Part 28 (1/2)
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 G.o.d, indicating that the rest must not be searched out. The Son of G.o.d did indeed overcome the torments of h.e.l.l; but the Psalms show that the pains of h.e.l.l 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 h.e.l.l is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ are liberated from the power of the devil and h.e.l.l, according to the word: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain way the Son of G.o.d 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, G.o.d 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 h.e.l.l, 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 Partic.i.p.ants 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 h.e.l.l 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 h.e.l.l He rendered satisfaction for us who merited h.e.l.l, 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, G.o.d and man, body and soul, descended into h.e.l.l 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 ”h.e.l.l” must not be taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc., but literally, as the kingdom of Satan and the place of the d.a.m.ned 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 h.e.l.l for all believers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any way suffer after His death, but denied emphatically that ”h.e.l.l” was a definite physical locality or place in s.p.a.ce, and that the descent involved a local motion of the body. Brenz a.s.sented to the views of Parsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also a.s.sented 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 pa.s.s 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, G.o.d and man after the burial, descended into h.e.l.l, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of h.e.l.l 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 G.o.d-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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operation through the means of grace, and taught that, in the last a.n.a.lysis, also the eternal doom of the d.a.m.ned 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 a.s.sume 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 quant.i.ties. 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d delivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition.
Why, then, is it improper to say that G.o.d 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 reprob.u.m et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam statuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprob.u.m 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 ma.s.s of the human race G.o.d 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 ma.s.sa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua iustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate, ut pereat_.” (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was G.o.d'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 Iacob.u.m 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's grace was not universal.
The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that G.o.d earnestly endeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man alone is the cause of his d.a.m.nation.
In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf said: ”G.o.d has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore G.o.d 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 G.o.d, so and in the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of G.o.d, so that man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what G.o.d wills and says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus agendi Dei c.u.m omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo c.u.m homine volente et intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum c.u.m 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 h.o.m.o 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, G.o.d 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 compa.s.sion 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 n.o.bis est_.”