Chapter XXII: Part 22

While according to medieval theologians the descent into hell was regarded as an act by which Christ, with His soul only, entered the abode of the dead; and while according to Calvin and the Reformed generally the descent into hell is but a figurative expression for the sufferings of Christ, particularly of His soul, on the cross, Luther, especially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordance with the Scriptures that Christ the God-man, body and soul, descended into hell as Victor over Satan and his host. With special reference to Ps. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial the whole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered the devil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner, however, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by human reason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and must therefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simple faith. It is sufficient if we retain the consolation that neither hell nor devil are any longer able to harm us. Accordingly, Luther did not regard the descent into hell as an act belonging to the state of humiliation, by which He paid the penalty for our sins, but as an act of exaltation, in which Christ, as it were, plucked for us the fruits of His sufferings which were finished when He died upon the cross.

Luther's sermon at Torgau graphically describes the descent as a triumphant march of our victorious Savior into the stronghold of the dismayed infernal hosts. From it we quote the following: "Before Christ arose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He also descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were to be held in it as prisoners.... However I shall not discuss this article in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what it means to 'descend into hell,' but adhere to the simplest meaning conveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and uneducated people." "Therefore whoever would not go wrong or stumble had best adhere to the words and understand them in a simple way as well as he can. Accordingly, it is customary to represent Christ in paintings on walls, as He descends, appears before hell, clad in a priestly robe and with a banner in His hand, with which He beats the devil and puts him to flight, takes hell by storm, and rescues those that are His. Thus it was also acted the night before Easter as a play for children. And I am well pleased with the fact that it is painted, played, sung and said in this manner for the benefit of simple people. We, too, should let it go at that, and not trouble ourselves with profound and subtle thoughts as to how it may have happened, since it surely did not occur bodily inasmuch as He remained in the grave three days."

Luther continues: "However since we cannot but conceive thoughts and images of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or understand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we should put aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us." "But we ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the words of the Creed, which says: 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the entire person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided, 'born of the Virgin, suffered, died, and buried'; _in like manner I must not divide it here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in one person, descended into hell_ but did not remain in it; as Ps. 16, 10 says of Him: 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell nor suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.' By the word 'soul,' He, in accordance with the language of the Scripture, does not mean, as we do, a being separated from the body, but the entire man, the Holy One of God, as He here calls Himself. But how it may have occurred that the man lies there in the grave, and yet descends into hell--that, indeed, we shall and must leave unexplained and uncomprehended; for it certainly did not take place in a bodily and tangible manner although we can only paint and conceive it in a coarse and bodily way and speak of it in pictures." "Such, therefore is the plainest manner to speak of this article, that we may adhere to the words and cling to this main point, that for us, through Christ, hell has been torn to pieces and the devil's kingdom and power utterly destroyed, for which purpose He died, was buried, and descended,--so that it should no longer harm or overwhelm us, as He Himself says, Matt. 16, 18...." (CONC. TRIGL., 1050)

219. Aepinus in Hamburg.

The two outstanding features of Luther's sermon are that Christ descended into hell body and soul, and that He descended as a triumphant Victor, and not in order to complete His suffering and the work of atonement. The denial of these two points, in particular, caused a new controversy, which however, was of brief duration only, and practically confined to the city of Hamburg, hence also called the Hamburg Church Controversy, _der Hamburger Kirchenstreit_. Its author was John Aepinus [Huck or Hoeck; born 1499; studied under Luther; persecuted in Brandenburg and banished; rector in Stralsund; 1532 pastor and later superintendent in Hamburg; wrote 1547 against the Interim; sided with Flacius against the Philippists; published books in Latin and Low German; dealt with Christ's descent to hell especially in his _Commentary on Psalm 16_, of 1544, and in his _Explanation of Psalm 68_, of 1553; died May 13, 1553].

Aepinus taught that Christ's descent is a part of His suffering and atonement. While the body was lying in the grave, His soul descended into hell in order to suffer the qualms and pangs required to satisfy the wrath of God, complete the work of redemption, and render a plenary satisfaction, _satisfactio plenaria_. The descent is the last stage of Christ's humiliation and suffering, His triumph first beginning with the resurrection. Though we know His sufferings in hell to have been most sad and bitter, yet we are unable to say and define what they were in particular, or to describe them concretely, because Scripture is silent on this question.

But while Aepinus originally held that the soul of Christ suffered in hell the punishment of eternal death, he later on distinguished between the first and the second death (eternal damnation) asserting the suffering Christ endured in hell to have been a part of the punishment of the first death, and that He did not suffer the _cruciatus AETERNI tartarei ignis_.--Such were the views advocated, developed, and variously modified by Aepinus in his theological lectures and publications. From the Latin "_Consummatum est_, It is finished," the teaching that Christ finished His suffering and the work of atonement by His death on the cross was stigmatized by Aepinus as "_error consummaticus_," and its advocates as "Consummatists," while these, in turn, dubbed Aepinus and his adherents "Infernalists." (Frank 3,440.)

Among the statements of Aepinus are the following: "I believe that hell is a place prepared by divine justice to punish the devils and wicked men according to the quality of their sins." (437.) "On account of our redemption Christ descended to hell, just as He suffered and died for us." (437.) "Theologians who either deny that the soul of Christ descended into hell, or say that Christ was present in hell only in effect and power, and not by His presence, deprive the Church of faith in the sufficient, complete, and perfect satisfaction and redemption of Christ and leave to Satan the right over pious souls after their separation from the body. For by denying that Christ sustained and bore those punishments of death and hell which the souls were obliged to bear after their separation from the body, they assert that complete satisfaction has not been made for them." (439.) "I believe that the descent of the soul of Christ to hell is a part of the Passion of Christ, _i.e._, of the struggles, dangers, anguish, pains, and punishments which He took upon Himself and bore in our behalf; for, in the Scriptures, to descend to hell signifies to be involved in the highest struggles, pain, and distress. I believe that the descent of Christ to hell is a part of His obedience foretold by the prophets and imposed on Him because of our sins." (440.) "I believe that the descent of Christ pertains to His humiliation, not to His glorification and triumph." (441.) "The descent to hell was by God's judgment laid upon Christ as the last degree of His humiliation and exinanition and as the extreme part of His obedience and satisfaction." (441.) "Peter clearly teaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ felt the pangs of hell and death while His body was resting in the sepulcher." (441.) "What Christ experienced when He descended into hell is known to Himself, not to us; may we acknowledge and accept with grateful minds that He descended into hell for us. But let us not inquire what it was that He experienced for us in His descent, for we may piously remain ignorant of matters which God did not reveal to His Church, and which He does not demand that she know." (444.)

220. Opposed by His Colleagues.

The views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 before the ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on the part of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversy began to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus was always marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponents Tileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated and assailed his teaching in their pulpits.

The chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflicted with, and invalidated, the words of Christ, "It is finished," "To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Aepinus rejoined that the word "to-day" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence and the indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente tempore indefinito_). (414.) However, it was not in every respect Luther's position which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratz is reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent of Christ was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) was identical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hell referred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; that Christ immediately after His death entered paradise together with the malefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completed with His death. (446.)

In 1550 the city council of Hamburg asked Melanchthon for his opinion. But Melanchthon's answer of September, 1550, signed also by Bugenhagen, was rather indefinite, vague, and evasive. He said, in substance: Although we have frequently heard the Reverend Doctor Luther speak on this matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now been raised, we have written also to others for their views, in order to present a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his _Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referred Descent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the rest must not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome the torments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not to be restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul (_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animae separationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion "that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even when referred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny of the devil and hell is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ are liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to the word: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain way the Son of God manifested this victory to the devils, and, no doubt, the devils felt that their power was broken by this Victor, and that the head of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, by Christ, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was the resurrection of many dead." With respect to the controverted point, concerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separation from the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg "enjoin both parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean time to avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other public meetings." Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but "only the investigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of His departed soul in hell, is to be omitted, an inquiry which also Dr. Luther did not consider necessary." (_C. R._ 7, 667.)

Before this Melanchthon had written in a similar vein of compromise to Aepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. "I wish," said he in a letter of April 4, 1550, "that there would be an amnesty between you in this entire strife" about the descent of Christ. "Let us cultivate peace with one another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadder disputations originate." (7, 569; compare 6, 116.) In the following year the Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed and expelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, was not intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, but merely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city.

221. Other Participants in This Controversy.

Though the controversy was suppressed in Hamburg, and Aepinus died May 13, 1553, the theological questions involved were not settled, nor had all of the advocates of the views set forth by Aepinus disappeared from the scene. Even such theologians as Westphal, Flacius, Gallus, and Osiander were partly agreed with him. Osiander says in an opinion: "I am asked whether the descent of Christ pertains to the satisfaction made for us or only to His triumph over the enemies. I answer briefly that the descent of Christ into hell pertained to the satisfaction He merited for us as well as to the triumph over the enemies, just as His death on the cross does not belong to the one only, but to both.... Thus by descending into hell He rendered satisfaction for us who merited hell, according to Ps. 16." On the other hand, a synod held July 11, 1554, at Greifswald made it a point expressly to deny that the descent of Christ involved any suffering of His soul, or that it was of an expiatory nature, or that this article referred to the anguish of His soul before His death, or that it was identical with His burial. They affirmed the teaching of Luther, _viz._, that the entire Christ, God and man, body and soul, descended into hell after His burial and before His resurrection, etc. (Frank, 446f.; 416.)

Furthermore, in a letter to John Parsimonius, court-preacher in Stuttgart, dated February 1, 1565 John Matsperger of Augsburg taught that, in the article of the descent of Christ, the word "hell" must not be taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc., but literally, as the kingdom of Satan and the place of the damned spirits and souls wherever that might be, that the entire Christ descended into this place according to both divinity and humanity, with His body and soul, and not only with the latter, while the former remained in the grave; that this occurred immediately after His vivification or the reunion of body and soul in the grave and before His resurrection; that the Descent was accomplished in an instant, _viz._, in the moment after His vivification and before His resurrection; and that Christ descended, not to suffer, but, as a triumphant Victor, to destroy the portals of hell for all believers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any way suffer after His death, but denied emphatically that "hell" was a definite physical locality or place in space, and that the descent involved a local motion of the body. Brenz assented to the views of Parsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also assented to them. In order to check his zeal against his opponents, Matsperger was deposed and imprisoned. (Frank, 450 f.)

Such being the situation within the Lutheran Church concerning the questions involved in the Hamburg Controversy, which by the way, had been mentioned also in the Imperial Instruction for the Diet at Augsburg, 1555, the _Formula of Concord_ considered it advisable to pass also on this matter. It did so, in Article IX, by simply reproducing what Luther had taught in the sermon referred to above. Here we read: "We simply believe that the entire person, God and man after the burial, descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell and took from the devil all his might." (1051, 3.) "But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [this mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason." (827, 4.) Tschackert remarks: "Ever since [the adoption of the Ninth Article of the _Formula of Concord_] Lutheran theology has regarded the Descent of Christ as the beginning of the state of exaltation of the human nature of the God-man." (559.)

XX. The Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord: On Predestination.

222. Why Article XI was Embodied in the Formula.

The reason why Article XI was embodied in the _Formula of Concord_ is stated in the opening paragraph of this article: "Although among the theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ there has not occurred as yet any public dissension whatever concerning the eternal election of the children of God that has caused offense, and has become wide-spread, yet since this article has been brought into very painful controversy in other places, and even among our theologians there has been some agitation concerning it; moreover, since the same expressions were not always employed concerning it by the theologians: therefore in order, by the aid of divine grace, to prevent disagreement and separation on its account in the future among our successors, we, as much as in us lies, have desired also to present an explanation of the same here, so that every one may know what is our unanimous doctrine, faith, and confession also concerning this article." (1063, 1.)

The statements contained in these introductory remarks are in agreement with the historical facts. For, while serious dissensions pertaining to election did occur in Reformed countries, the Lutheran Church, ever since the great conflict with Erasmus on free will, in 1525 had not been disturbed by any general, public, and offensive controversy on this question, neither _ad intra_ among themselves, nor _ad extra_ with the Calvinists. Hence the chief purpose for embodying Article XI in the _Formula_ was not to settle past or present disputes, but rather, as stated in the paragraph quoted, to be of service in avoiding future differences and conflicts.

This earnest concern for the future peace of our Church, as well as for the maintenance of its doctrinal purity, was partly due to apprehensions, which, indeed, were not without foundation. As a matter of fact, long before the _Formula_ was drafted, the theological atmosphere was surcharged with polemical possibilities and probabilities regarding predestination,--a doctrine which is simple enough as long as faith adheres to the plain Word of God, without making rationalistic and sophistical inferences, but which in public controversies has always proved to be a most intricate, crucial, and dangerous question.

Calvin and his adherents boldly rejected the universality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operation through the means of grace, and taught that, in the last analysis, also the eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree of divine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement of election), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence to the _Augsburg Confession_ and were making heavy inroads into Lutheran territory with their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ,--which in itself was sufficient reason for a public discussion and determined resentment of their absolute predestinarianism. The Synergists, on the other hand, had long ago been busy explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma of Calvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted and elected, while the rest are rejected, was to assume a different conduct in man--_aliqua actio dissimilis in homine_. And as for their Lutheran opponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were not always sufficiently guarded to preclude all misapprehensions and false inferences.

Thus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up in considerable quantities. Considering these factors, which for decades had been making for a theological storm, one may feel rather surprised that a controversy on predestination had not arisen long ago. Tschackert says: "They [the Lutheran theologians] evidently feared an endless debate if the intricate question concerning predestination were made a subject of discussion." (559.) Sooner or later, however, the conflict was bound to come with dire results for the Church, unless provisions were made to escape it, or to meet it in the proper way. Well aware of this entire critical situation and the imminent dangers lurking therein, the framers of the _Formula of Concord_ wisely resolved to embody in it also an article on election in order to clear the theological atmosphere, maintain the divine truth, ward off a future controversy, and insure the peace of our Church.

223. Unguarded Statements of Anti-Synergists.

That the occasional dissimilar and inadequate references to eternal election and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergists were a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula of Concord_ appears from the passage quoted from Article XI, enumerating, among the reasons why the article on predestination was embodied in the _Formula_, also the fact that "the same expressions were not always employed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians." These theologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but not always without some stumbling in their language. In their expositions they had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn from their context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation. The framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate and unguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following.

Bucer had written: "The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God delivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition. Why, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined to deliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition? _Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensum reprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam statuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret in perniciem?_" (Frank 4, 264.) The _Formula of Concord_, however, is careful to explain: "Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that when God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes with obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because of their subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should not be interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ that such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved." (1001, 83.)

Brenz had said: "To the one of the entire mass of the human race God gives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while He leaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus ex universa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua iustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate, ut pereat_." (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob and to leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understood of the election and rejection of all men in general. "_Potuisset Deus optimo iure ambos abiicere;... sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum est Deo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobum eligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobus dictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominum electione et abiectione_." (256.) Hesshusius: "In this respect God does not will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectu Deus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_." (Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548.) Such statements, when torn from their context, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal. The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestly endeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man alone is the cause of his damnation.

In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf said: "God has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore God works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in all other creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz._, through His willing and saying alone.... As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so and in the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, so that man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God wills and says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus agendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo cum homine volente et intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis, lapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere.... Sicut lapides et trunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectus hominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut homo nihil prorsus velle et eligere possit nisi id, quod vult et dicit Deus, sive ex gratia, sive ex ira, derelinquens eum in manu consilii eius_." (Schlb. 5, 547; Gieseler 3, 2, 230; Frank 4, 259.) This, too, was not embodied in the _Formula of Concord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has no mode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless has a different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational and that man is not coerced, neither in his sinning nor in his conversion. (905, 60ff.)

224. Synergistic Predestination.

The connection between the doctrines of conversion and election is most intimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to a correct presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon, the father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of a synergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks of predestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, "with less of mysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought as Zwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, Zwinglis Ausfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_." [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1, 125; _C. R._ 21, 88. 93.) In reality he probably had never fully grasped the truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, would account for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the charges of Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his former doctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views on election. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism. September 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: "But in the entire _Apology_ I have avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerning predestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows our faith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish to perturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in tota Apologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de praedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequatur nostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim volo conscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_." (_C. R._ 2, 547.)

In the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to the Romans_, 1532, he suggests "that divine compassion is truly the cause of election, but that there is some cause also in him who accepts, namely, in as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered. _Verecundius est, quod aliquamdiu placuit Augustino, misericordiam Dei vere causam electionis esse, sed tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse, quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat, quia malum ex nobis est_." (Gieseler 3, 2, 192; Seeberg 4, 2, 442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ in 1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and election residing in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promise of the Gospel is both gratis and universal. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the _Loci_ edition of 1543 we read: "God elected because He had decreed to call us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefits to be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected those who obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionem decrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficia innotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_." (21, 917.)

The bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed by Melanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man a cause of discrimination why some are elected while others are rejected. In his _Loci_ of 1548 he had written: "Since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictory wills in God, some cause of discrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted (_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be some dissimilar action in these two." (21, 659.) Self-evidently Melanchthon would not have hesitated to replace the phrase "why Saul was rejected and David accepted," with "why Saul was rejected and David elected."

Melanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escape from, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from the absolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternal damnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's "ability to apply himself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_." Accordingly, as he dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supper as "bread-worshipers," so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans who opposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R._ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100. 565. 733; 23, 392.) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine as follows: "Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man the freedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in his doctrine of election." (4, 2, 446.) "God elects all men who desire to believe." (_Grundriss_, 144.)

Naturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed Master Philip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffinger declared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in the chapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: "If the will were idle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinction between the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, as between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become a respecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked and damned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God which conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is in us some cause why some assent while others do not assent." Thesis 23: "For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideo enim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_.) But our apprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal, and we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and the rejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz._, that those are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those are accepted who embrace the promise."

The Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause of our salvation, conversion, and election, grace cannot be universal. Or, since man's contempt of God's Word is the cause of his reprobation, man's acceptance of God's grace must be regarded as a cause of his election. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter to Landgrave William of Hesse, dated April 20, 1577, criticized the _Formula of Concord_ for not allowing and admitting this argument. (Frank 4, 135. 267.)

225. Calvinistic Predestination.

While the Synergists, in answering the question why only some are saved, denied the _sola gratia_ and taught a conversion and predestination conditioned by the conduct of man, John Calvin and his adherents, on the other hand, made rapid progress in the opposite direction, developing with increasing clearness and boldness an absolute, bifurcated predestination, _i.e._, a capricious election to eternal damnation as well as to salvation, and in accordance therewith denied the universality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. In his "_Institutio Religionis Christianae_, Instruction in the Christian Religion," of which the first edition appeared 1535, the second in 1539, and the third in 1559, Calvin taught that God created and foreordained some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Man's election means that he has been created for eternal life, man's reprobation, that he has been created for eternal damnation. We read (_Lib_. 3, cap. 21, 5): "_Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus_." (Tholuck, _Calvini Institutio_ 2, 133.) In the edition of 1559 Calvin says that eternal election illustrates the grace of God by showing "that He does not adopt all promiscuously unto the hope of salvation, but bestows on some what He denies to others--_quod non omnes promiscue adoptat in spem salutis, sed dat aliis, quod aliis negat_." (Gieseler 3, 2, 172.) Again: "I certainly admit that all the sons of Adam have fallen by the will of God into the miserable condition of bondage, in which they are now fettered; for, as I said in the beginning, one must always finally go back to the decision of the divine will alone, whose cause is hidden in itself. _Fateor sane, in hanc qua nunc illigati sunt conditionis miseriam Dei voluntate cecidisse universos filios Adam; atque id est, quod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinae voluntatis arbitrium, cuius causa sit in ipso abscondita_." (173.) Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was also a strict supralapsarian. At the colloquy of Moempelgard (Montbeliard), 1586, in disputing with Andreae, he defended the proposition "that Adam had indeed of his own accord fallen into these calamities, yet, nevertheless, not only according to the prescience, but also according to the ordination and decree of God--_sponte quidem, sed tamen non modo praesciente, sed etiam iuste ordinante et decernente Deo_." (186.) "There never has been, nor is, nor will be a time," said he, "when God has wished, wishes, or will wish, to have compassion on every individual person. _Nullum tempus fuit vel est vel erit, quo voluerit, velit aut voliturus sit Deus singulorum misereri_." (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 25. 50.)

In foisting his doctrine of election on the Reformed churches, Calvin met with at least some opposition. The words in the paragraph of the _Formula of Concord_ quoted above: "Yet, since this article [of predestination] has been brought into very painful controversy in other places," probably refer to the conflicts in Geneva and Switzerland. October 16, 1551, Jerome Bolsec [a Carmelite in Paris, secretly spread Pelagianism in Geneva; sided with the Protestants in Paris and Orleans after his banishment from Geneva; reembraced Romanism when persecution set in; wrote against Calvin and Beza, died 1584] was imprisoned in Geneva because of his opposition to Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Melanchthon remarks in a letter of February 1, 1552: "Laelius [Socinus] wrote me that in Geneva the struggle concerning the Stoic necessity is so great that a certain one who dissented from Zeno [Calvin] was incarcerated. What a miserable affair! The doctrine of salvation is obscured by disputations foreign to it." (_C. R._ 7, 932.) Although the German cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel) advised moderation, Bolsec was banished from Geneva, with the result however, that he continued his agitation against Calvin in other parts of Switzerland. In Bern all discussions on predestination were prohibited by the city council. Calvin complained in a letter of September 18, 1554: "The preachers of Bern publicly declare that I am a heretic worse than all the Papists." (Gieseler 3, 2, 178.) January 26, 1555, the council of Bern renewed its decree against public doctrinal discussions, notably those on predestination--"_principalement touchant la matiere de la divine predestination, qui nous semble non etre necessaire_," etc. (179.) Later on the doctrine of Calvin was opposed by the Arminians from Semi-Pelagian principles.

226. Calvinistic Confessions.

The essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination were embodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The _Consensus Genevensis_ of January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [a fanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; died December 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled: "_Concerning God's Eternal Predestination_, by which He has elected some to salvation and left theothers to their perdition--_qua in salutem alios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit_." (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 218. 221.) The _Confessio Belgica_, of 1559, and the _Confessio Gallicana_, of 1561, teach the same absolute predestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: In predestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, _viz._, merciful and just. "Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation and perdition those whom ... He elected; just, by leaving the others in their fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves. _Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quam sese ipsi praecipites dederunt_." (Niemeyer, 370.) The _Gallic Confession_ [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved by a synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translated into German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of La Rochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in their corruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: "We believe that from this corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He has chosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of His mercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them His justice. _Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem eripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola sua bonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in Iesu Christo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere, in quibus nimirum iuste suo tempore damnandis iustitiam suam demonstret, sicut in aliis divitias misericordiae suae declarat_." (Niemeyer, 332; Schaff 3, 366.)

The _Formula Consensus Helveticae_ of 1675 says, canon 13: "As from eternity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who in time are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New Covenant He has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election were given to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. _Sicut Christus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omnium eorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in tempore Novi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternam electionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditas eius_," etc. (Niemeyer, 733.)

The same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the _Canons of the Synod of Dort_, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, published 1647. In the former we read: "That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal election.... According to His just judgment He leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy." (Schaff 3, 582.) "The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc." (583.) "Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion." ... (584.) "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing _upon them alone_ the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenant should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, _and those only_, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to Him by the Father." (587.) "But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not _wholly_ withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their melancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification," etc. (Schaff 3, 593; Niemeyer, 716.)

The _Westminster Confession_ declares: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." (Schaff 3, 608.) "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved but the elect only." (609.) "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, _to pass by_, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." (610; Niemeyer, _Appendix_ 6. 7.)

227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg.

In view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it is certainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularly with the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long before the _Formula of Concord_ was able to write that such a conflict had not yet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarian conflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities, within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmish lacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as a signal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach and Zanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI: "Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has been mooted also among our theologians." This controversy took place from 1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came into immediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the _Wittenberg Concord_ and with it the _Augsburg Confession_ which since took the place of the _Tetrapolitana_ delivered to Emperor Charles at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizing the city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together with Mathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 and labored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He had Bucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the public controversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled, _Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians_, which defends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature.

In his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by the Crypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a converted Italian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won for Protestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor, first in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to the Continent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12, 1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563 Zanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though he had signed the _Augsburg Confession_, he was and remained a rigid Calvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and that of the Lord's Supper, but withheld his public dissent until about 1561. It was the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, according to which grace once received cannot be lost, upon which Zanchi now laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 30) he taught: "1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God only once. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith ... can never again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with their whole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he, indeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of the heart. _1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur. 2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insiti fidem prorsus amittere ... non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duo sunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantum hominem exteriorem, i.e., ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti, peccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum et condelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntate peccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fidei confessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde_." (Tschackert 560; Frank 4, 261.)

This tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternally lost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the _Smalcald Articles_ we read: "On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faith blots out all sins,' etc.--they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not present. For St. John says, 1 Ep. 3, 9: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,... and he cannot sin.' And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1 Ep. 1, 8: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.'" (491, 42f.)

In an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 some Antinomians maintained and argued "that, since in this life sin remains in saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvation even when they commit adultery and other sins against their conscience.... There are many at many places who are imbued with this error [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the conscience can remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy although they live and persevere in sins against their consciences." (_C. R._ 9, 764. 405. 473; 8, 411.)

The perseverance of saints as taught by Zanchi was the point to which Marbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, which was finally settled by the _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ of 1563, outside theologians participating and acting as arbiters. This _Formula_, which was probably prepared by Jacob Andreae, treated in its first article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. It rejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, and prescribed the _Wittenberg Concord_ of 1536 as the doctrinal rule regarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties, Zanchi stating over his signature: "_Hanc doctrinae formam ut piam agnosco, ita eam recipio_." Evidently his mental reservation was that he be permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it as pious. Later Zanchi declared openly that he had subscribed the _Formula_ only conditionally. Soon after his subscription he left Strassburg, serving till 1568 as preacher of a Reformed Italian congregation in Chiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University of Heidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died at Heidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continued his work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause of the _Formula of Concord_. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a local character, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI. The thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupil of Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_.

228. The Strassburg Formula.

The _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ sets forth the Scriptural and peculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, according to which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance of his election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not _a priori_, but _a posteriori_. That is to say, he is not to speculate on the act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested to him in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own false conception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the _Strassburg Formula_ did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election,--a stricture frequently made also on Article XI of the _Formula of Concord_, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election the Reformed have never fully grasped and realized.

The _Strassburg Formula_ taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, the doctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it into conflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor to deprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in any way to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is the grace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election, especially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the hands of Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality of God's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvation for all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which is the gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered to all; that the reason why the gift of faith is not bestowed upon all men, though Christ seriously invites all to come to Him, is a mystery known to God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of God proposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men are directed, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is not contradictory of the hidden will of God. (Loescher, _Hist Mot_. 2, 229; Frank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560.)