a Christian doctrine and
the Catholic faith, and obstinately defends.” (Id., 222): “That any one should be
a heretic, properly so called, it is necessary (1) that he be a person received
into the visible Church by the Sacrament of Baptism; (2) that he err in the faith;
whether he introduce an unheard-of error or embrace one received from another, although
the former seems to be peculiar to a heresiarch, and the latter to a heretic; (3)
that the error directly conflict with the very foundation of the faith; (4) that
to the error there be joined wickedness and obstinacy, through which, though frequently
admonished, he obstinately defends his error; (5) that he excite dissensions and
scandals in the Church, and rend its unity.” GERHARD, with
[13] HOLL. (1351):
“For the sake of good order it is useful and prudent that, corresponding to the
disparity of gifts, there should be among the ministers of the Church, distinct
degrees of dignity and influence,
§ 60. 2. Of the Political Estate; [1] The Civil Authority.
The civil authority, no less than the ministry, is an estate appointed by God. [2] The power intrusted to it, with all its prerogatives, is derived, therefore, from Him; [3] and through it He desires to promote the temporal welfare of men. [4] Its primary duty, therefore, is to watch over the preservation of outward order and good behavior, [5] and it has the right and the duty of operating in this direction through laws which it is to enact, according to its own judgment, yet without encroaching upon natural or divine right. [6] This mission assigned to the civil authority has, however, as its ultimate aim the promotion of the prosperity of the Church; for the outward welfare aimed at by the civil authority would of itself have no significance. [7] Therefore the civil authority has, at the same time, an immediate calling to fulfil in regard to the Church (officium circa sacra); it is hence also to aid and protect the institutions of Christianity, to ward off all hostile attacks by means of the external power committed to it, and to withstand all injurious influences. [8] It is not to interfere, however, with the internal doctrinal or disciplinary affairs of the Church. [9]
[1] GRH. (XIII, 228): “The term magistratus is taken in a twofold sense: (1) abstractly, for the power and authority themselves, with which those are divinely endowed to whom the government has been intrusted; (2) concretely, for the persons who exercise the magistracy and are endowed with the power to govern.”
[2] HOLL. (1353): “The efficient principal cause of the magistracy
Id. (1354): “To-day, by God’s control, suitable persons attain to the office of magistrate, either by election, or by succession, or by rightfully taking possession of it.”
[3] GRH. (XIII, 308): “From
Political power consists “(1) in ordaining
in such a manner as to produce honorable and salutary laws pertaining to the advantage
of subjects and of the state” (legislative power); “(2) in judging so as, in cases
for trial, to make the decision and administer justice to subjects according to
the norm of the laws” (judicial power; “(3) in executing so as to adorn those obedient
to honorable laws and rewards, and to punish the disobedient and negligent by means
of penalties” (executive power). Hence the right of the sword,
[4] GRH. (XIII, 225): “Because of the fall of those first created, the human race has lost not only the spiritual and eternal blessings of the life to come, but also the bodily and outward comforts of this life; yet God, out of wonderful and ever unspeakable kindness, because of the intercession of His Son, has not only restored and renewed the former, but also the latter, and has appointed means for preserving them.” “Through the political magistrate, (God) preserves peace and outward tranquility, administers civil justice, and protects our property, reputation, and persons.” (Ib., 226.)
[5] GRH. (XIII, 225): “By means of the former” (the civil magistrate) “both outward discipline and public peace and tranquility are preserved.”
HUTT. (Loc. Th., 279):
“The chief duties of the civil magistrate are: (1) to pay attention to both tables
of the Decalogue, so far as they pertain to outward discipline; (2) to make enactments
HOLL. (1366):
“The civil magistrate has been ordained for the public good, and his office if fourfold:
(1) Ecclesiastical, for kings are the nursing fathers of the Church, and the bishops
outside of the temple. (2) Civil, by guarding the interests of citizens, and repelling
foreign enemies from the boundaries of the country. (3) Moral, in so far as he enacts
wholesome laws, by which subjects are held to their duty, so as to lead a peaceable
life in godliness and honesty,
[6] HUTT. (Loc. Th., 285): “Christians are necessarily under obligation to obey
their magistrates and laws, except when they command us to sin; when we must obey
God rather than men,
[7] GRH. (XIII, 225): “The magistracy has been
established by God, no less than the ministry, for the collection, preservation,
and extension of the Church, inasmuch as by means of it both outward discipline
and public peace and tranquility are preserved, without which the ministry of the
Church could not readily perform its duty, and the collection and extension of the
Church could scarcely have a place,
The magistracy is therefore termed
“a wall and shield to the Church,
[8] HOLL. (1361): “The magistracy is
employed with sacred affairs, by carefully observing and performing those things
which ought to be believed and done by all men who are to be saved,
There belong specifically thereto (Br., 809): “The appointing of suitable ministers of the Church; the erection and preservation of schools and houses of worship, as well as the providing for the honorable support of ministers; the appointing of visitations and councils; the framing and maintenance of the laws of the Church, the controlling of the revenues of the Church, and the preservation of Church discipline; the trial of heretical ministers, as also of those of bad character, and all other similar persons belonging to the churches and schools, and the compelling them to appear before a court; providing for the punishment of those convicted of heresies or crimes; and the abrogation of heresies that are manifest and have been condemned by the Church, and of idolatrous forms of worship, so that the Church be cleansed from them.”
[9] HOLL. (1362): “The inner economy and government of sacred things, consisting in the doctrine of the Word, in absolution from sins, and the lawful administration of the Sacraments, are peculiar to the ministers of the Church. The magistrate cannot claim them for himself without committing crime.”
“The civil magistrate has not the power of a master builder, in regard to sacred affairs, equally with, and without any distinction from, civil affairs.”
§ 61. 3. The Domestic Estate.
The family constitutes the third estate in the Church. In this we distinguish the marriage relation, that of children to parents and that of servants to their masters. [1]
1. The marriage relation [2] was appointed and authorized by God; [3] through this the propagation of the human race was to be secured in the manner that was right and well-pleasing in the sight of God. [4] While, accordingly, the Church regards this estate as sanctified, she declares this also by the solemn rite of marriage, by which she publicly sanctions the matrimonial life of those who wish to enter into this estate. [5] As, however, marriage constitutes the closest bond of spiritual and bodily communion, it is also in itself indissoluble, and a divorce of those who have entered this estate can take place only when one of the parties has already practically rendered the continuance of the marriage life impossible by adultery or malicious desertion. [6]
2. “The paternal relation is the natural connection of parents with children, divinely instituted for the education of offspring and the well-being of the entire family.” HOLL. (1383.)
3. “The servile estate is the legitimate relation between masters and servants, divinely instituted for mutual advantage.” HOLL. (1384)
The last two relations are not further discussed by the Dogmaticians in this connection, as they have treated of them at large in the exposition of the Decalogue.
[1] BR. (816): “The third estate occurring within the Church, and which is as it were the seminary of the ecclesiastical and political orders, is the domestic, which embraces conjugal, paternal, and servile association;” “for from domestic association some come forth who are to be brought into the ministry of the Church, and others who are to be brought into the office of the civil magistrate.”
[2] HOLL. (1367): “Marriage is the indissoluble union of one man and one woman, according to divine institution, made by the mutual consent of both, for the begetting of offspring and mutual assistance in life.”
HOLL. (ib.): “The primary and supreme efficient cause of marriage is the Triune God, inasmuch as marriage, abstractly considered, and in a general way, as to its nature, was immediately instituted by Him. The second and subordinate causes of contracting marriage, are the husband and wife themselves and their parents, in whose power they are, agreeing to the marriage.” (GRH. XV, 67: “The consent is not the form [see Appendix] of marriage. As I correctly infer that the builder is not the form of a house, but its efficient cause, since, if the builder were to depart or to die, the house would not at once fall into ruins; so the consent is not the form of marriage, but its efficient cause, because, if the consent cease, a marriage that has been ratified and consummated is not dissolved.”) Id. (386): “We affirm that consent is not the form of marriage, but that, from the consent, the legitimate and indissoluble union of one man and one woman into one flesh originated, or, what is the same, that the conjugal union and relation has itself originated from the mutual consent of both parties to become one flesh.”
HOLL. (1371): “The material element, or the subjects, of marriage are
the persons who are united in marriage, two in number, one man and one woman (
[3] HUTT. (Loc. Th., 287): “God Himself is the author of marriage.
[4]
QUEN. (IV, 453): “The ultimate and supreme end is the glory of God. The subordinate
end is (1) the preservation of the human race, by the begetting and education of
offspring,
[5] GRH. (XV, 396): “The blessing of the ministry is necessary for rightly entering upon marriage, not from any special divine command, nor because of the nature of marriage, as though it were not complete without the consecration of the ministry, but on account of the ecclesiastical and civil arrangement introduced with reference to the public advantage and honor. The blessing, by the ministry, of those newly married, is not required for the essence of the thing itself, viz., of marriage, but for a public witness of it, so that it may be evident to all that the marriage is contracted lawfully and honorably . . . . In the forum of conscience and before God, a marriage is true and valid which has been entered upon with the legitimate and matrimonial consent of both parties, even though the blessing of the ministry be not added; but in the outer forum, a marriage is not considered true and valid, which has not been confirmed in the sight of the Church.”
HOLL. (1371): “The solemn blessing or union, made according to a usual rite, by the minister, pertains not to the contraction, but to the consummation of Christian marriage: (1) That the lawful marriage of those making the contract may be openly manifest. (2) That those making the contract may be admonished concerning the holy and indissoluble bond of marriage, the divine blessing, conjugal duties, and the endurance of troubles. (3) That newly married persons may be commended to God, the author of marriage, by means of earnest prayers.”
[6] HOLL. (1380): “The
conjugal bond between husband and wife, as long as they remain alive, is in itself
indissoluble, both on account of mutual consent, and especially on account of the
divine institution,
GRH. (XVI, 176): “Our churches, having followed the
most clear declaration of our Saviour Christ, recognize no other cause of a divorce
that is truly and properly so called but one, viz., adultery . . . . In case of malicious
desertion, the apostle grants the innocent and deserted party the power to enter
into a new marriage, because the injuring and deserting person has, in fact and
indiscreetly, made the divorce on his or her own authority without sufficient and
just cause.” Ib., p. 214. “Since it has been proved, from the words of Christ and
the Apostle Paul, that there are only two causes of divorce, viz., adultery and
malicious desertion, . . . it will be manifest, at first sight, to every one, that the
remaining causes of divorce, which are mentioned in addition to adultery and malicious
desertion, are not just, legitimate, and sufficient causes.” As such other causes, GRH. enumerates: “unbelief, heresy, a solemn vow of continence, crime, danger of
life, sterility, supervening impotency, incurable diseases, madness, relationship
to a harlot, flight or banishment because of an offence.” He denies the right of
divorce in all these cases, excepting only the “danger of life,” which he places
in the category of malicious desertion; p. 260, “that, if the husband persevere
in obstinacy, and distinctly testify that he is unwilling at any time to take her
back, or to admit a reconciliation, or to desist from his former habits, it cannot
be doubtful that he is to be regarded a malicious deserter, and, therefore, the
deserted one can be dealt with otherwise.” The Dogmaticians are not, however, altogether
agreed in regard to this point. SARCERIUS allows divorce in the case of leprosy
and incurable disease, and HEMMING: “In case of flight and banishment on account
of an offence;” but this he does upon
There are still two points to be considered, in the matter of actual divorce. BR. (836): “1. When persons unlawfully united (in degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the law of nature, or where a mistake of person, or impotency of one or the other party has intervened) are separated, this is not properly divorce, but rather a declaration that in the union there was not a conjugal bond (namely, because the one person could not contract it with the other, as for example, with a blood relative; or, that one of the two was utterly incapable of intercourse, and, therefore, also of the contraction of the marriage union).”
“2. In like manner, when husband and wife are separated, only as to bed and board (for example, because of severe enmity, which appears incorrigible, and even joined with danger to the life of one or the other), it is not divorce properly speaking; but a suspension of the acts of cohabitation and conjugal duty (the conjugal bond remaining unimpaired, so that neither husband nor wife can enter into another marriage; yea, sometimes the husband is bound to afford the wife support).”
§ 62. Preliminary Statement.
MAN attains his final aim, not in this life, but in that which is to come. What lies between the two, and what must take place in order to secure for individual men, and for the entire Church, final completion, constitutes the subject of this article. [1] It bears the title — of the Last Things (de novissimis) — because it discusses what is the last, viz., that with which the present world comes to an end. [2] We treat of the separate features in the order in which they will occur, viz.: (1) of death; (2) of the resurrection of the dead; (3) of the final judgment; (4) of the end of the world; (5) of eternal damnation and eternal life. [3]
§ 63. (1.) Of Death.
“Death (in the strict sense) is the deprivation of natural life,
occurring through the separation of soul and body.” BR. (354). [4] It is a consequence
of the fall of our first parents, and therefore all men are subjected to it (
[1] BR. (353): “Inasmuch as the highest or ultimate blessedness is not in this life, but in the life to come, and, in like manner, the lowest misery to which it is opposed occurs only after this life; we must now consider those things which, according to divine revelation, pertain to the end of this life, and to entrance into the life or state to come.”
QUEN. (IV, 534): “We have thus far considered the means of salvation, properly so-called, both those for bestowing (δοτικα), on the part of God, namely, the Word and Sacraments, and that for reception (ληπτικον) on our part, namely, faith. The means, called so in a less accurate sense, now follow, viz., the four Last Things: death, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the end of the world, which are not so properly means to obtain salvation, as the way through which we reach the goal or limit. For the passing over of the godly from the Church Militant to the Church Triumphant occurs through death, for which reason Gregory of Nyssa compares it to a midwife bringing us to life truly so-called. Following death is the judgment, whose forerunner is the general resurrection of all men, and whose following attendant is the end of the world.”
[2] BR. (353): “They are otherwise called the Last Things (novissima), in Greek τα εσχατα; because some both are, and are called, last, with respect to men as individuals; and others, with respect to men collectively and to the whole world. To the former class belong death and the state of the soul after death. To the latter, the resurrection of the dead and the corresponding change of the living, the final judgment, and the conflagration of the world.”
[3] The later Dogmaticians treat, under this head,
only of death, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the end of
the world, because they had previously (immediately after the doctrine of Providence)
discussed eternal life, as the formal end of theology, and had appended to that
the topic of eternal condemnation, as the opposite of eternal life. We here follow
the arrangement of the
[4] QUEN. (IV, 535):
“Death, properly speaking, signifies the separation of the soul from the body, and
its deprivation of animal life; to this ordinarily all are subject, the good as
well as the wicked, and this is the signification in this article.” Id. (ib.): “The
names of death are sweet; it is called a gathering to their own people,
[5] GRH. (XVII, 30): “From the divine Word it is evident that there are three principal and primary causes, on account of which man is subject to death. The first is the malice of the devil leading him astray. The second is the guilt of man in sinning. The third is the wrath of God, as an avenger. These causes follow each other in a certain order.”
HFRFFR. (650): “If man had remained in the nobility of the integrity in which he was first created, when the period of his earthly life had been completed he would have been transferred to the eternal and heavenly happiness without death, whose precursors are evils and calamities of every kind. But because he transgressed God’s command, through sin death entered into the world, to which all men stained by sin remain subject. And although, through Christ, our Restorer, we have been regained for life eternal, yet this is the way of all flesh; and while we who believe pass, it is true, through death to life, the wicked are cast, by bodily death, into death and damnation eternal.”
The Dogmaticians further distinguish the physical or proximate causes from the principal (in other words, remote or moral). HOLL. (1225): “Of the physical causes of death, some are natural, others preternatural, and others violent. The natural cause is the consumption of radical moisture and the extinction of native warmth. Preternatural causes are the severer diseases. Violent causes are outward objects bringing such violence to the body that the bond of natural union, by which body and soul are joined, is broken.”
[6] HOLL. (1225):
“The death of the body formally consists in the deprivation of natural life.” GRH.
(XVII, 51): “Scripture describes the form of death:
[7] BR. (363): “When the dissolution
of the soul and body has occurred, and death therefore happens, the soul nevertheless
survives and performs its operations separately, outside of the body; for example,
in those things which pertain formally to the intellect and will, as essential powers
of the human or rational soul, which themselves also survive and are not inactive.
The intellect retains the intelligible forms which it had in the body, and therefore
can also call forth acts of knowledge; to which, then, it is correctly believed
that some acts of the will, with respect to objects presented by the intellect,
correspond. And to this is generally referred the statement of
GRH. (XVII, 149): “In life, they (body and
soul) are connected to each other by the closest bond, whence the affections and
sufferings of the body flow over into the soul, and in turn the affections and sufferings
of the soul flow over into the body; the soul does nothing whatever outside of the
body, nor does the body do anything independently of the soul. But in death the
soul is separated from the body, and returns to God, to whose judgment it is committed,
from which it is either borne by holy angels into heaven, or is delivered to evil
spirits to be cast into hell; the body
[8] QUEN. (IV, 537):
“That human souls are immortal, and that they do not perish with the bodies, can
be clearly and firmly established alone from the Holy Scriptures.” GRH. (XVII, 150)
produces the scriptural proof: “(1) From the distinct assertion of our Saviour,
But concerning the
immortality of the soul, GRH. still adds
[A modern classification of the various arguments that have been used, is as follows:
I. THEORETICAL (speculative) ARGUMENTS:
1. Metaphysical Proof. Since the soul is immaterial and simple, it is also indissoluble (Plato, Cicero, Mos, Mendelssohn, the Herbartians and the new school of Leibnitz).
2. Teleological Proof. The rich capacities of the human spirit cannot be satisfactorily developed in this earthly life; its destiny, therefore, must extend to a future life (Cicero, Leibnitz, Riemarius, Lotze).
3. Proof from Cosmical Plurality. As the heavenly bodies stand in communion with one another, so also their inhabitants must have a moral communion. But this can be realized only in a future world. (Wilkins, Fontenelle, Huyghens, Derham, Kant, Bonnet, Herder, Jean Paul, J. P. Lange, Chalmers, etc.)
4. Analogical Proof.
From the succession of germ, plant and fruit in vegetable life (Cf.
5. Moral Proof:
a. Arg. Ethonomicum. Man strives after virtue, as well as after happiness. But this life affords no satisfaction (Kant, Sintenis, Schaarschmidt).
b. Arg. Juridicum. It is only the promise of a life beyond death that can inspire one with love for his country (J. G. Fichte).
II. HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS:
1. Empirical attempts at proof. The exhibitions and arts of the older necromantic superstition; the visions of Swedenborg; the experiments of Spiritism.
2. Traditional Proofs:
a. Arg. e consensu gentium (already in Homer, Virgil, Cicero).
b. The proof from
New Testament history, from the testimony of Jesus to His resurrection (especially
Proper demonstrative force pertains to these arguments only so far as they are sustained by religious faith; and even where this presumption occurs, the various speculative attempts at proof have only uncertain value. Complete firmness of conviction concerning personal progress in a blessed hereafter is afforded only by surrender to the Redeemer in loving obedience of faith, viz., the last of the above mentioned arguments appropriated in the life. (Zöckler’s Handbook, Dogmatik).]
[9] HUTT. (Loc. Th., 297): “The souls of the godly, or of believers in Christ, are
in the hand of God, awaiting there the glorious resurrection of the body, and the
full enjoyment of eternal blessedness,
[10] QUEN. (IV, 538): “The souls of men, separated from the body, do not sleep, neither are they insensible.”
[The chief arguments of the Psychopannichists are stated and refuted by GRH., XVIII, 26 sqq.:
“1. ‘The dead are said to sleep,
2. ‘In the Psalms, it is often said: The dead shall not praise
Thee, etc.,
3. ‘The Lord of the vineyard gives his laborers hire at evening
time,
4. ‘
On the knowledge of the dead: “It is a pious
and good thought to hold that they have a general knowledge of what is occurring
to the Church Militant here on earth, and therefore they beseech Christ, with whom
they are present in heavenly glory, for some good for the Church, especially since
they are members of the same mystical body, of which Christ is the Head. Meanwhile
it must
QUEN. (IV, 538): “Neither, after death, do the souls of the godly live in a cool and tranquil place, and possess only a foretaste of heavenly happiness, but they enjoy full and essential happiness. Neither, after death, do the souls of the wicked feel only the beginning of tortures, but perfect and complete damnation.”
[Nevertheless this must be qualified by his statement (I, 564): “The beginning of infernal torments, with respect to the soul separated from the body, is the first moment of its departure from the body. The torture of the entire composite being will follow, when sentence of final judgment is given.” (560): “The beginning of the plenary perception of ineffable blessings and joys, is, with respect to the soul, the end of this life. But the fullest perception will occur after the reunion of body and soul.”
GRH. (XVIII, 21): “The pains of hell, which
the condemned experience immediately after death, are graphically described, in
(Ib., 540) Metempsychosis is entirely rejected. GRH. (XVII, 171): “Before all things, the absurd and senseless opinion must be removed, which states that ‘souls migrate from bodies worn out by disease and death, and insinuate themselves into those that are new and recently born; and that the same souls are always being re-born, sometimes in a man, sometimes in a domestic animal, sometimes in a wild beast, sometimes in a bird, and in this manner are immortal, because they are frequently exchanging habitations of various and dissimilar bodies, in which words Lactantius describes the transmigration and transanimation of souls, called by the Greeks μετεμψυχωρις και μετενσωματωσις.”
[11] GRH. (XVII, 183): “The Papists fabricate five receptacles
of souls: (1) Hell, to which they consign the souls of extremely wicked men, who
depart from this life in unbelief, hardness of heart, and the more serious offences
against conscience, or mortal sins. (2) Purgatory, next to hell, to which they consign
the souls of those who have not yet been fully purged of venial sins, and have not
given full satisfaction for the temporal punishments of sins, but who, nevertheless,
have departed from this life in the faith of Christ; these, they state, must labor
in purgatory until, with their stains purged away, they soar pure and cleansed into
heaven. (3) The limbus puerorum, to which they consign the souls of unbaptized infants;
who, because of original sin, in which they have departed without the remedy of
Baptism, suffer in this subterranean prison the punishment of loss, although not
with respect of sense, having been excluded from the joys of heaven, and yet not
subjected to the pains of hell. It is called a limbus, because it is, as it were,
the border and extremity of hell, just as the edge (limbus) of a garment. (4) The
limbus patrum, into which they introduce the souls of the patriarchs, and of all
the saints of the Old Testament who died before the descent of Christ ad inferos,
which, they assert, bore, in this apartment, the temporal punishment of loss, until,
by the payment of the debt of original sin through the death of Christ, they were
delivered from this and introduced to the fruition of heavenly blessedness, when
Christ descended ad inferos. (5) Heaven, into which they admit the souls of the
saints together purged of all sins. The order of these stories, according to the
Papists, is such as this: Hell is placed in
[GRH., XVII,
189 sqq., rejects the limbus puerorum: “1. It is based upon the false hypothesis
of the absolute necessity of Baptism. 2. Infants departing without Baptism, either
believe or do not believe. If the former, they are in the grace of God, and obtain
the remission of their sins; if the latter, they remain children of wrath, under
condemnation, exiles from the heavenly Jerusalem, and are cast into the lake of
fire. There is no tertium aliquod between faith and unbelief, the state of grace
and of wrath, the kingdom of God and of the devil: so also there is none between
life eternal and the eternal fire.
Against the limbus patrum, he urges: “1. Scripture mentions no such
limbus, separated from Heaven, in which the souls of the patriarchs were enclosed
until the death of our first parent was paid for by Christ’s death. 2. On the other
hand, Scripture enumerates only two receptacles after this life, as well in the
Old as in the New Testament, viz., Heaven and Hell. 3. Of the souls of the godly
in the Old Testament, it is said,
3. It is contrary to the analogy of faith: (a) The article concerning the mercy of
God. For this is described in Scripture as earnest, sincere and perfect. That, however,
for which a satisfaction is still demanded, or punishment still inflicted, is not
perfectly forgiven. (b) The article concerning the justice of God. For this does
not allow guilt already forgiven to be punished. (c) The article concerning the
merits of Christ. If we still had to make satisfaction for our sins, the satisfaction
of Christ would be insufficient. If we could make satisfaction for the penalties
of our sins, a part of Christ’s redemption would be transferred to us. (d) The article
concerning the Gospel, which is a joyful message concerning the gratuitous and full
forgiveness of sins because of Christ. It is the peculiar doctrine of the Gospel
to offer to believers the forgiveness of sins, and not a commutation of eternal
into temporary punishment. (e) The article concerning the saving fruit of
repentance,
4. It contradicts even the hypotheses of the Papists.
5. It is without support from the Church nearest the Apostles.
6. It is based upon many false assumptions: (a) That some sins are by their own nature venial. (b) That for venial sins, man himself must make satisfaction; if not in this life, after this life. (c) That, even when the guilt is remitted, the debt of punishment remains to be discharged. (d) That the application of Christ’s merit for removing temporal punishment occurs through works of satisfaction. (e) That sins are remitted in a different way in Baptism, from that in which they are remitted in true repentance. (f) That man is his own redeemer and saviour. (g) That submission to the penalty inflicted by God, when it proceeds from love, is a virtual repentance, and avails for the remission of sins. (h) That souls in purgatory are neither on the way, nor at the goal.”]
§ 64. (2.) Of the Resurrection of the Dead.
The separation of the body and soul, which is occasioned by death, is not one of permanent continuance, but the time will come, as we are most positively assured in the Word of God, in which God will awaken the body and reunite it with the soul that belonged to it before death. [1] This will be, in substance, the same body with which the soul was united in this life, but endowed with new attributes, adapted to the nature of the circumstances then existing. [2] But, just as the condition of souls after death is different, according as they were godless or godly in this life, so will also the bodies of those who are raised receive different attributes, according as a happy or a miserable life is their portion. [3]
[1] BR. (367): “Just
as the soul of man survives after death, so also the body which has been destroyed
by death will rise again and be restored to life, as is most clear from the Scriptures
(
HOLL. (1245): “The resurrection of the dead consists formally (a) in the reproduction or restoration of the same body which had perished by death, out of its atoms or particles which had been scattered thence and dispersed; (b) in the reunion of the same with the soul.”
[2] QUEN. (IV, 582): “The subject of
the resurrection is the entire man that had previously died and been reduced to
ashes. The subject from which, is the body, the same in number and essence as we
have borne in this life, and as had perished through death (
[3]
GRH. (XIX, 38): “These very qualities of the revived bodies, by reason of which
they are distinguished in this life from animal bodies, must be accurately distinguished
form each other. For some are common to all the revived, the wicked as well as the
godly, the unbelieving as well as the believing. Such are αφθαρσια και αθανασια,
incorruptibility and immortality, because the souls and bodies of the wicked are
to be lost (not by being annihilated, but by being tortured) in gehenna,
[A question to which the Dogmaticians give much attention is as to whether the godless will rise by virtue of the merit of Christ. On this, GRH., XIX, 13: “The virtue whereby Christ will raise the godless, properly speaking does not belong to the merit of Christ, but to the divine power, communicated to His human nature by means of the personal union and exaltation to the Right Hand of God. This power extends farther and to more objects than does the merit of Christ, because, by means of this power, Christ also, as man, sustains, rules and governs all things in Heaven and earth, in His general kingdom, called the kingdom of power. The resurrection of the godless pertains rather to His functions as Judge, than as Mediator and Saviour; as may be inferred from the end of the resurrection.”]
§ 65. (3.) Of the Final Judgment.
Upon the resurrection of the dead there follows the final judgment, and then the end of this world will
have been reached. [1] There will, therefore, still be men living upon this earth
when the final judgment comes, and these will not experience a reuniting of soul
and body, as no death has preceded; the change, however, that takes place in the
bodies of those raised from the dead, will take place in theirs also, but in a different
manner, viz., by transformation. [2] The precise time when the final judgment will
take place is not known to us, [3] but signs will precede it from which the approach
of that day may be inferred. Such are, especially, the most extreme development
of Satan’s power, and the like extraordinary security and ungodliness of men. [4]
When all
[1] QUEN. (IV, 605): “The general
judgment is, with respect to order, subsequent to the resurrection of the dead,
HOLL. (1246): “The final general judgment is a solemn act, by which the triune God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, appearing in a visible form and with the highest glory, will place all angels and men before His judgment-seat, for the purpose of judging all thoughts, words, and deeds, of the godly, indeed, according to the norm of the Gospel, but of the wicked, according to the precept of the Law,; and will assign to the former, and confer upon then, eternal joys, and, to the latter, eternal tortures, to the glory of His retributive and vindicatory justice.” A distinction is also made between this general or final judgment and “the particular judgment by which, at the hour of death, a state of glory or of ignominy is awarded every man.”
[GRH. XVIII, 35): “There are five reasons, because of which the general, universal and public judgment ought to occur, even though a particular and private judgment precede:
1. The manifestation of divine glory, viz., that the justice and mercy
of God may be displayed. For since, in this life, it seems to be well with the wicked
and ill with the good, and, on this account, divine Providence is attacked by malevolent
critics, God will appoint a day, in which, in the presence of the whole world, He
will display His supreme justice against the godless, and His supreme mercy towards
the godly, and in the sight of all angels and men declare, that, in connection with
supreme mercy towards the
2. The glorification of Christ:
“We see not yet all things put under Him,”
3. The exaltation of the godly. As in this life, the godly “are
made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men,”
4. The completion of rewards and punishments. The souls of godly and ungodly, separated from their bodies, receive only the beginnings of blessedness and condemnation; but then the entire man, consisting of body and soul will be judged, and will receive in his body the completion of rewards and punishments.
5. The continued consideration of good and evil works. For the good and evil works of the dead are not yet finished. Prophets and Apostles still serve the Church by their writing and example; heresiarchs still corrupt the minds of men by their writings; when, then, on the day of judgment, the good and evil deeds of the dead shall be finished with the world itself, the ultimate and decisive sentence will be given.”]
[2] QUEN. (IV, 585): “The circumstance most closely connected with
the resurrection of the dead, is the change of those whom the last day will find
alive, which is to take place in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye,
[3] GRH. (XIX, 226):
“The time of the final judgment can be regarded as twofold, of the beginning and
of the continuance. The time of the beginning we define as precisely that point
of time in which Christ will return from heaven to judge the living and raise
[5] HOLL. (1248):
“By the will and appointment of God, divinely revealed signs will precede the last
day, from which it can be known in a general way that that great day is approaching.”
The signs are distinguished as remote or general signs, and near or peculiar signs.
HOLL. (ib.): “The former occur not merely in one age, and frequently recur, or are
continued. The latter are those which are to be seen only as the judgment approaches
nearer, but not likewise in former ages. The general and more remote signs, although
they do not seem to indicate the time of judgment, yet, according to God’s appointment
and intention, indicate and ought to admonish Christians, from the force of divine
justice and the truth of the predictions, that an appointed judgment is to be expected.
Moreover, among the nearer or peculiar signs, there is this difference, that some
precede the judgment by a longer, and others by a shorter interval; and, for this
reason, not even these indicate precisely a certain time.” Among the former are
enumerated (according to GRH. XIX, 246): “1. The multiplication of heresies,
In regard
to Antichrist, we remark that the word is used in a twofold sense by the Dogmaticians. HOLL. (2070): “(a) Generically, for all heretics who disseminate doctrines that
are false and conflict with the doctrine of Christ, and who obstinately defend these.
Concerning those who are commonly called little Antichrists,
Of Antichrist it is held, BR. (783): (He is) “not any one particular human individual.
For (1) Antichrist was to come, when that which hindered the erection of his government
(viz., the ancient Eastern Roman empire, whose seat was at Rome) would be removed;
but he was to continue until the glorious advent of Christ; now, this duration,
for so many ages, altogether exceeds the life of one man. (2) The Scriptures describe
the origin or planting and the progress or growth of Antichrist in such a manner
that it is impossible for all to occur in the life of one man; that is, if we consider
that the power was to have been derived from hidden beginnings, not so much by means
of arms and open violence as by insidious arts by which the minds of men are gradually
occupied and brought over to its side, and that, too, not in one nation or people,
but throughout the greatest part of the earth; and that kings and nations were to
make use of his society to satiety and nausea, and to avail themselves of his aid
for persecuting the saints, etc., according to “
Among the events that are to occur before the final
judgment, (1) some, even among Lutheran theologians, enumerate the general conversion
of the Jews. By the great majority, however, this opinion is rejected. HOLL. (1263):
“Although access to repentance and faith in Christ has not been debarred the Jews
by an absolute decree of God, and many of them, in the course of time from the apostolic
era downward, have returned into favor with God, yet their universal, or their certainly
manifest and solemn conversion about the time of the end of the world, is not to
be expected.” The passage,
GRH. (XIX, 293): “Neither can the absolutely universal conversion of all the Jews be hoped for. For, as the fulness of the Gentiles does not denote nations taken individually and collectively, and their individuals taken one by one, but a great number from the nations of the Gentiles, so also by ‘all Israel’ the entire Jewish people and all their individuals are not indicated, but only a great multitude of the Jewish nation.”
(2) Others not of the Lutheran Church
enumerate as among these events, “A coming of Christ, to be expected before the
final judgment, for the purpose of establishing a kingdom on this earth under the
control of the elect for a thousand years (Chiliasm).” But the Lutheran Church has
always taught as follows (QUEN., IV, 649): “Since the second advent of Christ, the
general resurrection, the final judgment, and the end of the world are immediately
united; and one follows the other without an interval of time, it is manifest that,
before the completion of the judgment, no earthly kingdom and life abounding in
all spiritual and bodily pleasure, as the Chiliasts or Millennarians dream, is to
be expected.” CONF. AUG. (XVII, 4):: “They condemn others also, who now scatter
Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall occupy
the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.” The following
are mentioned as such Chiliasts: “The Jews, Cerinthus, Papias, Joachim (Abbot of
Floris), the Fanatics and Anabaptists, Casp. Schwenkfeld, and others.” A distinction
is also made between “gross and subtile Chiliasm. The former estimates the millennium
as happy, because of the illicit pleasure of the flesh; the latter, because of the
lawful and honorable delights of both body and soul.” (HOLL., 1256.) But both are
rejected. GRH. (XX, 109): “But . . . it clearly appears that the hope and opinion of
all concerning this Chiliastic government is not the same. 1. For some contend for
a subtile Chiliasm consisting in the peace of the Church, perfect
The principal passages to which Chiliasts appealed are
HOLL. (1259): “(1) Because the Apocalypse is a prophetic book, full of most abstruse visions, as well as allegorical and quasi-enigmatical forms of speech, difficult to be understood, and therefore to be expounded according to the analogy of the faith, based upon clear and perspicuous Scripture passages. (2) The Chiliasts cannot clearly show from the cited passage the solemn advent of Christ to establish a millennial kingdom in which (a) men shall live endowed with a perfect knowledge of God, distinguished for consummate holiness and rejoicing in earthly felicity; (b) the martyrs shall rise from the dead; (c) all the Jews be converted, and (d) at its commencement Antichrist be overturned.”
[5] BR. (379): “The judge will be Christ Himself (
[6] HOLL. (1249): “The advent of Christ as judge will be public, and exceedingly glorious, terrible to the wicked, and greatly longed for by the godly.”
[GRH. treats of a number of supplementary questions:
1.
Is Christ’s return to judgment contradictory to His presence on earth in both natures?
Here we must distinguish between modes of presence,
2. Will His return be local? Yes;
nevertheless not successive, as though during a period of time He will descend from
heaven in
3. What of the clouds? After stating the various interpretations,
as that they are used metaphorically to represent the serenity, or the severity
of divine judgment, or the saints who will attend Him,
4. Why will He come in the clouds? (a) They are God’s throne and chariot,
5. In what form will He be seen? Some think that the wicked will see Him as He was
crucified, arguing form
QUENST. (IV, 622) considering whether He will display the wounds of His passion, as He reappears, refers to the dissent of Brentz and Aegidius Hunnius, who maintained that they were laid aside with His resurrection, and only displayed to His disciples by a peculiar dispensation, in order to prove the truth of the resurrection-body, and after quoting Luther, Chemnitz, and Grh. on the other side (that “they are retained, yet so as to occasion no deformity, but so as to render His body all the more beautiful, and affording the more consolation”), concludes:
“Almost all the holy doctors of
the Church have been of the opinion that Christ Jesus, not only by a peculiar dispensation,
showed the marks of His wounds to His disciples after His resurrection, but also
that He has ascended into heaven imprinted with these as seals of His victory and
triumph, and that He displays the same now in heaven to His Father and the holy
angels, and that He will offer them to the sight of all on the last day. But this
opinion, since it is not expressly propounded in Holy Scriptures, we do not maintain
as an article of faith, but as a dogma not contrary to the analogy of faith, supported
by the authority of
[7] QUEN. (IV, 611): “The norm of this judgment is, indeed,
generally speaking,
with respect to the men to be judged, the entire heavenly doctrine,
[8] QUEN. (IV, 610): “The form of the final judgment
consists in the judicial examination of a case,
§ 66. (4.) Of the End of the World.
After the final judgment, the absolute
end of this world will come; angels and men excepted, everything that belongs to
this world will be burnt up by fire and reduced to nothing.
[1] BR. (385): “When the judgment shall have been finished, the end
of the world will immediately follow, whereby heaven and earth, and likewise the
other elements and the bodies composed of elements will, with respect to their substance,
perish by means of fire.” HOLL. (1273): “The consummation of the world is an action
of the triune God, by which, to the glory of His truth, power, and justice, and
the deliverance of elect men, He will destroy with fire and annihilate the entire
fabric of heaven and earth, and all created things, intelligent creatures alone
excepted.” Of the means by which God will destroy the world (HOLL., 1275): “God
will destroy the world by means of true and proper fire (
[2] QUEN. (IV, 638): “The
form of this consummation consists not in the mere change, alteration, or renewing
of qualities, but in the total abolition and reduction of the world’s substance
itself to nothing (
§ 67. (5.) Of Eternal Damnation and Eternal Life.
With the Judgment, a complete and eternal separation takes place between the ungodly and the godly. The former are delivered over to eternal damnation, a condition which in Scripture is also called eternal death (“eternal death, eternal damnation, is a condition most miserable through the aggregation of multitudinous evils, and to last forever.” HOLL., (978).) [1] The Holy Scripture say of them that they are in Hell (αδης, שְׁאֹל, a place of torment, [2] in which they suffer, according to the degree of their ungodliness, [3] in bodily and spiritual pains, [4] for their sins, eternally. [5] The latter, however, the godly, become partakers of eternal life, [6] i.e., they enjoy, according to the degree of their godliness, [7] the highest and completely undisturbed happiness in beholding the face of God. [8] The place of their happiness is in the Scripture called Heaven. [9]
[1] HOLL. (979): “Death eternal is the separation of the unbelieving
soul from the beatific sight of God and eternal enjoyment.”
[2] GRH. (XX, 175): “The name, Hell, can be received in
a twofold manner: (1) for eternal death; (2) for that place (που), in which they
suffer, and to eternity will sustain that most miserable condition and those ineffable
tortures. By reason of the former signification, the devils are said to carry about
with them their own hell wherever they wander. By reason of the latter, it is said
that on the day of judgment they will be cast into hell, and be confined there.
In the former signification, the name, hell, is received internally and formally;
in the latter, externally, objectively, and locally, the term used in the article
being received in a general
[3] HOLL. (990): “The punishments of Hell differ in degree, according to
the quality and measure of sins,
[4] HFRFFR.
(691): “They are the most exquisite pains of soul and body (for both had sinned),
arising from the fear and sense of the most just wrath and vengeance of God against
sins, the most sad consciousness of which they carry about with them, the baseness
of which is manifest, and of which, likewise, no remission afterwards, and, therefore,
no mitigation or end can be hoped for. Whence, in misery, they will execrate, with
horrible lamentation and wailing, their former impiety, by which they carelessly
neglected the commandments of the Lord, the admonitions of their brethren, and all
the means of attaining salvation; but in vain. For in perpetual anguish, with dreadful
trembling, ins shame, confusion, and ignominy, in inextinguishable fire, in weeping
and gnashing of teeth, amidst that which is eternal and terrible, torn away from
the grace and favor of God, they must quake among devils, and will be tortured without
end to eternity. These future torments of the damned far surpass all the penetration
of the human mind, so that we are not sufficient to ever comprehend in thought their
greatness; therefore, what they will be, or of what nature, cannot be at all expressed
in words. Scripture, nevertheless, in order to show that these tortures are the
greatest and most exquisite, likens them to those things by which, in this life,
pain both of soul and body is accustomed to be excited. For this reason they are
compared now to the gnashing of teeth, now to the gnawing of
[5] QUEN. (I, 564): (A property of these evils
is) “eternal continuance, which will augment the punishments of the damned beyond
any measure. The sufferings will be continuous, i.e., they will have no interval,
no interruption; they will be eternal, they will have no end,
[6] HFRFFR. (695): “Life eternal is the ineffable, greatest, and purest happiness, which believers, when their glorious and spiritual bodies have been received, being freed from every sin and bodily infirmity, will, with the holy and blessed angels, eternally enjoy God Himself, without end, satiety or disturbance. This felicity is called, and is, life eternal.”
GRH. (XX,
340): “What life eternal is can be known, from the revelation of the Word,
in a
general and obscure (αινιγματικως) manner, viz., that it is the most blessed and
felicitous state of the godly, into which being transferred after this life, they
will see God face to face, and, free from every trouble, will live and reign in
eternal joy and glory, and in ineffable felicity; but, in the infirmity of this
life, this cannot be known specifically and exactly, because ‘eye hath not seen,
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love Him,’
[7] Grades of happiness, therefore are assumed; but what one enjoys, in
addition to that enjoyed by others, is described as something accessory, while all
alike share in essentially the same salvation. Comp. AP. CONF. III, 234. QUEN. (I,
559): “As to accessory rewards, the harmonious belief of the Orthodox Church is,
that in life eternal there will be degrees of not essential but of accidental glory.
Moreover, blessedness can be considered in a twofold manner, (1) with respect to
its essence, which consists in the clear and intuitive knowledge of God, and thus
there is no doubt that it belongs to all the blessed equally; (2) with respect to
its accidents, in view of which the blessed are not altogether equal, and thus,
while there will be the same essential blessedness to all, there will be, nevertheless,
some difference in accidental endowments . . . . But there will be some difference and
inequality among the blessed, not only with respect to the brilliancy and splendor
of their bodies, but also with respect to their position (sessio) and other accessory
rewards. For, in life eternal, in addition
[8]
HOLL. (456): “Our eternal and highest blessedness consists in the perfect sight
and enjoyment of God. The former is an operation of the intellect, the latter of
the will. By the former we obtain possession of God as the highest good; by the
latter we perfectly enjoy and repose in the same. The beatific sight of God is an
act of the intellect illumined with the light of glory, by which it perceives God
clearly and immediately, and as He is in Himself. The enjoyment of God is an act
of the will, by which the blessed, in the heavenly country, most eagerly embrace
God as the highest good, most delightfully comprehend Him, and are most fully satisfied
with Him,
Two other questions here naturally follow: “(1)
Whether the saints, therefore, will recognize each other in the life to come? (2)
Whether the joy of life eternal will be clouded by the fact that the blessed will
see many of their most intimate friends tortured in hell?” The first question, HFRFFR.
answers (699): “Certainly. Because, the perfect image of God in which we have been
created being restored, we will be endowed also with perfect wisdom and knowledge.
Hence, if Adam, before the Fall, immediately recognized his rib as Eve, much more,
in the life to come, when all these gifts will be far more perfect, we will recognize
each other,
[GRH.
(XIX, 498): “God loved the human race far more ardently than in this life any parent
can love his own son, because He gave His only begotten Son unto death for the world.
Nevertheless, His happiness and joy are in no way disturbed by the sight of the
damned,
[9] GRH. (XX, 341): “By the name Heaven, that certain place
(που) is to be understood, in which the blessed will see God, and perfectly enjoy
the heavenly glory and pleasure,
[On the practical use of this doctrine, GRH. (XX, 528): “The doctrine concerning
the Heaven of the blessed and eternal life is set forth in Holy Scripture, not that
we may idly dispute as theorists, concerning the locality of Heaven, the beatific
visiom, the properties of glorified bodies; but that, as practical men, considering
the promised joys of eternal life every day, aye every hour, aye every moment, we
may keep closely to the way leading thither, and carefully avoid all that can cause
delay or recall us from entrance into life eternal. In
PHILIP MELANCHTHON, or MELANTHON (often incorrectly spelled Melancthon), born 1496; professor at Wittenberg, 1518 to his death, 1560. The foundation of Lutheran Systematic Theology was laid in his Loci Communes Rurum Theologicarum seu Hypotyposes Theologicae (1421), which had its origin in a brief outline prepared for his own private use, and afterwards dictated to his students as an introduction to his lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. During the author’s life it passed through eighty editions, was greatly enlarged, and on certain points, as, for example, the Freedom of the Will, its doctrine was materially changed. For details, the English reader is referred to the article MELANCHTHON, prepared by the author of this sketch, in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, vol. vi. The collection of Melanchthon’s works in the Corpus Reformatorum affords the student the best facility for the critical study of Melanchthon’s theology. It contains a reprint of each of the principal editions, as well as of several translations of the Loci.
MARTIN CHEMNITZ, born 1522, lecturer at Wittenberg, 1552-1554, pastor
at Brunswick, 1554-1567, superintendent of Brunswick, 1567-1586. Gerhard frequently
refers to him as “the incomparable theologian;” Quenstedt styles him, “without doubt
the prince of the theologians of the Augsburg Confession;” and Buddeus, “that great
theologian of our Church, whom no one will refuse to assign the chief place after
Luther among the defenders of the Gospel truth.” His Loci Theologici (1591)
NICHOLAS SELNECKER, also a pupil of Melanchthon, and one of the authors of the Formula of Concoad, born 1532, professor at Leipzig and Jena, repeatedly exiled, died 1592. His Institutiones Christianae Religionis (1563) introduced the practice of prefacing works on Systematic Theology with Prolegomena. In addition, he prepared a compend of Melanchthon’s Loci, and wrote numerous monographs, De Coena (1561), Exegema de Unione Personali (1571), etc.
MATTHEW HAFENREFFER, born 1561, professor at Tübingen, died 1619. His chief work, Loci Theologici, sive Compendium Theologiae, was especially esteemed in Würtemburg, Sweden, and Denmark, where it was generally used as a text-book.
LEONARD HUTTER,
born 1563, professor at Wittenberg from 1596 until his death, in 1616. His best
known work is his Compendium Locorum Theologicorum (1610), for nearly a century
almost universally used as a text-book in the Church-schools of Germany. It has
been translated into German (three times), Swedish, and English, and has formed
the basis of at least seven commentaries. It is characterized by conciseness,
JOHN GERHARD, the pupil of Hutter, born 1582, professor at Jena from 1616,
until his death, in 1637, a theologian “who combined rare learning, great acuteness,
wonderful industry, sound judgment, and practical ability with ardent piety.” (Luthardt.)
His great work, Loci Theologici, cum pro adstruenda veritate, tum pro destruenda
quorumvis contradicentium falsitate, per theses nervose, solide et copiose explicati,
was begun in 1610, and completed in 1621. “A more careful exegetical treatment than
is found in his predecessors, the comprehensive consideration of the material afforded
by the history of dogmas, the most thorough elaboration of every question, the objectiveness
of its judgment, and its firmness in polemics, combined with the reference to the
practical and consolatory use of the individual dogmas, distinguish this work, which
also through its copious application of the scholastic theology (especially in the
doctrine of God), and its employment, although still in a moderate degree, of the
scholastic form, was of the most significant influence upon works which followed
it.” (Luthardt, Compendium, p. 42.) “The strength of this work does not lie in the
systematic arrangement of the material, but in the thorough elaboration of the individual
doctrines, according to the entire extent of their exegetical, dogmatico-historical,
symbolical, polemical, and practical material. Yet it cannot be said that Gerhard
produced epoch-making dogmatic thoughts; he has, rather, learnedly and with great
thoroughness, brought together what had been already prepared.” (Kahnis,
Luth. Dogmatik,
I, p. 29.) “Gerhard’s advance beyond Chemnitz and Hutter consists not so much in
a more systematic arrangement, or in a deeper speculative basis for his doctrines,
or a more subtle formal development of them, as in an erudite thoroughness, transparent
clearness, and comprehensiveness.” (Tholuck, in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia.) “Some,
CASPAR BROCHMANN, born 1585, professor at Copenhagen and Bishop of Seeland, died 1682. The title of his principal work is Universae Theologiae Systema (1633). An interesting copy of this comparatively rare work, once the property of Erick Biork, one of the most efficient pastors of the old Swedish churches on the Delaware (pastor of the Christiana Church, 1696-1714), is in the library of the Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.
ABRAHAM CALOVIUS, born 1612, professor at Königsberg and Wittenberg, died 1686. The most voluminous of our theologians, distinguished by his wonderful industry, untiring zeal in controversy, unyielding firmness and severity, vast and varied learning, and critical power of the first rank. He represents the strictest school of orthodoxy, and wrote on all departments of theological science. His work in the department of Dogmatic Theology is Systema Locorum Theologicorum (12 vols., 1655-77). His Biblia Illustrata (1672-6) contains valuable Dogmatical material.
JOHN FREDERICK KOENIG, born 1619, professor at Greifswald and Rostock, died, 1664. His compend of theology, Theologia Positiva Acroamatica (1664) was widely used as a text-book. It differs from Hutter’s work, in being scientific rather than popular. “The author comprehended much in a few words and nervously; but, by an excessive desire of brevity and accuracy, produced a mere skeleton, destitute of all sap and blood.” (Buddeus, Isagoge, 359).
JOHN
ADAM SCHERZER, born 1628, professor at Leipzig, died 1683, wrote a brief outline
of theology, Breviculus Theologicus,
JOHN ANDREW QUENSTEDT, born 1617, professor at Wittenberg, died 1688, the nephew of John Gerhard. His Theologia Didactico-Polemica (1685), because of its exhaustive collection and its accurate classification of dogmatic material, is one of the most important works of Lutheran theology. It possesses little originality and follow closely the outline of Koenig, but manifests the greatest erudition in its citations of authorities, and skill in rendering the work of reference easy. From this characteristic, its author is often styled the “bookkeeper” of the Wittenberg Orthodoxy, and is conceded to be “next to Gerhard the most instructive representative of the Orthodox Dogmatik.” [Luthardt.] The objection, however, is often presented against Quenstedt, that his excessive attention to the details of his system has deprived Dogmatic theology of its life, by reducing its doctrines to the shape of mathematical formulae.
JOHN WILLIAM BAIER, born 1647, general superintendent
of Weimar and professor at Halle, died 1695. The Compendium Theologiae Positivae
(1685), is largely, as its title indicates, a compend of the theology of Musaeus
(Baier’s father-in-law, born 1613, professor at Jena, died 1681), and “many other
orthodox theologians.” An accurate acquaintance with the history of the controversies
of the preceding periods, is a necessary prerequisite to the successful study of
this much valued and widely received text-book. Professor Walther, in his valuable
series of articles in the first volume of the Lehre und Wehre, entitled
Lutherisch-Theologische Pfarrer’s-Bibliothek, sums up the merits of this compendium, as “great
completeness combined with compact brevity, exclusion of all extraneous material,
exquisite selection, and, above all, accurate exegesis of scriptural proof-passages,
critical comparison, and employment of the labors of his predecessors within the
department of dogmatics, and, in addition to Lutheran fidelity in doctrine, the
expression of a living heart faith, and of a mild, pious sensibility.” The most
accessible edition is that
FREDERICK BECHMANN, born 1628, professor at Jena, died 1703. Annotationes uberiores in comp. Theo. L. Hutteri (1696); Theologia Polemica (1702); Institutiones Theologicae (2d ed., (1706); Annotationes on Dieterich’s Instituiones Catecheticae (1707).
DAVID HOLLAZ, born 1646, pastor at Jacobshagen, rector at Colberg, died 1713. His Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum (1707) recapitulates with great clearness and compactness the results attained by his predecessors, under the form of questions and answers. It is “especially happy in its definition,” but in addition to some of the faults of the scholasticism of Quenstedt, it possesses already some of the characteristics of the succeeding period.
[Translated from Luthardt’s Compendium der Dogmatik, p. 302, sqq.]
Circumscriptiva praesentia, contrasted with definitiva praesentia, or in Scholastic usage (Occam) diffinitiva (disfinere): the former used with reference to bodies, in so far as their single parts correspond to the single parts of [occupied] space, and thus are locally limited; the latter, of spiritual existences (or pneumatic bodies, such as the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper), in so far as they stand in such a relation to a specific space that they are entirely present at each point of it, as the soul in the body, and angels at the respective places of their presence and activity.
Concretum designates the unity of substance (subjectum) and form (i.e., that distinction in view of which the substance is designated). Thus, the concretum person designates the person together with its nature; the concretum nature designates nature viewed in its personal existence; whilst the abstractum nature designates nature viewed in itself, aside from personal existence, as humanity, Deity, human nature, divine nature.
Connexa are such conceptions or objects as reciprocally necessitate each other, so that they cannot be conceived of without each other; as, e.g., Creator and creature. Hence they are designated as related.
Connotata, are relative conceptions that imply others corresponding to them (connotare, i.e., innuere or indigitare): a father implies a son; a son implies a father.
Distinctio rationis rationantis signifies a purely subjective logical distinction, not objectively founded upon the thing itself; whilst distinctio rationis ratiocinatae signifies a distinction that is, indeed, only conceived, but conceived with a factual basis. Compare the doctrine of the Divine Attributes.
Essentialiter. — A predicate is said to belong essentially to a subject (or a substance) if the latter cannot, according to its nature, at all exist or be conceived of without the former; as, e.g., man is essentially rational. A predicate is said to belong accidentally to a subject, if the latter can be conceived of independently of the former; as, e.g., the accidental attributes of roundness, whiteness, etc.
Forma is the more specific definiteness that imparts to a subject, in itself indifferent, its characteristic peculiarity; or it is the conception of anything existing in a definite manner. Thus, in the sphere of morals, actions in themselves indifferent receive through the intention of the actor their forma, i.e., their specific character of virtue or vice. In this sense Scholasticism speaks of a fides formata caritate (a faith formed by love), or the Dogmaticians say: Concurrit Deus ad materiale non ad formale peccati (God concurs as to the matter, not as to the form, of sin). The same mode of conception underlies the Aristotelian and scholastic definition of the soul: Anima est forma corporis (Aristotle: the soul is εντελεχεια σωματος οργανικου, or ειδος σωματος φυσικου ζωην εχοντος, i.e., the specifying formal principle of organized matter). Thus also, e.g., religion, considered materialiter, is conceived of as religion taken as a whole; considered formaliter, it is conceived of as specific religious knowledge or profession. Or, it is said, also, Mary is the Mother of God, not formally, i.e., inasmuch as she did not bring forth God, as God according to His Deity; but materially, inasmuch as she brought forth Him who is true God.
Habitudo designates, in contrast with existence or the thing itself, the reference to, or capacity for, some other thing. Thus, between God and man there is a relation [or correspondence] not of entitas (for as to their existence they are infinitely different), but of habitudo (for they have a reference to each other).
Habitus is the condition
[or state of being] which includes
Qualitas is used either in a wider sense, for every attribute, or in a narrower sense, to designate the essential peculiarities of anything.
Relatio is the relation of one thing to another. Ens relativum is, therefore, something that cannot be conceived of without something else (e.g., master, like, etc.), as contrasted with ens absolutum (e.g., man).
Subsistentia designates an independent existence (suppositum), which carries the source of its activity within itself. When applied to a rational being (suppositum in the sense of person), it designates, therefore, personality. Thus, e.g., every angel, man, brute, etc., has its subsistentia, while the body and the soul, considered as separated from each other, have no subsistentia of their own, and are not a suppositum, but only a pars suppositi. Therefore, in the case of God, the immediatio suppositi (of His existence) i.e., His ad essentia ad creaturas substantialis [His substantial nearness to creatures] is distinguished from the immediatio virtutis, i.e. of His operatio [activity].
Sustantia completa is an existence that is not a part of a whole, but constitutes a whole in itself (e.g., man, tree, etc.); substantia incompleta is a partial substance, which serves to complete another (body, soul of man while the angels are spiritus completi). The substance needs subsistence to render it a substantia completa (therefore man becomes such only through personality), according to the well-known definition of Augustine (De Trin., VII, 4, 9): Sicut ab eo quod est esse appellatur essentia, ita ab eo quod est subsitere substantiam dicimus. (Just as anything is called an essence from the fact of its existence, so anything is called a substance from the fact of its subsistence.)
Ability, human, 257
Absolution, is it a Sacrament? 525
Abstractum, 672
Accident, defined, 673
none in God, 131
Accommodation, of the Holy Spirit, in inspiration, 48
Act, or action, divine, ad extra, 151, 158, 161
ad intra, 147
and action, contrasted, 176
Active and passive obedience of Christ, 344, 352, sq.
spiration of the Holy Ghost, 154
Acts, personal divine, 147
Actual sins, defined and classified, 250
Adam the representative of the human race, 224
αδης, (שאל), 634
Adiaphora, 543
Administration of Sacraments, see Dispensation
Advent, the second, 655
Aepin, on the descent to hell, 397
αγεννησια, 150
Adoration of the host, 574
Agnoetae, 389
αγορασις, 641
αθανασια, 641
Alicubitas, of the angels, 204
Allegorical sense of Scripture, 78
αλλοιωσι, of Zwingli, 326
of Cyril, 327
“Alone,” the exclusive particle in doctrine of justification, 439
Americans, “and other barbarians,” 450
Anabaptists, condemned, 606
Chiliasm of, 650
Anagogical sense of Scripture, 78
Analogical attributes, 115
Analogy of faith, 70, 76
αναλυσις, 628
αναμαρτησια, of Christ, 295, 301
of the glorified, 661
Andreae and Luke Osiander vs. Beza on the Sacraments, 526
ανεργητα, attributes, 118
Angels, existence of, 199
relation of, to space, 204
when created, 195, 200
described, 195-199
are complete substances, 201
original state of, 197, 206, 207
attributes of, 196, 202
orders, of, 198, 213
power of, 206, 210, 211
knowledge of, 205
number of, 206
the good, 197, sq., 207
can they sin? 197, 207
not essentially holy, 208, 210
works of, 198, 199, 211
not to be adored, 198, 213
the evil, 198, 213
why they fell, 197, 207, 213
when they fell, 214
works of, 216
punishment of, 199, 214
knowledge and power of, 199
guardian, 211
Annihilation of the world, 658
ανομια, its origin, 233
Anselm, on the atonement, 351
Antecedent articles of faith, 94, 98
benevolence of God, 270, 278, 282
Anthropology, 217, sq.
Antichrist, 647, sq.
marks of, 649
αντιδοσις, 314, 327
Antilegomena of the New Testament, 89
αντιλυτρον, 357
Antinomian controversy, 516
Antitrinitarianism, sophistry of, 138
ανυποστασια of the human nature of Christ, 295, 300
αφορισμος, in church discipline, 612
απιστια, final cause of reprobation, 292
Apocryphal books, 80, 81, 83
why denied canonical authority, 88
αποδοκιμασια, 292
αποθεσις, 628
απολυτρωσις, 347, 362, 369
Apostasy of our first parents, 236
Apostles, in how far inspired, 49
Apostles’ Creed, sometimes called the rule of faith, 195
no adequate basis of church organization, 195
αποτολσμο, 536 sq., 505
Apotelesmatic intercommunication of
properties, 312, 315
Appeal from the inferior to the supreme
Judge, 62
Application of redemption, 407 sqq.
Applying grace of the Holy Spirit, 409
Appropriation of divine attributes, 327
Aquinas on the Trinity, 136
Arius on the Trinity, 138
on the creation, 163
Ark of Noah, figure of the Church, 592
Arminian view of the mystical union, 486
of inspiration, 50
Arrhabo, 418
αρσις, 382
Articles of faith, pure and mixed, 37, 92, 95
fundamental and non-fundamental, 92, 96
primary and secondary, 93
not contrary to, but above reason, 34
antecedent, constituent, consequent,
Ascension of Christ, 380
Assent, an element of faith, 413
Assurance of faith, 292, 414
αταξια, in concurrence, 186
αθανοσια, of Christ, 302
Athanasius on the Trinity, 140
Atonement, infinite, 343, 351, 355
Anselm on the, 351
real object of, 361 sqq.
personal object of, 363 sqq.
Attributes of God, 116, sq.
of the Scriptures, 50
of angels, 196, 202
of a mediator, essential, 350
Augustine, on the Trinity, 140
on humiliation of Christ, 385
on original sin, 250
on schism, 616
Auricular confession, 470
external criteria of, 57
Authority of the Scriptures, 51, 84
external criteria of, 57
not dependent upon the Church, 67
of the ministers of the Church, 606
of the civil magistrate, 616
αυθυπδοτατος, 301
αυταρκεστατος, 162
αυχηματα, 387
αφθαρσια, 641
Baptism, defined, 536, 539, 542
form of, 542, 553
validity of, 537
Baptism, signification of, 543, 545
primary design of, 537, 546, 554
Sacramental union in, 540
secondary design of, 538, 547, 555
by heretics is valid, 545
of adults, demands faith, 537
faith not essential to, 545, 547
of infants, 546, 547, 548
of those regenerated by the Word, 547
accompanying usages of, 543
of hypocrites, 547
effects of, 536, 537, 545
material of, terrestrial, celestial, 539
necessity of, 538, 554
Holy Spirit present in, 547
in cases of emergency, 531, 545
should not be repeated, 538, 552 sq., 554
efficacy of, in a corrupt Church, 597
and original sin, 250, 546
of John, 538
and Eucharist, benefits of compared, 579
of the unborn, 542
Baptized and unbaptized contrasted, 268
Baptismal grace, permanence of, 552
regeneration, 462, 464, 545 sqq.
Beget vs. create, 154, 163
Beatific vision of God, 197 660, 661
ברא and צשׂת, 163
βελτιωσις, 328
Benevolence of God, general and special, 270, 271
universal, 272
sincere, and earnest, 271, 280
gratuitous and free, 271
ordinate, 271
efficacious, 271, 280
conditionate, 271
antecedent and consequent, 270
Bernard, on the obedience of Christ, 352
Besetting sins, 242
Blessedness, grades of, 660
Birth, new, see Regeneration
Bodily perfections of Christ, 302
presence, see Lord’s Supper
Body, the human, relation to the soul, 165, 626, 628
affected by original sin, 246
phychical and spiritual, contrasted, 401, 642
glorified, qualities of, 641
and blood of Christ received by the mouth, 566
Bonaventura, on the sacrifice of Christ, 362
on the articles of the faith, 94
Brentz, on faith, 423
on the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, 389
Bread, of the Holy Supper, 560
Brunswick theologians, on the omnipresence of Christ, 334
Bucan, on the “Right Hand of God,” 406
Burial of Christ, 379
Call, divine, see Vocation
to the ministry, see Ministry
Calixtus, on tradition, 68
inspiration, 46
Apostles’ Creed, 94
the articles of faith, 94
omnipresence of Christ, 334
Calvin, on the relation of election to antecedent
will, 288
foreknowledge and predestination, 290
predestination and the merits of Christ, 291
communicatio idiomatum, 326
the two natures, 326
the descensus, 400
the twofold signification of the Sacraments,
Calvinists, on the sacrifice of Christ, 363
will of the sign and purpose, 280
election and predestination, 286
personal union, 316
communicatio idiomatum, 316, 322, 326
the power of the Word, 507
Canon of Scripture, 80 sq.
Canonical authority of the Scriptures, 52, 63, 80, 82, 84
internal and external criteria of, 86 why called Catholic? 588
belongs only to the original languages, 53, 63
Canonicity, marks of, 80
Carlstadt, on the ubiquity of the flesh in Christ, 330
Catholicity of the Church, 582
Catholics, see Roman Catholics
Causitive authority of the Scriptures, 63
Causes, first and second, defined, 184
Celestial material in the Sacraments, 527, 560
Ceremonial law, 511
Ceremonies, Church, 67
Cerinthus, 650
Chance, theories of, 188
Characteristics of the Father, ad extra, 151
χειροθεσια, in ordination, 609, 610
Children born outside of the Church, 449
Chiliasm, 650, sqq.
Choice, in the liberum arbitrium, 260
Christ, Mediator according to both natures, 294, 338
Christ, divine and human nature of, asserted, 305, 306
proved, 334
Jesus, proved to be the Messiah, 293
peculiarities of His human nature, 300 sqq.
His person, how constituted, 302, 307
complex, 307
forsaken of the Father, 394
our righteousness, 435
ascension of, 380
return of, to judgment, 653
Christianity, the true religion, 22 sq.
Church, in what sense visible and invisible, 584, 593 sqq.
true and false, 587, 596
indestructible, 589
not more ancient than the Scriptures, 59
decides in matters of faith, 61 sq.
gives the call to the ministry, 605, 607 sqq.
particular, 583, 596
collective and representative, 599, 600
militant and triumphant, 587
the congregation of saints, 587
marks of the true, 583, 585, 597 sqq.
Roman Catholic theory of, 597, 599, 601
government of, 601
discipline of, 612, 614, 615
councils, how constituted, 600, 602
authority of, 604
Church and state, 615, 616
in a wider and narrower sense, 582 sq., 592
Christ the only head of, 586
one and undivided, 588, 592
why called Apostolic? 589
why called universal? 590
Circumcision of Christ, 394
Circumscriptive presence defined, 672
Civil government, 616
its rights and duties, 616
its relation to the Church, 615, 616
righteousness, 266
Caena Domini, see Lord’s Supper
Communicatio idiomatum, 312, 321, 564
genera of, 312
degrees of, 322
based upon unity of person, 305
Calvinists on the, 316, 322, 326
Communication of person, 305
of natures, 303, 309, 316
Communion of natures in Christ, 310
of attributes, 311
private, 581
Complete and incomplete substances, 674
Concrete, term technically used, 319, 672
Concupiscence, 235, 244, 250
Concurrence, divine, defined, 171
objects of, 172, 184
general and special, 172
of God with second causes, 180, 184
in evil actions, 172, 185
in revelation, 43
Confession, 470
auricalar, repudiated, 470
in what sense it has been used of Lutheran confession, 470
Confessions, see Symbols
Confidence, an element of faith, 414
the principal part of faith, 415, 418
Confirmation, defined, 551
how to be employed, 551
not the completion of Baptism, 551
not the prerogative of bishops, 551
Conjugal relation, 619, sqq.
Connexa, defined, 672
Conscience, 106
Consecration, sacramental, 572
Consensus, of the Fathers, 28
Consequent will of God, 282
Conservation, 170
of species and individuals, 178
Constituent elements of Faith, 408
Consubstantiation rejected, 571
Consummation of the world, 655
Contingency in human actions, 181
Contrition, defined, 461
the beginning of conversion, 461
what is embraced in, 467
and attrition, 469
requisites and marks of, 469
Controversies, theological, how to decide, 52, 62
Conversion (daily life) of Christ, 378, 394
Conversion, defined, 460
acts preceding, 460
a divine act, 474 sqq.
not irresistible, 461, 475
causes of, 460
only two, 479
gradual, 471
Conversion, occurs not by constraint, but willingly, 477
man can and should co-operate in, 478
of the Gentiles, 650
Co-operating grace, 471, 479
Co-operation, divine, see Concurrence
Corporeal possessions, by evil spirits, 216
Corporeal presence, see Lord’s Supper
Corruption, man’s state of, 231 sqq.
Cotta contrasts Lutheran and Reformed
views of Christ’s person, 329
Council, general and particular, 600
who can call it? 600
Cranmer, on the sacrifice of Christ, 154
Create, beget and make, contrasted, 154
Creation, the first outward work of God, 159
out of nothing, 159, 163, 169
mediate and immediate, 160
defined, 159, 169
impelling cause of, 160
instantaneous, 162
three steps of, 164
especially the work of God the Father, 162
undivided work of the Trinity, 160
design of, 160, 169
a Divine work, 159
order of, 160, 164, 165
man’s place in, 165
time of, 164
of man, 165
chief design of, 103
of angels, 195, 200
why not earlier? 164
Creationism refuted, 166
Credere Deum, Deo, in Deum, 414
Creed, the Apostles’, called the rule of faith, 95
no adequate basis of organization, 95
Cross (affliction), 499
Curable and incurable readers and hearers, 56
Cyril, on the Trinity, 138
on the person of Christ, 327
Damascenus on hypostasis, 145
Damnation and eternal life, 656
Death, temporal, spiritual and eternal, 624 sqq.
literal, figurative, 626
eternal, 626, 656
spiritual, 238, 627
of Christ, 379, 395
Decalogue, 513, 514
Decrees of God, not absolute, 272, 291
immutable, 273
transitive and intransitive, 460, 474
man’s attitude in, 472
begins in contrition, ends in faith, 460
in a wide sense, 465, 472
of the body, a consequence of sin, 238, 624
in a special sense, 466
in a double sense, 466
man passive in the beginning of, 461, 472
alone through the divine Word and the Holy Spirit, 461, 475 sqq.
universal, of the Jews, 649
of unregenerate and regenerate, 473
Decrees of God preceded by foreknowledge, 272, 289
ordinate, 272
relative, 290
Definitive presence defined, 563, 672
Degrees of happiness in heaven, 660
Deity of the Son, proved, 157
of the Holy Ghost, proved, 158
Demoniacal possession, 216
Demonstrative retrogression vs. sophistical circle, 56
Depraved state of man, 234
Depravity, see Original Sin
Descensus Christi ad inferos, 379, 395, 658
when and why, 396 sq.
various views of, 396, 400
Determination, 173, 190
in human ability, 259
Devils, see Angels, evil
Dichotomy of human nature, 167
δικαιουν, 427
διακυβερνησις, 175
דְמוִת, 221
διο, importance of the particle, 386
διοικησις, 175
Direction, 173, 190
Discipline, see Church
Disciplines, theoretical and practical, 18
Dispensation (δοσις), sacramental, 531
Distinctio rationis rationantis, 673
Distinctions in the Godhead, 133, 146
Distribution (δοσις), sacramental, 531
Divorce, sole ground of, 621
diverse views concerning, 622
partial, 623
Domestic estate, 619
Dominion of man before the Fall, 228
Donatistic views of the Church, 599
Donum superadditum, 230
Double sense of Scripture denied, 78
Ecclesiastical estate, see Ministry
Ecstasy, 454, 631
Education of Christ, 378
Efficacy of the divine Word, 80, 501
of the Sacraments, 534
εκδυσις, 628
ελαττωσις, 328
Elect, the attributes of, 273
cannot fail of final salvation, 273
to be found in the visible Church, 594
Election, defined, 272
attributes of, 273
Election, based upon προθεσις and προγνωσις, 278,290
causes of, 287
how faith enters into, 286
personal assurance of, 292
based upon the consequent will of God, 286
Elements, see Lord’s Supper
ελεγχος, 453
εμπνευσις, 629
εναλλαγη και κοινωνια, of Theodoret, 327
ενανθρωπησις and ενσωματωσις, 303
End of the world, 655
ενργεια, of faith, 439
ενεργηματα, 336, 505
ενεργητικα, attributes, 118
ενθρωνισμος, 385
ενσαρκωσις, 313
εντελεχεια, 673
εντυγχανειν, 367
ενυποστασια, 295, 300, 301
επαναχωρησις, 628
Epicurean view of Providence, 188
Equality of persons in the Godhead, 133
Equivocal attributes, 115
Essence, divine, distinguished from person, 156
one and undivided, 142
of God (quid sit Deus), 111, 115
Essentialiter, term defined, 673
Estates of Christ, 376 sqq.
three in the Church, 604
contrasted, 604, 606
Eternal generation of the Son, 152 sqq.
Eternal life and death, 656
ετερουσιαι, 151, 298
Eucharist, see Lord’s Supper
ευκρασια, 302
Eutychian errors, person of Christ, 298
εξομολογησις, 469
Ex opere operato, in Sacraments denied, 532, 548
εξαγορασις, 369
Exaltation of Christ, 385, 387
Exclusive particles, doctrine of, 438
Excommunication, greater and less,
public and private, 612
Exinanition (humiliation, self-renunciation), 381
εξομολογησις, 469
Ex opere operato, in Sacraments denied, 532, 548
Exorcism, 544
Expiatory intercession of Christ, 367
Explicit faith, 411, 415
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, 583, 589, 597
Faith, essential, constituent elements of, 410, 414
a work of God in man, 411, 421, 423
assent, the second act of, 413
antecedent, constituent and consequent articles of, 94, 98
knowledge, the first part of, 413
articles of, pure and mixed, 92, 95
explicit, 411, 415
threefold foundation of, 96
implicit, 411, 415
justifying, 410, 420 sqq., 436
instrumental cause of, 421
direct, reflex and discursive, 421
receptive and operative, 423
explicit, implicit and informal, 411, 415
weak or infirm, 424
an element of repentance, 468
articles of, fundamental and non-fundamental, 92, 96
general, special, saving, 414, 415, 419
sole condition of justification, 420
not essential to the integrity of a Sacrament, 532, 576
essential to the appropriation of the blessing of a Sacrament, 532, 547, 576
false or dead, true or living, 412, 422
concomitants and consequences of, 423, 426
assurance of, 292
of infants, 548 sqq.
as related to election, 288
confidence, the principal part of, 415, 418
analogy of, 70, 76
Family, the Christian, 619
Fate, stoical, astrological, Christian, 188
Fathers, testimony of, 28, 51 sqq., 76, 85
Feeling, no criterion of the presence of the Spirit, 502
Feuerborn, on the humiliation of Christ, 391
Fides and fiducia, 415
Figurative sense of Scripture, 78
Filiation of the Son, 152
Final judgment, 643
Fire, infernal, 659
Flacius, on the relation of reason to
revelation, 31
substance of man, 223
original sin, 247
obedience of Christ, 354
regeneration, 463
church government, 601
Fomes, the tinder of sin, 250, 546
Foreknowledge, divine, 275
no act of the will, 275
prior to the divine purpose, 272
basis of the divine, 177
not dependent upon any divine decree, 275
Foreknowledge, the basis of predestination, 285, 289
Forma, term defined, 673
Fortune, 189
Foundation of the faith, threefold, 96
Fraternal redemption, 293 sqq.
Free will, 265 sqq.
in spiritual things, 262
in external things, 265
before the Fall, 278
since the Fall, 258, 259, 261, 264
in the regenerate, 268
Fundamental doctrines, 92, 94 sq.
primary and secondary, constitutive and conservative, 92, 98
antecedent, constituent, consequents articles of faith, 92, 98
Gallus, can laity administer the Lord’s Supper? 578
גָאַל, 293, 369
General and special assent, in faith, 415
General intercession of Christ, 345
Generation of the Son, eternal, active, passive, 152 sqq.
eternal not temporal, 152
passive, 153
twofold in Christ, 298
Gentiles, conversion of, 650
Genus, apotelesmatic, 315
idiomatic, 313
majestatic, 314
Giessen Dogmaticians vs. those of Tübingen, 391
Glorification of Christ, 385
Glorifying grace, 409
God, existence of, 111, 112
can He be defined? 112 sq.
what is He? 113
names of, 113 sq.
hypostatic character of, 149
attributes of, 117 sqq.
ascertained in a threefold way, 117, 122 sqq.
negative, 118
positive, 119
are not accidents, 121
distinguished from divine essence, 121, 122
variously classified, 125
analogical, not univocal or equivocal, 116
natural and supernatural knowledge of, 103
image of, in man, 218, 221, sqq.
Right Hand of, 403
not the author of sin, 231
Goel, 293, 369
Gog and Magog, 752
Good works, no ground for justification, 437
Gospel and Law, 508 sqq., 515, 518
of the Church, 601 sqq.
civil, 615 sqq.
Grace, preserving and glorifying, 409
prevenient, operative, co-operative, 471, 479
illustrated in Augustine, 478
of the Holy Spirit, in applying redemption, 408, 478
assisting and indwelling, 776
loss of, 292, 465, 552
of God, universal, 279
Grades of happiness in heaven, 660
Gratis, the exclusive particle in justification, 358, 425, 438
Gregory, of Nyssa, on satisfaction of Christ, 350
Guardian angels, 212
Guilt, 234
Guilt of original sin, 239, 250
Guilty of crime and deserving of punishment, 234, 237
Habitudo, habitus, defined, 673
Happiness, grades of, 660
Hardening of the heart, judicial, 255
Heathen, judgment of, 448
Heaven, see Life Eternal
Heidegger, on the “Right Hand of God,” 406
Hell, 399 sqq. 625, 626, 634, 656, 657
what and where it is, 659
Helmstadt theologians, 334, 480
Heresy, defined, 615
Heretics, baptism by, 545
Hesshuss, on lay administration of the Lord’s Supper, 578
Hilary, on the nature of God, 113
Hindrance, 173, 189
Historical Faith, 411
Hoc est corpus meum, 573
Hoffman, Daniel, on relation to philosophy to theology, 31
Holiness, see Renovation, Sanctification of primaeval man, 225
Holy Spirit, see Trinity
in the incarnation, 304
hypostatic character of, 154
witness of, 55
spiration (procession) of, 163
applying grace of, 407
Homologoumena, 189
Host, adoration of, 574
הצדיק, 427
Huber, on predestination, 288
Hulseman, on the Means of Grace, 508
on the articles of faith, 98
Human ability, 257
Human nature not threefold, 167
of Christ, 298 sqq.
Humiliation of Christ, 377, 381 sqq.
Hunnius, on the articles of faith, 98
Hypostatic presence of the λογος, 563
Hypostasis, distinguished from person, 145
Hypostatic union in Christ, 296, 306
plurality in unity, 143
חשׁב (λογιζεσθαι), 241
Idiomatic intercommunication of properties, 312
ιδιοποιησις or οικειωσις, 314
ιδιοποιια και ιδιοποιησις of Cyril, 327
ιδιωμα, 313, 321
ιλασμος, ιλαστηριον, 347
Illocalitas, of the angels, 196, 204
Illumination, 407, 408
defined, 451
gradual, 452, 454, 457
external and internal, 452
legal and evangelical, 451, 456
literal and pedagogical, 452, 457
spiritual and completely saving, 458
objective, effective, 452
influence of, upon intellect and will, 453
Image of God, in man, 218, 222, 223, 227
accidental, substantial, 222, 229
viewed, μερικως, ulikwß, 227
natural perfections of, 218, 229
loss of, 238
Immanence, immcatio (περιχωρησις), 151, 298, 317, 484
Immediatio suppositi et virtutis, 184
Immersion, 542, 553
Immortality of the soul, 629, 630
of primeval man, 228
theoretical arguments for, 631
historical arguments for, 632
Impanation, rejected, 571
Impartation of natures in Christ, 328
Impeccability of the good angels, 208
Imperfection of renewal, 487, 490
Impersonality of Christ’s human nature, 300
Implicit faith, 411, 415
Impulse, divine, in inspiration, 44
Impulsive internal and external cause of
justification, 434
Imputation of Adam’s sin, 239
mediate and immediate, 240
of Christ’s righteousness, 425, 429, 431, 433, 437
Inability, human, in spiritual things, 257
Incarnation defined, 310, 381
common to the entire Trinity, 303
mode of, 303
Independence of God, 116
Individual, defined, 297
Induration, 255
grace, 471
Infallible truthfulness of Scripture, 54
Infants, regeneration of, 547 sqq.
baptism of, 548
faith of, 550 sqq.
Innate knowledge, 129, 104, 105 sqq.
Infirmities of man, natural and personal, 299
Influence of second causes, 180
Inherent original sin, 247
Innocence, man’s original state of, 217, 220
Inspiration, real and verbal, 39, 43, 45
Arminian view of, 50
in historical matters minute, 45
of the vowels of the Hebrew text, 48
and revelation contrasted, 49
internal and external criteria of, 51, 57 sqq.
Inspired books, have any perished? 64
Integrity, man’s state of, 217, 220
of the Scriptures, 53
Intellect, as affected by original sin, 245
Intention, in the Sacraments, 531, 545
Intercession of Christ, true, real, literal, 345, 368
expiatory, 368
eternal, 368
of the Holy Spirit, 368
of saints, 212
of angels, 212
Intercommunion of properties, 324
Intermediate state, no, 625
Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, 57, 86
Interpretation, of the Scriptures, right, 53, 74, 76
Intuitu fidei, 288
Invocation of angels, 213
ισαγγελοι, 642
Jachtaufe, 531
Jena theologians on the Sacraments, 528
Jerome on foreknowledge, 177
יהוה, essentiator, 141
Jesuits on justification, 433
Jews, conversion of, 650
Judas, betrayal by, in what sense necessary, 183
Judge of controversies, the Scriptures alone, 60, 62
the principal, instrumental, inferior, 61
Judgment, final, 626, 643
general, 644, 655
particular, 644
private, in matters of faith, 53
office of angels at, 212
signs preceding the, 646, 649
of examination and retribution, 655
Justification, defined, 424, 428
a forensic or judicial act, 424, 426, 428
twofold effect of, 428, 429
Justification, and sanctification confounded by the
Romanists, 435
only ground of, 431
by faith “alone,” 438
without our merit, 438 sqq.
precedes good works, 437
effects and properties of, 441
a free gift of God, 438
Justifying faith, 412, 436
concomitants and consequences of, 441 sqq.
καθαιρεσις, in church discipline, 612
καταλλαγη, 347
καταλυσις, 628
κενωσις, 328, 382, 390
Keys held by the Church, 615
Kingly office of Christ, 370
Kingdom of Christ, 370, 373
of power, grace and glory, 371 sqq.
eternal, 375
Knowledge, explicit, an element of faith, 411, 413
of God, saving, 111
natural (objective), of God, imperfect, 109
Knowledge of primaeval man, 110, 224
of God, subjective, 126
naturally implanted, 42, 107
supernatural, 111
κοινωνια, of the two natures in Christ, 308
a term for the Lord’s Supper, 560
κοινωνια των θειων, 314
κρυωις, 382, 390
Laity, to partake of the cup, in the Lord’s Supper, 572
can administer the Lord’s Supper, 578
λαλειν in
Last day, 626, 643
signs of, 646-649
things, 626, 632 sqq.
Lay baptism, 531, 545
Lay delegates, qualifications of, 602, 603
Laymen, to take part in church councils, for, 602
deciding upon doctrines, 602
Law of God defined, 232, 511
ceremonial and forensic, 511
chief and subordinate, end of, 512
moral; of nature; Sinaitic; primordial; universal and perpetual; particular and temporary; demonstrative; didactic and pedagogical; political, 512, sqq.
fulfilled by Christ, 352
and Gospel contrasted, 508 sqq., 515, 518
office of, in illumination, 456
in conversion, 468
in the members, 242
Leidener, on the “Right Hand of God,” 406
ληψις μορφης δουλου, 383
in the Lord’s Supper, 530
Liberty of contradiction and of contrariety, 264
of the will, 257 sqq.
of the unregenerate man, 268
Liberum arbitrium, 257
variously explained, 259
Life eternal, 660, 661, 663
human controlled by providence, 190, 191
Limbus patrum, 625, 635
puerorum, 625, 635
Literal and figurative sense of Scripture, 78, 558 sqq.
Lombardus, on the satisfaction of Christ, 350
Lord’s Supper, defined, 555, 560, 575
Lord’s Supper, nature of, 555
mode of the Saviour’s presence in, 562
primary design of, 557
secondary design of, 557, 578, 579, 580
form of, 556
material of, terrestrial and celestial, 560
doctrine of, upon what founded, 557
as instituted, explained literally, 558
nature of the real presence in, 555
objections answered, 564 sqq.
not transubstantiation, 556, 571
not consubstantiation, 571
differently understood by Lutherans and Reformed, 570
may layman administer it, 577
and Baptism contrasted, 579
benefits of, 579 sqq.
should be administered in public, 581
is a temporary action, 575
Lutheran and Reformed views of the person of Christ contrasted, 329
λυτρον, λυτρωσις, 347 sqq., 357
Macrocosmos, microcosmos, 626
Magistrate, political, 615 sqq.
authority of, derived from God, 615 sqq.
duties of, 616, 617
power of, 616 sqq., 619
Majestatic genus of communicatio idiomatum, 312, 314
Man, his original condition, 165, 217, 268
why, when and how created, 104, 165, 217
his fall, 220, 241
primeval, wisdom of, 224
threefold nature? 166
Manducation, spiritual, mode of, 566
not physical, 568
but hyperphysical, 568
oral, but not capernaitic, 569
Manducation, sacramental, 567
Marriage relation, divinely appointed, 619 sqq.
how constituted, 619, 620
ecclesiastical sanction not essential to, 621
can be sundered for only one cause, 619, 621
Martyrs, resurrection of, 652
Mass, sometimes means the Holy Supper, 560
Materia caelestis, in the Sacraments, 526 sqq.
Material of the Sacraments, terrestrial and
celestial, 527, 560
of sin, 250
fire in hell, 659
Means of grace, Word and Sacraments, 409, 560
of salvation, δοτικα, ληπτικα, 502
Mediator, essential attributes of, 350
Christ the, according to both natures, 336 sqq.
Mediatorial office of Christ, 337
Melanchthon, on the Sacraments, 525
Mentzer on the obedience of Christ, 352
omnipresence of Christ, 391
on the humiliation of Christ, 391
Meissner on faith and predestination, 289
Mercy of God, not absolute, 347
Merit of Christ, 345, 366, 431
Messiah, Jesus the, 293
Μετεμωυχωσις, 635
Millennarianism, 648, 650
Millennium, 648, 650
Ministry, ecclesiastical, the representative
Church, 599
of divine appointment, 605, 606
mediate and immediate call to, 607
of evil spirits, 216
of good spirits, 211
Ministers, called and ordained by the Church, 608
authority of, 611
can they remit sins? 612 sqq.
things hostile to, 615
grades of, 611, 616
essential parity of, 616
Missa, the Sacrament of the Altar in the Latin Fathers, 560
Mission of the Son, 153
Mixed articles of faith, 37, 95
Moempelgard colloquy, 529
Monothelete error, 299
Montanists on the marks of the Church, 599
Moral and natural law, 513
Mortal sins, 254, 257
μορφη θεου, 383
Muentzer, relation of the Spirit to the Word, 502
Mussaeus on faith, 440
on the means of grace, 508
Mysteries consistent with perspicuity of Scripture, 69, 75
Μυστηιον, 96
Mystical sense of Scripture, 78
Mystical union, defined, 480, 482
Mystical union, preceded by regeneration and
justification, 481
special and general, 480
accompaniments and consequences of, 483
not essential, 485
contrasted with the general union, 484
not substantial, 486
not sacramental, 486
not personal, 481, 486
not figurative, 484
true and real, 482, 483
an inexplicable mystery, 480
not transubstantiation or consubstantiation, 485
Arminian view of, 486
Mystics and Quietists, concerning the human body, 168
illumination, 455
relation of the Holy Spirit to the Word, 454, 506 sqq.
Names of God, 113 sq.
Nativity of Christ, 378, 394
Natural, variously used, 229
knowledge of God, 107
infirmities common to man, 299
Nature, defined, 297
and person distinguished, 297
of Christ, divine and human, 294, 297
of God, 112, 113
Nazianzen, on the Trinity, 139
Necessity and contingency contrasted, 181
of consequence and of constraint, 182
and chance excluded from Providence, 182
Nestorius on the Person of Christ, 316
New birth, see Regeneration
Nicolai on the humiliation of Christ, 390
Normative authority of the Scriptures, 52, 59
Noth-taufe, 531, 545
Novissimis, de, 624
Nuda adessentia, in the omnipresence of Christ, 390
Oath upon the Symbolical Books, 102
Obedience, of Christ, active and passive, 344, 352, 355 sqq.
Bernard on, 352
new, an effect of repentance, 468
Office of Christ, threefold, 337
prophetic, 340
sacerdotal, 342
regal, 370
οικειωσις, 314
Old and New Testaments, how related, 82
ομαιωνιος, 142
Omnipresence of Christ, 329, 564
objections answered, 564
of the flesh of Christ, Dogmaticians differ concerning it, 333
not absolute, but relative, 334
Omniscience of Christ, 334
ομοιυσιος, 142, 151
ομοιωσις ανθρωπων, 383
ομοουσια, 142, 151, 298
Opera ad intra, ad extra, 133, 147 sqq.
Operating grace, 471
Opus operatum in the Sacraments, 532
Oral manducation, 536
Order, of the persons in the Trinity, 148, 150, 491
of operating in the Trinity, 150
threefold hierarchical, 604
Ordination, is it a Sacrament? 525, 610, 611
why necessary, 605, 609
performed by bishops or presbyters, 610
χειροθεσια in, 611
not absolutely necessary, 611
Origen, on the satisfaction of Christ, 350
Original righteousness, 226, 244
condition of man, 229
sin, see Sin.
text of Scripture, the final resort in controversies, 53, 63
Osiander, Andrew, on the office of Christ, 360
obedience of Christ, 354, 360, 435
exaltation of Christ, 390
justification, 431
righteousness of Christ, 435
faith, 431
Osiander, Luke, on the humiliation of Christ, 390
on the Sacraments, 526
Ottoman power, 652
ουσια, 142
ουσιωδως, 151, 630
פדיונ ,פּרה, 369
παντεποψια, 177
Papias, 650
Parabolical sense of Scripture, 78
Parental relation, 620
Parity of the ministry, 609, 610, 616
παρρησια, 416
Parsimonius, on the obedience of Christ, 355
on hell, 398
Particles, exclusive, doctrine of, 438
παςα in
Passion of Christ, 378, 394
Passive obedience of Christ, 344
Passive spiration of the Holy Ghost, 154
Patripassianism, 324
Patristic designations, in communicatio idiomatum, 327
Pelagianism, 243, 247
Penitence, in a wide sense, 461
πεποθησις, 416
Perfection or sufficiency of the Scriptures, 64, 65
sinless, unattainable in this life, 490
Perfections of God, 121
of man, principal, 218
less principal, 219
περιχωρησις, defined, 306
essential, 151
personal, 151
mystical, 484
in the person of Christ, 297, 317
Permission in Providence, 189
Person, abstract and concrete, 672
contrasted with nature or essence, 146, 672
defined, 672
of Christ, Lutheran and Reformed view of, contrasted, 329
diverse views among Lutheran Dogmaticians, 333
Cyril on, 327
Persons in the Godhead, predicates of, 133
how distinguished, 147
plurality of, 156
Personal peculiarities in the Godhead, 133, 148
of Christ’s human nature, 300, 311
union in Christ, 294
Calvinists on the, 337
attributes of, 300
negative properties of, 309
object of the sacrifice of Christ, 360
properties, 149
Perspicuity of the Scriptures, 69, 70 sqq.
proof of, 70
degrees of, 72
Peyrere on the creation, 165
Philosophy not opposed to theology, 31 sqq.
Photinians, on the knowledge of God, 107
personal union, 298
office of Christ, 349
Piety, essential to an interpreter of the Scripture, 72
Piscator, on the person of Christ, 326
resurrection of the martyrs, 651
obedience of Christ, 355
πιστις and πεποιθησις, 415
Plan of salvation, 409
πλασις, 621
Platonics, controverted, 455
Plenary inspiration, 46
πληροφορια, 413, 416
Plurality of God, not of essence or accident, 143
Plurality of God, but of persons, 143
proved from Scripture, 156
Political estate, 616
Pope, the, the great Antichrist, 650
Positive depravity, 245
Possession, corporeal, by evil spirits, 216
Potentia and potestas, distinguished, 128
Potestas ordinis and potestas clavium, 611
που, of the angels (das Irgendwosein), 204
Power of the ministry (potestas ordinis — jurisdictionis), keys, 611
merely instrumental and delegated, 613
but effectual, 613
Powers, human, since the Fall, 259, 473
Prayer, 499
Preadamitic view of creation, 165
Predestination, defined, 274, 287
the Fathers treat it cautiously, 276
attributes of, 273
not absolute, 272
of the Calvinists, 279, 280, 286
in a wider and narrower sense, 284
as related to election, 285
Presbytery, part of the, in the call of ministers, 608, 610
Prescience and predestination, 285, 289
Presence of Christ in the Holy Supper, see Lord’s Supper
Preservation and creation contrasted, 170, 179
a divine act, 170
Preserving grace, 409
Prevenient, preparatory, exciting grace, 475 sqq.
is how far irresistible, 475
Priestly office of Christ, 342
Private judgment, right of, 53
Procession of the Holy Spirit, 154
temporal, 155
προγνωσις, 175 sqq.
προθεσις and προγνωσις, contrasted, 175, 176, 285
with διοικησις, 175
also with προορισμος, 275, 285
προνοια, 175
προορισμος, 275, 285
Propagation of original sin, 249
of human souls, 166, 249
Propensity to evil, 235
Prophetic office of Christ, 340
Prophets of the Old Testament, 341
Propitiation, see Sacerdotal Office of Christ
Propositions, personal, 300, 318
προςληψις, 303
προσωπον, 146
προταξις, 174
Providence, defined, 174
ordinary and extraordinary, 173, 193
general and special, 190
primary and secondary objects of, 190
in the beginning, progress and end of human life, 191
scriptural proof of, 175
can it be deceived? 182
determines contingent actions, 181
employs second causes, 173, 180
special objects of, 190
grades of, 190
summarily stated, 193
Epicurean view of (carnalism), 188
Psychical body, 401, 642
Psychopannychism, 633
Punishment, divine, 237
eternal, 656 sqq.
Pure and mixed articles of faith, 37, 92, 95
Purgatory, 625, 635, 637 sqq.
Purity of original text of Scripture, 52
Purorum naturalism, 220
φυσις, 141
Pyx (sacramental receptacle), 530, 572
Quakers controverted, 455
Qualification needed in an interpreter of Scripture, 69
Qualitas, defined, 674
Qualities, personal, internal and external, 124, 149, 300, 302
Quietists controverted, 168, 455, 507
Rathman, on an internal Word, 42, 506
perspicuity of the Scripture, 74
power of the divine Word, 506, 507
Real presence, see Lord’s Supper
Reason, defined, 29, 30, 31
how related to revelation, 30, 32
before and after the Fall, 29, 34
of man, unrenewed and renewed, 29, 34, 35
teaches nothing contrary to Theology, 31 sqq.
right, properly so called, 35 sq.
the organic or instrumental use of, 36
the edificative and destructive us of, 37
the normative use of, in theology, 29, 33, 35
no source of theology, 28, 32
no judge of theological controversies, 29, 30, 35 sqq.
as related to the mystery of the Trinity, 135
Reatus culpae et paence, 233, 237
Reciprocation of natures in Christ, 328
Recognition, heavenly, 662
Reconciliation with God, 362
Redemption, fraternal, by Christ, 293
defined and illustrated, 369
application of, 407 sqq.
Regal office of Christ, 370
Regeneration, a divine act, 459, 461
conditioned by the conduct of men, 459
instantaneous, successive, 461, 464
not a substantial change, 463
perfect, amissible, recoverable, 459, 465
by the Word and Baptism, 462, 545
of adults and infants contrasted, 459, 461, 463, 547
Relatio, defined, 432, 433, 674
Relation, conjugal, 619 sqq.
parental, 620
servile, 620
of angels to space, 204
Religion, defined, 21, 24
characteristics and evidences of the true, 22
subject-matter of, 24
true and false, 22
the Christian, the true, 22 sqq.
Remission of sins, 425
Renovation, 220, 486
a work of God in man, 486
co-operation of God in, 487
gradual, never complete in this life, 487, 490
starting point and goal of, 489
transitive and intransitive, 487
in a wider and narrower sense, 488
and justification contrasted, 488
the Holy Spirit, the terminative cause of, 491
Repentance, consists of contrition and faith, 368
and see Contrition and Penitence.
Repletive presence, 563
Reprobation, adjuncts and cause of, 274, 363
contrasted with predestination, 274
God not the cause of, 292
Res coelestis, in the Sacraments, 526 sqq.
Resurrection of Christ, 379, 400
design of, 401
of the body, 626, 640 sqq.
of martyrs, 651
Retribution, final, 655
Reus culpae et paenae, 424
Revelation, defined, 25, 49
demonstrated, modes of, 26
differs from inspiration, 49
now no immediate, 28
progressive, 27
natural and supernatural, 26
general and special, 26
the source of theology, 26
Right Hand of God, 402 sqq.
Righteousness, original, 244
civil, 265
of faith, 426, 431, 434, 437 sqq.
carnal, 265
of Christ, Romanist sense of, 435
Riis, on “the Right Hand of God,” 406
Ritualism, 67
Roman Catholics, concerning inspiration, 44
relation of the Church to Scripture, 59
perfection of Scripture, 56
tradition, 68
articles of faith, 68, 94
state of integrity, 220
image of God, 230
sensuous appetite, 226, 250
justifying faith, 419
justification, 433
conversion, 469
mystical union, 486
intention of minister, 531
efficacy of Sacraments, ex opere operato, 532
efficacy of Baptism, 544
doctrine of transubstantiation, 571
communion of the laity, 572
adoration of the host, 574
head of the Church, 586, 599
distinction between visible and invisible Church, 595
marks of the Church, 595
power to convoke councils, 604
indelible character of ordination, 611
state of the soul after death, 635 sqq.
Rule of faith and practice, the Scriptures, 60, 84
Sabbath of the soul, eternal, 456
Sabellianism unscriptural, 138 sqq., 324
Sacerdotal office of Christ, 342 sqq.
Sacramental presence, see Lord’s Supper, 561 sqq.
union in Baptism, 541
union, mode of, 559, 569
eating, defined by the Calvinists, 567, 570
conjunction, 571
consecration, 572
Sacramentarians, 558
Sacraments, in general, 520 sqq.
are the visible Word, 501
primary design of, 533
defined, 520, 522, 523
secondary design of, 535
only two, 520
three in the Apology, 525
form of, 521
by whom to be administered, 521, 531
necessity of, 535
variously defined, 522, 524
Sacraments, number of, 524
true conception of, 523, 526
false views of, 533
threefold meaning of, 524
of the Old Testament, 535
require a twofold material, 526, 527, 560
faith in the administrator not necessary, 531
efficacy of, 530
Sacrifice, see Sacerdotal Office of Christ.
Salvation, sources of, 269 sqq.
Samosatenus, on the person of Christ, 316
Sanctification, see Renovation.
Satan, 213, 215
as related to man’s original sin, 234, 236, 237
Satisfaction, defined, 343, 347, 366
contrasted with merit, 355, 362, 366
real object of the obedience of Christ, 361
general, proved against the Calvinists, 363 sqq.
Saving faith, 410
Saxon theologians on the humiliation of Christ, 392
Scandalum (offence), 255
Schism defined, 615, 616
Schismatics and heretics contrasted, 616
Scholastics, on the satisfaction of Christ, 362, 363
on the mystical union, 486
Schwenkfeldians, on an internal Word, 42
on the mystical union, 650
Chiliasm of, 650
Scriptures, defined, 39, 40
why called holy, 39, 40
attributes of, 51, 33 sqq.
causative and normative authority of, 51, 61, 64 sqq.
power of self-interpretation, 70, 73
the judge of controversies, 61 sqq.
normative and judicial power of, 52, 60, 63
perfection or sufficiency of, 64, 66
sense of, but one original and proper, 78
directive authority of, 60
corrective authority of, 60
perspicuity of, 68, 70 sqq.
natural and spiritual apprehension of, 73, 74
contain incomprehensible mysteries clearly stated, 69
no infallible human interpreter of, 61
rules for the interpretation of, 77
efficacy of the, 80, 500, 503
authority of, not derived from the Church, 59
canon of the, 52, 80
why written, 39
Holy Spirit inseparably united with the, 20
the source of theology, 28
principal and instrumental cause of, 39, 42
identical with the Word of God, 40, 41
the rule of faith and life, 60, 84
Second causes, influence of, 180, 184
how God concurs with, 180, 184, 193
Second advent, 653
Second death, 656
Seduction of our first parents, 232, 233, 234, 237
Self-interpretation of the Scriptures, 70, 73
Self-renunciation of Christ, 376, 381 sqq.
Sending forth of the Son, 152
of the Holy Spirit, 154
Sense of Scripture, but one true, 78
literal, tropical, mystical, 78
allegorical, parabolical, 79
Serpent, the instrumental cause of original sin, 236
Servile estate, 620
Sessio Christi ad dextram Dei, 380, 403
Sibylline books, 651
Sight of God, beatific, 197, 660, 661
Sin, in general, 231
original, defined, 234, 236
originating and originated, 242 sq.
proofs of, 242
negative and positive, 244
hereditary, 235
indwelling, 242, 247, 248
not a mere accident, 247
not the substance of man, 247
as affected by baptism, 250
how perpetuated, 248
duration of, 250
consequences of, 232, 234, 235, 237, 246
God not the cause of, 231, 232
the true cause of, 231, 233, 236
actual, defined, 250, 252
division of, 251
venial and mortal, 253
first, of man, 536 sqq.
against conscience, fourfold, 253
against the Son of Man, 257
against the Holy Ghost, 252, 256
why unpardonable, 257
voluntary, 253, 264
involuntary, 252, 253
Sins, pardonable and unpardonable, 253
of ignorance and infirmity, 251
of various kinds, 251, 253
Sinless perfection, 487, 490
Sinlessness of Christ, 295, 302
of the good angels, 206 sqq., 210
Sitting of Christ at God’s Right Hand, 330 sqq., 380 sqq., 402
Sleep of the soul, 633
Socinian errors, concerning the knowledge of God, 107
sacrifice of Christ, 358
Socinian errors, sensuous appetite, 226
offices of Christ, 349
mystical union, 486
inspiration of the Scriptures, 50
Soul, the human, 166 sqq.
immortality of, 624
after death, 624, 633
created or propagated? 166
Source of theology, 25
Sources of salvation, 269 sqq.
Special intercession of Christ, 345
of faith, 411
Spiration, active and passive, 154
Spirit, witness of the, see Testimony.
Spirits, complete, incomplete, 201
Spiritual possession, 216
Spiritual death, 238, 627
Spiritual acts, in the liberum arbitrium, 262 sqq.
Spiritual essence, 674
Sponsors, 550
Stancarus, on the office of Christ, 339
on justification, 435
State of corruption, 263 sqq.
States of Christ, humiliation, 376, 378, 381 sqq.
exaltation, 376, 379, 385 sqq.
different, of man, 220
Status purorum naturalium, 230
στεφανωσις, 385
Style of the New Testament, 48
Subsistentia, defined, 674
Substance, defined, 674
complete and incomplete, 674
Sufficiency of the Scriptures, 64
συναιδιος, 142
συναμφοτερισμος, 314
συνδυασις, 310
συνεργος, man with God in conversion, 478
συγκαταβασις, 48
suppositum, defined, 144, 674
Swabian theologians, on the person of Christ, 334
Symbols of the Church, 100
wherein they differ from the Scriptures, 100
earlier and later, 93
necessity of, 101
Syncretism, 68
Synergism, 263
of Melanchthon, 263, 484
Synods, see Councils.
ταπεινωσις, 328, 385
ταρεινωσις υποτακτικη, 328, 383
Temptation of the evil angels, 213
of our first parents, 236, 237
Terminative, 149, 491
Terrestrial material in the Sacraments, 526, 528, 539, 560
Sacraments of, 535
Testaments, Old and New, not identical with Law and Gospel, 510, 515
Testimony of the Church, 61 sqq.
Holy Spirit, internal, 57, 427
θανατωθεις, 397
θεογνωσια, 110
Theodoret, on the person of Christ, 327
Theodosius, code of, on divorce, 623
Theologian, defined, 19
regenerate and unregenerate, 19
Theology, in general, 15
defined, 15
wider and narrower sense of, 16
original and derived, 16
a practical science, 17
subject matter of, 18, 19
source of, 16 sqq.
relation of, to philosophy, 30, 31
objective end of, 18, 105
archetypal and ectypal, 16
catechetical and acroamatic, 19
fourfold sense of, 26
a habitus practicus, 17, 18
of the way and of the home, 17
natural, revealed, catechetical, 15
acroamatic, exegetical, didactic, polemic, homiletic, casuistic, 19
subject of, religion, 21
source of, revelation, 25 sqq.
θεοπνευστος, 43, 45, 84
θεσις, 382
Threefold office of Christ, 337 sqq.
Thummius, on the humiliation of Christ, 390
Tradition, oral and dogmatical, to be rejected, 64, 66, 67
ritual, of the Church, 67
various senses of the term, 66, 67
not a source of faith, 28
Traducianism (traduction), 166, 248
Trance, 455
Translations of the Scriptures, no final authority in controversies, 53, 54
not inspired, 63
Transmigration of souls, 635
Transmission of original sin, 234, 239, 248
Transubstantiation, 556, 571
Trent, Council of, on confession, 470
Trinity, a mystery, 129
why stated in terms not scriptural, but philosophical, 130, 138
of persons, not of essence or accident, 130, 156
intimations of, among the heathen, 135
foreshadowed in the creature, 136
how made known, 130, 137
Trinity, not taught by reason, 129
a fundamental doctrine, 137
no new doctrine, 130, 140
summarily stated, 140
triune, not threefold, 141 sqq.
scriptural proof of, 149, 156 sqq.
Aquinas on the, 136
Athanasius on the, 140
Augustine on the, 138, 140, 146
Trichotomy, no, of human nature, 166
Tropical sense of Scripture, 78
τροπος υπαρξεως, 132
τροπος αντιδοσεως, 327
Trust, see Confidence.
צלס, 221
Tübingen Dogmaticians vs. those of Giessen, 390
Turks, 652
Typical sense of Scripture, 79
Ubi, definitivum, repletivum, circumscriptivum, occupativum, 204
Ubietas definitiva, 196
Ubiety of the flesh of Christ, 330 sqq.
Unbelief of our first parents, 237
final, cause of reprobation, 292
Union, personal, 294 sqq.
mode and attributes of, 296, 305, 306, 307
mystical, 480 sqq.
special, general, 484
not transubstantiation or consubstantiation, 485
sacramental, in Baptism, 542
in the Lord’s Supper, 556, 569 sqq
υιθεσια, 152
Unity of the divine essence, 131
univocal, equivocal, and analogical contrasted, 116
Universality of grace, 278
Unworthy guests at the Lord’s table, 576
υπαρξις, 145, 149
υπαρχων, 384
υπερεντυγχανειν, 368
υπερυψωσις, 328, 385
υποστασις, 140 sqq., 144 sqq.
υφισταμενον, 144
Venial sins, 253
Verbal inspiration, 45, 47 sqq.
Versions of Scripture, efficacious in producing faith, 63, 86
Vestigium and image contrasted, 221
Via eminentiae, negationis et causalitatis, 118 sqq.
Vicarious sacrifice of Christ, 357 sqq.
Vision of God, beatific, 197, 661, 662
Vocation (the call), 407, 442 sqq.
defined, 444
general and special, 442, 445
mediate and immediate, 442, 446
ordinary and extraordinary, 442, 446
particular and universal, 443, 448
(calls) three general, 443, 448
to the ministry, mediate and immediate, by the Church, 605, 607
Volition, uncoerced, essential to the will, 258, 260
Vostius, on the conception of Christ, 304
Vowel points, inspiration of, 48
Wafers, consecrated but not used, 73
not united with the body of Christ, 575
Warfare, the Christian, 498
Weigelians, on the internal Word, 42
Wicked partake of the body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, 576
Wine, of the Holy Supper, 560
Wisdom of God, mediate, 124, 126
of primeval man, 224
Witness of the Spirit, 55, 423
Word, divine, 500 sqq.
efficacy of, 500 sqq., 507
no unwritten, 42
distinguished into audible and visible, 522
illuminating power of, 451, 453, 456
the means of conversion, 501, 505 sqq.
and Holy Spirit, inseparable, 505, 506
and Sacraments, the means of grace, 500 sqq
Works, good, 491 sqq.
wrought only by the regenerate, 492, 496
of the unregenerate, 496
imperfection of, 494
on the mystical union, 486
no ground of justification, 497
necessary, 492, 493, 497
rewards of, 498
divine, ad extra, ad intra, 132, 147 sqq.,
World, not from eternity, 163, 164
why not sooner created? 164
annihilation of, 656
Worthy reception of the Eucharist, 576
Will of God, antecedent and consequent, 282
benevolent, 271, 278, 280 159, 161 sqq.
conditionate, 127, 272, 279, 281
natural and free, 271
efficacious and inefficacious, 271
absolute and ordinate, 271, 272
general or universal, 271 sqq.
special or particular, 272
universal, attributes of, 271
of the sign and of the purpose, 128, 280
of man, free? 259
threefold condition of, 268
ζωοροιησις, 395, 397
Zwingli, on the person of Christ, 327
on the Lord’s Supper, 564
Genesis
1:1 1:1-2 1:1-2 1:1-2 1:1-31 1:1-31 1:1-31 1:1-31 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:16-17 1:20 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26-28 1:27 1:27 1:27-28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 2:1-25 2:2 2:2 2:5 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:17 2:18 2:18 2:19 2:21-22 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:25 2:25 3 3:1 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:14 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:22 4:10 5:1 5:1-32 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:21 5:24 6:5 6:5 8:17 8:21 9:1 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:21 11:7 12:1 14:17 15:1 17:7 17:16 17:17 17:19 18:2 18:8 18:20 19:1 19:1-2 19:13 19:24 20:13 21:22 21:33 22:1 22:8 22:18 24:7 25:8 25:8 25:17 28:12 35:7 35:29 35:29 37:7 38:7 38:10 41:34 46:26 46:27 47:29 48:16-17 49:33 49:33 50:20
Exodus
3:2 3:9 3:10 3:14 4:24 7:3 10:17 11:10 11:13 11:16 11:39 14:19 15:6 15:6 16:7 16:10 19:9 19:10 20:12 21:12 21:14 21:30 22:18 22:22 23:1 23:20-21 28:29 28:35 31:1 31:3 32 32:16 33:3 34:5-6 34:27-28 34:28 40:38 100 100 100
Leviticus
11:44 11:44 12:8 13:6 14:9 16:17-18 16:20 18:1-30 18:7 19:2 20:1-27 25:24 25:26 25:29 25:31 25:32 25:48 25:51 25:52
Numbers
6:23-26 11:16 12:1-2 12:5 12:6 14:21 20:11-12 20:12 20:24 20:26 22:28 23:19 23:19 23:19 27:18
Deuteronomy
4:2 4:2 4:2 4:35 5:26 6:4 6:4 12:28 12:32 12:32 13:15 17:9 17:10 17:19 18:18 18:18 21:23 23:1 25:1 25:1 25:1 25:1 25:4 27:5 27:26 27:26 28:21-22 28:23 30:11-12 30:19 30:20 32:4 32:4 32:9 32:39 32:50 33:2
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2:3 9:15 9:17 10:21 15:29 16:1 16:14 18:1 25:25 25:29 25:38
2 Samuel
3:29 5:24 7:11 7:12 7:12 7:12-13 7:19 7:23 11:4 11:15 14:4 14:20 15:4 17:23 18:14 22:6 23:2 23:2 23:2 23:2 23:3 24:1
1 Kings
2:19 8:27 8:32 8:39 10:1 17:21 17:22 18:44 19:8 19:11 22:21 22:22
2 Kings
2:11 2:11 5:2-3 5:7 6:6 8:15 13:21 19:19 19:35 19:35 19:35 20:1 20:6
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Nehemiah
Job
1:6 1:10 1:11-19 1:12 1:12 2:1 2:6 2:6 4:18 7:1 9:2-3 9:8 10:3 10:8 10:8 10:8-11 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:12 10:18 12:9-10 12:13 13:18 14:4 14:4 14:12 19:25 19:25 19:25 19:25 19:25 19:26 19:26 24:5 26:13 26:13 28:20 31:15 33:4 33:4 33:4 34:21 35:10 38:7 38:7 38:7 38:28 39:1
Psalms
1:2 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:9 2:10-12 3:7-8 4:3 5 5:4 5:5 5:5 5:5 6:1 6:5 7:9 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:7 8:7 8:8 14:2-3 14:2-3 14:3 16:5-6 16:9 16:10 16:10 16:10 16:10 16:11 16:11 16:11 17:15 17:15 17:15 18:4-5 18:5 18:35 19:1 19:1 19:7 19:7 19:7 19:7 19:7 19:8 20:9 22 22:9 22:10 23:4 23:4 24:7-8 25:7 25:8 26:5 27:1 27:13 30:3 30:4 31:1 31:5 31:6 32:1 32:1 32:1-2 32:5 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:13 33:18 33:18 33:19 34:7 34:7 34:7 34:15 34:21 36:6 36:7 36:9 37:18 37:23 37:23-24 37:25 38:1 38:3 38:4 38:6 39:4 39:13 42:1-2 42:1-2 44:3 45:1 45:2 45:3 45:5 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:10 47:7 47:10 49:8 49:8 49:9 49:10 49:15 49:15 49:20 51:4 51:5 51:5 51:6 51:7 51:11 51:12 52:6-7 55:23 55:23 56:8 58:10 63:8 67:6-7 68:11 68:18 68:19 68:35 69:4 71:6 72:8 72:17 72:18 72:18 73:24 77:20 78:49 81:12 82:3 82:6 85 86:2 86:13 88:4 89:15 90:2 90:2 90:10 91:11 91:11-12 91:11-12 92:15 92:15 95:7 97 97:1 97:7 100:3 102:24 102:25 102:26 102:27 102:27 103:11 103:20 103:20 103:20 103:20 103:20 104:1-35 104:3 104:4 104:4 104:4 104:4 104:30 105:39 105:42 106:38 108:6 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1-2 110:2 110:4 110:4 110:4 110:4 110:4 111:9 115:16 115:17 116:3 116:7 116:7-9 116:9 119:71 119:90 119:91 119:105 119:130 119:137 121:2 121:4 121:4 122:5 124:2 139:1 139:2 139:7 139:7 139:7 139:10 139:13 139:15 139:16 143:2 143:2 143:2 143:2 143:10 145:3 145:16 147:9 148:2 149:1 149:2
Proverbs
1:26 1:26 3:1 3:2 4:10 6:8 6:23 8:15 8:22 8:22 8:30 15:3 16:3 16:4 17:15 17:15 19:21 20:24 21:1 24:12 30:4
Ecclesiastes
3:21 7:29 9:4-5 9:5-6 9:10 11:3 12:5 12:7 12:7 12:7
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:21 5:14 5:23 5:23 6:1-3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:8 6:8 6:10 7:9 7:14 8:20 8:20 9:6 11:2 19:1 25:8 25:8 26:12 26:19 26:19 26:20 26:20 33:22 34:4 34:8 34:10 34:16 37:36 38:5 38:8 38:17 40:3 40:28 41:4 41:24 41:27 41:27 42:1 43:9 43:24-25 43:25 44:2 44:6 44:22 45:6-7 45:23 45:23 45:24 45:24 48:8 48:13 48:16 49:10 49:23 50:4 53 53:3 53:4 53:4 53:4 53:4-5 53:4-6 53:5 53:5 53:6 53:6 53:6 53:6 53:6 53:6 53:8 53:9 53:9 53:9 53:12 53:12 53:12 53:12 53:12 53:12 54:5 54:10 55:6 55:6 55:10 55:11 57:1 57:2 57:2 59:21 61:1 61:1 61:8 63:3 63:3 63:7 63:9 64:4 65:12 65:17-18 65:22 66:24 66:24 66:24 66:24 66:24 77:24
Jeremiah
1:5-7 3:1-2 3:13 3:15 3:34 10:10 10:23 16:9 23:4 23:5 23:5 23:5 23:5-6 23:5-6 23:6 23:23-24 23:24 23:24 23:24 23:29 23:31 23:36 28:15-16 31:18 31:34 33:2 33:15 33:15 36:3 51:58
Lamentations
Ezekiel
1:3 1:4 11:19 18:9 18:20 18:22 18:23 18:24 18:31 18:32 18:32 20:6 33:11 33:11 33:11 34:23 36:26 38:2
Daniel
2:19 2:21 2:31 6:22 6:22 6:22 7:10 7:10 7:14 8:25 9:17 9:19 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:26 10:5 10:13 10:16 11:44 11:44 11:44 12:1 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2-3 12:3 12:3 12:12 12:13 16:23-24
Hosea
1:7 2:19 13:9 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:14
Joel
Amos
Jonah
Micah
Habakkuk
Haggai
Zechariah
1:12 2:8-9 7:12 8:17 8:17 9:9 9:9 9:9 9:11 9:11 9:11 12:10 12:10
Malachi
1:6 2:7 2:10 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:3 3:6 3:6 4:2 4:5
Matthew
1:1 1:19-20 1:21 1:21 1:21-23 1:22 2:1 2:6 2:13 2:15 2:19 3:6 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:16 3:16-17 3:17 4:1 4:2 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:14 4:23 4:24 5:6 5:12 5:14 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:21-22 5:22 5:22 5:25 5:32 5:44 5:45 5:48 6:10 6:15 6:20 6:25 6:30 6:30 7:6 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:18 7:18 7:21 8:11 8:11 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:16 8:20 8:22 8:26 8:28 8:31 9:2 9:2 9:6 9:22 9:22 9:24 9:24 9:25 9:35 10:15 10:21 10:22 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:29-30 10:30 10:31 10:31 10:37 11:10 11:24 11:25 11:26 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 12:8 12:22 12:31 12:31-32 12:31-32 12:32 12:35 12:37 12:40 12:50 13:15 13:24 13:24 13:27-28 13:40 13:41 13:41 13:42 13:42 13:42 13:43 13:43 13:47 13:49 13:49 13:50 13:50 13:50 14:31 14:31 15:22 15:28 15:28 16:16 16:17 16:17 16:17 16:17 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:24 16:27 16:27 17:1 17:5 17:6 18:8 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:11 18:15 18:15 18:16 18:17 18:17 18:18 18:18 18:18 18:19 18:20 18:20 18:24 18:27 18:34 19:4-5 19:5 19:6 19:9 19:14 19:16 19:19 19:26 19:28 20:8 20:16 20:16 20:16 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 21:11 21:19 22:1 22:3 22:13 22:13 22:13 22:13 22:29 22:30 22:30 22:30 22:31 22:32 22:42-45 23:8 23:10 23:15 23:37 23:37 23:37 23:37 23:37 23:37 24 24:3 24:5 24:6-8 24:9 24:12 24:13 24:14 24:14 24:21 24:22 24:24 24:24 24:24 24:29 24:30 24:30 24:30 24:31 24:31 24:36 24:37-29 24:43 24:44 25:1-46 25:10 25:23 25:26 25:30 25:30 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:31 25:32 25:33 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:35 25:35 25:37 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:41-46 25:42 25:43 25:46 25:46 25:46 25:46 25:46 25:46 26:26 26:28 26:28 26:29 26:34 26:38 26:39 26:46 26:64 26:64 26:64 26:64 26:64 26:70 26:72 26:74 27:46 28:18 28:18 28:18 28:18 28:18 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19-20 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:22 28:31 30
Mark
1:1 1:2 1:2-3 1:4 1:4 1:15 2:28 2:28 3:28-29 3:28-29 5:9 5:34 7:25 7:29 9:7 9:12 9:17 9:24 9:24 9:43 9:44 9:44 9:46 9:46 9:48 9:48 10:13 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:15 10:45 12:26 13 13:4 13:9 13:24 13:27 13:27 13:32 13:32 14:22 14:61 14:62 14:62 14:68 14:70 14:71 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:20 16:20
Luke
1:4 1:13 1:26 1:30 1:31 1:33 1:33 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:37 1:43 1:46 1:59 1:68 1:68 1:68 1:70 1:74 1:74 1:77 1:77 1:77-78 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:11 2:21 2:29 2:29 2:29 2:38 2:38 2:46 2:47 2:48 2:51 2:52 3 3:3 3:3 3:17 3:17 3:23 3:23 4:18 4:33 6:23 7:15 7:16 7:16 7:27 7:30 7:30 8:12 8:13 8:30 8:50 9:31 9:34 9:60 10:16 10:16 10:20 10:28 10:46 11 11:4 11:13 11:15 11:15 11:20 12:6 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:29 12:33 12:39 12:47 13:27-28 13:28-29 14:16 14:27 15:1-32 16:1-31 16:22 16:22 16:22 16:22 16:22 16:22 16:22-23 16:23 16:23 16:23 16:23 16:23-24 16:24 16:24-25 16:26 16:28 16:28 16:28 16:29 16:29 17:5 17:28-30 18:7 18:8 18:14 18:14 18:19 18:27 19:10 19:13 19:35 19:41 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:37 20:44 21 21:7 21:9-11 21:25 21:25 21:28 21:33 21:35 22:3 22:19 22:19 22:19 22:20 22:29-30 22:30 22:57 22:58 22:60 22:69 22:69 22:69 23:34 23:34 23:34 23:42 23:42 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:46 24:19 24:26 24:28 24:29 24:39 24:43 24:44 24:47 24:47 24:51
John
1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:9 1:9 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:41 1:45 1:48 2:1-2 2:19 2:21 2:24 2:25 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5-6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:13 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:29 3:34 3:35 3:36 3:36 3:36 3:36 3:36 3:36 4:11 4:24 4:24 5:10 5:11-12 5:15 5:17 5:18 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:21 5:22 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:24 5:24 5:24 5:26 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:28 5:29 5:32 5:35 5:37 5:39 5:39 5:39 5:45 5:45 6:1-71 6:1-71 6:14 6:26 6:26-27 6:27 6:29 6:37 6:39 6:40 6:45 6:50-51 6:51 6:57 6:62 6:63 6:68 6:69 7:38 7:42 7:46 8:29 8:34 8:36 8:36 8:40 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:56 8:58 9:10 10:1 10:1 10:11 10:15 10:15 10:16 10:17-18 10:18 10:27 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:30 10:35 11:11 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:24 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:33 11:34 11:44 12:24 12:26 12:28 12:31 12:41 12:48 13:2 13:2 13:3 13:8 13:18 13:35 14:1 14:2 14:2 14:2 14:2 14:3 14:10 14:10 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:12 14:12 14:13 14:16 14:19 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:26 15:1 15:2 15:2 15:3 15:3 15:4 15:4-5 15:4-5 15:4-6 15:4-7 15:14 15:17-18 15:19 15:22 15:23 15:25 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:9 16:13-14 16:15 16:15 16:22 16:22 16:36 17:3 17:3 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:7 17:8 17:8 17:9 17:9 17:11 17:11 17:12 17:17 17:17 17:17 17:17 17:19 17:19 17:19 17:20 17:20 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:22 17:23 17:24 17:24 17:24 18:25 18:27 18:37 19:11 19:28 19:30 20:21 20:21 20:21 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:23 20:23 20:23 20:23 20:28 20:28 20:31 20:31 21:17
Acts
1:5 1:7 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:11 1:11 1:11 1:16 1:25 1:58 2:1-47 2:3 2:24 2:27 2:30 2:31 2:31 2:33 2:33-34 2:37 2:38 2:38 2:38 2:38 2:39 2:41 3:15 3:15 3:19 3:19 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:24 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:28 5:3 5:3 5:3-4 5:18-19 5:29 5:31 5:31 5:31 6:6 6:7 7:51 7:55 7:59 7:59 7:59 7:60 8:7 8:12 8:12 8:14 8:36-38 8:39 9:3-4 9:40 10:3 10:7 10:10 10:36 10:38 10:38 10:43 10:43 10:43 10:43 10:43 10:43 12 12:7 13:2 13:2 13:8 13:33 13:38 13:46 13:46 13:46 13:48 14:16 14:23 15:2 15:11 15:14 15:21 15:22 15:25 15:28 15:28 15:29 15:33 15:39 16:5 16:14-15 16:31 16:31 16:33 17:23 17:24 17:25 17:25 17:25 17:25-26 17:26 17:27 17:27 17:27 17:27-28 17:27-30 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:28 17:30 17:30-31 17:31 17:31 18:5-6 18:8 18:8 18:28 19:13 19:28 20 20:17 20:27 20:27 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:32 22:16 22:16 26:18 26:18 26:18 26:18 26:18 26:20 26:22 26:22 28:25 28:25-26
Romans
1:1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:19-20 1:19-20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:21 1:21-22 1:23 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:28 1:32 2:1 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:5-7 2:8 2:9 2:12 2:12 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:16 3:1-31 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:3 3:8 3:10-12 3:12 3:12 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:22-26 3:23 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24-25 3:24-25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:27 3:27 3:30 4:1-25 4:1-25 4:1-25 4:3 4:3 4:3-6 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5-6 4:7 4:7 4:7-8 4:11 4:11 4:13-14 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:18 4:20 4:20 4:20-21 4:21 4:21 4:24 4:25 4:25 5:1 5:1-2 5:1-2 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:8-9 5:9 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10-11 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12-14 5:14 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:20 6:1-23 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:6 6:6 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:18 6:19 6:19 6:22 6:22 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23 6:23 7 7 7:4 7:4 7:6 7:7 7:8-9 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:15 7:17 7:17 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:20 7:21 7:21 7:21 7:21 7:22 7:22 7:23 7:23 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1-39 8:1-39 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:6 8:6 8:7 8:7 8:7 8:9 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:13 8:14 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:16 8:16 8:16 8:17 8:20 8:23 8:23 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:28 8:28 8:29 8:29 8:29-30 8:29-30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:33 8:33 8:33-34 8:34 8:34 8:34 8:34 8:34 8:34 8:34 8:38 8:38 8:38 8:39 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:10-11 9:11 9:11-13 9:15-16 9:18-19 9:19 9:21 9:22 9:28 9:30 10:4 10:6-7 10:8 10:8 10:9-10 10:14 10:15 10:15 10:17 10:17 10:18 10:18 10:18 11:2 11:5 11:5-6 11:6 11:23 11:23 11:25-26 11:32 11:32 11:32 11:32 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:36 11:36 12:1 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:12 13:1 13:1 14:1-23 14:10 14:10 14:15 14:16 14:20 14:23 15:4 15:4 15:4 15:16 15:16 15:18 15:19 16:4 16:5 16:7 16:16 16:25 16:26 18:17-18
1 Corinthians
1:2 1:2 1:2 1:7 1:16 1:20 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:27-28 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:10-12 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:18 3:1 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:8 3:11 3:16 3:18 4:1 4:1 4:1-25 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:9 6:2 6:9-10 6:11 6:11 6:13 6:15 6:15 6:15-17 6:16 6:17 6:17 6:17 6:19 6:19-20 6:20 7:2 7:2 7:4 7:15 7:29 7:37 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:11 9:9 9:9 9:24 9:24 9:27 9:27 10:12 10:15 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:17 10:17 10:17 10:21 10:31 10:32 11:10 11:16 11:20 11:22 11:23 11:24-25 11:25 11:26 11:26 11:27 11:27-28 11:28 11:29 11:29 11:31 11:31 12:6 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:13 12:28 12:28 13:4-5 13:9-10 13:12 13:12 14:4 14:21 14:23 14:33 14:33 14:33 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:42 15:1 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:3 15:3 15:9 15:12 15:14 15:14 15:17 15:18 15:21 15:24 15:25 15:25 15:25 15:25 15:26 15:27 15:27 15:27-28 15:28 15:36-37 15:41 15:41-42 15:41-42 15:42 15:42-48 15:43 15:43 15:43-49 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:45 15:45 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:51-52 15:52 15:53 15:53 43
2 Corinthians
1:1 1:13 1:21 1:22 2:16 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6-9 3:9 3:17 3:17 3:18 4:3 4:3-4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:13 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:18 4:18 5:1 5:1 5:1-2 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:6 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:10 5:10 5:14-15 5:15 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:18-19 5:18-19 5:18-19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:20 5:20 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:31 6:2 6:16 6:17 7:1 7:10 8:9 8:9 9:4 10:4 10:4-5 10:5 10:15 11:2 11:2 11:3 11:14 11:14 11:14 11:17 12:12 13:4 13:5 13:5 13:5 13:8-10 13:13
Galatians
1:2 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:9 1:13 1:22 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:19 2:19 2:19-20 2:19-20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20-21 3:6 3:6 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:26 3:26 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:27 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4-5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:6 4:6 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:9 4:19 4:26 5:1 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:19-21 5:20 5:22 5:22 6:5 6:8 6:10 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:16
Ephesians
1:1 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4-5 1:4-7 1:4-7 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:17 1:17-18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20-21 1:20-22 1:20-23 1:21 1:21 1:21-22 1:22 1:22-23 1:22-23 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 2:1 2:1 2:1-2 2:1-22 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:5 2:5 2:6 2:8 2:8 2:8-9 2:10 2:12 2:12-13 2:13 2:16 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20-21 3:3 3:8-9 3:9 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:17 3:17 3:19 3:20 4:1-32 4:1-32 4:1-32 4:5 4:5 4:8 4:8 4:8-9 4:9 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:12 4:14-15 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:17 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:22 4:22 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:25 4:30 4:30 5:1-33 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:5 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:11 5:16 5:23-26 5:25 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:32 5:32 5:32 6:10-11 6:10-17
Philippians
1:1 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:21 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:29 1:29 2:5 2:5-8 2:5-9 2:6 2:6 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8-9 2:9 2:9-10 2:9-10 2:9-11 2:10 2:12 2:12 2:12-13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:17 2:27 2:30 3:1 3:2 3:6 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:12 3:13 3:16 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 4:3 4:8 5:14
Colossians
1:1-29 1:1-29 1:9-10 1:10 1:12 1:12-13 1:13-14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:20-21 1:24 1:26-27 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:6 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:12-13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:15 3:1-25 3:1-25 3:1-25 3:9 3:9-10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:42 4:17
1 Thessalonians
1:1 1:5-6 1:8 1:10 1:10 1:10 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:18 4:3 4:3-4 4:7 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:17 5:2 5:9 5:19 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:23 11
2 Thessalonians
1:4 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:6-7 1:8 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:11 2:1-17 2:3 2:3-4 2:7 2:9 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:15
1 Timothy
1:5 1:9 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:19 2:2 2:2 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4-6 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5-6 2:5-6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:14 2:15 3:2 3:2 3:5 3:6 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 4:8 4:8 4:10 4:14 4:14 5:16 5:20 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:22 5:22 6:15 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:16
2 Timothy
1:6 1:6 1:6 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:12 1:12 2:2 2:3 2:13 2:14 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:20 2:26 3:1-5 3:14-15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16-17 3:16-17 4:6 4:6-7 4:7 4:8 4:13
Titus
1:1 1:1 2:11 2:11-12 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 3:4-6 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:10
Philemon
Hebrews
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:9 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 2 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9-10 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:14-16 2:16 2:16 2:16 2:17 3:5-6 3:14 4:2 4:3 4:12 4:12 4:12-13 4:14 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:16 5:4 5:6 5:10 5:12 6:1 6:1-20 6:1-20 6:4 6:4 6:4-6 6:4-6 6:4-6 6:5-6 6:6 6:8 6:11 6:18 7 7:17 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:27 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:6 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:13-14 9:13-14 9:14 9:14 9:14 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:28 10:10 10:12 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:14 10:22 10:22 10:22 10:26 10:26 10:29 11:1 11:1 11:1 11:1 11:1 11:3 11:3 11:5 11:5 11:35 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:22 12:22 12:23 12:23 12:24 13:8 13:8 13:8 13:8 13:15 13:16 13:20 18:2
James
1:5 1:5-7 1:6 1:12 1:13 1:13 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:21 1:21 1:26 2:5 2:5 2:10 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:20 3:2 3:9 4:16-17 5:4 5:16 10:17
1 Peter
1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:5 1:11 1:11 1:12 1:15 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18-19 1:19 1:19 1:23 1:23 1:25 2:5 2:5 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:25 3:18 3:18 3:18-20 3:18-20 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:21 3:22 3:22 3:31 4:19 5:2 5:8 5:8-9 5:10
2 Peter
1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:14 1:14 1:18-19 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 1:21 2:1 2:1 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:8 3:3 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:12 3:16 3:18
1 John
1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:9 1:10 2:1 2:1 2:1-2 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:16 2:18 2:20 2:23 2:27 3:2 3:2 3:4 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:14 3:14 3:20 3:21 4:2-3 4:10 4:17 5:1 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:6 5:6 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:9 5:9 5:10 5:13 5:13 5:13 5:16 5:20
2 John
Jude
1:4 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:9 1:9 5:15
Revelation
1:1 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:14 1:17 1:18 1:20 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:11 2:11 2:11 3:5 3:7 3:21 4:4 4:8 4:8 5:8 5:9 5:9 5:9 5:9 5:12 5:13 5:13 6:10 6:10 6:11 6:16-17 7:4 7:9 7:15 7:16 7:16 10:7 11:2 11:7 11:17 12:4 12:4 12:7 12:7 12:9 12:13 13:7 13:8 13:8 13:14 13:17 14:3 14:4 14:4 14:6 14:10 14:10 14:11 14:11 14:13 14:13 14:13 15:9 16:5 16:15 17:6 17:14 17:14 17:14 18:2 18:2 18:4 18:24 19:2 19:4 19:13 19:16 19:16 19:20 20:4 20:6 20:6 20:6 20:7-8 20:10 20:10 20:11 20:11 20:14 20:14 20:15 21:3 21:4 21:4 21:4 21:4 21:8 21:9 21:27 22:1 22:6 22:11 22:15 22:15 22:16 22:18
Wisdom of Solomon
1:6 1:7 1:8 1:13-14 2:23 3:1 4:10-11 5:3 8:1 12:13 12:15 12:18 14:3 14:3 14:3
2 Maccabees
Sirach
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 194 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692