* This paper was composed during the Thirteenth Institute on Reformation Research of the Center for Reformation Research, June and July 1975; I am indebted for hėlpful criticism to Institute fellows Jerome Friedman, Jerry Bentley, John E. Bigane, Denis R. Janz, and John Helmke, and to David May. This study of Amsdorfs doctrine of double predestination grows out of my Ph.D. dissertation, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Knight of God and Exile of Christ: Piety and Polemic in the Wake of Luther (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973), Robert M. Kingdon, advisor.

¹ E.g., Jerome Zanchi in his debate with, the Lutheran Johann Marbach quoted the De servo arbitrio to defend his Reformed position; see Moltmann, Jürgen, Prädestination und Perseveranz. Geschichte und Bedeutung der reformierten Lehre “de perseverantia sanctorum” (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961) 81–89.Google Scholar

² See especially article eleven of the Formula of Concord (1577) in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischen-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 816–22, 1063–71.Google Scholar Other expressions of the Lutheran view can be found in the “Strassburg Concordia” of 1563, written by Cunmann Flinsbach of Zweibrücken in an effort to settle the debate between Marbach and Zanchi (its text is found in Corpus Reformatorum XLVII, Ioannis Calvini Opera XIX [ed. Baum, William et al.; Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1879] 671–75)Google Scholar, and in Martin Chemnitz, “Von der Ewige Versehung oder Wahl Gottes zur Seligkeit,” Handtbuechlein Der Furnemsten Heuptstueck der Christlichen Lehre (Heinrichstadt, 1574) 158–91.

³ Ritschl, Otto, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926) 3.Google Scholar1–25, 156–98, 283–313; Tschackert, Paul, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirchenlehre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 417–20Google Scholar, 559–64. — A number of Lutheran theologians in the sixteenth century did use deterministic terminology in discussing the doctrine of election and occasionally sounded in specific passages as if they were teaching double predestination, see Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte, 4. 106–08. Among them was the early Melanchthon, see Schäfer, Rolf, “Zur Prädestinationslehre beim jungen Melanchthon,” ZThK 63 (1966) 352–78Google Scholar; Melanchthon later abandoned this early viewpoint. Amsdorf is of special interest among these theologians because of his specifically stated and strongly expressed double predestinarian view, in contrast to the more ambiguous and slippery expressions of others, and because of his close association with Luther.

⁴ Bray, John S., Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1972) 141–42Google Scholar, a citation from Beza's Volumen primum Tractationum Theologicarum (Geneva, 1582) 171–77, a summary of his position on predestination. Amsdorf's rejection of the concept of a universal offer of salvation corresponds to Beza's doctrine of limited atonement; see Bray, ibid., 192–95. Amsdorf fiercely opposed the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper, however; see my Nikolaus von Amsdorf, 49–52, 454–55.

⁵ Amsdorf was born in 1483, just weeks after Luther, and died in 1565, nineteen years after his friend's death. He studied and then taught at Wittenberg before he left to become superintendent of the church in Magdeburg in 1524. After serving as bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz (1542–1546), he spent his retirement in Magdeburg (until 1552) and Eisenach (until 1565).

⁶ Amsdorf lectured on Aristotle in via Scoti in the arts faculty; he never completed his theological studies. Because Amsdorf never stated specifically what his professors had taught him, it is impossible to ascertain whether his instructors were genuinely Scotist on questions relating to soteriology or whether he, like Luther, received the semipelagian soteriology of Gabriel Bielas part of his theological training. Scotus himself conceived of predestination as an unconditioned act of divine will, but he did not place blame for the condemnation of sinners upon God, in contrast to Amsdorf; see Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Die Pradestinationslehre des Duns Skotusim Zusammenhangder scholastischen Lehrentwicklung (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954)Google Scholar, especially 40–43, 93–100. It is difficult to say how much of Scotus’ doctrine of predestination was preserved among those who bore the Scotist label at Wittenberg in Amsdorf's student days, and therefore it is impossible to evaluate the extent to which his Scotist background added to and influenced the ideas he got from Luther. Secondary literature on late medieval Scotism is not at all helpful at this point. In his study of Amsdorf's professor, Henning, Ludwig, Die Reformtätigkeit des Provinzials Ludwig Henning in der sdchsischen Franziskanerprovinz (1505–1517) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1915)Google Scholar, Ferdinand Doelle did not deal with Henning's theology. The most comprehensive work on German Scotism at the end of the Middle Ages has been done by Ludger Meier in more than a score of periodical articles, which have been summarized in his Die Barfüsserschule zu Erfurt (Münster: Aschendorff, 1958)Google Scholar, but Meier also fails to treat soteriology extensively. Dettloff, Werner (Die Entwicklung der Akzeptations- und Verdienstlehre von Duns Scotus bis Luther, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Franziskanertheologen [Münster: Aschendorff, 1963])Google Scholar deals with only a few figures from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. He believes that Scotus insights on acceptation and merit had been largely obscured and forgotten by 1500, see especially 362–65. It is entirely possible that Amsdorf was indeed reacting against his own instructors when he condemned what he called the “pelagianism” of the scholastics, but it is also possible that he was merely echoing Luther.

⁷ Luther's comment about the days of the early Reformation, when he, Amsdorf, and Melanchthon drank beer together in Wittenberg, is but one of several indications of their early friendship; Dr. Martin Lathers Werke (WA; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883- ), 10/III, 18.

⁸ Melanchthon, Philip, Opera quae supersunt omnia, Corpus Reformatorum XXI, ed. Bretschneider, C. G. and Bindseil, H. E. (Halle, Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1854) 273–74Google Scholar; on conversion, see 276–79; on election, 330–32. In the first edition of the Loci and in other writings from his first years in Wittenberg Melanchthon expressed his views in terms closer to Luther's and Amsdorf's; see Schirmer, Arno, Das Paulusverständnis Melanchthons, 1518–1522 (Wiesbaden: Sterner, 1967) 69–70Google Scholar; and Maurer, Wilhelm, Der junge Melanchthon, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 264–75Google Scholar, 481–89. On Melanchthon's understanding of the human will, see Günther, Hartmut Oskar, “Die Entwicklung der Willenslehre Melanchthons in der Auseinandersetzung mit Luther und Erasmus” (unpubl. diss., University of Erlangen, 1963).Google Scholar

⁹ In his first published work, Eyne chrisiliche fur betrachtung so man bethen das heylige vater vnser (Leipzig, 1519), which was a meditation on basic principles expressed in the preceding years by Luther, Amsdorf stressed that human beings depend completely on God's mercy for their salvation. This theme is present in nearly all his writings.

¹⁰ “De contingentia. Disputatione prima pars,” Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Ms. Dresd. A180, pp. 752–70. Stille, Hans (Nikolaus von Amsdorf; Sein Leben bis zu seiner Einweisung als Bischof in Naumburg [1483–1542] [Zeulenroda: Sporn, 1937] 97)Google Scholar dates the manuscript 1536, and such a date seems most probable. The manuscript is in Amsdorfs own hand.

¹¹ In a set of theses presented in Magdeburg in 1527 Amsdorf had proposed that the grace of God does not destroy the human will but assists it; see “Nicolai Amsdorfii Conclusiones,” in Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Munich: Beck, 1898) 260.Google Scholar

¹² “De contingentia,” 752–61; on p. 761: Non permissiue ut humana ratio & sapientia fingit & somniat. Vasa enim irae in contumeliam & vasa misericordiae ad honorem facit deus sua voluntate. Vasa misericordiae tradit Christo ut illos illuminet & vivificet. vasa irae Sathanae sessoriut illos inducet & excreat. Ipse Sathan & vasa irae sunt bonae creaturae dei. quia deus viderat omnia quae fecerat & erant valde bona. Ex eadem enim massa inquit paulus aliud vas quidem in honorem aliud in contumeliam faciendi potestatem habet figulus luli. Scriptum enim est cuius vult miseretur & quem vult indurat non permissiue ut sapientia mundi fingit.

¹³ Ibid., 760: “Etsi deus ad peccandum neminem trahat tamen dei voluntate & ordinatione Sathan hominem trahit & regit. Sathan minister est dei irascentis quemadmodum Christus preordinavit ad vitam aeternam quos vult. Deus non vult peccatum sed prohibet peccatum ideo a propheta appellatur. Non deus volens iniquitatem. vult aut deus (illa inscrutabili voluntate qua non vult) ut vasa irae ad peccandum trahat Sathan.”

¹⁴ Ibid., 759–60: “Deus nonque peccat nec peccare nec errare potest quia non habuit legem, ideo omnia recte, iuste & optime facit. Etiamsi furari rapere occidere terras & regiones vastare & deprecari iusserit.”

¹⁵ Gilson, Étienne, Jean Duns Scot: Introduction a ses positions fondamentales (Paris: Vrin, 1952) 603–24.Google Scholar

¹⁶ “Annotationes quibus indicatur paucis que in locis communibus Philippi Melanchthonis displicent per N.A.” (Weimar, Goethe-Schiller Archiv der Nationale Forschungs- und Gedenkstätten der klassischen deutschen Literatur) Ehemalige Thüringische Landesbibliothek Folio Band XL, 301–09. Stille dates the memorandum 1541 because of certain expressions not found in the Loci before it was reissued in 1541. The manuscript is in Amsdorf's own hand. There is no justification for dating the manuscript in the 1550's, as does Lerche, Otto, Amsdorff und Melanchthon. Eine kirchengeschichtliche Studie(Berlin, 1937) 9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Amsdorf spoke of “vasa ire que sunt ad interitum apta & parata” “Annotationes,” If. 302^r, and mentioned the clear testimony of Paul that “ipsum Esau necessariis fuisse vas ire hoc est impium reprobum & damnatum,” If. 304^v.

¹⁸ De servo arbitrio, WA 18. 634–35.

¹⁹ Ibid., 727–29.

²⁰ Ibid., 724–27.

²¹ Ibid., 634–35.

²² WA 43. 455–62.

²³ Briefe, WA 10. 488–94, and 11. 165–66; Tischreden WA 1. 226–28, 234–35, 641–42, 642–43.

²⁴ Einfältiges Bedenken. Reformationsentwurf für das Erzstift Köln von 1543, ed. Gerhards, Helmut and Borth, Wilfried (Düsseldorf: Presseverband der evangelischen Kirche im Rheinland, 1972) 166.Google Scholar Amsdorf s critique was reported in a letter of Melanchthon, Corpus Reformatorum 5. 459.

²⁵ Pfeffinger reprinted the theses which appeared in 1555 in his Demonstratio Manifest Mendacii, Quo Infamare Conatur Doctorem lohannem Pfeff. (Wittenberg, 1558), lvs. (Aiv)^v-D^r. For biographical details on Pfeffinger, see Seifert, Friedrich, “Johann Pfeffinger, der erste lutherische Pastor zu St. Nicolai und Superintendant in Leipzig,” Beiträge zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte 4 (1888) 33–162Google Scholar; for details on his dispute with Amsdorf, see my Nikolaus von Amsdorf, 363–84.

²⁶ The collection of Amsdorfiana in the Goethe-Schiller Archiv in Weimar contains three manuscript critiques of Pfeffinger's theses: “Meditationes Nicolai Amsdorfij aduersus impiam pfeffingeri disputationem, 1555,” Ehemalige Thüringische Landesbibliothek Folio Band XL, 197^r-213^r; another, somewhat altered but incomplete, draft of this critique, “Contra Pfeffingerum scriptum,” ibid., lvs. 359^r-373^r; and an undated set of theses, “Nicolaij Amsdorfij disputatio contra Pfeffingeri sophiste lipsensis disputationem,” ibid., lvs. 289^r-290^v.

²⁷ Offentliche Bekentnis der reinen lere des Euangelij Vnd Confutatio der jtzigen Schwermer (Jena: Rebart, 1558), lvs. (Div)-E^r. Amsdorf was not reacting specifically to the views of Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, or others in the frequent statements like this one which used the medieval scholastics as symbols for the theology which he had rejected.

²⁸ Pfeffinger answered Amsdorf in both Latin and German, with his Demonstratio (see note 25) and his Antwort: D. Johan Pfeffingers … Auff die Offentliche Bekentnis der reinen Lare … Niclasen von Ambsdorff (Wittenberg: 1558). Amsdorf replied in Das D. Pfeffinger seine missethat boesslich vnd felschlich leugnet (1559), to which Pfeffinger in turn replied with his Nochmals gruendlicher, klarer warhafftiger Bericht vnd Bekentnis der bittern lautern Warheit reiner Lere (1559).

²⁹ “Meditationes,” especially lvs. 200–03; cf. “Contra Pfeffingerum,” especially lvs. 369–71.

³⁰ Das D. Pfeffinger, lvs. Cij^r, (Civ)^v -Diij^r. Lf. (Civ)^v: “Nicht aus verdienst der werck / sondern aus gnade des beruffers / hab ich Jacob geliebt / aber Esau hab ich gehasset,” indicates the context in which Amsdorf was stating his views. On lf. D^v he wrote, “Ferner spricht Paulus/hat nicht ein Toepffer macht aus einem klumpffen zu machen ein Fass zu ehren/vnd das ander zu vnehren/Das ist/Gott hat macht/ex una massa perditionis generis humani zu machen vnd zu erwelen uasa misericordiae on jr zuthun/vnd die andern alle bleiben lassen/wie sie geboren sind uasa irae.” On lvs. Dij^r-Diij^r he wrote, “Durchs Euangelium werden geruffen alle Menschen boese vnd gut/aber durch den heiligen Geist zeuhet Gott der Vater/allein die auserwelten/wie Christus sagt/Niemandt kompt zu mir/der Vater zie- [sic] jn den. Die andern aber/so durchs Euangelium geruffen werden/vnd jm nicht gleuben/die komen nicht zu Christo/sondern sie bleiben Vasa irae vnd koennen aus jren krefften/das wort der verheischung nicht annemen.”

³¹ Niclas Von Amsdorff/Wider die Synergia Victorini. Nemlich Das der Mensch in seiner Bekerung/kein Synergiam noch modum agendi, habe noch haben kan/das ist/allerding nichts mit wircke in seiner Bekerung/Sondern sey Gottes gnedige wirckung allein (1564), lvs. A3^v-(A4)^v. On the dispute between Strigel and Amsdorf, see my Nikolaus von Amsdorf, 404–22.