though they admitted the notion of an intermediate state of the departed.*

1 Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 2: Non solum pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, poenis, 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......non pro defunctis offerri debere, anathema sit.

2 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. Bellarmin, de amiss. grat. et statu peccati i. c. 14. p. 116. de justific. v. 4. p. 1084. Bossuet, exposit. S. p. 72. made but slight mention of purgatory, and bestowed praise upon the Council of Trent on account of the great caution with which it expressed itself concerning this point.

3 Art. Sm. p. 307: Purgatorium et quidquid ei solennitatis, cultus et quæstus adhæret, mera diaboli larva est. Pugnat enim cum primo articulo, qui docet, Christum solum et non hominum opera animas liberare.-Conf. helv. ii. c. 26: Quod quidam tradunt de igne purgatorio, fidei christiana: 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 centorum dierum observatio, confessio auricularis, indulgentiæ ceteræque res omnis ejusmodi, quibus opinantur quidam, se gratiam et salutem mereri.

4 Conf. orth. p 112: Πῶς πρέπει νὰ γροικοῦμεν διὰ τὸ πῦς τὸ καθαρτήριον; οὐδεμία γραφή διαλαμβάνει περὶ αὐτοῦ· νὰ εὑρίσκεται δηλαδὴ κὰν μία πρόσκαιρος κόλασις καθαρτικὴ τῶν ψυχῶν, ὕστερα ἀπὸ τὸν θάνατον. For further particulars see Winer, p. 157. 58.

310

SECOND CLASS.

DOCTRINES IN WHICH PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS MORE OR LESS AGREED,

(IN OPPOSITION TO THE MINOR SECTS.)

FIRST SECTION.

THEOLOGY PROPER.

§ 261.

THE TRINITARIAN AND ANTITRINITARIAN DOCTRINE

CONCERNING THE DEITY.

However much Protestants differed from Roman Catholics in other points, they were in perfect accordance as to the doctrine of the Triune Jehovah, both resting on the decisions of the ancient oecumenical councils.1 The views of the earlier Unitarians, as well as of the later Socinians, are directly at variance with the Trinitarian doctrine of three persons in one God; it is worthy of observation that they revived former antiTrinitarian errors. Michael Servetus adopted the notions of Sabellius, but with this difference, that (after the example of Photinus) he made a distinction between

the Son of God who has appeared in time, and the eternal Logos (Word).2 Others again bordered upon Arianism.3 Faustus Socinus returned to the (abstract) Unitarianism of the Nazarenes, or the Alogi who, acknowledging the Father only as God, regarded Christ as a mere man who was 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 endeavoured to hold along with it the subordination of both the Son and the Spirit.3

1 Insinuations were, nevertheless, thrown out against the reformers themselves, as if they countenanced antitrinitarian errors. Thus, Calvin was at one time charged with Arianism by Caroli; see Henry, das Leben Joh. Calvins vol. i. p. 181. It is worthy of observation, that the terms Trinity and person were avoided in the confession of Geneva (Henry p. 182.) Melancthon, too, in the first edition of his loci, pronounced the scholastic definitions respecting the nature of the Trinity foreign to Christian theology. And Luther frankly confessed (über die letzten Worte Davids, Wittenberg edit. vol. v. p. 551): “It is not to be wondered at, that when a man reads this mysterious, incomprehensible article, strange thoughts should occur to him, of which one or another is sometimes little appropriate, and gives rise to dangerous expressions. But the foundation of our faith remaining unshaken, such splinters, chips, and straws, will do us no harm. But the basis of our faith is our belief that there are three persons in one God, and every person is the one, perfect God, so that the three persons are neither confounded, nor the divine substance divided, but that the distinction of persons, and unity of nature, go together. This is the great mystery which angels will never cease to contemplate and to admire, and the beholding of which constitutes their blessedness. If they could ever see the end of it, there would also be an end of their blessedness." In accordance with this more practical than specula. tive tendency, Protestants simply appealed to the Nicene and Anathasian Creeds, which, together with the Apostles' Creed,

were prefixed to the Liber Concordiæ. Among the symbolical books of the Reformed Church, it was the first Confession of Basle in which the first article (that concerning the Trinity) was designated symbolum commune "der gemein Gloub." In several confessions of faith, the erroneous notions of more recent theologians were rejected. Thus, in the Conf. Aug. Art. 1:......Nomine Personæ utuntur ea significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut significet non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit. Damnant omnes hæreses...... Samosatenos veteres et neotericos, qui cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de Verbo et de Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur, quod non sint personæ distinctæ, sed quod verbum significet verbum vocale et spiritus motum in rebus creatum. In the Apol. it is said: Primum articulum Confessionis nostræ probant nostri adversarii...... Hunc articulum semper docuimus et defendimus, et sentimus eum habere certa et firma testimonia in Scripturis Sanctis, quæ labefactari non queunt. Comp. Conf. helvet. ii. Art. 3. where, in proof of this doctrine, the following passages are quoted from Scripture, viz.: Luke i. 35; Matt. iii. 16, 17; John i. 32; Matt. xviii. 19; John xiv. 26, xv. 26. Comp. Conf. Gall. 6. Belg. 8. and 9. Angl. 1. and 2. Scot. 1. On the doctrine of the Trinity, as propounded in the Catech. Heidelberg. (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost), see Beckhaus in Illgen 1. c. p. 52.

2 De trinitatis erroribus in 7 books, extracts from which are given by Trechsel p. 67-98. Servetus, instead of commencing his deduction with the Logos, i. e., in a speculative manner, adopted the analytico-historical mode of argumentation. He treats first of the historical Christ, i. e., Christ in human manifestation. This is the Son of God; orthodox theologians incorrectly represent the Word (taken in the sense applied to it by the apostle John) as the Son, and thus deny that the man Christ is the Son of God. He expressed himself in decided terms against the separation of two natures. In his opinion, Christ is man filled with the divine nature, and wholly pervaded

a It is remarkable that the well-known psssage, 1 John v. 7. is nowhere quoted; Luther also omitted it in his translation. In the first Confession of Basle no scriptural proofs were adduced, but in a marginal note it was observed: "this may be proved by all the Scriptures, by many passages both in the Old and the New Testaments."

with the Deity. He only denied that God is man, but not that Christ is God. He regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine energy and breath in creation, and a moral principle in man; in reference to the latter point he is called Holy Spirit. But Servetus endeavoured, in every way, to ridicule the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity; he only admitted the Trinity in the sense of Sabellius: Quia tres sunt admirandæ Dei dispositiones, in quarem qualibet divinitas relucet: ex quo sanissime trinitatem intelligere posses: nam Pater est tota substantia et unus Deus, ex quo gradus isti et personatus descendunt. Et tres sunt, non aliqua rerum in Deo distinctione, sed per Dei oixovouíav variis Deitatis formis; nam eadem divinitas, quæ est in Patre, communicatur filio Jesu Christo et Spiritui nostro, qui est templum Dei viventis; sunt enim filius et sanctificatus spiritus noster consortes substantiæ Patris, membra, pignora et instrumenta, licet varia sit in iis deitatis species; et hoc est, quod distinctæ personæ dicuntur, i. e. multiformes deitatis aspectus, diversæ facies et species. Servetus asserted that the term Logos, in the writings of John, does not denote a person, but, according to its etymology, signifies oraculum, vox, sermo, eloquium Dei. In his argumentation, he returned to the ancient distinction between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and popopixòs (f. 48. quoted by Trechsel p. 79): Verbum in Deo proferente est ipsemet Deus loquens. Post prolationem est ipsa caro; seu Verbum Dei antequam caro illa fieret, intelligebatur ipsum Dei oraculum inter nubis caliginem nondum manifestatum (the hidden God), quia Deus erat ille sermo. Et postquam Verbum homo factum est, per Verbum intelligimus ipsum Christum, qui est verbum Dei et vox Dei, nam quasi vox est ex ore Dei prolatus. Propterea dicitur ipse sermo Patris, quia Patris mentem enunciat et ejus cognitionem facit. In his opinion there was no interval between the (hypostatical) generation of the Son, and the birth of Christ. The prolatio verbi and the generatio carnis are one and the same act. He also rejected what was commonly called opera and intra. Comp. Heberle: Michael Servets Trinitätslehre und Christologie (in the Tübingen theologische Zeitschrift 1840. 2.)

3 This was the case, e. g., with William Campanus, who, refusing to admit the Arian phrase, ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, nevertheless strongly asserted the subordination of the Son to the Father,