Translation of Hugh Metel on Augustine’s doctrine of the real presence

This post is a translation using Claude AI of Migne’s Patrologia Latina Vol. 188 Cols. 1270-1275 (PLL 188:1270-1275). This consists of the notes on Hugh Metel, the titles of three of his epistles and where you can find them in the PLL series and a translation of a fourth epistle. The notes indicate that there are 55 letters that have survived of Hugh Metel, but it seems only 4 of these were published in the PLL series. The reason I have chosen this translation is that a friend of mine came across a citation to it in the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition in the discussion of real presence in the eucharist. It is relevant to Reformed-Lutheran polemics on the eucharist and interpreting Augustine on this question.

IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD 1157

HUGH METEL

CANON REGULAR

HISTORICAL-LITERARY NOTICE

(MABILLON, New Edition of the Analecta, p. 476.)

There are fifty-five letters of Hugh Metel in a manuscript codex of the Charomontane library in Paris. This codex was most kindly communicated to us by the learned and religious second curator of the same library, Jean Hardouin, who is strenuously applying himself to the emendation of Pliny. From these letters it can be understood who Hugh Metel was and at what time he lived. He was born at Toul in Lorraine, had Tiecelin as his teacher, and was also a student of Anselm of Laon. He had a certain Humbert as his fellow student, to whom he thus addresses letter 40: “To Humbert, once a philosopher, now a theologian.” And below: “We grew up together, together we placed our hand under the rod, together with the progress of time we toiled in grammar, together we served in the camps of Aristotle. In Tully I declaimed together with you, in arithmetic I calculated with you, in music I mused with you, under the Twins I was born with you.” When he was now of advanced age, he turned to the Canons Regular of St. Augustine in the abbey of St. Leo, in the diocese of Toul, under Abbot Siebaud, in whose name he wrote letter 18 to Abbot William. He mentions this conversion of his in letter 11, directed to Gemma, a student of St. Benedict, in these words: I changed my mind, I changed my garment, and instead of the skin of a foreign mouse, smelling sweetly, I am wrapped in a sheep’s skin; instead of marten skin, I am clothed in goat skin; instead of delicate foods, sought out from land and waters, I am pleased with cheap vegetables, rustic legumes, beans related to Pythagoras; instead of nectareous drink I am pleased with a drink of oats, a drink of water. And in the first letter to St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, he says that with his hair shaved off, with a written bill of divorce, he bid farewell to his former way of life. After all these things, he says, I dedicated myself to the Rule of Blessed Augustine, and enclosed myself in the cloister of the white Nazirites.

Hence it is clear at what time this Hugh lived, and this is confirmed by his other letters, which he wrote to Pope Innocent II, Albero of Trier, Stephen of Metz, Guilenc of Langres, Henry of Toul, Embrico of Würzburg, bishops, and also to Peter Abelard and Heloise, abbess of the Paraclete. In letter 4, to Innocent, against Peter Abelard, With Anselm of Laon dead, he says, and William of Châlons, the fire of the word of God has failed on earth; although he praises St. Bernard and opposes him to Peter Abelard. The inscription of letter 21 is noteworthy, “To Embrico, venerable bishop and duke of Würzburg, Hugh Metel, to administer worthily to God the dignity of both offices, on account of the mention by him already at that time of the ducal dignity in that bishop.” In letter 41, addressed to the cardinals, he attacks the Norbertines for the extravagance of their garments; and with their novelty objected to, he expounds the origin of his own according to his ability.

He dedicates letter 34 to Hugh of Chartres, venerable master, by which name teachers of letters are usually designated. And so in those times there were five Hughs of some renown in letters, of whom the first is Hugh of St. Victor, then Hugh of Fouilloy, Hugh Farsi, Hugh of Chartres the master, and Hugh Metel, besides Hugh of Fleury, surnamed of Domna-Maria, older than the others. Letter 33 is written to Gerland (if the author is dealing sincerely with his adversary) against some remnants of the Berengarian heresy. To the same person another letter had also been directed by Metel, in which he had gathered examples concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. Among all of Metel’s letters there is only one that can be referred to here, namely the twenty-sixth, directed to Gerard, a monk of proven spirit. This Gerard was undoubtedly the same as Gerland, and there was an error by the scribe in one or the other name. In this letter 26, Gerard asks if the body of Christ should be taken daily; then, if what is consecrated on the altar is the true body of Christ or a figure of the body reigning in heaven. To the first question Metel responds with the authority of Ambrose and Augustine; to the second in this way: “For the opinions of different people,” he says, “which are diverse, not to say opposed, compel you to doubt and draw you apart in different directions. For Augustine says that these gospel words are figurative: ‘Unless you eat, etc.’ (John 6), and that they figure nothing else than that Christ suffered. And again: ‘Why do you prepare tooth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.’ You therefore raise the question of why Blessed Augustine says that these words of the Lord are figurative, when the Church, faithful Zion, believes that the consecrated bread is the true flesh of Christ? But the man, full of the Spirit of God, turned his eye to the intention of Christ, and under the appellation of body and blood he wanted faith in his passion to be obscured for unbelievers by figurative speech, and faith to be revealed to friends, namely faith working through love, namely the fellowship of head and members, and union; namely spiritual eating, not sacramental; the reality of the sacrament, not the sacrament; the power and efficacy of the sacrament, not the sacrament. Which Truth itself subsequently gives to be understood clearly, whence it adds: ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood’ (ibid.), he prepares a dwelling for me: which openly excludes sacramental eating, which some take to their own confusion.” And below: “It is certain, because the outcome of the matter certifies it, that the faith of the Roman Church according to the promise of God has never failed, nor has it been violated by any heresy. But the Roman Church was in the aforesaid faith of the body of Christ and faithfully persisted in it, and disseminates it far and wide through its heralds.” In this letter, Gerard’s faith was not yet suspect to Metel, seeing that he calls him a monk of proven spirit. He acknowledges only a doubt proposed to him, not an error. These words clearly prove it: “You therefore raise the question of why Blessed Augustine says that the words of the Lord are figurative, when the Church, faithful Zion, believes that the consecrated bread is the true flesh of Christ.” Gerard therefore acknowledged the faith of the Church; but because perhaps he did not fully acquiesce in Metel’s response to the doubt proposed from the testimony of Augustine, it happened that Metel, whose moderation is no less lacking than the gravity of his judgment in his other letters, rashly accused Gerard or Gerland of error.

HUGH METEL

LETTERS

1. To Saint Bernard. – He extensively pursues his praises. (It exists among the letters of St. Bernard. See Patrologia, vol. CLXXXV, col. 687.)

2. To the same. – He endeavors to clear himself and his associates from an accusation. (See ibid., col. 688.)

3. To Abbot William, in the person of his own abbot. – He makes an excuse that he responds somewhat more harshly to the calumnies of his Herbert. (See above, col. 690.)

4. To Gerland. – Concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
(Mabillon, New Edition of the Analecta, p. 475.)

To Gerland, laden and honored with the knowledge of the trivium and quadrivium, Hugh Metel, to thresh the words of sacred Scripture and carefully sift them.

Physicians affirm that from an excess of humors a tumor is born in the flesh. The Scriptures assert that from an overabundance of knowledge pride grows in the mind. Now it is certain that you are very strong, it is clear that you are powerful in manifold knowledge. Therefore, you must beware lest the knowledge in which you are powerful pollute you and mix fault with your praise.

Understand what I say. The words that you sow among the people concerning the body and blood of the Lord savor of heresy, and have drawn very many, with you as their leader, into the abyss of error. You trust in the words of Augustine. Do not trust. He is not with you in this opinion. You err the whole way. You assert with blessed Augustine that the words of the Lord speaking to his disciples about his body and blood are figurative. For the words of the Lord sound one thing and figure another. You assert what he asserted; but you do not perceive what he perceived. For he perceived that the Lord spoke and thought about a spiritual eating, which is common to the good alone; and not about a sacramental eating, which is common to the good and the bad, which the following words of the Lord declare when he says: “He who eats my body and drinks my blood” (1 Cor. 10). For many eat the flesh of Christ and are not members of Christ. When one head of the hydra is cut off, very many sprout forth contrary to the orthodox faith. You also object: What is done on the altar is a sacrament; a sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; but a sign is not the thing signified. Granted: I agree. The sacramental incorporation of Christ is a sign of the union by which we are united and will be united with Christ; nor is the latter the former; but the sign and the thing signified differ from each other. Whence Augustine: “A sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace. Or, sacrament is a name taken from something secret, and what is done on the altar is secret. For what it is or what it signifies does not appear. For it is indeed something other than what its appearance represents.”

As I see, you gnaw the crust but do not touch the crumb. You rely on the authority of Augustine, but you are deceived. For Augustine, whom you have prepared as your advocate, if you investigate well, you will find to be opposed to you. Hear him declaiming in a certain psalm to your confusion and that of those like you: “The very blood,” he says, “which the Jews shed in persecution, the Jews later drank in belief.” Observe also what David did before Achish king of Gath, how he carried himself in his own hands, and how blessed Augustine expounded it in his exposition of the title of the thirty-third psalm. Do not be king Achish, do not say: “How is it, how can anyone carry himself?”

Do not say: “If it is the true body of Christ, it cannot be in different places at the same time.” For if you say this, you will condemn yourself with your own mouth. For you will not deny that a Virgin gave birth; you will not deny that Christ entered to his disciples, the doors being closed. For if the one is denied because it does not accord with nature, the others also ought to be denied because nature opposes them. Acquiesce, be at rest. For if you seek similar things, they are not singular; if reason, they are not to be wondered at. “Faith,” says blessed Gregory, “has no merit where human reason provides proof.” And blessed Augustine says: “Do not seek the order of nature in the body of Christ, when the birth itself is from a virgin. Here nature is astounded and loses its order. Christ from a Virgin, Christ from bread. The law of nature is disturbed.”

But if the sanctified bread is not the body of Christ, but a figure of the body of Christ, as you assert, as the opinion of many holds, or rather the great error of many who err; I greatly wonder why the Apostle so strongly forbids anyone to approach it unworthily. “If anyone,” he says, “takes it unworthily, he eats and drinks judgment on himself” (ibid.). Why is this? Because he does not discern the body of the Lord, but compares it to other common foods. For this reason, many who take it unworthily become weak and many die. But if the bread of the altar is simply bread, as you say, sanctified by the word of God and the prayer of the priest, and has such efficacy that it can debilitate and lead to the sleep of death, why cannot the bread of our table sanctified by the prayer of the priest do this? Concerning which the Apostle says to Timothy: “Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4). For the word sanctifies, prayer obtains. That bread is bread and this bread is bread; that is sanctified, and this is sanctified. Why can that do more than this? Why can that remit sins, but not this? If you do not know, I will explain it to you. He who sanctifies and he who is sanctified on the altar are the same. The priest and the offering are the same, he who immolates and he who is immolated are the same, God and man are the same. These are the great deeds of God, elevating his name; not impossible, but terrible; not to be discussed by arguments, but to be venerated by faith. What is more terrible than that, when blessed Gregory prayed, the bread of the altar took on the appearance of flesh? This was done by the Lord to remove your doubt. Therefore, return.

Moreover, hear what your patron Augustine still says. Hear what he says on that verse of the Psalmist: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me’ (Ps. 39): ‘One sacrifice,’ he says, ‘was prepared in place of the many legal sacrifices.’ Which one? Namely, the body of Christ, which you know, which not all of you know: and would that those of you who know it, may not know it to your judgment!” He proposes three things: that some know the body of Christ, some do not know it; and he wishes that those who know it may not know it to their judgment. “For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” And a little later, the same author in the same place: “What we receive, we know, and may you who do not know it come to know it, and when you have learned it, may you not receive it to your judgment. ‘For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on himself.'” Do not think that he said this about the sanctified bread of the altar, but about the true body of Christ. For if it were only bread, who would not know bread? Why is it called bread, and not all are said to know it? But without doubt he understood the body of Christ to be in the appearance of bread, and therefore he said that those who take it unworthily take it to their judgment.

Return to yourself, brother, return, recall your mind that has wandered far abroad; do not eat the husks of the swine, do not eat the chaff of the grain. Do you not see that in the morning when the sun rises, the mountains are illuminated first, afterward the valleys? Do you not see religious men and doctors of great renown stand in this opinion, persist in this faith, that the sanctified bread of the altar is no longer bread, but the true body of Christ? But if it is true, or rather because it is true that Christ asked the Father to sustain the faith of Peter; and if it is true, or rather because it is true, that the faith of Peter concerning the body and blood of the Lord has flowed down from him all the way to our times inviolate through the successions of apostolic men; because, I say, it is true, cease from your error, or rather horror, and hasten to reform in yourself the faith of Peter, the faith of the Roman See, which has been stripped away by you, and to reunite yourself to mother Church. I could adduce very many examples of the holy Fathers of the Roman See concerning this faith; but because I have gathered and collected them to be made known to you in another letter, I have thought it should be passed over here.

Liturgical colors

A friend asked me about the meaning of liturgical colors recently. A lot of resources online on this topic are either overly brief or are based on post-Vatican II/Lutheran Worship material, which included a lot of unprecedented liturgical revision. This post is indeed brief but hopefully provides some information that is useful to readers in their liturgical life.

Violet*: Purple + Black (with ashes from Ash Wednesday). Purple is the royal color, for Christ’s royalty as our king. In Lent and Advent, when violet is used, we are awaiting the celebration of the King’s (purple) incarnation and the Pascal feast in penitent (black) preparation.

Bible verses: Christ as King: Matt. 27:37, Rev. 19:15-16. Purple as royal: Eze. 23:6, Dan. 5:7, Mar. 15:17, etc. Ashes for penitence: Est. 4:1, Jon. 3:5-7, etc.

*Note: In some regions blue was used in place of violet because purple dye was expensive. Some churches have adopted this as a practice specifically for Advent (but not Lent). This is an innovation and has no historic precedent. Blue was merely used because it was cheaper and was similar to violet.

Rose: Purple + Black + White. Used for Laetare (4th Sunday of Lent) and Gaudete (3rd Sunday of Advent). This is the same symbolism as violet, but with the added hope of white (see symbolism of White below). Laetare and Gaudete are glimmers of hope in the penitential season that look forward to the coming feast.

Green: The color of healthy plants. Green seasons (Epiphanytide and Trinitytide) are times for sanctification— spiritual growth. Just as plants grow, so do we. In more elaborate settings, some darken the color of green as the end of the church year approaches to prepare for the penitential season of Advent. Even bronze/brown is used in some cases near the end of the church year.

Bible verses: Gen. 1:11-12, Deut. 32:2, 2 Sam. 23:4, Ps. 23:2, Gal. 5:22

White: The color of light. This is used for feasts of non-martyred saints, lower feasts of Christ, and seasons of Christ (Christmastide and Eastertide). Christ is the Light of the World, etc. And saints, being reflections of Christ, let Christ shine through, so that we only see Him. This is why they wear white robes in heaven.

Bible verses: Christ as light: John 1:5, John 8:12, the Transfiguration accounts (Matt. 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36), etc. Saints wearing white robes: Rev. 3:5

Red: The color of blood and the color of fire. Used on martyr’s feasts (hence the blood), Pentecost (hence the fire), and Reformation day (I believe due to the martyrs).

Bible verses: Acts 2:1-4, 7:54-60, Rev. 7:9, 7:14, 16:6, 17:6, etc.

Black: The color of ashes (Ash Wednesday, funerals, and Totenfest (the last Sunday of Trinitytide) in Prussian heritage) and darkness (Good Friday). For the use of ashes for penitence, see the verses I sent above for Violet.

Bible verses for darkness on Good Friday: Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44.

Silver*: An elevated version of White used for Marian days since she is the highest saint.

Bible verses: Luke 1:46-55 (the Magnificat). Silver as a valuable material for the temple: Ex. 26:19-21:17

*Note: Sometimes a light blue is used in conjunction with silver for the art on the vestments. This is used because blue was the color of a Byzantine empress, and in the ancient near East (including Israel), the mother of the king is the queen (in this case, this would be Mary since Jesus is King). Bible verses about queen mothers in Israel: 1 Kg 2:13-25, 15:13, 2 Kg. 10:13

Gold: An elevated version of White used for the feasts of Christ (and sometimes their octave, I.E. the next Sunday)— especially Easter, (less often) Christmas, and (even less often) other feasts of Christ (Ascension, Trinity, etc).

Bible verses: Gold as a valuable material for the temple: Ex. 25:3-39, etc. Gold in heaven: Rev. 18:16, 21:18-21

A Short Timeline of the Filioque in Councils and Liturgical Use

There’s a lot of misinformation on the Filioque online. This is a short post trying to clear up the timeline of events and clarify some of the misinformation. I’m not going into theology or individual fathers here.

325: Nicaea I makes the Nicene Creed.
380: Either the Synod of Saragossa or Pope Damasus, in an attempt to combat Priscillianism, wrote a creed that says “proceeding from the Father and the Son.”
381: Constantinople I (considered a local council at the time) makes a new version of the Nicene Creed.
Note: The attribution of the Filioque to the council of Toledo (400) seems to be an accident and goes back to Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), who was very controversial in his work on the topic of the councils. Even the usual citations online to Hefele (1872) on this prove that some people have awful reading comprehension since Hefele explicitly states that the confession sometimes attributed to Toledo (400) is from a later Toledo council. Some current scholarship attributes this creed to Pastor, bishop of Gallicia in 433 (see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (2006)). It’s unclear.
410: Seleucia-Ctesiphon uses the phrasing “We acknowledge the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who [is] from the Father and the Son” in its version of the Nicene Creed (see Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol II pg. 193 fn 25).
Note: a number of versions of the Nicene Creed floated around in this time (Price directs us to Lebnon (1936); also see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (2006)).
431: Ephesus I Canon 7 prohibits anyone from bringing forward a “different Faith/Creed” than that of Nicaea.
447: Toledo (447) (there are many naming discrepancies on Toledo councils, so years are preferable to avoid ambiguity) is chaired by Pope Leo I and includes an entirely different creed that has the phrase “sed a Patre Filioque procedens” twice.
451: Chalcedon Session 5 approves of the creed of Constantinople 381 (this causes controversy at the council due to Canon 7 of Ephesus I, but it goes through nonetheless).
589: Toledo (589) includes “a Patre et Filio procedere” in the opening incipit and in canon 7 (neither of which is a creed properly speaking), and the Filioque might have been in the Nicene Creed at the council, but this is debatable since it may be a later interpolation (see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (2006)).
650: A Gallican mass mss includes “procession from the Father and the Son” in the Preface of the mass.
680: Synod at Hatfield includes a profession that has “proceeding in an inexpressible manner from the Father and the Son.”
767: Synod of Gentilly is the first East vs West battle on the Filioque, and the East is mad that the West is using the Filioque in the creed, so by this time, some areas of the West had begun using the Filioque in the Nicene Creed specifically.
7??: Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, sends a letter with a creed specifically saying procession is from the Father alone to the clergymen of the pentarchy (Jerusalem excepted).
787: At Nicaea II, Hadrian seems to accept the aforementioned letter.
794: Charlemagne rebukes Hadrian for accepting the doctrines of Tarassius “who professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father and the Son, according to the faith of the Nicene Symbol [Creed], but from the Father through the Son.” Hadrian replied that he was expressing the faith of fathers before him. In the same year Council of Frankfurt-on-Main professes the Filioque, and a letter of Charlemagne was read that included the Nicene Creed with the Filioque.
796/797: Synod at Cividale includes the Nicene Creed with the Filioque.
The rest is history. It spreads and gains presence in the mass in more places. It is accepted into the rite in Rome in 1014. The Great Schism occurs in 1054.

How much scripture is in the liturgy?

I saw a comment recently on Facebook of someone saying that he had visited a Roman Catholic parish and was disappointed how little scripture he heard. He said that they had read three shorter excerpts in the service and that was it, and he found this to be shockingly little compared to his experience in a Reformed church in which an entire chapter is often read. It called to mind the experience of John MacArthur visiting a Russian Orthodox prayer service (in Russian) and he proclaimed that he was struck that no scripture was read at all, which would be quite shocking, given that the prayer services (it was likely vespers or matins) used in all Russian Orthodox parishes are packed with scripture quotes and allusions (MacArthur doesn’t know an ounce of Russian as it turns out). This is no isolated phenomenon either– I have heard similar statements many times from evangelicals.

I’d like to dispel the myth that the traditional liturgy is lacking in scripture. The fact is rather the opposite. I hear more scripture at a traditional liturgy than anywhere else I’ve been in my life, having attended churches of many stripes. In this post, I’ll break down the different parts of the liturgy at my church and the scripture quotes in them.

Let’s take a very typical mass as an example: The Second Sunday after Pentecost.

Every service has the following components:

Prelude
Bells
Processional Hymn
Invocation
Versicles
Confiteor
Absolution
Introit
Kyrie
Gloria in Excelsis
Collect
Old Testament reading
Gradual
Epistle reading
Alleluia
Gospel reading
Sermon
Chief hymn
Creed
Intercessions
Offering Hymn
Offertorium
Oblation
Preface
Sanctus
Eucharistic Prayer
Verba Christi
Anamnesis
Acclamation
Pater Noster
Embolism
Pax Domini
Agnus Dei
Communion
Two communion hymns
Communio
Post-communion collect
Dismissal
Blessing
Silent prayer
Recessional hymn
Postlude

One by one, let’s see how much scripture is in each for the Second Sunday after Pentecost.

During the prelude, congregants are supposed to meditate on a Psalm (34, 43, 51, 84, 116, and 150 are common) and pray. (On average this is 14 verses). This is preparation for the service, but given that it’s printed in the ordo to do this and that it is standard practice (rather than socializing in the narthex prior to the service), this counts as part of the service for our purposes.

The bells have no scripture– they are bells.

Hymns vary– many have scripture quotes built in or at least paraphrases. Notably, every hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal has a verse listed for it, so we’ll say each hymn includes 1 verse of scripture for simplicity. Opening hymn (1 verse). (15 total)

The Invocation is a half-verse (Matt 28:19b). (15.5)

The Versicles are Ps 43:4a, 124:8 (1.5 verses). (17)

The Confiteor has no direct scripture quotes.

The absolution ends with an invocation (half verse). (17.5)

The introit is Ps 13:6,7,1 (3 verses). (20.5)

The Kyrie is a half verse (various verses say “Lord have mercy upon us”) repeated 3 times (1.5 verses). (22)

The Gloria in Excelsis has various scripture quotes and allusions (Lk 2:14, Jn 1:29, Rm 8:34, etc). Overall we’ll call this 3 verses, given that it is an amalgamation of various bits and pieces of scripture (3 verses). (25)

The Collect has no direct scripture quotes.

The Old Testament reading is Deut 6:4-13 (10 verses). (35)

The Gradual is Ps 41:4,1 (2 verses). (37)

The Epistle reading is 1 Jn 4:7-21 (15 verses). (52)

The Alleluia is Ps 5:1 (1 verse). (53)

The Gospel reading is Lk 16:19-31 (13 verses). (66)

Sermons of course have verses quoted in them, but we won’t count these. It does have an invocation at the beginning and end, however (1 verse). (67)

Chief hymn (1 verse). (68)

The Creed has many partial quotes of scripture (Jn 3:16, Jn 14:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Cor 8:6, 2 Cor 3:6, Eph 4:5, 2 Pet 1:21). We’ll count this as two verses in total (2 verses). (70)

The Intercessions have no direct scripture quotes.

The Offertory is the giving of offerings, so it has no direct scripture quotes.

Offering hymn (1 verse). (71)

The Offertorium is Ps 5:2 (1 verse). (72)

The Oblation has Rom 12:1b (half verse). (72.5)

The Preface has various allusions to scripture but only half a verse is quoted (various Psalms use the phrase “let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.”) (half verse). (73)

The Sanctus has Is 6:3, Matt 21:9b (1.5 verses). (74.5)

The Eucharistic prayer has Jn 3:16 (1 verse). (75.5)

The Verba Christi is 1 Cor 11:23-26 (4 verses). (79.5)

The Anamnesis has no direct scripture quotes.

The Acclamation has no direct scripture quotes.

The Pater Noster is the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) (5 verses). (84.5)

The Embolism has no direct scripture quotes.

The Pax Domini is 2 Thess 3:16 (1 verse). (85.5)

The Agnus Dei is Jn 1:29 3 times, along with “have mercy upon us” (various verses use this phrase) along with Is 26:12a (4.5 verses). (90)

Then all partake communion.

Two communion hymns (2 verses). (92)

The Communio is Ps 9:1-2 (2 verses). (94)

The Post-communion Collect has no direct scripture quotes.

The Dismissal references Rth 4:8 and Lk 8:48 (we’ll say this is a half verse in total). (94.5)

The Blessing has no direct scripture quotes.

The silent prayer is simply a silent prayer of thanks at the end of the service.

Recessional hymn (1 verse). (95.5)

The postlude is played as people exit the nave.

In total: 95.5 verses.

The average chapter in the Bible has 26 verses, so 95.5 verses is ~3.7 chapters. The actual readings themselves are 38 verses on their own, well over a chapter. Given that the Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies are very similar to the liturgy I’ve described above, it’s safe to assume the average mass at a typical Lutheran, Anglican, or Roman Catholic church includes at least 3 chapters of the Bible in total throughout the Sunday service (and much more on special days). So did the Facebook commenter really not hear much scripture at the Roman Catholic parish he visited? Did he hear less than he probably would have at a Reformed church? Probably not. In fact, he probably heard much more scripture at this Roman Catholic mass, given that he estimated he hears 1 chapter at his Reformed church.

The fact of the matter is that the traditional liturgy and classic hymns are an invaluable resource in terms of teaching the congregation scripture and keep the service grounded in God’s Word. The service is not at the whim of the pastor with the traditional liturgy. By contrast, in a modern service (as seen in many Evangelical and Reformed churches today), a pastor could choose a small scripture reading or mere handful of verses for the entire service, accompanied by songs that lack a single scripture reference. In the worst case scenario in a traditional liturgy, the pastor delivers a sermon full of heresy, or a 2 minute homilette, yet the congregation still heard over 3 chapters of scripture, was absolved, received communion, was edified visually by liturgical actions and vestments, and left hearing a benediction.

The Sign of the Cross – An Apostolic Practice

In Luther’s Small Catechism, he says that every Christian should make the sign of the cross in the morning and evening before praying:

In the morning, when you rise, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

In the evening, when you go to bed, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
Small Catechism, Daily Prayers, 1, 4

And since then, Lutherans have been doing exactly that. But from where does this practice come? Is it just a holdover from the medieval church? In this post, I demonstrate the grounds for this practice and contend that it is very likely apostolic in origin, but if not, it is at least from the apostolic age. If you’re solely interested in the explicit evidence, skip to the section about the earliest witnesses as the Scriptural foundations section is more about the grounds for the practice.

Scriptural foundations

Old Testament precursors

The sign of the cross is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in scripture (though neither is folding one’s hands or closing one’s eyes in prayer), but many foundations are laid for it both in scripture and, more abstractly, pre-incarnation extra-Biblical sources (as discussed later). Physical signs marking Israel as saved by Christ and imprinted with His Spirit are precursors of this Christian practice, and in the New Testament, the language surrounding this spiritual reality lend themselves well to Christians making a habit of remembering this in a physical way.

Beginning in plagues in Egypt, Israel marked itself with a sign to separate itself from pagan Egyptians. Exodus 12:23: “For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.” This mark on their doors was the blood of the first Passover lamb, a prefigurement of Christ crucified. Marked with this blood, judgment was not dealt to them.

Later in Exodus, Aaron and the high priests after him are given a sign to wear on their foreheads. Exodus 28:38: “You shall also make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet: HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And you shall put it on a blue cord, that it may be on the turban; it shall be on the front of the turban.So it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall always be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.” And this practice was also held among Israelites. Deuteronomy 6:6-8: “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” Deuteronomy 18:11: “Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” And this practice has allusions in Exodus 13:9-16. The practice continued into the time of the New Testament (Matthew 23:5). These phylacteries were to remind Israel of God’s salvation and were specifically for remembrance on certain occasions, which Christians have maintained. This is why we cross ourselves when we wake up, go to sleep, sit in our house to eat, or travel (praying the Itinerarium). Particularly important to note is that these phylacteries resided on the forehead, which is where early Christians crossed themselves, and to this day is still a place of crossing in certain Christian rites such as application of chrism in chrismation, imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday, and during the announcement of the Gospel reading in the mass.

In the end of the Old Testament, God commanded Ezekiel to place a mark on the foreheads of Israelites mourning over abominations in the Temple. Ezekiel 9:3-4: “Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer’s inkhorn at his side;and the Lord said to him, ‘Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark (Hebrew: tāv) on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it.'” The tāv is the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet and in paleo-Hebrew, which would have been in use at the time, resembled a cross. Origen’s (185-253 AD) commentary on this (and other church figures after him follow suit) explains, “A third, one of those who have come to faith in Christ, said that in the old-style [paleo-Hebrew] letters, Tau [this is the Greek character t, which corresponds to the Hebrew tāv here] resembles the form of the cross, and that there is a prophecy here concerning the sign placed on the foreheads of Christians—which all believers make when beginning any activity at all, especially prayer or holy readings.” This connection is fairly direct; these Israelites had a mark, in the shape of a cross, place on their foreheads, which is what we Christians do today.

New Testament spiritual foundations

In the New Testament, a number of passages point toward spiritual realities, upon which the sign of the cross is based.

In Mark 8:34 Jesus says, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” The sign of the cross is to remind ourselves that we are to take up our cross daily. Just as the cross was placed on Jesus, so we have the sign of the cross placed on us.

Paul says in Romans 13:14, “[P]ut on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and the sign of the cross is a representation of this. We place the cross on ourselves, and the cross represents the work of Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22: “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God,who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” The sign of the cross is a symbol of the seal placed upon us. In particular, this is reflected in the chrismation rite, in which we are anointed with oil in the sign of the cross, including the forehead, as mentioned earlier, but also upon the heart, reflecting that the Spirit is in our hearts and sealed there as Paul says again in Ephesians 1:13, “you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” The sign of the cross represents that we have been crucified with Christ, placing the cross onto ourselves.

Galatians 6:17: “From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” The sign of the cross marks our bodies with the marks placed on Jesus in His crucifixion.

Revelation 7:1-4: “After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, ‘Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.’ And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.” And 9:4: “They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.” And 14:1 “Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.” In these three passages, Christians are marked with a sign on their forehead, specifically the name of the Father, YHWH. Again, like in the Old Testament passages, a visible sign is placed on the forehead to indicate salvation, and we imitate this by making the visible sign of the cross on ourselves, including on the forehead. Bede (673-735 AD) comments on Revelation 7:3: “Hurt not: From the time that the Lord suffered, not only was the dominion of the enemy who opposed Him destroyed, but that of worldly power too, as we both see with our eyes… [that is, on our] foreheads. For to this end was the empire of the nations broken up, that the face of the saints might be freely marked with the seal of faith, which these had resisted. For, again, the figure of the cross itself represents the kingdom of the Lord extending everywhere, as the old saying proves: ‘Behold the world four-square, in parts distinct, To shew the realm of faith possessing all.’ And not in vain was the sacred Name of the Lord, of four letters, written on the forehead of the High Priest, inasmuch as this is the sign on the forehead of the faithful, of which it is also sung in the Psalm [8:1]: ‘O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth.'” And this idea of the cross being stretched across the world in four directions is a theme in early Christianity which is related to the practice of signing the cross, to be discussed next.

The earliest witnesses

Related ideas building on sources before the 2nd century AD

Before getting to the earliest explicit witnesses, I think it’s worth mentioning some early ideas related to this practice going back to Plato and the appropriation of Plato by early Christians. In Plato’s Timaeus, he describes the creation of the world and in 34a-36b, the soul of the world, which is a divine thing of sorts, is stretched across the body of the world in the shape of a cross. This tradition was inherited from earlier Pythagoreans (Pythagoras lived 570-495 BC) who likely got it from the ancient near east. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) in his First Apology 55 takes Plato’s tradition about the world soul to be about the Logos (Greek for “Word”), a common identification in the Middle-Platonists, including Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD), the Jewish Platonist. Philo also connects the Logos to the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, which Christians have identified with the pre-incarnate Christ (similarly the Word and Name of the Lord in the Old Testament). This Logos is identified with Jesus in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Putting these things together, Justin takes the stretching out of the world soul, IE the Logos, in the shape of a cross onto the body of the world to be about Christ being impressed upon creation in cruciform shape. Justin Martyr does not make this next step, but it is fitting: Man, as a microcosm of creation, then puts impresses upon himself the shape of the cross in this ritual.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) makes the same connection in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 34: “Now seeing that He is the Word of God Almighty, who in unseen wise in our midst is universally extended in all the world, and encompasses its length and breadth and height and depth— for by the Word of God the whole universe is ordered and disposed—in it is crucified the Son of God, inscribed crosswise upon it all: for it is right that He being made visible, should set upon all things visible the sharing of His cross, that He might show His operation on visible things through a visible form. For He it is who illuminates the height, that is the heavens; and encompasses the deep which is beneath the earth; and stretches and spreads out the length from east to west; and steers across the breadth of north and south; summoning all that are scattered in every quarter to the knowledge of the Father.”

Earliest explicit witnesses

Now that foundations and precursors have been covered, we can move onto the earliest explicit witnesses.

The earliest extant source to mention the sign of the cross explicitly is the Acts of Paul and Thecla. This work was written between 95 and 200 AD, but is likely from the early 2nd century in my estimation, as Dunn has argued (more thoroughly than any other source I have seen). For evidence on this, see his PhD Dissertation and further comments of his in this blog post. In reply to the original edition of this blog post (IE the one you are reading, not his post previously linked), he made comments on Facebook, which I will here quote:

Thanks for mentioning and linking my PhD dissertation. For what it is worth, I now argue that the Acts of Paul should date in the early second century based on several criteria: (1) form of persecution; (2) orthodoxy displayed; (3) heresies encountered; (4) evident ignorance of NT texts, esp. Acts.

I’ve yet to publish anything on why I think the AP represents earlier persecution. The suggestion that Christians should die for the name of Christian would be post-Trajan’s rescript (to Pliny, AD 111-113), and yet no one actually dies for that even though it is suggested by Demas and Hermogenes to Thamyris. So evidently, we are still in the early second century when martyrs died for their impious, evil deeds, rather than just for carrying the name Christian. I thus conclude that the conditions of persecution suggest pre-Trajan’s Rescript. Contrast the later 2nd century martyrdoms in the Acts of Christian Martyrs, Musurillo.
Peter Dunn, two Facebook comments in Patristics for Protestants on January 22, 2024

The text purports to record events that occurred during the life of Paul, who is himself mentioned (alive) immediately before the part about making the sign of the cross. Paul died in 64/65 AD. If the event described in this quote is true, then the practice is certainly apostolic, if the event described is not, it still provides compelling evidence for an apostolic or near-apostolic origin of the practice. If the author, living in the early 2nd century, included the detail about making the sign of the cross while this was yet a novel practice, his audience would have immediately called out the historical anachronism (we have no evidence that this occurred, despite only slightly later sources critiquing the document). Unless the author was a fool, he would not intentionally include an historical anachronism. This makes it likely that the practice at least pre-dated living memory in the early 2nd century, being at least a lifetime earlier in origin, for then nobody could immediately point out the anachronism of a practice that developed in the audience’s own lifetime without drawing on older testimonies. It’s also worth mentioning that the author does not explain the practice at all, which suggests the intended audience would be familiar with the practice already, meaning it was likely widespread by this time. This places the practice firmly in the apostolic age.

Now the boys and the maidens brought wood and hay to burn Thecla: and when she was brought in naked, the governor wept and marvelled at the power that was in her. And they laid the wood, and the executioner bade her mount upon the pyre: and she, making the sign of the cross, went up upon the wood.
Acts of Paul and Thecla 22

The next earliest source on the sign of the cross is Tertullian (155-220 AD). He is speaking of what he believes to be ancient customs that are widespread in his time, which ends with making the sign of the cross on the forehead, so by the early 3rd century, this practice was widespread certainly, and not only that, but Tertullian claims this practice is ancient custom that demands our submission.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly… At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason to which submission is due.
Tertullian, The Chaplet 3-4

Hippolytus (170-235 AD) describes the rites for baptism and chrismation, which immediately follows, in his work The Apostolic Tradition, and this rite includes making the sign of the cross on the forehead with chrism, as is still done to this day. Notably, this work purports to be describing traditions passed from the apostles themselves, which is yet another argument for this practice being apostolic in origin, but even if it is slightly later (for it is at the latest from the end of the first century), this document further adds to such evidence since it could not purport to be apostolic practice if it weren’t at least from before the living memory of the audience.

Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall pray, saying, “O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit, send into them thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will; for thine is the glory, to the Father and the Son, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and world without end. Amen.” Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and putting it on his forehead, he shall say, “I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost.” And signing them on the forehead he shall say, “The Lord be with thee;” and he who is signed shall say, “And with thy spirit.” And so he shall do to each one. And immediately thereafter they shall join in prayer with all the people, but they shall not pray with the faithful until all these things are completed. And at the close of their prayer they shall give the kiss of peace.
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 22

Conclusion

I believe the evidence from the earliest sources leads us to the conclusion that this practice is indeed apostolic. We have an explicit source from almost immediately after the time of the apostles claiming that it is apostolic, and two from a generation or two later that claim the same. We have no reason to believe all three sources are fabricating evidence or merely mistaken, especially given that Hippolytus has always been regarded by the church as a saint, and he was bishop of Rome, the highest seat in all of Christendom. The evidence firmly supports a first century date, even if one finds it unconvincing that the practice is apostolic in origin. Numerous scriptural texts and even pre-New Testament sources prefigure the practice and lay grounds for it, showing why the practice arose and spread so early and so quickly.

Johann Gerhard on Dionysius the Areopagite

The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite by Michael Syncellus was recently published by Scriptorum Press. In this volume Syncellus contends that the writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite are authentic, as opposed to the work of a later hand. This runs against the prevailing scholarship, though not without some detractors, primarily from traditional Eastern Orthodox circles. You can hear some of the arguments here on Craig Truglia’s channel. The framing in the discussion on Truglia’s channel is at times not reflective of the data, in my opinion. Evangelos makes it sound as if the authenticity was question by Lorenzo Valla (an Italian humanist) and then pushed hard by Protestants alone, but Johann Gerhard, in his Patrologia, puts forth the opinions of many authors, even some from before Valla, who doubted authenticity, including Theodorus Gaza, a Greek humanist, which is important since he came out of Byzantine training in Greek Orthodoxy, and two preeminent Catholic theologians– the blesséd Doctor Ecstaticus Denis the Carthusian (a Belgian Carthusian), and the Doctor Christianus cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (a German humanist mystic). Roman Catholic contemporaries of the Reformation of many varieties also doubted the authenticity such as Francisco Ribera (a Spanish Jesuit), abbot Johannes Trithemius (a German Benedictine), Sixtus Senensis (an Italian-Jewish Dominican), and William (John) Grocyn (an English humanist, not mentioned by Gerhard below), and most notably two distinguished figures, the “Prince of the Humanists” Desiderius Erasmus (a Dutch humanist priest), and cardinal and master of the Dominicans Thomas Cajetan (an Italian Dominican). It’s authenticity seems to have been doubted by Protestants of all stripes, Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed.

Here’s a full list of authors who doubted the authenticity of the corpus leading up to Valla:

Hypatius of Ephesus (d. After 536)
Unknown authors in the time of John of Scythopolis (536–550)
Joseph Hazzaya (b. 710)
Photius (810/820–893)
Arethas of Caesarea (860-939)
The Souda (10th c.)
John the Oxite of Antioch (d. 1100)
Peter Abelard (1079–1142)
Joane Petrizi (11-12th c.)
Euthymius Zigabenus (d. After 1118)
Peter of Damascus (d. After 1156)
Svimeon the Armenian (13th c.)
George Pachymeres (1242– 1310)
Theodore Gaza (1398-1475)
Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)
Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471)

If you’d like to see more from Lutherans on this, see this paper. The Lutheran fathers seem unanimous in denial of the authenticity of the corpus. Luther questions it in the Leipzig debate of 1519. Melanchthon denies it in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71. Chemnitz denies in Examen vol II. Gerhard denies (Confessio Catholica 622-624). Quenstedt denies (Sys I.681) (see Pieper in Dogmatics I, Angelology 7, footnote 11). Schmelling denies in his Union with Christ. Pelikan denies in The Christian Tradition vol II.

In this post, I have taken the time to run Gerhard’s section on Dionysius the Areopagite from his Patrologia through Chat GPT to translate it into English from Latin. The edition I’m using is free on Google Books from Sengenwald, 1668. The section on Dionysius begins on page 13 and ends on page 32. While I did try to edit the translation down for accuracy, take the translation with a grain of salt of course.

The arguments made by Gerhard should not be taken as comprehensive– far from it, they are a summary and more developed arguments have been made since his time. I also do not intend this post to be a apology for or against the authenticity of the corpus. I just thought it would be useful material to have publicly available to contribute to the conversation on this topic.

Dionysius the Areopagite

Life

He is called Areopagite because he was a judge of criminal cases in Athens before his conversion to Christ, as described by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:33. Hence, he was later called a disciple of Paul.

In Gaul, he taught in the year 80, [as mentioned by] Ambrose Pelargus.

Eusebius in Book 3, Chapter 4 of his History: “that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

Others mention that he, converted by Paul in Athens, came shortly afterward to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, and was sent by him to Gaul. There, he preached Christ in Paris and, finally, suffered the penalty of death.

Baronius, in the Roman Martyrology on October 9th and in the Annals for the year 95, number 7, and for the year 109, number 38, reports that “[Dionysius] first became the Bishop of Athens and then the Bishop of Paris.” He achieved the palm of martyrdom along with Saints Eleutherius and Rusticus, either in the final years of Trajan’s reign or certainly at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Hadrian.

Nicephorus, in Book 2 of his “History,” Chapter 20, mentions that [Dionysius] was baptized and designated as the Bishop of Athens by Paul himself, as he excelled with miraculous and divine praises. “He lived [says Nicephorus], more familiarly with the divine man Hierotheus, both of whom Paul, rapt with them into the third heaven and paradise itself, had initiated into the divine matters, the rationale of the Word of God, the Celestial Hierarchy, and the absolute disposition and ordering of all things. Paul communicated these teachings, gloriously praising Christ, in the Western parts for many years, reaching a very advanced age, and finally, adorned with the crown of martyrdom, he offered his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, to a woman, who reverently placed it in the same spot where it had fallen.”

Therefore, with words of piety and divine worship, he gloriously preached for many years in the Western parts, reaching old age and eventually being honored with the crown of martyrdom. It is said that he carried his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, in his hands for about two miles and then handed it over to a certain woman at the place where it had fallen.

Some argue that he underwent martyrdom during the reign of Domitian. However, Dionysius, in his book On the Divine Names, Chapter 4, cites the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, which was written in the 7th year of Trajan, during which Ignatius was crowned with martyrdom. Now, Trajan succeeded Domitian.

Bellarminus, therefore, asserts that Dionysius survived beyond the reign of Domitian and lived into the rule of Hadrian. This position is presented in his work On Ecclesiastical Writers on page 65.

Writings

Nicephorus, in his work Ecclesiastical History Book 2, Chapter 20, enumerates the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. According to Nicephorus, “Dionysius composed works characterized by sublime contemplation of divine matters and remarkable eloquence, far surpassing those captured by human understanding. The mentioned works are:

De Divinis Nominibus (On the Divine Names): 13 chapters, with an additional hundred chapters filled with divine wisdom.
De Coelesti Hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy): 15 chapters.
De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy): 7 chapters.
De Arcana sive Mystica Theologia (On the Hidden or Mystical Theology): 5 chapters.

Dionysius also left behind ten epistles, the last of which is addressed to the Evangelist John, who reclined on the Lord’s breast. These writings are still circulated today. Dionysius mentions other works of his, such as Theological Dispositions and Symbolic Theology. Additionally, he wrote on Angelic properties and orders, a commentary on the soul, divine justice and judgment, divine hymns, and Likewise concerning those things which are perceived either by understanding or by sensation. However, these commentaries have not been seen at all, neither by us nor by those who were before us.”

In Chapter 22, Nicephorus references passages about the assumption of Mary found in the third chapter of Dionysius’ letter to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus. This chapter includes sections titled “What is the power of prayer concerning Blessed Hierotheus & about religion and Theological History.”

According to Suidas, the following works of Dionysius the Areopagite are listed:

On the Celestial Hierarchy
On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
Epistles to Gaius (4)
Epistle to Dorotheus
Epistle to Sopatrus
Epistle to Polycarp
On the Divine Names
On Mystical Theology
Epistle to Demophilus
Epistle to Titus
Epistle to Apollophanes
Epistle to Saint John the Evangelist

Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, page 325: “This is that Dionysius about whom there is so much renown in the Acts of the Apostles. He wrote excellent volumes on Hierarchies and Divine Names, in which, whatever is used in our sacraments and whatever is at all controversial, is proven to have flowed down from the very Apostles themselves. Protestants have no other escape than to deny that this work is that of Dionysius, but of some recent and obscure author, I do not know who.”

Ten Reasons by Edmund Campian (rat. 5, p.32): “The Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite teaches what classes, what sacred rites? So deeply did it disturb Luther that he judged it to be very similar to all his works and, moreover, highly pernicious.”

Baronius in the year 109, number 51 and following, along with Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 5, On Monks, Martinus Delrio in Vindications of the Areopagite, Jacobus Gaulterius in First Truth of the First Century, and Bellarmine in his First Disputation (d. 1) argue for the genuineness of Dionysius’s writings. They emphasize that these works are cited under the name of Dionysius by three Popes, two Councils, and many Doctors. It is not a new opinion that dominates in citing widely.

The works were published in Greek with the paraphrase of Pachymeres and extensive annotations in Paris by Morelius in 1562. The same works were published in Latin in Cologne by Maternus Cholinus in 1557 and in Paris by Henricus Stephanus in 1515.

Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 6, On Purgatory, and Chapter 1, Campian in his Sanctoral Calendar, and the Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, Verse 34, from Dionysius’s book On the Ecclesastical Hierarchy confirm purgatory and ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, they argue that this writing is spurious, not belonging to the Dionysius whose name it bears, as Sixtus Senensis in Book 6, of Annotations 229, Cajetan in Acts 17, Erasmus in Acts 17 (see Morton, p. 2, p. 279), and Lorenzo Valla & Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Acts. Luther in Chapter 3 of Genesis (p. 53) and Cajetan and several others, such as Whittaker and Flacius, who present reasons for considering Dionysius’s writings to be spurious.

From reason of the style: which is considered inflated, obscure, improper, and intricate, not in line with the style used in Athens during the time of the Apostles but rather started being used about three hundred years later in Greece and Rome. Nicholas of Cusa states about this writer that he excessively imitates Plato. The same argument is pressed by Dr. Chemnitz in an oration on the reading of the Fathers. The style itself convincingly indicates that it is not Attic and certainly not written in an apostolic manner. Casaubonus in Exercises 16, p. 565: “Dionysius the Areopagite, indeed, is a most ancient and elegant writer: But who he is, about whom mention is made in the Acts, only those unskilled in the light of literature and entirely ignorant of both the Greek language and the antiquity of the Church dare to assert.”
From the omission of his name in the writings of the ancients: Eusebius, in Book 3, Chapter 4: [“And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.”] and Book 4, Chapter 23, “That Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

Jerome, in the catalogue of his writings, makes no mention of Dionysius’s writings, even though he explicitly decided to enumerate ecclesiastical writers who left something for posterity. Indeed, no one before Gregory the Great, who, though citing his letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite was among them.

Sixtus Senensis in Book 4 of the Library: “The mystical theology of Dionysius was still unknown in the century of Athanasius.”

Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts 17, p. 225: “It is astonishing that if he was such an ancient author and wrote so much, he is not cited by anyone from the ancients, neither from the Greeks nor the Latins: not by Origen, not by Chrysostom, nor even by Jerome, who left nothing unexamined, so much so that Gregory himself, a man of proven faith quoting these letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite existed. Jerome in the Catalog of Illustrious Men mentions one or two Dionysius but does not mention his books.”

Gennadius [Scholarius], in the Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers, also makes no mention of him. Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, who lived under the rule of Emperor Commodus around the year 185 AD, in his writing about Dionysius the Areopagite, declares how he was first converted to the faith by Paul, as is in the Acts of the Apostles. Later, he became the Bishop of the Athenians, but his about his book the “Hierarchy,” he does not even mention a word.
From the computation of time: Dionysius the Areopagite was a disciple of Paul, but the Dionysius mentioned at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy speaks in this way: ‘A delay of 40 days, as our divine priests, initiated into the ancient mysteries, handed down to us for divine worship.’ He speaks there about the baptism of infants and, in the plural, mentions instructors, suggesting that this doctrine was transmitted to them by the apostles through successive instructors. So how could he have been a disciple of the apostles? In Book 1 of Divine Names, he quotes Clement the Philosopher in the area of dialectics, saying that “exemplars of principal things are either absent or present, or their causes are formal and relative.” However, there was no other Clement the Philosopher than the Alexandrian one, whose books still exist, and he lived around 200 years after Christ. This quoted passage seems to be entirely from the eighth Miscellany, [ch. 9 par 14?] where Clement says, “causes are especially formal and relative.” In Chapter 4 of Divine Names, he quotes the Epistles of Ignatius, which, however, were written after the death of Dionysius. In the book on Hierarchy, he cites Clement of Alexandria, who lived about two hundred years after Christ.

Therefore, Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus suspect that different authors are being confused. Laurentius (quoted by Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Annotations on Acts): “In this place, he refutes the opinion of those who think that this Areopagite was the author of those books that we have concerning Hierarchies and Divine Names, and that he is the same person who, at Paris, among the Parisians, was crowned with martyrdom. They identify one Dionysius out of three, if I am not mistaken.” And afterward: “Laurentius indicates that there were very learned men of his time who judged that these books were the work of Apollinaris, although Jerome mentions two by that name—one a Bishop of Hierapolis who flourished under Marcus Antoninus, the other a Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. However, Laurentius attributes neither of these to anything of this kind of work, for I do not think that such works should be attributed to that heretic Apollinaris.”

In Book 4 of the Divine Names, he quotes a certain sentence from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans [Ch. 7]: “Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται.” [Latin]: “Amor meus crucifixus est.” [English]: “My love has been crucified.” But indeed, Ignatius, as testified by Eusebius in the Chronicle and Book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, wrote that Epistle to the Romans during the reign of Trajan, while Dionysius the Areopagite was killed during the reign of Domitian. That Dionysius, in the same book, cites the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse in his Hierarchy, and in such a way as if these writings had long been part of the Scriptures. However, if we believe the historians, both John and Dionysius published their works shortly before their deaths, [John’s death being] about 14 years after Dionysius’ death. Among Dionysius’ Epistles, there is one addressed to Polycarp, addressing him as both a teacher and bishop. Indeed, the writers testify that Dionysius suffered in Gaul in the year 96 AD, and Polycarp in the year 166 AD, at the age of 86. It is thus clear that Polycarp was still underage at the time of Dionysius’ passion.
From a careful consideration of the contents: first in the negative, then in the affirmative established.
1. [Negative]: That Dionysius passed over certain things, which he asserted to have been overlooked, seems unlikely by no means. He is said to be that Dionysius, a disciple of the Apostle Paul; yet, he so forgets this teacher that he does not mention him even in a single place, calling a certain obscure Hierotheus his teacher. This seems to indicate either excessive ingratitude or remarkable forgetfulness on the part of the disciple. How was it possible for Dionysius not to have sought him out frequently by writing to Timothy, asking whether he had learned anything more accurately from the Apostle Paul himself about those very matters, with whom he had lived so familiarly for such a long time and had undoubtedly been well-instructed?
2. [Affirmative]: That Dionysius is full of the most absurd nonsense. When he discusses the heavenly and ecclesiastical hierarchy, he invents new choirs like spheres, the highest seraphim, then cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, principalities; afterward, in the lower hierarchy, powers, archangels, angels. Who does not see that these are nothing but idle and futile human thoughts? Later, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, he says there are bishops, deacons, subdeacons, readers, exorcists. He, the disciple of the chief of the Apostles and the teacher of the Gentiles, is occupied with such nonsense. Yet, his authority is flaunted in such a way that inflated hypocrites decree everything as if it were uttered from oracles, while nowhere does he speak one word about faith or any useful instruction from Holy Scripture. But who told him about the nine choirs? Why did the Franciscans later add a tenth as a palace where the divine mother would dwell? Luther, in Genesis chapter 3, page 53, mentions many orders, such as pontiffs, priests, monks, etc., of which, except for bishops, Dionysius had no knowledge during his time, as can be proven.
  
  The Areopagites were judges, not philosophers. But these people regard Dionysius as the supreme philosopher, who risks the danger of comprehending the nature of things through a solar eclipse, which is not fitting since it is not plausible that those darknesses reached Athens, etc. Erasmus, in Acts chapter 17, page 225: “It is not plausible to me that there were such Christian ceremonies in those ancient times, as he describes.”
  
  “A more recent version has it that he wrote the Hierarchy to Timothy, whom he also calls his son, which is the same as if he called him a disciple, considering the use of Scripture and the Church. Since Timothy had the excellent Paul as his teacher for a very long time, being a renowned teacher and bishop while Paul was still alive, he should have taught Dionysius instead of being taught by him” (Flacius Illyricus).
  
  Dionysius himself presents that he was handed over to Hierotheus as a disciple. However, shortly after Dionysius the Areopagite’s conversion, Paul taught for a long time in Corinth and for a longer time in Ephesus, places easily accessible from Athens. If this Dionysius were eager for learning, he could have almost had Paul as his mentor for a whole two years, and it would not have been necessary for him to submit to the discipline of a man entirely unknown in the Church. The same writer mentions here the choir and the temple, distinguished from each other, and the parts of the temple. However, during the time of the Apostles and for a hundred years thereafter, Christians did not have such elaborate temple buildings; they initially gathered in houses. The same writer says that the Apostle John lived longer than the other Apostles and than Dionysius is said to have lived. However, John was mostly in Ephesus and Asia Minor, where Timothy also lived. Timothy is said to have been familiar with him, so how did this Dionysius dare to teach Timothy, who had a mentor? Would it not have been more appropriate for him to seek instruction repeatedly, asking Timothy to write to him either about this matter or others, clarifying Paul’s or John’s views?
  
  Paul mentions that it is not lawful for a man to express the things he saw in the heavenly state, and it is inconceivable that a person like Dionysius, progressing in such a state, would write and explain things that the Apostle Paul had established as ineffable and entirely unknown to humans. The opinion of the nine orders of angels is rejected by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 55) and Augustine (Enchiridion to Laurentius, Chapter 58).
From the testimony of very weighty authors:
- Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts, page 225: “some years ago,” as he recalls, “the incomparable William Grocyn, a supreme theologian, thoroughly versed in every discipline and exercised in them, preparing to deliver a sacred discourse on St. Paul in the church of St. Paul in London, had earnestly contemplated that the work ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ was the production of Dionysius the Areopagite. Grocyn was highly indignant at those who would dissent from this view. However, before completing half of the work and examining it more closely, he openly confessed to his audience that he did not consider the work to be that of Dionysius the Areopagite.”
- Luther, in his Smalcald Articles, calls Dionysius a “recent and fictitious author” [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71 by Philip Melanchthon].
- Whitaker, Against Campian, page 75.: “Valla and Erasmus have collected many weighty reasons in order to persuade that Dionysius was not the person he is said to be.”
- Theodore Gaza, in the preface to the Problems of Alexander of Aphrodisias, converted by him into Latin, argues that the author is a fabricated one.
- Pelargus, in Comparative Theology, at position 21, page 277, disapproves of this author.
- Add to this Zeaemann’s arguments against Keller on page 530.
- Daniel Chamier, in his book Catholic Panstratia [Wars of the Lord], Chapter 8, Section 28, and the following sections.
- [Francisco] Ribera, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 1: “Many follow various opinions [concerning the Hierarchy and orders of Angels] based on the authority of Dionysius alone. However, the most esteemed Greek and Latin Fathers refused to follow him. Pope Gregory was unwilling to yield to the authority of Dionysius, fearing that it might appear to contradict the divine scripture in words. If we wish to measure that obscure matter by our own reasoning, we will often and greatly go astray, and Dionysius never said that he received these things from Paul, nor has anyone been able to prove it.”
- Bellarmine, indeed, On Ecclesiastical Writers: “I have no doubt about the works of Dionysius. They are cited by Pope Gregory in Homily 34 on the Gospel, by Pope Martin and the Martyr in the Roman Council, by Pope Agatho in the Letter to Emperor Constantine IV, by Pope Nicholas I in the Letter to Michael the Emperor. They are also cited by the Sixth General Council in Act 4 and the Seventh Council in Act 2, and finally by those who wrote commentaries on these works, such as Maximus the Monk and Saint Thomas Aquinas.” However, the objection is raised that Gregory lived in the sixth century, so why is there no mention of these books by any of the earlier writers? Bellarmine responds that “these writings may have been hidden and only discovered around the time of Gregory.” But other arguments suggest that attributing these works to Dionysius is false.
- Denys the Carthusian, in his commentary on Dionysius: “Whoever he may be, is rather obscure and barely intelligible; he has posed a challenge for some theologians.”
- Abbot Trithemius, concerning Ecclesiastical Writers, admits, “the works of Dionysius are covered with great obscurity.”
  
  [Responses to objections]: Some argue that this work is cited by Origen in his homily on John 1 and by Athanasius in his questions to Antiochus, question 8. But with this argument, uncertainty is proven by an equally uncertain method because in that homily, the Arians are mentioned, who arose long after Origen, and in the questions to Antiochus, authors who came after Athanasius are named. Therefore, they are not the works of Origen or Athanasius but of more recent authors. Abbot Liberatus in Chapter 10 of the Breviary and Anastasius the Librarian in a letter to Emperor Charles the Bald state that Dionysius the Areopagite is cited by Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, but the passages they cite are not found in the cited places.

Eulogies

Regarding Dionysius the Areopagite, Peter Lansselius, a Jesuit: “He is almost the only one among all the authors of Antiquity in whom no one has noted a departure from doctrine to the present day.”

Who are the saints of the high and late middle ages?

A friend recently asked me if Lutherans carried on with celebrating saints of the post-Great schism era. The answer is, “Yes.”

Here are the saint days from people who died after 1054 and before 1517 from St. Wilhelm Löhe’s (d. 1872, feast on 1/2) Sanctoral Calendar:

3/7: Thomas Aquinas (1275)
3/22: Nicholas of Flüe (1487)
4/1: Hugo of Grenoble (1132)
5/20: Ivo of Chartres (1115)
6/8: William of York (1154)
7/1: Theobald (1066)
7/2: Otto of Bamberg (1139)
7/14: John Bonaventura (Bonaventure) (1274)
7/15: Stilla of Abenberg (1158)
7/18: Radegundis (mislabeled by Löhe as 13th c?)
8/4: Dominic (1221)
8/12: Clara of Assisi (1253)
8/16: Rochus of Montpellier (Roch) (1327)
8/19: Gebald (Sebaldus) (8th or 11th c.)
8/20: Bernard of Clairvaux (1153)
8/25: Louis, King of France (1270)
8/31: Isabella (of France) (1270)
9/1: Aegidius (Giles of Assisi) (1262)
9/17: Hildegard (von Bingen) (1179)
10/4: Francis of Assisi (1226)
11/15: Albertus Magnus (the Great) (1280)

To this we may add from the Treasury of Daily Prayer calendar Anselm of Canterbury (1109) on 4/21.

The Treasury of Daily Prayer calendar also includes figures concurrent with Luther who died very early in the Reformation:

4/6: Albrecht Dürer (1528)
5/4: Frederick the Wise (1525)
11/8: Johannes von Staupitz (1524)

Some miscellaneous thoughts I had:
The inclusion of founders of monastic orders (Dominic and Francis) should temper our attitude towards monastics, even later monastic orders. Many read Reformation authors, especially Luther, and end up thinking monastic life is evil or at best useless. Löhe clearly had no such idea in mind and thought the contrary. “Abusus non tollit usum” as the saying goes. There’s also an anti-scholastic vein in Lutheranism today, especially among so-called “radical Lutherans” and Biblicists, yet we profess Anselm, Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, and Aquinas to be saints. This doesn’t commit us to scholasticism on its own, but we should be careful not to denigrate the names of saints, even when we disagree with them.

Early church fathers every theologian should read

I made two posts earlier this year on theologians I recommend Lutherans read. The first focused on the middle ages and the second focused on theologians from the Reformation to the present. Here I’d like to make a list of material that theologians leading up to Augustine that theologians should read. This is perhaps the least needed of the lists since most seminaries seem to cover this period, at least to a degree, and finding lists like this online isn’t difficult, but for the sake of completeness, I thought this would be a post worth making, especially giving direction on which works are most significant by the most significant authors, which isn’t always easy to know based on brief surveys of their material.

It goes without saying that every theologian should know their Bible, and furthermore, every high church theologian should know their apocrypha. For recommendations on these, I point to the obvious standard sources: The Lutheran Study Bible and The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes. As for other 2nd Temple period literature outside the apocrypha, the two volume pseudepigrapha set by Charlesworth is worth having, with the most important works being Jubilees and 1 Enoch. The other relevant major figures prior and concurrent with the New Testament are Philo of Alexandria, who wrote philosophical theology, and Josephus, who wrote historical work on the Jewish people.

All of the Apostolic Fathers are worth reading: 1-2 Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Epistle to Diognetus, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, The Didache, Quadratus, and the Traditions of the Elders. In the same era, but not usually included in the list of the Apostolic Fathers is Aristides, also worth reading. This period is transitionary between the Apostles and those immediately after them and is marked by early letters to churches, apologies for Christianity, and Christian instruction. I recommend everyone start with these works before moving onto other church fathers, which can be read more selectively. If any is to be skipped for brevity, Hermas may be omitted.

In the next generation, Justin Martyr (d. 165), and Irenaeus (d. 202) are by far the most prominent figures. Justin’s major works include two apologies and The Dialogue with Trypho, which is an apology against Judaism in the form of a dialogue. Irenaeus has two surviving works: Against Heresies and Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. The former is long and dry but important, but has an abridged version that contains the substantial information without dwelling so long on obscure gnostic doctrines. The latter is shorter and an easier read.

In the next generation, Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), Tertullian (d. 220), Origen (d. 253), Cyprian (d. 258), and Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270) standout. Clement and Origen, both from Alexandria, are Christian Middle Platonists and make significant developments on Christian doctrine. Unfortunately, both are highly speculative, and Origen is later condemned as heretical at the Council of Constantinople in 381, while Clement of Alexandria’s status is more difficult to pin down, but he has some less-than-orthodox ideas. Clement of Alexandria’s best work is probably his Pedagogue (or The Tutor/Teacher) in which he portrays Christ as teacher of all. Origen’s best work is probably On First Principles, the first systematization of Christian theology, but his commentaries on John and Matthew are insightful and among the earliest commentaries we have, and his other treatises are similarly useful. Tertullian is the first representative of Christian theology in Latin. He falls into the Montanist heresy later in life. He wrote many relatively short treatises, many of which can be read a few sittings. In his pre-Montanist era, see On Repentance, On Prayer, On Baptism, On Patience, On the Prescription of Heretics, and Against the Jews. Some later works of great importance are his Apology and On the Fresh of Christ, the latter of which provides insight into early Christology. Cyprian is the first major Latin theologian; his chief work is found in 12 relatively short treatises all of which are worth reading. Gregory Thaumaturgus has a number of short works that have survived, all of which could be read together in a single day, the Oration and Panegryic Addressed to Origen aside.

The next generation leads encapsulates the early Christological controversies in Christianity, leading to the Council of Nicaea in 325, which establishes the Nicene Creed, an orthodox formulation of the divinity of Christ and true Christian faith, the Council of Constantinople in 381, which expands the creed in the wake of new controversies on the Trinity, the Council of Ephesus in 431, which pins down orthodox Christology on the two natures of Christ, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which does the same but protects against opposite errors. The extracts of the acts and the canons from each of these councils (and the following ecumenical councils Constantinople II (553) and III (680)) are all valuable to read. Since I discuss figures contemporary with debates surrounding Ephesus and Chalcedon (Augustine excepted) in my post on medieval authors, I’ll stop short before them here.

Notable figures in this era include Lactantius (d. 325), Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339), Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Athanasius (d. 373), Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Gregory Nazianzus (d. 390), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395), Ambrose (d. 397), Epiphanius (d. 403), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Rufinus (d. 411), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430) and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (4th-5th century).

Lactantius’ most notable works are The Divine Institutes, the first systematic Christian theology in Latin, and a poetic work titled The Phoenix, which is valued for its elegance, though it’s not a theological work. His work is condemned for unknown reasons in the 5th or 6th century in the Gelasian Decree, but it is still of theological value. Eusebius of Caesarea’s best work is his Ecclesiastical History, which is an invaluable resource for Christian history. It is later translated and expanded by Rufinus. Hilary of Poitiers most famous work is On the Trinity and is essential to Latin Trinitarian theology. He also has a treatise On the Councils and exegetical works. Athanasius’ most notable work’s are his Life of St. Anthony and his Trinitarian works, which are perhaps the most valuable of all the fathers on the subject. On this topic, see Against the Heathen, On the Incarnation, Deposition of Arius, Statement of Faith, Apology Against the Arians, On the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, On the Opinion of Dionysius, On Councils, Letter to the Antiochians, On the Holy Spirit, and Letters to Serapion, the most of important of which is On the Incarnation. Ephraim is famous for his hymns and sermons.

Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus form the trio known as the Cappadocian Fathers, an essential trio defending orthodox Trinitarian theology in the 4th century controversy. Basil’s best work is On the Holy Spirit and his sermons On the Hexaemeron. Nyssen, like Athanasius, has a long list of works on Trinitarian theology: Against Eunomius, Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book, On the Holy Spirit, On the Holy Trinity, On “Not Three Gods”, On the Faith, and The Great Catechism, the most important of which is Against Eunomius. On the Making of Man is also significant and expands on Basil’s On the Hexaemeron. Nazianzen’s collection of orations is his major contribution to patristic literature, of which orations 27-31 are the famous five theological orations.

Cyril of Jerusalem’s most famous work are his Catechetical Lectures. Epiphanius’ best known work is the Panarion, which consists of arguments against heresies and writing on the Incarnation. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers are a collection of short stories and aphorisms from monks in Egypt and Ethiopia.

Ambrose and Jerome are especially important for Western theology, being two of the four Western Doctors and especially formative for Augustine’s theology. Ambrose’s best work is probably On the Duties of the Clergy, and all of his sermons and treatises are excellent. Jerome is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin and prefaces for each book, but he also wrote a number of works on lives of saints and a preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius and polemical works against various heretics: Against Helvidius, Against John of Jerusalem, Against Jovinianus, Against Vigilantius, Against the Pelagians, Against the Luciferians, and Against the Books of Rufinus.

Augustine is perhaps the most important theologian in all of church history since the time of the Apostles. He is more influential on Western theology and the most influential figure in Western philosophy between Aristotle and Aquinas. Most anything he has written is worthwhile, but his most important works are his Confessions, On the Trinity, and The City of God. Among his anti-Pelagian works: On the Spirit and the Letter, On Nature and Grace, On Grace and Free Will, The Predestination of the Saints, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, and On the Proceedings of Pelagius. Among his catechetical works: On Christian Doctrine, On Faith and the Creed, On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed (a work on how to catechize). He also has numerous writings on ethics, against other heresies, exegesis, and sermons. His work Retractions gives short introductions to his other works and notes things which he has retracted.

Some material from our dogmaticians:

Luther

Andreas Musculus (1514-1581) states (though I am skeptical of the veracity) in Several Choice Prophecies of the Incomparable and Famous Dr. Martin Luther, “Luther Discoursing of the Fathers of the Church; Ambrose (said he) was the Chiefest and the Eldest; after him St. Jerome; next unto him St. Augustine; and after him Gregory the Fourth.”

Chemnitz

Chemnitz, discussing early fathers of the church in his Loci Theologici volume 1 discusses The Canons of the Apostles, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Augustine.

Gerhard

The fathers can also be divided into centuries or generations.

In the first century lourished Ignatius, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Clement of Rome;

in the second century, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus;

in the third century, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Cyprian, Origen, Methodius, Minucius Felix;

in the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea, Lactantius, Athanasius, Arnobius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Macarius, Hilary, Gaudentius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Rufinus, Jerome, Epiphanius, Philaster, Chrysostom;

in the fifth century, Optatus of Milevis, Ephraem, Evagrius, Augustine, Prudentius, Gennadius, Hesychius, Maximus of Turin, Orosius, Cassian, Cyril of Alexandria, Vincent of Lérins, Synesius, Claudius Marius Victorius, Eucherius, Isidore of Pelusium, Leo I, Primasius, Theodoret, Prosper, Theodulus, Sedulius, Vigilius, Gelasius, Salvianus, Fulgentius, Junilius, Salonius, Paulinus;
Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, Method of Theological Study, section 5, chapter 3, point 3

Weidner

Weidner lists the following theologians from this era in his An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology:

The Apostolic Fathers
- Clement of Rome, Author of Epistle to Diognetus, Polycarp, Ignatius Barnabas, and Papias
- The Apologists
  - Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras
The Oriential Church
- The School of Alexandria
  - Clement of Alexandria, Origen
- The New Alexandrian School
  - Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria (of whom he is critical), and Cyril of Jerusalem
The Western Church
- To the Death of Augustine
  - Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine

Reformation (1517-1579)

This period is marked by early formation of Lutheranism, the authoring of the Lutheran confessions, and the defense and distinguishing of Lutheranism prior to its more sophisticated systemization of the second generation Lutherans.

Hermann of Wied (1477-1552)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Johann Spangenberg (1484-1550)
Johannes Bugenhagen (1485-1558)
Urbanus Rhegius (1489-1541)
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560)
- Melanchthon’s orthodoxy later in life is disputed
Johannes Brenz (1499-1570)
Erasmus Sarcerius (1501-1559)
Patrick Hamilton (1504-1528)
Andreas Hyperius (1511-1564)

The Golden Age of (Early) Orthodoxy (1580-1617)

This period is marked by the systemization of Lutheran thought, defense of the confessions, and flourishing of Lutheran theology.

Niels Hemmingsen (1513-1600)
Andreas Musculus (1514-1581)
Christoph Korner (1516-1584)
Jacob Heerbrand (1521-1600) (untranslated)
Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586)
Jakob Andreae (1528-1590)
Nicolaus Selnecker (1530-1592)
David Chytraeus (1531-1600)
Timothy Kirchner (1533-1587)
Aegidius Hunnius (1550-1603)
- Author of the Saxon Visitation Articles of 1592, binding on some territories
John Arndt (1555-1621)
- Arndt’s orthodoxy is disputed; he is accused of proto-pietism
Matthias Haffenreffer (1561-1619) (untranslated)
Hans Poulsen Resen (1561-1638) (untranslated)
Valerius Herberger (1562-1627)
Leonard Hutter (1563-1616)

High Orthodoxy (1616-1648)

This period is marked by the thirty years war and more scholastic thought. It was less productive due to the pressing war but also included some of the best dogmatics work.

Cort Aslakssen (1564-1624) (untranslated)
Balthasar Mentzer (1565-1627)
Johann Conrad Dietrich (1575-1639)
Johann Gerhard (1582-1637)
- The most important figure after the authors of the confessions
Nicolaus Hunnius (1585-1643)
Jesper Brochmand (1585-1652) (untranslated)
Balthasar Meisner (1587-1626)

The Silver Age of (Late) Orthodoxy (1649-1713)

This period is marked by the most developed Lutheran theology, highly scholastic works, and the slow encroachment of rationalism and pietism that eventually take over Lutheranism. It remains largely untranslated.

Solomon Glassius (1593-1656)
John George Dorsch (1597-1659) (untranslated)
John Huelsemann (1602-1661) (untranslated)
Johann Conrad Danhauer (1603-1666) (untranslated)
Jerome Kromayer (1610-1670) (untranslated)
Abraham Calovius (1612-1686)
Johannes Quenstedt (1617-1688)
Sebastian Schmidt (1617-1696) (untranslated)
John Koenig (1619-1664) (untranslated)
Christian Scriver (1620-1693)
John Scherzer (1628-1683) (untranslated)
Friedemann Bechmann (1628-1703) (untranslated)
Petrus Nakskow (1635-1695)
August Pfeiffer (1640-1698)
John Wilhelm Baier (1647-1695)
David Hollatz (1648-1713) (untranslated)
Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749)
- Loescher is considered the last representative of orthodoxy before Confessional Revival, but he lives as pietism and rationalism are growing swiftly, despite his efforts against both

Pietism and Rationalism (1714-1818)

This period is marked by its general lack of notable orthodox Lutheran material due to pietists, rationalists, and liberals largely controlling the universities.

Erik Pontoppidan (1698-1764) (mixed)
- Pontoppidan was a mild pietist, but his catechism remained influential in Norwegian circles for a very long time, even in the American Norwegian Synod
Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788)
- Hamann was important as a counter-rationalist figure. For his theology, see his London Writings

Confessional Revival (1819-1929)

This period is marked by the return to Lutheran orthodoxy, revival of the Lutheran confessions, reactions against pietism, rationalism, liberalism, and syncretism, and the spread of Lutheranism in America.

Ernst Sartorius (1797-1859)
Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869)
Hans Martensen (1808-1884) (mixed)
- Martensen was influenced by some enlightenment ideas in his theology, but on the whole, he rightly attacks errors of pietists and rationalists alike, alongside reasonable criticism of late orthodoxy, not dissimilar to what is seen later in Robert Preus. He is self-aware of the revival of a more orthodox Lutheranism in this work
Wilhelm Loehe (1808-1872)
Heinrich Schmid (1811-1885)
CFW Walther (1811-1887)
Gustav Oehler (1812-1872)
Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1883)
Chrisoph Ernst Luthardt (1823-1902)
Milton Valentine (1825-1906) (mixed)
- Valentine was a syncretist with general non-Lutheran Protestant leanings
Matthias Loy (1828-1915)
Adolf Hoenecke (1835-1908)
Junius Remensnyder (1841-1927)
Henry Eyster Jacobs (1844-1932)
George Henry Gerberding (1847-1927)
August Lawrence Graebner (1849-1904)
Revere Franklin Weidner (1851-1915)
- Weidner holds pre-millennialist views
Conrad Emil Lindberg (1852-1930)
- Lindberg holds pre-millennialist views
Franz Pieper (1852-1931)
John Nathan Kildahl (1857-1920) (mixed)
- Kildahl’s Christology is questionable and he holds pre-millennialist views
Gerhard Friedrich Bente (1858–1930)
John Schaller (1859-1920)
Theodore Schmauk (1860-1920)
Andrew Voigt (1859-1933)
RCH Lenski (1864-1936)
Joseph Stump (1866-1935)

Missourian Bronze Age (1930-1960)

This period is marked by mixed theology, “mid-churchism,” and a general disinterest in the Lutheran confessions or Lutheran orthodoxy. It’s bronze in that it was united on many things and experienced growth yet it was not very productive and foundations were laid for coming controversies.

Edward Koehler (1875-1951)
Theodore Graebner (1876-1950)
Werner Elert (1885-1954) (mixed)
- Elert was influenced by existential thought and his orthodoxy on many issues (such as inerrancy) is questionable
John Theodore Mueller (1885-1967)
Paul Kretzmann (1888-1965)
Herman Sasse (1895-1976) (mixed)
- Sasse’s position on inerrancy is unclear
Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-1973) (mixed)
- Piepkorn’s position on inerrancy is unclear

Contemporary (1961-present)

This period is marked by the revival of interest in the Lutheran confessions and Lutheran orthodoxy, divisions over liberalism and worship, the Seminex controversy and its watershed, and new projects on dogmatics and commentary.

JAO Preus II (1920–1994)
Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006)
- Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy late in life
Robert Preus (1924-1995)
Kurt Marquart (1934-2006)
David Scaer (1936-present)
Lyle W Lange (1942-2016)
John Stephenson (?-present)
Carl Beckwith (1973-present)
Timothy Schmeling (?-present)
Ben Mayes (?-present)
Gifford Grobien (?-present)
Steven Mueller (?-present)
Jack Kilcrease (?-present)
Klaus Schulz (?-present)
Roland Ziegler (?-present)
Detlev Schulz (?-present)
Albert Collver (?-present)
Rolf Preus (?-present)
Edward Engelbrecht (?-present)
Adam Koontz (?-present)
Jordan Cooper (?-present)
John Kleinig (?-present)
Samuel Nafzger (?-present) (mixed)
- Nafzger is influenced by Neo-Orthodoxy
Eric Lund (?-present) (mixed)
- Lund is an important translator/historian on Lutheran orthodoxy but is ELCA

On the fate of unbaptized infants

I have been reading through The Lives and Writings of the Great Fathers of the Lutheran Church and Georg Dedekenn has a treatment of the topic of the fate of unbaptized infants at death in which he contends that children born to Christian parents are all saved. In this post I will dissent, though only moderately. I am unconvinced that his arguments are as clear as he wishes. I have a longer conclusion at the end of the post, but in brief I am hopeful but not certain of the fate of unbaptized infants born to Christian parents. His arguments are presented briefly as follows: 1) In the Old Testament many infants surely died before the 8th day of circumcision or were not circumcised at all during the wandering in the desert (which would preclude circumcision due to the traveling and conditions) and Scripture never speaks ill of their fate, so surely they are all saved. 2) God can save by extraordinary means and He wills the salvation of all, so surely He saves unbaptized infants. 3) Christian parents pray for the salvation of their child and God grants the prayers of the faithful in accordance with His will, and since He wills the salvation of all, He surely saves all unbaptized infants of Christian parents. 4) Being deprived of the Holy Supper prior to death does not preclude salvation, so neither does the lack of baptism among infants.

I reply to the first: Scripture neither speaks well or ill of the fate of these infants, so this argument could go both ways. I concede, however, that it would be more unusual for scripture to not speak if the infants were not saved than to not speak if they were saved, so the absence of any clear word on this lends a little weight to Dedekenn’s argument.

I reply to the second: The conclusion does not follow the premises. Consider this counter-example: God wills the salvation of so-called “unreached peoples,” but we do not guarantee their salvation; in fact, they have very real, actual sins and have no apparent repentance toward the True God. Furthermore, if they are all saved, preaching the Gospel to them would be counter-intuitive since this would only put them in a position where they may or may not be saved, so it seems very likely so-called “unreached peoples” are unsaved as a general rule. Since the premises apply to “unreached peoples,” yet we do not conclude they are all saved, we also cannot use the premises to conclude all unbaptized infants are saved.

I reply to the third: God wills the salvation of all, yet not all are elect, due to their hardened hearts. We cannot know the heart of infants, so we cannot know the state of their soul prior to baptism. While it seems uncharacteristic to say that God would not have mercy on the soul of a mere infant, we cannot apply this principle more broadly than Scripture warrants, for we often pray for things that are surely good, such as the salvation of our neighbors, yet God does not always grant this.

I reply to the fourth: The sacraments are not sufficiently parallel to one another to grant the conclusion with certainty.

To these I add seven more arguments: 1) Christian parents are in Church and thus the infant hears the Word preached (as John the Baptist, David, and Timothy all had faith from infancy), but since the infant has no reason to resist the Word at this age, the infant surely is converted. 2) The infant is living inside God’s temple (for our bodies are temples of Holy Spirit), which surely sanctifies the infant and thus the infant must be saved. 3) The infant in the womb feeds on the mother’s body, which is part of the mystical Body of Christ and a sanctified vessel made holy by the means of grace, so the infant eats holy food and thus, as with the Supper, mystically receives Christ orally and thus is saved. 4) The Apostle calls the children of a Christian parent (even just one Christian parent alongside one pagan) “holy.” If a child is “holy,” it must be saved. 5) In God’s great mercy, love, and grace, He does not impute the guilt of original sin to infants at the time of their death but instead pardons them on behalf of the universal atoning and justifying work of Christ. 6) Just as those who die as catechumens preparing for baptism are said to be saved by a “baptism of desire,” so infants are saved by the desire of their parents and sponsors for the infants to be baptized. 7) An unborn infant cannot be “born again” for it has not yet been “born” and thus, because it cannot even be baptized (for to be baptized is to be born again), this requirement is surely omitted; furthermore, it is God who takes the life of the unborn, and He, desiring that all be saved, would not do this without saving the child.

I reply to the first: Infants have original sin, which may be grounds for resisting the Holy Spirit preached in the Word, but given that infants trust their parents’ judgement, and the parents are in Church and praying at home, the infant seems likely to trust that the parents have made a right judgement in following Christ and thus will likely be converted, but this does not seem absolutely certain.

I reply to the second: Mere proximity to holy things does not necessarily sanctify them. Contact with holy things without being holy brings judgement on oneself, not justification, so living inside God’s temple does not guarantee salvation.

I reply to the third: This is a speculative conclusion that takes a mystical assertion and applies it past what we are assured in scripture, but it lends some weight to the argument that unbaptized infants are saved.

I reply to the fourth: It seems in this passage (1 Cor. 7:14-15) that the Apostle may be speaking about the Christian parent converting the spouse and children by presenting them with the Gospel and bringing them to be baptized for here he also says that the believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife and vice versa, but surely this does not mean that mere marriage to a Christian saves the unbelieving spouse, and Paul’s intent in this passage is to tell Christian spouses to remain married to an unbelieving spouse in hopes that the spouse will believe and thus be converted.

I reply to the fifth: This is speculative and not said anywhere in the scriptures. In fact, it even seems to run contrary to some, though it seems at least a pious thought.

I reply to the sixth: This is speculative and reaches beyond our limited theology of baptismal sponsorship, though it seems at least a pious thought.

I reply to the seventh: This argument is sound with respect to unborn infants, but not born infants.

On the contrary, as I have argued elsewhere, infants are born with original sin and the guilt thereof, and this sin entails their entire depravity, thus precluding them from entering heaven apart from conversion to true faith.

I answer that all ten arguments presented above offer hope to the Christian parent grieving the loss of a child, though none of the ten arguments seems entirely conclusive. It seems most likely that the unbaptized child of Christian parents will be regenerate and thus saved, but we cannot be certain. The unbaptized child of non-Christian parents are in a much greater state of uncertainty since they have not had the opportunity to receive any means of grace and do not fit into many of the arguments above. Appeals to authority can lead one to different conclusions on this question, so they need not be listed. The attitude of the Appendix to the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae adopts a proper attitude on the natural theology of this question. We know that in heaven there will be degrees of glory proportionate with holiness in this life and in hell degrees of punishment proportionate with sins in this life, but unbaptized infants have no sin but original sin and thus have no actual sin for which to be punished. Yet because unforgiven original sin precludes entry to heaven, an unregenerate infant cannot enter heaven. Thus, the unregenerate infant will reside in hell but at the uppermost level, not suffering any punishment for actual sin (for Divine Justice must be proportionate to actual sin), but merely being deprived of the beatific vision of heaven. Regenerate infants (and among these, it seems from the arguments above, are many unbaptized infants of Christian parents) are saved, even if they have yet to receive the sacrament of baptism.

IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD 1157

HUGH METEL

CANON REGULAR

HISTORICAL-LITERARY NOTICE

(MABILLON, New Edition of the Analecta, p. 476.)

HUGH METEL

LETTERS

Scriptural foundations

Old Testament precursors

New Testament spiritual foundations

The earliest witnesses

Related ideas building on sources before the 2nd century AD

Earliest explicit witnesses

Conclusion

Dionysius the Areopagite

Life

Writings

Eulogies

Some material from our dogmaticians:

Luther

Chemnitz

Gerhard

Weidner

Further Reading

Reformation (1517-1579)

The Golden Age of (Early) Orthodoxy (1580-1617)

High Orthodoxy (1616-1648)

The Silver Age of (Late) Orthodoxy (1649-1713)

Pietism and Rationalism (1714-1818)

Confessional Revival (1819-1929)

Missourian Bronze Age (1930-1960)

Contemporary (1961-present)

Further Reading