......debet comitata esse amore Dei et firma confidentia in unum Deum.

8 Schyn, plen. deduct. p. 232 (quoted by Winer p. 107): Non credimus bona opera nos salvare, sed agnoscimus bona opera pro debita obedientia et fructibus fidei. Socinus also asserted, that good works, though necessary, are not meritorious (non sunt meritoria) de justif. p. 603.

§ 251.

FLUCTUATIONS WITHIN THE DENOMINATIONS

THEMSELVES.

Differences of opinion, however, obtained among Protestant theologians themselves. Thus, Andrew Osiander represented justification and sanctification as forming only one act,1 and as regards the relation in which good works stand to faith, the views of Nicholas Amsdorf were diametrically opposed to those of George Major. The latter asserted that good works contributed towards salvation, while the former maintained, that they are productive rather of evil than of good.2 Both the Lutheran and Calvinistic mystics attached (like the Quakers) great importance to sanctification, and were strongly opposed to that kind of theology which represented justification as an external, legal transaction.3

1 In the two disputations which he held, A. D. 1549 and 1550, in his treatise: de unico mediatore 1551, and in various sermons. He maintained, that what was called justification by orthodox theologians, should be more properly designated redemption. In his opinion, the signification of day is to "make just;" it is only by metonymy that it can mean "to pronounce a person just." Comp. Planck iv. p. 249 ss. Tholuck's Anzeiger 1833. No. 54, 55. He was opposed by Francis Staphylus, Mörlin, and others.

Compare his treatise: dass die Propositio, gute Werke sind

schädlich zur Seligkeit, eine rechte sei, reprinted in S. Baumgarten Geschichte der Religionsparteien, p. 1172-78. Amsdorf speaks, in the first instance, of those works by which men hope to deserve salvation; but even those works which are the fruit of faith are imperfect, on account of sin, and would condemn us before the judgment-seat of Christ, if God did not condescend to accept them for the sake of faith in Christ. In his opinion there was no medium between that which is necessary to salvation, and that which does harm. "Though the dialectical proof of this inference or consequence should come short of being complete, which, however, it does not, it can satisfactorily be established on theological grounds." But it is especially "on account of monks and hypocrites that it is necessary to adhere to this proposition, though it may give offence to reason and to philosophy." Amsdorf admits that they may be the "manifestations and evidences of faith," "for as long as there exists faith, there exist also good works, and when we commit sin, we do not lose salvation, because we have previously lost it by unbelief." Comp. Planck iv. p. 469 ss.

3 At an early period Schwenkfeld maintained that the tendency of Luther's doctrine was to seduce common people into errors and carnal liberty. He admitted that the doctrine (concerning faith and good works) was true in a certain sense, and to a certain extent, but he thought that it might easily be perverted so as to lead to belief in the mere letter of Scripture, and to moral indifference. Comp. Planck v. 1. p. 83 ss. J. Böhm (von der Menschwerdung Christi, vol. ii. c. 7. § 15. quoted by Umbreit, p. 51) said: "The hypocritical Babylon now teaches: Our works deserve nothing, Christ has redeemed us from death and hell, we must believe it, in order to be saved. Dost thou not know, Babylon, that the servant who, knowing his master's will, does not fulfil it, will be beaten with many stripes? Knowledge without correspondent actions is like a fire which glimmers, but cannot burn, because the fuel is moist. If thou wilt have thy fire of faith burn, thou must blow upon it, and free it from the moisture of the devil and of hell; thou must enter into the life of Christ, and perform his commandments," etc.Though Arnd adhered more firmly than Böhm to the fundamental principles of Lutheranism, he always urged the neces

sity of love which is founded upon faith (see the passages quoted from his "wahres Christenthum," in Hagenbach's Vorlesungen, vol. iii. p. 377-79.) Poiret called faith which manifests itself especially as an uncharitable spirit of opposition, military faith. (Ibid. iv. p. 327.)

§ 252.

THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION.

The fundamental principles laid down in the symbolical books, were more fully developed by theologians, especially by those of the Protestant Church, so as to form a definite economy of redemption. After God has called the sinner (vocatio), and man obeyed that call (auditio), the Divine Spirit begins his work (operationes Spiritus.) These operations follow each other in definite succession, viz., 1. Illuminatio; 2. Conversio (pœnitentia); 3. Sanctificatio (renovatio); 4. Perseverantia; 5. Unio mystica cum Deo. Theologians, however, did not quite agree as to the precise order of these operations.1 On the contrary, the mystics, and the socalled priests, discarded all those scholastic definitions, and had a system and terminology of their own on this subject.2

Compare the works of the orthodox Protestant theologians; de Wette, Dogmatik, p. 151 ss. Hase, Hutterus redivivus, p. 287 ss., where passages are quoted from the writings of earlier divines.

2 The theory of the economy of salvation was established on account of, and in opposition to the pietists. See de Wette, p. 151. For their views concerning the so-called Theologia irregenitorum, and the economy of salvation, see Planck, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 223 ss. The pietists asserted that the regeneration of man commences with a change

taking place in his volitions; their opponents maintained that the illumination of the understanding was the first step.-Nor was it easy precisely to define the idea of the economy of salvation, and inasmuch as no reference was made to it in the symbolical books, theologians entertained different views. On the controversy between the theologians of Leipsic and Wittenberg on the one hand, and those of Tubingen and Helmstädt on the other (which had its origin in the assertion of Justus Fuerborn, that an approximatio of the Divine substance to the human takes place), comp. Walch, Religionsstreitigkeiten der evangelisch. luther. Kirche iii. p. 130 ss.

276

THIRD SECTION.

THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER MEANS OF GRACE, CONCERNING SAINTS, IMAGES, THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, AND PURGATORY.

§ 253.

INTRODUCTION.

The differences respecting the formal, as well as the material principle,2 which constitute Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and Protestantism on the other, are intimately connected with the views concerning the Church and her means of grace, concerning the forms of worship, especially the mass and the sacrifice of the mass, and concerning the connection subsisting between the latter and the state of the dead (purgatory); or, more properly speaking, those views are the necessary consequences of the principles referred to. But Protestants and Roman Catholics were agreed in preserving the historico-positive element of Christianity, though they differed as to extent and manner, and in retaining external and legal forms. On the other hand, the sects, rejecting more or less arbitrarily the historical development, and the social nature of Christianity, exposed themselves to all the evils of separatism, either by means of barren reflection, or of fantastical mysticism.3