Page images


Compare above, 8 215, note 7, Ebrard, p. 686 sq. • Marbach of Strasburg, and Simon Sulzer of Basle. The latter was opposed by H. Erzberger. Comp. Hagenbach, Geschichte der Basler Confess. p. 87 ss.

The very remarkable creeds of Sulzer and Erzberger are there given, Appendix C, p. 232, and Appendix B, p. 218 ss. Comp. Hundeshagen Conflicte, p. 147 sq.; Ebrard, ii. 484.

* The matter is (a) terrestris (the elements bread and wine); (b) cælestis, which is subdivided into a. corpus et sanguis Christi, B. gratia divina; 2. The form is (a) interna (unio sacramentalis), (b) externa, which is composed of a. consecratio, B. distributio, y. sumptio; 3. Finis (fructus) est collatio et obsignatio gratiæ divinæ. This end is subdivided into (a) finis ultimus (salus æterna); (b) intermedius, (a) recordatio et commemoratio mortis Christi, quæ fide peragitur, (B) obsignatio promissionis de remissione pecca. torum et fidei confirmatio, (y) insitio nostra in Christum et spiritualis nutritio ad vitam, (6) dilectio mutua communicantium. See Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, pp. 314, 315. Among the Calvinistic theologians see Heidegger, Loci, xxv. p. 13 ss.

• Thus Phil. Paracelsus, Sagac. Lib. i, c. 5, § 10, comp. ii. 2, (quoted by Preu, Theol. des Paracelsus, p. 1); he there speaks rather of an internal (mystical) communion, than of a real participation of the elements. “ The regenerate must be nourished by Christ, and not only obtain the art and wisdom of nature, as we gather pears from the trees, but receive wisdom from him who has sent it. Respecting Christ, it is said, we must eat his flesh, and drink his blood, that is, we must be born of him; he is the first born, but we fill up the number.” Comp. Schwenkfeld, above.

• Thus Poiret in his treatise : Gewissensruhe. See Hagenbach, Vorlesungen, vol. iv., p. 326.

• Exposition de la Doctrine Catholique, c. 10 ss. In his opinion, there is no medium between the view of infidels who reject everything, and the orthodox doctrine of the Church. Every other view is inconsistent with itself; God has suffered the Protestants to fall into such inconsistencies, in order to facilitate their return to the Roman Catholic Church. The figurative interpretation, however, may be admitted in a certain sense (as implied in the real), p. 140: “ Nevertheless the truth which the Eucharist contains in its internal aspect, does not prevent its being considered a sign of the external and tangible; but it is a sign of that sort which, so far from excluding the reality, necessarily implies it.”

' Concerning the views of the Jansenists, comp. § 228, note 3. On the controversy respecting the Lord's Supper, between Peter Nicole and Anton Arnauld, on the one side, and Claude, a Calvinistic minister, on the other see Schröckh, vii. p. 367. Among the mystics similar opinions obtained to those of the preceding period. Thus Francis of Sales said, Introd. ii. 14 : Hoc (sacramentum) religionis christianæ centrum est devotionis cor, pietatis anima, mysterium ineffabile, quodque divinæ charitatis abyssum in se comprehendit, ac per quod se Deus ipse realiter nobis applicans gratias et dona sua nobis magnifice communicat. -Comp. Bonce Tract. Ascet. de Sacrificio Missæ (Opp. p. 177 ss.). Fénélon, Euvres Spirit., i. p. 414.


As regards the other Roman Outholic Sacraments (respecting baptism, see § 270), their fundamental principles must be considered by Protestant theologians in other parts of their works on systematic theology; thus Penance is treated of in connection with the economy of Redemption, though some of the earlier Lutheran divines placed it after the chapters on Baptism and the Lord's Supper (e. g. Hollaz, p. 1141); the sacrament of Holy Orders, in connection with the doctrine concerning the church; that of Matrimony forms a part of ethics and tho Canon Law, though some, e. g. Gerhard, still assigned to it a place in doctrinal theology (Loci Theol. Tom. xv.); and lastly, the sacraments of Confirmation (which has nothing in common with the Protestant rite of the same name), and of Extreme Unction, are only considered in a negative aspect-viz. as sacramenta spuria, see Heidegger, Loci xxv., c. 23 ss.

As regards Penance, the Roman Catholic Church retained the scholastic division into contritio (different from attritio) cordis, confessio oris and satisfactio operis, while the only distinction made by Protestants was that between contritio and fides. Comp. Concil Trid. Sess. 14, c. 3, and in defence of the Protestant view, Conf. Aug. Art. 12: Constat autem pænitentia proprie his duabus partibus: Altera est contritio, seu terrores incussi conscientiæ agnito peccato. Altera est fides, quæ concipitur ex evangelio seu absolutione et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, et consolatur conscientiam, et ex terroribus liberat. Deinde sequi debent opera bona, quce sunt fructus pænitentice. Art. Smalcald, p. 321, and the other passages quoted by Winer, p. 150. Respocting Confession, the two great sections of the Protestant Church differed in this, that the earlier Lutherans attached importance to private confession, while the Reformed were satisfied (as a general rule) with public confession. But neither of them demanded, like the Roman Catholics, & special enumeration of all sins, in consequence of which, both rejected auricular confes. sion. Luther especially, in his treatise : De Captiv. Babyl, and in the Articles of Smalcald, expressed himself in strong terms against this confessio carnificina. Art. Smalcald, p. 323.: Confessio sic instituabatur, ut homines juberentur omnia sua peccata enumerare (quod factu impossibile est) hæc ingens carnificina fuit. Et si quis quorundam peccatorum oblitus esset, is eatenus absolvebatur, ut si in memoriam illa recurrerent, ea postea confiteretur, etc. As to the relation between the confessor and the person who confesses, the Roman Catholics, on account of their different views about the priesthood, entertained different opinions from the Protestants; see Winer, l. c., and the passages quoted by him and J. H. Jordan, Einige Capitel über die Beichte, Anspach, 1847. Here, too, Zwingle advances still further and objects to Luther, that in respect to absolution he still holds the old doctrine (“That the words of Christ," etc., Werke, ii. 2, p. 22.]-As regards the satisfactio, Protestants from the first not only rejected pilgrimages and similar observances, but also looked on prayers, fastings, and alms, in a very different light. Concerning Fasting, seo Winer, p. 155. The nova obedientia which some Protestants would have substituted for the satisfactio operis, is, properly speaking, the same with fides (the second part of penance): nevertheless it is said in the Apol. Conf., p. 165 : Si quis volet addere tertiam [partem], videlicet dignos fructus poenitentiæ, h. e, mutationem totius vitæ ac morum in melius, non refragabimur.—The Protestant theologians further distinguished between, 1. Pænitentia prima (magna); 2. Continuata (quotidiana); 3. Iterata (lapsorum); 4. Sera (quæ fit ultimus vitæ momentis.) The question whether the last kind was admissible or not, gave rise to a controversy with the Pietists (the so-called lis terministica). Comp. Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, p. 394.-Concerning the Sale of Indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church, and the various modifications of the theory of Indulgences (which had their origin in the opposition made by the reformers) see Winer, p. 169.- Respecting the other sacraments (Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders), see ibid., p. 160 ss.

The difference of opinion among Protestants and Roman Catholics, as to the validity and dissolubility of Matrimony (divortium), prohibited degrees of relationship, the marriage of the clergy, the vow of chastity (in connection with monachism), resulted from differences in fundamental principles. (For the respective passages, see Winer, 1 c.) Comp. Klee, Dogmengeschichte, vol. ii. [For the views of the Anglican Church, see Burnet, on XXX'X Articles, and Pearson on the Creed. Rev. D. Macleod, View of the Anglican Church ou Confession, Lond. 1849. Bp. Hopkins, History of the Confessional, 1850.


Church Review, (New Haven) 1849. R. Laurence, Essay on Confess., Penance, Absolution, reprinted, 1852. I. R. Beard, The Confessional, Lond., 1860. Correspondence on Auricular Confession between Rev. E. B. Pusey, and Rev. R. H. Fortescue, 1854.]

[ocr errors][merged small]

In connection with the doctrine of the mass and its efficacy,' the Roman Catholic Church maintained the existence of a Purgatory to which the souls of all those pious persons depart, who die without having made full satisfaction for their sins, and out of which they may be delivered by means of private masses and indulgences.' The Protestants unanimously rejected this unscriptural doctrine,' and also the Greek theologians, though the latter admitted the notion of an intermediate state of the departed. [The leading divines of the Anglican church held to the doctrine of the intermediate state, while rejecting purgatory.]'

[ocr errors]

non pro

* Conc. Trid. Sess. 22, cap. 2: Non solum pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, penis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis et in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apostolorum traditionem, offertur. Comp. c. 9, can. 3: Si quis dixerit, Missæ sacrificium.... defunctis offerri debere : anathema sit.

• Ibid. Sess. 6, can. 30, but especially Sess. 25, Cat. Rom. i. 6, 3: Est purgatorius ignis, quo piorum animæ ad definitum tempus cruciatæ expiantur, ut eis in æternam patriam ingressus patere possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur. Ac de hujus quidem doctrinæ veritate, quum et scripturarum testimoniis et apostolica traditione confirmatam esse sancta concilia declarant, eo diligentius et sæpius parocho disserendum erit, quod in ea tempora incidimus, quibus homines sanam doctrinam non sustinent. Comp. Bellar. mine, De Amiss. Grat. et Statu Peccati, i. c. 14, p. 116, De Justific. v. 4. p. 1084. Bossuet, Exposit. 8, p. 72, made but slight mention of purgatory, and bestowed praise upon the Council of Trent on account of the great caution (grande retenue), with which it expressed itself concerning this point.

Art. Smalcald. p. 307: Purgatorium et quidquid ei solennitatis, cultus et qnæstus adhæret, mera diaboli larva est. Pugnat enim cum primo articulo, qui docet, Christum solum et non hominum opera animas liberare. Zwingle

ght that after death there is an immediate entrance into the heavenly mansions; Fidei Expositio (Opera, p. 65): Credimus animas fideliuin protinus ut ex corporibus evaserint, subvolare in cælum, numini conjungi æternumque gaudere : comp. p. 50 (De Purgatorio).-Conf. Helv. IL c. 26 : Quod quidam tradunt de igne purgatorio, fidei christianæ, "Credo remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam,” purgationique plenæ per Christum et Christi sententiis adversatur. Conf. Gall. 24: Purgatorium arbitramur figmentum esse ex eadem officina profectum, unde etiam manarunt vita monastica, peregrinationes, interdicta matrimonii et usus ciborum, ceremonialis certorum dierum


observatio, confessio auricularis, indulgentiæ, ceteræque res omnis ejusmodi, quibus opinantur quidam, se gratiam et salutem mereri.

• . .

* Conf. Orth. p. 112 : Πώς πρέπει να γροικούμεν διά το πυρ το καθαρτήριον; ουδεμία γραφή διαλαμβάνει περί αυτού να ευρίσκεται δηλαδή κάν μία πρόσκαιρος κόλασις καθαρτική των ψυχών, ύστερα από τον θάνατον. For further particulars see Winer, pp. 157, 158.

. (See Burnet, Pearson, and Browne on Thirty-Nine Articles. declares: “The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrants of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”—Doctrine of the Church on Purgatory, by Dr. Thos. Deacon (a non-juring bishop, died 1753), 8vo., 1718. Archd. Blackburn, Historical Account of Controversy about Intermediate State, 2d ed., 1772 (Works, vol. 3, 1804). Archbishop Usher, on Prayers for the Dead, reprinted in Tracts for the Times, No. 72.-On Purgatory, in Tracts for the Times, No. 79.]








§ 262.


However much Protestants differed from Roman Catholics in their general system of faith, they were in perfect accordance as to the doctrine of the Triune God, resting on the decisions of the ancient ocumenical councils.' The views of the earlier Unitarians, as well as of the latter Socinians, were directly at variance with the Trinitarian doctrine of three persons and one nature in God ; and it is worthy of observation that they revived the various Antitrinitarian views of former times. Michael Servetus adopted the position of Sabellius, but with this difference, that (after the example of Photinus) he made a distinction between the Son of God who appeared in time, and the eternal Logos (Word).' Others, again, bordered upon Arianism.' Faustus Socinus returned to the (abstract) Unitarianism of the Nazarenes, or the Alogi, who, acknowledging only the Father as God, regarded Christ as a mere man, endowed with extraordinary gifts, and afterwards elevated to heaven, and the Holy Ghost as a divine energy. The Arminians adhered on the whole, to the orthodox doctrine, but with intimations as to the subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father, which brought upon them the reproach of a tendency to Socinianism. [In England the subordination scheme was vindicated by Bishop Bull, on the basis of the consent of the early fathers ; the Arian system was revived by Samuel

« PreviousContinue »