Gnesio

Michelangelo Buonarroti, Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor and architect, was born on this day in 1475 in Caprese, Italy (d. February 18 1564). While he is known most famously, of course, for his works of art, here are a couple of his poems.

TO THE SUPREME BEING

The prayers I make will then be sweet indeed,
If Thou the spirit give by which I pray:
My unassisted heart is barren clay,
Which of its native self can nothing feed:
Of good and pious works Thou art the seed,
Which quickens only where Thou say’st it may;
Unless Thou show to us Thine own true way,
No man can find it: Father! Thou must lead.
Do Thou, then, breathe those thoughts into my mind
By which such virtue may in me be bred
That in Thy holy footsteps I may tread;
The fetters of my tongue do Thou unbind,
That I may have the power to sing of Thee,
And sound Thy praises everlastingly.

Translated by William Wordsworth

ON THE BRINK OF DEATH

How hath my life across a stormy sea
Like a frail bark reached that wide port where all
Are bidden, ere the final reckoning fall
Of good and evil for eternity.
Now know I well how that fond phantasy
Which made my soul the worshiper and thrall
Of earthly art, is vain; how criminal
Is that which all men seek unwillingly.
Those amorous thoughts which were so lightly dressed,
What are they when the double death is nigh?
The one I know for sure, the other dread.
Painting nor sculpture now can lull to rest
My soul that turns to His great love on high,
Whose arms to clasp us on the cross were spread.

Translated by John Addington Symonds

And a few classics.

Note: interactive images

The Creation of Adam

Moses

David

The Holy Family

Christ the Redeemer

Pieta

The Conversion of Saint Paul

For a virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel go to the Vatican Museum

Pietism and Mission: Lutheran Millennialismin the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

by Lawrence Rast Jr.

Introduction

A noted historian of Christianity in the United States assessed the influence of pietism in the following sweeping terms: “There is no area of American life which is free from our pietistic concern; none in which the pietistic attitude is not a significant factor.”1 Pietism is part of the atmosphere Americans breathe. Believing that style does, in fact, inform substance, it is not too much to say that pietistic practice has significantly formed the theology and practice of American Christianity.2 As a distinctly American church, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has also been formed in fundamental ways by pietism. While students at Leipzig University, the Walther brothers, Theodore Buenger, and Theodore Brohm, gathered together in what amounted to a pietistic conventicle to build one another up in the Christian faith. Unfortunately, they tried to do so on the basis of the law and only drove themselves to despair.

The less a book invited to faith and the more legalistically it insisted upon contrite brokenness of heart and upon foregoing complete mortification of the old man, the better a book we held it to be. Even such writings we usually read only so far as they described the griefs and exercises of repentance; when a description of faith and comfort for the penitent followed we usually closed the book, for, so we thought, this is as yet nothing for us.3

It was Martin Stephan’s preaching of the gospel that finally pulled these desperate young men out of their pietistic self-absorption and moved them toward a biblical understanding of justification by grace through faith. There are no few comments by Walther throughout the years of his ministry, and by his students into the twentieth century that warn of the evils of pietism. Such admonitions, however, have been cast to the wind in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In places pietism is held up as the model of Lutheranism. Not coincidentally, this move toward pietism has in large part taken place at the same time our church has anglicized. Where before there was a healthy concern over the errors of pietism, now we are directed toward pietism as a means of bridging the gap between Lutheranism and the American Evangelicalism. Pietism is a natural “touchpoint” between Evangelicalism and the LCMS because the LCMS has been “characterized” by “intense pietism” and “strict Lutheran orthodoxy.”4 Luecke claims that the twentieth century is characterized by a rigid orthodoxy expressed in a narrow liturgical practice that, in fact, does violence to the broader character of LCMS doctrine and practice. He hopes to “restore the balance,” for pietism’s “experiential contact has repeatedly shown its worthiness as a wellspring for new church life. It is a style that has a rightful place in Lutheran theology and history,”5 Luecke conveniently fails to note Walther’s stinging criticism of pietism mentioned above, which implicitly argues that pietism compromised the article of justification. Advocates of pietism in our midst have yet to come to grips adequately with the theological maladies of pietism.

Historical Backgrourd and Chief Characteristics

While the term “pietism” has its roots in the seventeenth century, it was in the middle nineteenth century that historians became seriously interested in the historical development of pietism as a movement. In 1863, H. F. F. Schmid of Erlangen produced a history of the movement where he restricted the use of the term to the Lutheran communion.6 He identified Johann Arndt as the proto-pietist or the grandfather of pietism, and the movement’s official beginning was dated to the publication of Philip Spener’s Pia Desideria in 1675.7 Other interpreters noted the emergence among certain Lutherans of themes characteristic of the Roman Catholic mystical tradition and the Theologia Deutsch.8 Finally, certain historians noted that a similar movement was materializing simultaneously with Arndt in the Reformed tradition and that Spener appeared to have been significantly influenced by this particular trajectory of the Reformed tradition. It remained for historians in the twentieth century to make the connections explicit. Among English speaking historians, the bulk of the work proceeded from the pen of F. Ernest Stoeffler and, later, C. John Weborg and Ted Campbell, thereby shifting the historiographical tradition.9 Stoeffler and others have helped us to understand the multifaceted character of pietism by distinguishing a five-fold division in the movement: 1) Spener-Halle; 2) Moravian (Zinzendorf); 3) Wurttemberg; 4) Reformed; and 5) radical pietism. What they have also helped to demonstrate, although they would be unlikely to accept my strong assessment, is exposing pietism for what it is – an intrusion of Reformed and Mystical theology and practice into the Lutheran communion.

The Character of Pietism

Stoeffler identifies four characteristics of pietism: 1) the radical religious renewal of the individual expressed in the praxis pietatis; 2) the biblical understanding of the living God as an ever-present and never-failing reality in the midst of man’s problems; 3) the human support for the renewed life experienced in the context of the Christian koinonia; and 4) a sense of deliberate distinctiveness as over against not only the “world,” but also the general membership of the churches of the day, whose attitudes and conduct were regarded as being often motivated by the spirit of the “world.”10 While a good start, Stoeffler’s definition is incomplete. It requires the addition of at least fifth and sixth points. Pietism was also distinguished by a vigorous sense of mission. The story of the modem missionary movement has its roots in the narrative of pietism. Spener, August Herman Francke at Halle, Nicholas Ludwig von Zirizendorf, and Heinrich Melchior Muhlenberg all shared a central commitment to the spread of the gospel to those apart from Christ.11 Secondly, some of the most vigorous millennial scholarship has its roots in pietism’s “hope for better times” for the church.12

Valentin Earnest Loscher, in his complete Timotheus Verinus, captured the nature of the threat of millennialism as mediated through pietism.

Wherever zeal for piety has been misused and pushed without Christian discretion, millennialism has always broken out. By millennialism is meant not only the imagination of some blissful events which the church will still experience, but also the imagination of a very great essential change; they think that the kingdom of the cross. . . and the church militant in this life will cease. . . . [Millennialists teach] that baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the kingdom of the cross will cease before the day of judgement.13

This paper will build on Loscher’s critique and argue that his assessment of pietism was correct namely, that by compromising the theology of the cross, millennialism of a pietistic stripe compromises the distinctive Lutheran doctrine of justification by grace through faith. It will do so by first briefly examining the development of millennialism within pietistic Lutheranism. It will then look at two concrete examples of Lutheran millennialism, Johann Georg Schmucker and Joseph Seiss. It will then conclude with some observations on millennialism’s ongoing attack against the church.

Pietism and Millennialism

While Spener had expressed a “hope for better times” in the church, other Lutheran interpreters took the issue much farther. In 1692 Johann Wilhelm Peterson “astonished his fellow Lutherans with an apocalyptic alarm,”14 arguing that “the dawn of the gospel of the Kingdom is breaking through with its shining splendor.”15 Johann Anastasius Feylinghausen and Joachim Lange both published significant enough works to draw the attention of Loscher. However, the greatest Lutheran proponent of millennialism in the eighteenth century was Johann Albrecht Bengel.

Johann Albrecht Bengel was born June 24, 1687 at Winnenden in Wurttemberg, the son of a Lutheran pastor.16 He died on November 2, 1752. Bengel was enormously influential and is best known for two integrally related and mutually reinforced elements in his thought and practice; his work on the text and exegesis of the New Testament and his eschatology. Bengel was one of the first to organize manuscripts into “families,” such as the African and the Byzantine. He also articulated a well-known textual critical principle: Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, “the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the more simple.” His most famous exegetical work was his Gnomon (pointer), which was published in 1742. It was his intent to show from “the original meaning of the words (ex nativa vergorum vi) the simplicity, profundity, harmony and salubrity of divine revelation.”17

Another of Bengel’s principles was: “Import nothing into Scripture, but draw everything out of it and overlook nothing.”18 One of the ways that he sought to “overlook nothing” was to turn his attention very carefully to the topic of eschatology. Bengel’s writings on eschatological themes included his interpretations of the Apocalypse, Erklarte Offenbarung (1790), Ordo Temporum (1741), Cyclus (1745), and Weltalter (1746). In these volumes, as well as in the Gnomon, Bengal gave himself over to flights of millennial speculation, culminating in his prediction in the Ordo that the Christ would return m 1836 or 1837.19 While worthy of more serious study, we make only a passing note of Bengel in order to show that there was, by the middle of the eighteenth century, a pronounced stream of millennial expectation and exegesis in pietistic circles. The popularity of his work, especially the Gnomon, provided an exegetical program for Lutheran pietism that would bear especially rich fruit in the United States. It is to two lesser-known Lutheran exegetes that we now turn, in order to discern the deep-rooted nature of pietism’s influence on American Lutheranism in the nineteenth century.

A Dive Into Futurity: The Eschatology of J. George Schmucker

Johann Georg Schmucker was born August 18, 1771, in Michaelstadt, Germany, the son of Johann C. Schmucker. In 1785 the family emigrated to the United States, finally locating permanently in the area of Woodstock, Virginia. Interested in the work of the ministry early on, he began his ministerial studies in 1789 under the noted theologian and missionary, the Reverend Paul Henkel of New Market, Virginia. In 1790 he moved to Philadelphia and studied classics at the University of Pennsylvania and theology under J. H. C. Helmuth and J. Friedrich Schmidt. In 1792 he joined the Lutheran Pennsylvania Ministerium and served congregations in Hagerstown, Maryland and York (town), Pennsylvania. He was elected to the presidency of the Ministerium several times, and served the Ministerium in a number of other capacities. He took a significant leadership role (along with his son, Samuel) in the founding of the General Synod (1820) and the seminary at Gettysburg (1826). He edited Lutherische Magazin, authored a number of articles, and published several books. Among his books, the most significant is his commentary on the Revelation of Saint John, which was published in German and eventually found its way into an English translation.20 He died on October 7, 1854.21

Schmucker’s conviction of the near coming of Jesus provided the impetus for his eschatological work. With the tumultuous events of the French Revolution and Napoleon, along with his belief that the Order of the Illuminati were now running world affairs, providing the immediate context, Schmucker observed that “So corrupted is the present state of the world; so panting the vitiated heart of man for liberty, to follow its depraved inclinations without resfraint or remorse.” “The christian world has arrived at a very portentous period, full of great and alarming events. . . the end of the present form of civil and ecclesiastical economy is near.”22 Schmucker’s pietism becomes quite evident when he articulates the goal of this study. The purpose is to teach what human beings need to do in order to be found obedient at the day of the Lord’s return. It is every Christian’s duty to read and study the prophetic portions of the Scriptures, but beyond that they must put the duties outlined there into practice.

We are there also provided with particular instructions, annexed to each prophecy, by which believers may know their duty in every state of trial and discipline to which they may be exposed. . . . It is therefore incumbent on the people of God, with the faithful Boereans, to search the Scriptures, that they may know the signs of the times, and observe the particular instructions given for each period. . . The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children forever that we may do them.

While recognizing that he is in a long line of interpreters of the Revelation of Saint John, Schmucker notes that older explanations were necessarily in error due to the fact that “the signs of the times had not yet appeared.”23 Thus what sets Schmucker’s work apart is the fact that it appears at the due time; that moment in prophetic history when the historic prophecies have been fulfilled and their interpretation has become clear. To put it another way, Schmucker has found the long-missing key to the interpretation of Revelation. That key will unlock that most elusive of human dreams “knowing the time when the end will come.” However, Schmucker anticipates the criticism of certain interpreters who would adduce the words of Jesus, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man” (Mark 13:32). He argues that the words of the Lord in this respect do not refer to the second advent of Christ, but instead to the end of the world. These two events will be separated by the glorious millennium, and therefore, it is possible, with the appropriate prophetic hermeneutic, to determine the timing of Christ’s return, though not the end. The unique contribution, then, of Schmucker’s work is his prophetic chronology, which will reveal the very year during which the Lord’s second advent will occur.

In this endeavor Schmucker is in no way alone In fact, his perspective is in large part driven by the work of Bengel. Bengel’s widely accepted chronology provided Schmucker with the authority to produce his own. In Schmucker’s mind, Bengel has rightly pointed to chapter thirteen as the chronological key to the book. Where other exegetes of the Apocalypse have taken “a day in the Revelation to signify a year,” Schmucker follows Bengel in distinguishing between “prophetic time” and “natural” or “common time.”24 Yet, Bengel’s chronology is also flawed. Rather, argues Schmucker, one must rightly distinguish the times. Verse five in chapter thirteen (the forty-two weeks) speaks of prophetic time, while verse eighteen (the 666) refers to natural or common time. In other words, “if forty-two months give six hundred and sixty-six lunar years” then we can calculate exactly the length of a prophetic hour, day, week, month, and year (666 years of natural time equal forty-two months of prophetic time). Thus we end up with the following chronological key:

Prophetic Time | Common Time

½ an hour chap. viii. 1 = about 4 days.
1 hour chap. xiv. 15. = 8 days.
1 day …. = 196 days.
1260 days chap. xii. 6. = 677 years, 97 days.
1 month chap. ix. 15 = 13 years, 318 days.
5 months…. = 79 years. 19 wks. 1 day.
1 year…. = 196 years 117 days.
1 h. 1 day, 1 m. 1 year = 212 years 275 days.

Thus, if one then proceeds from the appropriate starting date, one can come to the correct conclusion regarding the time of Christ’s return. Again, Schmucker criticizes his predecessors, noting that they have proceeded from an erroneous date, namely AD. 96, the time of John’s writing of the Revelation. In fact, argues Schmucker, the proper date is AD. 72, the year of the destruction of Jerusalem. At this point we already anticipate an error in Schmucker’s calculations, given that he has the date of the destruction wrong. But he offers a disclaimer of sorts, arguing that, given the fact that our calendars are of some little inconsistency among themselves, and, therefore, his calculations could be from six to ten years off. That, however, does not stop Schmucker from adducing a date for the return of Christ: 1850.

Given Schmucker’s unusual interpretive key to the Revelation and his bold prediction of a date for the return of Christ, we must now turn to the character of that return. Schmucker turns first to the “hallelujah” of the great choir in Revelation 19. Here, again, his pietism’ comes to the forefront. This choir, he argues, is composed of a special rank of believer, those who have “advanced to a higher degree of felicity and knowledge, by obtaining a more enlarged view of the government, measures, purposes and kingdom of the Messiah.” Participation in this choir is not predicated, however, on a faithful affirmation of a particular confession. In other words, what one believes is not the basis for this advanced place in the divine choir. Rather, “this choir consists of a select number of Christians, from all denominations in all parts of the world. . . who are far advanced in holiness.” Thus, those deemed worthy of the preeminent worship of the Lamb are those who have progressed the furthest in their walk of faith. Their works receive due reward from the Lord, for “they receive a special call from heaven, and an extraordinary out pouring of the spirit of Christ, by which they are animated and encouraged, to proclaim the commencement of his Millennial reign.” They are the models of what the true Christian is, and they embody the biblical order of salvation; for they have heard the summons of Christ and have responded by giving themselves to the Lord who demands their obedience by their “free agency.” “Christ espouses every individual member of his Church, when they first forsake the world, sin and Satan, and turn unto him by a thorough change of heart, upon which they receive many tokens of his loving kindness.”25 Here we see pietism in its most crass form. Justification is conditioned on the repentance and obedience of the individual who is confronted with the law of God. Sanctification, too, is a matter of human willing and distinguishes the advanced Christian from the nominal Christian. That is, while many profess to be Christians, only those who have progressed satisfactorily in the walk of obedience will receive the superadded gift of the Spirit and the right to sing in the millennial choir. He concludes:

The bride of the Lamb then, is not the whole visible Church of Christ, nor any particular sect, party or religious community in the world, nor even all who possess vital godliness and experimental religion . . . It is a great number of a certain christian character, selected from all churches, who are particularly qualified for the Lord’s secret and special purposes. This chosen number of saints are the bride, who is said to have prepared herself for her husband … In a spiritual sense this figure may indicate the faithful and loving endeavours of the bride of the Lamb, to revive and exercise all her christian graces, in confident expectation of the Lord’s second Advent, that she may be acceptable in his sight.26

Note well what Schmucker argues here. Human beings are acceptable to God not by the imputed righteousness of Christ applied to the sinner through word and sacraments. He explicitly rejects this notion. “Some have explained this as referring to the robe of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us by faith .. . But this cannot be the true sense here.” Rather, argues Schmucker, humans are “qualified” on account of “a certain Christian character”; “that all who are here numbered with the bride of the Lamb, are truly experienced Christians, advanced in holiness.” These Christians are like the five wise virgins of Matthew 25 who are the Lamb’s “spiritual kindred” and “Friends.” What makes them advanced in holiness? Pietism’s program predominates: for the true Christian participates in “Bible societies, Missions among the Heathen, Tract–associations, . . . Sunday schools, and revivals of religion,” and they include “Itinerant preachers.” No small component is their attentiveness to the word of prophecy. What has happened to Christ and his atoning work? In other settings Schmucker will talk about Christ’s atoning death, but the benefits are always conditioned on the voluntary action of the willful subject in choosing to make the benefits of Christ his own. Schmucker implicity rejects Lutheran christology and sacramentology; that is to say, he has compromised the article of justification.27

At Christ’s visible return the world will be revitalized (changed), though it will not be without sin. Schmucker’s millennium is a 1,000 years of progress. It is a time when the mass of humanity will have the opportunity to advance in the holiness program of the pietists.

All obstacles to the promulgation of the gospel among the Heathen will cease in great measure, and the grace of God connected with his word and ordinances, will have a free course, and develop [sic] its whole power and celestial beauty among the children of men. All saints will he more perfect and virtue shall shine forth in her genuine lustre, and meet with deserving recommendation. Plans and enterprises, for the happiness of man and the glory of the Lord, will meet with more general support and suitable sacrifices from the citizens of Christ’s kingdom and never want for divine tokens of approbation and success.28

While a theocracy will be established, Christ will invest the most qualified of His people with. the superintendency and general responsibility for running the affairs of the millennial kingdom.

At the end of Schmucker’s millennium comes the judgment. Here his pietism takes a dreadful and anti-Christian turn. For Schmucker, as we have already seen, has already compromised the article of justification. Those who will be judged approvingly by Christ and the saints are “those who accepted the Gospel invitation to repentance and faith in the atonement and redemption of Jesus Christ, and abode in Him.” Thus one’s eternal destiny is predicated on the voluntary act of faith, which is expressed in a life of obedience. In a perverse twist, though, Schmucker even undercuts his missionary program. For in discussing those human beings who have never had the opportunity to accept or reject the Christ through no fault of their own, Schmucker notes: “There can be no doubt that charitable, well disposed and virtuous Pagans, who no opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ, or to enjoy the benefits of the christian dispensation, will find mercy and further instruction in the world to come, but their happiness will be far below that of true Christians.” Also included among those that are not of advanced holiness, yet qualify for the kingdom are children, the blind, deaf and dumb, Israelites and Jews, and, finally, Christians who have “long sinned against grace,” that is, have not been sufficiently obedient. The millennium will supply the forum in which these may “acquire the necessary qualifications for the future theatre of action. These will there be placed in a state of moral improvement and discipline, in order to secure their constancy and mature their capacities for happiness. 29

Christianity for Schmucker is a religion of obediance to the will of God. God’s word legalistically provides the demands and conditions humans must fulfill, would they join the millennial choir that welcomes the returning Christ. Beyond the borders of the Christian faith, however, anyone who has, to the best of his ability, lived a life in accord with the will of God as revealed in the book of nature, qualifies for salvation. This is pietism taken to its extreme, and would very likely be rejected by the likes of Spener. Nevertheless, Schmucker purposefully claimed the pietist label as his own, and saw its practice as the true practice of Lutheranism.

As the Light Increases, the Shadows Deepen: Joseph A Seiss

In 1892, Joseph Seiss reflected on the history of Lutheranism in the United States during the last half of the nineteenth century and summarized his role in that history as follows:

The last fifty years have seen many changes and revolutions. It has been an era of important alterations and modifications also in the condition and spirit of our Church in this country, especially in the line of the conservation of its historic faith and cultus. But desirable and salutary as those changes have been, they were not achieved without various severe and trying conflicts and contentions which have not yet ceased. There had crept in a creedless Rationalism; then a fanatical Pietism; then a pressure for a supraconfessional and harsh Exclusivism. All these, so alien to true evartgelical religion had to encountered and resisted. Nor was it possible to displace them without wars of words and many battles. In some of these it was my lot to be thrown, so as to be compelled to take my stand on the issues in question, to defend my position, and to become the object of attack and criticism from those whose isms, prejudices and errors I could not accept.30

Indeed, as one considers particularly the controversies of English-speaking Lutherans from 1840 to the turn of the century, one will find Dr. Seiss in the midst of most of them.31 The story of his life reads like a history of late nineteenth-century Lutheranism. As an author, there are few American Lutherans who published more than he did in the nineteenth century – perhaps none.32 Controversy and creativity come together in Seiss’s writings on the millennium, astronomy, and pyramidology. Dr. Seiss was a one of the early adherents in America of the dispensational premillennialist system. These works include The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Voices from Babylon, Lectures on the Apocalypse, The Last Times, The Day of the Lord, History and Prospects of the Jews, The Lord at Hand, Millennial Concordance, The Gospel in the Stars, or Primeval Astronomy, and The Great Pyramid: A Miracle in Stone.33 In the Prophetic Times, which Seiss edited for more than a decade, he helped popularize an emerging eschatology – dispensational premillennialism.34 According to Seiss, however, this understanding of the end times was in no way innovative. Rather, he claimed that the orthodox church of the earliest periods held to the doctrines that the Prophetic Times confessed: the appearance of a personal Antichrist, the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, the material nature of the new heavens and new earth, and the translation of the saints.35 Further, he argued for its legitimate place in historic Lutheranism, specifically in the persons of Luther, Spener, Bengel, and, notably, J. G. Schmucker. While he rejected Schmucker’s date for the return of Christ, Seiss approved Schmucker’s overall perspective regarding the millennium. “His chronological reckonings are in many points untenable and defective, but his conceptions of the nature of the kingdom of God, and of the grand outlines of the purposes of God concerning it, exhibit an understanding of the Scriptures and penetration into the Divine revelations, from which much real instruction is to be derived.”36

One of Seiss’ primary objectives was to overcome what he called the “modern theory of the millennium,” or what historians technically refer to as “postmillennialism.” Postmillennialists believed that through the efforts of the church and society, the millennium would soon dawn, a 1000 years of relative peace would result and that Jesus would come to gather His followers to Himself at the end of the period, which was interpreted both literally and figuratively. Seiss countered that the view that human society was ever improving and that, slowly and surely, through the influence of the gospel and human institutions, the millennium was preparing to dawn, was an antiscriptural and unorthodox position. Often he cited the words of Jesus, “When the Son of Man comes will he find faith?” as proof of this position, but just as often he tested this doctrine on the basis of the thought of the early church and confessions of the Reformation. “There is not a respectable or acknowledged Creed in Christendom, ancient or modern, known to us, which either directly, or by implication, teaches the doctrine of the universal conversion of the world, or the intervention of a thousand years of general righteousness, liberty, and peace, prior to the resurrection of the dead.” Thus, Seiss concludes, “the Confessions of the Reformation not only do not contain it, but pointedly condemn it.”37 Seiss often cited Augsburg Confession XVII, “We condemn those who spread abroad Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall get the sovereignty in the world, and the wicked be brought under in every place.38

It might seem somewhat disingenuous for Seiss to condemn the postmillennialists for their doctrine when it appears his position might also be condemned by AC XVII. The explanation lies in his interpretation of that article. Seiss chooses to stress the Augustana’s emphasis on the word “before” the resurrection. Seiss claims that the Augsburg Confession condemns only that eschatological scheme that places the millennium before the return of Christ. But might not one argue that in the premillennial scheme the same weakness is present? After all, premillennialists believe that Jesus shall return to the earth and establish his millennial kingdom before the final resurrection and judgment.

So it might seem to the casual reader. But Seiss resolves the issue by introducing two of the distinctive tenets of dispensational premillennialism: the two (or more) stage second advent and the deathless rapture.

For Seiss, the second advent of Christ will take place in stages or parts. Just as the first advent of Christ stretched over a number of years, so also the second advent will be a series of events. “His first coming, including His birth and His resurrection, is foretold as one event. Even so His second coming, foretold in like manner as one event is to consist of two or more great parts, acts, or stages.” This twofold coming consists, argues Seiss, of Christ’s coming for His church (the rapture) and Christ coming with His church.39 The rapture is a kind of resurrection, and, therefore, the premillennial system does not compromise the Angsburg Confession.

In Rev 4th and 5th, we also find a vision of certain saints in heaven, singing before the throne, and already crowned as the victorious subjects of final redemption and yet the chapters chronologically subsequent to these describe earthly scene-wars, plagues, pestilences, wickednesses of men and nations, and administrations of judgment on the earth, extending through a period, on no system of interpretation, less than seven years in duration. And as we thus have men already redeemed and crowned in heaven (which crowning can only be in the glorified and post-resurrection state), and kings, nations, peoples, and orders of men, living, sinning, warring, and dying on the earth at the same time, it must needs be that at least some of the saints are taken, while yet the mass of mortals are for a time still left. And as there is no resurrection of dead saints without a corresponding rapture of living saints, it is impossible for these sacred pictures to be realized without just such a separation and experience as that described.40

Promises such as Romans 8:11 (“If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you” – Seiss. emphasis) applies to the general resurrection of the dead, but even more specifically to the rapture.41 In short, in the dispensational premillennial system there is a resurrection of the dead and a translation of the saints to heaven prior to Christ’s establishment of His kingdom on earth. In other words it is only after the resurrection of the dead that “the godly shall get the sovereignty in the world, and the wicked be brought under in every place.” Therefore, at least in Seiss’s mind, the dispensational premillennial system harmonized with both Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

Critics charged that the premillennial system was pessimistic in outlook and led to a despairing passivism. Seiss, sensitive to this charge, responded by striving invariably to let the good news of the gospel message triumph over the more negative aspects of the doctrine. Further, he was aggressively involved in missionary work both in the General Synod and later in the General Council. “I support and advocate from the pulpit and platform, according to the ability given me, the cause of Bible, missionary, and tract societies, believing them to be the Lord’s instruments in preaching or making known the Gospel.”42 As long as the Lord continued to spare the world from the tribulations to come, he stated, then all God’s people should sing “Hosanna in the highest!” The offer of salvation remained open to all people, and the Savior maintained communication with His people through the word and ordinances. Most importantly, though, readers should daily expect the coming of the Savior, for in this expectation all believers will find comfort. “Is our religion after all so frail a thing, that faith must dread to take the very blessedness for which it prays and hopes! Nay, reader, sing Hosanna! Blessed is He that cometh! Hosanna in the highest!”43

It was his conviction of the near coming of the Lord and the manner in which that would energize people for mission and ministry that led to the publication of Seiss’s commentary on the parable of the ten virgins.44 One of the issues facing advocates of the new millennialism was the question of just who would be included in the rapture. For Seiss, the rapture is limited to specially committed and obedient saints. The interpretive key to the parable for Seiss is the oil – what it is and where to get it. For it is the oil that garners one the designation of being wise, or foolish.

Notably, the ten virgins, argues Seiss, are all members of the church. They have faithfully confessed the Christ . However, not all are well prepared for the Lord’s return. “There will be people saved who are not a part of Christ’s bride, albeit they belong to his household.”45 There is a distinction to be made within the church between those who are well prepared for the Lord’s return (the Bride) and those who are not (the household). In this picture of Christ’s acknowledged people every one has the lamp of public profession, and that in the regular way of established custom and order.

All were true virgins; all had lamps; all went forth animated by the same faith and hope; all slumbered alike; all had their lamps lit and burning for a time; all were alike awakened by the cry, which they all alike understood; all fell to trimming their, by that time, dim and dull lamps; and the foolishness of the five consisted simply and only in not having sufficiently reckoned and provided for the full necessities of the case; attempting to remedy which, at that late moment, disabled them for a place at the marriage, and in that inner and privileged circle of the redeemed known as the Bride the Lamb’s wife. 46

What thus distinguishes the Bride is that they attain a higher level of Christian obedience:

A deeper and higher consecration than that which pertains to the ordinary Christian profession. The difference, therefore, between the wise and the foolish is, that the wise laid in above and beyond what the case seemed to require, and that to the utmost possible measure, whilst the others contented themselves with what appeared to be the ordinary necessities of the case.

Therefore, concludes Seiss, one of the main points of the parable is that “it sets forth the fact that not all true Christians are equally eminent in their attainments and sanctification.”47

It does not leave a man, because he is sincere and earnest in his profession, securely to persuade himself that eternity’s sublimest honors are for him. It was meant to teach us that we must give ourselves to the work of a sanctification, and pray and seek for a fulness of unction from the Holy One, which transcends far the ordinary average with which people are willing to remain content, we would ever reach our Saviour’s bosom, and share in his royal prerogatives.48

Seiss calls this higher Christianity “the church of the first born,” which is open only to the saints, for it requires more, even than chaste virginity of character and sincerity of faith and profession.” It requires the addition of what Seiss calls “a wise discreetness, which never rest whilst there are positions of greater excellence and profounder consecration to he attained.” Thus, the oil that fills the virgins’ lamps is “the high resolve and deep-seated consecration which bring about such a surrender to God’s will and service.” Thus, where the wise virgins had a more than ample supply of oil, the foolish virgins “lacked in this fullness” of Christian commitment, an “all-sacrificing depth of devotion.”49

Christ’s desire is that all of His people be wise unto salvation, and so He uses a myriad of means to rouse his people that they may not find themselves lacking at His reappearing. These announcements will drive the dedicated Christian into a posture of self-examination that results in a striving to prepare for a worthy reception of their Lord. Seiss uses Matthew 24:28’s and Luke 17:34-37’s references to the carcass and the eagles as a means to generate such devotion. The carcass and body have the same referent.

We take both referring to Christ, who was dead, and is alive again forever. It was he who became a victim for us, having borne our sins in his own body on the cross. Our wants as sinners are satisfied in his death. He is really the body on which the saints feed. He gave himseIf to death for the salvation of his people, and has invited men to eat his flesh and drink his blood, declaring that unless they do this they have no life in them . . . There is therefore a deep and blessed relationship between the once crucified Saviour and his people, which well corresponds to that of the eagle and the slain body on which it lives, and to which it ever seeks.50

Yet, for Seiss, Christ’s gathering of His people refers not only to His atonement and the Lord’s Supper, it is spcifically eschatological in character. The eagles being drawn to the body has its ultimate fulfillment in the rapture of the church.

What we take as being referred to in this gathering of the eagles to the body is, therefore, the same as what is more literally described in the 4th of 1st Thessalonians – It is to be a sudden flight . . . While all are busy with the ordinary cares, pursuits and occupations of life, some in the field, some in bed, some at their common toil, and everything runrung on its accustomed course, suddenly, and quite unknown to the gay and godless world, here one and there another, shall be secretly and mysteriously stolen away, “caught up,”. . . Invisibly, noiselessly, miraculously, they shall vanish from the company and fellowship of those about them, and mount up as eagles to that Lord by whom they live.51

Preaching is thus necessarily evangelistic and missionary in character, and its purpose is to point people to the atoning work of Christ and the necessity of the life of obedience. “To trim our Iamps as Christians is to make a thorough examination of our condition; to look into what is wanting with a view to have everything in perfect order;. . . by fresh acts of appropriation, to fill our souls with the fulness [sic] of grace and the unction of the Holy Spirit.” Here, then, is the tension in Seiss’s idea of salvation. Seiss, on numerous occasions, stated that one is saved by grace alone through faith. But, he went on to say, faith is advanced through deeds of obedience to God’s will. Thus, both the wise and the foolish virgins are Christians because both have been saved solely by the application of the benefits of Christ’s vicarious atonement – both classes of Christians are saved by grace. They are, however, of different classes – there is a difference in “degree, not kind or quality.” The foolish virgins had “oil,” but “just not quite enough to be in a state of readiness” when the Bridegroom came. Thus, concludes Seiss, “The Royalties and Priesthoods of the world to come are not to be reached by the common orders of saintship. They are not reserved for such as never rise in their piety beyond the ordinary run of Christian attainment.” Rather, in order to qualify for the heavenly kingdom, “there must he a fullness of self-sacrifice for Christ, a completeness of obedience, a thoroughness of sanctification, an ampleness in all the graces of the indwelling Sprit, and a meekness and fidelity under the cross, resembling that of Christ himself, or there will be no crowns, no thrones, no kingdoms . . . We must be like Christ, and purify ourselves as he is pure, or we never can be with him and see him as he is.” Seiss summarizes it in a rather pithy fashion: “To be saved is one thing; to be rewarded another. The one is through the grace of God only; the other is according to works and attainments only.”52 To put it Seiss’s idea in its most crass form: those who do not achieve sainthood (foolish virgins) will indeed have mansions in Christ’s kingdom – they simply will not be in the same neighborhood as Jesus and the saints (wise virgins).

And where is this “other side of the tracks” for the lesser Christians? It is the earth itself. Christ will take His saints to His “new home where [the bride] is to dwell with him.” That new home is the heavenly Jerusalem, where they enjoy the direct presence of God. This is, of course, nothing other than the rapture of the church, where Christ comes to take His true followers home to Himseif in heaven. The foolish virgins, however, are “left behind.” They remain in that place “where they were before the Bridegroom came,” and, notably, “where their generations continue forever.” In other words, though left behind, mere confessing Christians would enjoy eternity in the very earth that had been their home during the normal course of their lives. Prior to that time of enjoyment, however, Christ would prepare this world for them by judging evil and throwing down the Antichrist, Man of Sin, the False Prophet, and “all them that have oppressed and afflicted earth.” He will then establish a christocracy under which “the whole earth is then to be speedily converted to its rightful Lord” and there will be nothing “to hinder a universal revival of righteousness,” which will lead to the restoration of the Jews. There will be a great tribulation, but it applies to unbelievers – who must ultimately pass away. That ultimately leads to a world, under Christ, for “earth must be brought into equation with heaven.” So even while many perish in unbelief and are judged, “the world and the race shall be restored.” “From the moment that the sign of the Son of man is seen in the heavens, the empire of death is doomed; From that moment it shall decay, and wither, and dissolve, until every trace of it is at length expunged from the earth, and the beauty and glory of Eden put in its place. When this is achieved, then, and only then, redemption will be complete.”53

In summary then Seiss hopes to invigorate his hearers to mission and ministry so that they may be prepared for the heavenly kingdom, not just the earthly one, when Christ returns. He sees a people who are vigorously watching and anticipating their Lord’s near coming. To “watch” means to have a living faith that Jesus is soon to arrive; to be in constant expectation of this arrival, to make efficient preparation for it. In short, watching is work – the work of faith, and it consists of obedience to the Will of God. “It lies in the very essence of saving faith to obey law, to make sacrifices, to submit to self-denial, and to work with the same fear and trembling and persevering earnestness as if [salvation] depended on us alone to achieve. . . . And he who counts that he is fulfilling the injunction of the text without laborious work, does but deceive himself, and is marching to a destiny of disappointment, mortification, and unavailing regrets.” 54

Conclusion

The opening of this paper noted David Luecke’ s argument that pietism is a legitimate model of Lutheran belief and practice, particularly if we are to recapture a sense of balance in the LCMS and to reinvigorate our sense of mission. What I hope this paper has demonstrated is that pietism – at least in its expressions within American Lutheranism – cuts at the very heart of the biblical witness and the Lutheran confession. Seiss would even prove Loscher right by stating that in the millennial kingdom here on this earth there would no longer be any need for the administration of baptism, for Christ in Matthew 28 said we would baptize only “unto the end of the age.” What it shows is that for pietism there is a different ecclesiology at work, and this ecclesiology has decided christological ramifications. Schmucker and Seiss both refer to the atoning work of Christ on behalf of mankind. They both affirm that it is through grace alone that one becomes a member of Christ’s church. However, that church is an aggregate of individuals who have dedicated themselves to a life of willful obedience. Put another way, the true church is defined and initiated by the works of its members – faithful response to Christ’s call – and maintained by their voluntary and intentional fulfillment of the law’s demands. The mark of the church, therefore, is the collective obedience of its consecrated members, not the word and sacraments.

Obviously, such an understanding departs radically from the Augshurg Confession’s clear testimony. Indeed, there is a perichoresis of pietism in American Christianity and thus also in the LCMS – the wonderful opportunity we have in such a context is to proclaim clearly that “men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works but are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith” and that “in order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted.”

Notes

1. William G. McLoughlin, “Pietism and the American Character,” American Quarterly 17 (Summer 1965): 178. McLoughlin also says (164): “It was this dynamic, sectarian form of pietistic perfectionism which lies at the basis of American civilization.”

2. F. Ernest Stoeffler, editor, Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1976); Randall H. Balmer, “Eschewing the ‘Routine of Religion’: Eighteenth-Century Pietism and the Revival Tradition in America,” in Modern Christian Revivals, 1-16, edited by Edith L. Blumhofer and Randall H. Balmer (University of Illinois Press, 1993).

3.C. F. W. Walter cited in D. H. Steffens, Doctor Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1917), 42.

4.Luecke unfortunately bases this claim on the familiar thesis of Abdel Ross Wentz, long-time historian at Gettysburg Seminary and biographer of S. S. Schmucker. The thesis is simply that pietistic Lutheranism is the historical form of Lutheranism in the United States. Confessionalism of the type associated with the Missouri Synod is the late-corner to the scene as is therefore something of an aberration. Schmucker was unduly condemned by Midwestern Lutherans in the mid nineteenth century. Wentz’s thesis is stated clearly in his The Lutheran Church and American History (Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House, 1923), and emerges as well in his A Basic History of Lutheranism in America (Philadelphia Muhlenberg Press, 1955). Abdel Ross Wentz’ son, Frederick, recently repeated this thesis in his “Birthright Americans: The Shape of the Muhlenberg-SchmuckerTradition,” Seminary Ridge Review 1 (Summer 1999): 12-27. One may see Sydney Ahlstrom for a thoughtful, yet gentle, critique of the Wentz thesis. “The Lutheran Church and American Culture: A Tercentenary Retrospect,”‘ Lutheran Quarterly 9 (1957): 321-342. For a brief resume of Schmucker’s theology and its contemporary influence, one may see Lawrence R. Rast Jr., “The Triumph of ‘Schmuckerism,’” Concordia Theological Quarterly 62 (April 1998): 148-151.

5.David S. Luecke, Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance: Facing America’s Mission Challenge (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1988), 86-92.

6. F. Ernest Stoeffler, “Pietism: Its Message, Early Manifestation, and Significance,” Covenant Quarterly 34 (1976): 4. One may also see Albrecht Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus in der lutherischen Kirche des 17. Und 18. Jahrhunderts (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1880-1886). There is vigorous ongoing historiographical dispute regarding the orgin of pietism. Stoeffler, the foremost English-speaking historian of the movement largely finds pietism’s roots in the Reformed tradition. For a different perspective, one may see Kurt Aland, ‘Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus,” in Pietismus und Neuzeit, Band 4-1977/1978, 155-189 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).

7.Johann Arndt, True Christianity, translation and introduction by Peter Erb (New York, Ramsey, and Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979); Johann Arndt, True Christianity: A Treatise on Sincere Repentance, True Faith, the Holy Walk of the True Christian, Etc., translation and introduction by Charles F. Schaeffer (Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House, 1868); Robert A. Kelly, “True Repentance and Sorrow: Johann Arndt’s Doctrine of Justification,” Consensus 16 (1990): 47-69.

8. Christian Braw, Bücher im Staube-Die Theologie Johann Arndts in Ihrem erhaltnis zur Mystik, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought volume 39, edited by Heiko Oberman (Leiden: E. J. BrilI, 1985); The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther, translation, introduction, and commentary by Bengt Hoffman (New York, Ramsey, and Toronto: Paulist Press, 1980).

9.John Weborg, “Pietism: The Fire of God Which. . . Flames in the Heart of Germany,” in Protestant Spiritual Traditions, 183-216, edited by Frank C. Senn (New York and Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986); Ted A. Campbell, The Religion of the Heart: A Study of European Religious Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991).

10. Stoeffler, “Pietism: Its Message,” 10. One may also see F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1965); and F. Ernest Stoefflër, German Pietism in the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1973).

11. One may see, for example, Arthur James Lewis, Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer: A Study in the Moravian Contribution to Christian Mission and Unity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962); Leonard Riforgiato, Missionary of Moderation: Henry Melchior, Muhlenberg and the Lutheran Church in English America (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 1980).

12. K. James Stein, “Philip Jakob Spener’s Hope for Better Times in the Church -Contribution in Controversy,” Covenant Quarterly 37 (August 1979): 3-20.

13. Valentin Ernst Loscher, The Complete Timotheus Verinus, part one (1718) translated byJames L. Langebartels; part two (1721) translated by Robert J. Koester (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999), part 1,144,147. One may also see Hans- Martin Rotermund, Orthodoxie und Pietismus: Valentin Ernst Loschers “Timotheus Verinus” in der Auseinandersetzung mit der Schule August Herman Franckes (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959).

14. Stoeffler, German Pietism, 103.

15. Loscher, Timotheus Verinus, part II:73.

16. A fine, though brief, treatment of Bengel is Jaroslav Pelikan, “In Memoriam: Joh. Albrecht Bengel June 24, 1687 to November 2, 1752,” Concordia Theological Monthly 24: (November 1952): 785-796. Much of the biographical detail in this section is drawn from this article.

17. Adolph Spaeth, “Bengel, Johann Albrecht,” in Lutheran Cyclopedia, edited by Henry E.Jacobs and John A. W. Haas (New York:.Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 47.

18. Konrad Gottschick, “Bengel, Johann Albrecht,” in The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, edited by Julius Bodensieck, three volumes (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), 1:205.

19. Pelikan, 790.

20.John George Schmucker, Die Prophetische geschichte von den siegen Christi und Seiner Kirche (Baltimore: J. F. Zetzener, 1843). The full title in English translation reads The Prophetic History of the Christian Religion Explained, or, A Brief Exposition of the Revelation of St. John : According to a New Discovery of Prophetical Time: By Which the Whole Chain of Prophecies is Arrange and Their Certain Completion Proved from History Down to the Present Period: With Summary Views of Those not Yet Accomplished (Baltimore: Schaeffer and Maund, 1817-1821).

21.James L. Haney, “John George Schmucker and the Roots of His Spirituality,” in Lutheranism and Pietism, Essays and Reports 1990, Lutheran Historical Conference, volume 14 (Saint Louis: Lutheran Historical Conference, 1992): 40-66; Beale M. Schmucker, “Schmucker, John Geo., D. D.,” in Lutheran Cyclopedia, 432.

22. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 5,3.

23. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 7.

24. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 19, 22.

25. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 517, 519, 529, 521.

26. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 523 (Emphasis added).

27. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 524, 530.

28. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 531.

29. Schmucker, Prophetic History, 565, 401-403

30. Joseph A. Seiss, Notes of My Life, transcribed by Henry E. Horn and William M. Horn (Huntingdon, Pennsylvania: Church Management Service, 1982), 274.

31.The one arena in which he was not a major player was the Predestination Controversy. However, that is not particularly surprising or odd, because it did not primarily concern the Eastern Lutherans (both New and Moderate) nearly as much as those in the West (the Old Lutherans).

32.Jens Christian Roseland, American Lutheran Biographies; or, Historical notices of Over Three Hundred and Fiftly Leading Men of the American Lutheran Church, from its Establishment to the Year 1890 (Milwaukee: Press of A. Houtkamp & Sons, 1890), 706.

33.Joseph A. Seiss, The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Philadelphia: Smith, English and Company, 1862); Joseph A. Seiss, Voices from Babylon; or, The Records of Daniel the Prophet (Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, 1879); Joseph Augustus Seiss, The Apocalypse. A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Company; 1865); Joseph A. Seiss, The Last Times: An Earnest Discussion of Momentous Themes, 1st edition (Baltimore: T. N. Kurtz, 1856); Joseph A. Seiss, The Day of the Lord: A Lecture on 2 Peter 3:3-4 (1861); Joseph A. Seiss, History and Prospects of the Jews: A Lecture Delivered in the First Lutheran Church of Cumberland, MD., on the Evening of Feb.,10th, 1851 (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: Printed by H. C. Neinstedt, 1851); Joseph A. Seiss, The Lord at Hand:An Advent Sermon. (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication House, 1863); Millennial Concordance: Mostly from Dr. Seiss’s Last Times (Philadelphia: To Be Had By Addressing the “Prophetic Times”, n.d.); Joseph A. Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars (Philadelphia: E. Claxton and Company, 1882); Joseph A. Seiss, A Miracle in Stone – The Great Pyramid (Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, 1877).

34. Lawrence R. Rast Jr., “Prophetic Times,” in Popular Religious Magazines of the United States, edited by Mark Fackler and Charles H. Lippy (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995).

35. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 90 and following.

36. J. G. Schmucker, “The Millennium,” Prophetic Times 2 (February 1864): 24-26.

37.Joseph A. Seiss, “The Modem Millennium: Is It Orthodox?” Prophetic Times 4 (August 1866), 123-127. One may also see Joseph A. Seiss, Millennialism and the Second Advent (Louisville, Kentucky: PentecostaI Publishing Company, n.d.).

38. Seiss, “The Modern Millennium,” 123-124. Spener, and later, Bengel, both claimed to be confessional Lutherans, that they accepted the Augustana as the grundbekenntnis of the Lutheran Church. Thus, what one to make of AC 17? Spener and Bengel replied that AC 17 did not necessarily condemn all understanding of the millennium. Rather, what it rejected was a false belief regarding the nature of the millennium. John Weborg notes (C. John Weborg, “Pietism: Theology in Service of Living Toward God,” in The Variety of American Evangelicalism, edited by Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnson [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1991], 169): “For pietists there was another way to argue the case. If the doctrine of justification by grace through faith is used as a model, then the very monergism that brings about justification can bring about the kingdom. God will do it, and in the case of Spener, in a post-millennial form. Concrete fruit of the gospel, present and active in the lives of persons and churches, was intrinsic to God’s prophetic program. Since God had promised better times for the church, any activity in that regard was not a human effort trying to usurp what was rightfully God’s work. It was the obedience of faith, and it was faith active in love, first as love of God and his Word and then as love of neighbor. The millennium would be a period of maximum fruitfulness.”

39. Joseph A. Seiss. The Difficulty Solved: Two Stages of the Advent,” Prophetic Times 2 (October 1864): 157.

40. Joseph A. Seiss, “The Deathless Rapture; A Sneer Answered,” Prophetic Times 4 (September 1866): 141. Emphasis added

41. Seiss. “Deathless Rapture,” 140.

42.Joseph A. Seiss, “The Advent Doctrine,” Prophetic Times 5 (August 1867): 119.

43. Joseph A. Seiss, “The New Year,” Prophetic Times 10 (January 1872), 16.

44. Joseph A Seiss, The Parable of the Ten Virgins in Six Discourses, and a Sermon on the Judgement of the Saints (Philadelphia: Smith, English, and Company, 1862)

45.Joseph A. Seiss, “The Wise Virgins-Who Are They?” Prophetic Times 3 (August 1865): 157.

46. Seiss. “Wise Virgins,” 159 – 160.

47. Seiss, Parable, 24.

48. Seiss, “Wise Virgins,” 160.

49. Seiss, Parable, 24, 25.

50. Joseph A. Seiss, “The Carcass and the Eagles,” Prophetic Times 4 (February 1865): 27.

51. Seiss, “The Carcass and the Eagles,” 27, 28.

52. Seiss, Parable, 53, 67,68-69, 120. One may also see Joseph A. Seiss, “The Present Dispensation,” Prophetic Times 4 (July 1865): 105: “Those thus privileged are laid under the deepest obligations.”

53.Seiss, Parable, 101, 90, 91, 95, 112, 96, 97. One may also see Joseph A. Seiss, “The Earth Restored to the Brotherhood of the Heavens,” Prophetic Times 4 (August 1866): 114: “God will not annihilate the earth, but will purify it.”

54. Seiss, Parable, 143-144.

Lawrence It Rast Jr. is assistant professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and associate editor of the Concordia Theological Quarterly.

Via Issues Etc.

Julian of Eclanum’s Letter To Rome
Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings

Synopsis: This letter was a defense against the doctrines of the established church and a statement of faith of the Pelagian Christians. It was sent to Rome, as a defense of sorts as well as a warning against what they understood to be Augustine’ s infusion of Manichaean thought into Christian theology. It is preserved only in fragments of Augustine’s critique of it. These fragments can be divided into three parts: 1.) The doctrines of the non-Pelagian Church (at least how they understood them to be), 2.) The doctrines of the Pelagians, and 3.) A conclusion.

I. The Doctrines of Augustine, As The Pelagians Understood Them:

“Those Manicheans (Julian refers to the non-Pelagians, whose chief theologian has become Augustine, as Manicheans, a clear intimidation that he has sensed a carry over of Manichean thought from Augustine into the Christian Church. Augustine was a Manichaean himself for about nine years) say with whom now we do not communicate,—that is, the whole of them with whom we differ,—that by the sin of the first man, that is, of Adam, free will perished: and that no one has now the power of living well, but that all are constrained into sin by the necessity of their flesh.”

“They say also that those marriages which are now celebrated were not appointed by God, and this is to be read in Augustine’s book, against which I replied in four books. And the words of this Augustine our enemies have taken up by way of hostility to the truth.”

“They say also that sexual impulse and the intercourse of married people were devised by the devil, and that therefore those who are born innocent are guilty, and that it is the work of the devil, not of God, that they are born of this diabolical intercourse. And this, without any ambiguity, is Manichaeism.”

“They say that the saints in the Old Testament were not without sins,—that is that they were not free from crimes even by amendment, but they were seized by death in their guilt.”

“They say that even the Apostle Paul, even all the apostles, were always polluted by immoderate lust.”

“[Augustine says] that Christ even was not free from sins, but that, from the necessity of the flesh, He spoke falsely, and was stained
with other faults,”

“They also say that baptism does not give complete remission of sins, nor take away crimes, but that it shaves them off, so that the roots of all sins are retained in the evil flesh.”

II. A Doctrinal Statement of The Pelagians:

“In opposition to these things we daily argue, and we are unwilling to yield our consent to transgressors, because we say that free will is in all by nature, and could not perish by the sin of Adam; which assertion is confirmed by the authority of all Scriptures.”

“We say that that marriage which is now celebrated throughout the earth was ordained by God, and that married people are not guilty, but that fornicators and adulterers are to be condemned.”

“We say that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.”

“We maintain that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the
suggestions of the devil.”

“We say that the saints of the Old Testament, their righteousness being perfected here, passed to eternal life,—that is, that by the love of virtue they departed from all sins; because those whom we read of as having committed any sin, we nevertheless know to have amended themselves.”

“We confess that the grace of Christ is necessary to all, both to grown-up people and to infants; and we anathematize those who say that a child born of two baptized people ought not to be baptized.”

“We condemn those who affirm that baptism does not do away all sins, because we know that full cleansing is conferred by these mysteries.”

III. Conclusion:

“Let no one therefore seduce you, nor let the wicked deny that they think these things. But if they speak the truth, either let a hearing be given, or let those very bishops who now disagree with me condemn what I have above said that they hold with the Manicheans, as we condemn those things which they declare concerning us, and a full agreement shall be made; but if they will not, know ye that they are Manicheans, and abstain from their company.”

(Preserved in Augustine of Hippo’s Against Two Letters Of The Pelagians, Bk. 2)

We just recently posted one of the songs (Ain’t No Grave) from the new Johnny Cash album, but since today marks his birth in the year 1932, here are a few more from the Man in Black.

Pastor and poet John Donne (1572–1631) preached his final sermon on this day (Feb. 15) in 1631. It was delivered before the King at the beginning of Lent, 1630. Donne, at that time, was Dr. in Divinity, and Dean of Saint Paul’s, London. This sermon was preached not many days before his death; and the matter is of death–the occasion and subject of all funeral sermons.

Death’s Duel
Or A Consolation to the Soul Against the Dying Life and Living Death of the Body

Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belong deliverances from death. (Psalm 68:20)

Buildings stand by the benefit of their foundations that sustain and support them, and of their buttresses that comprehend and embrace them, and of their contignations that knit and unite them. The foundations suffer them not to sink, the buttresses suffer them not to swerve, and the contignation and knitting suffers them not to cleave.

The body of our building is in the former part of this verse. It is this: He that is our God is the God of salvation; ad salutes, of salvations in the plural, so it is in the original; the God that gives us spiritual and temporal salvation too. But of this building, the foundation, the buttresses, the contignations, are in this part of the verse which constitutes our text, and in the three divers acceptations of the words amongst our expositors: Unto God the Lord belong the issues from death, for, first, the foundation of this building (that our God is the God of all salvation) is laid in this, that unto this God the Lord belong the issues of death; that is, it is in his power to give us an issue and deliverance, even then when we are brought to the jaws and teeth of death, and to the lips of that whirlpool, the grave.

And so in this acceptation, this exitus mortis, this issue of death is liberatio á morte, a deliverance from death, and this is the most obvious and most ordinary acceptation of these words, and that upon which our translation lays hold, the issues from death.

And then, secondly, the buttresses that comprehend and settle this building, that he that is our God is the God of all salvation, are thus raised; unto God the Lord belong the issues of death, that is, the disposition and manner of our death; what kind of issue and transmigration we shall have out of this world, whether prepared or sudden, whether violent or natural, whether in our perfect senses or shaken and disordered by sickness, there is no condemnation to be argued out of that, no judgment to be made upon that, for, howsoever they die, precious in his sight is the death of his saints, and with him are the issues of death; the ways of our departing out of this life are in his hands.

And so in this sense of the words, this exitus mortis, the issues of death, is liberatio in morte, a deliverance in death; not that God will deliver us from dying, but that he will have a care of us in the hour of death, of what kind soever our passage be.

And in this sense and acceptation of the words, the natural frame and contexture doth well and pregnantly administer unto us.

And then, lastly, the contignation and knitting of this building, that he that is our God is the God of all salvations, consists in this, Unto this God the Lord belong the issues of death; that is, that this God the Lord having united and knit both natures in one, and being God, having also come into this world in our flesh, he could have no other means to save us, he could have no other issue out of this world, nor return to his former glory, but by death.

And so in this sense, this exitus mortis, this issue of death, is liberatio per mortem, a deliverance by death, by the death of this God, our Lord Christ Jesus.

And this is Saint Augustine’s acceptation of the words, and those many and great persons that have adhered to him. In all these three lines, then, we shall look upon these words, first, as the God of power, the Almighty Father rescues his servants from the jaws of death; and then as the God of mercy, the glorious Son rescued us by taking upon himself this issue of death; and then, between these two, as the God of comfort, the Holy Ghost rescues us from all discomfort by his blessed impressions beforehand, that what manner of death soever be ordained for us, yet this exitus mortis shall be introitus in vitam, our issue in death shall be an entrance into everlasting life.

And these three considerations: our deliverance à morte, in morte, per mortem, from death, in death, and by death, will abundantly do all the offices of the foundations, of the buttresses, of the contignation, of this our building; that he that is our God is the God of all salvation, because unto this God the Lord belong the issues of death.

First, then, we consider this exitus mortis to be liberatio à morte, that with God the Lord are the issues of death; and therefore in all our death, and deadly calamities of this life, we may justly hope of a good issue from him. In all our periods and transitions in this life, are so many passages from death to death; our very birth and entrance into this life is exitus à morte, an issue from death, for in our mother’s womb we are dead, so as that we do not know we live, not so much as we do in our sleep, neither is there any grave so close or so putrid a prison, as the womb would be unto us if we stayed in it beyond our time, or died there before our time. In the grave the worms do not kill us; we breed, and feed, and then kill those worms which we ourselves produced. In the womb the dead child kills the mother that conceived it, and is a murderer, nay, a parricide, even after it is dead.

And if we be not dead so in the womb, so as that being dead we kill her that gave us our first life, our life of vegetation, yet we are dead so as David’s idols are dead. In the womb we have eyes and see not, ears and hear not.[347] There in the womb we are fitted for works of darkness, all the while deprived of light; and there in the womb we are taught cruelty, by being fed with blood, and may be damned, though we be never born. Of our very making in the womb, David says, I am wonderfully and fearfully made, and such knowledge is too excellent for me,[348] for even that is the Lord’s doing, and it is wonderful in our eyes;[349] ipse fecit nos, it is he that made us, and not we ourselves,[350] nor our parents neither. Thy hands have made and fashioned me round about, saith Job, and (as the original word is) thou hast taken pains about me, and yet (says he) thou dost destroy me.

Though I be the masterpiece of the greatest master (man is so), yet if thou do no more for me, if thou leave me where thou madest me, destruction will follow. The womb, which should be the house of life, becomes death itself if God leave us there. That which God threatens so often, the shutting of a womb, is not so heavy nor so discomfortable a curse in the first as in the latter shutting, nor in the shutting of barrenness as in the shutting of weakness, when children are come to the birth, and no strength to bring forth.[351]

It is the exaltation of misery to fall from a near hope of happiness. And in that vehement imprecation, the prophet expresses the highest of God’s anger, Give them, O Lord, what wilt thou give them? give them a miscarrying womb. Therefore as soon as we are men (that is, inanimated, quickened in the womb), though we cannot ourselves, our parents have to say in our behalf, Wretched man that he is, who shall deliver him from this body of death?[352] if there be no deliverer. It must be he that said to Jeremiah, Before I formed thee I knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee.

We are not sure that there was no kind of ship nor boat to fish in, nor to pass by, till God prescribed Noah that absolute form of the ark.[353] That word which the Holy Ghost, by Moses, useth for the ark, is common to all kind of boats, thebah; and is the same word that Moses useth for the boat that he was exposed in, that his mother laid him in an ark of bulrushes. But we are sure that Eve had no midwife when she was delivered of Cain, therefore she might well say, Possedi virum à Domino, I have gotten a man from the Lord,[354] wholly, entirely from the Lord; it is the Lord that enabled me to conceive, the Lord that infused a quickening soul into that conception, the Lord that brought into the world that which himself had quickened; without all this might Eve say, my body had been but the house of death, and Domini Domini sunt exitus mortis, To God the Lord belong the issues of death.

But then this exitus à morte is but introitus in mortem; this issue, this deliverance, from that death, the death of the womb, is an entrance, a delivering over to another death, the manifold deaths of this world; we have a winding-sheet in our mother’s womb which grows with us from our conception, and we come into the world wound up in that winding-sheet, for we come to seek a grave.

And as prisoners discharged of actions may lie for fees, so when the womb hath discharged us, yet we are bound to it by cords of hestae, by such a string as that we cannot go thence, nor stay there; we celebrate our own funerals with cries even at our birth; as though our threescore and ten years’ life were spent in our mother’s labour, and our circle made up in the first point thereof; we beg our baptism with another sacrament, with tears; and we come into a world that lasts many ages, but we last not. In domo Patris, says our Saviour, speaking of heaven, multae mansiones, divers and durable; so that if a man cannot possess a martyr’s house (he hath shed no blood for Christ), yet he may have a confessor’s, he hath been ready to glorify God in the shedding of his blood.

And if a woman cannot possess a virgin’s house (she hath embraced the holy state of marriage), yet she may have a matron’s house, she hath brought forth and brought up children in the fear of God. In domo Patris, in my Father’s house, in heaven, there are many mansions;[355] but here, upon earth, the Son of man hath not where to lay his head,[356] saith he himself. Nonne terram dedit filiis hominum?

How then hath God given this earth to the sons of men? He hath given them earth for their materials to be made of earth, and he hath given them earth for their grave and sepulchre, to return and resolve to earth, but not for their possession. Here we have no continuing city,[357] nay, no cottage that continues, nay, no persons, no bodies, that continue. Whatsoever moved Saint Jerome to call the journeys of the Israelites in the wilderness,[358] mansions; the word (the word is nasang) signifies but a journey, but a peregrination. Even the Israel of God hath no mansions, but journeys, pilgrimages in this life. By what measure did Jacob measure his life to Pharaoh? The days of the years of my pilgrimage.[359]

And though the apostle would not say morimur, that whilst we are in the body we are dead, yet he says, perigrinamur, whilst we are in the body we are but in a pilgrimage, and we are absent from the Lord:[360] he might have said dead, for this whole world is but an universal churchyard, but our common grave, and the life and motion that the greatest persons have in it is but as the shaking of buried bodies in their grave, by an earthquake. That which we call life is but hebdomada mortium, a week of death, seven days, seven periods of our life spent in dying, a dying seven times over; and there is an end. Our birth dies in infancy, and our infancy dies in youth, and youth and the rest die in age, and age also dies and determines all.

Nor do all these, youth out of infancy, or age out of youth, arise so, as the phoenix out of the ashes of another phoenix formerly dead, but as a wasp or a serpent out of a carrion, or as a snake out of dung. Our youth is worse than our infancy, and our age worse than our youth.

Our youth is hungry and thirsty after those sins which our infancy knew not; and our age is sorry and angry, that it cannot pursue those sins which our youth did; and besides, all the way, so many deaths, that is, so many deadly calamities accompany every condition and every period of this life, as that death itself would be an ease to them that suffer them. Upon this sense doth Job wish that God had not given him an issue from the first death, from the womb, Wherefore thou hast brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye seen me! I should have been as though I had not been.[361]

And not only the impatient Israelites in their murmuring (would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt),[362] but Elijah himself, when he fled from Jezebel, and went for his life, as that text says, under the juniper tree, requested that he might die, and said, It is enough now, O Lord, take away my life.[363] So Jonah justifies his impatience, nay, his anger, towards God himself: Now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me, for it is better to die than to live.[364]

And when God asked him, Dost thou well to be angry for this? he replies, I do well to be angry, even unto death. How much worse a death than death is this life, which so good men would so often change for death! But if my case be as Saint Paul’s case, quotidiè morior, that I die daily, that something heavier than death fall upon me every day; if my case be David’s case, tota die mortificamur; all the day long we are killed, that not only every day, but every hour of the day, something heavier than death fall upon me; though that be true of me, Conceptus in peccatis, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (there I died one death); though that be true of me, Natus filius irae, I was born not only the child of sin, but the child of wrath, of the wrath of God for sin, which is a heavier death: yet Domini Domini sunt exitus mortis, with God the Lord are the issues of death; and after a Job, and a Joseph, and a Jeremiah, and a Daniel, I cannot doubt of a deliverance.

And if no other deliverance conduce more to his glory and my good, yet he hath the keys of death,[365] and he can let me out at that door, that is, deliver me from the manifold deaths of this world, the omni die, and the tota die, the every day’s death and every hour’s death, by that one death, the final dissolution of body and soul, the end of all.

But then is that the end of all? Is that dissolution of body and soul the last death that the body shall suffer (for of spiritual death we speak not now). It is not, though this be exitus à morte: it is introitus in mortem; though it be an issue from manifold deaths of this world, yet it is an entrance into the death of corruption and putrefaction, and vermiculation, and incineration, and dispersion in and from the grave, in which every dead man dies over again.

It was a prerogative peculiar to Christ, not to die this death, not to see corruption. What gave him this privilege? Not Joseph’s great proportion of gums and spices, that might have preserved his body from corruption and incineration longer than he needed it, longer than three days, but it would not have done it for ever. What preserved him then? Did his exemption and freedom from original sin preserve him from this corruption and incineration?

It is true that original sin hath induced this corruption and incineration upon us; if we had not sinned in Adam, mortality had not put on immortality[366](as the apostle speaks), nor corruption had not put on incorruption, but we had had our transmigration from this to the other world without any mortality, any corruption at all. But yet since Christ took sin upon him, so far as made him mortal, he had it so far too as might have made him see this corruption and incineration, though he had no original sin in himself; what preserved him then? Did the hypostatical union of both natures, God and man, preserve him from this corruption and incineration? It is true that this was a most powerful embalming, to be embalmed with the Divine Nature itself, to be embalmed with eternity, was able to preserve him from corruption and incineration for ever.

And he was embalmed so, embalmed with the Divine Nature itself, even in his body as well as in his soul; for the Godhead, the Divine Nature, did not depart, but remained still united to his dead body in the grave; but yet for all this powerful embalming, his hypostatical union of both natures, we see Christ did die; and for all his union which made him God and man, he became no man (for the union of the body and soul makes the man, and he whose soul and body are separated by death as long as that state lasts, is properly no man).

And therefore as in him the dissolution of body and soul was no dissolution of the hypostatical union, so there is nothing that constrains us to say, that though the flesh of Christ had seen corruption and incineration in the grave, this had not been any dissolution of the hypostatical union, for the Divine nature, the Godhead, might have remained with all the elements and principles of Christ’s body, as well as it did with the two constitutive parts of his person, his body and his soul.

This incorruption then was not in Joseph’s gums and spices, nor was it in Christ’s innocency, and exemption from original sin, nor was it (that is, it is not necessary to say it was) in the hypostatical union. But this incorruptibleness of his flesh is most conveniently placed in that; Non dabis, thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption; we look no further for causes or reasons in the mysteries of religion, but to the will and pleasure of God; Christ himself limited his inquisition in that ita est, even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight. Christ’s body did not see corruption, therefore, because God had decreed it should not.

The humble soul (and only the humble soul is the religious soul) rests himself upon God’s purposes and the decrees of God which he hath declared and manifested, not such as are conceived and imagined in ourselves, though upon some probability, some verisimilitude; so in our present case Peter proceeds in his sermon at Jerusalem, and so Paul in his at Antioch.[367] They preached Christ to have been risen without seeing corruption, not only because God had decreed it, but because he had manifested that decree in his prophet, therefore doth Saint Paul cite by special number the second Psalm for that decree, and therefore both Saint Peter and Saint Paul cite for it that place in the sixteenth Psalm;[368] for when God declares his decree and purpose in the express words of his prophet, or when he declares it in the real execution of the decree, then he makes it ours, then he manifests it to us.

And therefore, as the mysteries of our religion are not the objects of our reason, but by faith we rest on God’s decree and purpose–(it is so, O God, because it is thy will it should be so)–so God’s decrees are ever to be considered in the manifestation thereof.

All manifestation is either in the word of God, or in the execution of the decree; and when these two concur and meet it is the strongest demonstration that can be: when therefore I find those marks of adoption and spiritual filiation which are delivered in the word of God to be upon me; when I find that real execution of his good purpose upon me, as that actually I do live under the obedience and under the conditions which are evidences of adoption and spiritual filiation; then, so long as I see these marks and live so, I may safely comfort myself in a holy certitude and a modest infallibility of my adoption. Christ determines himself in that, the purpose of God was manifest to him; Saint Peter and Saint Paul determine themselves in those two ways of knowing the purpose of God, the word of God before the execution of the decree in the fulness of time.

It was prophesied before, said they, and it is performed now, Christ is risen without seeing corruption. Now, this which is so singularly peculiar to him, that his flesh should not see corruption, at his second coming, his coming to judgment, shall extend to all that are then alive; their hestae shall not see corruption, because, as the apostle says, and says as a secret, as a mystery, Behold I shew you a mystery, we shall not all sleep (that is, not continue in the state of the dead in the grave), but we shall all be changed in an instant, we shall have a dissolution, and in the same instant a redintegration, a recompacting of body and soul, and that shall be truly a death and truly a resurrection, but no sleeping in corruption; but for us that die now and sleep in the state of the dead, we must all pass this posthume death, this death after death, nay, this death after burial, this dissolution after dissolution, this death of corruption and putrefaction, of vermiculation and incineration, of dissolution and dispersion in and from the grave, when these bodies that have been the children of royal parents, and the parents of royal children, must say with Job, Corruption, thou art my father, and to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister. Miserable riddle, when the same worm must be my mother, and my sister and myself! Miserable incest, when I must be married to my mother and my sister, and be both father and mother to my own mother and sister, beget and bear that worm which is all that miserable penury; when my mouth shall be filled with dust, and the worm shall feed, and feed sweetly[369] upon me; when the ambitious man shall have no satisfaction, if the poorest alive tread upon him, nor the poorest receive any contentment in being made equal to princes, for they shall be equal but in dust. One dieth at his full strength, being wholly at ease and in quiet; and another dies in the bitterness of his soul, and never eats with pleasure; but they lie down alike in the dust, and the worm covers them.[370]

In Job and in Isaiah,[371] it covers them and is spread under them, the worm is spread under thee, and the worm covers thee. There are the mats and the carpets that lie under, and there are the state and the canopy that hang over the greatest of the sons of men. Even those bodies that were the temples of the Holy Ghost come to this dilapidation, to ruin, to rubbish, to dust; even the Israel of the Lord, and Jacob himself, hath no other specification, no other denomination, but that vermis Jacob, thou worm of Jacob. Truly the consideration of this posthume death, this death after burial, that after God (with whom are the issues of death) hath delivered me from the death of the womb, by bringing me into the world, and from the manifold deaths of the world, by laying me in the grave, I must die again in an incineration of this flesh, and in a dispersion of that dust.

That that monarch, who spread over many nations alive, must in his dust lie in a corner of that sheet of lead, and there but so long as that lead will last; and that private and retired man, that thought himself his own for ever, and never came forth, must in his dust of the grave be published, and (such are the revolutions of the grave) be mingled with the dust of every highway and of every dunghill, and swallowed in every puddle and pond. This is the most inglorious and contemptible vilification, the most deadly and peremptory nullification of man, that we can consider. God seems to have carried the declaration of his power to a great height, when he sets the prophet Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones, and says, Son of man, can these bones live? as though it had been impossible, and yet they did; the Lord laid sinews upon them, and flesh, and breathed into them, and they did live.

But in that case there were bones to be seen, something visible, of which it might be said, Can this thing live? But in this death of incineration and dispersion of dust, we see nothing that we call that man’s. If we say, Can this dust live? Perchance it cannot; it may be the mere dust of the earth, which never did live, never shall. It may be the dust of that man’s worm, which did live, but shall no more. It may be the dust of another man, that concerns not him of whom it was asked.

This death of incineration and dispersion is, to natural reason, the most irrecoverable death of all; and yet Domini Domini sunt exitus mortis, unto God the Lord belong the issues of death; and by recompacting this dust into the same body, and remaining the same body with the same soul, he shall in a blessed and glorious resurrection give me such an issue from this death as shall never pass into any other death, but establish me into a life that shall last as long as the Lord of Life himself.

And so have you that that belongs to the first acceptation of these words (unto God the Lord belong the issues of death); That though from the womb to the grave, and in the grave itself, we pass from death to death, yet, as Daniel speaks, the Lord our God is able to deliver us, and he will deliver us.

And so we pass unto our second accommodation of these words (unto God the Lord belong the issues of death); that it belongs to God, and not to man, to pass a judgment upon us at our death, or to conclude a dereliction on God’s part upon the manner thereof.

Those indications which the physicians receive, and those presagitions which they give for death or recovery in the patient, they receive and they give out of the grounds and the rules of their art, but we have no such rule or art to give a presagition of spiritual death and damnation upon any such indication as we see in any dying man; we see often enough to be sorry, but not to despair; we may be deceived both ways: we use to comfort ourself in the death of a friend, if it be testified that he went away like a lamb, that is, without any reluctation; but God knows that may be accompanied with a dangerous damp and stupefaction, and insensibility of his present state.

Our blessed Saviour suffered colluctations with death, and a sadness even in his soul to death, and an agony even to a bloody sweat in his body, and expostulations with God, and exclamations upon the cross. He was a devout man who said upon his death-bed, or death-turf (for he was a hermit), Septuaginta annos Domino servivisti, et mori times? Hast thou served a good master threescore and ten years, and now art thou loth to go into his presence? Yet Hilarion was loth.

Barlaam was a devout man (a hermit too) that said that day he died, Cogita te hodie caepisse servire Domino, et hodie finiturum, Consider this to be the first day’s service that ever thou didst thy Master, to glorify him in a Christianly and a constant death, and if thy first day be thy last day too, how soon dost thou come to receive thy wages! Yet Barlaam could have been content to have stayed longer forth. Make no ill conclusions upon any man’s lothness to die, for the mercies of God work momentarily in minutes, and many times insensibly to bystanders, or any other than the party departing.

And then upon violent deaths inflicted as upon malefactors, Christ himself hath forbidden us by his own death to make any ill conclusion; for his own death had those impressions in it; he was reputed, he was executed as a malefactor, and no doubt many of them who concurred to his death did believe him to be so. Of sudden death there are scarce examples be found in the Scriptures upon good men, for death in battle cannot be called sudden death; but God governs not by examples but by rules, and therefore make no ill conclusion upon sudden death nor upon distempers neither, though perchance accompanied with some words of diffidence and distrust in the mercies of God.

The tree lies as it falls, it is true, but it is not the last stroke that fells the tree, nor the last word nor gasp that qualifies the soul. Still pray we for a peaceable life against violent death, and for time of repentance against sudden death, and for sober and modest assurance against distempered and diffident death, but never make ill conclusions upon persons overtaken with such deaths; Domini Domini sunt exitus mortis, to God the Lord belong the issues of death.

And he received Samson, who went out of this world in such a manner (consider it actively, consider it passively in his own death, and in those whom he slew with himself) as was subject to interpretation hard enough. Yet the Holy Ghost hath moved Saint Paul to celebrate Samson in his great catalogue,[372] and so doth all the church.

Our critical day is not the very day of our death, but the whole course of our life. I thank him that prays for me when the bell tolls, but I thank him much more that catechises me, or preaches to me, or instructs me how to live. Fac hoc et vive, there is my security, the mouth of the Lord hath said it, do this and thou shalt live. But though I do it, yet I shall die too, die a bodily, a natural death. But God never mentions, never seems to consider that death, the bodily, the natural death. God doth not say, Live well, and thou shalt die well, that is, an easy, a quiet death; but, Live well here, and thou shalt live well for ever.

As the first part of a sentence pieces well with the last, and never respects, never hearkens after the parenthesis that comes between, so doth a good life here flow into an eternal life, without any consideration what so manner of death we die. But whether the gate of my prison be opened with an oiled key (by a gentle and preparing sickness), or the gate be hewn down by a violent death, or the gate be burnt down by a raging and frantic fever, a gate into heaven I shall have, for from the Lord is the cause of my life, and with God the Lord are the issues of death.

And further we carry not this second acceptation of the words, as this issue of death is liberatio in morte, God’s care that the soul be safe, what agonies soever the body suffers in the hour of death.

But pass to our third part and last part: As this issue of death is liberatio per mortem, a deliverance by the death of another. Sufferentiam Job audiisti, et vidisti finem Domini, says Saint James (v. 11), You have heard of the patience of Job, says he: all this while you have done that, for in every man, calamitous, miserable man, a Job speaks. Now, see the end of the Lord, sayeth that apostle, which is not that end that the Lord proposed to himself (salvation to us), nor the end which he proposes to us (conformity to him), but see the end of the Lord, says he, the end that the Lord himself came to, death, and a painful and a shameful death.

But why did he die? and why die so? Quia Domini Domini sunt exitus mortis (as Saint Augustine, interpreting this text, answers that question),[373] because to this God our Lord belonged the issues of death. Quid apertius diceretur? says he there, what can be more obvious, more manifest than this sense of these words? In the former part of this verse it is said, He that is our God is the God of salvation; Deus salvos faciendi, so he reads it, the God that must save us. Who can that be, says he, but Jesus? For therefore that name was given him because he was to save us.

And to this Jesus, says he, this Saviour,[374] belong the issues of death; Nec oportuit eum de hac vita alios exitus habere quam mortis: being come into this life in our mortal nature, he could not go out of this life any other way but by death. Ideo dictum, says he, therefore it is said, to God the Lord belonged the issues of death; ut ostenderetur moriendo nos salvos facturum, to show that his way to save us was to die.

And from this text doth Saint Isidore prove that Christ was truly man (which as many sects of heretics denied, as that he was truly God), because to him, though he were Dominus Dominus (as the text doubles it), God the Lord, yet to him, to God the Lord belonged the issues of death; oportuit eum pati; more cannot be said than Christ himself says of himself; These things Christ ought to suffer;[375] he had no other way but death: so then this part of our sermon must needs be a passion sermon, since all his life was a continual passion, all our Lent may well be a continual Good Friday.

Christ’s painful life took off none of the pains of his death, he felt not the less then for having felt so much before. Nor will any thing that shall be said before lessen, but rather enlarge the devotion, to that which shall be said of his passion at the time of due solemnization thereof. Christ bled not a drop the less at the last for having bled at his circumcision before, nor will you a tear the less then if you shed some now.

And therefore be now content to consider with me how to this God the Lord belonged the issues of death. That God, this Lord, the Lord of life, could die, is a strange contemplation; that the Red Sea could be dry, that the sun could stand still, that an oven could be seven times heat and not burn, that lions could be hungry and not bite, is strange, miraculously strange, but super-miraculous that God could die; but that God would die is an exaltation of that. But even of that also it is a super-exaltation, that God should die, must die, and non exitus (said Saint Augustine), God the Lord had no issue but by death, and oportuit pati (says Christ himself), all this Christ ought to suffer, was bound to suffer; Deus ultimo Deus, says David, God is the God of revenges, he would not pass over the son of man unrevenged, unpunished. But then Deus ultionum libere egit (says that place), the God of revenges works freely, he punishes, he spares whom he will.

And would he not spare himself? he would not: Dilectio fortis ut mors, love is strong as death;[376] stronger, it drew in death, that naturally is not welcome. Si possibile, says Christ, if it be possible, let this cup pass, when his love, expressed in a former decree with his Father, had made it impossible. Many waters quench not love.[377] Christ tried many: he was baptised out of his love, and his love determined not there; he mingled blood with water in his agony, and that determined not his love; he wept pure blood, all his blood at all his eyes, at all his pores, in his flagellation and thorns (to the Lord our God belonged the issues of blood), and these expressed, but these did not quench his love. He would not spare, nay, he could not spare himself. There was nothing more free, more voluntary, more spontaneous than the death of Christ. It is true, libere egit, he died voluntarily; but yet when we consider the contract that had passed between his Father and him, there was an oportuit, a kind of necessity upon him: all this Christ ought to suffer.

And when shall we date this obligation, this oportuit, this necessity? When shall we say that began? Certainly this decree by which Christ was to suffer all this was an eternal decree, and was there any thing before that that was eternal? Infinite love, eternal love; be pleased to follow this home, and to consider it seriously, that what liberty soever we can conceive in Christ to die or not to die; this necessity of dying, this decree is as eternal as that liberty; and yet how small a matter made he of this necessity and this dying? His Father calls it but a bruise, and but a bruising of his heel[378] (the serpent shall bruise his heel), and yet that was, that the serpent should practise and compass his death. Himself calls it but a baptism, as though he were to be the better for it. I have a baptism to be baptized with,[379] and he was in pain till it was accomplished, and yet this baptism was his death. The Holy Ghost calls it joy (for the joy which was set before him he endured the cross),[380] which was not a joy of his reward after his passion, but a joy that filled him even in the midst of his torments, and arose from him; when Christ calls his calicem a cup, and no worse (Can ye drink of my cup)[381], he speaks not odiously, not with detestation of it. Indeed it was a cup, salus mundo, a health to all the world.

And quid retribuam, says David, What shall I render to the Lord? [382]Answer you with David, Accipiam calicem, I will take the cup of salvation; take it, that cup is salvation, his passion, if not into your present imitation, yet into your present contemplation.

And behold how that Lord that was God, yet could die, would die, must die for our salvation. That Moses and Elias talked with Christ in the transfiguration, both Saint Matthew and Saint Mark[383] tells us, but what they talked of, only Saint Luke; Dicebant excessum ejus, says he, They talked of his disease, of his death, which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem.[384] The word is of his exodus, the very word of our text, exitus, his issue by death. Moses, who in his exodus had prefigured this issue of our Lord, and in passing Israel out of Egypt through the Red Sea, had foretold in that actual prophecy, Christ passing of mankind through the sea of his blood; and Elias, whose exodus and issue of this world was a figure of Christ’s ascension; had no doubt a great satisfaction in talking with our blessed Lord, de excessu ejus, of the full consummation of all this in his death, which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem. Our meditation of his death should be more visceral, and affect us more, because it is of a thing already done.

The ancient Romans had a certain tenderness and detestation of the name of death; they could not name death, no, not in their wills; there they could not say, Si mori contigerit, but si quid humanitas contingat, not if or when I die, but when the course of nature is accomplished upon me.

To us that speak daily of the death of Christ (he was crucified, dead, and buried), can the memory or the mention of our own death be irksome or bitter? There are in these latter times amongst us that name death freely enough, and the death of God, but in blasphemous oaths and execrations. Miserable men, who shall therefore be said never to have named Jesus, because they have named him too often; and therefore hear Jesus say, Nescivi vos, I never knew you, because they made themselves too familiar with him. Moses and Elias talked with Christ of his death only in a holy and joyful sense, of the benefit which they and all the world were to receive by that. Discourses of religion should not be out of curiosity, but to edification.

And then they talked with Christ of his death at that time when he was in the greatest height of glory, that ever he admitted in this world, that is, his transfiguration.

And we are afraid to speak to the great men of this world of their death, but nourish in them a vain imagination of immortality and immutability. But bonum est nobis esse hic (as Saint Peter said there), It is good to dwell here, in this consideration of his death, and therefore transfer we our tabernacle (our devotions) through some of those steps which God the Lord made to his issue of death that day. Take in the whole day from the hour that Christ received the passover upon Thursday unto the hour in which he died the next day. Make this present day that day in thy devotion, and consider what he did, and remember what you have done.

Before he instituted and celebrated the sacrament (which was after the eating of the passover), he proceeded to that act of humility, to wash his disciples’ feet, even Peter’s, who for a while resisted him. In thy preparation to the holy and blessed sacrament, hast thou with a sincere humility sought a reconciliation with all the world, even with those that have been averse from it, and refused that reconciliation from thee? If so, and not else, thou hast spent that first part of his last day in a conformity with him.

After the sacrament he spent the time till night in prayer, in preaching, in psalms: hast thou considered that a worthy receiving of the sacrament consists in a continuation of holiness after, as well as in a preparation before? If so, thou hast therein also conformed thyself to him; so Christ spent his time till night. At night he went into the garden to pray, and he prayed prolixious, he spent much time in prayer, how much? Because it is literally expressed, that he prayed there three several times,[385] and that returning to his disciples after his first prayer, and finding them asleep, said, Could ye not watch with me one hour,[386] it is collected that he spent three hours in prayer.

I dare scarce ask thee whither thou wentest, or how thou disposedst of thyself, when it grew dark and after last night. If that time were spent in a holy recommendation of thyself to God, and a submission of thy will to his, it was spent in a conformity to him. In that time, and in those prayers, was his agony and bloody sweat. I will hope that thou didst pray; but not every ordinary and customary prayer, but prayer actually accompanied with shedding of tears and dispositively in a readiness to shed blood for his glory in necessary cases, puts thee into a conformity with him.

About midnight he was taken and bound with a kiss, art thou not too conformable to him in that? Is not that too literally, too exactly thy case, at midnight to have been taken and bound with a kiss?

From thence he was carried back to Jerusalem, first to Annas, then to Caiaphas, and (as late as it was) then he was examined and buffered, and delivered over to the custody of those officers from whom he received all those irrisions, and violences, the covering of his face, the spitting upon his face, the blasphemies of words, and the smartness of blows, which that gospel mentions: in which compass fell that gallicinium, that crowing of the cock which called up Peter to his repentance.

How thou passedst all that time thou knowest. If thou didst any thing that needest Peter’s tears, and hast not shed them, let me be thy cock, do it now. Now, thy Master (in the unworthiest of his servants) looks back upon thee, do it now.

Betimes, in the morning, so soon as it was day, the Jews held a council in the high priest’s hall, and agreed upon their evidence against him, and then carried him to Pilate, who was to be his judge; didst thou accuse thyself when thou wakedst this morning, and wast thou content even with false accusations, that is, rather to suspect actions to have been sin, which were not, than to smother and justify such as were truly sins? Then thou spentest that hour in conformity to him; Pilate found no evidence against him, and therefore to ease himself, and to pass a compliment upon Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was at that time at Jerusalem (because Christ, being a Galilean, was of Herod’s jurisdiction), Pilate sent him to Herod, and rather as a madman than a malefactor; Herod remanded him (with scorn) to Pilate, to proceed against him; and this was about eight of the clock. Hast thou been content to come to this inquisition, this examination, this agitation, this cribration, this pursuit of thy conscience; to sift it, to follow it from the sins of thy youth to thy present sins, from the sins of thy bed to the sins of thy board, and from the substance to the circumstance of thy sins? That is time spent like thy Saviour’s.

Pilate would have saved Christ, by using the privilege of the day in his behalf, because that day one prisoner was to be delivered, but they choose Barabbas; he would have saved him from death, by satisfying their fury with inflicting other torments upon him, scourging and crowning with thorns, and loading him with many scornful and ignominious contumelies, but they regarded him not, they pressed a crucifying. Hast thou gone about to redeem thy sin, by fasting, by alms, by disciplines and mortifications, in way of satisfaction to the justice of God? That will not serve that is not the right way; we press an utter crucifying of that sin that governs thee: and that conforms thee to Christ.

Towards noon Pilate gave judgment, and they made such haste to execution as that by noon he was upon the cross. There now hangs that sacred body upon the cross, rebaptized in his own tears, and sweat, and embalmed in his own blood alive. There are those bowels of compassion which are so conspicuous, so manifested, as that you may see them through his wounds. There those glorious eyes grew faint in their sight, so as the sun, ashamed to survive them, departed with his light too.

And then that Son of God, who was never from us, and yet had now come a new way unto us in assuming our nature, delivers that soul (which was never out of his Father’s hands) by a new way, a voluntary emission of it into his Father’s hands; for though to this God our Lord belonged these issues of death, so that considered in his own contract, he must necessarily die, yet at no breach or battery which they had made upon his sacred body issued his soul; but emisit, he gave up the ghost; and as God breathed a soul into the first Adam, so this second Adam breathed his soul into God, into the hands of God.

There we leave you in that blessed dependency, to hang upon him that hangs upon the cross, there bathe in his tears, there suck at his wounds, and lie down in peace in his grave, till he vouchsafe you a resurrection, and an ascension into that kingdom which He hath prepared for you with the inestimable price of his incorruptible blood. Amen.

Notes

[348]Psalm 139:6.

[349]Psalm 118:23.

[350]Psalm 100:3.

[351]Isaiah 37:3.

[352]Rom. 7:24.

[353]Gen. 6:14.

[354]Gen. 4:1.

[355]John 14:2.

[356]Matt. 8:20.

[357]Heb. 13:14.

[358]Exod. 17:1.

[359]Gen. 47:9.

[360]2 Cor. 5:6.

[361]Job 10:18, 19.

[362]Exod. 16:3.

[363]1 Kings 19:4.

[364]Jonah 4:3.

[365]Rev. 1:18.

[366]1 Cor. 15:33.

[367]Acts 2:31; 13:35.

[368]Ver. 10.

[369]Job 24:20.

[370]Job 21:23, 25, 26.

[371]Isaiah 14:11.

[372]Heb. 11.

[373]De Civitate Dei, lib. 17.

[374]Matt. 1:21.

[375]Luke 24:26.

[376]Cant. 8:6.

[377]Cant. 8:7.

[378]Gen. 3:15.

[379]Luke 12:50.

[380]Heb. 12:2.

[381]Matt. 20:22.

[382]Psalm 116:12.

[383]Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4.

[384]Luke 9:31.

[385]Luke 22:41.

[386]Matt. 26:40.

It was on this day (February 11) in 1905 Pope Pius X (1835–1914) published the encyclical Vehementer Nos, in which he denounces the idea of separation between the state and the Roman church, calling it “a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” Here is the full text of the encyclical (via Vatican.va):

VEHEMENTER NOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE FRENCH LAW OF SEPARATION

To Our Well-beloved Sons, Francois Marie Richard, Cardinal Archbishop of Paris; Victor Lucien Lecot, Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux; Pierre Hector Couillie, Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons; Joseph Guillaume Laboure, Cardinal Archbishop of Rennes; and to all Our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops, and to all the Clergy and People of France.

Venerable Brethren, Well Beloved Sons, Health and the Apostolic Benediction.

Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and Our heart overflows with grief, when Our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all the right-minded, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time by the public authority at religion. You have seen the sanctity and the inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicized; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all know have followed: the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and in a word from all public establishments. These measures and others still which, one after another really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.

2. On the other hand the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It has then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain – the attentions, good offices, and efforts of Our Predecessor and Ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. At a moment of such gravity for the Church, therefore, filled with the sense of Our Apostolic responsibility, We have considered it Our duty to raise Our voice and to open Our heart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people – to all of you whom We have ever cherished with special affection but whom We now, as is only right, love more tenderly than ever.

3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. – Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur.”He proceeds: “Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them…. As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. – Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.”[1]

4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: “France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories…. To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world.”[2]

5. And the ties that consecrated this union should have been doubly inviolable from the fact that they were sanctioned by sworn treaties. The Concordat entered upon by the Sovereign Pontiff and the French Government was, like all treaties of the same kind concluded between States, a bilateral contract binding on both parties to it. The Roman Pontiff on the one side and the Head of the French Nation on the other solemnly stipulated both for themselves and their successors to maintain inviolate the pact they signed. Hence the same rule applied to the Concordat as to all international treaties, viz., the law of nations which prescribes that it could not be in any way annulled by one alone of the contracting parties. The Holy See has always observed with scrupulous fidelity the engagements it has made, and it has always required the same fidelity from the State. This is a truth which no impartial judge can deny. Yet today the State, by its sole authority, abrogates the solemn pact it signed. Thus it violates its sworn promise. To break with the Church, to free itself from her friendship, it has stopped at nothing, and has not hesitated to outrage the Apostolic See by this violation of the law of nations, and to disturb the social and political order itself – for the reciprocal security of nations in their relations with one another depends mainly on the inviolable fidelity and the sacred respect with which they observe their treaties.

6. The extent of the injury inflicted on the Apostolic See by the unilateral abrogation of the Concordat is notably aggravated by the manner in which the State has effected this abrogation. It is a principle admitted without controversy, and universally observed by all nations, that the breaking of a treaty should be previously and regularly notified, in a clear and explicit manner, to the other contracting party by the one which intends to put an end to the treaty. Yet not only has no notification of this kind been made to the Holy See, but no indication whatever on the subject has been conveyed to it. Thus the French Government has not hesitated to treat the Apostolic See without ordinary respect and without the courtesy that is never omitted even in dealing with the smallest States. Its officials, representatives though they were of a Catholic nation, have heaped contempt on the dignity and power of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Supreme Head of the Church, whereas they should have shown more respect to this power than to any other political power – and a respect all the greater from the fact that the Holy See is concerned with the eternal welfare of souls, and that its mission extends everywhere.

7. If We now proceed to examine in itself the law that has just been promulgated, We find, therein, fresh reason for protesting still more energetically. When the State broke the links of the Concordat, and separated itself from the Church, it ought, as a natural consequence, to have left her independence, and allowed her to enjoy peacefully that liberty, granted by the common law, which it pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done. We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the Church under the domination of the civil power. It has been a source of bitter grief to Us to see the State thus encroach on matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church; and We bewail this all the more from the fact that the State, dead to all sense of equity and justice, has thereby created for the Church of France a situation grievous, crushing, and oppressive of her most sacred rights.

8. For the provisions of the new law are contrary to the constitution on which the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors (I Ephes. iv. II sqq.) – a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging (Matt. xxviii. 18-20; xvi. 18, 19; xviii. 17; Tit. ii. 15; 11. Cor. x. 6; xiii. 10. & c.) It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. St. Cyprian, Martyr, expresses this truth admirably when he writes: “Our Lord, whose precepts we must revere and observe, in establishing the episcopal dignity and the nature of the Church, addresses Peter thus in the gospel: Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, etc. Hence, through all the vicissitudes of time and circumstance, the plan of the episcopate and the constitution of the Church have always been found to be so framed that the Church rests on the Bishops, and that all its acts are ruled by them. – Dominus Noster, cujus praecepta metuere et servare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro: Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, etc…. Inde per temporum et successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio et Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur” (St. Cyprian, Epist. xxvii.-xxviii. ad Lapsos ii. i.) St. Cyprian affirms that all this is based on Divine law, divina lege fundatum.The Law of Separation, in opposition to these principles, assigns the administration and the supervision of public worship not to the hierarchical body divinely instituted by Our Savior, but to an association formed of laymen. To this association it assigns a special form and a juridical personality, and considers it alone as having rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law in all matters appertaining to religious worship. It is this association which is to have the use of the churches and sacred edifices, which is to possess ecclesiastical property, real and personal, which is to have at its disposition (though only for a time) the residences of the Bishops and priests and the seminaries; which is to administer the property, regulate collections, and receive the alms and the legacies destined for religious worship. As for the hierarchical body of Pastors, the law is completely silent. And if it does prescribe that the associations of worship are to be constituted in harmony with the general rules of organization of the cult whose existence they are designed to assure, it is none the less true that care has been taken to declare that in all disputes which may arise relative to their property the Council of State is the only competent tribunal. These associations of worship are therefore placed in such a state of dependence on the civil authority that the ecclesiastical authority will, clearly, have no power over them. It is obvious at a glance that all these provisions seriously violate the rights of the Church, and are in opposition with her Divine constitution. Moreover, the law on these points is not set forth in clear and precise terms, but is left so vague and so open to arbitrary decisions that its mere interpretation is well calculated to be productive of the greatest trouble.

9. Besides, nothing more hostile to the liberty of the Church than this Law could well be conceived. For, with the existence of the associations of worship, the Law of Separation hinders the Pastors from exercising the plenitude of their authority and of their office over the faithful; when it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction over these associations and submits them to a whole series of prescriptions not contained in the common law, rendering their formation difficult and their continued existence more difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for clerics – when it sanctions all these provisions and many others of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practicing their religion? Hence it is not merely by restricting the exercise of worship (to which the Law of Separation falsely reduces the essence of religion) that the State injures the Church, but by putting obstacles to her influence, always a beneficent influence over the people, and by paralyzing her activity in a thousand different ways. Thus, for instance, the State has not been satisfied with depriving the Church of the Religious Orders, those precious auxiliaries of hers in her sacred mission, in teaching and education, in charitable works, but it must also deprive her of the resources which constitute the human means necessary for her existence and the accomplishment of her mission.

10. In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the working of various charitable associations connected with religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a subject of keen grief to Us that the law, in contempt of all right, proclaims as property of the State, Departments or Communes the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the Concordat. True, the Law concedes the gratuitous use, for an indefinite period, of these to the associations of worship, but it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the full disposition of them. Moreover, We entertain the gravest fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the piety of the French people. For they are certainly in danger of profanation if they fall into the hands of laymen.

11. When the law, by the suppression of the Budget of Public Worship, exonerates the State from the obligation of providing for the expenses of worship, it violates an engagement contracted in a diplomatic convention, and at the same time commits a great injustice. On this point there cannot be the slightest doubt, for the documents of history offer the clearest confirmation of it. When the French Government assumed in the Concordat the obligation of supplying the clergy with a revenue sufficient for their decent subsistence and for the requirements of public worship, the concession was not a merely gratuitous one – it was an obligation assumed by the State to make restitution, at least in part, to the Church whose property had been confiscated during the first Revolution. On the other hand when the Roman Pontiff in this same Concordat bound himself and his successors, for the sake of peace, not to disturb the possessors of property thus taken from the Church, he did so only on one condition: that the French Government should bind itself in perpetuity to endow the clergy suitably and to provide for the expenses of divine worship.

12. Finally, there is another point on which We cannot be silent. Besides the injury it inflicts on the interests of the Church, the new law is destined to be most disastrous to your country. For there can be no doubt but that it lamentably destroys union and concord. And yet without such union and concord no nation can live long or prosper. Especially in the present state of Europe, the maintenance of perfect harmony must be the most ardent wish of everybody in France who loves his country and has its salvation at heart. As for Us, following the example of Our Predecessor and inheriting from him a special predilection for your nation, We have not confined Ourself to striving for the preservation of full rights of the religion of your forefathers, but We have always, with that fraternal peace of which religion is certainly the strongest bond ever before Our eyes, endeavored to promote unity among you. We cannot, therefore, without the keenest sorrow observe that the French Government has just done a deed which inflames on religious grounds passions already too dangerously excited, and which, therefore, seems to be calculated to plunge the whole country into disorder.

13. Hence, mindful of Our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon Us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, We do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to Us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as deeply unjust to God whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling underfoot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the Episcopacy, and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, We protest solemnly and with all Our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church.

14. We had to address these grave words to you, Venerable Brethren, to the people of France and of the whole Christian world, in order to make known in its true light what has been done. Deep indeed is Our distress when We look into the future and see there the evils that this law is about to bring upon a people so tenderly loved by Us. And We are still more grievously affected by the thought of the trials, sufferings and tribulations of all kinds that are to be visited on you, Venerable Brethren, and on all your clergy. Yet, in the midst of these crushing cares, We are saved from excessive affliction and discouragement when Our mind turns to Divine Providence, so rich in mercies, and to the hope, a thousand times verified, that Jesus Christ will not abandon His Church or ever deprive her of His unfailing support. We are, then, far from feeling any fear for the Church. Her strength and her stability are Divine, as the experience of ages triumphantly proves. The world knows of the endless calamities, each more terrible than the last, that have fallen upon her during this long course of time – but where all purely human institutions must inevitably have succumbed, the Church has drawn from her trials only fresh strength and richer fruitfulness. As to the persecuting laws passed against her, history teaches, even in recent times, and France itself confirms the lesson, that though forged by hatred, they are always at last wisely abrogated, when they are found to be prejudicial to the interests of the State. God grant those who are at present in power in France may soon follow the example set for them in this matter by their predecessors. God grant that they may, amid the applause of all good people, make haste to restore to religion, the source of civilization and prosperity, the honor which is due to her together with her liberty.

15. Meanwhile, and as long as oppressive persecution continues, the children of the Church, putting on the arms of light, must act with all their strength in defense of Truth and justice – it is their duty always, and today more than ever. To this holy contest you, Venerable Brethren, who are to be the teachers and guides, will bring all the force of that vigilant and indefatigable zeal of which the French Episcopate has, to its honor, given so many well-known proofs. But above all things We wish, for it is of the greatest importance, that in all the plans you undertake for the defense of the Church, you to endeavor to ensure the most perfect union of hearts and wills. It is Our firm intention to give you at a fitting time practical instructions which shall serve as a sure rule of conduct for you amid the great difficulties of the present time. And We are certain in advance that you will faithfully adopt them. Meanwhile continue the salutary work you are doing; strive to kindle piety among the people as much as possible; promote and popularize more and more the teaching of Christian doctrine; preserve the souls entrusted to you from the errors and seductions they meet on all sides; instruct, warn, encourage, console your flocks, and perform for them all the duties imposed on you by your pastoral office. In this work you will certainly find indefatigable collaborators in your clergy. They are rich in men remarkable for piety, knowledge, and devotion to the Holy See, and We know that they are always ready to devote themselves unreservedly under your direction to the cause of the triumph of the Church and the eternal salvation of souls. The clergy will also certainly understand that during the present turmoil they must be animated by the sentiments professed long ago by the Apostles, rejoicing that they are found worthy to suffer opprobrium for the name of Jesus, “Gaudentes quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati” (Rom. xiii. 12). They will therefore stoutly stand up for the rights and liberty of the Church, but without offense to anybody. Nay more, in their earnestness to preserve charity, as the ministers of Jesus Christ are especially bound to do, they will reply to iniquity with justice, to outrage with mildness, and to ill-treatment with benefits.

16. And now We turn to you, Catholics of France, asking you to receive Our words as a testimony of that most tender affection with which We have never ceased to love your country, and as comfort to you in the midst of the terrible calamities through which you will have to pass. You know the aim of the impious sects which are placing your heads under their yoke, for they themselves have proclaimed with cynical boldness that they are determined to “de Catholicise” France. They want to root out from your hearts the last vestige of the faith which covered your fathers with glory, which made your country great and prosperous among nations, which sustains you in your trials, which brings tranquillity and peace to your homes, and which opens to you the way to eternal happiness. You feel that you must defend this faith with your whole souls. But be not deluded – all labor and effort will be useless if you endeavor to repulse the assaults made on you without being firmly united. Remove, therefore, any causes of disunion that may exist among you. And do what is necessary to ensure that your unity may be as strong as it should be among men who are fighting for the same cause, especially when this cause is of those for the triumph of which everybody should be willing to sacrifice something of his own opinions. If you wish, within the limits of your strength and according to your imperious duty, to save the religion of your ancestors from the dangers to which it is exposed, it is of the first importance that you show a large degree of courage and generosity. We feel sure that you will show this generosity; and by being charitable towards God’s ministers, you will incline God to be more and more charitable toward yourselves.

17. As for the defense of religion, if you wish to undertake it in a worthy manner, and to carry it on perseveringly and efficaciously, two things are first of all necessary: you must model yourselves so faithfully on the precepts of the Christian law that all your actions and your entire lives may do honor to the faith you profess, and then you must be closely united with those whose special office it is to watch over religion, with your priests, your bishops, and above all with this Apostolic See, which is the pivot of the Catholic faith and of all that can be done in its name. Thus armed for the fray, go forth fearlessly for the defense of the Church; but take care that your trust is placed entirely in God, for whose cause you are working, and never cease to pray to Him for help.

18. For Us, as long as you have to struggle against danger, We will be heart and soul in the midst of you; labors, pains, sufferings – We will share them all with you; and pouring forth to God, who has founded the Church and ever preserves her, Our most humble and instant prayers, We will implore Him to bend a glance of mercy on France, to save her from the storms that have been let loose upon her, and, by the intercession of Mary Immaculate, to restore soon to her the blessings of calm and peace.

19. As a pledge of these heavenly gifts and a proof of Our special predilection, We impart with all Our heart the Apostolic Benediction to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy and to the entire French people.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, on February 11 in the year 1906, the third of Our Pontificate.

PIUX X

1. Ency. Immortale Dei Nov. 1, 1885.

2. Allocution to the French pilgrims, April 13, 1888.

Here is a hymn for today from Matthias Claudius, who died on this day (Jan 21) in 1815 (b. August 15 1740).

The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. (Matthew 13:38)

We plow the fields, and scatter the good seed on the land,
But it is fed and watered by God’s almighty hand;
He sends the snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain,
The breezes and the sunshine, and soft refreshing rain.

Refrain

All good gifts around us
Are sent from heaven above,
Then thank the Lord, O thank the Lord
For all His love.

He only is the Maker of all things near and far;
He paints the wayside flower, He lights the evening star;
The winds and waves obey Him, by Him the birds are fed;
Much more to us, His children, He gives our daily bread.

Refrain

We thank Thee, then, O Father, for all things bright and good,
The seed time and the harvest, our life, our health, and food;
No gifts have we to offer, for all Thy love imparts,
But that which Thou desirest, our humble, thankful hearts.

Refrain

Theologian, musician, and philosopher Albert Schweitzer was born on this day (Jan 14) in 1875. Here is Schweitzer playing JS Bach’s Adagio BWV 564.

And here are a few quotations.

Here is a hymn for today (Jan 11) from Joshua Wegelin, who was born in Augsburg on this day in 1604 (d. September 14 1640).

On Christ’s ascension I now build
The hope of my ascension;
This hope alone has always stilled
All doubt and apprehension;
For where the head is, there as well
I know his members are to dwell
When Christ will come and call them.

Since Christ returned to claim his throne,
Great gifts for me obtaining,
My heart will rest in him alone,
No other rest remaining;
For where my treasure went before,
There all my thoughts will ever soar
To still their deepest yearning.

Oh, grant, dear Lord, this grace to me,
Recalling your ascension,
That I may serve you faithfully,
Adorning your redemption;
And then, when all my days will cease,
Let me depart in joy and peace
In answer to my pleading.

On the anniversary of Swedish reformer Olavus (Olaus) Petri’s birth in 1493, here is a note from the Lutheran calendar, along with ’s biography, Olavus Petri, Church Reformer of Sweden.

Laurentius Petri, Archbishop of Uppsala

Olavus Petri (born 1493) and his brother Laurentius (born 1499) were the principal leaders of the Lutheran movement in Sweden. Both studied at Wittenberg, where they were influenced by Martin Luther. Gustavus Vasa, first king of newly independent Sweden (formerly ruled from Denmark) brought the brothers to Stockholm and made Olavus a pastor and city councilman, and Laurentius his chancellor.

In 1526 Olavus translated the New Testament into Swedish, and also published a catechism. In 1530 he published a Swedish hymnal, and in 1531 he issued a Swedish version of the Latin mass, slightly simplified. In 1540 he resisted the king, who wished complete royal control of the Church, and was condemned to death, but later pardoned. He died 19 April 1552.

Laurentius became a professor at the university of Uppsala. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1527 and made Archbishop of Uppsala in 1531. The king had wished to abolish bishops altogether, but was persuaded otherwise by Laurentius, who thus saved the Swedish episcopate, which continues unbroken to this day. In 1541 the Petri brothers published a complete Bible in Swedish, and also a revised liturgy with increased congregational participation. Laurentius died in 1573.

Prayer

Almighty God, who by the hands of Olavus and Laurentius Petri didst give to the people of Sweden the Scriptures and the services of the Church in their own tongue: mercifully grant that all men everywhere may be enabled to hear and read the Good News of salvation preached to them in terms that they understand, that so they may be drawn to the kingdom of thy Blessed Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

Today in 1384 English reformer John Wyclif (Wycliffe) died.

Here you can read The English Works of Wyclif.

Here is a brief biography, and a few hymns, from Charles Wesley, who was born on this day (Dec. 18) in 1707 at Epworth Rectory, England (d. March 29 1788).

Here is a hymn for today from Jean Sibelius, who was born on this day (Dec 8) in 1865 in Hämeenlinna, Finland (d. September 20 1957, Järvenpää).

A Christian Home
Barbara B. Hart, 1916
Jean Sibelius, 1865-1957

O give us homes built firm upon the Savior, Where Christ is Head and Counselor and Guide;
Where ev’ry child is taught His love and favor And gives his heart to Christ, the crucified:
How sweet to know that tho his footsteps waver His faithful Lord is walking by his side!

O give us home with godly fathers, mothers, Who always place their hope and trust in Him;
Whose tender patience turmoil never bothers, Whose calm and courage trouble cannot dim;
A home where each fins joy in serving others, And love still shines, tho days be dark and grim.

O give us homes where Christ is Lord and Master, The Bible read, the precious hymns still sung;
Where pray’r comes first in peace or in disaster, And praise is natural speech to ev’ry tongue;
Where mountains move before a faith that’s vaster, And Christ sufficient is for old and young.

O Lord, our God, our homes are Thine forever! We trust to Thee their problems, toil, and care;
Their bonds of love no enemy can sever If Thou art always Lord and Master there:
Be Thou the center of our least endeavor Be Thou our Guest, our hearts and homes to share.

For more information on Sibelius and his work in English, see the Jean Sibelius website, and the Sibelius Society of Finland.

Today (December 7) marks the celebration of one of the most influential early Christian theologians, Ambrose of Milan.

Born in Trier in A.D. 340, Ambrose was one of the four great Latin Doctors of the Church (with Augustine, Jerome and Gregory the Great). He was a prolific author of hymns, the most common of which is Veni, Redemptor gentium (“Savior of the Nations, Come”). His name is also associated with Ambrosian Chant, the style of chanting the ancient liturgy that took hold in the province of Milan. While serving as a civil governor, Ambrose sought to bring peace among Christians in Milan who were divided into quarreling factions. When a new bishop was to be elected in 374, Ambrose addressed the crowd, and someone cried out,“Ambrose, bishop!” The entire gathering gave their support. This acclaim of Ambrose, a 34-year-old catechumen, led to his baptism on 7 December, after which he was consecrated bishop of Milan. A strong defender of the faith, Ambrose convinced the Roman emperor Gratian in 379 to forbid the Arian heresy in the West. At Ambrose’s urging, Gratian’s successor, Theodosius, also publicly opposed Arianism. Ambrose died on Good Friday, 4 April 397. As a courageous doctor and musician he upheld the truth of God’s Word. [From “Commemorations Biographies,” Lutheran Service Book, LCMS Commission on Worship]

Here is a hymn from Ambrose, entitled “O Christ, Who Art the Light and Day”

O Christ, who art the Light and Day,
Thou drivest darksome night away!
We know Thee as the Light of light
Illuminating mortal sight.

All holy Lord, we pray to Thee,
Keep us tonight from danger free;
Grant us, dear Lord, in Thee to rest,
So be our sleep in quiet blest.

Let not the tempter round us creep
With thoughts of evil while we sleep,
Nor with his wiles the flesh allure
And make us in Thy sight impure.

And while the eyes soft slumber take,
Still be the heart to Thee awake,
Be Thy right hand upheld above
Thy servants resting in Thy love.

Yea, our Defender, be Thou nigh,
To bid the powers of darkness fly;
Keep us from sin, and guide for good
Thy servants purchased by Thy blood.

Remember us, dear Lord, we pray,
While in this mortal flesh we stay:
’Tis Thou Who dost the soul defend—
Be present with us to the end.

Blest Thee in One and One in Three,
Almighty God, we pray to Thee,
That Thou wouldst now vouchsafe to bless
Our fast with fruits of righteousness.

And there shall be night no more; and they need no light of lamp, neither light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 22:5)

For a good article on the influence of Ambrose in early Christianity, see Paul T. McCain’s article.

Here is a hymn for today from Hugh Stowell, who was born on this day (December 3) in 1799 at Douglas, Isle of Man.

I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:22)

From every stormy wind that blows,
From every swelling tide of woes,
There is a calm, a sure retreat;
’Tis found beneath the mercy seat.

There is a place where Jesus sheds
The oil of gladness on our heads;
A place than all besides more sweet;
It is the blood bought mercy seat.

There is a scene where spirits blend,
Where friend holds fellowship with friend;
Though sundered far, by faith they meet
Around one common mercy seat.

There, there, on eagles’ wings we soar,
And time and sense seem all no more;
And heaven comes down, our souls to greet,
And glory crowns the mercy seat.

Oh, let my hand forget her skill,
My tongue be silent, cold, and still,
This bounding heart forget to beat,
If I forget the mercy seat!

On this day in 1621, poet and cleric John Donne (1572–1631) was elected dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London.

… any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

Here is one of Donne’s sonnets, “Thou hast made me, and shall thy work decay?”

Thou hast made me, and shall thy work decay?
Repair me now, for now mine end doth haste,
I run to death, and death meets me as fast,
And all my pleasures are like yesterday;
I dare not move my dim eyes any way,
Despair behind, and death before doth cast
Such terror, and my feebled flesh doth waste
By sin in it, which it t’wards hell doth weigh.
Only thou art above, and when towards thee
By thy leave I can look, I rise again;
But our old subtle foe so tempteth me,
That not one hour I can myself sustain;
Thy grace may wing me to prevent his art,
And thou like adamant draw mine iron heart.

Who is the King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. (Psalm 24:8)

Today in 1861, abolitionist Julia Ward Howe (1819–1910) wrote “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It was during the darkest days of the Civil War, and Howe on a visit to Washington was touring a local Union Army Camp on the Potomac in Virginia. Having heard the soldiers there singing a tribute to John Brown, hanged in 1859 for leading an insurrection of slaves at Harper’s Ferry, she thought the words to the hymn could bear some improvement. Her pastor encouraged her to do just that.

Here is how Howe describes the experience of writing the hymn, which would be published the following year in The Atlantic Monthly.

I went to bed and slept as usual, but awoke the next morning in the gray of the early dawn, and to my astonishment found that the wished-for lines were arranging themselves in my brain. I lay quite still until the last verse had completed itself in my thoughts, then hastily arose, saying to myself, I shall lose this if I don’t write it down immediately. I searched for an old sheet of paper and an old stub of pen which I had had the night before, and began to scrawl the lines almost without looking, as I learned to do by often scratching down verses in the darkened room when my little children were sleeping. Having completed this, I lay down again and fell asleep, but not before feeling that something of importance had happened to me.

On this day in 1095, Pope Urban II opened the Council of Clermont, which was attended by both clerics and several laymen, who had been invited at Urban’s request. Urban’s speech given on the 27th of November marks the beginning point of the first crusade. In the version written by Fulcher of Chartres, the only recorder of several who is known actually to have been at the council, Urban issues a plea for aid to the Christians in the east being overrun by Islamic armies.

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.

Read more on the Crusades from Fulcher of Chartres:

Urban II’s Speech at Cleremont

History of the Expedition to Jerusalem

The Capture of Jerusalem

Here is a hymn for today from Anne Steele, who died on this day in 1778 (b. May 1716).

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (I Peter 1:18-19)

Enslaved by sin and bound in chains,
Beneath its dreadful tyrant sway,
And doomed to everlasting pains,
We wretched, guilty captives lay.

Nor gold nor gems could buy our peace,
Nor all the world’s collected store
Suffice to purchase our release;
A thousand worlds were all too poor.

Jesus, the Lord, the mighty God,
An all sufficient ransom paid.
O matchless price! His precious blood
For vile, rebellious traitors shed.

Jesus the Sacrifice became
To rescue guilty souls from hell;
The spotless, bleeding, dying Lamb
Beneath avenging Justice fell.

Amazing goodness! Love divine!
Oh, may our grateful hearts adore
The matchless grace nor yield to sin
Nor wear its cruel fetters more!

It was on this day in 1483 that Marin Luther was born in Eisleben, Germany (d. February 18 1546). In remembrance of his earthly birth, here is a sermon from Luther on the new birth through the death and resurrection of Christ.

THIRD SUNDAY AFTER EPIPHANY
III. THE DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL FAITH AND THE FAITH OF OTHERS; ALSO, OF FAITH AND THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN.

“Lord, I am not worthy.”

18. Herein is the great faith of this heathen, that he knows salvation does not depend upon the bodily presence of Christ, for this does not avail, but upon the Word and faith. But the apostles did not yet know this, neither perhaps did his mother, but they clung to his bodily presence and were not willing to let it go, John 16:6. they did not cling to his Word alone. But this heathen is so fully satisfied with his Word, that he does not even desire his presence nor does he deem himself worthy of it. Moreover, he proves his strong faith by a comparison and says: “I am a man and can do what I wish with mine own by a word; should not you be able to do what you wish by a word, because I am sure, and you also prove, that health and sickness, death and life are subject to you as my servants are to me? Therefore also his servant was healed in that hour by the power of his faith.”

19. Now since the occasion is offered and this Gospel requires it, we must say a little about alien faith and its power. For many are interested in this subject, especially on account of the little children, who are baptized and are save.’ not by their own, but by the faith of others; just as this servant was healed not by his own faith, but by the faith of his master. We have never yet treated a. this matter; therefore we must treat of it now in order to anticipate, as much as in us lies, future danger and error.

20. First we must let the foundation stand firm and sure, that nobody will be saved by the faith or righteousness of another, but only by his own; and on the other hand nobody will be condemned for the unbelief or sins of another, but for his own unbelief; as the Gospel says clearly and distinctly in Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” And Romans 1:17: “The righteous shall live by faith.” And John 3:6-18: “Whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already.” These are clear, public words, that every one must believe for himself, and nobody can help himself by the faith of others, without his own faith. From these passages we dare not depart and we must not deny them, let them strike where they may, and we ought rather let the world perish than change this divine truth. And if any plausible argument is made against it, that you arc not able to refute, you must confess that you do not understand the matter and commit it to God, rather than admit anything contrary to these clear statements. Whatever may become of the heathen, Jews, Turks, little children and everything that exists, these words must be right and true.

21. Now the question is, what becomes of the young children, seeing that they have not yet reason and are not able to believe for themselves, because it is written in Romans 10:17: “Belief cometh. of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Little children neither hear nor understand the Word of God, and therefore they can have no faith of their own.

22. The sophists in the universities’ and the sects of the pope have invented the following answer to the question: Little children are baptized without their own faith, and on the, faith of the Church, which the sponsors confess at the baptism; thereupon the infant receives in baptism the forgiveness of sins by the power and virtue of the baptism, and faith of its own is infused with grace, so that it becomes a new born child through the water and the Holy Spirit.

23. But if you ask them for the proof of this answer and where this is found in the Scriptures, it is found up the dark chimney, or they will point to their doctor’s hat and say: “We are the highly learned doctors and we say so; therefore it is true, and you must not inquire any farther.” For almost all their doctrine has no other foundation than their own dreams and imaginations. And when they prepare themselves most carefully, they drag in some quotation from St. Augustine or another holy father. But this is not enough in the things that concern the salvation of souls; for they themselves are, and all the holy fathers were, men. Who will be surety and guarantee that they speak the truth? Who will rely upon it and die by it? For they say so without Scripture and the Word of God. Saints hither, and saints thither; if my soul is at stake, either to be lost or to be saved eternally, I cannot depend upon all the angels and saints put together, much less upon one or two saints, where they show us no Word of God.

24. From this falsehood they have gone farther and have even come to the point, where they have taught and still teach, that the sacraments have such power, that even if you have no faith and receive the sacrament (provided you have no intention to sin), you shall still receive the grace and the forgiveness of sins without faith. This they have inferred from the former opinion, that little children receive grace in this way without faith, solely by the virtue and power of the sacrament, as they dream. Therefore they also ascribe the same thing to adults and to all men, and utter such things from their own mind, and thereby they have in a masterly way eradicated and made void and unnecessary the Christian faith, and have set up human works alone by virtue of the power of the sacraments. On this subject I have said enough in what I wrote concern. the articles of the bull of Leo.

25. The holy ancient fathers have spoken somewhat better, although not clearly enough. They say nothing about this imaginary power of the sacraments, but they teach that little children are baptized in the faith of the Christian church. But since they do not explain thoroughly, how this Christian faith benefits the children, whether they thereby receive a faith of their own, or are baptized only upon the Christian faith, without faith of their own: the sophists rush in and interpret the language of the holy fathers to the effect, that children are baptized without faith of their own and receive grace solely by reason of the faith of the church. For they are enemies of faith; if only they can exalt works, faith must allow them to do so. They do not think for a moment, whether the holy fathers erred or they themselves understood the fathers aright.

26. Beware of this poison and error, even if it were the expressed opinion of all the fathers and councils; for it will not stand; it has no Scripture for its foundation, but only the imaginations and dreams of men. Moreover it is directly and manifestly opposed to the chief texts already mentioned, where Christ says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The conclusion from this is in short, baptism avails for nobody and is to be administered to nobody, unless he believes for himself; and without faith nobody is to be baptized, as St. Augustine himself says: “Non sacramentum justificat, sed fides sacrament” (“Not the sacrament justifies, but the faith of the sacrament”).

27. Besides these there are others, like the brethren called Waldensians. They teach that every one must believe for himself, and receive baptism or the Lord’s supper with his own faith; otherwise neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper is of any benefit to him. So far they speak and teach correctly. But it is a mockery of holy baptism, when they go on and baptize little children, although they teach that they have no faith of their own. They thus sin against the second commandment, in that they consciously and deliberately take the name and Word of God in vain. Nor does the excuse help them which they plead, that children are baptized upon their future faith, when they come to the age of reason. For the faith must be present before or at least in the baptism; otherwise the child will not be delivered from the devil and sins.

28. Therefore if their opinion were correct, all that is done with the child in baptism is necessarily falsehood and mockery. For the baptizer asks whether the child believes, and the answer for the child is: “Yes.” And he asks whether it desires to be baptized, and the answer for the child is again: “Yes.” Now nobody is baptized for the child, but it is baptized itself. Therefore it must also believe itself, or the sponsors must speak a falsehood, when for it they say: “I believe.” Furthermore, the baptizer declares that it is born anew, has forgiveness of sins, is freed from the devil, and as a sign of this he puts on it a white garment, and deals with it in every way as with a new, holy child of God: all of which would necessarily be untrue, if the child had not its own faith. Indeed, it would be better never to baptize a child, than to trifle and juggle with God’s Word and sacrament, as if he were an idol or a fool.

29. Nor is it of any use that they make a threefold distinction in the kingdom of God: first, it is the Christian church; secondly, eternal life; thirdly, the Gospel; and then say children are baptized for the kingdom of heaven in the third and first sense. That is, they are baptized, not to be saved thereby and to receive forgiveness of sins; but they are received into the church and brought to the Gospel. All this amounts to nothing and is only an invention of their imagination. For it is not entering the kingdom of heaven, if I get among Christians and hear the Gospel. The heathen can also do that without baptism. This is not entering the kingdom of heaven, however, you may talk of the first, second, and third sense of the kingdom of heaven. But being in the kingdom of heaven means to be a living member of the church, and not only to hear, but also to believe the Gospel. Otherwise a man would be in the kingdom of heaven, just as if I threw a stick or stone among Christians, or as the devil is among them. All this is worth nothing.

30. It also follows from this, that the Christian church has two kinds of baptism. and that children have not the same baptism as adults. Nevertheless St. Paul says there is only “one baptism, one Lord, one faith.” (Ephesians. 4:5): For if the baptism of children does not effect and bestow, what the baptism of adults effects and bestows, it is not the same baptism: it is indeed no baptism at all, but a sport and mockery of baptism, inasmuch as there is no baptism but that which saves. If one knows or believes that it does not save, he ought not to administer it. But if it is administered, it is not Christian baptism; for one does not believe, that it effects what baptism is to effect. Therefore it is another and foreign baptism. For this reason it were almost necessary, that the Waldensian brethren should have themselves baptized again, as they baptize our people again; because they not only receive baptism without faith, but even contrary to faith, and in mockery and dishonor of God administer another, foreign, unchristian baptism.

31. If now we cannot give a better answer to this question and prove that the little children themselves believe and have their own faith, my sincere counsel and judgment is, that we abstain altogether and the sooner the better, and never baptize a child, so that we may not mock and blaspheme the adorable majesty of God by such trifling and juggling with nothing in it. Therefore we here conclude and declare that in baptism the children themselves believe and have their own faith, which God effects in them through the sponsors, when in the faith of the Christian church they intercede for them and bring them to baptism. And this is what we call the power of alien faith: not that anybody can be saved by it, but that through it as an intercession and aid he can obtain from God himself his own faith, by which he is saved. It may be compared to my natural life and death. If I am to live, I myself must be born, and nobody can be born for me to enable me to live; but mother and midwife can by their life aid me in birth and enable me to live. In the same way I myself must suffer death, if I am to die; but one can help to bring about my death, if he frightens me, or falls upon me, or chokes, crushes or suffocates me. In like manner, nobody can go to hell for me; but he can seduce me by false doctrine and life, so that I go thither by my own error, into which his error has led me. So nobody can go to heaven for me: but he can assist me, can preach, teach, govern, pray and obtain faith from God, through which I can go to heaven. This centurion was not healed of the palsy of his servant; but yet he brought it about that his servant was restored to health.

32. So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: “To such belongeth the kingdom of God” etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, he bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture.

33. This is undoubtedly written of natural children. The interpretation of Christ’s words, as if he had meant only spiritual children, who are small in humility, will not stand. For they were small children as to their bodies, which Luke calls infants. His blessing is placed upon these, and of these he says that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Will we say they were without faith of their own? Then the passages quoted above are untrue: “He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” Then Christ also speaks falsely or feigns, when he says the kingdom of heaven is theirs, and is not really speaking of the true kingdom of heaven. Interpret these words of Christ as you please, we have it that children are to be brought to Christ and not to be forbidden to be brought: and when they are brought to Christ, he here compels us to believe that he blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven, as he does with these children. And it is in no way proper for us to act and believe otherwise as long as the words stand: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” Not less is it proper for us to believe that when they are brought to him he embraces them, blesses them, and bestows upon them heaven, as long as the text stands that he blessed the children which were brought to him and gave heaven to them. Who can ignore this text? Who will be so bold as not to suffer little children to come to baptism, or not to believe that Christ blesses them when they come?

34. He is just as present in baptism now as he was then: this we Christians know for certain. Therefore we dare not forbid baptism to children. Nor dare we doubt that he blesses all who come thither, as he did those children. So then there is nothing left here but the piety and faith of those who brought the little children to him. By bringing them, they effect and aid that the little children are blessed and obtain the kingdom of heaven; which cannot be the case unless they themselves have their own faith, as has been said. So we also say here, that children are brought to baptism by the faith and work of others; but when they get there and the pastor or baptizer deals with them in Christ’s stead, he blesses them and grants to them the faith and the kingdom of heaven: for the word and deed of the pastor are the word and work of Christ himself.

35. With this agrees also what St. John says in his first Epistle, 2:13: “I write unto you, fathers; I write unto you, young men; I have written unto you, little children.” He is not satisfied to write to the young men; he also writes to the children, and writes that they may know the Father. From this it follows that the apostles baptized children also, and held that they believe and know the Father, just as if they had attained to reason and could read. Although somebody might here interpret the word “children” as adults, as Christ designates his disciples sometimes: yet it is certain that here they are meant who are younger than the young men; so that it is evident he is speaking of young people who are under fifteen or eighteen years of age, and excludes nobody down to the first year: for these all are called children.

36. But let us examine their reason why they do not think children believe. They say, because they have not attained to reason they cannot hear God’s Word; but where God’s Word is not heard there can be no faith. Romans 10:17: “Belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Tell me is this Christian to judge of God’s works by our thinking, and say, Children have not attained to reason, therefore they cannot believe? How if through this very reason you have already departed from faith, and the children come to faith through their unreason? Dear friend, what good does reason do for faith and the Word of God? Is it not reason which resists in the highest degree faith and the Word of God, so that nobody can come to faith by means of reason? Reason will not endure God’s Word unless it is first blinded and disgraced. Man must first die to reason and become, as it were, a fool, and even as unreasonable and unintelligent as a little child, if he is to become a believer and receive the grace of God; as Christ says in Matthew 18:3: “Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” How often does Christ hold before us that we must become children and fools, and condemn reason?

37. Tell me also, what kind of reason had the little children whom Christ embraced and blessed, and upon whom he bestowed the kingdom of heaven? Were they not still without reason? Why does he command to bring them to him and then bless them? Where did they get the faith which makes them children of the kingdom of heaven? Nay, just because they are without reason and foolish, they are better prepared to believe than adults and those possessed of reason, because reason is always in the way and with its large head is not willing to push through the narrow door. One must not look upon reason or its works when faith and God’s work are under consideration. Here God alone works and reason is dead, blind and, compared to this work, an unreasonable block, in order that the Scripture may stand, which says: “God is wonderful in his saints;” and: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways,” Isaiah 55:9.

38. But since they stick so fast in reason, we must assail them with their own wisdom. Tell me, why do you baptize a man when he has come to the age of reason? You answer: He hears God’s Word and believes. I ask: “How do you know that?” You answer: “He professes it with his mouth.” “What shall I say? How, if he lies and deceives? You cannot see his heart.” “Very well, then you baptize for no other reason than for what the man shows himself to be externally, and you are uncertain of his faith, and must believe that if he has not more within in his heart than you perceive without, neither his hearing, nor his profession, nor his faith will help him; for it may all be a delusion and no true faith.” “Who then are you, that you say external hearing and profession are necessary to baptism; where these are wanting one must not baptize? You yourself must confess that such hearing and profession are uncertain, and not enough for one to receive baptism. Now upon what do you baptize? How will you justify your actions when you thus bungle baptism and bring it into doubt? Is it not the fact that you must come and say that it is not becoming for you to know or do more than that he whom you are to baptize be brought to you and ask baptism from you; and you must believe or commit the matter to God, whether he inwardly truly believes or not? In this way you are excused and baptize aright. Why then will you not do the same for the children, whom Christ commands to be brought to him and promises to bless? But you wish first to have the outward hearing and profession, which you yourself acknowledge is uncertain and not sufficient for baptism on the part of the one to be baptized. And you let go the sure word of Christ in which he bids the little children to be brought unto him, on account of your uncertain external hearing.”

39. Moreover tell me, where is the reason of a Christian while he is asleep, since his faith and the grace of God never leave him? If faith can thus continue without the aid of reason, so that the latter is not conscious of it, why should it not also begin in children before reason knows anything about it? In the same way I would like to say of every hour in which a Christian lives and is busy and occupied, that he is not conscious of his faith and reason, and yet his faith does not on that account cease. God’s works are mysterious and wonderful, where and when he wills: and again manifest enough, where and when he wills. Judgment upon them is too high and too deep for us.
40. Since it is commanded here, not to forbid little children to come unto him in order to receive his blessing, and it is not demanded of us to know the exact state of faith within, and the external hearing and profession are not sufficient for the one baptized, we are to he content that it is enough for us, the baptizers, to hear the profession of the one to be baptized, who comes to us of himself. And this for the reason that we may not administer the sacrament against our conscience, as giving it to those in whom no fruit is to be hoped for. But if they assure our conscience of their desire and profession, so that we can administer it as a sacrament that imparts grace, we arc excused. If his faith is not true, let that rest with God; we have not given the sacrament as a useless thing, but with the consciousness that it is beneficial.

41. All this I say in order that one may not baptize recklessly, as they do who even administer it with the deliberate knowledge that it will be of no effect or benefit to the person receiving it. For therein the baptizers sin, because they knowingly use God’s sacrament and Word in vain, or at least have the consciousness that it is neither intended nor able to effect anything; which is an altogether unworthy use of the sacrament and a temptation and blasphemy of God. For that is not administering the sacrament, but making a mockery of it. But if the person baptized denies and does not believe, you have done right anyhow, and have administered the true sacrament with the good consciousness that it ought to be beneficial.

42. However, those who do not come of themselves, but are brought, as Christ bids us to bring little children, the faith of these commit to him who bids them to be brought, and baptize them by his command, and say: “Lord, thou dost bring them and command to baptize them.” Thou wilt answer for them. On this I rely. I dare not drive them away nor forbid them. If they have not heard the Word, by which faith comes, as adults hear it, they nevertheless hear it like little children. Adults take it up with their ears and reason, often without faith; but they hear it with their ears, without reason and with faith. And faith is nearer in proportion as reason is less, and he is stronger who brings them than the will of adults who come of themselves.
43. These inventive spirits stumble mostly because in adults there is reason, which acts as if it believed the Word it hears. This then they call faith. Again they see that in children there is as yet no reason; for they act as if they did not believe. But they do not observe that faith in God’s Word is quite a different and deeper thing than what reason does with the Word of God. For it is the work of God alone above all reason, to which the child is just as near as the adult, yes, much nearer, and from which the adult is just as far as the child, yea, much farther.

44. But this that is contrived by reason is a human work. I think, if any baptism is certain, the baptism of children is most certain, because of the Word of Christ, where he commands to bring them, whereas the adults come of themselves. In adults there may be deception because of the reason that is manifest; but in children there can be no deception, because of their hidden reason in whom Christ works his blessing even as he has bidden them to be brought to himself. It is a glorious word and not to be treated lightly that he commands us to bring the children to him and rebukes those who forbid it.

45. But hereby we do not mean to weaken or destroy the office of preaching. For God indeed does not cause his Word to be preached for the sake of the rational hearing since no fruit results from that; but for the sake of the spiritual hearing which as I have said children also have as well and even better than adults; for they also hear the Word. For what else is baptism but the Gospel to which they are brought? However they hear it only once but they hear it more effectively because Christ, who has commanded to bring them receives them. For adults have the advantage that they frequently hear and can think of it again. Yet even in the case of adults it is a fact that the spiritual hearing is not effected by many sermons. But it may occur once during one sermon and then he has enough for ever. What he hears afterwards he hears either to improve the first hearing or to destroy it again.

46. In short, the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: “Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God.” He has spoken this and he does not lie. Therefore it must be right and Christian to bring little children to him. This can only be done in baptism. So also it must be certain that he blesses them and bestows the kingdom of heaven upon all who come to him according to the words: “To such belongeth the kingdom of God.” Let this be enough for this time.

47. Finally it would be in order here to treat of the spiritual meaning of leprosy and the palsy. But of leprosy much has been said in the Postil of the ten lepers. There it need not be treated at length here.

Today (November 6) is the anniversary of the death, in 1672, of German composer Heinrich Schütz (b. October 6 1585, Köstritz, Saxony). Here is his “Magnificat,” performed by the Vokal Ensemble of München.

Heinrich Schütz – Geistliche Gesänge – 1. Magnificat (SWV 426)

See also his Christmas Story and Resurrection History

Today in 1534 the British Parliament passed the “Act of Supremacy”, making Henry VIII and his successors to the English throne “the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England.” Here is the original text of the Act:

Albeit the king’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

It was on this day (November 2) in 1917 The British government issued the Balfour Declaration, calling for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Here is the official text of the declaration, along with an image of the official reprinting of the declaration in the November 9, 1917 edition of The Times. Read the Jerusalem Post’s Happy Birthday message on the declaration here

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Here is a hymn for today from Martin Rinkart, who became archdeacon of Eilenberg on this day in 1617.

Martin Rinkart, a Lutheran minister, was in Eilenburg, Saxony, during the Thirty Years’ War. The walled city of Eilenburg saw a steady stream of refugees pour through its gates. The Swedish army sur­rounded the city, and famine and plague were rampant. Eight hundred homes were destroyed, and the people began to perish. There was a tremendous strain on the pastors who had to conduct dozens of fun­erals daily. Finally, the pastors, too, succumbed, and Rinkart was the only one left—doing 50 funerals a day. When the Swedes demanded a huge ransom, Rinkart left the safety of the walls to plead for mercy. The Swedish com mander, impressed by his faith and courage, lowered his demands. Soon afterward, the Thirty Years’ War ended, and Rinkart wrote this hymn for a grand celebration service.

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

O may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessèd peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And free us from all ills, in this world and the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given;
The Son and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven;
The one eternal God, whom earth and Heaven adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

Happy Reformation Day everyone!

The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. (Psalm 46:11)

And here is a selection from essay on A Mighty Fortress, by Michael Streich:

Luther wrote the words to the hymn after a reflection on Psalm 46: “God is our refuge and strength.” Twice in the brief Psalm God is compared to a “stronghold.” God fights His people’s battles and, although the “nations made an uproar,” “He raised His voice, the earth melted.” Luther’s hymn, tailored to 16th century realities, incorporates these symbols into the verses. Bainton refers to Luther’s lyrics as, “richly quarried, rugged words set to majestic tones [that] marshal the embattled host of heaven.”

The English translation begins, “A Mighty Fortress is our God, A Bulwark never failing…” Luther’s beginning, however, is far more to the point and allows the singing peasants to identify symbols from their own 16th Century experiences: Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Ein gute Wehr und Waffen…” Luther begins by comparing God to a fortress, but more specifically a stronghold, a “feste Burg.”

The term feste implies an impregnable citadel or stronghold. It brings to mind some of the inaccessible fortresses in the German hills that are often referred to as a festung. In this fashion, Luther emphasizes the absolute power of God over the invading forces, “And He must win the battle.” (End of second stanza). The German here reads, “Das Feld muss er behalten.” This is a military phrase – not giving up the “battle field” to the enemy.

The use of the Burg is very obvious. A Burg was a fortified town. When invaders approached, the surrounding populace fled to the safety of the walls. In some cases, walled towns had various layers of walls. Residents of the Burg were called burghers. Significantly, they were free citizens of the town. Luther’s analogy is highly appropriate and Protestants, very familiar with medieval and post medieval wars, could easy understand that their God was like the most powerful of all Burgs: nothing could breach the walls.

Line two of the first verse is translated as, “a bulwark never failing.” Here again, Luther’s words are far more descriptive. Wehr refers to a barrage or an armed barrier. Another extended meaning in German refers to defending oneself tooth and nail. Waffen relates to weapons or arms. In essence, the Burg is a barrage and a strong weapon holding back the invader.

Here is a hymn for today from Bartholomaeus Helder, who died on this day in 1635 near Gotha.

“Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29)

O Jesus, Lamb of God, Thou art
The Life and Comfort of my heart.
A sinner poor I come to Thee
And bring my many sins with me.

O God, my sin indeed is great;
I groan beneath the dreadful weight;
Be merciful to me, I pray;
Take guilt and punishment away.

Saint John the Baptist points to Thee
And bids me cast my sin on Thee;
For Thou hast left Thy throne on high
To suffer for the world and die.

Help me to mend my ways, O Lord,
And gladly to obey Thy Word.
While here I live, abide with me;
And when I die, take me to Thee.

Today is the birthday of Mahalia Jackson, who although she was encouraged to become a blues singer, refused to sing anything but gospel because, “When you sing gospel you have a feeling there is a cure for what’s wrong. But when you are through with the blues, you’ve got nothing to rest on.”

Here are a few to cure the Monday blues.

Luther wrote in 1517 to Albrecht protesting the sale of indulgences to finance the building of a new cathedral. The Archbishop, of course, was one of the people who had authorized the sale of indulgences for that purpose.

To the Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Lord, Albrecht of Magdeburg and Mainz, Archbishop and Primate of the Church, Margrave of Brandenburg, etc., his own lord and pastor in Christ, worthy of reverence and fear, and most gracious.
JESUS

The grace of God be with you in all its fulness and power! Spare me, Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Prince, that I, the dregs of humanity, have so much boldness that I have dared to think of a letter to the height of your Sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, conscious of my smallness and baseness, I have long deferred what I am now shameless enough to do, — moved thereto most of all by the duty of fidelity which I acknowledge that I owe to your most Reverend Fatherhood in Christ. Meanwhile, therefore, may your Highness deign to cast an eye upon one speck of dust, and for the sake of your pontifical clemency to heed my prayer. Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter’s are circulating under your most distinguished name, and as regards them, I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them; to wit, — the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces [i.e., the graces conferred in the indulgences] are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say — though the thing is impossible — if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt.

O God, most good! Thus souls committed to your care, good Father, are taught to their death, and the strict account, which you must render for all such, grows and increases. For this reason I have no longer been able to keep quiet about this matter, for it is by no gift of a bishop that man becomes sure of salvation, since he gains this certainty not even by the “inpoured grace” of God, but the Apostle bids us always “work out our own salvation in fear and trembling,” and Peter says, “the righteous scarcely shall be saved.” Finally, so narrow is the way that leads to life, that the Lord, through the prophets Amos and Zechariah, calls those who shall be saved “brands plucked from the burning,” and everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation. Why, then, do the preachers of pardons, by these false fables and promises, make the people careless and fearless? Whereas indulgences confer on us no good gift, either for salvation or for sanctity, but only take away the external penalty, which it was formerly the custom to impose according to the canons.

Finally, works of piety and love are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet these are not preached with such ceremony or such zeal; nay, for the sake of preaching the indulgences they are kept quiet, though it is the first and the sole duty of all bishops that the people should learn the Gospel and the love of Christ, for Christ never taught that indulgences should be preached. How great then is the horror, how great the peril of a bishop, if he permits the Gospel to be kept quiet, and nothing but the noise of indulgences to be spread among his people! Will not Christ say to them, “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”? In addition to this, Most Reverend Father in the Lord, it is said in the Instruction to the Commissaries which is issued under your name, Most Reverend Father (doubtless without your knowledge and consent), that one of the chief graces of indulgence is that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God, and all the penalties of purgatory are destroyed. Again, it is said that contrition is not necessary in those who purchase souls [out of purgatory] or buy confessionalia.

But what can I do, good Primate and Most Illustrious Prince, except pray your Most Reverend Fatherhood by the Lord Jesus Christ that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy.

These faithful offices of my insignificance I beg that your Most Illustrious Grace may deign to accept in the spirit of a Prince and a Bishop, i.e., with the greatest clemency, as I offer them out of a faithful heart, altogether devoted to you, Most Reverend Father, since I too am a part of your flock.

May the Lord Jesus have your Most Reverend Fatherhood eternally in His keeping. Amen.

From Wittenberg on the Vigil of All Saints, MDXVII.

If it please the Most Reverend Father he may see these my Disputations, and learn how doubtful a thing is the opinion of indulgences which those men spread as though it were most certain.

To the Most Reverend Father, BROTHER MARTIN LUTHER.

[From: The Works of Martin Luther. Ed. and trans. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 25-28. Online text prepared by Belle Tuten of Emory University]

Here is a hymn for today from Cyriacus Schneegass, who died on this day in 1597 at Friedrichroda.

Lord, our Father, thanks to Thee
In this new year we render,
For every evil had to flee
Before Thee, our Defender.
Our life was nourished, we were fed
With rich supplies of daily bread,
And peace reigned in our borders.

Lord Jesus Christ, our thanks to Thee
In this new year we render;
Thy reign hath kept Thy people free,
Hath shown Thy mercies tender.
Thou hast redeemed us with Thy blood,
Thou art our Joy, our only Good,
In life and death our Savior.

Lord Holy Ghost, our thanks to Thee
In this new year we render,
For Thou hast led our eyes to see
Thy truth in all its splendor
And thus enkindled from above
Within our hearts true faith and love
And other Christian virtues.

Our faithful God, we cry to Thee:
Still bless us with Thy favor,
Blot out all our iniquity,
And hide our sins forever.
Grant us a happy, good new year
And, when the hour of death draws near,
A peaceful, blest departure.

Here is a hymn for today (October 19), from William O. Cushing, who died on this day in 1902. Commenting on the origins of the hymn, Cushing writes, “‘Hiding in Thee’ was written in Moravia, New York, in 1876. It must be said of this hymn that it was the outgrowth of many tears, many heart-conflicts and soul-yearnings, of which the world can know nothing. The history of many battles is behind it. But the occasion which gave it being was the call of Mr. Sankey. He said, ‘Send me some thing new to help me in my Gospel work.’ A call from such a source, and for such a purpose, seemed a call from God. I so regarded it, and prayed: ‘Lord, give me something that may glorify Thee.’ It was while thus waiting that ‘Hiding in Thee’ pressed to make it self known. Mr. Sankey called forth the tune, and by his genius gave the hymn wings, making it useful in the Master’s work.”

O safe to the Rock that is higher than I,
My soul in its conflicts and sorrows would fly;
So sinful, so weary, Thine, Thine, would I be;
Thou blest “Rock of Ages,” I’m hiding in Thee.

Refrain

Hiding in Thee, hiding in Thee,
Thou blest “Rock of Ages,”
I’m hiding in Thee.

In the calm of the noontide, in sorrow’s lone hour,
In times when temptation casts o’er me its power;
In the tempests of life, on its wide, heaving sea,
Thou blest “Rock of Ages,” I’m hiding in Thee.

Refrain

How oft in the conflict, when pressed by the foe,
I have fled to my refuge and breathed out my woe;
How often, when trials like sea billows roll,
Have I hidden in Thee, O Thou Rock of my soul.

Refrain

Here is a hymn for today from Danish hymnist Birgitte Katherine Boye, who died in Copenhagen on this day (October 17) in 1824.

He is arisen! Glorious word!
Now reconciled is God, my Lord;
The gates of heaven are open.
My Jesus did triumphant die,
And Satan’s arrows broken lie,
Destroyed hell’s direst weapon.
Oh, hear what cheer!
Christ victorious riseth glorious,
Life He giveth—
He was dead, but see, He liveth!

Today (October 15) in 1567 Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) became superintendent of Brunswick. Chemnitz has been referred to as Alter Martinus, the “Second Martin,” because of the importance of his work for carrying on the proclamation inaugurated by Luther. The following are selections from his writings on the topic of The Holy Scriptures and the Writings of the Fathers:

“The apostles propagated the doctrine of the Gospel, received from Christ and explained by the Holy Ghost, during the first few years without writing, solely by oral tradition; soon, however, by the will of God, as Irenaeus says, they began to commit to letters and to comprehend in writings, not a contrary, not a different, not another doctrine, but that very same doctrine which they preached orally. … We shall place as it were in the very forefront the beautiful statement of Irenaeus which is found in the preface and chapter 1 of Book III, where he says: “That alone is the true and living faith which the church has received from the apostles and communicated to her children. For the Lord of all gave His apostles the power of the Gospel, and through them we also have come to know the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also the Lord said: ‘He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent Me.’ For through no others do we know the plan of salvation except through those by whom the Gospel has come to us. That, indeed, which they then preached, they afterward delivered to us in the Scriptures by the will of God, that it should be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” This statement of Irenaeus speaks of the whole Scripture of the New Testament in general, whose authority, perfection, and (as we now say) sufficiency, he shows by the firmest of demonstrations. For that is beyond all controversy the only true and living faith which the primitive church received from the apostles and delivered to her children. But this faith was first conceived through the preaching of the apostles, which they themselves had received from the teaching of the Son of God. This doctrine of Christ and of the apostles, from which the true faith of the primitive church was received, the apostles at first delivered orally, without writing, but later, not by any human counsel but by the will of God, they handed it on in the Scriptures. What do we conclude? That this is the same doctrine which they had received from the Son of God, which they had preached orally, from which the primitive church had received the only true and lifegiving faith from the apostles and delivered it to her children. (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], pp. 79-81)

Irenaeus, Bk. 3, ch. 4, says that certain barbarian nations diligently preserved the ancient tradition without reading and writing, “believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is therein, through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who on account of His surpassing love toward His creation consented to be born of the Virgin, Himself through Himself uniting man with God; He suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received into glory; He will come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are judged; and He will cast into eternal fire the corrupters of the truth and the despisers of His Father and of His advent, etc. If anyone would preach to these barbarians what has been invented in addition by the heretics, they would at once close their ears and flee far away. Thus, through the ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not give entrance to the extravagant fictions of the heretics, etc.” This is the true and ancient tradition of the apostles which does not hand down anything outside of and beyond the Scripture but embraces the summary of the whole Scripture. And in Bk. 1, ch. 10, Irenaeus similarly explains the apostolic preaching. He says: “The church, planted in the whole world to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples this faith which is in One God, the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Ghost, who by the prophets preached the counsels of God, the Advent, and that birth which is of the Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ, our Lord, and His appearance from heaven in the glory of the Father, that before Christ Jesus, our Lord, God, Savior, and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess Him; and that He will hold a righteous judgment on all; that He will cast into eternal fire the wicked spirits, both the angels who sinned and became apostates and the ungodly and unjust and wicked and blasphemous men; but that He will give to the righteous and just, who keep his commandments and persevere in His love, some, indeed, from the beginning but some from the time of their repentance, life and incorruption as a gift and that He will clothe them with eternal glory. When the church has accepted this preaching and this faith, though she is scattered throughout the whole world, she diligently preserves it, as though she lived in one house, and she believes these things as if she had one soul and one heart, and she preaches these things harmoniously and teaches and transmits them as if she possessed only one mouth. For although there are different languages in the world, nevertheless, the import of the tradition is one and the same. And the churches which were founded in Germany do not believe or teach differently than those which are among the Iberians or those which are among the Celts or those which are in the Orient or those which are in Egypt or those which are in Lybia or those which are situated in the middle of the world. But as the sun is one and the same in the whole universe, so the light and preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who want to come to the knowledge of the truth, etc.” This, therefore, is the apostolic tradition, this the true antiquity of the church, this the universal consensus. And all the things which we accept and confess are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, pp. 240-42)

For we can affirm with a good conscience that we have, after reading the Holy Scripture, applied ourselves and yet daily apply ourselves to the extent that the grace of the Lord permits to inquiry into and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer antiquity. For we assign to the writings of the fathers their proper and, indeed, honorable place which is due them, because they have clearly expounded many passages of Scripture, have defended the ancient dogmas of the church against new corruptions of heretics, and have done so on the basis of Scripture, have correctly explained many points of doctrine, have recorded many things concerning the history of the primitive church, and have usefully called attention to many other things. And we long for this, that in the life to come we may see what we believe and hope concerning the grace of God on account of His Son, the Redeemer, as members of the true catholic church; that we may see (I say) the Son of God Himself, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and fathers, who held to the true foundation, and may enjoy intimate friendship with them to all eternity. Therefore we examine with considerable diligence the consensus of the true, learned, and purer antiquity, and we love and praise the testimonies of the fathers which agree with the Scripture. (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, p. 256)

…we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus, the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies of antiquity? Irenaeus writes to Florinus: “These dogmas, Florinus, have no sound meaning; these dogmas depart from the church; these dogmas not even the heretics would ever have dared to proclaim; these dogmas the presbyters who were before us and who were also disciples of the apostles have not handed down.” These things are from Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 20. But we confess also this, which we have not invented ourselves but have learned from the fathers: that we search out and quote the testimonies of the fathers, not as though the things which are shown and proved from clear testimonies of Scripture were either not certain or not firm enough in themselves or did not of themselves possess enough strength and authority unless also the consensus of the fathers were added; but the reason why they are quoted Augustine clearly explains in De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 3, ch. 7: “This I have mentioned not because we should rely on the opinions of any and all disputers as on canonical authority but that it may be clear that from the beginning until the present time in which this new thing has arisen this teaching about original sin has been guarded in the faith of the church with such great constancy that by those who treated the words of the Lord it was used as the surest way to refute other false things, rather than that anyone should have tried to refute it as false. Besides, the clearest and fullest authority for this statement lives in the sacred canonical books.” The same author says in De nuptiis et concupiscentia, Bk. 2, ch. 29: “But what shall I say of the expounders of the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic church, how they did not try to turn this to other meanings, because they were steadfast in the most ancient and most vigorous faith and were not moved by the new error? If I wanted to collect these and make use of their testimony, it would both be too long, and I would perhaps appear to have encroached more than I should have on the canonical authors, from whom we must not be turned aside.” In Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, Bk. 4, ch. 8, Augustine says: “Not as though the authority of any disputation should be equated with the canonical books but in order that those who believe that the holy fathers say a certain thing may be reminded how the catholic teachers followed the divine oracles concerning these matters before the new idle talk of the heretics; and that they may know that the true and anciently founded catholic faith is being defended by us against the recent audacity and destruction of the Pelagians.” The other thing which we hold concerning the authority of the fathers we have also learned from the fathers themselves. Augustine, in Letter No. 19, to Jerome, says: “Other writers (besides the canonical) I read in such a way that, no matter how great they are in holiness or learning, I do not consider a thing true because they have thought it so but because they have been able to persuade me either through other canonical authors or by some credible reason that they do not depart from the truth.” In Letter No. 111 he says: “We ought not to consider the reasonings of any individuals, be they ever so catholic and praiseworthy, as we do the canonical writings, so that we would not be permitted, without injury to the honor that is due these men, to disapprove and reject something in their writings, if perhaps we have found that they thought otherwise than truth is, as it has been understood with divine help either by others or by us. I deal with the writings of others as I want others to deal with mine.” In Contra Cresconium, Bk. 2, ch. 31, he says: “The canon of the canonical books was drawn up that we might, according to them, freely judge concerning other writings of either believers or unbelievers.” In ch. 32 he says: “I do not hold the letters of Cyprian as canonical, but I evaluate them by the canonical ones; and what in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures I receive with his compliments, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.” (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, pp. 258-59).

…statements that were more oratorical and extravagant than pious and correct rang out in the churches concerning free will, minimizing original sin and extolling the efficacy of the Law and the perfection of the righteousness of works, even of works of supererogation, and the righteousness of faith lay there in obscurity. Then God, in order to open the sleepy eyes of the doctors of the church to look more diligently at the teaching of Paul, permitted the church to be so disrupted by Pelagianism that it appeared that the very foundations of the entire Christian religion were about to collapse. At this point Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine recognized what they had not noticed before, namely that while they themselves and the other ancient fathers had been so preoccupied with stirring up zeal for good works, they had made many statements which did not agree with the analogy of faith. Augustine retracted many such statements. Jerome in his Dialogus adv. Pelagianos condemned many statements which we can read not only in the writings of the ancients but also in the very books of Jerome himself. Thus in an indirect way God again restored some light to the doctrine of the free remission of sins and other articles which otherwise would have been completely lost in the progress of time. Augustine states in regard to Psalm 101 that the pagans condemned the teaching of the church by saying, “You have destroyed discipline and perverted the morals of the human race by giving to men an opportunity for repentance and by promising immunity for all sins; and thus men do evil, secure in the fact that all things will be forgiven them when they have been converted.” Such objections some people tried to refute by changing the doctrine so that they restricted grace and in hyperbolic language extolled other teachings to the skies. But Augustine, after he learned his lesson from the Pelagian controversy, came to realize that the church was not being helped by this kind of thinking and that the truth was only being perverted and ultimately lost. For just as they should not do evil that good may come of it, so they should not teach falsely in order that the truth might be defended and retained. Augustine is correct and truthful when he says in De Civitate Dei, 16.2, “Many points pertaining to the catholic faith have been stirred up by the cunning trouble making of heretics, so that we have had to defend these points against them, consider more carefully, define more clearly, and preach more powerfully. The question has been raised by the adversary, and the opportunity is present for better learning.” This point is certainly most true in church controversies. (Loci Theologici [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989], Vol. II, pp. 472-73)

Among all the ancient writers there is indeed frequent mention of the sign of the cross. …at the time of Tertullian and afterward the Christians with their fingers formed a transverse figure like a cross in the air, and in this way identified themselves. It was…a profession and reminder that they believed in Christ crucified, and that they were placing all their hope and confidence in Him.” (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part IV [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986], p. 94)

Here is a hymn for today from Thomas H. Kingo, who died on this day (October 14) in 1703:

Dearest Jesus, draw Thou near me,
Let Thy Spirit dwell with mine;
Open now my ear to hear Thee,
Take my heart and seal it Thine;
Keep me, lead me on my way,
Thee to follow and obey,
E’er to do Thy will and fear Thee,
And rejoice to know and hear Thee.

Underneath Thy wings abiding,
In Thy Church, O Savior dear,
Let me dwell, in Thee confiding,
Hold me in Thy faith and fear;
Take away from me each thought
That with wickedness is fraught,
Tempting me to disobey Thee,
Root it out, O Lord, I pray Thee.

Thou, earth’s greatest joy and gladness,
And salvation, full and free,
Let Thy presence cheer my sadness,
And prepare my soul for Thee!
In the hour when I depart,
Touch my spirit, lips and heart,
With Thy Word assure, uphold me
Till the heav’nly gates enfold me.

On this day (October 13) in 1605 Theodore Beza, French-born Swiss Reformer, died. Here is a writing from Beza on the twofold nature of God’s Word, taken from Chapter 4 (sections 22-30) of The Christian Faith, translated by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, East Essex England, 1992).

That which we call The Word of God: Its two parts — the Law and the Gospel

On this subject we call the “Word of God” (for we know well that the Eternal Son of God is also so named) the canonical books of the Old and New Testament; for they proceed from the mouth of God Himself.

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the “Law”, the other the “Gospel”. For, all the rest can be gathered under the one or the other of these two headings.

What we call Law (when it is distinguished from Gospel and is taken for one of the two parts of the Word) is a doctrine whose seed is written by nature in our hearts. However, so that we may have a more exact knowledge, it was written by God on two Tables and is briefly comprehended in ten commandments. In these He sets out for us the obedience and perfect righteousness which we owe to His majesty and our neighbours. This on contrasting terms: either perpetual life, if we perfectly keep the Law without omitting a single point, or eternal death, if we do not completely fulfil the contents of each commandment (Deut. 30:15-20; James 2:10).

What we call the Gospel (“Good News”) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Matt 16:17; John 1:13), and totally surpasses natural knowledge. By it God testifies to us that it is His purpose to save us freely by His only Son (Rom. 3:20-22), provided that, by faith, we embrace Him as our only wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1 Cor 1:30). By it, I say, the Lord testifies to us all these things, and even does it in such a manner that at the same time he renews our persons in a powerful way so that we may embrace the benefits which are offered to us (1 Cor 2:4).

The similarities and the differences between the Law and the Gospel

We must pay great attention to these things. For, with good reason, we can say that ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principle sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.

The majority of men, blinded by the just judgement of God, have indeed never seriously considered what curse the Law subjects us to, nor why it has been ordained by God. And, as for the Gospel, they have nearly always thought that it was nothing other than a second Law, more perfect than the first. From this has come the erroneous distinction between precept and advice; there has followed, little by little, the total ruin of the benefit of Jesus Christ.

Now, we must besides consider these things. The Law and the Gospel have in common that they are both from the one true God, always consistent with Himself (Heb. 1:1-2). We must not therefore think that the Gospel abolishes the essence of the Law. On the contrary, the Law establishes the essence of the Gospel (Rom 10:2-4); this is what we shall explain a little further on. For both set before us the same God and the essence of the same righteousness (Rom 3:31), which resides in perfect love to God and our neighbour. But there is a great difference in these points which we shall touch on, and especially concerning the means of obtaining this righteousness.

For, in the first place, as we alluded to before, the Law is natural to man. God has engraven it in his heart from creation (Rom 1:32; 2:14,15). When, a long time afterwards, God made and exhibited the two Tables of the Law, this was not to make a new law, but only to restore our first knowledge of the natural law which, because of the corruption of sin, was little by little becoming obliterated from the heart of man (Rom 7:8-9). But the gospel is a supernatural doctrine which our nature would never have been able to imagine nor able to approve without a special grace of God (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14). But, the Lord has revealed it, firstly to Adam shortly after his sin, as Moses declares (Gen 3:15), afterwards to the patriarchs and the prophets in increasing degrees as seemed good to Him (Rom 1:2; Luke 1:55,70), until the day in which He manifested Jesus Christ in Person. It is He who has clearly announced and accomplished all that is contained in the Gospel (John 15:15; 6:38). This Gospel God still reveals today and will reveal it until the end of the world by the preaching instituted in His Church (John 17:18; Matt 28:20; 2 Cor. 5:20).

In the second place, the Law lays bare to us the majesty and justice of God (Heb. 12:18-21). The Gospel sets forth this same justice to us, but there it is pacified and satisfied by the mercy manifested in Christ (Heb. 12:22- 24).

In the third place, the Law sends us to ourselves in order to accomplish the righteousness which it commands us, that is to say, the perfect obedience to its commandments, which is necessary in order to escape guilt. That is why it shows us our curse and subjects us to it, as the Apostle declares (Rom 3:20; Gal 3:10-12). But the gospel teaches us where we shall find what we do not have and, having found it, how we shall be able to enjoy it. That is why it delivers us from the curse of the Law (Rom 3:21,22; Gal 3:13,14). In conclusion, the Law pronounces us blessed when we accomplish it without omitting anything; the Gospel promises us salvation when we believe, that is to say, when, by faith, we take hold of Jesus Christ who has everything which we lack, and still more that we need. Now, these two terms — to do what the Law commands, or to believe what God offers us in Jesus Christ — are two things which are not only very difficult but totally impossible to our corrupt nature. This latter, as St Paul says, cannot even perceive what is of God (2 Cor. 3:5; Phil 1:29). That is why it is necessary to add a fourth difference between the Law and the Gospel.

Thus, the fourth difference between the Law and the Gospel is that the Law, by itself, can only show us, and make us see, our evil more exceedingly, and aggravate our condemnation; not through any fault of its own (for it is good and holy), but because our corrupt nature burns for sin the more it is reproved and threatened, as St. Paul has declared through his own example (Rom 7:7-14). But the Gospel not only shows us the remedy against the curse of the law, but it is at the same time accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit who regenerates us and changes us (as we have said above); for He creates in us the instrument and sole means of applying to us this remedy (Acts 26:17,18).

In order to speak even more clearly, let us expound these words “letter” and “spirit” which some have taken in the wrong sense. I say, therefore, that the Gospel is not “letter”, that is to say, only a dead doctrine which sets before us in their bareness and simplicity (I do not say those things which it is fitting for us to do — for that is the office of the Law) the things which it is necessary for us to believe: that salvation is promised freely in Jesus Christ to those who believe; but it is “spirit”, that is to say, a powerful means full of efficacy from the Holy Spirit, and He uses it to create in us the power to believe the things which He teaches us, that is to say, to embrace free salvation in Jesus Christ. It is thus that the Law itself, which kills us and damns us in ourselves, justifies us and saves us in Jesus Christ, taken hold of by faith (Rom 3:31).

This is the reason why I have said that the Law and the Gospel are not contrary in that which concerns the essence of the righteousness with which we must be clothed in order to be accepted before God and to participate in eternal life; but they are contrary with regard to the means of having this righteousness. For the Law justly seeks in us this righteousness; it has no regard to what we can do but to what we ought to do (Gal 3:12). Man, indeed, by his own fault alone, has made himself unable to pay; nevertheless, he does not cease to be a debtor even if he is unable to pay. And consequently, the Law does us no wrong in demanding from us that which we owe, although we cannot pay it. But the Gospel, softening this righteous rigour as with the honey of God’s mercy, teaches us to pay by Him who has made Himself our Surety, who has put Himself, I say, in our place and paid our debt, as principal debtor, and to the last farthing (Col. 2:13,14). So that the rigour of the Law which made us tremble in ourselves and struck us down completely, now confirms us and accepts us in Jesus Christ. For, since eternal life is due to those who have obeyed the Law perfectly, and Jesus Christ has fulfilled all righteousness in the name of those who should believe in Him and take hold of Him by faith (1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9), it follows that, even according to the rigour of the Law, salvation cannot fail those who, by faith, have become united and incorporated with Jesus Christ.

 

For what ends the Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the Law

Having carefully understood this distinction of the two parts of the Word of God, the Law and the Gospel, it is easy to understand how and to what end the Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the one and the other in the Church. For there is no doubt that He employs them for the purpose for which they have been established.

We are then all so blind, whilst our corruption reigns in us, that we are ignorant even of our ignorance (John 9:41) and, not ceasing to smother the little light of knowledge which has been left to us so as to render ourselves inexcusable (Rom. 1:20,21; 2:1), we are pleased about that which ought to displease us most. It is necessary, before all things, that God, all good and full of pity, makes us know clearly the cursed pit in which we are. He could do it no better than by informing us, by the declaration of His Law, what we ought necessarily to be. Thus, blackness can never be better known than in being placed beside white (Rom. 3:20; 7:13).

This is why God begins with the preaching of the Law. In it alone we can see what we ought to be; and yet we cannot fulfil a single point of it. In it alone, we can see how near we are to our damnation, unless there comes to us some very strong and sure remedy.

And indeed, the stupidity which has reigned in the world at an times and reigns now more than ever, shows clearly how necessary it is that God begins at this point in order to draw us to Himself: by making us know what great and certain danger those are in who think least of it. The fact is, the Law was not given to justify us (for if this were so, Jesus Christ would have died in vain, as St. Paul says; Gal 2:21; 3:18-21), but, on the contrary, to condemn us, and to show us the hell which is opened wide to swallow us, to annihilate and totally abase our pride, in making the multitude of our sins pass before our eyes and showing us the wrath of God which is revealed from Heaven against us (Rom 1:18; 4:15; Gal 3:10,12). However, for a long time men have been blind and senseless. Not only do they seek their salvation in that which condemns them wholly or in part, that is to say, in their works, instead of running to Jesus Christ by faith, the only remedy against all that they can be justly accused of before God; but, what is more, they do not cease to add law upon law to their conscience, that is to say, condemnation upon condemnation, as if the Law of God did not condemn them enough (Gal 4:9,10; 5:1; Col. 2:8,16-23). It is like a prisoner to whom the prison door would be opened, but who, turning away from a freedom which he does not understand, goes away and voluntarily locks himself in a prison which is even more secure.

There then is the first use of the preaching of the Law; to make known our innumerable faults so that in ourselves we begin to be miserable and greatly humble ourselves; in short, to beget in us the first degree of repentance which is called ‘contrition of heart’; this produces a full and open confession toward the Lord. For he who does not know that he is sick will never come to the physician. ‘Mere are none more unfit to receive the light of salvation than those who think they see clearly by themselves, through lack of understanding how thick is the darkness in which they are born; so great that they must come out of it. On the contrary, they have always made it thicker from then on, and have not ceased to rush on willingly in it (John 9:41).

 

The other part of the Word of God called “Gospel”: Its authority, why, how and for what end it was written

After the Law comes the Gospel, the use and necessity of which cannot be better understood than by noting the following points:

Firstly, even as there is only one Saviour (Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim 2:5), there is also only one doctrine of salvation which is called Gospel, that is to say, Good News (Rom 1:16). It was fully announced and declared to the world by Jesus Christ (John 15:15) and the Apostles (John 17:8; 2 Cor. 5:19,20), and faithfully recorded by the Evangelists (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet 1:25) so as to prevent the wiles and craftiness of Satan who, without this, would have more easily put forward to men his dreams under the name of the gospel; however, he has not entirely failed to do so, by the just vengeance of God who has been provoked to anger against the men who, in their accustomed manner, have always preferred darkness to light. And when we say that the Apostles and Evangelists have faithfully recorded all the doctrine of the Gospel, we understand three points:

1. They have truly added nothing of their own as far as the substance of the doctrine is concerned (Col. 1:28; 2 Tim 3:16,17), but they have obeyed with precision and simplicity what the Lord had said to them: “Go, preach all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20); and St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, confesses that he does so (1 Cor. 11:23).

2. They have omitted nothing of that which is necessary to salvation. For, otherwise, they would have been disloyal to their commission which is not possible. And we see also St. Paul (Acts 20:27; Gal 1:9) and St. Peter (1 Pet 1:25) testify how conscientious they have been and how particular in this area (John 15:15; 16:13). That is why St. Jerome, writing on this subject, says, Chatter and babbling must not be believed without the authority of Holy Scripture.” And St. Augustine says even more clearly, “It is true that the Lord Jesus did many things which have not all been written down; for the Evangelist himself testifies that Jesus Christ said and did much that has not been written down. But God has chosen to have written down those things which are sufficient for the salvation of those who believe. (John 20 :30- 31)

3. What they have written, is written in such a way that the most uncultured and most ignorant in the world, if it is only held out to them, can learn there what is necessary for their salvation (1 Cor. 1:26,27). For otherwise, why would the Gospel have been put in written form in a language which everyone was then able to understand (1 Cor. 14:6-40), and even in the most familiar and popular manner of speaking which it had been possible to choose (1 Cor. 2:1). That is why St. Paul said that if the Gospel was hidden, it was hidden to those who were perishing and whose mind the god of this world had blinded, that is to say, the unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:3). And, indeed, the experience of all times has shown that God has not called the most wise and most learned, but, on the contrary, mostly of the most ignorant of the world (Is 29:14; Luke 10:21; 1 Cor. 1:26,27; 3:18); so far from the truth is it, that He wished to hide or cover His doctrine so that it should be understood by no-one.

We draw, then, two conclusions from this discourse which are very useful to what we are discussing:

The first is, that it is not necessary to reckon as Gospel anything which men have added to the Word of God written, that is to say, the doctrine contained in the books of the Old and New Testament; but that all additions are merely superstitions and a corruption of the only true Gospel of our Lord (Matt 15:9); St. Paul, has also spoken of this (Gal 1:8-9; 2 Tim 3:16,17). And St. Jerome wrote on this subject, “What is said without the authority of Holy Scripture is also easily set aside, as has been said.”

The second conclusion is that those who say that it only belongs to certain persons to read Scripture, and who, for this reason, do not want it to be translated into the common language, for fear that simple women and other people may read it (Rom 1:14; Gal 3:28; Matt 11:28), are the true antichrists, and instruments of Satan (Matt 23:13); they are afraid that their abuses be discovered by the coming of the light.

 

The manner in which the Gospel includes, in substance, the books of the Old Testament

Moreover, by this word Gospel we are far from meaning what is commonly called such, i.e., certain extracts which are disconnected without reason, neither discourses from the books of the four Evangelists or from the Epistles of St. Paul. On the contrary, we understand under this word Gospel, not only all of the New Testament but also all that has been promised or predicted in the Old Testament on the subject of Jesus Christ (Acts 26:22-23; 28:23 John 5:39; Rom 1:2).

For, as we have already said, the Gospel is the only means by which from the beginning of the world, God has always saved His elect (Heb. 13:8; Acts 4:12). That is why, as Moses declares (Gen 3:15), God began to announce it to the world from the sin of Adam, although it was manifested and preached clearly, a long time afterwards, by Jesus Christ Himself in Person, and by His Apostles (Rom 1: 1-6; 16:25, 26).

Thus, to summarize, we call Gospel the Good News which, from the beginning, and by His grace and mercy alone, God has announced to His Church: those who, by faith, embrace Jesus Christ shall partake of eternal life in Him (Rom 3:21, 22; John 6:40).

 

How what we say about the authority of the written Word must be understood: Why it is necessary that it be translated into all languages

When we say that the Gospel, written and recorded in the manner which God has given us, is the sole ordinary means which God uses to save men (that is why this Word is called The Word of Life and of reconciliation; John 6:68; Acts 5:20; Phil 2:16); we do not stop at the syllables, nor at the paper and ink, nor at a Gospel hung by the neck, or pronounced only as the charmers pronounce their charms, nor at a well patterned book, or worshipped with incense or other fineries. Let us never displease God by approving such sorceries and sacrileges.

But, in the first place, we close the door to all these fantastic notions which the Devil has made use of, in all times, to corrupt men.

And then, we hear the Gospel well and duly preached and expounded, so as to better understand the substance of it (Rom 10:8; 1 Pet 1:25), to put it in the heart where, by faith, it can produce the fruits of true repentance (Matt 13:23; Acts 16:14). The Apostles show this clearly. When Jesus Christ sent them out, He did not say to them, “Go, read the Gospel in an unknown tongue, and worship the book in which it is written.” but He said to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to every creature.” (Matt 28:19). 1 leave aside the remonstrances that St. Paul makes to the Corinthians when he speaks of the abuse that those committed in taking pleasure in hearing foreign languages ring out in the Church of God, without any prophet to explain what was said (1 Cor. 14). But how shall anyone believe without having heard, seeing that faith comes from what is heard, as St. Paul says (Rom 10:17)? And how shall anyone hear it when, far from being duly expounded, it is chanted in an unknown language (1 Cor. 14:9, 16-28)? How also shall anyone be established in the holy and true doctrine, comforted amid so many and various temptations, warned to resist false doctrines (Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16), without meditating night and day in the Word of God (Ps. 1:2), and examining carefully the passages of Holy Scripture (Acts 17:11; John 5:39). Thus has it always been done in the Church, until the Devil, through the just punishment of God, removed this light to bring in his darkness, without anyone perceiving it. St. Peter is a witness for this, when writing to all believers, he commends the diligence with which they should take heed to hear the word of the prophets (2 Pet 1: 19,20). For he knew that the word which the Lord had said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17), must be heard from the preaching of the Word of Life. St. Paul, also, expounded the same thing and practised it (Acts 20:27,28).

However, we do not say that it is permitted to everyone to be a teacher in the Church, and to expound the Holy Scriptures; for this office belongs, as we shall soon say more fully, to those who are called and lawfully ordained to do it (Rom. 10:15). But we say that everyone must read the Scriptures, and have the knowledge of them to confirm what has been expounded well in the Church, and to reject the false doctrine of false pastors. We say that the reading of the Holy Scriptures, — adding what is necessary, i.e. the pure preaching and exposition of them: it is for this that teachers and pastors are ordained in the Church (1 Cor. 4:2; 2 Cor. 5:19,20), and not to re-sacrifice Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:18) or to howl in a language unknown to the people (1 Cor. 14:28) –, is far from committing heresy; on the contrary, there is no other means of extirpating heresies (2 Tim. 3:15-17). And whoever prevents the reading of the Scriptures takes away, at the same time, from the poor people the only means of consolation (Rom. 15:4) and salvation (Luke 1:77; Acts 13:26; Eph. 1:13).

 

How the Holy Spirit uses the external preaching of the gospel to create faith in the heart of the elect, and to harden the reprobate

In the same way as the external preaching of the Gospel is an odour of death for the rebels who harden themselves, so is it an odour of life for the children of God (2 Cor. 2:15,16). Not that this force and power to save resides in the sound of the word, or that it comes from the energy of him who preaches (1 Cor. 3:7-8). But the Holy Spirit, whose office we are describing, uses this external preaching as a pipe or channel; He comes then to pierce to the depth of the soul, as the apostle says (Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet 1:23), so as to give by His grace and goodness alone, understanding to the children of God that they may be able to perceive and comprehend this high mystery of their salvation through Jesus Christ (Acts 16:14; Eph. 1: 18,19). Then, He also corrects their judgement so that they approve, with wisdom from God, what sense and reason used to think was folly (1 Cor. 2:6-16). Moreover he corrects and changes their will so that, with ardent affection, they embrace and receive the sole remedy which is offered in Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:29; Acts 13:48) against the despair into which, without this, the preaching of the Law would necessarily bring them (Eph. 2:1,4,5).

This then is how the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel, heals the wound which the preaching of the Law has uncovered and made worse (Rom. 6:14). This, I say, is how the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel, creates in us the gift of faith which comes, at the same time, to take hold of an that is necessary for salvation in Jesus Christ; this is what we have shown above.

 

The other fruit of the preaching of the law, once the preaching of the gospel has effectually done its work

Among the effects that Jesus Christ produces when He dwells in us, we have shown, and this is not the least, that He creates in us a pure heart (Ps. 51:10) to know (Jer. 24:7), to will and to do what is of God (Phil 2:13); previously we were slaves in sin (Rom 6:22), enemies of God (Eph. 2:12), incapable even of thinking anything good (2 Cor. 3:5).

Thus, when our disposition has been changed, the preaching of the Law begins also to change its effect in us, such that instead of terrifying us, it consoles us (1 John 2:17; 2 Pet 1: 10,11); instead of showing us how near our damnation is, it serves us as a guide to teach us the good works (Jer. 31:33; Rom 7:22) in which God has purposed we shall walk (Eph. 2:10); finally, instead of being an unpleasant and unbearable yoke, it becomes pleasant and light to us (Matt 11:30). There remains with us only one regret: that of not being able to obey it perfectly, as we wish to do, on account of the remnant of our corruption which battles against the Spirit (Rom 7:22,23). But all this regret does not drive us to despair, but rather drives us to pray ardently to our Father who strengthens us more and more (Rom 8:23-26). Faith, which is the testimony of the Spirit of God crying in our hearts (Rom 8:15), indeed assures us that the curse of the Law has been blotted out by the blood of Jesus Christ to whom it unites us (Rom 8:1); moreover, the same faith also assures us that the Spirit shall conquer, however long He tarries (Rom 6:14), and even death shall be the means of our victory (John 5:24; 1 Cor. 15:26,54; Heb 2:14). Thus is brought to completion in us, by degrees, the remainder of true repentance, which comes from true conversion; it begins with contrition, or feeling of sin, and progresses by amendment of all that is in the man, visible and invisible (1 Thes. 5:23).

That is also why we conclude that this leads every true penitent to confess his fault before him whom it concerns, that is to say, before those who have been offended, and even before the whole assembly of the Church, if that is necessary. This confession must be accompanied, according to the measure in which this is possible, with restitution and satisfaction towards one’s neighbour, for, without this, repentance can only be feigned and counterfeit. Thus, it is easy to see that we do not reject, but, on the contrary, require as necessary to salvation the true confession which has been ordained of God. Nevertheless, we have no desire to torment consciences by auricular confession (as it is called), which men have invented, in place of true confession and repentance, nor to establish towards God any other satisfaction than the sole satisfaction of Jesus Christ.

 

The second means which the Holy Spirit uses to enable us to enjoy Jesus Christ, and why the Lord has never been content solely with the preaching of His word.

We have said that the Sacraments are the other means, the other instrument by which the Holy Spirit applies to us all that is necessary for our salvation. But, since by this word is generally understood all the signs by which any sacred and spiritual thing is declared to us, it is necessary, first of an, to limit the meaning of the word.

Therefore, we must understand that our God, who is perfectly merciful, in using our very poor and miserable nature as a means to better manifest His goodness and long suffering, has not been content to simply make known to us and to show us, as it were from a distance, the means by which it has pleased Him to save us. Nevertheless, even in this, He uses incomprehensible gentleness and compassion in informing us of His will through men similar to ourselves (Deut. 18:15; Phil 2:7; 2 Cor. 5:19,20), and, what is more, stammers, so to speak, with us as nurses do with their little children (1 ‘Mess 2:7). But, in addition, to crown His infinite goodness, He has willed to add to the preaching of His Word certain actions which are designed to compel the most uneducated and stubborn in the world to believe more and more that God is not mocking them in offering them eternal life by this most wondrous means — the death of His own Son. Thus, by such signs and actions, all their senses are driven to consent to the doctrine of the Gospel, as if they were already fully enjoying the salvation which is promised to them. In the same way, we see (if it is proper to make a comparison between affairs in the world and the incomprehensible goodness of God) that, when judicially the possession or ownership of something is awarded to us, certain ceremonies and actions will be used in the act of taking possession or in the execution of a warrant, to assure us and to testify to others that such and such belongs to us. Even in our civil affairs, although a lawyer has signed a contract and appended the name of the witnesses, in addition to all this, the seal of the office where the contract was drawn up will be affixed, so as to render the contract more valid and authentic (Rom 4:11).

Thus, from the beginning, our Lord God was not content with announcing to Adam the grace by which He had purposed to save His Church through His Son; He willed to add thereto sacrifices, as living figures of the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to strengthen the faith of the children of God in the redemption which they were awaiting (Heb. 11:4). Then afterwards, renewing this covenant of grace and of mercy to Abraham, He added thereto the Sacrament of circumcision (Gen 17:10,11). Finally, at the time of Moses, He added thereto the Sacrament of the Passover Lamb and many other ceremonies (Ex. 12); these were Sacraments representing to them what Jesus Christ would accomplish in His time, that is to say, all the mystery of their salvation: the Apostle declares this amply in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But when the time appointed by God arrived, Jesus Christ, by His coming, put an end to all that which had prefigured His coming. He put an end to the shadows and Old Testament Sacraments and brought to the world another greater clarity so that, henceforth, men might worship God with more pure and spiritual service, as approaching more. closely the nature of God who is Spirit (John 4:21-25). However, having still regard to our frail and dull nature, He thought well to add some Sacraments and external signs to the preaching of this eternal Word, to better nourish and support our faith. For, although Jesus Christ has already acquitted us by His death, yet, while we are below, we possess the Heavenly Kingdom only by hope (Rom 8:24; 1 Cor. 13:9); it is needful that we be supported to grow in this and persevere to the end (Eph. 4:15).

It was on this day (October 13) in 1834 that “In the Hour of Trial” was written by James Montgomery (1771–1854), based on a verse from the third chapter of Revelation:

Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

Today in 1585 German composer and organist Heinrich Schütz, was born (d. November 6 1672). Schütz is “generally regarded as the most important German composer before Johann Sebastian Bach and often considered to be one of the most important composers of the 17th century along with Claudio Monteverdi. He wrote what is thought to be the first German opera, Dafne, performed at Torgau in 1627; however, the music has since been lost. He is commemorated as a musician in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church on July 28 with Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel. He was buried in the Dresden Frauenkirche but his tomb has since been destroyed.” (wiki) Here, courtesy of Oedipus Coloneus, is his Resurrection History.

Heinrich Schütz – Auferstehungs Historie (Resurrection History) (SWV 50).

Sopranos:

1. Maria Cristina Kiehr.
2. Susan Norin.
3. Hanne Mari Orbaek.
4. Susanne Rydén.

Altos:

1. Andreas Scholl.
2. Akira Tachikawa.

Tenors:

1. Martin Hummel (Evangeliste).
2. Gerd Turk.
3. Kurt Widmaier.

Barytons:

1. Warner Gura.
2. Andreas Lebeda.

Basses:

1. Ulrich Messthaler.
2. Franz Josef Selig.

Concerto Vocale.
Dir. René Jacobs.

Here is a hymn for today from Cyriacus Schneegast, who was born on this day in 1546 at Buffleben, near Gotha (d. October 23 1597).

Lord, our Father, thanks to Thee
In this new year we render,
For every evil had to flee
Before Thee, our Defender.
Our life was nourished, we were fed
With rich supplies of daily bread,
And peace reigned in our borders.

Lord Jesus Christ, our thanks to Thee
In this new year we render;
Thy reign hath kept Thy people free,
Hath shown Thy mercies tender.
Thou hast redeemed us with Thy blood,
Thou art our Joy, our only Good,
In life and death our Savior.

Lord Holy Ghost, our thanks to Thee
In this new year we render,
For Thou hast led our eyes to see
Thy truth in all its splendor
And thus enkindled from above
Within our hearts true faith and love
And other Christian virtues.

Our faithful God, we cry to Thee:
Still bless us with Thy favor,
Blot out all our iniquity,
And hide our sins forever.
Grant us a happy, good new year
And, when the hour of death draws near,
A peaceful, blest departure.

And one more hymn for the day, this time from Samuel Longfellow, American clergyman and brother of poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–1882), who died on this day in 1892 (b June 18 1819).

“The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (I Timothy 3:15)

One holy Church of God appears
Through every age and race,
Unwasted by the lapse of years,
Unchanged by changing place.

From oldest time, on farthest shores,
Beneath the pine or palm,
One unseen Presence she adores,
With silence, or with psalm.

The truth is her prophetic gift,
The soul her sacred page;
And feet on mercy’s errands swift
Do make her pilgrimage.

O living Church, thine errand speed,
Fulfill thy task sublime;
With Bread of life earth’s hungers feed;
Redeem the evil time!

Here is a hymn for today from Johann S. Kunth, who was born on this day in 1700 at Liegnitz, Silesia (d. 7 September 1779, Baruth).

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9)

A rest remaineth for the weary;
Arise, sad heart, and grieve no more;
Though long the way, and dark and dreary,
It endeth on the golden shore.
Before His throne the Lamb will lead thee,
On heav’nly pastures He will feed thee,
Cast off thy burden, come with haste;
Soon will the toil and strife be ended,
The weary way which thou hast wended.
Sweet is the rest which thou shalt taste.

The Father’s house has many a dwelling,
And there will be a place for thee.
With perfect love His heart is welling
Who loved thee from eternity.
His precious blood the Lamb hath given
That thou might’st share the joys of Heaven,
And now He calleth far and near:
“Ye weary souls, cease your repining,
Come while for you My light is shining;
Come, sweetest rest awaits you here!”

O come, come all, ye weak and weary,
Ye souls bowed down with many a care;
Arise and leave your dungeons dreary
And listen to His promise fair:
“Ye bore your burdens meek and lowly,
I will fulfill My pledge most holy,
I’ll be your solace and your rest.
Ye are Mine own, I will requite you;
Though sin and Satan seek to smite you,
Rejoice! Your home is with the blest.”

There rest and peace in endless measure
Shall be ours through eternity;
No grief, no care, shall mar our pleasure,
And untold bliss our lot shall be.
Oh, had we wings to hasten yonder—
No more o’er earthly ills to ponder—
To join the glad, triumphant band!
Make haste, my soul, forget all sadness;
For peace awaits thee, joy and gladness—
The perfect rest is nigh at hand.

Here is a hymn for today from Peter Herbert, who died on this day in 1571 (b. Petrus Hubertus, ca. 1535, Fulneck, Moravia):

Faith is a living power from Heaven
That grasps the promise God hath given,
A trust that cannot be o’erthrown,
Fixed heartily on Christ alone.

Faith finds in Christ whate’er we need
To save or strengthen us indeed,
Receives the grace He sends us down,
And makes us share His cross and crown.

Faith in the conscience worketh peace,
And bids the mourner’s weeping cease;
By faith the children’s place we claim,
And give all honor to one Name.

Faith feels the Spirit’s kindling breath
In love and hope that conquer death;
Faith worketh hourly joy in God,
And trusts and blesses e’en the rod.

We thank Thee then, O God of Heaven,
That Thou to us this faith hast given
In Jesus Christ Thy Son, who is
Our only fount and source of bliss.

And from His fullness grant each soul
The rightful faith’s true end and goal,
The blessedness no foes destroy,
Eternal love and light and joy.

Here is a hymn for today from Joseph Hoskins, who died on this day in 1788.

To live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:21)

Let thoughtless thousands choose the road
That leads the soul away from God;
This happiness, dear Lord, be mine,
To live and die entirely Thine.

On Christ, by faith, I fain would live,
From Him my life, my all, receive,
To Him devote my fleeting hours,
Serve Him alone with all my powers.

Christ is my everlasting All;
To Him I look, on Him I call;
He will my every want supply
In time and through eternity.

Soon will the Lord, my Life, appear;
Soon shall I end my trials here,
Leave sin and sorrow, death and pain.
To live is Christ, to die is gain.

Soon will the saints in glory meet,
Soon walk through every golden street,
And sing on every blissful plain:
To live is Christ, to die is gain.

Here is a hymn for today from southern hymn writer William Walker, who died on this day in 1875 (b. May 6 1809), and a bluegrass version of the hymn performed by Blue Highway:

1. What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse, for my soul.

2. When I was sinking down,
Beneath God’s righteous frown,
Christ laid aside his crown, for my soul.

3. To God, and to the Lamb, I will sing,
Unto the great I AM,
While millions join the theme, I will sing.

4. And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on,
I’ll sing, and joyful be,
And through eternity
And through eternity I’ll sing on.

On this day (September 21) in the year 1452, Italian reformer and martyr Girolamo Savonarola was born in Ferrara, Italy (d. May 23 1498).  Here is a sermon on Savonarola written by Charles Spurgeon, originally published in the April 1869 edition of the Sword & Trowel.

The Florentine Monk

In the month of May this year it is proposed to hold a conference of Italian Christians in the fine old city of Florence. Gavazzi, whose evangelistic work among his countrymen has inspired new hopes in English breasts, as to the future of Protestantism in that land of olives and cypresses, has, with the assistance of those who are equally enthusiastic for the cause of God and truth, formed an Evangelical Alliance in Italy, for the purpose of unitedly combatting “the two great enemies of the divine religion of Christ—Popery and Rationalism.” They thus hope to “present a compact phalanx against the expected assaults of the coming Œcumenical Council.”1 Florence has not inaptly been chosen as the scene of this Protestant demonstration. Exactly four centuries ago, it witnessed the martyrdom of a Florentine monk, who, ere the Reformation dawned, and while, indeed, Martin Luther was a youth of six years of age, had aroused the enmity of one of the vilest miscreants of all the debased wretches that wore the triple crown, and had struck a blow at the pretensions of the Papacy, which was only the precursor of that mightier onslaught which staggered the see of Rome, and ushered in the Reformation. It is worth while to run over the incidents of that short but eventful life, since its lessons are as useful to-day as ever.

Savonarola was born in 1452, of respectable parents, at Ferrara. From his grandfather, a physician to a noble duke, he gained his first acquaintance with learned pursuits; from his mother he obtained those lessons of goodness and piety which influenced his heart and moulded his character. Designed for the medical profesion, he soon evinced a passionate longing for other pursuits. Thoughtful, earnest, high-souled, his heart guided his head, and both became devoted to the inner world of spiritual life, into which he withdrew, bidding adieu to the scenes of greedy lust and worldly pleasures by which he was surrounded. He was not the first, we suppose, who sought to relieve his young burning heart by rhyming. We have very little left of his youthful effusions, but they indicate the great struggles of his soul, and foretell the thoughts of a riper and more matured and experienced observation. Thus early, he seemed to have gained a profound sense of the deep-seated corruptions of the apostate church. The profligate sensuous age moved him to write in terms of just severity; and it is noticeable how emphatically he lays the axe at the root of the upas-tree—2

“The earth so staggers under every vice,
That never will it lift its head again;
Rome is that head, so bowed with wickedness,
That ended now for ever is her reign.”

Deeply did he lament the corruptions of the church. Bitterly did he bewail its abandonment of the high mission to which he believed it had been called. And yet, when he saw the outside world, he viewed it with intense disgust. For him it had no attractions. He despised its allurements; he detested its vanities; and so, with a moral determination, and a stern self-denial, worthy of a nobler consummation, he retired into a Dominican cloister. At first a lay-brother, mending the garments and keeping the garden of the convent, he became, after a year of probation, a monk. He was an enthusiastic student. As he himself confesses, he strove after truth with all his powers. Truth was the empress of his soul. He loved her for her own sake. “She illumines,” he says, “the soul with divine light, and leads it to communion with God, who is himself truth.” Fortunately, he obtained, like his successor of the convent of Erfurt, a copy of the Holy Scriptures. How earnestly did he apply himself to a thorough investigation of its teachings! Here, in his solitary cell, shut out from the gaieties and fascinations of Italian life, isolated from others by his very earnestness and heart-yearnings, like a panting hart braying for the water-brooks, he thirsted for the translucent purity of God’s all-satisfying truth. It is true, he read the Scriptures in the light—always a “dim, religious” one—of the church, but he could not shut his eyes to the awful revelations it gave of the abomination of desolations. His soul luxuriated in the peace-infusing teachings of the Word; but his heart was stirred up within him as he compared the church as it was with its ideal state. “Where,” he asks, “are the precious stones—where the pure diamonds, the bright lamps, the sapphires, the white robes, and white roses of the church?” It was thus that fourteen years of retirement were spent; the fires of suffering purifying his nature, and leading him to that higher renunciation and nobler consecration so needed for the work of the future.

Called from the seclusion of his cell, at the age of thirty-seven, to active labour in the city of Florence, Savonarola journeyed thither on foot—a dark, mysterious providence overhanging him; a disturbed world of conflicting thoughts within him; and an atmosphere of disquietude and gloom around. To what had his God called him? What meant those ceaseless agitations which electrified his soul, and burdened him as with a message from the Lord, crushing him to the earth? Subsequent events developed the foreshadowings.
Just at this time, Florence was at the dizzying height of its renown. It possessed nearly a thousand fortified positions. Its beauty of situation, its rich lands, its luxuriance, its wealth, its treasures of art, its libraries, its seats of learning, magnificent palaces, unrivalled advantages and commercial prosperity, with its gaities and worldly attractions, made it one of the wonders of Europe. If England be, as the keen satire of Napoleon has represented, a nation of shopkeepers, Florence was well-nigh a city of bankers and merchants. Being the great banking-place of the Continent, its wealth was enormous. As Corinth, under the fostering care of Augustus, and in the zenith of its commercial glory, grew licentious, and proud, and reckless, so Florence, under the luxurious sway of Lorenzo di Medici the Magnificent, became heathenish and viciously immoral. Savonarola’s voice was soon heard in the church of St. Mark, censuring the tendencies of the age, and laying, bare, with merciless severity, the corruptions of the church. It must have been a strange sight to see the spare, haggard form of his pale-faced, keen-eyed, Roman-nosed monk, exciting, the crowds of listeners, and overpowering them with his vigorous eloquence. There was nothing in his voice to allure attention. It was thin and weak. Nor was there anything in his manner, for he was unpractised in speaking; but his words carried weight, and each had a flaming fire-dart which pierced its way, and carried conviction. His denunciations of the paganism of Florence, and the gross abominations of the church, stirred the city to its depths. The friar’s popularity grew and spread like living fire. Men listened and shuddered. Priests heard, trembled, and hated. The people grew enthusiastic. Salvation by faith, not by works—forgiveness of sin, not by absolution, but by Christ; these were unheard of truths from such a pulpit, and were as welcome as they were strange. With sternness of manner he denounced the prevailing sins of the time, and with affectionate entreaty besought men, like another John the Baptist, to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand.” Indeed, his prophetic utterances of a visitation from God were listened to with much dismay. His extraordinary faithfulness in rebuking those current sins of the wealthy to which they thought they had a prescriptive right; his personal form of address, without which no minister or reformer can hope to be successful in soul-winning; his clear evangelic utterances as to the natural state of the soul, its need of redemption, and the suitability of the free gospel of God’s grace to meet that need, told upon the people. They wept. They were silenced. Men who took down his discourses, were known to drop the pens from their hands. Country people walked miles to hear the great preacher; came, indeed, the night before the Sunday, and besieged the church doors at early morn, that they might be sure of a seat. Rich burghers gave them victuals, and even acted as doorkeepers. The convent church was too small; nor could the cathedral accommodate more than the three thousand persons who flocked to hear the friar.

As prior of St. Mark, Savonarola was expected to pay homage to Lorenzo di Medici. He refused. In vain did Lorenzo seek to win the stern friar’s confidence; he would loiter in the garden to attract his attention; money was given most royally to the poor; the sermons were heard; but all Lorenzo got in return was unsparing denunciation. Five men were sent to induce the friar to moderate his stinging criticisms, and to cease his prophetic utterances. “Go,” was the stern answer, “and tell Lorenzo that he must repent of his sins, for God is about to punish him and his. He threatens me with banishment. Well, I am a foreigner, and he a citizen, and the first in the city; but know that I shall stay, and that he will soon be forced to quit.” Strange to say, this declaration came true. Lorenzo the Magnificent lay on his death-bed. Anxious to be absolved from his sins, he sent for the monk, whom he had feared. Savonarola imposed three conditions. He was first to believe in God’s ability and willingness to forgive; this the sick man confessed. Then he was to restore that which he had unrighteously gained. This duty he promised to perform by his heir. Thirdly, said Savonarola, “Give back to Florence her ancient liberty;” but Lorenzo turned his head away, and Savonarola departed.

After Lorenzo’s death he addressed himself to the work of reformation. Beginning where reformation, as well as charity, should begin, at home, he renovated his convent, induced the monks to reform, to live higher lives, to study, and to preach. Next, he sought the reformation of the Florentine State. Henceforth he must become a politician. It is useless to criticise and condemn: he may have been fanatical, unwise, foolish. He, at least, did not think so. He had his dreams of an ideal government, and he lived to see them come true, though they hastened his fate. He preached on the downfall of the State; declared that soon the Lord’s vengeance would come upon the Florentines; announced the termination of the great house of Medici; and predicted that “Over the Alps one is coming sword in hand against Italy to chastise her tyrants. His coming will be in the storm and in the whirlwind, like that of Cyrus.” At the time, no one believed the warning voice of the strange prophet. The city was at peace; people were married and given in marriage, and the end came not. But lo! the King of France came over the Alps, with an immense army, took Naples, and marched into Florence. Then believed they the message of the friar. The Medici were expelled. Savonarola appeared before the King of France, secured peace, obtained milder terms; and the Florentines were allowed to choose their own mode of government. On the friar, however, was devolved this task. He chose the democratic form; but Jesus Christ was to be King of the city. A general amnesty was proclaimed, and the streets of Florence were thus saved from the deluge of blood which seemed inevitable. A contemporary writer states that “Apart from the Father’s preaching, streams of blood would have been seen to flow in the city; but his words and his authority, which stood at that time very high, appeased the storm, and hindered the carrying out of revengeful thoughts.”

It was marvellous how his power was felt. He was looked upon as a deliverer and a prophet. His words were treasured up, and were held as coming from God himself. His holy ascendancy was such that men everywhere saw it, felt it, were cowed under it, and not a few wished to be delivered from it. He waged relentless war against the sins of the rich, and denounced the vices of the poor. He changed for a time the character of society in the city. Dr. Seibert, in his biography, “Savonarola der Reformator von Florenz,” describes the wondrous effect of the friar’s teaching:—”Mortal enemies fell into each other’s arms and became reconciled; the rich spontaneously restored ill-gotten gains: one citizen in particular made restitution of 3,000 ducats, the possession of which disquieted his conscience. Women renounced of their own accord their pride of dress, and went about in modest garments of drab. Ballads and love songs were heard no longer in the country, and religious singing took their place. In the city the theatres and taverns soon became empty and desolate, and in a short time cards and dice were no longer to be seen, vain pomp disappeared, all moral earnestness, and a wonderful degree of love and devotion to eternal things laid hold of the people.” As one of his opponents said, “The people seemed to become fools from love to Christ.” At the season of carnival men delivered up their dice, cards, and card-boards, scandalous images, and immoral novels, and women their rouge, scented waters, veils, false hair, mirrors—indeed, never before, and we fear never since, were women more self-sacrificing—all these luxuries were collected in the marketplace and burnt, youths singing in procession, round what has been called this “auto-da-fé of sin and worldly pleasures.”

Besides improving the social condition of the poor, he endeavoured to reform the church. He never spared the priests—they were “the devil’s midwives.” Referring to the primitive church, he once said, “In those days they had a golden priest and wooden vessels, but now we have golden vessels and a wooden priest.” But especially was he emphatic in his testimony to the preciousness of the Scriptures. “The ruin of the church,” he said, “is to be traced to this, that Christians no longer read the Scriptures; it is owing to this that thick darkness broods over the Christian people, and that impiety gets so much the upper hand.” He very imperfectly understood the Scriptures, but he was alone in demanding that they should be read, and their lessons taught to the people.

A man like Savonarola, it is needless to remark, must soon have aroused the enmity of the Papacy. It was no difficulty for him to find foes; they compassed him about like bees. They were principally of the order of the Franciscans, who always hated the order of which Savonarola was a member—the Dominican. News reached Rome of the terrible power and popularity of the friar. The Pope’s first thought was to conciliate so dangerous a foe. He, therefore, offered him a cardinal’s hat. But it was declined. “I wish,” he said, “for no other red hat than that of a martyr, dyed with my own blood.” It was equally in the power of the Pope to grant him that favour—for which, indeed, he felt most inclined. He was then respectfully and in a most fatherly way invited to show himself at Rome. “Beloved son! Health to thee, and apostolic benediction.” But, as everyone knows, the Pope’s blessing was always a curse, and in this case the blessing concealed—or only partly concealed—a power that would by penance, prison, or poison, reduce the friar to everlasting silence. Savonarola was not to be caught. He knew the man with whom he was dealing. The Pope was the incarnation of all the devilry that ever escaped from hell. An abandoned wretch, guilty of scandalous crimes—who could trust him? And so, wisely, the friar refused to go. He did not refuse, however, to fulminate against the Pope. He, too—like most of us—could issue his little bull from his diminutive Vatican. At last the Pope prohibited his preaching, and ordered that the congregation of St. Mark should be dissolved. Such elements were, however, not readily dissolved. Savonarola for a time maintained silence, but was stung into action by the Pope’s Breve. “I cannot forbear preaching,” he declared; “the word of God is as a fire in my heart; unless I speak it, it burns my marrow and bones.” “It is now time,” he said, “to open the den; we will turn the key; such a stench and so much filth will be vomited forth by Rome as will overspread all Christendom, and everybody will be tainted with it.” At last the Pope applied to the Signori to deliver up this heretic; but it was in vain. Franciscan monks were sent to preach him down; but his preaching went up. Then it was, with his customary politeness, that the Pope sent a gracious message, hurling his curse at his head, cutting him off as a rotten member of the church’s body, and giving him over to the powers of hell. Savonarola had his defenders in Florence, and those were among the wealthy as well as among the poor; but a host of circumstances were combining to ruin him. His friends were injudicious. His new state constitution was, as might be expected, a failure. His alliance with the King of France, who had done nothing for the church, damaged his popularity. Plague and famine irritated the people; and, as no miracle was wrought on their behalf, Savonarola was disliked. One of his friends foolishly put a controversy with the Franciscans upon the issue of a trial by the ordeal of fire. The fire was prepared in the marketplace of Florence; the citizens expected to behold a notable spectacle; but the Signori and a shower of rain interfered and dispersed the crowd. The mob then turned upon Savonarola; the monastery was assailed; the once popular monk was made a prisoner; and the Pope was communicated with. Overcome with joy, “His Holiness” granted permission for the monk to be tortured. A recantation was demanded of him, but he refused. He was then stretched seven times during the week upon the rack. In the height of his sufferings he cried, “Lord, take my spirit,” and, worn out by the tortures, he agreed to confess. When, however, he had rested a while, he withdrew his recantation, and boldly avowed all that he had previously taught. Between the day of his trial and the day of his execution he wrote an exposition of the fifty-first Psalm, which Luther highly prized, and published in Germany.

He was burnt, with two friends, on the 22nd of May, 1498. The bishop deprived him of his priestly garments, saying, “Thus I exclude thee from the militant and triumphant church.” “From the church militant thou mayst,” exclaimed Savonarola, “but from the church triumphant thou canst not.” He died blessing the people who had deserted him, and clinging to the Christ whose love had never departed from him.
The question has often been asked, How far was Savonarola the herald of Protestantism? The best answer to that question is, we think, furnished in his admirable work—far ahead of the times in which it was written—”The Triumph of the Cross.” We are glad that those enterprising publishers, Messrs. Hodder and Stoughton have brought it out in a cheap and handsome form.3 For the sake of the memory of the martyr, it should be read; for the sake of the truths it so luminously sets forth, it deserves a wide circulation. Mr. Travers Hill, beside writing an interesting sketch of the Italian Reformer’s life, has ably translated the work. At a time when the church held every one in bondage, when the Scriptures were hid from view, and the masses were ignorant of the way of salvation—when darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people—when the church to which every one bowed in lowly submission was so corrupt as to allow a pope stained with every crime to preside over it—and when Luther’s shrill testimony had not as yet been given—it is pleasant to find words of such evangelic power written in the cloister of a monastery. And though Savonarola was wedded to many of the errors of the church, yet his testimony in favour of justification by faith and not by works, the forgiveness of sins by Christ and not by man, was clear and decisive. His object was undoubtedly to purify the church of Rome, not to destroy it; but it is evident that throughout his life he was, if loyal to his church, far more loyal to Christ.

Notes

1. The First Vatican Council (1869-70) was about to get underway when Spurgeon wrote this article. Among the decrees of Vatican I was the notorious declaration of Papal Infallibility.
2. “Upas-tree.” A fabled poisonous tree whose vapours were supposed to be fatal to all life that came under its influence.
3. The Triumph of the Cross by JEROME SAVONAROLA. Translated from the Latin, with Notes and a Biographical Sketch. By O’Dell Travers Hill, F.R.G.S. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

(via the Spurgeon Archive)

Here is a reading for today from the Preface to the Exhortation to Martyrdom, written by the church father Cyprian, who died on this day in 258. (read the whole text via IntraText)

You have desired, beloved Fortunatus that, l since the burden of persecutions and afflictions is lying heavy upon us, and in the ending and completion of the world the hateful time of Antichrist is already beginning to draw near, I would collect from the sacred Scriptures some exhortations for preparing and strengthening the minds of the brethren, whereby I might animate the soldiers of Christ for the heavenly and spiritual contest. I have been constrained to obey your so needful wish, so that as much as my limited powers, instructed by the aid of divine inspiration, are sufficient, some arms, as it were, and i defences might be brought forth from the Lord’s precepts for the brethren who are about to fight. For it is little to arouse God’s people by the trumpet call of our voice, unless we confirm the faith of believers, and their valour dedicated and devoted to God, by the divine readings. But what more fitly or more fully agrees with my own care and solicitude, than to prepare the people divinely entrusted to me, and an army established in the heavenly camp, by assiduous exhortations against the darts and weapons of the devil? For he cannot be a soldier fitted for the war who has not first been exercised in the field; nor will he who seeks to gain the crown of contest be rewarded on the racecourse, unless he first considers the use and skilfulness of his powers. It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man. All kinds of temptation, and arts, and snares for his overthrow, he has learned by the very practice of long years. If he finds Christ’s soldier unprepared, if unskilled, if not careful and watching with his whole heart; he circumvents him if ignorant, he deceives him incautious, he cheats him inexperienced. But if a man, keeping the Lord’s precepts, and bravely adhering to Christ, stands against him, he must needs be conquered, because Christ, whom that man confesses, is unconquered. And that I might not extend my discourse, beloved brother, to too great a length, and fatigue my hearer or reader by the abundance of a too diffuse style, I have made a compendium; so that the titles being placed first, which every one ought both to know and to have in mind, I might subjoin sections of the Lord s word, and establish what I had proposed by the authority of the divine teaching, in such wise as that I might not appear to have sent you my own treatise so much, as to have suggested material for others to discourse on; a proceeding which will be of advantage to individuals with increased benefit. For if I were to give a man a garment finished and ready, it would be my garment that another was making use of, and probably the thing made for another would be found little fitting for his figure of stature and body. But now I have sent you the very wool and the purple from the Lamb, by whom we were redeemed and quickened; which, when you have received, you will make into a coat for yourself according to your own will, and the rather that you will rejoice in it as your own private and special garment. And you will exhibit to others also what we have sent, that they themselves may be able to finish it according to their will; so that that old nakedness being covered, they may all bear the garments of Christ robed in the sanctification of heavenly grace. Moreover also, beloved brethren, I have considered it a useful and wholesome plan in an exhortation so needful as that which may make martyrs, to cut off all delays and tardiness in our words, and to put away the windings of human discourse, and set down only those things which God speaks, wherewith Christ exhorts His servants to martyrdom. Those divine precepts themselves must be supplied, as it were, for arms for the combatants. Let them be the incitements of the warlike trumpet; let them he the clarion-blast for the warriors. Let the ears be roused by them; let the minds be prepared by them; let the powers both of soul and body be strengthened to all endurance of suffering. Let us only who, by the Lord’s permission, have given the first baptism to believers, also prepare each one for the second; urging and teaching that this is a baptism greater in grace, more lofty in power, more precious in honour–a baptism wherein angels baptize–a baptism in which God and His Christ exult–a baptism after which no one sins any more–a baptism which completes the increase of our faith–a baptism which, as we withdraw from the world, immediately associates us with God. In the baptism of water is received the remission of sins, in the baptism of blood the crown of virtues. This thing is to be embraced and desired, and to be asked for in all the entreaties of our petitions, that we who are God’s servants should be also His friends.

Here is a hymn for today from English insurance agent and hymnist William Chatterton Dix, who died on this day in 1898 at Clifton, England (b. June 14 1837):

1. Like silver lamps in a distant shrine,
The stars are sparkling bright
The bells of the city of God ring out,
For the Son of Mary is1 born to-night.
The gloom is past and the morn at last
Is coming with orient light.

2. Never fell melodies half so sweet2
As those which are filling the skies,
And never a palace shone half so fair
As the manger-bed where our Saviour lies;
No night in the year is half so dear
As this which has ended our sighs.

3. Now a new Power has come on the earth,
A match for the armies of Hell:
A Child is born who shall conquer the foe,
And all the spirits of wickedness quell:
For Mary’s Son is the Mighty One
Whom the prophets of God foretell.

4. The stars of heaven still shine as at first
They gleamed on this wonderful night;
The bells of the city of God peal out
And the angels’ song still rings in the height,
And love still turns where the Godhead burns
Hid in flesh from fleshly sight.

5. Faith sees no longer the stable floor,
The pavement of sapphire is there
The clear light of heaven streams out to the world
And the angels of God are crowding the air,
And heaven and earth through the spotless birth
Are at peace on this night so fair.

Here is a hymn for today from pioneer Danish theologian NFS Grundtvig, who was born on this day in 1783. To learn more visit the Center for Grundtvig Studies at Aarhus University.

Peace, to soothe our bitter woes,
God in Christ on us bestows;
Jesus bought our peace with God
with his holy, precious blood;
peace in him for sinners found
is the gospel’s joyful sound.

Peace within the church still dwells
in our welcomes and farewells;
and through God’s baptismal pow’r
peace surrounds our dying hour.
Peace be with you, full and free,
now and through eternity.

On this day in 1498 Italian artist Michelangelo (1475–1564) was commissioned by Pope Alexander VI to carve the Pieta.

Today in 1886 Paul Tillich, German philosophical theologian, was born in Starzeddel, Germany (d. October 22 1965). The theological value of his work is much debated, due in part to his morally decrepit life (not to mention that on his deathbed the word he was dying to hear was from a Zen koan). Here is an excerpt from an article by Paul McCain, in which R.R. Reno evaluates the impact of Tillich on American Protestantism.

I was reading in First Things and ran across this wonderfully succinct rejection of Tillich, by R.R. Reno who had, in the previous issue, written a wonderful call to spend more time with the Church Fathers. He is writing to respond to several letters reacting to his article. One person advocated adding Tillich to the “Church Fathers” who should be read. His excoriation of Tillich was so delightfully total, yet brief, I just had to post it here.

Paul Tillich certainly knew a great deal about Christian
tradition, but his overall influence on American Protestantism was
largely destructive. He was the master of translating scriptural truths
into vague existential slogans that countless preachers easily
manipulated into a capitulation to the spirit of the age. American Lutheranism has
never recovered from his gloss of justification in Christ as “you are
accepted.” His account of the so-called Protestant Principle turns
anti-Romanism into a global rejection of any and all forms of
historical authority, including the creeds and Scripture itself. The
interpretation of faith as the “courage to be” struck me as fastuous
when I was a teenager, and as an adult I have seen Tillich used to
justify any and every attack upon traditional forms of Christian faith
and morals. No, I will not add Paul Tillich to my arsenal, as Valentino
encourages. By my reading, Paul Tillich helps the barbarians maintain
their illusions. His primary role in the twentieth century was to
unburden the consciences of clergy who no longer believed but wanted to
maintain their roles and reputations as men and women of spiritual
seriousness. I have difficulty thinking of a more destructive writer.
Give me the ardent atheism of Richard Dawkins any day over the
pseudo-mystery and easy spiritualism of Paul Tillich.

Estonian Lutheran theologian Heino O. Kadai was born on this day in Tartu (d. June 3 1999). From Concordia Theological Quarterly, you can download a brief biographical statement, and his essay “Luther’s Theology of the Cross” (originally published in Accents in Luther’s Theology).

On this day in 1688, John Bunyan, author of the classic Pilgrim’s Progress, preached his final sermon in London. You can hear the sermon below presented as a YouTube video, read by Pastor Joshua M. Wallnofer. You can also find an extensive collection of Bunyan’s writings at The John Bunyan Page.

Here is a hymn for today, written on this day in 1832 by James Montgomery (1771-1854).

Pour out Thy Spirit from on high;
Lord, Thine assembled servants bless;
Graces and gifts to each supply,
And clothe Thy priests with righteousness.

Within Thy temple when they stand,
To teach the truth, as taught by Thee,
Savior, like stars in Thy right hand
May all Thy Church’s pastors be.

Wisdom and zeal and faith impart,
Firmness with meekness, from above,
To bear Thy people in their heart,
And love the souls whom Thou dost love:

To watch and pray and never faint,
By day and night, strict guard to keep,
To warn the sinner, cheer the saint,
Nourish Thy lambs, and feed Thy sheep.

Then, when their work is finished here,
May they in hope their charge resign;
When the Chief Shepherd shall appear,
O God, may they and we be Thine.

Here is a hymn for today from Sarah Flower Adams, English devotional and hymn writer, who died on this day in 1848 in England (b. February 22 1805). The hymn has been influential in a variety of ways historically:

This hymn is sung at the end of the 1936 mo­vie San Fran­cis­co, which was nom­in­at­ed for sev­er­al Acad­e­my Awards. It is al­so played by the ship’s band in Ti­tan­ic, win­ner of the Acad­e­my Award for best pic­ture of 1997.

There are al­so ma­ny in­spir­ing true life stor­ies as­so­ci­at­ed with this hymn. Some Ti­tan­ic sur­viv­ors said it was played by the ship’s or­ches­tra as the ocean lin­er went down (though other sur­viv­ors said it was a dif­fer­ent song).

Another story con­cerns the death of Amer­i­can pre­si­dent Wil­liam Mc­Kin­ley, as­sass­in­at­ed in 1901. Dr. Mann, the at­tend­ing phy­si­cian, re­port­ed that among Mc­Kin­ley’s last words were “‘Near­er, my God, to Thee, e’en though it be a cross,’ has been my con­stant pray­er.” On the af­ter­noon of Sep­tem­ber 13, 1901, af­ter five min­utes of si­lence across the na­tion, bands in Un­ion and Mad­i­son Squares in New York Ci­ty played the hymn in hon­or of the fall­en pre­si­dent. It was al­so played at a me­mor­i­al ser­vice for him in West­min­ster Ab­bey, Lon­don.

The hymn was al­so played as the bo­dy of as­sas­sin­at­ed Amer­i­can Pre­sid­ent James Gar­field was in­terred at Lake­view Cem­e­te­ry in Cleve­land, Ohio.

Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
E’en though it be a cross that raiseth me,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee.

Refrain

Nearer, my God, to Thee,
Nearer to Thee!

Though like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone.
Yet in my dreams I’d be nearer, my God to Thee.

Refrain

There let the way appear, steps unto Heav’n;
All that Thou sendest me, in mercy given;
Angels to beckon me nearer, my God, to Thee.

Refrain

Then, with my waking thoughts bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs Bethel I’ll raise;
So by my woes to be nearer, my God, to Thee.

Refrain

Or, if on joyful wing cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upward I’ll fly,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee.

Refrain

There in my Father’s home, safe and at rest,
There in my Savior’s love, perfectly blest;
Age after age to be, nearer my God to Thee.

Refrain

Here is a hymn for today (followed by a performance of the hymn) from Nahum Tate, who died on this day in 1715 (b. 1652).

While shepherds watched their flocks by night,
All seated on the ground,
The angel of the Lord came down,
And glory shone around,
And glory shone around.

“Fear not!” said he, for mighty dread
Had seized their troubled mind.
“Glad tidings of great joy I bring
To you and all mankind
To you and all mankind.

“To you, in David’s town, this day
Is born of David’s line
A Savior, who is Christ the Lord,
And this shall be the sign,
And this shall be the sign.

“The heavenly Babe you there shall find
To human view displayed,
All meanly wrapped in swathing bands,
And in a manger laid,
And in a manger laid.”

Thus spake the seraph and forthwith
Appeared a shining throng
Of angels praising God on high,
Who thus addressed their song,
Who thus addressed their song:

“All glory be to God on high,
And to the Earth be peace;
Good will henceforth from Heaven to men
Begin and never cease,
Begin and never cease!”

Today in 1827, English poet, painter, and printmaker, William Blake died (b. November 28 1757). Here is The Vision of the Last Judgment, followed by Blake’s reflections on the theme.

Blake From a Vision of the Last Judgment

View more of Blake’s art work here.

Nicholas of Cusa, German theologian, philosopher, jurist, mathematician, and an astronomer, died on this day in 1464 (b. 1401). Shortly after the fall of Constantinople to Islamic forces, he composed this reflection on the possibility of world peace among religions.

A Dialogue on World Religious Peace
Composed in 1453
by Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

Translated by H. Lawrence Bond (2000)

Chapter One

1. After the brutal deeds recently committed by the Turkish ruler at Constantinople were reported to a certain man, who had once seen the sites of those regions, (1) he was inflamed by a zeal for God; with many sighs he implored the Creator of all things that in his mercy he restrain the persecution, raging more than ever because of different religious rites. It happened that after several days–perhaps because of long continued meditation–a vision was revealed to this zealous man. (2) From it he concluded that of a few wise men familiar from their own experience with all such differences which are observed in religions throughout the world, a single easy harmony could be found and through it a lasting peace established by appropriate and true means. And so in order for this vision eventually to come to the notice of those who have the decisive word in these great matters, he has written down his vision plainly below, as far as his memory recalled it.

2. For he was caught up to a certain intellectual height, where, as if among those who had departed from life, an examination of this question was thus held in a council of the highest with the Almighty presiding. The King of heaven and earth stated that the sad news of the groans of the oppressed had been brought to him from this world’s realm: because of religion many take up arms against each other and by their power either force men to renounce their long practiced tradition or inflict death on them. There were many bearers of these lamentations from all the earth, and the King ordered that they be present in the full assembly of the saints. Now all of them, as if known to the inhabitants of heaven, seemed to have been established from the beginning by the King of the universe over the individual provinces and traditions; to be sure, their condition was not that of men but of intellectual powers. (3)

3. Then one leader, in the name of all these envoys, delivered the following speech: “O Lord, King of the universe, what does every creature have that you have not given it? (4) It pleased you to inspire the body of man, formed out of the mire of the earth, with a rational spirit so that in him the image of your ineffable power may shine forth. (5) From one individual was multiplied the many people who inhabit the earth’s surface. And even if that intellectual spirit, sown in earth and swallowed up in shadow, does not see the light and the source of his beginning, nevertheless, you created along with him everything through which he, kindled by wonder at those things which he contacts by the senses, can sometimes lift the eyes of his mind to you, the Creator of all, and can be reunited to you in highest love and so can finally return to his source with joy. (6)

4. But you know, O Lord, that a great multitude cannot exist without considerable diversity and that almost everyone is forced to lead a life burdened with sorrows and full of miseries and to live in servile submission under the subjection of the rulers who reign over them. Therefore, only a few have enough leisure that they can proceed to a knowledge of themselves using their own free choice. For they are distracted by many bodily cares and duties; and so they are not able to seek you who are a hidden God. (7) Therefore, you appointed for your people different kings and seers who are called prophets; in carrying out the responsibility of your mission many of them have instituted worship and laws in your name and taught the unlettered people. They accepted these laws as if you, the King of kings, had spoken to them face to face, and they believed they heard not them but you in them. You sent the different nations different prophets and teachers, some at one time and others at another. (8) However, it is a characteristic of the earthly human condition that a longstanding custom which is taken as having become nature is defended as truth. (9) Thus not insignificant dissensions occur when each community prefers its faith to another.

5. Therefore, come to our aid you who alone are able. For this rivalry exists for sake of you, whom alone they revere in everything that all seem to worship. For each one desires in all that he seems to desire only the good which you are; no one is seeking with all his intellectual searching for anything else than the truth which you are. For what does the living seek except to live? What does the existing seek except to exist? Therefore, it is you, the giver of life and being, who seem to be sought in the different rites by different ways and are named with different names, because as you are you remain unknown and ineffable to all. For you who are infinite power are none of those things which you have created, nor can a creature grasp the concept of your infinity since there is no proportion between the finite and the infinite. (10) But you, almighty God, who are invisible to every mind, are able to show yourself as visible to whom you will and in the way in which you can be grasped. Therefore, do not hide yourself any longer, O Lord; be merciful and show your face, and all peoples will be saved (11) who are no longer able to forsake the source of life and its sweetness when they have had even a little foretaste of them. For no one withdraws from you unless he does not know you.

6. If thus you would deign to do this, the sword and the bilious spite of hatred and all evil sufferings will cease; and all will know that there is only one religion in the variety of rites. (12) But if perhaps this difference of rites cannot be removed or if it is not expedient to do so in order that the diversity may contribute to devotion, (13) as when any region expends a more attentive effort in performing its ceremonies as if they would become the more pleasing to you, the King: at any rate, just as you are one, there should be one religion and one veneration of worship. Therefore, may you be appeased, O Lord, for your wrath is compassion and your justice mercy: spare your weak creature. So we, your deputies, whom you have placed as keepers for your people and whom you see here, humbly beseech your majesty by every means of entreaty possible to us.”
 

Chapter Two

7. In response to the archangel’s supplication, when all the heavenly citizens together bowed to the highest King, he who was seated on the throne said that he had left man to his own choice and had created him capable in his choice for fellowship with God. But the animal and earthly man is held in ignorance under the Prince of Darkness and walks in accordance with the conditions of the sensible life which is from nowhere else but the world of the Prince of Darkness and not in accordance with the intellectual inner man whose life is from the realm of his origin. (14) Hence, he said that with much care and diligence he had recalled man from his wrong way through various prophets who, by comparison with others, were seers. And finally when all the prophets themselves could not sufficiently overcome the Prince of Darkness, he sent his Word, through which he had also created the world. (15) This Word he clothed with humanity so that at least in this way he might illuminate the docile man having a most free choice and so that he might see that he should walk not according to the outward man but according to the inner man, if he hoped to return one day to the sweetness of eternal life. (16) And since his Word put on the mortal man and with its blood bore witness to this truth: man is capable of eternal life for the attainment of which the animal and sensible life is to be regarded as nothing, and eter
nal life itself is nothing except the ultimate desire of the inner man, namely, the truth which alone is desired and which, as it is eternal, nourishes the intellect eternally. The truth which nourishes the intellect is nothing but the Word itself; in it all things are enfolded and through it all things are unfolded, (17) and it has put on human nature so that no man may doubt that according to the election of his free choice he can attain the immortal nourishment of the truth in his own human nature, in that man who is also the Word. The Highest added: “And since these things have been done, what is it that could have been done and was not done?”

Chapter Three

8. To this question of the King of kings, the incarnate Word, holding the chief position among all the heavenlies, replied on behalf of all: “Father of Mercies, even though your works are most perfect and nothing has to be added for their completion, nevertheless, since from the beginning you decreed that man stay a being of free choice and since in the sensible world nothing remains stable and because of time opinions and conjectures as well as languages and interpretations vary as things transitory, human nature needs frequent visitation so that the erroneous notions of which there are a great many concerning your Word might be rooted out and truth might continuously shine forth. Since truth is one and since it is not possible that it not be understood by every free intellect, all diversity of religions will be led to one orthodox faith.”

9. The King agreed. And after the angels who are set over the nations and languages were called forth, he instructed each angel to lead one who is quite knowledgeable to the incarnate Word. And at once there appeared before the Word the more eminent men of this world, as if caught up into ecstasy. The Word of God addressed them thus: “The Lord, King of heaven and earth, has heard the groans of the slain and the bound and of those reduced to servitude who suffer because of the diversity of religions. And since all those who either cause this persecution or suffer it are led only by the belief that in this way it is expedient to be saved and pleasing to their Creator, therefore, the Lord has had mercy on his people and has decided that by the common consent of all men all diversity of religions be brought peacefully to one religion to remain inviolable from now on. He commits this responsibility of ministry to you as the elected men and from his court gives you as assistants the ministering angelic spirits who are supposed to guard and direct you, and he deems Jerusalem as the place best suited for this.” (18)
 

Chapter Four

10. One who was older than the others and apparently a Greek first made adoration and then replied: “We give praises to our God whose mercy is above all his works; he alone is able to cause so great a diversity of religions to be brought into one concordant peace. His command we his creation are not able not to obey. Therefore, we beseech you now to instruct us how this unity of religion could be introduced by us. For we are persuaded a nation will accept with difficulty another faith different from that which up to now each nation has defended even by its blood.”

The Word answered: “You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere. For you who are now present are called ‘wise’ among those who share your own language, or at least ‘philosophers,’ i.e. ‘lovers of wisdom.’”

“This is so,” said the Greek.

“If, therefore, all of you love wisdom, do you not presuppose that there is this wisdom?”

All shouted together that no one doubts that there is.

11. The Word added: “There can be only one wisdom. For if it were possible for there to be plural wisdoms, they would have to derive from one wisdom, for before all plurality is unity.” (19)

The Greek: “None of us doubts that it is one wisdom which we all love and because of which we are called philosophers. Through participation in it there are many wise men, although this wisdom remains in itself simple and undivided.” (20)

The Word: “Therefore, you all agree that the simplest wisdom is one and that its power is ineffable. And each experiences this ineffable and infinite power in the unfolding of its strength. For whenever sight turns itself to those things which are visible and whatever it sees it considers to have come forth from the power of wisdom–and the same is true of hearing and the individual things which sense perceives–, it affirms that invisible wisdom exceeds all things.

12. The Greek: “We who have made this profession of philosophy love the sweetness of wisdom by no other way than a foretaste in wonder at the things which are subject to sense. For who would not die for the sake of reaching such wisdom from which all beauty, all sweetness of life and everything desirable emanate? What a power of wisdom shines forth in the creation of man, in his limbs, in their order, in the life infused, in the harmony of the organs, in movement, and especially in the rational spirit, which is capable of wonderful arts and is, so to speak, a sign of wisdom in which the eternal wisdom shines forth above all things in a close image, as truth in a close likeness! (21) And what is more wonderful above all else: this reflection of wisdom comes nearer and nearer to truth by means of a vigorous conversion of the spirit until from the shadow of image the living reflection itself continually becomes truer and more like true wisdom, although absolute wisdom itself, as it is, is never attainable in anything else; thus eternal, inexhaustible wisdom itself is the perpetual and unfailing intellectual food.” (22)

The Word: “You are proceeding rightly toward the purpose to which we strive. Therefore, even though you were called from the different religions, all of you presuppose in all such diversity the one thing which you call wisdom. But tell me, does not one wisdom encompass all that can be said?”
 

Chapter Five

13. The Italian answered: “Certainly the Word is not apart from wisdom. For the Word of the Supremely Wise is in wisdom, and wisdom is in the Word, nor is anything outside wisdom. For infinite wisdom encompasses everything.”

The Word: “If, therefore, anyone should say that all things have been created in wisdom and another that all have been created in the Word, would they say the same thing or something different?”

The Italian: “Even if a difference in the manner of speech appears, nevertheless, it is the same thing in meaning. For the Word of the Creator in which he has created all things can be nothing other than his wisdom.”

14. The Word: “What, therefore, does this seem to you: is this wisdom God or creature?”

The Italian: “Since God the Creator creates all things in wisdom, he is necessarily the wisdom of created wisdom. For before every creature is the wisdom through which every created thing is that which it is.”

The Word: “So wisdom is eternal, since it is before everything begun [initiatum] and created.”

The Italian: “No one can deny that what is understood to be before everything created [principiatum] is eternal.”

The Word: “Therefore, it is the beginning [principium].”

The Italian: “This is true.”

The Word: “Therefore, it is the most simple. For every composed thing is derived from a beginning [principiatum]; for the things which compose cannot exist subsequent to that which has been composed.”

The Italian: “I admit this.”

15. The Word: “Therefore, wisdom is eternity.”

The Italian: “This also cannot be otherwise.”

The Word: “But it is not possible for there to be more than one eternity, since unity is before all plurality.”

The Italian: “No one denies this.”

The Word: “Therefore, wisdom is the one, simple and eternal God, the beginning [principium] of all things.” />
The Italian: “This is necessarily so.”

The Word: “See how you, the philosophers of the various traditions, agree in the religion of one God whom you all presuppose, in that which as lovers of wisdom you profess.”
 
 
 

Chapter Six

16. Here the Arab rose and answered: “Nothing clearer or truer can be said.”

The Word: “But just as you, since you are lovers of wisdom, profess absolute wisdom, do you suppose that there are men vigorous in intellect who do not love wisdom?”

The Arab: “I certainly think that all men by nature desire wisdom, since wisdom is the life of the intellect, which cannot be preserved in its life by any other nourishment than the truth and the word of life or its intellectual bread, which is wisdom. For just as every existing thing desires all without which it cannot exist, so the intellectual life desires wisdom.”

The Word: “Therefore, all human beings profess with you that there is one absolute wisdom whom they presuppose, and this is the one God.”

The Arab: “This is so, and no one who is understanding can establish otherwise.”

The Word: “Therefore, for all who are vigorous in intellect there is one religion and worship, which is presupposed in all the diversity of rites.”

17. The Arab: “You are wisdom because you are the Word of God. However, I ask those who worship more than one god how they concur with the philosophers in the concept of one God? For at no time were the philosophers found to have felt other than the impossibility of there being several gods unless one superexalted God stood over them. He alone is the beginning from which the others have what they have in a much more exalted way than a monad is for numbers.” (23)

The Word: “All who have ever worshiped more than one god presupposed there is divinity. For this they worship in all the gods as participating in it. For just as without whiteness existing there are no white things, so without divinity existing there are no gods. Therefore, the worship of gods acknowledges divinity. And whoever says there are many gods is saying that there is antecedently one source [principium] of all of them; just as whoever declares there are many saints admits that there is one saint of saints through whose participation all the others are saints. Never was there a people so dull as to believe in plural gods each of which would have been the first cause, source, or creator of the universe.”

The Arab: “So I believe. That there is more than one source is a contradiction. For since the source [principium] cannot be caused [principiatum], for it would have been caused of itself and would have been before it was, which reason does not grasp, therefore, the source is eternal. And it is not possible for there to be more than one eternal, for before all plurality is unity. So the source and cause [principium et causa] of the universe necessarily will be one. Consequently, I have not found any nation which has turned aside from the path of truth in this.”

18. The Word: “Therefore, the strife would be ended if all who worship more than one god would look at what they presuppose, namely, the Deity which is the cause of all things, and would, as reason itself dictates, take that deity as manifest into their religion, just as they worship it implicitly in all whom they call gods.”

The Arab: “Perhaps this will not be difficult, but to remove the worship of gods would be a grave matter. For people certainly believe that help is given to them from worship and are inclined to these divine powers for their salvation.”

The Word: “If people were informed about salvation in just the manner stated, they would seek salvation in him who gave being and is himself Savior and infinite salvation, rather than in those who of themselves have nothing except what is given by the Savior himself. Whenever people would take refuge with the gods (whom, because they lived in a godlike manner the opinion of all has held as holy) as if with an acceptable intercessor in some infirmity or other necessity of theirs, or if they would respectfully worship such an intercessor with the reverence [dulia] of veneration or keep his memory reverently because he is a friend of God and his life is to be imitated, then, provided doing either would give to the one and only God all the worship of divine adoration [latriae], it would not contradict the one religion and the people would be easily quieted.” (24)

Chapter Seven

19. At this time the Indian asked: “What then of statues and images?”

The Word: “Images which bring to awareness what is allowed in the true worship of the one God are not condemned. But when they lead one away from the worship of adoration [a cultu latriae] of the one God, as if something of divinity were in the stones and were bound up in the statue, then because they deceive and turn away from the truth, they rightly should be broken into pieces.”

The Indian: “It is difficult to turn a people from a long established idolatry because of the oracles that are given.”

The Word: “Rarely are these oracles made up otherwise than by priests who assert that the divinity has answered thus. For once a question has been proposed, they invent a response whether by some art, which they bring to observation from the disposition of the sky, or by lot, which they ascribe to the divinity, as if heaven or Apollo (25) or the sun ordered them to answer. Consequently, it happens that for the most part their answers are either ambiguous, so that they would not be convicted of lying openly, or completely false; and if sometimes the answers are true, they are true by chance. And when a priest is a good conjecturer, he divines better, and the responses are truer.”

20. The Indian: “It has been ascertained that often some spirit bound in the statue has publicly given answers.”

The Word: “Not the soul of a man or of Apollo or of Asclepius (26) or of another who is worshiped as a god, but the evil spirit, the enemy of human salvation from the beginning, pretended that sometimes, but rarely, he was bound to a statue and was forced to answer, by faith through man, in order to deceive in this way, but after the falsehood was discovered it ceased. So today ‘they have a mouth and do not speak.’ (27) When through experience this falsehood of the seducer was discovered in many regions, idolatry was condemned in almost all places where wise men live. And similarly in the East it will not be difficult to expose the falsehood of idolatry in order to call on the one God, so that thus those nations might conform to the other nations of the world.”

The Indian: “Now that the obvious errors have been discovered and, in consequence, the very prudent Romans, and the Greeks and the Arabs also, have destroyed idols, it is to be hoped in every way that the Indians, as idolaters, (28) will act similarly, especially since they are wise and do not doubt the necessity of religion consisting in the worship of one God. For even if alongside this they would venerate idols in their own way, and these idols would pertain to the worship of the one God, they will thus reach a peaceful conclusion. But it will be very difficult for a concord to be accepted everywhere about the triune God; for it will seem to all that the trinity cannot be conceived without three things, that if there is threeness in the divinity, there will also be plurality in the deity. But it has already been stated, and in truth it is necessary, that there is only one absolute deity. Therefore, there is no plurality in absolute deity but in those who participate, who are not God absolutely, but gods by participation.”

21. The Word: “As creator, God is three and one; as infinite, he is neither three nor one nor any of the things which can be spoken. (29) For the names which are attributed to God are taken from creatures, since he in himself is ineffable and beyond everything that can be named or
spoken. Since those who worship God should adore him as the beginning of the universe, yet in this one universe one finds a multiplicity of parts, inequality and separation (for the multiplicity of stars, trees, human beings, rocks is obvious to sense), nevertheless, the beginning of all multiplicity is unity; therefore, the beginning of multiplicity is eternal unity. An inequality of parts is found in the one universe, since none is similar to another; but inequality descends from the equality of unity; therefore, before all inequality there is eternal equality. A distinction or separation of parts is found in the one universe; but before all distinction there is a connection of unity and equality, and from this connection separation or distinction descends; the connection therefore is eternal. But there cannot be more than one eternal. Therefore, in one eternity there is found unity, the equality of unity, and the union or connection of unity and equality. So the most simple beginning [principium] of the universe is unitrine, since in the beginning that which has been derived [principiatum] must be enfolded, but everything that has been derived declares thus that it is enfolded in its beginning, and in every thing that has been derived such a threefold distinction is found in the unity of essence. Therefore, the most simple beginning of all things will be threefold and one.” (30)

Chapter Eight

22. The Chaldean: “Even if the wise could somewhat grasp these things, nevertheless, they would exceed the common people. (31) For, as I understand, it is not true that there are three gods, but there is one God, who is one and threefold. Do you want to say that this one God is threefold in power?”

The Word: “God is the absolute power of all powers, because he is omnipotent. Therefore, since there is only one absolute power, which is the divine essence, to say that this power is threefold is to assert only that God is threefold. But you should not thus understand power as distinguished from reality, since in God power is reality itself; (32) so too with absolute potency, which is also power. For it would not seem absurd to anyone if it should be said that divine omnipotence, which is God, has in itself unity, which is being, equality and connection. Thus the potency of unity unites or gives essence to everything that has being–a thing exists insofar as it is one; one and being are interchangeable. And the potency of equality gives equality or forms every existing thing–for as a thing is neither more nor less than it is, it is equal; for if it were greater or less, it would not exist; therefore, it cannot exist apart from equality. So the potency of connection unites or joins. Hence omnipotence in the power of unity summons from non-being, so that what was not becomes capable of being; and in the power of equality it forms; and in the power of connection it joins, as in the essence of love you see how loving joins the lover to the loveable. Therefore, when the human being is summoned by omnipotence from non-being, unity comes first in order, then equality, and finally their nexus. For nothing can exist unless it is one; therefore, one exists antecedently. And since the human being is summoned from non-being, the unity of the human being comes first in order and then the equality of that unity or being, for equality is the unfolding of form in the unity so that the unity of a human being is summoned forth and not that of a lion or of some other thing. But equality cannot exist unless it arises from unity, for unity or identity, not otherness, produces equality. And finally love or the nexus proceeds from unity and equality. For unity and equality are not separable from each other. Therefore, the nexus or love is so constituted that when unity is posited, equality is posited, and when unity and equality are posited, love or the nexus is posited.

23. Therefore, if no equality is found unless it is the equality of unity, and no nexus is found unless it is the nexus of unity and equality in such a way that the nexus is in the unity and the equality, and the equality is in the unity and the unity in the equality, and both the unity and the equality are in the nexus: it is clear that there is no essential distinction in the trinity. For things that are essentially different are so constituted that one can exist without the existence of the other. But since trinity is so constituted that when unity is posited, the equality of unity is posited and conversely, and when unity and equality are posited, the nexus is posited and conversely, hence it is not in essence but in relation that it appears that unity is one thing, equality a different thing and connection another. Numerical distinction, however, is essential distinction. For the number two differs from three essentially; when two is posited, three is not posited, and three does not follow in consequence of the being of two. Therefore, the trinity in God is not composite or plural or numerical, but it is simplest unity. Those, therefore, who believe in God as one will not deny that he is threefold when they understand that this trinity is not different from simplest unity but is simplest unity in such a way that if this trinity were not in unity, it would not be the omnipotent beginning for the creation of the universe and of individual things. The more united a power is the stronger it is; but the more united it is the simpler it is. Therefore, the more powerful or the stronger it is, the simpler it is. So because the divine essence is omnipotent, it is most simple and threefold. For without trinity it would not be the simplest, strongest and omnipotent beginning.”

The Chaldean: “I believe that no one can disagree with this understanding. But that God has a son and a participant in deity the Arabs and also many others repudiate.”

24. The Word: “Some call the unity ‘Father,’ the equality ‘Son,’ and the nexus ‘Holy Spirit,’ since these terms, although not proper terms, nevertheless, appropriately signify the Trinity. (33) For from the Father is the Son and from the unity and equality of the Son is the love or Spirit. For the nature of the Father passes over into an equality in the Son. Therefore, the love, and nexus, originates from the unity and the equality. And if simpler terms could be found, they would be more suitable, such as, ‘unity,’ ‘thatness’ and ‘identity.’ For these terms seem to unfold more the most fruitful simplicity of the essence. Consider also that since in the essence of the rational soul there is a certain fruitfulness, namely, the mind, wisdom and love or will, because the mind projects from itself understanding or wisdom, from which comes will or love, and this trinity in the unity of the essence of the soul is the fruitfulness which it has in the likeness of the most fruitful uncreated Trinity: so every created thing bears the image of the creative power and in its own way has a fruitfulness in a close or distant likeness to the most fruitful Trinity, which is the creator of all things. Thus the creature not only has being from the divine being but has a fruitful being, in its own way threefold, from the most fruitful three and one being; without this fruitful being neither could the world exist nor would the creature exist in the best way it could.”

Chapter Nine

25. Then the Jew answered: “The supremely blest Trinity, which cannot be denied, has been excellently explained. For a prophet disclosing this to us as briefly as possible declared that God had asked how he who gave others the fruitfulness of generation could himself be sterile. (34) And although the Jews shun the Trinity because they consider it a plurality, nevertheless, once it is understood that the Trinity is the most simple fruitfulness, they will very willingly agree.”

26. The Word: “Also the Arabs and all wise philosophers will easily understand from these things that to deny the Trinity is to deny the divine fruitfulness and creative power and that to accept the Trinity is to deny a plurality and consociali
ty of gods. For this fruitfulness, which is also a trinity, makes it unnecessary that there be many gods to concur in the creation of all things, since one infinite fruitfulness is sufficient to create everything creatable. The Arabs will be able to grasp the truth much better in this way rather than in the way in which they say that God has an essence and a soul and add that God has a word and a spirit (35). For if God is said to have a soul, this soul can be understood only as reason or the Word which is God; for reason is not other than the Word. And what then is the Holy Spirit of God except the love which is God? For nothing is verified of the most simple God that he is not himself. If it is true that God has a Word, it is true that the Word is God; if it is true that God has a Spirit, it is true that the Spirit is God. For having improperly suits God, because he is all things in such a way that in God to have is to be. (36) Hence the Arab does not deny that God is mind and that from this mind, word or wisdom is begotten, and from them spirit or love proceeds. And this is that ‘trinity’ which has been explained above and has been set forth by the Arabs, although most of them do not notice that they are acknowledging the Trinity. So also in your prophets you Jews discover that the heavens were formed by the Word of God and by his Spirit (37). But in the way in which the Arabs and Jews deny a trinity, certainly it is to be denied by all; but in the way in which the truth of the Trinity is explained above, it must be embraced by all.”
 

Chapter Ten

27. Then the Scythian: “There can be no doubt regarding the adoration of the most simple Trinity, which all who venerate gods today also worship. For the wise say that God is the creator of both sexes and that he is love, wishing through this to explain the most fruitful Trinity of the Creator to the extent that they can. (38) Others assert that the superexalted God projects from himself intellect or reason; and this they call ‘God from God,’ (39) and they call him ‘God the Creator,’ for every created thing has a cause and reason why it is this and not that. Therefore, the one infinite reason of all things is God. But reason, which is the Logos or Word, emanates from that which speaks it so that when the Omnipotent speaks the Word, those things which are enfolded in the Word are made in reality, so that if Omnipotence should say ‘Let there be light,’ (40) then the light enfolded in the Word thus actually exists. Therefore, this Word of God is intellectual, so that according as a thing has been conceived in the intellect so that it should be, thus it would exist in reality. They say further that the spirit of connection proceeds in third order; it connects all to one, so that there is unity as the unity of the universe. For they posited a world soul or spirit which connects all things, and through it each creature has participation in the order so that each is part of the universe. (41) Therefore, it is necessary that this spirit in the beginning is itself the beginning. Now love joins. Hence love, or charity, which is God, can be called this spirit whose power is diffused throughout the universe; in this way the nexus by which the parts are connected to one, or the whole, and without which there would be no perfection has God as its beginning. So it is clearly seen that all the wise have touched on something of the trinity in unity. And, consequently, when they hear the explanation we have heard they will rejoice and give praise.”

28. The Frenchman answers: “Once I heard this argument brought forward among the learned: eternity is either unbegotten or begotten or neither unbegotten nor begotten. I see that the unbegotten is reasonably called the ‘omnipotent Father’ the begotten the ‘Word’ or ‘Son,’ the neither unbegotten nor begotten ‘love’ or the ‘Holy Spirit,’ for it proceeds from both and is neither unbegotten since it is not the Father nor begotten since it is not the Son, but it proceeds from both. Eternity, therefore, is one, and it is threefold and most simple; the one deity is threefold, the one essence is threefold, the one life is threefold, the one potency is threefold, the one power is threefold. In this ’school’ I have now made progress so that what was obscure is visible more clearly than light, as far as it is now given. And since in the world a very great contradiction remains, as some assert that the Word was made flesh for the redemption of all but others hold different opinions, we have to be informed how to reach concord in this difficult matter.”

The Word: “The Apostle Peter has undertaken the explanation of this part. Hear him; for he will sufficiently teach everything that is hidden to you.”

And when Peter appeared in their midst, he thus began:
 

Chapter Eleven

29. Peter: “Every disagreement about the incarnate Word seems to have these different forms. First, some say that the Word of God is not God; and this part has already been sufficiently explained, for the Word of God can be only God. Now this Word is reason; for in Greek logos signifies ‘word,’ which is reason. That God, who is the creator of all rational souls and spirits, possesses reason is beyond doubt. But this reason of God is only God, as has already been explained; for in God having coincides with being. For he from whom all things are embraces all things in himself and is all in all, (42) for he is the former of all; therefore, he is the form of forms. (43) Now the form of forms enfolds in himself all formable forms. Therefore, the Word, or Reason, the infinite cause and measure of all that can be made, is God. So those who admit that the Word of God has become flesh or man must confess that that man whom they call the Word of God is also God.”

30. Then the Persian said: “Peter, the Word of God is God. How could God, who is immutable, become not God but a man, and the creator a creature? Except for a few in Europe, almost all of us deny this. And if there are some among us who are called Christians, they agree with us about the impossibility of the infinite being finite and the eternal temporal.” (44)

Peter: “I firmly deny with you that the eternal is temporal. But since all of you who hold to the law of the Arabs say that Christ is the Word of God, and you say well, you must also acknowledge that he is God.”

The Persian: “We acknowledge that he is the Word and Spirit of God, as though among all who are or were no one had that excellence of the Word and Spirit of God; however, we do not admit therefore that he was God, who has no sharer. So lest we fall into a plurality of gods, we deny that he is God, although we do profess him to be nearest to God.”

31. Peter: “Do you believe in a human nature in Christ?”

The Persian: “We do, and we affirm both that it was true in him and that it remained.”

Peter: “Very good. This nature, because it was human, was not divine. And so in everything that you have seen in Christ according to this human nature, by which he was similar to other men, you have not apprehended Christ as God but as man.”

The Persian: “That is so.”

Peter: “No one differs with you on this point. For human nature was most perfect in Christ; by it he was a true and mortal man like other men; but in accordance with that nature he was not the Word of God. Therefore, tell me: when you acknowledge him to be the Word of God, what do you mean?”

32. The Persian: “Not nature but grace, namely, that he obtained the sublime grace that God placed his Word in him.”

Peter: “Did not God similarly place his Word in other prophets? For all have spoken through the Word of the Lord and were heralds of the Word of God.”

The Persian: “This is so. But of all prophets Christ was the greatest; therefore, it befits him more properly than the other prophets to be called the Word of God. For several missives could contain a word of the king for particular matters and individual provinces, but there is on
ly one which contains the word of the king by which the whole kingdom is ruled, namely, the missive which contains the law and precept which all are bound to obey.”

Peter: “You seem to have provided a good likeness to this end, namely, that the word of the king written on different sheets does not change the sheets into other natures; for after the writing down of the word their nature still remains as it was before. In this way you say that the human nature remained in Christ.”

The Persian: “We do.”

33. Peter: “Good. But notice what a difference there is between missives and the heir of the kingdom. The word of the king is properly living, free and unlimited in the heir of the kingdom but not at all in the missives.”

The Persian: “I admit that; if a king sends his heir into the kingdom, the heir carries the word of the father living and unlimited.”

Peter: “Is not the heir properly the word and not the messenger or envoy, or the letter or missive? And are not all the words of messengers and letters enfolded in the word of the heir? And even if the heir of the kingdom is not the father but the son, he is not different from the king’s nature, and because of this equality he is the heir.”

34. The Persian: “I understand that well. But this stands in the way: the king and the son are two; therefore, we do not admit that God has a son. For the son would be a different god from the Father, just as the son of the king would be a different man from the father.”

Peter: “You oppose this likeness, because it does not properly apply if you consider the subjects [supposita]. But if you remove the numerical distinction of the subjects and look at the power which is in the royal dignity of the Father and of the Son, his heir, then you see how that royal power is one in the Father and in the Son; in the Father as in the unbegotten, in the Son as in the begotten or living Word of the Father.”

The Persian: “Continue.”

Peter: “Suppose, therefore, that there is such an absolute unbegotten and begotten royal power and that such an unbegotten power calls one who is by nature an alien to join with him in the begotten connatural succession so that a different nature in union with his own nature possesses the kingdom at the same time and undividedly. Do not the natural succession and the gracious or adoptive succession concur in one inheritance?”

The Persian: “This is clear.”

35. Peter: “So also sonship and adoption are united in the one succession of one kingdom; but the succession of adoption is not supposited [suppositatur] in itself but in the succession of sonship. For if adoption, which does not succeed from its own nature, is to succeed when there is sonship, it is necessary that adoption not be supposited in itself but in sonship, as he who succeeds by nature. If, therefore, adoption, so that it succeeds with sonship in obtaining the simplest and indivisible inheritance, does not acquire succession from itself but from sonship, the adoptive successor will not be one person and the natural successor another, although the nature of adoption is different from the nature of the natural successor. For if the adopted successor were separate and were not of the same hypostasis with the natural successor, how would he concur in the succession of indivisible inheritance? Therefore, it must be held that in Christ the human nature is so united with the Word or the divine nature that the human nature does not pass into the divine but clings in such an indissoluble way that it is not a person separately in itself but in the divine nature; the end then is that the human nature, called to the succession of eternal life with the divine, can obtain immortality in the divine nature.”

Chapter Twelve

36. The Persian: “I understand this adequately; but clarify what you have said with another understandable example.”

Peter: “Precise similitudes are not possible; but consider wisdom in itself. Is it accident or substance?”

The Persian: “Substance as it is in itself; but accident as it befalls another.”

Peter: “But all wisdom in all the wise is from that which is wisdom per se, because it is God.” (45)

The Persian: “These things have been shown.”

Peter: “Is not one man wiser than another?”

The Persian: “Certainly.”

Peter: “Therefore, he who is wiser is closer to wisdom per se, which is absolutely maximum; and he who is less wise is farther from it.”

The Persian: “I agree.”

Peter: “But in accordance with human nature never is anyone so wise that he could not be wiser. For between contracted wisdom, I. e., human wisdom, and wisdom per se, which is divine and maximum and infinite, there always remains an infinite distance.” (46)

The Persian: “And this is evident also.”

37. Peter: “So it is with absolute mastery and contracted mastery; (47) for in absolute mastery there is an infinite art, in contracted mastery a finite art. Therefore, suppose that someone’s intellect had such mastery and such wisdom that it would not be possible to have a greater wisdom or greater mastery; then his intellect has been most greatly united with wisdom per se or mastery per se, so much that this union could not be greater. Has not this intellect in the power of the united greatest wisdom and of the united greatest mastery, to whom it is united, obtained divine power? And would not the human intellectual nature in a man who has such an intellect be most immediately united to divine nature or eternal wisdom, to the Word or omnipotent art?”

The Persian: “I admit all this, but this union would still be one of grace.”

38. Peter: “If the union of the lower nature with the divine would be so great that it could not be greater, then the lower would be united with the divine also in personal union. For as long as the lower nature is not elevated to personal and hypostatic union with the higher nature, it could be greater. Therefore, if the union is posited as the greatest, the lower exists in the higher by adhering; and this occurs not by nature but by grace. However, this greatest grace, which cannot be greater, is not separate from nature but is united with it. Hence, even though it is by grace that human nature is united with the divine, nevertheless, this grace, since it cannot be greater, most immediately terminates in nature.” (48)

The Persian: “However you will have stated it, because human nature can be elevated by grace to union with the divine in any man, the man Christ should no more be said to be God than any other saint, even though he is the holiest of men.”

39. Peter: “If you consider the loftiest height which cannot be greater and the greatest grace which cannot be greater, and the greatest holiness, and so on, to be in Christ alone; then if you consider it impossible for there to be more than one greatest height which cannot be greater, and the same for grace and holiness; and next if you see all height of every prophet, whatever degree he may have reached, to be improportionally distant from that height which cannot be greater so that given any degree of height, between it and the only highest there can occur an infinite number higher than the given and lower than the highest (so too with grace, holiness, prudence, wisdom, mastery, etc.): then you would see clearly that there can be only the one Christ, in whom human nature is united with the divine nature in supposited unity. And even the Arabs admit this, although many do not consider this thoroughly. For the Arabs say that Christ alone is the loftiest in this world and the next and is the Word of God. (49) Nor do those who say that Christ is God and man say anything other than that Christ alone is the loftiest man and the Word of God.”

The Persian: “It seems that when that union which is necessary in the highest is considered well, the Arabs can be brought to accept this belief, since through it the unity of God,
which they most greatly strive to protect, is not violated but preserved. But tell me how can it be grasped that human nature is not supposited in itself but by adhering to the divine?”

40. Peter: “Take this example, although it is a remote one: a magnet draws iron upward, (50) and by adhering to the magnetic ore the nature of the iron does not subsist in its own weighty nature, otherwise it would not hang in the air, but in accordance with its nature it would fall towards the center of the earth. Yet in the power of the magnet’s nature the iron, by adhering to the magnet, subsists in the air and not by the power of its own nature according to which it could not be there. Now the iron’s nature is inclined in this way to the magnet’s nature because the iron has in itself a likeness to the magnet’s nature, from which it is said to have taken its origin. So if the intellectual human nature should adhere in the closest way to divine intellectual nature, from which it has received its being, it would adhere to it as inseparably as to the font of its life.”

The Persian: “I understand.”

41. Peter: “Further, the sect of Arabs, which is large, also admits that Christ raised the dead and created birds from clay and many other things which they expressly confess Jesus Christ to have done as one having power; (51) from this belief they can easily be led, since it cannot be denied that he himself did these things in the power of the divine nature to which the human was hypostatically [suppositaliter] united. For the power of Christ by which he ordered those things to be done which the Arabs confess were done by him could not have been according to human nature unless the human would have been assumed in union with the divine, whose power it is to order in such a way.”

The Persian: “These things and more the Arabs affirm about Christ, and they are written in the Qur’an. (52) Nevertheless, it will be more difficult to bring the Jews than others to this belief for they admit nothing expressly about Christ.”

Peter: “They have all these things in their scriptures about Christ; but following the literal sense they do not want to understand. Nevertheless, this resistance of the Jews will not impede concord. For they are few and will not be able by arms to disturb the whole world.”

Chapter Thirteen

42. The Syrian responded: “Peter, earlier I heard that concord can be found in every tradition; explain how this can be verified in this point.”

Peter: “I will, but first tell me: is not God alone eternal and immortal?”

The Syrian: “So I believe, for everything except God has a beginning. Therefore, since it has a beginning, it will, in accordance with its nature, also have an end.”

Peter: “Does not almost every religion–of the Jews, Christians, Arabs and most other men–hold that the human mortal nature of every man will arise after temporal death to everlasting life.”

Syrian: “So it believes.”

Peter: “Therefore, all these acknowledge that human nature ought to be united with divine and immortal nature. For otherwise how would human nature pass on to immortality if it did not adhere to the divine in inseparable union?”

The Syrian: “Faith of the resurrection necessarily presupposes this.”

43. Peter: “Therefore, if faith holds this, then the human nature is antecedently united with the divine nature in some man, namely, in him who is the face of all peoples and the highest Messiah and Christ, (53) as the Arabs and Jews call Christ. For he who is, according to all, the closest to God will be that one in whom the nature of all men is antecedently united in God. For this reason he is the savior and mediator of all; in him human nature, which is one and through which all men are men, is united with the divine and immortal nature so that in this way all men, being of the same nature, obtain resurrection from the dead.”

The Syrian: “I understand that you want to say that faith of the resurrection of the dead presupposes union of the human nature with the divine without which this faith would be impossible; and you assert that this union is in Christ; consequently, this faith presupposes him.”

44. Peter: “You understand correctly. Therefore, accept that all the promises which are found to have been given to the Jews are confirmed in the faith in the Messiah or mediator, by whom alone the promises regarding eternal life could and can be fulfilled.”

The Syrian: “What of the other traditions?”

Peter: “The same. For all men desire and expect only eternal life in their human nature, and for this they instituted ceremonies for the purification of souls and sacrifices [sacra] in order better to fit themselves for eternal life in their nature. (54) Men do not desire happiness, which is eternal life, in any other nature than their own; man does not wish to be anything else but man, not an angel or any other nature; but he wants to be a happy man who would obtain final happiness. Now this happiness is nothing else but the fruition or union of the human life with its source, from which life itself flows, that is, with the divine immortal life. But how would this be possible for man unless it is conceded that the common nature of all men is elevated to such a union in some person through whom as mediator all men could acquire the ultimate goal of their desires? And this person is the way because he is the man through whom every man has access to God, who is the goal of desires. It is Christ, therefore, who is presupposed by all who hope to obtain final happiness.”

45. The Syrian: “I like what you say very much. For if human intellect believes that it can obtain union with wisdom in which it acquires an eternal nourishment for its life, it presupposes that the intellect of some highest man has acquired the union in the highest way and has obtained this highest mastery through which it hopes similarly at some time to attain that wisdom. For if it did not believe it possible even in some highest of all men, it would hope in vain. The hope of all men is that they can sometime obtain happiness, for this is the end of all religion. And there is no deception in this, for this hope, common to all, is from an innate longing, and to such hope religion, thus likewise innate in all, seeks to attain. (55) Therefore, I see that this master and mediator, who holds the highest perfection and the highest rank in human nature, is presupposed by all. But the Jews say perhaps this prince of nature, in whom all the deficiencies of all men are made full, has not yet been born but will be born one day.”

Peter: “It is enough that Arabs as well as Christians and others who have borne testimony in their own blood testify–through what the prophets have said about him and through what he did beyond human possibility when he was in the world–that he has come.” (56)
 

Chapter Fourteen

46. The Spaniard: “There will perhaps be another difficulty about the Messiah, whom the greater part of the world admits has come, and this is the question of his birth, for Christians and Arabs assert that he was born of the Virgin Mary and others maintain that this is impossible.” (57)

Peter: “All who believe that Christ has come acknowledge that he was born of the Virgin. For since he is the finality of perfection of nature and alone most high, of which father should he be the son? For every father who begets in the perfection of nature differs from the finality of perfection in such a way that he cannot communicate the final perfection beyond which there can be no higher and which is not possible except for one man. Only that father who is the creator of nature can do this. Therefore, the most high has as father only him from whom is all fatherhood. (58) So the most high is conceived by divine power in the womb of a virgin, and in this virgin the highest fruitfulness concurred with virginity. Hence Christ was born to us in such a way that he is joined to all
men most intimately. For he has as father him from whom every father of man has his fatherhood; and he has her as mother who was united carnally with no man; thus through a most close conjoining each one may find in Christ his own nature in final perfection.”

47. The Turk: “Not a small difference still remains, for Christians assert that Christ was crucified by the Jews but others deny it.”

Peter: “Because some are ignorant of the mystery of death they deny that Christ was crucified and say that he still lives and will come at the time of the Antichrist. (59) And since he will come as they assert, they believe that he will come in mortal flesh, as if otherwise he could not subdue the Antichrist. And they deny that Christ was crucified by the Jews apparently out of reverence for Christ, as if such men would have had no power over Christ. But notice that one rightly ought to believe the accounts, which are many, and the preaching of the Apostles, who died for the truth, namely, that Christ so died. For thus the prophets foretold that he had to be condemned to the most shameful death, which was the death of the cross. And this is the reason: for Christ came having been sent by God the Father in order to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven, and of that Kingdom he said things that could not be better proved by him than by the testimony of his blood. Hence that he might be most obedient to God the Father and might furnish all certainty for the truth which he announced, he died, and he died a most shameful death so that no man should refuse to receive this truth, as a testimony for which all would know that Christ voluntarily accepted death. For he preached the Kingdom of Heaven by proclaiming how man, capable of that kingdom, could reach it. In comparison with that kingdom the life of this world, which is loved so persistently by all, is to be regarded as nothing. And in order that it may be known that this life of the Kingdom of Heaven is truth, he gave up the life of this world for truth. Thus he might most perfectly proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven and liberate the world from ignorance, by which the world prefers this life to the life of the future, and might give himself up in sacrifice for many; so that thus lifted up on the cross in the sight of all, he might draw all to believe and glorify the Gospel and strengthen the fainthearted and freely give himself up for the redemption of many, (60) and do everything in the best possible way so that men might obtain the faith of salvation, the hope of acquiring it and love by fulfilling the commandments of God.

48. Therefore, if the Arabs would consider the fruit of Christ’s death and that it was up to him as one sent by God to sacrifice himself in order to fulfill the desire of his Father and that there was nothing more glorious for Christ than to die for the sake of truth and obedience, even the most shameful death: they would not remove from Christ this glory of the cross, by which he merited to be the most high and to be superexalted in the glory of the Father. Finally, if Christ preached that in the resurrection men will attain immortality after death, how could the world be better assured of this than that he willingly died and was resurrected and appeared alive? For the world then was made certain by a final attestation when, from the testimony of many, who saw him alive and died so that they might be faithful witnesses of his resurrection, it heard that the man Christ had died openly on the cross and had publicly risen from the dead and was alive. Therefore, this was the most perfect proclamation of the Gospel, which Christ made known in himself, and which could not be more perfect; and without death and resurrection it could always have been more perfect. Therefore, whoever believes that Christ most perfectly fulfilled the will of God the Father must confess all these things without which the proclamation would not have been most perfect.

49. Notice, further, that the Kingdom of Heaven was hidden to all until Christ. For this is the gospel of Christ to announce the kingdom which is unknown to all. Therefore, there was no faith or hope of obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, nor could it have been loved by anyone since it was completely unknown. Nor was it possible that any man would have attained that kingdom, since human nature had not yet been elevated to that exaltation so that it would become partaker of the divine nature. (61) Therefore, Christ opened the Kingdom of Heaven in every way of opening. But no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he lay aside the kingdom of this world through death. For it is necessary that the mortal lay aside mortality, that is, the potentiality of dying; and this may be done only through death. Then can the mortal put on immortality. (62) Now if Christ as mortal man had not yet died, he would not yet have laid aside mortality; this would mean he did not enter the Kingdom of Heaven in which no mortal can be. Therefore, if he who is the firstfruits and first-born of all men did not open the heavenly realms, (63) our nature united with God has not yet been introduced into the kingdom. Thus no man could have been in the Kingdom of Heaven if human nature united with God had not yet been introduced. All men who believe in the Kingdom of Heaven assert the contrary; for all confess that some holy ones in their tradition have obtained happiness. Therefore, the faith of all who confess that their holy ones are in eternal glory presupposes that Christ died and ascended into heaven.”
 

Chapter Fifteen

50. The German: “All this is excellent, but I perceive not a few discrepancies regarding happiness. For it is said that only temporal things, which consist of sensible goods, have been promised to the Jews in their law. And one reads that only carnal things, though everlasting, have been promised to the Arabs in their law, which is written in the Qur’an. (64) But the Gospel promises the form of angels, namely, that men will be similar to angels, who have nothing of carnality in them.”

Peter: “What in this world can be conceived the desire for which does not diminish but continually increases?”

The German: “All temporal things diminish, only intellectual things never do; even if eating, drinking, living to excess and the like are sometimes pleasing, at other times they are unpleasant and inconsistent. But knowing, understanding, and contemplating truth with the mind’s eye are always pleasing. And the older a man becomes the more these things please him, and the more he acquires of these the more his desire for having them is increased.” (65)

51. Peter: “Therefore, if the desire is to be continuous and the nourishment everlasting, it will be neither temporal nor sensible but the food of intellectual life. And although the promise of a Paradise where there are rivers of wine and honey and a multitude of young women is found in the law of the Qur’an (66) . . . it is necessary that these things be understood figuratively. For elsewhere the Qur’an forbids lying together and all other carnal pleasures in churches and synagogues or mosques. It ought not be believed that mosques are holier than Paradise. Therefore, how would these things be prohibited here in mosques which will be permitted there in Paradise? (67) Elsewhere it says that all these things are found there because it is necessary that in Paradise there occurs the fulfillment of all the things which are desired there. In this it reveals well enough when it wants to say that such things are found there. For since these things would be so desired in this world, from the presupposition that there would be an equal desire in the next world, then they should be found there exquisitely and abundantly. For otherwise it could declare that that life is the fulfillment of desires only by this similitude. It did not want to state to an uneducated populace other more hidden things but only those things which seem happier according to the senses, lest the populace, which does not relish the things of the spirit, would
disparage the promises.

52. Hence the whole concern of him who wrote that law appears chiefly to have been to turn the people away from idolatry; and to that end he made such promises and set forth all these things. But he did not condemn the Gospel; on the contrary, he praised it giving to understand that the happiness promised in the Gospel is not less than that corporeal happiness. And the understanding and the wise among them know this to be true. And Avicenna incomparably prefers the intellectual happiness of the vision or fruition of God and of the truth to the happiness described in the law of the Arabs, although he was an adherent of that law; so it is with other wise men. (68) Therefore, in this matter there will be no difficulty in reconciling all traditions. For it is said that that happiness is above everything that can be written or spoken for it is the completion of every desire and the attainment of the good in its source and of life in immortality.”

53. The German: “What then of the Jews who do not grasp the promise of the Kingdom of Heaven but only the promise of temporal things?”

Peter: “The Jews often surrender themselves to death for the sake of the observance of the law and its holiness. Hence if they did not believe that thus they would obtain happiness after death, for they prefer zeal for the law to life, they would not die. Therefore, it is not the belief of the Jews that there is no eternal life or that they could not obtain it; otherwise none of all these would die for the law. But the happiness they expect they do not expect from the works of the law–because those laws do not promise it–but from the faith which presupposes Christ, as was stated before.”
 

Chapter Sixteen

54. The Tartar: “I have heard many things here previously unknown to me. The Tartars, who are many and simple, for the most part believing in one God, (69) marvel at the variety of rites of others who also worship the same God with them. For assuredly they laugh at the fact that some Christians and all the Arabs and Jews are circumcised, that some have their faces branded, and others are baptized. Finally, regarding marriage there is much diversity, for one has only one wife, another has only one that is truly married to him but many concubines, yet another has many legitimate wives. And concerning sacrifices the rite is so diverse that it cannot be recited. Among these varieties the sacrifice of the Christians in which they offer bread and wine and say that these are the body and blood of Christ, which they eat and drink after the oblation, seems especially abominable: they devour whom they worship. I do not grasp how there could be a oneness in these things which vary also according to place and time; and unless it occurs, persecution will not end. For diversity gives birth to division and to hostility, hatred and war.”

55. Then by commission of the Word, Paul, teacher to the gentiles, rose and said:

Paul: “It is necessary that it be shown that salvation of the soul is not granted from works but from faith. For Abraham, father of the faith of all believers, whether Christians or Arabs or Jews, believed in God, and this was credited to him as righteousness: (70) the soul of the just will inherit eternal life. When this is acknowledged these varieties of rites will not be a cause of disturbance. For they have been instituted and received as sensible signs of the truth of faith. But signs are subject to change, not however that which is signified.”

The Tartar: “Explain how faith saves.”

Paul: “If God has promised something from his sheer generosity and grace, should he who is able to give all things and is truthful not be believed?”

The Tartar: “Certainly. No one believing him can be deceived; and whoever does not believe him would be unworthy of obtaining any grace.”

Paul: “Therefore, what justifies him who obtains righteousness?”

The Tartar: “Not merits; otherwise it would not be grace but obligation.”

Paul: “Excellent. But because no living being is justified in the sight of God through works but through grace, the Omnipotent gives to whom he will what he will. Then if anyone should be worthy to obtain the promise which has been made out of pure grace, he must believe God. In believing, therefore, he is justified, since from faith alone he obtains the promise, for he believes God and expects God’s word to be done.”

56. The Tartar: “After God has promised, it is just that the promises be kept. Therefore, whoever believes God is justified through the promise rather than through faith.”

Paul: “God, who promised to Abraham a seed in whom all would be blessed, justified Abraham that he might obtain the promise. But if Abraham had not believed God, he would have obtained neither justification nor the promise.”

The Tartar: “This is true.”

Paul: “Therefore, in Abraham faith had such effect that the fulfillment of the promise–that promise which otherwise would not have been just or fulfilled–was just.”

57. The Tartar: “What, therefore, did God promise?”

Paul: “God promised Abraham that in Isaac he would give him a seed in which all peoples would be blessed. And this promise was given when according to the ordinary course of nature it was impossible for Sarah, his wife, to conceive from him and to give birth; but because he believed, he acquired a son Isaac. Later God tested Abraham that he should offer up and slay the boy Isaac in whom the promise of the seed was made. And Abraham obeyed God, yet he believed no less that the promise would also be fulfilled even from the dead son after his having to be raised from the dead. Hence God found such great faith in Abraham; thereupon Abraham was justified, and the promise was fulfilled in the one seed, which descended from him through Isaac.”

The Tartar: “What is this seed?”

Paul: “Christ. For all peoples obtain divine blessing in him.”

The Tartar: “What is this blessing?”

Paul: “The divine blessing is the final goal of desires or the happiness which is called eternal life, about which you have already heard sufficiently.”

The Tartar: “Therefore, do you mean to say that God promised us the blessing of eternal happiness in Christ?”

Paul: “This is what I mean. Consequently, it is necessary to believe God as Abraham believed, so that whoever so believes is justified, along with the faithful Abraham, in order to obtain the promise in the one seed of Abraham, Christ Jesus; this promise is the divine blessing enfolding every good in itself.”

58. The Tartar: “Therefore, do you mean to say that this faith alone justifies so that we may receive eternal life?” (71)

Paul: “Yes.”

The Tartar: “How will you give to the simple Tartars understanding of this so that they may grasp that it is Christ in whom they can obtain happiness?”

Paul: “You have heard that not only Christians but also Arabs acknowledge that Christ is the highest of all who have been or will be in this age or the next and that he is the face of all peoples. If, therefore, the blessing of all is in one seed, this can only be Christ.”

The Tartar: “What kind of sign do you bring for this?”

Paul: “I bring forward the testimony of the Arabs as well as of the Christians that the spirit making the dead to live is the spirit of Christ. If, therefore, the spirit of life is in Christ, who is able to give life to those he will, then he is the spirit without whom no dead can be revived and no spirit can live eternally. For the fullness of divinity and grace indwell the spirit of Christ, and from this fullness all who are to be saved receive the grace of salvation.”

The Tartar: “It is pleasing to have heard this thing from you, Teacher of the Gentiles, for along with the things that I heard earlier they are sufficient for our purpose. I see also that this faith is necessary for salvation; without fai
th no one will be saved. But I ask, does faith suffice?”

Paul: “Without faith it is impossible for anyone to please God. (72) But it must be a formed faith; for without works it is dead.” (73)

59. The Tartar: “Which works are these?”

Paul: “If you believe God, you keep his commandments. For how do you believe God to be God if you do not strive to fulfill what he commands?”

The Tartar: “It is fitting that God’s commandments be kept. But the Jews say they have his commandments through Moses, the Arabs through Mohammed, the Christians through Jesus, and the other nations perhaps venerate their own prophets by whose hands they claim to have received the divine commandments. How, therefore, would we come to agreement?”

Paul: “The divine commandments are very brief and well known to all and are common to all nations. Indeed, the light showing them to us was created simultaneously with the rational soul. For God speaks in us that we should love him from whom we have received being and that we should do to another only what we want done to us. (74) Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law of God, and all laws are brought back to this.” (75)

60. The Tartar: “I do not doubt that both the faith and the law of love of which you spoke will be grasped by the Tartars. But I have much hesitation about rites; for I do not know how they will accept circumcision, which they scorn.”

Paul: “Accepting circumcision has no bearing on the truth of salvation. For circumcision does not save, and there is salvation without it. (76) Yet whoever does not believe circumcision to be necessary for obtaining salvation but allows it to be done on him in order to be in this also more like Abraham and his followers is not condemned because of circumcision if he has the faith which was just described. Thus Christ was circumcised, and many among the Christians after him, as still today with the Ethiopian Jacobites and others who are circumcised but not as if this rite were a sacrament necessary for salvation. (77) But how peace could be preserved among the faithful if some are circumcised and others not is a major question. Hence because the larger part of the world is without circumcision and in view of the fact that circumcision is not necessary, I consider it fitting that in order to preserve peace the smaller part thus conform to the larger part, with whom they are united in faith. But if because of peace the larger part should conform to the smaller part and accept circumcision, it ought to be done voluntarily so that peace thus might be established by mutual interchanges. For if in the cause of peace other nations accept faith from Christians and the Christians circumcision from them, peace would be better made and strengthened. Yet I think that the practice of this would be difficult. Therefore, it should suffice that peace be established in faith and in the law of love and that rite thus be mutually tolerated.”

Chapter Seventeen

61. The Armenian: “What do you think should be done about baptism since Christians consider it a necessary sacrament?”

Paul: “Baptism is a sacrament of faith. For whoever believes that it is possible to obtain a justification in Jesus Christ believes that there is a taking away of sins through him. Each of the faithful will show this cleansing signified in the baptismal washing. For baptism is nothing but the confession of this faith in the sacramental sign. He would not be one of the faithful who would not acknowledge his faith in speech and in signs which Christ instituted for this purpose. Both the Hebrews and the Arabs perform baptismal washings for the sake of religious devotion, and they will not find it difficult to accept the washing instituted by Christ for the profession of faith.” (78)

62. The Armenian: “It seems necessary to accept this sacrament since it is necessary for salvation.”

Paul: “Faith is a necessity for adults, who can be saved without the sacrament when they cannot receive it. But when they can, they cannot be called the faithful who do not wish to show themselves as such through the sacrament of regeneration.”

The Armenian: “What about little children?”

Paul: “The Hebrews and the Arabs more readily agree that little children be baptized. Since for the sake of religion they let males be circumcised on the eighth day, commutation of this circumcision to baptism will be agreeable, and the option of whether they wish to be content with baptism will be given.”
 

Chapter Eighteen

63. The Bohemian: “In everything that has already been set forth it should be possible to find agreement, but it will be very difficult with sacrifices. For we know that Christians cannot give up the offering of bread and wine for the sacrament of the Eucharist in order to please others, since this sacrifice was instituted by Christ. But it is not easy to believe that other nations which do not have the custom of sacrificing in this way will accept this manner, especially since they say that it is insanity to believe in a conversion of the bread into Christ’s flesh and of the wine into his blood and then to consume the sacraments.”

Paul: “This sacrament of the Eucharist represents nothing else but that from the grace in Christ Jesus we will obtain the refreshment of eternal life, just as in this world we are refreshed by bread and wine. Therefore, when we believe that Christ is the food of the mind, then we take him under visible forms which feed the body. And since it is necessary that we agree in the belief that we obtain the food of the life of the spirit in Christ, why should we not show that we believe this in the sacrament of the Eucharist? It is to be hoped that in general all the faithful want to enjoy in this world, by faith, the food which will in truth be the food of our life in the other world.”

64. The Bohemian: “How will you persuade all peoples that in the sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ?”

Paul: “The believer knows that the Word of God in Christ Jesus will lead us from the misery of this world to the sonship of God and to the possession of eternal life, for with God nothing is impossible. Therefore, if we believe this and hope, then we do not doubt that according to Christ’s ordinance the Word of God can change bread into flesh. If nature does this in animals, how should the Word, through whom God also made the worlds, not do this? Therefore, the necessity of faith demands that we believe it. For if it is possible that we the sons of Adam, who are from the earth, are transformed in Christ Jesus by the Word of God into sons of the immortal God and if we believe this and hope it to come and if it is possible that we will then as Jesus be the Word of God the Father: it is necessary that we likewise believe in the transubstantiation of the bread into flesh and of the wine into blood through the same Word, by whom bread is bread and wine is wine, and flesh is flesh and blood is blood, and through whom nature converts food into him who is fed.”

65. The Bohemian: “This conversion of the substance of the bread is difficult to grasp.” (79)

Paul: “It is very easy through faith. For this is attainable only by the mind, which alone looks on the ‘that’ of substance, not its ‘what’; for substance precedes every accident. And so since substance is neither a quality nor a quantity and only the substance is changed so that it is no longer the substance of bread but the substance of flesh, this conversion is only spiritual, for it is most distantly removed from everything that can be grasped by sense. Therefore, there is no increase of the quantity of flesh from this conversion, nor is it multiplied in number. Consequently, there is only one substance of flesh into which the substance of bread has been changed, even if the bread is offered in different places and many breads are placed in sacrifice.” The Bohemian: “I grasp your teaching, which is
very agreeable to me, that this sacrament is the sacrament of the food of eternal life through which we obtain the inheritance of the sons of God in Christ Jesus, the Son of God; that there is a likeness of this in the sacrament of the Eucharist; and that it is attained only by the mind and is tasted and received through faith. What if these secrets are not received? For the uneducated will perhaps shudder not only at believing this but at taking such great sacraments.”

66. Paul: “If faith is present, this sacrament, as it is in sensible signs, is not thus of such a necessity that without it there is no salvation; for it is sufficient for salvation to believe and in this way to eat the bread of life. And so regarding its distribution, whether and to whom and how often it should be given to the people, no law of necessity has been set down. Therefore, if anyone having faith considers himself unworthy to approach the table of the highest King, this is a humility rather to be praised. Thus, as to the question of its use and rite, that which is seen by Church leaders to be more expedient for the time in any religion–always with faith preserved–could be ordered in such a way that by means of a common law the peace of faith might not persevere less intact because of a diversity of rites.”
 

Chapter Nineteen

67. The Englishman: “What will be done about the other sacraments, that is, marriage, orders, confirmation, and extreme unction?”

Paul: “It is very often necessary to condescend to human weakness if it does not offend against eternal salvation. For to seek exact conformity in all things is rather to disturb the peace. It is to be hoped, however, that agreement may be found in marriage and in orders. For it seems that in all nations marriage was introduced, as it were, through natural law so that one man has one true wife. So, likewise, priesthood is also found in every religion. Therefore, agreement will be easier in these common things, and also in the judgment of all the others the Christian religion will be proved to observe a more praiseworthy purity in both sacraments.”

The Englishman: “What about fastings, ecclesiastical duties [officiis ecclesiasticis], abstinence from food and drink, forms of prayers, etc.?”

Paul: “Where no conformity in manner can be found, nations should be permitted their own devotional practices and ceremonials, provided faith and peace are preserved. A certain diversity will perhaps even increase devotion when each nation will strive to make its own rite more splendid through zeal and diligence in order thus to surpass another and so to obtain greater merit with God and praise in the world.”

68. After these things were thus discussed with the wise of the nations, very many books of those who wrote on the observances of the ancients were produced, and indeed excellent ones in every language, for example, among the Latins Marcus Varro, (80) among the Greeks Eusebius, (81) who collected information about the diversity of religions, and very many other authors. After these were examined it was discovered that all the diversity consisted in rites rather than in the worship of one God; from all the writings collected into one it was found that all from the beginning always presupposed and worshiped the one God in all practice of worship, although people in their simplicity, seduced by the adverse power of the Prince of Darkness, often did not consider what they were doing.

Therefore, in the way it has been set forth, a concord of religions was concluded in the heaven of reason. (82) And it was commanded by the King of Kings that the wise return and lead the nations to the unity of true worship, that ministering spirits lead them and assist them and, finally, that with the full power of all they come together in Jerusalem as to a common center and accept one faith in the name of all and thereupon establish an everlasting peace so that in peace the Creator of all, blessed forever, will be praised. Amen.

(via appstate)

Here is another hymn for today, this one from John Athelstan Laurie Riley, who was born on this day in 1858 in Bayswater, London, England (d. November 17 1945).

O food to pilgrims given,
O bread of life from Heaven,
O manna from on high!
We hunger, Lord, supply us,
Nor Thy delights deny us,
Whose hearts to Thee draw nigh.

O stream of love past telling,
O purest fountain welling
From out the Savior’s side!
We faint with thirst; revive us,
Of Thine abundance give us,
And all we need provide.

O Jesus, by Thee bidden,
We here adore Thee,
Hidden in forms of bread and wine.
Grant when the veil is riven,
We may behold, in heaven,
Thy countenance divine.

Here is a hymn for today from clergyman, composer and hymnist, Philipp Nicolai, who was born on this day in 1556 in Mengeringhausen, Hessen, Germany (d. October 26 1608).

“Sleepers, wake!” the watch cry pealeth,
While slumber deep each eyelid sealeth:
Awake, Jerusalem, awake!
Midnight’s solemn hour is tolling,
And seraph-notes are onward rolling;
They call on us our part to take.
Come forth, ye virgins wise:
The Bridegroom comes, arise!
Alleluia! Each lamp be bright with ready light
To grace the marriage feast tonight.

Zion hears the voice that singeth
With sudden joy her glad heart springeth,
At once she wakes, she stands arrayed:
Her Light is come, her Star ascending,
Lo, girt with truth, with mercy blending,
Her Bridegroom there, so long delayed.
All hail! God’s glorious Son,
All hail! our joy and crown,
Alleluia! The joyful call we answer all,
And follow to the bridal hall.

Praise to Him Who goes before us!
Let men and angels join in chorus,
Let harp and cymbal add their sound.
Twelve the gates, a pearl each portal:
We haste to join the choir immortal
Within the Holy City’s bound.
Ear ne’er heard aught like this,
Nor heart conceived such bliss.
Alleluia! We raise the song, we swell the throng,
To praise Thee ages all along.

Here is a copy of the second edition of The Training of the Twelve, by Scottish Free Church theologian Alexander Balmain Bruce, who died on this day in 1899 (b. January 31 1831).

Here is a hymn for today from English hymnist Basil Woodd, who was born on this day in 1760 (d. April 12, 1831).

Hail, Thou Source of every blessing,
Sovereign Father of mankind!
Gentiles now, Thy grace possessing,
In Thy courts admission find.
Grateful now we fall before Thee,
In Thy Church obtain a place,
Now by faith behold Thy glory,
Praise Thy truth, adore Thy grace.

Once far off, but now invited,
We approach Thy sacred throne;
In Thy covenant united,
Reconciled, redeemed, made one.
Now revealed to Eastern sages,
See the Star of Mercy shine;
Mystery hid in former ages,
Mystery great of love divine.

Hail, Thou all-inviting Savior!
Gentiles now their offerings bring;
In Thy temple seek Thy favor,
Jesus Christ, our Lord and King.
May we, body, soul, and spirit,
Live devoted to Thy praise,
Glorious realms of bliss inherit,
Grateful anthems ever raise!

Today in 1879 Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) issued Aeterni Patris, a bull urging the restoration of Christian philosophy, and asserting a harmony between science and truth. As one would expect from the Roman Catholic tradition, Thomistic philosophy is privileged. Given the banal state of theological discourse and argumentation, particularly in the mainline Protestant world, a call to philosophical rigor may be in order today. And if Thomism is not the answer, what are the schools of philosophy relevant to the theological task?

Aeterni Patris

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on August 4, 1879. To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World in Grace and Communion With the Apostolic See.

The only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who came on earth to bring salvation and the light of divine wisdom to men, conferred a great and wonderful blessing on the world when, about to ascend again into heaven, He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations,[1] and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. For men whom the truth had set free were to be preserved by the truth; nor would the fruits of heavenly doctrines by which salvation comes to men have long remained had not the Lord Christ appointed an unfailing teaching authority to train the minds to faith. And the Church built upon the promises of its own divine Author, whose charity it imitated, so faithfully followed out His commands that its constant aim and chief wish was this: to teach religion and contend forever against errors. To this end assuredly have tended the incessant labors of individual bishops; to this end also the published laws and decrees of councils, and especially the constant watchfulness of the Roman Pontiffs, to whom, as successors of the blessed Peter in the primacy of the Apostles, belongs the right and office of teaching and confirming their brethren in the faith. Since, then, according to the warning of the apostle, the minds of Christ’s faithful are apt to be deceived and the integrity of the faith to be corrupted among men by philosophy and vain deceit,[2] the supreme pastors of the Church have always thought it their duty to advance, by every means in their power, science truly so called, and at the same time to provide with special care that all studies should accord with the Catholic faith, especially philosophy, on which a right interpretation of the other sciences in great part depends. Indeed, venerable brethren, on this very subject among others, We briefly admonished you in Our first encyclical letter; but now, both by reason of the gravity of the subject and the condition of the time, we are again compelled to speak to you on the mode of taking up the study of philosophy which shall respond most fitly to the excellence of faith, and at the same time be consonant with the dignity of human science.

2. Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten, us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them. Whereas, on the other hand, if men be of sound mind and take their stand on true and solid principles, there will result a vast amount of benefits for the public and private good. We do not, indeed, attribute such force and authority to philosophy as to esteem it equal to the task of combating and rooting out all errors; for, when the Christian religion was first constituted, it came upon earth to restore it to its primeval dignity by the admirable light of faith, diffused “not by persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of spirit and of power”,[3] so also at the present time we look above all things to the powerful help of Almighty God to bring back to a right understanding the minds of man and dispel the darkness of error.[4] But the natural helps with which the grace of the divine wisdom, strongly and sweetly disposing all things, has supplied the human race are neither to be despised nor neglected, chief among which is evidently the right use of philosophy. For, not in vain did God set the light of reason in the human mind; and so far is the super-added light of faith from extinguishing or lessening the power of the intelligence that it completes it rather, and by adding to its strength renders it capable of greater things.

3. Therefore, Divine Providence itself requires that, in calling back the people to the paths of faith and salvation, advantage should be taken of human science also — an approved and wise practice which history testifies was observed by the most illustrious Fathers of the Church. They, indeed, were wont neither to belittle nor undervalue the part that reason had to play, as is summed up by the great Augustine when he attributes to this science “that by which the most wholesome faith is begotten . . . is nourished, defended, and made strong.”[5]

4. In the first place, philosophy, if rightly made use of by the wise, in a certain way tends to smooth and fortify the road to true faith, and to prepare the souls of its disciples for the fit reception of revelation; for which reason it is well called by ancient writers sometimes a steppingstone to the Christian faith,[6] sometimes the prelude and help of Christianity,[7] sometimes the Gospel teacher.[8] And, assuredly, the God of all goodness, in all that pertains to divine things, has not only manifested by the light of faith those truths which human intelligence could not attain of itself, but others, also, not altogether unattainable by reason, that by the help of divine authority they may be made known to all at once and without any admixture of error. Hence it is that certain truths which were either divinely proposed for belief, or were bound by the closest chains to the doctrine of faith, were discovered by pagan sages with nothing but their natural reason to guide them, were demonstrated and proved by becoming arguments. For, as the Apostle says, the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: His eternal power also and divinity;[9] and the Gentiles who have not the Law show, nevertheless, the work of the Law written in their hearts.[10] But it is most fitting to turn these truths, which have been discovered by the pagan sages even, to the use and purposes of revealed doctrine, in order to show that both human wisdom and the very testimony of our adversaries serve to support the Christian faith — a method which is not of recent introduction, but of established use, and has often been adopted by the holy Fathers of the Church. What is more, those venerable men, the witnesses and guardians of religious traditions, recognize a certain form and figure of this in the action of the Hebrews, who, when about to depart out of Egypt, were commanded to take with them the gold and silver vessels and precious robes of the Egyptians, that by a change of use the things might be dedicated to the service of the true God which had formerly been the instruments of ignoble and superstitious rites. Gregory of Neo-Caesare[11] praises Origen expressly because, with singular dexterity, as one snatches weapons from the enemy, he turned to the defense of Christian wisdom and to the destruction of superstition many arguments drawn from the writings of the pagans. And both Gregory of Nazianzen[12] and Gregory of Nyssa[13] praise and commend a like mode of disputation in Basil the Great; whi
le Jerome[14] especially commends it in Quadratus, a disciple of the Apostles, in Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, and very many others. Augustine says: “Do we not see Cyprian, that mildest of doctors and most blessed of martyrs, going out of Egypt laden with gold and silver and vestments? And Lactantius, also and Victorinus, Optatus and Hilary? And, not to speak of the living, how many Greeks have done likewise?”[15] But if natural reason first sowed this rich field of doctrine before it was rendered fruitful by the power of Christ, it must assuredly become more prolific after the grace of the Savior has renewed and added to the native faculties of the human mind. And who does not see that a plain and easy road is opened up to faith by such a method of philosophic study?

5. But the advantage to be derived from such a school of philosophy is not to be confined within these limits. The foolishness of those men who “by these good things that are seen could not understand Him, that is, neither by attending to the works could have acknowledged who was the workman,”[16] is gravely reproved in the words of Divine Wisdom. In the first place, then, this great and noble fruit is gathered from human reason, that it demonstrates that God is; for the greatness of the beauty and of the creature the Creator of them may be seen so as to be known thereby.[17] Again, it shows God to excel in the height of all perfections, especially in infinite wisdom before which nothing lies hidden, and in absolute justice which no depraved affection could possibly shake; and that God, therefore, is not only true but truth itself, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. Whence it clearly follows that human reason finds the fullest faith and authority united in the word of God. In like manner, reason declares that the doctrine of the Gospel has even from its very beginning been made manifest by certain wonderful signs, the established proofs, as it were, of unshaken truth; and that all, therefore, who set faith in the Gospel do not believe rashly as though following cunningly devised fables,[18] but, by a most reasonable consent, subject their intelligence and judgment to an authority which is divine. And of no less importance is it that reason most clearly sets forth that the Church instituted by Christ (as laid down in the Vatican Council), on account of its wonderful spread, its marvelous sanctity, and its inexhaustible fecundity in all places, as well as of its Catholic unity and unshaken stability, is in itself a great and perpetual motive of belief and an irrefragable testimony of its own divine mission.[19]

6. Its solid foundations having been thus laid, a perpetual and varied service is further required of philosophy, in order that sacred theology may receive and assume the nature, form, and genius of a true science. For in this, the most noble of studies, it is of the greatest necessity to bind together, as it were, in one body the many and various parts of the heavenly doctrines, that, each being allotted to its own proper place and derived from its own proper principles, the whole may join together in a complete union; in order, in fine, that all and each part may be strengthened by its own and the others’ invincible arguments. Nor is that more accurate or fuller knowledge of the things that are believed, and somewhat more lucid understanding, as far as it can go, of the very mysteries of faith which Augustine and the other fathers commended and strove to reach, and which the Vatican Council itself[20] declared to be most fruitful, to be passed over in silence or belittled. Those will certainly more fully and more easily attain that knowledge and understanding who to integrity of life and love of faith join a mind rounded and finished by philosophic studies, as the same Vatican Council teaches that the knowledge of such sacred dogmas ought to be sought as well from analogy of the things that are naturally known as from the connection of those mysteries one with another and with the final end of man.[21]

7. Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine.[22] For, as the enemies of the Catholic name, when about to attack religion, are in the habit of borrowing their weapons from the arguments of philosophers, so the defenders of sacred science draw many arguments from the store of philosophy which may serve to uphold revealed dogmas. Nor is the triumph of the Christian faith a small one in using human reason to repel powerfully and speedily the attacks of its adversaries by the hostile arms which human reason itself supplied. This species of religious strife St. Jerome, writing to Magnus, notices as having been adopted by the Apostle of the Gentiles himself; Paul, the leader of the Christian army and the invincible orator, battling for the cause of Christ, skillfully turns even a chance inscription into an argument for the faith; for he had learned from the true David to wrest the sword from the hands of the enemy and to cut off the head of the boastful Goliath with his own weapon.[23] Moreover, the Church herself not only urges, but even commands, Christian teachers to seek help from philosophy. For, the fifth Lateran Council, after it had decided that “every assertion contrary to the truth of revealed faith is altogether false, for the reason that it contradicts, however slightly, the truth,”[24] advises teachers of philosophy to pay close attention to the exposition of fallacious arguments; since, as Augustine testifies, “if reason is turned against the authority of sacred Scripture, no matter how specious it may seem, it errs in the likeness of truth; for true it cannot be.”[25]

8. But in order that philosophy may be bound equal to the gathering of those precious fruits which we have indicated, it behooves it above all things never to turn aside from that path which the Fathers have entered upon from a venerable antiquity, and which the Vatican Council solemnly and authoritatively approved. As it is evident that very many truths of the supernatural order which are far beyond the reach of the keenest intellect must be accepted, human reason, conscious of its own infirmity, dare not affect to itself too great powers, nor deny those truths, nor measure them by its own standard, nor interpret them at will; but receive them, rather, with a full and humble faith, and esteem it the highest honor to be allowed to wait upon heavenly doctrines like a handmaid and attendant, and by God’s goodness attain to them in any way whatsoever. But in the case of such doctrines as the human intelligence may perceive, it is equally just that philosophy should make use of its own method, principles, and arguments — not, indeed, in such fashion as to seem rashly to withdraw from the divine authority. But, since it is established that those things which become known by revelation have the force of certain truth, and that those things which war against faith war equally against right reason, the Catholic philosopher will know that he violates at once faith and the laws of reason if he accepts any conclusion which he understands to be opposed to revealed doctrine.

9. We know that there are some who, in their overestimate of the human faculties, maintain that as soon as man’s intellect becomes subject to divine authority it falls from its native dignity, and hampered by the yoke of this species of slavery, is much retarded and hindered in its progress toward the supreme truth and excellence. Such an idea is most fals
e and deceptive, and its sole tendency is to induce foolish and ungrateful men willfully to repudiate the most sublime truths, and reject the divine gift of faith, from which the fountains of all good things flow out upon civil society. For the human mind, being confined within certain limits, and those narrow enough, is exposed to many errors and is ignorant of many things; whereas the Christian faith, reposing on the authority of God, is the unfailing mistress of truth, whom whoso followeth he will be neither enmeshed in the snares of error nor tossed hither and thither on the waves of fluctuating opinion. Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way; for the splendor of the divine truths, received into the mind, helps the understanding, and not only detracts in nowise from its dignity, but adds greatly to its nobility, keenness, and stability. For surely that is a worthy and most useful exercise of reason when men give their minds to disproving those things which are repugnant to faith and proving the things which conform to faith. In the first case they cut the ground from under the feet of error and expose the viciousness of the arguments on which error rests; while in the second case they make themselves masters of weighty reasons for the sound demonstration of truth and the satisfactory instruction of any reasonable person. Whoever denies that such study and practice tend to add to the resources and expand the faculties of the mind must necessarily and absurdly hold that the mind gains nothing from discriminating between the true and the false. Justly, therefore, does the Vatican Council commemorate in these words the great benefits which faith has conferred upon reason: Faith frees and saves reason from error, and endows it with manifold knowledge.[26] A wise man, therefore, would not accuse faith and look upon it as opposed to reason and natural truths, but would rather offer heartfelt thanks to God, and sincerely rejoice that, in the density of ignorance and in the flood-tide of error, holy faith, like a friendly star, shines down upon his path and points out to him the fair gate of truth beyond all danger of wandering.

10. If, venerable brethren, you open the history of philosophy, you will find all We have just said proved by experience. The philosophers of old who lacked the gift of faith, yet were esteemed so wise, fell into many appalling errors. You know how often among some truths they taught false and incongruous things; what vague and doubtful opinions they held concerning the nature of the Divinity, the first origin of things, the government of the world, the divine knowledge of the future, the cause and principle of evil, the ultimate end of man, the eternal beatitude, concerning virtue and vice, and other matters, a true and certain knowledge of which is most necessary to the human race; while, on the other hand, the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who well understood that, according to the divine plan, the restorer of human science is Christ, who is the power and the wisdom of God,[27] and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,[28] took up and investigated the books of the ancient philosophers, and compared their teachings with the doctrines of revelation, and, carefully sifting them, they cherished what was true and wise in them and amended or rejected all else. For, as the all-seeing God against the cruelty of tyrants raised up mighty martyrs to the defense of the Church, men prodigal of their great lives, in like manner to false philosophers and heretics He opposed men of great wisdom, to defend, even by the aid of human reason, the treasure of revealed truths. Thus, from the very first ages of the Church, the Catholic doctrine has encountered a multitude of most bitter adversaries, who, deriding the Christian dogmas and institutions, maintained that there were many gods, that the material world never had a beginning or cause, and that the course of events was one of blind and fatal necessity, not regulated by the will of Divine Providence.

11. But the learned men whom We call apologists speedily encountered these teachers of foolish doctrine and, under the guidance of faith, found arguments in human wisdom also to prove that one God, who stands pre-eminent in every kind of perfection, is to be worshipped; that all things were created from nothing by His omnipotent power; that by His wisdom they flourish and serve each their own special purposes. Among these St. Justin Martyr claims the chief place. After having tried the most celebrated academies of the Greeks, he saw clearly, as he himself confesses, that he could only draw truths in their fullness from the doctrine of revelation. These he embraced with all the ardor of his soul, purged of calumny, courageously and fully defended before the Roman emperors, and reconciled with them not a few of the sayings of the Greek philosophers.

12. Quadratus, also, and Aristides, Hermias, and Athenagoras stood nobly forth in that time. Nor did Irenaeus, the invincible martyr and Bishop of Lyons, win less glory in the same cause when, forcibly refuting the perverse opinions of the Orientals, the work of the Gnostics, scattered broadcast over the territories of the Roman Empire, he explained (according to Jerome) the origin of each heresy and in what philosophic source it took its rise.[29] But who knows not the disputations of Clement of Alexandria, which the same Jerome thus honorably commemorates: “What is there in them that is not learned, and what that is not of the very heart of philosophy?”[30] He himself, indeed, with marvelous versatility treated of many things of the greatest utility for preparing a history of philosophy, for the exercise of the dialectic art, and for showing the agreement between reason and faith. After him came Origen, who graced the chair of the school of Alexandria, and was most learned in the teachings of the Greeks and Orientals. He published many volumes, involving great labor, which were wonderfully adapted to explain the divine writings and illustrate the sacred dogmas; which, though, as they now stand, not altogether free from error, contain nevertheless a wealth of knowledge tending to the growth and advance of natural truths. Tertullian opposes heretics with the authority of the sacred writings; with the philosophers he changes his fence and disputes philosophically; but so learnedly and accurately did he confute them that he made bold to say: “Neither in science nor in schooling are we equals, as you imagine.”[31] Arnobius, also, in his works against the pagans, and Lactantius in the divine Institutions especially, with equal eloquence and strength strenuously strive to move men to accept the dogmas and precepts of Catholic wisdom, not by philosophic juggling, after the fashion of the Academicians, but vanquishing them partly by their own arms, and partly by arguments drawn from the mutual contentions of the philosophers.[32] But the writings on the human soul, the divine attributes, and other questions of mighty moment which the great Athanasius and Chrysostom, the prince of orators, have left behind them are, by common consent, so supremely excellent that it seems scarcely anything could be added to their subtlety and fullness. And, not to cover too wide a range, we add to the number of the great men of whom mention has been made the names of Basil the Great and of the two Gregories, who, on going forth from Athens, that home of all learning, thoroughly equipped with all the harness of philosophy, turned the wealth of knowledge which each had gathered up in a course of zealous study to the work of refuting heretics and preparing Christians.

13. But Augustine would seem to have wrested the palm from all. Of a most powerful genius and thoroughly saturated with sacred and profane learning, with the loftiest faith and with equal knowledge, he combated most vigorously all the errors of his age. What topic of philosophy did he not investigate? What region of it did he not diligen
tly explore, either in expounding the loftiest mysteries of the faith to the faithful, or defending them against the full onslaught of adversaries, or again when, in demolishing the fables of the Academicians or the Manichaeans, he laid the safe foundations and sure structure of human science, or followed up the reason, origin, and causes of the evils that afflict man? How subtly he reasoned on the angels, the soul, the human mind, the will and free choice, on religion and the life of the blessed, on time and eternity, and even on the very nature of changeable bodies. Afterwards, in the East, John Damascene, treading in the footsteps of Basil and of Gregory of Nazianzen, and in the West, Boethius and Anselm following the doctrines of Augustine, added largely to the patrimony of philosophy.

14. Later on, the doctors of the middle ages, who are called Scholastics, addressed themselves to a great work — that of diligently collecting, and sifting, and storing up, as it were, in one place, for the use and convenience of posterity the rich and fertile harvests of Christian learning scattered abroad in the voluminous works of the holy Fathers. And with regard, venerable brethren, to the origin, drift, and excellence of this scholastic learning, it may be well here to speak more fully in the words of one of the wisest of Our predecessors, Sixtus V: “By the divine favor of Him who alone gives the spirit of science, and wisdom, and understanding, and who though all ages, as there may be need, enriches His Church with new blessings and strengthens it with new safeguards, there was founded by Our fathers, men of eminent wisdom, the scholastic theology, which two glorious doctors in particular, the angelic St. Thomas and the seraphic St. Bonaventure, illustrious teachers of this faculty, . . . with surpassing genius, by unwearied diligence, and at the cost of long labors and vigils, set in order and beautified, and when skillfully arranged and clearly explained in a variety of ways, handed down to posterity.

15. “And, indeed, the knowledge and use of so salutary a science, which flows from the fertilizing founts of the sacred writings, the sovereign Pontiffs, the holy Fathers and the councils, must always be of the greatest assistance to the Church, whether with the view of really and soundly understanding and interpreting the Scriptures, or more safely and to better purpose reading and explaining the Fathers, or for exposing and refuting the various errors and heresies; and in these late days, when those dangerous times described by the Apostle are already upon us, when the blasphemers, the proud, and the seducers go from bad to worse, erring themselves and causing others to err, there is surely a very great need of confirming the dogmas of Catholic faith and confuting heresies.”

16. Although these words seem to bear reference solely to Scholastic theology, nevertheless they may plainly be accepted as equally true of philosophy and its praises. For, the noble endowments which make the Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth — to wit, as the same Pontiff adds, “that ready and close coherence of cause and effect, that order and array as of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions, by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and strip naked, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies”[33]–those noble and admirable endowments, We say, are only to be found in a right use of that philosophy which the Scholastic teachers have been accustomed carefully and prudently to make use of even in theological disputations. Moreover, since it is the proper and special office of the Scholastic theologians to bind together by the fastest chain human and divine science, surely the theology in which they excelled would not have gained such honor and commendation among men if they had made use of a lame and imperfect or vain philosophy.

17. Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because “he most venerated the ancient Doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all.”[34] The doctrines of those illustrious men, like the scattered members of a body, Thomas collected together and cemented, distributed in wonderful order, and so increased with important additions that he is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith. With his spirit at once humble and swift, his memory ready and tenacious, his life spotless throughout, a lover of truth for its own sake, richly endowed with human and divine science, like the sun he heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his teaching. Philosophy has no part which he did not touch finely at once and thoroughly; on the laws of reasoning, on God and incorporeal substances, on man and other sensible things, on human actions and their principles, he reasoned in such a manner that in him there is wanting neither a full array of questions, nor an apt disposal of the various parts, nor the best method of proceeding, nor soundness of principles or strength of argument, nor clearness and elegance of style, nor a facility for explaining what is abstruse.

18. Moreover, the Angelic Doctor pushed his philosophic inquiry into the reasons and principles of things, which because they are most comprehensive and contain in their bosom, so to say, the seeds of almost infinite truths, were to be unfolded in good time by later masters and with a goodly yield. And as he also used this philosophic method in the refutation of error, he won this title to distinction for himself: that, single-handed, he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in after-times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason. borne on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.

19. For these reasons most learned men, in former ages especially, of the highest repute in theology and philosophy, after mastering with infinite pains the immortal works of Thomas, gave themselves up not so much to be instructed in his angelic wisdom as to be nourished upon it. It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others all testify that they are bound by this law.

20. And, here, how pleasantly one’s thoughts fly back to those celebrated schools and universities which flourished of old in Europe — to Paris, Salamanca, Alcala, to Douay, Toulouse, and Louvain, to Padua and Bologna, to Naples and Coimbra, and to many another! All know how the fame of these seats of learning grew with their years, and that their judgment, often asked in matters of grave moment, held great weight everywhere. And we know how in those great homes of human wisdom, as in his own kingdom, Thomas reigned supreme; and that the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor.

21. But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull “In Ordin
e;” Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull “Pretiosus,” and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull “Mirabilis” that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull “Verbo Dei,” affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: “It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.”[35] Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: “His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”[36]

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the “Summa” of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

23. A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man — namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.[37] A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.

24. Therefore, venerable brethren, as often as We contemplate the good, the force, and the singular advantages to be derived from his philosophic discipline which Our Fathers so dearly loved. We think it hazardous that its special honor should not always and everywhere remain, especially when it is established that daily experience, and the judgment of the greatest men, and, to crown all, the voice of the Church, have favored the Scholastic philosophy. Moreover, to the old teaching a novel system of philosophy has succeeded here and there, in which We fail to perceive those desirable and wholesome fruits which the Church and civil society itself would prefer. For it pleased the struggling innovators of the sixteenth century to philosophize without any respect for faith, the power of inventing in accordance with his own pleasure and bent being asked and given in turn by each one. Hence, it was natural that systems of philosophy multiplied beyond measure, and conclusions differing and clashing one with another arose about those matters even which are the most important in human knowledge. From a mass of conclusions men often come to wavering and doubt; and who knows not how easily the mind slips from doubt to error? But, as men are apt to follow the lead given them, this new pursuit seems to have caught the souls of certain Catholic philosophers, who, throwing aside the patrimony of ancient wisdom, chose rather to build up a new edifice than to strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new — ill-advisedly, in sooth, and not without detriment to the sciences. For, a multiform system of this kind, which depends on the authority and choice of any professor, has a foundation open to change, and consequently gives us a philosophy not firm, and stable, and robust like that of old, but tottering and feeble. And if, perchance, it sometimes finds itself scarcely equal to sustain the shock of its foes, it should recognize that the cause and the blame lie in itself. In saying this We have no intention of discountenancing the learned and able men who bring their industry and erudition, and, what is more, the wealth of new discoveries, to the service of philosophy; for, of course, We understand that this tends to the development of learning. But one should be very careful lest all or his chief labor be exhausted in these pursuits and in mere erudition. And the same thing is true of sacred theology, which, indeed, may be assisted and illustrated by all kinds of erudition, though it is absolutely necessary to approach it in the grave manner of the Scholastics, in order that, the forces of revelation and reason being united in it, it may continue to be “the invincible bulwark of the faith.”[38]

25. With wise forethought, therefore, not a few of the advocates of philosophic studies, when turning their minds recently to the practical reform of philosophy, aimed and aim at restoring the renowned teaching of Thomas Aquinas and winning it back to its ancient beauty.

26. We have learned with great joy that many members of your order, venerable brethren, have taken this plan to heart; and while We earnestly commend their efforts, We exhort them to hold fast to their purpose, and remind each and all of you that Our first and most cherished idea is that you should all furnish to studious youth a generous and copious supply of those purest streams of wisdom flowing inexhaustibly from the precious fountainhead of the Angelic Doctor.

27. Many are the reasons why We are so desirous of this. In the first place, then, since in the tempest that is on us the Christian faith is king constantly assailed by the machinations and craft of a certain false wisdom, all youths, but especially those who are the growing hope of the Church, should be nourished on the strong and robust food of doctrine, that so, mighty in strength and armed at all points, they may become habituated to advance the cause of religion with force and judgment, “being ready always, according to the apostolic counsel, to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you,”[39] and that they may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers.[40] Many of those who, with minds alienated from the faith, hate Catholic institutions, claim reason as their sole mistress and guide. Now, We think that, apart from the supernatural help of God, nothing is better calculated to heal those minds and to bring them into favor with the Catholic faith than the solid doctrine of the Fathers and the Scholastics, who so clearly and forcibly demonstrate the firm foundations of the faith, its divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments that sustain it. the benefits it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect accord with reason, in a manner to satisfy completely minds open to persuasion, however unwilling and repugnant.

28. Domestic and civil society even, which, as all see, is exposed to great danger from this plague of perverse opinions, would
certainly enjoy a far more peaceful and secure existence if a more wholesome doctrine were taught in the universities and high schools — one more in conformity with the teaching of the Church, such as is contained in the works of Thomas Aquinas.

29. For, the teachings of Thomas on the true meaning of liberty, which at this time is running into license, on the divine origin of all authority, on laws and their force, on the paternal and just rule of princes, on obedience to the higher powers, on mutual charity one toward another — on all of these and kindred subjects — have very great and invincible force to overturn those principles of the new order which are well known to be dangerous to the peaceful order of things and to public safety. In short, all studies ought to find hope of advancement and promise of assistance in this restoration of philosophic discipline which We have proposed. The arts were wont to draw from philosophy, as from a wise mistress, sound judgment and right method, and from it, also, their spirit, as from the common fount of life. When philosophy stood stainless in honor and wise in judgment, then, as facts and constant experience showed, the liberal arts flourished as never before or since; but, neglected and almost blotted out, they lay prone, since philosophy began to lean to error and join hands with folly. Nor will the physical sciences themselves, which are now in such great repute, and by the renown of so many inventions draw such universal admiration to themselves, suffer detriment, but find very great assistance in the restoration of the ancient philosophy. For, the investigation of facts and the contemplation of nature is not alone sufficient for their profitable exercise and advance; but, when facts have been established, it is necessary to rise and apply ourselves to the study of the nature of corporeal things, to inquire into the laws which govern them and the principles whence their order and varied unity and mutual attraction in diversity arise. To such investigations it is wonderful what force and light and aid the Scholastic philosophy, if judiciously taught would bring.

30. And here it is well to note that our philosophy can only by the grossest injustice be accused of being opposed to the advance and development of natural science. For, when the Scholastics, following the opinion of the holy Fathers, always held in anthropology that the human intelligence is only led to the knowledge of things without body and matter by things sensible, they well understood that nothing was of greater use to the philosopher than diligently to search into the mysteries of nature and to be earnest and constant in the study of physical things. And this they confirmed by their own example; for St. Thomas, Blessed Albertus Magnus, and other leaders of the Scholastics were never so wholly rapt in the study of philosophy as not to give large attention to the knowledge of natural things; and, indeed, the number of their sayings and writings on these subjects, which recent professors approve of and admit to harmonize with truth, is by no means small. Moreover, in this very age many illustrious professors of the physical sciences openly testify that between certain and accepted conclusions of modern physics and the philosophic principles of the schools there is no conflict worthy of the name.

31. While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences. The wisdom of St. Thomas, We say; for if anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the Scholastic doctors, or too carelessly stated — if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age, or, in a word, improbable in whatever way — it does not enter Our mind to propose that for imitation to Our age. Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors. But, lest the false for the true or the corrupt for the pure be drunk in, be ye watchful that the doctrine of Thomas be drawn from his own fountains, or at least from those rivulets which, derived from the very foun