T h e Error of Modern Missouri:

I T S INCEPTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND REFUTATION,

A s s e t forth in

I. T h e Present Controversy on Predestination: A Contribution to its History and Proper Estimate.

By F. W. S T E L L H O R N , D. D.,
Prof. of T h e o l o g y in t h e E v . L u t h . S e r n i n a r y , Colurnbus, O h i o ; A u t h o r of W o e r t e r b u c h z u m g r i e c h i s c h e n N e u e n T e s t a m e n t ; A Brief Comm e n t a r y o n t h e B o o k s of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ; A n n o t a t i o n ~ t h e Acts of t h e A p o s t l e s i n t h e on L u t h e r a n Cornrnentary.

11. " Intuitu Fidei."

By R E V . F. A. S C H M I D T , D. D.,
Prof. in t h e Theological S e m i n a r y of t h e N o r w e g i a n U n i t e d C h u r c h , M i n n e a p o l i s , Minn.

111. A Testimony Against the False Doctrine o Predesf t h a t ion recently introduced by the Missouri Synod.
By S E V E R A L F O R M E R M E M B E R S O F T H E M I S S O U R I SYNOD.

T r a n s l a t e d frorn t h e G e r m a n .

Edited by G E O R G E H . S C H O D D E , Ph. D.,

Prof. of T h e o l o g y in t h e E v . L u t h . S e m i n a r y , C o l u m b u s , Ohio.

COLUMBUS, OHIO: L U T H E R A N BOOK CONCERN

1897

INTRODUCTION.
T is a matter of deep regret that the Synod of Missouri and other States has, for the past twenty years and niore, set itself against the faith it at one time was the chief defender and pronloter of in this country. Whether the membership of that body are aware of it or not, it is not for us to judge; but the fact remains that their doctrine of a particular yet unconditioilal election unto salvation subverts the entire system of Gospel truth and deprives every doctrinal member of that system of its saving power and comfort. Whilst the Lutheran Church in entire conformity with Scripture teaches but one decree unto salvation the Missourians teach, as coordinate to it, a second and oue whereby the first is logically set aside and practically emptied of its gracious content. Professing to believe with us that God by H i s mercy would have all men to be saved, they a t the same time conteud for the doctrine that God has decreed to save only a few by giving to thenl-for reasons no nian can know-the faith adequate to that end. Never were two articles of belief more glaringly contradictory offered for acceptance to the mind of man; and, as this last, never was doctrine so utterly destructive of every well-grounded hope of salvation. T h e grave charge of heresy must stand against the synod of Missouri until it retracts. A liiere correction of phrases cannot acquit that body; nor cail it satisfy ail offended church by any profession of belief iii the universality of diviiie grace, however loud and unctious it nlay be iii giving expression to it. I t s official utteraiices on the doctrine of predestination as ultimately set forth in the thirteeii theses of 1S81,* when considered apart froiil their history, might be allowed to pass; but takeii iii connection with the coritroversy that has called them forth they have settled nothiiig, escept that the Missouri Synod as a body has adopted the positioii of its leadiiig men and made
I

"See Minutes of the Delegate Synod of t h a t year.

(iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.
PAGE

T H E P R E S E N T CONTROVERSY ON PRE.DESTINATION .

Dogmafico HisforicnZ Izfrodurtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A ) Before t h e Formula of Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B ) After the Formula of Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T h e F o r m d a of Concord a z d fhe OZd Lufheran Dog?)znficiaits...... T ' e Docfrine o f Predestitzafioit itt fhe ilIissouri S y ~ o d ..............

A ) Before the Year 1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B ) T h e Synodical Keport of the Western District for the Year 1577 . C) T h e Synodical Report of the Western District for the Year 1879. D ) (' Altes und Neues" and "Lehre und Wehre " before the General Pastoral Conference at Chicago in the Autumn of 1850 .... E ) T h e General Pastoral Couference in the Autumn of 1850 . . . . . . . . F ) After the Pastoral Conference in the Autumn of 1580........... G ) Comparative Summary ...................................... 1. What i s predestination ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ) Old Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Modern hlissouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ) T h e Calvinists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) T h e Old Lutheran dogmaticians . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. What has God regarded i n election? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ) Old Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Modern hlissouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ) The Calviiiists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) T h e Lutheran Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. What is the relation especially of faith to election? . . . . a ) Old Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Modern Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) The Calvaiiists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) The Lutheran Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . I n what sense does the Formula of Concord speak of election ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ) 01d Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) hloderii Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) The Lutlieraii Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1s man's coiiversioii aiid salvation in every sense indepeiideut of his conduct ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ) Old Missouri . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Modern Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) The Calviiiists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) T h e Lutheran Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 24 39 53 53 69 88

(vii)

G ) Coniparative' Suiiimary -- Concluded . 6. 3Iay we speak of niaii's decisioii or " self-deterniiilation "

PAGE

in coi~rersioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? a ) Old AIissouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) AIoderii J l i s s o ~ ~ r i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C) T h e Calvanists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) T h e Lutheran Cliiirch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . TVhat is the differeiice betweeii the Lutheran and Redoctriiie of electioii ? a ) Old nlissouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Aloderii nIissoiiri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) Liitheraii Tlieologiaiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ) Schiieckeilburger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. How rriiist tlie cloctrine of the dogmaticiaiis of the sereii teeritli ceiitury be regarded ? . . . . . . . . . . a ) Old Jlissoiiri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ) AIoderii Nissouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) Old Doginaticiaiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. How is tlie doctrine of lloderii JIissouri to be regarded ? a ) Modern nIissouriaiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) E r e r y iinpartial iriaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H ) Appendix: An Ally of 3Ioderii nlissouri iii Gerniany . . . . . . . . . T h e Docf rinc o f Predesf iun f ion iiz fhe 0 h i o Sjrnod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theologiaiis of Seveiiteeiith Ceii tury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colloquiuiii in Coluiiibus, 1879 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coluni bus Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meeting of Joint Syiiod ISS1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 171 171 171

172 173 173 174

175 173 175 176 146 147

1P.j

155 1S G 1S i ISS

" INTUITU FIDEL''

PART I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . li'hat wet-e fhe coufenfs01-fhe szrbsfnuce of fhe docfl-iue fnzlghf by ontLzlt1zc1-atz C ~ Z I I -fikfhe~.s. C/Z fhnt Godelecfcd ilz view o f i a i t h ? Introductory Reniarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Over agaiiist Roinaiiisin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Sola Fide. Intuitu Fidei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Saniuel Huber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . Correct uiiderstandi~igof Testiinonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ) Calrinists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ) Huber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C) Lutlieraiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Jlissouri's New Discorery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . AZissouri Holds Fast the Doctrine of our Olcl Teacliers and also Rejects it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . JIeetiiig of Syiiodical Coiifereiice iii Chicago . . . . . . . . S. Quotatioiis frorn 0rtl;odos Publicatioiis aiid Teacliers .. . A ) Azlfhors o j fhe Fo~-mzlLao f Co~zcord . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . David C h y t r z u s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacob Aiidreze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Koeriier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ) T h e Imnzedinte Pzlpils o f t h e Sz~bsbvibevs f the F. C. - Concluded . o Conrad Dietrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 Closiug Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
PART I1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. D i d uur Fnthel-s depart fi.onz the Cotz fessioiz by teachiizg thnt fhe election o f certnin p e ~ s o m took place iiz view o f fnith ? .... I1. Does Missouri claim that our Fatliers departed froin the Confession witli their doctrine of " electioii in view of faitli " .... Northern District and Prof. Fritschel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professor Stoeckhardt on " i n view of faith." Philadelphia Faculty . Lehre und Wehre ................................. 111. Did Missouri hold to her present doctriue in 1S72?............. " Correct understandiiig " of a Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I V. Colloquy iii Colunibus, 1879 and followiug i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scripture, Fathers, Coiifessioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huberian Controversy-a test of the seuse of the Eleventh Article . . Three definitions of Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church of Formula of Concord knew of no election to salvation escept of believers ............................................ Testimony of Wittenberg men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rostock meii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuebigen aiid Stuttgart Schools, Wuerternberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Scriptures, ordination t o Salvation, Acta Huberiana, Wuerteniberg men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regard to faith -TVittenberg aud Wuertemberg nien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election and subsequent will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace of God and nierits of Christ the complete cause of election ... Did Rostock, Witteilberg, Tuebingen know t h e Lutheran defiuition of electiori ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

PART 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . 1s the Doctvi?ze thnt God elected meiz to snlvntion i 7 z uiew o fnitlz f ~ fozr 7zd i ?oul- L1rthem71 Coizfessions ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1. Intuiti Fidei found in Book of Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augsburg Coufession and electiori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apology and electioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differerlce betweeu merl arld tlre clivine verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Order of decree of election and order of eterrial purpose . . . . . . . . . A uiystery iii this cloctriiie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11. Tlie Foriiiula of Coi~corcl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tliircl Article of Forulula of Loiicord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sonship ancl inheritance reflectiorl of eteriial cotinsel of God . . . . . . . . IV. Eleverith Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election in detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treiid of Eleveuth -4rticle against Calvii~isticelectiori . . . . . . . . . . Revealed and liidderi will of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitiori of electioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election of grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

THESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706 V T h e point of controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 Math . 22. 1-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 Cheninitz on Math . 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rom . S. 28-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Foreknow " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E p h . 1. 3-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Thess. 2. 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Pet . 1. 1 a n d 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Obedienc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Scripture passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aiialogy of faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \Vhat elect meails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electioii and the preacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX . Which of the two parties has forsaken their former standpoitit? . . . . 7 6 0 Brief sketch of the iilception of the controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789

DOGMATICO = HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

A . BEFORE THE FORMULA OF CONCORD.

Sin has most deeply depraved and corrupted man's body and soul togetlier with alI his powers. His mind and will, for instance, rarely cl-ioose by nature, eveii in eartldy and temporal things, the golden middle-path; inan is ever inclined to run to estremes, to cleviate to the one side or tlie otl-ier. Tl-iis proclivity inheres even in tlie best of Cliristiaiis, because tlieir depraved flesli and blood still clings to them. Ancl it lnanifests itself in tlle most varied ways, in tliiiigs bodily as well as in things spiritual, in tlie social aiid civil as well as in the religious ancl inoral life. And nre find tliat w e n tlle religious arid dogmatic thinkiiig of rnost inen reveals tl~is inborn onesicledness. All, even the worst of lieresies contain at least a grain of truth, arid liave arisen in tliis very way tliat some truths were neglectecl or set aside, nrhile otliers were in a onesided Jvay einpliasized and developed and thus perverted aiid distorted. We accordiiigly nieet tliis onesidedeness repeateclly wlien we e s amine tlie History of Dogma on tlie doctrine of Preclestination and subjects connected wit1-i it. The doctrine of pi-edestination held by any teacl-ier or clenomination in tlie c1iurcl-i is in reality tlieir final answer to tlie question as to tlie relation of human liberty to divine grace,-one of tlie ii-iost difficult, and at the sanie time one of tlie most important questions in the fielcl of religion and dogmatics. Iii answering this question tliere appeared quite early the onesidedness just nientioned; the teachers of the Greek or Oriental Churcli laid tlie greatest stress on liuinan liberty, while tllose in tlie older or lTTesterii Church placecl most empllasis 011 dix+ie grace. The ~ f ~ r n i e onesided view found its consistent outcoine in Pela,' l a n r isni, the other in an absolute predestination and in an irresistible grace. - Tlle Greek teacliers were influenced by tlieir justifiable and even necessary opposition to tlie l~eathen,and especially Stoic,

philosopl-iy with its doctrine of fate, "which rules with irresistible power the clestiny of men, and recluces inoral freedom to a mininium"; they were influencecl likewise by tlieir opposition to Gnosticisni with its doctrine of evil created in man; and thus they permittecl the~nselves fall into the opposite extreme. to John of Darnascus, the well-knowii representative clogmatician oi tlie Greek Churcl-i (diecl about 7 ( i O ) , gives expressioii to this view in tl-ie following words: "Election is in our own hands; thc perfecting of the good, however, is something belonging to u ; ) , the CO-operatioii of God (rcc r o G 8 e o ~ u v c ~ ~ s ~ which is active in those who choose the good with an honest resolution. . . . R4'oral goodness has been implanted into our nature by God. H e is the source ancl cause of all goocl, and without His CO-operation u ) and help ( G U Y ~ ~ Y E L CmI i ~ ~ { R s L all willing and doing of the good is in-ipossible for us. Yet it is left to us, either to continue in rnoral goodness and to follow God, who calls us thereto, or to forsake tlie good, i. e., to turn to the evil and to follow tlie devil, who draws 1 s thereto, although without coercion." (Tliomasius, "Dogmen1 geschichte," I., 492.) With these synergistic principles predestination coulcl, of course, be inade to rest oiily oll the divine forekiiowledge of man's free conduct toward that which is good. John of Darnascus speaks ii-ideed quite correctly about an antecedent will of God desiring the salvation of all inen, and about a subsequent will conferring salvation only upon a few; yet he wrongly rests this latter will on the divine foresight of the right, and wl-iolly free, conduct of man toward things praisewortliy and blarnewortliy. S h e cliief representatives of the older Latin Cliurch are Anlbrosius of Milan (d. 397) ai-id Augustine of Hippo Regius (d. 430). T h e forrner is not far reinovecl frorn the view of the Greeks, although he einphasizes far more tlie deptli of inherited depravity and the necessity of divine grace, which must precede the human ~villand prepare and enable it to choose the good. At least, he rests predestination on tl-ie divine foreknowledge of the good works or inerits of the individual concernecl: quorum inerita prcescivit, eoruni prceinia prceclestiiiavit (whosesoever inerits H e foresaw, tl-ieir rewards did H e predestinate-referring to Rom. 8, i9).-Before tl-ie Pelagian controversy began even Augustii-ie stood essentially on syi-iergistic ground. Accorcling to his own confession in tlie Retractationes, 11e at that time thoiight that to believe and to will were in man's own power, and that God's part

was to bestow upon hin1 wlio believed aiid willed tlie ability to do good, by His Holy Spirit, tlirougli wlioiii love is poured out iii our liearts (nostruni est credere et velle, illius auteiii dare credeiitibus et volentibus facultatem bene operandi per Spiritum Sanctum, per quem cliaritas diffunditur in cordibus nostris). Tliis was tlie synergistic extreme to wliich Augustine permitted liirnself to be driven by liis oppositioii to the dualistic and fatalistic hIaniclieism, whose sataiiic deptlis he liad leariied to understand iii a painful experience of iiine years. His later thorougli uiiderstanding of tlie inlierited depravity of huinaii nature, of tlie doctriiie of the Scriptures, of the process of liis own conversioii, arid especially tlie wariiiiig esaniple of Pelagiaiiisiii, this recldessly coiisisteilt syiergisiii; turiied liiiii back froni tliis estreiiie. Cher q a i i i s t Pelagiiis aiid liis adherents with their deiiial of original siii and oi tlie absolute iiecessity of diviiie grace, Augustine \-ictoriously upiield both, aiid liis work in tliis regard will ever he appreciated h?-the orthodox church. Unfortuiiately, however, lie too was carried into an extreme, naniely into an absolute predestinatioil aiid an irresistible grace. Predestination he takes to be the eternal act of God, by wliicli, froni amoiig the mass of ineii lost in sin, H e infallibly foreordained tliose whorn H e would uiito conversion, sanctification, and salvation, whilst H e left tlie rest to their clestructioii. "For tlie elect, and only for them did Christ die; for thein the saviiig institution of the Gospel esists; to tliein the efficacious call coines which also irresistibly produces its results in them; to them is given tlie doiium" (perseverantiz, tlie gift of perseverance) 'hvhicli tliey caiinot lose again. T h e rest God leaves (reliiiquit) to their destruction. And tliis is aii act not of injustice, but of justice, for in tliis tliey receive oiily wliat they deserve for tlie sin in which they are entangled: pro meritis justissime judicantur; qui darnnantur non habent quod reprehendant" (accordiiig to their merits they a r e m o s t j ~ ~ s t judged; they who are damned ly liave no cause for coinplaint). "And tliere is also iio especial decretum divinuni reprobationis" (divine decree of reprobatioii), "inasmuch as the final cause of their damnation does not lie in this that God willed their destruction and caused their siii; but wliosoever is lost perislies because lie belongs to tlie race wliicli lias siiiiied in Adam. Whoever is saved has salvatioii purely aiid solely by grace. But why, when all are equally sinful aiid unworthy, God sliould elect the one and leave tlie otlier, t l ~ i s Augustine explains at tinies by declaring : 'Tliat liberty may sliow itself
'

in all tl-ie clearer light,' and cominoilly by saying that man must here seal his lips, and bow his head in reverence beneath the unsearchable counsel of God." (Thomasius, ibid., p. 541.)-Concerning the operation of converting and saving grace Augustine has, among other utterances, the following: "When God wills to save no will of man resists. I t is not to be doubted that no will of ixa.11 can resist the will of God, wllich has inade in heaven and eartll all that H e wotild, so that H e should not do what H e wills; inasmuch as H e even does what H e wills with the will of man himself. . . . And yet H e does this in no way but through the will of man himself, as beyond doubt H e has the most omnipotent power over the ,human heart to incline it whither H e pleases." ( E e o volenti salvum facere nulluni hominurn resistit arbitriuin. Non est dubitandum, voluntati Dei, qui in coelo et in terra omiiia, quxcumque voluit, fecit, hunlanas voluntates non posse resistere, quomii~us faciat ipse quod vult; quondoquidem de ipsis hominurn voluntatibus, quod vult, facit. . . . Qui tarnen hoc non facit nisi per ipsoruin hominuin voluntates, sine dubio habens humanorum cordium quo placeret inclinandorurn oinnipotentissimanl potestatenl.) Luthardt ("Die Lehre vom freien Willen," Tl-ie Doctrine of Free Will, p. 36, sq.) summarizes the opinion of Augustine on this point in tl-ie following sentences: "It is the almighty God w11o turns the resisting will unto faith, operating therefore with the same unconditional will and power of omnipotence, which H e exerts in the domain of nature, also in the domain oI moral choice (self-determination), thus lowering it into a inere form of His own operation. God utilizes and deternlines also the evil will in the don-iain of sinful action according to His pleasure, so that here also H e is the actor. Accordingly God turns the human will as H e wills, agreeeably to His nlercy or to His righteousness. IlThy H e works in the one in this way and in the other in that, saves the one, pernlits the other to be lost-who can explaiii this? This is the secret will of God. And it is thus established, Augustine reiterates in his work De corr. et gr., that in all things God's will is to be acknowledged. F o r man can have no other will than God wills him to have; and whichever God's will wills him to have, that man must have, for God's will cannot fail of its result. These are, if not thewords, yet the thoughts wl~ich Augustine here develops. As in our natural life, so also in the spiritual, all gifts are to be referred back to God's will, that is to His omnipotent will. And thus also perseverailce in the good

is a pure gift of God's grace. For could not Gocl have called those who fell an.aJT, of the world hefore they fell? If H e did not call out thcm away, if H e permitted them to fall, it was only because H e did not will to give them the donum perseverantice" (the gift of perseveraiice), "with which, if they had had it, they could not have fallen. Those alone, however, to whom God gives this gift are children of God in His eyes. F o r those who fall away have in full truth never been children of God. They belong, indeed, to the vocati (the called), but not to the electi (the elect); for the latter cannot be lost. E'or the result must be in accordance with the will of God. These alone are sons of God; yet also all these, even if they have not yet been born again; yea, even if they have not yet been born a t all. F o r .only God's predetermining will is decisive here. With this will God's assisting grace and its operation coincides . . . New Testament grace, as the saints predestinated to the kingdoin of God receive it, includes of necessity" (not only the possibility of perseverance, but also) "its actuality-non solum ut sine ist0 dono perseverantes esse non possint, verum etiam est per hoc donum nonnisi perseverantes sint" (not only that without this gift they cannot persevere, but also that through this gift they cannot otherwise than persevere). Evidently it was nothing but self-deception when Augustine imagined that he could hold fast, together with these propositions of absolute predestination, the freedom of the will and the liberty of man, and when he even declared in his Retractaticnes: "Bot11 faith and the production of good works is our own by reason of the liberty of our wil1,and both, therefore, have been imparted to LIS through the spirit of faith and love. Bot11 are of God, because He prepares our will; and both are our own, because we will them." It is only playing with words to say of a will of God, Operating unavoidably and insuperably (indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter), bringing the most almighty power to bear in an irresistible manner, that this will does not coerce the will of man, since it works not without but in hirn, as also the operations, faith and love, are in the strictest sense acts of man's free will. This is true only in the sense that, taken strictly, the will itself can never be coerced, but only man, to will as he wills, and therefore it really says nothing. I t was likewise a strange self-deception when Augustine imagined that his doctrine agreed with the Scriptures ; and only by the delusion into which the most shrewd and approved influential theologian may fall, when once he has fully started on a

onesicled line, caii it be explained, that Augustine did not scruple to misinterpret the beautiful passage 1Tim. 2, 4: "Who will have all men to be saved and conle unto t l ~ e knowledge of t l ~ e truth,'' in numberless ways: soinetimes "all men" are taken as all those of wl~oinGod wills tliat they shall come to grace, hence only the elect. Again, they are taken as nlen of all kincls and all branches of the human family; again, siinply as many; again, the passage is thougl~t say that no inan can be saved escept God will it; agaiil, to that it can be said of God, tllat H e would have all men to be saved, because H e iilduces its to wish this! It is to be ascribed, at least in great part, to this unevai~gelical oi~esiclednessaild llarsl~ness Augustine's doctrine that his coilof tention against Pelagianism did not receive undivided approval in the church, especially in that of the West. Augustine was uildoubteclly right over agaiilst Pelagius; for tlie latter carriecl the onesided view of the Greek Church, with which he hacl becoine conversant through its writings or through a visit to the East, consistently to its last extreme, makiilg preclestinatioil depend 011 the clivii~eforelinonrleclge of man's free choice (self-determination), which really needs no grace; and this good werk of Augustine the cliurch acknonrledged. His onln onesidedi~ess, however, could not be adopted. Yet to offset this the whole tritt11 was unfortunately not taken. T h e middle-path between the extremes of Pelagius and Augustiile was not really choseil, although this was intendecl; repelled by the predestinariailism of the latter, a Course too near Pelagianism was entered. This is the Semi-Pelagianism of John Cassianus, a pupil and frieild of tlie Greek Chrysostom and of his likeminded adherents, the Llassiliails. "The relation of grace to free will Cassianus sets fort11 as a coilstailt being-sideby-side and working together of both, in which he nlakes the good proceed a t one time from grace, at another fronl human choice (self-detern~ination).' Which of the two is the rule caimot be decided a priori. Experieiice shows, on the one hand, that God anticipates Inan in that H e calls hiin, yea, at tinles clraws some without o r against tlieir will itnto salvatioi~~" g., the publican e. Mattliew, the Apostle Paul; oll tlie other band, that man also without being moved or solicited from withoitt, wholly from withiii, disposes hiinself for the goocl aild nlakes the beginning (initium fidei et boni operis), e. g., Zacchceus, or tlle nlalefactor on the cross" (?). (Thomasius, ibid., p. SG1.) Here pi-edestinatioil was made to i-est entirely 011 the divine forelinowledge of the moral

condition of man. This controversy between Pelagiai-iism and Augustinianism, waged especially in F r a m e , was finally closed for several centuries a t the Council of Orange in tl-ie year 519. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianisin were rejected with all clear ness and decision, likewise the most objectionable form of predestinarianism, predestination unto evil, which, to be Sure, neither Augustine nor, as far as we know, any adherent of his doctrine l-ias ever n-iaintained. Irresistible grace, however, and the particularism of predestination were passed over in silence. H o w the Western Cl-iurcli, without being conscious of the fact? gradually left tl-ie standpoint of Augustine, wllo was honored as the l-iighest authority, we see in Gregory tlie Great (d. G0-i). God l-ias elected those from eternity of w11on-i H e foresaw that tl-iey would accept His grace and persevere therein unto the end. Suos et electos nomiiiat, quia ceri-iit, quod in fide et bono opere persistant ( H e calls tl-iem His own and His elect, becaiise H e Sees tliat tl-iey persevere in faith and good work). T l ~ i s justaposition of faith and good vvork already reveals tl-ie Semi-Pelagian position of Gregory, and indeed it forn-is the tramition to the Semi-Pelagianism of the Romish Church later On. This position oi Gregory is shown even more fully by liis declaratioiis on tl-ie relation between divine grace and human action. "hian, sick with sin, in need of a pliysician, must be ivilling to be l-ielped, if l-ie is to be healed. Grace alone heals 1iii-i-iof l-iis disease; but tl-ie fact tliat lie receives this grace willii-igly is his nierit. T h e good tliat we do is the result of a CO-operation between God and ourselves. . . . Grace is anticipatii-ig and liberating, but tl-ie subsequens liherum arbitrium" (tlie subsequent free will) "consents jconsentit), and tl-iis establishes the meritum liberi arbitrii" (merit o f free will). Foreordination is determinecl according to the conduct of free will toward prevenient and liherating grace; it rests on the foreknowledge of tl-iis conduct." (Lutliardt, ibid., p. 5 . ) I n tl-ie first half of tl-ie 9th century, however, the rnonk Gottschalk, detained against liis will in a monastery, and then seeking comfort in the study of Augustine's writings, revived tl-iis fatl-ier's doctrine of predestination in its harshest form; indeed, he developed it to a double foreordination, tliat of the elect unto life and tl-iat of the reprobate unto death, alt11ougl-i Augustine as a rule had spoken only of a committal (relinquisl-iing) of the evil to their deserved punishinent. T h e cruel treatment of Gottscl-ialk by his ecclesiastical superiors made rnany sympathize wit1-i him,

'

and his doctrine, too, found much approval; yet workrighteousness, which became ever more influential both theoretically and pi-actically, and from which Augustine also had not been free, turned atteiltioii inore and more away from the doctriiie of Gottschalk. T h e most powerful of tlie scholastics, Thoinas Aquinas, however, still endeavored to harmonize the absolute predestinariailism of Augustine with Semi-Pelagian principles. According to him, it is divine grace whicl-i eilables inaii to perform good and ineritorious works. This grace, however, is bestowed according to an absolute predestination upon the one and not upon tlie othei-. His antipode, D u i ~ s Scotiis, inade preclestination coiiditional on tlie divine forekilowledge of inan's free coilduct. Accordiiig to hin1 grace does not, as is taught by Thomas, necessarily come first, but man may, and should, make himself fit to receive this grace, by a proper use of his free will. And it is Duns Scotus, and not Thoinas, w11o has left his stamp upoil the Romish Church, tlie stanip of Seini-Pelagianism. I t was in vain tl-iat Thomas of Bradwardina, succeeding his renowned namesake in his ecclesiastical order arid in Iiis opiiiioils (d. 1349 as the Archbishop of Cailterbury), endeavored to maintain tlie cause of free ancl unconditional divine grace over against tlie error of Felagianisin. The absolute predestination and the irresistihility of tlie saving will of God, whicli lie too thouglit necessary for this purpose, found a refuge more aild nlore only among the so-called heretics. Among these were Wiclif and Hus. T h e former writes in his Dialogus: "And thus it appears to ine probable tliat God nioves each siilgle active creature with necessity to its every activity. And tlius some are predestined, i. e. ,appointed after their la.bor unto glory; others foreknown, i. e. appointed after a miserable life to perpetual punishi~lent. (Et sic videatur milli probabile, quod Deus necessitat creaturas singulas activas ad quemlibet actuin suum. E t sic sunt aliqui praedestinati, hoc est post laborem ordinati ad gloriam; alii prcesciti, hoc est post vitam iniserain ad poeiiam perpetuam ordinati.) H u s is dependent here, as well as in general, not only as far as the matter itself, but also as far as the malmer of espression is concerned, upon Wiclif. Aiid thus it caiiie to pass that predestinariaiiisiii was regarded ever more aiitl iiiore as the mark aizd productioil oI lzeresy, aild the opposite estreme of Senii-Pelagiaiiisi as the true doctriile of tlie Christian Church. It v7as no wonder that Luther aild those whom God placed