Historical Introductionsto theSymbolical Booksof the Evangelical Lutheran Churchby F. Bente

I. The Book of Concord, or The Concordia. 

1. General and Particular Symbols. 

Book of Concord, or Concordia, is the title of the Lutheran _corpusdoctrinae, i. E. _, of the symbols recognized and published under thatname by the Lutheran Church. The word symbol, _sumbolon, _ is derivedfrom the verb _sumballein, _ to compare two things for the purpose ofperceiving their relation and association. _Sumbolon_ thus developed themeaning of _tessara, _ or sign, token, badge, banner, watchword, parole, countersign, confession, creed. A Christian symbol, therefore, is a markby which Christians are known. And since Christianity is essentially thebelief in the truths of the Gospel, its symbol is of necessity aconfession of Christian doctrine. The Church, accordingly, has from thebeginning defined and regarded its symbols as a rule of faith or a ruleof truth. Says Augustine: "Symbolum est regula fidei brevis et grandis:brevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententiarum. A symbol is a ruleof faith, both brief and grand: brief, as to the number of words, grand, as to the weight of its thoughts. "

Cyprian was the first who applied the term symbol to the baptismalconfession, because, he said, it distinguished the Christians fromnon-Christians. Already at the beginning of the fourth century theApostles' Creed was universally called symbol, and in the Middle Agesthis name was applied also to the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. Inthe Introduction to the Book of Concord the Lutheran confessorsdesignate the Augsburg Confession as the "symbol of our faith, " and inthe Epitome of the Formula of Concord, as "our symbol of this time. "

Symbols may be divided into the following classes: 1. Ecumenicalsymbols, which, at least in the past, have been accepted by allChristendom, and are still formally acknowledged by most of theevangelical Churches; 2. Particular symbols, adopted by the variousdenominations of divided Christendom; 3. Private symbols, such as havebeen formulated and published by individuals, for example, Luther'sConfession of the Lord's Supper of 1528. The publication of privateconfessions does not necessarily involve an impropriety; for accordingto Matt. 10, 32 33 and 1 Pet. 3, 15 not only the Church as a whole, butindividual Christians as well are privileged and in duty bound toconfess the Christian truth over against its public assailants. Self-evidently, only such are symbols of particular churches as havebeen approved and adopted by them. The symbols of the Church, says theFormula of Concord, "should not be based on private writings, but onsuch books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name ofthe churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion. "(CONC. TRIGL. , 851, 2. )

Not being formally and explicitly adopted by all Christians, thespecifically Lutheran confessions also are generally regarded asparticular symbols. Inasmuch, however, as they are in complete agreementwith Holy Scripture, and in this respect differ from all otherparticular symbols, the Lutheran confessions are truly ecumenical andcatholic in character. They contain the truths believed universally bytrue Christians everywhere, explicitly by all consistent Christians, implicitly even by inconsistent and erring Christians. Christian truth, being one and the same the world over is none other than that which isfound in the Lutheran confessions. 

2. The German Book of Concord. 

The printing of the official German edition of the Book of Concord wasbegun in 1578 under the editorship of Jacob Andreae. The 25th of June, 1580, however, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of theAugsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V, was chosen as the date for itsofficial publication at Dresden and its promulgation to the generalpublic. Following are the contents of one of the five Dresden foliocopies which we have compared: 1. The title-page, concluding with thewords, "Mit Churf. G. Zu Sachsen Befreiung. Dresden MDLXXX. " 2. Thepreface, as adopted and signed by the estates at Jueterbock in 1579, which supplanted the explanation, originally planned, of the theologiansagainst the various attacks made upon the Formula of Concord. 3. Thethree Ecumenical Symbols. 4. The Augsburg Confession of 1530. 5. TheApology of 1530. 6. The Smalcald Articles of 1537, with the appendix, "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope. " 7. Luther's SmallCatechism, omitting the "Booklets of Marriage and Baptism, " found insome copies. 8. Luther's Large Catechism. 9. The Formula of Concord, with separate title-pages for the Epitome and the Solida Declaratio, both dated 1580. 10. The signatures of the theologians, etc. , amountingto about 8, 000. 11. The Catalogus Testimoniorum, with the superscription"Appendix" (found in some copies only). The Preface is followed by a_Privilegium_ signed by Elector August and guaranteeing to MatthesStoeckel and Gimel Bergen the sole right of publication, a document notfound in the other copies we compared. The Formula of Concord isfollowed by a twelve-page index of the doctrines treated in the Book ofConcord, and the list of signatures, by a page containing the trade-markof the printer. The center of this page features a cut inscribed, "Matthes Stoeckel Gimel Bergen 1579. " The cut is headed by Ps. 9, 1. 2:"Ich danke dem Herrn von ganzem Herzen und erzaehle all deine Wunder. Ich freue mich und bin froehlich in dir und lobe deinen Namen, duAllerhoechster. I thank the Lord with all my heart and proclaim all Thywonders. I am glad and rejoice in Thee, and praise Thy name, Thou MostHigh. " Under the cut are the words: "Gedruckt zu Dresden durch MatthesStoeckel. Anno 1580. Printed by Matthes Stoeckel, Dresden, 1580. "

In a letter dated November 7, 1580, Martin Chemnitz speaks of twoDresden folio editions of the German Book of Concord, while Feuerlinus, in 1752, counts seven Dresden editions. As a matter of fact, the Dresdenfolio copies differ from one another, both as to typography andcontents. Following are the chief differences of the latter kind: 1. Only some copies have the liturgical Forms of Baptism and of Marriageappended to the Small Catechism. 2. The Catalogus is not entitled"Appendix" in all copies, because it was not regarded as a part of theconfession proper. 3. In some copies the passage from the AugsburgConfession, quoted in Art. 2, 29 of the Solida Declaratio, is taken, notfrom the Mainz Manuscript, but from the quarto edition of 1531, whichalready contained some alterations. 4. Some copies are dated 1580, whileothers bear the date 1579 or 1581. Dr. Kolde gives it as his opinionthat in spite of all these and other (chiefly typographical) differencesthey are nevertheless all copies of one and the same edition, withchanges only in individual sheets. (_Historische Einleitung in dieSymbolischen Buecher der ev. -luth. Kirche, _ p. 70. ) Dr. Tschackertinclines to the same view, saying: "Such copies of this edition as havebeen preserved exhibit, in places, typographical differences. This, according to Polycarp Leyser's _Kurzer und gegruendeter Bericht, _Dresden, 1597 (Kolde, 70), is due to the fact that the manuscript wasrushed through the press and sent in separate sheets to the interestedestates, and that, while the forms were in press, changes were made onthe basis of the criticisms sent in from time to time, yet not equally, so that some copies differ in certain sheets and insertions. " (_DieEntstehung der luth. Und der ref. Kirchenlehre, _ 1910, p. 621. )

However, while this hypothesis explains a number of the variations inthe Dresden folio copies, it does not account for all of them especiallynot for those of a typographical nature. In one of the five copies whichwe compared, the title-page, radically differing from the others, readsas follows: "Formula Concordiae. Das ist: Christliche, Heilsame ReineVergleichunge, in welcher die Goettliche Leer von den vornembstenArtikeln vnserer wahrhafftigen Religion, aus heiliger Schrift in kurtzebekanntnues oder Symbola vnd Leerhafte Schrifften, : welche allbereit vordieser zeit von den Kirchen Gottes Augspurgischer Confession, angenommenvnd approbiert:, verfasset. Sampt bestendiger, in Gottes wortwolgegruendeter, richtiger, endlicher widerholung, erklerung undentscheidung deren Streit, welche vnter etlichen Theologen, so sich zuermelter Confession bekant, fuergefallen. Alles nach inhalt der heiligenSchrifft, als der einigen Richtschnur der Goettlichen wahrheit, vnd nachanleitung obgemeldter in der Kirchen Gottes, approbierten Schrifften. Auff gnedigsten, gnedigen, auch guetigsten beuehl, verordnung undeinwilligung nach beschriebener Christlichen Churfuersten, Fuersten vndStende des heiligen Roemischen Reichs Deutscher Nation, AugspurgischerConfession, derselben Landen, Kirchen, Schulen vnd Nachkommen zum trostvnd besten in Druck vorfertiget. M. D. LXXIX. " ("Formula of Concord, that is, Christian, wholesome, pure agreement, in which the divinedoctrine of the chief articles of our true religion have been drawn upfrom the Holy Scripture in short confessions or symbols and doctrinalwritings, which have already before this time been accepted and approvedby the Churches of God of the Augsburg Confession, together with a firm, Scripturally well-founded, correct, final repetition, explanation anddecision of those controversies which have arisen among some theologianswho have subscribed to said Confession, all of which has been drawn upaccording to the contents of Holy Scripture, the sole norm of divineTruth, and according to the analogy of the above-named writings whichhave the approval of the Churches of God. Published by the mostgracious, kind, and benevolent command, order, and assent of thesubscribed Christian Electors, princes, and estates of the Holy RomanEmpire, of the German nation, of the Augsburg Confession, for thecomfort and benefit of said lands churches, schools, and posterity. 1579. ")

Apart from the above title this copy differs from the others we examinedin various ways Everywhere (at four different places) it bears the date1579, which, on the chief title-page, however, seems to have beenentered in ink at a later date. Also the place of publication, evidentlyDresden, is not indicated. Two variations are found in the Preface tothe Book of Concord, one an omission, the other an addition. Thesignatures of the princes and estates to the Preface are omitted. Material and formal differences are found also on the pages containingthe subscriptions of the theologians to the Formula of Concord; and theCatalogus is lacking entirely. The typography everywhere, especially inthe portions printed in Roman type, exhibits many variations anddivergences from our other four copies, which, in turn, are alsocharacterized by numerous typographical and other variations. The copyof which, above, we have given the contents is dated throughout 1580. Our third copy bears the same date 1580, excepting on the title-page ofthe Solida Declaratio, which has 1579. In both of these copies thetypography of the signatures to the Book of Concord is practicallyalike. In our fourth copy the date 1580 is found on the title-page ofthe Concordia, the Catalogus, and the appended Saxon Church Order, whichcovers 433 pages, while the title-pages of the Epitome and theDeclaratio and the page carrying the printer's imprint are all dated1579. In this copy the typography of the signatures closely resemblesthat of the copy dated everywhere 1579. In our fifth Dresden folio copy, the title-page of the Book of Concord and the Catalogus are dated 1580, while the title-pages of the Epitome and Solida Declaratio are dated1579. This is also the only copy in which the Catalogus is printed underthe special heading "Appendix. "

In view of these facts, especially the variation of the Roman type inall copies, Kolde's hypothesis will hardly be regarded as firmlyestablished. Even if we eliminate the copy which is everywhere dated1579, the variations in our four remaining Dresden folio copies cannotbe explained satisfactorily without assuming either several editions orat least several different compositions for the same edition, or perhapsfor the two editions mentioned by Chemnitz. Feuerlinus distinguishesseven Dresden editions of the Book of Concord--one, printed for thegreater part in 1578, the second, third, and fourth in 1580, the fifthin 1581, the sixth also in 1581, but in quarto, and the seventh in 1598, in folio. (_Bibliotheca Symbolica, _ 1752, p. 9. ) A copy like the onereferred to above, which is everywhere dated 1579, does not seem to havecome to the notice of Feuerlinus. 

In the copy of the Tuebingen folio edition which is before us, the Indexfollows the Preface. The appendices of the Small Catechism are omitted, likewise the superscription Appendix of the Catalogus. Our copy of theHeidelberg folio edition of 1582 omits the Catalogus and adds theApology of the Book of Concord of 1583, as also the Refutation of theBremen Pastors of the same year. A copy of the Magdeburg quarto editionlying before us has the year 1580 on the title-pages of the Book ofConcord, the Epitome, the Declaratio, and the Catalogus. The Preface isfollowed by three pages, on which Joachim Frederick guarantees to"Thomas Frantzen Buchvorlegern" (Thomas Frantzen, publishers) the soleright of publication for a period of five years, and prohibits theintroduction of other copies, excepting only those of the Dresden folioedition of 1580. Luther's Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism areappended to the Small Catechism, and to the Large Catechism is added"Eine kurze Vermahnung zu der Beicht, A Brief Exhortation toConfession. " (None of the Dresden folio copies we compared contain theseappendices, nor are they found in the Latin editions of 1580 and 1584. )The index is followed by a page of corrected misprints. The last pagehas the following imprint: "Gedruckt zu Magdeburg durch Johann Meisznerund Joachim Walden Erben, Anno 1580, Printed at Magdeburg by JohnMeissner's and Joachim Walden's heirs. In the year 1580. "

3. The Latin Concordia. 

Even before the close of 1580, Selneccer published a Latin Concordiacontaining a translation of the Formula of Concord begun by LucasOsiander in 1578 and completed by Jacob Heerbrand. It was a privateundertaking and, owing to its numerous and partly offensive mistakes, found no recognition. Thus, for instance, the passage of the Tractatus"De Potestate et Primatu Papae" in sec. 24: "Christ gives the highestand final judgment to the church, " was rendered as follows: "Et Christussummum et ultimum ferculum apponit ecclesiae. " (p. 317. ) Besides, Selneccer had embodied in his Concordia the objectionable text of theAugsburg Confession found in the octavo edition of 1531, whichMelanchthon had altered extensively. 

The necessary revision of the Latin text was made at the convention inQuedlinburg during December, 1582, and January, 1583, Chemnitz givingmaterial assistance. The revised edition, which constitutes the Latin_textus receptus_ of the Formula of Concord, was published at Leipzig in1584. Aside from many corrections, this edition contains the translationof the Formula of Concord as already corrected by Selneccer in 1582 forhis special Latin-German edition, and afterwards thoroughly revised byChemnitz. The texts of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology followthe _editio princeps_ of 1531. The 8, 000 signatures, embodied also inthe Latin edition of 1580, were omitted, lest any one might complainthat his name was appended to a book which he had neither seen norapproved. In keeping herewith, the words in the title of the Book ofConcord: "_et nomina sua huic libro subscripserunt_--and have subscribedtheir names to this book, " which Mueller retained in his edition, wereeliminated. The title-page concludes as in the edition of 1580, the word"denuo" only being added and the date correspondingly changed. On thelast two pages of this edition of 1584 Selneccer refers to the editionof 1580 as follows: "Antea publicatus est liber Christianae Concordiae, Latine, sed privato et festinato instituto, Before this the Book ofConcord has been published in Latin, but as a private and hastyundertaking. " In the edition of 1584, the text of the Small Catechism isadorned with 23 Biblical illustrations. 

Among the later noteworthy editions of the Book of Concord are thefollowing: Tuebingen 1599; Leipzig, 1603, 1622; Stuttgart 1660, 1681. Editions furnished with introductions or annotations or both: H. Pipping, 1703; S. J. Baumgarten, 1747; J. W. Schoepff, Part I, 1826, PartII, 1827; F. A. Koethe, 1830; J. A. Detzer, 1830; F. W. Bodemann, 1843. InAmerica the entire Book of Concord was printed in German by H. Ludwig, of New York, in 1848, and by the Concordia Publishing House of St. Louis, Mo. , in 1880. In Leipzig, Latin editions appeared in the years1602, 1606, 1612, 1618, 1626, 1654, 1669, 1677. Adam Rechenberg'sedition "with an appendix in three parts and new indices" (_cumappendice tripartita et novis indicibus_) saw five editions--1678, 1698, 1712, 1725, 1742. We mention also the edition of Pfaffius, 1730;Tittmann, 1817; H. A. G. Meyer, 1830, containing a good preface; KarlHase, in his editions of 1827, 1837, and 1845, was the first to numberthe paragraphs. Reineccius prepared a German-Latin edition in 1708. Thiswas followed in 1750 by the German-Latin edition of Johann Georg Walch. Mueller's well-known German-Latin Concordia saw eleven editions between1847 and 1912. Since 1907 it appears with historical introductions byTh. Kolde. 

4. English Translations. 

All of the Lutheran symbols have been translated into the Englishlanguage repeatedly. In 1536 Richard Tavener prepared the firsttranslation of the Augsburg Confession. Cranmer published, in 1548, "AShort Instruction into the Christian Religion, " essentially atranslation of the Ansbach-Nuernberg Sermons on the Catechism. In 1834 atranslation of the German text of the Augsburg Confession with"Preliminary Observations" was published at Newmarket, Va. , by CharlesHenkel, Prof. Schmidt of the Seminary at Columbus O. , assisting in thiswork. The Introduction to the Newmarket Book of Concord assigns Henkel'stranslation of the Augsburg Confession to the year 1831. Our copy, however, which does not claim to be a second edition, is dated 1834. Inhis _Popular Theology_ of 1834, S. S. Schmucker offered a translation ofthe Latin text, mutilated in the interest of his _American Lutheranism. _Hazelius followed him with a translation in 1841. In 1848, Ludwig, ofNew York, issued a translation of the German text of the UnalteredAugsburg Confession, as well as of the Introduction, prepared by C. H. Schott, together with the Ecumenical Symbols, also with introductions. The title-page of our copy lists the price of the book at 12 1/2 cents. C. P. Krauth's translation of the Augsburg Confession appeared in 1868. The first complete translation of the German text of the entire Book ofConcord was published in 1851 by the publishing house of Solomon D. Henkel & Bros. , at Newmarket, Va. In this translation, however, greaterstress was laid on literary style than upon an exact reproduction of theoriginal. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel prepared the translation of theAugsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Appendix, and the Articles of Visitation. The Small Catechism was offered in thetranslation prepared by David Henkel in 1827. The Large Catechism wastranslated by J. Stirewalt; the Epitome, by H. Wetzel; the Declaratio, by J. R. Moser. The second, improved edition of 1854 contained atranslation of the Augsburg Confession by C. Philip Krauth, the Apologywas translated by W. F. Lehmann, the Smalcald Articles by W. M. Reynolds, the two Catechisms by J. G. Morris, and the Formula of Concord togetherwith the Catalogus by C. F. Schaeffer. In both editions the historicalintroductions present a reproduction of the material in J. T. Mueller's_Book of Concord. _

In 1882 a new English translation of the entire Book of Concord, together with introductions and other confessional material, appeared intwo volumes, edited by Dr. H. E. Jacobs. The first volume of this editionembraces the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church. It containsC. P. Krauth's translation of the Augsburg Confession as revised forSchaff's _Creeds of Christendom. _ Jacobs translated the Apology (fromthe Latin, with insertions, in brackets, of translations from the Germantext), the Smalcald Articles (from the German), the Tractatus (from theLatin), and the Formula of Concord. The translation of the SmallCatechism was prepared by a committee of the Ministerium ofPennsylvania. The Large Catechism was done into English by A. Martin. Areprint of this edition appeared in 1911, entitled "People's Edition, "in which the Augsburg Confession is presented in a translation preparedby a committee of the General Council, the General Synod, the UnitedSynod in the South, and the Ohio Synod. The second volume of Jacobs'sedition of the Book of Concord embodies historical introductions to theLutheran symbols, translations of the Marburg Articles, the SchwabachArticles, the Torgau Articles, the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540and 1542, Zwingli's Ratio Fidei, the Tetrapolitana, the RomishConfutatio, Melanchthon's Opinion of 1530, Luther's Sermon on theDescent into Hell of 1533, the Wittenberg Concordia, the Leipzig Interimthe Catalogus Testimoniorum, the Articles of Visitation, and theDecretum Upsaliense of 1593. The Principles of Faith and Church Polityof the General Council and an index complete this volume. A Norwegianand a Swedish translation of the Book of Concord have also beenpublished in America. 

5. Corpora Doctrinae Supplanted by Book of Concord. 

More than twenty different Lutheran collections of symbols or _corporadoctrinae_ (a term first employed by Melanchthon), most of them bulky, had appeared after the death of Luther and before the adoption of theFormula of Concord, by which quite a number of them were supplanted. From the signatures to its Preface it appears that the entire Book ofConcord was adopted by 3 electors, 20 princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, and35 imperial cities. And the list of signatures appended to the Formulaof Concord contains about 8, 000 names of theologians, preachers, andschoolteachers. About two-thirds of the German territories whichprofessed adherence to the Augsburg Confession adopted and introducedthe Book of Concord as their _corpus doctrinae. _ (Compare HistoricalIntroduction to the Formula of Concord. )

Among the _corpora doctrinae_ which were gradually superseded by theBook of Concord are the following: 1. Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum, orMisnicum, or Wittenbergense of 1560, containing besides the ThreeEcumenical Symbols, the following works of Melanchthon: Variata, Apologia, Repetitio Augustanae Confessionis, Loci, Examen Ordinandorumof 1552, Responsio ad Articulos Bavaricae Inquisitionis, RefutatioServeti. Melanchthon, shortly before his death, wrote the preface forthe Latin as well as the German edition of this Corpus. 2. CorpusDoctrinae Pomeranicum of 1564 which adds Luther's Catechisms, theSmalcald Articles, and three other works of Luther to the CorpusDoctrinae Philippicum, which had been adopted 1561. 3. Corpus DoctrinaePrutenicum, or Borussicum, of Prussia, 1567, containing the AugsburgConfession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Repetition of theSum and Content of the True, Universal Christian Doctrine of the Church, written by Moerlin and Chemnitz. 4. Corpus Doctrinae Thuringicum inDucal Saxony, of 1570, containing the Three Ecumenical Symbols, Luther'sCatechisms, the Smalcald Articles, the Confession of the Landed Estatesin Thuringia (drawn up by Justus Menius in 1549), and the Prince ofSaxony's Book of Confutation (_Konfutationsbuch_) of 1558. 5. CorpusDoctrinae Brandenburgicum of 1572, containing the Augsburg Confessionaccording to the Mainz Manuscript, Luther's Small Catechism, Explanationof the Augsburg Confession drawn from the postils and doctrinal writings"of the faithful man of God Dr. Luther" by Andreas Musculus, and aChurch Agenda. 6. Corpus Doctrinae Wilhelminum of Lueneburg, 1576, containing the Three Ecumenical Symbols, the Augsburg Confession, theApology, the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms, Formulae CauteLoquendi (Forms of Speaking Cautiously) by Dr. Urbanus Regius, andFormulae Recte Sentiendi de Praecipuis Horum Temporum Controversiis(Forms of Thinking Correctly concerning the Chief Controversies of TheseTimes) by Martin Chemnitz. 7. Corpus Doctrinae Iulium of Duke Julius ofBraunschweig-Wolfenbuettel, 1576, containing the documents of theWilhelminum, with the sole addition of the Short Report of SomeProminent Articles of Doctrine, from the Church Order of Duke Julius, of1569. 8. The Hamburg Book of Confession of 1560, which was also adoptedby Luebeck and Lueneburg, and contained a confession against the Interimdrawn up by Aepinus in 1548, and also four declarations concerningAdiaphorism, Osiandrism, Majorism, and the doctrine of the Lord'sSupper, drawn up since 1549. 9. The Confessional Book of Braunschweig, adopted in 1563 and reaffirmed in 1570, containing, The BraunschweigChurch Order of 1528, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apologythereof, the Smalcald Articles, Explanation, etc. , drawn up at Lueneburgin 1561 against the Crypto-Calvinists. 10. The Church Order of the cityof Goettingen 1568, containing the Church Order of Goettingen of 1531, Luther's Small Catechism, the Smalcald Articles, the AugsburgConfession, and the Apology. (Tschackert, _l. C. _, 613f. ; Feuerlinus, _l. C. _, 1f. )

6. Subscription to Confessions. 

The position accorded the symbols in the Lutheran Church is clearlydefined by the Book of Concord itself. According to it Holy Scripturealone is to be regarded as the sole rule and norm by which absolutelyall doctrines and teachers are to be judged. The object of theAugustana, as stated in its Preface, was to show "what manner ofdoctrine has been set forth, in our lands and churches from the HolyScripture and the pure Word of God. " And in its Conclusion the Lutheranconfessors declare: "Nothing has been received on our part againstScripture or the Church Catholic, " and "we are ready, God willing, topresent ampler information according to the Scriptures. " "IuxtaScripturam"--such are the closing words of the Augsburg Confession. TheLutheran Church knows of no other principle. 

In the Formula of Concord we read: "Other writings, however, of ancientor modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded asequal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected tothem, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, andat what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles waspreserved. " (777, 2. ) In the Conclusion of the Catalog of Testimonies weread: "The true saving faith is to be founded upon no church-teachers, old or new, but only and alone upon God's Word, which is comprised inthe Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles, as unquestionablewitnesses of divine truth. " (1149. )

The Lutheran symbols, therefore, are not intended to supplant theScriptures, nor do they do so. They do, however, set forth what has beenat all times the unanimous understanding of the pure Christian doctrineadhered to by sincere and loyal Lutherans everywhere; and, at the sametime, they show convincingly from the Scriptures that our forefathersdid indeed manfully confess nothing but God's eternal truth, which everyChristian is in duty bound to, and consistently always will, believe, teach, and confess. 

The manner also in which Lutherans pledge themselves confessionallyappears from these symbols. The Augsburg Confession was endorsed by theprinces and estates as follows: "The above articles we desire to presentin accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order toexhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of ourteachers. " (95, 6. ) In the preamble to the signatures of 1537 theLutheran preachers unanimously confess: "We have reread the articles ofthe Confession presented to the Emperor in the Assembly at Augsburg, andby the favor of God all the preachers who have been present in thisAssembly at Smalcald harmoniously declare that they believe and teach intheir churches according to the articles of the Confession and Apology. "(529. ) John Brenz declares that he had read and reread, time and again, the Confession, the Apology, etc. , and judged "that all these agree withHoly Scripture, and with the belief of the true and genuine catholicChurch (_haec omnia convenire cum Sacra Scriptura et cum sententia veraekai gnesies catholicae ecclesiae_). " (529. ) Another subscription--to theSmalcald Articles--reads: "I, Conrad Figenbotz, for the glory of Godsubscribe that I have thus believed and am still preaching and firmlybelieving as above. " (503, 13. ) Brixius writes in a similar vein: "I . .. Subscribe to the Articles of the reverend Father Martin Luther, andconfess that hitherto I have thus believed and taught, and by the Spiritof Christ I shall continue thus to believe and teach. " (503, 27. )

In the Preface to the Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord theLutheran confessors declare: "To this Christian Augsburg Confession, sothoroughly grounded in God's Word, we herewith pledge ourselves againfrom our inmost hearts. We abide by its simple, clear, and unadulteratedmeaning as the words convey it, and regard the said Confession as a pureChristian symbol, with which at the present time true Christians oughtto be found next to God's Word. .. . We intend also, by the grace of theAlmighty, faithfully to abide until our end by this ChristianConfession, mentioned several times, as it was delivered in the year1530 to the Emperor Charles V; and it is our purpose, neither in thisnor in any other writing, to recede in the least from that oft-citedConfession, nor to propose another or new confession. " (847, 4. 5. )Again: "We confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as oursymbol for this time (not because it was composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded firmly andwell therein), precisely in the form in which it was committed towriting in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V atAugsburg. " (851, 5. )

In like manner the remaining Lutheran symbols were adopted. (852. 777. )Other books, the Formula of Concord declares, are accounted useful, "asfar as (_wofern, quatenus_) they are consistent with" the Scriptures andthe symbols. (855, 10. ) The symbols, however, are accepted "that we mayhave a unanimously received, definite, common form of doctrine, whichall our Evangelical churches together and in common confess, from andaccording to which, because (_cum, weil_) it has been derived from God'sWord, all other writings should be judged and adjusted, as to how far(_wiefern, quatenus_) they are to be approved and accepted. " (855, 10. )

After its adoption by the Lutheran electors, princes, and estates, theFormula of Concord, and with it the entire Book of Concord, was, asstated, solemnly subscribed by about 8, 000 theologians, pastors, andteachers, the pledge reading as follows: "Since now, in the sight of Godand of all Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and thosewho shall come after us that this declaration herewith presentedconcerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession in which we arealso willing, by God's grace to appear with intrepid hearts before thejudgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that wewill neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary toit, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after mature deliberation, we have, in God's fear and with theinvocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands. "(1103, 40. )

Furthermore, in the Preface to the Book of Concord the princes andestates declare that many churches and schools had received the AugsburgConfession "as a symbol of the present time in regard to the chiefarticles of faith, especially those involved in controversy with theRomanists and various corruptions of the heavenly doctrine. " (7. ) Theysolemnly protest that it never entered their minds "either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the leasteven to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 atAugsburg. " (15. ) They declare: "This Confession also, by the help ofGod, we will retain to our last breath when we shall go forth from thislife to the heavenly fatherland, to appear with joyful and undauntedmind and with a pure conscience before the tribunal of our Lord JesusChrist. " (15. ) "Therefore we also have determined not to depart even afinger's breadth either from the subjects themselves or from the phraseswhich are found in them (_vel a rebus ipsis vel a phrasibus, quae inilla habentur, discedere_), but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, topersevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godlyagreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to thistrue norm and declaration of the pure doctrine. " (23. )

7. Pledging of Ministers to the Confessions. 

Such being the attitude of the Lutherans towards their symbols, and suchtheir evaluation of pure doctrine, it was self-evident that the publicteachers of their churches should be pledged to the confessions. InDecember 1529, H. Winckel, of Goettingen, drew up a form in which thecandidate for ordination declares: "I believe and hold also of the mostsacred Sacrament . .. As one ought to believe concerning it according tothe contents of the Bible, and as Doctor Martin Luther writes andconfesses concerning it especially in his Confession" (of the Lord'sSupper, 1528). The Goettingen Church Order of 1530, however, did not asyet embody a vow of ordination. The first pledges to the symbols weredemanded by the University of Wittenberg in 1533 from candidates for thedegree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1535 this pledge was required also ofthe candidates for ordination. The oath provided that the candidate mustfaithfully teach the Gospel without corruption, steadfastly defend theEcumenical Symbols, remain in agreement with the Augsburg Confession, and before deciding difficult controversies consult older teachers ofthe Church of the Augsburg Confession. Even before 1549 the candidatesfor philosophical degrees were also pledged by oath to the AugsburgConfession. 

In 1535, at the Diet of Smalcald, it was agreed that new membersentering the Smalcald League should promise "to provide for suchteaching and preaching as was in harmony with the Word of God and thepure teaching of our [Augsburg] Confession. " According to the PomeranianChurch Order which Bugenhagen drew up in 1535, pastors were pledged tothe Augsburg Confession and the Apology thereof. Capito, Bucer, and allothers who took part in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, promised, overtheir signatures, "to believe and to teach in all articles according tothe Confession and the Apology. " (_Corpus Reformatorum, _ opp. Melanthonis, 3, 76. ) In 1540, at Goettingen, John Wigand promised toaccept the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and to abide by them allhis life. "And, " he continued, "if I should be found to do otherwise orbe convicted of teaching and confessing contrary to such Confession andApology, then let me, by this signature, be condemned and deposed fromthis divine ministry. This do I swear, so help me God. " Also atGoettingen, Veit Pflugmacher vowed, in 1541, that he would preach theGospel in its truth and purity according to the Augsburg Confession andthe contents of the postils of Anton Corvinus. He added: "Should I befound to do otherwise and not living up to what has been set forthabove, then shall I by such act have deposed myself from office. This doI swear; so help me God. "

In 1550 and 1552, Andrew Osiander attacked the oath of confession whichwas in vogue at Wittenberg, claiming it to be "an entanglement inoath-bound duties after the manner of the Papists. " "What else, " saidhe, "does this oath accomplish than to sever those who swear it from theHoly Scriptures and bind them to Philip's doctrine? Parents maytherefore well consider what they do by sending their sons to Wittenbergto become Masters and Doctors. Money is there taken from them, and theyare made Masters and Doctors. But while the parents think that their sonis an excellent man, well versed in the Scriptures and able to silenceenthusiasts and heretics, he is, in reality, a poor captive, entangledand embarrassed by oath-bound duties. For he has abjured the Word of Godand has taken an oath on Philip's doctrine. " Replying to this fanaticalcharge in 1553, Melanchthon emphasized the fact that the doctrinalpledges demanded at Wittenberg had been introduced chiefly by Luther, for the purpose of "maintaining the true doctrine. " "For, " saidMelanchthon, "many enthusiasts were roaming about at that time, each, inturn, spreading new silly nonsense, _e. G. _, the Anabaptists, Servetus, Campanus, Schwenckfeld, and others. And such tormenting spirits are notlacking at any time (_Et non desunt tales furiae ullo tempore_). " Adoctrinal pledge, Melanchthon furthermore explained, was necessary "inorder correctly to acknowledge God and call upon Him to preserve harmonyin the Church, and to bridle the audacity of such as invent newdoctrines. " (_C. R. _ 12, 5. )

II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols. 

8. Ecumenical Symbols. 

The Ecumenical (general, universal) Symbols were embodied in the Book ofConcord primarily for apologetic reasons. Carpzov writes: "The solereason why our Church appealed to these symbols was to declare heragreement with the ancient Church in so far as the faith of the latterwas laid down in these symbols, to refute also the calumniations and theaccusations of the opponents, and to evince the fact that she preachesno new doctrine and in no wise deviates from the Church Catholic. "(_Isagoge, _ 37. ) For like reasons Article I of the Augsburg Confessiondeclares its adherence to the Nicene Creed, and the first part of theSmalcald Articles, to the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds. The oathintroduced by Luther in 1535, and required of the candidates for thedegree of Doctor of Divinity, also contained a pledge on the EcumenicalSymbols. In 1538 Luther published a tract entitled, "The Three Symbolsor Confessions of the Faith of Christ Unanimously Used in the Church, "containing the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Te Deum ofAmbrose and Augustine. To these was appended the Nicene Creed. 

In the opening sentences of this tract, Luther remarks: "Whereas I havepreviously taught and written quite a bit concerning faith, showing bothwhat faith is and what faith does, and have also published my Confession[1528], setting forth both what I believe and what position I intend tomaintain; and whereas the devil continues to seek new intrigues againstme, I have decided, by way of supererogation, to publish conjointly, inthe German tongue, the three so-called Symbols, or Confessions, whichhave hitherto been received, read, and chanted throughout the Church. Iwould thereby reaffirm the fact that I side with the true ChristianChurch, which has adhered to these Symbols, or Confessions, to thepresent day, and not with the false, vainglorious church, which inreality is the worst enemy of the true Church, having introduced muchidolatry beside these beautiful confessions. " (St. L. 10, 993; Erl. 23, 252. ) Luther's translation of the Ecumenical Symbols, together with thecaptions which appeared in his tract, were embodied in the Book ofConcord. The superscription, "Tria Symbola Catholica seu Oecumenica, "occurs for the first time in Selneccer's edition of the Book of Concordof 1580. Before this, 1575, he had written: "Quot sunt Symbola fideiChristianae in Ecclesia? Tria sunt praecipua quae nominantur oecumenica, sive universalia et authentica, id est, habentia auctoritatem et nonindigentia demonstratione aut probatione, videlicet SymbolumApostolicum, Nicaenum et Athanasianum. " (Schmauk, _ConfessionalPrinciple, _ 834. )

9. The Apostles' Creed. 

The foundation of the Apostles' Creed was, in a way, laid by ChristHimself when He commissioned His disciples, saying, Matt. 28, 19. 20:"Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observeall things whatsoever I have commanded you. " The formula of Baptism hereprescribed, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost, " briefly indicates what Christ wants Christians to be taught, tobelieve, and to confess. And the Apostles' Creed, both as to its formand contents, is evidently but an amplification of the trinitarianformula of Baptism. Theo. Zahn remarks: "It has been said, and notwithout a good basis either, that Christ Himself has ordained thebaptismal confession. For the profession of the Triune God made by thecandidates for Baptism is indeed the echo of His missionary andbaptismal command reechoing through all lands and times in many thousandvoices. " (_Skizzen aus dem Leben der Kirche, _ 252. )

But when and by whom was the formula of Baptism thus amplified?--Duringthe Medieval Ages the Apostles' Creed was commonly known as "The TwelveArticles, " because it was generally believed that the twelve apostles, assembled in joint session before they were separated, soon afterPentecost drafted this Creed, each contributing a clause. But, thoughretained in the Catechismus Romanus, this is a legend which originatedin Italy or Gaul in the sixth or seventh (according to Zahn, toward theend of the fourth) century and was unknown before this date. Yet, thoughit may seem more probable that the Apostles' Creed was the result of asilent growth and very gradual formation corresponding to theever-changing environments and needs of the Christian congregations, especially over against the heretics, there is no sufficient reason whythe apostles themselves should not have been instrumental in itsformulation, nor why, with the exception of a number of minor lateradditions its original form should not have been essentially what it isto-day. 

Nathanael confessed: "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the Kingof Israel, " John 1, 49, the apostles confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, " Matt. 16, 16; Peter confessed: "We believeand are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God, " John6, 69; Thomas confessed: "My Lord and my God, " John 20, 28. These andsimilar confessions of the truth concerning Himself were not merelyapproved of, but solicited and demanded by, Christ. For He declares mostsolemnly: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will Iconfess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shalldeny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is inheaven, " Matt. 10, 32. 33. The same duty of confessing their faith, _i. E. _, the truths concerning Christ, is enjoined upon all Christians bythe Apostle Paul when he writes: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouththe Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Himfrom the dead, thou shalt be saved, " Rom. 10, 9. 

In the light of these and similar passages, the trinitarian baptismalformula prescribed by Christ evidently required from the candidate forBaptism a definite statement of what he believed concerning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, especially concerning Jesus Christ the Savior. Andthat such a confession of faith was in vogue even in the days of theapostles appears from the Bible itself. Of Timothy it is said that hehad "professed a good profession before many witnesses, " 1 Tim. 6, 12. Heb. 4, 14 we read: "Let us hold fast our profession. " Heb. 10, 23: "Letus hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering. " Jude urgesthe Christians that they "should earnestly contend for the faith whichwas once delivered unto the saints, " and build up themselves on their"most holy faith, " Jude 3. 20. Compare also 1 Cor. 15, 3. 4; 1 Tim. 3, 16; Titus 1, 13; 3, 4-7. 

10. Apostles' Creed and Early Christian Writers. 

The Christian writers of the first three centuries, furthermore, furnishample proof for the following facts: that from the very beginning of theChristian Church the candidates for Baptism everywhere were required tomake a confession of their faith; that from the beginning there wasexisting in all the Christian congregations a formulated confessionwhich they called the rule of faith, the rule of truth, etc. ; that thisrule was identical with the confession required of the candidates forBaptism; that it was declared to be of apostolic origin; that thesummaries and explanations of this rule of truth, given by thesewriters, tally with the contents and in part, also with the phraseologyof the Apostles' Creed; that the scattered Christian congregations, thenstill autonomous, regarded the adoption of this rule, of faith as theonly necessary condition of Christian unity and fellowship. 

The manner in which Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, andother early Christian writers present the Christian truth frequentlyreminds us of the Apostles' Creed and suggests its existence. ThusJustin Martyr, who died 165, says in his first Apology, which waswritten about 140: "Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, whoalso was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, that we reasonably worship Him, having learned thatHe is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the secondplace, and the prophetic Spirit in the third. " "Eternal praise to theFather of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. "Similar strains, sounding like echoes of the Second Article, may befound in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Christians at Smyrnawritten by Ignatius, the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch, who died107. 

Irenaeus, who died 189, remarks: Every Christian "who retains immovablein himself the rule of the truth which he received through Baptism (_hoton kanona tes altheias akline en eauto katechon, hon dia toubaptismatos eilephe_)" is able to see through the deceit of allheresies. Irenaeus here identifies the baptismal confession with what hecalls the "rule of truth, _kanon tes eiltheias_" _i. E. _, the truth whichis the rule for everything claiming to be Christian. Apparently, this"rule of truth" was the sum of doctrines which every Christian receivedand confessed at his baptism. The very phrase "rule of truth" impliesthat it was a concise and definite formulation of the chief Christiantruths. For "canon, rule, " was the term employed by the ancient Churchto designate such brief sentences as were adopted by synods for thepractise of the Church. And this "rule of truth" is declared by Irenaeusto be "the old tradition, " "the old tradition of the apostles": he teapo ton apostolon en te ekklesia paradosis. (Zahn, _l. C. _, 379f. )Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp the Martyr; and what he had learnedfrom him, Polycarp had received from the Apostle John. Polycarp, saysIrenaeus, "taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, andwhich the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. " Accordingto Irenaeus, then, the "rule of truth" received and confessed by everyChristian at his baptism was transmitted by the apostles. The contentsof this rule of truth received from the apostles are repeatedly setforth by Irenaeus. In his _Contra Haereses_ (I, 10, 1) one of thesesummaries reads as follows: "The Church dispersed through the wholeworld, to the ends of the earth has received from the apostles and theirdisciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who has made heavenand earth and the sea and all things that are in them, and in one JesusChrist, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and inthe Holy Spirit, who has proclaimed through the prophets thedispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and thepassion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumptioninto heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His manifestationfrom heaven in the glory of the Father. " It thus appears that the "ruleof truth" as Irenaeus knew it, the formulated sum of doctrines mediatedby Baptism, which he, in accordance with the testimony of his teacherPolycarp, believed to have been received from the apostles, at leastapproaches our present Apostolic Creed. 

11. Tertullian and Cyprian on Apostles' Creed. 

A similar result is obtained from the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Origen and others. "When we step into the water of Baptism, "says Tertullian, who died about 220, "we confess the Christian faithaccording to the words of its law, " _i. E. _, according to the law offaith or the rule of faith. Tertullian, therefore, identifies theconfession to which the candidates for Baptism were pledged with thebrief formulation of the chief Christian doctrines which he variouslydesignates as "the law of faith, " "the rule of faith, " frequently alsoas _tessara, _ watchword and _sacramentum, _ a term then signifying themilitary oath of allegiance. This Law or Rule of Faith was, according toTertullian, the confession adopted by Christians everywhere, whichdistinguished them from unbelievers and heretics. The unity of thecongregations, the granting of the greeting of peace, of the namebrother, and of mutual hospitality, --these and similar Christian rightsand privileges, says Tertullian, "depend on no other condition than thesimilar tradition of the same oath of allegiance, " _i. E. _, the adoptionof the same baptismal rule of faith. (Zahn, 250. )

At the same time Tertullian most emphatically claims, "that this rule offaith was established by the apostles, aye, by Christ Himself, " inasmuchas He had commanded to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of theSon, and of the Holy Ghost. " (Zahn, 252. ) In his book _AdversusPraxeam, _ Tertullian concludes an epitome which he gives of "the rule offaith" as follows: "That this rule has come down from the beginning ofthe Gospel, even before the earlier heretics, and so, of course beforethe Praxeas of yesterday, is proved both by the lateness of all hereticsand by the novelty of this Praxeas of yesterday. " (Schaff, _Creeds ofChristendom, _ 2, 18. ) The following form is taken from Tertullian's _DeVirginibus Velandis:_ "For the rule of faith is altogether one, alone(_sola_), immovable, and irreformable, namely, believing in one Godomnipotent the Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born ofthe Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the deadthe third day, received into the heavens, sitting now at the right handof the Father who shall come to judge the living and the dead, alsothrough the resurrection of the flesh. " Cyprian the Martyr, bishop ofCarthage, who died 257, and who was the first one to apply the term_symbolum_ to the baptismal creed, in his Epistle to Magnus and toJanuarius, as well as to other Numidian bishops, gives the following asthe answer of the candidate for Baptism to the question, "Do youbelieve?": "I believe in God the Father, in His Son Christ, in the HolySpirit. I believe the remission of sins, and the life eternal throughthe holy Church. "

12. Variations of the Apostles' Creed. 

While there can be no reasonable doubt either that the Christianchurches from the very beginning were in possession of a definite andformulated symbol, or that this symbol was an amplification of thetrinitarian formula of Baptism, yet we are unable to ascertain with anydegree of certainty what its exact original wording was. There has notbeen found in the early Christian writers a single passage recording theprecise form of the baptismal confession or the rule of truth and faithas used in the earliest churches. This lack of contemporal writtenrecords is accounted for by the fact that the early Christians andChristian churches refused on principle to impart and transmit theirconfession in any other manner than by word of mouth. Such was theirattitude, not because they believed in keeping their creed secret, butbecause they viewed the exclusively oral method of impartation as themost appropriate in a matter which they regarded as an affair of deepestconcern of their hearts. 

It is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostleswere instrumental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that thewording of it was not absolutely identical in all Christiancongregations, and that in the course of time various changes andadditions were made. "Tradition, " says Tertullian with respect to thebaptismal confession, received from the apostles, "has enlarged it, custom has confirmed it, faith observes and preserves it. " (Zahn, 252. 381. ) When, therefore, Tertullian and other ancient writers declare thatthe rule of faith received from the apostles is "altogether one, immovable, and irreformable, " they do not at all mean to say that thephraseology of this symbol was alike everywhere, and that in thisrespect no changes whatever had been made, nor that any clauses had beenadded. Such variations, additions, and alterations, however, involved adoctrinal change of the confession no more than the Apology of theAugsburg Confession implies a doctrinal departure from this symbol. Itremained the same Apostolic Creed, the changes and additions merelybringing out more fully and clearly its true, original meaning. And thisis the sense in which Tertullian and others emphasize that the rule offaith is "one, immovable, and irreformable. "

The oldest known form of the Apostles' Creed, according to A. Harnack, is the one used in the church at Rome, even prior to 150 A. D. It was, however, as late as 337 or 338, when this Creed, which, as the church atRome claimed, was brought thither by Peter himself, was for the firsttime quoted as a whole by Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra in a letter toBishop Julius of Rome, for the purpose of vindicating his orthodoxy. During the long period intervening, some changes, however, may havebeen, and probably were, made also in this Old Roman Symbol, which readsas follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora; kai eis Christon Iesoun [ton]huion autou ton monogene, ton kupion hemon, ton gennethenta ekpneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatoustaurothenta kai taphenta, te trite hemera anastanta ek [ton] nekron, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothenerchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous; kai eis pneuma hagion, hagianekklesian aphesin hamartion, sapkos anastasin. _ (Herzog, _R. E. _ 1, 744. )

13. Present Form of Creed and Its Contents. 

The complete form of the present _textus receptus_ of the Apostles'Creed, evidently the result of a comparison and combination of thevarious preexisting forms of this symbol, may be traced to the end ofthe fifth century and is first found in a sermon by Caesarius of Arlesin France, about 500. --In his translation, Luther substituted"Christian" for "catholic" in the Third Article. He regarded the twoexpressions as equivalent in substance, as appears from the SmalcaldArticles, where he identifies these terms, saying: "Sic enim orantpueri: Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam sive Christianam. " (472, 5;498, 3. ) The form, "I believe a holy Christian Church, " however, is metwith even before Luther's time. (Carpzov, _Isagoge, _ 46. )--In the Greekversion the received form of the Apostles' Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges. Kaieis Iesoun Christon, huion autou ton monogene, ton kurion hemon, tonsullephthenta ek pneumatos hagiou, gennethenta ek Marias tes parthenou, pathonta epi Pontiou Pilatou, staurothenta, thanonta, kai taphenta, anastanta apo ton nekron, anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kathezomenon endexia theou patros pantodunamou, ekeithen erchomenon krinai zontas kainekrous. Pisteuo eis to pneuma to hagion, hagian ekklesian, hagionkoinonian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, zoen aionion, Amen. _

As to its contents, the Apostles' Creed is a positive statement of theessential facts of Christianity. The Second Article, says Zahn, is "acompend of the Evangelical history, including even external details. "(264. ) Yet some of the clauses of this Creed were probably inserted inopposition to prevailing, notably Gnostic, heresies of the firstcenturies. It was the first Christian symbol and, as Tertullian andothers declare, the bond of unity and fellowship of the early Christiancongregations everywhere. It must not, however, be regarded as inspired, much less as superior even to the Holy Scriptures; for, as stated above, it cannot even, in any of its existing forms, be traced to the apostles. Hence it must be subjected to, and tested and judged by, the HolyScriptures, the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule andnorm of all doctrines, teachers, and symbols. In accordance herewith theLutheran Church receives the Apostles' Creed, as also the two otherecumenical confessions, not as _per se_ divine and authoritative, butbecause its doctrine is taken from, and well grounded in, the propheticand apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments. (CONC. TRIGL. 851, 4. )

14. The Nicene Creed. 

In the year 325 Emperor Constantine the Great convened the FirstEcumenical Council at Nicaea, in Bithynia, for the purpose of settlingthe controversy precipitated by the teaching of Arius, who denied thetrue divinity of Christ. The council was attended by 318 bishops andtheir assistants, among whom the young deacon Athanasius of Alexandriagained special prominence as a theologian of great eloquence, acumen, and learning. "The most valiant champion against the Arians, " as he wascalled, Athanasius turned the tide of victory in favor of theHomoousians, who believed that the essence of the Father and of the Sonis identical. The discussions were based upon the symbol of Eusebius ofCaesarea, which by changes and the insertion of Homoousian phrases (suchas _ek tes ousias tou patrous; gennetheis, ou poietheis; homoousios topatri_) was amended into an unequivocal clean-cut, anti-Arianconfession. Two Egyptian bishops who refused to sign the symbol werebanished, together with Arius, to Illyria. The text of the originalNicene Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon, patera pantokratora, panton oraton te kaiaoraton poieten. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion toutheou, gennethenta ek tou patros monogene, toutestin ek tes ousias toupatros, theon ek theou, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theoualethinou, gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou tapanta egeneto, ta te en to ourano kaita epi tes ges; ton di' hemas tousanthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta kai sarkothentakai enanthropesanta, pathonta, kai anastanta te trite hemera, kaianelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai erchomenon palin krinai zontas kainekrous. Kai eis to pneuma to hagion. Tous de legontas, hoti pote hoteouk en, kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto, en ex heteras hupostaseos eousias phaskontas einai, e ktiston, e alloioton, e trepton ton huiontou theou, toutous anathematizei he katholike kai apostolike ekklesia. _(Mansi, _Amplissima Collectio, _ 2, 665 sq. )

15. Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. 

In order to suppress Arianism, which still continued to flourish, Emperor Theodosius convened the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381 atConstantinople. The bishops here assembled, 150 in number, resolved thatthe faith of the Nicene Fathers must ever remain firm and unchanged, andthat its opponents, the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians, Eudoxians, Semi-Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians, must be rejected. At this council also Macedonius was condemned, whotaught that the Holy Spirit is not God: _elege gar auto me einai theon, alla tes theontos tou patros allotrion. _ (Mansi, 3, 568. 566. 573. 577. 600. ) By omissions, alterations, and additions (in particular concerningthe Holy Spirit) this council gave to the Nicene Creed its present form. Hence it is also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The ThirdEcumenical Council, which assembled at Toledo, Spain, in 589, insertedthe word "Filioque, " an addition which the Greek Church has neversanctioned, and which later contributed towards bringing about the greatEastern Schism. A. Harnack considers the Constantinopolitanum (CPanum), the creed adopted at Constantinople, to be the baptismal confession ofthe Church of Jerusalem, which, he says, was revised between 362 and 373and amplified by the Nicene formulas and a rule of faith concerning theHoly Ghost. (Herzog, _R. E. _, 11, 19f. ) Following is the text of theCPanum according to Mansi:

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges, oratwn te pantwn kai aoratwn. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon tonhuion tou theou ton monogene, ton ek tou patros gennethenta pro pantonton aionon, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou alethinou, gennethevta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta pantaegeneto, ton di' hemas tous anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soteriankatelthovnta ek tov ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kaiMarias tes parthenou, kai enanthropesanta, staurothenta te huper hemonepi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta, kai taphenta, kai anastanta te tritehemera kata tas gpaphas, kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kaikathezomenon ek dexion tou patros, kai palin erchomenon meta doxeskrinai zontas kai nekrous; ou tes basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eispneuma to hagion, to kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou patrosekporeuomenon, to sun patri kai huio sumproskunoumenon kaisundoxazovmenon, to lalesan dia ton propheton, eis mian hagiankatholiken kai apostoliken ekklesian. Homologoumen hen baptisma eisaphesin hamartion; prosdokomen anastasin nekron, kai zwen tou mellontosaionos. Amen. _ (3, 565. )

16. The Athanasian Creed. 

From its opening word this Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque. Roman tradition has it that Athanasius, who died 373, made thisconfession before Pope Julius when the latter summoned him "to submithimself to him [the Pope], as to the ecumenical bishop and Supremearbiter of matters ecclesiastical (_ut ei, seu episcopo oecumica etsupremo rerum ecclesiasticarum arbitro, sese submitteret_). " However, Athanasius is not even the author of this confession, as appears fromthe following facts: 1. The Creed was originally written in Latin. 2. It is mentioned neither by Athanasius himself nor by his Greekeulogists. 3. It was unknown to the Greek Church till about 1200, andhas never been accorded official recognition by this Church nor its"orthodox" sister churches. 4. It presupposes the post-AthanasianTrinitarian and Christological controversies. --Up to the present day ithas been impossible to reach a final verdict concerning the author ofthe Quicunque and the time and place of its origin. Koellner's_Symbolik_ allocates it to Gaul. Loofs inclines to the same opinion andventures the conjecture that the source of this symbol must be sought inSouthern Gaul between 450 and 600. (Herzog, _R. E. _, 2, 177. ) Gieselerand others look to Spain for its origin. 

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 40 of the Athanasian Creed have given offense notonly to theologians who advocate an undogmatic Christianity, but to manythoughtless Christians as well. Loofs declares: The Quicunque isunevangelical and cannot be received because its very first sentenceconfounds _fides_ with _expositio fidei. _ (H. , _R. E. _, 2, 194. )However, the charge is gratuitous, since the Athanasian Creed deals withthe most fundamental Christian truths: concerning the Trinity, thedivinity of Christ, and His work of redemption, without the knowledge ofwhich saving faith is impossible. The paragraphs in question merelyexpress the clear doctrine of such passages of the Scriptures as Acts 4, 12: "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none othername under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;" John 8, 21:"If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins"; John 14, 6:"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no mancometh unto the Father but by Me. " In complete agreement with theimpugned statements of the Athanasian Creed, the Apology of the AugsburgConfession closes its article "Of God" as follows: "Therefore we dofreely conclude that they are all idolatrous, blasphemers, and outsideof the Church of Christ who hold or teach otherwise. " (103)

In the early part of the Middle Ages the Quicunque had already receiveda place in the order of public worship. The Council of Vavre resolved, 1368: "Proinde Symbolum Apostolorum silenter et secrete dicitur quotidiein Completorio et in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo nondum eratfides catholica propalata. Alia autem duo publice in diebus Dominicis etfestivis, quando maior ad ecclesiam congregatur populus, decantantur, quia fuere edita tempore fidei propalatae. Symbolum quidem Nicaenum postevangelium cantatur in Missa quasi evangelicae fidei expositio. SymbolumAthanasii de mane solum cantatur in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore quomaxime fuerunt depulsa et detecta nox atra et tenebrae haeresium eterrorum. " (Mansi, 26, 487. ) Luther says: "The first symbol, that of theapostles, is indeed the best of all, because it contains a concise, correct and splendid presentation of the articles of faith and is easilylearned by children and the common people. The second, the AthanasianCreed, is longer . .. And practically amounts to an apology of the firstsymbol. " "I do not know of any more important document of the NewTestament Church since the days of the apostles" [than the AthanasianCreed]. (St. L. 10, 994; 6, 1576; E. 23, 253. )

17. Luther on Ecumenical Creeds. 

The central theme of the Three Ecumenical Symbols is Christ's person andwork, the paramount importance of which Luther extols as follows in histract of 1538: "In all the histories of the entire Christendom I havefound and experienced that all who had and held the chief articleconcerning Jesus Christ correctly remained safe and sound in the trueChristian faith. And even though they erred and sinned in other points, they nevertheless were finally preserved. " "For it has been decreed, says Paul, Col. 2, 9, that in Christ should dwell all the fulness of theGodhead bodily, or personally, so that he who does not find or receiveGod in Christ shall never have nor find Him anywhere outside of Christ, even though he ascend above heaven, descend below hell, or go beyond theworld. " "On the other hand, I have also observed that all errors, heresies, idolatries, offenses, abuses, and ungodliness within theChurch originally resulted from the fact that this article of faithconcerning Jesus Christ was despised or lost. And viewed clearly andrightly, all heresies militate against the precious article of JesusChrist, as Simeon says concerning Him, Luke 2, 34, that He is set forthe falling and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign which isspoken against; and long before this, Isaiah, chapter 8, 14, spoke ofHim as 'a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. '" "And we in thePapacy, the last and greatest of saints, what have we done? We haveconfessed that He [Christ] is God and man; but that He is our Savior, who died and rose for us, etc. , this we have denied and persecuted withmight and main" (those who taught this). "And even now those who claimto be the best Christians and boast that they are the Holy Church, whoburn the others and wade in innocent blood, regard as the best doctrine[that which teaches] that we obtain grace and salvation through our ownworks. Christ is to be accorded no other honor with regard to oursalvation than that He made the beginning, while we are the heroes whocomplete it with our merit. "

Luther continues: "This is the way the devil goes to work. He attacksChrist with three storm-columns. One will not suffer Him to be God; theother will not suffer Him to be man, the third denies that He hasmerited salvation for us. Each of the three endeavors to destroy Christ. For what does it avail that you confess Him to be God if you do not alsobelieve that He is man? For then you have not the entire and the trueChrist, but a phantom of the devil. What does it avail you to confessthat He is true man if you do not also believe that He is true God? Whatdoes it avail you to confess that He is God and man if you do not alsobelieve that whatever He became and whatever He did was done for you?""Surely, all three parts must be believed, namely, that He is God, also, that He is man, and that He became such a man for us, that is, as thefirst symbol says: conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died, and rose again, etc. If one small part islacking, then all parts are lacking. For faith shall and must becomplete in every particular. While it may indeed be weak and subject toafflictions, yet it must be entire and not false. Weakness [of faith]does not work the harm but false faith--that is eternal death. " (St. L. 10, 998; E. 23, 258. )

Concerning the mystery involved in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, thechief topic of the Ecumenical Creeds, Luther remarks in the same tract:"Now, to be sure, we Christians are not so utterly devoid of all reasonand sense as the Jews consider us, who take us to be nothing but crazygeese and ducks, unable to perceive or notice what folly it is tobelieve that God is man, and that in one Godhead there are threedistinct persons. No, praise God, we perceive indeed that this doctrinecannot and will not be received by reason. Nor are we in need of anysublime Jewish reasoning to demonstrate this to us. We believe itknowingly and willingly. We confess and also experience that, where theHoly Spirit does not, surpassing reason, shine into the heart, it isimpossible to grasp, or to believe, and abide by, such article;moreover, there must remain in it [the heart] a Jewish, proud, andsupercilious reason deriding and ridiculing such article, and thussetting up itself as judge and master of the Divine Being whom it hasnever seen nor is able to see and hence does not know what it is passingjudgment on, nor whereof it thinks or speaks. For God dwells in a 'lightwhich no man can approach unto, ' 1 Tim. 6, 16. He must come to us, yethidden in the lantern, and as it is written, John 1, 18: 'No man hathseen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom ofthe Father, He hath declared Him, ' and as Moses said before this, Ex. 33: 'There shall no man see Me [God] and live. '" (St. L. 10, 1007; E. 23, 568. )

III. The Augsburg Confession. 

18. Diet Proclaimed by Emperor. 

January 21, 1530, Emperor Charles V proclaimed a diet to convene atAugsburg on the 8th of April. The manifesto proceeded from Bologna, where, three days later, the Emperor was crowned by Pope Clement VII. The proclamation, after referring to the Turkish invasion and the actionto be taken with reference to this great peril, continues as follows:"The diet is to consider furthermore what might and ought to be done andresolved upon regarding the division and separation in the holy faithand the Christian religion; and that this may proceed the better andmore salubriously, [the Emperor urged] to allay divisions, to ceasehostility, to surrender past errors to our Savior, and to displaydiligence in hearing, understanding, and considering with love andkindness the opinions and views of everybody, in order to reduce them toone single Christian truth and agreement, to put aside whatever has notbeen properly explained or done by either party, so that we all mayadopt and hold one single and true religion; and may all live in onecommunion, church, and unity, even as we all live and do battle underone Christ. "

In his invitation to attend the diet, the Emperor at the same timeurged the Elector of Saxony by all means to appear early enough (theElector reached Augsburg on May 2 while the Emperor did not arrivebefore June 16), "lest the others who arrived in time be compelled towait with disgust, heavy expenses and detrimental delay such as hadfrequently occurred in the past. " The Emperor added the warning: In casethe Elector should not appear, the diet would proceed as if he had beenpresent and assented to its resolutions. (Foerstemann, _Urkundenbuch, _ 1, 7 f. )

March 11 the proclamation reached Elector John at Torgau. On the 14thChancellor Brueck advised the Elector to have "the opinion on which ourparty has hitherto stood and to which they have adhered, " in thecontroverted points, "properly drawn up in writing, with a thoroughconfirmation thereof from the divine Scriptures. " On the same day theElector commissioned Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon toprepare a document treating especially of "those articles on account ofwhich said division, both in faith and in other outward church customsand ceremonies, continues. " (43. ) At Wittenberg the theologians at onceset to work, and the result was presented at Torgau March 27 byMelanchthon. On April 4 the Elector and his theologians set out fromTorgau, arriving at Coburg on the 15th, where they rested for eightdays. On the 23d of April the Elector left for Augsburg, while Luther, who was still under the ban of both the Pope and the Emperor, remainedat the fortress Ebernburg. Nevertheless he continued in close touch withthe confessors, as appears from his numerous letters written toAugsburg, seventy all told about twenty of which were addressed toMelanchthon. 

19. Apology Original Plan of Lutherans. 

The documents which the Wittenberg theologians delivered at Torgautreated the following subjects: Human Doctrines and Ordinances, Marriageof Priests, Both Kinds, Mass, Confession, Power of Bishops, Ordination, Monastic Vows, Invocation of the Saints, German Singing, Faith andWorks, Office of the Keys (Papacy), Ban, Marriage, and Private Mass. Accordingly, the original intention of the Lutherans was not to enterupon, and present for discussion at Augsburg, such doctrines as were notin controversy (Of God, etc. ), but merely to treat of the abuses andimmediately related doctrines, especially of Faith and Good Works. (66ff. ) They evidently regarded it as their chief object and duty tojustify before the Emperor and the estates both Luther and hisprotectors, the electors of Saxony. This is borne out also by theoriginal Introduction to the contemplated Apology, concerning which weread in the prefatory remarks to the so-called Torgau Articles mentionedabove: "To this end [of justifying the Elector's peaceable frame ofmind] it will be advantageous to begin [the projected Apology] with alengthy rhetorical introduction. " (68; _C. R. _, 26, 171. ) Thisintroduction, later on replaced by another, was composed by Melanchthonat Coburg and polished by him during the first days at Augsburg. May 4he remarks in a letter to Luther: "I have shaped the Exordium of ourApology somewhat more rhetorical (_hretorikoteron_) than I had writtenit at Coburg. " (_C. R. _, 2, 40; Luther, St. L. 16, 652. ) In thisintroduction Melanchthon explains: Next to God the Elector builds hishope on the Emperor, who had always striven for peace, and was even nowprepared to adjust the religious controversy in mildness. As to theElector and his brother Frederick, they had ever been attached to theChristian religion, had proved faithful to the Emperor, and hadconstantly cultivated peace. Their present position was due to the factthat commandments of men had been preached instead of faith in Christ. Not Luther, but Luther's opponents, had begun the strife. It was forconscience' sake that the Elector had not proceeded against Luther. Besides, such action would only have made matters worse, since Lutherhad resisted the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists. Equally unfoundedwere also the accusations that the Evangelicals had abolished all orderas well as all ceremonies, and had undermined the authority of thebishops. If only the bishops would tolerate the Gospel and do away withthe gross abuses, they would suffer no loss of power, honor, andprestige. In concluding Melanchthon emphatically protests: "Never has areformation been undertaken so utterly without any violence as this [inSaxony]; for it is a public fact that our men have prevailed with suchas were already in arms to make peace. " (Kolde, _l. C. _, 13. ) Thedocument, accordingly, as originally planned for presentation atAugsburg, was to be a defense of Luther and his Elector. In keepingherewith it was in the beginning consistently designated "Apology. "

20. Transformation of Apology into Confession Due to Eck's Slanders. 

This plan, however, was modified when the Lutherans, after reachingAugsburg, heard of and read the 404 Propositions published by Dr. JohnEck, in which Luther was classified with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Carlstadt, Pirkheimer, Hubmaier, and Denk, and was charged with everyconceivable heresy. In a letter of March 14, accompanying the copy ofhis Propositions which Eck sent to the Emperor, he refers to Luther asthe domestic enemy of the Church (_hostis ecclesiae domesticus_), whohas fallen into every Scylla and Charybdis of iniquity; who speaks ofthe Pope as the Antichrist and of the Church as the harlot; who haspraise for none but heretics and schismatics; whom the Church has tothank for the Iconoclasts, Sacramentarians, New Hussites, Anabaptists, New Epicureans, who teach that the soul is mortal, and the Cerinthians;who rehashes all the old heresies condemned more than a thousand yearsago, etc. (Plitt, _Einleitung in die Augustana, _ 1, 527 ff. ) Such andsimilar slanders had been disseminated by the Papists before this, andthey continued to do so even after the Lutherans, at Augsburg, had madea public confession of their faith and had most emphatically disavowedall ancient and modern heresies. Thus Cochlaeus asserted in his attackon the Apology, published 1534, that Lutheranism was a concoction of allthe old condemned heresies, that Luther taught fifteen errors againstthe article of God, and Melanchthon nine against the Nicene Creed, etc. Luther, he declared, had attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in acoarser fashion than Arius. (Salig, _Historie d. Augsb. Konf. , _ 1, 377. )

These calumniations caused the Lutherans to remodel and expand thedefense originally planned into a document which should not merelyjustify the changes made by them with regard to customs and ceremonies, but also present as fully as possible the doctrinal articles which theyheld over against ancient and modern heresies, falsely imputed to them. Thus to some extent it is due to the scurrility of Eck that thecontemplated Apology was transformed into an all-embracing Confession, aterm employed by Melanchthon himself. In a letter to Luther, dated May11, 1530, he wrote: "Our Apology is being sent to you--though it israther a Confession. _Mittitur tibi apologia nostra, quamquam veriusconfessio est. _ I included [in the Confession] almost all articles offaith, because Eck published most diabolical lies against us, _quiaEckius edidit diabolikontatas diabolas contra nos. _ Against these it wasmy purpose to provide an antidote. " (_C. R. _ 2, 45; Luther, St. L. 16, 654. )

This is in accord also with Melanchthon's account in his Preface ofSeptember 29, 1559 to the German _Corpus Doctrinae_ (Philippicum), stating: "Some papal scribblers had disseminated pasquinades at the diet[at Augsburg, 1530], which reviled our churches with horrible lies, charging that they taught many condemned errors, and were like theAnabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to HisImperial Majesty, and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decidedto include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, thatevery one might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in thelying papal writings. . .. Finally, this Confession was, as God directedand guided, drawn up by me in the manner indicated, and the venerableDoctor Martin Luther was pleased with it. " (_C. R. _ 9, 929. )

The original plan, however, was not entirely abandoned, but merelyextended by adding a defense also against the various heresies withwhich the Lutherans were publicly charged. This was done in an objectivepresentation of the principal doctrines held by the Lutherans, for whichthe Marburg and Schwabach Articles served as models and guides. 

21. Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles. 

The material from which Melanchthon constructed the Augsburg Confessionis, in the last analysis, none other than the Reformation truths whichLuther had proclaimed since 1517 with ever-increasing clarity and force. In particular, he was guided by, and based his labor on, the MarburgArticles, the Schwabach Articles, and the so-called Torgau Articles. TheMarburg Articles, fifteen in number, had been drawn up by Luther, in1529, at the Colloquy of Marburg, whence he departed October 6, aboutsix months before the Diet at Augsburg. (Luther, St. L. , 17, 1138 f. )The seventeen Schwabach Articles were composed by Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Brenz and Agricola, and presented to the Convention at Smalcaldabout the middle of October, 1529. According to recent researches theSchwabach Articles antedated the Marburg Articles and formed the basisfor them. (Luther, Weimar Ed. , 30, 3, 97, 107. ) In 1530 Luther publishedthese Articles, remarking: "It is true that I helped to draw up sucharticles; for they were not composed by me alone. " This public statementdiscredits the opinion of v. Schubert published in 1908 according towhich Melanchthon is the sole author of the Schwabach Articles, Luther'scontribution and participation being negligible. The Schwabach Articlesconstitute the seventeen basic articles of the first part of theAugsburg Confession. (St. L. 16, 638. 648. 564; _C. R. _ 26, 146 f. )

The so-called Torgau Articles are the documents referred to above, touching chiefly upon the abuses. Pursuant to the order of the Elector, they were prepared by Luther and his assistants, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and possibly also Jonas. They are called Torgau Articlesbecause the order for drafting them came from Torgau (March 14), andbecause they were presented to the Elector at Torgau. (Foerstemann, 1, 66; _C. R. _ 26, 171; St. L. 16, 638. ) With reference to these articlesLuther wrote (March 14) to Jonas, who was then still conducting thevisitation: "The Prince has written to us, that is, to you, Pomeranus, Philip, and myself, in a letter addressed to us in common, that weshould come together set aside all other business, and finish beforenext Sunday whatever is necessary for the next diet on April 8. ForEmperor Charles himself will be present at Augsburg to settle all thingsin a friendly way, as he writes in his bull. Therefore, although you areabsent, we three shall do what we can today and tomorrow; still, inorder to comply with the will of the Prince, it will be incumbent uponyou to turn your work over to your companions and be present with ushere on the morrow. For things are in a hurry. _Festinata enim suntomnia. _" (St. L. 16, 638. )

Melanchthon also wrote to Jonas on the 15th of March: "Luther issummoning you by order of the Prince; you will therefore come as soon asit is at all possible. The Diet, according to the proclamation, willconvene at Augsburg. And the Emperor graciously promises that he willinvestigate the matter, and correct the errors on both sides. May Christstand by us!" (_C. R. _ 2, 28; Foerstemann, 1, 45. ) It was to thesearticles (Torgau Articles) that the Elector referred when he wrote toLuther from Augsburg on the 11th of May: "After you and others of ourlearned men at Wittenberg, at our gracious desire and demand, havedrafted the articles which are in religious controversy, we do not wishto conceal from you that Master Philip Melanchthon has now at this placeperused them further and drawn them up in one form. " (_C. R. _ 2, 47. )

22. Luther's Spokesman at Augsburg. 

The material, therefore, out of which Melanchthon, who in 1530 was stillin full accord with Luther doctrinally, framed the fundamental symbol ofthe Lutheran Church were the thoughts and, in a large measure, the verywords of Luther. Melanchthon gave to the Augsburg Confession its formand its irenic note, its entire doctrinal content, however must beconceded to be "_iuxta sententiam Lutheri, _ according to the teaching ofLuther, " as Melanchthon himself declared particularly with respect tothe article of the Lord's Supper. (_C. R. _ 2, 142. ) On the 27th of June, two days after the presentation of the Confession, Melanchthon wrote toLuther: "We have hitherto followed your authority, _tuam secuti hactenusauctoritatem, _" and now, says Melanchthon, Luther should also let himknow how much could be yielded to the opponents. (2, 146. ) Accordingly, in the opinion of Melanchthon, Luther, though absent, was the head ofthe Evangelicals also at Augsburg. 

In his answer Luther does not deny this, but only demands of Melanchthonto consider the cause of the Gospel as his own. "For, " says he, "it isindeed my affair, and, to tell the truth, my affair more so than that ofall of you. " Yet they should not speak of "authority. " "In this matter, "he continues, "I will not be or be called your author [authority]; andthough this might be correctly explained, I do not want this word. If itis not your affair at the same time and in the same measure, I do notdesire that it be called mine and be imposed upon you. If it is minealone, I shall direct it myself. " (St. L. 16, 906. 903. Enders, _LuthersBriefwechsel, _ 8, 43. )

Luther, then, was the prime mover also at Augsburg. Without him therewould have been no Evangelical cause, no Diet of Augsburg, noEvangelical confessors, no Augsburg Confession. And this is what Lutherreally meant when he said: "_Confessio Augustana mea;_ the AugsburgConfession is mine. " (Walch 22, 1532. ) He did not in the least therebyintend to deprive Melanchthon of any credit properly due him withreference to the Confession. Moreover, in a letter written to NicolausHausmann on July 6, 1530, Luther refers to the Augustana as "ourconfession, which our Philip prepared; _quam Philippus noster paravit. _"(St. L. 16, 882; Enders 8, 80. ) As a matter of fact, however, the day ofAugsburg, even as the day of Worms, was the day of Luther and of theEvangelical truth once more restored to light by Luther. At Augsburg, too, Melanchthon was not the real author and moving spirit, but theinstrument and mouthpiece of Luther, out of whose spirit the doctrinethere confessed had proceeded. (See Formula of Concord 983, 32--34. )

Only blindness born of false religious interests (indifferentism, unionism, etc. ) can speak of Melanchthon's theological independence atAugsburg or of any doctrinal disagreement between the AugsburgConfession and the teaching of Luther. That, at the Diet, he was led, and wished to be led, by Luther is admitted by Melanchthon himself. Inthe letter of June 27, referred to above, he said: "The matters, as you[Luther] know, have been considered before, though in the combat italways turns out otherwise than expected. " (St. L. 16, 899; _C. R. _ 2, 146. ) On the 31st of August he wrote to his friend Camerarius: "Hithertowe have yielded nothing to our opponents, except what Luther judgedshould be done, since the matter was considered well and carefullybefore the Diet; _re bene ac diligenter deliberata ante conventum_. " (2, 334. )

Very pertinently E. T. Nitzsch said of Melanchthon (1855): "With the sonof the miner, who was destined to bring good ore out of the deep shaft, there was associated the son of an armorer, who was well qualified tofollow his leader and to forge shields, helmets, armor, and swords forthis great work. " This applies also to the Augsburg Confession, in whichMelanchthon merely shaped the material long before produced by Lutherfrom the divine shafts of God's Word. Replying to Koeller, Rueckert, andHeppe, who contend that the authorship of the Augsburg Confession mustin every way be ascribed to Melanchthon, Philip Schaff writes asfollows: "This is true as far as the spirit [which Luther called'pussyfooting, ' _Leisetreten_] and the literary composition areconcerned; but as to the doctrines Luther had a right to say, 'TheCatechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the AugsburgConfession are _mine. _'" (_Creeds_ 1, 229. )

23. Drafting the Confession. 

May 11 the Confession was so far completed that the Elector was able tosubmit it to Luther for the purpose of getting his opinion on it. According to Melanchthon's letter of the same date, the documentcontained "almost all articles of faith, _omnes fere articulos fedei. _"(_C. R. _ 2, 45. ) This agrees with the account written by Melanchthonshortly before his death, in which he states that in the AugsburgConfession he had presented "the sum of our Church's doctrine, " and thatin so doing he had arrogated nothing to himself; for in the presence ofthe princes, etc. , each individual sentence had been discussed. "Thereupon, " says Melanchthon, "the entire Confession was sent also toLuther, who informed the princes that he had read it and approved it. The princes and other honest and learned men still living will rememberthat such was the case. _Missa est denique et Luthero tota formaConfessionis, qui Principibus scripsit, se hanc Confessionem et legisseet probare. Haec ita acta esse, Principes et alii honesti et docti viriadhuc superstites meminerint. _" (9, 1052. ) As early as May 15 Lutherreturned the Confession with the remark: "I have read Master Philip'sApology. I am well pleased with it, and know nothing to improve or tochange in it; neither would this be proper, since I cannot step sogently and softly. Christ, our Lord, grant that it may produce much andgreat fruit which, indeed, we hope and pray for. Amen. " (St. L. 16, 657. ) Luther is said to have added these words to the Tenth Article:"And they condemn those who teach otherwise, _et improbant secusdocentes. _" (Enders, 7, 336. )

Up to the time of its presentation the Augsburg Confession wasdiligently improved, polished, perfected, and partly recast. Additionswere inserted and several articles added. Nor was this done secretly andwithout Luther's knowledge. May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Dailywe change much in the Apology. I have eliminated the article On Vows, since it was too brief, and substituted a fuller explanation. Now I amalso treating of the Power of the Keys. I would like to have you readthe articles of faith. If you find no shortcoming in them, we shallmanage to treat the remainder. For one must always make some changes inthem and adapt oneself to conditions. _Subinde enim mutandi sunt atquead occasiones accommodandi. _" (_C. R. _ 2, 60; Luther, 16, 689. )Improvements suggested by Regius and Brenz were also adopted. (Zoeckler, _Die A. K. _, 18. )

Even Brueck is said to have made some improvements. May 24 the Nuernbergdelegates wrote to their Council: "The Saxon Plan [Apology] has beenreturned by Doctor Luther. But Doctor Brueck, the old chancellor, stillhas some changes to make at the beginning and the end. " (_C. R. _ 2, 62. )The expression "beginning and end (_hinten und vorne_), " according toTschackert, is tantamount to "all over (_ueberall_). " However, evenbefore 1867 Plitt wrote it had long ago been recognized that thisexpression refers to the Introduction and the Conclusion of theConfession, which were written by Brueck. (Aug. 2, 11. ) Bretschneider isof the same opinion. (_C. R. _ 2, 62. ) June 3 the Nuernberg delegateswrote: "Herewith we transmit to Your Excellencies a copy of the SaxonPlan [Confession] in Latin, together with the Introduction or Preamble. At the end, however, there are lacking one or two articles [20 and 21]and the Conclusion, in which the Saxon theologians are still engaged. When that is completed, it shall be sent to Your Excellencies. MeanwhileYour Excellencies may cause your learned men and preachers to study itand deliberate upon it. When this Plan [Confession] is drawn up inGerman, it shall not be withheld from Your Excellencies. The Saxons, however, distinctly desire that, for the present, Your Excellencies keepthis Plan or document secret, and that you permit no copy to be given toany one until it has been delivered to His Imperial Majesty. They havereasons of their own for making this request. . .. And if YourExcellencies' pastors and learned men should decide to make changes orimprovements in this Plan or in the one previously submitted, these, too, Your Excellencies are asked to transmit to us. " (2, 83. ) June 26Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: "Daily I changed and recast much; and Iwould have changed still more if our advisers (_sumphradmones_) hadpermitted us to do so. " (2, 140. )

24. Public Reading of the Confession. 

June 15, after long negotiations, a number of other estates werepermitted to join the adherents of the Saxon Confession. (_C. R. _ 2, 105. ) As a result, Melanchthon's Introduction, containing a defense ofthe Saxon Electors, without mentioning the other Lutheran estates, nolonger fitted in with the changed conditions. Accordingly, it wassupplanted by the Preface composed by Brueck, and translated into Latinby Justus Jonas, whose acknowledged elegant Latin and German stylequalified him for such services. At the last deliberation, on June 23, the Confession was signed. And on June 25, at 3 P. M. , the ever-memorablemeeting of the Diet took place at which the Augustana was read byChancellor Beyer in German, and both manuscripts were handed over. TheEmperor kept the Latin copy for himself, and gave the German copy to theImperial Chancellor, the Elector and Archbishop Albrecht, to bepreserved in the Imperial Archives at Mainz. Both texts, therefore, theLatin as well as the German, have equal authority, although the Germantext has the additional distinction and prestige of having been publiclyread at the Diet. 

As to where and how the Lutheran heroes confessed their faith, Koldewrites as follows: "The place where they assembled on Saturday, June 25, at 3 P. M. , was not the courtroom, where the meetings of the Diet wereordinarily conducted, but, as the Imperial Herald, Caspar Sturm, reports, the 'Pfalz, ' the large front room, _i. E. _, the Chapter-room ofthe bishop's palace, where the Emperor lived. The two Saxon chancellors, Dr. Greg. Brueck and Dr. Chr. Beyer, the one with the Latin and theother with the German copy of the Confession, stepped into the middle ofthe hall, while as many of the Evangelically minded estates as had thecourage publicly to espouse the Evangelical cause arose from their seats. Caspar Sturm reports: 'Als aber die gemeldeten Commissarii undBotschaften der oesterreichischen Lande ihre Werbung und Botschaftvollendet und abgetreten, sind darauf von Stund' an Kurfuerst von Sachsennaemlich Herzog Johannes, Markgraf Joerg von Brandenburg, Herzog Ernstsamt seinem Bruder Franzisko, beide Herzoege zu Braunschweig undLueneburg, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Graf Wolf von Anhalt usw. Vonihrer Session auf; und gegen Kaiserliche Majestaet gestanden. ' TheEmperor desired to hear the Latin text. But when Elector John had calledattention to the fact that the meeting was held on German soil, andexpressed the hope that the Emperor would permit the reading to proceedin German, it was granted. Hereupon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. Thereading lasted about two hours; but he read with a voice so clear andplain that the multitude, which could not gain access to the hall, understood every word in the courtyard. " (19 f. )

The public reading of the Confession exercised a tremendous influence inevery direction. Even before the Diet adjourned, Heilbronn, Kempten, Windsheim, Weissenburg and Frankfurt on the Main professed theiradherence to it. Others had received the first impulse whichsubsequently induced them to side with the Evangelicals. Brenz has itthat the Emperor fell asleep during the reading. However, this can havebeen only temporarily or apparently, since Spalatin and Jonas assure usthat the Emperor, like the other princes and King Ferdinand, listenedattentively. Their report reads: "_Satis attentus erat Caesar, _ TheEmperor was attentive enough. " Duke William of Bavaria declared: "Neverbefore has this matter and doctrine been presented to me in thismanner. " And when Eck assured him that he would undertake to refute theLutheran doctrine with the Fathers, but not with the Scriptures, theDuke responded, "Then the Lutherans, I understand, sit in the Scripturesand we of the Pope's Church beside the Scriptures! _So hoer' ich wohl, die Lutherischen sitzen in der Schrift und wir Pontificii daneben!_" TheArchbishop of Salzburg declared that he, too desired a reformation, butthe unbearable thing about it was that one lone monk wanted to reformthem all. In private conversation, Bishop Stadion of Augsburg exclaimed, "What has been read to us is the truth, the pure truth, and we cannotdeny it. " (St. L. 16, 882; Plitt, _Apologie, _ 18. ) Father Aegidius, theEmperor's confessor, said to Melanchthon, "You have a theology which aperson can understand only if he prays much. " Campegius is reported tohave said that for his part he might well permit such teaching; but itwould be a precedent of no little consequence, as the same permissionwould then have to be given other nations and kingdoms, which could notbe tolerated. (Zoeckler, _A. K. _, 24. )

25. Luther's Mild Criticism. 

June 26 Melanchthon sent a copy of the Confession, as publicly read, toLuther, who adhering to his opinion of May 15, praised it yet notwithout adding a grain of gentle criticism. June 29 he wrote toMelanchthon: "I have received your Apology and can not understand whatyou may mean when you ask what and how much should be yielded to thePapists. . .. As far as I am concerned too much has already been yielded(_plus satis cessum est_) in this Apology; and if they reject it, I seenothing that might be yielded beyond what has been done, unless I seethe proofs they proffer, and clearer Bible-passages than I have hithertoseen. . .. As I have always written--I am prepared to yield everything tothem if we are but given the liberty to teach the Gospel. I cannot yieldanything that militates against the Gospel. " (St. L. 16, 902; Enders, 8, 42. 45. ) The clearest expression of Luther's criticism is found in aletter to Jonas, dated July 21, 1530. Here we read: "Now I see thepurpose of those questions [on the part of the Papists] whether you hadany further articles to present. The devil still lives, and he hasnoticed very well that your Apology steps softly, and that it has veiledthe articles of Purgatory, the Adoration of the Saints, and especiallythat of the Antichrist, the Pope. " Another reading of this passage ofLuther: "_Apologiam vestram, die Leisetreterin, dissimulasse, _" isseverer even than the one quoted: "_Apologiam vestram leise treten etdissimulasse. _" (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders, 8, 133. )

Brenz regarded the Confession as written "very courteously and modestly, _valde de civiliter et modeste. _" (_C. R. _ 2, 125. ) The Nuernbergdelegates had also received the impression that the Confession, whilesaying what was necessary, was very reserved and discreet. They reportedto their Council: "Said instruction [Confession], as far as the articlesof faith are concerned, is substantially like that which we havepreviously sent to Your Excellencies, only that it has been improved insome parts, and throughout made as mild as possible (_allenthalben aufsglimpflichste gemacht_), yet, according to our view, without omittinganything necessary. " (2, 129. ) At Smalcald, in 1537, the theologianswere ordered by the Princes and Estates "to look over the Confession, tomake no changes pertaining to its contents or substance, nor those ofthe Concord [of 1536], but merely to enlarge upon matters regarding thePapacy, which, for certain reasons, was previously omitted at the Dietof Augsburg in submissive deference to His Imperial Majesty. " (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 297. )

Indirectly Melanchthon himself admits the correctness of Luther'scriticism. True, when after the presentation of the Confession hethought of the angry Papists, he trembled fearing that he had writtentoo severely. June 26 he wrote to his most intimate friend, Camerarius:"Far from thinking that I have written milder than was proper, I ratherstrongly fear (_mirum in modum_) that some have taken offense at ourfreedom. For Valdes, the Emperor's secretary, saw it before itspresentation and gave it as his opinion that from beginning to end itwas sharper than the opponents would be able to endure. " (_C. R. _ 2, 140. ) On the same day he wrote to Luther: "According to my judgment, theConfession is severe enough. For you will see that I have depicted themonks sufficiently. " (141. )

In two letters to Camerarius, however, written on May 21 and June 19, respectively, hence before the efforts at toning down the Confessionwere completed, Melanchthon expressed the opinion that the Confessioncould not have been written "in terms more gentle and mild, _mitior etlenior. _" (2, 57. ) No doubt, Melanchthon also had in mind hisfar-reaching irenics at Augsburg, when he wrote in the Preface to theApology of the Augsburg Confession: "It has always been my custom inthese controversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form ofthe customarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concordmight the more readily be effected. Nor, indeed, am I now departing farfrom this custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this agestill farther from the opinions of the adversaries. " (101, 11. )Evidently, Melanchthon means to emphasize that in the Augustana he hadbeen conservative criticizing only when compelled to do so forconscience' sake. 

26. Luther Praising Confession and Confessors. 

Luther's criticism did not in the least dampen his joy over the gloriousvictory at Augsburg nor lessen his praise of the splendid confessionthere made. In the above-mentioned letter of June 27 he identifieshimself fully and entirely with the Augustana and demands thatMelanchthon, too, consider it an expression of his own faith, and notmerely of Luther's faith. July 3 he wrote to Melanchthon: "Yesterday Ireread carefully your entire Apology, and it pleases me extremely(_vehementer_). " (St. L. 16, 913; Enders, 8, 79. ) July 6 he wrote aletter to Cordatus in which he speaks of the Augustana as "altogether amost beautiful confession, _plane pulcherrima confessio. _" At the sametime he expresses his great delight over the victory won at Augsburg, applying to the Confession Ps. 119, 46: "I will speak of Thy testimoniesalso before kings, and will not be ashamed, "--a text which ever sincehas remained the motto, appearing on all of its subsequent manuscriptsand printed copies. 

Luther said: "I rejoice beyond measure that I lived to see the hour inwhich Christ was publicly glorified by such great confessors of His, inso great an assembly, through this in every respect most beautifulConfession. And the word has been fulfilled [Ps. 119, 46]: 'I will speakof Thy testimonies also before kings;' and the other word will also befulfilled: 'I was not confounded. ' For, 'Whosoever confesses Me beforemen' (so speaks He who lies not), 'him will I also confess before MyFather which is in heaven. '" (16, 915; E. 8, 83. ) July 9 Luther wrote toJonas "Christ was loudly proclaimed by means of the public and gloriousConfession (_publica et gloriosa confessione_) and confessed in the open(_am Lichte_) and in their [the Papists'] faces, so that they cannotboast that we fled, had been afraid, or had concealed our faith. I onlyregret that I was not able to be present when this splendid Confessionwas made (_in hac pulchra confessione_). " (St. L. 16, 928; E. 8, 94. )

On the same day, July 9, Luther wrote to the Elector: "I know andconsider well that our Lord Christ Himself comforts the heart of YourElectoral Grace better than I or any one else is able to do. This isshown, too, and proved before our eyes by the facts, for the opponentsthink that they made a shrewd move by having His Imperial Majestyprohibit preaching. But the poor deluded people do not see that, throughthe written Confession presented to them, more has been preached thanotherwise perhaps ten preachers could have done. Is it not keen wisdomand great wit that Magister Eisleben and others must keep silence? Butin lieu thereof the Elector of Saxony, together with other princes andlords, arises with the written Confession and preaches freely before HisImperial Majesty and the entire realm, under their noses so that theymust hear and cannot gainsay. I think that thus the order prohibitingpreaching was a success indeed. They will not permit their servants tohear the ministers, but must themselves hear something far worse (asthey regard it) from such great lords, and keep their peace. Indeed, Christ is not silent at the Diet; and though they be furious, still theymust hear more by listening to the Confession than they would have heardin a year from the preachers. Thus is fulfilled what Paul says: God'sWord will nevertheless have free course. If it is prohibited in thepulpit, it must be heard in the palaces. If poor preachers dare notspeak it, then mighty princes and lords proclaim it. In brief, ifeverything keeps silence, the very stones will cry out, says ChristHimself. " (16, 815. ) September 15, at the close of the Diet, Lutherwrote to Melanchthon: "You have confessed Christ, offered peace, obeyedthe Emperor, endured reproach, been sated with slander, and have notrecompensed evil for evil; in sum you have performed the holy work ofGod, as becomes saints, in a worthy manner. . .. I shall canonize you(_canonizabo vos_) as faithful members of Christ. " (16, 2319; E. 8, 259. )

27. Manuscripts and Editions of Augustana. 

As far as the text of the Augsburg Confession is concerned, both of theoriginal manuscripts are lost to us. Evidently they have become a preyto Romish rage and enmity. Eck was given permission to examine theGerman copy in 1540, and possibly at that time already it was notreturned to Mainz. It may have been taken to Trent for the discussionsat the Council, and thence carried to Rome. The Latin original wasdeposited in the Imperial Archives at Brussels, where it was seen andperused by Lindanus in 1562. February 18, 1569, however, Philip IIinstructed Duke Alva to bring the manuscript to Spain, lest theProtestants "regard it as a Koran, " and in order that "such a damnedwork might forever be destroyed; _porque se hunda para siempre tanmalvada obra. _" The keeper of the Brussels archives himself testifiesthat the manuscript was delivered to Alva. There is, however, no lack ofother manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession. Up to the present time noless than 39 have been found. Of these, five German and four Latincopies contain also the signatures. The five German copies are in verbalagreement almost throughout, and therefore probably offer the text asread and presented at Augsburg. 

The printing of the Confession had been expressly prohibited by theEmperor. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Our Confession hasbeen presented to the Emperor. He ordered that it be not printed. Youwill therefore see that it is not made public. " (_C. R. _ 2, 142. )However, even during the sessions of the Diet a number of printededitions six in German and one in Latin, were issued by irresponsibleparties. But since these were full of errors, and since, furthermore, the Romanists asserted with increasing boldness and challenge that theConfession of the Lutherans had been refuted, by the Roman Confutation, from the Scriptures and the Fathers, Melanchthon, in 1530, had a correctedition printed, which was issued, together with the Apology, in May, 1531. This quarto edition ("Beide, Deutsch Und Lateinisch Ps. 119") isregarded as the _editio princeps. _

For years this edition was also considered the authentic edition of theAugsburg Confession. Its Latin text was embodied 1584 in the Book ofConcord as the _textus receptus. _ But when attention was drawn to thechanges in the German text of this edition (also the Latin text had beensubjected to minor alterations), the Mainz Manuscript was substituted inthe German Book of Concord, as its Preface explains. (14. ) Thismanuscript, however contains no original signatures and was erroneouslyconsidered the identical document presented to the Emperor, of which itwas probably but a copy. In his Introduction to the Symbolical Books, J. T. Mueller expresses the following opinion concerning the MainzManuscript: "To say the least, one cannot deny that its text, as a rule, agrees with that of the best manuscripts, and that its mistakes caneasily be corrected according to them and the _editio princeps, _ so thatwe have no reason to surrender the text received by the Church and toaccept another in place thereof, of which we cannot prove either that itis any closer to the original. " (78. ) Tschackert, who devoted much studyto the manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession, writes: "The Saxontheologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is still certainlybetter than Melanchthon's original imprint [the _editio princeps_] yet, when compared with the complete and--because synchronous with theoriginally presented copy--reliable manuscripts of the signers of theConfession, the Mainz Manuscript proves to be defective in quite anumber of places. " (_L. C. _ 621 f. )

However, even Tschackert's minute comparison shows that the MainzManuscript deviates from the original presented to the Emperor only inunimportant and purely formal points. For example, in sec. 20 of thePreface the words: "Papst das Generalkonzilium zu halten nichtgeweigert, so waere E. K. M. Gnaediges Erbieten, zu fordern und zuhandeln, dass der" are omitted. Art. 27 sec. 48 we are to read: "dassdie erdichteten geistlichen Orden Staende sind christlicherVollkommenheit" instead of: "dass die erdichteten geistlichenOrdensstaende sind christliche Vollkommenheit. " Art. 27, sec. 61 reads, "die Uebermass der Werke, " instead of, "die Uebermasswerke, " by the way, an excellent expression, which should again be given currency in theGerman. The conclusion of sec. 2 has "Leichpredigten" instead of"Beipredigten. " According to the manuscripts, also the Mainz Manuscript, the correct reading of sec. 12 of the Preface is as follows: "Wo aberbei unsern Herrn, Freunden und besonders den Kurfuersten, Fuersten undStaenden des andern Teils die Handlung dermassen, wie E. K. M. Ausschreiben vermag (bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb undGuetigkeit) nicht verfangen noch erspriesslich sein wollte" etc. Thewords, "bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb' und Guetigkeit, " arequoted from the imperial proclamation. (Foerstemann, 7, 378; Plitt, 2, 12. )

Originally only the last seven articles concerning the abuses hadseparate titles, the doctrinal articles being merely numbered, as in theMarburg and Schwabach Articles, which Melanchthon had before him atAugsburg. (Luther, Weimar 30, 3, 86. 160. ) Nor are the present captionsof the doctrinal articles found in the original German and Latineditions of the Book of Concord, Article XX forming a solitaryexception; for in the German (in the Latin Concordia, too, it bears notitle) it is superscribed: "Vom Glauben und guten Werken, Of Faith andGood Works. " This is probably due to the fact that Article XX was takenfrom the so-called Torgau Articles and, with its superscription there, placed among the doctrinal articles. In the German edition of 1580 theword "Schluss" is omitted where the Latin has "Epilogus. "

As to the translations, even before the Confession was presented to theEmperor, it had been rendered into French. (This translation waspublished by Foerstemann, 1, 357. ) The Emperor had it translated for hisown use into both Italian and French. (_C. R. _ 2, 155; Luther, St. L. , 16, 884. ) Since then the Augustana has been done into Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Slavic, Danish, Swedish, English, and manyother languages. As to the English translations, see page 6. [tr. Note:numbered section 4, above]

28. Signatures of Augsburg Confession. 

Concerning the signatures of the Augustana, Tschackert writes asfollows: The names of the signers are most reliably determined from thebest manuscript copies of the original of the Confession, which havebeen preserved to us. There we find the signatures of eight princes andtwo free cities, to wit, Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George ofBrandenburg-Ansbach, Duke Ernest of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, LandgravePhilip of Hesse, then John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony, Ernest's brother Francis of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Prince Wolfgang ofAnhalt, Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and the cities Nuernberg andReutlingen. (_L. C. _ 285; see also Luther's letter of July 6, 1530, St. L. 16, 882. ) Camerarius, in his Life of Melanchthon, relates thatMelanchthon desired to have the Confession drawn up in the name of thetheologians only, but that his plan did not prevail because it wasbelieved that the signatures of the princes would lend prestige andsplendor to the act of presenting this confession of faith. Besides, this plan of Melanchthon's was excluded by the Emperor's proclamation. 

Although Philip of Hesse, in the interest of a union with the Swiss, hadzealously, but in vain, endeavored to secure for the article concerningthe Lord's Supper a milder form still, in the end, he did not refuse tosign. Regius wrote to Luther, May 21, that he had discussed the entirecause of the Gospel with the Landgrave, who had invited him to dinner, and talked with him for two hours on the Lord's Supper. The Prince hadpresented all the arguments of the Sacramentarians and desired to hearRegius refute them. But while the Landgrave did not side with Zwingli(_non sentit cum Zwinglio_), yet he desired with all his heart anagreement of the theologians, as far as piety would permit (_exoptatdoctorum hominum concordiam, quantum sinit pietas_). He was far lessinclined to dissension than rumor had it before his arrival. He wouldhardly despise the wise counsel of Melanchthon and others. (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 125; see also _C. R. _ 2, 59, where the text reads, "_namsentit cum Zwinglio_" instead of, "_non sentit cum Zwinglio. _")Accordingly, the mind of the Landgrave was not outright Zwinglian, butunionistic. He regarded the followers of Zwingli as weak brethren whomust be borne with, and to whom Christian fellowship should not berefused. This also explains how the Landgrave could sign the Augustana, and yet continue his endeavors to bring about a union. 

May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "The Macedonian [Philip of Hesse]now contemplates signing our formula of speech, and it appears as if hecan be drawn back to our side; still, a letter from you will benecessary. Therefore I beg you most urgently that you write him, admonishing him not to burden his conscience with a godless doctrine. "Still the Landgrave did not change his position in the next few weeks. June 25, however, Melanchthon reported to Luther: "The Landgraveapproves our Confession and has signed it. You will, I hope accomplishmuch if you seek to strengthen him by writing him a letter. " (_C. R. _ 2, 60. 92. 96. 101. 103. 126; Luther St. L. , 16, 689; 21a, 1499. )

At Augsburg, whither also Zwingli had sent his _Fidei Ratio, _ theSouth-German imperial cities (Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau)presented the so-called _Confessio Tetrapolitana, _ prepared by Bucer andCapito, which declares that the Sacraments are "holy types, " and that inthe Lord's Supper the "true body" and the "true blood" of Christ "aretruly eaten and drunk as meat and drink for the souls which are therebynourished unto eternal life. " However, in 1532 these cities, too, signedthe Augsburg Confession. 

Thus the seed which Luther sowed had grown wonderfully. June 25, 1530, is properly regarded as the real birthday of the Lutheran Church. Fromthis day on she stands before all the world as a body united by a publicconfession and separate from the Roman Church. The lone, but courageousconfessor of Worms saw himself surrounded with a stately host of trueChristian heroes, who were not afraid to place their names under hisConfession, although they knew that it might cost them goods and blood, life and limb. When the Emperor, after entering Augsburg, stubbornlydemanded that the Lutherans cease preaching, Margrave George ofBrandenburg finally declared: "Rather than deny my God and suffer theWord of God to be taken from me, I will kneel down and have my headstruck off. " (_C. R. _ 2, 115. ) That characterizes the pious and heroicframe of mind of all who signed the Augustana in 1530 In a letter, ofJune 18, to Luther, Jonas relates how the Catholic princes and estatesknelt down to receive the blessing of Campegius when the latter enteredthe city, but that the Elector remained standing and declared: "To Godalone shall knees be bowed; _In Deo flectenda sunt genua. _" (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 135. ) When Melanchthon called the Elector's attention to thepossible consequences of his signing the Augsburg Confession, the latteranswered that he would do what was right, without concerning himselfabout his electoral dignity; he would confess his Lord, whose cross heprized higher than all the power of the world. 

Brenz wrote: "Our princes are most steadfast in confessing the Gospel, and surely, when I consider their great steadfastness, there comes overme no small feeling of shame because we poor beggars [theologians] arefilled with fear of the Imperial Majesty. " (_C. R. _ 2, 125. ) Lutherpraises Elector John for having suffered a bitter death at the Diet ofAugsburg. There, says Luther, he had to swallow all kinds of nasty soupsand poison with which the devil served him; at Augsburg he publicly, before all the world, confessed Christ's death and resurrection, andhazarded property and people, yea, his own body and life; and because ofthe confession which he made we shall honor him as a Christian. (St. L. 12, 2078 f. ) And not only the Lutheran Church, but all ProtestantChristendom, aye, the entire world has every reason to revere and holdsacred the memory of the heroes who boldly affixed their names to theConfession of 1530. 

29. Tributes to Confession of Augsburg. 

From the moment of its presentation to the present day, men have nottired of praising the Augsburg Confession, which has been called_Confessio augusta, Confessio augustissima, _ the "_EvangelischerAugapfel, _" etc. They have admired its systematic plan, itscompleteness, comprehensiveness, and arrangement; its balance ofmildness and firmness; its racy vigor, freshness, and directness; itsbeauty of composition, "the like of which can not be found in the entireliterature of the Reformation period. " Spalatin exclaims: "A Confession, the like of which was never made, not only in a thousand years, but aslong as the world has been standing!" Sartorius: "A confession of theeternal truth, of true ecumenical Christianity, and of all fundamentalarticles of the Christian faith!" "From the Diet of Augsburg, which isthe birthday of the Evangelical Church Federation, down to the greatPeace Congress of Muenster and Osnabrueck, this Confession stands as thetowering standard in the entire history of those profoundly troubloustimes, gathering the Protestants about itself in ever closer ranks, and, when assaulted by the enemies of Evangelical truth with increasing fury, is defended by its friends in severe fighting, with loss of goods andblood, and always finally victoriously holds the field. Under theprotection of this banner the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany hasbeen built up on firm and unassailable foundations: under the sameprotection the Reformed Church in Germany has found shelter. But thebanner was carried still farther; for all Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, andPrussians have sworn allegiance to it, and the Esthonians, Latts, Finns, as well as all Lutherans of Russia, France, and other lands recognizetherein the palladium of their faith and rights. No other Protestantconfession has ever been so honored. " (Guericke, _Kg. _, 3, 116 f. )

Vilmar says in praise of the Confession: "Whoever has once felt a gentlebreath of the bracing mountain air which is wafted from this mightymountain of faith [the Augsburg Confession] no longer seeks to pitagainst its firm and quiet dignity his own uncertain, immature, andwavering thoughts nor to direct the vain and childish puff of his mouthagainst that breath of God in order to give it a different direction. "(_Theol. D. Tatsachen, _ 76. ) In his Introduction to the SymbolicalBooks, J. T. Mueller says: "Luther called the Diet of Augsburg 'the lasttrumpet before Judgment Day;' hence we may well call the confessionthere made the _blast_ of that trumpet, which, indeed, has gone forthinto all lands, even as the Gospel of God which it proclaims in itspurity. " (78. ) The highest praise, however, is given the AugsburgConfession by the Church which was born with it, when, _e. G. _, in theFormula of Concord, the Lutherans designate it as "the symbol of ourtime, " and glory in it as the Confession, which, though frowned upon andassailed by its opponents, "down to this day has remained unrefuted andunoverthrown (bis auf diesen Tag unwiderlegt und unumgestossengeblieben). " (777, 4; 847, 3. )

IV. Melanchthon's Alterations of the Augsburg Confession. 

30. Changes Unwarranted. 

Melanchthon continued uninterruptedly to polish and correct the AugsburgConfession till immediately before its presentation on June 25, 1530. While, indeed he cannot be censured for doing this, it was thoughoriginally not so intended by Melanchthon, an act of presumption tocontinue to alter the document after it had been adopted, signed, andpublicly presented. Even the _editio princeps_ of 1531 is no longer inliteral agreement with the original manuscripts. For this reason theGerman text embodied in the Book of Concord is not the one contained inthe _editio princeps, _ but that of the Mainz Manuscript, which, asstated, was erroneously believed to be the identical German copypresented to the Emperor. The Latin text of the _editio princeps, _embodied in the Book of Concord, had likewise undergone some, thoughunessential, changes. These alterations became much more extensive inthe Latin octavo edition of 1531 and in the German revision of 1533. TheVariata of 1540 and 1542, however, capped the climax as far as changesare concerned, some of them being very questionable also doctrinally. Intheir "Approbation" of the Concordia Germanico-Latina, edited byReineccius, 1708, the Leipzig theologians remark pertinently:Melanchthon found it "impossible to leave a book as it once was. "Witness his _Loci_ of 1521, which he remodeled three times--1535, 1542, and 1548. However, the _Loci_ were his own private work while theAugustana was the property and confession of the Church. 

Tschackert is right when he comments as follows: "To-day it is regardedas an almost incomprehensible trait of Melanchthon's character thatimmediately after the Diet and all his lifetime he regarded theConfession as a private production of his pen, and made changes in it asoften as he had it printed, while he, more so than others, could butevaluate it as a state-paper of the Evangelical estates, which, havingbeen read and delivered in solemn session, represented an importantdocument of German history, both secular and ecclesiastical. Inextenuation it is said that Melanchthon made these changes inpedagogical interests, namely, in order to clarify terms or to explainthem more definitely; furthermore, that for decades the Evangelicalestates and theologians did not take offense at Melanchthon's changes. Both may be true. But this does not change the fact that the chiefeditor of the Confession did not appreciate the world-historicalsignificance of this state-paper of the Evangelical estates. " (_L. C. _288. ) Nor can it be denied that Melanchthon made these changes, notmerely in pedagogical interests, but, at least a number of them, alsoin the interest of his deviating dogmatic views and in deference toPhilip of Hesse, who favored a union with the Swiss. Nor can Melanchthonbe fully cleared of dissimulation in this matter. The revised Apology of1540, for example, he openly designated on the titlepage as "diligentlyrevised, _diligenter recognita";_ but in the case of the AugsburgConfession of 1540 and 1542 he in no way indicated that it was a changedand augmented edition. 

As yet it has not been definitely ascertained when and where the terms"Variata" and "Invariata" originated. At the princes' diet of Naumburg, in 1561, the Variata was designated as the "amended" edition. The ReussConfession of 1567 contains the term "unaltered Augsburg Confession. " Inits Epitome as well as in its Thorough Declaration the Formula ofConcord speaks of "the First Unaltered Augsburg Confession--_Augustanailla prima et non mutata Confessio. _" (777, 4; 851, 5. ) The Preface tothe Formula of Concord repeatedly speaks of the Variata of 1540 as "theother edition of the Augsburg Confession--_altera AugustanaeConfessionis editio. _" (13 f. )

31. Detrimental Consequences of Alterations. 

The changes made in the Augsburg Confession brought great distress, heavy cares, and bitter struggles upon the Lutheran Church both fromwithin and without. Church history records the manifold and sinisterways in which they were exploited by the Reformed as well as thePapists; especially by the latter (the Jesuits) at the religiouscolloquies beginning 1540, until far into the time of the Thirty Years'War, in order to deprive the Lutherans of the blessings guaranteed bythe religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555. (Salig, _Gesch. D. A. K. _, 1, 770ff. ; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1919, 218 ff. )

On Melanchthon's alterations of the Augsburg Confession the Romanists, as the Preface to the Book of Concord explains, based the reproach andslander that the Lutherans themselves did not know "which is the trueand genuine Augsburg Confession. " (15. ) Decrying the Lutherans, theyboldly declared "that not two preachers are found who agree in each andevery article of the Augsburg Confession, but that they are rent asunderand separated from one another to such an extent that they themselves nolonger know what is the Augsburg Confession and its proper sense. "(1095. ) In spite of the express declaration of the Lutherans atNaumburg, 1561, that they were minded to abide by the original AugsburgConfession as presented to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, 1530, thePapists and the Reformed did not cease their calumniations, butcontinued to interpret their declarations to mean, "as though we [theLutherans] were so uncertain concerning our religion, and so often hadtransfused it from one formula to another, that it was no longer clearto us or our theologians what is the Confession once offered to theEmperor at Augsburg. " (11. )

As a result of the numerous and, in part radical changes made byMelanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, the Reformed also, in the courseof time more and more, laid claim to the Variata and appealed to it overagainst the loyal Lutherans. In particular, they regarded andinterpreted the alteration which Melanchthon had made in Article X, Ofthe Lord's Supper, as a correction of the original Augustana indeference to the views of Calvinism. Calvin declared that he (1539 atStrassburg) had signed the Augustana "in the sense in which its author[Melanchthon] explains it (_sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatur_). " Andwhenever the Reformed, who were regarded as confessionally related tothe Augsburg Confession (_Confessioni Augustanae addicti_), and as suchshared in the blessings of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace ofWestphalia (1648), adopted, and appealed to, the Augustana, theyinterpreted it according to the Variata. 

Referring to this abuse on the part of the Reformed andCrypto-Calvinists, the Preface to the Book of Concord remarks: "To thesedisadvantages [the slanders of the Romanists] there is also added that, under the pretext of the Augsburg Confession [Variata of 1540], theteaching conflicting with the institution of the Holy Supper of the bodyand blood of Christ and also other corruptions were introduced here andthere into the churches and schools. " (11. 17. )--Thus the changes madein the Augsburg Confession did much harm to the Lutheran cause. Melanchthon belongs to the class of men that have greatly benefited ourChurch, but have also seriously harmed it. "These fictions" of theadversaries, says the Preface to the Book of Concord concerning theslanders based on Melanchthon's changes "have deterred and alienatedmany good men from our churches, schools, doctrine, faith, andconfession. " (11. )

32. Attitude toward Variata. 

John Eck was the first who, in 1541, at the religious colloquy of Worms, publicly protested against the Variata. But since it was apparent thatmost of the changes were intended merely as reenforcements of theLutheran position against the Papists, and Melanchthon also declaredthat he had made no changes in "the matter and substance or in thesense, " _i. E. _, in the doctrine itself, the Lutherans at that time, asthe Preface to the Book of Concord shows, attached no further importanceto the matter. The freedom with which in those days formal alterationswere made even in public documents, and the guilelessness with whichsuch changes were received, appears, for example, from the translationof the Apology by Justus Jonas. However, not all Lutherans even at thattime were able to view Melanchthon's changes without apprehension andindifference. Among these was Elector John Frederick, who declared thathe considered the Augustana to be the confession of those who had signedit, and not the private property of Melanchthon. 

In his admonition to Brueck of May 5, 1537, he says: "Thus Master Philipalso is said to have arrogated to himself the privilege of changing insome points the Confession of Your Electoral Grace and the other princesand estates, made before His Imperial Majesty at Augsburg, to soften itand to print it elsewhere [a reprint of the changed Latin octavo editionof 1531 had been published 1535 at Augsburg and another at Hagenau]without the previous knowledge and approval of Your Electoral Grace andof the other estates which, in the opinion of Your Electoral Grace, heshould justly have refrained from, since the Confession belongsprimarily to Your Electoral Grace and the other estates; and from it[the alterations made] Your Electoral Grace and the other relatedestates might be charged that they are not certain of their doctrine andare also unstable. Besides, it is giving an offense to the people. " (_C. R. _ 3, 365. ) Luther, too, is said to have remonstrated with Melanchthonfor having altered the Confession. In his Introduction to the AugsburgConfession (Koenigsberg, 1577) Wigand reports: "I heard from Mr. GeorgeRorarius that Dr. Luther said to Philip, 'Philip, Philip, you are notdoing right in changing Augustanam Confessionem so often for it is notyour, but the Church's book. '" Yet it is improbable that this shouldhave occurred between 1537 and 1542, for in 1540 the Variata followed, which was changed still more in 1542, without arousing any publicprotest whatever. 

After Luther's death, however, when Melanchthon's doctrinal deviationsbecame apparent, and the Melanchthonians and the loyal Lutherans becamemore and more opposed to one another, the Variata was rejected withincreasing determination by the latter as the party-symbol of thePhilippists. In 1560 Flacius asserted at Weimar that the Variatadiffered essentially from the Augustana. In the Reuss-SchoenburgConfession of 1567 the Variata was unqualifiedly condemned; for here weread: We confess "the old, true, unaltered Augsburg Confession, whichlater was changed, mutilated, misinterpreted, and falsified . .. By theAdiaphorists in many places both as regards the words and the substance(_nach den Worten und sonst in den Haendeln_), which thus became abuskin, _Bundschuh, _ pantoffle, and a Polish boot, fitting both legsequally well [suiting Lutherans as well as Reformed] or a cloak and achangeling (_Wechselbalg_), by means of which Adiaphorists, Sacramentarians, Antinomians, new teachers of works, and the like hide, adorn, defend, and establish their errors and falsifications under thecover and name of the Augsburg Confession, pretending to be likewiseconfessors of the Augsburg Confession, for the sole purpose of enjoyingwith us under its shadow, against rain and hail, the common peace of theEmpire, and selling, furthering, and spreading their errors under thesemblance of friends so much the more easily and safely. " (Kolde, _Einleitung, _ 30. ) In a sermon delivered at Wittenberg, Jacob Andreaealso opposed the Variata very zealously. 

Thus the conditions without as well as within the Lutheran Church weresuch that a public declaration on the part of the genuine Lutherans asto their attitude toward the alterations of Melanchthon, notably in theVariata of 1540, became increasingly imperative. Especially thecontinued slanders, intrigues, and threats of the Papists necessitatedsuch a declaration. As early as 1555, when the Peace of Augsburg wasconcluded, the Romanists attempted to limit its provisions to theadherents of the Augustana of 1530. At the religious colloquy of Worms, in 1557, the Jesuit Canisius, distinguishing between a pure and afalsified Augustana, demanded that the adherents of the latter becondemned, and excluded from the discussions. 

33. Alterations in Editions of 1531, 1533, 1540. 

As to the alterations themselves, the Latin text of the _editioprinceps_ of the Augsburg Confession of 1531 received the followingadditions: sec. 3 in Article 13, sec. 8 in Article 18, and sec. 26 inArticle 26. Accordingly, these passages do not occur in the German textof the Book of Concord. Originally sec. 2 in the conclusion of Article21 read: "_Tota_ dissensio est de paucis quibusdam abusibus, " and sec. 3in Article 24: "Nam ad hoc _praecipue_ opus est ceremoniis, ut doceantimperitos. " The additions made to Articles 13 and 18 are also found inthe German text of the _editio princeps_. (_C. R. _ 26, 279. 564. )

In the "Approbation" of the Leipzig theologians mentioned above we read:The octavo edition of the Augustana and the Apology printed 1531 byGeorge Rauh, according to the unanimous testimony of our theologians, cannot be tolerated, "owing to the many additions and other changesoriginating from Philip Melanchthon. For if one compares the 20thArticle of the Augsburg Confession as well as the last articles on theAbuses: 'Of Monastic Vows' and 'Of Ecclesiastical Authority, ' it willreadily be seen what great additions (_laciniae_) have been patched ontothis Wittenberg octavo edition of 1531. The same thing has also beendone with the Apology, especially in the article 'Of Justification andGood Works, ' where often entire successive pages may be found which donot occur in the genuine copies. Furthermore, in the declarationregarding the article 'Of the Lord's Supper, ' where Paul's words, thatthe bread is a communion of the body of Christ, etc. , as well as thetestimony of Theophylact concerning the presence of the body of Christin the Supper have been omitted. Likewise in the defense of the articles'Of Repentance, ' 'Of Confession and Satisfaction, ' 'Of HumanTraditions, ' 'Of the Marriage of Priests, ' and 'Of EcclesiasticalPower, ' where, again, entire pages have been added. " (_L. C. _ 8, 13; _C. R. _ 27, 437. ) In the German edition of the Augsburg Confession of 1533it was especially Articles 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 that wereremodeled. These alterations, however, involve no doctrinal changes, with the possible exception of Article 5, where the words "where andwhen He will" are expunged. (_C. R. _ 26, 728. )

As to the Variata of 1540, however, the extent of the 21 doctrinalarticles was here almost doubled, and quite a number of materialalterations were made. Chief among the latter are the following: InArticle 5 the words, "ubi et quando visum est Deo, " are omitted. In the10th Article the rejection of the Reformed doctrine is deleted, and thefollowing is substituted for the article proper: "De coena Dominidocent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christivescentibus in Coena Domini. " (_C. R. _ 26, 357. ) The following sentenceshave also given offense: "Et cum hoc modo consolamur nos promissione seuEvangelio et erigimus nos fide, certo consequimur remissionempeccatorum, et _simul_ datur nobis Spiritus Sanctus. " "Cum Evangeliumaudimus aut cogitamus aut sacramenta tractamus et fide nos consolamur_simul_ est efficax Spiritus Sanctus. " (354. ) For the words of the 18thArticle: "sed haec fit in cordibus, cum per Verbum Spiritus Sanctusconcipitur, " the Variata substitutes: "Et Christus dicit: Sine me nihilpotestis facere. Efficitur autem spiritualis iustitia in nobis, cum_audiuvamur_ a Spiritu Sancto. Porro Spiritum Sanctum concipimus, cumVerbo Dei assentimur, ut nos fide in terroribus consolemur. " (362. )Toward the end of the same article we read: "Quamquam enim externa operaaliquo modo potest efficere humana natura per sese, . .. Verum timorem, veram fiduciam, patientiam, castitatem non potest efficere, nisiSpiritus Sanctus gubernet et _adiuvet_ corda nostra. " (363. ) In the 19thArticle the phrase "non adiuvante Deo" is erased, which, by the way, indicates that Melanchthon regarded these words as equivalent to thoseof the German text: "so Gott die Hand abgetan, " for else he would haveweakened the text against his own interests. (363. ) To the 20th ArticleMelanchthon added the sentence: "Debet autem ad haec dona [Dei] accedereexercitatio nostra, quae et _conservat_ ea et meretur incrementum, iuxtaillud: Habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus praeclare dixit: Dilectio mereturincrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur. " (311. )

34. Alterations Render Confession Ambiguous. 

True in making all these changes, Melanchthon did not introduce anydirect heresy into the Variata. He did, however, in the interest of hisirenic and unionistic policy and dogmatic vacillations, render ambiguousand weaken the clear sense of the Augustana. By his changes he openedthe door and cleared the way, as it were, for his deviations in thedirection of Synergism, Calvinism (Lord's Supper), and Romanism (goodworks are necessary to salvation). Nor was Melanchthon a man who didnot know what he was doing when he made alterations. Whenever heweakened and trimmed the doctrines he had once confessed, whether in his_Loci_ or in the Augustana, he did so in order to satisfy definiteinterests of his own, interests self-evidently not subservient to, butconflicting with, the clear expression and bold confession of the oldLutheran truth. 

Kolde, referring in particular to the changes made in the 10th Article, says: "It should never have been denied that these alterations involvedreal changes. The motives which actuated Melanchthon cannot bedefinitely ascertained, neither from his own expressions nor fromcontemporary remarks of his circle of acquaintances" [As late as 1575Selneccer reports that Philip of Hesse had asked Melanchthon to erasethe _improbatio_ of the 10th Article, because then also the Swiss wouldaccept the Augustana as their confession]. "A comparison with theWittenberg Concord of May, 1536 (_cum pane et vino vere etsubstantialiter adesse_--that the body and blood [of Christ] are reallyand substantially present with the bread and wine, _C. R. _ 3, 75)justifies the assumption that by using the form: _cum pane et vino vereexhibeantur, _ he endeavored to take into account the existing agreementwith the South Germans (_Oberlaender_). However, when, at the same time, he omits the words: _vere et substantialiter adesse, _ and the_improbatio, _ it cannot, in view of his gradually changed conception ofthe Lord's Supper, be doubted that he sought to leave open for himselfand others the possibility of associating also with the Swiss. " (25. )

An adequate answer to the question what prompted Melanchthon to make hisalterations will embrace also the following points: 1. Melanchthon'smania for changing and remodeling in general. 2. His desire, especiallyafter the breach between the Lutherans and the Papists seemed incurable, to meet and satisfy the criticism that the Augustana was too mild, andto reenforce the Lutheran position over against the Papists. 3. Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations, especially in Reformed andsynergistic directions. 

35. Variata Disowned by Lutheran Church. 

It cannot be denied that during Luther's life and for quite a time afterhis death the Variata was used by Lutherans without any publicopposition and recognized as the Augsburg Confession. Martin Chemnitz, in his "Iudicum de Controversiis quibusdam circa quosdam AugustanaeConfessionis Articulos--Decision concerning Certain Controversies aboutSome Articles of the Augsburg Confession, " printed 1597, says that theedition of 1540 was employed at the religious colloquies with theprevious knowledge and approval of Luther; in fact, that it was drawn upespecially for the Colloquy at Hagenau, which the opponents (Cochlaeusat Worms, Pighius at Regensburg) had taken amiss. "Graviter tulerant, "says Chemnitz, "multis articulis pleniori declaratione plusculum lucisaccessisse, unde videbant veras sententias magis illustrari et ThaidisBabyloniae turpitudinem manifestius denudare--They took it amiss thatmore light had been shed on many articles by a fuller explanation, whence they perceived the true statements to be more fully illustratedand the shame of the Babylonian Thais to be more fully disclosed. "(Mueller, _Einleitung, _ 72. )

Furthermore, it is equally certain that on the part of the Lutheranprinces, the Variata was employed without any sinister intentionswhatever, and without the slightest thought of deviating even in theleast from the doctrine of the original Augustana, as has been falselyasserted by Heppe, Weber, and others. Wherever the Variata was adoptedby Lutheran princes and theologians, it was never for the purpose ofweakening the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in any point. Moreover, the sole reason always was to accentuate and present moreclearly the contrast between themselves and the Papists; and, generallyspeaking, the Variata did serve this purpose. True, Melanchthon at thesame time, no doubt planned to prepare the way for his doctrinalinnovations; but wherever such was the case he kept it strictly tohimself. 

The complete guilelessness and good faith in which the Lutheran princesand theologians employed the Variata, and permitted its use appearsfrom the Preface to the Book of Concord. For here they state: "Thereforewe have decided in this writing to testify publicly, and to inform all, that we wished neither then nor now in any way to defend, or excuse orto approve, as agreeing with the Gospel-doctrine, false and godlessdoctrines and opinions which may be concealed under certain coverings ofwords [in the Variata]. We, indeed, never received the latter edition[of 1540] in a sense differing in any part from the former which waspresented [at Augsburg]. Neither do we judge that other useful writingsof Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Regius, Pomeranus, etc. , should be rejected and condemned, as far as in all things, they agreewith the norm which has been set forth in the Book of Concord. " (17. )

Accordingly, when the Variata was boldly exploited by the Romanists tocirculate all manner of slanders about the Lutherans; when it alsobecame increasingly evident that the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinistsemployed the Variata as a cover for their false doctrine of the Lord'sSupper; when, furthermore within the Lutheran Church the suspiciongradually grew into conviction that Melanchthon, by his alterations hadindeed intended to foist doctrinal deviations upon the Lutheran Church;and when, finally, a close scrutiny of the Variata had unmistakablyrevealed the fact that it actually did deviate from the originaldocument not only in extent, but also with regard to intent, not merelyformally, but materially as well, --all loyal Lutheran princes andtheologians regarded it as self-evident that they unanimously andsolemnly declare their exclusive adherence to the Augsburg Confessionas presented to Emperor Charles at Augsburg, and abandon the Variatawithout delay. At Naumburg, in 1561, the Lutheran princes therefore, after some vacillation, declared that they would adhere to the originalAugsburg Confession and its "genuine Christian declaration and norm, "the Smalcald Articles. Frederick III of the Palatinate alone withdrew, and before long joined the Calvinists by introducing the HeidelbergCatechism, thus revealing the spuriousness of his own Lutheranism. 

It was due especially to the Crypto-Calvinists in Electoral Saxony andto the _Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum_ that the Variata retained atemporary and local authority, until it was finally and generallydisowned by the Lutheran Church and excluded from its symbols by theadoption of the Formula of Concord. For here our Church pledgesadherence to "the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to theEmperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet. "(777, 4; 847, 5; 851, 5. ) And in the Preface to the Book of Concord theprinces and estates declare: "Accordingly, in order that no persons maypermit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our adversaries spunout of their own minds, by which they boast that not even we are certainwhich is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both thosewho are now among the living and posterity may be clearly and firmlytaught and informed what that godly Confession is which we and thechurches and schools of our realms at all times professed and embraced, we emphatically testify that next to the pure and immutable truth ofGod's Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone whichwas presented to the Emperor Charles V, in the year 1530, at the famousDiet of Augsburg, this alone (we say), and no other. " (15. ) At the sametime the princes furthermore protest that also the adoption of theFormula of Concord did not make any change in this respect. Fordoctrinally the Formula of Concord was not, nor was it intended to be, a"new or different confession, " _i. E. _, different from the one presentedto Emperor Charles V. (20. )

V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. 

36. Papal Party Refusing Conciliation. 

At the Diet of Augsburg, convened in order to restore the disturbedreligious peace, the Lutherans were the first to take a step towardsreconciliation by delivering their Confession, June 25, 1530. Inaccordance with the manifesto of Emperor Charles, they now expected thatthe papal party would also present its view and opinion, in order thatthe discussions might thereupon proceed in love and kindness, as theEmperor put it. In the Preface to their Confession the Lutheransdeclared: "In obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, inthis matter of religion the Confession of our preachers and ofourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures andthe pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions and cities, and taught in our churches. And if theother Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, according tothe said imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, inLatin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of religion, we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your ImperialMajesty, our most clement Lord, are prepared to confer amicablyconcerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may cometogether, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter betweenus on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by God's help, may be done away and brought back to onetrue accordant religion; for as we all are under one Christ and dobattle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor ofYour Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought to be conductedaccording to the truth of God; and this is what, with most ferventprayers, we entreat of God. " (39, 8. )

The Lutherans did not believe that the manifesto of the Emperor could beconstrued in any other way than that both parties would be treated asequals at the Diet. Not merely as a matter of good policy, but _bonafide, _ as honest Germans and true Christians, they clung tenaciously tothe words of the Emperor, according to which the Romanists, too, were tobe regarded as a party summoned for the trial, the Emperor being thejudge. The Lutherans simply refused to take the word of the Emperor atanything less than par, or to doubt his good will and the sincerity ofhis promise. The fact that from the very beginning his actions were inapparent contravention of the manifesto was attributed by the Lutheransto the sinister influence of such bitter, baiting, and unscrupuloustheologians as Eck, Cochlaeus, and Faber, who, they claimed, endeavoredto poison and incite the guileless heart of the Emperor. Thus theLutherans would not and could not believe that Charles had deceivedthem, --a simple trust, which, however, stubborn facts finally compelledthem to abandon. 

The Romanists, on the other hand, boasting before the Emperor that theyhad remained with the true Christian faith, the holy Gospel, theCatholic Church, the bull of the Pope, and the Edict of Worms, refusedwith equal tenacity to be treated as a party summoned for trial. June25, 1530, Elector John wrote to Luther: "Thus we and the other princesand estates who are related to us in this matter had to consent tosubmit our opinion and confession of faith. Our opponents, however, aswe are told, declined to present theirs and decided to show to theEmperor that they adhered to the Edict [of Worms] and to the faith whichtheir fathers had bequeathed to and bestowed upon them, and which theyintended to adhere to even now; if, however the Pope or, in his place, the Legate, together with His Imperial Majesty, would point out, andexpect them to adopt, a different and new faith, they would humbly hearthe Emperor's opinion. " (Luther, St. L. 16, 758. )

Thus presupposing what they were summoned to prove at Augsburg, namely, that the doctrine of the Pope was identical with the old Christianfaith, the Romanists declared a presentation of their views unnecessary. The Lutherans, they maintained, were convicted apostates and rebelsagainst Pope and Church, against Emperor and realm; sentence was notfirst to be pronounced upon them, but had been pronounced long ago, theDiet's duty merely being to confirm and execute it; hence, there wasnothing else to be done by the Emperor than to attend to his office aswarden and protector of the Church, and, together with the princes andestates, to proceed against the heretics with drastic measures. Also inthe later discussions, conducted with a view of effecting areconciliation, the Romanists refused to relinquish this position. Frombeginning to end they acted as the accusers, judges, and henchmen of theLutherans. Nor was anything else to be expected, since, unlike theLutherans, they considered not God's Word, but the Pope the supremearbiter in religious matters. Thus from the very outset, the gulfbetween the two parties was such that it could not be bridged. Commonground was lacking. On the one side conscience, bound by the Word ofGod! On the other, blind subjection to human, papal authority! AlsoRomanists realized that this fundamental and irreconcilable differencewas bound to render futile all discussions. It was not merely his owndisgust which the papal historian expressed when he concluded his reporton the prolonged discussions at Augsburg: "Thus the time was wasted withvain discussions. " (Plitt, _Apologie, _ 43. )

37. Further Success Not Hoped for by Luther. 

Luther regarded the public reading of the Confession as an unparalleledtriumph of his cause. Further results, such as a union with theRomanists, he did not expect. On July 9, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: _"Quidsperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso?_ What can I hope ofthe Emperor, even the best, when he is obsessed" [by the papaltheologians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political toleration. In the letter quoted he continues: "But they [the Papists] must expect asad, and we a happy issue. Not indeed, that there ever will be unity ofdoctrine; for who can hope that Belial will be united with Christ?Excepting that perhaps marriage [of priests] and the two kinds [of theSacrament] be permitted (here too however, this adverb 'perhaps' isrequired, and perhaps too much 'perhaps'). But this I wish and earnestlyhope for, that, the difference in doctrine being set aside, a politicalunion may be made. If by the blessing of Christ this takes place, enoughand more than enough has been done and accomplished at this Diet. . .. Now, if we obtain also the third thing, that we adjourn with worldlypeace secured, then we shall have clearly defeated Satan in this year. "(Enders, 8, 95; St. L. 16 927. 1666. )

July 21, 1530, Luther wrote in a similar vein to Jonas: "The fact thatthese frogs [the papal theologians who wrote the Confutation] with theircroakings [_coaxitatibus_ = pasquinades against Luther, instead ofanswers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor] chagrins mevery much in this great work in the most important matters. . .. But thishappens to prove that I am a true prophet; for I have always said that wework and hope in vain for a union in doctrine; it would be enough if wecould obtain worldly peace. " (16, 927. 2324. ) August 25, when theprolonged discussions of reconciliation were nearing their end, he wroteto Melanchthon: "In sum, it does not please me at all that unity ofdoctrine is to be discussed, since this is utterly impossible, unlessthe Pope would abolish his entire popery. It would have sufficed if wehad presented to them the reasons for our faith and desired peace. Buthow can we hope that we shall win them over to accept the truth? We havecome to hear whether they approve our doctrine or not, permitting themto remain what they are, only inquiring whether they acknowledge ourdoctrine to be correct or condemn it. If they condemn it, what does itavail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies?If they acknowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of retainingthe old abuses?" (16, 1404. )

Though willing to yield to the Catholic party in all other matters, Luther refused to compromise the divine truth in any point or in anyway. For this reason he also insisted that the Emperor should not berecognized as judge and arbiter without qualification, but only with theproviso that his decision would not conflict with the clear Word of God. According to Luther, everybody, Pope and Emperor included, must submitto the authority of the Scriptures. In a letter of July 9, 1530 he wroteto the Elector: "In the first place; Should His Imperial Majesty desirethat the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, since itwas not His Majesty's purpose to enter into lengthy discussions, I thinkYour Electoral Grace might answer that His Imperial Majesty's manifestopromises that he would graciously listen to these matters. If such wasnot intended, the manifesto would have been needless, for His ImperialMajesty might have rendered his decision just as well in Spain withoutsummoning Your Electoral Grace to Augsburg at such great labor andexpense. . .. In the second place: Should His Imperial Majesty insistthat the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters YourElectoral Grace may cheerfully answer Yes, the Imperial Majesty shalldecide these matters, and Your Electoral Grace would accept and suffereverything, provided only that His Imperial Majesty make no decisionagainst the clear Scriptures, or God's Word. For Your Electoral Gracecannot put the Emperor above God, nor accept his verdict in oppositionto God's Word. " (16, 815. )

38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor. 

By their obstinate refusal to regard themselves as a party summoned, theRomanists from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor tomaintain the role of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had neverreally intended to be. At any rate, though earnestly desirous ofreligious peace, his actions throughout the Diet do not reveal a singleserious effort at redeeming his promise and putting his beautiful wordsinto practise. Being bound to the Pope and the papal party bothreligiously and politically, Charles did not require of the Romanists afulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them by his manifesto. Allthe concessions were to be made by the Lutherans. _Revoca!_--that wasthe first and only word which Rome had hitherto spoken to Luther. "Revoke and submit yourselves!"--that, in the last analysis, was alsothe demand of the Emperor at Augsburg with respect to the Lutheranprinces, both when he spoke in tones friendly and gentle and when heuttered severe and threatening words. Charles, it is true, desiredpeace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by universal blind submissionto the Pope; not a peace by mutual understanding and concessions; leastof all a peace by political religious tolerance, such as Luther desired, and which in our days is generally regarded as the outstanding featureof modern civilization, notably of Americanism. To force the Lutheransinto submission and obedience to the Pope, that was the real object ofthe Emperor. And the political situation demanded that this beaccomplished by peaceable and gentle means--if possible. 

Self-evidently, in his endeavors to establish a Papal Peace, theEmperor, who was haunted and tormented by the fear that all effortsmight prove futile, was zealously seconded, encouraged, and prodded onby the papal theologians. To bring about a religious peace, such as theEmperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be anever-memorable achievement, truly worthy of the Emperor: for the eyes ofall Christendom were upon him, and he had staked his honor upon thesuccess of this glorious undertaking. June 3 the Father Confessor of theEmperor, Garsia, then at Rome, wrote to Charles: "At present there isnothing so important in this life as that Your Majesty emerge victoriousin the German affair. In Italy you will be accounted the best prince onearth if God should vouchsafe this grace unto us that the heresies whichhave arisen in that nation be cured by your hand. " (Plitt, 4. ) June 6Garsia wrote: "Gracious Lord! After the letters from the legate[Campegius, concerning the return of Christian II to the Roman Church, the disagreement between Philip of Hesse and the Elector, etc. ] had beenread at to-day's Consistorial Meeting, almost all the cardinals saidthat Your Majesty was the angel sent from heaven to restore Christendom. God knows how much I rejoiced, and although the sun burned fiercely whenI returned to my home, how patiently I bore it! I was not sensitive toit from sheer joy at hearing such sweet words about my master from thosewho a year ago had maligned him. My chief comfort, however, was tobehold that they were right; for it seems as if God were performingmiracles by Your Majesty, and to judge by the beginning you have made incuring this ailment, it is evident that we may expect the issue to provefar more favorable than our sins merit. " (II. 67. )

39. Compulsion Advocated by Theologians. 

All Romanists, the Emperor included, were of the opinion that theProtestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they differedsomewhat as to the means of accomplishing this purpose. Some demandedthat force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled thatleniency be tried first. Campegius advised kindness at the beginning, and greater severity only in dealing with certain individuals, but thatsharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At Romeforce was viewed as the "true rhubarb" for healing the breach, especially among the common people. July 18 Garsia wrote to the Emperor:"If you are determined to bring Germany back to the fold, I know of noother or better means than by presents and flattery to persuade thosewho are most eminent in science or in the empire to return to our faith. Once that is done, you must, in dealing with the remaining commonpeople, first of all publish your imperial edicts and Christianadmonitions. If they will not obey these, then the true rhubarb to curethem is force. This alone cured Spain's rebellion against its king. Andforce is what will also cure Germany's unfaithfulness to God, unless, indeed, divine grace should not attend Your Majesty in the usualmeasure. God would learn in this matter whether you are a faithful sonof His, and should He so find, then I promise you that among allcreatures you will find no power sufficiently strong to resist you. Allwill but serve the purpose of enabling you to obtain the crown of thisworld. " (42. )

Among the open advocates of force were Cochlaeus, Eck, Faber, and thetheologians and monks who flocked to Augsburg in large numbers about thetime the Augsburg Confession was read. They all considered it theirprime duty to rouse the passions of the Emperor, as well as of theCatholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the Lutherans. Their enmity was primarily directed against the Augustana, whoseobjective and moderate tone had gained many friends even among theCatholics, and which had indirectly branded Eck and his compeers asdetractors and calumniators. For had not Duke William of Bavaria, afterthe reading of the Confession, rebuked Eck, in the presence of theElector of Saxony, for having misrepresented the Lutheran doctrine tohim? The moderation of the Augustana, said these Romanists, was nothingbut the cunning of serpents, deception and misrepresentation, especiallyon the part of the wily Melanchthon, for the true Luther was portrayedin the 404 theses of Eck. Cochlaeus wrote that the Lutherans were slylyhiding their ungodly doctrines in order to deceive the Emperor: "astuteoccultari in illorum Confessione prava eorum dogmata, de quibus ibitacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypocrisi loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisqueprincipibus imponerent. " (Laemmer, _Vortridentinische Theologie, _ 39. )Thus the malice and fanaticism of the papal theologians and the monksrose in proportion as friendliness was shown the Lutherans by Catholicprinces and the Emperor. They feared that every approach toward theLutherans would jeopardize the _pax Pontificia. _

The fanaticism of the papal theologians is frequently referred to by theLutherans. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Sophists and monks aredaily streaming into the city, in order to inflame the hatred of theEmperor against us. " (_C. R. _ 2, 141. ) June 27: "Our Confession waspresented last Saturday. The opponents are now deliberating upon how toanswer; they flock together, take great pains, and incite the princes, who already have been sufficiently aroused. Eck vehemently demands ofthe Archbishop of Mainz that the matter be not debated, since it hasalready been condemned. " (144. ) June 29 Jonas wrote to Luther: "Faber isgoaded on by furies and Eck is not a whit more sensible. Both insist inevery manner imaginable that the affair ought to be managed by force andmust not be heard. " (154. ) Melanchthon, July 8: "By chance Eck andCochlaeus came to the legate [Campegius, with whom Melanchthon wasdeliberating]. I heard them say, distinctly enough, I believe, that theopponents are merely deliberating upon how to suppress us by force. "(175. ) July 15: "Repeatedly have I been with certain enemies who belongto that herd of Eck. Words fail me to describe the bitter, Pharisaicalhatred I noticed there. They do nothing, they plan nothing else than howthey may incite the princes against us, and supply the Emperor withimpious weapons. " (197. ) The implacable theologians also succeeded infanaticizing some of the princes and bishops, who gradually became moreand more opposed to any kind of settlement by mutual understanding. (175. )

The chief exponent of force was Cochlaeus. In his _Expostulatio, _ whichappeared at Augsburg in May, 1530, he argued that not only according topapal, but according to imperial law as well, which the Evangelicalsalso acknowledged, and according to the Scriptures, heretics might, aye, must be punished with death. The treatise concludes as follows: "Thus itis established that obdurate heretics may be executed by every form oflaw. We, however, much prefer to have them return to the Church, beconverted, healed and live, and we beseech them to do so. _Constatigitur, haereticos pertinaces omni iure interimi posse. Nos tamen longemagis optamus et precamur, ut redeuntes ad ecclesiam convertantur, sanentur et vivant. _" (Plitt, 1, 5. )

Naturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled theemployment of compulsory measures; indeed, he could not await the hourwhen the order would be given to proceed against the heretics with fireand sword. He lamented, in bitter terms, the fact that the Emperor hadnot made use of stern measures as soon as he arrived in Germany. Fornow, said he, procrastination and the conciliatory demeanor of theEvangelicals, especially of Melanchthon and Brueck, had made itimpossible to rouse the Emperor to such a degree as the exigency of thecase demanded. (Plitt, 63. ) Luther wrote: "For that shameless gab andbloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief advisers, publiclydeclared in the presence of our people that if the Emperor had followedthe resolution made at Bononia, and, immediately on entering Germany, had courageously attacked the Lutherans with the sword, and beheaded oneafter another, the matter would have been easily settled. But all thiswas prevented when he permitted the Elector of Saxony to speak and beheard through his chancellor. " (St. L. 16, 1636. )

40. Emperor Employs Mildness. 

While a number of the Catholic estates, incited by the theologians, werealso in favor of immediately resorting to brutal force, the Emperor, forpolitical reasons, considered it more advisable to employ kindness. Lauding the extreme affability and leniency of Charles, Melanchthonwrote to Luther, January 25: "The Emperor greets our Prince very kindly;and I would that our people, in turn, were more complaisant towards him. I would ask you to admonish our Junior Prince by letter in this matter. The Emperor's court has no one milder than himself. All others harbor amost cruel hatred against us. _Caesar satis benigne salutat nostrumprincipem; ac velim vicissim nostros erga ipsum officiosiores esse. Eade re utinam iuniorem principem nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipsoCaesare mitius habet ipsius aula. Reliquii omnes crudelissime nosoderunt_. " (_C. R. _ 2, 125. )

The reading of the Augustana strengthened this friendly attitude ofCharles. Both its content and its conciliatory tone, which was not atall in harmony with the picture of the Lutherans as sketched by Eck, caused him to be more kindly disposed toward Protestantism, andnourished his hope that religious peace might be attained by peaceablemeans. Other Catholic dignitaries and princes had been impressed in thesame manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: "Many bishops are inclinedto peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop [Stadion ofAugsburg] is said to have declared in a private conversation, 'This [theConfession of the Lutherans] is the pure truth, we cannot deny it, ' TheBishop of Mainz is being praised very much for his endeavors in theinterest of peace. Likewise Duke Henry of Brunswick who extended afriendly invitation to Philip to dine with him, and admitted that he wasnot able to disprove the articles treating of both kinds, the marriageof priests, and the distinction of meats. Our men boast that, of theentire Diet, no one is milder than the Emperor himself. Such is thebeginning. The Emperor treats our Elector not only graciously, but mostrespectfully. So Philip writes. It is remarkable how all are aglow withlove and good will toward the Emperor. It may happen, if God so wills, that, as the first Emperor [Charles at Worms] was very hostile, so thislast Emperor [Charles at Augsburg] will be very friendly. Only let uspray; for the power of prayer is clearly perceived. " (St. L. 16, 882. )The Emperor's optimism was, no doubt, due to the fact that, unlike histheologians, he did not perceive and realize the impassable gulf fixedbetween Lutheranism and the Papacy, as appeared also from the Augustana, in which, however, the Emperor mistook moderation of tone for surrenderof substance. 

41. Augustana Submitted to Catholic Party. 

Full of hope the Emperor, on June 26, immediately after its publicpresentation, submitted the Lutheran Confession to the Catholic estatesfor deliberation. These, too, though not in the least inclined toabandon their arrogant attitude, seem to have given themselves over tothe delusion that the Lutherans could now be brought to recede fromtheir position. Accordingly, their answer (Responsum) of June 27, couched in conciliatory language, recommended as "the humble opinion ofthe electors and estates that the Imperial Roman Majesty would submitthis great and important matter to a number of highly learned, sensible, honest, conciliating, and not spiteful persons, to deliberate on, and toconsider, the writing [the Augustana], as far as necessary, enumerating, on the one hand, whatsoever therein was found to be in conformity andharmony with the Gospel, God's Word, and the holy Christian Church, but, on the other hand, refuting with the true foundation of the Gospel andthe Holy Scripture and its doctrine, and bringing into true Christianunderstanding, such matters as were found to be against, and out ofharmony with, the Gospel, the Word of God, and the Christian Church. "(Laemmer, 32. ) They recommended, however, that in this entire matterCampegius be consulted, and for that purpose be furnished with a copy ofthe Lutheran Confession. 

The Romanists furthermore resolved that the Lutherans be asked whetherthey had any additional points to present, and, if so, to do thisimmediately. The Lutherans, considering this a snare, declared, on July10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point to presentthe chief articles which it is necessary to believe in order to besaved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to emphasize suchonly as burdened the consciences, lest the paramount questions beobscured; that they would let this [all that was enumerated in theirConfession] suffice, and have included other points of doctrine andabuses which were not mentioned, that they would not fail to give ananswer from the Word of God in case their opponents should attack theConfession or present anything new. (Foerstemann, 2, 16. _C. R. _ 2, 181. ) No doubt, the Papists felt that the Lutherans really should havetestified directly also against the Papacy, etc. This, too, was theinterpretation which Luther put on the inquiry of the Romanists. July21, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: But now I see what the questions aimed atwhether you had other articles to present. For Satan still lives and hasnoticed very well that your Apology [Augustana] steps softly and haspassed by the articles concerning purgatory, the adoration of thesaints, and especially Antichrist, the Pope. (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders, 8, 133. )

July 5 the Emperor accepted the opinion of the estates and appointed theconfutators. At the same time he declared with reference to theLutherans that he was the judge of the content of their writing(Augustana); that, in case they should not be satisfied with hisverdict, the final decision must remain with the Council, but thatmeanwhile the Edict of Worms would be enforced everywhere. (Laemmer, 34;_C. R. _ 2, 175. ) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indicated thatthe Roman Confutation would bring his own final verdict, which nofurther discussions could modify, and that he would compel the Lutheransby force to observe the Edict of Worms if they refused to submitwillingly. The Catholic estates endorsed the Emperor's declaration, butadded the petition that, after the Confutation had been read, theLutherans be asked in all kindness to return and that, in case thisremained fruitless, an attempt be made to bring about an agreement to bereached by a committee appointed by both parties. Evidently, the estatesas well as the Emperor expected the Lutherans to yield and surrender. Still, for the present, they were willing and preferred to attain thisend by mild and gentle means. 

42. Rabid Theologians Appointed as Confutators. 

Campegius, to whom the entire matter was entrusted, manipulated thingsin such a manner that the result was the very opposite of what theEmperor and estates had resolved upon. To be sure he made it appear asthough he were entirely neutral leaving everything to the discretion ofthe German princes. He knew also how to hide his real sentiments fromthe Lutherans. Jonas, for example reports that in his address of June 24Campegius had said nothing harsh or hateful (_nihil acerbe, nihilodiose_) against the Lutherans. Spalatin reports: "Some one besought theLegate and Cardinal Campegius to assist in obtaining peace for the causeof the Gospel. To this he responded: Since the papal power wassuspicious to us the matter rested with the Emperor and the Germanprinces. Whatever they did would stand. " (Koellner, _Symbolik, _ 403. )Thus Campegius created the impression of absolute neutrality while inreality he was at the same time busy with secret intrigues against theLutherans. 

Among the Confutators (Brueck mentions 19, Spalatin 20, others 22, stillothers 24), selected by Campegius and appointed by the Emperor, weresuch rabid abusive and inveterate enemies of Luther as Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slanderous tract against Luther'smarriage), Dietenberger etc. The first three are repeatedly designatedas the true authors of the Confutation. In his _Replica ad Bucerum, _ Eckboasts: "Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen unanimously toprepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I obeyed. _Augustae abomnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui responsum pararem contraconfessionem Saxonicam, et parui. _" (Koellner, 407. ) July 10 Brenz wroteto Myconius: "Their leader (_antesignanus_) is that good man Eck. Therest are 23 in number. One might call them an Iliad [Homer's Iliadconsists of 24 books] of sophists. " (_C. R. _ 2, 180. ) Melanchthon, too, repeatedly designates Eck and Faber as the authors of the Confutation. July 14 he wrote to Luther: "With his legerdemain (_commanipulatione_)Eck presented to the Emperor the Confutation of our Confession. " (193. )August 6: "This Confutation is the most nonsensical of all thenonsensical books of Faber. " (253. ) August 8, to Myconius: "Eck andFaber have worked for six entire weeks in producing the Confutation ofour Confession. " (260. ) Hence also such allusions in Melanchthon'sletters as "confutatio Fabrilis, " "Fabriliter scripta, " and in theApology: "Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam haeineptiae excogitatae sunt ad eludendum ius naturae. " (366, 10. ) Brueckwas right when he said that some of the Confutators were "purelypartial, and altogether suspicious characters. " (Koellner, 411. )

43. Confutation Prepared. 

The resolution which the Catholic estates passed June 27 was to theeffect that the imperial answer to the Lutheran Confession be made "bysober and not spiteful men of learning. " The Emperor's Prolog to theConfutation, accordingly, designated the confutators as "certainlearned, valiant, sensible, sober, and honorable men of many nations. "(_C. R. _ 27, 189. ) At the same time they were told to couch their answerin winning, convincing, moderate, and earnest terms. The imperialinstruction read: "To this end it is indeed good and needful that saiddocument [the Augustana] be carefully considered and diligently studiedby learned, wise, and sober persons, in order that they [the Lutherans]be shown in all kindness (_durch gute Wege_) where they err, and beadmonished to return to the good way, likewise, to grant them whatsoevermay be serviceable and adapted to our holy Christian faith; and to setforth the errors, moderately and politely, with such good and holyarguments as the matter calls for, to defend and prove everything withsuitable evangelical declarations and admonitions, proceeding fromChristian and neighborly love; and at the same time to mingle therewithearnestness and severity with such moderation as may be likely to winthe five electors and princes, and not to destroy their hope or toharden them still more. " (Koellner, 403)

However, inspired by Campegius and goaded on by blind hatred, theConfutators employed their commission for the purpose of castingsuspicion on the Lutherans and inciting the Emperor against them. Theydisregarded the imperial admonition for moderation, and instead of anobjective answer to the Augustana, they produced a long-windedpasquinade against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit companionpiece to the 404 theses of Eck--a general accusation against theProtestants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quotations from Luther, Melanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The insinuation lurking inthe document everywhere was that the Confession of the Lutheran princeswas in glaring contradiction to the real doctrine of their pastors. Thesinister scheme of the Romanists, as the Elector in 1536 reminded theLutheran theologians, was to bring the princes in opposition to theirpreachers. (_C. R. _ 3, 148. ) The mildness and moderation of theAugustana, they openly declared, was nothing but subtle cunning of thesmooth and wily Melanchthon, who sought to hide the true state ofaffairs. In a book which Cochlaeus published against the Apology in 1534he said that the open attacks of Luther were far more tolerable than theserpentine cunning and hypocrisy of Melanchthon (_instar draconisinsidiantis fraudes intendens_), as manifested in particular by hisdemeanor toward Campegius at Augsburg in 1530. (Laemmer, 56; Salig, 1, 376. ) Thus the Roman Confutators disregarded their commission to refutethe Augustana, and substituted a caricature of Luther and his doctrinesdesigned to irritate the Emperor. 

44. A Bulky, Scurrilous Document. 

The Confutation, compiled by Eck and Faber from various contributions ofthe Confutators, was ready by the 8th of July, and was presented to theEmperor on the 12th or 13th. The German translation was prepared by theBavarian Chancellor, Leonhard von Eck. July 10 Brenz had written: "It isreported that they are preparing wagonloads of commentaries against ourConfession. " (_C. R. _ 2, 180. ) Spalatin reports that the Confutatorsdelivered to the Emperor "a pile of books against Doctor Martin withmost scurrilous titles. " The chief document was entitled: "Catholic and, as it were, Extemporaneous Response concerning Certain ArticlesPresented in These Days at the Diet to the Imperial Majesty by theIllustrious Elector of Saxony and Certain Other Princes as well as TwoCities. _Catholica et quasi extemporanea Responsio super nonnullisarticulis Caesareae Maiestati hisce diebus in dieta imperiali Augustensiper Illustrem Electorem Saxoniae et alios quosdam Principes et duasCivitates oblatis. _" It was supplemented by nine other treatises on allmanner of alleged contradictions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptisticas well as other fruits of his teaching. (Laemmer, 37, _C. R. _ 2, 197. )The pasquinade with its supplements comprised no less than 351 folios, 280 of which were devoted to the answer proper. Cochlaeus alsodesignates it as "very severe and extended, _acrior extensiorque. _" July14 Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutationwas "long and filled with scurrilities. " (193. 218. ) July 15: "I amsending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents havepresented to the Emperor, from which you will see that the Confutationis supplemented by antilogs and other treatises in order to stir upagainst us the most gentle heart of the Emperor. Such are the stratagemsthese slanderers (_sycophantae_) devise. " (197. )

The effect of the Confutation on the Emperor, however, was not at allwhat its authors desired and anticipated. Disgusted with the miserablebulky botch, the Emperor convened the estates on July 15, and theyresolved to return the bungling document to the theologians forrevision. Tone, method, plan, everything displeased the Emperor andestates to such an extent that they expunged almost one-third of it. Intentionally they ignored the nine supplements and demanded thatreflections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely;moreover, that the theologians confine themselves to a refutation of theAugustana. (Laemmer, 39. ) Cochlaeus writes: "Since the Catholic princesall desired peace and concord, they deemed it necessary to answer in amilder tone, and to omit all reference to what the [Lutheran] preachershad formerly taught and written otherwise than their Confession stated. "(Koellner, 406. ) In a letter to Brueck he declared that such coarseextracts and articles [with which the first draft of the Confutationcharged Luther] should not be mentioned in the reply to the Confession, lest any one be put to shame or defamed publicly. (Laemmer, 39. )

In his Annals, Spalatin reports: "At first there were perhaps 280folios. But His Imperial Majesty is said to have weeded out many foliosand condensed the Confutation to such an extent that not more thantwelve folios remained. This is said to have hurt and angered Eckseverely. " (St. L. 21a, 1539. ) In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated July30, Melanchthon remarks sarcastically: "Recently Eck complained to oneof his friends that the Emperor had deleted almost the third part of histreatise, and I suspect that the chief ornaments of the book were rootedout, that is, the glaring lies and the most stupid tricks, _insigniamendacia et sycophantiae stolidissimae. _" (_C. R. _ 2, 241. ) Brenzregarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the Augustana hadperturbed the opponents, leaving them utterly helpless. July 15 he wroteto Isemann: "Meanwhile nothing new has taken place in our midst, exceptthat I heard that the confession of the sophists was to-day returned bythe Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this for the reason thatit was so confused, jumbled, vehement, bloodthirsty, and cruel(_confusa, incordita, violenta, sanguinolenta et crudelis_) that he wasashamed to have it read before the Imperial Senate. .. . We experiencedaily that we have so bewildered, stunned, and confused them that theyknow not where to begin or to end. " (198. ) "Pussyfooting(_Leisetreten_)!"--such was the slogan at Augsburg; and in thisMelanchthon was nowhere equaled. Privately also Cochlaeus elaborated amilder answer to the Lutheran Confession. But even the friends who hadinduced him to undertake this task considered his effort too harsh to bepresented to the Emperor. 

The first, rejected draft of the Confutation has been lost, with thesole exception of the second article, preserved by Cochlaeus. On thedifference between this draft and the one finally adopted, Plittcomments as follows: "The Confutation as read simply adopted the firstarticle of the Confession [Augustana] as in complete agreement with theRoman Church. The original draft also approved this article's appeal tothe Council of Nicaea, but added that now the Emperor should admonishthe confessing estates to accept everything else taught by the CatholicChurch, even though it was not verbally contained in the Scriptures, as, for example, the Mass, Quadragesimal fasting, the invocation of thesaints, etc. ; for the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity could befound in the Scriptures just as little as that of the points mentioned, furthermore, that he also call upon them to acknowledge said Synod ofNicaea in all its parts, hence also to retain the hierarchical degreeswith their powers; that he admonish them to compel their preachers andteachers to retract everything which they had said and written againstthat Synod, especially Luther and Melanchthon, its public defamers. Refusal of such retraction would invalidate their appeal to that Synodand prove it to be nothing but a means of deception. Finally they wereto be admonished not to believe their teachers in anything which wasagainst the declarations of the Church catholic. Such was the form inwhich the first draft of the Confutation was couched. Everywhere thetendency was apparent to magnify the differences, make invidiousinferences, cast suspicion on their opponents, and place them in a badlight with the Emperor and the majority. This was not the case in theanswer which was finally read. " (37. )

45. Confutation Adopted and Read. 

Only after repeated revisions in which Campegius and the imperialcounselors Valdes and Granvella took part was an agreement reachedregarding the form of the Confutation. July 30 the Emperor received thefourth revision and on August 1 he presented it to the bishops, princes, and estates for their opinion. There still remained offensive passageswhich had to be eliminated. A fifth revision was necessary before theapproval of the Emperor and the estates was forthcoming. A Prolog and anEpilog were added according to which the Confutation is drawn up in thename of the Emperor. Thus the original volume was boiled down to acomparatively small document. But to speak with Kolde, even in its finalform the Confutation is "still rather an accusation against theEvangelicals, and an effort to retain all the medieval church customsthan a refutation of the Augustana. " (34. ) August 6 Jonas wrote toLuther: "The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen Maria informed us that theyhad five times changed their Confutation, casting and recasting, mintingand reminting it, and still there finally was produced nothing but anuncouth and confused conglomeration and a hodgepodge, as when a cookpours different soups into one pot. At first they patched together anenormous volume, as Faber is known to be a verbose compiler; the bookgrew by reason of the multitude of its lies and scurrilities. However, at the first revision the Emperor eliminated the third part of the book, so that barely twelve or sixteen folios remained, which were read. " (St. L. 21a, 1539. )

On August 3, 1530, in the same hall in which the Augsburg Confession hadbeen submitted thirty-eight days before, in the presence of all theestates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio, immediately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Protestants, was read inthe German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary. However, the reading, too, proved to be a discreditable affair. Owing tothe great haste in which the German copy had been prepared, an entireportion had been omitted; the result was that the conclusion of Article24 as well as Articles 25 and 26 were not presented. Furthermore, Schweiss, overlooking the lines of erasure, read a part which had beenstricken, containing a very bold deliverance on the sacrifice of theMass, in which they labored to prove from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latinthat the word _facite_ in the institution of the Sacrament wassynonymous with "sacrifice. " (Kolde, 34. ) August 6, 1530, Jonas wrote toLuther: The opponents presented their Confutation to the Emperor on July30, and on the 3d of August it was read in the presence of the Emperorand the estates, together with a Prolog and an Epilog of the Emperor. "The reading also consumed two entire hours, but with an incredibleaversion, weariness, and disgust on the part of some of the moresensible hearers, who complained that they were almost driven out bythis utterly cold, threadbare songlet (_cantilena_), being extremelychagrined that the ears of the Emperor should be molested with such alengthy array of worthless things masquerading under the name ofCatholic doctrines. " (St. L. 21a, 1539. ) August 4 Brenz wrote toIsemann: "The Emperor maintains neutrality; for he slept both when theAugustana and when the Confutation was read. _Imperator neutralem sesegerit; nam cum nostra confessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cumadversariorum responsio legeretur, iterum obdormivit in media negotiiactione_. " (_C. R. _ 2, 245. )

The Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered tothe Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Emperor and theestates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlaeus reports thattoward the close of the Diet Charles authorized him and Eck to publishit, but that this was not done, because Duke George and the Emperor leftAugsburg shortly after, and the printer also moved away. (Koellner, 414. ) All subsequent pleading and imploring, however, on the part of Eckand others, to induce the Emperor to publish the Confutation fell ondeaf ears. Evidently Charles no longer took any interest in a documentthat had so shamefully shattered his fond ambition of reconciling thereligious parties. What appeared in print, early in 1531, was merely anextract prepared by Cochlaeus, entitled, _Summary of the ImperialAnswer, _ etc. The first Latin edition of the Confutation appeared aslate as 1573; the first German edition, in 1808. All previous Germanimpressions (also the edition of 1584) are translations of the Latinedition of 1573. (_C. R. _ 27, 25. 82. ) Concerning the German text of theConfutation Kolde remarks: "Since changes were made even after it hadbeen read, we have even less definite knowledge, respecting details, asto what was read than in the case of the Augustana. " (35. ) One maytherefore also speak of a Confutatio Variata. The doctrine of theConfutation does not differ essentially from that which was later onaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). However, says Kolde, "being written by the German leaders of the Catholic party under the eyeof the Papal Legate, and approved by the Emperor, the German bishops, and the Roman-minded princes, it [the Confutation] must be reckonedamong the historically most important documents of the Roman Catholicfaith of that day. "

46. Confutation Denounced by Lutherans. 

In the opinion of the Lutherans, the final draft of the Confutation, too, was a miserable makeshift. True, its tone was moderate, and, withfew exceptions, personal defamations were omitted. The arrangement ofsubjects was essentially the same as in the Augustana. Still it was notwhat it pretended to be. It was no serious attempt at refuting theLutheran Confession, but rather an accumulation of Bible-texts, arbitrarily expounded, in support of false doctrines and scholastictheories. These efforts led to exegetical feats that made theConfutators butts of scorn and derision. At any rate, the Lutheranswere charged with having failed, at the public reading, to control theirrisibilities sufficiently. Cochlaeus complains: "During the reading manyof the Lutherans indulged in unseemly laughter. _Quando recitata fuit, multi e Lutheranis inepte cachinnabantur. _" (Koellner, 411. ) If this didnot actually occur, it was not because the Confutators had given them nocause for hilarity. 

"Altogether childish and silly"--such is Melanchthon's verdict on manyof their exegetical pranks. August 6 he wrote letter after letter toLuther, expressing his contempt for the document. "After hearing thatConfutation, " says Melanchthon, "all good people seem to have been morefirmly established on our part, and the opponents, if there be amongthem some who are more reasonable, are said to be disgusted(_stomachari_) that such absurdities were forced upon the Emperor, thebest of princes. " (_C. R. _ 2, 252. ) Again: Although the Emperor'sverdict was very stern and terrible, "still, the Confutation being acomposition so very puerile, a most remarkable congratulation followedits reading. No book of Faber's is so childish but that this Confutationis still more childish. " (253. ) In another letter he remarked that, according to the Confutation, in which the doctrine of justification byfaith was rejected, "the opponents had no knowledge of religionwhatever. " (253. )

August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: "All things were written in the fashionof Cochlaeus, Faber, and Eck. Truly a most stupid comment, so that I amashamed of the Roman name, because in their whole Church they can findno men able to answer us heretics at least in a manner wise andaccomplished. _Sed omnia conscripta erant Cochleice et Fabriliter etEccianice. Commentum sane stupidissimum, ut pudeat me Romani nominis, quod in sua religione non conquirant viros, qui saltem prudenter etornate nobis haereticis responderent. _" (245. ) August 15 Lutheranswered: "We received all of your letters, and I praise God that hemade the Confutation of the adversaries so awkward and foolish a thing. However, courage to the end! _Verum frisch hindurch!_" (Enders, 8, 190. )

47. Luther on the Confutation. 

Derision increased when the Papists declined to publish the Confutation, or even to deliver a copy of it to the Lutherans for further inspection. This refusal was universally interpreted as an admission, on the part ofthe Romanists, of a guilty conscience and of being ashamed themselves ofthe document. In his _Warning to My Beloved Germans, _ which appearedearly in 1531, Luther wrote as follows: "But I am quite ready to believethat extraordinary wisdom prompted them [the Papists at Augsburg] tokeep this rebuttal of theirs and that splendid booklet [Confutation] tothemselves, because their own conscience tells them very plainly that itis a corrupt, wicked, and frigid thing, of which they would have to beashamed if it were published and suffered itself to be seen in the lightor to endure an answer. For I very well know these highly learneddoctors who have cooked and brewed over it for six weeks, though withthe ignorant they may be able to give the matter a good semblance. Butwhen it is put on paper, it has neither hands nor feet, but lies therein a disorderly mass, as if a drunkard had spewed it up, as may be seen, in particular, in the writings of Doctor Schmid and Doctor Eck. Forthere is neither rhyme nor rhythm in whatsoever they are compelled toput into writing. Hence they are more sedulous to shout and prattle. Thus I have also learned that when our Confession was read, many of ouropponents were astonished and confessed that it was the pure truth, which they could not refute from the Scriptures. On the other hand, whentheir rebuttal was read, they hung their heads, and showed by theirgestures that they considered it a mean and useless makeshift ascompared with our Confession. Our people, however, and many other pioushearts were greatly delighted and mightily strengthened when they heardthat with all the strength and art which our opponents were then calledupon to display, they were capable of producing nothing but this flimsyrebuttal, which now, praise God! a woman, a child, a layman, a peasantare fully able to refute with good arguments taken from the Scriptures, the Word of Truth. And that is also the true and ultimate reason whythey refused to deliver [to the Lutherans a copy of] their refutation. Those fugitive evil consciences were filled with horror at themselves, and dared not await the answer of Truth. And it is quite evident thatthey were confident, and that they had the Diet called together in theconviction that our people would never have the boldness to appear, butif the Emperor should only be brought to Germany in person, every onewould be frightened and say to them: Mercy, dear lords, what would youhave us do? When they were disappointed in this, and the Elector ofSaxony was the very first to appear on the scene, good Lord, how theirbreeches began to--! How all their confidence was confounded! Whatgathering together, secret consultations, and whisperings resulted! . .. The final sum and substance of it all was to devise ways and means(since our men were the first joyously and cheerfully to appear) how tokeep them from being heard [block the reading of the Augustana]. Whenalso this scheme of theirs was defeated, they finally succeeded ingaining the glory that they did not dare to hand over their futilerebuttal nor to give us an opportunity to reply to it! . .. But some onemight say: The Emperor was willing to deliver the answer to our partyprovided they would promise not to have it published nor its contentsdivulged. That is true, for such a pledge was expected of our men. Here, however, every one may grasp and feel (even though he is able neither tosee nor hear) what manner of people they are who will not and dare notpermit their matter to come to the light. If it is so precious a thingand so well founded in the Scriptures as they bellow and boast, why, then, does it shun the light? What benefit can there be in hiding fromus and every one else such public matters as must nevertheless be taughtand held among them? But if it is unfounded and futile, why, then, didthey in the first resolution [of the Diet], have the Elector ofBrandenburg proclaim and publish in writing that our Confession had beenrefuted [by the Confutation] with the Scriptures and stanch arguments?If that were true, and if their own consciences did not give them thelie, they would not merely have allowed such precious and well-foundedRefutation to be read, but would have furnished us with a written copy, saying: There you have it, we defy any one to answer it! as we did andstill do with our Confession. . .. What the Elector of Brandenburg saidin the resolution [read at the Diet], that our Confession was refutedwith the Scriptures and with sound arguments, is not the truth, but alie. . .. For this well-founded refutation [Confutation] has as yet notcome to light, but is perhaps sleeping with the old Tannhaeuser on MountVenus (_Venusberg_). " (St. L. 15, 1635. )

VI. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession. 

48. Emperor Demands Adoption of Confutation. 

The Confutation was written in the name of the Emperor. This isindicated by the title: "Roman Imperial Confutation, _Roemisch-Kaiserliche Konfutation. _" (_C. R. _ 21, 189. ) And according tohis declaration of July 5, demanding that the Lutherans acknowledge himas judge, the Emperor, immediately before the reading, announced: TheConfutation contained his faith and his verdict on the Confession of theLutherans; he demanded that they accept it; should they refuse to do so, he would prove himself the warden and protector of the Church. In theEpilog the Emperor gave expression to the following thoughts: From thisConfutation he saw that the Evangelicals "in many articles agree withthe Universal and also the Roman Church, and reject and condemn manywicked teachings current among the common people of the German nation. "He therefore did not doubt that, having heard his answer to theirConfession, they would square themselves also in the remaining points, and return to what, by common consent, had hitherto been held by alltrue believers. Should they fail to heed his admonition, they mustconsider that he would be compelled to reveal and demean himself in thismatter in such manner as "by reason of his office, according to hisconscience, behooved the supreme warden and protector of the HolyChristian Church. " (27, 228. ) Immediately after the reading, Frederick, Duke of the Palatinate, declared in the name of the Emperor that theConfutation was the Emperor's answer to the Lutherans, the verdict herendered against their Confession; and they were now called upon torelinquish the articles of their Confession that were refuted in theConfutation, and to return to the Roman Church in unity of faith. (Seethe reports of Brenz, Melanchthon, and the delegates from Nuernberg, _C. R. _ 2, 245. 250. 253. ) Thus the Emperor, who had promised to have thedeliberations carried on in love and kindness, demanded blindsubmission, and closed his demand with a threat. His manifesto wasProtestant; his actions remained Papistical. In the estimation of theRomanists, the Emperor, by condescending to an extended reply to theLutheran Confession, had done more than his duty, and much more thanthey had considered expedient. Now they rejoiced, believing thateverything they wished for had been accomplished, and that there was noother way open for the Lutherans than to submit, voluntarily or bycompulsion. 

Naturally the attitude of the Emperor was a great disappointment to theLutherans, and it caused much alarm and fear among them. From the verybeginning they had declared themselves ready in the interest of peace, to do whatever they could "with God and conscience. " And this remainedtheir position to the very last. They dreaded war, and were determinedto leave no stone unturned towards avoiding this calamity. In thisinterest even Philip of Hesse was prepared to go to the very limits ofpossibility. Melanchthon wrote: "The Landgrave deports himself with muchrestraint. He has openly declared to me that in order to preserve peace, he would accept even sterner conditions, as long as he did not therebydisgrace the Gospel. " (_C. R. _ 2, 254. ) But a denial of God, conscience, and the Gospel was precisely what the Emperor expected. Hence theLutherans refer to his demands as cruel, impossible of fulfilment, andas a breach of promise. Outraged by the Emperor's procedure, and fearingfor his own safety, the Landgrave secretly left the Diet on August 6. War seemed inevitable to many. The reading of the Confutation hadshattered the last hopes of the Lutherans for a peaceful settlement. They said so to each other, and wrote it to those at home, though notall of them in the lachrymose tone of the vacillating Melanchthon, who, filled with a thousand fears was temporarily more qualified fordepriving others of their courage than for inspiring courage. (Plitt, 24. )

49. Sustained by Luther. 

In these days of severe trials and sore distress the Lutherans weresustained by the comforting letters of Luther and the bracingconsciousness that it was the divine truth itself which they advocated. And the reading of the Confutation had marvelously strengthened thisconviction. Brueck reports an eyewitness of the reading of the Augustanaas saying: "The greater portion among them [the Papists] is not soignorant as not to have seen long ago that they are in error. " (Plitt, 18. ) Because of this conviction there was, as Melanchthon reported, a"marvelous congratulation" among the Lutherans after the reading of theConfutation. "We stand for the divine truth, which God cannot but leadto victory, while our opponents are condemned by their own consciences, "--such was the buoying conviction of the Lutherans. And in this thepowerful letters of Luther strengthened the confessors at Augsburg. Hewrote: "This is the nature of our Christian doctrine, that it must beheld and grasped as certain and that every one must think and beconvinced: The doctrine is true and sure indeed and cannot fail. Butwhoever falls to reasoning and begins to waver within himself, saying:My dear friend, do you believe that it is true, etc. ? such a heart willnever be a true Christian. " (Plitt, 12. )

Concerning the spiritual support which the confessors at Augsburg, notably Melanchthon, received from Luther, Plitt remarks: "What Lutherdid during his solitary stay in the Castle at Coburg cannot be ratedhigh enough. His ideal deportment during these days, so trying for theChurch, is an example which at all times Evangelical Christians may lookup to, in order to learn from him and to emulate him. What he wrote tohis followers in order to comfort and encourage them, can and must atall times refresh and buoy up those who are concerned about the courseof the Church. " (24. ) June 30 Veit Dietrich who shared Luther's solitudeat Coburg, wrote to Melanchthon: "My dear Philip, you do not know howconcerned I am for your welfare, and I beseech you for Christ's sake notto regard as vain the Doctor's [Luther's] letters to you. I cannotsufficiently admire that man's unique constancy, joy, confidence, andhope in these days of most sore distress. And daily he nourishes them bydiligent contemplation of the Word of God. Not a day passes in which hedoes not spend in prayer at least three hours, such as are most preciousfor study. On one occasion I chanced to hear him pray. Good Lord, what aspirit, what faith spoke out of his words! He prayed with such reverencethat one could see he was speaking with God, and withal with such faithand such confidence as is shown by one who is speaking with his fatherand friend. I know, said he, that Thou art our Father and our God. Therefore I am certain that Thou wilt confound those who persecute Thychildren. If Thou dost not do it, the danger is Thine as well as ours. For the entire matter is Thine own. We were compelled to take hold ofit; mayest Thou therefore also protect it, etc. Standing at a distance, I heard him praying in this manner with a loud voice. Then my heart, too, burned mightily within me, when he spoke so familiarly, soearnestly, and reverently with God, and in his prayer insisted on thepromises in the Psalms, as one who was certain that everything he prayedfor would be done. Hence I do not doubt that his prayer will prove agreat help in the desperately bad affair of this Diet. And you, myteacher, would do far better to imitate our father, the Doctor, also inthis point. For with your miserable cares and your weakling tears youwill accomplish nothing, but prepare a sad destruction for yourself andus all, who take pleasure in, and are benefited by nothing more thanyour welfare. " (_C. R. _ 2, 158f. ; St. L. 15, 929f. )

50. Copy of Confutation Refused to Lutherans. 

Since the Confutation, in the manner indicated, had been presented asthe Emperor's final verdict upon the Augsburg Confession the Lutheranswere compelled to declare themselves. Accordingly, Chancellor Brueck atonce responded to the demand for submission made through the Palatinateafter the reading of the Confutation, saying: The importance of thismatter, which concerned their salvation, required that the Confutationbe delivered to the Lutherans for careful inspection and examination toenable them to arrive at a decision in the matter. The delegates fromNuernberg reported, in substance: After the Confutation was read, DoctorBrueck answered: Whereas, according to their Confession, the Lutheranswere willing to do and yield everything that could be so done with agood conscience, whereas, furthermore, according to the Confutation, some of their [the Lutherans'] articles were approved, others entirelyrejected, still others partly admitted to be right and partlyrepudiated; and whereas the Confutation was a somewhat lengthy document:therefore the Electors, princes, and cities deemed it necessary to scanthese articles more closely, the more so, because many writings wereadduced in them that made it necessary to show to what intent, and if atall they were rightly quoted, and accordingly requested the Emperor, since he had promised to hear both parties, to submit the Confutationfor their inspection. The Emperor answered: "As it was now late andgrown dark, and since the matter was important, he would consider theirrequest and reply to it later. " Hereupon, according to the Nuernbergdelegates, "the chancellor pleaded again and most earnestly that HisImperial Majesty would consider this important and great affair as agracious and Christian emperor ought to do, and not deny their prayerand petition, but deliver to them the document which had been read. "(_C. R. _ 2, 251. )

Now, although the Romanists were in no way minded and disposed to submitthe Confutation to the Lutherans, they nevertheless did not consider itwise to refuse their petition outright and bluntly; for they realizedthat this would redound to the glory neither of themselves nor of theirdocument. The fanatical theologians, putting little faith in that sorryfabrication of their own, and shunning the light, at first succeeded inhaving a resolution passed declaring the entire matter settled with themere reading. However in order to save their faces and to avoid theappearance of having refused the Confutation as well as "the scorn andridicule on that account" (as the Emperor naively put it), and "lest anyone say that His Imperial Majesty had not, in accordance with hismanifesto, first dealt kindly with" the Lutherans, the estates resolvedon August 4 to grant their request. At the same time, however, theyadded conditions which the Lutherans regarded as dangerous, insinuatingand impossible, hence rendering the Catholic offer illusory andunacceptable. 

August 5 the Emperor communicated the resolutions adopted by theCatholic estates to the Lutherans. According to a report of theNuernberg delegates the negotiations proceeded as follows: The Emperordeclared that the Confutation would be forwarded to the Lutherans, butwith the understanding that they must come to an agreement with theCatholic princes and estates; furthermore that they spare His ImperialMajesty with their refutations and make no further reply and, above all, that they keep this and other writings to themselves, nor let them passout of their hands, for instance, by printing them or in any other way. Hereupon Brueck, in the name of the Lutherans, thanked the Emperor, atthe same time voicing the request "that, considering their direnecessity, His Imperial Majesty would permit his Elector and princes tomake answer to the Confutation. " Duke Frederick responded: The Emperorwas inclined to grant them permission to reply, but desired the answerto be "as profitable and brief as possible, " also expected them to cometo an agreement with the Catholics, and finally required a solemnpromise that they would not permit the document to pass out of theirhands. Brueck answered guardedly: The Lutherans would gladly come to anagreement "as far as it was possible for them to do so with God andtheir conscience;" and as to their answer and the preservation of thedocument, they would be found "irreprehensible. " The Emperor nowdeclared: "The document should be delivered to the Lutherans in casethey would promise to keep it to themselves and not allow it to fallinto other hands; otherwise His Imperial Majesty was not minded toconfer with them any longer. " Brueck asked for time to consider thematter, and was given till evening. In his response he declined theEmperor's offer, at the same time indicating that an answer to theConfutation would be forthcoming nevertheless. The Lutherans, he said, felt constrained to relinquish their petition, because the conditionthat the document be kept in their hands had been stressed in such amanner that they could not but fear the worst interpretation if it wouldnevertheless leak out without their knowledge and consent; still, theyoffered to answer the Confutation, since they had noted the mostimportant points while it was read; in this case, however, they askedthat it be not charged to them if anything should be overlooked; at thesame time they besought the Emperor to consider this action of theirs ascompelled by dire necessity, and in no other light. (_C. R. _ 2, 255ff. )In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon says: "This [a copy of theConfutation] our princes could not obtain, except on the most perilousconditions, which it was impossible for them to accept. " (99. )

51. Lutherans on Roman Duplicity and Perfidy. 

The duplicity and perfidy of the Emperor and the Romanists in theirdealings with the Lutherans was characterized by Chancellor Brueck asfollows: "The tactics of the opponents in offering a copy [of theConfutation] were those of the fox when he invited the stork to be hisguest and served him food in a broad, shallow pan, so that he could nottake the food with his long bill. In like manner they treated the fiveelectors and princes, as well as the related cities, when they offeredto accede to their request and submit a copy to them, but uponconditions which they could not accept without greatly violating theirhonor. " (Koellner, 419. ) Over against the Emperor's demand of blindsubmission and his threat of violence, the Lutherans appealed to theirpure Confession, based on the Holy Scriptures, to their good conscience, bound in the Word of God, and to the plain wording of the imperialmanifesto, which had promised discussions in love and kindness. In anAnswer of August 9, _e. G. _, they declared: The articles of the Augustanawhich we have presented are drawn from the Scriptures, and "it isimpossible for us to relinquish them with a good conscience and peace ofheart, unless we find a refutation founded on God's Word and truth, onwhich we may rest our conscience in peace and certainty. " (Foerstemann, 2, 185. ) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon comments as followson the demand of the Romanists: "Afterwards, negotiations for peace werebegun, in which it was apparent that our princes declined no burden, however grievous, which could be assumed without offense to conscience. But the adversaries obstinately demanded that we should approve certainmanifest abuses and errors; and as we could not do this, His ImperialMajesty again demanded that our princes should assent to theConfutation. This our princes refused to do. For how could they, in amatter pertaining to religion, assent to a writing which they had notbeen able to examine, especially as they had heard that some articleswere condemned in which it was impossible for them, without grievoussin, to approve the opinions of the adversaries?" (99. )

Self-evidently the Lutherans also protested publicly that the procedureof the Romanists was in contravention of the proclamation of the Emperoras well as of his declaration on June 20, according to which bothparties were to deliver their opinions in writing for the purpose ofmutual friendly discussion. In the Answer of August 9, referred to abovethey said: "We understand His Imperial Majesty's answer to mean nothingelse than that, after each party had presented its meaning and opinion, such should here be discussed among us in love and kindness. " Hence, they said, it was in violation of this agreement to withhold theConfutation, lest it be answered. (Foerstemann, 2, 184f. ) Lutherexpressed the same conviction, saying: "All the world was awaiting agracious diet, as the manifesto proclaimed and pretended, and yet, sadto say, it was not so conducted. " (St. L. 16, 1636. )

That the Romanists themselves fully realized that the charges of theLutherans were well founded, appears from the subterfuges to which theyresorted in order to justify their violence and duplicity, notably theirrefusal to let them examine the Confutation. In a declaration of August11 they stated "that the imperial laws expressly forbid, on pain of lossof life and limb, to dispute or argue (_gruppeln_) about the articles offaith in any manner whatever, " and that in the past the edicts of theEmperor in this matter of faith had been despised, scorned, ridiculed, and derided by the Lutherans. (Foerstemann, 2, 190. ) Such were themiserable arguments with which the Romanists defended their treachery. Luther certainly hit the nail on the head when he wrote that theRomanists refused to deliver the Confutation "because their consciencesfelt very well that it was a corrupt, futile, and frigid affair, ofwhich they would have to be ashamed in case it should become public andshow itself in the light, or endure an answer. " (St. L. 16, 1635. )

52. Original Draft of Apology. 

August 5 the Lutherans had declared to the Emperor that they would notremain indebted for an answer to the Confutation, even though a copy ofit was refused them. They knew the cunning Romanists, and had preparedfor every emergency. Melanchthon, who, according to a letter addressedto Luther (_C. R. _ 2, 254), was not present at the reading of theConfutation, writes in the Preface to the Apology: "During the readingsome of us had taken down the chief points of the topics and arguments. "(101. ) Among these was Camerarius. August 4 the Nuernberg delegatesreported to their senate that the Confutation comprising more than fiftypages, had been publicly read on August 3, at 2 P. M. , and that theLutherans had John Kammermeister "record the substance of all thearticles; this he has diligently done in shorthand on his tablet as faras he was able, and more than all of us were able to understand andremember, as Your Excellency may perceive from the enclosed copy. " (_C. R. _ 2, 250. )

On the basis of these notes the council of Nuernberg had a theologicaland a legal opinion drawn up, and a copy of the former (Osiander'srefutation of the Confutation) was delivered to Melanchthon on August 18by the Nuernberg delegates. Osiander specially stressed the point thatthe demand of the Romanists to submit to the decision of the Church inmatters of faith must be rejected, that, on the contrary, everythingmust be subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. (Plitt, 87. ) In drawing upthe Apology, however, Melanchthon made little, if any, use of Osiander'swork. Such, at least, is the inference Kolde draws from Melanchthon'swords to Camerarius, September 20: "Your citizens [of Nuernberg] havesent us a book on the same subject [answer to the Confutation], which Ihope before long to discuss with you orally. " (383. ) There can be littledoubt that Melanchthon privately entertained the idea of writing theApology immediately after the reading of the Confutation. Thecommission, however, to do this was not given until later; and most ofthe work was probably done in September. For August 19 the Nuernbergdelegates reported that their "opinion" had been given to Melanchthon, who as yet, however, had not received orders to write anything in replyto the Confutation, "unless he is privately engaged in suchundertaking. " (_C. R. _ 2, 289. )

At Augsburg the execution of the resolution to frame an answer to theConfutation had been sidetracked for the time being, by the peaceparleys between the Lutherans and the Catholics, which began soon afterthe Confutation was read and continued through August. But when thesemiscarried, the Evangelical estates, on the 29th of August, tookofficial action regarding the preparation of an Apology. Of the meetingin which the matter was discussed the Nuernberg delegates report: "Itwas furthermore resolved: 'Since we have recently declared before HisMajesty that, in case His Majesty refused to deliver to us theConfutation of our Confession without restrictions [the aforementionedconditions] we nevertheless could not refrain from writing a reply toit, as far as the articles had been noted down during the reading, andfrom delivering it to His Imperial Majesty: we therefore ought toprepare ourselves in this matter, in order to make use of it in case ofnecessity, ' In this we, the delegates of the cities, also acquiesced. . .. I, Baumgaertner, also said: In case such a work as was underdiscussion should be drawn up, we had some opinions [the theological andthe legal opinions of the city of Nuernberg], which might be of servicein this matter, and which we would gladly submit. Hereupon it wasordered that Dr. Brueck and other Saxons be commissioned to draft thewriting. " (321. ) The assumption, therefore, that Melanchthon was thesole author of the first draft of the Apology is erroneous. In thePreface to the Apology he writes: "They had, however, commanded me _andsome others_ to prepare an Apology of the Confession, in which thereasons why we could not accept the Confutation should be set forth toHis Imperial Majesty, and the objections made by the adversaries berefuted. " (101. ) In the same Preface he says that he had originallydrawn up the Apology at Augsburg, "_taking counsel_ with others. " (101. )However, we do not know who, besides Brueck, these "others" were. 

53. Apology Presented, But Acceptance Refused. 

By September 20 Melanchthon had finished his work. For on the same dayhe wrote to Camerarius: "The verdict [decision of the Diet] on ouraffair has not yet been rendered. . .. Our Prince thought of leavingyesterday, and again to-day. The Emperor however, kept him here by thepromise that he would render his decision within three days. . .. Owingto the statements of evil-minded people, I am now remaining at home andhave in these days written the Apology of our Confession, which, ifnecessary, shall also be delivered; for it will be opposed to theConfutation of the other party, which you heard when it was read. Ihave written it sharply and more vehemently" (than the Confession). (_C. R. _ 2, 383. )

Before long, a good opportunity also for delivering this Apologypresented itself. It was at the meeting of the Diet on September 22 whenthe draft of a final resolution (_Abschied_) was read to the estates. According to this decision, the Emperor offered to give the Evangelicalstime till April 15, 1531, to consider whether or not they would unitewith the Christian Church, the Holy Father, and His Majesty "in theother articles, " provided however, that in the mean time nothing beprinted and absolutely no further innovations be made. The imperialdecision also declared emphatically that the Lutheran Confession hadbeen refuted by the Confutation. The verdict claimed the Emperor "had, in the presence of the other electors, princes, and estates of the holyempire, graciously heard the opinion and confession [of the Evangelicalprinces], had given it due and thorough consideration, and had refutedand disproved it with sound arguments from the holy gospels and theScriptures. " (Foerstemann, 2, 475. )

Self-evidently, the Lutherans could not let this Roman boast pass by insilence. Accordingly, in the name of the Elector, Brueck arose to voicetheir objections, and, while apologizing for its deficiencies, presentedthe Apology. In his protest, Brueck dwelt especially on the offensivewords of the imperial decision which claimed that the Augustana wasrefuted by the Confutation. He called attention to the fact that theLutherans had been offered a copy only under impossible conditions; thatthey had nevertheless, on the basis of what was heard during thereading, drawn up a "counter-plea, or reply;" this he was now holding inhis hands, and he requested that it be read publicly; from it every onemight learn "with what strong, irrefutable reasons of Holy Scripture"the Augustana was fortified. (Foerstemann, 2, 479. ) Duke Frederick tookthe Apology, but returned it on signal from the Emperor, into whose earKing Ferdinand had been whispering. Sleidan relates: "Cumque hucusce[tr. Note: sic] perventum esset, Pontanus apologiam Caesari defert; eamubi Fridericus Palatinus accepit, subnuente Caesare, cui Ferdinandusaliquid ad aures insusurraverat, reddit. " A similar report is found inthe annals of Spalatin. (Koellner, 422. )

By refusing to accept the Apology, the Emperor and the Romanists _defacto_ broke off negotiations with the Lutherans; and the breachremained, and became permanent. September 23 the Elector left Augsburg. By the time the second imperial decision was rendered, November 19, allthe Evangelical princes had left the Diet. The second verdict dictatedby the intolerant spirit of the papal theologians, was more vehementthan the first. Confusing Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists, Charles emphasized the execution of the Edict of Worms; sanctioned alldogmas and abuses which the Evangelicals had attacked; confirmed thespiritual jurisdiction of the bishops; demanded the restoration of allabolished rites identified himself with the Confutation; and repeatedthe assertion that the Lutheran Confession had been refuted from theScriptures. (Foerstemann, 2, 839f. ; Laemmer, 49. )

In his _Gloss on the Alleged Imperial Edict_ of 1531, Luther dilates asfollows on the Roman assertion of having refuted the Augustana from theScriptures: "In the first place concerning their boasting that ourConfession was refuted from the holy gospels, this is so manifest a liethat they themselves well know it to be an abominable falsehood. Withthis rouge they wanted to tint their faces and to defame us, since theynoticed very well that their affair was leaky, leprous, and filthy, anddespite such deficiency nevertheless was to be honored. Their heartthought: Ours is an evil cause, this we know very well, but we shall saythe Lutherans were refuted; that's enough. Who will compel us to provesuch a false statement? For if they had not felt that their boasting waslying, pure and simple, they would not only gladly, and without offeringany objections, have surrendered their refutation as was so earnestlydesired, but would also have made use of all printing-presses to publishit, and heralded it with all trumpets and drums, so that such defiancewould have arisen that the very sun would not have been able to shine onaccount of it. But now, since they so shamefully withheld their answerand still more shamefully hide and secrete it, by this action their evilconscience bears witness to the fact that they lie like reprobates whenthey boast that our Confession has been refuted, and that by such liesthey seek not the truth, but our dishonor and a cover for their shame. "(St. L. 16, 1668. )

54. Apology Recast by Melanchthon. 

Owing to the fact that Melanchthon, immediately after the presentationof the Apology, resolved to revise and recast it, the original draft wasforced into the background. It remained unknown for a long time and waspublished for the first time forty-seven years after the Diet. Chytraeusembodied it in his _Historia Augustanae Confessionis, _ 1578, with thecaption, "_Prima Delineatio Caesari Carolo Die 22. Septembris Oblata, sed Non Recepta_--The First Draft which was Offered to Emperor Charleson September 22, but Not Accepted. " The German and Latin texts are foundin _Corp. Ref. _ 27, 275ff. And 322. Following is the Latin title:"Apologia Confessionis, 1530. Ps. 119: Principes persecuti sunt megratis. " The German title runs: "Antwort der Widerlegung auf unserBekenntnis uebergeben. " (245. 378. ) Plitt says of the original Apology:"It was well qualified to be presented to the Emperor, and, in formalso, far surpassed the Confutation of the Papists. Still theEvangelical Church suffered no harm when the Emperor declined to acceptit. The opportunity for revision which was thus offered and fullyexploited by Melanchthon, who was never able to satisfy himself, resulted in a great improvement. The Apology as it appeared thefollowing year is much riper, sharper in its rebuttal, and stronger inits argumentation. " (88. )

The draft of the Apology presented at Augsburg concluded as follows: "Ifthe Confutation had been forwarded to us for inspection we would perhapshave been able to give a more adequate answer on these and additionalpoints. " (_C. R. _ 27, 378. ) When, therefore, the Emperor had refused toaccept it, Melanchthon determined to revise, reenforce, and augment thedocument. September 23 he left Augsburg in the company of the Elector;and already while _en route_ he began the work. In his _History of theAugsburg Confession, _ 1730, Salig remarks: "Still the loss of the firstcopy [of the Apology] does not seem to be so great, since we now possessthe Apology in a more carefully elaborated form. For while the Diet wasstill in session, and also after the theologians had returned home, Melanchthon was constantly engaged upon it, casting it into an entirelydifferent mold, and making it much more extensive than it was before. When the theologians had returned to Saxony from the Diet, Melanchthon, in Spalatin's house at Altenburg, even worked at it on Sunday, so thatLuther plucked the pen from his hand, saying that on this day he mustrest from such work. " (1, 377. ) However, since the first draft waspresented to the Emperor on September 22, and Melanchthon, together withthe Elector, left Augsburg on the following day, it is evident that hecould not have busied himself very much with the revision of the Apologyat Augsburg. And that Luther, in the Altenburg incident, should have putespecial stress on the Sunday, for this neither Salig nor those whofollow him (_e. G. _, Schaff, _Creeds, _ 1, 243) offer any evidence. In his_Seventeen Sermons on the Life of Luther, _ Mathesius gives the followingversion of the incident: "When Luther, returning home with hiscompanions from Coburg, was visiting Spalatin, and Philip, constantlyengrossed in thoughts concerning the Apology, was writing during themeal, he arose and took the pen away from him [saying]: 'God can behonored not alone by work, but also by rest and recreation; for thatreason He has given the Third Commandment and commanded the Sabbath. '"(243. ) This report of Mathesius certainly offers no ground for aPuritanic explanation of the incident in Spalatin's home. 

Originally Melanchthon does not seem to have contemplated a revision ona very large scale. In the Preface, which was printed first, he merelyremarks that he made "some additions" (_quaedam adieci_) to the Apologydrawn up at Augsburg. (101. ) Evidently, at the time when he wrote this, he had no estimate of the proportions the work, which grew under hishands, would finally assume. Before long also he obtained a completecopy of the Confutation. It was probably sent to him from Nuernberg, whose delegate had been able to send a copy home on August 28, 1530. (Kolde, 37. ) Says Melanchthon in the Preface to the Apology: "I haverecently seen the Confutation, and have noticed how cunningly andslanderously it was written, so that on some points it could deceiveeven the cautious. " (101. ) Eck clamored that the Confutation "had gotteninto Melanchthon's hands in a furtive and fraudulent manner, _furtim etfraudulenter ad manus Melanchthonis eandem pervenisse. _" (Koellner, 426. ) The possession of the document enabled Melanchthon to deal in areliable manner with all questions involved, and spurred him on to domost careful and thorough work. 

55. Completion of Apology Delayed. 

Owing to the fact that Melanchthon spent much more time and labor on thework than he had anticipated and originally planned, the publication ofthe Apology was unexpectedly delayed. October 1, 1530, Melanchthon wroteto Camerarius: "Concerning the word 'liturgy' [in the Apology] I ask youagain and again carefully to search out for me its etymology as well asexamples of its meaning. " November 12, to Dietrich: "I shall describethem [the forms of the Greek mass] to Osiander as soon as I havecompleted the Apology, which I am now having printed and am endeavoringto polish. In it I shall fully explain the most important controversies, which, I hope, will prove profitable. " (_C. R. _ 2, 438. ) In a similarstrain he wrote to Camerarius, November 18. (440. ) January 1, 1531, again to Camerarius: "In the Apology I experience much trouble with thearticle of Justification, which I seek to explain profitably. " (470. )February, 1531, to Brenz: "I am at work on the Apology. It will appearconsiderably augmented and better founded. For this article, in which weteach that men are justified by faith and not by love, is treatedexhaustively. " (484. ) March 7, to Camerarius: "My Apology is not yetcompleted. It grows in the writing. " (486. ) Likewise in March, toBaumgaertner: "I have not yet completed the Apology, as I was hindered, not only by illness, but also by many other matters, which interruptedme, concerning the syncretism Bucer is stirring up. " (485. ) March 17, toCamerarius: "My Apology is making slower progress than the matter callsfor. " (488. ) Toward the end of March, to Baumgaertner: "The Apology isstill in press; for I am revising it entirely and extending it. " (492. )April 7, to Jonas: "In the Apology I have completed the article onMarriage, in which the opponents are charged with many real crimes. "(493. ) April 8, to Brenz: "We have almost finished the Apology. I hopeit will please you and other good people. " (494. ) April 11, toCamerarius: "My Apology will appear one of these days. I shall also seethat you receive it. At times I have spoken somewhat vehemently, as Isee that the opponents despise every mention of peace. " (495. ) Finally, in the middle of April, to Bucer: "My Apology has appeared, in which, inmy opinion, I have treated the articles of Justification, Repentance, and several others in such a manner that our opponents will findthemselves heavily burdened. I have said little of the Eucharist. "(498. )

These letters show that Melanchthon took particular pains with thearticle of Justification, which was expanded more than tenfold. January31, he was still hard at work on this article. Kolde says: "This was dueto the fact that he suppressed five and one-half sheets [preserved byVeit Dietrich] treating this subject because they were not satisfactoryto him, and while he at first treated Articles 4 to 6 together, he nowincluded also Article 20, recasting anew the entire question of thenature of justification and the relation of faith and good works. Illness and important business, such as the negotiations with Bucer onthe Lord's Supper, brought new delays. He also found it necessary to bemore explicit than he had contemplated. Thus it came about that the workcould first appear, together with the Augustana, end of April, or, atthe latest, beginning of May. " (37) According to the resolution of theDiet, the Lutherans were to have decided by April 15, 1531, whether theywould accept the Confutation or not. The answer of the Lutherans was theappearance, on the bookstalls, of the Augustana and the Apology, and afew days prior, of Luther's "Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict, _Glossen auf das vermeinte kaiserliche Edikt. _"

56. German Translation by Jonas. 

The Apology was written in Latin. The _editio princeps_ in quarto of1531 contained the German and the Latin texts of the AugsburgConfession, and the Latin text of the Apology. From the very beginning, however, a German translation was, if not begun, at least planned. But, though announced on the title-page of the quarto edition just referredto, it appeared six months later, in the fall of 1531. It was the workof Justus Jonas. The title of the edition of 1531 reads: "_Apologie derKonfession, aus dem Latein verdeutscht durch Justus Jonas, Wittenberg. _Apology of the Confession done into German from the Latin by JustusJonas, Wittenberg. " For a time Luther also thought of writing a "GermanApology. " April 8, 1531, Melanchthon wrote to Brenz: "_Lutherus nuncinstituit apologiam Germanicam. _ Luther is now preparing a GermanApology. " (_C. R. _ 2, 494. 501. ) It is, however, hardly possible thatLuther was contemplating a translation. Koellner comments onMelanchthon's words: "One can understand them to mean that Luther isworking on the German Apology. " _Instituit, _ however, seems to indicatean independent work rather than a translation. Koestlin is of theopinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology of his own, because hewas not entirely satisfied with Melanchthon's. (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382. )However, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply toMelanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expresslyconfessed himself, but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, _e. G. _, the 10th Article seems to endorse the concomitance doctrine. (_Lehre undWehre_ 1918, 385. ) At all events, Luther changed his plan when Jonasbegan the translation of the new Apology. 

The translation of Jonas is not a literal reproduction of the Latinoriginal, but a version with numerous independent amplifications. AlsoMelanchthon had a share in this work. In a letter of September 26, 1531, he says: "They are still printing the German Apology, the improvementsof which cost me no little labor. " (_C. R. _ 2, 542. ) The deviations fromthe Latin original therefore must perhaps be traced to Melanchthonrather than to Jonas. Some of them are due to the fact that thetranslation was based in part not on the text of the _editio princeps, _but on the altered Latin octavo edition, copies of which Melanchthon wasable to send to his friends as early as September 14. See, for examplethe 10th Article, where the German text follows the octavo edition inomitting the quotation from Theophylact. The German text appeared alsoin a separate edition, as we learn from the letter of the printer Rhauto Stephen Roth of November 30, 1531: "I shall send you a GermanApology, most beautifully bound. " (Kolde, 39. ) German translationsadhering strictly to the text of the _editio princeps_ are of a muchlater date. 

57. Alterations of Apology. 

Melanchthon, who was forever changing and improving, naturally could notleave the Apology as it read in the first edition. This applies to boththe German and the Latin text. He was thinking of the Latin octavoedition when he wrote to Brenz, June 7, 1531: "The Apology is now beingprinted, and I am at pains to make some points in the article ofJustification clearer. It is an extremely great matter, in which we mustproceed carefully that Christ's honor may be magnified. " (2, 504. ) Thesame edition he had in mind when he wrote to Myconius, June 14, 1531:"My Apology is now in press, and I am endeavoring to present the articleof Justification even more clearly; for there are some things in thesolution of the arguments which are not satisfactory to me. " (506. )Accordingly, this octavo edition, of which Melanchthon was able to senda copy to Margrave George on September 14, revealed importantalterations: partly improvements, partly expansions, partly deletions. The changes in the 10th Article, already referred to, especially theomission of the quotation from Theophylact, attracted most attention. The succeeding Latin editions likewise revealed minor changes. TheApology accompanying the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, wasdesignated by Melanchthon himself as "_diligenter recognita, _ diligentlyrevised. " (_C. R. _ 26, 357. 419. )

Concerning the German Apology, Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius onJanuary 1, 1533: "I have more carefully treated the German Apology andthe article of Justification, and would ask you to examine it. If youhave seen my Romans [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans], you willbe able to notice how exactly and methodically I am endeavoring toexplain this matter. I also hope that intelligent men will approve it. For I have done this in order to explain necessary matters and to cutoff all manner of questions, partly false, partly useless. " (_C. R. _ 2, 624. ) About the same time he wrote to Spalatin: "Two articles I haverecast entirely: Of Original Sin and Of Righteousness. I ask you toexamine them, and hope that they will profit pious consciences. For inmy humble opinion I have most clearly presented the doctrine ofRighteousness and ask you to write me your opinion. " (625. ) Kolde saysof this second revision of the German text of 1533: "This edition, whichMelanchthon described as 'diligently amended, ' is much sharper in itstone against the Romanists than the first and reveals quite extensivechanges. Indeed, entire articles have been remodeled, such as those OfJustification and Good Works, Of Repentance. Of the Mass, and also thestatements on Christian perfection. " (41. ) These alterations in theLatin and German texts of the Apology, however, do not involve changesin doctrine, at least not in the same degree as in the case of theAugustana Variata of 1540. Self-evidently, it was the text of the firstedition of the German as well as the Latin Apology that was embodied inthe Book of Concord. 

58. Purpose, Arrangement, and Character of Apology. 

The aim of the Apology was to show why the Lutherans "do not accept theConfutation, " and to puncture the papal boast that the Augustana hadbeen refuted with the Holy Scriptures. In its Preface we read:"Afterwards a certain decree was published [by the Emperor], in whichthe adversaries boast that they have refuted our Confession from theScriptures. You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology, from which youwill understand not only what the adversaries have judged (for we havereported in good faith), but also that they have condemned severalarticles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost, so farare they from overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures. "(101. ) The Apology is, on the one hand, a refutation of the Confutationand, on the other hand, a defense and elaboration of the Augustana, presenting theological proofs for the correctness of its teachings. Hence constant reference is made to the Augsburg Confession as well asthe Confutation; and scholastic theology is discussed as well. On thisaccount also the sequence of the articles, on the whole, agrees withthat of the Augustana and the Confutation. However, articles treating ofrelated doctrines are collected into one, _e. G. _, Articles 4, 5, 6, and20. Articles to which the Romanists assented are but briefly touchedupon. Only a few of them have been elaborated somewhat _e. G. _, Of theAdoration of the Saints, Of Baptism, Of the Lord's Supper, OfRepentance, Of Civil Government. The fourteen articles, however, whichthe Confutation rejected are discussed extensively, and furnished alsowith titles, in the _editio princeps_ as well as in the Book of Concordof 1580 and 1584. In Mueller's edition of the Symbolical Books allarticles of the Apology are for the first time supplied with numbers andcaptions corresponding with the Augsburg Confession. 

In the Apology, just as in the Augsburg Confession, everything springsfrom, and is regulated by, the fundamental Lutheran principle of Law andGospel, sin and grace, faith and justification. Not only is the doctrineof justification set forth thoroughly and comfortingly in a particulararticle, but throughout the discussions it remains the dominant note, its heavenly strain returning again and again as the _motif_ in thegrand symphony of divine truths--a strain with which the Apology alsobreathes, as it were, its last, departing breath. For in its Conclusionwe read: "If all the scandals [which, according to the Papists, resultedfrom Luther's teaching] be brought together, still the one articleconcerning the remission of sins (that for Christ's sake, through faith, we freely obtain the remission of sins) brings so much good as to hideall evils. And this, in the beginning [of the Reformation], gained forLuther not only our favor, but also that of many who are now contendingagainst us. " (451. )

In Kolde's opinion, the Apology is a companion volume, as it were, toMelanchthon's _Loci Communes, _ and a theological dissertation ratherthan a confession. However, theological thoroughness and erudition donot conflict with the nature of a confession as long as it is not merecold intellectual reflection and abstraction, but the warm, living, andimmediate language of the believing heart. With all its thoroughness anderudition the Apology is truly edifying, especially the German version. One cannot read without being touched in his inmost heart, withoutsensing and feeling something of the heart-beat of the Lutheranconfessors. Jacobs, who translated the Apology into English, remarks:"To one charged with the cure of souls the frequent reading of theApology is invaluable; in many (we may say, in most) parts it is a bookof practical religion. " (_The Book of Concord_ 2, 41. ) The Apology doesnot offer all manner of theories of idle minds, but living testimoniesof what faith, while struggling hotly with the devil and languishing inthe fear of death and the terrors of sin and the Law found andexperienced in the sweet Gospel as restored by Luther. In reading theApology, one can tell from the words employed how Melanchthon lived, moved, and fairly reveled in this blessed truth which in opposition toall heathen work-righteousness teaches terrified hearts to rely solelyand alone on grace. In his _History of Lutheranism_ (2, 206) Seckendorfdeclares that no one can be truly called a theologian of our Church whohas not diligently and repeatedly read the Apology or familiarizedhimself with it. (Salig, 1, 375. )

59. Moderate Tone of Apology. 

The tone of the Apology is much sharper than that of the AugsburgConfession. The situation had changed; hence the manner of dealing withthe opposition also changed. The Romanists had fully revealed themselvesas implacable enemies, who absolutely refused a peace on the basis oftruth and justice. In the Conclusion of the Apology we read: "But as tothe want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is well known howthese matters first happened and who caused the division namely, thesellers of indulgences, who shamefully preached intolerable lies, andafterwards condemned Luther for not approving of those lies, andbesides, they again and again excited more controversies, so that Lutherwas induced to attack many other errors. But since our opponents wouldnot tolerate the truth, and dared to promote manifest errors by force itis easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Surely, all the world, allwisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and his holy Word. But thedevil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might againstChrist to extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devilwith his members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the causeof the schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously soughtpeace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not forcedto blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of all men'shearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy in thisawful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not beenwilling to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon thesaving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ without our merit, though Christ would be most foully blasphemed thereby. " (451. )

Such being the attitude of the Romanists, there was no longer any reasonfor Melanchthon to have any special consideration for these implacableopponents of the Lutherans and hardened enemies of the Gospel, of thetruth, and of religious liberty and peace. Reconciliation with Rome wasout of the question. Hence he could yield more freely to his impulsehere than in the Augustana; for when this Confession was written anagreement was not considered impossible. In a letter of July 15, 1530, informing Luther of the pasquinades delivered to the Emperor, Melanchthon declared: "If an answer will become necessary, I shallcertainly remunerate these wretched, bloody men. _Si continget, utrespondendum sit, ego profecto remunerabor istos nefarios virossanguinum_. " (_C. R. _ 2, 197. ) And when about to conclude the Apology, hewrote to Brenz, April 8, 1531: "I have entirely laid aside the mildnesswhich I formerly exercised toward the opponents. Since they will notemploy me as a peacemaker, but would rather have me as their enemy, Ishall do what the matter requires, and faithfully defend our cause. "(494. ) But while Melanchthon castigates the papal theologians, he sparesand even defends the Emperor. 

In Luther's _Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict, _ of 1531, we read:"I, Martin Luther, Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures and pastor of theChristians at Wittenberg, in publishing these Remarks, wish it to bedistinctly understood that anything I am writing in this booklet againstthe alleged imperial edict or command is not to be viewed as writtenagainst his Imperial Majesty or any higher power, either of spiritual orcivil estate. .. . I do not mean the pious Emperor nor the pious lords, but the traitors and reprobates (be they princes or bishops), andespecially that fellow whom St. Paul calls God's opponent (I should sayGod's vicar), the arch-knave, Pope Clement, and his servant Campegius, and the like, who plan to carry out their desperate, nefarious rogueryunder the imperial name, or, as Solomon says, at court. " (16, 1666. )Luther then continues to condemn the Diet in unqualified terms. "What adisgraceful Diet, " says he, "the like of which was never held and neverheard of, and nevermore shall be held or heard of, on account of hisdisgraceful action! It cannot but remain an eternal blot on all princesand the entire empire, and makes all Germans blush before God and allthe world. " But he continues exonerating and excusing the Emperor: "Letno one tremble on account of this edict which they so shamefully inventand publish in the name of the pious Emperor. And should they notpublish their lies in the name of a pious Emperor, when their entireblasphemous, abominable affair was begun and maintained for over sixhundred years in the name of God and the Holy Church?" (16, 1634. )

In a similar manner Melanchthon, too, treats the Emperor. He calls him"_optimum imperatorem, _" and speaks of "the Emperor's most gentledisposition, _mansuetissimum Caesaris pectus, _" which Eck and his partywere seeking to incite to bloodshed. (_C. R. _ 2, 197. ) In the Preface hesays: "And now I have written with the greatest moderation possible; andif any expression appears too severe, I must say here beforehand that Iam contending with the theologians and monks who wrote the Confutation, and not with the Emperor or the princes, whom I hold in due esteem. "(101. ) In Article 23 Melanchthon even rises to the apostrophe: "Andthese their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand, Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the kingof modest face; for the saying appears concerning you: 'One modest inface shall reign everywhere'). " (363. )

The Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of truth and peace, werespared no longer. Upon them Melanchthon now pours out the lye of bitterscorn. He excoriates them as "desperate sophists, who maliciouslyinterpret the holy Gospel according to their dreams, " and as "coarse, sluggish, inexperienced theologians. " He denounces them as men "who forthe greater part do not know whereof they speak, " and "who dare todestroy this doctrine of faith with fire and sword, " etc. OccasionallyMelanchthon even loses his dignified composure. Article 6 we read: "Quisdocuit illos asinos hanc dialecticam?" Article 9: "Videant isti asini. "In his book of 1534 against the Apology, Cochlaeus complains that theyouthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags, godless sophists, worthless hypocrites, etc. In the margin he hadwritten: "Fierce and vicious he is, a barking dog toward those who areabsent, but to those who were present at Augsburg, Philip was moregentle than a pup. _Ferox et mordax est, latrator in absentes, praesentes erat Augustae omni catello blandior Philippus_. " (Salig, 1, 377. )

On this score, however, Cochlaeus and his papal compeers had no reasonto complain, for they had proved to be past masters in vilifying andslandering the Lutherans, as well as implacable enemies, satisfied withnothing short of their blood and utter destruction. As a sample of theirscurrility W. Walther quotes the following from a book written by DukeGeorge of Saxony: "Er [Luther] ist gewiss mit dem Teufel besessen, mitder ganzen Legion, welche Christus von den Besessenen austrieb underlaubte ihnen, in die Schweine zu fahren. Diese Legion hat dem Lutherseinen Moenchschaedel hirnwuetig und wirbelsuechtig gemacht. Duunruhiger, treuloser und meineidiger Kuttenbube! Du bist allein dergroesste, groebste Esel und Narr, du verfluchter Apostat! Hieraus kannmaenniglich abnehmen die Verraeterei und Falschheit deinesblutduerstigen Herzens, rachgierigen Gemuets und teuflischen Willens, sodu, Luther, gegen deinen Naechsten tobend, als ein toerichter Hund mitoffenem Maul ohne Unterlass wagest. Du treuloser Bube und teuflischerMoench! Du deklarierter Mameluck and verdammter Zwiedarm, deren neuneinen Pickharden gelten. Ich sage vornehmlich, dass du selbst der allerunverstaendigste Bacchant und zehneckichte Cornut und Bestia bist. Dumeineidiger, treuloser und ehrenblosser Fleischboesewicht! Pfui dichnun, du sakrilegischer, der ausgelaufenen Moenche und Nonnen, derabfaelligen Pfaffen und aller Abtruennigen Hurenwirt! Ei, DoktorSchandluther! Mein Doktor Erzesel, ich will dir's prophezeit haben, derallmaechtige Gott wird dir kuerzlich die Schanze brechen und deinerboshaftigsten, groebsten Eselheit Feierabend geben. Du Sauboze, DoktorSautrog! Doktor Eselsohr! Doktor Filzhut! Zweiundsiebzig Teufel sollendich lebendig in den Abgrund der Hoelle fuehren. Ich will machen, dassdu als ein Hoellenhund sollst Feuer ausspruehen und dich endlich selbstverbrennen. Ich will dich dem wuetenigen Teufel und seiner Hurenmuttermit einem blutigen Kopf in den Abgrund der Hoelle schicken. " (_LuthersCharakter, _ 148. )

Despite the occasional asperity referred to, the Apology, as a whole, iswritten with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep thetrack as clear as possible for a future understanding. In the interestof unity, which he never lost sight of entirely, he was conservative andnot disposed needlessly to widen the existing gulf. In the Preface tothe Apology he declares: "It has always been my custom in thesecontroversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form of thecustomarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concord couldbe reached the more readily. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far fromthis custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this age stillfarther from the opinions of the adversaries. " (101. ) This irenicfeature is perhaps most prominent in the 10th Article, Of the Lord'sSupper, where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to theorthodoxy of the Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence, emphasizes the agreement in such a manner that he has been misunderstoodas endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

60. Symbolical Authority of Apology. 

The great importance ascribed to the Apology appears both from itsnumerous reprints and the strenuous endeavors of the opponents to opposeit with books, which, however, no one was willing to print. Thereception accorded it by the Lutherans is described in a letter whichLazarus Spengler sent to Veit Dietrich May 17: "We have received theApology with the greatest joy and in good hope that it will beproductive of much profit among our posterity. " Brenz declares it worthyof the canon [worthy of symbolical authority]: "Apologiam, me iudice, canone dignam" (_C. R. _ 2, 510), a phrase which Luther had previouslyapplied to Melanchthon's _Loci. _ The joy of the Lutherans was equaledonly by the consternation of their enemies. The appearance of theApology surprised and perturbed them. They keenly felt that they wereagain discredited in the public opinion and had been outwitted by theLutherans. On November 19 Albert of Mayence sent a copy of the Apologyto the Emperor in order to show him how the Catholic religion was beingdestroyed while the Confutation remained unpublished. Cochlaeuscomplained that to judge from letters received, the Apology foundapproval even in Rome, whereas no printer could be found for Catholicreplies to the Apology. He wrote: "Meantime, while we keep silence, theyflaunt the Apology and other writings, and not only insult us, but causeour people and cities to doubt and to grow unstable in the faith. "(Kolde, 40. )

The Apology, as revised and published by Melanchthon, was a privatework. His name, therefore, appeared on the title-page of the edition of1531, which was not the case with respect to the Confession and Apologypresented at Augsburg. The latter were official documents, drawn up byorder of the Lutheran princes and estates, while the revised Apology wasan undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission. Accordingly, as he was not justified in publishing a work of his ownunder the name of the princes, there was nothing else for him to do thanto affix his own signature. In the Preface to the Apology he says: "Asit passed through the press, I made some additions. Therefore I give myname, so that no one can complain that the book has been publishedanonymously. " (100. ) Melanchthon did not wish to make any one besidehimself responsible for the contents of the revised Apology. 

Before long, however, the Apology received official recognition. AtSchweinfurt, 1532, in opposition to the Papists, the Lutherans appealedto the Augustana and Apology as the confession of their faith, designating the latter as "the defense and explanation of theConfession. " And when the Papists advanced the claim that the Lutheranshad gone farther in the Apology than in the Augustana, and, April 11, 1532, demanded that they abide by the Augustana, refrain from making theApology their confession, and accordingly substitute "Assertion" for thetitle "Apology, " the Lutherans, considering the Apology to be theadequate expression of their faith, insisted on the original title. April 17 they declared: "This book was called Apology because it waspresented to Caesar after the Confession; nor could they suffer itsdoctrine and the Word of God to be bound and limited, or their preachersrestricted to teach nothing else than the letter of the AugsburgConfession, thus making it impossible for them to rebuke freely and mostfully all doctrinal errors, abuses, sins, and crimes. _Nominatum fuisseApologiam scriptum illud, quod Caesari post Confessionem exhibitum sit, neque se pati posse, ut doctrina sua et Verbum Dei congustetur, imminuatur et concionatores astringantur, ut nihil aliud praedicentquam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis, neque libere et plenissimeadversus omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina dicerepossint. _" Hereupon the Romanists, on April 22, demanded that at least aqualifying explanation be added to the title Apology. Brueck answered onthe 23d: "It is not possible to omit this word. The Apology is thecorrelate of the Confession. Still the princes and their associates donot wish any articles taught other than those which have so far begun tobe discussed. _Omitti istud verbum non posse; Apologiam esse correlatumConfessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii articulidocerentur quam huiusque tractari coepti sint_. " (Koellner, 430. )

In his Letter of Comfort, 1533, to the Leipzig Lutherans banished byDuke George, Luther says: "There is our Confession and Apology. .. . Adhere to our Confession and Apology. " (10, 1956. ) Membership in theSmalcald League was conditioned on accepting the Apology as well as theAugustana. Both were also subscribed to in the Wittenberg Concord of1536. (_C. R. _ 3, 76. ) In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology (together withthe Augustana and the Appendix Concerning the Primacy of the Pope) was, by order of the Evangelical estates, subscribed by all of thetheologians present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of theLutheran Church. In 1539 Denmark reckoned the Apology among the bookswhich pastors were required to adopt. In 1540 it was presented togetherwith the Augustana at Worms. It was also received into the various_corpora doctrinae. _ The Formula of Concord adopts the Apology, saying:"We unanimously confess this [Apology] also, because not only is thesaid Augsburg Confession explained in it as much as is necessary andguarded [against the slanders of the adversaries], but also proved byclear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture. " (853, 6. )

VII. Smalcald Articles and Tract concerning Power and Primacy of Pope. 

61. General Council Demanded by Lutherans. 

In order to settle the religious controversy between themselves and thePapists, the Lutherans, from the very beginning, asked for a generalcouncil. In the course of years this demand became increasingly frequentand insistent. It was solemnly renewed in the Preface of the AugsburgConfession. The Emperor had repeatedly promised to summon a council. AtAugsburg he renewed the promise of convening it within a year. The RomanCuria, however, dissastisfied with the arrangements made at the Diet, found ways and means of delaying it. In 1532, the Emperor proceeded toBologna, where he negotiated with Clement VII concerning the matter, asappears from the imperial and papal proclamations of January 8 and 10, 1533, respectively. As a result, the Pope, in 1533, sent Hugo Rangon, bishop of Resz, to Germany, to propose that the council be held atPlacentia, Bologna, or Mantua. Clement, however, was not sincere inmaking this offer. In reality he was opposed to holding a council. Suchwere probably also the real sentiments of his successor, Paul III. Butwhen the Emperor who, in the interest of his sweeping world policy, wasanxious to dispose of the religious controversy, renewed his pressure, Paul finally found himself compelled to yield. June 4 1536, he issued abull convoking a general council to meet at Mantua, May 8, 1537. Nothing, however, was said about the principles according to which itwas to be formed and by which it should be governed in transacting itsbusiness. Self-evidently, then, the rules of the former councils were tobe applied. Its declared purpose was the peace of the Church through theextinction of heresy. In the Bull _Concerning the Reforms of the RomanCourt, _ which the Pope issued September 23, he expressly declared thatthe purpose of the council would be "the utter extirpation of thepoisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy. " (St. L. 16, 1914. ) Thus thequestion confronting the Protestants was, whether they could risk toappear at such a council, and ought to do so, or whether (and how) theyshould decline to attend. Luther, indeed, still desired a council. Butafter 1530 he no longer put any confidence in a council convened by thePope, although, for his person, he did not refuse to attend even such acouncil. This appears also from his conversation, November 7, 1535, withthe papal legate Peter Paul Vergerius (born 1497; accused of Lutheranism1546; deprived of his bishopric 1549; defending Protestantism after1550; employed by Duke Christoph of Wuerttemberg 1553; died 1564. )Koestlin writes: "Luther relates how he had told the legate: 'Even ifyou do call a council, you will not treat of salutary doctrine, savingfaith, etc. , but of useless matters, such as laws concerning meats, thelength of priest's garments, exercises of monks, etc. ' While he was thusdilating, says Luther, the legate, holding his head in his hand, turnedto a near-by companion and said: 'He strikes the nail on the head, ' Thefurther utterances of Luther: 'We do not need a council for ourselvesand our adherents, for we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine andorder; Christendom, however, needs it, in order that those whom errorstill holds captive may be able to distinguish between error and truth, 'appeared utterly intolerable to Vergerius, as he himself relates. Heregarded them as unheard-of arrogance. By way of answer, he asked, whether, indeed the Christian men assembled from all parts of the world, upon whom, without doubt, the Holy Spirit descends, must only decidewhat Luther approved of. Boldly and angrily interrupting him Luthersaid: 'Yes, I will come to the council and lose my head if I shall notdefend my doctrine against all the world;' furthermore he exclaimed:'This wrath of my mouth is not my wrath, but the wrath of God. 'Vergerius rejoiced to hear that Luther was perfectly willing to come tothe council; for, so he wrote to Rome, he thought that nothing more wasneeded to break the courage of the heretics than the certain prospectof a council, and at the same time he believed that in Luther's assenthe heard the decision of his master, the Elector, also. Luther declaredthat it was immaterial to him where the council would meet, at Mantua, Verona, or at any other place. Vergerius continued: 'Are you willing tocome to Bologna?' Luther: 'To whom does Bologna belong?' Vergerius: 'Tothe Pope. ' Luther: 'Good Lord, has this town, too, been grabbed by thePope? Very well, I shall come to you there. ' Vergerius: 'The Pope willprobably not refuse to come to you at Wittenberg either, ' Luther: 'Verywell, let him come; we shall look for him with pleasure. ' Vergerius: 'Doyou expect him to come with an army or without weapons?' Luther: 'As hepleases, in whatsoever manner he may come, we shall expect him and shallreceive him. '--Luther and Bugenhagen remained with Vergerius until hedeparted with his train of attendants. After mounting, he said once moreto Luther: 'See that you be prepared for the council. ' Luther answered:'Yes, sir, with this my neck and head. '" (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382 sq. )

62. Luther's Views Regarding the Council. 

What Luther's attitude toward a general council was in 1537 is expressedin the Preface to the Smalcald Articles as follows: "But to return tothe subject. I verily desire to see a truly Christian council, in orderthat many matters and persons might be helped. Not that we need it, forour churches are now through God's grace, so enlightened and equippedwith the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge ofthe various callings and of right works that we on our part ask for nocouncil, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from acouncil. But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacantand desolate that one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishopsnor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom neverthelessChrist has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with themas the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fearthat at some time he may send a council of angels upon Germany utterlydestroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Himwith the council. " (457. )

From a popish council Luther expected nothing but condemnation of thetruth and its confessors. At the same time he was convinced that thePope would never permit a truly free, Christian council to assemble. Hehad found him out and knew "that the Pope would see all Christendomperish and all souls damned rather than suffer either himself or hisadherents to be reformed even a little, and his tyranny to be limited. "(455) "For with them conscience is nothing, but money, honors, power, are everything. " (455. 477. ) The Second Part of his Articles Lutherconcludes as follows: "In these four articles they will have enough tocondemn in the council. For they cannot and will not concede to us eventhe least point in one of these articles. Of this we should be certain, and animate ourselves with the hope that Christ, our Lord, has attackedHis adversary, and He will press the attack home both by His Spirit andcoming. Amen. For in the council we will stand not before the Emperor orthe political magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published amost gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly), but beforethe Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merelyto condemn, to murder, and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we oughtnot here to kiss his feet or to say, 'Thou art my gracious lord, ' but asthe angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, OSatan. " (475. ) Hence his Preface also concludes with the plaint andprayer: "O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, anddeliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherentsare done for, they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, whoare poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly, according to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever. Amen. " (459. )

63. Elector Opposed to Hearing Papal Legate. 

From the very beginning, Elector John Frederick was opposed to acouncil. And the question which particularly engaged his attention was, whether the Lutherans should receive and hear the papal legate who woulddeliver the invitation. Accordingly, on July 24, the Elector came toWittenberg and through Brueck delivered four (five) articles to thelocal theologians and jurists for consideration with instructions tosubmit their answer in writing. (_C. R. _ 3, 119. ) August 1, Melanchthonwrote to Jonas: "Recently the Prince was here and demanded an opinionfrom all theologians and jurists. .. . It is rumored that acardinal-legate will come to Germany to announce the council. The Princeis therefore inquiring what to answer, and under what condition thesynod might be permitted. " (106. ) The articles which Brueck presenteddealt mainly with the questions: whether, in view of the fact that thePope is a party to the issue and his authority to convene a council isquestioned, the legate should be heard, especially if the Emperor didnot send a messenger along with him, whether one would not alreadysubmit himself to the Pope by hearing the legate; whether one ought notto protest, because the Pope alone had summoned the council; and whatshould be done in case the legate would summon the Elector as a party, and not for consultation, like the other estates. (119f. )

In the preparation of their answer, the Elector desired the Wittenbergscholars to take into careful consideration also his own view of thematter, which he persistently defended as the only correct one. For thispurpose he transmitted to them an opinion of his own on Brueck'sarticles referred to in the preceding paragraph. In it he maintainedthat the papal invitation must be declined, because acceptance involvedthe recognition of the Pope "as the head of the Church and of thecouncil. " According to the Elector the proper course for the Lutheranconfederates would be to inform the legate, immediately on his arrivalin Germany, that they would never submit to the authority which the Popehad arrogated to himself in his proclamation, since the power he assumedwas neither more nor less than abominable tyranny; that they could notconsider the Pope as differing from, or give him greater honor than, anyother ordinary bishop; that, besides, they must regard the Pope as theirgreatest enemy and opponent; that he had arranged for the council withthe sinister object of maintaining his antichristian power andsuppressing the holy Gospel, that there was no need of hearing thelegate any further, since the Pope, who was sufficiently informed as totheir teaching, cared neither for Scripture nor for law and justice, andmerely wished to be their judge and lord; that, in public print, theywould unmask the roguery of the Pope, and show that he had no authoritywhatever to convoke a council, but, at the same time, declare theirwillingness to take part in, and submit their doctrine to, a free, common, Christian, and impartial council, which would judge according tothe Scriptures. Nor did the Elector fail to stress the point that, byattending at Mantua, the Lutherans would _de facto_ waive their formerdemand that the council must be held on German soil. (99ff. )

64. Elector Imbued with Luther's Spirit. 

Evidently, the Elector had no desire of engaging once more in diplomaticjugglery, such as had been indulged in at Augsburg. And at Smalcald, despite the opposing advice of the theologians, his views prevailed, tothe sorrow of Melanchthon, as appears from the latter's complaint toCamerarius, March 1, 1637. (_C. R. _ 3, 293. ) The Elector was thoroughlyimbued with the spirit of Luther, who never felt more antagonistictoward Rome than at Smalcald, although, as shown above, he waspersonally willing to appear at the council, even if held at Mantua. This spirit of bold defiance appears from the articles which Lutherwrote for the convention, notably from the article on the Papacy and onthe Mass. In the latter he declares: "As Campegius said at Augsburg thathe would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, bythe help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashesbefore I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to bemade equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted aboveHim. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to oneanother. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy liesin ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all todeath if they can. " (465. ) In the Pope, Luther had recognized theAntichrist; and the idea of treating, seeking an agreement, and making acompromise with the enemy of his Savior, was intolerable to him. AtSmalcald, while suffering excruciating pain, he declared, "I shall dieas the enemy of all enemies of my Lord Christ. " When seated in thewagon, and ready to leave Smalcald, he made the sign of the cross overthose who stood about him and said: "May the Lord fill you with Hisblessing and with hatred against the Pope!" Believing that his end wasnot far removed, he had chosen as his epitaph: "Living, I was thy pest;dying, I shall be thy death, O Pope! _Pestis eram vivus, moriens eromors tua, Papa!_"

The same spirit of bold defiance and determination not to compromise thedivine truth in any way animated the Elector and practically all of theprinces and theologians at Smalcald, with, perhaps, the sole exceptionof Melanchthon. Koestlin writes: "Meanwhile the allies at Smalcalddisplayed no lack of 'hatred against the Pope. ' His letters, deliveredby the legate, were returned unopened. They decidedly refused to takepart in the council, and that in spite of the opinion of theirtheologians, whose reasons Melanchthon again ardently defended. For, asthey declared in an explanation to all Christian rulers, they could notsubmit to a council which, according to the papal proclamation, wasconvoked to eradicate the Lutheran heresy, would consist only ofbishops, who were bound to the Pope by an oath, have as its presidingofficer the Pope, who himself was a party to the matter, and would notdecide freely according to the Word of God, but according to human andpapal decrees. And from the legal standpoint they could hardly actdifferently. Theologians like Luther could have appeared even beforesuch a council in order to give bold testimony before it. Princes, however, the representatives of the law and protectors of the Church, dared not even create the appearance of acknowledging its legality. " (2, 402. )

65. Opinion of Theologians. 

August 6 the Wittenberg professors assembled to deliberate on Brueck'sarticles and the views of the Elector. The opinion resolved upon wasdrawn up by Melanchthon. Its contents may be summarized as follows: TheLutherans must not reject the papal invitation before hearing whetherthe legate comes with a citation or an invitation. In case they wereinvited like the rest of the princes to take part in the deliberations, and not cited as a party, this would mean a concession on the part ofthe Pope, inasmuch as he thereby consented "that the opinion of ourgracious Lord [the Elector] should be heard and have weight, like thatof the other estates. " Furthermore, by such invitation the Pope wouldindicate that he did not consider these princes to be heretics. If thelegate were rebuffed the Romanists would proceed against the Lutheransas obstinate sinners (_contumaces_) and condemn them unheard, which, asis well known, would please the enemies best. The Lutherans would thenalso be slandered before the Emperor as despisers of His Majesty and ofthe council. Nor did the mere hearing of the legate involve anacknowledgment of the papal authority. "For with such invitation [toattend the council] the Pope does not issue a command, nor summon anyone to appear before his tribunal, but before another judge, namely, theCouncil, the Pope being in this matter merely the commander of the otherestates. By hearing the legate, therefore, one has not submitted to thePope or to his judgments. .. . For although the Pope has not the authorityto summon others by divine law, nevertheless the ancient councils, as, for example, that of Nicaea, have given him this charge, which externalchurch regulation we do not attack. And although in former years, whenthe empire was under one head some emperors convoked councils, it wouldbe in vain at present for the Emperor to proclaim a council, as foreignnations would not heed such proclamation. But while the Pope at present, according to the form of the law has the charge to proclaim councils, heis thereby not made the judge in matters of faith, for even popesthemselves have frequently been deposed by councils. Pope Johnproclaimed the Council of Constance, but was nevertheless deposed byit. " Accordingly the opinion continues: "It is not for us to advise thatthe council be summarily declined, neither do we consider thisprofitable, for we have always appealed to a council. What manner ofsuspicion, therefore, would be aroused with His Imperial Majesty and allnations if at the outset we would summarily decline a council, beforediscussing the method of procedure!" And even if the Lutherans should becited [instead of invited], one must await the wording of the citation, "whether we are cited to show the reason for our teaching, or to hearourselves declared and condemned as public heretics. " In the latter caseit might be declined. In the former, however, the citation should beaccepted, but under the protest "that they had appealed to a freeChristian council, " and did not acknowledge the Pope as judge. "And if(_caeteris paribus, _ that is, provided the procedure is correctotherwise) the council is considered the highest tribunal, as it oughtto be considered, one cannot despise the command of the person to whomthe charge is given to proclaim councils, whoever he may be. But ifafterwards the proceedings are not conducted properly, one can thenjustly lodge complaint on that account. " "To proclaim a council iswithin the province of the Pope; but the judgment and decision belongsto the council. .. . For all canonists hold that in matters of faith thecouncil is superior to the Pope, and that in case of difference thecouncil's verdict must be preferred to that of the Pope. For there mustbe a supreme court of the Church, _i. E. _, the council. " On account ofthe place, however they should not refuse to appear. (_C. R. _ 3, 119. )

In their subsequent judgments the theologians adhered to the view thatthe Protestants ought not to incur the reproach of having prevented thecouncil by turning down the legate. Luther says, in an opinion writtenat Smalcald, February, 1537: "I have no doubt that the Pope and hisadherents are afraid and would like to see the council prevented, but insuch a manner as would enable them to boast with a semblance of truththat it was not their fault, since they had proclaimed it, sentmessengers, called the estates, etc. , as they, indeed, would brag andtrump it up. Hence, in order that we might be frightened and back out, they have set before us a horrible devil's head by proclaiming acouncil, in which they mention nothing about church matters, nothingabout a hearing, nothing about other matters, but solely speak of theextirpation and eradication of the poisonous Lutheran heresy, as theythemselves indicate in the bull _De Reformatione Curiae_ [of September23, 1536, St. L. 16 1913ff. ]. Here we have not only our sentence whichis to be passed upon us in the council but the appeal also with hearing, answer, and discussion of all matters is denied us, and all pious, honorable men who might possibly have been chosen as mediators are alsoexcluded. Moreover, these knaves of the devil are bent on doing theirpleasure, not only in condemning (for according to the said bulllaunched against us they want to be certain of that) but also inspeedily beginning and ordering execution and eradication, although wehave not yet been heard (as all laws require) nor have they, thecardinals, ever read our writing or learned its doctrine, since ourbooks are proscribed everywhere, but have heard only the false writersand the lying mouths, having not heard us make a reply, although inGermany both princes and bishops know, also those of their party, thatthey are lying books and rascals, whom the Pope, Italy, and othernations believe. .. . Hence they would like to frighten us into refusingit [the Council] for then they could safely say that we had preventedit. Thus the shame would not only cleave to us, but we would have tohear that, by our refusal, we had helped to strengthen such abominationsof the Pope, which otherwise might have been righted. " Such and similarreasons prompted Luther to declare that, even though he knew "it wouldfinally end in a scuffle, " he was not afraid of "the lousy, contemptiblecouncil, " and would neither give the legate a negative answer, nor"entangle himself, " and therefore not be hasty in the matter. (St. L. 16, 1997. ) Even after the princes at Smalcald had resolved not to attendthe council, Luther expressed the opinion that it had been false wisdomto decline it; the Pope should have been left without excuse; in case itshould convene, the council would now be conducted without theProtestants. 

66. Elector's Strictures on Opinion of Theologians. 

Elector John Frederick was not at all satisfied with the Wittenbergopinion of August 6. Accordingly, he informed the theologians assembledAugust 30 at Luther's house, through Brueck, that they had permittedthemselves to be unduly influenced by the jurists, had not framed theiropinion with the diligence required by the importance of the matter, andhad not weighed all the dangers lurking in an acceptance of theinvitation to the council. If the Lutherans would be invited like theother estates, and attend, they must needs dread a repetition of thecraftiness attempted at Augsburg, namely, of bringing their princes inopposition to their preachers. Furthermore, in that case it would alsobe considered self-evident that the Lutherans submit to the decision ofthe majority in all matters. And if they refused, what then? "On thiswise we, for our part, would be lured into the net so far that we couldnot, with honor, give a respectable account of our action before theworld. For thereupon to appeal from such decision of the council toanother would by all the world be construed against our part ascapriciousness pure and simple. At all events, therefore, the Lutheranscould accept the papal invitation only with a public protest, from whichthe Pope and every one else could perceive in advance, before thecouncil convened, that the Lutherans would not allow themselves to belured into the net of a papal council, and what must be the character ofthe council to which they would assent. " (_C. R. _ 3, 147. )

In this Protest, which the Elector presented, and which Melanchthontranslated into Latin, we read: "By the [possible] acceptance [of theinvitation to the council] they [the Lutherans] assent to no councilother than a general, free, pious, Christian, and impartial one; not toone either which would be subject to, and bound by, papal prejudices(as the one promised by Clement VII), but to such a synod as willendeavor to bring godly and Christian unity within the Church bychoosing pious, learned, impartial, and unsuspected men for the purposeof investigating the religious controversies and adjudicating them fromthe Word of God, and not in accordance with usage and human traditions, nor on the basis of decisions rendered by former synods that militateagainst the Word of God. " (152. 157. )

67. Counter-Council Disadvised. 

The other matters which engaged the Elector's attention dealt primarilywith measures of defense, the convening of a counter-council(_Gegenkonzil_) and the preparation of articles which all wouldunanimously accept, and by which they proposed to stand to theuttermost. August 20 Brueck brought these points up for discussion. Andin a "memorandum" which the Elector personally presented to thetheologians at Wittenberg on December 1, 1536, he expressed his opinionas follows: The Lutherans were not obligated to attend the council, neither would it be advisable. One could not believe or trust theopponents. Nothing but trickery, deception, harm, and destruction mightbe expected. At the council the Lutheran doctrine would be condemned, and its confessors excommunicated and outlawed. To be sure, the Lutherancause was in God's hands. And as in the past, so also in the future Godwould protect it. Still they must not on this account neglect anything. Luther should therefore draw up articles from which he was determinednot to recede. After they had been subscribed by the Wittenbergers andby all Evangelical pastors at the prospective meeting [at Smalcald], thequestion might also be discussed whether the Lutherans should notarrange for a counter-council "a universal, free, Christian council, "possibly at Augsburg. The proclamation for this council might be issued"by Doctor Luther together with his fellow-bishops and ecclesiastics, asthe pastors. " However, one might also consider whether this should notpreferably be done by the princes and estates. In such an event, however, one had to see to it that the Emperor be properly informed, andthat the entire blame be saddled upon the Pope and his adherents, theenemies and opponents of our side. (141)

The seriousness with which the Elector considered the idea of acounter-council appears from the details on which he entered in the"memorandum" referred to where he puts especial emphasis on thefollowing points: At this free, universal council the Lutherans wereminded "to set forth their doctrine and faith according to the divine, holy Scriptures. " Every one, whether priest or layman, should be heardin case he wanted to present anything concerning this doctrine from theHoly Scriptures. A free, safe, Christian passport was to be given toall, even to the worst enemy, leaving it to his discretion when to comeand go. Only matters founded in the Scriptures were to be presented anddiscussed at such council. Human laws, ordinances, and writings shouldunder no circumstances be listened to in matters pertaining to faith andconscience, nor be admitted as evidence against the Word of God. "Whoever would submit such matters, should not be heard, but silenceenjoined upon him. " To the verdict of such a holy and Christian councilthe Lutherans would be willing to submit their doctrine. (141. )

The theologians answered in an opinion of December 6, 1536, endorsingthe Protest referred to above, but disapproving the counter-council. Concerning the first point they advised that a writing be published andsent to the Emperor and all rulers in which the Lutherans were to"request that ways and means be considered of adopting a lawfulprocedure [at the council] promoting the true Christian unity ofChristendom. " Concerning the counter-council, however, they advised atall events not to hasten with it. For to convoke it would produce agreat and terrible appearance of creating a schism, and of settingoneself against all the world and contemplating taking the field soon. Therefore such great, apparent resistance should not be undertaken tillone intends to do something in the matter openly and in deed. Concerningthe defense, the Wittenberg theologians were of the opinion that it wasthe right and duty of the princes to protect and defend their subjectsagainst notorious injuries (if, for example, an attempt should be madeto force upon them the Romish idolatry, or to rend asunder the marriagesof their pastors), and also against the Emperor, even after the councilhad condemned them as heretics. Luther signed this opinion with thefollowing words: "I, too, Martin Luther, will help with my prayers and, if necessary, also with my fist. " (126. )

68. Articles Drafted by Luther. 

In the memorandum of December 1 the Elector spoke of the articles Lutherwas to frame as follows: Although, in the first place, it may easily beperceived that whatsoever our party may propose in such a [popish]council as has been announced will have no weight with the opposition, miserable, blinded, and mad men that they are, no matter how well it isfounded on Holy Scripture moreover, everything will have to be Lutheranheresy, and their verdict, which probably has already been decided andagreed upon, must be adopted and immediately followed by their proposedban and interdict [decree excommunicating and outlawing our party], itwill, nevertheless, be very necessary for Doctor Martin to prepare hisfoundation and opinion from the Holy Scriptures, namely, the articles ashitherto taught, preached, and written by him, and which he isdetermined to adhere to and abide by at the council, as well as upon hisdeparture from this world and before the judgment of Almighty God, andin which we cannot yield without becoming guilty of treason against God, even though property and life, peace or war, are at stake. Such articleshowever, as are not necessary, and in which for the sake of Christianlove, yet without offense against God and His Word, something might beyielded (though, doubtless, they will be few in number), should in thisconnection also be indicated separately by said Doctor Martin. And whenDoctor Martin has completed such work (which, if at all possible for theDoctor, must be done between the present date and that of the Conversionof St. Paul [January 25], at the latest), he shall thereupon present itto the other Wittenberg theologians, and likewise to some prominentpreachers whose presence he should require to hear from them, at thesame time admonishing them most earnestly, and asking them whether theyagreed with him in these articles which he had drawn up, or not, andthereupon, as they hoped for their souls salvation their sentiment andopinion be learned in its entirety, but not in appearance, for the sakeof peace, or because they did not like to oppose the Doctor, and forthis reason would not fully open their hearts, and still, at a latertime would teach, preach, write, and make public something else oradvise the people against said articles, as some have in severalinstances done before this. An agreement having been reached, thearticles were to be subscribed by all and prepared in German and Latin. At the prospective meeting [at Smalcald] they should be submitted to thereligious confederates for discussion and subscription. Hence, in theinvitation, every prince should be asked "to bring with him two or threetheologians, in order that a unanimous agreement might be reached there, and no delay could be sought or pretended. " (139. ) Accordingly, theElector planned to have Luther draw up articles which were to beaccepted by all, first at Wittenberg and then at Smalcald, withoutcompulsion and for no other reason than that they expressed their owninmost convictions. The situation had changed since 1530, and theElector desired a clearer expression, especially on the Papacy. Hence hedid not appoint Melanchthon, but Luther, to compose the articles. Thetruth was to be confessed without regard to anything else. 

Luther had received the order to draw up these articles as early asAugust 20, 1536. September 3 Brueck wrote to the Elector on this matter:"I also delivered to Doctor Martin the credentials which Your ElectoralGrace gave to me, and thereupon also spoke with him in accordance withthe command of Your Electoral Grace. He promised to be obedient in everyway. It also appears to me that he already has the work well in hand, toopen his heart to Your Electoral Grace on religion, which is to be, asit were, his testament. " (147. ) Luther, who at the time thought that hisend would come in the near future, had no doubt used such an expressionhimself. His articles were to be his testament. In the preface to thearticles he touched upon it once more, saying: "I have determined topublish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die beforethere will be a council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaveswho flee the light and shun the day take such wretched pains to delayand hinder the council), those who live and remain after my demise maybe able to produce my testimony and confession in addition to theConfession which I previously issued, whereby up to this time I haveabided, and by God's grace will abide. " (455. )

The Elector seems also to have enjoined silence on Luther with respectto the articles until they had been approved at Wittenberg. For in hisletter to Spalatin, of December 15, 1536, Luther wrote: "But you willkeep these matters [his journey to Wittenberg to discuss the articles]as secret as possible, and pretend other reasons for your departure. _Sed haec secreta teneas quantum potes, et finge alias causas abeundi. _"(St. L. 21b, 2135. ) December 11 the Elector again called attention tothe articles, desiring that Amsdorf, Agricola, and other outsidetheologians be called to Wittenberg at his expense to take part in thediscussion. Shortly after, Luther must have finished the articles. Thenumerous changes and improvements appearing in the original manuscript, which is still preserved in the Heidelberg library, show how much timeand labor he spent on this work. Concluding his articles, Luther says:"These are the articles on which I must stand, and, God willing, shallstand even to my death; and I do not know how to change or to yieldanything in them. If any one wishes to yield anything, let him do it atthe peril of his conscience. " (501, 3. )

Toward the close of the year Luther submitted the draft to hiscolleagues, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melanchthon, and those who hadcome from abroad, Spalatin, Amsdorf, and Agricola. After thoroughdiscussion it was adopted by all with but few changes, _e. G. _ regardingthe adoration of the saints, concerning which Luther had originally saidnothing. (Kolde, 44. ) Spalatin reports that all the articles were read, and successively considered and discussed. The Elector had spoken alsoof points in which a concession might be possible. In the discussion atWittenberg, Spalatin mentioned as such the question whether theEvangelicals, in case the Pope would concede the cup to them, shouldcease preaching against the continuance of the one kind among thePapists; furthermore, what was to be done with respect to ordination andthe adiaphora. Luther had not entered upon a discussion of thesequestions, chiefly, perhaps, because he was convinced that the councilwould condemn even the essential articles. (Compare Melanchthon'sletter of August 4, 1530, to Campegius, _C. R. _ 2, 246. ) After thearticles had been read and approved, Spalatin prepared a copy (nowpreserved in the archives at Weimar), which was signed by the eighttheologians present, by Melanchthon, however, with the limitation thatthe Pope might be permitted to retain his authority "iure humano, " "incase he would admit the Gospel. " Perhaps Melanchthon, who probably wouldotherwise have dissimulated, felt constrained to add this stricture onaccount of the solemn demand of the Elector that no one should hide anydissent of his, with the intention of publishing it later. (_C. R. _ 3, 140)

69. Articles Endorsed by Elector. 

With these first subscriptions, Luther sent his articles to the Electoron January 3, 1537, by the hand of Spalatin. In the accompanying letterof the same date he informed the Elector that he had asked Amsdorf, Eisleben [Agricola], and Spalatin to come to Wittenberg on December 28or the following days. "I presented the articles which I had myselfdrawn up according to the command of Your Electoral Grace and talkedthem over with them for several days, owing to my weakness, whichintervened (as I think, by the agency of Satan); for otherwise I hadexpected to deliberate upon them no longer than one day. And herewith Iam sending them, as affirmed with their signatures, by our dear brotherand good friend, Magister George Spalatin, to deliver them to YourElectoral Grace, as they all charged and asked me so to do. At the sametime, since there are some who, by suspicion and words, insinuate thatwe parsons (_Pfaffen_), as they call us, by our stubbornness desire tojeopardize you princes and lords, together with your lands and people, etc. , I very humbly ask, also in the name of all of us, that by allmeans Your Electoral Grace would reprimand us for this. For if it wouldprove dangerous for other humble people, to say nothing of YourElectoral Grace, together with other lords, lands, and people, we wouldmuch rather take it upon ourselves alone. Accordingly, Your ElectoralGrace will know well how far and to what extent you will accept thesearticles, for we would have no one but ourselves burdened with them, leaving it to every one whether he will, or will not, burden alsohimself with them. " (St. L. 21b, 2142. )

In his answer of January 7, 1537, the Elector expressed his thanks toLuther for having drawn up the articles "in such Christian, true, andpure fashion, " and rejoiced over the unanimity of his theologians. Atthe same time he ordered Chancellor Brueck to take steps toward havingthe most prominent pastors of the country subscribe the articles, "sothat these pastors and preachers, having affixed their names, must abideby these articles and not devise teachings of their own, according totheir own opinion and liking, in case Almighty God would summon DoctorMartin from this world, which rests with His good will. " (Kolde, 45. ) Inthe letter which the Elector sent to Luther, we read: "We give thanks toAlmighty God and to our Lord Christ for having granted you health andstrength to prepare these articles in such Christian, true, and purefashion; also that He has given you grace, so that you have agreed onthem with the others in Christian, also brotherly and friendly unity. .. . From them we also perceive that you have changed your mind in no point, but that you are steadfastly adhering to the Christian articles, as youhave always taught, preached, and written, which are also built on thefoundation, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom the gates ofhell cannot prevail, and who shall also remain in spite of the Pope, thecouncil, and its adherents. May Almighty God, through our Lord Christ, bestow His grace on us all, that with steadfast and true faith we abideby them, and suffer no human fear or opinion to turn us therefrom!. .. After reading them over for the second time we can entertain no otheropinion of them, but accept them as divine, Christian, and true, andaccordingly shall also confess them and have them confessed freely andpublicly before the council, before the whole world, and whatsoever maycome, and we shall ask God that He would vouchsafe grace to our brotherand to us, and also to our posterity, that steadfastly and withoutwavering we may abide and remain in them. " (21b, 2143. )

70. Melanchthon's Qualified Subscription. 

In his letter to Luther the Elector made special reference also to thequalified subscription of Melanchthon. "Concerning the Pope, " he said, "we have no hesitation about resisting him most vehemently. For if, fromgood opinion, or for the sake of peace, as Magister Philip suggests, weshould suffer him to remain a lord having the right to command us, ourbishops, pastors, and preachers, we would expose ourselves to danger andburden (because he and his successors will not cease in their endeavorsto destroy us entirely and to root out all our posterity), for whichthere is no necessity, since God's Word has delivered and redeemed ustherefrom. And if we, now that God has delivered us from the Babyloniancaptivity, should again run into such danger and thus tempt God, this[subjection to the Pope] would, by a just decree of God, come upon usthrough our wisdom, which otherwise, no doubt, will not come to pass. "(2145. ) Evidently, the Elector, though not regarding Melanchthon'sdeviation as a false doctrine, did not consider it to be without danger. 

At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther had entertained similarthoughts, but he had long ago seen through the Papacy, and abandonedsuch opinions. In the Smalcald Articles he is done with the Pope and hissuperiority, also by human right. And this for two reasons: first, because it would be impossible for the Pope to agree to a meresuperiority _iure humano, _ for in that case he must suffer his rule andestate to be overturned and destroyed together with all his laws andbooks; in brief, he cannot do it; in the second place, because even sucha purely human superiority would only harm the Church. (473, 7. 8. )Melanchthon, on the other hand, still adhered to the position which hehad occupied in the compromise discussions at Augsburg, whence, _e. G. _, he wrote to Camerarius, August 31, 1530 "Oh, would that I could, notindeed fortify the domination, but restore the administration of thebishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when theecclesiastical body has been disorganized. I see that afterwards therewill arise a much more intolerable tyranny [of the princes] than thereever was before. " (_C. R. _ 2, 334. ) At Smalcald, however, his views metwith so little response among the princes and theologians that in his"Tract on the Primacy of the Pope" he omitted them entirely and followedLuther's trend of thought. March 1, 1537, Melanchthon himself wroteconcerning his defeat at the deliberations of the theologians on thequestion in which articles concessions might be made in the interest ofpeace, saying that the unlearned and the more vehement would not hear ofconcessions, since the Lutherans would then be charged withinconsistency and the Emperor would only increase his demands. (_C. R. _3, 292. ) Evidently then, even at that time Melanchthon was not entirelycured of his utopian dream. 

"If the Pontiff would admit the Gospel, _si pontifex evangeliumadmitteret. _" A. Osiander remarked: "That is, if the devil would becomean apostle. " In the Jena edition of Luther's works Melanchthon's phraseis commented upon as follows: "And yet the Pope with his wolves, thebishops, even now curses, blasphemes, and outlaws the holy Gospel morehorribly than ever before, raging and fuming against the Church ofChrist and us poor Christians in most horrible fashion, both with fireand sword, and in whatever way he can, like a real werwolf, [tr. Note:sic!] aye, like the very devil himself. " (6, 557b. ) The same comment isfound in the edition of the Smalcald Articles prepared 1553 by Stolzand Aurifaber, where the passage begins: "O quantum mutatus ab illo [theformer Melanchthon]!" (Koellner, 448. 457. ) Carpzov remarks pertinently:"This subscription [of Melanchthon] is not a part of the Book of Concord[it does not contain the doctrine advocated by the Book of Concord], norwas it approved by Luther; moreover, it was later on repudiated byPhilip himself. " (_Isagoge_ 823. 894. )

71. Luther's Articles Sidetracked at Smalcald. 

It was a large and brilliant assembly, especially of theologians, whichconvened at Smalcald in February, 1537. Luther, too, was present. OnJanuary 7 the Elector had written: "We hope that our God will grant yougrace, strength, and health that you may be able to make the journey toSmalcald with us, and help us to right, and bring to a good issue, this[matter concerning the Pope] and other matters. "

As stated above, the Elector's plan was to elevate Luther's articles toa confession officially recognized and subscribed to by all Lutheranprinces, estates, and theologians. Accordingly, on February 10, at thefirst meeting held at Smalcald, Chancellor Brueck moved that thetheologians deliberate concerning the doctrine, so that, in case theLutherans would attend the council, they would know by what theyintended to stand, and whether any concessions were to be made, or, asBrueck put it, whether anything good [perhaps a deliverance on thePapacy] should be adopted, or something should be conceded. 

Self-evidently, Brueck had Luther's articles in mind, although it cannotbe proved that he directly and expressly mentioned them or submittedthem for discussion and adoption. Perhaps, he felt from the verybeginning that the Elector would hardly succeed with his plans assmoothly and completely as anticipated. For Luther, desiring to clearthe track for the whole truth in every direction, the Reformed as wellas the Papistic, both against the "false brethren who would be of ourparty" (Preface to Sm. Art. 455, 4), as well as against the openenemies, had in his articles so sharpened the expressions employed inthe Wittenberg Concord of 1536 concerning the Lord's Supper that theassent of Philip of Hesse and the attending South German delegates andtheologians (Bucer, Blaurer, Wolfart, etc. ) was more than doubtful. Luther's letter to the adherents of Zwingli, December 1, 1537, showsthat he did not at all desire unnecessarily to disturb the work of unionbegun by the Wittenberg Concord. (St. L. 17, 2143. ) Still, he at thesame time endeavored to prevent a false union resting onmisunderstanding and self-deception. And, no doubt, his reformulation ofthe article on the Lord's Supper was intended to serve this purpose. Besides, owing to a very painful attack of gravel, Luther was not ableto attend the sessions, hence could not make his influence felt in adecisive manner as desired by the Elector. 

This situation was exploited by Melanchthon in the interest of hisattitude toward the Zwinglians, which now was much more favorable thanit had been at Augsburg, 1530. From the very outset he opposed theofficial adoption of Luther's articles. He desired more freedom withregard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was offered byLuther's articles. The first appears from his subscription. Concerningthe article of the Lord's Supper, however, which the Strassburgers andothers refused to accept, Melanchthon does not seem to have voiced anyscruples during the deliberations at Wittenberg. Personally he may evenhave been able to accept Luther's form, and this, too, more honestlythan Bucer did at Smalcald. For as late as September 6, 1557, he wroteto Joachim of Anhalt: "I have answered briefly that in doctrine all areagreed, and that we all embrace and retain the Confession with theApology and Luther's confession written before the Synod of Mantua. _Respondi breviter, consensum esse omnium de doctrina: amplecti nosomnes et retinere Confessionem cum Apologia et confessione Lutheriscripta ante Mantuanam Synodum. _" (_C. R. _ 9, 260. ) But, althoughMelanchthon, for his person, accepted Luther's article on the Lord'sSupper, he nevertheless considered it to be dangerous to the Concordwith the Southern Germans and to the Smalcald League. Privately he alsomade known his dissatisfaction in no uncertain manner. And in so doing, he took shelter behind Philip of Hesse, who, as at Augsburg, 1530, stilldesired to have the Zwinglians regarded and treated as weak brethren. 

Kolde relates: "On the same day (February 10) Melanchthon reported tothe Landgrave: 'One article, that concerning the Sacrament of the HolySupper, has been drawn up somewhat vehemently, in that it states thatthe bread is the body of the Lord which Luther at first did not draw upin this form, but, as contained in the [Wittenberg] Concord, namely, that the body of the Lord is given with the bread, and this was due toPomeranus, for he is a vehement man and a coarse Pomeranian. Otherwisehe [Melanchthon] knew of no shortcoming or complaint in all thearticles. ' . .. 'He also said' (this the Landgrave reports to Jacob Sturmof Strassburg as an expression of Melanchthon) 'that Luther would hearof no yielding or receding, but declared: This have I drawn up; if theprinces and estates desired to yield anything, it would rest with them, 'etc. The estates, Melanchthon advised, might therefore in every waydeclare that they had adopted the Confession and the Concord, and wereminded to abide by them. At the same time he promised to demand at theprospective deliberation of the theologians, 'that the article of theSacrament be drawn up as contained in the Concord. 'Melanchthon'sassertion that Bugenhagen influenced Luther's formulation of the articleon the Lord's Supper is probably correct. At any rate, it can be provedthat Luther really changed the article. For a glance at the originalmanuscript shows that he had at first written, in conformity with theConcord, 'that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread andwine, ' but later on changed it to read: 'that the bread and wine of theLord's Supper are the true body and blood of Christ. '" (48. ) Melanchthonwas diplomatic enough to hide from the Landgrave his strictures onLuther's articles about the Pope, knowing well that in this point hecould expect neither approval nor support. 

72. Articles Not Discussed in Meeting of League. 

As the Southern Germans regarded Luther's formulation of the article onthe Lord's Supper with disfavor, the Landgrave found little difficultyin winning over (through Jacob Sturm) the delegates of Augsburg and Ulmto Melanchthon's view of declaring adherence only to the Confession andthe Wittenberg Concord. Already on February 11 the cities decided to"decline on the best grounds" the Saxon proposition. Following were thereasons advanced: It was not necessary at present to enter upon theproposition, since the council would make slow progress, as the Emperorand the King of France were not yet at peace. They had not understoodthis (the adoption of the Saxon proposition) to be the purpose of theinvitation to bring scholars with them. They had a confession, theAugustana, presented to the Emperor. It was also to be feared thatdeliberations on the question whether any concessions should be made, might lead to a division; nor would this remain concealed from thePapists. If the Elector desired to present some articles, he mighttransmit them, and they, in turn, would send them to their superiorsfor inspection. (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 296. )

In the afternoon of February 11 the princes according to the report ofthe Strassburgers, expressed their satisfaction with the resolution ofthe cities. At the same time they declared that they were not minded tomake any concessions to the Papists, nor to dispute about, or question, anything in the Confession or the Wittenberg Concord, "but merely toreview the Confession, not to change anything against its contents andsubstance, nor that of the Concord, but solely to enlarge on the Papacy, which before this, at the Diet, had been omitted in order to please HisImperial Majesty and for other reasons;" that such was the purpose ofthe deliberation for which the scholars had been summoned; and that thiswas not superfluous, since "they were all mortal, and it was necessarythat their posterity be thoroughly informed as to what their doctrinehad been, lest others who would succeed to their places accept somethingelse. " The report continues: "The cities did not object to this. " (296. )According to this report, then, Luther's articles were neither discussednor adopted at the official meeting of the princes and estates belongingto the Smalcald League. Without mentioning them, they declared in theirfinal resolution: Our scholars have "unanimously agreed among themselvesin all points and articles contained in our Confession and Apology, presented at the Diet of Augsburg, excepting only that they haveexpanded and drawn up more clearly than there contained _one article, _concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome. " (Koellner, 468. ) Koestlinremarks: "Since the princes decided to decline the council absolutely, they had no occasion to discuss Luther's articles. " (2, 403. )

73. Meeting of Theologians. 

At Smalcald the first duty imposed upon the scholars and theologians wasonce more to discuss the Augustana and the Apology carefully, and toacknowledge both as their own confessions by their signatures. Thereuponthey were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on the Papacy. TheStrassburg delegates report: "It has also come to pass that the scholarsreceived orders once more to read the articles of the Confession and toenlarge somewhat on the Papacy, which they did. " (Kolde, _Analecta, _298. ) However, since neither the Augustana nor its Apology contained anarticle against the Papacy, the demand of the princes could only besatisfied by a special treatise, the "Tractatus de Potestate et PrimatuPapae, " which Melanchthon wrote and completed by February 17, whereuponit was immediately delivered to the princes. 

The princes had furthermore ordered the theologians, while reviewing anddiscussing the Augustana (and its Apology), to reenforce its doctrinewith additional proofs. Owing to lack of time and books, this was notcarried out. February 17 Osiander reports to the Nuernberg preachers:"We are enjoying good health here, although we traveled in stormyweather and over roads that offered many difficulties, and are livingunder a constantly beclouded sky, which unpleasantries are increased bytroublesome and difficult questions in complicated matters. .. . The firstbusiness imposed on us by the princes embraces two things: first, tofortify the Confession and the Apology with every kind of argument fromthe Holy Scriptures, the fathers, councils, and the decrees of thePopes; thereupon, diligently to discuss in detail everything concerningthe Primacy, which was omitted in the Confession because it was odious. The latter we completed so far to-day that we shall immediately delivera copy to the princes. The former, however will be postponed to anothertime and place, since it requires a longer time, as well as libraries, which are lacking here. " (_C. R. _ 3, 267. )

The discussion of the Confession was also to serve the purpose ofobtaining mutual assurance whether they were all really agreed indoctrine. This led to deliberations on the doctrine of the Lord's Supperas well as on the question what concessions might be made to theRomanists. According to a report of Melanchthon, March 1, thetheologians were to discuss the doctrines, not superficially, but verythoroughly, in order that all disagreement might be removed, and aharmonious and complete system of doctrines exist in our churches. Theywere to review the Confession in order to learn whether any onedeviated in any article or disapproved of anything. But Melanchthonremarks that this object was not reached, since the special request hadbeen voiced not to increase the disagreement by any quarrel and thus toendanger the Smalcald League. (_C. R. _ 3, 292. ) In a second letter ofthe same date he says that a real doctrinal discussion had never come topass, partly because Luther's illness prevented him from taking part inthe meetings, partly because the timidity of certain men [the Landgraveand others] had prevented an exact disputation lest any discord mightarise. (296. ) March 3 he wrote to Jonas in a similar vein saying thatthe reports of violent controversies among the theologians at Smalcaldwere false. For although they had been in consultation with one anotherfor the purpose of discovering whether all the theologians in attendancethere agreed in doctrine the matter had been treated briefly andincidentally. (298. )

As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned Melanchthon's report concerningthe superficial character of the doctrinal discussions is little if atall exaggerated. He himself was one of those timid souls of whom hespoke having from the beginning done all he could not only to barLuther's articles from the deliberations but also to prevent anypenetrating discussion of the Lord's Supper. Assent to the WittenbergConcord was considered satisfactory although all felt, and believed toknow, that some of the Southern Germans did not agree with the loyalLutherans in this matter. Of the attending theologians who were undersuspicion Bucer, Blaurer, Fagius, Wolfart, Fontanus, and Melander, onlythe first two took part in the deliberations. (292. ) March 1 Melanchthonwrote to Camerarius: "Bucer spoke openly and clearly of the Mystery [theLord's Supper] affirming the presence of Christ. He satisfied all of ourparty also those who are more severe. Blaurer, however, employed suchgeneral expressions as, that Christ was present. Afterward he addedseveral more ambiguous expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly;but since we did not desire to arouse any very vehement quarrel, Iterminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement wasrestored among all others, while he [Blaurer] did not seem tocontradict. I know that this is weak but nothing else could be done atthis time, especially since Luther was absent, being tortured by verysevere gravel pains. " (292. )

This agrees with the report Veit Dietrich made to Foerster, May 16, stating: At the first meeting of the committee of the theologians theycompleted the first nine articles of the Augustana. Blaurer, Wolfart, and some others of those who were doctrinally under suspicion (_nobissuspecti de doctrina_) were present. "However, when the article of theLord's Supper was to be discussed on the following day, the meeting wasprevented, I do not know by whom. It is certain that the princes, too, desired another meeting, because they feared a rupture of the [Smalcald]Alliance, if any doctrinal difference should become evident, which, however, would occur if the matter were thoroughly discussed. Since thedisputation was prevented, we were commissioned to write on the Power ofthe Pope in order to have something to do. Report had it that Blaurerdid not approve the Concord of Wittenberg; certainly, he asked Philipfor expressions of the Fathers (which are now in my possession), inorder to be better furnished with arguments. This prompted Pomeranus andAmsdorf again to convene the theologians against Melanchthon's will. Then the Lord's Supper was discussed. Bucer indeed satisfied all. Blaurer, however, while speaking vaguely of the other matters, nevertheless publicly attacked the statement that the ungodly do notreceive the body of Christ. " Wolfart declared that he was present at theConcord made at Wittenberg, and had approved it. It was unpleasant forhim [Dietrich] when hereupon Stephanus Agricola and then Wolfartrehashed some old statements, _vetera quaedam dicta. _ (370. )

74. Luther's Articles Subscribed. 

As to the articles of Luther, Veit Dietrich reports that they wereprivately circulated at Smalcald and read by all. They were also to beread at the meeting of the theologians on February 18. (_C. R. _ 3, 371. )As a matter of fact, however, neither a public reading nor a realdiscussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Strassburg delegatesreport: "Doctor Martin Luther has also drawn up some special articles, which he purposed to send to the council on his own accord, copies ofwhich we have designated with W. " The Strassburgers, then, were inposition to send home a copy of these articles. Furthermore Osianderrelates in a letter dated February 17: "Besides this, Luther has alsowritten articles at Wittenberg, short indeed, but splendid and keen(_illustres et argutos_), in which everything is summed up in Germanwherefrom we cannot recede in the council without committing sacrilege. To-morrow we shall read them publicly in our meeting, in order that anyone who wishes to add anything to them may present this in the presenceof all. They will also, as I hope, deliberate on the [Wittenberg]Concord in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. I regard Bucer asbeing sincerely one of us; Blaurer, however, by no means. For Philiptells of his having remarked that he was not able to agree with us. "(268. ) On February 18, however, Luther was taken ill and an official, public reading and discussion of his articles did not take place on thisday nor, as already stated, at a later date. 

Luther's articles, however, were nevertheless adopted at Smalcald, though not by the South Germans. When all other business had beentransacted, they were presented for voluntary subscription. Bugenhagenhad called the theologians together for this purpose. He proposed thatnow all those who wished (_qui velint_) should sign the articles Lutherhad brought with him. Hereupon Bucer declared that he had no commissionto do this. However, in order to obliterate the impression that hedeclined to subscribe because of doctrinal differences, he added that heknew nothing in Luther's articles which might be criticized. Blaurer ofConstance, Melander of Hesse, and Wolfart of Augsburg followed hisexample in declaring that they had no commission to sign the articles. In order not to endanger the Smalcald League, Bugenhagen, as appearsfrom his proposition refrained from urging any one to sign. This wasalso the position of the other theologians. 

Veit Dietrich reports: "Bucer was the first to say that he had no ordersto sign. He added, however, that he knew of nothing in these articlesthat could be criticized, but that his magistrates had reasons forinstructing him not to sign them. Afterwards Blaurer, DionysiusMelander, and your Boniface [Wolfart of Augsburg] said the same [thatthey had not been authorized by their superiors to sign]. The thoughtcame to me immediately why Bucer, who taught correctly, should have beenthe first to refuse his signature, since it was certain that the others, Blaurer and if you will, also your man, would not subscribe because theydid not approve of the dogma of the Lord's Supper. This would have ledto an open doctrinal schism, which the Elector, Ernst of Lueneburg, andthe Counts of Anhalt would, under no circumstances, have tolerated amongthe confederates. But, since Bucer did not subscribe, it was notnecessary to dispute about the doctrine. When we saw this, I was alsopleased that Luther's articles received no attention [in the officialsubscription], and that all subscribed merely to the Augustana and theConcord. And there was no one who refused to do this. " (371. )

While thus Bucer, Fagius, Wolfart, Blaurer, and Fontanus refused toaffix their signatures, the attending loyal Lutheran theologiansendorsed Luther's articles all the more enthusiastically. And while thesignatures affixed to the Augustana and the Apology total 32, includingthe suspected theologians, 44 names appear under Luther's articles. Among these is found also the abnormal subscription of Melander ofHesse: "I subscribe to the Confession, the Apology, and the Concord inthe matter of the Eucharist, " which is probably to be interpreted as alimitation of Luther's Article of the Lord's Supper. 

Although, therefore, the subscription of the Smalcald Articles lackedthe official character and was not by order of the Smalcald League assuch, it nevertheless is in keeping with the actual facts when theFormula of Concord refers to Luther's Articles as "subscribed at thattime [1537] by the chief theologians. " (777, 4; 853, 7. ) All trueLutheran pastors assembled at Smalcald recognized in Luther's articlestheir own, spontaneous confession against the Papists as well as againstthe Zwinglians and other enthusiasts. 

75. Endorsed by Princes and Estates. 

The Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord makes the furtherstatement that the Smalcald Articles were to be delivered in the Councilat Mantua "in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes. " (853, 7. )Evidently this is based on Luther's Preface to the Smalcald Articleswritten 1538, in which he says concerning his Articles: "They have alsobeen accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has beenresolved that, in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be sobold as seriously and in good faith, without lying and cheating to holda truly free Christian Council (as, indeed, he would be in duty bound todo), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession ofour Faith. " (455. )

Kolde and others surmise that Luther wrote as he did because, owing tohis illness, he was not acquainted with the true situation at Smalcald. Tschackert, too, takes it for granted that Luther, not beingsufficiently informed, was under the erroneous impression that theprinces and estates as well as the theologians had adopted, andsubscribed to, his articles. (300. 302. ) Nor has a better theory ofsolving the difficulty hitherto been advanced. Yet it appears veryimprobable. If adopted, one must assume that Luther's attention wasnever drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit hisassertion to stand in the following editions of the Smalcald Articles, but repeats it elsewhere as well. In an opinion written 1541 he writes:"In the second place, I leave the matter as it is found in the articlesadopted at Smalcald; I shall not be able to improve on them; nor do Iknow how to yield anything further. " (St. L. 17, 666. )

The Elector, too, shared Luther's opinion. In a letter of October 27, 1543, he urged him to publish in Latin and German (octavo), under thetitle, Booklet of the Smalcald Agreement--_Buechlein der geschehenenSchmalkaldischen Vergleichung, _ the "Articles of Agreement, Vergleichungsartikel, " on which he and Melanchthon had come to anagreement in 1537, at Smalcald, with the other allied estates, scholars, and theologians. (St. L. 21b, 2913. ) October 17, 1552, immediately afterhe had obtained his liberty, the Elector made a similar statement. (_C. R. _ 7, 1109. ) Nor did Spalatin possess a knowledge in this matterdiffering from that of Luther and the Elector. He, too, believed thatnot only the theologians, but the princes and estates as well, with theexception of Hesse, Wuerttemberg, Strassburg, etc. , had subscribed toLuther's articles. (Kolde, 51. )

Evidently, then, Luther's statement was generally regarded as beingsubstantially and approximately correct and for all practical purposesin keeping, if not with the exact letter and form at least with the realspirit of what transpired at Smalcald and before as well as after thisconvention. It was not a mere delusion of Luther's, but was generallyregarded as agreeing with the facts, that at Smalcald his articles werenot only subscribed by the theologians, but adopted also by the Lutheranprinces and estates, though, in deference to the Landgrave and the SouthGerman cities, not officially and by the Smalcald League as such. 

76. Symbolical Authority of Smalcald Articles. 

The importance attached to the Smalcald Articles over against theReformed and Crypto-Calvinists appears from a statement made by theElector of Saxony, October 17, 1552 (shortly after his deliverance fromcaptivity), in which he maintained that the Lutheran Church could havebeen spared her internal dissensions if every one had faithfully abidedby the articles of Luther. He told the Wittenberg theologians thatduring his captivity he had heard of the dissensions and continuedcontroversies, "which caused us no little grief. And we have thereforeoften desired with all our heart that in the churches of our formerlands and those of others no change, prompted by human wisdom, had beenundertaken nor permitted in the matters [doctrines] as they were heldduring the life of the blessed Doctor Martin Luther and during our rule, and confirmed at Smalcald, in the year 1537, by all pastors andpreachers of the estates of the Augsburg Confession then assembled atthat place. For if this had been done, no doubt, the divisions anderrors prevailing among the teachers of said Confession, together withthe grievous and harmful offenses which resulted therefrom, would, withthe help of God, have been avoided. " (_C. R. _ 7, 1109. )

In the Prolegomena to his edition of the Lutheran Confessions, Haseremarks concerning the symbolical authority of Luther's articles: "Theformula of faith, drawn up by such a man, and adorned with such names, immediately enjoyed the greatest authority. _Fidei formula a tali viroprofecta talibusque nominibus ornata maxima statim auctoritatefloruit. _" To rank among the symbolical books, Luther's articlesrequired a special resolution on the part of the princes and estates aslittle as did his two catechisms; contents and the Reformer's name werequite sufficient. Voluntarily the articles were subscribed at Smalcald. On their own merits they won their place of honor in our Church. In thesituation then obtaining, they voiced the Lutheran position in a mannerso correct and consistent that every loyal Lutheran spontaneously gaveand declared his assent. In keeping with the changed historical contextof the times, they offered a correct explanation of the AugsburgConfession, adding thereto a declaration concerning the Papacy, theabsence of which had become increasingly painful. They struck thetimely, logical, Lutheran note also over against the Zwinglian andBucerian [Reformed and Unionistic] tendencies. Luther's articles offeredquarters neither for disguised Papists nor for masked Calvinists. Inbrief they gave such a clear expression to genuine Lutheranism thatfalse spirits could not remain in their company. It was the recognitionof these facts which immediately elicited the joyful acclaim of all trueLutherans. To them it was a recommendation of Luther's articles whenBucer, Blaurer, and others, though having subscribed the AugsburgConfession, refused to sign them. Loyal Lutherans everywhere felt thatthe Smalcald Articles presented an up-to-date touchstone of the pureLutheran truth, and that, in taking their stand on them, their feet wereplanted, over against the aberrations of the Romanists as well as theZwinglians, on ground immovable. 

In the course of time, the esteem in which Luther's articles were held, rose higher and higher. Especially during and after the controversies onthe Interim, as well as in the subsequent controversies with theCrypto-Calvinists, the Lutherans became more and more convinced that theSmalcald Articles and not the Variata, contained the correct expositionof the Augsburg Confession. At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, theElector, by his delegates, sent word to Melanchthon "to stand by theConfession and the Smalcald Agreement [Smalcald Articles] in word and insense. " The delegates answered that Philip would not yield anything"which was opposed to the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement, " as hehad declared that "he would die rather than yield anything against hisconscience. " (_C. R. _ 4, 292. ) In an opinion of 1544 also thetheologians of Hesse, who at Smalcald had helped to sidetrack Luther'sarticles put them on a par with the Augustana. At Naumburg in 1561, where Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and the Crypto-Calvinistsendeavored to undermine the authority of Luther, Duke John Frederick ofSaxony declared that he would abide by the original Augustana and its"true declaration and norm, " the Smalcald Articles. 

Faithful Lutherans everywhere received the Smalcald Articles into their_corpora doctrinae. _ In 1567 the Convention of Coswig declared them tobe "the norm by which controversies are to be decided, _norma decidendicontroversias_. " Similarly, the Synod of Moelln, 1559. In 1560 theministerium of Luebeck and the Senate of Hamburg confessionally acceptedthe Articles. Likewise, the Convention of Lueneburg in 1561, and thetheologians of Schleswig-Holstein in 1570. The Thorough Declarationcould truthfully say that the Smalcald Articles had been embodied in theconfessional writings of the Lutheran Church "for the reason that thesehave always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimouslyaccepted meaning of our churches and, moreover, have been subscribed atthat time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have heldsway in all evangelical churches and schools. " (855, 11. )

77. Editions of Smalcald Articles. 

In 1538 Luther published his Articles, which _editio princeps_ wasfollowed by numerous other editions, two of them in the same year. Inthe copy of the Articles which Spalatin took at Wittenberg the titlereads: "Opinion concerning the Faith, and What We Must Adhere toUltimately at the Future Council. _Bedenken des Glaubens halben, undworauf im kuenftigen Konzil endlich zu beharren sei. _" The _editioprinceps_ bears the title: "Articles which were to be Delivered onBehalf of Our Party at the Council of Mantua, or Where Else It WouldMeet. _Artikel, so da haetten aufs Konzilium zu Mantua, oder wo eswuerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen. _" Thesetitles designate the purpose for which the articles were framed by orderof the Elector. In the edition of 1553, published by John Stolz and JohnAurifaber, Luther's Articles are designated as "prepared for the Diet ofSmalcald in the year 1537, _gestellt auf den Tag zu Schmalkalden Anno1537. _" Says Carpzov: "They are commonly called Smalcald Articles afterthe place where they were composed [an error already found in Brenz'sletter of February 23, 1537, appended to the subscriptions of the "Tracton the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (529). See also Formula of Concord777, 4; 853, 7], as well as solemnly approved and subscribed since thearticles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants atSmalcald a town in the borders of Saxony and Ducal Hesse, and selectedfor the convention of the Protestants for the reason that theindividuals who had been called thither might have an easy and safeapproach. " (_Isagoge, _ 769. )

The text of the Smalcald Articles, as published by Luther, omits thefollowing motto found in the original: "This is sufficient doctrine foreternal life. As to the political and economic affairs, there are enoughlaws to trouble us, so that there is no need of inventing furthertroubles much more burdensome. Sufficient unto the day is the evilthereof. _His satis est doctrinae pro vita aeterna. Ceterum in politiaet oeconomia satis est legum, quibus vexamur, ut non sit opus praeterhas molestias fingere alias quam miserrimas [necessarias]. Sufficit dieimalitia sua. _" (Luther, Weimar 50, 192. St. L. 16 1918. ) Apart from allkinds of minor corrections, Luther added to the text a Preface (written1538) and several additions, some of them quite long, which, however, did not change the sense. Among these are sec. 5, secs. 13 to 15, andsecs. 25-28 of the article concerning the Mass; secs. 42-45 concerningthe False Repentance of the Papists; secs. 3-13 about Enthusiasm in thearticle concerning Confession. The editions of 1543 and 1545 containedfurther emendations. The German text of Luther's first edition of 1538was received into the Book of Concord, "as they were first framed andprinted. " (853, 7. ) The first Latin translation by Peter Generanusappeared in 1541, with a Preface by Veit Amerbach (later on CatholicProfessor of Philosophy at Ingolstadt). In 1542 it was succeeded by anemended edition. In the following year the Elector desired aLatin-German edition in octavo. The Latin translation found in the Bookof Concord of 1580 was furnished by Selneccer; this was revised for theofficial Latin Concordia of 1584. 

78. Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. 

Melanchthon's "Tract Concerning the Power and Primacy of the Pope, _Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu Papae, _" presents essentially thesame thoughts Luther had already discussed in his article "Of thePapacy. " Melanchthon here abandons the idea of a papal supremacy _iurehumano, _ which he had advocated at Augsburg 1530 and expressed in hissubscription to Luther's articles, and moves entirely in the wake ofLuther and in the trend of the Reformer's thoughts. The Tract waswritten not so much from his own conviction as from that of Luther andin accommodation to the antipapal sentiment which, to his grief, becameincreasingly dominant at Smalcald. (_C. R. _ 3, 270. 292f. 297. ) In aletter to Jonas, February 23, he remarks, indicating his accommodationto the public opinion prevailing at Smalcald: "I have written this[Tract] somewhat sharper than I am wont to do. " (271. 292. ) Melanchthonalways trimmed his sails according to the wind; and at Smalcald adecidedly antipapal gale was blowing. He complains that he found no onethere who assented to his opinion that the papal invitation to a councilought not be declined. (293. ) It is also possible that he heard of theElector's criticism of his qualified subscription to Luther's articles. At all events, the Tract amounts to a retraction of his stricture onLuther's view of the Papacy. In every respect, Smalcald spelled a defeatfor Melanchthon. His policy toward the South Germans was actuallyrepudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic subscriptions to Luther'sarticles, foreshadowing, as it were, the final historical outcome, whenPhilippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord. And hisown Tract gave the _coup de grace_ to his mediating policy with regardto the Romanists. For here Melanchthon, in the manner of Luther, opposesand denounces the Pope as the Antichrist, the protector of ungodlydoctrine and customs, and the persecutor of the true confessors ofChrist, from whom one must separate. The second part of the Tract, "Concerning the Power and the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, _De Potestateet Iurisdictione Episcoporum, _" strikes an equally decided note. 

The Tract, which was already completed by February 17, received theapproval of the estates, and, together with the Augustana and theApology, was signed by the theologians upon order of the princes. (_C. R. _ 3, 286. ) Koellner writes: "Immediately at the convention VeitDietrich translated this writing [the Tract] into German, and (asappears from the fact that the Weimar theologians in 1553 published thedocument from the archives with the subscriptions) this Germantranslation was, at the convention, presented to, and approved by, theestates as the official text, and subscribed by the theologians. " (464. )Brenz's letter appended to the subscriptions shows that the signing didnot take place till after February 23, perhaps the 25th of February. Foron the 26th Melanchthon and Spalatin refer to it as finished. 

With reference to the Concord of 1536, let it be stated here that, although mentioned with approval by the theologians and also included inBrenz's and Melander's subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, theprinces and estates nevertheless passed no resolution requiring itssubscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declaredthat they would abide by the Wittenberg Concord. (_C. R. _ 3, 292. ) VeitDietrich's remark to Foerster, May 16, 1537, that only the Augustana andthe Concord were signed at Smalcald, is probably due to a mistake inwriting. (372. )

79. Authorship of Tract. 

The Tract first appeared in print in 1540. A German translation, published 1541, designates it as "drawn up by Mr. Philip Melanchthon anddone into German by Veit Dietrich. " (_C. R. _ 23 722. ) In the edition ofthe Smalcald Articles by Stolz and Aurifaber, 1553, the Tract isappended with the caption: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of thePope, Composed by the Scholars. Smalcald, 1537. " In the Jena edition ofLuther's Works the Smalcald Articles are likewise followed by the Tractwith the title: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope, Composed by the Scholars in the Year 37 at Smalcald and Printed in theYear 38. " (6, 523. ) This superscription gave rise to the opinion thatthe German was the original text. At any rate, such seems to have beenthe belief of Selneccer, since he incorporated a Latin translation, based on the German text, into the Latin edition of his Book of Concord, privately published 1580. Apart from other errors this Latin versioncontained also the offensive misprint referred to in our article on theBook of Concord. In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted bythe original text of Melanchthon. The subtitle, however, remained:"Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregatos Conscriptus. "

To-day it is generally assumed that by 1553 it was universally forgottenboth that Melanchthon was the author of the Tract, and that it wasoriginally composed in Latin. However, it remains a mystery how thisshould have been possible--only twelve years after Dietrich had publishedthe Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as itsauthor, and states that the German text is a translation. The evidencefor Melanchthon's authorship which thus became necessary was furnishedby J. C. Bertram in 1770. However, before him Chytraeus and Seckendorf, in 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon's authorship. Be itmentioned as a curiosity that the Papist Lud. Jac. A St. Carolomentioned a certain "Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germanus, Lutheranus" asthe author of the Tract. In the Formula of Concord and in the Preface tothe Book of Concord the Tract is not enumerated as a separateconfessional writing, but is treated as an appendix to the SmalcaldArticles. 

80. A Threefold Criticism. 

On the basis of the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, Kolde, followed by others believes himself justified in offering a threefoldcriticism. In the first place, he opines that Luther's Articles are"very improperly called 'Smalcald Articles. '" However, even if Luther'sArticles were not officially adopted by the Smalcald League as such, they were nevertheless, written for the Convention of Smalcald, and werethere signed by the assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers andprivately adopted also by most of the princes and estates. For Luther'sArticles then, there is and can be no title more appropriate than"Smalcald Articles. " Tschackert remarks: "Almost all [all, with theexception of the suspected theologians] subscribed and thereby theybecame weighty and important for the Evangelical churches of Germany;and hence it certainly is not inappropriate to call them 'SmalcaldArticles, ' even though they were written at Wittenberg and were notpublicly deliberated upon at Smalcald. " (302. )

"It is entirely unhistorical, " Kolde continues in his strictures, "todesignate Melanchthon's Tract, which has no connection with Luther'sArticles, as an 'Appendix' to them when in fact it was accepted as anappendix of the Augustana and Apology. " (50. ) It is a mistake, therefore, says Kolde, that the Tract is not separately mentioned in theBook of Concord, nor counted as a separate confessional writing. (53. )Likewise Tschackert: "On the other hand, it is a mistake to treatMelanchthon's Tract as an appendix to the Smalcald Articles, as is donein the Book of Concord. The signatures of the estates have rather givenit an independent authority in the Church. " (302. ) However, there ismuch more of a connection between Luther's Articles and the Tract thanKolde and Tschackert seem to be aware of. Luther's Articles as well asthe Tract were prepared for the Convention at Smalcald. Both were theresigned by practically the same Lutheran theologians. The fact that inthe case of the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily ratherenhances and does not in the least diminish, their importance. Bothalso, from the very beginning, were equally regarded as Lutheranconfessional writings. The Tract, furthermore, follows Luther'sArticles also in substance, as it is but an acknowledgment andadditional exposition of his article "Of the Papacy. " To be sure, theTract must not be viewed as an appendix to Luther's Articles, which, indeed, were in no need of such an appendix. Moreover, both the Articlesand the Tract may be regarded as appendices to the Augsburg Confessionand the Apology. Accordingly, there is no reason whatever why, in theBook of Concord, the Tract should not follow Luther's Articles or beregarded as closely connected with it, and naturally belonging to it. Koellner is right when he declares it to be "very appropriate" that theTract is connected and grouped with the Smalcald Articles. (469. )

Finally, Kolde designates the words in the title "composed, _conscriptus, _ by the scholars" as false in every respect. LikewiseTschackert. (303. ) The criticism is justified inasmuch as the expression"composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus, _ by the scholars" cannot verywell be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. Buteven this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degreeassumed by Kolde and Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes andestates did not order Melanchthon, but the theologians, to write thetreatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was presented intheir name. Koellner writes: "It is certainly a splendid testimony forthe noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Electorshould know of, and partly disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, andstill entrust him with the composition of this very important document[the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon sosplendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views andthe interests of the party without infringing upon his own conviction. ""Seckendorf also, " Koellner adds "justly admires this unusualphenomenon. " (471. ) However, Koellner offers no evidence for thesupposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with thecomposition of the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburgdelegates, the princes declared that "the scholars" should peruse theConfession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues: "Thescholars received orders . .. To enlarge somewhat on the Papacy which_they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Electorand the princes. " (Kolde, _Anal. , _ 297. ) This is corroborated byMelanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March 1, 1537: "Wereceived orders (_iussi sumus_) to write something on the Primacy ofPeter or the Roman Pontiff. " (_C. R. _ 3, 292. ) February 17 Osianderreported: "The first business imposed on _us_ by the princes was . .. Diligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confessionbecause it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties _we_ haveto-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to theprinces. " (3, 267. ) These statements might even warrant the conclusionthat the theologians also participated, more or less in the drawing upof the Tract, for which however, further evidence is wanting. Nor doesit appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit Dietrich'sassertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: "Orders were given to writeabout the power of the Pope the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiasticaljurisdiction. Philip alone performed this very well. " (3, 370. ) However, entirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that thetheologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it wasdelivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrantsus to speak of the document as "The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald"with the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which Melanchthondrew up on August 6, 1536, is entitled: "The First Proposal of theWittenberg Scholars concerning the Future Council. " (_C. R. _ 3, 119. )

VIII. Luther's Efforts at Restoring Catechetical Instruction. 

81. Modern Researches Respecting Luther's Catechisms. 

Besides G. V. Zezschwitz (_System der christlichkirchlichen Katechetik, _3 volumes, 1862 to 1874) and numerous other contemporary and laterstudents, G. Buchwald, F. Cohrs, and O. Albrecht have, since the middleof the past century, rendered no mean service by their researchespertaining to Luther's Catechisms. Buchwald edited the three series ofsermons on the Five Chief Parts which Luther delivered in 1528, pointedout their important bearing on his Catechisms, and shed new light ontheir origin by discovering and exploiting the Stephan Rothcorrespondence. He published the results of his labors in 1894 under thetitle, "The Origin of the Two Catechisms of Luther and the Foundation ofthe Large Catechism. _Die Entstehung der beiden Katechismen Luthers unddie Grundlage des Grossen Katechismus. _" F. Cohrs enriched thisdepartment of knowledge by his articles in the third edition of Herzog's_Realenzyklopaedie, _ and especially by his five-volume work on _TheEvangelical Catechism; Attempts Prior to Luther's Enchiridion, _ in_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, _ 1900 to 1907. In 1905 O. Albrecht wasentrusted with the preparation of Luther's Catechisms for the WeimarCritical Edition of Luther's Complete Works. He also contributed theextensive historical sections of the first of the three parts of Vol. 30, where the Catechisms are treated. 

This first part of 826 pages, which appeared in 1910, represents thelatest important research work on the origin of Luther's Catechisms. Inits preface R. Drescher says: "The writings of 1529 to 1530, in theirtotality were a difficult mountain, and it gives us particular joyfinally to have surmounted it. And the most difficult and laborious partof the way, at least in view of the comprehensive treatment it was toreceive, was the publication of the Large and the Small Catechism, including the three series of Catechism Sermons. . .. The harvest whichwas garnered fills a large volume of our edition. "

82. Meaning of the Word Catechism. 

The term _catechismus_ (catechism), like its related terms, _catechesis, catechizari, catechumeni, _ was common in the ancient Church. In his_Glossarium, _ Du Cange defines it as "_institutio puerorum etiam recensnatorum, ante quam baptizentur_--the instruction of children, also thoserecently born, before their baptism. " The synonymous expression, _catechesis, _ he describes as "_institutio primorum fidei Christianaerudimentorum, de quibus kateceseis suas scripsit S. CyrillusJerusolymitanus_--instruction in the first rudiments of the Christianfaith, about which St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his catechizations. " (2, 222f. ) Also Luther was acquainted with this usage in the ancient Church. He began his Catechism sermon of November 30, 1528, with the words:"These parts which you heard me recite the old Fathers called catechism, _i. E. _, a sermon for children which children should know and all whodesire to be Christians. " (Weimar 30, 1, 57. ) At first Luther seems tohave employed the term but seldom; later on, however, especially after1526, more frequently. Evidently he was bent on popularizing it. Betweenthe Preface and the Decalog of the first Wittenberg book edition of theSmall Catechism we find the title, "A Small Catechism or ChristianTraining--_Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht. _" No doubt, Luther added the explanation "christliche Zucht" because the wordcatechism had not yet become current among the people. May 18, 1528, hebegan his sermon with the explanation: "_Catechismus dicitur instructio_--Catechism is instruction"; likewise the sermon of September 14:"Catechism, _i. E. _, an instruction or Christian teaching, " the sermon ofNovember 30: "Catechism, _i. E. _, a sermon for children. " In the Prefaceto his Small Catechism he again explains the term as "Christiandoctrine. " Thus Luther endeavored to familiarize the people with theword catechism. 

The meaning of this term, however, is not always the same. It maydesignate the act of instructing, the subject-matter or the doctrineimparted, a summary thereof, the text of the traditional chief parts, ora book containing the catechismal doctrine, text, or text withexplanation. Luther used the word most frequently and preferably in thesense of instruction. This appears from the definitions quoted in thepreceding paragraph, where catechism is defined as "sermon, ""instruction, " "Christian training, " etc. "You have the catechism" (thedoctrine), says Luther, "in small and large books. " Bugenhagen definesthus: "Katechismus, dat is, christlike underrichtinge ut den teyngebaden Gades. " In the Apology, Melanchthon employs the word catechismas identical with _kathechesis puerorum, _ instruction of the young inthe Christian fundamentals. (324, 41. ) "Accordingly, " says O. Albrecht, "catechism means elementary instruction in Christianity, conceived, first, as the act; then, as the material for instruction; then, as thecontents of a book, and finally, as the book itself. " This usage must beborne in mind also where Luther speaks of his own Catechisms. "GermanCatechism" means instruction in, or preaching on, the traditional chiefparts in the German language. And while "Enchiridion" signifies a bookof small compass, the title "Small Catechism" (as appears from the oldsubtitle: "Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht") meansinstruction in the chief parts, proceeding with compact brevity, and, atthe same time, these parts themselves together with the explanationsadded. (W. 30, 1, 454. 539. ) As the title of a book the word catechismwas first employed by Althamer in 1528, and by Brenz as the subtitle ofhis "Questions" (_Fragestuecke_). A school-book written by John Colet inthe beginning of the sixteenth century bears the title "_Catechyzon, _The Instructor. " (456. )

Not every kind of Christian instruction, however, is called catechism byLuther. Whenever he uses the word, he has in mind beginners, children, and unlearned people. In his "German Order of Worship, _DeutscheMesse, _" of 1526, he writes: "Catechism is an instruction wherebyheathen who desire to become Christians are taught and shown what theymust believe, do, not do, and know in Christianity, hence the namecatechumens was given to pupils who were accepted for such instructionand who learned the Creed previous to their baptism. " (19, 76. ) In hissermon of November 30, 1528: "The Catechism is a sermon for children, which the children and all who desire to be Christians must know. Whoever does not know it cannot be numbered among the Christians. For ifhe does not know these things, it is evident that God and Christ meannothing to him. " (30, 1, 57. ) In his sermon of September 14: "This[catechism] is preaching for children, or, the Bible of the laity, whichserves the plain people. Whoever, then, does not know these things, andis unable to recite them and understand them, cannot be considered aChristian. It is for this reason, too, that it bears the name catechism, _i. E. _, instruction and Christian teaching, since all Christians at thevery least should know this much. Afterward they ought to learn more ofthe Scriptures. Hence, let all children govern themselves accordingly, and see that they learn it. " (27. ) May 18 Luther began his sermon thus:"The preaching of the Catechism was begun that it might serve as aninstruction for children and the unlearned. . .. For every Christian mustnecessarily know the Catechism. Whoever does not know it cannot benumbered among the Christians. " (2. ) In the short Preface to the LargeCatechism: "This sermon is designed and undertaken that it might be aninstruction for children and the simpleminded. Hence, of old it wascalled in Greek catechism, _i. E. _, instruction for children, what everyChristian must needs know, so that he who does not know this could notbe numbered with the Christians nor be admitted to any Sacrament. "(CONC. TRIGL. , 575, 1; 535, 11. )

83. Chief Parts of Catechism. 

In Luther's opinion the elementary doctrines which form the subject-matter of the Catechism are comprised in the three traditional parts:Decalog, Creed, and Lord's Prayer. These he considered to be the gist ofthe doctrine every one must learn if he would be regarded and treated asa Christian. "Those who are unwilling to learn it, " says Luther, "shouldbe told that they deny Christ and are no Christians; neither should theybe admitted to the Sacraments, accepted as sponsors at Baptism, norexercise any part of Christian liberty. " (CONC. TRIGL. 535, 11. ) Ofcourse, Luther considered these three parts only a minimum, which, however, Christians who partake of the Lord's Supper should strive toexceed, but still sufficient for children and plain people. (575, 5. )Even in his later years, Luther speaks of the first three parts as theCatechism proper. 

However, probably in consequence of the controversy with theEnthusiasts, which began in 1524, Luther soon added as supplements theparts treating of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Confession. In theLarge Catechism, where Baptism and the Lord's Supper appear asappendices, Luther emphasizes the fact that the first three parts formthe kernel of the Catechism, but that instruction in Baptism and theLord's Supper must also be imparted. "These" (first three), says he, "are the most necessary parts, which one should first learn to repeatword for word. . .. Now, when these three parts are apprehended, itbehooves a person also to know what to say concerning our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood ofChrist, namely, the text which Matthew and Mark record at the close oftheir gospels, when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent themforth. " (579, 20. ) Luther regarded a correct knowledge of Baptism andthe Lord's Supper not only as useful, but as necessary. Beginning hisexplanation of the Fourth Chief Part, he remarks: "We have now finishedthe three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these wehave yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of whichalso every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, briefinstruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although, alas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given. " (733, 1. )Thus Luther materially enlarged the Catechism. True, several prayer- andconfession-books, which appeared in the late Middle Ages, also treat ofthe Sacraments. As for the people, however, it was considered sufficientfor laymen to be able to recite the names of the seven Roman sacraments. Hence Luther, in the passage cited from the Large Catechism, declaresthat in Popery practically nothing of Baptism and the Lord's Supper wastaught, certainly nothing worth while or wholesome. 

84. Parts Inherited from Ancient Church. 

The text of the first three chief parts, Luther considered a sacredheirloom from the ancient Church. "For, " says he in his Large Catechism, "the holy Fathers or apostles have thus embraced in a summary thedoctrine life, wisdom, and art of Christians, of which they speak andtreat, and with which they are occupied. " (579, 19. ) Thus Luther, alwaysconservative, did not reject the traditional catechism, both bag andbaggage, but carefully distinguished between the good, which heretained, and the worthless, which he discarded. In fact, he no moredreamt of foisting a new doctrine or catechism on the Christian Churchthan he ever thought of founding a new church. On the contrary, his soleobject was to restore the ancient Apostolic Church, and his catecheticalendeavors were bent on bringing to light once more, purifying, explaining, and restoring, the old catechism of the fathers. 

In his book _Wider Hans Worst, _ 1541, Luther says: "We have remainedfaithful to the true and ancient Church; aye, we are the true andancient Church. You Papists, however, have apostatized from us, _i. E. _, from the ancient Church, and have set up a new church in opposition tothe ancient Church. " In harmony with this view, Luther repeatedly andemphatically asserted that in his Catechism he was merely protecting andguarding an inheritance of the fathers, which he had preserved to theChurch by his correct explanation. In his _German Order of Worship_ weread: "I know of no simpler nor better arrangement of this instructionor doctrine than the arrangement which has existed since the beginningof Christendom, _viz. _, the three parts, Ten Commandments, Creed, andthe Lord's Prayer. " (W. 19, 76. ) In the ancient Church the originalparts for catechumens and sponsors were the _Symbolum_ and the_Paternoster, _ the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer. To these theTen Commandments were added as a formal part of doctrine only since thethirteenth century. (30, 1, 434. ) The usual sequence of these parts was:Lord's Prayer, Apostles' Creed, and, wherever it was not supplanted byother matter, the Decalog. It was with deliberation then, that Luthersubstituted his own objective, logical order. 

In his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord'sPrayer, _ 1520 Luther speaks as follows of the three traditional parts, which God preserved to the Church in spite of the Papacy: "It did notcome to pass without the special providence of God, that, with referenceto the common Christian, who cannot read the Scriptures, it wascommanded to teach and to know the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord'sPrayer which three parts indeed thoroughly and completely embrace allthat is contained in the Scripture and may ever be preached, all alsothat a Christian needs to know, and this, too, in a form so brief andsimple that no one can complain or offer the excuse that it is too much, and that it is too hard for him to remember what is essential to hissalvation. For in order to be saved, a man must know three things:First, he must know what he is to do and leave undone. Secondly, when herealizes that by his own strength he is unable to do it and leave itundone, he must know where he may take, seek, and find that which willenable him to do and to refrain. Thirdly, he must know how he may seekand obtain it. Even as a sick man needs first of all to know whatdisease he has, what he may or may not do, or leave undone. Thereupon heneeds to know where the medicine is which will help him, that he may doand leave undone like a healthy person. Fourthly, he must desire it, seek and get it, or have it brought to him. In like manner thecommandments teach a man to know his disease, that he may see andperceive what he can do and not do, leave and not leave, and thusperceive that he is a sinner and a wicked man. Thereupon the Creed holdsbefore his eyes and teaches him where to find the medicine, the gracewhich will help him become pious, that he may keep the commandments, andshows him God and His mercy as revealed and offered in Christ. Fifthly, the Lord's Prayer teaches him how to ask for, get and obtain it, namely, by proper, humble, and comforting prayer. These three things comprisethe entire Scriptures. " (W. 7, 204. ) It was things such as the chiefparts of the Catechism that Luther had in mind when he wrote against thefanatics, 1528: "We confess that even under the Papacy there are manyChristian blessings aye, all Christian blessings, and thence they havecome to us: the true Holy Scriptures, true Baptism, the true Sacramentof the Altar, true keys for the forgiveness of sins, the true office ofthe ministry, the true catechism, such as the Lord's Prayer, the TenCommandments the Articles of Faith, etc. " (26, 147. ) Luther's meaningis, that in the midst of antichristendom and despite the Pope, the textof the three chief parts was, among other things, preserved to theChurch. 

85. Service Rendered Catechism by Luther. 

The fact that the text of the three chief parts existed long beforeLuther does not detract from the service which he rendered theCatechism. Luther's work, moreover, consisted in this, 1. That hebrought about a general revival of the instruction in the Catechism ofthe ancient Church; 2. That he completed it by adding the parts treatingof Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Supper; 3. That he purged itsmaterial from all manner of papal ballast; 4. That he eliminated theRomish interpretation and adulteration in the interest ofwork-righteousness; 5. That he refilled the ancient forms with theirgenuine Evangelical and Scriptural meaning. Before Luther's time thestudy of the Catechism had everywhere fallen into decay. There were butfew who knew its text, and when able to recite it, they did notunderstand it. The soul of all Christian truths, the Gospel of God'sfree pardon for Christ's sake, had departed. Concerning "the three partswhich have remained in Christendom from of old" Luther said that "littleof it had been taught and treated correctly. " (CONC. TRIGL. 575, 6. )

In his _Warning to My Dear Germans, _ of 1531, he enlarges on the samethought as follows; "Thanks to God, our Gospel has produced much andgreat good. Formerly no one knew what was Gospel, what Christ, whatBaptism, what Confession, what Sacrament, what faith, what spirit, whatflesh, what good works, what the Ten Commandments, what the Lord'sPrayer, what praying, what suffering, what comfort, what civilgovernment, what matrimony, what parents, what children, what lords, what servant, what mistress what maid, what devil, what angel, whatworld, what life, what death, what sin, what right, what forgiveness ofsin, what God, what bishop, what pastor, what Church, what a Christian, what the cross. Sum, we knew nothing of what a Christian should know. Everything was obscured and suppressed by the papal asses. For inChristian matters they are asses indeed, aye, great, coarse, unlearnedasses. For I also was one of them and know that in this I am speakingthe truth. And all pious hearts who were captive under the Pope, even asI, will bear me out that they would fain have known one of these things, yet were not able nor permitted to know it. We knew no better than thatthe priests and monks alone were everything; on their works we based ourhope of salvation and not on Christ. Thanks to God, however, it has nowcome to pass that man and woman, young and old, know the Catechism, andhow to believe, live, pray, suffer, and die; and that is indeed asplendid instruction for consciences, teaching them how to be aChristian and to know Christ. " (W. 30, 3, 317. )

Thus Luther extols it as the great achievement of his day that now everyone knew the Catechism, whereas formerly Christian doctrine was unknownor at least not understood aright. And this achievement is preeminentlya service which Luther rendered. He revived once more the ancientcatechetical parts of doctrine, placed them in the proper Biblicallight, permeated them with the Evangelical spirit, and explained them inconformity with the understanding of the Gospel which he had gainedanew, stressing especially the _finis historiae_ (the divine purpose ofthe historical facts of Christianity, as recorded in the SecondArticle), the forgiveness of sins not by works of our own, but by grace, for Christ's sake. 

86. Catechetical Instruction before Luther. 

In the Middle Ages the Lord's Prayer and the Creed were called the chiefparts for sponsors (_Patenhauptstuecke_), since the canons requiredsponsors to know them, and at Baptism they were obligated to teach theseparts to their godchildren. The children, then, were to learn the Creedand the Lord's Prayer from their parents and sponsors. Since theCarolingian Epoch these regulations of the Church were often repeated, as, for example, in the _Exhortation to the Christian Laity_ of theninth century. From the same century dates the regulation that anexplanation of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer should be found in everyparish, self-evidently to facilitate preaching and the examination inconfession. In confession, which, according to the Lateran Council, 1215, everybody was required to make at least once a year, the priestswere to inquire also regarding this instruction and have the chief partsrecited. Since the middle of the thirteenth century the Creed, theLord's Prayer, together with the Benedicite, Gratias, Ave Maria, Psalms, and other matter, were taught also in the Latin schools, where probablyLuther, too, learned them. In the _Instruction for Visitors, _Melanchthon still mentions "der Kinder Handbuechlein, darin dasAlphabet, Vaterunser, Glaub' und andere Gebet' innen stehen--Manual forChildren, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, andother prayers, " as the first schoolbook. (W. 26, 237. ) After theinvention of printing, chart-impressions with pictures illustrating theCreed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments came into thepossession also of some laymen. The poorer classes, however, had tocontent themselves with the charts in the churches, which especiallyNicolaus of Cusa endeavored to introduce everywhere. (Herzog's_Realenzyklopaedie_ 10, 138. ) They were followed by confessionalbooklets, prayer-booklets, and also by voluminous books of devotion. Apart from other trash, these contained confessional and communionprayers instructions on Repentance, Confession, and the Sacrament ofthe Altar; above all, however, a mirror of sins, intended as a guide forself-examination, on the basis of various lists of sins and catalogs ofvirtues, which supplanting the Decalog were to be memorized. Self-evidently, all this was not intended as a schoolmaster to bringthem to Christ and to faith in the free grace of God, but merely toserve the interest of the Romish penances, satisfactions, andwork-righteousness. Says Luther in the Smalcald Articles: "Here, too, there was no faith nor Christ, and the virtue of the absolution was notdeclared to him, but upon his enumeration of sins and his self-abasementdepended his consolation. What torture, rascality, and idolatry suchconfession has produced is more than can be related. " (485, 20. ) Thechief parts of Christian doctrine but little taught and nowherecorrectly taught, --such was the chief hurt of the Church under thePapacy. 

In the course of time, however, even this deficient and falseinstruction gradually fell into decay. The influence of the Latinschools was not very far-reaching, their number being very small inproportion to the young. Public schools for the people did not exist inthe Middle Ages. As a matter of fact not a single synod concerned itselfspecifically with the instruction of the young. (_H. R. _ 10, 137. ) Athome, parents and sponsors became increasingly indifferent andincompetent for teaching. True, the reformers of the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries did attempt to elevate the instruction also in theCatechism. Geiler's sermons on the Lord's Prayer were published. Gersonadmonished: "The reformation of the Church must begin with the young, "and published sermons on the Decalog as models for the use of theclergy. John Wolf also urged that the young be instructed, andendeavored to substitute the Decalog for the prevalent catalogs of sins. The Humanists John Wimpheling, Erasmus, and John Colet (who wrote the_Catechyzon, _ which Erasmus rendered into Latin hexameters) urged thesame thing. Peter Tritonius Athesinus wrote a similar book ofinstruction for the Latin schools. However, all of these attempts provedineffectual, and even if successful, they would have accomplished littlefor truly Christian instruction, such as Luther advocated, since thereal essence of Christianity, the doctrine of justification, was unknownto these reformers. 

Thus in the course of time the people, and especially the young, grewmore and more deficient in the knowledge of even the simplest Christiantruths and facts. And bishops and priests, unconcerned about the ancientcanons, stolidly looked on while Christendom was sinking deeper anddeeper into the quagmire of total religious ignorance and indifference. Without fearing contradiction, Melanchthon declared in his Apology:"Among the adversaries there is no catechization of the childrenwhatever, concerning which even the canons give commands. . .. Among theadversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain], during the entireyear no sermons are delivered, except in Lent. " (325, 41. )

87. Medieval Books of Prayer and Instruction. 

Concerning the aforementioned Catholic books of prayer and edificationwhich, during the Middle Ages, served the people as catechisms, Luther, in his Prayer-Booklet of 1522 (which was intended to supplant the Romishprayer-books), writes as follows: "Among many other harmful doctrinesand booklets which have seduced and deceived Christians and given riseto countless superstitions, I do not consider as the least theprayer-booklets, by which so much distress of confessing and enumeratingsins, such unchristian folly in the prayers to God and His saints wasinculcated upon the unlearned, and which, nevertheless, were highlypuffed with indulgences and red titles, and, in addition, bore preciousnames, one being called _Hortulus Animae, _ the other _Paradisus Animae, _and so forth. They are in sore need of a thorough and sound reformation, or to be eradicated entirely, a sentence which I also pass on thePassional or Legend books, to which also a great deal has been added bythe devil. " (W. 10, 1, 375. )

The _Hortulus Animae, _ which is mentioned even before 1500, was widelycirculated at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It embraced allforms of edifying literature. Sebastian Brandt and Jacob Wimphelinghelped to compile it. The _Paradisus Animae_ had the same contents, butwas probably spread in Latin only. The _Hortulus Animae_ contains verycomplete rosters of sins and catalogs of virtues for "confessing andenumerating sins. " Among the virtues are listed the bodily works ofmercy (Matt. 25, 35) and the seven spiritual works of mercy: to instructthe ignorant, give counsel to the doubtful, comfort the afflicted, admonish sinners, pardon adversaries suffer wrong, and forgive theenemies. Among the virtues were counted the seven gifts of the HolyGhost: wisdom, understanding, ability, kindness, counsel, strength, andfear. Furthermore the three divine virtues: faith, hope and charity. Thefour cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Theeight beatitudes according to Matt. 5, 3ff. The twelve counsels:poverty, obedience, chastity, love of enemies, meekness, abundant mercy, simplicity of words, not too much care for temporal things, correctpurpose and simplicity of deeds, harmony of doctrine and works, fleeingthe cause of sin, brotherly admonition. Finally also the sevensacraments. The list of sins contains the nine foreign sins, the sixsins against the Holy Ghost, the four sins that cry to God forvengeance, the five senses the Ten Commandments, and the seven mortalsins: pride, covetousness, unchastity, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. Each of these mortal sins is again analyzed extensively. The Weimaredition of Luther's Works remarks: "If these catalogs were employed forself-examination, confusion, endless torment, or completeexternalization of the consciousness of sin was bound to result. We cantherefore understand why the Reformer inveighs against this 'enumeratingof sins. '" (10, 2, 336. )

The _Hortulus Animae_ also shows how Luther was obliged to purge theCatechism from all manner of "unchristian follies, " as he calls them. For the entire book is pervaded by idolatrous adoration of the saints. An acrostic prayer to Mary addresses her as _mediatrix, auxiliatrix, reparatrix, illuminatrix, advocatrix. _ In English the prayer would readas follows: "O Mary, thou mediator between God and men, make of thyselfthe medium between the righteous God and me, a poor sinner! O Mary, thouhelper in all anguish and need, come to my assistance in allsufferrings, and help me resist and strive against the evil spirits andovercome all my temptations and afflictions. O Mary, thou restorer oflost grace to all men, restore unto me my lost time, my sinful andwasted life! O Mary, thou illuminator, who didst give birth to theeternal Light of the whole world, illumine my blindness and ignorance, lest I, poor sinner that I am, enter the darkness of eternal death. OMary, thou advocate of all miserable men, be thou my advocate at my lastend before the stern judgment of God, and obtain for me the grace andthe fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ! Amen. " Another prayer calls Marythe "mighty queen of heaven, the holy empress of the angels, the one whostays divine wrath. " A prayer to the eleven thousand virgins reads asfollows: "O ye, adorned with chastity, crowned with humility, clad withpatience, covered with the blossoms of virtue, well polished withmoderation--O ye precious pearls and chosen virgin maids, help us in thehour of death!"

With this idolatry and saint-worship silly superstition was combined. Inorder to be efficacious, a certain prayer prescribed in the _Hortulus_must be spoken not only with "true contrition and pure confession, " butalso "before a figure which had appeared to St. Gregory. " Whoever offersa certain prayer "before the image of Our Lady in the Sun" "will notdepart this life unshriven, and thirty days before his death will seethe very adorable Virgin Mary prepared to help him. " Another prayer isgood "for pestilence" when spoken "before the image of St. Ann;" anotherprayer to St. Margaret profits "every woman in travail;" still anotherpreserves him who says it from "a sudden death. " All of these promiseshowever, are far surpassed by the indulgences assured. The prayer beforethe apparition of St. Gregory obtains 24, 600 years and 24 days ofindulgence: another promises "indulgence for as many days as our LordJesus Christ received wounds during His passion, _viz. _ 5, 475. " Whoeverprays the Bridget-prayers not only obtains indulgence for himself, but15 souls of his kin are thereby delivered from purgatory, 15 sinnersconverted, and 15 righteous "confirmed and established in their goodstanding. " (W. 10, 2, 334. )

Also in the chart booklets for the Latin schools of the Middle Ages theAve Maria and Salve Regina played an important part. --Such were thebooks which, before Luther, were to serve the people as catechisms, orbooks of instruction and prayer. In them, everything, even what wasright and good in itself, such as the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and theDecalog, was made to serve Romish superstition and work-righteousness. Hence one can easily understand why Luther demanded that they be eitherthoroughly reformed or eradicated. 

Indeed, the dire need of the Church in this respect was felt andlamented by none sooner and more deeply than Luther. Already in histract _To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, _ 1520, hecomplained that Christian instruction of the young was being neglected. He writes: "Above all, the chief and most common lesson in the higherand lower schools ought to be the Holy Scriptures and for the youngboys, the Gospel. Would to God every city had also a school for girls, where the little maids might daily hear the Gospel for an hour, eitherin German or in Latin! Truly, in the past the schools and convents formen and women were founded for this purpose, with very laudableChristian intention, as we read of St. Agnes and other saints. Theregrew up holy virgins and martyrs, and Christendom fared very well. Butnow it amounts to nothing more than praying and singing. Ought not, indeed, every Christian at the age of nine or ten years know the entireholy Gospel, in which his name and life is written? Does not the spinnerand the seamstress teach the same handicraft to her daughter when she isstill young? But now even the great men, the learned prelates andbishops, do not know the Gospel. How unjustly do we deal with the pooryouth entrusted to us, failing, as we do, to govern and instruct them!What a severe reckoning will be required of us because we do not setbefore them the Word of God! For unto them is done as Jeremiah says, Lam. 2, 11. 12: 'Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughterof my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in thestreets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine?when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when theirsoul was poured out into their mothers' bosom. ' But we do not see thewretched misery, how the young people, in the midst of Christendom, nowalso languish and perish miserably for lack of the Gospel, in which theyshould always be instructed and drilled. " (W. 6, 461; E. 21, 349. )

88. Church Visitation Reveals Deplorable Ignorance. 

The Saxon Visitation brought to light such a total decay of allChristian knowledge and of Christian instruction as even Luther had notanticipated. Aside from other evils (clergymen cohabiting with theircooks, addicted to drink, or even conducting taverns, etc. ), the people, especially in the villages, were found to be grossly ignorant of eventhe simplest rudiments of Christian doctrine and most unwilling to learnanything, while many pastors were utterly incompetent to teach. According to the official records, one priest, who enjoyed a greatreputation as an exorcist, could not even recite the Lord's Prayer andthe Creed fluently. (Koestlin, _Martin Luther, _ 2, 41. ) Luther took partin the visitation of the Electoral circuit from the end of October tillafter the middle of November, 1528, and again from the end of December, 1528, till January, 1529, and on April 26, 1529, at Torgau, he, too, signed the report on visitation. When Luther therefore describes thedecay of instruction in Popery, he speaks from personal experience. About the middle of January, 1529, he wrote to Spalatin: "Moreover, conditions in the congregations everywhere are pitiable, inasmuch as thepeasants learn nothing, know nothing, never pray, do nothing but abusetheir liberty, make no confession, receive no communion, as if they hadbeen altogether emancipated from religion. They have neglected theirpapistical affairs (ours they despise) to such extent that it isterrible to contemplate the administration of the papal bishops. "(Enders 7, 45. ) The intense heartache and mingled feelings which cameover Luther when he thought of the ignorance which he found during thevisitation, are described in the Preface to the Small Catechism asfollows: "The deplorable miserable condition which I discovered latelywhen I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare thisCatechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. Mercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christiandoctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable, andincompetent to teach. Nevertheless, all maintain that they areChristians, all have been baptized and receive the holy Sacrament. Yetthey cannot recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the TenCommandments, they live like dumb brutes and irrational swine; and yetnow that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse allliberty like experts. O ye bishops! what will ye ever answer to Christfor having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a momentdischarged your office? May all misfortune flee you! You command theSacrament in one form and insist on your human laws, and yet at the sametime you do not care in the least whether the people know the Lord'sPrayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God. Woe, woe, unto you forever!" (533, 1ff. )

To these experiences made during the visitation, Luther also refers whenhe says in the Short Preface to the Large Catechism: "For I wellremember the time, indeed, even now it is a daily occurrence that onefinds rude old persons who knew nothing and still know nothing of thesethings, and who, nevertheless, go to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, anduse everything belonging to Christians, notwithstanding that those whocome to the Lord's Supper ought to know more and have a fullerunderstanding of all Christian doctrine than children and new scholars. "(575, 5. ) In his "Admonition to the Clergy" of 1530, Luther describesthe conditions before the Reformation as follows: "In brief, preachingand teaching were in a wretched and heart-rending state. Still all thebishops kept silence and saw nothing new, although they are now able tosee a gnat in the sun. Hence all things were so confused and wild, owingto the discordant teaching and the strange new opinions, that no one wasany longer able to know what was certain or uncertain, what was aChristian or an unchristian. The old doctrine of faith in Christ, oflove, of prayer, of cross, of comfort in tribulation was entirelytrodden down. Aye, there was in all the world no doctor who knew theentire Catechism, that is, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, andthe Creed, to say nothing of understanding and teaching it, as now, Godbe praised, it is being taught and learned, even by young children. Insupport of this statement I appeal to all their books, both oftheologians and jurists. If a single part of the Catechism can becorrectly learned therefrom, I am ready to be broken upon the wheel andto have my veins opened. " (W. 30, 1, 301. )

Melanchthon, Jonas, Brenz, George of Anhalt, Mathesius, and many othersdraw a similar picture of the religious conditions prevailing inGermany, England, and other lands immediately prior to the Reformation. To be sure, Papists, particularly Jesuits, have disputed the accuracyand truth of these descriptions from the pen of Luther and hiscontemporaries. But arrayed against these Romish apologetes is also thetestimony of Papists themselves. In his _Catholicus Catechismus, _published at Cologne, 1543, Nausea writes: "I endeavored to renew theinstruction, once well known among all churches, which, however, notonly recently, but long ago (I do not know to whose stupidity, negligence, or ignorance this was due) was altogether forgotten, notwithout lamentable loss to the catholic religion. _Veterem illamcatechesin, per omnes quondam ecclesias percelebrem non modo tum, sed etante pridem, nescio quorum vel socordia vel negligentia vel ignorantia, non sine poenitenda catholicae religionis iactura prorsus in oblivionemcoeptam repetere coepi_. " (W. 30, 1, 467. ) Moreover, when Romanistsdispute Luther's assertions, they refer to the one point only, thatreligious instruction (as conceived by Catholics) had not declined inthe measure claimed by Luther. As to the chief point in Luther'sassertion, however, _viz. _, the correct Evangelical explanation of theCatechism, which, in Luther's opinion, is essential to all trulyChristian instruction, the Catholic Church has always been utterlydevoid of it not only prior to the Reformation, but also after it, anddown to the present day. True, even during the Reformation some Papistswere incited to greater zeal in preaching and teaching. It was areaction against the Reformation of Luther, who must be regarded as theindirect cause also of the formal improvement in the instruction of theyoung among the Romanists. To maintain their power, bishops and priestswere compelled to resume and cultivate it. This revival, however, meantonly an intensified instruction in the old work-righteousness, andtherefore was the very opposite of the instruction which Luther desiredand advocated. In the Apology, Melanchthon, after charging the Papistswith totally neglecting the instruction of the young, continues: "A fewamong them now also begin to preach of good works. But of the knowledgeof Christ, of faith, of the consolation of consciences they are unableto preach anything, moreover, this blessed doctrine, the precious holyGospel, they call Lutheran. " (326, 44. )

89. Luther Devising Measures to Restore Catechism. 

Fully realizing the general decay of Christian training, Luther at oncedirected all his efforts toward bringing about a change for the better. And well aware of the fact that the future belongs to the risinggeneration, the instruction of the common people, and particularly ofthe young, became increasingly an object of his especial concern. If theChurch, said he, is to be helped, if the Gospel is to be victorious, ifthe Reformation is to succeed, if Satan and Antichrist are to be dealt amortal blow, a blow from which they will not recover, it must be donethrough the young. For every cause which is not, or cannot be made, thecause of the rising generation, is doomed from the very outset. "This isthe total ruin of the Church, " said Luther as early as 1516; "for ifever it is to flourish again, one must begin by instructing the young. _Haec est enim ecclesiae ruina tota; si enim unquam debet reflorere, necesse est ut a puerorum institutione exordium fiat. _" (W. 1, 494. )For, apart from being incapable of much improvement, the old peoplewould soon disappear from the scene. Hence, if Christianity and itssaving truths were to be preserved to the Church, the children mustlearn them from earliest youth. 

In his Large Catechism Luther gave utterance to these thoughts asfollows: "Let this, then, be said for exhortation, not only for those ofus who are old and grown, but also for the young people, who ought to bebrought up in the Christian doctrine and understanding. For thereby theTen Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer might be the moreeasily inculcated upon our youth, so that they would receive them withpleasure and earnestness, and thus would practise them from their youthand accustom themselves to them. For the old are now well-nigh done for, so that these and other things cannot be attained, unless we train thepeople who are to come after us and succeed us in our office and work, in order that they also may bring up their children successfully, thatthe Word of God and the Christian Church may be preserved. Therefore letevery father of a family know that it is his duty, by the injunction andcommand of God, to teach these things to his children, or have themlearn what they ought to know. " (773, 85. )

A thorough and lasting revival of the Catechism can be hoped for onlythrough the young--such were Luther's convictions. Accordingly heimplored and adjured pastors and parents not to refuse their help inthis matter. In the Preface to his Small Catechism we read: "Therefore Ientreat you all for God's sake, my dear sirs and brethren, who arepastors or preachers, to devote yourselves heartily to your office, tohave pity on the people who are entrusted to you, and to help usinculcate the Catechism upon the people, especially upon the young. "(533, 6. ) And as he earnestly admonished the pastors, so he alsotenderly invited them to be faithful in this work. He was firmlyconvinced that nothing except the Gospel, as rediscovered and preachedby himself, was able to save men. How, then, could he remain silent orabandon this work because of the hatred and ungratefulness of men! Itwas this new frame of mind, produced by the Gospel, to which Lutherappealed in the interest of the Catechism. "Therefore look to it, yepastors and preachers, " says he, concluding the Preface to his SmallCatechism. "Our office is now become a different thing from what it wasunder the Pope; it is now become serious and salutary. Accordingly itnow involves much more trouble and labor, danger and trials, and inaddition thereto secures but little reward and gratitude in the world. But Christ Himself will be our reward if we labor faithfully. " (539, 26. )

At the same time Luther also took proper steps toward giving thepreachers frequent opportunity for Catechism-work. Since 1525 Wittenberghad a regulation prescribing quarterly instruction in the Catechism bymeans of special sermons. The _Instruction for Visitors, _ of 1527, demanded "that the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith, and theLord's Prayer be steadily preached and expounded on Sunday afternoons. . .. And when the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Creed havebeen preached on Sundays in succession, matrimony, and the sacraments ofBaptism and the Lord's Supper shall also be preached diligently. In thisinterest the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Articles ofFaith shall be recited word for word, for the sake of the children andother simple and ignorant folk. " (W. 26, 230. ) November 29, 1528, in anadmonition to attend these Catechism-sermons, Luther proclaimed from thepulpit: "We have ordered, as hitherto has been customary with us, thatthe first principles and the fundamentals of Christian knowledge andlife be preached four times each year, two weeks in each quarter fourdays per week, at 10 A. M. " (W. 27, 444; 29, 146. ) In Luther's sermon ofNovember 27, 1530, we read: "It is our custom to preach the Catechismfour times a year. Therefore attend these services, and let the childrenand the rest of the household come. " (32, 209. ) September 10, 1531, Luther concluded his sermon with the following admonition: "It is thecustom, and the time of the Catechism-sermons is at hand. I admonish youto give these eight days to your Lord and permit your household andchildren to attend, and you yourself may also come and profit by thisinstruction. No one knows as much as he ought to know. For I myself amconstrained to drill it every day. You know that we did not have itunder the Papacy. Buy while the market is at the door; some day you willbehold the fruit. We would, indeed, rather escape the burden, but we doit for your sakes. " (34, 2, 195. )

90. Cooperation of Parents Urged by Luther. 

In order to bring the instruction of the young into vogue, Luther sawthat church, school, and home must needs cooperate. The home especiallymust not fail in this. Accordingly, in his admonitions, he endeavored tointerest the fathers and mothers in this work. He was convinced thatwithout their vigorous cooperation he could achieve but little. In his_German Order of Worship, _ 1526, we read: "For if the parents andguardians of the young are unwilling to take such pains with the young, either personally or through others, Catechism [catecheticalinstruction] will never be established. " (W. 19, 76. ) In this he wasconfirmed by the experiences he had while on his tour of visitation. Ifthe children were to memorize the Catechism and learn to understand it, they must be instructed and questioned individually, a task to which theChurch was unequal, and for the accomplishment of which also the smallnumber of schools was altogether inadequate. Parents, however, were ableto reach the children individually. They had the time and opportunity, too, morning, noon, and evening, at the table, etc. Furthermore, theyhad the greatest interest in this matter, the children being their ownflesh and blood. And they, in the first place, were commanded by God toprovide for the proper training of their children. The fathers andmothers, therefore, these natural and divinely appointed teachers of thechildren, Luther was at great pains to enlist for the urgent work ofinstructing the young. They should see that the children and servantsdid not only attend the Catechism-sermons in church, but also memorizedthe text and learned to understand it. The Christian homes should againbecome home-churches, home-schools, where the house-fathers were bothhouse-priests and house-teachers performing the office of the ministrythere just as the pastors did in the churches. 

With ever-increasing energy Luther, therefore, urged the parents tostudy the Catechism in order to be able to teach it to their children. In his sermons on the Ten Commandments, 1516, he admonishes them tobring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. "Butalas, " he exclaims, "how has not all this been corrupted! Nor is it tobe wondered at, since the parents themselves have not been trained andeducated. " In a sermon of 1526: "Here are two doctrines, Law and Gospel. Of them we preach frequently, but very few there are who take it toheart. I hear that many are still so ignorant that they do not know theTen Commandments nor are able to pray. It plainly shows that they arealtogether careless. Parents ought to see what their children and familyare doing. In the school at home they should learn these three. I hearthat in the city, too, there are wicked people. We cannot enter thehomes; parents, masters, and mistresses ought to be sufficiently skilledto require their children and servants to say the prayers beforeretiring. But they do not know any themselves. What, then, avails itthat we do a great deal of preaching concerning the kingdom of Christ? Ithought conditions had improved. I admonish you master--for it is yourduty--to instruct the servants, the mistress, the maids, and thechildren; and it is publicly preached in church for the purpose that itmay be preached at home. " (W. 20 485. )

In his sermon of September 14, 1528, Luther declares that the Catechismis the laymen's Bible, which every one must know who wishes to beconsidered a Christian and to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. He thenproceeds: "Hence all children should behave accordingly, and learn. Andyou parents are bound to have your children learn these things. Likewiseyou lords, take pains that your family, etc. Whoever does not know thesethings does not deserve any food. These five points are a brief summaryof the Christian doctrine. When the question is put, 'What is the FirstCommandment?' every one should be able to recite: 'Namely this, '" etc. (W. 30, 1, 27. ) Exhorting the people to attend the Catechism-services, Luther declared November 29, 1528: "Think not, ye housefathers, that youare freed from the care of your household when you say: 'Oh, if they areunwilling to go [to Catechism instruction], why should I force them? Iam not in need of it. ' You have been appointed their bishop andhouse-pastor; beware lest you neglect your duty toward them!" (27, 444. )On the following day, beginning the sermons he had announced Luthersaid: "Therefore I have admonished you adults to have your children andyour servants, attend it [the Catechism-sermon], and also be presentyourselves; otherwise we shall not admit you to Holy Communion. For ifyou parents and masters will not help us we shall accomplish little byour preaching. If I preach an entire year, the household comes, gapes atthe walls and windows of the church, etc. Whoever is a good citizen isin duty bound to urge his people to learn these things; he should refusethem food unless, etc. If the servants complain, slam the door on them. If you have children, accustom them to learn the Ten Commandments, theSymbol, the Paternoster, etc. If you will diligently urge them, theywill learn much in one year. When they have learned these things, thereare everywhere in the Scriptures fine passages which they may learnnext; if not all, at least some. For this reason God has appointed you amaster, a mistress, that you may urge your household to do this. Andthis you are well able to accomplish: that they pray in the morning andevening, before and after meals. In this way they would be brought up inthe fear of God. I am no idle prattler: I ask you not to cast my wordsto the winds. I would not think you so rude if I did not daily hear it. Every housefather is a priest in his own house, every housemother is apriestess; therefore see that you help us to perform the office of theministry in your homes as we do in church. If you do, we shall have apropitious God, who will defend us from all evil. In the Psalm [78, 5]it is written: 'He appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded ourfathers, that they should make them known to their children. '" (30, 1, 57. ) In the same sermon: "Able teachers are necessary because of thegreat need, since parents do not concern themselves about this. But eachmaster and mistress must remember that they are priests and priestessesover Hans and Gretchen, " their sons and daughters. 

In the same way Luther urges this matter in his Catechisms. For here weread: "Therefore it is the duty of every father of a family to questionand examine his children and servants at least once a week and toascertain what they know of it [the Catechism], or are learning, and, ifthey do not know it, to keep them faithfully at it. " (575, 4. ) "Likewiseevery head of a household is obliged to do the same with respect to hisdomestics, man-servants and maid-servants, and not to keep them in hishouse if they do not know these things and are unwilling to learn them. For a person who is so rude and unruly as to be unwilling to learn thesethings is not to be tolerated; for in these three parts everything thatwe have in the Scriptures is comprehended in short, plain and simpleterms. " (577, 17. ) "Therefore let every father of a family know that itis his duty, by the injunction and command of God, to teach these thingsto his children, or have them learn what they ought to know. For sincethey are baptized and received into the Christian Church, they shouldalso enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serveus and be useful to us; for they must all indeed help us to believe, love, pray, and fight against the devil. " (773, 87. )

In confession and before visitors, housefathers were also to renderaccount of the manner in which they discharged these duties. In hissermon of July 11, 1529, Luther said: "You will therefore instruct yourchildren and servants according to this Catechism. .. . For you have theCatechism in small and large books; therefore study it. You had thevisitors, and you have furthermore those who will examine youhousefathers and your household, that they may see how you haveimproved. .. . You should have given money and property for it; yet youneglect it when it is offered freely; therefore you housefathers oughtto be diligent students of this preaching, that as you learn you mayinstruct, _discendo doceatis. _" (W. 29, 472; 30, 1, 121. )

91. German Services with German Catechism. 

With great emphasis Luther advocated diligent Catechism instruction inhis _Deutsche Messe_ (German Mass, _i. E. _, German Service or GermanOrder of Worship), which he completed toward the end of 1525 andpublished in 1526. Luther issued this Service "because German masses andservices are everywhere insisted upon. " The demand was made especiallyin the interest of the unlearned and the children, for whose benefit, according to Luther, all such measures were adopted. "For, " says he, "wedo not at all establish such orders for those who are already [advanced]Christians. . .. But we are in need of such orders for the sake of thosewho are still to become Christians or to grow stronger. Just as aChristian does not need Baptism, the Word, and Sacrament as a Christian, since he already has everything, but as a sinner. Chiefly, however, thisis done for the sake of the unlearned and the young people, who shouldand must be exercised daily and brought up in the Scriptures, the Wordof God, that they may become accustomed to the Scripture, skilled, fluent, and at home in it, in order that they may be able to defendtheir faith, and in time teach others and help to increase the kingdomof Christ. For their sake one must read, sing, preach, write, andcompose. And if it would help and promote this aim, I would have allbells rung, all organs played, and everything that is capable of givingsound to sound forth. For the Catholic services are so damnable becausethey [the Papists] made laws, works, and merits of them, therebysmothering faith, and did not adapt them to the young and unlearned, toexercise them in the Scriptures, in the Word of God, but themselvesclung to them [as works], regarding them as beneficial and necessary forsalvation to themselves, that is the devil. "

While Luther, in his _German Worship, _ as well as in other places, favors also Latin masses, yet he demands that "for the sake of theunlearned laity" German services be introduced. And since the unlearnedcould be truly served only by instruction in the fundamental truths ofChristianity, the Catechism, according to Luther, was to constitute achief part in these services. "Very well, " says he, "in God's name!First of all a clear, simple plain, good Catechism is needed in theGerman service. Catechism, however, is an instruction whereby heathenwho desire to become Christians are taught and instructed in what theymust believe, do, not do, and know concerning Christianity. Pupils whowere accepted for such instruction and learned the faith before beingbaptized were therefore called catechumens. Nor do I know how to presentthis instruction, or teaching, in a form more simple than it already hasbeen presented since the beginning of Christianity, and hithertoretained, to wit, the three parts: the Ten Commandments, the Creed, andthe Lord's Prayer. These three parts contain in simple and brief formeverything that a Christian must know. And since as yet we have nospecial congregation (_weil man noch keine sonderliche Gemeinde hat_), this instruction must proceed in the following manner, by preaching fromthe pulpit at various times or daily, as necessity demands, and byrepeating and reading it to the children and servants at home in thehouses morning and evening (if one would make Christians of them). Yetnot only so that they memorize the words or recite them, as was donehitherto, but by questioning them part for part, and having them statein their answer what each part means and how they understand it. If allparts cannot be asked at one time, take one, the next day another. Forif the parents or guardians are unwilling to take such pains with theyoung, either personally or through others the Catechism will never beestablished. " (19, 76. ) German Catechism in German services--such, then, was the slogan which Luther now sounded forth with ever-increasingemphasis. 

92. Luther Illustrating Method of Procedure. 

According to Luther's _German Worship, _ pastors were to preach theCatechism on Mondays and Tuesdays. To insure the desired results(memorizing and understanding the text), the children should bequestioned, especially at home by the parents. Exemplifying suchcatechization, Luther writes: "For so shall they be asked: 'What do youpray?' Answer: 'The Lord's Prayer, ' What do you mean by saying: 'OurFather who art in heaven?' Answer: 'That God is not an earthly, but aheavenly Father, who would make us rich and blessed in heaven, ' 'Whatdoes "Hallowed be Thy name" mean?' Answer: 'That we should honor God'sname and not use it in vain, lest it be profaned, ' 'How, then, is itprofaned and desecrated?' Answer: 'When we who are regarded as Hischildren lead wicked lives, teach and believe what is wrong, ' And soforth, what God's kingdom means; how it comes; what God's will is, whatdaily bread, etc. Likewise also of the Creed: 'What do you believe?'Answer: 'I believe in God the Father, ' etc. Thereupon part for part, asleisure permits, one or two at a time. Thus: 'What does it mean tobelieve in God the Father Almighty?' Answer: 'It means that the hearttrusts Him entirely, and confidently looks to Him for all grace, favor, help, and comfort, here and hereafter, ' 'What does it mean to believein Jesus Christ, His Son?' Answer: 'It means that the heart believes weshould all be lost eternally if Christ had not died for us, ' etc. Inlike manner one must also question on the Ten Commandments, what thefirst, the second, the third and other commandments mean. Such questionsyou may take from our Prayer-Booklet, where the three parts are brieflyexplained, or you may formulate others yourself, until they comprehendwith their hearts the entire sum of Christian knowledge in two parts, asin two sacks, which are faith and love. Let faith's sack have twopockets; into the one pocket put the part according to which we believethat we are altogether corrupted by Adam's sin, are sinners andcondemned, Rom. 5, 12 and Ps. 51, 7. Into the other pocket put the parttelling us that by Jesus Christ we have all been redeemed from suchcorrupt, sinful, condemned condition, Rom. 5, 18 and John 3, 16. Letlove's sack also have two pockets. Into the one put this part, that weshould serve, and do good to, every one, even as Christ did unto us, Rom. 13. Into the other put the part that we should gladly suffer andendure all manner of evil. " (19, 76. )

In like manner passages of Scripture were also to be made the child'sproperty, as it were; for it was not Luther's idea that instructionshould cease at the lowest indispensably necessary goal (theunderstanding of the text of the chief parts). In his _German Order ofWorship_ he goes on to say: "When the child begins to comprehend this[the text of the Catechism], accustom it to carry home passages ofScripture from the sermons and to recite them to the parents at thetable, at meal-time, as it was formerly customary to recite Latin, andthereupon to store the passages into the sacks and pockets, as one puts_pfennige, _ and _groschen, _ or _gulden_ into his pocket. Let the sack offaith be, as it were, the gulden sack. Into the first pocket let thispassage be put, Rom. 5: 'By one man's disobedience many were madesinners': and Ps. 51: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin didmy mother conceive me, ' Those are two Rheinish gulden in the pocket. Theother pocket is for the Hungarian gulden, such as this passage, Rom. 5:'Christ was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for ourjustification:' again, John 1: 'Behold the Lamb of God, which takethaway the sin of the world, ' That would be two good Hungarian gulden inthe pocket. Let love's sack be the silver sack. Into the first pocketbelong the passages of well-doing, such as Gal. 5: 'By love serve oneanother'; Matt. 25: 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the leastof these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me. ' That would be two silvergroschen in the pocket. Into the other pocket this passage belongs, Matt. 5: 'Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you for My sake;' Heb. 12: 'For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth: He scourgeth every son whomHe receiveth. ' Those are two Schreckenbergers [a coin made of silvermined from Schreckenberg] in the pocket. " (19, 77f. )

Believing that understanding, not mere mechanical memorizing, of theCatechism is of paramount import, Luther insisted that the instructionmust be popular throughout. Preachers and fathers are urged to come downto the level of the children and to prattle with them, in order to bringthe Christian fundamentals home even to the weakest and simplest. In his_German Mass_ Luther concludes the chapter on instruction as follows:"And let no one consider himself too wise and despise such child's play. When Christ desired to train men He had to become a man. If we are totrain children, we also must become children with them. Would to Godthat such child's play were carried on well; then we should in a shorttime see a great wealth of Christian people, and souls growing rich inthe Scriptures and the knowledge of God until they themselves would givemore heed to these pockets as _locos communes_ and comprehend in themthe entire Scriptures; otherwise they come daily to hear the preachingand leave again as they came. For they believe that the object is merelyto spend the time in hearing, no one intending to learn or retainanything. Thus many a man will hear preaching for three, four years andstill not learn enough to be able to give account of his faith in oneparticular, as I indeed experience every day. Enough has been written inbooks. True, but not all of it has been impressed on the hearts. " (19, 78. )

93. Value Placed on Memorizing. 

Modern pedagogs have contended that Luther's method of teaching theCatechism unduly multiplies the material to be memorized, and does notsufficiently stress the understanding. Both charges, however, arewithout any foundation. As to the first, it is true that Luther did notput a low estimate on the memorizing of the Catechism. In the LargeCatechism he says: "Therefore we must have the young learn the partswhich belong to the Catechism or instruction for children well, andfluently and diligently exercise themselves in them and keep themoccupied with them. Hence it is the duty of every father of a family toquestion and examine his children and servants at least once a week, andto ascertain what they know of it, or are learning, and, if they do notknow it, to keep them faithfully at it. " (575, 3f. ) Again: "These arethe most necessary parts which one should first learn to repeat word forword, and which our children should be accustomed to recite daily whenthey arise in the morning, when they sit down to their meals, and whenthey retire at night; and until they repeat them, they should be givenneither food nor drink. " (577, 15. )

According to the Preface to the Small Catechism, the teacher is to abidewith rigid exactness by the text which he has once chosen and have thechildren learn it verbatim. "In the first place, " says Luther, "let thepreacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various textsand forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, theSacraments, etc. , but choose one form to which he adheres, and which heinculcates all the time, year after year. For young and simple peoplemust be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise theyeasily become confused when the teacher to-day teaches them thus, and ina year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thusall effort and labor will be lost. Also our blessed fathers understoodthis well; for they all used the same form of the Lord's Prayer, theCreed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should teach theyoung and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change asyllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than inanother. Hence, choose whatever form you please, and adhere to itforever. But when you preach in the presence of learned and intelligentmen, you may exhibit your skill and may present these parts in as variedand intricate ways and give them as masterly turns as you are able. Butwith the young people stick to one fixed, permanent form and manner, andteach them, first of all, these parts, namely, the Ten Commandments, theCreed, the Lord's Prayer, etc. , according to the text, word for word, sothat they, too, can repeat it in the same manner after you and commit itto memory. " (533, 7ff. ) Thus Luther indeed placed a high value on exactmemorizing of the Catechism. 

As to the quantity of memorizing, however, Luther did not demand morethan even the least gifted were well able to render. He was satisfied ifthey knew, as a minimum, the text of the first three chief parts and thewords of institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (579, 22. 25. )That was certainly not overburdening even a weak memory. Luther wasright when he declared in his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, _ of1520: In the three chief parts everything "is summed up with suchbrevity and simplicity that no one can complain or offer the excuse thatit is too much or too hard for him to remember what he must know for hissalvation. " (W. 7, 204. )

Self-evidently, it was not Luther's opinion that instruction ormemorizing should end here. In the Preface to the Small Catechism hesays: "In the third place, after you have thus taught them this ShortCatechism, then take up the Large Catechism, and give them also a richerand fuller knowledge. Here explain at length every commandment, petition, and part with its various works, uses, benefits, dangers, andinjuries as you find these abundantly stated in many books written aboutthese matters. " (535, 17. ) Then, as Luther often repeats, Bible-verses, hymns, and Psalms were also to be memorized and explained. Nor did heexclude the explanation of the Small Catechism from the material formemorizing. For this very reason he had written the Small Catechism inquestions and answers, because he wished to have it learned, questioned, and recited from memory. "However, " says Luther in the Large Catechism"for the common people we are satisfied with the three parts, which haveremained in Christendom from of old. " (575, 5. ) As far, then, as thematerial for memorizing is concerned, Luther certainly did not demandmore than even the least gifted were well able to render. 

94. Memorizing to Serve Understanding. 

The second charge, that Luther attached no special importance to theunderstanding of what was memorized, is still more unfounded. The factis that everywhere he was satisfied with nothing less than correctunderstanding. Luther was a man of thought, not of mere sacred formulasand words. To him instruction did not mean mere mechanical memorizing, but conscious, personal, enduring, and applicable spiritualappropriation. Says he: "However, it is not enough for them tocomprehend and recite these parts according to the words only, but theyoung people should also be made to attend the preaching, especiallyduring the time which is devoted to the Catechism, that they may hear itexplained, and may learn to understand what every part contains, so asto be able to recite it as they have heard it, and, when asked, may givea correct answer, so that the preaching may not be without profit andfruit. " (579, 26. ) In the Preface to the Small Catechism, Lutherinstructs the preachers: "After they [the children] have well learnedthe text then teach them the sense also, so that they know what itmeans. " (535, 14. ) Correct understanding was everything to Luther. Sermons in the churches and catechizations at home were all to servethis purpose. 

In the same interest, _viz. _, to enrich the brief text of the Catechismand, as it were, quicken it with concrete perceptions, Luther urged theuse of Bible-stories as illustrations. For the same reason he addedpictures to both of his Catechisms. His _Prayer-Booklet_ contained asits most important part the text and explanation of the Catechism and, in addition, the passional booklet, a sort of Bible History. To thisLuther remarks: "I considered it wise to add the ancient passionalbooklet [augmented by Luther] to the Prayer-Booklet, chiefly for thesake of the children and the unlearned, who are more apt to remember thedivine histories if pictures and parables are added, than by mere wordsand teaching, as St. Mark testifies, that for the sake of the simpleChrist, too, preached to them only in parables. " (W. 10, 2, 458. )Indeed, Luther left no stone unturned to have his instructionunderstood. On words and formulas, merely memorized, but notappropriated intellectually, he placed but little value. 

Memorizing, too, was regarded by Luther not as an end in itself, but asa means to an end. It was to serve the explanation and understanding. And its importance in this respect was realized by Luther much moreclearly than by his modern critics. For when the text is safelyembedded, as it were, in the memory, its explanation is facilitated, andthe process of mental assimilation may proceed all the more readily. Inthis point, too, the strictures of modern pedagogs on Luther's Catechismare therefore unwarranted. Where Luther's instructions are followed, thememory is not overtaxed, and the understanding not neglected. 

The instruction advocated by Luther differed fundamentally from themechanical methods of the Middle Ages. He insisted on a thorough mentalelaboration, by means of sermons, explanations, questions and answers, of the material memorized, in order to elevate it to the plane ofknowledge. With Luther we meet the questions: "What does this mean? Whatdoes this signify? Where is this written? What does it profit?" Heengages the intellect. The _Table of Christian Life_ of the Middle Ages, which "all good Christians are in duty bound to have in their houses, for themselves, their children, and household, " is regarded by Cohrs asa sort of forerunner of Luther's Small Catechism. "At the same time, however, " Cohrs adds, "it clearly shows the difference between thedemands made by the Church of the Middle Ages and the requirements ofthe Evangelical Church; yonder, numerous parts without any word ofexplanation, sacred formulas, which many prayed without an inkling ofthe meaning; here, the five chief parts, in which the emphasis is put on'What does this mean?'" (Herzog, _R. _ 10, 138. )

It was due to the neglect of Christian teaching that Christendom hadfallen into decay. Force on the part of the popes and priests and blindsubmission on the part of the people had supplanted instruction andconviction from the Word of God. Hence the cure of the Church, first ofall, called for an instructor in Christian fundamentals. And just such acatechist Luther was, who made it his business to teach and convince thepeople from the Bible. Indeed, in his entire work as a Reformer, Lutherconsistently appealed to the intellect, as was strikingly demonstratedin the turmoil which Carlstadt brought about at Wittenberg. Instructionwas the secret, was the method, of Luther's Reformation. In the Prefaceto the Small Catechism he says that one cannot and must not force anyone to believe nor drive any one to partake of the Sacrament by laws, lest it be turned into poison, that is to say, lest the very object ofthe Gospel, which is spontaneous action flowing from conviction, bedefeated. (539, 24; 535, 13. )

95. Manuals Preceding Luther's Catechism. 

When Luther, in his _German Order of Worship, _ sounded the slogan:German services with German instruction in Christian fundamentals! hedid not lose sight of the fact that this required certain helps for bothparents and preachers. A book was needed that would contain not only thetext to be memorized, but also necessary explanations. Accordingly, inhis _German Order of Worship, _ Luther referred to his _Prayer-Booklet_as a help for instruction. However, the _Brief Form of the TenCommandments, _ etc. , incorporated in the _Prayer-Booklet, _ was notadapted for children and parents, as it was not drawn up in questionsand answers. To the experienced teacher it furnished material inabundance, but children and parents had need of a simpler book. Hardeland says: "It is certain that Luther in 1526 already conceived theideal catechism to be a brief summary of the most important knowledge[in questions and answers], adapted for memorizing and stillsufficiently extensive to make a thorough explanation possible, at onceconfessional in its tone, and fitted for use in divine service. "(_Katechismusgedanken_ 2. ) But if Luther in 1526 had conceived thisidea, it was not carried out until three years later. 

However, what Luther said on teaching the Catechism by questions andanswers, in the _German Order of Worship, _ was reprinted repeatedly(probably for the first time at Nuernberg) under the title: "DoctorMartin Luther's instruction how to bring the children to God's Word andservice, which parents and guardians are in duty bound to do, 1527. "This appeal of Luther also called forth quite a number of otherexplanations of the Catechism. Among the attempts which appeared beforeLuther's Catechisms were writings of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, EustasiusKannel, John Agricola, Val. Ickelsamer, Hans Gerhart, John Toltz, JohnBader, Petrus Schultz, Caspar Graeter, Andr. Althamer, Wenz. Link, Conr. Sam, John Brenz, O. Braunfels, Chr. Hegendorfer, Caspar Loener, W. Capito, John Oecolampad, John Zwick, and others. The work of Althamer, the Humanist and so-called Reformer of Brandenburg-Ansbach, was thefirst to bear the title "Catechism. " As yet it has not been ascertainedwhether, or not, Luther was acquainted with these writings. Cohrs says:"Probably Luther followed this literature with interest, and possiblyconsulted some of it; the relationship is nowhere close enough toexclude chance; still the frequent allusions must not be overlooked; asyet it cannot be simply denied that Luther was influenced by thesewritings. " On the other hand, it has been shown what an enormousinfluence Luther exercised on that literature, especially by his _BriefForm_ and his _Prayer-Booklet. _ "In fact, " says Cohrs, "Luther'swritings can be adduced as the source of almost every sentence in mostof these books of instruction. " (W. 30, 1, 474. ) Evidently, Luther'sappeal of 1526 had not fallen on deaf ears. 

96. Luther's Catechetical Publications. 

Luther not only stirred up others to bring the Catechism back into use, but himself put his powerful shoulder to the wheel. From the verybeginning he was, time and again, occupied with reading the text of theCatechism to the people, and then explaining it in sermons. From the endof June, 1516, to Easter, 1517, he preached on the Ten Commandments andthe Lord's Prayer. (W. 1, 394; 2, 74; 9, 122. ) In 1518 the explanationof the Ten Commandments appeared in print: "_Decem PraeceptaWittenbergensi Praedicata Populo. _ The Ten Commandments Preached to thePeople of Wittenberg. " (1, 398. 521. ) Oecolampadius praised the work, saying that Luther had here "taken the veil from the face of Moses. "Sebastian Muenster said: Luther explains the Ten Commandments "in such aspiritual, Christian, and Evangelical way, that its like cannot befound, though many teachers have written on the subject. " (1, 394. )Agricola published Luther's sermons on the Lord's Prayer at thebeginning of 1518 with some additions of his own, which fact inducedLuther to publish them himself. April 5, 1519, his _Explanation of theLord's Prayer in German_ appeared in print. It was intended for theplain people, "not for the learned. " (2, 81 to 130. ) July 2, 1519, theHumanist Beatus Rhenanus wrote to Zwingli that he would like to see thisexplanation of the Lord's Prayer offered for sale throughout allSwitzerland, in all cities, markets, villages, and houses. Mathesiusreports: "At Venice Doctor Martin's Lord's Prayer was translated intoItalian, his name being omitted. And when the man saw it from whom thepermission to print it was obtained, he exclaimed: Blessed are the handsthat wrote this, blessed the eyes that see it, and blessed will be thehearts that believe this book and cry to God in such a manner. " (W. 2, 75. ) This work passed through many editions. In 1520 it appeared inLatin and Bohemian, and as late as 1844 in English. March 13, 1519, Luther wrote to Spalatin: "I am not able to turn the Lord's Prayer[Explanation of the Lord's Prayer in German of 1518] into Latin, beingbusy with so many works. Every day at evening I pronounce thecommandments and the Lord's Prayer for the children and the unlearned, then I preach. " (Enders 1, 449. ) Thus Luther preached the Catechism, and at the same time was engaged in publishing it. 

The _Brief Instruction How to Confess, _ printed 1519, was alsoessentially an explanation of the Ten Commandments. It is an extractfrom Luther's Latin work, _Instructio pro Confessione Peccatorum, _published by Spalatin. Luther recast this work and published it inMarch, 1520, entitled: _Confitendi Ratio. _ (W. 2, 59. 65. ) As a latefruit of his _Explanation of the Lord's Prayer in German_ thereappeared, in 1519, the _Brief Form for Understanding and Praying theLord's Prayer_ which explains it in prayers. (6, 11-19. ) In 1519 thereappeared also his _Short and Good Explanation Before Oneself and BehindOneself_ ("vor sich und hinter sich") a concise explanation how theseven petitions must be understood before oneself ("vor sich"), _i. E. _, being ever referred to God, while many, thinking only of themselves, putand understand them behind themselves ("hinter sich"). (6, 21. 22. )June, 1520, it was followed by the _Brief Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, _ a combination of the revised _BriefExplanation of the Ten Commandments, _ of 1518, and the _Brief Form forUnderstanding the Lord's Prayer, _ of 1519, with a newly writtenexplanation of the Creed. With few changes Luther embodied it in his_Prayer-Booklet, _ which appeared for the first time in 1522. Here hecalls it a "simple Christian form and mirror to know one's sins, and topray. " The best evidence of the enthusiastic reception of the_Prayer-Booklet_ are the early editions which followed hard upon eachother, and the numerous reprints during the first years. (10, 2, 350-409. ) In 1525 Luther's sermons on Baptism, Confession, and theLord's Supper were also received into the _Prayer-Booklet, _ and in 1529the entire Small Catechism. 

After his return from the Wartburg, Luther resumed his Catechism laborswith increased energy. March 27 Albert Burer wrote to Beatus Rhenanus:"Luther intends to nourish the weak, whom Carlstadt and Gabriel arousedby their vehement preaching, with milk alone until they grow strong. Hedaily preaches the Ten Commandments. " At Wittenberg special attentionwas given to the instruction of the young, and regular Catechism-sermonswere instituted. In the spring of 1521 Agricola was appointed catechistof the City Church, to instruct the young in religion. Lent 1522 and1523, Luther also delivered Catechism-sermons, Latin copies of whichhave been preserved. In the same year Bugenhagen was appointed CityPastor, part of his duties being to deliver sermons on the Catechism, some of which have also been preserved. 

Maundy Thursday, 1523, Luther announced that instead of the Romishconfession, abolished during the Wittenberg disturbances, communicantswere to announce for communion to the pastor and submit to anexamination in the Catechism. As appears from Luther's _Formula Missae_of this year, the pastor was to convince himself whether they were ableto recite and explain the words of institution by questioning them onwhat the Lord's Supper is, what it profits, and for what purpose theydesired to partake of it. (12, 215. 479. ) To enable the people toprepare for such examination, Luther (or Bugenhagen, at the instance ofLuther) published a few short questions on the Lord's Supper, culledfrom one of Luther's sermons. This examination became a permanentinstitution at Wittenberg. In a sermon on the Sacrament of 1526, Luthersays: "Confession, though it serve no other purpose, is a suitable meansof instructing the people and of ascertaining what they believe, howthey learn to pray, etc. , for else they live like brutes. Therefore Ihave said that the Sacrament shall be given to no one except he be ableto give an account of what he receives [in the Sacrament] and why he isgoing. This can best be done in confession. " (19, 520. )

Furthermore, on Sundays, after the sermon, the Catechism was read to thepeople, a custom which likewise became a fixture in Wittenberg. According to a small pamphlet of 1526, entitled, "What Shall be Read tothe Common People after the Sermon?" it was the text of the five chiefparts that was read. (Herz. , _R. _ 10, 132. ) These parts came into thehands of the people by means of the _Booklet for Laymen and Children, _of 1525, written probably by Bugenhagen. He also reorganized theWittenberg school which the fanatics had dissolved; and, self-evidently, there, too, Catechism instruction was not lacking. In a similar wayreligious instruction of the young was begun at other places, asappears, for example, from the _Opinions on Reformation_ by NicolausHausmann (Zwickau), of 1523 and 1525. Melanchthon's _Instructions forVisitors_ (Articuli de quibus egerunt per visitatores), drawn up in1527, and used in the visitation of 1528 and 1529 as the guide by whichpastors were examined, and pointing out what they should be charged todo, provide, above all, for Catechism-preaching on every Sunday, andgive instructions for such sermons. (_C. R. _ 26, 9. 48. )

Thus Luther's strenuous efforts at establishing the Catechism werecrowned with success. In the Apology of 1530 Melanchthon declarestriumphantly: "Among the opponents there is no Catechism, although thecanons require it. Among us the canons are observed, for pastors andministers instruct the children and the young in God's Word, publiclyand privately. " (526, 41. )

97. Immediate Forerunners of Luther's Catechisms. 

Luther's entire pastoral activity was essentially of a catecheticalnature and naturally issued in his two Catechisms, which, more than anyother of his books, are the result of his labor in the congregation. Three writings, however, must be regarded as their direct precursors, _viz. _, the _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and theLord's Prayer, _ of 1520, the _Booklet for Laymen and Children, _ of 1525, and the three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528, delivered inBugenhagen's absence. True, they are not yet real catechisms, but theypaved the way for them. The _Short Form_ is a summary and explanation ofthe three traditional chief parts. In the preface to this work, Lutherexpresses himself for the first time on the value and the coherence ofthese parts, which he considered to be the real kernel of the Catechism. In the _Short Form_ he also abandoned the traditional division of theCreed into twelve parts, choosing, instead, the threefold division ofthe later Small Catechism. In 1522 he embodied the _Short Form_ into his_Prayer-Booklet, _ in consequence of which it was given extendedcirculation. It has been called Luther's first catechism, and Lutherhimself regarded it so for in his _German Order of Worship_ herecommends its use for catechetical instruction. In it are summed upLuther's catechetical efforts since 1516. 

The _Booklet for Laymen and Children_ appeared at Wittenberg in 1525, atfirst in Low German (_Ein Boekeschen vor de leyen unde Kinder_), butdone into High German in the same year. Though Bugenhagen is probablyits author, no doubt, the book was written at the suggestion and underthe influence of Luther, parts of whose earlier explanations itcontains, and who also since 1526, made use of it in his publicservices. Besides the three traditional parts, it offered for the firsttime also those on Baptism (without the baptismal command) and on theLord's Supper. The wording of the text was practically the same as thatof Luther's Enchiridion. Several prayers, later found in Luther'sEnchiridion, were also added. Hence the _Booklet for Laymen andChildren_ is properly considered a forerunner of Luther's Catechisms. 

The three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528 must be considered thelast preparatory work and immediate source of the explanation of theCatechisms. Luther delivered the first series May 18 to 30; the second, from September 14 to 25; the third, from November 30 to December 19. Each series treats the same five chief parts. We have these sermons in atranscript which Roerer made from a copy (_Nachschrift_); the thirdseries also in a copy by a South German. In his _Origin of theCatechism, _ Buchwald has shown how Luther's Large Catechism grew out ofthese sermons of 1528. In his opinion, Luther, while engaged on theLarge Catechism, "had those three series of sermons before him either inhis own manuscript or in the form of a copy (_Nachschrift_). " Thisexplains the extensive agreement of both, apparent everywhere. 

Luther himself hints at this relation; for said sermons must have beenbefore him when he began the Large Catechism with the words: "Thissermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an instruction forchildren and the simple-minded. " (575, 1. ) This was also Roerer's view, for he calls the Large Catechism "Catechism preached by D. M. , " a titlefound also in the second copy (_Nachschrift_) of the third series:_Catechism Preached by Doctor Martin Luther. _ In the conclusion of thefirst edition of the Large Catechism, Luther seems to have made use alsoof his sermon on Palm Sunday, 1529, and others, and in the _ShortExhortation to Confession, _ which was appended to the second edition, ofthe sermon of Maundy Thursday, 1529, and others. Some historians, however, have expressed the opinion that the relationship might here bereversed. The substance of the sermon-series is essentially that also ofthe Large Catechism. In form the Catechism differs from the sermons bysumming up in each case what is contained in the corresponding threesermons and by giving in German what the copies of the sermons offer ina mixture of Latin and German (principally Latin, especially in thefirst series). 

Following is a sample of the German-Latin form in which Roerer preservedthese sermons: "Zaehlet mir her illos, qui reliquerunt multas divitias, wie reiche Kinder sie gehabt haben; du wirst finden, dass ihr Gutzerstoben und zerflogen ist, antequam 3. Et 4. Generatio venit, so ist'sdahin. Die Exempel gelten in allen Historien. Saul 1. Fuit bonus etc. Ermusste ausgerottet werden, ne quidem uno puello superstite, quia esmusste wahr bleiben, quod Deus hic dicit. Sed das betreugt uns, dass erein Jahr oder 20 regiert hat, et fuit potens rex, das verdreusst uns utcredamus non esse verum. Sed verba Dei non mentiuntur, et exemplaostendunt etc. Econtra qui Verbo Dei fidunt, die muessen genug habenetc. , ut David, qui erat vergeucht [verjagt] und verscheucht ut avicula;tamen mansit rex. Econtra Saul. Sic fit cum omnibus piis. Ideo nota bene1. Praeceptum, i. E. , debes ex tota corde fidere Deo et praeterea nullialiae rei, sive sit potestas etc. , ut illis omnibus utaris, ut sutorsubula etc. , qui tantum laborat cum istis suis instrumentis. Sic uterebonis et donis; sie sollen dein Abgott nicht sein, sed Deus. " (30, 1, 29. ) The three series of sermons of 1528, therefore, were to theexplanation of Luther's Catechisms what the _Booklet for Laymen_ was tothe text. 

98. Catechism of Bohemian Brethren. 

The assertion has been made that Luther, in his Small Catechism, followed the Children's Questions of the Bohemian Brethren which at thattime had been in use for about sixty years. This catechism, which wasnot clear in its teaching on the Lord's Supper, came to the notice ofLuther 1520 in Bohemian or Latin, and 1523 in German and Bohemian. Inhis treatise, _Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament of the HolyBody of Christ, _ 1523, Luther remarks: "A book has been circulated byyour people [the Bohemian Brethren] in German and Bohemian which aims togive Christian instruction to the young. Among other things thestatement is made that [the presence of] Christ in the Sacrament is nota personal and natural one, and that He must not be adored there, whichdisquiets us Germans very much. For without doubt it is known to youhow, through the delegates you sent to me, I requested you to make thisparticular article clear in a separate booklet. For by word of mouth Iheard them confess that you hold unanimously that Christ is truly in theSacrament with His flesh and blood as it was born of Mary and hung onthe cross, as we Germans believe. That booklet has now been sent to meby Mr. Luca in Latin. Still, in this article it has not yet been made aspure and clear as I should like to have seen it. Hence I did not have ittranslated into German nor printed as I promised, fearing I might notrender the obscure words correctly, and thus fail to give your meaningcorrectly. For it may be regarded as a piece of good luck if one has hitupon an exact translation, even if the passage is very clear andcertain, as I daily experience in the translations I am making. Now, that this matter may come to an end, and that the offense of the Germanbooklet which you have published may be removed, I shall present to youand everybody, as plainly and as clearly as I am able to do, thisarticle as we Germans believe it, and as one ought to believe accordingto the Gospel. There you may see whether I have stated correctly whatyou believe or how much we differ from one another. Perhaps my Germanlanguage will be clearer to you than your German and Latin is to me. "(11, 431. ) Luther, then, was familiar with the catechism of theBohemians, which contained, besides the chief parts of the ancientChurch, also the doctrine of the Sacraments. This, therefore, may havesuggested to him the idea of publishing a small book for children withquestions and answers, which would also contain the parts of Baptism andthe Lord's Supper. Such at least is the opinion of Cohrs, Kolde, Koestlin, Kawerau, and Albrecht. (W. 30, 1, 466. ) But we have no sureknowledge of this. At any rate, it is not likely that it was the book ofthe Bohemian Brethren which prompted Luther to embody the Sacraments inhis Catechism. The further assertion of Ehrenfeuchter, Moenckeberg, _etal. _ that Luther in his Table of Duties followed the Bohemian Brethren, is incorrect, since the Table of Duties appeared much later in theircatechism. 

IX. The Small and the Large Catechism of Luther. 

99. Luther Beginning Work on Catechisms. 

Luther first mentioned the plan of publishing a catechism in a letter ofFebruary 2, 1525, to Nicolaus Hausmann. He informs him: "Jonas andEisleben [Agricola] have been instructed to prepare a catechism forchildren. I am devoting myself to the Postil [last part of the WinterPostil] and to Deuteronomy, where I have sufficient work for thepresent. " (Enders, 5, 115. ) In a letter of March 26, 1525, also toHausmann, Luther repeats: "The Catechism, as I have written before, hasbeen given to its authors, _ist seinen Verfassern aufgetragen worden. _"(144. ) However, when Jonas and Agricola (who soon moved from Wittenbergto Eisleben) failed, Luther resolved to undertake the work himself, which, according to his letter of February 2, he had declined merely forthe reason that he was already sufficiently burdened. The execution ofhis plan, however, was deferred. September 27, 1525, he wrote toHausmann: "I am postponing the Catechism, as I would like to finisheverything at one time in one work. " (246. ) The same letter shows whatLuther meant. For here he speaks of the reformation of the parishes andof the introduction of uniform ceremonies. Evidently, then, he at thattime desired to publish the Catechism together with a visitation tract, such as Melanchthon wrote in 1527. Besides, his _Prayer-Booklet, _containing the "Brief Form, " as well as the _Booklet for Laymen andChildren, _ offered a temporary substitute for the contemplatedCatechism. The deplorable conditions, however, which the Saxonvisitation brought to light would not permit him to tarry any longer. "The deplorable, miserable condition, " says Luther in the Preface to hisSmall Catechism, "which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare this Catechism, or Christiandoctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. " (535, 1. ) Thus the SmallCatechism sprang, as it were, directly from the compassion Luther feltfor the churches on account of the sad state of destitution to whichthey had been brought, and which he felt so keenly during thevisitation. However, Luther's statements in the _German Order ofWorship_ concerning the catechetical procedure in question and answerquoted above show that the thought of such a Catechism did not firstoccur to him at this time. Still it was the visitation that added thedecisive impulse to put the idea into immediate execution. Besides, itwas a time in which Luther was entirely engrossed in the Catechism, having preached in 1528 on the five chief parts no less than threetimes. Thus the harvest was at hand. In January, 1529, according to hisown letters, Luther was engaged in this work, having probably begunabout the close of 1528. He was able to make rapid progress, since amplematerial was at his command. 

The old moot question which of the two Catechisms appeared first wasdecided when Buchwald discovered the Stephan Roth letters, which showthat the Small Catechism appeared in chart form in January and March, 1529, while the first Wittenberg book edition appeared in May, after theLarge Catechism had meanwhile come off the press in April. From the factthat Luther simply called his Large Catechism "German Catechism" one mayinfer that he began work on this first, and that, when writing thetitle, he had not yet begun the Small Catechism nor planned itdefinitely; but not, that Luther completed the Large Catechism first. Onthe other hand, from the title "Small Catechism" one can only infer thatLuther, when he wrote thus, had already begun to write, and was workingon, the Large Catechism, but not, that the Small Catechism appearedlater than the large. Albrecht: "One may certainly speak of a small bookbefore the appearance of a large book of similar kind, if the latter hasbeen definitely planned, worked out at the same time, and is almostcompleted. " (W. 30, 1, 569. )

100. Tables Published First. 

January 15, 1529, Luther wrote to Martin Goerlitz: "_Modo in parandocatechismo pro rudibus paganis versor. _ I am now busy preparing theCatechism for the ignorant heathen" (not "peasants, " for in his _GermanOrder of Worship, _ Luther says: "Catechism is an instruction by means ofwhich heathen who desire to become Christians are taught"). It wasformerly asserted that the expression "_pro rudibus paganis_" showedthat Luther here meant the Small Catechism. Appealing to the statementin the Preface to the Large Catechism: "This sermon is designed andundertaken that it might be an instruction for children and thesimple-minded, " Koellner was the first one to assert that Luther'sphrase of January 15 referred to the Large Catechism. In this he wasfollowed by Cohrs, Enders, and others. (Enders, 7, 44. ) However, according to the usage of the word catechism described above, thestatement quoted does not preclude that Luther, when writing thus, wasengaged on both Catechisms. And such indeed was the case. For on January20, 1529, Roerer, the Wittenberg proofreader, wrote to Roth: "Nothingnew has appeared. I believe that the Catechism as preached by D. M. Forthe unlettered and simple will be published for the coming Frankfurtmass. Yet, while writing this, I glance at the wall of my dwelling, andfixed to the wall I behold tables embracing in shortest and simplestform Luther's Catechism for children and the household, and forthwith Isend them to you as a sample, so that by the same messenger they may bebrought to you immediately. _Iam novi nihil in lucem prodiit; adnundinas credo Francofurdenses futuras Catechismus per D. M. Praedicatuspro rudibus et simplicibus edetur. Hoc vero scribens inspicio parietemaestuarioli mei, affixas parieti video tabulas complecententesbrevissime simul et crasse catechismum Lutheri pro pueris et familia, statim mitto pro exemplari, ut eodem tabellario iam ad te perferantur. _"(W. 30, 1, 428; Enders, 7, 44. )

This letter of January 20 is the first time that both of Luther'sCatechisms are mentioned together and distinguished from each other. Bycatechism Roerer means the text of the five chief parts which Luther putat the head of his Large Catechism. "_Catechismus per D. M. Praedicatus_" designates the explanation of this text as comprised inLuther's three series of sermons of 1528 and summed up in the LargeCatechism. From this preached and later on so-called Large Catechism, which appeared in April, entitled "German Catechism, " Roererdistinguishes "tables, summing up Luther's Catechism in shortest andsimplest form for children and the household. " He means the series ofcharts containing the first three chief parts, which Luther consideredthe Catechism _par excellence_. And at the time when Roerer spoke ofthe prospective publication of the Large Catechism for the Frankfurtmass, these tables were already hanging on his wall. 

Albrecht comments: "For the moment Roerer had not remembered the veryinteresting novelty, which had already appeared in the first tables ofthe later so-called Small Catechism. However, a glance at the wall ofhis room reminded him of it. And from a letter of his dated March 16 wemust infer that they were the three charts containing the TenCommandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer with Luther'sexplanation. These he calls 'tables which in shortest and simplest formembrace Luther's Catechism for the children and the household, ' Thus hewrote in view of the superscription: 'As the head of the family shouldteach them in a simple way to his household, ' without implying adifference between the expression _pro pueris et familia_ and thepreceding _pro rudibus et simplicibus, _ since the former are included inthe latter. The difference between the two works is rather indicated bythe words _brevissime simul et crasse. _ But at the same time their innerconnection is asserted, for by sending the tables _pro exemplari, _ hecharacterizes them as a model or sample of Luther's manner of treatingthe Catechism. They are the _catechismus Lutheri, _ that is, theaforementioned _catechismus per D. M. Praedicatus_ in its shortest formand draft (conceived as an extract of the sermons or of the LargeCatechism). He thought that this sample would indicate what was to beexpected from the forthcoming larger work. " (W. 30, 1, 429. )

When, therefore, Luther wrote on January 15: "Modo in parandocatechismo pro rudibus paganis versor, " he was engaged on bothCatechisms, and had proceeded far enough to enable him to send the firsttables of the Small Catechism to the printer. Buchwald remarks regardingthe letter of January 20 that Roerer probably had just received thetables from the press. However, Roerer's letter to Roth of February 12, 1529, shows that already about a month ago he had sent the "tables ofthe Catechism" (evidently the same to which he referred January 20) toSpalatin. Accordingly, these tables were forwarded about January 12. Thefollowing remark in the Church Order for Schoenewald in the district ofSchweinitz: "First to pronounce for the people the Ten Commandments, theCreed and the Lord's Prayer, thereupon to explain them in the mostsimple way, _as published [each] on a printed table, _" takes us backstill a few days more. For the visitation in the district of Schweinitz, in which Luther took part, was held January 7 to 9, the time from whichalso the Schoenewald Church Order dates. At this visitation, therefore, even prior to January 7, Luther himself distributed the first series oftables, comprising the first three chief parts, of his Small Catechism. Cohrs opines that Luther sent this series to the printer about Christmas1528 at the latest. However, it does not appear why the printing shouldhave consumed three to four weeks Seb. Froeschels however, is mistakenwhen he declares in his book on the _Priesthood of Christ, _ 1565, that, at a table conversation of 1528, Luther had advised Hans Metschconstantly to have with him a good small catechism, such as the one hehad written. Knaake surmises that 1528 is a misprint; it should be 1538. (W. 30, 1, 430f. )

101. Completion of Catechisms Delayed. 

It was almost two months after the first table-series had appearedbefore the second was published. This delay is accounted for by Luther'sillness and his being burdened with other work, especially with his bookagainst the Turk. March 3 he wrote to Hausmann: "By reason of Satan'safflictions I am almost constantly compelled to be a sick well man (_alsGesunder krank zu sein_), hence I am much hindered in writing and otherwork. " (Enders, 7, 61. ) However, in the same letter Luther informed hisimpatiently waiting friend: "The Catechism is not completed, my dearHausmann, but it will be completed shortly. " Enders remarks that thisrefers to the Large Catechism. However, it harmonizes best with Luther'susage and with the facts if the words are understood as referring toboth Catechisms. "Shortly, " Luther had written, and on March 16 Roerer, according to his letter of this date, forwarded "the tables ofConfession, the German Litany, the tables of the Sacrament of Baptismand of the blood of Christ. " Roerer calls them a novelty, _recensexcussa, _ recently printed, from which it appears that the _tabulaecatechismum Lutheri brevissime simul et crasse complectentes, _ to whichhe referred on January 20, did not contain the Sacraments. Thus, then, the five chief parts, Decalog, Creed, Lord's Prayer, Baptism, and Lord'sSupper were completed by March 16, 1529. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise, butwithout further ground for their assumption, that the table with theBenedicite and the Gratias was issued together with the first series inJanuary. At the latest, however, the prayers appeared with the secondseries. For March 7, 1529, Levin Metzsch wrote to Roth, evidentlyreferring to Luther's tables: "I am herewith also sending to you theBenedicite and the Gratias, also the Morning and Evening Prayers, together with the Vice of Drunkenness. " (W. 30, 1, 432. ) The exact timewhen Luther composed the Table of Duties is not known. And the firstevidence we have of the Small Catechism's appearing in book form isRoerer's letter of May 16, 1529, saying that he is sending two copies ofthe Small Catechism, the price of which, together with other books, istwo groschen. (432. ) The necessary data are lacking to determine howlong Luther's manuscript was ready before it was printed, and before theprinted copies were distributed. 

As to the large Catechism, it was not completed when the second tableseries appeared in March. In a letter, the date of which must probablybe fixed about the end of March, Roerer says: "The Turk is not yetentirely struck off; neither the Catechism. " April 23, however, theLarge Catechism was on the market, for on this day Roerer wrote: "I amsending three copies of the Catechism. " It was the Large Catechism; forthe price of each copy was two groschen, whereas on May 16, 1529, Roererhad sent two copies of the Small Catechism and other books for twogroschen. (432. ) The Large Catechism probably had appeared several weeksbefore April 23. Albrecht: "Even if all [of Luther's] sermons from PalmSunday to Maundy Thursday, 1529, are considered preliminary works, according to which the last paragraphs of the Large Catechism wereelaborated, we can assume that its appearance in the beginning or thefirst half of April, 1529, was possible. To be sure, the printing mustthen have been advanced so far before Holy Week that the rest could befinished speedily on the basis of the manuscript delivered immediatelyafter the sermons of Monday and Maundy Thursday had been preached. ["]

This theory fits in with the facts that John Lonicer of Marburg hadalready completed his Latin translation on May 15, 1529 (although, according to the title-page, it first appeared in September), and thatRoerer in a letter of April 23 merely mentions the Large Catechism inpassing, without designating it as an important novelty. Stephen Roth, the recipient of the letter, spent some time at Wittenberg during April, and probably purchased his first copy there; so Roerer refers to copieswhich were ordered subsequently. (482. )

While thus the Small Catechism in chart form was completed and publishedbefore the Large Catechism, the former succeeded the latter in bookform. However, though completed after the Small Catechism, it can beshown that the beginning and perhaps even part of the printing of theLarge Catechism dates back to 1528, thus preceding in this respect eventhe Charts of January 9. If the short Preface to the Large Catechism, aswell as the exhortation at the beginning: "Let the young people alsocome to the preaching, that they hear it explained and learn tounderstand it, " etc. , had been written after the 9th of January, Lutherwould probably have mentioned the Tables, just as he refers to the LargeCatechism in the Preface to the Small Catechism, which was written aboutthe end of April or the beginning of May. (535, 17. ) Since, however, Luther makes no such indication, these paragraphs of the Large Catechismwere, no doubt, composed before January, 1529. (575, 1; 579, 26. ) Thesame inference may be drawn from the fact that, in the explanation ofthe First Commandment, the wording of the conclusion of the TenCommandments shows a number of variations from its wording in the SmallCatechism, whereas its wording at the close of the explanation of thecommandments is in conformity with it. (588, 30; 672, 320. )

102. Similarity and Purpose of Catechisms. 

As great as is the dissimilarity between Luther's two Catechisms, on theone hand, so great, on the other, is the similarity. If one did not knowthat the Large Catechism was begun before the Small, and that bothoriginated in the sermons of 1528, he might either view the LargeCatechism as a subsequent expansion of the Small, or the latter as asummary of the former. Yet neither the one nor the other is the case. Ifthe Large Catechism influenced the Small, so also the latter the former. Albrecht says: "It is more probable that the Small Catechism influencedthe Large Catechism than _vice versa. _" (W. 30, 1, 558. ) At all events, the second table-series could not have been extracted from the LargeCatechism as such, since the latter was only completed after March 25, whereas these tables were published already on March 16. The SmallCatechism has been characterized as "a small basketful of ripe fruitgathered from that tree" [the Large Catechism]. In substance that istrue, since both originate from the same source, the sermons of 1528. Already Roerer calls attention to this similarity, when in theaforementioned letter, he designates the Large Catechism as"_Catechismus per D. M. Praedicatus, _" and then describes the SmallCatechism as "_tabulae complectentes brevisissime simul et crassecatechismum Lutheri pro pueris et familia. _" Both treat of the same fivechief parts; the explanation of both presupposes the knowledge of thetext of these parts, both owe their origin to the doctrinal ignorance, uncovered particularly in the Saxon visitation; and the purpose of bothis the instruction of the plain people and the young. Indeed, it was notfor scholars, but for the people that Luther lived, labored, andcontended. "For, " says he in his _German Mass, _ "the paramount thing isto teach and lead the people. " (W. 19, 97. )

Above all, Luther endeavored to acquaint the "dear youth" with thesaving truths, not merely for their own sakes, but in the interest offuture generations as well. He desired to make them mature Christians, able to confess their faith and to impart instruction to their childrenlater on. In particular, the two Catechisms were to serve the purpose ofproperly preparing the children and the unlearned for the HolyEucharist, as appears from the Preface to the Small Catechism and fromthe last paragraphs of the Large (536, 21ff. ; 760, 39ff. ); for both endin admonitions diligently to partake of the Lord's Supper. The Sacramentof the Altar, in Luther's estimation, is the goal of all catecheticalinstruction. For this reason he added to the ancient chief parts thoseof Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Supper. 

Accordingly, both Catechisms, though in various respects, are intendedfor all: people, youth, parents, preachers, and teachers. It is notcorrect to say that Luther wrote his Large Catechism only for scholars, and the other only for the unlearned. He desired to instruct all, and, at the same time, enable parents and pastors to teach. According toLuther, it is the duty of every Christian to learn constantly, in orderalso to be able to teach others in turn. If any one, said he, really nolonger needed the Catechism for himself, he should study it neverthelessfor the sake of the ignorant. Nor did Luther exempt himself from suchstudy. In the Long Preface to the Large Catechism we read: "But formyself I say this: I am also a doctor and preacher, yea, as learned andexperienced as all those may be who have such presumption and security;yet I do as a child who is being taught the Catechism, and everymorning, and whenever I have time, I read and say, word for word the TenCommandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, etc. And I muststill read and study daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, butmust remain a child and pupil of the Catechism, and am glad so toremain. " (569, 7. )

April 18, 1530, Luther repeated this in a sermon as follows: "Whoever isable to read, let him, in the morning, take a psalm or some otherchapter in the Bible and study it for a while. For that is what I do. When I rise in the morning, I pray the Ten Commandments, the Creed, theLord's Prayer, and also a psalm with the children. I do so because Iwish to remain familiar with it, and not have it overgrown with mildew, so that I know it. " (W. 32, 65. ) In a sermon of November 27, of the sameyear, Luther warns: "Beware lest you become presumptuous, as though, because you have heard it often, you knew enough of the Catechism. Forthis knowledge ever desires us to be its students. We shall never finishlearning it, since it does not consist in speech, but in life. . .. For Ialso, D. M. , doctor and preacher, am compelled day by day to pray and torecite the words of the Decalog, the Symbol, and the Lord's Prayer aschildren are wont to do. Hence you need not be ashamed; for much fruitwill result. " (209. )

103. Particular Purpose of Large Catechism. 

In his sermons of 1529 Luther declared repeatedly that his purpose wasto instruct the plain people and the children in those things which heregarded as the minimum every Christian ought to know. (30, 1, 2. 27. 57. ) And he did not abandon this purpose when he condensed his sermonsinto the Large Catechism. Accordingly, he begins it with the words:"This sermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an instructionfor children and the simple-minded. " (575, 1. ) Again: "For the reason, why we exercise such diligence in preaching the Catechism so often isthat it may be inculcated on our youth, not in a high and subtilemanner, but briefly and with the greatest simplicity, so as to enter themind readily and be fixed in the memory. " (581, 27. ) Hence Roerer alsocharacterized the Large Catechism as "_Catechismus per D. M. Praedicatuspro rudibus et simplicibus. _" Many expressions of the Large Catechismalso point to the fact that everything was here intended for the youngand the common people. For example: "All this I say that it may be wellimpressed upon the young. " (621, 140. ) "But now for young scholars letit suffice to indicate the most necessary points. " (681, 12. ) "But toexplain all these single points separately belongs not to brief sermonsfor children, but rather to the ampler sermons that extend throughoutthe entire year. " (687, 32. ) Thus Luther aimed to serve the people andthe children also by his Large Catechism. Not, indeed, that it was to begiven into the hands of the children (the Small Catechism served thatpurpose), but that preachers, teachers, and parents were to use it witha view to teaching them by example how to expound the articles of theChristian doctrine for the simple-minded. 

In particular, the Large Catechism was to enable the less educatedpastors in the villages and in the country to do justice to their sacredduty. The instructions of the visitors called for regularCatechism-sermons. For this purpose Luther sought to furnish thepreachers with material. From the Large Catechism they were to learn howto deliver simple, plain sermons on the five chief parts. In the longerPreface Luther therefore directs his admonition "to all Christians, butespecially to all pastors and preachers, that they should daily exercisethemselves in the Catechism, which is a short summary and epitome of theentire Holy Scriptures, and that they may always teach the same. " Andwhy? Luther explains: "We have no slight reasons for treating theCatechism so constantly, and for both desiring and beseeching others toteach it, since we see to our sorrow that many pastors and preachers arevery negligent in this, and slight both their office and this teaching;some from great and high art, but others from sheer laziness and carefor their paunches, " etc. (567. )

Ministers, according to Luther, were to study the Catechism for theirown instruction and edification as well as in the interest of theiroffice. Hence he concludes his Preface, saying: "Therefore I againimplore all Christians, especially pastors and preachers, not to bedoctors too soon, and imagine that they know everything (for imaginationand cloth unshrunk fall far short of the measure), but that they dailyexercise themselves well in these studies and constantly treat them;moreover, that they guard with all care and diligence against thepoisonous infection of such security and vain imagination, but steadilykeep on reading, teaching, learning, pondering, and meditating, and donot cease until they have made a test and are sure that they have taughtthe devil to death, and have become more learned than God Himself andall His saints. " (573, 19; 535, 17. )

From the Large Catechism, therefore, pastors were to learn how to preachthe fundamental Christian truths. "To be sure, " says Albrecht, "Lutherdid not make it as easy for the pastors as was later done by Osianderand Sleupner in the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons, _ where the individualsermons are exactly marked off, the form of address to the children isretained, and, in each instance, a short explanation, to be memorized, is added to the longer explanation. " (W. 30, 1, 478. )--That it wasLuther's purpose to have his Large Catechism serve also parents appearsfrom the instructions at the beginning and the end of it. (574, 17; 772, 87. )

104. Special Purpose of Small Catechism. 

The Large Catechism was to serve all; the same applies to the SmallCatechism. But above all it was to be placed into the hands of thechildren, who were to use and to memorize it at home, and to bring itwith them for instruction in the church. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise thatLuther published the second table series during Lent with specialreference to "grown people. " However, Luther was accustomed to directhis admonition to partake of the Lord's Supper diligently also tochildren, and that, too, to children of comparatively tender years. Inhis sermon of March 25, 1529, he says: "This exhortation ought not onlyto move us older ones, but also the young and the children. Thereforeyou parents ought to instruct and educate them in the doctrine of theLord: the Decalog, the Creed, the Prayer, and the Sacraments. Suchchildren ought also to be admitted to the Table that they may bepartakers" [of the Lord's Supper]. (W. 30, 1, 233. ) In his sermon ofDecember 19, 1528, we read: "Hence, you parents and heads of families, invite your subordinates to this Sacrament, and we shall demand anaccount of you if you neglect it. If you will not go yourselves, let theyoung go; we are much concerned about them. When they come, we shalllearn, by examining them how you instruct them in the Word asprescribed. Hence, do come more frequently to the Sacrament, and alsoadmonish your children to do so when they have reached the age ofdiscretion. For in this way we want to learn who are Christians, and whonot. If you will not do so, we shall speak to you on the subject. Foreven though you older people insist on going to the devil, we shallstill inquire about your children. Necessity: because sin, the devil, and death are ever present. Benefit: because the remission of sins andthe Holy Spirit are received. " (121f. ) The tender age at which the youngwere held to partake of the Lord's Supper appears from Bugenhagen'spreface to the Danish edition of the Enchiridion of 1538, where he says"that after this confession is made, also the little children of abouteight years or less should be admitted to the table of Him who says:'Suffer the little children to come unto Me, '" (433. ) The conjecture, therefore, that the tables of Confession and the Sacraments were notintended for children, but specifically for adults, is withoutfoundation. In all its parts the Small Catechism was intended to servethe children. 

When the first table appeared, it bore the superscription: "The TenCommandments, as _the head of the family_ should teach them in a simpleway to his household. " Similar to this were the titles of the remainingcharts. And these superscriptions were permitted to stand when Lutherpublished the Enchiridion in book form. The book edition, therefore, aswell as the chart edition, was to render services also to parents, whowere to take upon themselves a large part of the work in teaching theyoung. But how were they to do it, in view of the fact that many of themdid not know the Catechism themselves? This had occurred also to Luther. He realized that, besides the Large Catechism, parents were in need of atext-book containing questions and answers, adapted for catechizing thechildren on the meaning of each part of the Catechism. This, too, wasthe reason why the Small Catechism was rapidly completed before theLarge, which had been begun first. Luther intended parents to use itfirst of all for their own instruction and edification, but also for thepurpose of enabling them to discharge their duty by their children andhousehold. 

105. Small Catechism Intended Also for Pastors. 

That Luther intended his Small Catechism as a help also for pastors was, in so many words, stated on the title-page of the first book edition. For, surprising as it may seem, here he mentions neither the parents northe children, but solely the "ordinary pastors and preachers. " ThePreface also is addressed to "all faithful, pious pastors andpreachers, " and it shows in detail how they were to make use of thebook. Evidently, then, the book edition was intended to render specialservices also to preachers. The reason, however, was not, as has beensurmised, because it embodied the booklet on Marriage (the booklet onBaptism was added in the second edition); for the Preface, which isaddressed to the preachers, does not even mention it. The pastors, moreover, were especially designated on the title-page as the recipientsof the Enchiridion, inasmuch as they were to employ it in theirreligious instruction and catechetical sermons, in order to imbue theyoung with its contents. The expression "ordinary pastors and preachers"referred primarily to the plain preachers in the villages, where noproperly regulated school system existed, and where, at best, the sextonmight assist the pastor in seeing to it that the Catechism wasmemorized. Albrecht: "When Luther prepared both Catechisms at the sametime and with reference to each other, he evidently desired theirsimultaneous use, especially on the part of the plain pastors, who inthe Small Catechism possessed the leading thoughts which were to bememorized, and in the Large Catechism their clear and popularexplanation. " (W. 30, 1, 548. )

Luther's intention was to make the Small Catechism the basis ofinstruction in the church as well as in the homes; for uniforminstruction was required to insure results. Having, therefore, placedthe Catechism into the hands of the parents, Luther could but urge thatit be introduced in the churches, too. He also showed them how to useit. On June 11, 1529, for instance, he expounded the First Article afterhe had read the text and the explanation of the Small Catechism. (549. )This the pastors were to imitate, a plan which was also carried out. Thecharts were suspended in the churches; the people and children were wontto bring the book edition with them to church; the preachers read thetext, expounded it, and had it recited. The Schoenewald Church Orderprescribed that the pastor "first pronounce for the people" the text ofthe chief parts, and then expound it as on Luther's charts. (549. )

106. A Book Also for Schools and Teachers. 

When planning and writing his Small Catechism, Luther self-evidently didnot overlook the schools and the schoolteachers. The first booklet ofthe charts for the Latin schools of the Middle Ages contained the abc;the second, the first reading-material, _viz. _, the Paternoster, AveMaria, and the Credo; the third, the Benedicite, Gratias, and similarprayers. Albrecht writes: "We may surmise that Luther, when composingthe German tables and combining them in a book, had in mind the oldchart-booklets. This view is supported by the fact that in it heembodied the prayers, the Benedicite and Gratias, and probably also bythe title Enchiridion, which, besides the titles 'Handbooklet' or 'TheChildren's Handbooklet' was applied to such elementary books. " (W. 30, 1, 546. ) In the _Instruction for the Visitors_ we read: "A certain day, either Saturday or Wednesday, shall be set aside for imparting to thechildren Christian instruction. . .. Hereupon the schoolteacher shallsimply and correctly expound at one time the Lord's Prayer, at anotherthe Creed, at another the Ten Commandments, etc. " (W. 26, 238. ) In theseschools Luther's Small Catechism served as text-book. From 1529 untilthe beginning of the eighteenth century Sauermann's Latin translation(_Parvus Catechismus pro Pueris in Schola_) was employed in the Latinschools of Saxony. In the German schools the German Enchiridion was usedas the First Reader. Hence, the Marburg reprint of the first Wittenbergedition of the Catechism begins with the alphabet, and makes it a pointto mention this fact on its title-page. 

Down to the present day no other book has become and remained aschoolbook for religious instruction to such an extent as Luther's SmallCatechism. And rightly so; for even Bible History must be regarded assubordinate to it. The assertion of modern educators that instruction inBible History must precede instruction in Luther's Catechism rests onthe false assumption that Luther's Catechism teaches doctrines only. Butthe truth is that it contains all the essential facts of salvation aswell, though in briefest form, as appears particularly from the SecondArticle, which enumerates historical facts only. The Small Catechism is"the Laymen's Bible, _der Laien Biblia, _" as Luther called it in asermon of September 14, 1528, an expression adopted also by the Formulaof Concord. (777, 5. ) Luther's Enchiridion presents both the facts ofsalvation and their divine interpretation. The picture for which theSmall Catechism furnishes the frame is Christ, the historical Christ, asglorified by the Holy Spirit particularly in the writings of the ApostlePaul. In the Lutheran Church the Small Catechism, therefore, deserves tobe and always to remain what it became from the first moment of itspublication: the book of religious instruction for home, school, andchurch; for parents, children, teachers, and preachers, just as Lutherhad planned and desired. 

107. Titles of Large Catechism. 

"_Deutsche Katechismus, _ German Catechism, " was the title under whichthe Large Catechism first appeared, and which Luther never changed. Inthe Preface to the Small Catechism he used the expression "LargeCatechism, " having in mind his own Catechism, though not exclusively, asthe context shows. (534, 17. ) Yet this was the natural title since theshorter Catechism was from the beginning known as the "Small Catechism. "And before long it was universally in vogue. The Church Order forBrueck, of 1530, designates the Large Catechism as "the Long Catechism. "In the catalog of his writings of 1533, which Luther prefaced, but didnot compile, it is called "Large Catechism, _Catechismus Gross. _"Likewise in the _Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum. _ The Articles of theVisitors in Meiszen, 1533, first employed the designation "The Large andSmall Catechisms. " The Church Order for Gera of the same year alsodistinguishes: "The Large Catechism and the Small Catechism. " TheEisfeld Order of 1554 distinguishes: "The Small Catechism of Luther" and"The Large Catechism of Luther. " In his treatise on the Large Catechismof 1541, Spangenberg first employed the new form as a title: "The LargeCatechism and Children's Instruction of Dr. M. Luther. "

The title of the Low German edition of 1541 runs: "De Grote KatechismusDuedesch. " The Latin translation by Obsopoeus of 1544 is entitled"Catechismus Maior. " The Index of the Wittenberg complete edition ofLuther's Works of 1553 has "Der grosse Katechismus, " while the Catechismitself still bears the original title, "Deutscher Katechismus. " The Jenaedition of 1556 also has the original title, but paraphrases in theIndex: "_Zweierlei Vorrede, gross und klein, D. M. L. Auf denKatechismum, von ihm gepredigt Anno 1529. _ Two Prefaces, large andsmall, of Dr. M. L. To the Catechism, preached by him in the year 1529. "Since 1570, the _Corpora Doctrinae_ give the title, "The LargeCatechism, German. _Der Grosse Katechismus, deutsch. _" So also the Bookof Concord of 1580. In the Leipzig edition and in Walch's the word"deutsch" is omitted. (W. 30, 1, 474f. )

"German Catechism, " corresponding to the title "German Mass, " meansGerman preaching for children, German instruction in the fundamentaldoctrines of Christianity. Luther wrote "German Mass" in order todistinguish it from the Latin, which was retained for many years atWittenberg beside the German service (this is also what WolfgangMusculus meant when he reported in 1536 that in Wittenberg services wereconducted predominantly in papistic fashion, _ad morem papisticum_). Soalso "German Catechism" is in contrast to the Latin instruction in thechurches and especially in the schools. Concerning the latter we read, _e. G. _, in the instruction of the visitors: "The boys shall also beinduced to speak Latin, and the schoolteachers shall, as far aspossible, speak nothing but Latin with them. " (26, 240. ) Ever since theearly part of the Middle Ages the Latin Credo, Paternoster, etc. , hadbeen regarded and memorized as sacred formulas, the vernacular beingpermitted only rarely, and reluctantly at that. Also in the LutheranChurch the Latin language was not immediately abolished. A number ofEvangelical catechisms, antedating Luther's, were written in, andpresuppose the use of, the Latin language, for example, Melanchthon's_Enchiridion, _ Urerius's _Paedagogia, _ Agricola's _Elementa Pietatis, _etc. The Brunswick Liturgy of 1528, drafted by Bugenhagen, prescribedthat on Saturday evening and early on Sunday morning the chief parts ofthe Catechism be read in Latin in the churches "on both galleries, slowly, without chanting (_sine tono_), alternately (_ummeschicht_). "The Wittenberg Liturgy provided: "Before the early sermon on Sundays oron festival-days the boys in the choir, on both sides, shall read theentire Catechism in Latin, verse by verse, without ornamental tone(_sine tono distincto_). " (477. ) Accordingly, when Luther began topreach on the chief parts in German, he was said to conduct "GermanCatechism. " And since German services with German instruction wereinstituted by Luther in the interest of the unlearned and such as wereunable to attend the Latin schools, the term "German Catechism" wasequivalent to popular instruction in religion. That Luther's Catechism, also in point of racy language, was German to the core, appears from thefrequent use of German words and expressions which, in part, have sincebecome obsolete. (Mueller, _Symb. Buecher, _ 857--860. )

108. Editions of Large Catechism. 

The first edition (quarto) of the Large Catechism, of which Roererforwarded copies on April 23, 1529, contains, as text, the Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the words of institution of theSacraments. The text is preceded by a Brief Preface, which, however, Luther, considering it a part of the Catechism, did not designate andsuperscribe as such. Some instructions and admonitions are insertedbetween the Catechism-text, which is followed by the detailedexplanation. Such is the form in which the Large Catechism firstappeared, and which, in the main, it also retained. The second edition(also in quarto and from the year 1529) reveals numerous textualcorrections and adds a longer section to the Lord's Prayer, _viz. _, paragraphs 9 to 11: "at the risk of God's wrath. .. . Seek His grace. "(699. ) This addition, though not found in the German Book of Concord of1580, was received into the official Latin Concordia of 1584. Furthermore, the second edition of 1529 adds the "Short Admonition toConfession;" hence the sub-title: "Increased by a New Instruction andAdmonition to Confession. " This addition, however, was embodied inneither the German nor the Latin Concordia. In the Seventh Commandmentthe second edition of 1529 omits the words "with whom [arch-thieves]lords and princes keep company" (644, 230), which, according toAlbrecht, was due to a timid proof-reader. Numerous marginal notes, briefly summarizing the contents, were also added to this edition andretained in the Latin Concordia of 1584. Furthermore, it contained 24woodcuts, the first three of which were already used in Melanchthon'sfragmentary Catechism sermons of 1528, for which book probably also theremaining cuts were originally intended. Albrecht remarks: "Let itremain undecided whether the cuts, which Melanchthon probably was firstto select for his catechism sermons of 1528, were received into theedition of 1529 (which Luther corrected) upon a suggestion of theprinter Rhau, or Bugenhagen, or Luther himself. " (W. 30, 1, 493. )

Two Latin as well as a Low German translation (by Bugenhagen) alsoappeared in 1529. The Low German edition, printed by Rhau, seems to havepaved the way in using the aforementioned pictures. Of the Latintranslations, one was prepared by Lonicer and printed at Marburg, whilethe other, by Vicentius Obsopoeus, rector of the school at Ansbach, wasprinted at Hagenau. After making some changes, which were not alwaysimprovements, Selneccer embodied the latter in the Latin Concordia, adding the longer Preface from the Frankfurt edition of 1544. In theLarge Catechism this new Preface is found for the first time in Rhau'squarto edition of 1530. Literal allusions to Luther's letter of June 30, 1530, to J. Jonas have given rise to the assumption that it was writtenat Castle Coburg. (Enders, 8, 47. 37. ) In the Jena edition of Luther'sWorks, the Dresden edition of the Book of Concord of 1580, the Magdeburgedition of 1580, the Heidelberg folio edition of 1582, and the Latinedition of 1580, this longer Preface follows the shorter. However, sincethe shorter Preface forms part of the Catechism itself, the longerPreface ought to precede it, as is the case in the official LatinConcordia of 1584. In the Low German edition of 1531 Bugenhagen defendsthe expressions, criticized by some: I believe "an Gott, an Christum" inthe Low German edition of 1529, instead of "in Gott, in Christum. " (W. 30, 1, 493. ) In Rhau's edition of 1532 and 1535 the morning and eveningprayers are added, probably only as fillers. The changes in Rhau'sedition of 1538, styling itself, "newly corrected and improved, " consistin linguistic improvements and some additions and omissions. Albrechtbelieves that most, but not all, of these changes were made by Lutherhimself, and that the omissions are mostly due to inadvertence. 

109. Title of Small Catechism. 

Luther seems to have published the chart catechism of January, 1529, without any special title, though Roerer, from the very first, calls ita catechism. In the first Wittenberg book edition, however, one findsinserted, between the Preface and the Decalog, the superscription: "_Einkleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht. _ A Small Catechism orChristian Discipline. " This may have been the title of the charts, sinceit would hardly have been introduced for the book edition, where it wasentirely superfluous, the title-page designating it as "The SmallCatechism for the Ordinary Pastors and Preachers. " Likewise it cannot beproved that the opening word on the title-page of this first bookedition was "Enchiridion, " since this edition has disappeared without atrace, and the only remaining direct reprint does not contain the word"Enchiridion. " All subsequent editions however, have it. 

The word "Enchiridion" is already found in the writings of Augustine, and later became common. In his Glossary, Du Cange remarks: "This name[Enchiridion] St. Augustine gave to a most excellent little work onfaith, hope, and charity, which could easily be carried in the hand, or, rather, ought continually to be so carried, since it contained thethings most necessary for salvation. " (3, 265. ) The Erfurt_Hymn-Booklet_ of 1524 was called "Enchiridion or Handbooklet, veryprofitable for every Christian to have with him for constant use andmeditation. " In 1531 Luther praised the Psalter, saying: "It may becalled a little Bible, wherein all that is found in the entire Bible ismost beautifully and briefly summed up and has been made and preparedto be a splendid Enchiridion, or Handbook. " (E. 63, 28. ) The_Instruction for Visitors_ calls the primer "the handbooklet of thechildren, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, andother prayers. " In 1523 Melanchthon had published such a book, entitled"Enchiridion. " Thus Enchiridion denotes a book of pithy brevity, anelementary book. The various Church Orders employ the word in a similarsense. (W. 30, 1, 540. )

110. Editions of Small Catechism. 

At Wittenberg, George Rhau printed the Large Catechism and MichelSchirlentz the Small Catechism (the chart impressions of which must beconsidered the first edition). In the Preface to the Small Catechism, Luther speaks of "these tables" and "the form of these tables, " thusreferring to the chief parts, which were already printed on placards. However, since "table" also denotes a list, the term could be appliedalso to the chief parts in book form. It was nothing new to employtables ("_Zeddeln, " i. E. _, placards printed on one side) in order tospread the parts of the Catechism in churches, homes, and schools. In1518 Luther published his "Ten Commandments with a brief exposition oftheir fulfilment and transgression, " on placards. Of the charts of theSmall Catechism only a Low German copy has as yet been discovered. Itcontains Luther's Morning and Evening Prayers, a reduced reproduction ofwhich is found in the Weimar Edition of Luther's Works. (30, 1, 241. )The book editions soon took their place beside the charts. It seems (buthere the traces are rather indefinable) that the first three tables weresummed up into a booklet as early as January or February, 1529. AtHamburg, Bugenhagen published the charts, which he had received tillthen, as a booklet, in Low German. It contained the five chief parts andthe Benedicite and Gratias. Shortly after the first Wittenberg bookedition had reached him Bugenhagen translated the Preface and had itprinted as a supplement. 

Shortly after the completion of the Large Catechism Luther madearrangements to have the Small Catechism appear in book form. May 16Roerer sent two copies of the _Catechismus Minor. _ But, as stated above, all copies of this edition were completely used up. The edition has beenpreserved in three reprints only, two of which appeared at Erfurt andone at Marburg. Th. Harnack published the one Erfurt and the Marburgreprint, and H. Hartung the other Erfurt reprint in separate facsimileeditions. Evidently these reprints appeared before the secondWittenberg edition of June, 1529, was known at Erfurt and Marburg. Inestimating their value, however, modern scholars are not agreed as towhether they represent three direct or one direct and two indirectreprints. Albrecht is of the opinion that only one of the three may belooked upon as a direct reprint. Judging from these reprints, theoriginal edition was entitled: "_Der kleine Katechismus fuer diegemeinen Pfarrherrn und Prediger. _ The Small Catechism for OrdinaryPastors and Preachers. " Aside from the five chief parts, it containedthe Preface, the Morning and Evening Prayers, the Table of Duties, andthe Marriage Booklet. On the other hand, these reprints omit not onlythe word Enchiridion, but also the question, "How can bodily eating anddrinking do such great things?" together with its answer. Now, in caseall three should be direct reprints, the omitted question and answerevidently were not contained in the first Wittenberg edition either. Onthe other hand, if only one of them is a direct reprint, the mistakemust be charged to the original Wittenberg impression or to the reprint. That the omission is an error, probably due to the printer, appears fromthe fact that the omitted question and answer were already found on thecharts; for the Hamburg book edition of the charts in Low German hasthem, as also Stifel's written copies of the charts. (W. 30, 1, 573. )

Of the Wittenberg editions which followed the _editio princeps, _ thoseof 1529, 1531, and 1542 deserve special mention. The first appearedunder the title: "Enchiridion. The Small Catechism for the OrdinaryPastors and Preachers, enlarged and improved. " On the 13th of June thisedition was completed, for Roerer reports on this date: "ParvusCatechismus sub iucudem iam tertio revocatus est et in ista postremaeditione adauctus. " (Kolde _l. C. _, 60. ) Roerer designates this editionas the third, probably because two imprints had been made of the _editioprinceps. _ According to a defective copy, the only one preserved, thisedition adds to the contents of the _editio princeps_ the wordEnchiridion in the title, the Booklet of Baptism, A Brief Form ofConfessing to the Priest, for the Simple, and the Litany. The fifthchief part has the question: "How can bodily eating and drinking do suchgreat things?" In the Lord's Prayer, however, the explanation of theintroduction is still lacking. This emended edition of 1529 furthermorehad the pictures, for the first time as it seems. The booklets onMarriage and Baptism were retained, as additions, in all editions of theSmall Catechism published during the life of Luther, and in many latereditions as well. As yet, however, it has not been proved directly thatsuch was intended and arranged for by Luther himself. 

Also in the succeeding editions Luther made various material andlinguistic changes. In the edition of 1531 he omitted the Litany, andfor the "Short Form of Confession" he substituted an instruction inconfession, which he inserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts, under the caption, "How the Unlearned Shall be Taught to Confess. " TheLord's Prayer was complemented by the addition of the Introduction andits explanation, and the number of cuts was increased to 23. Thisedition of 1531, of which but one copy (found in the Bodleiana ofOxford) is in existence, shows essentially the form in which theEnchiridion was henceforth regularly printed during and after Luther'slife. (W. 30, 1, 608. ) The editions of 1537 reveal several changes inlanguage, especially in the Bible-verses, which are made to conform toLuther's translation. In the edition of 1542 the promise of the FourthCommandment appears for the first time, and the Table of Duties isexpanded. The Bible-verses referring to the relation of congregations totheir pastors were added, and the verses setting forth the relation ofsubjects to their government were considerably augmented. Hence thetitle: "Newly revised and prepared, _aufs neue uebersehen undzugerichtet. _" Probably the last edition to appear during Luther's lifewas the one of 1543, which, however, was essentially a reprint of theedition of 1542. 

Knaake declared that all the editions which we possess "must beattributed to the enterprise of the book dealers, " and that one cannotspeak of a direct influence of Luther on any of these editions. Inopposition to this extreme skepticism, Albrecht points out that, forinstance, the insertion of the explanation of the Introduction to theLord's Prayer and the new form of confession, as well as its insertionbetween Baptism and the Lord's Supper, could not have taken place"without the direct cooperation of Luther. "

111. Translations and Elaborations of Small Catechism. 

Two of the Latin translations of the Small Catechism date back to 1529. The first was inserted in the _Enchiridion Piarum Precationum, _ theLatin translation of Luther's _Prayer-Booklet, _ which appeared towardthe end of August, 1529. Roerer met with great difficulties in editingthe book. August, 1529, he wrote: "You may not believe me if I tell youhow much trouble I am having with the Latin _Prayer-Booklet_ which isnow being printed. Somebody else, it is true, translated it from Germaninto Latin, but I spent much more labor in this work than he did. " (W. 30, 1, 588. ) We do not know who the translator was to whom Roererrefers. It certainly was not Lonicer, the versatile Humanist of Marburgwho at that time had completed the Large Catechism with a Preface datedMay 15, 1529. Kawerau surmises that it was probably _G. Major. _Evidently Luther himself had nothing to do with this translation. ThisCatechism is entitled: _Simplicissima et Brevissima CatechismiExpositio. _ Almost throughout the question form was abandoned. In 1532 arevised form of this translation appeared, entitled: _Nova CatechismiBrevioris Translatio. _ From these facts the theory (advocated also by v. Zezschwitz and Knaake) has been spun that the Small Catechism sprangfrom a still shorter one, which was not throughout cast in questions andanswers, and offered texts as well as explanations in a briefer form. This would necessitate the further inference that the Preface to theSmall Catechism was originally written in Latin. All of thesesuppositions, however, founder on the fact that the charts as we havethem in the handwriting of Stifel are in the form of questions andanswers. The _Prayer-Booklet_ discarded the form of questions andanswers, because its object was merely to reproduce the contents ofLuther's Catechism for such as were unacquainted with German. 

The second Latin translation of 1529 was furnished by John Sauermann, not (as v. Zezschwitz and Cohrs, 1901, in Herzog's _R. E. _, 10, 135, assume) the Canon of Breslau, who died 1510, but probably JohannesSauermann of Bambergen, who matriculated at Wittenberg in the wintersemester of 1518. (W. 30, 1, 601. ) Sauermann's translation was intendedas a school edition of the Small Catechism. First came the alphabet, then followed the texts: Decalog, Creed, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, theLord's Supper. Luther's Preface, the Litany, and the Booklets ofMarriage and Baptism were omitted as not adapted for school use. Thechapter on Confession, from the second Wittenberg book edition wasinserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts. The note to theBenedicite was put into the text with the superscription "Scholion"(instead of the incorrect "Scholia" of the German edition, found also inthe Book of Concord). "Paedagogus" was substituted for "head of thefamily (_Hausvater_). " The word "Haustafel" remained untranslated. Thewords of the Third Petition, "so uns den Namen Gottes nicht heiligen undsein Reich nicht kommen lassen wollen, " are rendered: "quae nobis nomenDei non _sanctificent_ regnumque eius ad nos pervenire non sinant. "

In the Preface, dated September 19, 1529, "Johannes Sauromannus" writes:"Every one is of the opinion that it is clearly the best thing fromearly youth carefully and diligently to instruct the boys in theprinciples of Christian piety. And since I believe that of all theelementary books of the theologians of this age none are better adaptedfor this purpose than those of Dr. Martin Luther, I have rendered intoLatin the booklet of this man which is called the Small Catechism, hoping that it might be given to the boys to be learned as soon as theyenter the Latin school. " At the same time Sauermann declares that histranslation was published "by the advice and order (_consilio ac iussu_)of the author [Luther] himself. " (30, 1, 673. ) One cannot doubt, therefore, that Sauermann's translation received Luther's approval. Andbeing in entire conformity with the _Instruction for Visitors, _ of 1528, for the Latin city schools, the book was soon in general use. In 1556Michael Neander speaks of it as "the common Latin version, hithertoused in all schools. " (603. ) The Latin Concordia of 1584 containsSauermann's version, essentially, though not literally. The Preface, which Sauermann had not translated, is taken over from the_Prayer-Booklet. _ The part On Confession was newly translated from theGerman edition of the Catechism of 1531. The textual changes which weremade in Sauermann's translation for the Concordia of 1584 "show that hewas careful and usually felicitous, and are partly to be explained ascombinations of the first and second Latin translations. " (604. )

When, in 1539, Justus Jonas translated the Nuernberg _Sermons forChildren, _ he made a third Latin translation of the Small Catechism. Hecalls it "this my Latin translation, not carefully finished indeed, butnevertheless rendered in good faith. " (627. ) This Latin text obtainedspecial importance since it was immediately done into English, Polish, and Icelandic. In 1560 Job Magdeburg furnished a fourth Latin version. Concerning the translations into Greek, Hebrew, and other languages seeWeimar Edition of Luther's Complete Works (10, 1, 718f. )

Among the earliest elaborations of the Small Catechism was the Catechismof Justus Menius, 1532, and the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533. Both exploit Luther's explanations without mentioning his name. At thesame time some changing, abbreviating, polishing, etc. , was done, asLuther's text was considered difficult to memorize. Albrecht says ofMenius's emendations: "Some of his formal changes are not bad; most ofthem, however are unnecessary. The entire book finally serves thepurpose of bringing to light the surpassing merit of the realLuther-Catechism. " (617. ) The same verdict will probably be passed onall the substitute catechisms which have hitherto appeared. JohnSpangenberg's Small Catechism of 1541, which was widely used, is, as hehimself says, composed "from the Catechism of our beloved father, Dr. Martin, and those of others. " It contains Luther's Catechism mainly aschanged by Menius. The Nuernberg _Children's Sermons, _ which embodiedalso the pictures of Luther's Catechism and received a wide circulation, were written by Osiander and Sleupner in 1532, and printed at Nuernberg, 1533. They contain almost complete the five chief parts of Luther'sSmall Catechism as concluding sentences of the individual sermons, butin original minting, with abbreviations, additions, and other changes, which, however, are not nearly as marked as those of Menius. Thesechanges were also made to facilitate memorizing. Between Baptism andthe Lord's Supper was found the doctrinal part on the Office of theKeys, which in this or a similar form was, after Luther's death, appended to or inserted in, the Small Catechism as the sixth or fifthchief part, respectively. 

112. The Part "Of Confession. "

The Small Catechism did not spring from Luther's mind finished andcomplete at one sitting. Originally he considered the first three chiefparts as constituting the Catechism. Before long, however, he added theparts of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These five parts are for thefirst time mentioned in the _German Order of Worship, _ and printedtogether in the Booklet for Laymen and Children. The Introduction to theLarge Catechism also offers no more. The chart and book editions addedas real parts of the Catechism (the Booklets of Marriage and of Baptismcannot be viewed as such) the Benedicite and Gratias, the Morning andEvening Prayers, the Table of Duties, and Confession. It is the last ofthese parts which played a peculiar role in the history of the SmallCatechism. Albrecht writes: "In the textual history of the SmallCatechism, Confession (besides the Table of Duties) is the most restlessand movable part. In the Low German editions since 1531 and 1534 it isfound after the Lord's Supper as a sort of sixth chief part. Inindividual instances it is entirely omitted. On the other hand, inelaborations of the Catechism, notably in the NuernbergCatechism-sermons, it is supplanted by the Office of the Keys, and inlater prints also combined with it or otherwise recast. " (W. 30, 1, 607. )

As for Luther, evidently, as soon as he began to work on the Catechism, he planned to include also a part on Confession. Among the charts therewere already those which dealt with Confession. In fact, Luther musthave here treated this part at comparative length. For Roerer reportsthat the price of the Confession charts was three pfennige, whereas theprice of the Sacrament charts was two pfennige. Yet nothing ofConfession was embodied in the first book edition of the SmallCatechism. The first edition also of the Large Catechism had no parttreating of Confession. But the second Wittenberg edition, of 1529appeared "augmented with a new instruction and admonition concerningConfession. " Likewise the "augmented and improved" Small Catechism of1529, superscribed, "Enchiridion, " contained a "Short Form how theUnlearned shall Confess to the Priest. _Eine kurze Weise zu beichtenfuer die Einfaeltigen, dem Priester. _" This Form was not to serve thepastor in admonishing, etc. , but Christians when going to confession. Possibly it was one of the charts which Roerer, March 16, mentioned asnovelties. The addition of this part was, no doubt, caused by Lutherhimself. This is supported by the fact that Sauermann's translation, which appeared by Luther's "advice and order, " also contained it. Andwhile in the German book edition it was found in the Appendix, followingthe Booklet on Baptism, Sauermann inserted it between Baptism and theLord's Supper with the superscription: "How schoolmasters ought insimplest manner to teach their boys a brief form of confession. _Quopacto paedagogi suos pueros brevem confitendi rationem simplicissimedocere debeant. _" Evidently this, too, was done with Luther's approval(_auctoris consilio et iussu_). "Thus Luther at that time already, " saysAlbrecht, "selected this place for Confession and retained it later on, when [1531] he furnished another form of confession for the Catechismwhich to him seemed more appropriate. " The gradual insertion of a newchief part (of Confession and Absolution) between Baptism and the Lord'sSupper was therefore entirely according to Luther's mind; indeed, it hadvirtually been carried out by him as early as 1529. 

The original part Of Confession, however, was no catechetical anddoctrinal part in the proper sense of the word, but purely a liturgicalformula of Confession, even the Absolution being omitted. It merelycontained two confessions similar to the forms found in the Book ofConcord, page 552, sections 21 to 23. Hence Luther, in the edition of1531, replaced it with a catechetico-liturgical form entitled, "How theUnlearned Should be Taught to Confess. " It is identical with the onefound in the Book of Concord of 1580, save only that the originalcontained the words, "What is Confession? Answer, " which are omitted inthe German Concordia. Luther placed the part Of Confession betweenBaptism and the Lord's Supper, thereby actually making this the fifthand the Lord's Supper the sixth chief part. And when later on (for inLuther's editions the chief parts are not numbered) the figures wereadded, Confession could but receive the number 5, and the Lord's Supper, 6. Thus, then, the sequence of the six parts, as found in the Book ofConcord, was, in a way, chosen by Luther himself. 

113. Office of the Keys and Christian Questions. 

The three questions on the Office of the Keys in the fifth chief partform the most important and independent addition to Luther's SmallCatechism. However, they are not only in complete agreement withLuther's doctrine of Absolution, but, in substance, also contained inwhat he himself offered in the part Of Confession. For what Luther saysin paragraphs 26 to 28 in a liturgical form is expressed and explainedin the three questions on the Office of the Keys in a doctrinal andcatechetical form. Not being formulated by Luther, however, they werenot received into the Book of Concord. In the Nuernberg _Text-Booklet_of 1531 they are placed before Baptism. Thence they were taken over intothe Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533 as a substitute for Luther'sform of Confession. Andrew Osiander, in the draft of his Church Order of1531, in the article on "Catechism and the Instruction of Children, "added as sixth to the five chief parts: "Of the Keys of the Church, orthe Power to Bind and to Unbind from Sins, " quoting as Bible-verse thepassage: "The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples, " etc. Brenz, thoughnot, as frequently assumed, the author of the Nuernberg Catechism, alsocontributed toward introducing and popularizing this part of theCatechism. In his Questions of 1535 and 1536, which appeared in theAppendix to the Latin translation of Luther's Large Catechism, heoffered an original treatment to the Keys of Heaven, as the sixth chiefpart, on the basis of Matt. 16, 19; Luke 19, 16; John 20, 22f. Thirty-six years after the first publication of Luther's Catechisms, Mathesius, in his _Sermons on the Life of Luther, _ also speaks of sixchief parts of catechetical instruction; but he enumerates Absolution asthe part between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, hence as the fifth chiefpart of the Catechism. 

As to the Christian Questions for Those Who Intend to Go to theSacrament, it was claimed very early that Luther was the author. Theywere first published in 1549, and a number of separate impressionsfollowed. After 1558 they are usually found in the appendix to the SmallCatechism. The Note, "These questions and answers, " etc. , designatingLuther as the author, first appeared in an edition of 1551. Togetherwith this note, the Questions are found in an undated Wittenberg editionof the Small Catechism, which appeared about 1560, containing picturesdated 1551. Referring to this edition, the Wittenberg proof-reader, Christopher Walther, in a polemical writing (1566) against Aurifaber, asserted that the Questions were not written by Luther, but by John Langof Erfurt (+ 1548). The question at issue has not yet been decided. Forwhile the contents of the Questions reproduce, from beginning to end, Luther's thoughts, and the last answers are almost literally taken fromthe Large Catechism, we have no evidence that Luther compiled them; but, on the other hand, also no convincing proof against this. Claus Harmsand Koellner asserted that Luther is the author of the Questions, whileKliefoth and Loehe declared it as probable. --The Introduction to the TenCommandments, "I the Lord, thy God, " and the Doxology, at the close ofthe Lord's Prayer, were added after Luther's death. 

114. The Table of Duties--Haustafel. 

The eighth and last chart of the Catechism differed from the precedingones in that it was superscribed: "Table of Duties (Haustafel), Consisting of Certain Passages of Scripture for Various Holy Orders andStations. Whereby These are to be Admonished, as by a Special Lesson, Regarding Their Office and Service. " The exact time when Luther drew upthis Table is not known. The latest date to which its composition can beassigned is the end of April or the beginning of May, 1529. It may, however, be questioned whether it was published at all as a placard. Thetwo groups of passages: "What the Hearers Owe to Their Pastors, " and:"What Subjects Owe to Their Government, " are probably not from Luther. Following are the grounds supporting this view: 1. They are notcontained in the German editions but appeared for the first time in theLatin translation. 2. Their superscriptions differ in form from those ofthe other groups. 3. They adduce quite a number of Bible-verses, andrepeat some already quoted, _e. G. _, 1 Tim. 2, 1, Rom. 13, 1. The GermanBook of Concord omitted these passages, while the Latin Concordia of1580 and 1584 embodied them. Albrecht writes: "The Table of Duties is anoriginal part of the Catechism, bearing a true Lutheran stamp. But itwas old material worked over, as is the case almost throughout the SmallCatechism. " "The oft-repeated assertion, however, that the Table ofDuties was borrowed from the catechism of the Waldensians or BohemianBrethren, is not correct. For this Table is not found in the Catechismof the Brethren of 1522, with which Luther was acquainted, but first inGyrick's Catechism of 1554, in which Lutheran material is embodied alsoin other places. " (W. 30, 1, 645. )

The confession books of the Middle Ages, however, which classified sinsaccording to the social estates, and especially John Gerson's tract (_DeModo Vivendi Omnium Fidelium_ reprinted at Wittenberg 1513), whichtreated of the offices of all sorts of lay-people in every station oflife, may have prompted Luther to draw up this Table. But, saysAlbrecht, "it certainly grew under his hand into something new andcharacteristic. The old material is thoroughly shortened, sifted, supplemented, newly arranged, recast. While Gerson's tract throughoutbears the stamp of the Middle Ages, Luther's Table of Duties, with itsappeal to the Scriptures alone, its knowledge of what is a 'holyestate, ' its teaching that, as divine ordinances, civil government andthe household (when embraced by the common order of Christian love) areequally as holy as the priesthood, reveals the characteristic marks ofthe Reformer's new ideal of life, which, rooting in his faith, andopposed to the hierarchy and monkery of the Middle Ages, as well as tothe fanaticism of the Anabaptists, became of far-reaching importance forthe entire moral thought of the succeeding centuries. " (647. )

Grimm's Lexicon defines "Haustafel" as "_der Abschnitt des Katechismus, der ueber die Pflichten des Hausstandes handelt, _ that section of theCatechism which treats of the duties of the household. " This verbaldefinition, suggested by the term, is too narrow, since Luther's"Haustafel" is designed "for various holy orders and estates, "magistrates and pastors included. Still, the term is not on this accountinappropriate. Table (_Tafel, tabula_) signifies in general a roster, alist, or index of leading points, with or without reference to the chartform. And such a table suspended in the home and employed in theinstruction of the home congregation, is properly termed "Haustafel. "Agreeably to this, Andreas Fabricius, in 1569, called the "Haustafel" adomestic table of works, _tabula operum domestica. _ Daniel Kauzmann, inhis _Handbook_ (16 sermons on the Catechism) of 1569, says: "It iscalled 'Haustafel' of the Christians because every Christian shoulddaily view it and call to mind therefrom his calling, as from a tablewhich portrays and presents to every one what pertains to him. Itteaches all the people who may be in a house what each one ought to door to leave undone in his calling. " (642. )

In his _Catechismus Lutheri_ of 1600 Polycarp Leyser offers thefollowing explanation: "Why are these passages called a table? Beyonddoubt this is due to the fact that, from of old, good ordinances havebeen written and graven on tables. So did God, who prescribed His Law tothe Jews in ten commandments on two tables. Similarly Solon wrote thelaws of Athens on tables. The Romans also had their law of twelve tablesbrought from Athens. And so, when the government to-day issues certaincommands, it is customary to suspend them on tables, as also princes andlords suspend on tables their court rules. But why is it called'Haustafel' when it also treats of preachers and the government? Thereason for this is given by St. Paul, I Tim. 3, where he calls theChurch a house of the living God. For as the housefather in a largehouse summons his servants and prescribes to each one what he is to do, so God is also wont to call into certain stations those who have beenreceived into His house by Holy Baptism, and to prescribe to them inthis table how each one in his calling shall conduct himself. " (641. )

Concerning the purpose of the Table of Duties, Albrecht remarks: "If Iam correct, Luther, by these additions, would especially inculcate thatChristianity, the essence of which is set forth in the preceding chiefparts, must daily be practised. " That is certainly correct, for theCatechism must not only be learned, but lived. And the Table of Dutiesemphasizes the great truth, brought to light again by Luther, thatChristianity does not consist in any peculiar form of life; as Romishpriests, monks, and nuns held, who separated themselves from the worldoutwardly, but that it is essentially faith of the heart, which, however, is not to flee into cloisters and solitudes but courageouslyand cheerfully to plunge into practical life with its natural forms andrelations as ordained by Creation, there to be tried as well asglorified. In his _Admonition to the Clergy, _ 1530, Luther says:"Furthermore, by such abominable doctrine all truly good works which Godappointed and ordained were despised and utterly set at naught [by thePapists]. For instance, lord, subject, father, mother, son, daughter, servant, maid were not regarded as good works, but were calledworldliness, dangerous estates, and lost works. " (W. 30, 2, 291. ) TheTable of Duties is a protest against such perverted views. For hereLuther considers not only the calling of preachers and teachers, butalso all those of government and subjects, of fathers, mothers, andchildren, of masters and servants, of mistresses and maids, of employeesand employers, as "holy orders and estates, " in which a Christian maylive with a good conscience, and all of which the Catechism is topermeate with its truths. "Out into the stream of life with theCatechism you have learned!" Such, then, is the admonition which, inparticular, the Table of Duties adds to the preceding parts of theCatechism. 

115. Symbolical Authority of Catechisms. 

The symbolical authority of Luther's Catechisms must be distinguishedfrom the practical use to which they were put in church, school, andhome. As to his doctrine, Luther knew it to be the pure truth of thedivine Word. Hence he could not but demand that every one acknowledgeit. Self-evidently this applies also to the doctrinal contents of theCatechisms. Luther, however, did not insist that his Catechisms be madethe books of instruction in church, school, and home; he only desiredand counseled it. If for the purpose of instruction the form of hisSmall Catechism did not suit any one, let him, said Luther, chooseanother. In the Preface to the Small Catechism he declared: "Hence, choose whatever form you think best, and adhere to it forever. " Again, "Take the form of these tables or some other short, fixed form of yourchoice, and adhere to it without the change of a single syllable. "Self-evidently Luther is here not speaking of the doctrine of theCatechism, but of the form to be used for instruction. And with respectto the latter he makes no demands whatever. However, the contents ofthese books and the name of the author sufficed to procure for them thewidest circulation and the most extensive use. Everywhere the doors ofchurches, schools, and homes were opened to the writings of Luther. 

The tables had hardly been published when catechism instruction alreadygenerally was given according to Luther's Explanation. The churchregulations, first in Saxony, then also in other lands, provided thatLuther's Small Catechism be memorized word for word, and that preachingbe according to the Large Catechism. The Church Order of Henry thePious, 1539, declares: "There shall not be taught a different catechismin every locality, but one and the same form, as presented by Dr. MartinLuther at Wittenberg, shall be observed everywhere. " In 1533 theministers of Allstaedt were ordered "to preach according to Luther'sLarge Catechism. " (Kolde, 63. ) The authority of the Catechisms grewduring the controversies after Luther's death, when the faithfulLutherans appealed to the Smalcald Articles and especially to Luther'sCatechisms. The Lueneburg Articles of 1561 designate them, together withthe Smalcald Articles, as the correct "explication and explanation" ofthe true sense of the Augustana. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum_ of1564 declares that "the sum of Christian and evangelical doctrine ispurely and correctly contained in Luther's Catechisms. " Their authorityas a genuinely Lutheran norm of doctrine increased when the Reformed ofGermany, in 1563, made the Heidelberg Catechism their particularconfession. 

Like the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms achieved theirsymbolical authority by themselves, without resolutions of princesestates, and theologians. The Thorough Declaration of the Formula ofConcord is merely chronicling actual facts when it adopts the Catechismsfor this reason: "because they have been unanimously approved andreceived by all churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and havebeen publicly used in churches, schools, and homes, and, moreover, because the Christian doctrine from God's Word is comprised in them inthe most correct and simple way, and, in like manner, is explained, asfar as necessary for simple laymen. " (852, 8. ) The Epitome adds: "Andbecause such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of theirsouls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther asthey are included in Luther's works, as the Bible of the laity, whereineverything is comprised which is treated at greater length in HolyScripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for hissalvation. " (777, 5. )

116. Enemies and Friends of Small Catechism. 

In recent times liberal German theologians, pastors, and teachers haveendeavored to dislodge Luther's Small Catechism from its position inchurch, school, and home. As a rule, these attacks were made in the nameof pedagogy; the real cause, however, were their liberal dogmaticalviews. The form was mentioned and assailed, but the contents were meant. As a sample of this hostility we quote the pedagog, philologian, andhistorian Dr. Ludwig Gurlitt (_Die Zukunft, _ Vol. 17, No. 6, p. 222): "Atthe beginning of the sixteenth century, " he says, "a monk eloped from acloister and wrote a religious book of instruction for the Germanchildren. At the time it was a bold innovation, the delight of allfreethinkers and men of progress, of all who desired to serve thefuture. This book, which will soon celebrate its five-[four-]hundredthanniversary, is still the chief book of instruction for German children. True, its contents already are so antiquated that parents reject almostevery sentence of it for themselves; true, the man of today understandsits language only with difficulty--what of it, the children must gulpdown the moldy, musty food. How we would scoff and jeer if a similarreport were made about the school system of China! To this LutheranCatechism, which I would best like to see in state libraries only, areadded many antiquated hymns of mystical turgidity, which a simple youth, even with the best will does not know how to use. All outlived! Faith inthe Bible owes its existence only to the tough power and law of inertia. It is purely mechanical thinking and speaking which the schoolmasterpreaches to them and pounds into them. We continue thus because we aretoo indolent to fight, or because we fear an enlightened people. "

The best refutation of such and similar aspersions is a reference to theenormous circulation which Luther's Small Catechism has enjoyed, to itscountless editions, translations, elaborations, and its universal use inchurch, school, and home for four centuries. Thirty-seven years afterthe publication of Luther's Catechisms, Mathesius wrote: "Praise God itis said that in our times over one hundred thousand copies have beenprinted and used in great numbers in all kinds of languages in foreignlands and in all Latin and German schools. " And since then, down to thepresent day, millions and millions of hands have been stretched forth toreceive Luther's catechetical classic. While during the last fourcenturies hundreds of catechisms have gone under, Luther's Enchiridionis afloat to-day and is just as seaworthy as when it was first launched. A person, however, endowed with an average measure of common sense willhardly be able to believe that the entire Lutheran Church has, for fourcenturies, been so stupid as would have been the case if men of Dr. Gurlitt's stripe had spoken only half the truth in their criticisms. 

Moreover, the number of detractors disappears in the great host offriends who down to the present day have not tired of praising theCatechisms, especially the Enchiridion. They admire its artistic andperfect form; its harmonious grouping, as of the petals of a flower, themelody and rhythm of its language, notably in the explanation of theSecond Article, its clarity, perspicuity, and popularity; itssimplicity, coupled with depth and richness of thought; the absence ofpolemics and of theological terminology, etc. However, with all this andmany other things which have been and might be said in praise of theCatechism, the feature which made it what it truly was, a Great Deed ofthe Reformation, has not as yet been pointed out. Luther Paulinized, Evangelicalized, the Catechism by properly setting forth in hisexplanations the _finis historiae, _ the blessed meaning of the greatdeeds of God, the doctrine of justificaiton. Indeed, also Luther'sCatechism is, in more than one way, conditioned by its times, but in itskernel, in its doctrine, it contains, as Albrecht puts it, "timeless, never-aging material. For in it pulsates the heartbeat of the primitiveChristian faith, as witnessed by the apostles, and experienced anew bythe Reformer. " (648. ) This, too, is the reason why Luther's Enchiridionis, indeed, as G. V. Zezschwitz remarks, "a booklet which a theologiannever finishes learning, and a Christian never finishes living. "

117. Evaluation of Small Catechism. 

Luther himself reckoned his Catechisms among his most important books. In his letter to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, he writes: "I am quitecold and indifferent about arranging my books, for, incited by aSaturnine hunger, I would much rather have them all devoured, _eo quodSaturnina fame percitus magis cuperem eos omnes devoratos. _ For none doI acknowledge as really my books, except perhaps _De Servo Arbitrio_ andthe Catechism. " (Enders, 11, 247. ) Justus Jonas declares: "The Catechismis but a small booklet, which can be purchased for six pfennige but sixthousand worlds could not pay for it. " He believed that the Holy Ghostinspired the blessed Luther to write it. Mathesius says "If in hiscareer Luther had produced and done no other good thing than to give histwo Catechisms to homes, schools, and pulpits, the entire world couldnever sufficiently thank or repay him for it. " J. Fr. Mayer: "_Tot resquot verba. Tot utilitates, quot apices complectens. Pagellis brevis, sed rerum theologicarum amplitudine incomparabilis. _ As many thoughts aswords; as many uses as there are characters in the book. Brief in pages, but incomparable in amplitude of theological thoughts. "

In his dedicatory epistle of 1591, to Chemnitz's _Loci, _ Polycarp Leysersays: "That sainted man, Martin Luther, never took greater pains thanwhen he drew up into a brief sum those prolix expositions which hetaught most energetically in his various books. .. . Therefore he composedthe Short Catechism, which is more precious than gold or gems, in whichthe pure doctrine of the prophets and apostles (_prophetica etapostolica doctrinae puritas_) is summed up into one integral doctrinalbody, and set forth in such clear words that it may justly be consideredworthy of the Canon (for everything has been drawn from the canonicalScriptures). I can truthfully affirm that this very small book containssuch a wealth of so many and so great things that, if all faithfulpreachers of the Gospel during their entire lives would do nothing elsein their sermons than explain aright to the common people the secretwisdom of God comprised in those few words and set forth from the divineScriptures the solid ground upon which each word is built they couldnever exhaust this immense abyss. "

Leopold von Ranke, in his _German History of the Time of theReformation, _ 1839, declares: "The Catechism which Luther published in1529, and of which he said that he, old Doctor though he was, prayed it, is as childlike as it is deep, as comprehensible as it is unfathomable, simple, and sublime. Blessed is the man who nourishes his soul with it, who adheres to it! He has imperishable comfort in every moment: under athin shell the kernel of truth, which satisfies the wisest of the wise. "

Loehe, another enthusiastic panegyrist of Luther, declares: "The SmallLutheran Catechism can be read and spoken throughout with a prayingheart; in short, it can be prayed. This can be said of no othercatechism. It contains the most definitive doctrine, resisting everyperversion, and still it is not polemical--it exhales the purest air ofpeace. In it is expressed the manliest and most developed knowledge, andyet it admits of the most blissful contemplation the soul may wish for. It is a confession of the Church, and of all, the best known, the mostuniversal, in which God's children most frequently meet in consciousfaith, and still this universal confession speaks in a most pleasingpersonal tone. Warm, hearty, childlike, yet it is so manly, socourageous, so free the individual confessor speaks here. Of all theconfessions comprised in the Concordia of 1580, this is the mostyouthful, the clearest, and the most penetrating note in the harmoniouschime, and, withal, as rounded and finished as any. One may say that init the firmest objectiveness appears in the garb of the most pleasingsubjectiveness. "

Schmauk writes: "The Small Catechism is the real epitome of Lutheranismin the simplest, the most practical, the most modern and living, and, atthe same time, the most radical form. It steers clear of all obscurehistorical allusions; it contains no condemnatory articles, it is basedon the shortest and the oldest of the ecumenical symbols. It is not awork for theologians, but for every Lutheran; and it is not nearly aslarge as the Augsburg Confession. " (_Conf. Prin. , _ 696. )

McGiffert says: "In 1529 appeared his [Luther's] Large and SmallCatechisms, the latter containing a most beautiful summary of Christianfaith and duty, wholly devoid of polemics of every kind, and so simpleand concise as to be easily understood and memorized by every child. Ithas formed the basis of the religious education of German youth eversince. Though preceded by other catechisms from the pen of this and thatcolleague or disciple, it speedily displaced them all, not simplybecause of its authorship, but because of its superlative merit, and hasalone maintained itself in general use. The versatility of the Reformerin adapting himself with such success to the needs of the young andimmature is no less than extraordinary. Such a little book as this it isthat reveals most clearly the genius of the man. " (_Life of Luther, _316. )

O. Albrecht writes: "Reverently adhering to the churchly tradition andpermeating it with the new understanding of the Gospel, such are thecharacteristics of Luther's Catechisms, especially the Small Catechism. ""On every page new and original features appear beside the traditionalelements. " "The essential doctrinal content of the booklet is thoroughlyoriginal; in it Luther offered a carefully digested presentation of theessence of Christianity, according to his own understanding as theReformer, in a manner adapted to the comprehension of children--asimple, pithy description of his own personal Christian piety, withoutpolemics and systematization, but with the convincing power ofexperienced truth. " (W. 30, 1, 647. )--Similar testimonies might easilybe multiplied and have been collected and published repeatedly. 

The best praise, however, comes from the enemy in the form of imitationor even verbal appropriation. Albrecht says: "Old Catholic catechetes, and not the worst, have not hesitated to draw on Luther's LargeCatechism. If one peruses the widely spread catechism of the Dominicanmonk John Dietenberger, of 1537 (reprinted by Maufang in his work on theCatholic Catechisms of the sixteenth century, 1881), one is frequentlyedified and delighted by the diligence with which, besides oldermaterial, Luther's Large and Small Catechisms, as well as the NuernbergCatechism-sermons of 1533, have been exploited" (W. 30, 1, 497. )

118. Literary Merit of Small Catechism. 

Moenckeberg remarks: The Small Catechism betrays "the imperfection ofthe haste in which it had to be finished. " As a matter of fact, however, Luther, the master of German, paid much attention also to its languagein order, by pithy brevity and simple, attractive form, to make itsglorious truths the permanent property of the children and unlearned whomemorized it. In his publication "_Zur Sprache und Geschichte desKleinen Katechismus Luthers, _ Concerning the Language and History ofLuther's Small Catechism, " 1909, J. Gillhoff writes: "Here, if ever, arose a master of language, who expressed the deepest mysteries insounds most simple. Here, if ever, there was created in the Germanlanguage and spirit, and in brief compass, a work of art of Germanprose. If ever the gods blessed a man to create, consciously orunconsciously, on the soil of the people and their needs, a perfect workof popular art in the spirit of the people and in the terms of theirspeech, to the weal of the people and their youth throughout thecenturies, it was here. The explanation of the Second Article is one ofthe chief creations of the home art of German poetry. And such it is, not for the reason that it rises from desert surroundings, drawingattention to itself alone, but because it sums up and crowns thecharacter of the book throughout. " (16. )

Speaking in particular of the Second Article, Bang, in 1909, said in hislecture "_Luthers Kleiner Katechismus, ein Kleinod der Volksschule_--Luther's Small Catechism, a Jewel of the Public Schools": "TheCatechism is precious also for the reason that Luther in theexplanations strikes a personal, subjective, confessional note. When athome I read the text of the Second Article in silence, and then readLuther's explanation aloud, it seems to me as if a hymn rushingheavenward arises from the lapidary record of facts. It is no longer thelanguage of the word, but of the sound as well. The text reportsobjectively, like the language of a Roman, writing tables of law. Theexplanation witnesses and confesses subjectively. It is Christianitytransformed into flesh and blood. It sounds like an oath of allegianceto the flag. In its ravishing tone we perceive the marching tread of themyriads of believers of nineteen centuries; we see them moving onwardunder the fluttering banner of the cross in war, victory, and peace. Andwe, too, by a power which cannot be expressed in words, are drawn intothe great, blessed experience of our ancestors and champions. Who woulddare to lay his impious hands on this consecrated, inherited jewel, androb the coming generations of it?!" (20. )

X. The Smalcald War and the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims. 

119. Bulwark of Peace Removed. 

Luther died on the day of Concordia, February 18, 1546. With him peaceand concord departed from the Lutheran Church. His death was everywherethe signal for action against true Lutheranism on the part of both itsavowed enemies and false brethren. As long as that hero of faith andprayer was still living, the weight of his personal influence andauthority proved to be a veritable bulwark of peace and doctrinal purityagainst the enemies within as well as without the Church. Though enemiesseeking to devour had been lurking long ago, the powerful and commandingpersonality of Luther had checked all forces making for war from withoutand for dissension from within. The Emperor could not be induced toattack the Lutherans. He knew that they would stand united and strong aslong as the Hero of the Reformation was in their midst. Nor were thefalse brethren able to muster up sufficient courage to come out into theopen and publish their errors while the voice of the lion was heard. 

But no sooner had Luther departed than strife began its distractingwork. War, political as well as theological, followed in the wake of hisdeath. From the grave of the fallen hero a double specter began to loomup. Pope and Emperor now joined hands to crush Protestantism by bruteforce as they had planned long ago. The result was the Smalcald War. Thesecret enemies which Lutheranism harbored within its own bosom beganboldly to raise their heads. Revealing their true colors and coming outin the open with their pernicious errors, they caused numerouscontroversies which spread over all Germany (Saxony, the cradle of theReformation, becoming the chief battlefield), and threatened to undocompletely the blessed work of Luther, to disrupt and disintegrate theChurch, or to pervert it into a unionistic or Reformed sect. Especiallythese discreditable internal dissensions were a cause of deephumiliation and of anxious concern to all loyal Lutherans. To theRomanists and Reformed, however, who united in predicting the impendingcollapse of Lutheranism, they were a source of malicious and triumphantscoffing and jeering. A prominent theologian reported that by 1566matters had come to such a pass in Germany that the old Lutherandoctrine was publicly proclaimed only in relatively few places. In thePalatinate public thanks were rendered to God in the churches that alsoElectoral Saxony was now about to join them. The Jesuits insisted that, having abandoned the doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, the Lutherans were no longer genuine Lutherans and hence no moreentitled to the privileges guaranteed by the Peace of Augsburg (1555). That the final result of this turmoil, political as well as theological, proved a blessing to the Lutheran Church must be regarded and evergratefully remembered as a special grace and a remarkable favor ofAlmighty God. 

120. Luther Foretold Coming Distress. 

Though fully conscious of the gravity of the political and theologicalsituation, and convinced that war and dissensions were bound to come, Luther was at the same time confident that it would not occur during hislife. With respect to the coming war he said: "With great earnestness Ihave asked God, and still pray daily, that He would thwart their [thePapists'] plan and suffer no war to come upon Germany during my life. And I am confident that God surely hears such prayer of mine, and I knowthat there will be no war in Germany as long as I shall live. " (St. L. 9, 1856. ) In his Commentary on the Book of Genesis he wrote: "It is agreat consolation when he says (Is. 57, 1) that the righteous are takenaway from the evil to come. Thus we, too, shall die in peace beforemisfortune and misery overtake Germany. " (St. L. 1, 1758. )

Luther spoke frequently also of the impending doctrinal dissensions. Asearly as 1531 he declared that the Gospel would abide only a short time. "When the present pious, true preachers will be dead, " said he, "otherswill come who will preach and act as it pleases the devil. " (8, 72. ) In1546 he said in a sermon preached at Wittenberg: "Up to this time youhave heard the real, true Word; now beware of your own thoughts andwisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and lead you awayfrom the faith, as he did the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians. .. . I seeclearly that, if God does not give us faithful preachers and ministers, the devil will tear our church to pieces by the fanatics(_Rottengeister_), and will not cease until he has finished. Such isplainly his object. If he cannot accomplish it through the Pope and theEmperor, he will do it through those who are [now] in doctrinalagreement with us. .. . Therefore pray earnestly that God may preservethe Word to you, for things will come to a dreadful pass. " (12, 1174. 437. )

Reading the signs of the times, Melanchthon also realized that Luther'sprophecies would be fulfilled. His address to the students of WittenbergUniversity, on February 19, 1546, in which he announced the death ofLuther, concludes: "_Obiit auriga et currus Israel. _ He is dead, thechariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof, who guided the Church inthis last old age of the world. For the doctrine of the forgiveness ofsins and of faith in the Son of God was not discovered by humansagacity, but revealed by God through this man. Let us therefore lovehis memory and his teaching, and may we be all the more humble andponder the terrible calamity and the great changes which will followthis misfortune. " (_C. R. _ 6, 59. )

Nor were these prophecies of Luther mere intuitions or deductions basedon general reflections only. They were inductions from facts which hehad not failed to observe at Wittenberg, even in his immediatesurroundings. Seckendorf relates that Luther, when sick at Smalcald in1537, told the Elector of Saxony that after his death, discord wouldbreak out in the University of Wittenberg and that his doctrine would bechanged. (_Comm. De Lutheranismo_ 3, 165. ) In his Preface to Luther'sTable Talk, John Aurifaber reports that Luther had frequently predictedthat after his death his doctrine would wane and decline because offalse brethren, fanatics, and sectarians, and that the truth, which in1530 had been placed on a pinnacle at Augsburg, would descend into thevalley, since the Word of God had seldom flourished more than fortyyears in one place. (Richard, _Conf. Hist_. , 311. ) Stephanus Tucher, afaithful Lutheran preacher of Magdeburg, wrote in 1549: "Doctor MartinLuther, of sainted memory, has frequently repeated before manytrustworthy witnesses, and also before Doctor Augustine Schurf, thesewords: 'After my death not one of these [Wittenberg] theologians willremain steadfast. '" Tucher adds: "This I have heard of Doctor AugustineSchurf not once, but frequently. Therefore I also testify to it beforeChrist, my Lord, the righteous Judge, " etc. (St. L. 12, 1177; Walther, _Kern und Stern, _ 7. )

It was, above all, the spirit of indifferentism toward false doctrine, particularly concerning the Lord's Supper, which Luther observed anddeplored in his Wittenberg colleagues: Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Eber, and Major. Shortly before his last journey to Eislebenhe invited them to his house, where he addressed to them the followingsolemn words of warning: They should "remain steadfast in the Gospel;for I see that soon after my death the most prominent brethren will fallaway. I am not afraid of the Papists, " he added, "for most of them arecoarse, unlearned asses and Epicureans; but our brethren will inflictthe damage on the Gospel; for 'they went out from us, but they were notof us' (1 John 2, 19); they will give the Gospel a harder blow than didthe Papists. " About the same time Luther had written above the entranceto his study: "Our professors are to be examined on the Lord's Supper. "When Major, who was about to leave for the colloquy at Regensburg, entered and inquired what these words signified, Luther answered: "Themeaning of these words is precisely what you read and what they say; andwhen you and I shall have returned, an examination will have to be held, to which you as well as others will be cited. " Major protested that hewas not addicted to any false doctrine. Luther answered: "It is by yoursilence and cloaking that you cast suspicion upon yourself. If youbelieve as you declare in my presence, then speak so also in the church, in public lectures, in sermons, and in private conversations, andstrengthen your brethren, and lead the erring back to the right path, and contradict the contumacious spirits; otherwise your confession issham pure and simple, and worth nothing. Whoever really regards hisdoctrine, faith and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remainin the same stall with such as teach, or adhere to, false doctrine; norcan he keep on giving friendly words to Satan and his minions. A teacherwho remains silent when errors are taught, and nevertheless pretends tobe a true teacher, is worse than an open fanatic and by his hypocrisydoes greater damage than a heretic. Nor can he be trusted. He is a wolfand a fox, a hireling and a servant of his belly, and ready to despiseand to sacrifice doctrine, Word, faith, Sacrament, churches, andschools. He is either a secret bedfellow of the enemies or a skeptic anda weathervane, waiting to see whether Christ or the devil will provevictorious; or he has no convictions of his own whatever, and is notworthy to be called a pupil, let alone a teacher; nor does he want tooffend anybody, or say a word in favor of Christ, or hurt the devil andthe world. " (Walther, 39f. )

121. Unfortunate Issue of Smalcald War. 

All too soon the predictions of Luther, and the fears expressed byMelanchthon and others, were realized. June 26, 1546, four months afterLuther's death, Pope and Emperor entered into a secret agreement tocompel the Protestants by force of arms to acknowledge the decrees ofthe Council of Trent, and to return to the bosom of the Roman Church. The covenant provided that, "in the name of God and with the help andassistance of His Papal Holiness, His Imperial Majesty should preparehimself for war, and equip himself with soldiers and everythingpertaining to warfare against those who objected to the Council, againstthe Smalcald League, and against all who were addicted to the falsebelief and error in Germany, and that he do so with all his power andmight in order to bring them back to the old [papal] faith and to theobedience of the Holy See. " The Pope promised to assist the Emperor with200, 000 Krontaler, more than 12, 000 Italian soldiers, and quite a numberof horsemen. He furthermore permitted the Emperor to appropriate, forthe purpose of this war, one half of the total income of the churchproperty in Spain and 500, 000 Krontaler from the revenue of the Spanishcloisters. 

While the Emperor endeavored to veil the real purpose of hispreparations, the Pope openly declared in a bull of July 4, 1546: "Fromthe beginning of our Papacy it has always been our concern how to rootout the weeds of godless doctrines which the heretics have sowedthroughout Germany. .. . Now it has come to pass that, by the inspirationof the Holy Ghost, our dearest son in Christ, Charles, the RomanEmperor, has decided to employ the sword against these enemies of God. And for the protection of religion we intend to promote this piousenterprise with all our own and the Roman Church's possessions. Accordingly, we admonish all Christians to assist in this war with theirprayers to God and their alms, in order that the godless heresy may berooted out and the dissension removed. .. . To each and all who do thesethings we grant the most complete indulgence and remission of all theirsins. " (St. L. 17, 1453ff. Walther, 10. )

The Smalcald War, so called because it was directed against the SmalcaldLeague, was easily won by the Emperor. Among the causes of thisunfortunate issue were the neutral attitude of Joachim II of Brandenburgand of other Lutheran princes, and especially the treachery of theambitious and unscrupulous Maurice, Duke of Saxony and nephew of ElectorJohn Frederick of Saxony, who, in order to gain the Electorate ofSaxony, had made a secret agreement with the Emperor according to whichhe was to join his forces with those of the Emperor against theLutherans. The decisive battle was fought at Muehlberg on the Elbe, April 24, 1547. It proved to be a crushing defeat for the Protestants. The Elector himself was taken captive, treated as a rebel, and sentencedto death. The sentence was read to him while he was playing chess withhis fellow-captive, Duke Ernest of Lueneburg. John Frederick answered, he did not believe that the Emperor would deal so severely with him; if, however, he were in earnest, they should let him know that he mightorder his affairs with his wife and children. He then calmly turned tothe Duke, saying: "Let us continue the game; it's your move. " (Jaekel, _G. D. Ref. _ l, 114. ) The day after the battle at Muehlberg, Torgau fellinto the hands of the Emperor; and when he threatened to execute theElector, having already erected a scaffold for this purpose, Wittenberg, too, though well protected by 5, 000 soldiers, signed a capitulation onMay 19, in order to save the Elector's life. On the 23d of May, Wittenberg was occupied by the Emperor. Here Charles, when standing atthe grave of Luther, and urged to have the body of "the heretic"exhumed, spoke the memorable words that he was warring not with thedead, but with the living. The death-sentence was rescinded, but, apartfrom other cruel conditions forced upon the Elector, he was compelled toresign in favor of Maurice and promise to remain in captivity as long asthe Emperor should desire. His sons were granted the districts ofWeimar, Jena, Eisenach, and Gotha. Philip of Hesse surrendered withoutstriking a blow, and was likewise treacherously held in captivity andhumiliated in every possible way by the Emperor. The imperialplenipotentiaries had assured the Landgrave that he would not beimprisoned. Afterwards, however, the words in the document, "not anybodily captivity--_nit eenige Leibesgefangenschaft, _" were fraudulentlychanged by Granvella to read, "not eternal captivity--_nit ewigeLeibesgefangenschaft_" (Marheineke, _G. D. Deut. Ref. _ 4, 438. ) The sonsof the Landgrave remained in possession of his territory. Thus all ofSouthern and, barring a few cities, also all of Northern Germany wasconquered by Charles. Everywhere the Lutherans were at the tender mercyof the Emperor, whose undisputed power struck terror into all Germany. 

122. The Augsburg Interim. 

The first step to reduce the Lutherans to obedience to the Pope was theso-called Augsburg Interim. It was proclaimed by the Emperor at Augsburgon May 15, 1548, as the law of the Empire under the title: "Derroemischen kaiserlichen Majestaet Erklaerung wie es der Religion halbenim heiligen Reich bis zu Austrag des gemeinen Concilii gehalten werdensoll. " The people were also forbidden to teach, write, or preach againstthe document. The Interim had been prepared by the papal bishops JuliusPflug and Michael Helding and the court-preacher of Elector Joachim ofBrandenburg, John Agricola, a man with whom Luther had, already since1540, refused to have any further intercourse owing to his insincerityand duplicity. "I go forth as the Reformer of all Germany, " Agricolaboasted when he left Berlin to attend the Diet at Augsburg, which was toopen September 1, 1547. After the Diet he bragged that in Augsburg hehad flung the windows wide open for the Gospel; that he had reformed thePope and made the Emperor a Lutheran, that a golden time had nowarrived, for the Gospel would be preached in all Europe; that he had notonly been present, but had presided at the drafting of the Interim; thathe had received 500 crowns from the Emperor and 500 from King Ferdinand, etc. (Preger, _M. Flacius Illyricus, _ 1, 119. )

The document, prepared at the command of the Emperor, was called Interimbecause its object was to regulate the church affairs until thereligious controversy would be finally settled by the Council of Trent, to the resolutions of which the Lutherans were required to submit. Itwas, however, essentially papal. For the time being, indeed, itpermitted Protestant clergymen to marry, and to celebrate the Lord'sSupper in both kinds, but demanded the immediate restoration of theRomish customs and ceremonies, the acknowledgment of papal supremacy_iure divino, _ as well as the jurisdiction of the bishops, and theadoption of articles in which the doctrines were all explained in thesense of the Catholic dogmas, and in which truth and falsehood, ingeneral, were badly mingled. Transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and other papal errors were reaffirmed, while Lutheran tenets, such asthe doctrine of justification by faith alone, were either denied oromitted. And from the fact that this Interim was nevertheless condemnedby the Pope and the Romanists, who demanded an unqualified, blind, andunconditional submission, the Lutherans could infer what they were toexpect after consenting to these interimistic provisions. The generalconviction among Catholics as well as Protestants was that the Interimwas but the first step to a complete return to Romanism. Indeed, soonafter its promulgation, the Catholic Electors of Mainz and Koelnendeavored to rob the Lutherans also of the use of the cup and of themarriage of the priests. The Elector of Mainz declared all suchmarriages void and their children bastards. (Jaekel, 162. )

In the most important point, the doctrine of justification, the AugsburgInterim not only omitted the _sola fide, _ but clearly taught thatjustification embraces also renewal. When God justifies a man, theInterim declared, He does not only absolve him from his guilt, but also"makes him better by imparting the Holy Ghost, who cleanses his heartand incites it through the love of God which is shed abroad in hisheart. " (Frank, _Theologie d. Konkordienformel, _ 2, 80. ) A man "isabsolved from the guilt of eternal damnation and renewed through theHoly Spirit and thus an unjust man becomes just. " (143. ) Again: "Thisfaith obtains the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which the love of God isshed abroad in our hearts; and after this has been added to faith andhope, we are truly justified by the infused righteousness which is inman; for this righteousness consists in faith, hope, and love. " (81. )

In Southern Germany, Charles V and his Italian and Spanish troops, employing brute force, succeeded in rigidly enforcing the Interimoutwardly and temporarily. Free cities rejecting it were deprived oftheir liberties and privileges. Constance, having fallen after a heroicdefense, was annexed to Austria. Magdeburg offered the longestresistance and was outlawed three times. Defiantly its citizensdeclared: "We are saved neither by an Interim nor by an Exterim, but bythe Word of God alone. " (Jaekel 1, 166. ) Refractory magistrates weretreated as rebels. Pastors who declined to introduce the Interim weredeposed, some were banished, others incarcerated, still others evenexecuted. In Swabia and along the Rhine about four hundred ministerswere willing to suffer imprisonment and banishment rather than conformto the Interim. They were driven into exile with their families, andsome of them were killed. When Jacob Sturm of Augsburg presented hisgrievances to Granvella, the latter answered: "If necessary, one mightproceed against heretics also with fire. " "Indeed, " Sturm retorted, "youmay kill people by fire, but even in this way you cannot force theirfaith. " (165. ) Bucer and Fagius, preachers in Augsburg, left forEngland. Musculus was deposed because he had preached against theInterim. Osiander was compelled to leave Nuernberg, Erhard Schnepf, Wuerttemberg. Among the fugitives eagerly sought throughout Germany bythe imperial henchmen was Brenz in Schwaebisch-Hall, the renownedtheologian of Wuerttemberg, who spoke of the Interim only as "Interitus, Ruin. " (_C. R. _ 7, 289. ) The tombstone of Brenz bears the inscription:"_Voce, stylo, pietate, fide, ardore probatus_--Renowned for hiseloquence, style, piety, faithfulness, and ardor. " (Jaekel, 164. ) Aprize of 5, 000 gulden was offered for the head of Caspar Aquila, who wasone of the first to write against the Interim. (Preger 1, 12. ) Ofcourse, by persecuting and banishing their ministers, the Emperor couldnot and did not win the people. Elector Frederick II of the Palatinateconsented to introduce the Interim. But even in Southern Germany thesuccess of the Emperor was apparent rather than real. The churches inAugsburg, Ulm, and other cities stood empty as a silent protest againstthe Interim and imperial tyranny. 

In Northern Germany the Emperor met with more than a mere passiveresistance on the part of the people as well as the preachers. TheInterim was regarded as a trap for the Lutherans. The slogan ran: "Thereis a rogue behind the Interim! _O selig ist der Mann, Der Gott vertrauenkann Und willigt nicht ins Interim, Denn es hat den Schalk hinter ihm_!"The Interim was rejected in Brunswick, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg, Goslar, Bremen, Goettingen, Hannover, Einbeck, Eisleben, Mansfeld, Stolberg, Schwarzburg, Hohenstein, Halle, etc. Joachim of Brandenburgendeavored to introduce it, but soon abandoned these efforts. At aconvent of 300 preachers assembled in Berlin for the purpose ofsubscribing to the Interim, an old minister whose name was Leutinger, arose and declared in the presence of Agricola, the coauthor of theInterim: "I love Agricola, and more than him I love my Elector; but myLord Jesus Christ I love most, " and saying this, he cast the documenthanded him for subscription into the flames of the fire burning in thehearth. Before this, Margrave Hans, of Kuestrin, had flung away the penhanded him for the subscription of the infamous document, saying: "Ishall never adopt this poisonous concoction, nor submit to any council. Rather sword than pen; blood rather than ink!"

The three Counts of Mansfeld, Hans Jorge, Hans Albrecht, and HansErnest, declared in a letter of August 20, 1548, to the Emperor: "Mostgracious Emperor and Lord! As for our government, the greater part ofthe people are miners, who have not much to lose and are easily inducedto leave. Nor are they willing to suffer much coercion. Yet the welfareof our whole government depends upon them. Besides, we know that, if weshould press the matter, all of the preachers would leave, and theresult would be a desolation of preaching and of the Sacraments. Andafter losing our preachers, our own lives and limbs would not be safeamong the miners, and we must needs expect a revolt of all the people. "(Walther 19f. ) Thus the Interim before long became a dead letterthroughout the greater part of Germany. 

123. Attitude of John Frederick toward Interim. 

In order to obtain his liberty, the vacillating Philip of Hesse, thoughhe had declined to submit to the resolutions of the Council of Trent, declared himself willing to adopt the Interim. "It is better, " he isreported to have said, "to hear a mass than to play cards, " etc. (Jaekel1, 130. 162. ) Special efforts were also made by the Emperor to induceJohn Frederick to declare his submission to the Council and to sanctionthe Interim. But the Elector solemnly protested that this was impossiblefor him. All attempts to induce him to abandon his religious convictionsmet with quiet but determined resistance. One of the cruel conditionsunder which the Emperor was willing to rescind the death-sentence passedon the Elector was, that he should consent to everything the Emperor orthe Council would prescribe in matters of religion. But the Electordeclared: "I will rather lose my head and suffer Wittenberg to bebattered down than submit to a demand that violates my conscience. _Lieber will ich meinen Kopf verlieren und Wittenberg zusammenschiessenlassen, als eine Forderung eingehen, die mein Gewissen verletzt. _" (1, 116. ) Through Granvella the Emperor promised the Elector liberty if hewould sign the Interim. But again the Elector declared decidedly thatthis was impossible for him. 

In a written answer to the Emperor the ex-Elector declared, boldlyconfessing his faith: "I cannot refrain from informing Your Majesty thatsince the days of my youth I have been instructed and taught by theservants of God's Word, and by diligently searching the prophetic andapostolic Scriptures I have also learned to know, and (this I testify asin the sight of God) unswervingly to adhere in my conscience to this, that the articles composing the Augsburg Confession, and whatever isconnected therewith, are the correct, true, Christian, pure doctrine, confirmed by, and founded in, the writings of the holy prophets andapostles, and of the teachers who followed in their footsteps, in such amanner that no substantial objection can be raised against it. .. . Sincenow in my conscience I am firmly persuaded of this, I owe thisgratefulness and obedience to God, who has shown me such unspeakablegrace, that, as I desire to obtain eternal salvation and escape eternaldamnation, I do not fall away from the truth of His almighty will whichHis Word has revealed to me, and which I know to be the truth. For suchis the comforting and also the terrible word of God: 'Whosoevertherefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before MyFather which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, himwill I also deny before My Father which is in heaven, ' If I shouldacknowledge and adopt the Interim as Christian and godly, I would haveto condemn and deny against my own conscience, knowingly andmaliciously, the Augsburg Confession, and whatever I have heretoforeheld and believed concerning the Gospel of Christ, and approve with mymouth what I regard in my heart and conscience as altogether contraryto the holy and divine Scriptures. This, O my God in heaven, wouldindeed be misusing and cruelly blaspheming Thy holy name, . .. For which Iwould have to pay all too dearly with my soul. For this is truly the sinagainst the Holy Ghost concerning which Christ says that it shall neverbe forgiven, neither in this nor in the world to come, _i. E. _, ineternity. " (Walther, 16. )

The Emperor was small enough to punish the heroic refusal and boldconfession of the Elector by increasing the severity of hisimprisonment. For now he was deprived of Luther's writings and even ofthe Bible. But the Elector, who drew the line of submission at hisconscience and faith, declared, "that they were able indeed to deprivehim of the books, but could not tear out of his heart what he hadlearned from them. " And when Musculus and the Lutheran preachers ofAugsburg whom the Emperor had banished because of their refusal tointroduce the Interim, took leave of the Elector, the latter said:"Though the Emperor has banished you from the realm, he has not banishedyou from heaven. Surely, God will find some other country where you maypreach His Word. " (Jaekel. 164. )

124. Melanchthon's Attitude toward the Interim. 

In the beginning, Melanchthon, too, assumed an attitude of defiance overagainst the Augsburg Interim. Especially among his friends and in hisprivate letters he condemned it. In several letters, also to ElectorMaurice, he and his Wittenberg colleagues declared that they disapprovedof the document, and that the doctrine must not be denied, changed, norfalsified. (_C. R. _ 6, 874. 954. ) April 25, 1548 he wrote to Camerariusthat the Interim corrupted the truth in the doctrine of justification, and that he was unable to assent to its sophisms. (878. 900. ) April 29, 1548: "The manifest facts teach that efforts at conciliation with ourpersecutors are vain. Even though some kind of concord is patched up, still a peace will be established such as exists between wolves andlambs. _Etiam cum sarcitur concordia qualiscumque, tamen paxconstituitur, qualis est inter lupos et agnos. _" (_C. R. _ 6, 889; Frank4, 90. ) In a letter to Christian, King of Denmark (June 13, 1548), hesaid that the Interim "confirmed and reestablished many papal errors andabuses, " and that the "abominable book would cause many dissensions inthe German nation. " (_C. R. _ 6, 923. ) June 20 he wrote with reference tothe Interim: "I shall not change the doctrine of our churches, norassent to those who do. " (946. ) July 31, to the Margrave John ofBrandenburg: "As for my person I do not intend to approve of this book, called Interim, for which I have many weighty reasons, and will commendmy miserable life to God, even if I am imprisoned or banished. " (7, 85. )In a letter of August 10 he speaks of the corruptions "which are foundin the Augsburg sphinx, " and declares that he is determined faithfullyto guard the doctrine of the Gospel. (97. ) August 13, 1548, he wrote toMedler: "Brenz, Nopus [Noppius], Musculus, learned, pious, and mostdeserving men, have been driven from their churches, and I hear thateverywhere others are being expelled from other places, --and Islebius[Agricola] is shouting that this is the way to spread the Gospel. "(102. )

In a criticism of the Augsburg Interim published in the beginning ofJuly, 1548, Melanchthon declared: "Although war and destruction arethreatened, it is, nevertheless, our duty to regard the Word of God ashigher; that is to say, we must not deny what we know to be the truth ofthe Gospel. " On November 10, 1548, he said before a convention oftheologians: "Remember that you are the guardians of truth, and considerwhat has been entrusted to you for preservation by God through theprophets and the apostles, and, last of all, through Dr. Luther. If thatman were still living, the misfortune of a change of doctrine would notbe threatening us; but now that there is no one who is clothed with theauthority which he had, now that there is no one who warns as he waswont to do, and many are accepting error for truth, the churches arebrought to ruin, the doctrine heretofore correctly transmitted isdistorted, idolatrous customs are established, fear, doubt, and strifeare reigning everywhere. " (Walther, 21. )

However, though Melanchthon disapproved of the imperial Interim, he wasafraid to antagonize it openly and unflinchingly. Yet it was just such apublic and decided testimony that was needed, and everywhere expected ofMelanchthon; for he was generally regarded as the logical and lawfulsuccessor of Luther and as the theological leader of the Church. July22, 1548, Aquila wrote: "What shall I say of the arch-knave Eisleben, Agricola? He said: 'The Interim is the best book and work making forunity in the whole Empire and for religious agreement throughout allEurope. For now the Pope is reformed, and the Emperor is a Lutheran, '"Imploring Melanchthon to break his silence and sound the public warning, Aquila continues: "Thou holy man, answer and come to our assistance, defend the Word and name of Christ and His honor (which is the highestgood on earth) against that virulent sycophant Agricola, who is animpostor. " (7, 78. )

Such were the sentiments of loyal Lutherans everywhere. But Melanchthon, intimidated by threats of the Emperor, and fearing for his safety, turned a deaf ear to these entreaties. While the captive Elector wasdetermined to die rather than submit to the Interim, and while hundredsof Lutheran ministers were deposed, banished, imprisoned, and some ofthem even executed because of their devotion to the truth, Melanchthonwas unwilling to expose himself to the anger of the Emperor. And beforelong his fear to confess and his refusal to give public testimony to thetruth was followed by open denial. At the behest of Elector Maurice heconsented to elaborate, as a substitute for the Augsburg Interim, acompromise document--the so-called Leipzig Interim. 

125. Melanchthon and the Leipzig Interim. 

After the victory of the Emperor and the proclamation of the AugsburgInterim, Maurice, the new-fledged Elector, found himself in a dilemma. Charles V urged him to set a good example in obeying and enforcing theInterim. Indebted as he was to the Emperor for his Electorate, he, tosome extent, felt bound to obey him also in religious matters. At thesame time, Maurice was personally not at all in agreement with theradical Augsburg Interim and afraid of forfeiting the sympathies of bothhis old and new subjects on account of it. Nor did he fail to realizethe difficulties he would encounter in enforcing it. Accordingly, henotified the Emperor on May 18 that he was not able to introduce theInterim at present. Soon after, he commissioned the Wittenberg andLeipzig theologians to elaborate, as a substitute for the AugsburgInterim, a compromise, more favorable and acceptable to his subjects. Atthe preliminary discussions, especially at Pegau and Celle, thetheologians yielded, declaring their willingness to submit to the willof the Emperor with respect to the reintroduction of Romish ceremoniesand to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and bishops if they wouldtolerate the true doctrine. (Preger 1, 40. ) The final upshot of it allwas the new Interim, a compromise document, prepared chiefly byMelanchthon and adopted December 22, 1548, at Leipzig. This "Resolutionof the Diet at Leipzig" was designated by its opponents the "LeipzigInterim. " Schaff remarks: "It was the mistake of his [Melanchthon's]life, yet not without plausible excuses and incidental advantages. Headvocated immovable steadfastness in doctrine [?], but submission ineverything else for the sake of peace. He had the satisfaction that theUniversity of Wittenberg, after temporary suspension, was restored andsoon frequented again by two thousand students. [The school was closedMay 19 and reopened October 16, 1547. ] But outside of Wittenberg andSaxony his conduct appeared treasonable to the cause of the Reformation, and acted as an encouragement to an unscrupulous and uncompromisingenemy. Hence the venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarterby friend and foe. " (_Creeds_ 1, 300. )

It is generally held that fear induced Melanchthon to condescend to thisbetrayal of Lutheranism, --for such the Leipzig Interim amounted to inreality. And, no doubt, there is a good deal of truth in thisassumption. For Melanchthon had been told that because of his oppositionto the Augsburg Interim the anger of the Emperor was directed againsthim especially, and that he had already called upon Maurice to banishthis "arch-heretic. " It certainly served the purpose of Maurice wellthat he had to deal with Melanchthon, whose fear and vacillation madehim as pliable as putty, and not with Luther, on whose unbendingfirmness all of his schemes would have foundered. However, it cannothave been mere temporary fear which induced Melanchthon to barter awayeternal truth for temporal peace. For the theologians of Wittenberg andLeipzig did not only identify themselves with the Leipzig Interim whilethe threatening clouds of persecution were hovering over them, but alsoafterwards continued to defend their action. When the representatives ofthe Saxon cities protested against some of the provisions of theInterim, they declared, on December 28, 1548: "We have learned yourrequest and are satisfied with the articles [Leipzig Interim] delivered, which not we alone, but also several other superintendents andtheologians prepared and weighed well; therefore we are unable to changethem. For they can well be received and observed without any violence togood conscience. " (_C. R. _ 7, 270. ) It was as late as September, 1556that Melanchthon, though even then only in a qualified way, admittedthat he had sinned in this matter, and should have kept aloof from theinsidious counsels of the politicians. (8, 839. ) Indeed, in 1557 and1560 the Leipzig and Wittenberg theologians still defended the positionthey had occupied during the Interim. Evidently, then apart from othermotives of fear, etc. , Melanchthon consented to write the Interimbecause he still believed in the possibility of arriving at anunderstanding with the Romanists and tried to persuade himself that theEmperor seriously sought to abolish prevailing errors and abuses, andbecause the theological views he entertained were not as far apart fromthose of the Leipzig compromise as is frequently assumed. 

126. Provisions of Leipzig Interim. 

The professed object of the Leipzig Interim was to effect a compromisein order to escape persecution and desolation of the churches byadhering to the doctrine, notably of justification, but yielding inmatters pertaining to ceremonies, etc. December 18, 1548, Melanchthon(in the name of George of Anhalt) wrote to Burchard concerning theInterim adopted four days later: "They [Maurice and the estates] hope tobe able to ward off dangers if we receive some rites which are not inthemselves vicious; and the charge of unjust obstinacy is made if insuch things we are unwilling to contribute toward public tranquillity. .. In order, therefore, to retain necessary things, we are not too exactingwith respect to such as are unnecessary, especially since heretoforethese rites have, to a great extent, remained in the churches of theseregions. .. . We know that much is said against this moderation, but thedevastation of the churches, such as is taking place in Swabia, would bea still greater offense. " (7, 251ff. ) The plan of Melanchthon thereforewas to yield in things which he regarded as unnecessary in order tomaintain the truth and avoid persecution. 

As a matter of fact, however, the Leipzig Interim, too, was in everyrespect a truce over the corpse of true Lutheranism. It was a unionisticdocument sacrificing Lutheranism doctrinally as well as practically. Theobnoxious features of the Augsburg Interim had not been eliminated, butmerely toned down. Throughout, the controverted doctrines were treatedin ambiguous or false formulas. Tschackert is correct in maintainingthat, in the articles of justification and of the Church, "thefundamental thoughts of the Reformation doctrine were catholicized" bythe Leipzig Interim. (508. ) Even the Lutheran _sola_ (_sola fide, _ byfaith alone) is omitted in the article of justification. The entirematter is presented in terms which Romanists were able to interpret inthe sense of their doctrine of "infused righteousness, _iustitiainfusa. _" Faith is coordinated with other virtues, and good works aredeclared to be necessary to salvation. "Justification by faith, " saysSchmauk, "is there [in the Leipzig Interim] so changed as to mean thatman is renewed by the Holy Spirit, and can fulfil righteousness with hisworks, and that God will, for His Son's sake accept in believers thisweak beginning of obedience in this miserable, frail nature. " (_Conf. Prin. , _ 596. )

Furthermore, the Leipzig Interim indirectly admits the Semi-Pelagianteaching regarding original sin and free will, while other doctrineswhich should have been confessed are passed by in silence. It recognizesthe supremacy of the Pope, restores the power and jurisdiction of thebishops, acknowledges the authority of the council, approves of a numberof ceremonies objectionable as such (_e. G. _, the Corpus ChristiFestival), and advocates the reintroduction of these and others in orderto avoid persecution and to maintain outward peace with the Papists. 

Self-evidently, in keeping with the Interim, the Pope also could nolonger be regarded as, and publicly declared to be, the Antichrist. In1561 Flacius wrote that at that time the suspected Lutherans did notconsider the Pope the Antichrist. Simon Musaeus and others were banishedbecause they refused to eliminate the hymn "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinemWort" from their services. (Walther, 25. )--Such, then, being thecharacter of the Leipzig Interim, it stands to reason that thisdocument, adopted as it was by Melanchthon and other Lutheran leaders, was bound to become a fertile source of numerous and violentcontroversies. 

127. Flacius and Other Opponents of Interimists. 

The Leipzig Interim was imposed upon the churches of Electoral Saxony asa directory for teaching, preaching, and worship. Melanchthon declaredthat it could be adopted with a good conscience, and hence should beintroduced, as demanded by Maurice, in order to insure the peace of theChurch. At Wittenberg and other places corresponding efforts were made. But everywhere the result was dissension and strife. The Interimdefeated its own purpose. Pastors who declined to conform were deposed, banished, incarcerated or abused in other ways. And wherever faithfulministers were removed, the people refused to be served by the hirelingswho took their places. At the very convention at Leipzig where theInterim was adopted, Wolfgang Pfentner, Superintendent at Annaberg, declared: "What caused them to reintroduce such tomfooleries [Romishceremonies]? Were they growing childish again? They might do what theywanted to, but as for himself, he could not consent [to the Interim]. And even if he should permit himself to be deceived, his parishionerswould not accept it. For in a letter delivered by a messenger onhorseback they had charged him to agree to no ungodly article, or notreturn to them. Accordingly, he would have his head cut off at Leipzigand suffer this with a good conscience rather than give offense to hischurch. " (Walther, 22. )

December 24, three days after the adoption of the Interim, representatives of the cities in Saxony presented complaints to ElectorMaurice and Melanchthon against some of the provisions of the document. They protested particularly against the reinstitution of ExtremeUnction, the Festival of Corpus Christi, and the use of chrism atBaptism. (_C. R. _ 7, 270. ) Even the Wittenberg theologians finallyadmitted that in consequence of "the Interim the rupture had become sogreat that there was an agreement neither of one church with another, nor, in the same church, of any deacon, any schoolmaster, or sexton withhis pastor, nor of one neighbor with another, nor of members of thehousehold with one another. " (Walther, 23. )

Foremost among the champions of true Lutheranism over against theInterimists were John Hermann, Aquila, Nicholas Amsdorf, John Wigand, Alberus, Gallus, Matthias Judex, Westphal, and especially MatthiasFlacius Illyricus, then (from 1544 to 1549) a member of the Wittenbergfaculty, where he opposed all concessions to the Adiaphorists. It isdue, no doubt, to Flacius more than to any other individual that trueLutheranism and with it the Lutheran Church was saved from annihilationin consequence of the Interims. In 1548 he began his numerous andpowerful publications against them. In the same year, 1548, thefollowing book of John Hermann appeared: "That during These DangerousTimes Nothing should be Changed in the Churches of God in Order toPlease the Devil and the Antichrist. " In 1549: "Against the Mean Devilwho Now Again is Disguising Himself as an Angel of Light. "

In 1549, when he was no longer safe in Wittenberg, Flacius removed toMagdeburg then the only safe asylum in all Germany for such as werepersecuted on account of their Lutheran faith and loyalty, where he wasjoined by such "exiles of Christ" as Wigand, Gallus, and others, who hadalso been banished and persecuted because of their opposition to theInterim. Here they inaugurated a powerful propaganda by publishingbroadsides of annihilating pamphlets against the Interim, as well as itsauthors, patrons, and abettors. They roused the Lutheran consciousnesseverywhere, and before long the great majority of Lutherans stood behindFlacius and the heroes of Magdeburg. The publications emanating fromthis fortress caused such an aversion to the Adiaphoristic princes aswell as theologians among the people that from the very outset all theirplans and efforts were doomed to failure, and the sinister schemes ofthe Pope and Emperor were frustrated. Because of this able and staunchdefense of Lutheranism and the determined opposition to any unionisticcompromise, Magdeburg at that time was generally called "God'schancellery, _Gottes Kanzlei. _" Nor did the opposition subside when thisLutheran stronghold, thrice outlawed by the Emperor, was finally, aftera siege of thirteen months, captured by Maurice. In their attacks thechampions of Magdeburg were joined also by the ministers of Hamburg andother places. Only in Saxony and Brandenburg the policy of Melanchthonwas defended. 

As the conflict extended, it grew in bitterness, revealing withincreasing luridness the insincerity and dishonesty of the Philippists. True Lutherans everywhere were satisfied that the adoption also of theLeipzig Interim was tantamount to a complete surrender of Lutheranism. Their animosity against this document was all the stronger because itbore the stamp of the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians and wassponsored by Melanchthon, the very man whom they had regarded asLuther's successor and as the leader of the Church. This, too, was thereason why the Leipzig Interim caused even more resentment among theLutherans, especially in Northern Germany, than did the AugsburgInterim. In their view, Melanchthon and his colleagues had betrayed thecause of the Reformation and practically joined their forces with thoseof the Romanists, even as Maurice had betrayed the Lutherans politicallywhen fighting at the side of the Emperor against his own coreligionists. Tschackert remarks: "In view of the fact that at that time about 400Evangelical pastors in Southern Germany, because of their refusal toadopt the Augsburg Interim, had suffered themselves to be driven fromtheir charges and homes and wandered about starving, many with theirwives and children, the yielding of the theologians of Electoral Saxonycould but appear as unpardonable and as a betrayal of the Church. "(508. )

128. Grief over Melanchthon's Inconstancy. 

In consequence of his dubious attitude, Melanchthon also, who beforethis had been generally honored as the leader of the Lutheran Church, completely lost his prestige, even among many of his formerly mostdevoted friends. The grief and distress experienced by loyal Lutheransat his wavering and yielding is eloquently expressed by AntoniusCorvinus, Superintendent at Kalenberg-Goettingen, the Lutheran martyr, who, because of his opposition to the Interim, was incarcerated forthree years, in consequence of which he died, 1553. In a letter datedSeptember 25, 1549, he implored his friend to abandon the Interim, andto "return to his pristine candor, his pristine sincerity, and hispristine constancy, " and "to think, say, write, and do what is becomingto Philip, the Christian teacher, not the court philosopher. " Peace, indeed, was desirable, but it must not be obtained by distracting thechurches. Christ had also declared that He did not come to bring peace, but the sword. Even the heathen Horatius Flaccus had said: "_Si fractusillabitur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae. _" How much more shouldChristians avoid cowardice! One must not court the cross wantonly, butit must be borne courageously when for the sake of truth it cannot beavoided, etc. 

In the original, Corvinus's letter reads, in part, as follows: "O miPhilippe, o, inquam, Philippe noster, rede per immortalem Christum adpristinum candorem, ad pristinam sinceritatem ad pristinam constantiam!Ne languescito ista tua formidine ac pusillanimitate nostrorum animostantopere!. .. Non sis tantorum in ecclesia offendiculorum autor! Nesinas, tua tam egregia scripta, dicta, facta, quibus mirifice hactenusde ecclesia ac scholis meritus es, isto condonationis, novationis, moderationis naevo ad eum modum deformari! Cogita, quantum animi istavestra consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant!. .. Rogamus, ut, professionis tuae memor, talem te cum Vitebergensibus tuis iamgeras, qualem te ab initio huius causae gessisti, hoc est, ut easentias, dicas, scribas, agas, quae Philippum, doctorem Christianum, nonaulicum philosophum decent. " (Tschackert, 506. )

In a similar manner Melanchthon was admonished also by Brenz, whopreferred exile and misery to the Interim. In a letter written early in1549 he said: "It is also most manifest that the Interitus [Ruin, a termemployed by Brenz for Interim] conflicts with the Word of the Lord. Whatconcord, then, can be found between such conflicting things? You thinkthat one ought to come to the assistance of the churches and piousministers. Correct if such can be done without dishonor to Christ. Perhaps you believe that the Interimists will tolerate the piousdoctrine if we agree to accept all their ceremonies. But do you not knowthat it is clearly commanded in the introduction of the Interitus thatno one shall speak or write against this book? What kind of liberty inregard to doctrine is this? Therefore, if the Church and the piousministers cannot be saved in any other way than by dishonoring the piousdoctrine, let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God. He will takecare of them. Meanwhile let us patiently bear our exile and wait for theLord. " (_C. R. _ 7, 289. )

June 18, 1550, Calvin also wrote a letter of warning to Melanchthon, inwhich he said in substance: "My grief renders me almost speechless. Howthe enemies of Christ enjoy your conflicts with the Magdeburgers appearsfrom their mockeries. Nor do I acquit you altogether of all guilt. Permit me to admonish you freely as a true friend. I should like toapprove of all your actions. But now I accuse you before your very face(_ego te nunc apud te ipsum accuso_). This is the sum of your defense:If the purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not bepertinaciously contended for (_modo retineatur doctrinae puritas, derebus externis non esse pertinaciter dimicandum_). But you extend theadiaphora too far. Some of them plainly conflict with the Word of God. Now, since the Lord has drawn us into the fight, it behooves us tostruggle all the more manfully (_eo virilius nos eniti decebat_). Youknow that your position differs from that of the multitude. Thehesitation of the general or leader is more disgraceful than the flightof an entire regiment of common soldiers. Unless you set an example ofunflinching steadfastness, all will declare that vacillation cannot betolerated in such a man. By yielding but a little, you alone have causedmore lamentations and complaints than a hundred ordinary men by openapostasy (_Itaque plures tu unus paululum cedendo querimonias et gemitusexcitasti quam centum mediocres aperta defectione_). I would die withyou a hundred times rather than see you survive the doctrine surrenderedby you. You will pardon me for unloading into your bosom these pitiable, though useless groans. " (Schluesselburg 13, 635; _C. R. _ 41 [_CalviniOpera_ 13], 593; Frank 4, 88. )

129. Interim Eliminated Politically, But Not Theologically. 

It was also in the interest of allaying the animosity against his ownperson that Elector Maurice had prevailed upon Melanchthon to frame theLeipzig Interim. But in this respect, too, the document proved to be adismal failure. Openly the people, his own former subjects included, showed their contempt for his person and character. Everywhere publicsentiment was aroused against him. He was held responsible for thecaptivity and shameful treatment of Philip of Hesse and especially ofJohn Frederick, whom the people admired as the Confessor of Augsburg andnow also as the innocent Martyr of Lutheranism. Maurice, on the otherhand, was branded a mameluke, condemned as a renegade and an apostate, despised as the traitor of Lutheranism, and abhorred as the "Judas ofMeissen, " who had sold his coreligionists for an electorate. 

At the same time Maurice was provoked by the arbitrary manner in whichthe Emperor exploited and abused his victory by a repeated breach of hispromises, and by the treacherous and shameful treatment accorded hisfather-in-law, Philip of Hesse. Chagrined at all this and fullyrealizing the utter impossibility of enforcing the Interim, Mauricedecided to end the matter by a single stroke which at the same timewould atone for his treachery, and turn shame into glory and the vilename of a "traitor" into the noble title of "Champion of Protestantism. "Accordingly Maurice, easily the match of Charles in duplicity andcunning, secretly prepared his plans, and, suddenly turning his armyagainst the unsuspecting Emperor, drove him from Innsbruck, scared the"Fathers of Trent" to their homes, and on April 5, 1552, victoriouslyentered Augsburg, where he was received with great rejoicing. The fruitsof this victory were the Treaties of Passau August 2, 1552, and ofAugsburg, 1555, which for the first time granted religious liberty tothe Protestants. The latter placed Lutherans and Catholics on an equalfooting in the Empire and, according to the rule: _Cuius regio, eiusreligio, _ gave every prince religious control in his own territory, non-conformists being granted the right of emigration. To the greatadvantage of the Romanists, however, the treaty also provided thatterritories ruled by bishops must remain Catholic even though the rulershould turn Protestant. 

But while the Interim was thus eliminated as a political and practicalissue, the theological controversy precipitated by it continuedunabated. Its political elimination cleared the situation toward theRomanists, but left conditions within the Lutheran Church unsettled. Itneither unified nor pacified the Church. It neither eliminated the falsedoctrines and unionistic principles and tendencies injected by theInterimists, nor did it restore confidence in the doctrinal soundness, loyalty, and sincerity of the vacillating Philippists, who had causedthe first breach in the Lutheran Church. "Does it agree with thecharacter of the Lutheran Church to tolerate and approve the doctrinesand principles contained and involved in the Interim, and to harbor andfellowship such indifferentists as framed, indorsed, and defended thisdocument?" such and similar were the questions which remained liveissues even after the Interim was politically dead. The theologicalsituation within the Lutheran Church, therefore, was not changed in theleast when the annihilation threatening her from without was warded offby the victory of Maurice over the Emperor. The Interim was fraught withdoctrinal issues which made unavoidable the subsequent controversies. 

XI. Controversies Following the Interim and Settled by the Formula ofConcord. 

130. Three Theological Parties. 

In the theological conflicts after Luther's death three parties may bedistinguished. The first party embraced chiefly the Interimists, theSynergists, and the Crypto-Calvinists. They were adherents of PhilipMelanchthon, hence called Melanchthonians or, more commonly, Philippists, and were led by the theologians of Electoral Saxony. Theirobject was to supplant the authority and theology of Luther by theunionistic and liberal views of Melanchthon. Their headquarters were theuniversities of Wittenberg and Leipzig. Some of their chiefrepresentatives were: Joachim Camerarius (born 1500, professor of Greekin Leipzig, a close friend of Melanchthon, died 1574); Paul Eber (born1511, professor in Wittenberg, died 1568); Caspar Cruciger, Jr. (born1525, professor in Wittenberg, died at Cassel 1597); Christopher Pezel(born 1539, professor in Wittenberg, died 1600 or 1604); George Major(Meier; born 1502, professor in Wittenberg, died 1574); Caspar Peucer(doctor of medicine, son-in-law of Melanchthon; born 1525, imprisonedfrom 1574 till 1586 died 1602); Paul Crell (born 1531, professor inWittenberg, died 1579); John Pfefflnger (born 1493, professor inLeipzig, died 1573); Victorin Strigel (born 1524, 1548 professor inJena, died in Heidelberg 1569); John Stoessel (born 1524, died in prison1576); George Cracow (born 1525, professor of jurisprudence inWittenberg, privy counselor in Dresden, died in prison 1575). 

The second party, the so-called Gnesio-Lutherans (genuine Lutherans), was represented chiefly by the theologians of Ducal Saxony and embracedsuch staunch and loyal men as Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, MatthiasJudex, Moerlin, Tileman Hesshusius, Timann, Westphal, and Simon Musaeus. Though some of these leaders were later discredited by falling intoextreme positions themselves, they all proved to be valiant champions ofLuther and most determined opponents of the Philippists. The strongholdsof this party were Magdeburg and the University of Jena, founded by thesons of John Frederick in 1547. Led by Flacius, this universityunflinchingly opposed the modified and unionistic Lutheranism advocatedby the Philippists at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Seeberg says, insubstance: The Gnesio-Lutherans were opposed to the philosophy of thePhilippists and stood for "the simple Biblical truth as Luther hadunderstood it. " Even when opposed by the government, they defended thetruth, and were willing to suffer the consequences. Strict doctrinaldiscipline was exercised by them. They opposed with equal determinationthe errors also of their fellow-combatants: Amsdorf, Flacius, Poach, andothers. Intellectually they were superior to the Philippists. Seebergconcludes: "In the forms of their time (which were not outgrown by anyone of the Philippists either) they preserved to the Church genuineLuther-treasures--_echtes Luthergut. _" (_Dogmengeschichte_ 4, 2, 482. )

The third, or center-party, was composed of the loyal Lutherans who tookno conspicuous part in the controversies, but came to the front when thework of pacification began. They were of special service in settling thecontroversies, framing the Formula of Concord, and restoring a true andgodly peace to our Church. Prominent among them were Brenz, Andreae, Chemnitz, Selneccer, Chytraeus, Cornerus, Moerlin, and others. Thesetheologians were, on the one hand, opposed to all unnecessarylogomachies _i. E. _, controversies involving no doctrinal differences, and, at the same time, were most careful not to fall into any extremeposition themselves. On the other hand, however, they approved of allcontroversies really necessary in the interest of truth, rejected andcondemned all forms of indifferentism and unionism, and strenuouslyopposed every effort at sacrificing, veiling, or compromising anydoctrine by ambiguous formulas for the sake of external peace or anyother policy whatsoever. (CONC. TRIGL. , 855f. )

131. Various Theological Controversies. 

Following is a synopsis and summary of the main controversies within theLutheran Church after the death of Luther, which were settled in thefirst eleven articles of the Formula of Concord. The sequence of thesearticles, however, is not strictly historical and chronological, butdogmatic. In the main, the arrangement of the Augsburg Confession isobserved. 

The first of these controversies was the so-called AdiaphoristicControversy, from 1548 to 1555, in which the Wittenberg and Leipzigtheologians (Melanchthon, Eber, Pfeffinger, etc. ) defended the LeipzigInterim and the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies into the LutheranChurch. They were opposed by the champions of a consistent anddetermined Lutheranism, led by Flacius, who declared: "_Nihil estadiaphoron in statu confessionis et scandali. _ Nothing is an adiaphoronin case of confession and offense. " The controversy was decided byArticle X. 

The second is the Majoristic Controversy, from 1551 to 1562, in whichGeorge Major and Justus Menius defended the phrase of Melanchthon thatgood works are necessary to salvation. They were opposed by the loyalLutherans, of whom Amsdorf, however, lapsed into the opposite error:Good works are detrimental to salvation. This controversy was settledby Article IV. 

The third is the Synergistic Controversy, from 1555 to 1560, in whichPfeffinger, Eber, Major, Crell, Pezel, Strigel, and Stoessel held withMelanchthon that man by his own natural powers cooperates in hisconversion. Their opponents (Amsdorf, Flacius, Hesshusius, Wigand, Gallus, Musaeus, and Judex) taught, as formulated by Flacius: "_SolusDeus convertit hominem. .. . Non excludit voluntatem, sed omnem efficaciamet operationem eius. .. . _ God alone converts man. .. . He does not excludethe will, but all efficaciousness and operation of the same. " Thiscontroversy was decided and settled by Article II. 

The fourth is the Flacian Controversy, from 1560 to 1575, in whichFlacius, supported by Cyriacus Spangenberg, Christian Irenaeus, MatthiasWolf, I. F. Coelestinus, Schneider, and others, maintained that originalsin is not an accident, but the very substance of fallen man. TheLutherans, including the Philippists, were practically unanimous inopposing this error. It was decided by Article I. 

The fifth was the Osiandristic and the Stancarian Controversy, from 1549to 1566, in which Andrew Osiander denied the forensic character ofjustification, and taught that Christ is our righteousness onlyaccording to His divine nature, while Stancarus contended that Christ isour righteousness according to His human nature only. Both, Osiander aswell as Stancarus, were opposed by Melanchthon, Flacius, and practicallyall other Lutherans, the Philippists included. This controversy wassettled by Article III. 

The sixth was the Antinomistic Controversy, from 1527 to 1556, in whichvarious false views concerning the Law and the Gospel were defended, especially by John Agricola who maintained that repentance (contrition)is not wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel (a view which, in amodified form was later on defended also by Wittenberg Philippists), and, after Luther's death, by Poach and Otto, who rejected the so-calledThird Use of the Law. The questions involved in these Antinomiancontroversies were decided by Articles V and VI. 

The seventh was the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, from 1560 to 1574, in which the Philippists in Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Dresden (Peucer, Cracow, Stoessel, etc. ) endeavored gradually to supplant Luther'sdoctrines concerning the Lord's Supper and the majesty of the humannature of Christ by the Calvinistic teachings on these points. Thesesecret and dishonest enemies of Lutheranism were opposed by trueLutherans everywhere, notably by the theologians of Ducal Saxony. In1574 they were publicly unmasked as deceivers and Calvinistic schemers. The controversy was settled by Articles VII and VIII. 

The two last controversies were of a local nature. The first was chieflyconfined to Hamburg, the second to Strassburg. In the former city JohnAepinus taught that Christ's descent into hell was a part of Hissuffering and humiliation. He was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg. In Strassburg John Marbach publicly denounced Zanchi, aCrypto-Calvinist, for teaching that faith, once engendered in a man, cannot be lost. The questions involved in these two articles are dealtwith in Articles IX and XI, respectively. 

132. Conflicts Unavoidable. 

When describing the conflicts after Luther's death, historiansfrequently deplore "the dreadful controversies of these dark days ofdoctrinal extremists and the polemical spirit of rigid Lutheranism. " G. J. Planck, in particular, characterized them all as useless quarrels andpersonal wranglings of narrow-minded, bigoted adherents of Luther, whovitiated original Lutheranism by making it essentially a matter of "puredoctrine. " To the present day indifferentistically inclined historiansare wont to mar their pages with similar views. 

True, "pure doctrine, " "unity in the pure doctrine of the Gospel, " suchwas the shibboleth of the faithful Lutherans over against theMelanchthonians and other errorists. But this was neither reprehensibledoctrinalism nor a corruption of original Lutheranism, but the veryprinciple from which it was born and for which Luther contendedthroughout his life--a principle of life or death for the LutheranChurch. It was the _false_ doctrine of justification which made Luther amost miserable man. It was the _pure_ doctrine as taught by St. Paulwhich freed his conscience, transported him into Paradise, as he himselfputs it, and made him the Reformer of the Church. Ever since, purity ofdoctrine was held, by Luther and all true Lutheran theologians, to be ofparamount import to Christianity and the Church. Fully realizing thatadulteration of any part of the Christian doctrine was bound to infectalso the doctrine of faith and justification and thus endangersalvation, they earnestly warned against, and opposed, every deviationfrom the clear Word of God, no matter how insignificant it might appear. They loved the truth more than external peace, more even than their ownlives. Hence they found it impossible to be silent, apathetic, andcomplacent spectators while the Philippists and others denied, attacked, and corrupted the truth taught by Luther from the Word of God. 

Accordingly, since the Leipzig Interim involved and maintained doctrinesand principles subversive of genuine Lutheranism and was prepared, introduced, and defended by the very men who were regarded as pillars ofthe Lutheran Church, it was evident from the outset that this documentmust of necessity precipitate most serious internal troubles. From themoment the Wittenbergers cast the Interim as a firebrand into theChurch, a domestic warfare was unavoidable, --if indeed any truedisciples of Luther still remained in the Church of which he, and notMelanchthon, was the founder. While the Augsburg Interim resulted in anexternal theological warfare of the Lutherans against the Romanists, the Leipzig Interim added a most serious domestic conflict, whichconscientious Lutherans could not evade, though it well-nigh brought ourChurch to the brink of destruction. For now the issue was not merely howto resist the Pope and the Romanists, but, how to purge our own Churchfrom the Interimists and their pernicious principles. And as long as theadvocates of the Interim or of other aberrations from the old Lutheranmoorings refused to abandon their errors, and nevertheless insisted onremaining in the Church, there was no real unity in the truth. Hencethere could also be no true peace and brotherly harmony among theLutherans. And the way to settle these differences was not indifferentlyto ignore them, nor unionistically to compromise them by adoptingambiguous formulas, but patiently to discuss the doctrines at issueuntil an agreement in the truth was reached, which finally was done bymeans of the Formula of Concord. 

True, these controversies endangered the very existence of our Church. But the real cause of this was not the resistance which the loyalLutherans offered to the errorists, nor even the unseemly severity bywhich the prosecution of these controversies was frequently marred, butthe un-Lutheran spirit and the false principles and doctrines manifestedand defended by the opponents. In so far as divine truth was defendedand error opposed, these controversies were truly wars to end war, andto establish real peace and true unity within our Church. A cowardlysurrender to the indifferentistic spirit, the unionistic policy, thefalse principles, and the erroneous doctrines of the Interimists wouldhave been tantamount to a complete transformation of our Church and atotal annihilation of genuine Lutheranism. 

The manner in which these controversies were conducted, it is true, wasfrequently such as to obstruct, rather than further, mutualunderstanding and peace. As a rule, it is assumed that only the genuineLutherans indulged in unseemly polemical invective, and spoke and wrotein a bitter and spiteful tone. But the Melanchthonians were to say theleast, equally guilty. And when censuring this spirit of combativeness, one must not overlook that the ultimate cause of the most violent ofthese controversies was the betrayal of the Lutheran Church by theInterimists; and that the severity of the polemics of the loyalLutherans did not, at least not as a rule, emanate from any personalmalice toward Melanchthon, but rather from a burning zeal to maintainsound Lutheranism, and from the fear that by the scheming and theindifference of the Philippists the fruits of Luther's blessed workmight be altogether lost to the coming generations. The "peace-loving"Melanchthon started a conflagration within his own church in order toobtain a temporal and temporary peace with the Romanists; while theloyal Lutherans, inasmuch as they fought for the preservation of genuineLutheranism, stood for, and promoted, a truly honorable, godly, andlasting peace on the basis of eternal truth. And while the latter foughthonestly and in the open, the Philippists have never fully clearedthemselves from the charges of duplicity, dishonesty, and dissimulation. 

133. Melanchthon Prime Mover of Conflicts. 

The Leipzig Interim was the signal for a general and prolonged warfarewithin the Lutheran Church. It contained the germs of various doctrinalerrors, and produced a spirit of general distrust and suspicion, whichtended to exaggerate and multiply the real differences. Schmauk says:"The seeds of the subsequent controversies are all to be found in theLeipzig Interim. " (595. ) At any rate, most of the controversies afterLuther's death flowed from, or were in some way or other connected with, this unfortunate document. Such is the view also of the Formula ofConcord, which declares that the thirty years' controversies which itsettled originated especially in the Interim. (857, 19; 947, 29. )

Yet the Interim was rather the occasion than the ultimate cause of theseconflicts. Long before the flames of open discord burst forth, theembers of secret doctrinal dissension had been glowing under thesurface. Even during the life of Luther much powder had been secretlystored up for which the Interim furnished the spark. This is proved, among other things, by Luther's predictions (referred to in thepreceding chapter) concerning his own colleagues. And above all it wasthe "peace-loving" Philip who first and most successfully sowed thedragon's teeth of discord. Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations from theteachings of Luther and from his own former position must be regarded asthe last cause of both the Leipzig Interim and the lamentablecontroversies that followed in its wake. Indeed, a tragic sight tobehold: The co-laborer of Luther, the servant of the Reformation secondonly to Luther, the Praeceptor Germaniae, the ardent and anxious loverof peace, etc. --untrue to his confiding friend, disloyal to the cause ofthe Reformation, and the chief cause of strife and dissension in theLutheran Church! And withal, Melanchthon, mistaking external union forreal unity and temporal peace with men for true peace with God, feltsatisfied that he had spent the efforts of his entire life in theinterest of the true welfare of the Church! Shortly before his death(April 19, 1560) he expressed his joy that now he would be deliveredfrom the "fury of the theologians. " On a sheet of paper found on histable were written a number of reasons why he feared death less. One ofthem was: "_Liberaberis ab aerumnis et a rabie teologorum. _ You will bedelivered from toils and from the fury of the theologians. " (_C. R. _ 9, 1098. ) Thus even in the face of death he did not realize that he himselfwas the chief cause of the conflicts that had embittered his decliningyears!

134. Melanchthon's Humanistic and Unionistic Tendencies. 

Till about 1530 Melanchthon seems to have been in complete harmony withLuther, and to have followed him enthusiastically. To propagate, coin, and bring into scholastic form the Christian truths once more brought tolight by the Reformer he considered to be his peculiar mission. But hissecret letters and, with gradually increasing clearness and boldness, also his publications show that later on he began to strike out on pathsof his own, and to cultivate and disseminate doctrines incompatible withthe Lutheranism of Luther. In a measure, these deviations were knownalso to the Wittenberg students and theologians, to Cordatus, Stifel, Amsdorf, the Elector John Frederick, Brueck, and Luther, who also calledhim to account whenever sufficient evidence warranted his doing so. (_Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 61ff. )

In a letter to Cordatus, dated April 15, 1537, Melanchthon was boldenough to state that he had made many corrections in his writings andwas glad of the fact: "_Multa ultro correxi in libellis meis etcorrexisse me gaudeo. _" (_C. R. _ 3, 342. ) In discussing the squabblebetween Cordatus and Melanchthon whether good works are necessary forsalvation, Luther is reported by the former to have said, in 1536: "ToPhilip I leave the sciences and philosophy and nothing else. But I shallbe compelled to chop off the head of philosophy, too. " (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 266. ) Melanchthon, as Luther put it, was always troubled byhis philosophy; that is to say, instead of subjecting his reason to theWord of God, he was inclined to balance the former against the latter. The truth is that Melanchthon never fully succeeded in freeing himselffrom his original humanistic tendencies, a fact which gave his mind amoralistic rather than a truly religious and Scriptural bent. Evenduring the early years of the Reformation when he was carried away withadmiration for Luther and his work, the humanistic undercurrent did notdisappear altogether. January 22, 1525, he wrote to Camerarius: "_Egomihi conscius sum, non ullam ob causam unquam tetheologekenai, nisi atmores meos emendarem_. I am conscious of the fact that I have nevertheologized for any other reason than to improve my morals. " (_C. R. _ 1, 722. ) Such, then, being his frame of mind, it was no wonder that heshould finally desert Luther in most important points, lapse intosynergism and other errors, and, in particular valueindifferentistically doctrinal convictions, notably on the real presencein the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ. "Over against Luther, "says Schaff, "Melanchthon represented the unionistic and liberal type ofLutheranism. " (_Creeds, _ 1, 259. ) This is correct; but the stricturemust be added that, since unionism and liberalism are incompatible withthe very essence of Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism as such was inreality not a "type, " but a denial of Lutheranism. 

Melanchthon lacked the simple faith in, and the firm adherence andimplicit submission to, the Word of God which made Luther the undauntedand invincible hero of the Reformation. Standing four-square on theBible and deriving from this source of divine power alone all histheological thoughts and convictions, Luther was a rock, firm andimmovable. With him every theological question was decided and settledconclusively by quoting a clear passage from the Holy Scriptures, whileMelanchthon, devoid of Luther's single-minded and whole-hearted devotionto the Word of God, endeavored to satisfy his reason as well. Consequently he lacked assurance and firm conviction, wavered andvacillated, and was never fully satisfied that the position he occupiedwas really the only correct one, while, on the other hand, he endeavoredto present his views concerning some of the disputed doctrines inambiguous and indefinite terms. "We have twenty-eight large volumes ofMelanchthon's writings, " says C. P. Krauth, "and, at this hour, impartial and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views onsome of the profoundest questions of church doctrine, on whichMelanchthon was writing all his life!" (_Conservative Ref. , _ 291;Schmauk, 748. ) This indefinite and wavering attitude towards divinetruth, the natural consequence of the humanistic bent of his mind, produced in Melanchthon a general tendency and proneness to surrender orcompromise doctrinal matters in the interest of policy, and to barteraway eternal truth for temporal peace. It made him an indifferentist anda unionist, always ready to strike a bargain also in matters pertainingto Christian faith, and to cover doctrinal differences with ambiguousformulas. While Luther's lifelong attitude on matters of Christiandoctrine is characterized by the famous words spoken by him at Worms in1521: "_Ich kann nicht anders, _ I cannot do otherwise, " Melanchthon, treating even questions of faith as matters of expediency rather than ofconscience, was the man who, as a rule, could also do otherwise, and whowas great in manufacturing "Polish boots, " as the ambiguous phrases bywhich he endeavored to unite opposing parties were called by theLutherans in Reuss. 

In order to preserve peace with the Romanists at Augsburg in 1530, hedid not hesitate to sacrifice Lutheran truths and to receive into thebargain a number of what he considered minor papal errors. In hissubsequent overtures to the Reformed he was more than willing to makesimilar concessions. The spirit of Melanchthon was the spirit ofreligious indifference and of unionism, which, though thoroughlyeliminated by the Formula of Concord, was from time to time revivedwithin the Lutheran Church by such men as Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf, Neander, and, in our own country, by S. S. Schmucker. 

The unionistic tendencies and doctrinal corruptions which Melanchthoninjected into Lutheranism were all the more dangerous to our Churchbecause they derived special weight and prestige from the fact thatLuther had unstintingly praised his gifts, his books, and the serviceshe had rendered the Church (St. L. 18, 1671; 23, 1152), that he was nowgenerally regarded as Luther's successor with regard to theologicalleadership of the Church; and that he was gratefully admired as thePraeceptor Germaniae by a host of loyal pupils, who made it a point alsoto cultivate just those theological peculiarities of Master Philip, asthey called him, in which he differed from Luther. 

135. Melanchthon's "Shameful Servitude. "

That Melanchthon failed our Church in the Interim emergency as well asin the subsequent controversies is generally ascribed to the fact thathe lacked the bracing influence and assistance of Luther. No doubt, there is a good deal of truth in this assumption. But the true reasonwhy he did not measure up to the demands of the times and theexpectations of our Church were not mere moral weaknesses, but ratherthe errors and false principles to which he was wedded. How couldMelanchthon have approved himself a leader of the Lutherans when he wasout of sympathy with them, doubted some of their most cherisheddoctrines, and long ago had struck out on a path deviating from thatmapped out by Luther? True, the bracing which he received from Luther inthe past had repeatedly kept him from publicly sacrificing the truth, but even in these instances he did not always yield because he wasreally convinced, but because he feared the uncompromising spirit ofLuther. 

That fear of an open conflict with Luther which, he felt, would resultin a crushing defeat for himself, bulked large among the motives whichprompted him to maintain a semblance of true orthodoxy as long as Lutherlived, is clearly admitted by Melanchthon himself. In his notorious andmost discreditable letter to Carlowitz (counselor of Elector Maurice), written April 28, 1548, eight days after the meeting at Celle, where hehad debauched his conscience by promising submission to the religiousdemands of the Emperor, Melanchthon, pouring forth his feelings andrevealing his true inwardness and his spirit of unionism andindifferentism as much as admitted that in the past he had beenaccustomed to hiding his real views. Here he declared in so many wordsthat it was not he who started, and was responsible for, the religiouscontroversy between the Lutherans and Romanists, but rather Luther whosecontentious spirit (he said) also had constantly increased the rupture, and that under Luther he had suffered "a most shameful servitude. "

In the original the letter reads, in part, as follows: "Totum enim metibi [Carlowitz] aperio. .. . Ego, cum decreverit princeps etiamsi quidnon probabo, tamen nihil seditiose faciam, sed vel tacebo, vel cedam, vel feram, quidquid accidet. _Tuli etiam antea servitutem paenedeformem, _ cum saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua filoneikia eratnon exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi serviret. Etscio, omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita aliqua ingubernatione vitia modeste et arte ferenda et dissimulanda esse. .. . Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili. " (_C. R. _ 6, 879f. )

Even before Melanchthon had, in private letters to his friends, displayed a similar vein of ill will toward Luther, whom he evidentlyfeared because of his own secret doctrinal deviations. (_Lehre undWehre_ 1908, 61. 68. ) No doubt, as stated above, fear was also among themotives which induced him to identify himself with the Leipzig Interim. But evidently his own theological attitude, too, differed little fromthe spirit pervading this document. At any rate, the letter to Carlowitzdoes not support the assumption that Melanchthon really outraged his ownconvictions when he wrote and adopted the Interim. As a matter of fact, he also continued to defend the Interim; and it was as late as 1556before he was ready to make even a qualified admission of one of theerrors connected with it. 

While, therefore, the Lutheran Church will always gratefully acknowledgethe splendid services which Melanchthon rendered in the work of Luther'sReformation, it must at the same time be admitted and cannot be gainsaidthat, in the last analysis, Melanchthon, by reason of his deviationsfrom Luther, which will be set forth more fully in the following, wasthe ultimate cause and originator of most of the dissensions which beganto distract the Lutheran Church soon after the death of Luther. AndrewMusculus, who assisted in drafting the _Formula of Concord, _ brought outthis fact (though in terms too strong) when he characterized Melanchthonas a "philosophical theologian and a patriarch of all heretics. "(Meusel, _Handl. _ 4, 710. ) In a way, Melanchthon may even be regarded asthe indirect cause of the Smalcald War and its unfortunate issue, inasmuch, namely, as his vacillating and compromising attitude and hisincompetent leadership created conditions of internal weakness among theLutherans, which invited the aggression of Pope and Emperor. 

XII. The Adiaphoristic Controversy. 

136. Contents of the Leipzig Interim. 

To exhibit the insidious character of the Leipzig Interim more fully, wesubmit the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: "As far asthe doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall isconcerned, there is no controversy" (between the Lutherans andRomanists). The article "Of Justification, " in which the Lutheran _solafide_ is omitted, declares: "The merciful God does not work with man aswith a block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he beof understanding years. " Again: "And they who have thus received theforgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghostbegins faith and trust in the Son of God, love and hope, then becomeheirs of eternal salvation for the Savior's sake. " In the article "OfGood Works" we read: "Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works areso highly necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart therewould be no reception of divine grace. " Again: "It is certainly truethat these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and arenecessary to salvation. .. . And since the virtues and good works, as hasbeen said, please God, they merit also a reward in this life, bothspiritual and temporal, according to God's counsel, and still morereward in the eternal life, because of the divine promise. "

The article "Of Ecclesiastical Power" runs as follows: "What the trueChristian Church gathered in the Holy Ghost, acknowledges, determines, and teaches in regard to matters of faith is to be taught and preached, since it neither should nor can determine anything contrary to the HolyScriptures. " Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_endorsement of the Council and its resolutions. In the article "OfEcclesiastical Ministers" we read: "And that all other ministers shouldbe subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to otherbishops who administer their episcopal office according to God'scommand, using the same for edification and not for destruction; whichministers should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation bythe patrons. " This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and theecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishops. The article "Of Ordination"declares: "Also, that, as has been said, upon presentation by patrons, ministers should hereafter be ordained with Christian ceremonies by suchbishops as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should beallowed to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presentedby the patrons and have the permission of the bishops. " That wastantamount to a restoration of the "sacrament" of episcopal ordination. 

The Interim furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction ofabolished ceremonies, such as exorcism and other ceremonies of Baptism, confirmation by bishops, auricular confession, extreme unction, episcopal ordination, and the like. We read: "That repentance, confession, and absolution, and what pertains thereto, be diligentlytaught and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receiveof them absolution in God's stead, and be also diligently admonished andurged to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admittedto the highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [inthis indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in theInterim] unless he have first confessed to the priest and received ofhim absolution. " Again: "Although in this country the unction [ExtremeUnction] has not been in use for many years, yet . .. Such unction, according to the apostle, may be hereafter observed. " Again: "Thathenceforth the mass be observed in this country with ringing of bells, with lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies. " Amongthe holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi andthe festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: "The images andpictures of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be alsoretained in the churches. " Again: "In the churches where the canonicalhours have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung inchapters and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals, and also on Sundays. " "Likewise, that on Fridays and Saturdays, as wellas during fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this beobserved as an external ordinance at the command of His ImperialMajesty. " The clause, "that this be observed, " etc. , was regarded byFlacius and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the partof the Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119. ) Again, as to the apparel ofpriests, that "a distinction be observed between ministers and secularpersons, and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate. " TheIntroduction of the Interim gives the assurance that the Lutherans wouldobey the Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. TheConclusion adds the humble promise: "In all other articles we are ready. .. In a friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved andPrincely Graces, and to settle our differences in a Christian way. " (_C. R. _ 7, 258. Jacobs, _Book of Concord, _ 2, 260. )

137. Issue in Adiaphoristic Controversy. 

From the passages quoted it appears that the Leipzig Interim wasinoculated with the germs of many controversies. However, while in thebeginning its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generallyrecognized and realized, the Emperor's demand for, and approval of, theWittenberg and Leipzig theologian's reintroduction of the Romishceremonies immediately created an acute situation and a great commotioneverywhere. The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latterpoint in particular was called the Adiaphoristic or InterimisticControversy. And, as explained above, even after the Interim had becomea dead letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because itsparamount object was not merely to pass a correct judgment on pastevents during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similarsituations in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Churchthe spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well asindirect denial of the Gospel-truth. 

Accordingly, the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: MayLutherans, under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, whenthe Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded thereinstitution of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies inquestion be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a goodconscience, that is to say, without denying the truth and Christianliberty, without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without givingoffense either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church, especially its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists anddenied by their opponents. 

138. Opposition to the Adiaphorists. 

Prominent among the theologians who participated in the controversyagainst the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, whoin Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, andadvocates of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publicationswhich dealt with the questions involved: "Opinion concerning theInterim, by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548, " published by Flacius withoutthe knowledge of Melanchthon. --"Report on the Interim by the Theologiansof Meissen, " 1548. --"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesengeschwinden Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of God inOrder to Please the Devil and the Antichrist, " by John Hermann, 1548. ALatin edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius asits author. --"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim fromwhich One may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book, "1548. --"A General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeineProtestation und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against theInterim and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemiesof the Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548. " Waremund was a pseudonym forFlacius. --"Against the Interim, Papal Mass, Canon, and Master Eisleben, "1519. --"Against the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who NowAgain Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i. E. _, against the NewInterim, by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549. " Of this book, too, Flacius was the author. (Preger 1, 67. )--"Apology (Entschuldigung) ofMatthias Flacius Illy. To a Certain Pastor, " 1549. --"Several Letters ofthe Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial, Written 1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg, " 1549, with apreface by Flacius. --"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy. , Addressed tothe University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora, " 1549. --"Writingof Matthias Flacius Illy. Against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Bookof the Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Orderto Guard Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the TrueReligion, " 1549. --"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and MatthiasFlacius Illy. To the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding theQuestion whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don theCassock" (_linea vestis, Chorrock_). --"Against the Extract of theLeipzig Interim, or the Small Interim, " by Flacius, 1549. --"Bookconcerning True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et FalsisAdiaphoris_), in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almostin Its Entirety, by Flacius, 1549. " This book, which is most frequentlyquoted and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is foundin Schluesselburg's _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff. --"An Admonition(Vermahnung) to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross andPrayer, by Flacius, " 1549. --"A Christian Admonition by Matthias FlaciusIlly. To be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and inthe Augsburg Confession, " 1550. --"Against the Alleged Power and Primacyof the Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavorsagain to Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, byMatthias Flacius Illy. "--"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock, D. Geitz Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy. , 1552. "--For a complete listof the writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger's _MatthiasFlacius Illyricus, _ 2, 540 ff. 

Even the titles of these publications indicate that the AdiaphoristicControversy did not lack violence and virulence. This animosity againstthe Interimists was chiefly due to the fear that their policy wouldfinally lead to the complete undoing of the Reformation. For whileMelanchthon still believed in and hoped for, an understanding with theRomanists, Flacius saw through their schemes and fully realized theimpending danger. In the reintroduction of Catholic ceremonies whichMelanchthon regarded as entirely harmless, Flacius beheld nothing butthe entering wedge, which would gradually be followed by the entire massof Romish errors and abuses and the absolute dominance of Pope andEmperor over the Lutheran Church. The obedience demanded by the Emperor, said Flacius, consists in this, that "we abandon our true doctrine andadopt the godless Papacy. " In all its details, he explained, theultimate purpose of the Interim is none other than the reestablishmentof Popery, of which even such seemingly trifling matters as thereintroduction of the _Chorrock (linea vestis)_ were but the beginning, as it were, the breach in the dam which was bound ultimately to resultin a complete submersion of Lutheranism. (Frank 4, 74. 76. 119. )

Since the loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther andthe Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, theycould not but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treacheryagainst the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted thattheir opponents answer the question, "whether the Pope with hisgovernment is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Wordof God he has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whetherhe still should and must be regarded and confessed as such. " And ifLuther's doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union beeffected between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and hisbishops) and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religionof Christ? (53. 107. ) On the title-page of his _Apology, _ of 1549, Flacius declares: "The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment ofthe Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple ofChrist, the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over theChurch of Christ and to grieve the godly, likewise weakening, leadinginto doubt, separation and innumerable offenses. " (Schaff 1, 301. )Regarding the acknowledgment of the Pope and bishops by the Interim, Flacius remarked: "Mark well, here the werewolf (_Baerwolf_), togetherwith his fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. Thereis, however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: "ThePope should use his power not for destruction, but for edification"], they have counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In myopinion this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to thetemple from which he has been expelled by the Finger of God. " (Preger 1, 191. ) Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and tremblingwith fear for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthonwith want of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterizedthe Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of lightand darkness, of Christ and Antichrist. 

While Flacius thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors andabettors, he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheranpastors to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross andpersecution, and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. Thatminister, he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or whoyields to a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess withour mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of theflock, but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant. Flacius also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princesand acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if theyadvocated and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged bothpastors and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding thereinstitution of the Roman ceremonies. "A government, " said he in his_Admonition, _ "no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastorto preach the pure doctrine. " When the government persecutes the truth, we must not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christianswill sacrifice everything to a tyrannical prince, but not "the truth, not the consolation of divine grace, nor the hope of eternal life. "(Frank 4, 68. 117. )

139. Doctrinal Position of Anti-Adiaphorists. 

The theological position occupied by the opponents of the Adiaphoristsmay be summarized as follows: Ceremonies which God has neither commandednor prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceterisparibus_ (other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adoptedor rejected. However, under circumstances testing one's faith they maybecome a matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case whereverand whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introductioninvolves a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringementof Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemiesof the Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or anoffense to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, theymaintained, prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope andEmperor plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romishreligion in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and thereinstitution of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, byCatholics as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such areestablishment of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzigtheologians, instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to Godfor the protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded tothe demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when theconsciences of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever theabolished rites were reinstituted. Accordingly, they declared that underthe prevailing circumstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonieswas nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian loveas well. 

Flacius, in particular, maintained that under the prevailingcircumstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphoraceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a goodconscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemiesof the Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons, such as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and becausetheir reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, andgave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people, Protestants as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard suchreintroduction both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans thatthey had been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as thebeginning of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain thereintroduction of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to theInterimists, the common people, especially the Romanists, alwaysimpressed by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer thatthose teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy inevery respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veriset Falsis Adiaphoris_ we read: "Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certepraecipua capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas cum innostris ecclesiis in eorum gratiam restituimus, an non videmur tum eis, tum aliis eorum impiis cultibus assentiri? Nec dubitant, quinquandoquidem in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessurisimus, nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esseconfiteamur. " (Schluesselburg 13, 217. ) Accordingly, Flacius contendedthat under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists, even in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial ofLutheranism. The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by himreduced to the following principle or axiom: "_Nihil est adiaphoron incasu confessionis et scandali. _ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confessionand offense are involved. " And wherever the Interim was enforced, theconsequences foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences wereconfused, simple Christians were offended, and the enemies werestrengthened in their error and emboldened in their attacks and infurther demands made upon the Lutherans. 

140. Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted. 

The Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their attitude by aseries of sophisms to which they also adhered in the "Final Report(Endlicher Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzigand Wittenberg, " 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2. ) By adopting the Interim, theWittenbergers, in reality, had assented also to doctrinally false anddubious statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such. Yet they pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and theharmlessness of their procedure. They maintained that they had yieldedmerely in minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded norprohibited by the Word of God; that this was done in order to preserveintact the central Christian truth of justification; to preservepolitical peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak, whose shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that intheir concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom, which always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this theyhad merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimizedthe entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of thesituation. In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting andsounding the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discoverednothing but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney. 

But in the ears of all genuine and earnest Lutherans their sophistriesand apologies rang neither true nor sincere. The arguments which theyemployed merely served to defeat their own purpose. What else, forexample, than disgust, indignation, and distrust could be the effect onall honest Lutherans when the Wittenberg theologians, dishonestlyveiling the real facts, declared in their official "Exposition" of 1559(when danger of persecution had passed long ago) concerning thereintroduction of Corpus Christi that they had reintroduced thisfestival all the more readily in order that they might be able toinstruct the people in the right use of the Sacrament and in thehorrible abuses and profanations of the most holy Supper of the Lord inthe circumgestation and adoration of the bread which their critics [theLutheran opponents of the Interimists, by their doctrine concerning theLord's Supper] strengthened and that they might thank God for thepurification of the temple from the Romish idol Maozim, Dan. 11, 38. (Tschackert, 510. ) Frank remarks: "One must see this passage black onwhite in order to believe the Wittenbergers really capable ofstultifying themselves in such an incredible manner. It is amonstrosity, a defense unworthy of an honest man, let alone anEvangelical Christian. " (4, 61. 113. )

The weak and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly andconvincingly refuted by their opponents. To the assertion of theWittenbergers that the dispute was concerning mere unimportantceremonies which were neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Flaciusand Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers ofMeissen whether they should leave their charges rather than don the_Chorrock, lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to suchseemingly most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_)one must not overlook what is attached to it. "We do not believe, " theysaid, "that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, althoughfirst he only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time, however, not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he willalso demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, aswell as all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since thebeginning is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are atpresent demanded only that a door may be opened for all the otherimpieties that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationuminitia iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per eaaditus reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat. _"(Schluesselburg 13, 644. )

The Adiaphorists pretended that they had consented to the Interim in theinterest of the weak, who were unable to bear persecution. But theLutherans answered that weak Christians could not be strengthened intheir faith by teaching and persuading them to deny it and that theenemies and persecutors of the Gospel could certainly not be regarded asweak. (Frank 4, 78. ) The protestations of the Adiaphorists that they hadmade the changes in ceremonies with the very best of intentions wereanswered by Flacius in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ as follows:Hardly ever has a Christian denied Christ without endeavoring to deceiveboth God and himself as to his motives. "But one must also consider, asmay be clearly shown from 1 Cor. 10, with what design (_quo animo_) theadversaries propose such things to us, likewise, how they as well asothers interpret our act. " (Schl. 13, 217. ) "Even though the intentionof those who receive and use the adiaphora be not an evil one, thequestion is, " said Martin Chemnitz in his _Iudicium de Adiaphoris, _"whether the opinion of the one who commands, imposes, and demands theadiaphora is impious or wicked, whether such reception and observationis interpreted and understood as a turning away from the confession ofthe true doctrine, and whether the weak are offended and grow faintthereby. " (717. )

To the claims of the Interimists that they were but following theexample of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romishceremonies, etc. , the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times andconditions! Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciencesstill felt bound to the Roman usages, while the "weakness" spoken of byAdiaphorists is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution. Moreover Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as therewas hope of arriving at an agreement with the Romanists in doctrine, while the Adiaphorists reinstitute ceremonies which have been abolished, and this, too, in deference and obedience to irreconcilable adversariesof the truth. Accordingly, Luther's attitude in this matter flowed frompure love for truth and from compassion with the weak, whom heendeavored to win for the truth, while the submission of theAdiaphorists to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short ofunchristian denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55. ) Brenzdeclared: "_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt. _ Adiaphoramust be judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, theadiaphoron, too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however, the condition is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observanceof it is prohibited. " (Schl. 13, 562. )

Furthermore, when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintainedthat, in preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to thegreater (persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, thevoice of true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not beplaced on a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order toavoid suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _ExplicatioGeneralis Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: "Impiumest, amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sedaccersuntur et augentur poenae. _ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins, nor are they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinducedand increased. " (13, 251. ) "It is better to take upon oneselfpunishments and great dangers than to offend God and to provoke Hiswrath by such offense. " (250. ) "It is better and easier to bear manyevils and to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the leastcommandment of God, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a singlesin. " (251. ) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but toretain a good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was thecounsel of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65. )

But our Wittenberg school will be closed, our churches will bedesolated, and our preachers will be banished, exclaimed thefaint-hearted Wittenbergers. The Lutherans answered: It is our duty toconfess the truth regardless of consequences, and, at the same time, tolook to God for the protection of His Church. Flacius said, in _De Veriset Falsis Adiaphoris:_ Confess the truth and suffer the consequences! AChristian cannot obtain peace by offending God and serving andsatisfying tyrants. Rather be drowned by the Spaniards in the Elbe witha millstone about one's neck than offend a Christian, deny the truth, and surrender the Church to Satan. "Longe satius esset teste Christopati, ut alligata mola asinaria in medium Albis ab Hispanisproiiceremur, quam _unicum_ parvulum Christi scandalizaremus, multo veromagis haec et quaevis gravissima pati deberemus, quam _tam infinitis_(ut iam fit) Christi parvulis offendiculum daremus, ecclesiam Satanaeproderemus et salvificam confessionem veritatis abiiceremus. " (Schl. 13, 227. )

As to the Wittenberg School, Flacius said: "It would certainly be betterthat the school were closed not one, but many years than that we, byavoiding confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well asstrengthen the one opposed to it. " (13, 231. ) "As for myself, I do notdoubt that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the WittenbergSchool would have been to-day much firmer than it is. .. . The Interimsprang from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians. .. . Even athousand Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highlyby pious men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they wouldrather suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel. _Certe non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, utpropter earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luceprivari. _" (232. ) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginningof 1549, Brenz said: "If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannotbe preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the piousdoctrine, then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God; He willtake care of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear ourbanishment and wait for the Lord. " (_C. R. _ 7, 290. )

June 30, 1530, Luther had written to Melanchthon, who was then inAugsburg: "You want to govern things according to your philosophy; youtorment yourself and do not see that this matter is not within yourpower and wisdom. .. . If we fall, Christ, that is to say, the Ruler ofthe world, falls with us; and even though He should fall, I would ratherfall with Christ than stand with the Emperor. " This passage is containedin one of the letters of Luther which Flacius published 1548 in order todispel Melanchthon's timidity, rouse his Lutheran consciousness, andcure him of his vain and most dangerous disposition to save the Churchby human wisdom and shrewdness, instead of, as Luther believed, solelyby a bold confession of the truth of God's Word. 

141. Theological Attitude of Flacius Sanctioned. 

The theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatantsoccupied over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Articleof the _Formula of Concord, _ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church asa whole. Frank says concerning this most excellent article which ourChurch owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notablyFlacius: "The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formulaof Concord_ were those of Flacius. " The entire matter, too, concerningthe adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that thesubsequent formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused butlittle difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f. )

Even Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of anydoctrinal deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponentsand admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding theadiaphora. In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was notsatisfied with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September5, 1556, he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: "I knewthat even the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to thepeople. However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would ratherhave our people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry ofthe Gospel. _Cum doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hancservitutem subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii. _ And I confessthat I have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This Ihave done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed. .. . Afterwards you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. InHomer, Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields andadmits that the former is victor. You never come to an end with youraccusations. Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking thosewho yield and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contendconcerning those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churcheswould enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in thismatter, and ask forgiveness of God, that I did not flee far from thoseinsidious deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hocin re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugiinsidiosas illas deliberationes_. " (_C. R. _ 8, 839. )

On January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: "I wasdrawn into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if inany way I have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of Godand of the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church. "(9, 61. ) In the _Formula Consensus, _ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in1557, the Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: "With thehelp of God we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine ofjustification, agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with theconfessions which were published in the church of Hamburg against thebook called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to bemixed with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine inall its articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical andproper forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided. " (9, 369. ) The _Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon andsigned by the princes, maintains: "Where the true Christian doctrine ofthe holy Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as wellas other ceremonies are detrimental and injurious. " (9, 501. )

XIII. The Majoristic Controversy. 

142. Early Origin of This Error. 

Though not personally mentioned and attacked by the opponents ofMajorism, Melanchthon must be regarded as the real father also of thiscontroversy. He was the first to introduce and to cultivate the phrase:"Good works are necessary to salvation. " In his _Loci_ of 1535 he taughtthat, in the article of justification, good works are the _causa sinequa non_ and are necessary to salvation, _ad vitam aeternam, adsalutem. _ (Herzog, _R. E. _, 1903, 12, 519; Galle, _Melanchthon, _ 345. 134. ) Melanchthon defined: "_Causa sine qua non_ works nothing, nor isit a constituent part but merely something without which the effect doesnot occur, or by which, if it were not present, the working cause wouldbe hindered because it was not added. _Causa sine qua non nihil agit, nec est pars constituens, sed tantum est quiddam, sine quo non fiteffectus, seu quo, si non adesset, impediretur agens, ideo quia illudnon accessisset. "_ (Preger 1, 356. ) According to Melanchthon, therefore, justification cannot occur without the presence of good works. Heexplained: "_Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent. _ Nevertheless good worksare necessary to eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily followreconciliation. " (_C. R. _ 21, 429. 775. ) According to the context inwhich it is found, this statement includes that good works are necessaryalso to justification; for Melanchthon, too, correctly held "that theadoption to eternal life or the gift of eternal life was connected withjustification, that is, the reconciliation imparted to faith. " (453. )

At Wittenberg Melanchthon's efforts to introduce the new formula metwith energetic opposition, especially on the part of Cordatus andAmsdorf. The formula: "_Bona opera non quidem esse causam efficientemsalutis, sed tamen causam sine qua non_--Good works are indeed not theefficient cause of salvation, but nevertheless an indispensable cause, "a necessary antecedent, was launched in a lecture delivered July 24, 1536, by a devoted pupil of Melanchthon, Caspar Cruciger, Sr. [born atLeipzig, January 1, 1504; professor in Wittenberg; assisted Luther intranslating the Bible and in taking down his lectures and sermons;present at colloquies in Marburg 1529, in Wittenberg 1536, in Smalcald1537, in Worms and Hagenau 1540 in Regensburg 1541, in Augsburg 1548;died November 16, 1548]. According to Ratzeberger, Cruciger haddictated: "_Bona opera requiri ad salutem tamquam causam sine qua non. _"Cordatus reports Cruciger's dictation as follows: "_Tantum Christus estcausa propter quem; interim tamen verum est, homines agere aliquidoportere; oportere nos habere contritionem et debere Verbo erigereconscientiam, ut fidem concipiamus, ut nostra contritio et nosterconatus sunt causae iustificationis sine quibus non_--our contrition andour endeavor are causes of justification without which it does not takeplace. " (3, 350. )

Cordatus immediately attacked the new formula as false. "I know, " saidhe, "that this duality of causes cannot stand with the simple article ofjustification. " (3, 350. ) He demanded a public retraction from Cruciger. Before long Amsdorf also entered the fray. September 14, 1536, he wroteto Luther about the new-fangled teaching of Melanchthon, "that works arenecessary to eternal life. " (3, 162; Luther, St. L. 21b, 4104. ) Pressedby Cordatus, Cruciger finally admitted that Melanchthon was back of thephrases he had dictated. He declared that he was the pupil of Mr. Philip; that the entire dictation was Mr. Philip's; that by him he hadbeen led into this matter; and that he did not know how it happened. _Seesse D. Philippi discipulum, et dictata omnia esse D. Philippi, se ab eoin illam rem traductum, et nescire quomodo. _" [tr. Note: no openingquotation mark in original] (_C. R. _ 3, 162. )

That Melanchthon had been making efforts to introduce the new phrases inWittenberg appears from the passage in his _Loci_ of 1535 quoted above, and especially from his letters of the two following years. November 5, 1536, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Cordatus incites the city, itsneighborhood, and even the Court against me because in the explanationof the controversy on justification I have said that new obedience isnecessary to salvation, _novam obedientiam necessariam esse adsalutem. _" (185. 179. ) May 16, 1537, Veit Dietrich wrote to Forester:"Our Cordatus, driven, I know not, by what furies, writes against Philipand Cruciger as against heretics, and is determined to force Cruciger toretract because he has said that good works are necessary tosalvation. .. . This matter worries Philip very much, and if certainmalicious men do not control themselves, he threatens to leave. " (372. )As for Melanchthon, he made no efforts to shirk the responsibility forCruciger's dictation. "_Libenter totam rem in me transfero_--Icheerfully transfer the entire affair to myself" he wrote April 15, 1537. Yet he was worried much more than his words seem to indicate. (342. )

Complaints against the innovations of Melanchthon and Cruciger were alsolodged with Luther by Cordatus, Amsdorf, and Stiefel. Cordatus reportsLuther as saying after the matter had been related to him, October 24, 1536: "This is the very theology of Erasmus, nor can anything be moreopposed to our doctrine. _Haec est ipsissima theologia Erasmi, nequepotest quidquam nostrae doctrinae esse magis adversum. _" To say that newobedience is the "_causa sine qua non--sine qua non contingit vitaaeterna, _" Luther declared, was tantamount to treading Christ and Hisblood under our feet. "_Cruciger autem haec, quae publice dictavit, publice revocabit. _ What he has publicly dictated, Cruciger shallpublicly retract. " (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 266. )

According to Ratzeberger, Luther immediately warned and censuredCruciger "in severe terms. " (_C. R. _ 4, 1038. ) Flacius reports thatLuther had publicly declared more than five times: "_Propositionem: Bonaopera esse necessaria ad salutem, volumus damnatam, abrogatam, execclesiis et scholis nostris penitus explosam. _" (Schluesselburg 7, 567. ) After his return from Smalcald, where he had expressed grave fearsas to the future doctrinal soundness of his Wittenberg colleagues, Luther, in a public disputation on June 1, 1537 "exploded and condemned"the teaching that good works are necessary to salvation, or necessary tosalvation as a _causa sine qua non_. (_Lehre u. Wehre_ 1908, 65. ) Bothparties were present at the disputation, Cordatus as well as Melanchthonand Cruciger. In a letter to Veit Dietrich, June 27, 1537, Crucigerreports: Luther maintained that new obedience is an "effect necessarilyfollowing justification, " but he rejected the statement: "New obedienceis necessary to salvation, _necessariam ad salutem. _" He adds: "_Malehoc habuit nostrum [Melanchthon], sed noluit eam rem porro agitare. _Melanchthon was displeased with this, but he did not wish to agitate thematter any further. " (_C. R. _ 3, 385. ) After the disputation Crucigerwas handed an anonymous note, saying that his "Treatise on Timothy" wasnow branded as "heretical, sacrilegious, impious, and blasphemous(_haeretica, sacrilega, impia et blasphema_), " and unless he retracted, he would have to be regarded as a Papist, a teacher and servant of Satanand not of Christ, and that his dictations would be published. (387. ) Ina letter to Dietrich, Cruciger remarks that Luther had disapproved ofthis anonymous writing, but he adds: "I can't see why he [Luther] givesso much encouragement to Cordatus. " (385. )

In private, Luther repeatedly discussed this matter also withMelanchthon. This appears from their Disputation of 1536 on thequestion: "Whether this proposition is true: The righteousness of worksis necessary to salvation. " (E. 58, 353. ) In a letter to Dietrich ofJune 22, 1537, Melanchthon, in substance, refers as follows to hisdiscussions with Luther: I am desirous of maintaining the unity of theWittenberg Academy; in this matter I also employ some art; nor doesLuther seem to be inimical; yesterday he spoke to me in a very kindmanner on the questions raised by Quadratus [Cordatus]. What a spectacleif the Lutherans would oppose each other as the Cadmean brethren! I willtherefore modify whatever I can. Yet I desire a more thorough expositionof the doctrines of predestination, of the consent of the will, of thenecessity of our obedience, and of the sin unto death. (_C. R. _ 3, 383. )

A number of private letters written by Melanchthon during andimmediately after his conflict with Cordatus, however, reveal muchanimosity, not only against Cordatus, but against Luther as well. Nor dothose written after Luther's disputation, June 1, 1537, indicate that hewas then fully cured of his error. (357. 392. 407. ) Moreover, in his_Loci_ of 1538 we read: "_Et tamen haec nova spiritualis obedientia(nova spiritualitas) necessaria est ad vitam aeternam. _ And neverthelessthis new spiritual obedience is necessary to eternal life. " (21, 429. )Evidently, then, Melanchthon did not grasp the matter, and was notconvinced of the incorrectness of his phraseology. Yet he made it apoint to avoid and eliminate from his publications the obnoxiousformula: "_Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem. _" At any rate, hisessay on Justification and Good Works, of October 1537, as well assubsequent publications of his, do not contain it. In the _Loci_ of1538, just referred to, he replaced the words _bona opera_ by the phrase_obedientia haec nova spiritualis, _--indeed, a purely verbal rather thana doctrinal change. Nor did it reappear even in the _Variata_ of 1540. In 1541, at Regensburg, Melanchthon consented to the formula "that weare justified by a living and efficacious faith--_iustificari per fidemvivam et efficacem. _" But when Luther deleted the words "_et efficacem, _and efficacious, " Melanchthon acquiesced. (4, 499. ) In the _Loci_ of1543 he expunged the appendix "_ad salutem, _ to salvation. " At the sametime, however, he retained the error in a more disguised form, _viz. _, that good works are necessary to retain faith. For among the reasons whygood works are necessary he here enumerates also "the necessity ofretaining the faith, since the Holy Spirit is expelled and grieved whensins against the conscience are admitted. " (21, 775. )

143. Formula Renewed--Abandoned. 

Under the duress of the Augsburg Interim, Melanchthon relapsed into hisold error. July 6, 1548, he (together with Caspar Cruciger, JohnPfeffinger, Daniel Gresser, George Major, and John Foerster) agreed tothe statement: "For this proposition is certainly true that no one canbe saved without love and good works. Yet we are not justified by loveand good works, but by grace for Christ's sake. " (7, 22. ) In the LeipzigInterim, adopted several months later, the false teaching concerning thenecessity of good works to salvation was fully restored, as appears fromthe quotations from this document cited in the chapter on theAdiaphoristic Controversy. According to the _Formula of Concord_ thisrenewal of the obnoxious formula at the time of the Interim furnishedthe direct occasion for the Majoristic Controversy. For here we read:"The aforesaid modes of speech and false expressions [concerning thenecessity of good works to salvation] were renewed by the Interim justat a time when there was special need of a clear, correct confessionagainst all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article ofjustification. " (947, 29. ) However, when the controversy on good worksbegan, and George Major zealously championed the restored formula, Melanchthon, probably mindful of his former troubles in this matter, signally failed to support and endorse his friend and colleague. Moreover, he now advised Major and others to abstain from using thephrase: Good works are necessary to salvation, "because, " said he, "thisappendix [to salvation, _ad salutem_] is interpreted as merit, andobscures the doctrine of grace. "

In an opinion of December, 1553, Melanchthon explains: "New obedience isnecessary; . .. But when it is said: New obedience is necessary tosalvation, the Papists understand that good works merit salvation. Thisproposition is false, therefore I relinquish this mode of speech. " (_C. R. _ 8, 194. ) January 13, 1555, he wrote to the Senate of Nordhausen thattheir ministers "should not preach, defend, and dispute the proposition[Good works are necessary to salvation], because it would immediately beinterpreted to mean that good works merit salvation--_weil doch alsbalddiese Deutung angehaengt wird, als sollten gute Werke Verdienst sein derSeligkeit. _" (410. ) September 5, 1556, he said in his letter to Flacius:"I have always admonished George [Major] not only to explain hissentence (which he did), but to abandon that form of speech. And hepromised that he would not use it. What more can I ask? The same I didwith others. " (842. )

In the Frankfurt Recess of 1558, written by Melanchthon and signed bythe Lutheran princes, we read: "Although therefore this proposition, 'New obedience is necessary (_Nova obedientia est necessaria, novaobedientia est debitum_), ' must be retained, we nevertheless do not wishto attach these words, '_ad salutem, _ to salvation, ' because thisappendix is interpreted as referring to merit and obscures the doctrineof grace, for this remains true that man is justified before God and isan heir of eternal salvation by grace, for the sake of the Lord Christ, by faith in Him only. " (9, 497. 405. ) In an opinion written November 13, 1559, Melanchthon (together with Paul Eber, Pfeffinger, and H. Salmut)again declared: "I say clearly that I do not employ the phrase, 'Goodworks are necessary to salvation. '" (969. ) In his _Responsiones adArticulos Bavaricos_ of 1559 he wrote: "_Ego non utor his verbis: Bonaopera sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia hoc additione 'ad salutem'intelligitur meritum. _ I do not use these words: Good works arenecessary to salvation, because by the addition 'to salvation' a meritis understood. " In his lectures, too, Melanchthon frequently rejectedthe appendix (to salvation), and warned his pupils not to use thephrase. (4, 543; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 78. )

Thus Melanchthon, time and again, disowned the proposition which hehimself had first introduced. Nowhere, however, did he reject it oradvise against its use because it was inherently erroneous and false assuch but always merely because it was subject to abuse andmisapprehension, --a qualified rejection which self-evidently could notand did not satisfy his opponents. In an opinion, dated March 4, 1558, Melanchthon refuses to reject flatly the controverted formula, andendeavors to show that it is not in disagreement with the mode of speechemployed in the Bible. We read: "Illyricus and his compeers are notsatisfied when we say that the appendix [to salvation] is to be omittedon account of the false interpretation given it, but demand that wesimply declare the proposition, 'Good works are necessary to salvation, 'to be wrong. Against this it must be considered what also Paul has said, Rom. 10: Confession is made to salvation (_Confessio fit ad salutem_), which Wigand maliciously alters thus: Confession is made concerningsalvation (_Confessio fit de salute_). Again, 2 Cor. 7: 'For godlysorrow worketh repentance to salvation, ' Likewise Phil. 2: 'Work outyour own salvation with fear and trembling. ' Nor do these words soundany differently: 'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will besaved, ' Acts 2, 21. But, they say, one must understand these expressionscorrectly! That is what we say, too. This disputation however, would beended if we agreed to eliminate the appendix and rack our brains nofurther--_dass wir den Anhang ausschliessen und nicht weitergruebelten. _" (9, 474. )

144. Major Champions Error. 

The immediate cause of the public controversy concerning the questionwhether good works are necessary to salvation was George Major, adevoted pupil and adherent of Melanchthon and a most active member ofthe Wittenberg faculty [Major was born April 25, 1502; 1529 Rector ofthe school in Magdeburg; 1536 Superintendent in Eisleben; soon after, preacher and professor in Wittenberg; 1544 Rector of the University ofWittenberg; in 1548, at Celle, he, too, submitted to the demands ofMaurice, in the Leipzig Interim he merely objected to the insertion ofExtreme Unction; 1552 Superintendent in Eisleben; professor inWittenberg from 1553 until his death in 1574]. 

"_That Dr. Pommer_ [Bugenhagen] _and Dr. Major have Caused Offense andConfusion. _ Nicholas Amsdorf, Exul Christi. Magdeburg, 1551, "--such wasthe title of a publication which appeared immediately prior to Major'sappointment as Superintendent in Eisleben. In it Bugenhagen (who died1558) and Major (of course, Melanchthon could and should have beenincluded) were denounced for their connection with the Leipzig Interim. Major in particular, was censured for having, in the Interim, omittedthe word _sola, _ "alone, " in the phrase "_sola fide justificamur, _ weare justified by faith alone, " and for having emphasized instead thatChristian virtues and good works are meritorious and necessary tosalvation. When, as a result of this publication the preachers ofEisleben and Mansfeld refused to recognize Major as their superior thelatter promised to justify himself publicly. He endeavored to do so inhis _Answer_ published 1552 at Wittenberg, after he had already beendismissed by Count Albrecht as Superintendent of Eisleben. The _Answer_was entitled: _Auf des ehrenwuerdigen Herrn Niclas von Amsdorfs Schrift, so jetzund neulich mense Novembri 1551 wider Dr. Major oeffendtlich imDruck ausgegangen. Antwort Georg Majors. _ In it Major disclaimedresponsibility for the Interim (although he had been present at Celle, where it had been framed), and declared that he had never doubted the"_sola fide, _ by faith alone. " "But, " continued Major, "I do confessthat I have hitherto taught and still teach, and henceforth will teachall my life: that good works are necessary to salvation. And I declarepublicly and with clear and plain words that no one is saved by evilworks, and also that no one is saved without good works. Furthermore Isay, let him who teaches otherwise, even though an angel from heaven, beaccursed (_der sei verflucht_)!" Again: "Therefore it is impossible fora man to be saved without good works. " Major explained that good worksare necessary to salvation, not because they effect or merit forgivenessof sins, justification, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life(for these gifts are merited alone by the death of our only Mediator andSavior Jesus Christ, and can be received only by faith), "butnevertheless good works _must be present, _ not as a merit, but as dueobedience toward God. " (Schlb. 7, 30. )

In his defiant attitude Major was immediately and firmly opposed byAmsdorf, Flacius, Gallus, and others. Amsdorf published his "_BriefInstruction Concerning Dr. Major's Answer, that he is not innocent, ashe boasts. _ Ein kurzer Unterricht auf Dr. Majoris Antwort, dass er nichtunschuldig sei, wie er sich ruehmet, " 1552. Major's declaration andanathema are here met by Amsdorf as follows: "First of all, I would liketo know against whom Dr. George Major is writing when he says: Nobodymerits heaven by evil works. Has even the angry and impetuous Amsdorfever taught and written thus? . .. We know well, praise God, and confessthat a Christian should and must do good works. Nobody disputes andspeaks concerning that; nor has anybody doubted this. On the contrary, we speak and dispute concerning this, whether a Christian earnssalvation by the good works which he should and must do. .. . For we allsay and confess that after his renewal and new birth a Christian shouldlove and fear God and do all manner of good works, but not that he maybe saved, for he is saved already by faith (_aber nicht darum, dass erselig werde, denn er ist schon durch den Glauben selig_). This is thetrue prophetic and apostolic doctrine, and whoever teaches otherwise isalready accursed and damned. I, therefore, Nicholas von Amsdorf, declare: Whoever teaches and preaches these words as they read (Goodworks are necessary to salvation), is a Pelagian, a mameluke, and adenier of Christ, and he has the same spirit which prompted Drs. Mensingand Witzel to write against Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, that goodworks are necessary to salvation. " (Schlb. 7, 210. )

Another attack was entitled: "Against the Evangelist of the Holy Gown, Dr. Miser Major. _Wider den Evangelisten des heiligen Chorrocks, Dr. Geitz Major, _" 1552. Here Flacius--for he was the author of thispublication--maintained that neither justification, nor salvation, northe preservation of the state of grace is to be based on good works. Heobjected to Major's propositions because they actually made good worksthe antecedent and cause of salvation and robbed Christians of theircomfort. He declared: "When we say: That is necessary for this work ormatter, it means just as much as if we said: It is a cause, or, by thisor that work one effects this or that. " As to the practical consequencesof Major's propositions, Flacius remarks: "If therefore good works arenecessary to salvation, and if it is impossible for any one to be savedwithout them, then tell us, Dr. Major, how can a man be saved who allhis life till his last breath has led a sinful life, but now when aboutto die, desires to apprehend Christ (as is the case with many on theirdeath-bed or on the gallows)? How will Major comfort such a poorsinner?" The poor sinner, Flacius continues, would declare: "Major, thegreat theologian, writes and teaches as most certain that no one can besaved without good works, and that good works are absolutely necessary(_ganz notwendig_) to salvation; therefore I am damned, for I haveheretofore never done any good works. " "Furthermore Major will also haveto state and determine the least number of ounces or pounds of goodworks one is required to have to obtain salvation. " (Preger 1, 363f. )

In his "Explanation and Answer to the New Subtle Corruption of theGospel of Christ--_Erklaerung und Antwort auf die neue subtileVerfaelschung des Evangelii Christi, _" 1554 Nicholas Gallus maintainedthat, if the righteousness presented by Christ alone is the cause of ourjustification and salvation, then good works can only be the fruits ofit. In a similar way Schnepf, Chemnitz, and others declared themselvesagainst Majorism. (Schlb. 7, 55. 162. 205. 534. 572; _C. R. _ 9, 475;Seeberg, _Dogg. _ 4, 486. )

145. Major's Modifications. 

Major answered his opponents in his book of 1553 entitled, _A Sermon onthe Conversion to God of St. Paul and All God-fearing Men. _ In it hemost emphatically denied that he had ever taught that good works arenecessary in order to _earn_ salvation, and explained more fully"whether, in what way, which, and why good works are neverthelessnecessary to salvation. " Here he also admits: "This proposition would bedangerous and dark if I had said without any distinction andexplanation: Good works are necessary to salvation. For thus one mighteasily be led to believe that we are saved by good works without faith, or also by the merit of good works, not by faith alone. " "We are notjust and saved by renewal, and because the fulfilment of the Law isbegun in us, as the Interim teaches, but in this life we always remainjust and saved by faith _alone. _" (Preger 1, 364ff. )

Major explains: "When I say: The new obedience or good works whichfollow faith are necessary to salvation, this is not to be understood inthe sense that one must earn salvation by good works, or that theyconstitute, or could effect or impart the righteousness by which a manmay stand before the judgment-seat of God, but that good works areeffects and fruits of true faith, which are to follow it [faith] and arewrought by Christ in believers. For whoever believes and is just, he, atthe risk of losing his righteousness and salvation, is in duty bound andobliged to begin to obey God as his Father, to do that which is good, and to avoid evil. " (370. )

Major furthermore modified his statement by explaining: Good works arenecessary to salvation, not in order to obtain but to retain, salvation. "In order to retain salvation and not to lose it again, " he said, "theyare necessary to such an extent that, if you fail to do them, it is asure indication that your faith is dead and false, a painted faith, anopinion existing only in your imagination. " The reason, said Major(Menius, too, later on expressed his agreement in this point withMajor), why he had urged his proposition concerning the necessity ofgood works to salvation, was the fact that the greater number also ofthose who claim to be good evangelical Christians "imagine that theybelieve, and imagine and fabricate a faith which may exist without goodworks, though this is just as impossible as that the sun should not emitbrightness and splendor. " (Tschackert 515; Frank 2, 162. 373. )

Reducing his teaching to a number of syllogisms, Major argued, insubstance, as follows: Eternal life is given to none but the regenerate;regeneration, however, is new obedience and good works in the believersand the beginning of eternal life: hence the new life, which consists ingood works, is necessary to believers for salvation. Again: No one issaved unless he confesses with his mouth the faith of his heart inChrist and remains steadfast in such faith, Rom. 10, 9. 10; Matt. 22, 13; hence the works of confessing and persevering faith are necessary tosalvation as fruits of faith, in order that salvation, obtained byfaith, may not be lost by denial and apostasy. (Frank 2, 162. ) Again:The thing without which salvation cannot be preserved is necessary tosalvation; without obedience toward God salvation, received by gracethrough faith, cannot be preserved; hence obedience toward God isnecessary in order that by it salvation, received by grace, may bepreserved and may not be lost by disobedience. At the conclusion of his"Sermon on Paul's Conversion, " Major also repeated his anathema againstall those who teach otherwise, and added: "Hiewider moegen nun Amseln[Amsdorf] oder Drosseln singen und schreien, Haehne [Gallus] kraehenoder gatzen [gakkern], verloffene und unbekannte Wenden und Walen[Flacius] laestern, die Schrift verwenden, verkehren, kalumniieren, schreiben und malen, wie sie wollen, so bin ich doch gewiss, dass dieseLehre, so in diesem Sermon steht die rechte goettliche Wahrheit ist, wider welche auch alle hoellischen Pforten nichts Bestaendiges oderGruendliches koennen aufbringen, wie boese sie sich auch machen. "(Preger 1, 371. 380. )

Schluesselburg charges Major also with confounding justification withsanctification. In proof of this he quotes the following from Major'sremarks on Rom. 8: "Salvation or justification is twofold: one in thislife and the other in eternal life. The salvification in this lifeconsists, first, in the remission of sins and in the imputation ofrighteousness; secondly, in the gift and renewing of the Holy Spirit andin the hope of eternal life bestowed freely for the sake of Christ. Thissalvification and justification is only begun [in this life] andimperfect; for in those who are saved and justified by faith there stillremains sin, the depravity of nature, there remain also the terrors ofsin and of the Law, the bite of the old Serpent, and death, togetherwith all miseries that flesh is heir to. Thus by faith and the HolyGhost we, indeed, _begin to be justified, _ sanctified, and saved, but weare not yet _perfectly justified, _ sanctified, and saved. It remains, therefore, that we become _perfectly just and saved. _ Sic per fidem etSpiritum Sanctum _coepimus quidem iustificari, _ sanctificari, etsalvari, nondum tamen perfecte iusti et salvi sumus. Reliquum igiturest, ut perfecte iusti et salvi fiamus. " (7, 348. )

146. Menius Sides with Major. 

Prominent among the theologians who were in essential agreement withMajor was Justus Menius. He was born 1499; became Superintendent inGotha 1546; was favorably disposed toward the Leipzig Interim; resignedhis position in Gotha 1557; removed to Leipzig, where he published hispolemical writings against Flacius; died August 11, 1558. In 1554 he wasentangled in the Majoristic controversy. In this year Amsdorf demandedthat Menius, who, together with himself, Schnepf, and Stolz, had beenappointed visitors of Thuringia, declare himself against theAdiaphorists, and, in particular, reject the books of Major, and hisdoctrine that good works are necessary to salvation. Menius declined, because, he said, he had not read these books. As a result Menius wascharged with being a secret adherent of Majorism. 

In 1556, however, Menius himself proved by his publications that thissuspicion was not altogether unwarranted. For in his _Preparation for aBlessed Death_ and in a _Sermon on Salvation, _ published in that year, Menius taught that the beginning of the new life in believers is"necessary to salvation" (Tschackert, 517; _Herzog, R. _ 12, 89. ) Thiscaused Flacius to remark in his book, _Concerning the Unity of Those whoin the Past Years have Fought for and against the Adiaphora, _ 1556:"Major and Menius, in their printed books, are again reviving the errorthat good works are necessary to salvation, wherefore it is to be fearedthat the latter misfortune will be worse than the former. " (Preger 1, 382. ) Soon after, Menius was suspended from office and required to clearhimself before the Synod in Eisenach, 1556. Here he subscribed sevenpropositions in which the doctrine that good works are necessary tosalvation, or to retain salvation, was rejected. 

The seven Eisenach propositions, signed by Menius, read as follows: "1. Although this proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation, may betolerated in the doctrine of the Law abstractly and ideally (_indoctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari potest_), neverthelessthere are many weighty reasons why it should be avoided and shunned noless than the other: Christ is a creature. 2. In the forum ofjustification and salvation this proposition, Good works are necessaryto salvation, is not at all to be tolerated. 3. In the forum of newobedience, after reconciliation, good works are not at all necessary tosalvation but for other causes. 4. Faith alone justifies and saves inthe beginning, middle, and end. 5. Good works are not necessary toretain salvation (_ad retinendam salutem_). 6. Justification andsalvation are synonyms and equipollent or convertible terms, and neithercan nor must be separated in any way (_nec ulla ratione distrahi autpossunt aut debent_). 7. May therefore the papistical buskin be banishedfrom our church on account of its manifold offenses and innumerabledissensions and other causes of which the apostles speak Acts 15. "(Preger 1, 383. )

In his subscription to these theses Menius declared: "I, Justus Menius, testify by my present signature that this confession is true andorthodox, and that, according to the gift given me by God, I haveheretofore by word and writing publicly defended it, and shall continueto defend it. " In this subscription Menius also promised to correct theoffensive expressions in his _Sermon on Salvation. _ However, dissatisfied with the intolerable situation thus created, he resigned, and soon after became Superintendent in Leipzig. In three violentlypolemical books, published there in 1557 and 1558, he freely vented hislong pent-up feelings of anger and animosity, especially againstFlacius. (384f. )

In these publications, Menius denied that he had ever used theproposition of Major. However, he not only refused to reject it, butdefended the same error, though in somewhat different terms. He merelyreplaced the phrase "good works" by "new life, " "new righteousness, ""new obedience, " and affirmed "that it is necessary to our salvationthat such be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. " He wrote: The Holy Spiritrenews those who have become children of God by faith in Christ, andthat this is performed in them "this, I say, they need for theirsalvation--_sei ihnen zur Seligkeit vonnoeten. _" (Frank 2, 223. ) Again:"He [the Holy Spirit] begins righteousness and life in the believers, which beginning is in this life (as long as we dwell on earth in thissinful flesh) very weak and imperfect, _but nevertheless necessary tosalvation, _ and will be perfect after the resurrection, that we may walkin it before God eternally and be saved. " (222. ) Works, said Menius, must not be introduced into the article of justification, reconciliation, and redemption; but when dealing with the article ofsanctification, "then it is correct to say: Sanctification, or renewalof the Holy Spirit, is necessary to salvation. " (Preger 1, 388. )

With respect to the proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation, Menius stated that he could not simply condemn it as altogether falseand heretical. Moreover, he argued: "If it is correct to say:Sanctification, or renewal by the Holy Spirit, is necessary tosalvation, then it cannot be false to say: Good works are necessary tosalvation, since it is certain and cannot be gainsaid thatsanctification and renewal do not and cannot exist without good works. "(386. ) Indeed, he himself maintained that "good works are necessary tosalvation in order that we may not lose it again. " (387. 391. ) At thesame time Menius, as stated above, claimed that he had never employedMajor's proposition, and counseled others to abstain from its use inorder to avoid misinterpretation. The same advice he gave with respectto his own formula that new obedience is necessary to salvation. (Frank2, 165. 223. )

Menius also confounded justification and sanctification. He wrote: "Byfaith in Christ alone we become just before God and are saved. Why?Because by faith one receives first, forgiveness of sins and therighteousness or obedience of Christ, with which He fulfilled the Lawfor us; thereupon, one also receives the Holy Spirit, who effects andfulfils in us the righteousness required by the Law, here in this lifeimperfectly and perfectly in the life to come. " (Preger 1, 387. ) At thesynod of Eisenach, 1556, the theologians accordingly declared: "Althoughit is true that grace and the gift through grace cannot be separated, but are always together, nevertheless the gift of the Holy Spirit is nota piece or part, much less a co-cause of justification and salvation, but an appendix, a consequence, and an additional gift of grace. --_Wiewohl es wahr ist, dass gratia und donum per gratiam nicht koennengetrennt werden, sondern allezeit beieinander sind, so ist doch die Gabedes Heiligen Geistes nicht ein Stueck oder Teil, viel weniger eineMitursache der Justifikation und Salvation, sondern ist ein Anhang, Folge und Zugab be der Gnade. _" (Seeberg 4, 487. )

147. Attitude of Anti-Majorists. 

With the exception of Menius and other adherents in Electoral Saxony, Major was firmly opposed by Lutheran ministers and theologianseverywhere. Even when he was still their superintendent, the ministersof Mansfeld took issue with him; and after he was dismissed by CountAlbrecht, they drafted an _Opinion, _ in which they declared that Major'sproposition obscures the doctrine of God's grace and Christ's merit. Also the clergy of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg united inan _Opinion, _ in which they rejected Major's proposition. Chief amongthe theologians who opposed him were, as stated, Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Moerlin and Chemnitz. In their publications theyunanimously denounced the proposition that good works are necessary tosalvation, and its equivalents, as dangerous, godless, blasphemous, andpopish. Yet before the controversy they themselves had not all noralways been consistent and correct in their terminology. 

The _Formula of Concord_ says: "Before this controversy quite a few pureteachers employed such and similar expressions [that faith is preservedby good works, etc. ] in the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in noway, however, intending thereby to confirm the above-mentioned errors ofthe Papists. " (949, 36. ) Concerning the word "faith, " 1549, Flacius, forexample had said that our effort to obey God might be called a "_causasine qua non, _ or something which serves salvation. " His words are:"Atque hinc apparet, quatenus nostrum studium obediendi Deo dici possitcausa sine qua non, seu huperetikon ti, id est, quiddam subserviens adsalutem. " But when his attention was called to this passage, he firsteliminated the _causa sine qua non_ and substituted _ad vitam aeternam_for _ad salutem, _ and afterwards changed this phrase into _ad verampietatem. _ (Frank 2, 218. 169. ) However, as soon as the controversybegan, the Lutherans, notably Flacius, clearly saw the utter falsity ofMajor's statements. 

Flacius wrote: "Salvation is forgiveness of sins, as Paul testifies, Rom. 4, and David, Ps. 32: 'Blessed are they whose sins are forgiven. ''Thy faith hath made thee whole. ' Matt. 9; Mark 5. 10, Luke 7. 8. 18. Jesus saves sinners and the lost. Matt. 1, 18; 1 Tim. 1. Since, now, salvation and forgiveness of sins are one and the same thing, consider, dear Christian, what kind of doctrine this is: No one has receivedforgiveness of sins without good works; it is impossible for any one toreceive forgiveness of sins or to be saved without good works; goodworks are necessary to forgiveness of sins. " (Preger 1, 375. ) Again:"Young children and those who are converted in their last hour (whocertainly constitute the greater part), must confess that they neitherpossess, nor will possess, any good works, for they die forthwith. Indeed, St. Bernard also wrote when on his deathbed: _Perdite vixi_--Ihave led a wicked life! And what is still more, all Christians, when intheir dying moments, they are striving with sins, must say: 'All ourgood works are like filthy rags; in my life there is nothing good;' and, as David says, Ps. 51: 'Before Thee I am nothing but sin, ' as Dr. Lutherexplains it. " (376. ) Again: "We are concerned about this, that poor andafflicted consciences may have a firm and certain consolation againstsin, death, devil, and hell, and thus be saved. For if a condition orappendix concerning our good works and worthiness is required asnecessary to salvation, then, as Dr. Major frequently discusses thismatter very excellently, it is impossible to have a firm and solidconsolation. " (376. )

Flacius showed that Major's proposition taken as it reads, can beinterpreted only in a papistical sense, and that no amount ofexplanations is able to cure it of its ingrained falsity. Major, saidhe, must choose between his proposition or the interpretations which heplaces upon it; for the former does not admit of the latter. He addedthat a proposition which is in constant need of explanations in ordernot to be misunderstood is not adapted for religious instruction. Fromthe fact, says Flacius, that the justified are obliged to obey the Law, it follows indeed that good works are necessary, but not that they arenecessary to salvation (as Major and Menius inferred). "From thepremises [that Christians are in duty bound to obey the Law and torender the new obedience] it merely follows that this obedience isnecessary; but nothing is here said of salvation. " (392. ) Flacius showedthat Major's proposition, even with the proviso that each and everymerit of works was to be excluded, remained objectionable. The words"necessary to, _necessaria ad, _" always, he insisted, designatesomething that precedes, moves, works, effects. The proposition:Justification, salvation, and faith are necessary to good works, cannotbe reversed, because good works are not antecedents, but consequents ofjustification, salvation, and faith. 

For the same reason Flacius objected to the phrase that good works arenecessary as _causa sine qua non. _ "Dear Dr. G. " (Major), says he, "askthe highly learned Greek philosophers for a little information as towhat they say _de causa sine qua non, hon ouk aneu. _ Ask I say, thelearned and the unlearned, ask philosophy, reason, and common languages, whether it is not true that it [_causa sine qua non_] must precede. "(377. ) No one, said he would understand the propositions of Major andMenius correctly. Illustrating this point Flacius wrote: "Can one becomea carpenter without the house which he builds afterwards? Can one make awagon or ship without driving or sailing? I say, yes! Or, dear Doctor, are we accustomed to say: Driving and sailing is necessary to the wagonand ship respectively, and it is impossible for a wagon or ship to bemade without driving or sailing? I hear: No!" (375. ) "Nobody says:Fruits and leaves are necessary to the tree; wine and grapes arenecessary to the vineyard; or dwelling is necessary to a house; drivingand sailing, to a wagon and ship; riding is necessary to a horse; butthus they speak: Wagons and horses are necessary to riding, a ship isnecessary to sailing. " (391. )

The charge that Major's proposition robbed Christians of their assuranceof salvation was urged also by Nicholas Gallus. He says: It is givingwith one hand and taking again with the other when Major adds [to hisproposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation] thatour conscience is not to look upon our works, but on Christ alone. (Frank 2, 224. ) The same point was stressed in the _Opinion_ of theministers of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg, published byFlacius and Gallus in 1553. (220. ) The Hamburg theologians declared:"This appendix [necessary to salvation, _ad salutem_] indicates a causeand a merit. " They added that in this sense also the phrase wasgenerally understood by the Papists. (Planck, _Geschichte des prot. Lehrbegriffes_ 5, 505. 497. ) Gallus also explained that it waspapistical to infer: By sins we lose salvation, hence it is retained bygood works; or, Sins condemn, hence good works save. (Frank 2, 171. )Hesshusius wrote to Wigand: "I regard Eber's assertion that good worksare necessary to justification _because they must be present, _ as falseand detrimental. For Paul expressly excludes good works from thejustification of a sinner before God, not only when considered a meritcause, glory, dignity, price, object or trust, and medium ofapplication, etc. , but also as to the necessity of their presence(_verum etiam quoad necessitatem praesentiae_). If it is necessary thatgood works be present with him who is to be justified, then Paul errswhen he declares that a man is justified without the works of the Law. "(172. )

Regarding this point, that good works are necessary to justification inso far as they must be present, the Majorists appealed to Luther, who, however, had merely stated that faith is never alone, though it alonejustifies. His axiom was: "Faith alone justifies, but it is not alone--_Fides sola iustificat, sed non est sola. _" According to Luther goodworks, wherever they are found, are present in virtue of faith; wherethey are not present, they are absent because faith is lacking; nor canthey preserve the faith by which alone they are produced. At theAltenburg Colloquy (1568 to 1569) the theologians of Electoral Saxonyinsisted that, since true faith does not and cannot exist in those whopersevere in sins against their conscience, good works must not bealtogether and absolutely excluded from justification, at least theirnecessity and presence must not be regarded as unnecessary. (189. ) Thetheologians of Ducal Saxony, however, denied "that in the article andact of justification our good works are necessary by necessity ofpresence. _Sed impugnamus istam propositionem, in articulo et actuiustificationis bona nostra opera necessaria esse necessitatepraesentiae. _" "On the other hand, however, they, too, were solicitousto affirm the impossibility of faith's coexisting with an evil purposeto sin against God in one and the same mind at the same time. " (237;Gieseler 3, 2, 251. ) In the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ theLutheran theologians declared: "The proposition (Justification of faithrequires the presence of good works) was rejected [in the _Formula ofConcord_] because it cannot be understood otherwise than of the cause ofjustification. For whatever is present in justification as necessary insuch a manner that without its presence justification can neither be noroccur, that must indeed be understood as being a cause of justificationitself. " (238)

148. Major's Concessions Not Satisfactory. 

In order to put an end to the controversy, Major offered a concession inhis "_Confession concerning the Article of Justification, _ that is, concerning the doctrine that by faith alone, without any merit, for thesake of Christ, a man has forgiveness of sins, and is just before Godand an heir of eternal salvation, " 1558. Here he states that he had notused the controverted formula for several years and, in order not togive further cause for public contention, he promised "not to employ thewords, 'Good works are necessary to salvation, ' any more, on account ofthe false interpretations placed upon it. " (Preger 1, 396. ) In makingthis concession, however, Major did not at all intend to retract histeaching or to condemn his proposition as false. He promised to abstainfrom its use, not because he was now convinced of his error and viewedhis propositions as false and incorrect as such, but merely because itwas ambiguous and liable to abuse, and because he wished to end theconflict. (Frank 2, 166f. 223. )

Nor did Major later on ever admit that he had erred in the matter. In anoration delivered 1567 he boasted of his intimate relation and doctrinalagreement with Luther and Melanchthon, adding: "Neither did I everdeviate, nor, God assisting me, shall I ever deviate, from the truthonce acknowledged. _Nec discessi umquam nec Deo iuvante discedam abagnita semel veritate. _" He had never thought or taught, said he, thatgood works are a cause of justification. And concerning the proposition, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " he had expressly declared thathe intended to abstain from its use "because it had offended some onaccount of its ambiguity, _cum propter ambiguitatem offenderitaliquos. _" He continued: "The facts show that we [the professors ofWittenberg University] are and have remained guardians of that doctrinewhich Luther and Melanchthon . .. Delivered to us, in whose writings fromthe time of the [Augsburg] Confession there is neither a dissonance nora discrepancy, either among themselves or from the foundation, noranything obscure or perplexing. " (Frank 2, 224. 167. )

Also in his Testament (_Testamentum Doctoris Georgii Majoris_), published 1570, Major emphatically denied that he had ever harbored ortaught any false views concerning justification, salvation, and goodworks. Of his own accord he had also abandoned the phrases: "Good worksare necessary to salvation; it is impossible to be saved without goodworks; no one has ever been saved without good works--_Bona opera suntnecessaria ad salutem; impossibile est, sine bonis operibus salvumfieri; nemo umquam sine bonis operibus salvatus est. _" He had done thisin order to obviate the misapprehension as though he taught that goodworks are a cause of salvation which contribute to merit and effectsalvation. According to this _Testament, _ he desired his doctrines andwritings to be judged. In future he would not dispute with anybody aboutthese phrases. (168. ) Thus in his _Testament, _ too, Major withdrew hisstatements not because they were simply false, but only because theyhad been interpreted to mean that good works are the efficient cause ofjustification and salvation. And while Major in later writings dideliminate the appendix "_ad salutem, _ to salvation, " or "_ad vitamaeternam, _ to eternal life, " he retained, and continued to teach, essentially the same error in another garb, namely, that good works arenecessary in order to retain faith. Enumerating, in his _Explanation ofthe Letter to the Galatians, _ of 1560, the purposes on account of whichgood works ought to be rendered, he mentions as the "first, in order toretain faith, the Holy Spirit, the grace bestowed, and a goodconscience. " (218. )

Thus Major was willing to abandon as dangerous and ambiguous, and toabstain from the use of the formula, "Good works are necessary tosalvation, " but refused to reject it as false and to make a publicadmission and confession of his error. This, however, was precisely whathis opponents demanded; for they were convinced that they could besatisfied with nothing less. As a result the controversy continued tillMajor's death, in 1574. The Jena professors, notably Flacius, have beencharged with prolonging the controversy from motives of personalrevenge. (Schaff, 276. ) No doubt, the Wittenbergers had gone to the verylimit of rousing the animosity and resentment of Flacius (who himself, indeed, was not blameless in the language used against his opponents). Major had depicted Flacius as a most base and wicked man, as a cunningand sly adventurer; as a tyrant, who, after having suppressed theWittenbergers, would, as a pope, lord it over all Germany; as anAntinomian and a despiser of all good works, etc. (Preger 1, 397. ) Inthe address of October 18, 1567 already referred to, Major said: "Therewas in this school [Wittenberg] a vagabond of uncertain origin, fatherland, religion, and faith who called himself Flacius Illyricus. .. . He was the first one to spew out against this school, against itsprincipal Doctors, against the churches of these regions, against theprinces themselves, the poison which he had brewed and imbibed some timeago, and, having gnawed and consumed with the bite of a serpent the wombof his mother, to destroy the harmony of these churches, at first byspreading his dreams, fables, and gossip but now also by calumnies andmanifest lies. " (Frank 2, 217. ) Melanchthon, too, had repeatedly writtenin a similar vein. In an _Opinion_ of his, dated March 4, 1558, we read:"Even if they [Flacius and his adherents] condemn and banish me, I amwell satisfied; for I do not desire to associate with them, because Iwell know that the said Illyricus with his adherents does not seek thehonor of God, but publicly opposes the truth, and as yet has neverdeclared himself concerning the entire sum of Christian doctrine. " (_C. R. _ 9, 463. 476. 311. ) In an _Opinion_ of March 9, 1559, Melanchthoneven insinuated that Flacius denied the Trinity. (763. ) Before this, August, 1549, he had written to Fabricius: "The Slavic runagate (Slavusdrapetes) received many benefits from our Academy and from me. But wehave nursed a serpent in our bosom. He deserves to be branded on hisforehead as the Macedonian king did with a soldier: 'Ungratefulstranger, xevnos acharistos. ' Nor do I believe that the source of hishatred is any other than that the place of Cruciger was not given tohim. But I omit these disagreeable narrations. " (7, 449. 478 ff. ) Thispersonal abuse, however, was not the reason why Flacius persisted in hisopposition despite the concessions made by Major and Menius, --concessions with which even such moderate men as Martin Chemnitz werenot satisfied. 

Flacius continued his opposition because he could not do otherwisewithout sacrificing his own principles, compromising the truth, andjeopardizing the doctrine of justification. He did not yield because hewas satisfied with nothing less than a complete victory of the divinetruth and an unqualified retraction of error. The truly objective mannerin which he dealt with this matter appears from his _Strictures on theTestament of Dr. Major (Censura de Testamento D. Majoris)_. Here weread, in substance: In his _Testament_ Major covers his error with thesame sophism which he employed in his former writings. For he says thathe ascribes the entire efficient cause, merit, and price of ourjustification and salvation to Christ alone, and therefore excludes andremoves all our works and virtues. This he has set forth more fully andmore clearly in his previous writings, saying that the proposition, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " can be understood in a doublesense; _viz. _, that they are necessary to salvation as a certain merit, price, or efficient cause of justification or salvation (as the Papistsunderstand and teach it), or that they are necessary to salvation as acertain debt or an indispensable cause (_causa sine qua non_), or acause without which it is impossible for the effect of salvation tofollow or for any one to obtain it. He now confesses this same opinion. He does not expressly eliminate "the indispensable cause, or theobligation without the fulfilment of which it is impossible for any oneto be preserved, as he asserted repeatedly before this, from which itappears that he adheres to his old error. _Et non diserte tollit causamsine qua non seu debitum, sine cuius persolutione sit impossibilequemquam servari, quod toties antea asseruit; facile patet, eumpristinum illum suum errorem retinere. _" (Schlb. 7, 266; Preger 1, 398. )Flacius demanded an unqualified rejection of the statement, "Good worksare necessary to salvation"--a demand with which Major as well asMelanchthon refused to comply. (_C. R. _ 9, 474 f. )

The _Formula of Concord_, however, sanctioned the attitude of Flacius. It flatly rejected the false and dubious formulas of Melanchthon, Major, and Menius concerning the necessity of good works to salvation, andfully restored Luther's doctrine. Luther's words concerning "good works"are quoted as follows: "We concede indeed that instruction should begiven also concerning love and good works, yet in such a way that thisbe done when and where it is necessary, namely, when otherwise andoutside of this matter of justification we have to do with works. Buthere the chief matter dealt with is the question not whether we shouldalso do good works and exercise love, but by what means we can bejustified before God and saved. And here we answer with St. Paul: thatwe are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by the deeds of theLaw or by love. Not that we hereby entirely reject works and love, asthe adversaries falsely slander and accuse us, but that we do not allowourselves to be led away, as Satan desires, from the chief matter, withwhich we have to do here, to another and foreign affair, which does notat all belong to this matter. Therefore, whereas and as long as we areoccupied with this article of justification, we reject and condemnworks, since this article is so constituted that it can admit of nodisputation or treatment whatever regard ing works. Therefore in thismatter we cut short all Law and works of the Law. " (925, 29. )

The _Formula of Concord_ rejects the Majoristic formula, not because itis ambiguous, but because it is false. Concerning ambiguous phrases itdeclares: "To avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum, i. E. _, words and expressions which are applied and used in variousmeanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained. " (874, 51. ) Anambiguous phrase or statement need not be condemned, because it may bemade immune from error and misapprehension by a careful explanation. Thestatement, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " however, does notadmit of such treatment. It is inherently false and cannot be cured byany amount of explanation or interpretation. Because of this inherentfalsity it must be rejected as such. Logically and grammatically thephrase, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " reverses the correcttheological order, by placing works before faith and sanctificationbefore justification. It turns things topsy-turvy. It makes the effectthe cause; the consequent, the antecedent, and vice versa. 

Not personal animosity, but this fundamental falsity of the Majoristicformula was, in the last analysis, the reason why the explanations andconcessions made by Major and Menius did not and could not satisfy theiropponents. They maintained, as explained above, that the words"necessary to" always imply "something that precedes, moves, effects, works, " and that, accordingly, the obnoxious propositions of Major"place good works before the remission of sins and before salvation. "(Preger 1, 377. ) Even Planck admits that only force could make theproposition, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " say, "Good worksmust follow faith and justification. " "According to the usage of everylanguage, " says he, "a phrase saying that one thing is necessary toanother designates a causal connection. Whoever dreamt of asserting thatheat is necessary to make it day, because it is a necessary effect ofthe rays of the sun, by the spreading of which it becomes day. " (4, 542. 485. ) Without compromising the truth and jeopardizing the doctrine ofjustification, therefore, the Lutherans were able to regard assatisfactory only a clear and unequivocal rejection of Majorism as it isfound in the _Formula of Concord. _

149. Absurd Proposition of Amsdorf. 

Nicholas Amsdorf, the intimate and trusted friend of Luther, was amongthe most zealous of the opponents of Majorism. He was born December 3, 1483; professor in Wittenberg; 1521 in Worms with Luther; superintendentin Magdeburg; 1542 bishop at Naumburg; banished by Maurice in 1547, heremoved to Magdeburg; soon after professor and superintendent in Jena;opposed the Interimists, Adiaphorists, Osiandrists, Majorists, Synergists, Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldians; died atEisenach May 14, 1565. Regarding the bold statements of Major as a blowat the very heart of true Lutheranism, Amsdorf antagonized his teachingas a "most pernicious error, " and denounced Major as a Pelagian and adouble Papist. But, alas, the momentum of his uncontrolled zeal carriedhim a step too far--over the precipice. He declared that good works aredetrimental and injurious to salvation, _bona opera perniciosa_ (noxia)_esse ad salutem. _ He defended his paradoxical statement in apublication of 1559 against Menius, with whose subscription to theEisenach propositions, referred to above, he was not satisfied; chieflybecause Menius said there that he had taught and defended them also inthe past. The flagrant blunder of Amsdorf was all the more offensivebecause it appeared on the title of his tract, reading as follows:"_Dass diese Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schaedlich, 'eine rechte, wahre christliche Propositio sei, _ durch die heiligenPaulum und Lutherum gelehrt und gepredigt. Niclas von Amsdorf, 1559. That this proposition, 'Good works are injurious to salvation, ' is acorrect, true, Christian proposition taught and preached by Sts. Pauland Luther. " (Frank 2, 228. )

Luther, to whose writings Amsdorf appealed, had spoken very guardedlyand correctly in this matter. He had declared: Good works aredetrimental to the righteousness of faith, "if one presumes to bejustified by them, _si quis per ea praesumat iustificari. _" WhereverLuther speaks of the injuriousness of good works, it is always _subspecie iustificationis, _ that is to say, viewing good works as enteringthe article of justification, or the forgiveness of sins. (Weimar 7, 59;10, 3, 373. 374. 387; E. 16, 465. 484; Tschackert, 516. ) What vitiatedthe proposition as found in Amsdorf's tract was the fact that he hadomitted the modification added by Luther. Amsdorf made a flat statementof what Luther had asserted, not flatly, _nude et simpliciter, _ but witha limitation, _secundum quid. _

Self-evidently the venerable Amsdorf, too, who from the very beginningof the Reformation had set an example in preaching as well as in livinga truly Christian life, did not in the least intend to minimize, ordiscourage the doing of, good works by his offensive phrase, but merelyto eliminate good works from the article of justification. As a matterof fact, his extravagant statement, when taken as it reads, flatlycontradicted his own clear teaching. In 1552 he had declared againstMajor, as recorded above: "Who has ever taught or said that one shouldor need not do good works?" "For we all say and confess that after hisrenewal and new birth a Christian should love and fear God and do allmanner of good works, " etc. What Amsdorf wished to emphasize was notthat good works are dangerous in themselves and as such, but in thearticle of salvation. For this reason he added: "_ad salutem, _ tosalvation. " By this appendix he meant to emphasize that good works aredangerous when introduced as a factor in justification and trusted infor one's salvation. 

Melanchthon refers to the proposition of Amsdorf as "filthy speech, _unflaetige Rede. _" In 1557, at Worms, he wrote: "Now Amsdorf writes:Good works are detrimental to salvation. .. . The Antinomians and theirlike must avoid the filthy speech, 'Good works are detrimental tosalvation. '" (_C. R. _ 9, 405 ff. ) Though unanimously rejecting hisblundering proposition, Amsdorf's colleagues treated the venerableveteran of Lutheranism with consideration and moderation. No one, saysFrank, disputed the statement in the sense in which Amsdorf took it, andits form was so apparently false that it could but be generallydisapproved. (2, 176. ) The result was that the paradox assertionremained without any special historical consequences. 

True, Major endeavored to foist Amsdorf's teaching also on Flacius. Hewrote: Flacius "endeavors with all his powers to subvert thisproposition, that good works are necessary to those who are to be saved;and tries to establish the opposite blasphemy, that good works aredangerous to those who are to be saved, and that they area hindrance toeternal salvation--_evertere summis viribus hanc propositionem conatur:bona opera salvandis esse necessaria. Ac contra stabilire oppositamblasphemiam studet: Bona opera salvandis periculosa sunt et aeternaesaluti officiunt. _" Major continues: "Let pious minds permit Flacius andhis compeers, at their own risk, to prostitute their eternal salvationto the devils, and by their execrations and anathemas to sacrificethemselves to the devil and his angels. " (Frank 2, 221. ) This, however, was slander pure and simple, for Flacius was among the first publicly todisown Amsdorf when he made his extravagant statement against Menius. (Preger 1, 392. 384. )

The _Formula of Concord_ most emphatically rejects the error of Amsdorf(the bare statement that good works are injurious to salvation) "asoffensive and detrimental to Christian discipline. " And justly so; forthe question was not what Amsdorf meant to say: but what he really didsay. The _Formula_ adds: "For especially in these last times it is noless, needful to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves ingood works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, thanthat works be not mingled in the article of justification; because menmay be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as bypapistic and Pharisaical confidence in their own works and merits. "(801, 18. )

150. Other Points of Dispute. 

Is it correct to say: God requires good works, or, Good works arenecessary, and, Christians are obliged or in duty bound to do good works(_bona opera sunt necessaria et debita_)? This question, too, was apoint of dispute in the Majoristic controversy. Originally thecontroversy concerning these terms and phrases was a mere logomachy, which, however, later on (when, after the error lurking in the absoluterejection of them had been pointed out, the phrases were still flatlycondemned), developed into a violent controversy. The _Formula ofConcord_ explains: "It has also been argued by some that good works arenot _necessary (noetig)_, but are _voluntary (freiwillig)_, because theyare not extorted by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be donefrom a voluntary spirit and a joyful heart. Over against this the otherside contended that good works are _necessary_. This controversy wasoriginally occasioned by the words _necessitas_ and _libertas_["_notwendig_" und "_frei_"], that is, necessary and free, becauseespecially the word _necessitas, _ necessary, signifies not only theeternal, immutable order according to which all men are obliged and induty bound to obey God, but sometimes also a coercion, by which the Lawforces men to good works. But afterwards there was a disputation notonly concerning the words, but the doctrine itself was attacked in themost violent manner, and it was contended that the new obedience in theregenerate is not necessary because of the above-mentioned divineorder. " (939, 4f. )

From the very beginning of the Reformation the Romanists had slanderedLuther also by maintaining that he condemned good works and simplydenied their necessity. A similar charge was made by the Majoristsagainst their opponents generally. And Melanchthon's writings, too, frequently create the same impression. But it was an inference of theirown. They argued: If good works are not necessary to salvation, theycannot be necessary at all. Wigand wrote: "It is a most malicious andinsidious trait in the new teachers [the Majorists] that they, in orderto gloss over their case, cry out with the Papists that the controversyis whether good works are necessary. But this is not in dispute, for noChristian ever denied it. Good works are necessary; that is certainlytrue. But the conflict arises from the appendix attached to it, and thepatch pasted to it, _viz. _, 'to salvation. ' And here all God-fearingmen say that it is a detrimental, offensive, damnable, papisticappendix. " (Planck 4, 498. 544. )

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with moreextensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponentsof the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement, "Good works arenecessary. " Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarilyimplying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word "must" ishere not in place, they protested. Agricola, as well as the laterAntinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions "_necessarium, _necessary" and "duty, _debitum, _" when employed in connection with goodworks. January 13, 1555, Melanchthon wrote: "Some object to the words, 'Good works are _necessary, _' or, 'One _must_ do good works. ' Theyobject to the two words _necessitas_ and _debitum. _ And theCourt-preacher [Agricola] at that time juggled with the word _must: 'dasMuss ist versalzen. _' He understood _necessarium_ and _debitum_ asmeaning, coerced by fear of punishment, _extortum coactione_ (extortedby coercion), and spoke high-sounding words, such as, how good workscame without the Law. Yet the first meaning of _necessarium_ and_debitum_ is not _extortum coactione, _ but the eternal and immutableorder of divine wisdom; and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves employthese words _necessarium_ and _debitum. _" In December, 1557, he wrote:"They [the Antinomians] object to the proposition: 'New obedience isnecessary;' again: 'New obedience is a debt (_debitum_). ' And nowAmsdorf writes: 'Good works are detrimental to salvation, 'and it wasEisleben's [Agricola's] slogan: 'Das Muss ist versalzen. ' In Nordhausensome one has publicly announced a disputation which contains theproposition: '_Summa ars Chriatianorum est nescire legem. _--The highestart of a Christian is not to know the Law. '" March 4, 1558: "Some, forinstance, Amsdorf and Gallus, object to the word _debitum. _" (_C. R. _ 8, 411. 194. 842; 9, 405. 474. )

Andrew Musculus, professor in Frankfurt on the Oder, is reported to havesaid in a sermon, 1558: "They are all the devil's own who teach: 'Newobedience is necessary (_nova obedientia est necessaria_)'; the word'must (necessary)' does not belong here. 'Good works are necessary tosalvation, ' and, 'Good works are necessary, but not to salvation'--theseare both of a cloth--_das sind zwei Hosen aus EINEM Tuch. _" (Meusel, _Handlexikon_ 4, 710; Gieseler 3, 2, 216. )

Over against this extreme position, Melanchthon, Flacius, Wigand, Moerlin, and others held that it was entirely correct to say that goodworks are necessary. In the _Opinion_ of November 13, 1559, referred toabove, Melanchthon, after stating that he does not employ the phrase, "Good works are necessary to salvation, " continues as follows: "But I doaffirm that these propositions are true, and that one may properly andwithout sophistry say, 'The new obedience or good works are necessary, 'because obedience is due to God and because it is necessary that, afterthe Holy Spirit has been received, regeneration or conversion befollowed by motions corresponding to the Holy Spirit. .. . And the words'duty' and 'necessity' signify the order of God's wisdom and justice;they do not signify an obedience which is compelled or extorted byfear. " (_C. R. _ 9, 969. ) The Frankfurt _Rezess_ of 1558 [Rezess, Rueckzug, Vergleich = Agreement], written by Melanchthon and signed bythe Lutheran princes, declared: "These propositions, '_Nova obedientiaest necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum, _ New obedience isnecessary, is a debt, ' shall not be rejected. " The _Rezess_ explained:"It is certainly a divine, immovable truth that new obedience isnecessary in those who are justified; and these words are to be retainedin their true meaning. 'Necessary' signifies divine order. New obedienceis necessary and is a debt for the very reason that it is an immutabledivine order that the rational creature obeys God. " (_C. R. _ 9, 496. 498. )

In a similar way this matter was explained by Flacius and othertheologians. They all maintained that it is correct to say, Good worksare necessary. Even Amsdorf wrote 1552 in his _Brief Instruction_against Major: "For we all say and confess that a Christian after hisrenewal and new birth _should_ and _must_ (_soll und muss_) love andfear God and do all manner of good works, but not in order to be savedthereby, for he is saved already by faith. " (Schlb. 7, 210. ) This view, which was also plainly taught in the _Augsburg Confession, _ prevailedand received the sanction of our Church in Article IV of the _Formula ofConcord. _ When a Christian spontaneously and by the free impulse of hisown faith does (and would do, even if there were no law at all) what, according to the holy will of God, revealed in the Ten Commandments, heis obliged and in duty bound to do--such works, and such only, are, according to the _Formula of Concord, _ truly good works, works pleasingto God. It was the doctrine of Luther, who had written, _e. G. _, in his_Church Postil_ of 1521: "No, dear man, you [cannot earn heaven by yourgood works, but you] must have heaven and already be saved before you dogood works. Works do not merit heaven, but, on the contrary, heaven, imparted by pure grace, does good works spontaneouslv, seeking no merit, but only the welfare of the neighbor and the glory of God. _Nein, lieberMensch, du musst den Himmel haben und schon selig sein, ehe du guteWerke tust. Die Werke verdienen nicht den Himmel, sondern wiederum[umgekehrt], der Himmel, aus lauter Gnaden gegeben, tut die guten Werkedahin, ohne Gesuch des Verdienstes, nur dem Naechsten zu Nutz und Gottzu Ehren. _" (E. 7, 174. ) Again, in _De Servio Arbitrio_ of 1525: "Thechildren of God do good entirely voluntarily, seeking no reward, butonly the glory and will of God, ready to do the good even if, assumingthe impossible, there were neither heaven nor hell. _Filii autem Deigratuita voluntate faciunt bonum, nullum praemium quaerentes, sed solamgloriam et voluntatem Dei, parati bonum facere, si per impossibile nequeregnum neque infernus esset. _" (E. V. A. 7, 234. )

XIV. The Synergistic Controversy. 

151. Relation of Majorism and Synergism. 

The theological connection between Majorism and synergism is much closerthan is generally realized. Both maintain that, in part, or in a certainrespect, salvation depends not on grace alone, but also on man and hisefforts. The Majorists declared good works to be necessary to salvation, or at least to the preservation of faith and of salvation. Thussalvation would, in a way, depend on the right conduct of a Christianafter his conversion. The Synergists asserted: Man, too, must do his bitand cooperate with the Holy Spirit if he desires to be saved. Conversionand salvation, therefore, would depend, at least in part, on man'sconduct toward converting grace, and he would be justified and saved, not by grace alone, but by a faith which to a certain extent is a workof his own. The burden of both, Majorism and synergism, was the denialof the _sola gratia. _ Both coordinated man and God as the causes of oursalvation. Indeed, consistently carried out, both destroyed the centralChristian truth of justification by grace alone and, with it, theassurance of a gracious God and of eternal salvation--the supremereligious concern of Luther and the entire Lutheran theology. 

Majorists and Synergists employed also the same line of argument. Bothderived their doctrine, not from any clear statements of the Bible, butby a process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning. The Majoristsinferred: Since evil works and sins against conscience destroy faithand justification, good works are required for their preservation. TheSynergists argued: Since all who are not converted or finally saved mustblame, not God, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who areconverted must be credited with at least a small share in the work oftheir salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace thanthe conduct of those who are lost. 

However, while Majorism as well as synergism, as stated, representedessentially the same error and argued against the doctrine of grace inthe same unscriptural manner, the more subtle, veiled, and hence themore dangerous of the two, no doubt, was synergism, which reduced man'scooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and, especially in thebeginning, endeavored to clothe itself in ambiguous phrases andapparently pious and plausible formulas. Perhaps this accounts also forthe fact that, though Melanchthon and the Majorists felt constrained toabandon as described in the preceding chapter, the coarser and moreoffensive Majoristic propositions, they had at the same time nocompunctions about retaining and defending essentially the same error intheir doctrine of conversion; and that, on the other hand, theiropponents, who by that time fully realized also the viciousness ofsynergism, were not satisfied with Major's concessions in thecontroversy on good works, because he and his colleagues in Wittenbergwere known to identify themselves with the Synergists. For the samereason the dangerous error lurking in the synergistic phrases does notseem from the first to have been recognized by the Lutherans in the samedegree as was the error contained in the Majoristic propositions, whichindeed had even during Luther's life to some extent become a subject ofdispute. Yet it seems hardly possible that for years they should nothave detected the synergistic deviations in Wittenberg from Luther'sdoctrine of free will. Perhaps the fact that at the time whenMelanchthon came out boldly with his synergism, 1548, the Lutherans wereengrossed with the Adiaphoristic and Majoristic controversies may helpto explain, at least to some extent, why the synergistic error causedsmall concern, and was given but little consideration in the beginning. As a matter of fact, although a considerable amount of synergisticmaterial had been published by 1548, the controversy did not begin till1556, while the error that good works are necessary to salvation waspublicly opposed soon after its reappearance in the Leipzig Interim. Atthe Weimar Disputation, 1560, Strigel referred to this silence, saying:"I am astonished that I am pressed so much in this matter [concerningsynergism], since three years ago at Worms no mention whatever [?] wasmade of this controversy, while many severe commands were givenregarding others. " (Richard, _Conf. Prin. , _ 349. ) The matter wasmentioned at Worms, but Melanchthon is reported to have satisfied Brenzand others by declaring that in the passages of his _Loci_ suspected ofsynergism he meant "the regenerated will. "

152. Luther's Monergism. 

According to Lutheran theology, the true opposite of synergism is notCalvinism with its double election, irresistible grace, denial ofuniversal redemption, etc. , but the monergism of grace, embracingparticularly the tenets that in consequence of Adam's fall man isspiritually dead and utterly unable to contribute in any degree ormanner toward his own justification and conversion; moreover, that, being an enemy of God, man, of his own natural powers, is active only inresisting the saving efforts of God, as well as able and prone only todo so; that God alone and in every respect is the Author of man'sconversion, perseverance, and final salvation; and that, since the graceof God is universal and earnestly proffered, man alone is responsiblefor, and the cause of, his own damnation. 

_"Sola fides iustificat, _ Faith alone justifies"--that was the greatslogan of the Reformation sounded forth by Luther and his followers withever increasing boldness, force and volume. And the distinct meaning ofthis proposition, which Luther called "_hoc meum dogma, _ this my dogma, "was just this, that we are saved not by any effort or work of our own, but in every respect by God's grace alone. The restoration of thiswonderful truth, taught by St. Paul, made Luther the Reformer of theChurch. This truth alone, as Luther had experienced, is able to impartsolid comfort to a terror-stricken conscience, engender divine assuranceof God's pardon and acceptance, and thus translate a poor miserablesinner from the terrors of hell into paradise. 

In the _Seven Penitential Psalms, _ written 1517, Luther says: "If God'smercy is to be praised, then all [human] merits and worthiness must cometo naught. " (Weimar 1, 161. ) "Not such are blessed as have no sins orextricate themselves by their own labors, but only those whose sins aregraciously forgiven by God. " (167. ) "It is characteristic of God (_esist Gottes Natur_) to make something out of nothing. Hence God cannotmake anything out of him who is not as yet nothing. .. . Therefore Godreceives none but the forsaken, heals none but the ill, gives sight tonone but the blind, quickens none but the dead, makes pious none but thesinners, makes wise none but the ignorant, --in short, He has mercy onnone but the miserable, and gives grace to none but those who are indisgrace. Whoever therefore, is a proud saint, wise or just, cannotbecome God's material and receive God's work within himself, but remainsin his own work and makes an imaginary, seeming, false, and paintedsaint of himself, _i. E. _, a hypocrite. " (183. ) "For he whom Thou [God]dost justify will never become righteous by his works; hence it iscalled Thy righteousness, since Thou givest it to us by grace, and we donot obtain it by works. " (192. ) "Israel the true [new] man, does nottake refuge in himself, nor in his strength, nor in his righteousnessand wisdom. .. . For help and grace is not with themselves. They aresinners and damned in themselves, as He also says through Hosea: OIsrael, with thee there is nothing but damnation, but with Me is thinehelp. " (210. ) "He, He, God Himself, not they themselves, will deliverthe true Israel. .. . Mark well, Israel has sin and cannot help itself. "(211. )

In his explanation of Ps. 109 (110), 1518, Luther says: "He calls thesechildren [conceived from spiritual seed, the Word of God] dew, since nosoul is converted and transformed from Adam's sinful childhood to thegracious childhood of Christ by human work, but only by God, who worksfrom heaven like the dew, as Micah writes: 'The children of Israel willbe like the dew given by God which does not wait for the hands of men. '"(701. ) Again: "In every single man God precedes with grace and worksbefore we pray for grace or cooperate. The Doctors call this _gratiamprimam et praevenientem, _ that is, the first and prevenient grace. Augustine: _Gratia Dei praevenit, ut velimus, ne frustra velimus. _ God'sgrace prevenes that we will, lest we will in vain. " (710. )

In his 40 theses for the Heidelberg disputation, also of 1518, Luthersays of man's powers in spiritual matters: "13. Free will after sin [theFall] is a mere titular affair [an empty title only], and sins mortallywhen it does what it is able to do. _Liberum arbitrium post peccatum resest de solo titulo et dum facit, quod in se est, peccat mortaliter. _""16. A man desirous of obtaining grace by doing what he is able to doadds sin to sin, becoming doubly guilty. _Homo putans, se ad gratiamvelle pervenire faciendo, quod est in se, peccatum addit peccato, utduplo reus fiat. _" "18. It is certain that a man must utterly despair ofhimself in order to become apt to acquire the grace of Christ. _Certumest, hominem de se penitus oportere desperare, ut aptus fiat adconsequendam gratiam Christi. _" (W. 1, 354. ) By way of explanationLuther added to thesis 13: "The first part [of this thesis, that freewill is a mere empty title] is apparent, because the will is a captiveand a servant to sin, not that it is nothing, but that it is free onlyto [do] evil--_non quod sit nihil, sed quod non sit liberum nisi admalum. _ John 8, 34. 36: 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. ' Hence, St. Augustine says in his book _De Spiritu et Litera:_ Free will withoutgrace can only sin--_non nisi ad peccandum valet. _ And in his secondbook against Julianus: You call that a free will which in truth iscaptive, etc. " To thesis 16 Luther added: "When man does what he is ableto do (_dum facit, quod est in se_), he sins, seeking altogether hisown. And if he is minded to become worthy of, and apt for, grace by asin, he adds proud presumption. "

In his sermon of 1519 on Genesis 4, Luther remarked: "This passage ['TheLord had respect unto Abel'] subverts the entire liberty of our humanwill. _Hic locus semel invertit universam libertatem voluntatisnostrae. _" (Weimar 9, 337. ) In a sermon of September 8, 1520, we read:"By nature we are born accursed;. .. Through Christ we are born againchildren of life. Thus we are born not by free will, not by works, notby our efforts. As a child in the womb is not born by its own works, butsuffers itself to be carried and to be given birth, so we are justifiedby suffering, not by doing. " (474. ) "Where, then, " Luther exclaimedabout the same time in his _Operationes in Psalmos, _ "will free willremain? where the doing what one can? _Ubi ergo manebit liberumarbitrium, ubi facere quod in se?_" (5, 544. 74. ) In a sermon ofFebruary 2, 1521, he said: "Whatever grace is in us comes from Godalone. Here free will is entirely dead. All that we attempt to establishwith our powers is lost unless He prevenes and makes us alive throughHis grace. Grace is His own work, which we receive in our hearts byfaith. This grace the soul did not possess before, for it is the newman. .. . The great proud saints will not do this [ascribe everything toGod and His mercy]. They, too, would have a share in it, saying to ourLord: 'This I have done by my free will, this I have deserved. '" (9, 573; 5, 544. )

Thus Luther, from the very beginning of the Reformation, stood for thedoctrine of justification, conversion, and salvation by grace alone. Most emphatically he denied that man though free to a certain extent inhuman and temporal affairs, is able to cooperate with the powers of hisnatural, unregenerate will in matters spiritual and pertaining to God. This was also the position which Luther victoriously defended againstErasmus in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ of 1525. Goaded on by the Romaniststo come out publicly against the German heretic, the great Humanist, inhis _Diatribe_ of 1524, had shrewdly planned to attack his opponent atthe most vulnerable point. As such he regarded Luther's monergisticdoctrine, according to which it is God alone who justifies, converts, preserves, and saves men, without any works of their own. In reality, however, as presently appeared from his glorious classic on the_sola-gratia_ doctrine, Erasmus had assaulted the strongest gate ofLuther's fortress. For the source of the wonderful power which Lutherdisplayed throughout the Reformation was none other than the divineconviction born of the Word of God that in every respect grace alone isthe cause of our justification and salvation. And if ever this blesseddoctrine was firmly established, successfully defended, and greatlyglorified, it was in Luther's book against Erasmus. 

Justification, conversion, perseverance in faith, and final salvation, obtained not by any effort of ours, but in every respect received as agracious gift of God alone--that was the teaching also to which Lutherfaithfully, most determinedly, and without any wavering adheredthroughout his life. In his _Large Confession_ of 1528, for example, weread: "Herewith I reject and condemn as nothing but error all dogmaswhich extol our free will, as they directly conflict with this help andgrace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since outside of Christ death andsin are our lords, and the devil our god and prince, there can be nopower or might, no wisdom or understanding, whereby we can qualifyourselves for, or strive after, righteousness and life; but we must beblinded people and prisoners of sin and the devil's own, to do and tothink what pleases them and is contrary to God and His commandments. "(CONC. TRIGL. 897, 43. )

153. Luther's Doctrine Endorsed. 

To adhere faithfully to Luther's doctrine of conversion and salvation bygrace alone was also the determination of the loyal Lutherans in theiropposition to the Synergists. Planck correctly remarks that the doctrinewhich Flacius and the Anti-Synergists defended was the very doctrinewhich "Luther advocated in his conflict with Erasmus. " (_Prot. Lehrbegriff_ 4, 667. ) This was substantially conceded even by theopponents. When, for example, at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, theRomanists demanded that Flacius's doctrine of free will be condemned bythe Lutherans, Melanchthon declared that herein one ought not to submitto the Papists, who slyly, under the name of Illyricus [Flacius], demanded the condemnation of Luther, whose opinion in the doctrine offree will he [Melanchthon] was neither able nor willing to condemn. (Gieseler 3, 2, 232. ) In their _Confession, _ published in March, 1569, the theologians of Ducal Saxony (Wigand, Coelestin, Irenaeus, Kirchner, etc. ) declared: "We also add that we embrace the doctrine and opinion ofDr. Luther, the Elias of these latter days of the world, as it is mostluminously and skilfully set forth in the book _De Servo Arbitrio, _against Erasmus, in the _Commentary on Genesis, _ and in other books; andwe hold that this teaching of Luther agrees with the eternal Word ofGod. " (Schluesselburg, _Catalogus_ 5, 133. )

Luther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine was embodied also in the _Formula ofConcord, _ and this with a special endorsement of his book _De ServoArbitrio. _ For here we read: "Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter[the doctrine that our free will has no power whatever to qualify itselffor righteousness, etc. ] also in his book _De Servo Arbitrio; i. E. _, Ofthe Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated andsupported this position well and thoroughly [_egregie et solide_]; andafterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of thebook of Genesis, especially of chapter 26. There likewise his meaningand understanding of some other peculiar disputations introducedincidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc. , have beensecured by him in the best and most careful way against allmisunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal andrefer others. " (897, 44; 981, 28. ) In the passage of his _Commentary onGenesis_ referred to by the _Formula, _ Luther does not, as has beenclaimed, retract or modify his former statements concerning theinability of the human will and the monergism of grace, but emphasizesthat, in reading _De Servo Arbitrio, _ one must heed and not overlook hisfrequent admonitions to concern oneself with God as He has revealedHimself in the Gospel, and not speculate concerning God in Histranscendence, absoluteness, and majesty, as the One in whom we live andmove and have our being, and without whom nothing can either exist oroccur, and whose wonderful ways are past finding out. (CONC. TRIGL. , 898. ) And the fact that the Lutheran theologians, living at the time andimmediately after the framing of the _Formula of Concord, _ objectedneither to the book _De Servo Arbitrio_ itself nor to its publicendorsement by the _Formula of Concord, _ is an additional proof of thefact that they were in complete agreement with Luther's teaching ofconversion and salvation by grace alone. (Frank 1, 120. )

This _sola-gratia_-doctrine, the vital truth of Christianity, rediscovered and proclaimed once more by Luther, was, as stated, thetarget at which Erasmus directed his shafts. In his _Diatribe_ hedefined the power of free will to be the faculty of applying oneself tograce (_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_), and declared that those arethe best theologians who, while ascribing as much as possible to thegrace of God, do not eliminate this human factor. He wrote: Free will is"the ability of the human will according to which man is able either toturn himself to what leads to eternal salvation or to turn away fromit. " (St. L. 18, 1612. ) Again: "Those, therefore, who are farthest apartfrom the views of Pelagius ascribe to grace the most, but to free willalmost nothing; yet they do not abolish it entirely. They say that mancannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anythinggood, cannot continue in it, cannot complete anything without the chiefthing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems to bepretty probable because it leaves to man a striving and an effort, andyet does not admit that he is to ascribe even the least to his ownpowers. " (1619. ) One must avoid extremes, and seek the middle of theroad, said Erasmus. Pelagius had fallen into Scylla, and Luther intoCharybdis. "I am pleased with the opinion of those who ascribe to freewill something, but to grace by far the most. " (1666. ) Essentially, this was the error held, nursed, and defended also by the Synergists, though frequently in more guarded and ambiguous phrases. But theirtheory of conversion also involved, as Schaff and Schmauk put it, "theidea of a partnership between God and man, and a corresponding divisionof work and merit. " (_Conf. Principle, _ 600. )

However, these attempts to revamp the Semi-Pelagian teaching resulted ina controversy which more and longer than any other endangered anddisquieted the Lutheran Church, before as well as after the adoption ofthe _Formula of Concord. _ Whether the unregenerate man, when the Word ofGod is preached, and the grace of God is offered him, is able to preparehimself for grace, accept it, and assent thereto, was, according to the_Formula of Concord, _ "the question upon which, _for quite a number ofyears now, _ there has been a controversy among some theologians in thechurches of the Augsburg Confession. " (881, 2. ) And of all thecontroversies after Luther's death the synergistic controversy was mostmomentous and consequential. For the doctrine of grace with which itdealt is the vital breath of every Christian. Without it neither faithnor the Christian religion can live and remain. "If we believe, " saysLuther in _De Servo Arbitrio, _ "that Christ has redeemed men by Hisblood, then we must confess that the entire man was lost; otherwise wemake Christ superfluous or the Redeemer of but the meanest part of us, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. " Reading the book of Erasmus, inwhich he bent every effort toward exploding the doctrine of grace, Luther felt the hand of his opponent clutching his throat. In theclosing paragraph of _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther wrote: "I highly laudand extol you for this thing also, that of all others you alone havegone to the heart of the subject. .. . You alone have discerned the coreof the matter and have aimed at the throat, for which I thank youheartily. --_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti, et ipsum iugulumpetisti, pro quo ex animo tibi gratias ago, in hac enim causa libentiusversor, quantum favet tempus et otium. _" (E. V. A. 7, 367. 137; St. L. 18, 1967; Pieper, _Dogm. _ 2, 543. ) And so the Synergists, who renewedthe doctrine of Erasmus, also flew at the throat of Christianity. Genuine Lutheranism would have been strangled if synergism had emergedvictorious from this great controversy of grace versus free will. 

154. The Father of Synergism. 

During the first period of his activity in Wittenberg, Melanchthon wasin perfect agreement with Luther also on the question of man's inabilityin spiritual matters and the sole activity, or monergism, of grace inthe work of his salvation. As late as 1530 he incorporated these viewsin the _Augsburg Confession, _ as appears, in particular, from ArticlesII, V, XVIII, and XIX. His later doctrine concerning the threeconcurring causes of conversion (the Holy Spirit, the Word, and theconsenting will of man), as well as his theory explainingsynergistically, from an alleged dissimilar action in man, thedifference why some are saved while others are lost, is not so much ashinted at in the Confession. But even at this early date (1530) or soonafter, Melanchthon also does not seem any longer to have agreedwhole-heartedly with Luther in the doctrine of grace and free will. Andin the course of time his theology drifted farther and farther from itsoriginal monergistic moorings. Nor was Luther wholly unaware of thesecret trend of his colleague and friend toward--Erasmus. In 1536, whenthe deviations of Melanchthon and Cruciger, dealt with in our previouschapter, were brought to his notice, Luther exclaimed: "_Haec estipsissima theologia Erasmi. _ This is the identical theology of Erasmus, nor can there be anything more opposed to our doctrine. " (Kolde, _Analecta, _ 266. )

That Melanchthon's theology was verging toward Erasmus appears from hisletter of June 22, 1537, to Veit Dietrich, in which he said that hedesired a more thorough exposition also of the doctrines ofpredestination and of the _consent of the will. _ (_C. R. _ 3, 383. )Before this, in his _Commentary on Romans_ of 1532, he had written thatthere is some cause of election also in man; _viz. _, in as far as hedoes not repudiate the grace offered--"_tamen eatenus aliquam causam inaccipiente esse quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat_. " (Seeberg 4, 442. ) In an addition to his _Loci_ of 1533 he also spoke of a cause ofjustification and election residing in man. (_C. R. _ 21, 332. ) In therevised editions of 1535 and 1543 he plainly began to prepare the wayfor his later bold and unmistakable deviations. For even though unableto point out a clean-cut and unequivocal synergistic statement, onecannot read these editions without scenting a Semi-Pelagian and Erasmianatmosphere. What Melanchthon began to teach was the doctrine that man, when approached by the Word of God, is able to assume either an attitudeof _pro_ or _con_, _i. E. _, for or against the grace of God. The sameapplies to the _Variata_ of 1540 in which the frequent "_adiuvari_"there employed, though not incorrect as such, was not without asynergistic flavor. 

Tschackert remarks of the _Loci_ of 1535: "Melanchthon wants to make manresponsible for his state of grace. Nor does the human will inconsequence of original sin lose the ability to decide itself whenincited; the will produces nothing new by its own power, but assumes anattitude toward what approaches it. When man hears the Word of God, andthe Holy Spirit produces spiritual affections in his heart, the will caneither assent or turn against it. In this way Melanchthon arrives at theformula, ever after stereotype with him, that there are three concurringcauses in the process of conversion: 'the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will, which, indeed, is not idle, _but strives against itsinfirmity. '_" (520. )

However, during the life of Luther, Melanchthon made no furthermeasurable progress towards synergism. Perhaps the unpleasantexperiences following upon his innovations in the doctrine of good worksacted as a check also on the public development of his synergistictendencies. During Luther's life Melanchthon, as he himself admitted toCarlowitz (106), dissimulated, keeping his deviating views to himselfand his intimate friends. After Luther's death, however, he came outunmistakably and publicly, also in favor of synergism, endorsing eventhe Erasmian definition of free will as "the power in man to applyhimself to grace. " He plainly taught that, when drawn by the HolySpirit, the will is able to decide _pro_ or _con, _ to obey or to resist. Especially in his lectures, Melanchthon--not indeed directly, butmentioning the name of Flacius--continually lashed such phrases ofLuther as "purely passive, " "block, " "resistance, "--a fact to whichSchluesselburg, who had studied in Wittenberg, refers in support of hisassertion that Melanchthon had departed from Luther's teaching on freewill. (_Catalogus_ 5, 32. ) While Melanchthon formerly (in his _Loci_ of1543) had spoken of three causes of a good action (_bonae actionis_) henow publicly advocated the doctrine of three concurring causes of_conversion. _ Now he boldly maintained that, since the grace of God isuniversal, one must assume, and also teach, that there are differentactions in different men, which accounts for the fact that some areconverted and saved while others are lost. According to the laterMelanchthon, therefore, man's eternal salvation evidently does notdepend on the gracious operations of God's Holy Spirit and Word alone, but also on his own correct conduct toward grace. In his heart, especially when approaching the mercy-seat in prayer, Melanchthon, nodoubt, forgot and disavowed his own teaching, and believed and practisedLuther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine. But it cannot be denied that, in hisendeavors to harmonize universal grace with the fact that not all, butsome only, are saved, Melanchthon repudiated the monergism of Luther, espoused and defended the powers of free will in spiritual matters, andthought, argued, spoke, and wrote in terms of synergism. Indeed, Melanchthon must be regarded as the father of both synergism and therationalistic methods employed in its defense, and as the true fatheralso of the modern rationalistico-synergistic theology represented bysuch distinguished men as Von Hofmann, Thomasius, Kahnis, Luthardt, etc. (Pieper 2, 582; Frank 1, 231. )

155. Unsound Statements of Melanchthon. 

Following are some of the ambiguous and false deliverances ofMelanchthon: In the _Loci_ of 1535 the so-called human cause ofconversion which must be added to the Word and Spirit is described asendeavoring, striving, and wishing to obey and believe. We read: "We donot say this to ensnare the consciences, or to deter men from theendeavor to obey and believe, or from making an effort. On the contrary, since we are to begin with the Word, we certainly must not resist theWord of God, but strive to obey it. .. . We see that these causes areunited: the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, which is certainly notidle, but strives against its infirmity. In this manner ecclesiasticalwriters are accustomed to join these causes. Basil says: 'Only will, andGod will precede, ' God precedes, calls, moves, assists us, but let usbeware lest we resist. .. . Chrysostom says: He who draws, draws him whois willing. " (_C. R. _ 21, 376. )

In conversion and salvation God certainly must do and does His share, but man must beware lest he fail to do what is required of him. This isalso the impression received from Melanchthon's statements in the thirdelaboration of his _Loci, _ 1543. We read: "Here three causes of a goodaction concur (_hic concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis_): the Wordof God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will assenting to and notresisting the Word of God (_humana voluntas assentiens, nec repugnansVerbo Dei_). For it could expel [the Spirit], as Saul expelled [Him] ofhis own free will. But when the mind hearing and sustaining itself doesnot resist, does not give way to diffidence, but, the Holy Spiritassisting, endeavors to assent, --in such a struggle the will is notinactive (_in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa_). The ancients havesaid that good works are done when grace precedes and the will follows. So also Basil says: '_Monon theleson, kai theos proapanta_, Only will, and God anticipates. God precedes, calls, moves, assists us; but as forus, let us see to it that we do not resist. _Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adiuvat, SED NOS VIDERIMUS, ne repugnemus, _' (21, 658. ) And Phil. 1, 6: 'He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until theday of Jesus Christ, ' _i. E. _, we are assisted by God (_adiuvamur aDeo_), but we must hear the Word of God and not resist the drawing God. "(916. ) "God draws our minds that they will, but we must assent, notresist. _Deus trahit mentes, ut velint, sed assentiri nos, non repugnareoportet. _" (917. ) Here we also meet the remark: "But the will, whenassisted by the Holy Spirit, becomes more free. _Fit autem voluntasadiuvata Spiritu Sancto magis libera. _" (663. ) Frank commentspertinently that the _magis_ presupposes a certain degree of liberty ofthe will before the assistance of the Holy Spirit. (1, 198. )

The boldest synergistic statements are found in the _Loci_ of 1548. Itwas the year of the Leipzig Interim, in which the same error wasembodied as follows: "The merciful God does not deal with man as with ablock, but draws him in such a way that his will, too, cooperates. " (_C. R. _ 7, 51. 260. ) As to the _Loci_ of this year, Bindseil remarks in the_Corpus Reformatorum:_ "This edition is famous on account of certainparagraphs inserted by the author in the article on Free Will. For theseadditions contain the Erasmian definition of free will (that it is thefaculty of applying oneself to grace), on account of which Melanchthonwas charged with synergism by the Flacians. .. . For this reason theedition is called by J. T. Mayer 'the worst of all (_omnium pessima_). '"At the Weimar colloquy, 1560, even Strigel was not willing to identifyhimself openly with the Erasmian definition of free will (_facultasapplicandi se ad gratiam_) as found in one of these sections. WhenFlacius quoted the passage, Strigel retorted excitedly: "I do notdefend that definition which you have quoted from the recent edition[1548]. When did you hear it from me? When have I undertaken to defendit?" (Frank 1, 199. 135. ) At the Herzberg colloquy Andreae remarked:"The _Loci Communes_ of Melanchthon are useful. But whoever reads the_locus de libero arbitrio_ must confess, even if he judges most mildly, that the statements are dubious and ambiguous. And what of the fourparagraphs which were inserted after Luther's death? For here we read:'There must of necessity be a cause of difference in us why a Saul isrejected, a David received. '" (Pieper 2, 587. )

From these additions of 1548 we cite: "Nor does conversion occur inDavid in such a manner as when a stone is turned into a fig: but freewill does something in David; for when he hears the rebuke and thepromise, he willingly and freely confesses his fault. And his will doessomething when he sustains himself with this word: The Lord hath takenaway your sin. And when he endeavors to sustain himself with this word, he is already assisted by the Holy Spirit. " (_C. R. _ 21, 659. ) Again: "Itherefore answer those who excuse their idleness because they think thatfree will does nothing, as follows: It certainly is the eternal andimmovable will of God that you obey the voice of the Gospel, that youhear the Son of God, that you acknowledge the Mediator. How black isthat sin which refuses to behold the Mediator, the Son of God, presentedto the human race! You will answer: 'I cannot. ' But in a manner you can(_immo aliquo modo potes_), and when you sustain yourself with the voiceof the Gospel, then pray that God would assist you, and know that theHoly Spirit is efficacious in such consolation. Know that just in thismanner God intends to convert us, when we, roused by the promise wrestlewith ourselves, pray and resist our diffidence and other viciousaffections. For this reason some of the ancient Fathers have said thatfree will in man is the faculty to apply himself to grace (_liberumarbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam_); _i. E. _, he hears the promise, endeavors to assent, and abandons sins againstconscience. Such things do not occur in devils. The difference thereforebetween the devils and the human race ought to be considered. Thesematters however, become still clearer when the promise is considered. For since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictorywills in God, there must of necessity be in us some cause of differencewhy Saul is rejected and David is received; _i. E. _, there must ofnecessity be some dissimilar action in these two. _Cum promissio situniversalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est innobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abiiciatur. Davidrecipiatur, id est, necesse est aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in hisduobus. _ Properly understood, this is true, and the use [_usus_] in theexercises of faith and in true consolation (when our minds acquiesce inthe Son of God, shown in the promise) will illustrate this copulation ofcauses: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the will. " (_C. R. _ 21, 659f. )

At the colloquy of Worms, 1557, Melanchthon, interpellated by Brenz, isreported to have said that the passage in his _Loci_ of 1548 definingfree will as the faculty of applying oneself to grace referred to theregenerated will (_voluntas renata_), as, he said, appeared from thecontext. (Gieseler 3, 2, 225; Frank 1, 198. ) As a matter of fact, however, the context clearly excludes this interpretation. In thepassage quoted, Melanchthon, moreover, plainly teaches: 1. That inconversion man, too, can do, and really does, something by willinglyconfessing his fault, by sustaining himself with the Word, by prayingthat God would assist him, by wrestling with himself, by strivingagainst diffidence, etc. ; 2. That the nature of fallen man differs fromthat of the devils in this, that his free will is still able to applyitself to grace, endeavor to assent to it, etc. ; 3. That the dissimilaractions resulting from the different use of this natural abilityaccounts for the fact that some are saved while others are lost. Suchwas the plain teaching of Melanchthon from which he never receded, butwhich he, apart from other publications, reaffirmed in every newedition of his _Loci. _ For all, including the last one to appear duringhis life (1559), contain the additions of 1548. "The passage added bythe author [Melanchthon, 1548] after Luther's death is repeated in allsubsequent editions, " says Bindseil. (_C. R. _ 21, 570. )

The sections which were added to the _Loci_ after 1548 also breathe thesame synergistic spirit. In 1553 Melanchthon inserted a paragraph whichsays that, when approached by the Holy Spirit, the will can obey orresist. We read: "The liberty of the human will after the Fall, also inthe non-regenerate, is the faculty by virtue of which man is able togovern his motions, _i. E. _, he can enjoin upon his external members suchactions as agree, or such as do not agree, with the Law of God. But hecannot banish doubts from his mind and evil inclinations from his heartwithout the light of the Gospel and without the Holy Spirit. But whenthe will is drawn by the holy Spirit, it can obey or resist. _Cum autemtrahitur a Spiritu Sancto, potest obsequi et repugnare. _" (21, 1078; 13, 162. )

Other publications contain the same doctrine. While in his _Loci_ of1543 he had spoken only of three causes of a good action (_bonaeactionis_), Melanchthon, in his _Enarratio Symboli Nicaeni_ of 1550, substituted "conversion" for "good action. " We read: In conversion thesecauses concur: the Holy Spirit, the voice of the Gospel, "and the willof man, which does not resist the divine voice, but somehow, withtrepidation, assents. _Concurrunt in conversione hae causae: SpiritusSanctus . .. Vox Evangelii . .. Et voluntas hominis, quae non repugnatvoci divinae, sed inter trepidationem utcumque assentitur_. " Again: "Andconcerning this copulation of causes it is said: The Spirit comes to theassistance of our infirmity. And Chrysostom truly says: God draws, buthe draws him who is willing. " Again: God's promise is universal, andthere are no contradictory wills in God; hence, though Paul is drawn ina different manner than Zacchaeus, "nevertheless there is some assent ofthe will (_tamen aliqua est voluntatis assensio_). " "God thereforebegins and draws by the voice of the Gospel but He draws him who iswilling, and assists him who assents. " "Nor is anything detracted fromthe glory of God, but it is truly affirmed that the assistance of Godalways concurs in the beginning and afterwards (_auxilium Dei semperinitio et deinceps concurrere_). " (23, 280 ff. ) Accordingly, God merelyconcurs as one of three causes, among which the will of man is thethird. In his _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, Melanchthon again replacedthe term "good action" by "conversion. " He says: "In conversion thesecauses concur: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father and Sonsend to kindle our hearts, and our will, assenting and not resisting theWord of God (_et nostra voluntas assentiens et non repugnans VerboDei_). And lest we yield to diffidence, we must consider that bothpreachings are universal, the preaching of repentance as well as thepromise of grace. .. . Let us therefore not resist but assent to thepromise, and constantly repeat this prayer: I believe, O Lord, but cometo the help of my weakness. " (23, 15. ) Finally in his _Opinion on theWeimar Book of Confutation, _ March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks: "Again, if the will is able to turn from the consolation, it must be inferredthat it works something and follows the Holy Spirit when it accepts theconsolation. _Item, so sich der Wille vom Trost abwenden mag, so istdagegen zu verstehen, dass er etwas wirket und folget dem HeiligenGeist, so er den Trost annimmt. _" (9, 768. )

W. Preger is right when he says: "According to Melanchthon's view, natural man is able to do the following [when the Word of God ispreached to him]: he is able not to resist; he is able to take painswith respect to obedience; he is able to comfort himself with theWord. .. . This [according to Melanchthon] is a germ of the positive goodwill still found in natural man which prevenient grace arouses. "(_Flacius Illyricus_ 2, 189 f. ) Schmauk writes: Melanchthon found "thecause for the actual variation in the working of God's grace in man, itsobject. This subtle synergistic spirit attacks the very foundation ofLutheranism, flows out into almost every doctrine, and weakens theChurch at every point. And it was particularly this weakness which thegreat multitude of Melanchthon's scholars, who became the leaders of thegeneration of which we are speaking, absorbed, and which rendered itdifficult to return, finally, after years of struggle, to the solidground, once more recovered in the _Formula of Concord. _" (_Conf. Principle, _ 601. )

R. Seeberg characterizes Melanchthon's doctrine as follows: "Asynergistic trait therefore appears in his doctrine. In the lastanalysis, God merely grants the outer and inner possibility of obtainingsalvation. Without man's cooperation this possibility would not becomereality; and he is able to refuse this cooperation. It is, therefore, inconversion equally a cause with the others. _Sie [die Mitwirkung desMenschen] ist also freilich eine den andern Ursachen gleichberechtigteUrsache in der Bekehrung. _" God makes conversion possible, but only thedecision of man's free will makes it actual, --such, according toSeeberg, was the "synergism" of Melanchthon. (Seeberg, _Dogg. , _ 4, 444. 446. )

Frank says of Melanchthon's way of solving the question why some areconverted and saved while others are lost: "The road chosen byMelanchthon has indeed led to the goal. The contradictions are solved. But let us look where we have landed. We are standing--in the Romancamp!" After quoting a passage from the _Tridentinum, _ which speaks ofconversion in terms similar to those employed by Melanchthon, Frankcontinues: "The foundation stone of Luther's original Reformationdoctrine of salvation by grace alone; _viz. _, that nothing in us, noteven our will moved and assisted by God, is the _causa meritoria_ ofsalvation, is subverted by these propositions; and it is immaterial tothe contrite heart whether much or little is demanded from free will asthe faculty of applying oneself to grace. " Frank adds: "What thePhilippists, synchronously [with Melanchthon] and later, propoundedregarding this matter [of free will] are but variations of the themestruck by Melanchthon. Everywhere the sequence of thought is the same, with but this difference, that here the faults of the Melanchthoniantheory together with its consequences come out more clearly. " (1, 134f. )The same is true of modern synergistic theories. Without exception theyare but variations of notes struck by Melanchthon, --the father of allthe synergists that have raised their heads within the Lutheran Church. 

156. Pfeffinger Champions Synergistic Doctrine. 

Prior to 1556 references to the unsound position of the Wittenberg andLeipzig theologians are met with but occasionally. (Planck 4, 568. ) Theunmistakably synergistic doctrine embodied in the _Loci_ of 1548, aswell as in the Leipzig Interim, did not cause alarm and attractattention immediately. But when, in 1555, John Pfeffinger [born 1493;1539 superintendent, and 1543 professor in Leipzig; assisted 1548 inframing the Leipzig Interim; died January 1, 1573] published his "FiveQuestions Concerning the Liberty of the Human Will--_De LibertateVoluntatis Humanae Quaestiones Quinque. _ D. Johannes Pfeffinger LipsiaeEditae in Officina Georgii Hantschi 1555, " the controversy flared upinstantly. It was a little booklet containing besides a briefintroduction, only 41 paragraphs, or theses. In these Pfeffingerdiscussed and defended the synergistic doctrine of Melanchthon, maintaining that in conversion man, too, must contribute his sharethough it be ever so little. 

Early in the next year Pfeffinger was already opposed by the theologiansof Thuringia, the stanch opponents of the Philippists, John Stolz, court-preacher at Weimar composing 110 theses for this purpose. In 1558Amsdorf published his _Public Confession of the True Doctrine of theGospel and Confutation of the Fanatics of the Present Time, _ in whichhe, quoting from memory, charged Pfeffinger with teaching that man isable to prepare himself for grace by the natural powers of his freewill, just as the godless sophists, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, and theirdisciples, had held. (Planck 4, 573. 568. ) About the same time Stolzpublished the 110 theses just referred to with a preface by Aurifaber(_Refutatio Propositionum Pfeffingeri de Libero Arbitrio_). Flacius, then professor in Jena, added his _Refutation of Pfeffinger'sPropositions on Free Will_ and _Jena Disputation on Free Will. _ In thesame year, 1558, Pfeffinger, in turn published his _Answer to the PublicConfession of Amsdorf, _ charging the latter with falsification, anddenouncing Flacius as the "originator and father of all the lies whichhave troubled the Lutheran Church during the last ten years. " But at thesame time Pfeffinger showed unmistakably that the charges of hisopponents were but too well founded. Says Planck: "Whatever may havemoved Pfeffinger to do so, he could not (even if Flacius himself hadsaid it for him) have confessed synergism more clearly and moredefinitely than he did spontaneously and unasked in this treatise. " (4, 574. ) Frank: "Pfeffinger goes beyond Melanchthon and Strigel; for theaction here demanded of, and ascribed to, the natural will is, accordingto him, not even in need of liberation by prevenient grace. .. . Hisdoctrine may without more ado be designated as Semi-Pelagianism. " (1, 137. )

At Wittenberg, Pfeffinger was supported by George Major, Paul Eber, andPaul Crell and before long his cause was espoused also by VictorinStrigel in Jena. Disputations by the Wittenberg and Leipzig synergists(whom Schluesselburg, 5, 16, calls "cooperators" and "die freiwilligenHerren") and by their opponents in Jena increased the animosity. Bothparties cast moderation to the winds. In a public letter of 1558 theWittenberg professors, for example, maligned Flacius in every possibleway, and branded him as "der verloffene undeutsche Flacius Illyricus"and as the sole author of all the dissensions in the churches ofGermany. (Planck 4, 583. )

157. Statements of Pfeffinger. 

Following are some of the synergistic deliverances made by Pfeffinger inhis _Five Questions Concerning the Liberty of the Human Will. _ Par. 11reads: "Thirdly, when we inquire concerning the spiritual actions, it iscorrect to answer that the human will has not such a liberty as to beable to effect the spiritual motions without the help of the Holy Spirit(_humanam voluntatem non habere eiusmodi libertatem, ut motusspirituales sine auxilio Spiritus Sancti efficere possit_). " Par. 14:"Therefore some assent or apprehension on our part must concur (_oportetigitur nostram aliquam assensionem seu apprehensionem concurrere_) whenthe Holy Spirit has aroused (_accenderit_) the mind, the will and theheart. Hence Basil says: Only will, and God anticipates; and Chrysostom:He who draws, draws him who is willing; and Augustine: He assists thosewho have received the gift of the call with becoming piety, and preservethe gifts of God as far as man is able. Again: When grace precedes, thewill follows--_praeeunte gratia, comitante voluntate. _" In Par. 16 weread: "The will, therefore, is not idle, but assents faintly. _Voluntasigitur non est otiosa sed languide assentitur. _"

Paragraph 17 runs: "If the will were idle or purely passive, there wouldbe no difference between the pious and the wicked, or between the electand the damned, as, between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. Godwould also become a respecter of persons and the author of contumacy inthe wicked and damned; and to God would be ascribed contradictory wills, --which conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that thereis in us a cause why some assent while others do not. _Sequitur ergo innobis esse aliquam causam, cur alii assentiantur, alii nonassentiantur_. " Par. 24: "Him [the Holy Spirit], therefore, we must notresist; but on the part of our will, which is certainly not like a stoneor block, some assent must be added--_sed aliquam etiam assensionemaccedere nostrae voluntatis, quam non sicut saxum aut incudem se haberecertum est. _" Par. 30: "But apprehension on our part must concur. For, since the promise of grace is universal, and since we must obey thispromise, some difference between the elect and the rejected must beinferred from our will (_sequitur, aliquod discrimen inter electos etreiectos a voluntate nostra sumendum esse_), _viz. _, that those whoresist the promise are rejected, while those who embrace the promise arereceived. .. . All this clearly shows that our will is not idle inconversion or like a stone or block in its conduct. _Ex quibus omnibusmanifestissimum apparet, voluntatem nostram non esse otiosam inconversione, aut se ut saxum aut incudem habere. _"

Par. 34 reads: "Some persons, however, shout that the assistance of theHoly Spirit is extenuated and diminished if even the least particle beattributed to the human will. Though this argument may appear speciousand plausible, yet pious minds understand that by our doctrine--according to which we ascribe some cooperation to our will; _viz. _, someassent and apprehension (_qua tribuimus aliquam SYNERGIAM voluntatinostrae, videlicet qualemcumque assensionem et apprehensionem_)--absolutely nothing is taken away from the assistance rendered by theHoly Spirit. For we affirm that the first acts (_primas partes_) must beassigned and attributed to Him who first and primarily, through the Wordor the voice of the Gospel, moves our hearts to believe, to whichthereupon we, too, ought to assent as much as we are able (_cui deindeet NOS, QUANTUM IN NOBIS EST, ASSENTIRI oportet_), and not resist theHoly Spirit, but submit to the Word, ponder, learn, and hear it, asChrist says: 'Whosoever hath heard of the Father and learned, cometh toMe. '" Par. 36: "And although original sin has brought upon our nature aruin so sad and horrible that we can hardly imagine it, yet we must notthink that absolutely all the knowledge (_notitiae_) which was found inthe minds of our first parents before the Fall has on that account beendestroyed and extinguished after the Fall, or that the human will doesnot in any way differ from a stone or a block; for we are, as St. Paulhas said most seriously, coworkers with God, which coworking, indeed, isassisted and strengthened by the Holy Spirit--_sumus synergi Dei, quaequidem synergia adiuvatur a Spiritu Sancto et confirmatur. _" Evidentlyno comment is necessary to show that the passages cited from Pfeffingerare conceived, born, and bred in Semi-Pelagianism and rationalism. 

Planck furthermore quotes from Pfeffinger's _Answer to Amsdorf, _ 1558:"And there is no other reason why some are saved and some are damnedthan this one alone, that some, when incited by the Holy Spirit, do notresist, but obey Him and accept the grace and salvation offered, whileothers will not accept it, but resist the Holy Spirit, and despise thegrace. " (4, 578. ) Again: "Although the will cannot awaken or inciteitself to spiritually good works, but must be awakened and incitedthereto by the Holy Ghost, yet man is not altogether excluded from suchworks of the Holy Ghost, as if he were not engaged in it and were not tocontribute his share to it--_dass er nicht auch dabei sein und das Seinenicht auch dabei tun muesse. _" (576. ) Again: In the hands of the HolySpirit man is not like a block or stone in the hands of a sculptor, which do not and cannot "know, understand, or feel what is done withthem, nor in the least further or hinder what the artist endeavors tomake of them. " (576. ) "But when the heart of man is touched, awakened, and moved by the Holy Ghost, man must not be like a dead stone or block, . .. But must obey and follow Him. And although he perceives his greatweakness, and, on the other hand, how powerfully sin in his fleshopposes, he must nevertheless not desist, but ask and pray God for graceand assistance against sin and flesh. " (577. ) Planck remarks: Accordingto Pfeffinger, the powers for all this are still found in natural man, and the only thing required is, not to recreate them, but merely toincite them to action. (579. )

In 1558, in an appendix to his disputation of 1555, Pfeffinger explainedand illustrated his position, in substance, as follows: I was to provenothing else than that some use of the will [in spiritual matters] wasleft, and that our nature is not annihilated or extinguished, butcorrupted and marvelously depraved after the Fall. Now, to be sure, freewill cannot by its own natural powers regain its integrity nor riseafter being ruined, yet as the doctrine [the Gospel] can be understoodby paying attention to it, so it can also in a manner (_aliquo modo_) beobeyed by assenting to it. But it is necessary for all who would dwellin the splendor of the eternal light and in the sight of God to look upto and not turn away from, the light. Schluesselburg adds: "_Haec certeest synergia_--This is certainly synergism. " (_Catalogus_ 5, 161. )

Tschackert summarizes Pfeffinger's doctrine as follows: "When the HolySpirit, through the Word of God, influences a man, then the assentingwill becomes operative as a factor of conversion. The reason why someassent while others do not must be in themselves. .. . EvidentlyPfeffinger's opinion was that not only the regenerate, but even thenatural will of man possesses the ability either to obey the divineSpirit or to resist Him. " (521. ) According to W. Preger, Pfeffingertaught "that the Holy Spirit must awaken and incite our nature that itmay understand, think, will and do what is right and pleasing to God, "but that natural free will is able "to obey and follow" the motions ofthe Spirit. (2, 192. 195. )

No doubt, Pfeffinger advocated, and was a candid exponent and championof, nothing but the three-concurring-causes doctrine of Melanchthon, according to which God never fails to do His share in conversion, whilewe must beware (_sed nos viderimus, C. R. _ 21, 658) lest we fail to doour share. Pfeffinger himself made it a special point to citeMelanchthon as his authority in this matter. The last (41st) paragraphin his _Five Questions_ begins as follows: "We have briefly set forththe doctrine concerning the liberty of the human will, agreeing with thetestimonies of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, a fullerexplanation of which students may find in the writings of our preceptor, Mr. Philip (_prolisciorem explicationem requirant studiosi in scriptisD. Philippi, praeceptoris nostri_). " And when, in the subsequentcontroversy Pfeffinger was publicly assailed by Amsdorf, Flacius, andothers, everybody knew that their real target was none other than--Master Philip. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this fact. In his_Opinion on the Weimar Confutation, _ of March 9, 1559, in which thesynergism of the Philippists is extensively treated, he said: "As tofree will, it is apparent that they attack me, Philip, in particular. "(_C. R. _ 9, 763. )

158. Strigel and Huegel Entering Controversy. 

The synergistic controversy received new zest and a new impetus when, in1559, Victorin Strigel and Huegel (Hugelius), respectively professor andpastor at Jena, the stronghold of the opponents of the WittenbergPhilippists, opposed Flacius, espoused the cause of Pfeffinger, championed the doctrine of Melanchthon, and refused to endorse the socalled _Book of Confutation_ which Flacius had caused to be draftedparticularly against the Wittenberg Philippists and Synergists, and tobe introduced. The situation thus created was all the more sensationalbecause, in the preceding controversies, Strigel had, at leastapparently, always sided with the opponents of the Philippists. 

The "_Konfutationsbuch_--Book of Confutation and Condemnations of theChief Corruptions, Sects, and Errors Breaking in and Spreading at thisTime" was published in 1559 by Duke John Frederick II as a doctrinalnorm of his duchy. In nine chapters this Book, a sort of forerunner ofthe _Formula of Concord, _ dealt with the errors 1. Of Servetus, 2. OfSchwenckfeld, 3. Of the Antinomians, 4. Of the Anabaptists, 5. Of theZwinglians, 6. Of the Synergists, 7. Of Osiander and Stancarus, 8. Ofthe Majorists, 9. Of the Adiaphorists. Its chief object, as expresslystated in the Preface, was to warn against the errors introduced by thePhilippists, whose doctrines, as also Planck admits, were not in anyway misrepresented in this document. (4, 597. 595. ) The sixth part, directed against synergism bore the title: "_Confutatio Corruptelarumin Articulo de Libero Arbitrio sive de Viribus Humanis_--Confutation ofthe Corruptions in the Article Concerning Free Will or Concerning theHuman Powers. " The _Confutation_ was framed by the Jena theologians, Strigel and Huegel also participating in its composition. However, someof the references to the corruptions of the Philippists must have beenrather vague and ambiguous in the first draft of the book; for when itwas revised at the convention in Weimar, Flacius secured the adoption ofadditions and changes dealing particularly with the synergism of theWittenbergers, which were energetically opposed by Strigel. 

Even before the adoption of the _Book of Confutation, _ Strigel had beenpolemicizing against Flacius. But now (as Flacius reports) he began todenounce him at every occasion as the "architect of a new theology" andan "enemy of the _Augsburg Confession. _" At the same time he alsoendeavored to incite the students in Jena against him. Flacius, in turn, charged Strigel with scheming to establish a Philippistic party in DucalSaxony. The public breach came when the _Book of Confutation_ wassubmitted for adoption and publication in the churches and schools. Pastor Huegel refused to read and explain it from the pulpit, andStrigel presented his objections to the Duke, and asked that hisconscience be spared. But when Strigel failed to maintain silence in thematter, he as well as Pastor Huegel were summarily dealt with by theDuke. On March 27, 1559, at two o'clock in the morning, both weresuddenly arrested and imprisoned. Flacius who was generally regarded asthe secret instigator of this act of violence, declared publicly thatthe arrest had been made without his counsel and knowledge. About sixmonths later (September 5, 1569) Strigel and Huegel after making somedoctrinal concessions and promising not to enter into any disputation onthe Confutation, were set at liberty. (Planck 4, 591. 604. )

159. Weimar Disputation. 

In order to settle the differences, Flacius and his colleagues (Wigand, Judex, Simon Musaeus), as well as Strigel, asked for a publicdisputation, which John Frederick, too was all the more willing toarrange because dissatisfaction with his drastic procedure againstStrigel and Huegel was openly displayed everywhere outside of DucalSaxony. The disputation was held at Weimar, August 2 to 8, 1560. It wasattended by the Saxon Dukes and their entire courts, as well as by alarge number of other spectators, not only from Jena, but also fromErfurt, Wittenberg and Leipzig. The subjects of discussion, for whichboth parties had submitted theses were: Free Will, Gospel, Majorism, Adiaphorism, and Indifferentism (_academica epoche, _ toleration oferror). The disputing parties (Flacius and Strigel) agreed that "theonly rule should be the Word of God, and that a clear, plain text of theHoly Scriptures was to weigh more than all the inferences andauthorities of interpreters" (Planck 4, 606. )

According to the proceedings of the Weimar Disputation, written byWigand and published by Simon Musaeus 1562 and 1563 under the title:"_Disputatio de Originali Peccato et Libero Arbitrio_ inter M. FlaciumIllyr. Et Vict. Strigelium Publice Vinariae Anno 1560 Habita, " the onlyquestions discussed were free will and, incidentally, original sin. Strigel defended the Melanchthonian doctrine, according to which thecauses of conversion are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the willof man feebly assenting to the Gospel and, at the same time, seekingstrength from God. He repeated the formula: "Concurrunt in conversionehaec tria: Spiritus Sanctus movens corda, vox Dei, voluntas hominis, quae voci divinae assentitur. " Flacius, on the other hand, defended the_mere passive_ of Luther, according to which man, before he is convertedand endowed with faith, does not in any way cooperate with the HolySpirit but merely suffers and experiences His operations. At the sametime, however, he seriously damaged and discredited himself as well asthe sacred cause of divine truth by maintaining that original sin is nota mere accident, such as Strigel maintained, but the very substance ofman. The discussions were discontinued after the thirteenth session. TheDuke announced that the disputation would be reopened later, chargingboth parties in the mean time to maintain silence in public, --acompromise to which Flacius and his adherents were loath to consent. 

John Wigand and Matthias Judex however continued to enforce the _Book ofConfutation_ demanding an unqualified adoption in every point, _peromnia. _ When the jurist Matthew Wesenbecius declined to accept the bookin this categorical way, he was not permitted to serve as sponsor at abaptism. John Frederick was dissatisfied with this procedure and actionof the ministers; and when they persisted in their demands, theautocratic Duke deprived them of the right to excommunicate, vestingthis power in a consistory established at Weimar. Flacius and hisadherents protested against this measure as tyranny exercised over theChurch and a suppression of the pure doctrine. As a result Musaeus, Judex, Wigand, and Flacius were suspended and expelled from Jena, December, 1561. (Gieseler 3, 2, 244. 247. ) Their vacant chairs at theuniversity were filled by Freihub, Salmuth, and Selneccer, who had beenrecommended by the Wittenberg Philippists at the request of the Duke, who now evidently favored a compromise with the Synergists. Strigel, too, was reinstated at Jena after signing an ambiguous declaration. 

Amsdorf, Gallus, Hesshusius, Flacius, and the other exiled theologiansdenounced Strigel's declaration as insincere and in conflict withLuther's book _De Servo Arbitrio, _ and demanded a public retraction ofhis synergistic statements. When the ministers of Ducal Saxony alsodeclined to acknowledge Strigel's orthodoxy, a more definite"Superdeclaration, " framed by Moerlin and Stoessel (but not signed byStrigel), was added as an interpretation of Strigel's declaration. Buteven now a minority refused to submit to the demands of the Duke, because they felt that they were being deceived by ambiguous terms, suchas "capacity" and "aptitude, " which the wily Strigel and the Synergistsused in the active or positive, and not in the passive sense. Theseconscientious Lutherans whom the rationalist Planck brands as "almostinsane, _beinahe verrueckt, _" were also deposed and banished, 1562. Strigel's declaration of March, 1562 however, maintaining that "the willis passive in so far as God alone works all good, but active in so faras it must be present in its conversion, must consent, and not resist, but accept, " showed that he had not abandoned his synergism. In the sameyear he applied for, and accepted, a professorship in Leipzig. Later onhe occupied a chair at the Reformed university in Heidelberg, where hedied 1569, at the age of only forty-five years. 

In 1567, when John William became ruler of Ducal Saxony, the Philippistswere dismissed, and the banished Lutheran pastors and professors (withthe exception of Flacius) were recalled and reinstated. While thisrehabilitation of the loyal Lutherans formally ended the synergisticcontroversy in Ducal Saxony, occasional echoes of it still lingered, dueespecially to the fact that some ministers had considered Strigel'sambiguous declaration a satisfactory presentation of the Lutheran truthwith regard to the questions involved. That the synergistic teaching ofMelanchthon was continued in Wittenberg appears, for example, from the_Confessio Wittenbergica_ of 1570. 

160. Strigel's Rationalistic Principle. 

Although at the opening of the disputation the debaters had agreed todecide all questions by clear Scripture-passages alone, Strigel'sguiding principle was in reality not the Bible but philosophy andreason. His real concern was not, What does Scripture teach concerningthe causes of conversion? but, How may we harmonize the universal graceof God with the fact that only some are converted and saved?Self-evidently Strigel, too, quoted Bible-passages. Among others, heappealed to such texts as John 6, 29; Rom. 1, 16; 10, 17; Luke 8, 18;Heb. 4, 2; Rev. 3, 20; Luke 11, 13; Mark 9, 24; 1 Thess. 2, 13; Jas. 1, 18. But as we shall show later, his deductions were philosophical andsophistical rather than exegetical and Scriptural. Preger remarks: Inhis disputation Strigel was not able to advance a single decisivepassage of Scripture for the presence and cooperation of a good will atthe moment when it is approached and influenced (_ergriffen_) by grace. (2, 211. ) And the clear, irrefutable Bible-texts on which Flaciusfounded his doctrine of the inability of natural will to cooperate inconversion, Strigel endeavored to invalidate by philosophical reasoning, indirect arguing, and alleged necessary logical consequences. 

At Weimar and in his _Confession_ of December 5 1560, delivered to theDuke soon after the disputation, Strigel argued: Whoever denies thatman, in a way and measure, is able to cooperate in his own conversionis logically compelled also to deny that the rejection of grace may beimputed to man, compelled to make God responsible for man's damnation;to surrender the universality of God's grace and call; to admitcontradictory wills in God, and to take recourse to an absolute decreeof election and reprobation in order to account for the fact that somereject the grace of God and are lost while others are converted andsaved. At Weimar Strigel declared: "I do not say that the will is ableto assent to the Word without the Holy Spirit, but that, being moved andassisted by the Spirit, it assents with trepidation. If we were unableto do this, we would not be responsible for not having received theWord. _Si hoc [utcumque assentiri inter trepidationes] non possemus, nonessemus rei propter Verbum non receptum. _" Again, also at Weimar: "Ifthe will is not able to assent in some way, even when assisted, then wecannot be responsible for rejecting the Word, but the blame must betransferred to another, and others may judge how religious that is. _Sivoluntas ne quidem adiuta potest aliquo modo annuere, non possumus esserei propter Verbum reiectum, sed culpa est in alium transferenda quodquam sit religio sum, alii iudicent. _" (Planck 4, 689. 719; Luthardt, _Lehre vom freien Willen, _ 222. )

Over against this rationalistic method of Strigel and the Synergistsgenerally, the Lutherans adhered to the principle that nothing but aclear passage of the Bible can decide a theological question. Theyrejected as false philosophy and rationalism every argument directedagainst the clear sense of a clear Word of God. They emphaticallyobjected to the employment of reason for establishing a Christiandoctrine or subverting a statement of the Bible. At Weimar, Flaciusprotested again and again that human reason is not an authority intheological matters. "Let us hear the Scriptures! _AudiamusScripturam!_" "Let the woman be silent in the Church! _Mulier taceat inecclesia!_" With such slogans he brushed aside the alleged necessarylogical inferences and deductions of Strigel. "You take your argumentsfrom philosophy, " he said in the second session, "which ought not to begiven a place in matters of religion. _Disputas ex philosophia, cuilocus in rebus religionis esse non debet. _" Again, at Weimar: "It isagainst the nature of inquiring truth to insist on arguing from blindphilosophy. What else corrupted such ancient theologians as Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, and afterwards also the Sophists [scholastictheologians] but that they endeavored to decide spiritual things byphilosophy, which does not understand the secret and hidden mysteries ofGod. _Est contra naturam inquirendae veritatis, si velimus ex caecaphilosophia loqui. Quid aliud corrupit theologos veteres, ut Clementem, Originem, Chrysosthomum et postea etiam Sophistas, nisi quod de rebusdivinis ex philosophia voluerunt statuere, quae non intelligitabstrusissima et occultissima mysteria Dei. _" "May we therefore observethe rule of Luther: Let the woman be silent in the Church! For what amiserable thing would it be if we had to judge ecclesiastical mattersfrom logic! _Itaque observemus legem Lutheri: Taceat mulier in ecclesia!Quae enim miseria, si ex dialectica diiudicandae nobis essent resecclesiae!_" (Planck 4, 709. )

In an antisynergistic confession published by Schluesselburg, we read:"This doctrine [of conversion by God's grace alone] is simple, clear, certain, and irrefutable if one looks to God's Word alone and derivesthe _Nosce teipsum, _ Know thyself, from the wisdom of God. But sincepoor men are blind, they love their darkness more than the light, asChrist says John 3, and insist on criticizing and falsifying God'struth by means of blind philosophy, which, forsooth, is a shame and apalpable sin, if we but had eyes to see and know. .. . Whatsoever blindreason produces in such articles of faith against the Word of God isfalse and wrong. For it is said: _Mulier in ecclesia taceat!_ Letphilosophy and human wisdom be silent in the Church. " (_Catalogus_ 5, 665f. ) Here, too, the sophistical objections of the Synergists aredisposed of with such remarks as: "In the first place, this is but spunfrom reason, which thus acts wise in these matters. _Denn fuers ersteist solches nur aus der Vernunft gesponnen, die weiss also hierin zukluegeln. _" (668. ) "This is all spun from reason; but God's Word teachesus better. _Dies ist alles aus der Vernunft spintisiert; Gottes Wortaber lehrt es besser. _" (670. )

Evidently Strigel's rationalistic method was identical with thatemployed by Melanchthon in his _Loci, _ by Pfeffinger, and the Synergistsgenerally. Accordingly, his synergism also could not differ essentiallyfrom Melanchthon's. Planck pertinently remarks: "It is apparent fromthis [argument of Strigel that natural man must have power to cooperatein his conversion because otherwise God would be responsible for hisresistance and damnation] that his synergism was none other than that ofthe Wittenberg school; for was not this the identical foundation uponwhich Melanchthon had reared his [synergism]?" (4, 690. ) Like methodslead to the same results, and _vice versa. _ Besides, Strigel had alwaysappealed to the Wittenbergers; and in his _Opinion on the WeimarConfutation_ 1559, Melanchthon, in turn, identified himself withStrigel's arguments. (_C. R. _ 9, 766. ) The "Confession and Opinion ofthe Wittenbergers Concerning Free Will--_Confessio et SententiaWittebergensium de Libero Arbitrio_" of 1561 also maintained the sameattitude. 

161. Strigel's Theory. 

Strigel's views concerning the freedom of man's will in spiritualmatters may be summarized as follows: Man, having a will, is a freeagent, hence always able to decide for or against. This ability is the"mode of action" essential to man as long as he really is a man and inpossession of a will. Even in matters pertaining to grace this freedomwas not entirely lost in the Fall. It was impeded and weakened byoriginal sin, but not annihilated. To be converted, man thereforerequires that these residual or remaining powers be excited andstrengthened rather than that new spiritual powers be imparted or a newwill be created. Accordingly, persuasion through the Word is the methodof conversion employed by the Holy Spirit. When the will is approachedby the Word, incited and assisted by the Spirit, it is able to admit theoperations of the Spirit and assent to the Word, though but feebly. Hence, no matter how much of the work of conversion must be ascribed tothe Holy Spirit and the Word the will itself, in the last analysis, decides for or against grace. Man is, therefore, not purely passive inhis conversion, but cooperates with the Holy Spirit and the Word, notmerely after, but also in his conversion, before he has received thegift of faith. 

"God who, outside of His essence in external actions, is the freestagent, " said Strigel "created two kinds of natures, the one free, theother acting naturally (_naturaliter agentes_). The free natures are theangels and men. Those acting naturally embrace all the rest of thecreatures. A natural agent is one that cannot do anything else [than itdoes], nor suspend its action _e. G. _, fire. Men and angels were createddifferently, after the image of God, that they might be free agents. _Homines et angeli aliter conditi sunt ad imaginem Dei, ut sint liberumagens. _" (Planck 4, 669. ) This freedom, which distinguishes manessentially from all other creatures, according to Strigel, alwaysimplies the power to will or not to will with respect to any object. Hesays: The act of willing, be it good or evil, always belongs to thewill, because the will is so created that it can will or not, withoutcoercion. "_Ipsum velle, seu bonum seu malum, quod ad substantiamattinet, semper est voluntatis; quia voluntas sic est condita, UT POSSITVELLE AUT NON; sed etiam hoc habet voluntas ex opere creationis quodadhuc reliquum, et non prorsus abolitum et extinctum est, UT POSSITVELLE AUT NON SINE COACTIONE_. " (674. ) According to Strigel, the veryessence of the will consists in being able, in every instance, to decidein either direction, for or against. Hence the very idea of willinvolves also a certain ability to cooperate in conversion. (689. )

This freedom or ability to decide _pro_ or _con, _ says Strigel, is themode of action essential to man, his mode of action also in conversion. And in the controversy on free will he sought to maintain that thisalleged mode of action was a part of the very essence of the human willand being. At Weimar Strigel declared: "I do not wish to detract fromthe will the mode of action which is different from other naturalactions. _Nolo voluntati detrahi modum agendi, qui est dissimilis aliisactionibus naturalibus. _" (Planck 4, 668. ) Again: "The will is not anatural, but a free agent; hence the will is converted not as a naturalagent, but as a free agent. .. . In conversion the will acts in its ownmode; it is not a statue or a log in conversion. Hence conversion doesnot occur in a purely passive manner. _Voluntas non est agens naturale, sed liberum; ergo convertitur voluntas non ut naturaliter agens, sed utliberum agens. .. . Et voluntas suo modo agit in conversione, nec eststatua vel truncus in conversione. Et per consequens non fit conversiopure passive. _" (Luthardt, 217. 219. 209. )

What Strigel means is that man, being a free agent, must, also inconversion, be accorded the ability somehow to decide for grace. According to the _Formula of Concord_ the words, "man's mode of action, "signify "a way of working something good and salutary in divine things. "(905, 61. ) The connection and the manner in which the phrase wasemployed by Strigel admitted of no other interpretation. Strigel added:This mode of action marks the difference between the will of man and thewill of Satan, for the devil neither endeavors to assent, nor prays toGod for assistance, while man does. (Luthardt, 220. ) Natural man is byStrigel credited with the power of "endeavoring to assent, _conariassentiri, _" because he is endowed with a will. But shrewd as Strigelwas, it did not occur to him that, logically, his argument compelled himto ascribe also to the devils everything he claimed for natural man, since they, too, have a will and are therefore endowed with the same_modus agendi, _ which, according to Strigel, belongs to the very ideaand essence of will. Yet this palpable truth, which overthrew his entiretheory, failed to open the eyes of Strigel. 

If, as Strigel maintained, the human will, by virtue of its nature as afree agent, is, in a way, _able_ to cooperate in conversion, then theonly question is how to elevate this ability to an actuality, in otherwords, how to influence the will and rouse its powers to move in theright direction. Strigel answered: Since the will cannot be forced, moral suasion is the true method required to convert a man. "The will, "says he "cannot be forced, hence it is by persuasion, _i. E. _, bypointing out something good or evil, that the will is moved to obey andto submit to the Gospel, not coerced, _but somehow willing. Voluntas nonpotest cogi, ergo voluntas persuadendo, id est ostensione alicuius bonivel mali flectitur ad obediendum et obtemperandum evangelio, non coacta, sed ALIQUO MODO VOLENS. _" (Seeberg 4, 491. ) Again: "Although God isefficacious through the Word, drawing and leading us efficaciously, yetHe does not make assenting necessary for such a nature as the will, --anature so created that it is able not to assent, if it so wills, and toexpel Him who dwells in us. This assent therefore is the work of God andthe Holy Spirit, but in so far as it is a free assent, not coerced andpressed out by force, _it is also the work of the will. Etiam si Deusest efficax per Verbum et efficaciter nos trahit et ducit, tamen nonaffert necessitatem assentiendi tali naturae, qualis est voluntas, idest, quae sic est condita, ut possit non assentiri, si velit, etexcutere sessorem. Est igitur hic assensus opus Dei et Spiritus Sancti, sed quatenus est liber assensus, non coactus, expressus vi, EST ETIAMVOLUNTATIS. _" (491. ) Strigel evidently means: The fact that man is ablenot to assent to grace of necessity involves that somehow (_aliquomodo_) he is able also to assent, according to man's peculiar mode ofaction (freedom) he must himself actualize his conversion by previously(in the logical order) willing it, deciding for it, and assenting to it;he would be converted by coercion if his assent to grace were an act ofthe will engendered and created solely by God, rather than an acteffected and produced by the powers of the will when incited andassisted by the Spirit. Man is converted by persuasion only, because Goddoes not create assent and faith in him but merely elicits these actsfrom man by liberating and appealing to the powers of his will to effectand produce them. 

In defending this freedom of the will, Strigel appealed also to thestatement of Luther: "The will cannot be coerced;. .. If the will couldbe coerced, it would not be volition, but rather nolition. _Voluntas nonpotest cogi;. .. Si posset cogi voluntas, non esset voluntas sed potiusvoluntas. _" However, what Luther said of the form or nature of the will, according to which it always really wills what it wills, and istherefore never coerced, was by Strigel transferred to the spiritualmatters and objects of the will. According to Strigel's theory, saysSeeberg, "the will must be free even in the first moment of conversion, free not only in the psychological, but also in the moral sense. " (4, 492. ) Tschackert, quoting Seeberg remarks that Strigel transformed thenatural formal liberty into an ethical material liberty--_"indem dienatuerliche formale Freiheit sich ihm unter der Hand [?] verwandelte indie ethische materiale Freiheit. _" (524. )

162. Strigel's Semi-Pelagianism. 

Strigel's entire position is based on the error that a remnant ofspiritual ability still remains in natural man. True, he taught that inconsequence of original sin the powers of man and the proper use andexercise of these powers are greatly impeded, weakened, checked, andinsulated, as it were, and that this impediment can be removed solely bythe operation of the Holy Spirit. "Through the Word the Holy Spiritrestores to the will the power and faculty of believing, " Strigeldeclared. (Luthardt, 250. ) But this restoration, he said, was broughtabout by liberating, arousing, inciting, and strengthening the powersinherent in man rather than by divine impartation of new spiritualpowers or by the creation of a new good volition. 

Strigel plainly denied that natural man is truly spiritually dead. Hedeclared: "The will is so created that it can expel the Holy Spirit andthe Word, or, when assisted by the Holy Spirit, can in some manner willand obey--to receive is the act of the will; in this I cannot concedethat man is simply _dead--accipere est hominis; in hoc non possumconcedere simpliciter mortuum esse hominem. _" (Frank 1, 199. ) Naturalman, Strigel explained, is indeed not able to grasp the helping hand ofGod with his own hand; yet the latter is not dead, but still retains aminimum of power. (678. ) Again: Man is like a new-born child, whosepowers must first be strengthened with nourishment given it by itsmother, and which, _though able to draw this nourishment out of itsmother's breast, _ is yet unable to lift itself up to it, or to take holdof the breast, unless it be given it. (Preger 2, 209. )

With special reference to the last illustration, Flacius declared:"Strigel, accordingly, holds that we have the faculty to desire andreceive the food, _i. E. _, the benefits of God. Forsooth, you therebyattribute to corrupt man a very great power with respect to spiritualthings. Now, then, deny that this opinion is Pelagian. " (209. ) "Yourstatements agree with those of Pelagius, yet I do not simply say thatyou are a Pelagian; for a good man may fall into an error which he doesnot see. " Pelagius held that man, by his natural powers, is able tobegin and complete his own conversion; Cassianus, the Semi-Pelagiantaught that man is able merely to begin this work; Strigel maintainedthat man can admit the liberating operation of the Holy Spirit, and thatafter such operation of the Spirit he is able to cooperate with hisnatural powers. Evidently, then, the verdict of Flacius was not muchbeside the mark. Planck though unwilling to relegate Strigel to thePelagians, does not hesitate to put him down as a thoroughgoingSynergist. (Planck 4, 683f. ) Synergism, however, always includes atleast an element of Pelagianism. 

Strigel illustrated his idea by the following analogy. When garlic-juiceis applied to a magnet, it loses its power of attraction, but remains atrue magnet, and, when goat's blood is applied, immediately regains itsefficaciousness. So the will of man is hindered by original sin frombeginning that which is good; but when the impediment has been removedthrough the operation of the Holy Spirit, the native powers of the willagain become efficacious and active. (Tschackert, 524; Planck 4, 672;Preger 2, 198; Luthardt, 211. ) Frank remarks: "The example of thetemporarily impeded power of the magnet, which was repeated also at thisjuncture [in the disputation at Weimar], immediately points to therelated papal doctrine, for the Catholic Andradius explains the dogma ofthe _Tridentinum_ to this effect: The free will of natural man may becompared to a chained prisoner who, though still in possession of hislocomotive powers, is nevertheless impeded by his fetters. " (1, 136. )Also the _Formula of Concord, _ evidently with a squint at Strigel, rejects as a Pelagian error the teaching "that original sin is not adespoliation or deficiency but only an external impediment to thesespiritual good powers, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, whereby its natural power is not removed, but only hindered or that thisstain can be easily washed away as a spot from the face or a pigmentfrom the wall. " (865, 22. )

163. Strigel's "Cooperation. "

When the impediment caused by original sin has been removed, and thewill liberated and aroused to activity, man, according to Strigel, isable also to cooperate in his conversion. At Weimar he formulated thepoint at issue as follows: "The question is whether [in conversion] thewill is present idle, as an inactive, indolent subject, or, as thecommon saying is, in a purely passive way; or whether, when graceprecedes, the will follows the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and in somemanner assents--_an vero praeeunte gratia voluntas comiteturefficaciam Spiritus Sancti et aliquo modo annuat_. " (Luthardt, 222. )Following are some of his answers to this question: When incited by theSpirit, the will is able to assent somewhat and to pray for assistance. _Inter trepidationem utcumque assentitur, simul petens auxilium. _Contrition and faith, as well as other virtues, are gifts of God, "butthey are given to those only who hear and contemplate God's Word, embrace it by assenting to it, strive against their doubts and in thisconflict pray for the help of God. " (230. ) The Holy Ghost convertsthose "who hear the Word of God and do not resist stubbornly, butconsent, " and God assists such only "as follow His call and pray forassistance. " (229. ) "The will and heart do not resist altogether, butdesire divine consolation, when, indeed, they are assisted by the HolyGhost. " "The will is neither idle nor contumacious; but, in a manner, desires to obey. " (Planck 4, 682. ) "Man is dead [spiritually] in as faras he is not able to heal his wounds with his own powers; but when theremedy is offered him by the Holy Spirit and the Word, then he, atleast in receiving the benefit, is not altogether dead; for otherwise aconversion could not occur. For I cannot conceive a conversion wherethe process is that of the flame consuming straw (_denn ich kann mirkeine Bekehrung vorstellen, bei der es zugeht, wie wenn die Flamme dasStroh ergreift_). The nature of the will is such that it can reject theHoly Spirit and the Word; or, being supported by the Holy Spirit, canin a manner will and obey. The remedy is heavenly and divine, but thewill--not the will alone, but the will supported by the Holy Spirit--isable to accept it. One must ascribe at least a feeble consent and an'Aye' to the will, which is already supported by the Holy Spirit. "(Preger 2, 208. ) "In a betrothal, consent is necessary; conversion is abetrothal of Christ to the Church and its individual members; henceconsent is required, " which the will is able to give when assisted bythe Holy Spirit. (Luthardt, 224. )

It is, however, only a languid, wavering, and weak consent which man isable to render (_qualiscumque assensio languida, trepida et imbecilla_). "Compared with the divine operation, " Flacius reports Strigel as havingsaid, "the cooperation of our powers in conversion is somethingextremely small (_quiddam pertenue prorsus_). If, after drinking with arich man, he paying a _taler_ and I a _heller, _ I would afterwards boastthat I had been drinking and paying with him--such is cooperation, _talis est synergia. _" (Planck 4, 677; Luthardt, 220. 222. ) According toStrigel, therefore, man is not purely passive, but plays an active partin his conversion. With Melanchthon and Pfeffinger he maintained: "Thesethree concur in conversion: the Holy Spirit, who moves the hearts; thevoice of God; the will of man, which assents to the divine voice. _Concurrunt in conversione haec tria: Spiritus Sanctus movens corda, voxDei, voluntas hominis, quae voci divinae assentitur. _" (Tschackert, 524. )

Flacius declared with respect to the issue formulated by Strigel: "Iexplain my entire view as follows: Man is purely passive (_homo se habetpure passive_). If you consider the native faculty of the will, itswilling and its powers, then he is purely passive when he receives (_inaccipiendo_). But if that divinely bestowed willing or spark of faithkindled by the Spirit is considered, then this imparted willing and thisspark is not purely passive. But the Adamic will does not only notoperate or cooperate, but, according to the inborn malice of the heart, even operates contrarily (_verum etiam pro nativa malitia cordis suicontra operatur_). " (Planck 4, 697. ) Thus Flacius clearly distinguishedbetween cooperation _before_ conversion (which he rejected absolutely)and cooperation _after_ conversion (which he allowed). And pressing thispoint, he said to Strigel: "I ask whether you say that the willcooperates _before_ the gift of faith or _after_ faith has been receivedwhether you say that the will cooperates from natural powers, or in sofar as the good volition has been bestowed by the renovation of the HolySpirit. _Quaero, an dicas, voluntatem cooperari ante donum fidei autpost acceptam fidem; an dicas, cooperari ex naturalibus viribus autquatenus ex renovatione Spiritus Sancti datum est bene velle. _" (Seeberg4, 492. ) Again: I shall withdraw the charge of Pelagianism if you willdeclare it as your opinion "that only the regenerated, sanctified, renewed will cooperates, and not the other human, carnal, natural will. ""Confess openly and expressly and say clearly: 'I affirm that mancooperates from faith and the good will bestowed by God, not from thewill he brings with him from his natural Adam--_quod homo cooperetur exfide et bono velle divinitus donato, non ex eo, quod attulit ex suonaturali Adamo. '_" "We say, Only the regenerate will cooperates; if you[Strigel] say the same, the controversy is at an end. " Strigel, however, who, to use a phrase of Luther (St. L. 18, 1673), was just as hard tocatch as Proteus of old, did not reply with a definite yes or no, butrepeated that it was only a weak assent (_qualiscumque assensio languidatrepida et imbecilla_) which man was able to render when his will wasincited and supported by the prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit. (Preger 2, 217; Luthardt, 217. 222. 227; Frank 1, 115. )

164. Objections Answered. 

At Weimar, Strigel insisted: The human will must not be eliminated asone of the causes of conversion; for without man's will and intellect noconversion is possible. Flacius replied: The will, indeed, is present inconversion, for it is the will that is converted and experiencesconversion; but the inborn power of the natural will contributes nothingto conversion, and therefore the will "is purely passive in thereception of grace. " (Preger 2, 217. ) "We are pressed hard with thesophistical objection that man is not converted without his knowledgeand will. But who doubts this? The entire question is: Whence does thatgood knowledge originate? Whence does that good volition originate?"(216. ) "We certainly admit that in conversion there are many motions ofthe intellect and will, good and bad. But the dispute among us is notwhether in conversion the intellect understands and the will wills; butwhence is the capability to think right, and whence is that good willingof the will? Is it of us, as of ourselves, or is this sufficiency ofwilling and thinking of God alone?" (Planck 4, 711. ) The fact that Godalone converts man, said Flacius, "does not exclude the presence of thewill; but it does exclude all efficaciousness and operation of thenatural will in conversion (_non excludit voluntatem, ne adsit, sedexcludit omnem efficaciam et operationem naturalise voluntatis inconversione_). " (Seeberg 4, 492. )

In order to prove man's cooperation in conversion, Strigel declared:"Both [to will and to perform] are in some way acts of God and ofourselves; for no willing and performing takes place unless we will. _Utrumque [velle et perficere] aliquo modo Dei et nostrum est non fitvelle aut perficere nisi nobis volentibus. _" Charging Strigel withambiguity, Flacius replied: "You speak of one kind of synergism and weof another. You cannot affirm with a good conscience that thesequestions are unknown to you. " Strigel, protesting that he was unable tosee the difference, answered: "For God's sake, have a little forbearancewith me, I cannot see the difference. If that is to my discredit, let itbe to my discredit. --_Bitte um Gottes willen, man wolle mir's zuguthalten; ich kann's nicht ausmessen. Ist mir's eine Schand', so sei mir'seine Schand'_. " (Frank 1, 136. ) Strigel, however, evidently meant thatman, too, has a share in _producing_ the good volition, while Flaciusunderstood the phraseology as Luther and Augustine explained it, thelatter, _e. G. _, writing in _De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio:_ "It iscertain that we will when we will; but He who makes us will is He ofwhom it is written: It is God who worketh in us to will. _Certum est nosvelle cum volumus; sed ille facit, ut velimus, de quo dictum est: Deusest, qui operatur in nobis velle. _" (Frank 1, 238. )

In his objections to the doctrine that man is purely passive in hisconversion, Strigel protested again and again that man is not like ablock or stone when he is converted. "That is true, " said Flacius, "fora block can neither love nor hate God, while man by nature hates God, and scoffs at Him. Rom. 8, 1; 1 Cor. 2. Thus God is dealing with onewhose will and heart is altogether against Him. But here [in the denialthat man is purely passive in conversion] is buried a popish _meritum decongruo_ and a particle of free will. " (Preger 2, 191. ) Flaciusfurthermore explained that in his conversion man is able to cooperatejust as little as a stone can contribute to its transformation into astatue. Indeed, man's condition is even more miserable than that of astone or block (_miserior trunco_), because by his natural powers heresists, and cannot but resist, the operations of the Spirit. (Planck 4, 696f. )

Strigel reasoned: If man is converted without his consent, and if hecannot but resist the operations of the Holy Spirit, conversion is animpossibility, a contradiction. He said: "If the will, even whenassisted by the Holy Spirit, is unable to assent, it must of necessityresist Him perpetually, drive out, reject, and repudiate the Word andHoly Spirit; for it is impossible that motions extremely conflicting andcontradictory, the one embracing, the other repudiating and persistentlyrejecting, should be in the same will. _Si voluntas etiam adiuta aSpiritu Sancto non potest assentiri, necesse est, ut perpetuo eirepugnet, ut excutiat, reiiciat et repudiet Verbum et Spiritum Sanctum. Nam impossibile est in eadem voluntate esse motus extreme pugnantes etcontradictorios, quorum alter est amplecti, alter repudiare et quidemperstare in reiectione. _" Flacius replied: You need but distinguishbetween the sinful natural will inherited from Adam, which alwaysresists, and the new consenting will implanted by God in conversion. "Man consents with the faith given by God, but he resists with theinborn wickedness of his Old Adam. " Your error is that you acknowledgeonly an inciting grace, which mere incitation presupposes powers ofone's own to do and to perform (_talis incitatio includit proprias viresad perficiendum_). "I plead, " said Flacius, "that by original sin man isnot only wounded, but, as the Scriptures affirm, entirely dead, and hisfaculties to do that which is good have been destroyed; on the otherhand, however, he is alive and vigorous toward evil (_hominem . .. Penitus esse mortuum, extinctum et interfectum ad bonum et contrainsuper vivum et vigentem ad malum_). " "The will is free with respect tothings beneath itself, but not with respect to things above itself. Inspiritual matters it is a servant of Satan. " Hence, said Flacius, inorder to cooperate, new spiritual life must first be imparted to, andcreated in, man by the grace of God. (Planck 4, 693ff. ; Frank 1, 224ff. , Luthardt, 224; Preger 2, 216. )

Strigel argued: If man is able only to sin and to resist the grace ofGod, he cannot be held accountable for his actions. But Flacius replied:"Also the non-regenerate are justly accused [made responsible for theiractions] for with the remnant of the carnal liberty they are able atleast to observe external decency (_Zucht_), which God earnestly demandsof us, for example, to hear God's Word, to go to church more frequentlythan into the tavern. " "Furthermore, there are many carnaltransgressions in which natural man could have done something which hehas not done. " "God may justly hold us responsible also with respect tothings which we are unable to do because He has bestowed uninjuredpowers upon the human race, which, though forewarned, man has shamefullylost through his own fault. " (Preger 2, 214f. )

Time and again Strigel told Flacius that according to his doctrine manis coerced to sin and compelled to resist the grace of God. But thelatter replied: As far as his own powers are concerned, the natural willof man indeed sins and resists inevitably and of necessity (_voluntasrepugnat necessario et inevitabiliter_), but not by coercion orcompulsion. Necessity to resist (_necessitas repugnandi_), Flaciusexplained, does not involve coercion to resist (_coactio repugnandi_), since there is such a thing as a necessity of immutability (_necessitasimmutabilitatis_), that is to say, man may be unable to act otherwise andyet act willingly. The impossibility of being able to will otherwisethan one really wills, does, according to Flacius, not at all involvecoercion or compulsion. The holy angels are free from compulsion, although they cannot sin or fall any more. It is the highest degree offreedom and Christian perfection when, in the life to come, our will toremain in union with God is elevated to immutability of so willing. Again, though Satan cannot but sin, yet he is not coerced to sin. Thustoo, of his own powers, natural man is able only to resist grace, yetthere is no compulsion involved. The fact, therefore, that natural mancannot but sin and resist grace does not warrant the inference that heis compelled to sin; nor does the fact that natural man is not coercedto resist prove that he is able also to assent to grace. The fact, saidFlacius, that the wicked _willingly_ will, think, and do only whatpleases Satan does not prove an ability to will in the oppositespiritual direction, but merely reveals the terrible extent of Satan'styrannical power over natural man. (Luthardt 224. 231. ) According toFlacius the will always wills willingly when it wills and what it wills. In brief: The categories "coercion" and "compulsion" cannot be appliedto the will. This, however, does not imply that God is not able tocreate or restore a good will without coercion or compulsion. There wasno coercion or compulsion involved when God, creating Adam, Eve, and theangels, endowed them with a good will. Nor is there any such thing ascoercion or compulsion when God, in conversion, bestows faith and a goodwill upon man. 

In his statements on the freedom of the will, Flacius merely repeatedwhat Luther had written before him, in _De Servo Arbitrio:_ "For if itis not we, but God alone, who works salvation in us, then nothing thatwe do previous to His work, whether we will or not, is salutary. Butwhen I say, 'by necessity, ' I do not mean by coercion, but, as they sayby the necessity of immutability, not by necessity of coercion, _i. E. _, man, destitute of the Spirit of God, does not sin perforce, as thoughseized by the neck [stretched upon the rack] nor unwillingly, as a thiefor robber is led to his punishment but spontaneously and willingly. Andby his own strength he cannot omit, restrain, or change this desire orwillingness to sin, but continues to will it and to find pleasure in it. For even if he is compelled by force, outwardly to do something else, within, the will nevertheless remains averse, and rages against him whocompels or resists it. For if it were changed and willingly yielded toforce, it would not be angry. And this we call the necessity ofimmutability, _i. E. _, the will cannot change itself and turn tosomething else, but is rather provoked to will more intensely by beingresisted, as is proved by its indignation. _Si enim non nos, sed solusDeus operatur salutem in nobis, nihil ante opus eius operamur salutare, velimus nolimus. Necessario vero dico, NON COACTE, sed, ut illi dicunt, necessitate immutabilitatis, NON COACTIONIS; id est homo cum vacatSpiritu Dei, NON QUIDEM VIOLENTIA, velut raptus obtorto collo, NOLENSfacit peccatum, quemadmodum fur aut latro nolens ad poenam ducitur, sedsponte et libenti voluntate facit. Verum hanc libentiam seu voluntatemfaciendi non potest suis viribus omittere, coercere aut mutare, sedpergit volendo et lubendo; etiamsi ad extra cogatur aliud facere pervim, tamen voluntas intus manet aversa et indignatur cogenti autresistenti. Non enim indignaretur, si mutaretur ac volens vimsequeretur. Hoc vocamus modo necessitatem immutabilitatis, id est, quodvoluntas sese mutare et vertere alio non possit, sed potius irriteturmagis ad volendum, dum ei resistitur, quod probat eius indignatio. _" (E. V. A. 7, 155f. 134. 157; St. L. 18 1717. 1692. 1718. )

Flacius was also charged with teaching that "man is converted resisting(_hominem converti repugnantem_). " In their _Confession and OpinionConcerning Free Will, _ of 1561, the Wittenberg theologians repeated theassertion that Flacius taught "_converti hominem . .. Repugnantem ethostiliter Deo convertenti adversantem. _" (Planck 4, 688. ) But Flaciusprotested: "I do not simply say that man is converted resisting(_hominem repugnantem converti_). But I say that he resists with respectto his natural and carnal free will. " "It is not denied that Godconverts us as willing and understanding (_quin Deus nos convertatvolentes et intelligentes_), but willing and understanding not from theOld Adam but from the light given by God and from the good volitionbestowed through the Word and the Holy Spirit. " (692. ) "Man is convertedor drawn by the Father to the Son not as a thief is cast into prison, but in such a manner that his evil will is changed into a good will bythe power of the Holy Spirit. " (Preger 2, 218. ) It is the very essenceof conversion that by the grace of God unwilling men are made willing. 

In support of his error that natural man is able to cooperate in hisconversion Strigel appealed to Rom. 8, 26: "Likewise the Spirit alsohelpeth our infirmities, " etc. ; and appealing to the _Augustana_ for thecorrectness of his interpretation, he declared that this passage provesthat one may speak of a languid and weak assent in man even before he isendowed with faith. Flacius replied that this Bible-passage referred tosuch only as are already converted, and that Strigel's interpretationwas found not in the original _Augustana, _ but in the _Variata. _--Fromthe admonition 2 Cor. 5, 20: "Be ye reconciled to God, " Strigel inferredthat free will must to a certain extent be capable of accepting thegrace offered by God. Flacius answered that it was a logical fallacy, conflicting also with the clear Word of God, to conclude that man by hisown powers is able to perform something because God demands it andadmonishes and urges us to do it. --From Acts 5, 32: ". .. The Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him, " Strigel argued that the willis able to consent to the Holy Spirit. But Flacius rejoined that thispassage refers to special gifts bestowed upon such as are alreadyconverted. --In support of his synergism, Strigel also appealed to theParable of the Prodigal Son, who himself repented and returned to hisfather. But Flacius answered: If every detail of this parable taken fromevery-day life were to be interpreted in such a manner, Strigel wouldhave to abandon his own teaching concerning prevenient grace, sinceaccording to the parable the repentance and return of the son precedesthe grace bestowed by the father. (Preger 2, 210f. )

165. Teaching of the Anti-Synergists. 

While the Philippists, also in the Synergistic Controversy, endeavoredto supplant the authority and doctrine of Luther by that of Melanchthon, their opponents, Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others(though not always fortunate in the choice of their phraseology), stoodfour-square on Luther's teaching of the _sola gratia, _ which, they werefully convinced, was nothing but the pure truth of the Gospel itself. They maintained that, as a result of the Fall, man has lost his originalholiness and righteousness or the image of God; that both as to hisintellect and will he is totally corrupt spiritually; that of his ownpowers he is utterly unable to think or will anything that is trulygood; that not a spark of spiritual life is found in natural man byvirtue of which he might assent to the Gospel or cooperate with the HolySpirit in his conversion; that his carnal mind is enmity toward God;that of his own powers he is active only in resisting the work of theHoly Spirit, nor is he able to do otherwise; that such resistancecontinues until he is converted and a new will and heart have beencreated in him; that conversion consists in this, that men who by natureare unwilling and resist God's grace become such as willingly consentand obey the Gospel and the Holy Spirit; that this is done solely byGod's grace, through Word and Sacrament; that man is purely passive inhis conversion, inasmuch as he contributes nothing towards it, andmerely suffers and experiences the work of the Holy Spirit; that onlyafter his conversion man is able to cooperate with the Holy Spirit; thatsuch cooperation, however, flows not from innate powers of the naturalwill, but from the new powers imparted in conversion; that also in theconverted the natural sinful will continues to oppose whatever is trulygood, thus causing a conflict between the flesh and the spirit whichlasts till death; in brief, that man's conversion and salvation are dueto grace alone and in no respect whatever to man and his natural powers. 

The _Book of Confutation, _ of 1559, drafted, as stated above, by thetheologians of Jena, designates the synergistic dogma as a "rejection ofgrace. " Here we also meet with statements such as the following: Humannature "is altogether turned aside from God, and is hostile toward Himand subject to the tyranny of sin and Satan (_naturam humanam prorsus aDeo aversam eique inimicam et tyrannidi peccati ac Satanae subiectamesse_). " It is impossible for the unregenerate man "to understand or toapprehend the will of God revealed in the Word, or by his own power toconvert himself to God and to will or perform anything good (_homini nonrenato impossibile esse intelligere aut apprehendere voluntatem Dei inVerbo patefactam aut sua ipsius voluntate ad Deum se convertere, bonialiquid velle aut perficere_). " "Our will to obey God or to choose thegood is utterly extinguished and corrupted. _Voluntas nostra ad Deiobedientiam aut ad bonum eligendum prorsus extincta et depravata est_. "(Tschackert, 523; Gieseler 3, 2, 229. )

The second of the Propositions prepared by Simon Musaeus and Flacius forthe Disputation at Weimar, 1560, reads: "Corrupt man cannot operate orcooperate toward anything good by true motions, and such as proceed fromthe heart; for his heart is altogether dead spiritually, and has utterlylost the image of God, or all powers and inclinations toward that whichis good. _Homo corruptus nihil boni potest veris ac ex cordeproficiscentibus motibus operari aut cooperari, nom plane estspiritualiter mortuus et Dei imaginem seu omnes bonas vires etinclinationes prorsus amisit. _" The third: Not only "has he lostentirely all good powers, but, in addition, he has also acquiredcontrary and most evil powers, . .. So that, of necessity or inevitably, he constantly and vehemently opposes God and true piety (_ita [tr. Note:sic on punctuation] ut necessario seu inevitabiliter Deo ac veraepietati semper et vehementer adversetur. _" The fourth thesis states thatGod alone, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, converts, draws, andillumines man, kindles faith, justifies, renews, and creates him untogood works, while natural or Adamic free will is of itself not onlyinactive, but resists (_non solum non cooperante ex se naturali autAdamico libero arbitrio, sed etiam contra furente ac fremente_). (Planck4, 692; Gieseler 3, 2, 245. )

The same position was occupied by the Mansfeld ministers in a statementof August 20, 1562, and by Hesshusius in his _Confutation of theArguments by which the Synergists Endeavor to Defend Their ErrorConcerning the Powers of the Dead Free Will_. They held that in hisconversion man is purely passive and has no mode of action whatever;that he is but the passive subject who is to be converted (_subiectampatiens, subiectum convertendum_); that he contributes no more to hisconversion than an infant to its own formation in the womb of itsmother; that he is passive, like a block, inasmuch as he does not in anyway cooperate, but at the same time differs from, and is worse than, ablock, because he is active in resisting the Holy Spirit until he hasbeen converted. The _Confession_ presented by the theologians of DucalSaxony (Wigand, Coelestinus, Irenaeus, Rosinus, Kirchner, etc. ) at theAltenburg Colloquy March, 1569, occupies the same doctrinal position. Asstated before, these theologians made it a special point also to declaretheir agreement with Luther's book _De Servo Arbitrio_. (Schluesselburg5, 316. 133. )

166. Attitude of Formula of Concord. 

The second article of the _Formula of Concord_, which decided thequestions involved in the Synergistic Controversy, takes a clear, determined, and consistent stand against all forms and formulas ofsynergism. At the same time it avoids all extravagant, improper, offensive, and inadequate terms and phrases, as well as the numerouspitfalls lurking everywhere in the questions concerning free will, against which also some of the opponents of the Synergists had notalways sufficiently been on their guard. Article II teaches "thatoriginal sin is an unspeakable evil and such an entire corruption ofhuman nature that in it and all its internal and external powers nothingpure or good remains, but everything is entirely corrupt, so that onaccount of original sin man is in God's sight truly spiritually dead, with all his powers dead to that which is good (_dass der Mensch durchdie Erbsuende wahrhaftig vor Gott geistlich tot und zum Guten mit allenseinen Kraeften erstorben sei_)" (CONC. TRIGL. 879, 60); "that inspiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of theunregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, tounderstand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, work, or concurin working, anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, andcorrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or acceptthe offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply oraccommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, asof himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards hisconversion either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or mostinconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John8, 34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2, 2;2 Tim. 2, 26. Hence natural free will according to its perverteddisposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what isdispleasing and contrary to God" (883, 7; 887, 17); that "before man isenlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed and drawn by the HolySpirit he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin work, orconcur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion orregeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay. " (891, 24);that, moreover, "in this respect" [inasmuch as man resists the HolySpirit] "it may well be said that man is not a stone or block, for astone or block does not resist the person who moves it, nor does itunderstand and is sensible of what is being done with it, as man withhis will so long resists God the Lord until he is converted (_donec adDeum conversus fuerit_)" (905, 59); that "the Holy Scriptures ascribeconversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongsto their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powersof the natural free will, neither entirely, nor half nor in any, eventhe least or most inconsiderable part, but _in solidum_, that is, entirely and solely, to the divine working and the Holy Spirit" (891, 25); that "the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments ofthe Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to workefficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both towill and to do" (901, 52); that "as soon as the Holy Ghost . .. Has begunin us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain thatthrough the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate(_mitwirken_), although still in great weakness" (907, 65); that thiscooperation, however, "does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in usin conversion, " and "is to be understood in no other way than that theconverted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His HolySpirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God wouldwithdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment perseverein obedience to God, " and that hence it is not a power independent from, and coordinated with, the Holy Spirit, as though "the converted mancooperated with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses togetherdraw a wagon" (907, 66); and finally, that as to thethree-concurring-causes doctrine it is "manifest, from the explanationspresented that conversion to God is a work of God the Holy Ghost alone, who is the true Master that alone works this in us, for which He usesthe preaching and hearing of His holy Word as His ordinary means andinstrument. But the intellect and will of the unregenerate man arenothing else than _subiectum convertendum_, that is, that which is to beconverted, it being the intellect and will of a spiritually dead man, inwhom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal, towards which workman's will that is to be converted does nothing, but suffers God aloneto work in him until he is regenerated and then he [cooperates] worksalso with the Holy Ghost that which is pleasing to God in other goodworks that follow in the way and to the extent fully set forth above"(915, 90). 

It has been said that originally also the _Formula of Concord_ in itsTorgau draft (_Das Torgausche Buch, i. E. _, the draft preceding theBergic Book=_Formula of Concord_) contained the three-concurring-causesdoctrine of Melanchthon and the Synergists. As a matter of fact, however, the Torgau Book does not speak of three causes of conversion, but of three causes in those who are already converted, --a doctrineentirely in agreement with the _Formula of Concord_, which, as shown, plainly teaches that after conversion the will of man also cooperateswith the Holy Spirit. In the Torgau Book the passage in question reads:"Thus also three causes concur to effect this internal new obedience inthe converted. The first and chief cause is God Father, Son, and HolyGhost. .. . The second is God's Word. .. . The third is man's intellect, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, which ponders and understands God'scommand [threat and promise], and our new and regenerate will, which isgoverned by the Holy Spirit, and now desires with a glad and willingheart (_herzlich gern und willig_), though in great weakness, to submitto, and obey, the Word and will of God. " In the same sense, at thecolloquy in AItenburg, 1568 to 1569, the Jena theologians also mentionedas a "third cause" "the mind of man, which is regenerated and renewed, and yields to, and obeys, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (_desMenschen Gemuet, so wiedergeboren und erneuert ist und dem HeiligenGeiste und Gottes Wort Folge tut und gehorsam ist_). " (Frank 1, 214f. )

XV. The Flacian Controversy. 

167. Flacius Entrapped by Strigel. 

Matthias Flacius Illyricus, one of the most learned and capabletheologians of his day and the most faithful, devoted, staunch, zealous, and able exponent and defender of genuine Lutheranism, was the author ofthe malignant controversy which bears his name. Flacius was born March3, 1520, in Illyria hence called Illyricus. He studied in Basel, Tuebingen, and Wittenberg. At Wittenberg he was convinced that thedoctrine of the Lutheran Church is in complete agreement with the Wordof God. Here, too, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew in 1544. InApril, 1549, he left the city on account of the Interim. He removed toMagdeburg where he became the energetic and successful leader of theopponents of the Interimists and Adiaphorists. He was appointedprofessor at the University of Jena, founded 1547, partly in oppositionto Philippism. In December 1561, he and his adherents were banished fromJena. When the latter returned in 1567, he was not recalled. Persecutedby his enemies (especially Elector August of Saxony) and forsaken by hisfriends, he now moved from one place to another: from Jena toRegensburg, thence to Antwerp, to Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Strassburg(from where he was expelled in the spring of 1573), and again toFrankfort-on-the-Main, where he found a last asylum for himself and hisfamily (wife and eight children), and where he also died in a hospital, March 11, 1575. 

In the Adiaphoristic Controversy Flacius had time and again urged theLutherans to die rather than deny and surrender the truth. And when inthe controversy about original sin all shunned him and turned againsthim he gave ample proof of the fact that he himself was imbued with thespirit he had endeavored to kindle in others, being willing to sufferand to be banished and persecuted rather than sacrifice what he believedto be the truth. --The most important of his numerous books are:_Catalogus Testium Veritatis_, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamaruntPapae, 1556; _Ecclesiastica Historia_, or the so-called MagdeburgCenturies (_Centuriones_), comprising the history of the first thirteencenturies, and published 1559-1574; _Clavis Scripturae_, of 1567; and_Glossa Novi Testamenti_. Walther remarks: "It was a great pity thatFlacius, who had hitherto been such a faithful champion of the puredoctrine, exposed himself to the enemies in such a manner. Henceforththe errorists were accustomed to brand all those as Flacianists who werezealous in defending the pure doctrine of Luther. " (_Kern und Stern_, 34. )

The Flacian Controversy sprang from, and must be regarded as an episodeof, the Synergistic Controversy, in which also some champions ofLuther's theology (Amsdorf, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others) hadoccasionally employed unguarded, extreme, and inadequate expressions. Following are some of the immoderate and extravagant statements made byFlacius: God alone converts man, the Adamic free will not only notcooperating, "but also raging and roaring against it (_sed etiam contrafurente ac fremente_). " (Preger 2, 212. ) The malice of our free will isa "diabolical malice (_nostra diabolica malitia carnis aut liberiarbitrii_). " By original sin man is "transformed into the image of Satan(_ad imaginem Satanae transformatus, eiusque charactere [foeda Satanaeimagine] signatus_). " (Gieseler 3, 2, 245. ) By original sin "thesubstance of man is destroyed (_substantiam hominis ablatam esse_);"after the Fall original sin is the substance of man; man's nature isidentical with sin; in conversion a new substance is created by God. Inparticular, the assertions concerning the substantiality of original singave rise to the so-called Flacian Controversy. After Strigel, at thesecond session of the disputation in Weimar, had dilated on thephilosophical definitions of the terms "substance" and "accident"("_accidens, quod adest vel abest praeter subiecti corruptionem_"), andhad declared that original sin was an accident which merely impeded freewill in its activity, Flacius, in the heat of the controversy, exclaimed: "_Originale peccatum non est accidens_. Original sin is notan accident, for the Scriptures call it flesh, the evil heart, " etc. Thus he fell into the pitfall which the wily Strigel had adroitly laidfor him. Though Flacius seemed to be loath to enter upon the matter anyfurther, and protested against the use of philosophical definitions intheology, Strigel now was eager to entangle him still further, plyinghim with the question: "_An negas peccatum originis esse accidens?_ Doyou deny that original sin is an accident?" Flacius answered: "_Lutherusdiserte negat esse accidens_. Luther expressly denies that it is anaccident. " Strigel: "_Visne negare peccatum esse accidens?_ Do you meanto deny that sin is an accident?" Flacius: "_Quod sit substantia, dixiScripturam et Lutherum affirmare. _ I have said that Scripture and Lutheraffirm that it is a substance. " (Luthardt, 213. 216. )

After the session in which the fatal phrase had fallen from his lips, Wigand and Musaeus expostulated with Flacius, designating (according tolater reports of theirs) his statement as "this new, perilous, andblasphemous proposition of the ancient Manicheans (_haec nova, periculosa et blasphema veterum Manichaeorum propositio_). " (Planck 4, 611. ) Flacius declared that, "in the sudden and pressing exigency, inthe interest of truth, and against Pelagian enthusiasm, he had takenthis expression [concerning the substantiality of original sin] fromLuther's doctrine and books. " (Preger 2, 324. ) In the following (third)session, however, he repeated his error, declaring: I must stand by mystatement that original sin is not an accident, but a substance, "because the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures which employ termsdenoting substance (_quae verbis substantialibus utuntur_) are sonumerous. " (Planck 4, 610; Luthardt, 216. ) Also later on Flacius alwaysmaintained that his doctrine was nothing but the teaching of the Bibleand of Luther. As to Scripture-proofs, he referred to passages in whichthe Scriptures designate sin as "flesh, " "stony heart, " etc. Regardingthe teaching of Luther, he quoted statements in which he describesoriginal sin as "man's nature, " "essence, " "substantial sin, " "all thatis born of father and mother, " etc. (Preger 2, 318. )

However, the palpable mistake of Flacius was that he took thesubstantial terms on which he based his theory in their original andproper sense, while the Bible and Luther employ them in a figurativemeaning, as the _Formula of Concord_ carefully explains in its firstarticle, which decided and settled this controversy. (874, 50. ) Here weread: "Also to avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum_, that is, words and expressions which are applied and used in variousmeanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained, as when it issaid: God creates the nature of men, there by the term _nature_ theessence, body, and soul of men are understood. But often the dispositionor vicious quality of a thing is called its nature, as when it is said:It is the nature of the serpent to bite and poison. Thus Luther saysthat sin and sinning are the disposition and nature of corrupt man. Therefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of ournature as it is described in the _Smalcald Articles_. But sometimes theconcrete person or the subject that is, man himself with body and soulin which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for thereason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luthersays: 'Thy birth, thy nature, and thy entire essence is sin, ' that is, sinful and unclean. Luther himself explains that by nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin he means that not only the words, thoughts, and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person and essence of manare altogether corrupted from the root by original sin. " (875, 51f. )

168. Context in which Statement was Made. 

In making his statement concerning the substantiality of original sin, the purpose of Flacius was to wipe out the last vestige of spiritualpowers ascribed to natural man by Strigel, and to emphasize the doctrineof total corruption, which Strigel denied. His fatal blunder was that hedid so in terms which were universally regarded as savoring ofManicheism. As was fully explained in the chapter of the SynergisticControversy Strigel taught that free will, which belongs to thesubstance and essence of man, and hence cannot be lost without theannihilation of man himself, always includes the capacity to choose inboth directions, that also with respect to divine grace and theoperations of the Holy Spirit man is and always remains a _liberumagens_ in the sense that he is able to decide _in utramque partem;_ thatthis ability, constituting the very essence of free will, may beweakened and impeded in its activity, but never lost entirely. If itwere lost, Strigel argued, the very substance of man and free will assuch would have to be regarded as annihilated. But now man, also afterthe Fall, is still a real man, possessed of intellect and will. Henceoriginal sin cannot have despoiled him of this liberty of choosing _pro_or _con_ also in matters spiritual. The loss of original righteousnessdoes not, according to Strigel, involve the total spiritual disabilityof the will and its sole tendency and activity toward what isspiritually evil. Moreover, despite original corruption, it is andremains an indestructible property of man to be able, at least in ameasure, to assent to and to admit, the operations of the Holy Spirit, and therefore and in this sense to be converted "_aliquo modo volens. _"(Planck 4, 667. 675. 681. )

It was in opposition to this Semi-Pelagian teaching that Flaciusdeclared original sin to be not a mere accident, but the substance ofman. Entering upon the train of thought and the phraseology suggested byhis opponent, he called substance what in reality was an accident, though not an accident such as Strigel contended. From his ownstandpoint it was therefore a shrewd move to hide his own synergism andto entrap his opponent, when Strigel plied Flacius with the questionwhether he denied that original sin was an accident. For in the contextand the sense in which it was proposed the question involved a viciousdilemma. Answering with yes or no, Flacius was compelled either toaffirm Strigel's synergism or to expose himself to the charge ofManicheism. Instead of replying as he did, Flacius should have clearedthe sophistical atmosphere by explaining: "If I say, 'Original sin is anaccident, ' you [Strigel] will infer what I reject, _viz. _, that thecorrupt will of man retains the power to decide also in favor of theoperations of the Holy Spirit. And if I answer that original sin is notan accident (such as you have in mind), you will again infer what Idisavow, _viz. _, that man, who by the Fall has lost the ability to willin the spiritual direction, has _eo ipso_ lost the will and its freedomentirely and as such. " As it was, however, Flacius instead of adheringstrictly to the real issue--the question concerning man's cooperation inconversion--and exposing the sophistry implied in the question put byStrigel, most unfortunately suffered himself to be caught on the hornsof the dilemma. He blindly walked into the trap set for him by Strigel, from which also later on he never succeeded in fully extricatinghimself. 

With all his soul Flacius rejected the synergism involved in Strigel'squestion. His blunder was, as stated, that he did so in termsuniversally regarded as Manichean. He was right when he maintained thatoriginal sin is the inherited tendency and motion of the human mind, will, and heart, not toward, but against God, --a direction, too, whichman is utterly unable to change. But he erred fatally by identifyingthis inborn evil tendency with the substance of fallen man and theessence of his will as such. It will always be regarded as a redeemingfeature that it was in antagonizing synergism and championing theLutheran _sola gratia_ that Flacius coined his unhappy proposition. Andin properly estimating his error, it must not be overlooked that he, aswill be shown in the following, employed the terms "substance" and"accident" not in their generally accepted meaning but in a sense, andaccording to a philosophical terminology, of his own. 

169. Formal and Material Substance. 

The terms "substance" and "accident" are defined in Melanchthon's_Erotemata Dialectices_ as follows: "_Substantia est ens, quod reveraproprium esse habet, nec est in alio, ut habens esse a subiecto. _Substance is something which in reality has a being of its own and isnot in another as having its being from the subject. " (_C. R. _ 13, 528. ) "_Accidens est quod non per sese subsistit, nec est parssubstantiae, sed in alio est mutabiliter. _ Accident is something whichdoes not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeablein something else. " (522. ) Melanchthon continues: "Accidentium alia suntseparabilia ut frigus ab aqua, notitia a mente, laetitia, tristitia acorde. Alia accidentia sunt inseparabilia, ut quantitas seu magnitudo asubstantia corporea, calor ab igni, humiditas ab aqua, non separantur. .. Et quia separabilia accidentia magis conspicua sunt, ideo inde sumptaest puerilis descriptio: Accidens est, quod adest et abest praetersubiecti corruptionem. Whatever is present or absent without thecorruption of the subject is an accident. " (_C. R. _ 13, 523; Preger 2, 396. 407; Seeberg 4, 494. )

Evidently this last definition, which was employed also by Strigel, isambiguous, inasmuch as the word "corruption" may signify anannihilation, or merely a perversion, or a corruption in the ordinarymeaning of the word. In the latter sense the term applied to originalsin would be tantamount to a denial of the Lutheran doctrine of _total_corruption. When Jacob Andreae, in his disputation with Flacius, 1571, at Strassburg, declared that accident is something which is present orabsent without _corruption_ of the subject, he employed the term in thesense of destruction or annihilation. In the same year Hesshusius statedthat by original sin "the whole nature body and soul, substance as wellas accidents, are defiled, corrupted, and dead, " of course, spiritually. And what he understood by substance appears from his assertion: "Thebeing itself, the substance and nature itself, in as far as it isnature, is not an evil conflicting with the Law of God. .. . Not even inthe devil the substance itself, in as far as it is substance, is a badthing, _i. E. _, a thing conflicting with the Law. " (Preger 2, 397. )

The _Formula of Concord_ carefully and correctly defines: "Everythingthat is must be either _substantia_, that is, a self-existent essence, or _accidens_, that is, an accidental matter, which does not exist byitself essentially but is in another self-existent essence and can bedistinguished from it. " "Now, then, since it is the indisputable truththat everything that is, is either a substance or an _accidens_ that is, either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it (as hasjust been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and notruly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this), necessity here constrains, and no one can evade it if the question beasked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing asexists by itself, and is not in another, or whether it is an _accidens_, that is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another, and cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat thatoriginal sin is no substance, but an accident. " (877, 54; 57. )

Flacius, however, took the words "substance" and "accident" in adifferent sense. He distinguished between the material and formalsubstance, and the latter he regarded as man's true original essence. This essence he explained, consisted in the original righteousness andholiness of man, in the image of God or the will as truly free and inproper relation toward God. He said: "Ipsum hominem _essentialiter_ sicesse formatum, ut recta voluntas esset imago Dei, non tantum eiusaccidens. " (Seeberg 4, 494. ) He drew the conclusion that original sin, by which the image of God (not the human understanding and will as such)is lost, cannot be a mere accident, but constitutes the very essence andsubstance of fallen man. He argued: The image of God is the formalessence of man, or the soul itself according to its best part, byoriginal sin this image is changed into its opposite: hence the changewrought by original sin is not accidental, but substantial, --just assubstantial and essential as when wine is changed into vinegar or fireinto frost. What man has lost, said Flacius, is not indeed his materialsubstance (_substantia materialis_), but his true formal substance orsubstantial form (_substantia formalis_ or _forma substantialis_). Hencealso original sin, or the corruption resulting from the Fall, in realityis, and must be designated, the formal substance or substantial form ofnatural man. Not all gifts of creation were lost to man by his Fall; themost essential boon, however, the image of God, was destroyed andchanged into the image of Satan. "In homine, " said Flacius, "et mansitaliquid, et tamen quod optimum in ratione et essentia fuit, nempe imagoDei, non tantum evanuit, sed etiam in contrarium, nempe in imaginemdiaboli, commutatum est. " The devil, Flacius continued, has robbed manof his original form (_forma_), the image of God, and stamped him withhis own diabolical form and nature. (Luthardt 215; Gieseler 3, 2, 253. )

170. Further Explanations of Flacius. 

The manner in which Flacius distinguished between material and formalsubstance appears from the tract on original sin (_De Peccati Originalisaut Veteris Adami Appellationibus et Essentia_), which he appended tohis _Clavis Scripturae_ of 1567. There we read: "In this disputationconcerning the corruption of man I do not deny that this meaner matter(_illam viliorem materiam_) or mass of man created in the beginning hasindeed remained until now, although it is exceedingly vitiated, as whenin wine or aromas the spirituous (_airy_) or fiery substance escapes, and nothing remains but the earthy and watery substance; but I hold thatthe substantial form or the formal substance (_formam substantialem autsubstantiam formalem_) has been lost, yea, changed into its opposite. But I do not speak of that external and coarse form (although it too, iscorrupted and weakened very much) which a girl admires in a youth, orphilosophy also in the entire man, according to which he consists ofbody and soul, has an erect stature two feet, hands, eyes, ears, and thelike, is an animal laughing, counting, reasoning, etc. ; but I speak ofthat most noble substantial form (_nobilissima substantialis forma_)according to which especially the heart itself or rather the rationalsoul, was formed in such a manner that his very essence might be theimage of God and represent Him, and that his substantial powers, intellect and will, and his affections might be conformed to theproperties of God, represent, truly acknowledge, and most willinglyembrace Him. " (Preger 2, 314; Gieseler 3, 2, 254. )

Again: "In this manner, therefore, I believe and assert that originalsin is a substance, because the rational soul (as united with God) andespecially its noblest substantial powers, namely, the intellect andwill which before had been formed so gloriously that they were the trueimage of God and the fountain of all justice, uprightness, and piety, and altogether essentially like unto gold and gems, are now, by deceitof Satan, so utterly perverted that they are the true and living imageof Satan, and, as it were, filthy or rather consisting of an infernalflame, not otherwise than when the sweetest and purest mass, infectedwith the most venomous ferment, is altogether and substantially changedand transformed into a lump of the same ferment. " (Gieseler 3, 2, 254. )Original sin "is not a mere accident in man, but his inverted andtransformed essence or new form itself, just as when a most wholesomemedicine is changed into the most baneful poison. " "The matter remains, but it receives a new form, namely, the image of Satan. " "Man, who inhis essential form was the image of God, has in his essential formbecome the image of Satan. " "This change may be compared to the changewhich the golden image of a beautiful man undergoes when it istransformed into the image of a dragon, the matter at the same timebeing corrupted. " (Preger 2, 214. 217. 325. )

Dilating on the substantiality of original sin, Flacius furthermoredeclared: "Original malice in man is not something different from theevil mind or stony heart itself, not something that destroys himspiritually as a disease consumes him bodily, but it is ruined anddestroyed nature itself (_sed est tantum ipsa perditissima et iamdestructissima natura_). Original malice was not, as many now thinkinfused from without into Adam in such a way as when poison or someother bad substance is thrown or poured into good liquor, so that byreason of the added bad substance also the rest becomes noxious, but insuch a way as when good liquor or bread itself is perverted so that nowit is bad as such and poisonous or rather poison (_ut illud per se iammalum ac venenatum aut potius venenum sit_). " (Preger 2, 313. )

Also concerning the body and soul of fallen man Flacius does nothesitate to affirm that, since they are permeated and corrupted byoriginal sin, "these parts themselves are sin, _eas ipsas [partes, corpus et animam] esse illud nativum malum, quod cum Deo pugnat. _" "Someobject, " says Flacius, "that the creature of God must be distinguishedfrom sin, which is not of God. I answer: now do separate, if you can, the devil from his inherent wickedness!. .. How can the same thing beseparated from itself! We therefore can not distinguish them in anyother way than by stating that with respect to his first creation andalso his present preservation man, even as the devil himself, is of God, but that with respect to this horrible transformation (_ratione istiushorrendae metamorphoseos_) he is of the devil, who, by the force of theefficacious sentence and punishment of angry God: 'Thou shalt die, ' notonly captured us to be his vilest slaves, but also recast, rebaked, andchanged, or, so to speak, metamorphosed us into another man, as theScripture says, even as he [the devil] himself is inverted. " All parts, talents, and abilities of man, Flacius contends, are "evil and meresins, " because they all oppose God. "What else are they than armedunrighteousness!" he exclaims. Even the natural knowledge of God "isnothing but the abominable source of idolatry and of all superstitions. "(Preger 316f. ; Gieseler 3, 2, 255. )

That the fundamental view of Flacius, however, was much farther apartfrom Manicheism than some of his radical phrases imply, appears from his"_Gnowthi seauton, De Essentia Originalis Institutiae, _" of 1568. Afteradmitting that Augustine, Luther, and the _Apology of the AugsburgConfession_ are correct when they define original sin as an inordinatedisposition, a disorder (_ataxia_), perversion, and confusion of theparts of man, Flacius proceeds: "The substantial form of a certain thingfor the most part, consists in the right position and disposition of theparts; as, for example, if a human body were born which had its eyes, ears, and mouth on the belly or feet, and, _vice versa, _ the toes on thehead, no one would say that it was properly a man, but rather a monster. . .. It appears, therefore, that the inordinate disposition of the partsproduces an altogether new body or thing. Thus, forsooth, the horribleperturbation of the soul has also produced, as it were a new kind ofmonster fighting against God. " (Preger 2, 409. ) Accordingly, it was notman's body and soul as such, but the alteration of the relation of hispowers toward one another and the consequent corruption of these powers, that Flacius had in mind when he designated original sin as the newsubstantial form, or substance, of sinful man. 

Flacius expressly denied that the fall of man or his conversion involveda physical change. "I do not teach a physical regeneration, " hedeclared, "nor do I say that two hearts are created, but I say that thismost excellent part of the soul or of man is once more established, orthat the image of God is recast and transformed out of the image ofSatan, even as before the image of God was transformed into the image ofSatan. _Physicam renascentiam non assero nec dico duo corda creari, seddico istam praestantissimam animae aut hominis partem denuo condi aut eximagine Satanae refundi aut transformari imaginem Dei, sicut antea imagoDei fuit transformata in imaginem Satanae. _" (Seeberg 4, 495. ) Gieselerpertinently remarks: "It is apparent that Flacius did not deviate fromthe common concept of original sin, but from the concepts of substanceand accident, but that here, too, he was uncertain, inasmuch as heemployed the terms _substantia, forma substantialis, _ and _substantiaformalis_ promiscuously. " (3, 2, 255. )

If not necessarily involved in, it was at least in keeping with hisextreme position and extravagant phraseology concerning original sinwhen Flacius, in his _De Primo et Secundo Capite ad Romanos, quatenusLibero Arbitrio Patrocinari Videntur, _ rejected the doctrine of aninborn idea of God and of His Law inscribed in the heart of naturalman. On Rom. 1, 19 he comments: It is only from the effects in the worldthat man infers the existence of a supreme cause. And with respect toRom. 2, 15 he maintains that Paul's statements were to be understood, not of a law written in the heart of man, but of a knowledge which theheathen had derived by inference, from experience, or from tradition ofthe fathers. On this point Strigel, no doubt was correct when heobjected: If the knowledge of God's existence were really extinguishedfrom the heart, there could be no discipline among men; and if man hadno inborn knowledge of the Law, then there could be no such thing asconscience which condemns him when he sins. The fact that man fearspunishments even when there is no government to fear, as was the casewith Alexander when he had murdered Clitus, proves that in the heartthere is a certain knowledge both of God and of His Law. (Preger 2, 213. ) However, Flacius did not, as Strigel seems to insinuate, deny thatnatural man has an obscure knowledge of God's existence and Law, butmerely maintained that this knowledge was not inborn or inherited, butacquired from without. 

171. Controversy Precipitated by Flacius. 

Though Flacius, when he first made his statement concerning thesubstantiality of original sin may not have felt absolutely sure of theexact meaning, bearing, and correctness of his position, yet the factsdo not warrant the assumption that afterwards he was in any waydiffident or wavering in his attitude. Whatever his views on thissubject may have been before 1560--after the fatal phrase had fallenfrom his lips, he never flinched nor flagged in zealously defending it. Nor was he ever disposed to compromise the matter as far as thesubstance of his doctrine was concerned. In 1570 Spangenberg ofMansfeld, who sided with Flacius, suggested that he retain his meaning, but change his language: "_Teneat Illyricus mentem, mutet linguam. _" Tothis Flacius consented. On September 28 1570, he published his _BriefConfession, _ in which he agreed to abstain from the use of the term"substance. " However, what he suggested as a substitute, _viz. _, thatoriginal sin be defined as the nature of man (the word "nature, " as heparticularly emphasized, to be taken not in a figurative, but in itsproper meaning), was in reality but another way of repeating his error. 

The same was the case in 1572, when Flacius, opposed and sorely pressedby the ministerium of Strassburg (whence he was banished the followingyear), offered to substitute for the word "substance" the phrase"essential powers. " (Preger 2, 371. ) Two years later, at the publicdisputation in Langenau, Silesia, where Flacius defended his doctrinewith favorable results for himself against Jacob Coler [born 1537;studied in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1564 pastor in Lauban, Upper Lausatia(Oberlausitz); 1573 in Neukirch; 1574 he opposed Leonard Crentzheim andFlacius; 1575 professor in Frankfort; afterwards active first asPraepositus in Berlin and later on as Superintendent in Mecklenburg, published _Disputatio De Libero Arbitrio;_ died March 7, 1612], hedeclared that he did not insist on his phrase as long as the doctrineitself was adopted and original sin was not declared to be a mereaccident. But this, too, was no real retraction of his error. (Preger 2, 387. ) In a similar way Flacius repeatedly declared himself willing toabstain from the use of the word "substance" in connection with hisdoctrine concerning original sin, but with conditions and limitationswhich made his concessions illusory, and neither did nor could satisfyhis opponents. 

At the disputation in Weimar, 1560, Wigand and Musaeus, as stated, warned Flacius immediately after the session in which he had made hisstatement. Schluesselburg relates: "Immediately during the disputation, as I frequently heard from their own lips, Dr. Wigand, Dr. SimonMusaeus, and other colleagues of his who attended the disputation . .. Admonished Illyricus in a brotherly and faithful manner to abstain fromthis new, perilous and blasphemous proposition of the ancientManicheans, which would cause great turmoil in the Church of God, and torefute the error of Victorin [Strigel] concerning free will not by meansof a false proposition, but with the Word of God. However, intoxicatedwith ambition, and relying, in the heat of the conflict, too much on theacumen and sagacity of his own mind, Illyricus haughtily spurned thebrotherly and faithful admonitions of all his colleagues. " (_Catalogus_2, 4. ) In his book _De Manichaeismo Renovato_ Wigand himself reports:"Illyricus answered [to the admonition of his colleagues to abstain fromthe Manichean phrase] that he had been drawn into this discussion by hisopponent against his own will. But what happened? Contrary to theexpectations of his colleagues, Illyricus in the following sessioncontinued, as he had begun, to defend this insanity. " (Preger 2, 324;Planck 4, 611. ) However, it does not appear that after the disputationhis friends pressed the matter any further, or that they made anyefforts publicly to disavow the Flacian proposition. 

In 1567 Flacius published his tract _De Peccati Originalis aut VeterisAdami Appellationibus et Essentia, _ "On the Appellations and Essence ofOriginal Sin or the Old Adam, " appending it to his famous _ClavisScripturae_ of the same year. He had written this tract probably evenbefore 1564. In 1566 he sent it to Simon Musaeus, requesting his opinionand the opinion of Hesshusius, who at that time was celebrating hismarriage with the daughter of Musaeus. In his answer, Musaeus approvedthe tract, but desired that the term "substance" be explained as meaningnot the matter, but the form of the substance to which Hesshusius alsoagreed. After the tract had appeared, Musaeus again wrote to Flacius, June 21, 1568, saying that he agreed with his presentation of originalsin. At the same time, however, he expressed the fear that the boldstatement which Flacius had retained, "Sin is substance, " would bedangerously misinterpreted. (Preger 2, 327. ) And before long a storm wasbrewing, in which animosity registered its highest point, and averitable flood of controversial literature (one publication followingthe other in rapid succession) was poured out upon the Church, which wasalready distracted and divided by numerous and serious theologicalconflicts. 

By the publication of this treatise Flacius, who before long also washarassed and ostracized everywhere, had himself made a publiccontroversy unavoidable. In the conflict which it precipitated, he wasopposed by all parties, not only by his old enemies, the Philippists, but also by his former friends. According to the maxim: _Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas, _ they now felt constrained, in the interest of truth, to turn their weapons against their formercomrade and leader. Flacius himself had made it impossible for hisfriends to spare him any longer. Nor did he deceive himself as to thereal situation. In a letter written to Wigand he reveals his fear thatthe Lutherans and Philippists, then assembled at the Colloquium inAltenburg (held from October 21, 1568, to March, 1569, between thetheologians of Thuringia and those of Electoral Saxony), would unite ina public declaration against his teaching. Wigand whose warning Flaciushad disregarded at Weimar, wrote to Gallus: Flacius has forfeited theright to request that nothing be published against him, because hehimself has already spread his views in print. And before long Wigandbegan to denounce publicly the Flacian doctrine as "new and prolificmonsters, _monstra nova et fecunda. _"

172. Publications Pro and Con. 

According to Preger the first decided opposition to the Flacian teachingcame from Moerlin and Chemnitz, in Brunswick, to whom Flacius had alsosubmitted his tract for approval. Chemnitz closed his criticism bysaying: It is enough if we are able to retain what Luther has won(_parta tueri_), let us abandon all desires to go beyond (_ulteriusquaerere_) and to improve upon him. (Preger 2, 328. ) Moerlincharacterized Flacius as a vain man, and dangerous in many respects. Flacius answered in an objective manner, betraying no irritationwhatever. (332. ) In a letter of August 10, 1568, Hesshusius, who now hadread the tract more carefully charged Flacius with teaching that Satanwas a creator of substance, and before long refused to treat with himany further. In September of the same year Flacius published his _Gnothiseauton_ against the attacks of the Synergists and Philippists, notablyChristopher Lasius [who studied at Strassburg and Wittenberg, was activein Goerlitz, Greussen, Spandau, Kuestrin, Cottbus, and Senftenberg, wrote _Praelibationes Dogmatis Flaciani de Prodigiosa HominisConversione;_ died 1572]. In the same year Hesshusius prepared his_Analysis, _ which was approved by Gallus and the Jena theologians. 

Realizing that all his former friends had broken with him entirely, Flacius, in January 1570, _published_ his _Demonstrations Concerning theEssence of the Image of God and the Devil, _ in which he attacked hisopponents, but without mentioning their names. His request for a privatediscussion was bluntly rejected by the Jena theologians. Wigand, in his_Propositions on Sin_ of May 5, 1570, was the first publicly to attackFlacius by name. About the same time Moerlin's _Themata de Imagine Dei_and Chemnitz's _Resolutio_ appeared. The former was directed "againstthe impious and absurd proposition that sin is a substance", the latter, against the assertion "that original sin is the very substance of man, and that the soul of man itself is original sin. " Hesshusius alsopublished his _Letter to M. Flacius Illyricus in the Controversy whetherOriginal Sin is a Substance. _ Flacius answered in his _Defense of theSound Doctrine Concerning Original Righteousness and Unrighteousness, orSin, _ of September 1, 1570. Hesshusius published his _Analysis, _ inwhich he repeated the charge that Flacius made the devil a creator ofsubstance. 

In his _Brief Confession, _ of September 28 1570, Flacius now offered toabstain from the use of the term "substance" in the manner indicatedabove. A colloquium, however, requested by Flacius and his friends onthe basis of this Confession, was declined by the theologians of Jena. Moreover, in answer to the _Brief Confession, _ Hesshusius published(April 21, 1571) his _True Counter-Report, _ in which he again repeatedhis accusation that Flacius made the devil a creator of substance. Hesummarized his arguments as follows: "I have therefore proved from onebook [Flacius's tract of 1567] more than six times that Illyricus says:_Satan condidit, fabricavit, transformavit veterem hominem, Satan estfigulus, _ that is: The devil created and made man, the devil is man'spotter. " The idea of a creation out of nothing, however, was not taughtin the statements to which Hesshusius referred. (Preger 2, 348. )

Further publications by Andrew Schoppe [died after 1615], Wigand, Moerlin, Hesshusius, and Chemnitz, which destroyed all hopes of apeaceful settlement, caused Flacius to write his _Orthodox ConfessionConcerning Original Sin. _ In this comprehensive answer, which appearedAugust 1, 1571, he declares "that either image, the image of God as wellas of Satan, is an essence, and that the opposite opinion diminishes themerit of Christ. " At the same time he complained that his statementswere garbled and misinterpreted by his opponents, that his was theposition of the man who asked concerning garlic and received an answerconcerning onions, that his opponents were but disputing withimaginations of their own. (349f. )

In the same year, 1571, Wigand published a voluminous book, _On OriginalSin, _ in which he charged Flacius with teaching that original sin is theentire carnal substance of man according to both his body and soul. Inhis description of the Flacian doctrine we read: "Original sin is asubstance, as they teach. Accordingly, original sin is an animal, andthat, too, an intelligent animal. You must also add ears, eyes, mouth, nose, arms, belly, and feet. Original sin laughs, talks, sews, sows, works, reads, writes, preaches, baptizes, administers the Lord's Supper, etc. For it is the substance of man that does such things. Behold, wheresuch men end!" Flacius replied in his _Christian and Reliable Answer toAll manner of Sophistries of the Pelagian Accident, _ 1572, protestingthat the doctrine ascribed to him was a misrepresentation of histeaching. In the same year Wigand published _Reasons Why ThisProposition, in Controversy with the Manicheans: "Original Sin Is theCorrupt Nature, " Cannot Stand. _ Here Wigand truly says: "Evil of thesubstance and evil substance are not identical. _Malum substantiae etmala substantia non sunt idem. _" (Preger 2, 353. 410. )

In several publications of the same year Hesshusius asserted (quotingtestimonies to this effect from Augustine), that the Flacian doctrinewas identical with the tenets of the Manicheans, in substance as well asterms. Flacius answered in _De Augustini et Manichaeorum Sententia, inControversia Peccati, _ 1572, in which he declared: "I most solemnlycondemn the Manichean insanity concerning two creators. I have alwaysdenied that original sin is something, or has ever been somethingoutside of man; I have never ascribed to this sin any materiality of itsown. " (355. ) This book was followed by another attack by Hesshusius andan answer, in turn, by Flacius. 

In the same year Hesshusius, in order to prevent further accessions toFlacianism, published his _Antidote (Antidoton) against the Impious andBlasphemous Dogma of Matthias Flacius Illyricus by which He Asserts thatOriginal Sin Is Substance. _ In this book, which was republished in 1576and again in 1579, Hesshusius correctly argued: "If original sin is thesubstance of the soul, then we are compelled to assert one of twothings, _viz. _, either that Satan is the creator of substances or thatGod is the creator and preserver of sin. _Si substantia animae estpeccatum originis, alterum a duobus necesse est poni, videlicet, autSatanam esse conditorem substantiarum, aut Deum esse peccati creatoremet sustentatorem. _" (Gieseler 3, 2, 256. ) At this late hour, 1572, SimonMusaeus, too, entered the arena with his _Opinion Concerning OriginalSin, Sententia de Peccato Originali. _ In it he taught "that original sinis not a substance, but the utmost corruption of it, in matter as wellas form, " and that therefore "Pelagianism no less than Manicheism is tobe excluded and condemned. "

When the ministerium of Strassburg turned against Flacius, he againpublished several books defending his position on the controvertedquestions, which resulted in his expulsion from the city. In 1573Flacius published an answer to Hesshusius's _Antidote_ entitled, _SolidRefutation of the Groundless Sophistries, Calumnies, and Figments, asalso of the Most Corrupt Errors of the "Antidote" and of OtherNeopelagian Writers. _ Flacius charged Hesshusius with misrepresentation, and demanded that he swear whether he really believed to have found thealleged errors in his writings. (Preger 2, 364ff. )

Till his death, on March 11, 1575, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, Flaciusconsistently adhered to his false terminology as well as teaching, apparently never for a moment doubting that he was but defendingLuther's doctrine. One of his last books was entitled, _Some Clear andSplendid Testimonies of Martin Luther Concerning the Evil Essence, Image, Form, or Shape_ (Wesen, essentia, Bild, Form oder Gestalt) _ofthe Earthly Dead Adam and Concerning the Essential Transformation ofMan. _ (389. ) As stated above, the mistake of Flacius was that he tookliterally terms denoting substance which the Bible and Luther employ ina figurative sense. 

173. Adherents of Flacius. 

The chief supporters of Flacius were the Mansfeldians, Count Vollrathand Cyriacus Spangenberg [born 1528; studied in Wittenberg; served inEisleben, then in Mansfeld; died in Strassburg February 10, 1604]. Inthe serious dissensions which arose in Mansfeld in consequence of thecontroversy on original sin, the Count and Spangenberg were opposed bythe Jena theologians and Superintendent Menzel [Jerome Menzel, born1517; studied in Wittenberg; wrote against Spangenberg; died 1590]. Asstated above, it was Spangenberg who endeavored to bring about anunderstanding between the contending parties on the principle: "_TeneatIllyricus mentem, mutet linguam. _" A colloquy was held 1572 at CastleMansfeld, in which Flacius and his adherents were pitted against Menzel, Rhode, Fabricius, and others. When Fabricius declared in thediscussions: "Only in so far as our nature is not in conformity with theLaw of God is it corrupt, " Flacius exclaimed: "_Non quantum_, not in asfar; but I say it is not in conformity because it is corrupt, _quiacorrupta est_. " (Preger 2, 375. ) Count Vollrath and his adviser, CasparPflug gave Flacius a written testimony that at the colloquy he had notbeen convinced, but found to be correct in the controversy on originalsin. The publication of this testimony by Flacius as also of the minutesof the Colloquy by Count Vollrath, in 1573, resulted in a number offurther publications by Flacius and his friends as well as hisopponents. At Mansfeld the animosity against the Flacians did notsubside even after the death of Flacius in 1575. They were punished withexcommunication, incarceration, and the refusal of a Christian burial. Count Vollrath left 1577, and died at Strassburg 1578. Spangenberg, whoalso had secretly fled from Mansfeld, defended the doctrine of Flaciusin a tract, _De Peccato Originali, Concerning Original Sin_, which hepublished 1586 under a pseudonym. He died without retracting or changinghis views. 

Another adherent of Flacius was F. Coelestinus, professor at Jena. Afterhis suspension he left the city and participated in the controversy. Hepublished _Colloquium inter Se et Tilem. Hesshusium_. He died 1572. InAugust, 1571, Court-preacher Christopher Irenaeus and Pastors Guentherand Reinecker were dismissed in Weimar because of Flacianism. Irenaeuspublished _Examen Libri Concordiae_ and many other books, in which hecontends that original sin is a substance. Pastors Wolf in Kahla, Schneider in Altendorf, and Franke in Oberrosla were dismissed in 1572for the same reason. They, too, entered the public arena in favor ofFlacius. At Lindau four preachers, who had identified themselves withFlacius, were also deposed. One of them, Tobias Rupp, held a publicdisputation with Andreae. In Antwerp the elders forbade their ministersto indulge in any public polemics against Flacius. Among the supportersof Flacius were also his son, Matthias Flacius, and Caspar Heldelin. Itmay be noted here that Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland, who were deposedat Luebeck in 1568 also taught "that original sin is the very substanceof the body and soul of man, " and that Christ had assumed "the flesh ofanother species" than ours. (Gieseler 3, 2, 257. )

In Regensburg four adherents of Flacius were dismissed in 1574, amongthem Joshua Opitz [born 1543; died 1585]. These and others emigrated tothe Archduchy of Austria, where the Lutherans were numerous andinfluential, Opitz frequently preaching to an audience of 7, 000. No lessthan 40 of the Lutheran ministers of Austria are said to have shared theviews of Flacius. (Preger 2, 393. ) Only a few of them revealed symptomsof fanaticism, which resulted in their dismissal. Among the latter wasJoachim Magdeburgius, then an exile at Efferding. He taught "that thebodies of believing Christians after their death were still essentialoriginal sin, and that God's wrath remained over them till the Day ofJudgment. " (Joecher, _Lexicon_ 3, 32. ) At the same time he branded aserrorists Spangenberg, Opitz, and Irenaeus, who declared their dissent. In 1581 the Flacians in Austria issued a declaration against the_Formula of Concord_, charging its teaching to be inconsistent withLuther's doctrine on original sin. As late as 1604 there were numerousFlacianists in German Austria. 

174. Decision of Formula of Concord. 

Seeberg remarks: "Flacius was not a heretic, but in the wrangle of hisday he was branded as such, and this has been frequently repeated. " (4, 2, 495. ) A similar verdict is passed by Gieseler and other historians. But whatever may be said in extenuation of his error, it cannot bedisputed that the unfortunate phrases of Flacius produced, and werebound to produce, most serious religious offense, as well as theologicalstrife, and hopeless doctrinal confusion. Even when viewed in the lightof his distinction between formal substance (man as endowed with theimage of God) and material substance (man as possessed of body and soul, together with will and intellect), the odiousness of his terminology isnot entirely removed. It was and remained a form of doctrine and tropeor mode of teaching which the Lutherans were no more minded to toleratethan the error of Strigel. 

Accordingly, the first article of the _Formula of Concord_ rejects boththe synergistic as well as the Manichean aberrations in the doctrine oforiginal sin. In its Thorough Declaration we read: "Now this doctrine[of original sin] must be so maintained and guarded that it may notdeflect either to the Pelagian or the Manichean side. For this reasonthe contrary doctrine . .. Should also be briefly stated. " (865, 16. )Accordingly, in a series of arguments, the Flacian error is thoroughlyrefuted and decidedly rejected. At the same time the _Formula ofConcord_ points out the offensiveness of the Flacian phraseology. Itrefers to the controversy regarding this question as "scandalous andvery mischievous, " and declares: "Therefore it is unchristian andhorrible to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the HolyTrinity, sanctified, and saved, and other similar expressions found inthe writings of the recent Manicheans, with which we will not offendsimple-minded people. " (873, 45. 59. )

On the other hand, the _Formula of Concord_ is just as determined inopposing every effort at extenuating the corruption wrought by originalsin. It is solicitous to explain that in designating original sin as anaccident, its corruption is not minimized in the least, if the answerconcerning the nature of this accident is not derived from philosophyor human reason, but from the Holy Scriptures. "For the Scriptures, "says the _Formula_, "testify that original sin is an unspeakable eviland such an entire corruption of human nature that in it and all itsinternal and external powers nothing pure or good remains, buteverything is entirely corrupt, so that on account of original sin manin God's sight is truly spiritually dead (_plane sit emortuus_), withall his powers dead to that which is good. " (879, 60. )

Accordingly, the _Formula of Concord_ rejects the errors of Strigel andthe Semi-Pelagians, "that original sin is only external, a slight, insignificant spot sprinkled, or a stain dashed, upon the nature of man. .. Along with and beneath which the nature nevertheless possesses andretains its integrity and power even in spiritual things. Or thatoriginal sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an externalimpediment to these spiritual good powers. .. . They are rebuked andrejected likewise who teach that the nature has indeed been greatlyweakened and corrupted through the Fall, but that nevertheless it hasnot entirely lost all good with respect to divine, spiritual things, and that what is sung in our churches, '_Through Adam's fall is allcorrupt, nature and essence human, _' is not true, but from naturalbirth it still has something good, small, little, and inconsiderablethough it be, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability to begin, toeffect, or to help effect something in spiritual things. " (865, 21ff. )

While the _Formula of Concord_ does not deny the capacity of fallen manfor salvation, it is careful in defining that this is not an active, buta passive capacity. That is to say: Man is utterly incapable ofqualifying himself for, or of contributing in the least toward, his ownspiritual restoration; but what is impossible for man is not impossiblewith God who, indeed, is able to convert man, endow him with newspiritual powers, and lead him to eternal salvation, --a goal for theattainment of which, in contradistinction from inanimate and othercreatures, man, being a rational creature, endowed with intellect andwill, was created by God and redeemed by Christ. In the _Formula ofConcord_ we read: "And although God, according to His just, strictsentence, has utterly cast away the fallen evil spirits forever, He hasnevertheless, out of special, pure mercy, willed that poor fallen humannature might again become and be capable and participant of conversion, the grace of God, and eternal life; not from its own natural, active [oreffective] skill, aptness, or capacity (for the nature of man isobstinate enmity against God), but from pure grace, through the graciousefficacious working of the Holy Ghost. And this Dr. Luther calls_capacitatem_ (_non activam, sed passivam_), which he explains thus:_Quando patres liberum arbitrium defendunt, capacitatem libertatis eiuspraedicant, quod scilicet verti potest ad bonum per gratiam Dei et fierirevera liberum, ad quod creatum est_. That is: When the Fathers defendthe free will, they are speaking of this, that it is capable of freedomin this sense, that by God's grace it can be converted to good, andbecome truly free, for which it was created in the beginning. " (889, 20. )

This accords with Luther's words in _De Servo Arbitrio_: "It would becorrect if we should designate as the power of free will that [power] bywhich man, who is created for life or eternal death, is apt to be movedby the Spirit and imbued with the grace of God. For we, too, confessthis power, _i. E. _, aptitude or, as the Sophists [Scholastictheologians] say, disposition and passive aptitude. And who does notknow that trees and animals are not endowed with it? For, as the sayinggoes, heaven is not created for geese. _Hanc enim vim, hoc est, aptitudinem, seu, ut Sophistae loquuntur, dispositivam qualitatem etpassivam aptitudinem, et nos confitemur; quam non arboribus nequebestiis inditam esse, quis est, qui nesciat? Neque enim pro anseribus, ut dicitur, coelum creavit. _" (E. V. A. 158: St. L. 18. 1720. )

XVI. The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies. 

175. Osiander in Nuernberg and in Koenigsberg. 

In the writings of Luther we often find passages foreboding a futurecorruption of the doctrine of justification, concerning which hedeclared in the _Smalcald Articles_: "Of this article nothing can beyielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever willnot abide, should sink to ruin. .. . And upon this article all thingsdepend which we teach and practise in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be sure concerning this doctrine, andnot doubt, for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and allthings gain the victory and suit over us. " (461, 5. ) Martin Chemnitzremarks: "I frequently shudder, because Luther--I do not know by whatkind of presentiment--in his commentaries on the Letter to the Galatiansand on the First Book of Moses so often repeats the statement: 'Thisdoctrine [of justification] will be obscured again after my death. '"(Walther, _Kern und Stern_, 26. )

Andrew Osiander was the first to fulfil Luther's prophecy. In 1549 hebegan publicly to propound a doctrine in which he abandoned the forensicconception of justification by imputation of the merits of Christ, andreturned to the Roman view of justification by infusion _i. E. _, byinfusion of the eternal essential righteousness of the divine nature ofChrist. According to his own statement, he had harbored these views eversince about 1522. He is said also to have presented them in a sermondelivered at the convention in Smalcald, 1537. (Planck 4, 257. ) Yet hemade no special effort to develop and publicly to disseminate his ideasduring the life of Luther. After the death of the Reformer, however, Osiander is reported to have said: "Now that the lion is dead, I shalleasily dispose of the foxes and hares"--_i. E. _, Melanchthon and theother Lutheran theologians. (257. ) Osiander was the originator of thecontroversy "Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God, " whichwas finally settled in Article III of the _Formula of Concord_. 

Osiander, lauded by modern historians as the only real "systematizer"among the Lutherans of the first generation, was a man as proud, overbearing, and passionate as he was gifted, keen, sagacious, learned, eloquent, and energetic. He was born December 19, 1498, at Gunzenhausen, Franconia, and died October 17, 1552, at Koenigsberg, where he was alsoburied with high honors in the Old City Church. In 1522 he was appointedpriest at St. Lawrence's Church in the Free City of Nuernberg. Here heimmediately acted the part of a determined champion of the Reformation. Subsequently he also participated in some of the most importanttransactions of his day. He was present at the Marburg Colloquy, 1529, where he made the personal acquaintance of Luther and the Wittenbergers. He also took part in the discussions at the Diet in Augsburg, 1530; atSmalcald, 1537; at Hagenau and Worms, 1540. Nor were his interestsconfined to theological questions. When, at Nuernberg, 1543, the work ofCopernicus, _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium_, "Concerning theRevolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, " was published for the first time, Osiander read the proof-sheets and wrote the Preface, in which hedesignated the new theory as "hypotheses, " thus facilitating itscirculation also among the Catholics, until in the 17th century the bookwas placed on the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, where it remained tillthe 18th century. 

When the Augsburg Interim was introduced in Nuernberg, Osianderresigned, and with words of deep emotion (in a letter of November 22, 1548, addressed to the city council) he left the place where he hadlabored more than a quarter of a century. January 27 1549, he arrived inKoenigsberg. Here he was joyously received by Count Albrecht of Prussia, whom he had gained for the Reformation in 1523. Moved by gratitudetoward Osiander, whom he honored as his "spiritual father, " CountAlbrecht appointed him pastor of the Old City Church and, soon after, first professor of theology at the University of Koenigsberg, with adouble salary, though Osiander had never received an academic degree. The dissatisfaction which this unusual preferment caused among hiscolleagues, Briessman, Hegemon, Isinder, and Moerlin, soon developedinto decided antipathy against Osiander, especially because of hisoverbearing, domineering ways as well as his intriguing methods. Nodoubt, this personal element added largely to the animosity and violenceof the controversy that was soon to follow, and during which theprofessors in Koenigsberg are said to have carried firearms into theiracademic sessions. (Schaff, _Creeds_ 1, 273. ) Yet it cannot be regardedas the real cause or even as the immediate occasion, of the conflict, which was really brought about by the unsound, speculative, and mysticalviews of Osiander on the image of God and, particularly, onjustification and the righteousness of faith, --doctrinal points on whichhe deviated from the Lutheran teaching to such an extent that acontroversy was unavoidable. Evidently, his was either a case of relapseinto Romanism, or, what seems to be the more probable alternative, Osiander never attained to a clear apprehension of the Lutheran truthnor ever fully freed himself from the Roman doctrine, especially in itsfiner and more veiled form of mysticism. 

176. Opposed by Moerlin and Lutherans Generally. 

Osiander, as stated, had conceived the fundamental thoughts of hissystem long before he reached Koenigsberg. In 1524, when only twenty-sixyears of age, he laid down the outlines of his theory in a publicationentitled: "_A Good Instruction (Ein gut Unterricht) and Faithful Advicefrom the Holy Divine Scriptures What Attitude to Take in TheseDissensions Concerning Our Holy Faith and Christian Doctrine_, dealingespecially with the questions what is God's Word and what humandoctrine, what Christ and what Antichrist. " Here he says: "Whoeverhears, retains, and believes the Word, receives God Himself, for God isthe Word. If, therefore, the Word of God, Christ, our Lord, dwells in usby faith and we are one with Him, we may say with Paul: 'I live, thoughnot I, but Christ lives in me, ' and then we are justified by faith. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 270. ) In the following year, 1525, he wrote in his_Action of the Honorable Wise Council in Nuernberg with their Preachers(Handlung eines ehrsamen weisen Rats zu Nuernberg mit ihrenPraedikanten)_: "The one and only righteousness availing before God isGod Himself. But Christ is the Word which we apprehend by faith, andthus Christ in us, God Himself, is our Righteousness which avails beforeGod. " "The Gospel has two parts; the first, that Christ has satisfiedthe justice of God; the other, that He has cleansed us from sin, andjustifies us by dwelling in us (_und uns rechtfertigt, so er in unswohnet_). " (271. ) The embryonic ideas of these early publicationsconcerning the image of God and justification were fully developed byOsiander in his book of 1550, _Whether the Son of God would have had tobe Incarnated (An Filius Dei fuerit Incarnandus), if Sin had Not Enteredthe World;_ and especially in his confession of September, 1551, _Concerning the Only Mediator Jesus Christ (Von dem einigen Mittler JesuChristo) and Justification of Faith_ which appeared also in Latin underthe title _De Unico Mediatore_, in October of the same year. 

The public conflict began immediately after Osiander had entered uponhis duties at the university. In his inaugural disputation of April 5, 1549, "Concerning the Law and Gospel (De Lege et Evangelio), " Osiander'svanity prompted him at least to hint at his peculiar views, which hewell knew were not in agreement with the doctrine taught at Wittenbergand in the Lutheran Church at large. His colleague, Matthias Lauterwald, a Wittenberg master, who died 1555, immediately took issue with him. Onthe day following the disputation, he published theses in which hedeclared: "Osiander denied that faith is a part of repentance. " October24 of the following year Osiander held a second disputation ("OnJustification, De Iustificatione") in which he came out clearly againstthe doctrine hitherto taught in the Lutheran Church. But now also amuch more able and determined combatant appeared in the arena, JoachimMoerlin, who henceforth devoted his entire life to defeat Osiandrismand to vindicate Luther's forensic view of justification. 

Moerlin (Moehrlein) was born at Wittenberg April 6, 1514, he studiedunder Luther and was made Master in 1537 and Doctor in 1540; till 1543he was superintendent in Arnstadt, Thuringia, and superintendent inGoettingen till 1549, when he was compelled to leave because of hisopposition to the Augsburg Interim. Recommended by Elizabeth Duchess ofBraunschweig-Lueneburg, the mother-in-law of Duke Albrecht, he wasappointed preacher at the Dome of Koenigsberg in 1550. Clearlyunderstanding that solid comfort in life and death is possible only aslong as our faith rests solely on the _aliena iustitia_, on theobjective righteousness of Christ, which is without us, and is offeredin the Gospel and received by faith; and fully realizing also thatChristian assurance is incompatible with such a doctrine as Osiandertaught, according to which our faith is to rely on a righteous conditionwithin ourselves, Moerlin publicly attacked Osiander from his pulpit, and in every way emphasized the fact that his teaching could never betolerated in the Lutheran Church. Osiander replied in his lectures. Thesituation thus created was most intolerable. At the command of the Dukediscussions were held between Moerlin and Osiander, but without result. 

In order to settle the dispute, Duke Albrecht, accordingly, on October5, 1551, placed the entire matter before the evangelical princes andcities with the request that the points involved be discussed at thevarious synods and their verdicts forwarded to Koenigsberg. This arousedthe general interest and the deepest concern of the entire LutheranChurch in Germany. Numerous opinions of the various synods andtheologians arrived during the winter of 1551 to 1552. With theexception of the Wuerttemberg _Response (Responsum)_, written by JohnBrenz, and the _Opinion_ of Matthew Vogel, both of whom regardedOsiander's teaching as differing from the doctrine received by theLutheran Church in terms and phrases rather than in substance, they wereunfavorable to Osiander. At the same time all, including the opinions ofBrenz and Vogel, revealed the fact that the Lutherans, the theologiansof Wittenberg as well as those of Jena, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Hamburg, etc. , were firmly united in maintaining Luther's doctrine, _viz. _, thatthe righteousness of faith is not the essential righteousness of the Sonof God, as Osiander held but the obedience of Christ the God-man imputedby grace to all true believers as their sole righteousness before God. 

Feeling safe under the protection of Duke Albrecht, and apparently notin the least impressed by the general opposition which his innovationsmet with at the hands of the Lutherans, Osiander continued thecontroversy by publishing his _Proof (Beweisung) that for Thirty Years Ihave Always Taught the Same Doctrine_. And irritated by an opinion ofMelanchthon (whom Osiander denounced as a pestilential heretic), published with offensive explanations added by the Wittenbergers, he inthe same year (April, 1552) wrote his _Refutation (Widerlegung) of theUnfounded, Unprofitable Answer of Philip Melanchthon_. In thisimmoderate publication Osiander boasted that only the Philippian rabble, dancing according to the piping of Melanchthon, was opposed to him. 

Before long, however, also such opponents of the Philippists as Flacius, Gallus, Amsdorf, and Wigand were prominently arraigned against Osiander. Meanwhile (May 23, 1552) Moerlin published a large volume entitled:_Concerning the Justification of Faith_. Osiander replied in his_Schmeckbier_ of June 24 1552, a book as keen as it was coarse. In 1552and 1553 Flacius issued no less than twelve publications againstOsiander, one of them bearing the title: _Zwo fuernehmliche GruendeOsiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier_; another: _Antidotum aufOsiandri giftiges Schmeckbier_. (Preger 2, 551)

When the controversy had just about reached its climax, Osiander died, October 17, 1552. Soon after, the Duke enjoined silence on both parties, and Moerlin was banished. He accepted a position as superintendent inBrunswick, where he zealously continued his opposition to Osiandrism aswell as to other corruptions of genuine Lutheranism. At Koenigsberg theOsiandrists continued to enjoy the protection and favor of Duke Albrechtand gradually developed into a quasi-political party. The leader of thesmall band was John Funck, the son-in-law of Osiander and the chaplainof the Duke. In 1566, however, the king of Poland intervened, and Funckwas executed as a disturber of the public peace. Moerlin was recalledand served as bishop of Samland at Koenigsberg from 1567 till his deathin 1571. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum_, or _Borussicum_, framed byMoerlin and Chemnitz and adopted 1567 at Koenigsberg, rejected thedoctrines of Osiander. Moerlin also wrote a history of Osiandrismentitled: _Historia, welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische Schwaermereiim Lande zu Preussen erhaben_. 

177. Corruptions Involved in Osiander's Teaching. 

Osiander's theory of justification according to which the righteousnessof faith is the eternal, essential holiness of the divine nature ofChrist inhering and dwelling in man, consistently compelled him tomaintain that justification is not an act by which God declares a manjust, but an act by which He actually makes him inherently just andrighteous; that it is not an imputation of a righteousness existingoutside of man, but an actual infusion of a righteousness dwelling inman; that it is not a mere acquittal from sin and guilt, butregeneration, renewal, sanctification and internal, physical cleansingfrom sin that it is not a forensic or judicial act outside of man or adeclaration concerning man's standing before God and his relation toHim but a sort of medicinal process within man, that the righteousnessof faith is not the alien (strange, foreign) righteousness, _alienaiustitia_ (a term employed also by Luther), consisting in the obedienceof Christ, but a quality, condition, or change effected in believers bythe essential righteousness of the divine nature dwelling in themthrough faith in Christ; that faith does not justify on account of thething outside of man in which it trusts and upon which it relies, butby reason of the thing which it introduces and produces in man; that, accordingly, justification is never instantaneous and complete, butgradual and progressive. 

Osiander plainly teaches that the righteousness of faith (ourrighteousness before God) is not the obedience rendered by Christ to thedivine Law, but the indwelling righteousness of God (_iustitia Deiinhabitans_), --essentially the same original righteousness or image thatinhered in Adam and Eve before the Fall. It consists, not indeed in goodworks or in "doing and suffering, " but in a quality (_Art_) whichrenders him who receives it just, and moves him to do and to suffer whatis right. It is the holiness (_Frommigkeit_) which consists in therenewal of man, in the gifts of grace, in the new spiritual life, in theregenerated nature of man. By His suffering and death, said Osiander, Christ made satisfaction and acquired forgiveness for us, but He did notthereby effect our justification. His obedience as such does notconstitute our righteousness before God, but merely serves to restoreit. It was necessary that God might be able to dwell in us, and sobecome our life and righteousness. Faith justifies, not inasmuch as itapprehends the merits of Christ, but inasmuch as it unites us with thedivine nature, the infinite essential righteousness of God, in which oursins are diluted, as it were, and lost, as an impure drop disappearswhen poured into an ocean of liquid purity. 

According to the teaching of Osiander therefore, also the assurance thatwe are justified and accepted by God does not rest exclusively on themerits of Christ and the pardon offered in the Gospel, but must be basedon the righteous quality inhering in us. Our assurance is conditionednot alone upon what Christ has done outside of us and for us but ratherupon what He is in us and produces in us. The satisfaction rendered byChrist many centuries ago is neither the only ground on which Godregards us as just, nor a sufficient basis of our certainty that we areaccepted by God. Not the Christ for us, but rather the Christ in us, isthe basis both of our justification and assurance. Accordingly in orderto satisfy an alarmed sinner, it is not sufficient to proclaim theGospel-promise of divine absolution. In addition, an investigation isrequired whether the righteousness and holiness of God is also reallyfound dwelling in him. While Luther had urged alarmed consciences totrust in the merits of Christ alone for their justification andsalvation, Osiander led them to rely on the new life of divine wisdom, holiness, and righteousness dwelling in their own hearts. From the verybeginning of the controversy, Moerlin, Melanchthon, and the Lutheransgenerally were solicitous to point out that Osiander's doctrine robsChristians of this glorious and only solid comfort that it is not asubjective quality in their own hearts, but solely and only theobjective and absolutely perfect obedience rendered by Christ manyhundred years ago, which God regards when He justifies the wicked, andupon which man must rely for the assurance of his acceptance andsalvation. 

Consistently developed, therefore, the innovation of Osiander was boundto vitiate in every particular the doctrine of justification restoredonce more by Luther. In fact, his theory was but a revamping of justsuch teaching as had driven the Lutherans out of the Church of Rome. True, Osiander denied that by our own works we merit justification; thatour righteousness consists in our good works; that our good works areimputed to us as righteousness. But the fact that he held a subjectivecondition to be our righteousness before God gives to his doctrine anessentially Roman stamp, no matter how widely it may differ from it inother respects. Moehler, the renowned Catholic apologist, declared thatproperly interpreted and illucidated, Osiander's doctrine was "identicalwith the Roman Catholic doctrine. " (Frank 2, 5. 91. ) As stated before, his teaching was Romanism in its finer and more veiled form ofmysticism. 

178. Excerpts from Osiander's Writings. 

In his publication of January 10, 1552 _Wider den lichtfluechtigenNachtraben_, Osiander endeavors to prove that he is in completedoctrinal agreement with Luther. In it he gives the following summary, but guarded, presentation of his views. "I understand it this way, " sayshe. "1. It flowed from His pure grace and mercy that God sacrificed Hisonly Son for us. 2. The Son became man and was made under the Law, andHe has redeemed us from the Law and from the curse of the Law. 3. Hetook upon Himself the sins of the whole world, for which He suffered, died, shed His blood, descended into hell, rose again, and thus overcamesin, death, and hell, and merited for us forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God, the grace and gift of justification, andeternal life. 4. This is to be preached in all the world. 5. Whoeverbelieves this and is baptized, is justified and blessed (_selig_) byvirtue of such faith. 6. Faith apprehends Christ so that He dwells inour hearts through faith, Eph. 3, 17. 7. Christ, living in us throughfaith, is our Wisdom, Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30, Jer. 23, 6; 33, 16. 8. Christ, true God and man, dwelling in usthrough faith, is our Righteousness according to His divine nature, asDr. Luther says: 'I rely on the righteousness which is God Himself; thisHe cannot reject. Such is, says Luther, the simple, correctunderstanding; do not suffer yourself to be led away from it. '" (Frank2, 7f. ) Seeberg cites the following passage: "But if the question beasked what is righteousness, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us byfaith is our Righteousness according to His divinity; and theforgiveness of sins, which is not Christ Himself, but merited by Christ, is a preparation and cause that God offers us His righteousness, whichHe is Himself. " (_Dogg_. 4, 498. ) Incidentally Osiander's appeal toLuther is unwarranted. For according to him Christ is our Righteousnessbecause His obedience is God's obedience, the work not only of His humannature, but, at the same time, also of His divine nature, whileaccording to Osiander everything that Christ did for us merely serves tobring about the indwelling of the divine nature of Christ, whoseessential holiness is our righteousness before God. That Osiander wasnot in agreement with Luther, as he claimed, appears also from hisassertion that such statements of Luther as: Christ's death is our life, forgiveness of sins is our righteousness, etc. , must be explainedfiguratively, as words flowing from a joyous heart. (2, 23. )

The manner in which Osiander maintained that Christ is our Righteousnessonly according to His divine nature appears from the following excerpts:"If the question be asked according to what nature Christ, His wholeundivided person, is our Righteousness, then just as when one asksaccording to what nature He is the Creator of heaven and earth, theclear, correct, and plain answer is that He is our Righteousnessaccording to His divine, and not according to His human nature, althoughwe are unable to find, obtain or apprehend such divine righteousnessapart from His humanity. " (Frank 2, 12. ) Again: "When we say: Christ isour Righteousness, we must understand His deity, which enters us throughHis humanity. When Christ says: I am the Bread of Life, we mustunderstand His deity which comes into us through His humanity and is ourlife. When He says: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drinkindeed, we must take it to mean His deity which is in the flesh andblood and is meat and drink for us. Thus, too, when John says, 1 John 1, 7: The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, we must understand thedeity of Christ which is in the blood; for John does not speak of theblood of Christ as it was shed on the cross, but as it, united with theflesh of Christ, is our heavenly meat and drink by faith. " (23. )Osiander, therefore, is but consistent when he reiterates that the Sonof God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are our Righteousness, becausetheir divine essence which by faith dwells in Christians, is one and thesame. 

Osiander emphasizes that the essential righteousness of the divinenature of Christ alone is able to save us. He says: "For of what helpwould it be to you if you had all the righteousness which men and angelscan imagine, but lacked this eternal righteousness which is itself theSon of God, according to His divine nature, with the Father and the HolyGhost? For no other righteousness can lift you up to heaven and bringyou to the Father. But when you apprehend this righteousness throughfaith, and Christ is in you, what can you then be lacking which you donot possess richly, superabundantly, and infinitely in His deity?"Again: "Since Christ is ours and is in us, God Himself and all Hisangels behold nothing in us but righteousness on account of the highest, eternal, and infinite righteousness of Christ, which is His deity itselfdwelling in us. And although sin still remains in, and clings to, ourflesh, it is like an impure little drop compared with a great pureocean, and on account of the righteousness of Christ which is in us Goddoes not want to see it. " (Frank 2, 100. 102. )

To this peculiarity of Osiander, according to which he seems to have hadin mind a justification by a sort of mystico-physical dilution ratherthan by imputation, the _Formula of Concord_ refers as follows: "For oneside has contended that the righteousness of faith, which the apostlecalls the righteousness of God, is God's essential righteousness, whichis Christ Himself as the true, natural, and essential Son of God, whodwells in the elect by faith and impels them to do right, and thus istheir righteousness, compared with which righteousness the sins of allmen are as a drop of water compared with the great ocean. " (917, 2; 790, 2. )

In his confession _Concerning the Only Mediator_, of 1551, Osianderexpatiates on justification, and defines it as an act by whichrighteousness is "infused" into believers. We read: "It is apparent thatwhatever part Christ, as the faithful Mediator, acted with regard toGod, His heavenly Father, for our sakes, by fulfilling the Law and byHis suffering and death, was accomplished more than 1, 500 years ago, when we were not in existence. For this reason it cannot, properlyspeaking, have been, nor be called, our justification, but only ourredemption and the atonement for us and our sins. For whoever would bejustified must believe; but if he is to believe, he must already be bornand live. Therefore Christ has not justified us who _now_ live and die;but we are redeemed by it [His work 1, 500 years ago] from God's wrath, death, and hell. .. . This, however, is true and undoubted that by thefulfilment of the Law and by His suffering and death He merited andearned from God, His heavenly Father, this great and superaboundinggrace, namely, that He not only has forgiven our sin and taken from usthe unbearable burden of the Law, but that He also _wishes to justify usby faith in Christ, to infuse justification or the righteousness(sondern auch uns durch den Glauben an Christum will rechtfertigen, dieGerechtmachung eingiessen)_, and, if only we obey, through the operationof His Holy Spirit and through the death of Christ, in which we areembodied by the baptism of Christ, _to mortify, purge out, and entirelydestroy sin_ which is already forgiven us, but nevertheless still dwellsin our flesh and adheres to us. Therefore the _other part_ of the officeof our dear faithful Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ is now to turntoward us in order to deal also with us poor sinners as with the guiltyparty, that we acknowledge such great grace and gratefully receive it byfaith, _in order that He by faith may make us alive and just from thedeath of sin, and that sin, which is already forgiven, but neverthelessstill dwells and inheres in our flesh, may be altogether mortified anddestroyed in us. And this, first of all, is the act of ourjustification. _" (Tschackert, 492f. ; Planck 4, 268. )

That Osiander practically identified justification with regeneration, renewal, and gradual sanctification appears from the followingquotations. To justify, says he, means "to make a just man out of anunjust one, that is to recall a dead man to life--_ex impio iustumfacere, hoc est, mortuum ad vitam revocare. _" (Seeberg 4, 499. ) Again:"Thus the Gospel further shows its power and also justifies us, _i. E. _, it makes us just, even as, and in the same degree as, He also makes usalive (_eben und in aller Masse, wie er uns auch lebendig macht_). "(Frank 2, 18. ) "And here you see again how terribly those err whoendeavor to prove by this passage of David and Paul that ourrighteousness is nothing else than forgiveness of sin; for they haveoverlooked the covering of sin with the [essential] righteousness ofChrist whom we put on in Baptism; _they have also removed fromjustification the renewal of the inner man effected by regeneration. _"(102. )

Osiander was fanatical in denouncing those who identified justificationwith the forgiveness of sins. In his Disputation of October 24, 1550, hedeclared: "The entire fulness of the deity dwells in Christ bodily, hence in those also in whom Christ dwells. .. . Therefore we are just byHis essential righteousness. .. . Whoever does not hold this manner of ourjustification is certainly a Zwinglian at heart, no matter what he mayconfess with his mouth. .. . They also teach things colder than ice [whohold] that we are regarded as righteous only on account of theforgiveness of sins, and not on account of the [essential] righteousnessof Christ who dwells in us through faith. _Glacie frigidiora docent nostantum propter remissionem peccatorum reputari iustos, et non etiampropter iustitiam Christi per fidem in nobis inhabitantis. Non enim taminiquus Deus est, ut eum pro iusto habeat, in quo verae iustitiaeprorsus nil est. _" (Frank 2, 97; Tschackert, 494; Seeberg 4, 497. ) Theyare errorists, Osiander declared, "who say, teach, and write that therighteousness is outside of us. " (Frank 2, 100. ) "The [essential]righteousness of Christ is indeed, imputed to us, but only when it is inus. " "For God is not so unrighteous, nor such a lover of unrighteousnessthat He regards him as just in whom there is absolutely nothing of thetrue righteousness; as it is written, Ps. 5, 4: 'For Thou art not a Godthat hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee, '"(Planck 4, 273. ) Evidently, Osiander rejected or had never fully graspedPaul's clear statement and teaching concerning the God who justifies theungodly, Rom. 4, 5: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Himthat justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. "

179. Attitude of Brenz and Melanchthon. 

With the exception of Brenz and Vogel, who, as stated before, regardedOsiander's doctrine as differing from the generally received view inphraseology and mode of presentation rather than in substance, theLutherans everywhere were unanimous in rejecting Osiander's theory as arecrudescence of the Romish justification not by imputation, but byinfusion. And as to Brenz, who put a milder construction on thestatements of Osiander, Melanchthon wrote October 1, 1557: "Concerningthe affair with Osiander, my writings are publicly known, which I hopewill be of benefit to many. Brenz also is agreed with us doctrinally. Hesaid he had advised peace, for he did not take Osiander's expressions tobe as dangerous as the opponents did, and for this reason could not asyet condemn his person; but in doctrine he was agreed with us and wouldunite in condemning Osiander if the charges made against him wereproved. " Melanchthon himself fully realized the viciousness ofOsiander's error, although at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, he, too, wasopposed to condemning Osiandrism together with Zwinglianism, Majorism, and Adiaphorism, as the theologians of Ducal Saxony demanded. (_C. R. _9, 311. 402. )

In May, 1551, Melanchthon wrote to Osiander that by the essentialrighteousness of Christ renewal is effected in us, but that we haveforgiveness of sins and are reputed to be righteous on account of themerit of Christ whose blood and death appeased the wrath of God. In hisconfutation of the Osiandric doctrine, written in September, 1555, weread: "Osiander's definition of righteousness is: Righteousness is thatwhich makes us do what is righteous. .. . Hence man is righteous by doingwhat is righteous. .. . Thereupon Osiander, in order to say something alsoconcerning forgiveness of sins, tears remission of sins fromrighteousness. He expressly declares that the sins are forgiven to allmen; Nero however, is damned because he does not possess the essentialrighteousness; and this, he says, is God Himself, Father, Son, and HolySpirit. .. . Osiander contends that man is just on account of theindwelling of God, or on account of the indwelling God, not on accountof the obedience of the Mediator, not by the imputed righteousness ofthe Mediator through grace. And he corrupts the proposition, 'By faithwe are justified, ' into, By faith we are prepared that we may becomejust by something else, _viz. _, the inhabiting God. Thus he in realitysays what the Papists say: 'We are righteous by our renewal, ' exceptthat he mentions the cause where the Papists mention the effect. _Ita reipsa dicit, quod Papistae dicunt, sumus iusti novitate, nisi quodnominat causam, ubi nominant Papistae effectum_. We are just when Godrenews us. He therefore detracts from the honor due to the Mediator, obscures the greatness of sin, destroys the chief consolation of thepious, and leads them into perpetual doubt. For faith cannot existunless it looks upon the promise of mercy concerning the Mediator. Noris there an inhabitation unless the consolation is received by thisfaith. And it is a preposterous way of teaching that one is to believefirst the inhabitation, afterwards forgiveness of sins (_prius credereinhabitationem, postea remissionem peccatorum_). Since therefore thisdogma of Osiander is both false and pernicious to consciences, it mustbe shunned and damned. " (_C. R. _ 7, 781; 8, 579ff. )

In another essay, of September, 1556, signed also by Melanchthon, thefollowing propositions are rejected: 1. Man becomes righteous onaccount of the essential righteousness. 2. Man becomes righteous onaccount of the essential righteousness of God the Father, Son, and HolySpirit. 3. Man becomes righteous before God on account of the indwellingof God. 4. Righteousness consists in the indwelling of Christ, onaccount of which God imputes righteousness to us. .. . 5. Nor must one saythere are two or more parts of justification: faith, inhabitation, goodworks, etc. For justification before God is to receive forgiveness ofsins and to become acceptable to God on account of Christ. .. . 6. Thisproposition, too, is false: The regenerate after the Fall are righteousin the same manner as Adam was before the Fall, namely, not byimputation, but by inhabitation or original righteousness. .. . 8. It isalso false when some say we are righteous by faith, namely, in apreparative way in order afterwards to be righteous by the essentialrighteousness. At bottom this is Popish and destructive of faith. .. . 9. The following propositions must be rejected altogether: The obedience ofChrist is called righteousness in a tropical sense; Christ justifiesaccidentally (_per accidens_). (_C. R. _ 8, 561f. ; 9, 3l9. 451. 455. 457. )

180. Osiander's Views on Image of God. 

Osiander's corruption of the doctrine of justification was closelyconnected with his peculiar view concerning the image of God (thecentral idea of his entire system), of which, however, he declared thathe did not consider it essential, and would not contend with anybodyabout it. Nor were the questions involved disputed to any extent ordealt with in the _Formula of Concord_. As to Osiander, however, thetrain of his thoughts runs as follows:--

The Logos, the divine Word, is the image of God, into whom His entireessence flows in a manner and process eternal. In a temporal andhistorical way the same image is destined to be realized in the natureof man. Divine essential righteousness indwelling and efficacious inhumanity--such was the eternal plan of God. For the realization of thispurpose the Logos, God's image, was to become man, even if the humanrace should not have fallen. This was necessary because in finite manthere is absolutely no similarity with the infinite essence of thenon-incarnate Logos. Without the incarnation, therefore, this infinitedissimilarity would have remained forever (_esset et maneret simpliciterinfinita dissimilitudo inter hominem et Verbum Dei_). And in order thatman might be capable of God and share His divine nature (_capax Dei etdivinae naturae consors_), God created him according to His image;_i. E. _, according to the idea of the incarnate Logos. "God formed thebody of man, " said Osiander, "that it should be altogether like unto thefuture body of Christ. Thereupon He breathed into it the breath of life, _i. E. _, a rational soul together with the human spirit, adorned with theproper powers, in such a manner that it, too, should be like unto thefuture soul of Christ in everything. " (Frank 2, 104. )

In the incarnate Logos, however, according to whom man was created, humanity and divinity are personally united. When the Word was madeflesh, the divine essence was imparted to His human nature. And Christ, in turn, imparts the same essence to all who by faith are one with Him. From eternity the incarnate Word was destined to be the head of thecongregation in order that the essential righteousness of God might flowfrom Him into His body, the believers. Before the Fall the Son of Goddwelled in Adam, making him just by God's essential righteousness. Bythe Fall this righteousness was lost. Hence the redemption and atonementof Christ were required in order again to pave the way for the renewalof the lost image or the indwelling of God's essential righteousness inman. The real source of this righteousness and divine life in man, however, is not the human, but the divine nature of Christ. In theprocess of justification or of making man righteous, the human nature ofChrist merely serves as a medium, or as it were, a canal, through whichthe eternal essential wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of Christ'sdivine nature flows into our hearts. 

Christ, the "inner Word" (John 1), says Osiander, approaches man in the"external Word" (the words spoken by Jesus and His apostles), andthrough it enters the believing soul. For through Word, Sacrament, andfaith we are united with His humanity. In the Lord's Supper, forinstance, we become the flesh and blood of Christ, just as we draw thenourishment out of natural food and transform it into our flesh andblood. And since the humanity of Christ, with which we become one in themanner described, is personally united with the deity, it imparts to usalso the divine essence, and, as a result, we, too, are the abode of theessential righteousness of God. "We cannot receive the divine naturefrom Christ, " says Osiander, "if we are not embodied in Him by faith andBaptism, thus becoming flesh and blood and bone of His flesh, blood, andbone. " As the branches could not partake of the nature of the vine ifthey were not of the wood of the vine, even so we could not share thedivine nature of Christ if we had not, incorporated in Him by faith andBaptism, become flesh, blood, and bone of His flesh, blood, and bone. Accordingly, as Christ's humanity became righteous through the unionwith God, the essential righteousness which moved Him to obediencetoward God, thus we also become righteous through our union with Christand in Him with God. (Frank 2, 104. 20ff. ; Seeberg 4, 497f. )

In view of such speculative teaching, in which justification istransformed into a sort of mystico-physical process, it is notsurprising that the charge of pantheism was also raised againstOsiander. The theologians of Brandenburg asserted that he inferred fromhis doctrine that the believers in Christ are also divine persons, because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost dwell in them essentially. ButOsiander protested: "Creatures we are and creatures we remain, no matterhow wonderfully we are renewed; but the seed of God and the entiredivine essence which is in us by grace in the same manner as it is inChrist by nature and remains eternally in us (_das also aus Gnaden inuns ist wie in Christo von Natur und bleibt ewiglich in uns_) is GodHimself, and no creature, and will not become a creature in us or onaccount of us but will eternally remain in us true God. " Frank saysconcerning the doctrine of Osiander: It is not pantheism or a mixture ofthe divine and human nature, "but it is a subjectivism by which theobjective foundation of salvation as taught by the Lutheran Church isrent to the very bottom. It is a mysticism which transforms the Christ_for us_ into the Christ _in us_, and, though unintentionally, makes theconsciousness of the _inhabitatio essentialis iustitiae_ (indwelling ofthe essential righteousness) the basis of peace with God. " (2, 19. 10. 13. 95. 103. ) In his teaching concerning the image of God andjustification, Osiander replaced the comforting doctrine of the Bibleconcerning the substitutionary and atoning work of Christ in His activeand passive obedience unto death with vain philosophical speculationsconcerning divinity and humanity or the two natures of Christ. It wasnot so very far beside the mark, therefore, when Justus Meniuscharacteized his theory as "a new alchmistic theology. " (Planck 4, 257. )

181. Error of Stancarus. 

The Stancarian dispute was incidental to the Osiandric conflict. Itsauthor was Francesco Stancaro (born in Mantua, 1501), an Italianex-priest, who had emigrated from Italy on account of his Protestantviews. Vain, opinionated, haughty, stubborn, and insolent as he was, heroamed about, creating trouble wherever he appeared, first in Cracow asprofessor of Hebrew, 1551 in Koenigsberg then in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, next at various places in Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania. He died atStobnitz, Poland, November 12, 1574. Stancarus treated all of hisopponents as ignoramuses and spoke contemptuously of Luther andMelanchthon, branding the latter as an antichrist. In Koenigsberg heimmediately felt called upon to interfere in the controversy which hadjust flared up. He opposed Osiander in a fanatical manner, declaringhim to be the personal antichrist. The opponents of Osiander atKoenigsberg however, were not elated over his comradeship, particularlybecause he fell into an opposite error. They were glad when he resignedand left for Frankfort the same year he had arrived at Koenigsberg. InFrankfort, Stancarus continued the controversy, publishing, 1552, his_Apology against Osiander--Apologia contra Osiandrum_. But he wasignored rather than opposed by the Lutheran theologians. In 1553Melanchthon wrote his _Answer (Responsio) Concerning Stancar'sControversy_. Later on, 1561, when Stancarus was spreading his errors inPoland, Hungary, and Transylvania, Calvin and the ministers of Zurichalso wrote against him. The chief publication in which Stancarus setforth and defended his views appeared 1562, at Cracow, under the title:_Concerning the Trinity (De Trinitate) and the Mediator, Our Lord JesusChrist_. As late as 1585 Wigand published his book _ConcerningStancarism--De Stancarismo_. 

Stancarus had been trained in scholastic theology and was a greatadmirer of Peter Lombard. In his book _De Trinitate et Mediatore_ hesays: "One Peter Lombard is worth more than a hundred Luthers, twohundred Melanchthons, three hundred Bullingers, four hundred PeterMartyrs, five hundred Calvins out of whom, if they were all brayed in amortar, not one drop of true theology would be squeezed. _Plus valetunus Petrus Lombardus quam centum Lutheri, ducenti Melanchthones, trecenti Bullingeri, quadringenti Petri Martyres et quingenti Calvini, qui omnes, si in mortario contunderentur, non exprimeretur una micaverae theologiae. _" (J. G. Walch, _Religionsstreitigkeiten_ 4, 177. )

Concerning Christ's obedience Peter Lombard taught: "_Christus Mediatordicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem. .. . Mediator estergo, in quantum homo, et non in quantum Deus_. Christ is calledMediator according to His humanity, not according to His divinity. .. . Heis therefore Mediator inasmuch as He is man, and not inasmuch as He isGod. " (Planck 4, 451; Seeberg 4, 507. ) In accordance with this teaching, Stancarus maintained, in pointed opposition to Osiander, that Christ isour Righteousness only according to His human nature, and not accordingto His divine nature. The divine nature of Christ, Stancarus declaredmust be excluded from the office of Christ's mediation and priesthood;for if God the Son were Mediator and would do something which the Fatherand the Holy Spirit could not do, then He would have a will and anoperation and hence also a nature and essence different from that of theFather and the Holy Spirit. He wrote: "Christ, God and man, is Mediator[and Redeemer] only according to the other nature, namely, the human, not according to the divine; Christ made satisfaction for us accordingto His human nature, but not according to His divine nature; accordingto His divine nature Christ was not under the Law, was not obedient untodeath, etc. " (Frank 2, 111. ) Stancarus argued: "Christ is one God withthe Father and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three personal propertiesof '_paternitas, filiatio, and spiratio passiva_' the three divinepersons are absolutely identical in their being and operation. Theirwork is the sending of the Mediator, whose divine nature itself, in anactive way, participates in this sending; hence only the human nature ofthe God-man is sent, and only the human nature of the Mediator acts in areconciling way. Men are reconciled by Christ's death on the cross; butthe blood shed on the cross and death are peculiar to the human nature, not to the divine nature; hence we are reconciled by the human nature ofChrist only, and not by His divine nature (_ergo per naturam humanamChristi tantum sumus reconciliati et non per divinam_). " (Schluesselburg9, 216ff. )

Consistently, the Stancarian doctrine destroys both the unity of theperson of Christ and the sufficiency of His atonement. It not onlycorrupts the doctrine of the infinite and truly redeeming value of theobedience of the God-man, but also denies the personal union of thedivine and human natures in Christ. For if the divine nature is excludedfrom the work of Christ, then it must be excluded also from His person, since works are always acts of a person. And if it was a mere humannature that died for us, then the price of our redemption is altogetherinadequate, and we are not redeemed, as Luther so earnestly emphasizedagainst Zwingli. (CONC. TRIGL. 1028, 44. ) True, Stancarus protested:"Christ is Mediator according to the human nature only; this exclusive'only' does not exclude the divine nature from the person of Christ, butfrom His office as Mediator. " (Frank 2, 111. ) However, just this wasLuther's contention, that Christ is our Mediator also according to Hisdivine nature, and that the denial of this truth both invalidates Hissatisfaction and divides His person. 

The Third Article of the _Formula of Concord_, therefore, rejects theerror of Stancarus as well as that of Osiander. Against the latter itmaintains that the active and passive obedience of Christ is ourrighteousness before God: and over against the former, that thisobedience was the act of the entire person of Christ, and not of Hishuman nature alone. We read: "In opposition to both these parties[Osiander and Stancarus] it has been unanimously taught by the otherteachers of the _Augsburg Confession_ that Christ is our Righteousnessnot according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His humannature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through Hiscomplete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is theforgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God'schildren only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faithalone, out of pure grace is imputed for righteousness to all truebelievers, and on account of it they are absolved from all theirunrighteousness. " (917, 4. )

182. Deviations of Parsimonious and Hamburg Ministers. 

In 1563 a collateral controversy concerning the obedience of Christ wasraised by Parsimonius (George Karg). He was born 1512; studied underLuther in Wittenberg; 1547 he became pastor in Schwabach, and 1556superintendent in Ansbach; 1563 he was deposed because of erroneoustheses published in that year; he was opposed by Hesshusius and Ketzmannin Ansbach; 1570, having discussed his difference with the theologiansin Wittenberg, Karg retracted and was restored to his office; he died1576. In his theses on justification Parsimonius deviated from theLutheran doctrine by teaching that Christ redeemed us by His passiveobedience only, and by denying that His active obedience had anyvicarious merit, since as man He Himself owed such obedience to the Lawof God, --a view afterwards defended also by such Reformed divines asJohn Piscator, John Camero, and perhaps Ursinus. (Schaff 1, 274. )

Over against this error the _Formula of Concord_ explains and declares:"Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to thebeliever out of pure grace is the obedience suffering, and resurrectionof Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paidfor our sins. For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in oneundivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (because He is theLord of the Law) as He had to suffer and die as far as His person isconcerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in sufferingand dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily madeunder the Law and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us forrighteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience which Herendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in livingand dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, andeternally saves us. " (919, 16. )--

In their zealous opposition to the doctrine of Osiander according towhich the indwelling essential holiness of the divine nature of Christis our righteousness before God, also the Hamburg ministers went a steptoo far in the opposite direction. They denied, or at any rate seemed todeny, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity as such in believers. In their_Response (Responsio)_ of 1552 they declared: "God is said to dwellwhere He is present by His grace and benevolence, where He gives theWord of His grace, and reveals His promises concerning His mercy and theremission of sins, where He works by His Spirit, etc. " (Frank 2, 107. )Again: "That His indwelling pertains to His efficacy and operationappears from many passages which describe without a figure the efficacyand operation of Christ and of the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers. ""The dwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers signifies that they areled by the Spirit of God. " "But it cannot be proved by the Scripturethat the fulness of God dwells bodily in us as it dwells in ChristJesus. The inhabitation of God in us is a matter of grace, not ofnature; of gift, not of property. " (107. )

In 1551 Melanchthon had written: "It must be admitted that God dwells inour hearts, not only in such a manner that He there is efficacious, though not present with His own essence, but that He is both present andefficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, butGod is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile. "(_C. R. _ 7, 781. ) This was the view of the Lutheran theologiansgenerally. Article III of the _Formula of Concord_, too, is emphatic indisavowing a personal union of the deity and humanity in believers, aswell as in asserting that God Himself, not merely His gifts, dwell inChristians. (935, 54; 937, 65. ) In addition to the aberrationsenumerated, Article III rejects also some of the Roman and theRomanizing errors concerning justification in the Leipzig Interim, andsome views entertained by Majorists which are extensively and _exprofesso_ dealt with in Article IV. (CONC. TRIGL. 917, 5. )

XVII. The Antinomistic Controversy. 

183. Distinction between Law and Gospel of Paramount Import. 

Zwingli, who was a moralist and a Humanist rather than a trulyevangelical reformer, taught: "In itself the Law is nothing else than aGospel; that is, a good, certain message from God by means of which Heinstructs us concerning His will. " (Frank 2, 312. ) While Zwingli thuspractically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, heldthat the difference between both is as great as that between life anddeath or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no onecan be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly todistinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling ofthe Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrineof justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must becarefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in theChurch; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaninglesswithout it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, theGospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is assailed, evenif this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality, hit harder than the former. The cocoon of antinomianism always burstsinto antigospelism. 

Majorism, the mingling of sanctification and justification, andsynergism, the mingling of nature and grace, were but veiled efforts toopen once more the doors of the Lutheran Church to the Romanwork-righteousness, which Luther had expelled. The same is true ofantinomianism in all its forms. It amounts to nothing less than apostasyfrom true Evangelicalism and a return to Romanism. When Luther opposedAgricola, the father of the Antinomians in the days of the Reformation, he did so with the clear knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ withits doctrine of justification by grace and faith alone was at stake andin need of defense. "By these spirits, " said he, "the devil does notintend to rob us of the Law, but of Christ, who fulfilled the Law. " (St. L. 20, 1614; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 279; Frank 2, 268. 325. )

With the same interest in view, to save the Gospel from corruption, the_Formula of Concord_ opposes antinomianism and urges that thedistinction between the Law and the Gospel be carefully preserved. Theopening paragraph of Article V, "Of the Law and the Gospel, " reads: "Asthe distinction between the Law and Gospel _is a special brilliantlight_ which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properlyexplained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in orderthat these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a Lawbe made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured andtroubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwisehave in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trialsagainst the terrors of the Law. " (951, 1. ) The concluding paragraph ofthis article declares that the proper distinction between the Law andthe Gospel must be preserved, "in order that both doctrines, that of theLaw and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with oneanother, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other, _whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and theGospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law_, as has occurred inthe Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort whichthey have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door isagain opened in the Church of God to the Papacy. " (961, 27. ) The blessedGospel, our only comfort and consolation against the terrors of the Law, will be corrupted wherever the Law and the Gospel are not properlydistinguished, --such, then, was the view also of the _Formula ofConcord_. 

Articles V and VI of the _Formula_ treat and dispose of the issuesraised by the Antinomians. In both Luther's doctrine is maintained andreaffirmed. Article V, "Of the Law and Gospel, " teaches that, in theproper sense of the term, everything is Law that reveals and rebukessin, the sin of unbelief in Christ and the Gospel included; that Gospel, in the proper and narrow sense, is nothing but a proclamation andpreaching of grace and forgiveness of sin, that, accordingly, the Law aswell as the Gospel are needed and must be retained and preached in theChurch. This was precisely what Luther had taught. In one of his thesesagainst Agricola he says: "Whatever discloses sin, wrath, or deathexercises the office of the Law; Law and the disclosing of sin or therevelation of wrath are convertible terms. _Quidquid ostendit peccatum, iram seu mortem, id exercet officium legis; lex et ostensio peccati seurevelatio irae sunt termini convertibiles_. " Article VI "Of the ThirdUse of the Law, " teaches that although Christians, in as far as they areregenerate, do the will of God spontaneously, the Law must neverthelessbe preached to them on account of their Old Adam, not only as a mirrorrevealing their sins and as a check on the lusts of the flesh, but alsoas a rule of their lives. This, too, is precisely what Luther hadmaintained against Agricola: "The Law, " said he, "must be retained [inthe Church], that the saints may know which are the works God requires. "(Drews, _Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers_, 418; _Herzog R. _ I, 588;Frank 2, 272; Tschackert, 482. )

184. Agricola Breeding Trouble. 

In the Lutheran Church antinomianism appeared in a double form: onechiefly before the other after the death of Luther. The first of theseconflicts was originated by Agricola who spoke most contemptuously anddisparagingly of the Law of God, teaching, in particular, that trueknowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, butby the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no usewhatever for the Law of God. After Luther's death similar antinomisticerrors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg, who maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, butby the Gospel. Poach, Otto, and others denied that, with respect to goodworks, the Law was of any service whatever to Christians after theirconversion. 

Barring Carlstadt and similar spirits, John Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider, Magister Islebius--Luther called him Grickel) was thefirst to strike a discordant note and breed trouble within the LutheranChurch. Born April 20, 1492, at Eisleben, he studied at Leipzig, andfrom 1515 to 1516 at Wittenberg. Here he became an enthusiasticadherent and a close friend of Luther and also of Melanchthon, after thelatter's arrival in 1518. In 1539 Luther himself declared that Agricolahad been "one of his best and closest friends. " (St. L. 20, 1612. ) In1519 he accompanied both to the great debate in Leipzig. In 1525 hebecame teacher of the Latin school and though never ordained, pastor ofthe church in Eisleben. Being a speaker of some renown he was frequentlyengaged by the Elector of Saxony, especially on his journeys--to Speyer1526 and 1529, to Augsburg 1530, to Vienna 1535. At Eisleben, Agricolawas active also in a literary way, publishing sermons, a catechism, and, 1526, a famous collection of 300 German proverbs (the Wittenberg editionof 1592 contains 750 proverbs). 

When the new theological professorship created 1526 at Wittenberg wasgiven to Melanchthon, Agricola felt slighted and much disappointed. Inthe following year he made his first antinomian attack upon Melanchthon. The dispute was settled by Luther, but only for a time. In 1536Agricola, through the influence of Luther (whose hospitality also he andhis large family on their arrival in Wittenberg enjoyed for more thansix weeks), received an appointment at the university. He rewarded hisgenerous friend with intrigues and repeated renewals of the antinomianquarrels, now directing his attacks also against his benefactor. By 1540matters had come to such a pass that the Elector felt constrained toinstitute a formal trial against the secret plotter, which Agricolaescaped only by accepting a call of Joachim II as courtpreacher andsuperintendent at Berlin. After Luther's death, Agricola, as describedin a preceding chapter, degraded and discredited himself by helpingPflug and Sidonius to prepare the Augsburg Interim (1547), and byendeavoring to enforce this infamous document in Brandenburg. He diedSeptember 22, 1566. 

Vanity, ambition, conceit, insincerity, impudence, arrogance, andungratefulness were the outstanding traits of Agricola's character. Luther said that Agricola, swelled with vanity and ambition, was morevexatious to him than any pope; that he was fit only for the professionof a jester, etc. December 6, 1540, Luther wrote to Jacob Stratner, courtpreacher in Berlin: "Master Grickel is not, nor ever will be, theman that he may appear, or the Margrave may consider him to be. For ifyou wish to know what vanity itself is you can recognize it in no surerimage than that of Eisleben. _Si enim velis scire, quidnam ipsa vanitassit, nulla certiore imagine cognosces quam Islebii. _" (St. L. 21b, 2536. ) Flacius reports that shortly before Luther's death, when someendeavored to excuse Agricola, the former answered angrily: "Whyendeavor to excuse Eisleben? Eisleben is incited by the devil, who hastaken possession of him entirely. You will see what a stir he will makeafter my death! _Ihr werdet wohl erfahren, was er nach meinem Tod fuereinen Laerm wird anrichten!_" (Preger 1, 119. )

185. Agricola's Conflict with Melanchthon. 

The antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by theLaw, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law andits preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as earlyas 1525. In his _Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke_ of that year hehad written: "The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit. All those who are occupied with Moses are bound to go to the devil. Tothe gallows with Moses!" (Tschackert 481; _Herzog R. _ 1, 688; E. 4, 423. ) The public dispute began two years later when Agricola criticizedMelanchthon because in the latter's "Instructions to the Visitors of theChurches of Saxony" (Articles of Visitation, _Articuli, de quibusEgerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxionae_, 1527) the ministers wereurged first to preach the Law to their spiritually callous people inorder to produce repentance (contrition), and thus to prepare them forsaving faith in the Gospel the only source of truly good works. Melanchthon had written: "Pastors must follow the example of Christ. Since He taught repentance and remission of sins, pastors also mustteach these to their churches. At present it is common to vociferateconcerning faith, and yet one cannot understand what faith is, unlessrepentance is preached. Plainly they pour new wine into old bottles whopreach faith without repentance, without the doctrine of the fear ofGod, without the doctrine of the Law, and accustom the people to acertain carnal security, which is worse than all former errors under thePope have been. " (_C. R. _ 26, 9. ) Agricola considered these and similarexhortations of Melanchthon unfriendly and Romanizing, and published hisdissent in his _130 Questions for Young Children_, where he displayed ashocking contempt for the Old Testament and the Law of God. Inparticular, he stressed the doctrine that genuine repentance(contrition) is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only. Inletters to his friends, Agricola at the same time charged Melanchthonwith corrupting the evangelical doctrine. (Frank 2, 252. )

At a meeting held at Torgau, November 26 to 28, 1527, the differenceswere discussed by Agricola and Melanchthon in the presence of Luther andBugenhagen. The exact issue was: Does faith presuppose contrition?Melanchthon affirmed the question, and Agricola denied it. Lutherfinally effected an agreement by distinguishing between general andjustifying faith, and by explaining that repentance (contrition), indeed, presupposes a general faith in God, but that justifying faithpresupposes the terrors of conscience (contrition) wrought by the Law. His decision ran "that the term faith should be applied to justifyingfaith which consoles us in these terrors [produced by the threats of theLaw] but that the word repentance correctly includes a general faith, "_viz. _, that there is a God who threatens transgressors, etc. (_C. R. _1, 916. )

In agreement herewith Melanchthon wrote in the German _Unterricht derVisitatoren_, published 1528 at Wittenberg, that, in the wider and moregeneral sense, the term "faith" embraces contrition and the Law, butthat in the interest of the common people the word "faith" should bereserved for the special Christian or justifying faith in Christ. Weread: "Denn wiewohl etliche achten, man solle nichts lehren vor demGlauben, sondern die Busse aus und nach dem Glauben folgend lehren, aufdass die Widersacher [Papisten] nicht sagen moegen, man widerrufe unserevorige Lehre, so ist aber doch anzusehen, weil [dass] die Busse undGesetz auch zu dem gemeinen Glauben gehoeren. Denn man muss ja zuvorglauben, dass Gott sei, der da drohe, gebiete, schrecke usw. So sei esfuer den gemeinen, groben Mann, dass man solche Stuecke des Glaubenslasse bleiben unter dem Namen Busse, Gebot, Gesetz, Furcht usw. , aufdass sie desto unterschiedlicher den Glauben Christi verstehen, welchendie Apostel _iustificantem fidem_, das ist, der da gerecht macht undSuende vertilgt, nennen, welches der Glaube von dem Gebot und Bussenicht tut und doch der gemeine Mann ueber dem Wort Glauben irre wird undFragen aufbringt ohne Nutzen. " (_C. R. _ 26, 51f. )

186. Luther's First Disputation against the Antinomians. 

At Wittenberg, in 1537, Agricola renewed his antinomianism by secretlyand anonymously circulating a number of propositions (_Positiones interFratres Sparsae_) directed against both Luther and Melanchthon, whom hebranded as "contortors of the words of Christ, " urging all to resistthem in order to preserve the pure doctrine. Quotations from Luther andMelanchthon were appended to the theses in order to show that theirteaching concerning the "mode of justification (_modusiustificationis_)" was sometimes "pure, " sometimes "impure. " Agricolawrote: "Impure [among the statements of Melanchthon and Luther] are: 1. In the _Saxon Visitation:_ 'Since Christ commands that repentance andremission of sins is to be preached in His name, hence the Decalog isto be taught, ' 2. Again . .. 'As the Gospel therefore teaches that theLaw has been given to humiliate us, in order that we may seek Christ, 'etc. 3. In his _Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians_ Luther saysthat it is the office of the Law to torment and to terrify theconscience, that it may know Christ more readily. Many similar passagesare found in this commentary, which we reject as false, in order tomaintain the purity of the doctrine. " (E. , v. A. 4, 422f. ; St. L. 20, 1627. )

Luther answered by publishing, December 1, 1537, the theses of Agricolatogether with _Other Antinomian Articles (Alii Articuli Antinomi)_, compiled from written and verbal expressions of Agricola and hisfollowers. In his introductory remarks Luther not only disowned andemphatically condemned (_nos ab eiusmodi portentis prorsus abhorrere_)Agricola's _Positiones inter Fratres Sparsae_, but also announced anumber of disputations against antinomianism. (E. 4, 420. ) The first washeld December 18, 1537, in which Luther maintained: Contrition iswrought by the preaching of the Law; but a man is able to make a goodresolution and to hate sin out of love toward God only after the Gospelhas comforted his alarmed conscience. 

Following are some of the 39 theses discussed by Luther in his firstdisputation against the Antinomians: "4. The first part of repentance, contrition, is [wrought] by the Law alone. The other part, the goodpurpose, cannot be [wrought] by the Law. 24. And they [the Antinomians]teach perniciously that the Law of God is simply to be removed from thechurch, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. 25. For the entireScripture teaches that repentance must begin from the Law, which alsothe order of the matter itself as well as experience shows. 31. Necessarily, then, sin and death cannot be revealed by the Word of Graceand Solace, but by the Law. 32. Experience teaches that Adam is firstreproved as a transgressor of the Law and afterwards cheered by thepromised Seed of the woman. 33. Also David is first killed by the Lawthrough Nathan, saying: 'Thou art the man, ' etc. --afterwards he is savedby the Gospel, declaring: 'Thou shalt not die, ' etc. [2 Sam. 12, 7. 13. ]34. Paul, prostrated by the Law, first hears: 'Why persecutest thou Me?'Afterwards he is revived by the Gospel: 'Arise, ' etc. [Acts 9, 4. 6. ]35. And Christ Himself says, Mark 1, 15: 'Repent ye and believe theGospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand. ' 36. Again: 'Repentance andremission of sins should be preached in His name, ' [Luke 24, 47. ] 37. Likewise the Spirit first reproves the world of sin, in order to teachfaith in Christ, _i. E. _, forgiveness of sin. [John 16, 8. ] 38. In theEpistle to the Romans Paul observes this method, first to teach that allare sinners, and thereupon, that they are to be justified solely throughChrist. " (Drews, 253ff. ; St. L. 20, 1628ff. )

187. Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians. 

Since Agricola did not appear at the first public disputation againstthe Antinomians, moreover secretly [_"im Winkel"_] continued hisopposition and intrigues, Luther insisted that his privilege oflecturing at the university be withdrawn. Thus brought to termsAgricola, through his wife, sued for reconciliation. Luther demanded aretraction to be made at his next disputation, which was held January12, 1538. (Drews, 248. 334f. ; _C. R. _ 25, 64; 3, 482f. ) Here Lutherexplained that, though not necessary to justification, the Law must notbe cast out of the church, its chief object being to reveal the guilt ofsin; moreover, that the Law must be taught to maintain outwarddiscipline, to reveal sin, and to show Christians what works arepleasing to God. (Drews, 418. )

Following are some of the 48 theses discussed by Luther in his seconddisputation: "3. When treating of justification, one cannot say too muchagainst the inability of the Law [to save] and against the mostpernicious trust in the Law. 4. For the Law was not given to justify orvivify or help in any way toward righteousness. 5. But to reveal sin andwork wrath, _i. E. _, to render the conscience guilty. [Rom. 3, 20; 4, 15. ] 8. In brief, as far as heaven is from the earth, so far must theLaw be separated from justification. 9. And nothing is to be taught, said, or thought in the matter of justification but only the word of thegrace exhibited in Christ. 10. From this, however, it does not followthat the Law is to be abolished and excluded from the preaching of [donein] the church. 11. Indeed, just for the reason that not only is it notnecessary to justification, but also cannot effect it, it is the morenecessary to teach and urge it. 12. In order that man, who is proud andtrusts in his own powers, may be instructed that he cannot be justifiedby the Law. 18. Whatever reveals sin, wrath, or death exercises theoffice of the Law, whether it be in the Old or in the New Testament. 19. For to reveal sin is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, than theLaw or an effect and the peculiar power of the Law. 20. Law andrevelation of sin or of wrath are convertible terms. 24. So that it isimpossible for sin to be, or to be known, without the Law written orinscribed [in the heart]. 27. And since the Law of God requires ourobedience toward God, these Antinomians (_nomomachi_) abolish alsoobedience toward God. 28. From this it is manifest that Satan throughthese his instruments teaches about sin, repentance, and Christ in wordsonly (_verbaliter tantum_). 29. But in reality he takes away Christ, repentance, sin, and the entire Scripture, together with God, itsAuthor. 46. For the Law, as it was before Christ, did indeed accuse us;but under Christ it is appeased through the forgiveness of sins, andthereafter it is to be fulfilled through the Spirit. 47. Therefore theLaw will never, in all eternity, be abolished, but will remain, eitherto be fulfilled by the damned, or already fulfilled by the blessed. 48. These pupils of the devil however, seem to think that the Law istemporary only, which ceased under Christ even as circumcision did. "(Drews, 336ff. ; St. L. 20, 1632ff. )

Following is a summary of the views expressed by Luther in his seconddisputation: "Why is the Law to be taught? The Law is to be taught onaccount of discipline, according to the word of Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: 'TheLaw is made for the lawless, ' and that by this pedagogy men might cometo Christ as Paul says to the Galatians (3, 24): 'The Law was ourschoolmaster to bring us to Christ, ' In the second place, the Law is tobe taught to reveal sin, to accuse, terrify, and damn the consciences, Rom. 3, 20: 'By the Law is the knowledge of sin;' again, chapter 4, 15:'The Law worketh wrath, ' In the third place, the Law is to be retainedthat the saints may know what kind of works God requires in which theymay exercise their obedience toward God. _Lex est retinenda, ut sciantsancti, quaenam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam exercere ergaDeum possint. _" (Drews, 418; _Herzog R_. 1, 688. )

188. Third and Fourth Series of Luther's Theses against Antinomianism. 

Having complied with the conditions, and publicly (also in two sermonsdelivered April 23) retracted his error, and declared his assent to theviews expressed in Luther's second disputation, Agricola was againpermitted to preach and teach. As a result, Luther also, though he hadno faith in the sincerity of Agricola's retraction, did not carry outhis original plan of discussing a third and fourth series of theseswhich he had prepared against antinomianism. (Drews, 419ff. ; E. 4, 430ff. )

From the third series, comprising 40 theses, we quote the following: "1. The repentance of the Papists, Turks, Jews, and of all unbelievers andhypocrites is alike in every respect. 2. It consists in this, that theyare sorry and make satisfaction for one or several sins, and afterwardsare secure as to other sins or original sin. 5. The repentance ofbelievers in Christ goes beyond the actual sins, and continuesthroughout life, till death. 8. For the sin in our flesh remains duringthe entire time of our life, warring against the Spirit, who resists it. [Rom. 7, 23. ] 9. Therefore all works after justification are nothingelse than a continuous repentance, or a good purpose against sin. 10. For nothing else is done than that sin, revealed by the Law and forgivenin Christ, is swept out. 17. The Lord's Prayer, taught by the LordHimself to the saints and believers, is a part of repentance, containingmuch of the doctrine of the Law. 18. For whoever prays it arightconfesses with his own mouth that he sins against the Law and repents. 27. Therefore also the Lord's Prayer itself teaches that the Law isbefore, below, and after the Gospel (_legem esse ante, sub et postevangelium_), and that from it repentance must begin. 30. From this itfollows that these enemies of the Law [Antinomians] must abolish alsothe Lord's Prayer if they abolish the Law. 31. Indeed, they arecompelled to expunge the greatest part of the sermons of Christ Himselffrom the Gospel-story. 32. For Matt. 5, 17ff. He does not only recitethe Law of Moses, but explains it perfectly, and teaches that it mustnot be destroyed. 34. Everywhere throughout the Gospel He also reproves, rebukes, threatens, and exercises similar offices of the Law. 35. Sothat there never has been nor ever will be more impudent men than thosewho teach that the Law should be abolished. " (St. L. 20, 1636ff. ; E. 4, 430ff. )

From the fourth series of 41 theses directed by Luther against theAntinomians we quote: "12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine ofthe Papists concerning repentance as of hell and the devil himself. 13. Much more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whateverin the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught inreality simply wish that there be no repentance. 15. The argument:'Whatever is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end, must not be taught, ' etc. , amounts tonothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth thatman is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in thebeginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not betaught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders, adulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence suchthings must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing towardjustification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolishedand not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without theLaw' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without theassistance of the Law, ' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demandsfulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faithin Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works, without the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good worksfollow spontaneously, without the Law, _i. E. _, without the help orcoercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nornecessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less forsalvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvationare necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to savethat which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the restitution of allthings, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is notdestroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become suchas he was, and even better. " (St. L. 20. 1639ff. ; E. 4. 433. )

189. Luther's Third Public Disputation against the Antinomians. 

Soon after his second disputation Luther obtained evidence of Agricola'srelapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was anotherdisputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, inwhich Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled theirhearers into carnal security. He also explained that the passages culledfrom his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hencemisinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressedto consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of theconsolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them tosecure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifyingpower of the Law. (Drews, 421f. ; Tschackert, 482. )

From the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submitthe following: "1. The Law has dominion over man as long as he lives. [Rom. 7, 1. ] 2. But he is freed from the Law when he dies. 3. Necessarily, therefore, man must die if he would be free from the Law. 7. These three: Law, sin, and death, are inseparable. 8. Accordingly sofar as death is still in man, in so far sin and the Law are in man. 9. Indeed, in Christ the Law is fulfilled, sin abolished, and deathdestroyed. 11. That is, when, through faith we are crucified and havedied in Christ, such things [the Law fulfilled, sin abolished, and deathdestroyed] are true also in us. 13. But the fact itself and experiencetestify that the just are still daily delivered to death. 14. Necessarily, therefore, in as far as they are under death, they arestill also under the Law and sin. 15. They [the Antinomians] arealtogether inexperienced men and deceivers of souls who endeavor toabolish the Law from the church. 16. For this is not only foolish andwicked, but also absolutely impossible. 17. For if you would abolish theLaw, you will be compelled to abolish also sin and death. 18. For deathand sin are present by virtue of the Law, as Paul says [2 Cor. 3, 6]:'The letter killeth, ' and [1 Cor. 15, 56]: 'The strength of sin is theLaw, ' 19. But since you see that the just die daily what a folly is itto imagine that they are without the Law! 20. For if there were no Law, there would be neither sin nor death. 21. Hence they should have firstproved that the just are altogether without sin and death. 22. Or thatthey no longer live in the flesh, but are removed from the world. 23. Then it might justly be taught that also the Law is altogether removedfrom them and must not be taught in any way. 24. This they cannot prove, but experience itself shows the contrary to their very faces. 25. So, then, the impudence of the teachers who wish to remove the Law from thechurch is extraordinary. 26. Yet it is a much greater impudence, orrather insanity, when they assert that even the wicked should be freedfrom the Law, and that it should not be preached to them. 29. If, however, they pretend that their church or their hearers simply are allpious men and Christians, without the Law, 30. Then it is evident thatthey are altogether of unsound mind and do not know what they say oraffirm. 31. For this is nothing else than to imagine that all theirhearers have been removed from this life. 35. Thus it [the Law] is alsogiven to the pious, in so far as they are not yet dead and still live inthe flesh. 40. Now, in as far as Christ is raised in us, in so far weare without Law, sin, and death. 41. But in as far as He is not yetraised in us, in so far we are under the Law, sin, and death. 42. Therefore the Law (as also the Gospel) must be preached, withoutdiscrimination, to the righteous as well as to the wicked. 44. To thepious, that they may thereby be reminded to crucify their flesh with itsaffections and lusts, lest they become secure. [Gal. 5, 24. ] 45. Forsecurity abolishes faith and the fear of God, and renders the latter endworse than the beginning. [2 Pet. 2, 20. ] 46. It appears very clearlythat the Antinomians imagine sin to have been removed through Christessentially and philosophically or juridically (_formaliter etphilosophice seu iuridice_) 47. And that they do not at all know thatsin is removed only inasmuch as the merciful God does not impute it [Ps. 32, 2], and forgives it (_solum reputatione et ignoscentia Deimiserentis_). 61. For if the Law is removed, no one knows what Christis, or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. 66. The doctrine ofthe Law, therefore, is necessary in the churches, and by all means is tobe retained, as without it Christ cannot be retained. 67. For what willyou retain of Christ when (the Law having been removed which Hefulfilled) you do not know what He has fulfilled? 69. In brief, toremove the Law and to let sin and death remain, is to hide the diseaseof sin and death to men unto their perdition. 70. When death and sin areabolished (as was done by Christ), then the Law would be removedhappily; moreover, it would be established, Rom. 3, 31. " (Drews 423ff. ;St. L. 20, 1642ff. ; E. 4, 436ff. )

190. Agricola's Retraction Written and Published by Luther. 

Seeing his position in the Wittenberg University endangered, Agricolawas again ready to submit. And when a public retraction was demanded, heeven left it to Luther to formulate the recantation. Luther did so in apublic letter to Caspar Guettel in Eisleben, entitled, _Against theAntinomians--Wider die Antinomer_, which he published in the beginningof January, 1539. (St. L. 20, 1610. ) In a crushing manner Luther heredenounced "the specter of the new spirits who dare thrust the Law or theTen Commandments out of the church and relegate it to the courthouse. "

Complaining of "false brethren, " Luther here says: "And I fear that, ifI had died at Smalcald [1537], I should forever have been called thepatron of such [antinomian] spirits, because they appeal to my books. And all this they do behind my back, without my knowledge and againstmy will, not even considering it worth while to inform me with as muchas a word or syllable, or at least to ask me regarding the matter. ThusI am compelled to proceed against Magister John Agricola, " etc. (1611. )"But since he was afraid that he might not express it in a manner suchas would be considered satisfactory, he has fully authorized and alsorequested me to do it [write the retraction for Agricola] as well as Icould, which, he being satisfied, I agreed to do, and herewith havedone, especially for the reason that after my death neither MasterEisleben himself nor anybody else might be able to pretend that I haddone nothing in this matter and simply allowed everything to pass and goon as fully satisfactory to me. " (1612. )

Referring to his former statements appealed to by Agricola, Luthercontinues: "I have indeed taught, and still teach, that sinners shouldbe led to repentance by the preaching of, and meditation upon, thesuffering of Christ, so that they may realize how great God's wrath isover sin, seeing that there is no other help against it than that God'sSon must die for it. .. . But how does it follow from this that the Lawmust be abandoned? I am unable to discover such an inference in mylogic, and would like to see and hear the master who would be able toprove it. When Isaiah says, chap. 53, 8: 'For the transgression of Mypeople was He stricken, ' tell me, dear friend, is the Law abandonedwhen here the suffering of Christ is preached? What does 'for thetransgression of My people' mean? Does it not mean: because My peoplehave sinned against, and not kept, My Law? Or can any one imagine thatsin is something where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the Law mustwith it also abolish sins. If he would allow sins to remain, he mustmuch more allow the Law to remain. For Rom. 6, 13 [4, 15] we read:'Sin is not imputed where there is no law. ' If there is no sin Christis nothing. For why does He die if there be neither Law nor sin forwhich He was to die? From this we see that by this spiritism[_Geisterei_] the devil does not mean to take away the Law, but Christ, who fulfilled the Law. [Matt. 5, 17. ] For he well knows that Christ maywell and easily be taken away, but not so the Law, which is written inthe heart. " (1613f. ) "Therefore I request of you, my dear Doctor[Guettel], that, as you have done heretofore, you would continue in thepure doctrine and preach that sinners should and must be led torepentance not only by the sweet grace and suffering of Christ, who hasdied for us, but also by the terrors of the Law. " (1615. ) "For whencedo we know what sin is if there is no Law and conscience? And whenceshall we learn what Christ is, what He has done for us, if we are notto know what the Law is which He has fulfilled for us, or what sin is, for which He has atoned? And even if we did not need the Law for us andwere able to tear it out of our hearts (which is impossible), wenevertheless must preach it for the sake of Christ (as also is done andmust be done), in order that we may know what He has done and sufferedfor us. For who could know what and for what purpose Christ has sufferedfor us if no one were to know what sin or the Law is? Therefore the Lawmust certainly be preached if we would preach Christ. " (1616. ) "This, too, is a peculiar blindness and folly, that they imagine the revelationof wrath to be something else than the Law (which is impossible); forthe revelation of wrath is the Law when realized and felt, as Paul says[Rom. 4, 15]: '_Lex iram operatur_. The Law worketh wrath. '" (1618. )

By way of conclusion Luther remarked: "Let this suffice at present, forI hope that since Master Eisleben is converted and retracts, the others, too, who received it [the antinomian error] from him, will abandon it, which God may help them to do! Amen. " (1619. ) At the same time, howeverhe did not withhold the opinion that Agricola's self humiliation wouldhardly be of long duration. "If he continues in such humility, " saidLuther, "God certainly can and will exalt him; if he abandons it, thenGod is able to hurl him down again. " (1612. )

191. Luther's Fourth Disputation against the Antinomians. 

Luther's distrust was not unfounded, for Agricola continued secretly toteach his antinomianism, abetted in his sentiments among others also byJacob Schenck [since 1536 first Lutheran pastor in Freiberg, Saxony;1538 dismissed on account of his antinomianism 1540 professor inLeipzig; later on deposed and finally banished from Saxony]. Indeed inMarch, 1540, Agricola even lodged a complaint with the Elector, chargingLuther with "calumnies. " In the first part of the following month Lutheranswered these charges in a _Report to Doctor Brueck Concerning MagisterJohn Eisleben's Doctrine and Intrigues_. (St. L. 20, 1648ff. ) About thesame time; Count Albrecht of Mansfeld denounced Agricola to the Electoras a dangerous, troublesome man. Hereupon the Elector on June 15 1540, opened formal legal proceedings against Agricola, who, as stated above, removed to Berlin in August without awaiting the trial, although he hadpromised with an oath not to leave before a legal decision had beenrendered. (Drews, 611. ) Incensed by the treacherous conduct of Agricola, Luther, September 10, 1540, held a final disputation on a sixth seriesof theses against the Antinomians, charging them with destroying allorder human as well as divine. (St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441. )

Regarding Agricola's duplicity, Luther, in his _Report_ to Brueck, saidin substance: According to the statements of Caspar Guettel andWendelin Faber, Agricola had for years secretly agitated against theWittenbergers and founded a sect at Eisleben calling themselvesMinorish [Minorists]; he had branded and slandered their doctrine asfalse and impure, and this, too, without conferring with them orpreviously admonishing them; he had come to Wittenberg for the purposeof corrupting and distracting the Church; his adherents had made thestatement that Eisleben would teach the Wittenbergers theology andlogic; he had inveigled Hans Lufft into printing his Postil by falselystating that it had been read and approved by Luther; in his dealingswith the Wittenbergers he had acted not as an honest man, let alone apious Christian and theologian, but treacherously and in keeping withhis antinomian principles; parading as a loyal Lutheran at publicconventions and laughing and dining with them, he had misled "his old, faithful friend" [Luther] to confide in him, while secretly he wasacting the traitor by maligning him and undermining his work. In the_Report_ we read: "Agricola blasphemes and damns our doctrine as impureand false (_i. E. _, the Holy Spirit Himself in His holy Law); he slandersand defames us Wittenbergers most infamously wherever he can; and allthis he does treacherously and secretly, although we have done him noharm, but only did well by him, as he himself must admit. He deceivesand attacks us [me], his best friend and father, making me believe thathe is our true friend. Nor does he warn me, but, like a desperatetreacherous villain, secretly works behind our back to cause the peopleto forsake our doctrine and to adhere to him, thus treating us with anungratefulness, pride, and haughtiness such as I have not frequently metwith before. " (1656. )

In his charge against Luther, Agricola had said that it was dangerous topreach the Law without the Gospel, because it was a ministry of death(_ministerium mortis_). Luther answered in his _Report_ to Brueck:"Behold now what the mad fool does. God has given His Law for the verypurpose that it should bite, cut, strike, kill, and sacrifice the oldman. For it should terrify and punish the proud ignorant, secure OldAdam and show him his sin and death, so that, being humiliated, he maydespair of himself, and thus become desirous of grace, as St. Paul says:'The strength of sin is the Law; the sting of death is sin, '[1 Cor. 15, 56. ] For this reason he also calls it _bonam, iustam, sanctam_--good, just, holy. Again, Jeremiah [23, 29]: 'My Word is like a hammer thatbreaketh the rock to pieces. ' Again: '_Ego ignis consumens_, etc. --I ama consuming fire, ' Ps. 9, 21 [20]: '_Constitue legislatorem super eos, ut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes_--Put themin fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men. 'Thus St. Paul does Rom. 1 and 2 and 3 making all the world sinners bythe Law, casting them under the wrath of God, and entirely killing thembefore God. But here our dear Master Grickel appears on the scene andinvents a new theology out of his own mad and reckless fool's head andteaches: One must not kill and reprove the people, _i. E. _, one must notpreach the Law. Here he himself confesses publicly in his suit [againstLuther] that he has condemned and prohibited the preaching of the Law. "(St. L. 20, 1657. )

The _Report_ continues: "Since, now, the little angry devil who ridesMaster Grickel will not tolerate the Law, _i. E. , mortificantem, irascentem, accusantem, terrentem, occidentem legem_, --the mortifying, raging, accusing, terrifying, killing Law, --it is quite evident what heintends to do through Master Grickel's folly (for he nevertheless wishesto be praised as preaching the Law after and under the Gospel, etc. ), _viz. _, to hide original sin and to teach the Law no further thanagainst future actual sins, for such is the manner of his entire Postil;even as the Turks, Jews, philosophers, and Papists teach who regard ournature as sound; but Master Grickel does not see that it is just thiswhich his little spirit [devil] aims at by his bragging and boasting, that he, too, is preaching the Law. .. . Thus Christ and God arealtogether vain and lost. And is not this blindness beyond all blindnessthat he does not want to preach the Law without and before the Gospel?For are these not impossible things? How is it possible to preach offorgiveness of sins if previously there have been no sins? How can oneproclaim life if previously there is no death? Are we to preach toangels who have neither sin nor death concerning forgiveness of sinsand redemption from death? But how can one preach of sins or know thatthere are sins, if the Law does not reveal them? For according to itsproper office the Gospel does not say who [is a sinner] and what is sin;it does, however, indicate that there must be some great hurt, since sogreat a remedy is required; but it does not say how the sin is called, or what it is. The Law must do this. Thus Master Eisleben must in fact(_re ipsa_) allow the Law to perform its duty (_occidere_, to kill, etc. ) prior to the [preaching of the] Gospel, no matter how decidedlyhe, with words only, denies it, to spite the Wittenbergers, in orderthat he also, as _novus autor_ (new author), may produce something ofhis own and confuse the people and separate the churches. " (1658. )

From the 20 theses which Luther treated in his last disputation againstthe Antinomians we cull the following: "1. The inference of St. Paul:'For where no law is there is no transgression' [Rom. 4, 15] is validnot only theologically, but also politically and naturally (_non solumtheologice, sed etiam politice et naturaliter_). 2. Likewise this too:Where there is no sin, there is neither punishment nor remission. 3. Likewise this too: Where there is neither punishment nor remission, there is neither wrath nor grace. 4. Likewise this too: Where there isneither wrath nor grace, there is neither divine nor human government. 5. Likewise this too: Where there is neither divine nor humangovernment, there is neither God nor man. 6. Likewise this too: Wherethere is neither God nor man, there is nothing except perhaps the devil. 7. Hence it is that the Antinomians, the enemies of the Law, evidentlyare either devils themselves or the brothers of the devil. 8. It availsthe Antinomians nothing to boast that they teach very much of God, Christ, grace, Law, etc. 10. This confession of the Antinomians is likethe one when the devils cried: 'Thou art the Son of the living God, '[Luke 4, 34; 8, 28. ] 12. Whoever denies that the damning Law must betaught in reality simply denies the Law. 14. A law which does not damnis an imagined and painted law as the chimera or tragelaphus. 15. Nor isthe political or natural law anything unless it damns and terrifiessinners Rom. 13, 1. 5; 1 Pet. 2, 13ff. 17. What the Antinomians sayconcerning God, Christ, faith, Law, grace, etc. , they say without anymeaning as the parrot says its '_chaire_, Good day!' 18. Hence it isimpossible to learn theology or civil polity (_theologiam aut politiam_)from the Antinomians. 19. Therefore they must be avoided as mostpestilential teachers of licentious living who permit the perpetrationof all crimes. 20. For they serve not Christ, but their own belly [Rom. 16, 18], and, madmen that they are, seek to please men, in order thatfrom them, as a man's judgment, they may gain glory. " (Drews, 613; St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441. )--Regarding Luther's disputations against theAntinomians Planck pertinently remarks that they compel admiration forhis clear and penetrating mind, and rank among the very best of hiswritings. (1, 18; Frank 2, 311. )

192. "Grickel" Remained Grickel. 

At the instance of Elector Joachim, negotiations were begun with Luther, which finally led to a sort of peaceful settlement. Agricola wasrequired to send (which he also did) a revocation to the preachers, thecouncil, and the congregation at Eisleben. However, the new and enlargededition (1541) of the catechism which Agricola had published in 1527revealed the fact that also this last recantation was insincere; for init he repeated his antinomistic teaching, though not in the originaldefiant manner. Little wonder, then, that despite the formal settlement, cordial relations were not restored between Luther and Agricola. Whenthe latter visited Wittenberg in 1545, Luther refused to see the manwhom he regarded incurably dishonest. "Grickel, " said he, "will remainGrickel to all eternity, _Grickel wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickelbleiben_. "

And "Grickel" he did remain; for in 1565 he published a sermon in whichhe said: "Every one who is to be appointed as teacher and preacher shallbe asked: What do you intend to teach in the church? He shall answer:The Gospel of Jesus Christ. But when further asked: What does the Gospelpreach? he shall answer: The Gospel preaches repentance and forgivenessof sins. " Considering this a further evidence that Agricola stilladhered to, and was now ready once more to champion, his old errors, thepreachers of Mansfeld registered their protest in a publication of thesame year. A controversy, however, did not materialize, for Agricoladied the following year. (Planck 5, 1, 47; Frank 2, 267. )

193. False Propositions of Agricola. 

Following are some of Agricola's radical statements concerning the Lawand the Gospel. The first thesis of his _Positions_ of 1537 reads:"Repentance is to be taught not from the Decalog or from any law ofMoses, but from the violation of the Son through the Gospel. _Poenitentia docenda est non ex decalogo aut ulla lege Mosis, sed exviolatione Filii per evangelium_. " (E. 4. 420. ) Thesis 13: "In order tokeep the Christian doctrine pure, we must resist those [Luther andMelanchthon] who teach that the Gospel must be preached only to suchwhose hearts have previously been terrified and broken by the Law. _Quare pro conservanda puritate doctrinae resistendum est iis, quidocent, evangelium non praedicandum nisi animis prius quassatis etcontritis per legem_. " (421. ) Thesis 16: "The Law merely rebukes sin, and that, too, without the Holy Spirit; hence it rebukes to damnation. "Thesis 17: "But there is need of a doctrine which does not only condemnwith great efficacy, but which saves at the same time; this, however, isthe Gospel, a doctrine which teaches conjointly repentance and remissionof sins. " (421. ) In his _Brief Summary of the Gospel_, Agricola says:"In the New Testament and among Christians or in the Gospel we must notpreach the violation of the Law when a man breaks or transgresses theLaw, but the violation of the Son, to wit that he who does not for thesake of the kingdom of heaven willingly omit what he should omit, anddoes not do what he should do, crucifies Christ anew. " (St. L. 20, 1622ff. ; Frank 2, 313, Gieseler 3, 2, 137; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 265ff. )

A commingling of the Law and Gospel always results in a corruption ofthe doctrines of conversion, faith, and justification. Such was the casealso with respect to Agricola, who taught that justification follows acontrition which flows from, and hence is preceded by, love toward God. Turning matters topsy-turvy, he taught: Repentance consists in this, that the heart of man, experiencing the kindness of God which calls usto Christ and presents us with His grace, turns about, apprehends God'sgrace, thanks Him heartily for having spared it so graciously, begins torepent, and to grieve heartily and sorrowfully on account of its sins, wishes to abstain from them, and renounces its former sinful life. "This, " says Agricola, "is repentance (_poenitentia, Buessen_) and thefirst stage of the new birth, the true breathing and afflation of theHoly Spirit. After this he acquires a hearty confidence in God, believing that He will condone his folly and not blame him for it, sincehe did not know any better, although he is much ashamed of it and wishesthat it had never happened; he also resolves, since he has fared sowell, never to sin any more or to do anything that might make himunworthy of the benefit received as if he were ungrateful and forgetful;he furthermore learns to work out, confirm, and preserve his salvationin fear and trembling. .. : this is forgiveness of sins. " (Frank 2, 247. )These confused ideas plainly show that Agricola had a false conception, not only of the Law and Gospel, but also of original sin, repentance, faith, regeneration, and justification. Essentially, his was the Romandoctrine, which makes an antecedent of what in reality is an effect anda consequence of conversion and justification. Viewed from this angle, it occasions little surprise that Agricola consented to help formulateand introduce the Augsburg Interim in which the essentials ofLutheranism were denied. 

194. Poach, Otto, Musculus, Neander. 

The antinomistic doctrines rejected, in particular, by Article VI of the_Formula of Concord_, were represented chiefly by Andrew Poach, AntonOtto, Andrew Musculus, and Michael Neander. Poach, born 1516, studiedunder Luther and was an opponent of the Philippists, he became pastor inHalle in 1541; in Nordhausen, 1547; in Erfurt, 1550; Uttenbach, nearJena, 1572, where he died 1585. At Erfurt, Poach was deposed in 1572 onaccount of dissensions due to the antinomistic controversies. He signedthe _Book of Concord_. --Otto [Otho; also called Herzberger, because hewas born in Herzberg, 1505] studied under Luther; served as pastor inGraefenthal, and from 1543 in Nordhausen where he was deposed in 1568for adherence to Flacius. However, when Otto, while antagonizingMajorism and synergism, in sermons on the Letter to the Galatians of1565 rejected the Third Use of the Law, he was opposed also by Flacius, who reminded him of the fact that here on earth the new man resembles achild, aye, an embryo, rather than a full-fledged man. 

In his zealous opposition to the Majorists, Andrew Musculus (Meusel, born 1514; studied at Leipzig 1532-1538, then at Wittenberg; became azealous and passionate adherent of Luther, whom he considered thegreatest man since the days of the apostles; from 1540 till his death, September 29, 1581, professor and pastor, later on, GeneralSuperintendent, in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder) also made some extremestatements. Later on, however, he cooperated in preparing and revisingthe _Formula of Concord_. Musculus wrote of Luther: "There is as great adifference between the dear old teachers and Luther as there is betweenthe light of the sun and that of the moon; and beyond all doubt, theancient fathers, even the best and foremost among them, as Hilary andAugustine, had they lived contemporaneously with him, would not havehesitated to deliver the lamp to him, as the saying is. " (Meusel, _Handl_. 4, 709; Richard, 450. )

The most prominent opponents of these Antinomians were the well-knowntheologians Moerlin, Flacius, Wigand, and Westphal (chiefly in lettersto Poach). The controversy was carried on with moderation, and withoutany special efforts to cause trouble among the people. The main issuewas not--as in the conflict with Agricola--whether the Law is necessaryin order to effect contrition and prepare men for the Gospel, but theso-called Third Use of the Law (_tertius usus legis_), _i. E. _, whetherthe Law is, and is intended to be, of service to Christians after theirregeneration; in particular, whether the regenerate still need the Lawwith respect to their new obedience. 

The conflict with Poach arose from the Majoristic controversy. Dealingin particular with the aberrations of Menius, the Synod at Eisenach, 1556, adopted seven theses which Menius was required to subscribe. Thefirst declared: "Although the proposition, Good works are necessary tosalvation, may be tolerated hypothetically and in an abstract way in thedoctrine of the Law (_in doctrina legis abstractive et de idea toleraripotest_), nevertheless there are many weighty reasons why it ought andshould be avoided no less than this one: Christ is a creature. " (Preger1, 383. ) While Flacius, Wigand, and Moerlin defended the thesis, Amsdorf(who first, too, adopted it, but later on withdrew his assent; Seeberg4, 488), Aurifaber, and especially Poach rejected it. This marked thebeginning of the so-called Second Antinomistic Controversy. Poach deniedthat the Law has any promise of salvation. Even the most perfectfulfilment of the Law, said he, is but the fulfilment of a duty whichmerits no reward. The only thing one may acquire by a perfect fulfilmentis freedom from guilt and punishment. Fulfilment of our duty (_solutiodebiti_) does not warrant any claim on salvation. Yet Poach was carefulto declare that this did not apply to the fulfilment of the Law whichChrist rendered for us. Why? Poach answered: Because Christ, being theSon of God, was not obliged to fulfil the Law. When, therefore, He didfulfil it in our stead, He rendered satisfaction to divine justice, sothat righteousness can now be imputed to us and we become partakers ofeternal life. 

Poach wrote: "It would not be correct to say: In the doctrine of the Lawall the works commanded in the Law are necessary to salvation. _Indoctrina legis omnia opera mandata in lege sunt necessaria ad salutem_. "(Schluesselburg 4, 343. ) Again: "The works of Christ, which are thefulfilment of the Law, are the merit of our salvation. Our works, whichought to have been the fulfilment of the Law, do not merit salvation, even though they were most perfect, as the Law requires, --which, however, is impossible. The reason is that we are debtors to the Law. Christ, however, is not a debtor to the Law. Even if we most perfectlyfulfilled all the commandments of God and completely satisfied therighteousness of God, we would not be worthy of grace and salvation onthat account, nor would God be obliged to give us grace and salvation asa debt. He justly demands the fulfilment of His Law from us as obediencedue Him from His creature, which is bound to obey its Creator. _Etiamsinos omnia mandata Dei perfectissime impleremus et iustitiae Dei penitussatisfaceremus, tamen non ideo digni essemus gratia et salute, nec Deusobligatus esset, ut nobis gratiam et salutem daret ex debito. Sed iurerequirit impletionem legis suae a nobis, ut debitam obedientiam a suacreatura, quae conditori suo obedire tenetur_. " (274. ) Again: "The Lawhas not the necessity of salvation, but the necessity of obligation(_non habet lex necessitatem salutis, sed necessitatem debiti_). For, assaid, even though a man would most perfectly do the works of the Law, hewould not obtain salvation on account of these works. Nor is God underobligation to man, but man is under obligation to God. And in the LawGod requires of man the obedience he owes; He does not require anobedience with the promise of salvation. " (276. )

As to Otto, he distinguished, in a series of Latin theses a doubleoffice of the Law, the ecclesiastical; and political--_officiumecclesiasticum_ and _officium politicum_. The former is to giveknowledge of sin; the latter, to coerce the old man and maintain orderamong the obstinate. He denied that the Law in any way serves Christianswith respect to good works. Otto declared: "The Law is useful andnecessary neither for justification nor for any good works. But faith inChrist the Mediator alone is useful and necessary both for justificationand the good works themselves. _Lex enim non modo ad iustificationem sedneque ad ulla bona opera utilis et necessaria est. Sed sola fides inChristum mediatorem utilis et necessaria est tam ad iustificationem quamad ipsa bona opera_. " Quoting Luther, he said: "The highest art ofChristians is to know nothing of the Law, to ignore works. _Summa arsChristianorum est nescire legem, ignorare opera_, " _i. E. _, in thearticle of justification, as Otto did not fail to add by way ofexplanation. (Luther, Weimar 40, 1, 43; Tschackert, 485. ) Seebergremarks that in reality, Poach and Otto were merely opposed to such aninterpretation of the Third Use of the Law as made the Law a motive ofgood works, and hence could not be charged with antinomianism proper. (4, 488f. )

Planck, Frank, and other historians have fathered upon Otto also aseries of radical German theses, which, however, were composed, not byOtto, but probably by some of his adherents. These theses, in which allof the errors of Agricola are revamped, were discussed at the Altenburgcolloquy, 1568 to 1569; their author, however, was not mentioned. Wesubmit the following: "1. The Law does not teach good works, nor shouldit be preached in order that we may do good works. 3. Moses knew nothingof our faith and religion. 5. Evangelical preachers are to preach theGospel only, and no Law. 7. A Christian who believes should doabsolutely nothing, neither what is good nor what is evil. 10. We shouldpray God that we may remain steadfast in faith till our end, without allworks. 14. The Holy Spirit does not work according to the norm or ruleof the Law, but by Himself, without the assistance of the Law. 16. Abelieving Christian is _supra omnem obedientiam_, above all Law and allobedience. 17. The rebuking sermons of the prophets do not at allpertain to Christians. 21. The Law, good works, and new obedience haveno place in the kingdom of Christ, but in the world just as Moses andthe government of the Pope. 25. The Law has no place in the Church or inthe pulpit, but in the court-house (_Rathaus_). 28. The Third Use of theLaw is a blasphemy in theology and a monstrosity in the realm of nature(_portentum in rerum natura_). 29. No man can be saved if the Third Useof the Law is true and is to be taught in the Church. The Holy Spirit inman knows nothing of the Law; the flesh, however, is betimes in need ofthe Law. " (Tschackert, 485; Planck 5, 1, 62. ) Frank also quotes: "TheChristians or the regenerate are deified (_vergoettert_); yea, they arethemselves God and cannot sin. God has not given you His Word that youshould be saved thereby (_dass du dadurch sollst selig werden_); andwhoever seeks no more from God than salvation (_Seligkeit_) seeks justas much as a louse in a scab. Such Christians are the devil's own, together with all their good works. " (2, 326. 275. )

Also Musculus is numbered among the theologians who were not alwayssufficiently discreet and guarded in their statements concerning thenecessity of good works and the use of the Law. All expressions of theApostle Paul regarding the spiritual use of the Law, said Musculus, mustbe understood as referring to such only as are to be justified, not tothose who are justified (_de iustificandis, non de iustificatis_). Buthe added: "For these, in as far as they remain in Christ, are faroutside of and above every law. _Hi enim, quatenus in Christo manent, longe extra et supra omnem legem sunt_. " (Tschackert. 486. )

Michael Neander of Ilfeld, a friend of Otto was also suspected ofantinomianism. He denied that there is any relation whatever between theLaw and a regenerate Christian. But he, too, was careful enough to add:"in as far as he is just or lives by the spirit, _quatenus est iustusseu spiritu vivit_. " In a letter, Neander said: "I adhere to the opinionthat the Law is not given to the just in any use or office whatsoever, in so far as he is just or lives by the spirit. .. . 'For the Law, ' asLuther says in his marginal note to Jeremiah, chap. 31, 'is no longerover us, but under us, and does not surround us any more. ' Love rulesand governs all laws, and frequently something is true according to theLaw, but false according to love (_saepeque aliquid lege verum, dilectione tamen falsum est_). For love is the statute, measure, norm, and rule of all things on earth. .. . The Law only accuses and damns, andapart from this it has no other use or office, _i. E. _, the Law remainsthe norm of good works to all eternity, also in hell after the Last Day, but for the unjust and reprobate, and for the flesh in every man. To thejust, regenerated, and new man, however, it is not the norm of goodworks, _i. E. _, the Law does not govern, regulate, and teach the justman; _i. E. _, it is not active with respect to him as it is with respectto an unjust man, but is rather regulated and governed and taught by thejust man. It no longer drives the just (as it did before conversion andas it still drives the flesh), but is now driven and suffers, since asjust men we are no longer under the Law, but above the Law and lords ofthe Law. How, therefore, can the Law be a norm to the just man when heis the lord of the Law, commands the Law, and frequently does what iscontrary to the Law (_cum iustus legis sit dominus, legi imperet etsaepe legi contraria faciat_)?. .. When the just man meditates in the Lawof the Lord day and night, when he establishes the Law by faith, when heloves the Law and admires the inexhaustible wisdom of the divine Law, when he does good works written and prescribed in the Law (as indeed healone can), when he uses the Law aright, --all these are neither thethird, nor the fourth, nor the twelfth, nor the fiftieth use or officeof the Law, . .. But fruits of faith, of the Spirit, or regeneration. .. . But the Old Man, who is not yet new, or a part of him which is not asyet regenerated, has need of this Law, and he is to be commanded: 'Puton the new man; put off the old. '" (Schluesselburg 4, 61; Tschackert, 484. )

195. Melanchthon and the Philippists. 

A further controversy concerning the proper distinction between the Lawand the Gospel was caused by the Philippists in Wittenberg whoseteaching was somewhat akin to that of Agricola. They held that theGospel, in the narrow sense of the term, and as distinguished from theLaw, is "the most powerful preaching of repentance. " (Frank 2, 327. )Taking his cue from Luther, Melanchthon, in his _Loci_ of 1521 as wellas in later writings, clearly distinguished between Law and Gospel. (_C. R. _ 21, 139; 23, 49; 12, 576. ) True, he had taught, also in the_Apology_, that, in the wider sense, the Gospel is both a preaching ofrepentance and forgiveness of sin. But this, as the _Formula of Concord_explains, was perfectly correct and in keeping with the Scriptures. However, in repeating the statement that the Gospel embraces both thepreaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins, Melanchthon was notalways sufficiently careful to preclude misapprehension andmisunderstanding. Indeed, some of the statements he made after Luther'sdeath are misleading, and did not escape the challenge of loyalLutherans. 

During a disputation in 1548, at which Melanchthon presided, Flaciuscriticized the unqualified assertion that the Gospel was a preaching ofrepentance, but was satisfied when Melanchthon explained that the termGospel was here used in the wider sense, as comprising the entiredoctrine of Christ. However, when Melanchthon, during anotherdisputation, 1556, declared: The ministry of the Gospel "rebukes theother sins which the Law shows, as well as the saddest of sins which isrevealed by the Gospel (_hoc tristissimum peccatum, quod in Evangelioostenditur_), _viz. _, that the world ignores and despises the Son ofGod. " Flacius considered it his plain duty to register a public protest. It was a teaching which was, at least in part, the same error thatLuther, and formerly also Melanchthon himself, had denounced whenespoused by Agricola, _viz. _, that genuine contrition is wrought, not bythe Law, but by the Gospel; by the preaching, not of the violation ofthe Law, but of the violation of the Son. (_C. R. _ 12, 634. 640. )

These misleading statements of Melanchthon were religiously cultivatedand zealously defended by the Wittenberg Philippists. With a good dealof animosity they emphasized that the Gospel in its most proper sense isalso a preaching of repentance (_praedicatio poenitentiae, Busspredigt_), inasmuch as it revealed the baseness of sin and thegreatness of its offense against God, and, in particular, inasmuch asthe Gospel alone uncovered, rebuked, and condemned the hidden sin(_arcanum peccatum_) and the chief sin of all, the sin of unbelief(_incredulitas et neglectio Filii_), which alone condemns a man. Theseviews, which evidently involved a commingling of the Law and the Gospel, were set forth by Paul Crell in his Disputation against John Wigand, 1571, and were defended in the _Propositions Concerning the ChiefControversies of These Times_ (also of 1571), by Pezel and otherWittenberg theologians. (Frank 2, 277. 323. )

As a consequence, the Philippists, too, were charged with antinomianism, and were strenuously opposed by such theologians as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Wigand. Wigand attacked the Wittenberg _Propositions_ in his book of1571, _Concerning Antinomianism, Old and New_. Pezel answered in his_Apology of the True Doctrine on the Definition of the Gospel_, 1571;and Paul Crell, in _Spongia, or 150 Propositions Concerning theDefinition of the Gospel, Opposed to the Stupid Accusation of JohnWigand_, 1571. The teaching of the Philippists was formulated by PaulCrell as follows: "Since this greatest and chief sin [unbelief] isrevealed, rebuked, and condemned by the Gospel alone, therefore also theGospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, apreaching and a voice of repentance or conversion in its true and propersense. _A solo evangelio, cum peccatum hoc summum et praecipuummonstretur, arguatur et damnetur expresse ac nominatim solum etiamevangelium vere ac proprie praedicatio ac vox est poenitentiae siveconversionis vere et proprie ita dictae_. " (277. 327. )

This doctrine of the Philippists, according to which the Gospel in thenarrow and proper sense, and as distinguished from the Law, is apreaching of repentance, was rejected by Article V of the _Formula ofConcord_ as follows: "But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moseshimself as a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel, are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that theGospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothingelse than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which doesnot reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors ofthe Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up againby the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained throughChrist's merit. " (803, 7. )

XVIII. The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy. 

196. Contents and Purpose of Articles VII and VIII. 

In all of its articles the _Formula of Concord_ is but a reafflrmationof the doctrines taught and defended by Luther. The fire of prolongedand hot controversies through which these doctrines passed after hisdeath had but strengthened the Lutherans in their conviction that inevery point Luther's teaching was indeed nothing but the pure Word ofGod itself. It had increased the consciousness that, in believing andteaching as they did, they were not following mere human authorities, such as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, but the Holy Scriptures, bywhich alone their consciences were bound. Articles VII and VIII of the_Formula of Concord_, too, reassert Luther's doctrines on the Lord'sSupper and the person of Christ as being in every particular the clearand unmistakable teaching of the divine Word, --two doctrines, by theway, which perhaps more than any other serve as the acid test whetherthe fundamental attitude of a church or a theologian is truly Scripturaland fully free from every rationalistic and enthusiastic infection. 

The Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of thetrue body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, andunder the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating anddrinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believingcommunicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood ofChrist, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neithera local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal andtranscendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking ofthe blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, isnot Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this realpresence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotentpower of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of theSacrament. 

The Eighth Article treats of the person of Christ, of the personal unionof His two natures, of the communication of these natures as well as oftheir attributes, and, in particular, of the impartation of the trulydivine majesty to His human nature and the terminology resultingtherefrom. One particular object of Article VIII is also to show thatthe doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in theHoly Supper, as taught by the Lutheran Church, does not, as wascontended by her Zwinglian and Calvinistic adversaries, conflict in anyway with what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ, Hishuman nature, His ascension, and His sitting at the right hand of Godthe Father Almighty. The so-called Appendix, or Catalogus, a collectionof passages from the Bible and from the fathers of the ancient Church, prepared by Andreae and Chemnitz was added to the _Formula of Concord_(though not as an authoritative part of it) in further support of theLutheran doctrine particularly concerning the divine majesty of thehuman nature of Christ. 

Both articles, the seventh as well as the eighth, were incorporated inthe _Formula of Concord_ in order thoroughly to purify the LutheranChurch from Reformed errors concerning the Lord's Supper and the personof Christ, which after Luther's death had wormed their way into some ofher schools and churches, especially those of Electoral Saxony, and tomake her forever immune against the infection of Calvinism(Crypto-Calvinism)--a term which, during the controversies preceding the_Formula of Concord_ did not, as is generally the case to-day, refer toCalvin's absolute decree of election and reprobation, but to hisdoctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as formulated by himself in the_Consensus Tigurinus_ (Zurich Consensus), issued 1549. The subtitle ofthis confession reads: "Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria MinistrorumTigurinae Ecclesiae, et D. Iohannis Calvini Ministri GenevensisEcclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita. " In this confession, therefore, Calvin declares his agreement with the teaching of Zwingli asrepresented by his followers in Zurich, notably Bullinger. Strenuousefforts were made by the Calvinists and Reformed everywhere to make the_Consensus Tigurinus_ the basis of a pan-Protestant union, and at thesame time the banner under which to conquer all Protestant countries, Lutheran Germany included, for what must be regarded as beingessentially Zwinglianism. The _Consensus_ was adopted in Switzerland, England, France, and Holland. In Lutheran territories, too, its teachingwas rapidly gaining friends, notably in Southern Germany, where Bucerhad prepared the way for it, and in Electoral Saxony where thePhilippists offered no resistance. Garnished as it was with glitteringand seemingly orthodox phrases, the _Consensus Tigurinus_ lent itselfadmirably for such Reformed propaganda. "The consequence was, " says the_Formula of Concord_, "that many great men were deceived by these fine, plausible words--_splendidis et magnificis verbis_. " (973, 6. ) Tocounteract this deception, to establish Luther's doctrine of the realpresence of the body and blood of Christ, and to defend it against thesophistries of the Sacramentarians: Zwinglians, Calvinists, andCrypto-Calvinists--such was the object of Articles VII and VIII of the_Formula of Concord_. 

197. John Calvin. 

Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France. He began his studies inParis, 1523 preparing for theology. In 1529 his father induced him totake up law in Orleans and Bourges. In 1531 he returned to histheological studies in Paris. Here he experienced what he himselfdescribes as a "sudden conversion. " He joined the Reformed congregation, and before long was its acknowledged leader. In 1533 he was compelled toleave France because of his anti-Roman testimony. In Basel, 1535, hewrote the first draft of his _Institutio Religionis Christianae_. InGeneva where he was constrained to remain by William Farel [born 1489;active as a fiery Protestant preacher in Meaux, Strassburg, Zurich, Bern, Basel, Moempelgard, Geneva, Metz, etc. ; died 1565], Calvindeveloped and endeavored to put into practise his legalistic ideal of atheocratic and rigorous puritanical government. As a result he wasbanished, 1538. He removed to Strassburg, where he was held and engagedby Bucer. He attended the conventions in Frankfort, 1539; Hagenau, 1540;Worms, 1540; and Regensburg, 1541. Here he got acquainted with theLutherans notably Melanchthon. September 13, 1541, he returned toGeneva, where, woefully mixing State and Church, he continued hisreformatory and puritanical efforts. One of the victims of histheocratic government was the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus, who, at the instance of Calvin, was burned at the stake, October 27, 1553. In 1559 Calvin established the Geneva School, which exercised afar-reaching theological influence. He died May 27, 1564. 

Calvin repeatedly expressed his unbounded admiration for Luther as a"preeminent servant of Christ--_praeclarus Christi servus_. " (_C. R. _37, 54. ) In his _Answer_ of 1543 against the Romanist Pighius he said:"Concerning Luther we testify without dissimulation now as heretoforethat we esteem him as a distinguished apostle of Christ, by whose laborand service, above all, the purity of the Gospel has been restored atthis time. _De Luthero nunc quoque sicut hactenus non dissimulantertestamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maximeopera et ministerio restituta hoc tempore fuerit Evangelii puritas_. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 169. ) Even after Luther had published his _BriefConfession_, in which he unsparingly denounces the Sacramentarians(deniers of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord'sSupper), and severs all connection with them, Calvin admonishedBullinger in a letter dated November 25, 1544, to bear in mind what agreat and wonderfully gifted man Luther was, and with what fortitude, ability, and powerful teaching he had shattered the kingdom ofAntichrist and propagated the salutary doctrine. "I am frequentlyaccustomed to say, " he declared, "that, even if he should call me adevil I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminentservant of God. " In the original the remarkable words of Calvin read asfollows: "_Sed haec cupio vobis in mentem venire, primum quantus sit virLutherus, et quantis dotibus excellat, quanta animi fortitudine etconstantia quanta dexteritate, quanta doctrinae efficacia hactenus adprofligandum Antichristi regnum et simul propagandam salutis doctrinamincubuerit. Saepe dicere solitus sum, etiamsi me diabolum vocaret, metamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam, quitamen, ut pollet eximiis virtutibus, ita magnis vitiis laboret_. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 169; _C. R. _ 39 [_Calvini Opp. _ 11], 774. )

However, though he admired the personality of Luther, Calvin, likeZwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg 1529, revealed a theological spiritwhich was altogether different from Luther's. In particular, he wasviolently opposed to Luther's doctrines of the real presence in theLord's Supper and of the majesty of the human nature of Christ. Revealing his animus, Calvin branded the staunch and earnest defendersof these doctrines as the "apes" of Luther. In his _Second Defense_against Westphal, 1556, he exclaimed: "O Luther, how few imitators ofyour excellences, but how many apes of your pious ostentation have youleft behind! _O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quammultas vero sanctae tuae iactantiae simias reliquisti!_" (Gieseler 3, 2, 209. )

True, when in Strassburg, Calvin signed the _Augsburg Confession_ (1539or 1540), and was generally considered a Lutheran. However, in his _LastAdmonition_ to Westphal, of 1557 and in a letter of the same year toMartin Schalling, Calvin wrote: "Nor do I repudiate the _AugsburgConfession_, to which I have previously subscribed, _in the sense inwhich the author himself_ [Melanchthon in the _Variata_ of 1540] _hasinterpreted it. Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridemvolens ac libens subscripsi, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est. _"(_C. R. _ 37, 148. ) According to his own confession, therefore, Calvin'ssubscription to the _Augustana_, at least as far as the article of theLord's Supper is concerned, was insincere and nugatory. In fact Calvinmust be regarded as the real originator of the second controversy onthe Lord's Supper between the Lutherans and the Reformed, even as thefirst conflict on this question was begun, not by Luther, but by hisopponents, Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. For the adoption ofthe _Consensus Tigurinus_ in 1549, referred to above, cannot but beviewed as an overt act by which the Wittenberg Concord, signed 1536 byrepresentative Lutheran and Reformed theologians, was publiclyrepudiated and abandoned by Calvin and his adherents, and whereby ananti-Lutheran propaganda on an essentially Zwinglian basis wasinaugurated. Calvin confirmed the schism between the Lutherans and theReformed which Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius had originated. 

198. Calvin's Zwinglianism. 

The doctrine of Calvin and his adherents concerning the Lord's Supper isfrequently characterized as a materially modified Zwinglianism. Schaffmaintains that "Calvin's theory took a middle course, retaining, on thebasis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith, and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed inSwitzerland, gained much favor in Germany and opened a fair prospect forunion. " (_Creeds_ 1, 280. ) As a matter of fact, however, a fact admittedalso by such Calvinists as Hodge and Shedd, Calvin's doctrine was adenial _in toto_ of the real presence as taught by Luther. (Pieper, _Dogm. _ 3, 354. ) Calvin held that after His ascension Christ, accordingto His human nature, was locally enclosed in heaven, far away from theearth. Hence he denied also the real presence of Christ's body and bloodin the Holy Supper. In fact, Calvin's doctrine was nothing but apolished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrasesapproaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible. Even wherehe paraded as Luther, Calvin was but Zwingli disguised (and poorly atthat) in a seemingly orthodox garb and promenading with severalimitation Lutheran feathers in his hat. 

In the _Formula of Concord_ we read: "Although some Sacramentariansstrive to employ words that come as close as possible to the _AugsburgConfession_ and the form and mode of speech in its churches, and confessthat in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received bybelievers, still, when we insist that they state their meaning properly, sincerely, and clearly, they all declare themselves unanimously thus:that the true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from theconsecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highestheaven is from the earth. .. . Therefore they understand this presence ofthe body of Christ not as a presence here upon earth, but only _respectufidei_ (with respect to faith), that is, that our faith, reminded andexcited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevatesitself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the bodyof Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, butnevertheless spiritual only;. .. Consequently nothing else is received bythe mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine. " (971, 2f. ) This is, and was intended to be, a presentation of Calvinism as being nothing butZwinglianism clothed in seemingly orthodox phrases. 

That this picture drawn by the _Formula of Concord_ is not a caricatureor in any point a misrepresentation of Calvinism appears from the_Consensus Tigurinus_ itself, where we read: "In as far as Christ is aman, He is to be sought nowhere else than in heaven and in no othermanner than with the mind and the understanding of faith. Therefore itis a perverse and impious superstition to include Him under elements ofthis world. _Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo necaliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perversaet impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis huius mundi includere. _"Again: "We repudiate those [who urge the literal interpretation of thewords of institution] as preposterous interpreters. " "For beyondcontroversy, they are to be taken figuratively, . .. As when by metonymythe name of the symbolized thing is transferred to the sign--_ut permetonymiam ad signum transferatur rei figuratae nomen. _" Again: "Nor dowe regard it as less absurd to place Christ under, and to unite Himwith, the bread than to change the bread into His body. _Neque enimminus absurdum iudicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum panecopulare, quam panem transubstantiare in corpus eius. _" Again: "When wesay that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this mode of speech expressesa distance of place, . .. Because the body of Christ, . .. Being finite andcontained in heaven, as in a place, must of necessity be removed from usby as great a distance as the heaven is removed from the earth--_necesseest, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest aterra. _" (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 196. ) Such was theteaching cunningly advocated by Calvin and his adherents theCrypto-Calvinists in Germany included but boldly and firmly opposed bythe loyal Lutherans, and finally disposed of by Articles VII and VIII ofthe _Formula of Concord_. 

199. Melanchthon's Public Attitude. 

As stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received withincreasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in SouthernGermany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymenwho secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. Theywere called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because, while they subscribed to the _Augsburg Confession_, claimed to be loyalLutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church, they in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoringto suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them theviews of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly thatMelanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what thelatter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubtthat Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. Infact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regardedas the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists. 

True, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord'sSupper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to theZwinglians and their "profane" teaching in an _Opinion_ on Carlstadt'sdoctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God andman, _i. E. _, with His body and blood is present in the Supper. (_C. R. _1, 760. ) In September of the following year he wrote to Philip Eberbach:"Know that Luther's teaching [concerning the Lord's Supper] is very oldin the Church. _Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesiaesse_. " (823. ) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also toEberbach. In an _Opinion_ of May 15 1529: "I am satisfied that I shallnot agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingliand his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament. " (1067. ) June20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: "I would rather die than see our peoplebecome contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. _Nam morimalim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare_. My dearJerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed todeath on account of this matter. " (_C. R. _ 1, 1077; 2, 18. ) November 2, 1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid theZwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves theseprofane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli canbe upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of theancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Lutherdoes. " (1, 1109. ) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies ofancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled arenow being printed. " (2, 18. ) In this publication Melanchthon endeavoredto show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words ofinstitution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732. )According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrinein the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2, 142. 212. )

At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucerclaimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _OpinionConcerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August, 1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord canbe present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannotbe anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it iscontrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local;also, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be indifferent places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude thatthe body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, sothat it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truthand reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and withthe bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending thatthey [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it isnot necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say thatit can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in someother secret way by which different places are as one point present atthe same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true andreal presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishesto accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dareto say that the body of Christ is really with the bread withoutgeometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the HolySpirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but ofthe body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that thebody of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with thebread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body ofChrist is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, _i. E. _, byimagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men bysaying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'bycontemplation of faith, ' _i. E. _, by imagination. 14. We teach thatChrist's body is truly and really present with the bread or in thebread. 15. Although we say that the body of Christ is really present, Luther does not say that it is present locally, namely, in some mass, bycircumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or theentire Christ is present to all creatures. .. . We denytransubstantiation, and that the body is locally in the bread, " etc. (2, 222. 311. 315. )

Such were the views of Melanchthon in and before 1530. And publicly andformally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an _Opinion_written 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: "IfChrist were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with usessentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, Hegives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always. This sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting. .. . ThereforeI conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread andwine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here wemust cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, _viz. _, how Christascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else. "(2. 801. ) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, whichplainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also byunworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff. ) In 1537 he subscribed to the_Smalcald Articles_, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of thereal presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that "bread and winein the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given andreceived not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians. " (CONC. TRIGL. 493, 1. ) In his letter to Flacius of September 5, 1556, Melanchthon solemnly declared: "I have never changed the doctrine of theConfession. " (_C. R. _ 8, 841. ) September 6, 1557, he wrote: "We allembrace and retain the Confession together with the _Apology_ and theconfession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua. " (9, 260. )Again, in November of the same year: "Regarding the Lord's Supper, weretain the _Augsburg Confession_ and _Apology_. " (9, 371. ) In an_Opinion_ of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supperthe Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner thatwhen we use it, ["]He gives us with the bread and wine His body, " etc. , and that Zwingli was wrong when he declared "that it is a mere outwardsign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is amere sign by which Christians know each other. " (9, 472f. ) Severalmonths before his death, in his preface to the _Corpus Philippicum_, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper "Christ is truly andsubstantially present and truly administered to those who take the bodyand blood of Christ, " and that in it "He gives His body and blood to himwho eats and drinks. " (Richard. 389. )

200. Melanchthon's Private Views. 

While Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the mannerindicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he hadinwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of astranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to thedoctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for theauthority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Lutherput it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clearwords of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became awavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging towardLuther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error, he was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, andthe immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted anddoubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Know that for ten yearsneither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on thismatter, " the Lord's Supper. (_C. R. _ 3, 537. ) And his doubts led to adeparture from his own former position, --a fact for which alsosufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. "Already in 1531, " saysSeeberg, "Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough tothe effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of thedivinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body andthe bread. _Ep. _, p. 85. " (_Dogg. _ 4, 2, 447. )

That Melanchthon's later public statements and protestations concerninghis faithful adherence to the doctrine of the _Augsburg Confession_ mustbe more or less discounted, appears, apart from other considerations, from his own admission that he was wont to dissimulate in these andother matters; from his private letters, in which he favorably refers tothe symbolical interpretation of the words of institution; from hiscommunication to Philip of Hesse with regard to Luther's article on theLord's Supper at Smalcald, referred to in a previous chapter; from thechanges which he made 1540 in Article X of the _Augsburg Confession_;from his later indefinite statements concerning the real presence in theHoly Supper; from his intimate relations and his cordial correspondencewith Calvin; from his public indifference and neutrality during theeucharistic controversy with the Calvinists; and from his unfriendlyattitude toward the champions of Luther in this conflict. 

201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer. 

That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authoritiesrather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact thatOecolampadius's _Dialogus_ of 1530--which endeavored to show that thesymbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also inthe writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine, and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (_C. R. _ 2, 217), says, waswritten "with greater exactness (_accuratius_) than he is otherwise wontto write"--made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as isshown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer, he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As aresult, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and theZwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend theconference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strongterms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eatingand drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ istruly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's _Opinion_ in thismatter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa dasunsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christigegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der LeibChristi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit denZaehnen zerbissen werde. " (St. L. 17, 2052. ) Self-evidently, whenwriting thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, hisobject merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of thesacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his returnfrom Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that atCassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreignopinion. (_C. R. _ 2, 822)

As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to thecompromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and bloodare truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are notreally connected with the bread and wine, the signs or _signaexhibitiva_, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Lutherand Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remainingquestion therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the breadand body, --and of what need is this question? _Tantum igitur reliqua estquaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quidopus est?_" (_C. R. _ 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057. ) To Erhard Schnepf hehad written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread andwine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me Iwould not demand anything further. " (_C. R. _ 2, 787. ) In February hewrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc. ] are not farfrom the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us(_reipsa convenire_); nor do I condemn them. " (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065. )This, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthonsaid: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula ofBucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet. _Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare_. " (_C. R. _ 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062. ) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip ofHesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the onehand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on theother, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (_C. R. _ 2, 836. 841. )

202. Secret Letters and the Variata of 1540. 

In the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in thepreceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of theHoly Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinionnow, " says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me, although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heardwhat our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personallyor when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam nolinunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo, quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re totaaut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_. " (2, 822. ) Two dayslater, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly inGreek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which heregarded as dangerous, as, _e. G. _, in his defamatory letter toCamerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R. _ 1, 754), inwhich he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his owntrue inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthonwas no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation ofthe words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entiredoctrine concerning the Holy Supper. 

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several timesconcerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, eventhough they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, ifthere are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or otherarticles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such whoare to be execrated. .. . Concerning the Concord, however, no actionwhatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinionshere [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personallyconcerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, andreadily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the realpresence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author ordefender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are manytestimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain themystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while theopposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, willhave to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I dowish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case withoutsophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed onaccount of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without anygood reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth, this matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that youdo not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church. I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without anysophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on thisgreat matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be establishedwithout sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladlyabandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know thatamong them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, beingmoved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do youthink, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together?As for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together onthis matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articlesthey as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (_dexterius_)since they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However, I conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and, after reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody. "(_C. R. _ 2, 823f. ; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060. )

In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthondeclares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I havemaintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when thesethings are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That iscertainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by whichthe body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread. Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is presentwhen the things are received. _Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionemtalem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, autmisceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud_. .. . What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest youdefend what some even now are saying, _viz. _, that the body and bloodare tendered separately--_separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem_. Thistoo, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, asthe saying goes. That physical connection (_illa physica coniunctio_)breeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included;when [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apartfrom the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, mydear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the _Loci_ Ihave spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth awayfrom these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think. But I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry, would be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerningthe entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, Ishall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner Iam speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, andapproach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients. " (_C. R. _ 3, 514f. ) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I havesimply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from thewords. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present andefficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But toadd a division and separation of the body and blood, that is somethingaltogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church. " (3, 536;7, 882. )

Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and hisviews concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changessince 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changedsentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimateunion, to subscribe the _Augsburg Confession_, Melanchthon, in 1540, altered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter. Schaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper "was in various waysofficially recognized in the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1540. " (1, 280. )Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on thealteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essentialconcession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; buthe did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation--no doubt, because it certainly was not very far from the truth. 

203. Not in Sympathy with Lutheran Champions. 

When Westphal, in 1552, pointed out the Calvinistic menace and soundedthe tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy todefend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divinemajesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failedthe Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For althoughLutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence, Master Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in thelight of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construethis attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and whereverMelanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during thiscontroversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparentthat his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with thechampions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings andthrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramentalunion and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvinand his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and theircause. 

Melanchthon's animosity ran high not only against such extremists asSaliger (Beatus) and Fredeland (both were deposed in Luebeck 1568 andSaliger again in Rostock 1569) who taught that in virtue of theconsecration before the use (_ante usum_) bread and wine are the bodyand blood of Christ, denouncing all who denied this as Sacramentarians(Gieseler 3, 2, 257), but also against all those who faithfully adheredto, and defended, Luther's phraseology concerning the Lord's Supper. Herejected the teaching of Westphal and the Hamburg ministers, accordingto which in the Lord's Supper, the bread is properly called the body ofChrist and the wine the blood of Christ, and stigmatized their doctrineas "bread-worship, _artolatreia_. " (_C. R. _ 8, 362. 660. 791; 9, 470. 962. )

In a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching ofthe omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new andfoolish doctrine. Concerning the _Confession and Report of theWuerttemberg Theologians_, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, whichemphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence ofChrist also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarkedcontemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and ina letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could notcharacterize "the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (_AbbatesWirtebergenses_) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (_HechingenseLatinum, Hechinger Latein_), " _i. E. _, as absurd and insipid teaching. (9, 1035f. ; 7, 780. 884. )

204. Melanchthon Claimed by Calvin. 

In 1554 Nicholas Gallus of Regensburg republished, with a preface of hisown, _Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerningthe Lord's Supper_. The timely reappearance of this book, whichMelanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was mostembarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter, therefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openlyagainst his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider itexpedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered, October 14, 1554: "As regards your admonition in your last letter that Irepress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerningthe bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation outof hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressingme. _Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, quirenovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio meieam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad meopprimendum_. " (8, 362. )

Fully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with hisWittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his_Last Admonition_ (_Ultima Admonitio_) _to Westphal_, 1557, publiclyclaimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give publictestimony "that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothingforeign to the _Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere aConfessione Augustana_. " "I confirm, " Calvin here declared, "that inthis cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be tornfrom me than from his own bowels. _Confirmo, non magis a me Philippumquam a propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli_. " (_C. R. _ 37[_Calvini Opp_. 9], 148. 149. 193. 466; Gieseler 3, 2, 219, Tschackert, 536. ) Melanchthon, however, continued to preserve his sphinxlikesilence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that hefavored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther'sdoctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: "If you will permitme to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully andearnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are usefulto the Church. " (_C. R. _ 9, 374. )

After the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his _DilucidaExplicatio_ against Hesshusius, 1561: "O Philip Melanchthon! For it isto you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of Godand there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you intoblessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with laborand overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laidyour head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! Butafterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to betogether. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage inbattle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. Inthis way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whoseaudacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. _OPhilippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis, nosque illic exspectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur. Dixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caputfamiliariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu!Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certeanimosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiamfalsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modocohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quamvocabant, crevit insultandi audacia_. " (_C. R. _ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 461f. ) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claimby publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings underthe title: _Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini, ex scriptis eius collecta_. But, alas, the voice of the laterMelanchthon was not that of the former!

205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists. 

In various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with thedefenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinisticopponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposedHardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished thelatter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but todissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: "_Te autem oro, neproperes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules_. "(_C. R. _ 8, 736. ) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advisesHardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows:"Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy, but also the madness (_rabies_) of the writers who establish thebread-worship is growing. " (9, 154. ) He meant theologians who, likeTimann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord'sSupper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly theblood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to Hishuman nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused toacknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended theReformed doctrine) as his assistant in the distribution of the Lord'sSupper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists, who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusiuscome to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former anddismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods ofthe Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties. 

In the _Opinion_ requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559, Melanchthon said: "To answer is not difficult, but dangerous. .. . Therefore I approve of the measure of the illustrious Elector, commanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and theCalvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church. .. . Thecontentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the restagree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy toretain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion(_koinonia_) of Christ. ' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit ofthe Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently. And the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that thenature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, asthose of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; hedoes not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusiusdoes; but that it is the communion, _i. E. _, that by which the unionoccurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in theuse, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread. .. . The Son of God is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He iscertainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on accountof the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I inyou, ' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you, ' And inthese true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies thatHe will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper. "(_C. R. _ 9, 961. ) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribedto these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinentlyremarks: "Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in thedisputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated asif the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was notdiminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. Theydid the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candiderror might. " (_Cons. Ref. _, 291. )

206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures. 

Modern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to theLord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier. Tschackert: "Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the secondcontroversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of theLutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied withmaintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leavingthe mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt. " (532. ) Seeberg, whomaintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther'steaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: "Melanchthon merelydoes not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in theSupper, and that it is omnipresent as such. " (4, 2, 449. ) Theo. Kolde:"It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X ofthe _Augustana_ involved real changes. .. . In view of his graduallychanged conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that hesought to leave open for himself and others the possibility ofassociating also with the Swiss. " (25. ) Schaff: "Melanchthon's laterview of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin. " (1, 280. )

Such, then, being the attitude of Melanchthon as to the doctrine of theLord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, wholooked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should becomedecided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible forthe Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after thedeath of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss, he was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he hadhis way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, theLutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed intoa Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt wasshared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr. , Paul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined towardMelanchthon's view and attitude also in the matter concerning the Lord'sSupper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to VeitDietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ inthe use of the Lord's Supper, but not "the division or separation of thebody and blood. " (_C. R. _ 3, 610. ) Shortly before his death, as relatedin a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpablesilence with regard to the truth, declaring: "If you believe as youspeak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in publiclectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen yourbrethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict thewilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be ofno value whatever. " (Walther, 40. ) Refusal to confess the truth willultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is thefirst step to open denial. 

207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin. 

Foremost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating theReformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close aspossible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly andably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg[born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; diedJanuary 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened theentire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise hisvoice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did soin a publication entitled: "_Farrago Confusanearum et inter seDissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and MutuallyDissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of theSacramentarians, " 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and hisadherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the realpresence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just asemphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time herefuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated bythe title, and maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of unbelievers. Finally he appealed to the Lutheran theologians and magistrateseverywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. "The_Farrago_, " says Kruske, "signified the beginning of the end of Calvin'sdomination in Germany. " Schaff: "The controversy of Westphal againstCalvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed andconsolidated the separation of the two Confessions, " Lutheran andReformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280. )

Thus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the LutheranChurch from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinisticmovement, Westphal, in the year following, published a second book:"_Correct Faith (Recta Fides) Concerning the Lord's Supper_, demonstrated and confirmed from the words of the Apostle Paul and theEvangelists, " 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples ofLuther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who, he declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany forZwinglianism. 

Westphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a specialemphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had beendriven from England by Bloody Mary, reached the Continent. The libertywhich Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_, requested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformedcongregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, butfinally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, theCalvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, wasforbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity andpropaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena againstWestphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et OrthodoxaeDoctrinae de Sacramentis_, "Defense of the Sound and Orthodox DoctrineConcerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, andFruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich andGeneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutualAgreement" (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in suchan insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e. G. _, with "a maddog") that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to assume apersonal and acrimonious character. 

208. Controversial Publications. 

After Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by suchLutherans as John Timann, Paul v. Eitzen, Erhard Schnepf, Alber, Gallus, Flacius, Judex, Brenz, Andreae and others. Calvin, on the other hand, was supported by Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Polanus, Beza (themost scurrillous of all the opponents of Lutheranism), and Bibliander. In 1555 Westphal published three additional books: _Collection(Collectanea) of Opinions of Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Lord'sSupper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerningthe Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdamSacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, "Just Defenseagainst the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian. " The lastpublication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives ofCalvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were unitedonly in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord'sSupper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor inBremen, published in 1555: "_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing inthe True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which thechurches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm assent andin one spirit according to the divine Word. "

In the following year Calvin wrote his _Secunda Defensio . .. Contra J. Westphali Calumnias_, "Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith, against the Calumnies of J. Westphal, " a vitriolic book, dedicated tothe Crypto-Calvinists, _viz. _, "to all ministers of Christ who cultivateand follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony andLower Germany. " In it Calvin declared: "I teach that Christ, thoughabsent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with usaccording to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying forus. " (_C. R. _ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79. ) Lasco also wrote two booksagainst Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort, and endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine ofthe Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullingerappeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition, Apologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that theministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma inthe doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper. 

In the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua BreviterRespondet ad Convicia I. Calvini_--"Letter in which He [Westphal]Answers Briefly to the Invectives of J. Calvin, " and "_Answer(Responsum) to the Writing of John of Lasco_, in which he transforms the_Augsburg Confession_ into Zwinglianism. " In the same year Westphalpublished "_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning theSacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches ofSaxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord JesusChrist in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvindedicated to them. " This publication contained opinions which Westphalhad secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand andFlacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg, Brunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. Allof these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely infavor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of institution asthey read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Nassau, Marburg, Speier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _ConfessionConcerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522;died 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defenseof the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_. Westphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his "_Just Defenseagainst the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in hisletter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches, " 1557. In it hedenounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon themagistrates to institute proceedings against them. 

Calvin now published his _Ultima Admonitio_, "Last Admonition of JohnCalvin to J. Westphal, who, if he does not obey (_obtemperet_) mustthenceforth be held in the manner as Paul commands us to hold obstinateheretics; in this writing the vain censures of the Magdeburgians andothers, by which they endeavored to wreck heaven and earth, are alsorefuted" 1557. Here Calvin plainly reveals his Zwinglianism and says:"This is the summary of our doctrine, that the flesh of Christ is avivifying bread because it truly nourishes and feeds our souls when byfaith we coalesce with it. This, we teach, occurs spiritually only, because the bond of this sacred unity is the secret and incomprehensiblepower of the Holy Spirit. " (_C. R. _ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 162. ) In thisbook Calvin also, as stated above, appeals to Melanchthon to add histestimony that "we [the Calvinists] teach nothing that conflicts withthe _Augsburg Confession_. "

Though Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to givepublic testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books againstthe Calvinists. One of them bears the title: "_Apologetical Writings(Apologetica Scripta) of J. W. _, in which he both defends the sounddoctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of theSacramentarians, " etc. Another is entitled: _Apology of the ConfessionConcerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies ofJohn Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin andentered the controversy with his "_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning theLord's Supper_, in which the calumnies of J. Westphal are refuted. "Lasco's _Reply to the Virulent Letter of That Furious Man J. Westphal_, of 1560, appeared posthumously, he having died shortly before in Poland. 

209. Brenz and Chemnitz. 

Foremost among the influential theologians who besides Westphal, took adecided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors inLutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitzin Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim, since 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influentialtheologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in hisanti-Calvinistic attitude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He isthe author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of theTheologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body andBlood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of DukeChristopher by the synod assembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion fordrafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished byBartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he wasrequired to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with JacobAndreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convincedof his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching. 

The _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakableterms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all whopartake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personalunion, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence wellable to fulfil the promise He gave at the institution of the HolySupper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), thesacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking(_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). Itholds "that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of ourLord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of institution], truly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to allmen who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they aretendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time alsoreceived with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it. " Furthermore, "that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine arepresent in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence ofthe body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and receivedwith the signs of bread and wine. " (Tschackert, 541. ) It protests: "Wedo not assert any mixture of His body and blood with the bread and wine, nor any local inclusion in the bread. " Again: "We do not imagine anydiffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ(_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christidistractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by whichHe, being placed at the right hand of God, fills all things not only byHis divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in away that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majestyHis presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed. " (Gieseler3, 2, 239f. ) Thus, without employing the term "ubiquity, " this_Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrineconcerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther hadmaintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentariansgenerally. 

As stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as "HechingerLatin. " In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise(Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz repliedto this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book ofBullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the TwoNatures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and HisSitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewedassaults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: "_Answer(Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' andthe 'right hand of God' still stands firm, " 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs(Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of theNatures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to theArguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatestwritings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina MaiestateChristi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerningthe True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (ConsensusDresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejectedthe omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature ofChrist. 

In order to reclaim the Palatinate (which, as will be explained later, had turned Reformed) for Lutheranism the Duke of Wuerttemberg, in April, 1564, arranged for the Religious Discussion at Maulbronn between thetheologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result wasa further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published_Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium . .. Concerning the Lord's Supperand the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttembergtheologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio etConfessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of theMan Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians ofthe Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chiefchampion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz. 

In his various publications against the Calvinists, Brenz, appealing toLuther, taught concerning the majesty of Christ that by reason of thepersonal union the humanity of Christ is not only omnipotent andomniscient, but also omnipresent, and that the human nature of Christreceived these as well as other divine attributes from the first momentof the incarnation of the Logos. Following are some of his statements:"Although the divine substance [in Christ] is not changed into thehuman, and each has its own properties, nevertheless these twosubstances are united in one person in Christ in such a manner that theone is never in reality separated from the other. " "Wherever the deityis, there is also the humanity of Christ. " "We do not ascribe to Christmany and various bodies, nor do we ascribe to His body local extensionor diffusion; but we exalt Him beyond this corporeal world, outside ofevery creature and place, and place Him in accordance with the conditionof the hypostatic union in celestial majesty, which He never lacked, though at the time of His flesh in this world He hid it or, as Paulsays, He humbled Himself (_quam etsi tempore carnis suae in hoc saeculodissimulavit, seu ea sese, ut Paulus loquitur, exinanivit, tamen numquamea caruit_). " According to Brenz the man Christ was omnipotent, almighty, omniscient while He lay in the manger. In His majesty Hedarkened the sun, and kept alive all the living while in His humiliationHe was dying on the cross. When dead in the grave, He at the same timewas filling and ruling heaven and earth with His power. (Gieseler 3, 2, 240f. )

In Brunswick, Martin Chemnitz (born 1522; died 1586), the Second Martin(_alter Martinus_) of the Lutheran Church, entered the controversyagainst the Calvinists in 1560 with his _Repetition (Repetitio) of theSound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood ofChrist in the Supper_, in which he based his arguments for the realpresence on the words of institution. Ten years later he published hisfamous book _Concerning the Two Natures in Christ (De Duabus Naturis inChristo)_, etc. , --preeminently the Lutheran classic on the subject ittreats. Appealing also to Luther, he teaches that Christ, according toHis human nature was anointed with all divine gifts; that, inconsequence of the personal union, the human nature of Christ can be andis present where, when, and in whatever way Christ will; that thereforein accordance with His promise, He is in reality present in His Churchand in His Supper. Chemnitz says: "This presence of the assumed naturein Christ of which we now treat is not natural or essential [flowingfrom the nature and essence of Christ's humanity], but voluntary andmost free, depending on the will and power of the Son of God (_non estvel naturalis vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens avoluntate et potentia Filii Dei_); that is to say, when by a definiteword He has told, promised, and asseverated that He would be presentwith His human nature, . .. Let us retain this, which is most certainlytrue, that Christ can be with His body wherever, whenever, and inwhatever manner He wills (_Christum suo corpore esse posse, ubicunque, quandocunque et quomodocunque vult_). But we must judge of His will froma definite, revealed word. " (Tschackert, 644; Gieseler 3, 2, 259. )

The _Formula of Concord_ plainly teaches, both that, in virtue of thepersonal union by His incarnation, Christ according to His human naturepossesses also the divine attribute of omnipresence, and that He can beand is present wherever He will. In the Epitome we read: This majestyChrist always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstainedfrom it in the state of His humiliation until His resurrection, "so thatnow not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do allthings, _is present with all creatures_, and has under His feet and inHis hand everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth. . .. And this His power He, _being present_, can exercise everywhere, andto Him everything is possible and everything is known. " (821, 16. 27. 30. ) The Thorough Declaration declares that Christ "truly fills allthings, and, being present everywhere, not only as God, but also as man, rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth. " (1025, 27ff. )Again: "We hold . .. That also according to His assumed human nature andwith the same He [Christ] _can be, and also is, present where He will_, and especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He ispresent as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, orone-half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ, to which bothnatures, the divine and the human, belong, is present not onlyaccording to His divinity, but also according to, and with, His assumedhuman nature, according to which He is our Brother, and we are flesh ofHis flesh and bone of His bone. " (1043 78f. ) In virtue of the personalunion Christ is present everywhere also according to His human nature;while the peculiarly gracious manner of His presence in the Gospel, inthe Church, and in the Lord's Supper depends upon His will and is basedupon His definite promises. 

210. Bremen and the Palatinate Lost for Lutheranism. 

The indignation of the Lutherans against the Calvinistic propaganda, roused by Westphal and his comrades in their conflict with Calvin andhis followers, was materially increased by the success of the craftyCalvinists in Bremen and in the Palatinate. In 1547 Hardenberg [AlbertRizaeus from Hardenberg, Holland, born 1510] was appointed Dome-preacherin Bremen. He was a former priest whom Lasco had won for theReformation. Regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he inclinedtowards Zwingli. Self-evidently, when his views became known, thesituation in Bremen became intolerable for his Lutheran colleagues. Howcould they associate with and fellowship, a Calvinist! To acknowledgehim would have been nothing short of surrendering their own views andthe character of the Lutheran Church. The result was that John Timann[pastor in Bremen; wrote a tract against the Interim, died February 17, 1557], in order to compel Hardenberg to unmask and reveal his trueinwardness, demanded that all the ministers of Bremen subscribe to the_Farrago Sententiarum Consentientium in Vera Doctrina et Coena Domini_which he had published in 1555 against the Calvinists. Hardenberg andtwo other ministers refused to comply with the demand. In particular, Hardenberg objected to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christtaught in Timann's _Farrago_. In his _Doctrinal Summary (SummariaDoctrina)_ Hardenberg taught: "St. Augustine and many other fatherswrite that the body of Christ is circumscribed by a certain space inheaven, and I regard this as the true doctrine of the Church. "(Tschackert, 191. ) Hardenberg also published the fable hatched atHeidelberg (_Heidelberger Landluege_, indirectly referred to also in the_Formula of Concord_, 981, 28), but immediately refuted by JoachimMoerlin, according to which Luther is said, toward the end of his life, to have confessed to Melanchthon that he had gone too far and overdonethe matter in his controversy against the Sacramentarians; that he, however, did not want to retract his doctrine concerning the Lord'sSupper himself, because that would cast suspicion on his whole teaching;that therefore after his death the younger theologians might make amendsfor it and settle this matter. .. . In 1556 Timann began to preach againstHardenberg, but died the following year. The Lower Saxon Diet, however, decided February 8, 1561, that Hardenberg be dismissed within fourteendays, yet "without infamy or condemnation, _citra infamiam etcondemnationem_. " Hardenberg submitted under protest and left BremenFebruary 18, 1561 (he died as a Reformed preacher at Emden, 1574). SimonMusaeus who had just been expelled from Jena, was called asSuperintendent to purge Bremen of Calvinism. Before long, however, theburgomaster of the city, Daniel von Bueren, whom Hardenberg had secretlywon for the Reformed doctrine, succeeded in expelling the Lutheranministers from the city and in filling their places with Philippists, who before long joined the Reformed Church. Thus ever since 1562 Bremenhas been a Reformed city. 

A much severer blow was dealt Lutheranism when the Palatinate, the homeof Melanchthon, where the Philippists were largely represented, wasCalvinized by Elector Frederick III. Tileman Hesshusius [Hesshusen, born1527; 1553 superintendent at Goslar; 1556 professor and pastor atRostock; 1557 at Heidelberg; 1560 pastor at Magdeburg; 1562court-preacher at Neuburg; 1569 professor at Jena; 1573 bishop ofSamland, at Koenigsberg; 1577 professor at Helmstedt where he died 1588]was called in 1557 by Elector Otto Henry to Heidelberg both as professorand pastor and as superintendent of the Palatinate. Here the Calvinistsand Crypto-Calvinists had already done much to undermine Lutheranism;and after the death of Otto Henry, February 12, 1559, Hesshusius whoendeavored to stem the Crypto-Calvinistic tide, was no longer able tohold his own. Under Elector Frederick III, who succeeded Otto Henry, theCalvinists came out into the open. This led to scandalous clashes, ofwhich the Klebitz affair was a typical and consequential instance. Inorder to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, William Klebitz, thedeacon of Hesshusius, published, in 1560 a number of Calvinistic theses. As a result Hesshusius most emphatically forbade him henceforth toassist at the distribution of the Holy Supper. When Klebitz neverthelessappeared at the altar, Hesshusius endeavored to wrest the cup from hishands. Elector Frederick ordered both Hesshusius and Klebitz to settletheir trouble in accordance with the _Augustana_ (Variata). Failing tocomply with this unionistic demand, Hesshusius was deposed, September16, 1559, and Klebitz, too was dismissed. In a theological opinion, referred to above, Melanchthon approved of the action. HereuponHesshusius entered the public controversy against Calvinism. In 1560 hepublished _Concerning the Presence (De Praesentia) of the Body of Christin the Lord's Supper_ and his _Answer (Responsio) to the PrejudicialJudgement (Praeiudicium) of Philip Melanchthon on the ControversyConcerning the Lord's Supper_ [with Klebitz]. 

After the dismissal of Hesshusius, Elector Frederick III, who hadshortly before played a conspicuous role in endeavoring to win the dayfor Melanchthonianism at the Lutheran Assembly of Naumburg, immediatelybegan to Calvinize his territory. In reading the controversial bookspublished on the Lord's Supper, he suffered himself to be guided by therenowned physician Thomas Erastus [died 1583], who was a Calvinist andhad himself published Calvinistic books concerning the Lord's Supper andthe person and natures of Christ. As a result the Elector, having becomea decided Reformedist, determined to de-Lutheranize the Palatinate inevery particular, regarding practise and divine service as well as withrespect to confessional books, doctrines, and teachers. The large numberof Philippists, who had been secret Calvinists before, was increased bysuch Reformed theologians as Caspar Olevianus (1560), Zacharias Ursinus(1561), and Tremellius (1561). Images, baptismal fonts, and altars wereremoved from the churches; wafers were replaced by bread, which wasbroken; the organs were closed; the festivals of Mary, the apostles, andsaints were abolished. Ministers refusing to submit to the new order ofthings were deposed and their charges filled with Reformed men from theNetherlands. The Calvinistic _Heidelberg Catechism_, composed byOlevianus and Ursinus and published 1563 in German and Latin, took theplace of Luther's Catechism. This process of Calvinization was completedby the introduction of the new Church Order of November 15, 1563. At thebehest of Frederick III the _Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica)_ waspublished in 1566, in order to prove by this out-and-out Zwingliandocument, framed by Bullinger, "that he [the Elector of the Palatinate]entertained no separate doctrine, but the very same that was preachedalso in many other and populous churches, and that the charge was untruethat the Reformed disagreed among themselves and were divided intosects. " Thus the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Confession, forthough Ludwig VI (1576-1583), the successor of Frederick III, temporarily restored Lutheranism, Frederick IV (1583 to 1610) returnedto Calvinism. 

211. Saxony in the Grip of Crypto-Calvinists. 

It was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church when Bremen and thePalatinate fell a prey to Calvinism. And the fears were not unfoundedthat before long the Electorate of Saxony would follow in their wake, and Wittenberg, the citadel of the Lutheran Reformation, be captured byCalvin. That this misfortune, which, no doubt, would have dealt a finaland fatal blow to Lutheranism, was warded off, must be regarded as aspecial providence of God. For the men (Melanchthon, Major, etc. ) whomLuther had accused of culpable silence regarding the true doctrine ofthe Lord's Supper, were, naturally enough, succeeded by theologians who, while claiming to be true Lutherans adhering to the Augsburg Confessionand, in a shameful manner deceiving and misleading Elector Augustzealously championed and developed the Melanchthonian aberrations, inparticular with respect to the doctrines concerning the Lord's Supperand the person of Christ, and sedulously propagated the views of Calvin, at first secretly and guardedly, but finally with boldness and abandon. Gieseler says of these Philippists in Wittenberg: "Inwardly they wereout-and-out Calvinists, although they endeavored to appear as genuineLutherans before their master, " Elector August. (3, 2, 250. )

The most prominent and influential of these so-called Philippists orCrypto-Calvinists were Dr. Caspar Cruciger, Jr. , Dr. Christopher Pezel, Dr. Frederick Widebram, and Dr. Henry Moeller. The schemes of these menwere aided and abetted by a number of non-theological professors:Wolfgang Crell, professor of ethics, Esrom Ruedinger, professor ofphilosophy; George Cracow, professor of jurisprudence and, later, privycouncilor of Elector August; Melanchthon's son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, professor of medicine and physician in ordinary of the Elector, whonaturally had a great influence on August and the ecclesiasticalaffairs of the Electorate. He held that Luther's doctrine of the realpresence had no more foundation in the Bible than did the Romantransubstantiation. To these must be added John Stoessel, confessor tothe Elector and superintendent at Pirna; Christian Schuetze, court-preacher at Dresden, Andrew Freyhub and Wolfgang Harderprofessors in Leipzig, and others. The real leaders of these Philippistswere Peucer and Cracow. Their scheme was to prepossess the Electoragainst the loyal adherents of Luther, especially Flacius, gradually towin him over to their liberal views, and, at the proper moment, tosurrender and deliver Electoral Saxony to the Calvinists. In prosecutingthis sinister plan, they were unscrupulous also in the choice of theirmeans. Thus Wittenberg, during Luther's days the fountainhead of thepure Gospel and the stronghold of uncompromising fidelity to the truth, had become a veritable nest of fanatical Crypto-Calvinistic schemersand dishonest anti-Lutheran plotters who also controlled the situationin the entire Electorate. 

The first public step to accomplish their purpose was the publication ofthe _Corpus Doctrinae Christianae_, or _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_, or_Philippicum_, as it was also called. This collection of symbolicalbooks was published 1560 at Leipzig by Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon'sson-in-law, with a preface to both the German and Latin editions writtenby Melanchthon and dated September 29, 1559, and February 16, 1560, respectively, --an act by which, perhaps without sufficiently realizingit, Melanchthon immodestly assumed for himself and his views the placewithin the Lutheran Church which belonged not to him, but to Luther. Thetitle which reveals the insincerity and the purpose of this publication, runs as follows: _"Corpus Doctrinae, i. E. _, the entire sum of the trueand Christian doctrine . .. As a testimony of the steadfast and unanimousconfession of the pure and true religion in which the schools andchurches of these Electoral Saxon and Meissen territories have remainedand persevered in all points according to the _Augsburg Confession_ fornow almost thirty years against the unfounded false charges andaccusations of all lying spirits, 1560. " As a matter of fact, however, this _Corpus_ contained, besides the Ecumenical Symbols, only writingsof Melanchthon, notably the altered _Augsburg Confession_ and thealtered _Apology_ of 1542, the Saxon Confession of 1551, the changed_Loci_, the _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, and the _Responsiones adImpios Articulos Inquisitionis Bavaricae_. 

Evidently this _Corpus Philippicum_, which was introduced also inchurches outside of Electoral Saxony, particularly where the princes orleading theologians were Melanchthonians, was intended to alienate theElectorate from the old teaching of Luther, to sanction and further theMelanchthonian tendency, and thus to pave the way for Calvinism. It wasfoisted upon, and rigorously enforced in, all the churches of ElectoralSaxony. All professors, ministers, and teachers were pledged by an oathto teach according to it. Such as refused to subscribe were deposed, imprisoned, or banished. Among the persecuted pastors we find thefollowing names: Tettelbach, superintendent in Chemnitz; George Herbst, deacon in Chemnitz and later superintendent in Eisleben; Graf, superintendent in Sangerhausen; Schade, Heine, and Schuetz, pastors inFreiberg. When ministers who refused their signatures appealed toLuther's writings, they were told that Luther's books must beunderstood and explained according to Melanchthon's _Corpus_. AtWittenberg the opposition to Luther and his teaching bordered onfanaticism. When, for example, in 1568 Conrad Schluesselburg and AlbertSchirmer, two Wittenberg students, entered a complaint againstProfessors Pezel and Peucer because of their deviations from Luther inthe doctrine of the Lord's Supper and refused to admit that Peucer andhis colleagues represented the pure doctrine in this matter, they wereexpelled from the university, anathematized, and driven from the city. (Schluesselburg 13, 609. 730; Gieseler 3, 2, 250. )

Immediately after its appearance, the _Corpus Philippicum_ wasdenounced by loyal Lutherans, notably those of Reuss, Schoenfeld, andJena. When the charges of false teaching against the Wittenbergtheologians increased in number and force, Elector August arranged acolloquy between the theologians of Jena and Wittenberg. It was held atAltenburg and lasted from October, 1568, to March, 1569 because theWittenbergers, evidently afraid of compromising themselves, insisted onits being conducted in writing only. The result of this colloquy was apublic declaration on the part of Wigand, Coelestinus, Kirchner Rosinus, and others to the effect that the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians hadunmistakably revealed themselves as false teachers. At the colloquy theJena theologians objected in particular also to the _Corpus Misnicum_because it contained the altered _Augustana_, concerning which theydeclared: Melanchthon "has changed the said _Augsburg Confession_ sooften that finally he has opened a window through which theSacramentarians and Calvinists can sneak into it. One must watchcarefully, lest in course of time the Papists also find such a loopholeto twist themselves into it. " (Gieseler 3, 2, 252. )

The Philippists of Leipzig and Wittenberg in turn, denounced the Jenatheologians as Flacian fighting cocks (_Flacianische Haderkatzen_). Theyalso succeeded in persuading Elector August to adopt more rigorousmeasures against the malcontents in his territories. For in addition tothe adoption of the _Corpus Philippicum_ the ministers were now requiredto subscribe to a declaration which was tantamount to an endorsement ofall of the false doctrines entertained by the Wittenbergers. Thedeclaration read: "I do not adhere to the dangerous Flacian Illyrianerrors, contentions, poisonous backbitings, and fanaticism (_zaenkischemGeschmeiss, giftigem Gebeiss und Schwaermerei_) with which the schoolsand churches of this country are burdened [by Flacius] concerning theimagined adiaphorism, synergism, and Majorism and other falseaccusations, nor have I any pleasure in it [the quarreling], and in thefuture I intend, by the help of God, to abstain from it altogether, todamn, flee, and avoid it, and as much as I am able, to prevent it. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 253; Walther, 49. )

212. Bold Strides Forward. 

Feeling themselves firm and safe in the saddle, the WittenbergPhilippists now decided on further public steps in the direction ofCalvinism. In 1570 they published _Propositions (Propositiones)Concerning the Chief Controversies of This Time_, in which the Lutherandoctrine regarding the majesty of the human nature of Christ wasrepudiated. In the following year they added a new Catechism, entitled:"_Catechesis_ continens explicationem simplicem et brevem decalogi, Symboli Apostolici, orationis dominicae, doctrinae Christianae, quodamplectuntur ac tuentur Ecclesiae regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarumquae sunt subiectae editioni Ducis Electoris Saxoniae, edita in AcademiaWitebergensi et accommodata ad usum scholarum puerilium. 1571. "

This Catechism, written, according to Wigand, by Pezel, appearedanonymously. Its preface, signed by the Wittenberg theological faculty, explains that the new Catechism was an epitome of the _Corpus DoctrinaeMisnicum_ and merely intended as a supplement of Luther's Catechism forprogressed scholars who were in need of additional instruction. As amatter of fact, however, its doctrine concerning the person of Christand the Lord's Supper was in substantial agreement with the teaching ofCalvin. Under the odious name of "ubiquity" it rejected the omnipresenceof Christ according to His human nature, and sanctioned Calvin'steaching concerning the local inclusion of Christ in heaven. Acts 3, 21was rendered in Beza's translation: "_Quem oportet coelo capi_. Who mustbe received by the heaven. "

The Catechism declares: "The ascension was visible and corporeal; theentire Antiquity has always written that Christ's body is restricted toa certain place, wherever He wishes it to be; and a bodily ascensionwas made upwards. _Ascensio fuit visibilis et coporalis, et semper itascripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo locoesse, ubicumque vult, et ascensio corporalis facta est sursum_. "Concerning the real presence, the Catechism merely states: "The Lord'sSupper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord JesusChrist as it is instituted in the words of the Gospel; in which eating(_sumptione_) the Son of God is truly and substantially present, andtestifies that He applies His benefits to the believers. He alsotestifies that He has assumed the human nature for the purpose ofmaking us, who are ingrafted into Him by faith, His members. He finallytestifies that He wishes to be in the believers, to teach, quicken andgovern them. " (Gieseler 3, 2, 263. ) The sacramental union, oral eatingand drinking, and the eating and drinking of the wicked are notmentioned. Tschackert remarks that every Calvinist would readily havesubscribed to the teaching of this Catechism. (545. )

When the Wittenberg Catechism was warned against and designated asCalvinistic by Chemnitz, Moerlin, and other theologians of Brunswick, Lueneburg, Mansfeld, Jena, and Halle, the Wittenbergers answered andendeavored to defend their position in the so-called _Grundfeste_, FirmFoundation, of 1571. It was a coarse and slanderous publication, as eventhe title indicates, which reads: "Firm Foundation of the True ChristianChurch Concerning the Person and Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christagainst the Modern Marcionites, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites among the Flacian RabblePublished by the Theologians in Wittenberg. " In this _Grundfeste_ theWittenbergers present the matter as though the real issue were not theLord's Supper, but Christology. They enumerate as heretics also the"Ubiquitists, " including Brenz, Andreae, and Chemnitz. With respect totheir own agreement with Calvin, they remark that their teaching is thedoctrine of the early Church, in which point, they said, also Calvinagreed. (Tschackert, 546. )

This daring Calvinistic publication again resulted in numerous protestsagainst the Wittenbergers on the part of alarmed Lutherans everywhereoutside of Electoral Saxony, which induced Elector August to require histheologians to deliver at Dresden, October 10, 1571, a definitestatement of their faith. The confession which they presented wasentitled: "_Brief Christian and Simple Repetition of the Confession ofthe Churches of God in the Territories of the Elector of SaxonyConcerning the Holy Supper_, " etc. The _Consensus Dresdensis_, as thedocument was called, satisfied the Elector at least temporarily, and waspublished also in Latin and low German. Essentially, however, theindefinite and dubious language of the Catechism was here but repeated. Concerning the majesty of Christ the _Dresden Consensus_ declares thatafter the resurrection and ascension the human nature of Christ "wasadorned with higher gifts than all angels and men. " In His ascension, the _Consensus_ continues, Christ "passed through the visible heavensand occupied the heavenly dwelling, where He in glory and splendorretains the essence, property, form, and shape of His true body, andfrom there He, at the last day, will come again unto Judgment in greatsplendor, visibly. "

In a similar vague, ambiguous, and misleading manner Christ's sitting atthe right hand of God is spoken of. Omitting the oral eating anddrinking and the eating and drinking of the wicked, the _Consensus_states concerning the Lord's Supper that "in this Sacrament Christ givesus with the bread and wine His true body sacrificed for us on the cross, and His true blood shed for us, and thereby testifies that He receivesus, makes us members of His body, washes us with His blood, presentsforgiveness of sins, and wishes truly to dwell and to be efficacious inus. " (Tschackert, 546. ) The opponents of the Wittenbergers are brandedas unruly men, who, seeking neither truth nor peace, excite offensivedisputations concerning the real presence in the Lord's Supper as wellas with regard to other articles. Their doctrine of the realcommunication ("_realis seu physica communicatio_") is characterized asa corruption of the article of the two natures in Christ and as arevamping of the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians, Manicheans, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, andMonothelites. (Gieseler 3, 2, 264f. )

213. Apparently Victorious. 

All the Crypto-Calvinistic publications of the Wittenberg and LeipzigPhilippists were duly unmasked by the Lutherans outside of ElectoralSaxony, especially in Northern Germany. Their various opinions werepublished at Jena, 1572, under the title: "_Unanimous Confession(Einhelliges Bekenntnis) of Many Highly Learned Theologians andProminent Churches_ 1. Concerning the New Catechism of the NewWittenbergers, and 2. Concerning their _New Foundation (Grundfeste)_, also 3. Concerning their _New Confession (Consensus Dresdensis)_, thereupon adopted. " However, all this and the repeated warnings thatcame from every quarter outside of his own territories, from Lutheranprinces as well as theologians, do not seem to have made the leastimpression on Elector August. Yet he evidently was, and always intendedto be a sincere, devoted, true-hearted, and singleminded Lutheran. When, for example, in 1572 Beza, at the instance of the WittenbergPhilippists, dedicated his book against Selneccer to Elector August, thelatter advised him not to trouble him any further with such writings, ashe would never allow any other doctrine in his territory than that ofthe _Augsburg Confession_. 

However, blind and credulous as he was, and filled with prejudice andsuspicion against Flacius and the Jena theologians generally, whom he, being the brother of the usurper Maurice, instinctively feared aspossibly also political enemies, Elector August was easily duped andcompletely hypnotized, as it were, by the men surrounding him, who ledhim to believe that they, too, were in entire agreement with Luther andmerely opposed the trouble-breeding Flacians, whom they never tired ofdenouncing as zealots, fanatics, bigots, wranglers, barkers, alarmists, etc. While in reality they rejected the doctrine that the true body andblood of Christ is truly and essentially present in the Holy Supper, these Crypto-Calvinists pretended (and Elector August believed them)that they merely objected to a _local_ presence and to a Capernaiticeating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper. And while in reality they clearly repudiated Luther's teaching, according to which the divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. ) are communicated to the human nature of Christ, they caused theElector to believe that they merely opposed a delusion of the"Ubiquitists, " who, they said, taught that the body of Christ was_locally extended_ over the entire universe. This crass localism, theymaintained, was the teaching of their opponents, while they themselvesfaithfully adhered to the teachings of Luther and Philip, and, ingeneral, were opposed only to the exaggerations and excrescencesadvocated by the bigoted Flacians. (Walther, 43. )

Such was the manner in which the Elector allowed himself to be duped bythe Philippists who surrounded him, --men who gradually developed the artof dissimulation to premeditated deceit, falsehood, and perjury. Eventhe Reformed theologian Simon Stenius, a student at Wittenberg duringthe Crypto-Calvinistic period, charges the Wittenbergers with dishonestyand systematic dissimulation. The same accusation was raised 1561 by thejurist Justus Jonas in his letters to Duke Albrecht of Prussia. (Gieseler 3, 2, 249. ) And evidently believing that Elector August couldbe fooled all the time, they became increasingly bold in theirtheological publications, and in their intrigues as well. 

To all practical purposes the University of Wittenberg was alreadyCalvinized. Calvinistic books appeared and were popular. Even the workof a Jesuit against the book of Jacob Andreae on the Majesty of thePerson of Christ was published at Wittenberg. The same was done with atreatise of Beza, although, in order to deceive the public, thetitle-page gave Geneva as the place of publication. Hans Lufft, theWittenberg printer, later declared that during this time he did not knowhow to dispose of the books of Luther which he still had in stock, butthat, if he had printed twenty or thirty times as many Calvinisticbooks, he would have sold all of them very rapidly. 

Even Providence seemed to bless and favor the plans of the plotters. Forwhen on March 3, 1573, Duke John William, the patron and protector ofthe faithful Lutherans, died, Elector August became the guardian of histwo sons. And fanaticized by his advisers, the Elector, immediately upontaking hold of the government in Ducal Saxony, banished Wigand, Hesshusius, Caspar Melissander [born 1540; 1571 professor of theology inJena; 1578 superintendent in Altenburg; died 1591] Rosinus [born 1520;1559 superintendent in Weimar 1574 superintendent in Regensburg; died1586], Gernhard, court-preacher in Weimar, and more than 100 preachersand teachers of Ducal Saxony. The reason for this cruel procedure wastheir refusal to adopt the _Corpus Philippicum_, and because theydeclined to promise silence with respect to the Philippists. 

214. "Exegesis Perspicua. "

In 1573, the Calvinization of Electoral and Ducal Saxony was, apparently, an accomplished fact. But the very next year marked theignominious downfall and the unmasking of the dishonest Philippists. Forin this year appeared the infamous _Exegesis_, which finally opened theeyes of Elector August. Its complete title ran: "_Exegesis Perspicua etferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena_--Perspicuous and AlmostComplete Explanation of the Controversy Concerning the Holy Supper. " Thecontents and make-up of the book as well as the secret methods adoptedfor its circulation clearly revealed that its purpose was to deal afinal blow to Lutheranism in order to banish it forever from Saxony. Neither the author, nor the publisher, nor the place and date ofpublication were anywhere indicated in the book. The paper bore Genevamark and the lettering was French. The _prima facie_ impression was thatit came from abroad. 

Before long, however, it was established that the _Exegesis_ had beenpublished in Leipzig by the printer Voegelin, who at first also claimedits authorship. But when the impossibility of this was shown, Voegelin, in a public hearing, stated that Joachim Curaeus of Silesia, a physicianwho had left Saxony and died 1573, was the author of the book. ValentinLoescher, however, relates (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 195) that probablyPezel and the son-in-law of Melanchthon, Peucer, had a hand in it; thatthe Crypto-Calvinist Esram Ruedinger [born 1523, son-in-law ofCamerarius, professor of physics in Wittenberg, died 1591] was its realauthor; that it was printed at Leipzig in order to keep the realoriginators of it hidden, and that, for the same purpose, the SilesianCandidate of Medicine Curaeus had taken the responsibility of itsauthorship upon himself. (Tschackert, 547. )

Self-evidently, the Wittenberg theologians disclaimed any knowledge of, or any connection with, the origin of the _Exegesis_. However, they wereeverywhere believed to share its radical teachings, and known to havespread it among the students of the university, and suspected also ofhaving before this resorted to tactics similar to those employed in the_Exegesis_. As early as 1561, for example, rhymes had secretly beencirculated in Wittenberg, the burden of which was that faith aloneeffects the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that the mouthreceives nothing but natural bread. One of these ran as follows: "Alleinder Glaub' an Jesum Christ Schafft, dass er gegenwaertig ist, Und speistuns mit sei'm Fleisch und Blut Und sich mit uns einigen tut. Der Mundempfaeht natuerlich Brot, Die Seel' aber speist selber Gott. " (Walther, 46. ) Of course, the purpose of such dodgers was to prepare the way forCalvinism. And on the very face of it, the _Exegesis Perspicua_ wasintended to serve similar secret propaganda. 

The chief difference between the preceding publications of thePhilippists and the _Exegesis_ was that here they came out in clear andunmistakable language. The sacramental union, the oral eating anddrinking (_manducatio oralis_), and the eating and drinking of thewicked, which before were passed by in silence, are dealt withextensively and repudiated. The _Exegesis_ teaches: The body of Christis inclosed in heaven; in the Holy Supper it is present only accordingto its efficacy, there is no union of the body of Christ with the breadand wine; hence, there neither is nor can be such a thing as oral eatingand drinking or eating and drinking of unbelievers. The "ubiquity, " asthe _Exegesis_ terms the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, iscondemned as Eutychian heresy. The _Exegesis_ declared: "In the use ofthe bread and wine the believers by faith become true and living membersof the body of Christ, who is present and efficacious through thesesymbols, as through a ministry inflaming and renewing our hearts by HisHoly Spirit. The unbelieving, however, do not become partakers, or_koinonoi_, but because of their contempt are guilty of the body ofChrist. " (Seeberg, _Grundriss_ 146. )

After fulsome praise of the Reformed, whose doctrine, the _Exegesis_says, is in agreement with the symbols of the ancient Church, and who asto martyrdom surpass the Lutherans, and after a correspondingdepreciation of Luther, who in the heat of the controversy was saidfrequently to have gone too far, the _Exegesis_ recommends that thewisest thing would be to follow the men whom God had placed at the sideof Luther, and who had spoken more correctly than Luther. FollowingMelanchthon, all might unite in the neutral formula, "The bread is thecommunion of the body of Christ, " avoiding all further definitionregarding the ubiquity [the omnipresence of Christ's human nature] andthe eating of the true body of Christ, until a synod had definitelydecided these matters. (Tschackert, 547. )

All purified churches (all churches in Germany, Switzerland, etc. , purified from Roman errors), the _Exegesis_ urges, "ought to be inaccord with one another; and this pious concord should not be disturbedon account of this difference [regarding the Holy Supper]. Let us beunited in Christ and discontinue those dangerous teachings concerningthe ubiquity, the eating of the true body on the part of the wicked, andsimilar things. The teachers should agree on a formula which could notcreate offense. They should employ the modes of speech found in thewritings of Melanchthon. It is best to suppress public disputations, andwhen contentious men create strife and disquiet among the people, theproper thing to do, as Philip advised [in his opinion to the Elector ofthe Palatinate], is to depose such persons of either party, and to filltheir places with more modest men. The teachers must promote unity, andrecommend the churches and teachers of the opposite party. " (Walther, 51. ) Such was the teaching and the theological attitude of the_Exegesis_. It advocated a union of the Lutherans and the Reformed basedon indifferentism, and a surrender in all important doctrinal points toCalvinism, the Lutherans merely retaining their name. This unionisticattitude of the _Exegesis_ has been generally, also in America, termedMelanchthonianism. 

215. Plotters Unmasked. 

The plain and unmistakable language of the _Exegesis_ cleared theatmosphere, and everywhere dispelled all doubts as to the real nature ofthe theological trend at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Now it was plain toeverybody beyond the shadow of a doubt that Electoral Saxony was indeedinfested with decided Calvinists. And before long also the web of deceitand falsehood which they had spun around the Elector was torn intoshreds. The appearance of the _Exegesis_ resulted in a cry ofindignation throughout Lutheran Germany against the Wittenberg andLeipzig Philippists. Yet, in 1574, only few books appeared against thedocument, which, indeed, was not in need of a special refutation. Wigandpublished _Analysis of the New Exegesis_, and Hesshusius: _Assertion(Assertio) of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper, against theCalvinian Exegesis_. At the same time Elector August was again urged byLutheran princes notably the King of Denmark and Duke Ludwig ofWuerttemberg, also by private persons, to proceed against the Calvinistsin his country and not to spare them any longer. (Gieseler 3, 2, 267. )The aged Count of Henneberg made it a point to see the Electorpersonally in this matter. But there was little need for furtheradmonitions, for the _Exegesis_ had opened the Elector's eyes. And soonafter its publication discoveries were made which filled August withdeep humiliation and burning indignation at the base deception practisedon him by the very men whom he had trusted implicitly and placed in mostimportant positions. By lying and deceit the Philippists had for a longperiod succeeded in holding the confidence of Elector August; but nowthe time for their complete and inglorious unmasking had arrived. 

Shortly after the _Exegesis_ had appeared, Peucer wrote a letter to theCrypto-Calvinist Christian Schuetze, then court-preacher in Dresden[who studied at Leipzig; became superintendent at Chemnitz in 1550, court-preacher of Elector August in 1554; when he was buried, boys threwa black hen over his coffin, crying, 'Here flies the Calvinistic devil;'Joecher, _Lexicon_ 4, 372], which he had addressed to the wife of thecourt-preacher in order to avoid suspicion. By mistake the letter wasdelivered to the wife of the court-preacher Lysthenius [born 1532;studied in Wittenberg; became court-preacher of Elector August in 1572and later on his confessor; opposed Crypto-Calvinism; was dismissed 1590by Chancellor Crell; 1591 restored to his position in Dresden, died1596]. After opening the letter and finding it to be written in Latin, she gave it to her husband, who, in turn, delivered it to the Elector. In it Peucer requested Schuetze dexterously to slip into the hands ofAnna, the wife of the Elector, a Calvinistic prayer-book which he hadsent with the letter. Peucer added: "If first we have Mother Anna on ourside, there will be no difficulty in winning His Lordship [her husband]too. "

Additional implicating material was discovered when Augustus nowconfiscated the correspondence of Peucer, Schuetze, Stoessel, andCracow. The letters found revealed the consummate perfidy, dishonesty, cunning, and treachery of the men who had been the trusted advisers ofthe Elector, who had enjoyed his implicit confidence, and who by theirfalsehoods had caused him to persecute hundreds of innocent and faithfulLutheran ministers. The fact was clearly established that thesePhilippists had been systematically plotting to Calvinize Saxony. Thevery arguments with which Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and thePerson of Christ might best be refuted were enumerated in these letters. However, when asked by the Elector whether they were Calvinists, theseself-convicted deceivers are said to have answered that "they would notsee the face of God in eternity if in any point they were addicted tothe doctrines of the Sacramentarians or deviated in the least from Dr. Luther's teaching. " (Walther, 56. ) The leaders of the conspiracy wereincarcerated. Cracow died in prison, 1575; Stoessel, 1576. It was aslate as 1586 that Peucer regained his liberty, Schuetze in 1589. 

216. Lutheranism Restored. 

In all the churches of Saxony thanksgiving services were held to praiseGod for the final triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coincelebrating the victory over the Crypto-Calvinists, bearing the date1574, was struck at Torgau. The obverse exhibits Elector August handinga book to Elector John George of Brandenburg. The inscription abovereads: "_Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum, Domine_. Preserve Thy Word amongUs, O Lord. " Below, the inscription runs: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia DuxSaxionae et Elector_. Augustus, by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony andElector. " The reverse represents Torgau and its surroundings, withWittenberg in the distance. The Elector, clad in his armor, is standingon a rock bearing the inscription: "_Schloss Hartenfels_" (castle atTorgau). In his right hand he is holding a sword, in his left a balance, whose falling scale, in which the Child Jesus is sitting, bears theinscription: "_Die Allmacht_, Omnipotence. " The lighter and rising pan, in which four Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinists are vainly exertingthemselves to the utmost in pulling on the chains of their pan in orderto increase its weight, and on the beam of which also the devil issitting, is inscribed: "_Die Vernunft_, Reason. " Above, God appears, saying to the Elector, "Joshua 1, 5. 6: _Confide, Non Derelinquam Te_. Trust, I will not forsake thee. " Below we read: "_Apud Deum Non EstImpossibile Verbum Ullum_, Lucae 1. _Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum, Domine_. 1574. Nothing is impossible with God, Luke 1. Preserve Thy Wordamong us, Lord. 1574. "

The obverse of a smaller medal, also of 1574 shows the bust of ElectorAugust with the inscription: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux Saxoniae EtElector_. " The reverse exhibits a ship in troubled waters with thecrucified Christ in her expanded sails, and the Elector in his armor andwith the sword on his shoulder, standing at the foot of the mast. In theroaring ocean are enemies, shooting with arrows and striking withswords, making an assault upon the ship. The fearlessness of the Electoris expressed in the inscription: "_Te Gubernatore_, Thou [Christ] beingthe pilot. " Among the jubilee medals of 1617 there is one whichevidently, too, celebrates the victory over Zwinglianism and Calvinism. Its obverse exhibits Frederick in his electoral garb pointing with twofingers of his right hand to the name Jehovah at the head of the medal. At his left Luther is standing with a burning light in his right handand pointing with the forefinger of his left hand to a book lying on atable and bearing the title: "_Biblia Sacra: V[erbum] D[ei] M[anet] I[n]Ae[ternum]_. " The reverse represents the Elector standing on a rockinscribed: "_Schloss Hartenfels_, Castle Hartenfels. " In his right handhe is holding the sword and in his left a balance. Under the fallingscale, containing the Child Jesus, we read: "_Die Allmacht_, Omnipotence, " and under the rising pan, in which the serpent is lying:"_Die Vernunft_, Reason. " The marginal inscription runs. "_Iosua 1:Confide. Non Derelinquam Te_. Joshua 1: Trust. I will not forsake thee. "(Ch. Junker, _Ehrengedaechtnis Dr. M. Luthers_, 353. 383. )

Self-evidently, Elector August immediately took measures also toreestablish in his territories Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The beginning was made by introducing a confession prepared by reliablesuperintendents and discussed, adopted, and subscribed at the Diet ofTorgau, September, 1574, and published simultaneously in German andLatin. Its German title ran: "_Brief Confession (Kurz Bekenntnis) andArticles Concerning the Holy Supper of the Body and Blood of Christ_, from which may clearly be seen what heretofore has been publicly taught, believed, and confessed concerning it in both universities of Leipzigand Wittenberg, and elsewhere in all churches and schools of the Electorof Saxony, also what has been rebuked and is still rebuked asSacramentarian error and enthusiasm. " The Torgau Confession, therefore, does not reject the _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_ of 1560 nor even the_Consensus Dresdensis_ of 1571, and pretends that Melanchthon was indoctrinal agreement with Luther, and that only a few Crypto-Calvinistshad of late been discovered in the Electorate. This pretense was thechief reason why the Confession did not escape criticism. In 1575 Wigandpublished: "Whether the New Wittenbergers had hitherto always taughtharmoniously and agreeably with the Old, and whether Luther's andPhilip's writings were throughout in entire harmony and agreement. "

As for its doctrine, however, the Torgau Confession plainly upholds theLutheran teaching. Article VII contends that in the distribution of theLord's Supper the body and blood of Christ "are truly received also bythe unworthy. " Article VIII maintains the "oral eating and drinking, _oris manducatio_. " Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and theHeidelberg theologians are rejected, and their names expresslymentioned. On the other hand, the "ubiquity [local extension] of theflesh of Christ" is disavowed and a discussion of the mode andpossibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ is declinedas something inscrutable. The Latin passage reads: "_Ac ne carnis quidemubiquitatem, aut quidquam, quod vel veritatem corporis Christi tollat, vel ulli fidei articulo repugnet, propter praesentiam in Coena fingimusaut probamus. Denique de modo et possibilitate praesentiae corporis etsanguinis Domini plane nihil disputamus. Nam omnia haec imperscrutabiliastatuimus_. " (Gieseler 3, 2, 268. )

Caspar Cruciger, Jr. , Henry Moeller, Christopher Pezel, and FrederickWidebram, who refused to subscribe the _Brief Confession_, were firstarrested, then, after subscribing with a qualification, released, butfinally (1574) banished. Widebram and Pezel removed to Nassau, Moellerto Hamburg, and Cruciger to Hesse. At Leipzig, Andrew Freyhub, whoappealing to the _Consensus Dresdensis_, taught that Christ was exaltedaccording to both natures, that divine properties were not communicatedto His humanity, and that His body was inclosed in a certain place inheaven was deposed in 1576. 

Thus ended the Crypto-Calvinistic drama in Electoral Saxony. Henceforthsuch men as Andreae, Chemnitz, and Selneccer were the trusted advisersof August, who now became the enthusiastic, devoted, andself-sacrificing leader of the larger movement for settling all of thecontroversies distracting the Lutheran Church, which finally resulted inthe adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. 

217. Visitation Articles. 

Elector August, the stanch defender of genuine Lutheranism, died 1586. Under his successor, Christian I, and Chancellor Nicholas Crell, Crypto-Calvinism once more raised its head in Electoral Saxony. But itwas for a short period only, for Christian I died September 25, 1591, and during the regency of Duke Frederick William, who acted as guardianof Christian II, Lutheranism was reestablished. In order effectually andpermanently to suppress the Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues, the Duke, inFebruary of 1592, ordered a general visitation of all the churches inthe entire Electorate. For this purpose Aegidius Hunnius [born 1550;1576 professor in Marburg and later superintendent and professor inWittenberg; attended colloquy at Regensburg 1601; wrote numerous books, particularly against Papists and Calvinists, died 1603], Martin Mirus[born 1532, died 1593], George Mylius [born 1544; 1584 expelled fromAugsburg because he was opposed to the Gregorian almanac, since 1585professor in Wittenberg and Jena, died 1607], Wolfgang Mamphrasius [born1557; superintendent in Wurtzen; died 1616], and others, who were toconduct the visitation, composed the so-called _Visitation Articles_which were printed in 1593. The complete title of these articles runs:"_Visitation Articles in the Entire Electorate of Saxony_, together withthe Negative and Contrary Doctrines of the Calvinists and the Form ofSubscription, as Presented to be Signed by Both Parties. "

As a result of the visitation, the Crypto-Calvinistic professors inWittenberg and Leipzig were exiled. John Salmuth [born 1575;court-preacher in Dresden since 1584; died 1592] and Prierius, also aminister in Dresden, were imprisoned. As a bloody finale of theCrypto-Calvinistic drama enacted in Electoral Saxony, Chancellor Crellwas beheaded, October 9, 1601, after an imprisonment of ten years. Crellwas punished, according to his epitaph, as "an enemy of peace and adisturber of the public quiet--_hostis pacis et quietis publicaeturbator_, " or, as Hutter remarks in his _Concordia Concors_, "not onaccount of his religion, but on account of his manifold perfidy--_non obreligionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem_. " (448. 1258. ) For a longperiod (till 1836) all teachers and ministers in Electoral Saxony wererequired to subscribe also to the Visitation Articles as a doctrinalnorm. Self-evidently they are not an integral part of the _Book ofConcord_. 

XIX. Controversy on Christ's Descent into Hell. 

218. Luther's Doctrine. 

While according to medieval theologians the descent into hell wasregarded as an act by which Christ, with His soul only, entered theabode of the dead; and while according to Calvin and the Reformedgenerally the descent into hell is but a figurative expression for thesufferings of Christ, particularly of His soul, on the cross, Luther, especially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordancewith the Scriptures that Christ the God-man, body and soul, descendedinto hell as Victor over Satan and his host. With special reference toPs. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial thewhole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered thedevil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner, however, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by humanreason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and musttherefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simplefaith. It is sufficient if we retain the consolation that neither hellnor devil are any longer able to harm us. Accordingly, Luther did notregard the descent into hell as an act belonging to the state ofhumiliation, by which He paid the penalty for our sins, but as an act ofexaltation, in which Christ, as it were, plucked for us the fruits ofHis sufferings which were finished when He died upon the cross. 

Luther's sermon at Torgau graphically describes the descent as atriumphant march of our victorious Savior into the stronghold of thedismayed infernal hosts. From it we quote the following: "Before Christarose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, Healso descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who wereto be held in it as prisoners. .. . However I shall not discuss thisarticle in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or whatit means to 'descend into hell, ' but adhere to the simplest meaningconveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children anduneducated people. " "Therefore whoever would not go wrong or stumble hadbest adhere to the words and understand them in a simple way as well ashe can. Accordingly, it is customary to represent Christ in paintings onwalls, as He descends, appears before hell, clad in a priestly robe andwith a banner in His hand, with which He beats the devil and puts him toflight, takes hell by storm, and rescues those that are His. Thus it wasalso acted the night before Easter as a play for children. And I am wellpleased with the fact that it is painted, played, sung and said in thismanner for the benefit of simple people. We, too, should let it go atthat, and not trouble ourselves with profound and subtle thoughts as tohow it may have happened, since it surely did not occur bodily inasmuchas He remained in the grave three days. "

Luther continues: "However since we cannot but conceive thoughts andimages of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of orunderstand anything without such images, it is appropriate and rightthat we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends withthe banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we shouldput aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us. " "Butwe ought . .. Simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on thewords of the Creed, which says: 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, theSon of God, dead, buried, and descended into hell, ' that is, in theentire person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided, 'born of theVirgin, suffered, died, and buried'; _in like manner I must not divideit here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man inone person, descended into hell_ but did not remain in it; as Ps. 16, 10says of Him: 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell nor suffer Thine HolyOne to see corruption. ' By the word 'soul, ' He, in accordance with thelanguage of the Scripture, does not mean, as we do, a being separatedfrom the body, but the entire man, the Holy One of God, as He here callsHimself. But how it may have occurred that the man lies there in thegrave, and yet descends into hell--that, indeed, we shall and must leaveunexplained and uncomprehended; for it certainly did not take place in abodily and tangible manner although we can only paint and conceive it ina coarse and bodily way and speak of it in pictures. " "Such, thereforeis the plainest manner to speak of this article, that we may adhere tothe words and cling to this main point, that for us, through Christ, hell has been torn to pieces and the devil's kingdom and power utterlydestroyed, for which purpose He died, was buried, and descended, --sothat it should no longer harm or overwhelm us, as He Himself says, Matt. 16, 18. .. . " (CONC. TRIGL. , 1050)

219. Aepinus in Hamburg. 

The two outstanding features of Luther's sermon are that Christdescended into hell body and soul, and that He descended as a triumphantVictor, and not in order to complete His suffering and the work ofatonement. The denial of these two points, in particular, caused a newcontroversy, which however, was of brief duration only, and practicallyconfined to the city of Hamburg, hence also called the Hamburg ChurchControversy, _der Hamburger Kirchenstreit_. Its author was John Aepinus[Huck or Hoeck; born 1499; studied under Luther; persecuted inBrandenburg and banished; rector in Stralsund; 1532 pastor and latersuperintendent in Hamburg; wrote 1547 against the Interim; sided withFlacius against the Philippists; published books in Latin and LowGerman; dealt with Christ's descent to hell especially in his_Commentary on Psalm 16_, of 1544, and in his _Explanation of Psalm 68_, of 1553; died May 13, 1553]. 

Aepinus taught that Christ's descent is a part of His suffering andatonement. While the body was lying in the grave, His soul descendedinto hell in order to suffer the qualms and pangs required to satisfythe wrath of God, complete the work of redemption, and render a plenarysatisfaction, _satisfactio plenaria_. The descent is the last stage ofChrist's humiliation and suffering, His triumph first beginning with theresurrection. Though we know His sufferings in hell to have been mostsad and bitter, yet we are unable to say and define what they were inparticular, or to describe them concretely, because Scripture is silenton this question. 

But while Aepinus originally held that the soul of Christ suffered inhell the punishment of eternal death, he later on distinguished betweenthe first and the second death (eternal damnation) asserting thesuffering Christ endured in hell to have been a part of the punishmentof the first death, and that He did not suffer the _cruciatus AETERNItartarei ignis_. --Such were the views advocated, developed, andvariously modified by Aepinus in his theological lectures andpublications. From the Latin "_Consummatum est_, It is finished, " theteaching that Christ finished His suffering and the work of atonement byHis death on the cross was stigmatized by Aepinus as "_errorconsummaticus_, " and its advocates as "Consummatists, " while these, inturn, dubbed Aepinus and his adherents "Infernalists. " (Frank 3, 440. )

Among the statements of Aepinus are the following: "I believe that hellis a place prepared by divine justice to punish the devils and wickedmen according to the quality of their sins. " (437. ) "On account of ourredemption Christ descended to hell, just as He suffered and died forus. " (437. ) "Theologians who either deny that the soul of Christdescended into hell, or say that Christ was present in hell only ineffect and power, and not by His presence, deprive the Church of faithin the sufficient, complete, and perfect satisfaction and redemption ofChrist and leave to Satan the right over pious souls after theirseparation from the body. For by denying that Christ sustained and borethose punishments of death and hell which the souls were obliged to bearafter their separation from the body, they assert that completesatisfaction has not been made for them. " (439. ) "I believe that thedescent of the soul of Christ to hell is a part of the Passion ofChrist, _i. E. _, of the struggles, dangers, anguish, pains, andpunishments which He took upon Himself and bore in our behalf; for, inthe Scriptures, to descend to hell signifies to be involved in thehighest struggles, pain, and distress. I believe that the descent ofChrist to hell is a part of His obedience foretold by the prophets andimposed on Him because of our sins. " (440. ) "I believe that the descentof Christ pertains to His humiliation, not to His glorification andtriumph. " (441. ) "The descent to hell was by God's judgment laid uponChrist as the last degree of His humiliation and exinanition and as theextreme part of His obedience and satisfaction. " (441. ) "Peter clearlyteaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ felt the pangs of hell anddeath while His body was resting in the sepulcher. " (441. ) "What Christexperienced when He descended into hell is known to Himself, not to us;may we acknowledge and accept with grateful minds that He descendedinto hell for us. But let us not inquire what it was that He experiencedfor us in His descent, for we may piously remain ignorant of matterswhich God did not reveal to His Church, and which He does not demandthat she know. " (444. )

220. Opposed by His Colleagues. 

The views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 beforethe ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on thepart of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversybegan to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus wasalways marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponentsTileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated andassailed his teaching in their pulpits. 

The chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflictedwith, and invalidated, the words of Christ, "It is finished, " "To-dayshalt thou be with Me in Paradise. " Aepinus rejoined that the word"to-day" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence andthe indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente temporeindefinito_). (414. ) However, it was not in every respect Luther'sposition which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratzis reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent ofChrist was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) wasidentical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hellreferred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; thatChrist immediately after His death entered paradise together with themalefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completedwith 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 onthis matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now beenraised, we have written also to others for their views, in order topresent a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his_Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referredDescent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the restmust not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome thetorments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not tobe restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul(_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animaeseparationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion"that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even whenreferred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny ofthe devil and hell is destroyed _i. E. _, that all who believe in Christare liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to theword: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands. ' And in a certainway 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 thehead of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, byChrist, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was theresurrection of many dead. " With respect to the controverted point, concerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separationfrom the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg "enjoinboth parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean timeto avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other publicmeetings. " Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but "only theinvestigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of Hisdeparted 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 toAepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. "I wish, " said he in a letter ofApril 4, 1550, "that there would be an amnesty between you in thisentire strife" about the descent of Christ. "Let us cultivate peace withone another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadderdisputations originate. " (7, 569; compare 6, 116. ) In the following yearthe Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed andexpelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, wasnot intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, butmerely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city. 

221. Other Participants in This Controversy. 

Though the controversy was suppressed in Hamburg, and Aepinus died May13, 1553, the theological questions involved were not settled, nor hadall of the advocates of the views set forth by Aepinus disappeared fromthe scene. Even such theologians as Westphal, Flacius, Gallus, andOsiander were partly agreed with him. Osiander says in an opinion: "I amasked whether the descent of Christ pertains to the satisfaction madefor us or only to His triumph over the enemies. I answer briefly thatthe descent of Christ into hell pertained to the satisfaction He meritedfor us as well as to the triumph over the enemies, just as His death onthe cross does not belong to the one only, but to both. .. . Thus bydescending into hell He rendered satisfaction for us who merited hell, according to Ps. 16. " On the other hand, a synod held July 11, 1554, atGreifswald made it a point expressly to deny that the descent of Christinvolved any suffering of His soul, or that it was of an expiatorynature, or that this article referred to the anguish of His soul beforeHis death, or that it was identical with His burial. They affirmed theteaching of Luther, _viz. _, that the entire Christ, God and man, bodyand soul, descended into hell after His burial and before Hisresurrection, etc. (Frank, 446f. ; 416. )

Furthermore, in a letter to John Parsimonius, court-preacher inStuttgart, dated February 1, 1565 John Matsperger of Augsburg taughtthat, in the article of the descent of Christ, the word "hell" must notbe taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc. , but literally, as the kingdom of Satan and the place of the damned spirits and soulswherever that might be, that the entire Christ descended into this placeaccording to both divinity and humanity, with His body and soul, and notonly with the latter, while the former remained in the grave; that thisoccurred immediately after His vivification or the reunion of body andsoul in the grave and before His resurrection; that the Descent wasaccomplished in an instant, _viz. _, in the moment after His vivificationand before His resurrection; and that Christ descended, not to suffer, but, as a triumphant Victor, to destroy the portals of hell for allbelievers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any waysuffer after His death, but denied emphatically that "hell" was adefinite physical locality or place in space, and that the descentinvolved a local motion of the body. Brenz assented to the views ofParsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also assented to them. Inorder to check his zeal against his opponents, Matsperger was deposedand imprisoned. (Frank, 450 f. )

Such being the situation within the Lutheran Church concerning thequestions involved in the Hamburg Controversy, which by the way, hadbeen mentioned also in the Imperial Instruction for the Diet atAugsburg, 1555, the _Formula of Concord_ considered it advisable to passalso on this matter. It did so, in Article IX, by simply reproducingwhat Luther had taught in the sermon referred to above. Here we read:"We simply believe that the entire person, God and man after the burial, descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of helland took from the devil all his might. " (1051, 3. ) "But how thisoccurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until theother world, where not only this point [this mystery], but also stillothers will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannotcomprehend with our blind reason. " (827, 4. ) Tschackert remarks: "Eversince [the adoption of the Ninth Article of the _Formula of Concord_]Lutheran theology has regarded the Descent of Christ as the beginning ofthe state of exaltation of the human nature of the God-man. " (559. )

XX. The Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord: On Predestination. 

222. Why Article XI was Embodied in the Formula. 

The reason why Article XI was embodied in the _Formula of Concord_ isstated in the opening paragraph of this article: "Although among thetheologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ there has not occurred as yetany public dissension whatever concerning the eternal election of thechildren of God that has caused offense, and has become wide-spread, yetsince this article has been brought into very painful controversy inother places, and even among our theologians there has been someagitation concerning it; moreover, since the same expressions were notalways employed concerning it by the theologians: therefore in order, bythe aid of divine grace, to prevent disagreement and separation on itsaccount in the future among our successors, we, as much as in us lies, have desired also to present an explanation of the same here, so thatevery one may know what is our unanimous doctrine, faith, and confessionalso concerning this article. " (1063, 1. )

The statements contained in these introductory remarks are in agreementwith the historical facts. For, while serious dissensions pertaining toelection did occur in Reformed countries, the Lutheran Church, eversince the great conflict with Erasmus on free will, in 1525 had not beendisturbed by any general, public, and offensive controversy on thisquestion, neither _ad intra_ among themselves, nor _ad extra_ with theCalvinists. Hence the chief purpose for embodying Article XI in the_Formula_ was not to settle past or present disputes, but rather, asstated in the paragraph quoted, to be of service in avoiding futuredifferences and conflicts. 

This earnest concern for the future peace of our Church, as well as forthe maintenance of its doctrinal purity, was partly due toapprehensions, which, indeed, were not without foundation. As a matterof fact, long before the _Formula_ was drafted, the theologicalatmosphere was surcharged with polemical possibilities and probabilitiesregarding predestination, --a doctrine which is simple enough as long asfaith adheres to the plain Word of God, without making rationalistic andsophistical inferences, but which in public controversies has alwaysproved to be a most intricate, crucial, and dangerous question. 

Calvin and his adherents boldly rejected the universality of God'sgrace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operationthrough the means of grace, and taught that, in the last analysis, alsothe eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree ofdivine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement ofelection), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence tothe _Augsburg Confession_ and were making heavy inroads into Lutheranterritory with their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and theperson of Christ, --which in itself was sufficient reason for a publicdiscussion and determined resentment of their absolutepredestinarianism. The Synergists, on the other hand, had long ago beenbusy explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma ofCalvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted andelected, while the rest are rejected, was to assume a different conductin man--_aliqua actio dissimilis in homine_. And as for their Lutheranopponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were notalways sufficiently guarded to preclude all misapprehensions and falseinferences. 

Thus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up inconsiderable quantities. Considering these factors, which for decadeshad been making for a theological storm, one may feel rather surprisedthat a controversy on predestination had not arisen long ago. Tschackertsays: "They [the Lutheran theologians] evidently feared an endlessdebate if the intricate question concerning predestination were made asubject of discussion. " (559. ) Sooner or later, however, the conflictwas bound to come with dire results for the Church, unless provisionswere made to escape it, or to meet it in the proper way. Well aware ofthis entire critical situation and the imminent dangers lurking therein, the framers of the _Formula of Concord_ wisely resolved to embody in italso an article on election in order to clear the theologicalatmosphere, maintain the divine truth, ward off a future controversy, and insure the peace of our Church. 

223. Unguarded Statements of Anti-Synergists. 

That the occasional dissimilar and inadequate references to eternalelection and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergistswere a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula ofConcord_ appears from the passage quoted from Article XI, enumerating, among the reasons why the article on predestination was embodied in the_Formula_, also the fact that "the same expressions were not alwaysemployed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians. " Thesetheologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but notalways without some stumbling in their language. In their expositionsthey had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn fromtheir context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation. The framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate andunguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following. 

Bucer had written: "The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that Goddelivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition. Why, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined todeliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition?_Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensumreprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiamstatuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret inperniciem?_" (Frank 4, 264. ) The _Formula of Concord_, however, iscareful to explain: "Moreover, it is to be diligently considered thatwhen God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punisheswith obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because oftheir subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should notbe interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ thatsuch persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. "(1001, 83. )

Brenz had said: "To the one of the entire mass of the human race Godgives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while Heleaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus exuniversa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, quaiustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate, ut pereat_. " (Frank 4, 256. ) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob andto leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understoodof the election and rejection of all men in general. "_Potuisset Deusoptimo iure ambos abiicere;. .. Sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum estDeo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobumeligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobusdictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominumelectione et abiectione_. " (256. ) Hesshusius: "In this respect God doesnot will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectuDeus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_. "(Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548. ) Such statements, when torn from theircontext, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal. The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestlyendeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that manalone is the cause of his damnation. 

In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorfsaid: "God has but one mode of working in all creatures. .. . ThereforeGod works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in allother creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz. _, through His willingand saying alone. .. . As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so andin the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, sothat man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God willsand says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modusagendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis. .. . Quare eodem modo cum homine volenteet intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis, lapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere. .. . Sicut lapides ettrunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectushominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut homo nihil prorsus velle et eligerepossit nisi id, quod vult et dicit Deus, sive ex gratia, sive ex ira, derelinquens eum in manu consilii eius_. " (Schlb. 5, 547; Gieseler 3, 2, 230; Frank 4, 259. ) This, too, was not embodied in the _Formula ofConcord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has nomode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless hasa different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational andthat man is not coerced, neither in his sinning nor in his conversion. (905, 60ff. )

224. Synergistic Predestination. 

The connection between the doctrines of conversion and election is mostintimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to acorrect presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon, the father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of asynergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks ofpredestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, "with less ofmysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought asZwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, ZwinglisAusfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_. " [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1, 125; _C. R. _ 21, 88. 93. ) In reality he probably had never fully graspedthe truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, wouldaccount for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the chargesof Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his formerdoctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views onelection. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism. September 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: "But in the entire _Apology_ Ihave avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerningpredestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows ourfaith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish toperturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in totaApologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem depraedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequaturnostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim voloconscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_. " (_C. R. _2, 547. )

In the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to theRomans_, 1532, he suggests "that divine compassion is truly the cause ofelection, but that there is some cause also in him who accepts, namely, in as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered. _Verecundius est, quod aliquamdiu placuit Augustino, misericordiam Dei vere causamelectionis esse, sed tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse, quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat, quia malum ex nobis est_. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 192; Seeberg 4, 2, 442. ) In an addition to his _Loci_ in1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and electionresiding in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promiseof the Gospel is both gratis and universal. (_C. R. _ 21, 332. ) In the_Loci_ edition of 1543 we read: "God elected because He had decreed tocall us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefitsto be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected thosewho obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionemdecrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficiainnotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_. " (21, 917. )

The bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed byMelanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man acause of discrimination why some are elected while others are rejected. In his _Loci_ of 1548 he had written: "Since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictory wills in God, some cause ofdiscrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted(_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be somedissimilar action in these two. " (21, 659. ) Self-evidently Melanchthonwould not have hesitated to replace the phrase "why Saul was rejectedand David accepted, " with "why Saul was rejected and David elected. "

Melanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escapefrom, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from theabsolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternaldamnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's "ability to applyhimself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_. " Accordingly, ashe dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supperas "bread-worshipers, " so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans whoopposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R. _ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100. 565. 733; 23, 392. ) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine asfollows: "Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man thefreedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in hisdoctrine of election. " (4, 2, 446. ) "God elects all men who desire tobelieve. " (_Grundriss_, 144. )

Naturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed MasterPhilip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffingerdeclared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in thechapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: "If the will wereidle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinctionbetween the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, asbetween Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become arespecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked anddamned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God whichconflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is inus some cause why some assent while others do not assent. " Thesis 23:"For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideoenim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_. ) But ourapprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal, and we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and therejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz. _, thatthose are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those areaccepted who embrace the promise. "

The Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause ofour salvation, conversion, and election, grace cannot be universal. Or, since man's contempt of God's Word is the cause of his reprobation, man's acceptance of God's grace must be regarded as a cause of hiselection. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter toLandgrave William of Hesse, dated April 20, 1577, criticized the_Formula of Concord_ for not allowing and admitting this argument. (Frank 4, 135. 267. )

225. Calvinistic Predestination. 

While the Synergists, in answering the question why only some are saved, denied the _sola gratia_ and taught a conversion and predestinationconditioned by the conduct of man, John Calvin and his adherents, on theother hand, made rapid progress in the opposite direction, developingwith increasing clearness and boldness an absolute, bifurcatedpredestination, _i. E. _, a capricious election to eternal damnation aswell as to salvation, and in accordance therewith denied theuniversality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of theefficacious operation of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. Inhis "_Institutio Religionis Christianae_, Instruction in the ChristianReligion, " of which the first edition appeared 1535, the second in 1539, and the third in 1559, Calvin taught that God created and foreordainedsome to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Man's election meansthat he has been created for eternal life, man's reprobation, that hehas been created for eternal damnation. We read (_Lib_. 3, cap. 21, 5):"_Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud seconstitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pariconditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatioaeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditusest, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus_. " (Tholuck, _Calvini Institutio_ 2, 133. ) In the edition of 1559 Calvin says thateternal election illustrates the grace of God by showing "that He doesnot adopt all promiscuously unto the hope of salvation, but bestows onsome what He denies to others--_quod non omnes promiscue adoptat in spemsalutis, sed dat aliis, quod aliis negat_. " (Gieseler 3, 2, 172. ) Again:"I certainly admit that all the sons of Adam have fallen by the will ofGod into the miserable condition of bondage, in which they are nowfettered; for, as I said in the beginning, one must always finally goback to the decision of the divine will alone, whose cause is hidden initself. _Fateor sane, in hanc qua nunc illigati sunt conditionismiseriam Dei voluntate cecidisse universos filios Adam; atque id est, quod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinaevoluntatis arbitrium, cuius causa sit in ipso abscondita_. " (173. )Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was also a strictsupralapsarian. At the colloquy of Moempelgard (Montbeliard), 1586, indisputing with Andreae, he defended the proposition "that Adam hadindeed of his own accord fallen into these calamities, yet, nevertheless, not only according to the prescience, but also accordingto the ordination and decree of God--_sponte quidem, sed tamen non modopraesciente, sed etiam iuste ordinante et decernente Deo_. " (186. )"There never has been, nor is, nor will be a time, " said he, "when Godhas wished, wishes, or will wish, to have compassion on every individualperson. _Nullum tempus fuit vel est vel erit, quo voluerit, velit autvoliturus sit Deus singulorum misereri_. " (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 25. 50. )

In foisting his doctrine of election on the Reformed churches, Calvinmet with at least some opposition. The words in the paragraph of the_Formula of Concord_ quoted above: "Yet, since this article [ofpredestination] has been brought into very painful controversy in otherplaces, " probably refer to the conflicts in Geneva and Switzerland. October 16, 1551, Jerome Bolsec [a Carmelite in Paris, secretly spreadPelagianism in Geneva; sided with the Protestants in Paris and Orleansafter his banishment from Geneva; reembraced Romanism when persecutionset in; wrote against Calvin and Beza, died 1584] was imprisoned inGeneva because of his opposition to Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Melanchthon remarks in a letter of February 1, 1552: "Laelius [Socinus]wrote me that in Geneva the struggle concerning the Stoic necessity isso great that a certain one who dissented from Zeno [Calvin] wasincarcerated. What a miserable affair! The doctrine of salvation isobscured by disputations foreign to it. " (_C. R. _ 7, 932. ) Although theGerman cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel) advised moderation, Bolsec wasbanished from Geneva, with the result however, that he continued hisagitation against Calvin in other parts of Switzerland. In Bern alldiscussions on predestination were prohibited by the city council. Calvin complained in a letter of September 18, 1554: "The preachers ofBern publicly declare that I am a heretic worse than all the Papists. "(Gieseler 3, 2, 178. ) January 26, 1555, the council of Bern renewed itsdecree against public doctrinal discussions, notably those onpredestination--"_principalement touchant la matiere de la divinepredestination, qui nous semble non etre necessaire_, " etc. (179. ) Lateron the doctrine of Calvin was opposed by the Arminians fromSemi-Pelagian principles. 

226. Calvinistic Confessions. 

The essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination wereembodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The _Consensus Genevensis_of January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [afanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; diedDecember 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled:"_Concerning God's Eternal Predestination_, by which He has elected someto salvation and left theothers to their perdition--_qua in salutemalios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit_. " (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 218. 221. ) The _Confessio Belgica_, of 1559, and the _Confessio Gallicana_, of 1561, teach the same absolutepredestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: Inpredestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, _viz. _, merciful and just. "Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation andperdition those whom . .. He elected; just, by leaving the others intheir fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves. _Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quamsese ipsi praecipites dederunt_. " (Niemeyer, 370. ) The _GallicConfession_ [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved bya synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translatedinto German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of LaRochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in theircorruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: "We believe that fromthis corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He haschosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, withoutconsideration of their works, to display in them the riches of Hismercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to showin them His justice. _Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnationeuniversali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidemeripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola suabonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in IesuChristo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere, in quibus nimirum iuste suo tempore damnandis iustitiam suam demonstret, sicut in aliis divitias misericordiae suae declarat_. " (Niemeyer, 332;Schaff 3, 366. )

The _Formula Consensus Helveticae_ of 1675 says, canon 13: "As frometernity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who intime are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New CovenantHe has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election weregiven to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. _SicutChristus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omniumeorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in temporeNovi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternamelectionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditaseius_, " etc. (Niemeyer, 733. )

The same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the _Canonsof the Synod of Dort_, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the _WestminsterConfession of Faith_, published 1647. In the former we read: "That somereceive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal election. .. . According to His just judgmentHe leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy. " (Schaff3, 582. ) "The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and indifferent measures, attain the assurance of this eternal andunchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret anddeep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joyand holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in theWord of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrowfor sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc. " (583. )"Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in theeternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leavein the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion. ". .. (584. ) "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious willand purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacyof the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing _upon them alone_ the gift of justifying faith, thereby tobring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God thatChrist by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenantshould effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, andlanguage all those, _and those only_, who were from eternity chosen tosalvation, and given to Him by the Father. " (587. ) "But God, who is richin mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not_wholly_ withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in theirmelancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the graceof adoption and forfeit the state of justification, " etc. (Schaff 3, 593; Niemeyer, 716. )

The _Westminster Confession_ declares: "By the decree of God, for themanifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated untoeverlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. "(Schaff 3, 608. ) "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hathHe, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained allthe means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen inAdam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christby His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are anyother redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved but the elect only. " (609. ) "The rest of mankindGod was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of Hissovereign power over His creatures, _to pass by_, and to ordain them todishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His gloriousjustice. " (610; Niemeyer, _Appendix_ 6. 7. )

227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg. 

In view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it iscertainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularlywith the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long beforethe _Formula of Concord_ was able to write that such a conflict had notyet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarianconflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities, within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmishlacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as asignal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach andZanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI:"Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has beenmooted also among our theologians. " This controversy took place from1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came intoimmediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the _WittenbergConcord_ and with it the _Augsburg Confession_ which since took theplace of the _Tetrapolitana_ delivered to Emperor Charles at the Dietof Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizingthe city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together withMathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 andlabored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He hadBucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the publiccontroversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled, _Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians_, whichdefends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature. 

In his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by theCrypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a convertedItalian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won forProtestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor, first in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to theContinent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12, 1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563Zanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though hehad signed the _Augsburg Confession_, he was and remained a rigidCalvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and thatof the Lord's Supper, but withheld his public dissent until about 1561. It was the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, according to which grace once received cannot be lost, upon which Zanchinow laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 30) he taught: "1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God onlyonce. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith . .. Cannever again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with theirwhole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he, indeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of theheart. _1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur. 2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insitifidem prorsus amittere . .. Non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duosunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantumhominem exteriorem, i. E. , ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti, peccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum etcondelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntatepeccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fideiconfessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde_. " (Tschackert 560;Frank 4, 261. )

This tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternallylost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the _Smalcald Articles_ weread: "On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some ofwhom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [ofthe peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who hadonce received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had becomebelievers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain inthe faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Dowhatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faithblots out all sins, ' etc. --they say, besides, that if any one sins afterhe has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit andfaith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that insome such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, stillhaving and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and strivingwith it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departedfrom them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, togain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses andrestrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does whatit wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not present. For St. John says, 1 Ep. 3, 9: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, . .. And hecannot sin. ' And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1 Ep. 1, 8: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves andthe truth is not in us. '" (491, 42f. )

In an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 someAntinomians maintained and argued "that, since in this life sin remainsin saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvationeven when they commit adultery and other sins against theirconscience. .. . There are many at many places who are imbued with thiserror [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the consciencecan remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy althoughthey live and persevere in sins against their consciences. " (_C. R. _ 9, 764. 405. 473; 8, 411. )

The perseverance of saints as taught by Zanchi was the point to whichMarbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, whichwas finally settled by the _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ of 1563, outside theologians participating and acting as arbiters. This_Formula_, which was probably prepared by Jacob Andreae, treated in itsfirst article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. Itrejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, andprescribed the _Wittenberg Concord_ of 1536 as the doctrinal ruleregarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties, Zanchi stating over his signature: "_Hanc doctrinae formam ut piamagnosco, ita eam recipio_. " Evidently his mental reservation was that hebe permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it aspious. Later Zanchi declared openly that he had subscribed the _Formula_only conditionally. Soon after his subscription he left Strassburg, serving till 1568 as preacher of a Reformed Italian congregation inChiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University ofHeidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died atHeidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continuedhis work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause ofthe _Formula of Concord_. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a localcharacter, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI. The thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupilof Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_. 

228. The Strassburg Formula. 

The _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ sets forth the Scriptural andpeculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, accordingto which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance ofhis election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not _apriori_, but _a posteriori_. That is to say, he is not to speculate onthe act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested tohim in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own falseconception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the _StrassburgFormula_ did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election, --astricture frequently made also on Article XI of the _Formula ofConcord_, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election theReformed have never fully grasped and realized. 

The _Strassburg Formula_ taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, thedoctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it intoconflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor todeprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in anyway to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is thegrace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election, especially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the handsof Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality ofGod's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvationfor all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which isthe gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered toall; that the reason why the gift of faith is not bestowed upon all men, though Christ seriously invites all to come to Him, is a mystery knownto God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of Godproposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men aredirected, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is notcontradictory of the hidden will of God. (Loescher, _Hist Mot_. 2, 229;Frank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560. )

Particularly with respect to the "mystery, " the _Strassburg Formula_says: "The fact that this grace or this gift of faith is not given byGod to all when He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinitegoodness, certainly calls earnestly: 'Come unto the marriage, for allthings are now ready, ' is a sealed mystery known to God alone, pastfinding out for human reason; a secret that must be contemplated withfear and be adored, as it is written: 'O the depth of the riches both ofthe wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, andHis ways past finding out!' Rom. 11, 33. And Christ gives thanks to theFather because He has hid these things from the wise and prudent andrevealed them unto babes. Matt. 11, 25. Troubled consciences, however, must not take offense at this hidden way of the divine will but lookupon the will of God revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners toHimself. " This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians. Moerlin wrote: "God has revealed to us that He will save only those whobelieve in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden, however, are God's judgments--why He converts Paul but does not convertCaiaphas; why He receives fallen Peter again and abandons Judas todespair. " Chemnitz: "Why, then, is it that God does not put such faithinto the heart of Judas so that he, too, might have believed and beensaved through Christ? Here we must leave off questioning and say, Rom. 11: 'O the depth!'. .. We cannot and must not search this nor meditatetoo deeply upon such questions. " Kirchner: "Since, therefore, faith inChrist is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it upon all?Answer: We must defer the discussion of this question unto eternal life, and in the mean time be content to know that God does not want us tosearch His secret judgments, Rom. 11: 'O the depth, ' etc. " In a similarway Chemnitz, Selneccer, and Kirchner expressed themselves in their_Apology of the Book of Concord_, of 1582, declaring that, "when askedwhy God does not convert all men, we must answer with the apostle: 'Howunsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!' but notascribe to God the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobationor damnation of the impenitent. " (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 585f. )

229. Predestination according to Article XI of Formula of Concord. 

In keeping with her fundamental teaching of _sola gratia_ and _gratiauniversalis_, according to which God's grace is the only cause of man'ssalvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his damnation, theLutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace, _i. E. _, a predestination to salvation only. God's eternal election, saysthe _Formula of Concord_, "does not extend at once over the godly andthe wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected andordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, asPaul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: 'He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinatedus unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. '" (1065, 5. ) Thiselection, the _Formula_ continues, "not only foresees and foreknows thesalvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasureof God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, andpromotes our salvation, and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divinepredestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hellcannot prevail against it, Matt. 16, 18, as is written John 10, 28:'Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand, ' And again, Acts13, 48: 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. '" (1065, 8. ) While thus election is a cause of faith and salvation, there is nocause of election in man. The teaching "that not only the mercy of Godand the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause ofGod's election on account of which God has elected us to everlastinglife, " is rejected by the _Formula of Concord_ as one of the"blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines whereby all the comfortwhich they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments istaken from Christians. " (837, 20f. )

Concerning the way of considering eternal election, the _Formula_writes: "If we wish to think or speak correctly and profitablyconcerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of thechildren of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not tospeculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutableforeknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination ofGod in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to usthrough the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning thepurpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to ourredemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together;as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8, 29f. ; Eph. 1, 4f. , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22, 1ff. " (1067, 13. )

While according to the Lutheran Church election is the cause of faithand salvation, there is no such a thing as an election of wrath or apredestination to sin and damnation, of both of which God is not thecause and author. According to the _Formula_ the vessels of mercy areprepared by God alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared fordamnation, not by God, but by themselves. Moreover, God earnestlydesires that all men turn from their wicked ways and live. We read: "Forall preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin, and in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how, then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God isnot a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, ofdamnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sinis death. Rom. 6, 23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasurein sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33, 11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing thatany one should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3, 9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18, 23; 33, 11: 'As I live, saith theLord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that thewicked turn from his way and live, ' And St. Paul testifies in clearwords that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made byGod's power and working, when he writes 2 Tim. 2, 21: 'If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every goodwork, ' For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, andhence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he saysclearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he doesnot say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, haveprepared themselves as vessels of damnation. " (1089, 81f. ) "Hence theapostle distinguishes with special care the work of God, who alone makesvessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by theinstigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel ofdishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f. : 'God endured with muchlong-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He mightmake known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hadafore prepared unto glory. ' Here, then, the apostle clearly says thatGod endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does notsay that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault, however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil andto men themselves, and not to God. " (1089, 79f. )

It is man's own fault when he is not converted by the Word or afterwardsfalls away again. We read: "But the reason why not all who hear it [theWord of God] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is notbecause God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their ownfault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, butonly to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the HolyGhost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case atthe time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents. " (1089, 78. )"For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise theWord, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22, 3ff. The cause of thiscontempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means andinstrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, andresists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works throughthe Word, as Christ says: 'How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!' Matt. 23, 37. Thus many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8, 13. But the cause is not asthough God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those inwhom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1, 6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holycommandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselvesagain in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of theheart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first. "(1077 41f. ; 835, 12. )

It is not because of any deficiency in God that men are lost; for Hisgrace is universal as well as serious and efficacious. The _Formula ofConcord_ declares: "However, that many are called and few chosen is notowing to the fact that the call of God, which is made through the Word, had the meaning as though God said: Outwardly, through the Word, Iindeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, inMy heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respectto a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I callthrough the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be andremain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myselfto them otherwise. _Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntatesaffingere_. For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. Thatis, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is EternalTruth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolveanother in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and]punishes also in men this wickedness, when a person declares himself toone purpose, and thinks and means another in the heart, Ps. 5, 9; 12, 2f. " (1075, 36. )

It is a punishment of their previous sins and not a result of God'spredestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardeningsignify that it never was God's good pleasure to save them. "Moreover, "says the _Formula_, "it is to be diligently considered that when Godpunishes sin with sins, that is when He afterwards punishes withobduracy and blindness those who had been converted because of theirsubsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins, this should not beinterpreted to mean that it never had been God's good pleasure that suchpersons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For boththese facts are God's revealed will: first, that God will receive intograce all who repent and believe in Christ; secondly, that He also willpunish those who wilfully turn away from the holy commandment, and againentangle themselves in the filth of the world 2 Pet. 2, 20, and garnishtheir hearts for Satan, Luke 11, 25f. , and do despite unto the Spirit ofGod, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, andeternally condemned if they persist therein. " (1091, 83. )

"But that God . .. Hardened Pharaoh's heart, namely, that Pharaoh alwayssinned again and again, and became the more obdurate the more he wasadmonished, that was a punishment of his antecedent sin and horribletyranny, which in many and manifold ways he practised inhumanly andagainst the accusations of his heart towards the children of Israel. Andsince God caused His Word to be preached and His will to be proclaimedto him, and Pharaoh nevertheless wilfully reared up straightway againstall admonitions and warnings, God withdrew His hand from him and thushis heart became hardened and obdurate, and God executed His judgmentupon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than hell-fire. Accordingly, the holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no otherreason than to prove by it the justice of God which He exercises towardsthe impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has heintended or understood it to mean that God begrudged salvation to him orany person, but had so ordained him to eternal damnation in His secretcounsel that he should not be able, or that it should not be possiblefor him, to be saved. " (1091, 85f. )

230. Agreement of Articles XI and II. 

In the _Formula of Concord_, Article XI is closely related to most ofthe other articles particularly to Article I, Of Original Sin, andArticle II, Of Free Will and Conversion. Election is to conversion whatthe concave side of a lens is to the convex. Both correspond to eachother in every particular. What God does for and in man when Heconverts, justifies, sanctifies, preserves, and finally glorifies him, He has in eternity resolved to do, --that is one way in which eternalelection may be defined. Synergists and Calvinists, however have alwaysmaintained that the Second Article is in a hopeless conflict with theEleventh. But the truth is, the Second fully confirms and corroboratesthe Eleventh, and _vice versa;_ for both maintain the _sola gratia_ aswell as the _universalis gratia_. 

Both articles teach that in every respect grace alone is the cause ofour conversion and salvation, and that this grace is not confined tosome men only, but is a grace for all. Both teach that man, thoughcontributing absolutely nothing to his conversion and salvation, isnevertheless the sole cause of his own damnation. Both disavow Calvinismwhich denies the universality of grace. Both reject synergism, whichcorrupts grace by teaching a cooperation of man towards his ownconversion and salvation. Teaching therefore, as they do, the sametruths, both articles will and must ever stand and fall together. Itwas, no doubt, chiefly due to this complete harmony between the Secondand the Eleventh Article that after the former (which received itspresent shape only after repeated changes and additions) had beendecided upon the revision of the latter (the Eleventh) caused but littledelay. (Frank 4, V. 133. )

Concerning the alleged conflict between Articles II and XI, we read inSchaff's _Creeds of Christendom:_ "There is an obvious andirreconcilable antagonism between Article II and Article XI. Theycontain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theologicalscience, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put intoa creed. The _Formula_ adopts one part of Luther's book _De ServoArbitrio_, 1525, and rejects the other, which follows with logicalnecessity. It is Augustinian, yea, hyper-Augustinian andhyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, andanti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It endorsesthe anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. Ifman is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept thegrace of God, as Article II teaches, he can only be converted by an actof almighty power and irresistible grace, which Article XI denies. Ifsome men are saved without any cooperation on their part, while others, with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, thedifference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutabledecree of God. On the other hand if God sincerely wills the salvation ofall men, as Article XI teaches, and yet only a part are actually saved, there must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the losttowards converting grace, which is denied in Article II. The Lutheransystem, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop eitherfrom Article II in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, orfrom Article XI in the direction of synergism and Arminianism. Theformer would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine [?], which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; thelatter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or lessby some of the ablest modern Lutherans. " (1, 314. 330. ) Prior to Schaff, similar charges had been raised by Planck, Schweizer, Heppe, and others, who maintained that Article XI suffers from a "theological confusionotherwise not found in the _Formula_. "

Apart from other unwarranted assertions in the passage quoted fromSchaff, the chief charges there raised against the _Formula of Concord_are: 1. That Articles XI and II are contradictory to each other, 2. Thatthe Lutheran Church has failed to harmonize the doctrines of _solagratia_ and _gratia universalis_. However, the first of these stricturesis based on gross ignorance of the facts, resulting from a superficialinvestigation of the articles involved, for the alleged disagreement ispurely imaginary. As a matter of fact, no one can read the two articlesattentively without being everywhere impressed with their completeharmony. In every possible way Article XI excludes synergism, andcorroborates the _sola gratia_ doctrine of Article II. And Article II, in turn, nowhere denies, rather everywhere, directly or indirectly, confirms, the universal grace particularly emphasized in Article XI. 

The framers of the _Formula_ were well aware of the fact that the leasterror in the doctrine of free will and conversion was bound to manifestitself also in the doctrine of election, and that perhaps in a form muchmore difficult to detect. Hence Article XI was not only intended to be abulwark against the assaults on the doctrine of grace coming from Calvinistic quarters, but also an additional reenforcement of thearticle of Free Will against the Synergists, in order to prevent afuture recrudescence of their errors in the sphere of predestination. Its object is clearly to maintain the doctrine of the Bible, accordingto which it is grace alone that saves, a grace which, at the same time, is a grace for all, and thus to steer clear of synergism as well as ofCalvinism, and forever to close the doors of the Lutheran Church toevery form of these two errors. 

According to the Second Article, Christians cannot be assured of theirelection if the doctrine of conversion [by grace alone] is not properlypresented. (901, 47. 57. ) And Article XI most emphatically supportsArticle II in its efforts to weed out every kind of synergistic orRomanistic corruption. For here we read: "Thus far the mystery ofpredestination is revealed to us in God's Word; and if we abide therebyand cleave thereto, it is a very useful salutary, consolatory doctrine;for it establishes very effectually the article that we are justifiedand saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of gracealone, for Christ's sake. For before the time of the world, before weexisted, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, ofcourse, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purposechosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9. Moreover, all opinions and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers ofour natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel, before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, bythe power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through theWord, everything that pertains to our conversion. " (1077, 43f. ; 837, 20. )

Again: "By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and savingchoice of the elect children of God, His own glory is entirely and fullygiven to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy, without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose ofHis will, as it is written Eph. 1, 5f. : 'Having predestinated us, '. .. Therefore it is false and wrong when it is taught that not alone themercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in usthere is a cause of God's predestination on account of which God haschosen us to eternal life. " Indeed, one of the most exclusiveformulations against every possible kind of subtile synergism is foundin Article XI when it teaches that the reason why some are converted andsaved while others are lost, must not be sought in man, _i. E. _, in anyminor guilt or less faulty conduct toward grace shown by those who aresaved, as compared with the guilt and conduct of those who are lost. (1081, 57f. ) If, therefore, the argument of the Calvinists andSynergists that the _sola gratia_ doctrine involves a denial ofuniversal grace were correct, the charge of Calvinism would have to beraised against Article XI as well as against Article II. 

In a similar manner the Second Article confirms the Eleventh bycorroborating its anti-Calvinistic teaching of universal grace andredemption; of man's responsibility for his own damnation; of man'sconversion, not by compulsion or coercion, etc. The Second Article mostemphatically teaches the _sola gratia_, but without in any way limiting, violating, or encroaching upon, universal grace. It is not merelyopposed to Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and synergistic errors, but to Stoicand Calvinistic aberrations as well. While it is not the special objectof the Second Article to set forth the universality of God's grace, itsanti-Calvinistic attitude is nevertheless everywhere apparent. 

Article II plainly teaches that "it is not God's will that anyone shouldbe damned, but that all men should be converted to Him and be savedeternally. Ezek. 33, 11: 'As I live. '" (901, 49. ) It teaches that"Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Wordand holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and haspromised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, andare occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst. " (903, 57. )It maintains that through the Gospel the Holy Ghost offers man grace andsalvation, effects conversion through the preaching and hearing of God'sWord, and is present with this Word in order to convert men. (787, 4ff. ;889, 18. ) It holds that "all who wish to be saved ought to hear thispreaching, because the preaching and hearing of God's Word are theinstruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires towork efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them bothto will and to do. " (901, 52ff. ) It admonishes that no one should doubtthat the power and efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present with, andefficacious in, the Word when it is preached purely and listened toattentively, and that we should base our certainty concerning thepresence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost not on our feeling, buton the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is truly anoffice and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficaciousand works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff. ; 3, 5ff. " [tr. Note: sic onpunctuation] (903, 56. ) It asserts that men who refuse to hear the Wordof God are not converted because they despised the instrument of theHoly Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that God does not force men tobecome godly; that those who always resist the Holy Ghost andpersistently oppose the known truth are not converted (905, 60). If, therefore, the inference were correct that the doctrine of universalgrace involved a denial of the _sola gratia_, then the charge ofsynergism would have to be raised against Article II as well as againstArticle XI. Both articles will always stand and fall together; for bothteach that the grace of God is the only cause of our conversion andsalvation, and that this grace is truly universal. 

231. Mystery in Doctrine of Grace. 

The second charge raised by Calvinists and Synergists against the_Formula of Concord_ is its failure to harmonize "logically" what theyterm "contradictory doctrines": _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_, --a stricture which must be characterized as flowing from rationalisticpremises, mistaking a divine mystery for a real contradiction, and inreality directed against the clear Word of God itself. Says Schaff, whoalso in this point voices the views of Calvinists as well as Synergists:"The _Formula of Concord_ sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianismand universalism, or between the original Luther and the laterMelanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and theuniversality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve thesecontradictory positions. " (304. ) "Thus the particularism of election andthe universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man, andthe guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he cannot accept, areillogically combined. " (1, 330. ) The real charge here raised against the_Formula of Concord_ is, that it fails to modify the doctrines of _solagratia_ or _universalis gratia_ in a manner satisfactory to the demandsof human reason; for Synergists and Calvinists are agreed that, in theinterest of rational harmony, one or the other must be abandoned, either_universalis gratia seria et efficax_, or _sola gratia_. 

In judging of the charge in question, it should not be overlooked that, according to the _Formula of Concord_, all Christians, theologiansincluded, are bound to derive their entire doctrine from the Biblealone; that matters of faith must be decided exclusively by clearpassages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point tocriticize and lord it over the infallible Word of God; that reason mustbe subjected to the obedience of Christ, and dare not hinder faith inbelieving the divine testimonies even when they seemingly contradicteach other. We are not commanded to harmonize, says the _Formula_, butto believe, confess, defend, and faithfully to adhere to the teachingsof the Bible. (1078, 52ff. ) In the doctrine of conversion and salvation, therefore, Lutherans confess both the _sola gratia_ and the _universalisgratia_, because they are convinced that both are clearly taught in theBible, and that to reject or modify either of them would amount to acriticism of the Word of God, and hence of God Himself. Synergistsdiffer from Lutherans, not in maintaining universal grace (which inreality they deny as to intention as well as extension, for they corruptthe Scriptural content of grace by making it dependent on man's conduct, and thereby limit its extension to such only as comply with itsconditions), but in denying the _sola gratia_, and teaching that thewill of man enters conversion as a factor alongside of grace. AndCalvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the _sola gratia_, but in denying universal grace. 

But while, in accordance with the clear Word of God, faithfully adheringto both the _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_, and firmlymaintaining that whoever is saved is saved by grace alone, and whoeveris lost is lost through his own fault alone, the _Formula of Concord_ atthe same time fully acknowledges the difficulty presenting itself tohuman reason when we hold fast to this teaching. In particular, itadmits that the question, not answered in the Bible, _viz_. , why someare saved while others are lost, embraces a mystery which we lack themeans and ability of solving, as well as the data. Accordingly, the_Formula_ also makes no efforts whatever to harmonize them, but ratherdiscountenances and warns against all attempts to cater to human reasonin this respect, and insists that both doctrines be maintained intactand taught conjointly. Lutherans are fully satisfied that here everyeffort at rational harmonization cannot but lead either to Calvinisticcorruption of universal grace or to synergistic modification of _solagratia_. 

Thus the Lutheran Church not only admits, but zealously guards, themystery contained in the doctrine of grace and election. Itdistinguishes between God in as far as He is known and not known; in asfar as He has revealed Himself, and in as far as He is still hidden tous, but as we shall learn to know Him hereafter. The truths which may beknown concerning God are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible. The things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments ofGod, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question whysome are saved while others are lost. God has not seen fit to revealthese mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom God, man'squest for an answer is both presumptuous and vain. That is to say, weare utterly unable to uncover the divine counsels, which would show thatthe mysterious judgments and ways proceeding from them are in completeharmony with the universal grace proclaimed by the Gospel. 

Yet Lutherans believe that the hidden God is not in real conflict withGod as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of God does notin the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According tothe _Formula of Concord_ there are no real contradictions in God; in Himeverything is yea and amen; His very being is pure reality and truth. Hence, when relying on God as revealed in Christ, that is to say, relying on grace which is pure grace only and at the same time grace forall, Christians may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in theunknown God, _i. E. _, in as far as He has not revealed Himself to them, which might subvert their simple faith in His gracious promises. Theface of God depicted in the Gospel is the true face of God. Whoever hasseen Christ has seen the Father as He is in reality. 

Indeed, also the hidden God, together with His secret counsels, unsearchable judgments, and ways past finding out, even the majesticGod, in whom we live and move and have our being, the God who has allthings well in hand, and without whom nothing can be or occur, must, inthe light of the Scriptures, be viewed as an additional guarantee that, in spite of all contingencies, the merciful divine promises of theGospel shall stand firm and immovable. Upon eternal election, says the_Formula of Concord_, "our salvation is so [firmly] founded 'that thegates of hell cannot prevail against it. '" (1065, 8. ) As for us, therefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what Godhas withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of God's transcendentmajesty, but merely to rely on, and securely trust in, the blessedGospel, which proclaims grace for all and salvation by grace alone, andteaches that whoever is saved must praise God alone for it, whilewhoever is damned must blame only himself. 

Regarding the mystery involved in predestination, the _Formula ofConcord_ explains: "A distinction must be observed with especial carebetween that which is expressly revealed concerning it [predestination]in God's Word and what is not revealed. For in addition to what has beenrevealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken, God has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery, and reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should notinvestigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor drawconclusions nor inquire curiously, but should adhere to the revealedWord. This admonition is most urgently needed. For our curiosity hasalways much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters[investigating things abstruse and hidden] than with what God hasrevealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonizeit [cannot by the acumen of our natural ability harmonize the intricateand involved things occurring in this mystery], which, moreover, we havenot been commanded to do. "

The _Formula_ enumerates as such inscrutable mysteries: Why God givesHis Word at one place, but not at another; why He removes it from oneplace, and allows it to remain at another; why one is hardened, whileanother, who is in the same guilt, is converted again. Such and similarquestions, says the _Formula_, we cannot answer and must not endeavor tosolve. On the contrary, we are to adhere unflinchingly to both truths, _viz_. , that those who are converted are saved, not because they arebetter than others, but by pure grace alone; and that those who are notconverted and not saved cannot accuse God of any neglect or injusticebut are lost by their own fault. The _Formula_ concludes its paragraphson the mysteries in predestination by saying: "When we proceed thus farin this article [maintaining that God alone is the cause of man'ssalvation and man alone is the cause of his damnation, and refusing tosolve the problems involved], we remain on the right [safe and royal]way, as it is written Hos. 13, 9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyedthyself; but in Me is thy help. ' However, as regards these things inthis disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, weshould, with Paul, place the finger upon our lips, remember and say, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" (1078, 52ff. )

232. Predestination a Comforting Article. 

Christian doctrines, or doctrines of the Church, are such only as are inexact harmony with the Scriptures. They alone, too, are able to servethe purpose for which the Scriptures are given, _viz_. , to convert andsave sinners, and to comfort troubled Christians. Scriptural doctrinesare always profitable, and detrimental doctrines are never Scriptural. This is true also of the article of eternal election. It is a trulyedifying doctrine as also the _Formula of Concord_ is solicitous toexplain. (1092, 89ff. ) However, it is comforting only when taught in itspurity, _i. E. _, when presented and preserved in strict adherence to theBible; that is to say, when both the _sola gratia_ and _gratiauniversalis_ are kept inviolate. Whenever the doctrine of predestinationcauses despair or carnal security, it has been either misrepresented ormisunderstood. 

In the introductory paragraphs of Article XI we read: "For the doctrineconcerning this article, if taught from, and according to the pattern ofthe divine Word, neither can nor should be regarded as useless orunnecessary, much less as offensive or injurious, because the HolyScriptures not only in but one place and incidentally, but in manyplaces thoroughly treat and urge the same. Moreover, we should notneglect or reject the doctrine of the divine Word on account of abuse ormisunderstanding, but precisely on that account, in order to avert allabuse and misunderstanding the true meaning should and must be explainedfrom the foundation of the Scriptures. " (1063, 2; 1067, 13. )

"If it is treated properly, " says also the Epitome, the doctrine ofpredestination "is a consolatory article" (830, 1); that is to say, ifpredestination is viewed in the light of the Gospel, and particularly, if _sola gratia_ as well as _gratia universalis_ are kept inviolate. Outside of God's revelation in the Gospel there is no true and wholesomeknowledge whatever concerning election, but mere noxious human dreams. And when the universality of grace is denied, it is impossible for anyone to know whether he is elected, and whether the grace spoken of inthe Gospel is intended for or belongs to him. "Therefore, " says the_Formula of Concord_, "if we wish to consider our eternal election tosalvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly tothis, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of theGospel is _universalis_ (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24, 47, " etc. (1071, 28. ) By denying that universal grace is meantseriously and discounting the universal promises of the Gospel, "thenecessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain andvoid, as we are daily reminded and admonished that only from God's Word, through which He treats with us and calls us, we are to learn andconclude what His will toward us is, and that we should believe and notdoubt what it affirms to us and promises. " (1075, 36. ) If God cannot betrusted in His universal promises, absolutely nothing in the Bible canbe relied upon. A doctrine of election from which universal grace iseliminated, necessarily leads to despair or to contumaciousness andcarnal security. Calvin was right when he designated his predestinationtheory, which denies universal grace, a "horrible decree. " It left himwithout any objective foundation whatever upon which to rest his faithand hope. 

In like manner, when the doctrine of election and grace is modifiedsynergistically, no one can know for certain whether he has really beenpardoned and will be saved finally, because here salvation is notexclusively based on the sure and immovable grace and promises of God, but, at least in part, on man's own doubtful conduct--a rotten plankwhich can serve neither foot for safely crossing the great abyss of sinand death. Only when presented and taught in strict adherence to theBible is the doctrine of election and grace fully qualified to engenderdivine certainty of our present adoption and final salvation as well, since it assures us that God sincerely desires to save all men (usincluded), that He alone does, and has promised to do, everythingpertaining thereto, and that nothing is able to thwart His promises, since He who made them and confirmed them with an oath is none otherthan the majestic God Himself. 

Accordingly, when Calvinists and Synergists criticize the _Formula ofConcord_ for not harmonizing (modifying in the interest of rationalharmony) the clear doctrines of the Bible, which they brand ascontradictions, they merely display their own conflicting, untenableposition. For while professing to follow the Scriptures, they at thesame time demand that its doctrines be corrected according to thedictate of reason, thus plainly revealing that their theology is notfounded on the Bible, but orientated in rationalism, the true ultimateprinciple of Calvinism as well as synergism. 

In the last analysis, therefore, the charge of inconsistency againstthe _Formula of Concord_ is tantamount to an indirect admission that theLutheran Church is both a consistently Scriptural and a trulyevangelical Church. Consistently Scriptural, because it receives insimple faith and with implicit obedience every clear Word of God, allcounter-arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. Truly evangelical, because in adhering with unswerving loyalty to the seeminglycontradictory, but truly Scriptural doctrine of grace, it serves thepurpose of the Scriptures, which--praise the Lord--is none other than tosave, edify, and comfort poor disconsolate sinners. 

233. Statements of Article XI on Consolation Offered by Predestination. 

The purpose of the entire Scripture, says the _Formula of Concord_, isto comfort penitent sinners. If we therefore abide by, and cleave to, predestination as it is revealed to us in God's Word, "it is a veryuseful, salutary, consolatory doctrine. " Every presentation of eternalelection, however which produces carnal security or despair, is false. We read: "If any one presents the doctrine concerning the graciouselection of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derivecomfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that theimpenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure andtrue that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and willof God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and theinstigation of the devil. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15, 4:'Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 'But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed byScripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary tothe will and meaning of the Holy Ghost. " (1093, 91f. , 837, 16; 1077, 43. )

Predestination is comforting when Christians are taught to seek theirelection in Christ. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine gives no one acause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely, when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ andHis holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitentsinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubledsinners who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath, to repentance andthe knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises theHoly Ghost for purification and renewal, and thus gives the mostenduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know thattheir salvation is not placed in their own hands (for otherwise theywould lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve inParadise, yea, every hour and moment), but in the gracious election ofGod which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no manshall pluck us, John 10, 28; 2 Tim. 2, 19. " (1093, 89. )

In order to manifest its consolatory power predestination must bepresented in proper relation to the revealed order of salvation. Weread: "With this revealed will of God [His universal, gracious promisesin the Gospel] we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligentlyengaged upon it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the HolyGhost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end [to begin andcomplete our salvation], and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss ofGod's hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13, 24, where oneasks: 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' and Christ answers: 'Striveto enter in at the strait gate. ' Accordingly, Luther says [in hisPreface to the Epistle to the Romans]: 'Follow the Epistle to the Romansin its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, thatyou may recognize your sins and His grace; next that you contend withsin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when inthe eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by]temptation under the cross and afflictions, --this will teach you in theninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is, 'etc. " (1073, 33. )

Predestination, properly taught, affords the glorious comfort that noone shall pluck us out of the almighty hands of Christ. The _Formula_says: "Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent gloriousconsolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfullypurposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the worldwas laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purposeordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation], and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation sowell and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness ofour flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft andmight of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, Heordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior JesusChrist, from which no one can pluck us, John 10, 28. Hence Paul alsosays, Rom. 8, 28. 39: 'Because we have been called according to thepurpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?'[Paul builds the certainty of our blessedness upon the foundation of thedivine purpose, when, from our being called according to the purpose ofGod, he infers that no one can separate us, etc. ]" (1079, 45. ) "Thisarticle also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God willexist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell, and likewiseteaches which is the true Church of God, lest we be offended by thegreat authority [and majestic appearance] of the false Church, Rom. 9, 24. 25. " (1079, 50. )

Especially in temptations and tribulations the doctrine of eternalelection reveals its comforting power. We read: "Moreover, this doctrineaffords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations, namely, that God in His counsel, before the time of the world determinedand decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties andperplexities], grant patience, give consolation, excite [nourish andencourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to oursalvation. Also, as Paul in a very consolatory way treats this, Rom. 8, 28. 29. 35. 38. 39, that God in His purpose has ordained before the timeof the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every oneof His elect to the image of His Son, and that to every one his crossshall and must work together for good, because they are called accordingto the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain andindubitable that neither tribulation nor distress, nor death, nor life, etc. , shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is inChrist Jesus, our Lord. " (1079, 48. )

XXI. Luther and Article XI of the Formula of Concord. 

234. Luther Falsely Charged with Calvinism. 

Calvinists and Synergists have always contended that Luther's originaldoctrine of predestination was essentially identical with that of JohnCalvin. Melanchthon was among the first who raised a charge to thiseffect. In his _Opinion_ to Elector August, dated March 9, 1559, weread: "During Luther's life and afterwards I rejected these Stoic andManichean deliria, when Luther and others wrote: All works, good andbad, in all men, good and bad, must occur as they do. Now it is apparentthat such speech contradicts the Word of God, is detrimental to alldiscipline and blasphemes God. Therefore I have sedulously made adistinction, showing to what extent man has a free will to observeoutward discipline, also before regeneration, " etc. (_C. R. _ 9, 766. )Instead of referring to his own early statements, which were liable tomisinterpretation more than anything that Luther had written, Melanchthon disingenuously mentions Luther, whose real meaning hemisrepresents and probably had never fully grasped. The true reason whyMelanchthon charged Luther and his loyal adherents with Stoicism was hisown synergistic departure from the Lutheran doctrine of original sin andof salvation by grace alone. Following Melanchthon, rationalizingSynergists everywhere have always held that without abandoning Luther'sdoctrine of original sin and of the _gratia sola_ there is no escapefrom Calvinism. 

In this point Reformed theologians agree with the Synergists, and havetherefore always claimed Luther as their ally. I. Mueller declared in_Lutheri de Praedestionatione et Libero Arbitrio Doctrina_ of 1832: "Asto the chief point (_quod ad caput rei attinet_), Zwingli's view ofpredestination is in harmony with Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_. " In his_Zentraldogmen_ of 1854 Alexander Schweizer endeavored to prove that theidentical doctrine of predestination was originally the central dogma ofthe Lutheran as well as of the Zwinglian reformation. "It is not so muchthe dogma [of predestination] itself, " said he (1, 445), "as itsposition which is in dispute" among Lutherans and Calvinists. Schweizer(1, 483) based his assertion on the false assumption "that the doctrinesof the captive will and of absolute predestination [denial of universalgrace] are two halves of the same ring. " (Frank 1, 12. 118. 128; 4, 262. ) Similar contentions were made in America by Schaff, Hodge, Shedd, and other Reformed theologians. 

As a matter of fact, however, also in the doctrine of predestinationZwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart fromLuther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simpleand implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that theagreement between Luther's doctrine and that of Zwingli and Calvin is"only specious, _nur scheinbar_. " (1, 118. ) Tschackert remarks: "Whoever[among the theologians before the _Formula of Concord_] was acquaintedwith the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [ofpredestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheranand the Calvinistic theology. " (559. ) F. Pieper declares that Luther andCalvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as tosubstance. (_Dogm_. 3, 554. )

The _Visitation Articles_, adopted 1592 as a norm of doctrine forElectoral Saxony, enumerate the following propositions on"Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God" which must be upheldover against the Calvinists as "the pure and true doctrine of our[Lutheran] churches": "1. That Christ has died for all men, and as theLamb of God has borne the sins of the whole world. 2. That God createdno one for condemnation, but will have all men to be saved, and to cometo the knowledge of the truth. He commands all to hear His Son Christ inthe Gospel, and promises by it the power and working of the Holy Ghostfor conversion and salvation. 3. That many men are condemned by theirown guilt who are either unwilling to hear the Gospel of Christ, oragain fall from grace, by error against the foundation or by sinsagainst conscience. 4. That all sinners who repent are received intograce and no one is excluded, even though his sins were as scarlet, since God's mercy is much greater than the sins of all the world, andGod has compassion on all His works. " (CONC. TRIGL. 1153. ) Not one ofthese propositions, which have always been regarded as a summary of theLutheran teaching in contradistinction from Calvinism, was ever deniedby Luther. 

235. Summary of Luther's Views. 

Luther distinguished between the hidden and the revealed or "proclaimed"God, the secret and revealed will of God; the majestic God in whom welive and move and have our being, and God manifest in Christ; God'sunsearchable judgments and ways past finding out, and His mercifulpromises in the Gospel. Being truly God and not an idol, God, accordingto Luther, is both actually omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can existor occur without His power, and everything surely will occur as He hasforeseen it. This is true of the thoughts, volitions, and acts of allHis creatures. He would not be God if there were any power not derivedfrom, or supplied by Him, or if the actual course of events could annulHis decrees and stultify His knowledge. Also the devils and the wickedare not beyond His control. 

As for evil, though God does not will or cause it, --for, on thecontrary, He prohibits sin and truly deplores the death of a sinner--yetsin and death could never have entered the world without His permission. Also the will of fallen man receives its power to will from God, and itsevery resolve and consequent act proceeds just as God has foreseen, ordained, or permitted it. The evil quality of all such acts, however, does not emanate from God, but from the corrupt will of man. Hence freewill, when defined as the power of man to nullify and subvert what God'smajesty has foreseen and decreed, is a nonent, a mere empty title. This, however, does not involve that the human will is coerced or compelled todo evil, nor does it exclude in fallen man the ability to choose inmatters temporal and subject to reason. 

But while holding that we must not deny the majesty and the mysteries ofGod, Luther did not regard these, but Christ crucified and justificationby faith in the promises of the Gospel, as the true objects of ourconcern. Nor does he, as did Calvin, employ predestination as acorrective and regulative norm for interpreting, limiting, invalidating, annulling, or casting doubt upon, any of the blessed truths of theGospel. Luther does not modify the revealed will of God in order toharmonize it with God's sovereignty. He does not place the hidden God inopposition to the revealed God, nor does he reject the one in order tomaintain the other. He denies neither the revealed universality of God'sgrace, of Christ's redemption, and of the efficaciousness of the HolySpirit in the means of grace, nor the unsearchable judgments and ways ofGod's majesty. Even the Reformed theologian A. Schweizer admits as muchwhen he says in his _Zentraldogmen_ (1, 445): "In the Zwinglio-Calviniantype of doctrine, predestination is a dogma important as such andregulating the other doctrines, yea, as Martyr, Beza, and others say, the chief part of Christian doctrine; while in the Lutheran type ofdoctrine it is merely a dogma supporting other, more important centraldoctrines. " (Frank 4, 264. )

Moreover, Luther most earnestly warns against all speculationsconcerning the hidden God as futile, foolish, presumptuous, and wicked. The secret counsels, judgments, and ways of God cannot and must not beinvestigated. God's majesty is unfathomable, His judgments areunsearchable, His ways past finding out. Hence, there is not, and therecannot be, any human knowledge, understanding, or faith whateverconcerning God in so far as He has not revealed Himself. For while thefact that there are indeed such things as mysteries, unsearchablejudgments, and incomprehensible ways in God is plainly taught in theBible, their nature, their how, why, and wherefore, has not beenrevealed to us and no amount of human ingenuity is able to supply thedeficiency. Hence, in as far as God is still hidden and veiled, Hecannot serve as a norm by which we are able to regulate our faith andlife. Particularly when considering the question how God is disposedtoward us individually, we must not take refuge in the secret counselsof God, which reason cannot spy and pry into. According to Luther, allhuman speculations concerning the hidden God are mere diabolicalinspirations, bound to lead away from the saving truth of the Gospelinto despair and destruction. 

What God, therefore, would have men believe about His attitude towardthem, must according to Luther, be learned from the Gospel alone. TheBible tells us how God is disposed toward poor sinners, and how He wantsto deal with them. Not His hidden majesty, but His only-begotten Son, born in Bethlehem, is the divinely appointed object of humaninvestigation. Christ crucified is God manifest and visible to men. Whoever has seen Christ has seen God. The Gospel is God's onlyrevelation to sinful human beings. The Bible, the ministry of the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution are the only means of knowinghow God is disposed toward us. To these alone God has directed us. Withthese alone men should occupy and concern themselves. 

And the Gospel being the Word of God, the knowledge furnished therein ismost reliable. Alarmed sinners may trust in its comforting promises withfirm assurance and unwavering confidence. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ Lutherearnestly warns men not to investigate the hidden God, but to look torevelation for an answer to the question how God is minded toward them, and how He intends to deal with them. In his _Commentary on Genesis_ herefers to this admonition and repeats it, protesting that he is innocentif any one is misled to take a different course. "I have added" [to thestatements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ concerning necessity and the hiddenGod] Luther here declares, "that we must look upon the revealed God. _Addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus_. " (CONC. TRIGL. 898. )

This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have menguided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught theuniversality of God's love and mercy, as well as of Christ's redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Alsoaccording to _De Servo Arbitrio_, God wants all men to be saved, anddoes not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to removeit. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: "As Ilive, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evilways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" He calls the above a"glorious passage" and "that sweetest Gospel voice--_illam vocemdulcissimi Evangelii_. " (E. V. A. 7, 218. )

Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able toconvince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. Inlike manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace aloneto be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divineassurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about thefinal victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if hewere required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In _De ServoArbitrio_ everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode theassertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does "worksomething in matters pertaining to salvation, " and to establish themonergism or sole activity of grace in man's conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688. )

At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he islost. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ he argues: Since it is God's will that allmen should be saved, it must be attributed to man's will if any oneperishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the graciouswill of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, hedemands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments ofGod, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in theBible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden andthe revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption. 

Yet Luther maintains that the conflict is seeming rather than real. Whatever may be true of the majestic God, it certainly cannot annul orinvalidate what He has made known of Himself in the Gospel. There areand can be no contradictory wills in God. Despite appearances to thecontrary, therefore, Christians are firmly to believe that, in Hisdealings with men, God, who saves so few and damns so many, isnevertheless both truly merciful and just. And what we now believe weshall see hereafter. When the veil will have been lifted and we shallknow God even as we are known by Him, then we shall see with our eyes noother face of God than the most lovable one which our faith beheld inJesus. The light of glory will not correct but confirm, the truths ofthe Bible, and reveal the fact that in all His ways God was always inperfect harmony with Himself. 

Indeed, according to Luther, the truth concerning the majestic God, inwhom we live and move and have our being, and without whom nothing canbe or occur, in a way serves both repentance and faith. It servesrepentance and the Law inasmuch as it humbles man, causing him todespair of himself and of the powers of his own unregenerate will. Itserves faith inasmuch as it guarantees God's merciful promises in theGospel. For if God is supreme, as He truly is, then there can be nothingmore reliable than the covenant of grace to which He has pledged Himselfby an oath. And if God, as He truly does, controls all contingencies, then there remains no room for any fear whether He will be able tofulfil His glorious promises, also the promise that nothing shall pluckus out of the hands of Christ. --Such, essentially was the teaching setforth by Luther in _De Servo Arbitrio_ and in his other publications. 

236. Object of Luther's "De Servo Arbitrio. "

The true scope of _De Servo Arbitrio_ is to prove that man is saved, notby any ability or efforts of his own, but solely by grace. Luther says:"We are not arguing the question what we can do when God works [movesus], but what we can do ourselves, _viz_. , whether, after being createdout of nothing, we can do or endeavor [to do] anything through thatgeneral movement of omnipotence toward preparing ourselves for being anew creation of His Spirit. This question should have been answered, instead of turning aside to another. " Luther continues: "We go on tosay: Man, before he is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdomof the Spirit, does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preparing himselffor renewal and the kingdom; and afterwards, when he has been createdanew, he does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preserving himself inthat kingdom; but the Spirit alone does each of these things in us, bothcreating us anew without our cooperation and preserving us whenrecreated, --even as Jas. 1, 18 says: 'Of His own will begat He us by theWord of Truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures, 'He is speaking here of the renewed creature. " (E. V. A. 7, 317; St. L. 18, 1909; compare here and in the following quotations Vaughan's _MartinLuther on the Bondage of the Will_, London, 1823. )

Man lacks also the ability to do what is good before God. Luther: "Ireply: The words of the Prophet [Ps. 14, 2: "The Lord looketh down fromheaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that didunderstand and seek God. They are all gone aside, " etc. ] include bothact and power; and it is the same thing to say, 'Man does not seek afterGod, ' as it would be to say, 'Man cannot seek after God. '" (E. 330; St. L. 1923. ) Again: "Since, therefore, men are flesh, as God Himselftestifies, they cannot but be carnally minded (_nihil sapere possuntnisi carnem_); hence free will has power only to sin. And since theygrow worse even when the Spirit of God calls and teaches them, whatwould they do if left to themselves, without the Spirit of God?" (E. 290; St. L. 1876. ) "In brief, you will observe in Scripture thatwherever flesh is treated in opposition to the Spirit, you mayunderstand by flesh about everything that is contrary to the Spirit, asin the passage [John 6, 63]: 'The flesh profiteth nothing. '" (E. 291; St. L. 1877. ) "Thus also Holy Scripture, by way of emphasis (_perepitasin_), calls man 'flesh, ' as though he were carnality itself, because his mind is occupied with nothing but carnal things. _Quod nimioac nihil aliud sapit quam ea, quae carnis sunt_. " (E. 302; St. L. 1890. )

According to Luther there is no such thing as a neutral willing in man. He says: "It is a mere logical fiction to say that there is in man aneutral and pure volition (_medium et purum velle_); nor can those proveit who assert it. It was born of ignorance of things and servile regardto words, as if something must straightway be such in substance as westate it to be in words, which sort of figments are numberless among theSophists [Scholastic theologians]. The truth of the matter is stated byChrist when He says [Luke 11, 23]: 'He that is not with Me is againstMe, ' He does not say, 'He that is neither with Me nor against Me, but inthe middle, ' For if God be in us, Satan is absent, and only the will forgood is present with us. If God be absent, Satan is present, and thereis no will in us but towards evil. Neither God nor Satan allows a mereand pure volition in us; but, as you have rightly said, having lost ourliberty, we are compelled to serve sin; that is sin and wickedness wewill, sin and wickedness we speak, sin and wickedness we act. " (E. 199;St. L. 1768. )

In support of his denial of man's ability in spiritual matters Lutherquotes numerous Bible-passages, and thoroughly refutes as fallacies _adebito ad posse_, etc. , the arguments drawn by Erasmus from mandatoryand conditional passages of Scripture. His own arguments he summarizesas follows: "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows andpreordains everything, also, that He can neither be deceived norhindered in His foreknowledge and predestination furthermore thatnothing occurs without His will (a truth which reason itself iscompelled to concede), then, according to the testimony of the selfsamereason, there can be no free will in man or angel or any creature. Likewise, if we believe Satan to be the prince of the world, who isperpetually plotting and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with allhis might, so that he does not release captive men unless he be drivenout by the divine power of the Spirit, it is again manifest that therecan be no such thing as free will. Again, if we believe original sin tohave so ruined us that, by striving against what is good, it makes mosttroublesome work even for those who are led by the Spirit, then it isclear that in man devoid of the Spirit nothing is left which can turnitself to good, but only [what turns itself] to evil. Again, if theJews, following after righteousness with all their might rushed forthinto unrighteousness, and the Gentiles, who were following afterunrighteousness, have freely and unexpectingly attained torighteousness, it is likewise manifest, even by very deed andexperience, that man without grace can will nothing but evil. In brief, if we believe Christ to have redeemed man by His blood, then we arecompelled to confess that the whole man was lost; else we shall makeChrist either superfluous, or the Redeemer only of the vilest part [ofman] which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. " (E. 366; St. L. 1969. )

237. Relation of Man's Will toward God's Majesty. 

According to Luther man has power over things beneath himself, but notover God in His majesty. We read: "We know that man is constituted lordof the things beneath him, over which he has power and free will, thatthey may obey him and do what he wills and thinks. But the point of ourinquiry is whether he has a free will toward God, so that God obeys anddoes what man wills; or, whether it is not rather God who has a freewill over man, so that the latter wills and does what God wills, and cando nothing but what God has willed and does. Here the Baptist says thatman can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven: whereforefree will is nothing. " (E. 359, St. L. 1957. )

God as revealed in the Word may, according to Luther, be opposed andresisted by man, but not God in His majesty. We read: "Lest any oneshould suppose this to be my own distinction, [let him know that] Ifollow Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist (2Thess. 2, 4) that he will exalt himself above every God that isproclaimed and worshiped, plainly indicating that one may be exaltedabove God, so far as He is proclaimed and worshiped, that is, above theWord and worship by which God is known to us, and maintains intercoursewith us. Nothing, however, can be exalted above God as He is in Hisnature and majesty (as not worshiped and proclaimed); rather, everythingis under His powerful hand. " (E. 221; St. L. 1794. )

God in His majesty is supreme and man cannot resist His omnipotence, northwart His decrees, nor foil His plans, nor render His omnisciencefallible. Luther: "For all men find this opinion written in theirhearts, and, when hearing this matter discussed, they, though againsttheir will, acknowledge and assent to it, first, that God is omnipotent, not only as regards His power, but also, as stated His action; else Hewould be a ridiculous God; secondly, that He knows and foreknows allthings, and can neither err nor be deceived. These two things, however, being conceded by the hearts and senses of all men they are presently, by an inevitable consequence, compelled to admit that, even as we arenot made by our own will, but by necessity, so likewise we do nothingaccording to the right of free will, but just as God has foreknown andacts by a counsel and an energy which is infallible and immutable. So, then, we find it written in all hearts alike that free will [defined asa power independent of God's power] is nothing, although this writing[in the hearts of men] be obscured through so many contrary disputationsand the great authority of so many persons who during so many ages havebeen teaching differently. " (E. 268; St. L. 1851. )

The very idea of God and omnipotence involves that free will is not, andcannot be, a power independent of God. Luther: "However, even naturalreason is obliged to confess that the living and true God must be such aone who by His freedom imposes necessity upon us, for, evidently, Hewould be a ridiculous God or, more properly, an idol, who would eitherforesee future events in an uncertain way, or be deceived by the events, as the Gentiles have asserted an inescapable fate also for their gods. God would be equally ridiculous if He could not do or did not do allthings, or if anything occurred without Him. Now, if foreknowledge andomnipotence are conceded, it naturally follows as an irrefutableconsequence that we have not been made by ourselves, nor that we live ordo anything by ourselves, but through His omnipotence. Since, therefore, He foreknew that we should be such [as we actually are], and even nowmakes, moves, and governs us as such, pray, what can be imagined that isfree in us so as to occur differently than He has foreknown or nowworks? God's foreknowledge and omnipotence, therefore, conflict directlywith our free will [when defined as a power independent of God]. Foreither God will be mistaken in foreknowing, err also in acting (which isimpossible), or we shall act, and be acted upon, according to Hisforeknowledge and action. By the omnipotence of God, however, I do notmean that power by which He can do many things which He does not do butthat active omnipotence by means of which He powerfully works all thingsin all, in which manner Scripture calls Him omnipotent. This omnipotenceand prescience of God, I say, entirely abolish the dogma of free will. Nor can the obscurity of Scripture or the difficulty of the matter bemade a pretext here. The words are most clear, known even to children;the subject-matter is plain and easy, judged to be so even by thenatural reason common to all, so that ever so long a series of ages, times, and persons writing and teaching otherwise will avail nothing. "(E. 267; St. L. 1849. )

According to Luther, therefore, nothing can or does occur independentlyof God, or differently from what His omniscience has foreseen. Luther:"Hence it follows irrefutably that all things which we do, and allthings which happen, although to us they seem to happen changeably andcontingently, do in reality happen necessarily and immutably, if oneviews the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious and cannot bethwarted since it is God's natural power itself. It is also wise, sothat it cannot be deceived. And since His will is not thwarted, the workitself cannot be prevented, but must occur in the very place, time, manner, and degree which He Himself both foresees and wills. " (E. 134;St. L. 1692. )

238. God Not the Cause of Sin. 

Regarding God's relation to the sinful actions of men, Luther held thatGod is not the cause of sin. True, His omnipotence impels also theungodly; but the resulting acts are evil because of man's evil nature. He writes: "Since, therefore, God moves and works all in all, Henecessarily moves and acts also in Satan and in the wicked. But He actsin them precisely according to what they are and what He finds them tobe (_agit in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit_). Thatis to say, since they are turned away [from Him] and wicked, and [assuch] are impelled to action by divine omnipotence, they do only suchthings as are averse [to God] and wicked, just as a horseman driving ahorse which has only three or two [sound] feet (_equum tripedem velbipedem_) will drive him in a manner corresponding to the condition ofthe horse (_agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est_), _i. E. _, the horsegoes at a sorry gait. But what can the horseman do? He drives such ahorse together with sound horses, so that it sadly limps along, whilethe others take a good gait. He cannot do otherwise unless the horse iscured. Here you see that when God works in the wicked and through thewicked, the result indeed is evil (_mala quidem fieri_), but thatnevertheless God cannot act wickedly, although He works that which isevil through the wicked; for He being good, cannot Himself act wickedly, although He uses evil instruments, which cannot escape the impulse andmotion of His power. The fault, therefore, is in the instruments, whichGod does not suffer to remain idle, so that evil occurs, God Himselfimpelling them, but in no other manner than a carpenter who, using an axthat is notched and toothed, would do poor work with it. Hence it isthat a wicked man cannot but err and sin continually, because, beingimpelled by divine power, he is not allowed to remain idle, but wills, desires, and acts according to what he is (_velit, cupiat, faciattaliter, qualis ipse est_). " (E. 255; St. L. 1834. ) "For although Goddoes not make sin, still He ceases not to form and to multiply a naturewhich, the Spirit having been withdrawn is corrupted by sin, just aswhen a carpenter makes statues of rotten wood. Thus men become whattheir nature is, God creating and forming them of such nature. " (E. 254;St. L. 1833. )

Though God works all things in all things the wickedness of an actionflows from the sinful nature of the creature. Luther: "Whoever wouldhave any understanding of such matters, let him consider that God worksevil in us, _i. E. _, through us, not by any fault of His, but through ourown fault. For since we are by nature evil, while God is good, and sinceHe impels us to action according to the nature of His omnipotence, He, who Himself is good, cannot do otherwise than do evil with an evilinstrument, although, according to His wisdom, He causes this evil toturn out unto His own glory and to our salvation. " (E. 257; St. L. 1837. ) "For this is what we assert and contend, that, when God workswithout the grace of His Spirit [in His majesty, outside of Word andSacrament], He works all in all, even in the wicked; for He alone movesall things, which He alone has created, and drives and impels all thingsby virtue of His omnipotence, which they [the created things] cannotescape or change, but necessarily follow and obey, according to thepower which God has given to each of them--such is the manner in whichall, even wicked, things cooperate with Him. Furthermore, when He actsby the Spirit of Grace in those whom He has made righteous, _i. E. _, inHis own kingdom, He in like manner impels and moves them; and, being newcreatures, they follow and cooperate with Him; or rather, as Paul says, they are led by Him. " (E. 317; St. L. 1908. ) "For we say that, withoutthe grace of God, man still remains under the general omnipotence ofGod, who does, moves, impels all things, so that they take their coursenecessarily and without fail, but that what man, so impelled, does, isnothing, _i. E. _, avails nothing before God, and is accounted nothing butsin. " (E. 315; St. L. 1906. )

Though everything occurs as God has foreseen, this, according to Luther, does not at all involve that man is coerced in his actions. Luther: "Butpray, are we disputing now concerning coercion and force? Have we not inso many books testified that we speak of the necessity of immutability?We know . .. That Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ. But weaffirm that, if God foreknew it, this volition would certainly andwithout fail occur in this very Judas. .. . We are not discussing thepoint whether Judas became a traitor unwillingly or willingly, butwhether at the time foreappointed by God it infallibly had to happenthat Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ. " (E. 270; St. L. 1853. )Again: "What is it to me that free will is not coerced, but does what itdoes willingly? It is enough for me to have you concede that it mustnecessarily happen, that he [Judas] does what he does of his ownvolition, and that he cannot conduct himself otherwise if God has soforeknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will betray, or that he willchange his mind about it, --whichever of the two He shall have foreknownwill necessarily come to pass, else God would be mistaken in foreknowingand foretelling, --which is impossible. Necessity of consequence effectsthis: if God foreknows an event, it necessarily happens. In other words, free will is nothing" [it is not a power independent of God or able tonullify God's prescience]. (E. 272; St. L. 1855. )

To wish that God would abstain from impelling the wicked is, accordingto Luther, tantamount to wishing that He cease to be God. Luther: "Thereis still this question which some one may ask, 'Why does God not ceaseto impel by His omnipotence, in consequence of which the will of thewicked is moved to continue being wicked and even growing worse?' Theanswer is: This is equivalent to desiring that God cease to be God forthe sake of the wicked, since one wishes His power and action to cease, _i. E. _, that He cease to be good, lest they become worse!" (E. 259; St. L. 1839. )

239. Free Will a Mere Empty Title. 

Luther considers free will (when defined as an ability in spiritualmatters or as a power independent of God) a mere word without anythingcorresponding to it in reality (_figmentum in rebus seu titulus sinere_, E. V. A. 5, 230), because natural will has powers only in matterstemporal and subject to reason, but none in spiritual things, andbecause of itself and independently of God's omnipotence it has no powerwhatever. We read: "Now it follows that free will is a title altogetherdivine and cannot belong to any other being, save only divine majesty, for He, as the Psalmist sings [Ps. 115, 3], can do and does all that Hewills in heaven and in earth. Now, when this title is ascribed to men, it is so ascribed with no more right than if also divinity itself wereascribed to them, --a sacrilege than which there is none greater. Accordingly it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this wordwhen they intended to speak of human power, and to reserve itexclusively for God, thereupon also to remove it from the mouth anddiscourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for theirGod. And if they would at all ascribe some power to man, they shouldhave taught that it be called by some other name than 'free will, 'especially since we all know and see that the common people aremiserably deceived and led astray by this term, for by it they hear andconceive something very far different from what theologians mean anddiscuss. 'Free will' is too magnificent, extensive, and comprehensive aterm; by it common people understand (as also the import and nature ofthe word require) a power which can freely turn to either side, andneither yields nor is subject to any one, " (E. 158; St. L. 1720. )

If the term "free will" be retained, it should, according to Luther, beconceived of as a power, not in divine things, but only in matterssubject to human reason. We read: "So, then, according to Erasmus, freewill is the power of the will which is able of itself to will and not towill the Word and work of God, whereby it is led to things which exceedboth its comprehension and perception. For if it is able to will and notto will, it is able also to love and to hate. If it is able to love andto hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to keep the Law and tobelieve the Gospel. For if you will or do not will, a certain thing, itis impossible that by that will you should not be able to do somethingof the work, even though, when hindered by another, you cannot completeit. " (E. 191; St. L. 1759. ) "If, then, we are not willing to abandonthis term altogether, which would be the safest and most pious course tofollow, let us at least teach men to use it in good faith (_bona fide_)only in the sense that free will be conceded to man, with respect tosuch matters only as are not superior, but inferior to himself, _i. E. _, man is to know that, with regard to his means and possessions, he hasthe right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to hisfree will; although also even this is directed by the free will of Godalone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or inthings pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but isthe captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of thewill of Satan. " (E. 160; St. L. 1722. ) "Perhaps you might properlyattribute some will (_aliquod arbitrium_) to man, but to attribute freewill to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of allwho hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which cando and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without beinghindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free whoacts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety dowe call men or angels truly free, who, to say nothing of sin and death, live under the most complete authority of God, unable to subsist for amoment by their own power. " (E. 189; St. L. 1756. )

Lost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is nohealth. We read: "When it has been conceded and settled that free will, having lost its freedom, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power towill anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressionsthan that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. Mygrammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title ofliberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. Ifhere I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure andambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot callhealth that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, Ibelieve to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away withmonstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which weaffirm that man has free will, and in the same breath assert that he, having lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and can will nothinggood? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use ofspeech. The _Diatribe_ is rather to be accused of blurting out its wordsas if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does notconsider, I say, what it means, and what it all includes, if I declare:Man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power towill anything good. " (E. 200; St. L. 1769. )

Satan causes his captives to believe themselves free and happy. Luther:"The Scriptures set before us a man who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, dead, but who (through the operation of Satan, hisprince) adds this plague of blindness to his other plagues, that hebelieves himself to be free, happy, unfettered, strong, healthy, alive. For Satan knows that, if man were to realize his own misery, he wouldnot be able to retain any one in his kingdom, because God could not butat once pity and help him who recognizes his misery and cries forrelief. For throughout all Scripture He is extolled and greatly praisedfor being nigh unto the contrite in heart, as also Christ testifies, Isaiah 61, 1. 2, that He has been sent to preach the Gospel to the poorand to heal the broken-hearted. Accordingly, it is Satan's business tokeep his grip on men, lest they recognize their misery, but rather takeit for granted that they are able to do everything that is said. " (E. 213; St. L. 1785. )

240. The Gospel to be Our Only Guide. 

According to _De Servo Arbitrio_ God's majesty and His mysteriousjudgments and ways must not be searched, nor should speculationsconcerning them be made the guide of our faith and life. Luther says:"Of God or of the will of God proclaimed and revealed, and offered tous, and which we meditate upon, we must treat in a different way than ofGod in so far as He is not proclaimed, not revealed, and not offered tous, and is not the object of our meditations. For in so far as God hidesHimself, and desires not to be known of us, we have nothing to do withHim. Here the saying truly applies, 'What is above us does not concernus. '" (E. 221, St. L. 1794. ) "We say, as we have done before, that onemust not discuss the secret will of [divine] majesty, and that man'stemerity, which, due to continual perverseness, disregards necessarymatters and always attacks and encounters this [secret will], should becalled away and withdrawn from occupying itself with scrutinizing thosesecrets of divine majesty which it is impossible to approach; for itdwells 'in the light which no man can approach unto, ' as Paul testifies, 1 Tim. 6, 16. " (E. 227; St. L. 1801. ) This statement, that God's majestymust not be investigated, says Luther, "is not our invention, but aninjunction confirmed by Holy Scripture. For Paul says Rom. 9, 19-21:'Why doth God yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, Oman, who art thou that repliest against God?. .. Hath not the potterpower, ' etc. ? And before him Isaiah, chapter 58, 2: 'Yet they seek Medaily, and delight to know My ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of Me theordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God, ' Thesewords, I take it, show abundantly that it is unlawful for men toscrutinize the will of majesty. " (E. 228; St. L. 1803. )

Instead of searching the Scriptures, as they are commanded to do, menunlawfully crave to investigate the hidden judgments of God. We read:"But we are nowhere more irreverent and rash than when we invade andargue these very mysteries and judgments which are unsearchable. Meanwhile we imagine that we are exercising incredible reverence insearching the Holy Scriptures, which God has commanded us to search. Here we do not search, but where He has forbidden us to search, there wedo nothing but search with perpetual temerity, not to say blasphemy. Oris it not such a search when we rashly endeavor to make that wholly freeforeknowledge of God accord with our liberty, and are ready to detractfrom the prescience of God, if it does not allow us liberty, or if itinduces necessity, to say with the murmurers and blasphemers, 'Why dothHe find fault? Who shall resist His will? What is become of the mostmerciful God? What of Him who wills not the death of the sinner? Has Hemade men that He might delight Himself with their torments?' and thelike, which will be howled out forever among the devils and the damned. "(E. 266, St. L. 1848. )

God's unknowable will is not and cannot be our guide. Luther: "The_Diatribe_ beguiles herself through her ignorance, making no distinctionbetween the proclaimed and the hidden God, that is between the Word ofGod and God Himself. God does many things which He has not shown us inHis Word. He also wills many things concerning which He has not shown usin His Word that He wills them. For instance, He does not will the deathof a sinner namely, according to His Word, but He wills it according toHis inscrutable will. Now, our business is to look at His Word, disregarding the inscrutable will; for we must be directed by the Word, not by that inscrutable will (_nobis spectandum est Verbumrelinquendaque illa voluntas imperscrutabilis; Verbo enim nos dirigi, non voluntate illa inscrutabili oportet_). Indeed, who could directhimself by that inscrutable and unknowable will? It is enough merely toknow that there is such an inscrutable will in God; but what, why, andhow far it wills, that is altogether unlawful for us to inquire into, towish [to know], and to trouble or occupy ourselves with; on thecontrary, we should fear and adore it. " (E. 222; St. L. 1795)

Instead of investigating the mysteries of divine majesty, men ought toconcern themselves with God's revelation in the Gospel. Luther: "But lether [human temerity] occupy herself with the incarnate God or, as Paulsays, with Jesus Crucified, in whom are hidden all the treasures ofwisdom and knowledge. For through Him she has abundantly what she oughtto know and not to know. It is the incarnate God, then, who speaks here[Matt. 23]: 'I would, and thou wouldest not. ' The incarnate God, I say, was sent for this purpose, that He might will, speak, do, suffer, andoffer to all men all things which are necessary to salvation, althoughHe offends very many who, being either abandoned or hardened by thatsecret will of His majesty, do not receive Him who wills, speaks, works, offers, even as John says: 'The light shineth in darkness, and thedarkness comprehendeth it not;' and again: 'He came unto His own and Hisown received Him not. '" (E. 227f. , St. L. 1802. )

241. God's Grace Is Universal and Serious. 

All men are in need of the saving Gospel, and it should be preached toall. We read in _De Servo Arbitrio_: "Paul had said just before: 'TheGospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;to the Jew first and also to the Greek, ' These words are not obscure orambiguous: 'To the Jews and to the Greeks, ' that is, to all men, theGospel of the power of God is necessary, in order that, believing, theymay be saved from the revealed wrath. " (E. 322; St. L. 1915. ) "He [God]knows what, when, how, and to whom we ought to speak. Now, Hisinjunction is that His Gospel, which is necessary for all, should belimited by neither place nor time, but be preached to all, at all times, and in all places. " (E. 149; St. L. 1709. )

The universal promises of the Gospel offer firm and sweet consolation topoor sinners. Luther: "It is the voice of the Gospel and the sweetestconsolation to poor miserable sinners when Ezekiel says [18, 23. 32]: 'Ihave no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he beconverted and live, ' Just so also the thirtieth Psalm [v. 5]: 'For Hisanger endureth but a moment; in His favor is life [His will rather islife]. ' And the sixty-ninth [v. 16]: 'For Thy loving-kindness is good[How sweet is Thy mercy, Lord!]' Also: 'Because I am merciful, ' And thatsaying of Christ, Matt. 11, 28: 'Come unto Me, all ye that labor and areheavy laden, and I will refresh you, ' Also that of Exodus [20, 6], 'Ishow mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, ' Indeed, almost morethan half of Holy Scripture, --what is it but genuine promises of grace, by which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered by God to men?And what else do the words of promise sound forth than this: 'I have nopleasure in the death of a sinner'? Is it not the same thing to say, 'Iam merciful, ' as to say, 'I am not angry, ' 'I do not wish to punish, ''I do not wish you to die, ' 'I desire to pardon, ' 'I desire to spare'?Now, if these divine promises did not stand [firm], so as to raise upafflicted consciences terrified by the sense of sin and the fear ofdeath and judgment, what place would there be for pardon or for hope?What sinner would not despair?" (E. 218; St. L. 1791. )

God, who would have all men to be saved deplores and endeavors to removedeath, so that man must blame himself if he is lost. Luther: "God in Hismajesty and nature therefore must be left untouched [unsearched] for inthis respect we have nothing to do with Him, nor did He want us to dealwith Him in this respect; but we deal with Him in so far as He hasclothed Himself and come forth in His Word, by which He has offeredHimself to us. This [Word] is His glory and beauty with which thePsalmist, 21, 6, celebrates Him as being clothed. " Emphasizing theseriousness of universal grace, Luther continues: "Therefore we affirmthat the holy God does not deplore the death of the people which Heworks in them, but deplores the death which He finds in the people, andendeavors to remove (_sed deplorat mortem, quam invenit in populo, etamovere studet_). For this is the work of the proclaimed God to takeaway sin and death, that we may be saved. For He has sent His Word andhealed them. " (E. 222; St. L. 1795. ) "Hence it is rightly said, If Godwills not death, it must be charged to our own will that we perish. 'Rightly, ' I say, if you speak of the proclaimed God. For He would haveall men to be saved, coming, as He does, with His Word of salvation toall men; and the fault is in the will, which does not admit Him, as Hesays, Matt. 23, 37: 'How often would I have gathered thy childrentogether, and ye would not!'" (E. 222; St. L. 1795. )

242. Sola gratia Doctrine Engenders Assurance. 

Luther rejoices in the doctrine of _sola gratia_ because it alone isable to engender assurance of salvation. He writes: "As for myself, Icertainly confess that, if such a thing could somehow be, I should beunwilling to have free will given me, or anything left in my own hand, which might enable me to make an effort at salvation; not only becausein the midst of so many dangers and adversities and also of so manyassaulting devils I should not be strong enough to remain standing andkeep my hold of it (for one devil is mightier than all men put together, and not a single man would be saved), but because, even if there were nodangers and no adversities and no devils, I should still be compelled totoil forever uncertainly, and to beat the air in my struggle. For thoughI should live and work to eternity, my own conscience would never besure and at ease as to how much it ought to do in order to satisfy God. No matter how perfect a work might be, there would be left a doubtwhether it pleased God, or whether He required anything more, as isproved by the experience of all who endeavor to be saved by the Law(_iustitiariorum_), and as I, to my own great misery, have learnedabundantly during so many years. But now, since God has taken mysalvation out of the hands of my will, and placed it into those of Hisown and has promised to save me, not by my own work or running, but byHis grace and mercy, I feel perfectly secure, because He is faithful andwill not lie to me; moreover, He is powerful and great, so that neitherdevils nor adversities can crush Him, or pluck me out of His hand. Noone, says He, shall pluck them out of My hand; for My Father, who gavethem unto Me, is greater than all. Thus it comes to pass that, thoughnot all are saved, at least some, nay, many are, whereas by the power offree will absolutely none would be saved, but every one of us would belost. We are also certain and sure that we please God, not by the meritof our own work, but by the favor of His mercy which He has promised us, and that, if we have done less than we ought, or have done anythingamiss, He does not impute it to us, but, as a father, forgives andamends it. Such is the boast of every saint in his God. " (E. 362; St. L. 1961f. )

In the _Apology of the Augsburg Confession_ this thought of Luther's isrepeated as follows: "If the matter [our salvation] were to depend uponour merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless, because we nevercould determine when we would have sufficient merit. And thisexperienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for athousand worlds, have our salvation depend upon ourselves]. " (CONC. TRIGL. 145, 84; compare 1079, 45f. )

243. Truth of God's Majesty Serves God's Gracious Will. 

Luther regarded the teaching that everything is subject to God's majestyas being of service to His gracious will. We read: "Two things requirethe preaching of these truths [concerning the infallibility of God'sforeknowledge, etc. ]; the first is, the humbling of our pride and theknowledge of the grace of God; the second, Christian faith itself. First, God has certainly promised His grace to the humbled, _i. E. _, tothose who deplore their sins and despair [of themselves]. But man cannotbe thoroughly humbled until he knows that his salvation is altogetherbeyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works, and dependsaltogether upon the decision, counsel, will, and work of another, _i. E. _, of God only. For as long as he is persuaded that he can doanything toward gaining salvation, though it be ever so little, hecontinues in self-confidence, and does not wholly despair of himself;accordingly he is not humbled before God, but anticipates, or hopes for, or at least wishes for, a place, a time, and some work by which he mayfinally obtain salvation. " (E. 153. 133; St. L. 1715. 1691. ) "More thanonce, " says Luther, "I myself have been offended at it [the teachingconcerning God's majesty] to such an extent that I was at the brink ofdespair, so that I even wished I had never been created a man, --until Ilearned how salutary that despair was and how close to grace. " (E. 268;St. L. 1850. )

Of the manner in which, according to Luther, the truth concerning God'smajesty serves the Gospel, we read: "Moreover, I do not only wish tospeak of how true these things are, . .. But also how becoming to aChristian, how pious, and how necessary it is to know them. For if thesethings are not known, it is impossible for either faith or any worshipof God to be maintained. That would be ignorance of God indeed; and ifwe do not know Him, we cannot obtain salvation, as is well known. For ifyou doubt that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, butnecessarily and immutably, or if you scorn such knowledge, how will yoube able to believe His promises, and with full assurance trust and relyupon them? When He promises, you ought to be sure that He knows what Heis promising, and is able and willing to accomplish it, else you willaccount Him neither true nor faithful. That, however, is unbelief, extreme impiety, and a denial of the most high God. But how will you beconfident and sure if you do not know that He certainly, infallibly, unchangeably, and necessarily knows, and wills, and will perform what Hepromises? Nor should we merely be certain that God necessarily andimmutably wills and will perform [what He has promised], but we shouldeven glory in this very thing, as Paul does, Rom. 3, 4: 'Let God betrue, but every man a liar. ' And again, Rom. 9, 6; 4, 21; 1 Sam. 3, 19:'Not that the Word of God hath taken none effect. ' And in another place, 2 Tim. 2, 19: 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. ' And in Titus 1, 2: 'Which God, thatcannot lie, hath promised before the world began. ' And in Heb. 11, 6:'He that cometh to God must believe that God is, and that He is arewarder of them that hope in Him. ' So, then, Christian faith isaltogether extinguished, the promises of God and the entire Gospel fallabsolutely to the ground, if we are taught and believe that we have noneed of knowing the foreknowledge of God to be necessary and thenecessity of all things that must be done. For this is the only andhighest possible consolation of Christians in all adversities to knowthat God does not lie, but does all things immutably, and that His willcan neither be resisted, nor altered, nor hindered. " (E. 137. 264; St. L. 1695. 1845. )

244. There Are No Real Contradictions in God. 

Among the mysteries which we are unable to solve Luther enumerates thequestions: Why did God permit the fall of Adam? Why did He suffer us tobe infected with original sin? Why does God not change the evil will?Why is it that some are converted while others are lost? We read: "Butwhy does He not at the same time change the evil will which He moves?This pertains to the secrets of His majesty, where His judgments areincomprehensible. Nor is it our business to investigate, but to adorethese mysteries. If, therefore, flesh and blood here take offense andmurmur, let them murmur; but they will effect nothing, God will not bechanged on that account. And if the ungodly are scandalized and leave inever so great numbers, the elect will nevertheless remain. The sameanswer should be given to those who ask, 'Why did He allow Adam to fall, and why does He create all of us infected with the same sin when Hecould have preserved him [Adam], and created us from something else, orafter first having purged the seed?' He is God, for whose will there isno cause or reason which might be prescribed for it as a standard andrule of action; for it has no equal or superior, but is itself the rulefor everything. If it had any rule or standard, cause or reason, itcould no longer be the will of God. For what He wills is right, notbecause He is or was in duty bound so to will, but, on the contrary, because He wills so, therefore what occurs must be right. Cause andreason are prescribed to a creature's will, but not to the will of theCreator, unless you would set another Creator over Him. " (E. 259; St. L. 1840. )

Regarding the question why some are converted while others are not, weread: "But why this majesty does not remove this fault of our will, orchange it in all men (seeing that it is not in the power of man to doso), or why He imputes this [fault of the will] to man when he cannot bewithout it, it is not lawful to search, and although you search much, you will never discover it, as Paul says, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who artthou that repliest against God?'" (E. 223, St. L. 1796. ) "But as to whysome are touched by the Law and others are not, so that the formerreceive, and the latter despise, the grace offered, this is anotherquestion, and one not treated by Ezekiel in this place, who speaks ofthe preached and offered mercy of God, not of the secret andto-be-feared will of God, who by His counsel ordains what and what kindof persons He wills to be capable and partakers of His preached andoffered mercy. This will of God must not be searched, but reverentlyadored, as being by far the most profound and sacred secret of divinemajesty, reserved for Himself alone, and prohibited to us much morereligiously than countless multitudes of Corycian Caves. " (E. 221; St. L. 1794. )

Christians firmly believe that in His dealings with men God is alwayswise and just and good. Luther: "According to the judgment of reason itremains absurd that this just and good God should demand things that areimpossible of fulfilment by free will, and, although it cannot will thatwhich is good but necessarily serves sin, should nevertheless chargethis to free will; and that, when He does not confer the Spirit, Heshould not act a whit more kindly or more mercifully than when Hehardens or permits men to harden themselves. Reason will declare thatthese are not the acts of a kind and merciful God. These things exceedher understanding too far, nor can she take herself into captivity tobelieve God to be good, who acts and judges thus; but setting faithaside, she wants to feel and see and comprehend how He is just and notcruel. She would indeed comprehend if it were said of God: 'He hardensnobody, He damns nobody, rather pities everybody, saves everybody, ' sothat, hell being destroyed and the fear of death removed, no futurepunishment need be dreaded. This is the reason why she is so hot instriving to excuse and defend God as just and good. _But faith and thespirit judge differently, believing God to be good though he were todestroy all men_. " (E. 252; St. L. 1832. ) "The reason why of the divinewill must not be investigated, but simply adored, and we must give theglory to God that, being alone just and wise, _He does wrong to none, nor can He do anything foolish or rash, though it may appear farotherwise to us. Godly men are content with this answer_. " (E. 153; St. L. 1714. )

According to Luther, divine justice must be just as incomprehensible tohuman reason as God's entire essence. We read: "But when we feel ill atease for the reason that it is difficult to vindicate the mercy andequity of God because He damns the undeserving, _i. E. _, such ungodly menas are born in ungodliness, and hence cannot in any way prevent beingand remaining ungodly and damned, and are compelled by their nature tosin and perish, as Paul says [Eph. 2, 3]: 'We were all the sons of wratheven as others, ' they being created such by God Himself out of the seedwhich was corrupted through the sin of the one Adam, --then the mostmerciful God is to be honored and revered in [His dealings with] thosewhom He justifies and saves, although they are most unworthy, and atleast a little something ought to be credited to His divine wisdom bybelieving Him to be just where to us He seems unjust. For if His justicewere such as could be declared just by human understanding, it wouldclearly not be divine, differing nothing from human justice. But sinceHe is the one true God, and entirely incomprehensible and inaccessibleto human reason, it is proper, nay, necessary, that His justice also beincomprehensible, even as Paul also exclaims, Rom. 11, 33, saying: 'Othe depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! Howunsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Now, they would not be incomprehensible if we were able, in everything Hedoes, to comprehend why they are just. What is man compared with God?How much is our power capable of as compared with His? What is ourstrength compared with His powers? What is our knowledge compared withHis wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In short, what is everything that is ours as compared with everything that isHis?" (E. 363; St. L. 1962. )

Christians embrace the opportunity offered by the mysterious ways of Godto exercise their faith. Luther: "This is the highest degree of faith, to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and condemns so many, to believe Him just, who by His will [creating us out of sinful seed]necessarily makes us damnable, thus, according to Erasmus, seeming to bedelighted with the torments of the wretched, and worthy of hatred ratherthan of love. If, then, I could in any way comprehend how this God ismerciful and just who shows such great wrath and [seeming] injustice, there would be no need of faith. But now, since this cannot becomprehended there is to be an opportunity for the exercise of faithwhen these things are preached and published, even as when God kills, our faith in life is exercised in death. " (E. 154; St. L. 1716. )

245. Seeming Contradictions Solved in Light of Glory. 

Christians are fully satisfied that hereafter they will see andunderstand what they here believed, _viz_. , that in His dealings withmen God truly is and always was absolutely just. Luther: "If you arepleased with God for crowning the unworthy, you ought not to bedispleased with Him for condemning the undeserving [who were not worseor more guilty than those who are crowned]. If He is just in the formercase, why not in the latter? In the former case He scatters favor andmercy upon the unworthy, in the latter He scatters wrath and severityupon the undeserving [who are guilty in no higher degree than those whoare saved]. In both cases He is excessive and unrighteous before [in thejudgment of] men but just and true in His own mind. For how it is justthat He crowns the unworthy is incomprehensible to us now; _but we shallunderstand it when we have come to that place where we shall no longerbelieve, but behold with our face unveiled_. So, too, how it is justthat He condemns the undeserving we cannot comprehend now, yet webelieve it until the Son of Man shall be revealed. " (E. 284; St. L. 1870. ) "Of course, in all other things we concede divine majesty to God;only in His judgment we are ready to deny it, and cannot even for alittle while believe that He is just, since He has promised us that, _when he will reveal His glory, we all shall then both see and feel thatHe has been, and is, just_. " (E. 364; St. L. 1964. )

Again: "Do you not think that since the light of grace has so readilysolved a question which could not be solved by the light of nature, thelight of glory will be able to solve with the greatest ease the questionwhich in the light of the Word or of grace is unsolvable? In accordancewith the common and good distinction let it be conceded that there arethree lights--the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light ofglory. In the light of nature it is unsolvable that it should be justthat the good are afflicted while the wicked prosper. The light ofgrace, however, solves this [mystery]. In the light of grace it isunsolvable how God may condemn him who cannot by any power of his own dootherwise than sin and be guilty. There the light of nature as well asthe light of grace declares that the fault is not in wretched man, butin the unjust God. For they cannot judge otherwise of God, who crowns awicked man gratuitously without any merits, and does not crown another, but condemns him, who perhaps is less, or at least not more wicked [thanthe one who is crowned]. _But the light of glory pronounces a differentverdict_, and when it arrives, it will show God, whose judgment is nowthat of incomprehensible justice, to be a Being of most just andmanifest justice, which meanwhile we are to believe, admonished andconfirmed by the example of the light of grace, which accomplishes alike miracle with respect to the light of nature. " (E. 365; St. L. 1965. )

246. Statements Made by Luther before Publication of "De ServoArbitrio. "

Wherever Luther touches on predestination both before and after 1525, essentially the same thoughts are found, though not developed asextensively as in _De Servo Arbitrio_. He consistently maintains thatGod's majesty must be neither denied nor searched, and that Christiansshould be admonished to look and rely solely upon the revealed universalpromises of the Gospel. In his _Church Postil_ of 1521 we read: "Thethird class of men who also approve this [the words of Paul, Rom. 11, 34. 35: 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been Hiscounselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensedunto Him again?'] are those who indeed hear the Word of Revelation. ForI am not now speaking of such as deliberately persecute the Word (theybelong to the first class, who do not at all inquire about God) but ofthose who disregard the revelation and led by the devil, go beyond andbeside it, seeking to grasp the ways and judgments of God which He hasnot revealed. Now, if they were Christians, they would be satisfied andthank God for giving His Word, in which He shows what is pleasing toHim, and how we are to be saved. But they suffer the devil to lead them, insist on seeking other revelations, ponder what God may be in Hisinvisible majesty, how He secretly governs the world, and what He has inparticular decreed for each one in the future. For nature and humanreason cannot desist; they will meddle in His judgment with theirwisdom, sit in His most secret council, instruct Him and master Him. This is the pride of the foul fiend, who was cast into the abyss of hellfor trying to meddle in [matters of] divine majesty, and who in the sameway eagerly seeks to bring man to fall, and to cast him down withhimself, as he did in Paradise in the beginning, tempting also thesaints and even Christ with the same thing, when he set Him on thepinnacle of the Temple, etc. Against such in particular St. Paul hereintroduces these words [Rom. 11, 34. 35] to the inquisitive questions ofwise reason: Why did God thus punish and reject the Jews while Hepermitted the condemned heathen to come to the Gospel? Again, Why doesHe govern on this wise, that wicked and evil men are exalted while thepious are allowed to undergo misfortune and be suppressed? Why does Hecall Judas to be an apostle and later on reject him while He accepts themurderer and malefactor? By them [his words, Rom. 11] Paul would ordersuch to cease climbing up to the secret Majesty, and to adhere to therevelation which God has given us. For such searching and climbing isnot only in vain, but also harmful. Though you search in all eternity, you will never attain anything, but only break your neck. "

"But if you desire to proceed in the right way, you can do no betterthan busying yourself with His Word and works, in which He has revealedHimself and permits Himself to be heard and apprehended, to wit, how Hesets before you His Son Christ upon the cross. That is the work of yourredemption. There you can certainly apprehend God, and see that He doesnot wish to condemn you on account of your sins if you believe, but togive you eternal life, as Christ says: 'God so loved the world that Hegave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should notperish, but have everlasting life, ' (John 3, 16. ) In this Christ, saysPaul, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2, 3. )And that will be more than enough for you to learn, study, and consider. This lofty revelation of God will also make you marvel and will engendera desire and love for God. It is a work which in this life you willnever finish studying; a work of which, as Peter says, even the angelscannot see enough, but which they contemplate unceasingly with joy anddelight. (1 Pet. 1, 12. )"

"This I say that we may know how to instruct and direct those (if suchwe should meet with) who are being afflicted and tormented by suchthoughts of the devil to tempt God, when he entices them to search thedevious ways of God outside of revelation, and to grope about trying tofathom what God plans for them--whereby they are led into such doubt anddespair that they know not how they will survive. Such people must bereminded of these words [Rom. 11], and be rebuked with them (as St. Paulrebukes his Jews and wiseacres) for seeking to apprehend God with theirwisdom and to school Him, as His advisers and masters, and for dealingwith Him by themselves without means, and for giving Him so much that Hemust requite them again. For nothing will come of it; He has carefullybuilt so high that you will not thus scale Him by your climbing. Hiswisdom, counsel, and riches are so great that you will never be able tofathom or to exhaust them. Therefore be glad that He permits you to knowand receive these things somewhat by revelation. " (E. 9, 15 sqq. ; St. L. 12, 641 sqq. )

In a sermon on 2 Pet. 1, 10, delivered in 1523 and published in 1524, Luther said: "Here a limit [beyond which we may not go] has been set forus how to treat of predestination. Many frivolous spirits, who have notfelt much of faith, tumble in, strike at the top, concerning themselvesfirst of all with this matter, and seek to determine by means of theirreason whether they are elected in order to be certain of theirstanding. From this you must desist, it is not the hilt of the matter. If you would be certain, you must attain to this goal by taking the waywhich Peter here proposes. Take another, and you have already goneastray; your own experience must teach you. If faith is well exercisedand stressed, you will finally become sure of the matter, so that youwill not fail. " (E. 52, 224, St. L. 9, 1353. )

After a discussion at Wittenberg with a fanatic from Antwerp, in 1525, Luther wrote a letter of warning to the Christians of Antwerp, in whichhe speaks of God's will with respect to sin in an illuminating manner asfollows: "Most of all he [the fanatic] fiercely contended that God'scommand was good, and that God did not desire sin, which is true withouta doubt; and the fact that we also confessed this did not do us anygood. But he would not admit that, although God does not desire sin, Henevertheless permits (_verhaengt_) it to happen, and such permissioncertainly does not come to pass without His will. For who compels Him topermit it? Aye, how could He permit it if it was not His will to permitit? Here he exalted his reason, and sought to comprehend how God couldnot desire sin, and still, by permitting sin, will it, imagining that hecould exhaust the abyss of divine majesty: how these two wills may existside by side. .. . Nor do I doubt that he will quote me to you as sayingthat God desires sin. To this I would herewith reply that he wrongs me, and as he is otherwise full of lies, so also he does not speak the truthin this matter. I say that God has forbidden sin, and does not desireit. This will has been revealed to us, and it is necessary for us toknow it. But in what manner God permits or wills sin, this we are not toknow; for He has not revealed it. St. Paul himself would not and couldnot know it, saying, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliestagainst God?' Therefore I beseech you in case this spirit should troubleyou much with the lofty question regarding the secret will of God, todepart from him and to speak thus: 'Is it too little that God instructsus in His public [proclaimed] will, which He has revealed to us? Why, then, do you gull us seeking to lead us into that which we are forbiddento know, are unable to know, and which you do not know yourself? Let themanner in which that comes to pass be commended to God; it suffices usto know that He desires no sin. In what way, however, He permits orwills sin, this we shall leave unanswered (_sollen wir gehen lassen_). The servant is not to know his master's secrets but what his masterenjoins upon him, much less is a poor creature to explore and desire toknow the secrets of the majesty of its God, '--Behold, my dear friends, here you may perceive that the devil always makes a practise ofpresenting unnecessary, vain, and impossible things in order thereby totempt the frivolous to forsake the right path. Therefore take heed thatyou abide by that which is needful, and which God has commanded us toknow, as the wise man says: 'Do not inquire for that which is too highfor you, but always remain with that which God has commanded you, ' Weall have work enough to learn all our lifetime God's command and His SonChrist. " (E. 53, 345; St. L. 10, 1531; Weimar 18, 549f. )

247. Statements Made by Luther in 1528. 

In a letter of comfort written July 20, 1528, Luther says: "A few daysago my dear brother Caspar Cruciger, Doctor of Divinity, informed mewith grief that on his various visitations he learned from your friendsthat you are afflicted with abnormal and strange thoughts pertaining toGod's predestination, and are completely confused by them; also that yougrow dull and distracted on account of them, and that finally it must befeared that you might commit suicide, --from which Almighty God maypreserve you!. .. Your proposition and complaints are: God Almighty knowsfrom eternity who are to be and who will be saved, be they dead, livingor still to live in days to come, --which is true, and shall and must beconceded; for He knows all things, and there is nothing hidden from Him, since He has counted and knows exactly the drops in the sea, the starsin the heavens, the roots, branches, twigs, leaves of all trees, alsoall the hair of men. From this you finally conclude that, do what youwill, good or evil, God still knows whether you shall be saved or not(which is indeed true) yet, at the same time, you think more ofdamnation than of salvation and on that account you are faint-hearted, nor do you know how God is minded toward you; hence you grow dispiritedand altogether doubtful. "

"Against this I, as a servant of my dear Lord Jesus Christ, give youthis advice and comfort, that you may know how God Almighty is disposedtoward you, whether you are elected unto salvation or damnation. Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts inall creatures must come to pass according to His will (_iuxta decretumvoluntatis suae_), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make thempartakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where Hesays: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wickedturn and live. Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinnerswho live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must notseparate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from eastto west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent, and make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is'rich unto all that call upon Him, ' Rom. 10, 12. This, however requirestrue and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despairand is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'therighteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and uponall. ' Mark these words, _in omnes, super omnes_ (unto all, upon all), whether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovelunder the banner of the sinners. " "Think also as constantly andearnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfortyourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such illwinds will cease and pass entirely. "

"Thus we are to comfort our hearts and consciences, silence and resistthe evil thoughts by and with the divine Scriptures. For one must notspeculate about God's Word, but be still, drop reason and, holding theWord to be true, believe it, and not cast it to the winds, nor give theEvil Spirit so much power as to suffer ourselves to be overcome, andthus to sink and perish. For the Word, by which all things and creaturesin all the wide world, no matter what they are called, have been createdand made and by which all that lives and moves is still richlypreserved, is true and eternal; and it must be accounted and held to begreater and more important, mightier and more powerful than thefluttering, empty, and vain thoughts which the devil inspires in men. For the Word is true, but the thoughts of men are useless and vain. Onemust also think thus: God Almighty has not created, predestinated, andelected us to perdition, but to salvation, as Paul asserts, Eph. 1, 4;nor should we begin to dispute about God's predestination from the Lawor reason, but from the grace of God and the Gospel, which is proclaimedto all men. " "Hence these and similar thoughts about God'spredestination must be judged and decided from the Word of God's graceand mercy. When this is done, there remains no room or occasion for aman thus to pester and torment himself, --which neither avails anythingeven if he should draw the marrow out of his bones, leaving only skinand hair. " (E. 54, 21ff. )

248. Statements Made by Luther in 1531 and 1533. 

In a letter of comfort, dated April 30, 1531, Luther refers to the factthat he, too, had passed through temptation concerning predestination. "For, " says he, "I am well acquainted with this malady, having lain inthis hospital sick unto eternal death. Now, in addition to my prayer Iwould gladly advise and comfort you, though writing is weak in such anaffair. However, I shall not omit what I am able to do (perhaps God willbless it), and show you how God helped me out of this affliction, and bywhat art I still daily maintain myself against it. In the first place, you must be firmly assured in your heart that such thoughts are withoutdoubt the inspiration and the fiery darts of the foul fiend. .. . Hence itis certain that they do not proceed from God, but from the devil, whotherewith plagues a heart that man may become an enemy of God anddespair, --all of which God has strictly forbidden in the FirstCommandment, bidding men to trust, love, and praise Him--whereby welive. Secondly: When such thoughts come to you, you must learn to askyourself, 'Friend, in what commandment is it written that I must thinkor treat of this?'. .. Fourthly: The chief of all the commandments of Godis that we picture before our eyes His dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is to be the daily and the chief mirror of our heart, in which we seehow dear we are to God, and how much He has cared for us as a good God, so that He even gave His dear Son for us. "

"Here, here, I say, and nowhere else, a man can learn the true art ofpredestination. Then it will come to pass that you believe on Christ. And if you believe, then you are called; if you are called, then you arealso surely predestinated. Do not suffer this mirror and throne of graceto be plucked from the eyes of your heart. On the contrary when suchthoughts come and bite like fiery serpents, then under no circumstanceslook at the thoughts or the fiery serpents, but turn your eyes away fromthem and look upon the brazen serpent, _i. E. _, Christ delivered for us. Then, by the grace of God, matters will mend. " (St. L. 10, 1744 sq. ; E. 54, 228. )

In Luther's _House Postil_ of 1533 we read: "From the last passage:'Many are called, but few are chosen, ' wiseacres draw various false andungodly conclusions. They argue: He whom God has elected is savedwithout means; but as for him who is not elected, may he do what hewill, be as pious and believing as he will, it is nevertheless ordainedthat he must fall and cannot be saved; hence I will let matters takewhat course they will. If I am to be saved, it is accomplished withoutmy assistance; if not, all I may do and undertake is nevertheless invain. Now every one may readily see for himself what sort of wicked, secure people develop from such thoughts. However, in treating of thepassage from the Prophet Micah on the day of Epiphany, we havesufficiently shown that one must guard against such thoughts as againstthe devil, undertake another manner of studying and thinking of God'swill, and let God in His majesty and with respect to election untouched[unsearched]; for there He is incomprehensible. Nor is it possible thata man should not be offended by such thoughts, and either fall intodespair or become altogether wicked and reckless. "

"But whoever would know God and His will aright must walk the right way. Then he will not be offended, but be made better. The right way, however, is the Lord Jesus Christ, as He says: 'No one cometh unto theFather but by Me, ' Whoever knows the Father aright and would come untoHim must first come to Christ and learn to know Him, _viz_. , as follows:Christ is God's Son, and is almighty, eternal God. What does the Son ofGod now do? He becomes man for our sakes, is made under the Law toredeem us from the Law, and was Himself crucified in order to pay forour sins. He rises again from the dead, in order by His resurrection topave the way to eternal life for us, and to aid us against eternaldeath. He sits at the right hand of God in order to represent us, togive us the Holy Spirit, to govern and lead us by Him, and to protectHis believers against all tribulations and insinuations of Satan. Thatmeans knowing Christ rightly. "

"Now when this knowledge has been clearly and firmly established in yourheart, then begin to ascend into heaven and make this conclusion: Sincethe Son of God has done this for the sake of men, how, then, must God'sheart be disposed to us, seeing that His Son did it by the Father's willand command? Is it not true that your own reason will compel you to say:Since God has thus delivered His only-begotten Son for us, and has notspared Him for our sakes, He surely cannot harbor evil intentionsagainst us? Evidently He does not desire our death, for He seeks andemploys the very best means toward assisting us to obtain eternal life. In this manner one comes to God in the right way, as Christ Himselfdeclares, John 3, 16: God so loved the world that He gave Hisonly-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Now contrast these thoughts with those thatgrow out of the former opinion, and they will be found to be thethoughts of the foul fiend, which must offend a man, causing him eitherto despair, or to become reckless and ungodly, since he can expectnothing good from God. "

"Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many arecalled', _i. E. _, God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen, _i. E. _, He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved. This is an altogether wicked explanation. For how is it possible for onewho holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God, whose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us aresaved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a manfirst learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothingbut devilish blasphemy. Hence the sense of this passage, 'Many arecalled, ' etc. , is far different. For the preaching of the Gospel isgeneral and public, so that whoever will may hear and accept it. Furthermore, God has it preached so generally and publicly that everyone should hear, believe, and accept it, and be saved. But what happens?As the Gospel states: 'Few are chosen, ' _i. E. _, few conduct themselvestoward the Gospel in such a manner that God has pleasure in them. Forsome do not hear and heed it; others hear it, but do not cling to it, being loath either to risk or suffer anything for it; still others hearit, but are more concerned about money and goods, or the pleasures ofthe world. This, however, is displeasing to God, who has no pleasure insuch people. This Christ calls 'not to be chosen, ' _i. E. _, conductingoneself so that God has no pleasure in one. Those men are chosen of Godand well-pleasing to Him who diligently hear the Gospel, believe inChrist, prove their faith by good fruits, and suffer on that accountwhat they are called to suffer. "

"This is the true sense, which can offend no one, but makes men better, so that they think: Very well, if I am to please God and be elected, Icannot afford to live so as to have an evil conscience, sin againstGod's commandments, and be unwilling to resist sin; but I must go tochurch, and pray God for His Holy Spirit; nor must I permit the Word tobe taken out of my heart, but resist the devil and his suggestions, andpray for protection, patience, and help. This makes good Christians, whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one eitherbecome reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes, thinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not;why, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; foryou are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be yourSavior, who has paid for your sin. Remember this command and obey it. Ifyou notice that you are lacking faith, or that your faith is weak, prayGod to grant you His Holy Ghost, and do not doubt that Christ is yourSavior, and that if you believe in Him, _i. E. _, if you take comfort inHim, you shall by Him be saved. Dear Lord Jesus Christ, grant this untous all! Amen. " (E. 1, 204; St. L. 13, 199. )

249. Statements Made by Luther in 1538 and 1545. 

In his remarks of 1538 on Matt. 11, 25. 26, Luther says: "Christ speaksespecially against those who would be wise and judge in religiousmatters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, whichis overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teachingand by judging. Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when Heconceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to beover and not under God. Not as though He hid it in fact or desired tohide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entireheaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preachingwhich the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden fromthem through their own fault, since they do not want to have it--as iswritten Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not, ' Lo, they see, _i. E. _, they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly andpublicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it andrefuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their ownblindness. And so, on the other hand, He reveals it to the babes; forthe babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth isrevealed since they wish and desire it. " (W. 7, 133. )

In a letter giving comfort concerning predestination, dated August 8, 1545, Luther wrote: "My dear master and friend N. Has informed me thatyou are at times in tribulation about God's eternal predestination, andrequested me to write you this short letter on that matter. Now to besure, this is a sore tribulation. But to overcome it one must know thatwe are forbidden to understand this or to speculate about it. For whatGod wants to conceal we should be glad not to know. This is the applethe eating of which brought death upon Adam and Eve and upon all theirchildren, when they wanted to know what they were not to know. For as itis sin to commit murder, to steal, or to curse, so it is also sin tobusy oneself searching such things. As an antidote to this God has givenus His Son, Jesus Christ. Of Him we must daily think; in Him we mustconsider ourselves (_uns in ihm spiegeln_). Then predestination willappear lovely. For outside of Christ everything is only danger, death, and the devil; in Him, however, there is nothing but peace and joy. Forif one forever torments himself with predestination, all one gains isanguish of soul. Hence flee and avoid such thoughts as the affliction ofthe serpent of Paradise, and, instead, look upon Christ. God preserveyou!" (E. 56, 140; St. L. 10. 1748. )

250. Statements Made by Luther in His Commentary on Genesis. 

Luther's _caeterum censeo_, that we are neither to deny nor to searchthe hidden God (who cannot be apprehended in His bare majesty--_qui innuda sua maiestate non potest apprehendi_, E. , Op. Lat. 2, 171), but toadhere to the revelation He has given us in the Gospel, is repeatedagain and again also in his _Commentary on Genesis_, which was begun in1536 and completed in 1545. In the explanation of chap. 26, 9 we read, in part: "I gladly take occasion from this passage to discuss thequestion concerning doubt, concerning God and God's will. For I hearthat everywhere among the nobles and magnates profane sayings are spreadconcerning predestination or divine prescience. For they say: 'If I ampredestinated, I shall be saved, whether I have done good or evil. If Iam not predestinated, I shall be damned, without any regard whatever tomy works. ' Against these ungodly sayings I would gladly argue at lengthif my ill health would permit. For if these sayings are true, as theybelieve them to be, then the incarnation of the Son of God, Hissuffering and resurrection, and whatever He did for the salvation of theworld, is entirely abolished. What would the prophets and the entireHoly Scriptures profit us? what the Sacraments? Let us therefore abandonand crush all this, " all these ungodly sayings. 

Luther proceeds: "These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firmknowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it isuseful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain, and being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, asotherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by Hispromises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this isto be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless fleeto Him who is unchangeable. For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: 'I am the Lord, I change not, ' and Rom. 11, 29: 'For the gifts andcalling of God are without repentance. ' Accordingly, in the book _DeServo Arbitrio_ and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguishwhen we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. Forone must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God. Concerning God, in so far as He has not been revealed to us, there is nofaith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply thesaying: What is above us does not concern us (_Quae supra nos, nihil adnos_). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond orwithout the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by themnothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition, because they are occupied with an unsearchable object, _i. E. _, theunrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteriesconcealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so muchthat they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, orglory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see Myback parts; but My face shall not be seen. _Posteriora mea tibiostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris_. ' For this curiosity isoriginal sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to Godby natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vainendeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto theFather but by Me. ' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, thereis no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible Godwhom you will not make visible. "

With special reference to his book _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther continues:"It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after mydeath many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm allmanner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I havewritten that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time(and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon therevealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: '_Er heisst Jesus Christ, derHerr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott_, ' 'Jesus Christ it is, ofSabaoth Lord, and there's none other God. ' But they will pass by allthese passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You, therefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that wemust not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, butacquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of theWord. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvationand say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on theSon hath everlasting life, ' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnationor wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things Ihave set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit themorally, too, _viva voce;_ hence I am excused--_ideo sum excusatus_. "(E. , Op. Exeg. 6, 200. 292. 300; CONC. TRIGL. 897f. )

251. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace. 

It has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalledhis book _De Servo Arbitrio_, and retracted, changed and essentiallymodified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently, abandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his_Glaubenslehre_ (4, 1, 37): "In the beginning of the Reformation [before1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into thebackground. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restoreSemi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question ofpredestination, Luther, in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ with an overbolddefiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from hisposition. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine, but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamationof the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of themerits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace;and he even opposed that doctrine [of _De Servo Arbitrio_] expressly aserroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances onthat subject. " Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with thefacts in the case, " J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Lutherwith "absolute predestinarianism, " remarks: "But this is certain: theolder Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianisminto the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of Godand on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (_in omnes, super omnes_) without partiality, and convey salvation to all whobelieve. " (_Conf. Hist. _, 336. )

Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly bysynergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts. Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher ofpredestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc. ), but alwaysa messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means ofgrace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching andteaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and Hismerits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In _DeServo Arbitrio_ Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else thanChrist Crucified. " (St. L. 18, 1723; E. V. A. 7, 160. ) Luther's sermonsand books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute theidea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, thecenter of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only verygradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the meansof grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation wereproducts of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's graceand pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. Thebent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical andScriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon thequestion of predestination to such an extent as he did in _De ServoArbitrio_, if the provocation had not come from without. It was therationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamentalChristian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and hissalvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for justsuch an answer as he gave in _De Servo Arbitrio_. Wherever the occasiondemanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God'smajesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of theuniversal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified. 

Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Lutherlater on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine, --a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians. (Frank 1, 129. 135. 125. ) In his criticism of the _Book of Confutation_, dated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: "As to freewill, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus ofRotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in thebeginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw thedisposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (_undsich besser erklaeret_); and we believe, if a synod were held and onewould hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in thisarticle. " (_C. R. _ 9, 760. ) But Flacius immediately declared that thisassertion was false, as appeared from Luther's _Commentary on Genesis_and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger2, 82. ) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius firstasserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book _De Servo Arbitrio;_but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as awretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is thatLuther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July9], 1637, as one of his very best. " (_Creeds_ 1, 303. ) In his letter toCapito, Luther says: "_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum_, '" thus endorsing _De ServoArbitrio_ in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247. ) Beforethis Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me inhis booklet _Hyperaspistes_, in which he endeavors to defend his book_On Free Will_, against which I wrote my book _On the Enslaved Will_, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able torefute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the deviltogether with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it isthe immutable truth of God. " (St. L. 20, 1081. ) Despite numerousendeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidencehas been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, orchanged his doctrine of grace. 

Luther's extensive reference to _De Servo Arbitrio_ in his _Commentaryon Genesis_, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently beeninterpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the _Formula ofConcord_ these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" hisformer position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of hisformer fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of hisown, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate byquoting from his books--"_post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrentin medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt_. "Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse hisstatements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he hadexpressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, butlook upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us--"_addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus. .. . Ideo sum excusatus_. "(CONC. TRIGL. , 898. ) Luther's entire theological activity, before aswell as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in_De Servo Arbitrio, viz. _, that we must neither deny nor investigate orbe concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealedHimself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in themeans of grace. 

252. Luther's Doctrine Approved by Formula of Concord. 

Flacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared atthe colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context, Luther's statements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ contained no inaptexpressions (_nihil incommodi_). He added: "I do not want to be thereformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussionconcerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. _Nolo reformatoresse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamussanae ecclesiae_. " (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255. ) In Article II of the_Formula of Concord_ the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondageof the will together with his declarations in his _Commentary onGenesis_. In referring to this matter the _Formula_ gives utterance tothe following thoughts: 1. That in _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther"elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also bythe _Formula of Corcord_] well and thoroughly, _egregie et solide_"; 2. That "afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious expositionof the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;" 3. That in thisexposition also "his meaning and understanding of some other peculiardisputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolutenecessity, etc. , have been secured by him in the best and most carefulway against all misunderstanding and perversion;" 4. That the _Formulaof Concord_ "appeals and refers others" to these deliverances of Luther. (CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44. )

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, endorsed Luther's _De ServoArbitrio_ without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever, and, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essentialthoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. Thesaid articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther'sdoctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man'ssalvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particularthey reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and theinability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergismin man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousnessof the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of graceand for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways;the mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all areequally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem inthe light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never werecontradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well asof free will, therefore, the _Formula of Concord_ is not a compromisebetween synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther overthe later Melanchthon. 

253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord. 

The attitude of the _Formula of Concord_ with respect to Luther's _DeServo Arbitrio_ was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. Theyexpressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its publicendorsement by the _Formula of Concord_. In 1569 the theologians ofDucal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine "setforth most luminously and skilfully (_summa luce et dexteritatetraditum_)" in _De Servo Arbitrio_, the _Commentary on Genesis_, andother books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133. ) That the authors of the_Formula of Concord_ were fully conscious of their agreement withLuther's _De Servo Arbitrio_ and his _Commentary on Genesis_ appearsalso from the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, composed 1582 byKirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther witherrors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the_Formula or Concord_, endorse and defend his position, _viz_. , that wemust neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospelfor an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us. 

In this _Apology_ the opening paragraph of the section defending ArticleXI of the _Formula of Concord_ against the Neustadt theologians reads asfollows: "In their antilog [antilogia--attack on Article XI of the_Formula of Concord_] regarding God's eternal election andpredestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in thisarticle the doctrine of the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula ofConcord_] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book _DeServo Arbitrio_, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appealto Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the _Book of Concord_ withcondemning Luther, who in the book called _Servum Arbitrium_ maintainedthe proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary anduseful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (_Versehung_)is certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, thesewords of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also wellknow how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of theFirst Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his. " (Fol. 204a. ) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we citedabove (p. 223f. ), the _Apology_ continues: "With this explanation ofLuther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadttheologians] wish to brood over it any further and in theirinvestigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth ofthis mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] andsuffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content toadhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and leadand direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life tocome. " (405a. )

254. Agreement of Apology with Formula of Concord and Luther. 

Doctrinally also, the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ is in agreementwith both Luther and the _Formula of Concord_. This appears from thefollowing excerpts: "Nor does the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formulaof Concord_] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejectssome; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in_De Servo Arbitrio_ against Erasmus that it is the highest degree offaith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless mostmerciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient causeof such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponentsteaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all menshould put their finger on their lips and first say with the ApostlePaul, Rom. 11, 20: '_Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt_--Because ofunbelief they were broken off, ' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin isdeath. ' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lorddoes not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, allmen, etc. (which He is certainly able to do--_das er doch wohlkoennte_), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]:'_Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viaeeius_--How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past findingout, ' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing andefficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent. ""But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election ofthe elect, you must also admit the other thing, _viz_. , that in GodHimself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart fromsin, ' etc. , then we declare that we are not at all minded to make Godthe author [_Ursacher_] of reprobation (the cause of which properly liesnot in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause ofthe damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of theProphet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hastdestroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help. ' Nor do we intend to searchour dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. Forit is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the morewe occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from ourdear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us. " (206. )

The _Apology_ continues: "Likewise the _Book of Concord_ [_Formula ofConcord_] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the samemanner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called throughthe public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade usto infer with them that God is an efficient [_wirkliche_] cause of thereprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His merecounsel [_fuer sich aus blossem Rat_] to reject and cast them awayeternally, even irrespective of their sin [_auch ausserhalb derSuende_]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, itis sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments areunsearchable, ' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth usthe victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ' Whatever goes beyond thisour Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life. "

"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the _Book of Concord_ did notdistinguish between _malum culpae, i. E. _, sin which God neither wills, nor approves, nor works, and _malum poenae_, or the punishments which Hewills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not todiscuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matterconcerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summarystatement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere thisdistinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there anyone among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, ispleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as ablasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318[edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evilacts and works, from which it is apparent that the _Book_ [_Formula_]_of Concord_ does not at all teach that God is the author of _malumculpae_ or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works thepunishments of sins. " (206 b. )

255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax. 

Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and thepossibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finallydamned, the _Apology_ proceeds: "And why should we not also reject [theproposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved, ' since it isundoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejectedand damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, andthere is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are stillalive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his lastend; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybodymight have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12, 39: 'Therefore they could not believe, ' etc. , does not properly treat ofeternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that noreprobate can be converted and saved. .. . It is therefore the meaningneither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12, 39] that God, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people, solely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them todamnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning andcorrect understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate andimpenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them tobecome more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin andwickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or thatHe, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins, has foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convertthemselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, weshall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom thisblasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective alsoof sin, God has decreed to reject eternally these or others. .. . " (207. )

With respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read:"They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word God declares whatHe approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishesto work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secretcounsel in no other way than by working in man, _viz_. , throughconversion or final hardening of those who are either converted orhardened and damned. .. . With regard to this we give the followingcorrect answer, _viz_. : that we are not minded in the least to carry ona dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secretcounsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealedHimself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from thewords of Luther himself, _viz_. , that concerning God, so far as He hasnot been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word, there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything ofHim, etc. , which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, togetherwith our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgmentsof God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some todamnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to Hissecret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact thatthrough the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towardsthem and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is itwritten in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that allshould be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordainedsome to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so thatthey cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will theyprove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the HolyScriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ, contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spreadit in all Christendom. " (108 b. )

256. Apology on God's Mysterious Judgments and Ways. 

Concerning the mysterious judgments and ways of God the _Apology_ says:"At the same time we do not deny that God does not work alike in allmen, enlightening all, --for neither does He give His Word to all, --andthat nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and thatnobody can justly accuse Him of any unfaithfulness, envy, or tyranny, although He does not, as said, give His Word to all and enlighten them. But we add that, when arriving at this mystery, one should put hisfinger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [_gruebeln_--fromthe facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of God's universal seriousgrace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as ouropponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, God hasordained that some should be damned. For as to what God holds and hasdecreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Norshould one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonderlife, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of God by which we arecalled to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us. And this Word, or revealed will, of God concerning the giving rest toall those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible, unwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of God, withwhich alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing thatconflicts with the will revealed in the Word of God should be inferredfrom it, even as God Himself in His Word has not directed us to it. Because of the fact, therefore, that not all accept this call, we mustnot declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin, God in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent todamnation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has notbeen revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that God'sjudgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible. "

"It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning thisarticle should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicureansecurity, when in this doctrine it is taught that God, from His merecounsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some todamnation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hearsthis, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into theseEpicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His freepurpose and without regard to sin, God has ordained to damnation, thenyou cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those whoshall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you mustnevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join ouropponents in giving occasion for such things. God also shall protect usfrom it. " (209. )

Again: "They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universalpromises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain tobelievers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, _viz_. , that thepromises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers, who labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. Buttheir [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying thatsome are ordained to damnation from the free purpose of God, alsowithout regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though Hecalls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them, --which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horroragainst such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine. " (209 b. )

XXII. Article XII of the Formula of Concord: Of Other Heretics andSects. 

257. Purpose of Article XII. 

The purpose of the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_ wasnot only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward offfuture controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of thePapists and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple, their assertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and hadabandoned the _Augsburg Confession_, and that the Reformation was boundto end in utter confusion and dissolution. The _Formula of Concord_ wasto leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers aunited front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists, the errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidentlyalso against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom theRomanists slanderously identified them. 

Summarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the _Formula ofConcord_ declares: "First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errorswhich were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodoxChurch, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures. Secondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which arerejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summaryof the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the_Formula of Concord_]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors whichcaused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt withand refuted in the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_. "(857, 17ff. ) Among the errors rejected in the _Augsburg Confession_ andthe subsequent Lutheran symbols were those also of the Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, and others. (CONC. TRIGL. 42, 6; 44, 4; 46, 3; 48, 7;50, 3. 4; 138, 66; 244, 52; 310, 13; 356, 43; 436, 49; 744, 55; 746, 58. ) And this is the class of errorists which Article XII of the_Formula of Concord_ makes it a special point to characterize summarilyand reject by name. Before this the _Book of Confutation_, composed 1559by the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejectedthe doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and theAnabaptists. 

From the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg, 1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans withthe Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsiblefor their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the _Formula ofConcord_. For here we read: "However, lest there be silently ascribed tous the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects(which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretlystole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or roomwas given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincereteachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of thePapacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feelthe manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in theirsimplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was notpapistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly, before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship withtheir errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one andall, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of theprophets and apostles, and to our Christian _Augsburg Confession_, wellgrounded in God's Word. " (1097, 7f. )

258. The Anabaptists. 

The Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders wereConrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called_Blaurock_, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. Inrapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol, Austria, Moravia, etc. Because of their attitude toward the civilgovernment the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treatedaccordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed inZurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists inthe autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation ofmore than 1, 100 "Apostolic Brethren, " as the Anabaptists there calledthemselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529, authorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women ofevery age, by fire or sword "without previous inquisition by spiritualjudges. " They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about1, 000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2, 000) had been executed in Tyroland Goerz. 

The most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonistswere Hubmaier, Denk, Dachser, and Hans Hutt. Besides these we mention:Ludwig Haetzer, published a translation of the prophets from the Hebrew, 1527, for which he was praised by Luther, was executed as adultererFebruary 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldierand son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14, 1527, impassionate in his writings against the "old and new Papists, "_i. E. _, Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ inthe Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; ChristianEntfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, andlater on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a formerpriest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; JoergHaug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer, former Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, anAntitrinitarian, executed 1528; Ulrich Hugwald, professor in Basel;Melchior Rinck, pastor in Hesse; Pilgram Marbeck; Jacob Buenderlin;Jacob Kautz, preacher and author in Worms; Clemens Ziegler; PeterRiedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequentlyimprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacherand prolific author, who died in prison at Strassburg, 1543. (Tschackert, 148ff. ; Schlottenloher, _Philipp Ulhart, ein AugsburgerWinkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der "Schwaermer" und "Wiedertaeufer, "_1523--1529, p. 59ff. )

The various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the TwelfthArticle of the _Formula of Concord_. The Epitome remarks: "TheAnabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as onecontends for more, another for less errors; however they all in commonpropound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in thechurch, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domesticlife. " (839, 2. ) Urbanus Regius said in his book _Against the NewBaptistic Order:_ "Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of theseerrors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to doan injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the BaptisticOrder as John Denk and Balthasar Friedberger, " Hubmaier. (Schlottenloher, 80. )

While some of the Anabaptists, as Hubmaier, were more conservative, others (Denk, Schiemer) went so far as to deny even the doctrine of theTrinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infantbaptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means ofgrace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was notfaith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism, sensation-faith (_Gefuehlsglaube_), and the law of love as exemplifiedby Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: "Whoever followsthe voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himselfthe true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist theevil. " (153. ) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning, Salminger said: "Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifieswill be received by God. " Schlottenloher remarks: "It was medievalmysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consumingdesire for the complete union of the soul with God and the Spirit. "(83. )

259. Balthasar Hubmaier. 

Hubmaier (Hubmoer, Friedberger, Pacimontanus) was born at Friedberg, near Augsburg, and studied under Eck. In 1512 he became Doctor andprofessor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522pastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had readthe books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. InJanuary, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now "heproclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself, " referring inparticular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the sameyear he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which hecontinued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published hisbook _Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers_, which was directedagainst Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich, whither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants intheir rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputationwith Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from whichhe was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped toNicolsburg, Moravia, where, under the protection of a powerful nobleman, he developed a feverish activity and rebaptized about 12, 000 persons. When the persecutions of the Anabaptists began, Hubmaier was arrested, and after sulphur and powder had been well rubbed into his long beard, he was burned at the stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days after, his wife, with a stone about her neck, was thrust from the bridge intothe Danube. 

Hubmaier denounced infant baptism as "an abominable idolatry. " Hetaught: Children are incapable of making the public confession requiredby Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs usof the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptizedwhile in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: "Sincethe alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receivewater-baptism according to the institution of Christ cannot be chargedwith anabaptism. "

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: "Here it is apparent thatthe bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewisethe wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that Hehas shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins. " "Inthe Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spirituallyand by faith only. " In the Supper of Christ "bread is bread and wine iswine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the righthand of God, His Father. "

Hubmaier did not regard the Word as a means of grace nor Baptism and theLord's Supper as gracious acts of God, but as mere works of man. "Inbelievers, " he says, "God works both to will and to do, by the inwardanointing of His Holy Spirit. " Concerning church discipline he taught:Where the Christian ban is not established and used according to thecommand of Christ, there sin, shame, and vice control everything. Aperson who is expelled must be denied all communion until he repents. Inconnection with his deliverances on the ban, Hubmaier, after the fashionof the Papists, made the Gospel of Christian liberty as preached byLuther responsible for the carnal way in which many abused it. Thesocialistic trend of Anabaptism, however, was not developed by Hubmaier. (Tschackert 132. 172. 234. )

260. Dachser and Hutt. 

Jacob Dachser was one of the most zealous members and leaders of thelarge Anabaptistic congregation in Augsburg, where he was alsoimprisoned, 1527. He, not Langenmantel, is the author of the"_Offenbarung von den wahrhaftigen Wiedertaeufern_. Revelation of theTrue Anabaptists, " secretly published by the Anabaptistic printer PhilipUlhart in Augsburg and accepted as a sort of confession by the councilheld by the Anabaptists in the fall of 1527 at Augsburg. The book ofUrban Regius: "_Wider den neuen Tauforden notwendige Warnung an alleChristenglaeubigen_--Against the new Baptistic Order, a NecessaryWarning to All Christians, " was directed against Dachser's _Revelation_. In 1529 Dachser published his _Form and Order of Spiritual Songs_, thefirst hymn-book of the Anabaptists, containing hymns of Luther, Speratus, Muenzer, Hutt, Pollio, and Dachser. 

In his _Revelation_ Dachser said: "The entire world is against eachother; we don't know any more where the truth is. While all areconvinced that the Pope has erred and deceived us, the new preachers, byreviling and maligning each other, betray that they, too, are not sentby God. " "In their pulpits the false teachers [Lutherans, etc. ]themselves confess that the longer they preach, the less good is done. But since they do not forsake a place where they see no fruits of theirdoctrine, they thereby reveal that they are not sent by God. " "God drawsus to Himself through the power which is in us, and warns us againstwickedness and through the Teacher Christ, who in His Word has taught usthe will of God. " "Christ sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to allcreatures and to baptize such as believe. And such as obey this commandare called 'Anabaptists'!" "By our evil will original purity has beendefiled; from this uncleanness we must purge our heart. Who does notfind this uncleanness in himself, neither without nor within, is a truechild of God, obedient to the Word of God. Who, in accordance with thecommand of Christ, preaches and baptizes such as believe, is not anAnabaptist, but a cobaptist [_Mittaeufer_] of Christ and the Apostles. ""All such as preach, teach, and baptize otherwise than Christ commanded, are the real Anabaptists [opponents of Baptism], acting contrary to theSon of God, by first baptizing, instead of first teaching and awaitingfaith, as Christ commanded. " "We need but strive with Christ to do thewill of the Father then we receive from God through the Holy Ghost thepower to fulfil the divine command. " (Schlottenloher, 72ff. )

Hans Hutt (Hut), a restless bookbinder in Franconia, attended theAnabaptistic council in Augsburg, where he was opposed by Regius andincarcerated. He died 1527 in an attempt to escape from prison. As apunishment his body was burned. Hutt must not be confounded with JacobHuter or Hueter, an Anabaptist in Tyrol. The followers of Hans Hutt inthe city of Steyr developed the socialistic tendencies of Anabaptism. They taught: Private ownership is sinful; all things are to be held incommon; Judgment Day is imminent; then the Anabaptists will reign withChrist on earth. Some also taught that finally the devil and all thedamned would be saved; others held that there is neither a devil nor ahell, because Christ had destroyed them. (Tschackert 134ff. 141. 153. )Article XVII of the _Augsburg Confession_ condemns "the Anabaptists, whothink that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men anddevils. .. ; also others, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possessionof the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. "(CONC. TRIGL. , 51)

261. John Denk. 

Denk, who was called the "Archbaptist, " the "Bishop, " "Pope, " and"Apollo" of the Anabaptists, was born in Bavaria and trained in Basel. In 1523 he became Rector of St. Sebald in Nuernberg where he was opposedby Osiander. Banished in the following year, he escaped to St. Gallen. Expelled again, he fled to Augsburg. Here he was rebaptized by immersionand became an active member of the Anabaptistic "Apostolic Brethren, "who at that time numbered about 1, 100 persons. Denk was the leader ofthe council held by the Anabaptists in 1527 in Augsburg. Expelled fromthe city, Denk died during his flight, 1527, at Basel. His "Retraction, _Widerruf_" (a title probably chosen by the printer), published 1527after his death, does not contain a retraction, but a summary of histeaching. (Schlottenloher, 84. ) The mystic mind of Denk runs a good dealin the channels of the author of the "German Theology, _DeutscheTheologie_, " and of his pantheistic contemporary, Sebastian Franck. 

Denk taught: God is one, and the source of unity. To return from alldivisions to this unity must be our constant aim. The only way is entiresurrender to God and submission in tranquillity. He says: "Nothing isnecessary for this salvation [reunion with God] but to obey Him who isin us, and to be tranquil and wait for Him in the true real Sabbath andtranquillity, losing ourselves and all that is ours, so that God mayboth work and suffer in us. He who is in us is ready every hour andmoment to follow, if we are but willing. His hour is always, but ours isnot. He calls and stretches forth His arms the entire day, always ready;nobody answers Him, nobody admits Him or suffers Him to enter. Do butseek the Lord, then you will find Him; yea, He is already seeking you;only suffer yourselves to be found. Indeed He has already found you, andeven now is knocking. Do but open unto Him and let Him in. Apprehend andknow the Lord, even as you are apprehended and known of Him. "

Denk held that the source of religious and moral knowledge is not theScriptures, but the voice of God in the heart of man, or Christ Himself, who speaks and writes the divine Law into the hearts of those who areHis. [Before Denk, Thomas Muenzer had said: "_Was Bibel! Bibel, Bubel, Babel!_"] Whoever has this divine Law in his heart lacks nothing that isneeded to fulfil the will of God. According to Denk a man may be savedwithout the preaching of the Word, without the Scriptures, and withoutany knowledge of the historical Christ and His work. Nor can theScriptures be understood without heeding the revelation of God in ourown bosom. The Scriptures must indeed be regarded as higher than "allhuman treasures, but not as high as God's Word" [in our own bosom]. Baptism is a mere outward sign that one has joined the number ofbelievers; hence it can be administered to such only as are conscious oftheir faith. Ceremonies in themselves are not sin, says Denk, "butwhoever imagines to obtain grace through them, either by Baptism or bythe Breaking of Bread, is given to superstition. " (Tschackert, 143;Meusel, _Handl_. 2, 142. )

262. The Schwenckfeldians. 

Caspar Schwenckfeldt, of Ossig in Liegnitz a descendent of a noblefamily in Silesia, was born 1490 and studied in Cologne. In 1524 hehelped to introduce the Reformation in Liegnitz. He was twice inWittenberg; 1522, when he met Carlstadt and Thomas Muenzer and 1525, when he visited Luther. He endeavored to interest Luther in theformation of conventicles, and particularly in his mystical theoryconcerning the Lord's Supper, which he considered the correct middleground on which Lutherans and Zwinglians might compromise. But Lutherhad no confidence in the enthusiast, whom he characterized as a "madfool, " "possessed by the devil. " He said: "In Silesia Schwenckfeldt haskindled a fire which as yet has not been quenched and will burn on himeternally. "

Because of the troubles and dissensions created in Liegnitz, Schwenckfeldt, in 1529, was compelled to leave. Having removed toStrassburg he was zealous in propagating his enthusiasm in SouthernGermany by establishing conventicles of "Lovers of the Glory of Christ, "as the adherents of Schwenckfeldt called themselves. At a colloquy inTuebingen, 1535, he promised not to disquiet the Church. In 1539 hepublished his _Summary of Several Arguments that Christ according to HisHumanity Is To-day No Creature, but Entirely Our God and Lord_. Hecalled it the doctrine of the "Deification of the Flesh of Christ. " Whenthis teaching was rejected as Eutychianism, Schwenckfeldt published his_Large Confession_, 1540. At the convention of Smalcald, also 1540, hisviews were condemned and his books prohibited and burned. Compelled toleave Strassburg, he spent the remainder of his life in Augsburg, inSpeier and in Ulm (where he died, December 10, 1561). Schwenckfeldtexchanged controversial writings with many contemporary theologians, whom he kept in constant excitement. In Liegnitz he was supported by theministers Valentin Krautwald, Fabian Eckel, Sigismund Werner, andValerius Rosenheyn. His adherents were called "Neutrals, " because theydeclined to affiliate with any of the existing churches. 

263. Schwenckfeldt's Doctrine. 

In 1526 Schwenckfeldt wrote to Paul Speratus: Since by the preaching ofthe Gospel as set forth by Luther so few people amended their lives, thethought had occurred to him that "something must still be lacking, whatever that may be. " Endeavoring to supply this defect, Schwenckfeldttaught: Grace cannot be imparted by any creature, bodily word, writing, or sacrament, but only by the omnipotent, eternal Word proceeding fromthe mouth of God. Whatever is external is a mere symbol and image ofGod, able neither to bring God into the soul nor to produce faith or aninward experience of divine life. "Mark well" says he, "God is not inneed of external things and means for His internal grace and spiritualaction. For even Christ, according to the flesh, was a hindrance tograce and [the Spirit] of God, and had to be translated into theheavenly mode of being that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come tous. .. . Whoever endeavors to come from without and through external meansinto the inner [the heart] does not understand the course of grace. Godworks without all means and pictures. .. . Man must forget and dropeverything, and be free and tranquil for the inbreathing [_Einsprechen_, inspiration], and be drawn away from all creatures, giving himself up toGod altogether. "

Schwenckfeldt continues: The Holy Spirit enters the quiet soul onlythrough the eternal Word, which "proceeds from the mouth of God withoutmeans and not at all through Scripture, external Word, Sacrament, or anycreature in heaven or on earth. God wants to have this honor reservedsolely to Himself through Himself [without any means] He wants to pardonman, teach him, impart the Holy Spirit to him, and save him. He does notwant to grant His grace, and effect illumination and salvation throughany creature; for even the flesh of Christ was not a sufficientinstrument for this purpose before He was glorified, translated into theheavenly places, and removed from our eyes. " "Scripture is for theexternal man; the Holy Spirit teaches everything to the elect inwardlyand is not in need of Scripture to give faith to them and to save them. "Schwenckfeldt, who employed the term "revelation" for this immediateoperation of God, was inconsistent in not rejecting Scripture, preaching, etc. , altogether. But when admitting these, he adds that hedistinguishes "God's own inner work from the external service. "

Self-evidently, these views concerning the means of grace had acorrupting influence also on other doctrines. Saving faith, according toSchwenckfeldt, is not trust in God's promise of pardon for Christ'ssake, but an immediate mystical relation of the soul to God. Justification, says he, "is not only forgiveness and non-imputation ofsin, but also renewal of the heart. " "We must seek our justification andrighteousness not in Christ according to His first state [ofhumiliation], in a manner historical, " but according to His state ofglorification, in which He governs the Church. In order to enhance the"glory of Christ" and have it shine and radiate in a new light, Schwenckfeldt taught the "deification of the flesh of Christ, " thuscorrupting the doctrine of the exaltation and of the person of Christ inthe direction of Monophysitism. And the more his views were opposed, themore he was enamored of, and engrossed by, them, calling himself the"confessor and lover of the glory of Christ. "

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeldt taught that the deifiedhumanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeedthrough bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of anymedium), internally, spiritually. The words of institution mean: Mybody, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, _i. E. _, a foodfor souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, _i. E. _, adrink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of God. Baptism, saysSchwenckfeldt, is the "baptizing of the heavenly High Priest JesusChrist, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and byfire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, butdetrimental to the baptism of Christ. " (Tschackert, 159ff. )

264. The Antitrinitarians. 

The first article of the _Augsburg Confession_ makes a special point ofrejecting not only the ancient, but also the "modern Samosatenes, "_i. E. _, the Antitrinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformationbegan their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most ofthese "modern Arians and Antitrinitarians, " as they are called in theTwelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_ came from the skepticalcircles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists andEpicureans the _Apology_ remarks: "Many [in Italy and elsewhere] evenpublicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, theyapprove such things only as are in harmony with human reason, andregard the rest as fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets. " (CONC. TRIGL. , 235, 28; _C. R. _ 9, 763. ) Pope Leo X was generally regarded asbeing one of those who spoke of the profitable "fables concerningChrist. "

According to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, afanatic (_Rumpelgeist_) there taught: "Every man has the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (_ingenium et rationaturalis_). Every man believes. There is neither hell nor damnation. Every one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do untomy neighbor as I would have him do unto me--to desire which is faith. The Law is not violated by evil lust as long as I do not consent tolust. Who has not the Holy Ghost has no sin for he has no reason. " (E. 53, 344; St. L. 21a 730; Enders 5, 147. )

In his report on the Marburg Colloquy, October 5, 1529, Melanchthonremarks: "We have heard that some of them [the Strassburgers] speak ofthe Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not God by nature. (_C. R. _ 1, 1099. ) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spokenincorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a bookagainst the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted tobe published. " (1103. )

In a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: "Your undertaking [ofpublishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christianand wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles offaith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the oneconcerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be deridedconfidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably assisted notonly by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which theyflatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers andothers, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sowtheir seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paulsays [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (_gar sehr um sich fressen_)and promote godlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laughso complacently and are so happy that one can hardly believe it. " (St. L. 14, 326; Enders 9, 252. )

Some Antitrinitarians who affiliated with the Anabaptists have alreadybeen referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creedbecause of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, asstated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied thetripersonality of God and the preexistence of the Logos, andblasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as"superstition" and the trust in His satisfaction as "drinking on thescore of Christ (_ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi_). " According toDenk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselveswhich we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed ofthe divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461. ) It was of Denk thatCapito wrote, 1526: "At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald deniedthat the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for thisreason he was expelled. " (Plitt, _Augustana_ 1, 153. )

At Strassburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, withdenying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527Urban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining thatChrist was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same yearAlthamer of Nuernberg published his book _Against the New Jews andArians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ_. In 1529Osiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: "It is well known, and may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradictthe sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from whichit follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ. " "Christis not the natural, true Son of God, " such was also the accusation madeby Justus Menius in his book concerning the _Doctrines and Secrets ofthe Anabaptists_. In his _Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius said"Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of JesusChrist. .. . This was their chief article that they despised the writtenWord, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of JesusChrist the eternal Son of God. "

265. Franck, Campanus, Ochino, Servetus, Blandrata, etc. 

Sebastian Franck and John Campanus must also be numbered among theAntitrinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in thevicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soapmanufacturing, writing, and printing. Campanus appeared in Wittenberg, 1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther andZwingli by explaining the words: "This is My body" to mean: This is abody created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: "Against the EntireWorld after the Apostles--_Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum_, " inwhich he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied thepersonality of the Holy Spirit. "He argues, " says Melanchthon, who inhis letters frequently refers to the "blasphemies of Campanus, " "thatChrist is not God; that the Holy Spirit is not God; that original sin isan empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform intophilosophy. " (_C. R. _ 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132. ) WhenCampanus endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished fromSaxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminenceof Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their propertyand declined to work any longer. Campanus was imprisoned for twentyyears and died 1575. 

Prominent among the numerous Antitrinitarians who came from Italy wereOchino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. BernardinoOchino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renownedpulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in orderto escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurichfrom 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defendedpolygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his _Thirty Dialogs_, published 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity ofChrist, and of the atonement. (_Herzog R_. 14, 256. )--Michael Servetuswas born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, atHagenau, Alsace, he published _De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII_. Hewas opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his_Christianismi Restitutio_, a voluminous book, which he published in1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanicdoctrine, and at the same time rejects original sin and infant baptism. The result was that, while passing through Geneva on his way to Italy, he was arrested at the instance of Calvin, tried, condemned, and burnedat the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also byMelanchthon. (_C. R. _ 8, 362; 9, 763. )--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554, uttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italiancongregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. Hedied 1564. --John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italianfugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerningthe Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Antitrinitarianerrors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (_Herzog R_. 6, 518. )

George Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for hisliberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania. Here he published his _Confessio Antitrinitaria_, and was instrumentalin introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. Hetaught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that therewere two natures in Christ. 

266. Davidis and Socinus. 

Francis Davidis in Transylvania was an Antitrinitarian of the mostradical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 hejoined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 andpublicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduceUnitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked thedoctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 hepublished his views in _De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii etSpiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo_. He contended that the doctrine ofthe Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ, though born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in thedecree of God, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanatingfrom God for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and theLord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the nobility hadbeen won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent ofthe Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty wasproclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists weretolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The CatholicStephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitariansfrom his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579, Davidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring itto be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Threedays after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings institutedagainst him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced toimprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesyingthe final downfall of all "false dogmas, " meaning, of course, thedoctrines which he had combated. 

In Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-mindednobility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and lateron also fugitive Antitrinitarians. Among these were the Italians FrancisLismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however, lacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, thepreexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continueduntil Faustus Socinus (born at Siena 1539, died 1604 in Poland) arrived. He was the nephew of the skeptical and liberal-minded Laelius Socinus(Lelio Sozzini) who left Italy in 1542, when the Inquisition wasestablished there, and died in Zurich, 1562. 

Faustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncleLaelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the firstchapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire programof Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata tooppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) astaught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland, where he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: theAnabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ, etc. , and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland wasrapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about1, 000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638the school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachersand ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banishedas traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism wereconfirmed. 

The chief source of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian doctrine is theRacovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latinlanguage under the title: "_Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom ofPoland_ which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord JesusChrist is that One God of Israel. " It teaches: There is but one divineperson; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity ofChrist is false; as a reward for His sinless life, God has given Christall power in heaven and on earth; as such, as God's representative(_homo Deus factus_, the man made God), He may be adored; there is nooriginal sin; with the help of God, that is to say, with thecommandments and promises of God revealed by Christ, man may acquiresalvation; he is able to keep these commandments, though not perfectly;man's shortcomings are pardoned by God on account of his good intention;an atonement by Christ is not required for this purpose; moreover, thedoctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by Hisdeath Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandmentsare adherents of Christ; these will participate in His dominion; thewicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing aseternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason andserves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous forChristians, because all matters pertaining to religion are containedbetter and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473. )

Evidently, in every detail, Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism areabsolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence ofChristianity. The _Apology_ declares that the deniers of the doctrine ofthe Holy Trinity "are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters, and insult God. " (103, 1. ) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII ofthe _Formula of Concord_. (843, 30; 1103, 39. )

XXIII. Origin, Subscription, Character, etc. , of Formula of Concord. 

267. Lutherans Yearning for a Godly Peace. 

A holy zeal for the purity and unity of doctrine is not at allincompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnestdesire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a trulyChristian and godly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth. Also in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther'sdeath faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire forsuch a godly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased. While Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of aunionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union basedon the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the LutheranConfessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that thecontroversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Churchshould never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor withany teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth. 

As a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peacewere made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians, especially the theologians who had not participated in thecontroversies, but for all that were no less concerned about themaintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at theexpense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flaciusand Gallus published their _Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischenSachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen_. In this Appealthey urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had notparticipated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chiefdifferences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two followingyears Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interestinfluential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthonand his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in thematter. 

At the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber, Schnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discussthe conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing todisagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, theydemanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines ofZwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by theWittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7. )

268. Pacific Overtures of Flacius. 

Soon after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector ofthe school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimatefriend of Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciouslyslandered Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the lattersubmitted the conditions on which peace might be established. However, aletter written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was notanswered by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's objectmerely was to kindle hatred. (_C. R. _ 8, 794. )

In May, 1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to PaulEber his "Mild Proposals, _Linde Vorschlaege_, dadurch man gottseligeund notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen denWittenbergischen und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica undden andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben. " According to these_Proposals_, Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by thetheologians of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the trueAntichrist, the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: "Goodworks are necessary to salvation, " be condemned, also the errors ofZwingli and Osiander. "The good Lord knows, " said Flacius, "that everyday and hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of theAdiaphorists might be settled in a Christian manner. " But he added thathe could not be satisfied until, by repentance, "they wipe out theirsin, denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them bytheir excuses. " But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber norfrom Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consentof Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accordedthe role of a braying ass being crowned by other asses with a soiledcrown. (Preger 2, 11. 13. )

Another offer of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discussthe matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthonwrote: "I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, andI would gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before thishe has spread things which I had neither said nor thought, whereforenow, too, I fear treachery (_insidias metuo_). " Timid as he was, Melanchthon really feared for his life at the contemplated colloquy, because the statement of Chytraeus: "As long as Flacius and Melanchthonare alive, unity will not be restored, " had been reported to him in theform: unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not bepossible. "None of my friends, " he wrote, "is willing to attend thecolloquy, and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him[Flacius] alone. " (_C. R. _ 8, 798. ) Considering Melanchthon's answer asinsincere and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestlysought peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He didso by publishing "_Von der Einigkeit_, Concerning Unity, " a book whichhe had written before he made his pacific overtures to Melanchthon. (Preger 2, 17. 22. )

However, induced by a letter of Fabricius of Meissen (August 24, 1556), Flacius made a further effort, addressing Melanchthon in a letter ofSeptember 1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with Godand the Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result, Melanchthon wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to inour chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in aqualified way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply ofSeptember 16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not anytriumph or glory for himself, but "only the maintenance of truth and therooting out of error, " and that nothing was able to remove the offensegiven by Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of thetruth and an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, brokeoff the correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity againstFlacius. (Preger 2, 29f. )

269. Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon andFlacius. 

Despite his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himselfto be discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace. Embracing an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of LowerSaxony concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the LowerSaxons to mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for thispurpose articles, differing from the _Mild Proposals_ only in expresslymentioning also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and foursuperintendents, accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for thepurpose to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: ValentinCurtius and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen andWestphal; from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; fromBrunswick: Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January14, 1557, on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring withFlacius in Magdeburg, January 17, 1557 they unexpectedly, January 19, arrived in Wlttenberg, offering their services as mediators. 

Melanchthon received them in a friendly manner, but when, on thefollowing day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denouncedFlacius and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat withthe Lower Saxons on the basis of the "Flacian theses. " On January 21 thedelegation submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: "Allcorruptions which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and thatof the _Augsburg Confession_ shall be eliminated from the article ofjustification, in particular the corruption concerning the necessity ofgood works to salvation. " Article VII requested Melanchthon to make apublic statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of goodworks, declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church. (Preger 2, 37. )

The presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect onMelanchthon. The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such anextent that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a mostviolent manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherouslyconspiring with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber, he finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. Inhis answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavyburdens of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; theytherefore ought now to have had compassion with him instead ofassaulting him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once toldhim on leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius, they had presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him andothers to cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves, Melanchthon objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely chargedhim and others with having taught and defended errors regardingjustification. He declined Article VII because the publication thererequired was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his manywritings what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2, 38. 40. )

Fearing that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessionsdetrimental to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand, Baumgartner, Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, AntoniusOtto) assembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In aletter, dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators notto yield anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist onthe elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (_ut id iugulumrecte iuguletis_). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meetthem in Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to assist in winningMelanchthon for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flaciusremarked: he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon"sweet rather than wholesome and strong medicine. " (Preger 2, 42. ) In asimilar manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg toinfluence Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore theSaxon delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt noresolution before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] forconsideration. No news having arrived by Saturday, January 23, anadditional letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the samespirit of anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield, and to continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they saidwould not only expose them to ridicule, but greatly damage the Church. (2, 42f. )

On the evening of the same day Moerlin Hennig, and Westphal arrived inCoswig. Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted thearticles presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. Atthe same time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh languageof Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they hadmet with in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatenedto stone them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a briefconsultation. Their impression was (which they neither made any effortsto hide) that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not beensufficiently careful in seeking only the honor of God, the welfare ofthe Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held onSunday, January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfactionwith the proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to theshocking stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxondelegates to regard God higher than men, and earnestly and openly tocall the Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates, besides a list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statementsculled from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained theirstrictures on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answerto Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This mattertroubled him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphoristswho had despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, wasconstantly decreasing; having already yielded more than he should havedone, he now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties, the Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the futurethe people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance. Flacius furthermore declared that his theses should have been eitherretained or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen. Moerlin answered, irritated: They had presented other articles becauseMelanchthon had declined the first; if any one was able to frame bettertheses, he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, thedelegation returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached itsclimax. For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, andin the presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio hadspoken of Flacius as "the rascal and knave (_Schalk und Bube_), " andeven referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also afilthy and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in whichFlacius and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated inWittenberg and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49. ) The first lines ofthe pasquil ran thus; "_Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Abillo concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quaecommunio veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?_" (_C. R. _ 9, 50. 235. )

Having read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthoncould never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, thedelegation (with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned toCoswig, January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the listof errors to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would havebeen broken off immediately; only the charges with respect tojustification had been transmitted; they therefore requested theMagdeburgers to declare their agreement with the articles alreadysubmitted to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgersfinally yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and somechanges in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but "only with awounded conscience, " as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, thedelegates transmitted the modified articles together with the additionsof the Magdeburgers to Melanchthon. 

In his answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon saidin part: "You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion ofopinions obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere. And many hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular tome. I was also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes. If, therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm inany matter, I ask God and the churches to forgive me and shall submit tothe verdict of the Church. .. . As to the Flacian quarrels, however, concerning which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into whichFlacius has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that thisaffair pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, Icannot decide and settle anything (_me aliquid statuere posse_). .. . Thisnow I desire to be my last answer (_hanc volo nunc meam postremamresponsionem esse_); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdictof the Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of Godgovern all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!" As to the articlessubmitted by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes andadditions suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was notwilling to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way tocensure the honorable men who had participated in the deliberationsconcerning the Leipzig Interim. (_C. R. _ 9, 62. )

Toward evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with theinformation that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, andthat now the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early nextmorning they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which theymodified their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues theirefforts to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors. "We call upon God as our witness, " they said, "that we most earnestlydesire a godly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the faultlies not with us, but with them, who expressly say and confessconcerning themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn theAdiaphoristic errors--the real issue of the entire controversy. " (_C. R. _ 9, 67. ) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegationwhen they were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increasedanimosity on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts ofthe Lower Saxon theologians. 

270. Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht. 

Four weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers toWittenberg for the same purpose, _viz. _, of mediating betweenMelanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previouslyrequested him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace. The articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke, were more severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus, professor at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned topresent them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articleswere submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violentagitation. The report says: "As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism wascriticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in amild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would notpermit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they mostearnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), butburst forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others, and finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates, vociferating that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors, etc. " On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates. When these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he againinterrupted them, exclaiming: "Oppress me, if you so desire; such is thelot of the peaceful. .. . I commend myself to God. " After Melanchthon hadleft, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates:"Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr solltforthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden lassen mit solchen Haendeln_. " (9, 106f. )

Regarding the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates ofDuke Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared inhis answer of February 27: "I should not be astonished to have these twoconditions [to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc. ] imposed on me ifI had been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I mayhave been lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never beenan enemy. .. . Therefore I clearly state that I do not assent to thesepresentations [of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, ifI accept them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipseiugulem_). " (_C. R. _ 9, 104. )

The Magdeburgers refused to participate in these efforts of CountAlbrecht, chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace aslong as Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenbergfriends. But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts tobring about a godly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who passedJena on his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on theAdiaphoristic question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said:"Omit that; let us treat of other things. " Flacius also wrote to KingChristian III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish theAdiaphoristic errors, but apparently without any result. 

271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557. 

The Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved thata colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between theLutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for thecolloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, atFrankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effectthat all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and theRomanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans wereall agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolutionNicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest. Self-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held thatthe controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could notassent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denyingtheir convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being thesituation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been todecline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanchLutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of theLutherans was unavoidable. 

Before the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates atWorms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which headmonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the otherLutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism, Osiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, becausethe Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in theLeipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C. R. _ 9, l99ff. ). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to thedukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to theirdelegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke JohnFrederick said it was impossible that, in defending the _AugsburgConfession_ against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one manand speak as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), ifthey had not previously come to an agreement among themselves andcondemned the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeatthe Lutherans with their own sword, _i. E. _, their own polemicalpublications. (231. ) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeatedhis sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, andSarcerius. (232ff. )

In a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr. Basilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion inkeeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereuponErhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that oughtto be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed themotion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decidedthat his theologians could not participate in the colloquy withLutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _AugsburgConfession_, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and truemembers and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, andthe _Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67. ) The imminent clash wastemporarily warded off by the concession on the part of theMelanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freelyto express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. Atthe session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Heldingdemanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians, Calvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servoarbitrio_) from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied theLutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander, Major, and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declaredevasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreedin the _Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided toenter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majoritythreatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions ifthey dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors whichthey rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that theThuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, JuliusPflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginninghad been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remainingLutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know whothe true adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ were with whom, according to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal. 

272. Efforts of Princes to Restore Unity: Frankfort Recess. 

The Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among theLutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given officialpublicity to the dissensions existing among them, --a situation which wasunscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, theirsinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteedby the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold. In particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions amongthe Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _AugsburgConfession_ to the adherents of which alone the provisions of theAugsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced theopportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresiesthat were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheranprinces, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible tothe Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, tobend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoringreligious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were madeespecially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. Butinstead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions ofthe princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects ofdissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming theconviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in dangerindeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth andan unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establishpeace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences. 

At Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachimof Brandenburg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Philip of Hesse discussed the religious situation and, on March 18, 1558, signed the so-called _Frankfort Recess_ (Agreement), in which theyagain solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, theEcumenical Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its_Apology_. (_C. R. _ 9, 494. ) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that theexisting dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against theLutherans, who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in theirconfession. In four articles the controverted questions concerningjustification, good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora weredealt with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being basedon Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff. ; 462ff. )

When the _Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to theestates who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive theexpected approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt, Henneberg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, andRegensburg. The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony, where Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first wasentitled: "_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio cumsectis et corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation ofthe Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally andperniciously confounded with the sects. " The other: "_Grund und Ursach', warum das Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reasonand Cause why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted. " The chiefobjections of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have beenincluded in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within theLutheran Church should not have been treated as questions of minorimport. 3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false, and not merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerningthe Lord's Supper are "dark, general, and ambiguous, " henceCrypto-Calvinistic. 5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous andaltogether unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppresstheological discussions and controversies would lead to suppression ofthe truth ("binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost") and tyrannizing of thechurches by the princes. (Preger 2, 74. )

In his attitude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and byDuke John Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to signthe _Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth hisobjection in a special book. Elector August, in turn, chargedMelanchthon to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducaltheologians; which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unitethe opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxonsto attend a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius inducedthe Duke to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinaldifferences within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision ofthis _Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologiansparticipated: Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, SimonMusaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November28, 1558, it received the sanction of the dukes. Among theMelanchthonians the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a specialpoint to refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists, caused consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently itstheological attitude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence thebreach now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August, Melanchthon, in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion ofthe _Book of Confutation_. (_C. R. _ 9, 763. ) But contents as well asform of this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians intheir position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publishingthe _Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippicum_ or _Misnicum_), whichcontained writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_, therefore, instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increasedtheir mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick, the Duke of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, onJanuary 20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke ofSaxony also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, hefoiled the plan by declining to attend. 

273. General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists. 

To heal the breach and end the public scandal, Flacius and his adherentsfervently advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559they published "_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum . .. Pro LiberaChristiana et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians . .. Fora Free, Christian and Lawful Synod. " The document was signed by 51superintendents, professors, and pastors, "who after Luther's death, " asthey emphasized, "had contended orally and in writing against thecorruptions and sects. " The signatures represented theologians fromDucal Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, Luebeck, Rostock, Wismar, Brunswick, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Koethen, Nordhausen, Schweinfurt, Regensburg, Lindau, Upper Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Electoral Saxony, Nuernberg, Augsburg, Baden, etc. Some of the first were: Amsdorf, Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Hesshusius, Max Moerlin, Gallus, Wigand, Judex, Westphal, John Freder of Wismar, Anton Otto of Nordhausen, Flacius. The _Supplication_ showed why a General Synod was necessary andhow it was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said, would be to pass on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, allparticipants in the Synod having previously been pledged on the_Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_, according to which all questions were to be decided. (Preger 2, 86f. )

The most violent opponent of this plan was Melanchthon. Fearing that theFlacianists might get control of the prospective general council, he, inadvance, denounced and branded it as a "Robber Synod (_Raeubersynode_), advocated by the ignorant Flacian rabble. " Three weeks before his death, March 28, 1560 he wrote: "Since they [the Flacians] cannot kill me, theobject of these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have saidthat they would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc aguntisti hypocritae, ut me pellant, cum sanguinem meum haurire non possint;et quidem oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturosesse in Germania vestigium pedis_. " (_C. R. _ 9, 1079. ) Philip of Hesseconsented to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power ofthe Jena theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger2, 93. ) That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due toElector August, who declined to attend the synod. 

274. Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg. 

In lieu of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the bestmeans to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes andestates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561. The object of this assembly, he said, was neither to discuss thedifferences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, butonly to renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and toconsider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimousconfession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. Allfinally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, ElectorAugust (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declinedparticipation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of thePalatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism fromthis assembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a generalsynod and sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additionalwriting, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princesnot to enter into an ungodly and unionistic agreement, rather toeliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whoseobject was to settle matters without the theologians, declined toconsider their petition, and, on February 8, the last day of theconvention, returned the documents to their authors in Jena. 

After comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, theNaumburg Assembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg. But when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time alreadywas openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August, demanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correctexplanation of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princesyielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned inthe Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons forrenewing their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg. This Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the WittenbergCrypto-Calvinist Cracow, also asserted that hitherto no doctrinalcorruptions or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had beentolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversieswithin the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_. 

Evidently, to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuineLutherans. Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin andStoessel that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The dukereplied that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than puthis signature to a document in which the errors introduced by thePhilippists, etc. , were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took thesame stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed inaccordance with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and leftNaumburg without any further conference with the princes. When hereuponthe latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. Asconditions of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface theapostasy during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features ofthe Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought outclearly, the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm beeliminated, and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest ofthe Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princesclosed the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke, --hence also withouthaving attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans. 

The Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by theElectors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher ofWuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number ofother princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by anymeans stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionisticNaumburg document. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who alsoleft Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip ofBrunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis ofSaxon-Lauenburg, the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, Stolberg, Barby, and a number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg, Augsburg, Strassburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyalLutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all theprinces who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburgemphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of hisdelegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of thePalatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburgsignified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with theviews and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrineof the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from thebeginning they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense. In the Preface of the _Book of Concord_ signed by the Lutheran princes, we read: "Now, our conferences and those of our illustriouspredecessors, which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention, first at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and wererecorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peacefulsettlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errorsand false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered ourmind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede fromthe Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, asmany of us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg, whollyreserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course oftime, anything would be desired with respect to the _AugsburgConfession_, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we wouldfurther declare all things thoroughly and at length. " (CONC. TRIGL. 15. )Even Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by DukeJohn Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who hadmisled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg, openly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistentLutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinateproved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for trueunity and the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. Andmore than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bringabout this result. (Preger 2, 102. )

275. Andreae and Chemnitz. 

The theologians who were first in adopting effective methods andmeasures to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divinetruth were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 inWeiblingen, Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546he became pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposedbecause of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he becamepastor and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was alsoprofessor and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae hasbeen called "the spiritual heir of John Brenz. " Hoping against hope, heincessantly labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church. Being a man of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her atnumerous occasions and in various capacities. In his pacificationefforts he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelicalcourts, cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. Withthe consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service ofElector August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony tillhis dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing theaffairs of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work ofLutheran pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unitethe Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severelycriticized also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due tothe fact that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himselfto be duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough todefend them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of theLord's Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. Whilethus Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacificationwhich culminated in the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_, he lackedthe theological insight, acumen, and consistency which characterizedMartin Chemnitz. 

Martin Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen inBrandenburg. As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school inWittenberg, where he "rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he hadheard so much at home, and to hear Luther preach. " From 1539 to 1542 heattended the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied inFrankfort-on-the-Oder; in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthondirected his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school inKoenigsberg, and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary. Owing to his participation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lostthe favor of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9, 1554, he began his lectures on Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ before alarge and enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of hishearers. In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in1567 as superintendent, in the city of Brunswick. He died April 8, 1586. Chemnitz was the prince of the Lutheran divines of his age and, next toLuther, the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther andChemnitz, the Romanists said: "You Lutherans have two Martins; if thesecond had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (_si posteriornon fuisset, prior non stetisset_). " Besides the two Lutheran classics:_Examen Concilii Tridentini_, published 1565--1573, and _De DuabusNaturis in Christo_, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: _HarmoniaEvangelica_, continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed byJohn Gerhard, and _Foundations_ (_Die Fundamente_) _of the SoundDoctrine concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating andDrinking of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper_, 1569. 

Andreae and Chemnitz became acquainted with each other in 1568, whenDuke Julius invited the former to conduct the visitation in Brunswicktogether with Chemnitz. They jointly also composed the Brunswick ChurchOrder of 1569, which was preceded by the _Corpus Doctrinae Iulium_, compiled by Chemnitz and containing the _Augsburg Confession_, the_Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, the Catechisms of Luther, and a"short [rather long], simple, and necessary treatise on the prevalentcorruptions. " Andreae and Chemnitz are the theologians to whom more thanany other two men our Church owes the _Formula of Concord_ and theunification of our Church in the one true Christian faith as taught byLuther. However, it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any othertheologian, must be credited with the theological clarity and thecorrectness which characterizes the _Formula_. 

276. First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail. 

In his first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavoredto reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who thenwere contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at theinstance of Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel and Duke Christopher ofWuerttemberg, Andreae composed his "_Confession and Brief Explanation ofSeveral Controverted Articles_, according to which a Christian unitymight be effected in the churches adhering to the _Augsburg Confession_, and the offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled. " In fivearticles he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4. The Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains thatwe are neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ hasearned for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocentobedience, suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousnessto all believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teachotherwise, but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works arenecessary to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after theFall, man is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, thoughweak, will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual mattershis intellect is utterly blind and his will is dead; and that hence, unless God creates a new volition in him, man is unable of himself, ofhis own powers, to accept the grace of God offered in Christ. It rejectsall who teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies areno longer free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connectedwith a denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. Itrejects all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes thatalso the wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the bodyof Christ, but to their damnation. It furthermore declares: Since it isobjected that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supperbecause Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary "toexplain the article of the incarnation of the Son of God, and toindicate, in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which bothnatures, divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears towhat height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personalunion. " (Hutter, _Concordia Concors_, 110ff. )

In 1568, at the Brunswick Visitation, referred to above, Andreaesubmitted, his five articles to Duke Julius, and succeeded in winninghim for his plan. In the same interest he came to Wittenberg, January 9, 1569. Furnished with letters of commendation from Duke Julius andLandgrave William of Hesse, he obtained an interview also with ElectorAugust, who referred him to his theologians. On August 18, 1569, Andreaeheld a conference with the Wittenbergers. They insisted that the basisof the contemplated agreement must be the _Corpus Misnicum_(_Philippicum_). When Andreae, unsophisticated as he still was withrespect to the real character of Philippism, publicly declared that theWittenbergers were orthodox teachers, and that the _Corpus Misnicum_contained no false doctrine he was supplied with a testimonial in whichthe Wittenbergers refer to their _Corpus_, but not to Andreae'sarticles, to which also they had not fully consented. The result wasthat the Jena theologians, in particular Tilemann Hesshusius, denouncedAndreae's efforts as a unionistic scheme and a betrayal of trueLutheranism in the interest of Crypto-Calvinism. They rejected Andreae'sarticles because they were incomplete, and contained no specificrejection of the errors of the Philippists. 

At the instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst inAnhalt, at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony, Brunswick, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxontheologians declining to participate). The conference decided that a newconfession was not needed, and unanimously recognized the _AugsburgConfession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the Catechismsof Luther. Andreae was elated. In his "Report" to the Emperor and theprinces he gloried in "the Christian unity" attained at Zerbst. But alsothis apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory ratherthan real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscriptionby formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessionsenumerated only in as far as they agreed with the _Corpus Philippicum_. And before long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in thechapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make theirappearance. The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae, which lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did notsufficiently exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was thathe himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents ofthe Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had withthe dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that itwas impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union aslong as the Crypto-Calvinists were firmly seated in the saddle. 

277. Andreae's Sermons and the Swabian Concordia. 

Abandoning his original scheme, which had merely served to increase theanimosity among the Lutherans and to discredit himself, Andreae resolvedhenceforth to confine his peace efforts to true Lutherans, especiallythose of Swabia and Lower Saxony, and to unite them in opposition to theZwinglians, Calvinists, and Philippists, who, outside of ElectoralSaxony, were by this time generally regarded as traitors to the cause ofLutheranism. In 1573 he made his first move to carry out this new planof his by publishing sermons which he had delivered 1572 on thedoctrines controverted within the Lutheran Church. The title ran: "_SixChristian Sermons_ concerning the dissensions which from the year 1548to this 1573d year have gradually arisen among the theologians of the_Augsburg Confession_, as to what attitude a plain pastor and a commonChristian layman who may have been offended thereby should assume towardthem according to his Catechism. " These sermons treat of justification, good works, original sin, free will, the adiaphora, Law and Gospel, andthe person of Christ. As the title indicates, Andreae appealed not somuch to the theologians as to the pastors and the people of the LutheranChurch, concerning whom he was convinced that, adhering as they did, toLuther's Catechism, they in reality, at least in their hearts, were eventhen, and always had been, agreed. Andreae sent these sermons toChemnitz, Chytraeus, Hesshusius, Wigand, and other theologians with therequest that they be accepted as a basis of agreement. In the preface, dated February 17, 1573, he dedicated them to Duke Julius of Brunswickwhose good will and consent in the matter he had won in 1568, when heassisted in introducing the Reformation in his territories. Before thisNicholas Selneccer, then superintendent of Wolfenbuettel, in order tocultivate the friendly relations between Swabia and Lower Saxony, haddedicated his _Instruction in the Christian Religion_ (_InstitutioReligionis Christianae_) to the Duke of Wuerttemberg, praising thewritings of Brenz, and lauding the services rendered by Andreae to theduchy of Brunswick. 

The sermons of Andreae were welcomed by Chemnitz, Westphal in Hamburg, David Chytraeus in Rostock, and others. They also endeavored to obtainrecognition for them from various ecclesiastical ministries of LowerSaxony. But having convinced themselves that the sermonic form was notadapted for a confession, they, led by Chemnitz, advised that theircontents be reduced to articles in "thesis and antithesis, " and thatthis be done "with the assistance of other theologians. " Andreaeimmediately acted on this suggestion and the result was what is known asthe _Swabian Concordia_ (_Schwaebische Konkordie_)--the first draft ofthe _Formula of Concord_. This document, also called the Tuebingen Book, was submitted to, and approved by, the theologians of Tuebingen and bythe Stuttgart Consistory. In substance it was an elaboration of the _SixSermons_ with the addition of the last two articles. It contains elevenarticles, treating 1. Original Sin; 2. Free Will; 3. The Righteousnessof Faith before God; 4. Good Works; 5. Law and Gospel; 6. The Third Useof the Law; 7. The Church Usages Called Adiaphora; 8. The Lord's Supper;9. The Person of Christ: 10. Eternal Election; 11. Other Factions andSects. In the introduction Andreae also emphasizes the necessity ofadopting those symbols which were afterwards received into the _Book ofConcord_. 

278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia. 

On March 22, 1574, Andreae sent the _Swabian Concordia_ to Duke Juliusand Chemnitz with the request to examine it and to have it discussed inthe churches of Lower Saxony. On the twelfth of May the Duke orderedChemnitz to prepare an opinion on the book and to present it to theclergy for their examination and approval. Under the leadership ofChemnitz numerous conferences were held, and the various criticismsoffered led to a revision of the document. This work was begun in April, 1575, by the theological faculty of Rostock. Apart from numerous changesand additions everywhere, the articles on Free Will and on the Lord'sSupper were completely remodeled by Chytraeus and Chemnitz. 

The new confession, known as the _Swabian [Lower] Saxon Concordia_, wassubscribed by the theologians and pastors of the duchies of Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Mansfeld, Hoya, and Oldenburg. It acknowledges as itsdoctrinal basis the Holy Scriptures, the three Ecumenical Creeds, the_Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, andLuther's two Catechisms. It discusses the following articles in thefollowing order: 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Ofthe Righteousness of Faith before God; 4. Of Good Works, 5. Of the Lawand the Gospel; 6. Of the Third Use of the Law of God; 7. Of the HolySupper; 8. Of God's Eternal Providence and Election; 9. Of Church Usageswhich are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 10. Of Free Will orHuman Powers; 11. Of Other Factions and Sects which have NeverAcknowledged the _Augsburg Confession_. 

While this new _Concordia_ was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, towhom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied withits form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticizedthe unevenness of its style, its frequent use of Latin technical terms, its quotations (now approved, now rejected) from Melanchthon, etc. Particularly regarding the last mentioned point they feared that thereferences to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence theypreferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which wasdone in the _Formula of Concord_ as finally adopted. 

279. The Maulbronn Formula. 

The movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received apowerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse ofCrypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking thePhilippists, God had removed the chief obstacle of a godly and generalpeace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began todisappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed tothe dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peaceembracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the publicexposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by CountHenneberg and other princes, _viz. _, that the Wittenberg theologianswere universally suspected, and that peace could not be establisheduntil their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrinesof the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown inthe chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists ofElectoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists ratherthan Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic _ExegesisPerspicua_ of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector thatfor years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologiansand unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, weresecret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitzremarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the articleon the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention. (Richard, 426. )

Among Lutherans generally the humiliating events in Saxony increased thefeeling of shame at the conditions prevailing within their Church aswell as the earnest desire for a genuine and lasting peace in the oldLutheran truths. And now Elector August, who, despite his continuedanimosity against Flacius, always wished to be a true Lutheran, but upto 1574 had not realized that the Philippistic type of doctrine dominantin his country departed from Luther's teaching, was determined tosatisfy this universal longing for unity and peace. Immediately afterthe unmasking of the Philippists he took measures to secure therestoration of orthodox Lutheranism in his own lands. At the same timehe placed himself at the head of the larger movement for theestablishment of religious peace among the Lutherans generally by theelaboration and adoption of a doctrinal formula settling the pendingcontroversies. To restore unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, whichhis own theologians had done so much to disturb, was now his uppermostdesire. He prosecuted the plan of pacification with great zeal andperseverance. He also paid the heavy expenses (80, 000 gulden), incurredby the numerous conventions, etc. And when, in the interest of suchpeace and unity, the theologians were engaged in conferences the piousElector and his wife were on their knees, asking God that He would crowntheir labor with success. 

The specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript ofNovember 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians, appointed by the various Lutheran princes "meet in order to deliberatehow, by the grace of God, all [the existing various _corpora doctrinae_]might be reduced to one _corpus_ which we all could adopt, and that thisbook or _corpus doctrinae_ be printed anew and the ministers in thelands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby. " Before thisElector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to takethe initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg, Duke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask anumber of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question asto how a document might be prepared which would serve as a beginning tobring about true Christian concord among the churches of the _AugsburgConfession_. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttembergcourt-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgartprovost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and severaltheologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach wereordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. Thedocument which they submitted was discussed with theologians fromHenneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribedJanuary 19, 1576. 

The _Maulbronn Formula_, as the document was called, differs from the_Swabian-Saxon Concordia_ in being much briefer (about half asvoluminous), in avoiding technical Latin terms, in making no referencewhatever to Melanchthon, in quoting from Luther's works only, and inomitting such doctrinal points (Anabaptism, Schwenckfeldianism, Antitrinitarianism, etc. ) as had not been controverted among theLutherans. Following the order of the _Augustana_, this _Formula_ treatsthe following articles. 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ;3. Of Justification of Faith 4. Of the Law and Gospel; 5. Of Good Works;6. Of the Holy Supper of Our Lord Christ; 7. Of Church Usages, CalledAdiaphora or Things Indifferent; 8. Of Free Will; 9. Of the Third Use ofGod's Law. 

280. The Torgau Book. 

On February 9, 1576, the _Maulbronn Formula_, approved by Count Ludwigof Wuerttemberg, Margrave Carl of Baden, and Count George Ernest ofHenneberg, was transmitted to Elector August, who had already received acopy of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia from Duke Julius of Brunswick. TheElector submitted both to Andreae for an opinion, whom formal reasonsinduced to decide in favor of the _Maulbronn Formula_. At the same timeAndreae advised the Elector to arrange a general conference of prominenttheologians to act and decide in this matter, suggesting as two of itsmembers Chemnitz and Chytraeus of Rostock. This being in agreement withhis own plans, the Elector, at the convention at Lichtenberg, February15, 1576 submitted the suggestions of Andreae to twelve of his owntheologians, headed by Nicholas Selneccer, then professor in Leipzig. [Selneccer was born December 6, 1530. In 1550 he took up his studies inWittenberg, where he was much impressed and influenced by Melanchthon. In 1557 he was appointed court-preacher in Dresden. Beginning with 1565after the banishment of Flacius and his colleagues, he was professor inJena. He returned to Leipzig in 1568. In 1570 he accepted a call fromDuke Julius as court-preacher and superintendent in Brunswick, butreturned to Leipzig in 1574. Before the unmasking of theCrypto-Calvinists his theological attitude lacked clearness anddetermination. Ever after, however, he was the leader of the Lutheranforces in Electoral Saxony. At the Lichtenberg Convention, convokedFebruary 16, 1576, by Elector August, Selneccer successfully advocatedthe removal of the Wittenberg Catechism, the _Consensus Dresdensis_, andthe _Corpus Philippicum_. In their place he recommended the adoption ofa new _corpus doctrinae_ containing the three Ecumenical Creeds, the_Unaltered Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, the Catechisms of Luther, and, if desired, Luther's _Commentary onGalatians_. Finally he advised that the electors and princes arrange aconvention of such representative theologians as, _e. G. _, Chytraeus, Chemnitz, Andreae, and Marbach, to discuss the doctrinal differences. Selneccer's recommendations were adopted by the convention andtransmitted to Elector August. Though contributing little to thecontents of the _Formula of Concord_, Selneccer heartily cooperated inits preparation, revision, and adoption. In 1580, of his own accord, hepublished the Latin _Book of Concord_, which was followed in 1584 by anedition authorized by the princes. Selneccer also participated inpreparing the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, first published 1582 inMagdeburg. In May, 1589, after the Crypto-Calvinistic reaction underChristian I, Selneccer, whom the Calvinists hated more than others ofthe theologians who had participated in the promulgation of the _Formulaof Concord_, was deposed, harassed, and reduced to poverty because ofhis testimony against Chancellor Crell and his earnest and continuedwarnings against the Calvinists. After the death of Christian I, Selneccer was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, fivedays before his death, May 24, 1592. ]

Having through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained theconsent of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also inaccordance with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector Augustimmediately made arrangements for the contemplated general convention oftheologians. It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, andattended by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in theLichtenberg convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [GeneralSuperintendent of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor inFrankfurt-on-the-Oder; born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [bornFebruary 26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister inTuebingen when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 inWittenberg, where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from1551 till his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgaudeliberations, in which much time was spent on the articles of OriginalSin and Free Will, was the so-called _Torgau Book_. On the seventh ofJune the theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of theSwabian-Saxon and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, hadagreed on a _corpus doctrinae_. 

The _Torgau Book_ was essentially the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_, recastand revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to thedesirable features (enumerated above) of the _Maulbronn Formula_. Themajority decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should beretained, but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotationsfrom Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the_Maulbronn Formula_. The _Torgau Book_ contained the twelve articles ofthe later _Formula of Concord_ and in the same sequence; Article IX, "Ofthe Descent of Christ into Hell, " had been added at Torgau. The Book wasentitled: "_Opinion_ as to how the dissensions prevailing among thetheologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ may, according to the Word ofGod, be agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner. " It was signed as"their faith, doctrine, and confession" by the six men who were chieflyresponsible for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and ChristopherCornerus. The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving toAlmighty God for the blessed results of their labors and the happytermination and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccerdelivering the sermon. Similar services were held at other places, notably in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony. 

In a letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the TorgauConvention: "Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from, beyond, above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought ofall. I was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that thesethings were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me. Certainly a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward therestoration of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination ofcorruptions, toward the establishment of a godly confession. " In aletter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in asimilar vein, saying: "Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almostoverwhelmed with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau]brought to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the righthand of the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since thetruth no longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute tothe restoration of good feeling. " (Richard, 428. 430. )

281. The Bergic Book or the Formula of Concord. 

In accordance with the recommendation of the Torgau convention theElector of Saxony examined the _Torgau Book_ himself and had copies ofit sent to the various Lutheran princes and estates in Germany with therequest to have it tested by their theologians, and to return theiropinions and censures to Dresden. Of these (about 25) the majority werefavorable. The churches in Pomerania and Holstein desired thatMelanchthon's authority be recognized alongside of Luther's. On theother hand, Hesshusius and Wigand demanded that Flacius, Osiander, Major, Melanchthon, and other "originators and patrons of corruptions"be referred to by name and condemned as errorists. Quite a number oftheologians objected to the _Torgau Book_ because it was too bulky. Tomeet this objection the _Epitome_, a summary of the contents of the_Torgau Book_, was prepared by Andreae with the consent of the Elector. Originally its title read: "_Brief Summary_ of the articles which, controverted among the theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ for manyyears, were settled in a Christian manner at Torgau in the month ofJune, 1576, by the theologians which there met and subscribed. "

After most of the censures had arrived, the "triumvirate" of the_Formula of Concord_ (as Chytraeus called them 1581), Andreae, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, by order of the Elector met on March 1, 1577, at Cloister Bergen, near Magdeburg, for the consideration of thecriticisms and final editing of the new confession. They finished theirwork on March 14. Later when other criticisms arrived and a furtherrevision took place (also at Bergen, in May 1577), Musculus, Cornerus, and Chytraeus were added to their number. Though numerous changes, additions, and omissions were made at Bergen, and in Article IX thepresent form was substituted for the sermon of Luther, the doctrinalsubstance of the _Torgau Book_ remained unchanged. The chief object ofthe revisers was to eliminate misunderstandings and to replace ambiguousand dark terms with clear ones. At the last meeting of the six revisers(at Bergen, in May) the _Solid Declaration_ was quickly and finallyagreed upon, only a few changes of a purely verbal and formal naturebeing made. On May 28, 1577, the revised form of the _Torgau Book_ wassubmitted to Elector August. It is known as the _Bergic Book_, or the_Solid Declaration_, or the _Formula of Concord_, also as the _Book ofConcord_ (a title which was afterwards reserved for the collection ofall the Lutheran symbols). Of course, the _Epitome_, prepared byAndreae, was also examined and approved by the revisers at CloisterBergen. 

In order to remove a number of misunderstandings appearing after thecompletion of the _Bergic Book_, a "Preface" (Introduction to the _Bookof Concord_) was prepared by the theologians and signed by the princes. The _Catalog of Testimonies_, added first with the caption "Appendix"and later without the same, or omitted entirely, is a private work ofAndreae and Chemnitz, and not a part of the confession. Its specialpurpose is to prove that the Lutheran doctrine concerning the person ofChrist and the majesty of His human nature as set forth in Article VIIof the _Formula of Concord_, is clearly taught by the Scriptures as wellas by the Fathers of the ancient Church. The _Formula of Concord_(German) was first published at Dresden, 1580, as a part of the _Book ofConcord_. The first authentic Latin edition appeared in Leipzig, 1584. (Compare chapter on "The Book of Concord. ")

282. Subscription to the Formula of Concord. 

Originally Elector August planned to submit the _Bergic Book_ to ageneral convention of the evangelical estates for approval. But fearingthat this might lead to new discussions and dissensions, the sixtheologians, in their report (May 28, 1577) on the final revision of the_Bergic Book_, submitted and recommended a plan of immediatesubscription instead of an adoption at a general convention. Consentingto their views, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg forthwith sentcopies of the _Bergic Book_ to such princes and estates as were expectedto consent. These were requested to multiply the copies, and everywhereto circulate and submit them for discussion and subscription. As aresult the _Formula of Concord_ was signed by the electors of Saxony, ofBrandenburg, and of the Palatinate; furthermore by 20 dukes and princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, 35 imperial cities, and about 8, 000 pastors andteachers embracing about two-thirds of the Lutheran territories ofGermany. 

The first signatures were those of Andreae, Selneccer, Musculus, Cornerus, Chytraeus, and Chemnitz, who on May 29, 1577, signed both the_Epitome_ and the _Thorough Declaration_ the latter with the followingsolemn protestation: "Since now, in the sight of God and of allChristendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those who shallcome after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning allthe controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, isour faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, byGod's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat ofJesus Christ, and give an account of it and that we will neitherprivately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it but, bythe help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, aftermature deliberation we have, in God's fear and with the invocation ofHis name, attached our signatures with our own hands. " (1103, 40 CONC. TRIGL. 1103, 40; 842, 31. )

Kolde remarks: "Wherever the civil authorities were in favor of the_Bergic Book_, the pastors and teachers also were won for itssubscription. That the wish of the ruler contributed to this resultcannot be denied and is confirmed by the Crypto-Calvinistic troublesreappearing later on in Saxony. But that the influence of the rulersmust not be overestimated, appears, apart from other things from thefrequent additions to the signatures 'With mouth and heart (_cum ore etcorde_). '" Self-evidently the Crypto-Calvinists as well as othererrorists had to face the alternative of either subscribing or beingsuspended from the ministry. The very object of the _Formula of Concord_was to purge the Lutheran Church from Calvinists and others who were notin sympathy and agreement with the Lutheran Confessions and constituteda foreign and disturbing element in the Lutheran Church. 

As to the manner in which the _Formula_ was submitted for subscription, it was certainly not indifferentistic, but most solemn and serious, andperhaps, in some instances, even severe. Coercion, however, was nowhereemployed for obtaining the signatures. At any rate, no instance isrecorded in which compulsion was used to secure its adoption. Moreover, the campaign of public subscription, for which about two years wereallowed, was everywhere conducted on the principle that such only wereto be admitted to subscription as had read the _Formula_ and were incomplete agreement with its doctrinal contents. Yet it was probably truethat some, as Hutter assumes, signed with a bad conscience [Hutter:"_Deinde esto: subscripserunt aliqui mala conscientia FormulaeConcordiae";_ Mueller, _Einleitung_, 115]; for among those who affixedtheir names are quite a few of former Crypto-Calvinists--men who hadalways found a way of escaping martyrdom, and, also in this instance, may have preferred the retaining of their livings to following theirconviction. The fact is that no other confession can be mentioned in theelaboration of which so much time, labor, and care was expended to bringout clearly the divine truth, to convince every one of its completeharmony with the Bible and the Lutheran symbols, and to hear and meetall objections, as was the case with respect to the _Formula ofConcord_. 

"In reply to the criticism [of the Calvinists in the _NeustadtAdmonition_, etc. ] that it was unjust for only six theologians to writea Confession for the whole Church, and that a General Synod should havebeen held before the signing of the Confession, the Convention ofQuedlinburg, in 1583, declared it untrue that the _Formula of Concord_had been composed by only six theologians, and reminded the critics how, on the contrary, the articles had first been sent, a number of times, toall the Lutheran churches in Germany; how, in order to consider them, synods and conferences had been held on every side, and the articles hadbeen thoroughly tested, how criticisms had been made upon them; and howthe criticisms had been conscientiously taken in hand by a specialcommission. The Quedlinburg Convention therefore declared in its minutesthat, indeed, 'such a frequent revision and testing of the _ChristianBook of Concord_, many times repeated, is a much greater work than if aGeneral Synod had been assembled respecting it to which every provincewould have commissioned two or three theologians, who in the name of allthe rest would have helped to test and approve the book. For in that wayonly one synod would have been held for the comparing and testing ofthis work, but, as it was, many synods were held; and it was sent tomany provinces, which had it tested by the weighty and mature judgmentof their theologians, in such manner as has never occurred in the caseof any book or any matter of religion since the beginning ofChristianity, as is evident from the history of the Church, '. .. We aresolemnly told [by Andreae, Selneccer, etc. ] that no one was forced bythreats to sign the _Formula of Concord_, and that no one was tempted todo so by promises. We know that no one was taken suddenly by surprise. Every one was given time to think. As the work of composition extendedthrough years, so several years were given for the work of signing. Wevery much doubt whether the Lutheran Church to-day could secure anydemocratic subscription so clean, so conscientious, so united, or solarge as that which was given to the _Book of Concord_. " (Schmauk, 663f. )

283. Subscription in Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg, etc. 

In Electoral Saxony, where Crypto-Calvinism had reigned supreme for manyyears, prevailing conditions naturally called for a strict procedure. For Calvinists could certainly not be tolerated as preachers in Lutheranchurches or as teachers in Lutheran schools. Such was also the settledconviction and determination of Elector August. When he learned that theWittenberg professors were trying to evade an unqualified subscription, he declared: By the help of God I am determined, as long as I live tokeep my churches and schools pure and in agreement with the _Formula ofConcord_. Whoever does not want to cooperate with me may go, I have nodesire for him. God protect me, and those belonging to me, from Papistsand Calvinists--I have experienced it. (Richard, 529. )

The Elector demanded that every pastor affix his own signature to the_Formula_. Accordingly, in every place, beginning with Wittenberg, thecommissioners addressed the ministers and schoolteachers, who had beensummoned from the smaller towns and villages, read the _Formula_ tothem, exhorted them to examine it and to express their doubts orscruples, if they had any, and finally demanded subscription of allthose who could not bring any charge of false doctrine against it. According to Planck only one pastor, one superintendent (Kolditz, wholater on subscribed), and one schoolteacher refused to subscribe. (6, 560. ) Several professors in Leipzig and Wittenberg who declined toacknowledge the _Formula_ were dismissed. 

However, as stated, also in Electoral Saxony coercion was not employed. Moreover, objections were listened to with patience, and time wasallowed for consideration. Indeed, in the name of the Elector every onewas admonished not to subscribe against his conscience. I. F. Muellersays in his _Historico-Theological Introduction to the LutheranSymbols_: "At the Herzberg Convention, 1578, Andreae felt justified instating: 'I can truthfully say that no one was coerced to subscribe orbanished on that account. If this is not true, the Son of God has notredeemed me with His blood; for otherwise I do not want to become apartaker of the blood of Christ. ' Pursuant to this declaration theopponents were publicly challenged to mention a single person who hadsubscribed by compulsion, but they were unable to do so. Moreover, eventhe Nuernbergers, who did not adopt the _Formula of Concord_, acknowledged that the signatures had been affixed without employment offorce. " (115. ) True, October 8, 1578, Andreae wrote to Chemnitz: "Wetreated the pastors with such severity that a certain truly good man andsincere minister of the church afterwards said to us in the lodgingthat, when the matter was proposed so severely, his mind was seized witha great consternation which caused him to think that he, being nearMount Sinai, was hearing the promulgation of the Mosaic Law (_se animoadeo consternato fuisse, cum negotium tam severiter proponeretur, utexistimaret, se monti Sinai proximum legis Mosaicae promulgationemaudire_). .. . I do not believe that anywhere a similar severity has beenemployed. " (116. ) But the term "severity" here employed does not meanforce or compulsion, but merely signifies religious seriousness andmoral determination to eliminate Crypto-Calvinism from the LutheranChurch in Electoral Saxony. The spirit in which also Andreae desiredthis matter to be conducted appears from his letter of November 20, 1579, to Count Wolfgang, in which he says: Although as yet someministers in his country had not subscribed to the _Formula_, he shouldnot make too much of that, much less press or persuade them; for whoeverdid not subscribe spontaneously and with a good conscience shouldabstain from subscribing altogether much rather than pledge himself withword and hand when his heart did not concur--_denn wer es nicht mitseinem Geist und gutem Gewissen tue, bleibe viel besser davon, als dasser sich mit Worten und mit der Hand dazu bekenne und das Herz nichtdaran waere_. (115. )

Also Selneccer testifies to the general willingness with which theministers in Saxony affixed their signatures. With respect to theuniversities of Wittenberg and Leipzig, however, he remarks that theresome were found who, while willing to acknowledge the first part of the_Book of Concord_, begged to be excused from signing the _Formula_, butthat they had been told by the Elector: If they agreed with the firstpart, there was no reason why they should refuse to sign the second, since it was based on the first. (Carpzov, _Isagoge_ 20. ) While thus inElectoral Saxony subscription to the _Formula_ was indeed demanded ofall professors and ministers, there is not a single case on record inwhich compulsion was employed to obtain it. 

In Brandenburg the clergy subscribed unconditionally, spontaneously, andwith thankfulness toward God and to their "faithful, pious ruler for hisfatherly care of the Church. " Nor was any opposition met with inWuerttemberg, where the subscription was completed in October, 1577. InMecklenburg the ministers were kindly invited to subscribe. Such asrefused were suspended and given time for deliberation, with the provisothat they abstain from criticizing the _Formula_ before the people. Whenthe superintendent of Wismar and several pastors declined finally toadopt the _Formula_, they were deposed. 

Accordingly, it was in keeping with the facts when the Lutheran electorsand princes declared in the Preface to the _Formula of Concord_ "thattheir theologians, ministers, and schoolteachers" "did with glad heartand heartfelt thanks to God the Almighty voluntarily and withwell-considered courage adopt, approve, and subscribe this _Book ofConcord_ [_Formula of Concord_] as the true and Christian sense of the_Augsburg Confession_, and did publicly testify thereto with heart, mouth and hand. Wherefore also this Christian Agreement is not theconfession of some few of our theologians only, but is called, and is ingeneral, the unanimous confession of each and every one of the ministersand schoolteachers of our lands and provinces. " (CONC. TRIGL. 12f. )

284. Where and Why Formula of Concord was Rejected. 

Apart from the territories which were really Calvinistic (Anhalt, LowerHesse, the Palatinate, etc. ), comparatively few of the German princesand estates considered adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ declinedto accept the _Formula of Concord_ because of any doctrinaldisagreement. Some refused to append their names for political reasons;others, because they were opposed on principle to a new symbol. Withstill others, notably some of the imperial cities, it was a case ofreligious particularism, which would not brook any disturbance of itsown mode of church-life. Also injured pride, for not having beenconsulted in the matter, nor called upon to participate in thepreparation and revision of the _Formula_, was not altogether lacking asa motive for withholding one's signature. In some instances personalspite figured as a reason. Because Andreae had given offense to Paul vonEitzen, Holstein rejected the _Formula_, stating that all the articlesit treated were clearly set forth in the existing symbols. Duke Juliusof Brunswick, though at first most zealous in promoting the work ofpacification and the adoption of the _Book of Concord_, withdrew in1583, because Chemnitz had rebuked him for allowing his son to beconsecrated Bishop of Halberstadt. (Kolde, 73f. ) However, despite theunfriendly attitude of Duke Julius, some of the Brunswick theologiansopenly declared their agreement with the _Formula_ as well as theirdetermination by the help of God, to adhere to its doctrine. No doubtbut that much more pressure was exercised in hindering than in urgingLutherans to subscribe to the _Formula_. For the reasons enumerated the_Formula of Concord_ was not adopted in Brunswick, Wolfenbuettel, Holstein, Hesse, Pomerania (where however, the _Formula_ was receivedlater), Anhalt, the Palatinate (which, after a short Lutheraninterregnum, readopted the Heidelberg Catechism under John Casimir, 1583), Zweibruecken, Nassau, Bentheim, Tecklenburg, Solms, Ortenburg, Liegnitz, Brieg, Wohlau, Bremen, Danzig, Magdeburg, Nuernberg, Weissenburg, Windsheim, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Worms, Speyer, Strassburg. 

In Sweden and Denmark, Frederick II issued an edict, July 24, 1580, forbidding (for political reasons) the importation and publication ofthe _Formula of Concord_ on penalty of execution and confiscation ofproperty. He is said to have cast the two elegantly bound copies of the_Formula_ sent him by his sister, the wife of Elector August of Saxony, into the fireplace. Later on, however, the _Formula_ came to be esteemedalso in the Danish Church and to be regarded as a symbol, at least infact, if not in form. 

While some of the original signatories subsequently withdrew from the_Formula of Concord_ a larger number acceded to it. Among the latterwere Holstein, Pomerania, Krain, Kaernthen, Steiermark, etc. In Swedenthe _Formula_ was adopted 1593 by the Council of Upsala; in Hungary, in1597. With few exceptions the Lutheran synods in America and Australiaall subscribed also to the _Formula of Concord_. 

285. Formula Not a New Confession Doctrinally. 

The _Formula of Concord_ purified the Lutheran Church from Romanism, Calvinism, indifferentism, unionism, synergism, and other errors andunsound tendencies. It did so, not by proclaiming new exclusive laws anddoctrines, but by showing that these corruptions were already excludedby the spirit and letter of the existing Lutheran symbols. Doctrinallythe _Formula of Concord_ is not a new confession, but merely arepetition and explanation of the old Lutheran confessions. It does notset forth or formulate a new faith or tenets hitherto unknown to theLutheran Church. Nor does it correct, change, or in any way modify anyof her doctrines. On the contrary its very object was to defend andmaintain the teaching of her old symbols against all manner of attackscoming from without as well as from within the Lutheran Church. The_Formula_ merely presents, repeats, reaffirms explains, defends, clearlydefines, and consistently applies the truths directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly confessed and taught in the antecedent Lutheranconfessions. The _Augsburg Confession_ concludes its last paragraph: "Ifthere is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we areready God willing, to present ampler information (_latioreminformationem_) according to the Scriptures. " (94, 7. ) Close scrutinywill reveal the fact that in every detail the _Formula_ must be regardedas just such an "ampler information, according to the Scriptures. " TheLutheran Church, therefore, has always held that whoever candidly adoptsthe _Augsburg Confession_ cannot and will not reject the _Formula ofConcord_ either. 

As for the _Formula_ itself, it most emphatically disclaims to beanything really new. In their Preface to the _Book of Concord_ theLutheran princes declared: "We indeed (to repeat in conclusion what wehave mentioned several times above) have wished, in this work ofconcord, _in no way to devise anything new_, or to depart from the truthof the heavenly doctrine, which our ancestors (renowned for their piety)as well as we ourselves have acknowledged and professed. We mean thatdoctrine, which, having been derived from the prophetic and apostolicScriptures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the _AugsburgConfession_, presented in the year 1530 to Emperor Charles V, ofexcellent memory, then in the _Apology_, which was added to this, in the_Smalcald Articles_, and lastly in both the Catechisms of that excellentman, Dr. Luther. _Therefore we also have determined not to depart even afinger's breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from thephrases which are found in them_, but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godlyagreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to thistrue norm and declaration of the pure doctrine. " (CONC. TRIGL. 23. ) Inthe Comprehensive Summary we read: "We [the framers and signers of the_Formula of Concord_] have declared to one another with heart and mouththat we will not make or receive _a separate or new confession of ourfaith_, but confess the public common writings which always andeverywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions inall the churches of the _Augsburg Confession_ before the dissensionsarose among those who accept the _Augsburg Confession_, and as long asin all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to the puredoctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it. "(851, 2. 9. ) The _Formula of Concord_ therefore did not wish to offeranything that was new doctrinally. It merely expressed the consensus ofall loyal Lutherans, and applied the truths contained in the existingsymbols to the questions raised in the various controversies. 

286. Formula a Reaffirmation of Genuine Lutheranism. 

To restore Luther's doctrine, such was the declared purpose of thepromoters and authors of the _Formula of Concord_. And in deciding thecontroverted questions, they certainly did most faithfully adhere toLuther's teaching. The _Formula_ is an exact, clear, consistent, andguarded statement of original Lutheranism purified of all foreignelements later on injected into it by the Philippists and othererrorists. It embodies the old Lutheran doctrine, as distinguished notmerely from Romanism and Calvinism, but also from Melanchthonianism andother innovations after the death of Luther. Surely Luther would nothave hesitated to endorse each and all of its articles or doctrinalstatements. Even Planck, who poured contempt and sarcasm on the loyalLutherans, admits: "It was almost beyond controversy that the _Formula_, in every controverted article, established and authorized precisely theview which was most clearly sanctioned by the _Unaltered AugsburgConfession_, by its _Apology_ according to the edition of the year 1531, by the _Smalcald Articles_, and by the Catechisms of Luther. " (6, 697. )This complete agreement with Luther also accounts for the fact that the_Formula_ was immediately acknowledged by two-thirds of the Protestantsin Germany. 

As for Luther, the _Formula of Concord_ regards him as the God-givenReformer and teacher of the Church. We read: "By the special grace andmercy of the Almighty the doctrine concerning the chief articles of ourChristian religion (which under the Papacy had been horribly obscured byhuman teachings and ordinances) _were explained and purified again fromGod's Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory_. " (847, 1. ) Again:"In these last times God, out of special grace has brought the truth ofHis Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy _through thefaithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther_. " (851, 5. )Luther is spoken of as "this highly illumined man, " "the hero illuminedwith unparalleled and most excellent gifts of the Holy Ghost, " "theleading teacher of the _Augsburg Confession_. " (980, 28; 983, 34. ) "Dr. Luther, " says the _Formula_, "is to be regarded as the mostdistinguished (_vornehmste, praecipuus_) teacher of the Churches whichconfess the _Augsburg Confession_, whose entire doctrine as to sum andsubstance is comprised in the articles of the _Augsburg Confession_. "(985, 41. ) Again: "Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understoodthe true and proper meaning of the _Augsburg Confession_, and whoconstantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article [ofthe Lord's Supper] with great zeal in his last Confession. " (983, 33. )Accordingly, only from Luther's writings quotations are introduced bythe _Formula_ to prove the truly Lutheran character of a doctrine. Inthis respect Luther was considered the highest authority, outweighing byfar that of Melanchthon or any other Lutheran divine. EverywhereLuther's books are referred and appealed to, _e. G. _, his "beautiful andglorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, " hisbook concerning Councils, his _Large Confession_, his _De ServoArbitrio_, his _Commentary on Genesis_, his sermon of 1533 at Torgau, etc. (925, 28; 937, 67; 823, 21; 897, 43; 827, 2; 1051, 1; cf. 1213ff. )

Luther's doctrine, according to the _Formula of Concord_, is embodied inthe old Lutheran symbols, and was "collected into the articles andchapters of the _Augsburg Confession_. " (851, 5. ) The _AugsburgConfession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the _Small_ andthe _Large Catechism_, says the _Formula_, "have always been regarded asthe norm and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established againstthe Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in hisdoctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and asfar as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published workshas given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings. "(853, 9. ) According to the _Formula_ there were no dissensions among theLutherans "as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimousadherence to the pure doctrine of the divine Word _as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it_. " (851, 2. ) Melanchthon, Agricola, Osiander, Major, and the Philippists, departing from Luther, struck out on paths of theirown, and thus gave rise to the controversies finally settled by the_Formula of Concord_. 

As for the _Formula of Concord_ itself, the distinct object also of itspromoters and authors was to restore, reaffirm, and vindicate thedoctrine of Luther. In a letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius andWigand, Andreae giving an account of the results of the TorgauConvention, remarks: "For this I dare affirm and promise sacredly thatthe illustrious Elector of Saxony is bent on this alone that thedoctrine of Luther, which has been partly obscured, partly corrupted, partly condemned openly or secretly, shall again be restored pure andunadulterated in the schools and churches, and accordingly Luther shalllive, _i. E. _, Christ, whose faithful servant Luther was--_adeoqueLutherus, hoc est, Christus, cuius fidelis minister Lutherus fuit, vivat_. What more do you desire? Here [in the _Torgau Book_] nothing iscolored, nothing is dressed up, nothing is concealed, but everything isin keeping with the spirit of Luther which is Christ's. _Nihil hicfucatum, nihil palliatum, nihil tectum est, sed iuxta spiritum Lutheri, qui Christi est_. " (Schaff 1, 339. ) Also the _Formula of Concord_, therefore, contains Luther's theology. 

It has been asserted that the _Formula of Concord_ is a compromisebetween Luther and Melanchthon, a "synthesis or combination of the twoantagonistic forces of the Reformation, a balance of mutuallydestructive principles, " etc. The _Formula_, says also Seebergrepresents a "Melanchthonian Lutheranism. " But the plain truth is thatthe _Formula_ is a complete victory of Luther over the later Melanchthonas well as the other errorists who had raised their heads within theLutheran Church. It gave the floor, not to Philip, but to Martin. True, it was the avowed object of the _Formula_ to restore peace to theLutheran Church, but not by compromising in any shape or form thedoctrine of Luther, which, its authors were convinced, is nothing butdivine truth itself. In thesis and antithesis, moreover, the _Formula_takes a clearly defined stand against all the errorists of those days:Anabaptists, Schwenckfeldians, Antitrinitarians, Romanists, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists, Adiaphorists, Antinomians, Synergists, Majorists, the later Flacianists, etc. It did not acknowledge, or leaveroom for, any doctrines or doctrinal tendencies deviating in the leastfrom original genuine Scriptural Lutheranism. At every point it occupiedthe old Lutheran ground. Everywhere it observed a correct balancebetween two errors (_e. G. _, Romanism and Zwinglianism, Calvinism andsynergism, Majorism and antinomianism); it steered clear of Scylla aswell as Charybdis avoiding errors to the right as well as pitfalls tothe left. The golden highway of truth on which it travels was notMelanchthon nor a middle ground between Luther and Melanchthon, butsimply Luther and the truths which he had brought to light again. 

Melanchthonianism may be defined as an effort to inoculate Lutheranismwith a unionistic and Calvinistic virus. The distinct object of the_Formula_, however, was not merely to reduce, but to purge the LutheranChurch entirely from, this as well as other leaven. The _Formula's_theology is not Lutheranism modified by, but thoroughly cleansed from, antinomianism, Osiandrianism, and particularly from Philippism. Accordingly, while in the _Formula_ Luther is celebrated and quoted asthe true and reliable exponent of Lutheranism, Melanchthon is nowhereappealed to as an authority in this respect. It is only in the _Prefaceof the Book of Concord_ that his writings are referred to as not to be"rejected and condemned", but the proviso is added, "in as far as(_quatenus_) they agree throughout with the norm laid down in the _Bookof Concord_. " (16. )

287. Scripture Sole Standard and Rule. 

From the high estimation in which Luther was held by the _Formula ofConcord_ it has falsely been inferred that this Confession accordsLuther the "highest authority" as Hase says, or considers him "theregulative and almost infallible expounder" of the Bible, as Schaffasserts. (_Creeds_ 1, 313. ) But according to the _Formula_ the supremearbiter and only final rule in all matters of religion is the inspiredWord of God; and absolutely all human teachers and books, includingLuther and the Lutheran symbols, are subject to its verdict. When, afterLuther's death, God permitted doctrinal controversies to distract theChurch, His purpose, no doubt, being also to have her fully realize notonly that Luther's doctrine is in complete harmony with Scripture, but, in addition, that in matters of faith and doctrine not Luther, not theChurch, not the symbols, nor any other human authority but His Wordalone is the sole rule and norm. The _Formula_ certainly learned thislesson well. In its opening paragraph we read: "We believe, teach, andconfess that the sole rule and standard according to which both alldoctrines and all teachers should be estimated and judged are theprophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and the New Testamentalone. .. . Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear must not be regarded as equal to the HolyScriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them. " (777, 1. )And in this, too, the _Formula_ was conscious of being in agreement withLuther. Luther himself, it declares, "has expressly drawn thisdistinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain theonly standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no manshould be regarded as equal, but to which everything should besubjected. " (853, 9. ) Scripture is, and always must remain, the only_norma normans_, the standard that rules everything, --such was theattitude of the _Formula of Concord_. 

Accordingly, the proof proper for the truth of any doctrinal statementis taken by the _Formula_ neither from the Lutheran symbols nor thewritings of Luther, but from the Word of God. And the only reason whythe promoters and framers of the _Formula_ were determined to restorethe unadulterated teaching of Luther was because, in the controversiesfollowing his death, they had thoroughly convinced themselves that, onthe one hand, the doctrines proclaimed by Luther were nothing but thepurest gold mined from the shafts of God's Word, and that, on the otherhand, the various deviations from Luther's teaching, which had causedthe dissensions, were aberrations not only from the original LutheranConfessions, but also from Holy Scripture. The thirty years oftheological discussion had satisfied the Lutherans that to adhere to theBible was tantamount to adhering to the teaching of Luther, and _viceversa_. Accordingly, the _Formula_ also declared it as its object toprove that the doctrines it presented were in harmony with the Bible, aswell as with the teaching of Luther and the _Augsburg Confession_. (856, 19. ) This agreement with the Word of God and the preceding Lutheransymbols constitutes the _Formula_ a Lutheran confession, which no onewho is a true Lutheran can reject or, for doctrinal reasons, refuse toaccept. 

288. Formula Benefited Lutheran Church. 

It has frequently been asserted that the _Formula of Concord_ greatlydamaged Lutheranism, causing bitter controversies, and driving manyLutherans into the fold of Calvinism, _e. G. _, in the Palatinate (1583), in Anhalt, in Hesse, and in Brandenburg (1613). Richard says: "The_Formula of Concord_ was the cause of the most bitter controversies, dissensions, and alienations. The position taken by the adherents of the_Formula of Concord_ that this document is the true historical andlogical explanation of the older confessions and is therefore the testand touchstone of Lutheranism, had the effect, as one extreme generatesa counter-extreme, of driving many individual Lutherans and manyLutheran churches into the Calvinistic fold, as that fold wasrepresented in Germany by the Heidelberg Catechism as the chiefconfession of faith. " (516. )

But this entire view is founded on indifferentism and unionism flowingfrom the false principle that quality must be sacrificed to quantity, eternal truth to temporal peace and unity to external progress andtemporary success. Viewed in the light of God's Word, error is thecentrifugal force and the real cause of dissension and separations amongChristians, while divine truth always acts as a centripetal or a trulyunifying power. The _Formula_ therefore, standing clearly as it does fordivine truth only, cannot be charged with causing dissension andbreeding trouble among Christians. It settled many controversies andhealed dissensions, but produced none. True, the _Formula_ was condemnedby many, but with no greater justice and for no other reasons than thosefor which the truths of God's Word have always been assailed by theirenemies. 

Nor is the statement correct that the _Formula of Concord_ drove loyalLutherans out of their own churches into Calvinistic folds. It clearlystated what, according to God's Word and their old confessions, Lutherans always will believe, teach, and confess, as also what theyalways must reject as false and detrimental to the cause of the Churchof Christ; however, in so doing, it did not drive Lutherans into theranks of the Calvinists, but drove masked Calvinists out of the ranks ofloyal Lutherans into those folds to which they really belonged. Indeed, the _Formula_ failed to make true Lutherans of all the errorists; butneither did the _Augsburg Confession_ succeed in making friends andLutherans of all Papists, nor the Bible, in making Christians of allunbelievers. However, by clearly stating its position in thesis andantithesis, the _Formula_ did succeed in bringing about a wholesomeseparation, ridding the Lutheran Church of antagonistic spirits, unsoundtendencies, and false doctrines. In fact, it saved the Church from slow, but sure poisoning at the hands of the Crypto-Calvinists; it restoredpurity, unity, morale, courage, and hope when she was demoralized, distracted, and disfigured by many dissensions and corruptions. Whatever, by adopting the _Formula of Concord_ the Lutheran Churchtherefore may have lost in extension, it won in intention; what it lostin numbers, it won in unity, solidity, and firmness in the truth. 

True, the _Formula of Concord_ completely foiled Melanchthon's plan of aunion between the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the basis of theVariata of 1540, --a fact which more than anything else roused the ire ofPhilippists and Calvinists. But that was an ungodly union, contrary tothe Word of God; a union involving a denial of essential Christiantruths; a union incompatible with the spirit of Lutheranism, whichcannot survive where faith is gagged and open confession of the truth issmothered; a union in which Calvinism, engrafted on Lutheranism, wouldhave reduced the latter to a mere feeder of a foreign life. However, though it shattered the ungodly plans of the Philippists and Calvinists, the _Formula_ did not in the least destroy the hope of, or block the wayfor, a truly Christian agreement. On the contrary, it formulated theonly true basis for such a union, which it also realized among theLutherans. And if the Lutheran and Reformed churches will ever unite ina true and godly manner it must be done on the basis of the truths setforth by the _Formula_. 

289. Necessity of Formula of Concord. 

Several Lutheran states, as related above, declined to accept the_Formula of Concord_, giving as their reason for such action that therewas no need of a new confession. The fact, however, that the _Formula_was adopted by the great majority of Lutheran princes, professors, preachers, and congregations proves conclusively that they were of adifferent opinion. A new confession was necessary, not indeed becausenew truths had been discovered which called for confessional coining orformulation, but because the old doctrines, assailed by errorists, werein need of vindication, and the Lutheran Church, distracted by prolongedtheological warfare, was sorely in need of being restored to unity, peace, and stability. The question-marks suspended everywhere in Germanyafter Luther's death were: Is Lutheranism to die or live? Are its oldstandards and doctrines to be scrapped or vindicated? Is the Church ofLuther to remain, or to be transformed into a unionistic or Reformedbody? Is it to retain its unity, or will it become a house dividedagainst itself and infested with all manner of sects?

Evidently, then, if the Lutheran Church was not to go down ingloriously, a new confession was needed which would not only clear the religious andtheological atmosphere, but restore confidence, hope, and normalcy. Aconfession was needed which would bring out clearly the truths for whichLutherans must firmly stand if they would be true to God, true to HisWord, true to their Church, true to themselves, and true to theirtraditions. A confession was needed which would draw exactly, clearly, and unmistakably the lines which separate Lutherans, not only fromRomanists, but also from Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, and the advocates of other errors and unsound tendencies. Being essentially the Church of the pure Word and Sacrament, the onlyway for the Lutheran Church to maintain her identity and independencewas to settle her controversies not by evading or compromising thedoctrinal issues involved, but by honestly facing and definitelydeciding them in accordance with her principles: the Word of God and theold confessions. Particularly with respect to the doctrine of the Lord'sSupper, Melanchthon by constantly altering the _Augsburg Confession_, had muddied the water to such an extent that the adoption of the_Augustana_ was no longer a clear test of Lutheran orthodoxy andloyalty. Even Calvin, and the German Reformed generally subscribed toit, "in the sense, " they said, "in which Melanchthon has explained it. "The result was a corruption of Lutheranism and a pernicious Calvinisticpropaganda in Lutheran territories. A new confession was the only meansof ending the confusion and checking the invasion. 

290. Formula Fully Met Requirements. 

The _Formula of Concord_ was just such a confession as the situationcalled for. The Preface to the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, signedby Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, remarks that the purpose of the_Formula_ was "to establish and propagate unity in the Lutheran churchesand schools, and to check the Sacramentarian leaven and othercorruptions and sects. " This purpose was fully attained by the_Formula_. It maintained and vindicated the old Lutheran symbols. Itcleared our Church from all manner of foreign spirits which threatenedto transform its very character. It settled the controversies byrendering a clear and correct decision on all doctrinal questionsinvolved. It unified our Church when she was threatened with hopelessdivision, anarchy, and utter ruin. It surrounded her with a wall of fireagainst all her enemies. It made her a most uncomfortable place for suchopponents of Lutheranism as Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, etc. Itinfused her with confidence, self-consciousness, conviction, a clearknowledge of her own position over against the errors of other churchesand sects, and last, but not least, with a most remarkable vitality. 

Wherever and whenever, in the course of time, the _Formula of Concord_was ignored, despised, or rejected, the Lutheran Church fell an easyprey to unionism and sectarianism; but wherever and whenever the_Formula_ was held in high esteem, Lutheranism flourished and itsenemies were confounded. Says Schaff: "Outside of Germany the LutheranChurch is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes with the change oflanguage and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. This is thecase with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans, who adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday, church discipline, and other points. " But the fact is that, since Schaffwrote the above, the Lutheran Church developed and flourished nowhere asin America, owing chiefly to the return of American Lutherans to theirconfessions, including the _Formula of Concord_. The _Formula ofConcord_ fully supplied the dire need created by the controversies afterLuther's death; and, despite many subsequent controversies, also inAmerica, down to the present day, no further confessional deliveranceshave been necessary, and most likely such will not be needed in thefuture either. 

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, must ever be regarded as a greatblessing of God. "But for the _Formula of Concord_, " says Krauth, "itmay be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to theworld. It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding todeath; and crises were at hand in history in which Lutheranism wasessential to the salvation of the Reformatory interest in Europe. TheThirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, layindeed in the future of another century, yet it was fought and settledin the Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirate, the sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery anddivision in the Church of the Reformation would have done what the artsand arms of Rome failed to do. But the miracle of restoration waswrought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the LutheranChurch had become the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg, despite the storm, the mildew, and the worm, had ripened into the fullround fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession in which theChristian Church has ever embodied her faith. " (Schmauk, 830. )

291. Formula Attacked and Defended. 

Drawing accurately and deeply, as it did, the lines of demarcationbetween Lutheranism, on the one hand, and Calvinism, Philippism, etc. , on the other, and thus also putting an end to the Calvinistic propagandasuccessfully carried on for decades within the Lutheran Church, the_Formula of Concord_ was bound to become a rock of offense and to meetwith opposition on the part of all enemies of genuine Lutheranism withinas well as without the Lutheran Church. Both Romanists and Calvinistshad long ago accustomed themselves to viewing the Lutheran Church asmoribund and merely to be preyed upon by others. Accordingly, when, contrary to all expectations, our Church, united by the _Formula_, roseonce more to her pristine power and glory, it roused the envy andinflamed the ire and rage of her enemies. Numerous protests against the_Formula_, emanating chiefly from Reformed and Crypto-Calvinisticsources, were lodged with Elector August and other Lutheran princes. Even Queen Elizabeth of England sent a deputation urging the Elector notto allow the promulgation of the new confession. John Casimir of thePalatinate, also at the instigation of the English queen, endeavored toorganize the Reformed in order to prevent its adoption. Also later onthe Calvinists insisted that a general council (of course, participatedin by Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists) should have been held to decideon its formal and final adoption!

Numerous attacks on the _Formula of Concord_ were published 1578, 1579, 1581, and later, some of them anonymously. They were directed chieflyagainst its doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, themajesty of the human nature of Christ, and eternal election, particularly its refusal to solve, either in a synergistic or in aCalvinistic manner, the mystery presented to human reason in theteaching of the Bible that God alone is the cause of man's salvation, while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In a letter to Beza, Ursinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, shrewdly advisedthe Reformed to continue accepting the _Augsburg Confession_, but toagitate against the _Formula_. He himself led the Reformed attacks bypublishing, 1581, "_Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae_, ChristianAdmonition Concerning the Book of Concord, " also called "_AdmonitioNeostadiensis_, Neustadt Admonition. " Its charges were refuted in the"Apology or Defense of the Christian Book of Concord--_Apologia oderVerantwortung des christlichen Konkordienbuchs_, in welcher die wahrechristliche Lehre, so im Konkordienbuch verfasst, mit gutem Grundeheiliger, goettlicher Schrift verteidiget, die Verkehrung aber undKalumnien, so von unruhigen Leuten wider gedachtes christliche Buchausgesprenget, widerlegt worden, " 1583 (1582). Having been prepared bycommand of the Lutheran electors, and composed by Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, and before its publication also submitted to othertheologians for their approval, this guardedly written _Apology_, alsocalled the Erfurt Book, gained considerable authority and influence. 

The Preface of this Erfurt Book enumerates, besides the ChristianAdmonition of Ursinus and the Neustadt theologians, the followingwritings published against the _Formula of Concord_: 1. _Opinion andApology_ (_Bedencken und Apologie_) of Some Anhalt Theologians; 2. _Defense_ (_Verantwortung_) of the Bremen Preachers; Christian Irenaeuson Original Sin; _Nova Novorum_ ("ein famos Libell"); other libelli, satyrae et pasquilli; _Calumniae et Scurrilia Convitia of Brother Nass_(_Bruder Nass_); and the history of the _Augsburg Confession_ byAmbrosius Wolf, in which the author asserts that from the beginning thedoctrine of Zwingli and Calvin predominated in all Protestant churches. The theologians of Neustadt, Bremen, and Anhalt replied to the ErfurtApology; which, in turn, called forth counter-replies from theLutherans. Beza wrote: _Refutation of the Dogma Concerning theFictitious Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ_. In 1607 Hospinianpublished his _Concordia Discors_, " [tr. Note: sic on punctuation] towhich Hutter replied in his _Concordia Concors_. The papal detractors ofthe _Formula_ were led by the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin, who in 1589published his _Judgment of the Book of Concord_. 

292. Modern Strictures on Formula of Concord. 

Down to the present day the _Formula of Concord_ has been assailedparticularly by unionistic and Reformed opponents of true Lutheranism. Schaff criticizes: "Religion was confounded with theology, piety withorthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism. " (1, 259. )However, the subjects treated in the _Formula_ are the most vitaldoctrines of the Christian religion: concerning sin and grace, theperson and work of Christ, justification and faith, the means of grace, --truths without which neither Christian theology nor Christian religioncan remain; "Here, then, " says Schmauk, "is the one symbol of the ageswhich treats almost exclusively of Christ--of His work, His presence, His person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran Church. One mightalmost say that the _Formula of Concord_ is a developed witness ofLuther's explanation of the Second and Third Articles of the Apostles'Creed, meeting the modern errors of Protestantism, those cropping upfrom the sixteenth to the twentieth century, in a really modern way. "(751. ) Tschackert also designates the assertion that the authors of the_Formula of Concord_ "abandoned Luther's idea of faith and established adead scholasticism" as an unjust charge. (478. ) Indeed, it may bequestioned whether the doctrine of grace, the real heart ofChristianity, would have been saved to the Church without the _Formula_. 

R. Seeberg speaks of the "ossification of Lutheran theology" caused bythe _Formula of Concord_, and Tschackert charges it with transformingthe Gospel into a "doctrine. " (571. ) But what else is the Gospel ofChrist than the divine doctrine or statement and proclamation of thetruth that we are saved, not by our own works, but by grace and faithalone, for the sake of Christ and His merits? The _Formula of Concord_truly says: "_The Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what manshould believe_, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself andborne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtainforgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all thepunishments of sins, and eternally saved. " (959, 20. ) Says Schmauk: "The_Formula of Concord_ was . .. The very substance of the Gospel and of the_Augsburg Confession_, kneaded through the experience of the firstgeneration of Protestantism, by incessant and agonizing conflict, andcoming forth from that experience as a true and tried teaching, astandard recognized by many. " (821. ) The _Formula of Concord_ is trulyScriptural, not only because all its doctrines are derived from theBible, but also because the burden of the Scriptures, the doctrine ofjustification, is the burden also of all its expositions the livingbreath, as it were, pervading all its articles. 

Another modern objection to the _Formula_ is that it binds the futuregenerations to the _Book of Concord_. This charge is correct, for the_Formula_ expressly states that its decisions are to be "a public, definite testimony, not only for those now living, but also for ourposterity, what is and should remain (_sei und bleiben solle--essequeperpetuo debeat_) the unanimous understanding and judgment of ourchurches in reference to the articles in controversy. " (857, 16. )However, the criticism implied in the charge is unwarranted. For theLutheran Confessions, as promoters, authors, and signers of the_Formula_ were fully persuaded, are in perfect agreement with theeternal and unchangeable Word of God. As to their contents, therefore, they must always remain the confession of every Church which really isand would remain loyal to the Word of God. 

293. Formula Unrefuted. 

From the day of its birth down to the present time the _Formula ofConcord_ has always been in the limelight of theological discussion. Butwhat its framers said in praise of the _Augsburg Confession_, _viz. _, that, in spite of numerous enemies, it had remained unrefuted, may beapplied also to the _Formula_: it stood the test of centuries andemerged unscathed from the fire of every controversy. It is true todaywhat Thomasius wrote 1848 with special reference to the _Formula_:"Numerous as they may be who at present revile our Confession, not onehas ever appeared who has refuted its chief propositions from theBible. " (_Bekenntnis der ev. -luth. Kirche_, 227. )

Nor can the _Formula_ ever be refuted, for its doctrinal contents areunadulterated truths of the infallible Word of God. It confesses thedoctrine which Christians everywhere will finally admit as true anddivine indeed, which they all in their hearts believe even now, if notexplicitly and consciously, at least implicitly and in principle. Thedoctrines of the _Formula_ are the ecumenical truths of Christendom; fortrue Lutheranism is nothing but consistent Christianity. The _Formula_, says Krauth, is "the completest and clearest confession in which theChristian Church has ever embodied her faith. " Such being the case, the_Formula of Concord_ must be regarded also as the key to a godly peaceand true unity of entire Christendom. 

The authors of the _Formula_ solemnly declare: "We entertain heartfeltpleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined andanxious to advance with our utmost power that unity [and peace] by whichHis glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of theHoly Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poorsinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alonethrough the sole merit of Christ. " (1095, 95. ) Such was the godly peaceand true Christian unity restored by the _Formula of Concord_ to theLutheran Church. And what it did for _her_ it is able also to do for theChurch at large. Being in complete agreement with Scripture, it is wellqualified to become the regeneration center of the entire present-daycorrupted, disrupted, and demoralized Christendom. 

Accordingly Lutherans, the natural advocates of a truly wholesome andGod-pleasing union based on unity in divine truth, will not onlythemselves hold fast what they possess in their glorious Confession, butstrive to impart its blessings also to others, all the while prayingincessantly, fervently, and trustingly with the pious framers of the_Formula_: "May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant thegrace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantlyabide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen. "(837, 23. )

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

[tr. Note: original printed text ends with a 10 page index that is notincluded in this transcription]