Part 33 (1/2)
255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax.
Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of G.o.d's grace and the possibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally d.a.m.ned, the _Apology_ proceeds: ”And why should we not also reject [the proposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is undoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected and d.a.m.ned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and there is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still alive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to G.o.d at his last end; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody might have said that he was one of the reprobates. The pa.s.sage John 12, 39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of eternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no reprobate can be converted and saved.... It is therefore the meaning neither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12, 39] that G.o.d, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people, solely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them to d.a.m.nation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and correct understanding of this pa.s.sage is, that in the obstinate and impenitent G.o.d punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to become more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and wickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that He, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins, has foreordained them to d.a.m.nation so that they cannot convert themselves and be saved. In all such and similar pa.s.sages, therefore, we shall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this blasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also of sin, G.o.d has decreed to reject eternally these or others....” (207.)
With respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read: ”They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word G.o.d declares what He approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes to work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret counsel in no other way than by working in man, _viz_., through conversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or hardened and d.a.m.ned.... With regard to this we give the following correct answer, _viz_.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on a dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning G.o.d and His secret counsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed Himself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the words of Luther himself, _viz_., that concerning G.o.d, so far as He has not been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word, there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of Him, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together with our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments of G.o.d and presumptuously a.s.sert with them that from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, G.o.d has ordained some to d.a.m.nation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His secret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that through the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards them and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it written in the Word of G.o.d that it is not the will of G.o.d that all should be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained some to d.a.m.nation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that they cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they prove this proposition from G.o.d's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy Scriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ, contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread it in all Christendom.” (108 b.)
256. Apology on G.o.d's Mysterious Judgments and Ways.
Concerning the mysterious judgments and ways of G.o.d the _Apology_ says: ”At the same time we do not deny that G.o.d does not work alike in all men, enlightening all,--for neither does He give His Word to all,--and that nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and that n.o.body can justly accuse Him of any unfaithfulness, envy, or tyranny, although He does not, as said, give His Word to all and enlighten them.
But we add that, when arriving at this mystery, one should put his finger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [_gruebeln_--from the facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of G.o.d's universal serious grace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as our opponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, G.o.d has ordained that some should be d.a.m.ned. For as to what G.o.d holds and has decreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Nor should one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonder life, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of G.o.d by which we are called to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us.
And this Word, or revealed will, of G.o.d concerning the giving rest to all those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible, unwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of G.o.d, with which alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing that conflicts with the will revealed in the Word of G.o.d should be inferred from it, even as G.o.d Himself in His Word has not directed us to it.
Because of the fact, therefore, that not all accept this call, we must not declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin, G.o.d in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent to d.a.m.nation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has not been revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that G.o.d's judgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible.”
”It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning this article should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicurean security, when in this doctrine it is taught that G.o.d, from His mere counsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some to d.a.m.nation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hears this, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into these Epicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His free purpose and without regard to sin, G.o.d has ordained to d.a.m.nation, then you cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those who shall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you must nevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join our opponents in giving occasion for such things. G.o.d also shall protect us from it.” (209.)
Again: ”They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universal promises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain to believers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, _viz_., that the promises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers, who labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. But their [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying that some are ordained to d.a.m.nation from the free purpose of G.o.d, also without regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though He calls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them, --which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horror against such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine.” (209 b.)
XXII. Article XII of the Formula of Concord: Of Other Heretics and Sects.
257. Purpose of Article XII.
The purpose of the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_ was not only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward off future controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of the Papists and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple, their a.s.sertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and had abandoned the _Augsburg Confession_, and that the Reformation was bound to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The _Formula of Concord_ was to leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers a united front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists, the errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidently also against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom the Romanists slanderously identified them.
Summarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the _Formula of Concord_ declares: ”First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errors which were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodox Church, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures.
Secondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which are rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary of the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the _Formula of Concord_]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors which caused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt with and refuted in the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_.”
(857, 17ff.) Among the errors rejected in the _Augsburg Confession_ and the subsequent Lutheran symbols were those also of the Anabaptists, Ant.i.trinitarians, and others. (CONC. TRIGL. 42, 6; 44, 4; 46, 3; 48, 7; 50, 3. 4; 138, 66; 244, 52; 310, 13; 356, 43; 436, 49; 744, 55; 746, 58.) And this is the cla.s.s of errorists which Article XII of the _Formula of Concord_ makes it a special point to characterize summarily and reject by name. Before this the _Book of Confutation_, composed 1559 by the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejected the doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and the Anabaptists.
From the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg, 1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans with the Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsible for their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the _Formula of Concord_. For here we read: ”However, lest there be silently ascribed to us the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects (which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly stole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room was given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere teachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the Papacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feel the manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their simplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was not papistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly, before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellows.h.i.+p with their errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and all, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, and to our Christian _Augsburg Confession_, well grounded in G.o.d's Word.” (1097, 7f.)
258. The Anabaptists.
The Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders were Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called _Blaurock_, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. In rapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol, Austria, Moravia, etc. Because of their att.i.tude toward the civil government the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treated accordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed in Zurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists in the autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation of more than 1,100 ”Apostolic Brethren,” as the Anabaptists there called themselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529, authorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women of every age, by fire or sword ”without previous inquisition by spiritual judges.” They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about 1,000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2,000) had been executed in Tyrol and Goerz.
The most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonists were Hubmaier, Denk, Dachser, and Hans Hutt. Besides these we mention: Ludwig Haetzer, published a translation of the prophets from the Hebrew, 1527, for which he was praised by Luther, was executed as adulterer February 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldier and son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14, 1527, impa.s.sionate in his writings against the ”old and new Papists,”
_i.e._, Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; Christian Entfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, and later on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a former priest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; Joerg Haug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed 1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer, former Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, an Ant.i.trinitarian, executed 1528; Ulrich Hugwald, professor in Basel; Melchior Rinck, pastor in Hesse; Pilgram Marbeck; Jacob Buenderlin; Jacob Kautz, preacher and author in Worms; Clemens Ziegler; Peter Riedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequently imprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacher and prolific author, who died in prison at Stra.s.sburg, 1543.
(Tschackert, 148ff.; Schlottenloher, _Philipp Ulhart, ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der ”Schwaermer” und ”Wiedertaeufer,”_ 1523--1529, p. 59ff.)
The various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the Twelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_. The Epitome remarks: ”The Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one contends for more, another for less errors; however they all in common propound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the church, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic life.” (839, 2.) Urba.n.u.s Regius said in his book _Against the New Baptistic Order:_ ”Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of these errors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to do an injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the Baptistic Order as John Denk and Balthasar Friedberger,” Hubmaier.
(Schlottenloher, 80.)
While some of the Anabaptists, as Hubmaier, were more conservative, others (Denk, Schiemer) went so far as to deny even the doctrine of the Trinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infant baptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means of grace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was not faith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism, sensation-faith (_Gefuehlsglaube_), and the law of love as exemplified by Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: ”Whoever follows the voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himself the true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist the evil.” (153.) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning, Salminger said: ”Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifies will be received by G.o.d.” Schlottenloher remarks: ”It was medieval mysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consuming desire for the complete union of the soul with G.o.d and the Spirit.”
(83.)
259. Balthasar Hubmaier.
Hubmaier (Hubmoer, Friedberger, Pacimonta.n.u.s) was born at Friedberg, near Augsburg, and studied under Eck. In 1512 he became Doctor and professor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522 pastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had read the books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. In January, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now ”he proclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself,” referring in particular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the same year he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which he continued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published his book _Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers_, which was directed against Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich, whither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants in their rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputation with Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from which he was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped to Nicolsburg, Moravia, where, under the protection of a powerful n.o.bleman, he developed a feverish activity and rebaptized about 12,000 persons.
When the persecutions of the Anabaptists began, Hubmaier was arrested, and after sulphur and powder had been well rubbed into his long beard, he was burned at the stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days after, his wife, with a stone about her neck, was thrust from the bridge into the Danube.
Hubmaier denounced infant baptism as ”an abominable idolatry.” He taught: Children are incapable of making the public confession required by Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs us of the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptized while in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: ”Since the alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receive water-baptism according to the inst.i.tution of Christ cannot be charged with anabaptism.”
Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: ”Here it is apparent that the bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewise the wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that He has shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins.” ”In the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spiritually and by faith only.” In the Supper of Christ ”bread is bread and wine is wine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of G.o.d, His Father.”