The

special love, and that thy Divine eyes would take a special delight in me. O Lord! thou hast so many hearts which love thee with a heartfelt love, and prevail much with thee; alas! thou tender and dear Lord! how is it then with me? Ruysbroek has treated very fully of the mystical doctrine of salvation (quoted by Engelhardt, p. 190 ss.) In his opinion, man attains unto God by an active, an inward, and a contemplative life. The first has regard rather to the external (exercises of penance.) Only when man loves, his desires take an opposite direction. When our spirits turn entirely to the light, viz., God, all will be made perfect in us, and be restored to its primitive state. We are re-united to the light, and, by the grace of God, are born again, out of light, in a supernatural manner. eternal light itself brings forth four lights in us: 1. The natural light of heaven, which we have in common with the animals; 2. The light of the highest heaven, by which we behold, as it were, with our bodily senses, the glorified body of Christ and the saints; 3. The spiritual light (the natural intelligence of angels and men); 4. The light of the grace of God. Concerning the three unities in man, the three advents of Christ, the four processions, the three meetings, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc., as well as the various degrees of the contemplative life, the degrees of love, see Engelhardt, 1. c. Savonarola described (in his Sermons) the state of grace as an act of sealing on the part of the Lord; Jesus Christ, the crucified one, is the seal with which the sinner is sealed after he has done penance, and received a new heart. The billows of temporal afflictions cannot quench the fire of this love, etc.; nevertheless, grace does not work irresistibly, man may resist, as well as lose it. Respecting Savonarola's views on the doctrine of the uncertainty of a state of grace, see Rudelbach, p. 364, and Meier, p. 272.

6 See the Episcopal letter quoted by Mosheim, p. 256: Item dicunt, quod homo possit sic uniri Deo, quod ipsius sit idem posse ac velle et operari quodcunque, quod est ipsius Dei. Item credunt, se esse Deum per naturam sine distinctione. Item, quod sint in eis omnes perfectiones divinæ, ita quod dicunt, se esse æternos, et in æternitate. Item dicunt, se omnia creasse, et plus creasse, quam Deus. Item, quod nullo, indigent nec Deo nec Deitate. Item, quod sunt impeccabiles, unde quem

cunque actum peccati faciunt sine peccato (compare vol. i. p. 428, note 2.) The opinions of Master Eckart on this question were also pantheistic: Nos transformamur totaliter in Deum et convertimur in eum simili modo, sicut in sacramento convertitur panus in Corpus Christi: sic ego convertor in eum, quod ipse operatur in me suum esse. Unum non simile per viventum Deum verum est, quod nulla ibi est distinctio. cf. Raynald. Annal. ad. a. 1329. He was opposed by Gerson, see Hundeshagen, p. 66.

§ 186.

FAITH AND GOOD WORKS. THE MERITORIOUSNESS OF

THE LATTER.

Though many theologians felt disposed to hold Pelagian sentiments, it was necessary to retain the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. But then the difficulty was to ascertain what we are to understand by faith. John Damascenus was the first who represented faith as consisting in two things, viz., a belief in the truth of the doctrines, and a firm confidence in the promises of God. Hugo of St Victor also looked upon faith, on the one hand, as cognitio, and on the other as affectus.2 And lastly, the distinction made by Peter Lombard between credere Deum, credere Deo, and credere in Deum,3 shows that he too acknowledged the propriety of assigning various meanings to the term "faith.” Only the last kind of faith was regarded by the scholastics as fides justificans, fides formata. The most eminent theologians both perceived and taught that this kind of faith must of itself produce good works.5 vertheless, the theory of the meritoriousness of good works was developed, together with a practical application of its principles. Thomas Aquinas endeavoured

Ne

in vain to counteract the pernicious consequences of this doctrine, by making a distinction between meritum ex condigno and meritum ex congruo, but his labours resulted only in securing the appearance of humility." But the evil grew still worse, when the notion of supererogatory works which may be imputed to those who have none of their own, became one of the most dangerous supports of the sale of indulgences. There were, however, even at that time, some who strenuously opposed such abuses.8

1 De fide orth. iv. 10: 'Η μέντοι πίστις διπλῆ ἐστιν· ἔστι γὰρ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς. (Rom. x. 17.) ἀκούοντες γὰρ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, πιστεύομεν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, αὕτη δὲ τελειοῦται πᾶσι τοῖς νομοθετηθεῖσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἔργῳ πιστεύουσα, εὐσεβοῦσα καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς πράττουσα τοῦ ἀνακαινίσαντος ἡμᾶς.........Ἔστι δὲ πάλιν πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις (Hebr. xi. 1.) πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων, ἡ ἀδίστακτος καὶ ἀδιάκριτος ἐλπὶς τῶν τε ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἡμῖν ἐπηγγελμένων, καὶ τῆς τῶν αἰτήσεων ἡμῶν ἐπιτυχίας· ἡ μὲν οὖν πρώτη τῆς ἡμετέρας γνώμης ἐστὶ, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα τῶν χαρισμάτων τοῦ πνεύματος. 2 On the difference between these two terms, compare Liebner, p. 435.

3 Sent. L. iii. Dist. 23. D.: Aliud est enim credere in Deum, aliud credere Deo, aliud credere Deum. Credere Deo, est credere vera esse quæ loquitur, quod et mali faciunt. Et nos credimus homini, sed non in hominem. Credere Deum, est credere quod ipse sit Deus, quod etiam mali faciunt [this kind of faith was sometimes called the faith of devils, according to Jam. ii. 19.] Credere in Deum est credendo amare, credendo in eum ire, credendo ei adhærere et ejus membris incorporari. Per hanc fidem justificatur impius, ut deinde ipsa fides incipiat per dilectionem operari.-The same may be said of the phrase, credere Christum, etc. Comp. Litt. c.

4 Generally speaking, the scholastics made a difference between subjective and objective faith, fides qua, and fides quæ creditur (Peter Lombard 1. c.) As a subdivision, we find mentioned fides formata, which works by love. Faith without love remains informis, see Lombard 1. c.: Thomas Aquinas Summ.

P. ii. 2. Qu. 4. Art. 3. (quoted by Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, p. 175.)

5 Thus Peter Lombard said, 1. c.: Sola bona opera dicenda sunt, quæ fiunt per dilectionem Dei. Ipsa enim dilectio opus fidei dicitur.-Faith would therefore still be the source of good works, Comp. Lib. ii. Dist. 41. A. where everything which does not proceed from faith (according to Rom. xiv. 23) is represented as sin. The views of Thomas Aquinas were not quite so scriptural, Summ. P. ii. 2. Qu. 4. Art. 7.; he spoke of faith itself as a virtue, though he assigned to it the first and highest place among all virtues. Such notions, however, led more and more to the revival of Pelagian sentiments, till the forerunners of the Reformation returned to the simple truths of the Gospel. This was done e. g. by Wessel (see Ullmann, p. 272, ss.) and Savonarola (see Rudelbach, p. 351, ss.)

6 Alanus ab Insulis also opposed the notion of the meritoriousness of works in decided terms, ii. 18, (quoted by Pez. i. p. 492): Bene mereri proprie dicitur, qui sponte alicui benefacit, quod facere non tenetur. Sed nihil Deo facimus, quod non teneamur facere......Ergo meritum nostrum apud Deum non est proprie meritum, sed solutio debiti. Sed non est merces nisi meriti vel debiti præcedentis. Sed non meremur proprie, ergo quod dabitur a Deo, non erit proprie merces, sed gratia. Some theologians regarded faith itself as meritorious (inasmuch as they considered it to be a work, a virtue-obedience to the Church.) Thomas Aq. P. ii. 2. Qu. 2. Art. 9. On the distinction made between different kinds of merita, see P. ii. 1. Qu. 114. Art. 4, quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 145. Men have only a meritum ex congruo, but not ex condigno. Christ alone possessed the latter.

7 The doctrine of "opera supererogativa" had its origin in the distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between concilium and præceptum, see Summ. P. ii. Qu. 108. Art. 4, quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 177. Respecting the stock of good works supposed to be kept by the Church, and the abuses of the sale of indulgences (which were only a gross species of the bulls of indulgence) etc., see the works on Ecclesiastical History. See Gieseler ii. 2. p. 452, ss., where further proofs are given.

E

8 Thus the Franciscan monk, Berthold, in the thirteenth century, zealously opposed the penny-preachers who seduced the souls of men; see Kling, pp. 149, 150, 235, 289, 384, 395. Grimm, p. 210: Wackernagel, deutsches Lesebuch i. Sp. 664. On the struggles of Wycliffe, Huss, and others, see the works on Ecclesiastical History. Concerning the treatise of Huss: de indulgentiis, compare Schröckh xxxiv. p. 599, ss. Moreover the actual exercises of penance on the part of the Flagellantes, and those who tormented themselves, formed a practical opposition to the laxity of principle. See Gieseler, 1. c. p. 469.