CHURCH HISTORY

Council of Nicea-

DEALT WITH:

The agenda of the synod included:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus;
i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3. The Meletian schism
4. The validity of baptism by heretics
5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

ARIAN CONTROVERSY:

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the
followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as
Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as
the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son,
though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third
group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the
Father and the Son were of similar substance.[25]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[26] with each appealing to Scripture to
justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at
one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized and
became better known as "Santa Claus".[27]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being
"begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact
meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of
other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis),
"person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which
could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in
particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic
heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268
Synods of Antioch.

[edit] Position of Arius (Arianism)

Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's
First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the
Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore
there was a time that He had not existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own
free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come
after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite
being,"[28] and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such
as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all
creation."

[edit] Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism)

Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his
attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always
existed with him. Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the
Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the
Father are one"; John 10:30). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me"; John 17:21.

[edit] The Homoiousian compromise proposal

The Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance.
This compromise position did not gain much support and eventually the idea was dropped.

[edit] Result of the debate

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal,
basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief
handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[29] this belief was expressed by
the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia
(present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council
was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of
Christendom.[2]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus
to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation
of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[3][4]

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of
the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called
the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent
general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of
doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did
settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of
Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the
one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of
Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of
Rome.[5] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles
regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Derived from Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed
to be limited to the Roman Empire in this context as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the
oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of
Constantine 3.6[6] around 338, which states "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an
Ecumenical council); Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[7] and the Letter in 382 to
Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[8]

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of
Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus
was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible.
St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular
presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The
council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but
two voted against Arius.[9])

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important
feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating Easter on the
first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independent of the Hebrew
Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of
Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to
his fellow bishops.

PURPOSE

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly
representing all of Christendom,[2] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects
of Christology were discussed.[2] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils
to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of
the First seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity

The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a
synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with
investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[10]
To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In
the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik,
in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of delegates, particularly those
of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.
This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of
Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which Gentiles could
join the Church.[11] In the Council of Nicaea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define
doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[12]

ATTENDEES:

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800
in the west), but a lesser and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[13]
Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[14] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[15] (all three
were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[16] and
Evagrius,[17] Hilary of Poitiers,[18] Jerome[19] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from
every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council,
as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him
two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800.
Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had
just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three
patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of
the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of
Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks
of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius
of Caesarea, the first church historian; Nicholas of Myra; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint
Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of
Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the
Athanasius of Thessaly)[20] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his
living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop
Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Abkhazia (located in the western part of South
Caucasus outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia,
Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from
Gaul,[20] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Sylvester I declined to
attend, pleading infirmity, but sent two Papal legates.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria,

was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism.
Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged
bishop.[20]
The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and
Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included
Eusebius of Nicomedia,[21] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda,
Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.[20][22]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the
council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[11] As
Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like
some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light,
reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold
and precious stones."[23] He was present as an observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized
the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its
deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[11] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave
the welcoming address.[11][24]

COUNCIL CHALCEDON

Fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church, held in Chalcedon (modern Kadiköy, Tur.).
Called by the emperor Marcian, it approved the creeds of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381;
later known as the Nicene Creed). It also approved the Tome of Pope Leo I confirming the two
distinct natures in Christ and rejecting the Monophysite heresy. The council then explained these
doctrines in its own confession of faith. The council disciplined clergy and declared Jerusalem
and Constantinople patriarchates.

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's
urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council".
The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that
Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and
full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27
disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon
passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in
stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of
(the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons,
except the 28th.

The Council is considered by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and
various other Western Christian groups to have been the Fourth Ecumenical Council. As such,
it is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic definitions by the Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Churches (then one church). Most Protestants also consider the concept of the Trinity
as defined by these councils to be orthodox doctrine to which they adhere. However, the Council
resulted in a major schism, with those who refused to accept its teaching, now known as Oriental
Orthodoxy, being accused of monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox churches reject the
"monophysite" label and instead describe themselves as miaphysite. This council is the last
council that is recognised by the Anglican Communion.
Relics of Nestorianism

In 325, the first ecumenical council (First Council of Nicaea) determined that Jesus Christ was
God, "consubstantial" with the Father, and rejected the Arian contention that Jesus was a created
being. This was reaffirmed at the First Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of
Ephesus (431).

After the Council of Ephesus had condemned Nestorianism, there remained a conflict between
Patriarchs John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril claimed that John remained Nestorian
in outlook, while John claimed that Cyril held to the Apollinarian heresy. The two settled their
differences under the mediation of the Bishop of Beroea, Acacius, on April 12, 433. In the
following year, Theodoret of Cyrrhus assented to this formula as well, apparently putting a rest
to Nestorianism forever within the Roman Empire.

However, the works of two deceased Antiochean theologians, Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore
of Mopsuestia, were at this time translated into Syriac. By the intervention of Archbishop
Proclus of Constantinople, the two theologians were condemned throughout the East, but this
situation would later provide the material for the Second Council of Constantinople some
hundred years later.

[edit] Eutychian controversy

About two years after Cyril of Alexandria's death in 444, an aged monk from Constantinople
named Eutyches began teaching a subtle variation on the traditional Christology in an attempt (as
he described in a letter to Pope Leo I in 448) to stop a new outbreak of Nestorianism. He claimed
to be a faithful follower of Cyril's teaching, which was declared orthodox in the Union of 432.

Cyril had taught that "There is only one physis, since it is the Incarnation, of God the Word."
Cyril had apparently understood the Greek word physis to mean approximately what the Latin
word persona (person) means, while most Greek theologians would have interpreted that word to
mean natura (nature). Thus, many understood Eutyches to be advocating Docetism, a sort of
reversal of Arianism -- where Arius had denied the consubstantial divinity of Jesus, Eutyches
seemed to be denying his human nature. Cyril's orthodoxy was not called into question, since the
Union of 433 had explicitly spoken of two physeis in this context.

Leo I wrote that Eutyches' error seemed to be more from a lack of skill on the matters than from
malice. Further, his side of the controversy tended not to enter into arguments with their
opponents, which prevented the misunderstanding from being uncovered. Nonetheless, due to the
high regard in which Eutyches was held (second only to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the
East), his teaching spread rapidly throughout the east.

In November 447, during a local synod in Constantinople, Eutyches was denounced as a heretic
by the Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Eusebius demanded that Eutyches be removed from
office. Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople preferred not to press the matter on account of
Eutyches' great popularity. He finally relented and Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the
synod. However, the Emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, rejected
this decision ostensibly because Eutyches had repented and confessed his orthodoxy. Dioscorus
then held his own synod which reinstated Eutyches. The competing claims between the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria led the emperor to call a council which was held in
Ephesus in 449. The emperor invited Pope Leo I to preside.[1] He declined to attend on account of
the invasion of Italy by Attila the Hun. However, he agreed to send four legates to represent him.
Leo provided his legates, one who died en route, with a letter explaining Rome's position in the
controversy. Leo's letter, now known as Leo's Tome, confessed that Christ had two natures, and
was not of or from two natures.[2] Although it could be reconciled with Cyril's Formula of
Reunion, it was not compatible in its wording with Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. In particular, the
third anathema reads: "If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining
them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together
in a union by nature, let him be anathema." This appeared to some to be incompatible with Leo's
definition of two natures hypostatically joined. However, the Council would determine (with the
exception of 13 Egyptian bishops) that this was an issue of wording and not of doctrine; a
committee of bishops appointed to study the orthodoxy of the Tome using Cyril's letters (which
included the twelve anathemas) as their criteria unanimously determined it to be orthodox, and
the Council, with few exceptions, supported this.[3]

[edit] "Latrocinium" of Ephesus

On August 8, 449 the Second Council of Ephesus began its first session with Dioscorus presiding
by command of the emperor. Dioscorus began the council by banning all members of the
November 447 synod which had deposed Eutyches. He then introduced Eutyches who publicly
professed that while Christ had two natures before the incarnation, the two natures had merged to
form a single nature after the incarnation. Of the 130 assembled bishops, 111 voted to
rehabilitate Eutyches. Throughout these proceedings, Roman legate Hilary repeatedly called for
the reading of Leo's Tome, but was ignored. Dioscorus then moved to depose Flavian and
Eusebius of Dorylaeum on the grounds that they taught the Word had been made flesh and not
just assumed flesh from the Virgin and that Christ had two natures. When Flavian and Hilary
objected, Dioscorus called for a pro-monophysite mob to enter the church and assault Flavian as
he clung to the altar. Flavian was mortally wounded. Dioscorus then placed Eusebius of
Dorylaeum under arrest and demanded the assembled bishops approve his actions. Fearing the
mob, they all did. The papal legates refused to attend the second session at which several more
orthodox bishops were deposed, including Ibas of Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre (a close personal
friend of Nestorius), Domnus of Antioch, and Theodoret. Dioscorus then pressed his advantage
by having Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas posthumously declared orthodox[4] with the
intent of condemning any confession other than one nature in Christ. Roman Legate Hilary, who
as pope dedicated an oratory in the Lateran Basilica in thanks for his life,[5] managed to escape
from Constantinople and brought news of the Council to Leo who immediately dubbed it a
"synod of robbers" — Latrocinium — and refused to accept its pronouncements. The decisions
of this council now threatened schism between the East and the West.
COUNTER REFORMATION

Counter-Reformation (differs from the Catholic Reformation[1][2] or Catholic Revival[2])

denotes the period of Catholic revival beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and
ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648 as a response to the Protestant Reformation.

The Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort, composed of four major elements:

1. Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration

2. Religious orders
3. Spiritual movements
4. Political dimensions

Such reforms included the foundation of seminaries for the proper training of priests in the
spiritual life and the theological traditions of the Church, the reform of religious life by returning
orders to their spiritual foundations, and new spiritual movements focusing on the devotional life
and a personal relationship with Christ, including the Spanish mystics and the French school of
spirituality. It also involved political activities that included the Roman Inquisition.

Pope Paul III (1534–1549) initiated the Council of Trent (1545–1563), a commission of cardinals
tasked with institutional reform, addressing contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and
priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses. The Council clearly rejected specific Protestant
positions and upheld the basic structure of the Medieval Church, its sacramental system,
religious orders, and doctrine. It rejected all compromise with the Protestants, restating basic
tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. The Council clearly upheld salvation appropriated by grace
through faith and works of that faith (not just by faith, as the Protestants insisted) because "faith
without works is dead", as the Epistle of St. James states. Transubstantiation, during which the
consecrated bread and wine were held to be transformed wholly and substantially into the body,
blood, soul and divinity of Christ, was also reaffirmed, along with the other six Sacraments of the
Catholic Church. Other practices that drew the ire of Protestant reformers, such as pilgrimages,
the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly
reaffirmed as spiritually commendable practices. The Council officially accepted the Vulgate
listing of the Old Testament Bible which included the deuterocanonical works (also called the
Apocrypha, especially by Protestants) on a par with the 39 books customarily found in the
Masoretic Text and the Protestant Old Testament. This reaffirmed the previous council of Rome
and Synod of Carthage (both held in the 4th century, A.D.) which had affirmed the Deuterocanon
as Scripture.[3] The Council also commissioned the Roman Catechism, which still serves as
authoritative Church teaching (the Catechism of the Catholic Church, issued in 1992, updates
modern explications, but does not differ doctrinally).

While the basic structure of the Church was reaffirmed, there were noticeable changes to answer
complaints that the Counter-Reformers were, tacitly, willing to admit were legitimate. Among
the conditions to be corrected by Catholic reformers was the growing divide between the clerics
and the laity; many members of the clergy in the rural parishes, after all, had been poorly
educated. Often, these rural priests did not know Latin and lacked opportunities for proper
theological training (addressing the education of priests had been a fundamental focus of the
humanist reformers in the past). Parish priests were to be better educated in matters of theology
and apologetics, while Papal authorities sought to educate the faithful about the meaning , nature
and value of art and liturgy, particularly in monastic churches of the secular Renaissance church,
epitomized by the era of Alexander VI (1492–1503), exploded in the Reformation under Pope
Leo X (1513–1522), whose campaign to raise funds in the German states to rebuild St. Peter's
Basilica by supporting use of indulgences was a key impetus for Martin Luther's 95 Theses. But
the Catholic Church would respond to these problems by a vigorous campaign of reform,
inspired by earlier Catholic reform movements that predated the Council of Constance (1414–
1417): humanism, devotionalism, legalism and the observantine tradition.

The Council, by virtue of its actions, repudiated the pluralism of the Secular Renaissance which
had previously plagued the Church: the organization of religious institutions was tightened,
discipline was improved, and the parish was emphasized. The appointment of Bishops for
political reasons was no longer tolerated. In the past, the large landholdings forced many bishops
to be "absent bishops" who at times were property managers trained in administration. Thus, the
Council of Trent combated "absenteeism," which was the practice of bishops living in Rome or
on landed estates rather than in their dioceses. The Council of Trent also gave bishops greater
power to supervise all aspects of religious life. Zealous prelates such as Milan's Archbishop
Carlo Borromeo (1538–1584), later canonized as a saint, set an example by visiting the remotest
parishes and instilling high standards. At the parish level, the seminary-trained clergy who took
over in most places during the course of the seventeenth century were overwhelmingly faithful to
the Church's rule of celibacy, and lived in line with the Church's moral teachings.

HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

The Heidelberg Catechism is a Protestant confessional document taking the form of a series of
questions and answers, for use in teaching Reformed Christian doctrine. It has been translated
into many languages and is regarded as one of the most influential of the Reformed catechisms.

Elector Frederick III, sovereign of the Palatinate from 1559 to 1576, commissioned the
composition of a new Catechism for his territory. While the catechism's introduction credits the
"entire theological faculty here" (at the University of Heidelberg) and "all the superintendents
and prominent servants of the church"[1] for the composition of the catechism, Zacharius Ursinus
is commonly regarded as the catechism's principal author. Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587) was
formerly asserted as a co-author of the document, though this theory has been largely discarded
by modern scholarship.[2][3] Frederick wanted to even out the religious situation of the territory,
but also to draw up a statement of belief that would combine the best of Lutheran and Reformed
wisdom and could instruct ordinary people on the basics of the newfound Protestant version of
the Christian faith.[4] One of the aims of the catechism was to counteract the teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church, and so it based each of its statements on the text of the Bible.

Commissioned by the sovereign of Palatinate, it is sometimes referred to as the Palatinate

Catechism.
The Catechism is divided into fifty-two sections, called "Lord's Days," which were designed to
be taught on each of the 52 Sundays of the year. The Synod of Heidelberg approved the
catechism in 1563. In the Netherlands, the Catechism was approved by the Synods of Wesel
(1568), Emden (1571), Dort (1578), the Hague (1586), as well as the great Synod of Dort of
1618-1619, which adopted it as one of the Three Forms of Unity, together with the Belgic
Confession and the Canons of Dort.[5] Elders and deacons were required to subscribe and adhere
to it, and ministers were required to preach on a section of the Catechism each Sunday so as to
increase the often poor theological knowledge of the church members.[5] In many Dutch
Reformed denominations this practice is still continued.

BELGIC CONFESSION

THE BELGIC CONFESSION is a doctrinal standard document to which many of the Reformed
churches subscribe. The Confession is part of the Three Forms of Unity.

The name Belgic Confession follows the seventeenth-century Latin designation Confessio
Belgica. Belgica referred to the whole of the Low Countries, both north and south, which today
is divided into the Netherlands and Belgium. The confession's chief author was Guido de Bres
also known as Guy or Guido de Bray, a preacher of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands,
who died a martyr to the faith in 1567.

During the sixteenth century the churches in the Netherlands were exposed to terrible
suppression by the Roman Catholic government. To protest against this suppression, and to
prove to the Catholic authorities that the adherents of the Reformed faith were not rebels, as was
laid to their charge, but law-abiding citizens who believed they professed the true Christian
doctrine according to the Holy Scriptures, de Bres prepared this confession in 1561. In the
following year a copy was sent to King Philip II, together with an address in which the
petitioners declared that they were ready to obey the government in all lawful things, but that
they would "offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their
whole bodies to the fire," rather than deny the truth expressed in this confession. Although the
immediate purpose of securing freedom from persecution was not attained, and De Bres himself
fell as one of the many thousands who sealed their faith with their lives, his work has endured. In
its composition the author availed himself to some extent of the Gallic Confession of the
Reformed churches of France, written chiefly by John Calvin. Although De Bray did not copy
Calvin's French Confession, De Bray had access to the work as he had been a student of Calvin
and it is noticeable that the two confessions harmonize. De Bray was in essence a Presbyterian
and a Calvinist. Calvin was negative to another confession being made, however Calvin's
introduction in his Galic Confession (1559) was to the King of France and the work was
obviously intended for the people of France or rather for the Reformed Church of France. De
Bray wanted a confession for his own people, and although the confession was originally printed
in Latin (as many confessions were at that time) it was intended specifically for the people of the
Greater Netherlands (De Nederlanden).

In 1566 the text of this confession was revised at a synod held at Antwerp. It was at once gladly
received by the churches, and it was adopted by national synods held during the last three
decades of the sixteenth century. The text, not the contents, was revised again at the Synod of
Dort in 1618-19 and adopted as one of the doctrinal standards to which all office-bearers in the
Reformed churches were required to subscribe.[1]. This revision was drafted in the French
language (1618-19).

It is important to state that the Belgic Confession became the basis of countering the Arminian
controvesy that arose in the following century. At the Synod of Dordt the Remonstrance of Jacob
Armininius and his followers, from Leiden University, was countered in great depth in the
Canons of Dordt (1618-19). The Belgic Confession of faith is one of the greatest confession of
the Reformed faith of the 16th century and a lasting legacy to scholarship and to the martyrdom
of Guy de Bray.

SYNOD OF DORT

The Synod of Dort (also known as the Synod of Dordt or the Synod of Dordrecht) was a
National Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618-1619, by the Dutch Reformed Church, to settle a
serious controversy in the Dutch churches initiated by the rise of Arminianism. The first meeting
was on November 13, 1618, and the final meeting, the 154th, was on May 9, 1619. Voting
representatives from the Reformed churches in eight foreign countries were also invited. Dort
was a contemporary colloquial English term for the town of Dordrecht and it still is the local
colloquial pronunciation of the name.

The purpose of the Synod held in Dordrecht was to settle a controversy that had arisen in the
Dutch churches following the spread of Arminianism. After the death of Jacob Arminius his
followers presented objections to the Belgic Confession and the teaching of John Calvin,
Theodore Beza, and their followers. These objections were published in a document called The
Remonstrance of 1610, and his proponents were therefore also known as Remonstrants. The
opposing Calvinists, led by professor Franciscus Gomarus of the University of Leiden, became
known as the Contra-Remonstrants.

In The Remonstrance and in some later writings, the Arminians published an alternative to the
Calvinist doctrine of the Belgic Confession on several points of difference. They taught election
on the basis of foreseen faith, a universal atonement, resistible grace, and the possibility of lapse
from grace. Simon Episcopius (1583–1643) was spokesman of the 13 representatives of the
Remonstrants who were summoned before the Synod in 1618.

"Episcopius was their chief speaker; and with great art and address did he manage their cause.
He insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially
that of reprobation, hoping that, by placing his objections to this doctrine in front of all the rest,
he might excite such prejudice against the other articles of the system, as to secure the popular
voice in his favor. The Synod, however, very properly, reminded him, that they had not
convened for the purpose of trying the Confession of Faith of the Belgic Churches, which had
been long established and well known; but that, as the Remonstrants were accused of departing
from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves, by giving Scriptural proof
in support of their opinions. The Arminians would not submit to this plan of procedure because it
destroyed their whole scheme of argument. However, the Synod firmly refused to make any
concessions on this point of order. Day after day they were reasoned with and urged to come and
scripturally defend their published doctrines. . . The Arminians would not submit to this course
and were thus compelled to withdraw. Upon their departure, the Synod proceeded without
them."[1]

The Synod concluded with a rejection of these views, and set forth the Reformed doctrine on
each point, namely: total depravity, unconditional election , limited atonement(arguing the
efficacy of Christ's atoning work was applicable only to the elect and not the unregenerate
world), irresistible (or irrevocable) grace, and the perseverance of the saints. These are
sometimes referred to as the Five points of Calvinism and remembered by many using the
mnemonic "TULIP".

The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the
Netherlands, popularly known as the Canons of Dort, is the explanation of the judicial decision
of the Synod. In the original preface, the Decision is called a

judgment, in which both, the true view agreeing with God's word concerning the aforesaid five
points of doctrine is explained and, the false view disagreeing with God's Word is rejected.

The Canons are not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of Reformed doctrine, but only
an exposition on the five points of doctrine in dispute.

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

The Westminster Assembly of Divines was appointed by the Long Parliament to restructure the
Church of England. The Assembly met for six years (1643-1649), and in the process produced
the documents which are the major Confessional Standards of the Presbyterian faith, including
the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Westminster
Shorter Catechism, and the Directory of Public Worship.

The Puritan faction in Parliament made five attempts to appoint an assembly between June 1642
and May 1643, but each time King Charles refused to sign the bill. A sixth bill was prepared and
passed as an ordinance of the House of Commons; and, with the agreement of the House of
Lords it became effective without the king's assent in June 1643.

The Assembly consisted of 30 laymen (10 lords and 20 commoners) and 121 divines or
clergymen. The clergy were selected to represent four separate groups:

1. The episcopalians (who supported an episcopacy) included such figures as James Ussher,
Archbishop of Armagh. The episcopalian group usually did not attend the sessions,
because the king had not authorized them.
2. The presbyterians (who supported an assembly-based structure found in Puritanism), the
largest group, included figures such as Edward Reynolds, George Gillespie and Samuel
Rutherford.
3. A small group of Independents (of the various Congregationalist views) were present and
had the support of Oliver Cromwell, and these included Thomas Goodwin.
 4. The Erastian representatives, such as John Lightfoot, who favored the state's primacy
over the ecclesiastical law.

With the abdication of the Episcopalians and the deaths of a few others, Parliament determined
that an additional twenty-one ministers should be appointed, these to be known as superadded
divines. The average daily attendance was between sixty and eighty members. The Assembly's
first meeting was in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of Westminster Abbey on July 1, 1643. It later
moved to the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster. It met 1,163 times between 1643 and 1649,
and was never formally dissolved by Parliament. During the Interregnum, it met generally only
for judicial matters to examine ministers who presented themselves for ordination or induction
into vacant charges. The Westminster Assembly was an advisory arm of the Parliament who
selected its members, proposed its topics for discussion and delineated its scope of work.
Parliament provided an allowance of four shillings per day for each of the divines to defray their
expenses. The first task given to the Assembly was revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The first
ten weeks of the Assembly were expended in debating the first fifteen of the Articles.

The civil war between the forces of Parliament and the Royalists supporting Charles I was at a
stalemate. Irish Catholics who had revolted in 1641 were threatening to join the Royalist side.
Desperate for help, Parliament sent a delegation to the Scots seeking aid in their civil matter.
Though the English sought to enter into a civil league for defense of civil liberties, the Scots
quickly responded that the spirit of the contest in which they had been engaged (the Bishop's
Wars) was of a religious character, in defense of religious liberty. Eventually the two sides
forged a document intended to serve both causes, The Solemn League and Covenant. In return
for sending the Scottish army south to support the Parliament, the Scots obliged the English to
reform the Church of England "for the preservation of religion in Scotland, the reformation of
religion in England and Ireland according to the word of God and the example of the best
reformed churches" and the extirpation of prelacy and popery. Six Scottish commissioners were
appointed to travel to England to sit with the Westminster Assembly. The Parliaments of
England and Scotland eventually required that all persons above the age of 18 in both countries
swear to the oath of the Solemn League and Covenant.

On October 12, 1643, the Westminster Assembly received a directive from Parliament that the
divines should forthwith "confer and treat among themselves of such a discipline and
government as may be most agreeable to God's holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve
the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other
Reformed Churches abroad." The Assembly abandoned work on the Thirty-Nine Articles and
proceeded to create an entirely new set of documents. Over the next four years, the Assembly
produced and forwarded to Parliament "The Directory for the Publick Worship of God", "The
Form of Presbyterial Church Government", a creedal statement, "The Westminster Confession of
Faith", a "Larger Catechism" and a "Shorter Catechism". The House of Commons insisted that
the Assembly include scriptural proof texts with the Confession and the two catechisms. The
divines also examined and approved the use of Rouse's metrical version of the Psalter in general
worship.

All of these documents were debated fiercely. The Erastians, Presbyterians and Independents
could never agree on church government. The Independents were thoroughly congregational in
their view of church officials. They resisted the idea of church courts and held that members of
each congregation should have all power and authority. They agreed that each congregation
should choose their own minister, but they opposed regulation and correction of those choices by
presbyteries. The Erastians believed in civil authority over the ecclesiastical. In their minds the
civil magistrate, being Christian, should have jurisdiction instead of church courts. Sin was to be
punished by civil courts, and ecclesiastical bodies should be forbidden from withholding
sacraments or excommunication.

The completed work of the Westminster Assembly was eventually adopted with revisions in
England, but was revoked during the Restoration in 1660. All of the documents were embraced
by the Church of Scotland. Further, they formed the cornerstone of the Presbyterian Church and
other reformed churches as they established themselves throughout Europe and America.
Extensive fresh research on the Westminster Assembly is being conducted by the Westminster
assembly project, based in Cambridge, England.

PIETISM

Pietism (from the word piety) was a movement within Lutheranism, lasting from the late 17th
century to the mid-18th century and later. It proved to be very influential throughout
Protestantism and Anabaptism, inspiring not only Anglican priest John Wesley to begin the
Methodist movement, but also Alexander Mack to begin the Brethren movement. The Pietist
movement combined the Lutheranism of the time with the Reformed, and especially Puritan,
emphasis on individual piety, and a vigorous Christian life.[1]

Founding

The direct originator of the movement was Philipp Jakob Spener. Born at Rappoltsweiler in
Alsace on 13 January 1635, trained by a devout godmother who used books of devotion like
Arndt's True Christianity, Spener was convinced of the necessity of a moral and religious
reformation within German Lutheranism. He studied theology at Strasbourg, where the
professors at the time (and especially Sebastian Schmidt) were more inclined to "practical"
Christianity than to theological disputation. He afterwards spent a year in Geneva, and was
powerfully influenced by the strict moral life and rigid ecclesiastical discipline prevalent there,
and also by the preaching and the piety of the Waldensian professor Antoine Leger and the
converted Jesuit preacher Jean de Labadie.

During a stay in Tübingen, Spener read Grossgebauer's Alarm Cry, and in 1666 he entered upon
his first pastoral charge at Frankfurt with a profound opinion that the Christian life within
Evangelical Lutheranism was being sacrificed to zeal for rigid Lutheran orthodoxy. Pietism, as a
distinct movement in the German Church, was then originated by Spener by religious meetings
at his house (collegia pietatis) at which he repeated his sermons, expounded passages of the New
Testament, and induced those present to join in conversation on religious questions that arose. In
1675 Spener published his Pia desideria or Earnest Desire for a Reform of the True Evangelical
Church, the title giving rise to the term "Pietists". This was originally a pejorative term given to
the adherents of the movement by its enemies as a form of ridicule, like that of "Methodists"
somewhat later in England.
In Pia desideria, Spener made six proposals as the best means of restoring the life of the Church:

1. the earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia
("little churches within the church").
2. the Christian priesthood being universal, the laity should share in the spiritual
government of the Church
3. a knowledge of Christianity must be attended by the practice of it as its indispensable
sign and supplement
4. instead of merely didactic, and often bitter, attacks on the heterodox and unbelievers, a
sympathetic and kindly treatment of them
5. a reorganization of the theological training of the universities, giving more prominence to
the devotional life
6. a different style of preaching, namely, in the place of pleasing rhetoric, the implanting of
Christianity in the inner or new man, the soul of which is faith, and its effects the fruits of
life.

This work produced a great impression throughout Germany, and although large numbers of the
orthodox Lutheran theologians and pastors were deeply offended by Spener's book, its
complaints and its demands were both too well justified to admit of their being point-blank
denied. A large number of pastors immediately adopted Spener's proposals.

[edit] Early leaders

Haugean Pietist Conventicle

In 1686 Spener accepted an appointment to the court-chaplaincy at Dresden, which opened to

him a wider though more difficult sphere of labor. In Leipzig a society of young theologians was
formed under his influence for the learned study and devout application of the Bible. Three
magistrates belonging to that society, one of whom was August Hermann Francke, subsequently
the founder of the famous orphanage at Halle (1695), commenced courses of expository lectures
on the Scriptures of a practical and devotional character, and in the German language, which
were zealously frequented by both students and townsmen. The lectures aroused, however, the
ill-will of the other theologians and pastors of Leipzig, and Francke and his friends left the city,
and with the aid of Christian Thomasius and Spener founded the new University of Halle. The
theological chairs in the new university were filled in complete conformity with Spener's
proposals. The main difference between the new Pietistic Lutheran school and the orthodox
Lutherans arose from the Pietists' conception of Christianity as chiefly consisting in a change of
heart and consequent holiness of life. Orthodox Lutherans rejected this viewpoint as a gross
simplification, stressing the need for the church and for sound theological underpinnings.

Spener died in 1705; but, the movement, guided by Francke, fertilized from Halle the whole of
Middle and North Germany. Among its greatest achievements, apart from the philanthropic
institutions founded at Halle, were the revival of the Moravian Church in 1727 by Count von
Zinzendorf, Spener's godson and a pupil in the Halle School for Young Noblemen, and the
establishment of Protestant missions.

Spener's stress on the necessity of a new birth and on a separation of Christians from the world,
(see Asceticism), led to exaggeration and fanaticism among some followers. Many Pietists soon
maintained that the new birth must always be preceded by agonies of repentance, and that only a
regenerated theologian could teach theology, while the whole school shunned all common
worldly amusements, such as dancing, the theatre, and public games. Some would say that there
thus arose a new form of justification by works. Its ecclesiolae in ecclesia also weakened the
power and meaning of church organization. Through these extravagances a reactionary
movement arose at the beginning of the 18th century; one leader was Valentin Ernst Löscher,
superintendent at Dresden.

GREAT AWAKENING

The Great Awakening was a religious revival in American religious history. Historians and
theologians identify three or four waves of Great Awakening occurring from the early 18th
century to the late 20th century, each characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical
Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and
redemption on the part of those affected, a jump in evangelical church membership, and the
formation of new religious movements and denominations.

The First Great Awakening began in 1725 and lasted to about 1750. Ministers from various
evangelical Protestant denominations supported the Great Awakening,[1]. Additionally, pastoral
styles began to change. In the late colonial period, most pastors read their sermons, which were
theologically dense and advanced a particular theological argument or interpretation. Leaders of
the Awakening such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield had little interest in merely
engaging parishioners' minds; they wanted far more to elicit an emotional response from their
audience, one which might yield the workings and evidence of saving grace.

[edit] Influence on political life

Joseph Tracy, the minister and historian who gave this religious phenomenon its name in his
influential 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the
American Revolution. The evangelical movement of the 1740s played a key role in the
development of democratic concepts in the period of the American Revolution. This helped
create a demand for the separation of church and state.[2]

[edit] Second Great Awakening

Main article: Second Great Awakening

The Second Great Awakening was strongest in the western states, following the revival at Cane
Ridge in Kentucky, and also in the "burned over" district of upstate New York.[3]

New denominations included several major religious denominations, including Seventh-day

Adventists, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Mormonism.

The abolition movement emerged in the North from the wider Second Great Awakening 1800-
1840.

[edit] Third Great Awakening

Main article: Third Great Awakening

The Third Great Awakening in 1880-1910 was characterized by new denominations, very active
missionary work, and also the Social Gospel approach to social issues.[4]

[edit] Fourth Great Awakening

Main article: Fourth Great Awakening

The Fourth Great Awakening is a debated concept that has not received the acceptance of the
first three. Advocates such as economist Robert Fogel say it happened in the late 1960s and early
1970s. At that time the "mainline" Protestant denominations weakened sharply in both
membership and influence while the most conservative religious denominations (such as the
Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans) grew rapidly in numbers, spread across the
United States, had grave internal theological battles and schisms, and became politically
powerful.

There is no consensus on whether a fourth awakening happened.[5]

OLD SCHOOL/NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANISM

The Old School-New School Controversy was a schism of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America which began in 1837. Later, both the Old School and New School
branches further split over the issue of slavery, into southern and northern churches. After three
decades of separate operation, the two sides of the controversy merged, in 1865 in the south and
in 1870 in the north, to form united Presbyterian churches, although these were still separated
into two (as opposed to four) branches based upon the civil war divisions.
As a result of the Plan of Union of 1801 with the General Association of Connecticut,
Presbyterian missionaries began to work with Congregationalist missionaries in western New
York and the Northwest Territory to advance Christian evangelism. This resulted in new
churches being formed with either Congregational or Presbyterian forms of government, or a
mixture of the two, supported by older established churches with a different form of government,
and often clergy in controversy with their own congregations that disagreed with their
ecclesiology. It also resulted in a difference in doctrinal commitment and views among churches
in close fellowship, leading to suspicion and controversy.

The controversy reached a climax at a meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in Philadelphia in 1837 in which representatives of several church synods (those of the
Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee) were refused recognition as lawfully part of the
meeting. These and others who sympathized with them departed and formed their own General
Assembly meeting in another church building nearby, setting the stage for a court dispute about
which of the two General Assemblies constituted the true continuing Presbyterian church. The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that the Old School Assembly was the true
representative of the Presbyterian church and their decisions would govern.[1]

While the debate raged for decades, the national crisis of civil war overshadowed the controversy
and both sides moderated their position to some degree. By the time of reunion, most
Presbyterians agreed that union was more important than the issues which caused division, and
the minority was mostly silent. Some historians believe, however, that the reunion left seeds of
the controversy which later erupted over Charles Augustus Briggs and, ultimately, the
Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of the twentieth century.

Prominent members of the Old School were Ashbel Green, William Latta, Charles Hodge,
William Buell Sprague, and Samuel Stanhope Smith.

Prominent members of the New School were Albert Barnes, Henry Boynton Smith, Erskine
Mason, George Duffield, Nathan Beman, Charles Finney, George Cheever, Samuel Fisher,[2] and
Thomas McAuley.

AUBURN AFIRMATION

The Auburn Affirmation was a document dated May 1924, with the title "AN AFFIRMATION
designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America", authored by an eleven-member Conference Committee and signed by 1274 ministers
of the PCUSA. The Affirmation challenged the right of the highest body of the church, the
General Assembly, to impose the Five fundamentals as a test of orthodoxy without the
concurrence of a vote from the regional bodies, the presbyteries. In 1910, 1916, and again in
1923, the General Assembly declared that every candidate seeking to be ordained in the
Presbyterian Church ought to be able to affirm

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures

2. The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus)
3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
 4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The authenticity of Christ's miracles

The Auburn Theological Seminary history professor, Robert Hastings Nichols, proposed to
challenge this procedure of repeatedly affirming additional standards of orthodoxy, besides the
Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith - which were the only standards of orthodoxy
officially recognized by the church. The Affirmation denounces that procedure of affirming the
Fundamentals in the General Assembly as a contradiction of the history and polity of the
Presbyterian Church. It was drafted and signed by a writing group, primarily Nichols and Henry
Sloane Coffin, with the original intention of presenting it to the General Assembly of 1923. After
events of the Assembly that year appeared to indicate that their thesis would be favorably
received by moderates, Coffin suggested that the Affirmation should be signed by ministers
before being formally made public; and in accord with that advice it was circulated for signature
in preparation for the General Assembly of 1924. Although the Affirmation did not officially
come from Auburn Theological Seminary (at that time located in Auburn, New York), the name
"Auburn Affirmation" has been attached to the document from the beginning, because of
Nichols' influence as the originator of the idea.

The Auburn Affirmation was the culmination of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,

which by 1924 had been a conflict of more than thirty years within the Presbyterian Church
(USA). It is generally regarded as signalling a turning point in the history of American
Presbyterianism, because it garnered the support of both theological traditionalists and liberals.
Besides the 1274 signatories, the document as submitted claimed the support of "hundreds of
ministers who agree with and approve of the Affirmation, though they have refrained from
signing it."

The Affirmation has six sections that can be summarized as:

1. The Bible is not inerrant. The supreme guide of scripture interpretation is the Spirit of
God to the individual believer and not ecclesiastical authority. Thus, “liberty of
conscience” is elevated.
2. The General Assembly has no power to dictate doctrine to the Presbyteries.
3. The General Assembly’s condemnation of those asserting "doctrines contrary to the
standards of the Presbyterian Church" circumvented the due process set forth in the Book
of Discipline.
4. None of the five essential doctrines should be used as a test of ordination. Alternated
“theories” of these doctrines are permissible.
5. Liberty of thought and teaching, within the bounds of evangelical Christianity is
necessary.
6. Division is deplored, unity and freedom are commended.
Referring to the Five Fundamentals as "particular theories", the Affirmation's argument is
succinctly summarized in two sentences:

Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General
Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are
united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our
standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who
hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are
worthy of all confidence and fellowship.

Partly due to the acceptance of the Auburn Affirmation, Presbyterian traditionalists who found
themselves displaced because of it went on to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This
church maintains the older standards, such belief in the five essential doctrines (listed above) and
the inerrancy of the bible; these are the minimum requirements for membership in an OPC
congregation and ordination for its ministers.

SCHOLASTICISM

Both an outgrowth and a departure from Christian monastic schools,[1] European scholasticism
was both a method of learning taught by the academics (scholastics, school people, or
schoolmen) of medieval universities circa 1100–1500, and a program of employing that method
in articulating and defending orthodoxy in an increasingly pluralistic context.

Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism placed a strong

emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve
contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful
drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit
disputation: a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, opponents'
responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and opponent's arguments rebutted. Because of
its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other
fields of study.

BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF CHURCH

Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (October 1520) was the second of the
three major treatises published by Martin Luther in 1520, coming after the Address to the
Christian Nobility of the German Nation (August 1520) and before On the Freedom of a
Christian (November 1520). It was a theological treatise, and as such was published in Latin as
well as German, the language in which the treatises were written.

I n this work Luther examines the seven sacraments of the medieval Church in the light of the
Bible. With regard to the Eucharist, he advocated restoring the cup to the laity, dismissed the
theory of Transubstantiation while affirming the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Eucharist, and rejected the teaching that the Eucharist was a sacrifice offered to God.
With regard to Baptism, he taught that it brings justification only if conjoined with saving faith
in the recipient; however, it remained the foundation of salvation even for those who might later
fall[1] and be reclaimed.

As for penance, its essence consists in the words of promise (absolution) received by faith. Only
these three can be regarded as sacraments because of their divine institution and the divine
promises of salvation connected with them; but strictly speaking, only Baptism and the Eucharist
are sacraments, since only they have "divinely instituted visible sign[s]": water in Baptism and
bread and wine in the Eucharist.[2] Luther denied in this document that Confirmation, Matrimony,
Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction were sacraments.

In this treatise, Luther regarded the first "captivity" to be withholding the cup in the Lord's
Supper from the laity, the second the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the third, the Roman
Catholic Church's teaching that the Mass was a sacrifice, rather than a spiritual communion with
Jesus.[3]

The work is angry in tone, attacking the papacy. Although Luther had made a link tentatively in
the address To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, this was the first time he forthrightly
accused the pope of being the Antichrist. It certainly heralded a radicalisation of Luther's views
— only a year before he had defended the validity of the sacraments, yet was now attacking them
fiercely.

Although published in Latin, a translation of this work was quickly published in German by
Luther’s opponent, the Strasbourg Franciscan Thomas Murner. He hoped that by making people
aware of the radical nature of Luther’s beliefs, they would realise their foolishness in supporting
him. In fact, the opposite proved true, and Murner’s translation helped to spread Luther’s views
across Germany. The virulence of Luther's language however, was off-putting to some. After the
publication of this work, with its harsh condemnation of the papacy, the renowned humanist
Erasmus, who had previously been cautiously supportive of Luther's activities, became
convinced that he should not support Luther's calls for reform.

Avignon papacy

The book's title is also a name given to the difficult period of the Avignon papacy, during the
time of the Western Schism. The Catholic Church endured a prolonged period of crisis that
lasted from 1305 until 1416. During these years, the Church found its authority undermined,
openly challenged, and divided among rivals. Although it emerged at the end of the period with
its authority seemingly intact, the struggle brought significant changes to the structure of the
Church and sowed seeds that would later sprout in the Protestant Reformation.

HUMANISM

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and
concerns. The term can mean several things, for example:

1. A historical movement associated especially with the Italian Renaissance.

 2. An approach to education that uses literary means or a focus on the humanities to inform
students.
3. A variety of perspectives in philosophy and social science which affirm some notion of
'human nature' (by contrast with anti-humanism).
4. A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically
rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.

The latter interpretation may be attributed to Secular Humanism as a specific humanistic life
stance.[1] Modern meanings of the word have therefore come to be associated with a rejection of
appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority.[2][3] This interpretation may be directly
contrasted with other prominent uses of the term in traditional religious circles.[4] Humanism of
this strand arose from a trajectory extending from the deism and anti-clericalism of the
Enlightenment, the various secular movements of the 19th century (such as positivism), and the
overarching expansion of the scientific project.

Humanist, humanism, and humanistic may also refer simply and loosely to literary culture.[5]

RADICAL REFORMATION

The Radical Reformation was a 16th century response to what was believed to be both the
corruption in the Roman Catholic Church and the expanding Magisterial Protestant movement
led by Martin Luther and many others. Beginning in Germany and Switzerland, the Radical
Reformation birthed many radical Protestant groups throughout Europe. The term covers both
radical reformers like Thomas Müntzer, Andreas Karlstadt, groups like the Zwickau prophets
and anabaptist groups like the Hutterites and the Mennonites.

Although the proportion of the European population rebelling against Catholic, Lutheran and
Zwinglian churches was tiny, the literature on the Radical Reformation is vast, partly as a result
of the proliferation of the Radical Reformation teachings in the United States.[1]

Characteristics

Unlike the Roman Catholics and the more Magisterial Lutheran and Reformed (Zwinglian and
Calvinist) Protestant movements, the Radical Reformation generally abandoned the idea of the
"Church visible" as distinct from the "Church invisible." Thus, the Church only consisted of the
tiny community of believers, who accepted Jesus Christ and demonstrated this by adult baptism,
called "believer's baptism".

While the magisterial reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite
of the Roman Catholic Church, the radical Protestant groups rejected church authority almost
entirely. It was unavoidable that as the search for original and purely scriptural Christianity was
carried further, some would claim that the tension between the church and the Roman Empire in
the first centuries of Christianity was somehow normative, that the church is not to be allied with
government, that a true church is always subject to be persecuted, and that the conversion of
Constantine I was therefore the great apostasy that marked the end of pure Christianity.[2]

Some early forms of the Radical Reformation were millenarian, focusing on the imminent end of
the world. This was particularly notable in the rule of John of Leiden over the city of Münster in
1535, which was ultimately crushed by the forces of the Catholic Bishop of Münster and the
Lutheran Landgrave of Hesse. After the fall of Münster the small group of the Batenburgers
continued to adhere to militant Anabaptist beliefs. Also non-violent anabaptist groups had
millenarian conceptions.

The early Anabaptists believed that the Reformation must purify not only theology but also the
actual lives of Christians, especially in what had to do with political and social relationships.[3]
Therefore, the church should not be supported by the state, neither by tithes and taxes, nor by the
use of the sword; Christianity was a matter of individual conviction, which could not be forced
on anyone, but rather required a personal decision for it.[4]

Many groups were influenced by biblicism (like the Swiss Brethren), spiritualism (like the South
German Anabaptists) and mainly absolute pacifism (like the Swiss Brethren, the Hutterites and
the Mennonites from Northern Germany and the Netherlands). The Hutterites contended also the
community of goods. In the beginning most of them were strongly missionary

Later forms of Anabaptism were much smaller, and focused on the formation of small, separatist
communities. Among the many varieties to develop were Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites.
Typical among the new leaders of the later Anabaptist movement, and certainly the most
influential of them, was Menno Simons (1496–1561), a Dutch Catholic priest who early in 1536
decided to join the Anabaptists.[5]

Menno Simons had no use for the violence advocated and practiced by the Münster movement,
which seemed to him to pervert the very heart of Christianity.[6] Thus, Mennonite pacifism is not
merely a peripheral characteristic of the movement, but rather belongs to the very essence of
Menno's understanding of the gospel; this is one of the reasons that it has been a constant
characteristic of all Mennonite bodies through the centuries

PURITANS

The Puritans were a significant grouping of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Puritanism in this sense was founded by some Marian exiles from the clergy shortly after the
accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1559, as an activist movement within the Church of
England. The designation "Puritan" is often incorrectly used, notably based on the assumption
that hedonism and puritanism are antonyms:[1] historically, the word was used to characterize the
Protestant group as extremists similar to the Cathari of France, and according to Thomas Fuller
in his Church History dated back to 1564. Archbishop Matthew Parker of that time used it and
"precisian" with the sense of stickler.[2] T. D. Bozeman therefore uses instead the term
precisianist in regard to the historical groups of England and New England.[3]
They were blocked from changing the system from within, but their views were taken by the
emigration of congregations to the Netherlands and later New England, and by evangelical
clergy to Ireland and later into Wales, and were spread into lay society by preaching and parts of
the educational system, particularly certain colleges of the University of Cambridge. Initially,
Puritans were mainly concerned with religious matters, rather than politics or social matters.
They took on distinctive views on clerical dress and in opposition to the episcopal system,
particularly after the 1619 conclusions of the Synod of Dort were resisted by the English bishops.
They largely adopted Sabbatarian views in the 17th century, and were influenced by
millennialism. In alliance with the growing commercial world, the parliamentary opposition to
the royal prerogative, and in the late 1630s with the Scottish Presbyterians with whom they had
much in common, the Puritans became a major political force in England and came to power as a
result of the First English Civil War. After the English Restoration of 1660 and the 1662
Uniformity Act, almost all Puritan clergy left the Church of England, some becoming
nonconformist ministers, and the nature of the movement in England changed radically, though it
retained its character for much longer in New England.

Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the
Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church.
They formed into and identified with various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of
worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theology
and in that sense were Calvinists (as many of their earlier opponents were, too), but also took
note of radical views critical of Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva. In church polity, some
advocated for separation from all other Christians, in favor of autonomous gathered churches.
These separatist and independent strands of Puritanism became prominent in the 1640s, when the
supporters of a presbyterian polity in the Westminster Assembly were unable to forge a new
English national church.

The term "Puritan" in the sense of this article was not coined until the 1560s, when it appears as
a term of abuse for those who found the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559 inadequate.
Puritanism has a historical importance over a period of a century (followed by 50 years of
development in New England), and general views must contend with the way it changed
character and emphasis almost decade by decade over that time.

Elizabethan Puritanism

For more details on this topic, see History of the Puritans under Elizabeth I.

Throughout the reign of Elizabeth I, the Puritans appeared as a reforming movement. Politically,
they attempted unsuccessfully to have Parliament pass legislation to replace episcopacy with a
congregational form of church governance, and to alter the Book of Common Prayer. By the end
of Elizabeth's reign, the Puritans constituted a self-defined group within the Church of England
who regarded themselves as the godly; they held out little hope for those who remained attached
to "popish superstitions" and worldliness.

Puritanism was fundamentally anti-Catholic: Puritans felt that the Church of England was still
too close to Catholicism and needed to be reformed further. Many of the rituals preserved by the
Church of England were not only considered to be objectionable, but were believed by some
nonconformists to put one's immortal soul in peril. During the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585 to
1604, anti-Catholicism agreed with English government policy. Three major educational
foundations of the 1580s and 1590s — Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College,
Cambridge and Trinity College, Dublin — were strongly Calvinist in tone and became Puritan
by reputation. Emmanuel under Laurence Chaderton had a head who had earlier at Christ's
College, Cambridge aimed at a Puritan training for the ministry, while still conforming to the
Church of England. The Dublin college came close to being the outstanding Puritan seminary,
taking Emmanuel as its model but reputedly becoming more "godly" yet.[4][5][6]

Jacobean Puritanism

For more details on this topic, see History of the Puritans under James I.

The accession of King James I of England brought the Millenary Petition, a Puritan manifesto of
1603 for reform of the English church, but James wanted a new religious settlement along
different lines. He called the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, and heard the views of four
prominent Puritan leaders including Chaderton there, but largely sided with his bishops. Well
informed by his education and Scottish upbringing on theological matters, he dealt shortly with
the peevish legacy of Elizabethan Puritanism, and tried to pursue an eirenic religious policy in
which he was arbiter. Many of his episcopal appointments were Calvinists, notably James
Montague who was an influential courtier. Puritans still opposed much of the Catholic
summation in the Church of England, notably the Book of Common Prayer, but also the use of
non-secular vestments (cap and gown) during services, the use of the Holy Cross during baptism,
and kneeling during the sacrament.[7] Although the Puritan movement was subjected to
repression by some of the bishops, under both Elizabeth and James, other bishops were more
tolerant, and in many places, individual ministers were able to omit disliked portions of the Book
of Common Prayer.

The Puritan movement of Jacobean times became distinctive by adaptation and compromise,
with the emergence of "semi-separatism", "moderate puritanism", the writings of William
Bradshaw who adopted the term "Puritan" as self-identification, and the beginnings of
congregationalism.[8] Most Puritans of this period were non-separating and remained within the
Church of England, and Separatists who left the Church of England altogether were numerically
much fewer.

Conflict within the Church of England under Charles I

For more details on this topic, see History of the Puritans under Charles I.

James I was succeeded by his son Charles I of England in 1625. In the year before becoming
King, he married Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon of France, a Roman Catholic daughter of the
convert Henry IV of France, who refused to attend the coronation of her husband in a non-
Catholic cathedral.[9] She had no tolerance for Puritans. At the same time, William Laud, Bishop
of London, was becoming increasingly powerful as an advisor to Charles. Laud viewed Puritans
as a schismatic threat to orthodoxy in the church. With the Queen and Laud among his closest
advisors, Charles pursued policies to eliminate the religious distinctiveness and "excesses" of
Puritans. Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, and moved the Church of England
away from Puritanism, rigorously enforcing the law against ministers who deviated from the
Book of Common Prayer or who refused to read the Book of Sports after its re-issue in 1633, a
shibboleth for the Sabbatarian views spread by Nicholas Bownde and Nicholas Byfield.

Charles relied largely on the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission to implement his
policies, courts under the control of the King, not the Parliament, capable of convicting and
imprisoning Puritans under prerogative.[10] He adapted them as instruments of suppression,
following the juristic methods of Elizabeth I in dealing in the 1590s with the supporters of
Thomas Cartwright. The Puritan movement in England then allied itself with the cause of
"England's ancient liberties"; the unpopularity of Laud was a major factor leading to the English
Civil War, during which Puritans formed the backbone of the parliamentarian forces. Laud was
arrested in 1641 and executed in 1645, after a lengthy trial in which a large mass of evidence was
brought, tending to represent him as obstructive of the "godly" and amounting to the whole,
detailed Puritan case against the royal church policy of the preceding decade.

Puritans who felt that the Reformation of the Church of England was not to their satisfaction but
who remained within the Church of England advocating further reforms are known as non-
separating Puritans. This group differed among themselves about how much further reformation
was necessary. Those who felt that the Church of England was so corrupt that true Christians
should separate from it altogether are known as separating Puritans or simply as Separatists.
Especially after the English Restoration of 1660, separating Puritans were called Dissenters. The
term "puritan" cannot strictly be used to describe any new religious group after the 17th century.

MODERNISM

Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice. More

specifically, the term describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated
cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western
society in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Modernism was a revolt against the
conservative values of realism.[2][3][3] The term encompasses the activities and output of those
who felt the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization
and daily life were becoming outdated in the new economic, social and political conditions of an
emerging fully industrialized world.

Modernism rejected the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and also that of the
existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator.[4][5] This is not to say that all modernists or
modernist movements rejected either religion or all aspects of Enlightenment thought, rather that
modernism can be viewed as a questioning of the axioms of the previous age.

A salient characteristic of modernism is self-consciousness. This often led to experiments with

form, and work that draws attention to the processes and materials used (and to the further
tendency of abstraction).[6] The poet Ezra Pound's paradigmatic injunction was to "Make it new!"
Whether or not the "making new" of the modernists constituted a new historical epoch is up for
debate. Philosopher and composer Theodor Adorno warns us:
 "Modernity is a qualitative, not a chronological, category. Just as it cannot be reduced to
abstract form, with equal necessity it must turn its back on conventional surface
coherence, the appearance of harmony, the order corroborated merely by replication."[7]

Adorno would have us understand modernity as the rejection of the false rationality, harmony,
and coherence of Enlightenment thinking, art, and music. But the past proves sticky. Pound's
general imperative to make new, and Adorno's exhortation to challenge false coherence and
harmony, faces T. S. Eliot's emphasis on the relation of the artist to tradition. Eliot wrote:

"[W]e shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of [a poet's]
work, may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most
vigorously."[8]

Literary scholar Peter Childs sums up the complexity:

"There were paradoxical if not opposed trends towards revolutionary and reactionary
positions, fear of the new and delight at the disappearance of the old, nihilism and
fanatical enthusiasm, creativity and despair."[9]

These oppositions are inherent to modernism: it is in its broadest cultural sense the assessment of
the past as different to the modern age, the recognition that the world was becoming more
complex, and that the old "final authorities" (God, government, science, and reason) were subject
to intense critical scrutiny.

Surrealism was known to the public as the most extreme among the forms of modernism.[10]
Current interpretations of modernism vary. Some divide 20th century reaction into modernism
and postmodernism, whereas others see them as two aspects of the same movement.

FUNDAMENTALISM

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines

typically in reaction against what are perceived as modern heresies of secularism.[1][2][3]

The term fundamentalism was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package
of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the
United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-
Modernist Controversy of that time.

The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of
criticism or unpopularity (see Establishment), but has by and large retained religious
connotations.

Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other
epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists
Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative
Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century.[6][7] It soon
spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910-1920.[6][7] The
movement's purpose was to reaffirm older beliefs of Protestant Christianity and zealously defend
them against the challenges of liberal theology, higher criticism, Darwinism, and other
movements which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.[6][7]

The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which
defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to
describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910
and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart[6][7] This series of essays came to be representative of
the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" which appeared late in the 19th century within the
Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first
formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference
and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what
became known as the "five fundamentals":[8]

 The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result
of this.
 The virgin birth of Christ.
 The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
 The bodily resurrection of Christ.
 The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be
known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point was the focus of most of the controversy.

It is important to distinguish between "Fundamentalism" as the name of a militant style and

"fundamentalism" as a theology. Evangelical groups typically agree on the theology
"fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, but often are willing to participate in events
with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines. Fundamentalist groups generally
refuse to participate in events with any such groups who don't hold to the essential doctrines

NEO ORTHODOXY

Neo-orthodoxy, in Europe also known as theology of crisis and dialectical theology,[1][2] is an

approach to theology in Protestantism that was developed in the aftermath of the First World
War (1914–1918). It is characterized as a reaction against doctrines of 19th century liberal
theology and a more positive reevaluation of the teachings of the Reformation, much of which
had been in decline (especially in western Europe) since the late 18th century.[3] It is primarily
associated with two Swiss professors and pastors, Karl Barth[4] (1886–1968) and Emil Brunner
(1899–1966),[1][2] even though Barth himself expressed his unease in the use of the term.[5]
Revelation

There is a strong emphasis on the revelation of God by God as the source of Christian doctrine.
Natural theology, whose proponents include Thomas Aquinas, states that knowledge of God can
be gained through a combination of observation of nature and human reason; this issue remains a
very controversial topic within Christianity to this day. Barth totally rejected natural theology
because he believed our vision is clouded by the distortions of our transgressions, or sins.
Brunner, on the other hand, believed that natural theology still had an important, although not
decisive, role. This led to a sharp disagreement between the two men, the first of several
controversies that prevented the movement from acquiring a monolithic, homogeneous character,
unusual given the tendency of theological systems to produce conformity to precepts established
by a revered founding figure (but somewhat akin to the relationship of Sigmund Freud to his
disciples).

[edit] Transcendence of God

Most neo-orthodox thinkers stressed the transcendence of God. Barth believed that the emphasis
on the immanence of God had led human beings to imagine God to amount to nothing more than
humanity writ large. He stressed the "infinite qualitative distinction" between the human and the
divine, a reversion to older Protestant teachings on the nature of God and a rebuttal against the
intellectual heritage of philosophical idealism. This led to a general devaluation of philosophical
and metaphysical approaches to the faith, although some thinkers, notably Paul Tillich,
attempted a median course between strict transcendence and ontological analysis of the human
condition, a stand that caused a further division in the movement.

[edit] Existentialism

Some of the neo-orthodox theologians made use of existentialism. Rudolf Bultmann (who was
associated with Barth and Brunner in the 1920s in particular) was strongly influenced by his
former colleague at Marburg, the German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger. Reinhold
Niebuhr and (to a lesser extent, and mostly in his earlier writings) Karl Barth were influenced by
the writings of the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a critic
of the then-fashionable liberal Christian modernist effort to "rationalise" Christianity, to make it
palatable to those whom Friedrich Schleiermacher termed the "cultured despisers of religion."
Instead, under pseudonymous names such as Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard maintained that
Christianity is "absurd" (i.e., it transcends human understanding) and presents the individual with
paradoxical choices. The decision to become a Christian is not fundamentally a rational decision
but a leap of faith, Kierkegaard asserted. Opponents of Kierkegaard's approach and neo-
orthodoxy in general have termed this fideism, a blatant refusal to find support for the faith
outside its own circles[clarification needed]. For the most part, proponents rebut that no such support
exists, that supposed reasons and evidences for faith are fabrications of fallen human
imagination, and in effect constitute idolatry, a grave sin condemned in the Bible. Some neo-
orthodox proponents have gone so far as to claim greater affinity with atheists in that regard than
with the theological and cultural trappings of so-called "Christendom," which Kierkegaard
venomously denounced in his later works. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "religionless Christianity" and
the later secular theology also reflect similar conclusions.)

[edit] Sin and human nature

In neo-orthodoxy, sin is not seen as mere error or ignorance; it is not something that can be
overcome by reason, intellectual reflection, or social institutions (e.g., schools); it can only be
overcome by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Sin is seen as something unholy within
human nature itself.[6] This amounts to a renovation of historical teachings about original sin
(especially drawing upon Augustine of Hippo), although thinkers generally avoided forensic
interpretations of it and consequential elaborations about total depravity, as was favored by past
generations in formulating dogma and—by extension—hierarchical systems of ecclesiastical
domination. The means of supposed transmission of sin is not anywhere as important as its
pervasive reality, to neo-orthodox minds. As such, the association of original sin with sexuality
produces nothing but moralism, a rectitude that is overly optimistic and quite delusional about
human capabilities to resist the power of unfaith and disobedience in all areas of life, not just
sexual behavior. This core conviction about the universality and intransigence of sin has
elements of determinism, and thus has caused considerable offense to those holding that human
beings are capable of effecting their salvation wholly or in part (i.e., synergism). In other words,
neo-orthodoxy might be said to have a greater appreciation of tragedy in human existence than
either conservatism or liberalism, a point emphasized by a latter-day interpreter of the
movement, Canadian theologian Douglas John Hall.