Imágenes de página

They now came to the patristic writings. As Andreas was here obliged to give way, he became abusive, and said that there was no difference between the heaven of the Palatines and the Turkish heaven, in which we could sit and stand. He evidently conceived of the sphere of glorification, spiritualistically, as an absolute dissolution of all corporeity, inasmuch as on the following day, in the afternoon, when they discussed this point farther, he proposed the following: "Deum omnium electorum coelum fore," but was obliged, nevertheless, to take back his abuse.

April 14. In the forenoon, Ursinus proceeded to prove, that even after the ascension there was no ubiquity, and that the "argumentum a sessione" was of no account. "Gloriam illam et ingressum Christi in majestatem suam humilitatis domum statui successisse. Abire et auferri ipsis (Wirtebergensibus) interpretibus nihil aliud esse, quam eodem loco manere quidem sed videndi solummodo, et percipiendi sui copiam non facere." This is an objectionable exegesis. But just as objectionable is the dogma which it sustains; for Andreas was obliged to admit: "Christi corpus ubique esse, et non ubique esse." This would be to do away with the reality of God, and of his word and of the body of Christ in the bargain. "Ita fieret ut hi christianæ, et indubitatae fidei nostrae articuli naturali, quidem modo sui, majestatico autem modo falsi essent. Et profecto," he proceeded, "injuria nobis hac in parte fit, cum accusamur, quod omnipotentiae certam finem statuamus, aut quicquem ei derogemus. Nemo enim, sat scio, vere affirmaverit, unquam nos in quaestionem vocasse, quid Deus facere aut possit, aut non possit, quin potius pie et demisse et rationem nostram et fidem divino ejus verbo voluntatique subjicimus." If the ubiquity could be proven from the holy Scriptures, he would immediately embrace it. And in fact, what could we have thought of the Palatines, if they had given up to such miserable scholastic distinctions as Andreas produced, and had preferred such soft confectionary of human invention, to the plain declarations of the Bible.

Ursinus went farther. In Phil. 2, it is said, that Christ

considered the "divina forma," (this he explained by "divina natura,") as no robbery, i. e. he did not make use of his "majestas," ut humanitatem suam gloriosam redderet." This is indeed not the most natural exegesis; this, however, just then was of no importance; for Ursinus, at the time, only insisted upon this one point, that Christ, immediately upon his resurrection "redderet gloriosam" his human nature, and that there was no farther change produced by his ascension. As Andreas was unable to bring any argument against this, he brought forward a distinction, that was just as empty as those he had made before. He distinguished between the "majestas" and the “gloria." The "majestas," Christ had already from the time of his resurrection, possessed "patefactione;" but the "gloria," from the time of his ascension. He was reminded, that such a distinction was not founded in the Scriptures, and that he himself had twice before derived the ubiquity from the "patefactio majestatis," and not out of it the "gloria." He then again turned to other questions, and asked Ursinus whether Christ did not from the first, possess the "majestas." He replied: Yes, but it was only after the resurrection that the humanity was taken into the "majestas." He was not even obliged to say this. The exaltation is to be derived entirely from the deliverance of humanity from death, and not from the relation of humanity to the divinity. He should rather have wholly rejected and destroyed the equivocal and obscure conception of the "majestas." Still he did better perhaps, and actually derived the nature of the glorified body of Christ from the idea of the glorified human body generally. "Corpus Christi nostris corporibus esse simili consubstantiale, quod ad substantiam et proprietates attinet, quas humanum corpus postulat," also "visibile, sensibile;" but the body of Christ is different from the bodies of sinful men upon earth, that is "nec morti, nec corruptioni obnoxium, celesti splendore et gloria ornatum.'

Andreas now passed over to the doctrine of the holy supper, and drew from the doctrine of the Palatines the inference that they taught, that in the holy supper we received only the divinity of Christ, or Spirit. To this Ursinus gave the impor

tant explanation: We do not teach that we partake of the divinity of Christ, "sed nos etiam virtute sui Spiritus in ipso et nobis habitantis cum vero ipsius carneo et osseo, corpore copulari atque uniri;* multo quidem arctius, quam corporis nostri membra cum capite unita copulataque sunt.

[ocr errors]

At the request of the Wittenbergers, the discussion concerning the ubiquity was broken off, and on the 15th of April they took up the subject of the holy supper. Here it is true, the long and well known arguments were for the most part repeated; still we must not altogether pass by some interesting points of the discussion. Andreas began with a "contradictio in adjecto." We must take the words, "ut sonant," that is, as synecdoche! If we give to another a glass, in which there is wine, we say, "This is wine;" so Christ said, when he gave bread, in which was his body; "This is my body." (Just observe now to what a grossly local presence this explanation conducts.) When Ursinus inquired whether this was "verba accipere, ut sonant," Andreas replied: When a mother asks for her child wrapped up in a blanket, to be brought to her, she does not say: Bring me the child in the blanket, but: Bring me the child. Ursinus replied: "Si quis verba ita explicat, ut non panis ipse, sed in pane aut cum pane sit corpus Christi, is re ipsa fatetur, se nequaquam scriptum, sed sententiam atque explicationem horum verborum sequi. Acque atque is, qui dicit: Hic cantharus est vinum, nullo tamen modo hoc vult, ipsum cantharum esse vinum, sed in cantharo vinum esse. Jam vero vos haec verba: Panis est corpus, eodem quo diximus, modo explicuistis. Ergo: Re ipsa fatemini, verba non ita ut sonant, et ad literam intelligenda, sed explicationem verbo Dei consentaneam quærendam esse." The choice was thus between two tropical explanations, no longer between a tropical

Here we see clearly, that it was precisely this desire to save the real union with the real body and blood of Christ, that led the Palatines to their materialistic views of the glorified body. The Wittenbergers could not properly speak of the true body and blood of Christ, for they had reduced this body to an utterly unsubstantial shadow. The truth lay between the two. On the one hand, the unity and reality, the identity and locality, and on the other the immateriality of the body of Christ, must be acknowledged.

and a proper one, and had to be decided upon other grounds. Andreas was no longer able to support his explanation upon the ground that it was not tropical.

To get over this, he denied that Touro meant "this bread." It meant much more: "this, that is here in the bread, is my body," and thus we need not make use of a trope. This was disposing of it very handsomely indeed, but what was poor Andreas to do, when Ursinus opposed to him the words: This cup is the New Testament in my blood! If he explained it "this in the cup," or, "this in the wine of the cup," in either case he would make use of a trope! Still when his arguments failed him, he had recourse to abuse, and he declared every one to be a "homo stultus et rerum imperitus," who could not see that such a trope as he regarded it was a communis loquendi formula." Ursinus quietly remarked that the chief thing was, that Andreas himself should accept of a trope. Which now was the best trope, must be determined upon other grounds, and the best norm for this would be, which explanation is in harmony with the articles of faith.


Andreas began now really to scold, and endeavored to maintain, that he still took the words in their literal sense. In reading this part of the protocol, we cannot but be surprised at the Christian meekness and composure which Ursinus maintained. When Andreas again fell back upon the "majestas," and brought up the question, whether this was visible or invisible, the Princes brought the discussion to a close, and the Wittenbergers were told that they had sustained their case badly, and the Duke of Wittenberg was more favorably disposed to the opposite theory than before.

Thus terminated the Maulbrun discussion with a complete surrender of the Lutherans. The Elector of the Palatinate, as we have seen in a previous chapter, was confirmed in his convictions. The discussion is important, as in it the whole body of contradictions, in which the doctrine of "ubiquitas" is involved, is brought out in clear day light.

Baltimore, Md.

B. C. W.


NO. 2.




[After the singing of a short anthem or one verse of a hymn by the choir, to excite devotional feelings and the spirit of worship, the minister shall commence the services before the altar with an Invocation, as follows:]

In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the world keep silence before Him.

Let us pray!

O Lord, who sittest on a throne of glory, surrounded by the hosts of heaven, and yet delightest to dwell in a broken and contrite heart, and who hast promised, that where two or three are gathered together in Thy name, Thou wilt be in their midst inspire us, we beseech Thee, with a solemn sense of Thy holy presence and preside over the exercises before us, that we may worship Thee in Spirit and in Truth, and that all the words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart may be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, our strength and our Redeemer! Amen.


O Lord, our God, we lift up our eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh our salvation. As the heart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth our soul after Thee, O God. For Thou only art the fountain of life and peace, and in Thy presence is fulness of joy. Bestow upon us, O heavenly Father, Thy richest spiritual blessings, and mercifully incline Thine

« AnteriorContinuar »