Chapter XII. Protestantism

1. LuTHER. Protestantism derived its notion of predestination from its preconceived theory of the consequences of original sin. According to its theory, man in a state of fallen nature no longer has the strength, even after justification, to resist temptation. We know that Luther was thus ensnared into the path of error. The observance of the divine law and resistance against unruly passions necessitated his making great efforts; as humble prayer was something unknown to him, he concluded that concupiscence, since the fall of man, cannot be overcome, and that the command, “thou shalt not covet,” is impracticable, and that God has commanded what is impossible. Thus it is that, through lack of an interior justice, which seemed impossible to him, Luther set out in quest of an exterior justice; not recognizing the necessity of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, he appealed from these to Christ and said in conclusion that man of himself is always 117 weak, always in a state of sin; but that Christ’s justice covers the sins of sinners. Christ’s justice covers them and is imputed to them.

Continuing on this path of error, Luther rejected free will. Free will is dead, so he said. In consequence of this, the Christian’s faith is solely God's work. “He operates in us without our co-operation,” and this faith is formal justification. “Faith is the formal justice, by reason of which we are justified. Faith is already the grace of justification.” The nuptial robe is faith without good works. For salvation nothing more than faith is required.* This is how Luther came to conclude one of the fundamental principles of his doctrine, so that he taught not only that eternal predestination is previous to foreseen merits, but also that good works performed or merits acquired in this life are not necessary for salvation. In proof of this he appealed to St. Paul’s epistles, falsely interpreting them, and to the teaching of St. Augustine, which he understood in a wrong sense.* It would be a mistake, however, for one to believe that all Lutherans preserved intact Luther’s teaching on this point. Already in 1535, Melanchthon declared good works to be necessary for salvation. Something similar to this was taught by the Interim of Augsburg, and by that of Leipzig.’

2. Zwingli. A sort of pantheism and fatalism is what Zwingli concludes from this teaching, as Bauer points out.‘ According to his theory, creatures come from God by way of emanation. Man is not free, but is to God as the instrument is to the artist. God is the cause of everything, even of evil and of sin. Sin is truly a transgression of the law, but man commits it of necessity, Even God does not sin in forcing man to sin, because there is no law for God. Original sin is the inclination to evil, to self-love; it is a natural malady not re-

2See his Com. on Epistle to Romans, chap. 9.

#Cf. Zwingli’s Theologie, ihr Werden und ihr System, Halle, 1885-88.

PROTESTANTISM 119 moved by baptism, as Luther had said. Instead of the Church, we have a democratic organization which includes only the elect.

3. Calvin. He surpasses Luther and Zwingli in the force of his logical conclusions.* The fundamental thesis of his doctrine is that some are freely predestined, and the rest are freely and positively damned. According to his theory, God urges man to sin, which is, however, freely committed, in the sense that there is no exterior influence compelling man to commit sin. There is no fatalism in this, says Calvin, but a mysterious and just will of God, although this is beyond man’s comprehension. On this point he writes: “We say, therefore, as evidently attested by the Scripture, that once for all God has decreed by His eternal and immutable plan, whom He willed to accept for eternal salvation and whom He willed to consign to eternal perdition. We say that this counsel], as regards the elect, has its foundation in God’s mercy, without any consideration of man’s dignity. On the contrary, admittance to eternal life is foreclosed to all those whom He wills to deliver up to eternal damnation; and this is the result of His secret and incomprehensible judgment, although it is according to strict justice.” © The corresponding Latin text does not differ from this except by the addition of “gratuitous” to the word “mercy.” It reads as follows: “The plan, as regards the elect, has its foundation in His gratuitous mercy.” * This doctrine admits, of course, a certain necessity of good works for the salvation of adults; but it does not acknowledge them to be meritorious.®

The antelapsarians, who were disciples of Calvin, said that even before Adam’s sin was foreseen, God did not will to save all mankind. On the contrary, the infralapsarians said that, as

5 Cf. Institution chrétienne, first ed., March, 1536: final ed., 1559. 6 Cf. ibid., Bk. III, chap. 21, no. 7, ed. Baum, Cunitz and Reuss, IV, 467.

7 Cf. ibid., II, 686. 8 Cf. C. Friethoff, O.P., Die Praedestinationslehre bei Tomas von Aquin und

Calvin, Friburg, Switz., 1926.¹

a consequence of this foreseen sin, God does not will to save all mankind. Calvin, following up the stand taken by Wyclif, added that those who come under the sentence of reprobation are purified only externally by baptism, not receiving the grace of this sacrament. In the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the predestined do not receive the body of Christ, but merely a divine power that emanates from Christ’s body present in heaven.* The Church is invisible, consisting of the assembly of the predestined.

This Calvinist doctrine on predestination was not accepted by those of moderate views. One of their distinguished leaders since 1588 was James Harmensz, who was called Arminius. He was appointed in 1602 a professor in the University of Leyden, where the stern Gomar already held the same position. Arminius attacked Calvin’s and Beza’s system, on certain points attracting the attention of several Catholic theologians. Arminius’ theory of liberty aroused the anger of some, and he had to engage in a very spirited argument with Gomar, who defended the following thesis: God's free good pleasure alone is the impelling antecedent cause of reprobation from grace and glory to a just damnation.” This doctrine left no trace of the distinction between negative reprobation which permits sin, and positive reprobation which punishes it. This doctrine was imposed, however, by the Synod of Dordrecht. It maintained with the infralapsarians that at least after original sin God no longer wills the salvation of all mankind, and that Christ died only for the elect. This doctrine, which at first was optional among the Calvinists of the Low Countries, was later on made obligatory.

CONDEMNATION OF THE PROTESTANT THESES

In opposition to this, the Council of Trent had been more explicit on these questions in formulating the revealed doc-

PROTESTANTISM 121 trine such as always taught by the Church. The principal definitions relative to the point at issue are found in the following canons of the sixth session.

Can. 4: “If anyone saith that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, no wise co-operates toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.” 1

Can. 5: “If anyone saith that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and is extinguished; or that it is a thing with only a name, yea, a name without a reality, a figment in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.” 12

Can. 6: “If anyone saith that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissibly only, but properly and of Himself, in such a wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema.” ¥

Can. 17: “If anyone saith that the grace of justification is attained only by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called, indeed, but receive not grace, as being by the divine power predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.” *

Can. 18: “If anyone saith that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.” 15

In the eleventh canon, which is the counterpart of this last quoted canon, the Council of ‘Trent has in mind two propo-

sitions of St. Augustine, whose doctrine the Protestants appealed to in the following passages, though interpreting him in a wrong sense: “God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding advises you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot do.” ** “God does not abandon those whom He has once justified by His grace, unless He is first abandoned by them.” ' In saying that God never commands what is impossible, St. Augustine had equivalently affirmed that in a certain way He wills all men to be saved, in this sense that He wills to make it really possible for all to keep the commandments, and that no one is lost except through his own fault.'® 16 De natura et gratia, chap. 48, no. 50.

17 Ibid., chap. 26, no. 29. 18 On this possibility, read the statement of Pius IX, Denz., no. 1677.

Footnotes

1. Luther's works, ed. Weimar, I. 105, 30 f., 35; IV, 68, 75 ff. ↩