B. After The Formula Of Concord.


“In the beginning of the Reformation nearly all the representatives of the evangelical church who touched upon this question taught an absolute predestination, an eternal foreordination of some to salvation and of others to damnation.” This was true of Luther and Melanchthon as well as of Zwingli and Calvin, although predestination with the former did not assume the all-controlling position it had with the latter. Although the Lutheran and Biblical doctrine of the means of grace is not consistent with this doctrine of predestination, we find even after Luther’s death some of his pupils still defending it; for instance Wigand, Hesshusius, and Amsdorf. This has been set forth more fully in the preceding discussion. The Formula of Concord thereupon furnished the true principles for understanding this difficult doctrine and furnished them in full accord with the general Biblical position of the Lutheran Church, and in direct opposition to the doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin, yet refraining from entering dogmatically upon all the different questions concerned. It was quite natural that there were, even after the publication of this Confession, some few Lutherans who for a time expressed themselves in the former, seemingly Calvinistic manner on predestination. Chr. Cornerus, for instance, himself one of the authors of the Formula of Concord, wrote on Rom. 9, in his commentary, published 1583, that it depends upon the mere will of God (situm esse in mera Dei voluntate) whether He shows mercy to a man so as to save him, or whether He neglects him (vel negligat eum) so that he perishes in his guilt. Jacob Heerbrand, author of one of the most widely read compends of theology, teaches in his Disputatio de Prædestinatione in an altogether Calvinistic manner, using these words: “The reason that many fall away, of whom it is written that they had faith, is to be thus understood, that they had faith for a time without the true [[@Page:25]]regeneration of the Spirit. … Since all have such” (corrupt) “hearts, God by His Holy Spirit softens the hearts of some (namely of the elect) and enlightens them; others, however, whom He will. He leaves to themselves because of their own sin.” Yet over against this view a thoroughgoing Anticalvinistic mode of thought and expression was developed and constantly gained more ground. We read, for instance, in the “Gründliche Widerlegung” (Thorough Refutation) of the “Staffortisches Buch” (one of the most prominent Reformed controversial works against the Formula of Concord) which appeared at Wittenberg in 1602: “The fact that God brings some to repentance is due to reasons which God sees in the hearts of men, which we, however, cannot see.” And Ægidus Hunnius, one of the chief supporters and defenders of the Formula of Concord over against all Calvinistic and crypto-Calvinistic attacks, writes in his Articulus de libero arbitrio s. humani arbitrii viribus (Rostock, 1598), p. 68: “The absence of repentance is not to be explained by synergism, as though a man would not believe when he could” (i.e., of his own power), “nor is it to be explained by an absolute decree, but according to the Scriptures by a third reason lying in the middle between these two, by the despising of the order and means of salvation.” (Compare with this Heppe’s Dogmatics of German Protestanism in the 16th Century. Vol. 2, p. 32, sqq.)

This same Hunnius is the man who first used the expression “Election in view of faith” in the controversy with the Calvinists then constantly increasing, a term which found general acceptance among all true Lutheran theologians, since, as a brief technical term for the expression “in view of the merits of Christ embraced and held fast to the end by faith,” it defines precisely the Lutheran position over against the Calvinistic absolute election. In the Refutatio Thesium Tossani, printed in front of his Articulus de Providentia Dei et æterna Prædestinatione seu Electione filiorum Dei ad salutem (of the year 1597), Hunnius, for instance, says (fol. e., 3,): “We dare not so conceive of this mystery, as though God had first unconditionally chosen a certain number of persons without regard to the order of salvation, simply casting the others away, and had then established this order of salvation only for those whom He so elected, as a means for bringing them to salvation. On the contrary, if the justice of God was to remain inviolate, without regard to this order, i.e., to Christ’s merits, suffering, and death, which must be embraced [[@Page:26]]by faith, no sinner could be elected to eternal life, except there be shown in this order some means whereby the eternal and infinite righteousness of God might be satisfied, so that this election of sinners to the heavenly kingdom might take place.” Again (fol. e., 4) he says: “The reader must note that Tossanus in his accusations constantly understands by ‘cause’ a meritorious cause; and yet it is certain that faith, although not placed among the principal causes (causas principales) of our salvation, is nevertheless termed a secondary cause (causa instrumentalis) according to the established usage approved by the apostolic writings; for without it our salvation is not possible (constat); as also our justification is not possible without faith, since justification is the imputation of Christ’s merits, and this imputation takes place only through faith. Hence it is faith (because of its most noble object, Jesus Christ) without which the grace of God cannot rule (regnat) unto salvation in justification, nor have a place in predestination to produce an election unto salvation. For the grace in election and justification is identical. If the grace of God is not imputed in justification as long as Christ’s obedience is not imputed through faith, then too the grace of God will remain away in election, and be useless (ociosa) to sinful man as long as there is no regard to Christ’s obedience imputed by faith.” — In the year 1592 the renowned Polycarp Leyser publicly and solemnly declared, together with other Lutheran theologians: “We reject the contrary doctrine, which claims either that God did not know from eternity how the children of men would conduct (verhalten) themselves toward the holy order which He Himself established for salvation, or, foreseeing that some would use this order and that the majority would despise it, that He cared nought about it and determined nothing regarding it. Both of these opinions we consider unchristian and heathenish.” Several years before this, Leyser had already declared together with other theologians of Saxony: “The doctrine that teaches such a particularism, according to which God elected unto eternal life only certain particular persons directly without regarding faith, merely because it so pleased Him, — this we consider Calvinistic and unchristian.” — The illustrious author of “Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme,” and “Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern,” two excellent German hymns, Philipp Nicolai (1556-1608) writes as follows against the formerly Reformed Sam. Huber, who denied every particular election of persons, also an election in view of [[@Page:27]]faith: “Since all do not obey the will of God in the gospel, the greater part of mankind resisting, and only a few finishing their course in the divine path according to the rule of the preached Word, and since the omniscient God knows all this and sees it in His infinite wisdom, therefore, it does not suffice to know only the first part of this doctrine concerning the universal compassionate will of God, but the other must also be included, concerning the foreseen difference between men … Moreover, from this foreseen difference between men reprobation as well as election follows. Since all do not embrace the divinely appointed means of salvation, but the greater part despises the Word, rejects faith in Christ at once or casts it away afterwards, and chooses other paths, and yet some accept the gospel fruitfully and continue in faith unto their last breath, therefore not all but only some are reprobate, because of the difference of faith and its opposite, unbelief.” — And the well-known dogmatician, Leonhard Hutter (1563-1616), who is called Lutherus redivivus (Luther born again) on account of his eminent services in upholding the pure doctrine, exclaims in his Explicatio Libri Concordiæ, p. 1099: “It is a horrible blindness or instability of mind that will not recognize the same condition and relation (conditionem aut respectum) of faith in the article of election” (i.e., as in the article of justification), “especially as it is established that faith is not to be considered the source or foundation (fons sive principium) of election or of justification, but only the organ apprehending that true and only fountain of election and justification, God’s gratuitous grace prepared for us in Christ.” Again (p. 1103) he says: “And assuredly the treatment of faith here referred to, the opponents will not eliminate from the eternal decree of election, until they shall bring a testimony from the Scriptures that God has decreed to save men by means of causes other than He employs in time to save them; or, which amounts to the same thing, that God has one decree of elction and another decree of execution; which merely to think of God would be impious and blasphemous, inasmuch as it would make Him subject to a certain mutability.” (Compare the author’s “Prüfung der ‘Beleuchtung’ Hrn. Dr. Walthers,” p. 12.)

As a result of the influence of the Philippists much vacillation ocurred at first also in the Reformed Church of Germany with reference to the doctrine of predestination. “The Leipzig Colloquium” (held in 1631 by the Lutherans, Hoe v. Hönegg, [[@Page:28]]Polycarp Leyser, and Heinrich Hopffner of Saxony, together with several German Reformed theologians, for the purpose of securing an agreement, and to some extent at least successful) “was the last occasion exhibiting the peculiarity of the German Reformed doctrine of predestination. Over against the powerful influence exerted by the Calvinistic theology with its prominent and imposing authorities, the German Reformed Church could not preserve its individuality. Moreover, the Synod of Dort, in which nearly all the German” (Reformed) “state-churches saw themselves united with the Reformed abroad into one denomination, influenced the Reformed somewhat, as the Formula of Concord did the Lutherans. Interest in cultivating what was peculiar to separate sections of the Church by means of former relations vanished before the interest of cultivavating most carefully what was common to all and what distiguished all from the opponents of the Reformed confession. German Reformed dogmatics, therefore, embraced at once the infralapsarian mode of reasoning found in non-German theology. Yet there were always individual utterances indicating that the former had its origin in the development of German protestanism.” (Compare Heppe, ibid., p. 42-79.) At the Leipzig Colloquium the Reformed theologians of Brandenburg and Hessia had made the following declaration concerning election: “God has elected from eternity in Jesus Christ from among the corrupt race of mankind not all, but some, whose number and names are known to Him alone, whom in His own time He will enlighten unto faith in Christ, through the power and operation of His Word and Spirit, renew and preserve therein till the end and finally save through faith. — Further, God has also ordained from eternity those who remain in their sins and unbelief unto eternal damnation and cast them away, not by such an absoluto decreto or mere will and counsel, as though God had ordained from eternity or created in time the greater part of the world, or some men, without regard to their sin and unbelief, unto eternal damnation or unto the cause of this damnation; on the contrary, this rejection as well as the damnation comes by a righteous judgment, the cause of which is man himself, namely his sin, impenitence and unbelief; so that the whole guilt and cause of the rejection and damnation of the unbelieving is in themselves, the entire cause, however, of the election and salvation of those believing is nothing but the pure grace of God in Jesus Christ, [[@Page:29]]agreeably to the Word of the Lord: O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.” The Lutheran theologians had given a declaration similar to that of the Reformed, viz: “In election God found no cause or occasion for such election in the elect themselves, not even a first inclination, motion, or consent unto faith, but all that is good in the elect proceeds originally from the pure and voluntary grace of God, which is given them in Christ Jesus from eternity” ( — given them “vor anderen,” rather than to the others, or in preference to the others was added by the Reformed and left out by the Lutherans, as they did not, like the former, make grace proceed from election in the narrower sense as its proper source, that is, from the selection of particular persons, but from election in the wider sense which embraces as its first and chief part the institution of a universal way of salvation) yet this did not prevent them from confessing likewise, as harmonizing most beautifuly with the foregoing: “God from eternity has elected those of whom He saw that in time they would believe in Christ through the power and operation of the Word and Spirit, and would persevere to the end.” Also: “They furthermore consider everything that is taught in the Book of Concord concerning election correct and in harmony with the Scriptures. And God especially elected us through grace in Christ, but in such a way that He foresaw who would perseveringly and truly believe in Christ; and those of whom He foresaw that they would thus believe, He also ordained and elected unto salvation and glory.” (Compare Augusti, Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt, pp. 404, sqq.)

At the Council of Dort, however, the following was set forth as the true doctrine of the Reformed Church: “The fact that God gives faith to some and not to others is due to His eternal decree; for He knows all His works from eternity, Acts 15.18; Eph. 1.11. And in accordance with this decree He mercifully softens the hearts of the elect, though they be ever so hard (quantumvis dura), and inclines (inflectit) them unto faith; the non-elect He leaves in the just judgment of their wickedness and obduracy (duritiæ).” And the definition of election is there given thus: “Election is the immutable purpose of God, by which before the foundation of the world He elected unto salvation in Christ, according to the freest pleasure of His will, by mere grace, from out of the entire race of mankind fallen by their own fault from [[@Page:30]]their original innocence into sin and destruction, a definite number of certain individuals, neither better nor worthier than the rest, but in the same common misery with these, making Christ from eternity the mediator and head of all the elect and the foundation of salvation, etc.” Furthermore it is here said: “This very election did not take place in view of faith (ex prævisa fide) and of the obedience of faith, of sanctification, or of any other good quality or disposition (dispositione) as a cause or condition demanded in advance of those who were to be elected; but it was unto faith and unto the obedience of faith and unto sanctification, etc. Consequently, election is the source of every blessing belonging to salvation, whence faith, sanctification, and the remaining gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself proceed as fruits and results, according to the declaration of the Apostle: ‘According as He hath chosen us’ (not, since we were, but) ‘that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,’ Eph. 1.4.” Again: “The cause of this gracious election is God’s pleasure alone, not consisting in this that He has chosen certain human qualities or actions from among all that are possible, as the condition of salvation, but in this that He has taken to be His own certain definite persons from the common multitude of sinners, as is written Rom. 9.11-13; Acts 13.48.” And the following doctrine is rejected as false, viz.: “That God did not resolve merely according to His righteous will to leave any one in the fallen condition of Adam and in the common condition of sin and damnation, or to pass any one by in imparting the grace necessary to faith and conversion.” This is said to conflict with Rom. 9.18; Matth. 13.11; 11. 25, 26. (Augusti. pp. 203 sqq.)

For this reason the penetrating and subtle M. Schneckenburger was certainly right when in his “Vergleichende Darstellung des reformierten und lutherischen Lehrbegrififs” (Comparison of the Lutheran and Reformed Doctrinal Conception — Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler, 1855) he sets forth the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed doctrine of election and matters thereto pertaining, as follows: “Even in this form of doctrine” (held by some Reformed theologians) “which makes a consilium salutis (a counsel of salvation) precede the decretum praedestinationis” (and makes the former not merely, as is commonly the case with the Reformed, a means of carying out the latter), “the reference to individual persons thrusts itself into the foreground, [[@Page:31]]regard being had from eternity, and that exclusively, to them. They alone who together constitute the mystic Christ, the anointed race, are concerned in this pactum (covenant), this consilium salutis (counsel of salvation). And so strongly does the idea of subjectivity enter already into this consilium, that it is a consilium salutis only for those who will really come to possess this salus (salvation), and in no other save this real and therefore exclusive application can the Reformed idea be at all conceived. … Here now the Lutheran idea differs essentially. It regards the consilium gratiæ (counsel of grace) by itself, referring it to the oblatio (offer) of salvation in Christ. Although it conceives the founding of the plan of salvation in God in a manner essentially similar to the Reformed, yet it generally proceeds more simply and provides for the realization of this salvation partly in the high- priestly office of Christ and partly in the operations of the three persons of the Godhead. God desires to remove, and that through Christ, the misery introduced by sin. This is His benevolentia. His voluntas prima or antecedens (His primary or antecedent will). By virtue of this He sends Christ, author of the reconciliation, so that they who believe on Him may be redeemed and saved. And God most earnestly wants all men to be saved through Christ. Yet He has by no means decreed that all shall be saved, but only those who believe in Christ. Only in so far as His prescience knew them already before they existed can it be said that He elected them eternally unto salvation. But this eternal election is not the principle determining the entire development of the individual and his final goal. On the contrary, the whole stress which the Reformed view, in carrying out the idea of grace, places upon the eternal pretemporal act of election, is placed by the Lutheran view upon the fact of actual universal redemption and of individual justification, upon the efficacious power of the Holy Spirit influencing man’s decision. Regard is had, not so much to the two ends of the moral development of the individual, as to the living contents and course of this development; and therefore the final issue is made to depend upon the preceding development, in which the individual acts as a true moral agent, and in which grace offers true means of grace, whose use or abuse is decisive. This view, however, appears inconsistent to the mind of the Reformed, and at the same time lacking in piety, and he sets up against it his dogma of predestination.” (II., p. 139 sq.) “Why now does the Lutheran fail to reach this dogma of predestination? [[@Page:32]]Does he acknowledge man’s natural incapacity for receiving the divine less? No! Does he allow a wider field for human activity in the genesis of faith? No! And yet he knows nothing of an unconditional predestination and thus appears to the Reformed either as acting inconsistently or as turning halfway toward Pelagianism. Yet the Lutheran has no such need for reflecting on the causality of the new principle of faith entering into man, that he must bring this causality into systematic connection with the rest of God’s objective activity for salvation. He is more satisfied with that which is immediate, and therefore feels no need of proving his salvation to himself by reflective argumentation. He indeed has the idea of predestination as an eternal divine act; yet he does not apply this idea to the genesis of faith, but to eternal salvation … And therefore he makes the prædestinatio, in the sense of divine foreordination, depend upon the divine prescience of persevering faith. Yet faith is also for him a pure gift of God not conditioned by anything positive in man, not even by its acceptance in so far as this is a positive action; for everything positive is already a divine gift, the reception of a divine influence. Nor can it be said that non-resistance is the absolute condition” (in the sense that this would have to be already present before grace could begin its saving work), “for the reason that non-resistance exists only where grace has broken and overcome the natural resistance; and what believer would say to himself, that he has come to believe because he did not withstand grace? and would not rather say, that he believed only because grace has taken hold of him? … The Reformed Christian is bound to pursue the thought of God’s working back to the absolute eternal decree, feeling himself compelled to make the two opposite results, damnation and salvation, depend equally thereon; and this for the purpose, that he may secure a firm foundation for his own conviction of faith and his own consciousness of justification, obtained by reflection, and render it independent of any vacillation of inward feelings. The Lutheran is satisfied with the anthropological moral standpoint, and accordingly, when in this he looks back to God’s working, he distinguishes between an activity of God positively communicating and another simply permitting. This latter, in his view, extends so far that even an annihilation of the new life implanted by faith becomes possible through man’s own guilt; indeed, the highest degree of guilt consists in this, that the greatest measure of grace is exceeded by a still greater [[@Page:33]]measure of wickedness.” (Ibid., p. 154, sqq.) — “According to the foregoing it is clear that the Lutheran would have no occasion at all to develop a doctrine of predestination in the sense of a divine foreordination of individuals, if this were not in some way declared by the Scriptures. For the Lutheran the consilium salutis is, in general, that in which his interest concerning the eternal decrees of God concentrates; while the Reformed conceives of this consilium salutis only as connected with a predestination of individuals. Salvation in general, as a fact, is without his own especial reception of it, to his mind no complete idea. … Hence it is one and the same divine act, whereby Christ is appointed as the Redeemer, and whereby individuals are appointed as His own whom He has saved. And this appointment is the intelligible reason for their entire spiritual development and eternal salvation. And now in teaching a divine predestination on the basis of the Scriptures, the Lutherans make this dependent on faith, that is, on the divine prescience of faith. In this view God’s free grace does not consist in this, that He gives faith and thereby a share in Christ and in eternal life according to His pleasure, but in this that He imparts to the believer, who in himself is a sinner and merits condemnation, for the sake of Christ, forgiveness and salvation. Of this grace man becomes certain in justification, and the thought of predestination is for him only an element in his assurance of salvation, wherewith he comforts himself in the battle and struggle of life. There is nothing beyond this in Lutheran dogmatics, and all further developments of this matter are only antitheses, more or less happily put, against the Reformed development. The fact that the idea of predestination is not found in the common popular consciousness of Lutherans is already a proof as to how much this idea recedes in that which is characteristic of this denomination; whereas Reformed piety nowhere reveals any life without making faith in predestination very prominent in the popular consciousness.” (P. 158, sq.)  — “The Reformed has the following objections to make to the Lutheran dogma referred to, viz: If faith were the condition of a predestination that were not depending alone upon itself, or upon the divine volition, then salvation, to which predestination admits, would not be a pure gift of grace . . How could God be absolute, if His foreordination were limited by His foreknowledge of man’s conduct, instead of His foreknowledge being only the reflex of His own foreordination? How could the believer be sure [[@Page:34]]of his salvation, if he dared deduce his share in it as a believer only from his non-resistance as the ultimate decisive cause, and not from the irresistible grace of God? … Accordingly, the Reformed doctrine establishes a predestination of God unconditioned by His foreknowledge, rather conditioning this itself, producing its result with absolute, irresistible power in and with men.” P. 159, sq.) — “Indeed, if the act of faith, if regeneration in which salvation and glorificatio begins to realize itself already in time, and upon which its future completion depends for the individual, is not wholly dependent on predestination, then the absolute connection between this and salvation would be annulled; not God, but man, would be the author of salvation” (according to the Reformed view). “When the act of regeneration depends absolutely upon predestination, grace must work in it irresistibly, and its result must be forever inamissible.” (P. 168.) “Summing it up, the” (Reformed) “doctrine is this: In all eternity God in the unconditioned perfection of His power, and without regard to anything in man (decretum absolutum), has elected those who are to be saved, and rejected those who are to be damned, for the purpose of revealing Himself in them and upon them. To the elect alone Christ and His merit belongs, by virtue of the decretum particulare; to them alone is this merit really applied through the vocatio (particularis), which is efficacious and abiding, inamissibilis. They are saved because God has appointed them to salvation and mercifully applied all means for this purpose. The others are damned because God has appointed them to damnation, and does not work in them the conditions of salvation, but hardens them into memorials of His justice. Thus essentially an absolute difference divides the human race, corresponding to the absolutely different attributes of God, which He thus manifests” (i.e., His love and His righteousness — p. 174). “True, those Reformed teachers who originally had belonged to the Melanchthonian school in the Lutheran Church, did not express themselves so harshly concerning the second class, the reprobate, ascribing their rejection rather to their sin and unbelief. Schneckenburger, however, proves that this position is untenable for those who assume an absolute election for the first class and make their faith and salvation depend on that (p. 170 sq). — Naturally, also the Reformed theologians cannot deny that a Christian may be troubled concerning his election and salvation. We read: “The more sincere a man is the more easily this trouble [[@Page:35]]may attack him, when he sees how the fruits of the new life, which” (according to Reformed doctrine) “are real pledges of his election, are still so exceedingly deformed by sin. In this trouble there is nothing left to do but to consider the universal promises of God, to comfort the heart with its participation in the saving treasures of the Church, which unite us to Christ, and to work out our salvation with trembling.” It is plain that this advice, which is continually repeated with various modifications in dogmatic and pastoral manuals, taken strictly, forsakes the basis of the dogma and is only intended to lead away from it, so as to ease and quiet the heart. For if I in advance know theoretically that the universal promises apply in reality only to certain individuals, that the treasures of salvation in the Church belong in reality only to those for whom they have been appointed from eternity, then, if I think that I have reason to doubt my election, all this can aid me but little. And it is equally hard to understand how with such doubt filling the heart salvation could possibly be worked out, which, indeed, would be done with trembling, but would also lack confidence. In fact this trouble concerning predestination becomes a heavy cross in the practical care of souls, and it is almost impossible to overcome it without forsaking the Reformed standpoint. Hence it is, indeed, remarkable and yet natural enough, that many know no other way out of the difficulty than this, that they make faith in one’s own election a duty which we owe to God; or that they rest content with a minimum of desire for election, and take this as a certain sign for election, which must now be increased and strengthened by greater faithfulness.” (P. 178, sq.) “The more decisively the complete consciousness of finiteness opposes the idea that God should come into immediate and present contact with us, and the more in place of this only the idea of an election of God remains, antedating time, embracing the individual, and fixing his entire development like the result of an inevitable law: so much the more must the element of justification, as an objective act of God, carried into effect through the media gratæ (means of grace), recede behind the element of eternal election, in which the vocatio, regeneratio, and justificatio are already included as nothing more than stages in the development of the individual under the influence of grace.” (P. 183, sq.) — Justification “is looked upon by the Lutheran exclusively as a transcendent act, immanent in God, and intransitive, the result of which does nothing but enter the consciousness of the subject [[@Page:36]]concerned, and is received with the same faith which for the individual forms the condition for bringing this divine act to pass.” (P. 45 sq.) “The actus forensis, declaring the believing sinner just by means of the imputatio of the merits of Christ, takes place at first in the divine life-circle, is, as it were, an inner-trinitarian act, the result of which, the judgment of acquittal and the adoption, are at once conferred through the Holy Spirit and the instrumenta justifications (the means of grace) to the individual. The moment in which this act with regard to the individual takes place is that in which faith in Christ springs forth in him from repentance.” (P. 51.) — “The Lutheran doctrine, desiring to carry out the idea of justification by faith, goes down into the depths of the judgments and decisions immanent in God, and at once offers for acceptance by faith the result of this immanent divine action to the believing subject in an objective manner, through the mediation of the Church, wherein Christ Himself continues His office; the Reformed doctrine, on the contrary, aims rather to have that which takes place in God, the forensic judicium, mediated by a corresponding action of the subject within his own self-consciousness, and prefers to call this latter justification in the most proper sense, without strictly distinguishing it from the objective and immanent divine action, or, where this is nevertheless done, without referring the divine act in the same way to the single believing subject separately. This difference of view is related to the one treated above, stating that the man who is justified, and while he becomes justified, is, to the Reformed mind, a man already regenerated and united with Christ, while to the Lutheran mind he becomes both by this very means” (i.e., justification). (P. 63.) Again: “We have thus” (in the Reformed doctrine) “a double devine act of justification, one ideal, antidating time, one real, in the judgment of the world. If now another act of justification, taking place in time, is to intervene between these two, this can only be sought where the Mediator and Head of the elect, in whom they are chosen, appears in the history of the world. And, therefore, we find especially prevalent that form of doctrine which finds the divine declaration of the justification of believers in the resurrection of Christ.” (P. 66.) “The resurrection of Christ is, therefore, really the objective execution in time of the eternal act of justification on the part of God, as the declaration of His being justified. In Christ all who are His are justified and need only to become conscious of the fact.” (P. 68.) [[@Page:37]]

Over against this strict Calvinism Arminianism really retained the truth of the Bible in the five propositions of its well-known Remonstrance of the year 1610; yet it erred, especially later on, more and more in Semi-Pelagian and rationalistic directions. Beside Arminianism Amyraldism or the Universalismus hypotheticus alone demands yet to be briefly mentioned as a deviation from the Reformed doctrinal conception treated above. As we have hitherto, wherever practicable, to insure objectivity and impartiality as much as possible, allowed others to speak, and that men who are authorities and had no connection whatever with the recent predestination controversy, so now we quote the words of the well-known Dr. A . Schweitzer, who is an undisputed authority in this field. He writes in Herzog’s “Real-Encyclopädie,” 2nd ed.. Vol. I., p. 358: “Amyraldism holds fast to the real particularism, and this in such a manner that an ideal universalism is added. The chief proposition is this: ‘There is a will of God desiring that all men may be saved with the condition of faith, a condition which they in themselves might fulfill, yet because of their inherited corruption unavoidably reject, so that this universal gracious will actually saves no one. Then there is a particular will in God, by which He has eternally determined to save a definite number of definite persons and to pass by all others with this grace. These elect are as infallibly saved as the others are infallibly damned’. This synthesis of a real particularism and of a merely ideal universalism which actually saves none, i.e., this addition of only an ideal universalism to the orthodox Calvinistic doctrinal system of Dort, is the peculiarity of Amyraldism. It is natural that this system should receive its name from the element peculiar to it; yet it is easy to make the mistake and think that this hypothetic universalism is hostile to the orthodox Reformed standpoint, whereas Amyraut has assured us and has proved that it may be united with the Calvinistic doctrine of Dort. The” (French Reformed) “National Synod found this innovation” (in the mode of expression) “free from all heterodoxy; Amyraut had only to say distinctly, which he gladly did, that the universal will was no predestinating decree; but only a demand and a precept: ‘You all believe, and you all shall be saved’; and that as we are all corrupt, no one can be saved by this will alone … For further proof of his doctrine he distinguished ‘objective and subjective grace’: only the former, the offer of salvation under the condition of repentance and faith, is universal; the latter, the [[@Page:38]]converting operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart, which is to be looked upon as a moral influence, not as a blind physical motion, is indeed given only in a particular manner to the elect. And just because this decisive subjective grace, which alone really saves sinful men, is particular, therefore, objective grace can safely be made universal, as indeed Calvin himself made it.” [[@Page:39]]