The views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 before
the ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on the
part of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversy
began to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus was
always marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponents
Tileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated and
assailed his teaching in their pulpits.
The chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflicted
with, and invalidated, the words of Christ, "It is finished," "To-day
shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Aepinus rejoined that the word
"to-day" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence and
the indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente tempore
indefinito_). (414.) However, it was not in every respect Luther's
position which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratz
is reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent of
Christ was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) was
identical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hell
referred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; that
Christ immediately after His death entered paradise together with the
malefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completed
with His death. (446.)
In 1550 the city council of Hamburg asked Melanchthon for his opinion.
But Melanchthon's answer of September, 1550, signed also by Bugenhagen,
was rather indefinite, vague, and evasive. He said, in substance:
Although we have frequently heard the Reverend Doctor Luther speak on
this matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now been
raised, we have written also to others for their views, in order to
present a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his
_Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referred
Descent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the rest
must not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome the
torments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not to
be restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul
(_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animae
separationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion
"that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even when
referred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny of
the devil and hell is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ
are liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to the
word: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain
way the Son of God manifested this victory to the devils, and, no doubt,
the devils felt that their power was broken by this Victor, and that the
head of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, by
Christ, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was the
resurrection of many dead." With respect to the controverted point,
concerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separation
from the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg "enjoin
both parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean time
to avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other public
meetings." Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but "only the
investigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of His
departed soul in hell, is to be omitted, an inquiry which also Dr.
Luther did not consider necessary." (_C. R._ 7, 667.)
Before this Melanchthon had written in a similar vein of compromise to
Aepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. "I wish," said he in a letter of
April 4, 1550, "that there would be an amnesty between you in this
entire strife" about the descent of Christ. "Let us cultivate peace with
one another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadder
disputations originate." (7, 569; compare 6, 116.) In the following year
the Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed and
expelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, was
not intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, but
merely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city.